Does anyone still believe in Global Warming? Have we all finally concluded that it was a hoax?

Citizen Runner wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Inquiries_and_reports

The wikipedia link on the controversy surrounding MBH98 is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

Keith Briffa, whose tree ring research paper in 2000 was used to support Mann's hockey stick, published another paper in 2012. One would expect Briffa's research to support CAGW and his previous findings. However, his research found only naturally fluctuating ranges of temperature. The findings:

1. No hockey stick in the 1900s.

2. A decline from roughly 1940 to 1970.

3. Higher global temperatures a thousand years ago and again circa 1750 than in 1998.

This would seem to, if not discredit CAGW, at least raise skepticism of manmade global warming.

Citizen Runner wrote:I'm looking forward to my fence sitting friend's analysis of this steaming pile of crap.

So I've spent a fair bit of time looking at the Vostok proxy data (thanks for sharing) and subsequently also the more current (and in your words authoritative?) paleo-climate data (thanks for that link too). I've shared a bunch of plots that examine some of those data.

I'm struggling to see why the conclusions presented earlier (to wit, there have been many periods of similar or greater rate of warming in the proxy records, suggesting that the current warming trend is well within expectations associated with natural variability) are a steaming load of crap? What is your counter argument?

fisky wrote:

Keith Briffa, whose tree ring research paper in 2000 was used to support Mann's hockey stick, published another paper in 2012. One would expect Briffa's research to support CAGW and his previous findings. However, his research found only naturally fluctuating ranges of temperature. The findings:

1. No hockey stick in the 1900s.

2. A decline from roughly 1940 to 1970.

3. Higher global temperatures a thousand years ago and again circa 1750 than in 1998.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/

This would seem to, if not discredit CAGW, at least raise skepticism of manmade global warming.

This is a regional temperature reconstruction for Northern Sweden, not global temperature. It is one of over 500 such regional reconstructions in the PAGES 2k composite that I referred to earlier.

So here is the argument in a nutshell:

1) For AGW to be a hoax there must be fraud and conspiracy on a massive scale.

2) But wait, there is this Briffa incident that got lots of press. There's your fraud and conspiracy.

3) Even IF Briffa did commit fraud, it doesn't prove the massive conspiracy. MANY agencies investigated the Briffa case and found nothing wrong.

4) But I say ONE of the investigators was also committing fraud and a cover-up.

5) Even IF ONE of the investigators was corrupt, it doesn't disprove all the other investigations.

So we only have one alleged case of fraud that was proven to not be fraud. Perhaps one of the many investigators was also committing fraud, but the only evidence of that is an unsubstantiated text file supposedly written by a singe programmer.

And, as has already been discussed, the supposed fraudulent work has been superseded by more recent studies. So the Briffa case proves nothing about AGW either way.

What it does show is that the anit-AGW crowd will swallow any shred of hearsay as evidence of fraud where none can otherwise be found.

Fat hurts wrote:1) For AGW to be a hoax there must be fraud and conspiracy on a massive scale.

AGW doesn't need to be a "hoax" or conspiracy to be varying degrees of wrong, ranging from somewhat misguided to broadly incorrect.

All science is "wrong" to a greater or lesser degree. Some of it is "close enough" to being "more or less right" as to be useful, possibly extremely useful.

To clarify a bit, the PAGES 2k data set is "authoritative" in the sense that it is a collection of essentially all available high resolution proxies covering portions of the last 2000 years. It is authoritative relative to earlier global or regional analyses that used far less data. Relative to ice core data it uses proxies with relatively high time resolution. Tree rings for instance have annual resolution, albeit they are a seasonal (growing season) proxy and there are multiple confounding factors. It also has the advantage over ice cores of using proxies that can be found in regions that don't have glaciers. Ice core proxies, as you've noted previously, have temporal resolution on the order of decades to multiple centuries and it's tricky to get accurate absolute dating of a particular sample. On the plus side we have ice cores that go back a very long time and the data is easier to interpret.

I'll try to write something up eventually, but a hint would be how one would weight the relative validity of the author and peer reviewer's opinion of the paper's merit.

Citizen Runner wrote:...a hint would be how one would weight the relative validity of the author and peer reviewer's opinion of the paper's merit.

That's a bit facile.

I think it's more relevant to scrutinize the actual data and stack them up against the conclusions, rather than consider the opinions of a couple of anonymous reviewers. I'm interested to hear what you think we can take from the data, which I have illustrated in this thread (admittedly, illustrated in ways that supported points I've made).

Blame the Elders of Zion for this Global Warming conspiracy.

hmmmmmm? (the industry shill) wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:1) For AGW to be a hoax there must be fraud and conspiracy on a massive scale.

AGW doesn't need to be a "hoax" or conspiracy to be varying degrees of wrong, ranging from somewhat misguided to broadly incorrect.

All science is "wrong" to a greater or lesser degree. Some of it is "close enough" to being "more or less right" as to be useful, possibly extremely useful.

True. So if it's not a hoax, how do we determine how "right" it is and what the implications are?

For that, you trust the experts. You swallow your pride and realize that the people who study this for a living know a lot more than you do.

The full argument goes like this:

The scientific community overwhelmingly accepts anthropogenic global warming.

Given that fact, there are three possibilities:

1) The scientific community is made up of stupid people.

2) The scientific community is engaged in a global conspiracy.

3) The scientific community is made up of smart people who know how to do their jobs and are therefore very likely to be correct.

Those who think they know better than the scientists are picking #1. For example, you might hear someone say something to the effect of "Don't you know that some of the thermometers are in urban areas? It's hotter there."

Those who are paranoid are picking #2. For example, on talk radio I often hear, "The global warming crowd is out to destroy capitalism. It's all a hoax!"

Those who are well grounded in reality choose #3.

I think that you left out one class of people - paid shills.

If you are an industry shill you do two things:

1) You inform yourself. You know your stuff better than 99.9% of the public on matters related to AGW.

2) You interact with the public in any number of ways but always with the general public. And always to try to sow confusion or doubt. This is an important point. You generally are able to at least hold your own in a debate with average Joes. Even with above average Joes. Because it is your full time occupation. What you never do is...

Not 3) Openly debate the experts. Why? Because here you will have no real chance to influence anyone's opinion. In addition you will be exposed. Not good.

Fat hurts wrote:So if it's not a hoax, how do we determine how "right" it is and what the implications are?

Exactly!

I don't know the answer to that question. For me, I choose to follow the topic and try to inform myself as best I can. I find these discussions, acrimonious though they tend to be, almost always bring out stuff that's new to me, so I find them enjoyable and informative. Of course with a relatively low signal-noise ratio... :-)

hmmmmmm? (the industry shill) wrote:

Citizen Runner wrote:...a hint would be how one would weight the relative validity of the author and peer reviewer's opinion of the paper's merit.

That's a bit facile.

I think it's more relevant to scrutinize the actual data and stack them up against the conclusions, rather than consider the opinions of a couple of anonymous reviewers. I'm interested to hear what you think we can take from the data, which I have illustrated in this thread (admittedly, illustrated in ways that supported points I've made).

I'd argue that the ability to objectively evaluate the credibility of information sources is critical to pretty much everything and science in particular. We've long passed the point where an individual can comprehend much less evaluate the accumulated knowledge of humanity. The best one can do, beyond a own narrow areas of expertise, is trust that certain others are sufficiently competent that their product is an acceptable foundation for one's own purposes. That doesn't mean one simply picks a side and sticks with it. To approach some semblance of objectivity, one must be particularly skeptical of the merit of one's own tribe's preferred view. Alternately, one could just be a shill or an acolyte for one tribe or the other, if that interests you.

The present example is pretty well constrained. The headline conclusion is a whole bunch of "Natural Warming Events" (NWEs) in a specific record according to a particular defined detection criteria. The reviewer rejects the paper on the grounds that the detection criteria can't distinguish signal from noise in the data set. Is he right? The author poses a counter argument. Is it compelling?

Citizen Runner wrote:The author poses a counter argument. Is it compelling?

This is the question I'm asking you. My (admittedly quick) scan of the data suggests the argument has merit, and I've presented graphical illustrations from the data to show that. Do you agree, and if not what is your argument? Deferring to the judgement of a couple of anonymous reviewers is not an argument. That's either being lazy or admitting you don't have an argument to make.

Are you the anonymous poster who's called me a shill a couple of times in this thread? That happened last time I got pulled into one of these long AGW discussions, maybe a year ago. My initial reaction was to be offended and indignant, but I've started to think it's actually sort of a compliment, although clearly not intended as one. Hence I added it to my handle a few pages back.

Fat Hurts - that link you posted is a Wikipedia article relying on IPCC reports 2007 and 2014. Seriously? You were graduated from one of the top research univerities in the world with a science degree and you are linking Wikipedia craaP? And, the IPCC reports are political reports. I can't believe you posted Wikipedia links to support your argument.

The Wikipedia page also links all the references to all the statements from all the scientific organizations that agree on AGW. Would you be more convinced if I just posted all those links instead of referencing Wikipedia?

Fat Hurts, please look at this chart (Concentration of Greenhouse Gases from 0 to beginning of this century):

http://assets.panda.org/img/original/faq_2_1_fig_1.jpg

You see the dramatic rise around the early 1880s which you would expect as it coincides with the 1st and 2nd industrial revolutions. The increase is even more pronounced as we enter the 1990s and its increase continues exponentially. From 1998 to current China's Greenhouse gas emissions TRIPLED. India's and the rest of the world skyrocketed similarly. You would expect the Global Temp to rise in lockstep, as a link another poster in this thread posted, suggested. The temp increase, you would have expected, would have continued rising like this chart shows. But, instead, since 1998 there has been a net DECREASE in world temps. That is what really baffles me. Since the Industrial revolution(s) you would have expected that Global Temps and Greenhouse gas emissions would have risen in lockstep together. But their paths diverged at the end of this century and these genius climate scientists are scrambling to explain it away.

I meant the 1900s not the 1990s.

Sally, I'm not a climate scientist. I will not attempt to argue the specifics of something that is outside my field.

Anyone who does that is an intellectual fool.

Instead, I trust the experts. The experts say that AGW is real. I have no reason to doubt that they've done good work.

Sally V wrote:

But, instead, since 1998 there has been a net DECREASE in world temps.

Sally V, others have explained this to you enough times.

1) No, there has NOT been a net decrease in world temps--unless you are misleadingly attempting to compare only 1998 to only 2013.

2) You have been corrected on this point multiple times, yet you continue to repeat this falsehood. That makes it a *knowing* falsehood--a lie. And who tells a lie? A liar. Please stop repeating this falsehood. Please stop lying. Please stop being a liar.

3) No, you would only expect temps to go up "in lockstep" with an increase in greenhouse gases (GG) if GG were the only factor determining temp changes. But it isn't. Adults, or those who aspire to act like them, need to understand that real life and the real world are messy--that there are many factors that can influence situations.

4) I see that other posts are calling you a troll. If that's what you're doing, fine--you got me. But if it's really just trolling, you're not simply a troll, you're also an asshole.