[ExI] The Climate Science Isn't Settled [was: Re: climategate again]

[Max More]

Alfio wrote:

>Also, it seems to me that those blogs want to have it both ways: on 
>one hand, there is no raw data available because CRU deleted it. On 
>the other hand, GISTEMP is not independent because it uses the same 
>data (that you can download from ftp)! So is the raw data available or not?

Perhaps they are using the same *adjusted* data. (Again, I'm not 
clear about this.)

>I am no professional of the field, just have a basic understanding 
>of physics. I base my position on several things:
>
>1) temperature is not the only relevant data. We have widespread 
>glacier retreat, sea level rise, arctic sea ice loss. Recent data 
>point to ice mass loss in both Greenland and Antarctica. 
>Agricoltural records in temperate climates show a lengthening of the 
>growing season and a contraction of the winter phase. These trends 
>are not local, but found all over the world. All this is consistent 
>with global warming (whatever the cause), and with little else.

This is one point on which I'm fairly sure, and sure that you are 
mistaken. One example: arctic ice depends not just on temperature but 
on the ambient moisture level -- which depends on factors other than 
temperature. Also, note that glacier retreat may only tell us that 
the coldest places are becoming a bit less cold, not that it's 
getting hotter in most places. My understanding is that all, or 
almost all, the observed warming is due to less extreme cold and not 
to higher temperatures in the warmer places. That might have some 
beneficial consequences in addition to the costs required to adapt.

Anyway, your first point supports only the point that some warming 
has occurred, which I'm not disputing. (Even so, why do we see even 
more reports of melting ice when there has been no significant 
warming for 12 years? That suggests that either the cause is other 
than warming, or that reports of ice melting etc. are highly 
selective... and selected. That certainly seems to be the case with 
regard to polar bears.)

>2) basic physics tells us that Earth's energy budget must balance. 
>We can easily measure the input (solar), and verify that it's 
>approximately constant.

Have you heard of the Early Faint Sun Paradox? Around 2.5 billion 
years ago, the Sun was 20% to 30% less bright than now. And yet the 
oceans were not frozen. This contradicts your assumption of extreme 
climate sensitivity.

On this, see Lindzen's nicely written piece:
The Climate Science Isn't Settled
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html

BTW, Prof Richard Lindzen is the Chairman of the Alfred P. Sloan 
Meteorology, Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences Department at 
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He's a highly credible 
expert who is not a "denier" of warming, only of extreme 
catastrophism -- which must be why people like Mike Treder (MDT) hate 
him so much. (MDT = Most Dishonest Transhumanist.)

>Since we are changing the properties of the output (greenhouse gases 
>will redirect part of the outgoing radiation downward), internal 
>temperature must rise to compensate. It's about as inevitable as 
>putting a coat on, and feeling warmer.

Not at all. See the Lindzen piece.

>4) consideration of the opposite camp

See, this is exactly the kind of thing that bothers me. "The opposite 
camp". Opposite to what? There are multiple views, not two. Lindzen, 
for instance, does not deny that the planet has warmed modestly over 
the last 100 to 150 years, but he does have considerable doubts about 
the reliability of models and he disputes the extremity of the 
suggested responses. (He's about the closest to my own current views 
as I've seen.)

>This lack of focus gives me the impression that skeptics (really 
>unfortunate word, that. Skepticism is a basic feature of science) 
>are just trying to find something, anything, to avoid confronting reality.

Exactly the same can be said of the anti-skeptic views, so that 
doesn't help in the least.

>Reading blogs like wattsupwiththat actually reinforced my 
>impressions: posts like "it's snowing here so GW is false", obvious 
>errors like comparing different time series without realizing that 
>they use different baseline periods, talks of a "recent cool 
>period"... When any criticism seems to be valid, it's about some 
>minor detail that would change nothing of the general picture.

I'm sure there are plenty of posts there dealing with details, 
because details matter. The same is true of a relatively good 
pro-consensus site such as Realclimate. But wattsupwiththat also 
addresses the wider issues. Perhaps you haven't read much of the 
site. I've read a lot of both of those sites.

Max







-------------------------------------
Max More, Ph.D.
Strategic Philosopher
Extropy Institute Founder
www.maxmore.com
max at maxmore.com
-------------------------------------