Lindzen got his @$$ kicked!

[_Water Dog]

With all that "strong" negative feedback one has to wonder how it is that the earth ever entered a snowball earth phase or had been warmer than today eh? What you are ignoring is the rate at which these changes took place and evolution's ability to keep up. Well some life forms will likely survive if Lindzen et al is wrong right? Just like during the Permian extinction event. At least the Extremophiles.

That's a terribly weak answer. It isn't an answer at all. Questions pertaining to the earth system are independent from organic life's ability to adapt to whatever environment the earth provides. I'm asking a question about warming, and you're answering it with something about potential biological catastrophe. A separate matter, and which also supposes current changes are happening at a rate that life cannot keep up with, which for-sure hasn't been established. Moreover, entertaining that line of thought, look at the historical data. The climate has experience huge and sudden changes, and life has survived them. Alarmist arguments, taking the most dire IPCC doom, also doesn't argue the type of rapid change you're talking about. They do not claim we're on the verge of extinction.

[_Themis]

Something I'd love the alarmists to answer. I have no idea if these arguments are sound or not, but what's the answer to them? All this talk about chart gimmicks and such. Why do alarmists plot from 1979? Instead of Earlier? Why 19th century instead of hundreds of thousands and even millions of years earlier? These historical datasets that say we're actually in a period of historically low CO2 levels, are they wrong? Were CO2 concentrations in the thousands when dinosaurs walked the earth? Have ecological extension events been tied to low CO2 levels?

It is expected that when one post graphs and such they link the source so others can look at them. CO2 levels millions of years ago is not relevant and the sun's output was lower the further back we go.

[Guest]

But again, this is like RI's hackneyed argument that only a prophet can speak out against a prophet.

This, of course, is simply a lie. I've never made an argument of that form. In fact, the last time Dog said this, I believe I tagged it as the logical fallacy of false analogy. No climate scientist claims an omniscient being as the source of the scientific literature. The source that I rely on is the entire body of scientific evidence as shown in the scientific literature. By relying heavily on what an individual like Lindzen says, as opposed to published in the scientific literature, Dog relies on Lindzen says in op eds and videos, which is more like following a prophet than relying on an entire body of science.

Within the sober reality of scientific limitations, Lindzen HAS done what you're talking about. He has developed models. He has critiqued and adjusted models. He has punched holes in bad models. He has put forward his own forecasts, which have been far more accurate than the IPCC.

Err, evidence of that last bit? And there are many, many climate scientists with similar modeling experience. Why does Dog just listen to this one?

He was one of the guys who used to work for the IPCC and help them with their forecasts. What else do you expect of him? You want him to pull a rabbit out of a hat and present the world with a prophet-like model that simulates the earth perfectly?

Logical fallacy: straw man. No one has demanded that Lindzen develop a perfect model. But if, as Dog claims, Lindzen has developed a climate model that makes more accurate predictions than the forecasts used in the IPCC reports, that would be some hard evidence to consider. I've never heard of such a thing, and googling "Lindzen more accurate IPCC" turned up bupkis.

Again, burden of proof. He doesn't need to do that in order to point out that the prophet isn't a prophet and his prophecies aren't panning out. He doesn't need to invent a time machine and present video evidence of the Mayans to merely point out all the anachronisms in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon, the model, presents a certain narrative. Material facts, however, are inconsistent with that narrative. Like horses. Like metallurgy. Whatever.

Logical fallacy: straw man and false analogy. Climate scientists are not and do not claim to be prophets. Like other scientists, they study the natural world and draw conclusions based on evidence. No one is demanding that Lindzen be a prophet. Lindzen says lots of things in op eds and Prager U videos. That's not science. "Lindzen says" is not sufficient evidence to rebut the published literature on climate science. Lindzen's published papers that advanced contrarian hypothesis did not hold up over time.

Max Planck is quoted as saying:

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

The old scientific truth, around for a long time, was that man was not capable of causing change to the climate. You'll notice that many of the most pronounced critics of climate science are retired. Lindzen is that group of science who could not accept the scientific truth that man can, and is, changing the climate through the burning of fossil fuels.

[_EAllusion]

Something I'd love the alarmists to answer. I have no idea if these arguments are sound or not, but what's the answer to them? All this talk about chart gimmicks and such. Why do alarmists plot from 1979? Instead of Earlier? Why 19th century instead of hundreds of thousands and even millions of years earlier? These historical datasets that say we're actually in a period of historically low CO2 levels, are they wrong? Were CO2 concentrations in the thousands when dinosaurs walked the earth? Have ecological extension events been tied to low CO2 levels?

It is expected that when one post graphs and such they link the source so others can look at them. CO2 levels millions of years ago is not relevant and the sun's output was lower the further back we go.

This thread reminds me of this one:

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... =1&t=33564

Virtually all of the spikes - rapid inclines - in CO2 in the atmosphere are directly associated with a mass extinction event, though one must be cautious in not assuming CO2 spikes were the cause. The worst biological catastrophe we know of in the history of the world - the permian-triassic extinction event known as "The Great Dying" - is specifically associated with a massive, massive spike in CO2 levels. It's the only known period of time that an uptake of CO2 levels into the atmosphere occured at a rate that matches what we are currently experiencing with human activity. Again, one must caution that this isn't necessarily the cause of that extinction event - though it is widely considered to be a front-runner - but it shows that" CO2 was higher in the past, so everything is fine" arguments really are overly simplistic.

Solar intensity has varied during this time as had other factors like the constitution of the world's land mass that affect climate as well, so it's not a simple matter of mapping CO2 levels onto historical temperature and climate. Rapid changes in CO2 and consequent climate would be highly predictive of ecological collapse, which is what we see in fossil records, followed by evolutionary adaptation. From a geological perspective, this might seem like a short period of time, but the extensive death and mass biodiversity loss in the thousands upon thousands of years it takes to adjust is not something humans would particularly coast living through. And the species that have thrived in different Earth climates are not necessarily the ecosystems that humans are adjusted to and dependent on.

Just because something happened in Earth's past and life has thrived on, that does not mean any change would not be catastrophic to Earth as it stands now. This isn't to say realistic estimates of modern global warming will reach Great Dying levels of catastrophe, but it is to say that particular argument is naïve at best.

[_Res Ipsa]

Something I'd love the alarmists to answer.

Define "alarmists."

I have no idea if these arguments are sound or not, but what's the answer to them?

Why the hell not? Don't you think that before you propose a "debate" on climate science that you should know what you're talking about?

Do your goddam homework instead of demanding that others spoon feed you.

All this talk about chart gimmicks and such.

Not talk. Example after example of how climate deniers present false and misleading graphs.

Why do alarmists plot from 1979?

Are you saying they always do? Can you give some evidence?

Instead of Earlier? Why 19th century instead of hundreds of thousands and even millions of years earlier?

Could you actually use your head for a change and try to figure out why climate science would pay a great deal of attention from the [late] century on? Did maybe something start to happen that was different than what had gone on before?

These historical datasets that say we're actually in a period of historically low CO2 levels, are they wrong?

You'll have to click a couple of links. I upgraded my operating system and now imgr is on strike.

Here's a link to a recent paper that addresses CO2 across the Phanerozoic Era (your first and third graphs). http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/Royer_2014_Treatise.pdf The early peaks on the third graph (copyrighted to a denier website) look too high. The first graph looks pretty close. Early peaks were about 4000 ppm, and the troughs under 500ppm. Over then entire span, the general trend appears to be decreasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. Do you know why? Are you aware of any other long-term trends in climate forcing operating over the same timespan?

Your second graph is too scrunched, and doesn't appears to show temperature anomaly and not CO2. But, that's okay, there are lots of similar graphs from ice cores. Here's one. (I'll paste the graph in later). https://www.co2.earth/co2-ice-core-data You can click on the tabs to change how far back the measurements go. Roughly, for the last 800,000 years, the peaks during interglacial periods were between 250 and 300 ppm, with the most recent ones at the low end of the range. The troughs were between 170 and 190 ppm, again with the most recent in the lower range.

Over the last 1000 years, CO2 was pretty stable at around 280 ppm until the 19th century.

CO2 is currently over 400 ppm.

Were CO2 concentrations in the thousands when dinosaurs walked the earth?

Yes. Were there any humans when dinosaurs walked the earth? Oh, and have you figured out that other long-term climate driver trend? Before you compare present day with the days of the dinos, you need to make sure that there have been no other important changes...

Have ecological extension events been tied to low CO2 levels?

Again, do your own damned homework. Oh, you mean you fell what your fellow denier pasted on the graph -- that thing about "dangerously low levels of CO2." That didn't lead you to, like, do some googling to check it out?

[/quote]

[_Water Dog]

This, of course, is simply a lie. I've never made an argument of that form. In fact, the last time Dog said this, I believe I tagged it as the logical fallacy of false analogy. No climate scientist claims an omniscient being as the source of the scientific literature. The source that I rely on is the entire body of scientific evidence as shown in the scientific literature. By relying heavily on what an individual like Lindzen says, as opposed to published in the scientific literature, Dog relies on Lindzen says in op eds and videos, which is more like following a prophet than relying on an entire body of science.

No, you just have aspergers. I draw an analogy, to make a point, to be lighthearted. And you, lacking basic social graces, parse every word in a literal way. It's quirky and weird. I never said it was your analogy, it is mine, but it is how I describe your argument.

Err, evidence of that last bit? And there are many, many climate scientists with similar modeling experience. Why does Dog just listen to this one?

Sure, compare his forecasts (like his 2011 paper) with empirical measurements and the most recent IPCC walkbacks. I thought you relied on the "entire body of scientific evidence?" RI, the thing is, you're just a talker. You talk big. You aren't relying on the body of evidence. You haven't read all these papers. Are you a climatologist, actively involved in climate research? You are relying on your sources. Instead of talking the subject with me, you continue to talk about what... ME. All you do is talk about me. I have cited numerous scientists in thread, Lindzen being just one.

Logical fallacy: straw man. No one has demanded that Lindzen develop a perfect model. But if, as Dog claims, Lindzen has developed a climate model that makes more accurate predictions than the forecasts used in the IPCC reports, that would be some hard evidence to consider. I've never heard of such a thing, and googling "climate models

So is this your new thing? You can't win on the science, so you'll contextomize, break my posts into small chunks and mischaracterize them with your logical fallacy lookup chart?

Climate scientists are not and do not claim to be prophets.

OMG

Max Planck is quoted as saying:

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

I'm not sure Planck's principle helps your case. It has been argued by many to mean exactly the opposite of how you're using it.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/687097?seq ... b_contents

You'll notice that many of the most pronounced critics of climate science are retired.

Yeah, I do notice. You'll notice I made that very point a few comments back. Why do you repeatedly say things right after I just said the same thing, as if I didn't just say it?

[_Water Dog]

Why the hell not? ... Again, do your own damned homework.

Slow day, RI?

[_Water Dog]

Here's an interesting paper that's getting a little attention. The basic gist is that warming in the arctic may have little to do with CO2 and is instead being caused by pollution being brought over from east asia which is impacting natural cloud formations. Let's game this out. Let's say there is no global warming at all. Instead, there is regional warming due to whatever cause. What then? How does this impact the discussion? Right back to my point about process vs system. If this is true, it means the whole notion of global warming is false, the idea of a global temperature anomaly being fallacious. You could have a regional affect, a particular process within the system, which is throwing off all the numbers and makes the low resolution global values meaningless. But then the next question is what to do about it. Say there is no doom, on a global scale. CO2 isn't dangerous, we don't care about it. But, on a regional level, we do care about these other pollutants. Are ice levels in the arctic more important than industrialization in Asia? Would we go to war with China to save the ice in the arctic?

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 18GL079873

[_Res Ipsa]

Some things at the moment, will return to this.

And yet, you have plenty of time to run to a denier website and post more denier crap. This is exactly why you're a denier and I'm a skeptic. You find some graph in a piece written by the least credible science denier out there and paste it as proof that the oceans aren't warming fast enough. Checkmate, phony climate scientists!!!!

I saw the graph and recognized that it appeared to be contrary to the evidence in the literature. I also had good reason to have my skepticism turned up to 11 because I know who Monckton is and what his track record is with respect to honesty. And so I asked "why" and tried to find out. So I read the graph. And I noticed that Monckton had used temperature and not ocean heat content. And I knew that climate scientists use ocean heat content because I read the goddam literature, which you refuse to do. So, again, I asked why. And I googled up some information on temperature and heat content and realized what the difference was and why it was important. And I did all that before I ever started typing a post to respond to you.

At a glance, you seem to be supporting what I said.

Oh goody, is this the part where you try to reinvent history?

The point that, "global Argo dataset is not yet long enough to observe global change signals" is the fundamental point I'm making.

BS! You keep forgetting that we can scroll up and read your posts. If you had wanted to just make the point that Argo doesn't have enough data, all you had to do was say that. But you didn't. You twice posted a graph that has the following written on it: "The ocean is barely warming" "If this trend continues, the ocean will be just 0.23C warmer by 2100 than it was in 2000." But here you go again, trying to rewrite history by mischaracterizing what you said before.

We do not know if the oceans are "warming" or not. There simply isn't enough data time wise.

Only if you close your eyes to all data other than ARGO. Which is in the scientific literature. Which you refuse to read. It's right here, just click ------>https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content

As for the units of measurement. I'll get back to this to see if there is any legitimacy to your point.

I'll save you some time. Quick test. Let's heat up some peanut oil to fry a turkey. Turn off the burner and lower the turkey. I'm going stand close to the pot and let a drop of oil splatter and hit my skin. You stick your whole arm in there and leave it for 15 minutes. The temperature of the drop and the oil in the pot are the same. The reason why you are headed for the ER and I'm not is Heat Content.

I agree with you that in terms of modeling the problem, heat capacity is what we're after. When it comes to discussing the matter, though, no, temperature is the unit we're using for these discussions. Temperature is factor of the energy content.

Unreal, Dog. That goes in your top 10 stupidest crap ever pulled out of your ass. Yes, we are talking about the temperature of the air at the surface of the earth. We all agree that that's what we are talking about. But we're also talking about things that change the temperature of the air at the surface of the earth. One of those things is the sun. But according to you, because temperature is the unit we are using for these discussions, we can only talk about the temperature of the sun. Holy crap!!!! The sun is so hot we should have fried already!!!!!!!

We use the units that are appropriate to the discussion -- not some made up rule about using the same units for everything. When we ask, "how does heat that goes into the ocean end up affecting the temperature of the air at the earth's surface, we need to use the heat content. Think back to the turkey fryer. How much did the drop of oil raise the surface temperature of my arm? How much did it raise yours?

You do raise an interesting point that I'm curious to dig into more.

Why didn't you see this point yourself? Dig all you want, but try digging before you post all this denialist crap.

Given how low resolution this data is. We're talking about a couple thousand points of measurement. Spot measurements only a few times a month. How in the world can that be used to derive energy content? Given the differential nature of the oceans that sounds a bit fishy to me.

Logical fallacy. Argument from personal incredulity. And I can't help but note, when you were looking at Monckton's graph, you were happy as a claim to accept the limited data and to draw sweeping conclusions from it. But now, suddenly, you mistrust the data.

But no, I haven't read to see the engineering behind these sensor buoys. And you haven't either, so it's prickish to act otherwise.

Red herring: Not until this second has anyone mentioned engineering. Rewind the tape for a second. It was you, not me, who made sweeping claims based on the Argo buoys. All I did was shoot down your graph. Since you admit that you made claims based on the buoys when you hadn't read to "see the engineering behind" the buoys, I'm pretty sure that you just called yourself a prick.

Your basic accusation though is that the skeptical side of the CAGW debate is misrepresenting the sensor data to make it seem less credible than it is. Okay, I'll dig into this more. That will take some time.

No, I completely reject the notion that there is a "debate" between climate scientists and "skeptics" over climate science (as reflected in the WG 1 report of the AR 5. I'm arguing that there is a relatively small but extremely vocal group of people who deny climate science. They reject the body of climate science as found in the scientific literature and rely on false and misleading information to attack and discredit the scientist who are doing the science. They create completely phony issues -- like the pause -- until their issue is shown to be phony. Then, they run and create a new one. They've been doing this for decades. And any person genuinely interested in what's going on would see the pattern repeating over and over again, and would catch on to the fact that these are not people interested in the truth.

But you're not a fair minded person interested in the truth. You're a science denying political extremist who is more interested in winning for his team than he is knowing what's going on with the climate.

[_Water Dog]

RI, since I'm not a fair minded person, how about we both agree to just stop talking to each other?