Weather and Climate change

[JustWinBaby]

(07-26-2019, 11:19 AM)Dill Wrote: LOL looks like "conscious intellectualism" has returned to illuminate the climate change debate.  Pointing out the simple FACT that you, heretofore, have failed to actually produce any authoritative sources/arguments in support of your climate skepticism, on this or the previous message board, while calling the rest of us fools, hardly demonstrates that I am "extremely unread on the subject," much less "overconfident."  E.g.,  on the "THE ALT-RIGHT HAILS ITS VICTORIOUS GOD-EMPEROR" thread a few years back, when I asked you stop simply claiming you were smart and everyone else was stupid, and finally put up some support other than your own mouth, your non-serious response was "can't prove a negative" (#57). Better said, you couldn't prove anything.

If I am "mocking" you with reference to Forbes/WSJ sources, why should that suggest I've not bothered doing a Google search? Wouldn't I mention the WSJ precisely BECAUSE I KNOW they are the go-to source for articles on what you call"climate alarmism"? And how would that be an "appeal to authority," since the implication of my reference is NOT that WSJ articles on climate are published there to service a general interest in science?  I.e., that the WSJ "fairly regularly have [suspect] articles on 'climate alarmism'" was the point. I'm guessing the consensus of WSJ journalists on the skeptic thesis is, what, 97.1%?

Before posting an unnecessary list of WSJ links to prove what was already my point, you argue that "if there was even a remote chance of an existential threat” the world would have been all-in on nuclear power 20 years ago," a self-refuting point. The smartest guy in the room is surely aware of the Exxon controversy, covering the warming predictions of their own scientists while spending millions to buy journalists and a few climate scientists to promote climate change skepticism. To make your claim, one would have to assume the extraction industries would immediately recognize the "remote chance" and get on board with the greens. So if these for-profit corporations have not cut their profits in favor of environmental friendly policies and alternative energy sources, there must be no global warming?? 

Speaking of industry funding of climate change skepticism, in response to my challenge to provide us with some actual "debunkers," you post a link of top ten "most respected skeptics," which include Jurassic Park novelist Michael Crichton, and EPA ECONOMIST Alan Carlin. Myron Ebell has an MA in POLITICAL science, very helpful for the PR work of skepticism. Did you even check how many of your "most respected skeptics" were climate scientists, or even scientists??

Patrick Michaels certainly is a climate scientist, and among the better paid friends of the industry. But why would your list include Giaever, who, as your source points out "isn't a thought leader, per se, in the climate skeptics scene"? It is because your source is REACHING to create a list of 10 "most respected" for something, nevermind if the respect isn't specifically for climate change science.  That doesn't tell you something?

I'll be reading your posts #51 and 52 over the weekend. C02 levels have come down in the past; "strong evidence against a tipping point"; "nothing special" about man made emissions, WHICH WEREN'T THERE IN THE PAST. LOL

That's a massive backpedal.  Your own words speak for themself.  Why would you ask for Forbes and WSJ links if you knew better? And, um, Forbes generally comes down on your side of the debate, so again you've been caught pretending.

You're also ignoring that I named 3 people not on that list of skeptics - and you can add Lindzen - who testify regularly before Congress.   You asked for skeptics, and that article gave you a starting point with detailed profiles.  One of the people on the list has contributed several articles to WSJ.  Crichton is a writer, but one known for his research....which probably makes him more qualified than most of the "journalists" who have informed your opinion.  Scott Adams (yes, Dilbert fame) is another who's been digging into the research to see how it aligns with what is reported in the media.

You ask for skeptics, and then predictably dismiss the majority.  I don't know how you can claim to be read on the subject when your first reaction is to dismiss them without being bothered to even see what they have to.  Asking to disprove what you believe when you appear incapable of stating what you actually believe and why.

And by "nothing special about man-made CO2", I'm talking the carbon atom, which there are differences in the chemical signature but the effects on warming are the same.  Do you really not understand that, or are uninformed attacks and insults how you intend to debate the subject?  And I see you continue to fundamentally misunderstand how science works, expecting a proof the existential threat isn't real.  By the way, you do understand what a "tipping point" is, right?  Your last line seems to indicate that you don't.

[JustWinBaby]

(07-26-2019, 07:00 PM)Beaker Wrote: Here is access to a very recent, multi year, in depth study....published in a respected scientific journal (not a newspaper or magazine article)...that definitively shows how climate deniers and their methods of denying climate change are wrong. It details how climate change is not just "normal warming or cooling of the Earth", or simply weather.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2?utm_source=commission_junction&utm_medium=affiliate

Climate change is very real.

Um, do you know who Roy Spencer is and what he does and what his credentials are?

Also, would you please tell me what you think that article disproves that I have said?  I only get an abstract, the rest is behind a paywall and "no evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods" doesn't sound like the article you're referring to.

There isn't an educated person on the subject who claims CO2 doesn't cause warming and that we haven't warmed.  Obviously less ice formation on the northern shelf is going to affect weather patterns, but there's no proof of adverse effects as a result.  And frankly, I don't have a lot of confidence in the false sense of precision with respect to "reconstructions".  A few tenths of a degree makes a huge difference in conclusions. 

[JustWinBaby]

(07-26-2019, 11:43 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Weird this came back up yesterday. Your conservative bubble must have felt the need to deny climate change and it triggered you. They probably saw the record breaking heat in europe and figured they needed to do something to keep the blindfold and tin foil hats snuggly fitted on their minions.

LOL, you accuse me of living in a bubble when you've clearly not read one thing I wrote.  I've never denied climate change is happening - I just don't see the science that shows it is or will be bad.

And a heat wave doesn't prove anything any more than the cold snaps this winter do.  But because the average temperatures aren't really cooperating with the alarmism, there's been a re-branding and focus on extreme weather events.  It's a very effective approach with the useful idiots.

[Beaker]

(07-26-2019, 09:02 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Um, do you know who Roy Spencer is and what he does and what his credentials are?

Also, would you please tell me what you think that article disproves that I have said?  I only get an abstract, the rest is behind a paywall and "no evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods" doesn't sound like the article you're referring to.

There isn't an educated person on the subject who claims CO2 doesn't cause warming and that we haven't warmed.  Obviously less ice formation on the northern shelf is going to affect weather patterns, but there's no proof of adverse effects as a result.  And frankly, I don't have a lot of confidence in the false sense of precision with respect to "reconstructions".  A few tenths of a degree makes a huge difference in conclusions. 

I dont hang my hat on Roy Spencer. And the correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures is long established. In any scientific topic, you can find credentialed scientists who do not agree with the majority. And if you really wanted educate yourself on the subject, you can find more than just the abstract on the study out there. There are plenty who have written summaries. I wanted to post a link to the actual study....not a magazine article.

[JustWinBaby]

(07-26-2019, 11:19 PM)Beaker Wrote: I dont hang my hat on Roy Spencer. And the correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures is long established. In any scientific topic, you can find credentialed scientists who do not agree with the majority. And if you really wanted educate yourself on the subject, you can find more than just the abstract on the study out there. There are plenty who have written summaries. I wanted to post a link to the actual study....not a magazine article.

What is the correlation between CO2 levels and temperature?  Are you saying there's a consensus on ECS?  Link? And you do realize correlation =/= causation, right?

The study you reference is a temperature reconstruction according to the abstract, so I immediately know it doesn't have the precision to estimate ECS. And I'll gladly read it as soon as you point me to what it refutes I've said and where. I imagine it does refute many claims made by deniers, but nothing I've said "denies" warming has happened.

Also, I don't hang my hat on Roy Spencer, either (which I said, he thinks ECS is negative and I disagree).  But he's a heavyweight in the field, research that has been cited hundreds probably thousands of times, and maintainer of one of the global satellite temp records.  Judith Curry was also somewhat of an activist, and she's now a "denier" who dares to challenge the alarmist BS. She has a lot of great insights into the politics invading the research.

But you responded to my post that included all the links to Spencer's website - that seems a little intellectually dishonest to me to dismiss a leading scientist's website as "just a blog". There are PLENTY of links to science on his blog.  I challenge anyone to go read those sources and say he's unqualified or that his survey is biased or unfounded.  He gives a very objective and accurate view of the issues.  He's not some quack denier - he's a leading expert in the field of attribution.

[Dill]

(07-26-2019, 09:02 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Also, would you please tell me what you think that article disproves that I have said?  I only get an abstract, the rest is behind a paywall and "no evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods" doesn't sound like the article you're referring to.

There isn't an educated person on the subject who claims CO2 doesn't cause warming and that we haven't warmed.  Obviously less ice formation on the northern shelf is going to affect weather patterns, but there's no proof of adverse effects as a result.  And frankly, I don't have a lot of confidence in the false sense of precision with respect to "reconstructions".  A few tenths of a degree makes a huge difference in conclusions. 

I have access to the Nature database. I just copied the entire article to you in a private message.

The article argues that over the last 2,000 years ("the pre-industrial common era") instances of warming or cooling have been regional; the last two centuries differ in that they show a consistent temperature rise across the globe, in all regions--i.e., the warming has been "globally coherent," occurring everywhere.  People arguing that "there has been warming/cooling in the recent past" (e.g., the "little Ice Age") generally do not take this coherence into account. That's the argument in a nutshell. The source notes also give a sense how the argument of these 5 scientists has developed within and rests upon accumulated research on "global coherence."

I have forwarded your post to the residents of Shishmaref, Alaska, who will take comfort in the knowledge that there is no proof that less ice formation has "adverse effects". If only they'd known this before they had to move their entire village.

[Dill]

(07-26-2019, 08:39 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: That's a massive backpedal.  Your own words speak for themself.  Why would you ask for Forbes and WSJ links if you knew better? And, um, Forbes generally comes down on your side of the debate, so again you've been caught pretending.

I wouldn't, and didn't.  Apparently my words do not speak for themselves, so to recap: In post #44 I write: 

So one hurdle to OUR education is YOUR inability to identify the primary "debunkers" of the anthropogenic thesis. 

This being a response to your heretofore unwillingness to cite studies on the subject. Primary DEBUNKERS would be people who can actually challenge climate science on scientific grounds. Not journalists, novelists, and economists, who do not do that research.

I state also "We should expect to find some some climate change skeptics in the US, GB, China, Australia, Russia, and Saudi Arabia, and to read their 'research' in Forbes and the Wall Street Journal. "  That is, we should EXPECT to find the extraction interest represented in the journalism of the WSJ--e.g., "refutations" of what they call "climate alarmism,"and climate change skeptics in the countries listedl.  Notice that "research" was in quotation marks. That means I am questioning the face value of such research as research. I am not looking for more journalistic representations of it.

That is why my next statement is: "Could you perhaps link us to the REAL climate science?" As in NOT WSJ articles, or any magazine articles for that matter. And I am not asking for a top ten list of celebrity skeptics' names. Might as well have included Rick Perry and Donald Trump. I am asking for studies of the sort just provided by Beaker in post # 60.

If you follow this request with a lot of links from the WSJ with comments about how I could find these for myself and I should know the WSJ regularly has articles on "climate alarmism," then you have not understood the  request. If you ask why I would ask for Forbes and WSJ links, when I am clearly not, then you have misunderstood the request.

If I have just said we can expect to find skeptical journalists and people representing the countries listed, then I am not looking for just-names of celebrities who are skeptics. If you think so then you have misunderstood the request. And yes, I "predictably" dismiss your list of skeptics, since they add nothing substantive to this discussion.  There has never been a question about whether there are skeptics; the question is about their credentials, the quality of their research, and how it fits with existing research (e.g. are their results "settled" yet or merely reported?).

I close then with two points to more accurately frame the debate on this thread.

1. there is a "culture war" currently raging over climate change. Most of those driving the war are not themselves scientists, but people who recognize different stakes: one side sees higher taxes and other costs if the AGW thesis is put into policy; the other side sees now as the time to act to prevent future crises. This debate is subject to the same polarization as other political divides in the US, such as those over immigration, abortion, and healthcare. The same techniques used in previous debates are deployed here (e.g., the tobacco companies deployment of "scientists" and "studies" to fog debate over the correlation between smoking and cancer with "alternative facts"). That is why it is so easy to find politicians funded by extraction who challenge the AGB thesis. Journalists can have valuable things to say about this cultural aspect of the debate, as they research the history extraction industry funding of climate change skepticism and popularize the findings of scientific research. Skeptical journalists can do the same for their side if they uncover funding skulduggery or misrepresentation of research.

The debate on this thread is part of this culture war. It is a battle over the framing global warming for voters, mostly non-scientists, some of whom have difficulty sorting out sources and nature of authority on this issue.

2. the foundation of the above debate rests upon one in the science community and their ongoing research. Here debate is minimal over the skeptical theses that drive #1.  That is why it is so hard to find climate scientists who challenge the AGB thesis, though they may argue over how to measure it. But this debate is hard for the public to follow, and that will include most of us posting here.

[Beaker]

(07-27-2019, 12:17 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: What is the correlation between CO2 levels and temperature?

The correlation is that when CO2 levels increase, temperatures increase. And when CO2 levels decrease, temperatures decrease. We now have direct evidence of this correlation from atmospheric samples taken from ice cores that go back some 800,00 years. And indirect evidence of that from fossilized stomata on plant leaves going back several million years. Here is info from the NAOA explaining the correlation:

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/temperature-change

And I realize correlation does not equal causation, but it does allow for prediction and model construction.

Also, I have found an article that summarizes the study I provided the link to:

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/global-warming-earth-history-heatwave-study-climate-deniers-a9019391.html

Again, I prefer the actual study, but this will have to do for the purposes of this discussion.

I have also stated there is never/rarely a 100% consensus on anything in science. But the evidence for human activity contributing to changing global climate is now so strong that consensus is approaching 99%.

I always ask one simple question....from purely a logic point of view, how can human activity NOT be having an effect on global climate? I may not think that we are all going to die tomorrow, but we better get our heads out of the sand and start to look at human impacted global climate change as a true threat that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.
 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-25-2019, 09:51 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I've shared several in my last few posts.  You've always been capable of using google. The last few times this came up, most on the board appeared not to be even remotely knowledgeable on the subject. So I'm going to give you another long post about what I have come to learn and why I believe what I believe. I challenged people to post good science behind the "crisis alarmism" and got crickets.   The burden of proof is on the alarmism side - you'll not find much in the way of dispositive research.  Non-findings tend not to be published.  But you have to show strong scientific basis for assumptions behind the global warming cause, and it just doesn't exist.

Every doubling of CO2 contributes one degree of warming.  This is, to my knowledge, about the only actual testable and demonstrable fact related to climate change for which there is a real consensus.  That's hyperbole, but it makes the point.

·       The million dollar question is ECS.  Go look it up and then come back with some science telling me what that number is.  Spoiler alert – IPCC has estimated it to be between 1.5 and 4.5 for 30+ years (they may have recently changed it to 2.0-4.5, with a median of 3.8 or something like that).  Problem is, for low sensitivity there is no crisis…which seems to be the main driver between high values.

·       A number of recent studies have estimated TCR (that's the short-run effect, 10 years or so....ECS is long-run after hundreds of years and is about 20-30% higher than TCR) between 1.5-2.0.  Now, there’s enough proven fossil fuel reserves (including coal) to a little more than double CO2 in the air.  If we assume there’s plenty of unproven reserves to be found, we might be able to double CO2 twice….that would suggest an upper limit on warming of between 3-4 degrees.  And it won’t happen overnight, so hardly a crisis.

·       If we assume all warming estimated the past 100 years is from CO2 (it’s not), that would suggest an ECS of about 1.7.  If we look at satellite readings from the troposphere (where CO2 would have the strongest warming signal), it’s even less.  In fact, Roy Spencer (who maintains one of the satellite temp records) believes ECS is less than 1 because he isn’t seeing enough warming in the troposphere.

·       ECS <1 is a very minority opinion.  But such a value is common among stable systems.  Large values and “tipping points” are not something you see in stable systems.  We’ve had much higher values of CO2 in the past, and the world didn’t fry and temperatures came back down.  So I have no idea why people aren’t naturally skeptical of claims about a tipping point and existential crisis.  There’s nothing inherently magical or special about man-made CO2 emissions.

·       Higher estimates for ECS are based in no small part on correlations.  Any Stat 101 student can tell you correlation =/= causation.  Sure, the planet was much hotter with high C02 levels, and probably much lower during ice ages.  But in every case temperatures have come back – strong evidence AGAINST a tipping point, and frankly against high ECS values which would suggest an unstable system.  Long-run temperature stability simply doesn’t indicate high sensitivity to CO2.

·       So the burden of proof is really to demonstrate that ECS would be high, because the default assumption should clearly be somewhere between 1-1.5.  But it’s a nearly impossible thing to model and test.  All but one of the predictive models run warm, among other issues, use high values for ECS (it’s the only way to get alarming predictions).  The best and most accurate model, a Russian model, uses less sensitive values.  But we need to ignore the model that doesn’t predict crisis temperatures, even if it appears to be the most accurate.

·       I said in the beginning, the research assumes all the warming has been from CO2.  A necessary assumption in most cases, but one that would clearly bias things higher.  Then clouds/water vapor - go do some reading on that and then re-evaluate the confidence you have in the “science”.

Sure I've always had the ability to use Google, but you wrote and I quote . . .

Quote:I get that from actual studies I've read.  I don't trust the press in general as I've seen alarming politicization of media, economics and science over the past 20 years that eschew intellectual rigor and good science.  Obama is absolutely a demagogue to anyone who isn't a nuthugger - it's basically his contribution to transforming the office.


You expect me to believe you've actually read and understood real research?  I've read your posts, and you can't fool me.  I've heard there's something called a useful idiot, and I know that's not me so I often wonder who that means. 

I will bet my house you can't tell and explain the difference between climate change fact and "theory".  Just because I reject the liberal agenda, or story, doesn't mean I'm a bible thumping conservative. You can't claim you aren't owned by the bubble, and then give me pre-conditioned responses completely bankrupt of conscious intellectualism like little Hitlers spreading the propaganda.

Then you post opinion pieces from from the media you claim can't be trusted instead of a single scientific study you've read . . . that you keep telling us to read.  Well, I can't read those studies if you keep treating them like you signed some non-disclosure agreement and refuse to divulge that info.  And why would I waste my time Googling for articles that you claim can't be trusted when I have a subject matter expert in yourself to guide me in my search for scientific information?  Obviously, that makes zero sense so I'm not going to waste my time doing that when I can use you as a resource to get the information you suggest I need to read to educate myself.

I'm not interested in reading editorials.  I would prefer to read the actual scientific studies and form my own opinion.  So I would be appreciative if you could just refer me to the studies you have read.  If I read the same studies you have read then I can read them and be just as informed and educated on the subject as you.  And educated us unwashed masses is your goal, correct?

[GMDino]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/30/opinion/trump-climate-change.html?fbclid=IwAR0cyRVljzGlxB1iqfEiDj2lmhPr3NxLOkEyRj44mZft4zuP-h-Emgj13D8

Quote:The White House Blocked My Report on Climate Change and National Security
Politics intruded on science and intelligence. That’s why I quit my job as an analyst for the State Department.




Ten years ago, I left my job as a tenured university professor to work as an intelligence analyst for the federal government, primarily in the State Department but with an intervening tour at the National Intelligence Council. My focus was on the impact of environmental and climate change on national security, a growing concern of the military and intelligence communities. It was important work. Two words that national security professionals abhor are uncertainty and surprise, and there’s no question that the changing climate promises ample amounts of both.


I always appreciated the apolitical nature of the work. Our job in the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research was to generate intelligence analysis buttressed by the best information available, without regard to political considerations. And although I was uncomfortable with some policies of the Trump administration, no one had ever tried to influence my work or conclusions.


That changed last month, when the White House blocked the submission of my bureau’s written testimony on the national security implications of climate change to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The stated reason was that the scientific foundation of the analysis did not comport with the administration’s position on climate change.


After an extended exchange between officials at the White House and the State Department, at the 11th hour I was permitted to appear at the hearing and give a five-minute summary of the 11-page testimony. However, Congress was deprived of the full analysis, including the scientific baseline from which it was drawn. Perhaps most important, this written testimony on a critical topic was never entered into the official record.


The bottom line of written testimony was this: “Climate change will have wide-ranging implications for U.S. national security over the next 20 years.” In developing this assessment, I drew from peer-reviewed scientific studies and findings of the government’s own scientists. This conclusion was hardly new. The intelligence community has repeatedly warned of the dangers that climate change poses to national security. Early this year, for instance, Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, warned in the annual “Worldwide Threat Assessment,” “Global environmental and ecological degradation, as well as climate change, are likely to fuel competition for resources, economic distress, and social discontent through 2019 and beyond.” (On Sunday, President Trump announced that Mr. Coats would step down shortly, to be replaced by one of his biggest defenders, Representative John Ratcliffe, a Texas Republican.)

In blocking the submission of the written testimony, the White House trampled not only on the scientific integrity of the assessment but also on the analytic independence of an arm of the intelligence community. That’s why I recently resigned from the job I considered a sacred duty, and the institution I loved.

As a tenured professor trained in physics and chemistry, I was admittedly an unusual fit for the intelligence community. I likely would never have considered the move if not for a program run by the American Association for the Advancement of Science that connects Ph.D. scientists to roles within the U.S. government to shape and inform policy. I found a home in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, the oldest civilian intelligence agency in the government and well known for its history of analytic sharpness and courageous dissent.


Science has long intersected with intelligence analysis. Indeed it would be difficult if not impossible to elucidate the ramifications of nuclear materials, near-earth objects, infectious diseases and many other pressing national security concerns without a deep understanding of the foundational science of each. This, too, applies to climate change.

Decades of scientific measurements have established that global temperatures are increasing and ocean waters are acidifying. These changes produce shifts in a vast number of earth system processes: in the atmosphere, ocean, freshwater, soil, ice masses, permafrost and organisms making up the biosphere. Some effects are well known, like increased frequency and intensity of heat waves and droughts, and rising sea levels. Others are less familiar, like decreasing oceanic oxygen levels and the redistribution of species.


These events do not arise in isolation but combine with existing social and political conditions and can disrupt societies and nations. They harm people directly or degrade the social, political, economic, agricultural, ecological or infrastructural systems that support them.



With these environmental changes we should expect disruptions to global water and food security, reduced economic security and weakened livelihoods, worsened human and animal health, and risks to the global supply chain on which the United States and its partners depend. Political instability, heightened tensions over resources, climate-linked humanitarian crises and adverse effects to militaries in some places are likely to increase. Migration will probably increase both within and between nations, with sociopolitical and resource implications already becoming clear.


Despite the increased politicization of climate change, I embraced the opportunity to participate in an unclassified congressional hearing on such an important matter. In particular, I welcomed the chance to engage Republican members of Congress on the topic because of the party’s historically strong support of other science and technology issues. Previous closed-door discussions persuaded me that at least some Republican lawmakers were open to the argument that climate change was a national security concern. I believe that once one accepts that global temperatures are increasing, a fact that only the most ardent climate disbeliever rejects, the case for that fact’s relevance to nation security directly follows.


When I joined the government in 2009, leadership was generally receptive to environmental security analysis. 
After the administration changed in 2017, my job was arguably even more important because of the skepticism within the Trump administrative over climate change. The intelligence community tries to deliver objective truth to decision makers — truth that persists irrespective of who occupies the White House.


I take great pride in the many positive and productive interactions I had with senior officials in my 30 months in the Trump administration. But the decision to block the written testimony is another example of a well-established pattern in the Trump administration of undercutting evidence that contradicts its policy positions.


Beyond obstructing science, this action also undermined the analytic independence of a major element of the intelligence community. When a White House can shape or suppress intelligence analysis that it deems out of line with its political messaging, then the intelligence community has no true analytic independence. I believe such acts weaken our nation.


My last day on the job was July 12. In the weeks since the hearing I came to understand that there was little left for me to achieve in my position. More than most officers in the intelligence community, I interacted often with the public in discussions of environmental security issues. After the experiences of the prior two months, I wondered whether I could continue public engagements without being tainted by questions about my own analytic independence.


Grappling with the implications of climate change and biodiversity loss, the two primary security concerns I’m focused on, is too important to me to wait around for a possible change on these issues in a future administration. We need to better understand and anticipate the challenges facing the nation and its partners. Whatever my next step might be, I believe these issues remain critical, and I will try to continue this work going forward.

Rod Schoonover was, until recently, a senior analyst in Bureau of Intelligence and Research at the State Department. He also worked as director of environment and natural resources at the National Intelligence Council and was a professor of chemistry and biochemistry at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo.

[Dill]

(07-26-2019, 11:19 PM)Beaker Wrote: I dont hang my hat on Roy Spencer. And the correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures is long established. In any scientific topic, you can find credentialed scientists who do not agree with the majority. And if you really wanted educate yourself on the subject, you can find more than just the abstract on the study out there. There are plenty who have written summaries. I wanted to post a link to the actual study....not a magazine article.

Beak, just wondering. I know you have in the past waxed eloquent in defense of the theory of evolution.

Were you aware that Spencer has become a defender of "intelligent design"? 

In the following he makes a claim for "evidence-based faith," but the evaluation of evidence is rather poor--e.g., the way the Bible "agrees with itself."  If biblical authors were merely recording what they saw "without exaggeration," then he believes in miracles, like changing water to wine and the raising of the dead. He goes on to use God as kind of covering theory for planetary as well as biological evolution.  As argument, his arguments are not very good--e.g., something as complex as the universe must have a cause, but an infinitely more complex god does not? How does turning Lot's wife into a pillar of salt "agree with the facts of science"? Or "the spitrit of God"?

Testing Truth with an Open Mind  http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony2.php

As I investigated religions other than Christianity, I became aware that many of them assume evolution to be true. The Bible was the only 'holy book' in which I could find a record of God's creating the material universe from nothing! Next, the work of many historians revealed to me that the Bible is by far the most accurate and best-substantiated ancient book known to man. It truthfully portrays actual historical events and has been faithfully copied by scribes over the centuries so that what we have today in the Bible is, to a very high degree (within a percentage point or two), known beyond a shadow of a doubt to be the same as was originally written down by the authors. Furthermore, nothing in that two percent affects any of the major Bible teachings or events.

When I turned to the gospels I learned that the contemporary enemies of Jesus, who wanted to disprove His divinity, could not deny His many miracles, there being too many eye witnesses. Not being able to dispute the fact of His amazing deeds, they questioned the source: they asserted, feebly, that an evil superhuman power had performed the miracles, not the Spirit of God!

I was struck by the unity of the Bible's message – the way it agreed with itself even though it was written by 40 different authors over a period of

1,600 years. I realised that the gospel records were free of comment from the writers. They merely recorded what they saw without exaggerating the events, without covering up the faults and failings of the followers of Jesus and without trying to present the story in exactly the same way.
... My advice to you would be to seek out the truth for yourself. Unfortunately, much of what people believe is based less on evidence and more on unsubstantiated just-so stories. In relation to the basic claims of Christianity, do what I did! Read the Bible. Judge it for itself. Put it to the test. I am confident that you too will find the Bible not only to be in agreement with proven facts of science, but also to be the book which will lead you to a personal faith in God the creator of all things.

[Beaker]

(08-07-2019, 05:00 PM)Dill Wrote: Beak, just wondering. I know you have in the past waxed eloquent in defense of the theory of evolution.

Were you aware that Spencer has become a defender of "intelligent design"? 

Not surprising given his stance on other topics.

Quote:The Bible was the only 'holy book' in which I could find a record of God's creating the material universe from nothing!

The creation of the universe is  not part of the theory of evolution. Evolution does not delve into the creation of the universe, nor the origin of life. Evolution deals with how life has changed since its inception and the mechanics of those changes. 

Quote:... My advice to you would be to seek out the truth for yourself. Unfortunately, much of what people believe is based less on evidence and more on unsubstantiated just-so stories. In relation to the basic claims of Christianity, do what I did! Read the Bible. Judge it for itself.

Reading the bible is doing exactly the opposite of what he is suggesting. The bible is not evidence, it is unsubstantiated stories.

[JustWinBaby]

(07-29-2019, 11:14 AM)Dill Wrote: I have access to the Nature database. I just copied the entire article to you in a private message.

The article argues that over the last 2,000 years ("the pre-industrial common era") instances of warming or cooling have been regional; the last two centuries differ in that they show a consistent temperature rise across the globe, in all regions--i.e., the warming has been "globally coherent," occurring everywhere.  People arguing that "there has been warming/cooling in the recent past" (e.g., the "little Ice Age") generally do not take this coherence into account. That's the argument in a nutshell. The source notes also give a sense how the argument of these 5 scientists has developed within and rests upon accumulated research on "global coherence."

I have forwarded your post to the residents of Shishmaref, Alaska, who will take comfort in the knowledge that there is no proof that less ice formation has "adverse effects". If only they'd known this before they had to move their entire village.

I found the article after some searching.  My original point stands - what does that article have to do with anything I posted?  It's a strawman rebuttal.

[JustWinBaby]

(08-01-2019, 11:16 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Then you post opinion pieces from from the media you claim can't be trusted instead of a single scientific study you've read . . . that you keep telling us to read.  Well, I can't read those studies if you keep treating them like you signed some non-disclosure agreement and refuse to divulge that info.  And why would I waste my time Googling for articles that you claim can't be trusted when I have a subject matter expert in yourself to guide me in my search for scientific information?  Obviously, that makes zero sense so I'm not going to waste my time doing that when I can use you as a resource to get the information you suggest I need to read to educate myself.

I'm not interested in reading editorials.  I would prefer to read the actual scientific studies and form my own opinion.  So I would be appreciative if you could just refer me to the studies you have read.  If I read the same studies you have read then I can read them and be just as informed and educated on the subject as you.  And educated us unwashed masses is your goal, correct?

Again, I posted about 3 pages explaining the issues.  If you've read any of the science, or care to, go google it and refute what was written.  I don't keep a running list of studies you wouldn't read and probably wouldn't understand, anyway.  Spencer, Curry and some of the others referenced in those links have plenty of published research if you care to read any. 

Spencer's Climate Change 101 (one of my links), is entirely accurate and unbiased which, again you could verify (or refute) for yourself with Google, if you cared to.

Just like last time.  Crickets and ad-hominem attacks.  When I say their models aren't validated (kind of a huge, monumental deal) and that's the basis of Climate alarmism, there's really nothing for me to prove.  That statement is either true, or you can go prove it's not true. 

[JustWinBaby]

(07-29-2019, 12:48 PM)Dill Wrote: 2. the foundation of the above debate rests upon one in the science community and their ongoing research. Here debate is minimal over the skeptical theses that drive #1.  That is why it is so hard to find climate scientists who challenge the AGB thesis, though they may argue over how to measure it. But this debate is hard for the public to follow, and that will include most of us posting here.

I asked you to go google ECS and then look at where IPCC gets there values from.  The IPCC takes those values primarily from the climate models.  That's inherently problematic.  The long and short of it is the science DOES NOT reject the default assumption of low climate sensitivity, which as I already pointed out is most likely between 1 and 1.5 based on the actual temperature data.  But then the climate alarmism falls apart, and with it a giant deflation of a $2T+ industry (among other things).

Those models aren't validated.  That's the hugely critical difference between data mining and science.  If their models had actual power, if they could be validated, they would do so with out-of-sample testing.  At a high-level, their model development has a computer chug thru different linear combinations for parameter estimates until it fits the data within the different constraints.  There's not a unique solution, which is why the IPCC uses something like 70 different models.  And there could be many more, so the range of ECS estimates is driven by assumptions and preferences of the modeler (or more deliberately, putting one's "thumb on the scale).  Many, many ways to bias a model, unintentionally or not, which is why validation is critical.


In other fields, assumptions and forecasts that come from an unvalidated model are dismissed out of hand.  The model is almost certainly wrong and certain to fail, so such research is a total non-starter.  I'm sure you won't believe me, but check out pages 2&3 of this UChicago link - this is what I've always said when referring to the fundamental building block of this as junk science:
http://jtac.uchicago.edu/conferences/05/resources/V&V_macal_pres.pdf

I'm sure you can find a lot of justification and explaining away the need to validate climate models.  But you need to pay very close attention to what is being said.  That a model matches the observed data is meaningless - it was forced to fit the data.  Plugging in new, observed values and getting an accurate forecast is a different model - the actual model had a wrong forecast/simulation for those variables because only CO2 is considered external forcing.  Fitting the model to include the new data is a different model (i.e. "re-tuned").

So in summary climate alarmism is not based on science, but on data mining (likely to produce a pre-determined result).

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-07-2019, 06:41 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Again, I posted about 3 pages explaining the issues.  If you've read any of the science, or care to, go google it and refute what was written.  I don't keep a running list of studies you wouldn't read and probably wouldn't understand, anyway.  Spencer, Curry and some of the others referenced in those links have plenty of published research if you care to read any. 

Spencer's Climate Change 101 (one of my links), is entirely accurate and unbiased which, again you could verify (or refute) for yourself with Google, if you cared to.

Just like last time.  Crickets and ad-hominem attacks.  When I say their models aren't validated (kind of a huge, monumental deal) and that's the basis of Climate alarmism, there's really nothing for me to prove.  That statement is either true, or you can go prove it's not true. 

1. There wasn't an ad hominem attack in my post.

2. I'm not asking you to prove or disprove anything. I just asked for the journal articles, not editorials. And I did so without questioning your ability to understand them like you did which is an ad hominem attack.

[JustWinBaby]

So again the TL;DR version is that the foundation of climate alarmism is based not on science, but data mining. Such models do provide ideas for further research, but are garbage for forecasting and policy choices.

Here's an article from Curry talking about the "scientific method/process" behind the models. Again, 100% spot on. Two of the tenets of good science, aside from a validated model, is that your methods and assumptions are documented and the work is reproducible (which obviously fails without the first, and when models are treated like proprietary trading models).
https://judithcurry.com/2010/10/10/the-culture-of-building-confidence-in-climate-models/


Here's a bit more on model fitting and validation just to prove I'm not pulling this out of my ass.
https://people.duke.edu/~rnau/three.htm
https://dziganto.github.io/cross-validation/data%20science/machine%20learning/model%20tuning/python/Model-Tuning-with-Validation-and-Cross-Validation/
LOL- "We learned that training a model on all the available data and then testing on that very same data is an awful way to build models" (a.k.a more derisively referred to as junk science).

And a link (it will download a pdf) to the IPCC chapter on model "evaluation" (there they go again choosing a similar sounding word but directly avoiding "validation"). Seems mainly devoted to providing a false sense of confidence in the models. That many things are tightly constrained still leaves plenty of giant assumptions and freedom fit a model. Actually an interesting read, and I think there's a pretty obvious disconnect between how and what is reported in the media and the range of uncertainty outlined here.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

[JustWinBaby]

(08-07-2019, 07:49 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: 1. There wasn't an ad hominem attack in my post.

2.  I'm not asking you to prove or disprove anything. I just asked for the journal articles, not editorials. And I did so without questioning your ability to understand them like you did which is an ad hominem attack.

Again, continuing to repeat your question isn't going to change what I've actually said.   I've laid out the issues and assumptions that are problematic. The challenge has always been to prove otherwise.  So that leaves you two choices - get to work on google and prove me wrong, or stop pretending that you actually understand the science and move on to another topic. 


I think you're fully aware that non-findings aren't typically published.  And I'm sure you can understand there isn't research invalidating a non-public model that was never validated.  That's not how science works, and I think you know this.

I've said many, many times the "science" behind climate hysteria is junk. Data mining is not science, and I'm not going to go find you a journal article that.   Maybe don't mock people when you don't appear to understand even the basics of the science yourself.

[JustWinBaby]

(07-29-2019, 03:13 PM)Beaker Wrote: I have also stated there is never/rarely a 100% consensus on anything in science. But the evidence for human activity contributing to changing global climate is now so strong that consensus is approaching 99%.

I always ask one simple question....from purely a logic point of view, how can human activity NOT be having an effect on global climate? I may not think that we are all going to die tomorrow, but we better get our heads out of the sand and start to look at human impacted global climate change as a true threat that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.
 

I've told you at least once already I've never claimed humans aren't causing climate change.  I've never claimed CO2 doesn't cause warming - in fact it's a known quantity of 1.0 degrees celsius for each doubling.  But it's a common tactic, and a telling one, of the faithful to label anyone that rejects the alarmist claims as a "denier".  When you threaten tenure or threaten to sue or jail skeptics, that's not someone who is defending science but defending their faith.

My question, or my point, has always been what is the actual climate sensitivity to CO2?  That's the fundamentally critical question to climate change "not a problem" and "existential threat".  12 years to act?  Pure garbage.  It's a political football now and I don't expect the rhetoric will change any time soon.  Just another distraction - we are not and really no one is going to do anything different.  The only practical thing that can be done in the immediate future is an all-electric fleet charged by nuclear.  And I'm glad that there's still enough rational sanity left to NOT start building a bunch of nuclear plants.

Truth be told, I don't believe there's enough fossil fuel left in the ground to cause anything remotely close to catastrophic warming.  But that doesn't justify throwing money at windmills.  Now China cheats with its solar subsidies, so you could argue the govt has to step-up there to keep us competitive.

[NATI BENGALS]

(08-07-2019, 09:03 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I've told you at least once already I've never claimed humans aren't causing climate change.  I've never claimed CO2 doesn't cause warming - in fact it's a known quantity of 1.0 degrees celsius for each doubling.  But it's a common tactic, and a telling one, of the faithful to label anyone that rejects the alarmist claims as a "denier".  When you threaten tenure or threaten to sue or jail skeptics, that's not someone who is defending science but defending their faith.

My question, or my point, has always been what is the actual climate sensitivity to CO2?  That's the fundamentally critical question to climate change "not a problem" and "existential threat".  12 years to act?  Pure garbage.  It's a political football now and I don't expect the rhetoric will change any time soon.  Just another distraction - we are not and really no one is going to do anything different.  The only practical thing that can be done in the immediate future is an all-electric fleet charged by nuclear.  And I'm glad that there's still enough rational sanity left to NOT start building a bunch of nuclear plants.

Truth be told, I don't believe there's enough fossil fuel left in the ground to cause anything remotely close to catastrophic warming.  But that doesn't justify throwing money at windmills.  Now China cheats with its solar subsidies, so you could argue the govt has to step-up there to keep us competitive.

Is there something wrong with investing in renewable energy?