Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2281 2282 2283 2284 2285 2286 2287 2288 2289 2290 2291 2292 2293 2294 2295 2296 Next
Comments 114401 to 114450:
-
Pete Ridley at 19:52 PM on 26 July 2010Models are unreliable
Jmurphy, ref. comment #210, I suspect that you aren’t aware of a relevant statement by a senior executive of the Met. Office during the first of the UK’s whitewash enquiries into the Climategate scandal. The question put by a member of the Science and Technology Select Committee was “Is there a problem with scientific software? We have had emails from Professor Darrel Ince and from Professor Les Hatton saying that there are severe problems with scientific software. Do you think that is a general problem in UK or world science?”. Met Office Chief Scientist Professor Julia Slingo (Note 1) said “At least for the UK the codes that underpin our climate change projections are the same codes that we use to make our daily weather forecasts, so we test those codes twice a day for robustness”(Note 2). So the “codes” used for UK weather forecasting are the same as those used for global climate projections - shortly after that that the Met. Office discontinued its long-range forecasts because they were so useless. (The rest of that testimony is worth reading.) It is worthwhile listening to what Professor John Beddington had to say in January (Note 3), which included the gross understatement “..that scientists had perhaps not been as good at communicating the value of uncertainty to the general public .. ”. Professor Barry Brook of Adelaide University and scientific advisor to the Australian Government on climate change was less reticent when saying over a year ago (Note 4) “There are a lot of uncertainties in science, and it is indeed likely that the current consensus on some points of climate science is wrong, or at least sufficiently uncertain that we don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers”. Brook is a staunch supporter of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis so then goes on to try to imply that 95% of the science is understood. As Boddington said in January (Note 5) “I don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss proper scepticism. Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can’t be changed”. Phil (Scadden), ref. comment #212, I am not enquiring here into the validity the design of the software or the validity of the underlying science of those climate models. What I am questioning is the extent to which the models have been validated and their starting parameters are “tweaked” and “re-tweaked” before a run produces an output that resembles reality. I do not have enormous confidence that those with a vested interest in convincing others that their research findings or software development skills produce useful models will present an unbiased opinion on the validity of any model forecasts. There are plenty examples in areas where the underlying sciences are much better understood than are those involved in unravelling the complexities of global climate processes and drivers where vested interest has resulted in false claims. There is no good reason to think that things are different for climate forecasting. Let’s not overlook the fact that scientists and software engineers not saints but humans with human failings. As the late Stephen Schneider said Your opinion of me is irrelevant and is bound to differ from mine. You are a staunch supporter of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis whereas I am a sceptic. Ref. comments #41/48 & 50 on the “Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line” thread, you (and others here) ought to be aware by now that the IPCC shares Dr. Gray’s opinion that those models do not provide predictions of future global climates, merely projections (based upon that unsound science). If the global mean temperature estimates produced by the Hadley Centre etc. are to be trusted (“lies, damned lies and statistics”) we may have already had over 10 years of “flat or negative temperatures while GHGs rise” so may not have much longer to wait in order to “clearly invalidate AGW”. In your humble opinion “Hansen 1988 did very well for a model so primitive.”. In mine he hit lucky to get closeish with one of his scenarios for 10 years then failed miserably after that. actually (thoughtfull?). does that answer your questions in comment #195? NOTES: 1) see http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/work/boards/council/biographies.asp 2) see http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387b/38724.htm 3) see http://www.actoncopenhagen.decc.gov.uk/en/ambition/achievements/february/john-beddington-audio 4) see http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/ 5) see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7003622.ece That’s enough for now. I’ll respond to others soon. Best regards, Pete Ridley -
Peter Hogarth at 19:41 PM on 26 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
AWoL at 18:02 PM on 26 July, 2010 Where is this from? Nitrogen helps to prevent extreme UV reaching deep into our atmosphere, but is too small a molecule to be active at IR. I also seriously doubt you can linearly scale as this "statement" suggests. Regardless, the point is that Nitrogen level hasn't changed, but CO2 certainly has. -
AWoL at 18:02 PM on 26 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
Regarding IR absorptivity of atmospheric nitrogen, I came across this statement. "Nitrogen has 1/3000 the absorptivity of CO2, but there are 2000 molecules of N to 1 of CO2,so atmospheric N has 2/3 the absorptivity of atmospheric CO2. Anybody care to comment? -
Doug Bostrom at 17:02 PM on 26 July 2010It's waste heat
Somebody's crunched numbers. Small globally, noticeable regionally: Nearly all energy used for human purposes is dissipated as heat within Earth's land–atmosphere system. Thermal energy released from non-renewable sources is therefore a climate forcing term. Averaged globally, this forcing is only +0.028 W m−2, but over the continental United States and western Europe, it is +0.39 and +0.68 W m−2, respectively. Here, present and future global inventories of anthropogenic heat flux (AHF) are developed, and parameterizations derived for seasonal and diurnal flux cycles. Equilibrium climate experiments show statistically-significant continental-scale surface warming (0.4–0.9°C) produced by one 2100 AHF scenario, but not by current or 2040 estimates. However, significant increases in annual-mean temperature and planetary boundary layer (PBL) height occur over gridcells where present-day AHF exceeds 3.0 W m−2. PBL expansion leads to a slight, but significant increase in atmospheric residence time of aerosols emitted from large-AHF regions. Hence, AHF may influence regional climate projections and contemporary chemistry-climate studies. Flanner, M. G. (2009), Integrating anthropogenic heat flux with global climate models, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L02801, doi:10.1029/2008GL036465.
-
Ari Jokimäki at 16:00 PM on 26 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
RSVP, #79: You said: "According to AGW, N2 and O2 are transparent to IR. I am not aware of a century of laboratory measurments dealing with this issue." John Tyndall measured the IR absorption from several gases in 1850's. Oxygen and nitrogen were among them. Plenty of subsequent studies exist on the issue, Smith & Newnham (2000) for example. These are relatively easy to find, try Google Scholar.Response: Thanks for the links, Ari. Perhaps scholar.google.com is more useful to non-Finnish readers :-) -
actually thoughtful at 15:16 PM on 26 July 2010The nature of authority
Ken Lambert - I think the stolen emails, to have any credibility at all, need to be complete. Maybe the missing bits are exculpatory, maybe they are damning - we don't know. But we do know the thief had an agenda, and by not including the full set, they manipulated the message - exactly what they accuse the legitimate scientists of doing! -
Doug Bostrom at 14:20 PM on 26 July 2010What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
Anyway, Al Gore? What does he have to do with climate scientists? Another canister of chaff to drop out the old bomb bay when the going gets tough, nothing about science at all, just a rhetorical stunt and a stale one at that. -
Doug Bostrom at 14:13 PM on 26 July 2010What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
Galloping Camel is exerting a concerted effort to rewrite history, assuming he's actually read the transcript of the court's report. Here's what Justice Burton ruled on, as the Justice wrote it: The context and nub of the dispute are the statutory provisions described in their side headings as respectively relating to "political indoctrination" and to the "duty to secure balanced treatment of political issues" in schools, now contained in ss406 and 407 of the Education Act 1996, which derive from the identical provisions in ss44 and 45 of the Education (No 2) Act 1986. Here's Justice Burton's ruling: 42: There are two fundamental questions for me to answer: i) Whether, by dispatching the film, with the cross-reference in the pack to the Guidance Note, as it then stood on the website, the Defendant was not taking steps to forbid but rather itself promoting partisan political views. ii) Whether, by distributing/not withdrawing the film but accompanying it by a hard copy of the Guidance Note, amended in accordance with what has been fully discussed during the hearing and referred to in my judgment, the Defendant is now complying with ss406 and 407. 43: The Defendant does not intend now to continue with the old position, but has already amended the Guidance Note on the website, and stands ready to distribute it in hard copy if my judgment permits. There is no longer therefore any need for relief in respect of the film otherwise than as accompanied by the present Guidance Note. Mr Chamberlain submits that, even without the changes, the Defendant was not in breach of ss406 or 407. Mr Downes submits, as set out in paragraph 12 above, that the breach of s406 is irremediable, by virtue of the simple sending to schools of the film, irrespective of any accompanying Guidance Note, and in any event does not accept that the amendments to the Guidance Note are sufficient to comply with any palliative under s406 or duty under s407. 44: I am satisfied that, with the Guidance Note, as amended, the Defendant is setting the film into a context in which it can be shown by teachers, and not so that the Defendant itself or the schools are promoting partisan views contained in the film, and is putting it into a context in which a balanced presentation of opposing views can and will be offered. There is no call for the Defendant to support the more extreme views of Mr Gore – indeed the Government's adherence is to the IPCC views - but the present package in my judgment does enough to make it clear both what the mainstream view is, insofar as Mr Gore departs from it, and that there are views of "sceptics" who do not accept even the consensus views of the IPCC. The Defendant will not be promoting partisan political views by enabling the showing of AIT in the context of the discussions facilitated by the Guidance Note, and is not under a duty to forbid the presentation of it in that context. Transcript of Justice Burton's ruling Nothing about Al Gore's honesty; the case was not concerned with that matter and in fact nobody will find any remarks about Gore's honesty in Justice Burton's ruling. Unlike Galloping Camel, Justice Burton does not presume to read Gore's mind and is also apparently not infected with ideology to the point he's lost contact with reality. It's for the reader to decide what purpose is driving Galloping Camel's assertion that he knows better than Justice Burton what the case was about and what Burton's judgment was. -
gallopingcamel at 12:42 PM on 26 July 2010What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
JMurphy (#128), Judge Burton ruled with admirable clarity so you should be able to understand him without my help. Your continued defence of the indefensible convinces me that your opinions are matters of faith rather than science. While you can point to weaknesses in my arguments you fail to see the much larger problems with Al Gore's. "Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." Matthew 7:3 -
MattJ at 10:47 AM on 26 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single tweet
This is good news. But about presenting the evidence, please, PLEASE remember: a lot of people out there are far more quick to believe the politicians have all bought into this as a scam in order to tax the air we breathe. Why are they so quick to believe this, and so slow to look at the evidence you present them? Because 1) it [the only possible mitigation -- a "carbon tax") really is a radical paradigm shift, one that sounds uncomfortably close to "taxing the air we breathe" and 2) ever since the Vietnam War, we have been living in an era when people simply do not trust government, lawyers and politicians any more. It has only become worse with the frustrating, partisan gridlock in Washington. I am sure it is no coincidence that the gridlock is being caused by the same people who so vigorously block any serious attempt to deal with global warming. -
Doug Bostrom at 10:14 AM on 26 July 2010The nature of authority
Sorry, AWoL, I've done what I can. Cheerio. -
AWoL at 10:11 AM on 26 July 2010The nature of authority
Well at least we agree on one point, Mr Brostrom, "that the moon is substantially convex and does not reflect on itself" very interesting. Stefan-Boltzmann says that a squ mtr of material of typical emissivity of 90-95%,at 27degC will beam out something of the order of 459 watts. That's the energy of nearly 5 light bulbs of 100watts each. Does it? Check it for yourself by using night vision equipment. Dead simple.It's wrong. The prediction does not match the result. The constant is a theoretical concept and simply,in it's present form does not match the real world. Yes I would like to see the constant modified and I wish some physicist would hurry up and get on with it. As to the greenhouse remark. I think I made a very valuable contribution to the AGW debate by pointing out that the improper use of this term implants a totally erroneous idea in the mind of the layman and the politician.The world of science should stop using it if it doesn't want to be accused of the employment of slick and disingenuous language used by advertising agencies and snakeoil salesmen. -
scaddenp at 10:02 AM on 26 July 2010The nature of authority
JohnD - but you are trying to infer information from that data which I suspect is imappropriate for that purpose. It is inappropriate to make such attempts without consultation with the data collectors. Furthermore it is in direct conflict with published analysis the same problem. "given they are significant factor in the energy balance" - but are they? They are both positive and negative feedback and may be close to neutral in the energy balance. You cant develop proxy but you can infer past climate sensitivity and these studies do not indicate the low sensitivity that you are trying to imply. As to the CO2 effect in interglacial warming. Huh? Models with conventional understanding of CO2 and other forcings work do not have a problem reproducing past paleoclimate from estimated forcings - see the various papers in the IPCC. They have sensitivity of around 3. -
actually thoughtful at 09:29 AM on 26 July 2010It's waste heat
In 1983 I asked my Dad if it was warmer outside because everyone was running furnaces to heat their houses. He said yes. -
RSVP at 08:36 AM on 26 July 2010What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
DarkSkywise "What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?" You dont know? Definitely a warmer room, and a slighter cooler planet until you open the door. -
Doug Bostrom at 08:26 AM on 26 July 2010The nature of authority
No go, AWoL. Here's how somebody knowing better than you or I describes the situation w/regard to Stefan-Boltzmann and non-plane surfaces: ...any differentiable surface can be approximated by a bunch of small flat surfaces. So long as the geometry of the surface does not cause the blackbody to reabsorb its own radiation, the total energy radiated is just the sum of the energies radiated by each surface; and the total surface area is just the sum of the areas of each surface -- so this law holds for all convex blackbodies... If you care to have another go you may try rewriting the science starting here. The moon is of course substantially convex, does not reflect on itself in a significant way. The rest of your point w/regard to Stefan-Boltzmann appears to be entirely fictitious. "Apply a modified constant..." is simply making things up to suit your rhetoric. If you want to try changing the constant, start here. Your "greenhouse" remark is just as sophomoric as your correction of DarkSkywise's spelling, pointless and of no utility to this discussion. The term is an unfortunate semantic hangover and has no bearing on the science in play here, the fact you refer to it is diagnostic of naivete on this subject. -
Ed Davies at 08:23 AM on 26 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single tweet
Funny, most of the tweeps I follow write English (apart from a few silly words like "tweeps" and rather specialised uses of proper words like "follow", of course). There's selection bias here, though, as if they didn't I wouldn't follow them. -
AWoL at 08:03 AM on 26 July 2010The nature of authority
Replying to Doug Bostrom, post 125, I'll have a go.1st is the fact that the constant(S-B) deals with a plane surface and not a 3-d body.The limitations of this became apparent at the time of the moon landings.The difference between the theoretical predictions of Lunar temperatures and actuality were gross. Trouble is that things get even worse when you get to phenomena involving radiative transfer at temperatures conducive to life, say circa 0-100degCie planet earth.The figures for radiation emitted for temperature bear no relation to reality, yet they are used to demonstrate a "greenhouse" effect. Apply a modified constant for lower temperatures and it turns out that the surface temperature of the earth,devoid of atmosphere,far from being -19degC would be, when illuminated by the sun, midday,at the equator in the order of 50degC. So the atmosphere cools the surface by day and reduces to a variable degree(largely dependent on cloud cover,and not CO2) by night.One thing that is for sure is that CO2 does not act like a greenhouse, which raises temperature by limiting convection, and not by entrapment of radiation. In other words the employment of the word "greenhouse" is entirely inappropriate, and its continued usage has nothing whatsoever to commend it other than "tradition" -
RSVP at 07:31 AM on 26 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
Doug. Sounds good. Thanks. -
Doug Bostrom at 06:18 AM on 26 July 2010The nature of authority
AWoL presumably you can explain to us "the misinterpretation and misapplication of the Stefan-Boltzmann constant"? -
DarkSkywise at 05:59 AM on 26 July 2010The nature of authority
AWoL at 04:50 AM on 26 July, 2010: "(should be independent)" Thank you, Oh Great Unwashed. ;) Since English isn't my native language (which is Dutch), a few spelling errors are bound to creep in every once in a wile. Sory. -
AWoL at 05:56 AM on 26 July 2010The nature of authority
One of the fundamental errors of the AGW concept lies not in el nino this, or ocean acidification that, but of the misinterpretation and misapplication of the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. The model is miles off for temperatures relevant to living things. It is misinterpreted by pro-AGWs and anti-AGWs alike. Yet the whole premise of AGW is founded on this utterly ludicrous(for low temperatures) law. In future, when wishing to solve a problem of radiative heat transfer, remind me to consult a Nigerian witch-doctor, for he is just as likely to get the right answer as a climate scientist. -
Doug Bostrom at 05:40 AM on 26 July 2010The nature of authority
AWoL, your term "monopsony" is cute and appealing but explains nothing, certainly not in a logical fashion, instead leans on an unproven assumption depending on a hugely unlikely set of imaginary circumstances. You'll need to show in detail how at least a plurality of independent lines of scientific inquiry and results are incorrectly conducted and derived in order begin supporting what I take to be your belief that a broad swathe of scientific knowledge is "snakeoil." Don't get your hopes up; most of the evidence indicating a problem with anthropogenic global warming has roots quite far removed from the theory itself. By the way, circumspection is arguably a key trait of skepticism. -
Doug Bostrom at 05:14 AM on 26 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
Hey RSVP, I'm wondering if there's a fundamental "talking at cross purposes" thing going on here w/regard to waste heat. I've not followed the the conversation (which apparently has popped up on several threads) but it seems some of us think you're positing that waste heat from human activities is responsible for some amount of observed warming. Is that the case? I did a search for "waste heat" and found a pristine, empty thread for this topic apparently waiting to be populated, here. In the interest of coherence it seems like a good idea to continue the waste heat discussion there if indeed that's your hypothesis. -
dhogaza at 05:09 AM on 26 July 2010The nature of authority
RSVP:"Charles Darwin,as a die-hard gradualist and staunch supporter of Lyell's uniformitarianism, himself would have been a skeptic of AGW, I suspect." The connection is not so clear (to me), since AGW is by definition not a process of Nature.
The principle of uniformitarianism would lead one to believe that since CO2 from natural sources leads to forcing and feedbacks responsible for about a 33C rise in temperature from what we'd see on earth without it, that adding CO2 from whatever source will lead to temps rising even higher. The non-uniformatarian claim is that just as people start adding significant CO2 to the atmosphere, either it stops being a GHG, magic negative feedbacks kick in, etc and therefore doing so can't warm the planet. -
RSVP at 05:03 AM on 26 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
I am also asked to provide a link for reference purposes. Here is one... http://www.epa.gov/heatisld/ It contains the following statement... "The annual mean air temperature of a city with 1 million people or more can be 1.8–5.4°F (1–3°C) warmer than its surroundings." I assume this heat island thing has nothing to do with CO2. Maybe I am wrong. Anyway, there are currently around 6000 times 1 million humans on planet Earth. -
AWoL at 04:50 AM on 26 July 2010The nature of authority
Darkskywise. There's a word doing the rounds amongst the great unwashed, of which I am a member, and that is "monopsony". And to the great unwashed, it explains why "multiple, independant(should be independent), lines of "evidence" do indeed, indicate an agenda. Maybe no likee, but it is, erm, LOGICAL. -
RSVP at 04:45 AM on 26 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
to doug_bostrom All I ask is how transparent gases radiate. I am being told that IR sensitive CO2 in the mixture heats it, and this is the main cause of global warming. -
DarkSkywise at 04:11 AM on 26 July 2010The nature of authority
AWoL at 03:42 AM on 26 July, 2010: Why would a logician assume that multiple, independant lines of evidence would indicate an agenda? That's, erm, not logical. ;) -
werecow at 03:54 AM on 26 July 2010Assessing global surface temperature reconstructions
Very nice post! Just out of curiosity, what was the reason for the large size of the 2008 GHCN adjustment? -
RSVP at 03:43 AM on 26 July 2010The nature of authority
To doug_bostrom "Yet by "chance" this same force was invented as self-aware" Somewhere I heard that intellegence evolved through generations of escalated deception. -
AWoL at 03:42 AM on 26 July 2010The nature of authority
Sweet, Michael..... Given that Darwin was a consummate logician, I take a different stance to yours and submit to all, that he would have pronounced the AGW agenda as the most intellectually flawed load of B-ll-x he'd ever encountered.....more the remit of the snake-oil salesman than that of the scientist, formerly respected, until those times, as a pillar of rectitude and intellectual integrity, supporting the grand edifice of enlightened European civilisation. -
Doug Bostrom at 03:35 AM on 26 July 2010The nature of authority
Nature innovates, in fact innovated a force that could for instance eliminate the ozone layer and thus inflict what by some measures would be a swift and catastrophic change in conditions on the surface of the planet. Yet by chance this same force was invented as self-aware and thus capable of changing its own behavior at will, thereby reversing its previous course with regard to removing the ozone layer. Marvelous, when you think about it. -
Doug Bostrom at 03:30 AM on 26 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
"According to AGW, N2 and O2 are transparent to IR." That perspective captures nicely the brick wall we face in driving discussion forward. For reasons unrelated to science this is an Intractable intellectual hurdle, but let's remember, radiative physics and for that matter the known properties of elements at the level of understanding mentioned by RSVP are not a theoretical byproduct of people exploring the concept of anthropogenic warming. A better way to express the situation is that the notion of anthropogenic warming is a seemingly inevitable outcome of previous, fundamental research conducted without any particular motivation other than improved understanding of the natural world. Changing any minds, here? No, absolutely not, I'm sure. All the same I'm compelled to try and check in some microscopic way the cultural dementia fostered by from getting things backwards in the way RSVP does. -
RSVP at 03:28 AM on 26 July 2010The nature of authority
to michael sweet Looks like we were thinking something similar, however why should Darwin think AGW is a problem? Evolution guarantees survival of the fittest. -
RSVP at 03:23 AM on 26 July 2010The nature of authority
"Charles Darwin,as a die-hard gradualist and staunch supporter of Lyell's uniformitarianism, himself would have been a skeptic of AGW, I suspect." The connection is not so clear (to me), since AGW is by definition not a process of Nature. -
AWoL at 03:21 AM on 26 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
Most excellent job,RSVP. -
michael sweet at 03:15 AM on 26 July 2010The nature of authority
Thingdonta, Most of us agree with Darwin that NATURAL changes are usually gradual. AGW is anthropogenic, so it is fundamentally different. I think Darwin would follow the data, like the majority of scientists, and agree AGW is a problem. Since he is dead we will never know for sure. -
DarkSkywise at 02:51 AM on 26 July 2010Assessing global surface temperature reconstructions
Nice job, Ned! -
RSVP at 01:41 AM on 26 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
Ned, By changing just one word, you end up with... ...CO2 is somehow very important and needs to be talked about constantly, despite being a microscopic fraction of the atmosphere... ------------ There is nothing extraordinary about the convective cooling of heat engines. Absolutely every calorie removed from an engine to cool it, ends up in our atmosphere. According to AGW, GHGs absorb and emit IR, yet 97% of the atmosphere is not GHG. According to AGW, N2 and O2 are transparent to IR. I am not aware of a century of laboratory measurments dealing with this issue. Are you? Maybe this is what needs to be talked about. -
Tom Dayton at 01:38 AM on 26 July 2010It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
ptbrown31, you have missed the point. You wrote that "it is assumed that the PDO is not effecting (sic) global SSTs," and "this is not a robust conclusion." The Pacific Decadal Oscillation does what, by definition? It oscillates! That means it goes back and forth--reverses course, then repeats. Its lack of a non-oscillating component is neither an assumption nor a conclusion, but part of its very definition. You have misunderstood the skeptic argument that blames the PDO for the "apparent" global warming long trend. That skeptic argument is not that the PDO has a long-term warming trend. Rather, the skeptic argument is that no long-term warming trend exists. At all. The skeptic argument is that the PDO's warm phases have been long and frequent enough that climatologists have mistaken them for long-term warming. The skeptic argument is that if we simply wait a bit longer, we will see PDO cooling phases long enough to wipe out all the warming we've seen since the 1850s. The counterargument is captured in the figure that you objected to. PDO warm phases are much too short to be responsible for the warming we've observed since the 1850s. There already have been counteracting cool phases. -
thingadonta at 01:27 AM on 26 July 2010The nature of authority
#96. Good quote from Charles Darwin. But just to note, Mr Darwin was also a gradualist, who certainly didn't believe that significant geological changes (such as catastrophic climate change) occurred within the time frame of human lifetimes. He strongly opposed Cuvier's assertion that mass extinctions occured in the geological record. (Darwin was wrong). He strongly opposed the notion that climate, and its effects on biota, can change rapidly. (Darwin was wrong). Both he and Lyell believed Earth history was fundamentally 'stable' or uniform, and not prone to catastrophic 'convulsions' and such like, and therefore they rejected any notion that massive species turnovers ever occurred (They were wrong). The gradualists were fundamentally opposed to the catastrophist assertions that both significant geological 'upheaval' and biological evolution could occur within the general time frame of human history. (This was partly in response to the 'flood' catastrophists). Various geological debates between catastrophists and gradualists have been going on for several centuries. In biology, gradualism has generally gained predominance, however there are major exceptions (eg punctuated equilibrium and debates, mass extinction events etc etc). However, I certainly think that contemporary thought on climate change has been over-dominated by 'catastrophist' assumptions (without those advocating AGW actually realising that that is what they are, and that is where their assumptions on earth dynamics lies); some redress is definitely needed. Charles Darwin,as a die-hard gradualist and staunch supporter of Lyell's uniformitarianism, himself would have been a skeptic of AGW, I suspect. -
DarkSkywise at 00:56 AM on 26 July 2010What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
"(although you're welcome to post a punchline in the comments if you can come up with a funny answer)" Knock knock. Who's there? 90s Evan. 90s Evan who? 90s Evan Purscent of all climate scientists. :P I also asked Cleverbot: "What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?" but the answer was: "I don't know." (Apparently, that part of science isn't settled yet.) -
JMurphy at 23:14 PM on 25 July 2010What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
gallopingcamel, if you want to go around in circles, ignoring the truth, fair enough. I, however, will just repeat what I have already asked (and which you don't seem able to answer : To show that you have actually read the judgement, please state what you mean by "Stewart Dimmock (the truck driver) won his case challenging Al Gore's book". And what was the "correct conclusion" drawn by the UK judge - as you see it in the written judgement ? I will add one more to the questions that you cannot answer : Please list the "11 issues mentioned in his book" that you found in the text of the judgement. -
JMurphy at 23:08 PM on 25 July 2010The nature of authority
Ken Lambert, give it up : those emails (which you prefer to believe were 'leaked' - why is that ?) have turned into fool's gold for the so-called skeptics. However, like a dog gnawing away at it's manky bone, some people just cannot seem to let go. I still think it's down to embarrassment, mainly - embarrassment that the so-called skeptics, who were led to believe that the emails proved AGW to be a scam and a conspiracy, have now realised they were had by their very own trusted blog gurus. -
Ken Lambert at 23:04 PM on 25 July 2010The nature of authority
DougB #106,107, Adelady #108, kdkd #109 I was happy to leave 'Climategate', but DougB wanted to kick along. Corcoran summarises the story pretty well here: Quote: "The emails portray embattled scientists fighting desperately to interfere with official FOI processes. One now widely-circulated email, by Mr. Jones, asked Mr. Mann: “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith [Briffa] will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment — minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.” In this email, Mr. Jones is asking key scientists who worked on AR4 — the 4th Assessment Report on the science of climate change produced by the IPCC in 2007 —to erase all emails related to that report." endquote One might ask why these emails needed to be erased if those involved felt they were just a bit of honest disagreement between professionals acting in good faith. Clearly they felt there was something to hide if subject emails were revealed in FOI requests. As for legality or illegality m'lady, destroying material to avoid an FOI disclosure might indeed be illegal too. These days whisteblowers are being encouraged and protected in many jurisdictions so that malfeasance is exposed. No doubt the information or documents thus revealed are regarded as theft or breach of confidentiality by those exposed by whistleblowers. I was more interested in the attention drawn to Dr Trenberth's paper and subsequent discussions - even something on the wide error bars on cloud and aerosol forcings. -
James Frank at 22:47 PM on 25 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single tweet
I'm not sure Orwell would be as upset as you seem to think. You see, your post was right beside Orwell's blog in my Google Reader today. I found that kind of funny when you kept mentioning him. -
Ned at 21:58 PM on 25 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
RSVP, if you made claims like "one plus one equals two" I suspect no one would ask for a reference. Instead, your claims are basically (a) waste heat is somehow very important and needs to be talked about constantly, despite being a microscopic fraction of the energy provided by CO2-induced radiative forcing; and (b) a century's worth of laboratory measurements of CO2 are incorrect. As Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. -
RSVP at 21:12 PM on 25 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
To Ari, "Browsing your comments in this thread for example shows that you have made several claims and arguments but you haven't offered any references to peer-reviewed science. " My "claims and arguments" stand on their own, or is one now expected (for instance) to back claims that one plus one equals two? -
kdkd at 17:57 PM on 25 July 2010The nature of authority
Ken #105 You must be short of substantive argument if you're trying to recycle this old discredited material. None of the climate conrarians attempts to claim nefarious activity within the CRU and their collaborators has met with much success. The enquiries have pretty much universally found that the allegations made by contrarians were without substance. You can of course recycle some more conspiracy theory claiming an inside job put-up, but this will discredit your argument even more :).
Prev 2281 2282 2283 2284 2285 2286 2287 2288 2289 2290 2291 2292 2293 2294 2295 2296 Next
