Global Warming w/o Tiggy

[Challenger Grim]

I am not surprized that you feel that way.
Scientific Modeling is the entire question in this field
"Pure math" can only prove pure math.

SM

Well modeling helps, but we have to be sure to keep some perspective in the area (hey, I work with computers so you can understand my reaction to all the "if-then" statements ;-)

Hypothetical example:
Let's assume we're 90% sure AGW is everything we're worried about.
And model X seems to show an 85% accuracy rate.
And according to X there's like a...75% chance billions will starve if the prior two are true.

Sounds troubling right? Well.... the 75% is dependent on the prior conditions. Which means you need to add their probability to it, leading to:
0.9 * 0.85 * 0.75 = 0.57375

There's only a real 57% chance that billions will starve.

Of course, considering that the globe doesn't seem to be warming as predicted, the data is questionable, and that a lot of the models have really horrible track records, you can see why I'd confidently bet against the worst case scenarios.

[shadowmaster]

Good post!

Dumping Tiggy has improved communication a lot

!. No one (outside of Gore and company) has said "it's all AGW."

I disagree. Read the King of AGW, Hansen, at http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/fe...1_altscenario/
It is the “Only Game in Town" for you AGWs

2. Theories do not explain the why--they primarily explain the how of a phenomenon.

It is rare theory, which does not include God, that explains “why”
The how is the only thing that matters and that is where I fault the GW alarmists for their sloppy modeling.

3. We do know some of the facts of how CO2 figures into the climate cycle--and so far, while the theory is more tentative than (say) the ToE, it does exist.

Ahh but quantify that statement and then defend it.
CO2 is indeed a factor -- a minor factor. In order to get any significant climatological effects one must theoretically invoke large (unsubstantiated) positive feedback effects.
Try to quantify that with solid physics (Peer reviewed or not).
They are not not validated physics models of the climate.

Lastly, the issue is not whether or not Glenn's outlook is "strange," the issue is on whether or not the data is being handled honestly. From what I see, Glenn is not handling the data in an honest fashion--though Morton's Demon being what it is, he no doubt is perfectly sincere.

I again I disagree. The data is being mishandled by those who advocate AGW.
Specifically they invoke unproven theories and call them "facts".
Simply quoting the published results, which Morton disputes, as “evidence” is as dishonest as one can get. (See for example all posts by Tiggy)

Norton is "strange" in that he does not blindly follow "peer reviewed" literature as though it were some holy interpretation of the Bible.
He forces an analysis based upon first physical principles.

This is a non-Tiggy-poop thread. All of your claims and all of mine are subject to analysis. You may go first.

SM

[David M]

The problem, despite Glenn’s strange outlook, is that there really is no good theory on why it is all AGW and how does CO2 figure in.
If scientists would stop using "green arguments”, like you do above, and stick to scientific modeling principles, then there could be significant progress to be made.

The "amplification" of CO2 “forcing" is merely an unvalidated assumption at present.
It is simulations that assume that we must consider what "Greenies" call the worst case assumption.
That might be O.K. if it was really possible for us to manipulate the climate without collateral damage.
A more honest approach would not reek of Tiggy smells.
It is not too late IMHO

Scientists on the whole are not saying that all warming is AGW, only that Anthropogenic causes are contributing to warming.

When it comes to disaster planning to you do consider worst case scenarios, if you can take action to mitigate the worst case you can also mitigate the less serious cases.

But this is really an aside as my point was that the NOAA data does not show what Glen said it did and that is fully supported by the graph that he linked to. It shows a warming trend not a cooling one.

I'm not a climate scientist but I can read a graph and do some maths.

[David M]

I disagree. Read the King of AGW, Hansen, at http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/fe...1_altscenario/
It is the “Only Game in Town" for you AGWs

SM

Sorry but Hansen says no such thing. In the very first paragraph we find:

"There is a growing consensus (IPCC 1996) that the warming is at least in part a consequence of increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases."

"At least in part" does not mean "All"

Further down we have "The primary natural source of CH4 is microbial decay of organic matter under anoxic conditions in wetlands. Anthropogenic sources, which in sum may be twice as great as the natural source, include rice cultivation, domestic ruminants, bacterial decay in landfills and sewage, leakage during the mining of fossil fuels, leakage from natural gas pipelines, and biomass burning. Global warming could cause the natural wetland source to increase, but if warming causes a drying of wetlands, it might reduce the CH4 source."

There he is explicitly stating that 1/3 or more of CH4 release is not anthopogenic at all and even that warming may decrease this contribution.

Why are you lying about what Hansen is saying SM?

[Challenger Grim]

When it comes to disaster planning to you do consider worst case scenarios, if you can take action to mitigate the worst case you can also mitigate the less serious cases.

But even the idea that we can do anything against the worst case scenarios (which seem to be so much fiction) is contestable.

And if the plan involves something nearly as bad as the worst case, might you take time to consider it more carefully?

This reminds me of a video I saw once where a guy weighed what I've heard referred to as "wrong consequences". The idea is sort of this: let's assume everyone is 100% right, AGW proponents and those who warn against the economic consequences of many actions. We then have a simple grid:

AGW is true/not true on the y axis.
Do something/Do nothing on the x axis.

He then compared the possible results:
1. AGW true - do something: We live!
2. AGW not true - do something: Catastrophic economic disaster
3. AGW true - do nothing: We all die!
4. AGW not true - do nothing: Everything's awesome!

His conclusion is that the consequences of 3 were worse than 2 so we should act in accordance with 3.

Of course, there's a huge flaw here I hope some of you have already spotted:
Based upon the original premise, the consequence of 2 WILL OCCUR IN 1 ALSO.

As study after study has pointed out, nothing impacts health and well being like poverty. So, you essentially want to drive billions into worse poverty (especially those who are climbing out of it) and drive them to earlier deaths in order to prevent the off chance of AGW?

Sorry, but I haven't been satisfied that the potential life loss to AGW would be worse and more than the misery and life loss from the economic meltdown.

[David M]

I love how the 'misrepresentation' charge is cast about so causually. Why don't you rather suggest that I might be wrong rather than taking the most aggressive form possible.

To answer your question, I wasn't comparing two years only. I was comparing the fact that most of the years since 1998 have been cooler than 1998.

I suggested that because your claim of a "10 year cooling trend" is in no way supported by the NOAA data that you linked to.

Why not pick 1997? Then you'd find that only 2 years since then were cooler than 1997, that would mean a warming trend. Why not pick any year other than the 2nd hottest in the last 30 years?

You chose to use a year that superficially gave credence to your claim, once that is not backed up by analysis of the data. That gives me sufficient reason to make charges of misrepresentation.

Maybe you missed the context of the question Roland asked. We weren't discussing 1991-2000 we were discussing post 1998. If you want to broaden the discussion, I will gladly acknowledge that the thermometer record for this decade is higher than the thermometer record for the 1980s, and 1990s. But that is a different thing than what I thought Roland and I were discussing.

No, you are misrepresenting the data. You extrapolated a comparison to 1hot year into a statement about the global trend in temperatures as shown in the NOAA graph. That Graph does not limit itself to just 1998 onwards.

Your comparison of 1998 to later years was superficially correct but by saying that the NOAA data supports a cooling trend you lied.

Extrapolating a trend from one year (and picking the 2nd warmest year of the past 30 years) is misrepresenting the data.

Show that the NOAA data shows a cooling trend please.

I would ask that you please prove that I lied. Such language is why no one can seem to have a rational discussion of the data with AGW folks.

You lied when you said that the NOAA data showed a cooling trend for the last 10 years. I'll point out that this, strictly speaking, excludes 1998 which means 1999 is the startpoint and the trend since then is UP.

There you have it, your statement "The trend would be down for the past 10 years." is a lie. You should have said "the past 11 years" if you wanted to even pass the bar of being superficially correct in just the context of your own comparison.

But putting that aside the graph doesn't show a cooling trend in the last 10 years, it shows a continued trend of warming. 9 of the 10 hottest years out of the last 100 have been since 1998 (maybe 2008 is 9th equal with 1997).

Lets make it real simple. If I chopped off that graph as 1999 my claim that the last 10 years showed a warming trend would be absolutely true as far as being a correct statement.

I said the same thing to David M, that he thought we were speaking of 1986 on. We weren't

No I didn't as you want to get all technical about it. I limited myself to 1991 onwards.

[shadowmaster]

Sorry but Hansen says no such thing. In the very first paragraph we find:

"There is a growing consensus (IPCC 1996) that the warming is at least in part a consequence of increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases."

"At least in part" does not mean "All"

Further down we have "The primary natural source of CH4 is microbial decay of organic matter under anoxic conditions in wetlands. Anthropogenic sources, which in sum may be twice as great as the natural source, include rice cultivation, domestic ruminants, bacterial decay in landfills and sewage, leakage during the mining of fossil fuels, leakage from natural gas pipelines, and biomass burning. Global warming could cause the natural wetland source to increase, but if warming causes a drying of wetlands, it might reduce the CH4 source."

There he is explicitly stating that 1/3 or more of CH4 release is not anthopogenic at all and even that warming may decrease this contribution.

Are you not current on Hansen's activities?

see

]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/science/earth/23climate.html

Years Later, Climatologist Renews His Call for Action

“The greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now,” Dr. Hansen said then, referring to a recent string of warm years and the accumulating blanket of heat-trapping carbon dioxide and other gases emitted mainly by burning fossil fuels and forests....

it is almost, but not quite, too late to start defusing what he calls the “global warming time bomb.”...

“If we don’t begin to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the next several years, and really on a very different course, then we are in trouble,” Dr. Hansen said Friday at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, which he has directed since 1981. “Then the ice sheets are in trouble. Many species on the planet are in trouble.”

Dr. Hansen said he had no regrets about stepping into the realm of policy, despite much criticism.
“I only regret that we haven’t gotten the story across as well as it needs to be,” he said. “And I think we’re running out of time.”

Why are you lying about what Hansen is saying SM?

I need not correspond with those who use Tiggy's "liar liar pants on fire" approach to science reasoning. Hansen himself acknowledges that his approach is as published in the NY Times. (and you should note that he is the head of NISS)

Go try the Tiggy poop thread where your deceptions will be welcome.

[David M]

But even the idea that we can do anything against the worst case scenarios (which seem to be so much fiction) is contestable.

And if the plan involves something nearly as bad as the worst case, might you take time to consider it more carefully?

This reminds me of a video I saw once where a guy weighed what I've heard referred to as "wrong consequences". The idea is sort of this: let's assume everyone is 100% right, AGW proponents and those who warn against the economic consequences of many actions. We then have a simple grid:

AGW is true/not true on the y axis.
Do something/Do nothing on the x axis.

He then compared the possible results:
1. AGW true - do something: We live!
2. AGW not true - do something: Catastrophic economic disaster
3. AGW true - do nothing: We all die!
4. AGW not true - do nothing: Everything's awesome!

His conclusion is that the consequences of 3 were worse than 2 so we should act in accordance with 3.

Of course, there's a huge flaw here I hope some of you have already spotted:
Based upon the original premise, the consequence of 2 WILL OCCUR IN 1 ALSO.

As study after study has pointed out, nothing impacts health and well being like poverty. So, you essentially want to drive billions into worse poverty (especially those who are climbing out of it) and drive them to earlier deaths in order to prevent the off chance of AGW?

Sorry, but I haven't been satisfied that the potential life loss to AGW would be worse and more than the misery and life loss from the economic meltdown.

I contend that "2. AGW not true - do something: Catastrophic economic disaster" is complete bollocks. For example a lot of things can be done to mitigate human production of green house gases without leading to economic disaster.

[David M]

Are you not current on Hansen's activities?

see

]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/science/earth/23climate.html

Years Later, Climatologist Renews His Call for Action

“The greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now,” Dr. Hansen said then, referring to a recent string of warm years and the accumulating blanket of heat-trapping carbon dioxide and other gases emitted mainly by burning fossil fuels and forests....

it is almost, but not quite, too late to start defusing what he calls the “global warming time bomb.”...

“If we don’t begin to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the next several years, and really on a very different course, then we are in trouble,” Dr. Hansen said Friday at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, which he has directed since 1981. “Then the ice sheets are in trouble. Many species on the planet are in trouble.”

Dr. Hansen said he had no regrets about stepping into the realm of policy, despite much criticism.
“I only regret that we haven’t gotten the story across as well as it needs to be,” he said. “And I think we’re running out of time.”

I need not correspond with those who use Tiggy's "liar liar pants on fire" approach to science reasoning. Hansen himself acknowledges that his approach is as published in the NY Times. (and you should note that he is the head of NISS)

Go try the Tiggy poop thread where your deceptions will be welcome.

This has nothing to do with "science reasoning", its about you claiming someone said something when they said the exact opposite.

Which of these quotes says "it's all AGW."? None of them.

This was the claim you made.

1. No one (outside of Gore and company) has said "it's all AGW."

I disagree. Read the King of AGW, Hansen, at http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/fe...1_altscenario/
It is the “Only Game in Town" for you AGWs

Hansen does not say "it's all AGW.", in your first linked article he specifically said its NOT all AGW and even in these new quotes he says that the carbon dioxide and other gases are emitted mainly by burning fossil fuels and forests.

Hansen is not claiming "it's all AGW." so pointing to him as someone who does is just not true. Is he engaging in hyperbole and using alarming phrases - yes he is but that was not your claim.

[Challenger Grim]

I contend that "2. AGW not true - do something: Catastrophic economic disaster" is complete bollocks. For example a lot of things can be done to mitigate human production of green house gases without leading to economic disaster.

Yes, and I contend that AGW will result in catastrophe is complete bollocks.

The purpose of the exercise (AS I SPELLED OUT) was to grant as true every extreme possibility.

If you wan to start getting into details then both sides have to suffer, for example, there's little chance that a lot of the predicted disasters will occur with AGW.

Again, that's assuming a lot. I think there is probably more to a hot water bottle model of climate (proposed here: http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1487) than a green house effect. Or even the point that eventually, CO2 effects will top out and adding more and more will have no further impact (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index....enhouse-effect).

[FLovell]

Wow...nice to be here -- a He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named-free discussion zone, where actual discussions might have a fighting chance to proceed!

I'll take a bit to peruse and catch-up on the posts here, see if I can readjust to "signal" that actually emerges from the anti-collegial "noise" for a change, and then if there seems to be something I might be able to contribute to the debate, I'll give it a try here.

-- Frank

[shadowmaster]

This has nothing to do with "science reasoning", its about you claiming someone said something when they said the exact opposite.

Which of these quotes says "it's all AGW."? None of them.

This was the claim you made.



Hansen does not say "it's all AGW.", in your first linked article he specifically said its NOT all AGW and even in these new quotes he says that the carbon dioxide and other gases are emitted mainly by burning fossil fuels and forests.

That is exactly what AGW is. sheesh!

Hansen is not claiming "it's all AGW." so pointing to him as someone who does is just not true. Is he engaging in hyperbole and using alarming phrases - yes he is but that was not your claim.

hoirsepoop

If I were to agree that his motives are all sweet and pure and that he is just engaging in hyperbole, as Morton does and I did, will you calm down and discuss as science whether or not AGW is a critical issue for survival of the human race?
That requires that we have simulations that really work in predictive abilities.
Will you then claim that we understand it well enough to actually deal with it?

I claim that we do not understand GW very well at all.
I claim that the simulations merely force fit the results to a hypothetical amplification model made by GISS and assumes that AGW is what is driiving most of the the temperature rise.
Moreover, I claim that GISS and others obscure the fundamental nature of their simulations such that others cannot see the physics behind them.
i further claim that it dangerous because AGW is not an isolated aspect of life that that can be divorced from other consequences.

If we play with the fundamentals, we had best understand those fundamentals -- not corrupt politicians.

Now I am a systems simulation expert with a PhD in Physics and MS in electrical (systems) engineering. I would love to see a model that can be trusted.

[David M]

That is exactly what AGW is. sheesh!

But by saying those greenhouse gas emissions are mainly caused by human activity he is also stating that some of it isn't caused by those human activities. All he is committing to is that 51% is definitely down to those activities.

There is a difference between "there is warming and its all AGW" and "there is warming and some of it is AGW".

You used Hansen as an example to rebut the claim that people outside "Gore and his crowd" were not saying its "all AGW".

Hansen does not say that in the first article you linked to as evidence, he explicitly says that Anthropogenic effects only make up some of the causes of warming. He uses the "mainly" caveat in the later quote you used.

From the evidence you have provided Hansen only falls in the "there is warming and some of it is AGW" camp which is different to your original claim.

To support your original claim you would need to show Hansen saying its all AGW.

[shadowmaster]

All that I need to claim about Hansen is what i quoted in post # 42 above. The issue is not about a court of law as to who said what first. The quotes in post # 42 by Hansen are the type that drive the hysterical public reaction to so-called "global warming"

I am concerned that it is promoted by bad modeling of the physics and can have dangerous consequences.

Is that not clear enough?

[shadowmaster]

Wow...nice to be here -- a He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named-free discussion zone, where actual discussions might have a fighting chance to proceed!

I'll take a bit to peruse and catch-up on the posts here, see if I can readjust to "signal" that actually emerges from the anti-collegial "noise" for a change, and then if there seems to be something I might be able to contribute to the debate, I'll give it a try here.

-- Frank

Please join in Frank. I believe that both sides of the issue should reviewed here. To what degree is the modeling of GW on firm physical ground and what are backround assumptions that have not been proven? I have opinions based upon discussions with IEEE and ICEO but am not conversant with all of the GW/AGW details.

SM