Skeptic's fallacies - Global Warming

If there is one ultimate example of the failure of critical thinking in this issue it's the one concerning the Vostok ice core records and the supposed reverse causal relationship between temperature and rises in carbon dioxide. It has been surmised by some -- most famously Dr. Tim Ball as seen in Martin Durkin's documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle -- the the Vostok ice core records show that it isn't C02 that causes warming, but it is in fact temperature rises that cause a rise in C02 concentrations.

The supposed problem is this. While the ice core records do show a very strong correlation between C02 and temperature, temperature rises before C02 concentrations rise, ahead by around 600-800 years. As Tim Ball asserts in Swindle:

"...they say that if the C02 increases, then the temperature will go up. But the ice core record shows exactly the opposite...so the fundamental assumption of human caused climate change is shown to be wrong...". See also here.

Interestingly, the papers that documented the research on the Vostok record didn't come to the same conclusion, nor did the IPCC in its treatment of the issue in 2001.

But there is a more fundamental flaw to the conclusion that "human caused climate change is shown to be wrong". Logically, it's an invalid argument. How does one go from claiming a reverse relationship to claiming a contradictory one? Well, you can't, because reverse relationships aren't neccessarily contradictory.

For example, how is Ball's argument no different than saying that since there are times when you've seen fire causing heat to spread, heat must not be able to cause fire, or cause fire to spread. Another more devious (and definitely not as effective or clear) analogy is if someone were to say that since in fact we can say that the sunrise follows moon rise, moon rise cannot follow sunrise. Thus, even though it's probably true that C02 rises after temperature, that doesn't automatically refute the idea that C02 causes temperature to rise! In fact, both relationships can exist without creating a contradiction.

Yet, we have supposed scientists -- great heretics, they like to call themselves -- that can't even get their logic straight. I can see how someone not trained to think critically might fall into the trap. But Ball? No wonder he hasn't published anything serious for a long time. If you find more examples of this flawed and overly tired argument, please post!

And what exactly was going on in the ice core record? While it's not entirely clear, temperature rises during those periods were likely due to changed in the earth's orbit around the sun -- Milankovtich cycles -- that are surmised to play a role in the onset and end of glacial periods. C02 is also thought to have amplified the effects of these cycles -- effectively creating the kind of glacial and interglacial periods seen in the ice core records.

For Tim Ball's arguments, see the documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, by Martin Durkin.

or see his 2005 article:

http://www.nrsp.com/CG_PDFs/CG-04-04a-5001.pdf

where he argues: "if the C02 levels increase from human activities, according to this theory, then...warming results. There are two major problems...second, evidence now shows that temperatures rise before C02 rises - not the other way around." My question is: why is it a major problem with the theory?


For a good discussion and debunking of the issue, go to RealClimate: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

For some of the original research cited in the film, go here:

http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf

Temp anomaly animation courtesy of NASA GISS. Graphs from IPCC AR4.

Music by Vivaldi

If anyone is having difficulty understanding the fire/heat analogy, I invite you to view a an interesting Youtube video demonstrating the relationship:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeWq6rWzChw

If anyone is interested in supplementary modeling code and descriptions, rationales, and errata, behind the IPCC AR4, see here:

http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/about/index.php

For a general discussion of some of the thermodynamics of the greenhouse effect (especially as they apply to planetary geophysics) you can view this (yet unifinished) text.

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateVol1.pdf

Troposhere warming? Yes.

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-exe...

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

Ocean temp trends:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A4.lrg.gif

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• false
• dilemma
• swindle
• global
• warming
• skeptics
• fallacies
• lag
• temperature
• CO2
• record
• complicated
• science
• ice
• core
• ball
• tim

[jackolan76]

God you people have your brain up your arse. Sure fire causes heat and heat causes fire, but if you don't have a fire to begin with, you dont have heat do you. and you CAN have heat without fire but you can't have fire without heat.

Please rewire brain before making stupid video's

[BeachofDreams]

@jackolan76 The point of the heat-fire analogy is to demonstrate that if you have one causal relationship, it doesn't rule out the reverse. That's it. It's not claiming that heat must be caused by fire nor the other way around.

[tubewatch59]

But what it does do very well, is serve the leftist political agenda. Except that people are beginning to realize that it is bad science and terrible politics / economics. And there is always the spectre of population control and government tyranny looming. If we can't learn from the disaster that was communism, then we deserve to suffer it all over again.

But I'd rather not. I reject green politics.

And - if the world did warm, it would likely be a net beneficial effect in any case.

[KrazyGerman29]

@sharkblubber

Of course it has. But the thing is, we don't understand the climate as well as most people think. Anyway, what supporting evidence is there that proves this warming is unusual? And there are lots of disproofs. You can't simply claim something like that. If your statement were true, there wouldn't be so many people, including scientists, that don't believe the theory. Btw, check out these videos:

climate change: is CO2 the cause? parts 1-4

Let me know what you think!

[oracle2world]

@schafw - current temperatures are within normal variance (I'm not talking CO2 here, just temperature). That is the simpliest explanation (aka Occam's razor). The pro AGW enthusiasts would be better received if they a. took "denial" and " consensus" out of their lexicon, and b. called out the completely ridiculous AGW predictions 100 years out (sea level, hurricanes, end of all life, etc.). My heliobacter example shows how consensus can be wrong, that's all. Any theory can fall prey to it.

[schafw]

@oracle2world That's not how it works. AGW is a *theory*, which means that it is the best explanation of current data. Assuming it is wrong is a hallmark of denialism, not skepticism. Until a better explanation comes along.

Stomach ulcer fallacy; excess acid was a workable explanation because no one was looking for Helicobacter. Then the experiments proved the case. People are looking for the climate Helicobacter and none is evident

[Jo3M]

@tubewatch59 Communism never existed. Pretty irrelevant. Stop worrying about money and think more about a sustainable planet. Not even talking about "global warming". More about general damage of human existence. No matter how much we fool ourselves, we are still just another predator fast outgrowing our feeding ground.

[oracle2world]

Critical thinking? Read up on the history of treating stomach ulcers. The old theory had to be true, explained everything, led to billion dollar pharmaceutical drugs that were approved by the FDA. Reproducible peer-reviewed experiments. And it was wrong. Simply put, AGW could be in the same boat. As plausible as it sounds, with an incredible amount of peer pressure, it can be 100% completely wrong. Start with some critical thinking about AGW. CRITICAL. Like assume it is wrong to start.

[jackolan76]

below should read ' - but you CAN have heat without fire '

[BeachofDreams]

@nlpjohn I answered your runaway question.

And it's not cherry-picking re: "the lag". The data that shows the lag is only found in the record going back ~200-240k years, only in the southern hemisphere, and only during what is called "termination III" - or the end of the 3rd glacial period of the entire dataset. This is not a test of the hypothesis. A true test is to look at the actual physics of what is going on now, and the physics proves GHG is currently driving changes in climate.

[nlpjohn]

@BeachofDreams I speak of the alleged positive feedback where more CO2 which results in temps spiralling out of control. And why cherry-pick only 200k years? The answer of course is you wish to dimiss basic cause-and-effect violations from the ice core data going back 800k years. You do not prove the AGW hypothesis by attempting to trivialize adverse data. It is this adverse data which must be addressed head on if you wish to prove your AGW argument...

[BeachofDreams]

@nlpjohn Re: 600M years ago: explain what you mean by a runaway effect? Nonetheless, the usual explanation is that plant life evolved and slowly sequestered carbon dioxide. Remember, 600M years ago it was far hotter than today, and there was minimal to zero plant life. And the 800 year lag? Well, first, has only showed up 1 or two times during the "recent" record (~200 k years?), and even then it can likely be explained by changes in solar irradience and/or solar/earth orbital relationships.