Scientists discover that climate-change skeptics are bozos

[trysail]

This is a good example of the irrational crap you pull. You single out individual scientists as if they cancel out the overwhelming scientific consensus.

This is a perfect example of the irrational crap you pull.


What is this consensus shit? What the fuck is that ? That's precisely the kind of unscientific garbage one expects a propagandist to pull out of his arse.

"Three out of four dentists recommend the hypothesis of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming."​

Science isn't a popularity contest. Everybody knew that stomach ulcers were caused by acid. Everybody knew that Judah Folkman's angiogenesis was nutty. Andrew Wakefield got his peer-reviewed paper published in The Lancet. It took nearly 50 years for plate tectonics to be accepted.

 

[mercury14]

This is a perfect example of the irrational crap you pull.


What is this consensus shit? What the fuck is that ? That's precisely the kind of unscientific garbage one expects a propagandist to pull out of his arse.

"Three out of four dentists recommend the hypothesis of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming."​

Science isn't a popularity contest. Everybody knew that stomach ulcers were caused by acid. Everybody knew that Judah Folkman's angiogenesis was nutty. Andrew Wakefield got his peer-reviewed paper published in The Lancet. It took nearly 50 years for plate tectonics to be accepted.

You're doing it again.

According to your logic we can't believe any science at all.

 

[1sickbastard]

The Moon isn't getting any warmer, so there.

A) the moon isn't a planet
B) the moon lacks an atmosphere.

Planetary bodies with atmospheres have had a rise in temperature.

The issue isn't that the data shows the Earth warming, this issue is that human activity is the PRIMARY cause.

 

[mercury14]

A) the moon isn't a planet
B) the moon lacks an atmosphere.

Planetary bodies with atmospheres have had a rise in temperature.

The issue isn't that the data shows the Earth warming, this issue is that human activity is the PRIMARY cause.

Man-made heat is cooking the entire solar system.

 

[trysail]

You're doing it again.

According to your logic we can't believe any science at all.

What we can believe is science done in accord with the scientific method; that means: evidence and reproducibility. It does not mean computer models.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/science_method.png​

 

[trysail]

Jonathan Jones is a professor of physics at Brasenose College, Oxford. The following comment can be found at: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/b...dington-challenge.html?currentPage=2#comments

People have asked why mainstream scientists are keeping silent on these issues. As a scientist who has largely kept silent, at least in public, I have more sympathy for silence than most people here. It's not for the obvious reason, that speaking out leads to immediate attacks, not just from Gavin and friends, but also from some of the more excitable commentators here. Far more importantly most scientists are reluctant to speak out on topics which are not their field. We tend to trust our colleagues, perhaps unreasonably so, and are also well aware that most scientific questions are considerably more complex than outsiders think, and that it is entirely possible that we have missed some subtle but critical point.

However, "hide the decline" is an entirely different matter. This is not a complicated technical matter on which reasonable people can disagree: it is a straightforward and blatant breach of the fundamental principles of honesty and self-criticism that lie at the heart of all true science. The significance of the divergence problem is immediately obvious, and seeking to hide it is quite simply wrong. The recent public statements by supposed leaders of UK science, declaring that hiding the decline is standard scientific practice are on a par with declarations that black is white and up is down. I don't know who they think they are speaking for, but they certainly aren't speaking for me.

I have watched Judy Curry with considerable interest since she first went public on her doubts about some aspects of climate science, an area where she is far more qualified than I am to have an opinion. Her latest post has clearly kicked up a remarkable furore, but she was right to make it. The decision to hide the decline, and the dogged refusal to admit that this was an error, has endangered the credibility of the whole of climate science. If the rot is not stopped then the credibility of the whole of science will eventually come into question.

Judy's decision to try to call a halt to this mess before it's too late is brave and good. So please cut her some slack; she has more than enough problems to deal with at the moment.

If you're wondering who I am, then you can find me at the Physics Department at Oxford University.

Feb 23, 2011 at 10:29 PM | Jonathan Jones

http://www.bnc.ox.ac.uk/323/about-brasenose-31/academic-staff-150/professor-jonathan-jones-457.html

 

[mercury14]

What we can believe is science done in accord with the scientific method; that means: evidence and reproducibility. It does not mean computer models.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/science_method.png​

So you're saying it's not science unless it's an experiment?

No research is possible without an experiment that's reproduce-able?

Not even basic or pure research?

 

[KingOrfeo]

So you're saying it's not science unless it's an experiment?

A great deal of scientific research is non-experimental stamp-collecting and bird-watching and bean-counting and mapmaking; it's just as necessary and just as scientific.

 

[mercury14]

A great deal of scientific research is non-experimental stamp-collecting and bird-watching and bean-counting and mapmaking; it's just as necessary and just as scientific.

Astronomy?

Genetics?

Bacteriology?

I study traumatic brain injury (TBI) as part of my job. We're in the process of learning more about it using a range of tools.

None of these things above use science according to Trysail.

 

[thør]

Oh, those Berkeley guys (and gals).

Time to get a pitcher at the Bear's Lair.

Maybe 3-4 pitchers, to start with. We've got a thirsty group working together:


Richard Muller, Founder and Scientific Director
Robert Rohde, Lead Scientist

David Brillinger, Statistical Scientist
Judith Curry, Climatologist
Don Groom, Physicist
Robert Jacobsen, Professor of Physics
Saul Perlmutter, Professor of Physics
Arthur Rosenfeld, Professor of Physics, Former California Energy Commissioner
Charlotte Wickham, Statistical Scientist
Jonathan Wurtele, Professor of Physics

Elizabeth Muller, Founder and Executive Director

 

[KingOrfeo]

I study traumatic brain injury (TBI) as part of my job. We're in the process of learning more about it using a range of tools.

Good. Try some of them on Trysail.

 

[Saint Peter]

I don't believe that scientific method bullshit.

What a crock.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I don't believe that scientific method bullshit.

What a crock.

Well, there's always nonscientific methods . . . But for a reliable climate-change reading, you're gonna have to spring for an all-black male goat.

 

[Saint Peter]

Well, there's always nonscientific methods . . . But for a reliable climate-change reading, you're gonna have to spring for an all-black male goat.

Goats I can believe in. The bible talks about goats.

Just not computer modeled goats.

 

[Peregrinator]

The next time somebody invokes tobacco when the topic is climate, you're going to be sent to sit alone in a corner until you repent of your flagrant abuse of rhetoric.

Fred Singer.

 

[Peregrinator]

There are three fundamental flaws in the 'other planets are warming' argument. Not all planets in the solar system are warming. The sun has shown no long term trend since 1950 and in fact has shown a slight cooling trend in recent decades. There are explanations for why other planets are warming.

Further explanation and links to primary literature here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system-intermediate.htm

And here (Jupiter): http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-jupiter-intermediate.htm

And here (Neptune): http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-neptune-intermediate.htm

And here (Pluto): http://www.skepticalscience.com/pluto-global-warming-intermediate.htm

And here (Mars): http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars-intermediate.htm

A) the moon isn't a planet
B) the moon lacks an atmosphere.

Planetary bodies with atmospheres have had a rise in temperature.

The issue isn't that the data shows the Earth warming, this issue is that human activity is the PRIMARY cause.

Vide supra.

 

[Ishmael]

So Bozo starts a thread.

Let's start with some facts.

1. No one has claimed that warming is not occurring. We are in an interglacial and that's what the earth does during interglacial periods, it warms up.

2. The argument is over the cause of the warming and the latest report changes nothing. It's not a blow to the skeptics because the skeptics were, and still aren't, debating whether warming was occurring or not.

Ishmael

 

[Peregrinator]

Climate skeptics have consistently challenged the findings of studies by NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the UK's University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, whose research is used by the IPCC.


Many skeptics argue that the urban heat island effect may be distorting temperature rises and too much data gathered from weather stations is of poor quality.

They also contend that data selection has been biased -- a charge which gained credence during the so-called "Climategate" scandal in 2009, when thousands of private emails from the UK's University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) were published on the Internet.

From the link in the OP.

 

[trysail]

... and the evidence that what we've seen is anything other than natural cyclical climate variability ?

Where's the missing heat ? Earth's energy equation cannot be balanced in accord with the hypothesis.





The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat
by Richard Harris
NPR
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

Until that missing heat is located, the models and the CAGW hypothesis that underlies them are demonstrably inaccurate.

 

[Peregrinator]

Trenberth and the "missing heat:"


http://www.skepticalscience.com/Kevin-Trenberth-travesty-cant-account-for-the-lack-of-warming.htm



This has been most commonly interpreted (among skeptics) as climate scientists secretly admitting amongst themselves that global warming really has stopped. Is this what Trenberth is saying? If one takes a little time to understand the science that Trenberth is discussing, his meaning becomes clear.

If you read the full email, you learn that Trenberth is actually informing fellow climate scientists about a paper he'd recently published, An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy (Trenberth 2009). The paper discusses the planet's energy budget - how much net energy is flowing into our climate and where it's going. It also discusses the systems we have in place to track energy flow in and out of our climate system.

Trenberth states unequivocally that our planet is continually heating due to increasing carbon dioxide. This energy imbalance was very small 40 years ago but has steadily increased to around 0.9 W/m2 over the 2000 to 2005 period, as observed by satellites. Preliminary satellite data indicates the energy imbalance has continued to increase from 2006 to 2008. The net result is that the planet is continuously accumulating heat. Global warming is still happening.

Next, Trenberth wonders with this ever increasing heat, why doesn't surface temperature continuously rise? The standard answer is "natural variability". But such a general answer doesn't explain the actual physical processes involved. If the planet is accumulating heat, the energy must go somewhere. Is it going into melting ice? Is it being sequestered deep in the ocean? Did the 2008 La Nina rearrange the configuration of ocean heat? Is it all of the above? Trenberth wants answers!

So like an obsessive accountant, Trenberth pores over the energy budget, tallying up the joules accumulating in various parts of the climate. A global energy imbalance of 0.9 W/m2 means the planet is accumulating 145 x 1020 joules per year. The following list gives the amount of energy going into various parts of the climate over the 2004 to 2008 period:

Land: 2 x 1020 joules per year
Arctic sea Ice: 1 x 1020 joules per year
Ice sheets: 1.4 x 1020 joules per year
Total land ice: between 2 to 3 x 1020 joules per year
Ocean: between 20 to 95 x 1020 joules per year
Sun: 16 x 1020 joules per year (eg - the sun has been cooling from 2004 to 2008)
These various contributions total between 45 to 115 x 1020 joules per year. This falls well short of the total 145 x 1020 joules per year (although the error bars do overlap). Trenberth expresses frustration that observation systems are inadequate to track the flow of energy. It's not that global warming has stopped. We know global warming has continued because satellites find an energy imbalance. It's that our observation systems need to be more accurate in tracking the energy flows through our climate and closing the energy budget.

So what may be causing the discrepancy? As the ocean heat data only goes to 900 metre depth, Trenberth suggests that perhaps heat is being sequestered below 900 metres. There is support for this idea in a later paper von Schuckmann 2009. This paper uses Argo buoy data to calculate ocean heat down to 2000 metres depth. From 2003 to 2008, the world's oceans have been accumulating heat at a rate of 0.77 W/m2. This higher trend for ocean heat would bring the total energy build-up more in line with satellite measurements of net energy imbalance. However, von Schuckmann's results were published after Trenberth's paper so I look forward to seeing how this plays out in future papers.

So to summarise, Trenberth's email says this:

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."
After reviewing the discussion in Trenberth 2009, it's apparent that what he meant was this:

"Global warming is still happening - our planet is still accumulating heat. But our observation systems aren't able to comprehensively keep track of where all the energy is going. Consequently, we can't definitively explain why surface temperatures have gone down in the last few years. That's a travesty!"
Skeptics use Trenberth's email to characterise climate scientists as secretive and deceptive. However, when one takes the trouble to acquaint oneself with the science, the opposite becomes apparent. Trenberth outlines his views in a clear, open manner, frankly articulating his frustrations at the limitations of observation systems. Trenberth's opinions didn't need to be illegally stolen and leaked onto the internet. They were already publicly available in the peer reviewed literature - and much less open to misinterpretation than a quote-mined email.

 

[trysail]

Trenberth and the "missing heat:"

As you know this has absolutely nothing to do with Trenberth's infamous email.



The simple fact is that the energy budget is not balanced and the missing heat has not been located. Do you seriously believe that missing heat is sequestered below 700 meters of ocean ? Do you seriously believe that heat can't be detected ? How do you store that kind of heat at those depths ? That would appear to require a contortion of the laws of physics the likes of which hasn't been seen since we were asked to accept the idea of cold fusion.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The simple fact is that the energy budget is not balanced and the missing heat has not been located.

I embezzled it, sir! *sob*

 

[trysail]

The Argo buoy system:

http://www-hrx.ucsd.edu/www-argo/status.jpg

http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/index.html
​

Argo is an international collaboration that collects high-quality temperature and salinity profiles from the upper 2000m of the ice-free global ocean and currents from intermediate depths. The data come from battery-powered autonomous floats that spend most of their life drifting at depth where they are stabilised by being neutrally buoyant at the "parking depth" pressure by having a density equal to the ambient pressure and a compressibility that is less than that of sea water. At present there are three models of profiling float used extensively in Argo. All work in a similar fashion but differ somewhat in their design characteristics. At typically 10-day intervals, the floats pump fluid into an external bladder and rise to the surface over about 6 hours while measuring temperature and salinity. Satellites determine the position of the floats when they surface, and receive the data transmitted by the floats. The bladder then deflates and the float returns to its original density and sinks to drift until the cycle is repeated. Floats are designed to make about 150 such cycles.

 

[trysail]

Thirteen years— no warming:


http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah/from:1998/normalise


​

 

[Peregrinator]

As you know this has absolutely nothing to do with Trenberth's infamous email.



The simple fact is that the energy budget is not balanced and the missing heat has not been located. Do you seriously believe that missing heat is sequestered below 700 meters of ocean ? Do you seriously believe that heat can't be detected ? How do you store that kind of heat at those depths ? That would appear to require a contortion of the laws of physics the likes of which hasn't been seen since we were asked to accept the idea of cold fusion.

If you read the full email, you learn that Trenberth is actually informing fellow climate scientists about a paper he'd recently published, An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy (Trenberth 2009). The paper discusses the planet's energy budget - how much net energy is flowing into our climate and where it's going. It also discusses the systems we have in place to track energy flow in and out of our climate system.

Trenberth suggests that perhaps heat is being sequestered below 900 metres. There is support for this idea in a later paper von Schuckmann 2009. This paper uses Argo buoy data to calculate ocean heat down to 2000 metres depth. From 2003 to 2008, the world's oceans have been accumulating heat at a rate of 0.77 W/m2. This higher trend for ocean heat would bring the total energy build-up more in line with satellite measurements of net energy imbalance. However, von Schuckmann's results were published after Trenberth's paper so I look forward to seeing how this plays out in future papers.