Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Lukewarming

"RKS, I can see you're unfamiliar with the concepts of scientific knowledge, and you seem to be brimming with bile at the moment, so I'm not going to continue this with you. You are wrong, it will be a long and painful road for you, but good luck with it.

Feb 6, 2013 at 6:46 PM | TheBigYinJames"

The null hypothesis is that CO2 has NO effect on climate. Can you understand THAT scientific concept?

With your crap unproven radiative AGW hypthesis YOU are wrong, and I've seen quite enough of your student level 'science', attempting to disprove the evidence of the NASA JPL scientist responsible for the Diviner instrument, to realize you are simply on an ego trip in your thread hogging posts.

To keep strictly to the thread - The Lukewarmist position is a cowardly middle of the road copout.

Feb 6, 2013 at 6:59 PM | Registered CommenterRKS

I'm not sure why the null hypothesis needs to be any more complicated than that since climate has consistently varied over the last several tens of thousands of years within certain bands and that we are not currently outwith the range of natural variation then the climate currently is behaving normally.
I have always maintained that empirical evidence to the contrary is needed and I have also consistently maintained that I haven't seen any.
Incidentally, TBYJ, I don't know what you mean by the temperature "shooting up". The linear trend for the most recent warming phase is almost identical to the previous early 20th century one and the late 19th century one before that. They nay have started from a higher level but the trend is virtually the same.

Feb 6, 2013 at 7:30 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Mike,

I'm interested in knowing why it shot up then too! It seems the interglacial warming is steppy, and it would be nice to know what those steps were, what causes them to start and stop, etc.

All just curiosity, though, nothing to get alarmed about.

Feb 6, 2013 at 7:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

"The linear trend for the most recent warming phase is almost identical to the previous early 20th century one and the late 19th century one before that. They nay have started from a higher level but the trend is virtually the same.

Feb 6, 2013 at 7:30 PM | Mike Jackson"

Quite so Mike.

Out of the past 72 years global temperature dropped up to 1975 and then rose a bit for 22 years between 1975 and 1997, since when temperature has remained statistically flat.

Taken over the 72 year period temperature has hardly 'shot up'.

Feb 6, 2013 at 7:49 PM | Registered CommenterRKS

I did see someone had modelled it as a rising linear trend with a sine wave on top. This would give steep sections and flat sections. See http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/image1.png Unfortunately, though it models 20th centurey trend, it did't doesn't track the last 15 years.

So, it's still a mystery.

Feb 6, 2013 at 8:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

I recall seeing a graph, on Tallbloke I believe, with a line through the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods showing a long term temperature decline. There were, of course, many coastal cities during those warm periods which remain till the present, so fluctuating sea levels can't have been too much of a problem.

For those wannabe scientists trying to impress us all there's an excellent discussion over on Tallbloke about both sides of the radiative/atmospheric GHE argument.

Dip your toes into some pretty grown up scientific discussion. Perfectly relevant to a thread discussing Lukewarmist philosophy.

"David Cosserat: Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement Part I – The Great Debate Begins"

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/02/04/david-cosserat-atmospheric-thermal-enhancement-part-i-the-great-debate-begins/#more-11042

Feb 6, 2013 at 8:41 PM | Registered CommenterRKS

RKS, I have 3 science degrees, and worked at a research labs for 7 years. If you're determined to be an asshole, let's see the length of yours on that table. Put up or shut up.

It's a real shame. In the last few months, you've progressed from informed observer into the epitome of the foaming-at-the-mouth denier. You are who Mann points to when he derides us to the popular press. You are our enemy.

I wish you'd go away. That's the last thing I'm going to say to you before I add you to my spam filter.

Feb 6, 2013 at 9:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

"RKS, I have 3 science degrees, and worked at a research labs for 7 years. If you're determined to be an asshole, let's see the length of yours on that table. Put up or shut up.

It's a real shame. In the last few months, you've progressed from informed observer into the epitome of the foaming-at-the-mouth denier. You are who Mann points to when he derides us to the popular press. You are our enemy.

I wish you'd go away. That's the last thing I'm going to say to you before I add you to my spam filter.

Feb 6, 2013 at 9:01 PM | TheBigYinJames"

What a big headed prat -who the hell was referring to you?

I certainly deny your AGW_Lite rubbish.

I have long realized that you are a hubristic blog hogger who thinks everything revolves around you, but I'm sick and tired of your condescending clap trap trying to ram your opinions down the throats of others.

I REALLY wish you would go away and stop clogging up virtually every single thread.

Feb 6, 2013 at 9:14 PM | Registered CommenterRKS

I'm spartacus. no wait, I meant to say I'm a 'lukewarmer'

Angry is unedifying

Feb 6, 2013 at 10:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

RKS, Mike
What is being carried out, is as and when alarmists carry out retreats, planned or otherwise, the lukies claim that these are in line with insights they've long had.

I think another useful concept here would be Dawkins' idea of temporary agnosticism in practice, and permanent agnosticism in principle (TAPs and PAPs). If one makes the analogy of lukewarmism to agnosticism, we are all TAPs at some point. We do not challenge every point of our opponents at every point of time. Challenges proceed along the line of: "If I accept 'A' in your hypothesis, it is shown that 'B' doesn't hold'. PAPs are the perennial fence-sitters. To the atheists, they profess to no knowable reason to believe in (a) God, nor gain any benefit from it but won't reject it. Consequently, it is a position of belief rather than reason, and represents its second pole.

Lukies seem determined to go down the same road.

Feb 6, 2013 at 11:19 PM | Registered Commentershub

Can we cool things a bit? So we may fight more 'productively'? :)

Feb 6, 2013 at 11:20 PM | Registered Commentershub

I genuinely don't know what a lukewarmer is, and asked Steve Mosher, who passed through lukewarm to red hot alarmist, so might know the difference. There are multiple overlaps in my own case, the biggest difference is that I, along with the IPCC, don't believe scientists, or anyone else, can foretell the future with the remotest accuracy.

RKS: You and I differ in our understanding of the Null Hypothesis. At the end of the 20th century the temperature rose with rising CO2, the Null Hypothesis demands proof that the CO2 caused the rise in temperature. The first step in proving this would be to look to see if there had been higher temperatures before at levels of CO2 lower than today's. If there had it still doesn't prove the theory is wrong, but it puts a hole in it under the waterline. And there had, the MWP being the most recent. Hence the need for the Hockeystick. The next stage is the Feynmann "compute" stage, where you apply mathematics to the theory and make observations to collect empirical evidence. Hence if CO2 causes warming then rises in CO2 should cause predictable warming. They haven't, CO2 has increased by 8% over the last 15 years or so with no concomitant rise in temperatures. That still doesn't disprove the AGW theory, but again a puts a gaping hole in the hull.

To me, now, the most likely scenario is that CO2 does cause warming, but at very small levels, so AGW is correct, but the numbers touted by the activists are wildy exaggerated. What is clear is that they have no definitive empirical proof that CO2 will give rise to temperatures sufficient to cause catastrophic climat change.

The alarmist movement is, like some great glacier, inching backwards in the face of a barrage of scientific papers showing there is no empirical evidence for their assertions.

Feb 7, 2013 at 5:47 AM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

Agree with almost everything you say here geronimo. I think what is happening is that as the mainstream reigns back, it is becoming more aligned with what Lukewarmers have been saying all along, by accident of Lukewarmers being halfway between alarmists and deniers.

What this means is we're being caught in friendly fire now as the big guns turn on the enemy within our ranks, with accusations of smugness, hubris, fence-sitting, agnosticism, etc. Lukewarmism is becoming the new establishment, and as such it is now becoming the target of the extreme end of the skeptic camp.

I've been a Lukewamer for a long time on here, and I'm sure you remember that it has not been an easy position for me to carry here. Hated by both sides is never easy. Yes, I'm a happy that science is moving my way, and if it comes across as smugness or hubris, then allow me a little bit of fingernail polishing, it's been a long hard road to get here.

But the landscape is changing. CAGW used to be so extreme that anyone who didn't believe 6-10 degrees was a denier. This forced Lukewarmers into the skeptic camp along with the slayers, deniers, big oil etc, and we have always been curious bedfellows, but united against a common enemy who hated us all.

Now the C in CAGW is diminishing, Lukewarmerism is overlapping with a large part of the science now. Perhaps it's time for Lukewamers to part company with the slayers and big oilers etc. I hope not, because I always believed that 'skepticism' as a movement was about poking holes in their crap activist arguments. As time goes on, I'm not so sure that a lot of us on "this side" aren't just the brainless deniers they always claimed we were.

If the Lukies go, so do all your figureheads though, the McIntyres, the Lawsons, the Moncktons.

Feb 7, 2013 at 8:57 AM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

Splitters!

Feb 7, 2013 at 9:21 AM | Registered Commenterrhoda

Heh. I don't want to go, the diversity of views is fascinating here, even if there is the odd spat.

But there is a serious point. What do we all do when we've won? We were united against the CAGWers, now our own little silos of belief are pulling at the seams.

One suggestion would be to keep the topics on the common ground, avoid the specifics of lukewarmerism, slayerism, etc. But that would be no fun at all :)

Feb 7, 2013 at 9:27 AM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

I believe nothing much is happening. I am an empiricist, or a Missourian. I don't have a problem with lukewarmers, they also believe nothing much is happening. But even if it is they don't have their horny hands in my pocket. Even though we may disagree on the nothingness of 'nothing much' we are on the same side vs those who claim much is happening, can't show me, and want me to pay or endure sacrifices in lifestyle to fix it. Especially when I suspect that the sacrifice in lifestyle is their true desire no matter what. I will not argue with a lukewarmer. He may be right.

Feb 7, 2013 at 9:44 AM | Registered Commenterrhoda

Why fight in the fishpond when the real problem is the fisherman.

Feb 7, 2013 at 12:29 PM | Registered CommenterBreath of Fresh Air

I will not argue with a lukewarmer. He may be right.

He may be right for the same reasons the alarmists were 'right' over a couple of past decades, i.e., blaming rise of temperatures on CO2 and pointing everyone to the temperature graph, year after year, for proof.

Geronimo; the null hypothesis would depend on what aspect we are trying to examine. If one's hypothesis is: CO2 causes warming/change, the null hypothesis would be:

Null: CO2 has NO effect on climate.

The warmies propose (more specifically, Susan Joy Hassol proposed, which they swallowed) alternative hypothesis: Most of 20th century warming is due to man-made CO2

The null is: CO2 has no specific effect on 20th century temperature rise.

The warmies, in no convincing fashion, were able to exclude the null hypothesis, but they went ahead and accepted the alternative anyway.

The difference between sceptics and lukies is that sceptics question the alternative, examine the process of exclusion of the null, and if they find it wanting or deficient, are not willing to accept the alternative. Sceptics (many) refuse to come up with alternative hypothesis of their own. There is no need for them to come up with alternatives of their own, for their demonstration of non-exclusion of the warmist null. Lukies accept the warmies' alternative hypothesis. Which makes them warmies. It is as simple.

For purpose of above: (warmie = accept IPCC science and conclusions, esp AR4, lukie=lukie, sceptic = sceptic)

TBY,
I still haven't understood what the lukewarmers' (alternative) hypothesis, if one, is. The warmists staked their ground blaming all warming of past 50 yrs on CO2. We've all seen the AR5 - they still do the same. What do you guys propose?

Feb 7, 2013 at 1:20 PM | Registered Commentershub

"Why fight in the fishpond when the real problem is the fisherman.

Feb 7, 2013 at 12:29 PM | Breath of Fresh Air"

As one who's been called the "enemy" and been branded with the psychotic epithet "DENIER" by a self professed Lukewarmist 'crusader', simply because I disagree with the hypothesis that global warming is caused by back radiation from an increase in atmospheric CO2 [man made or otherwise ie AGW], I think your comment is well put.

As the thread is titled Lukewarming I find it fascinating to see so many descriptions of a term which I thought was previously well defined by it's proponents such as Lindzen.

Lukewarming has been a more acceptable description of man made global warming ie. warming [to some degree] is caused by increased CO2 but not to the catastrophic levels promoted by doomsayers such as Hansen. To this effect I copied a recent description of the Lukewarmer from WUWT above which I repeat here.

“lukewarmers”—those intrepid souls who accept that human activities are impacting the character of the world’s climate, but hold the opinion that, when taken together, these influences are–and will be–relatively modest."

I find it amusing that a Lukewarmist can be as vehemently anti science as the run of the mill catastrophist in attacking the views of those sceptical of them. A sort of crusading warrior defending their beliefs against the infidel hordes, and to hell with the allies because they are of the wrong faith.

Feb 7, 2013 at 1:26 PM | Registered CommenterRKS

Give it a rest RKS.

Feb 7, 2013 at 1:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

"Give it a rest RKS.

Feb 7, 2013 at 1:28 PM | TheBigYinJames"

Not a chance bully boy!

What happened to your spam filter?

Feb 7, 2013 at 1:40 PM | Registered CommenterRKS

I'm too lazy to open the file, add your nick, save it and close it down. But I'll get around to it.

I think you're projecting the bully-boy thing, you were the one who crashed this thread (and many others) shouting the odds. Long before you pushed your neb into this thread, I already said natural variation was the null hypothesis, yet you continue to repeat it as if I don't realise it. This makes you wilfully lazy or stupid. Like the null hypothesis, the evidence supports either explanation.

I'm done arguing with someone who is, quite frankly, mentally unstable.

Feb 7, 2013 at 1:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

I'm too lazy to open the file, add your nick, save it and close it down. But I'll get around to it.

I think you're projecting the bully-boy thing, you were the one who crashed this thread (and many others) shouting the odds. Long before you pushed your neb into this thread, I already said natural variation was the null hypothesis, yet you continue to repeat it as if I don't realise it. This makes you wilfully lazy or stupid. Like the null hypothesis, the evidence supports either explanation.

I'm done arguing with someone who is, quite frankly, mentally unstable.

Feb 7, 2013 at 1:46 PM | TheBigYinJames"

Crashed the thread - What is this, some kind of private party?

Pathetic!

Feb 7, 2013 at 1:50 PM | Registered CommenterRKS

Or maybe, there isn't a lukewarmer alternate hypothesis. If so, do the lukewarmers accept the warmists main hypothesis, vis a vis AR4? I am not asking for an answer as a representative of the luke camp, just as an individual member.

Feb 7, 2013 at 1:50 PM | Registered Commentershub

RKS, this is not a private party.

TBY,
We cross posted. You say - "natural variation is the null hypothesis". Could you formulate it in the standard, formal alternative-null format?

Feb 7, 2013 at 1:56 PM | Registered Commentershub