Simple climate change refutation challenge

[jimbob]

Can you do it for this one? Its global data.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt

By the way, has anyone seen this page before?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

I am still using excel 5 at home so it is a little awkward, but here it is:

Target at LTA:

Target 0.22°C below LTA, seems to roughly usual temperature until 1920's

Target 0.225°C above LTA:
Around about the 1980's, but now is warmer

ETA: these were the 1-year average temperatures.


and here is the raw data, doesn't really need a cusum:

ETA2, except that it does show when the temperature was running at particular "typicals"

 

[TrueSceptic]

Yes. C02 absorbs in the infrared and that property is actually a way to measure it. Just like other greenhouse gases infrared absorption is linear and dependent on concentration.

What about the experimental evidence? (Just playing Devil's Advocate here, of course. )

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by Alric
Yes. C02 absorbs in the infrared and that property is actually a way to measure it. Just like other greenhouse gases infrared absorption is linear and dependent on concentration.
​

What about the experimental evidence? (Just playing Devil's Advocate here, of course. )

Who said infrared absorption was linear?

Check this -

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/the-60-second-c.html

 

[Alric]

Who said infrared absorption was linear?

Check this -

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/the-60-second-c.html

Assuming that it is true the diminishing returns of CO2 concentrations in terms of greenhouse effect we (including the author of that blog) do not know at what point this happens. Is it when C02 concentration is 1, 2 or 5% of the atmosphere concentration?

Also, the author discounts IPCC predictions because they factor in positive feedback effects. He says there is no evidence for these. However, most of these are also understood physical properties. Albedo from ice sheets or clouds are physical certainties.

 

[mhaze]

Assuming that it is true the diminishing returns of CO2 concentrations in terms of greenhouse effect we (including the author of that blog) do not know at what point this happens. Is it when C02 concentration is 1, 2 or 5% of the atmosphere concentration?

Also, the author discounts IPCC predictions because they factor in positive feedback effects. He says there is no evidence for these. However, most of these are also understood physical properties. Albedo from ice sheets or clouds are physical certainties.

Good question regarding where we are at on the logrithmic curve. There are some reasons I don't think that is really important.

May I suggest you peruse a bit Coyote's discussion on feedbacks? He is a control systems engineer and that is one part of the subject where he's done a pretty good job. There are some feedbacks for which I strongly lean in the direction that they are negative instead of positive as depicted in the IPCC. This is based on recent research (IPPC shut off was mid 2006).

The key phrase here is "climate sensitivity", and for that there are two variants: (1) climate sensitivity of just CO2 doubling (2) climate senstivity of CO2 doubling with the set of positive and negative feedbacks that actually occur in the real world.

"CO2 doubling" is a convention that is used by the scientists. It's just an easy way to have everybody producing fairly comparable data. (Does not mean that studying an increase of 20% in CO2 is not valid).

 

[Alric]

If Coyote, you or anyone has an idea of merit you should write it up and get it published. Between some guy's blog and the consensus of 2500 scientists I think I will go with the latter.

Again, please cite peer reviewed data or discussion that address the challenge. Otherwise, our conclusion would have to be that contrarians are basing their suppositions on conjecture and misdirection.

 

[mhaze]

If Coyote, you or anyone has an idea of merit you should write it up and get it published. Between some guy's blog and the consensus of 2500 scientists I think I will go with the latter.

Again, please cite peer reviewed data or discussion that address the challenge. Otherwise, our conclusion would have to be that contrarians are basing their suppositions on conjecture and misdirection.

Having shown that you did not know the logrythymic nature of the CO2 response, now you would like to be steadfastly ignorant on feedbacks, and knowing naught of LOSU items considered HI, Medium or Low.

our conclusion would have to be that contrarians are basing their suppositions on conjecture and misdirection.
​

How can we be assured of your capability in skill and understanding to judge contrarians, devious masters of misdirection as they may be, capable of creating confusion where clear minds once reigned, on such important, yet subtly nuanced subjects?

 

[Alric]

How can we be assured of your capability in skill and understanding to judge contrarians

Oh I don't judge. That's what peer review does. And I understand all the concepts. I just don't think they apply like you think they do.

The purpose of my challenge is to be a contrarian on the face of peer review data or discussions. When you have to resort to side issues, blogs and single individuals you give validity to my assertion of misdirection.

Now. Can you respond to this with published peer reviewed data or discussion?

I decided to play a little. Radiative forcing can be calculated for each gas. For example for CO2 it is (note the famous logarithm):

Myhre, et al. 1998

I took the CO2 values measured from Mauna Loa since 1958 and plugged them in the formula using the first value as the lowest possible. It does not seem by this graph that any kind of plateau is reached.

 

[Alric]

Hmm...the discussion stopped once real numbers were examined...

 

[casebro]

But just as the post above re: the temp in England is not valid per GLOBAL warming, how valid is one graph of the CO2 at one location, Moana Loa? Is that graph an example of cherry picking?

Is it true that the wide ocean will give off more co2 as the surface temp rises? Is Moana Loa a proof of that? ooops, back to cause and effect.

 

[Alric]

Mauna Loa is just one place but is the best place because of altitude it is unaffected by surface sources of C02. It also reflects the measurement of other measurement stations.

Even if its true that the ocean may give off more CO2 as temp increases, CO2 will still act as a greenhouse gas and increase temperature.

Also, if you are going to use those arguments first you have to find a reference for local measurements of CO2 not reflecting global CO2.

 

[mhaze]

Oh I don't judge. That's what peer review does. And I understand all the concepts. I just don't think they apply like you think they do.

The purpose of my challenge is to be a contrarian on the face of peer review data or discussions. When you have to resort to side issues, blogs and single individuals you give validity to my assertion of misdirection.

Now. Can you respond to this with published peer reviewed data or discussion?

I decided to play a little. Radiative forcing can be calculated for each gas. For example for CO2 it is (note the famous logarithm):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/a/0/d/a0d6bbe1cf969c447b5475d3dfbc5bb3.png Myhre, et al. 1998

I took the CO2 values measured from Mauna Loa since 1958 and plugged them in the formula using the first value as the lowest possible. It does not seem by this graph that any kind of plateau is reached.

Okay, lets do peer review.

Show me a peer reviewed article that supports your OP.

 

[Alric]

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

"This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."

From Science magazine. That page expresses the consensus opinion of climate scientists regarding climate change.

http://www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html

Another consensus review by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

 

[mhaze]

These somehow support non-spurious correlation?

 

[Alric]

Haven't we discussed that already? C02 is a greenhouse gas.

 

[jsfisher]

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

"This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."

From Science magazine. That page expresses the consensus opinion of climate scientists regarding climate change.

The methodology and conclusions of Naomi Oreskes expressed in the essay you cite have been discredited. Attempts to reproduce her results have failed -- and for a literature search study, that is very surprising.

Here is a good summary of the difficulties with Oreskes' essay.

You may notice that Science declined to publish the letter. This is not because of any covert act by the Science editors, nor rejection of Benny Peiser's claim. Scholarly journals expect to be the original publisher of any work. Peiser's findings had been widely distributed across the Internet, so Science followed its standard policy.

 

[jsfisher]

http://www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html

Another consensus review by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

I looked over the link you provided, but I did not find a "consensus review".

 

[jsfisher]

Haven't we discussed that already? C02 is a greenhouse gas.

You mentioned it repeatedly, but discussed, not so much. This is the extent of the discussion:

I've explained this before. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. If its concentration goes up, temperature must too. Its a physical property of CO2.

By the way, as you have presented it, your statement is provably false.

 

[Alric]

The methodology and conclusions of Naomi Oreskes expressed in the essay you cite have been discredited. Attempts to reproduce her results have failed -- and for a literature search study, that is very surprising.

Here is a good summary of the difficulties with Oreskes' essay.

You may notice that Science declined to publish the letter. This is not because of any covert act by the Science editors, nor rejection of Benny Peiser's claim. Scholarly journals expect to be the original publisher of any work. Peiser's findings had been widely distributed across the Internet, so Science followed its standard policy.

Not that the question of climate change rests on the essay of a history of science professor. Now we have the latest IPCC report and many other papers. But here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Peiser#Objections_to_Oreskes_Essay

"He did a similar survey with different results. His letters[4] were rejected by the editors of Science. A crucial subset of his survey's results was posted and analyzed[5] by blogger Tim Lambert, and it was discovered that Peiser had used different search terms and parameters, such as his inclusion of articles which had not been peer reviewed, whereas Oreskes's article was explicitly about peer reviewed scientific articles. Consequently Peiser has different results, however his demarcation of 35 abstracts as contesting the consensus position has been challenged by most readers of the abstracts, as only one (non peer reviewed ) abstract clearly contradicts the consensus position. Consequently Dr. Peiser later conceded[6] that his survey contained some errors, though he maintains that the substance of his criticism of Oreskes's essay remains valid."

I don't like to cite wikipedia but in that article you will find the original references.

 

[Alric]

I looked over the link you provided, but I did not find a "consensus review".

Whatever the aaas says IS the consensus view.