Climate Change

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by mdettweiler

However, what we obviously do disagree on is just how much of each other's evidence is inaccurate and skewed.

But while I easily showed that a source you cited as "convincing" had, in fact, a simple scientific error, you have not yet shown that skepticalscience.com has any such error.

You have not yet shown that there is any significant inaccuracy/skewness on the pro-AGW side to match the easily-demonstrable inaccuracy/skewness on the anti-AGW side. (And just because there's been discussion of the e-mail thing doesn't mean anything has yet been proven. We've yet to see how that will shake out. Let's stick to stuff that's had, say, at least 30 days to be investigated.)

[mdettweiler]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Bull. I've never seen evidence of that. Show me where someone shows data to support that claim.

As I recall, over the last few years, normally warmer parts of the eastern hemisphere (esp. Middle East area) have gotten extended periods of snow and cold, which they rarely get anyway, at times in the fall when much of the western hemisphere was having an unusually warm time. I'm afraid that I can't pull any articles off the top of my head to support it, though I do distinctly remember reading about it in the news. If I come across anything I'll be sure to post it here.

Originally Posted by cheesehead

But while I easily showed that a source you cited as "convincing" had, in fact, a simple scientific error, you have not yet shown that skepticalscience.com has any such error.

Actually, that particular "error" (of ignoring subsurface ocean heat content) is still under hot debate between us--just a couple posts up I argued for how that data isn't showing us anything that wouldn't be caused by normal sunlight.

You have not yet shown that there is any significant inaccuracy/skewness on the pro-AGW side to match the easily-demonstrable inaccuracy/skewness on the anti-AGW side. (And just because there's been discussion of the e-mail thing doesn't mean anything has yet been proven. We've yet to see how that will shake out. Let's stick to stuff that's had, say, at least 30 days to be investigated.)

Er, how about that subsurface ocean heat stuff that we've been discussing? I could just as easily say that's an "easily demonstrable" inaccuracy/skewness on the pro-AGW side.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by mdettweiler

Actually, that particular "error" (of ignoring subsurface ocean heat content) is still under hot debate between us--just a couple posts up I argued for how that data isn't showing us anything that wouldn't be caused by normal sunlight.

... except that "normal sunlight" hasn't increased -- as I already pointed out previously!

You seem to think that anytime you can question something or postulate a different idea, that automatically makes the matter still under debate scientifically. No, it doesn't. You're clearly not a scientist nor very familiar with the methods of science.

So far, not a single thing you've brought up has shown that the _scientific_ debate about AGW is ongoing. As _I've previously pointed out_ all you've done is give us examples that confirm my assertion that the only debate involves people who have incomplete scientific understanding and knowledge. You've not yet shown even one single bit of scientific evidence (not guesses, not questions, not speculation, not mistaken assertions, but real _evidence_) against either GW or AGW.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by mdettweiler

Er, how about that subsurface ocean heat stuff that we've been discussing? I could just as easily say that's an "easily demonstrable" inaccuracy/skewness on the pro-AGW side.

But you haven't shown that there's anything inaccurate or skewed about it!

All you've done is make incorrect assertions, ask questions, present speculations, and so forth. You have _not_ shown us any evidence whatsoever that the explanation of subsurface ocean warming on skepticalscience.com is wrong!

On the other hand, I _have_ shown that your "convincing" article is mistaken -- and that it is _by your own criterion_ not good science.

We are not yet tied, until you come up with some kind of real scientific evidence (not guess, not question, not speculation, not incorrect assertion) for your side.

[mdettweiler]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

... except that "normal sunlight" hasn't increased -- as I already pointed out previously!

I never said that the sunlight increased. What I was trying to explain was that when surface water is warmed by sunlight, that warmed water is then cycled down to the subsurface by normal processes. Yet, since the subsurface water is still much cooler than the surface water will ever be, that heat will never make it back up, since the heat will always travel to the cooler area. As such, the heat keeps building up in the subsurface, therefore leading to an inrease in subsurface heat content, with no global warming needed.

You seem to think that anytime you can question something or postulate a different idea, that automatically makes the matter still under debate scientifically. No, it doesn't. You're clearly not a scientist nor very familiar with the methods of science.

So far, not a single thing you've brought up has shown that the _scientific_ debate about AGW is ongoing. As _I've previously pointed out_ all you've done is give us examples that confirm my assertion that the only debate involves people who have incomplete scientific understanding and knowledge. You've not yet shown even one single bit of scientific evidence (not guesses, not questions, not speculation, not mistaken assertions, but real _evidence_) against either GW or AGW.

Originally Posted by cheesehead

But you haven't shown that there's anything inaccurate or skewed about it!

All you've done is make incorrect assertions, ask questions, present speculations, and so forth. You have _not_ shown us any evidence whatsoever that the explanation of subsurface ocean warming on skepticalscience.com is wrong!

See above. The skepticalscience.com article's explanation of subsurface ocean warming being caused by global warming is indeed a conclusion that does not follow when the very same results occur due to normal levels of sunlight.

On the other hand, I _have_ shown that your "convincing" article is mistaken -- and that it is _by your own criterion_ not good science.

The article itself is not necessarily mistaken. All it said was that "some" attribute the apparent stagnation of global warming to a lack of sunspots, and also that "some" others attribute it to ocean currents (on page 2--you did read page 2, right? ). It doesn't advocate one particular position or the other; it just presents two distinct theories that are out there to explain this, one that would support AGW and another that wouldn't.

[garo]

Get a room you two!

[mdettweiler]

Originally Posted by garo

Get a room you two!

LOL--hey, this is the most active discussion I've seen here in a while! Debate is good.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by mdettweiler

Yet, since the subsurface water is still much cooler than the surface water will ever be, that heat will never make it back up, since the heat will always travel to the cooler area.

The heat in subsurface water can travel (slowly) up by conduction. Ocean currents don't merely just circulate between surface and deep waters. There are currents in deeper waters as well as on the surface; they can stir up some layers down there, resulting in temporarily having cold water just above slightly warmer water.

As such, the heat keeps building up in the subsurface, therefore leading to an inrease in subsurface heat content, with no global warming needed.

So, according to you, subsurface ocean water just keeps getting warmer and warmer, never cooler?

The skepticalscience.com article's explanation of subsurface ocean warming being caused by global warming is indeed a conclusion that does not follow when the very same results occur due to normal levels of sunlight.

Wow -- you really do think that subsurface ocean water just keeps getting warmer and warmer, never cooler.

According to you, then, if we were to go back in time, we'd find the subsurface water becoming colder and colder. When do you think all deep ocean water was colder than the freezing point of water?

The article itself is not necessarily mistaken. All it said was that "some" attribute the apparent stagnation of global warming to a lack of sunspots, and also that "some" others attribute it to ocean currents (on page 2--you did read page 2, right? ). It doesn't advocate one particular position or the other; it just presents two distinct theories that are out there to explain this, one that would support AGW and another that wouldn't.

As I explained earlier, the Spiegel's article's basic theme is that global warming has paused. Will you acknowledge that?

What I have shown you is that global warming has not paused at all.

The Spiegel article IS mistaken.

You yourself said that good science doesn't ignore data contrary to a particular hypothesis, but that's exactly what the Speigel article does -- ignore the portion of global warming that is in subsurface ocean water.

By your own stated standard, the Spiegel article does not present good science!

The Speigel article presents theories to explain why global warming has paused, but all such theories are based on a false premise: that global warming has paused.

- - -

Here are two other articles explaining why global warming did not stop in 1998:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/08/...ge-is-forever/

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/wiggles/

- - -

Max,

It seems that your objections to AGW are not based on science, but are based on your fears that some people will "use" AGW to impose radical controls on society.

The best way to prevent that from happening is for citizens of good will to participate in informed debate about political policies related to AGW. You could be much more effective that way than by hiding your head in the sand in order to pretend that AGW doesn't exist.

[mdettweiler]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

The heat in subsurface water can travel (slowly) up by conduction. Ocean currents don't merely just circulate between surface and deep waters. There are currents in deeper waters as well as on the surface; they can stir up some layers down there, resulting in temporarily having cold water just above slightly warmer water.

Yes, of course. But overall, it would seem that more heat would go down than come back up.

So, according to you, subsurface ocean water just keeps getting warmer and warmer, never cooler?

Wow -- you really do think that subsurface ocean water just keeps getting warmer and warmer, never cooler.

According to you, then, if we were to go back in time, we'd find the subsurface water becoming colder and colder. When do you think all deep ocean water was colder than the freezing point of water?

Well, the obvious answer to this would be that this simply places a fundamental limit on how old the world can be. (Note: I'm not attempting to start a debate on that here as that would be rather off-topic. Perhaps that can be discussed at some later date in another thread.)

As I explained earlier, the Spiegel's article's basic theme is that global warming has paused. Will you acknowledge that?

What I have shown you is that global warming has not paused at all.

The Spiegel article IS mistaken.

You yourself said that good science doesn't ignore data contrary to a particular hypothesis, but that's exactly what the Speigel article does -- ignore the portion of global warming that is in subsurface ocean water.

By your own stated standard, the Spiegel article does not present good science!

The Speigel article presents theories to explain why global warming has paused, but all such theories are based on a false premise: that global warming has paused.

And I've kept trying to explain why I believe it has paused, yet you keep dismissing it out of hand as if it's a foregone conclusion.

Here are two other articles explaining why global warming did not stop in 1998:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/08/...ge-is-forever/

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/wiggles/

Okay, I've looked at those two articles. I'll specifically tackle the second one, "Wiggles", since . There's a huge gaping hole in its "evidences": notice that for all the graphs that the article states are real data (not the artificial ones that were made up for the purpose of demonstration), the actual "warming trend" begins just about at the point in time when mankind developed the capability to actually get a true global average temperature from orbit, as opposed to spotty surface readings. Before ~1955 or so, we didn't even have the capability to launch anything into orbit, let alone anything that could get global average temperature readings. So then, there's absolutely no way of knowing that this warming isn't just a natural trend that actually goes back to when the graph showed a relatively flat area (1850-1950), because we didn't have the capability to measure it accurately back then.

BTW, a couple things to note: for one, both of those articles you linked to are from all the way back in 2007. I'll bet if you added the last few years' data to the graphs showing the trend from 1998 to the present, you'd see the line straighten out a bit, showing a largely flat trend in recent years.

Secondly, the Spiegel article quite clearly stated that this was only a small anomaly, and that the overall trend was still decidedly upward. That's exactly what the two articles you linked to stated.

Max,

It seems that your objections to AGW are not based on science, but are based on your fears that some people will "use" AGW to impose radical controls on society.

The best way to prevent that from happening is for citizens of good will to participate in informed debate about political policies related to AGW. You could be much more effective that way than by hiding your head in the sand in order to pretend that AGW doesn't exist.

I've been trying to explain for quite a while now just some of the scientific reasons behind my objections to AGW. If there was truly convincing evidence for AGW, then perhaps the political efforts to curtail freedoms in the name of stopping AGW might seem more sincere.

Also, keep in mind that because of just how great the potential for political exploitation of AGW is, there's a lot of incentive for those interested in such exploitation to go to great lengths to promote it. That's why things such as these recently released emails don't sound particularly far-fetched, and make one wonder just how much data is actually skewed, and to what extent.

One last thing. For the sake of argument, let's say that AGW really is happening. And let's also say that the proposed plans to stop it really would be effective. Would you really want to live in a world bound by such plans even if the alternative would be to let warming continue? Would you really want to relinquish control of your thermostat to the government for that? Would you want to drive a micro-mini car that can barely fit two people? Or be forced to limit the number of children you have? Just some food for thought. I for one would rather sacrifice a few polar bears for the sake of human freedom.

[cheesehead]

Max,

Some past questions that have not yet been answered, as far as I can tell:

1) You admitted that the writers at skepticalscience.com have not ignored sunspots.

a) Do you have any evidence that any other mainstream climatologists have ignored sunspots?

b) If you don't have any evidence that any other mainstream climatologists have ignored sunspots, will you retract your slur on them ("in this case, when sunspot cycles obviously affect the Earth's temperature so much, to ignore that when researching global warming would be irresponsible. Unless, that is, you're deliberately trying to prove anthropogenic global warming.")?

2) Sunspots occur in 11-year cycles.

If sunspots were causing global warming, why isn't there a noticeable 11-year cycle in that warming, beyond the 11-year cycle that was already evident before global warming started?

3) You presented the Spiegel article to us by writing:

"Here's an example of one article presenting some convincing anti-global-warming evidence that had the amazing fortune of being allowed to surface:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...662092,00.html"

By saying that, you endorsed the content of the article as being a good-enough representation of "convincing" "evidence".

You presented the article as containing evidence, not just a journalist's perhaps-mistaken interpretation of evidence. Do you wish to make a change in your endorsement?

4) You wrote, "but rather that debate is still continuing in earnest between well-respected scientists."

Do you equate "well-respected" to "competent and knowledgable in climatology"?

5) Do you deny the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide?

6) Do you deny that the atmosphere's carbon dioxide content has been increasing for over a century?

7) Do you deny that the carbon dioxide increase matches anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions plus natural emissions minus known carbon dioxide sinks, as far as is known?

8) Do you deny that we can do anything significant about anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions without using "totalitarian" measures?

9) Do you agree that a cyclic factor imposed on a monotonic upward trend can produce a temporary dip or plateau, such as the recent pause in surface temperatures?

Do you acknowledge that that possibility means that the recent pause cannot be taken to be any proof that the warming trend has stopped?

10) In post #447, you wrote, "Note that for all the icecaps that have been melting, others have grown in proportion". This implies that the decrease in some areas is balanced by the increase in other areas. Can you cite data showing that that equality is true? If not, why did you make that assertion?

11) Have you ever taken a physics course?

12) Can you cite any evidence that geological activity has somehow heated up the ocean recently?

13) Do you remember being taught about the three methods by which heat travels: radiation, conduction and convection? (I ask because of your apparent difficulties in understanding heat flow in oceans.)

[S485122]

Originally Posted by mdettweiler

I for one would rather sacrifice a few polar bears for the sake of human freedom.

A few polar bears and some millions of people in Bangla-Desh, Vietnam, islands of the pacific, Egypt, etc* are certainly not worth insulating your home and using energy efficient transport.

Jacob

* Almost all River delta regions would be severely affected by a rise in sea levels. In most developed countries this would not be a life threatening problem but for most poorer countries it would definitely be.