[Zelandakh]

It seems to me that AI and Wayne are discussing proofs, which are a mathematical concept and it is indeed true that a single counter-example destroys a proof. However, a theory is different from a proof. A single counter-example will ordinarily not discredit a theory but instead may well require a modification to the theory. Certain counter-examples might discredit a theory entirely though and lead to a new theory being developed. Very often the old (discredited) theory is still valid for a certain level of granularity though. So, for example, physicists once believed that the atom was the smallest indivisible particle. The old theory can still be used outside of the sub-atomic world, even though we now know that it is incorrect.

So, if the counter-example is that the results of a paper cannot be considered statistically significant because there is insufficient data across the range of dates then a modification to add additional data may remove the counter-example. And even if the paper cannot be made statistically significant, that does not necessarily mean that the evidence does not support the theory. Noone has yet come up with a "theory-breaking" counter-example, let alone 50.

[Al_U_Card]

 Zelandakh, on 2013-July-03, 02:39, said:

It seems to me that AI and Wayne are discussing proofs, which are a mathematical concept and it is indeed true that a single counter-example destroys a proof. However, a theory is different from a proof. A single counter-example will ordinarily not discredit a theory but instead may well require a modification to the theory. Certain counter-examples might discredit a theory entirely though and lead to a new theory being developed. Very often the old (discredited) theory is still valid for a certain level of granularity though. So, for example, physicists once believed that the atom was the smallest indivisible particle. The old theory can still be used outside of the sub-atomic world, even though we now know that it is incorrect.

So, if the counter-example is that the results of a paper cannot be considered statistically significant because there is insufficient data across the range of dates then a modification to add additional data may remove the counter-example. And even if the paper cannot be made statistically significant, that does not necessarily mean that the evidence does not support the theory. Noone has yet come up with a "theory-breaking" counter-example, let alone 50.

The only theory in this town concerns [CO2] being the cause of catastrophic warming of the planet. This requires radical mitigation which includes drastic cuts to energy availability (caused by those inefficient and intermittent green sources mostly) as well as arcane financial and taxation manipulation.

Measured atmospheric [CO2] continues to increase. Global temperatures do not.

The granularity of the system variability has yet to be exceeded (or barely even defined) let alone well enough understood to allow for "adjustment".

Does the above proposition for dominating a non-linear, chaotic, global system even make sense? It certainly has generated a huge amount of activity and monies for those involved in its definition, pursuit and exploitation. There in lies the rub...

[hrothgar]

 Al_U_Card, on 2013-July-03, 05:10, said:

Measured atmospheric [CO2] continues to increase. Global temperatures do not.

Oh look. Al is lying again..

No one claims that temperature increases are monotonic. Indeed, if the climate really is a "non-linear, chaotic, global system" it would seem extremely stupid to expect a monotonically increasing trend.

[PassedOut]

Climate extremes are 'unprecedented'

Quote

The decade was the warmest for both hemispheres and for both land and ocean surface temperatures. The record warmth was accompanied by a rapid decline in Arctic sea ice, and accelerating loss of mass from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and from glaciers.

Global mean sea levels rose about 3mm per year - about double the observed 20th century trend of 1.6mm per year. Global sea level averaged over the decade was about 20cm higher than in 1880.

The report notes that the high temperatures in the decade were achieved without a strong episode of the El Nino current which typically warms the world. It says that a strong El Nino episode would probably have driven temperatures even higher.

Although overall temperature rise has slowed down since the 1990s, the WMO says temperatures are still rising because of greenhouse gases from human society.

The WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud said: “Natural climate variability, caused in part by interactions between our atmosphere and oceans means that some years are cooler than others. On an annual basis, the global temperature curve is not a smooth one. On a long-term basis the underlying trend is clearly in an upward direction, more so in recent times.”

It is a fact that mankind spews billions of tons of heat-trapping gas into the atmosphere each year. It is a fact that temperatures are rising.

It is a matter of faith that what we are doing will not cause a catastrophe. Quite a convenient faith, considering that the brunt of the catastrophe will be born by others...

[blackshoe]

 PassedOut, on 2013-July-03, 07:30, said:

Climate extremes are 'unprecedented'


It is a fact that mankind spews billions of tons of heat-trapping gas into the atmosphere each year. It is a fact that temperatures are rising.

It is a matter of faith that what we are doing will not cause a catastrophe. Quite a convenient faith, considering that the brunt of the catastrophe will be born by others...

It is a fact that the sky is blue.

It is a matter of faith that there is a causal relationship between mankind's "spewing" and global warming.

Is the rising temperature trend short term or long term? How do you know?

If the premise (that global warming is anthropomorphic) is true, so long as India and China continue to "spew" — and they will — even Obama's "War on Coal" isn't going to make much difference to global climate, although I suspect it will make a very big difference to jobs, the cost of energy, and the number of people who die in heat waves in the US.

[billw55]

 blackshoe, on 2013-July-03, 08:30, said:

It is a fact that the sky is blue.

It is a matter of faith that there is a causal relationship between mankind's "spewing" and global warming.

Is the rising temperature trend short term or long term? How do you know?

If the premise (that global warming is anthropomorphic) is true, so long as India and China continue to "spew" — and they will — even Obama's "War on Coal" isn't going to make much difference to global climate, although I suspect it will make a very big difference to jobs, the cost of energy, and the number of people who die in heat waves in the US.

Well, the rising temperature trend goes back into the 1800s per actual measurements. That might be considered long term or short term, depending on the subject matter and one's perspective.

About the last paragraph, I agree, and prefer adaptation to prevention as a response of choice for these and other reasons. (See post #622 on page 32.)

[PassedOut]

 blackshoe, on 2013-July-03, 08:30, said:

It is a fact that the sky is blue.

True.

 blackshoe, on 2013-July-03, 08:30, said:

It is a matter of faith that there is a causal relationship between mankind's "spewing" and global warming.

False.

 blackshoe, on 2013-July-03, 08:30, said:

Is the rising temperature trend short term or long term? How do you know?

I don't know.

If you trap more heat within the atmosphere, the earth will get warmer unless there is a mechanism not yet known that will mitigate the warming. It is a fact that CO2 (and other gasses) trap heat within the atmosphere. To you, it might seem to be a matter of faith (for example) that adding insulation to the house keeps us warmer in the winter, but I know it to be a fact. It is a similar situation with mankind's spewing CO2.

To believe that some as-yet-unknown mechanism will turn out to mitigate the effects of our spewing CO2 is a matter of faith. I can't prove that faith to be wrong just as I can't prove any other religious belief to be wrong: I can't say that I know that faith to be wrong. In fact, it would be wonderful if that faith turned out to be correct.

Certainly the 'it-is-all-about-me' types find it easy to take on faith anything that reduces their own inconvenience, not withstanding the much greater inconveniences to be born by others. In my considered opinion, that pretty much defines the character of global warming deniers.

[Daniel1960]

 billw55, on 2013-July-03, 09:15, said:

Well, the rising temperature trend goes back into the 1800s per actual measurements. That might be considered long term or short term, depending on the subject matter and one's perspective.

About the last paragraph, I agree, and prefer adaptation to prevention as a response of choice for these and other reasons. (See post #622 on page 32.)

Temperatures have actually been rising since the depth of the little ice age (17th century). The temperature rise from 1700-1800 was ~0.6C (based on non-tree ring proxy measurements, Loehle, 2007). The temperature rise from 1900-2000 was ~0.6 (based on thermometer readings). Temperatures were realtively flat during the 19th century, with rises and falls cancelling. No one appears to question that the 18th century temperature rise was natural. The recent temperature rise is the question, but it is not unprecedented - other proxy data shows even greater temperature rises coming out of the last full ice age. The data yields two major questions. First, how much of the 20th century temperature rise was natural, and how much was anthropogenic? Secondly, how much can we expect the temperature to rise with continued human involvement?

http://jonova.s3.ama...mwp-lia-web.gif

While some people seem to accept or reject AGW based on faith, I prefer to look at the scientific data, and draw educated conclusions. One potential conclusion: based on the temperature data since 1880 (start of CO2 rise), if one were to assume that the entire rise was CO2-based, then the climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 would be 1.8C/doubling. The greater the natural forces contributing to the rise, the lower the sensitivity. Conversely, in order for the sensitivity to be higher, other factors must be negatively affecting global temperatures. The lack of warming in recent years, seems to indicate the former. Statements that the first decade of the 21st century were the warmest on record, says nothing of recent changes, only that temperatures have risen up to the beginning of the decade (if it took you one hour to clims Pikes Peak, and remainded there one hour, the second hour would show the higher average elevation, but no change).

[Cascade]

 hrothgar, on 2013-July-03, 07:01, said:

Oh look. Al is lying again..

No one claims that temperature increases are monotonic. Indeed, if the climate really is a "non-linear, chaotic, global system" it would seem extremely stupid to expect a monotonically increasing trend.

This depends on your time step. Day to day temperatures rise and fall obviously. However decade to decade, as far as I recall, every projection that I have seen from AGW show that the temperature will increase. Not only has this increase been shown as their expectation but it has also been shown on these graphs in their 'best' case scenario.

[hrothgar]

Deleting duplicate

[hrothgar]

 Cascade, on 2013-July-03, 14:26, said:

This depends on your time step. Day to day temperatures rise and fall obviously. However decade to decade, as far as I recall, every projection that I have seen from AGW show that the temperature will increase. Not only has this increase been shown as their expectation but it has also been shown on these graphs in their 'best' case scenario.

http://www.skeptical...ntermediate.htm

[Zelandakh]

From memory, the CO2 emissions are something like 30-35 billions tonnes per year (not including methane, etc) of which something under 60% goes towards atmospheric levels and the current atmospheric concentration is around 400ppm. So here's a question: ignoring feedbacks, how much direct warming does this year's spew of CO2 produce? My guess is that the answer would surprise the average person.

PassedOut, you are absolutely correct that the answer to the above question is not a matter of faith. When you start including estimated feedbacks and calling them facts, that is when it is possible to take issue. And yes, I am aware that many of the feedbacks are known to be positive and that the effects of methane and water vapour are also highly relevant; also that increased CO2 emissions increases water acidity, which is itself a serious issue. Nonetheless, please do not stoop to such a level in trying to make your points. You should have learned by now that it does not work for AI. To my mind, all you are doing here is weakening your position when you post things that are quite obviously alarmist.

[hrothgar]

 Zelandakh, on 2013-July-04, 03:07, said:

To my mind, all you are doing here is weakening your position when you post things that are quite obviously alarmist.

I'd like to see some examples of these so-called "alarmist" postings

[hrothgar]

 Zelandakh, on 2013-July-04, 03:07, said:

From memory, the CO2 emissions are something like 30-35 billions tonnes per year (not including methane, etc) of which something under 60% goes towards atmospheric levels and the current atmospheric concentration is around 400ppm. So here's a question: ignoring feedbacks, how much direct warming does this year's spew of CO2 produce? My guess is that the answer would surprise the average person.

This year's C02 production produced very little direct warming.
The warming that we're seeing today is a function of cumulative C02 production over the course of decades.

In much the same manner, the cumulative warming that last year's C02 will produce over time will be extremely large because of the relatively long life time of the gas in the atmosphere.

[Al_U_Card]

Or not.

[CO2] timing is err..... what?

The analysis of the time series in Fig. 1 suggest a clear lead-lag relation between
the variations in the surface air temperature anomaly and the TOA net radiative flux
20 anomaly during two parts of the observed time period September 2000–May 2011.
During those two time periods, about eight months at the beginning and five years at
the end, the net radiative flux anomaly lags the surface air temperature anomaly with
around seven months.

[Al_U_Card]

 Zelandakh, on 2013-July-04, 03:07, said:

also that increased CO2 emissions increases water acidity, which is itself a serious issue.

Atmospheric CO2 can decrease sea-water alkalinity but by much less than what is normal variability for the most part.
The world has seen higher CO2 levels (during which times sea-life including corals evolved and flourished) and higher temperatures without significant inconvenience.

[Al_U_Card]

 hrothgar, on 2013-July-04, 05:34, said:

I'd like to see some examples of these so-called "alarmist" postings

If the shoe fits....

This year's C02 production produced very little direct warming.
The warming that we're seeing today is a function of cumulative C02 production over the course of decades.

In much the same manner, the cumulative warming that last year's C02 will produce over time will be extremely large because of the relatively long life time of the gas in the atmosphere.

[PassedOut]

 Al_U_Card, on 2013-July-04, 07:55, said:

If the shoe fits....

This year's C02 production produced very little direct warming.
The warming that we're seeing today is a function of cumulative C02 production over the course of decades.

In much the same manner, the cumulative warming that last year's C02 will produce over time will be extremely large because of the relatively long life time of the gas in the atmosphere.

That you declare factual statements to be 'alarmist' says more about you than the statements.

If a person said, "I have faith that something will turn up to mitigate the effect of the buildup of heat-trapping gasses, but I support measures to cut emissions anyway in case my faith is misplaced," that person would deserve respect. But not otherwise.

[PassedOut]

duplicate

[Al_U_Card]

 PassedOut, on 2013-July-04, 08:23, said:

That you declare factual statements to be 'alarmist' says more about you than the statements.

If a person said, "I have faith that something will turn up to mitigate the effect of the buildup of heat-trapping gasses, but I support measures to cut emissions anyway in case my faith is misplaced," that person would deserve respect. But not otherwise.

How about:

The continuing rise of atmospheric CO2 continues to have no measurable effect on global temperatures.

Recent (1880 onward) warming may have a relationship with the rise of global CO2 concentrations but that relationship appears to be subject to variation and planetary effects that override its effect easily and with regularity.

The cumulative effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is logarithmic in nature and most of that effect has already occurred. What remains is to establish how much of a global change in temperature will occur until no more can be possible and to determine whether or not that change will be harmful or even of consequence. (Beneficial?)

Or are catastrophism and Orwellian methods really that necessary?