Defining (and enforcing) a clear line between information and mis-information is impossible, but that doesn’t mean misinformation doesn’t exist or that there is nothing to be done to combat it.
I found myself caught in an ‘interesting’ set of exchanges on twitter a few weeks ago (I won’t link to it to spare you the tedium, but you could probably find it if you look hard enough). The nominal issue was whether deplatforming known bull******s was useful at stemming the spread of misinformation (specifically with respect to discussions around COVID). There is evidence that this does in fact work to some extent, but the twitter thread quickly turned to the question of who decides what is misinformation in the first place, and then descended into a free-for-all where just the very mention that misinformation existed or that the scientific method provided a ratchet to detect it, was met with knee-jerk references to the Nazi’s and the inquisition. So far, so usual, right?
While the specific thread was not particularly edifying, and I’ll grant that my tweets were not perfectly pitched for the specific audience, this is a very modern example of the classic Demarcation Problem (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) in the philosophy of science.
Science and Pseudo-Science
The demarcation problem is classically linked to the difficulty in deriving general principles that distinguish real science from pseudo-science. Everyone can name what (to them, and maybe many others) are examples of pseudo-science: astrology, homeopathy, cold fusion, etc., but coming up with characteristics that define ‘pseudo-science’ but that exclude ‘science’ is very hard (and maybe impossible).
For instance, the popularity of a scientific idea is not a useful metric, since many initially fringe ideas have subsequently become the consensus (perhaps all consensus ideas at some point were fringe?). More fruitfully, is the way in which pseudo-scientific ideas are argued for salient? Clearly, ideas that are built on logical fallacies, cherry picking, or rhetorical tricks, shouldn’t be relied on and are frequent signs of misinformation . However, the existence and use of poor arguments does not preclude the existence of better ones. Rightly, we tend not pay much attention to unfalsifiable theories, but not everything unfalsifiable is pseudo-science (string theory, for instance, though some might argue this!). However, some theories’ predictions simply can’t (yet) be tested. Gravitational waves weren’t pseudo-science just because it took a century to verify their existence.
Conversely, many pseudo-sciences make many falsifiable statements (many, indeed, that have already been falsified). Popper’s claim that scientific claims are demarcated by falsifiablity is thus hard to support. What about the skill of predictions? After all, this is the gold standard of scientific theories. Theories with a track record of successful predictions (not just hindcasts) would seem to be sufficient to be considered scientific, but it’s clearly not necessary. And so on…
Pseudo-science and misinformation
Pseudo-science is often thought of at the level of a theory or a body of work, not at the level of a single fact or argument. However, misinformation can be far more granulated and doesn’t necessarily have to relate to a coherent view in any respect. Like pseudo-science, misinformation is often clear in specific examples (claims that vaccines implant micro-chips! or they make you magnetic! or that Space Force is about to stage a coup!) but hard to define in general.
As above, misinformation can’t be defined simply as anything that isn’t part of a scientific consensus (too broad), or that isn’t falsifiable. Sure, it might be easy to say that misinformation is information that is demonstrably false, but that begs the question of how this should be demonstrated and who is to judge when it has been.
Going further, what about information that is simply misleading? As we’ve seen in the climate discourse it’s easy to find red herrings that are true as far as they go, but that don’t go very far. Did you know that climate has changed before? Or that water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas? These claims are not false, but are often used in the service of a false premise (that human-caused climate change is either not happening or not important). Even here, there is a normative (subjective) judgement. Who is to say what is important? for what? or who?
Cherry picking, where a specific, often noisy, metric is highlighted to counter the larger scale picture (see anything published by Steve Koonin) or a single outlier study is hyped without taking account of the caveats or the other work in the area (anything pushed by Bjorn Lomborg), is another example. These claims are intended to mislead, but it is often the implicit warrant of the argument that is the misinformation. And how can you reliably detect what is implicit in an argument for any particular audience? Thus misinformation is often context dependent.
However, the existence of edge cases like this doesn’t mean that one can never say that something is misinformation. In exactly the same way that just because science is uncertain about some things it does not follow that everything is uncertain. Perhaps we should follow Justice Potter Stewart?
I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it.’
Can the impacts of misinformation be minimized?
Despite the trouble that arises in trying to find hard and fast rules that delineate misinformation from information, it is still worth pushing back. [And contrary to the opinions of some, pushing back is just as clear an exercise of one’s free speech as is the misinformers pushing their misinformation].
There was a conference last week (#DisInfo2022) on the role that disinformation is playing in our political discourse and had a lot of discussions on what it is and what should be done.
Most pushback is however, reactive. Someone somewhere puts out something stupid, and more informed people respond with facts, or context, or scorn. The pushback rarely gets the same attention as the push, and the exercise is generally futile expect perhaps at the margin, or as record that can be reviewed later. The misinformation peddler benefits from the attention and they parley that into a reputation as someone who ‘owns the libs’ or is a ‘brave truthteller oppressed by the establishment’ or ‘a victim who is being unjustly persecuted’ – a veritable Galileo even!
Perhaps more useful is the idea of inoculation against misinformation (e.g. van der Linden et al (2017) or [2]). The idea is that if people know what kind of argument or tactic is used by misinformers, they’ll recognize it when it’s used and be able to dismiss bad arguments when they arise without additional help. I think in the end this is the way most bad arguments die – people develop a kind of ‘herd immunity’ to them and the misinformers find that these bad arguments no longer generate the buzz they once did. But like viruses, the bad arguments will evolve as they misinformers try to find something that works, and sometimes they can come roaring back when everyone thought they were dead an buried. Thus maintaining the ‘herd immunity’ to misinformation is a constant battle. It never gets settled because it’s never really about the topic at hand, but it’s almost always a proxy for a deeper clash of values.
However, the empirical evidence suggests the most effective way of preventing misinformation spreading, is simply to reduce exposure to it. For instance, paying people to watch CNN instead of Fox News seems to work. Deplatforming repetitive disinformers does too. Here’s another case.
Freeze Peach!
Social media deplatforming is often strongly criticised as being against the ‘spirit’ of free speech (not the actual First Amendment, which only enjoins the US government). But should the free marketplace for ideas be a total free-for-all, where voices are drowned out by bot farms pouring sh*t onto everyone else’s stall? Creating and curating accessible spaces and environments that elevate information over misinformation seems to me to be an essential part of building an informed democracy (which is what we want, no?). This might not be completely compatible with platforms that are really optimized for engagement rather than discourse (this remains to be seen). But it is surely an impossible task if we don’t take the misinformers seriously.
References
- S. van der Linden, A. Leiserowitz, S. Rosenthal, and E. Maibach, "Inoculating the Public against Misinformation about Climate Change", Global Challenges, vol. 1, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201600008
- J. Cook, S. Lewandowsky, and U.K.H. Ecker, "Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: Exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence", PLOS ONE, vol. 12, pp. e0175799, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175799
To Gavin Schmidt and everyone
This may also become interesting, depending of what people know about it.
Let me only quote a fameous rule by Aristoteles first, who is not my favourite GURU or philoso9pher but anyhow,… here and there quite brilliant in his discussions.
Def1 Truth.. is to say about what is that it is, and about what is not , that it is not.
Def2 Falseness is to say about what is that it is not, and about what is not that it is.
Discussion: Thus when Pilatus asks “Whatb is truth?” we can conclude that he was a rascal nobleman from the Italian province who had not his due aristotelian learnings in order, which is plausible. Else he would have known.
Or that he has been falsely quoted and translated. He may have asked “what is the truth in this case? which is a due question of a military marshall judge in the colonies.
It also throws light on why Aristoteles had to evacuate and flee Aten. Where they came under tyrannic leadership, and just think of pointing at “politicians” who tell of what is that it is not and what is not that it is,… and define that as what it is, namely lies betrayal and falseness.
Examples:L
Walter. Ulbricht on saturday. “Niemand hat die Absicht eine Mauer zu bauen! and on monday morning the wall ststood there.
Or in Norway on saturday evening News ” We have no plans of devaluating our national currency!” and it was consequently devaluated on monay morning. It was as sure as that for several years.
Or Putin Shortly before and with 150 000 troups at the boarder: “We have absolutely no plans of invading Uktraina!” Then, knowing Ulbricht and the Norwegian national bank from before, I could say rather for sure that they would invade in the next few days.
It smells, and it is simply not the truth, it is telling falseness or telling a lie according to Aristoteles or Harward logics on truth and falseness.
This elementary peripatetic greek dicipline of thought and of linguistics reduces the very problem to ontology. What is there? and what is not? What can be? and what cannot be?
Nazi’s would be a possessive, not a plural.
–Grammar Nazi
Being myself a grammar school oik, I would add that it is indeed not a plural … unless the apostrophe-use is the good old ‘greengrocer’s apostrophe’.
And another pointy bit of pedantry to end on. For someone to happily style themself a ‘Grammar Nazi’ whilst espousing the cause of the Apostrophe Protection Society will probably not receive much approbation from said society.
I noticed … and decided to let it slide … Pick your battles!
Whilst those poor pro-nouns get denied those possessive apostrophes for no good reason at all. I say let a pronoun possess it’s own apostophe and not fuss over using them for plurals either, when no meaning is lost.
I’ve been pushing back for 35 years. This note is to thank you for your website, The info I get makes my pushback better. Thank you all for your efforts!
“it’s never really about the topic at hand, but it’s almost always a proxy for a deeper clash of values. ”
Yes, and “values” as expressions of psychology, which makes it even more difficult. Reality has a liberal bias, as they say, and liberal applies both to the political category and the nature of one’s personality.
The point is that those Fox News viewers are not going to change their behavior due to that short period of detox. For many (most?), that would be true even if they were to go 50-50 from now on, because what’s presented on Fox is designed to appeal to an Authoritarian mindset.
And I know people don’t want to hear this, but autocracy is its own reward. What we think of as “truth” is irrelevant; it is probably even more satisfying to them if they get their way despite being wrong.
To me, what would be valuable for those citizens that might be reached would be to emphasize the foundations of logic and debate, critical thinking, and the rules of quantitative and scientific reasoning.
That’s why I often question here the value of having “debates” where there has been no agreement about what the question actually is, nor even a common definition of terminology.
RE the Authoritarian Personality, German social scientists came up with that theory during WWII to explain things there. It involves among other things rigid, stereotypical thinking and obedience to those above them, plus a desire for stability & status quo, which things like climate change would threaten.
When those social scientists moved to the U.S., they figured not many Americans would have that type of personality since they thought Americans value freedom and free thinking. They found, however, a large portion of Americans had that authoritarian personality.
In other words, many Americans would rather follow what their “leaders” say no matter how illogical rather than think for themselves what seems right and logical.
Not a good situation for overcoming misinformation.
Here’s an article I just found: “Meta-analysing the association between social dominance orientation,
authoritarianism, and attitudes on the environment and climate change” at https://www.cssn.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Meta-analysing-the-association-between-social-dominance-orientation-authoritarianism-and-attitudes-on-the-environment-and-climate-change-Samantha-Stanley-.pdf
The best source on this is Bob Altmeyer:
https://theauthoritarians.org/
(Two posts, two different threads… worked last time… hopefully this is OK.)
Lynn, much thanks for the reference. I wasn’t aware of the SDO diagnosis.
It has been my experience that even those people who are on the side of science when it comes to climate exhibit a kind of ‘denial’ about these social/psychological factors, despite, as you mention, the long history of scientific study on the topic of RWA.
Much as I too prefer talking about the physics, I’ve come to understand just how big an obstacle the personality issues are. Not fun to think about!
Scientific truth is coherent, and consilient. Misinformation is a train wreck. A sure marker is the refusal to provide context.
I think the use of derogatory memes in response to misinformation may be an effective means of helping average reader get a quick indication that a certain posting is misinformation. If I respond to the clever misinformation posts, I usually want to use as few characters as possible. Nonsense and quackpot or nonsense from a quackpot work for me. Simple gifs are probably more effective in the social media realm. You are right that this task never ends, but the ends of an informed population/democracy is probably worth the effort. De-platforming also works fine and makes sense to me. Cheers
And there is the age-old issue of flat-out self-serving lying regardless of the cost to others or to humanity at large. The PBS Frontline documentary about the concerted efforts by fossil fuel companies to subvert the all too real and clarity their own research teams discovered about atmospheric carbon dioxide increase through coal/oil/natural gas combustion is just one more demonstration of human venality on display. We thought (at I did) that the errors of the past (e.g. ethnonationalism, racial oppression, misogyny, hetero-sexism etc. etc.) are no longer possible because we learned that lesson, only to have it reappear in a slightly different form. When I watch former Exxon CEO Lee Raymond lying through his teeth about the greenhouse effect, beyond moral outrage is a tragic sense of missed opportunity. Exxon in particular had research projects in battery technology, electric vehicles, and solar energy decades ago that could have been monetized for huge profits. Instead, by refusing to acknowledge the need and potential for change (= growth) they may become as derelict as the Murray Coal Company and other corporate organisms that have held onto the past to the exclusion of a viable future all the way to extinction. Even as late as George W. Bush the U.S. could have turned it around with a policy that while any country can take manufacturing jobs at lower wages, nobody innovates and creates like the good ole USA. I wish the morons chanting “USA, USA” at Trump rallies had a glimmer of realization that willfully ignorant fearful retreat into self-justification leads to self-destruction. Tiresome though it may be, vigorous rebuttal of stupidity and lies is essential. To Gavin and Real Climate – thanks for your efforts in that regard. We’d be even worse off without you.
Just read how Tesla was bumped off the S&P 500 list of ESG (environment, social, governance) companies, while Exxon is rated in their top ten best.
Seems to me that no matter how good Exxon may be re the social and governance parameters, or perhaps reduction of their own GHG emissions (which would be saving them money) their environmental record of supporting a climate change denialist industry should disqualify them from being on the list.
So now environmentally conscientious investors who don’t have time to do their own research may be pulling out of Tesla and investing in Exxon. Go figure.
Very thought provoking.. The internet has clearly weaponised misinformation and its spread, and the public appear to be largely unprepared with little training in basic critical thinking skills. It could take a generation to overcome this fully.
You cant really censor opinions and information because it gets anti free speech and Orwellian, although I see no reason not to ban personally abusive language, things that are way off topic, and spamming.
I believe stupid nonsense should be rebutted (as another commenter pointed out). The arguments that say ignore it seem weak to me and may just be based on laziness. Of course repeating a lie can spread the lie, so perhaps don’t directly quote the lie. And sometimes very brief rebuttals with just a couple of key facts may be the most effective. Perhaps it all depends on context.
I have some questions for Gavin:
There was a roughly forty year period during the previous century when global temperatures declined, to the point that many feared a coming ice age, despite the fact that CO2 emissions were rising considerably during the same period. Information or misinformation?
According to evidence compiled by the Hadley Center, NASA and NOAA, we see little to no sign of global temperature rise from 1850 through 1910, a period of 60 years. Yet sea levels began to rise steadily from at least 1880 and probably earlier. Information or misinformation?
The rate of sea-level rise has remained relatively stable from 1880 through the present, while both global land and sea temperatures have risen and fallen at varying rates during this same period. Information or misinformation?
From a paper published in Nature by Fyfe et al, co-authored by Michael E. Mann, Benjamin D. Santer, Gregory M. Flato, Ed Hawkins, among others: “It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims.” Information or misinformation?
According to a study by Fassulo et al,, as published in Nature,
“Global mean sea level rise estimated from satellite altimetry provides a strong constraint on climate variability and change and is expected to accelerate as the rates of both ocean warming and cryospheric [i.e., glacial] mass loss increase over time. In stark contrast to this expectation however, current altimeter products show the rate of sea level rise to have decreased from the first to second decades of the altimeter era.” Information or misinformation?
“[Research] has shown that the temperature rise up to 1940 was . . . mainly caused by some kind of natural cyclical effect, not by the still relatively low CO2 emissions.” Spencer Weart, in The Discovery of Global Warming. Information or misinformation?
[Response: Mostly information. Where folks go wrong is thinking that these things mean that current trends are not anthropogenic – that is often the implicit ‘warrant’ that underlies the rhetorical use of these pieces of information. I am however on record as stating that I thought the conclusions in the Fyfe et al paper were overstated and, in retrospect, they were wrong. – gavin]
V: There was a roughly forty year period during the previous century when global temperatures declined, to the point that many feared a coming ice age
BPL: Look again.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/the-global-cooling-mole/
Bart, the posts you cited are beside the point. There was indeed a period of roughly 40 years of global cooling while CO2 levels rose. Whether or not the fear of a coming ice age represents some sort of scientific consensus is neither here nor there.
It is the mark of someone unable to learn that they double down on the stupid when corrected.
@ Victor
“There was a roughly 40 year period during the previous century…….!”
Why do you not discuss or mention SO2, the London Smog and Ruhrgebiet and Wirtrschaftswunder 1 during this period and from open chimney without shrubbing and all the political worries about Acid rains?
Is it because that would disturb your agenda and mission?
Thanks for your reasonable response, Gavin. For me, however, these are not merely instances of “information” but, more important: evidence.
Someone already mentioned SO2 which is also emitted along with CO2 from coal burning but has a cooling effect. However, SO2 and smoke, etc have much shorter residence in the atmosphere than CO2, part of which can be up there for many 1000s of years having a warming effect (David Archer). There was so much dirty pollution (SO2, etc) early on during industrialization that some outlier scientists thought it could bring on dangerous cooling. That idea came up when there was some cooling trend and at the same time they were talking about nuclear war leading to “nuclear winter” that would have such a cooling effect & blot out the sun leading to tremendous crop failure and great harms to people, aside from other nuclear explosion harms. I think the 2 ideas got mixed together in people’s minds, and perhaps that confusion was then used to create misinformation.
The important takeaway for most layperson is that we don’t want dirty pollution because that also harms and kills people, trees, and wildlife. So pumping more SO2 into the atmosphere to have a cooling effect is NOT a solution to the warming effect of CO2.
The real world is complicated, but most people would want to protect life. Warming is now harming life, including people, plants (including crops), and wildlife in general, and future harms will only get much worse.
We have to ignore misinformation or confused information and ferret out the best ways to protect life, mitigate harms to it.
The Wall Street Journal’s opinion page published more climate disinformation this past March than it has in any month in more than 20 years, 26 pieces: http://redgreenandblue.org/2022/04/20/putin-launches-petro-war-wsj-doubles-petro-propaganda/
The last time climate got so much play in the WSJ opinion pages was in December 2009 when the Journal pushed “climategate” disinformation.
Most of the time, the quantity of content ranges from a handful to around a dozen pieces a month, with COP season usually being the busiest.
A deliberately provocative question.
Does this also apply to how RCP8.5 was “hyped” by the media throughout (at least) the 2010s ?
NB : In 2019 and 2020 some of “the other work in the area” that I came across, asking whether RCP8.5 really ought to be classified as “unrealistic”, was produced by your fellow RC contributor “zeke” (Hausfather).
As a “fundamentalist free-speech advocate” my “gut / visceral” reaction to this question is “YES !”.
Being (slightly ?) in touch with reality, however, in practice even I am aware that some “rules” have to be imposed, at an absolute minimum the “No violence (see : Will Smith at the Oscars) or threat of violence (see : vast swaths of ‘social media’ platforms on the Internet)” rule.
I submit that to qualify as a “scientific” debate forum strict implementation of the “No name-calling or abuse” clause would also have to be enforced.
One optional addition would be a variant of :
“Only discuss the ideas raised. Completely failing to provide “supporting evidence” about those ideas and/or your counter-arguments, and filling posts with nothing but speculation about other people’s motives will be frowned upon”.
Maybe because that isn’t just a perfectly legitimate question to ask, but one that may well be a (/ “the” ?) central issue in the entire “debate”.
History in general, and the history of the Internet in particular, shows us that “censorship” (almost ?) always occurs in two steps :
1) Draw a line
2) MOVE THE LINE
This, the last sentence in the ATL article, takes us back to the Twitter question raised in its first paragraph.
“We” are all only too human.
How do “we” avoid the situation where the people appointed to be “fact checkers / moderators / gate-keepers” evolve over time to end up implemented the following decision tree ?
1) I (/ “we”) either disagree with your argument or disapprove of your conclusions.
2) You are a “misinformer”.
3) You are banned (with neither notice nor possibility of appeal).
NB : I am definitely NOT claiming to have “the” answer to this question, but an answer really ought to be provided before proceeding further with any specific “solutions” to the misinformation / disinformation “problem”.
[Response: Reframe this slightly. There is always a line (and in different venues/jurisdictions/situations it varies). There is always contested space around where the line is because there is always a tension between (roughly) utilitarian and libertarian views about what the discourse is ‘for’. In the utilitarian view, misinformation is bad because it can cause people to make sub-optimal decisions for themselves and others causing harm, while a libertarian view might look at the harms from restricting valid points of view. Given the demarcation problem, these folks will never agree on where exactly any line should be drawn. There is however a useful distinction to be made between the arguments (which can be good, bad, valid, invalid etc.) and the conclusions. Expertise is good at distinguishing the quality of arguments but less good at judging the quality of the conclusions. The fear is that the quality of the argument will be judged based on the conclusion it is being used to support. I see this all the time where on on hand, bad arguments are supported (“that’s an ‘interesting’ point”) because someone approves of the conclusion, or good arguments dismissed for the opposite reason. Much of the push back against corrections of misinformation doesn’t address the quality of the argument at all. Having said that, there are conclusions that go beyond the pale for which no amount of nit-picking about the quality of the argument will save. – gavin]
I agree with you on that point !
I think it’s one reason why the Founding Fathers’ decision not to draw a line in the first place when writing the First Amendment (or drawing it at the equivalent of “the line r = Infinity on the complex plane”) remains a “sample size of one” case more than 200 years later.
In my experience that particular “fear” is completely justified.
I see this all the time as well.
There have even been more examples than I would like to admit to when I have had to change “conclusions” initially made by me using those criteria.
True.
Many of the accusations of “misinformation / disinformation” don’t address the quality of the argument(s) either.
All too often they are limited to posts like :
“That is misinformation / disinformation [ … Full stop. Hit the ‘Post’ button. ]”
[ Wince … I really hope I’ve “misinterpreted / misunderstood” this phrase … ]
This not only extends the “bun-fight” about providing precise definitions to the terms “sub-optimal” and “harm” — and endless arguments over subsidiary questions like “On what timescale ?” and “To whom ?” — it introduces the notion of “some people” getting to make decisions “for others”.
Beyond the “obvious” exceptions — e.g. parents for their (underage) children — any attempts to extend the limits of the word “others” because of the (potential) “harm (/ crisis / emergency / …)” will only serve to increase the “fears” of those “libertarians” you mentioned (in addition to me).
[Response: The ‘for others’ part, presupposes that we live in an interdependent society and are not all hermits living off the land. Decision-makers are making decisions that affect others all the time. Take Thabo Mbeki’s decisions related to HIV that were ‘informed’ by misinformation. The harms that resulted in South Africa still reverberate today. That’s an extreme example, but only in degree. – gavin]
Ah ! I wondered if it might be a “which side of The Pond are you on” battle of English versions.
I initially read the phrase as “… it can cause people to make sub-optimal decisions for themselves and others, causing harm …”
which only required adding a single comma (in my head), when it was more like
“… it can cause people to make sub-optimal decisions, causing harm not just to themselves but to others as well …”
which required me to completely rewrite the phrase.
Mark (and Gavin),
The problem here is that you are engaging in rhetoric or a “definition debate” by your attachment to the term “misinformation”.
Mis-information is a pejorative term, so everyone wants to capture the definition for their ‘side’. But we already have rules about reason and debate and science. Are you saying that we should abandon them?
Gavin’s response to Victor above is exactly right. And there is no reason that a platform (like RC) can’t have the requirement that if you wish to provide information like that, you must be willing to answer the simple question: “What’s your point?”
As I said above, and have said many times here, debates require certain conditions.
-You have to clearly state and agree on what the question being debated is.
-You have to agree on definitions.
-You have to agree on facts, or what the criteria are for something to be accepted as fact.
And obviously, these are the requirements for doing science independently as well.
So, where is the wiggle room here, as long as the platform states whatever its rules are in a way that is universally applicable and testable?
If someone can make money with a venue that allows people using up bandwidth to write lalalalalalalalalalal thousands of times, fine with me. Does that make me a ‘Libertarian’? (Although, I had the sinking feeling after I wrote that, that it might work, or already exist, and have a large audience.)
Agreed.
Agreed.
The relevant (???) part of “Gavin’s response to Victor” :
“Where folks go wrong is thinking that these things mean that current trends are not anthropogenic – that is often the implicit ‘warrant’ that underlies the rhetorical use of these pieces of information.”
The only mention of the word “warrant” in the ATL article :
“These claims are intended to mislead, but it is often the implicit warrant of the argument that is the misinformation.”
The actual article only talked about a generic “implicit warrant”.
The “reply to Victor” provided a specific “definition” of what such a “warrant” might actually consist of … and opened up a new “bun fight” to try and nail down just how many years the term “current trends” is referring to.
10 ? (“decadal trends”)
30 ? (the minimum length for “climate trends”)
140 / 170 ? (“instrumental record length”)
Other ? [ Please specify … ]
When Victor wrote their post the term “warrant” was un-defined, which breaks the second of your three “rules”.
Mark, actually, you are in violation of my first rule, which requires that you take the time to write whatever you are trying to say clearly. I can’t follow it at all.
I said Gavin was correct in referring to implied warrants, and he gave an example, not a ‘definition’.
And if you asked Gavin what he means by “current trends”, I’m sure he would tell you. But his observation was that if you asked someone like Victor to answer my question: “What’s your point?”, you wouldn’t get a clear answer, rather an evasive one. I know, because I long ago gave up asking Victor and others to take that first step to have a real debate rather than rhetorical horseplay.
“Gavin’s response to Victor”, IN ITS ENTIRETY :
“[Response: Mostly information. Where folks go wrong is thinking that these things mean that current trends are not anthropogenic – that is often the implicit ‘warrant’ that underlies the rhetorical use of these pieces of information. I am however on record as stating that I thought the conclusions in the Fyfe et al paper were overstated and, in retrospect, they were wrong. – gavin]”
Please copy the words written by Gavin that you believe are equivalent to ” asking someone like Victor to answer my question: “What’s your point?” ” in the above … or in his responses to ANYBODY else !
NB : This is why I added “(???)” in my post responding to your first reaction.
… my first rule, which requires that you take the time to write whatever you are trying to say clearly. I can’t follow it at all.
And I have no idea how you managed to infer your observations from Gavin’s actual words either.
It is always possible that our brains are just “wired” differently. With almost 8 billion people on the planet it happens …
Sorry, I must “say clearly” that I managed to mess up a “blockquote” HTML tag above.
Mark,
“it is the implicit warrant of the article that is the misinformation”
“implicit warrant that underlies the rhetorical use of the information”
Slightly different way of saying the same thing.
So people like Victor will never answer the question of whether they agree that increasing CO2 increases the energy in the climate system; they just imply that it doesn’t by citing facts which are not actually evidence of that claim.
And that’s where the fallacies listed at SKS ( https://sks.to/md-blog-en) come in, for example.
@zebra
The highlighted proposed addition to RC’s T&Cs wasn’t made by Gavin, it was made by “zebra”.
1) I’m fairly sure he would respond “clearly” as well.
2) The highlighted “observation” was not made by Gavin, it was inferred by “zebra”.
The specific “ideological purity test” highlighted here wasn’t introduced into this thread by either “gavin” or “Victor” [ or “Mark BLR” ], it was put forward by “zebra”.
NB : My personal “provocative” answer to that particular question is :
“The AGW hypothesis = CO2 is a GHG … full stop. That is correct.”
I propose adding the following “requirement” to RC’s T&Cs :
“Are you able to demonstrate that you understand the difference between the verbs ‘to imply’ and ‘to infer’ in standard English ?”
z: The problem here is that you are engaging in rhetoric or a “definition debate” by your attachment to the term “misinformation”.
BPL: Information is factually correct; it corresponds to actual conditions in the real world.
Misinformation is factually incorrect; it does not correspond to actual conditions in the real world.
But as Gavin said (see my response to Mark also) “facts” can also be used to support incorrect conclusions through faulty reasoning.
So why not just say “this is factually incorrect” or “this is a logical fallacy” and so on?
Of course, as I also said in my initial comment, there are all these people out there for whom “because I said so” is the only test of truth.
But we are trying, supposedly, to educate those (hypothetical) readers for whom scientific fact and logical correctness are universal criteria, that apply whether it is climate change or epidemiology.
Can you please confirm that this refers to the following extract from your first post ?
“And I know people don’t want to hear this, but autocracy is its own reward. What we think of as “truth” is irrelevant …”
One common complaint made about the more extreme defenders of “the consensus view” is that they come across as a combination of “arrogant” and/or “condescending”.
I have implied from the above that “zebra” has decided internally that they are part of the “we” who will get to “educate” the unwashed masses … sorry, I meant to write “the general public”.
Is that correct ?
I have implied from the above that “zebra” has decided internally that they have deduced the undeniable criteria for distinguishing between “a real debate” and “rhetorical horseplay”, and that they are capable of applying that knowledge to any and all arguments put forward by all 8 billion other people on planet Earth.
Is that correct ?
I have implied from the above that “your approach” can be summarised as :
1) “zebra” is both omniscient and infallible
2) “zebra” is the ultimate teacher / mentor
3) If “zebra” tells one of the fortunates they have deigned to “engage with” something, then that person must simply accept it “because zebra said so” and struggle through the process of “working out the logical fallacies for themselves” (however long that might take)
Is that correct ?
– – – – – – – – – –
PS : Before responding angrily to the above — which would be perfectly legitimate, given the amount of “snark / sarcasm / irony / cynicism” I’ve added — PLEASE read through the extracts I’ve assembled for this post and then explain to me (and everybody else) how they could be interpreted as NOT being “arrogant and/or condescending”.
Mark BLR you’re not wrong, (your post and the related posts on this page) but is it worth all the effort on this? Because Zebra is not receiving your transmissions! I’ve already tried to explain to Zebra several times that he is tending to sound condescending (whether he intends to or not), and that almost nobody on this website will be prepared to engage in his version of teaching, because it exposes people, and they would find it embarrassing. His own attempts on this website routinely failed as have my experiments probably for that very reason.
His approach is only going to work in a private chat session, and even then the denialists will probably not play ball, because they are not regarding themselves as STUDENTS. And I can understand that, even although their views are largely nonsensical.
Mark,
“I have implied from the above”
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/imply-infer/
https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/chooseyourwords/imply-infer/
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/grammar/british-grammar/imply-or-infer
I always do my best to educate the sincere student. That is usually the best way to tell if they are actually sincere.
Well done. You have now demonstrated that you know the difference between “to imply” and “to infer”.
Now, in my post I asked the question “Is that correct ?” three (3) times.
You pointedly ignored all three of those requests.
At the end of my post I asked you to demonstrate how my “cherry-picked” extracts from your posts did not constitute arrogance and/or condescension.
You pointedly ignored that request as well.
Instead of only posting in order to “deflect” on a minor point, please answer the questions actually asked.
In the interests of your “education”, you should be aware that Paul Graham came up with a “Debate Pyramid” that ***I*** have found useful in the past for classifying the “level” of people’s (*) [in]ability to genuinely “debate” an issue.
Those levels are :
1) Refuting the Central Point : Explicitly refutes the central point
2) Refutation : Finds the mistake and explains why it’s mistaken using quotes
3) Counterargument : Contradicts and then backs it up with reasoning and/or supporting evidence
4) Contradiction : States the opposing case with little or no supporting evidence
5) Responding to Tone : Criticises the tone of the writing without addressing the substance of the argument
6) Ad Hominem : Attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer without addressing the substance of the argument
7) Name Calling [ and/or Abuse ] : Sounds something like “You are an ass hat”
So far you have (at best) managed to reach “Level 5”.
Please try again when you can reach (at least) “Level 3”.
– – – – –
(*) PS : Those “people” include “Mark BLR”, who I regret to inform you has also failed to rise above “Level 5” on many occasions in the (recent) past.
There have been some instances — though there is always room for improvement — when “Mark BLR” has shown the characteristic known as “learning from their mistakes”.
Can “zebra” do the same ?
@nigelj
Note that on many fora (including this one), if I accepted their “definitions” ***I*** would be considered “a denialist”.
“Student” is too restrictive a word / term … How can I put this “briefly” ? …
I am more like “someone with a short attention span who asks questions whenever they see an apparent contradiction on some small facet of the complex multi-dimensional manifold assigned a simplistic label like ‘climate change’ or ‘climate science’ “.
The “scientific” response to such questions, especially by anonymous Internet posters, should be something like :
“Here is a reference (or link) to a peer-reviewed scientific paper whose ‘Conclusions’ section contains concrete numbers that can be interpolated to cover the specific question you are asking.”
NB : “Interpolated”, not “extrapolated”. Ask about the differences between the two and I’ll answer “Newton’s Laws and Michelson-Morley” with light-speed.
Using Paul Graham’s “Debate Pyramid” rapidly filters out responses with the template :
“You are an idiot (/ shill / any other pejorative term) [ … full stop, hit the ‘Post’ button ]”
It also filters out responses that completely ignore the question and are limited to asking about the motivation(s) for asking it in the first place.
This is actually a frequent problem.
Someone “just asking a question” is not someone who has already decided what their “view” is. If they had they wouldn’t bother asking questions.
Also, just because someone mentions, for example, The Flat Earth Society or VEHMT as part of the process of “asking questions” does not mean that “their view” is that they agree with either of those groups.
“Asking questions” is symptomatic of people who are “unsure”, or “confused”, or “not widely read enough” … or in “I am still checking, but have reached no firm conclusions so far” mode.
“Asking questions” is also symptomatic of people who are “curious, but by no means an expert”, AKA “interested amateurs”,
When the responses to their questions is strictly limited to name calling and motivational interrogation it is no surprise that some of those people will sometimes react in a (very) negative way.
People are individuals. You can never be sure just which “buttons” you happen to be pushing at any given moment, or whether (and to what degree) they happen to be having a “Bad Hair Day”.
‘As a “fundamentalist free-speech advocate” my “gut / visceral” reaction to this question is “YES !”.”
What Elon Musk has said is he intends to run Twitter within the limits of the law, which means he could run Twitter exactly the same way as the current Twitter board has run it as they have run Twitter within the limits of the law.
Twitter, as a public corporation, is generally incapable of unconstitutional censorship as it is not part of the government. The arguments Trump’s lawyers are presenting are absurd and wrong. Twitter is no way shape or form being intimidated into censorship on their platform by the federal government (necessary to meet the basic definition of unconstitutional censorship). Trump’s lawyers have presented no evidence at all that has happened; they’ve presented the same sort would speculation his lawyers presented in the election fraud cases. That is not evidence.
What is chilling for the health of free speech in the USA is the government of Florida is openly admitting it is retaliating against a public corporation for exercising its right of free speech, and I suspect over half the country supports that. “Congress (the government) shall make no law…. abridging… free speech.” Twitter and Facebook and Disney are not Congress.
Quote: “Twitter and Facebook and Disney are not Congress.” You forgot one. You forgot Florida. Florida is not Congress. Do I believe states should be able to violate our constitutional rights? No, I don’t, but that is exactly what most of them have done with gun rights, and more.
Florida is not violating Disney’s “right of free speech”. Disney does not have a right to indoctrinate children into what is perceived by a majority of Americans as perversion and debauchery. They don’t even have a right to do it if every American thinks it’s OK, because it is not OK.
If it goes to the United States Supreme Court, I suspect all of Trump’s appointees will vote against you.
DeSantis and Floridians need to worry more about the effect of climate change on their state, and less about the effect of some Disney movie on their kids’ gender identities.
But I guess you DO believe that _governments_ have the right to indoctrinate that portion of the population that will always be gay/other into believing they are sinners/lawbreakers?
KIA: Disney does not have a right to indoctrinate children into what is perceived by a majority of Americans as perversion and debauchery.
BPL: Nor are they doing such a thing, so it’s a moot point, isn’t it?
Cold fusion is not pseudo-science. It is conventional science. As Martin Fleischmann said, “we are painfully conventional people.”
Cold fusion was replicated in over 180 major laboratories such as Los Alamos, China Lake, and BARC. These replications were published in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals by many distinguished scientists, such as the Chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission. Many of the replications were at very high signal to noise ratios, for example, with excess heat ranging from 5 to 100 W, and tritium ranging from 50 to 10E16 times background. Helium has been measured in many labs, in blind tests, at the same ratio to the heat as D-D plasma fusion. A review of the subject is here:
https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf
A collection of papers is here:
https://lenr-canr.org
Here is a Perspective published 3 years ago in Nature: Revisiting the cold case of cold fusion. Paywalled, but you can probably find a free PDF. Abstract:
The 1989 claim of ‘cold fusion’ was publicly heralded as the future of clean energy generation. However, subsequent failures to reproduce the effect heightened scepticism of this claim in the academic community, and effectively led to the disqualification of the subject from further study. Motivated by the possibility that such judgement might have been premature, we embarked on a multi-institution programme to re-evaluate cold fusion to a high standard of scientific rigour. Here we describe our efforts, which have yet to yield any evidence of such an effect. Nonetheless, a by-product of our investigations has been to provide new insights into highly hydrided metals and low-energy nuclear reactions, and we contend that there remains much interesting science to be done in this underexplored parameter space.
Hmm, they’re distinguishing the “cold fusion effect” from “low-energy nuclear reactions”. Whatever, neither lenr- nor cold-fusion-powered motorcycles are reported in the works. I’m underwhelmed.
A more telling excerpt from that Nature Perspective comes near the end:
A reasonable criticism of our effort may be ‘Why pursue cold fusion when it has not been proven to exist?’. One response is that evaluating cold fusion led our programme to study materials and phenomena that we otherwise might not have considered. We set out looking for cold fusion, and instead benefited contemporary research topics in unexpected ways (52,53,57,58,62–64,68,74–76).
A more direct response to this question, and the underlying motivation of our effort, is that our society is in urgent need of a clean energy breakthrough (77). Finding breakthroughs requires risk taking, and we contend that revisiting cold fusion is a risk worth taking.
IDK – maybe research into a phenomenon not proven to exist is science. It sounds like these guys are having fun, at least. I remain skeptical, but I suppose I’m not ready to write this off as mere pseudo-science.
Yes, I tend strongly to agree that cold fusion is psevdo- science and a “lame duck” as there is not even a kick scooter running on it after so many years.
But never forget that orthodox controlled fusion is near the same success and very much more expensive.,
Very well said.
The insinuation that broad based populace media platforms should let 2 or 3 individuals decide what is misinformation is wrought with difficulties, however.
Inspirational posting. Some deliberate and perhaps telling small alterations of your text:
“Perhaps more useful is the idea of inoculation against fascism. The idea is that if people know what kind of argument or tactic is used by fascists, they’ll recognize it when it’s used and be able to dismiss bad arguments when they arise without additional help. I think in the end this is the way most fascistic arguments die – people develop a kind of ‘herd immunity’ to them [especially when one looks at the historical failures of fascism in its various forms] and the fascists find that these bad arguments no longer generate the buzz they once did. But like viruses, the fascistic arguments will evolve as fascists, [neofascists and protofascists] try to find something that works, and sometimes they can come roaring back [and do they ever!]when everyone thought they were dead an buried. Thus maintaining the ‘herd immunity’ to fascists ideas is a constant battle. It never gets settled because it’s never really about the topic at hand, but it’s almost always a proxy for a deeper clash of values.”
I lean fairly strongly towards free speech, but you will always end up with a few limited restrictions, because to do otherwise and never allow exceptions is madness. It could get a lot of people killed or injured (eg covid vaccines misinformation, falsely yelling fire in a movie theatre, spreading lies in times of war). So philosophical attempts to discuss free speech really just go in circles, because its hard to get away from the need to view the whole thing practically.
Here in the USA, such discussions may just go in circles but aren’t there countries where free speech is limited ,and depending on which country is involved, if you say the wrong thing you can be jailed, fined, or maybe disappeared? I’m not referring to libel, defamation, or threats.
Agree with you on free speech: I think in the USA if it is legal to say it you should be able to say it. That would mean no threats, no libel, DOXING, etc. What other nations do is their business.
The Bore Hole was/is completely constitutional and fully justified, and I would think every word ever said there is perfectly legal.
Of course, the government could pass a law against The Bore Hole, Then you would have what you want.
On the other hand, Musk could buy RC for 43 billion and get rid of The Bore Hole: perfectly legal and constitutional.
I’m not that concerned about websites on specific topics like RC. They can censor what they want. The audience is small and insignificant so has no effect on broader society. The conversation was about social media like Twitter. We’ve seen too much censorship there and on places like Youtube, etc. I personally don’t use any of those except to read it on rare occasions, and watch an occasional YT video.
They use their near monopoly on that type of social media to suppress conservative viewpoints, even to the point of taking away Trump’s account because they hate him and wanted him to lose an election. It is time they got spanked, and I’m hoping Elon can speed that up.
MR KIA. Twitter don’t suppress conservative viewpoints. They ban outright, obvious, indisputable and repeated lies. Perhaps more of those come from conservatives. Maybe Trump should have just cleaned up his act.
KIA: …social media like Twitter. We’ve seen too much censorship there and on places like Youtube
BPL: It’s not censorship if it takes place on a private platform. You have the right to free speech; you do not have the right to force someone else to hold the megaphone. And the constitutional right to free speech means the government can’t put you in jail for saying something. It doesn’t mean you have a right to post lies on Twitter or Facebook.
Uh, dude. They didn’t kick Darth Cheeto off of Twitter until he tried to overthrow American democracy. I’m kind of OK with traitors being deplatformed.
The use of the word “censorhsip” in non-public spaces is nonsensical: Nobody has the right to act any way they wish in spaces owned by others. The word only has usefulness in the debates around public policy, not privately-owned property or platforms. It’s intellectually lazy, if not dishonest, to call anything else censorship.
Libraries and schools, e.g., are public places. Banning books there is wrong without a real public welfare reason. TV and radio are run over publicly-owned airwaves. There is a real public interest in them not being abused. By the same token, that’s why cable companies have more leeway.
My own take on it is simple: If it’s not an actual public space – gov’t building, sidewalk, road, airwaves – it’s not censorship, it’s just following the rules and whims of the owners.
By the same token, if one knowingly allows crimes on one’s property, one should be prosecuted. Trump’s insurrection was a crime. Twitter had every right, and a responsibility, to limit his participation. It was, and is, a public safety issue. I consider all social media platforms that have allowed the fomenting and consequent support for that insurrection to be complicit. Any statements that further support that event are, imo, aiding and abetting after the fact and constitute a crime against the U.S.
We have a new animated GIF applying a logic-based approach to deconstruct the “Climate has changed in the past” argument on Skeptical Science: https://sks.to/md-past-en
This (and several other – https://sks.to/md-blog-en) myth deconstruction is inspired by the paper “Deconstructing climate misinformation to identify reasoning errors” John Cook published with Peter Ellerton and David Kinkead in 2018 (https://sks.to/criticalclimate)
Well done, of course. But I am curious as to what you consider the “target audience” for these presentations. And is there any information on outcomes, as with the Fox News viewer study Gavin referenced?
I often use the term “sincere student” here (as opposed to the silly trolls) for someone I think worth the effort of engaging with and trying to help further their understanding of the science when they pose a question. But my approach would be to have them work out the logical fallacies for themselves with minimal guidance.
Anyway, any information on the design considerations and effectiveness would be appreciated.
Thanks! The linked blog post (https://sks.to/md-blog-en) explains where the design comes from and gives a hint at the end of who I think (but don’t know!) theses GIFs might be helpful for:
“We hope that these animated GIFs will come in handy when you encounter myths online or are preparing your own presentation and need an example for logic based debunking.”
I also added them to the related rebuttals we have on Skeptical Science. Given that these GIFs have only been out there a few weeks I don’t know how effective – or not – they’ll be. Most likely, we’ll never know.
Hr Schmidt
This essay of yours was some of your better. I can give it a straight LAVDABILIS as it is readable, approximately clear and appliciable / useful.
But intricate. There is a lot of things to be seen and to be known from before. “Deja- vue..” they call it in French.
“A- Haaaa!” we rather say here.
There are several workshops, restricted areas with their own rules and regulations, factories, tribes nations and lands. We may call it Faculties at the Kings Court. The Royal Academies.
The Kitchen, The Ackers, the Junkyard, The swineyard, The Kings Forests and sawmills, the potatoe cellar, and the Poultry. The Kings Bathroom, and the Kings rose garden.
A lot of Kings also have got their “club house” labeled “Men Only!” aside wityh their Harem.
Then he has got his living room and his “hall”. And also his Defence and militaries and his Horses and Stables. And his virgin chamber for his favourite daughter in charge that he must keep in order and be able to sell at full price. And he has had to install and adapt a church and a templar order also, and a graveyard system. And a Temple with a chief Shaman Bishop, an astronomical observatory & meteorological station to tell and to foresee the truth, and abstract matematical situation if there is any, and a LATIN- school.
An ingenious US- american DOCTOR of intellectual history wrote that “The Emperor, wherever he is found in the world an its History, claims that he is the Son of God. And can be identified by that claim.
The Pope on the other hand claims that he is Gods bodily corporatrive deputee, telling teaching and instructing on Gods behalf!”
Thus Popes and the Emperors are quite common in the landscape and history of intellectual and Political behaviour and on the websites. Now also on the battlefields and missionary areas in Ukraina and elsewhere. as there are also a lot of aspirering Emperors and Popes.
AZHOV was identified by Thor Heyerdahl as AS- HOV in old norse, The court or the hall of Odin and all his further Gods. The opposite Jotunheimen and Nivlheimen is the foggy ices and dark nebulas. Nephelai in greek.
We have had geographers and learnt chosmologists on this before, you see. And hope that Kyiv and the “Rus” and even Belsrus” will come to its order and diciplines again.
Gavin, the corollary to your argument seems to be that it would be immensely valuable to know the motives and goals of those making claims and assertions when seeking to identify misinformation–that looking at those claims and assertions on their own is not sufficient.
I think that way lies danger. But perhaps I have misread or misinterpreted what you wrote.
I also think that criticism of Koonin and Lomborg in a piece that cites work by Lewandowsky might come off as a bit rich.
I don’t know Koonin or Lewandowsky, but, yes, the dismissal of Lomborg, especially in such an all-inclusive manner, might even be labelled misinformation.
There are others, with impressive bona fides, (Pielke, Curry e.g.) who are also routinely dismissed. The all-inclusive dismissals present a somewhat anti-science approach to climate science, by climate science.
Climate science itself is responsible for significant mis-direction by omission with its attempts to reduce the widely acknowledged inherent complexities to three-word sound bites. I guess it is considered extremely important that lay-persons all round the world get on board, but consider the more-or-less complete lack of success that the approach has produced to date. Wander around the inter webs on Earth Day and check out the amount of dis-respect shown to climate science.
Dan Hughes,
I think the citing of Bjorn Lomborg in the OP, indeed being singled-out there alongside Koonin (whose career has more to do with ‘who you know’ than achievement); the singling out Lomborg as somebody intending to mislead is because his 2001 book ‘The Skeptical Environmentalist’ was adjudged by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty to have “so distorted” the “scientific message … that the objective criteria for establishing scientific dishonesty had been met” although Lomborg himself was not guilty due to his acknowledged lack of expertise in the fields in question. The result was later overturned in the Danish courts but not because the result was incorrect.
Your suggestion that “impressive bona fides” are a legitimate defense for publishing BS is perhaps best countered with the name William Happer, one of the Gentlemen Who Prefer Fantasy.
If an honest scientist is operating scientifically as a climate skeptic shedding light into the dark nooks & crannies of the science of AGW, they do it with a modicum of humility. You do not (as did Nic Lewis) accuse the entirety of the IPCC as being a pack of liars because Nic Lewis is right and the IPCC are both wrong and know they are wrong.
Curry certainly crosses to the dark side. As for Pielke, I think it depends which one you’re talking about.
And the Lewandowsky mentioned by Thomas Fuller as the co-author of a paper cited by the OP is a cognitive psychologist. His works delving into AGW denialism and it relationship with the AGW consensus first appeared with the 2012 paper NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science.
nigelj, it’s amazing how everyone who opposes your position is a loon, shill or crackpot. What were the odds?
TF: nigelj, it’s amazing how everyone who opposes your position is a loon, shill or crackpot. What were the odds?
BPL: Depends on what his position is, doesn’t it? If it’s “that AGW is real, man-made, and dangerous,” then he’s quite right.
DH: I don’t know Koonin or Lewandowsky, but, yes, the dismissal of Lomborg, especially in such an all-inclusive manner, might even be labelled misinformation.
There are others, with impressive bona fides, (Pielke, Curry e.g.) who are also routinely dismissed. The all-inclusive dismissals present a somewhat anti-science approach to climate science, by climate science.
BPL: No. Dismissing crackpots, loons, and paid shills is not an anti-science approach, it is a pro-science approach. Science is not a democracy and not all opinions are equally valid. Nor is truth always in the middle. Sometimes one side is just wrong. The facts in this particular case have been settled for decades and those still arguing for the other side are either incompetent or disingenuous.
BPL . . . crackpots, loons, and paid shills . . .
DH :: QED Three-word sound bites.
Not to mention the outstanding depth of understanding of the issues reflected by such exceedingly rational rhetoric.
Dan, some people just ARE crackpots, loons and paid shills. Do you deny that?
Which inherent complexities? Is that because of the fluid dynamics? That has little to do with the mean-value physics of GHG forcing and if you think it does, maybe you want to try your hand at ENSO modeling research.
No one has ever used that expression before. Does it mean failure? That climate science is a complete failure? It can’t explain why the temperature warms up when the sun rises? Or it can’t explain the seasons?
Dan Hughes,
I’ve never come away from reading anything by Lomborg, Curry et al understanding more than I did before. I come away from reading Koonin or Pielke the Lesser feeling like I need a shower.
If they don’t provide insight, I don’t have much use for ’em.
This, exactly! And why oh why are we still hearing from Victor and why are so many still replying to him? This subtracts value from RealClimate’s comment sections.
I long for a return to actual science in RC’s comments, where I have to struggle to understand in my limited way, and feel I might learn something.
This quote from Kevin Drum’s excellent weblog might be appropriate, given that some of the discussion of this was on Twitter:
“Social media hasn’t changed behavior, it has revealed it.”
Thomas,
I don’t know the context of your cited quote, but I think that social media go beyond merely revealing behavior in (at least) two important ways:
1. Algorithms designed to create engagement allow the very rapid social selection and evolution of attention-grabbing stories. This selection favors emotional appeals, and filters out the kind of slow, careful consideration that science excels in when reaching conclusions.
2. Botnets aren’t human, and their behavior reveals little about human behavior, except what “sells” to the humans in the social media mix..
Actually, social media monetizes conflict and anger. Every one of us has the potential to make choices for good and for bad. Since Reagan, greed is good and why should I care about other people, along with violence and victim blaming, have become much more socially acceptable. Social media have massively multiplied this.
Moreover, social media tends to amplify the voices that are already loudest. Those yelling loudest for “Freeze Peach” are those who want to preserve their monopoly on volume.
It didn’t have to be that way. Social media algorithms could have looked for what is missing in a person’s feed rather than simply amplifying what there is too much of already. I am reminded of what Dick Lamm (former Colorado governor–called Governor Gloom during his tenure. When speaking of the television, he said, “It’s as if Gutenberg had invented the printing press and printed nothing but comic books.”
Yes propaganda has been monetized. But worse, when said propaganda is anonymously funded, anonymously posted, raises lots of money, and, as we see here with a few resident propagandists, is, consequence-free it proliferates beyond bound..
Could this be a “false dichotomy” fallacy here, where by focussing on “science” and “pseudo-science” you’re overlooking the option of “others / everything else / none of the above (NOTA)” ?
From Popper’s “Conjectures and Refutations” (published in 1962, though his thinking may have changed subsequently ?) :
Popper was trying (around 1919/1920 ?) to draw one line to separate “the empirical sciences” from “all other” options (= “Religion plus Metaphysics plus Pseudo-science [ plus … ]”).
NB : His principal objective was to define (/ isolate) “Science”.
You are asking if we can draw one line that isolates “pseudo-science” not from “all other” options, but in a way that also isolates “science” in particular from the (third) “NOTA” possibility.
NB : Your principal objective appears to be to define (/ isolate) “Pseudo-science” (as part of a post mainly about the difficulties of defining the word “Misinformation”).
That’s probably equivalent to asking us to draw a single non-overlapping line on a Euclidean plane that divides it into three (or more) pieces, which is a mathematical impossibility (there’s no “maybe” about it).
Carbomontanus says
@ Victor
“There was a roughly 40 year period during the previous century…….!”
Why do you not discuss or mention SO2, the London Smog and Ruhrgebiet and Wirtrschaftswunder 1 during this period and from open chimney without shrubbing and all the political worries about Acid rains?
Is it because that would disturb your agenda and mission?
V: Well, first of all, I have no agenda. My “mission” is to call attention to all the many instances where the evidence not only fails to support the AGW claim, but in so many cases contradicts it. I started out uncritically buying into the “global warming” paradigm — until I started looking more closely at the evidence. It was the evidence, NOT some ideologically determined “agenda” that turned me into a skeptic. As I’ve stated many times, my political affiliation is hard-left progressive and I have consistently voted the Democratic ticket all my adult life.
Now as far as the 40 years of cooling is concerned, I’m assuming you are referring to the oft-cited argument that an underlying warming trend was cancelled out during this period by the cooling effect of sulfer dioxide aerosols. Sorry, but this looks to me like a classic case of MISinformation. We’ve been over this issue in these threads several times already, so I’ll be brief. As I demonstrated, there is no convincing evidence of an underlying warming trend in a great many locations where the sort of industrialized activity that could produce such aerosols has been either absent or sparse. An especially clear example can be found in the record for Africa, where we see a steady decline in average temperatures from the late 30’s through the late 70’s. (https://www.grida.no/resources/7043). For more details, see my blog post at http://amoleintheground.blogspot.com/2021/03/thoughts-on-climate-change-part-10.html
Only because you don’t understand what you are talking about.
Hr Victor
“… an underlying trend of watming was canselled out during this period by the cooling effect of sulphur dioxide…. looks to me like classic MISinformation..”
You obviously need better to know how the signals and the graphs are caused and put together by several vectors and signals and that mentioning one next strong of them is far from “MISinformation”
the SO2 argument has another and heavier weight and relevance. It disturbes quite severely the fameous sale of cycles in the climate dispute.
By the way, I am an expert on the analysis of complex physical and cyclic oscillating pnevmatic and hydraulic systems and must say that it is not at all that easy to repeat the success of Milancevic.
Also basic, classical vulgar Marxist- leninism is worshiping in the fashionable hinduistic cyclistic defaitistic way “You see, the climate has cycled before… smile smile…!”
Thus try and control your deeply BIZARRE worshipful beyhaviours also, being a hard left progressive.
If anyone here can translate the above post by Carbomontanus, I’d be most grateful.
Should I perhaps try a bit stronger to translate for everyone what Victor has got for basic standpoint and agendum?
He seems to be a flat earther and blind, progressive believer from Arbeiter und Bauernfakultät. Dig more and deeper in that rather plausible area for his beliefs, manners, and behaviours..
Victor does behave like a traditional, national socialist from a peoples republic, a typical intellectual missionary with that kind of racial origin and roots. .
@ Victor
I could also add that of C.P.Snow and “the split of our culture” that story of the Kult- ists and the Tekk- knots, the verbal chat and the screwdriver faculties.
Get out C.P Snow and the split of our culture on Wikipedia at least, and read that thorroughly through,
C.P.Snow on PENSVM is My very good and general advice against snobbish narrow- mindedness , cultural collisions, intellectual racism and cognitive incongruence.
If sentences like … the analysis of complex cyclic oscillating pnevmatic and hydraulic systems …. the success of Milankevic..” is alian to you just because there is limited space format here and In have to compress a set of precise and very distinct meaning word conscepts for physical and geophysical science….
…. then you may have political psychological difficulties because of your backgrounds and upbriungings rather in the so called Kult- ist, the political thinktank and verbal chat or squit faculty.
Eventual poetic engineers must also be aware of this and of SIR Charles Percival Snow.
I actually got it from the , fameous Danish poet and scientist Piet Hein.
A minimum of inter- facultary orientation, training, respect, and understanding belongs to any 0rderly responsible higher formation.
You will never be of the masterclass without it.
And as demonstrated by several commenters, there is no convincing evidence suggesting that the radiative effect of aerosols should be so highly localized, and a good deal of evidence showing precisely the opposite. (Rasool & Schneider, anyone?)
No? Well, how about Delworth & Knutson (2000), then?
Or there’s the pretty recent review article by Bokuchava & Semenov (2021) which finds, not that there is no adequate explanation of the early 20th century temperature trajectory, but rather that the problem is assessing precisely which factor contributed how much.
Indeed we have.
Victor, here is an explanation:
https://skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-mid-20th-century-advanced.htm
Victor wrote: “As I demonstrated, there is no convincing evidence of an underlying warming trend in a great many locations where the sort of industrialized activity that could produce such aerosols has been either absent or sparse. An especially clear example can be found in the record for Africa, where we see a steady decline in average temperatures from the late 30’s through the late 70’s.”
The cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s you are talking about is of the global average surface temperature. The fact that the land surface temperature of Africa agreed with the global trend despite having less industrial aerosols in the atmosphere shouldn’t be surprising when other facts you are ignoring are taken into account. One, CO2 isn’t spread evenly throughout either. There is more in the northern hemisphere. The world population was only 2.5 billion in 1950. It had doubled by 1980. Three, there was a fair bit of volcanic activity in the from the 40s to the 70s.
Is this slight cooling trend from the 40s to the 70s really what makes you a “skeptic” ? Despite all the evidence that supports AGW, this cool period can’t really be what makes you skeptical of AGW, especially when there is a credible explanation for it.
Freeze Peach!
Yes. Regarding demarcation, what bounds on fuzzy math can you tolerate? It’s not entirely an area that can be entirely decided by science or law, but you should be able, legitimately I think, to critique it in terms of art.
With conscious practice and guidance…
There has been speculation about what would happen if Bears Discover Fire (or Smut); however we do know precisely what happens when they discover libertarians. So much for your marketplace of ideas social Darwinist knuckleheads.
And then there’s this nonsense:
A Look Inside the Textbooks That Florida Rejected
The state rejected dozens of math textbooks. The New York Times reviewed 21 of them to figure out why.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/22/us/florida-rejected-textbooks.html
I mean, come on! O for an enclave of sanity.
—-
BTW, like the new look, but what happened to the ability to preview comments?
Gavin,
Right on cue, The Heartland Institute has just put out its latest volume of Climate at a Glance for Teachers and Students – Facts on 30 Prominent Climate Topics. It’s an 80 page compendium of misinformation claiming that:
I think it merits a thorough review from bona fide experts at Amazon (https://www.amazon.com/Climate-Glance-Teachers-Students-Prominent/dp/1934791938/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2TZWZSBJAZYTD&keywords=Climate+at+a+Glance+for+Teachers+and+Students&qid=1650808612&sprefix=climate+at+a+glance+for+teachers+and+students%2Caps%2C122&sr=8-1).
TYSON MCGUFFIN,
Is this latest serving of educator-targeted denialism from the Heartless Institute any different from their 2017 serving?
Okay so this latest serving is 27% shorter than the version sent out to schools in 2017 and this latest version appears to ignore AGW rather than present the argument that AGW doesn’t exist. But that is what happens when your authors are a couple of media mouthpieces (Watts & the Hearless’s prez Taylor) who are folk who should never be given access to writing materials. The 2017 version was a piece of fake-science from a trio of nutty professors (Idso C, Carter & Singer).
Looked at the amazon page for the Heartland book. Left a review. Thanks.
BPL: Left a review
DH: Real world, real-time dis- and mis-information in action. A “review” of an unread book. Is that a Physical Realization of an Oxymoron, or what.
How do you know BPL didn’t read it?
I really don’t need to read anything by Heartland to know what it contains. They produce only one product: lies.
I’ve read plenty of Heartland stuff, Dan. Have you read any textbooks on climate science?
It contributes to my studies of parasciences and its sources at least.
Article quote: ” Creating and curating accessible spaces and environments that elevate information over misinformation seems to me to be an essential part of building an informed democracy (which is what we want, no?).”
The leftists in the USA are not interested in an informed anything, and no, we don’t want democracy (mob rule), at least not for President. Does this look like policy from a group wanting people to be “informed”:
https://www.hoover.org/research/seattle-schools-propose-teach-math-education-racist-will-california-be-far-behindseattle
How do you think that we can have an informed electorate with that type of crap? It is not possible.
How about teaching toddlers they can choose their gender? How about teaching that whites are oppressors and racists? How about that a man can have a baby? Are those things beneficial to society? These are just the tip of the iceberg of the garbage coming from the American left.
On disinformation regarding COVID, Dems politicized it when Trump said to not allow flights from China. “Xenophobe” Biden and others said. How about Fauci: masks don’t do anything, don’t wear a mask, wear 2 masks, blah, blah, blah.
You lost all credibility with your bashing of Fox News, and claiming that CNN was somehow trustworthy. CNN has zero credibility. How about Dems in general? How’d that Russia, Russia crap turn out for the Dems – all proven to be lies. How about the CNN lies about Hunter’s laptop before the 2020 election?
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2022/03/30/cnn-admits-hunter-bidens-laptop-is-authentic-532-days-after-initial-reporting/
Only an uninformed, low-information voter would watch CNN or MSNBC.
Bottom line on this whole thing? Our nation is divided. We have ignorant subversive Dems who want to replace the USA with a one-world communist utopia, and we have Rs who want to continue the freedom and spectacular success that our founders started including following the Constitution as written. THAT requires an informed electorate and Dems are destroying that as fast as humanly possible INTENTIONALLY.
I invite all who want to live in a communist utopia to buy a ticket now while we are still burning FFs, and go live in one.
[Response: None of this is actually true, somewhat underlining my point. – gavin]
Wheeeeeeeee!
And Stop The Steal too, right?! Oh, and don’t forget to tan those balls of yours with red lasers like Tucker says, too!
Always knew pure politics was behind vic’s “science”…first time I’ve ever seen him admit it so clearly, though.
Don’t worry though, no dem will vote for Hunter Biden, vic. So your worries are needless.
I challenge you to show point by point that it is all false. You can’t because it is all true.
No replies. Let’s see it. Line by line to prove your points about misinformation. We’ll wait.
You DO tan your genitals with red lasers :-O ???!!!
KIA: we don’t want democracy (mob rule)
BPL: The rest of us do want democracy. If you don’t like it, go live in Russia or some other place where they don’t have democracy.
Hey, Mr. KIA, thanks for providing such an excellent example of a “useful idiot.” You amplify the talking points of organizations that produce nothing but bullshit. You have dumbed yourself down to the point where you wouldn’t recognize an actual fact if it bit your pecker off
Dude, Faux News has admitted that it isn’t a news organization. It has said that no intelligent human would take Tucker or Hannity or Ingraham, etc. seriously. Studies have shown that people who listen to Faux News are less informed than those who have no source of news whatsoever. Get a clue while you can still drool into the drool cup.
3 short videos embedded in this article from a University of Chicago student newspaper that you might find interesting:
https://thechicagothinker.com/the-chicago-thinker-staged-a-media-regime-takedown-this-week-heres-how-we-did-it/
Your articles are not merely false. They are lies. Seattle’s curriculum merely seeks to show that math is not merely the purview of long-dead, white, European males. This is true–or would you prefer to do your math in Roman numerals? And while math is not racist, racists do hide behind bad math–remember “The Bell Curve”?
Here’s how the story reads when you don’t get your “news” from the lie factory at Hoover:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/colinseale/2019/11/23/seattle-public-schools-plan-for-math-and-social-justice-actually-adds-up/?sh=36abe0b84ac2
https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/seattle-schools-lead-controversial-push-to-rehumanize-math/2019/10
Adding CO2 to the atmosphere has always caused Earth to retain more energy. That’s physics.
We don’t need models to see that. Even fish and birds have noticed, which says something about the human brain – that we have climate deniers wasting time humanity doesn’t have.
Your first paragraph is probably correct. Wouldn’t it help if there was a website showing the math and physics of how that works so that any human on the planet can open that website and see the work? No climate model needed, just the physics of heat transfer from the ground to space, showing every single bit of math in all the layers of the atmosphere. Most couldn’t understand it, but there are many people who could. Where is such a website? I’m not talking about a NASA energy balance cartoon. I’m talking the actual physics and math, starting with explanations of the fundamentals of heat transfer: “Whenever a temperature difference exists, energy will be transferred from the region of higher temperature to the region of lower temperature. The energy that is transferred is called heat…..”
Bad idea? Good idea?
Victor’s comment, culminating in “There was indeed a period of roughly 40 years of global cooling while CO2 levels rose,” shows what we’re up against.
Part 1: There is no such period. Yet no-one here, not even Gavin, has contradicted him.
Sure, there’s “a period of roughly 40 years” during which the globe as a whole didn’t warm. That’s something worth taking note of, and worth investigating, because yes indeed CO2 was rising at that time. Yet somehow, deniers have transformed “a period of roughly 40 years” from not warming to cooling. It certainly serves their narrative.
Part 2: When it is investigated, and even understood, the explanation is called “MISinformation.”
The cooling effect of sulfate aerosols is proven science. The rise in aerosols due to man-made emissions is proven science.
Part 3: Deniers (and, in my opinion, that includes Victor) really don’t care whether it’s true or not. This gives them the luxury of responding to any genuine insight or explanation with accusations — when you really don’t care whether it’s true or not, you don’t feel the need to budge in response to simple truth.
“…. really don’t care whether it’s true or not…”
Yes, I often point this out, as I did in my first response for this thread. So what do they really care about?
It’s very unpleasant and scary to acknowledge the existence of all those people… a substantial proportion of the human population… for whom this is true. Which is why, I think, people here and elsewhere keep responding as if their responses might have an effect. Whistling past the graveyard.
What is even scarier to acknowledge that people don’t fit all that neatly into the little boxes you have described and are more multiple shades of grey. If you want to understand some of Victors underlying motivations I think you will find he’s a left wing climate solutions denialist, worried about climate mitigations potential cost impacts on the poor, and this translates into attacks on the science. I agree its a waste of time trying to convince him of anything, but as a general rule I believe nonsense should still be rebutted. Otherwise it will be believed, because its often more appealing than the truth.
Hr Tamino
Rumors tell that the first fallen in war is the truth.
It seems to be reality now again in the russian ukrainian war. One really wonders how old rumors can be that frappingly accurate..
But now I really ask and wonder further on whether people wo seem to give a general damn to truth, whether they actually are at war somehow, and should be arrested and sued for war- crimes instead of anything else. .
I am getting an ugly feeling that it may be that serious. It seems to me like a general war against our civilization.
It may be a symptom of that people actually are at war and do not dare to declare it.
Putin strongly denies that they are at war now, and put people to jail who dare to say that it may be war. = a continuous further war against the truth as such.
tamino…As victorian mis/disinformation goes, one can at least make some “sense” out of the idea that there were cooling elements going into the atmosphere at tat time. Not worth fighting at this remove when he gives out so much more and more serious mis/disinformation all the time.
Or, at least that’s why I didn’t bother.
But yes. You are dead on as usual.
tamino,
You point out that Victor the Troll is spouting bullshit and that “no-one here, not even Gavin, has contradicted him.”
We have been suffering the ridiculous input by this denialist since he first arrived. here almost 8 years ago now. And thus is not the first time you yourself have responded to his crazy-speak.
Do bear in mind that this foolish musician thinks he know more than the IPCC who “chose to ignore (his) analysis and continue to operate under the assumption that a meaningful correlation actually exists [between CO2 & SAT],”. or so Victor told the world after AR6 was published.
His particular argument with the 1940-70 warming (and it is always best to respond to his particular argument because when challenged he will turn to it and hide behind it) is that, according to Victor, the reduced-level of SAT increase 1940-70 cannot possibly be due to industrial aerosols because the effect would be solely local to the sulfate emissions. “So if you want to argue that industrial aerosols were responsible for the global cooling evident from ca. 1940 to ca. 1979, you would need to produce evidence of the alleged underlying warming in undeveloped areas, relatively unaffected by industrial pollutants.”
Victor then presents temperature graphs for the Arctic, Antarctic, Africa, Madagascar, somewhere obscure in Siberia, Afghanistan, Burundi, Haiti, Kyrgyzstan and New Caledonia to demonstrate that he is right and climatology flat wrong because none of these places have industry but they still are adjudged to have the SO2-induced reduction in warming 1940-79. And Victor is incapable of error in such matters even though he has had the opposite demonstrated to him every time.
Of course, Victor’s trolling is off-topic on this comment thread except in that he provides an excellent example of a source of misinformation.
Tamino. “Part 1: There is no such (cooling) period. Yet no-one here, not even Gavin, has contradicted him.” Probably because Victor has been repeating all this stuff endlessly on this website for the last five years and many people have given up responding to him, and just wish he was boreholed. Agree totally with everything else you said.
Sorry, but this is a bit too dismissive of “Victor”.
– – – – –
Reference 1 : https://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/08/23/antrhopogenic-global-cooling/
Quote 1 : “Second: the 1940-1975 time period experienced anthropogenic global cooling.”
NB (1) : Please take a moment to “pause” and acknowledge the explicit use of the word “cooling” when talking about “a period of roughly 40 years” in the middle of the 20th century by this particular (anonymous) Internet poster so many years ago.
– – – – –
Reference 2 : https://skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-mid-20th-century-advanced.htm
Quote 2-1 (in the “Summary” box) : “The average global surface temperature decreased slightly from 1940 to 1975.”
Quote 2-2 (just above a graph “lifted” from “Reference 1” …) :
“There was a very slight cooling in the average global surface temperature from about 1940 to 1975. Although the global temperature only decreased by approximately 0.1°C, this period represents a divergence from the warming periods of 1915 to 1940 and 1975 to Present.”
NB (2-1) : Yet another explicit use of the word “cooling”.
NB (2-2) : All uses of the word “cooling” — and its “decreased” synonym — are qualified with adjectives like “(very) slightly” or “only”.
NB (2-3) :At no point is the phrase “no warming” (or anything similar) used.
– – – – –
Reference 3 (brought up by another poster “above”) : Bokuchava & Semenov (2021)
URL : https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825221003214
Quote 3 (the first paragraph of the “Introduction” to the paper) :
“The rise in global temperatures between 1910 and 1940 is the second strongest warming event during the instrumental global temperature record along with the recent warming. The two warming events are separated by a period of the moderate global temperature decline in 1950s–1970s.”
NB (3) : “… moderate decline …” =/= “… no warming …”.
= = = = = = = = = =
Following Victor’s “For more details, see my blog post at …” link, my initial “gut / sub-conscious” reaction was along the lines of “There’s a logical fallacy in there somewhere … but which one ???”.
After a delay my long-term memory reminded me about the “obligatory XKCD cartoon” (as they say out here on the Wibbly Wobbly Web), in this case the one titled “Significant”.
Reference 4 : https://xkcd.com/882/
NB (4) : Note the insistence of the “journalist” in that cartoon, and the “eye-catching” newspaper front page of the media reporting about the “scientific” results.
“Victor” did not commit a “logical fallacy” (in this instance, at least), they committed the behaviour I have seen labelled elsewhere as either “data dredging” or “p-hacking”, or what Gavin referred to in the ATL article as “Cherry picking, where a specific […] metric is highlighted to counter the larger scale picture”.
I insist on noting, however, that “the larger scale picture” is that from 1940/45 to 1975/80 the GMST datasets do indeed show a “cooling (/ decrease / decline / …)”, however “slight” or “moderate” it might be (and however much people may subsequently argue about the reasons for the shape of the overall curve).
Mark, the slope may be negative on 1940=1970, but that doesn’t mean it’s statistically significant. If the error bars include the whole area of the slope, there is effectively “no cooling” if the regression line is down. Do you understand what I’m talking about?
Probably not, but then my “internal belief system” includes the notion that no human being can really “(fully) understand” what (and/or why …) another fellow Homo Sapiens actually “thinks about” any subject.
The way this particular “interested amateur” integrated the notion of “statistically significant” trends is something like :
1) If the “error range” for the trend includes the value zero then it is not “statistically significant”
2) The further away from zero the limits of the “error range” are, the more “confidence” you have that trend is “statistically significant”
3) The longer the time period for which the (linear) trend is calculated, the more “confidence” you have that a “doesn’t include zero in the range” trend is “statistically significant”
Is that, even approximately, what you had “in mind” when you were typing the question at the end of your post ?
– – – – –
The phrase “tamino” was reacting to, made by “Victor”, was :
“… a period of roughly 40 years of global cooling …”
On another sub-thread here “Victor” made the bald assertion that :
“… and temperatures, which were significantly lower in the 1960s and 70s. then they were in the 40’s …”
“tamino” did not pick up on the “significance” of the (1940s-1970s) “cooling period”, they simply made the bald assertion that :
“There is no such [global cooling] period.”
I contested that bald assertion … as phrased.
The “statistically significance” of that “cooling period” is indeed an interesting sub-point, but it isn’t the aspect being focussed on by either myself or “tamino”. (or “Victor” for that matter, except as an aside).
.
tamino may have phrased it poorly, although I got his point at once, but his point is still valid. If the trend isn’t statistically significant, there’s no reason to call that period one of “cooling” at all.
BPL : “… I got his point at once …”
Mark BLR : “… no human being can really “(fully) understand” what (and/or why …) another fellow Homo Sapiens actually “thinks about” any subject …”
Typing the words “statistically significant” wasn’t done by “tamino”, it was done by “BPL” (based on an assumption on their part).
Over to you, “tamino” …
Dr. Levenson
Error bars are not physical and real in nature , in the climate, and in elementary enlighted geophysics, glaciology, or meteorology.
Vectors, Factors and causes however,…can be found and seen and heard , shown, defined, and discussed.,
Uncertainty is a reality.
Error- bars are not,
Exept in the military and football diciplines.
It substitutes and takes the place of possible systematic and physical barriers and discontinuities and limits, that Levenson never mentioned and pointed at..
He did teach and introduce his own religious political ones, that he never defined.
It is the same way that they try and rule and settle in Ukraina now, Their own “Error- bars” along with old so- vi- ettic, geo-political lectures. Giving a damn to legalistic limits and official boarders that were earlier agreed on..
There must be limits to large spin- doctors and QUACK-ery!
C: Error bars are not physical and real in nature , in the climate, and in elementary enlighted geophysics, glaciology, or meteorology.
BPL: Who the actual fuck cares? You still need them, and they still mean something.
@ Victor
Should I perhaps try a bit stronger to translate for everyone what Victor has got for basic standpoint and agendum?
He seems to be a flat earther and blind, progressive believer from Arbeiter und Bauernfakultät. Dig more and deeper in that rather plausible area for his beliefs, manners, and behaviours..
Victor does behave like a traditional, national socialist from a peoples republic, a typical intellectual missionary with that kind of racial origin and roots. .
BaerbelW says
We have a new animated GIF applying a logic-based approach to deconstruct the “Climate has changed in the past” argument on Skeptical Science: https://sks.to/md-past-en
This (and several other – https://sks.to/md-blog-en) myth deconstruction is inspired by the paper “Deconstructing climate misinformation to identify reasoning errors” John Cook published with Peter Ellerton and David Kinkead in 2018 (https://sks.to/criticalclimate)
V: My oh my. Where do I begin? We’re presented with an “animated gif” which is supposed to make it easier to grasp the following logical fallacy, aka “myth”: “Climate has changed naturally in the past so current climate change is natural.” Do you know of anyone dumb enough to make such an argument? I don’t. As with so many of the other “logical arguments” presented in the Cook et al. paper referenced above, it’s a straw man. Straw men are constructed specifically with the intent of refuting them because they are set up to fail from the start.
So sure, “climate has always changed.” We hear that all the time. And it’s true. But no one I know of has ever argued, based on that observation, that current climate change must therefore be naturally caused. If you presented an argument like that in my local Kindergarten you’d be laughed off the stage.
What’s implied by that statement is not some sort of proof, but a challenge to anyone insisting that “this time is different” to offer actual evidence to support their claim. We can therefore rewrite the argument presented in the SS gif as follows:
Premise 1: Climate has changed naturally in the past.
Premise 2: The climate is currently changing.
Conclusion: If current climate change is influenced by anything other than natural causes, convincing evidence of such causes is required.
In other words, it’s not enough to claim current climate change has an anthropogenic cause simply because one can’t think of any natural force(s) that could be responsible. Climate has changed many times in the past for reasons no one has been able to explain, so why should the current situation necessarily be different?
[Response: It shouldn’t *necessarily* be different, but when we look at all the natural effects, they simply don’t match what has happened, but when you add in the anthropogenic ones, they do. It’s really quite simple. https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4908 – gavin ]
V: We’re presented with an “animated gif” which is supposed to make it easier to grasp the following logical fallacy, aka “myth”: “Climate has changed naturally in the past so current climate change is natural.” Do you know of anyone dumb enough to make such an argument? I don’t.
BPL: I see it every week on Facebook.
And on Twitter.
On Parler and such, who knows?
Tamino:
Victor’s comment, culminating in “There was indeed a period of roughly 40 years of global cooling while CO2 levels rose,” shows what we’re up against.
Part 1: There is no such period. Yet no-one here, not even Gavin, has contradicted him.
V: This period is often described as a period of cooling and that was indeed the perception of those who feared a coming ice age. When I’ve referred to it in the past I’ve usually described it as a period of cooling followed by a period in which temperatures leveled off. Yet, as should be obvious from consulting just about any temperature graph, the sixties and seventies were considerably cooler than the early 40’s.
T: Sure, there’s “a period of roughly 40 years” during which the globe as a whole didn’t warm. That’s something worth taking note of, and worth investigating, because yes indeed CO2 was rising at that time.
V: Yes indeed.
T: Yet somehow, deniers have transformed “a period of roughly 40 years” from not warming to cooling. It certainly serves their narrative.
V: While ignoring the lack of correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures, or attempting to explain it away, serves your narrative.
T: Part 2: When it is investigated, and even understood, the explanation is called “MISinformation.”
V: Come again? Seems to me the misinformation is all yours.
T: The cooling effect of sulfate aerosols is proven science. The rise in aerosols due to man-made emissions is proven science.
V: Agreed on both counts. But the effects of aerosol pollution mean little if there is no evidence of any underlying warming trend during this period. As I’ve demonstrated (see above).
T: Part 3: Deniers (and, in my opinion, that includes Victor) really don’t care whether it’s true or not. This gives them the luxury of responding to any genuine insight or explanation with accusations — when you really don’t care whether it’s true or not, you don’t feel the need to budge in response to simple truth.
V: What simple truth are you referring to? If industrial pollutants (aerosols) were responsible for the lack of warming over that 40 year period, then we’d see evidence of warming in every non-industrialized region. Only we don’t.
V: While ignoring the lack of correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures, or attempting to explain it away, serves your narrative.
BPL: Stop lying, Victor. Just stop it.
You know damn well I have explained to you literally dozens of times why there damn well IS a high correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. I’ve defined what “correlation” means in statistics. I’ve explained the equation. I’ve shown you the graphs. You’re not guilty of an innocent misunderstanding. You’re showing militant ignorance; you’re refusing to learn. That, or you’re just a God-damned liar. Stop. Fucking. Lying.
For the rest of you, here’s the data, the graph, and the correlation:
https://bartonlevenson.com/CO218502019.html
Sadly, Weaktor isn’t smart enough to lie. As he cannot grasp what correlation is, he cannot lie about it–though I’m sure he would if he were just a whole lot smarter.
First of all, Bart, the post to which I was responding was in reference to the years 1940 through 1979, a period during which there was very clearly NO correlation between CO2 levels, which were steadily rising during the entire period, and temperatures, which were significantly lower in the 1960s and 70s. then they were in the 40’s.
As for the most general case, as I explained on my blog, the reason the scattergram presented by Grumbine appears to depict a correlation is due to the time distortion produced by the fact that temperatures shot up so rapidly from ca. 1980 to ca. 1998. Thus, unlike the temperature graph I displayed, which presents a more or less accurate picture of climate history since 1880, Grumbine’s graph (like yours) distorts that history to emphasize the relatively brief 20 year period when both CO2 levels and temperatures happened to be increasing at the same time.
The difference between your interpretation of the data and mine is the difference between blind adherence to a mathematical formula and an analysis that puts the data in perspective, based on critical thinking. You can repeat over and over again (as you so often have) that I don’t understand statistics, but from my perspective it seems clear that you lack much understanding of scientific method.
No, Victor. You are illustrating your lack of understanding of correlation. I last detailed this for you back in December 2021, and many others have attempted, as well.
You are talking about the amount of correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. The “time distortion” you refer to is the over-sampling of the early period of the record, when both temperatures and CO2 are changing slowly. This tends to weaken the overall correlation you find. Rejecting the recent strong correlation, while emphasizing the older years, amounts to saying that you don’t believe the underlying relationship because you like looking at all the noise, instead.
Correlation is determined by a mathematical formula. If you think the formula is inappropriate, you use a different tool altogether. It is incorrect to use the tool improperly, instead, and still call it a “correlation.” It’s about like saying that the sum of 1+1+1+2+3+5 = 5, because the last two numbers in the sum are a distortion. You don’t get to eliminate the 3 and 5, but still call it a “sum” of all the numbers.
V: You can repeat over and over again (as you so often have) that I don’t understand statistics,
BPL: You don’t. You demonstrably don’t. I’ve offered you the opportunity to take an on-line statistics tutorial, and you’ve refused. You don’t WANT to learn. Your ignorance is willful, and therefore morally culpable.
V: but from my perspective it seems clear that you lack much understanding of scientific method.
BPL: I’m an actual scientist with four papers (soon to be five) published in peer-reviewed science journals. I have a degree in physics. What are your science credentials?
Victor
“You can repeat over and over again (as you so often have) that I don’t understand statistics,”
And you don’t understand statistics very well. The very fact that you accuse people of being fixated on “blind adherence to a mathematic formula” shows you don’t understand statistics because statistics is BASED on mathematical formulas!
You also cant read scatterplots properly. I showed you a guide how to interpret them but you ignored it and didnt learn.
I do get Victors scepticism though. I was also suspicious of the flat period of warming 1940 – 1970 the lack of correlation with CO2 in that specific period, but I found that there are several obvious and utterly credible explanations. So I moved on. For some reason Victor gets “stuck”.
For those who want the world to be more informed about AGW, my challenge still stands:
Show your work, so the world can see it. Many have math and science skills and may understand it.
Put it all in one place starting with the basics. Show ALL of your work including all algebra when deriving equations, etc.
Start with heat transfer occurs in 4 ways: conduction, convection, radiation, and mass transfer. Heat always flows from higher energy to lower energy.
Do it for a spot on the ground, going up thru all layers of the atmosphere and showing the math/physics.
Why hasn’t this been done?
KIA. The work is available in a multitude of peer reviewed papers, often for free, a google click away. I’ve given you links several times. Others have quoted text books on precisely the issues you talk about, several times, yet you keep asking the same silly question. There’s GOT to be something wrong with you. That is literally the only conclusion I can reach.
It has.
Start with Weart’s Discovery of Global Warming, and read the most important of the linked or discussed papers.
https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm
Okay, let’s start with a “spot on the ground” directly under the Sun. To make it simple let’s ignore the atmosphere (easy to do). The spot warms and re-radiates heat, but none goes back towards the Sun because the Sun is extremely hot and heat always flows from higher to lower energy”. Is that what you mean?
OH NO…the three plate problem rears its head!!!
I’m curious how deniers explain how the heat shield keeps Webb so incredibly cold. Surely it couldn’t be that the heat shield reflects the Sun’s heat back that direction!
It has been done. You just weren’t smart enough to understand it.
Jeebus, what do you think climate models do?
I think what I want to see is the calculation of heat transfer from a square foot or square meter on the ground at temp T1 to space at temp T2 in 3 different scenarios:
a) CO2 at pre-industrial concentration 280 ppm
b) CO2 at current concentration 410 ppm
c) CO2 at 560 ppm (double pre-industrial)
I don’t see why you’d need a model. Couldn’t it be done similar to the way you do a physics homework problem? Seems like something senior undergrad students might be given for a homework problem or a test. Don’t want to get involved with how heat is transferred from the equator to the poles, the ocean currents, etc. Just looking for a calculation of the heat transferred based on the ground temperature and the temperature of space, taking into account the attenuation of heat transferred with different CO2 concentrations, and also the heat transfer calculations for the different layers of the atmosphere. Isn’t that the basis of CO2 warming?
I think that’s what I want to see. But I want it to show all of the math. Don’t say: “if we substitute a into Planck’s Law we get b”. Instead, show all of the algebra to get from a to b.
Seems like it should be doable in a few pages of physics calculations. Seems like a good thing for the public to be able to look at.
On another note, what are the best lab experiments we know about to demonstrate attenuation of solar heat transfer due to different CO2 concentrations?
[Response: MODTRAN – gavin]
Hint for you, clueless: The peer-reviewed models. How do you think models are developed and work, for goodness sake? Hint again: Basic physics and energy fluxes. Stop flaunting your ignorance of science and your failure to learn. smh
Dear friends,
I’m writing you to plead that you should *not* ban “Victor the troll” from the comments section at RealClimate.
Why, you wonder? Because “Victor the troll” serves so many vital needs for us. He keeps the comment threads alive and in the public eye by inciting us to respond with vigor. He keeps us up-to-date with the latest denial. He also (as I have mentioned before) shows us a near-perfect example of “what we’re up against.” However often we prove him wrong, no matter how many times we think “any rational person with half a brain would either admit he’s wrong or crawl under a rock,” he keeps coming back.
And … best of all … he consistently does so *here*, where he can be refuted thoroughly by those who know how.
It’s almost as though he’s (secretly) *fighting* climate denial, by 1) bringing their arguments here for rebuttal; and 2) showing how idiotic and obstinate deniers are when they are contradicted by truth and facts.
Gavin in particular: I recommend you do *not* remove the comment threads. I know it’s irritating, I know it seems to be too open to abuse by trolls, but: the best purpose of this blog is *not* to provide a forum for rational discussion, the best purpose is to be the #1 climate-deniers-are-wrong website in the world, with a following that can handle even the most idiotic idiots.
Sincerely,
tamino
Tamino, nicely argued response. I agree in principle, but after several years of his nonsense and repetition it gets a bit tedious, so half his stuff should be boreholed! Is that a fair compromise?.
Hr Tamino
Yes!
The climate surrealists in Oslo have had their monthly “Klimapizza” at Pelles Pizza Railway square Oslo, downtown and vanished & withdrew to the way more provincial Bærum public library way back and uphill during the Covid 19.
SIC!
How I miss them.
A very best suggestion from the special participating climate swede there was that we should rather invite for and celebrate “Climate- surströmming”.
Which is actually an old russian recepy because they had no salt. For Surströmming, known as the worlds most exclusive, tribal dish, one must be inaugurated and able to take it with Vodka, and it keeps alian enemies of the regimes very efficiently at distance.
Surströmming is canned and fermented baltic herring without salt.
The swede once asked intelligently ” Why those Apokalypses?” and I could answer ” Don`t you know that? It is to keep up and to enjoin the morals on people.”
Finns say they invented surstromming to fool the Swedes into eating rotted fish!
jgnfld
I have red about it now. It is more or less known worldwide and even in antiquity.
tamino writes: “the best purpose of this blog is *not* to provide a forum for rational discussion, the best purpose is to be the #1 climate-deniers-are-wrong website in the world…”
Hear! Hear!
Damn autocorrect.
Anyway, based on an earlier post, I thought what initiated this whole discussion was that the comment section had gone stale. So why is that? And what’s to be done if this is indeed “to be the #1 climate-deniers-are-wrong website in the world?”
Um, I’m not seeing it –more like Ignatius J. Reilly has found a place where he can secretly vent his pyloric valve.
Victor
Angela Merkel said after a meeting with Putin more than 1/2 year ago that “He lives in another world!” “er befindet sich in eine andere Welt!”
People wondered. Because that remark may entail that she was telling after a personal meeting that Putin was actually mad- crazy. Para- Noia in greek. That he was adjective “Ver- rückt!”
Putin speaks fluent German and Merkel speaks fluent russian, so the meeting was important.
Later, it has shown that she was rather exactly right somehow.
As Truth is the first fallen victim at war (d/o) and look back into my fameous Aristotelian definition of truth and falseness initially here to help everyone in the discussionn of information and mis- information, read that scolastic peripatetic meta- physical formula again and again and again until you really get it…….
I can and must add that falseness and manifest surrealism and madness should not be worshiped. Because, it is not healthy. It is not polite, it is not civilized, and it is not peaceful.
I have seen Hamborg, Hannover and Kassel in 1954, and got a shock each day. People without a leg, without an arm every day in the streets and those were only the upgoing light victims, that actually destroyed the very day for me each day. A worst shock for me one ugly day was a black bear in zoo without a hind leg waving stereotypic behind the bars with the rest of it.
And the towns looked the same. Young birches growing on the second floor and people living in the ruins. There a second floor, there one wall there 2 walls, there a roof is lacking. And somewhere even a whole quarter and even dozens of quarters were lacking. Almost everywhere we went.
Later I got to look into the families also. There a father is lacking, there a brother, there 2 brothers, and there a whole family is lacking. Even a whole people might be lacking, being the longest lasting obvious dammages of war..
Then when pictures came out from Ukraina I saw at once quite exactly the same quite typical rubbish again after so many years. And some people saying for serious that “This is not a war”.
False- ness in pure Aristotelian scolastic sense can be ugly. Thus avoid it, and rather train on reality, that what is that it is and is not what it is not, and say and write of that.
Gavin:
“…when we look at all the natural effects, they simply don’t match what has happened, but when you add in the anthropogenic ones, they do. It’s really quite simple. https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4908”
The attribution studies to which you refer begin by assuming significant climatic sensitivity to anthropogenic effects. On the basis of that assumption it seems easy to attribute rising temperatures to rising CO2 levels, especially when both rise in tandem. Only there are two things wrong with such reasoning. First, the assumption that CO2 levels are a significant driver of global temperatures is just that: an assumption. While no one doubts that atmospheric CO2 has a warming effect, the significance of that effect remains open to dispute. (A listing of over 135 papers alleged to have found “Extremely Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity” appears at the following website; https://notrickszone.com/50-papers-low-sensitivity/ ) If the sensitivity is low, then it’s not possible to attribute rises in temperature to CO2 levels regardless of how “obvious” it might seem.
Secondly, the association between CO2 levels and global temperatures is by no means as straightforward as the attribution studies make it appear. As already discussed above, over a period of roughly 40 years during the previous century global temperatures either dropped or remained relatively steady while CO2 levels rose significantly. A similar disparity was apparent from roughly 1998 through 2016, when temperatures rose only slightly while CO2 levels soared (the notorious “hiatus”). It’s difficult to understand how significant rises in temperature can be attributed to CO2 in the face of such major discrepancies.
[Response: It may be worthwhile to remember that just because something is difficult for someone to understand, that does not make it difficult for everyone else. – gavin]
Most “extra” heat (93%) is going into the oceans, which are warming.
The hiatus you talk about is irrelevant; more CO2 in the atmosphere means more energy retained by planet Earth, all else being equal.
Agreed. If Weaktor wants to claim a hiatus for 1998-2016, he needs to rebut not the surface air temperature trend, but the one that counts for 93% of heat uptake, i.e., this one – https://www.climate.gov/media/13603
Why would a denier look at all the evidence instead of a cherry-picked factoid removed from full context? Propagandists don’t do full context. It’s kinda’ the whole point of propaganda.
Victor the Troll,
The second wrong thing’ which you boldly present here is the same old nonsense you have been peddling here for the last eight years, again-&-again oblivious to all the sensible reasons presented to you through that time, detailing over-&-over why your grand hypothesis is entirely bonkers. Perhaps we should acknowledge that you same-old-nonsense is here demoted to being the second place wrong thing’ behind a new wrong thing’ (although that is only “new” in the sense that it is not as old as eight years).
I think last time you waved that NoTricksZone list contained just 130 dubious references to a pack of denialist blather and badly misrepresented science. It would be interesting to know which were the five additions to make it 135. (You may note in the NoTricksZone ULR that there were originally just 50 such references.)
So Victor the Troll, if we were to suppose that climate sensitivity was low and we ignore the circularity of your presented-argument and your inept grasp of the science, would it be worth noting that the “obvious” warming doesn’t happen by magic.
If climate sensitivity is so exceedingly low, then the cause of that “obvious” warming will be difficult to miss. It would have to be many-times stronger than the forcing provided by AGW. And it would also have to be coincidental in its operation to the forcing provided by AGW, and being coincidental maybe even being caused by the forcing provided by AGW.
So if the little list maintained at NoTrickZone was worth the time-of-day and not a pack of denialist blather and badly misrepresented science, we would likely witness physicists delving into reality to seek out the cause of this ‘Dark Climate’. Strangely we see instead psychologists analysing the string-you-along theory that is denialism.
V: the assumption that CO2 levels are a significant driver of global temperatures is just that: an assumption.
BPL: Look again.
https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1190653
If the climate poses a risk, we should seek to understand what’s really happening. If impoverished people are at risk, we should seek solutions to help them. The enforced CO2 emissions-only viewscape will do very little to improve environmental or humanitarian outcomes, I’m afraid. I see nothing from climate communicators or climate scientists which offers anything useful on either front. All I see is highly politically charged stereotyping. A false narrative of good vs evil. Experts who guard the problem definition that match their expertise, who appear to lack context and effectiveness for the complex problems of the world. A story which is causing untold collateral damage to the sectors in which they claim to care about. It will take decades to restore trust in environmental science, academia, and institutions. It will take significant honest efforts to regain contributions for beneficial humanitarian and environmental initiatives which have practically dried up in favor of CO2 tech. The problem definitions have been grossly mischaracterized, for which CO2 may be only a bit player. It seems reasonable that altering vast landscapes, say 50% of the land, impacts local flood, drought, fire risk, pressure gradients, and atmospheric momentum. It seems reasonable that practically eliminating countless billions of mammals, birds, insects, amphibians, and other animalia impacts biogeochemical cycles in soils and hydrology. It seems reasonable the enormous impact of humanity on the planet would substantially alter surface energy partitioning and available surface energy budget. It seems reasonable this alone would put huge populations at great risk. Does CO2 provide some amplification? probably. Is CO2 at the heart of the issue? I think that’s debatable. Either way, this debate seems to be off limits. I’m not sure how this fits into the categories of denial, but I thought it might be worth mentioning. Thanks.
JCM: The problem definitions have been grossly mischaracterized, for which CO2 may be only a bit player. . .Is CO2 at the heart of the issue? I think that’s debatable.
BPL: The mere fact that you can post that shows you don’t understand the problem. Posting about a scientific issue you’ve clearly never studied is never a good idea.
I appreciate the response BPL. As one delves deeper and deeper in to the CO2 ideations they become more and more disconnected from practical realities, I’m afraid. I am not here to dispute CO2 effects, for which this board clearly exists to defend.
However, for the practical realities of someone suffering through a drought event, a flood, a wildfire, or extreme temperatures, the CO2 is indeed a bit player, in my view. Climatology has been reduced to global temperature curves and greenhouse effects, but the discipline is much deeper and richer than this narrow viewpoint. Humans impart great influence upon the Earth system, whereby impacts on watershed hydrology and ecosystems are by far the greatest influence on weather related hazards at this time.
As you judge, and criticize me, my colleagues and I will continue to steward the land, for which a small improvement goes a long way. We have been greatly disrupted by CO2 concerns, and the effects on our budgets, by a displacement of investment and interest away from landscapes and into green technology solutions.
I am often surprised when people resist human causal factors for climatic changes that are outside the scope of academic CO2 ideations. There appears to be a false dichotomy of ‘Natural’ vs ‘CO2 optical effects in discussions of environment. I will not be sucked into such a damaging framework.
It has become abundantly clear that many have lost a certain perspective on things, and so the problem definition has gone awry. The intent seems to be to reduce CO2, and the promise is that this will improve the environment for people. 90% of environmental discussions involve greenhouse gas and climate. My view is that this is an erroneous framework for understanding cause and effect. A generation of children now have little understanding of environment and climate. The CO2 ideation has become net-damaging to understanding, and priorities have been flipped upside down. Somehow atmospheric physicists have become the bearers of truth on environmental change. They should, perhaps, take stock of the situation.
Thanks
JCM,
I often respond to people who espouse nuclear generation as opposed to wind and solar for electricity with a simple question, which I think is applicable here on this different topic:
“OK, so what’s your plan?”
The point being that making negative comments about something without articulating your supposed alternative approach gives the impression of a lack of sincerity… seeming to be, perhaps, a form of “concern trolling”.
Could you give some specific examples of what is not being done on the environmental issues that concern you as a consequence of the focus on CO2 by climate scientists?
What would you like to see done… what’s your plan?
Climatologists dig climate and talk about climate change, no surprise there. Personally I don’t find it very exciting, but I do think it’s the most important issue facing humanity; and one of the biggest drags on addressing it properly is the inability to appreciate magnitudes of time and change. That’s both in intellectual terms but also politically where people fear disruption of their personal status quo.
ΔT
That’s where it’s at.
„However, for the practical realities of someone suffering through a drought event, a flood, a wildfire, or extreme temperatures, the CO2 is indeed a bit player, in my view.“
As is the fact of a wrongly driven electric device if the fire caused by it is actually burning down a house. Nonetheless preventing more houses from burning down from the same error must have a perspectiv other than the one of those suffering from actual burning, even if that is the practical reality. Hence, this is no argument for anything – just by logic.
„whereby impacts on watershed hydrology and ecosystems are by far the greatest influence on weather related hazards at this time.“
This is an argument for WHAT exactly? Those things are highly influenced by temperature an thus by the warming. It is like you say something is not important by showing examples of it‘s utmost importance. Which sounds to me like logical incoherent nonsense.
„My view is that this is an erroneous framework for understanding cause and effect.“
And my view is you are doing verbal acrobatic here instead of being on point: If you think anthropogenic CO2 does not cause warming, say so!
„erroneous framework for understanding cause and effect“ is pseudo intelligent bla bla that contains extremely little information. Pin your view down to the essential core of information and thats it.
„priorities have been flipped upside down.“
Aah! Priorities. Priorities are no scientific category. They can be a technical one, mostly they are a social one.
If you want to priorize what problem has to be solved first, second, third, so on, this is no scientific process. Science delivers facts that can act as premises for logically deducing priorities. But priorities found in such a deduction are not science. They are opinions.
Which leads me back to you verbal acrobatics. This is a science blog. If you want to have your opinion discussed, just airily stating your opinion is not enough. You need to state the facts you base your opinion on and show the logic by which you deduced your opinion from those facts.
Maybe the following might open your eyes a bit more to what science is and how it is not opinion, though scientists can hardly avoid to be opinionmakers or have own opinions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGVIJSW0Y3k
Hello, CA
“…those things are highly influenced by temperature an thus by the warming.”
We often view climate change as an external force acting upon the ecosystem, but we do not often consider the ecosystem changes acting upon the climate. Changes to the Earth’s surface reverberate throughout the climate system. Changes to the landscape are certainly not a passive subject of external climate changes. Terrestrial processes are tightly coupled with the climate.
In this view, climate must be defined by a holistic representation of hydrological and temperature regimes. Local climates are closely associated with soils and biosystems. Soils and biosystems have undergone great change, least of which as a consequence of CO2.
In plain terms, massively altering the surface of the Earth results in changes to the Earth system.
“If you think anthropogenic CO2 does not cause warming, say so!”
I see there is some defensiveness in favor of your preferred problem definition. If I may offer an opinion: I don’t think it’s the right question. I have no interest to argue on those grounds but it’s an interesting academic question that deserves research. This is the point of view I offer.
“Aah! Priorities. Priorities”
Indeed, when a debatable problem definition is imposed on the masses such that it has significant impact on policy, it does become a political question.
You can shout me down all you want and lecture me with your scientific principles, but it’s certainly hypocritical. It has been a most interesting introduction to this page.
Thanks
@JCM
You are conceptually wrong in more than one aspect.
First of all
„We often view climate change as an external force acting upon the ecosystem, but we do not often consider the ecosystem changes acting upon the climate.“
is factually incorrect.
If you would learn a bit about the topic, you would soon find that feedback loops are an essential part of how modeling climate change works generally. This means not only that changes in the ecosystem are taken into account as something acting upon the climate and thus indirectly on themselves again, it also means that a driver of climate change need not to be a change in CO2 concentration alone. Needless to say that this DOESN‘T mean a change of CO2 concentration is no essential force of warming.
The second conceptual error is as follows:
„If I may offer an opinion:“
Yes, you may. But if you want to discuss an opinion, the way by that you came to it is far more important than the opinion itself. Here you have offered nothing so far than claims without evidence and statemements about the worth of a question without having adressed any facts supporting this question.
So, you are free to offer anything, but no one needs to take you serious if you do not follow some methodolgy.
Scientific debate is not about opinions but about reasons for opinions in form of evidence. And no, freedom of opinion is no scientific concept, because it says nothing about if an opinion is wrong or right, because it does not refer to evidence.
You are right on this:
„Indeed, when a debatable problem definition is imposed on the masses such that it has significant impact on policy, it does become a political question.“
And if you want to apply this to your reasoning, you need a reasoning in the first place. If you find the problem is wrongly defined or wrongly priorized, you need to show all evidence you know and show the deduction by what you came to your conclusion.
This again is hard if you are full of misconceptions such as I picked at the beginning of this comment, namely that the action of feedbacks and things other than CO2 were ignored (no, they were not).
Right now, you only offer opinions, nearly no evidence and deduction and the very few facts you name as some kind of evidence are even incorrect.
What do you think has someone with a bit more understanding of the subject has to make of this? Cheering? Bury his head in his hands because he got struck by some totally new viewpoint?
„You can shout me down“
I am as well a defender of clarity as I am no native english speaker. Both combined might come a bit harsh in tone, but at least I produce clearly understable and thus discussable text. Which is the least I expect of everyone else.
CA, look at my response to JCM just above. I think I got it right; there is no there there.
You will not get an answer as to what he claims is the problem, or how to achieve a solution; it is just an opportunity to be vaguely negative about the science and engage in performative martyrdom.
Same experience I’ve had for a long time asking people “What’s your plan?”.
JCM
This, I can partly agree to,
Because I have had to try and get to the root of the problem in order to be able to simplify it enough also for me to understand it.
My diagnosis is too high wear on the biosphere, wherefore fossile fuels and obvious dammages to nature and our environmental life conditions
And I see the Malthus problematics, and have used google earth to judge the global situation. You hardly find many land areas today that are not obviously marked and changed by human activity, so why should the atmosphere be any exeption to that?
And then: It seems obvious that humanity will have to turn down the flame 50-80% at least within short, foreseeable future, and what will common human life situation look like then? Why do we burn fossile fuels and for what?
The seemingly quite necessary change will have quite radical consequenses to our habits and lifestyles. Better conscider that necessary change of lifestyle the sooner the better and prepare for it.
I have done that quite consciouslyn in many details and aspects now for 50 years at least, for personal economical reasons, but really also for traditional reasons. So I feel better prepared than many others. and can tell everyone more about recyclings and restorations and permacultures than any fanatic dilettant and drunken sailor, and in much more reasonable concrete and clear words. Because it is also a question of re- cycling and re- storation and defence of our civilization of learnings, and our common values.
Under those horizons, that what you mention, natural and weather disasters is obvious. I do follow and judge “climate change global warming” not so much by what “experts” are telling me, but by what I am able to see for myself in Nature and can tell people further about:” Rather look for yourself and think!, and how to look and to think better for yourself.
I am not so impressed by specialist abstract methods and methods & tyhoughts that I am not able to follow and to apply and to convince myself of in any easy and direct, theoretical and empirical way. People are so hooked up in borrowed theories and learnings and methods due to their high dependence of artificial industrioal half fabricata and consumer goods, that they are quite unable to master and make and repair for themselves. And that makes people un- practical and un- prepared. Which may become the worst of all in cathastrophies and in times of rapid change. They have no solid enough style of life.
JCM: However, for the practical realities of someone suffering through a drought event, a flood, a wildfire, or extreme temperatures, the CO2 is indeed a bit player, in my view.
BPL: Then your view is wrong.
Not true, for one thing it’s discussed in terms of feedback.
Long term, the effects of climate change accumulate momentum. “Pay me now or pay me later.” Big time. Calling it a bit player in fires for instance, is sidestepping the larger context. It’s not seeing the forest for the trees, so to speak.
Outside of half hour nightly news, these issues have been pretty widely discussed. Suggesting that sites like Realcilmate exist in a tiny bubble is wrong, or so it seems to me.
JCM,
Spoken like a man who hasn’t bothered to acquaint himself with climate science or even how science actually works.
First, the existence of greenhouse warming and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas are established facts–they have been for over a century and a half! You need to catch up! Second, the contention that climate scientists are ignoring every effect except CO2 is absurd and demonstrably false.
Third, if climate scientists were ignoring other effects, any young, enterprising climate scientist would quickly fill the void. After all, the goal is to advance the explanatory and predictive power of the science. If you do that, you get published. You get tenure. In this case, you’d also get fame, glory and riches.
So if you want to play the game, quit bullshitting and read the fricking science!
Hello Ray Ladbury.,
“You get tenure. In this case, you’d also get fame, glory and riches.”
Spoken like a true academic.
What you will discover is that there are people, such as myself, who exist outside academia who work out on the land every day. In my consulting work with the agriculturalists and municipalities the goal is the restoration of watersheds and soils.
I am getting the impression the comments section of this page is for academics in training, or something of the sort. Either way I will continue as I haven’t much to lose. I have been pre-judged, I can see.
What I witness is fragmented forests, soils eroded to minerals, a barren landscape; an incredible decline of ecology. Forests and grasslands devoid of animals and fungi, dried and oxidized with idle dead soils. This, especially near settled areas where the critters have been scared off. There is nothing to biodegrade; limited source, and even fewer biodigesters. Wetlands practically non-existent. Dry, oxidized, if not yet desertized systems everywhere the eye can see. You can feel it in your hand.
Watersheds are shot – biocides, land clearing, chemical inputs, de-vegetation, drainage channels, fragmentation, and a myriad of other factors have had enormous impact on hydrology and associated climate. Once a spongy rich landscape, now reduced to mineral dust and rock flower. This is not a feedback, as some suggest, or of secondary consequence. It is the primary change which has occurred. Directly by human influence.
Watershed management is ultimately about making available rainfall more effective. Existing climates might have expected an environment of deep organic soils and a rich ecosystem of biodiverse wildlife to compost matter into the soil, to enrich the landscape with abundant water, and to fend-off disease. Today, that’s not the case. And so, climates have changed.
In my work, the goal is to increase organics in agricultural soils at least 5%, and to restore quick cycling of organics back into soils in other environments. We do this by establishing connected natural systems, localized water retention by natural means, education, and incentivizing land-used practices with $$. This $ must be supplied by donors or government inputs.
There was a time when people had a greater understanding of natural systems, a better appreciation, and a time when people respected people from different sectors or casts. I see those days are numbered, based on this thread.
This is not addressed to you specifically, but to the thread.
An arrogant lot is what I see, who have confused academia as an excuse to be dismissive. Espousing a certain superiority, who expect a dissertation for evidence in a discussion thread. No longer wanting to discuss, only to preach and defend. Can no longer hear. Only wanting a research paper.
Those of us on the ground see what a degraded landscape can do, and we see what restoration of those landscapes does. I do not need a wannabe academic to tell me I’m wrong. Nor, do I need academics interfering with this work. I have the soils in my fingertips, and the smell of the fires on my clothes. I have seen the change. And I have seen the solutions.
It is we, myself and my colleagues, who restoring your climates. We are out doing the work in spite of those who would redirect attention to tech solutions and more engineering. What I see are people who claim to have all the answers, and yet are achieving very little. I see people who do not even realize how little they understand, taking hold of the discussion and directing us to follow their science. A science which has been so incredulously reduced and simplified.
If this thread is not simply a poor example of wannabe climate scientists, and are in fact the real deal, the academic institutions have been a failure. Producing chief defenders instead of collaborators. Producing people who cannot even see that there is a world outside the walls of their computer simulation labs. People who see practitioners as mere peasants. Who wish to shout down any dissenters. It’s a sad state of affairs. Regardless, in my work we will continue to scrounge and scavenge the residues of available environmental budgets in spite of what’s happening up on high at the institutions.
Cheers.
JCM: I have been pre-judged, I can see.
BPL: No, you haven’t been pre-judged. You have put your ignorance on display for all to see in a massively arrogant, combative, hostile, confrontational manner, and received the predictable reaction from people who know better. Then whined about it.
This is science. It requires either A) some training in the field, or B) willingness to listen to those who have that training. What can never succeed in science is C) assuming you already know the answer and everyone who disagrees is the enemy. That’s the royal road to being a pseudoscience crackpot.
Either that, or a stranger has wandered into this here bar and thrown down a challenge. He who can piss the farthest will determine who is the real conservationist. Will it be the badass man of the soil filled with resentment, who has grit in his teeth and fire in his eyes; or will it be the limp wristed, lily livered, namby-pamby, egg-headed nerds who hide in their basements all day and play with their girly little algorithms, bark bark woof woof?
I mean, what the…? Who does that?
So, I point out that you are ignorant of climate science and how science works in general, and your response is to say you’ll keep pontificating out of ignorance?
And no, not an academic. Not since 1994.
JCM, your basic idea upthread is that a variety of environmental problems are being neglected due to a focus on the climate change problem,. You are unspecific and provide no hard evidence to back any of this up. You’re just flat out wrong about New Zealand. We are tackling ALL environmental problems at once. We aren’t doing any of it perfectly, but nothing is being neglected due to the climate problem. The problems require using different kinds of resources anyway.
It looks like your annoyance that not enough is being done by governments to assist organic farmers, and your belief everything is going into the climate issue, is turning into denial of climate science. Its sad to see that.
Hello nigelj,
“You’re just flat out wrong about New Zealand.”
that is great news about New Zealand.
” your belief everything is going into the climate issue, is turning into denial of climate science. Its sad to see that.”
I have disputed nothing of the science. I have have not denied anything.
“your basic idea upthread is that a variety of environmental problems are being neglected due to a focus on the climate change problem”
I am advocating to focus everything on the climate change problem, a problem which exists in most every community.
Some communities get it, while others serve their voters by implementing “climate action plans” with money to electrify public transit with promises this will recharge their wells.
“Its sad to see that.”
I, too, feel sad for the misguided souls on this thread; those would enforce a false and distorted message about the science.
Best.
PS: please excuse any misspellings or missing words in my responses.
I am not a denialist, nor am I anything like the classic skeptics you despise and group me with.
However, in the context of the headpost, the sources of misinformation are not immediately obvious.
Just who is pushing false information? Just who is offering false solutions? Who is mischaracterizing the problem definition? Just who is sewing divide and polarization with their zealous talking points? Just who is miseducating youth? Just who is offering false policy choices?
I see some people who believe they are fighting a war to save the Earth by pushing an atmospheric optics perspective, rewarding themselves with distinguished academic titles and various awards. Heralded in media as our saviors, with their tales of doom. Pushing conspiracy ideations about people with whom they disagree. A lot of it is cringeworthy to us simpletons.
Conversely, I see others who are actually improving communities, from North America to India. Restoring watersheds and climates. Invisible people restoring disrupted hydrology, ecosystems, and associated climates. Benefits not only locally, but connected with synoptic scales as well.
Then, to be shouted down as heretics, or unscientific fools, as denialists, by an ignorant mob. People so invested in their cause, and so defensive, they can no longer even recognize their allies.
It is not immediately obvious what is the source of misinformation, or the source of polarization. It is not immediately obvious the benefit of reducing climate science to such a narrow viewpoint as defended on this page, then to proclaim this pinhole perspective as the be-all-and-end-all.
Indeed, it is very sad to witness.
This is the “spaghetti school” of denial. Throw everything up against a wall and hope something sticks…JCM is showing that, in addition to spaghetti, it works with messy, brown, organic material that is a product of ordinary metabolic processes.
JCM: I am not a denialist . . . Just who is pushing false information? Just who is offering false solutions? Who is mischaracterizing the problem definition? Just who is sewing divide and polarization with their zealous talking points? Just who is miseducating youth? Just who is offering false policy choices?
BPL: The Heartland Institute, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, the web site Watt’s Up With That, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, and much of the Republican Party.
JCM: I see some people who believe they are fighting a war to save the Earth by pushing an atmospheric optics perspective, rewarding themselves with distinguished academic titles and various awards. Heralded in media as our saviors, with their tales of doom. Pushing conspiracy ideations about people with whom they disagree. A lot of it is cringeworthy to us simpletons.
BPL: It’s not a conspiracy theory if the conspiracy has been investigated, confirmed, and documented.
You know what I see? I see a concern troll who comes in here pretending not to be a denier, but who spends all his time berating scientists and saying “I’m not a denier, but I think you are very mean to deniers and you ought to be nice to them.”
To get to the point, your act is transparent. We can all see what you’re doing. Bugger off.
JCM
You skim one article and make bad assumptions. Sources of misinformation have been discussed all over the world ad nauseum for decades! Volumes have been written about it. Websites devoted to it (see Skeptical Science, for instance). You are way out of your depth on this.
Here’s a hint, start with “F.U.D.” Find out what it is. Spend a few weeks asking yourself questions and researching them in good faith. Then come back and instead of trolling, be serious. Maybe people will stop treating you like you reek of Gazprom.
This really is a dark and shady space. You’ve all really done a number on eachother. If you’d like a more fun and rewarding experience I encourage you to get involved with some local environmental restoration efforts. I enjoy Schmidt’s writing and he seems very reasonable. The cling-ons here are a bit questionable though. I liked the Gazprom dig! Whoa, Nelly!
JCM,
If global warming is a conspiracy or cult, it has REALLY deep roots–all the way back to 1896 and none other than Svante Arrhenius. And while there are still aspects of Earth’s climate that we do not fully understand, the basics that underlie the science of climate change are not in doubt by any responsible scientist. You really should try to catch up–you’ve got nearly 150 years of science to work your way through before you can hope to have a competent opinion on this subject.
JCM
I got a million of ’em!
Well, I agree that the commentariat here has gotten into a rut, and that Gavin Schmidt is pretty much a saint. I don’t know how he does it.
However, you basically came in here and insulted everybody, so if you’re covered in shade you’ve probably earned it. Understand, you walked into a conversation without getting the lay of the land. If you had, you’d know that climate science has been under attack for a long time now, replete with death threats, smear campaigns, and intense political political pressure. So yeah, people are fed up with all the crap.
So, your dismissal of what scientists do with their graphs and whatnot is flat out ridiculous. You clearly either don’t know what they do, why they do it, and what it is that they are actually saying about climate, or you badly misspoke.
Everyone here as seen all kinds of trolls come and go, heard it all… still waiting and hoping to see something from you that clearly removes you from that category. Level up or move on, I say.
JCM. The problem is your writing lacks a bit of clarity. and is very easy to misinterpret. For example I see from one of your posts that your concern appears to be that resources are going towards things like wind and solar power with not enough resources going into sequestering soil carbon (organics?). Again Its not entirely clear so I’m having to draw conclusions. However I do believe it would be a valid point. Governments globally could be doing more to encourage sequestering soil carbon. However I believe Australia has a scheme:
https://www.minister.industry.gov.au/ministers/taylor/media-releases/support-australian-farmers-increase-soil-carbon-through-new-erf-method
nigelj says:
“I see from one of your posts that your concern appears to be that resources are going towards things like wind and solar power with not enough resources going into sequestering soil carbon (organics?)”
JCM: Precisely. But not for the reasons implicit in the consensus problem definition. Biosystems are, of course, much more than carbon storage units and albedo changers.
As required by the laws of energy conservation at the surface (in simple terms), net radiation = surface energy budget = the sum of evapotranspiration, sensible heat flux, photosynthesis, respiration, advection, and storage change.
I live on the right side of that equation. There are many scientific controversies and much to discuss and discover over there. This, the scales of microclimates, must never be under estimated. They have equal importance to net radiation (as required by energy conservation).
These controversies is supposed to be what science was supposed to be all about, or so I used to think.
Critically, the Bowen ratio, or the ratio of evapotranspiration to sensible heat. Turbulent flux process, upwards under sun, and net downwards at night.
I think sometimes those trained in astrophysics or remote sensing have underestimated or misunderstood these effects. Surface forcings, if you will. Erroneously defining them as secondary in importance.
This, of course, cannot be true. They are of primary importance, equal to net radiation. A change to one side, a change to the other. It must.
As microclimatology, this is below the scale of CMIP models.
In addition to energy concepts, drought and flood risk risk for humans is directly tied to these processes. This, by water storage specifically in watersheds. Well, it pretty much all has to do with water where I’m at. The organic carbon sponge is the medium. 1 unit organics stores 8 units water in soil. THis, must never be under estimated.
I can find a couple watts per square meter force by human influence in there. Of this, I am quite certain. Especially, when landuse change plots resemble exactly a hockey stick.
And don’t tell me CMIP models are processing this properly, they are not. However, this does not make Schmidt’s work any less interesting, don’t get me wrong.
The problem should be defined by minimizing risk to the system. When viewed holistically, all things considered, this would appear to be ‘mostly’ on the side of the equation where I’m at. At a scale where CMIP models are not yet operating.
On the very bright side, from my perspective, the fact that we are not modelling this correctly does not limit our ability to address the problems. And we are. By restoring watersheds. Lands are already on the mend, total land perturbation may be peaking. It has certainly slowed in the past 10-20 years. By perturbation I don’t mean only developed lands, or agricultural. Any perturbation to lands, including wildlands, by any disruption to the ecosystem.
Thanks
PS – the great fun is to witness the very real benefits. Not only in our communities, but also by following along with the CMIP advances. For each acre of lands restored or conserved, it cumulates to start eliminating higher ECS scenarios. Part of me likes to think it’s our network of restoration and conservation specialists achieving this. My hope is this trend will continue, if only carbon dioxide centric policy would get out of our way, to recognize a holistic system. My hope is that observational ECS will continue to tip down. Modellers claim they want to see this too.
As a greater recognition of local hydrology comes into play, model CO2 sensitivity must go down. Those who limit our policy options based on factors they are able to model at this time are doing more damage than they realize. There must be some concessions that there are critically important factors operating outside of the CMIP framework. You might call this unscientific, but I beg to differ. There is no virtue in defending half-truths, and blocking out scientific advances. There is no virtue to reducing the science so far as to cancel reasonable policy. There is no virtue to limiting the scope of teaching to school children based on our computational limitations.
JCM: For each acre of lands restored or conserved, it cumulates to start eliminating higher ECS scenarios.
BPL: “ECS scenarios” is a meaningless phrase. The scenarios used by climate models depend on greenhouse gas paths and land use, but the ECS stays the same.
@JCM
„It is we, myself and my colleagues, who restoring your climates.“
You and your colleagues are doing an important job, that is a PART of solving a problem. It will neither solve the problem alone, nor will it solve a problem that is caused by something you have near to no effect on with your work.
I cannot see how you derive from this simple facts that there is something wrong with anthropogenic CO2, the warming caused by it and the follow up consequences of that warming. Your work neither loses its value because it cannot solve all problems alone, nor does it make other problems less problematic.
That is no academical question. It is one of logic. And you seem to have lost your ability to apply logic to the matter discussed here by your emotions, namely that you feel that priorizing the CO2 issue devalues YOUR work. Because ressources are redistributed in a for your work negative way.
This is an a way understandable, but does not save your position from being flat out wrong.
“but does not save your position from being flat out wrong.”
That seems a little extreme. There is so much more beauty to the system that I hope someday you will discover.
Thanks for the discussion, it has been eye opening to see what’s going on in here.
JCM: As a greater recognition of local hydrology comes into play, model CO2 sensitivity must go down.
BPL: Non sequitur. Will you kindly study some atmosphere physics before commenting here again? Pick up a textbook on the subject, read through it, and work the problems. John Houghton’s “The Physics of Atmospheres” is a good one. So is Grant W. Petty’s “Atmospheric Radiation.”
Snap out of it BPL. Before you know it you’ll have us living in a landscape effectively rendered to desert, persistent humid hazes, blocking high pressure ridges, temperature extremes, reduced precipitation nuclei/low cloud, and net enhanced greenhouse effects. Sound familiar?
There is much to be learned by collaborating across disciplines.
Cheers
To all and everyone inclusive Victor& al.
Victor, I am a bit special. I am sceptic and I do not believe in the experts and not so much in “peer rewiewed papers” and statistics either.”
So, in order to make up my mind about CO2, AGW and Climate, I ask first, what is climate? and what is CO2?
It shows that I have learnt a lot of both of it allready, from other horizons than todays climate dispute. So I ask, how can CO2 be detected seen and measured, What has it got for observeable properties? How can we identify it and how can we deny and falsify it for sure?
That spectrum and area will entail quite a lot of practical useful natural artificial and technical things. For instance the soda bottle and dry ice ,. fire extinguisher, test tube experiments, bicarbonate , common combustion breathing and photosynthesis on practical and experimental level . And the Tropopause worldwide the cool side of the globe. with its very fameous and important physical characteristics
Al this taken together entails and tells me that the CO2-AGW hypothesis and theory is rather healthy and plausible. Wherefore I can buy it, else I could not buy it I had to fight it and deny it for being less well founded and less plausible.
I do deny and fight and badger a lot of such less plausible and less well founded things.
But, when anyone teaches that the CO2 AGW theory and the approximate delta T per doubling theory is misconsceived false and wrong and lacks empirical evidence and proof, then they attack, fight badger and deny the very arsenal of experience and reasons and methods that I had to put together for myself in order to grasp and understrand it, to make up my mind..
It comes out as politically fanatic class struggle and warfare against my consciousness learning and civilization, and that is serious. I really do not like that.
Just see what they are up to in Ukraina now, when they cannot agree on living in the same real world by official criteria that are agreed on, and truth is the first fallen victim at war.
Reality and truth is vital, and not to be violated.
You are fighting and ridiculing the laboratory methods , experience and learnings that I need further also for so many vital things. Together, you are joining the republican war on science as such, for instandce, That is really very ugly against all those civil persons who have to integrate and live with physical chemical and biological thought and methods in their daily life and work. Fighting that is really very racistic and snobbish.
I further have to tell and show my cildren about it in order to prepare them for work and for life, for security health, and for economy…
You and your comrades are at civil war against my very having to be “Santa”, after all.
MARodger sez:
Victor the Troll,
The second wrong thing’ which you boldly present here is the same old nonsense you have been peddling here for the last eight years, again-&-again oblivious to all the sensible reasons presented to you through that time, detailing over-&-over why your grand hypothesis is entirely bonkers.
V: I don’t have a grand hypothesis. All I’ve done is point to serious discrepancies between the grand hypothesis offered by AGW adherents like yourself and the actual evidence.
As for “sensible reasons,” don’t make me laugh. I was hoping for a sensible debate when I began posting here but all I got for the most part were juvenile insults of the sort in which you specialize. This form of “argumentation” tells me a lot about the maturity of so many posting here. As for the few attempts at sensible discussion that were offered, I found it ridiculously easy to poke holes in them — which only called forth yet more personal attacks.
MAR:
I think last time you waved that NoTricksZone list contained just 130 dubious references to a pack of denialist blather and badly misrepresented science.
V: Your bias is showing, MAR. Why don’t you read some first before jumping to conclusions?
MAR: So Victor the Troll, if we were to suppose that climate sensitivity was low and we ignore the circularity of your presented-argument
V: “Circularity”? Where is that coming from?
MAR: and your inept grasp of the science,
V: As opposed to yours?
MAR: would it be worth noting that the “obvious” warming doesn’t happen by magic. If climate sensitivity is so exceedingly low, then the cause of that “obvious” warming will be difficult to miss. It would have to be many-times stronger than the forcing provided by AGW. And it would also have to be coincidental in its operation to the forcing provided by AGW, and being coincidental maybe even being caused by the forcing provided by AGW.
V: OMG! An actual, bona fide, “sensible reason.” What a surprise. I’m impressed!
OK, so yes — and if indeed the world has been heating up to the degree alarmists like yourself keep insisting, then it might well seem as though the soaring CO2 levels must be the source. Only the warming trend you want so badly to see is not happening. Both CO2 levels and global temperatures did indeed rise in tandem over the last 20 years of the previous century, for reasons unknown. If they had continued to rise in tandem then we might well have reason to suspect CO2 as the cause of the warming. But the “trend” did NOT continue and for the next 18 years or so we had the famous “hiatus.” Put that together with the 40 years or so during the 20th century when temperatures failed to rise despite a significant rise in CO2 levels and the dilemma you’ve posed becomes moot.
And if you really must insist I provide you with some reason for the unusual temperature rise from ca. 1979 through ca. 1998, then I’ll insist you provide me with a reason for the equally unusual temperature rise from ca. 1910 to ca. 1940, which was almost as steep. And please, forget about that “lack of volcanic activity” you tried to peddle last time. That’s absurd and you know it.
Victor
If you instead ask for the inhibition of temperature rising between 1950 to 1978 and from 2000 to 2016, and suggest SO2 without shrubbing due to Wirtschaftswunder 1 and Wirtschaftswunder 2, then you may get some idea and have an explaination. Problem solved, case settled.
That is also congruent with the fameous but more shortlived Pinatubo- events on the temperature- graphs.
Personally, I feel that I am having a much easier life and am able to understand also a lot of other strange things, by not having to deny and to fight such plausible connections and signals.
I can even tell you further.
H2SO4 + P4O10 heasted in a pyrex glas with bunsen…..that smokes quite severely. The same with H2SO4 + NaOH boiled and fused at deep red hot to dissolve fossile iron oxyde… (giving fused Na2S2O7) That begins to smoke the same quite severely. because SO3 + H2O -> H2SO4
Then how can SO2 become H2SO4?
That takes “NOx” catalysator, O2, and H2O in the air
Or UV and Ozone. It will eat ozone, and cause “photochemical smog”.
Then I am able to understrand and to explain quite a lot more if I only resign on fighting the effect of burning stinky Mercaptane oil or “sea coal” for open chimney in order to keep up with the Wirtschaftswunder.
I can even tell and explain the extreemly high stratospheric and even mesospheric clouds, that shows to consist of H2SO4 .HNO3 .H2O in nano- cristalline form at near high vacuum.
Moral: If you can resign on keeping up with Frank Lunz in the climate, then you have wide horizons and possibilities for becoming further wise and clever. And telol healthy educative jokes and fairytales instead.
Set on, and rather defend Nature Realitry and Truth instead.
Victor writes: “All I’ve done is point to serious discrepancies between the grand hypothesis offered by AGW adherents like yourself and the actual evidence.”
Victor, you didn’t point to discrepancies. You cherrypicked two periods where global warming wasn’t obvious, if you just looked at those periods, and then you declared them to be discrepancies.
ok, you are saying there was no global warming during those periods. You are saying something else cancelled global warming during those periods. You don’t accept air pollution as the main cause of your first cherrypick, and I assume you don’t accept that your second cherrypick began with the biggest El Nino ever seen up to that point, so what natural cause or causes could have cancelled out global warming?
@ Victor
Instead of being a troll, take a good example from me and better enlight people and teach and tell about trolls!
Who are as real as can be, in a way.
It is a lot of litterature on it, and they have been painted and drawn by many fameous and cunning and observant artists.
Victor the Troll,
♠ I would suggest the second “wrong thing” you presented up-thread, namely your insistence that there is no correlation between CO2 & temperature (& SLR), does easily constitute an overblown “grand hypothesis.” It was bullshit when you “began posting here and surprise, surprise, it remains bullshit. As for your assertion that you “found it ridiculously easy to poke holes in” the “sensible reasons” presented which time-&-time-again have demonstrated your bullshit, you rather too “easily” resort to the “ridiculous” with your ‘poking’. QED. Or is such reasoning another instance where Occam’s Razor is contradicted?
♣ If you want to discuss the denialist blather and badly misrepresented science in the big pile of nonsense at NoTricksZone, perhaps begin with the first reference(Smirnov 2018) and the last reference (<a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0031-y"Sajas et al 2018).
As you are the one insisting I am “jumping to conclusions” with this perversion of science, perhaps you would like to explain to us all why these two papers demonstrate low ECS and deserve a place in the listing.
♥ “Circularity” indeed!! Telling the world that “the assumption … is just that: an assumption” is circular. And you demonstarte a poor grasp of science, in that it is scientifically incorrect to say “the significance of that effect (CO2 forcing on global temperature) remains open to dispute.”
♦ You have argued for many-a year-that there has been no warming since 1998, this in contrast to the previous 20 years (1970-98) which you describe as seeing a level of warming unique since 1940. Given your repeated insistence on this matter, it is strange that the real world the data does not support your bullshit. The warming 1970-2015 remained remarkably constant with an acceleration only appearing in the last 6 years. Remarkably, the warming 1979-98 is a period within that warming when the rate was less than average, not more.
As you will likely be tripping over your troll-hooves in disbelief when you read this, I linkt to a a graph at WoodForTrees showing GISTEMP 1970-to-date and OLS 1970-1998 & OLS 1970-2016 which are spot-on the same (+0.175ºC/decade), and OLS 1970–2022 (+0.189ºC/decade) showing an acceleration above that rate and your favourite 1979-98 OLS which shows less warming (+0.137ºC/decade).
And do note that your bullshit here does not begin to address the issue at hand which you described as an “OMG! actual, bona fide, sensible reason.”
V: the warming trend you want so badly to see is not happening.
BPL: And again, for the thousandth time, you understand what “trend” means no better than you understand what “correlation” means. Militant, willful ignorance strikes again.
For everyone else (not Victor, because I’ve told him this over and over and over again and he refuses to accept it): The “trend” in time series analysis is the slope of the line once it becomes statistically significant–which implies a necessary minimum sample size.
Shorter Victor:
My wilful ignorance about climate science is just as valid as your learned knowledge about climate science.
Why do any of you waste your time on the twerp, because that is precisely what he comes here to make you do?
Codependency.
Jim Eager asks: “Why do any of you waste your time on the twerp, because that is precisely what he comes here to make you do?”
It is necessary to practice refuting each point with clear, concise text.
Hr Eager
Think of if anybody own them, employ them, and pay them for each time they get their obviously higly drilleds and permanent, systematic consequent bullshit propaganda into social media.
That is what I think of now and then.
Such arrangements would be “top secret”. And that is what I am doing my best to trick out now and then.
Being a chemist, I am especially qualified and experienced on finding out what is in- sidse of things.
Where we, the learnt and experienced analytical chemists, have a whole arsenal of quite discrete, but sharp methods. What is inside of any arbitrary stone? A closed society? a Peoples Republic? a Test tube? a human body? a human soul?
If they for instance slam down the Iron Curtain when I knock a bit too eager or too often on their doors and other surfaces,
( that is Seismics for instance, one of or professional methods)
then I am on the track of something and I just get more suspicious.-
Science, you see, Science. We have our procedures,….
Martin Smith says:
Victor writes: “All I’ve done is point to serious discrepancies between the grand hypothesis offered by AGW adherents like yourself and the actual evidence.”
Victor, you didn’t point to discrepancies. You cherrypicked two periods where global warming wasn’t obvious, if you just looked at those periods, and then you declared them to be discrepancies.
V: My oh my. From the outset of the 20th century to roughly 1940 we see a steep rise in global temperatures while CO2 levels remain relatively low. No correlation, obviously. From roughly 1940 to ca. 1979 we see a dramatic drop in temperatures followed by an essentially stable period during which no significant temperature rise is evident — while during the same period CO2 levels rise significantly. Putting all this together it’s not difficult to conclude that there was clearly NO correlation between global temps. and CO2 levels over the first EIGHTY years of the century. And you call that cherry picking????? Sorry, but I call it evidence.
And yes the following 20 years saw both CO2 levels and global temps. rising in tandem. During that period they were indeed correlated. However, after that relatively brief period we have a 17 year pause during which temperatures rise minimally while CO2 levels continue to soar. While many on this site have turned themselves inside out in a vain effort to argue that this “hiatus” was some sort of illusion, the fact remains that a great many bona fide climate scientists went to a considerable amount of trouble to explain it away, while at the same time acknowledging its existence. One would think the matter definitively settled by the authoritative paper by Fyfe et al., cosigned by some of the leading figures in climate science. Perhaps they too are “cherry picking.”
MS: ok, you are saying there was no global warming during those periods. You are saying something else cancelled global warming during those periods
V: It’s not what I am saying, it’s what the evidence is telling us. Moreover, if there was no global warming to begin with then there was nothing that cancelled it.
.MS: You don’t accept air pollution as the main cause of your first cherrypick, and I assume you don’t accept that your second cherrypick began with the biggest El Nino ever seen up to that point, so what natural cause or causes could have cancelled out global warming?
V: Again with the “cherry picking.” Time and again on this forum anyone citing evidence calling the AGW paradigm into question is accused of “cherry picking.” How convenient. If it suits you it’s evidence, no matter how far-fetched (like the aerosol excuse), but if it presents a challenge to the favored dogma it’s “cherry picking.” And no, there were no natural causes that canceled global warming out because, aside from a brief 20 year period, there was never any global warming to begin with.
V: My oh my. From the outset of the 20th century to roughly 1940 we see a steep rise in global temperatures while CO2 levels remain relatively low. No correlation, obviously. From roughly 1940 to ca. 1979 we see a dramatic drop in temperatures followed by an essentially stable period during which no significant temperature rise is evident — while during the same period CO2 levels rise significantly. Putting all this together it’s not difficult to conclude that there was clearly NO correlation between global temps. and CO2 levels over the first EIGHTY years of the century. And you call that cherry picking????? Sorry, but I call it evidence.
M: Victor, you call it evidence because you didn’t actually analyze any data. You simply use adjectives that match your thought: “steep rise in global temperatures,” “CO2 levels remain relatively low,” “dramatic drop in temperatures,” “essentially stable period,” and “no significant temperature rise is evident.” But you didn’t do any analysis at all to justify your phraseology.
Here is the analysis: First, here is the graph of CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 ppm from 1750 to 1920. It disproves your claim that “CO2 levels remain relatively low,” By 1940, CO2 ppm had risen from 280 to about 315. That’s about 12.5%. So CO2 ppm was relatively high, not relatively low. It was higher than it had ever been since humans began burning fossil fuels. That’s relatively high, not relatively low.
https://www.climate.gov/media/12990
And here is the analysis of global average temperature you didn’t do. Tamino did it. You have to refute this analysis with a different/better analysis. Using phrases like “steep rise in global temperatures” and “dramatic drop in temperatures” without that analysis. Tamino’s analysis shows that your phraseology is wrong|:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2021/10/16/an-honest-appraisal-of-the-global-temperature-trend/
V: It’s not what I am saying, it’s what the evidence is telling us. Moreover, if there was no global warming to begin with then there was nothing that cancelled it.
No, Victor. See Tamino’s analysis of the data again. But about this “if there was no global warming to begin with then there was nothing that cancelled it.” That’s wrong. We know by laws of physics that CO2 blocks infrared energy. So we know that if the atmospheric ppm of CO2 rises, global average temperature must rise. Therefore, if CO2 ppm rises but global average temperature does not rise, there must be something cancelling it.
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/#:~:text=Carbon%20dioxide%2C%20for%20example%2C%20absorbs,energy%20back%20in%20all%20directions.
V: And no, there were no natural causes that canceled global warming out because, aside from a brief 20 year period, there was never any global warming to begin with.
May we see your analysis?
You ignorance of basic science and statistical are astounding. Yet you claim to know more than professional peer-reviewed scientists and mathematicians. Your gross insecurity about being unable to admit to being fundamentally wrong as has been shown over and over again is pathetic. You repeat lies over and over again. Then deny facts simply because you do not want to learn. Someone truly failed in your education. Seriously. You ought to have learned the scientific method in grade school.
Victor
Your board of dialogue and diplomacy in your Krjeml is becoming whiter and whiter and longer and longer, Hr Victor.
How can that be so?
Are you trained and owned and paid by someone, or are you perhaps aspiring for the same and for your “existance” ????
V: From the outset of the 20th century to roughly 1940 we see a steep rise in global temperatures while CO2 levels remain relatively low. No correlation, obviously.
BPL: What is the correlation over that period, Victor? Did you measure it? If not, how did you conclude “no correlation, obviously?”
Be careful what you ask for, BPL. Victor’s approach to “correlation” resembles that of a certain caterpillar in Alice in Wonderland.
For the benefit of whomever besides Victor might be confused about the meaning of correlation, it’s a simple measure of the amount of linear relationship between TWO variables. An undeviating straight line relationship between two variables has a correlation of 1.0. Pure noise has a correlation that approaches zero as the amount of data increases. A small data set can show a substantial correlation, which is unlikely to be statistically significant. It will go away when more data is added. A strong correlation can be hidden by noise in a small sample. That’s one reason why it is misleading to pick small segments of a large data set – such as annual global surface temperature. You can probably find any correlation you like when you do that.
Victor talks about the correlation between CO2 and GMST, but he confuses it by introducing a third variable – time – into the discussion. It can be a little confusing, because both CO2 and GMST have generally increased with time in the last 200 years or so. So, time has a strong covariance with both CO2 levels and GMST in the recent period, as both rise. It’s okay to note, as Victor has, that if you use annual values for CO2 and temperature, it results in uneven sampling density for the two variables. The older data featuring relatively low CO2 and temperature is more heavily sampled than the more recent sharp rise. It’s NOT okay to say that this is a reason for rejecting or de-emphasizing the more recent data. This is important because the older data gives more weight to non-CO2 causes for temperature change (“noise” in this context) due to the relatively slow rise in CO2. The newer data strengthens the correlation as it samples higher values of both variables. The relative role of non-CO2 “noise” diminishes by comparison. Every year that goes by with higher values of both CO2 and GMST strengthens the correlation between the two further, when you correctly use the whole data set..
Another of Victor’s major errors is to confuse the overall correlation between CO2 and GMST with the apparent slope of the linear relation between the two. He expects that for a “true correlation” to exist, the apparent slope between arbitrarily chosen subsets of the data to remain consistent. Because of the “noise” in any real world data set, the slope between the two variables will change between subsets. Victor makes much of this, because he believes that this mathematical certainty somehow invalidates the correlation.
In fact, the correlation can be simply stated. In general, when CO2 values are lower, so are temperatures. When it is higher, so are temperatures. As both increase, the relationship gets stronger when the total data set is used.
You’re the statistician, BPL. Why don’t you measure it?
V: “You’re the statistician, BPL. Why don’t you measure it?”
BPL: r (dT, CO2, 1900-1940) = 0.6101, r^2 = 0.3722. A fairly strong correlation. Not as strong as with the whole data set, you understand, but highly significant nonetheless (p < 0.000023).
Thanks for the effort, BPL. But I was referring to the period from 1900 through 1979.
“Not as strong as with the whole data set, you understand…”
I doubt he does.
V: Thanks for the effort, BPL. But I was referring to the period from 1900 through 1979.
BPL: For 1900-1979, r(CO2,dT) = 0.465, r^2 = 0.216, p < 0.000014. Highly significant.
He did. You just aren’t smart enough to read it.
He has. And reported the results here. Repeatedly.
Both Ray and Kevin need to learn how to read. I was referring to the period 1900-1979. Bart’s correlation is not based on that particular period.
Oh please, Victor. BPL’s correlation examines the entire historical period since 1850, thereby including all sub-periods.
What do you know about the validity of cherry-picking just one of them for analysis? Ever hear of this?
MA Rodger:
♠ I would suggest the second “wrong thing” you presented up-thread, namely your insistence that there is no correlation between CO2 & temperature (& SLR), does easily constitute an overblown “grand hypothesis.” It was bullshit when you “began posting here and surprise, surprise, it remains bullshit. As for your assertion that you “found it ridiculously easy to poke holes in” the “sensible reasons” presented which time-&-time-again have demonstrated your bullshit, you rather too “easily” resort to the “ridiculous” with your ‘poking’. QED. Or is such reasoning another instance where Occam’s Razor is contradicted?
V: Here, as in so many of your responses to my “bullshit,” we see a tantrum in lieu of an argument.
MAR: ♣ If you want to discuss the denialist blather and badly misrepresented science in the big pile of nonsense at NoTricksZone, perhaps begin with the first reference(Smirnov 2018) and the last reference (<a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0031-y"Sajas et al 2018).
As you are the one insisting I am “jumping to conclusions” with this perversion of science, perhaps you would like to explain to us all why these two papers demonstrate low ECS and deserve a place in the listing.
V: I am neither a physicist nor a climate scientist (nor have I ever claimed such expertise), thus the arguments presented in any of these papers are beyond my ability to explain or evaluate. I have a feeling the same could be said of you. I referenced them simply as a corrective to the widespread notion that every climate scientist worth his or her salt goes along with the AGW "consensus." If you believe you are qualified to evaluate them then by all means do so. And if you feel qualified to dismiss them then it is incumbent on YOU to explain why.
MAR: ♥ “Circularity” indeed!! Telling the world that “the assumption … is just that: an assumption” is circular. And you demonstarte a poor grasp of science, in that it is scientifically incorrect to say “the significance of that effect (CO2 forcing on global temperature) remains open to dispute.”
V: My "assumption" reference was nothing more than a rhetorical trope and had nothing to do with my reasoning.
MAR: ♦ You have argued for many-a year-that there has been no warming since 1998, this in contrast to the previous 20 years (1970-98) which you describe as seeing a level of warming unique since 1940. Given your repeated insistence on this matter, it is strange that the real world the data does not support your bullshit.
V: If you see the pause as "bullshit" then by all means take it up with the authors of the Fyfe et al. paper, which takes the hiatus/pause very seriously, and leave me out of it. And no, I've never claimed there's been no warming since 1998. The pause, as understood by the host of climate scientists who studied it, lasted from 1998 through 2016. The following period has seen a rise in global temperatures, however it's too soon to evaluate its long-term significance.
MAR: The warming 1970-2015 remained remarkably constant with an acceleration only appearing in the last 6 years. Remarkably, the warming 1979-98 is a period within that warming when the rate was less than average, not more.
As you will likely be tripping over your troll-hooves in disbelief when you read this, I linkt to a a graph at WoodForTrees showing GISTEMP 1970-to-date and OLS 1970-1998 & OLS 1970-2016 which are spot-on the same (+0.175ºC/decade), and OLS 1970–2022 (+0.189ºC/decade) showing an acceleration above that rate and your favourite 1979-98 OLS which shows less warming (+0.137ºC/decade).
V: Sigh. Talk about cherry picking. You carefully select the endpoints that provide the results you desire, an impressive feat of legerdemain. As I said above, if you want to insist the "pause" never took place then take it up with all the many climate scientists (including the authors of the Fyfe et al. paper) who've spent so much time and effort attempting to explain it. Meanwhile, as is clear from the WoodForTrees graph you've referenced, the temperature differential from 1970 through 1998 is .6 centigrade, while the differential between 1998 and 2015 is less than .2.
MAR: And do note that your bullshit here does not begin to address the issue at hand which you described as an “OMG! actual, bona fide, sensible reason.”
V: "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible." IPCC (https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/TAR-14.pdf ) A chaotic system is by nature unpredictable, hence any reading or trend need not have an identifiable cause.
♠ So calling-out Victor’s 8-year’s of evident bullshit is” a tantrum” rather than valid comment.
♣ And despite his self-proclaimed “ability to explain or evaluate” (so yet more bullshit), Victor admits he is a moron and suggests I am too, although if I do feel qualified to spot bullshit at NoTricksZone it “is incumbent on ‘ME’ to explain why [his ambiguity].”
♥ He hides behind pointless metaphor and silence.
1.♦ If a post-1998-pause is bullshit, apparently I should take it up with Fyfe et al beacuse Victor never claimed a post-1998-pause ever existed (or if it has ended-or-not because Victor insists “it’s too soon” to tell).
2.♦ I am apparently cherry-picking using a 500+point OLS. Presumably Victor is not cherry-picking using just 3×12 unequally-spaced data points. (Perhaps if I smooth the rolling average a bit on the WoodForTrees image it will give the troll pause for thought. Victor’s latest cherry-picked point-to-point steep rise 1970-98 thus becomes +0.167ºC/decade while his usual cherry-picked 20-years of steep steep steep rise 1979-98 comes in at +0.124ºC/decade and his zero-rise pause 1998-2015 is +0.222ºC/decade.)
3.♦ And finally a cherry-picked line from IPCC TAR, a singular line much favoured by denialists.
For those who haven’t met that bullshit listing at NoTricksWe’dOwnUpToZone, the 135 papers have been presented here before, indeed by Victor himself.
The 135 papers allegedly all “Find Extremely Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity”. As exemplars of the list, the first paper is pure bullshit and the last paper is genuine but entirely misrepresented.
The paper at the top of the list is pure bullshit.
Excepting the abstract, Smirnov (2018) ‘Collision and radiative processes in emission of atmospheric carbon dioxide’ hides behind a paywall/request-button. Google Scholar show 14 citations, 13 in papers written by Boris Michaelson Smirnov himself and the 14th a fake quote in a paper on “the kinetics of non-equilibrium plasma” written by colleagues at the same institute. Strangely, the refutation of Smirnov (2018) is not listed as a citation at Google Scholar. All this is pretty disastrous for the credibility of any paper or any list that puts it in No1 spot.
Another strong ‘bullshit’ indicator for the list provided by Boris Michaelson Smirnov is that he actually features seven times in the NoTricksWe’dOwnUpToZone list. So 5% of the list is different accounts of the same pile of Smirnov.
The most recent of this Smirnov bullshit Smirnov & Zhilyaev (2021) is available in full on-line and so the full extent of the crimes-against-science can be seen. The paper is attempting to model the proportion of back-radiation at the surface from the various GHGs & from cloud. For the full GH-effect it finds 64% is water vapour, 18% is cloud, 17% is CO2, 0.6% CH4 & 0.3% N2O which may well be correct but this doesn’t represent the mechanisms of the GH-effect, mechanisms which operate at altitude. So subsequent calculations using this model are simple ‘bullshit’.
And that leaves the paper at the bottom of the list, one of seven in a sub-list titled ‘(d) Rising CO2 Causes Surface Cooling’.
Sejas et al (2018) ‘Unmasking the negative greenhouse effect over the Antarctic Plateau’ (I note along with the second-last paper) is legitimate science. The Antarctic SAT is cold, in winter as cold as the tropopause. Temperature inversions alng with the dry atmosphere at altitude combine to give a negative GH-effect from increased CO2 of varying strength through the year. So this tiny regional effect is not anything to do with the global “CO2 Climate Sensitivity” and is thus misrepresented on the list.
MA Rodger
“so this tiny regional effect is not anything to do with the global “CO2 Climate Sensitivity…”
It works in the opposite direction and makes the CO2 Climate Sensitivity a bit lower than it else would have been.
Should that be any secret?
Why be so scared about processes who run both ways everywhere and at any time? Thus atmospheric back- radiation could also be ridiculed and denied quite for a while by higly trained professional “influenzers”. by reference to “science”.,
We have a Climate Surrealist Prof Emeritus Ole Henrik Ellestad here, who has launched that Antarctic effect as a sheere uniform one way amputated contradiction and falsification of the whole.
So why forget it and hide it all the time and why teach that “it has not got anything to do with..” when it actually throws the whole systematic light over what the Tropopause and the CO2-AGW- effect is about?
Such manners and narrow minded amputated explainations is the achilles heel of climate activism.
If one can just dare to tell the whole truth including the exeptions and the uncertainties also, one would stand quite stronger and be more believeable.
Do not leave it over to Frank Luntz and the Grand Old Partry and to Heartland & al. to present all the exeptions and the uncertainties.
Carbomontanus,
I would argue that the strange GH-effect over certain parts of Antarctica “is not anything to do with the global CO2 Climate Sensitivity” or indeed any sort of “Climate Sensitivity”/i> in that it would not feature in most ECS analysis and would be a tiny footnote within a footnote within any explanation of the GH-effect. If it is hidden, it is through its own obscurity, not through any conscious secrecy within climatology.
You could make the same point with the stratosphere where there is also a temperature inversion and where the very central portion of the CO2 absorption bands operates cooling the planet with increasing CO2 concentrations. (See Zhong & Haig 2013.) And I myself do use the stratospheric ‘cooling’ effect within explanations of the GH-effect.
If you in Norway have a crazy old professor of Petrochemicals and Catalysis called Ellestad, peddling nonsense about AGW, maybe you would like to swap with one of the many nutters we in the UK have to endure/correct/apologise for.
Very fine, thank you.
“It works in the opposite direction and makes the CO2 Climate Sensitivity a bit lower…”
In theory. But I doubt it’s detectable on the global scale.
Good argument, and that depends on how much arbitrary noise there is all over in the whole signal, and it is quite a lot.
But if we scale it in another way and let us say discuss the temperature of Antarktis only during the same long period, then it may become more meaningful.
V: I am neither a physicist nor a climate scientist (nor have I ever claimed such expertise), thus the arguments presented in any of these papers are beyond my ability to explain or evaluate.
BPL: Then you had better accept the evaluation of those who ARE qualified to examine those papers. Simply choosing which papers you’re going to accept without either A) knowing the field or B) listening to the experts is the action of a fool.
I don’t necessarily “accept” any of those papers. I’m not qualified to do so, As I’ve admitted. I pointed to that list in order to demonstrate that many physicists and climate scientists are unwilling to accept the “consensus” view of climate sensitivity.
So dumb-ass Victor the Troll doesn’t “necessarily “accept” any of those papers” listed on a denialist website, telling us he is “not qualified to do so,” But even though he isn’t “qualified”, he still presents the list ” in order to demonstrate that many physicists and climate scientists are unwilling to accept the “consensus” view of climate sensitivity” even though he hasn’t the faintest idea whether the list is genuine or a pack of bullshit concocted by non-scientific morons to make fools of those who are not “qualified” enough to know any better. Mind, given it is sourced on a denialist website, it doesn’t take much thought to know what to expect.
“V “The climate system is a couppled non linear chaotic system and therefore the long term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” IPCC”
Victor, there may be more or less systems in the systems, things in the things, ants in the hill, and water in the jug. Are you able to forget or to overlook or to deny that?
Theese different things and things in the things are existing together but not necessarily cause or predict each other in all forms and aspects.. Thus chaotic, unlinear and unpredictable weather does not entail or predict chaotic and unpredictable climate logically and by physical and scientific necessity.
I would say that you probably fail to see what both weather and climate really is , and is about.
MARodger says:
So calling-out Victor’s 8-year’s of evident bullshit is” a tantrum” rather than valid comment.
♣ And despite his self-proclaimed “ability to explain or evaluate” (so yet more bullshit), Victor admits he is a moron and suggests I am too, although if I do feel qualified to spot bullshit at NoTricksZone it “is incumbent on ‘ME’ to explain why [his ambiguity].”
V: One of the pleasures of participating in this forum is watching Mr. Rodger’s face turn progressively red with rage with each futile attempt to prove me wrong.
MAR: 1.♦ If a post-1998-pause is bullshit, apparently I should take it up with Fyfe et al beacuse Victor never claimed a post-1998-pause ever existed (or if it has ended-or-not because Victor insists “it’s too soon” to tell).
V: What’s your point, MAR? How many times have I read in these threads that any length of time less than 15 years can safely be dismissed as “noise.”
MAR: 2.♦ I am apparently cherry-picking using a 500+point OLS. Presumably Victor is not cherry-picking using just 3×12 unequally-spaced data points. (Perhaps if I smooth the rolling average a bit on the WoodForTrees image it will give the troll pause for thought. Victor’s latest cherry-picked point-to-point steep rise 1970-98 thus becomes +0.167ºC/decade while his usual cherry-picked 20-years of steep steep steep rise 1979-98 comes in at +0.124ºC/decade and his zero-rise pause 1998-2015 is +0.222ºC/decade.)
V: Give it up, MAR. Why bend yourself into a pretzel, looking hither thither and yon for any statistic that might dissolve the widely accepted “hiatus” into oblivion, when scientists far more knowledgeable than you have demonstrated otherwise?
MAR: .♦ And finally a cherry-picked line from IPCC TAR, a singular line much favoured by denialists.
V; I’d call it a pretty damn good cherry-pick if you ask me, especially since it emanates from the horse’s mouth over there at IPCC.
MAR: For those who haven’t met that bullshit listing at NoTricksWe’dOwnUpToZone, the 135 papers have been presented here before, indeed by Victor himself.
The 135 papers allegedly all “Find Extremely Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity”. As exemplars of the list, the first paper is pure bullshit and the last paper is genuine but entirely misrepresented.
V: So I shamed you into actually reading two papers. Good. Only 133 to go. :-)
So Victor the Troll, faced with reasoned argument, does not respond in kind but resorts to vacuous reposte. (In the past he would have summoned up Occam’s Razor to cut away any reasoned argument that contradicted his delusions.)
This is from the same fantasist whose posted comment on the publication of IPCC AR6 last year that ran:-
Although in his own mind Victor the Troll may perhaps believe he has some grand hypothesis, a great truth that the world is ignoring, but here in the real world Victor the Troll, deluded or not, is a entirely a dishonest and untrustworthy commenter.
That comment about the latest IPCC assessment was very tongue-in-cheek, MAR, as should have been obvious to anyone with half a brain.
Martin Smith:
Victor, you call it evidence because you didn’t actually analyze any data. You simply use adjectives that match your thought: “steep rise in global temperatures,” “CO2 levels remain relatively low,” “dramatic drop in temperatures,” “essentially stable period,” and “no significant temperature rise is evident.” But you didn’t do any analysis at all to justify your phraseology.
V: I didn’t think any analysis was necessary. Nothing I said is controversial. Nothing I claimed has ever been seriously contested.
MS: Here is the analysis: First, here is the graph of CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 ppm from 1750 to 1920. It disproves your claim that “CO2 levels remain relatively low,”
V: “[Research] has shown that the temperature rise up to 1940 was . . . mainly caused by some kind of natural cyclical effect, not by the still relatively low CO2 emissions.” Spencer Weart, The Discovery of Global Warming. https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm
It’s my impression that most climate scientists would agree with Weart’s assessment.
MS: And here is the analysis of global average temperature you didn’t do. Tamino did it. You have to refute this analysis with a different/better analysis.
V: I’d prefer to wait until those more knowledgeable than me have had a chance to review Tamino’s rather convoluted effort. It would be more convincing if he managed to get it published in a peer reviewed journal. In any case my preference has always been for data raw rather than cooked.
MS: But about this “if there was no global warming to begin with then there was nothing that cancelled it.” That’s wrong. We know by laws of physics that CO2 blocks infrared energy. So we know that if the atmospheric ppm of CO2 rises, global average temperature must rise. Therefore, if CO2 ppm rises but global average temperature does not rise, there must be something cancelling it.
V: Yes, it’s well understood that CO2 has a warming effect. What remains controversial is the significance of that effect and its influence on the climate. Many scientists argue that the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 is too low to make much of a difference.
MS: May we see your analysis?
V: Sure: http://amoleintheground.blogspot.com/2018/10/thoughts-on-climate-change-part-8-tale.html
An “analysis” does not include this paragraph in science:
“When I ‘eyeball’ the first graph it seems evident, as I’ve contended in the past, that there is NO correlation between CO2 levels and global temps. during the entire 100 year period between 1880 and 1980. Nor do I see any sign of correlation between 1998 and the present. I DO see a correlation between ca. 1980 and 1998, but that represents only 20 years out of the last 138. ”
This is an anti-analysis and evens states that it is not a real analysis quite clearly.
Perhaps you are unaware of the definition of the term you typed which is:
Analysis:
1a : a _detailed_ examination of anything complex in order to understand its nature or to determine its essential features : a _thorough study_ doing a careful analysis of the problem
b : a statement of such an examination
2 : separation of a whole into its component parts
3a : the identification or separation of ingredients of a substance a chemical analysis of the soil
b : a statement of the constituents of a mixture
Here’s how “analysis” is defined in the Cambridge Dictionary:
“the act of studying or examining something in detail, in order to discover or understand more about it, or your opinion and judgment after doing this”
If you read beyond the portion of my blog post that you quoted you will find such an analysis.
V: Nothing I claimed has ever been seriously contested.
BPL: Are you completely psychotic? Seriously, that’s the claim of someone completely divorced from reality.
V: Nothing I claimed has ever been seriously contested.
BPL: Are you completely psychotic? Seriously, that’s the claim of someone completely divorced from reality.
V: Learn to read, Bart. I was referring to my observations regarding the periods 1900-1940 and 1940-1979. I think it reasonable to agree with Spencer Weart (among others) that the earlier period did not see a significant rise in CO2 levels. Nor to my knowledge is it controversial to claim there was no significant rise in temperatures during the later period.
V: I didn’t think
I stopped reading there, as it is the only true thing Weaktor is likely to say during the debate.
Never debate with a fool. They drag you down to your level and beat you with experience.
There is no basis for discussion here. Weaktor just doesn’t accept the definitions of statistical terms. He doesn’t understand the need for statistical analysis. He’s a fool. Move on.
@ Victor
“Yes, it`s well understood that CO2 has a warming effect. What remains controversial is the significance of that effect and its influence on the climate. Many scientists argue that the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 is too low to make much of a difference.”
Is n`t it time for you now to take a break and rather inspect and examine the sensitivity of your own bottoms, that may be most controversial, and that makes the major difference here?
Because more and more scientists from worldwide tend to see that, and have seen that for a quite long time allready?
Why should you be such an exeption?
V: I didn’t think any analysis was necessary. Nothing I said is controversial. Nothing I claimed has ever been seriously contested.
MS: That’s false, Victor. You made the claim shown below. I agree it is not controversial, but that’s because it is wrong. And it IS seriously contested. The link to the challenge follows your claim:
V: My oh my. From the outset of the 20th century to roughly 1940 we see a steep rise in global temperatures while CO2 levels remain relatively low. No correlation, obviously. From roughly 1940 to ca. 1979 we see a dramatic drop in temperatures followed by an essentially stable period during which no significant temperature rise is evident — while during the same period CO2 levels rise significantly. Putting all this together it’s not difficult to conclude that there was clearly NO correlation between global temps. and CO2 levels over the first EIGHTY years of the century. And you call that cherry picking????? Sorry, but I call it evidence.
Here is the link to the challenge:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2022/05/01/correlation-between-co2-and-temperature/
Why are so many having such difficulty reading? I plan to deal with Tamino’s post in future, but for now I’ll simply repeat what I wrote as quoted above: “Putting all this together it’s not difficult to conclude that there was clearly NO correlation between global temps. and CO2 levels over the first EIGHTY years of the century.” NB: I was referring to the first 80 years of the previous century, NOT the entire climate record. I see nothing in Tamino’s post that contradicts that observation. Temperatures rose significantly during the first 40 years of the 20th century while CO2 levels rose only slightly. And during the next 40 years temperatures did not rise at all, while CO2 levels rose considerably. It’s all there in Tamino’s chart, so what’s the problem?
Victor wrote: “Why are so many having such difficulty reading?”
We all have read and understood everything you have written. You are the one missing the point, which is you are cherrypicking. Here is your admission of cherrypicking:
Victor wrote: “for now I’ll simply repeat what I wrote as quoted above: “Putting all this together it’s not difficult to conclude that there was clearly NO correlation between global temps. and CO2 levels over the first EIGHTY years of the century.” NB: I was referring to the first 80 years of the previous century, NOT the entire climate record.”
You picked 80 years out of a much longer data set and drew your conclusion that there is no correlation between the CO2 and global mean surface temperature. Why did you choose 80 years? Why didn’t you choose, say, 30 years? That might’ve been even better for you. BTW, did you actually do the calculation? I suspect not because you didn’t post the actual correlation for those 80 years. But you would have had to take into account aerosol pollution, and you have already dismissed aerosol pollution with a wave of your hand.
Victor wrote: “I see nothing in Tamino’s post that contradicts that observation. Temperatures rose significantly during the first 40 years of the 20th century while CO2 levels rose only slightly. And during the next 40 years temperatures did not rise at all, while CO2 levels rose considerably. It’s all there in Tamino’s chart, so what’s the problem?”
I think you are about to have your head handed to you.
Martin Smith sez:
“You picked 80 years out of a much longer data set and drew your conclusion that there is no correlation between the CO2 and global mean surface temperature.”
V: And thus, of course, I am cherry picking. What a truly spectacular gaffe. But not at all atypical for the sort of responses I’ve been getting in these threads, where so many see what they want to see and close their eyes to what I’ve actually said.
So yes, I picked 80 years out of a much longer data set and drew the conclusion that OVER THAT 80 YEAR PERIOD there was no correlation between CO2 levels and global mean surface temperature. To make myself perfectly clear I added “NB: I was referring to the first 80 years of the previous century, NOT the entire climate record.”
You managed to ignore my caveat, accusing me of cherry picking that period as representative of the entire climate record. That was certainly NOT my claim.
Then there’s this: “But you would have had to take into account aerosol pollution, and you have already dismissed aerosol pollution with a wave of your hand.” I most certainly did NOT dismiss aerosol pollution, but devoted considerable attention to that claim both here and on my blog: http://amoleintheground.blogspot.com/2021/03/thoughts-on-climate-change-part-10.html
Also: if you had the slightest understanding of correlation you would know that correlation is based on the relation between two datasets and has NOTHING to do with any explanation as to how or why the data in question is what it is, which is another matter entirely.
V: OVER THAT 80 YEAR PERIOD there was no correlation between CO2 levels and global mean surface temperature.
BPL: Except that, as I demonstrated above, there is a correlation, and it is significant at well beyond the 99% confidence level.
Victor, as someone trained in the scientific method, I’ll accept anything given sufficient evidence.
Would you please provide a reference to the peer-reviewed, scientific literature indicating that your eyeball is superior to the many, detailed, quantitative analyses done by people who have spent their careers studying this issue.
I suggest you look up the many published papers by authors such as Richard Lindzen, Roger Pielke Jr., Judith Curry, Fred Singer, Bjorn Lomborg, Willy Soon, Myron Ebell, Ivar Giaever, Will Happer, etc. The list goes on and on. Not to mention the surprising paper by Fyfe et al, co-authored by leading climate scientists such as Michael Mann, Ben Santer, Ed Hawkins, etc., who argue that the so-called “hiatus” was indeed real.
NO one in Fyfe ever argued that global warming stopped for a period of time. So no, to say they did is calculated misinformation. NO one could read that paper and think they said otherwise as they state this very clearly and repeatedly.
Just one example from the paper: “[…the term “global warming hiatus” is a misnomer, although we will continue to use the widely used phrase to describe the slowdown or pause in the increase of GMST in the late 20th to early 21st century, with quotation marks…]”
Anyone wishing to actually _quote_ Fyfe_ et. al. in this context would need to include those quotation marks.
For those who don’t know but are interested, the paper looks at oceanic heat sinks as they are the obvious first culprit to examine.
SE: Victor, as someone trained in the scientific method, I’ll accept anything given sufficient evidence.
Would you please provide a reference to the peer-reviewed, scientific literature indicating that your eyeball is superior to the many, detailed, quantitative analyses done by people who have spent their careers studying this issue.
V: I suggest you look up the many published papers by authors such as Richard Lindzen, Roger Pielke Jr., Judith Curry, Fred Singer, Bjorn Lomborg, Willy Soon, Myron Ebell, Ivar Giaever, Will Happer, etc. The list goes on and on. Not to mention the surprising paper by Fyfe et al, co-authored by leading climate scientists such as Michael Mann, Ben Santer, Ed Hawkins, etc., who argue that the so-called “hiatus” was indeed real.
BPL: You didn’t answer the question. He asked for quantitative analyses, not a list of names. Can you point to a paper in the peer-reviewed science literature–not a blog–that shows what you want?
Victor:
Just for you, I came out of retirement to make another blog post. Just for you.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2022/05/01/correlation-between-co2-and-temperature/
[ Note to moderators, let’s try that one again … ]
NB : I am indulging myself with what Gavin referred to as “… cherry picking, or rhetorical tricks …” in the ATL article here.
You appear to have seen some posts by Victor but missed my exchange with BPL “above”.
I will recap it here, with only minor editing, to highlight my (main) point and avoid people having to endlessly scroll up and down this comments section.
– – – – –
I initially objected to your categorical response to Victor that “There is no such [global cooling] period”.
I detoured into mentioning Paul Graham’s “Debate Pyramid” which includes (scroll up for the full list) :
To counter your “Level 4 : Contradiction” statement I responded with a “Level 3 : Counterargument” post including a reference to a post you made back in 2010 …
URL to my “Reference 1” : https://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/08/23/antrhopogenic-global-cooling/
That post included :
Note that my assumption is that I am not the only “interested party” for any response you may provide, and BPL should probably be included on that list as well (TBC by BPL, I am not qualified to speak on his behalf).
– – – – –
PS : I agree with you that there is a (very) strong correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels since 1880 (or 1850, i.e. “the instrumental record”) and GMST anomalies.
My issue was (and is) with the unqualified bald assertion that “There was NO such global cooling period [ between 1940 and 1975 ] ” … full stop, hit the “Post” button.
Adding phrases like “statistically significant” ex post facto, as BPL did above, doesn’t count.
“Adding phrases like “statistically significant” ex post facto, as BPL did above, doesn’t count.”
It’s not really ex post facto–the point is that statistically insignificant trends aren’t reliably predictive of anything. That’s true, and–if you know Tamino’s work–implicit in the original statement.
No, your “point” is to suddenly introduce the notion of just how “predictive” trends are (or are not) depending on their “statistical significance”.
– – – – –
My “point” was, and is, as follows …
Victor : “There was indeed a period of roughly 40 years of global cooling while CO2 levels rose,”
Tamino (above) : “There is no such period.
…
Yet somehow, deniers have transformed “a period of roughly 40 years” from not warming to cooling”
Tamino (in 2010) : “… the 1940-1975 time period experienced anthropogenic global cooling.””
– – – – –
When I wrote my OP I had vaguely heard of “tamino” and his “Open Mind” blog, but could by no means be described as “knowing” his complete oeuvre.
Even now my “knowledge” of that particular domain is (very !) fragmented.
You (and possibly BPL ?) may well be able to infer a whole host of “firm conclusions” on reading a single phrase from tamino’s posts in this RC comments section.
I was, and am, in-capable of such feats.
Mark, you may wish to note that your “incapacity” includes an inability to dictate what my point is.
Your point is, of course, another matter. (Presuming you have one.)
You did not write “… MY point is …”.
You decided to “dictate” what “… THE point is …”.
Re. “Adding phrases like “statistically significant” ex post facto, as BPL did above, doesn’t count.”
One can only EVER use such a phrase _ex post facto_, Statistical significance can only be calculated _ex post facto_ in the first place!
I have to question the value of any stats courses you may have taken.
V: Adding phrases like “statistically significant” ex post facto, as BPL did above, doesn’t count.
BPL: It’s not ex post facto. A trend is either statistically significant or it’s not. This one is not. Deal with it.
“Victor” did not write that phrase, “I” did !
MBLR: “Victor” did not write that phrase, “I” did !
BPL: Then you own the mistake.
Victor : There was indeed a period of roughly 40 years of global cooling while CO2 levels rose.
Tamino (in a separate “top level / original” post) : There is no such period.
Mark BLR (= “me” …) : Sorry, but this is a bit too dismissive of “Victor”.
BPL : Mark, the slope may be negative on 1940=1970, but that doesn’t mean it’s statistically significant.
…
Mark BLR (in response to a second OP by Tamino …) : You appear to have seen some posts by Victor but missed my exchange with BPL “above”. …
Adding phrases like “statistically significant” ex post facto, as BPL did above, doesn’t count.
BPL : It’s not ex post facto. A trend is either statistically significant or it’s not. This one is not. Deal with it.
– – – – –
Tamino did not (initially) respond with “that cooling isn’t statistically significant“, he wrote “There is NO SUCH period”.
The “1940s to 1970s cooling trend” is indeed not “statistically significant”, as confirmed by the IPCC in the TAR (2001, WG-I report, section 2.2.2.3, page 115) :
Please note the inclusion of the word “cooling” by the IPCC when referring to the “1946 to 1975 period” there …
Victor has inspired me. I took a look at the largest time period for which I had adequate data (1866-2018 if I want to include temperature, CO2, sunspot number, TSI, Southern Oscillation Index, and aerosols). First I regressed dT on CO2 alone. I had an insight: the regression looks smooth while the raw dT data is zigzagged up and down quite a bit. Maybe by “correlation” Victor means “conformity to the original shape.”
I then looked for the best fit using the other data. This was zigzagged! Looks more like the original shape! And, incidentally, it accounts for the 1940-1978 period Victor is worried about much better than CO2 alone. The hypothesis that global warming was suppressed in that period by other factors (notably aerosols) is confirmed, The whole story is here:
https://bartonlevenson.com/GreatStasis.html
Tamino:
Victor:
Just for you, I came out of retirement to make another blog post. Just for you.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2022/05/01/correlation-between-co2-and-temperature/
V: Thanks, Tamino — I’m touched.
Interesting that your “proof” of correlation is based on the eyeballing of a conventional graph rather than either a scattergram or a mathematical analysis. Of course we’ve been all over this many times in these threads and, as is all too clear, nothing I present will ever convince those who, like yourself, refuse to accept ANY evidence that might challenge the mainstream view.
Your graph is misleading. You superimpose the clearly rising CO2 levels (in red) with the much more complex temperature graph, giving the very misleading impression that the former represents some sort of smoothing of the latter. Studying the temperature data more critically we see a very clear break beginning just before the year 2000 and continuing to roughly, 2015. This is the well known “hiatus,” which has posed a serious problem for climate scientists for some time. Just because your graph hides this hiatus is no reason to dismiss it. Once again I’ll refer you to the Fyfe et al paper, with which I feel sure you are acquainted. But there are any number of other studies where the reality of this hiatus is acknowledged, including at least one of your own papers, as I recall.
As for the earlier evidence, your graph simply reaffirms what I’ve already pointed to: significant rise in temperatures from 1910 through 1940, while CO2 levels were still relatively low. Followed by no sign of global warming from 1940 through the late 1970s.
Thus: judging by the evidence from 1910 (and actually much earlier) through 2015 it seems safe to say that there was no long-term correlation and in fact no correlation to speak of outside the last 20 years of the previous century. As for the sudden rise in temperature we see starting in 2016, while many have seen this as the beginning of a new (and alarming) trend, it is far too late in the day for such data to produce a meaningful long-term correlation where none was apparent for the previous 100 plus years. Whether this more recent evidence constitutes the beginning of a new trend or just a temporary blip is impossible to say.
What a “creative” interpretation of Tamino’s post. Tell me, did you have someone read the words to you, or did you just scan the pictures?
Does it make any difference in your analysis when you consider that CO2 forcing is not proportional to CO2 concentration [CO2], but rather log[CO2]?
Hello again, Ray. No, it makes no difference because correlation is based strictly on the relation between two datasets, NOT how the datasets can be interpreted. As usual you are jumping to conclusions. For another, clearer view of the data see https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-hTkNOBxYdyc/YJ1VfUJ5EII/AAAAAAAABi4/S3Ea7R5jThEf6LM0O0iHbnAHmmCycR9gACLcBGAsYHQ/image.png
Moreover, as indicated in the same image, there was no correlation prior to the late 70s either.
V: there was no correlation prior to the late 70s either.
BPL: Stop lying.
“Interesting that your “proof” of correlation is based on the eyeballing of a conventional graph rather than either a scattergram or a mathematical analysis.”
Astoundingly ironic, given that 1) Victor normally relies mostly on “eyeballing”; 2) Victor has in these threads explicitly argued that mere mathematical/statistical analysis is inferior to his steely gaze; and 3) Tamino explicitly and credibly states that he has run the mathematical analysis (which he has in many previous posts.)
You’ve missed the point as usual Kevin. I wasn’t criticizing his eyeballing, I was simply calling attention to the fact that a recognized climate scientist would also (like myself) believe that the examination of a graphic representation can, in itself, be an effective means of interpreting the data.
Gee, none of us would *ever* have thought of that!
/s
BPL:
Victor has inspired me.
V: Should I be flattererd?
BPL: I took a look at the largest time period for which I had adequate data (1866-2018 if I want to include temperature, CO2, sunspot number, TSI, Southern Oscillation Index, and aerosols). First I regressed dT on CO2 alone. I had an insight: the regression looks smooth while the raw dT data is zigzagged up and down quite a bit. Maybe by “correlation” Victor means “conformity to the original shape.”
V: According to Merriam Webster: a correlation is “a relation existing between phenomena or things or between mathematical or statistical variables which tend to vary, be associated, or occur together in a way not expected on the basis of chance alone” A “statistical correlation” is a special type of correlation that can be analyzed mathematically == but clearly this is not the only type. For me there is also the question of whether any correlation of any type can be regarded as meaningful or not. Thanks to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation), we have a very thorough definition and discussion of statistical correlation, in which certain potentially serious issues are revealed, raising the issue of how meaningful a purely statistical correlation can be. Under the heading “Simple Linear Correlations,” we find an illustration of “Anscombe’s Quartet” (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Anscombe%27s_quartet_3.svg/650px-Anscombe%27s_quartet_3.svg.png), in which four very different datasets all share the same correlation of 0.816. According to the Wikipedia piece, “these examples indicate that the correlation coefficient, as a summary statistic, cannot replace visual examination of the data.”
BPL: I then looked for the best fit using the other data. This was zigzagged! Looks more like the original shape! And, incidentally, it accounts for the 1940-1978 period Victor is worried about much better than CO2 alone. The hypothesis that global warming was suppressed in that period by other factors (notably aerosols) is confirmed, The whole story is here:
https://bartonlevenson.com/GreatStasis.html
V: Sorry, Bart, but you’ve lost me. A correlation involves a relation between TWO datasets. Explanations as to why the numbers are what they are have no bearing on the correlation per se. You can add in all the factors you like and they won’t change the numbers representing temperature and CO2 levels. As for your calculations regarding the effect of all those factors on temperature, your reasoning is far from clear. In any case I can’t help wondering what it is that changed all these different factors to suddenly prevent them from inhibiting temperature rise after the late 70’s.
“A correlation involves a relation between TWO datasets.”
Hold on a sec, there, pardner:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/mathematics/multiple-correlation-coefficient
https://www.personal.psu.edu/users/d/m/dmr/papers/multr.pdf
V: According to Merriam Webster: a correlation is “a relation existing between phenomena or things or between mathematical or statistical variables which tend to vary, be associated, or occur together in a way not expected on the basis of chance alone” A “statistical correlation” is a special type of correlation that can be analyzed mathematically == but clearly this is not the only type. For me there is also the question of whether any correlation of any type can be regarded as meaningful or not.
BPL: In science, you’re not allowed to make up your own rules.
V: Sorry, Bart, but you’ve lost me. A correlation involves a relation between TWO datasets.
BPL: Sorry, Vic, but you’re wrong. There is something called a multiple correlation coefficient, with one dataset on one side and as many datasets as you like on the other.
V: Explanations as to why the numbers are what they are have no bearing on the correlation per se. You can add in all the factors you like and they won’t change the numbers representing temperature and CO2 levels.
BPL: They don’t have to. That stands on its own–a very high, extremely significant correlation between the two.
V: As for your calculations regarding the effect of all those factors on temperature, your reasoning is far from clear. In any case I can’t help wondering what it is that changed all these different factors to suddenly prevent them from inhibiting temperature rise after the late 70’s.
BPL: The Clean Air Act, to name just what happened in the USA.
@ Victor
“If you read beyond the portion of my blog post that you quoted you will find such an analysis”
Victor, here’s the problem; your “analysis” is a blog post. That’s one of the primary reasons your ideas are so easily dismissed. Ironically, it is clear that you understand this is a credibility issue – you suggested (Apr 30, 12:41pm) that Tamino’s analysis of global average temperature, “… would be more convincing if he managed to get it published in a peer reviewed journal.”
I encourage you to follow your own advice and join the scientific debate by writing up your ideas and publishing them in a credible scientific journal (e.g. Science, Nature, Geophysical Research Letters). There is no reason to be afraid of legitimate scientific discourse. After all, you are THE Victor A Grauer who authored “Concept, style, and structure in the music of the African Pygmies and Bushmen: A study in cross-cultural analysis” Ethnomusicology 53.3 (2009): 396-424 so there is simply no excuse. You know how to publish papers in the scientific literature, and everyone knows that you are capable of doing this.
Papers in high-impact journals are typically only about 4 pages in length and instructions for authors are easy to follow. You have already written hundreds of pages on this topic so it should be dead easy for you to pull this together.
Here’s your chance to really make a difference and, who knows, perhaps change the course of history by overturning a robust scientific consensus. It’s not going to happen if you continue referring people to a blog post for your “analysis”. Might as well go for it Victor because, at this point, all of your time and effort is clearly not having much of an impact. Grow a pair, write up your stuff and submit it for publication. That’s the first step you need to take for your ideas to gain any credibility.
Mel A Reasoner says
@ Victor
“If you read beyond the portion of my blog post that you quoted you will find such an analysis”
Victor, here’s the problem; your “analysis” is a blog post. That’s one of the primary reasons your ideas are so easily dismissed. Ironically, it is clear that you understand this is a credibility issue – you suggested (Apr 30, 12:41pm) that Tamino’s analysis of global average temperature, “… would be more convincing if he managed to get it published in a peer reviewed journal.”
V: Well well well. You know quite a bit about me, Mel. I’m wondering if you read the paper to which you refer.
OK For one thing, Tamino’s blog post is convoluted whereas mine is straightforward. Where the logic is clear, as I believe it to be, official endorsement in the form of publication (or otherwise) should not be necessary. The real question is: do you get the point? And if not, please let me know what bothers you and I’ll try to clarify. As far as being dismissed is concerned that’s not a problem for me. I realize how hard it is to change people’s minds, especially on this particular subject — and I do NOT expect to change the world, since the world has already made up its mind to self-destruct regardless of what anyone says or does.
For another thing, I clearly lack the specialized background in climate science or physics that would be necessary for me to get published in any serious journal devoted to the hard sciences. Which is why self-publication in a blog is the best solution for me. As I’ve said, there is nothing I’ve ever contributed in this field that depends on personal prestige or even expertise. It’s all simply evidence coupled with basic logic. Either you get it or you don’t. Or don’t want to.
Finally, I am certainly not the only skeptic around — and many of my fellow skeptics are highly qualified climate scientists who have published fairly widely, to little avail.
Thanks for your concern.
“Where the logic is clear, as I believe it to be…”
Oh, well, THAT settles it, then.
(But I don’t recall Victor’s opinion being codified as being part of ‘scientific method?’)
“It’s all simply evidence coupled with basic logic.”
It’s all rampant self-delusion.
Hr Schmidt and everyone
On “Psevdo- science and misinformation”.
Gavin Schmidt has mentioned and used that heading d/ o .
My late Uncle was a medical doctor and scientist. And told me once from his Doctor- praxis that common folklores and “alternative” diagnoses and treatments were most often relicts of orthodox medical school orthodoxy of day before yesterday living on and living its own life in peoples memory, as folklores. Their mothers and grandmothers have told them so, and then it sits very deep in the soul, especially when not further educated on the subjects.
Example. He told of a poor mother with. too weak and pale children, and asked: “But, what do you give them to eat?”
Answer: “I hive them this!” and showed to a quantum of sheere white sugar. ” Because it is chalk! in that white sugar! you see, Doctor!”
Calsium we know was propagated against Rachitis and many further diseases. But orthodoxy added that it is given by milk, gouda-cheese, , codfish, flesh and bones and Kneipp- bread.
Not all white powders are “chalk”.
And that syndrom is rather typical of denial- levels Also of alarmist- levels . The amputated, mono- causal arguments for absolutely sure and with reference to the experts and to science in anonymeous plural.
It is the typical female ANIMUS- confusion and illusion .
For me, that of his teaching has become one of my personal learnings and formulas. I find that it may, and it may also not be so.
But when it seems not to be so, it may be because I do not know all the sources in learning and intellectual and science history. What, we find in Denialism and populism is often frappingly consequent and systematic, mostly because (i think) it is kept up and served to the people by trained thinktanks. And fameous authors and GURUs in those thinktanks. Who have their history and systematic backgrounds indeed.
In fact, it is one of my personal interests and projects to seek and to identify the deeper religious political and ideological learning and training roots of mainstream, both alarmism and denialism. It is the HUMANIORA and political folklore populistic fanatic state religious tribal racial national side of it.
Very much of it shows similar in detail to progressive national socialism of the Soviet science academy warsawa treaty state religions, chosmology, and learnings of day before yesterday. But elements are also borrowed from day before yesterdays vulgar pioneering antroposophy (Scafetta & al).
It’s quite surreal reading this page. An educated man called Victor who cant see a very visually obvious correlation between CO2 and warming (0ver the full period 1900 – 2022 which is the period of interest with its significantly increasing CO2 levels) and who won’t accept simple maths tests of correlations. Maybe he’s playing a silly game to annoy people. I literally can’t believe he actually believes his own bullshit.
Nigelj, Victor’s postings appear consistent with any of the following, in my opinion:
An arrogant but ignorant narcissist;
A shill for fossil fuel interests; or
A sociopath who likes provoking people.
All these are worthy of pity.
I no longer read his postings. Others might in order to sharpen their anti-denialist arguments.
Emmerson
Re0+plying to Victor may also be an exercize for some of us on how to puncture a dialectic materialism soviet scientific academy DDR progressive and missionary balloon in the United States that is getting larger and larger.
@ Victor
“Thank you for your concern.”
You are more than welcome. The pleasure was mine!
I see what you are trying to do but disagree with your conclusions. However, that is immaterial. You are arguing against a robust scientific consensus on a blog and this is largely why your ideas are not gaining any traction. Again, I encourage you to package your ideas into a paper or two and submit them for publication in a credible journal. There is no reason to be afraid of this and you’ve already done most of the work. If you have a genuine interest in contributing to the science, this is the way forward.
By the way, I had a look at Tamino’s blog post you mentioned upthread and I’m not sure why you find it convoluted. However, as you have noted, you have no “background in climate science or physics” and perhaps that’s the problem.
Anyhow, I noticed that Tamino has new post that I think you’ll really appreciate. No complicated statistics – just an eye-ball correlation which is right up your alley.