Global Warming

[Tristam]

No, you just extended a definition to fit your ideology.

@Trist: It means to me that it's inconclusive.

What's inconclusive? His model? The IPCC model? What part of the IPCC model? What is the data that shows the IPCC model is inconclusive? How can you throw up a not-quite-press-release but not-quite-journal-article and have no understanding of what is actual empirical data, what is part of the model, what is data GENERATED by the model, and how the empirical data agrees (or disagrees) with that model.

The only reason I'm calling you out on this is because you posted it, I don't expect everyone to understand the difference between model-dependent projections and empirical data, but if you're going to cite something as evidence to DISCREDIT a model, you sure as shit better be able to back it up.

So let's get a bit more specific

Spencer's model makes a number of key assumptions

1. Natural cloud cover oscillations are poorly understood in relation to climate change (this is true)

2. The IPCC overestimates CO2 sensitivity (probably not true)

3. HIS EARLIER MODELS AND OTHERS HE CHOSE AND THOSE ALONE ARE CORRECT IN THEIR ESTIMATIONS OF VARIOUS SENSITIVITIES (this should be a gigantic red flag)

I don't agree with all of these, but he has every right to collect data and present it with the model he so chooses. Let it be known however that presenting data and a model does not automatically mean you're right, and despite his not having published this data yet, I'll assume his data and model are reasonable. (side-note, I bet you a million dollars the literature in the paper he submits is quite different than what is on that site, the article on that site is written at an undergraduate level).

What happens next is that his paper will be subject to public scrutiny, scientists don't surf the web looking for new articles on some denialist blog, we read journals. In the end, his model will either be supported, tossed aside, or modified as new data arises. Putting graphs and tecnique-specific jargon on a personal website is not a suitable method for public dissection of the data, read any scientific press release from a university or news and views journal article to see how this should be done (I'm still assuming his data are legit, I'm in no position to judge that).

key questions:
1. Does Spencer's cloud cover model assume that CO2 is an important component of the greenhouse effect? HUGE YES! His model necessarily includes CO2 dependent warming or it wouldn't be anywhere close to reasonable.

2. Did Spencer show how his model agrees with EMPIRICAL data? IT DOSENT AFTER 1995, so he's missing something quite significant, which of course he dosen't point out. He relies on the average denialist not knowing their shit.

3. Does he make opinion-based statements? YES and they're in poor taste, Al Gore is not a scientist, he's a spokesperson, if you're making ad-hom attacks in scientific literature, you're not being objective in the least.

IN CONCLUSION: His paper presents a NEW model that is DEPENDENT on his OLD model with a new variable. If you're a scientist, this is like saying "my model dependent data agrees with the parameters of the model itself".

another note: New data from multiple labs has shown that cloud cover is even more sensitive to CO2 than estimated by IPCC, I highly doubt Spencer's model incorporated those findings.

edit #2: I'm looking at his figure 2 again and I'm having a very hard time reconciling his model with empirical data post 1980, this really should be obvious.

[Tristam]

There is as much evidence of global cooling as there is global warming. At this current time there is no possible way in order to definately determine which will occur or when.

At any rate, nothing planet-destroying will happen within our lifetimes, or our children's lifetimes. And I don't know about you guys, but I don't care what happens after my theoretical children's lives.

This myth again? Really?

This is why I hate science by press release (I'm looking at you Vytorin). In the 70's or so, there were competing models for the effects of aerosol-based cooling and surface albedo vs. greenhouse gas global warming. The question was not "will there be a new ice age?" it was "What manmade effects will dominate the future climate?" If the sensitivity to aerosol-cooling was greater than greenhouse warming, then what you said would be true. But when some hack journalists think they understand a scientific debate and spew garbage, public misunderstanding (and mistrust) of science abounds (hi2u intelligent design).

In the past four decades, it has become very very very apparent that man-made greenhouse warming has a much greater influence than man-made aerosol cooling. The cooling model no longer fits the data, so it is discarded, or rather I should say incorporated into more sophisticated models that take into account negative feedbacks.

[Metah]

My experience with Earth Sciences is limited, but I do think I have a fair understanding of it from the various classes I've taken on it.

I guess my post was a bit confusing since I was just trying to push out a response and get back to other stuff, lol. Climate change is very real and a huge threat to anything living on this planet. Humans are affecting the rate of climate change. Exactly -how much- is up to debate, but regardless, the Earth will either undergo another extreme decrease (ice age) or increase in temperature, basically destroying most life as we know it. The Earth has done this many times already. It is a natural process, but humans are augmenting the speed.

That being said, it has been quite a while since such an extreme temperature was present, but we draw closer to going back to extreme climate every day (even faster due to our current population and the resources they use that contribute to climate change). However, humans are not in any danger for at least a while of being destroyed by climate change. Not in our lifetime, our children's lifetime, our grandchildren's lifetime, heck, we're probably good for at least a few thousand years.

Hey, at least there's good news. After a couple million years, the Earth will reset its climate and atmosphere, geosphere and hydrosphere and whatever creatures are living then will be fine.

[Correction]

Tristam is trying harder than anyone before him to edumacate the swamp.

In before the swamp redefines half the words in the scientific jargon regarding climate change and hand-waves anything 'inconclusive' as supporting his cockamamie ideology?

[Tristam]

Tristam is trying harder than anyone before him to edumacate the swamp.

In before the swamp redefines half the words in the scientific jargon regarding climate change and hand-waves anything 'inconclusive' as supporting his cockamamie ideology?

It's not so much that I'm trying to educate the swamp, I think there's alot of misinformation out there and it shouldn't be necessary for everyone on the internet to have a college-level education of climate science. But when someone posts something like this and says "it's inconclusive" then that's an insult to scientists everywhere, and if someone goes to that site and can't appropriately judge the model and how it relates to the actual data, then it becomes misleading and thus a severe educational issue.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

He has links to peer reviewed stuff on his site there. And I wish I could debate you, I guess I'll have something to do between classes.

[Aerin]

That being said, it has been quite a while since such an extreme temperature was present, but we draw closer to going back to extreme climate every day (even faster due to our current population and the resources they use that contribute to climate change). However, humans are not in any danger for at least a while of being destroyed by climate change. Not in our lifetime, our children's lifetime, our grandchildren's lifetime, heck, we're probably good for at least a few thousand years.

Once again, it's not JUST the change in climate that affects us. It's about how it indirectly affects us, and I already posted how it does that.

[Tristam]

He has links to peer reviewed stuff on his site there. And I wish I could debate you, I guess I'll have something to do between classes.

You're not debating me, you're just saying "nuh uh" I figure you're a lost cause, I'm more worried about the people who go to that site and draw conclusions from a model that at best is a very small part of the whole story.

And citations are just that, citations, they're not little bits of fact that support your story. It's common to cite opposing work/models, so what's your point? Do you want to argue all of his other papers now? If your citations completely back your story, what's the point of writing a new story?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

You're not debating me, you're just saying "nuh uh" I figure you're a lost cause, I'm more worried about the people who go to that site and draw conclusions from a model that at best is a very small part of the whole story.

And citations are just that, citations, they're not little bits of fact that support your story. It's common to cite opposing work/models, so what's your point? Do you want to argue all of his other papers now? If your citations completely back your story, what's the point of writing a new story?

I forgot to say "his peer reviewed stuff", my bad. And how did I say "nuh uh"? I said I have something to do b/w classes now.

[Tristam]

I forgot to say "his peer reviewed stuff", my bad. And how did I say "nuh uh"? I said I have something to do b/w classes now.

Again, for at least the third time, an accepted peer-reviewed submission does not mean you are automatically correct. It means you have data, you have a model, and you're opening it up for debate. If you look at older journals in almost every discipline, you will run into models that are completely incorrect, models that have been adjusted over time, and very rarely you get something that is a completely accurate description of the system you're working on (but this still usually takes decades to verify).

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Again, for at least the third time, an accepted peer-reviewed submission does not mean you are automatically correct. It means you have data, you have a model, and you're opening it up for debate. If you look at older journals in almost every discipline, you will run into models that are completely incorrect, models that have been adjusted over time, and very rarely you get something that is a completely accurate description of the system you're working on (but this still usually takes decades to verify).

I never said it was automatically correct, I was responding to your point that he wasn't peer reviewed. If you can't understand that, how the hell you can you understand all the stuff on his site?

[Metah]

Once again, it's not JUST the change in climate that affects us. It's about how it indirectly affects us, and I already posted how it does that.

That's true, but does it seriously matter? Even if it affects us a few centuries from now, no one you know or love will be alive anymore. Sure, it might be selfish to say that, but I'd rather focus on my own happiness than some people I don't know in the future. Hell, you do the same thing even today, to people who are alive and suffering now!

[Tristam]

I never said it was automatically correct, I was responding to your point that he wasn't peer reviewed. If you can't understand that, how the hell you can you understand all the stuff on his site?

Then what's your point? I assumed in my analysis that his data was legit and that his data and model would pass peer review, and I think that's being generous. If you think I didn't understand something, point it out.

[Jer]

So after a while, I couldn't stay away.

While he may not have linked the most reasonable example, I find it unreasonable to discount what he may say because he may support intelligent design. If an idiot tells me that people can fly in metal boxes, it does not make it false. Intelligent design is the poor attempt some people use to try and move creationism into the field of science. (I'm not defending the idea at all. I'm just saying that there are otherwise intelligent people in the world who choose to believe an invisible somebody who watches over them, can read their hearts and minds, and most of all loves them; but will still send them to Hell in a heartbeat.)

Anyway, I was going through some of the papers we had to do in college about the subject (Global Warming, not ID) and most of it is from 2004 or earlier which automatically nullifies it in the view of some. At the same time I've been trying to weed out the ones similar to the one Swamp posted, so people would at least look at them. The pile is smaller, but not inconsiderable. However, I thought I would run a source or two by you and see how you felt about it before bothering. What do you think of the APS (American Physical Society)? Crackpot bunch?

[Tristam]

So after a while, I couldn't stay away.

While he may not have linked the most reasonable example, I find it unreasonable to discount what he may say because he may support intelligent design. If an idiot tells me that people can fly in metal boxes, it does not make it false. Intelligent design is the poor attempt some people use to try and move creationism into the field of science. (I'm not defending the idea at all. I'm just saying that there are otherwise intelligent people in the world who choose to believe an invisible somebody who watches over them, can read their hearts and minds, and most of all loves them; but will still send them to Hell in a heartbeat.)

Anyway, I was going through some of the papers we had to do in college about the subject (Global Warming, not ID) and most of it is from 2004 or earlier which automatically nullifies it in the view of some. At the same time I've been trying to weed out the ones similar to the one Swamp posted, so people would at least look at them. The pile is smaller, but not inconsiderable. However, I thought I would run a source or two by you and see how you felt about it before bothering. What do you think of the APS (American Physical Society)? Crackpot bunch?

I know where you're going with this, you're gonna talk about the Monckton paper right? Much better people than I have written at length about that and I'll be happy to direct you to them.

[zoobernut]

People who deny the natural warming and cooling trends in the Earth's global climate (hi multiple ice ages) look just as retarded as people who deny that humans have any effect on global climate change.

[Jer]

That answers that question lol. There were quite a few rebuttals as well, which I could also direct you to. Back to combing through the archives.

Edit: If you were referring to the Smith or Schimdt papers. Others I would have to search.

[Blarg]

People who deny the natural warming and cooling trends in the Earth's global climate (hi multiple ice ages) look just as retarded as people who deny that humans have any effect on global climate change.

Who here is denying natural warming and cooling trends exist?

[Tristam]

That answers that question lol. There were quite a few rebuttals as well, which I could also direct you to. Back to combing through the archives.

Edit: If you were referring to the Smith or Schimdt papers. Others I would have to search.

Yeah the thing about that was the APS was actively trying to stir the pot so to speak. But when Monckton couldn't distinguish between editorial review and peer review, things went bonkers. He claimed his paper passed peer review so his data was legitimate, when in fact it was only reviewed by the editorial board (for things like spelling errors and such). When legit challenges to his data and methods were raised, his ego went crazy and he became more obsessed with his version of "peer review" and what it meant to him. Really backfired on the APS.

edit: Smith or Schmidt? Were they rebuttals to Monckton or are we talking about something different, sorry lol.

[zoobernut]

I was referring to Tristams second post on the page but I went back and re-read it and realized that was not what he was referring to. But it still is a valid point just doesn't apply to anyone here directly.