Arctic ice

And then there's this.
Manufacturing consensus: the early history of the IPCC
Posted on January 3, 2018 by curryja | 385 comments
by Judith Curry Short summary: scientists sought political relevance and allowed policy makers to put a big thumb on the scale of the scientific assessment of the attribution of climate change.

 

When you cited as authoritative the claim that the increase in temperature over the last 150 years was caused by increased CO2 and not by natural factors.

You do not speak for practically every climate scientist on the planet, and neither do any of your claimed authorities, and I will thank you to remember it. Your claim is that CO2, specifically, has caused most of the increase in global surface temperature over the last 150 years, and not the natural factors that caused all previous similar century-scale warming episodes.

The anti-CO2 hysteria campaign constantly reiterates the claim that the global warming since "pre-industrial" times is not natural. That means the natural factors and processes that caused all previous century-scale warming episodes must somehow have become inoperative during the most recent one.

Your inference is that because CO2 prevents the world from freezing up, it must be the main factor driving global surface temperature variation. That is a bald non sequitur fallacy. It is logically equivalent to claiming that because anti-freeze prevents a car's coolant from freezing in the winter, it must be the main factor driving variation in the coolant temperature.

It won't take long. The oceans contain ~50x as much CO2 as the atmosphere. The solubility of CO2 in water is inversely related to the water temperature. So when the oceans warm up, they release CO2 into the atmosphere. When they cool down, they absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. That is why the paleoclimate record shows a strong correlation between CO2 and temperature, but with CO2 following temperature changes, not leading them.

I have stated many times that the earth has naturally returned to more normal Holocene temperatures following the coldest 500y period in the last 10Ky. If temperatures have recently exceeded the Holocene norm (a highly dubious claim, but let's allow it), then it is most likely because the 20th century saw the highest sustained solar activity in several thousand years.

Because the instrument siting and reading methodology varied wildly; the measurement technology advanced substantially; coverage was extremely tenuous or non-existent over >90% of the earth's surface area; early rural sites later became urbanized; etc.

 

Thanks for the link; it was an interesting theory of the case, to read, and more explanatory than the vague references, in other posts, to radiative heat transfer. That said, I will need to follow up on the links provided at the end of the opinion piece, to look for data corroborating the author's proposed mechanism (solar activity), since none of that was part of the piece. While I am still open to changing my view, it seems hard to believe (though not impossible) that if a straight forward graph of solar activity & global temperature showed a clear parallel, this would not have been considered by the mainstream scientific community.

There is one part of the opinion, to which I do take exception:
"Evidence for warming doesn’t tell us what caused the warming, and any time someone has to appeal to the so called 97 percent consensus he or she is doing so because his or her scientific arguments are not strong enough. Science is not a democracy." This is patently untrue. What is accepted by the majority of the scientist in any given field, even if that doesn't prove its veracity, does decide what is considered to be scientific truth; as such, appealing to the accepted consensus in a given field, is not indicative of a weak argument, at least not among the part of the population who are not scientific researchers in that field.

I'll get back to you, once I have checked for statistical proof of this alternative theory.

 

Henrik Svensmark is the Godfather of solar climate science.
Force Majeure: The Sun's Role In Climate Change | The ...
https://www.thegwpf.org › new-paper-solar-impact-on-...

Mar 11, 2019 — The report, by Professor Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National ... New research suggests that other mechanisms can amplify the effect of ...

 

As for consensus:

By Michael Crichton
Caltech Michelin Lecture January 17, 2003

". . . I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.

Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period. . . . "


Aliens Cause Global Warming
Thursday, January 31st, 2019

 

I will restate that, what he says is patently wrong, even if I am in total sympathy with yours & Mr. Crichton's view, and have taken quite a bit of attack due to my posting of my opinion that, oftentimes, the scientific community's ideas are incorrect, but that scientists can be resistant to new ways of seeing things, due to institutional thinking. Nevertheless, that is no reason to assume that whatever is the prevailing scientific thinking on any subject-- and there almost is a consensus view-- is more likely to be completely wrong, rather than at least partially correct.

The ramifications, in my mind, are that one should be always open to new information, & not prejudge it, just because it differs from the prevailing view, at the time. The catch, with this disposition, is that one must be willing to learn enough about a subject in order to evaluate different hypotheses, and most people don't wish to be bothered with this, none of us has time to educate ourselves on every issue and, as a society, our schools do a poor job of general education, with regard to a broad range of topics.

How my belief in scientific fallibility works, in practice, is that I want to hear the explanations behind any way of thinking, whether it be the conventional or the unorthodox, and assess it based on what seems most sensible. If it doesn't see to make sense, I question it. Advocates of the greenhouse-gas theory have put forth a cogent case. That does not mean that, if someone has an equally cogent argument against it, I won't consider it. But, thus far, I have yet to see fully laid-out, the compelling, alternative case. As I said in my last post, I will look more into this solar activity theory, & gauge how logical and comprehensive the case is, which its adherents make.

 

We disagree. I suggest you read Crichton's entire speech, which is linked. Meanwhile, I'll quote a Nobel Prize winner.

“Generally speaking, we can observe that the scientists in any particular institutional and political setting move as a flock, reserving their controversies and particular originalities for matters that do not call into question the fundamental system of biases they share.” —Gunnar Myrdal, Objectivity in Social Research

 

Again, you are preaching to the choir-- the Semmelweis reflex, etc. But what is your point? That science is always wrong? Note, that is NOT the meaning of the words of your Nobel laureate, i.e., that all shared biases of any scientists are, ipso facto, mistaken. If that's how you are interpreting it, it is you who is clearly mistaken.

The idea of groupthink comes into play, only when the conventional thinking has an apparent flaw. I'll give you an example. I assume you, sometimes, accept medical advice from physicians. That is, most people do not assume doctors are wrong about everything. But that is the ridiculous position you seem to be suggesting-- that scientific consensus proves a thing false-- if my previously related procedure, of making sure the prevailing theory makes sense, and logically evaluating alternate theories, leads you to say, "we disagree." I think Crichton is overstating the case, realizing that he is fighting against a strong current, pushing in the direction of accepting the "expert opinion," unquestioningly, which I do not do.


To give an example of medical thinking which I see as flawed, let's take the idea that the best way to treat high cholesterol is with drugs that lower your cholesterol level. Let me make clear that I am speaking in generalities, because people are not all the same, and some may have certain genetic or anatomical factors which differentiate their cases. But the general philosophy comes under question because high cholesterol is not simply a matter of bad diet, nor is it, necessarily, a problem (again, I'm not going into differentiating specific HDL/LDL proportions, & so forth). Cholesterol serves an important function in your body; in fact, we all MAKE our own cholesterol. Under healthy conditions, this cholesterol does NOT stick the walls of our blood vessels, which is the process that can lead to problems.

The reason it sticks, is to give support to DAMAGED blood vessels. It's purpose is to prevent these weakened vascular walls from bursting, leading to internal bleeding &, potentially, death. So, if your arteries & veins are healthy, cholesterol should generally not stick to vascular walls & obstruct blood flow, even if your cholesterol level is high. Conversely, if your blood vessels have lots of scarring, any cholesterol you do have in your body (which, remember, will try to make more of it, to keep you from bleeding internally) will stick to that scarring. It therefore seems more reasonable, as a strategy, to limit one's vascular scarring/damage, if one can do so, rather than try to remedially limit one's cholesterol, your vascular repair cement.

Well, do we know what things damage blood vessels, & can they be avoided? For some of them, the answer is yes. I found out, unintentionally, in a report on goats' milk, from a U.S. Farm Extension Bureau, that the HOMOGENIZATION process (which cows' milk typically undergoes, but goats' milk does not need-- though the big, national brand which I taken up on their offer for more info, to get this report, still does, to prolong its shelf-life) causes the release of an enzyme which, when consumed, causes vascular scarring! So, avoiding homogenized milk would be a good start, toward the goal of having clear-flowing blood passageways-- I take issue with some of the advice from nutritionists, as well. In fact, this connection makes it seem less than coincidental that homogenized milk really began to replace the milkman, in the U.S., in the 1930s (especially in the late 30s), and through the 1940s, at the SAME TIME as cardio-vascular disease, in the U.S., began to steeply rise (see chart, below). Since this damage accrues, the longer one drinks the harmful substance, it tracks that the rise in deaths from, "heart disease," continued through the 50s, peaking in the 1960s, but staying very high in the 70s and 80s

My point is that I am not a blind believer in everything science claims, but nor am I so incapable of coming to reasonable assessments, on my own, that I welcome every crackpot theory just to be contrary, or because I like their conclusions. For now, the CO2 theory of Global Warming seems very credible to me. If, however, I see compelling evidence to the contrary, I will have no qualms about changing my stance, if the facts warrant it.


And you should also avoid hydrogenated oils.

 

I sit here recovering from surgery just this past Wednesday, so no, I don't doubt doctors all the time. But I doubt consensus climate science because it derives from what can only be called a Faustian bargain. Please see the book Searching for the Catastrophe Signal by Bernie Lewin. There is a good write-up here.
Manufacturing consensus: the early history of the IPCC
Posted on January 3, 2018 by curryja | 385 comments
by Judith Curry Short summary: scientists sought political relevance and allowed policy makers to put a big thumb on the scale of the scientific assessment of the attribution of climate change.

 

Jack has a reason WHY he wants you need to read Dr. Crichton;s speech, especially after the part Jack quoted, it is devastating.

Consensus errors are many which YOU need to acknowledge since it is anti science.in its effect.

Reproducible science is the best way to advance understanding of something, which later gets additional information by others and into the future.

 

That is an absurd strawman. If that's how you are interpreting it, it is you who is clearly mistaken.

GARBAGE. Groupthink is most dangerous when conventional thinking is entirely plausible.

Same absurd and disingenuous strawman.

Now see if you can learn from your own bad science, which resembles a lot of bad global warming science rather closely:

The chart you provided does not show prevalence of cardiovascular disease, it shows death rate from cardiovascular disease. Why is this distinction important? Until the 1940s, old people with circulatory disease typically died of pneumonia or other bacterial infections. When infections became curable with antibiotics, they lived long enough to die of heart attacks.

And since then, great progress has been made in treating heart disease, so now people get old enough to die of cancer and strokes. Nothing to do with homogenized milk. Do you see the analogy with anti-fossil-fuel "science"?

 

You only show here that you have trouble interpreting arguments. I never said that homogenized milk was the SOLE cause for increases in coronary disease. I grant you that I should have continued searching to find the appropriate graph, though I am unsure as to whether I might have found it-- and since this thread is on Arctic Ice, and my argument was merely intended to demonstrate that I'm not undiscriminating, in automatically swallowing the official line (as a poster charged about we who accept the mainstream Global Warming argument)-- it didn't seem to merit the extra time & effort. The argument was just meant to show that I do think for myself, and I feel it does that.

If my main goal had been to prove this theory of mine, I would have brought more research to support my proof. Still, since it is a known fact (even in government science) that the enzyme released when the fat in milk gets broken into smaller groups, as is done in homogenizing it, does arterial damage; and an undisputed fact that cholesterol attaches itself to the inner walls of blood vessels that have been damaged; therefore,
it is a logical conclusion that if one begins adding a lot of this enzyme to their diet, they will get more arterial plaque.

Further, I DID show that the timing fits. My rationale even fits the slow reduction of deaths, beginning in the 1970's, which is when people started trying to eat, "healthier," lower-fat diets: less fat in the milk (2% vs. whole milk, for example) means less of the harmful enzyme that is freed from the fat, during homogenization.

To fault you for an equivalent, if not greater reason, than you fault my argument: you provide NOTHING to substantiate any of your claims, that there would not be bound to be some symmetry between the prevalence & severity of arterial plaque & heart attack deaths. You apparently believe that I should take your word that the data would back up your assertion, that the rise in heart attack deaths in the 1930s through the 60s is due to fewer people dying from infections, because of increased availability of antibiotics, and so therefore living long enough to have the heart attack that would have been in their future, had not the infection got them first. You don't see any need for offering data to confirm your claim, huh? And no hypocrisy in your unwillingness to accept a connection between my supplied data, & my contention?

Do YOU see the analogy to your anti-human driven Global Warming argument?

 

Garbage.

Speaking of people who have trouble interpreting arguments, I never said or implied that you did.

It shows that you think for yourself none too acutely and none too skeptically.

And as with CO2, you are not asking the right questions: how MUCH more, and what OTHER factors could have caused the change?

Like the timing of CO2 increase and temperature increase. That is kind of a definitive post hoc fallacy.

And as with CO2 and temperature, ignoring all other factors.

And as with CO2, I don't have to because I am merely pointing out the logical implications of what either should be common knowledge, or is information you provided.

As with CO2: how much?

No, I don't, because as with CO2, what I pointed out is obvious, and my role is simply to identify the relevant logical relationships, not spoon-feed you what you already know but forgot to include in your "reasoning."

As with CO2, I expressed only a healthy and logically well founded skepticism about your hypothesis, not unwillingness to consider it. And as with CO2, accepting it requires clearing a much higher bar.

Oh, yes. See above.

 

Ironic, given that Myrdal's Nobel was in economics, a "science" to which his observation applies even more thoroughly than it does to climatology.

 

Greenland has gained ice recently.
Greatest Single Day Gains In Greeenland Ice Happening Now.
Guest Blogger
Despite warming, the Greatest single day gains in Greeenland ice and its SMB (surface mass balance) is happening the past days. Ice gain/loss in Greenland is function of the location…