Climate change consensus

[Roy]

Source: Washington Post (link given below)

Last year, research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that the percentage of scientific articles retracted because of fraud had increased tenfold since 1975.

© Copyright Original Source

---Link to Washington Post article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...e3d_story.html
-----Link given in Washington Post article to PNAS report: http://www.pnas.org/content/109/42/17028.abstract

I very much doubt Roy will be able to come up with evidence that the number of scientists have increased tenfold since 1975.

Why would I have to?

I will note, however, that
- your claim has shifted from absolute number of cases to a percentage or fraction of cases
- the actual increase given in your source is from 0.001% to 0.01%, or to put it another way, the percentage of genuine papers was 99.999% and is now only 99.99%.
- your source gives the total number of papers retracted for fraud/suspected fraud as 888 out of 25000000
- Comparing your source's numbers with those from historical data on the number of published articles (here) shows that the number of such retracted papers increased (1975-2010) by 58/year while the total number of papers increased by 440000/year.

Finally, these numbers only reflect the number of papers where possible fraud has been reported. Your own source admits that

Source: ibid

One factor is the increased detection of misconduct. The first discernible increase in retractions followed the formation of the Office of Scientific Integrity (the predecessor of the Office of Research Integrity) and passage of the Whistleblower Protection Act in 1989.

© Copyright Original Source

Higher rates of detection could lead to a tenfold increase in such retractions even if there was only e.g. a threefold increase in actual cases.

Roy

[Roy]

I'm shocked I say, shocked! Follow the money.

Yep, follow the money:

Source: ibid

We have previously argued that increased retractions and ethical breaches may result, at least in part, from the incentive system of science, which is based on a winner-takes-all economics that confers disproportionate rewards to winners in the form of grants, jobs, and prizes at a time of research funding scarcity

© Copyright Original Source

Roy

P.S. Why are you quoting the Washington post article rather than the actual research paper?

[Poor Debater]

Correlation does not imply causation.

In the first place, this is not strictly correct; correlation is evidence for causation, but it does not demonstrate causation on its own. Thus there is indeed an implication.

In the second place, the link between CO2 and surface temperature is based on unrefuted physics, not on statistics. And that is not refuted by your argument.

In the third place, although correlation alone does not demonstrate causation, there is a statistical test called Granger causality that does demonstrate causation. And it has been shown that CO2 Granger-causes temperature rise, from a purely statistical perspective. (Not that we needed to know that, since we already knew it from the physics.)

The earth went through a significant warming period beginning around 1800 following the Little Ice Age and rose pretty steadily from that point, so it's absurd to attribute any recent warming to the industrial revolution.

No, actually this argument is absurd. Because climate change can occur naturally, you argue, therefore climate change cannot occur anthropogenically? One might say, with equal absurdity, that because forest fires can start naturally, therefore man cannot start forest fires. Or that because death occurs naturally, therefore murder is impossible.

Then there's the "inconvenient truth" of the nearly two-decade pause which has defied every global warming model and predecition and has flummoxed the alarmists who are at a loss to explain where all the "missing" heat went.

There has been no statistically significant change in the rate of global warming over the past 20 years, or the past 15 years, or the past 10 years. I'm sorry, but that whole argument is unfounded. And I invite you to do the math yourself, if you have enough chops to determine the uncertainly of a trend. Or if you don't, try looking at a global warming dataset that has a higher signal-to-noise ratio that surface temperature, such as sea level, or ocean heat content; you won't find a hint of a pause, haitus, or slowdown in either of those.

I point out, again, that the most obvious answer in the best tradition of Ockham's Razor is that the heat was simply never here to begin with.

Considering that your hypothesis does not fit the data, while mine does, I'd say that Ockam is on my side. Unless you can explain how the sea level can rise absent an increase in global temperature, which I frankly doubt you can.

[Truthseeker]

P.S. Why are you quoting the Washington post article rather than the actual research paper?

Because I thought it might make the research article more convincing. IIRC Washington Post is ok on facts in general.

[Truthseeker]

Why would I have to?

I will note, however, that
- your claim has shifted from absolute number of cases to a percentage or fraction of cases
- the actual increase given in your source is from 0.001% to 0.01%, or to put it another way, the percentage of genuine papers was 99.999% and is now only 99.99%.
- your source gives the total number of papers retracted for fraud/suspected fraud as 888 out of 25000000
- Comparing your source's numbers with those from historical data on the number of published articles (here) shows that the number of such retracted papers increased (1975-2010) by 58/year while the total number of papers increased by 440000/year.

Finally, these numbers only reflect the number of papers where possible fraud has been reported. Your own source admits that

Source: ibid

One factor is the increased detection of misconduct. The first discernible increase in retractions followed the formation of the Office of Scientific Integrity (the predecessor of the Office of Research Integrity) and passage of the Whistleblower Protection Act in 1989.

© Copyright Original Source

Higher rates of detection could lead to a tenfold increase in such retractions even if there was only e.g. a threefold increase in actual cases.

Roy

Good rejoinder!

[Truthseeker]

In the first place, this is not strictly correct; correlation is evidence for causation, but it does not demonstrate causation on its own. Thus there is indeed an implication.

Surely you know that you're using that word in a loose sense in that context.

In the second place, the link between CO2 and surface temperature is based on unrefuted physics, not on statistics. And that is not refuted by your argument.

Unrefuted, OK. But I still think we are far from understanding what role man's activities has in the climate. And we should not ignore the statistics, they form the ultimate body of evidence by which to evaluate our theories.

In the third place, although correlation alone does not demonstrate causation, there is a statistical test called Granger causality that does demonstrate causation. And it has been shown that CO2 Granger-causes temperature rise, from a purely statistical perspective. (Not that we needed to know that, since we already knew it from the physics.)

That's new to me, but I remain skeptical.

No, actually this argument is absurd. Because climate change can occur naturally, you argue, therefore climate change cannot occur anthropogenically? One might say, with equal absurdity, that because forest fires can start naturally, therefore man cannot start forest fires. Or that because death occurs naturally, therefore murder is impossible.

To understand what is man's role in the climate, we have to understand the evolution of climate sans man. Since we cannot have an Earth without man to observe, we have to create models that appear to do a good job of not only "postdiction" but prediction as well. IMO we cannot be sure there is at least one such model.

Considering that your hypothesis does not fit the data, while mine does, I'd say that Ockam is on my side. Unless you can explain how the sea level can rise absent an increase in global temperature, which I frankly doubt you can.

I remember reading something many months ago to the effect that sea levels have not really risen. At least not as rapidly as predicted. Don't you have any link to the literature?

[Poor Debater]

Unrefuted, OK. But I still think we are far from understanding what role man's activities has in the climate.

I suspect the reason you think that is because you're unfamiliar with the full weight of the scientific evidence, which is rather more enormous that most people realize.

And we should not ignore the statistics, they form the ultimate body of evidence by which to evaluate our theories.

Nor do I. FYI, since you asked for references, you can start with this review paper and the citations therein:
Attanasio, Alessandro, Antonello Pasini, and Umberto Triacca. "Granger causality analyses for climatic attribution." Atmospheric and Climate Sciences 2013 (2013).

To understand what is man's role in the climate, we have to understand the evolution of climate sans man. Since we cannot have an Earth without man to observe,

Not really correct, since we have geological evidence of climate and CO2, and astrophysical evidence of solar evolution, which give similar results to what we're seeing now.
Royer, Dana L., Robert A. Berner, and Jeffrey Park. "Climate sensitivity constrained by CO2 concentrations over the past 420 million years." Nature 446.7135 (2007): 530-532.

we have to create models that appear to do a good job of not only "postdiction" but prediction as well. IMO we cannot be sure there is at least one such model.

No model is perfect, but some models are useful. And when all models are pointing in the same direction, that can be very useful indeed. If we trust the models and it turns out they're wrong, we get a cleaner planet. If we don't trust the models and it turns out they're right, it could be the end of civilization as we know it. So which policy carries the least risk?

I remember reading something many months ago to the effect that sea levels have not really risen. At least not as rapidly as predicted. Don't you have any link to the literature?

The Jason/TOPEX sea level data I linked to earlier has been peer-reviewed, here is the citation:
Nerem, R. S., D. Chambers, C. Choe, and G. T. Mitchum. "Estimating Mean Sea Level Change from the TOPEX and Jason Altimeter Missions." Marine Geodesy 33, no. 1 supp 1 (2010): 435.

Current sea level rise is at the uppermost end of the projections made in IPCC TAR.

It goes without saying that satellite observations are far more accurate than tidal gauges, because they measure the entire ocean instead of being tied to the coasts.

[Truthseeker]

I suspect the reason you think that is because you're unfamiliar with the full weight of the scientific evidence, which is rather more enormous that most people realize.

I googled (not for the first time) "hot spot climate", and came up with this article "The UN Climate Panel's 'Hot Spot' is Missing in Action"
http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...in_action.html
In summary, every(?) model predicts a hot spot in the atmosphere over the tropics. Such a hot spot does not appear in temperature data.

However the article is more than one year old. So perhaps there is new data recently, but I rather doubt it.

Not really correct, since we have geological evidence of climate and CO2, and astrophysical evidence of solar evolution, which give similar results to what we're seeing now.
Royer, Dana L., Robert A. Berner, and Jeffrey Park. "Climate sensitivity constrained by CO2 concentrations over the past 420 million years." Nature 446.7135 (2007): 530-532.

I misstated a point. I was not referring to the distant past when there was no man or woman.

No model is perfect, but some models are useful. And when all models are pointing in the same direction, that can be very useful indeed. If we trust the models and it turns out they're wrong, we get a cleaner planet. If we don't trust the models and it turns out they're right, it could be the end of civilization as we know it. So which policy carries the least risk?

The world economy is anemic partly because governments have already frittered away huge sums of money trying to control climate change.

The Jason/TOPEX sea level data I linked to earlier has been peer-reviewed, here is the citation:
Nerem, R. S., D. Chambers, C. Choe, and G. T. Mitchum. "Estimating Mean Sea Level Change from the TOPEX and Jason Altimeter Missions." Marine Geodesy 33, no. 1 supp 1 (2010): 435.

Current sea level rise is at the uppermost end of the projections made in IPCC TAR.

It goes without saying that satellite observations are far more accurate than tidal gauges, because they measure the entire ocean instead of being tied to the coasts.

Thanks. Of course sea level rises are to be expected given that recent years have been unusually warm compared to earlier years

[phank]

I
The world economy is anemic partly because governments have already frittered away huge sums of money trying to control climate change.

Seriously? I tried to find some source for this claim, but all I could find was FAR right-wing hysteria, carping that more was being spent on climate than on border patrols! I did find that conservative groups are spending nearly as much fighting against action on climate, as is being spent on climate.

The total amount spent is a miniscule percentage of the annual budget - about as much as the Middle East wars cost the US every 2 weeks or so.

[shunyadragon]

The world economy is anemic partly because governments have already frittered away huge sums of money trying to control climate change.

Bizzaro claim! I would like see anything that supports this!?!?!?!?

[Truthseeker]

Seriously? I tried to find some source for this claim, but all I could find was FAR right-wing hysteria, carping that more was being spent on climate than on border patrols! I did find that conservative groups are spending nearly as much fighting against action on climate, as is being spent on climate.

The total amount spent is a miniscule percentage of the annual budget - about as much as the Middle East wars cost the US every 2 weeks or so.

Bizzaro claim! I would like see anything that supports this!?!?!?!?

1)Are you saying that the economy is NOT anemic? Well, that's your opinion; I have mine. 2)I misstated what was doing the spending. The spending that the energy sector have now to spend complying with legislation for pollution control should be included, for one thing. Also consider Obama's campaign against coal.

I suggest we not debate this subtopic any more. Indeed I regret making that part of a post.

[Poor Debater]

I googled (not for the first time) "hot spot climate", and came up with this article "The UN Climate Panel's 'Hot Spot' is Missing in Action"
http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...in_action.html
In summary, every(?) model predicts a hot spot in the atmosphere over the tropics. Such a hot spot does not appear in temperature data.

However the article is more than one year old. So perhaps there is new data recently, but I rather doubt it.

It's rather hard to take seriously any article that makes three blatant factual errors in the first two sentences alone:

1. "the UN's climate-science panel (IPCC-AR2, 1996), invented the Hot-Spot in the tropical atmosphere ..." False. The IPCC doesn't invent anything and never has. The IPCC doesn't even do scientific research. All they do is report on, and synthesize, existing scientific work done by others.

2. "... and assumed, mistakenly, it was proof of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)." False. The tropical hotspot occurs as a result of any and all warming, whether from anthropogenic or natural causes. Thus the presence or absence of the hotspot in no way affects attribution of climate change to human activity.

3. "But the hotspot has never been demonstrated observationally." False. That may have been true when Fred Singer retired 15 years ago, but a lot has happened since then. The hotspot has been observed over short timeframes, and indirectly observed over longer timeframes. Much of the discrepancy between models and observations has been removed due to better QC on the observations, especially the older data. The main issue was that radiosonde error bars were wide, especially as you went farther back in time, making it difficult to determine exactly what was (or wasn't) going on in terms of trend. These days we understand the issues with those old data a lot better than we used to, which has resolved the discrepancy.

Allen, R.J. and S.C. Sherwood (2008): Warming maximum in the tropical upper troposphere deduced from thermal winds. Nature Geoscience, 1, 399-403, doi:10.1038/ngeo208.
Sherwood, Steven C., et al. "Robust tropospheric warming revealed by iteratively homogenized radiosonde data." Journal of Climate 21.20 (2008): 5336-5352.
Johnson, N.C. and S.-P. Xie (2010): Changes in the sea surface temperature threshold for tropical convection. Nature Geoscience, 3, 842–845, doi:10.1038/ngeo1008.
Santer, Benjamin D., et al. "Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere." International Journal of Climatology 28.13 (2008): 1703-1722.

And I could go on, but you get the idea. I might also suggest, if you really are a Truthseeker, that you would be better served by relying much less on Google, and much more on Google Scholar. Because frankly, the article you linked to was an embarrassment.

[Roy]

Because I thought it might make the research article more convincing. IIRC Washington Post is ok on facts in general.

Not you, seer.

Roy

[Roy]

Good rejoinder!

I try

[seer]

- your source gives the total number of papers retracted for fraud/suspected fraud as 888 out of 25000000
Roy

Those are just the ones who got caught. And another question, who is actually reviewing these 25,000,000 papers? Who has the time or expertize? How many scientists, who even understand a particular field, are actually peer reviewing this overwhelming mountain of papers in said field. But back to my larger point - scientists are just as human as the rest of us, just as susceptible to fraud, greed or misdirection.