The Problem With Science: It's Not Credible

[TheSkepticChristian]

You noticed too.

 

Where does Pogi's graph end? Yes, at 95 BP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Before_Present

That represents the quality of his arguments. 

 

 

Edited April 8, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[pogi]

That represents the quality of his arguments. 

 

This he says from behind a sock puppet. 

[TheSkepticChristian]

This he says from behind a sock puppet. 

 

The skeptic is my original account. Nice red herring and ad hominem. 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sock%20puppet

 

It ends at 95 BP LOL  

Edited April 9, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[pogi]

The skeptic is my original account.

 

And???

[TheSkepticChristian]

And???

 

and it is totally irrelevant to what I am saying, it is ad hominem. 

If you don't like the videos and the blogs I applaud that, but please read the scientific literature. 

 

Here is a page that links to many scientific papers that prove AGW, please read some of them 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/resources.php?peer=1

 

 

and please don't forget to read 

 

Dr. Humlum runs a website called Climate 4 You where he presents a wide range of data related to paleoclimate.  What caught my eye was that Dr. Humlum makes the same mistake that everyone else seems to make.  They append the modern instrumental record on the end of the GISP2 data to suggest that current warming is nothing out of the ordinary.  But as I've previously pointed out in Crux of a Core Part 1 and Part 2 this is in error.  This is comparing one high latitude local proxy (GISP2) with the modern global record.

Fig 1 - GISP2 temperature data and EPICA Dome C CO2 data from Climate4you.com

When I located this diagram on his website I wrote a short email to Dr. Humlum pointing out the error of conflating a local record with the global instrumental record and pointed him to Dr. Jason Box's website where Dr. Box shows that the temperature since at the Greenland summit has risen over 2C since the termination of the GISP2 data.

Dr. Humlum kindly responded:

Dear Rob

You are entirely correct; my error. I will change it in a short while.

Thank you very much for pointing this out.

All the best,

Ole

In response Dr. Humlum has, apparently, updated the chart but only to reflect ~1.0C, the lowest estimation contained in Box et al 2009 Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Air Temperature Variability: 1840–2007.  With all due respect to Dr. Humlum, I need to put some shoulder behind this boulder and point out that Dr. Box has an additional 3 years of data past 2007 represented on his website that pushes the average temperature change up closer to 2.0C.  

The Greenland temperature anomaly for 2010 is 3C above 1855 but the average for the past decade has been 2C above 1855.

Fig 2 - Climate4you chart updated with current data for the Greenland summit

You can see now that the rise in temperature, comparing local record with local record, shows that there has been a marked increase in temperature at the summit on a scale beyond any other change in the Greenland record except for the known 8.2k year event.  

 

The Mythology Continues

Like any great Greek tragedy the story just keeps going.  You'll notice that I've left theEPICA Dome C data in each of these charts, because Dr. Humlum is contrasting the two.  Being that CO2 is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere I would suggest that this is also an act of conflating a global record with a local record.

My response is to merely add in the modern record for CO2 concentrations on the EPICAdata.  Heck, if we're going to add the modern temperature data should we not also be adding the modern CO2 data?  It only seems logical.

Fig 3 - Climate4you chart with modern CO2 data added

I would venture to guess that the modern record was not added here because, given the scale, it doesn't fit.  If we merely rescaled the CO2 data to match the known directradiative forcing of 1C for a doubling of CO2 (to match the GISP2 chart above it) then theEPICA data through the Holocene would look pretty much like a straight line with a nice little hockey tip at the end.

Fig 4 - Adjusted EPICA Dome C data with modern CO2 record appended.

 

My Hubris...

In the story of Sisyphus he is banished to his task by Zeus for Sisyphus' hubris in his belief that he was more clever than Zeus.  Maybe this is my own hubris in taking on each of these presentations of GISP2.  In Albert Camus' 1942 essay titled The Myth of Sisyphus he suggests that, actually, Sisyphus is quite happy in his eternal task.  Sisyphus, he says, represents the eternal spirit of the human heart.

Edited April 9, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[pogi]

and it is totally irrelevant to what I am saying, it is ad hominem. 

 

Whether we can trust you as an honest person is totally relevant to what you are saying.  Deception is a form of lying.  Now that we know that you dabble in the arts of deception, why should I trust anything you say?  I don't trust the forecasting models of scientist, and I don't trust you. Your credibility as a poster has been shot.

 

The literature demonstrate that your graphs from your precious blogs  and bogus websites are absolute crap.

 

http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL049444.pdf

 

"The estimated average Greenland snow temperature over the past 4000 years was −30.7°C with a standard deviation of 1.0°C and exhibited a long‐term decrease of roughly 1.5°C, which is consistent with earlier studies. The current decadal average surface temperature (2001–2010) at the GISP2 site is −29.9°C. The record indicates that warmer temperatures were the norm in the earlier part of the past 4000 years, including century‐long intervals nearly 1°C warmer than the present decade (2001– 2010). Therefore, we conclude that the current decadal mean temperature in Greenland has not exceeded the envelope of natural variability over the past 4000 years..."

 

Sure this paper states that models project future warming, but I have reason to question those models.  The point is, that it is colder today in greenland than it has been for thousands of years on average. Yer, your blogs graphs show temps well above average for the last 4000 years.  That is total trash. 

 

Of course you will retaliate with more crap.  I admit that I am weak and always take the bait, but this time you are not going to get any more bites. 

 

Farewell my friend (or should I say friends - MFT and TSC), and enjoy the pleasant climate.

 

MFT was afraid of serious climactic consequences and disaster due to global warming, but TSC is not so concerned about that, so I hope that you can live out the rest of your days as TSC and not be too worried about the future.

Edited April 9, 2015 by pogi

[TheSkepticChristian]

Whether we can trust you as an honest person is totally relevant to what you are saying.  

 

I am an honest person, but you don't have to believe what I am saying, do the research yourself. 

I don't have time to respond at the moment, I will do it tomorrow. 

But remember, your own graph ends at 95 BP, how is that 2000 AD? LOL 

[mfbukowski]

I think, in reply to the OP - we may be getting to a point where our collective understanding and perspective allows us to see the limits and boundaries of science, language, and models. Maybe we are beginning to see the flaws and limits in our own thought processes and logic.

 

Our ability to collect information and transform it into models which we can easily understand and communicates allows us a much broader vision of what exists. It also allows us a better self-awareness of our current limitations.

 

For example, a few centuries ago our ancestors lacked the understanding that the earth revolved around the sun. That perspective was shattered by discoveries enabled by advancements in technology and mathematical language (and revelation if you will).

 

Anyone who thinks the sun revolves around the earth now is universally considered backwards. Yet we still embrace, at heart, the same form of ignorance that enabled people to think of the earth as the center of the universe. On a general scale we parallel that ignorance by placing our models at the center of our thought. We work with the idea that the universe fits our models (mathematical, scientific, language) in the same way people thought the sun revolved around the earth. Now it is common to think the way the universe works revolves around the models we've made to predict how it works.

 

More people now have access to greater amounts of information, which can be collected by greater technology. We can aggregate and analyse that information to create better, more accurate intelligence. Collectively we are beginning to see that to consider something 'right' or 'true' means that we must accept an assumption or axiom, or a reference point of uncertainty. 

It humbles me. It ought to humble humanity. It tells me that nobody is above the law, that there is always something greater. Maybe not unlike the analogy(?) the Lord uses to teach Abraham:

 

 

 

Not only this, but it clarifies to me that the greater characteristic of being intelligent is the ability to correct myself and act more correctly than I currently do. It does not mean that I must be 'right' or 'true' or that I must know everything. Of course this understanding is contingent on whether or not real intelligence revolves around my definition of intelligence

 

It also clarifies, to me at least, that there is close connection between the LDS sense of revelation and the advancement enabled by the language of science. They both look to increase our light and knowledge, and advance our intelligence.

Good stuff!

[TheSkepticChristian]

The literature demonstrate that your graphs from your precious blogs  and bogus websites are absolute crap.

 

I don't think you read the paper, it is talking about snow temperature, not air temperature. It is also talking about a region, not the entire Northern Hemisphere "our site is not necessarily representative of the whole Arctic, and may respond in opposite ways to annular mode fluctuations" let alone the global temperature 

 

As you can see from your paper, the graph in the middle (Kobashi) shows that greenland today is as warm as medieval warming period, if not warmer. That contradicts your conclusion that the medieval warming period in greenland was warmer than today. I am still waiting for you to answer, how is 95 BP the year 2000? The graphs ends at 95 BP.  

 

 

(top) Reconstructed Greenland snow surface temperatures for the past 4000 years and air temperature over the past 170 years (1840–2010) from three records. I will continue to keep reading that interesting paper, so I will say more about it later. 

 

 

MFT was afraid of serious climactic consequences and disaster due to global warming, but TSC is not so concerned about that

 

Nice straw man, I am worried about serious consequences, but I said that it is not going to be an apocalypse. You don't have to believe what I am saying, you can verity the information yourself. 

 

Please don't ignore the paper from Nature about Antarctica 

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/fig_tab/ngeo1787_F4.html

 

Edited April 9, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And???

All he is saying is that it is his original account. MFT is really his sock puppet account. I mean, I thought we were dealing with some one rational here.

 

This is getting old.

 

If nothing else there is some entertainment value here.

Edited April 9, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don't think you read the paper, it is talking about snow temperature, not air temperature. It is also talking about a region, not the entire Northern Hemisphere "our site is not necessarily representative of the whole Arctic, and may respond in opposite ways to annular mode fluctuations"

 

As you can see from your paper, the graph in the middle (Kobashi) proves that greenland today is as warm as medieval warming period, if not warmer. That contradicts your conclusion that the medieval warming period was warmer than today. I am still waiting for you to answer, how is 95 BP the year 2000? The graphs ends at 95 BP.  

 

 

(top) Reconstructed Greenland snow surface temperatures for the past 4000 years and air temperature over the past 170 years (1840–2010) from three records. I will continue to keep reading that interesting paper, so I will say more about it later. 

 

 

 

Nice straw man, I am worried about serious consequences, but I said that it is not going to be an apocalypse. You don't have to believe what I am saying, you can verity the information yourself. 

 

Please don't ignore the paper from Nature about Antarctica 

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/fig_tab/ngeo1787_F4.html

 

"The estimated average Greenland snow temperature over the past 4000 years was −30.7°C with a standard deviation of 1.0°C and exhibited a long‐term decrease of roughly 1.5°C, which is consistent with earlier studies. The current decadal average surface temperature (2001–2010) at the GISP2 site is −29.9°C. The record indicates that warmer temperatures were the norm in the earlier part of the past 4000 years, including century‐long intervals nearly 1°C warmer than the present decade (2001– 2010). Therefore, we conclude that the current decadal mean temperature in Greenland has not exceeded the envelope of natural variability over the past 4000 years..."

[TheSkepticChristian]

 I thought we were dealing with some one rational here.

 

I am still waiting to know how 95 BP is the year 2000?  Pogi's graph ends at 95 BP, so how is that 2000 AD?

I think you guys are simply mad at me. 

 

The estimated average Greenland snow temperature over the past 4000 years was −30.7°C 

 

Please read what I just said and quoted in post 659, "(top) Reconstructed Greenland snow surface temperatures for the past 4000 years and air temperature over the past 170 years (1840–2010) from three records". You said that the medieval warming period was warmer than today, but that is not true according to Pogi's paper. No need to believe me, you can verify that information yourself. 

 

Compare the graph (Kobashi) in the top to the 4000 yr graph in the bottom, it shows that 2010 was warmer than ever, but please remember that it is a local temperature.

Edited April 9, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

Pogi, I won From Jeffrey P. Severinghaus, an author of your paper.

 

 

Thanks for writing.

Indeed, our findings are in no way inconsistent with the ongoing mass loss
of Greenland, which is well documented and undeniable.

Our measurements show that Greenland has a high degree of natural climate variability
on century and longer timescales. This is not terribly surprising to any follower
of the weather, because it is already well known that the same high variability
applies on annual timescales at the weather stations at towns around the coast
of Greenland.

What this means is that, while Greenland is warming and melting, it also will
be subjected to whiplash - lots of intense hot periods, lots of intense cold periods,
that are natural in origin.

If one wanted to use Greenland to answer the question, "is man-made global
warming actually happening?" one would have to wait a LONG LONG time for
the signal of man-made warming to rise above the huge noise in the natural
climate system. Fortunately, no one is trying to do this, because it is not a very
fruitful endeavor.

So does this mean we can't answer the question, "is man-made global warming
actually happening?" Of course not. We can use the rest of the world to answer
this question, and indeed we have done just that - temperature measurements
from most of the globe do indeed show a man-made signal that rises easily
above the natural background noise. This is especially robust in the deep ocean.

So in sum, Greenland is a place that is kind of unique in the globe, in that
it has an extraordinary amount of natural climate variability. But most of the
globe is not that way.

If someone asks a slightly different question, "Is the mass loss in Greenland
that we currently observe CAUSED by anthropogenic warming?", now that is
a harder question to answer. I would say, "very likely some of it is, but we can't be
sure that all of it is, in somewhat the same way that we can't be sure that any
particular hurricane is caused by humans". A useful analogy is that of baseball
players who take steroids. If a baseball slugger hits a home run, it is because
he was taking steroids? Well, sometimes he hits home runs even when he is
clean. So we can't conclude for sure that his home run was due to the juice.
But we can see it in the statistics. He hits twice as many home runs when he's
juicing, averaged over a year, and there is no doubt that this fact is because of steroids.

In the same way, we can say without doubt that in 85 years, we will be able
to say for sure that humans are causing the majority of the mass loss in Greenland.
(our paper says that in 2100 AD the signal will rise above the noise). This is
the power of statistics. But right now, there is a small possibility that some of
the current mass loss in Greenland has a natural origin.

Does this help?

Jeff

 

Edited April 10, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

  The whole world has experienced about a 1-1/2 degree C temperature rise over the last 50 or so years.

 

We won thanks to Dr Jeffrey P. Severinghaus's email message, he explained why skeptics cherry pick Greenland.  See post 663

Edited April 9, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[thesometimesaint]

While I rather be loved than right. If I can't be loved then I'll take being right. 

[ERayR]

We won thanks to Dr Jeffrey P. Severinghaus's email message, he explained why skeptics cherry pick Greenland.  See post 663

 

It has been my experience that self  proclaimed victories are dubious at best so don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.

[pogi]

It has been my experience that self  proclaimed victories are dubious at best so don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.

 

Especially when he thinks that I was arguing that greenland represents global temperatures. I was simply debunking his bogus graphs where some hack-job blogger tried to make it look like it is warmer in greenland then it has been in the last 10,000 years, when intact "the record indicates that warmer temperatures were the norm in the earlier part of the past 4000 years, including century‐long intervals nearly 1°C warmer than the present decade (2001– 2010)."  

 

But we will let Skeptic believe that he won.  Maybe that will shut him up. 

[TheSkepticChristian]

Especially when he thinks that I was arguing that greenland represents global temperatures.

 

You did say something like that previously, I am trying to find it. Either way, greenland is a special place, so the greenland graphs are irrelevant to the topic.  

 

 

 I was simply debunking his bogus graphs where some hack-job blogger tried to make it look like it is warmer in greenland then it has been in the last 10,000 years,

 

I did not say that greenland was never warmer, my graphs are about the entire Northern Hemisphere, not greenland alone. The other graphs are your graphs, not mine. Please read Severinghaus's e-mail, there is no controversy that man is warming the planet.

 

Kind of funny that your paper debunked the graphs you posted. 

 

 

But we will let Skeptic believe that he won.  Maybe that will shut him up. 

 

How is 95 BP the year 2010? LOL 

 

Edited April 10, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

It has been my experience that self  proclaimed victories are dubious at best so don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.

 

Pogi keeps misrepresenting what I am saying 

[ERayR]

Especially when he thinks that I was arguing that greenland represents global temperatures. I was simply debunking his bogus graphs where some hack-job blogger tried to make it look like it is warmer in greenland then it has been in the last 10,000 years, when intact "the record indicates that warmer temperatures were the norm in the earlier part of the past 4000 years, including century‐long intervals nearly 1°C warmer than the present decade (2001– 2010)."  

 

But we will let Skeptic believe that he won.  Maybe that will shut him up. 

 

One can only hope.

[ERayR]

Pogi keeps misrepresenting what I am saying 

 

You are soooo misunderstood.

[thesometimesaint]

Who ever said Greenland was the entire globe? Is Greenland melting? Yes. Is Greenland melting uniformly? No. What is worrying is that the rate, when averaged overall, the melting rate exceeds that rate of adding snow at the higher elevations.

[TheSkepticChristian]

While the chart might be for Antartica only.  The solar orbits which caused the peaks and valleys in Antartica would cause a world-wide effect, as Antartica does not orbit independent of the rest of the globe.  Follow the trend on that chart.  Which way is the temperature trending?  Clearly it has a strong trend downward

[TheSkepticChristian]

 Is Greenland melting? Yes. Is Greenland melting uniformly? No. What is worrying is that the rate, when averaged overall, the melting rate exceeds that rate of adding snow at the higher elevations.

 

Scientists are not completely sure that AGW is causing the melting (see post 663) because scientists don't jump to conclusions very quickly like pogi and ERayR. However, it is very likely that AGW is contributing to the melting.  

Edited April 10, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

You are soooo misunderstood.

 

When did I say that greenland was never warmer in the past? Pogi claims that I posted some graphs showing that.

 

ps Kobashi top graph shows that greenland was hot in 2010 

Edited April 10, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian