Major new paleoclimatology study shows global warming has upended 6,500 years of cooling

[Jack Hays]

I merely note it because so many of your posts are simply quotes from "history of science" books telling us about how flawed science is in its thinking and how revolutions bear fruit.

I simply want to ground your claims by noting that it is irrational for one who has no real experience in the sciences to try to critique the sciences and then use that critique that others have created to support their own position.

YOU brought all these quotes up. YOU kept quoting and quoting about how science is herd mentality and revolutions bear fruit in science. As if it had some meaning. Were you just randomly quoting? Or did you have a point?

If it was the former then my apologies, I didn't realize you didn't care what you said or posted or quoted. If it was the latter then my critique stands.

I am surprised you actually taught at a university however briefly. You don't seem like you can handle the rough and tumble of academic "sharp elbows". (And funny enough, UofI was where I experience at least one of the sharpest elbows of my early career!)

It's all about how science proceeds.
No problem with rough and tumble in substantive debate. I don't countenance personal attacks disguised as academic discourse.

 

[istodolez]

No problem with rough and tumble in substantive debate. I don't countenance personal attacks disguised as academic discourse.

Is it really a "personal attack" to note that you, by your own admission, have no real scientific training? And then to ask why you think your lack of scientific training puts you in a position to call "balls and strikes" in the larger discussion of science?

No, it's not. In fact it quite handily explains why almost all of your posts are nothing but quotes of other people without context. Or why you gravitate to denialist blogs like a bee to flowers.

I am seeking to explain the data with a model.

 

[Jack Hays]

Is it really a "personal attack" to note that you, by your own admission, have no real scientific training? And then to ask why you think your lack of scientific training puts you in a position to call "balls and strikes" in the larger discussion of science?

No, it's not. In fact it quite handily explains why almost all of your posts are nothing but quotes of other people without context. Or why you gravitate to denialist blogs like a bee to flowers.

I am seeking to explain the data with a model.

Yes, it is a personal attack.

 

[istodolez]

Yes, it is a personal attack.

I have actually been quite honest with you and others on this board as to my, personal, limitations. I understand that you cannot handle anyone asking you about yours. But I will repeat: I am not a climate scientist. The science passes the "sniff test" for me and the foundational stuff makes sense (where I have much more experience), but the advanced radiative modeling stuff is a bit beyond me.

This is why I, personally, tend to go with the mainstream science.

I am fascinated that someone with less experience than I have would decide to go with the science that is literally on the fringes.

It is not a "personal attack" on you...it is an acquiescence of my own limitations that makes me fascinated by yours.

In my career I've seen folks who forgot that real science is done by those who question themselves first and foremost. Not by the folks who think they've got it all figured out even in light of their own admitted limitations.

So if I'm "personally attacking" you, then I'm personally attacking myself.

If you don't know how science actually operates in this regard you don't know how science operates in the main.

 

[Jack Hays]

I have actually been quite honest with you and others on this board as to my, personal, limitations. I understand that you cannot handle anyone asking you about yours. But I will repeat: I am not a climate scientist. The science passes the "sniff test" for me and the foundational stuff makes sense (where I have much more experience), but the advanced radiative modeling stuff is a bit beyond me.

This is why I, personally, tend to go with the mainstream science.

I am fascinated that someone with less experience than I have would decide to go with the science that is literally on the fringes.

It is not a "personal attack" on you...it is an acquiescence of my own limitations that makes me fascinated by yours.

In my career I've seen folks who forgot that real science is done by those who question themselves first and foremost. Not by the folks who think they've got it all figured out even in light of their own admitted limitations.

So if I'm "personally attacking" you, then I'm personally attacking myself.

If you don't know how science actually operates in this regard you don't know how science operates in the main.

It's an inappropriate personal attack. I'm not the issue, and neither are you. You asked what I believe. I answered. That's it.

 

[Surface Detail]

I have actually been quite honest with you and others on this board as to my, personal, limitations. I understand that you cannot handle anyone asking you about yours. But I will repeat: I am not a climate scientist. The science passes the "sniff test" for me and the foundational stuff makes sense (where I have much more experience), but the advanced radiative modeling stuff is a bit beyond me.

This is why I, personally, tend to go with the mainstream science.

I am fascinated that someone with less experience than I have would decide to go with the science that is literally on the fringes.

It is not a "personal attack" on you...it is an acquiescence of my own limitations that makes me fascinated by yours.

In my career I've seen folks who forgot that real science is done by those who question themselves first and foremost. Not by the folks who think they've got it all figured out even in light of their own admitted limitations.

So if I'm "personally attacking" you, then I'm personally attacking myself.

If you don't know how science actually operates in this regard you don't know how science operates in the main.

Oh, don't worry about Jack. Painting himself as the victim of some imaginary slight is his usual modus operandi when he's losing the argument. It's a typical diversionary tactic.

 

[Jack Hays]

Oh, don't worry about Jack. Painting himself as the victim of some imaginary slight is his usual modus operandi when he's losing the argument. It's a typical diversionary tactic.

You should catch up on the discussion before you weigh in.

 

[longview]

Except that that was clearly NOT the consensus.

As I noted the MAJORITY of peer reviewed papers during that time that said anything about warming or cooling were predicting WARMING.

There was a growing understanding that mIlankovich Cycles likely drove Cenozoic ice ages which means we SHOULD have been going into a new one, but indeed the general census was that we were WARMING.

(Please, look at the graphs, or even read the Peters paper).



Even this report you quote notes warming due to CO2.

And this is ONE SINGLE report, not necessarily the consensus. In fact if you read further into the NAS report you will see this:



The state of the science in 1975 would not be necessarily as well developed to make a prediction per the NAS (so I'm not sure how you think they justified predicting an Ice Age as a fait accompli). The scientists of the time had just figured out Milankovich Cycles so the talk was of when the next one would hit with the assumption that it would. However, the science was NOT seeing a cooling necessary and the majority of peer reviewed papers from that time predicted WARMING.

The NAS report was an assembly of the best climate scientist of the day, so yes it was a consensus, of the best people of the day,
they even cited one of James Hansen' early papers.

Again no one is saying that Added CO2 does not cause some warming!

The state of the science still does not know how to cope with all the variables.
The entire electromagnetic spectrum is enormous, and and cannot be monitored by a single instrument.
The linearity between the several instruments, as well as things we cannot measure like gravity, could alter
the energy paths in and out of earth. ( an example is how much energy is added or taken away from Earth by gravitational pull?)
What is the sign and magnitude of the cloud response to a warmer climate? ect!

 

[istodolez]

It's an inappropriate personal attack. I'm not the issue, and neither are you. You asked what I believe. I answered. That's it.

Belief. pure and simple.

Not science....belief

 

[istodolez]

The NAS report was an assembly of the best climate scientist of the day, so yes it was a consensus

A consensus that they were unable to accurately predict future climate. OK. Not sure how that helps your point, but OK.

The state of the science still does not know how to cope with all the variables.

They know a great deal about the variables. They know a great deal of the uncertainty. In real science there is always uncertainty. It is the hallmark of real, valid science. Uncertainty will never be 0.

When I make a statistical model to explain, say, a particular coating formulation's response to added components I find that I can explain most of the results with a properly fitted model. Sure there may be a few factors that are not included because I didn't know about them, or maybe I failed to use a quadratic term in my fit. But I can still explain the majority of the variance and that is how I know I'm closer to the answer.

The linearity between the several instruments, as well as things we cannot measure like gravity, could alter
the energy paths in and out of earth. ( an example is how much energy is added or taken away from Earth by gravitational pull?)
What is the sign and magnitude of the cloud response to a warmer climate? ect!

Sounds like you might just be grasping at questions to keep "doubt" alive. Fair enough. Any references in which gravity is considered somehow a feedback or forcing on climate change? I've never heard about that, but I've only been reading climate change stuff off and on for a couple decades. I could have missed it.

If we "solve" the "mystery" of gravity in regards to climate change we will STILL have to worry about the effect of neutrinos. Or how about up-quarks? Have we factored in the up-quarks? We can't know if AGW is real until we've exhausted literally all items in the universe as explanatory variables and we have reduced the residuals down to absolute 0.

 

[istodolez]

Oh, don't worry about Jack. Painting himself as the victim of some imaginary slight is his usual modus operandi when he's losing the argument. It's a typical diversionary tactic.

Thanks! Good to know.

I understand how my questions would appear as "personal attacks", I'm leveraging something he noted earlier about his own lack of scientific background.

I am, however, somewhat confused. By one who continually quotes philosophers of science he seems completely incapable of actual philosophical discussion. I raised the concept of "probability" in assessing the value of a potential scientific revolution and how one, bereft of actual understanding of the topic, would be able to identify such a revolution. And that was all it took for him to take extreme umbrage. Almost like he's never been in a room with philosophers or scientists.

I had the great advantage in my youth to room with and have as a very close friend a philosophy major (who went on to become a philosophy professor) and I learned the fun value of argument. Not all can handle that. And even fewer can handle the "sharp elbows" of academe. Those of us who have been through the meat grinder can all point to unnecessary roughness aimed at us by fellow academics. It's part of the game.

Jack doesn't seem suited for it. Which is a shame. One who wishes to quote philosophers of science should at least have some foundational familiarity with both topics, but certainly at least one.

 

[Threegoofs]

Thanks! Good to know.

I understand how my questions would appear as "personal attacks", I'm leveraging something he noted earlier about his own lack of scientific background.

I am, however, somewhat confused. By one who continually quotes philosophers of science he seems completely incapable of actual philosophical discussion. I raised the concept of "probability" in assessing the value of a potential scientific revolution and how one, bereft of actual understanding of the topic, would be able to identify such a revolution. And that was all it took for him to take extreme umbrage. Almost like he's never been in a room with philosophers or scientists.

I had the great advantage in my youth to room with and have as a very close friend a philosophy major (who went on to become a philosophy professor) and I learned the fun value of argument. Not all can handle that. And even fewer can handle the "sharp elbows" of academe. Those of us who have been through the meat grinder can all point to unnecessary roughness aimed at us by fellow academics. It's part of the game.

Jack doesn't seem suited for it. Which is a shame. One who wishes to quote philosophers of science should at least have some foundational familiarity with both topics, but certainly at least one.

LOL.

Nice evisceration.

It will just result in a flurry of cut and paste denier blog posts.

Guaranteed.

 

[longview]

A consensus that they were unable to accurately predict future climate. OK. Not sure how that helps your point, but OK.



They know a great deal about the variables. They know a great deal of the uncertainty. In real science there is always uncertainty. It is the hallmark of real, valid science. Uncertainty will never be 0.

When I make a statistical model to explain, say, a particular coating formulation's response to added components I find that I can explain most of the results with a properly fitted model. Sure there may be a few factors that are not included because I didn't know about them, or maybe I failed to use a quadratic term in my fit. But I can still explain the majority of the variance and that is how I know I'm closer to the answer.



Sounds like you might just be grasping at questions to keep "doubt" alive. Fair enough. Any references in which gravity is considered somehow a feedback or forcing on climate change? I've never heard about that, but I've only been reading climate change stuff off and on for a couple decades. I could have missed it.

If we "solve" the "mystery" of gravity in regards to climate change we will STILL have to worry about the effect of neutrinos. Or how about up-quarks? Have we factored in the up-quarks? We can't know if AGW is real until we've exhausted literally all items in the universe as explanatory variables and we have reduced the residuals down to absolute 0.

The consensus is meaningless, the data is all that counts!
We have measured some versions of an energy imbalance, that could be related to added CO2.
http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf
Feldman, found a .22W/m2 increase in downwelling longwave radiation, as CO2 increased from 369 ppm to 392 ppm.
He said that,

This quantity is distinct from stratosphere-adjusted radiative forcing at the tropopause, but both are fundamental measures of energy
imbalance caused by well-mixed greenhouse gases15.The former is less than,
but proportional to, the latter owing to tropospheric adjustments of sensible and latent heat

I question the much lower number, considering that a even a energy move from sensible to latent heat,
would be reflected in the IR emissions of the gasses/vapor.
If he is looking up, what energy he does not see downwelling, is going the other direction.
The is a chance that his 5 to 20 um window, missed something above or below, but we have to consider how far off his measurement
was from the predicted CO2 forcing.
.22 W/m2/ ln(392/369)= 3.64, so 3.64 X ln(2)=2.52 W/m2 for a doubling of CO2.
If the energy is not showing up in a 5 to 20 um window coming down, it must be going up!
Another thing Feldman noted, was,

However, despite widespread scientific discussion and modelling of the climate impacts of well-mixed greenhouse gases,
there is little direct observational evidence of the radiative impact of increasing atmospheric CO2.

The think, 28 years after Hansen's talk to the Senate, no one actually bothered to measure the predicted changes!

To me it is the alarmist who claim there is evidence, but when asked to cite the empirical data, are grasping at modeled straws!

 

[Jack Hays]

Thanks! Good to know.

I understand how my questions would appear as "personal attacks", I'm leveraging something he noted earlier about his own lack of scientific background.

I am, however, somewhat confused. By one who continually quotes philosophers of science he seems completely incapable of actual philosophical discussion. I raised the concept of "probability" in assessing the value of a potential scientific revolution and how one, bereft of actual understanding of the topic, would be able to identify such a revolution. And that was all it took for him to take extreme umbrage. Almost like he's never been in a room with philosophers or scientists.

I had the great advantage in my youth to room with and have as a very close friend a philosophy major (who went on to become a philosophy professor) and I learned the fun value of argument. Not all can handle that. And even fewer can handle the "sharp elbows" of academe. Those of us who have been through the meat grinder can all point to unnecessary roughness aimed at us by fellow academics. It's part of the game.

Jack doesn't seem suited for it. Which is a shame. One who wishes to quote philosophers of science should at least have some foundational familiarity with both topics, but certainly at least one.

LOL.

Nice evisceration.

It will just result in a flurry of cut and paste denier blog posts.

Guaranteed.

It is disappointing to see the inability to be effective on topic transform into an effort to change the subject to personal attacks. Not necessarily surprising, but disappointing.

 

[Jack Hays]

. . . . (And funny enough, UofI was where I experience at least one of the sharpest elbows of my early career!)

If you did geology at U of I then you likely encountered one of my very good friends. He earned his Ph.D. there and later went on to be Director of the Illinois State Geological Survey.

 

[istodolez]

The consensus is meaningless, the data is all that counts!

Which is why I provided data about how science viewed "cooling" vs "warming" after YOU RASIED IT.

If you don't want to talk about this, then don't raise the subject!

 

[istodolez]

If you did geology at U of I

I did NOT do any geology studies there.

 

[Jack Hays]

I did NOT do any geology studies there.

Of course not.

 

[Lord of Planar]

-sigh- I honestly thought you'd be better with logic. Post hoc ergo propter hoc doesn't seem like your style.

You got it backwards: No one is saying consensus makes good science...but GOOD science will be expected to create a consensus. So just because you see consensus doesn't mean you are seeing bad science.

But is is not yet good science. When it finally becomes a good science, I can accept the final consensus.

 

[longview]

Which is why I provided data about how science viewed "cooling" vs "warming" after YOU RASIED IT.

If you don't want to talk about this, then don't raise the subject!

I know they discussed both, Which is why I quoted the statement about the ice sheets advancing over
farms and cities from the introduction, to show that cold was the real concern.
The report covers many of the variables, and concepts, including some about the limitations of models.

There is also evidence from simplified
models that the completely accurate specification of a climatic state
is not achievable in any case, because of the same kind of nonlinear
error growth that limits the accuracy of weather prediction (Fleming,
1972; Houghton, 1972; Leith, 1971; Lorenz, 1969; Robinson, 1971a).
Analyses of selected climatic time series indicate only limited pre-
dictability on yearly and perhaps decadal time scales (Kutzbach and
Bryson, 1974; Leith, 1973; Lorenz, 1973; Vulis and Monin, 1971),
while the general white-noise character of higher-frequency fluctuation
has been confirmed in model simulations (Chervin et al., 1974).

 

[istodolez]

Of course not.

I did work with various folks from the ISGS in my early career. I even met M. E. Hopkins briefly.

When I was doing my MS thesis research I was looking for some evidence of hot basinal brines coming up out of the Illinois Basin and looking for evidence in the thermal signatures left in organics in shales. I found an old write-up by another ISGS geologist (whose name I now forget) and got a bit of time to talk to him about, if I recall, some vitrinite reflectance data he'd collected years early and mapped onto the basin. I saw some "evidence" of the reflectance data cutting across the contours of the basin and suggested it indicated heat (in the form of hot basinal brine) moving up out of the basin at that point. He disagreed. And, indeed, I was probably wrong. I was probably interpreting noise for signal. It's easy enough to do. And I had dearly wanted to find such a signal. It is always a trap to be avoided...confirmation bias.

 

[istodolez]

I know they discussed both, Which is why I quoted the statement about the ice sheets advancing over
farms and cities from the introduction, to show that cold was the real concern.
The report covers many of the variables, and concepts, including some about the limitations of models.

As noted before: in the 1970's there was a lot of work in understanding what drove ice ages in the Cenozoic. The work of establishing the effects due to the Milankovich Cycles was ramping up and so of course people were going to write about continental glaciation. And again, we know we should be heading back into a new ice age. The timing of the Milankovich Cycles would indicate that. But we are apparently late to the game.

In point of fact, even in the 1970's there was serious, serious discussion of anthropogenic global warming. And as noted before: the consensus as measured by actual peer-reviewed publications at the time was more around warming than cooling. The data was showing it even then and science even then understood it.

 

[longview]

As noted before: in the 1970's there was a lot of work in understanding what drove ice ages in the Cenozoic. The work of establishing the effects due to the Milankovich Cycles was ramping up and so of course people were going to write about continental glaciation. And again, we know we should be heading back into a new ice age. The timing of the Milankovich Cycles would indicate that. But we are apparently late to the game.

In point of fact, even in the 1970's there was serious, serious discussion of anthropogenic global warming. And as noted before: the consensus as measured by actual peer-reviewed publications at the time was more around warming than cooling. The data was showing it even then and science even then understood it.

There were discussions, but the paper counts do not matter, the real concern was that we could be entering a new ice age.
If we have accidentally delayed an ice age, it is the greatest possible boon for Humanity since we tamed fire!
An interesting idea from the ice cores, the temperature on Earth looks like it swings about 9C between glacial and inter glacial periods.
Like the rails in an electronics amplifier.

We are currently very near the top rail.
Past inter glacial periods, peaked perhaps 2C above the current level, but could not sustain the peak and dropped relatively quickly.
This combined with the fact that roughly 90% of the past half a million years was spent at -2C or lower than the current temperature,
leads me to think the climate feedbacks are weighted towards a colder climate.

 

[istodolez]

There were discussions, but the paper counts do not matter,

They matter to establish the "consensus" at the time.

the real concern was that we could be entering a new ice age.

And as has been noted repeatedly there was scant research predicting this unless it was undertaken in the absence of AGW which was known at the time.

If we have accidentally delayed an ice age, it is the greatest possible boon for Humanity since we tamed fire!

In that setting fire to your house definitely shakes off the chill of a winter night.

 

[Jack Hays]

As noted before: in the 1970's there was a lot of work in understanding what drove ice ages in the Cenozoic. The work of establishing the effects due to the Milankovich Cycles was ramping up and so of course people were going to write about continental glaciation. And again, we know we should be heading back into a new ice age. The timing of the Milankovich Cycles would indicate that. But we are apparently late to the game.

In point of fact, even in the 1970's there was serious, serious discussion of anthropogenic global warming. And as noted before: the consensus as measured by actual peer-reviewed publications at the time was more around warming than cooling. The data was showing it even then and science even then understood it.

Really?

". . . Beginning in 2003, software engineer William Connolley quietly removed the highly inconvenient references to the global cooling scare of the 1970s from Wikipedia, the world’s most influential and accessed informational source.
It had to be done. Too many skeptics were (correctly) pointing out that the scientific “consensus” during the 1960s and 1970s was that the Earth had been cooling for decades, and that nascent theorizing regarding the potential for a CO2-induced global warming were still questionable and uncertain.
Not only did Connolley — a co-founder (along with Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt) of the realclimate.com blog — successfully remove (or rewrite) the history of the 1970s global cooling scare from the Wikipedia record, he also erased (or rewrote) references to the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age so as to help create the impression that the paleoclimate is shaped like Mann’s hockey stick graph, with unprecedented and dangerous 20th/21st century warmth. . . ."

285 Papers 70s Cooling 3

PART 3 PART 1 HERE PART 2 HERE 206. Dyson, 1977 The magnitude of this negative feed-back effect of atmospheric CO2 upon itself depends on many ecological interactions which have yet to be disentangled. The effect could be negligibly small, or it could be as large as 3 x 109 tons of carbon per yr. […]


285 Papers 70s Cooling 2

PART 2 PART 1 HERE PART 3 HERE —– 96. Paterson, 1977 Figure 4a shows 10-yr mean [temperature] values from AD 1200 to present [Arctic Canada]. Prominent features are brief warm periods with peaks at 1240 and 1380, cold peaks at 1430, 1520, and 1560, the ‘Little Ice Age’ continuously cold from 1680 to 1730 […]


285 Papers 70s Cooling 1

Beginning in 2003, software engineer William Connolley quietly removed the highly inconvenient references to the global cooling scare of the 1970s from Wikipedia, the world’s most influential and accessed informational source. It had to be done. Too many skeptics were (correctly) pointing out that the scientific “consensus” during the 1960s and 1970s was that the […]