Richard Muller: converted climate skeptic

[TheRobin]

(Yeah I know "converted" is a bad way of putting it, but you know what I mean)

So, I just found an interesting guy. Physicist and climate skeptic who heavily criticizes the politication and misuse of science for the sake of alarming people without (or despite) facts. After finding that the important climate data has been tampered with (i.e. the climategate scandal) he founded his own research group with an open information policy to go over the data and do the calculations again.

He still found a clear warming trend and correlation between CO2 and the warming trend.

Unfortunately there aren't that many videos of him on youtube, but those that are there are very worthwhile watching for any skeptic as he addresses a lot of the commonly raised points.

 

 

 

I know a lot of people on this board are just as skeptic about the whole thing as I am (or was I guess), so, I think you'll find these presentations very much worth your time and well argued.

 

Let me know what you think (also I think he'd make a great guest for an interview either way)

[AccuTron]

The Earth has been warming since about 1850, a natural variation low point.

CO2 rises with each interglacial period, has been rising for ~18,000 years.

 

Of course he finds warming,

Of course he finds increasing CO2,

Of course they rise together,

So do other atmospheric gasses,

Correlation does not imply causation.

It means nothing, it's normal for Earth.

 

 

Haven't viewed them yet, but thanks for providing the links.

[TheRobin]

You're right that correlation obviously does not necessarily mean causation, however, as he says in the talks, it was the only variable they could find that actually correlates to the increase (and they tested quite a bunch). I mean, if it was that easy, you'd think someone would have found another variable that they could correlate the temperature with by now (especially among the skeptics). But so far it's the ONLY one that worked (that I know of).

And yes, I think he also talks about the natural effects on climate that they know of (which are also included in the models), but they still don't seem to explain the increase in the latest 70-80 years (number from memory, probably not exactly accurate but should be approximately right anyway).

I'd say, if it was JUST the natural variation then by now you'd expect someone coming up with a working model, but I wouldn't have seen one that works with the data (obviously correct me if I'm wrong here).

Another problem, I think, with the "natural variation" is that people (and I don't mean you in particular) sometimes use it to mean the same as "unknown elements that add uncertainty" and the problem with that is that it's not really a hypothesis that one can test, there's no way to falsify it. Like, there's no way to proof that there are NOT some large amount of random elements that we don't understand and just give this particular increase by chance. In that sense it's not a scientific hypothesis anymore and can not be used as a way to disproof the CO2 hypothesis either, I think.

[dsayers]

The problem as I see it is directionality. CO2 and warmth are naturally correlated. To find a rise in both doesn't indicate whether the increase in temperature cause more CO2 to evaporate out of bodies of water or if more CO2 caused the temperature to rise.

 

Of all the topics I get exposed to by way of FDR, I have to confess that climate change is the one that interests me the least. Well, except when Stef chats with Alex Epstein. The government doesn't go on a crusade to force everybody to believe that 2+2=4. In fact, you could even make the case that they try to accomplish the opposite

 

While not proof, this massive extent of politicalization and power-grabbing tells me just about all I need to know in terms of how much of my time and attention I'm willing to invest in it. I recycle as I'm able and reduce my consumption without negatively impacting my survival. I do what I can in these regards because they're good choices regardless. The same governments that are doing all this power grabbing with this as an excuse aren't doing things like trimming the debt or ceasing senseless warfare, the two biggest polluters.

[TheRobin]

Yeah, I know. It's hard to find scientists that can be trusted in that area, as there's lots of examples of exaggeration and hyperbole or just outright lying. I don't think that you can generalize the claim of "governments go on a crusade" though, as from what I can see it's more the leftist parties that use it as an excuse for a government power grab (but then again, they use about every issue as an excuse for more government power anyway), but when you look at other countries you can also see the opposite (i.e. governments calling it a hoax (like Putin for instance)).

Which is kinda why I think it's important to get at least some firm basis right in whatever facts one can find and trust. As the real enemy is not the warming but people using it as an excuse for more government power and imo that's the thing to focus on and not whether or not it's happening and all (which again seems fairly well established).

And last but not least, the problem with your argument about CO2 and warmth being naturally correlated as a result of evaporation is that then the correlation would be weaker and weaker the more CO2 we added to the atmosphere, but this has not been the case, thus suggesting that CO2 does indeed add to the warming.
(To make it a bit more clear (and to use a completely arbitrary example in terms of numbers) if for every 1C of natural warming you would get 5% more total CO2 in the atmosphere as a result of evaporation and we use that as the baseline for the correlation, that adding another 10% of total CO2 to the atmosphere (and not getting any additional warming) would mean that the correlation moves from 1C per 5% CO2 increase to 1C per 15% CO2 increase and the more humans would add to the atmosphere the more the correlation would weaken, but this has not been the case, and if the correlation doesn't change, then either the temperature has randomly increased and just accidentally matches the CO2 emmissions, or CO2 is indeed partially causing the warming)  

[rosencrantz]

Yeah, I know. It's hard to find scientists that can be trusted in that area, as there's lots of examples of exaggeration and hyperbole or just outright lying. 

 

 

Add to that we have a hard time understanding feedback mechanisms and you get the confusion. It wasn't until the 60s that Lorenz described the basic function of meteorology. In short, you have functions that depend on each other. Unlike linear equations you don't see a proportional increase when one variable gets bigger. Instead, the graph of the function fluctuates around a point (Lorenz attractor). When the increase becomes big enough, the graph 'jumps' to a different attractor. If the theory of AGW is correct, then longlasting negative changes cannot be reversed once they occur (or with very great difficulty).

[shirgall]

Meanwhile...

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/08/breaking-greenpeace-co-founder-reports-greenpeace-to-the-fbi-under-rico-and-wire-fraud-statutes/

 

 

The organization I founded has become a monster. When I was a member of its central committee in the early days, we campaigned – usually with success – on genuine environmental issues such as atmospheric nuclear tests, whaling and seal-clubbing.

 

When Greenpeace turned anti-science by campaigning against chlorine (imagine the sheer stupidity of campaigning against one of the elements in the periodic table), I decided that it had lost its purpose and that, having achieved its original objectives, had turned to extremism to try to justify its continued existence.

 

Now Greenpeace has knowingly made itself the sworn enemy of all life on Earth. By opposing capitalism, it stands against the one system of economics that has been most successful in regulating and restoring the environment.

[TheRobin]

Wow, Greenpeace go even more batshit these days it seems

Though I gotta ask, I might've missed something, but does this relate to the topic in the OP somehow (other than being related to something happening in the climate science/political scene)?

[shirgall]

Wow, Greenpeace go even more batshit these days it seems

 

Though I gotta ask, I might've missed something, but does this relate to the topic in the OP somehow (other than being related to something happening in the climate science/political scene)?

 

Yes, the topic of "conversion" is related, as one of the co-founders obviously didn't drink the anthropogenic climate change kool-aid and convert from science to Marxist like a significant portion of the organization did.

 

I have a theory that all organizations that garner critical mass or mindshare get co-opted to either harness that mass, or to render it harmless, or both, and Greenpeace fits my model. 

[A4E]

I stumbled upon some Co2 research that I had not seen before, and decided to make a page about it.

[ShadowWhoWalks]

S-, I think I found a correlation between the number of pirates and warming trends in the last century.

 

The whole thing isn't science (as commonly meant: empirical science); it is pure inference. One that is far away from parsimony regarding the stack of loose assumptions and inferences it makes, which devolves into storytelling to fit a narrative.

[shirgall]

Frankly I want it to be more cloudy, because it is directly correlated to premature deaths of a particularly gruesome type in my state:

 

http://tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=497

 

[TheRobin]

S-, I think I found a correlation between the number of pirates and warming trends in the last century.

 

The whole thing isn't science (as commonly meant: empirical science); it is pure inference. One that is far away from parsimony regarding the stack of loose assumptions and inferences it makes, which devolves into storytelling to fit a narrative.

Adjectives are not arguments. Either make the case or let it be but spare me such kinda non-sense please. It's like the reversal of alarmists calling everyone who doesn't agree a "denier" and think they made a good case as to why they're right.

 

I'll give you a bit of a advice here: a) give a clear definition of what you're talking about. Best with some examples b) show and explain the criteria for proof and disproof. Best served with some commonly accepted examples c) Show how this does not apply to what you're arguing against. Also show clear examples. 

[dsayers]

Makes sense. If you can't see where you're going, you will die. I vote for making clouds illegal. More State power is the answer. After all, what better way to get people to be more wasteful than institutionalized wastefulness?

[RCali]

*zip*

 

I always found it suspicious - the sun. Always watching for hours on end, then starts vanishing without saying a word. It plots, I tell you.

[AccuTron]

I just did a search of ABC and CNN, and the RICO Greepeace story isn't even mentioned, or buried deeply.  

[percentient]

The problem as I see it is directionality. CO2 and warmth are naturally correlated. To find a rise in both doesn't indicate whether the increase in temperature cause more CO2 to evaporate out of bodies of water or if more CO2 caused the temperature to rise.

 

This problem is easily fixed by just looking the answer up. CO2 causes warming and some of it goes into the ocean.

 

I am not going to say that you should abandon your out-of-the-academic-box thinking and spend a thousand hours studying the physics, chemistry and biology of this, but at some point you just have to get the basics straight. There is literally 100% certainty and incontrovertible, doubt-this-and-reveal-your-ignorance high school level knowledge about which way the carbon goes, and which way the direction of influence is. There are extensive and repeated observations of atmospheric and marine concentrations, observations of air flow patterns combined with concentration measurements, micrometeorological flux measurements, emission inventories, and most importantly carbon isotope and oxygen measurements, showing that CO2 goes up the pipe and then some of it dissolves into the ocean. It can't simultaneously go into the ocean and come out of it, on average. It goes in. Even if we include lakes. On top of that there are laboratory, satellite, and surface measurements showing that greenhouse gases warm shit up. 

[AccuTron]

 

There is literally 100% certainty and incontrovertible,

 

You just repeated part of The Big Lie.  Take that fishhook out of your mouth.  CO2 is a minor warming agent, and utterly lost against the vast complexity of atmospheric reality.  Notice that you said greenhouse gases, plural.  Kinda did a fast one there.

 

ALL claims (ironically) of 100% agreement are lies, by people like Gore who is on his way to becoming a billionaire from this (and he's just one guy; do some math on that).  Read my forum links.  Do your own research, honestly, and don't believe ANYONE who claims it's real -- you will ALWAYS find a big money/power trail, plus some real dunderheads who call themselves scientists.  

 

Note that an original co-founder of Greenpeace (in addition to telling the FBI about Greenpeace now engaged in RICO racketeering violations) is telling Obama to climb off his hot air podium:

 

INTERVIEW: Obama Should Just Drop His Climate Change Hysteria Says Greenpeace Founder 

 

Heck, Hizzhonor Stefan even has a video about how he no longer buys the line.  (Somebody find the link; I'm tired...cough, wheeze.)

 

By the way, we find that CO2 rises every interglacial period, resulting in massive ice sheets for the next glacial round.  Hardly global warming!  Link: Imgur

 

And here I say it again:  

I've done about 75 hours intense research on this; I've read EVERY WORD including all reader comments on about (sic) 1,500 websites.  (<< see the comma?)  Some of those were research papers dozens of pages long.  Be the very first person to acknowledge that might amount to something!!! 

 

(How many of you have gotten around to reading the Wegman Report  www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf?  

Just look at the pictures, it's all you need; the text is way dense.  Go to figure 4.4; McIntyre = good guy fraud detective who is maligned;

Mann = evil data-doctoring creep.)  

 

This whole thing is falsified data, illegal math and physics, mind bogglingly stupid completely non-honest procedures, and a GIGANTIC money and power flow.  

 

So stop saying that 100% thing.

[percentient]

So you are saying there's a legitimate case for the idea that CO2 comes out of the oceans and then proceeds to have no effect on temperatures?

[rosencrantz]

I've done about 75 hours intense research on this; I've read EVERY WORD including all reader comments on about (sic) 1,500 websites.  (<< see the comma?)  Some of those were research papers dozens of pages long.  Be the very first person to acknowledge that might amount to something!!! 

 

 

 

If you want to become a meteorologist you have to study a lot more than 75 hours. And even the ones I spoke to (2 students so far) have a nuanced approach to AGW. 

 

CO2 is a minor warming agent, and utterly lost against the vast complexity of atmospheric reality.

 

 

Spend a few hours researching on why CO₂ is a warming agent. Then you will realize why your statement is false.

 

illegal math and physics

 

 

The dichotomy is wrong / correct.

[Guest Gee]

Anyone got a link to a paper proving that temperature variation isn't in fact described by a random walk?

[TheRobin]

Anyone got a link to a paper proving that temperature variation isn't in fact described by a random walk?

I'm not quite sure what you're asking for. I mean, given it's all a physical system, there ain't gonna be much randomness. The only thing you have is uncertainty of certain factors.

 

So, how would a random walk look like in temperature and how would you know you don't have a random walk?

[AccuTron]

If you want to become a meteorologist you have to study a lot more than 75 hours. And even the ones I spoke to (2 students so far) have a nuanced approach to AGW. 

--I never claimed to be a meteorologist, you made that up.  I only claimed to have researched FRAUD and I did an excellent job.  Clearly, you didn't read the material.

 

-- Those students are probably dupes too, being taught fraud.  Do the honest thing:  Ask them to describe the US Congress 2006 Wegman report, what it shows, and most importantly, why it was even done in the first place?  Ask them to look at Hansen's 1981 paper and explain away the illegal math and physics on page one.  Ask them about Briffa pre-sorting his Urals tree ring data, excluding any raw data that didn't already agree with the result he wanted.  I bet you get only blank looks. 

 

 

Spend a few hours researching on why CO₂ is a warming agent. Then you will realize why your statement is false.

 

--I spent dozens of hours on the topic.  You've spent what?  And what sources, sources with money in the game?  Put your answer here: ________________

 

 

 

The dichotomy is wrong / correct.

--I don't even know what that means.  If you'd done your homework, you have seen Hansen utterly disregarding the rule of significant digits (illegal math) and comparing the nuclear furnace of the Earth's interior to something colder than the darkest reaches of space (illegal physics).  This is clearly shown in my material, which you clearly ignored.  If you look up his paper now -- and you can find which one by actually reading my provided material -- you see that he's now hiding it in a locked directory.  Why would he do that if it's legit?  He knows it's false; his own supervisor called him "an embarrassment to NASA."

 

--Real scientist Dr. T.N. Chase Ph.D Climate Engineering -- as I provided you if you'd just look -- calls this crap "scandal" and "not science."

 

--And by the way, why is a co-founder of Greenpeace getting the FBI to investigate them for RICO violations, racketeering charges?  Has this been in mainstream media?  It should be page one.

(Sorry about clunky editing; most my reply is above this line.)

 

Answer me right here:  Did you do your homework?  Did you read my supplied materials?  I recommend two hour minimum.  What did you actually DO?

[Torero]

 

 

doubt-this-and-reveal-your-ignorance high school level knowledge

 

It is the climate alarmists who do not understand their own planet. Way stronger than mankind will ever be and any antropogenic effect on a non-existent global climate is utter arrogance.

 

CO₂ is part of the Earth and will not change any climate. The position of the Earth w.r.t. the Sun and his activity are far greater factors of importance.

 

Stop this madness. It's foolish.

[Guest Gee]

I'm not quite sure what you're asking for. I mean, given it's all a physical system, there ain't gonna be much randomness. The only thing you have is uncertainty of certain factors.

 

So, how would a random walk look like in temperature and how would you know you don't have a random walk?

 

Consider flipping a coin. Let each head add one to a running total and each tail subtract one. Flip the coin a bunch of times and plot the total verse flips. That is what a simple random walk looks like. Plotting the distribution of the sum produces a Bernoulli distribution, which, when n is very large, is approximated as a Gaussian distribution.

 

Say you model the each as a thermodynamic system in contact with a heat sink (space) and a heat bath (sun) all able to exchange energy as heat.

Let the composite system be in equilibrium.

Recalling the temperature is the partial differentiation of internal energy with respect to entropy.

Knowing that the entropy of the system may be shown to be fluctuating (by performing a Taylor series expansion of the entropy of the earth system and obtaining a Gaussian distribution for entropy in the higher terms).

Thus demonstrating entropy fluctuation in equilibrium. (fluctuation theorem).

Thus demonstrating by definition temperature fluctuation of a system in equilibrium.

Recalling the Gaussian distribution approximates a Bernoulli distribution.

So the probability distribution of the entropy and thus temperature is Gaussian, approximately Bernoulli.

So if plotted vs time, even in equilibrium, the temperature should follow a random walk just like the coin did.

 

 

link to chap who has applied this to surface temperature data.

http://www.statisticsblog.com/2012/12/the-surprisingly-weak-case-for-global-warming/comment-page-1/#comments

 

*edit

Apologies to any mathematicians.

[rosencrantz]

Let the composite system be in equilibrium.

 

 

 

The atmosphere can be described by coupled non linear differential equations. Hence there can't be an equilibrium, only attractors. 

[TheRobin]

That was an interesting read, however, I think the problem of the random walk, is that it by definition will not be able to differentiate between randomness and a self-correcting system anyway, so you expect to find the result you get here.

Like, you could by the same principle plot the wiggling of earth in orbit and plot it against a random walk and then come up with the result that there's no statistical significance to differentiate between the trend created by gravity and randomness and then conclude that gravity might just be chance.

Link to an article explaining the statistics. Though I gotta admit, it's a bit over my knowledge cap
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/not-a-random-walk/

[Guest Gee]

The atmosphere can be described by coupled non linear differential equations. Hence there can't be an equilibrium, only attractors. 

 

I think I understand what your saying and I was very tired when I banged out the post, allow me to clarify.

 

If you take a coarse gain approach and model the earth as a thermodynamic system in thermodynamic equilibrium and apply the fluctuation theorem to said system then you would predict a random walk in temperature, as observed.

I can find no paper proving temperature isn't following a random walk, thus my asking.

[AccuTron]

 

 

The atmosphere can be described by coupled non linear differential equations. Hence there can't be an equilibrium, only attractors. 

 

Actually, that's a far more potent statement than most people would realize.

[rosencrantz]

I can find no paper proving temperature isn't following a random walk, thus my asking.

 

 

The Lorenz equations describe a very general model of the atmosphere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_system

 

 

Actually, that's a far more potent statement than most people would realize.

 

 

 

How so?

[Guest Gee]

The Lorenz equations describe a very general model of the atmosphere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_system

 

Thank you but that is not an answer to anything I asked.

[shirgall]

Found in a notebook uncovered by future archaeologists:

 

"Day 1679000000001. Total CO2 in the Terra/Luna system has changed less than 0.000000001%, just like every day since the impact of Theia formed Luna."

[TheRobin]

I think I understand what your saying and I was very tired when I banged out the post, allow me to clarify.

 

If you take a coarse gain approach and model the earth as a thermodynamic system in thermodynamic equilibrium and apply the fluctuation theorem to said system then you would predict a random walk in temperature, as observed.

I can find no paper proving temperature isn't following a random walk, thus my asking.

I'm guessing you missed my post due to it appearing later but still above everyone else's. I'm just bumping, cause I'm curious what you got to say about it and I'm assuming you haven't seen it due to the way the post got delayed

[rosencrantz]

Thank you but that is not an answer to anything I asked.

 

 

It is once you think about coupled diff equations for a bit

[AccuTron]

How so?

 

Well, in large part, you hit the nail on the head.  The atmosphere is soooooo complex, that endless numbers of things are pulling on each other, not to mention that they chemically create and destroy each other along the way.  Can you imagine a football game, where when the players touched each other, any player may suddenly vaporize, or create two or more new players?  Try to call that game!!

 

It's the biggest ever cat's cradle, like it was made by shaky hands and closed eyes.  To suggest that CO2 is THE big kahoona is bogus; it's like saying that in that tangled mess, there's only one string that pulls the others.  (Lord Of The Rings mimic;  "The string that ruled them all!"  Actually, considering the massive fraud on this, Mordor is probably the correct reference.  Nothing ever changes.)  

 

Trying to get a bunch of such equations to behave like Catholic school kids ain't gonna happen.  More like herding a bunch of scared cats.  People who don't know math, really know it, fall for the simple view, the easy answer, The String To Rule Them All.