Jump to content

Who here is a global warming skeptic?


Recommended Posts

 

Can you post a reference to a peer reviewed article that says that "a 2 degree rise in temperature will cause mass death in Britain".

 

Or is this a strawman argument?

 

 

He's referring to this study.

 

"A significantly raised risk of heat-related and cold-related mortality was observed in all regions. The elderly were most at risk. In the absence of any adaptation of the population, heat-related deaths would be expected to rise by around 257% by the 2050s from a current annual baseline of around 2000 deaths, and cold-related mortality would decline by 2% from a baseline of around 41 000 deaths. " http://jech.bmj.com/...13-202449.short

 

He is personally incredulous to the results of the study, as to quote : "people will take their jumpers off".

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 942
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I am a global warming skeptic. I think it is not only plausible to have doubts, but essential, especially if we wish to honour the memories of Bacon and Galileo and Newton. We should doubt the data ga

Lots of things.   I am pretty well convinced that there is a problem with CO2 levels and decreasing Ph of the oceans. This could be serious indeed.   I am also convinced, based on isotope abundan

Can you please post some kind of evidence - preferably new evidence - which made you come to this conclusion? And FOX News does not count. Instead of forcing the climate sciences to "prove" that clim

Posted Images

He's referring to this study.

 

OK. I can't access the paper, but superficially I see no reason why it shouldn't be credible. There is a vast amount of existing data on the effects of temperature on mortality rates.

 

And, although it is not a good thing, it seems extravagant to describe those figures as "mass deaths"; most diseases have higher death rates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider this:

 

Wikigreenhousemodelmodifiedfor1750.jpg

 

There is little debate that the sun has increased since the 1700's. Around the time of the AR4, studies centered around 0.2% ranging about +/- 0.2. The IPCC AR4 uses a value of 0.12 W/m^2 forcing for the TSI changes and a value of 0.06 W/m^2 in the AR5. Some years ago, I used Lean et al 2000, with her extended data. Using an 11 year average of her data, from 1750 to 2004 (2005?) I came up with a 0.18% increase for the time covered in the AR4. When I edited a simplified graphic of the one used in Kiehl and Trenberth '97, I came up with a total change in solar forcing of 0.93 W/m^2. Keep in mind, the AR4 is claiming a total flux increase of 1.6 W/m^2.

 

Before you guys deny my results, please consider this. The IPCC is careful to claim the 0.12 W/m^2 forcing as "direct" forcing. Well... what about the indirect forcing? Just because the atmosphere is seeing an increase of 0.12 W/m^2, doesn't mean that's where it stops. The oceans absorb more, and thermal inertia takes it decades until we see the full extent of these indirect increases. The added heating on the surface means more longwave up, to fuel the greenhouse effect. In all, the actual suns contribution is around 0.93 W/m^2, a full 58% of the 1.6 W/m^2 claimed for warming during this period.

 

Now…

 

If you guys wish to deny these numbers, if the total solar flux only amounts to the 0.12 W/m^2, then that means the increases since 1750 were only around 0.023% Ask any scientist studying the solar history. That’s a ridiculously low number.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

OK. I can't access the paper, but superficially I see no reason why it shouldn't be credible. There is a vast amount of existing data on the effects of temperature on mortality rates.

 

And, although it is not a good thing, it seems extravagant to describe those figures as "mass deaths"; most diseases have higher death rates.

 

We are in agreement.

 

To recap: Crunching the numbers shows an annual increase in extreme weather related fatalities in the UK of approx. 4,800 by 2050.

 

Tim's main objections appear to be: 1) The UK's weather is mild and people don't die due to heat, only cold (which was trivially falsified) , and 2) The authors include the caveat that the numbers are based on current mortality rates, and that if unforeseen mitigation occurs in the future, the projections will be off. He claims that people will mitigate (i.e. take their jumpers off) and therefore the numbers are inaccurate. The problem being that current mortality rates inherently account for all current mitigating practice - to infer that future mitigation will change the numbers means that you'd have to demonstrate that people don't currently take their jumpers off when it's hot and that they will do so in the future. (Also trivially refuted).

 

Despite the fact that his objections have been shown to be fatally flawed, Tim appears to remain incredulous to its findings - now seemingly using the study as evidence to reject peer review.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, perhaps you would like to present the evidence behind this "I am certain that soot on ice is the largest antropogenic warming we have."

I chose that one because the other assertions have been pretty much done to death in this thread already.

 

Also, you might want to use a spelling checking system of some sort.

​Few things look more amateur than spelling it (and anthropogenic) wrongly.

This is my first thread here. I don't know what has been said before, but I assume you then agree that past numbers for soot were highly underestimated. New studies are showing CO2 cannot be a great as previously claimed.

 

As for your knocking me on spelling. I agree, and didn't realize on my first post that there is no auto spell checker like there is on the other forums I visit. I assume there is a setting, but I haven't fiddled with any yet.

 

It does bother me that you tie in spelling with knowledge. Isn't that being a bit elitist? Maybe you should check your own writing as well, as you used a double space.

 

When I was involved with rapid research and development in the 90's, composing procedures was not easy for me. I accel at things technical, but not technical writings.

 

I am certain you are not a skeptic

Then what is the correct terminology for me. I don't deny warming, I just disagree with the consensus and quantifications used.

 

 

Citation needed.

 

 

Citation needed.

 

 

Citation needed.

 

(Sorry, I'm just a bit sceptical.)

You want citations for my certain opinion? I'm sure as this thread, or others advance, you will understand my points if you don't simply dismiss what I say. I'm not going to try to find supporting material that is several years old, as I have already arrived to such conclusions over six years ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes.

 

 

OK. We can ignore your opinions as unsubstantiated, then. Thanks.

I see.

 

I take it that you want pal reviewed material over explanations of how and why. Does that mean you don't understand the sciences involved? It is a waste of time for me to look up decades old material to school someone. I take into account real science, instead of believing what someone else tells me to believe.

 

Are you a denier of real science? You see, in real science, you don't dismiss ideas. In real science, you try to prove a concept by doing everything in your power to see if it can be disproved. When you cannot find a way to disprove an idea, then it might remain sound.

 

That's the problem with the new earth science called "climatology," It should be called climastrology, because it is claimed to be proven, no matter how many people disagree and have papers showing the consensus is wrong.

 

Didn't Einstein say something like it only takes one proof or error to disprove a theory?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my first thread here. I don't know what has been said before, but I assume you then agree that past numbers for soot were highly underestimated. New studies are showing CO2 cannot be a great as previously claimed.

 

 

It does bother me that you tie in spelling with knowledge. Isn't that being a bit elitist?

 

New studies are showing CO2 cannot be a great as previously claimed.

"This is my first thread here. I don't know what has been said before"

Then read it.

" but I assume you then agree that past numbers for soot were highly underestimated. "

No, why would you assume I agree with something when I have just asked you to explain why you believe it?

 

"It does bother me that you tie in spelling with knowledge. Isn't that being a bit elitist? "

No, not really, there is, in general, a correlation between knowing some things and knowing other things.

​It may be many things, but it's certainly not "elitist"

Any twit with a spell checker can get the spelling right.

"New studies are showing CO2 cannot be a great as previously claimed."

Nope, new studies show CO2 rising

I see.

 

I take it that you want pal reviewed material over explanations of how and why. Does that mean you don't understand the sciences involved? It is a waste of time for me to look up decades old material to school someone. I take into account real science, instead of believing what someone else tells me to believe.

 

Are you a denier of real science? You see, in real science, you don't dismiss ideas. In real science, you try to prove a concept by doing everything in your power to see if it can be disproved. When you cannot find a way to disprove an idea, then it might remain sound.

 

That's the problem with the new earth science called "climatology," It should be called climastrology, because it is claimed to be proven, no matter how many people disagree and have papers showing the consensus is wrong.

 

Didn't Einstein say something like it only takes one proof or error to disprove a theory?

"I take it that you want pal reviewed material over explanations of how and why"

Either would do, but please don't make up facts- those have to be from a reputable source.

"Does that mean you don't understand the sciences involved? "

No, plenty of us have a very solid grasp of it. You would realise that if you had bothered to read the other 17 pages of this thread.

" It is a waste of time for me to look up decades old material to school someone."

That's not the reason we are asking you to do it.

"I take into account real science, instead of believing what someone else tells me to believe."

On what basis do you decide what is "real"?

Are you aware of the issues of confirmation bias?

 

" In real science, you try to prove a concept by doing everything in your power to see if it can be disproved. "

And...

It's not as if you have offered any actual evidence against the idea.

 

"Didn't Einstein say something like it only takes one proof or error to disprove a theory?"

True, and the current tally for proofs of error is zero.

Unless, of course, you can show otherwise but, rather than doing so you preach that you are certain and will not even look at the thread- never mind deigning to actually provide any evidence.

You have, thus far, provided precisely one "citation" to support your assertion and it seems from a vanity publisher

(their website includes the following text)

"SOP journals are made freely available online,.. In order to cover the costs of providing and maintaining a publication infrastructure, ..., the journal charges a publication fee .... The publication fee is required to be paid upon acceptance of an article for publication. "

Edited by John Cuthber
Link to post
Share on other sites

" but I assume you then agree that past numbers for soot were highly underestimated. "

No, why would you assume I agree with something when I have just asked you to explain why you believe it?

 

 

Hmmm....

 

Even studies done by the accepted climatologists have been increasing the effect of soot since the AR4 was published.

 

Are you not following along?

 

 

"New studies are showing CO2 cannot be a great as previously claimed."

Nope, new studies show CO2 rising

 

OK, I meant CO2 forcing. Yes, CO2 levels continue to rise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have, thus far, provided precisely one "citation" to support your assertion and it seems from a vanity publisher

 

The paper is not only published in a vanity journal, but has also been shown to contain fatal flaws:

 

"The problem is that there are only two levels. The greenhouse effect is driven by the increase in the height of the atmosphere from which radiation that can be absorbed or emitted by CO2 can reach space. This cannot be captured in a two level model, which, of necessity has to crudely average over a lot of parameters. Of course some of the devil is in the details, such as how much water vapor, clouds, etc is in the second level."

 

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/10/anthony-watts-has-found-another.html

 

More broadly, it shows the double edged sword that is open access publishing - it has opened the door for unscrupulous publishers to dress literally anything up as looking like peer reviewed science, so long as you pay the publication fee.

Edited by Arete
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The paper is not only published in a vanity journal, but has also been shown to contain fatal flaws:

 

"The problem is that there are only two levels. The greenhouse effect is driven by the increase in the height of the atmosphere from which radiation that can be absorbed or emitted by CO2 can reach space. This cannot be captured in a two level model, which, of necessity has to crudely average over a lot of parameters. Of course some of the devil is in the details, such as how much water vapor, clouds, etc is in the second level."

 

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/10/anthony-watts-has-found-another.html

 

More broadly, it shows the double edged sword that is open access publishing - it has opened the door for unscrupulous publishers to dress literally anything up as looking like peer reviewed science, so long as you pay the publication fee.

Wow.

 

Are you aware that the paper used for the 0.43 sensitivity is from a respected expert of particle physics? This is his field. Most climatologists do not understand spectral forcing like these guys do. He has a previous 2013 paper I read a few weeks back as well.

 

I linked the whole paper earlier in post 349.

 

You tell me... what is wrong with it.

 

Read the 50 page paper and come to you own conclusions instead of believing a blogger please.

 

Believing a blogger without verification of facts is not a good practice. It's called a two layer, but on page 2:

 

Since the concentration of the GH-gases

and the atmospheric pressure are changing with temperature and altitude, these calculations are performed

for up to 228 sub-layers from ground to 86 km height and additionally for three climate zones, the tropics,

mid-latitudes and high-latitudes.

 

Edited by Wild Cobra
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We are in agreement.

 

To recap: Crunching the numbers shows an annual increase in extreme weather related fatalities in the UK of approx. 4,800 by 2050.

 

Tim's main objections appear to be: 1) The UK's weather is mild and people don't die due to heat, only cold (which was trivially falsified) , and 2) The authors include the caveat that the numbers are based on current mortality rates, and that if unforeseen mitigation occurs in the future, the projections will be off. He claims that people will mitigate (i.e. take their jumpers off) and therefore the numbers are inaccurate. The problem being that current mortality rates inherently account for all current mitigating practice - to infer that future mitigation will change the numbers means that you'd have to demonstrate that people don't currently take their jumpers off when it's hot and that they will do so in the future. (Also trivially refuted).

 

Despite the fact that his objections have been shown to be fatally flawed, Tim appears to remain incredulous to its findings - now seemingly using the study as evidence to reject peer review.

 

Yes that about sums up my position.

 

If it gets to be a real problem then the sales of conditioning systems will increase.

 

I see lots of older people (the ones said to be in trouble due to warming in the study) retiring to places like Tenerife. They often say that they are going because of the climate.

 

Florida is also full of retired folks.

 

Iceland is not a destination for such people generally. There are obviously exceptions.

 

SINCE THIS THREAD IS ASKING WHO IS A SKEPTIC EXPLAINING MY REASONS IS HARDLY OUT OF ORDER!

Link to post
Share on other sites

You see, in real science, you don't dismiss ideas.

 

But in real science, people back up their ideas with evidence. You made a series of statements about your beliefs and then said that you were not going to provide any support. Or at least, your support appears to be a single paper using a simplified model. Sounds a little bit like cherry picking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you a denier of real science? You see, in real science, you don't dismiss ideas.

Of course you do, all of the time, especially when said ideas are shown consistently, repeatedly, and for decades to be wrong or not representative of reality. You might wish to remember that we also have dismissed phrenology, the stork theory of childbirth, and the idea that Earth is at the center of the universe, for example.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But in real science, people back up their ideas with evidence. You made a series of statements about your beliefs and then said that you were not going to provide any support. Or at least, your support appears to be a single paper using a simplified model. Sounds a little bit like cherry picking.

I agree I have not supported everything I said. Tell me, how hard would it be for you to source uncommon material you learned 10 years ago or more? I camn find such material again, but I will do it a piece at a time as more posts, threads, questions, etc. arise. I will not attempt to do it all at once.

 

There is nothing simplified about that 50 page paper I linked in post 349. It is far more advanced than any climatologists paper I read. I have referenced K&T '97, and anyone worth debating the energy budget with, understand what I said about it. There are different numbers and different studies, but the calculations start with percentages. Later the watts per square meter forcing are aplied. You change the solar input, and all values change!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree I have not supported everything I said. Tell me, how hard would it be for you to source uncommon material you learned 10 years ago or more? I camn find such material again, but I will do it a piece at a time as more posts, threads, questions, etc. arise. I will not attempt to do it all at once.

 

There is nothing simplified about that 50 page paper I linked in post 349. It is far more advanced than any climatologists paper I read. I have referenced K&T '97, and anyone worth debating the energy budget with, understand what I said about it. There are different numbers and different studies, but the calculations start with percentages. Later the watts per square meter forcing are aplied. You change the solar input, and all values change!

 

!

Moderator Note

The problem with this is that we don't generally permit speculative claims without sometng substantive to support them. I respect that you may not have easy access to these because they are from ten years ago, but at the same time, you can hardly expect anybody to take your vague recollection of these decade-old sources seriously.

 

Please also refrain from the use of logical fallacy. It is not particularly good way to try and get your point across and it will be both picked up and picked apart very quickly here. Whether or not you deem a paper to sound complicated or even more complicated than other papers in no way makes them valid.

 

Again, do not respond to this modnote in-thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree I have not supported everything I said.

 

anyone worth debating the energy budget with,

No, you haven't supported anything which you have said.

One dodgy paper in a very questionable journal isn't really support.

 

Do you think this sort of comment will hep you in any way?

"anyone worth debating the energy budget with..."

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree I have not supported everything I said. Tell me, how hard would it be for you to source uncommon material you learned 10 years ago or more? I camn find such material again, but I will do it a piece at a time as more posts, threads, questions, etc. arise. I will not attempt to do it all at once.

 

There is nothing simplified about that 50 page paper I linked in post 349. It is far more advanced than any climatologists paper I read. I have referenced K&T '97, and anyone worth debating the energy budget with, understand what I said about it. There are different numbers and different studies, but the calculations start with percentages. Later the watts per square meter forcing are aplied. You change the solar input, and all values change!

"You change the solar input, and all values change!"

 

To what are you attributing your change in solar input, and by how much?

~

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree I have not supported everything I said. Tell me, how hard would it be for you to source uncommon material you learned 10 years ago or more?

 

Does that imply there is a lack of modern research supporting your claims? Just a minority of papers from 10 years ago? (And didn't you just criticise someone else in another thread for using "10 year old data"?)

 

 

There is nothing simplified about that 50 page paper I linked in post 349.

 

It explicitly says it uses a simpler model (and tries to justify that).

 

 

It is far more advanced than any climatologists paper I read.

 

I assume by that you mean that it agrees with your preconceptions?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing simplified about that 50 page paper I linked in post 349. It is far more advanced than any climatologists paper I read.

 

Yes there is - it's a gussied up two step model. Essentially a pig in lipstick, published in a vanity journal. You're simply using an argument from authority fallacy to say it's better than all the other papers out there (hint - your author is an emeritus professor at the University of Hamburg. He has a researchgate profile. It's easy to assess your claims about him being a "world renowned expert" and find them somewhat wanting.)

 

It also contradicts Lewis and Curry 2014. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-014-2342-y (which is actually pretty well done, unlike the example you've cited).

 

So, which of the two papers is wrong?

SINCE THIS THREAD IS ASKING WHO IS A SKEPTIC EXPLAINING MY REASONS IS HARDLY OUT OF ORDER!

 

 

Your caps lock key appears broken. This is a science forum. Calling a study "drivel" based on nothing more than personal incredulity makes your position not only laughably dismissible, it's against the rules.

Edited by Arete
Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you haven't supported anything which you have said.

One dodgy paper in a very questionable journal isn't really support.

 

Do you think this sort of comment will hep you in any way?

"anyone worth debating the energy budget with..."

 

Hmmm... One? What do you want me to do? Email a whole library?

 

Dodgy? Why to you use such slander? Is that your only tactic? Discredit reputable scientists?

 

As for my statement, I said that because what I did was straightforward, simple, and for small changes, nearly linear. Anyone understanding what is done with energy budget would understand that. Those who just are true believers of what the consensus is, should not be debating in my opinion. At least be able to follow and understand what is being said.

 

OK. Back to one paper. How about his previous work on the topic:

 

http://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/ijas/2013/503727.pdf

 

How about his biography:

 

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1724-7451

 

How about a list of some other works he did:

 

http://www.hindawi.com/16572439/

 

I find it ironic, that the same likes of people who call me a denier, are in such denial themselves. Wouldn't it be prudent to research this scientist a bit before slandering him?

 

I ask that you back up your use of "dodgy" please.

 

dodg·y
ˈdäjē/
adjective
Britishinformal
adjective: dodgy; comparative adjective: dodgier; superlative adjective: dodgiest
  1. dishonest or unreliable.
    "a dodgy secondhand car salesman"
    • potentially dangerous.
      "activities like these could be dodgy for your heart"
    • of low quality.

 

Is "dodgy" your professional assessment, or are you just a naysayer?

 

Look. I understand your reaction to assign fault to a paper that is contrary to belief. Problem is, you have not found any actual fault. Only innuendo.

"You change the solar input, and all values change!"

 

 

When doing the math.

 

There is little disagreement that the suns output has increased overall from 1700 to present day. The debate would be not if the TSI incresaed, but by how much.

 

 

To what are you attributing your change in solar input, and by how much?

~

Didn't I explain? Sorry if I didn't. I used Lean et al 2000 with her supplemental expaned data to around 2005. Using an 11 year rolling average in excel, I had a value increase of 0.18% from the 1750 to 2004 (2005?) timeline used in the IPCC AR4.

 

Other studies have more and less of a TSI increase of the several I looked at. Lean's was about midway, and is one of the IPCC contributors, so I used hers.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Does that imply there is a lack of modern research supporting your claims? Just a minority of papers from 10 years ago? (And didn't you just criticise someone else in another thread for using "10 year old data"?)

 

No, it means the location of the material I read and worked on is a mystery as to finding any of it in any quick manner.

 

As an exercise, maby you will want to find a paper that has a CO2 sensitivity level, and trace the origial paper. It's pretty enlightening!

 

What I criticised was a graph that ended in 2003 or 2004. Wasn't that a trend to justify now, when trends change? What I speak of was actual learning of how the sciences work, papers, books, etc. read 10 or so years ago. I believe there are limits that can be confidently applied.

 

 

 

It explicitly says it uses a simpler model (and tries to justify that).

 

Explicity? I went back and looked. I didn't recall it using any such context, and didn't see in a quick search. Page/paragraph please.

 

 

 

I assume by that you mean that it agrees with your preconceptions?

 

How did you come up with that?

 

By advanced, I meant the level of formulas, methodology, and variables used.

 

As for calling it my preconceptions, I would agree if I tried to pin down values and didn't read a lot and do a great deal of critical thinking on the issue. Instead, I used terms like "no more than" and "at least," etc. when speaking of my claim of CO2 having a sensitivity of no more than 0.55 degrees and solar causing most of the warming since 1750. I don't know how much lower CO2 sensitivity really is, some people think it has a net cooling. I don't see my beliefs as "preconceptions." I didn't have any preconceptions when went to seeked out the truth of global warming those years back.

 

I will accept people to say it is my assumption. I will accept that I have a hard time backing it up, but I did supply a paper that is well written and covers areas not previously looked at. In the end, I will accept the future's history to be my judge on this issue.

 

At least I don't use the logical fallacy of alarnmists, using statistics to say something is fact!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_probability

 

For CO2, one of the things I did was use several 21st century works that gave a sensitivity. All of them sourced a previous paper for values, which sourced another yet, etc. By the time I found source studies that the quantified CO2 sensitivities are derrived from, they are from the mid 70's before we knew as much as we do now. The conclusions were based on cause and effect, correlationg CO2 levels to warming. The works of harde are the first that I have seen that uses modern understand of the climate and does not use correlation = causation to assign CO2 sensitivity. It also supports the range of the solar sensitivity I have believed it to be.

 

It also contradicts Lewis and Curry 2014. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-014-2342-y (which is actually pretty well done, unlike the example you've cited).

How does such a paper compare when it is already starting t\with the dataset used in the AR5? What is new about it that matters?

 

 

It's published in a suspect vanity journal. Have a read here:

 

http://www.nature.com/news/investigating-journals-the-dark-side-of-publishing-1.12666

"suspect."

 

Can you critique the paper, or do you only have low blows in your arsenal?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you critique the paper, or do you only have low blows in your arsenal?

 

 

Can you actually tell us why all the other models are wrong or do you only have argument from authority in your arsenal?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.