Thursday, May 22, 2014

Contemplating the contrarian mind in action

{I did some clean up editing Friday morning - OK, time to call it done 10:00 mtn, got a fence to get back to building.
Did some more clean up editing, clarifying, added some links - 5/28 morningish - the fence is done, looks great :- )  
K's reply, with my response was added 5/28 evening, tad late, what can I say.}

There's an interesting article by Jos Hagelaars over at MyViewOnClimateChange.wordpress
"Is Climate Science falsifiable?"  It led to a dialogue that I've participated in, the most recent comment was too ripe not to pick and too long not to share over here.  K seems to think things should be argued to death and that the vaguest suggestions deserve more attention than learning about the basic fundamentals.

Worse K just seems to be tossing out headlines from denialist websites, but there's no indication that K has spent anytime seriously trying to learn about the underlying issues of these various topics.  Something that's all too common among the "science skeptical" crowd.

Believing that there are still "big holes" in the climatological understanding of our Earth's climate systemkrischel says: 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
A good start, but some pretty big holes there: 1. A drop {mislead claim - one surface temperature data-set does not represent our global weather system's heat content -} in global temperatures for some period of time to the level of 50 years ago or longer {nonsense - all indicators reflect continued warming}, without a clear cause {Yes there is a clear cause.  Heat is transferring into our oceans - as part of those "internal variability" that sometimes absorb and other times emit heat.  What isn't variable is the physics of those greenhouse gases in our atmosphere -  Yes there is a clear cause for the warming - we are increasing our planet's atmospheric insulation - thus abnormally warming our planetWe’ve already seen that in the ice core record. Certainly nobody claims they have any sort of climate model that accurately hind casts ice ages.
~ ~ ~ 

Of course there are models that hind cast various ice ages!

As for this supposed drop in 'Global Surface Temperature" that data-set excludes significant portions of the North and South arctic regions, the fastest warming places on Earth - worse, it excludes the oceans where something like 90% of the heat is going anyways.  

The political PR trick of constantly ignoring the ocean's part in all this is quite dishonest !

Although it looks like the days of ignoring that are about to end.

As for Climate Models, Can K explain why K expects climate models to produce perfect images - why won't K appreciation that no climatologist claims they are perfect?  Scientists use Climate Models as tools to explore and learn about the greater global climate engine and its details.  Models are learning tools, stop expecting them to be crystal balls!  

Seems to me extreme weather forecasting and warnings are getting quite good, and they're model dependent.  
Here again is an example of calculated political PR that has demonized and maliciously marginalized the validity of "Climate Models" in the eyes of the public… all about twisting expectations with a novelist's freedom to reinterpret the truth.

= = =
What has global warming done since 1998?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
2. A drop in global sea level for some period of time
~ ~ ~

What drop in global sea level?  Sea level is not like a bath tub. Large regions fluctuate because of prevailing global ocean and wind currents along with their oscillations plus other geophysical dynamics - pointing at one area, during a short duration of time, as proof that the "consensus" is not to be trusted is foolish.  Here's an introduction:

Sea Level Rise
  • Measuring Sea Level
  • Sea Level Rise
  • Predictions for Future Sea Level Rise
  • Impacts of Sea Level Rise
  • Further Information
  • Related Blogs
  • References
Then, there's these reality checks:
Jerry Mitovica PhD. - In Search of Lost Time: 
Ancient Eclipses, Roman Fish Tanks and the Enigma of Global Sea Level Rises
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
3. A strong rise or decline in the atmospheric CO2 level
~ ~ ~

K would have to explain this one.  CO2 gets injected into our atmosphere from many sources, depending on where and when you take your measurements all sorts of discrepancies might appear - that's why there are thousands of scientists studying this and looking over each others shoulders to catch the other guy making errors.  It's that check and balance that's built within the scientific process.  Something you won't find on TV news and sensational single study fly-by-night news reports.
Some news on that front
Mauna Loa Observatory
Speaking of CO2 - for those curious about the state of the science, here's an interesting lecture from a guy who's been studying this as long as anyone, Dr. Steve Running

The Keeling Lecture: Dr. Steve Running
Climate Change and the Forests of the West   
UCTV - Perspectives on Ocean Science

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Pumphandle 2012: 

Time history of atmospheric carbon dioxide

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
4. The discovery that climate forcings in the past were much larger, or temperature changes much smaller, than science think.
Argument from ignorance. Just because we can’t enumerate all natural causes of climate change doesn’t mean that we must find them to disprove the pet theory that human CO2 emissions overwhelm all natural factors.
~ ~ ~ 

"Forcings were much larger, or temp changes smaller"?   So?  
Sun was dimmer and Moon was closer K your point is?

In deep time the Earth was a much different place evolving through various phases to get to the world our ancestors discovered.  Scientists know a lot more about those ancient phases, than you let on.  I dare K to mention any event and let's look at the known details.
- - -

Speaking of "argument from ignorance" to call the physical understanding of CO2 radiative/thermo properties, "a pet theory" makes it sound like K don't know anything about all the modern marvels that would be impossible if it weren't for scientists having attained a thorough and 'real world accurate' understanding of how greenhouse gases behave in our atmosphere.  At the top of the list would be heat seeking air to air missiles along with certain communications systems and high resolution Earth bound astronomical observations.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
5. Warming of the stratosphere. 
No reason this cannot happen naturally.
~ ~ ~

Can K offer any justification for that claim?  
Can K explain the situation up there?
Or is K just parroting?
Let's hear what K is proposing?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
6. Major errors in equipment in satellites, measuring outgoing long wave radiation
Again, no reason why measured outgoing long wave radiation cannot be a natural phenomenon.
~ ~ ~

Can K justify that claim?
Let's hear what other "natural phenomenon" might mimic that radiation spectrum?  

As for equipment errors, what does K know about all the ways scientists trouble shoot and test and fix and learn - in order to get the best data possible?  Why no review of that process?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
7. Evidence of a substantial fall of relative humidity with rising temperatureSame as #5 and 6, but more importantly, this is one of the grand failures of GCMs that assume a feedback effect from CO2 to water vapor. The predicted humidity increases haven’t happened.
~ ~ ~

Here K goes again, some iffy claim based on some single study, there are dozens of studies going on, building on hundreds of predecessors.  

What's with tossing out all these what-if's that you go on to presume are sure things when they fit into your desired storyline.

Where's K's curiosity to learn about the whole of this global heat distribution engine climatologists have been studying?  Why no interest in listening to what real experts are trying to teach us?

As for this humidity thing:

You know, in the end obsessing over such interesting, and in their own right important, but relatively speaking insignificant details when weighed against all we do know and all that has been observed with high certainty - is a most dishonest denialist trick. 

Who cares about absolutely accurate measurements when people use minor uncertainty to ignore the basic reality of accelerating sea level rise, from here on out. - the point is to get real about what's happening.

On a related note, want to know about the "Climate Sensitivity"?  Well, I got no number, just an image.  Think about how extreme weather has gotten during this past decade: today's weather inflicted damages reflects the state of our atmosphere/ocean climate engine 30/40 years ago.  Think about that.  Try imagining all we have added to the climate system since the 1970s/80s, the impacts of that thermo-pulse is still in the pipeline.  So enough with obsessing over the minor details of scientists wrestling with the numbers already.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
8. A source of heat in the climate system that we do not know yet - Another argument from ignorance.
~ ~ ~

This is borderline insane - Seriously supposing a missing major heat source is about as rational as supposing there's another planet orbiting the Sun opposite our Earth 

We are talking clear cut physics, no matter how many arm chair geniuses find "fatal flaws" in the established science which gets reaffirmed in thousands of down to earth ways, around the global, on a nonstop basis.  

I'll stick with the considered educated opinions of true experts, and their scientific consensus, not to the frustrated lone 'genius.' 

Besides, K ignores the fact that scientific "consensus" is provisional, something all serious students of science appreciate.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
9. A fundamental flaw in the scientific understanding of radiation physics or thermodynamicsNecessary, but certainly not sufficient. You could claim that if the speed of light is wrong, then astrology is debunked, but the speed of light itself, or any other physical constant, does not imply a complex theory must be true.
~ ~ ~

There is no fundamental flaw in the scientific radiation physics or thermodynamics - and the speed of light has next to nothing to do with it.  
We wouldn't have our modern satellite etc. world if the modern scientific understanding didn't accurately reflect reality.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
10. CO2 molecules appear to behave differently in the wild, than they do in a laboratorySame as #9
~ ~ ~

No kidding sherlock.  Then again, the atoms themselves don't act differently, it's the measurements and understanding and questions being asked within the lab apparatus that are different.  

The underlying physics does not change, though the scientific community's understanding has improved quite a bit over a few centuries of observing gases in action.

It's incredibly complex and that's why it's taken generations worth of serious minds, people who have dedicated their lives to observing, learning, discovering, pursuing understanding, and always asking new questions while continuing their quest to improve genuine understanding.  

These are full time professionals dedicated to getting it right - the frauds and the lazy get cut from the teams.  Nothing is perfect - but the scientific community is about as close to living Checks and Balances, and staying honest, as any human endeavor going these days.

Their culture includes everybody second guessing each other until the evidence settles the argument and sets up another round of questions.  Mistakes and constructively learning from them are part of life.  

{Unfortunately, the Republican/Libertarian warrior mind doesn't allow for such niceties as truth or learning to get in the way of winning their battles.  For them mistakes are bludgeons for battering "opponents" rather than to learn from.} 

Serious scientists have been dishonestly libeled at every turn and most everyone has stood by allowing an obvious con job to rule the day - and succeed in endlessly forestalling an adult reckoning with what we have done to our only planet and future.
~ ~ ~

All of us actually do know what's at the root of all this disconnect - it's our clinging to greed based, ever increasing consumerist life-styles -  it fosters today's profound disconnect from the real "natural" Earth, and it's processes, that nurtured and sustained us throughout history.  

That's sad, because we've blithely continued destroying all those natural things that have sustained us.  It's like our economic engine has always been predicated on "consuming," literally, ever increasing quantities of natural resources, then discarding and dumping with complete disregard for the Earth we came from. 

Without ever noticing, never learning a lesson about land and ocean and atmosphere stewardship, always too busy consuming to care about the various disasters we were leaving in our wake - too busy to look forward and consider what we were doing to that future.  

 and the beat goes on.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

PS.  The Anthropogenic Global Warming "consensus" is NOT formed by scientists.
The Anthropogenic Global Warming "consensus" IS compelled by the evidence. 

Stephen Schneider | Climate One montage

Thoughts on "systems science"... "relative credibility of the multiple positions"


Published on Mar 29, 2013
A montage of the former Stanford Woods Institute Senior Fellow and renowned climate scientist Stephen Schneider discussing climate change.


citizenschallenge Says:

OK lets take a look
krischel Says:May 23, 2014 at 21:40citizenschallenge – Wow, your gish gallop blog post was quite the read! A few answers for you:K-1) you’ve got no citation for any models which can accurately hind cast prior ice ages. Searching google scholar for “modeling past ice ages” is hardly a citation :)

~ ~ ~
CC: I’m saying there has been plenty modeling done, and by the shear fact that there is a coherent story regarding previous deep time ice ages you can bet, the story has been well researched including modeling… as if any modern research doesn’t involve modeling.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
K-2) you’re assertion that ignoring the ocean’s role in climate change is dishonest is an indictment of all the AGW supporters who insist that the oceans cannot be drivers of climate change, but must first be affected by human CO2 emissions;
~ ~ ~
CC: Shame on you – no one is claiming the oceans are “drivers” of global temperatures – Global temperatures are a balance between the sun’s output, our planet’s albedo, and our atmosphere’s greenhouse gas insulation ‘value’ regulating how much heat radiates back to space, among a few other minor players.

What we were talking about is that surface temperatures appear suppressed when ocean’s suck up more of that atmospheric heat… you know the ebb and flow inherent in all geophysical processes.

PS. According to observations, it’s looking like some of that “sequestered” heat is getting ready to spill back into the atmosphere and weather systems. Stay tuned 2014 may turn out to be quite interesting.
Deep Ocean Warming is Coming Back to Haunt Us:Record Warmth for 2014 Likely As Equatorial Heat RisesMay 16, 2014
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
K- 3) I don’t expect them to produce perfect images – but simply responding to observations with ad hoc special pleadings, in order to preserve the central conceit, is dishonest.
~ ~ ~
CC: You spit out “ad hoc special pleadings” as though it were a curse. Watt’s up with that? Why won’t you talk about the specific special pleading you seem upset about? What was being investigated, what was the issue?

Beyond that don’t you realize mistakes are what leads to new insights and understanding?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
K- 4) Insisting that the short term accuracy of weather forecast models can be extrapolated to long term climate models is a non sequitur;
~ ~ ~
CC: I didn’t claim that at all. They are entirely different animals looking for different dynamics.

My point was that models are serious f’n business and not deserving of stupid ad hom attacks – … all your mumbo jumbo just helps confuse, rather than clarify.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
K- 5) Asserting that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are simply a function of independent sources and sinks is unfounded;
~ ~ ~
CC: That sentence doesn’t make sense. Your number five was:
“5. Warming of the stratosphere. 
No reason this cannot happen naturally.”

I asked you to explain yourself.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
K- 6) The claim that skepticism of failed predictions is “obsessing over minor details” sounds a lot like the response of an astrologist :)
~ ~ ~
CC: Absolute nonsense! On the other hand, the game your type plays is akin to veering off towards a tree at high speed – then obsessing about whether the speed of vehicle was 60mph or 65mph – rather than doing something to slow down, stop, miss the tree.

We know what CO2 does in the atmosphere, we have enough observations here on Earth to have a dang good idea at what recent warming means to the real world climate engine and the weather patterns that flow from it as the future unfurls.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
K- 7) It’s ironic that you outsource your rational thought processes to “true experts”, but try to argue individual points :) Again, appeal to authority is a logical fallacy;
~ ~ ~
CC: What kind of cynical diversion is that. I explained things best I can then point to experts for folks to do their own good-faith learning.

Why do you side step your false claim/insinuation about atmospheric humidity going down. It is not.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
K- 8) You can’t go from underlying physical properties of gases and extrapolate to some grand theory of global climate change dominated by human CO2 emissions (or any source of CO2 emissions in the past for that matter). You’re skipping important steps.
~ ~ ~
CC: What kind of cynical diversion is that? K said: “#8. A source of heat in the climate system that we do not know yet - Another argument from ignorance.”

It’s a bonkers claims, what can I say.
Learn to respect experts… when people spend their lives and the hours of their days dedicated to learning about something, it does the rest of us good to listen to them. Call it what you what, I call it common sense and what made humanity great. You on the other hand seem to me to have intellectually anarchy dangling from the end of our nose.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
K – “It’s funny, in the end, you assert that disagreement with your position is driven by politics, “clinging to our greed-based ever increasing consumerist life-styles”. And in this, you show your true colors – you’re a partisan, who has picked a side, and will believe it regardless of any observations that contradict it. 
Let’s argue for a moment, that the year 1914 was both cooler, and less “greed-based”. Please explain to me how you consider the year 2014 worse for humanity, with an expanded population, incredible “greed-based” technology advances for health and well-being, reduced poverty, reduced hunger, and an arguably healthier biosphere.”
~ ~ ~
UN Refugee Agency

CC: NO, no, I don’t have the time for such a silly game, Rome is burning, and you seem to believe the Reaganomics business plan should be eternal… we’ll see who’s surprised by outcomes.

Seriously though, you made a string of nonsense claims, which I addressed as directly as I could. I notice you have been unable to counter like wise. … with facts and information sources.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

No comments: