jkwilliams Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 No. John you make me laugh though. Right now the in thing is to have the government supplant your business. So, now you're saying that the Obama administration was supporting the Koch foundation's business interests by publishing a study that confirms the beliefs of people who want to put the Kochs out of business?
jkwilliams Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 I have looked at it. I know right now that there is not a very high chance (38%) that 1998 was the hottest year. And since then there has been no heating or warming. Do you dispute that? I'm not seeing anywhere in their data set that 1998 was the hottest year or that there has been no warming since. Can you point that out to me?
Zakuska Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 (edited) jkwilliams... ok So I went back and reread your article... a lot more carefully... they fell for the same Gorey trap a second time. The historic temperature pattern we observed has abrupt dips that match the emissions of known explosive volcanic eruptions; the particulates from such events reflect sunlight, make for beautiful sunsets and cool the earth’s surface for a few years. There are small, rapid variations attributable to El Niño and other ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream; because of such oscillations, the “flattening” of the recent temperature rise that some people claim is not, in our view, statistically significant. What has caused the gradual but systematic rise of two and a half degrees? We tried fitting the shape to simple math functions (exponentials, polynomials), to solar activity and even to rising functions like world population. By far the best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice. Of Course CO2 graph match the temperature the closest, Temperature LEADS CO2 levels. Everybody knows that. How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does. Adding methane, a second greenhouse gas, to our analysis doesn’t change the results. Moreover, our analysis does not depend on large, complex global climate models, the huge computer programs that are notorious for their hidden assumptions and adjustable parameters. Our result is based simply on the close agreement between the shape of the observed temperature rise and the known greenhouse gas increase. Thats the key... CAUSALITY. AS temperature warms up... of course green house gas levels are going to increase too as permafrost lands release their trapped Methane gases etc. etc. etc. But because there are more GHG in the air doesn't = causality. Edited August 6, 2015 by Zakuska
jkwilliams Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 (edited) jkwilliams... ok So I went back and reread your article... a lot more carefully... they fell for the same Gorey trap a second time. Of Course CO2 match the temperature the closest Temperature LEADS CO2 levels. Everybody knows that. Actually, they don't. See, for example, Shakun et al. 2012, who show that, although initial warming (caused by changes in the earth's orbit) increased CO2, the warming and the CO2 trigger each other in a feedback loop. The idea that either CO2 causes warming or warming causes CO2 is what we might call a false dichotomy. I must say I'm a little surprised that you have bought into this myth. Edited August 6, 2015 by jkwilliams
Zakuska Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 (edited) Actually, they don't. See, for example, Shakun et al. 2012. That study has issues: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/08/did-shakun-et-al-really-prove-that-co2-precede-late-glacial-warming-part-1/ Such as... Based on Models 80 different temperature proxies Are the 80 temperature proxies used in the paper sufficiently accurate to establish a solid global temperature chronology? Willis Eschenbach has made a detailed analysis of the data used to construct the global temperature curve in Figure 2 of Shakun et al.(see this in his web posting) He plotted individual curves for each of the 80 temperature proxies used to create Figure 2 in the Shakun et al. paper. What he found was large variability in the data, which led him to conclude that “The variety in the shapes of these graphs is quite surprising Yes, they’re all vaguely alike, but that’s about all. The main curiosity about these, other than the wide variety of amounts of warming, is the different timing of the warming.” When he ploted all the individual proxies all together (see below), the scatter is readily apparent, leading him to conclude: “It’s clear that there is warming since the last ice age.” “But if you want to make the claim that CO2 precedes the warming? I fear that this set of proxies is perfectly useless for that. How on earth could you claim anything about the timing of the warming from this group of proxies? It’s all over the map.” http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/willis-temp-data-shakun2012-proxies-26000.jpg?w=612&h=635 Edited August 6, 2015 by Zakuska
jkwilliams Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 That study has issues: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/08/did-shakun-et-al-really-prove-that-co2-precede-late-glacial-warming-part-1/ Such as... Based on Models 80 different temperature proxies Well, if a climate-change denial blog says so, who am I to argue?
jkwilliams Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 jkwilliams... ok So I went back and reread your article... a lot more carefully... they fell for the same Gorey trap a second time. Of Course CO2 graph match the temperature the closest, Temperature LEADS CO2 levels. Everybody knows that. Thats the key... CAUSALITY. AS temperature warms up... of course green house gas levels are going to increase too as permafrost lands release their trapped Methane gases etc. etc. etc. But because there are more GHG in the air doesn't = causality. That study has issues: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/08/did-shakun-et-al-really-prove-that-co2-precede-late-glacial-warming-part-1/ Such as... Based on Models 80 different temperature proxies Are the 80 temperature proxies used in the paper sufficiently accurate to establish a solid global temperature chronology? Willis Eschenbach has made a detailed analysis of the data used to construct the global temperature curve in Figure 2 of Shakun et al.(see this in his web posting) He plotted individual curves for each of the 80 temperature proxies used to create Figure 2 in the Shakun et al. paper. What he found was large variability in the data, which led him to conclude that “The variety in the shapes of these graphs is quite surprising Yes, they’re all vaguely alike, but that’s about all. The main curiosity about these, other than the wide variety of amounts of warming, is the different timing of the warming.” When he ploted all the individual proxies all together (see below), the scatter is readily apparent, leading him to conclude: “It’s clear that there is warming since the last ice age.” “But if you want to make the claim that CO2 precedes the warming? I fear that this set of proxies is perfectly useless for that. How on earth could you claim anything about the timing of the warming from this group of proxies? It’s all over the map.” http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/willis-temp-data-shakun2012-proxies-26000.jpg?w=612&h=635 Yeah, Easterbrook and Eschenbach don't exactly have a great track record.
jkwilliams Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 Zak, I know you believe passionately in this stuff, but all you've been doing is repeating some easily debunked myths. I'll save you some time. http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
TheSkepticChristian Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 (edited) That study has issues Dude, I proved that 1. your wikipedia list is flawed (it includes Tim Ball)2. your senate report is flawed3. your blog is flawed You say nothing and you change the subject. I wonder if you really believe the stuff you are saying. the correct answer is always the government which funds crony capitalism. Almost all climate researchers agree with the basics of GW theory, climate researchers from the USA , China, Africa, you name it. Climate researchers working for academia, business, government, and even non-profit organizations. Just because your scientists simply follow big money, doesn't mean that all of them only care about the money. But if you want to make the claim that CO2 precedes the warming? I fear that this set of proxies is perfectly useless for that. CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming. In fact, about 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming. Yeah and those models predicted 18 years of non heating? Please read what I told you in post 184 Well, if a climate-change denial blog says so, who am I to argue? and he thinks it is better than the scientific literature. Bytheway, here are other blogs that disprove the claims of whatsupwiththat https://wottsupwiththatblog.wordpress.com/http://wottsupwiththat.com/ Edited August 6, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
thesometimesaint Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 Anthony Watts is a known liar.SEE Here is about Willard Anthony Wattshttp://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Anthony_Watts
pogi Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 Zak, I know you believe passionately in this stuff, but all you've been doing is repeating some easily debunked myths. I'll save you some time. http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php Well, if a global warming blog says so, who am I to argue? 1
thesometimesaint Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 CO2 was established as a Greenhouse Gas long before Blogs existed.
pogi Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 Anthony Watts is a known liar. NASA and NOAA intentionally mislead and deceive the public, aka liars.
thesometimesaint Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 NASA and NOAA intentionally mislead and deceive the public, aka liars. CFR
pogi Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 CO2 was established as a Greenhouse Gas long before Blogs existed. No one denies that it is a Greenhouse Gas.
pogi Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 (edited) CFR 2014 - need I say more? NASA only had a 38% confidence level that 2014 was the warmest year. Strange, considering they had all of the data sitting in front of them from 1880 to present. If I can't trust their assessment of current global temperatures, how am I supposed to have confidence in their future predictions and models? In other words, it was more unlikely than likely the hottest year on record, yet NASA reported boldly and confidently to the media that "2014 was the warmest year on record". Edited August 7, 2015 by pogi 1
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 2014 - need I say more? NASA only had a 38% confidence level that 2014 was the warmest year. In others it was more unlikely than likely the hottest year on record, yet NASA reported boldly and confidently to the media that "2014 was the warmest year on record". I got it wrong. I thought that 1998 had only a 4% change and that 2014 was 38%. Or 2014 had a 34% greater chance over 1998 of being the warmest. What did I say that 1998 only had a 38% chance of being the warmest? I guess I should go back and read what I wrote.
jkwilliams Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 Well, if a global warming blog says so, who am I to argue? Well, I don't know about you, but I like to look at all sides of an argument.
Zakuska Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 (edited) Zak, I know you believe passionately in this stuff, but all you've been doing is repeating some easily debunked myths. I'll save you some time. http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.phpLet me get this straight... 1. You link a scientific study.2. I Link a Critique of that study written by a Man with a PHd.3. And you link back with a website written by a non-academically accredited Cartoonist who dreams of being a Nazi?! John Cook the Cartoonist and wannabe Nazi. Isn't a credible source. At least my source holds Academic accreditation in something. At least try to and engage... Edited August 7, 2015 by Zakuska
jkwilliams Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 Let me get this straight... 1. You link a scientific study.2. I Link a Critique of that study written by a Man with a PHd.3. And you link back with a website written by a non-academically accredited Cartoonist who dreams of being a Nazi?! At least try to and engage... John Cook the Cartoonist and wannabe Nazi. Isn't a credible source. So, your lying weatherman outranks my cartoonist Nazi? Is that what you're saying?
Zakuska Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 (edited) Anthony Watts is a known liar.SEE Here is about Willard Anthony Wattshttp://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Anthony_Watts Good thing that Anthony Watts wasn't the Author of the Article I linked then huh?! Edited August 7, 2015 by Zakuska
Zakuska Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 (edited) So, your lying weatherman outranks my cartoonist Nazi? Is that what you're saying?No Im saying that the study you sited was based on computer models and a chart of 80 that looks like a shotgun blast. Temperature and CO2 are intertwined Even your source admits that in their own chart. PS. Im the one relying on people with PHd's, your the one relying on the Sunday funnies for your information Edited August 7, 2015 by Zakuska
jkwilliams Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 No Im saying that the study you sited was based on computer models and a chart of 80 that looks like a shotgun blast. Temperature and CO2 are intertwined up until the beginning of the holocene. Even your source admits that in their own chart. Here's the bottom line for me. I tend to think global warming isn't as catastrophic as some believe, but I don't see any reason to deny that it's happening and at least partly human-caused. The tactics of folks like Watts don't seem to be presenting any real science, just trying to cast doubt on the science (IMO, it's eerily similar to how the tobacco industry responded to cancer studies in the 1950s). Show me some reasonable science as to what you think is happening and why, and I'll listen. I'm not seeing that from your "side." Honestly, I don't understand how this became such a loaded political argument or how it became a sort of mantra of conservatism, especially since I am a conservative Republican.
Zakuska Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 (edited) Here's the bottom line for me. I tend to think global warming isn't as catastrophic as some believe, but I don't see any reason to deny that it's happening and at least partly human-caused. The tactics of folks like Watts don't seem to be presenting any real science, just trying to cast doubt on the science (IMO, it's eerily similar to how the tobacco industry responded to cancer studies in the 1950s). Show me some reasonable science as to what you think is happening and why, and I'll listen. I'm not seeing that from your "side." Honestly, I don't understand how this became such a loaded political argument or how it became a sort of mantra of conservatism, especially since I am a conservative Republican. I don't deny that it's happening. Its a Given. we aren't currently in a ice age so of course its warmed up since the little ice age. Even your chart from the study you linked shows CO2 levels lagging the temperature rise by 200-1400 years. https://www.google.com/search?q=co2+levels+lag+temperature+images&espv=2&biw=1457&bih=848&tbm=isch&imgil=MT3kMsoSlcGL3M%253A%253BsD8g5_NF0TWzqM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.skepticalscience.com%25252Fco2-lags-temperature.htm&source=iu&pf=m&fir=MT3kMsoSlcGL3M%253A%252CsD8g5_NF0TWzqM%252C_&usg=__T7eWhx6XnfgiWz69CMOakux0BrI%3D&ved=0CDEQyjdqFQoTCJP9iafTl8cCFQYQkgodbxIMLg&ei=lf_EVdPeDIagyATvpLDwAg#imgrc=MT3kMsoSlcGL3M%3A&usg=__T7eWhx6XnfgiWz69CMOakux0BrI%3D Edited August 7, 2015 by Zakuska
jkwilliams Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 I don't deny that it's happening. Its a Given. we aren't currently in a ice age so of course its warmed up since the little ice age. Even your chart from the study you linked shows CO2 levels lagging the temperature rise by 200-1400 years. https://www.google.com/search?q=co2+levels+lag+temperature+images&espv=2&biw=1457&bih=848&tbm=isch&imgil=MT3kMsoSlcGL3M%253A%253BsD8g5_NF0TWzqM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.skepticalscience.com%25252Fco2-lags-temperature.htm&source=iu&pf=m&fir=MT3kMsoSlcGL3M%253A%252CsD8g5_NF0TWzqM%252C_&usg=__T7eWhx6XnfgiWz69CMOakux0BrI%3D&ved=0CDEQyjdqFQoTCJP9iafTl8cCFQYQkgodbxIMLg&ei=lf_EVdPeDIagyATvpLDwAg#imgrc=ID_4rtd8vEGyrM%3A&usg=__T7eWhx6XnfgiWz69CMOakux0BrI%3D Actually it shows that it both leads and lags in a sort of feedback loop, if you look at the chart and the study.
Recommended Posts