Should the Scientific Challenges of Dissident Nobel Laureates be answered?

In conclusion: There hasn't been any global warming since 1997. If anything, global average temperature has gradually decreased.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Demonstrably incorrect. 2014 was the hottest year on record.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

...if only.......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Is that according to satellite data or data from a ridiculously small number of thermometers that are now near large newly-built hot objects (buildings and blacktop) that are reradiating daytime heat at night?

 

• Ivar Giaever Non-entity in climate science with zero relevant publications. Affiliate of Heartland Institute and Cato Institute endorser.
• Timothy F. Ball Non-entity in climate science with zero relevant publications after 1986 and has never published research on relation (or lack of it) between human activity and climate change. Affiliate and 3-time invited speaker of the Heartland Institute. Dropped defamation lawsuit after a strong defense was filed showing not only that Ball was a PR flack for the oil companies but it was Ball's article, not the defendant's letter, that was filled with untruths.
• Kary Mullis was too loopy to be credible in his O.J. Simpson trial testimony on the subject of his Nobel Prize. So why would you listen to him on a topic far from his expertise, like the cause of AIDS, long term use of LSD, the validity of astrology or anthropogenic global warming?
• Richard Lindzen Long-time climate contrarian who rejects basic principles of scholarship and ethics in defense of his partisans. Invited writer and endorser for Cato Institute. Affiliate and invited speaker of the Heartland Institute.
• John Christy Long-time climate contrarian who was famously wrong on something mainstream climate science had known since the 1930s certainly by 1988. Since 2010 he has changed from “GW is not happening” to flip-flop between “GW is not AGW” and “It's too expensive to fix” which are not areas of his resarch. Affiliate of the Heartland Institute. Invited speaker for the Cato Institute.
• Murray Salby has been fired on two different continents for neglect of his academic responsibilities to teach and running shell companies to divert NSF funding. During the long public fallout, Salby blamed everyone but himself (when he was the sole owner of the shell company) and hid funds from this "fraudulent" scheme during a divorce. As late as 2012, he pushed a dishonest claim about the historical rate of global warming which could be debunked by anyone with graph-reading skills. This is the very same slide he uses near 10:57 on the first video. Liar! He also has been demonstrated to make factually incorrect claims in fields where he is ignorant.

 

Warmest years on record, in order:
2014
2010
2005
1997

Warmest January-August year on record: 2015

You were saying?

 

It is from ocean and land based thermometers. Many are in city centers, in parks that are cooler than they were before the city was built due to irrigation of lawns.

 

Comparing surface temperatures and satellite temperatures is an apples-and-oranges comparison, with satellite measurements having the bulk of their data from air 1 km or more above the ground. Thus when the bulk of the heat content of the biosphere is ignored by satellite measurements, it is disingenuous to claim their superiority. Likewise, would you care to guess the region of the earth not sampled by satellites? The poles.

Measuring absolute temperature is hard. Measuring temperature trends is easier. And both the NOAA and NASA GISS analyses take pains to correct for urban heat island effect. Berkeley Earth validated their studies, and also selected 2014 as the record holding calendar year. Berkeley Earth was founded just to answer that question for outsiders who questioned the methodology of the experts.

http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
https://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record
http://berkeleyearth.org/land-and-ocean-data/
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Land_and_Ocean_summary.txt
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/skeptics-guide-to-climate-change.pdf

 

Thanks to rpenner for post 65. Some may know little about the Heartland Institute. If memory serves me correctly they supplied many "scientists" and "scientific reports" to the cigarette industry a few decades ago "proving" smoking did not cause cancer, and in no way, except the expense of buying, was harmful to humans. That cigarettes were actually helpful to health as they tend to make one more relaxed, etc.

This bunch of prostitutes now earns big bucks doing the same "scientific lying" for big oil.

 

It's interesting that I posted videos of two Nobel laureates so far that don't have any graph-reading abilities.

 

Why is huffingtonpost.com more credible than CNN? I can easily document pure crap on CNN's website.

 

Pope Francis spoke to Congress. Is he affiliated with Congress? How is Ivar Giaever affiliated with Heartland Institute?

 

Shubert, Shubert, why do you make such stupid claims? We've had six video-only Gish gallops making factual claims that no expert in the field relies upon, mostly because there are no such claims in the peer-reviewed literature. Your claim that two of them are Nobel laureates is a genetic fallacy of the form: "They were once famously credited with a novel discovery, therefore they are never wrong." which ignores that 1) anyone can be wrong, 2) the credit they got was from the scientific mainstream, 3) the scientific mainstream does not endorse their disputed claims and arguments at issue, 4) facts trump so-called authorities. It is an ad hominem to rely on their purported authority and an appeal to irrelevant authority for those who did no research into links between human activity and global warming. Moreover, where did the Nobel laureates endorse the incredibly dishonest graph by Murray Selby? I know they're all self-selected videos from the well-funded PR flack echo chamber, but why do you assume that it is an incestuous well-funded PR flack echo chamber?

What matters ultimately is your science-annihilating claim that your authorities can't be wrong because they were once awarded fractional Nobel prizes (for confirming the band gap prediction of BCS superconductor theory Giaever received 1/4 of the 1973 Nobel physics prize, Kary Mullis received 1/2 of the 1993 Nobel chemistry prize for invention of a reagent-based DNA replication lab technique). Scientific claims rise and fall based on fair comparisons between theory and nature, and I have already illustrated why Murray Salby's graph was a viciously dishonest portrayal and therefore no fair comparison. The unfortunate fact is that you did not confront so you are being intellectually dishonest in not repudiating your reliance on Murray Salby's video(s).

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1993/
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1973/

Why is CNN or your judgment of “pure crap” at issue here? Traditionally, print journalism has more opportunity to research factual and expert claims than video, but CNN has a strong text presence on the web. Of more relevance is the content of the article than the reputation of the speaker. So you have evaded your burden of proof to show that the specific claims in the the article in question are poorly supported. The facts claimed are:

• Mainstream models have been accurate, Lindzen's model hasn't.
• Solar output has decreased as temperatures rise
• More clouds won't offset warming like Lindzen claimed and this claim Lindzen knew had been tested and found wanting. [1], [2], and [3].
• Soon took $1.2 million without disclosure and this is no "small measure" of funding and therefore not a trivial violation of ethics.
• The US Congress has the right to know who's sponsoring testimony, especially when that testimony is meant to influence public policy.

Rather than arguing against those claims, you see to throw mud at the publisher of that article. That's the only “pure crap” at issue here.

Apples and Oranges. Pope Francis was invited to speak to congress as part of the speaker's personal goals. People invited to speak for the Heartland Institute and its functions are part of its PR campaign.

Heartland features to this day Ivar Giaever biography and photo captioned with "Expert" despite no relevant publications or experience thus there is evidence of at least an endorsement relationship since 2011. Earlier, Heartland produced a list of "experts" which included many without publications or experience including Giaever. The 2008 version of this list simply lists Giaever as a "Fellow". So that's six years running that Heartland seems to claim Giaever without corrective action. But, even if I am wrong about Giaever being tied to Heartland, although Wikipedia and numerous internet sources have come to the same conclusion on apparently the same evidence, attacking the Heartland promotion of Giaever was more of an attempt to get you to actually look at the 97% of professional climate researchers (of which Giaever is not) whose research supports the claim that human activities have caused the majority of global warming over the past 100 years.

https://web.archive.org/web/2008102...C6&directory=3B532E2483EE9165FD810C4DF38DBAEA

 

That's funny. Just as the two Nobel laureates cited on this thread have extremely limited graph-reading abilities, you are severely challenged with simple word-reading tasks.

 

I disagree with you on the very nature of science, so I'm unlikely to take your baseless and empty criticism of my argument parsing skills to heart.

If you weren't bringing up their Nobel prizes as a genetic argument in the superiority of their opinions, then the reader has no insight at all as to why you would mention that they were Nobel laureates in areas of physics of chemistry completely unrelated to global warming and over their careers they have done no research into anthropogenic global warming. You have inserted an irrelevancy — the only question that remains is if you did so due to improper motive or mere incompetence. Likewise, you don't single out any occassion where I accused anyone but you of improper graph reading. And I don't directly fault you for not reading Salby's illegible You Tube presentation but ignoring (now, twice) its rebuttal to focus on your own introduced trivia. I have accused 1 non-laureate, Murray Salby, of improper figure manipulation (a point you have not addressed let alone rebutted) but do not know that any laureate has relied on Salby's misleading chart. If you can prove that your chosen champions have relied on such risible assertions, that only benefits my side of this discussion.

Your reputation in your own heart matters not at all — it is your reputation in the stranger who comes across your words that matters in the long run.

 

Just jumped in here, haven't read the full thread. But this seemed like as good a place as any to reply.

You seem to think that climate science is a modern phenomenon. Wrong. And your "chronology" isn't even close. Look at the more relevant chronology:

(1) Joseph Fourier (ca. 1824) discovers the Greenhouse Effect.

(2) John Tyndall (ca. 1860) discovers that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but reasoned that water vapor was more influential.

(3) Svante Arrhenius (1896) calculates the effect of a doubling in CO2 will increase in surface temperatures of 5-6 degrees Celsius.

(4) British engineer Guy Stewart Callendar (1937) finds evidence that both temperature and the CO2level in the atmosphere had been rising over the past half-century, and he argued that newer spectroscopic measurements showed that the gas was effective in absorbing infrared in the atmosphere.

(5) Army Air Corps pilot and Meteorologist Robert Simpson (1948-52) is fights for funding to open a weather station atop Mauna Loa. Obtains a loan from the Navy to obtain two bulldozers to build a road up the crater. Asked for and received additional money from Hilo Lions Club. Promised funding from US Air Force which never materialized. Lobbied and received funding from Territory of Hawaii, completed ca 1952. Lobbied and received funding from Weather Bureau to construct plywood building. Lobbied Office of Naval Research and received funding to commence weather related experiments and observations.

(6) National Institute of Standards solar irradiance expert Ralph Stair meets Simpson (1955) and agrees to join the Weather Bureau projects at Mauna Loa. Simpson applies $30,000 from Nation Hurricane Research Center to fund Stair's construction of research station there. Stair (1956) manages construction specifications and contract details. Endorses a Bureau of Standards experiment on the atmosphere of Mars to obtain equipment at Mauna Loa Observatory (MLO). Sets up solar infrared and ultraviolet experiments there and established an FCC allocated radio link. Stair solicits help from National Park Service to complete roadwork, and for food, drinks and manual labor from local citizens. Finishes out the bare concrete structure largely by himself.

(7) US Naval Officer and Oceanographer Roger Revelle (1957) discovers that ocean uptake of CO2 had reached saturation level, therefore rate of atmosphere concentration was increasing. By this time Simpson and Stair had assembled a Regener surface ozone recorder, direct incidence solar pyrheliometer and recorder, weighing rain gage, Naval Research Laboratory radioactivity filter apparatus, and micrometer collector with millipore filters. Total hemispherical and net exchange radiometers were installed as well as a horizontal incidence pyrheliometer but these were awaiting recorders. The Dobson ozone spectrophotometer needed a better power supply to operate. A theodolite was installed for making balloon observations for wind speed and direction aloft. Cite (see p. 18) By 1960, Revelle seeks funding for MLO from Office of Naval Research. Revelle submits a report to the White House (1965) and LBJ warns Congress of the potential hazards of atmospheric CO2.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(8) Geochemist Charles David Keeling (1960) confirms Revelle's prediction about rates of atmospheric concentration of CO2. Launches the practice of tracking the levels, AKA The Keeling Curve, thanks to funding through Roger Revelle.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And this is just the beginning of the story, highly truncated.

But identify in any of the above original findings about climate change, any evidence of the Machiavellian funding schemes you imagine. Even if every study that came after these seminal works were done had been politically motivated, it does not negate the authenticity of the science that took place between 1824 and 1965.

The real story you won't tell is this:

Al Gore took a college course from Roger Revelle, and made it a platform in his bids for office to address the findings of experts who, by that time, were increasingly corroborating the results mentioned above. By that time the Right Wing / Religious Right / Tea Party had found numerous ways to discredit and interfere with science. Their purpose: to return to laissez fair economics of the early 20th century. To deregulate the energy companies. To equate the destruction of the Earth with a Biblical notion among fundamentalists that God gave Adam this world to use (and abuse) as he saw fit. To that end, these energy companies became bedfellows of the fundamentalist and evangelical religions, under the guise of "conservative" politics.

What a fucking crock.

But look there for people who are prostituting themselves to well bankrolled publicity stunts.

 

:

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://climate4you.com/

Climate 4 you also discusses the various 'upgrades' to how temps are calculated.

http://climate4you.com/ClimateRefle...l data series by transition to GHCN version 3

And watching the various skeptic sites, it was obvious that man-made global warming would present itself this year, just in time for paris:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/...ists-in-pristine-us-surface-temperature-data/

The nice thing about the above (short) blog post is that it includes a USA temp graph from the most complete and redundant climate monitoring network in the USA (world), USCRN. As I understand this network, each station has 3 readings from separate gauges to ensure stability of data.

This free book is generating much commentary on climate science.

http://judithcurry.com/2015/09/20/new-book-doubt-and-certainty-in-climate-science/#more-19946

I do recommend reading the comments about the above.

And finally, a bit of background on the skeptical science site often linked to in this topic; via the wayback machine:

This site was created by John Cook. I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist and web programmer by trade.

http://web.archive.org/web/20080213042858/http://www.skepticalscience.com/page.php?p=3

More interesting info on SkS:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html

 

I'm amused by the thought that, in global warming arguments, cartoonists outrank Nobel laureates.

 

This methodology seems highly suspect. When in March 2009 the second period is cherry-picked to be 1976.5-2009 and now it is 1977.8-2003 because that's how you use noise to unfairly insert uncertainty.
[March 2009, see page 11]

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If you just go hunting for slopes in noisy data, you can find them. Real detection of slope change in noisy data doesn't happen at points, but over a range, complete with statistical tests like Akaike information criterion telling you how much confidence to put in there even being a slope change. Real climate models don't assume a relationship between CO₂ concentration and monthly temperature anomalies, because CO₂ concentration above baseline is related to the rate of short-term energy imbalance and temperature to cumulative energy imbalance. So climate4you gives you a generous serving of confirmation bias and pseudoscience with plenty of truthiness as window dressing. But they are not objectively demonstrating their claims.