Anthropogenic Global Warming 101

Heretic wrote:

Robin Banks wrote:

Or did you take someone's word for it?

Yes, or as I call it, "deferring to the experts." Just like we all do when we go to the doctor.

You're speaking for sparks now? Interesting...

Well, unless sparks is a climate scientist actively doing research, the answer's going to be the same, no? But feel free to wait to make your point if it makes you more comfortable...

Heretic wrote:

Well, unless sparks is a climate scientist actively doing research, the answer's going to be the same, no? But feel free to wait to make your point if it makes you more comfortable...

I read what the experts have to say and base my opinions on their expertise. However, Robin Banks claims to have the skills to interpret the data himself.

Robin Banks wrote:

It works both ways. The point is that I believe it is best to get to the source of the information and draw conclusions based on actual data rather than take someone else's interpretation as fact. Many here subscribe to the latter method.

With all his ability, you'd think he'd be smart enough to be paid for his time instead of posting for free on chat boards.

This cartoon is very similar to this thread. As soon as Heretic demolishes one ignorant,uneducated or dishonest post from the deniers, they come back with more idiocy.

Quote :

Yet Another Investigation Vindicates 'Hockey Stick' Climate Scientist Michael Mann

The National Science Foundation has concluded yet another investigation into the work of climate scientist Michael Mann (creator of the famous “hockey stick” temperature graph you see above), whose research and personal character have been targeted in a years-long, relentless smear campaign by energy industry front groups and the right wing media. The NSF’s statement:

Quote :

Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed.

I’ve lost track of the number of independent investigations that have utterly and completely vindicated the work of Mann and the other scientists involved in the fake scandal of the decade known as “Climategate.” But as Joe Romm points out, the right wing echo chamber just continues to hype “Climategate” in a closed-loop rejection of reality: Climate Secret: NSF Quietly Closes Out Inspector General Investigation with Complete Vindication of Michael Mann.

Quote :

Let me end with some key findings of the Penn State investigation:

Quote :

“An Investigatory Committee of faculty members with impeccable credentials” has unanimously “determined that Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research, or other scholarly activities.”

His work “clearly places Dr. Mann among the most respected scientists in his field…. Dr. Mann’s work, from the beginning of his career, has been recognized as outstanding.”

So Mann isn’t merely a competent researcher. He is one of the leading climate scientists in this country, which of course is precisely why the anti-science crowd has gone after him, much as they have with other leading climate scientists, including Hansen and Santer.

And that’s one more reason why the major media outlets who smeared and defamed him owe him an apology and a retraction — loud ones!

Still no conspiracy to be found... But that just means they're really, really good at hiding it. Boom! High five, BWG!

sparks wrote:

With all his ability, you'd think he'd be smart enough to be paid for his time instead of posting for free on chat boards.

I am.

You're getting paid for these quasi-skeptic posts? Interesting...

Robin Banks wrote:

sparks wrote:

With all his ability, you'd think he'd be smart enough to be paid for his time instead of posting for free on chat boards.

I am.

It's your lie, tell it anyway you want to!

I was more interested in Banks' "you're just taking their word for it" argument. It's a remarkably silly one, no?

It's not an argument, it's an observation. There are many demonstrations here that some people are incapable of independent thought. I find that sad.

Heretic wrote:

You're getting paid for these quasi-skeptic posts? Interesting...

Obtuse much?

happy jack wrote:

Robin Banks wrote:

You're speaking for sparks now? Interesting...

Yeah, he's like a middle reliever. Whenever sparks or Artie paints himself into a corner, there's an immediate call to the bullpen.

Will Ohman

Robin Banks wrote:

It's not an argument, it's an observation.

Then it makes even less sense. The dissemination of complicated scientific ideas will always be hearsay to the general public. It's a bad argument for skepticism and an even worse observational point to make.

Robin Banks wrote:

There are many demonstrations here that some people are incapable of independent thought. I find that sad.

We can talk about specific instances, if you like, instead of these vague and completely useless generalities.

Quote :

MORRIS: If you dive into the weeds a little bit on this global warming thing, you see that it seems that facts are certainly on Huntsman’s side on all of this and fact checkers have come out, we’re actually having our own brain room look look at this right now that any of Perry’s comments don’t seem to hold a lot of water. It doesn’t matter. What’s resonating right now in South Carolina is helping Governor Perry tremendously and he fired back at Huntsman on global warming and gaining traction, facts or not.

Fox News finally admits they're not so interested in reporting facts...

Heretic wrote:

Roy Spencer. Creationist.

Do I even need to bother with this one?

Editor Resigns Over Climate Change Denier's Paper

Quote :

The editor of science journal Remote Sensing is resigning, after admitting that a recent paper by creationist climate change denier Roy Spencer should not have been published.

Spencer’s paper was another one of those “crushing blows” that was supposed to “destroy the hoax of climate change,” to quote one of the gloating right wing emails I received when it was publicized in the denialist blogosphere. Instead, it has damaged the reputation of a respected scientific journal, and caused the resignation of the editor in chief.

Yet somehow, I’m certain that the next time Roy Spencer puts out a paper (in which he’ll ignore all previous criticisms and repeat the same false conclusions from the same spurious data), the same people will run through the same cycle of idiocy again.

It's pretty cut and dry.

Quote :

With this step I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements, e.g., in a press release of The University of Alabama in Huntsville from 27 July 2011 [2], the main author’s personal homepage [3], the story “New NASA data blow gaping hole in global warming alarmism” published by Forbes [4], and the story “Does NASA data show global warming lost in space?” published by Fox News [5], to name just a few. Unfortunately, their campaign apparently was very successful as witnessed by the over 56,000 downloads of the full paper within only one month after its publication. But trying to refute all scientific insights into the global warming phenomenon just based on the comparison of one particular observational satellite data set with model predictions is strictly impossible. Aside from ignoring all the other observational data sets (such as the rapidly shrinking sea ice extent and changes in the flora and fauna) and contrasting theoretical studies, such a simple conclusion simply cannot be drawn considering the complexity of the involved models and satellite measurements.

. . . .

If a paper presents interesting scientific arguments, even if controversial, it should be published and responded to in the open literature. This was my initial response after having become aware of this particular case. So why, after a more careful study of the pro and contra arguments, have I changed my initial view? The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted in open discussions and to some extend also in the literature (cf. [7]), a fact which was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers. In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents. This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal. This regrettably brought me to the decision to resign as Editor-in-Chief―to make clear that the journal Remote Sensing takes the review process very seriously.

Quote :

Peer review and Wagner Resignation over Spencer and Braswell

Wagner mentions one of those non-scientific aspects to the paper -- the public exaggeration of the paper's conclusions by the author himself. What the university press releases and certain media outlets do in exaggerating is pretty much outside the author's control. But Spencer's own exaggerations indicate (my thought) that his purpose was to make those grand claims, rather than to make an incremental improvement to our knowledge of how the universe works. As Wagner mentions, no single paper looking at a single data source, comparing with a single model, is capable of refuting all science on global warming.

A different non-scientific point, endemic to any of Spencer's work, is that he doesn't fundamentally view himself as engaging in science and an effort to understand the universe; he says "I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government." Note that -- his job. There are scientists who pursue political goals, whether to minimize government, or prevent what they think are bad political decisions -- but it's on their own time, as private citizens -- not as their job. The particularly active ones I know have always had a clear distinction between their job and their activities as a private citizen.

With Spencer, though, he views is job as being to achieve a political end. As such, science takes a back seat. This paper of his, then, is less a matter of trying to advance our understanding of the world, and more (as he views it as his job) a matter of trying to achieve a political result. Peer review was not developed for such things, and does not manage them well. When science is not the primary purpose of a paper, that presumption reviewers and editors make that the author has done his due effort at avoiding fooling himself is false.

Meanwhile, creationists are rallying around their new martyr.

'Cause it's all a big scam. Like evolution. :rolfcry:

I really like what Public Citizen has to say about who is behind the debate about whether AGW is occurring. The fossil fuel corporations are acting very much like the cigarette companies did 50 years ago when research linking their products to cancer began to affect their bottom line.

Quote :

http://www.energyvox.org/2) Denying climate change is a business decision.

Those that have lead the effort to cast doubt on the existence of climate change are party to a conscious and calculated strategy to maintain the status quo. Denying climate change is a business decision made by industries that profit from pollution and is carried out by these industries’ political beneficiaries. In fact the seeds of doubt can often be traced directly to those who have the most to lose if carbon emissions were capped. A report by the Union of Concerned Scientists shows that ExxonMobil funded 29 climate change denial groups in 2004 alone and since 1990, the company has spent more than $19 million funding groups that promote their views through publications and Web sites that are not peer reviewed by the scientific community.

In 1991, The New York Times offered a peak behind the climate denial curtain by exposing an internal document drawn up by a consortium of the largest global-warming polluters. It spelled out their principal strategy: “Reposition global warming as theory, rather than fact.”

Corporate polluters are willfully attempting to cover up the threat of manmade climate change, and because of their clout in Congress, no comprehensive climate change legislation has been enacted. In fact, not only have decision-makers failed to pass climate legislation, but a full court press assault has been waged to roll back existing safeguards aimed at protecting the public and environment from corporate polluters.

An analysis undertaken by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.) determined that the Republican-led House has voted to “stop,” “block” or “undermine” efforts to protect the environment 110 times since January.

Interesting article. Full link is here. Wasn't quite workin' above.

Liked this part:

Quote :

3) Blasting environmental protections wasn’t always a GOP litmus test.

GOP presidential hopefuls appear to view past support of climate change-curbing measures as a political liability. With the exception of former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, candidates are back-peddling on any votes or political statements they have made in the past that suggest they agree with environmental protections or restraints on greenhouse gas emissions.

And while some, like Tim Pawlenty, are apologizing for supporting cap-and-trade legislation, others are stepping up their rhetoric against rules designed to curb pollutants. In a June speech, Michele Bachmann pledged to abolish the Environmental Protection Agency. More recently she vowed to lock its doors and turn off the lights, concluding, “It will be a new day and a new sheriff in Washington, D.C.” if she is elected.

Not to be out done, potential candidate Sarah Palin claims to love the smell of emissions.

It hasn’t always been this way. According to recent Time article, the surprising truth is that the extreme political polarization of environmental and energy issues is a relatively recent phenomenon. There have long been prominent conservatives who proudly called themselves conservationists back in the days when Republicans for Environmental Protection – an actual political group, founded in 1995 – wasn’t an oxymoron. Theodore Roosevelt – who has a strong claim as the greenest president in U.S. history – helped create major national parks and launched the U.S. Forest Service. Richard Nixon created the EPA and signed the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. George H.W. Bush signed the landmark 1990 amendment to the Clean Air Act and supported a cap-and-trade program that successfully fought acid rain.

Quote :

A different non-scientific point, endemic to any of Spencer's work, is that he doesn't fundamentally view himself as engaging in science and an effort to understand the universe; he says "I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government."

Wow. How damning is this quote from Spencer? Of course, it's been obvious to me that this is what's been going on all along. I gotta give props to Spencer for finally admitting it. If the rest of the denier community was honest about their motivations, then maybe we could finally have the discussion that we should have had more than a decade ago.

Unfortunately, it's probably way too late to do anything meaningful about climate change now. IMHO, the window of opportunity to act has closed, and billions will die as a result. It's a damn shame, but this is what happens when we let greed and ideology trump science.

Spencer's paper is quickly refuted.

Quote :

Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen

Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, has released a scientific paper (Dessler 2011) that looks at the claims made by two of a small group of "skeptic" climate scientists who regular SkS readers will be familiar with: Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen. Both were co-authors on peer-reviewed papers released this year (Spencer & Braswell [2011] & Lindzen & Choi [2011]) which, once again, sought to overturn the orthodox view of climate. Dessler (2011) finds that the conclusions of these two papers are unsupported by observational data.

The Spencer/Braswell and Lindzen/Choi papers have an unusual take on global warming: rather than warming causing a change in cloud cover (i.e. acting as a feedback to either increase or reduce warming), both papers claim that it's the other way around - changes in cloud cover cause changes in the surface temperature (in the present case, warming).

Spencer/Braswell and Lindzen/Choi look at the relationship between changes in ocean heat, cloud cover (directly affecting the amount of heat lost to space), and global surface temperature over recent decades. The idea is, if the change in surface temperature over that period is affected by changes in cloud cover, but changes of the surface temperature associated with the ocean warming are small, then changes in cloud cover must be driving the present global warming.

Dessler: Putting reality back on its feet
Putting aside the problems with their energy budget equation, Dessler looks at the values Spencer/Braswell and Lindzen/Choi use for their calculations. Rather than examine the data for two of the terms in their equation (heating of the climate by the ocean & change in cloud cover allowing heat to escape to space), Lindzen and Spencer approximate them from other observations, and their results rely heavily on assumptions about the size of these values.

Rather than rely on assumptions, Dessler uses other observational data (such as surface temperature measurements and ARGO ocean temperature) to estimate and corroborate these values. Dessler finds that, in contrast to Spencer/Braswell and Lindzen/Choi, the change in cloud cover is far too small to explain the short-term changes in surface temperature, explaining only a few percent of surface temperature change. In fact, the heating of the climate system through ocean heat transport is approximately 20 times larger than the change in top of the atmosphere (TOA) energy flux due to cloud cover changes. Lindzen and Choi assumed the ratio was close to 2, while Spencer and Braswell assumed it was close to 0.5.

Dessler finds that the short-term changes in surface temperature are related to exchanges of heat to and from the ocean - which tallies well with what we know about El Niño and La Niña, and their atmospheric warming/cooling cycles.

I wrote:

Cue the sad trombone...

Quote :

Critics' review unexpectedly supports scientific consensus on global warming

A team of UC Berkeley physicists and statisticians that set out to challenge the scientific consensus on global warming is finding that its data-crunching effort is producing results nearly identical to those underlying the prevailing view.

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was launched by physics professor Richard Muller, a longtime critic of government-led climate studies, to address what he called "the legitimate concerns" of skeptics who believe that global warming is exaggerated.

But Muller unexpectedly told a congressional hearing last week that the work of the three principal groups that have analyzed the temperature trends underlying climate science is "excellent.... We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups."

The hearing was called by GOP leaders of the House Science & Technology committee, who have expressed doubts about the integrity of climate science. It was one of several inquiries in recent weeks as the Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to curb planet-heating emissions from industrial plants and motor vehicles have come under strenuous attack in Congress.

The GOP hired known (but well credentialed) skeptic Richard Muller to study the statistical integrity of AGW. Much to their dismay, Muller played the part of scientist rather than ideologue and had to admit that his finding had thus far confirmed the work of NASA, NOAA, and every other organization on the planet.

Not like it mattered, though. House Republicans still have no interest in honesty or integrity; none of them were swayed by the evidence or testimony.

Well, the study's finished. Care to guess the results?

Quote :

New independent climate study confirms global warming is real

The study is called the Berkeley Earth Project (BEP), and what they found was stated simply and beautifully in their own two-page summary:

Quote :

Global warming is real, according to a major study released today. Despite issues raised by climate change skeptics, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study finds reliable evidence of a rise in the average world land temperature of approximately 1° C since the mid-1950s.

. . .

Now, we’ve known this for a while. Study after study has shown that the Earth is warming, that the past decade has been the hottest on record, and that the rise in temperature has been about a degree. So what’s the big deal here?

The big deal is that this was an independent team of researchers who conducted the study (including, interestingly, Saul Perlmutter, who just won the Nobel Prize for co-discovering the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe, and knows a thing or two about data analysis), and whose funding was overwhelmingly donated by the private sector and not from any government. The study was initiated by Berkeley physicist Richard Muller, who was concerned that government researchers weren’t being as open as possible with their methods. He gathered together a team of scientists, and they used data from 39,000 temperature stations around the world, far more than the previous studies. They have put all their data and methodology online for anyone to investigate.

And if you’re wondering who these private groups were, they’re listed on the BEP website. The largest single donor? Why, it’s the Koch brothers, über-conservatives who have pumped millions of dollars into climate change denial. I find that… interesting.

Anyone claiming that climate scientists are alarmists only trying to protect their grant money will have to think about that one for a while.

. . .

In the report summary, BEP Executive Director Elizabeth Muller says she hopes the results "will help cool the debate over global warming by addressing many of the valid concerns of the skeptics in a clear and rigorous way."

I strongly suspect they won’t. I do like her use of the word "valid"; so many of the attacks we’ve seen have not been so. There have been legitimate doubts raised scientifically, of course, about various factors that go into the results we’ve seen over the years. It looks like BEP now has those covered.

Still, her thoughts are mirrored by Bob Ward, the policy and communications director for the Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Environment, who said:

Quote :

So-called ‘sceptics’ should now drop their thoroughly discredited claims that the increase in global average temperature could be attributed to the impact of growing cities. [...] It is now time for an apology from all those, including US presidential hopeful Rick Perry, who have made false claims that the evidence for global warming has been faked by climate scientists.

This, of course, will never happen.

Proving, once again, nearly every GOP 2012 Presidential contender is still either a mentally deficient moron or a liar. Or both.

Quote :

Crunch time for carbon sceptics

Australia finally has the price on carbon first proposed by John Howard in 2007. Although passage of the Clean Energy Act by the Senate was little more than a formality, it has already changed the terms of debate.

Every day that passes from now on will put the advocates of denial, delusion and delay in a less and less tenable position. While denouncing mainstream science as ‘alarmist’, this group, has long predicted that a carbon price will bring about an economic disaster. As recently as this July, NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell predicted a ‘carbon catastrophe’, a prediction echoed by rightwing think tanks and commentators.

But now that the carbon price is in place, these predictions will be put to the test. With less than eight months to go before the policy is implemented, anyone who seriously believed these claims should be predicting an immediate collapse in investment, and acting accordingly. But among the postmodernists who pass for conservative thinkers in Australia today, any such notion of intellectual consistency is obsolete and old-fashioned.

Already, those who once predicted economic disaster are walking those predictions back. Tony Abbott’s website, for example, states that ‘On the Government’s own figures, three million Australian households will be worse off under the carbon tax.’ Since Abbott doesn’t challenge those figures, he presumably accepts the corollary that the other 5 million households will be better off. Abbott has to fall back on the rather desperate claim that ‘while the tax will increase in the future, the compensation won’t’, a claim that does not suggest much confidence in his own electoral prospects.

Meanwhile, the scientific evidence continues to mount up. A striking recent example was the publication of a report by a team led by one of the few serious scientists sceptical of the mainstream view, Richard Muller. With strong support from other self-described ‘sceptics’, Muller and his team undertook a reanalysis of climate data using 1.6 billion measurements from more than 39,000 temperature stations. Somewhat to his surprise, his results were an almost perfect match for those already reported by climate scientists.

The reaction of the ‘sceptics’ was revealing. Without exception, they rushed to denounce Muller. Clearly the term ‘sceptic’ is inappropriate here. These are ‘true disbelievers’, who will never be convinced by evidence of any kind.