Denier Dog is at it again. Once again, he's taught a master class in denier tactics.
Water Dog wrote:
It would be nice to discuss whether warming is in fact occurring or not, and what that actually means, but alas, RI doesn't want to discuss that. [SEE HIS THOUSAND PAGE REPORT FROM HIS "ONE TRUE" AUTHORITAY]
Water Dog apparently doesn't know, because Water Dog doesn't look, because Water Dog doesn't care, that the IPCC AR Reports are not pronouncements by a single authority. They are what scientists generally refer to as a literature review. In other words, every few years they review the published literature on climate issues and report on what the literature says. The published literature that Dog scoffs at is the actual science. He's just so UN phobic that he can't stand to look at the science. If he wanted, he could go to the hundreds of papers cited in the literature review for answers. But, I dunno, maybe them UN cooties are contagious.
Remember: Science deniers do what they accuse others of. What evidence does Dog give us? Why, the spoken words of his One True Authoritay Richard Linden. He rejects a vast body of peer reviewed scientific publications in favor of what this one guys says.
Water Dog wrote:RI doesn't want to get into this because I'm sure he appreciates how complex even this starting question is. It's not like you can just go out and take the temperature of the planet. Doesn't work like that.
Maybe Dog doesn't know, because Dog doesn't look, because Dog doesn't care, that scientists don't think they are taking the temperature of the planet. That's why they refer to their measurement tools as an index. You know, there are half a dozen temperature indices taken at the surface with thermometers, temperatures records taken with weather balloons, and temperature records using complex programs that convert satellite data into temperatures for the lower atmosphere. And you know what they look like all together? Something like this:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-h ... ds-compareThat one leaves out balloons, but here's one that compares balloons and satellites. (Note, balloon temperatures are taken with thermometers. Satellites require complex information processing to convert data into temperatures).
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/10/17 ... -up-there/All of them show warming. And all at roughly the same rate, except UAH, which has a long record of having to adjust its processing programs to correct for downward biases. Now I suppose its possible that it's really cooling between the 30,000 or so stations that record temperatures and that the air suddenly cools when the satellites aren't looking, but the agreement among these different records gives reasonable confidence that changes in the indices represent changes in the temperature of the overall atmosphere at the earth's surface.
One of the tactics of global warming denial is logical fallacies. And this one is a great example of a red herring. We don't have to navel gaze about what it means to take the planet's temperature -- we have several measurement methods that show the same trends, giving us a reason to conclude that the overall temperature at the earth's surface is warming.
[Dog Clowning deleted]
Water Dog wrote:RI talks about Working Group 1.
Why yes, he does. Working group 1 is the group responsible for the review of what the science tells us about climate change. The other working groups have a different focus.
Water Dog wrote:Here's a fun quote from WG1, from the executive summary.
IPCC, AR5/WG1 wrote:Improve methods to quantify uncertainties of climate projections and scenarios, including development and exploration of long-term ensemble simulations using complex models. The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential.
They admit, right in their own report, that it could all be wrong. Let that sink in. It's like a terms of use agreement for a software application. If you've ever read that gibberish, they all say basically the same thing, "we make no guarantees whatsoever, the software almost certainly will crash, consider yourself lucky if it doesn't, don't say you weren't warned."
Man, I'm sneezing from all the straw.... all that quote says is that no one can make a definite, specific prediction about future climate states. But you can predict the probable range of states. Which is exactly what the GCM's do -- predict a range of states under various assumptions. Where's subby's hair on fire gif?
Water Dog wrote:WG1's forecasts have been proven to be wrong. Grossly wrong. In 2015, as part of some court testimony, Lindzen addressed this, saying,
Richard Lindzen wrote:The current federal SCC is based on the IPCC’s 2007 projected range of 2°C to 4.5°C, with a “best estimate” of 3.0°C. In 2010, the IWG assumed that the IPCC’s range was accurate, in 2013 the IWG declined to revisit the issue, and in July 2015 the IWG made only a technical adjustment in the way the probability distribution of the climate sensitivity value was presented. Yet today the best evidence indicates that the IWG’s assumptions are wrong, that a much lower climate sensitivity value of 1°C or 1.5°C is correct, and that a climate sensitivity of more than 2.0 C is extremely unlikely. Accordingly, the assumptions of Hanemann, Polasky, and Martin are invalid.
Get it? It must be true because Richard Lindzen says so. I mean, it's right there in print. Let's just burn all the "paperz" -- Richard has spoken.
Water Dog wrote:Many other sources
Who? Citations? So far we have zero...
Water Dog wrote:but I keep citing Lindzen cause I know it gets under RI's skin.
Get under my skin? You've got to be kidding. I love it when you quote LIndzen. You're quoting a guy who hasn't published in years, and whose published contrarian work turned out to be just wrong. There's a reason he just does youtubes and op-eds now: his contrarian line is just BS.
But notice what he said, "a much lower climate sensitivity value of 1°C or 1.5°C is correct." What is the latest report that the IPCC just released. SR15. In a nutshell what is the difference between SR15 and AR5 (the one RI is referring to)? Well, it dials up the doom rhetoric, and quietly walks back the actual numerical projections. Down to 1.5C specifically, hence the name, SR15. Lindzen must be a prophet, cause they went with his suggested number.
Now, pay attention boys and girls, because if Water Dog had a scrap of pride or personal integrity, he would never post again on this subject. Climate sensitivity, the thing that Lindzen is talking about, is the increase in temperature we expect from a doubling of CO2. Had Dog actually even looked at the new report instead of whatever piece of crap denier site he got this from, he would have realized that the title of the report refers to the goal of limiting total temperature increase to 1.5C -- not the climate sensitivity figure used in the models.
How do I know that? I looked at the goddam report! Did Dog? Hell no. Dog don't read cuz Dog don't care. The numbers used for climate sensitivity are in Section 2.2.1.2 -- Geophysical uncertainties: climate and Earth-system feedbacks. Now, what Dog claims, based solely on the title of the report, is that the IPCC adopted Lindzen's figures for climate sensitivity: 1.0 to 1.5C. Here are the actual figures from the report itself:
AR5 assessed the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) to be likely in the 1.5–4.5°C range, extremely unlikely less than 1°C and very unlikely greater than 6°C....The tools used in this chapter employ ECS ranges consistent with the AR5 assessment.
So, for the nth time, Dog has posted 100% BS from some piece of crap denier site. Will he learn to, you know, actually check this stuff? Hell no. He's DAWG and he don't care.
Water Dog wrote:Lindzen addresses some other interesting points as well.
Oh do tell. More unsupported blather?
Richard Lindzen wrote:This rebuttal report also addresses the issue of the temperature record and a recent paper by Karl et al (2015) that has been described in the press as “disproving” the hiatus in discernible warming for almost the past two decades, which until now has been widely accepted by climate researchers. The temperature record is a source of considerable confusion. The record generally presented is one of the global mean temperature anomaly. That is to say, one is not averaging the temperature itself, but rather the temperature deviation from a thirty year mean at each station. Figure 10 of my testimony displays the main indisputable fact about this quantity: namely, it is very small compared to other changes at any given location. Given that the observations were never designed for climate purposes, it is not surprising that there is uncertainty on the order of tenths of a degree in addition to problems of systematic error (such as the effect of urbanization). This means that ‘adjustments’ of a few tenths of a degree are always possible. However, as Michaels (2008) noted, the large majority of such adjustments lead to conclusions like ‘it is worse than was thought’ or ‘the data is closer to models than initially thought.’ Given that errors are generally assumed to be random, this would suppose that there was an initial bias against global warming and against models; this is implausible to say the least. In other words, it is highly suspicious that “adjustments” almost invariably produce results that favor advocates of a certain camp. That suggests that “adjustments” do not necessarily reflect impartial science.
Most of this is just drivel. Kind of sad from a guy who was an actual scientist years ago. Temperatures are temperatures. How would you design temperature observations for climate purposes. Do you use different thermometers? Record them in a different colored pen. As far as temperatures, climate is a record of temperature over a 30-year period. This is Lindzen's schtick -- raise a bunch of red herrings to distract from the actual science.
But, hey. He finally quoted a paper. Michaels (2008) And who is Michaels? He's this guy:
https://skepticalscience.com/patrick-mi ... wrong.html https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/P ... ._Michaels A hired gun from the Cato Institute with an almost perfect record of being wrong on climate.
But wait. Maybe I'm being hasty. Maybe I should check out his article.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10. ... 8783900735 Wow! It's published in Energy and Environment. What kind of journal is that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_%26_Environment Man, these deniers are good. They even have their own little boutique journal.
Richard Linden wrote:Under these circumstances, the recent attempt by Karl et al (2015) to adjust data so as to eliminate the so-called ‘pause’ of the last 18 years is suspect ab initio. Indeed, as Michaels et al (2015) and numerous others have pointed out, there are many bases for such suspicion. For example, the paper made an upward adjustment of 0.12°C in measurements from surface buoys, supposedly to make them “homogeneous” with measurements taken by engine intake channels in marine vessels, even though temperature readings from ship engine intakes are clearly contaminated by heat conduction from the engine itself and are therefore less appropriate for scientific use. The Karl paper also cherry picks certain start dates and end dates to create intervals yielding equal trends.
This is one of those "scandals" that the denialosphere gets hot and bothered about every few weeks. The Karl paper suggested some adjustments in some of the older water temperature measurements to make it more "apples to apples" with later methods of measuring temperature. The denialosphere went apoplectic, labeling this as a conspiracy to eliminate their precious, non-existent "pause" in temperatures. Here's what actual climate scientists said about the Karl paper:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... he-hiatus/Now you may wonder how an adjustment to temperatures from before 1940 could be a plot to make a "pause" that allegedly started in the late 1990s disappear? No temperatures during the "pause" were adjusted at all. If you did wonder, you'd be classed among rational people and not the deniers. The real problem is, there was no "pause." Here's a look at the stats:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/01/25 ... l-warming/https://tamino.wordpress.com/2017/01/19 ... -happened/https://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/01/30 ... -surprise/By the way, is anyone surprised that Cato's Pat Michaels is "suspicious" of climate science? Anyone? Oh, but there's others. Says Lindzen.
But Lindzen does give us a peek at a necessary component of denial: the conspiracy. Global warming denial rests on a conspiracy theory: a global conspiracy of scientists out to commit horrendous fraud because they make so much money doing it or world domination of something.
Lindzen wrote:However, there is a larger point to be made: namely, all these adjustments act to disguise the fact that we are dealing with small quantities. By emphasizing the question of whether it is warming or not, they deflect attention from the only important question of ‘how much.’ As Spencer and Christy (2015) note, the adjusted temperature record of Karl et al (2015) still leaves their warming rate much smaller than IPCC models project (viz Figure 1). Note also that the apparent agreement between the models and temperature record before 1998 is largely due to the use aerosol adjustments by models. As I explained in my testimony, recent work by Stevens (2015) shows that the adjustments required by the more sensitive models exceeds what now appears possible. This would substantially increase the apparent discrepancy between the models and observational data.
Geez, I did the whole "how Spencer and Christy make misleading graphs" in the other thread. Ask yourself, why are they only looking at ocean surface temperatures, and leaving out land, where most of the warming occurs? Why do they show only the average of the CMIP 5 ensembles and not the range? Why do they use a ridiculously short, non standard base period? They tried the same misleading crap in the past, only using balloons and satellites, or whichever cherry picked data set they can torture to mislead the reader.
https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=243 http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -datasets/And that Stevens paper? He had to give an interview because the deniers were twisting and misrepresenting his paper.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -research/Lindzen wrote:Groups active in promoting climate concern have recently published papers showing that models with high sensitivity are markedly incompatible with observations. These results are too recent to have been included in the latest IPCC reports which are now out of date. This is especially the case for the reports of Working Groups II and III (dealing with impacts and mitigation respectively, but not with the scientific underpinnings). Working Groups II and III generally use the worst case scenarios from WG I, and these no longer are viable scenarios. Testimonies that rely on these sources (i.e., the testimony of Hanemann, Polasky, and Martin) are flawed to the extent that they rely on these sources.
Yeah, more Lindzen says. Any, like, citations? And, to the extent we're talking about the basic science, WG 1 is what we're talking about.
Water Dog wrote:The projections are all ____. Worse, ____ is at least good for fertilizer. There are more questions than there are answers.
You say, "The sense I get is we all know global warming is occurring, but there's really no sort of understanding or consensus..."
Sort of. The way I would phrase it is that we all mostly agree on the facts.
BS. Dog believes in alternative facts. Like the most recent IPCC report uses Lindzen's climate sensitivity range. Like there was a "pause." Like a scientific paper proposing adjustments to improve accuracy was actually a conspiracy to conceal a non-existent pause. Like tropical storms are powered by the temperature differential between the poles and the tropics. Like alternative fact after alternative fact that he swallows whole without ever checking. And I mean ever. Dog denies the facts. He won't even look at the facts.
Water Dog wrote:We could get into all that, because some think certain things are facts which aren't actually facts. But, when there is an actual fact, nobody disagrees. We agree on the facts, however we disagree strongly on the interpretation of those facts. Like, how do modern climate observations relate to the natural variability? What is the sensitivity of the climate system to increasing concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases? To what degree does human activities affect the climate? Do the negatives outweigh the benefits? And so on. There is no consensus about any of it.
More pure denial. With the exception of a handful of scientists, there is a very strong consensus. Dog only thinks there is no consensus because all he reads are the deniers.
Water Dog wrote:If there was an asteroid headed for the planet, do you think the public would "deny" it? No. You show them the radar tracking, you show them the images, you show them the video of it approaching, you show them the track and it's headed right for the earth, you show them the simulation that reasonably predicts we're ____ if this thing hits. People are NOT stupid, despite the pompous grumblings that take place around here. If there was solid credible evidence for CAGW, people would come together and listen.
People deny that the earth is a sphere. People deny that we evolved from apes. People deny that Saudi terrorists flew airplanes into the Twin Towers and Pentagon. People deny all kinds of facts because their political biases override their reason. Dog ain't stupid. He's just blinded by his extreme political views. He's literally more interested in defending his precious political ideology than he is leaving a livable planet for his descendants.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951