Skunk Power!

[MartinW 0]

Shall I post it here and let others judge? If anyone were to make that kind of comment to another forum member here at Mutley's Hangar, he'd be suspended and warned. If he persisted, he'd be banned.

Come on John, that was three and a half years ago, it's not fair to drag that up. After my first post, that you were sensitive to, I have attempted to be friendly. No less than "three and a half" years ago ago now, I made a tongue in cheek reference to overweight Americans, and I recall I even posted a couple of smilies with it. Not significant enough for me as moderator to delete, and not significant enough for Just Flight Admin themselves to delete. I'm trying to have a friendly discussion here, that hopefully will be interesting to you, me, and anyone else interested in the subject matter. It's not going to help in that respect at all if you keep bringing up a disagreement we had that was years ago now. I have moved on, I hope you will too.

 

It won't help either if you make quips like "prolific aren't you" and even disagree with my spelling of the word sceptic. I don't care if you disagree with my spelling, you know what I mean. There will be plenty of grammatical errors from me, we will get nowhere if we keep picking them up.

 

Not that it matters...

 

Sceptic vs. skeptic

In most of their senses, there is no difference between skeptic and sceptic. Skeptic is the preferred spelling in American and Canadian English, and sceptic is preferred in the main varieties of English from outside North America.

 Please lets be nice. Hopefully then, this can be interesting for all.

 

In all that you pretty much glossed over the main point of my post, which is that their data is trash, from undocumented and poorly documented revisions, corrections and "improvements" made to it and from stunningly poor software quality control. The latter is something I happen to have a little practical knowledge of from my career. The original raw data upon which the data they currently hold is based, is irrevocably lost by their own admission. They not only do not have the original raw data, neither do they have a good and complete record of the manipulations that have been applied to the dataset to get what they now have.

Quite aside from whether there was any breech of integrity in hiding and "improving" their data, I find it difficult to understand how any scientific organization can confidently publish conclusions based on a dataset with such a questionable history. If anyone working for me had ever done a third of the things with an important dataset that the Harris document suggests was done with the historical climate data, he'd have been looking for a job the next day.

If others have the same raw data, Jones could have gotten it from them. Apparently they do not, since he stated that the CRU raw data was irretrievably in the bit-bucket.

Based on what I believe to be the validity of their historical dataset, I remain skeptical about any pronouncements from the CRU at East Anglia.

 

 

Well, no John. You missed my point. Several independent reviews, including some of the top universities in the world looked at the climategate nonsense and exonerated those concerned. But your point is the data...

 

Great, if you think their data is "trash" you have the right to that opinion, however as I already posted, and here it is again, and it's only 3 posts up...

 

 

"I'm not [sceptical in regard to MMGW] John because the CRU does not constitute the entire scientific consensus on man made global warming. They are "one" of the worlds leading institutions studying climate change.

In addition to the CRU we have numerous other organisations worldwide, including the academies of science from no less than 80 different countries. Constituting something like 95% of active climate researchers all publishing papers endorsing the consensus opinion. Literally thousands of qualified individuals.

Does the so called climagate scandal therefore wipe out the worldwide consensus in regard to MMGW? No, of course not."

 

Sorry for the bold, but you ignored it last time.

 

Regardless as to whether CRU data is to your liking or not, and as stated, courtesy of New Scientist magazine, "put all the data from around the world together, and you have overwhelming evidence of a long-term warming trend".

 

And despite the above... following climategate, several studies have carried out there own analysis of global temp trends, and arrived at very similar results to CRU, GISS and NDC. And I should add, they went back to primary data. They were able to acquire as much data as necessary from both the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) and the National Centre for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). They proceeded to write the computer code needed to analyse the data in the space of two days, without requiring any information from CRU.

Thus the Review demonstrated that CRU was not hiding anything: sufficient data was available to replicate CRU’s results, and any competent researcher would be able to analyse it. Furthermore, they had nothing to hide: both adjusted and unadjusted data yielded very similar results to CRUTEM, and CRU’s homogenisation adjustments make no significant difference to the global average. Although the Review stopped short of drawing scientific conclusions, it appears that CRU’s conclusions are robust.

[MartinW 0]

You are certainly aware that we are now about 17 or 18 years into a "pause" in the observed warming of the Earth and that the projections made by the AGW gurus are increasingly diverging from actual measured temperatures. This divergence persists despite the fact that human generated CO2 continues to be released into the atmosphere at record rates. Weather is the noise in climate, but a 17 year flat spot in a set of data is a bit more than noise. Can you spell "statistically significant"?

 

Nope, John that's wrong. And there's a plethora of information out there regarding this that you could have researched. In reality, the "planet" has warmed during those years, despite the fact that "surface temperature" has fallen. The temperature of the Earth isn't just about surface temperature. We know that the heat that would otherwise have increased surface temperature is warming the oceans, MMGW has not stopped.

 

Here it is from New Scientist, I suggest you read it all, it will be very enlightening. Plenty more out there regarding this for you to peruse too.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14527-climate-myths-global-warming-stopped-in-1998.html#.VG234U10ycw

A few snippets for you, in case you can't be bothered to read the article...

 

 

In fact, the planet as a whole has warmed since 1998,

 

The point is that you have to look beyond the surface to understand how a body's temperature will change over time - and that's as true of planets as it is of warm-blooded bipeds.

 

In the long term, what matters is how much heat is gained or lost by the entire planet - what climate scientists call the "top of the atmosphere" radiation budget - and falling surface temperatures do not prove that the entire planet is losing heat.

 

Globally, this means that if the oceans soak up a bit more heat energy than normal, surface air temperatures can fall even though the total heat content of the planet is rising. Conversely, if the oceans soak up less heat than usual, surface temperatures will rise rapidly.

 

Since 1999, however, the heat content of the oceans has increased (despite claims to the contrary). Global warming has certainly not stopped, even if average surface temperatures really have fallen slightly as the Hadley figures suggest.

In the long term, some of the heat being soaked up by the oceans will inevitably spill back into the atmosphere, raising surface temperatures. Warmer oceans also mean rising sea levels, due to both thermal expansion and the melting of the floating ice shelves that slow down glaciers sliding off land into the sea. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which rests on the seabed rather than on land, is also highly vulnerable to rising sea temperatures.

Some climate scientists are predicting that surface temperatures will remain static or even fall slightly over the next few years, before warming resumes. Their predictions are based largely on the idea that changes in long-term fluctuation in ocean surface temperatures known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation will bring cooler sea surface temperatures.

If these predictions are right - and not all climate scientists think they are - you can expect to hear more claims from climate-change deniers about how global warming has stopped. But unless we see a simultaneous fall in both surface temperatures and ocean-heat content, claims that the "entire planet" is cooling are nonsense.

This is what I mean when I say "unenlightened". I do feel, that if you kept yourself abreast of the latest findings, you would be far less sceptical.

 

Some climate scientists are predicting that surface temperatures will remain static or even fall slightly over the next few years, before warming resumes. Their predictions are based largely on the idea that changes in long-term fluctuation in ocean surface temperatures known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation will bring cooler sea surface temperatures.

If these predictions are right - and not all climate scientists think they are - you can expect to hear more claims from climate-change deniers about how global warming has stopped. But unless we see a simultaneous fall in both surface temperatures and ocean-heat content, claims that the "entire planet" is cooling are nonsense.

Yep, the deniers will be out in force.

[MartinW 0]

If these guys have such a great handle on what's going to happen to the temperature of the Earth over the next century, why couldn't they, with millennia of geological data, a thousand years or more of anecdotal historical data, a couple of centuries of organized human weather data collection (such as it was) and about forty years of satellite measurements, predict it for a decade ahead?

 

I confess, I'm very, very surprised I need to answer this question. It's obvious to be honest, and relates to the most basic principle of climate science.

A decade John is irrelevant in terms of the issue. And the issue is long term [40, 50 years plus] average [not the peaks, not the troughs] climate change [not weather] and importantly, global, [the entire planet] warming.

 

Since the industrial revolution, when mankind began pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, there have been temperature peaks, troughs, and yes, a hiatus or two in terms of surface temperature. These events are caused by natural variation. Natural variation is difficult to predict. Precisely why we look at average temperature change over many decades, globally. This is basic stuff.

[MartinW 0]

Claims of a vast consensus of scientists in this matter, and that the science is settled, are exaggerated.

The third level, which is that humans have caused MOST global warming since 1950, was actually endorsed by only about 0.3% of almost 12,000 respondents from the scientific community.

 

Links?

This...

 

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

A poll in 2009 of 3146 scientists found that 82% answered yes to the question: "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?".

The ones that said no, were petroleum geologists.

This...

A study in 2004 looked at 1000 scientific papers. Not a single one rejected the consensus opinion.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/306/5702/1686

And lets cast our minds back to the petition submitted to the Bush regime, objecting to the administrations stance on climate change. 11,000 signatories.

http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/center-science-and-democracy/promoting-scientific-integrity/scientists-sign-on-statement.html#.VG3Di010ycw

The main points that most would agree on as "the consensus" are:

1. The earth is getting warmer (0.6 +/- 0.2 oC in the past century; 0.1 0.17 oC/decade over the last 30 years.

2.People are causing this [ch 12] (see update)

3.If GHG emissions continue, the warming will continue and indeed accelerate [ch 9]

4.(This will be a problem and we ought to do something about it)

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/just-what-is-this-consensus-anyway/

Since 2001, 34 national science academies, three regional academies, and both the international InterAcademy Council and International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences have made formal declarations confirming human induced global warming and urging nations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The 34 national science academy statements include 33 who have signed joint science academy statements and one individual declaration by the Polish Academy of Sciences in 2007.

2001 Following the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, seventeen national science academies issued a joint statement, entitled "The Science of Climate Change", explicitly acknowledging the IPCC position as representing the scientific consensus on climate change science.

2005 The national science academies of the G8 nations, plus Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action, and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus.

2007 In preparation for the 33rd G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration referencing the position of the 2005 joint science academies' statement, and acknowledging the confirmation of their previous conclusion by recent research

Add to this...

American Association for the Advancement of Science

Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies

United States National Research Council

Royal Society of New Zealand

The Royal Society of the United Kingdom

Way too many more to add here, otherwise I'm being too prolific again, but they all acknowledge the scientific consensus and agree that humankinds emissions have become a major agent in climate change...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Academies_of_science_.28general_science.29

[allardjd 1,853]

It won't help either if you make quips like "prolific aren't you"

That wasn't intended to be helpful or unhelpful, just an observation, though anyone reading this thread probably doesn't need me to point that out. You were and continue to be prolific, which is not a bad thing at all. Shakespeare was prolific. Churchill was prolific. Kipling was prolific. You're in good company - be proud.

 

Come on John, that was three and a half years ago, it's not fair to drag that up.

In your post (#12) you gave yourself high marks for what you did three and a half years ago, answering all points, providing links and "...actually common sense as well." I raised this to make the point that you provided a little more than that - insult and rudeness, which a couple of smileys do not excuse.

 

I have moved on, I hope you will too.

I certainly will, the moment you apologize.

 

Quote

Sceptic vs. skeptic

In most of their senses, there is no difference between skeptic and sceptic. Skeptic is the preferred spelling in American and Canadian English, and sceptic is preferred in the main varieties of English from outside North America.

You have me there - I had no idea there was a different form in common use. I'm still a skeptic with a K, however, being on this side of the great wetness.

 

Several independent reviews, including some of the top universities in the world looked at the climategate nonsense and exonerated those concerned. But your point is the data...

Yes, my point is the data. I believe that the reviews mainly looked at whether any violations of academic behavioral standards, loss of integrity, unprofessional conduct and that sort of thing occurred - in a word, un-academic behavior toward others, other academics primarily. I don't believe that any deep technical review of the actual data quality was ever undertaken and can't see how it could have been, given the state of the data record.

If anyone else reviewed the actual data all they really had was the "improved" version that Professor Jones finally agreed to make available to others. That dataset is the resultant output of all the various corrections, transformations, improvements and accidents that the raw data was subjected to before being irretrievably lost. The data history, if you will, a concise record of the various accidental and intentional changes applied to it in an effort to correct and improve it, remains mostly undocumented and completely unrecoverable.

Despite that, CRU is still considered a member in good standing of the climate science research community. Their conclusions, arguably based on bad data, are afforded no less respect than others that don't share the same lack of data integrity. I accept the conclusion that no intentional skullduggery could be proven and I don't think they ought to be subjected to any official censure or punishment but I also don't think their scientific conclusions merit much confidence, given the flawed source.

 

And despite the above... following climategate, several studies have carried out there own analysis of global temp trends, and arrived at very similar results to CRU, GISS and NDC.

...ninety of which are reflected in the graph in my post above which documents how poorly all their projections are performing, i.e. diverging from the empirical data. Could it be that they've built in a forcing function for atmospheric CO2 whose coefficient is too large? Could it be that they've underestimated the contribution of solar energy, which is lower than expected these days?

As an anecdotal example of how climate models sometimes go wrong, Dr. Mann's infamous hockey stick model turns out to produce a hockey stick curve when populated with random numbers - over and over again. In other words, the model was constructed in such a way to deliver what it delivered with a very broad range of input data.

http://a-sceptical-mind.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-hockey-stick

The article is long and technical and I really don't suggest anyone go read it for pleasure, but if you care to, there it is.

 

...what Mann had done was blend together lots of different proxy studies of the past climate going back a 1000 years and then produced an average of all these studies and a single graph showing the trend. Clearly the validity of the techniques used to blend together and average the different data from the various different studies was absolutely critical as to the validity of the final conclusions reached and the resulting Hockey Stick graph. This sort of blending of data sets is a very common statistical exercise and there are very well established techniques for undertaking such an exercise, these techniques use values that are called ‘principal components’ (if you want to know a lot more about the technical details then download McKitrick’s paper from here). What McIntyre and McKitrick discovered was that Mann had used very unusual principal component values and the effect of the choice of value used had drastically skewed the outcome of the blending and averaging exercise. Effectively what Mann’s odd statistical techniques did was to select data that had any sort of Hockey Stick shape and hugely increase its weight in the averaging process. Using Mann’s technique it meant that any data was almost certain to produce a spurious Hockey Stick shape.

Here is an example of the sort of things Mann was doing to the raw date[sic].

Above are two separate temperature reconstructions running from 1400AD, both use tree rings, one is from California and one is from Arizona. Both were were part of the data used by Mann and included in the Hockey Stick average. The top one shows a temperature up tick at the end in the 20th century like the final Hockey Stick, the other shows a relatively flat temperature for the 20th century. Mann’s statistical trick gives the top series, the one with the desired Hockey Stick shape a weighting in the data that is 390 times that of the bottom series just because it has a Hockey Stick bend at the end. This means that whatever data is fed into Mann’s statistical manipulations is almost bound to produce a Hockey Stick shape whether it is actually in the data or not.

That's about all I can handle tonight. I've got a wife and a life and other hobbies and all of them require a piece of my time.

I'll be happy to continue on the rest tomorrow unless there are another ten thousand bytes of new stuff to plow through.

[MartinW 0]

You have me there - I had no idea there was a different form in common use. I'm still a skeptic with a K, however, being on this side of the great wetness.

Sceptic in the UK, Skeptic in the US, but occasionally in some scientific papers skeptic is used outside of the US. My daughter has an IT degree, she tells me that the general rule in academic papers is that the US spelling can be used, as long as it's used consistently throughout the entire dissertation.

 

Yes, my point is the data. I believe that the reviews mainly looked at whether any violations of academic behavioral standards, loss of integrity, unprofessional conduct and that sort of thing occurred - in a word, un-academic behavior toward others, other academics primarily. I don't believe that any deep technical review of the actual data quality was ever undertaken and can't see how it could have been, given the state of the data record.

 

 

No John, you didn't read all of my posts. Not surprising considering how much was there.

 

This is nothing to do with the several reviews of climategate by various universities around the world, this was academics that looked at the "primary data source" from GHCN and NCAR not the CRU data that was corrected [normal procedure] or as you suggest in a dire state.

 

And despite the above... following climategate, several studies have carried out there own analysis of global temp trends, and arrived at very similar results to CRU, GISS and NDC. And I should add, they went back to primary data. They were able to acquire as much data as necessary from both the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) and the National Centre for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). They proceeded to write the computer code needed to analyse the data in the space of two days, without requiring any information from CRU.

Thus the Review demonstrated that CRU was not hiding anything: sufficient data was available to replicate CRU’s results, and any competent researcher would be able to analyse it. Furthermore, they had nothing to hide: both adjusted and unadjusted data yielded very similar results to CRUTEM, and CRU’s homogenisation adjustments make no significant difference to the global average. Although the Review stopped short of drawing scientific conclusions, it appears that CRU’s conclusions are robust.

Despite being heralded as “the final nail in the coffin of anthropogenic global warming”, Climategate has not even invalidated CRU's results, let alone the conclusions of the climate science community. In any case, the entire work of CRU comprises only a small part of the large body of evidence for anthropogenic global warming. That mountain of evidence cannot be explained away by the behaviour of a few individuals.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/CRU-tampered-temperature-data.htm

If anyone else reviewed the actual data all they really had was the "improved" version that Professor Jones finally agreed to make available to others.

Incorrect, not true at al, see above.

[MartinW 0]

...ninety of which are reflected in the graph in my post above which documents how poorly all their projections are performing, i.e. diverging from the empirical data. Could it be that they've built in a forcing function for atmospheric CO2 whose coefficient is too large? Could it be that they've underestimated the contribution of solar energy, which is lower than expected these days?

John that's nonsense. The so called hiatus that diverges from the temperature predictions relates to surface temperature only. I have already explained to you that the planet as a whole [including the oceans] has still warmed, the heat is being taken up by the oceans.

 

I have also explained to you that the hiatus in terms of atmospheric temperature is irrelevant in terms of long term 40, 50 years or greater  global climate change. 

 

The reason we look at long term climate, over many decades, in fact as long as possible, is precisely for this reason. We look at the average temperature over many decades to filter out the natural variability that has generated the current "surface temperature hiatus". Pauses like this have happened before since the industrial revolution, in fact not just pauses, we have seen reduction in temperature too. It's called natural variability.

 

The surface temperature hiatus was impossible to predict, it's a natural variability that no computer model that currently exists could have predicted. It's also not relevant as it's too short in terms of time frame. In the future we may have the computer models that are so sophisticated that they can predict such things but for now we don't, and no climate scientist has ever suggested we do.

 

Look at the projections again in another 50 years and then tell us how well the projections are doing. Again, this demonstrates a lack of understanding on your part, in terms of basic climate science.

 

It's nothing to do with "building in a forcing function with too big a coefficient". The current surface tempreture hiatus was most likley caused by natural climate variability, specifically related to decadal cooling in the eastern equatorial Pacific in the La Nina phase of the El Nino southern oscillation. This has been explained as due to unprecedented strengthening of Pacific trade winds in the last 20 years, so that surface warming has been substantially slowed by increased subsurface ocean heat uptake caused by increased subduction in the Pacific shallow overturning cells, and increased equatorial upwelling in the central and eastern Pacific.

There's still much to learn regarding natural short term variability. But again... it's long term climate change that concerns us.

 

Could it be that they've underestimated the contribution of solar energy, which is lower than expected these days?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus#Natural_variability

 

 

I often say this, but I'll say it again. Climate scientists aren't idiots. They have a far better handle on this than we do. We know nothing, they on the other hand have worked long and hard at university and gained PhD's.

 

Read this...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650-climate-myths-global-warming-is-down-to-the-sun-not-humans.html#.VG9Ay010ycw

[MartinW 0]

As an anecdotal example of how climate models sometimes go wrong, Dr. Mann's infamous hockey stick model turns out to produce a hockey stick curve when populated with random numbers - over and over again. In other words, the model was constructed in such a way to deliver what it delivered with a very broad range of input data.

Irrelevant!

It seems you aren't reading the links I'm giving you.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html#.VG9DEU10ycx

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646-climate-myths-the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong.html

 

 

 

The original hockey stick graph was the "first" attempt to reconstruct average northern hemisphere temperature, and it certainly wasn't perfect. Since then there has been a plethora of other hockey stick graphs. All of which have supported the basic premise.

 

 

The report states: "The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world".

 

 

Most researchers would agree that while the original hockey stick can - and has - been improved in a number of ways, it was not far off the mark. Most later temperature reconstructions fall within the error bars of the original hockey stick. Some show far more variability leading up to the 20th century than the hockey stick, but none suggest that it has been warmer at any time in the past 1000 years than in the last part of the 20th century.

It is true that there are big uncertainties about the accuracy of all past temperature reconstructions, and that these uncertainties have sometimes been ignored or glossed over by those who have presented the hockey stick as evidence for global warming.

Climate scientists, however, are only too aware of the problems (see Climate myths: It was warmer during the Medieval period), and the uncertainties were both highlighted by Mann's original paper and by others at the time it was published.

Update: as suggested by the academy in its 2006 report, Michael Mann and his colleagues have reconstructed northern hemisphere temperatures for the past 2000 years using a broader set of proxies than was available for the original study and updated measurements from the recent past.

The new reconstruction has been generated using two statistical methods, both different to that used in the original study. Like other temperature reconstructions done since 2001 (see graph), it shows greater variability than the original hockey stick. Yet again, though, the key conclusion is the same: it's hotter now than it has been for at least 1000 years.

In fact, independent evidence, from ice cores and sea sediments for instance, suggest the last time the planet approached this degree of warmth was during the interglacial period preceding the last ice age over 100,000 years ago. It might even be hotter now than it has been for at least a million years.

Further back in the past, though, it certainly has been hotter - and the world has been a very different place. The crucial point is that our modern civilisation has been built on the basis of the prevailing climate and sea levels. As these change, it will cause major problems.

 

 

[Kasper 14]

Ahh, always fun to just barge in.

-1- I do believe in global warming and that humanity has an influence on it.

-2- I am skeptical / sceptical (We dutchies learn UK English at school but work mostly with US citizens after that) about the whole panic created by the panel.

I have several reasons for that.

a- A Dutch CONTRIBUTOR (you know writer and stuff) quit before publication of the latest report because IT IS NOT SCIENTIFIC. Now this is not a climate skeptic or non believer.

 

[Dutch Professor Richard Tol has resigned from the Climate Panel of the UN. Professor Tol disagrees with the biased negative conclusions of the latest UN climate report. The consequences of climate change are being systematically over-estimated, according to him. "The Panel is directed from within the environment lobby and not from within the science."]

 

b- At least in the Dutch scientific community there is a consensus that global temperatures did not rise at all in the period John already mentioned.

 

So although I do believe (and I use the word believe quite deliberately here) in global warming and that we can make a positive contribution to the environment by drastically cutting back on emissions I consider it extremely uninformed to dismiss skeptics because at the moment there is every reason to be skeptic.

I would like to discuss this in a mature manner with people that can handle the realities of the science and can at least follow some of the math and logic involved.

Not understanding why or how someone can be a skeptic says way more about the person making the statement than it says about the skeptic involved.

 

[MartinW 0]

Kasper, don't base your sceptisism on one man.

Tol is not a climate scientist, his field is Economics.

The link below should tell you al you need to know about Tol...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/rebutting-new-tcp-myths-andrew-neil-richard-tol.html

 

b- At least in the Dutch scientific community there is a consensus that global temperatures did not rise at all in the period John already mentioned.

 

Kasper, look at the links I provided above. That is not true at all, it's totally wrong. If the Dutch scientific community really did believe that then they would be incompetent. and I'm sure they aren't. We "know" ocean temperature has risen despite the fact surface temperature hasn't. This is fact.

 

I consider it extremely uninformed to dismiss skeptics because at the moment there is every reason to be skeptic.

 

 

Actually no Kasper that isn't true. A miniscule number of scientists are sceptical in regard to climate change, there is a "huge" consensus. Because there is a huge consensus, there is every reason to dismiss sceptics. It is the sceptics that are uniformed! Look at the many misconceptions I addressed above, and the way basic climate science was misunderstood.

 

Not understanding why or how someone can be a skeptic says way more about the person making the statement than it says about the skeptic involved.

 

Yes Kasper it does say something about the person making the statement... it tells you that they understand the science, understand that there is a huge consensus among the experts, and it tells you that to be sceptical in such an environment is illogical. The science is clear, please don't let the nonsense you read on the internet fool you.

[Kasper 14]

Martin,

Tol is indeed an economic. He was also a member of IPCC for years. If he is not qualified than that in itself discredits the panel so I am most curious what you will bring to the table to discredit an economic ranked in the top 250 in the world.

His arguments for leaving are centered on the procedures not being sound and scientific (it is about the numbers). Now I doubt that you can call him out on not knowing enough about numbers - but you can always try.

 

You also miss the point about the temperatures. They did not rise and yeah there is consensus. Of course there is also consensus that the models are wrong and did not take into account the temperatures of the oceans - but the fact remains that in fact the measured temperatures did not rise.

 

Most importantly you completely missed the point about not being able to understand sceptics. I will leave it at this. I have no wish to discuss this any further since your reaction on professor Tol is to say: "I will have more on this guy tomorrow". So you will play the man not the ball.

The same goes for the measured temperature.

 

Like I said: "I would like to discuss this in a mature manner with people that can handle the realities of the science and can at least follow some of the math and logic involved." Once you start playing the ball I will consider you to be someone I would like to have this discussion with. For now please don't bother trying to convince someone who is already convinced that taking care of the environment is a good idea ("-1- I do believe in global warming and that humanity has an influence on it.").

You missed my point completely.

 

[edit] I do know a little bit about math and models so I won't call you out on the math and science thing - although I guess that could be fun with the right person ..[/edit]

[MartinW 0]

I edited my post.

See this re Tol...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/rebutting-new-tcp-myths-andrew-neil-richard-tol.html

Tol has been discredited, this is old news.

More on the discredited Tol...

http://www.rtcc.org/2014/08/01/leading-climate-economist-accused-of-distorting-research/

There's lots more.

 

You also miss the point about the temperatures. They did not rise and yeah there is consensus. Of course there is also consensus that the models are wrong and did not take into account the temperatures of the oceans - but the fact remains that in fact the measured temperatures did not rise.

 

 

 

No Kasper. The measured "surface temperature" did not rise. Ocean temperature did rise. See previous links. In addition, the so called global warming hiatus was as a result of natural variability, nothing to do with long term global climate change.

[Kasper 14]

Yep, the man not the ball.

Not read anything by the man.

The people he accuses of not being scientific say: "Well he is not scientific himself!" without any further proof (echo's of my four year old there).

 

Have fun but do try to read a little better.

 

Ta ta for now.

 

[edit] Funny, I always had the impression that most of the earths surface was ocean ..

 

Ta ta for now again..

[/edit]

[MartinW 0]

Hi Kasper. I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble understanding the logic of your post above. No disrespect intended, maybe it's the language barrier at work.

I'm not sure what you mean by "debating the man, not the ball". But in this case "the man" namely Tol, has been discredited in regard to his deliberate attempts to play down the extent of future warming trends. So no, I am not making some kind of ad hominem argument against Tol, I am specifically addressing his leaving of the IPCC, the events that led to that, his widely criticised opinion, and last but not least, his joining of a climate change denier organisation, funded by big oil.

 

So yes Kasper, I am debating "the man" as in the man's opinions, the comments he has made, his actions. If we don't do that it's impossible to address the issue.
 

Not read anything by the man.

 
 
I'm assuming you mean "you" haven't read anything written by Tol. Is that correct?
 
Then you should. Because Tol's  opinions are what you tell me you base your scepticism of the scientific consensus on. So how can you be sceptical when you actually haven't read anything Tol has written, or looked at the opposing argument. Do you see my confusion?

 

The people he accuses of not being scientific say: "Well he is not scientific himself!" without any further proof

 
 
No Kasper, that is totally incorrect. You would understand that if you read the links I have given you.
 
So lets look at Tol, and his argument...
 
 

Tol is an economist, he has no disceranble experience in climate or Earthy sceinces.


Richard Tol has also advanced various criticisms of Cook et al. (2013). It's worth noting that Tol does not dispute the existence of the consensus, writing:


"There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct."

Tol has nevertheless criticized the methods applied during the Cook et al. survey. For example, he has argued that the literature search should have been conducted with Scopus rather than the Web of Science in order to capture more papers, but also that fewer papers should have been included in the survey in order to focus on those specifically researching the causes of global warming. Tol has also applied various statistical tests comparing the abstract ratings to the author self-ratings, but these tests are invalid because the two phases of the survey considered different information (abstracts only vs. full papers) and are thus not comparable.

Ultimately Tol submitted his criticisms to Environmental Research Letters as a comment, but the submission was summarily rejected by the editor who described it as a speculative opinion piece that does not identify any clear errors that would call the paper's conclusions into question.

 In short, the 97% consensus has passed peer-review, while Tol's criticisms have not. Moreover, all of Tol's criticisms only apply to the abstract ratings, while the self-ratings also found the same 97% consensus result, completely independent from the abstract ratings.


Overall, the critiques of Cook et al. (2013) have all exhibited the characteristics of scientific denialism. Given the long history of consensus denial campaigns by fossil fuel interests and climate contrarians, continued resistance to the consensus is an expected result. Nevertheless, the 97% consensus is a robust result from several different studies taking a variety of approaches, including two independent methods used by Cook et al. (abstract ratings and author self-ratings). The criticisms of the paper have all exhibited the same few logical flaws, some more extreme than others, but all erroneous.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=449

I have actually posted this last night, but here it is again. If you read it, you will see that Tol has been accused not by climate scientists, but by his peers, economists, of deliberately trying to play down the extent of future warming. Lying in other words...


http://www.rtcc.org/2014/08/01/leading-climate-economist-accused-of-distorting-research/


As you can see, if you read it, Tol was deliberately distorting research.


 

One of the world’s top climate change economists stands accused of inserting inaccurate information into the UN’s recent climate science report.


US economist Dr Frank Ackerman has written to Sussex University professor Richard Tol, saying he used “a narrow distorting lens” when compiling a 2013 paper examining the impacts of climate change.

In a document published on July 21 Ackerman, who is senior economist at consultancy Synapse Energy and an MIT lecturer, wrote: “Tol’s 2013 review article, despite its appearance of objectivity, is founded on faulty selection of data and analyses, and contains interpretive flaws that make its facile conclusions unsupportable.”

 
 
Sorry but it doesn't make sense that you base your scepticism in regard to the scientific consensus on ONE man. Especially a man with a dubious reputation, who was distorting research.
 
 
You should also be aware, that Tol has now joined the climate change denier organisation run by ex politician Nigel Lawson. This organisation has close associations with big oil.


 

Left Foot Forward can reveal that two Tory grandees who have consistently criticised domestic and international efforts to abate climate change – Lord Nigel Lawson and Peter Lilley MP – have close associations with the oil industry


The Register of Lords’ Interests details that Lord Lawson chairs and has “significant shareholdings” in the Central Europe Trust (CET). He is described as a “senior advisor to clients on strategy and politics“. CET boast on their website to being, according to a quote in Forbes, “the company to call when you want to do business in Eastern Europe.” Their clients include oil and gas giants Total Fina Elf, Royal Dutch/Shell Group, Texaco, and BP Amaco.

 
http://leftfootforward.org/2009/11/oil-links-of-tory-climate-denial-grandees/
 
If the above doesn't ring alarm bells in regard to Tol and Lawson, what does?

[MartinW 0]

Funny, I always had the impression that most of the earths surface was ocean ..

Two thirds of our planet is  ocean. But that's not relevant to the debate.

This was discussed above, 14 posts above actually. The so called global warming hiatus, is in regard to surface temperature measurements. However, while the surface temperature was reaming stable, global warming was still occurring, and all that heat was been dumped into the oceans. Global warming did not, and has not stopped.

In case you cant be bothered to look a few posts back, not that I blame you there is a lot here, here it all is again...

 

 

I suggest you read thoroughly the link below.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14527-climate-myths-global-warming-stopped-in-1998.html#.VHMAk01ya1s

 

In fact, the planet as a whole has warmed since 1998,

The point is that you have to look beyond the surface to understand how a body's temperature will change over time - and that's as true of planets as it is of warm-blooded bipeds.

In the long term, what matters is how much heat is gained or lost by the entire planet - what climate scientists call the "top of the atmosphere" radiation budget - and falling surface temperatures do not prove that the entire planet is losing heat.

Globally, this means that if the oceans soak up a bit more heat energy than normal, surface air temperatures can fall even though the total heat content of the planet is rising. Conversely, if the oceans soak up less heat than usual, surface temperatures will rise rapidly.

Since 1999, however, the heat content of the oceans has increased (despite claims to the contrary). Global warming has certainly not stopped, even if average surface temperatures really have fallen slightly as the Hadley figures suggest.

In the long term, some of the heat being soaked up by the oceans will inevitably spill back into the atmosphere, raising surface temperatures. Warmer oceans also mean rising sea levels, due to both thermal expansion and the melting of the floating ice shelves that slow down glaciers sliding off land into the sea. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which rests on the seabed rather than on land, is also highly vulnerable to rising sea temperatures.

Some climate scientists are predicting that surface temperatures will remain static or even fall slightly over the next few years, before warming resumes. Their predictions are based largely on the idea that changes in long-term fluctuation in ocean surface temperatures known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation will bring cooler sea surface temperatures.

If these predictions are right - and not all climate scientists think they are - you can expect to hear more claims from climate-change deniers about how global warming has stopped. But unless we see a simultaneous fall in both surface temperatures and ocean-heat content, claims that the "entire planet" is cooling are nonsense.

Some climate scientists are predicting that surface temperatures will remain static or even fall slightly over the next few years, before warming resumes. Their predictions are based largely on the idea that changes in long-term fluctuation in ocean surface temperatures known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation will bring cooler sea surface temperatures.

If these predictions are right - and not all climate scientists think they are - you can expect to hear more claims from climate-change deniers about how global warming has stopped. But unless we see a simultaneous fall in both surface temperatures and ocean-heat content, claims that the "entire planet" is cooling are nonsense.

 

 

 

[MartinW 0]

Of course there is also consensus that the models are wrong

 

 

Kasper that's  misleading.

In regard to the so called surface temperature warming hiatus, that is correct in regard to "some" of the model projections. [see graph below] 

 

You must realize that the recent surface temperature warming pause is as a result of random fluctuations in the climate. Such things cannot be predicted. We do not have the computer models to do so. No scientist has ever claimed we have the computer models to predict such things. It may well be many years before technology is powerful enough to predict such random variability.

 

Therefore, to be critical of the science, the consensus, simply because we can't yet predict short term random variability  "and have never claimed we can" is illogical.

I addressed this above, in a post to John. Perhaps you didn't read it.

The issue here is long term, average, global temperature... not short term random variations in temperature. This is why scientists are more interested in 40, 50, 60, 100, 200 year time frames. They pay attention to average temperatures over such long time frames "precisely" for this reason, to filter out short term variability, like the recent surface temperature hiatus. Anything over a shorter time frame is a guide, an estimate, a "maybe" scenario. Short time frame predictions have never been claimed to be definitive.

 

This is the accuracy that's required, this is the accuracy we expect from the models, namely long term [many decades] average global temperature.

 

In fact we refer to "climate" change, and climate is different to weather. Climate is measured over a minimum of 30 years.

 

If you take the time to look at the instrumental temperature record as far back as possible, right back to the first measurements taken, you will see something very interesting. You will see peaks, you will see sudden dips in temperature, you will also see a protracted pause or two. These random variations are normal, and expected, and impossible to predict with 100% accuracy.

 

 

The graph below points out that in fact the predictions haven't done as badly as claimed. It also graphically illustrates my point regarding unpredictable, random warming pauses being a feature of our climate.

 

See the pause from about 1958 to 1973? Such random variation happens. Also a pause from 1985 to 1990, in fact the temperature dropped slightly.

 

 

 

 

IPCC AR5 Figure 1.4. Solid lines and squares represent measured average global surface temperature changes by NASA (blue), NOAA (yellow), and the UK Hadley Centre (green). The colored shading shows the projected range of surface warming in the IPCC First Assessment Report (FAR; yellow), Second (SAR; green), Third (TAR; blue), and Fourth (AR4; red). 

 

 

You will also notice that in fact, rather than the models being totally wrong, they are within the shaded area. Thus... "Since 1990, global surface temperatures have warmed at a rate of about 0.15°C per decade, within the range of model projections of about 0.10 to 0.35°C per decade. 

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/01/ipcc-global-warming-projections-accurate

 

the trend in globally-averaged surface temperatures falls within the range of the previous IPCC projections."

Most claims that the IPCC models have failed are based on surface temperature changes over the past 15 years (1998–2012). During that period, temperatures have risen about 50 percent more slowly than the multi-model average, but have remained within the range of individual model simulation runs.

However, 1998 represented an abnormally hot year at the Earth's surface due to one of the strongest El Niño events of the 20th century. Thus it represents a poor choice of a starting date to analyze the surface warming trend (selectively choosing convenient start and/or end points is also known as 'cherry picking'). For example, we can select a different 15-year period, 1992–2006, and find a surface warming trend nearly 50 percent faster than the multi-model average, as statistician Tamino helpfully illustrates in the figure below.

 

 

 

IPCC models have been accurate

For 1992–2006, the natural variability of the climate amplified human-caused global surface warming, while it dampened the surface warming for 1997–2012. Over the full period, the overall warming rate has remained within the range of IPCC model projections, as the 2013 IPCC report notes.

"The long-term climate model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that agrees with the observed trend (very high confidence). There are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years (e.g., 1998 to 2012)."

The IPCC also notes that climate models have accurately simulated trends in extreme cold and heat, large-scale precipitation pattern changes, and ocean heat content (where most global warming goes). Models also now better simulate the Arctic sea ice decline, which they had previously dramatically underestimated.

All in all, the IPCC models do an impressive job accurately representing and projecting changes in the global climate, contrary to contrarian claims. In fact, the IPCC global surface warming projections have performed much better than predictions made by climate contrarians.

It's important to remember that weather predictions and climate predictions are very different. It's harder to predict the weather further into the future. With climate predictions, it's short-term variability (like unpredictable ocean cycles) that makes predictions difficult. They actually do better predicting climate changes several decades into the future, during which time the short-term fluctuations average out.

That's why climate models have a hard time predicting changes over 10–15 years, but do very well with predictions several decades into the future, as the IPCC illustrates. This is good news, because with climate change, it's these long-term changes we're worried about:

[Kasper 14]

Hi Martin,

I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble understanding the logic of your post above.

That is an understatement considering you need three posts for your reaction. I will use less concise sentences to try and relay my point.

 

   

Yep, the man not the ball.

:

By this I mean that I predicted in an earlier post

   

So you will play the man not the ball.

  and so you did.

   

   

Not read anything by the man.

I actually meant to say that you did not read anything by the man. Your subsequent post in 'answering' shows as much since you never quote anything he wrote but only what others write about what he wrote. I did read works by Tol, you know books and stuff in stead of blogs by himself or others, you should try it. The funny part here is that I don't agree with Tol or any other neoclassical econometrist. Not on economics and not his outlook on climate change. BUT and this is a biggie that you consistently miss: I do respect anyone who has studied his subject enough to have a clear opinion that he can state by numbers - I don't have to agree but I do respect. I respect them so much that I actually read their stuff and try to learn from it. That is the way I was taught science works. And it still does for me.

 

   

The people he accuses of not being scientific say: "Well he is not scientific himself!" without any further proof (echo's of my four year old there).

Here I mean to say that the same people that he accuses of not being scientific say "Well he is not scientific himself!" without any further proof. Sorry that is just the only way I can state it.

Briefly: Tol states that the costs of reducing emissions is too costly and that it is better to invest that money in ways to cope with climate change. As lead writer of the chapter on economy and climate change for IPCC for years it is just not enough to attack the man, you will have to address his science. It is no only about the 97% consensus - which has become more of a mud throwing contest anyway, with little if anything new being said by both parties.

 

   

Funny, I always had the impression that most of the earths surface was ocean ..

This is of course to address your earlier point. By the way the number not changing is not the surface temperature but the surface AIR temperature. If it was the surface temperature the warming of the oceans would be in the numbers... But anyway: The models did not (sufficiently) take into account that the oceans would warm up and thus subtract from the surface air temperature. Even now the models can't explain the perceived hiatus so they throw in changes in ocean currents. Since I am not a climate scientists - but do know a little bit about conducting research - At the moment nobody is sure what happened and why. The new models are incomplete and have to be prove correct in the future. It is also bordering on the stupid to be saying the hiatus is only temporary and a natural fluctuation and on the other hand saying the hiatus did not happen but is a result of the oceans taking up more heat than we modeled. It is one or the other.

 

Again I do believe in climate change and that humanity can have a positive or negative influence, I don't think Tol is right but I think it is bordering on stupidity to dismiss anyone that does not agree with your viewpoint.

You get narrow minded that way and will find support for your views everywhere because you only care to look at places where there will be support of your views.

That is not science that is religion.

 

One last thing it is impolite and not very bright to underestimate your opponent in a discussion. Just because I stand by my opinion does not mean I am stupid, nor does it mean I have not read (a lot) on climate change.

It does mean that the facts show surface air temperatures have not risen over a period of thirteen years and that the lead writer of a chapter of the IPCC reports did leave IPCC.

Both things can be explained but by not taking the opposition seriously you are doing skeptics like me - who actually believe it is better to take care of emissions and the environment in general - a huge disservice.

 

Now this is taking way too much time away from the important things in life - like flying around in a simulated plane so I am now out of this discussion.

As far as I am concerned you proved my point:

Not understanding why or how someone can be a skeptic says way more about the person making the statement than it says about the skeptic involved.

but not in the way you posted in your answer.

 

Ta ta

 

 

[markhudson6 13]

Wow, these debates can be pretty passionate affairs.  I thought I may just chip in with ‘my two pennies worth’ and pee everyone off as usual.   This is just my personal opinion, nothing more.

 

BTW, I can’t stress this enough.  My comments below are NOT directed personally at anybody on this forum post.  Now with that in mind…

 

Scepticism is the backbone of all scientific endeavour, denialism is the dismissal of a scientific consensus or uncomfortable truth no matter what.  

 

I’ve added this bit to differentiate between the two.  Everyone who has commented thus far has demonstrated scepticism, everybody has endeavoured to educate themselves on the subject irrespective of the conclusions they may have drawn.  However… 

 

The climate change debate desperately needs to move on.  We now have consensus within the scientific community and politicians around the world have woken up to the problems we now face as a planet, but as ever a discussion with a denialist gets mired in the refuting of scientific minutia.  

 

This fuels the false perception that there is still a real debate ongoing within the scientific community when that stage of the discussion has now passed.

 

The denialist argument as it stands is over.  They use the same tired style of debate that evangelical christians use when debating evolution, the ‘god of the gaps’ technique.  They mislead, misrepresent and when desperate, flat-out lie.  This is a result of this scientific debate becoming highly politicised.  It’s within that context that the science is presented by the media to the public.  Scientists unfortunately have found themselves debating within this politically charged environment and it has certainly harmed their message, but in reality the denialist is not arguing against the science, they are defending their own world view and will fight to defend it at all costs. 

 

The climate sceptic, however, has had their suspicions fuelled by mistakes that have undermined the research and this has made convincing the public that much harder.  Mistakes within such a cutting edge field are bound to happen but this is not helped when scientists loose their objectivity.  Exaggerating the possible impacts of climate change, with no credible evidence to back up their claims, with the intention of influencing policy makers has certainly compounded the problem, and while the guys over at the CRU where legally absolved of their actions in respect of ‘climate gate’, their behaviour was highly questionable and very disappointing.  This behaviour has certainly effected the debate and given the sceptics sufficient reason to question some of the science and motives behind the issue.  

 

Prof. Richard A. Muller, a physicist at Berkeley was so concerned that for him it "threw doubt on the very existence of global warming”.  Luckily he was in a position to call upon researchers to join him in an objective analysis of all the current data at the time (2012) free from political and commercial pressure, totally transparent and with modelling software released into the public domain.

 

 

Here is Prof. Muller explaining ‘climate gate’ and what shocked him.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk

 

 

And a great talk by Prof. Muller on how to convert a climate sceptic.  It’s really worth watching and full of useful information from a true sceptic.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ledD81ofy0

 

 

The time has come for true climate sceptics to change the consensus.  If they are correct then the data to prove it is out there.  If the models are skewing the data then develop a better model.  Publish a set of papers that conclusively overturns the current consensus and present that data at a respected environmental conference, they would probably win a Nobel Prize.  The current tactic of attempting to debunk peer reviewed research is lazy science, fight science with better science, that’s how it’s supposed to work.  If they truly believe the current findings are wrong just prove it.  Unfortunately, just like certain religious groups attack science for their own ideological purposes, politically affiliated interest groups have attacked climate scientists in much the same way.  This tactic has successfully stalled any worthwhile action on the problem for over twenty years.  Unfortunately some of the scientists own actions have to be held partly responsible for this situation.   

 

Climate change denialism is nothing more than cheap pseudoscience wrapped up in fancy graphs.  As it stands it deserves no more credibility than any one of a dozen JFK conspiracy theories or that the Queen of England is a lizard.  But It’s time for climate skeptics to prove their position if they can.  The rest of the world can get on with sorting this mess out and that's when the fun really starts.  

 

Kindest Regards,

 

M.  

[MartinW 0]

The climate change debate desperately needs to move on. We now have consensus within the scientific community and politicians around the world have woken up to the problems we now face as a planet, but as ever a discussion with a denialist gets mired in the refuting of scientific minutia.

This fuels the false perception that there is still a real debate ongoing within the scientific community when that stage of the discussion has now passed.

The denialist argument as it stands is over. They use the same tired style of debate that evangelical christians use when debating evolution, the ‘god of the gaps’ technique. They mislead, misrepresent and when desperate, flat-out lie. This is a result of this scientific debate becoming highly politicised. It’s within that context that the science is presented by the media to the public. Scientists unfortunately have found themselves debating within this politically charged environment and it has certainly harmed their message, but in reality the denialist is not arguing against the science, they are defending their own world view and will fight to defend it at all costs.

Climate change denialism is nothing more than cheap pseudoscience wrapped up in fancy graphs. As it stands it deserves no more credibility than any one of a dozen JFK conspiracy theories or that the Queen of England is a lizard.

 

 

 

 

As usual mark, an excellent contribution. Nice that we have at least one professional scientist on the forum. 

 

 

[MartinW 0]

That is an understatement considering you need three posts for your reaction. I will use less concise sentences to try and relay my point.

 

 

That wasn't meant offensively? As I said, I was confused by your post, as I said, perhaps the language barrier as you are not a native English speaker. Or me being tired.  On the internet we can't see each other facial expressions, or body language, thus it is difficult to determine true intentions. Therefore, we need to be a bit more tolerant. Earlier you told me to "read better". At first that appeared rude, but I chose to ignore it for the reasons just stated.

Regarding me requiring "three posts for my reaction", there are a number of reasons for that. Firstly, I suffer from full blown OCD, so yes, I do become "obsessive" with posting sometimes. In addition, I try to provide all the information you require to make an informed decision, that includes graphs, links, quotes etc. Sometimes yes, I do provide multiple posts to make it clearer for me and others. In addition, often we find that succinct comments dismissing MMGW require a detailed explanation to counter. This stuff is complex, and the deniers like to reduce it to simplistic one liners.

 

So don't be surprised if multiple posts follow... 

 

and so you did.

 

I have no choice Kasper. "The man" was the individual criticizing the cook report, so I posted links and quotes demonstrating to you that his criticism of the report was fundamentally flawed. "The man" and his actions, you are using to justify your "scepticism". Thus, to lessen you scepticism I have to debate the "man"... Now, why don't you offer some kind of plausible counter argument? Why don't you counter the claims that his analysis of the Cook report was flawed? Why don't you explain to us why he has joined a climate denier organisation connected to the big oil companies? Rather than criticizing THE MAN, namely ME. why don't you respond with a plausible counter argument of your own?

 

I actually meant to say that you did not read anything by the man. Your subsequent post in 'answering' shows as much since you never quote anything he wrote but only what others write about what he wrote. I did read works by Tol, you know books and stuff in stead of blogs by himself or others, you should try it. The funny part here is that I don't agree with Tol or any other neoclassical econometrist. Not on economics and not his outlook on climate change. BUT and this is a biggie that you consistently miss: I do respect anyone who has studied his subject enough to have a clear opinion that he can state by numbers - I don't have to agree but I do respect. I respect them so much that I actually read their stuff and try to learn from it. That is the way I was taught science works. And it still does for me.

 

 

Incorrect Kasper. I've been debating Tol for some time now. If you care to nip over to Just Flight and use the search function, you will see topics referring to Tol aplenty. So yes, I am familiar with his words. You have made an incorrect assumption. I read what Tol says, and I also read the opposing view, then I decide what is logical. You see Kasper, and this is important...

 

Scepticism is a good thing in any scientific endeavor and not just in science, in life generally to be honest. However... sceptics/deniers are "sceptical" of climate scientists, but they never apply that same scepticism to the sceptics themselves. Be initially sceptical of the scientists by all means but also be sceptical of the sceptics.

 

The funny part here is that I don't agree with Tol or any other neoclassical econometrist. Not on economics and not his outlook on climate change.

 

 

Really, that seems like a contradiction. Because in your very first post you specifically stated that Tol leaving the IPCC was one of the primary reasons you were sceptical of the science. Now you say you don't agree with his views on climate science or economics. If you don't agree with Tol's views on climate science, and you don't even agree with his economic theories, then why do you trust his criticism of the Cook report, and use it to fuel your scepticism?

 

since you never quote anything he wrote but only what others write about what he wrote.

 

 

I can do that any time you like, just give me the word. But what would be the point, you know what he said, I know what he said, neither of us are talented economists, thus, we don't have the skills to analyse his data and draw any meaningful conclusions. Thus, it's enough to be aware that his peers disagree with him and that he has dubious connections with climate change deniers.

 

Here I mean to say that the same people that he accuses of not being scientific say "Well he is not scientific himself!" without any further proof. Sorry that is just the only way I can state it.

Briefly: Tol states that the costs of reducing emissions is too costly and that it is better to invest that money in ways to cope with climate change. As lead writer of the chapter on economy and climate change for IPCC for years it is just not enough to attack the man, you will have to address his science. It is no only about the 97% consensus - which has become more of a mud throwing contest anyway, with little if anything new being said by both parties.

 

 

 

Kasper, you are totally ignoring my posts and the links I have provided. Do take the time to read them. I have already posted  links to the analysis of Tol's  claims. Thus, "further proof" has been provided. His fellow economist have provided this. Do you want me to post the links  again?

 

 

[MartinW 0]

The models did not (sufficiently) take into account that the oceans would warm up and thus subtract from the surface air temperature

 

 

Kasper, the reason this occurred was as a result of random ocean current fluctuations. As I have already tried to explain... the models aren't designed to predict random fluctuations as a result of natural phenomena like changes in ocean currents. Such a thing is utterly impossible with the current software and hardware. Random variation is exactly that "random". No scientist has ever claimed we currently have that capability. And again... what concerns us is LONG TERM climate change over many decades. Do read my previous posts and quotes and links, otherwise it will get very frustrating.

 

Even if they were unaware of the degree to which ocean temperature would rise, that is still short term, not long term climate change.

 

Even now the models can't explain the perceived hiatus so they throw in changes in ocean currents.

 

 

Nobody is throwing in anything. Professional scientists do not "throw in" stuff. These are very professional, talented individuals. They do however provide hypothesises to explain what the data tells them.

 

At the moment nobody is sure what happened and why.

 

 Correct, there are no definitive answers at present, however we have a very good idea why the current hiatus occurred. Again... I have already posted a link to all you need to know about this.

 

 

The new models are incomplete and have to be prove correct in the future.

 

Again, the models aren't designed to predict short term fluctuations, only long term climate change over many decades. As for being "correct" as you put it... Again, please look at what I have posted earlier. In particular the graph I posted, that clearly illustrates that the current hiatus is still within the IPCC models predicted temperature range. And no, they do not have to be correct in terms of short time frames, we want them to be correct ion terms of long term average temperatures.

 

It is also bordering on the stupid to be saying the hiatus is only temporary and a natural fluctuation and on the other hand saying the hiatus did not happen but is a result of the oceans taking up more heat than we modeled. It is one or the other.

 

 

No Kasper that's nonsense. Of course it's a natural fluctuation. Again... look at the graph I posted, pauses like this have occurred before, it's not new. natural fluctuations are a feature of our climate. Nobody is saying the hiatus did not happen. The hiatus in surface temperature increase did occur. The extra heat was absorbed by the oceans. The is believed to be caused by changes in ocean currents.

 

Please read...

 

A global warming hiatus,[1] also sometimes referred to as a global warming pause[3] or a global warming slowdown,[4] is a period of relatively little change in globally averaged surface temperatures.[5] Compared to the long term trend, such periods are common in the surface temperature record and do not negate the robust evidence of continued global warming.[1]

Natural climate variability can also slow down surface warming, but does not refute long-term climate change trends.[14][15] Short term hiatus periods of global warming are compatible with long-term climate change patterns.[16]

the hiatus was a part of natural climate variability, specifically related to decadal cooling in the eastern equatorial Pacific in the La Niña phase of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation.[14] This has been explained as due to unprecedented strengthening of Pacific trade winds in the last 20 years, so that surface warming has been substantially slowed by increased subsurface ocean heat uptake caused by increased subduction in the Pacific shallow overturning cells, and increased equatorial upwelling in the central and eastern Pacific.[15]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus#Natural_variability

 

 

Apologies for the red above, but I'm getting a bit frustrated having to repeat the same things, and my quotes and links being ignored.

 

 

[MartinW 0]

I don't think Tol is right but I think it is bordering on stupidity to dismiss anyone that does not agree with your viewpoint.

That is not science that is religion.

Not true. Nobody has dismissed Tol just because they disagree with his viewpoint. On the contrary, they have analysed his work, analysed his criticism of the Cook report, and found it to be flawed.

I agree, for the deniers, yes it is religion.

 

One last thing it is impolite and not very bright to underestimate your opponent in a discussion. Just because I stand by my opinion does not mean I am stupid, nor does it mean I have not read (a lot) on climate change.

 

 

 

Nobody has claimed, or thinks, you are stupid. 

 

 

 

[Kasper 14]

Hi Martin,

It must be a language thing then. In Dutch being a sceptic does not mean the same as being a denier.

I am being a sceptic of most things in life and the recent escapades of IPCC has given me reason to be sceptic about the claims in the report.

That is not saying the claims are false but it is saying that I am sceptically following events.

 

Am I correct in assuming you are climate scientist? You use the wording "we" sometimes especially when writing about the models.

 

I am not a cllimate scientist although I assume my university will at least claim they have given me scientific education in other areas.

 

There is no need for the red, although you are free to use it. Strangely enough I have read the information given in the links but am not yet convinced. The reason is very simple: In my education I have learned that it is only possible to discern between anomalies and trends in hindsight. As far as I am concerned the hypothesis can still be correct or wrong - time will tell.

 

The reason why I do not react to the most of your arguments is that those arguments have nothing to do with the reason I posted here.

 

The reason I posted is the attitude about sceptics stated earlier - that I disagree with. That is what I respond to and all other points are mute imho.

 

It would take way too much of my time to react to the statistics involved and I also don't see any particular reason to defend Tol.

Tol is only an example why scepticism can be the logical choice. I could also have named the melting rate of glaciers in the Himalaya or the percentage of the Netherlands under sea level..

 

I am flattered that you don't consider me stupid at least ..

 

[MartinW 0]

It must be a language thing then. In Dutch being a sceptic does not mean the same as being a denier.

I am being a sceptic of most things in life and the recent escapades of IPCC has given me reason to be sceptic about the claims in the report.

That is not saying the claims are false but it is saying that I am sceptically following events.

 

 

The definition would be the same here too. I favour Mark's definition. As in... "Scepticism is the backbone of all scientific endeavour, denialism is the dismissal of a scientific consensus or uncomfortable truth no matter what."   

 

Am I correct in assuming you are climate scientist? You use the wording "we" sometimes especially when writing about the models.

 

 

No way.  I use "we" in regard to "us" as in the human race. Mark is the only professional scientist here as far as I know.

 

I have learned that it is only possible to discern between anomalies and trends in hindsight. As far as I am concerned the hypothesis can still be correct or wrong - time will tell.

 

 

 

Definitively yes that's true. it's a projection, an estimate, a likely scenario based on current data. However, if we look at the graph I posted then actually they have done a very good job. Even the so called hiatus itself falls within the shaded area in the graph, thus within the predicted zone. For the hypothesis to be wrong, the current hiatus would need to remain indefinitely, and given that we have a pretty good idea of the cause, it's extremely improbable that scenario would be manifest. 

 

What you have to do is consider probability, based on the current consensus, what is the probability of the scientists being wrong. Very low I would say.

 

 

The reason I posted is the attitude about sceptics stated earlier - that I disagree with.

 

 

 

Well, my point regarding that relates to the point Mark made, that "scepticism is the backbone of all scientific endeavours". I would agree with Mark, but the point there is that myself, and I believe Mark, are referring not to "permanent" scepticism, but to "initial" scepticism. It's great, in fact essential to be "initially" sceptical, however, once there is a huge consensus in place then scepticism should not be present. To still be sceptical at that point, despite 1000 scientific peer reviewed papers all agreeing that we are making a "significant" contribution to warming, makes no sense to me personally. I mean no insult to anyone else, just my opinion.

 

As Mark said... "The denialist argument as it stands is over." And in my view, we have gone way past the point where scepticism is appropriate. 

 

 

 

 

 

[J G 927]

I have my own views on climate change. .... but I am buggered if I am going to air them here

It seems like too much hard work!