Re: More proof that global warming is a hoax ...

Dr. Dweeb wrote:
Bill Todd wrote:
Dr. Dweeb wrote:
Bill Todd wrote:
Dr. Dweeb wrote:
Bill Todd wrote:
Dr. Dweeb wrote:

...

Heck, they can't even explain precisely why electrical currents
occur in a generator.
No, but they have an *excellent* record of being able not only
to predict them but to use these predictions to make significant
improvements.
Unlike climatologists, who are batting 0 for 14, or worse.
I consider it rather unlikely that you have any clue whatsoever
what they are batting - it certainly sounds as if you are merely
regurgitating the most recent specific result that you heard
about. But by all means feel free to come up with the kind of
comprehensive review of climatological predictions that could
justify that rather sweeping generalization: demonstrating that
kind of discipline would be a unique event for your side of the
discussion.
Why don't you just come up with one?
Because I'm not the one disputing the widely-accepted scientific
conclusions drawn from these studies and offering up completely
unsupported conspiracy theories about why that high level of
acceptance should be discounted.

I have not been able to find one reference suggesting that any
current models are able to predict the present from the known past. There are plenty of scientists observing this fact. Some of my
previous references contain such observations.
So, yet again, instead of coming up with actual data to support your
generalization above, all you trot out are equally-nebulous
generalizations from other sources which you choose to find credible.

I referred to previous references made in this thread, and made the observation that I had found none suggesting that any significant predictability (ie. concordance with empirical evidence).

It seems that you think that the sum of the (rather questionable) references in this thread constitutes a sufficiently-broad sample of climatological research upon which to base broad generalizations. Guess again.

....

of course, retraction if you're unwilling to step up to the plate and
provide some).
Don't you get tired of (in fact, I'd be downright embarrassed by)
writing content-free posts and studiously ignoring direct challenges
to provide something better?

This one is pretty thorough at debunking AIT - which is, after all is said and done the most obvious popular mouthpiece of your position at this time.

I haven't seen (or read) AIT, and its accuracy or lack thereof is not at issue here: the underlying science is.


http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/skepticguide.pdf

You're happy enough to impugn the motives of legitimate researchers whom you know nothing about (save that you find the results of their research inconvenient), yet when pressed to provide some actual data of your own you offer up the work of a professional spinner (not a climate scientist at all) whose job it is to write papers that support the vested interests (the energy industry and right wingnuts like Scaife) who fund his employer. Either you have no shame, or you're a complete and utter moron.

As I observed above, it's not AIT that's relevant here but the underlying science that caused it to be made (and since I've never seen a popular science program on a subject I knew much about whose presentation I couldn't pick significant holes in, it doesn't surprise me that the same may be true of AIT). Lewis does a decent job of picking in some areas, less so in others (e.g., in discussing glacier activity at Glacier National Park he fails to note that it quite closely follows global temperature activity - right down to the 35-year anomaly between about 1940 and 1975, which he fails to notice in similar behavior in Alaska in his following discussion, and then again in discussing hurricane frequency and severity on page 32, and again in discussing variations in arctic temperature around pages 45-47...). And like so many others of his ilk he conveniently ignores (even actively contradicts) the fact that significant human CO2 release has been going on for hundreds of years (and that the build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere has followed this closely).

He's also not above a bit of sleight-of-hand himself, as in his incompetent (or deliberately misleading) use of Hu's *Alaska-specific* temperature results in an apparent attempt to cast doubt upon the fact that the *average global* temperature today is indeed higher than at any time during the past two millennia (and showing every indication of continuing to increase rapidly). Of course, CO2Science.org is itself hardly an unbiased organization, so Lewis's frequent use of it as a source is about as unsurprising as your use of him. He then does the same kind of thing later on using historical temperatures in the Andes: do you really suppose that he doesn't understand full well that *local average* temperatures can vary a lot more widely than *global average* temperatures do - and that a lot of his readers will be too ignorant (or inattentive) to notice the difference?

And he talks about the Little Ice Age as if there had been a clear end to it which explains much of the supposedly 'natural' warming trend since then - rather than recognizing (as did the other and far more legitimate paper that you recently offered up for examination) that there's no particular reason to believe that the Little Ice Age has ended *yet* (hence all the warming since 1800 or so could well be the result of accumulating CO2 in the atmosphere - as indeed measurements indicate it has been doing since then).

He's certainly not above embracing the idea of anthropogenic global warming when it suits his purposes, though - as when he talks about the perils of advancing glaciers and appeals to the argument that, absent anthropogenic global warming (which he seems to accept as established fact at that point - indeed, on page 81 he calls global warming "a fact", and the context makes it clear that he's talking about anthropogenic GW there), we'd be threatened by something resembling a return to an ice age. I'll happily agree with him on this point, since it is consistent with the idea that we may never have exited the Little Ice Age and may only be seeing temperature amelioration due to anthropogenic GW. The problem is that we don't get to bask in the current climate: our ever-increasing releases of fossil carbon into the atmosphere (or even merely continuing releases at current rates, or anything approaching them) will quickly increase global temperatures *beyond* the comfortable level that Lewis gives them credit for today into decidedly *uncomfortable* territory (in terms of the effect on weather, sea level, grain belts, etc.).

Lewis attempts to get around this rather glaring inconsistency in his argument by characterizing GW believers not as people seriously concerned about where we are *taking* our climate but (this is beginning to sound familiar) as Luddites whose sole motivation is the belief that Man Was Not Meant To *** Around With God's Weather (i.e., people vigorously opposed to the idea that *so far* screwing around with the climate hasn't been such a bad thing at all).

I (and most GW believer I know) would have no problem at all embracing the idea that absent our historical carbon emissions we might be in worse shape today than we are: today isn't where the problems lie, they lie in *continuing along the same trend line*. Any actions we can realistically take today to limit this *overshoot* won't result in actual temperature declines for at least a century - by which time we should have a far better understanding of what effects our actions have and a far greater ability to tweak climate to be precisely what we want it to be.

Lewis again accepts without qualification the reality of anthropogenic GW due to CO2 emissions immediately thereafter while talking about potential water shortages in Asia. I'm afraid that in your enthusiasm for seeing him debunk AIT (about which, as I already noted, I have no basis for an opinion) you overlooked his own rather enthusiastic embrace of the theory which you have been so anxious to throw doubt upon: he seems to have little doubt that anthropogenic GW is occurring, only about whether that's a good thing for the future. He does state later that it's not clear that CO2 levels cause transitions between glacial and inter-glacial periods rather than the reverse, but clearly differentiates that from the question of whether they cause temperature fluctuations. He also gives passing kudos to climate models at the top of page 25 for their accuracy in predicting average global temperature rise over the past three decades based on CO2 buildup (and at several later points he appears to consider climate-modeling to be quite credible).

The later portions of his paper wander farther afield into the past and/or into specific details about the suggested *consequences* of GW in the AIT presentation - which given the purpose of the paper is entirely reasonable but of decreasing relevance to the question of what medium-term (order of a century or two) temperature effects may be occurring *now*. He does go completely off the rails in his "Hey, we've got it - we should be *proud* that we're using it!" defense of rape-the-environment levels of fossil fuel consumption and CO2 release in the U.S. compared with the rest of the world, but that's a natural consequence of his attitude that anthropogenic GW, while real, is not worth worrying about (not that he has provided any solid support for this attitude, mind you: taking on a popularized presentation like AIT is like dynamiting fish in a barrel - what's needed now is the same kind of detailed response to *his* paper before non-experts can make a reasonable evaluation of the two positions). And he confirms his status as a certifiable right wingnut several times in the pages which follow that (none of which are worth addressing in detail: other wingnuts won't see anything wrong with his drivel, and everyone else needs no introduction to it).

In sum, Lewis

a) attempts to debunk a lot of specific allegations in AIT (sometimes apparently competently, though without being familiar with the AIT presentation it's difficult to be certain),

b) appears to believe without qualification that anthropogenic CO2 releases are causing global temperature rise, though thinks the rise will likely be closer to the lower rather than the higher end of estimates,

c) questions the degree to (and specifics by) which this temperature rise may cause changes that could seriously destabilize our way of life, though his cavalier dismissal ("If our Stone Age ancestors survived that “disaster,” also known as the Holocene Climate Optimum, why should we be worried?") leaves me in some doubt of his awareness of just how disruptive more abrupt climate change can be to a society that, e.g., is more tightly bound to its cities, farms, etc.,

d) states clearly that "Since hurricanes are heat engines, it is likely that global warming will increase the number, strength, and/or formation area of hurricanes to some extent" (just to highlight another idea which GW non-believers tend to dispute - though questioning just *how important* increased activity and strength will be remains legitimate), and

e) appears to have a fair amount of respect for the predictive ability of climate models in some - though not all - areas (yet another idea you and you ilk have been disparaging).

I find your enthusiasm for such a presentation a bit puzzling, unless you simply didn't (yet again) understand what you read. Apparently even the energy industry and its neocon adherents have abandoned the pretext that anthropogenic GW is anything but extremely credible, and are now concentrating on convincing people that while it's real, it's really nothing to worry about as long as they can raise sufficient doubts about the *severity* of its consequences. I guess you and your friends didn't get the memo about the change in party line: vested interests tend to be quick on their feet when the ground shifts out from under them - if one version of 'truth' ceases to be productive, they're quick to create another.

- bill
.