LakeEffectKing Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Lots of hand waving and sprinkling of fairy dust in that post LEK. Natural variability is addressed by the science and is found insufficient in accounting for the range and pace of global warming during the 20th century and especially since the 1970s. Your null hypothesis doesn't measure up and surprise, you and the promoters of doubt are not the first to have asked similar questions and addressed them. Humans are warming the Earth. The only questions remaining are how much and how fast. We don't have to know all the details or guess at how the system will react to a forced change in the Earth's energy balance. All we need do is take note of how the system has reacted in the past to similar forcings and we get a range of probable outcome based in physics and scientific detective work. Your final paragraph provides us with a window into your ideology and philosophical world, but has nothing to do with science and is not a valid scientific reason for discent. What, with proxy data that is so precise we have to chop it off post 1960? You know as well as I do that error increases with time, no matter how many various proxies one tries to utilize. You value that data much more than I do. We certainly need to know some arbitrary amount of knowledge about the climate system at differing stages to approximate any potential changes due to a change of one variable (like that is even possible anyway). IMO, we are not even close to that "arbitrary amount." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 What, with proxy data that is so precise we have to chop it off post 1960? You know as well as I do that error increases with time, no matter how many various proxies one tries to utilize. You value that data much more than I do. We certainly need to know some arbitrary amount of knowledge about the climate system at differing stages to approximate any potential changes due to a change of one variable (like that is even possible anyway). IMO, we are not even close to that "arbitrary amount." Are you arguing that BEST is wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Are you arguing that BEST is wrong? Not quite. Try again if you wish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Not quite. Try again if you wish. That is juvenile. If you have a point to make, then do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Are you arguing that BEST is wrong? The time frame involves the big transitions between major glacial advancements and interglacial periods. The climate forcing given by the so called Milankovitch cycles can be quit precisely determined as a function of the combined effects of the Earth's orbital eccentricity and axial obliquity. Since we have a pretty solid idea of the change in global conditions thus induced, this provides a means to calibrate equilibrium climate sensitivity. Changes in global atmospheric water vapor and global temperature have also been measured in the aftermath of large volcanic eruptions, again providing insight into what to expect of climate sensitivity to a given forcing. Of course, modeling studies are also part of determining the likely value range for climate sensitivity. So, LEK is I think referring to the deeper paleoclimate reconstructions. At least that is what I am referring to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 What, with proxy data that is so precise we have to chop it off post 1960? You know as well as I do that error increases with time, no matter how many various proxies one tries to utilize. You value that data much more than I do. We certainly need to know some arbitrary amount of knowledge about the climate system at differing stages to approximate any potential changes due to a change of one variable (like that is even possible anyway). IMO, we are not even close to that "arbitrary amount." Agreed. But. Whatever the actual global temperature change, and a recent analysis suggests the difference between ice ages and interglacials may not be as little as 5C but more like 2C to 3C, then if that is the case even a less sensitive system is sufficient to radically alter global climate. Whatever the actual temperature deviation, we know weak, sustained radiative forcing can bring about disproportionately large changes in climate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 And the paleo reconstructions are somehow invalidated by proxy data that "chop off" in 1960? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 And the paleo reconstructions are somehow invalidated by proxy data that "chop off" in 1960? If tree rings (dendrochronology) stood alone as the single proxy for temperature variation there would be a problem, but with boreholes, ice cores, foraminifera and isotopic relationships for example all cross referenced and mutually calibrating, the paleoclimate record is quite robust and substantiated. Is it as accurate as the instrumental record? Of course not. Does it lose time and spacial resolution the further back into the past we look? Of course. Does it provide us with a general picture of paleoclimate accurate enough for our purposes. Absolutely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Zach still hasn't addressed my point about the sheer cost of moving 600 million people...and of course all the infrastructure that would be lost. Maybe he's only thinking in terms of direct deaths..idk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocoAko Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Zach still hasn't addressed my point about the sheer cost of moving 600 million people...and of course all the infrastructure that would be lost. Maybe he's only thinking in terms of direct deaths..idk. We'll figure it out, apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 And the paleo reconstructions are somehow invalidated by proxy data that "chop off" in 1960? You missed his point. He's referring to the fact that scientists often chop off temp reconstructions in 1960 bc they diverge from instrumental obs. If tree ring proxies are not accurate post 1960 how can we trust them at all? Of course Lek ignores the very good answer to that question which is that there are known reasons why tree ring reconstructions are inaccurate post 1960. Moreover tree ring reconstructions are corroborated. Y many other independent reconstructions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 You missed his point. He's referring to the fact that scientists often chop off temp reconstructions in 1960 bc they diverge from instrumental obs. If tree ring proxies are not accurate post 1960 how can we trust them at all? Of course Lek ignores the very good answer to that question which is that there are known reasons why tree ring reconstructions are inaccurate post 1960. Moreover tree ring reconstructions are corroborated. Y many other independent reconstructions. I'm aware of the argument - just can't imagine that anyone could find it credible. - especially as it's been debunked to the point that it has it's own number at SkS. Anyone can throw stuff at the wall to see what sticks - But after the stuff has been scraped off the wall and flushed it's not reasonable to fling it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Nice try on jamming your definition of skeptism on us all! ....... not to mention that natural variability is the null hypothesis, thus IS the competing hypothesis. The AGW hypothesis has identified a FORCING that (holding all other variables constant) would induce warming.....but we live in a system that is in constant flux... (ie known correlations can be skewed due to feedbacks, or other direct interactions that may yet to be identified which oppose other forcing and/or will manifest itself during a variant stage of the climate system)...and to THINK we know how the system will operate during significant different stages of such a system, (let alone the current one) is naive, IMO. But I guess that is dishonest skeptisism to you.... And this injected, untested hypothesis, is put out there with accompanying worst case scenarios laid out for us like some apocalyptic saga sitting jusxtaposed to the mouthpieces (both political and scientific) flying everywhere around the world, in luxurious hotels to climate summits, driving around in large entourages, building large mansions and living a seemingly ungreen lifestyle compared to us "little people" (ie not smart enough to understand) who want us "little people" (ie not smart enough to understand) to believe that it is a really SERIOUS issue. Sorry, I'm skeptical.... Here is the definition of scientific skepticism from wikipedia: A scientific (or empirical) skeptic is one who questions beliefs on the basis of scientific understanding. Most scientists, being scientific skeptics, test the reliability of certain kinds of claims by subjecting them to a systematic investigation using some form of the scientific method.[8] I don't see any major difference between that definition and what I've posted in the past. But perhaps you do. And, while we're at it, here is the Wikipedia defintion of a Null Hypothesis: The null hypothesis typically corresponds to a general or default position. For example, the null hypothesis might be that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena[1] or that a potential treatment has no effect.[2] It is important to understand that the null hypothesis can never be proven. A set of data can only reject a null hypothesis or fail to reject it. For mainstream AGW theory I would suggest that Null Hypothesis could be stated as: The observed climate-related data, including but not limited to global temperature trends, rising sea levels, reduction in sea ice, melting of land ice, and biological markers in plant and animal populations can be attributed to natural variability and natural processes. Suggest a better statement if you don't like that one. When the Null Hypothesis is tested against the whole body of observed data it fails - there is simply no combination of natural variability and natural processes that can account for the century plus of global warming, that explains the extreme reduction in arctic sea ice, that sheds light on why most of the world's glaciers are retreating, and why many cubic miles of ice have melted in recent years. It is time (past time actually) to reject the Null Hypothesis as an explanation for what we are seeing. Clinging to it makes very little sense - and certainly isn't true to the scientific method - but the door is always open for an alternative theory (set of theories actually) that better explains the observed data. Nobody I'm aware of is ruling that out. The only caveat is that any alternatives have to be self-consistent and free of built-in contradictions. For example, recent skeptical hypotheses assert that climate sensitivity is so low that the roughly 40% anthropogenic CO2 increase couldn't have caused the observed global warming, but at the same time climate sensitivity is so high that the 0.1% fluctuation in solar output did cause the warming. Nope, that fails the giggle test. The fact the the skeptic community hasn't put forward a robust alternative to mainstream AGW is very telling. But I would enjoy learning what you feel is really causing the climate change we're observing. Certainly that would be a welcome change from snark and unsupported opinion. As others have pointed out your second paragraph has nothing to do with climate change but is a glimpse into the can of worms of your biases and political leanings. Unappetizing, so I'll leave that to a therapist to sort out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.