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

[Nikoli]

I like alternative facts. This way I just make it up to suite my needs

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

suit not suite....and not sure what is imputed here.....I do not use "alternate facts"...the concept is a shallow effort at snarkiness from modern progressives....

Virtually every point I have made was accompanied by links to support the claim.

if you are suggesting ST supports his claims with "creative interpretations of reality"...alternate facts...then you are indeed perceptive and I agree with you.

[Streamtracker]

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.

Just about what I expected from the Sgt. A vicious personal attack.

"ou honestly are teaching this horsecr@p to 700 undergrads a year??"
"Your level of stupid is just epic."
"Are really that stupid?"
"You just don't get it do you? And you teach? "
"Are you mentally challenged??"
"s English not your first language?...cause that would help explain some of this...."

He also personally attacks Muller by quoting Briigs "“I do not know of any flaws in my work, therefore there are none.” Common enough in academia." If you actually read Mullers work, you will find he reports about the uncertainties in his estimates. I can see why the Sgt. likes Briggs. They both use personal attacks on the scientists and academia.

The Sgt. also moves the goal posts. His post that I was replying to was about the temp record, and my response focused on that. At some other point I will gladly write about attribution.

Why would someone have to resort to such pointed personal attacks? Perhaps because they do not fully understand the science and therefore do not have a good scientific argument.

Back to the science.

The Sgt. states "The divergence between the satellite metrics and the other sets is significant." Yes, it is! Perhaps the issue is not with the surface measurements, but some issue with the satellites?

Sgt. does not seem understand the satellite data since he thinks you can make a direct comparison between it and the surface measurements. One issue is that the satellite data for the lower troposphere takes a wide band of altitude, not just a measure of what's happening at the surface. So, there is no expectation that there would be a close match. But that alone does not explain the divergence and is not the most significant issue.

From the link below: "The satellite [temperature] data ... were obtained from so-called Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs), which measure the microwave emissions of oxygen molecules from broad atmospheric layers. Converting this information to estimates of temperature trends has substantial uncertainties."

So, satellites do not actually measure temperature directly as surface thermometers do. You need a complicated model with lots of uncertainty to convert from microwave emissions to temperature. Satellite data has far greater uncertainty that requires all sort of corrections. See attached graph and the link with references within.

If I told you that thermometers at the surface were five times as uncertain as satellites, you would of course reasonably have higher confidence in the satellite data. However, the opposite is true - the satellite data is five times as uncertain as the surface measurements. Yet the Sgt. keeps going back to it as if it were some gold standard. Like he said "that makes me really sad".

https://skepticalscience.com/Satellite- ... meters.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Bubba]

A couple of serious questions: How much of the warming we have seen is natural and what is the cause?

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

Just about what I expected from the Sgt. A vicious personal attack.

"ou honestly are teaching this horsecr@p to 700 undergrads a year??"
"Your level of stupid is just epic."
"Are really that stupid?"
"You just don't get it do you? And you teach? "
"Are you mentally challenged??"
"s English not your first language?...cause that would help explain some of this...."

He also personally attacks Muller by quoting Briigs "“I do not know of any flaws in my work, therefore there are none.” Common enough in academia." If you actually read Mullers work, you will find he reports about the uncertainties in his estimates. I can see why the Sgt. likes Briggs. They both use personal attacks on the scientists and academia.

The Sgt. also moves the goal posts. His post that I was replying to was about the temp record, and my response focused on that. At some other point I will gladly write about attribution.

Why would someone have to resort to such pointed personal attacks? Perhaps because they do not fully understand the science and therefore do not have a good scientific argument.

Back to the science.

The Sgt. states "The divergence between the satellite metrics and the other sets is significant." Yes, it is! Perhaps the issue is not with the surface measurements, but some issue with the satellites?

Sgt. does not seem understand the satellite data since he thinks you can make a direct comparison between it and the surface measurements. One issue is that the satellite data for the lower troposphere takes a wide band of altitude, not just a measure of what's happening at the surface. So, there is no expectation that there would be a close match. But that alone does not explain the divergence and is not the most significant issue.

From the link below: "The satellite [temperature] data ... were obtained from so-called Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs), which measure the microwave emissions of oxygen molecules from broad atmospheric layers. Converting this information to estimates of temperature trends has substantial uncertainties."

So, satellites do not actually measure temperature directly as surface thermometers do. You need a complicated model with lots of uncertainty to convert from microwave emissions to temperature. Satellite data has far greater uncertainty that requires all sort of corrections. See attached graph and the link with references within.

If I told you that thermometers at the surface were five times as uncertain as satellites, you would of course reasonably have higher confidence in the satellite data. However, the opposite is true - the satellite data is five times as uncertain as the surface measurements. Yet the Sgt. keeps going back to it as if it were some gold standard. Like he said "that makes me really sad".

https://skepticalscience.com/Satellite- ... meters.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Again funny stuff. Thanks

It has recently occurred to me that you spend all your time dredging the nonsense posted at Skeptical Science.com thinking that although you don't really understand the arguments it must be right because they agree with the consensus. Your point about the reliability of the satellite data vs surface record is utter nonsense. The satellite data has comprehensive global coverage whereas the surface metric has MASSIVE gaps which are infilled with algorithms produced by activists.

Here is the NOAA temp anomaly map as published using 1200km interpolation to infill for the data THEY HAVE NO DATA ON. Notice how warm the arctic is.

2016-giss-1200km-interpolation.png (120 KiB) Viewed 706 times

Now look at the ACTUAL DATA they have (where they limit the infill between data to 250km) All the grey is the area they don't have ACTUAL DATA for...take a look at the arctic...they have no data there>

2016-giss-250km-interpolation.png (132.69 KiB) Viewed 706 times

so when they infill the areas with NO ACTUAL DATA how does it look? Boy the HOTTEST PART OT THE MAP IS WHERE THEY HAVE NO ACTUAL DATA.

Think what this means about the integrity of their product. NOAA scientists are appointed through the logic of politics...these guys are activists with some background training in science...they are not real scientists because their actions betray the bias that no real scientist would countenance.

Done for tonight....

[Streamtracker]

A couple of serious questions: How much of the warming we have seen is natural and what is the cause?

Do not have time to go into detail or give this a good edit. First you need to specify a time period. Since about 1900, 10% of the warming has been due to changes in solar output. During approximately the last 35 years of more rapid warming, the solar output has declined slightly. So, it can not explain the warming.

If you look at the record from year to year, the ups and downs of the ascending record, the dips are typically due to volcanic activity and peaks are typically due to the oceans dumping heat into the atmosphere (El Nino/La Nina cycle). Looking closely at the record the trend is for El Nino year peaks to be higher and higher on average. That's because the El Nino is riding on top of the overall warming trend. Typically after strong El Nino years we expect a few years were the temperature declines and then resumes an upward climb.

Please note that the cycle does not contribute to overall warming since it is simply shifting heat around that has already been captured in the ocean - that increased heating of the ocean is primarily caused by green house gases (CO2, methane, etc.)

The graph shows the pattern of overall warming since 1965 and the influence of the ENSO cycle (El Nino, La Nina cycle) and major volcanic eruptions.

[Streamtracker]

Just about what I expected from the Sgt. A vicious personal attack.

"ou honestly are teaching this horsecr@p to 700 undergrads a year??"
"Your level of stupid is just epic."
"Are really that stupid?"
"You just don't get it do you? And you teach? "
"Are you mentally challenged??"
"s English not your first language?...cause that would help explain some of this...."

He also personally attacks Muller by quoting Briigs "“I do not know of any flaws in my work, therefore there are none.” Common enough in academia." If you actually read Mullers work, you will find he reports about the uncertainties in his estimates. I can see why the Sgt. likes Briggs. They both use personal attacks on the scientists and academia.

The Sgt. also moves the goal posts. His post that I was replying to was about the temp record, and my response focused on that. At some other point I will gladly write about attribution.

Why would someone have to resort to such pointed personal attacks? Perhaps because they do not fully understand the science and therefore do not have a good scientific argument.

Back to the science.

The Sgt. states "The divergence between the satellite metrics and the other sets is significant." Yes, it is! Perhaps the issue is not with the surface measurements, but some issue with the satellites?

Sgt. does not seem understand the satellite data since he thinks you can make a direct comparison between it and the surface measurements. One issue is that the satellite data for the lower troposphere takes a wide band of altitude, not just a measure of what's happening at the surface. So, there is no expectation that there would be a close match. But that alone does not explain the divergence and is not the most significant issue.

From the link below: "The satellite [temperature] data ... were obtained from so-called Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs), which measure the microwave emissions of oxygen molecules from broad atmospheric layers. Converting this information to estimates of temperature trends has substantial uncertainties."

So, satellites do not actually measure temperature directly as surface thermometers do. You need a complicated model with lots of uncertainty to convert from microwave emissions to temperature. Satellite data has far greater uncertainty that requires all sort of corrections. See attached graph and the link with references within.

If I told you that thermometers at the surface were five times as uncertain as satellites, you would of course reasonably have higher confidence in the satellite data. However, the opposite is true - the satellite data is five times as uncertain as the surface measurements. Yet the Sgt. keeps going back to it as if it were some gold standard. Like he said "that makes me really sad".

https://skepticalscience.com/Satellite- ... meters.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Again funny stuff. Thanks

It has recently occurred to me that you spend all your time dredging the nonsense posted at Skeptical Science.com thinking that although you don't really understand the arguments it must be right because they agree with the consensus. Your point about the reliability of the satellite data vs surface record is utter nonsense. The satellite data has comprehensive global coverage whereas the surface metric has MASSIVE gaps which are infilled with algorithms produced by activists.

Here is the NOAA temp anomaly map as published using 1200km interpolation to infill for the data THEY HAVE NO DATA ON. Notice how warm the arctic is.

2016-giss-1200km-interpolation.png

Now look at the ACTUAL DATA they have (where they limit the infill between data to 250km) All the grey is the area they don't have ACTUAL DATA for...take a look at the arctic...they have no data there>

2016-giss-250km-interpolation.png

so when they infill the areas with NO ACTUAL DATA how does it look? Boy the HOTTEST PART OT THE MAP IS WHERE THEY HAVE NO ACTUAL DATA.

Think what this means about the integrity of their product. NOAA scientists are appointed through the logic of politics...these guys are activists with some background training in science...they are not real scientists because their actions betray the bias that no real scientist would countenance.

Done for tonight....

Wow! After he uses a poorly sourced opinion piece as a source, he gives me trouble for using a well referenced source.

He again has to use an attack that has no basis in fact "NOAA scientists are appointed through the logic of politics...these guys are activists with some background training in science...they are not real scientists because their actions betray the bias that no real scientist would countenance."

Here is another thing, there are three other groups working on the surface record. Does he believe all of these groups lack integrity and it is only the noble satellite folks who we can trust? Just incredible.

He completely ignores the fact that the satellite data is unreliable by deflecting with a tangential issue. So what if one has near 100% coverage when that coverage is five times as unreliable. He is OK with the satellite data using assumptions and complicated models full of high levels of uncertainty to convert microwave reflection to temperature measurements, yet if there is any reasonable modeling with the surface record he resorts to maligning the integrity of the scientists doing the work.

Let me be clear, I do not think the people working on the satellite data lack integrity - they are dealing with a very difficult data set and do the best they can with indirect measurements. Both groups working on satellite data are forthcoming about the issues I have described. Spencer of the UHA group even retracted earlier work because it needed some serious adjustments. And I have never said the surface record is perfect. But, it is a fact that it has a lower level of uncertainty.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

Somebody count up the times ST has used SkepticalScience.com as his source.. "a well-referenced source"...remember to laugh every time.
Could have shortened the whole thing to an abbreviated sentence from the last paragraph: " I do not think..."

[Bubba]

A couple of serious questions: How much of the warming we have seen is natural and what is the cause?

Do not have time to go into detail or give this a good edit. First you need to specify a time period. Since about 1900, 10% of the warming has been due to changes in solar output. During approximately the last 35 years of more rapid warming, the solar output has declined slightly. So, it can not explain the warming.

If you look at the record from year to year, the ups and downs of the ascending record, the dips are typically due to volcanic activity and peaks are typically due to the oceans dumping heat into the atmosphere (El Nino/La Nina cycle). Looking closely at the record the trend is for El Nino year peaks to be higher and higher on average. That's because the El Nino is riding on top of the overall warming trend. Typically after strong El Nino years we expect a few years were the temperature declines and then resumes an upward climb.

Please note that the cycle does not contribute to overall warming since it is simply shifting heat around that has already been captured in the ocean - that increased heating of the ocean is primarily caused by green house gases (CO2, methane, etc.)

The graph shows the pattern of overall warming since 1965 and the influence of the ENSO cycle (El Nino, La Nina cycle) and major volcanic eruptions.

I'd like to go back way further in time than 1900. Since much of my skepticism results from the fact (or at least the logical conclusion) that the planet has been warming since the middle of the last ice age, albeit with colder periods and warmer periods mixed in over the millennia, what causes the planet to alternatively warm then cool longer term producing ice ages and warming/cooling periods?

[skidogg]

lots of things bubba like the wobble in our rotation I believe I read that follows iceage cycle

[rogman]

This probably won't help, Bubba, but whatever...

[Coydog]

As a reminder, I foolishly bet SEB this decade would be warmer on average than the previous decade. Above is a depiction of our progress to date. If the next 3 years average at or below the dashed red line, SEB wins the bet. If not, I win.

We agreed to use the satellite data provided by UAH, recently adjusted to make the past warmer and more current temps colder.

So far, this decade averages out twice as warm as the previous and clearly every decade has averaged warmer than the previous even though in SEB's view, we have experienced a hiatus in rising temps since 1998.

[madhatter]

As a reminder, I foolishly bet SEB this decade would be warmer on average than the previous decade. Above is a depiction of our progress to date. If the next 3 years average at or below the dashed red line, SEB wins the bet. If not, I win.

We agreed to use the satellite data provided by UAH, recently adjusted to make the past warmer and more current temps colder.

So far, this decade averages out twice as warm as the previous and clearly every decade has averaged warmer than the previous even though in SEB's view, we have experienced a hiatus in rising temps since 1998.

do you secretly enjoy losing bets?

[Coydog]

do you secretly enjoy losing bets?

If the temps do average below the red line, just more evidence that hell has frozen over.

[rogman]

"The pause" and "the models don't work/are wrong" are required positions for denialists. To admit otherwise basically ends their "argument". Might as well throw in the "science conspiracy" for good measure too. Sad.