Damnhippyfreak:

Hate to post and run, but be aware that a graph posting a record for only the lower 48 states isn't the best way to make the case for a "global temperature trend". Plus, of course the usual problems with a potentially misleading short period of time relative to a high degree of variability (but in your favor that is also a problem with the post you're responding to).

Gee, you're right... More right than you would likely care to admit. 15 years is close to meaningless when it comes to climate -- but, then again, so is 150 years. After all, our current blip, warming back up after the "little ice age" has been going on for over three hundred years. Here's what an actual climate trend looks like:





Oh, ouch. Right after the last major glaciation ended, temperatures peaked, and have been declining ever since. We're headed to another major glaciation. Totally inappropriate.

Damnhippyfreak:

GeneralJim: Ctrl-Alt-Del: snocone: I will guarenfarkingtee you that the climate will change all by itself, regardless of human activity, or lack of it.

Stage 2 it is, then

So, you are saying that the climate cannot change without people changing it? That's weaponized stupidity.


GeneralJim: Oh, boy! Yet another arsehole claiming to be able to read minds -- and failing. Nice work.

See that question mark? That means that the writer is asking a QUESTION. Perhaps you should work on the basics before you step outside... You sure need work.

Damnhippyfreak:

You're right in that "populations simply CANNOT continue to rise forever" which is why world population growth continues to slow down and is projected to level off sometime this century. It's a problem, to be sure, but arguably not the dominant one, especially as the per capita carbon footprint in developing countries continues to rise due to an emerging middle class.

You're not paying attention to the science. Carbon dioxide levels mean fark all until they approach the 1% level. Stop being a mindless herd animal.

Damnhippyfreak:

That you think "population gains will nullify ANY "improvement" made in energy production" is not somehow mutually exclusive with problems due to emissions of carbon dioxide.

Of course, all that aside, there's still the idea that even if population growth were the problem you think it is, it would still not mean that "the only way to reduce human CO2 production is genocide".

Again, there are no problems with carbon dioxide emissions at any level humans could generate. Worry about REAL problems, like ocean pollution, overfishing, and nuclear accidents. Dousing your drawers over carbon dioxide is pointless, and distracts from the REAL problems.

And, the "genocide is the only way" comment is not mine. I would not have said that. Huge wars, mass starvation, and epidemic also work. Humans have NOT shown an ability to control their own populations in any way that does not involve violence or contagion. I'd LOVE to be pleasantly surprised, however.

HighZoolander:

/you missed some really epic climate threads recently - I was starting to worry...(the derp just wasn't the same without you)

I looked some of them up -- and found a plethora of derp; you're a trooper!

I've been involved in a true BIATCH of a move. I now have locational stability for at least a year. Woot!

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: Hate to post and run, but be aware that a graph posting a record for only the lower 48 states isn't the best way to make the case for a "global temperature trend". Plus, of course the usual problems with a potentially misleading short period of time relative to a high degree of variability (but in your favor that is also a problem with the post you're responding to).
Gee, you're right... More right than you would likely care to admit. 15 years is close to meaningless when it comes to climate -- but, then again, so is 150 years. After all, our current blip, warming back up after the "little ice age" has been going on for over three hundred years. Here's what an actual climate trend looks like:


[earthintime.com image 506x286]


Oh, ouch. Right after the last major glaciation ended, temperatures peaked, and have been declining ever since. We're headed to another major glaciation. Totally inappropriate.


It depends on the phenomenon you're interested, as always. If we were interested in ENSO, then 15 years would have been more appropriate. If we're interested in, say orbital forcing and glaciation cycles, then 12,000 years (as you posted) would be more appropriate. If we're interested in anthropogenic climate change, 150 years is more appropriate.

As I've stated repeatedly, scale is tied to the phenomenon you're interested in. It's not a difficult concept, but you really aren't grasping it. Maybe I can explain it differently. What part of this idea do you not understand or disagree with?

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: Ctrl-Alt-Del: snocone: I will guarenfarkingtee you that the climate will change all by itself, regardless of human activity, or lack of it.

Stage 2 it is, then

So, you are saying that the climate cannot change without people changing it? That's weaponized stupidity.


GeneralJim: Oh, boy! Yet another arsehole claiming to be able to read minds -- and failing. Nice work.
See that question mark? That means that the writer is asking a QUESTION. Perhaps you should work on the basics before you step outside... You sure need work.


Mind reading leading to a leading or rhetorical question is still mind reading. Again, I suggest you follow your own advice.

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: You're right in that "populations simply CANNOT continue to rise forever" which is why world population growth continues to slow down and is projected to level off sometime this century. It's a problem, to be sure, but arguably not the dominant one, especially as the per capita carbon footprint in developing countries continues to rise due to an emerging middle class.
You're not paying attention to the science. Carbon dioxide levels mean fark all until they approach the 1% level. Stop being a mindless herd animal.


I'm not sure what that has to with population growth, or your overestimation of the problem of the same. Regardless of your views on carbon dioxide, population growth isn't as big a problem as you may think.

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: That you think "population gains will nullify ANY "improvement" made in energy production" is not somehow mutually exclusive with problems due to emissions of carbon dioxide.

Of course, all that aside, there's still the idea that even if population growth were the problem you think it is, it would still not mean that "the only way to reduce human CO2 production is genocide".
Again, there are no problems with carbon dioxide emissions at any level humans could generate. Worry about REAL problems, like ocean pollution, overfishing, and nuclear accidents. Dousing your drawers over carbon dioxide is pointless, and distracts from the REAL problems.

And, the "genocide is the only way" comment is not mine. I would not have said that. Huge wars, mass starvation, and epidemic also work. Humans have NOT shown an ability to control their own populations in any way that does not involve violence or contagion. I'd LOVE to be pleasantly surprised, however.


Again, this really doesn't contradict my argument. Whether you acknowledge the science surrounding anthropogenic climate change or not, it really isn't affected by your overstated idea that "population gains will nullify ANY "improvement" made in energy production".

As for the idea that "humans have NOT shown an ability to control their own populations in any way that does not involve violence or contagion", prepare to be pleasantly surprised. As I stated population growth is slowing, and in many developed nations the fertility rate is close to or even below replacement - occurring largely without the "violence or contagion" you mention.

Damnhippyfreak:

This is an example of what I was talking about. The attribution of climate change is not based upon simple correlation, as what you're talking about here. I suggest that since you're focusing more on the politics rather than the actual science, you're missing even some of the very basics.

Au contraire -- The attribution of climate change is PRECISELY based upon a perceived (and phony) correlation. What else?

Damnhippyfreak:

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: Of course there's the larger issue here - even if a particular solution is not perfect, that does not mean it (and other solutions) aren't worth pursuing.

But when the alleged "problem" is falsified, NO "solution" to the imaginary "problem" is worth pursuing.

Fair enough. However, your allegations about falsification really haven't held up in the past, and I strongly suspect they will continue to be so.

The alleged "problem" with carbon dioxide has been falsified multiple times. The Vostok ice cores show that for four hundred thousand years, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have FOLLOWED global temperature changes. That means that temperature is NOT controlled in any significant degree by carbon dioxide levels. The fact that you either do not understand this, or are pretending to not understand it, does NOT mean that the falsification does not hold up.

The failure of CGMs to predict within their error bars means that the hypothesis which they automate is falsified. The fact that they all predict with several TIMES more error than their error bars indicates a fundamental flaw, not a minor error. This falsification is clear and demonstrable, and therefore it "holds up."

Miskolczi's mathematical proof of the falsification of the major AGW hypothesis also holds up, and further, when his corrections are applied to the CGMs, they manage to predict temperature within their error bars. This is clear evidence that Miskolczi is correct. As further evidence, the overall prediction of the process of carbon dioxide increase by Miskolczi has been the precise pattern followed by global temperature. His prediction was that rising carbon dioxide would, for a time, act as the IPCC projected -- until the decrease of water vapor in the upper troposphere kicked in, and balanced out the increase in the greenhouse effect from carbon dioxide. At that time, Miskolczi predicted, temperature increase would flatten out and stop. And, in violation of EVERY SINGLE IPCC-SPONSORED MODEL, global temperature has done precisely as Miskolczi predicted. This is further evidence that Miskolczi's falsification of the AGW hypothesis "holds up" -- at least it holds up MUCH better than the Chicken Little predictions of the IPCC.

Your denial, and the denials of others, of these scientific observations do not alter the fact that the planet is falsifying, on many levels, the hypothesis behind the AGW panic. Keeping 2010 radiosonde data showing the drying of the upper troposphere secret until 2013, as is being done, does nothing to prove AGW correct. In the same way, claiming that the fact that absolute numbers on historical radiosonde humidity data are not reliable invalidates their determination of a drying trend does nothing to prove that upper troposphere humidity was constant or rising. It is true that we do NOT know if UT humidity fell from 29% to 24%, or from 32% to 27%, but we DO know that it fell.

Ironically, the "team" supporting AGW, after pretending that anyone not buying their Kool-Aid was denying science is now in the awkward position of denying peer-reviewed study after peer-reviewed study showing that AGW is falsified. And, again, before you put false words in my mouth, it is NOT that adding carbon dioxide to the air will not warm the planet, it is that doubling the carbon dioxide will raise the temperature, but somewhere between 0.24 K and 1.10 K -- an amount small enough to require no "actions" to be taken. Additionally, it would be wonderful if we could break out of this ice age with a temperature increase like that "promised" by the IPCC -- that just MIGHT be enough to prevent the upcoming major glaciation.

So, the denial of science and the personal attacks against authors of studies falsifying AGW, and anyone unwilling to refuse to mention those, do NOT mean that the many falsifications of AGW "don't hold up," They simply mean that your arguments can no longer hold up in the scientific arena, and you must take them FULLY to the political or religious arenas, where they still have some traction among those who do not understand the science. Sucks to be you.

Damnhippyfreak:

This keeps coming up, so it's worth addressing. All you can say from the Vostok temperature record is that the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration initially followed the global temperature. This proves the idea that "carbon dioxide levels CANNOT be driving the temperature in any significant way" only if you somehow believe that there is only one way to increase temperature. Your line of reasoning only works if existence of temperature changes due to orbital forcing is somehow excludes the separate mechanism of changes in temperature due to changes in carbon dioxide concentration.

Is this the case? Do you believe that the existence of orbital forcing is the only factor that can affect temperature and therefore excludes temperature changes due to changes in carbon dioxide concentration?

Your logic in this is tortured to the point of insanity. Carbon dioxide levels, since they FOLLOW temperature, are not the controller of that temperature. That is rather straightforward. You state that is can only be true if there is only one way to increase planetary temperature. This does not follow.

Allow me to restate. Let's say I claim that the amount of tan I have determines the amount of sunshine reaching the surface in Hawai'i. Your response at least SHOULD be to counter with evidence that my tan level actually has a correlation with Hawia'ian sunshine, but it is that I get more tanned AFTER the sunshine increases, so my tan level CANNOT be what is controlling Hawai'ian sunshine. In response, I claim that what you say could ONLY be true if there is only one factor in Hawai'ian sunshine. After that claim, you would probably believe that I was mentally impaired -- and with good reason. In the same way, I believe you are mentally impaired to come up with the idea that since ONE factor (carbon dioxide) cannot be a major factor, there can be only ONE factor when it comes to planetary temperature.

Orbital geometry appears to be the difference between the major glaciations and the interglacial periods when within an ice age. However, the (geologic) ice ages themselves appear to be caused by increased cosmic ray flux when we are in a galactic arm. The difference between full ice age and non-ice age temperatures is about 10 K, while the orbital geometry only seems to generate a 6 to 7 K swing. We are currently in an ice age due to being in an arm of the galaxy, and within a brief interglacial period

Additionally, solar activity changes cause temperature changes in two ways. First, the insolation directly heats Earth, and if it goes up, so does planetary temperature. Second, when solar activity goes up, so does the magnetic output of the Sun. When the magnetic output of the Sun goes up, Earth is more protected from cosmic rays, and that has the effect of warming the planet as well.

The fact that carbon dioxide level changes have little to no effect on planetary temperature does nothing to decrease the effects of ANY of the above factors in planetary temperature. The fact that you claim that it DOES is a cause for some concern.

Damnhippyfreak:

From Shakun et al. 2012:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

We can discuss what this means, GeneralJim, but I have a feeling you won't get this far ;)

Just another failure in a long series of failed predictions. So much for your "feeling."

So, we have long, repeated periods where carbon dioxide levels amazingly precisely follow temperature. And we also have a claim made that, during the melting of a major glaciation, carbon dioxide levels appear to lead temperature. While I certainly did NOT get that impression from the data in the study, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that they are correct in their interpretation of the data.

A fact to point out -- warming is caused by TOTAL GREENHOUSE EFFECT, not just carbon dioxide levels. Carbon dioxide, today, accounts for a bit less than 5% of the GHE.

So, assuming their study is correct, which do YOU think more likely:

That some part of the end-of-major-glaciation event, about which we are currently unaware, gave rise to an anomalous reading,

-- OR --

The laws of physics are different during an end-of-major-glaciation event than they are during interglacial periods?

Damnhippyfreak:

I've was curious just how many times you've had the problems with the NCEP re-analysis pointed out to you. A quick google search reveals that you've had the problems with it pointed out more than two years ago, and yet you seem to have learned very little since then.

This is the idiocy with which I must contend. An irrelevant argument remains irrelevant, irrespective of both how long ago the first time it was made is AND the number of repetitions.

As I pointed out above, yes, there ARE problems with the historical radiosonde humidity readings. What it amounts to is that it is well-nigh impossible to calibrate the old data collection series with an ABSOLUTE number.

The problem is similar to a thermometer in which the glass tube has shifted some unknown amount in the housing that is marked off with temperatures. With the tube shifted, while the indicator shows, say, 20^o Celsius, you cannot tell if that number is correct. However, this damaged thermometer CAN tell you, with precision, if the temperature is rising or dropping. The radiosonde humidity measurement is like that -- we cannot tell precisely what the humidity was, but we CAN tell, with precision, that it was dropping. The accuracy problems with humidity readings in the radiosondes were corrected, and a new set of data was completed in 2010, and it was decided to withhold the data until 2013. I find that interesting, and more than a little disturbing, in the same way that I find the CERN directive to their scientists to avoid discussing what implications their CLOUD experiment has for climate science.

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: This is an example of what I was talking about. The attribution of climate change is not based upon simple correlation, as what you're talking about here. I suggest that since you're focusing more on the politics rather than the actual science, you're missing even some of the very basics.
Au contraire -- The attribution of climate change is PRECISELY based upon a perceived (and phony) correlation. What else?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint -o n-Climate-Change.html

I know you disagree with them, but I'm surprised you're this abysmally ignorant of the scientific claims. Oh no wait, I'm not surprised by that at all, it's just how you roll.

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: This is an example of what I was talking about. The attribution of climate change is not based upon simple correlation, as what you're talking about here. I suggest that since you're focusing more on the politics rather than the actual science, you're missing even some of the very basics.
Au contraire -- The attribution of climate change is PRECISELY based upon a perceived (and phony) correlation. What else?


You're proving my point quite elegantly here. The short answer is understanding of underlying mechanisms and processes.

Think about it like this. Just using simple correlation is very problematic in this context in that there are multiple confounded processes at work - if you see a change in one variable, you can't be sure without further information as to which process or combination of processes (out of many operating simultaneously) is causing it. Therefore one needs to understand the contribution (and interactions) of each individual process. You can think of it as attempting to account for different sources of 'noise' in order to be able to better isolate a 'signal' of interest. Put succinctly, you cannot apply a simple bivariate form of correlation to a multivariate system. Let me know if you wish me to explain this further.

Anytime you read terms such as 'fingerprinting', 'forcings', 'climate sensitivity' and others besides is an attempt to quantify and integrate understanding of these underlying processes. The approach you're apparently incredulous about has been under your nose this whole time.

I don't wish to be too harsh on this point, but fact that you're not quite aware of some of the very basics of the science that you're attempting to talk about suggests your thinking about this subject isn't fully based on said science.

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak:
GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: Of course there's the larger issue here - even if a particular solution is not perfect, that does not mean it (and other solutions) aren't worth pursuing.

But when the alleged "problem" is falsified, NO "solution" to the imaginary "problem" is worth pursuing.

Fair enough. However, your allegations about falsification really haven't held up in the past, and I strongly suspect they will continue to be so.

The alleged "problem" with carbon dioxide has been falsified multiple times. The Vostok ice cores show that for four hundred thousand years, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have FOLLOWED global temperature changes. That means that temperature is NOT controlled in any significant degree by carbon dioxide levels. The fact that you either do not understand this, or are pretending to not understand it, does NOT mean that the falsification does not hold up.

Again, all you can say is that at this one location (contrary to your claim about global temperature), atmospheric carbon dioxide levels initially followed global temperature changes. This is what I mean by your allegations not holding up - you tend to misrepresent evidence. I've addressed this particular point in another post so I'll discuss it more once it comes up.


GeneralJim: The failure of CGMs to predict within their error bars means that the hypothesis which they automate is falsified. The fact that they all predict with several TIMES more error than their error bars indicates a fundamental flaw, not a minor error. This falsification is clear and demonstrable, and therefore it "holds up."

You'll have to back this up in some way. I can't even say your allegations don't hold up in this case as you really haven't presented evidence for it here. However, I was reading an article on this a couple of weeks ago:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate176 3 .html

Apparently at least one prediction got it down fairly well (which disproves your allegation about "they all predict"):




GeneralJim: Miskolczi's mathematical proof of the falsification of the major AGW hypothesis also holds up, and further, when his corrections are applied to the CGMs, they manage to predict temperature within their error bars. This is clear evidence that Miskolczi is correct. As further evidence, the overall prediction of the process of carbon dioxide increase by Miskolczi has been the precise pattern followed by global temperature. His prediction was that rising carbon dioxide would, for a time, act as the IPCC projected -- until the decrease of water vapor in the upper troposphere kicked in, and balanced out the increase in the greenhouse effect from carbon dioxide. At that time, Miskolczi predicted, temperature increase would flatten out and stop. And, in violation of EVERY SINGLE IPCC-SPONSORED MODEL, global temperature has done precisely as Miskolczi predicted. This is further evidence that Miskolczi's falsification of the AGW hypothesis "holds up" -- at least it holds up MUCH better than the Chicken Little predictions of the IPCC.

You're basing your entire argument on one rather discredited paper. Again, your claims don't hold up. We can hash this particular point more if you wish.


GeneralJim: Your denial, and the denials of others, of these scientific observations do not alter the fact that the planet is falsifying, on many levels, the hypothesis behind the AGW panic. Keeping 2010 radiosonde data showing the drying of the upper troposphere secret until 2013, as is being done, does nothing to prove AGW correct. In the same way, claiming that the fact that absolute numbers on historical radiosonde humidity data are not reliable invalidates their determination of a drying trend does nothing to prove that upper troposphere humidity was constant or rising. It is true that we do NOT know if UT humidity fell from 29% to 24%, or from 32% to 27%, but we DO know that it fell.

You're making this determination on unreliable data, while ignoring other analyses. You've been hit over the head with papers such as Dessler & Davis 2010 (which looks at many records in addition to the NCEP reanalysis) many times. Yet again your claims don't hold up.


GeneralJim: Ironically, the "team" supporting AGW, after pretending that anyone not buying their Kool-Aid was denying science is now in the awkward position of denying peer-reviewed study after peer-reviewed study showing that AGW is falsified. And, again, before you put false words in my mouth, it is NOT that adding carbon dioxide to the air will not warm the planet, it is that doubling the carbon dioxide will raise the temperature, but somewhere between 0.24 K and 1.10 K -- an amount small enough to require no "actions" to be taken. Additionally, it would be wonderful if we could break out of this ice age with a temperature increase like that "promised" by the IPCC -- that just MIGHT be enough to prevent the upcoming major glaciation.

So, the denial of science and the personal attacks against authors of studies falsifying AGW, and anyone unwilling to refuse to mention those, do NOT mean that the many falsifications of AGW "don't hold up," They simply mean that your arguments can no longer hold up in the scientific arena, and you must take them FULLY to the political or religious arenas, where they still have some traction among those who do not understand the science. Sucks to be you.


What you're talking about is a very selective reading of the extant literature combined with (as as you've proven here), misrepresenting or overstating results and intentional ignorance of the problems or limitations with said literature. From an article we had a thread on last week:



I contend it is you who "is now in the awkward position of denying peer-reviewed study after peer-reviewed study".

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak:
This keeps coming up, so it's worth addressing. All you can say from the Vostok temperature record is that the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration initially followed the global temperature. This proves the idea that "carbon dioxide levels CANNOT be driving the temperature in any significant way" only if you somehow believe that there is only one way to increase temperature. Your line of reasoning only works if existence of temperature changes due to orbital forcing is somehow excludes the separate mechanism of changes in temperature due to changes in carbon dioxide concentration.

Is this the case? Do you believe that the existence of orbital forcing is the only factor that can affect temperature and therefore excludes temperature changes due to changes in carbon dioxide concentration?

Your logic in this is tortured to the point of insanity. Carbon dioxide levels, since they FOLLOW temperature, are not the controller of that temperature. That is rather straightforward. You state that is can only be true if there is only one way to increase planetary temperature. This does not follow.

Let's restate what you've said here so that it's clearer. You're stating that since carbon dioxide levels followed temperature at one point therefore carbon dioxide cannot affect temperature. Is that correct? I ask because this really isn't true, and hopefully the next section will address this.


GeneralJim: Allow me to restate. Let's say I claim that the amount of tan I have determines the amount of sunshine reaching the surface in Hawai'i. Your response at least SHOULD be to counter with evidence that my tan level actually has a correlation with Hawia'ian sunshine, but it is that I get more tanned AFTER the sunshine increases, so my tan level CANNOT be what is controlling Hawai'ian sunshine. In response, I claim that what you say could ONLY be true if there is only one factor in Hawai'ian sunshine. After that claim, you would probably believe that I was mentally impaired -- and with good reason. In the same way, I believe you are mentally impaired to come up with the idea that since ONE factor (carbon dioxide) cannot be a major factor, there can be only ONE factor when it comes to planetary temperature.

I see the problem in your reasoning here. First, you're making the assumption that an observation that finds A causing B somehow excludes the possibility of B also causing A. This is why the the tongue-in-cheek idea that 'chickens cannot lay eggs, as they have been observed hatching from them' that I occasionally hit you over the head with is apt. That A causes B does not exclude the possibility of B also causing A.

The second problem is that you're attempting to generalize from a singular observation when more observations would also show the reverse. I posted this earlier, but let me repost it here for reference:


Note that sometimes temperature follows CO₂, sometimes the other way around.

Again, the argument you're putting forward is very much like the tongue-in-cheek idea that 'chickens cannot lay eggs, as they have been observed hatching from them'.


GeneralJim: Orbital geometry appears to be the difference between the major glaciations and the interglacial periods when within an ice age. However, the (geologic) ice ages themselves appear to be caused by increased cosmic ray flux when we are in a galactic arm. The difference between full ice age and non-ice age temperatures is about 10 K, while the orbital geometry only seems to generate a 6 to 7 K swing. We are currently in an ice age due to being in an arm of the galaxy, and within a brief interglacial period

Additionally, solar activity changes cause temperature changes in two ways. First, the insolation directly heats Earth, and if it goes up, so does planetary temperature. Second, when solar activity goes up, so does the magnetic output of the Sun. When the magnetic output of the Sun goes up, Earth is more protected from cosmic rays, and that has the effect of warming the planet as well.

The fact that carbon dioxide level changes have little to no effect on planetary temperature does nothing to decrease the effects of ANY of the above factors in planetary temperature. The fact that you claim that it DOES is a cause for some concern.


Interesting, even if I don't agree. In addition, you've got the bit in bold quite wrong. In fact, I'm trying to make the case that the pattern described in the Vostok ice cores, initially due to some sort of orbital forcing, is not mutually exclusive with the relationship between increased carbon dioxide and temperature. It is is you who seems to be inadvertently trying to make the case that one is somehow mutually exclusive with the other.

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak:
From Shakun et al. 2012:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

We can discuss what this means, GeneralJim, but I have a feeling you won't get this far ;)

Just another failure in a long series of failed predictions. So much for your "feeling."

I'm happy to be wrong on this one. You do tend to ignore scientific information. Let's hope you continue to surprise.


GeneralJim: So, we have long, repeated periods where carbon dioxide levels amazingly precisely follow temperature. And we also have a claim made that, during the melting of a major glaciation, carbon dioxide levels appear to lead temperature. While I certainly did NOT get that impression from the data in the study, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that they are correct in their interpretation of the data.

To be clear, what they found was both carbon dioxide levels leading and following temperature, depending on the location, and that the Antarctic, back then as it is now, shouldn't be taken as representative of the whole world.


GeneralJim: A fact to point out -- warming is caused by TOTAL GREENHOUSE EFFECT, not just carbon dioxide levels. Carbon dioxide, today, accounts for a bit less than 5% of the GHE.

So, assuming their study is correct, which do YOU think more likely:

That some part of the end-of-major-glaciation event, about which we are currently unaware, gave rise to an anomalous reading,

-- OR --

The laws of physics are different during an end-of-major-glaciation event than they are during interglacial periods?


I don't think it's either of those choices, and they don't really make much sense. Perhaps you could explain them out further.

Maybe what would help would be to note that readings from one specific geographical location (like Antarctica and the Vostok ice core record) can be misleading in that it may not be representative of the whole world. So for your first choice, something that seems anomalous may simply be non-representative due to its limited geographical scope. As for your second choice, what may help is to note that different processes are not mutually exclusive. You can have orbital forcing changing temperature, and CO₂ changing temperature as well - it doesn't have to be just one or the other and no change in the laws of physics required.

With that out of the way, what the findings of that study are consistent with is orbital forcing driving a change in temperature, said temperature change perturbing the AMOC, setting up what the authors term a 'seesaw response' which results in release of CO₂ from the Southern Ocean, which then goes on to drive much of the warming. The authors dedicate a whole section to this issue under "The trigger for deglacial warming". I suggest reading it more carefully.

Damnhippyfreak: The authors dedicate a whole section to this issue under "The trigger for deglacial warming". I suggest reading it more carefully.

I'm making the assumption that you managed to get a hold of the paper, GeneralJim. If you can't, there is always a standing offer for me to retrieve scientific literature for you and post it somewhere - just let me know. Anything to get you to actually read more scientific literature.

Damnhippyfreak:

It depends on the phenomenon you're interested, as always. If we were interested in ENSO, then 15 years would have been more appropriate. If we're interested in, say orbital forcing and glaciation cycles, then 12,000 years (as you posted) would be more appropriate. If we're interested in anthropogenic climate change, 150 years is more appropriate.

Perhaps if we could just clear up this particular flaw in your thinking, the whole issue would become clearer to you.

First, an "orbital forcing and glaciation cycle," as you put it, is somewhere around 110,000 years, so looking at it over a period of 12,000 years would only cover a tad more than 10% of the cycle, and be a rather irrelevant observation. To observe ANY cycle, you need to look at SEVERAL cycles of it, for, among other reasons, to see if the amplitude of the cycle stays constant. The ultimate bonehead in this field, James Hansen, has been at the forefront of fail on BOTH sides of decadal oscillation -- in the 70s, the early adaptation of his Mars/Venus atmospheric model for the Earth, ignoring cycles with amplitudes far in excess of the cumulative warming that WAS taking place, claimed that, since temperatures had been dropping since the 1940s, they would continue to drop, and only a couple of degrees separated where we were then from a major glaciation. (That last part is true.) Thus, Hansen's colleague predicted an imminent ice age, based on Hansen's faulty model. Then, when the normal decadal cycle turned upwards for its 30-year run-up, Hansen's models claimed that THAT trend would continue to the point of destruction. Hansen was not personally invested in the "OMG ICE AGE" panic attack, so it was easy for him to flip, and be the harbinger of doom for global warming. Now, he is WAY too personally invested, both in reputation and financially, in warming catastrophe to EVER back down from that falsified position. Apparently, on Fark, you are in the same position as the pathetic Hansen.

Both warming and imminent ice age fear-mongering positions are incorrect, and for the same reason -- they both look at only one side of a ~60 year cycle that is MUCH larger in amplitude than any longer-term trends. The more or less constant trend since the end of the little ice age has been a warming of about 0.76 K per century. Indications are that that warming is over, and we will return to our NORMAL cooling trend of the last 8,000 years. Note that this warming "blip" has been in place for 300 years. There are also 400, and 1,600 year cycles, all of which have larger amplitude than the long-term change in planetary temperature. Thus, they will "swamp" readings if not accounted for. And THAT is an error you seem positively eager to commit. And, over all, is it not important that the last twenty MILLION years have been spent in the coldest over-all period on Earth since the advent of diverse life? Surely the fact that we are in a temperature trough of about 10 K has SOME bearing on temperature events -- although it would take at LEAST several tens of millions of years of data to see THAT particular pattern.

So, NO, looking at the last 150 years is NOT all one needs to evaluate human input into climate. Your continued insistence upon exactly THIS bit of cherry-picking, after repeated explanations such as this, shows you to be either as thick as a brick - no Jethro Tull intended - or being deliberately dishonest, as it points out a multi-century warming trend, currently in process, which has NOTHING to do with humans, but which is being attributed to humanity for fear-mongering purposes. So, which is it?

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: I've was curious just how many times you've had the problems with the NCEP re-analysis pointed out to you. A quick google search reveals that you've had the problems with it pointed out more than two years ago, and yet you seem to have learned very little since then.
This is the idiocy with which I must contend. An irrelevant argument remains irrelevant, irrespective of both how long ago the first time it was made is AND the number of repetitions.

As I pointed out above, yes, there ARE problems with the historical radiosonde humidity readings. What it amounts to is that it is well-nigh impossible to calibrate the old data collection series with an ABSOLUTE number.

The problem is similar to a thermometer in which the glass tube has shifted some unknown amount in the housing that is marked off with temperatures. With the tube shifted, while the indicator shows, say, 20o Celsius, you cannot tell if that number is correct. However, this damaged thermometer CAN tell you, with precision, if the temperature is rising or dropping. The radiosonde humidity measurement is like that -- we cannot tell precisely what the humidity was, but we CAN tell, with precision, that it was dropping. The accuracy problems with humidity readings in the radiosondes were corrected, and a new set of data was completed in 2010, and it was decided to withhold the data until 2013. I find that interesting, and more than a little disturbing, in the same way that I find the CERN directive to their scientists to avoid discussing what implications their CLOUD experiment has for climate science.


Nope, you can't make the assumption in bold. Unfortunately, part of the problem is changes over time due to changes in radiosonde equipment and procedures. From one of the links in the post I linked to :

Earlier U.S. models did not report relative humidities below 20% at all [Wade, 1994], and older models of all kinds were not reliable below −40°C, which includes most of the upper troposphere. These problems, the lack of strong physical constraints on humidity (other than those described in section 2), and the rapid variation of the moisture field at spatial scales that are short compared to the distance between stations make homogenization a real challenge.

If you wish, we can always dig up the underlying citations.

Of course, there's still the fact that every other reanalysis (besides also incorporating satellite data) shows an increase in mid and upper tropospheric specific humidity. I linked to Dessler & Davis 2010 in a previous post - I'll do so again here. From that paper:


Figure 1. Plots of the trends in specific humidity in the different reanalyses, over the time periods discussed in the text (1979 onward, except for the ECMWF-interim, which begins in 1989). The plots are divided into three geographical regions: tropics (20°S-20°N), NH (20°N-50°N), and SH (20°S-50°S). Trends are divided by the average specific humidity over the entire time period, so they are expressed in percent per year. The 95% confidence interval for trends in the ERA-interim reanalysis are shown for illustration purposes.

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak:
It depends on the phenomenon you're interested, as always. If we were interested in ENSO, then 15 years would have been more appropriate. If we're interested in, say orbital forcing and glaciation cycles, then 12,000 years (as you posted) would be more appropriate. If we're interested in anthropogenic climate change, 150 years is more appropriate.

Perhaps if we could just clear up this particular flaw in your thinking, the whole issue would become clearer to you.

First, an "orbital forcing and glaciation cycle," as you put it, is somewhere around 110,000 years, so looking at it over a period of 12,000 years would only cover a tad more than 10% of the cycle, and be a rather irrelevant observation. To observe ANY cycle, you need to look at SEVERAL cycles of it, for, among other reasons, to see if the amplitude of the cycle stays constant.

You would be right if were interested in a whole cycle, instead of say, just the emergence from the last glacial maximum. You seem to be agreeing with me here - the scale you choose to look at should consider the phenomenon one is interested in.


GeneralJim: The ultimate bonehead in this field, James Hansen, has been at the forefront of fail on BOTH sides of decadal oscillation -- in the 70s, the early adaptation of his Mars/Venus atmospheric model for the Earth, ignoring cycles with amplitudes far in excess of the cumulative warming that WAS taking place, claimed that, since temperatures had been dropping since the 1940s, they would continue to drop, and only a couple of degrees separated where we were then from a major glaciation. (That last part is true.) Thus, Hansen's colleague predicted an imminent ice age, based on Hansen's faulty model. Then, when the normal decadal cycle turned upwards for its 30-year run-up, Hansen's models claimed that THAT trend would continue to the point of destruction. Hansen was not personally invested in the "OMG ICE AGE" panic attack, so it was easy for him to flip, and be the harbinger of doom for global warming. Now, he is WAY too personally invested, both in reputation and financially, in warming catastrophe to EVER back down from that falsified position. Apparently, on Fark, you are in the same position as the pathetic Hansen.

While interesting (and unfounded), this tangent of yours about James Hansen has very little to do with the issue of scale. Focus, buddy ;)


GeneralJim: Both warming and imminent ice age fear-mongering positions are incorrect, and for the same reason -- they both look at only one side of a ~60 year cycle that is MUCH larger in amplitude than any longer-term trends. The more or less constant trend since the end of the little ice age has been a warming of about 0.76 K per century. Indications are that that warming is over, and we will return to our NORMAL cooling trend of the last 8,000 years. Note that this warming "blip" has been in place for 300 years. There are also 400, and 1,600 year cycles, all of which have larger amplitude than the long-term change in planetary temperature. Thus, they will "swamp" readings if not accounted for. And THAT is an error you seem positively eager to commit. And, over all, is it not important that the last twenty MILLION years have been spent in the coldest over-all period on Earth since the advent of diverse life? Surely the fact that we are in a temperature trough of about 10 K has SOME bearing on temperature events -- although it would take at LEAST several tens of millions of years of data to see THAT particular pattern.

This is where my previous discussion about simple correlation not being the basis for the attribution of anthropogenic climate changes comes back in. This counfounding of different processes is exactly why understanding of the underlying processes and mechanisms is important. The fact is that orbital forcing has been largely understood and accounted for.


GeneralJim: So, NO, looking at the last 150 years is NOT all one needs to evaluate human input into climate. Your continued insistence upon exactly THIS bit of cherry-picking, after repeated explanations such as this, shows you to be either as thick as a brick - no Jethro Tull intended - or being deliberately dishonest, as it points out a multi-century warming trend, currently in process, which has NOTHING to do with humans, but which is being attributed to humanity for fear-mongering purposes. So, which is it?

Maybe you misunderstood me. I don't think the last 150 years is all one needs to evaluate human input into climate - they are of course informative, and for the reasons you specify. What I have an issue with is when you attempt to use anything but that scale, or attempt to make inferences solely from other scales, as you attempted to do in the post I was responding to. That according to you there has been a cooling trend over the last 8,000 years (a much longer scale than the one we're interested in) says nothing about the existence or importance of anthropogenic climate change.

Damnhippyfreak: That according to you there has been a cooling trend over the last 8,000 years (a much longer scale than the one we're interested in) says nothing about the existence or importance of anthropogenic climate change.

This is probably too harsh. How about 'very little' instead.

Damnhippyfreak:

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: Ctrl-Alt-Del: snocone: I will guarenfarkingtee you that the climate will change all by itself, regardless of human activity, or lack of it.

Stage 2 it is, then

So, you are saying that the climate cannot change without people changing it? That's weaponized stupidity.


GeneralJim: Oh, boy! Yet another arsehole claiming to be able to read minds -- and failing. Nice work.

See that question mark? That means that the writer is asking a QUESTION. Perhaps you should work on the basics before you step outside... You sure need work.

Mind reading leading to a leading or rhetorical question is still mind reading. Again, I suggest you follow your own advice.

Your inability to comprehend simple English is NOT my problem. Snocone claims the climate changes with or without people, and Mr. Reset calls that a mental failing, part of a denial mechanism. WITHIN WHAT HE WROTE, if thinking the climate changes by itself is a mental disorder, he is either claiming the climate does NOT change without human input, or is claiming to have a mental disability. I simply wish to know WHICH of these he is claiming.

Actual mind-reading attempts go something like this "Oh, no, that's not it. What you REALLY want is for..." or "You think the climate hasn't changed, ever" or similar statements of certitude. Leave it to a bonehead to claim that asking a question is mind-reading. You keep thinkin', Butch, that's what you do best.

Damnhippyfreak:

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: You're right in that "populations simply CANNOT continue to rise forever" which is why world population growth continues to slow down and is projected to level off sometime this century. It's a problem, to be sure, but arguably not the dominant one, especially as the per capita carbon footprint in developing countries continues to rise due to an emerging middle class.

You're not paying attention to the science. Carbon dioxide levels mean fark all until they approach the 1% level. Stop being a mindless herd animal.

I'm not sure what that has to with population growth, or your overestimation of the problem of the same. Regardless of your views on carbon dioxide, population growth isn't as big a problem as you may think.

Now you're having trouble remembering what you wrote? Wow. The worst of it is that you quote yourself, and then don't know what you said. Are you just making this shiat up out of whole cloth as you go along?

You discuss "per capita carbon footprints" as if they meant diddly. I point out that they don't, and you say "who said anything about carbon?" Slick.

Anyway, you're 180^o off, as usual. Here, argue with the experts...

Worst Environmental Problem? Overpopulation, Experts Say

Damnhippyfreak:

Again, this really doesn't contradict my argument. Whether you acknowledge the science surrounding anthropogenic climate change or not, it really isn't affected by your overstated idea that "population gains will nullify ANY "improvement" made in energy production".

Oh, please. You have GOT to be jerking my chain -- surely you understand fractions.

Do the math... if you can:

Science figures out a way to produce electricity, and power vehicles, with only HALF the emissions as today. Population doubles. What is the net effect on emissions?

Damnhippyfreak:

As for the idea that "humans have NOT shown an ability to control their own populations in any way that does not involve violence or contagion", prepare to be pleasantly surprised. As I stated population growth is slowing, and in many developed nations the fertility rate is close to or even below replacement - occurring largely without the "violence or contagion" you mention.

Yeah, but the low end of the spectrum is still breeding like rabbits. I guess when the world turns into "Idiocracy," you just might be their king. So you've got that going for you.

/ ... and just because the wars haven't started YET doesn't mean that they won't. Wait until America can't feed a good part of the planet... and the riots start, interrupting the transportation of what food there is.

HighZoolander:

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: This is an example of what I was talking about. The attribution of climate change is not based upon simple correlation, as what you're talking about here. I suggest that since you're focusing more on the politics rather than the actual science, you're missing even some of the very basics.
Au contraire -- The attribution of climate change is PRECISELY based upon a perceived (and phony) correlation. What else?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint -o n-Climate-Change.html

I know you disagree with them, but I'm surprised you're this abysmally ignorant of the scientific claims. Oh no wait, I'm not surprised by that at all, it's just how you roll.

You're a fine one to talk of abysmal ignorance. Posting links to that perps' blog, skepticalscience. They don't seem to realize -- or won't admit -- that warming has stopped. It will REALLY toast them when it starts to cool, as it is already doing... But, since you're really not worth a lot of effort, read this:

New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears
(It even links to the peer-reviewed paper itself!)

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak:
GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: Ctrl-Alt-Del: snocone: I will guarenfarkingtee you that the climate will change all by itself, regardless of human activity, or lack of it.

Stage 2 it is, then

So, you are saying that the climate cannot change without people changing it? That's weaponized stupidity.


GeneralJim: Oh, boy! Yet another arsehole claiming to be able to read minds -- and failing. Nice work.

See that question mark? That means that the writer is asking a QUESTION. Perhaps you should work on the basics before you step outside... You sure need work.

Mind reading leading to a leading or rhetorical question is still mind reading. Again, I suggest you follow your own advice.

Your inability to comprehend simple English is NOT my problem. Snocone claims the climate changes with or without people, and Mr. Reset calls that a mental failing, part of a denial mechanism. WITHIN WHAT HE WROTE, if thinking the climate changes by itself is a mental disorder, he is either claiming the climate does NOT change without human input, or is claiming to have a mental disability. I simply wish to know WHICH of these he is claiming.

Actual mind-reading attempts go something like this "Oh, no, that's not it. What you REALLY want is for..." or "You think the climate hasn't changed, ever" or similar statements of certitude. Leave it to a bonehead to claim that asking a question is mind-reading. You keep thinkin', Butch, that's what you do best.


There's the mind reading right there again in bold. Maybe what would help would be to note that disagreeing with someone does not mean the person is arguing for the exact absurd opposite. Again, heed your own advice.

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: You're right in that "populations simply CANNOT continue to rise forever" which is why world population growth continues to slow down and is projected to level off sometime this century. It's a problem, to be sure, but arguably not the dominant one, especially as the per capita carbon footprint in developing countries continues to rise due to an emerging middle class.

You're not paying attention to the science. Carbon dioxide levels mean fark all until they approach the 1% level. Stop being a mindless herd animal.

I'm not sure what that has to with population growth, or your overestimation of the problem of the same. Regardless of your views on carbon dioxide, population growth isn't as big a problem as you may think.
Now you're having trouble remembering what you wrote? Wow. The worst of it is that you quote yourself, and then don't know what you said. Are you just making this shiat up out of whole cloth as you go along?

You discuss "per capita carbon footprints" as if they meant diddly. I point out that they don't, and you say "who said anything about carbon?" Slick.

Anyway, you're 180o off, as usual. Here, argue with the experts...

Worst Environmental Problem? Overpopulation, Experts Say


You're mind reading (again) or misrepresenting what I said. The idea that I put forth is that "regardless of your views on carbon dioxide, population growth isn't as big a problem as you may think". Even if you deny the importance of anthropogenic climate change, there are still environmental problems associated with population growth - however, said problems are somewhat overstated in that population growth is continuing to slow down, and, as I said, projected to level off this century. Your somewhat dubious views on anthropogenic climate change don't really change that.

That aside, while I do respect the results of a survey, I have to disagree about the importance of population growth. Perhaps in the short-term, and especially in the developing world.

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: Again, this really doesn't contradict my argument. Whether you acknowledge the science surrounding anthropogenic climate change or not, it really isn't affected by your overstated idea that "population gains will nullify ANY "improvement" made in energy production".
Oh, please. You have GOT to be jerking my chain -- surely you understand fractions.

Do the math... if you can:

Science figures out a way to produce electricity, and power vehicles, with only HALF the emissions as today. Population doubles. What is the net effect on emissions?

[s3.amazonaws.com image 450x367]


Your argument is based upon the idea that the bit in bold is going to happen. This isn't necessarily true as, again, population growth is slowing down and is projected to level off this century.

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: As for the idea that "humans have NOT shown an ability to control their own populations in any way that does not involve violence or contagion", prepare to be pleasantly surprised. As I stated population growth is slowing, and in many developed nations the fertility rate is close to or even below replacement - occurring largely without the "violence or contagion" you mention.
Yeah, but the low end of the spectrum is still breeding like rabbits. I guess when the world turns into "Idiocracy," you just might be their king. So you've got that going for you.

/ ... and just because the wars haven't started YET doesn't mean that they won't. Wait until America can't feed a good part of the planet... and the riots start, interrupting the transportation of what food there is.


Regardless of your prognostication, population growth is slowing, and in many developed nations the fertility rate is already close to or even below replacement - occurring largely without the "violence or contagion" you mention. It has happened already - no crystal ball gazing required. You should be pleasantly surprised ;)

GeneralJim: HighZoolander: GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: This is an example of what I was talking about. The attribution of climate change is not based upon simple correlation, as what you're talking about here. I suggest that since you're focusing more on the politics rather than the actual science, you're missing even some of the very basics.
Au contraire -- The attribution of climate change is PRECISELY based upon a perceived (and phony) correlation. What else?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint -o n-Climate-Change.html

I know you disagree with them, but I'm surprised you're this abysmally ignorant of the scientific claims. Oh no wait, I'm not surprised by that at all, it's just how you roll.
You're a fine one to talk of abysmal ignorance. Posting links to that perps' blog, skepticalscience. They don't seem to realize -- or won't admit -- that warming has stopped. It will REALLY toast them when it starts to cool, as it is already doing... But, since you're really not worth a lot of effort, read this:

New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears
(It even links to the peer-reviewed paper itself!)


Ahem.

GeneralJim: 15 years is close to meaningless when it comes to climate

Of course, there's the more important issue that you're ignoring the information that HighZoolander presented. As stated, the attribution of anthropogenic climate change is based on more than just simple correlation, contrary to what you claim. Your attempt to change the subject does not magically change that fact.

snocone: Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: As for the idea that "humans have NOT shown an ability to control their own populations in any way that does not involve violence or contagion", prepare to be pleasantly surprised. As I stated population growth is slowing, and in many developed nations the fertility rate is close to or even below replacement - occurring largely without the "violence or contagion" you mention.
Yeah, but the low end of the spectrum is still breeding like rabbits. I guess when the world turns into "Idiocracy," you just might be their king. So you've got that going for you.

/ ... and just because the wars haven't started YET doesn't mean that they won't. Wait until America can't feed a good part of the planet... and the riots start, interrupting the transportation of what food there is.


Regardless of your prognostication, population growth is slowing, and in many developed nations the fertility rate is already close to or even below replacement - occurring largely without the "violence or contagion" you mention. It has happened already - no crystal ball gazing required. You should be pleasantly surprised ;)


You forgot to mention the other UN  Population Growth Scenarios.
I am sure accidentally, eh?
UN predictions range from 6B to 60B. There are 3 "predictions", high, low, middle. WOW! What "science"!

If you're unused to looking at reports of that kind, what is common is presenting of different scenarios, each representing different sets of assumptions or eventualities. Often, what is presented is a worst-case scenario, a best-case scenario, and what is most likely. Yes, this has a scientific basis, despite your incredulity. Unfortunately, you're most likely mistaken about the range of predictions:




snocone: From their lips; "U.N. Population Division suggests that population growth rates will decline over the coming several decades, with a possible stabilization around the year 2050. But achieving this will take an enormous amount of hard work, creativity and financing - it is by no means a fiat accompli. "

This quote is not "from their lips", contrary to your claim, but from an NGO. A big hint that the quote didn't come from something like a UN report: the term is fait accompli, not fiat accompli.


snocone: "financing"
The best case scenario you favor requires a lot of changes, the UN would like to use your money. As usual.
Does this ring any bells?
I see a pattern, a common trait of inteligence.
You don't.

Seeing patterns is one thing, but whether such perception is based on accurate information is something else. In this post alone you have made a false claim and failed to correctly state the author of a a quote. This suggests the information you're basing your perception of a pattern on, and more importantly the way you gather information, is fundamentally flawed.

I mean, the Timecube guy also sees patterns - it doesn't mean he's right, or intelligent.