As we all know, climate science is not a numbers game (there are heaps of signed statements by folks with advanced degrees on all sides of this issue). But, for fairness' sake, I added a post on Dot Earth in part elaborating on the turnout.


- Andy Revkin nytimes.com/revkin

Maybe I'll take the trek up to Texas A&M and debate you in front of your class.  You just have to answer one question:

"Without using computer models or predictions, relying only on observed, and objective data, can Dr. Dressler show that increases in CO2 and the slight rise in temperature over the last 100 years has been a bad thing?"  

Can you prove to me, using only observed and objective data at the time, that a slight smell and itch coming from a large open wound in your leg will likely turn into gangrene?

Oh, I've got the penicillin, but you cant have it because I don't believe in gangrene.

-Christopher

That's a great idea that was similarly proposed by Brian Valentine, on an earlier blog. (one of the 400 heretics).

However, There was no response from Dr. Dessler.
Neither does he answer questions like could he point to some real evidence....not go read the IPCC report....but maybe a paper at his fingertips, that does not include the word model

   Under the standard of proof most of them demand, there is nothing provable under the sun!!!  Back to the caves!!!

patrick in Beijing

To answer your question, yes, using only objective data I could show you that I have gangrene and that antibiotics could cure me. We could look at medical case studies of other patients with similar symptoms. We could isolate the organisms which cause gangrene and reproduce them in a lab then use antibiotics to measure the effectiveness of the drugs.  

So Patrick do you live in a cave in Beijing? I've been there many times and saw mostly apartment buildings. I don't think asking for data is an unreasonable request, nor is it unreasonable to ask about the accuracy and uncertainty of the data or whether or not the conclusions fall within both the accuracy and uncertainty of the data.  It is called science.  

Funny but I don't recall name calling as part of the scientific method.

But really that is the root of their argument.

1.) global warming can cause a CO2 rise

2.) a CO2 rise can cause global warming

They "dance" with each other.

CO2 is measured in the bubbles in the ice and temperature is gaged from the oxygen isotopes in each layer, as I understand it.

I also know that CO2 has never been as high in 500,000 years as it is now and that the current spike is from anthropogenic (human) sources.

I also know that NASA, NOAA, IPCC, and the AGU have said that all of these factors point to a 90% probability of human caused global warming that can have a mostly negative impact on a society that has risen within a certain area of climate tolerance.

So, if your going to try to erase all of that for me you have a pretty big mountain to climb, Mr.  I'm not going to lose any sleep over fretting about your position.

Besides, this argument is rendered quaint now.  We have won and you have lost.  There WILL be a clean energy revolution and a transformation of our society between now and the late 2040's.  There WILL be a carbon cap and then a carbon tax.  You really don't have any impact on this momentum now.  Sorry.  It was fun.

-Christopher

Christopher - really you should read up on the difference between correlation and causation. And from your post it is pretty clear that for you AGW theory is a political cause.

1.  Ultra strong correlation can lead to what is called 'a likelihood of causation', especially when other forces and factors are considered in the judgement.  And it is totally healthy and sane to act on anything more than 80% likely status.

2.  My SOLUTION is political, NOT the problem itself.  And you should be glad that is so.  Political solutions help keep me nonviolent.

Go to bed.  You've earned your pay today.  Whatever Houston firm you work for has gotten their worth out of you.

-Christopher

I do believe that you could find correlations with alleged rising global average temperatures, whatever they are with many other things:

Increasing human obesity in the lead nation; USA, followed I think by Australia, one or the other, or global, of your choice

Increasing consumption of hamburgers and other fast foods

Increasing usage of television world-wide

Increasing usage of anti-depressent drugs

Increasing availability of brown heroin from Afghanistan

What thinkest thou Christopher?

Christopher - I admire your patience, I really do.  However, might I suggest banging your head against a brick wall?  You may find it slightly less irritating....

I fear that Gristmill is suffering an infestation.

Funny how engineers and other applied scientists such as geologists seem to be able to sort the wood from the trees.  
(Although BTW there is no question that WE could be driven by "Climate Science" funding or such peer pressures.)

I don't know if you have seen any of the earlier blog-threads emanating from the wise doctor D, but typically one Max Manacker of your particular discipline has been well represented there.

In case you don't know, and might be interested here are the last seven recent Dessler blogies:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/5/214956/5753

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/2/25/162934/336

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/2/19/222925/715

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/2/14/222528/569

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/2/5/183925/9724

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/23/143028/323

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/24/111256/345

In what way are you making any contribution to what should be a SCIENTIFIC debate?

I COULD say to you; spread vegemite on your 6-day-old unwashed knickers, and eat them sloshed down with copius apple vinegar lubricant, but how does it forward the debate?

You are currently a waste of page space here.

Please put your brain in gear first, if you wish to actually contribute later!

   Okay, Darth, you got me.  I don't live in a cave!!

   So, let me back up, be polite, and ask the simple question.

   What is an acceptable standard of proof for you??  (and for the other people challenging global warming).

   What is acceptable generally?  What is acceptable in terms of climate data?  In terms of issues such as cigarettes and cancer?  Chemicals and cancer?

   Thanks!!!

patrick in Beijing

A Professor in Bullsh*t, Tedious Personal Attacks and Tripping Over My Own Feet whilst trying to shove an ice core up my ....would be more appropriate.

I haven't posted much but I have read alot and you Dessler have about as much credibility as a scientist as David Beckham. The IPCC report is now 2-3 years out of date in a rapidly moving field yet you are still incapable of discussing new data, new ways of interpreting old data or anything else about your supposed work. I wish I was paid as a Professor to basically blog about 'what a good chap I am' and 'what terrible bad boys those 'trolls' and 'deniers' are'. I'm out of here for ever, this site and your blog in particular adds absolutely nothing to my learning about climate science. I may as well go read The Sun.

Stockypig

Then contribute for crying out loud.  Sheesh.  Are those bluebonnets blooming and making you so cranky?

Also:  please be clear about your new information.  Which category does it fall under?  Something new around the edges of the subject, or something that changes the fundamentals.

-Christophersj

Your logic fails.  Those factors cannot be mapped over 500,000 years of ups and downs in concert with heat and CO2.  So it doesn't work.

You don't get an Exxon check today.  Do not pass go.

Besides, as I said before, this is just spinning our wheels here.  The political momentum is already underway and you are powerless to stop it. (which is your goal in the end)

Look, youre not going to live in a dictatorship. You still get to choose the shape and color of your plug-in hybrid.  But your gonna have to buy one.

Do you feel oppressed now by having to buy a catalytic converter?

It not just the quantity, but the quality as well, and you know that already.

Did Chevron send you the check yet?

And Grist knows the credentials of those listed.  If theirs don't count, then neither do the believer's.  

"How does it feel to betray the future of your society and possibly your species for a paycheck?"

I don't know; you tell me.

Failing that maybe another 100 years worth of satellite data. The earth is billions of years old and yet we have only directly measured temperature for 500 years and satellite measurements for 50 years.  That is very small data sample.

        Do you demand the same proof for new drugs before they are released to the market?  Or new chemicals before they can be used?  What kinds of proofs do you accept for other "theories"?   Or do you reject all of science??  No gravity?  No relativity (just math, after all)?  No Physics?

        Another 100 years?  That is a total fraudulent answer, since you and I will be long dead by then.

        Your answer basically is that NOTHING can convince you.  

        This is where the term "denier" comes from.

        Let's see, then  you probably refuse medicine and the use of clinical treatments that are less than 100 years old (after all, humans have been around over 100,000 years, so why not require a treatment be tested for at least a 100 years).

        You can't go to the dentist, the internet is definitely too young for you!!

        But, wait!!!  No one should talk to you until you have been posting for at least 100 years!!!

        It's spring, the silly season arrives early.

patrick in Beijing

"Your logic fails.  Those factors cannot be mapped over 500,000 years of ups and downs in concert with heat and CO2.  So it doesn't work."

This is almost certainly a reference to the data that has been extracted from ice core drillings, however the response is severally flawed.
I'll try my best and take it through some steps, but line-by-line dogmatic reactions may prevent comprehension of the whole.

1.  The current concentration of trace levels of CO2 (PPM) as measured at Moana Loa is considerably higher than at any relevant time as currently measured in gas bubbles that were somehow trapped in the ancient ice.  Whilst there is a logical inference that because CO2 is known to be a greenhouse gas and there are claims that it is at an unprecedented level, there is actually no way of directly observing its net influence or of testing it in realistic laboratory conditions. The ice cores cannot tell us anything about today, because there is nothing there to compare with what we appear to have today. Thus, among other things, we look to possible correlations with the published global average temperatures.  Obviously, CO2 could be one thing, but if you actually study the published data of temperature versus CO2, the relationship is not only irregular, but is neither linear or sensibly exponential, despite what the alarmists assert......go look!   Thus if CO2 does not show a sensible correlation, what does?  I suggested jokingly some correlations which may be better than seen in the CO2-T relationship but it is a stretch of the imagination to assert that they are in fact related, and it was a satirical observation pointing to the fragility in the current claims.  Nevertheless, there are some other correlations, which are more serious, such as increased land clearing and agricultural practice, affecting surface albedo, and various kinds of solar activity. See 3) below.

2.  If you have faith in the ice core record, and have actually studied the data in detail over a long time, you may be aware that many AGW alarmists initially trumpeted it as proof of CO2 initiated warming, despite that cause versus effect could NOT be described!  Another problem was that it applied to the very few high latitude regions where the proxy data was determined, but nevertheless was stated to be GLOBAL data.   At the same time, bizarrely, clear historic and other paeleo-data identifying a Medieval Warm Period around the world evidently warmer than today, were poo poohed  as being individually out of phase and hence NOT globally average-able.  (Despite that they covered a much larger area than the very few ice cores)
   

An interesting observation is that blogosphere traffic on this topic has been enormous, but if you go to the relevant IPCC report AR4 WG1, there is ZERO discussion on it!

Concerning points 3) onward, let's see how you go with 1) an 2) before I spend more of my time on this.

3.  Solar activity, including the so-far alarming trend "transition" to cycle 24, with no sunspots for two months + rapidly plunging T's.   (HOPEFULLY it does not continue!)
   
4.  Ice core data considerations
   
5.  Is Moana Loa relevant?
   
6.  Recommended reading
   
7.  Other stuff

"You don't get an Exxon check today.  Do not pass go."

I've been retired for ~14 years and deny your ASSENINE ASSUMPTION that I am still employed.  If you can prove it, you could contact the ATO (IR in Americano, and gleefully let them know).  Even if I were to be covertly paid by some oil company, (BTW, which one do you totally prefer), so what?

You likely admire Pierre-Humbert (watsisname).... A la RealClimate fame!  I seem to recall that he received as head of department over $50 million funding sometime fairly recently.  OK, money talks!  Non e in accordo?

Concerning your other comments; Can I afford to buy a plug-in hybrid car?  No, and it would not make an iota of sense in Australia, despite that many government departments and other apologists and status seekers are doing just that by the thousands!

You see unless we in Oz convert to Nuclear Power, which is impossible because of the not-in-my-back-yard complex, then we will continue to mostly derive our electrical power from a relatively primitive coal-fired source, as in China.  (= lots of waste CO2 and particulates and stuff.

My chariot has a new generation diesel with TRULY astonishingly efficient performance, and no evident particulates from the tailpipe!  I am very contented with it.

Yes, there is a huge political problem, a bit like when G W Bush and other fundamentalists, even the driven moderate Colin Powell, lied to the world about WMOD, and invaded an oil-rich nation deriding the abhorrence of most of the real-world out there.

I suppose he also believes that his team (the "alarmists") number 2,500 scientists, as the media and IPCC chairman would have us believe. (The real number is probably a few hundred.)

Now we all know that BOTH the 2,500 number and the 19 number are pure fabrications, the intent of which is to give numerical legitimization of the Oreskes "consensus" myth, which has since been debunked.

We also know that both numbers as well as Andrew's whole argument are totally irrelevant.

Unlike delegate counts in US primary elections, scientific legitimacy is not based on a headcount.

As a scientist, Andrew Dessler should come with some facts rather than with his tired "headcount" stories.

As to Andrew's statement: "And no one recycles more effectively than the climate denial machine," I'd have to ask, "How about Hansen? (He's been recycled and self-recycled ad nauseum and still whines about being muzzled).

Max

Tell it to the folks in the US Midwest that have been digging themselves out of record snowfalls for the past months, undoubtedly victims of the consequences of James E. Hansen's "tipping point" resulting from anthropogenic global warming.

Max

Drugs conduct clinical trials before being tried on the general public. Even then sometimes well designed studies miss things, like in the case of Vioxx.  Same with chemicals, chemicals, clinical treatments, the dentist, etc.  

The other major difference between the things you cite are that the clinical benefits clearly outweigh the risks. I trade some immediate and measurable benefit for some unknown risk.

AGW proponents are asking for just the opposite.  They want us to give up some immediate economic and societal cost for some unknown and unmeasurable benefit decades out in the future. Some try to equate it to "insurance" but again, insurable events can be measured with far greater accuracy than AGW models are capable of.

The more accurate term would be "global warming agnostic", because as you correctly point out I don't think there is enough proof yet.  I don't deny that AGW might be true or go as far as to say it is a hoax. AGW apocolyptics strike me more as members of some cult religion.  

It is a cult religion that apparently worships infoulable computer models.

"The main basis of the claim that man's release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models.

We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system. We only need to watch the weather forecasts. [...] The term "global warming" itself is very vague. Where and what scales of response are measurable?"

So does this person also know nothing about science?  Is this mystery person a "denier".  Do you wish to heap ridicule on this persons qualifications and intellectual capacity?  

Maybe tomorrow I will tell you who said this. Still waiting for Andrew Dessler, the "Great Oz" to come out from behind his curtain.

We all know that Andrew Dessler is a respected climate scientist who has written and co-authored many scientific publications in his field.
http://www.met.tamu.edu/people/faculty/dessler/publicatio ...

He is also a firm believer in the IPCC and in its hypothesis of anthropogenic greenhouse warming.

But most of us (outside the classroom or specialized "climate science" field) know Andrew Dessler from his active participation on the gristmill site, where he writes op-ed articles supporting the IPCC view and criticizing those who are skeptical of this view.  These articles usually invoke a series of responses, both from supporters of Andrew's view as well as from those who disagree with his view.  The ensuing debate is usually lively and interesting to follow.

Most recently Andrew's articles included:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/21/112933/48

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/26/1971/6517#31

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/6/224510/7920#22

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/14/231236/019

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/21/194839/064

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/23/143028/323

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/24/111256/345

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/2/5/183925/9724

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/2/14/222528/569

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/2/19/222925/715

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/2/25/162934/336

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/5/214956/5753

Only very rarely does Andrew venture into discussing the "science" behind the IPCC claims and projections.  This is strange, because this is the area where he would have the most to contribute in the ongoing debate surrounding AGW.

Of the 12 recent articles, one discussed uncertainties in the link between AGW and the intensity or frequency of hurricanes.  Here Andrew did venture into a discussion of the science.  

Following a meeting with Chris Landsea, Andrew made the statement: "After seeing Landsea's presentation, I concluded that it's very difficult (because of data quality issues) to make statements about past trends in hurricane numbers or intensity --- or the number of intense hurricanes."  

When it was pointed out that IPCC postulated a different take on the recent trend in hurricane intensity and frequency, Andrew switched to "The IPCC's statement that there is a trend in hurricanes in the late 20th and early 21st centuries is indisputable ... everyone familiar with the data agrees that we are now in a period of intense cyclone activity after several decades of low activity."

When questioned about his apparent change of mind and confronted with very recently published hard data confirming that there is no trend, Andrew started the personal attack approach rather than discussing the facts.

Another article proclaimed that "climate change is real".  Duh...

One made allusion to scientific organizations, which essentially all support the IPCC view on AGW, while another suggested that research work relating climate change to solar activity is a "solar distraction", since we already know what is causing current warming (and it is obviously AGW, as the IPCC postulates, and has nothing to do with the sun).  Hmm...

When questioned why there is no observed correlation between the historical temperature record and atmospheric CO2, Andrew declined to give a scientific explanation for this apparent discrepancy, but just repeated "read the IPCC", finally resorting to statements such as "no theory other than CO2 explains the modern warming" and "you don't understand science".  Ouch!

One article denied the global cooling scare of the 1970s (!), while another ill-advised analogy between global warming and obesity resulted in Andrew being lambasted by irate individuals who saw this not only as ridiculous but also as inappropriate.

In one article, Andrew gave a "birthday eulogy" of the IPCC, claiming that none of its postulations had been seriously questioned to date.  When questioned why IPCC ignored specific scientific studies that directly contradicted its claims of melting ice sheets, accelerated sea level rise, reduced snow cover, increased atmospheric water vapor content, increased extreme weather events, unresolved discrepancies between the surface and satellite temperature records and urban heat island distortions in the surface temperature record, Andrew had no answers.

The remaining five articles attempted to personally discredit critics of the IPCC "consensus" view on AGW, and to make the point that there are just a handful of ill-informed scientists who do not support this view.

But it is both entertaining and educational to tune into Andrew's sites.  You meet a lot of interesting and engaged people there.

Max

   Alas, your expert is useless, unless he/she has been around for 100 years and has 100 years worth of questions.

   Since you reject logic that does not suit you, how can you use logic to support your case?  Remember that if logic is pointless, you cannot make any points.  You are left with your cult-like disbelief to use against what you perceive is others cult-like beliefs.

Dear Max,

      How poor!!!  You mean to discuss global warming without even knowing that it predicts greater variations in temperature and more extreme weather patterns??  How sad!!!  Surely you can do better than that!!  LOL.

      It will be getting close to 70 today!!  And we never got our snow.  Sigh.

patrick in Beijing

I can't believe it!  In explaining the recent harsh winter weather and heavy snowfall, you actually wrote: "How poor!!!  You mean to discuss global warming without even knowing that it predicts greater variations in temperature and more extreme weather patterns??  How sad!!!  Surely you can do better than that!!  LOL."

"It" (IPCC?) predicts unusual cold spells and heavy snowfall?  (Can't find this in IPCC SPM 2007 anywhere.)  Can you point it out to me?

What I can find is (p.7), "...long term changes in climate have been observed.  These include...extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones" and (p.8), "Cold days and cold nights and frost have become less frequent, while hot days, hot nights and heat waves have become more frequent."  Did you catch that?  LESS cold, more heat, NOT more cold and snow.

It turns out that there are no supporting data for the claims on extreme weather and IPCC admits in the "fine print" on table SPM-2 that these are "more likely than not" (i.e. 51% probable), with the "Magnitude of anthropogenic contributions not assessed" and "Attribution for these phenomena based on expert judgment rather than formal attribution studies."  

To translate this from IPCC double talk to plain English these statements boil down to an admission that the claim is a "50-50 guess, not backed by any actual data".  So ignore it.

The suggestion of more intense tropical cyclones has been refuted by several studies, covering both the Atlantic and the Pacific, for which I can provide you the links, if you are really interested.

So you got that one wrong, Patrick.  You can't rationalize the unusually harsh winter of 2007-08 as a result of global warming.  My guess is that it is due to natural causes, as yet unknown to IPCC and the "mainstream scientific community".

Even if we were to enter a new Ice Age with glaciers moving down to northern Europe and North America, some die-hards would say IPCC predicted this to happen (because of "global warming" caused by man-made CO2, of course).

This is truly moving from the ridiculous to the absurd, Patrick.  Get serious.

Regards,

Max

http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3& ...

"China has completed the reconstruction of all the power-grids that were ravaged by the worst winter storm in 50 years that hit the southern part of the country in January, the State Grid Corporation announced in Beijing Saturday.

"The power grids of the whole country have resumed normal operation," the company said.

The power grids of 10 east provinces operated by the company were severely damaged in the disaster. As many as 172,000 high-voltage pylons collapsed under the weight of ice and snow..." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Enjoy your Spring silly season Patrick

(La Jolla, California) Recent scientific publications have reported either inceasing or decreasing ice volumes on the Antarctic continent, and while this would seem to suggest considerable scientific uncertainty on the issue, new research suggests that both findings might be true at the same time.

Dr. Elizabeth Frost of the Paraphysical Research Institute in La Jolla, California, has come up with a theory that might reconcile what are often considered to be contradictory results in scientific research.

"What we believe," Dr. Frost told ecoEnquirer, "is that a new paradigm is needed in scientific thought. Since mutually exclusive sets of scientific results usually are published in respected scientific publications, we suggest that they are both true. There is a higher level of physical understanding that must be developed, one where the Yin and Yang of scientific findings are reconciled, better understood, and appreciated."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For more information go to:

http://www.ecoenquirer.com/antarctic-ice.htm

Yep, they've got a deep grip on reality over there.

Do you have any peer-reviewed journal articles that support your claims or just some nutcase's blog?

Put the Carbon Back

First, the lady scientist's name is "Frost", and then she is talking about "the Yin and Yang of scientific findings", when referring to the "mutually exclusive sets of scientific results" regarding "increasing or decreasing ice volumes on the Antarctic continent".  Wow!

Maybe this explains why IPCC makes claims that both the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets LOST mass equivalent to a rise in sea level of 0.21 mm/year over the period 1993 to 2003, when actual satellite measurements of both ice sheets showed an INCREASE in ice mass over exactly the same time period.  

This definitely represents the "Yin and Yang" of "mutually exclusive" claims, as the lady said.  And I would agree with her that compared to the IPCC report "there is a higher level of physical understanding that must be developed".

Good stuff.

Regards,

Max

Are you for real with your silly statement about "trolls lumping in the denialism"?

Gimme a break about "peer reviewed journal articles".  

Wake up, Pangolin; it's a sham.  The "peer reviewers" are the same guys as the writers.  Haven't you gotten the picture?  Don't be so naïve. Didn't you follow the story on the Mann hockey stick scam?

Max

According to my fairly copious very new non-Americano dictionary, I will quote the first of three meanings of the noun 'Satire':

"1, the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, etc., in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc."

This covers the situation fairly well.  In case you did not understand the noun 'satirical' I thought I'd look-it-up for you.

Let me also advise that "EcoEnquirer" is a satirical website which exposes fraud in the so-called environmental debate.

   Or does Darth's 100 years rule only apply to people who disagree with you?

   And Max, if you disbelieve the IPCC, then why are you trying to use it as evidence to support your own point of view about climate change?

   Or do you believe it when it agrees with you (you think) and disbelieve it when it disagrees with you?

   Umm, sorry guy, that doesn't work.

   It's like claiming in one sentence that George W. Bush is an idiot, then in the next describing him as the smartest guy around!!

   When youse contradict yourownself, youse got problems.

patrick in Beijing

You asked me: " And Max, if you disbelieve the IPCC, then why are you trying to use it as evidence to support your own point of view about climate change?"

Let me explain so you can understand.

You made a suggestion that the current cold and snowy winter was somehow caused by AGW.

I pointed out to you that not even the champions for the "AGW scare", the IPCC, make such a ridiculous statement.

I also pointed out how those statements that were made by IPCC relating to severe weather events were (by their own admission) not backed by any hard data, but were just 50-50 guesses, and that those relating tropical cyclone activity with AGW have been refuted by the observed facts as reported in scientific studies, which were ignored by IPCC.

Sorry, Patrick, you lost this part of our discussion.  Severe cold weather events are not caused by AGW, not even in the eyes of the greatest supporter of the disastrous AGW hypothesis, the IPCC.

Got it this time?

Regards,

Max

The main basis of the claim that man's release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models.

We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system. We only need to watch the weather forecasts. [...] The term "global warming" itself is very vague. Where and what scales of response are measurable?"

The person who said this is Dr.Joanne Simpson. You can read about her here:  

http://www.nasa.gov/lb/vision/earth/lookingatearth/simpso ...

And see the full letter here:

http://climatesci.org/2008/02/27/trmm-tropical-rainfall-m ...

Why don't you want to tell people this simple fact?  If as you say, you have science on your side and there is this overwhelming consensus, then it shouldn't matter if people know the truth.

Why hide behind scientific authority or UN panels?  Could it be that the AGW proponents know that the public would be much less willing to accept this theory if they knew it was an artifact of computer modeling?  

Let's follow the IPCC process to define a globally averaged human weight in order to establish the global impact of a global obesity trend caused by an increase in fast food hamburger chains, such as McDonalds, Wendy's, etc.

We know these are growing exponentially and we have model studies showing that there is a direct correlation between the growth rate of these chains (expressed in numbers of ¼ pound hamburgers sold) and the globally averaged human weight.

Our raw data for weight is based on hundreds of millions of individual data points provided by each of the individuals directly involved, and we have to accept the data we are provided by these individuals as fact.  We realize that some individuals are probably not being weighed regularly, so we will have to arrive at statistical adjustments to include these missing data points.

We also believe, based on statistical analyses made, that female individuals will usually tend to understate their weight, so we will add in a factor to arrive at a gender-adjusted value.

We also know that children usually weigh less than adults, so we will adjust the averages of each nation based on the average age of its population to arrive at an age-adjusted value.

We also know that the elderly population usually weighs less than those adults who are younger, so we will apply an adjustment to each nation's average weight to account for the average life expectancy in that nation in order to arrive at an elderly-adjusted value.

We also know that each nation has a different population size, so we will factor the national averages by population.

We believe that there are poorer nations where most individuals are not weighing themselves regularly, and that many of the people in these poorer regions are often suffering from malnutrition or even near starvation resulting in below-average weight, so we have to introduce an adjustment to properly account for these factors.

To give our statistic more meaning we will express it as a "weight anomaly", where we compare the globally averaged human weight of today with a statistically derived average of the globally averaged human weight during the period 1951-1980.

Our globally averaged, gender-adjusted, age-adjusted, elderly-adjusted, poverty-adjusted, population-weighted weight anomaly is not too interesting in itself.  What we really want to measure is the "decadal rate of change of the globally averaged, gender-adjusted, age-adjusted, elderly-adjusted, poverty-adjusted, population-weighted weight anomaly", so that we can make projections for the future, using various model scenarios and storylines.

We will use the concept of a "weight forcing factor", which we will tie directly to the number of "standard ¼ pound hamburgers" consumed, adjusted for larger or smaller hamburger size, where appropriate.  Relative "weight forcing factors" will also be established for other foods, but our primary emphasis will be on hamburgers, which we see as the principle weight-forcing factor on a global basis.

Since we know that hamburgers are frequently consumed in conjunction with other foods, such as French fries and soft drinks, we will add in "positive feedbacks" to account for these factors.  These feedbacks will more than double the weight-forcing factor of hamburgers alone.

Armed with the above data, we can now project various ranges of human weight anomalies over the next 100 years as compared to our baseline average.

With these figures we can then project increased incidence of coronary diseases, strokes, diabetes, etc., and arrive at a projected increased "death rate" caused by increased hamburger consumption.  

Since the restaurants that serve these hamburgers are usually reachable only by automobile, we will factor in the average "vehicle kilometers" required to reach the restaurant (and return), adding in a statistical motor vehicle fatality rate for these kilometers.

In geographical regions where winter driving conditions can be more hazardous than normal, we will add in an adjustment for weather-related motor vehicle fatalities tied to hamburger consumption.

We can then come up with a "cap and trade" system, where each nation is assigned a "hamburger quota".  Those nations that have a "hamburger footprint" that exceeds its quota can buy hamburger credits from nations who are below their quota, with the cost of hamburger credits set sufficiently high enough to discourage hamburger consumption.  

As an alternate we can consider imposing a flat "hamburger tax" where each individual in each country pays a tax directly related to his/her "hamburger footprint".

We'll let the UN administer this, since they have a proven track record on shuffling large sums of public funds both efficiently and effectively.

Should do the trick.

Max

I was accused of not adding to the scientific debate - ha!  Good one.

I doubt that I will in the future either.

  Now you tell me you were wrong??  That the IPCC doesn't mention "extreme weather"??  

  Or does that not include possible unusual cold spells?

  I am not sure what you think you have won by refuting yourself, but I hope you enjoy it, whatever it is.

  Or do you have a secret definition of extreme weather, known only to yourself??

  Anyway, happy denying!!

patrick in Beijing

   Statistics, simply put, are nothing more than large quantities of numbers of things we have counted.

   But since our counting methods may have flaws, we tend to use mathematics to try to make up for the flaws.  (These days, they involve mathematics on machines, instead of just paper, often times called "computer models" (more on that later)).

   In statistics, we deal with totals, but they are often meaningless, just numbers, it is the details that matter.

    For example the number 8 is a total.  The number four can represent the average between 8 and 0.  

    The number four can also represent the average between 4 and 4.

    Mathematically, these are the same.  They are equivalents.   4 + 4 = 8 + 0.

    From a practical standpoint, if they are temperatures, one can see that they are not the same.

    4 + 4 would represent a moderate climate.  

    8 + 0 would represent a climate given to extreme swings (Max should pay attention to this too!).

    Yet from an average point of view, they would be identical.  Imagine that!

    Now lets change the average to 6.  We could have 6 + 6.

    This would be a hotter temperature.

    Or 12 + 0.  Oh, oh, we can see how this would be more extreme!!!  And even scary.  While the average is only 2 higher than the average of 4, the extreme is much higher!!!

    And there are many other possibilities.

    But it is helpful to first understand a little bit about statistics.

    The other thing about statistics, is to understand what they are good at doing and what they are poor at doing.

patrick in Beijing

   Imagine you are flipping a coin, and writing down the result each time.

   After a couple of hundred flips, you have some totals.  So many heads, and so many tails.  These are statistics.

    But, if you flip the coin again, you still have no idea of what the result will be.

   Statistics are very bad at predicting the results of any one event.  It is part of their nature.  Try it yourself.  You'll see.  

    What you can do , is use statistics to predict the results of a number of coin tosses to a fair degree of accuracy.

   But you can't predict any particular coin toss.

   This also applies to things like weather.  You can predict trends in weather  (like coin tosses) but cannot predict the weather on any particular day.

   But note, that over time, as you collect large amounts of data (coin tosses), you may find that you are predicting the general trend of tosses.  But  still, you will never predict that next toss with any particular accuracy.

   Which brings us to global warming.  We can see large general trends, but predictions which focus on "one" event, don't work very well.

   Don't believe me?  Start tossing coins!!!

patrick in Beijing                                                                                                                                                                    

       I am not surprised you don't understand computer models.  They seem to mystify most people.  Maybe I can help a little bit.

       There is nothing magical about computer models.  They are really nothing more than long mathematical formulas written in computer code instead of on paper.

       Any compute model can be written on paper.  Any mathematical formula can be written on a computer and become a "model".

       Here is how they work.  Someone (often a number of someones) develops a formula that they believe represents what they see happening in real life.

       They put it on a computer.  Presto!!  They have a computer model.

       But is it any good??

       No one can predict the future and tell if their prediction is correct before the future actually arrives.

       So, what to do?

       Well, the past at one time was the present, and it had a future.

        So, if we feed the past into the model, it should be able to predict it's own future.  If it does, we are on the right track.  If it doesn't, it's back to the drawing board.

       Of course, it's not that simple.  We need to feed in the data from  a number of pasts.  And the data is not always collected in the same way, and it just isn't that simple.

        But, if we feed in more and more data, and adjust our models, over time, they get better.

        There are always lots of different models, and they often disagree.

        But, what happens when they mostly start to show something similar??  Bells and alarms go off.

        We may have something true and real.  As true and real as we can find at this time.

        Of course, it is possible to reject science, and to say that there is no point in trying to understand anything until we know ALL of the answers and have ALL of the data, perfectly lined up (sound familiar?).  But that way means no "theories".  Which is the antithesis of science, and of how progress is actually made.

        But really all computer models do, is run the data.  Nothing so terrible or magical.

        It is worth noting that computer models are used extensively in every day life, from medicine to machine design.  If you really hate them, you should log off, and consider heading for Amish country.  (nothing against the Amish).

patrick in Beijing

"If you have faith in the ice core record, and have actually studied the data in detail over a long time, you may be aware that many AGW alarmists initially trumpeted it as proof of CO2 initiated warming, despite that cause versus effect could NOT be described!  Another problem was that it applied to the very few high latitude regions where the proxy data was determined, but nevertheless was stated to be GLOBAL data.   At the same time, bizarrely, clear historic and other paeleo-data identifying a Medieval Warm Period around the world evidently warmer than today, were poo poohed  as being individually out of phase and hence NOT globally average-able.  (Despite that they covered a much larger area than the very few ice cores)

Based on the above, I don't think you really understand what the cores are telling us.  The temperature in the cores is derived from the ratio of oxygen isotopes in the ice.  This is based on the "global temperature", not local effects.  So you are not correct when you say it applies to a few very high latitude areas.  

You are further incorrect when you state that the other proxies cover a much larger area than the ice core records.  Again, the ice core is actually one of the proxies that does give a fairly good idea of global conditions.

In regards to the individual proxies that show the MWP, some do, some don't - but as you state one of the key problems is the phase problem.  

I regards to the lead / lag issue, that is an interesting topic and I would be interested in discussing it further with you.  However given the timings I would say that the initiation of de-glaciation must be based on orbital mechanics, in which case, why would you not expect CO2 to initially lag?  

Finally, I would like you to clarify your statement "...but if you go to the relevant IPCC report AR4 WG1, there is ZERO discussion on it!"  I am not sure I agree, but I would like you to specifically state what there is zero discussion on.

Dr. Dessler:  Thank you for an interesting blog.  I will be dropping by more often!

Regards,
John Cross

For example in aerodynamics, we can not trace the trajectory that an individual particle will take as it passes over a wing (and don't get me started about vortexes).  

However Bernoulli's equation still applies to many situations very well.

Regards,
John Cross

You wrote: "In your own post you say that the IPCC mentions "These include...extreme weather".  
  Now you tell me you were wrong??  That the IPCC doesn't mention "extreme weather"??  
  Or does that not include possible unusual cold spells?
  I am not sure what you think you have won by refuting yourself, but I hope you enjoy it, whatever it is.
  Or do you have a secret definition of extreme weather, known only to yourself??"

Sorry, Patrick, you really should read the IPCC report if you want to quote it.

I used the IPCC statement on extreme temperature: "Cold days, cold nights and frost have become less frequent while hot days, hot nights and heat waves have become more frequent."  On extreme weather, IPCC includes "droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and intensity of tropical cyclones".

There is no mention of INCREASED extreme cold weather, bur rather a statement that cold days, cold nights and frost have become LESS FREQUENT.

Hope this clears it up for you.

Regards,

Max

patrick in Beijing

But we've beaten this dog to death.  If you want to believe that the cold winter of 2007-2008 was caused by global warming which was caused by human CO2 emissions, by all means do so.

It's great to have blind faith even against all odds.

I'll pass on that one, though.

Regards,

Max

You indicate that statistics are not good at forecasting the weather, but are better at the "broad brush approach" of forecasting overall climate changes.

Makes sense to me.

When using computer models to make forecasts (or "projections", as the modelers prefer to call them), it would seem to me to be very important to crank in the correct assumptions (or "feedbacks", "scenarios" and "storylines", in modeler-speak).

What is your take on this, and how can we be sure we are not getting GIGO forecasts?

Regards,

Max

I have tried to obtain some of the underlying mathematical relationships for the CO2 sections of the GCM models.  Once I was interested in the equations of state used in the GCMs so I asked an expert.  Instead of an answer I got back hate mail.

My chemical engineering models had very good physical properties and lots of repeatable data. These models are much less complicated than the GCM models, yet we can't predict temperatures down to 1 or 2 degrees C on well defined systems.

I guess Chemical Engineers should just turn over the modeling jobs to the climate modelers.  They seem to have figured out all the hard stuff we struggle with.  

Of course the climate modelers can only make forecasts out 50 years with absolute certainty. Don't ask them if it will rain tomorrow, they don't have a clue.

Concerning my comment that ice core temperature proxies reflect the regional temperature, not global, you responded:

"Based on the above, I don't think you really understand what the cores are telling us.  The temperature in the cores is derived from the ratio of oxygen isotopes in the ice.  This is based on the "global temperature", not local effects.  So you are not correct when you say it applies to a few very high latitude areas."

I think John, you may be confused in the knowledge that most of the water vapour (a gas) at higher latitudes actually originates around the tropics, where it has the highest molecular mass, notably in the 18/O to 16/O isotope ratio.  (But different from the water from which it evaporated).  However, in brief, each time there is a phase change fractionalization in any direction from gas - water - ice (snow), the ratios change, maybe up and down in its long journey wending pole-ward.  (In an INDETERMINATE way).  Here is a brief concluding quote in the context of isotope ratios from an educational site, explaining what happened through different climate periods in the deposition of ice (cores):

The snow falls through the atmosphere and gets the same temperature as the atmosphere. The snow then becomes ice, and still keeps that same temperature. If it becomes somewhat warmer, the snow falling during this warmer climate reflects a higher temperature than the existing ice had. This new snow keeps the somewhat warmer temperature of the air that it fell through when it accumulates as ice. http://ethomas.web.wesleyan.edu/ees123/isotope.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You further wrote:

"Finally, I would like you to clarify your statement "...but if you go to the relevant IPCC report AR4 WG1, there is ZERO discussion on it!"  I am not sure I agree, but I would like you to specifically state what there is zero discussion on."

The report mentions in the fine print somewhere, (under a figure?) that there is co-variability between proxy T and CO2 in the ice cores, and it may even mention the lag.  But as far as I am aware there is no discussion on it.  (No explanation)
In 3AR someone said concerning the lag, that it was too early to apply sign to the lag, which I thought was amusing, but again, no discussion.

Perhaps you could review your other remarks in a fresh light?

There is also of course the question of CO2 mixing, "global" versus regional which is of relevant interest, and also the ice-core to Moana Loa "correction factor" of 83 years, I think it is for Greenland.  Oh, plus a couple of other thingies!

PS, I also accidently posted this on "Solar Distraction"

"I have not contributed to Gristmill in past, preferring to read the wise contributions of others.  However, I read with horror the appalling and disrespectful attitude of some of the most recent 'posters' and felt compelled to say something.  The visceral personal attack that resulted and the subseqent attacks on others, simply demonstrate their failure to engage in reasonable discussion.
I was accused of not adding to the scientific debate - ha!  Good one.
I doubt that I will in the future either."

I totally agree, although sometimes become over-irritated by streams of non-contribution to the debate topic, and retaliate.
I think there is too much testosterone on this site, and the balling just snowballs. For instance one "contributer" said something to Max Manacker like:
"You have rocks in your head"
Followed by another "contributer" adding something like:
"That is an insult to rocks."

Quite silly really.

You queried what!   How dare you!

Still, at least you didn't get a death threat.

What I don't understand is that there are so many complex systems, (not just simple parameters), that should be included, which are not yet fully understood; clouds being a classic example.  How do they manage to make the correct assumptions when there is inadequate data?

I'm confused.

      I worked in a number of large corporate systems, and the amount of GIGO was impressive.  It sometimes amazed me that any number in the world is reliable...

      That said, there is a standard way to measure models.

      Feed different sets of data through (from the past) and match them to reality.  They should match pretty closely (never perfectly), which would demonstrate the reliability of the model.

      Are they perfectly predictable then?  Nothing is.  Not even cigarette smoking and cancer.  But I wouldn't advocate it.

      They are the best we can do with what we have at this time.  And there are always new and better ones.

      Science is not about find grand "eureka" answers mostly at this point, it is a lot of little slogs forward, painfully made (with a step back once in a while).

      And computer models are sometimes the same.  But we can measure and test them.

Dear Darth,

      Most people regard their models as proprietary, they exact mixture is like the ingredients in Coke, NONE OF OUR BUSINESS.  This i s after all, how they hope to make money.

      Is this good for science?  No, not really, but it is the nature of capitalism.

      All we can do is look at data and results.  Sad, really, but there it is.

patrick in Beijing

You are correct that the isotope precipitation process is a complex one affected by Rayleigh fractionalization and other things (i.e. the size of the ice caps).  However even so we can still produce useful results from it.

I believe that you are further incorrect when you provide the concluding quote in the context of isotopes.  The ratio of isotopes should be fairly insensitive to the temperature at which they are deposited (but sensitive to the path they took to get there).  Anyway, the part you quote from is another method where they actually measure the borehole temperatures at different depths to build up a temperature profile (nothing to do with isotopes).  

I would also disagree with your interpretation of the AR4 report.  In chapter 6 on pages 444 to about 448 it discusses the idea of Milankovitch cycles forcing initial climate change and then CO2 rising as a response and then a forcing.  The lag is well documented in there in several places.  I will also note that in the next report, they will probably talk about Loulergue work which would imply that this lag is not as clear cut and many would like it to be.  To quote from his abstract:  Our finding suggests that the phase relationship between CO2 and EDC temperature inferred at the start of the last deglaciation (lag of CO2 by 800±600 yr) is overestimated and that the CO2 increase could well have been in phase or slightly leading the temperature increase at EDC.

Thanks for an interesting response.

Regards,
John