Lindzen got his @$$ kicked!

[_Jersey Girl]

RI, who are these "deniers" you speak of? What is a denier, define this term. Anyone who interprets the data differently than you do? The pause manifests in the data. Those asserting a certain interpretation of the data have to account for it. It is not anybody else's job to reverse engineer their models and point out how they're wrong. This is like arguing a prophet can only be proven false by bringing forth true prophecies. Only a real prophet can disprove a false one. The climate system is complex. We know some things, but we don't really know how it works very well. Pointing out the pause is merely pointing out, hey, uh, your prediction was wrong. Your model sucks. I don't need to show statistically significant suckage. Your model keeps predicting doom, but the actual data shows something insignificant. You have to show significant warming, not me. How could anyone show the opposite without an understanding of the climate system that doesn't exist?

Two evasive reply posts to me and I just noticed that RI also raised the issue of proving a negative.

And there you go again dodging your ass off.

Read up on proving a negative.

[_Water Dog]

Read up on proving a negative.

Batteries die on your vibrator? Get lost.

[_Jersey Girl]

Read up on proving a negative.

Batteries die on your vibrator? Get lost.

Forget how to read? Get google.

[_canpakes]

I told you to read up on it. Stop with the sideshow tactics already.

All we need is a dancing bear.

How about a polar bear?

You remember which end of the planet you’ll find them on, right? : )

[_Res Ipsa]

RI, who are these "deniers" you speak of? What is a denier, define this term.

I believe I've discussed this in several places throughout these threads. I define deniers in contrast with skeptics. A skeptic evaluate claims by looking at all the data. In terms of science, that includes facts established in the scientific literature. A denier flat out denies the facts established in the scientific literature, inventing all kinds of excuses for doing so. When encountering some fact or information that appears anomalous in light of facts established in the scientific literature, the skeptic first verifies that the information is truly anomalous, and then works toward understanding why the anomaly exists. When a denier finds what appears to be an anomaly, she claims that it refutes the entire field of science without ever trying to discover an explanation for the anomaly.

Science denial is a phenomenon that researchers study. Deniers can be recognized by the use of several techniques that are common in science denial. viewtopic.php?f=5&t=50201&p=1151265#p1151265

Anyone who interprets the data differently than you do?

Certainly not. But those who misrepresent the data or their implications certainly would qualify. Monckton, for the easiest example.

The pause manifests in the data.

You keep asserting that, but not providing evidence for it. You've posted a number of examples that show what you mean by "pause," such as global warming stopped for a period of time or no global warming occurred for a period of time. That's an assertion that a previous trend of global warming changed to a flat trend for a period of time. And the data do not show a change of trend. I've shown you how the data are consistent with the previous trend and not a change to a flat trend. You simply refuse to deal with it.

Those asserting a certain interpretation of the data have to account for it.

Exactly. Those asserting that that the trend changed from warming to flat have to show that the data supports their assertion.

It is not anybody else's job to reverse engineer their models and point out how they're wrong.

Logical fallacy: red herring. I haven't asked you to do that. Those asserting that there was a "pause" based their claims on historical temperature data, not models.

This is like arguing a prophet can only be proven false by bringing forth true prophecies. Only a real prophet can disprove a false one.

Logical fallacy: false analogy. No one is claiming divine authority. Climate science is built on data and laws of physics. No climate scientist is channeling an omnipotent being.

The climate system is complex. We know some things, but we don't really know how it works very well.

Logical fallacy: red herring. The issue is whether we know enough to make useful predictions about future climate, not how much we don't know.

Pointing out the pause is merely pointing out, hey, uh, your prediction was wrong. Your model sucks. I don't need to show statistically significant suckage.

Misrepresentation: the pause is not based on the skill of model predictions. It is based solely on the historical temperature record. I already showed you this when you made this false claim earlier in the discussion. viewtopic.php?f=5&t=50205&start=126#p1150965 Since then, you have posted several graphs that purport to show the "pause;" they are also based on historical temperatures and not on models.

Your model keeps predicting doom, but the actual data shows something insignificant.

Unsupported assertion: Which model "keeps predicting doom"? And which data show "something insignificant?"

You have to show significant warming, not me.

You need to define what you mean by "significant." I am entitled to rely on the developed body of evidence within the field of climate science. If I'm arguing with an anti-vaxxer, it's perfectly acceptable for me to refer him to the many scientific studies that show no correlation between vaccines and autism. I'm not required to prove the germ theory of disease. Nor am I required to independently prove how the vaccines work. The evidence of warming is presented in the scientific literature. Refusing to consider that evidence is what makes you a denier.

How could anyone show the opposite without an understanding of the climate system that doesn't exist?

Misrepresentation: You keep mischaracterizing what I've asked you to do as demanding that you prove a negative. What I've asked you to do is to provide evidence that there was a trend change at the beginning of the pause from warming to flat. That is not asking you to prove a negative. If there were no warming, one could show that by developing evidence that global temperatures have stayed constant. That's no more difficult a task than showing that there has been warming or cooling.

[_Res Ipsa]

On the subject of the pause that never was, this is an article that places the pause kerfuffle in perspective. https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -never-was

Some highlights:

The issue at hand was one of the multiple measurements used by scientists to monitor the state of the planet – the globally averaged temperature.

Depending on which particular set of data you looked at, and how you calculated trends, there was an argument that temperature rises had slowed over a period of about 15 years.


Global warming 'hiatus' doesn't change long term climate predictions – study
Read more
When deniers and contrarians talked about this “slowdown” the implication was that somehow, the laws of physics had suddenly changed and loading the atmosphere with CO2 might not be a problem any more.

As I argued three years ago, this global warming pause was never really a thing.

Despite all the other indicators of global warming showing business as usual – sea-level rise, temperature extremes, glacier melt, species movements, ocean heating, permafrost melt – the unhealthy fixation on one aspect, the average temperature of the globe, stuck firm.

But scientists reacted to the public commentary in the only way they know how. They started to study this “pause” to find out what might be going on. They published scores and scores of papers in academic journals.

This, in turn, fed a narrative that in the public eye that the fundamentals of human-caused climate change were in doubt when, in fact, none of the credible studies found this to be the case.

Some argued the pause did not exist at all, others looked at the role of the oceans, the trade winds, greenhouse gases, volcanic eruptions or even the way ship thermometers recorded the water temperatures (and then how scientists accounted for the different methods).

But many scientists agreed too that the wobble in the temperature was well within the bounds of what’s called “decadal variability” – the natural ups and downs in the climate system that are superimposed on top of the warming caused by burning fossil fuels.

Dr James Risbey, a senior research scientist at CSIRO who has co-written an accompanying commentary in Nature, told me: “It never hurts to go back and see how we did.”

But he said: “A short-term trend was too blunt an instrument to speak directly to our confidence in climate change anyway, but its overall relevance is that it helped us to explain the bumps along the way.”

Prof Stefan Rahmstorf, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, said: “I think the main lesson to be learnt from this discussion, by scientists, the media and the public alike, is to be highly sceptical of narratives pushed by so-called climate sceptics.”

Rahmstorf was a co-author on a paper in the journal Environmental Research Letters in April which found neither the claimed “pause” nor the recent spikes in global temperature were outside the bounds of how the climate should be expected to react when it is loaded with extra greenhouse gases.

He added: “Global temperature is a noisy data set due to natural short-term variability, and the debate was all about the noise and not about any meaningful change in the global warming signal. Let me add that understanding the precise nature of this short-term variability is of course a very interesting science question, and work done on the so-called ‘hiatus’ has certainly improved our understanding of that a lot.

Prof Matt England, of the University of New South Wales Climate Change Research Centre, is another scientist to have carried out research in response to the “hiatus” and found that a change in the strength of trade winds was also a factor in holding temperatures down.

“Yes, the post-2000 slowdown was totally real,” he said. “Just like the acceleration in surface warming between 1980 and 2000 was totally real. It’s called decadal variability, and it’s superimposed on the long-term warming trends. Studying the physical mechanisms giving rise to decadal variability is an important component of the work we do, and will continue regardless of definitions of surface warming slowdowns and accelerations.”

So what to make of it all?

The short version is that global warming didn’t stop, scientists knew global temperatures would wobble around and climate scientists aren’t always the best communicators.

But also, to paraphrase Stefan Rahmstorf, climate sceptics are not really sceptics at all.

[_Themis]

That's like commenting on a mountain at the foot as opposed to after climbing it and summiting. The pause specifically refers to that long flat period after 98. That it plateus at a level higher than pre 98, so what? Nobody is disputing that avg temps in the decade after 98 were higher than those before 98. The point is that according to the models, there should not have been a pause. If driven by CO2, the temps should have steadily risen. They didn't.

There is no long flat period as the graph you used shows. I could be dishonest and pick the dip right after 98 to make a steeper trend line. It's obvious there is no pause during this time period. The average temp is till going up, and RI is right that since climate is so complex CO2 is not the only factor that will determine average temperatures.

[_DoubtingThomas]

RI, who are these "deniers" you speak of? What is a denier, define this term. Anyone who interprets the data differently than you do?

Good lord! Do you believe the oceans are warming yes or no? Answer.

[_Water Dog]

Good lord! Do you believe the oceans are warming yes or no? Answer.

I appreciate that you used the word "believe." I don't have any emotions about the matter, since you ask. In terms of the facts, what we know is what I described previously.

Beneath the surface heaves the vasty deep. The least ill-resolved source of data about the temperature of the top 1900 m of the ocean is the network of some 3600 automated ARGO bathythermograph buoys.

Unlike the assorted ship’s buckets and engine intake sensors and promenade-deck thermometers that preceded them, the bathythermographs were specifically designed to provide a consistent, calibrated, competent ocean temperature dataset.

They have their problems, not the least of which is that there are so few of them. Each buoy takes only 3 measurements a month in 200,000 cubic kilometres of ocean – a volume 200 miles square and a mile and a quarter deep. The bias uncertainty is of course less than it was in the bad old days of buckets and such, but the coverage uncertainty remains formidable.

Another problem is that ARGO only began producing proper data in 2004, and there seems to have been no update to its marine atlas since the end of 2014.

Nevertheless, ARGO is the least bad we have. And what the buoys show is that the rate of global ocean warming in those 11 full years of data is equivalent to less than a fortieth of a degree per decade – 0.023 degrees per decade, to be more precise:

Simple answer, nobody knows.

DT, I have a question for you. Is the ocean in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium with the sun?

[_Water Dog]

Oh, this is fun.

Would you eat insects to save the planet from global warming?

Jessica Brown
Mon 15 Oct 2018 19.10 AEDT

More people would give up meat for edible bugs if they believed they were tasty and trendy

The thought of rising sea levels and more intense heatwaves are enough to keep you up at night. But while we all know the situation is getting more serious, most of us are preoccupied with work, doctor’s appointments and paying bills – and these immediate, visceral worries win every time.

…

Edible insects have been hailed as a solution to both global food shortages and reducing emissions from animal agriculture, but despite the industry’s best efforts, our response when faced with a cockroach is disgust. Even in London edible insects are seen as nothing more than a gimmick, and there are only a handful of restaurants serving them up.

But new research from Switzerland and Germany may have found out how to persuade people to eat insects – and it could have a huge impact on lowering human-led carbon emissions.

Up until now, retailers and restaurants have marketed edible insects as a more sustainable option and a healthy source of protein. But the researchers explain the problem with getting people to switch to environmentally friendly behaviour is that it often requires foregoing immediate pleasure for distant benefits, and edible insects have been wrongly framed in this way.

Before the 180 participants in the study were offered a chocolate truffle filled with mealworms, half of the group were given a flyer saying that eating insects was good for them and the environment, while the other half were told the insects were either delicious or trendy to eat.

About 62% of those given health or environmental incentives chose to eat the truffle, compared with 76% who ate the truffle after being told it would taste good or make them trendy. And the latter group rated the truffle as tastier.

The researchers concluded that we need to switch the message about saving the planet from altruism to pleasure. They back up their argument with previous studies showing that attitudes based on emotions are more malleable than those grounded in rational claims.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... sty-trendy