Saturday, February 28, 2015

Considering the silliness of Dr. L.W. at SoD #2

Here's my last post regarding the denial games over at SoD.  I actually started with this review, but then Florifulgurator's comment came along and since it was much more interesting I took that digression.  Now I feel I still owe RD a rational accounting of Dr.LW's many fallacies since RD puts so much store in his spoof.
The Holocaust, Climate Science and Proof 
February 4, 2015 by ScienceofDoom

RD wrote on February 12, 2015 at 11:47am

The questions have appeared, as have two very thoughtful comments from L.W. Based on what he’s written, and your definition, and any additional concern you would have given because he’s Jewish, would you call him a climate change denier?
{CC: never did find any questions...}
RD wrote  February 12, 2015 at 3:54 pm
 ...    The questions have appeared, as have two very thoughtful comments from LW ...
This strikes me as a good question, because it’s precise. You’re responses have been very general. I’d like you to consider this very specific question. Thanks.

LW wrote: February 12, 2015 at 1:26 am
I started out conditionally accepting the AGW position because many experts claimed it was so. 
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
And I started out learning about our planet's geophysics and its atmosphere...

For the more complete response see:
LW wrote: However, I am a scientist, and looked in far more detail before I would accept it fully. 
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The discussion is supposed to be about discussing those details, not about self anointed authority.
LW wrote: I do not deny the basic science as stated by SoD and others. 
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
Words are cheap.
LW wrote: With me, the issue is how much the human burning of fossil fuel affects the net result, and what is the supporting evidence of consequences.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
To understand any of that one must first understand our planet's CO2 cycle.  
As for supporting evidence, one must make the effort to become familiar with it, not hide from it.

~ ~ ~
IPCC Working Group 1, the physical basis
~ ~ ~ explaining the science
~ ~ ~
The Carbon Cycle
~ ~ ~
The Global Carbon Cycle
University of Michigan

 Introduction .1
 Carbon Accounting .2
 Carbon cycling .3
 Controls .4
  Volcanic activity (A)
  Rock weathering (B)
 Biological Activity (C)
 Human Activity (D)
 Fixes .5
  Self-Test .6 
~ ~ ~
Global Climate Change
Vital Signs of the Planet
~ ~ ~
Climate Hot Map

Impacts of Global Warming
LW wrote: I clearly am presently a skeptic of the claim that there is a bad effect from human burning of fossil fuels, 
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
That only works if one willfully ignores these facts, and more:

§  Is there evidence that our burning of fossil fuels is causing our "global heat distribution engine" to warm up?

§  Will warming (read energizing) our global heat distribution engine impact the rhythms of the global biosphere that humanity and society has developed within? 

§  Will a warming climate system energize our atmosphere's hydrology, both by increasing the amount of water the troposphere holds and by increasing the energy that needs to be dissipated?

§  Are our food supply systems dependent on the established rhythms of our 'current' seasons and rain patterns?

§  Will an increasingly warming planet cause it's cryosphere to melt at increasing rates?

§  Will that melting and warming cause global sea levels to rise?

§  Will rising sea levels impact coastal installations such a shipping ports, oil refineries, coastal cities and subsurface infrastructure, tourist hotel strips and barrier island real estate holdings, to mention just a few? Sea level rise blog

§  Is the math of compounding interest for real?
LW wrote: and I clearly think we should not waste resources addressing a non-problem. I explain why in the following:
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
What does that have to do with learning about the geophysical facts of Anthropogenic Global Warming?  Besides, "non-problem" ???

US Geologic Service Newsroom | 6/14/2011
Human Activities Produce More Carbon Dioxide Emissions Than Do Volcanoes  
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
LW wrote: By looking back at all time scale where there was reasonable evidence, I concluded that natural variation can cause changes larger than the present variation, even over the last 10,000 years.
~ ~ ~
How nice sounding.  What does it mean?  
How about first understanding the various drivers and how they interact to change climate.

Solar Forcing
     Solar intensity (sunspots)
     Orbital variations
     Volcanoes, pollution
Greenhouse Effect
     CO2, Methane, Water vapor
Land use

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
LW wrote: In addition, the so called “normal” temperature reference level (the late 1800’s) was clearly at the tail end of an unusually cold period termed the Little Ice Age. It was in no way normal. It thus was difficult to sort out what was new, and what was natural variation. 
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
1880 is when reliable global temperature records started.

Besides, think about it, what does recording global temperatures have to do with the actual physics of greenhouse gases and their cascading consequence?

Difficult doesn't mean scientists aren't doing it!

As for "reference level" graphs are clearly marked, for instance, NOAA often uses base periods of 1951-80 or 1900-2000.  Then there's this:

Pssst, as for sorting out that little ice age:

What caused the Little Ice Age?
LW wrote: When the temperature rapidly rose from 1970 to 1998, it appeared there was a clear supporting evidence of the human effect. 
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
One must take look past dramatic media headlines.
LW wrote: However, when it leveled out after that, the whole issue was upended. No model showed the flattening.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
That's simply not true.
Scientists now know why global warming has slowed down 
and it’s not good news for us
Jeffery DelViscio | February 27, 2015
LW wrote: Continual re-writing has been done to try to show the flattening was not out of the possible with the claimed AGW. 
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"Continual re-writing"- that's appalling.  
Grand Conspiracy Ideation first degree.  

Science is about a huge community of skeptical, competitive, fully informed experts gathering evidence, learning and drawing conclusion.

Dr.LW's paranoid "rewriting" is actually the dynamic of evidence driving better understanding.

It's about learning.

"Consensus" being driven, and evolving 
in light of the accumulating evidence.

Who Created the Global Warming "Pause"?.
Chris Mooney | Mon Oct. 7, 2013
~ ~ ~
Climate change: The case of the missing heat
Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, 
scientists are piecing together an explanation.
Jeff Tollefson  |  15 January 2014
LW wrote: However, if all of the data (1850-2015) is used rather than just 1970 to 1998, the slope of temperature increase is only about 0.4C per century. If the period from late 1930’s to present is used, the slope is about 0.4 C per century. Choosing a period to make the slope is arbitrary, and meaningless. These rates are also not useful.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
So what!  That's called the Cherry-Picking Game.  That's not how we learn.  

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
But if you want to play statistics have a visit with Tamino, an expert on the topic:

A pause or not a pause, that is the question.

UPDATE: A new post at RealClimate is very relevant, and well worth the read

"One day, a new data set is released. The rumor runs rampant that it’s annual average global temperature since 1980. ..."
~ ~ ~
The Real Global Warming Signal

... The paper studies the five most often-used global temperature records. Three of them are surface temperature estimates, from NASA GISS, HadCRU, and NCDC, the other two are satellite-based lower-atmosphere estimates from RSS and UAH. These are compared to three factors which are known to affect climate: the el Nino southern oscillation, atmospheric aerosols (mostly from volcanic eruptions), and variations in the output of the sun.
~ ~ ~
The Real Problem with the Global Warming “Debate”
LW wrote: The basic problem is feedback from water vapor, and other causes. The water vapor increase also causes more low level clouds, which affect albedo. 
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Says who? This seems to be referring to Dr. Lindzen's defunct "Iris Effect" conjecture.

We must understand the full spectrum of information rather than relying on someone's self-certitude.  Dr. Dessler does just that in the following, which includes a few words about General Circulation Models:

Summary of Dessler GRL 2011

Cloud variations and the Earth's energy budget


A critique of the scientific content of Richard Lindzen’s Seminar in London, 
22 February 2012
B. Hoskins, J. Mitchell, T. Palmer, K. Shine & E. Wolff
~ ~ ~
Lindzen's London Illusions
Posted on 7 March 2012 by dana1981
~ ~ ~
Climate Scientists take on Richard Lindzen
Posted on 8 April 2012 by dana1981
~ ~ ~

LW wrote: Ocean currents have long period changes which affect temperature. In fact, the storage/release system can change average air temperature over long periods with no change in other causes (solar insolation, AGW). 

In other words, the science can be correct, but not describe the temperature variation causes on long time scales. 
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
OK, ocean currents and oscillations do have profound impacts on short term global surface temperatures.  

But keep in mind manmade global warming is about what's happening to our planet's atmospheric insulation "layer".  Our oceans and their currents and oscillations live under that dome.  Oceans don't create or eliminate heat, they simply move it around.

As for the last sentence it's shear meaningless gobbledygook. 
LW wrote: Since we likely are approaching the end of the present interglacial (the Holocene) even if we were to tend to warm, it likely would be good rather than bad.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
So much disregard, such little appreciation for what we have.  So little interest in seriously understanding.  So sad.
LW wrote: Also CO2 is plant food and the human caused increase has helped feed the world.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
What does CO2 as plant food have to do with increasing our planet's atmospheric insulation and dangerous global warming? 

Besides, it's no good to understand one sliver of information and ignore the rest.  

Regarding this CO2 plant food, there's a fascinating story for those that take the time to learn.

Climate change to disrupt nutrients cycles in global dryland soils
Published online 30 October 2013
~ ~ ~
More carbon dioxide makes plants picky about their fertilizer
Researchers have found that plants that are given an excess of carbon dioxide …
Casey Johnston - May 20, 2010
~ ~ ~ 
CO2 is plant food

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Speaking of plants and food, how about the timing between crops and pollinators? You know, warming is also disrupting critically important ancient seasonal rhythms. 
~ ~ ~
`Global warming upsetting biological clock of species`
Last Updated: Sunday, October 21, 2012
~ ~ ~
Global warming and the disruption of plant–pollinator interactions
Memmott, Craze, Waser, Price   |  Ecology Letters, (2007)
~ ~ ~
Climate Change Threatens Pollination Timing
August 9, 2006


There was a second comment but it's way too self-absorbed and contained nothing of serious climate science.  Sadly it's obvious he doesn't take his topic seriously enough to work at understanding it's most basic elements, so sad... 
and now I'm done. 
Good day SoD, RD and Dr.LW  

PS.  Hiding from the evidence doesn't make it 
go away.

No comments: