Simon M
Well-known member
This is continued from the Baer's Pochard threat on the rarities forum but it was completely off topic so here is my reply to Squonky in reponses to his claims that global mean temperatures are not rising...
Do you realise how patronising that sounds?
Not really, but I was assuming you’re not a anti-science crackpot, which it has become apparent from your reply you are.
And don't you think it's possible that YOU have any kind of bias? Could you not consider the possibility that someone else is equally well-versed in climate science as yourself, but applies a somewhat more critical eye to some of the evidence and arguments which are presented?
What bias would make me positively disposed to believing in climate change if it wasn’t real? What benefit would I or any reputable scientist stand to gain? Because in the case of climate change denial the reason for bias is very clear. Defending the status quo clearly means less chance of taxation, less chance of new pollution regulations, less chance of profit reduction for big business and less chance of anyone being asked to chance their lifestyle. I would feel much better if climate change were false, but it isn’t. Most deniers also have a lot gain by defending big business and have more to lose from changing the status quo than I do.
The critique is not by a blogger, but by Brice Bosnich, a retired scientist and FRS whose letter is being quoted by the blogger.
Retired being the important part of the sentence. Not a current scientist, not anyone who is in anyway respected for their scientific reputation or critical thinking skills.
Your reference (1) is to the NOAA land record. But land is only 30% of the earth's surface and is disproportionately affected by such factors as siting of weather stations. NOAA's combined temperature record for both land and sea shows a 0.7 degrees C temperature rise, exactly as stated by Bosnich. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/servic...001-201012.gif
Furthermore, NOAA is not the only non-satellite temperature record. Another is HADCRUT, which according to this page suggests a 0.8 degrees C warming since 1857, much closer to Bosnich's figure than to yours. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HadCRUT
But as you are versed in climate science, surely you must be aware of all of the above, so my question to you is, why did you choose the NOAA land record?
Yes I am aware of them, sorry to disappoint your overly eager ‘gotcha’ moment. The reason I used land temperatures is because sea-surface temperatures are demonstrably buffered by deep ocean circulations, which last hundreds of years and lessen the impact upon the sea temperature.
Also, even if we were to accept the NOAA land graph as the best temperature record, it shows a rise of 0.5 degrees C from 1880 to 1940, when (according to my understanding) CO2 is unlikely to have been a factor. Are you not curious as to what caused this?
Again a fallacy. Records from the numerous Ice Cores show that atmospheric CO2 increased from ~295 to ~310 ppm between 1880 and 1940 (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html), co-inciding with significant warming beginning in 1910. This graphic (reference to multiple datasets) demonstrates that well. The first 30 cooling during 1880 – 1910 was due to the effects of CO2 release being compensated by reduced solar irradiance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A..._temperatures_over_the_years_1880_to_2009.png
I earlier explained that […] there is no warming in the last 8 years because ‘noise’ created by natural climate variability means that temperature datasets do not produce identifiable trends over such short periods
The idea that the lack of significant warming in the last 15 years (now; Brice's letter is from two years ago) is due to 'noise' on top of a warming trend which is set to continue, is unproven. Even if the warming does continue, the question of whether it is due to CO2 emissions rather than natural variability remains.
As far as I recall 12 + 2 = 14 not 15. And actually the data from the last two year have be neither compiled or analysed yet so we can’t really comment on more than 12 years. And no there is not a question between CO2 emissions and natural variability as causal factors since long-term trends cannot be explained by natural variability. The reasons for the last 12 years not showing the same pattern is indeed unproven, but it is not required and indeed is not unexpected of a dataset reflecting athroprogenic climate change
You have not read Brice's words carefully enough, he is saying that there has been no change in the RATE of sea level rise, not no change in sea level. In other words, the rate at which sea level was rising 100 years ago, when CO2 emissions could not have been a factor, is the same as the rate it is rising at now.
One would not expect a steady rise in the rate at which sea levels rise since glacial and ice pack melt does not correlate in a linear way with temperature rise. I don’t know enough about ice-sheet break up to go into specifics but this illustrates some of the difficulties. http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ea-level-rise-model-failure-is-the-key-issue/
Also Noteworthy is that actually sea level rose by an average of 1mm / yr during most of 20th Century and by 3mm / yr during 1993 – 2003. I think that counts as an increase in the rate of rise.
You then cite this news publication (not scientific literature) as evidence that glacial melt is not occurring. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...iers-mountains
It refers to the upper Himalayas over a 10 year period. It also contains the quote "lower-altitude glaciers in the Asian mountain ranges – sometimes dubbed the "third pole" – are definitely melting. Satellite images and reports confirm this" so at best you’ve spotted a small amount of natural variation in a specific region. Again this is expected. Good work.
The letter together with Bosnich’s critique run as follows: […]There is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring . The evidence comes from […] and changes to many physical and biological systems (Which ones, the sheep of St Kilda?) You commented:
I think Bosnich's point here is that any effects of warming do not say anything about the causes of that warming and without reading beyond the abstract of your reference, I don't think it has anything to say about this either.
No, it isn’t and you know it isn’t Bosnich explicitly says there is no evidence of warming in biological systems, he made no mention of ‘well there is evidence but it’s about the causes’. Stop shifting the issues you are debating. How can you even pass comment on critical thinking when your argument construction includes changing the meaning of what you’re defending and then saying ‘too long didn’t read’ when evidence which completely undermines your theories is highlighted? Incidentally that paper is a review which includes 96 scientifically proven examples of what Bosnich says doesn’t exist. http://eebweb.arizona.edu/courses/Ecol206/Walther et al Nature 2002.pdf
I also stated that coupled with other suitable surrogates of longer term temperature trends from ice-cores, tree rings and lake sediments the recent temperature record shows unequivocal evidence that temperature’s have begun to increase at a rate not witnessed for hundreds of thousands of years, if ever.
Do the ice cores really show this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vo...insolation.jpg
The graph you display shows temperature rising by up to 10 degrees over 10,000 year periods (being generous on 10 degrees aswell) at the end of ice ages this works out at 1 degree per thousand years which is far less than what has been witnessed in the last hundred years. Also we are not at the end of an ice age, we already witnessed that warming and are starting out at one of the temperature peaks on the graph.
With regard to tree rings, they were the main proxy for the famous 'hockey stick' graph. On this subject, mathematically literate people should read this book then make their own minds up:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Illusion-Cli...9068486&sr=8-1
“ The Hockey Stick Illusion; Climategate and the Corruption of Science”
Seven independent reviews agreed that there was no ground to the claims of corruption or doctoring of evidence in the supposed climategate scandal and most commentators agreed that the conspiracy was of media sensationalism and right-wing influences mist-informing the public. And the underlying conclusions of the hockeystick as well as the validity of the proxies used have been re-affirmed many times, too many to bother expanding upon.
[Bosnich’s] reference [13] shows no rise, as he states.
[14] does show a rise, so like you I am not sure why he references this graph in support of this claim. He would have been better to reference the ARGO-era data, which is now our most reliable dataset on global ocean heat content, and which I don't think shows any rise for the last 9 years. However, even if there has been a rise starting before the ARGO era, neither he nor I are particularly sceptical about there having been a rise in global temperatures, merely about the attribution (cause).
Apologies I meant 14 and 15 which both show rises but apparently something is not reliable if it shows a rise? And at the same time you move the goalposts you can’t pretend it’s not real you’re only interested in cause. Nice.
This is snide name-calling. Do you mean that because I post a link to a letter from one scientist to another, I am a bit like a holocaust denier?
Yep, or an evolution denier, or a denier of the germ theory of disease. They all deal in the denial of evidence to suit their own worldview.
But if it's a professional climate scientist you want to hear from, how about Dr. Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at MIT
You mean the one half-reputable go-to guy for climate change deniers who other more reputable scientists have described as a lifelong contrarian who "sacrificed his luminosity by taking a stand that most of us feel is scientifically unsound." (Jerry Malhmam)
As you can see above, I don't ignore the views or the work of those who actually work in that field. I have also looked closely at the work of those who promote the theory of CAGW (a good analysis is the book I referenced towards the end of my previous post). At the moment I find the arguments of those such as Bosnich and Lindzen more convincing.
Really but you didn’t get past the abstract of the peer-review article citing 97 examples of ecological consequences of climate change because you don’t ignore views.
It’s fine, believe what you want. But do not pretend you do it through any kind of scientific enquiry. Not when you switch from arguing ‘the climate to is not changing’ to ‘it’s not because of CO2’ when you are proven wrong. And don’t make out like you any different from any other type of science or fact denial. Sure climate change is more complex but it’s really political and worldview motivations which mean you don’t accept it, not scientific analysis. Finally please, do not present yourself as a naturalist or birder or wildlife enthusiast when the author you’re quoting recently wrote a book called “Conspiracy is Green”!
And before you try anymore baffling with pseudo-science I’m not going waste the time or energy responding to someone who obviously doesn’t deal in facts.
Thanks
Do you realise how patronising that sounds?
Not really, but I was assuming you’re not a anti-science crackpot, which it has become apparent from your reply you are.
And don't you think it's possible that YOU have any kind of bias? Could you not consider the possibility that someone else is equally well-versed in climate science as yourself, but applies a somewhat more critical eye to some of the evidence and arguments which are presented?
What bias would make me positively disposed to believing in climate change if it wasn’t real? What benefit would I or any reputable scientist stand to gain? Because in the case of climate change denial the reason for bias is very clear. Defending the status quo clearly means less chance of taxation, less chance of new pollution regulations, less chance of profit reduction for big business and less chance of anyone being asked to chance their lifestyle. I would feel much better if climate change were false, but it isn’t. Most deniers also have a lot gain by defending big business and have more to lose from changing the status quo than I do.
The critique is not by a blogger, but by Brice Bosnich, a retired scientist and FRS whose letter is being quoted by the blogger.
Retired being the important part of the sentence. Not a current scientist, not anyone who is in anyway respected for their scientific reputation or critical thinking skills.
Your reference (1) is to the NOAA land record. But land is only 30% of the earth's surface and is disproportionately affected by such factors as siting of weather stations. NOAA's combined temperature record for both land and sea shows a 0.7 degrees C temperature rise, exactly as stated by Bosnich. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/servic...001-201012.gif
Furthermore, NOAA is not the only non-satellite temperature record. Another is HADCRUT, which according to this page suggests a 0.8 degrees C warming since 1857, much closer to Bosnich's figure than to yours. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HadCRUT
But as you are versed in climate science, surely you must be aware of all of the above, so my question to you is, why did you choose the NOAA land record?
Yes I am aware of them, sorry to disappoint your overly eager ‘gotcha’ moment. The reason I used land temperatures is because sea-surface temperatures are demonstrably buffered by deep ocean circulations, which last hundreds of years and lessen the impact upon the sea temperature.
Also, even if we were to accept the NOAA land graph as the best temperature record, it shows a rise of 0.5 degrees C from 1880 to 1940, when (according to my understanding) CO2 is unlikely to have been a factor. Are you not curious as to what caused this?
Again a fallacy. Records from the numerous Ice Cores show that atmospheric CO2 increased from ~295 to ~310 ppm between 1880 and 1940 (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html), co-inciding with significant warming beginning in 1910. This graphic (reference to multiple datasets) demonstrates that well. The first 30 cooling during 1880 – 1910 was due to the effects of CO2 release being compensated by reduced solar irradiance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A..._temperatures_over_the_years_1880_to_2009.png
I earlier explained that […] there is no warming in the last 8 years because ‘noise’ created by natural climate variability means that temperature datasets do not produce identifiable trends over such short periods
The idea that the lack of significant warming in the last 15 years (now; Brice's letter is from two years ago) is due to 'noise' on top of a warming trend which is set to continue, is unproven. Even if the warming does continue, the question of whether it is due to CO2 emissions rather than natural variability remains.
As far as I recall 12 + 2 = 14 not 15. And actually the data from the last two year have be neither compiled or analysed yet so we can’t really comment on more than 12 years. And no there is not a question between CO2 emissions and natural variability as causal factors since long-term trends cannot be explained by natural variability. The reasons for the last 12 years not showing the same pattern is indeed unproven, but it is not required and indeed is not unexpected of a dataset reflecting athroprogenic climate change
You have not read Brice's words carefully enough, he is saying that there has been no change in the RATE of sea level rise, not no change in sea level. In other words, the rate at which sea level was rising 100 years ago, when CO2 emissions could not have been a factor, is the same as the rate it is rising at now.
One would not expect a steady rise in the rate at which sea levels rise since glacial and ice pack melt does not correlate in a linear way with temperature rise. I don’t know enough about ice-sheet break up to go into specifics but this illustrates some of the difficulties. http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ea-level-rise-model-failure-is-the-key-issue/
Also Noteworthy is that actually sea level rose by an average of 1mm / yr during most of 20th Century and by 3mm / yr during 1993 – 2003. I think that counts as an increase in the rate of rise.
You then cite this news publication (not scientific literature) as evidence that glacial melt is not occurring. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...iers-mountains
It refers to the upper Himalayas over a 10 year period. It also contains the quote "lower-altitude glaciers in the Asian mountain ranges – sometimes dubbed the "third pole" – are definitely melting. Satellite images and reports confirm this" so at best you’ve spotted a small amount of natural variation in a specific region. Again this is expected. Good work.
The letter together with Bosnich’s critique run as follows: […]There is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring . The evidence comes from […] and changes to many physical and biological systems (Which ones, the sheep of St Kilda?) You commented:
I think Bosnich's point here is that any effects of warming do not say anything about the causes of that warming and without reading beyond the abstract of your reference, I don't think it has anything to say about this either.
No, it isn’t and you know it isn’t Bosnich explicitly says there is no evidence of warming in biological systems, he made no mention of ‘well there is evidence but it’s about the causes’. Stop shifting the issues you are debating. How can you even pass comment on critical thinking when your argument construction includes changing the meaning of what you’re defending and then saying ‘too long didn’t read’ when evidence which completely undermines your theories is highlighted? Incidentally that paper is a review which includes 96 scientifically proven examples of what Bosnich says doesn’t exist. http://eebweb.arizona.edu/courses/Ecol206/Walther et al Nature 2002.pdf
I also stated that coupled with other suitable surrogates of longer term temperature trends from ice-cores, tree rings and lake sediments the recent temperature record shows unequivocal evidence that temperature’s have begun to increase at a rate not witnessed for hundreds of thousands of years, if ever.
Do the ice cores really show this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vo...insolation.jpg
The graph you display shows temperature rising by up to 10 degrees over 10,000 year periods (being generous on 10 degrees aswell) at the end of ice ages this works out at 1 degree per thousand years which is far less than what has been witnessed in the last hundred years. Also we are not at the end of an ice age, we already witnessed that warming and are starting out at one of the temperature peaks on the graph.
With regard to tree rings, they were the main proxy for the famous 'hockey stick' graph. On this subject, mathematically literate people should read this book then make their own minds up:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Illusion-Cli...9068486&sr=8-1
“ The Hockey Stick Illusion; Climategate and the Corruption of Science”
Seven independent reviews agreed that there was no ground to the claims of corruption or doctoring of evidence in the supposed climategate scandal and most commentators agreed that the conspiracy was of media sensationalism and right-wing influences mist-informing the public. And the underlying conclusions of the hockeystick as well as the validity of the proxies used have been re-affirmed many times, too many to bother expanding upon.
[Bosnich’s] reference [13] shows no rise, as he states.
[14] does show a rise, so like you I am not sure why he references this graph in support of this claim. He would have been better to reference the ARGO-era data, which is now our most reliable dataset on global ocean heat content, and which I don't think shows any rise for the last 9 years. However, even if there has been a rise starting before the ARGO era, neither he nor I are particularly sceptical about there having been a rise in global temperatures, merely about the attribution (cause).
Apologies I meant 14 and 15 which both show rises but apparently something is not reliable if it shows a rise? And at the same time you move the goalposts you can’t pretend it’s not real you’re only interested in cause. Nice.
This is snide name-calling. Do you mean that because I post a link to a letter from one scientist to another, I am a bit like a holocaust denier?
Yep, or an evolution denier, or a denier of the germ theory of disease. They all deal in the denial of evidence to suit their own worldview.
But if it's a professional climate scientist you want to hear from, how about Dr. Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at MIT
You mean the one half-reputable go-to guy for climate change deniers who other more reputable scientists have described as a lifelong contrarian who "sacrificed his luminosity by taking a stand that most of us feel is scientifically unsound." (Jerry Malhmam)
As you can see above, I don't ignore the views or the work of those who actually work in that field. I have also looked closely at the work of those who promote the theory of CAGW (a good analysis is the book I referenced towards the end of my previous post). At the moment I find the arguments of those such as Bosnich and Lindzen more convincing.
Really but you didn’t get past the abstract of the peer-review article citing 97 examples of ecological consequences of climate change because you don’t ignore views.
It’s fine, believe what you want. But do not pretend you do it through any kind of scientific enquiry. Not when you switch from arguing ‘the climate to is not changing’ to ‘it’s not because of CO2’ when you are proven wrong. And don’t make out like you any different from any other type of science or fact denial. Sure climate change is more complex but it’s really political and worldview motivations which mean you don’t accept it, not scientific analysis. Finally please, do not present yourself as a naturalist or birder or wildlife enthusiast when the author you’re quoting recently wrote a book called “Conspiracy is Green”!
And before you try anymore baffling with pseudo-science I’m not going waste the time or energy responding to someone who obviously doesn’t deal in facts.
Thanks
Last edited:
