Sunday, April 15, 2018

Thoughts on Climate Change -- part 3: Sea Level

Violations of Occam's Razor, along the lines examined already in my previous post, are in fact rather common in the "scientific" literature supporting the so-called "consensus" view of climate change. The following excerpt from the previously quoted Wikipedia article on  Occam's Razor states the issue quite succinctly:
[F]or each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there is always an infinite number of possible and more complex alternatives, because one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypotheses to prevent them from being falsified . . . (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor#Ockham)
The widely accepted notion that sulfur dioxide aerosols from the burning of fossil fuels were responsible for the mid-20th century hiatus in global warming (see previous post) is only one of many similar examples I could provide. In this post, I will focus on a more fundamental issue, that of sea level rise.

Here's what I wrote on this topic in a recent post on the RealClimate blog:

I just now discovered, via youtube, a very interesting brief lecture on sea level rise by Stefan Rahmstorf: 
His treatment of this issue is especially welcome because he delves more deeply into the problem of local sea level variation than is usually the case in presentations of this sort. I was troubled, however, by his apparent inability to see something in the graph he himself presents that seems obvious to me. I consequently added a comment, which I reproduce here for the benefit of my many “fans” on this blog:
“Thank you, Stefan, for your very illuminating comments regarding the variability in world sea level rise, an issue that needs to be addressed but is usually ignored. However, the graph we see at 2:32 https://youtu.be/WQpv-yhEBoY?t=2m32s 

suggests that the overall rise in sea level cannot be due to CO2 emissions as you would like us to believe. The relatively modest burning of fossil fuels prior to the 1940’s is considered insufficient by most climate scientists to have played a major role in either global temperature rise or sea level rise, as I feel sure you are aware. And during the period from ca. 1940 to ca. 1979, as is also acknowledged by most climate scientists, there was no significant warming of either the land or sea, despite the strong increase in the burning of fossil fuels during this period. Thus the steady rise from ca. 1880 through 1979, so evident from your graph could not possibly be due to CO2 emissions, but must have had some other cause. It is also possible, as your presentation suggests, that our ability to determine sea level rise globally is so distorted by local variations that the data now available to climate scientists like yourself is all but meaningless.”
As always I feel confident that the experts prowling here will have no problem spotting my mistake.

To better understand my point, let's compare Rahmstorf's graph to the following, drawn from the Skeptical Science website, a comparison of global temperatures and greenhouse gas levels: 


As depicted in the above, greenhouse gas "forcings" (in green) due mostly to the burning of fossil fuels, rose only slightly from 1900 through ca. 1950, after which time we see a very pronounced increase. Yet global temperatures (in red) soared dramatically during roughly the same period (from ca. 1919 through ca. 1945). The very gradual rise in CO2 levels during this era was too modest to account for much of the contemporary temperature rise, leading most climate scientists to agree that greenhouse forcings could not have been a major factor as far as temperatures are concerned. In view of the fact that global average sea level, as Rahmstorf himself explains, is to a large extent controlled by temperature, we can only conclude, therefore, that only a small part of the apparently steady increase in global sea levels during the first half of the 20th century, as depicted in Rahmstorf's graph, can be attributed to the release of CO2.

Moving to the period from ca. 1945 through ca. 1979, we see, first, a steep decline in global temperatures, followed by a period in which no trend in either direction is evident. Yet, if we once again turn to Rahmstorf's map, we see no discontinuity in sea level rise whatsoever. Sea levels apparently continued to rise steadily throughout the 20th century, apparently ignoring the long period of roughly 40 years during which there was no significant rise in global temperatures. Discounting for the moment the question of how such an increase would be possible without a concomitant rise in temperatures, it seems clear that CO2 levels, which were rising dramatically at the same time, could have had no influence on sea level rise during this period as well.

For almost all of his presentation  on this particular video, Rahmstorf is impressively thorough and objective. Yet, as one might expect from his strong commitment to the standard "climate change" dogma, he winds things up by urging us to reduce "our greenhouse gas emissions," as though such a reduction could possibly make a difference of any real significance in controlling sea level. As a climate scientist, Rahmstorf is, of course, well aware of the evidence I've presented above, which tells us how unlikely it is that greenhouse gases (aka CO2 emissions) could possibly have anything to do with sea level rise, but since that would go against one of the most important sources of climate change hysteria, he must have felt obliged to make that pitch regardless.

Needless to say, my comment on the RealClimate blog was not greeted with enthusiasm. The longest response was from the same individual to whom I responded in my two previous posts: CCHolley. I won't take the trouble to quote his very long and labored "explanation" but you can find it here.

Holley never actually responded to the argument I presented but, as I expected, complicated things with attempts at the typical sort of "saving hypotheses" so typical of "climate change" thinking generally, primarily by emphasizing the relation between the "hydrological cycle" and sea level, as though that had any relevance whatever to the issue at hand. I had the impression that he believes there is no relation between CO2 levels and sea level rise at all, as reflected in the following: "The problems Victor states with sea level rise correlating to temperatures has nothing to do with the cause of the temperature rise. Nothing. Yes, one would expect long term sea level changes to follow temperatures. However, this correlation does not matter on what the cause of warming is." 

If he really feels this way, I suggest he take it up with Rahmstorf, who certainly does attach considerable importance to CO2 as the "cause of the temperature rise," which in turn produced the (alleged) sea level rise.

 As I half expected my response to Holley along with others who dismissed my observations by recourse to totally irrelevant (but properly "peer reviewed") research, has been relegated to the Bore Hole -- which tells us a lot about the level of "scientific" integrity encouraged at the RealClimate site. Here it is:

1824 Victor says: 13 Apr 2018 at 11:35 PM101 in response to CCHolley et al. 
You can blow as much smoke as you like, folks, but that won’t change the fundamental facts and logic of my critique. It’s really very simple. The rise in CO2 emissions due to the burning of fossil fuels from 1880 through the 1940’s was not sufficient to have played a major role in the considerable global temperature rise that took place during that period — so if we want to presume that sea level rise is prompted by global temperature rise (along with concomitant melting of glaciers, etc.) then we can’t really attribute very much of the rise in sea levels during that period to CO2. Whether you prefer to attribute the temperature rise mostly to solar activity or a lack of volcanic activity is beside the point. 
Moreover, as is widely recognized, global temperatures from ca. 1940 to ca. 1979 either dropped or remained level during a period when CO2 levels were beginning to soar. And once again attributing that temperature drop to industrial aerosols or any other “forcing” is beside the point. Despite roughly 40 years during which there was no significant rise in global temperature, sea levels nevertheless continued to rise at roughly the same rate as before. And yes, the association between temperature and sea level is well established, but once again this relationship is beside the point as far as the influence of CO2 emissions is concerned. If you want to insist on the relation between temperature and sea level then it’s necessary to question the accuracy of our measurements of one or the other — or both. 
No amount of “research,” statistical legerdemain or modelling can change the basic logic of the above analysis. If you see a flaw in that logic, please enlighten me.
Oh and by the way, CC, I’m still waiting for your response to my blog posts, parts 1 (http://amoleintheground.blogspot.com/2018/03/thoughts-on-climate-change.html) and 2 (http://amoleintheground.blogspot.com/2018/03/thoughts-on-climate-change-part-2.html)

13 comments:

  1. No comments yet on this blog. But there have been comments on a youtube site, where I posted a link to the blog and a couple cc die-hards have been responding. I'll reproduce them here, along with my responses.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Originally posted at https://youtu.be/FBF6F4Bi6Sg

    Victor Grauer
    1 day ago
    Some of your points sound reasonable, but others look to me like examples of what's been called a "saving hypothesis," i.e., an attempt to explain away evidence that might otherwise falsify one's pet theory by introducing cherry picked, ad hoc complications, in violation of Occam's Razor. For a thorough discussion of this problem, let me refer you to the three most recent posts on my blog, Mole In the Ground, which imo thoroughly debunk "climate change" dogma of the sort you've been promoting. Here's the link: https://amoleintheground.blogspot.com/

    Feel free to respond in the comments section. I would very much like to learn whether you find anything "mythic" anywhere in my analyses.

    ReplyDelete

  3. Atomsk's Sanakan
    21 hours ago
    +Victor Grauer

    "Some of your points sound reasonable, but others look to me like examples of what's been called a "saving hypothesis," i.e., an attempt to explain away evidence that might otherwise falsify one's pet theory by introducing cherry picked, ad hoc complications, in violation of Occam's Razor."

    Nonsense. The explanations were not ad hoc, since they were supported by evidence and cogent reasoning. Your ignorance of the evidence doesn't mean it isn't there.



    "For a thorough discussion of this problem, let me refer you to the three most recent posts on my blog, Mole In the Ground, which imo thoroughly debunk "climate change" dogma of the sort you've been promoting."

    You didn't debunk much of anything, anymore than AIDS denialists' blogs debunked the "dogma" of HIV causing AIDS> But congratulations on following other science denialists in pretending that the science you don't accept is on par with religion:

    "Portraying Science as Faith and Consensus as Dogma
    Since the ideas proposed by deniers do not meet rigorous scientific standards, they cannot hope to compete against the mainstream theories. They cannot raise the level of their beliefs up to the standards of mainstream science; therefore they attempt to lower the status of the denied science down to the level of religious faith, characterizing scientific consensus as scientific dogma"
    http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0040256


    Anyway, your posts display the willful ignorance I've come to expect of AGW denialists. For example, take you post here:
    https://amoleintheground.blogspot.ca/2018/04/thoughts-on-climate-change-part-3-sea.html

    In that, you don't seem to grasp the CO2-induced warming is expected to be near-linear. So you go one about the rate of CO2 increase, instead of the rate of CO2-induced warming. That's a common distortion amongst you denialists, and your lot keeps repeating it no matter how many times you're corrected. The following will dumb this down for you:


    Atmospheric CO2 is currently increasing at a roughly exponential rate. This means that the CO2-induced anthropogenic warming ends up being close to linear, given the logarithmic relationship between CO2 increases and temperature increases. This global warming combines warming or cooling contributions from other sources, such aerosols, changes in total solar irradiance, El Nino, etc.

    The near-exponential CO2 increase and near-exponential anthropogenic emissions increase is shown in sources such as:

    http://ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-2-1-figure-1.html
    "Atmospheric CO2 over the last 1000 years: A high-resolution record from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) Divide ice core"
    http://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/emis/glo_2011.html

    The near-linear rate of anthropogenic warming (predominantly from anthropogenic greenhouse gases) is shown in sources such as:

    "Deducing Multidecadal Anthropogenic Global Warming Trends Using Multiple Regression Analysis"
    "The global warming hiatus — a natural product of interactions of a secular warming trend and a multi-decadal oscillation"
    "The origin and limits of the near proportionality between climate warming and cumulative CO2 emissions"
    "Sensitivity of climate to cumulative carbon emissions due to compensation of ocean heat and carbon uptake"
    "Return periods of global climate fluctuations and the pause"
    "Using data to attribute episodes of warming and cooling in instrumental records"
    "The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions"
    "The sensitivity of the proportionality between temperature change and cumulative CO2 emissions to ocean mixing"

    ReplyDelete

  4. Victor Grauer
    9 hours ago
    Well, first, Atomsk, I want to thank you for actually visiting my site and reading at least some of what I've written there. So at least one can't say you are burying your head in the sand. One point for you.

    But you might as well not have read anything there, because everything you've posted is beside the point. Whether the rise in warming or the rise in CO2 emissions is linear or exponential or whatever has no bearing on the argument I've presented. To use a colloquialism, you are simply blowing smoke.

    What I've presented is extremely simple. Even a blogger like Mr. Potholer could understand it. :-) First, as almost all climate scientists agree, the contribution of CO2 emissions to the steep runup in global temperature during the first half of the 20th century was minimal. You can check the literature on this if you like, but if you consult the graph I presented you'll see that CO2 emissions didn't really take off until the 1950's. And since it is heat content that drives sea level rise, the increase in sea level that we see during this period, or in the aftermath, was clearly NOT caused by CO2 emissions, however you might prefer to analyze them.

    Second, during the following period, from ca. 1945- ca. 1979, global temperatures cooled or remained roughly level. Again, since there was no appreciable temperature rise during that period, for whatever reason, it's not possible to attribute any rise in sea levels to CO2 emissions, regardless of the fact that they were literally soaring during that period. It is only logical to conclude, therefore, that the sea level rise depicted on Rahmstorf's graph, and so many others as well, must have had some other cause.

    This is a conclusion anyone with any degree of critical thinking skills could have arrived at, so yes, it's hard to see why all these high powered scientists, such as Prof. Rahmstorf, could have missed it. But miss it they have, or more accurately they have simply chosen to ignore it. What you and so many others fail to see is that scientists can have agendas just as much as anyone else, and when the agenda is threatened, the tendency is to simply ignore the problem or attempt to explain it away, which is what Potholder does routinely in his fascinating, but also very amusing, videos.

    ReplyDelete

  5. Aanthanur DC
    19 hours ago
    cute, a blogger vs the peer reviewed scientific literature......

    "The widely accepted notion that sulfur dioxide aerosols from the burning of fossil fuels were responsible for the mid-20th century hiatus in global warming (see previous post) is only one of many similar examples I could provide"

    are you claiming that Anthropogenic aerosols do not cause cooling and thus mask part of the anthropogenic warming from the increased CO2?

    and why do you think your blogg is in any way relevant? When you have objections to th scientific literature, you should challenge it in the scinetific literature, send in your study showing those other studies wrong, that is how science is done.

    whining on your blo will not change a thing.

    you also seem to not be really interested as to what the scientific community actually considers evidence for AGW.....

    " the extremely controversial topic of climate change "

    AGW is not controversial at all. only in the US political sphere this is considered a controversial topic, because US for the US gov everything science (unless its about a new tool to kill people) are radically oposed to science and think their ignorant opinion is just as much worth than a well worked out and tested scientific theory.

    just like the govs in Iran and North Korea.

    ReplyDelete

  6. Victor Grauer
    8 hours ago
    >cute, a blogger vs the peer reviewed scientific literature......

    I love that "peer reviewed" bit. "High confidence" is another one of my favorites, along with "robust." FYI, I have not only published several peer reviewed papers but also functioned myself as a peer reviewer, so I know something about what that process entails. Essentially it's a convenience to weed out obviously incompetent work. But it is by no means a stamp of unqualified approval. A great many peer reviewed papers have turned out to be wrong. As as for "blogger" isn't that what Mr. Potholer is?

    "The widely accepted notion that sulfur dioxide aerosols from the burning of fossil fuels were responsible for the mid-20th century hiatus in global warming (see previous post) is only one of many similar examples I could provide"

    >are you claiming that Anthropogenic aerosols do not cause cooling and thus mask part of the anthropogenic warming from the increased CO2?

    If you read what I wrote in my second post with any degree of care you would not have asked such a question, which is totally beside the point. Yes, there is good evidence that Anthropogenic aerosols cause cooling. However, if you want to explain the cooling period in question by invoking them then you have to do it across the board, applied to all circumstances, not just the one you want to explain away. Otherwise you're "explanation" is strictly ad hoc, thus invalid. If these aerosols mask the alleged warming effect of CO2, then they will mask it not only from 1940 through 1979, but also from the start of the industrial revolution until the imposition of pollution controls in the 1960s and 70s. If that's your argument, then you can't attribute global warming to CO2 emissions during almost all of the 20 century, since the CO2 "warming" would have been masked by the aerosols during that time as well. You must also consider the fact that there was no abatement of the strong late 20th century warming trend in Asia, where pollution controls were not enacted and Anthropogenic aerosols continued to clog the skies, just as when the troposphere was cooling.

    >and why do you think your blogg is in any way relevant? When you have objections to th scientific literature, you should challenge it in the scinetific literature, send in your study showing those other studies wrong, that is how science is done.

    Why do you think that necessary? My very simple, very logical argument should be obvious to anyone with half a brain, why would you need me to publish it in order to get the point?

    >whining on your blo will not change a thing.

    I'm afraid you are right on that score. Everyone is now locked into their own agendas as tightly as one of David Koresh's followers, who literally walked through fire rather than reconsider the wisdom of his equally absurd doomsday scenario.

    >you also seem to not be really interested as to what the scientific community actually considers evidence for AGW.....

    I've studied that literature very carefully over the last few years and also participated in many an online discussion, so yes I'm interested and no I'm not convinced by any of it. It's a mass delusion, a typical millennium cult sort of thing. I'd be happy to reconsider if I could find anyone capable of refuting the very simple and clear logical objections I've posed, but all I get are irrelevancies, pointless distractions, insults and ad hominem dismissals.

    ReplyDelete

  7. Atomsk's Sanakan
    7 hours ago (edited)
    +Victor Grauer

    "First, as almost all climate scientists agree, the contribution of CO2 emissions to the steep runup in global temperature during the first half of the 20th century was minimal."

    False, for the reason I already explained to you. Once again, CO2-induced warming is near-linear, dating back to at least the mid-to-late 1800s. So it turns out you were wrong when you wrote that:

    "Whether the rise in warming or the rise in CO2 emissions is linear or exponential or whatever has no bearing on the argument I've presented."



    "You can check the literature on this if you like"

    I already have, and cited some of the relevant literature to you. Go read it.



    "Second, during the following period, from ca. 1945- ca. 1979, global temperatures cooled or remained roughly level."

    Aerosols along with the negative phase of the AMO (the former contributing more than the latter). None of this changes the fact that a near-exponential rise in CO2 resulted in a near-linear CO2-induced warming effect.



    " Again, since there was no appreciable temperature rise during that period, for whatever reason, it's not possible to attribute any rise in sea levels to CO2 emissions, regardless of the fact that they were literally soaring during that period."

    Like many other denialists, you don't seem to grasp (or you pretend not to grasp) the idea of shorter-term fluctuations on top of longer-term trends. You don't seem to grasp that there can be shorter-term fluctuations from aerosols, ENSO, AMO, etc. on top of a long-term CO2-induced warming effect.

    Seriously, that's as silly as saying that there's no axial-tilt induced, multi-month, seasonal increase in Canadian temperature from mid-winter to mid-summer, just because there are weeks and daily temperature fluctuations. potholer54 dumbs this down for you in his video:

    "Why global temperatures never go up in straight lines" (especially from 5:22 - 11:22)



    "This is a conclusion anyone with any degree of critical thinking skills could have arrived at,"

    No, it's the fallacious reasoning of an ideologically-motivated denialist who thinks that longer-term effects don't exist if there are shorter-term fluctuations.



    "What you and so many others fail to see is that scientists can have agendas just as much as anyone else, and when the agenda is threatened, the tendency is to simply ignore the problem or attempt to explain it away"

    Please don't waste my time with your baseless, paranoid conspiracy theories about scientists working in a field who's basics you don't even grasp. Unless you really think Arrhenius was engaged in an agenda-driven conspiracy way back in *1896,*, when he gave his high climate sensitivity estimate.

    My goodness, some of you denialists really are paranoid loons:

    "Resistance, in this latter case, sometimes referred to as climate “skepticism” or “denialism,” [...]
    Climate skeptics suggest the well-publicized consensus is either manufactured or illusory and that some nefarious force—be it the United Nations, liberals, communists, or authoritarians—want to use climate change as a cover for exerting massive new controls over the populace. This conspiracy-laden rhetoric—if followed to its logical conclusion—expresses a rejection of scientific methods, scientists, and the role that science plays in society."

    http://climatescience.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228620-e-328

    ReplyDelete
  8. Victor Grauer (part one)

    First, as almost all climate scientists agree, the contribution of CO2 emissions to the steep runup in global temperature during the first half of the 20th century was minimal."

    >False, for the reason I already explained to you. Once again, CO2-induced warming is near-linear, dating back to at least the mid-to-late 1800s.

    Sorry but I fail to see the relevance of linearity to the topic at hand. Linear or not, CO2 warming is generally thought to have played a minor role during the early half of the 20th century and for good reason as you will learn from the literature on this topic.

    >So it turns out you were wrong when you wrote that:

    "Whether the rise in warming or the rise in CO2 emissions is linear or exponential or whatever has no bearing on the argument I've presented."

    "You can check the literature on this if you like"

    >I already have, and cited some of the relevant literature to you. Go read it.

    You cited a long history of "conspiracy theories" -- I found nothing pertaining to causes of the early warming period. Spencer Weart's extensive history is widely regarded as definitive. This is what he had to say on the topic: "The scientists who brushed aside Callendar's claims were reasoning well enough. (Subsequent work has shown that the temperature rise up to 1940 was, as his critics thought, mainly caused by some kind of natural cyclical effect, not by the still relatively low CO2 emissions. . .)" from "The Discovery of Global Warming," by Spencer Weart (https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm)

    Here's another citation, from another source also sympathetic to the prevailing cc paradigm: "Nearly 30% of the global warming since 1900 occurred between 1910 and 1940, when increases of human-produced CO2 played a relatively minor role in global climate change." (https://climatemodeling.science.energy.gov/research-highlights/early-20th-century-global-warming-linked-tropical-pacific-wind-strength)

    One more: "Interdecadal 20th century temperature deviations, such as the accelerated observed 1910–1940 warming that has been attributed to an unverifiable increase in solar irradiance (4, 7, 19, 20), appear to instead be due to natural variability. The same is true for the observed mid-40s to mid-70s cooling, previously attributed to enhanced sulfate aerosol activity (4, 6, 7, 12)." (http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120) No mention at all of CO2 or greenhouse gases in the above.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Victor Grauer part 2:

    "Second, during the following period, from ca. 1945- ca. 1979, global temperatures cooled or remained roughly level."

    >Aerosols along with the negative phase of the AMO (the former contributing more than the latter). None of this changes the fact that a near-exponential rise in CO2 resulted in a near-linear CO2-induced warming effect.

    Come again? What warming effect? All sources agree that there was little to no warming during this period, regardless of the cause.

    " Again, since there was no appreciable temperature rise during that period, for whatever reason, it's not possible to attribute any rise in sea levels to CO2 emissions, regardless of the fact that they were literally soaring during that period."

    >Like many other denialists, you don't seem to grasp (or you pretend not to grasp) the idea of shorter-term fluctuations on top of longer-term trends. You don't seem to grasp that there can be shorter-term fluctuations from aerosols, ENSO, AMO, etc. on top of a long-term CO2-induced warming effect.

    Sorry, but 40 years can hardly be considered short-term. Regardless, the existence of a period of no warming, long-term or short-term can hardly be seen as evidence that the non-existent warming was caused by anything at all. You can't posit a cause for a non-existent effect. (Well, I suppose you can, if you really want to . . .)

    "This is a conclusion anyone with any degree of critical thinking skills could have arrived at,"

    >No, it's the fallacious reasoning of an ideologically-motivated denialist who thinks that longer-term effects don't exist if there are shorter-term fluctuations.

    What longer-term effect are you referring to? The early warming could not have been caused by CO2 emissions and the mid-century cooling can't be seen as evidence of warming. So we're talking a period of roughly 70 years of no evidence at all for CO2 induced warming.

    ReplyDelete

  10. Aj Meyers
    8 hours ago
    +Victor Grauer - "If these aerosols mask the alleged warming effect of CO2, then they will mask it not only from 1940 through 1979, but also from the start of the industrial revolution..." - Vic, this is why we non-scientist like the peer review system: it catches and verifies claims like this made by people like you. On the face of it this claim seems ridiculous to me--it overlooks scale, accumulation and a thousand other factors I'm not imaginative enough to consider--but I'm not a trained climate scientist. If you have successfully disproven climate science why not publish and collect your Nobel?

    And to your point about ph54 being a blogger: ofc he is. What he doesn't do is ask us to take anything he says on faith, but to go to the source: the scientific literature. He reports on the science as it currently stands to show how people misunderstand, misinterpret and/or misrepresent what the scientists are saying. I wish I could say the same for you.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Victor Grauer

    AJ Meyers:
    >"If these aerosols mask the alleged warming effect of CO2, then they will mask it not only from 1940 through 1979, but also from the start of the industrial revolution..." - Vic, this is why we non-scientist like the peer review system: it catches and verifies claims like this made by people like you. On the face of it this claim seems ridiculous to me--it overlooks scale, accumulation and a thousand other factors I'm not imaginative enough to consider--but I'm not a trained climate scientist. If you have successfully disproven climate science why not publish and collect your Nobel?

    Scale: if aerosols produced by the same process as CO2 emissions canceled out CO2 warming during the mid-century cooling period, then I see no reason why the same cancelling effect would not have taken place at any earlier date, regardless of scale. If you place two Sumo wrestlers with the same weight on opposite sides of a see-saw, they will balance one another. The same thing with two fifty pound eight year olds. Scale is irrelevant, obviously. I've seen nothing in the climate science literature that discusses this issue, but would welcome any references that might shed further light.

    Accumulation: industrially produced aerosols, like those produced by volcanoes, do not accumulate but in fact dissipate rather rapidly -- after two or three years.

    a thousand other factors: Yes, there will always be complicating factors you can seek out to explain away inconvenient evidence. In fact there are an infinite number. Which is why Occam's Razor is so essential to science. "[F]or each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there is always an infinite number of possible and more complex alternatives, because one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypotheses to prevent them from being falsified . . ." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor#Ockham)

    Nobel prize: Nobel prizes are not given out to people like me, who very simply, like the kid in the story about the Emperor's New Clothes, point to the obvious.

    >And to your point about ph54 being a blogger: ofc he is. What he doesn't do is ask us to take anything he says on faith, but to go to the source: the scientific literature. He reports on the science as it currently stands to show how people misunderstand, misinterpret and/or misrepresent what the scientists are saying. I wish I could say the same for you.

    Actually ph54 is a perfect example of someone who consistently "burden[s] failing explanations with ad hoc hypotheses to prevent them from being falsified." Dubious explanations can always be plucked from the scientific literature if one looks hard enough. Most of his "explanations" read like "just so" stories, based on carefully chosen, cherry picked bits from the literature, as though each item he references counts as a faultless, uncontroversial authority.

    I don't base my writings on authority, but simple straightforward logic, aka "critical thinking," an art that is rapidly vanishing.

    ReplyDelete

  12. Aj Meyers
    57 minutes ago
    +Victor Grauer - Vic, you seem hellbent on proving the point you'd rather make claims here on YouTube than making your claims where they can be properly judged: in the peer reviewed literature.

    If you have a solid science source to back any of the claims you've made I have yet to see them. Produce your source and allow me a chance to read over it and decide for myself if you're cherry-picking, misrepresenting or just have simply misunderstood.

    If you don't have a source but are relying on your own armchair version of science, then get your ideas out there: you're not a climate scientist but that doesn't mean you can't get your work published if it passes muster. I wonder why you won't do that?

    Once your claims have been vetted I'll happily read them and cite them to other people. But what I won't do is get into an armchair debate with you about your theories: that's just the blind leading the blind. Hope this helps. Cheers!

    ReplyDelete

  13. Victor Grauer
    2 seconds ago
    Aj Meyers
    >Vic, you seem hellbent on proving the point you'd rather make claims here on YouTube than making your claims where they can be properly judged: in the peer reviewed literature.

    You're hopelessly naive, Aj. The peer reviewed literature is reserved for bona fide, fully credentialed climate scientists. As a social scientist I wouldn't stand a chance and any attempt would be a waste of time. Besides, the professional literature is already full of publications by skeptics such as Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry, Bjørn Lomborg, Wilhelm Morner, Fred Singer, Roy Spencer, Nils-Axel Mörner, and many others. I'm just trying to fill in some of the gaps others seem to have neglected.

    >If you have a solid science source to back any of the claims you've made I have yet to see them. Produce your source and allow me a chance to read over it and decide for myself if you're cherry-picking, misrepresenting or just have simply misunderstood.

    I've provided several sources in the blog posts to which I've provided links on this site. A great many more can be found in the book I (self) published a few years ago: The Unsettled Science of Climate Change: A Primer for Critical Thinkers. And by the way I never even considered submitting this book to a "legitimate" publisher as I know from experience how difficult it is to get any sort of attention from these folks and even if they take your work seriously, how long, tedious and frustrating the process can be.

    >If you don't have a source but are relying on your own armchair version of science, then get your ideas out there: you're not a climate scientist but that doesn't mean you can't get your work published if it passes muster. I wonder why you won't do that?

    Because 1. it's unlikely to get published and 2. even if it's accepted, the process is far too time consuming to make it worthwhile.

    >Once your claims have been vetted I'll happily read them and cite them to other people. But what I won't do is get into an armchair debate with you about your theories: that's just the blind leading the blind. Hope this helps. Cheers!

    Well, first I want to thank you for hearing me out and giving me an opportunity to respond to your questions, which are, for the most part, legitimate. As far as "vetting" is concerned, a great many claims of a great many skeptics are now widely accepted by critical thinkers from all walks of life, as should be evident by perusing the Internet, including the many skeptical youtube videos. But there is no way the official priesthood of "climate science" is ready to give even an inch to anyone with some different ideas of what is now happening to our climate. The dogma is now set in stone and nothing I or anyone else can provide by way of evidence or argument can change that.



    ReplyDelete

 
Add to Technorati Favorites