Hi Jennifer,
Five more scientists have been added to the over 400 scientists in the Minority Senate Report who dispute man-made global warming claims:
1. Physics professor Dr. Frederick Wolf of Keene State College in New Hampshire has taught meteorology and climatology courses for the past 25 years and will be undertaking a sabbatical project on global warming. Wolf recently declared he was skeptical of man-made climate fears. “Several things have contributed to my skepticism about global warming being due to human causes. We all know that the atmosphere is a very complicated system. Also, after studying climate, I am aware that there are cycles of warm and cold periods of varying lengths which are still not completely understood,” Wolf wrote EPW on January 10, 2008. “Also, many, many of the supporters (or believers) of human induced warming have not read the IPCC report AND Al Gore is NOT a climate scientist!” Wolf added. He also rejected the claim that most scientists agree mankind is driving a “climate crisis.” “I am impressed by the number of scientific colleagues who are naturally skeptical about the conclusion of human induced warming,” Wolf added.
2. Biologist Dr. Matthew Cronin, a research professor at the School of Natural Resources and Agricultural Sciences at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, called predictions that future global warming would devastate polar bear populations “one extreme case hypothesis.” “We don’t know what the future ice conditions will be, as there is apparently considerable uncertainty in the sea ice models regarding the timing and extent of sea ice loss. Also, polar bear populations are generally healthy and have increased worldwide over the last few decades,” Cronin said in March 2007. “Recent declines in sea ice and indications that polar bears in some areas may be negatively impacted are cause for concern, but in my opinion do not warrant designation of the species as threatened with extinction,” Cronin said. “I believe that consideration of multiple hypotheses regarding the future of sea ice and polar bear populations would provide better science than reliance on one extreme case hypothesis of loss of sea ice and associated drastic declines in polar bear populations,” Cronin said.
3. Senior Meteorologist Dr. Wolfgang P. Thuene was a former analyst and forecaster for the German Weather Service in the field of synoptic meteorology and also worked for the German Environmental Protection Agency. Thuene currently works in the Ministry of Environment and Forests of Rheinland-Pfalz. In 2007, Thuene rejected the idea that mankind is driving global warming. “All temperature and weather observations indicate that the earth isn’t like a greenhouse and that there is in reality no ‘natural greenhouse effect’ which could warm up the earth by its own emitted energy and cause by re-emission a ‘global warming effect’. With or without atmosphere every body looses heat, gets inevitably colder. This natural fact, formulated by Sir Isaac Newton in his ‘cooling law’, led Sir James Dewar to the construction of the ‘Dewar flask’ to minimize heat losses from a vessel. But the most perfect thermos flask can’t avoid that the hot coffee really gets cold. The hypothesis of a natural and a man-made ‘greenhouse effect’, like eugenics, belongs to the category ‘scientific errors,” Thuene wrote on February 24, 2007.
“The infrared thermography is a smoking gun proof that the IPCC-hypothesis cannot be right. The atmosphere does not act like the glass of a greenhouse which primarily hinders the convection! The atmosphere has an open radiation window between 8 and 14 microns and is therefore transparent to infrared heat from the earth’s surface. This window cannot be closed by the distinctive absorption lines of CO2 at 4.3 and 15 microns. Because the atmosphere is not directly heated by the Sun but indirectly by the surface the earth loses warmth also by conduction with the air and much more effectively by vertical convection of the air to a very great part by evaporation and transpiration. Nearly thirty percent of the solar energy is used for evaporation and distributed as latent energy through the atmosphere,” Thuene wrote. “Summarizing we can say: Earth’s surface gains heat from the Sun, is warmed up and loses heat by infrared radiation. While the input of heat by solar radiation is restricted to the daytime hours, the outgoing terrestrial radiation is a nonstop process during day and night and depends only on the body temperature and the emissivity. Therefore after sunset the earth continuous to radiate and therefore cools off. Because the air is in physical contact with the ground it also cools off, the vertical temperature profile changes, and we get a so called surface inversion which inhibits convection,” Thuene explained.
4. Chemist and Nuclear Engineer Robert DeFayette was formerly with NASA’s Plum Brook Reactor in Ohio and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) at its headquarters office near Washington, DC. DeFayette, who earned a masters degree in Physical Chemistry, also worked at the NRC’s Regional Office near Chicago where he was a Director of the Enforcement staff. He also served as a consultant to the Department of Energy. DeFayette wrote a critique of former Vice President Al Gore’s book, An Inconvenient Truth, in 2007. “I freely admit I am a skeptic,” DeFayette told EPW on January 15, 2008. “I take umbrage in so-called ‘experts’ using data without checking their sources. My scientific background taught me to question things that do not appear to be right (e.g.-if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is). That is one reason I went to such detail in critiquing Gore’s book. I also strongly object to the IPCC and its use of so-called ‘experts,’” DeFayette explained.
In his March 14, 2007 critique of Gore, DeFayette dismissed Gore’s claim that “the survival of our civilization” is at stake. DeFayette wrote, “Nonsense! Civilization may one day cease to exist but it won’t be from global warming caused by CO2. I can think of many more promising scenarios such as disease, nuclear war; volcanic eruptions; ice ages; meteor impacts; solar heating.” DeFayette asserted that Gore’s book was “a political, not scientific, book. There is absolutely no discussion about the world’s climate history, effects of the sun, other planets, precession, eccentricity, etc.” DeFayette disputed Gore’s notion of a “consensus.” “Until a few months ago, scientists believed we had 9 planets, but now we have 8 because Pluto was demoted. In the 1600s scientists believed we lived in an earth-centered universe but Galileo disagreed and proved we lived in a sun-centered universe. At the time of Columbus, the scientific consensus was that the earth was flat but obviously that was wrong. In the late 18th century, ‘Neptunists’ were convinced that all of the rocks of the Earth’s crust had been precipitated from water and Robert Jameson, a British geologist, characterized the supporting evidence as ‘incontrovertible,’” DeFayette wrote. “In each of these cases there was ‘scientific consensus’ that eventually was rejected,” he added.
5. Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author on the Technical Report on Carbon Capture & Storage, was in charge of South Africa’s Chamber of Mines’ Metallurgy Laboratory and was a former professor at University of Witwatersrand where he established a course in environmental chemical engineering. Lloyd has served as President of the South African Institution of Chemical Engineers, the Federation of Societies of Professional Engineers, and the Associated Scientific and Technical Societies of Southern Africa. Lloyd, who has authored over 150 refereed publications, currently serves as an honorary research fellow with the Energy Research Centre at the University of Cape Town.
Lloyd rejects man-made climate fears. “I have grave difficulties in finding any but the most circumstantial evidence for any human impact on the climate,” Lloyd wrote to EPW on January 18, 2008. “The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil. I have tried numerous tests for radiative effects, and all have failed. I have tried to develop an isotopic method for identifying stable C12 (from fossil fuels) and merely ended up understanding the difference between the major plant chemistries and their differing ability to use the different isotopes. I have studied the ice core record, in detail, and am concerned that those who claim to have a model of our climate future haven’t a clue about the forces driving our climate past,” Lloyd wrote. “I am particularly concerned that the rigor of science seems to have been sacrificed on an altar of fundraising. I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said,” he concluded.
Cheers,
Marc Morano
—————
This is the fourth post in a series on the US Senate Minority Report, you can read earlier blog posts here: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3
You can link to the report entitled ‘Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007’
released on December 20, 2007 by the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (Minority) and link to associated media here: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I guess that’s how you got so far in politics, Marc. Never admit you are wrong, no matter how wrong you are.
I think this short quote is relevant:
“Festinger observes:
“A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.
“We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong conviction, especially if the convinced person has some investment in his belief. We are familiar with the variety of ingenious defenses with which people protect their convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most devastating attacks.
“But man’s resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a belief. Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his view.
When Prophecy Fails focuses on the failure of prophecies to come true, termed disconfirmation by Festinger, and the accompanied renewal of energy and faith in their source of divine guidance. His theory presupposes the cult having certain identifying features, such as:
(a) belief held with deep conviction along with respective actions taken,
(b) the belief or prediction must be specific enough to be disconfirmed (i.e., it didn’t happen),
(c) the believer is a member of a group of like-minded believers who support one another and even proselytize. All of these characteristics were present in the saucer cult.
Of particular interest in Festinger’s book is how the followers of Mrs. Keech reacted to each disconfirmation (failed date). Little attempt was made to deny the failure. The strength to continue in the movement was derived, not largely from the rationalizations , but from the very energy of the group itself and its dedication to the cause. This explains why proselytizing was so successful later in reinforcing the group’s sagging belief system. Festinger relates:
“But whatever explanation is made it is still by itself not sufficient. The dissonance is too important and though they may try to hide it, even from themselves, the believers still know that the prediction was false and all their preparations were in vain. The dissonance cannot be eliminated completely by denying or rationalizing the disconfirmation. But there is a way in which the remaining dissonance can be reduced. If more and more people can be persuaded that the system of belief is correct, then clearly it must, after all, be correct. Consider the extreme case: if everyone in the whole world believed something there would be no question at all as to the validity of this belief. It is for this reason that we observe the increase in proselytizing following disconfirmation. If the proselytizing proves successful, then by gathering more adherents and effectively surrounding himself with supporters, the believer reduces dissonance to the point where he can live with it.”
In the end, the members of the flying saucer cult did not give up their faith in the Guardians from outer space with their promises of a new world. Despite numerous prophecies and the resultant disappointment accentuated by many personal sacrifices, the group remained strong. Summarizing the final stages of the flying saucer cult, Festinger says:
“Summarizing the evidence on the effect that disconfirmation had on the conviction of group members, we find that, of the eleven members of the Lake City group who faced unequivocal disconfirmation, only two, Kurt Freund and Arthur Bergen, both of whom were lightly committed to begin with, completely gave up their belief in Mrs. Keech’s writings. Five members of the group, the Posts, the Armstrongs, and Mrs. Keech, all of whom entered the pre-cataclysm period strongly convinced and heavily committed, passed through this period of disconfirmation and its aftermath with their faith firm, unshaken, and lasting. Cleo Armstrong and Bob Eastman, who had come to Lake City heavily committed but with their conviction shaken by Ella Lowell, emerged from the disconfirmation of December 21 more strongly convinced than before…” ”
CF: http://www.freeminds.org/psych/propfail.htm and http://www.antigreen.blogspot.com/ for today’s comment.
In addition this essay is quite relevant as well – lifted from Benny Peiser’s Cnet.
“Ecofascism, January 2008
http://www.ecofascism.com/article14.html
This is a history of the word “environmentalism” and of the social movement that embraced this word in the 1960s. For a century “environmentalists” were Geography Professors who believed a people’s development and culture were entirely determined by the physical area in which they lived. The term “environmentalist” was appropriated in the late 1960s by an old social movement struggling to defend Europe’s landowning community. This social movement co-opted an influential contingent of wealthy families from the US Northeast. The twin goals of this elite trans-Atlantic social movement have always been: the placing of industrial enterprises under state control and putting a stop to colonial land expansion. Ironically, the old school geographical “environmentalism” provides a useful set of directives toward understanding the modern Environmentalist social movement. […]
In the USA one third of the land is owned by the federal government. US states and cities also have inventories of parks. This land includes some of the most scenic, energy rich, fertile areas on the continent. A vastly larger area of land is owned by Canadian federal and provincial governments and this land is a cornucopia of fresh water, minerals, forests, and hydrocarbons. North America is a near-empty, still-developing, continent.
The Great Spectre haunting Europe is that the industrial heartland of North America will explode North and West in a manner similar to the expansions occurring during the Washington and Lincoln eras. This would accelerate Europe’s relative economic decline and lure away millions more European farmers and technicians. Binding the North American economy to its current land base is a primary European foreign policy objective.
The Fascist social movement was the fighting arm of the European land-owning community. Fascists were categorically hostile to the “free enterprise” model of capitalism. While maintaining support from established Churches, Fascists promoted subcultures involved in paganism, occultism, nature worship, soil worship, organic farming, and tree-hugging. Fascists drew particular propaganda value from pseudo-scientific claims that industry was destroying Earth’s “ecology”. Fascists deployed a cynical propaganda strategy frequently using fabricated information. The Environmentalist social movement is the fighting arm of the European and US Northeastern land-owning community. Environmentalists are hostile to the “free enterprise” model….
FULL ESSAY at http://www.ecofascism.com/article14.html“
Anthropogenic global warming was never a scientific fact but a well crafted bit of pseudoscience supporting something quite more sinister. Little wonder that so few socialists or social democrats are found in the climate sceptic circles.
And one reason why I won’t bother with Gavin’s post elsewhere on another thread in response to my point about intensive and extensive variables and the misuse in computation.
In 2007, Thuene rejected the idea that mankind is driving global warming. “All temperature and weather observations indicate that the earth isn’t like a greenhouse and that there is in reality no ‘natural greenhouse effect’ which could warm up the earth by its own emitted energy and cause by re-emission a ‘global warming effect’. With or without atmosphere every body looses heat, gets inevitably colder………”
Simple question Dr Theune – Why is the Earth then a different temperature to the Moon? They are both approx the same distance from the sun and receive approx the same solar radiation so according to you, as there is no greenhouse effect, at all why is the Earth warmer than the Moon?
Louis – “Anthropogenic global warming was never a scientific fact but a well crafted bit of pseudoscience supporting something quite more sinister. Little wonder that so few socialists or social democrats are found in the climate sceptic circles.”
NO that is because right wing people tend to more fixed and rigid in their views and have a much harder time accepting new ideas.
“And one reason why I won’t bother with Gavin’s post elsewhere on another thread in response to my point about intensive and extensive variables and the misuse in computation.”
That is because you are wrong, foolishly and completely wrong to the point I am sure that you do not understand them at all. What is heavier a kilo of feathers or a kilo of lead?
Ender
First comment you make re the Moon.
The moon has no atmosphere.
The effect of the greenhouse on earth is due to water vapour that acts as a distinct physical phases compared to air which, chemically, has 0.04% CO2 in addition to N2 and O2, and which stops “heat” from escaping to space.
(Not wishing to bring up the complex issue of temperature measurements based on Brownian motion and temperature measured in the absence of that phenomenon).
And Mars has an atmosphere of 95% CO2, and it is chillingly cold.
Point 2 Your second comment above:
Your first point is simply opinion – what makes you think I am right-wing?
Your second point indicates your stupidity – a kilo of feathers weighs the same as a kilo of lead is a reasonable question one might ask of a scientist trained in the physical sciences?
Summary: None of your comments above need be taken seriously – none considered the issues themselves, and because you prefer to shoot the messenger, we conclude that you have lost the debate, (if there ever was one in the first place).
But at least you indicated to all here which category of the prophesiers you might be classed into (see my first post above).
Whoops!
Grammatical error committed in the previous post, it should be “…, which stops “heat” from escaping to space”. Not …., “and which”,,,,,,.
Not that my erstwhile critics would pick up I suspect.
“And Mars has an atmosphere of 95% CO2, and it is chillingly cold.”
The Mars atmosphere is very thin, and Mars is further from the sun than we are.
Louis, swallow your pride, learn some basic physics, and stop embarrasing yourself and those who you have attached yourself to.
Louis – “The moon has no atmosphere.
The effect of the greenhouse on earth is due to water vapour that acts as a distinct physical phases compared to air which, chemically, has 0.04% CO2 in addition to N2 and O2, and which stops “heat” from escaping to space.”
Go to the top of the class Louis. Obviously the time spent here has educated you to some extent so now you recognise at least the greenhouse effect. So why don’t you, as a fellow list member, drop a quiet line to Wolfgang Theurle and advise him of this fact. You might save further embarrasment.
“And Mars has an atmosphere of 95% CO2, and it is chillingly cold.”
And as has been pointed out to you time and time again Mars receives less solar insolation and does not have the water vapour that the Earth has. In the Earths atmosphere with it greater pressure and depth, CO2 traps contributes between 10% and 30% of the overall greenhouse effect.
“Your second point indicates your stupidity – a kilo of feathers weighs the same as a kilo of lead is a reasonable question one might ask of a scientist trained in the physical sciences?”
No really? You are really on fire here however if you truly understood intensive and extensive variables then this question would have been obvious and it would have been obvious why I asked it.
Sorry you flunk out.
Ender – ” Louis – “Anthropogenic global warming was never a scientific fact but a well crafted bit of pseudoscience supporting something quite more sinister. Little wonder that so few socialists or social democrats are found in the climate sceptic circles.”
“NO that is because right wing people tend to more fixed and rigid in their views and have a much harder time accepting new ideas.”
Can you give me some examples of;
1. Where it is accepted that AGW is scientific fact?
2. Who are the “right wing people”?
3. Examples of when they have demonstrated less willingness to accept new facts and so abandon old beliefs than non-right wing people?
SJT – The opinions of a physics professor, a biologist professor, 2 senior meteologists and 2 chemical and nuclear engineers are evidence of Morano’s bad faith – how?
Mr Enders understanding of physics is actually regressing before our eyes. Mr SJT’s was never there to begin with.
Ender
Yur patronising waffle might grate with most but not with me – if you think that CO2 is a geenhouse gas of great importance, then a planet with 100% (or near enough) GHG should show a greenhouse effect. That it doesn’t would cause most of us to wonder if we got the first bit right.
CO2 might contribute 20% on earth and water the rest, but on Mars CO2 has it all to itself.
You Ender, you scientific nous is naught, no gas can store heat and raise it’s temperature.
And the temperature which you are obsessing about is one of radiation, while the temperature we, or most of us, understand, is a measure of Brownian Motion.
So Ender, how does Radiation cause an increase in the Brownian Motion of the molecules comprising air? Photon’s colliding with a N2 or O2 molecule?
AGW theory is a crock.
Ender
Your last commentn about intensive and extensive variables has nothing to do with the fact that a kilo of lead weighs the same as a kilo of feathers.
An intensive variable is one whose value is independent of the amount of material it is associated with.
An extensive variable is one whose value is directly proportional to the amount of material it is associated with.
example:
Extensive variable is Mass, so 1 kg + 1 Kg = 2 Kg.
Intensive variable such as Temperature or PPM , so 1 Kelvin + 1 Kelvin = 1 Kelvin.
So if I add 1 kg of water at 20 degrees Celsius to 3 Kg water at 20 degrees Celsius, I do not get 4 Kg water at 40 Degrees Celsius, but 4 Kg water at 20 degrees Celsius. Temperature being an intensive variable cannot be summed in this case.
What this has to do with 1 Kh Lead weighing the same as 1 Kg feathers is perplexing to say the least.
The problem for you Ender is that 99 scientists believe that 1+1=3, being a consensus, it only takes one sceptic to point out that 1+1=2.
Your consensual group of climate scientists who believe that 1+1=3 obviously don’t appreciate being told by a sceptical minority that 1+1 is actually equal to 2. Especially when tens of billions of txpayers funds are at stake in the government funded research game your consensual scientists are involved with.
As stated often here Ender, AGW is pseudoscience and more and more empirical scientists are voicing their opposition.
Pseudoscience is indeed a science of consensus, and therefore is not a science.
Louis – “The effect of the greenhouse on earth is due to water vapour that acts as a distinct physical phases compared to air which, chemically, has 0.04% CO2 in addition to N2 and O2, and which stops “heat” from escaping to space.”
Did you say this or am I misquoting you? Then in the same breath you say this:
“Yur patronising waffle might grate with most but not with me – if you think that CO2 is a geenhouse gas of great importance, then a planet with 100% (or near enough) GHG should show a greenhouse effect. That it doesn’t would cause most of us to wonder if we got the first bit right.”
So apparently in the space of 2 posts you can answer your own question. Mars does not have a sufficient CO2 when it is that far from the sun to have the same temperature as the Earth. It does a pretty good job as summer days at the Martian equator can almost get up to 0 degs which is not too bad. As you say yourself water vapour does the lions share of the greenhouse effect on Earth something that Mars at the moment lacks. You only have to look at Venus to see what sufficient CO2 at high enough pressure can do. Is melting lead hot enough to destroy you strange notions of brownian motion.
“So if I add 1 kg of water at 20 degrees Celsius to 3 Kg water at 20 degrees Celsius, I do not get 4 Kg water at 40 Degrees Celsius, but 4 Kg water at 20 degrees Celsius. Temperature being an intensive variable cannot be summed in this case.
What this has to do with 1 Kh Lead weighing the same as 1 Kg feathers is perplexing to say the least.”
The extensive property of mass is not dependent on the constituents hence a kilo of feathers is of course the same as a kilo of lead. An intensive property such as density can be combined with mass correctly to give the final density of a mass of solder for instance. Are you going to suggest that combining tin and lead to give an 60/40 alloy and predicting the final density is illegal? This requires adding correctly intensive(density) and extensive(mass) properties to obtain the final correct answer.
Again the same can be done with temperature as long as the maths is done correctly. I am sure that most climate scientist would have sometime in their 3 years of undergraduate work, 2 years of Masters and 2 years or so of a PHd might have sometime come across the difference between intensive and extensive properties.
Otherwise perhaps you can write a paper that you have discovered a massive hole in science, which would pretty much shoot down the whole lot, that you cannot combine temperatures. I am sure there would be a Nobel prize in it for you.
But until that paper comes out perhaps you can confine this frankly wrong notion of yours to your other ‘free’ thinking mates where these sort of ideas are accepted sheep like and uncritically.
“So if I add 1 kg of water at 20 degrees Celsius to 3 Kg water at 20 degrees Celsius, I do not get 4 Kg water at 40 Degrees Celsius, but 4 Kg water at 20 degrees Celsius. Temperature being an intensive variable cannot be summed in this case.”
Unfortunately it can. You merely have to take into account the fact that temperature is statistical in nature and has to be summed a certain way. Other free thinkers like yourself have managed to work this out. Are you also going to claim that the studies of say the solar wind are incorrect?
“As stated often here Ender, AGW is pseudoscience and more and more empirical scientists are voicing their opposition.
Pseudoscience is indeed a science of consensus, and therefore is not a science.”
The only pseudo science here is the non-peer reviewed rubbish that you seem to be the champion of. From abotic oil to anti AGW you seem to find the biggest load of crap and take it to heart without understanding the details.
Ender
You have just shot yourself in the foot, and comprehensively too I might add.
Gentlemen please! We are getting hung up on odd concepts like intensive, extensive variables, Brownian Motion etc when climate modeling has more to do with homogeneous mixing and measuring right round the globe.
“So if I add 1 kg of water at 20 degrees Celsius to 3 Kg water at 20 degrees Celsius, I do not get 4 Kg water at 40 Degrees Celsius, but 4 Kg water at 20 degrees Celsius. Temperature being an intensive variable cannot be summed in this case.”
Ender says ‘Unfortunately it can. You merely have to take into account the fact that temperature is statistical in nature and has to be summed a certain way’.
The hardest problem on earth would be to measure that temp difference (if there was one) in real time. Recorders are only what we make them.
Years ago I used to bother about the mathematics of hysteresis, signal damping and so on but that big brass pressure gage in the boiler house got bashed every time we thought it was “sticky”. Practical solutions are always best in dealing with uncertainties.
Experience counts for more than you think. We expect a potential employer to quietly phone at least some of the places where we have previously worked. That’s peer review at its best with no holds barred. Are we getting that with all the scientists, writers, reviewers, bloggers and readers who claim to understand this very complicated climate thing?
Louis – “ou have just shot yourself in the foot, and comprehensively too I might add.”
Really? So show me where it is then. Trying to bignote yourself with arcane discussions of intensive and extensive properties thinking that no-one would call you on it has just shown yourself for the fool that you really are.
Now can we return to real science?
Gavin
It has been stated before elsewhere but climate cannot be computer modelled. It is essentially the case of attempting to derive mathematical equations for a non-linear, chaotic system.
The only time I know of this being attempted was in my own area of expertise when an attempt was made to model diamond deposition on the typical West Coast of Africa littoral diamond deposists at CDM. THe best geostatistical people from France were used, and in the end of the, rather expensive, study it was concluded that it could not be done. This diamond example is an extremely simple problem compared to modelling the atmosphere.
In particular predicting diamond grades in a mining operation is an acute economical one and if the prediction is wrong, then the mining operation becomes a loss making operation.
(Diamond deposition is essentially predicting the behaviour of a non-linear, chaotic system a couple of input parameters – climate has millions).
So if we in the mining industry can’t, even the best of resources and expertise, work out how to predict diamond grades in a typical beach deposition situation, then it is quite clear to us that attempting to do so for climate would be even more futile and vain.
But as Ender and his mates seem unable to grasp this fundamental, there is nothing else to say on the matter.
Here endeth the comment.
Louis: “an attempt was made to model diamond deposition on the typical West Coast of Africa”
Mate; you’re touching on a sore point here with our diamond distribution. A big chap in Melbourne once offered me the inside on his Argyle discovery after his boys panned all the country round our hidden “pipes”.
There was two piles between my shoes that frosty morn, one a huge collection of “industrials” the other, rough “gems” recently returned from the nearest specialists in Singapore. I bought his brand new 35mm camera instead of waiting till Monday for a bunch of old Northern Diamond Ltd exploration shares (5% Argyle – holdings).
Note: I have very few regrets.
That experience allowed others close to me to grab an interest in some off shore deposits later on before their extent became well known. Both discoveries involved someone sieving a lot of dirt in the first instance without the aid of computers.
Correction to Northern Mining Ltd.
Previously; loose Australian diamonds (Argyle) were considered too hard to cut.
re: Mr Ender’s “… the fact that temperature is statistical in nature and has to be summed a certain way.”
And centuries of thermodynamics just got flushed again by catastrophic AGW religion. Earlier you demonstrated you do not know the greenhouse physics/therm’s … and now you showed you don’t even understand temperature.
The top of the hole is already over your head — stop digging! Dr Lambert, Dr Halpern (Mr Rabett) and others have stopped picking at the thermodynamics scab they don’t understand. Perhaps you should follow their lead.
Here’s an example of ‘Politics and Environment’ to chew over (I’m not implying Pielke Jr. is an A accelerated GW skeptic):
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/
Ender….Your complete bafflement with science is obvious. You have been listening to false priests and priestesses. I recommend you return to nightschool and keep working towards that highschool diploma. And stop hanging around with dimwits! Your peer selection can be very important to your developement as an adult. The Gaia Cult is only leading you away from the truth. Good luck with your continuing education.
Cheers……theoldhogger
Paul don’t you dare stop posting this series.
Keep it up until the AGW liars give up and leave the planet.
Don’t cry for me Argentina!
Argentine Rosa Compagnucci, ex-IPCC, is probably about to join Morano’s list:
http://www.diarioperfil.com.ar/edimp/0213/articulo.php?art=4384&ed=0213
maybe Victor Pochat, president of the Argentine Institute of Water Resources, also.
“Ender….Your complete bafflement with science is obvious.”
It’s sad day, indeed, when utter piffle from Louis is believed.
“Paul don’t you dare stop posting this series.”
Fat chance of that. Even more remote chance that actual scientists who are expert in this area will add up to anything like 400.
theoldhogger – “Ender….Your complete bafflement with science is obvious. You have been listening to false priests and priestesses.”
Really so lets have a look at Louis’s ludicrous claims about his knowledge with the kilo of feathers and kilo of lead example which he failed to point out where I was wrong despite claiming so.
So we have established that a kilo of lead does have the same mass as a kilo of feathers. That is what an intensive property is – independent of the physical properties of the mass.
Now a completely different problem is this. Which weighs more a cubic meter of feathers or a cubic meter of lead? The obvious answer is of course a cubic meter of lead. Why – because lead is denser than feathers. Density is therefore an extensive property. That is that the property depends on the material. Despite the fact that volume is intensive, density is not. However there is a further problem as the density of a material will be different in different conditions. Molten lead has a different density than lead a 0 degC so extensive properties are always qualified. So the density of lead is quoted at a specific temperature and pressure, usually STP, which is 0degC and 1atm pressure.
With feathers there is a different problem – not all feathers are the same. To solve this problem you would need to exactly specify the type of feather that comprised the cubic meter. The other way is to take many samples of different feathers, measure the density of them at STP and then take the average of a large number of samples. This way then you could have the average density of feathers and could then calculate the mass of feathers in a cubic meter at STP.
For both measurement, a M^3 of lead and a M^3 of feathers you would get an answer that is valid at STP and within a few percent of reality.
So contrary to Louis’s ravings it is possible to work with extensive properties as long as you are careful about the conditions that you specify so that you get the correct answer. The idea that average temperature somehow contravenes thermodynamics is only a pathetic attempt to baffle with bullshit. If you throw enough long words around then people turn off and think you must know what you are talking about.
If someone mentions measuring temperatures just relate it to measuring the density of a mass of feathers and cut through the bullshit.
In physics simple questions often have very very complex answers and the greatest insights come from the simplest questions. The question of what is heavier a kilo of lead or a kilo of feathers is actually quite a profound one. One that Louis failed to see the implications of because he really does not understand it.
Definitely be wary of false priests and priestesses spouting pseudo science however at least show up the pseudo scientists by asking them to explain their ravings. Most of them at this point will retreat muttering about the second law of thermodynamics which they probably don’t understand either. Or they will resort to stupid sock puppets.
“…supporting something quite more sinister.”.
Is Louis a closet member of the Lake City Group perhaps?
cheers
Patrick.
It is hilarious watching people trying to dispute the existence of a greenhouse effect.
It is SO simple to find out the truth and I challenge you all to do it.
First use Google Scholar so you can find research papers and books.
Second type the words “Greenhouse Effect”
Third read the 213000 hits you get.
Then comment on whether or not it is real.
The belief that people who don’t study a subject have somehow discovered the flaw that’s been overlooked by the hundreds of thousands of scientists who have studied it is amazingly self-deluded.
Your original 400 has reduced to 399 by the way Jennifer:
“Take me off your list of 400 (Prominent) Scientists that dispute
Man-Made Global warming claims. I’ve never made any claims that
debunk the “Consensus”.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
You quoted a newspaper article that’s main focus was scoring the
accuracy of local weathermen. Hardly Scientific…yet I’m guessing
some of your other sources pale in comparison in terms of credibility.
You also didn’t ask for my permission to use these statements. That’s
not a very respectable way of doing “research”.
We have climatic temperatures rising, greenhouse gas concentrations
rising, any scientist that ignores this information because of a “lack
of proof” is just irresponsible.
George Waldenberger”
Nice try re: Waldenberger. It is humorous to watch people like Andrew Dessler at Grist or Daily Green attempt to debunk the Senate 400 plus report. All they have “dug up” is a meteorologist who believes in God and a letter purportedly from George Waldenberger. Please read below my response to Waldenberger. The response can be found on New York Times website:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/the-road-from-climate-science-to-climate-advocacy/#comment-7365
I have not confirmed that George Waldenberger is indeed really the author of the note you reference. But I did send the below note to Waldenberger on Sunday. It is self-explanatory.
Sincerely,
Marc Morano
Marc Morano’s email responding to email purportedly from Iowa (recently moved to Tulsa) Meteorologist George Waldenberger. Email sent on January 13, 2008 at 12:48 AM ET.
—– Original Message —–
From: Morano, Marc (EPW)
To: George Waldenberger
Sent: Sun Jan 13 00:48:05 2008
Subject: Re:
Dear George,
Thank you for you note. We currently have you in our Senate Report under the criteria of scientists who “voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called consensus” on man-made global warming. The report does not allege you believe we should “ignore” climate change, rather it simply states you “expressed skepticism about whether mankind was driving climate change in 2007.”
That assertion in the report is followed by a long series of your quotes in which you state in part (your full section from the report is below), “The question is what type of role do we take in that warming. Is it all natural fluctuations or are the increased concentrations of carbon dioxide part of this? And that’s a subject that’s up in the air.” In the linked article (Sioux City Journal – April 11, 2007), you also opine about the intensity of hurricanes and global warming and state, “And that’s an item of debate as well.” You bluntly assert that both the hurricane connection to warming and CO2’s impact on global temperature are still “debatable.”
You clearly articulate that you do not agree with former Vice President Al Gore (who claims we face an urgent “climate crisis”) or the UN IPCC (where multiple UN leaders say the climate debate is completely over – UN leaders say it is ‘completely immoral’ to question the IPCC ‘consensus.’ See: http://www.upi.com/International_Intelligence/Analysis/ 2007/05/10/analysis_un_calls_climate_debate_over/6480/
And the UN says it is ‘criminally irresponsible’ to ignore the urgency of man-made global warming. See: http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2 007-11-12-united-nations_N.htm )
The Senate report further quotes you stating: “So the debate now goes into, well, what does that mean? Are things going to keep going in the direction that they’re going or does increased carbon dioxide sort of fertilize the air and does that create more plants which in turn digest more carbon dioxide and create more oxygen? You know, there’s a wide variety of ways we can go from here. So the debate then becomes: What do we need to do now?”
The fact is, you recognize that there is a “debate.” Gore and the IPCC leaders do not recognize the need for the “debate” about climate that you so eloquently lay out.
Your statements about these climate feedbacks further separate you from Gore and the UN IPCC views. You assert that CO2’s stimulating impact on plant growth can be a negative feedback which directly limits CO2 levels. This is a significant point which runs directly counter to man-made climate fears.
Indeed, many of the latest research trends indicate that plants are absorbing far more CO2 than IPCC figures anticipate, partly perhaps because deforestation rates have been overestimated. Here’s an article that supports your thoughtful views on the subject: Excerpt: Claims that tropical forests are declining cannot be backed up by hard evidence, according to new research from the University of Leeds. “Scientists all over the world who have used these data to make predictions of species extinctions and the role of forests in global climate change will find it helpful to revisit their findings in the light of my study.”
Full Report here: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-01/uol-nce0 10708.php
Also, please keep in mind the Senate report is not a “list” of scientists, but a report that includes full bio of each scientist, quotes and links for further reading. The reader is not looking at your name on a long list, but actually reading your words and understanding all of your intended subtleties and caveats about climate change. The report even quotes you saying man-made global warming “seems to be a reasonable argument.”
Again, I thank you for writing me. If you would like to further discuss, please respond or call me at 202-XXX-XXXX.
Sincerely,
Marc Morano
Communications Dir. (Minority)
U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee
Below is your full entry from December 20, 2007 Senate report: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minor ity.SenateReport
Iowa Meteorologists George Waldenberger and Gary Shore expressed skepticism about whether mankind was driving climate change in 2007. “Well, I went to school at UCLA, a big climate school. And it isn’t really an issue as to if the global climate has been warming,” Waldenberger said on April 11, 2007. “It has over the past 40 years. The question is what type of role do we take in that warming. Is it all natural fluctuations or are the increased concentrations of carbon dioxide part of this? And that’s a subject that’s up in the air,” Waldenberger explained. Meteorologist Gary Shore, agreed with Waldenberger. “There’s definitely global warming,” Shore said on April 11, 2007. “No question about that. And it seems very likely that what we’re doing has some part of that, some impact; but as to exactly how much of it is us and how much of it is other things, nobody knows,” Shore explained. Waldenberger further commented, “But you know carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas just like water vapor, which is actually the most efficient greenhouse gas. And that’s why we’re actually 60 degrees warmer than we would be without water vapor in the air. So if you’re talking about the greenhouse effect, that’s very real, and we need it to survive. But as far as carbon dioxide concentrations increasing over the last 100 years, they have about 30 percent. And temperatures have increased about a degree on average across the entire globe over the last hundred years as well. So it seems to be a reasonable argument.” “So the debate now goes into, well, what does that mean? Are things going to keep going in the direction that they’re going or does increased carbon dioxide sort of fertilize the air and does that create more plants which in turn digest more carbon dioxide and create more oxygen? You know, there’s a wide variety of ways we can go from here. So the debate then becomes: What do we need to do now?” he added. (LINK )
)
End note from Morano.
# # #
Sincerely,
Marc Morano
U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committtee
— Posted by Marc Morano
Hey,
Did anybody click through to that US Senate thingy? I did and it was shocking, it looks like a US Government site but reads like some rightwing-nut conspiracy theory nut-job ramblings. I’m suprised that the US Senate hasn’t stepped in to shut it down as it’s using all the official livery.
cheers
Patrick.
Just to get one point straight, the original number was I think 407. Since then at least a dozen have been added, so Marc would have to be well over 400 even without George and John.
Yeah the Senate report reads well enough but you got to ask a few questions.
At a glance this lot seem like other scientists seeking ongoing relevance and funds in the public arena. Do we have some burnt out stars seeking new fuel?
My next questions relates to their age. The long haul to substantial reductions in carbon emissions requires a lot less travel.
How many “alternative” climate scientists depend on air travel?
Have we lived through an aberration?
All these people are just hopeful rates of change don’t change as we watch.
Put a stick in the flat sand at the edge of the last high tide. There is no way we are cooling!
Jennifer,
Actually, the number of scientists in the Senate report was much higher than 407 cited. The counts by the websites did not include many names listed as part of the various organizations. Names like Geologist Dr. Ed Doheny of U. of Penn. were not listed and many others affiliated with IceCap.US and the UK-based Scientific Alliance. Plus many more have been added in recent weeks. In addition, the many website critiques listed several of the organizers of the German climate manifest as “scientists.” The German organizers who signed the climate manifest were not counted as “scientists” unless they had a specific scientific description or University affilation by their name.
Scientists are continuing to be added to the Senate report. Expect another batch later this week.
See: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
Thanks,
Marc
But isn’t it interesting that this list seems to have been compiled without informing the people on the list (or at least some of them). I see Roger Pielke Sr on the list. Now I know he is very critical of the IPCC etc, but you can’t call him a Global Warming sceptic.
You also include Bjorn Lomberg. From what I read he believes in AGW but doesn’t actually think it’ll be that bad.
Peilke has quoted himself, on his website, in an open letter to real climate that he accepts the IPCC WGI consensus (about the 10th time I have pointed this out).
FYI: Here is more details about the report. Scientists like Pielke Sr. and Lomborg absolutely dissent from either Gore or the UN IPCC or both.
Please keep in mind the Senate report is not a “list” of scientists, but a report that includes full bio of each scientist, quotes and links for further reading. The reader is not looking at a name on a long list, but actually reading the words and understanding all of your intended subtleties and caveats about the scientists views on climate change. There are no “two sides” to this debate, but a wide range of views as the Senate report reveals.
Morano’s January 10, 2007 Letter to New York Times:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/the-road-from-climate-science-to-climate-advocacy/#comment-6702
72.January 10th,
2008
4:52 pm Dear New York Times and Mr. Pierrehumbert, (Comment # 51)
There is no time for resting when such easily debunked critiques of the Senate report on over 400 scientists are floating about. I am responding to your critique here of the Senate Report of over 400 scientists disputing man-made global warming claims. http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/the-road-f rom-climate-science-to-climate-advocacy/#comment-6612
First off, the well over 400-plus names (and still growing) scientists are not “all” of the skeptical scientists in the world; they are merely a sampling of scientists who spoke out recently. The report is also weighted to English speaking scientists; it does not pretend to capture all of the large amounts of skepticism growing around the world to the hyped “climate crisis.” (See Full Senate Report here: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minor ity.SenateReport )
Second, you claim that there are a few scientists “who are flatly unqualified to make any pronouncements on climate science” because they do not meet your criteria or because the report has a few economists in it. Such charges are simply unsustainable.
Do you hold the UN IPCC scientists to that same standard? Please take the time to read this excellent research by Climate Resistance revealing that the so-called “thousands” of scientists from the UN are made up of significant numbers of economists and engineers as well. http://www.climate-resistance.org/2007/12/physician-hea l-thyself.html
After all, you could argue that half the climate change debate is premised on economics that falls under Stern Review-inspired “it’s cheaper to act now” than wait category.
Also, the head of UN IPCC, Rajendra K. Pachauri, is an economist and engineer. It appears Nobel winner Pachauri would not meet your standards to comment on climate change.
Pachauri’s training as an economist has not stopped the New York Times from erroneously referring to him as a “climatologist” (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/13/world/13nobel.html?_r =1&fta=y&oref=sloginExcer ) or the AP from referring to Pachauri as the “chief climate scientist” for the UN. See: http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2007/12/ 07/un_us_states_cities_can_impact_climate
Are you going to chastise the NY Times and AP for referring to the “thousands” of UN experts as “scientists” as well? (Note: Many current and former members of the UN IPCC are featured in the Senate report of over 400.) Or do you only selectively “disqualify” scientists if they do not share your views?
Third, your citation of Prof. Andrew Dessler’s articles at Grist is amusing. Dessler has monumentally embarrassed himself by recently claiming there were only two dozen scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears. Dessler is now trying desperately to salvage his unsupportable assertions over at Grist with increasingly shrill and comical posts.
It is made clear you have not read the Senate report when you parrot Dessler’s claims that Dr. Christopher Castro “unabashedly and explicitly endorses the IPCC consensus.” If you took the time to read Castro’s entry in the Senate report you would find that even though he accepts the idea that mankind is responsible for most of the recent warming, he has serious doubts about future dire predictions of warming. Excerpt from report: Castro, who studied under skeptical climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr. “agrees that ‘other possible forcings to the climate system besides CO2 (like land-use change, aerosols, etc.) are not accounted for well, if at all’ and “models are highly sensitive to parameterized processes, like clouds, convection, and radiation, and these processes can have significant impacts on their results.’” End excerpt.
Remember, many skeptical scientists believe the Earth has already seen most of the warming impact of rising CO2, so agreeing that a 20th century CO2 rise has caused some warming is not the same as believing future catastrophic climate projections.
Also, Dessler mocks a meteorologist for citing God as part of his belief that mankind is not causing a “climate crisis,” but Dessler completely ignores the scientific reasons the meteorologist presents. Be wary of critiques that do not publish the Senate Report’s full excerpt on the scientist being analyzed.
Fourth, your cut and paste attack from Real Climate on award-winning physicist Claude Allegre and his colleague Vincent Courtillot is without merit. The propaganda team at RealClimate.org routinely ridicule scientists who dissent from their view of climate orthodoxy. An interesting note on Allegre is he recently converted from a believer in catastrophic climate change to a skeptic as new scientific studies debunked fears. See full report here: (includes many other scientist who reversed themselves on global warming as well) http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minor ity.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927B9303-802A-23AD-494B-DCCB 00B51A12
The Senate report of dissenting scientists has gained a giant foothold in the climate debate. For a sampling of the impact the report is having in redefining the climate debate, see here: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minor ity.SenateReport
Also note that this report goes way beyond scientists’ dissenting but includes numerous recent peer-reviewed studies debunking rising CO2 fears and Arctic and Greenland melting fears.
2008 is ushering in a truly new era in the climate debate. No longer will activists be able to claim that the “debate is over” or, as Naomi Oreskes once claimed, no peer-reviewed studies cast doubt on the “consensus.”
For an insight into why there is a growing number of skeptical scientists worldwide, please read this article just up today by one of the Senate 400 plus scientists. It is written by Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review. See: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1309
(I hope you consider him “qualified” to speak on this issue)
I urge everyone on this board to actually read the full Senate report (well over 80,000 words) and then re-evaluate your views. Full report available here: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minor ity.SenateReport
Sincerely,
Marc Morano
U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee
“From what I read he believes in AGW but doesn’t actually think it’ll be that bad.”
That makes him a skeptic of the doom mongering.
Re: Pielke Sr.
Please actually read the report. Below is the full entry of Pielke Sr. in the Senate report. Does he sound like he is supportive of the UN IPCC? This is why it is a “report” not a “list.” Everyone can read the exact words and make up their own minds.
Thanks,
Marc
Excerpt from Senate ‘Consensus Busters’ Report on Pielke Sr.
Former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr., presently senior scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder, chastised the news media for promoting the idea that the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers is written by the scientists. “The media is in error when it states that, ‘The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -made up of thousands of scientists from around the world – reported earlier this month they are more certain than ever that humans are heating earth’s atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels…,'” Pielke, Sr. wrote on March 9, 2007. “Are there really ‘thousands of scientists’ who wrote this report? Hardly. The IPCC is actually led and written by just a few dozen scientists,” Pielke Sr. added. (LINK) Pielke, Sr. believes land use changes play a key role in impacting temperatures and believes the IPCC fails to recognize this factor. “In terms of climate change and variability on the regional and local scale, the IPCC Reports, the CCSP Report on surface and tropospheric temperature trends, and the U.S. National Assessment have overstated the role of the radiative effect of the anthropogenic increase of CO2 relative to the role of the diversity of other human climate forcing on global warming, and more generally, on climate variability and change,” Pielke, Sr.’s blog states on the “Main Conclusions” page. (LINK) In a May 10, 2007 blog post, Pielke wrote that the UN was “disingenuous” with many of their claims. “Since about 2002 there has been NO statistically significant global average warming in the lower and middle troposphere and since about 1995 there has been NO statistically significant cooling in the stratosphere. The IPCC SPM conclusion that ‘warming of the climate system is unequivocal’ is wrong as it ignores the lack of such warming in recent years by these other metrics of climate system heat changes,” Pielke explained. “Perhaps global warming will begin again. However, the neglect to include the recent lack of tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling (both of which are predicted to continue quasi-linearly for the coming decades by the multi-decadal global climate models, except for major volcanic eruptions) results in a seriously biased report by the IPCC. It has been disappointing that the media so far has chosen to parrot the statements in the IPCC SPMs rather than do investigative reporting on these issues,” he concluded. (LINK)
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
# # #
Marc, that doesn’t say that he doesn’t accept that AGW isn’t fact. He just doesn’t like the IPCC’s obsession with CO2 he says that there are other, just as important, factors (like land clearing and other pollutants) that are affecting the climate and that these are all human driven.
Have you actually asked him his thoughts?
Did you speak to him in compiling your report?
To label your list as “Climate Change Skeptics” is misleading as people on the list acknowledge that it is real.
And claiming that being skeptical of ‘climate catastrophe’ equals ‘take no action’ is false.
“just as important, factors (like land clearing and other pollutants) that are affecting the climate and that these are all human driven.”
The IPCC report indicates these other factors as having a net negative forcing effect. So I guess that for sure Pielke DOESN’T believe in AGW!
re: Mr. Ender’s
“The idea that average temperature somehow contravenes thermodynamics is only a pathetic attempt to baffle with bullshit.”
If by “average” you mean an arithmetic manipulation of a sample of earth temperatures to be thermodynamically meaningful, then there is no where to go. You are in fact thermodynamically ignorant in an ABSOLUTE sense, and the “nightschool” approach has virtually no chance of enlightening you. You just do not know, what you don’t know — and the hole continues to get deeper as you dig. With your blind spot, not even basic thermodynamics can get through, because this is basic thermodynamics. Don’t waste your time with night school, or our time with your drivel.
There is nothing misleading about it. The scientists in the report have a full range of views. Pielke Sr. clearly questions the validity of future computer model predictions and clearly does not believe in a “climate crisis.”
As for “take no action,” the scientists in the report dispute the so-called “solutions” outlined by the UN touted Stern Report, Gore or the IPCC.
Again, anyone reading the report can read the full quotes and context of the scientists views.
Thanks,
Marc
Thuene wrote “The infrared thermography is a smoking gun proof that the IPCC-hypothesis cannot be right. The atmosphere does not act like the glass of a greenhouse which primarily hinders the convection! The atmosphere has an open radiation window between 8 and 14 microns and is therefore transparent to infrared heat from the earth’s surface. This window cannot be closed by the distinctive absorption lines of CO2 at 4.3 and 15 microns. Because the atmosphere is not directly heated by the Sun but indirectly by the surface the earth loses warmth also by conduction with the air and much more effectively by vertical convection of the air to a very great part by evaporation and transpiration. Nearly thirty percent of the solar energy is used for evaporation and distributed as latent energy through the atmosphere,”
Hey; there is no debate!
Let me revise a bit:
You just ARE NOT COGNIZANT, of what you do not know in this area.
Thuene google here
http://www.schmanck.de/FS/E/vE.htm
Mark,
land clearing yes,
other pollutants, depends on what you are talking about. Ozone, methane, sulfur dioxide etc are postive.
You may be thinking of particulate pollution which would be negative.
The point I am trying to make is that I don’t think Marc has contacted the people on the list.
From the minority report:
“Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming. ”
I think some of the people on the list do believe in man-made global warming. And the report doesn’t clearly say what they are actually skeptical of. It doesn’t actually present the hypothesis that they are all uniformly opposed to.
And who are the NASA scientists?
What the above discussion indicates regarding who is and is not a part of the alleged consensus is how utterly meaningless the consensus is.
Surely you jest about NASA? We have the top administrator Michael Griffin in the report as well as Roy Spencer and John Christy to name just a few.
It’s all in the report. The criteria is laid out in the introduction as well. Again, please read the report.
Thanks
Marc
I wonder if MM flies
There’s no criteria in the introduction
”
INTRODUCTION:
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.
The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.
Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics “appear to be expanding rather than shrinking.” Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.” (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has “co-opted” the green movement. (LINK)
This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters” report is poised to redefine the debate.
Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.
“Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,” Paldor wrote. [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation – LINK ] ”
I was just asking who the NASA scientists were, so no jest.
I think the point of this blog was that there is NO scientific consensus.Too many people who do not think there is such a compelling claim that CO2 is such a powerful warm forcing driver.Have been listed with varying skeptical positions.Generally taking the natural variation position and that CO2 is not much of a warm forcing GHG.
The comments here proves that climate science has a long way to go.I see gavin,hissink,ender,marano
and more at odds over the various sections.
I do not like these empty postings,especially from a scientist.
Example:
“I wonder if MM flies”
Shame on you Gavin!
Example:
“Paul don’t you dare stop posting this series.
Keep it up until the AGW liars give up and leave the planet.”
Do we need to get that personal making sweeping comments calling AGW liars? It seems to mean ALL of them.
I detest sweeping comments that are not nice.
Proteus writes:
“What the above discussion indicates regarding who is and is not a part of the alleged consensus is how utterly meaningless the consensus is.”
I have to agree here.
With the unfortunate politicization of climate science research.Consensus becomes such a big deal implying that there is already a decided outcome to be produced.
That is why Skeptics along with Marc Marano are being increasingly attacked in a personal way.They are in the way of the mandated consensus that the IPCC was given from day 1.
The whole thing stinks!
“What the above discussion indicates regarding who is and is not a part of the alleged consensus is how utterly meaningless the consensus is.”
Yes I too agree.
And I doubt the scientists doing the work agree that there is a consensus. That’s why they’re still studying it.
“… Marc Marano [is] being increasingly attacked in a personal way”
I’d say MM gets as good as he gives.
cheers
Patrick.
“Hey,
Did anybody click through to that US Senate thingy? I did and it was shocking, it looks like a US Government site but reads like some rightwing-nut conspiracy theory nut-job ramblings. I’m suprised that the US Senate hasn’t stepped in to shut it down as it’s using all the official livery.
cheers
Patrick.”
You must be referring to Senator’s Inhofe’s website.
He is the RANKING minority member of the committee.That is why the website exist.
Gavin
You know that you have destroyed what little credibility you have by posting your trite comments on blogs? As a professional, you should be keeping your nose out of them.
This is rather unbecoming of a professional scientist, don’t you think?
Personally, I think you have sold your credentials to environmentalists.
Since you, a busy and professional, scientist has time to post on blogs, why don’t you pay a visit to my site and answer some tough questions?
Remember what H.L. Mencken said: “The urge to save humanity is often a false front for the urge to rule.”
And this couldn’t apply more to the environmentalist movement.
“Hey,
Did anybody click through to that US Senate thingy? I did and it was shocking, it looks like a US Government site but reads like some rightwing-nut conspiracy theory nut-job ramblings. I’m suprised that the US Senate hasn’t stepped in to shut it down as it’s using all the official livery.
cheers
Patrick.”
You must be referring to Senator’s Inhofe’s website.
He is the RANKING minority member of the committee.That is why the website exist.
Patrick’s post just goes to show what irrational thinking does. If this guy claims he has a modicum of knowledge about this farcical subject, then he should know who Sen. Inhofe is.
“What the above discussion indicates regarding who is and is not a part of the alleged consensus is how utterly meaningless the consensus is.”
Yes I too agree.
And I doubt the scientists doing the work agree that there is a consensus. That’s why they’re still studying it.
Consensus belongs in politics, not science. All it takes is one person to overthrow a paradigm. History has bore that out.
Look up James Adovasio and the Clovis First paradigm. He utterly destroyed it in 98.
Anyone interested in Pielke’s position on the IPCC consensus can look at the below. I’ve extracted the key text to save you time.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001318real_climates_two_v.html#comments
“PS. As I stated on my blg. If discussing forecast verification in the context of climate model predictions is to be a sign of “skepticism,” then climate science is in bad shape. For the record I accept the consensus of IPCC WG I.”
mccall – “If by “average” you mean an arithmetic manipulation of a sample of earth temperatures to be thermodynamically meaningful, then there is no where to go. You are in fact thermodynamically ignorant in an ABSOLUTE sense, and the “nightschool” approach has virtually no chance of enlightening you.”
I see you are the only person who really understands thermodynamics and no-one else does. Reaching for the tinfoil hat now and backing away …….
Did I not say that pseudo scientists back away muttering about their comprehensive knowledge of thermodynamics – maccal I think you have given yourself away.
Steve,
You’re not actually making a point that’s new. Of course science will change, as you point out it has happened many times.
BUT it doesn’t always happen. And often when it does happen it isn’t a major change, just a modfication.
In the case of AGW it would take changes to a number of different sciences. There would need to be new understandings in quantum physics and non-linear systems. It wouldn’t be “simple”.
And if it happens that will be a great thing, best thing to do in the mean time is keep politics out of it, and probably the media.
It’s also interesting to note that it hasn’t happened after 100 years. Few theories last that long without being at least PARTIALLY correct.
Marc – Louis Hissink by his own admission did not know that he was on the list.
Do you make a habit of adding people without their consent or knowledge??
re: Hissink
Hissink signed the over 100 scienists letter to the UN expressing global warming skepticism in December 2007. The Senate Report reprinted that public letter which included Hissink’s name. What is so confusing about that?
Thanks
Marc
Steve McM
I was referring to this link:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
Don’t know much about “RANKING” (ouch, nothing like a screaming right-winger to clear out the earwax) minority member, is that an anatomical characteristic of the page author perhaps? Anyway it’s hardly a balanced, sober document is it?
cheers
Patrick.
Although it starts with the usual AGW believer’s equivalent of the Apostles’ Creed (I believe in the human responsibility for global warming etc.) this article is a scathing attack on the Utopian, teletubby-inspired anti-development future for us all conjured up by the Greens, some of whom frequent this blog:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2243828,00.html
Chrisgo, articles often contain more than what you look for. As you you would expect, the Observer actually took a middle of the road view of the journey we are on to do something urgently about AGW. What journey are you on?
Ender
My problem with this farce is the economic disaster that would ensue if politicians continue to make changes to our laws based on this pseudo-science. Especially with people like Hansen and Gaven, who continue to propagate it.
The ice age scare of the seventies did it for me.
Steve McM
I was referring to this link:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
Don’t know much about “RANKING” (ouch, nothing like a screaming right-winger to clear out the earwax) minority member, is that an anatomical characteristic of the page author perhaps? Anyway it’s hardly a balanced, sober document is it?
cheers
Patrick.
I’m well aware of who you are referring to. You are yet another who disparages a someone who doesn’t buy into this farce. Inhofe’s site has a lot more data to grab onto to, rather than left-wing innuendo and ad hominems.
Why is it that true believers laugh, scoff and resort to ad hominems (that’s latin for attack the person), rather than rationally responding to the data?
Or is this a rhetorical question?
Another issue that pisses me off are the reprobates that accuse skeptics of being on big oil’s payroll. Yet, when you look at the funding Green Peace receives and campare it Exxon Mobile, there is no comparison; Green Peace gets far, far more funding.
Look at this data, taken right off of Green Peace’s site:
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/modules.php?name=Todies
Anyone interested in Pielke’s position on the IPCC consensus can look at the below. I’ve extracted the key text to save you time.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001318real_climates_two_v.html#comments
“PS. As I stated on my blg. If discussing forecast verification in the context of climate model predictions is to be a sign of “skepticism,” then climate science is in bad shape. For the record I accept the consensus of IPCC WG I.”
What a joke. Anyone that knows slightly more than nothing, would know that computer models cannot be verified, nor can their data be reproducible in the real world.
Science requires this.
This is precisley why computer climate models are utterly worthless:
The data cannot be reproduced or verified. Unless, of course, NASA has a time machine that we are not aware of.
It’s also worth noting that weather forecasting is highly inaccurate more than 3 days out. And these guys claim to know what will happen 150 years from now?
LMAO!
“Chrisgo, ………………What journey are you on?” Posted by: bazza at January 21, 2008 05:01 PM.
Bazza, I’d attempt to answer you, if I understood the question.
Ender, Why should Marc ask people whether they want to be included in the Senate report/list? His list is not about ‘a consensus’ but rather what scientists have said/written.
Chrisgo, articles often contain more than what you look for. As you you would expect, the Observer actually took a middle of the road view of the journey we are on to do something urgently about AGW. What journey are you on?
———————————
Everything has to be urgent to an environmentalist. There always has to be some disaster looming and if you send them loads of money, they’ll convince the politicians to make everything better.
As I stated earlier: The ice age scare of the seventies was looming disaster and we’ve seen where that went.
Careful not to get your Pielkes mixed up. Pielke Jr certainly says he accepts the IPCC WG1 consensus, but spends time examining the non-link between hurricanes/global warming and IPCC predictions/projections on sea levels/temp. Of course, RC commenters described him as a skeptic:
“I see at Real Climate commenters are already calling me a “skeptic” for even discussing forecast verification. For the record I accept the consensus of the IPCC WGI. If asking questions about forecast verification is to be tabooo, then climate science is in worse shape than I thought.”
“Readers interested in the full exchange that I have had with Real Climate can head over there and have a look.”
“Once the conversation starts to turn to talk of “deniers” (as all RC discussions eventually wind up it seems) it is time for me to check out! I have no clue why they reacted so strongly in attack mode. For a long time I have thought that RC has simply been a front for politicized science, now I think that it has become more of a platform for shallow point scoring and targeted criticism. Too bad.”
Pielke Sr resigned from the IPCC in 1995 and pretty much attacks every aspect of the IPCC process and ‘science,’ including the cherry-picking of papers by WG1.
http://climatesci.org/2007/07/20/documentation-of-ipcc-wg1-bias-by-roger-a-pielke-sr-and-dallas-staley-part-ii/
http://climatesci.org/2007/06/25/additional-evidence-on-the-bias-in-the-ipcc-wg1-report-on-the-assessment-of-near-surface-air-temperature-trends/
http://climatesci.org/2007/06/20/documentation-of-ipcc-wg1-bias-by-roger-a-pielke-sr-and-dallas-staley-part-i/
Hi, Paul
Thanks for the info and clarification.
Hey Ender,
a kilo of feathers doesn’t weigh much if there is a strong wind blowing, much like a tonne of canaries in flight.
So tell me, in 25 words or less, what science you are using?
PS your mate Luke/Phil Done/whoever, looks like the funds dried up after the election eh?
Don’t “mate” me you social climber. As I always said – what’s a Rog anyway – some anon dude without mates who complains about other anon dudes?
I see the echo chamber is in full swing – a veritable gaggle of denialists all banging away religiously. I mean fancy wasting time on Morono’s list of 400 odds and sods. Really!
Bugger all are domain experts worth listening to anyway – so what? If he keeps banging away he can probably get to more than 2,500 so his his will be bigger than their’s. That would be impressive.
Yep the AGW science isn’t perfect. Almost all the data sets we have have some issues. But the denialist stuff borders on moronic. And you’re kidding yourself that this spirited discussion is getting anywhere. Same old Fortran Do Loops or maybe a backward pointing Goto with no escape? Perhaps in a more modern language the argument might be recursing up it’s own orifice. And definitely a memory leak there somewhere.
An intelligent discussion might be to move to one of relative risk from the current situation of humanity not doing well adapting to climate extremes – but you’d have to smart enough to listen to what Bazza is trying to tell you.
So snore…..
P.S. Oh yea – had a good laugh at the tropical deforestation junk article. Sure saves looking at the literature and studies and just taking some boofhead’s word for it.
I live in a state that is ground zero in the war on climate change. My life will be directly impacted by people who think man’s carbon footprint must be cut back. The only room for discussion in my local media is how much and how fast. This is followed quickly with a nod to the wisdom of curtailing future “surplus” populations.
And all of these topics are being made into State policy, we aren’t having a friendly debate club discussion. Already smaller communities are being forced, against the wishes of the public as expressed in the voting booth, to buy more expensive energy at the same time as any expansion of supply is legislated against.
We have already been subject to the whim of the ruling class, with spot shortages and rolling blackouts. THE Energy Commission will be floating a proposal within two weeks on whether or not the State has the authority to adjust my thermostat. The Attorney General is suing the fed to assert the right of my state to force me to drive a Geo Metro, or forbid me from driving altogether via punitive fees.
So if I say “Paul don’t you dare stop posting this series.
Keep it up until the AGW liars give up and leave the planet.”
it is just my way of saying, thank you Paul, for providing me with a powerful cudgeol with which to swing back at the powerful and comfortable, who are always most interested in the other guy cutting his needs, never in cutting government’s wants.
Sorry if my tone offends you, but I have more at stake then hurt feelings.
“As I stated earlier: The ice age scare of the seventies was looming disaster and we’ve seen where that went.” Posted by: Steve LeMaster at January 21, 2008 05:54 PM.
Steve, yes I know, I remember it well (I’m not a scientist).
Here’s an link that I have entered before, but which illustrates how the ‘Coming Ice Age’ had (amusingly) entered the popular imagination, at least in North America, Australia etc. and nowhere near as pervasive as the current hysteria but there was no Internet then.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0894213/
‘Here’s an link…’ an editing blunder.
James M – that’s part of what I do – publicise the peer reviewed science that doesn’t get publicised in the mainstream media.
“hysteria” – come on – I was down the shops an hour ago – yes all the shoppers were “hysterical”. People were running amok in the streets. It was like Cloverfield. Everyone you spoke to was “hysterical”.
So here we go with the hysteria alarmism nonsense. Deniers love to polarise the debate to hysteria and catastrophism. Come on guys notch it up…
Marc – “re: Hissink
Hissink signed the over 100 scienists letter to the UN expressing global warming skepticism in December 2007. The Senate Report reprinted that public letter which included Hissink’s name. What is so confusing about that?
Thanks
Marc”
I am sure that he did however he did not know that he was on the 400 list until I pointed it out. Therefore you have one person on the list that did not know they were on it. How do you know that there are not more people on the list that also do not know that they are on it?
In Hissink’s case he was happy to be on it however that is not the point. He was included on a list that he had no knowledge of.
I repeat the question do you add people without their consent or knowledge?
Do you also personally know that all the people on your list also know that they are on the list? Do you have signed statements from all of them that they believe what is said and they are on the list with their consent and knowledge?
Jennifer – “Ender, Why should Marc ask people whether they want to be included in the Senate report/list? His list is not about ‘a consensus’ but rather what scientists have said/written.”
His list is a list of people that are reported to be skeptical of AGW. How can he be sure that all the people on the list actually are skeptical if some of them don’t know they are on it. Writing one article does not necessarily make you a skeptic.
And his list is all about consensus. Please do not insult anybodies intelligence by artlessly suggesting otherwise. This is a ‘consensus’ of skeptics to challenge the consensus of climate scientists on the subject of AGW. Morano hopes to build this consensus of skeptics to attempt to weaken the case for AGW. Not that this will do it as the case for AGW relies on solid science rather than numbers.
The scientists that wrote peer reviewed papers that were reviewed when the IPCC authors wrote AR4 probably number greater that 2500. Certainly more than 400 scientist’s work was read and cited. If an anti AR4 was written how many of these 400 on Morano’s list could contribute peer reviewed papers on climate science. That is the acid test.
Perhaps Marc should sort the list into those that have peer reviewed papers on climate science to their credit and those that have not. This is in contrast to the IPCC reports that only considered a paper if it was peer reviewed – Morano has no such standards.
This is hysterical.
The Luke blog identity wants to cool the global warming hysteria.
There will be no more “alarmism nonsense” from him/her/them.
rog – “Hey Ender,
a kilo of feathers doesn’t weigh much if there is a strong wind blowing, much like a tonne of canaries in flight.
So tell me, in 25 words or less, what science you are using?”
Real science rog – you remember, the science that real scientists do. I agree it is not the science that you pay for – you know the sort, the science that agrees with whatever conclusion will allow you to continue to sell your shitty product no matter how many people it kills but science none the less.
Ender, I think you are missing the point of my point.
Jennifer: IMO Mark found an odd way to build his team, based on a SHOOT FIRST, ask questions later attitude. It’s hardly scientific.
BTW when I read some the background stuff Mark refers to I see other interpretations and a lot of hedging hence the sliding back and forth on this and probably other blogs.
]
Note I don’t bother much with self appointed individuals on the topic elsewhere.
Seems nobody knows. “I wonder if MM flies”
We have a lot of shadowy bloggers on here Jennifer and not much practical stuff
We’ve got plenty of ‘shadowy’ comment posters!
OK Chrisgo blog identity (and like Rog – what’s a Chrisgo – some sort of Xmas hamper?) – where have I been alarmist? Hey?
You denialist alarmists are so up your alarmism and catastrophism mantra you’ve forgotten what you’re even on about. Actually what are you on about? I’ve forgotten with all Louis’s bunk – but don’t stop – it’s a good laugh. And all being archived for future generations. ROTFL. A veritable treasure trove of intellectual thought and incisive analysis of the period.
Hilarious yes indeed.
Sensible discussion – zero.
Oh gee let’s spend hours speculating if Morono can get to 450 or maybe even 460 loonies, sourpusses and retirees.
And was it 2,500 IPCC scientists or 2,502 ? What if the 2,500 number isn’t right? Oh golly gee – oh dear. ARGH !!!!!
And maybe Al Gore got some crap wrong – oooo – ooooo – have to have a Bex and lie down.
Has any prima donna had a dummy spit and left the IPCC this week. If so what does it mean – has it changed CO2s dipole moments. Golly I hope not.
Gotta go – there’s an “hysterical” riot outside – something about AGW and the Sun they’re shouting.
The standard of Luke’s comments haven’t benefited from self imposed exile.
Who started the ‘IPCC 2500 scientists consensus’ body count? Go through the IPCC authors, lead authors and expert reviewers.
It took me 5 minutes to find one with a PhD in Urban Planning.
Luke’s mate Vincent Gray is also there, along with Christy, McIntyre, McKitrick. I don’t think the final reports reflect their views too well.
Lets’all sign up as expert reviewers – see if we can make it a consensus of 3000.
Oh dreary me Paul – an IPCC one liner and it’s all you want to talk about. If you really want to know the domain experts in each section are very small numbers – yes shock o’ horror – very small numbers. Coz most people don’t understand the stuff. How many bloggians here could explain the greenhouse effect at an atomic level?
Let’s go on about 2,500 somebodies ad nauseum as that’s easier stuff. Not really intelligent stuff but we can drone on about it for hours as if it chnages anything. And so Morono has to meet a one liner the press picked up with his own list of names. Booooring.
And the blog hasn’t improved one iota – what was that about an echo chamber. Tell you you’re really pleased with the high quality discussions. Mate you’re just going to post one denialist piece after another regardless of where the real news or action is – any semblance of a balanced discussion or serious risk analysis or any change to the world is subsumed by your bigotry and determination to just beat the drum day after day.
Really drivelly debates Paul – that’s why you get the chicken scratch you do. It’s just a place to throw insults at the other side. A fence where you can line up to pelt rocks at each other and see what Louis comes up with next.
How many people actually might seriously consider any reasonable points in this environment.
Might see how you’re going in a few more weeks.
In the mean time I have to practice being “hysterical” … argh … argh … argh …. argh….
See Cloverfield – it will help. Or the Simpsons episode where Homer is hypnotised and can’t stop screaming.
Luke – discussion won’t improve until we get rid of the sort of drivel you just posted above.
Pileke jr seems to have given up trying to discuss science on RC – because behaving like a scientist – questioning, verifying, objectivity – are now seen as acts of ‘denial:’
“I see at Real Climate commenters are already calling me a “skeptic” for even discussing forecast verification. For the record I accept the consensus of the IPCC WGI. If asking questions about forecast verification is to be tabooo, then climate science is in worse shape than I thought.”
“Readers interested in the full exchange that I have had with Real Climate can head over there and have a look.”
“Once the conversation starts to turn to talk of “deniers” (as all RC discussions eventually wind up it seems) it is time for me to check out! I have no clue why they reacted so strongly in attack mode. For a long time I have thought that RC has simply been a front for politicized science, now I think that it has become more of a platform for shallow point scoring and targeted criticism. Too bad.”
Big greenhouse warming just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, RC knows it, the ‘IPCC’ knows it, you know it, and I know it.
The incomplete science of climate change has to be stopped in its tracks as ‘settled.’
“Also, please keep in mind the Senate report is not a “list” of scientists, but a report that includes full bio of each scientist, quotes and links for further reading.”
You are a barrel of laughs, Marc. If it wasn’t so serious, I’d just be ROLMAO.
Can you please give the full bio for McLean, for example? I’d love to see that.
And that’s just the start.
Then you have people like Louis, who knows less about basic physics than a first year university student.
Then we come to Jennifer, who, despite her claims about qualifications, knows no more about climate science than I do. I am more than ready to defer to her expertise at biology and insects, but those topics are not the matters of interest here.
“that’s part of what I do – publicise the peer reviewed science that doesn’t get publicised in the mainstream media.”
Yes, but what do you call waffle like this topic?
Some results of the IPCC’s junk science:
Less than a year after challenging the world to a race to stop global warming, European Union nations are bickering over who should carry the biggest burden in the EU’s push to cut greenhouse gases. German industrialists estimate the measures could endanger one million jobs.
–AFP, 21 January 2008
New financial burdens on German industry arising out of greenhouse gas emissions rules due from Brussels later this week could run to 17 billion euros ($24.92 billion), a German energy users’ lobby said on Monday. “Between 2013 and 2020, that would mean around 1 billion euros for actual CO2 reductions and 17 billion of a penalty tax on the amount of CO2 still allowed to be emitted in those years,” it said in a statement. “The EU Commission unnecessarily threatens Europe’s valuable industrial structure.”
–Reuters, 21 January 2008
EU plans to make companies pay for the right to pollute have come under fierce fire from governments and industry, warning they could force business and jobs to leave Europe.
–AFP, 21 January 2008
I don’t imagine any instance of any party of any candidate whereby the Kyoto treaty would be signed and ratified by the US.
–Andy Karsner, US Department of Energy, 20 January 2008
Japan will propose setting 2000 as the reference year for future greenhouse gas emission cuts in a bid to bring more countries aboard a post-Kyoto Protocol deal, a report said Monday. But such a shift would likely encounter opposition from the European Union, the only major region whose emissions have gone down since 1990.
–AFP, 21 January 2008
One in six British households is living in fuel poverty, the highest for almost a decade, according to new figures that threaten the government’s target to eradicate the problem in England by the end of the decade.
–The Observer, 20 January 2008
Booooring Paul. You’re just campaigning and ranting. Lift the game or the blog ratings will go even lower than they are now.
I think the list may have grown by a few million in N. America last night – those who chose to watch the Packers/Giants game over the CBS Climate Alarmist show and ABC’s TDAT drivel that ran up against it. It was -24F with the windchill (and in that range of the scales F is colder than C!). I’d love to see them poll those who watched to see how many believe we face a crisis from “global warming”!
Luke – if this blog wasn’t a threat to climate alarmism and the agenda behind it, you wouldn’t be here.
We’ve got plenty of ‘shadowy’ comment posters!
——————-
Oh really, who would that be?
I find it humerous that environmentalists, like Gavin and Hansen, continue to espouse that CO2 is a GHG.
“Seems nobody knows. “I wonder if MM flies”
We have a lot of shadowy bloggers on here Jennifer and not much practical stuff
Posted by: gavin at January 21, 2008 08:56 PM”
Yawn………….. Zzzz……
Your reply is noted for what it is ___________ .
Meanwhile I have yet to read a comprehensive reply to Marc Marano in this comment thread.
LOL
Gavin I do have a substantial question to ask of you.
How can the IPCC’s 50 and 100 year PROJECTED temperature increase models be validated?
Meanwhile I have yet to read a comprehensive reply to Marc Marano in this comment thread.
LOL
—————–
Most likely you won’t.
Gavin I do have a substantial question to ask of you.
How can the IPCC’s 50 and 100 year PROJECTED temperature increase models be validated?
————
Didn’t you know that NASA has a time machine, tommy?
“Seems nobody knows. “I wonder if MM flies”
We have a lot of shadowy bloggers on here Jennifer and not much practical stuff
Posted by: gavin at January 21, 2008 08:56 PM”
Yawn………….. Zzzz……
Your reply is noted for what it is ___________ .
——————————
PHD means Piled High and Deep.
State abandons plan to allow utilities to control home thermostats
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/17/BARNUGIKF.DTL
Hows that for practical application Gavin?
That report is the result of one shadowy blogger’s agitation, augmented by the rest of us.
Well done. You have made one facet of my life easier, and I thank you all.
From the article you posted Mr. Mayeau:
“While more needs to be done to keep up with the needs of our ever-increasing population, it’s not the job of the (state) to go into peoples’ homes and control their thermostats,” he said.
Well, duh. This is but one facet that environmentalists want: The government in everyone’s business.
Tommy & Steve both fly hey. PHD’s on carbon wings?
“How can the IPCC’s 50 and 100 year PROJECTED temperature increase models be validated?”
Simply, by watching tides on a long wide beach.
Tommy & Steve both fly hey. PHD’s on carbon wings?
“How can the IPCC’s 50 and 100 year PROJECTED temperature increase models be validated?”
Simply, by watching tides on a long wide beach.
—————–
How scientific. You, most of all, should know that computer climate models cannot be verified or their results reproduced in real time.
I think I am in a position to know what computers and their software are capable of.
PS Gavin
Not everyone follows the sermons of people who have 3 letters attached to their names.
Don’t expect that you and Hansen can, with an ex cathedra wave of the hand, silence us skeptics. We’ll leave the koolaid on the tables along side the wafers you are feeding everyone else, who’s eating them without question.
Paul, thanks for pointing out the difference between Pielke snr and jnr.
I think Luke has a point about sound risk management – when I asked the question of proteus not long ago the silence was deafening.
For all the chat here about no need to panic, no need for drastic action etc etc – Where is the analysis of risk? What do we stand to lose? What chance do you think there is of the arctic continuing its melting trend? If so, how long will it take to destablise greenland. What will melting permafrost mean? Closer to home, what will happen to food production in Oz at the next el nino? What impact will the price of oil have on global stability?
You guys just don’t give it a second thought. The IPCC and others are out there working with imperfect data and models giving us the best assessment of risk they can and all you do is nitpick and throw mud. Its a disgrace.
You’ve quoted som Euro industries having a whinge – well there is 1trillion dollars of bad debt out there trying to find a home. Very little is being said about that yet its going to hurt more than industry a price on carbon, efficiency standards etc. Lets get some perspective here. If managed sensibly, we can transition jobs out of carbon intensive industries and into new emerging areas. Its not about tallying up the losses to your team and comparing calculators at the end.
You guys just don’t give it a second thought. The IPCC and others are out there working with imperfect data and models giving us the best assessment of risk they can and all you do is nitpick and throw mud. Its a disgrace.
—————————
How can anyone make any assessment with imperfect data? Seems to me that imperfect decision making would be a result. Especially when it comes to third world countries that can’t tap into their natural resources to pull themselves out of poverty, because sham institutions like the IPCC are preventing them from doing so.
James asks “Hows that for practical application Gavin?”
Although industrial A/C control was a big part of my early work we also had the task of managing the much more emotional office environment.
Properly dressed we can comfortably survive a day in the temp range say 16-26 C and at a pinch 10-30 C. We won’t go into flow and humidity here but let’s say individual comfort zones vary somewhat and in some cases I had to sacrifice their wishes. I reckon that makes me a “control freak”.
At other times I also had to look at electrical power distribution networks, likewise gas and fuel. Only a fool expects these utilities to go on uninterrupted however I must say we do our best in delivering continuous supply to most places. Emergency back up systems of many forms become part of infrastructure development. Implementation procedures are an essential part of good design. Having well trained people on tap is another issue.
Avoiding high load flashover in circuit switching requires nerves of steel. Nuf said on that topic!
Humans are pretty good at digging holes. Whole civilizations can survive underground at times of stress. The big question is how much oil have we got to run those big cat diesels.
I guess most people on this blog can’t swing a pick.
Who says that we skeptics don’t want to look for alternative energy sources, Gavin? I know I do.
I just don’t care to look for it under the umbrella of fear and irrationality.
Well Steve – governments and business work with imperfect data every day – you may have heard of it – it’s called “the real world”. Oh dear – the real world. How annoying that all the data aren’t lined up like little ducks in a row. So inconvenient for investors. And those darn voters are sometimes hard to predict. What a lack of perfect data. oooo oooo oooo
Steve – it’s a disgrace isn’t it. God should do better.
As for the IPCC preventing them emerging from poverty – what a load of right wing twaddle. Do you guys walk around saying this as a mantra. I haven’t got time myself for the mantra – I’m busy being hysterical and spreading alarm – argh – argh – argh argh. A 200 metre sea level rise will be here within months you know. If you don’t die in the 50C heat wave and a never-ending drought that follows. Mate repent and turn off the air-con or you will surely perish – God’s hellfire you know.
And gee the IPCC don’t seem to be stopping India or China modernising and using heaps of energy do they ?
It’s this sort of trite puerile analysis that makes this blog truly inane.
If you don’t like the IPCC’s summarisation of the science – write your local politician and remove your nation’s science support. If it’s the USA are you telling me the government is not in control? ROTL? If you don’t like the policy options vote them out.
And I’ll bet you haven’t read what the IPCC have written – just what someone, a blog or an op-ed told you they said. Eh ?
Don’t shoot the science coz you don’t like the policy response (and hey is there any policy response really).
Whatever, Luke. Even an ostrich has to come up for air.
I know exactly what the real world is, you and the IPCC seem to have detached yourselves from it.
The arrogance and conceit to think that somehow we are a threat to the planet’s climate is a hoot. To think that the IPCC is an organization that knows what it’s doing is comical.
The UN is a farce. Anyone that bases their decision making process on a highly flawed computer model is stupid.
Luke: Apparently Steve has a problem understanding the difference between models and big systems.
Oh it’s the UN’s fault. World govt. Whinge whinge. Time for a conspiracy theory I think.
The arrogance and conceit and not to mention stupidity of you neo-con denialists not be able to read the science is outstanding. Did you say you were from the good ol’ USA – land of the gun, God and gullible.
Isn’t it about time for you guys to race off and invade somewhere – what’s next on the map?
Perhaps you can point me in the right direction, Gavin.
Mate: Reading between the lines is a knack
Who said anything about conspiracies? All I said was that the UN is a farce…and it is.
Well, they do know how to extort money. So, I suppose they are good at soemthing.
When you will people admit that computer models are highly flawed and that there is no such thing as scientific consensus?
Oh, and let’s not forget that Green Peace receives far, far more funding than Exxon Mobile does. So, will you kindly admit that skeptical climatologists are not on big oil’s payroll?
If you want proof of this, you can see it here: http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/modules.php?name=Todies
Did you notice I’m gavin?
How erudite of you, Gavin.
Well, I suppose that scientists have to pay the bills too. I can see why some scientists cave in to pressure from activists…they need the funding.
Posted by: gavin at January 20, 2008 11:54 AM
“Now can we return to real science?”
Yes please, Gavin, can we really, I mean really.
Empiracal data, and observation, that would be nice.
Trying to test your own hypothesises, that would be good too.
Can I suggest the “evenly mixed CO2 assumption” first…
How about some raw data, that would really be a step forward would it not..
Oooh sorry “hockey stick” syndrome strikes again,
counter intuition abounds, processed data ago-go and hey presto AGW is accepted.
No it darned well is not, and should not be.
It should be tested, and tested again,
ooops, IT HAS,
and it’s consistently FAILED.
Defend the (scientifically) indefencible, Gavin,
it won’t harm your reputation with real scientists.
Derek – a cheesed off, normal bloke, who’s seen through this HOAX.
“The arrogance and conceit to think that somehow we are a threat to the planet’s climate is a hoot. To think that the IPCC is an organization that knows what it’s doing is comical.”
Appeal to emotion.
“Some results of the IPCC’s junk science:
Less than a year after challenging the world to a race to stop global warming, European Union nations are bickering over who should carry the biggest burden in the EU’s push to cut greenhouse gases. German industrialists estimate the measures could endanger one million jobs.
–AFP, 21 January 2008”
That is not a result of the IPCC. That is a result of politics and business. You are just shooting the messenger. As for “German industrialists”, why didn’t they just go for a guess of two million? How did they get one? From economic models?
Oh, please.
Don’t even try to use logical fallacies with me, SJT.
Particularly when it’s part AGW proponents code of ethics.
“The arrogance and conceit and not to mention stupidity of you neo-con denialists not be able to read the science is outstanding. Did you say you were from the good ol’ USA – land of the gun, God and gullible.”
And with that, you expose yourself as having mainly political, not scientific and logical reasons for believing in the theory. Because it helps you to feel good to be against the evil neocon “denialists”.
The anti-US rhetoric isn’t exactly helping your case.
That is not a result of the IPCC. That is a result of politics and business. You are just shooting the messenger. As for “German industrialists”, why didn’t they just go for a guess of two million? How did they get one? From economic models?
—————-
A decision as a result from the IPCC and its flawed computer models. That’s what happens when people make decisions from fear.
Hello Andrew
Well said.
“When you will people admit that computer models are highly flawed and that there is no such thing as scientific consensus?”
Mate: I started with mechanical measurements and 1 to 3 term pneumatic controllers. Digital computers were mere boxes of switches. A Kodak’s big new labs downunder silver gel was just becoming really capable of long term colour memory. Later on many users had problems understanding the difference in coverage of new digital radios as we transitioned from analogue technology.
There has always been a difference between theory and practice as systems evolve.
A wise tutor once told me perfection was an illusion. That insight helped me get the first impressions of Kodak film research and production. Working in darkness certainly heightens your senses and imagination. Guessing the next step becomes another art.
Anthony writes:
“I think Luke has a point about sound risk management – when I asked the question of proteus not long ago the silence was deafening.
For all the chat here about no need to panic, no need for drastic action etc etc – Where is the analysis of risk [excellent question, Stern certainly doesn’t provide it, and the previous Howard Gov’t was stupid for never having undertaken a thorough review, even if only to counter Stern-like reviews] What do we stand to lose [or gain]? What chance do you think there is of the arctic continuing its melting trend? If so, how long will it take to destablise [?] greenland[? this question requires some historical perspective since recent evidence suggests parts of Greenland most recently covered by snow and ice supported vegetation a thousand, +/-three huindred, years ago] What will melting permafrost mean? [speculative but worth consideration] Closer to home, what will happen to food production in Oz at the next el nino? [good question, but we need to know whether we’ve switched to a negative PDO, which may mean stronger La Ninas and weaker El Ninos for the next thirty years or so; if it has switched them food production is likely to improve steadily]What impact will the price of oil have on global stability? [this question is beyond the scope of the IPCC]”
“You guys just don’t give it a second thought. The IPCC and others are out there working with imperfect data and models giving us the best assessment of risk they can [without ever conducting any forecast verification? why spend a chapter on the history of climate change science in AR4 when they could have actually engaged in a fruitful exercise in forecast verification in respect of the three previous assessment reports; that would have been worth reading, especially in respect of determining the risks for policymakers] and all you do is nitpick and throw mud [as if only one side ever throws mud]. Its a disgrace [indeed].”
The silence was deafening. You prat. Don’t assume that because I think the sentivity of the climate to CO2 is around 1-1.5 degrees, I think that this means business as usual is fine. It doesn’t. But such a low sensitivity does mean that the risks you suggest are not as likely as you fear. It might also mean that the current warming cannot be largely explained by increasing CO2, it might in fact point to land-cover change, etc. as contributing more significantly to the warming. The warming, also, simply might be rebound from the little ice age, with contributions from changes in land cover, increased solar activity this century, and increasing concentrations of CO2. In order to determine the risks we need a higher level of scientific understanding (LOSU) of more than just GHGs. Otherwise, the actions taken might be counterproductive.
I’m still trying to figure out where these people came up with CO2 is a GHG.
Steve, i’ve heard that goldman sachs calculated the probability of sub prime to be about 0. (23 zeros) 6%. It occurred.
Why isn’t anyone shouting down the investment banks for making decisions with trillions of dollars of $ based on imperfect models? Surely the should have known it was coming
Gavin, what does what you just said have to do with the price of tea in china (ie anything). I don’t care to hear stories from your photographer days. Explain to me how it is that you can possibly justify “knowing” to any degree of accuracy how large or small the effect of GHG’s is when we have no clue as to the magnitude of the aerosol effect? If you were to add together all the forcings here:
http://www.sciencebits.com/files/pictures/climate/IPCC-Forcings.png
In certain ways, the anthropogenic effect would be NEGATIVE. How can that correspond to 90% certainty that warming is Anthropogenic, when there is the possibility, however small, that we don’t even have the anthropogenic contribution’s SIGN right?
Apples and oranges.
Why are you trying to compare two completely different subjects, Anthony?
Nice try, but, it doesn’t wash.
I wonder what some commentators could do without their little boxes.
Quite simple Andrew; like any pseudo-scientist, they make it up as they go along.
Didn’t Dressler admit that the 90% figure came from asking people “how sure are you?”. I seem to recall that.
“I wonder what some commentators could do without their little boxes.”
Unless I’m misunderstanding, that’s a very childishly inappropriate offensive statement. Group up, small man.
I wonder what some commentators could do without their little boxes.
—————————-
Yeah, Gavin…it sucks when people don’t fall in lockstep with tripe like yours and ask questions. Rather than answer the questions, you resort to ad hominems. A classic sign that one has lost the battle.
Face it, we skeptics would much rather look for alternative energy sources sans the fear mongering that is being perpetuated by people that think everyone should listen to because they have three letter acronyms attached to their names.
The last time I checked a doctor was someone that wore a lab coat, had a stethoscope and calmed people’s fears when they are ill.
I’ll say it again: PHD means Piled High and Deep.
Alright Proteus, say you are right and the science community is wrong on sensitivities. How certain are you that you are right? what are you willing to bet on being right? Or perhaps, what are you willing to lose if you are wrong?
Steve, its not apples and oranges. We accept big business making important decisions that could make or lose big bucks everyday without second thought. They work with imperfect data and imperfect models.
Yet when the climate scientist does the same thing – the shrills come out to play. It will cost too much! there is no risk! unecessary action! more important issues! etc etc. In the words of Arnie S – don’t be an economic girlyman
Why? Why is certainty so important on climate and not in business? Why don’t we take the same approach to risk?
Folks: we are now deep into the issue of hang-ups which are at the core of these posts.
Lets say it this way, perfection is only an illusion.
BTW its “gavin” not Gavin and no PHD!
“Steve, i’ve heard that goldman sachs calculated the probability of sub prime to be about 0. (23 zeros) 6%. It occurred.”
This example doesn’t illustrate your point. This is arguably an example of predictions that DIDN’T happen. From BAD MODELS. Gee, who would of thunk?
By the way, Gavin, aren’t you out on strike by now?
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/01/isnt-gavin-schm.html
Typical gavin, avoid the questions and dismiss the objections, they’re just “hang-ups” of the mean nasty neocons who are censoring the “real scientists” so there is no point in addressing them.
I’ll reiterate:
“Explain to me how it is that you can possibly justify “knowing” to any degree of accuracy how large or small the effect of GHG’s is when we have no clue as to the magnitude of the aerosol effect? If you were to add together all the forcings here:
http://www.sciencebits.com/files/pictures/climate/IPCC-Forcings.png
In certain ways, the anthropogenic effect would be NEGATIVE. How can that correspond to 90% certainty that warming is Anthropogenic, when there is the possibility, however small, that we don’t even have the anthropogenic contribution’s SIGN right?”
“Tommy & Steve both fly hey. PHD’s on carbon wings?
“How can the IPCC’s 50 and 100 year PROJECTED temperature increase models be validated?”
Simply, by watching tides on a long wide beach.
Posted by: gavin at January 22, 2008 07:37 AM”
Translation:
I can’t answer the question because I am too busy being a bonehead.
There was a rumor that you are a scientist.When will it show up?
What really happened is that my question and your dumb evasion for an answer.Shows that YOU know what the problem is.
What ever happened to the idea of reproducable science research?
Those very same IPCC projected models.The ones never verified are being used by AGW’s the world over.To push for the varied “solutions” to this manufactored warming hysteria.To save the world, one distortion at a time.
The Kyoto treaty,The carbon tax,The LOW MASS alternative energy sources,The effort at Bali to push for more environmentalist shibboleths.All based on unsupported and unverified climate models of the future.
I call it mental illness.
I asked YOU Gavin the question because YOU are supposed to be a scientist.All I got was a stupid answer.
I call that revealing and you know what.I learned that you lack the desire to provide a rational scientific answer.
That is sad.
Andrew, the point is that we trust the likes of Goldman Sachs and act on their recommendations but somehow the scientist doesn’t have the same credibility
“Anyone interested in Pielke’s position on the IPCC consensus can look at the below. I’ve extracted the key text to save you time.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001318real_climates_two_v.html#comments
“PS. As I stated on my blg. If discussing forecast verification in the context of climate model predictions is to be a sign of “skepticism,” then climate science is in bad shape. For the record I accept the consensus of IPCC WG I.””
Patrick, there is a difference between Pielke Jr, who you just linked to WAY up there, and Pielke Sr. They are father and son. Don’t mix’um up.
Jr:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/
Sr:
http://climatesci.org/
Seriously.
Anthony, one, stop referring to “scientists” as a body. Its unbecoming and misleading. Two, obviously the solution is: Never act on a model, becuase models ALL LACK CREDIBILITY. Jeez.
SteveLemaster asked:
“When you will people admit that computer models are highly flawed and that there is no such thing as scientific consensus?”
gavin with no phd replies:
“Mate: I started with mechanical measurements and 1 to 3 term pneumatic controllers. Digital computers were mere boxes of switches. A Kodak’s big new labs downunder silver gel was just becoming really capable of long term colour memory. Later on many users had problems understanding the difference in coverage of new digital radios as we transitioned from analogue technology.
There has always been a difference between theory and practice as systems evolve.
A wise tutor once told me perfection was an illusion. That insight helped me get the first impressions of Kodak film research and production. Working in darkness certainly heightens your senses and imagination. Guessing the next step becomes another art.”
Does that mean Kodak used 50-100 year projected models too?
Modeling is a valid research tool and many industries use them.I think that is what you are alluding?
Skeptics rationally object to the misuse of climate models that are not verified.Such as those 50-100 year projected temperature models the IPCC posted.
“Never act on a model, becuase models ALL LACK CREDIBILITY”
To clarify, I say this becuase this is what logically follows from you example, not becuase I don’t believe it is possible to have a credible model.
Andrew: Sooner rather than later you must decide for yourself one way or another, what the impact is of junk in the atmosphere. Start by looking at the big picture. Looking out the window for a while, next time you are on board a B 737 or an A 320
I had the advantage of being heavily involved with our earliest attempts to monitor and control our atmospheric emissions. In those days I could look back at the haze over our city from say 50 miles away and contemplate its removal.
Now the heavies are mostly gone we can’t see the other problems however modeling that bit of sky today is easy with some imagination as well as a bit of experience.
I supposed to be reassured that you decide what climate sensitivity is by looking out your window and deciding whether we are putting “junk” in the atmosphere that is killing the planet? Why do you continually respond with such pseudo-scientific nonsense? Why don’t you explain to me how you EMPIRICALLY decide such a thing? That, sir, is what you are supposed to do, not “decide for yourself one way or another, what the impact is of junk in the atmosphere.”
I’ve looked out the windows of a plane before and I was startled by how amazingly CLEAN the air was and how I couldn’t SEE the maligned pollutants that are supposed to be there. But hey, I didn’t pass over any big Northeastern cities, so maybe that’s my problem. No, wait, that’s their problem, not mine.
“I wonder what some commentators could do without their little boxes.
Posted by: gavin at January 22, 2008 09:59 AM”
I wonder when gavin will begin to fill in the little boxes with real answers?
Additionally, the idea that you must use “imagination” to model the sky is disturbing, in and of itself. Perhaps Einstein may have thought that was more important, but I would completely disagree. In science the FACTS, EMPIRICALLY DERIVED, TESTED, RETESTED, AND TESTED AGAIN, to see that they remain UNFALSIFIED, are what matter.
I guess Karl Popper really is dead.
or you could conclude that sometimes imperfcet models predict low probability, high impact events that turn out to occur and that it is worth looking at such scenarious seriously to prevent forseeable damage?
You could also conclude that it is worth challenging the forecasts of economists as rigorously as climate scientists?
Or you could conclude that business desisions are made all the time on imperfect models and that imperfect models should not constitute a reason for not acting.
hmmm, however, I suppose you are more than welcome to choose a secanrio that fits your own confirmation bias
“it is possible to have a credible model”
A note book drawing of an experimental film processing machine (J7) after some wild guessing go me banned from all Kodak labs. Years later something similar turned up at every local pharmacist to improve their film sales.
We can say experimental models have a valid place at the forefront of technology but technology itself is only limited by our imagination.
Controlling climate was very important to successful film making.
“Hmmm, however, I suppose you are more than welcome to choose a secanrio that fits your own confirmation bias”
And so are you…Oops to late.
However, it is one thing to compared flawed models in one way to models flawed in a completely different way. Economics is a surprisingly non-quantitative discipline, in which models maybe used, but only by the truly arrogant and foolish who think they understand the economy.
As far as climate models, I have no problem with basing them on first principles and letting them fly. But as I said earlier, if there is a small possibility that the Anthropogenic contribution is negative, that doesn’t seem to correspond to ninety percent certainty. Obviously the error bars on these predictions are exaggeratedly narrow. If we could be honest about these uncertainties, we’d have to conclude that we have no clue what the climate will do. Gavin thinks it will warm A LOT. We shall see.
By the way, I choose:
“You could also conclude that it is worth challenging the forecasts of economists as rigorously as climate scientists” Which is exactly what I said. So, can you raise any objections to that?
This by the way is ridiculous:
“you could conclude that sometimes imperfcet models predict low probability, high impact events that turn out to occur and that it is worth looking at such scenarious seriously to prevent forseeable damage”
I assume you therefore think that we should prepare for a shutdown of the circulation patterns in the Atlantic Ocean, i.e. the next Ice Age. By that same token, David Archibald thinks that it will get very cold in thirty years time. Maybe we should prepare just in case? Maybe we should prepare for a asteroid strike, while we are at it. Maybe we should live perpetually with the conviction that we will die tomorrow. That’s sure the healthy life style. Not.
Gavin, are you a scientist or a what iffer? What is with this nonsense, defending models divorced from first principles with the help of “imagination”? That is frankly BS, and you know it. At least quit going around saying that it is all based on science and not your “imagination”. I don’t want my the world spending money on your “imagination” thank you.
Steve, CO2 is a GHG. It absorbs IR at particular frequencies. Hardly anyone denies this. The question is how sensitive is the climate to an increase in GHG, particularly C02. As I’ve said, a doubling would probably contribute no more than 1.5 degrees C.
Anthony, there is no consensus regarding climate sensitivity, so its not me vs. the scientific community. There are a range of estimates, some as low as 1 degree C, others as high as 10 degrees C. The IPCC believes it to be about 3 degrees C but as Steve McIntyre has found, there is no clear and detailed exposition of this figure in any of the assessment reports or any where else. Simply put, the figures are all controversial. The 1979 Charney report split the difference between its two models which estimated a climate sensitivity of 1.5 degrees C and 4.5 degrees C respectively and came up with the number of 3 degrees C. There has been little improvement in the last 28 years despite the enormous amounts of dollars expended on AGW research.
I think the likelihood of CS being below 2 degrees C is about 50%, the chances it being below 3 degrees is about 75%.
proteus, you should add that any sane person would put the probability that climate sensitivity is anywhere near 10 as being about 0. That would be absurd.
Or does anyone even want to attempt to defend this?
My main concern with climate sensitivities over 2.5 degrees is that that is arguably sufficient feedback to cause thermal runaway, which has NEVER HAPPENED EVER on the planet Earth. Perhaps on Venus, but not Earth.
Also, water vapor feedback would appear to not exist.
http://blogs.woodtv.com/?p=2999
Gut feeling, CS = 2 C
Andrew: I had a career installing or troubleshooting instrument and control systems in all sorts of things like food production, pulp & paper, chemicals, mining, water, energy and communications. I could also add a bit of time in consumer protection, emergency services and medical research.
Protecting investments is often about salvage and recycling.
My “gut feeling” may be worthless (and so is yours) but CS=1+-.5, >2.5 physically impossible. Gut feeling.
And again, what do these anecdotes have to do with the price of tea in China?
Andrew, out of the sandpit please.
ok proteus, so in your mind there is a 25% chance of sensitivity exceeding 3 degrees. I would say thats a risk thats worth managing. I.e. we should apply ourselves constructively to avoid that scenario – lets not force anyone into a cave or start culling the population (i know there are people here who like to think the ‘eco freaks’ have a hidden agenda to do this).
Lets take the risk seriously and give it the respect it deserves
Andrew, out of the sandpit please.
ok proteus, so in your mind there is a 25% chance of sensitivity exceeding 3 degrees. I would say thats a risk thats worth managing. I.e. we should apply ourselves constructively to avoid that scenario – lets not force anyone into a cave or start culling the population (i know there are people here who like to think the ‘eco freaks’ have a hidden agenda to do this).
Lets take the risk seriously and give it the respect it deserves
Correction; CS is about 2 C.
We are most likely heading up towards the max sea levels of recent times cause the CO2 equilibrium in particular has been pushed out of whack by industry etc. There used to be a whopping SST lag but I don’t think we can count on it anymore.
As I said often enough here, watch the sand at the margins and calibrate all thinking by that.
Off your high horse, please.
The idea of culling the population was seriously raised by several people. It isn’t a hidden agenda, its out in the open!
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22945744-5000117,00.html
If you are so “right” just admit that the socialists and crazies etc. happen to like your theory. Then explain why a rational person should not let this bother them.
By the way, I’d put the probability that climate sensitivity being more than 3 as near zero, not 25% like proteus. Not that my opinion counts more or anything.
Gavin, is it a gut feeling or do you know? Because now you sound like you know. And what is the obsession with sea level about?
“Steve, CO2 is a GHG. It absorbs IR at particular frequencies. Hardly anyone denies this.”
Well plenty here do.
“The question is how sensitive is the climate to an increase in GHG, particularly C02. As I’ve said, a doubling would probably contribute no more than 1.5 degrees C. ” Well that’s absorbing what you’ve been told on certain blogs – we could quote Camp & Tung or Royer who would give you a paleo argument for 2.9C. Do we really know ourselves? Depends whetehr you’re a rotten alarmist or dirty denialist doesn’t it?
In any case – the average temperature rise is merely a metric. The real action is what it does to extremes of temperature, drought and storms. With some indication already that these indicators have moved (all debated of course).
And circulation patterns are likely to move. For Australia that means reoccurence frequency of droughts and multi-year episodes being important. Wouldn’t it be interesting if what we’re seeing in Antarctica ended up being spot on for an early transition. i.e. and interaction between the polar vortex, greenhouse and ozone. That science being quite new (but you won’t see that getting a run here for the obvious reasons).
So does humanity cope well now with droughts, floods, heatwaves, cold snaps and hurricanes in the current world. Well the western world probably does better than your Bangladeshi or Somali – but we’re essentially powerless to do much except get of the way and assist people move and recover.
Given this backdrop, the intelligent AGW argument is not one of certainty – but of risk management. It’s interesting that the denialists are 100% it’s not happening. In the face of all the research that’s about as 100% stupid as you can get. Doesn’t mean we need to panic, be alarmed or hysterical – and is anyone really hysterical ? (Argh argh argh ooooo – I’m feeling all hysterical again!) All people get hysterical about is football and baseball that I can see.
So from a risk point of view we should make an assessment – and ongoing. And of course this is very complicated as it has an ecological, social, economic and technological basis as much as climatological.
Catastrophism is not likely – but significant effects are quite probable. So should be we take this seriously – of course we should and it is likely to improve our knowledge of climate variability on the way (e.g. El Nino, PDO, IPO, AMO, SAM, Madden-Julian Oscillation etc etc).
The continual drum beating on alarmism, hysteria and catastrophism doesn’t wash – business is not listening to you guys, nor is government. You’re wasting your time even thinking you’re doing anything except ranting on some far flung blog.
Maybe one day we all might have an intelligent discussion.
Andrew: SL is the best indicator of historical changes in SST. Since our climate is related to either ST or SST we must reference to a handy global mean. Standards come later.
A curious kid asked about seashells found well up the gully. The land lord says they are either fossils or middens. Oddly we had both not far from the back door.
You mean, as opposed to, I don’t know, SST? We can measure that you know.
I’m getting sick of the anecdotes. Relevance=0.
Accepting change then guessing the rate of change is the first step in understanding its cause.
Bosses were often howling the instruments were wrong. That’s just part of human nature
I have little confidence in the accuracy of the instruments either, given the poor placement of the vast majority of them in the US. I don’t think that it means that all of the warming is due to this, but the creeping errors are enough to make anyone worry.
But no one (that I know of) is denying that there is or has been change in temperatures. But “guessing” the rate seems in appropriate. If you have confidence in any of the temperature records, you can calculate this. Easily. Hell, I could calculate it in two minutes in Excel.
Luke, you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater, so why do accept that people can write “Global Warming will stop the earth from spinning” on the pages of the New York Times? Because it is unlikely but “possible”? This is the sort of pseudo-scientific nonsense that made me realize that when it comes to getting the facts as you understand them to the media, and not the ridiculae, climate science needs to get its act together. I mean COME ON, do you really think such things can happen?
“No one listens to you.” No one ever listens to true prophets, only false ones with attractive messages. And in our anxious society, people, oddly enough, get a rush out of being scared out of their minds by this crap.
“It’s interesting that the denialists are 100% it’s not happening.”
You’ve created imaginary enemies with imaginary beliefs. Are you suffering from a mental disorder? That’s one of the signs, you know.
CO2 is not a GHG in regards to what environmentalists refer to as pollutants. They seem to have a wanton need to abuse terminology to suit their needs.
When anyone can convince me that a computer model can accurately predict the climate 100 years from now, I’ll drink the koolaid too.
Gavin, is it a gut feeling or do you know? Because now you sound like you know. And what is the obsession with sea level about?
————————
I didn’t realize that a gut feeling was a scientific method.
Me either, Steve. As I said, apparently Karl Popper is dead.
Me either, Steve. As I said, apparently Karl Popper is dead.
————————-
LOL! I haven’t heard that name in a long, long time.
Folks: we are now deep into the issue of hang-ups which are at the core of these posts.
Lets say it this way, perfection is only an illusion.
BTW its “gavin” not Gavin and no PHD!
———————-
Ok, gavin. You’re still a shill for the AGW movement.
Andrew, re a CS over 3 degrees, I’m just being fair-minded. I , however, think it is very, very, unlikely. Note, most of that 25%, i.e. 20%, is for a CS between 3-4.5 degrees C.
Anthony, it deserves recognition and respect, but I don’t think it should wag the dog.
Let me be more exact, CS is 1.5 +/- 0.5 degrees C.
I’m still waiting for someone to tell me how CO2 is a pollutant.
Last I checked it was a trace gas necessary for the sustainment of life.
Andrew, re a CS over 3 degrees, I’m just being fair-minded. I , however, think it is very, very, unlikely. Note, most of that 25%, i.e. 20%, is for a CS between 3-4.5 degrees C.
Anthony, it deserves recognition and respect, but I don’t think it should wag the dog.
Let me be more exact, CS is 1.5 +/- 0.5 degrees C.
——————————
I assume by CS you are referring to climate shift? If so, I ask what is causing it: The modern human indistrial population or natural causes?
The last ice age ended about 11-13,000 ya. I don’t think archaeologists have discovered any ancient SUV’s. Then there is the little ice age, which some claim that we are just now coming out of.
And who was it that stated that the MWP had to be gotten rid of? Now, why would someone want to do that?
“guessing” the rate (of change) seems in appropriate. If you have confidence in any of the temperature records, you can calculate this. Easily. Hell, I could calculate it in two minutes in Excel”
Hey, another administrative tool comes to the fore. Let’s see; can Excel spot a slow leak or extinguish a heap of fires after an explosion? Strictly, strictly, strictly speaking I must do as I’m told.
Quick thinking around primary signals comes from experience. Charts are just for the records.
Besides whoz Karl Popper?
Did he have ten fingers and toes at the end of his career?
I read about Red Adair during my lunch break when working for the multi nationals
Besides whoz Karl Popper?
———————–
What?!?!? Are you sure you’re a scientist?
Steve,
Karl Popper has been dead for a while now.
Steve,
Karl Popper has been dead for a while now.
———————–
You gotta be kidding me? I am very well aware who Popper was.
Nathan
Not knowing who Popper was and being a scientist seems rather dubious to me.
It was a joke Steve.
I am sure there are a lot of scientists who don’t know who Karl Popper was.
And really, who cares if you think all scientists should know who Karl Popper is. Why are you the one who decides who has credibility?
Never said anything about credibilty. I am just saying that it’s strange, that’s all. Every scientist I have ever talked to knows who Popper was.
“Every scientist I have ever talked to knows who Popper was.”
This would be a proof Popper would be VERY proud of.
Steve, CS stands for climate sensitivity. Its what would be expected for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere.
“Perhaps the crow was painted red” (wiki on Popper) doesn’t count for much when looking into say a inferno for clues on rates of change in fuel combustion etc
Better still have a look at this discussion on the complexity of modeling gas turbo engines –
http://www.cfd-online.com/Wiki/Best_practice_guidelines_for_turbomachinery_CFD
I reckon many posters here have no idea where engineering discipline fits in. Instead we get hung up in devices designed for social science. Pure science is OK for academics but in the real world we are continuing with the testing of all new vehicles and allowing for a %20 minimum upgrade based on experience with the previous model.
Gavin wrote:
“I reckon many posters here have no idea where engineering discipline fits in. Instead we get hung up in devices designed for social science. Pure science is OK for academics but in the real world we are continuing with the testing of all new vehicles and allowing for a %20 minimum upgrade based on experience with the previous model.”
Nice that modeling parameters can be drawn up on a computer and calculate the numbers.
Then all those awful car companies who amazingly understand how to use diagramic models to build a prototype car and then test it.
NASCAR use computer modeling to make small changes in their race cars.Then gratitously test them in wind tunnels for aerodynamic qualities.To further refine the changes to the desired end.
The IPCC seems to prefer making modeling claims that can’t be subject to testing because they are far into the future projections.
It is amazing you still miss the irony gavin!
the ipcc test their models by seeing if they can predict past changes that have already been observed.
Its amazing you don’t understand this given the certainty with which you write. Perhaps you should test your heuristics
Hindcasting is fraught with danger. Wheels within wheels.
Forecast verification is required. Hindcasting is merely suggestive.
If the deniers can look backwards hundreds of thousands of years for some evidence against AGW theory, then the warmers are on very safe ground looking upwards a few dozen years based on many here now observations. No?
Sunsettommy
Isn’t it wonderful how computer models are not completely worthless when you CAN verify, validate and reproduce results when dealing with cars and gee, even aircraft fall into this category.
Too bad gavin and Hansen can’t understand this.
gavin wrote:
If the deniers can look backwards hundreds of thousands of years for some evidence against AGW theory, then the warmers are on very safe ground looking upwards a few dozen years based on many here now observations. No?
We don’t have to. All we have to do is look back to the MWP, which someone said had to “go away” in order to further the AGW farce.
Well, no, Gavin. The analogy doesn’t fly.
Pielke Snr makes this rather interesting comment,
“Steve – Regarding comments #7 and #8, this is actually quite an important issue. The NOAA plots are, at the least, misleading, by not using the actual estimated radiative forcings of CO2 and other forcings for each of the years plotted. I discuss this issue in my weblog Why We Need Estimates Of The Current Global Average Radiative Forcing. The relative role of CO2, as a radiative forcing, is overstated.”
on CA in the following post:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2638#comments
Here’s the link made in the comment:
http://climatesci.org/2008/01/04/why-we-need-estimates-of-the-current-global-average-radiative-forcing/
which asks an excellent question of the IPCC, etc. that remains unanswered.
proteus: I f you mistrusted models so much, you wouldn’t fly either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing#IPCC_usage
bottom line is still sea level in my book
Really, you mean the empirical(safety) record counts for nothing. Planes were flying long before they modelled aircraft.
Its not a question of trusting the models; as I’ve said previously, they actually perform a necessary and valuable service in sensitivity studies. But to return to the analogy of modelling aircraft, the comparison doesn’t hold as, from what I’ve heard, the verification of the modelling is more intense and detailed for aircraft then it is for climate, and the former enjoys a higher level of scientific understanding and engineering skill. This doesn’t mean that modelling climate can not and will not improve in the coming years, of course, it will.
Gavin, how is a link to the IPCC’s usage helpful? What is the current radiative forcing of CO2 for 2007, for instance, not for the difference between 1750 and 2005 or 2007? Actually, what is the current radiative forcing for each of the line items, not simply CO2 in the figure you link to? This is an important question considering the levelling-off of CH4(methane) since the mid-1990s. How have they changed from year-year? Also, why is stratospheric water vapour incl. yet tropospheric water vapour excluded? These are perfectly reasonable questions to ask? Hopefully, AR5 will chance an answer.
Surely, a risk analysis would require an answer to all of these and more questions.
So Luke, glad you still support this blog with your presence.
Speaking of which, did you have a good chrissy? We had a nice time, no shortage of good food and fine wine, the weather was also good and fine for this time of year, not to hot and not too cold – just right.
May 2008 be as good for you as 2007.
“But the cat came back the very next day, The cat came back, we thoight he was a goner, The cat came back, he just wouldn’t stay away.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_the_Cat_Came_Back
proteus can fall back on this lot as I guess do a few others on here
http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar
but eventually they too must consider rates of change over the last hundred years or so in many things including our ice cover.
Ignoring our relationship with natural resources during that process with any sort of zeal, amounts to cultism built around the growth ideal.
Hey; does some cargo just lob on your platform rising up in the sky?
proteus can fall back on this lot as I guess do a few others on here
http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar
but eventually they too must consider rates of change over the last hundred years or so in many things including our ice cover.
Ignoring our relationship with natural resources during that process with any sort of zeal, amounts to cultism built around the growth ideal.
Hey; does some cargo just lob on your platform rising up in the sky?
proteus can fall back on this lot as I guess do a few others on here
http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar
but eventually they too must consider rates of change over the last hundred years or so in many things including the ice cover.
Ignoring our relationship with natural resources during that process with any sort of zeal, amounts to cultism built around the growth ideal.
Hey; does some cargo just lob on your platform rising up in the sky?
blog system clogged
Gavin, I’m not in anyway falling back on anything, nevertheless, Shaviv does make a very good point regarding the anthropogenic forcing given the large uncertainties re aerosols.
BTW, why is tropospheric water vapour excluded?
But how does considering those rates of change implicate CO2 and its equivalents?
“Ignoring our relationship with natural resources during that process with any sort of zeal, amounts to cultism built around the growth ideal.”
I don’t know what to make of that comment or the last sentence.
I developed an interest in free style methods of assessing rate of change from about 1960.
Minding our fingers round the presses and super calendars used in modern papermaking while flattening small ridge lines developing in the product was a very hazardous game that sometimes ended in snap!
Moving on to other transport systems and energy generation, rate of change in say demand remains a critical factor in developing an appropriate response, likewise phase relationships in system engineering become crucial design issues. Checking the sign of forces and feedback is something engineers and technicians do every day.
In looking forward we need only go back to the TV series “Strange days on Planet Earth”
Those final thoughts in my previous post related to Cargo cults in science based on the South Pacific experience during ww2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult
“BTW, why is tropospheric water vapour excluded?”
Read the IPCC report.
Water vapour is a feedback,not a forcing. A forcing is something that is jacking up the temperature of the system. Water vapour will increase, and help raise the temperature, but it is not, of itself, increasing the temperature.
“If the deniers can look backwards hundreds of thousands of years for some evidence against AGW theory, then the warmers are on very safe ground looking upwards a few dozen years based on many here now observations. No?
Posted by: gavin at January 22, 2008 04:24 PM”
A scientist made this statement.An actual scientist.I can hardly believe it!
It is evidence that he is being irrational because we have actual past climatic data to use in making rough approximations of what happened in the past.But zero FUTURE data to work with.
Does the IPCC or you have that time machine we do not know about?
Apparently modeling validation of projected long into future temperature trends is not important to you.IF it will be “hot” in 50 years.That is good enough for you.
I have to laugh at you gavin.
Gavin, I’m going to repeat this again, hoping you’ll understand: I don’t want little excerpts and stories from your childhood, or your photography days, or whatever. I want empirical derivtions of ballpark estimates, at least, of the various effects of each forcing/feedback etc. But these apparently don’t exist. Also, there is nothing wrong with studying how the Earth has behaved in the past to understand how it will behave in the future. The more things change, the more they stay the same. A geologist, of course, would know all this.
And I’m not surprised that an advocate of an Unfalsifiable theory didn’t know who Karl Popper was. He was also friends with FA Hayek (Austrian Business School, Libertarian), so I guess you might even call him a “wingnut” or something. He wasn’t fond of Marx, anyway (The Open Society and It’s Enemies).
By the way, did you know that Merlin predicted GW a thousand years ago? Prophecies of Merlin, saw it on the Histroy Channel last night. Seems the mystic was also obsessed with sea level.
And I have no clue how rates of change in ice coming out of one of the coldest periods in human history proves anything. Except that it destracts from the true issue, how to empirically derive the impact of man on the climate. Arguably, no one knows with any degree of certainty, unlike in engineering, where the basic principles are well understood and have been for a long time, and the properties of materials well studied. Do you think you’d want to fly in a plane with huge “error bars” on the wings, so to speak? Climatology is young. The IPCC’s “Level of Scientific Understanding” on most subjects is “low” or “very low”.
As SJT confirms, setting out the table with forcing and feedback precedes signs.
Some of us have been around stirring the pot longer than others. I get right into salesmen call centres, whatever intrudes and demand product knowledge.
Both warming and cooling are reflected in sea level change. CO2 shifts follow fertility.
Rates of change are key indicators of cause.
Pursuit of perfection in measurements and models wont alter the facts.
Some have forgotten more of their school days than others too
“Some have forgotten more of their school days than others too
Posted by: gavin at January 23, 2008 06:59 AM”
Some people have less problems answering questions that others too.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000836evaluating_jim_hanse.html
Analyse the content, not the websites and tell me if you think models can be verified and how accurate they are
“Some have forgotten more of their school days than others too
Posted by: gavin at January 23, 2008 06:59 AM”
Some people have less problems answering questions than others too.
I give, gavin. If you aren’t interested in improving crappy models (I’m not asking for perfection, just reasonably realism. Not presently extant in models) I’m not going to try to convince you. You obviously have decided the outcome of your experiment (both scientific and social) before hand, and won’t let the experiment proceed for fear that it will conflict with the results you seek. Good day sir.
Andrew, did you read the links I provided?
Gavin – are these guys being obnoxious. They seem very demanding. Given the new blog standards about decorum I thought they would have been much nicer.
Anyway they’re asking you a lot of questions but have they told us anything yet? Or just done the usual denialist trick of presenting a list of demands. An erudite exposition of their 100% certainty (money back guarantee) that there is definitely no risk in AGW at all would help.
Given Hansen’s 1988 predictions were based on various scenarios I reckon you young blokes have been round long enough to know exactly where he was wrong with all of them.
“Gavin, I’m going to repeat this again, hoping you’ll understand: I don’t want little excerpts and stories from your childhood, or your photography days, or whatever. I want empirical derivtions of ballpark estimates, at least, of the various effects of each forcing/feedback etc. But these apparently don’t exist.”
For your enjoyment. http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateBook.html
A free book on the basic physics of climate.
“Also, there is nothing wrong with studying how the Earth has behaved in the past to understand how it will behave in the future. The more things change, the more they stay the same. A geologist, of course, would know all this.”
We were’nt around for pretty well all of the past. We are the joker in the pack.
Luke: I’m waiting for someone to tackle the rate of change issue. That should ground a few assumptions. These guys are out of their depth handling raw data in anyway
SJT: One thing this thread has proved, the internet has a few echoes.
“It is evidence that he is being irrational because we have actual past climatic data to use in making rough approximations of what happened in the past.But zero FUTURE data to work with.”
Funnily enough, we are extremely confident that we know the measures that are recomended to control the CO2 being added to the atmosphere will create an economic and political crises.
where exactly does future data come from?
where is this magic scientist with a magic spaceship and crystal ball who collects magic future data?
SJT, having just done a little more reading, your explanation doesn’t make sense. Water vapour is both a forcing and a feedback. Stratospheric water vapour is considered a forcing because it can be added to and persist in the upper atmosphere in the medium term and is currently included in Fig. SPM.2 of AR4. Tropospheric water vapour is considered a feedback because any addition or reduction in water vapour is assumed to return to a approximate value (constant relative humidity) within a short period of time (less than 30 days). Assuming constant relative humidity maybe a fair assumption under the circumstances, but it is an assumption nonetheless.
http://www.greenbiz.com/news/news_third.cfm?NewsID=36532
all this sustainability stuff is just to hard SJT.
“all this sustainability stuff is just to hard”
That’s some admission Anthony.
Collecting data in future is the easy bit. Living is likely to be a lot harder.
“Assuming constant relative humidity maybe a fair assumption under the circumstances, but it is an assumption nonetheless”
proteus: How should we view it?
Luke said:
Gavin – are these guys being obnoxious. They seem very demanding. Given the new blog standards about decorum I thought they would have been much nicer.
Anyway they’re asking you a lot of questions but have they told us anything yet? Or just done the usual denialist trick of presenting a list of demands. An erudite exposition of their 100% certainty (money back guarantee) that there is definitely no risk in AGW at all would help.
——————————–
The onus (that would be burden of proof to you, Luke) is on the person positing the assertion.
Andrew your comments about Popperian falsifiability of AGW miss the point. The Global Warming hypothesis is based upon falsifiable claims, and so it does fit his model.
1. CO2 absorbs IR Radiation
This clearly has a falsifiable aspect. It was tested and retested and has never been falsified.
2. The Earth radiates energy in the IR and visible light spectra.
Again something that is testable and has been found to be true.
3. The IR spectrum of the Earth should show absorption in the bands associated with various greenhouse gases.
Yes, is falsifiable, but has tested true every time they looked.
4. The CO2 in the air is from human activity.
This was demonstrated by looking at the isotopic composition of the CO2. You can see the proportion of CO2 from fossil fuels increasing since the 1880’s. We know where the excess has come from.
You cannot quantify the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere because there are too many variables in, you cannot isolate it. BUT in experiment where you can isolate it, the tests demonstrate that CO2 will increase the temperature of the atmosphere.
Theories and hypotheses are constructed using earlier theories and hypotheses. Ones that are falsifiable in a Popperian sense. AGW is not an unfalsifiable hypothesis as the compents of it are falsifiable.
Gavin, I think the current view is fine, but considering Spencer’s point here,
http://climatesci.org/2007/12/30/update-cause-versus-effect-in-feedback-diagnosis-by-roy-w-spencer-12302007/
I think we should be cautious eventhough his point relates directly to clouds.
Nathan, all you’ve shown is that the claim that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is falsifiable.
“You cannot quantify the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere because there are too many variables in, you cannot isolate it.”
So what is Fig. SPM.2 in AR4 doing then if not quantifying the above (well, it is doing this for the change since 1750 anyway).
Surely, you can falsify the theory of AGW if the current period of stasis extends into the next decade.
Proteus,
That’s all you need to do. Once you establish it’s a greenhouse gas, then you know adding more is going to heat the Earth’s atmosphere up.
I guess I should have said “Precisely”. You have highlighted a problem here, and that is estimating the future response. Because the climate is affected by so many things we can’t determine precisely the future. BUT we can say that adding CO2 will heat it up. So all things remaining more or less constant, the atmosphere will heat up.
You can’t falsify AGW because of a decade worth of data, no. Because there are other factors involved. AGW as a hypothesis does not mention time periods.
Models will work through time periods, so I believe you can falsify particluar models.
This is the basically where the science is. We know, from experiment, that the atmosphere will warm. To establish by how much and how soon is the aim. The only way you can do this is by modelling. This is very difficult, and complicated. BUT so far they are doing ok. The earliest (and probably most simplistic) models are about right. Hansen’s from 1988 has done pretty well. You would expect modlleing form 2001 or 2005 to be better.
Remember these models aren’t predictive in the sense that we know precisely what will happen. They’re more of a guide.
Coupled with the how we know that warming the Earth by around 2 degrees is pretty awful, from our understanding of geology, you can see why the scientists are concerned and encouraging Govts to take action.
“You can’t falsify AGW because of a decade worth of data, no.”
If the trend of the last seven years continues into the next decade we will have over a decades worth of data. That will be a reaching a threshold hard to counter.
Even Gavin Schmidt in a conversation with Daniel Klein at RC offered an opinion:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/a-barrier-to-understanding#comment-78104
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/a-barrier-to-understanding#comment-78140
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/a-barrier-to-understanding#comment-78146
Hansen 1988 et al, Scenarios A, B, and C, over-estimate the warming and only Hansen C comes close to the observed trend, see
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2602#more-2602
and Hansen C assumes GHG forcing to have ceased increasing from 2000 onwards!
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
The models aren’t predictive. Rubbish. Precision isn’t a condition of prediction.
Proteus, what you are describing is an event that would require explanation. It could be due to some unknown factors. However, the premis of AGW is sound – as shown by the four criteria set out above.
To prove AGW is false you have to demonstrate why any of the four things I listed are false. Or indicate a further factor that would compensate for the additional heat from CO2.
Sure Hansen in his scenarios has over estimated, but that doesn’t mean the theory is wrong. And, they are still pretty good.
Attacking the models is a bad way of ‘disproving’ AGW. The models are not the AGW hypothesis. They are an estimation of what is most likely to happen.
And remember this is from modelling done 20 years ago. I think they would have improved.
“The models aren’t predictive. Rubbish. Precision isn’t a condition of prediction.”
This makes no sense.
Can you have an imprecise prediction? I would have thought precision was essential in prediction.
I’m not stupid, Nathan, I know about the Greenhouse Effect etc.
The computer models have such large error bars in there predictions they can’t be falsified. Case in point, when it was pointed out that realistic models that match the other trends well had rapidly equatorial warming in the midtroposhere, but that this isn’t what actually happened, what was the response? They brought out the unrealistic models that had cold equators, and didn’t match the other trends! Presto! It fits again! Or how about Hurricanes. Which way does it go? More and stronger, or fewer and weaker? Pick your model, depending on the day of the week. Popper is rolling over in his grave, as some AGW claims are pure tautologies. The problem is not that the whole hypothesis is invalid, but that you can’t even say any of it is invalid. The understanding of aerosols, as I mentioned before, is not adequate enough to say how much or little warming it offset. Thus fear-mongering has only the justification of maybes and supposes. How can you feel that this is all still serious when some are literally claiming the earth will stop spinning?
Listing “demands” that you find “unreasonable” is the only way that I can hold you accountable for this nonsense. You don’t KNOW ANYTHING WITH ANY CERTAINTY and you KNOW IT. Whether that is a justification for doing nothing or not is not up to you or me. It would be up to the people, but you continue to commit dishonest fraudulency when you assert that every last bit of the science is worked out.
Last, the claims that the policy responses will hurt economies is not based on “models” but is the view of people with any understanding of what it means to impose controls on industry. People will lose money, people will lose jobs. Simple.
I don’t even begin to see how geology tells us that 2 degrees is “pretty awful”. It is not the job of a scientist to tell governments to take action, it is your job to dispassionately present results of your studies. Instead you have become advocates, whats more you have gotten in bed with particular political ideologies. If you didn’t expect a little opposition to this farce, you obviously haven’t been paying attention. How about this: instead of being a technocratic fascist who HATES and ABHORS individual liberty becuase its “killing the planet” how about you do your jobs for once and pin down the F***ing sensitivity? Sensitivity derivation or GTFO.
Oh now look what you did, you made me angry.
Proteus
Also, we already have three decades of data, why is the next few years more important than the last 28 or so.
Are you trying to sell the “no warming since 1998 line?”
OK Biggsy – where’s the much vaunted new 2008 blog standards?
Do we have to up with peurile abusive rants implying political motives when frankly Nathan’s politics are unknown. Maybe he just thinks that on balance there is far enough evidence to consider the AGW proposition as “possible” and deserving of on ongoing risk analysis. Do we think humanity simply yawns at current climate extremes. That there are no climate impacts in the existing world?
And again we have the typical rampantly dishonest portrayal that AGW is somehow predicting instant catastrophism. When will the denialists stop bunging it on and debate properly.
“Can you have an imprecise prediction? I would have thought precision was essential in prediction”
Been wondering how this fits the QLD floods
Nathan, it is an event that would require an explanation because of the CSs currently entertained in AR4. As has been stated repeatedly, the question is the magnitude, not the effect; if the current ‘non-trend’ continued into the next decade the CSs currently assumed would require significant revision as would their current understanding.
Re Hansen, Scenario C, don’t you think this is even slightly amusing considering its principal assumption? Don’t you think the fact that each scenario over-estimates the observed warming is even a little suggestive?
“Can you have an imprecise prediction?” Yes, its called an ensemble or a range. But maybe we’re interpreting precise differently. I’m assumied you meant accurate, whereas I interpret precise to mean specific. Thus, I think a model can provide a specific prediction of future temperature without it being accurate. I do not think the reverse holds.
Gavin, you are forever talking in riddles.
Maybe if you’d stop using the phrase “denialists”. But I admit to being at least partly angry becuase I am tired of the exaggerated political BS. And yet you seem to think it is justified. I think I am being fair when I assert that anyone who refuses to pin these issues down becuase they want action now is little more than a fascist. I’ll say it again. Fascist. Does it sting? Fascist! There, now I feel better. Oh no wait, I don’t, becuase you still don’t want to confront the issues. Just hide behind your shields and and beat the dead horse of “denialism”. Meanwhile, you advocate action. Frankly, I’ve had it. Kindly go F*** yourselves.
Andrew, if you know about the greenhouse effect you should understand AGW. AGW is what happens when humans add CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) to the atmosphere. The science that makes up the theory is entirely falsifiable in the sense you describe and it has all been found to be true (each time they have tested).
The problem you are (and Proteus) experiencing is that you are confusing models for the AGW theory. Disproving or demonstrating a GCM is incorrect is not the same as disproving AGW.
To disprove AGW you need to falsify any of the components of it. Which is the four points I showed.
The politcal aspect of AGW is VERY annoying and I too hate it. It confuses the issue. I have never called anyone a denialist or names if they didn’t agree with me. Skepticism is important in science – helps people keep checking their data. Now you may not think the climate modellers have been checking, but that’s just your opinion.
I have taken my own action anyway, I ride my bicycle to work and have reduced my energy usage and my wife and I barely use the car. It has saved us a lot of money.
Proteus if you run a trend trough the GIS or HadCrut data, you will see it is still positive. It’s best to work off a trend of at least 11 years though, so you remove the signal from the solar cycle.
It’s not ‘funny’ funny. Maybe curious would be a better word. But the model isn’t the theory. People could run all sorts of models and get it wrong and it wouldn’t disprove AGW. You need to go back to the physics that comprise AGW.
The ranges you speak of are the model results. That is each model is run thousands of times and a statistical analysis done on the results – which then becomes the ‘prediction’.
You can’t have specific predictions about non-linear systems. You can only have a probability of likely future scenarios.
Come now Andrew, toys back in the pram please. Apologise or you won’t have any dinner before you go to bed.
No-one here is saying future scenarios are a done deal. They are saying based on available evidence, the risks from inaction warrant action. Things like investing in energy efficiency which saves you money, investing in new clean fuels which improve energy security, reliability, reduce long run costs etc. If that makes someone a facist then strike me down and paint me red – time to purge.
Andrew,
re: geology.
Read about the Paleocene – Eocene Thermal maximum, it was about 55 million years ago.
Every major extinction event seen by geologists has beeen associated with major and rpaid shifts in climate. The causes of the changes are varied, from impacts of asteroids, to massive outgassing from volcanoes, to exposure of the continental slopes to the air (leading to sudden drops in oxygen levels and sudden increase in sulfur dioxide and methane), to the release of methane from clathrates on the ocean floor (the Paleocene – Eocene TM).
From the evidence we see it isn’t pleasant. Large proportions of the biosphere dies, extinctions of more than 25% of animal life (up 96% in the end of the Permian).
So we have the theory of AGW, that is raise CO2 and you raise the temp.
We have ice core, to give us an indication of how much it rises. We have around 400 other proxies (I believe, check that number) that all indicate increasing CO2 leads to increasing temps.
We have geological evidence saying that life tends to struggle with rapid changes to climate.
It doesn’t look good.
“The problem you are (and Proteus) experiencing is that you are confusing models for the AGW theory. Disproving or demonstrating a GCM is incorrect is not the same as disproving AGW.”
Nathan, where have I done this? I’ve never had a problem with the claim that CO2 and other GHGs absorb IR at particular frenquencies. But that is not the theory of AGW anyway. The theory requires knowledge of the radiative forcings provided by CO2 and its equivalents which requires modelling. It is theory about the radiative forcings of GHGs, not simply about the radiative properties of GHGs. You cannot dis-associate the theory of AGW from the modelling of AGW without the theory becoming meaningless.
Well, proteus seems we agree on most things.
Except how to view the models.
I think you can dis-associate them, as the real world will eventually inform us about the truth of AGW.
AGW can still be real if the models are rubbish.
Perhaps it all just comes down to our own perception and expectations of modelling.
Good post Nathan
Proteus, just thought you may like to browse this. It’s about some recent discussions over Hansens projections (not calling them predictions)
http://rabett.blogspot.com/
I think the truth probably lies in the middle somewhere.
Nathan, the next decade should provide the answer as Scenarios B and C are expected to follow dramatically different trajectories from now onwards.
Hey Andrew – as a newcomer – have you ever stopped to ask anyone what they actually do believe in or want? Or is your normal social technique to invite blog colleagues to get stuffed? Have you got youself all huffy and angry punching at shadows?
I’m fascinated how opinionated you are without even finding out what people may think. 0/10.
I know you don’t like the policy response. But that doesn’t mean the science is wrong does it? The science being the AR4 report – not newspapers, celebrities, Al Gore or blogs.
“It is theory about the radiative forcings of GHGs, not simply about the radiative properties of GHGs. ”
I think you have yourself tied up in a logical knot with that line of reasoning. There is no difference between the two. The issue is that because the concentration of CO2 is rising, it is now a forcing. That is, it’s radiative properties a forcing a change in the climate temperature, as measured by global temperature anomalies. In a steady state, where nothing is changing significantly, there will be no long term change of temperature, as all the parts are putting in the normal contributions towards the temperature.
“It is theory about the radiative forcings of GHGs, not simply about the radiative properties of GHGs. ”
“I think you have yourself tied up in a logical knot with that line of reasoning. There is no difference between the two.”
Not quite, SJT. You can talk about the latter half of my statement without entertaining the former. But in order to do the former, you have to understand the latter.
And remember there have been episodes in the past where CO2 has acted as a feedback and not as a forcing, i.e. in responses to other forcings that have initiated a change in temperature which has lead to increasing/ decreasing concentrations of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere, and so on.
But I think you know what I mean, so lets not quibble when we basically are in agreement.
“And remember there have been episodes in the past where CO2 has acted as a feedback and not as a forcing”
At least you understand that much, 99% of the membership here seems to fail to do so.
CO2 always has radiative properties. When you increase the amount of CO2, it becomes a forcing on the whole chaotic system, with no other factors changing significantly.
No-one has shown that climate sensitivity to CO2 is anything other than low.
No-one has shown that climate sensitivity to CO2 is anything other than HIGH.
Debates are dead simple over here…You just say stuff and its true
Modelling, that seems to be what all the “advice” is based on.
So the above comment of Nathan’s,
“AGW can still be real if the models are rubbish.”
seems well, peculiar.
If the models are rubbish, so is the “advice”.
As for man made CO2 GHG theory (AGW), it would not be so dramatic, ie the effect is logarithmic, and less than 2 degrees celcius overalL, EXCEPT FOR THE MODELLING.
It was from modelling that the amount of heating (projections)we are supposed to be fearing came from.
Models add up the warming in a peculiar way, not repeatable in a lab, and not seen in the atmosphere. People like Motl Lobos can not see how the physics work, but he can see string theory…
Personally I think the “evenly mixed assumption” is THE one that let’s the cat out of the bag. But it seems I / we will have to wait for satellites to be able to monitor atmospheric CO2 levels around the globe, like they can now for sea surface temperatures.
I await this advance, because it will be an advance.
Yes, I am referring to the Solubity pump as proposed by Dr. Jeffrey A. Glassman.
I can see how the “evenly mixed assumption” can be correct given the temperature solubility of CO2 in water and the cold and warm oceanic currents. If the Solubility pump does do as proposed, then the “evenly mixed assumption” (and modelling) is (excuse the pun) dead in the water.
Satellites measuring atmospheric CO2 levels would show one way or the other, whether CO2 is “evenly mixed”, or pumped due to the temperature controlled solubility of CO2 in the world’s oceans. Furthermore, it would go a long way to explaining the CO2 lag behind temperature….
Oooh, and before anyone says, but the oceans can not “soak up” any more CO2, may I suggest you read this link,
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/11/ocean-carbon-sink-henrys-law.html
“Climate discussions” will no doubt continue for as long as some can gain from them,
but the sooner satellites settle it, the better.
For all of us.
Oooops apologies, I missed NOT out, please read the above,
“I can not see how the “evenly mixed assumption”…
not
“I can see how the”….
“Modelling, that seems to be what all the “advice” is based on.”
Not at all.
Actually no one has produced experimental evidence supporting climate sensitivity, only rhetoric.
That makes it pseudoscience.
I forgot you can’t read.
Quod est demonstratum (vulgar Latin) and as Luke needs to have the last say in everything posted here, so we allow him until the next time when he needs to confirm his silliness.
No – evidence has been presented but being a true bigot you don’t read it.
As a geologist, I can concur with most of what is being geologically discussed here. Sea level has risen and fallen thousands of times due to solar heating and the other ways mentioned above (Google Sequence Startigraphy). What is failing to be discussed here is the fact that the amount of change needed to change things to go back to what is considered the norm would require everyone on earth to go back to living like they were in the 1400’s, including walking or using an animal for transportation, which is NOT REALITY!!!! China has now overtaken the USA in emissions. Do you think anyone is going to force them to change their habits? I highly doubt it. The amount we would have to change will have almost no effect on what is happening. Are you willing to go back to the times of working as a serf for some feudal lord. Making this change would put the global economy into total chaos. Wars will be inevitable, causing even more global warming. Now that studies are beginning to show that any other fuel used except nuclear is worse for global warming than oil, (especially ethanol, making no mention of what it does to the price of basic foodstuffs), where do we go? Hydrogen fuel puts more water into the air, which is the highest vector for global warming. I guess we should go back to the 1400’s, start riding horses again (but that damn horse flatulence might cause even more global warming), and walk to wherever we want to go for vacation. It is time for a little reality when discussing this subject. Reality is something that Al Gore left behind in his corporate jet.