Why, quote-mining is such a profitable enterprise with so little effort. It's much easier than actual science, and you don't have to fiddle about with difficult things like numbers and margins of error.
The thing that bothers me most is the quote mining. The denialism is annoying, but the intentional removal of a single statement from context to misrepresent what someone is saying is completely dishonest.
quote-mining is such a profitable enterprise with so little effort.
I don't know; what they did took quite a bit of effort. They had to strip off an entire moutaintop to find the two nuggets of pyrite that they could then hold up and yell "There's GOLD in them thar hills!"
But the mountaintop was one of many mountain ranges produced by scientists on the continental plate of climatology. It's much easier to remove the mountaintop than to produce your own new mountain range of productive work that changes the shape of the continent.
Daunted by the notion of actually producing something useful with oodles of hard work, jerks will dig after that iron pyrite every time.
A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed: xxxx@xxxx.com
(Where xxxx is actually greg laden's e-mail)
mailbox is full: retry timeout exceeded
They're good at quote mining.... because that's what they see every Sunday morning when their preacher quote-mines the bible... showing them where it says gays are an abomination, but not telling them it's a sin to wear cotton-polyester blends, or use companion planting in their garden.
Not all climate skeptics are right wing bible thumping freaks.
I am a liberal, college-educated atheist,a fervent supporter of Darwin, health-care reform (preferably single payer), and higher taxes for the rich.
However, I too am skeptical of AGM. I don't believe it is a hoax or a conspiracy, but I am also extremely doubtful about the cause/effect relationship between rising levels of CO2 and global Temperatures. I have read that Greenland Ice cores show that there is an 800 yr lag between temperature rises and higher levels of CO2. Is there a climate scientist here, on this board, that has studied the causal effect and can explain that to me? Also, haven't the glaciers been receding for at least 10,000 years? Wasn't there a warming trend before fossil fuels were being burned? Isn't our current warming just a continuation of that warming? How can you be so sure, with all the temperature and CO2 variations throughout billions of years of earth history, that humans are the cause of our current warming?
I haven't been able to get a straight answer to this question either: is it true that the global average temperature of the planet has been steady for at least the past ten years? not rising at all?
Timo, if you want to look less like a drive-by trying to discredit AGW with oh-so-innocent questions, you might want to take note that you're not on a board. You're on a blog.
Timo, most of what you've got there is wrong, and you could easily get it right by doing a little research someplace other than the AGW denialist blogs. Or boards.
Actually I am not a troll, since what I said about myself is true and my questions were sincere and I actually read this blog regularly and mostly agree with Greg and also contributed naming suggestions for his child. Perhaps this "blog" isn't the best place for these questions, but I thought I could get basic answers here. I admit I did see a site that said there is no rebuttal to the fact that greenland ice cores show an 800 yr or so lag between rising temperatures and rising CO2 levels. Is that not true Greg? Also I said that the glaciers have been melting for more than 10,000 years. Isn't that true? Isn't it true that Co2 levels have been higher in the past without higher co2 levels? Are these lies I am reading? Aren't global temps leveling out right now, this video says for past year or two, but isn't it ten? You say it is all untrue?
Timo, the lag issue you bring up is an interesting one, and is often the source of confusion, but it is also a good place to explain how climate is actually pretty complicated.
There are two different things going on here. 1) Increasing greenhouse gas in the atmosphere increases the opacity of the atmosphere from the perspective of ground-based sources of heat. So, as the sun heats up the surface of the earth, that heat is less able to return to outer space (which is where all the heat eventually goes). This causes a warming of the atmosphere. All else being equal, adding CO2 to the atmosphere heats it up. The physics of that is unassailable, and this has been empirically demonstrated in several different setting (even on different planets). The amount of Co2 in the atmosphere has been measured and the heat of the planet has been measured and the two are correlated.
2) (and this is the complex part) It is also true that if you somehow were to heat up the earth ... say by moving the earth a little bit closer to the sun ... so yout got a warmer earth, then you'd also get more production of CO2 in the ocean. A warmer planet = more CO2 is generated.
This increase in CO2 production happens because of the biology and chemistry of the ocean, but it literally takes the water being warmer (not the atmosphere above the water). Since the ocean is miles deep, that effect lags by hundreds of years. So, you can tell when temperature and CO2 are doing this particular dance because of the lag.
Changes in temperature that are caused by atmospheric CO2 increase can be identified because there is an increase in CO2 and an almost immediate increase in temperature. Changes in CO2 caused by one sort of effect or another can be distinguished (depending) by the isotopic signature of the Carbon and/or Oxygen in the CO2 and other factors that are related to CO2 release.
I hope this answers your question about the time lag.
"Also I said that the glaciers have been melting for more than 10,000 years."
No. It is far more complex than that. First, which glaciers are you talking about? The poles have quais-distinct systems, so Greenland vs. Antarcitca are going to have different patterns. Then there are the mountain glaciers.
On average, though, glaciers advance and melt back and forth depending on temperature. Lately, they have been melting, on average, at an alarming rate following a period of advance. Previously, there have been various advance/retreat cycles. There is no way to place a simple statement about glacial dynamics into the context of the question of global warming meaningfully other than to say that the pattern of glacial advance and retreat conforms very well to expectations of paleoclimate modelig and climate prediction modeling currently used, and those are the same models that describe global warming as an ongoing, anthropogenic and likely to continue thing.
"Isn't it true that Co2 levels have been higher in the past without higher co2 levels?"
Higher CO2 levels are perfectly correlated with CO2 levels .... wait, wait, .... IS THIS A TRICK QUESTIONZ???11??
"Aren't global temps leveling out right now, this video says for past year or two, but isn't it ten?"
When I drive to the cabin, which is north of me, I first drive straignt north for one block. Then west. Then northwest. Then north. Then east. Then north. Then east. Then north.
At some point do I stop and say "Hey, I'm not driving to the cabin!!!!11!! What do I do now???!
No, I keep going knowing that when they built these roads they did not build them to bring me directly to the cabin. There is variation in the direction I go.
There is variation in global temperature across time. It should go up and down. It does go up and down. But, that overall upiness and downiness has, for the last century-plus, been more up than down on average, and the amount of uppiness overall is correlated to CO2 values in the atmosphere.
200-2009 is the warmest decade on record since records have been kept. I'm not quite sure I would call that a leveling off. The fact that today it is 9F but yesterday it was 20F does not indicate a reversal in warming, for instance!
Thank you for the detailed and considered response. I feel like I have something to think about.
I don't know why, but I have a resistance to AGW. It may be partly related to Malthus's or Paul Erlich's apocalyptic predictions that seemed to fail to come true. It may be that during the early 90's I sat through my Oceanography classes at U of Washington, and were shown graphs that showed that by 2000-2010 we would be in a dire state: 5f warmer globally, ice sheets gone, global famines etc. I want to believe it, really. I am a liberal Darwinist. But something tells me that models aren't our future. That it is impossible to predict the future. I am not a denialist. I just don't think one can predict the future as a matter of principle. I accept evolution because it is about our past. If Jerry Coyne said that the next phase of dolphin evolution is speech, I would have to say, I doubt you can actually predict that. In the same way, I just do not think that climate is such that it can be accurately predicted.
well, if one is forced to predict the future, then a prediction of a continuation of the staus quo is probably the safest bet, don't you think. There me a black swan, but that isn't something that can be predicted, is it?
If by "a prediction of a continuation of the staus quo is probably the safest bet" you mean no change, then I have to wholeheartedly disagree. If by "a prediction of a continuation of the staus quo is probably the safest bet" you mean things will react causally to stimuli in a manner consistent with the past, then you should accept AGW.
Timo: Malthus's or Paul Erlich's apocalyptic predictions that seemed to fail to come true. I
What do models of human population size have to do with the physics and chemistry of global climate?
U of Washington, and were shown graphs that showed that by 2000-2010 we would be in a dire state: 5f warmer globally, ice sheets gone, global famines etc.
Timo... have you not noticed the global famines? Have you not noticed the dessertification of northern Africa? It is a mistake to believe that the negative effects of climate change are in the futre. They are here. They've been here for a while.
I just do not think that climate is such that it can be accurately predicted.
Not easily. It has not been easy. But the predictions made over recent decades have been accurate. All models are contingent and those contingencies are better and better managed in the modeling. When Pinatubo erupted, nothing unexpected happend! Major climate change occured (short/medium term) as expected. That the volcano did go off and how big it would be was not predicted decades in advance, but the models that existed were pretty good.
Then, a large amount of effort went into redesigning those models.... new models were designed and used pre-Pinatubo states to predict the post_Pinatubo effects, and those models were "trained" to be beter and better. That is just one example of how this works. Your lack of "belief" in this and your "philosophy" is, all due respect, not really important. Or interesting, even.
then a prediction of a continuation of the staus quo is probably the safest bet, don't you think.
Greg
I realize you are probably right. You have the science on your side. However, my gut and my irrelevant and uninteresting experience say otherwise.
How confident are you in a five-year forecast of either sea levels, global temperature, or even of a single mountain glacier?
Although I am a lower middle class hourly wage earner, I would be willing to put a small wager down that says your IPCC inspired prediction is exaggerated or even opposite of what you predict. If you would be interested in making a wager of a friendly $100, I would be willing to pay pal $100 to you immediately.
If you agree to the wager, then we can discuss the terms, and if we agree, we will go ahead. You can hold the money (I trust you) and in five years if you are wrong you will owe me the $100 plus another $100. If I am wrong, I will owe another $100. I realize I am giving you better terms, but you are the one on the defensive in this kind of wager.
Does that seem fair?
Perhaps we can mail ourselves five years in the future as a reminder.
Cheers
Tim
ps. If you prefer a money order, that is fine, or if you know someone in Seattle, I will be happy to deliver it to them personally. (I realize you may not want to make your address and/or email public.)
Timo, you are so utterly transparent that I laugh. Laugh, I say!
If you trust me, no need for anyone to hold the money.
OK, here's the deal. You send me your address. In 20 years from now, if your lobby succedes in stopping all positive action, I'll send my son, who will be 20 and who will have grown up in the awful world you want us to live in, will have my permission to find you and kick your freakin' ass.
If, on the other hand, your lobby does not prevail, and we end up living in a more sane and livable world, you can find me, and you can kiss my ass.
I don't have a lobby unless you consider the democratic party to be one. I want the world to be a good place for your son to live in. I want the poor in Africa to have a better life. I want the Polar Bears to survive. I want us to rid our cities of pollution and toxins. Please see what I wrote on my first post. It is true. I do trust you. The reason that I offer you the money now, is that you do not know me or where to find me. I know where to find you, at least on the internet. It seems only fair. Give me your email and I will send it now. Better yet, if you are at UM, I will send it G.D there, or if you know someone at University of Washington, I can deliver it tomorrow. Why would you want your son to kick my ass? That just doesn't seem relevant or nice. I am not attacking you personally Greg. You are really convinced that only right winged nut jobs are skeptical of global warming. I find that astounding. Good luck, if all you can offer someone is an ass kicking if he doesn't agree with you.
Incidentally, though, I am concerned about haters, I will give you my address. It is Tim Turner at The Edgewater Condos, 2411 42 Avenue East, Seattle, WA 98112. This is my apartment complex office and mail will reach me here. I prefer not to give my apt number, since I don't want someone knocking on my door asking me to "explain" why I am a skeptic. BTW, not a denier! Feel free to Google the phone number and ask the manager if I live here.
So my offer stands. It is probably foolish of me to offer, since I am the one who will probably lose. Yet I have a hunch, and am willing to put my money(though only a little) where my mouth is.
BTW, I don't have any interest in kicking your ass. I am sure you are a nice person and a good father. I don't think I made this personal, did I? Unless you take it personally, that I offered you a friendly Gentleman's wager.
So no, no bet. We will see, in time, if you use this to say at a later time and in a later context (or maybe sooner, here?) how I talk the talk but won't walk the walk. But, you played your cards wrong if that is the case. This is the internet. We can see you. Or, should I say, Google can see you!
The whole idea that you are a liberal progressive democrat etc etc is kind of hard to believe because you are espousing the exact views that come off the Republican War-On-Science denialist pro-corporate playbook. It is possible that I've read you wrong, but I very much doubt it.
What you should do, Tim, is to read Hansen's book and report back. Then we can talk about the future.
Well, I really don't want to kiss your ass either nor you mine. You can read whatever you want into the email Greg, label it a concerned troll, false naivete, whatever, and suggest I have some devious strategy in offering you this wager. And as for how evolution stands up in court, well we know that in Dover and other cases, Evolution won hands down, so it seems that this analogy is perhaps not the best one to defend your refusal. And as far as a bet, I think think most Evolutionists would take a bet that you won't find a rabbit fossil in the Pre-Cambrian strata. Again, your reasons for refusal slip away.
You seem, or the IPCC seems, to be making testable and measurable predictions about the future. You yourself just said in 20 years your son will be living "in the awful world you (me) want us to live in." Therefore, if 20 years is awful, certainly five or ten should be measurably more awful than today, in some way that has to do with AGW. If you can't make some prediction about what it will be, then how can anyone trust what you are saying about policy that will demand trillions of dollars to solve. And if we do implement it, how will we know it worked, since we can't make any predictions about it?
Again, you keep doubting my authenticity as a left wing, liberal atheist, and again I say, yes, it is possible for a Darwin accepting, socialist leaning, person to not see exactly how you see things.
Please accept the money and make one concrete measurable prediction that can be universally verified in five years (or ten).
Well, that did not take long at all. Poorly done, Timo. You are supposed to put a time gap between having a bet refused (and ignoring the fact that as far as anyone knows I've never taken a bet in my life) and using that as evidence that your absurd denialism is "true."
There is little doubt that "timo" is a made up identity. I have seen him elsewhere on the 'tubes, doing more or less the same thing he is doing here, but it may have been a different topic.
I don't think I said your refusal to make a bet proved I was right. I think I showed you that your anaolgies to evolution were at best weak, and therefore not good reasons for refusing. I asked for a single verifiable prediction. I didn't say not having one, meant you are wrong about AGW. I never said it couldn't be true. It quite possibly may be true, but if it is real science it will make measureable predictions. Let's forget the bet, but will you make a verifiable prediction or not? If is impossible, then what is all the fuss about?
timo, why are you asking a biological anthropologist to make a prediction about AGW? He's studied it enough to understand it and to trust the scientific consensus about it. That doesn't mean he's got the modeling software sitting on his computer. As he pointed out early in this thread, there are better places for this. Go ask a climatologist, or better yet, look at the published predictions. Stop asking Greg to do your work for you.
Paul, I have given you more personal information than anyone should. You know where I live, and I told you how you can verify that. I am more timo than you are paul.
Timo, no offense meant. I happen to sort of know someone who has your name and a famous birthday and was wondering if this was you. Your name is quite common.
Paul, why would I take offense at you for something Greg asked me? Are you two secreting sharing emails? Anyway, I would ask yourself a simple question. Does the tim turner you know live at the edgewater? In any case, just email him and ask him. Hmm famous birthday? Unless you are familiar with chinese history.
Timo, that was my fault.There are actually three or four of us going back and forth (not "sharing emails" but having a conversation by email) trying to figure out why a guy who lists himself on facebook as a "green" has such a hard time with global warming. Paul brought your facebook profile to my attention and suggested that I ask you what your birthday was. His theory is that "September 11th" (the birthday of Facebook Timo) is a little too convenient.
Perhaps we have you wrong. Perhaps you are actually a member of the "left green movement" who a) is a global warming denier and b) happens to use all the old and tired techniques of a concern troll by coincidence. And when I say, all, I really mean all. OT all. Alternatively, you are an AGW denialist mole who has gone so far as to have a Facebook identity and an address in Washington that you keep mentioning a little too often.
Why DO you list yourself as a left-green if you have such fundamental problems, and/or know so little about, the central issue of the green movement? Why did the birthday question spook you? Do you understand why we might think you are ... full of shit?
Or perhaps you are unconnected with the Tim Turner of Facebook. Who is, by the way, the only member of PZ Myer's network who is also not his friend or with dozens of other overlaps?
Yes, we have been communicating because we are rather perplexed. Well, really, because you are creeping people out. Perhaps you could explain.
Let me know if I'm off-track here, but it's my experience that only creationists use the term Darwinist, and that no one who acknowledges the truth of evolution would seriously refer to himself as a Darwinist, since in this day and age evolution is so much more than the man himself. Timo called himself a "liberal Darwinist" in post 17. I think that's just one more indication that he's not who he says he is.
I have been straight with you from the beginning. I have not been devious as you and Paul seem to have been by pretending to be a friend who has a similar birthday. Yes 9.11. is by birthday and you are looking at my Facebook page. (I was spooked because I thought you were trying to run a background check and that is a bit disconcerting since I don't think I am doing anything unethical or illegal by disagreeing with you), I realize you are creeped out, though honestly, I am not sure why. A quick Google search reveals scores of scientist that are skeptical. As I tried to explain, I am an average person, with similar views about politics religion science and the protection of the environment, as you. I am not a global warming denier, as you call me. I am a skeptic. That may be a shock to your system. Perhaps you have been in the ivory tower too long. I am not skeptical that, much like in the field of Evolution, a pretty accurate description of the past can be painted and that there are mechanisms that explain the change. What I am skeptical about is that one can model an extremely complex system, with unknown variables, and project accurately into the future. The past and indeed the present, is littered with unfulfilled predictions.
As a Biological Anthropologist, do you model whatever it is you study and make predictions about specific future events? And would you be willing to spend your child's inheritance in support of those models? Perhaps this is a poor analogy, but I hope you see my point.
My reason for asking you for a wager was simple. If you support the science, and want the government to act and spend trillions of dollars, why wouldn't you be willing to put a small amount out of your own pocket at risk.
I wrote a long reply using a public computer and it didn't seem to post. I really don't feel like writing it all again.
My points were these: I am who I say I am. You and your buddies seem to be the devious ones, paul pretending to be a friend to find my birthday. I thought you were trying to run a background check so I was a little suspicious. Yes that is my Facebook, wide open, with nothing to hide. Like my pics of Montana? I rarely use it anymore. I am a fan of PZ.
I laugh. Laugh, I say, that you think I'm a mole. I'm not a fan of Rush limpballs, glenn blech, or any right wing nut job. And I am not the only left wing, atheist, science minded person who is skeptical of AGM. I am not a denier as you love to label me. I am skeptical of your projections. I accept that like in evolution, the past can be reconstructed quite accurately. However, past reconstructions are far different than modeling the future of an extremely complex, variable filled system. If you start making projections about biological anthropology based on computer models and start predicting specific gene changes, I will be skeptical of that. It doesn't mean I'm an evolution denier.
My motive for asking for a wager was simple. If you think the science is so robust that you would happily spend trillions to fix it with taxpayer money, then surely you would be willing to risk a small amount of your own money. Seems like a no brainer for you. I'm the dupe here, for even offering it.
You do need to drop the bet thing. You are already using it to demonstrate that global warming is questionable, as I predicted you would (aha!). That is not appreciated.
I have personal and professional reasons that I don't take bets from people who show up on the internet (or anywhere) asking me to take a bet. Asking someone to engage in gambling is fine, but when said person declines you need to drop it. Nothing else needs to be said about that. I hope this is clear.
I realize you are probably right. You have the science on your side. However, my gut and my irrelevant and uninteresting experience say otherwise.
timo, that is the very definition of not skeptical. Skeptics rely on the evidence. You and your gut are denying the science. That's why it's called denialism.
timo: (regarding your second comment) ... owing to problems with a troll on another thread, the spam meter sensitivity is turned up so more comments are falling into moderation.
Regarding Paul and your facebook status: Your facebook profile is open and visible to non-friends. If that is what you don't want you should fix that!
Your not being a mole would be more convincing if you had addressed or responded in any thoughtful way to any of the things that have been said about the science, or about any of the suggestions given about information on modeling, books, etc.
Regarding the use of "Darwinism" ... I agree that the phrase is a codeword or dogwhistle, but not a perfect one by any means, so in and of itself is only a clue. Failure to say something like "Oh, yeah, I've read that MIT climate modeling report and I disagree with X,Y or Z" rather than just ignoring that it was even mentioned is also a clue.
The only thing missing so far is denial of the actual physics of greenhouse gases. So maybe there is hope after all.
I was explaining my motive for asking originally, since you seemed to think it was part of a grand strategy to discredit the AGW movement. And once again, I am not using your refusal to claim that I have won the argument. As a skeptic, not a denier, I don't really think there is any way to win the argument accept by waiting for the future. And as long as the goal posts aren't moved, we will have an indication in five or ten years. Anyway, I'm going to email myself in the future and touch base with you. Just for fun.
Take care
Tim
Ps. I think our discussion is over, don't you? I don't see much point in continuing. If you do then feel free.
Timo, I'm holding the line. Discuss the evidence, the modeling, the science, and there is something to talk about. This started with you asking some specific quetions form the AGW denialist playbook. Perhaps you were surprised that they were so easily answered. Now, you have two things going on: 1) Learn more about it, refer to the pretty accessible literature, which is all about using constantly tested models to "predict the future" (an essential activity in this case) or 2) change your tactics form asking play-book questions to espousing some strange and counterproductive philosophy that the future can only be estimated by going to it, which utterly obvious any consideration of regulation, legislation, planning, or even asking the basic scientific questions.
You chose option two, and you are now being called on that, and so you will disappear. Interesting. I could have predicted that!!!!
Well, I don't have to disappear Greg. I can stay, but I don't think I am really qualified, nor smart enough, to argue the technical data/science with you, and I never claimed I was. I gave you what I thought were scientific, but which you say were philosophical(emotional) reasons for doubting. It comes down to this: You think I should trust the consensus view and that the science has been settled. I disagree, not because of some right wing fundamentalism or superior knowledge, but because there are many dissenting and qualified scientists who disagree and philosophically/emotionally, I think they are probably right. I am not certain, but that is where I will put my money, as it were. Period. What else can I say?
Actually I have one more thing to say, if that is OK.
My original post was really just abouting demonstrating that not all AGW skeptics are right wing, bible thumping ideologues. If I had been one of those, this thread would not have persisted. What kept it going is your refusal to take me at my word. Perhaps I am the only one of my kind. I doubt it.
I had an idea, perhaps not an original one I don't know. But one way to discover quickly if someone is about lying not being a religious believer, like a concerned troll who claims to be a liberal atheist for example, would be to subject him to a blashemy challenge. I have read, and remember learning as a child, and frightened the bejesus out of was that there is only one unpardonable sin, that of blasheming the holy spirit. Any christian would have a hard time writing this even if he was doing it in a false name. Even thinking it is a sin. (Note. Not all are christians but similar principles apply) perhaps you could ask them to go fuck yahweh, god, mary(in they're catholic) jesus, fuck and damn the holy spirit, or allah buddha, thor or whatever. I really doubt any believer would even write those words in jest, irony, or to make a point. To great a fear of the flames. Just an idea
Why must denialists quote mine so?
Aha! So you have something against the mining industry? Just like a liberal.
Why, quote-mining is such a profitable enterprise with so little effort. It's much easier than actual science, and you don't have to fiddle about with difficult things like numbers and margins of error.
Some say quote mining is an art. Some say it is a science.
The thing that bothers me most is the quote mining. The denialism is annoying, but the intentional removal of a single statement from context to misrepresent what someone is saying is completely dishonest.
Corporate propaganda lies go halfway around the world while Progressive truth is still putting its shoes on.
I don't know; what they did took quite a bit of effort. They had to strip off an entire moutaintop to find the two nuggets of pyrite that they could then hold up and yell "There's GOLD in them thar hills!"
But the mountaintop was one of many mountain ranges produced by scientists on the continental plate of climatology. It's much easier to remove the mountaintop than to produce your own new mountain range of productive work that changes the shape of the continent.
Daunted by the notion of actually producing something useful with oodles of hard work, jerks will dig after that iron pyrite every time.
Speaking of e-mail:
They're good at quote mining.... because that's what they see every Sunday morning when their preacher quote-mines the bible... showing them where it says gays are an abomination, but not telling them it's a sin to wear cotton-polyester blends, or use companion planting in their garden.
Hi,
Not all climate skeptics are right wing bible thumping freaks.
I am a liberal, college-educated atheist,a fervent supporter of Darwin, health-care reform (preferably single payer), and higher taxes for the rich.
However, I too am skeptical of AGM. I don't believe it is a hoax or a conspiracy, but I am also extremely doubtful about the cause/effect relationship between rising levels of CO2 and global Temperatures. I have read that Greenland Ice cores show that there is an 800 yr lag between temperature rises and higher levels of CO2. Is there a climate scientist here, on this board, that has studied the causal effect and can explain that to me? Also, haven't the glaciers been receding for at least 10,000 years? Wasn't there a warming trend before fossil fuels were being burned? Isn't our current warming just a continuation of that warming? How can you be so sure, with all the temperature and CO2 variations throughout billions of years of earth history, that humans are the cause of our current warming?
I haven't been able to get a straight answer to this question either: is it true that the global average temperature of the planet has been steady for at least the past ten years? not rising at all?
Thanks
Timo
Timo, if you want to look less like a drive-by trying to discredit AGW with oh-so-innocent questions, you might want to take note that you're not on a board. You're on a blog.
Don't feed the concern trolls.
Timo, most of what you've got there is wrong, and you could easily get it right by doing a little research someplace other than the AGW denialist blogs. Or boards.
Hi,
Actually I am not a troll, since what I said about myself is true and my questions were sincere and I actually read this blog regularly and mostly agree with Greg and also contributed naming suggestions for his child. Perhaps this "blog" isn't the best place for these questions, but I thought I could get basic answers here. I admit I did see a site that said there is no rebuttal to the fact that greenland ice cores show an 800 yr or so lag between rising temperatures and rising CO2 levels. Is that not true Greg? Also I said that the glaciers have been melting for more than 10,000 years. Isn't that true? Isn't it true that Co2 levels have been higher in the past without higher co2 levels? Are these lies I am reading? Aren't global temps leveling out right now, this video says for past year or two, but isn't it ten? You say it is all untrue?
Timo, the lag issue you bring up is an interesting one, and is often the source of confusion, but it is also a good place to explain how climate is actually pretty complicated.
There are two different things going on here. 1) Increasing greenhouse gas in the atmosphere increases the opacity of the atmosphere from the perspective of ground-based sources of heat. So, as the sun heats up the surface of the earth, that heat is less able to return to outer space (which is where all the heat eventually goes). This causes a warming of the atmosphere. All else being equal, adding CO2 to the atmosphere heats it up. The physics of that is unassailable, and this has been empirically demonstrated in several different setting (even on different planets). The amount of Co2 in the atmosphere has been measured and the heat of the planet has been measured and the two are correlated.
2) (and this is the complex part) It is also true that if you somehow were to heat up the earth ... say by moving the earth a little bit closer to the sun ... so yout got a warmer earth, then you'd also get more production of CO2 in the ocean. A warmer planet = more CO2 is generated.
This increase in CO2 production happens because of the biology and chemistry of the ocean, but it literally takes the water being warmer (not the atmosphere above the water). Since the ocean is miles deep, that effect lags by hundreds of years. So, you can tell when temperature and CO2 are doing this particular dance because of the lag.
Changes in temperature that are caused by atmospheric CO2 increase can be identified because there is an increase in CO2 and an almost immediate increase in temperature. Changes in CO2 caused by one sort of effect or another can be distinguished (depending) by the isotopic signature of the Carbon and/or Oxygen in the CO2 and other factors that are related to CO2 release.
I hope this answers your question about the time lag.
"Also I said that the glaciers have been melting for more than 10,000 years."
No. It is far more complex than that. First, which glaciers are you talking about? The poles have quais-distinct systems, so Greenland vs. Antarcitca are going to have different patterns. Then there are the mountain glaciers.
On average, though, glaciers advance and melt back and forth depending on temperature. Lately, they have been melting, on average, at an alarming rate following a period of advance. Previously, there have been various advance/retreat cycles. There is no way to place a simple statement about glacial dynamics into the context of the question of global warming meaningfully other than to say that the pattern of glacial advance and retreat conforms very well to expectations of paleoclimate modelig and climate prediction modeling currently used, and those are the same models that describe global warming as an ongoing, anthropogenic and likely to continue thing.
"Isn't it true that Co2 levels have been higher in the past without higher co2 levels?"
Higher CO2 levels are perfectly correlated with CO2 levels .... wait, wait, .... IS THIS A TRICK QUESTIONZ???11??
"Aren't global temps leveling out right now, this video says for past year or two, but isn't it ten?"
When I drive to the cabin, which is north of me, I first drive straignt north for one block. Then west. Then northwest. Then north. Then east. Then north. Then east. Then north.
At some point do I stop and say "Hey, I'm not driving to the cabin!!!!11!! What do I do now???!
No, I keep going knowing that when they built these roads they did not build them to bring me directly to the cabin. There is variation in the direction I go.
There is variation in global temperature across time. It should go up and down. It does go up and down. But, that overall upiness and downiness has, for the last century-plus, been more up than down on average, and the amount of uppiness overall is correlated to CO2 values in the atmosphere.
200-2009 is the warmest decade on record since records have been kept. I'm not quite sure I would call that a leveling off. The fact that today it is 9F but yesterday it was 20F does not indicate a reversal in warming, for instance!
Hi Greg,
Thank you for the detailed and considered response. I feel like I have something to think about.
I don't know why, but I have a resistance to AGW. It may be partly related to Malthus's or Paul Erlich's apocalyptic predictions that seemed to fail to come true. It may be that during the early 90's I sat through my Oceanography classes at U of Washington, and were shown graphs that showed that by 2000-2010 we would be in a dire state: 5f warmer globally, ice sheets gone, global famines etc. I want to believe it, really. I am a liberal Darwinist. But something tells me that models aren't our future. That it is impossible to predict the future. I am not a denialist. I just don't think one can predict the future as a matter of principle. I accept evolution because it is about our past. If Jerry Coyne said that the next phase of dolphin evolution is speech, I would have to say, I doubt you can actually predict that. In the same way, I just do not think that climate is such that it can be accurately predicted.
All philosophies of life are based on anticipating (a.k.a. "predicting") the future.
well, if one is forced to predict the future, then a prediction of a continuation of the staus quo is probably the safest bet, don't you think. There me a black swan, but that isn't something that can be predicted, is it?
If by "a prediction of a continuation of the staus quo is probably the safest bet" you mean no change, then I have to wholeheartedly disagree. If by "a prediction of a continuation of the staus quo is probably the safest bet" you mean things will react causally to stimuli in a manner consistent with the past, then you should accept AGW.
Timo: Malthus's or Paul Erlich's apocalyptic predictions that seemed to fail to come true. I
What do models of human population size have to do with the physics and chemistry of global climate?
U of Washington, and were shown graphs that showed that by 2000-2010 we would be in a dire state: 5f warmer globally, ice sheets gone, global famines etc.
Timo... have you not noticed the global famines? Have you not noticed the dessertification of northern Africa? It is a mistake to believe that the negative effects of climate change are in the futre. They are here. They've been here for a while.
I just do not think that climate is such that it can be accurately predicted.
Not easily. It has not been easy. But the predictions made over recent decades have been accurate. All models are contingent and those contingencies are better and better managed in the modeling. When Pinatubo erupted, nothing unexpected happend! Major climate change occured (short/medium term) as expected. That the volcano did go off and how big it would be was not predicted decades in advance, but the models that existed were pretty good.
Then, a large amount of effort went into redesigning those models.... new models were designed and used pre-Pinatubo states to predict the post_Pinatubo effects, and those models were "trained" to be beter and better. That is just one example of how this works. Your lack of "belief" in this and your "philosophy" is, all due respect, not really important. Or interesting, even.
then a prediction of a continuation of the staus quo is probably the safest bet, don't you think.
Why?
Greg
I realize you are probably right. You have the science on your side. However, my gut and my irrelevant and uninteresting experience say otherwise.
How confident are you in a five-year forecast of either sea levels, global temperature, or even of a single mountain glacier?
Although I am a lower middle class hourly wage earner, I would be willing to put a small wager down that says your IPCC inspired prediction is exaggerated or even opposite of what you predict. If you would be interested in making a wager of a friendly $100, I would be willing to pay pal $100 to you immediately.
If you agree to the wager, then we can discuss the terms, and if we agree, we will go ahead. You can hold the money (I trust you) and in five years if you are wrong you will owe me the $100 plus another $100. If I am wrong, I will owe another $100. I realize I am giving you better terms, but you are the one on the defensive in this kind of wager.
Does that seem fair?
Perhaps we can mail ourselves five years in the future as a reminder.
Cheers
Tim
ps. If you prefer a money order, that is fine, or if you know someone in Seattle, I will be happy to deliver it to them personally. (I realize you may not want to make your address and/or email public.)
I realize five years may be too short a time-frame and would go for ten, though it seems a long way off. Anyway, it is up to you.
Saludos
Tim
Timo, you are so utterly transparent that I laugh. Laugh, I say!
If you trust me, no need for anyone to hold the money.
OK, here's the deal. You send me your address. In 20 years from now, if your lobby succedes in stopping all positive action, I'll send my son, who will be 20 and who will have grown up in the awful world you want us to live in, will have my permission to find you and kick your freakin' ass.
If, on the other hand, your lobby does not prevail, and we end up living in a more sane and livable world, you can find me, and you can kiss my ass.
How's that?
Greg,
I don't have a lobby unless you consider the democratic party to be one. I want the world to be a good place for your son to live in. I want the poor in Africa to have a better life. I want the Polar Bears to survive. I want us to rid our cities of pollution and toxins. Please see what I wrote on my first post. It is true. I do trust you. The reason that I offer you the money now, is that you do not know me or where to find me. I know where to find you, at least on the internet. It seems only fair. Give me your email and I will send it now. Better yet, if you are at UM, I will send it G.D there, or if you know someone at University of Washington, I can deliver it tomorrow. Why would you want your son to kick my ass? That just doesn't seem relevant or nice. I am not attacking you personally Greg. You are really convinced that only right winged nut jobs are skeptical of global warming. I find that astounding. Good luck, if all you can offer someone is an ass kicking if he doesn't agree with you.
Incidentally, though, I am concerned about haters, I will give you my address. It is Tim Turner at The Edgewater Condos, 2411 42 Avenue East, Seattle, WA 98112. This is my apartment complex office and mail will reach me here. I prefer not to give my apt number, since I don't want someone knocking on my door asking me to "explain" why I am a skeptic. BTW, not a denier! Feel free to Google the phone number and ask the manager if I live here.
So my offer stands. It is probably foolish of me to offer, since I am the one who will probably lose. Yet I have a hunch, and am willing to put my money(though only a little) where my mouth is.
Saludos
Tim
BTW, I don't have any interest in kicking your ass. I am sure you are a nice person and a good father. I don't think I made this personal, did I? Unless you take it personally, that I offered you a friendly Gentleman's wager.
Timo, your false naiveté is not endearing, and neither is your friendly concern trolling. For those just tuning in I'll explain: The "let's place a bet on this" is a strategy akin to "How would this stand up in a court of law" ... which has often been applied in the Evolution-Creation debate. Neither contexts ... wagering like one would do with horses or testing something as in a courtroom setting ... are appropriate for understanding, analysing, evaluating, or applying scientific data, principles, modeling, or conclusions.
So no, no bet. We will see, in time, if you use this to say at a later time and in a later context (or maybe sooner, here?) how I talk the talk but won't walk the walk. But, you played your cards wrong if that is the case. This is the internet. We can see you. Or, should I say, Google can see you!
The whole idea that you are a liberal progressive democrat etc etc is kind of hard to believe because you are espousing the exact views that come off the Republican War-On-Science denialist pro-corporate playbook. It is possible that I've read you wrong, but I very much doubt it.
What you should do, Tim, is to read Hansen's book and report back. Then we can talk about the future.
Oh, and I didn't say you were going to kick my ass. You were going to KISS my ass. I was going to KICK your ass, you were going KISS my ass.
Kick. Kiss.
Well, I really don't want to kiss your ass either nor you mine. You can read whatever you want into the email Greg, label it a concerned troll, false naivete, whatever, and suggest I have some devious strategy in offering you this wager. And as for how evolution stands up in court, well we know that in Dover and other cases, Evolution won hands down, so it seems that this analogy is perhaps not the best one to defend your refusal. And as far as a bet, I think think most Evolutionists would take a bet that you won't find a rabbit fossil in the Pre-Cambrian strata. Again, your reasons for refusal slip away.
You seem, or the IPCC seems, to be making testable and measurable predictions about the future. You yourself just said in 20 years your son will be living "in the awful world you (me) want us to live in." Therefore, if 20 years is awful, certainly five or ten should be measurably more awful than today, in some way that has to do with AGW. If you can't make some prediction about what it will be, then how can anyone trust what you are saying about policy that will demand trillions of dollars to solve. And if we do implement it, how will we know it worked, since we can't make any predictions about it?
Again, you keep doubting my authenticity as a left wing, liberal atheist, and again I say, yes, it is possible for a Darwin accepting, socialist leaning, person to not see exactly how you see things.
Please accept the money and make one concrete measurable prediction that can be universally verified in five years (or ten).
Well, that did not take long at all. Poorly done, Timo. You are supposed to put a time gap between having a bet refused (and ignoring the fact that as far as anyone knows I've never taken a bet in my life) and using that as evidence that your absurd denialism is "true."
Better luck next time.
It is, what it is, Greg. Long live Google!
Hey Tim, when is your birthday, BTW?
Give it up, dude. Greg doesn't even make bets for charity.
There is little doubt that "timo" is a made up identity. I have seen him elsewhere on the 'tubes, doing more or less the same thing he is doing here, but it may have been a different topic.
I don't think I said your refusal to make a bet proved I was right. I think I showed you that your anaolgies to evolution were at best weak, and therefore not good reasons for refusing. I asked for a single verifiable prediction. I didn't say not having one, meant you are wrong about AGW. I never said it couldn't be true. It quite possibly may be true, but if it is real science it will make measureable predictions. Let's forget the bet, but will you make a verifiable prediction or not? If is impossible, then what is all the fuss about?
My birthday? You have my address. Did you want my SSN too?
timo, why are you asking a biological anthropologist to make a prediction about AGW? He's studied it enough to understand it and to trust the scientific consensus about it. That doesn't mean he's got the modeling software sitting on his computer. As he pointed out early in this thread, there are better places for this. Go ask a climatologist, or better yet, look at the published predictions. Stop asking Greg to do your work for you.
Paul, I have given you more personal information than anyone should. You know where I live, and I told you how you can verify that. I am more timo than you are paul.
Timo, the IGSM modelin team has already made very famous "verifiable" predictions, and has done pretty well. I'll take that one.
Does that make you happy?
Greg
I'm happy. Thanks. Good night.
Timo, no offense meant. I happen to sort of know someone who has your name and a famous birthday and was wondering if this was you. Your name is quite common.
Paul, why would I take offense at you for something Greg asked me? Are you two secreting sharing emails? Anyway, I would ask yourself a simple question. Does the tim turner you know live at the edgewater? In any case, just email him and ask him. Hmm famous birthday? Unless you are familiar with chinese history.
Timo, that was my fault.There are actually three or four of us going back and forth (not "sharing emails" but having a conversation by email) trying to figure out why a guy who lists himself on facebook as a "green" has such a hard time with global warming. Paul brought your facebook profile to my attention and suggested that I ask you what your birthday was. His theory is that "September 11th" (the birthday of Facebook Timo) is a little too convenient.
Perhaps we have you wrong. Perhaps you are actually a member of the "left green movement" who a) is a global warming denier and b) happens to use all the old and tired techniques of a concern troll by coincidence. And when I say, all, I really mean all. OT all. Alternatively, you are an AGW denialist mole who has gone so far as to have a Facebook identity and an address in Washington that you keep mentioning a little too often.
Why DO you list yourself as a left-green if you have such fundamental problems, and/or know so little about, the central issue of the green movement? Why did the birthday question spook you? Do you understand why we might think you are ... full of shit?
Or perhaps you are unconnected with the Tim Turner of Facebook. Who is, by the way, the only member of PZ Myer's network who is also not his friend or with dozens of other overlaps?
Yes, we have been communicating because we are rather perplexed. Well, really, because you are creeping people out. Perhaps you could explain.
Let me know if I'm off-track here, but it's my experience that only creationists use the term Darwinist, and that no one who acknowledges the truth of evolution would seriously refer to himself as a Darwinist, since in this day and age evolution is so much more than the man himself. Timo called himself a "liberal Darwinist" in post 17. I think that's just one more indication that he's not who he says he is.
Greg,
I have been straight with you from the beginning. I have not been devious as you and Paul seem to have been by pretending to be a friend who has a similar birthday. Yes 9.11. is by birthday and you are looking at my Facebook page. (I was spooked because I thought you were trying to run a background check and that is a bit disconcerting since I don't think I am doing anything unethical or illegal by disagreeing with you), I realize you are creeped out, though honestly, I am not sure why. A quick Google search reveals scores of scientist that are skeptical. As I tried to explain, I am an average person, with similar views about politics religion science and the protection of the environment, as you. I am not a global warming denier, as you call me. I am a skeptic. That may be a shock to your system. Perhaps you have been in the ivory tower too long. I am not skeptical that, much like in the field of Evolution, a pretty accurate description of the past can be painted and that there are mechanisms that explain the change. What I am skeptical about is that one can model an extremely complex system, with unknown variables, and project accurately into the future. The past and indeed the present, is littered with unfulfilled predictions.
As a Biological Anthropologist, do you model whatever it is you study and make predictions about specific future events? And would you be willing to spend your child's inheritance in support of those models? Perhaps this is a poor analogy, but I hope you see my point.
My reason for asking you for a wager was simple. If you support the science, and want the government to act and spend trillions of dollars, why wouldn't you be willing to put a small amount out of your own pocket at risk.
Greg,
I wrote a long reply using a public computer and it didn't seem to post. I really don't feel like writing it all again.
My points were these: I am who I say I am. You and your buddies seem to be the devious ones, paul pretending to be a friend to find my birthday. I thought you were trying to run a background check so I was a little suspicious. Yes that is my Facebook, wide open, with nothing to hide. Like my pics of Montana? I rarely use it anymore. I am a fan of PZ.
I laugh. Laugh, I say, that you think I'm a mole. I'm not a fan of Rush limpballs, glenn blech, or any right wing nut job. And I am not the only left wing, atheist, science minded person who is skeptical of AGM. I am not a denier as you love to label me. I am skeptical of your projections. I accept that like in evolution, the past can be reconstructed quite accurately. However, past reconstructions are far different than modeling the future of an extremely complex, variable filled system. If you start making projections about biological anthropology based on computer models and start predicting specific gene changes, I will be skeptical of that. It doesn't mean I'm an evolution denier.
My motive for asking for a wager was simple. If you think the science is so robust that you would happily spend trillions to fix it with taxpayer money, then surely you would be willing to risk a small amount of your own money. Seems like a no brainer for you. I'm the dupe here, for even offering it.
Take care,
Ps gmoney. You are off track.
I see.
You do need to drop the bet thing. You are already using it to demonstrate that global warming is questionable, as I predicted you would (aha!). That is not appreciated.
I have personal and professional reasons that I don't take bets from people who show up on the internet (or anywhere) asking me to take a bet. Asking someone to engage in gambling is fine, but when said person declines you need to drop it. Nothing else needs to be said about that. I hope this is clear.
timo, that is the very definition of not skeptical. Skeptics rely on the evidence. You and your gut are denying the science. That's why it's called denialism.
timo: (regarding your second comment) ... owing to problems with a troll on another thread, the spam meter sensitivity is turned up so more comments are falling into moderation.
Regarding Paul and your facebook status: Your facebook profile is open and visible to non-friends. If that is what you don't want you should fix that!
Your not being a mole would be more convincing if you had addressed or responded in any thoughtful way to any of the things that have been said about the science, or about any of the suggestions given about information on modeling, books, etc.
Regarding the use of "Darwinism" ... I agree that the phrase is a codeword or dogwhistle, but not a perfect one by any means, so in and of itself is only a clue. Failure to say something like "Oh, yeah, I've read that MIT climate modeling report and I disagree with X,Y or Z" rather than just ignoring that it was even mentioned is also a clue.
The only thing missing so far is denial of the actual physics of greenhouse gases. So maybe there is hope after all.
Greg,
I was explaining my motive for asking originally, since you seemed to think it was part of a grand strategy to discredit the AGW movement. And once again, I am not using your refusal to claim that I have won the argument. As a skeptic, not a denier, I don't really think there is any way to win the argument accept by waiting for the future. And as long as the goal posts aren't moved, we will have an indication in five or ten years. Anyway, I'm going to email myself in the future and touch base with you. Just for fun.
Take care
Tim
Ps. I think our discussion is over, don't you? I don't see much point in continuing. If you do then feel free.
Pps. Gmoney, I'm telling you, you are off track.
Timo, I'm holding the line. Discuss the evidence, the modeling, the science, and there is something to talk about. This started with you asking some specific quetions form the AGW denialist playbook. Perhaps you were surprised that they were so easily answered. Now, you have two things going on: 1) Learn more about it, refer to the pretty accessible literature, which is all about using constantly tested models to "predict the future" (an essential activity in this case) or 2) change your tactics form asking play-book questions to espousing some strange and counterproductive philosophy that the future can only be estimated by going to it, which utterly obvious any consideration of regulation, legislation, planning, or even asking the basic scientific questions.
You chose option two, and you are now being called on that, and so you will disappear. Interesting. I could have predicted that!!!!
:)
Well, I don't have to disappear Greg. I can stay, but I don't think I am really qualified, nor smart enough, to argue the technical data/science with you, and I never claimed I was. I gave you what I thought were scientific, but which you say were philosophical(emotional) reasons for doubting. It comes down to this: You think I should trust the consensus view and that the science has been settled. I disagree, not because of some right wing fundamentalism or superior knowledge, but because there are many dissenting and qualified scientists who disagree and philosophically/emotionally, I think they are probably right. I am not certain, but that is where I will put my money, as it were. Period. What else can I say?
Greg
Actually I have one more thing to say, if that is OK.
My original post was really just abouting demonstrating that not all AGW skeptics are right wing, bible thumping ideologues. If I had been one of those, this thread would not have persisted. What kept it going is your refusal to take me at my word. Perhaps I am the only one of my kind. I doubt it.
I had an idea, perhaps not an original one I don't know. But one way to discover quickly if someone is about lying not being a religious believer, like a concerned troll who claims to be a liberal atheist for example, would be to subject him to a blashemy challenge. I have read, and remember learning as a child, and frightened the bejesus out of was that there is only one unpardonable sin, that of blasheming the holy spirit. Any christian would have a hard time writing this even if he was doing it in a false name. Even thinking it is a sin. (Note. Not all are christians but similar principles apply) perhaps you could ask them to go fuck yahweh, god, mary(in they're catholic) jesus, fuck and damn the holy spirit, or allah buddha, thor or whatever. I really doubt any believer would even write those words in jest, irony, or to make a point. To great a fear of the flames. Just an idea