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

[jpski]

Get real Sargent, it is not any more difficult to understand then what I said. If you are as well educated as you say you are, you should know what I am saying. Me working on PhD in Geo-physics.

[freeski]

The worst thing that happened to climate science over the past 30 years is the politicization of science. If we can look solely at the science and treat policy prescriptions separately, we can probably agree far more than we disagree. I think we all agree that:

a. The planet has been warming over the past 50 - 75 years
b. The theory of greenhouse gas as a contributing factor is plausible
c. Energy efficiency is a worthwhile investment for everyone, be they residential, commercial or industrial
d. Improving air quality is worthwhile for everyone
e. Predictive models of temperature worldwide have been inconclusive at best and significantly incorrect at worst
f. We have a limited understanding of climate and the interaction of many factors on climate including among other things, CO2 concentrations, ocean absorption, solar activity, other atmospheric pollutants, and many, many more

We begin to run into problems and disagreements when politicians and others declare that global warming is "settled science" and we must do something now or Kiribati will cease to exist in X number of years, lower Manhattan will flood and ocean front communities will be destroyed. It is then and only then that policy prescriptions get drawn up and sold as the cure for projected dire consequences. Then, when the models these projections are drawn from don't predict accurately or even close to accurately, people question the science as well as the policy prescriptions. It is the mixing of the two sides of this that to me is the real problem we face. You're either with us or against us. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. If you question the science or the modeling or the policies that rise from them, you're a denier. Those kinds of fixed in concrete attitudes do nothing to move the science forward and certainly do nothing but put additional money in political coffers.

I return to my earlier position. Given the reasonable plausibility of the theory, take reasonable and economically justifiable steps to reduce emissions and continue with scientific study and technological development that will eventually replace fossil fuels as a contributing factor to greenhouse gas emissions. The "we must do something now to save the planet" approach to policy development is over the top and not justifiable based on what we know today.

The degree that this issue is split along party lines in Washington when positions should be based on fact is mind boggling. It makes you wonder how many other issues are decided solely by politics instead of what is best for the country. Hard to believe our elected officials can not come to a consensus based on common sense as Bubba did.

[madhatter]

Get real Sargent, it is not any more difficult to understand then what I said. If you are as well educated as you say you are, you should know what I am saying. Me working on PhD in Geo-physics.

might wanna take some english classes too while you're there...

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

Get real Sargent, it is not any more difficult to understand then what I said. If you are as well educated as you say you are, you should know what I am saying. Me working on PhD in Geo-physics.

OK so explain to me, in simple terms, because you claim it is simple, the factors involved in cloud nucleation events (don't forget to mention Svensmark's recent results from CERN).

I'm sure you will agree that accurate modeling of cloud formation is a CRUCIAL factor in producing an accurate climate model. Because it is likely that high humidity without cloud formation would probably lead to increased greenhouse warming while increased cloudiness would lead to cooling (through albedo).

There really is a lot of literature on this topic. I was not aware that it could be resolved into a simple explanation. But since you claim to be capable of formulating a simple explanation of the dynamics of this crucial factor... would you be so kind as to share that explanation with a simple guy like me?

I really am just trying to understand the dynamics of climate better. Seriously. I just think there are a lot of folks in academia who are a bit full of themselves and claim to be certain of physical systems behavior which is, at present, actually poorly understood.

Climate systems dynamics are the epitome of complex highly interactive systems. Simple explanations are not likely to be accurate explanations. Hence the poor performance of their model "projections."

Don't hate someone who ask asking questions about a system you believe you understand. If you do understand...then explain it to me. If you can't explain it...then maybe you just believe it?

I promise if you can explain reasonable answers to questions like how can CO2 cause species migrations if it is not causing appreciable increase in atmospheric temperatures I will change my mind about it. I am not kidding. None of this is political for me. I just want to better understand the science... and as any true scientist would say I will not be persuaded by arguments from authority... just the facts...and no links without a supporting explanation in your own words.

[jpski]

Did you ever try Almond milk on your cereal? Quite good!

[jpski]

It is that dam auto correct function, but do try Almond milk, very good on Grape nuts!

[Rime & Reason]

Coydog you beat me to it.

Sgt Eddy Brewers has once again shown both his ignorance, and his arrogance. For a self-proclaimed, self-taught climate scientist I would expect him to be able to interpret a simple graph. Hey, we all make mistakes, but we do not all pretend to be an expert at something and then not only fail to understand a simple graph on the subject, but then call out the guy that posted it, repeatedly, and wrongly, pointing out all sorts of phantom problems that only he sees. That is the real point here. Your whole argument is that you fancy yourself as a true scientist that can see through the flaws in what is presented as global warming evidence. Sgt Eddy, if you fail so badly at interpreting a simple graph, how can you expect us to believe your rants against the real and complicated data presented by actual climate scientists?

OK yes...sorry about the mistake in reading your graph...

It was not my graph, it was posted by SkierOfTrees, and it was his (her?) very first Kzone post. Welcome to the forum! Let me introduce you to the crazy guy that thinks he is qualified to debunk real scientists...

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

Coydog you beat me to it.

Sgt Eddy Brewers has once again shown both his ignorance, and his arrogance. For a self-proclaimed, self-taught climate scientist I would expect him to be able to interpret a simple graph. Hey, we all make mistakes, but we do not all pretend to be an expert at something and then not only fail to understand a simple graph on the subject, but then call out the guy that posted it, repeatedly, and wrongly, pointing out all sorts of phantom problems that only he sees. That is the real point here. Your whole argument is that you fancy yourself as a true scientist that can see through the flaws in what is presented as global warming evidence. Sgt Eddy, if you fail so badly at interpreting a simple graph, how can you expect us to believe your rants against the real and complicated data presented by actual climate scientists?

OK yes...sorry about the mistake in reading your graph...

It was not my graph, it was posted by SkierOfTrees, and it was his (her?) very first Kzone post. Welcome to the forum! Let me introduce you to the crazy guy that thinks he is qualified to debunk real scientists...

And you define "real scientists" how??????? Think about it.... it really matters...

that is actually WHAT WE ARE ARGUING ABOUT.

You seem to think there is some official designation which, once accepted, becomes an assurance of infallibility. I disagree.

[Streamtracker]

And you define "real scientists" how??????? Think about it.... it really matters...

that is actually WHAT WE ARE ARGUING ABOUT.

You seem to think there is some official designation which, once accepted, becomes an assurance of infallibility. I disagree.

And here is why why I no longer debate this guy Sgt. directly. Too many times he regresses to calling into question the qualifications, ethics, and professionalism of scientists working in climate science. And he does this based on an incomplete and weak understanding of the science.

He also repeatedly begins his arguments from false premises and misrepresentations. He may not be doing this knowingly and simply out of a poor understanding of the science. You debunk those mistakes and he goes on to a new set of statements.

He has insulted me by questioning my professionalism and then turned around and suggested we would be buddies if we sat down and had a beer.

He then might throw in some reasonable comment like "You seem to think there is some official designation [of being a scientist] which, once accepted, becomes an assurance of infallibility. I disagree".

What he forgets is that as scientists we are trained to directly understand our fallibility. This is explicit in the philosophical approach of science that only allows us to think in terms of levels of confidence and never in complete acceptance of any idea. By making such a statement he attempts to standout as some ethical beacon, as if the scientists working on climate change, where somehow outside of this approach.

[Rime & Reason]

I would not be surprised if the closest Sgt Eddy ever gets to a real scientist is when he pushes his cart of cleaning supplies past their office door.

[Bubba]

The worst thing that happened to climate science over the past 30 years is the politicization of science. If we can look solely at the science and treat policy prescriptions separately, we can probably agree far more than we disagree. I think we all agree that:

a. The planet has been warming over the past 50 - 75 years
b. The theory of greenhouse gas as a contributing factor is plausible
c. Energy efficiency is a worthwhile investment for everyone, be they residential, commercial or industrial
d. Improving air quality is worthwhile for everyone
e. Predictive models of temperature worldwide have been inconclusive at best and significantly incorrect at worst
f. We have a limited understanding of climate and the interaction of many factors on climate including among other things, CO2 concentrations, ocean absorption, solar activity, other atmospheric pollutants, and many, many more

We begin to run into problems and disagreements when politicians and others declare that global warming is "settled science" and we must do something now or Kiribati will cease to exist in X number of years, lower Manhattan will flood and ocean front communities will be destroyed. It is then and only then that policy prescriptions get drawn up and sold as the cure for projected dire consequences. Then, when the models these projections are drawn from don't predict accurately or even close to accurately, people question the science as well as the policy prescriptions. It is the mixing of the two sides of this that to me is the real problem we face. You're either with us or against us. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. If you question the science or the modeling or the policies that rise from them, you're a denier. Those kinds of fixed in concrete attitudes do nothing to move the science forward and certainly do nothing but put additional money in political coffers.

I return to my earlier position. Given the reasonable plausibility of the theory, take reasonable and economically justifiable steps to reduce emissions and continue with scientific study and technological development that will eventually replace fossil fuels as a contributing factor to greenhouse gas emissions. The "we must do something now to save the planet" approach to policy development is over the top and not justifiable based on what we know today.

The degree that this issue is split along party lines in Washington when positions should be based on fact is mind boggling. It makes you wonder how many other issues are decided solely by politics instead of what is best for the country. Hard to believe our elected officials can not come to a consensus based on common sense as Bubba did.

And I should have mentioned, but failed to include, those on the other side of the discussion (i.e. Sen. James Inhofe) who refer to climate change as a hoax or use other extreme terms in opposition. They are as much at fault as politicians and others who claim the science is settled.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

I would not be surprised if the closest Sgt Eddy ever gets to a real scientist is when he pushes his cart of cleaning supplies past their office door.

Cute Gattaca reference?

Anyway think whatever you want about me. I really don't care. I just hope you could feel a little less settled about climate science... I think THAT would be good for the world.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

The worst thing that happened to climate science over the past 30 years is the politicization of science. If we can look solely at the science and treat policy prescriptions separately, we can probably agree far more than we disagree. I think we all agree that:

a. The planet has been warming over the past 50 - 75 years
b. The theory of greenhouse gas as a contributing factor is plausible
c. Energy efficiency is a worthwhile investment for everyone, be they residential, commercial or industrial
d. Improving air quality is worthwhile for everyone
e. Predictive models of temperature worldwide have been inconclusive at best and significantly incorrect at worst
f. We have a limited understanding of climate and the interaction of many factors on climate including among other things, CO2 concentrations, ocean absorption, solar activity, other atmospheric pollutants, and many, many more

We begin to run into problems and disagreements when politicians and others declare that global warming is "settled science" and we must do something now or Kiribati will cease to exist in X number of years, lower Manhattan will flood and ocean front communities will be destroyed. It is then and only then that policy prescriptions get drawn up and sold as the cure for projected dire consequences. Then, when the models these projections are drawn from don't predict accurately or even close to accurately, people question the science as well as the policy prescriptions. It is the mixing of the two sides of this that to me is the real problem we face. You're either with us or against us. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. If you question the science or the modeling or the policies that rise from them, you're a denier. Those kinds of fixed in concrete attitudes do nothing to move the science forward and certainly do nothing but put additional money in political coffers.

I return to my earlier position. Given the reasonable plausibility of the theory, take reasonable and economically justifiable steps to reduce emissions and continue with scientific study and technological development that will eventually replace fossil fuels as a contributing factor to greenhouse gas emissions. The "we must do something now to save the planet" approach to policy development is over the top and not justifiable based on what we know today.

The degree that this issue is split along party lines in Washington when positions should be based on fact is mind boggling. It makes you wonder how many other issues are decided solely by politics instead of what is best for the country. Hard to believe our elected officials can not come to a consensus based on common sense as Bubba did.

And I should have mentioned, but failed to include, those on the other side of the discussion (i.e. Sen. James Inhofe) who refer to climate change as a hoax or use other extreme terms in opposition. They are as much at fault as politicians and others who claim the science is settled.

Totally agree.. there are people on both sides of this who are TOO CERTAIN about their claims.

[Coydog]

Actually the forecast models have been pretty good and steadily improve - Test of a decadal climate forecast (PDF), but I suppose geologists should throw out the theory of plate tectonics because they cannot accurately predict when the next earthquake will occur. Climate models forecast trends, not events.

So here's some home brewed trends brought to you by the lower tropospheric satellite data provided by UAH (which, by the way, is at least as adjusted as the NOAA data). As suggested, the data is unfiltered.



The blue trace is obviously the original temperature anomaly data. The orange, green and red traces are 15, 16, and 17 year linear regressions, i.e. the temperature "trend". The trend values are the slope in degrees C per decade and provide an indication of the rate of change of temperature within the interval.

The overall change is 0.14, confirmed by the text at the source site. John Christy posits a trend above 0.05 C/decade is required to be statistically significant for short intervals. The 15 year trend is 0.13, almost identical to the overall trend and clearly statistically significant. In fact, the orange line is a bit difficult to see because it fits the overall trend so well. The 17 year red trace is also statistically significant, though the rate of temperature increase is lower than the overall trend. It is only when we carefully align the interval on the El Nino event (the peak in 1998) do we get a statistically insignificant trend by Christy's measure, but just barely. In all cases, the temperature trend is upward and the mean temperature for a decade is higher than the preceding decade.

I'm guessing the green line is what SEB refers to as a "plateau", though the raw data looks anything but flat. At least from this data, it seems clear to me temps have continued to rise these past 15 years, though perhaps at a slower rate than the overall 35 year trend and, of course, the raw data shows a lot of variation. This is what the math says to me, no politics required.

[jpski]

It will not be good for life on Earth to ignore the facts that are in front of us. It seems that logic and research heads to the back of the bus for some, when it comes to the issue of climate change. The sergeant puts out some long winded rhetoric on his approach to the understanding of the subject, it really is not that difficult to understand, but he does hint on some aspects of the scientific method. I like to think that I understand what is going on in the Earths atmosphere, and I also like the fact that about 98% of people that study this science on a regular basis, I can be in agreement with.

I was once told you can "Dazzle people with brilliance, or baffle them with bull sh*t". I believe the deniers try way to hard to "baffle us with bull sh*t".