Climate Change, By The Numbers

[Truthseeker]

observational evidence trumps projections.

I think you meant that
1) if a model is wrong, then a projection made with it would indeed be trumped by future observations;
2) If a model is realistic enough, a projection made with it will not be trumped by future observations. We do want a model without adjustable parameters that people can use to generate projections that fit future observations well.

[Jichard]

I think you meant that
1) if a model is wrong, then a projection made with it would indeed be trumped by future observations

No, that's not what I meant. The folks in question are using projections from data-set that ended in 2008, to project for ice losses from the last 5 years up until now. That's trumped by observations we have for the past 5 years.

2) If a model is realistic enough, a projection made with it will not be trumped by future observations.

I'm talking about observations for the past 5 years, not future observations.

We do want a model without adjustable parameters that people can use to generate projections that fit future observations well.

By definition, every model will have adjustable parameters. Adjusting the parameters simply yields a different model. But yet, we do want a model that accurately predicts future observations. But we also want to model to accurately represent recent observations, as well.

[Jichard]

But the NASA press release says:

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/...er-than-losses



Are you saying that you understand NASA's study better than NASA?

Oh, and to forestall any of the usual intellectual chicanery on your part...

Jichard, I'm requesting that you stay out of any thread that I start. Try and be a gentleman and honor this request.

Then stop directing your posts at me. You've been warned about this before; you're not allowed to ask me to leave, and then make a post directed at me. I mean, I understand why you do that; it allows you to dishonestly pretend that I can't address you when you call me out, and it allows you to continue to deceive people without me pointing out when you quote-mine sources, leave out relevant facts, and so on.

Moderated By: Bill the Cat

Seer,

If you want Jichard out of your thread, you are not allowed to post directly to him. Please state your intentions again either way

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

Then tell me how are these things; rational deliberation, conscious considerations, planning, etc... not just as determined as anything else - in what sense are they FREE? This is what I mean, you are not defining what free will means, in what sense are we free.

Let me quote Peter van Inwagen



Do you agree, disagree?

But the NASA press release says:

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/...er-than-losses



Are you saying that you understand NASA's study better than NASA?

[Truthseeker]

No, that's not what I meant. The folks in question are using projections from data-set that ended in 2008, to project for ice losses from the last 5 years up until now. That's trumped by observations we have for the past 5 years.



I'm talking about observations for the past 5 years, not future observations.



By definition, every model will have adjustable parameters. Adjusting the parameters simply yields a different model. But yet, we do want a model that accurately predicts future observations. But we also want to model to accurately represent recent observations, as well.

What do you mean by "model" and "the adjustable parameters in the model"?

[Jichard]

What do you mean by "model"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_modelling

"Scientific model, an imperfect or idealized representation of a physical system"

and "the adjustable parameters in the model"?

Thes aspect of the model which can be adjusted. For example, a model might include a constant that has value X. That constant is an ajustable parameter that can be changed to another value Y, yielding a different model

[Truthseeker]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_modelling

"Scientific model, an imperfect or idealized representation of a physical system"



Thes aspect of the model which can be adjusted. For example, a model might include a constant that has value X. That constant is an ajustable parameter that can be changed to another value Y, yielding a different model

Well, what do you call the general model with adjustable parameters that are yet to be specified? For example, F = ma where m is treated as a constant. If I do not specify what m is, what we have is a general (or unspecified?) model, OK?

[Jichard]

Well, what do you call the general model with adjustable parameters that are yet to be specified?

You call it a "general model with adjustable parameters that are yet to be specified"

For example, F = ma where m is treated as a constant. If I do not specify what m is, what we have is a general (or unspecified?) model, OK?

See above.

[Jorge]

I wonder how valid this could be?



http://www.news.com.au/national/west...-1227555674611

I've made my personal views on the "Global Warming / Climate Change" controversy succinctly known here on TWeb (in a few words: it's all a pile of BS with a very serious and sinister Globalist political-economic agenda).

The purpose here is only to post the a recent Senate testimony by a prominent climatologist. Here is that testimony:


Dr. Judith A. Curry is a climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech University. These are her remarks to the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee, Dec. 8, 2015.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

"I thank the Chairman and the Committee for the opportunity to offer testimony today.

Prior to 2009, I felt that supporting the IPCC consensus on climate change was the responsible thing to do. I bought into the argument: Dont trust what one scientist says, trust what an international team of a thousand scientists has said, after years of careful deliberation.That all changed for me in November 2009, following the leaked Climategate emails, that illustrated the sausage making and even bullying that went into building the consensus.

I starting speaking out, saying that scientists needed to do better at making the data and supporting information publicly available, being more transparent about how they reached conclusions, doing a better job of assessing uncertainties, and actively engaging with scientists having minority perspectives. The response of my colleagues to this is summed up by the title of a 2010 article in the Scientific American: Climate Heretic Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues.

I came to the growing realization that I had fallen into the trap of groupthink. I had accepted the consensus based on 2nd order evidence: the assertion that a consensus existed. I began making an independent assessment of topics in climate science that had the most relevance to policy.

What have I concluded from this assessment?

Human caused climate change is a theory in which the basic mechanism is well understood, but whose magnitude is highly uncertain. No one questions that surface temperatures have increased overall since 1880, or that humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, or that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet. However there is considerable uncertainty and disagreement about the most consequential issues: whether the warming has been dominated by human causes versus natural variability, how much the planet will warm in the 21st century, and whether warming is dangerous.

The central issue in the scientific debate on climate change is the extent to which the recent (and future) warming is caused by humans versus natural climate variability. Research effort and funding has focused on understanding human causes of climate change. However we have been misled in our quest to understand climate change, by not paying sufficient attention to natural causes of climate change, in particular from the sun and from the long-term oscillations in ocean circulations.

Why do scientists disagree about climate change? The historical data is sparse and inadequate. There is disagreement about the value of different classes of evidence, notably the value of global climate models. There is disagreement about the appropriate logical framework for linking and assessing the evidence. And scientists disagree over assessments of areas of ambiguity and ignorance.

How then, and why, have climate scientists come to a consensus about a very complex scientific problem that the scientists themselves acknowledge has substantial and fundamental uncertainties?

Climate scientists have become entangled in an acrimonious political debate that has polarized the scientific community. As a result of my analyses that challenge IPCC conclusions, I have been called a denier by other climate scientists, and most recently by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. My motives have been questioned by Representative Grijalva, in a recent letter sent to the President of Georgia Tech.

There is enormous pressure for climate scientists to conform to the so-called consensus. This pressure comes not only from politicians, but from federal funding agencies, universities and professional societies, and scientists themselves who are green activists. Reinforcing this consensus are strong monetary, reputational, and authority interests.

In this politicized environment, advocating for CO2 emissions reductions is becoming the default, expected position for climate scientists. This advocacy extends to the professional societies that publish journals and organize conferences. Policy advocacy, combined with understating the uncertainties, risks destroying sciences reputation for honesty and objectivity without which scientists become regarded as merely another lobbyist group.

I would like to thank the committee for raising the issue of data versus dogma in support of improving the integrity of climate science.

This concludes my testimony."


Kind'a says it all and, ahem, supports my personal position 100%. Of course, just as the case for Evolution, many will remain unfazed by any data, any argument - by ANYTHING - that doesn't agree with their beliefs and position on the matter. There is no hope for such people.

Jorge

[shunyadragon]

I've made my personal views on the "Global Warming / Climate Change" controversy succinctly known here on TWeb (in a few words: it's all a pile of BS with a very serious and sinister Globalist political-economic agenda).

The purpose here is only to post the a recent Senate testimony by a prominent climatologist. Here is that testimony:


Dr. Judith A. Curry is a climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech University. These are her remarks to the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee, Dec. 8, 2015.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

"I thank the Chairman and the Committee for the opportunity to offer testimony today.

Prior to 2009, I felt that supporting the IPCC consensus on climate change was the responsible thing to do. I bought into the argument: Dont trust what one scientist says, trust what an international team of a thousand scientists has said, after years of careful deliberation.That all changed for me in November 2009, following the leaked Climategate emails, that illustrated the sausage making and even bullying that went into building the consensus.

I starting speaking out, saying that scientists needed to do better at making the data and supporting information publicly available, being more transparent about how they reached conclusions, doing a better job of assessing uncertainties, and actively engaging with scientists having minority perspectives. The response of my colleagues to this is summed up by the title of a 2010 article in the Scientific American: Climate Heretic Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues.

I came to the growing realization that I had fallen into the trap of groupthink. I had accepted the consensus based on 2nd order evidence: the assertion that a consensus existed. I began making an independent assessment of topics in climate science that had the most relevance to policy.

What have I concluded from this assessment?

Human caused climate change is a theory in which the basic mechanism is well understood, but whose magnitude is highly uncertain. No one questions that surface temperatures have increased overall since 1880, or that humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, or that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet. However there is considerable uncertainty and disagreement about the most consequential issues: whether the warming has been dominated by human causes versus natural variability, how much the planet will warm in the 21st century, and whether warming is dangerous.

The central issue in the scientific debate on climate change is the extent to which the recent (and future) warming is caused by humans versus natural climate variability. Research effort and funding has focused on understanding human causes of climate change. However we have been misled in our quest to understand climate change, by not paying sufficient attention to natural causes of climate change, in particular from the sun and from the long-term oscillations in ocean circulations.

Why do scientists disagree about climate change? The historical data is sparse and inadequate. There is disagreement about the value of different classes of evidence, notably the value of global climate models. There is disagreement about the appropriate logical framework for linking and assessing the evidence. And scientists disagree over assessments of areas of ambiguity and ignorance.

How then, and why, have climate scientists come to a consensus about a very complex scientific problem that the scientists themselves acknowledge has substantial and fundamental uncertainties?

Climate scientists have become entangled in an acrimonious political debate that has polarized the scientific community. As a result of my analyses that challenge IPCC conclusions, I have been called a denier by other climate scientists, and most recently by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. My motives have been questioned by Representative Grijalva, in a recent letter sent to the President of Georgia Tech.

There is enormous pressure for climate scientists to conform to the so-called consensus. This pressure comes not only from politicians, but from federal funding agencies, universities and professional societies, and scientists themselves who are green activists. Reinforcing this consensus are strong monetary, reputational, and authority interests.

In this politicized environment, advocating for CO2 emissions reductions is becoming the default, expected position for climate scientists. This advocacy extends to the professional societies that publish journals and organize conferences. Policy advocacy, combined with understating the uncertainties, risks destroying sciences reputation for honesty and objectivity without which scientists become regarded as merely another lobbyist group.

I would like to thank the committee for raising the issue of data versus dogma in support of improving the integrity of climate science.

This concludes my testimony."


Kind'a says it all and, ahem, supports my personal position 100%. Of course, just as the case for Evolution, many will remain unfazed by any data, any argument - by ANYTHING - that doesn't agree with their beliefs and position on the matter. There is no hope for such people.

Jorge

This does not respond to the scientific evidence for the climate trends involving climate change.

[Jichard]

I've made my personal views on the "Global Warming / Climate Change" controversy succinctly known here on TWeb (in a few words: it's all a pile of BS with a very serious and sinister Globalist political-economic agenda).

So you're a typical conservative, conspiracist, AGW denialist. No surprise there.

The purpose here is only to post the a recent Senate testimony by a prominent climatologist. Here is that testimony:

[COLOR="#008000"]
Dr. Judith A. Curry is a climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech University. These are her remarks to the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee, Dec. 8, 2015.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

"I thank the Chairman and the Committee for the opportunity to offer testimony today.

Prior to 2009, I felt that supporting the IPCC consensus on climate change was the responsible thing to do. I bought into the argument: Dont trust what one scientist says, trust what an international team of a thousand scientists has said, after years of careful deliberation.That all changed for me in November 2009, following the leaked Climategate emails, that illustrated the sausage making and even bullying that went into building the consensus.

Pure nonsense from Curry here. The ClimateGate emails showed no such thing; it was just overblown nonsense propped up by conservatives, to the point that many conservatives misrepresented what scientists said in the meial. Impartial investigation after impatial investigation showed this to be the case. Curry really undermines her own credibility when she says otherwise.

For a useful introduction to the subject (at a laymen's level) see:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXesBhYwdRo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OB2prBtVFo

I starting speaking out, saying that scientists needed to do better at making the data and supporting information publicly available, being more transparent about how they reached conclusions, doing a better job of assessing uncertainties,

That's all already done, as anyone who read the peer-reviewed scientific literature would know. In said research, scientists are painfully clear in how their data, how they reached their conclusions, the uncertainties involved in their data analysis, etc. It's not scientists folks if various members of the public don't bother to read said research, anymore than it's virologists fault that many people don't bother to read the virologists' research.

and actively engaging with scientists having minority perspectives.

Many scientists already engage with denialists. It often happens at scientific conferences, for example, or in peer-reviewed scientific research.

The response of my colleagues to this is summed up by the title of a 2010 article in the Scientific American: Climate Heretic Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues.

Which is an accurate title. Curry made claims that misrepresented what was going on. She even does so in the testimony you are quoting here.

I came to the growing realization that I had fallen into the trap of groupthink. I had accepted the consensus based on 2nd order evidence: the assertion that a consensus existed. I began making an independent assessment of topics in climate science that had the most relevance to policy.

What have I concluded from this assessment?

Human caused climate change is a theory in which the basic mechanism is well understood, but whose magnitude is highly uncertain. No one questions that surface temperatures have increased overall since 1880, or that humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, or that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet. However there is considerable uncertainty and disagreement about the most consequential issues: whether the warming has been dominated by human causes versus natural variability, how much the planet will warm in the 21st century, and whether warming is dangerous.

Pure nonsense from Curry. Scientific paper after scientific paper has quantified how much of the recent global warming is anthropogenic. These papers have used multiple methods to invetstigate this question. And these papers have consistently shown that most of the recent global warmig has been anthropogenic. There is no large uncertainty about this, since the results on this are clearly statistically significant. Scientists working in the field are aware of this evidence, which explains the overwhelming scientific consensus that humans have caused most of the recent global warming.

If Curry is not aware of this evidence, then she is incompetent when it comes to this topic. A basic literature review would have made her aware of this research. The fact that she relied "on 2nd order evidence: the assertion that a consensus existed" instead of reading the primary literature for herself, is her responsibility alone.

The central issue in the scientific debate on climate change is the extent to which the recent (and future) warming is caused by humans versus natural climate variability. Research effort and funding has focused on understanding human causes of climate change. However we have been misled in our quest to understand climate change, by not paying sufficient attention to natural causes of climate change, in particular from the sun and from the long-term oscillations in ocean circulations.

Again, pure nonsense. Paper after paper has examined natural variability, and shown that natural variability does not explain most of the recent global warming. How in the world is Curry not aware of this research? Even science journalists who make YouTube videos, are aware of some of this evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5hs4KVeiAU

Why do scientists disagree about climate change?

Misrepresentation from Curry. The vast majority of scientists working in the field agree on the basic points of anthropogenic global warming, just as the vast majority of scientist working in the field agree on the basic points regarding HIV/AIDS. It's the denialists who think otherwise.

The historical data is sparse and inadequate.

I'm sorry, but how can Curry make a blatantly claim like this? Is she ignorant, or is she just being deceptive? There is loads of historical evidence on this topic. For example, we have previous scientific evidence on correlations with CO2 and temperature across time. This makes sense, given our mechanistic understanding of how carbon dioxide results in temperature increases. In a separate post I'll mention some of the research I've previously read on this.

There is disagreement about the value of different classes of evidence, notably the value of global climate models.

Models are essential in science. They are the main way (if not the only way) we make predictions about the future. I've gone over this before:

What's the problem you denialists have with models?! Models are essential in science; they are one of the main ways (if not the main way or only way) we make accurate predictions about the future and know what will happen in the future, regardless of whether the topic is climatology, medicine, biology, astronomy, etc. After all, you cannot have direct empirical evidence of what will happen in the future, since the future has not happened yet and thus the future leaves no effects for you to observe. This is in the contrast to the past, which does leave behind effects that one can observe.

So in science, we instead use models to provide evidence for what will happen in the future. For example, take an example from medicine, where we want to figure out whether a given drug will help patients in the future. We gather empirical data on the past, to see how the drug has affected patients in the past, how the drug interacts with cells in vitro and in vivo, and so on. We then figure out which model best explains this data. And then we see whether that model predicts that the drug will work on a patient in the future. Sometimes the answer is "yes" (ex: our best model implies that the drug works by binding to a receptor we know the patient has) and sometimes the answer is "no" (ex: our best model implies that if the patient has a mutant version of the receptor, then the drug will not bind to the muated receptor and thus the drug won't work). This is how science works in predicting the future: make a model that best explains the avaliable data, and then see what that model predicts about the future. I mean, that's literally how we predict where planets will be in the sky in the future, the orbit of satellites around the Earth in the future (the very satellites you use for your Internet connection and your posts where you denigrate the use of models), whether a given drug will work in the future, and so on. This is why so many scientific papers in fields ranging from medicine to biochemistry to physics to astronomy to paleontology to... spend so much time discussing models, which models are best supported by the scientific evidence, which models best explain the scientific evidence, etc.

But for some absurd, silly, ridiculous reason, you denialists object to the use on models in climatology. WHY?! Why the ridiculous special pleading, where you think we can't use empirically-confirmed models in climatology, but you think it's A-ok to use empirically-confirmed everywhere else in science? It's this sort of obvious special pleading and intellectual dishonesty, that makes denialists so tediousdifficult to deal with. You object to scientific tools (like models) only when it suits you pet ideological position. And you're more than happy to enjoy the benefits of those models when it suits your ends, such as in medicine or in your use of the internet.

If anything, the models used in climatology are often better than some of the models used in medicine. For example, the climate models often have a mathematical precisions lacked by many of the more descriptive models used in medicine. And the parameters used in climate models are often supported by scientific evidence drawn from research on hundreds of millions of years of Earth's history, as opposed to models in medicine that often rely on a smaller pool of data for fixing parameters such as the effective concentration of a given drug needed to induce a given effect.


So seriously, if you have a problem with the use of models, then drop your special pleading, and admit that you also have a problem with all other branches of science that use models to provide evidence for what will happen in the future, including: biology, astronomy, medicine, physics, and so on. And stop using medicines that are based on empirically-supported biological models. And stop using wireless Internet, where it's based on empiricanny supported models of the motion of satellites. And stop using...

If Curry doesn't know this, then she needs a remedial course in scientific reasoning.

There is disagreement about the appropriate logical framework for linking and assessing the evidence. And scientists disagree over assessments of areas of ambiguity and ignorance.

No, there isn't significant disagreement. Seriously, she needs to pick up a basic textbook on scientific reasoning before making false claims like this. We literally teach scientists-in-training how to assess evidence, how to use statistical tests to dismabiguate various causal hypotheses, and so on.

How then, and why, have climate scientists come to a consensus about a very complex scientific problem that the scientists themselves acknowledge has substantial and fundamental uncertainties?

Again, that's as silly as saying:

How then, and why, have virologists, immunologists come to a consensus about a very complex scientific problem (whether HIV causes AIDS) that the scientists themselves acknowledge has substantial and fundamental uncertainties?

It must be because scientists have become embroiled in an an acrimonious political debate.

This explanation is silly, because there's a much better explanation of what's going on. First, just as AIDS denialists tend overstate the uncertainty involved in the science on HIV/AIDS, Curry is overstating the uncertainty involved in the science on AGW. So it's simply not the case that "the scientists themselves acknowledge [..] substantial and fundamental uncertainties", at least not uncertainties as large as Curry's portrayal. Second, just as scientists came to a scientific consensus on HIV/AIDS due to the overwhelming scientific evidence on the subject, scientists came to a scientific on AGW due to the overwhelming scientific evidence on the subject. And from what Curry has said, she seems ignorant of this evidence.

Basically, what curry is engaged in is a tobacco strategy (and a SCAM), where she tries to manufacture enough doubt about ideologically-inconvenient science. She's following in long tradition of denialists who've done this. For example:

"Reexamining Climate Change Debates: Scientific Disagreement or Scientific Certainty Argumentation Methods (SCAMs)?"

"Despite strong scientific consensus that global climate disruption is real and due in significant part to human activities, stories in the U.S. mass media often still present the opposite view, characterizing the issue as being “in dispute.” Even today, the U.S. media devote significant attention to small numbers of denialists, who claim that scientific consensus assessments, such as those by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), are “exaggerated” and “political.” Such claims, however, are testable hypotheses—and just the opposite expectation is hypothesized in the small but growing literature on Scientific Certainty Argumentation Methods, or SCAMs. The work on SCAMs suggests that, rather than being a reflection of legitimate scientific disagreement, the intense criticisms of climate science may reflect a predictable pattern that grows out of “the politics of doubt”: If enough doubt can be raised about the relevant scientific findings, regulation can be avoided or delayed for years or even decades [emphasis added]. Ironically, though, while such a pattern can lead to a bias in scientific work, the likely bias is expected to be just the opposite of the one usually feared. The underlying reason has to do with the Asymmetry of Scientific Challenge, or ASC—so named because certain theories or findings, such as those indicating the significance of climate disruption, are subjected to systematically greater challenges than are those supporting opposing conclusions. As this article shows, available evidence provides significantly more support for SCAM and ASC perspectives than for the concerns that are commonly expressed in the U.S. mass media. These findings suggest that, if current scientific consensus is in error, it is likely because global climate disruption may be even worse than commonly expected to date (777)."

"How the growth of denialism undermines public health"

"Characteristics of denialism

[...]

Manufacture of doubt: Denialists highlight any scientific disagreement (whether real or imagined) as evidence that the entire topic is contested, and argue that it is thus premature to take action."

"Science Denialism: Evolution and Climate Change"

"Many of the strategies used by the opponents of both evolution and global warming are based on sowing misinformation and doubt. This approach is often called the “tobacco strategy”, because tobacco companies used it effectively to delay health warnings and regulation of smoking (3.8).

[...]

Oreskes and Conway describe how a handful of famous and well-connected physicists such as Fred Seitz played a role in each of these disinformation campaigns. As one example, Fred Singer (2010) recently asserted that the science of ozone depletion is uncertain, replacing CFCs will be difficult and expensive, and the scientific community is corrupt and motivated by self-interest and political ideology—the same arguments used by global warming denialists (and not very different from some anti-evolution diatribes). Singer described his motivation in 1989 as follows: “There are probably those with hidden agendas of their own—not just to save the environment but to change our economic system. Some are socialists, some are technology hating Luddites; most have a great desire to regulate on as large a scale as possible” (Singer 1989:36–37). In 1991 he wrote that the real agenda of environmentalists was to destroy capitalism and replace it with some sort of worldwide utopian socialism—or perhaps communism (Oreskes and Conway 2010:134) (3.9)."

I guess it's no surprise that Jorge would buy into Curry's claims, since Jorge (like Curry) employs denialist rhetoric on climatology. Not to mention Jorge doing this on evolution as well. Fits well with "Science Denialism: Evolution and Climate Change".

Climate scientists have become entangled in an acrimonious political debate that has polarized the scientific community. As a result of my analyses that challenge IPCC conclusions, I have been called a denier by other climate scientists, and most recently by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. My motives have been questioned by Representative Grijalva, in a recent letter sent to the President of Georgia Tech.

There is enormous pressure for climate scientists to conform to the so-called consensus. This pressure comes not only from politicians, but from federal funding agencies, universities and professional societies, and scientists themselves who are green activists. Reinforcing this consensus are strong monetary, reputational, and authority interests.

In this politicized environment, advocating for CO2 emissions reductions is becoming the default, expected position for climate scientists. This advocacy extends to the professional societies that publish journals and organize conferences. Policy advocacy, combined with understating the uncertainties, risks destroying sciences reputation for honesty and objectivity without which scientists become regarded as merely another lobbyist group.

Well, she's called "denier" because you deny the evidence-supported scientific consensus on AGW, and because she employs typical denialist tactics, such as the tobacco strategy I noted above. In fact, she just employed another typical denialist tactic: claiming that the peer-reviewed scientific consensus results from scientists having ulterior motives, as opposed to scientists forming a consensus based on scientific evidence:

"How the growth of denialism undermines public health"

"Characteristics of denialism

[...]

Identification of conspiracies: Denialists argue that scientific consensus arises not as a result of independent researchers converging on the same view but instead because researchers have engaged in a complex and secretive conspiracy. They are depicted as using the peer review process to suppress dissent rather than fulfil its legitimate role of excluding work that is devoid of evidence or logical thought."

I would like to thank the committee for raising the issue of data versus dogma in support of improving the integrity of climate science.

Curry is abusing the Galileo gambit: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Galileo_gambit

[Jichard]

I've made my personal views on the "Global Warming / Climate Change" controversy succinctly known here on TWeb (in a few words: it's all a pile of BS with a very serious and sinister Globalist political-economic agenda).

The purpose here is only to post the a recent Senate testimony by a prominent climatologist. Here is that testimony:


Dr. Judith A. Curry is a climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech University. These are her remarks to the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee, Dec. 8, 2015.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

"[...]

Why do scientists disagree about climate change? The historical data is sparse and inadequate."

I'm sorry, but how can Curry make a blatantly claim like this? Is she ignorant, or is she just being deceptive? There is loads of historical evidence on this topic. For example, we have previous scientific evidence on correlations with CO2 and temperature across time. This makes sense, given our mechanistic understanding of how carbon dioxide results in temperature increases. In a separate post I'll mention some of the research I've previously read on this.

And here is some of the evidence I was mentioning, historical data that Judity Curry seems woefully uninformed on. This historical data is just another piece of evidence in support of the claim that anthropogenic release of greenhouse gases can significantly affect Earth's climate and raise temperatures:

see the numerous papers cited on youtube.com/watch?v=CY4Yecsx_-s


"CO2-forced climate thresholds during the Phanerozoic"

Figure 2 on page 5668

"High-resolution carbon dioxide concentration record 650,000–800,000 years before present"

"Figure 2 shows our data together with earlier results from the Dome C (650–390 kyr BP4 and 22–0 kyr BP5), Vostok1–3 (440–0 kyr BP) and Taylor Dome6 (60–20 kyr BP) ice cores resulting in a composite CO2 record over eight glacial cycles. During these 800 kyr, CO2 is strongly coupled with the Antarctic temperature(r=0.82)."

"Palaeoclimate: Windows on the greenhouse"

"That ante was upped in 2005 by a 650,000-year record4, 5 from EPICA's 'Dome C', another drilling site in eastern Antarctica where much older ice could be extracted. An 800,000-year reconstruction of temperature change from the core already existed6. Now, after years of careful work and collaboration, Dome C has yielded a complete reconstruction of the history of atmospheric carbon dioxide (Lüthi et al., page 379)1 and methane (Loulergue et al., page 383)2 over the past 800,000 years.

The fundamental conclusion that today's concentrations of these greenhouse gases have no past analogue in the ice-core record remains firm. The general long-term behaviour of methane and carbon dioxide, following patterns driven ultimately by slow changes in Earth's orbit, continues throughout the older sections of the records. The remarkably strong correlations of methane and carbon dioxide with temperature reconstructions also stand (Fig. 1, overleaf).

The data further reinforce the tight link between greenhouse gases and climate, a link maintained by as-yet only partially understood feedbacks in the Earth system. Variations in methane levels are most probably caused by variations in the influence of temperature and rainfall on wetlands in the tropics and boreal (high-northern-latitude) regions. Carbon dioxide variability is almost universally viewed as an oceanic phenomenon, a consequence of the large pools of carbon sequestered there. Changes in ocean circulation, biological productivity, carbon dioxide solubility and other aspects of ocean chemistry have been implicated, but the exact mix of mechanisms is not clear."

"Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation"


"Synchronous Change of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature During the Last Deglacial Warming"


"Atmospheric CO2 over the last 1000 years: A high-resolution record from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) Divide ice core"

Figure 6.

"To gain a better understanding of the carbon cycle we first examine the relationship between preindustrial atmospheric CO2 and climate records (Figure 6). The relationship between CO2 and average temperatures has been widely discussed and is important given the anthropogenic perturbation to atmospheric CO2 levels. First we compared the WAIS CO2 record with surface temperature change in the northern hemisphere (NH). Although a global temperature reconstruction would be preferable, most of the paleoclimate proxy records used for temperature reconstructions come from the NH global reconstructions are not as accurate. We chose published composite data that cover a wide spatial area. In most cases we found a statistically significant (p < 0.01) correlation between our CO2 record and hemispheric temperature reconstructions that have been low-pass filtered (period = 20 years) and subsampled to the temporal spacing of CO2 samples for the time period of 1000 ∼ 1800 A.D., including northern hemisphere (NH) EIV (error-in-variables) temperature [Mann et al., 2008] (r = 0.50), NH CPS (composite plus scale) temperature [Mann et al., 2008] (r = 0.30), NH temperature [Hegerl et al., 2007] (r = 0.39), and NH temperature [Moberg et al., 2005] (r = 0.42). Although, we did not obtain a significant correlation (r = 0.08, p = 0.45) with the extratropical NH temperature reconstruction from tree ring records [Esper et al., 2002], we see rapid drops of temperature contemporaneous with rapid CO2 decreases around 1200 and 1600 A.D. (Figure 5). Our findings with respect to NH temperature are consistent with a comparison of CO2 variations with global temperature change [Frank et al., 2010]. However, the composite data for a global change should be cautiously interpreted due to geographical data density differences. To further investigate correlations with temperature, we utilize a reconstruction of Indo-Pacific Warm Pool (IPWP) sea surface temperature (SST) because the IPWP is the largest warm water reservoir and closely linked to global average surface temperature [Oppo et al., 2009]. We obtained a high correlation coefficient of 0.66 (p = 1.4 × 10−12) between WAIS Divide CO2 record and IPWP SST [Oppo et al., 2009] (Figure 6)."

"Expression of the bipolar see-saw in Antarctic climate records during the last deglaciation"

Figure 2 (particularly b, d, e, f, and g).

"In the Atlantic sector, we find that the rate of warming slowed between 16,000 and 14,500 years ago, parallel with the deceleration of the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and with a slight cooling over Greenland.

[...]

The warming slowdown at EDML–DF is synchronous with the deceleration of the CO2 rise18, with the unusually high 231Pa/230Th ratio in abyssal North Atlantic sediments interpreted as a weaker Atlantic meridional overturning circulation strength19, with minimum δ18O values at NGRIP (Fig. 2) and with distinct change in the strength of the Asian monsoon20."

"Mode change of millennial CO2 variability during the last glacial cycle associated with a bipolar marine carbon seesaw"

Figure 1 (particularly A and C). Also figure 3 of interest for deep ocean temperature, total ice volume / sea level, and CO2

"The available data shows that atmospheric CO2 follows closely temperatures reconstructed from Antarctic ice cores during these variations. Here, we present new high-resolution CO2 data from Antarctic ice cores, which cover the period between 115,000 and 38,000 y before present. Our measurements show that also smaller Antarctic warming events have an imprint in CO2 concentrations."

"Iron Fertilization of the Subantarctic Ocean During the Last Ice Age"

Figure 3 (particularly A and B).

"Between the two broad dust flux maxima of MIS 4 (57,000 to 71,000 years ago) and MIS 2 (14,000 to 29,000 years ago), there are four smaller but robust iron flux peaks observed in both Antarctic ice and ODP Site 1090, which are associated with colder Antarctic temperature and lower atmospheric CO2 (Fig. 3)."

"Carbon Isotope Constraints on the Deglacial CO2 Rise from Ice Cores"

Figure 2 (particularly E, G, and H).

"EPICA Dome C record of glacial and interglacial intensities"

Figure 2.

"The links between EDC temperature, global temperature, local and global radiative forcings are analysed. We show: (i) a strong but changing link between EDC temperature and greenhouse gas global radiative forcing in the first and second part of the record; (ii) a large residual signature of obliquity in EDC temperature with a 5 ky lag; (iii) the exceptional character of temperature variations within interglacial periods."

"Abrupt change in atmospheric CO₂ during the last ice age"

Figure 1 (particularly a, c, d, f, and ); though (as far as I can tell) the periods from about 35,000yrb - 38,400yrb and 40,200yrB - 48,000yrB are sampled less for CO₂ than the period from about 38,400yrB - 40,200yrB

"Although measurements of CO2 in Greenland ice cores might provide a more direct way to compare Greenland climate variations with carbon dioxide changes, reconstruction of the CO2 history from Greenland ice cores is difficult due to high levels of impurities in ice [Stauffer, 2006].

We obtained sub-centennial CO2 data for the period from about 40 to 38 ka (Figure 1), corresponding to the Greenland stadial between Dansgaard-Oeschger [DO] events 8 and 9, and the time period of the A1 warming in Antarctica [Blunier and Brook, 2001] or AIM8 (Antarctic Isotope Maximum 8) [EPICA Community Members, 2006].
[...]
In general, CO2 strongly covaries with the Antarctic stable isotope records on centennial time scales over this period. After the DO9 warming event in Greenland, both CO2 and δ18Oice in the Byrd and Siple Dome records started to increase at ∼40.0 ka. The initial CO2 rise was somewhat gradual, but at 39.6 ka a 10 ppm jump occurred over ∼150 years in both Siple and Byrd records. Following that jump CO2 levels show two oscillations of smaller amplitude (5 ppm) before an additional abrupt increase at ∼38.3 ka, synchronous with DO-8 warming in Greenland. After the abrupt DO8 warming in Greenland, CO2 remained high for 700–800 years while Antarctica cooled as shown in both the Byrd and Siple Dome records, confirming the decoupling of CO2 and Antarctic temperature proxies following Antarctic warming observed in previous Byrd ice core results [Ahn and Brook, 2008]. We note that the CO2 in Byrd is uniformly 3∼7 ppm higher than in Siple Dome for the studied age interval (Figure S2 in Text S1), which we believe is probably related to the long duration of storage for the Byrd core (drilled in 1968), but the timing and patterns of CO2 change are similar.

[...]

The abrupt rise of CO2 at ∼39.6 ka is synchronous with or slightly later than a rapid rise of temperature proxies (δ18O, δD) in the Byrd and Siple Dome records within the uncertainty of ice age- gas age difference of 150∼200 years [Blunier and Brook, 2001; Brook et al., 2005]. The rapid warming occurred ∼400 yrs after the start of A1 warming in both Siple Dome and Byrd ice cores (Figures 1 and 2). Rapid warming at a similar time interval is also observed in EDML [EPICA Community Members, 2006] and Dome C [Jouzel et al., 2007] ice core records (Figure 2 and Figures S6f–S6i in Text S1). Similar features may be present in Vostok [Petit et al., 1999] and Dome Fuji [Watanabe et al., 2003] records, but are difficult to interpret due to low time resolution and/or chronological uncertainty.

[...]

Our new high-precision data from GISP2 ice core also show a step in CH4 during Heinrich stadial 4, synchronous with a small oscillation of δ18Oice, within the relative age uncertainty between ice and gas ages (Figure S5 in Text S1), indicating that abrupt CO2 rise at ∼39.6 ka might have been synchronous with this small Greenland warming. However, we point out that the small rise of δ18O in GISP2 records is not clearly apparent in other Greenland ice cores [Blunier and Brook, 2001; EPICA Community Members, 2006]. Nonetheless, the CH4 change itself indicates that a climate event occurred during the abrupt CO2 increase."

"Ensemble reconstruction constraints on the global carbon cycle sensitivity to climate"

Figure 2

"On the basis of all ensemble members, we find the most recent climatological period (1971–2000) was 0.70 °C (median) warmer than the coldest episode of the past millennium (1601–1630), with 80% of the series yielding amplitudes between 0.52 and 0.99 °C. The warmest pre-anthropogenic period (1071–1100) was 0.38 °C warmer than 1601–1630, suggesting that recent anthropogenic influences have widened the last-millennium multi-decadal temperature range by ~75% and that late twentieth century warmth exceeds peak temperatures over the past millennium by 0.31 °C. A caveat to the latter conclusions is that more limited data27 do not systematically bias MWP estimates."

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa...re-change.html


"Geocarb III: A Revised Model of Atmospheric CO₂ over Phanerozoic Time"

"This means that there appears to have been very high early Paleozoic levels of CO₂, followed by a large drop during the Devonian, and a rise to moderately high values during the Mesozoic, followed by a gradual decline through both the later Mesozoic and Cenozoic. This type of modeling is incapable of delimiting shorter term CO₂ fluctuations (Paleocene-Eocene boundary, late Ordovician glaciation) because of the nature of the input data which is added to the model as 10 my or longer averages. Thus, exact values of CO₂, as shown by the standard curve, should not be taken literally and are always susceptible to modification. Nevertheless, the overall trend remains. This means that over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO₂ and paleotemperature, as manifested by the atmospheric greenhouse effect (200-201)."

And that's just the tip of the iceberg (pun intended) in terms of historical data. For example, I chose to focus largely on ice cores, but there are number of other sources of historical data besides ice cores. Given this, why does Curry think she can get away with saying that "[t]he historical data is sparse and inadequate"? Is she hoping that her congressional audience will be so scientifically ignorant as to fall for Curry's misrepresentation of the state of the historical data?

[Jichard]

This does not respond to the scientific evidence for the climate trends involving climate change.

It's actually even worse than that: Curry is misrepresenting the stte of the scientific evidence.

[shunyadragon]

It's actually even worse than that: Curry is misrepresenting the stte of the scientific evidence.

I admire your efforts to cite and document the evidence for the human influence on climate change, but you are faced with the three monkeys, three stooges, and the Duck, Bob and Weave cheerleaders.