plus.google.com - The Bulldogs of Global Warming James Salsman, Nick Austin, Tony Sidaway, Jim Wise. October 17, 2012
Comment: In my opinion the second graphic, the atmospheric CO2 concentration from the year 1700 to 2600 (see link included in this post below) has a serious flaw, it predicts that the atmospheric CO2 concentration will increase until 2600 up to a level more than 20 times the current concentration. Since the main contributor of the CO2 emissions in the atmosphere responsible of that increase is assumed is going to be the human activity, this implies that humans will have to add all this amount of CO2 over the next 600 years, and also means that the rate of our CO2 emissions is going to progressively increase in the next 250 years.
To generate such amount of CO2, we would have to resort to almost any possible available fossil fuel reserve so that we could burn it. Not only oil, but also oil sands, natural gas and specially the coal reserves, much more abundant.
Although in my opinion nuclear energy is unlikely to become the alternative capable to replace fossil fuels in the next 40 years as the main source of energy (building fission nuclear plants is just too expensive and complex), I still believe that humans will be capable to develop other alternative energies, abundant and affordable (such as nuclear fusion) in the next 3 centuries.
P.S.: BTW,
+James Salsman, although point A is partially wrong (this particular graph does not predict a doubling in CO2 concentration from 1990 to 2010),
+Jim Wise was right in that points B and C are clearly independent from A. Therefore, B and C can be either false or true regardless of the falsity or truthfulness of A:
A.) global carbon levels did not double between 1990 and 2010 as that graph predicts they would have
B.) Mann quite correctly revised his hockey stick model to push the predicted spike about 30 years down the road
C.) global temperatures were (depending on the model you look at) either flat or showed a slight increase from 1998-2008, but did not grow nearly as much in that period as they did from 1988-1998
James Salsman Oct 17, 2011
+Jim Wise do you remember A, B, and C above? You were wrong about A, and then you said B and C didn't depend on them when they do.
-------------------------------
Excerpt from comments: James Salsman Oct 18, 2011 (edited) - Public (locked) [
O.P. ]
Is this video correct when it says that the doubt engendered against the scientific understanding of climate change has been the most deadly, even deadlier than tobacco, or are the attempts to undermine the scientific understanding of the deleterious effects of income inequality described in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level:_Why_More_Equal_Societies_Almost_Always_Do_Better causing even more preventable deaths than climate change and tobacco?
Via +Angela Adkins and +Bora Zivkovic
[VIDEO: http://vimeo.com/29107248 ] -------------------------------
Jim Wise Oct 16, 2011
Or: ``people who disagree with me: threat, or menace?'' :-)
-------------------------------
James Salsman Oct 17, 2011 (edited)
+Jim Wise do you mean people who disagree with you, or people who disagree with the peer reviewed secondary literature?
-------------------------------
Jim Wise Oct 17, 2011 (edited)
Mostly I mean people who feel that "science" means not having to defend their positions. :-)
From where I'm sitting, declaring any position "the consensus" and thinking that means you don't have to respond with counter arguments when someone disagrees with you has nothing to do with science. It's a lot more like religion (and even there it's doing it wrong) -- and I never argue about religion in public. :-)
So, I'll leave with a reminder of the late Michael Crichton's excellent take on the subject in his CalTech Michelin lecture:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/09/aliens-cause-global-warming-a-caltech-lecture-by-michael-crichton/feel free to respond with name-calling and accusations that I (or Messrs. Watt or Crichton) are in the pay of big oil. That's not science either, fwiw. :-)
-------------------------------
Nick Austin Oct 17, 2011 (edited)+2
+Jim Wise Science is about using logic and reason to seek reality. Therefore, using science is quintessentially defending your position. :-)
If one is advocating positions which are contrary to scientific understanding, the burden of proof is firmly on them.
-------------------------------
James Salsman Oct 17, 2011 (edited)
+Jim Wise I will not dignify the pride you take in your own ignorance with accusations of anything, but why do you ask that I call you names? I am sure you are a fine person even if deluded by paid marketing efforts.
+Josh Musket Climate change has been a pretty big cause of death in Pakistan for the past two years, and if Australia and the Mississippi river valley keep taking on rainfall as they have been, I don't know what will happen. Thanks for your help with grammar.
-------------------------------
Tony Sidaway Oct 17, 2011 +3
Jim, climate change science does have a consensus, but saying that doesn't mean it has to be defended scientifically is simply a misreading. Mann's hockey stick has emerged as the winner despite some serious counter-arguments, for instance, but it could yet be overturned.
The problem with I have so many opponents of science is that they seem so disconnected from science. This applies equally to creationism (or "intelligent design" as its current formulation is known) and to the various pseudo-scientific attacks on scientific medicine, vaccination, and even climate research.
If you're going to change a field of science you have to do more than disagree with the other experts in the field and declare yourself the winner by default when you fail to convince. You have to disprove a lot of very well established science, and thus convince the mainstream that their position is untenable.
Every thriving field of science had achieved that seemingly impossible objective of convincing other scientists with new evidence or new reasoning. It's simply not enough to say you are right because you disagree with everybody else.
Collapse this comment
-------------------------------
Josh Musket Oct 17, 2011 (edited)
Oh, and now that I've got the video to load and have seen that it's about that same link of corporate propaganda, I'll provide a list of some groups it doesn't mention in the video: The Heartland Institute, the Cato Institute, Discovery Institute, Heritage Foundation, The Advancement of Sound Science Center, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, George Mason University, there are probably more.
To address the initial question posed in this post, I think the root cause of inequality (income and most other kinds) is linked to the root cause of science denial.
-------------------------------
Jim Wise Oct 17, 2011
+Tony Sidaway, I'm curious if you see any discord between what you're saying, and the approach to the issue taken by +James Salsman and +Josh Musket. :-)
I think the moment I really began to have my doubts about the way Global Warming science was being conducted was when SciAm ran with the cover story "Science Defends Itself Against
The Skeptical Environmentalist" -- and a number of luminaries of the GW movement showed up to back this idea.
The moment science becomes something which must be "defended" against disagreeing hypotheses -- and whether wrong or right, Lomborg's TSE is an argument from statistics, copiously supported with data, for a specific, and in the long run testable, hypothesis -- we're doing it wrong. And if that's the argument that supporters of AGW feel they have to make, how can I not doubt their confidence in the evidence?
But again, I never argue about religion in public, and there are too many people here eager to declare disagreement to be ignorance (or malice), so I'm going to bed now.
Have a nice evening. :-)
-------------------------------
James Salsman Oct 17, 2011
Whenever anyone asks about the hockey stick graph, ask them how it compares to
http://talknicer.com/co2.png -------------------------------
Nick Austin Oct 17, 2011
+Jim Wise If you should care to educate yourself later:
I'll just leave this here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Newcomers-Start-Here.html ;-)
-------------------------------
Jim Wise Oct 17, 2011
+James Salsman: Neat how the axes of the top graph are laid out to make a 1/3 or so increase (look at Y) look like a tenfold multiplication. Science!
Is a 1/3 increase significant? I couldn't tell you. I would point out, though, that between 2000 (marked "now" on the bottom graph and now, global temperatures have not increased as much as Mann's model predicted. As for the rest of his model (the sharp curve up which in the earlier papers was supposed to have started by now, and in the bottom graph has been pushed comfortably out into the (for now) non-falsifiable future), that is the question, isn't it?
-------------------------------
James Salsman Oct 17, 2011
+Jim Wise you didn't look at the lower half of
http://talknicer.com/co2.png did you? It makes up for the difference correctly. How many years old do you think the Earth is?
-------------------------------
Tony Sidaway Oct 17, 2011
This is where I block Jim. Certainty allied to ignorance is a waste.
-------------------------------
Jim Wise Oct 17, 2011
I did. Note that the entire variation it shows up to 2000 fits into what
it describes as normal variation in the last 20 years -- and the level of increase it predicts would have happened by 2010 (10 years after "now" on the graph)... didn't happen.
-------------------------------
Nick Austin Oct 17, 2011
+Jim Wise I didn't know we had a climate scientist in our midst! Do you have a link to the paper you published discussing the discrepancies you've identified? I checked Nature, and Science but your name did not come up. ;-)
-------------------------------
Jim Wise Oct 17, 2011
Interesting argument -- Whatever being so sure of an idea that you would block anyone who's not sure of it it, it sure doesn't sound like science to me. Science is not, after all, about certainty.
+Nick Austin: I'm sorry, what part of what I just said are you looking for a cite on:
A.) that global carbon levels did not
double between 1990 and 2010 as that graph predicts they would have?
B.) that, given this, Mann quite correctly revised his hockey stick model to push the predicted spike about 30 years down the road? (there's
nothing wrong with updating a model when new data comes in!)
C.) that global temperatures were (depending on the model you look at) either flat or showed a slight increase from 1998-2008, but certainly did not -- as predicted -- grow nearly as much in that period as they did from 1988-1998?
As far as I'm aware, these are the only claims I've made here. If your extensive research on this subject leads you to believe otherwise, I'd love to see some good articles on why.
But if you feel that I'm not qualified to hold an opinion here, and us mere mortals should simply take all this as received wisdom because we're not fit to judge, well, you'll have to excuse me -- I'm not dressed for church. :-)
-------------------------------
James Salsman Oct 17, 2011
+Jim Wise seriously, about how old do
you think the Earth is?
-------------------------------
Jim Wise Oct 17, 2011
I'm sorry, what? Our current best guess is that it is between 4 and 5 billion years old -- and if new data comes in, we'll revise that up or down as fits.
Why? How old do you think it is, and why do you think that's at all relevant to this discussion?
-------------------------------
Jim Wise Oct 17, 2011
Or is that another one of those things I'm not supposed to have an opinion on until I'm published in Nature or Science? This dogma stuff always confuses me, and I wouldn't want to commit a faux pas... :-)
-------------------------------
James Salsman Oct 17, 2011 (edited)
+Jim Wise counting granite from supernova or cooling? This has to do with whether to tie it all in to radiochemistry or mitochondrial drift.
-------------------------------
Jim Wise Oct 17, 2011
Radiation-based dating gives us a ballpark for when a given piece of matter cooled into a solid. Taking the values for the oldest known space rock as an upper bound and the values for the oldest sample believed to be terrestrial gives us that range.
New samples -- or new dating techniques -- could shift that range.
So I guess this is something I'm allowed to have an opinion on? This is all very confusing -- maybe a couple of you true believers could get together and write up a catechism so us laymen can figure out which opinions we're allowed to question!
-------------------------------
Jim Wise Oct 17, 2011
(I see you clarified the question in an edit -- yes, having come on this from astronomy, I know more about the radiometric approach. Maybe you should make the right answer clear in that catechism. :-) )
-------------------------------
Nick Austin Oct 17, 2011
+Jim Wise So you looked at the current state of climate science, and your takeaway is what?
You disagree that man-made climate change is happening? Or you disagree that it's a hugely important issue which needs a large scale and immediate response?
These are the reality.
If you fall off of these paths, you need to provide strong evidence to explain your position.
The standard way to present this sort of evidence is by publishing a paper in the established scientific journals.
An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.
-------------------------------
Jim Wise Oct 17, 2011
+Nick Austin, as I've said, I'm only aware of three claims I've made in this thread (A, B, and C) above. If you think I'm wrong on any of these, by all means post your sources, and I'll post mine.
Beyond that, I don't know if the warming we saw in 1988-1998 will continue after the current flat decade. I don't know if man-made carbon is the cause of the warming in that decade, or of any warming we might see in the next.
I
do know that the shakiness of methodology which shows in the "climategate" mails, and the fact that most of the "science" being done at the moment consists of politicking and name-calling is a big part of
why I'm so unsure of the quality of the science here.
If all y'all would spend less time looking for heretics to burn, and more time writing up that catechism, maybe I'd be clearer on just what you want me to believe. Right now, I'm not. :-)
-------------------------------
Nick Austin Oct 17, 2011
+Jim Wise You can find a good summary of the science here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture.htmlThanks!
-------------------------------
Nick Austin Oct 17, 2011 +1
+Jim Wise We're giving you a hard time, since you sound like this guy: (Hint: not like Dr. Jenkins ;-) )
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/images/us101/balance.gifFrom:
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/sciencetoolkit_04Thanks!
-------------------------------
Jim Wise Oct 17, 2011
Yes, I've read that. Have you read (to pick one example):
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/global-temperature/?
(Cue name-calling and accusations of malice against Watts. It's okay -- I'll wait right here while you guys finish your little ritual, and when the priest dismisses the congregation, we can continue. )
-------------------------------
Jim Wise Oct 17, 2011
Oh, I'm sorry -- I seem to have taken one of those opinions us laymen aren't allowed to hold. This is all very hard to follow, since in all these posts, you have yet to tell me which of the three opinions I've stated above (A, B, or C) you actually disagree with.
This religion stuff is baffling. I'm going to bed. I'll see you tomorrow at matins. :-)
-------------------------------
James Salsman Oct 17, 2011
+Jim Wise why are you asking for a statement of religious doctrine while saying you seek science? What do you think of Proverbs 14:31? Do you mind if I block you out of courtesy for my readers who understand reality?
-------------------------------
Nick Austin Oct 17, 2011
+Jim Wise That page has nothing but a lot of random data?
We should ask somebody who has the training and experience to get to the big picture (I'll refer to such people as "climate scientists" in the future) what they think about it, instead of coming up with a layman's reading.
You can find their analysis here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture.htmlAnd here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtmlThanks!
-------------------------------
Nick Austin Oct 17, 2011
+Jim Wise I'm not sure if it's religion, but you do seem to have some kind of self delusion going on. :-)
-------------------------------
Jim Wise Oct 17, 2011
It's your congregation -- feel free to cast me out at any time. :-)
I'm looking for science, actually, but all I'm getting is repeated assertions that the laity are not allowed to question received opinion. Whatever that is, it sure ain't science -- dogma seems the best fit, as far as I can tell.
Anyway, block away, if that's how science is done around here. :-)
-------------------------------
Bob Calder Oct 17, 2011 +3
Religion! lulz
Trolling.
-------------------------------
James Salsman Oct 17, 2011
+Jim Wise how do you search the peer reviewed secondary literature?
-------------------------------
Nick Austin Oct 17, 2011
+Jim Wise Here is the link for the science, I guess a technical issue is blocking them from your view:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtmlPerhaps you're immune to the reports now?
;-)
-------------------------------
Nick Austin Oct 17, 2011
We cannot cast you out of the "congregation" of logic and reason. You can only self banish. But take heart, for you can choose to come back any time you like.
"You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts."
Jim WiseOct 17, 2011 (edited)
Which always sounds nice, +Nick Austin, but of the three opinions I've expressed here:
A.) that global carbon levels did not double between 1990 and 2010 as the graph +James Salsman linked predicts they would have.
B.) that, given this, Mann quite correctly revised his hockey stick model to push the predicted spike about 30 years down the road (there's nothing wrong with updating a model when new data comes in!).
C.) that global temperatures were (depending on the model you look at) either flat or showed a slight increase from 1998-2008, but certainly did not -- as predicted -- grow as much or nearly as much in that period as they did from 1988-1998.
you have yet to tell me which (if any) you believe are counterfactual. :-)
To be clear: I don't know if Mann's updated hockey stick model is correct. All we can do -- scientifically at least[1] -- is look at the data.
It's a matter of publicly available data (and I've linked above to a page linking all the main data sets) that the original model, although a very good fit for the years leading up to 1998[2], in which temperature was indeed increasing, did not accurately predict global temperature behavior in the next ten years, when temperatures either stayed flat or rose only slightly, depending on which data set you look at. I believe both sides of the debate should be able to agree on this much, right? (if you disagree, let me know!)
So now, the question is whether the updated model is a good predictor of what will happen from here. Surely the way to answer that is to compare it to the data, not to accuse anyone who isn't sure of ignorance or malice, right? That's how science works, right?
(I'll pause here while our host decides if he still wants to block me, and while you guys decide which of the received wisdom I'm sinning against in this post -- remember, even the inquisition hung a statement of the poor heretic's sins next to the pyre!)
[1] politically, name-calling is always more fun and less work, and insisting that your theories be taken as received wisdom and never questioned is even more fun -- just look at this thread. :-)
[2] of course, the "climategate" emails have since shown us how much of this fit was due to intentional fudging, but that's okay -- let's look at the sausage, not the factory.
-------------------------------
James Salsman Oct 17, 2011 (edited)
+Jim Wise do you mean to say
http://talknicer.com/co2.png predicts atmospheric carbon would double by 2010 or 2060?
-------------------------------
Jim Wise Oct 17, 2011
The deviation from the historical norm of 0.00027 (the writing on the graph states 0.027 -- neither units, nor, more importantly, a source[1] are given). The value in 2000 is as shown in the graph. The increase from there is not. Do you disagree? Remember that a key component of the Hockey Stick model is that changes in both carbon and temperature variation are supposed to be accelerating. In the actual data, carbon is indeed continuing to increase, but at a more-or-less constant pace... and temperature has stayed flat or increased only slightly since 1998.
[1] source is important -- note that the Scripps Institute, source of the Keeling carbon data (the dataset that curve most resembles, though it is, of course, unsourced) take their measurements at a location in Mauna Loa in close proximity to...
... wait for it...
one of the world's most active volcanoes. Other datasets from the same period also show a rise in atmospheric carbon (hardly surprising), but not as steep.
-------------------------------
Jim Wise Oct 17, 2011 (edited)
And so we're clear, that's "A" from my three opinions. Care to comment on B or C? Because if we were to stipulate that the increase in carbon content was accelerating (and the data doesn't show this), while temperatures were remaining flat, or increasing at a slowed pace (again, depending on the dataset), then wouldn't that weaken the alleged causal link between carbon level and temperature?
-------------------------------
James Salsman Oct 17, 2011 (edited)
+Jim Wise dude, tell me you can count zeros. Where do you see "0.027"? The sources are NCAR ice core samples and Mauna Loa. I appreciate that you are suggesting alternative hypotheses. Do you suppose anyone has ever checked Mauna Loa station data from samples way out in the middle of the ocean?
-------------------------------
Jim Wise Oct 17, 2011
".027 +/- 0.005%" is the value given in the note directly over the year "1750".
.00027 is the (correct) value in the axis.
Note that the NCAR values and Mauna Loa values do not overlap -- and the increase is entirely within the period covered by the (problematic) Mauna Loa data.
-------------------------------
James Salsman Oct 17, 2011 (edited)
I see 0.027 and its tolerance are both percentages. That was also from ice core data. What data do you have for atmospheric CO2 variation over the past 20,000 years?
-------------------------------
Jim Wise Oct 17, 2011 (edited)
I see. By the way, if you get a hankering to update that graph, you can pull the live NOAA Mauna Load data from here:
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txtLet me know when you see that acceleration you're looking for, because while nicely up-and-to-the-right, the slope looks pretty constant to me across the measurement period.
-------------------------------
James Salsman Oct 17, 2011
+Jim Wise thanks. To answer your earlier question, both B and C depended on A being correct. Now please have a look at
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/images/figure66-lg.jpg Why do you think the government uses your taxes to tell you that wind will suddenly stop growing in two years, and level off, even though it's been on an exponential curve? If you're stumped, you can ask
http://www.eia.gov/about/john_conti.cfm how long his Bush appointee boss worked for the fossil fuel industry.
-------------------------------
Jim Wise Oct 17, 2011
I don't think B and C do depend on A. If temperature rise has leveled off, this changes the picture, whether carbon concentration is growing or not:
* if growth in carbon concentration were accelerating, but temperature has leveled off, the relation between the two in the Mann model does not fit.
* if carbon concentration is leveling off, and so is temperature, then the increase in both forecast by the Mann model does not fit.
The Mann model calls for both rates of change to be accelerating sharply. The current data has already falsified the original model -- which is fine, that's what measurement is for! -- now the question is whether the updated model will prove a good predictor.
So, looking just at C, do you believe that global temperatures rose as much from 1998-2008 as they did from 1988-1998? What do you believe the global temperature chart of 2008-2018 will look like?
-------------------------------
Nick Austin Oct 17, 2011
+Jim Wise Okay. I let all of the things you've stated stand as uncontested facts.
What's your analysis, given this new data?
-------------------------------
Jim Wise Oct 17, 2011 (edited)
Well, for starters, I'm looking for a model of future climate which accounts for the lack of global warming in the period 1998-2011. The Mann model hasn't, so far. If the model sees a correlation with carbon, it should match that data too, of course (and not, as the Mann model did, predict an acceleration which didn't happen).
One place to look for such a model is in solar activity -- and a number of peer-reviewed papers in that area have started to appear -- but that's only one possibility. Another possibility would be feedback effects on carbon absorption by the ocean.
In any case, a model must correctly predict the past before we can start evaluating its prediction of the future, right?
-------------------------------
James Salsman Oct 17, 2011 (edited)
+Jim Wise I care more about precipitation than temperature. Are you familiar with the trend in the cost of extreme weather events?
Why do you think that your B and C above do not depend on A? You wrote:
"A.) global carbon levels did not double between 1990 and 2010
[sic].... "B.)
given this, Mann....
"C.) global temperatures ... certainly did not --
as predicted -- grow as much...."
You first misrepresent a graph to say it's much more sharply increasing than it is, and then complain that temperatures didn't rise as fast as you mistakenly thought the graph showed. Then when called on it, you say that the comparison was not a dependency. Would you allow anyone who has such little respect for the truth to post comments on your shares?
-------------------------------
Jim Wise Oct 17, 2011
+James Salsman Because carbon prediction and temperature prediction are two different aspects of Mann's model, and because Mann's model could have been revised with or without it's failure to predict either well for the period 1998-2008.
You could clearly believe that (B) Mann revised his model, without believing (A) that the old model failed to predict carbon levels through 2008.
Likewise, you could clearly believe that temperature stayed more or less flat from 1998-2008 (C) without believing that Mann's model failed to predict carbon (A).
So, which of the three do you believe to be incorrect?
-------------------------------
James Salsman Oct 17, 2011
+Jim Wise you have already admitted that (A) was vastly incorrect, in that
talknicer.com/co2.png does not double from 1990 to 2010, it doubles from steady state to 2060 and accelerates from there. If I block you, will you agree to tell people it was because I thought you had abject disrespect for the truth, and give them a link to this share?
-------------------------------
Jim Wise Oct 17, 2011 (edited)
It's your thread -- you're welcome to block me at any time.
But -- so I understand where you're saying I'm wrong -- are you now stating that either the Mann model or the sketch you posted does not claim the rate of growth of atmospheric carbon will accelerate from 2000 to 2010 vs. the previous decade? If so, when do you believe that sketch shows the acceleration starting? Because even the Mauna Loa dataset -- which I've linked, and which is the most growth-friendly of the available datasets -- shows no change in the rate of growth at any point from 1958 to the present.
You are correct that it's the change in global carbon levels from the historical average, not the raw level that the graph shows doubling by 2010 -- my original post was unclear on this (much as the top graph at that link is) -- but you do agree it didn't happen, right?
-------------------------------
Nick Austin Oct 17, 2011
+Jim Wise Here is the problem. You're trying to debate climate science with random people on Google+.
We are not climate scientists, so we rely on what they tell us.
I'm sure you can understand why we take the word of over 800 professional scientists, 27 scientific organizations, the Academies of Science from 19 different countries, and Al Gore over "Jim Wise", Dude on the Internet(tm)?
Credibility is earned. You are not entitled to have your opinion taken seriously.
Thanks!
-------------------------------
James Salsman Oct 17, 2011 (edited)
+Jim Wise in fact the rate of growth has been increasing quite sharply.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CO2_increase_rate.png Will you please answer: If I block you, and someone asks you why, will you agree to tell them that the reason was your apparent lack of respect for the truth, and give them a link to this thread?
-------------------------------
Jim Wise Oct 17, 2011 (edited)
I'm not asking you to take my opinion seriously.
I'm trusting your interpretation of the received wisdom to have informed you enough to tell me what I've got wrong. :-)
Such an answer might be:
* I'm wrong because carbon grew faster than the Mauna Loa data shows (perhaps another data set is a better indicator? Where can I find it?)
* I'm wrong because the Mann model doesn't match that sketch, and thus does not predict carbon growth to accelerate until comfortably off in the (for now) unfalsifiable future (perhaps you have a better reference for Mann's model than his own famous 1998 piece in Nature introducing the "hockey stick"? Where can I find it?)
* I'm wrong because global warming continued in the period 1998-2008 at the same (or greater) rate as in the period 1988-1998, despite the fact that the NOAA and NASA data sets don't show this (again, perhaps you could recommend another data set? Where can I find it?)
Any of these could be easily shown by pointing to specific counterexamples (data, please!). Simply appealing to authority isn't a good way to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you -- and if all you're interested in is preaching to the choir, well, we're back in church, aren't we? :-)
-------------------------------
Jim Wise Oct 17, 2011 (edited)
+James Salsman Really? What dataset is that a graph of (it's not labeled)? If you fit a curve to that dataset, where and when does its slope change? Is Wikipedia user "New image uploader 929" one of +Nick Austin's 800 experts?
I've linked NOAA page for the Mauna Loa dataset -- 643 datapoints over 53 years -- it's easy to pull into gnuplot or excel and graph for yourself. Where do you see the rate of change in that data accelerate? If you don't where is a dataset which does show acceleration?
-------------------------------
Nick Austin Oct 17, 2011
+Jim Wise I can't tell you why you're wrong, perhaps you're right!
The people qualified to tell you if you're wrong or not are other climate scientists. Publish your work, see what they say.
I strongly suspect that you're wrong, since many of the snide side arguments you've posted have long since been shown to be false, yet you continue to repeat them.
Thanks!
-------------------------------
James Salsman Oct 17, 2011 (edited)
+Jim Wise we have already been over the reason: You were wrong because you misrepresented the data to try to support your opinion, and when called on it you said that the parts which depended on your misrepresentation were unrelated. Do you or do you not agree to tell people that is the reason if I block you? Before I answer any further questions, I want to know whether you take responsibility for lying about your mistake.
-------------------------------
Jim Wise Oct 17, 2011 (edited)
+James Salsman Which data are you saying I misrepresented? And, again, are you claiming that the graph of carbon levels you've posted several times now matches the actual data from Mauna Loa or any other carbon dataset?
I can't blame the graph for being wrong in 2000 -- all prediction is risky. To keep posting it in 2011 when it's prediction has been proven incorrect by all of the available data seems a bit dodgy, no?
-------------------------------
Jim Wise Oct 17, 2011
Anyway, I have a train to catch. You'll have to start services without me.
If you block me, remember to read Declan's post on the right way to do it.[1]
And if you want any chance of convincing anyone who doesn't already agree with you, you might start by telling me where I'm wrong -- if this sermon is meant for the choir, I'll let +Nick Austin's hosannas speak for me. :-)
[1]
https://plus.google.com/u/0/112961607570158342254/posts/ChcTMsVgWww
-------------------------------
James Salsman Oct 17, 2011
+Jim Wise do you remember A, B, and C above? You were wrong about A, and then you said B and C didn't depend on them when they do. Then you admitted your mistake but you have not yet agreed to explain to people that mistake is why I will have blocked you if I do. And why do you say
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CO2_increase_rate.png is not labeled? Do you have a scrollbar?
-------------------------------
Nick Austin Oct 17, 2011
+Jim Wise You mentioned the "climate gate" emails.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htmMentioning them as if the matter suggests impropriety shows bad faith.
-------------------------------
James Salsman Oct 17, 2011 (edited)
+Jim Wise you are wrong because you lied (double carbon in 2060, not 2010), lied again when you were called on the first lie (B and C depended on A) and then refused to take responsibility for the lie. Then you lied again when you said the rate of carbon increase is steady, and then tried to divert attention from your lies by saying
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CO2_increase_rate.png is not labeled when it clearly cites its authoritative sources. Also, your practice of saying "the graph" when we are talking about multiple graphs is confusing and prevents me from answering many of your questions. Finally, for the fifth time now: If I block you will you agree to tell people it was because of these lies and give them a link to this share?
-------------------------------
Jim Wise Oct 17, 2011 (edited)
I immediately clarified that I was referring to the change from the historical norm doubling in that graph, not the raw number -- but if I had misread the graph, that wouldn't help your case: comparing the graph to the data which has been gathered since 2000 still shows that its predictions were incorrect (and I've linked the data).
Your response? An anonymously-uploaded graph on Wikipedia (I guess the "only recognized climate scientists may comment" rule only applies to those who disagree with you).
If you actually disagree with me that:
* growth of carbon concentration in the atmosphere is not acelerating (source: NOAA Mauna Loa data, linked above)
* Mann's model has been revised accordingly from the now-falsified 1998 version (source: Mann's 1998 article in Nature, I have a hardcopy, but I'm sure you can find it)
* global warming either slowed or stopped between 1998 and 2008, showing nowhere near the growth which occurred from 1988 to 1998 (source: NOAA and NASA global climate data, linked above)
I'd love to see the data you're basing your conclusions on -- I've shown you mine.
If you don't disagree with any of these points -- or don't have any basis for your disagreement that you can point to -- then I'm not sure we have much to discuss, and I won't post again.
Good day. :-)
-------------------------------
Nick Austin Oct 18, 2011
+Jim Wise
(Original text : I created this image with help (numerical data only) from Dr. Pieter Tans (3 May 2008) "Annual CO2 mole fraction increase (ppm)" for 1959-2007," National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Earth System Research Laboratory, Global Monitoring Division (additional details; see also K.A. Masarie, P.P. Tans (1995) "Extension and integration of atmospheric carbon dioxide data into a globally consistent measurement record," J. Geopys. Research, vol. 100, 11593-11610.))
I'll just put that here.
-------------------------------
Jim Wise Oct 18, 2011 (edited)
(As far as I can tell,
that article is using a subset of the NOAA (Mauna Loa) data, which I've linked -- and you can graph it for yourself to show that it shows no acceleration.)
-------------------------------
James Salsman Oct 18, 2011+1
+Jim Wise how much are you willing to bet?
-------------------------------
Nick Austin Oct 18, 2011
+Jim Wise Here is the direct answer to your specific claim:
Currently, humans are emitting around 29 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere per year. Around 43% remains in the atmosphere - this is called the ’airborne fraction’. The rest is absorbed by vegetation and the oceans. While there are questions over how much the airborne fraction is increasing, it is clear that the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing dramatically. Current CO2 levels are the highest in 15 million years.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-levels-airborne-fraction-increasing.htm
-------------------------------
Jim Wise Oct 18, 2011
Again: is the rate of change accelerating (as the Mann model says it will be by now) or not?
The NOAA (Mauna Loa) data says "not". Do you have another data set which suggests it is?
-------------------------------
Bob Calder Oct 18, 2011+1
Muting this post. Wise's arguments are small potatoes.
-------------------------------
James Salsman Oct 18, 2011
+Jim Wise that depends on the rate of wind power adoption. Do you agree with the government or the extrapolation?
-------------------------------
URL source G+ post:
plus.google.com/113215976889659570939/posts/dLzyWLrV83W -------------------------------
#globalwarming #climatechange #AGW #hockeystick #hockeystickgrowth #co2emissions #fossilfuels
-------------------------------