Science denialism: The problem that just won’t go away

If you're asking about the graph that PatriotNews thinks is fake, you'll find it here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2546427

 

So you admit that (a) a study was done; and (b) they came up with 97%. Which is what Hoosier was claiming did not exist. So you and I agree that Hoosier was wrong. Gotcha.

You can start with these:

Caballero, Rodrigo, and Matthew Huber. "State-dependent climate sensitivity in past warm climates and its implications for future climate projections." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110.35 (2013): 14162-14167.
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/35/14162.full?sid=17c9402c-1363-40c8-9f14-48c207ac1d45
"fast-feedback sensitivity in the present model is strongly nonuniform, increasing rapidly at high temperatures" This quote doesn't do this paper justice. Basically, once global mean temps hit 23 C, sensitivity increases rapidly and all bets are off. Recent measurements of paleogene proxies indicate much warmer temps back then, 13C higher than today, and this seems to be why. Civilization obviously would not survive.

Meraner, Katharina, Thorsten Mauritsen, and Aiko Voigt. "Robust increase in equilibrium climate sensitivity under global warming." Geophysical Research Letters 40.22 (2013): 5944-5948.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL058118/full
Found sensitivity of 2.79 K for CO2 doubling, and much higher sensitivities as temps increase.

Sherwood, Steven C., Sandrine Bony, and Jean-Louis Dufresne. "Spread in model climate sensitivity traced to atmospheric convective mixing." Nature 505.7481 (2014): 37-42.
http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate change/Climate model results/Sherwood 3c from mixing.pdf
"The mixing inferred from observations appears to be sufficiently strong to imply a climate sensitivity of more than 3 degrees for a doubling of carbon dioxide. This is significantly higher than the currently accepted lower bound of 1.5 degrees, thereby constraining model projections towards relatively severe future warming."

Hansen, James, et al. "Climate sensitivity, sea level and atmospheric carbon dioxide." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 371.2001 (2013): 20120294.
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/2001/20120294
"Glacial-to-interglacial climate change leading to the prior (Eemian) interglacial is less ambiguous and implies a sensitivity in the upper part of the above range, i.e. 3–4°C for a 4Wm-2 CO2 forcing."

Armour, Kyle C., Cecilia M. Bitz, and Gerard H. Roe. "Time-varying climate sensitivity from regional feedbacks." Journal of Climate 26.13 (2013): 4518-4534.
http://dspace.mit.edu/openaccess-disseminate/1721.1/87780
"We estimate R[sub]2x[/sub] = 3.03 W m[sup]-2[/sup] within CCSM4 based on radiative kernels (see appendix A) and use this value throughout the analysis."

Zeebe, Richard E. "Time-dependent climate sensitivity and the legacy of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110.34 (2013): 13739-13744.
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/34/13739.full
"The sum of the fast-feedback parameters is 1.97 W·m-2·K-1, yielding a fast-feedback sensitivity of 3.0 K per CO2 doubling"

Mauritsen, Thorsten, et al. "Climate feedback efficiency and synergy." Climate Dynamics 41.9-10 (2013): 2539-2554.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-013-1808-7/fulltext.html
"Summing the four partial temperature contributions we obtain a global climate sensitivity of 2.93 K"

Martínez-Botí, M. A., et al. "Plio-Pleistocene climate sensitivity evaluated using high-resolution CO2 records." Nature 518.7537 (2015): 49-54.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v518/n7537/abs/nature14145.html
"predictions of equilibrium climate sensitivity (excluding long-term ice-albedo feedbacks) for our Pliocene-like future (with CO2 levels up to maximum Pliocene levels of 450 parts per million) are well described by the currently accepted range of an increase of 1.5 K to 4.5 K per doubling of CO2."

Chen, XiaoLong, TianJun Zhou, and Zhun Guo. "Climate sensitivities of two versions of FGOALS model to idealized radiative forcing." Science China Earth Sciences 57.6 (2014): 1363-1373.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11430-013-4692-4
"The climate sensitivity, defined as the equilibrium temperature change under doubled CO2 forcing, is about 3.7 K in FGOALS-g2 and 4.5 K in FGOALS-s2."

Brady, Esther C., et al. "Sensitivity to glacial forcing in the CCSM4." Journal of Climate 26.6 (2013): 1901-1925.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00416.1
"The LGM simulation has an equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) of 3.1(±0.3)°C, comparable to the CCSM4 4×CO2 result. The LGMCO2 simulation shows a greater ECS of 4.2°C."

Li, Chao, Jin-Song von Storch, and Jochem Marotzke. "Deep-ocean heat uptake and equilibrium climate response." Climate dynamics 40.5-6 (2013): 1071-1086.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-012-1350-z
"We integrate the coupled climate model ECHAM5/MPIOM to equilibrium under atmospheric CO2 quadrupling. The equilibrium global-mean surface-temperature change is 10.8 K. " Because if you can throw around unbelievably low numbers, I can certainly throw around unbelievably high ones.

 

Where's your graph? Is it not a fact that we have been warming since the Little Ice Age?

 

Everyone agrees the Earth has been warming since the Little Ice Age.

I think we disagree on how many SUV's they were driving back then that made it happen.

 

No, that was me, and I was claiming that there is no scientific survey of climatologists which says 97% of them agree on AGW.
You provided a link to a study as proof that I was wrong.

Fail.

 

I don't see you criticizing the hockey stick graph because it came from a farm3.staticflickr.com website???

 

That would be the graph Poor Debater posted earlier.

Yes, but do you realize the Little Ice Age ended around 1850 when humans began producing significant amounts of atmospheric CO2?

Another graph from Hubert Lamb circa 1965. It's like you don't believe we have learned anything new in the last 50 years. How about something a little more recent.

 

Hey, I believe in wise management of the earths resources, and treating the earth with great respect. I am just not an alarmist when it come to the natural gas of life called co2. That we refuse to actually address the co2 issue with land management as Freeman Dyson suggested, shows that this co2 deal is just being used to redistribute wealth. Co2 isn't the dooms day gas that so many believe it is. Not at a few hundred parts per million. As you will find out, if you are a young person, and live another 50 years. I would bet good money on that, but I am too old, for I will not be here when the judge bangs down his mallet.

 

How many SUV's do you think it would take to equal this?

 

That's probably because the graph from Flickr properly attributed it's source.

 

And the Parthenon burns for the fifth time.

 

You clearly did not understand post 339.

 

Doesn't meet the criteria I set out. they are not ground up sensitivity studies. They use existing sensitivity to start with.

If I'm wrong, point the one out, and paragraph.

 

Sorry, but waving your magic wand and having water molecules pop into existence is not a natural process. In fact, it's hard to imagine a process less natural than the miracle you assume. You might call it unnatural. Or even supernatural. But certainly not natural.

In the natural world, water molecules have to come from somewhere.

Everybody is entitled to their own opinions, but nobody is entitled to their own facts. If you have evidence that sea levels are not rising, present it. Otherwise, let's all stay on planet Earth take the data as given.

You have an income, Rev. Does that make your opinion automatic crapola? I would say it does indeed compared to a university professor, who has received tenure precisely for that very reason -- to enable him to speak his mind without the danger of income loss hanging over his head. I bet you don't have that guarantee. If anything, a salaried position makes a climate scientist less likely to be an alarmist than anything. Dr. James Hansen, a top world-class climatologist, recently quit his job as Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Sciences, for precisely that reason: so he could speak out more forcefully on the dangers of climate change, without the Senators from Denierstan cramping his style.

Complete and utter nonsense. Scientists themselves who have gone against the grain on climate science have said so, publicly: they can get published, they can get grants, they can be taken seriously.

Any scientist can oppose anything, as long as there is a valid scientific reason for doing so. The problem is that guys like you think science is run like an opinion poll. It's not. If you want to oppose something, your reasoning has to make sense scientifically, otherwise you're going to get laughed out of the room. The reason there aren't any scientists who say AGW isn't happening is because all the evidence say that it is, and you simply can't deny evidence for political reasons if you want to be taken seriously as a scientist.

I did many of them myself, but the data sources are given at the bottom. If you tell me specifically the datasets you're interested in, I can give you links.

Methane is stronger than CO2 on a molecule-by-molecule basis, but there is so little methane in the air that its overall effect is much smaller. Water vapor stays in the air for far too short a time to cause climate change. Which leaves CO2 as the main driver of climate change.

During the paleogene, non-tropical temps in continental interiors were 10°-40°C (18 to 72° F) hotter back then. I don't think anyone would claim that is livable today.

They do fluctuate, but slowly. The problem is we are driving climate change far faster than many species can evolve and adapt to it. Since we depend on the natural world and the biosphere for everything we eat, that's a very bad place to be doing irreversible experiments.

Climate change does occur naturally, but the change we're seeing now is one we caused. And it's happening very, very rapidly. The fastest climate change in the geological record has happened coming out of an ice age, when global temps were changing at a rate of about .15 to .2 degrees per century. The climate change that we're causing right now is ten times faster than that.

Earlier, you were urging us all to follow the money. So now we have a very narrow survey confined to petroleum engineers working for the oil industry -- not one of whom is a climatologist (and in fact, 84% of whom were not scientists of any kind -- in spite of the misleading headline). Can you follow the money for us on this one, Rev? Where do you think these guys are gonna come down?

I'd like to post a list of scientists supporting the consensus view, but there would be about 10,000 names on it, vastly outstripping the size of your list.

 

Nice diversion!

 

Redistribution of wealth? The entire industrial revolution has been one of new technologies replacing old ones. The current situation is no different. And every age has had its deniers. For Galileo and others in his time, it was the Catholic church. Today, it is climate change deniers and creationists (and yes I do lump them together because they are both conservative movements denying the facts that science discovers using the exact same logical fallacies). And no sir, I am not young. I've been around for quite some time now, and have a lot of experience and education wrt to science. AGW is real, and CO2 emissions (all 30+ billion tons emitted each year) are the culprits. And while it may be true that you won't be around when its effects (which are already being experienced across the globe) are felt in earnest, the rest of humanity will be around. Is this the legacy you wish for your children, and their children?

 

Sorry I missed this earlier. But yes, you are wrong. I have no idea how you define a "ground up" sensitivity study, but I would say any study where one of the primary results is sensitivity qualifies. So Caballero et al. qualifies, and Meraner et al., and Hansen et al., Armour et al,, Zeebe, Martinez-Boti et al,, Chen et al., Brady et al., and Li et. al. You are also wrong that they use sensitivity to start with. Sensitvity is not an input parameter in current climate models. It is a derived output, and in fact determining sensitivity is one of the most important reasons we build climate models in the first place.

 

Read them, you will find they use past studies numbers for to derive their sensitivity from.

 

And no quotes to support that claim? Why am I not surprised? The denizens of Denierstan will go to any lengths to ignore data they find inconveniently intrudes on their unshakable confidence in FOX News. Ignorance is their stock in trade.

 

I would have to quote you the entire studies to show it doesn't calculate sensitivity from scratch.

How about showing me where I am wrong instead?

 

No you wouldn't. You would just have to show me the place where they take sensitivity from some other reference. If you're right, there should be a footnote. In fact, I've already quoted for you, in the previous post, the places where they say they derived sensitivity on their own. Apparently you were too busy to read that. So the ball's in your court.

 

Because it is your claim therefore it is up to you to verify it

PB has done a wonderful job of citing authors of papers that fit the criteria - there were numerous now show how they fit your claim

 

I have posted my "source of data that confirms what you are claiming too many times and tired of doing it over and over. the non-governmental, non paid fscientific researchers on global warming have responded to the IPCC's research reports consistently, the Scientists on the NIPCC are just as educated, respected in the scientific community as those on the IPCC. These Scientists research disproves the claims made the IPCC.

At this time, there is no scientific proof but only many hypothesis's on whether we are warming or still cooling and what will happen within the next 1 or 2 decades. You must read evidence reported by both sides. And, also only a hypothesis as to whether or not the entire world population reducing the use of fossil fuel will have a significant effect on altering the "natural climate cycle". The cost to economies will be massive while no proof exists that we can alter the temperature more than less of 1 degree in the next 100 years. IMO what we are currently experiencing is cooling not warming. While I believe the overall climate may be shifting from one place to another. Don't forget that at one time N.Y. was covered by a Glacier. Perhaps the northern most locations of the Earth are warming while the north east locations are cooling. I have no proof, call it a hypothesis that one could seek to prove or disprove. Just as scientists studying our current climate are doing.

Anyone with a brain or a B.S. in Biology, Environmental Science and the like would have to agree the Climate is Changing. Why? Because historical facts reveal that the climate is always changing due to the Sun flares, position of the Earth, magnetic field, volcanic eruptions just to name a few natural causes that humans have no control over.

 

I've already done that with several studies. I could show you, and I'm pretty sure you still wouldn't believe me, so why waste my time? Some things must be experienced first-hand.

I dare you to validate what you believe.

 

Oh yeah, the old secret evidence trick. Joe McCarthy and his list of commies in the State Department. Pretty much anything in Scientology. And the dog that ate your homework. Yeah, you're right. Evidence is pretty much a waste of time when your religious belief has nothing whatever to do with evidence. It's all faith-based worship of the FOX god.

That's a hoot. The guy who claims to have secret evidence dares someone else to validate something.

Denier FAIL.