But I do want to share what might be the last couple rounds.
I do this for those interesting in dissecting science contrarian debate tactics and style, in the hope it might help inform some who are beginning to engage in the public climate science awareness dialogue (er, debate).
A reminder - this comes from the comments thread begun by MarathonS Feb 22, 2014 on the dubious YouTube video The PseudoScience of CO2 Based Climate where yet another coddled "old white guy" who knows nothing of climate science, feeds his audience what they want to hear.
Note - Dave and AL's words are unchanged, though I have corrected minor typos and made formatting changes including some highlights and of course I've also interjected a few comments and more links to educational sources.
It's difficult keeping the participants in this virtual dialogue separate, please bear with me - Dave's words are in Arial font, AL's comments are in purple, my additions are light green highlighted.
"Of course there is. Every ecosystem has an optimal CO2 level for that particular ecosystem" -
Why? based on what? how do you measure what is optimal?
There are numerous rainforests around the world, is one better than another? and which one of the dozens extant on the planet (do you) want to cater for? and what about the thousands of previous ecosystems? or the ecosystems to come? And how do you assess what is optimal for that ecosystem? What measurements do you use? And is this for earth now, in the past, or in the future? And why have you chosen a particular ecosystem as your determinant for optimal CO2 concentrations?
It is not that I do not know, it is absurd to declare that there is an intrinsic optimal CO2 level without first applying arbitrary, moralistic or desirous conditions upon that statement.
"But since you now have admitted that you don’t know what that level is, why are you then promoting a certain level of CO2 when you lack that knowledge?" -
I haven't admitted that I don't know, I am stating positively that it doesn't exist based on knowledge. And I am not promoting any level of CO2 at all.
____________________________________________________________
Consider for a moment that before the industrial revolution our global climate system had its atmospheric CO2 "regulator" slowly fluctuating between about 180 ppm (parts per million) to 280 ppm. And I mean slowly, taking about five thousand of years to go from peak to trough (±100 ppm), with profound changes from ice ages to temperate periods.
Around 1850 this gaseous regulator was set at the prehistoric peak of ±280 ppm, but by 1995 this greenhouse gas regulator increased 80 clicks, up to 360 ppm. It has taken only twenty years to ratchet up another forty clicks and bust through 400 ppm, which is setting up the earth for a hothouse future.
This added atmospheric insulation warms our climate system. Simple undeniable physics! This warming then forces the troposphere to hold more moisture. (…)
The point is that human history and our complex society developed under a climate regime where that CO2 regulator was set below 300 ppm. Since 1850 we've jacked up that regulator to 400 ppm. Historically such a shift of ±100 ppm took more than 5,000 years, before swinging back to the other extreme - now humans have added another 100 ppm on top of that long lived rhythm.
Here's a challenge - If Global Warming Is a Hoax …
By Phil Plait
"Since much larger changes has occurred in the past several times, even in the recent past, there is absolutely nothing unusual about a 0,5 - 1 C° temperature rise in over 120 years" -
Why do large changes imply rapid ones? To quote the paper you gave me (Ljungqvist) - "we also find that the rate of warming from the 19th to the 20th century is unprecedented in the context of the last 1200 yr"
Or take this statement released by the NOAA oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/iscurrent.pdf.
"Hence, although large climate changes have occurred in the past, there is no evidence that these took place at a faster rate than present warming. "
"Yes of course since even termites generates CO2, so does humans just by breathing. About 2.2 Gt / year actually." -
I was talking about through changes in the carbon cycle such as land clearing, and the burning of fossil fuels. These are the things that alter the CO2 concentration. And what is 2.2Gt/yr and where did you get this figure?
"But since you don’t believe in proxies as a reliable way to look at the climate history," -
I do accept proxies. Will you please stop lying about me.
"I deliberately selected the start of the period from when we got thermometers." -
How does this relate to your original comment that humans produced no CO2 before that date?
"Yes I can and will, when you start to give sources about your claims, for instance the one about why peoples opinions have changed about CAGW." -
I did give sources. If you have any specific questions then please do so.
"No it’s almost logarithmic decremental" -
Based on what? Please cite source.
"The latest number on the hiatus is 18 years and 9 months." -
Please cite source.
_________________________________________________________
Wake up AL, there was no global warming hiatus !
There was a moderating of surface temperatures, but our global heat and moisture distribution engine was surely warming up unabated.
Unless of course, you can explain how the atomic interactions between GHG atoms and infrared radiation can turn themselves off. But don't take my word for it:
http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2014/earths-energy-imbalance/
Earth's Energy Imbalance, by Ed Hawkins, August 11, 2014
"It was also found that heating of the planet increased from the 1985-1999 period (0.34 ± 0.67 Wm−2) to the 2000-2012 period (0.62 ± 0.43 Wm−2), despite slowing in the rate of surface warming. ..."
_________________________________________________________
"It shows up higher up in the atmosphere first, and builds a hot spot there " -
That's just not true at all, the changes in the heat distribution show up everywhere at the same time. Heat transfer is done by radiation and convection, which are, relative to the warming trend, an instantaneous phenomena.
"that has since long been observed both with weather balloons and satellite measurements to be false" -
This is a controversial matter that is not resolved. The issue lies in the tropical troposphere for which there is inadequate radiosonde coverage. This is in example of contrary research that claims that heating in the troposphere is continuing - www.350resources.org.uk/2015/05/19/studies-of-temperature-rises-in-the-troposphere-confirm-predictions-and-rule-out-a-slow-down-in-global-warming/
"Surface heating alone has other factors amongst other variations in cloud cover" -
So does the troposphere which is the section of the atmosphere that you are claiming has had no warming. Above the troposphere, only cooling is expected, and is found.
"Even the assumption that the earth should emit less heat with more CO2 has been proven wrong, it is now measured that with more incoming radiation, the more heat the earth emits" -
What has that got to do with the greenhouse effect, which assumes constant incoming radiation. The radiative heat budget matches predictions from CO2 warming effects - Trenberth, Kevin E., John T. Fasullo, and Magdalena A. Balmaseda.
"Earth’s energy imbalance." Journal of Climate 27.9 (2014): 3129-3144.
"Earth’s energy imbalance." Journal of Climate 27.9 (2014): 3129-3144.
"isn’t it funny when thermometer networks that are place away from urban areas shows less of a temperature increase at the surface?" -
Please supply a reference
_________________________________________________
On the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record
Matthew J. Menne, Claude N. Williams Jr., and Michael A. Palecki
published 8 June 2010 - J. Geophys. Res., 115, D11108, doi:10.1029/2009JD013094
[1] Recent photographic documentation of poor siting conditions at stations in the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has led to questions regarding the reliability of surface temperature trends over the conterminous United States (CONUS). To evaluate the potential impact of poor siting/instrument exposure on CONUS temperatures, trends derived from poor and well sited USHCN stations were compared.
Results indicate that there is a mean bias associated with poor exposure sites relative to good exposure sites; however, this bias is consistent with previously documented changes associated with the widespread conversion to electronic sensors in the USHCN during the last 25 years. Moreover, the sign of the bias is counterintuitive to photographic documentation of poor exposure because associated instrument changes have led to an artificial negative (“cool”) bias in maximum temperatures and only a slight positive (“warm”) bias in minimum temperatures.
These results underscore the need to consider all changes in observation practice when determining the impacts of siting irregularities. Further, ...
… . In summary, we find no evidence that the CONUS average temperature trends are inflated due to poor station siting.
__________________________________________________
"Oh, really? Where did you dream up that hiatus?" -
Wikipedia, 'Global warming' surface temperature graph
Wikipedia, 'Global warming' surface temperature graph
"And where would we be right now on a temperature curve if we are about to head into an ice age?" -
The prediction for heading into an ice age is based on orbital forcing calculations, not temperature records. That was what the concern was when discovered in the 1970s. As for your graphs, it clearly shows that the current inter-glacial period is longer than any other, which might indicate that we are overdue.
"They are proven by empirical observations," -
Please give an example of any scientific theory that can or has been proven
"those theories have already been proven wrong" -
Please cite a reference. My obvious counter reference is AR5 IPCC, which is a review of current scientific publications.
"And we all know what the scientific method says about that scenario, don’t we?" -
No, please elaborate
"since you have stated that it’s better to act then to do nothing" -
I have never said that either.
_______________________________________________________________
"and since you are agreeing with IPCC on pretty much anything they claim or say {Why must you insist on imagining that the IPCC is like Spectre or something cartoonish like that, you're all so melodramatic and hate-mongering.
IPCC's small staff and volunteer scientists are not your cartoon enemies, they enjoy modern life as much as you do - but, I dare say, they appreciate its complexity and our dependence of relatively mild and predictable weather pattern light-years beyond your simplistic contrarian musings. The IPCC does its best to objectively convey what the science is reporting - it's that simple.}, you also agree to their plan about spending trillions of dollars {WHAT plan? Offer a link! Got one?} on some unproven political driven agenda." -
IPCC's small staff and volunteer scientists are not your cartoon enemies, they enjoy modern life as much as you do - but, I dare say, they appreciate its complexity and our dependence of relatively mild and predictable weather pattern light-years beyond your simplistic contrarian musings. The IPCC does its best to objectively convey what the science is reporting - it's that simple.}, you also agree to their plan about spending trillions of dollars {WHAT plan? Offer a link! Got one?} on some unproven political driven agenda." -
I agree with their review of the scientific literature, but I have no opinion on what action should or should not be taken, and I don't even know what the IPCC recommends in this regard. My only interest is in the promotion and understanding of physics and in science in general.
Life won't exist on this planet in 500 million years, and what happens after I die doesn't concern me.
"Are you always worried about going around and making ”non-decisions” in your life?" -
No, they do not worry me, but I am aware non-action is a decision that has implications just as much as acting does. There is nothing odd about this way of thinking, this is standard business practice.
"Ah, so all your debating is done with no proof that you’re not trying to find to support your claims. I see why your confused in this matter." -
Please explain this comment, I don't understand it
"Yes you do" -
At this stage I am suspecting a troll. I am telling you what my opinion is. Why do you not accept it? I agree with the science in the IPCC and that is it, nothing else.
"you for some strange reason have decided that just this state of the planet you have experienced is something we should strive to maintain is the right one," -
I don't
_____________________________________________________
This disconnect from Earth astounds me. These people seem okay with a throw-away Earth. It's like they have no conception of what we have on this fantastical planet of ours.
They don't seem to give a damned if the environmental conditions that have enabled and sustained our complex global society are destroyed.
Heck they don't even want to honest learn about it. Their self-serving "Holy Book" has convinced them that Earth was given to man to suck dry just as fast as human ingenuity and gluttonous appetites made it possible. To hell with tomorrow, we're going to heaven.
I believe this lies at the heart of the Republican contempt for our life sustaining "environment." They rather believe in an ancient tribal holy book, and imagine Earth is another one of their endless enemies.
Seems they remain shackled by primal animal instincts rather than learning to evolve and appreciate living with and helping sustain this planet Earth that created and nurtured us. It will make for a horrid future.
_____________________________________________________
"A theory has been put forward that comes from the 70’s, originally as a way to combat the coming ice age some where screaming about back then." -
Please reword, I don't understand.
_____________________________________________________
I imagine AL is talking about a few sensationalistic media stories in the 1970s that predicted an imminent ice age. That those media articles misrepresented the actual state of the science - hasn't mattered to contrarians. Here's a more serious look from "The Discovery of Global Warming"
The Modern Temperature Trend - www.aip.org
Tracking the world's average temperature from the late 19th century, people in the 1930s realized there had been a pronounced warming trend. During the 1960s, weather experts found that over the past couple of decades the trend had shifted to cooling.
With a new awareness that climate could change in serious ways, in the early 1970s some scientists predicted a continued gradual cooling, perhaps a phase of a long natural cycle or perhaps caused by human pollution of the atmosphere with smog and dust. Others insisted that the effects of such pollution were temporary, and humanity's emission of greenhouse gases would bring warming over the long run.
All of them agreed that their knowledge was primitive and any prediction was guesswork. But understanding of the climate system was advancing swiftly. The view that warming must dominate won out in the late 1970s as it became clear that the cooling spell (mainly a Northern Hemisphere effect) had indeed been a temporary distraction. When the rise continued into the 21st century, penetrating even into the ocean depths, scientists recognized that it signaled a profound change in the climate system.
Nothing like it had been seen for centuries, and probably not for millennia. The specific pattern of changes, revealed in objects ranging from ship logs to ice caps to tree rings, closely matched the predicted effects of greenhouse gas emissions.
______________________________________________________
"As a mean to demonstrate this theory IPCC tried to model what would happen according to their theory, and they have failed miserably." -
The forecasts are produced as a means to enable decision making, they are not produced as a means to demonstrate the theory. In fact given the complications of climate modeling making predictions is an extremely poor way to test the theory. The theory is tested on a component and hypothesis based level the same as any other theory.
_____________________________________________________
AL's conviction is possible only by his refusal to seriously learn how models are used in the first place. It's the foundation of his type, ignore, ignore, ignore.
The logic is that when engaging an 'opponent' don't allow him/her the slightest benefit of the doubt, be convinced all their information is a lie intend to deceive and lead you astray from 'your truth." It makes rejecting valid information so much easier. When the opponent wants to discuss the issues and follow through in some depth, get personal derail the focus of the conversation. Bob and weave, toss in a totally different claim or two, or a few, admit nothing, leave the ring before you need to give in.
______________________________________________________
"It’s a piece of cake to find 10-20 scientific papers that in a scientific manner contradicts them" -
Please do so, you have failed to do that so far. None of the papers that you have listed so far contradict anything published by the IPCC. The problem is your misunderstanding of the IPCC report and of those papers that you quote, because you've never read them.
"Then you either have been asleep not just during this discussion, but in the last 19 years. Sorry, I meant 18 year and 9 months." -
Are you claiming that the global warming hiatus is your measurement of how the theory has fallen laughingly short. If so, please elaborate on exactly how you think that it demonstrates that.
"Give me some proof of these opinions of yours." -
The heat budget - "Earth’s energy imbalance"
Trenberth, Kevin E., John T. Fasullo, and Magdalena A. Balmaseda.
Journal of Climate 27.9 (2014): 3129-3144
"but then when the real world proves the analysis wrong" -
It hasn't been proven wrong.
Can you at least provide a reference which shows that it has.
"You do realize that absolutely nothing we do with our tiny economic means impacts the global temperature more that a few hundreds of a degree, right?" -
No, we have the power to completely destroy this planet through climate change if we so wished. We can go either way - world wide nuclear devastation leading to a permanent global nuclear winter, or full scale pumping of greenhouse gases much worse than CO2. We have the power to do a lot of things.
"And you are saying that that is a lie?" -
Am I saying what is a lie?
"What part of that the natural fluctuations of natural CO2 emissions over time is much greater that anything we have contributed is it you don’t understand?" -
That this is the first time that you have specifically mentioned the rate of variation, and that you usually only talk about total CO2 production.
_____________________________________________________
This reveals a truly cartoonish understanding.
Without the already existing natural levels of GHGs Earth would be a frozen ball. AL wants to pretend that significant increases in the components of a dynamic system in equilibrium will produce profound changes in the dynamics of that system?
After all the reality of compounding interest is as real in our geophysical systems as it is in economics!
_____________________________________________________
"And if you had bothered to download the file it clearly states CO2." -
I did download the file it says CO2 (thousand tonnes of carbon).
The units are all in carbon, you need to multiply by 44/12 to get the mass of CO2. If you still think that you are right why don't you find the figure somewhere else (like one of my references), and then explain why the data is exactly the same, only out by a factor of 44/12
"And actually those 33 Gt you love to state" -
Of course there are errors in these calculations, not sure how you think you know what the magnitude of that error is. But these are the accepted figures based on best estimates.
"isn’t it funny that the ”errors” we find out about that the IPCC and other behind this agenda always are errors that would have been to their benefit if it hadn’t been revealed?" -
How is an overestimation of CO2 production a benefit to the IPCC?
"You don’t realize that both these things can be discussed as a measure of the tiny amount humans emit compared to nature?" -
No I don't and I have already explained why pure magnitude is irrelevant, and when I did so you appeared to agree to this and said it was the variation. Do I need to go through the explanation again?
"That doesn’t even make any sense." -
Let me reword it -
Then in all of the examples of you providing references in order to support what you claim, find just one which shows that I am wrong, that it does support your claim, and that I am misinterpreting the paper.
"Well, you take a pick. I would say all of them." -
I pick the first from your 600 list Surge, Donna, and James H. Barrett.
"Marine climatic seasonality during medieval times (10th to 12th centuries) based on isotopic records in Viking Age shells from Orkney, Scotland."
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 350 (2012): 236-246.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018212003926
"Marine climatic seasonality during medieval times (10th to 12th centuries) based on isotopic records in Viking Age shells from Orkney, Scotland."
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 350 (2012): 236-246.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018212003926
" the reason I point you to them is that they contain facts that I have told you here?" -
but they don't.
"Actually I’m almost certain you are trolling now" -
Trolls expend less effort than the person that they are torturing.
I have consistently demonstrated the willingness to look at the sources you provide and provide sources of my own.
You have consistently demonstrated a lack of understanding of what you are posting, and never checking your sources. You have no scientific training.
I implore you to read and understand the sources you are posting, and read about the science.
===============================
AL to Dave Smith, you say: "I have consistently demonstrated the willingness to look at the sources you provide..."
Yeah like 2% of them.
"and provide sources of my own."
That has been on rare occasions. You mostly spew personal opinions with no references.
"You have consistently demonstrated a lack of understanding of what you are posting, and never checking your sources. You have no scientific training."
You have absolutely no idea what kind of training I have, or what sources I read or check, and you have consistently showed the typical warmist behavior to ignore anything that goes against your religion, putting all your arguments on "consensus" and digest anything your IPCC's bible tells you.
"I implore you to read and understand the sources you are posting, and read about the science."
An I implore you to read about the science outside of IPCC's political nonsense and try your best to understand that. You have shown almost total lack of understanding on anything that isn't proposed to you by your bible. It would hurt you to be more critical to what you are fed either, it's obvious that you swallow absolutely anything that comes out from the political agenda and make that your truth in life. Science demands an open mind and critical thinking, and you have showed none of that.
Again, I really hope you haven't stated you opinions to much in public, because you will look like a gullible fool in a relatively near future.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
citizenschallenge - 12/11/15 (with supplemental information)
AL, AL, how you do misrepresent the situation. Allow me to summarize.
A) Misrepresentations and lies regarding what scientists are doing or writing should be explained and then they deserve to be dismissed - with repetitions of the same junk-talking-points deserving to be slapped down.
Climate science contrarian myths listed by argument:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Climate science contrarian myths arranged by taxonomical order:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy
B) Your information has consistently come from sources who have demonstrably lied and misrepresented the actual science in favor of their own dogma driven "what me worry" science-fiction. In fact, it's a who's who of incestuous climate science denying PR community, who have fabricated a bubble for all who are so included.
I have collected the list of sources AL used in this dialogue - I have linked them to informative articles and bios, that will make their biased power-political agenda obvious. Go ahead click a link.
Freeman Dyson {The ancient physicist who's still pissed at the world for not allowing him to build his atomic bomb powered spacecraft.}
Oh yeah, and then there is Heartland Institute
Heartland's policy positions, strategies and budget distinguish it clear as a lobby firm that is misrepresenting itself as a “think tank” - it budgets $4.1 million of its $6.4 million in projected expenditures for Editorial, Government Relations, Communications, Fundraising, and Publications, and the only activity it plans that could vaguely be considered policy development is the writing of a curriculum package for use in confusing high schoolers about climate change.
There will be more comment and analysis to follow on DeSmogBlog and elsewhere, but we wanted to make this information available so that others can also scrutinize the documents and bring their expertise to the task.
Deep Climate – Heartland Institute Budget and Strategy RevealedGreg Laden – Anti-Science Institute’s Insider Reveals SecretsPlanet 3.0 – Is turnabout Fair Play?Climate Crocks - How is Joe Bast like Joe Camel?Climate Progress - Heartland Documents Reveal Fringe Denial Group Plans to Pursue Koch Money, Dupe Children and Cultivate Revkin
Attachment Size (1-15-2012) 2012 Fundraising Plan.pdf
89.87 KB 124.62 KB 7.4 KB 2.7 MB 96.56 KB 55.36 KB 6.84 KB
It was a surprise to see CarbonBrief on AL's list, but then it turned out to have nothing to do with understanding climate science. Instead it was a report about a public opinion survey.
LA's ruse is rather silly. Come on, when has Earth's geophysical processes ever asked for humans' opinion?
Science is not a democracy, science is not an endless dog-chasing-tail debate!
Science is about trying to get as close to the physical truth as we can, given the information at hand !
Here's a collection of stories I came across in doing research on this post. All told it's a story of a contrived echo-chamber and science constrained within a political dogma.
C) Actually, it's the way you describe the science you think you understand that clearly indicates you have no scientific training. If you do, then you have totally failed to convey any of that prerequisite objectivity that serious scientists possess - and all we have to go on is your words and their lingering impression.
The thing about understanding what's happening with our global heat and moisture distribution engine, is that it requires a good-faith curiosity to honestly learn about our planet's process. All else is irrelevant.
Once that understanding is reached, only then will solutions to dealing with our rapidly warming world be possible.
D) I've read nothing in Dave's writing that stinks of religion -
You on the other hand seem to make a lot of sweeping statements assuming the worst of people you disagree with and twisting what they've tried to explain to you. You also have a way of totally ignoring important points and information you are offered. It's like you refuse to absorb new information. > Of course, if you have any specific instances of Dave talking religion that you'd care to offer - lets look at them.
E) You (and sources you rely on) convey a hostile misunderstanding of who the IPCC is and what it does. You dismiss their work outright, unless of course you can find a tidbit that sounds like it agrees with your point of view then you happy cherry pick it while willfully ignoring the full spectrum of information on that particular topic. Now that is the stuff of dogma driven learning rather than honest curiosity learning that strives to absorb all the available the information.
2 comments:
AL couldn't resist some parting shots to Dave.
Sadly his words underscore the futility of trying to constructively communicate with this type of sock-puppet.
In his mind he's incapable of recognizing that the IPCC is a collection and summation of thousands of strands of evidence, collected by many thousands of independent ethical scientists from throughout the world. It is updated as more information comes in and it stands up to any serious honest scrutiny.
None of that can be said about the Bible, which is an ancient tribal text, that allows for no cross-checking and demands "faith" rather then "evidence". But because it's convenient and catchy, LA (and pals) embrace such cheap rationalizations in order to justify their willfully ignoring real physical evidence and all it has to explain to those brave and honest enough to examine it.
____________________________________________
"+Dave Smith Jesus, you're a big joke.
You don't even realize the stupidity to reference IPCC's political nonsense, when it's the validity of that very thing we are discussing?
It's exactly like in a discussion about gods existence with a religious nut, and the idiot starts referring to the bible to prove it's real and that god exists.
But thank you for pointing out exactly what I said in my previous post: You totally indoctrinated and don't have a clue about the science outside of what the IPCC feed…"
Oh and PS LA,
There is very little, if any, serious climate science that doesn't appear in the IPCC.
Sadly the stuff you've pulled up (and rely on) comes from bloggers who are dedicated to a political agenda,
with their science having to fit within their political goals.
Post a Comment