Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Change?"

[Coydog]

Many of the government sponsored "scientists" aren't going to have funding/jobs in another month. It will be interesting to see how this will effect the numbers. Three years of increasing record warmth doesn't pass the smell test.

The "scientists" who run the UAH satellite data feed are sponsored by NASA but remain climate change skeptics. This despite what their own data shows - 9 of the 10 hottest years occurred this century, 9 of the 10 coldest occurred last century. How ironic would it be if Trump reduces climate change research for NASA and these guys lose their funding?

[freeski]

What year did thermometers become accurate enough to consistently measure small changes to prove anything? Are you going back 200 years?

[Mister Moose]

Many of the government sponsored "scientists" aren't going to have funding/jobs in another month. It will be interesting to see how this will effect the numbers. Three years of increasing record warmth doesn't pass the smell test.

The "scientists" who run the UAH satellite data feed are sponsored by NASA but remain climate change skeptics. This despite what their own data shows - 9 of the 10 hottest years occurred this century, 9 of the 10 coldest occurred last century. How ironic would it be if Trump reduces climate change research for NASA and these guys lose their funding?

I can get three in a row just flipping a coin. 9 out of 10 is unlikely but doesn't mean the laws of physics have suddenly changed. A few years record warmth¹ this century vs a few years of record cold last century is but a blip on a planetary time scale. We also saw periods of record drought, r*in, wind, every weather phenomenon imaginable. By very definition, peaks and valleys will occur in any natural occurring data set. So the existence of peaks and valleys over a short period of time as a qualifier impresses me little.

The same questions remain: How much warming is man made? How much is terrestrial? Are the models sufficiently accurate? Will cap and trade work or be just a boondoggle for emerging economies?

I had to sigh when I heard a question on the news from the confirmation hearings something like "Do you believe in climate change?" Our politicians have reduced this issue to a belief. That can't be good.

I would guess that NYC is a hotbed of climate change activists. It is one of the biggest metro areas under the biggest threat of ocean levels rising. Yet nowhere is any sea wall being built or pumping station being designed or moratorium on new building being enacted. The issue gets great press but little actual action. Anyone care to explain the intersection of perceived threat with no mitigation? Could it be they aren't really convinced?

Fund continued research. Settle down. Nostradamus has been predicting the end for quite some time now.


¹Which time period did this 'record warmth' occur in? Just the last 100 years?

[madhatter]

Many of the government sponsored "scientists" aren't going to have funding/jobs in another month. It will be interesting to see how this will effect the numbers. Three years of increasing record warmth doesn't pass the smell test.

The "scientists" who run the UAH satellite data feed are sponsored by NASA but remain climate change skeptics. This despite what their own data shows - 9 of the 10 hottest years occurred this century, 9 of the 10 coldest occurred last century. How ironic would it be if Trump reduces climate change research for NASA and these guys lose their funding?

not sure that's part of their duties according to this...

[freeski]

Many of the government sponsored "scientists" aren't going to have funding/jobs in another month. It will be interesting to see how this will effect the numbers. Three years of increasing record warmth doesn't pass the smell test.

The "scientists" who run the UAH satellite data feed are sponsored by NASA but remain climate change skeptics. This despite what their own data shows - 9 of the 10 hottest years occurred this century, 9 of the 10 coldest occurred last century. How ironic would it be if Trump reduces climate change research for NASA and these guys lose their funding?

not sure that's part of their duties according to this...

[Coydog]

I can get three in a row just flipping a coin. This is about as insightful regarding climate change as stating you can’t get three in a row if you flip the coin less than three times 9 out of 10 is unlikely but doesn't mean the laws of physics have suddenly changed. A few years record warmth¹ this century vs a few years of record cold last century is but a blip on a planetary time scale. Everything human is but a blip on that scale, why worry about anything? We also saw periods of record drought, r*in, wind, every weather phenomenon imaginable. Often exacerbated by climate change By very definition, peaks and valleys will occur in any natural occurring data set. So the existence of peaks and valleys over a short period of time as a qualifier impresses me little. And this is why climate scientists perform regression analysis to tease out the long term trend and the trend is pretty much steadily up. Funny enough, the deniers were more than happy to cherry pick some particular peaks and valleys to make their "hiatus" claim. But that’s gone now, melted away like an Antarctic ice shelf.

Equivicate all you want, but no one can produce a single credible data set that does not show a contemporary warming trend on land or sea. It's getting hotter, whether one believes it or not.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

Here's a fantastic response to anyone who is impressed by the nonsensical claims that "the world is getting hotter every year!" https://stream.org/hottest-yeah-evah-really/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One of the key ideas: how do they decide that 2016 was 0.07 degrees hotter than 2015???? Or more importantly....how do they produce a single metric to establish that comparison?? Understanding their answer brings you to realize how nonsensical the whole enterprise is. If the idea that 2016 was 0.07 degrees warmer than 2015 (+/- 0.1 degrees....!!!!!) makes sense to you.... any sane human ask wtf?? Is this supposed to be science?

Lots a very cold climate anomalies around the world lately... I know it's just "weather" but some damn cold snowy weather...that's the strange thing about global warming....it can get really dams cold.

Best damn theory ever! You simply cannot prove it wrong!

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

I can get three in a row just flipping a coin. This is about as insightful regarding climate change as stating you can’t get three in a row if you flip the coin less than three times 9 out of 10 is unlikely but doesn't mean the laws of physics have suddenly changed. A few years record warmth¹ this century vs a few years of record cold last century is but a blip on a planetary time scale. Everything human is but a blip on that scale, why worry about anything? We also saw periods of record drought, r*in, wind, every weather phenomenon imaginable. Often exacerbated by climate change By very definition, peaks and valleys will occur in any natural occurring data set. So the existence of peaks and valleys over a short period of time as a qualifier impresses me little. And this is why climate scientists perform regression analysis to tease out the long term trend and the trend is pretty much steadily up. Funny enough, the deniers were more than happy to cherry pick some particular peaks and valleys to make their "hiatus" claim. But that’s gone now, melted away like an Antarctic ice shelf.

Equivicate all you want, but no one can produce a single credible data set that does not show a contemporary warming trend on land or sea. It's getting hotter, whether one believes it or not.

...and the "hiatus " is back again according to satellite data:

detrend_200-1-11-17.png (4.56 KiB) Viewed 579 times

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

And a classic post to show clear evidence of data tampering: https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/dat ... ushcngiss/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

These people are destroying science.

Rumors say that Will Happer (I've posted links to him) , the Princeton Emeritus physicist, has been brought in to advise Trump. If this is true the careers of the activists charlatans (like those who harassed Judith Curry) may soon be ending. Just hoping that ALL climate narratives (like Svensmark) are allowed a fair hearing in the new administration!!

[Mister Moose]

I can get three in a row just flipping a coin. This is about as insightful regarding climate change as stating you can’t get three in a row if you flip the coin less than three times I'm just pointing out that 3 events in sequence while indicative is a long ways from determinative. Not sure if you got that or just dismissed it. 9 out of 10 is unlikely but doesn't mean the laws of physics have suddenly changed. A few years record warmth¹ this century vs a few years of record cold last century is but a blip on a planetary time scale. Everything human is but a blip on that scale, why worry about anything? Again, a few anomalies per century are indicative, not determinative We also saw periods of record drought, r*in, wind, every weather phenomenon imaginable. Often exacerbated by climate change Every weather event is exacerbated by climate change? Often is sorta imprecise. If often, how often and which ones? By very definition, peaks and valleys will occur in any natural occurring data set. So the existence of peaks and valleys over a short period of time as a qualifier impresses me little. And this is why climate scientists perform regression analysis to tease out the long term trend and the trend is pretty much steadily up. Here we agree.

Equivicate all you want, but no one can produce a single credible data set that does not show a contemporary warming trend on land or sea. It's getting hotter, whether one believes it or not.

You didn't address these questions: How much warming is man made? How much is terrestrial? Are the models sufficiently accurate? Will cap and trade work or be just a boondoggle for emerging economies? Why is NYC not taking any steps to mitigate rising ocean levels?

[Bubba]

I can get three in a row just flipping a coin. This is about as insightful regarding climate change as stating you can’t get three in a row if you flip the coin less than three times I'm just pointing out that 3 events in sequence while indicative is a long ways from determinative. Not sure if you got that or just dismissed it. 9 out of 10 is unlikely but doesn't mean the laws of physics have suddenly changed. A few years record warmth¹ this century vs a few years of record cold last century is but a blip on a planetary time scale. Everything human is but a blip on that scale, why worry about anything? Again, a few anomalies per century are indicative, not determinative We also saw periods of record drought, r*in, wind, every weather phenomenon imaginable. Often exacerbated by climate change Every weather event is exacerbated by climate change? Often is sorta imprecise. If often, how often and which ones? By very definition, peaks and valleys will occur in any natural occurring data set. So the existence of peaks and valleys over a short period of time as a qualifier impresses me little. And this is why climate scientists perform regression analysis to tease out the long term trend and the trend is pretty much steadily up. Here we agree.

Equivicate all you want, but no one can produce a single credible data set that does not show a contemporary warming trend on land or sea. It's getting hotter, whether one believes it or not.

You didn't address these questions: How much warming is man made? How much is terrestrial? Are the models sufficiently accurate? Will cap and trade work or be just a boondoggle for emerging economies? Why is NYC not taking any steps to mitigate rising ocean levels?

One more question: if some climate change/warming is natural, what is the cause?

[Streamtracker]

Here's a fantastic response to anyone who is impressed by the nonsensical claims that "the world is getting hotter every year!" https://stream.org/hottest-yeah-evah-really/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One of the key ideas: how do they decide that 2016 was 0.07 degrees hotter than 2015???? Or more importantly....how do they produce a single metric to establish that comparison?? Understanding their answer brings you to realize how nonsensical the whole enterprise is. If the idea that 2016 was 0.07 degrees warmer than 2015 (+/- 0.1 degrees....!!!!!) makes sense to you.... any sane human ask wtf?? Is this supposed to be science?

Lots a very cold climate anomalies around the world lately... I know it's just "weather" but some damn cold snowy weather...that's the strange thing about global warming....it can get really dams cold.

Best damn theory ever! You simply cannot prove it wrong!

This is funny! The Sgt. has a habit of posting links that easily point to the refutation of his comments.

Briggs, the author of the post that the Sgt links to, argues that climate scientists should be using predictive uncertainty and not parametric uncertainty when building their temperature trend models. (Statisticians could argue back and forth all day.) I then dug through some of Briggs other posts and found him praising Muller, a physicist who was a climate change skeptic who believed the same and didn't think climate scientists were getting it right. That their methods were poor and biased. Muller sounds a lot like the Sgt.

So Muller gets funding from the conservative Koch brothers (among others) to reanalyze the datasets using what he believed were superior statistical methods. He sets up the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project (BEST) and gets some top notch statisticians to work with him.

What does he find? That the other four groups doing analyses got it right. That his results and the other groups results are almost the same and they find the same overall pattern of warming and accelerated warming over the last 40 years. He also goes on to say that the only plausible explanation is an increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere - he rules out the sun, and other factors.

In an Op Ed in the Wall St Journal he writes "When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections. Global warming is real."

Here is an interview of him explaining his work and his conversion from a skeptic to someone who accepts the vast body of work that supports the idea that the planet is warming and CO2 is the primary driver. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sme8WQ4Wb5w" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I dare the Sgt. to watch it from start to finish.

Here's a more technical treatment - http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To clear up some other misleading points the Sgt. made.

Regarding year-to-year uncertainty - scientists have not said that 2016 is definitely warmer than 2015 - one group GIS says 95% probability and NASA says about 65%. The press often get the details wrong and overstates things. But the pattern is clear - a warming planet with accelerated warming over the last 40 years. And to be clear, Briggs article linked to by the Sgt. does not say that the planet is not warming, he is saying that we can not be 100% certain one year is warmer than the next - the same thing that climate scientists say and the press often misrepresents as certainty. It's a basic fact of statistics that we can have a higher certainty in a trend then we can in the differences among points that make up the trend.

Sgt. mentions cold anomalies - climate scientists have never said cold anomalies would suddenly disappear. What has happened is that over the last 40 years or so we have gone from about 50:50 cold/hot anomalies, to having over 10x more hot anomalies. The current cold anomalies are due to unusual dips in the jet stream likely driven by the odd behavior of the polar vortex over the last few years. It should also be noted that the cold anomalies to the south of the arctic are surpassed by the warm anomalies in the arctic where it has been up to 40F hotter than usual for the time of year.

We can also see the effects of the wild behavior of the jet stream at Killington, where we have seen swings from temps in the 40's to 50's down to the teens in 24 hours - that's the Jet stream at work. It is not unusual to have such intense swings, it is very usual to have so many in one season.

Muller is skeptic and not a denialist - he doesn't simply naysay the way the Sgt. does, he rolls up his sleeves and does the work.

The story of Muller's skepticism is a staple of my lectures to 700 undergraduates each year - a great lesson in what being skeptical as a scientist really means.

When we have is a situation were five independent groups of scientists all find the same basic pattern. The likelihood that they all got it wrong is very very vey near zero. Persisting that there is no warming in the face of overwhelming evidence is denial.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

Here's a fantastic response to anyone who is impressed by the nonsensical claims that "the world is getting hotter every year!" https://stream.org/hottest-yeah-evah-really/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One of the key ideas: how do they decide that 2016 was 0.07 degrees hotter than 2015???? Or more importantly....how do they produce a single metric to establish that comparison?? Understanding their answer brings you to realize how nonsensical the whole enterprise is. If the idea that 2016 was 0.07 degrees warmer than 2015 (+/- 0.1 degrees....!!!!!) makes sense to you.... any sane human ask wtf?? Is this supposed to be science?

Lots a very cold climate anomalies around the world lately... I know it's just "weather" but some damn cold snowy weather...that's the strange thing about global warming....it can get really dams cold.

Best damn theory ever! You simply cannot prove it wrong!

This is funny! The Sgt. has a habit of posting links that easily point to the refutation of his comments.

Briggs, the author of the post that the Sgt links to, argues that climate scientists should be using predictive uncertainty and not parametric uncertainty when building their temperature trend models. (Statisticians could argue back and forth all day.) I then dug through some of Briggs other posts and found him praising Muller, a physicist who was a climate change skeptic who believed the same and didn't think climate scientists were getting it right. That their methods were poor and biased. Muller sounds a lot like the Sgt.

So Muller gets funding from the conservative Koch brothers (among others) to reanalyze the datasets using what he believed were superior statistical methods. He sets up the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project (BEST) and gets some top notch statisticians to work with him.

What does he find? That the other four groups doing analyses got it right. That his results and the other groups results are almost the same and they find the same overall pattern of warming and accelerated warming over the last 40 years. He also goes on to say that the only plausible explanation is an increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere - he rules out the sun, and other factors.

In an Op Ed in the Wall St Journal he writes "When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections. Global warming is real."

Here is an interview of him explaining his work and his conversion from a skeptic to someone who accepts the vast body of work that supports the idea that the planet is warming and CO2 is the primary driver. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sme8WQ4Wb5w" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I dare the Sgt. to watch it from start to finish.

Here's a more technical treatment - http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To clear up some other misleading points the Sgt. made.

Regarding year-to-year uncertainty - scientists have not said that 2016 is definitely warmer than 2015 - one group GIS says 95% probability and NASA says about 65%. The press often get the details wrong and overstates things. But the pattern is clear - a warming planet with accelerated warming over the last 40 years. And to be clear, Briggs article linked to by the Sgt. does not say that the planet is not warming, he is saying that we can not be 100% certain one year is warmer than the next - the same thing that climate scientists say and the press often misrepresents as certainty. It's a basic fact of statistics that we can have a higher certainty in a trend then we can in the differences among points that make up the trend.

Sgt. mentions cold anomalies - climate scientists have never said cold anomalies would suddenly disappear. What has happened is that over the last 40 years or so we have gone from about 50:50 cold/hot anomalies, to having over 10x more hot anomalies. The current cold anomalies are due to unusual dips in the jet stream likely driven by the odd behavior of the polar vortex over the last few years. It should also be noted that the cold anomalies to the south of the arctic are surpassed by the warm anomalies in the arctic where it has been up to 40F hotter than usual for the time of year.

We can also see the effects of the wild behavior of the jet stream at Killington, where we have seen swings from temps in the 40's to 50's down to the teens in 24 hours - that's the Jet stream at work. It is not unusual to have such intense swings, it is very usual to have so many in one season.

Muller is skeptic and not a denialist - he doesn't simply naysay the way the Sgt. does, he rolls up his sleeves and does the work.

The story of Muller's skepticism is a staple of my lectures to 700 undergraduates each year - a great lesson in what being skeptical as a scientist really means.

When we have is a situation were five independent groups of scientists all find the same basic pattern. The likelihood that they all got it wrong is very very vey near zero. Persisting that there is no warming in the face of overwhelming evidence is denial.

Let me stop laughing long enough to shed some honest tears...you honestly are teaching this horsecr@p to 700 undergrads a year?? The reports of the shear madness which has infiltrated our colleges is surely not exaggerated. I hope you have not rendered them irrecoverably stupid!

Your level of stupid is just epic.

Where to start? Well how about the last sentence?

You say:
"Persisting that there is no warming in the face of overwhelming evidence is denial."

Are really that stupid? I have always allowed that there may still be some slight warming occurring because... it has been warming since the end of the little ice age...and perhaps the MAJORITY of that warming cannot be due to "anthropogenic CO2" because that only became significant after 1940.

The issue, which so many posters have made clear on this thread, yet you still don't get...is ATTRIBUTION of the cause of the warming.

How do we know what percent of the slight modern warming is anthropogenic? We don't.

Muller is a classic activist that somehow PRETENDS he was once a skeptic. He had no authentic history in the skeptic community and his pronouncements as a CONVERT to the consensus betray his fraud. He says he was skeptical...so he investigated..and found he now supports the consensus!!

Wonderful narrative but... he does these dramatic press conferences to draw drama to his story and announces he's "no longer a skeptic because his analysis shows that warming exists!!"

Well...news flash...the issue is not whether some warming has occurred over the last century (half of which cannot be due to CO2)...few question that...but the issue is ATTRIBUTION (which the bright foks on this thread figured out a long time ago. Muller makes no particular claims re attribution. So your whole narrative is nonsense.

You just don't get it do you? And you teach?

The idea that all five global climate metrics agree about climate dynamics tell me you aren't looking very closely. The divergence between the satellite metrics and the other sets is significant.

And at the top of the post you suggest the William Briggs admires Muller!!!

Are you mentally challenged??

Briggs has the same opinion about Muller that I do. I was deeply into climate issues back when Muller pulled his press stunts ans started BEST. Here are two posts where Briggs MOCKS Muller:

http://wmbriggs.com/post/5946/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Briggs says:" Muller says, as people in his position have long been saying, that he himself, a one-time skeptic, a veritable prodigal son, has settled “the scientific debate.” The fallacy he makes is to say to himself, “I do not know of any flaws in my work, therefore there are none.” Common enough in academia."

and again:

http://wmbriggs.com/post/4525/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"From that he insists, “you should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer.” Somebody has to remind Mr Muller that skeptics aren’t skeptical of that some warming (and some cooling) has occurred. We are skeptics about our ability to explain this warming (and cooling), and to predict skillfully future warming (and cooling)"

Is English not your first language?...cause that would help explain some of this....

Thank you for your amusing post...all funny.... except I guess that I believe you aren't lying about the teaching gig....and that makes me really sad.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

And....to prove my point (that your Muller lectures are nonsense you are inflicting on innocent humans..)

http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/0 ... uller.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"I was never a skeptic [...] I never felt that pointing out mistakes qualified me to be called a climate skeptic."
- Richard Muller, 2011

and the article has lots of LINKS to the actual papers where Muller makes these statements.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

And another quote from Muller, the guy that ST tries to confuse undergrads about...claiming he was a SKEPTIC...well here is a quote from back when he was a skeptic:

"Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate." - Richard Muller, 2003

For you neutrals...does that sound like a skeptic that could later have a dramatic conversion and now believe in the consensus? Like ST claims?

Or is ST a moron who believes MSM narratives that are easily debunked with a minimum of common sense and effort?

ST:"Muller was a skeptic who converted!! This proves the consensus theory that human use of hydrocarbons will soon destroy the planet!!"

Sad...just sad.