• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Human beliefs sure are weird. Why is it so difficult to get audiophiles to accept the existence of perceptual bias?

Xulonn

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
1,828
Likes
6,311
Location
Boquete, Chiriqui, Panama
So over the past 500 million years, CO2 levels, blah, blah, blah

The only thing that is relevant for humans is fairly recent climate variations and your latest post is quite irrelevant.

You are definitely trying to play a game of Whack-A Mole. Every time one of your bogus or irrelevant (like this one) hard-core denialist playbook comments is debunked, you don't acknowledge the correction of refutation, but rather move on the the next false or irrelevant claim. And now you are accelerating into a Gish-Gallop in a futile attempt to avoid reality.

Are you aware that you have not refuted a single bit of the core collection of evidence that supports AGW/CC and global warming theory?

Although this thread is a microcosm of the denialist/realist battles that raged for years at Dr. Ricky Rood's climate blog, the hardcore AGW/CC denial tactics have not changed. The litany of anti-science b.s. being trotted out here is pathetic and has been debunked many times over.

Anthropogenic global warming and climate change is real, and is supported by the entire earth sciences community except for a handful of outliers who have done research and submitted or published papers whose claims were quickly demolished. Although some steps are being taken here and there around the globe to reduce CO2 emissions, I do not believe that serious action will be taken until a tipping point is reached - or human civilization experiences a major black swan event that has global consequences.

In the meantime, kick back, open a beer or bottle of wine, and enjoy your day-to-day life. When reality kicks in for humans on a large scale, the ride is going to be rough. But all individuals can do right now is support efforts to make appropriate changes in energy production and use, and help to elect politicians who at least try to be rational. (Good luck with that!)
 

kevinh

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2019
Messages
337
Likes
273
Hmm...

https://www.yaleclimateconnections....have-climate-models-projected-global-warming/

But, anyway, no need to argue at length, we all have our opinions and, as long as we aren't specialists in the relevant fields, our respective opinions are worth about as much as our a****



So the link was interesting since the referenced the 2013 IPCC report, which I also graphed in more detail showing individual runs. Now the observations are very different. They show data sets that closely correlate with the models whereas the graph I cited from Dr Judith Curry's Climate ect website uses radio baloon measurements along with the satellite data from UAH site.
So we shal go our separate ways on this I will leave you with one more video from Tony Heller detailing the changes made to climate data sets by NOAA and others. The funny thing is that newspapers of the past support the unmodified data set not the one that have been changed by NOAA.






Once you have messed with the data you have nothing, but propaganda.
 

kevinh

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2019
Messages
337
Likes
273
I think those discrepancies (kevinh vs Yale) relate to using the satellite or land-based measurements (is that graph from a Watt's Up with That" Christy post?). The skeptic community has a lot of problems with the land-based measurements, due to heat island and "cooling the past" accusations. I wouldn't be able to referee that dispute competently.

But even if you were to take the satellite measurements as gospel, you still have warming, just a lower overall climate sensitivity than modeled. Put a reasonable range of uncertainty around that and you still have a significant RISK of man-made warming that could cost a lot of money and/or lives in the future. It seems to me even the skeptics ought to be worried about man-made warming in the long-term.

I like to believe the skeptics, and the uninformed-but-resistant types as well, would be more receptive if the message wasn't the unrealistic "hair shirt" version of what we need to do.

btw, tangentially related to audiophile matters, have you ever looked at the Cultural Cognition Project? http://www.culturalcognition.net/
They document with climate and certain other topics that the more informed people are the more they disagree. Fascinating:



http://www.culturalcognition.net/br...risk-perception-commons-culture-conflict.html


BTW I would just note, the observed warming put us back towards the warming of the Medieval Warm Period, which saw Grains being grown in Greenland and Wine Grapes being grown in Labrador by the Vikings.
 

Xulonn

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
1,828
Likes
6,311
Location
Boquete, Chiriqui, Panama
Those who took math in college may appreciate the significance of that.

And those who went to college and studied science learned to do their homework before making claims about something. Do you really think that climate scientists are not aware of this issue, and working to find out why there is a discrepancy?

Study: Why troposphere warming differs between models and satellite data
...
The conclusion the researchers came to was that the model-observation discrepancy isn’t down to a single factor, but a combination. Specifically, they posit that it is due to a combination of internal variability and that models got some climate forcings wrong in recent years.

Climate models used historic data for factors like greenhouse gas concentrations, solar output, volcanic eruptions, air pollution, and other factors that can affect the climate through 2005 or so, but after that point made assumptions of how these would change in the future. Recent research has suggested that a series of moderate volcanic eruptions, a long and unusually low minimum in the sun’s energy output during the last solar cycle, and an uptick in particulate pollution from Chinese coal-fired power plants have all changed these forcings in ways unanticipated by the modelers.

These forcings will be updated in current modeling effort, called CMIP6, being done in preparation for the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. This new generation of models, featuring forcings closer to observations in recent years, will likely show better correspondence with tropospheric temperature observations, but may not be any more or less sensitive to CO2 than the prior generation of models (CMIP5).

According to Dr Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who was not involved in the paper, there are even plans to rerun the older CMIP5 generation of climate models with updated forcings to see what happens if those are updated in isolation without changing other factors.

Ultimately, the paper finds that while there is a mismatch between climate models and observations in the troposphere since the year 2000, there is little evidence to-date that the model/observation differences imply that the climate is less sensitive to greenhouse gases. The results suggest that while these short-term differences between models and observations are a subject of great scientific interest, it does not diminish the reality of long-term human-driven warming.

Santer, B. D. et al. (2017) Causes of differences in model and satellite tropospheric warming rates, Nature Geoscience, doi:10.1038/ngeo2973
 

BDWoody

Chief Cat Herder
Moderator
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
6,948
Likes
22,625
Location
Mid-Atlantic, USA. (Maryland)
The only thing that is relevant for humans is fairly recent climate variations and your latest post is quite irrelevant.

You are definitely trying to play a game of Whack-A Mole. Every time one of your bogus or irrelevant (like this one) hard-core denialist playbook comments is debunked, you don't acknowledge the correction of refutation, but rather move on the the next false or irrelevant claim. And now you are accelerating into a Gish-Gallop in a futile attempt to avoid reality.

Are you aware that you have not refuted a single bit of the core collection of evidence that supports AGW/CC and global warming theory?

Although this thread is a microcosm of the denialist/realist battles that raged for years at Dr. Ricky Rood's climate blog, the hardcore AGW/CC denial tactics have not changed. The litany of anti-science b.s. being trotted out here is pathetic and has been debunked many times over.

Anthropogenic global warming and climate change is real, and is supported by the entire earth sciences community except for a handful of outliers who have done research and submitted or published papers whose claims were quickly demolished. Although some steps are being taken here and there around the globe to reduce CO2 emissions, I do not believe that serious action will be taken until a tipping point is reached - or human civilization experiences a major black swan event that has global consequences.

In the meantime, kick back, open a beer or bottle of wine, and enjoy your day-to-day life. When reality kicks in for humans on a large scale, the ride is going to be rough. But all individuals can do right now is support efforts to make appropriate changes in energy production and use, and help to elect politicians who at least try to be rational. (Good luck with that!)

Whew...

I think it's taken care of.

150b86_1ee0608256be496fbb30209197452d0f_mv2.jpg
 

Xulonn

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
1,828
Likes
6,311
Location
Boquete, Chiriqui, Panama
Once you have messed with the data you have nothing, but propaganda.

Utter and complete b.s. Climate scientist Zeke Hausfather explains land and ocean temperature adjustments clearly and concisely here. Overall, for land temperatures, nearly as many are adjusted up as down.

And you believe that data found to be inaccurate bad data should not be excluded - or corrected if possible? What kind of science is that?

Scientists have gone to great lengths to test the methods they use to adjust land stations to ensure that they are accurately detecting and correcting problems without introducing spurious warming or cooling. This includes benchmarking studies – testing their approach on data with different types of errors added to it.

They have also set up a climate reference network in the US of perfectly sited stations with high-accuracy sensors. Comparing the raw and adjusted stations to this reference network, scientists have shown that the adjustments significantly improve the accuracy of the data.

While much has been made about adjustments to individual land stations that increase warming, these are often extreme cases cherry-picked to make a point. When adjustments to all stations are considered, just as many reduce warming as increase warming, as shown in the figure below from NOAA.
 

Xulonn

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
1,828
Likes
6,311
Location
Boquete, Chiriqui, Panama
BTW I would just note, the observed warming put us back towards the warming of the Medieval Warm Period, which saw Grains being grown in Greenland and Wine Grapes being grown in Labrador by the Vikings.
I thought we were discussing "global warming" and then you bring up regional warming events.:rolleyes:

Many people have a clear picture of the "Little Ice Age" (from approx. 1300 to 1850). It's characterized by paintings showing people skating on Dutch canals and glaciers advancing far into the alpine valleys. That it was extraordinarily cool in Europe for several centuries is proven by a large number of temperature reconstructions using tree rings, for example, not just by historical paintings. As there are also similar reconstructions for North America, it was assumed that the "Little Ice Age" and the similarly famous "Medieval Warm Period" (approx. 700—1400) were global phenomena. But now an international group led by Raphael Neukom of the Oeschger Center for Climate Change Research at the University of Bern is painting a very different picture of these alleged global climate fluctuations. In a study which has just appeared in the well-known scientific journal Nature, and in a supplementary publication in Nature Geoscience, the team shows that there is no evidence that there were uniform warm and cold periods across the globe over the last 2,000 years.
 

kevinh

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2019
Messages
337
Likes
273
And those who went to college and studied science learned to do their homework before making claims about something. Do you really think that climate scientists are not aware of this issue, and working to find out why there is a discrepancy?


IMO climate science in general is filled with fruad. You don't get grants and tenure if you don't push the narrative.
Again what is the null hypothesis for AGW?
If the model and observation don't agree the model is WRONG.
Science 101.
 

kevinh

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2019
Messages
337
Likes
273
I thought we were discussing "global warming" and then you bring up regional warming events.:rolleyes:


Who said the MWP was regional? Same for the Little Ice, BTW. The point is neither event has to do with Human activity or CO2. The effects were as great as anything we see now and were due entirely yo natural; processes.

BTW referring to the earlier reply where you dismiss historic CO2 levels are irrelevant but only current CO2 levels count? Really?
Why have the laws of Physics changed over the past period due to the Ice ages?

Candidly you sound more like someone espousing a religious belief rather than pursuing scientific knowledge.
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,522
Likes
37,052
If there was no such thing as alternative facts and politics was based on evidence, wouldn't that mean that if you had two political parties and they weren't saying the same thing, one of them had to be lying?
Nope, see my previous comment that politics uses different evidence. The only evidence they care about is how many are going to vote for you and how plush are the campaign coffers. That is their evidence.

Both parties could contain some truth, but interpret it narrowly or to their advantage and neither could be telling the truth.
 

Xulonn

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
1,828
Likes
6,311
Location
Boquete, Chiriqui, Panama
Whew - that was difficult to keeping up with the denialist b.s. But I'm listening to a VA collection of Celtic Fingerstyle Guitar as I do battle with anti-science blather, so things are still tranquillo here in Panama. As many of probably noticed, I have made a great effort - as I do with audio - to learn the actual scientific foundations of global warming and related climate change.

Fortunately, I had a lot of experience battling AGW/CC denialism at the WeatherUnderground.com blog of a climate scientist - Professor Richard (Ricky) Rood. Unfortunately, after IBM bought the organization, the climate blog was shut down as commercial interests took over to focus on weather data for sale.

I admire and respect Dr. Rood,especially for his efforts in teaching "climate change problem solving," and it was an honor to participate at his blog. During that time, I also took an online course (MOOC) from the university of British Columbia to formally study basic climate science.

Richard B. (Ricky) Rood is a Professor and Dow Sustainability Distinguished Faculty Fellow at the University of Michigan. He teaches a cross-discipline graduate course on climate change, and his research interfaces with many fields. Rood is a fellow of the American Meteorological Society and a winner of the World Meteorological Organization’s Norbert Gerbier Award.

Professor Rood, who is the Dow Sustainability Distinguished Faculty Fellow in the College of Engineering, teaches a class on climate change and the interface of climate change with all aspects of society. This has evolved into a class on climate change problem solving. This is a graduate class, taught in concert with the School for Environment and Sustainability. The class includes business students, policy students, as well as students from several science and engineering departments. Because of this class, more and more, his research interests are on the use of information from climate projections in adaptation to global warming. It's the future. Web link below. In 2014, Paul Edwards, of the School of Information, and Rood introduced a new course called Climate Informatics. The challenge of global climate change presents crucial issues that demand the expertise of both scientists and information professionals. Among these are: Retrieving and presenting complex climate data to non-expert users with specific needs; Building decision-support tools for planning and management; Communicating climate science to broader audiences through simulations, games, or educational software; Establishing reputation and trustworthiness for web-based information sources managing vast Earth system datasets, including curation, provenance, metadata,openness and reproducibility; Designing green IT, such as power-aware computing, smart controllers and smart grids.
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,522
Likes
37,052
So let's look at the CO2 levels not over the past few ice ages (ie Cherry Picked Data) but over a longer time scale.

View attachment 31203

So over the past 500 million years, CO2 levels have fluctuated from 6,000 ppm to as low as 180 ppm dueing the last ice age, there has been NO Correlation between Global Temps and CO2 levels in the atmosphere, so 97% of the CO2 that used to be in the atmosphere is now gone? Where has it been sequestered?

BTW before we get to THAT, note the linear decrease over time ( the scale of the graph isn't linear). What would happen IF the CO2 levels went down another .5% from their historic highs, down to say 150 ppm?
The planet would literally Die, WHY? Photosynthesis stops at 150ppm. Plants would starve to death and life on Planet Earth would cease.

So where did most of the CO2 go? well some seems to have gone into Fossil Fuel formation and Natural Gas, but that is only a tiny fraction, most went into forming Calcium Carbonates, mostly by sea animals like Clams, Oysters, Scallops.
Humans may be (quite inadvertently) saving the planet by burning fossil fuels and restoring CO2 levels so plants are no longer starving.

The biomass of the planet has INCREASED nu >10% over the past 40 years, due to increased CO2 levels. The Deserts are getting greener.
Why? Well CO2 allows plants to have smaller stoma can be smaller in the presence of more CO2 and the plant loses less water becoming more resistant to drought.
So in your view humanity is burning up the over-accummalation of fossil fuels sequestering too much CO2. So we are on a program to restore the earth to its original condition. Cool....................well okay maybe hot.
 

Xulonn

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
1,828
Likes
6,311
Location
Boquete, Chiriqui, Panama
Who said the MWP was regional? Same for the Little Ice, BTW. The point is neither event has to do with Human activity or CO2. The effects were as great as anything we see now and were due entirely yo natural; processes.

Hard science - based on continuing research. I provided a link. Do you deny the findings of science in general? Or just for AGW/CC?
BTW referring to the earlier reply where you dismiss historic CO2 levels are irrelevant but only current CO2 levels count? Really?
Why have the laws of Physics changed over the past period due to the Ice ages?

Nothing to do with the laws of physics, but the climate range necessary for humans and their civilization to survive and thrive. You also probably don't understand feedbacks and why atmospheric CO2 levels rise after warming, but are not always the trigger for initial warming, while the current global warming is all CO2-based - and is overriding the slow global cooling would that natural forcings would be otherwise causing.

Candidly you sound more like someone espousing a religious belief rather than pursuing scientific knowledge.

LOL - that is funny coming from someone who denies the findings of science, but cannot dispute my posts with evidence that can be confirmed. I base my responses on published science, not on the pseudo-scientific rantings of bloggers or famous scientists making fools of themselves by pontificating about fields where then have never worked in or done research. I don't recall a single comment in this thread where you posted anything supported by climate scientists. NOT ONE SINGLE THING!
 

kevinh

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2019
Messages
337
Likes
273
So in your view humanity is burning up the over-accummalation of fossil fuels sequestering too much CO2. So we are on a program to restore the earth to its original condition. Cool....................well okay maybe hot.


Actually Clams are sequestering far more than Fossil fuels have. Lots of clams in the ocean they have been around for hundreds of millions of years.
BTW when it comes to burning fossil fuels I am all for it, I am also for scrubbers for coal plants and converters to prevent particulate emissions to the greatest estent that is reasonable.
 

Xulonn

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
1,828
Likes
6,311
Location
Boquete, Chiriqui, Panama
Again what is the null hypothesis for AGW?
Science
The following cases are examples where sufficient evidence has been presented and the null hypothesis can be rejected.
  • Climate change: that human influence has not changed Earth's climate.
  • Evolution: that species are not changed by natural selection to fit an ecological niche.
Given that the null hypothesis has been rejected it now falls to those who would wish to deny the evidence for global warming or evolution to present their counterarguments. The burden of proof is on them. The prior alternative hypothesis becomes the next default null hypothesis.

If the model and observation don't agree the model is WRONG.
Actually, almost all current models are quite accurate, and the one that we discussed - mid-tropospheric (not land or water) - is being evaluated and reasons for the poor match will likely be resolved relatively soon.

And what about of the repeated claims over the past 20 years that we are about to enter a "global cooling" period. Is that still a thing? Or those who argue for "cooling is coming" still tilting at windmills?
 

kevinh

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2019
Messages
337
Likes
273
All valid scientific theories have a null hypothesis, Wherever you got that nonsense is a propaganda site not a science based one.

BTW Evolution is being questioned.


Newton was settled science until Einstein came along, now scientist are trying to come to grips on how to unify the 4 forces of nature.
BTW I am not a climate denier (Again a political term applied to holocaust deniers that stirs emotions ).
 

Xulonn

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
1,828
Likes
6,311
Location
Boquete, Chiriqui, Panama
All valid scientific theories have a null hypothesis, Wherever you got that nonsense is a propaganda site not a science based one.

Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth: "Given that global warming is “unequivocal”, and is “very likely” due to human activities, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence."

Sorry, but again, unlike you, my information is based on solid contemporary climate science and climate scientists. Indeed, I reference robust, confirmed climate science for everything I post, and you never even consider climate science, and dismiss it out of hand.

Fascinating!

Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth is a Distinguished Senior Scientist in the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. From New Zealand, he obtained his Sc. D. in meteorology in 1972 from Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was a lead author of the 1995, 2001 and 2007 Scientific Assessment of Climate Change reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize which went to the IPCC. He served from 1999 to 2006 on the Joint Scientific Committee of the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP), and he chaired the WCRP Observation and Assimilation Panel from 2004 to 2010 and chaired the Global Energy and Water Exchanges (GEWEX) scientific steering group from 2010-2013 (member 2007-14); and chaired the 2014 7th International Scientific Conference on the Global Water and Energy Cycle Committee.
He has also served on many national committees. He is a fellow of the American Meteorological Society (AMS), the American Association for Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, and an honorary fellow of the Royal Society of New Zealand. In 2000 he received the Jule G. Charney award from the AMS; in 2003 he was given the NCAR Distinguished Achievement Award; in 2013 he was awarded the Prince Sultan Bin Abdulaziz International Prize for Water, and he received the Climate Communication Prize from AGU. He edited a 788 page book Climate System Modeling, published in 1992 and has published 543 scientific articles or papers, including 62 books or book chapters, and over 257 refereed journal articles. On Google Scholar, there are over 54,295 citations and an H index of 100 (100 papers have over 100 citations). He has given many invited scientific talks as well as appearing in a number of television, radio programs and newspaper articles. He is listed among the top 20 authors in highest citations in all of geophysics.
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,195
Likes
11,808
All valid scientific theories have a null hypothesis, Wherever you got that nonsense is a propaganda site not a science based one.

BTW Evolution is being questioned.


Newton was settled science until Einstein came along, now scientist are trying to come to grips on how to unify the 4 forces of nature.
BTW I am not a climate denier (Again a political term applied to holocaust deniers that stirs emotions ).

Oh my goodness. Nothing wrong with challenging any scientific theory. It's what science is doing to it's theories all the time.

But please tell me you aren't taking the above collection of fringe ID cranks seriously. (Man Berlinski in particular is just insufferable).
These are members of the Discovery Institute which formed around 1990 and they promised to gather scientists who could research ID "unemcumbered by scientific materialist dogma." And they'd be cranking out solid research and data that would "overturn scientific materialism" and produce knowledge denied by the current restrictive paradigm.

And since the 90's mostly what we've heard from the DI is the sound of crickets. Mixed with stabs of self promotion and sour grapes tossed at evolution theory. Looks like science will just have to go on getting stuff done without these hacks, no need to continue waiting twiddling thumbs for anything of substance to escape that place.
 

Ron Texas

Master Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2018
Messages
6,077
Likes
8,913
Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth: "Given that global warming is “unequivocal”, and is “very likely” due to human activities, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence."

Sorry, but it this kind of overconfident bravado is exactly what makes ordinary people suspicious. New York City was supposed to be underwater by now.
 

kevinh

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2019
Messages
337
Likes
273
Ever read the climategate emails? Poor Trenberth worrying about the missing heat, later postulating it is in the deep oceans.
Great place to hide it since measurements of the oceans, which cover 70% of the planet are sparse at best and we only have any sort of data at all from 2003 when the ARGOS system was put in place.
People use calls to authority when they can't prove their case.
 
Top Bottom