U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking 19

[zdas04]

Yesterday the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee published Minority Report Critical Thinking on Climate Change. The Senators in the minority party saw the hearings being held in a somewhat different light than the majority. Starting on Page 12, they list 5 "Questions for Critical Thinking".
[ol 1]
[li]If the computer models and predictions have been inaccurate, what strategies are being implemented to correct these errors? Should potentially economically crippling policies be put in place before those errors are resolved?[/li]
[li]If global warming has truly been “worse than predicted,” why won’t the federal government provide the data supporting this claim?[/li]
[li]As it continues to be recognized that the Earth has not warmed for at least the past 15 years, will we see the term “global warming” abandoned and replaced in its entirety by “climate change?”[/li]
[li]Given that many of these models predicted warming trends well before China surpassed the United States as the largest GHG emitter, and given the fact that emissions continue to grow at a pace beyond what was originally incorporated into the models, shouldn’t the warming be far worse than what was predicted in the worst case scenarios rather than well below predictions?[/li]
[li]Given Earth’s long history of a changing climate, why does the public discussion only tend to focus on the last 70 years or so?[/li]
[/ol]

I think that these questions are excellent. Anyone want to take a shot at them?

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. —Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[TGS4]

IRStuff - just keeping you honest with your terminology. Using the pause (or hiatus or whatever you want to call the lack of increase in lower tropospheric air temperatures as foretold by "the models") to invalidate the CIMP5 coupled ocean-atmospheric models and their tales of catastrophe as foretold by the book of IPCC, does not "debunk climate change". It merely discredits (invalidates) said models and their prediction/projection/tale of forthcoming doom.

One need not take the Mann-ian attitude that unless one agrees completely with everything the IPCC says (so it is written, so let it be done), one is an anti-science denier. There are far too many nuances for such a scorched earth approach.

 

[IRstuff]

"It merely discredits (invalidates) said models and their prediction/projection/tale of forthcoming doom"

That's a pretty strong statement for data with no theory to back it up. In the last 40 years, there have been about 4 "pauses," with this one being the longest, and yet, the overall trend is still upward. So, while the deniers gleefully pounce on each and every "pause" they neglect the overall trend, which is still upward, while all the natural forcing functions are supposedly trending downward.

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

Of course I can. I can do anything. I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

 

[JJPellin]

To rb1957:

Higher levels of CO2 will lead to higher temperatures. An increase in CO2 would not result in a run-away even with no feedbacks at all. It would result in a new equilibrium temperature, higher than before. We have discussed this. It is not a closed system.

The source of the CO2 is humans burning fossil fuels. No models are needed. The distribution of isotopes in the CO2 matches the burning of fossil fuels. The changing concentration of O2 in the atmosphere matches the burning of fossil fuels. It does not match volcanic CO2. It does not match CO2 exhaled by animals. It comes from humans burning fossil fuels.


Johnny Pellin

 

[zdas04]

JJPellin,
Statements like you made usually end with "end of story" to indicate that you are truly the final authority on the subject and that further discussion cannot add to your perfect statement. It doesn't make it true.

I'm assuming that the "isotopes" you are talking about is the C12/C13 mix. That analysis is absolutely dependent on a computer model with a few thousand assumptions that have been tweaked towards a specific conclusion. The warming of the previous decades has caused the permafrost to retreat a bit. The organic material that thawed with that retreat is now undergoing biological processes that were retarded when it was frozen. Those biological processes put CH4 and CO2 in the air that are indistinguishable from smoke-stack CO2 or gas-well CH4. Or do you mean that "natural" processes put green CO2 molecules in the air and evil humans burning vile fossil fuels put out the black CO2 molecules and at Mona Loa they count the green ones separate from the black ones? What about the 500 lbm that the average person exhales each year, would that be black or green CO2?

Just curious, what is that feedback mechanism that would cap the temperature at a new higher normal instead of increasing without bound? Would that new normal happen before we got to 3-7 C increase for each doubling (without bound)? That is the IPCC number. At 1600 ppm CO2 (a number considered by many greenhouse operators as optimum for plant growth) the IPCC says that global temperature would be 6-14 C higher than it is today. They also say that at 3 C increase all the ice in the world would melt, so 600 PPM is the death knell for the polar bear (if they really will die if the Arctic sea ice melts) and Florida is just a hazard to ocean navigation. What, in your opinion would make the temperature increase less than the learned folks at IPCC predict? Inquiring minds want to know.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. —Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[rconnor]

"the overall trend is still upwards"

Not only that but when you actually compare ENSO neutral years to ENSO neutral years (more of an apples to apples comparison), the trend during the "pause" is similar to that of the past 30 years (excel file with data sources). This simple analysis demonstrates that the majority of the “pause” is the artifice of selecting a period heavily influenced by El Nino events (among other things such as a decrease in solar activity and a lack of temperature coverage in the Arctic). In reality, there remains a strong warming trend in spite of natural drivers working in the opposite direction.

As for how the ACC theory could be debunked, I’ve already said, numerous times, what very reasonable, plausible observations would cast doubt on the theory in my mind:

[ul][li]If ENSO neutral years showed a notable decline in temperature trends over a significant time-span --> they don't, they show a very consistent warming trend, even during the “pause”[/li]
[li]If both ocean heat content and surface temperatures showed a notable decline over a significant time-span --> they don't, OHC shows an increase, especially in the deep ocean, during the “pause”. This is exactly what you’d expect to happen in an La Nina dominated period.[/li]
[li]If during the next positive PDO/IPO period, the temperature trend does not resume warming --> we’ll see[/li][/ul]

I’m not nearly as stubborn on this issue as some would believe. However, the issue is that I need credible evidence that is actually contrary to and unexplainable by the current ACC theory. When you understand the science, you very quickly realize that the “pause”, “it’s natural”/”it’s changed before”, “it’s the sun” and other “skeptic” tropes just aren’t that.

I acknowledge that there is uncertainty with climate sensitivity but I have yet to read any substantial credible evidence that sensitivity should be much lower than the IPCC range. In fact, almost all of the research tends to hone in on values well within, if not slightly above, that range.

I acknowledge that there is uncertainty with what impacts 3 deg C vs 2 deg C warming will have on the planet but I know one thing for sure – the natural world cannot adapt fast enough to what we throw at it. This kind of temperature change over this kind of time scale will upset the ecosystem. The stance that “I don’t like the IPCC therefore I don’t believe in their conclusions about environmental effects therefore they probably won’t happen” is betting a heck of lot on nothing but ideological preferences, all while the very best science we have is saying the exact opposite.

This is the key point for me – “Skeptics” have nothing but doubt. When you talk with them long enough, eventually you get to a point where they are backed into a corner and use some jet-pack argument that boils down to “I don’t believe the data/evidence” or “I don’t believe there’s enough data/evidence”. They don’t need to substantiate these claims, because they are unsubstantiated opinions.

They don’t have scientific research (BECAUSE OF PAL REVIEW! – source?), they don’t have a plausible counter-theory (BECAUSE THE ONUS IS ON YOU! – hence the thousands of peer-reviewed papers supporting the theory), they don’t have an expert consensus (BECAUSE GALILEO! – sigh…). They just have doubt that conveniently is in line with their ideological preferences and requires no further proof. When faced with the overwhelming body of scientific evidence or ideologically derived doubt, I’m far too much of a skeptic to side with the latter.

A relevant quote to ponder as one looks back at the discourse of these threads:

The skeptic does not mean him who doubts, but him who investigates or researches, as opposed to him who asserts and thinks that he has found.

 

[cranky108]

Simply put, I don't believe your conclusion rconnor. Not that some or all of your theory is wrong. I don't think more goverment/taxes is a correct conclusion.

Sell your solution, not force us to comply. The borg solution won't win you many friends in the voters. And it is a solution that Hitler tried to use to control people.

Sell your solution as something the people want. Or you could make new solutions that are more acceptible to the people.

 

[zdas04]

Oops, the first corollary to Godwins Law has been invoked. Looks like we're done.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. —Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[IRstuff]

"Or you could make new solutions that are more acceptible to the people"

That presumes there are solutions that are more acceptable. Assuming for the sake of argument that you agree with the climate projection, what solution is acceptable to you? You say you don't like the "solution," so isn't the onus on you to propose a more acceptable solution to you?

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

Of course I can. I can do anything. I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

 

[TGS4]

Rconnor - you wrong to say that skeptics must provide a counter-theory. What happened to the ability to say "we don't know"?

It's been, what, 30 years between IPCC 1AR and 5AR. What's the estimate for equilibrium sensitivity to CO2? Same now as then - the range hasn't changed nor the mean/mode/median. And that range is still slightly above zero with a so-called fat tail beyond 5C. You mean to tell me that in 30 years of research, we haven't been able to even narrow the range a teensy-tiny bit?

Doubt - indeed. Warmists would be much better served if they started showing a little bit of doubt instead of doubling down on the certainty. As we have discussed time and again, the data that probably really matters is OHC. And we have reasonable data to depth since 2007!!!! Seriously, how much certainty can you get from that?

Since you have dodged the questions, I'll ask them again - how many peer review papers do have have authorship of and how many papers have you reviewed? And nice dodge on the "exonerations"!

 

[JJPellin]

Zdas04,
Now I am supposed to defend statements I didn't even make, because you thought I should have made them? You don't believe that isotopes exist or that we can directly measure them? You don't understand the concept of thermal equilibrium, so I need to explain it to you? I really don't have time for this. If anyone else has a rational question about a statement I actually made, I will be happy to answer it.

Johnny Pellin

 

[zdas04]

JJPellin,
I don't really expect anything. This is a free site and all of us put the time into it that we feel comfortable contributing. Do what you will. I don't understand either your post or your outrage. Maybe the person who gave you the star for it can explain it to us since you lack the time.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. —Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[rb1957]

"The skeptic does not mean him who doubts, but him who investigates or researches, as opposed to him who asserts and thinks that he has found." ... that's a definition i can live with; i'd paraphrase as "a sketic investigates or researches as opposed to making assertions".

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[cranky108]

IRSTUFF, if you will kindly read through the past history on this subject, I have suggested several ideas, which apperently were ignored.

Saying there are no new ideas won't work. It's a bogus statment by people with no vision.
It's like saying we can't sell quality, because people don't want quality.

Given that during WWII, the people in the US were encuraged to plant a small garden so that more food could be sent to those overseas to fight the war. And you can't find any new ideas to reduce carbon emissions.

 

[davefitz]

Maybe its just me, but the stated rationale for nearly all politically based decisions seems to be based on fantasy or magical thinking or just plain BS. Facts and logic do not seem to be the basis of any modern political decision that I can remember ( unless you consider the hidden facts of financial gain ) - apparently there are "other considerations" being used for the decisions and the publically stated reasons for the decisions appear to be pure BS and meant only for the major part of the public that appears to be lobotomized. The displayed actions of our gov't seems to be just one great big TV show.

"Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad "

 

[mcclain]

davefitz,
You observations would be consistent with the realization that Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" was simply an infomercial for his carbon offset business in Europe. I think he made about $180 mil.

 

[rconnor]

So many tinfoil hats, so little evidence.

 

[rb1957]

"The displayed actions of our gov't seems to be just one great big TV show." ... sit-com ? rom-com ?? action (let's nuke the suckers) ? reality (let's vote on what the govt should do next) ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[cranky108]

Still nothing new. And we are waiting.

 

[TGS4]

rconnor - did or did not Al Gore make $180+ million in the carbon offsets business? Are you seriously going to sit there and day that EVERYTHING in AIT was true and factual? Even after a court in the UK banned it from being shown in schools there because of the numerous errors, omissions and other falsehoods?

 

[rconnor]

Ya guys! I bet Al Gore used that $180 million to pay off NASA, NOAA, Science, Nature, National Academy of Sciences, Royal Society, etc. to publish forged evidence that climate science is real! The conspiracy is real!

Al Gore has nothing to do with whether climate science is accurate or not. The only reason he gets brought up by "skeptics" is to further this illusion of distrust that they try to fabricate around climate science. It's nothing more than games played by those that don tinfoil hats.