Cool down, cool down

Even if The Emails discredit all the “science” on tree-rings, there’s still ice cores and bore hole data. And even if all paleoclimatology is BS, thermometer readings of temperatures show a sharp spike in the last couple of decades.

One piece of evidence for AGW has, perhaps!, been discredited. Not all evidence has been discredited. We still know C02 is a green house gas, humans have been pumping tons of it into the air and there’s the direct evidence of warming. There is no reason at all to think the AGW theory is a “scam” or a “fraud”.

8 Responses to “Cool down, cool down”

  • Kevin Dick says:

    Actually, every single one of the sources you cite has been challenged, just not by these particular emails. The problem is that you were so convinced by the “settled science” claim that you haven’t looked into them.

    Surely, your Bayesian update should be a lower posterior probability that AGW is a serious threat than before?

  • austin says:

    Confirmation bias rules.

  • pushmedia1 says:

    “The problem is that you were so convinced by the “settled science” claim that you haven’t looked into them.”

    No I’m not and yes I have.

    And yes The Emails should cause you to revise your probabilities of AGW (did you see my previous post on this point). The point is that The Emails, in and of themselves, don’t show the AGW theory to be a “fraud”.

  • Kevin Dick says:

    I apologize if I jumped to a conclusion. But your post seemed like a knee jerk denial for two reasons. First, it seems to imply that ice cores and bore holes are strong evidence for AGW. Given that the the ice cores actually refute a historical causal direction from CO2 to temperature and bore holes imply that we should expect cooling in the near future, I assumed you hadn’t looked into them carefully.

    Second, the emails _do_ affect conclusions about thermometers because they reveal a lot of dubious adjustments in the Hadley thermometer-based temperature “products”.

    Perhaps you simply formed different conclusions from the same evidence. But, a la Aumann’s Agreement Theorem, I’d be very curious as to why you think ice cores and boreholes in particular support AGW?

  • swong says:

    Here’s what I don’t get from the street AGW conspiracy crowd:

    200 years of instrumental records showing warming aren’t nearly enough to infer a long term trend. An eyeblink on geological time scales and all that. OK, grant that, since ice cores and bore holes and tree ring temperature estimates, etc. all have modest margins of error.

    But 8 years of instrumental records showing a reduced (not even reversed) warming trend are all the evidence needed to refute AGW now and forever.

  • Kevin Dick says:

    It’s a matter of whose explanation got the prediction right.

    The lack of significant warming trend for 8 years doesn’t disprove AGW. Rather it fails to support the AGW hypothesis as currently formulated. That hypothesis made predictions of increases, which have been rejected. This doesn’t mean a reformulated AGW hypothesis couldn’t make skilled forecasts, but that hasn’t happened yet.

    Here’s the informed skeptic’s counter-hypothesis. Because we know from the temperature record that there are natural cycles on the order of 30 years, the simplest explanation seems to be that the warming observed from ~1970-2000 was part of this cycle. Skeptics predicted that the natural cycle would lead to a decrease in temperature starting around 2000, which did in fact happen.

    So who should you believe?

  • swong says:

    “the natural cycle would lead to a decrease in temperature starting around 2000, which did in fact happen.”

    I’m looking at stuff like GISTEMP and CRUTEM. Here’s the solar irradiance chart from the Goddard Institute, and here’s their surface temperature writeup from 2008.

    So, we seem to be looking at different sources. Care to share?

  • Kevin Dick says:

    Well, GISTEMP and CRUTEM are implicated in the current email imbroglio, so I would just as soon not use them. If you look at the UAH and RSS satellite series, you see no statistically significant warming since about 2002 and statistically insignificant cooling since then.

    The skeptics proposed way back that a combination of solar and current forcings are responsible for much (but not all) of the variation. We’re currently in a very weak solar cycle which will reduce temperatures. My public prediction is of .05 deg C/decade of warming: http://emergentfool.com/2009/06/24/specifying-a-climate-bet/

    I’d be happy to bet with you as well.