The Australian government is planning to introduce an emission’s trading scheme, also described as a carbon pollution reduction scheme, on the basis that that carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels is contributing to dangerous global warming.
Many people assume that such a drastic action is premised on good evidence establishing a proven causal link between anthropogenic carbon dioxide and global warming.
For example, when establishing causality between an environmental pollutant and an effect on an animal species, scientists would be expect to establish not only a correlation between the presence of the pollutant and an effect (for example an illness in the population), but be also able to demonstrate a dose-response relationship and describe a credible toxicological basis for the proposed mechanism linking the proposed cause and effect.
Interestingly while anthropogenic carbon dioxide is now considered to be one of the worst pollutants,
there does not appear to be a body of work establishing the basic criteria for a claimed causal relationship between the purported pollutant, anthropogenic carbon dioxide, and the claimed effect, global warming; atleast not outside of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports. In particular there does not appear to be a body of work published in reputable scientific journals.
Furthermore, much of the science underpinning the need for a proposed carbon pollution reduction scheme in Australia appears to be based on the claim of a scientific consensus and the observation that there have been increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last 150 years and over this period temperatures have also been generally increasing.
I posted a note on my blog and John Quiggin’s blog on Sunday evening suggesting this deficiency and requesting “research results that have been published in reputable scientific journals that: 1. examine the causal link between anthropogenic carbon dioxide and warming, and 2. quantify the extent of the warming from anthropogenic carbon dioxide.”
Several papers were suggested to me, I believe in good faith, as fulfilling this criteria including a paper entitled ‘Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1,000 Years’ by Thomas Crowley (14 July 2000, Vol 289, Science).
I was disappointed with the paper when I read it this afternoon. The paper essentially compares output from a reconstruction of past climate with output from an energy balance climate model. In other words, the paper looks at the fit between output from two models. So the paper is about correlation not causation.
But most disappointing, the reconstruction of past climate in the Crowley paper is based on the work of Michael Mann and colleagues which has been the source of much controversy and many believe completely discredited by a report from a team of statisticians led by Edward Wegman, chair of the National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, assembled at the request of U.S. Rep. Joe Barton and U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield .
Indeed what has become known as the hockey stick controversy is illustrative of the nature of climate science in what Aynsley Kellow, Professor and Head, School of Government, University of Tasmania, has described as post-normal science with an extensive reliance upon models and the potential for significant manipulation of their source data.
———–
Part 1, Causal Linkage between Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming:
Part 2, Causal Linkage between Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming (Part 2): Still Searching for Evidence
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Have you bothered to look at any of the information put to you by Nexus6? Or even better, have you directed your queries to a mainstream climate scientist with an extensive record of contemporaneous peer-reviewed publications?
No?
I thought not.
Hang on Jen – you’ve called it on Editorial III with the reading of one paper supplied?
You haven’t said what you’d accept as proof yet either?
You’re dealing with a global size problem and a temporal scale of decades if not centuries. So what would you take as proof? Your question is not clear.
At the molecular level CO2 doesn’t heat because a CO2 molecule emits as it absorbs, and also loses energy through vibration; at a macro level Miscolczi establishes that there will be no heating through various balancing principles; virial, Kirchhoff and the equipartition principle; the rotational equlibrium is maintained via kinetic weight loss from the crust and increased potential energy in the increased weight of the atmosphere; as well there is Chilingar’s convective heating mechanism working in combination with Henry’s Law and atmospheric weight, which answers NT’s mantra of partial pressure issues with CO2 absorption by the ocean. As well CO2 follows temp; the enhanced greenhouse is defeated by water feedback, even if CO2 did heat; the Weart model is a dud; Callendar and his RC groupies didn’t understand Beck was talking about regional CO2 concentrations and Koutsoyiannis has shown that AGW has no predictive validity at all; AGW has not been proved. Jennifer is correct, the dissonance continues.
What is causal linkage? Jen, can you provide some examples from your field of expertise?
Hmmm…it appears my simple request has failed again. It’s almost like you don’t want to answer. Now, why would that be? 😉
Cohenite, you might be interested in this post at RealClimate regarding the Koutsoyiannis paper. In a nutshell, the research merely confirmed a well-known property of climate model projections. It’s not that they have no predictive ability, it’s that they cannot be used for point-forecasting. They’re not NWP’s; they are more than appropriate for projecting long-term trends and shifts in the climate.
It’s hardly as earth-shattering a conclusion as many skeptics tend to insinuate.
Eh, blog gobbled my link 🙁
It’s the Aug. 10 posting at RC.
Jennifer,
First you’re being unfair to this paper.
If we look at a collection of physical laws, and note that these physical laws including a CO2 component lead to a reasonable approximation of past climate whereas these physical laws without a CO2 component lead to a poor approximation of past climate we have some decent evidence that the CO2 is important; this paper attempts to quantify this degree of importance. Absent half-a-dozen spare Earths to experiment on and a time machine there can be no better way of arriving at a collection of physical laws to describe the Earth.
I don’t see what’s wrong with using a model here. How do you propose we understand reality except through a model? What are Newton’s laws if not a model of the principles of motion? Do you accept that Newton’s laws as a causal description of moving objects, or the ideal gas laws as a causal description of temperature and pressure? If not, then you’ve degenerated into some kind of post-modern ultra-skepticism and this is all a bit pointless.
Second if you want the answer to this question and trace causality more directly i.e. you’re unhappy with energy balance models, you will need to read several papers, get on top of the basic equations of a GCM and (to repeat myself) you will find a textbook a useful guide here. Otherwise you will have to confine yourself to simpler descriptions.
The fundamental work in describing a collection of equations which describe climate was done in the early to middle part of this century. The tricks required for adapting the finite difference method to these were worked out in the 60s and 70s. You’ll need to read papers from this era. You’ll need to read something describing each of atmosphere, ocean, land and sea-ice modeling, something else describing the interactions, and something else again describing how to set the initial conditions for such a thing. These large scale simulations are not described in single papers. I’d guess at two reasons for this, first the work was done in parts, and second it would be too long (over 250 pages to summarize) for a journal article.
The body of work is there, it is just *LARGE*.
I’ve given you some references which describe a tiny part of this, how to use physical laws to describe the motion of atmospheric gases in 3 dimensions. You could read them and say “these don’t answer my question”. They’re a tiny part of the puzzle, you then need to read a hell of a lot more.
The place where these are all brought together in digestible form is in a textbook.
To add another angle on “anthropogenic warming,” consider Kirchhoff’s Three Laws:
A hot opaque body produces a continuous spectrum
A hot transparent gas produces an emission line spectrum
A cool transparent gas in front of a continuous emission source produces an absorption line spectrum.
And in this third case, what happens to the energy absorbed — is it “trapped”? Of course not, that energy is simply and immediately radiated off in all directions, diminishing the linear light beam you’re observing but not diminishing the QUANTITY of light being emitted.
Since carbon dioxide produces a few absorption lines over the earth’s continuous blackbody spectrum, this means that CO2 is a cooler gas standing in the way. The very fact that CO2 ABSORBS some terrestrial infrared means that it’s cooler. That’s how heat transfer works, being a movement from greater to lesser energy. Thus a cool body cannot heat a warm body. This would violate the second law of thermodynamics.
Adding CO2 to the air might have a modest effect on radiatively heating the air because it will catch slightly more of the surface’s infrared energy. But the infrared this CO2 radiates in turn cannot heat the surface because this gas is being heated BY the surface. Surface heating by so-called “back-radiation” is tantamount to the surface heating itself.
For CO2 (or any similar gas) to be capable of heating the earth’s surface, it would have to be at a higher temperature than the surface. Its spectral signature alone shows that it isn’t at a higher temperature.
“Absent half-a-dozen spare Earths to experiment on and a time machine there can be no better way of arriving at a collection of physical laws to describe the Earth.”
—————–
@Patrick Caldon
This argument is essentially incorrect. The Earth has made many well measured “experiments” for us, for example during the massive eruption of el Chichon (1982) or Pinatubo (1991) which led to 0.5°C cooling for more than 2 years, or the huge el Nino of 1998.
The problem is these “experiments” contradict the AGW theory, so they are swept under the carpet. In 1998 for example, el Nino has injected vast amounts of water vapor into the atmosphere and has warmed it about 0.5°C in one year. If the climate is dominated by a positive feedback by water vapor as predicted by the AGW proponents, it would have entered in runaway warming loop.
But it has not. Current GCM models (which assume positive feedback by setting relative humidity=constant) are unable to take into account such “experiments” apart from lumping the unexplained in a versatile “natural variability”.
————————–
“The tricks required for adapting the finite difference method to these were worked out in the 60s and 70s.”
————————–
Sorry but this claim is simply absurd. The problem of numerically solving the equations describing (even very coarsely) climate is simply not resolved and will never be. I am afraid you don’t have the slightest idea of what modelling means. Please read : eg Tennekes
A detrended cross-correlation of CO2 and temperature series clearly shows causality, with temperature fluctuations lagging CO2 by about 10 years. This can be demonstrated in a way that is clear, decisive and easy enough for just about anyone to reproduce. How long do you think it will take for this type of analysis to make it into the literature?
http://residualanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/06/anthropogenic-global-warming-is.html
Joseph,
Sorry to burst your bubble, but all you’ve managed to show is, given enough choices of data and statistical tools, you can correlate practically anything to anything else.
Correlation does not mean causation, and it’s causation that Jen’s been asking for evidence of.
Nexus 6
There is no causal linkage thereby explaining Jennifer’s lack of evidence for it.
And for those of you who think they understand science, Arrhenius proposed that a reduction of CO2 from the atmosphere caused ice-ages. This is the same as stating that increasing CO2 causes warming.
Arrhenius did not bother to prove his hypothesis but demanded that if all the CO2 were removed from the atmosphere and no drop in temperature occurred, then that would refute his hypothesis.
He asked critics to perform an impossible experiment to falsify his hypothesis. This is not science.
I have said it before and I’ll say it again, we have a clear case of “If I can’t/won’t understand it you can’t prove it”.
Jennifer has now reduced herself to a pale imitation of Graeme Bird.
“I was disappointed with the paper when I read it this afternoon. The paper essentially compares output from a reconstruction of past climate with output from an energy balance climate model. In other words, the paper looks at the fit between output from two models. So the paper is about correlation not causation.”
One paper…………..one paper. Unbelievable. There is a reason the IPCC reports are so large, it’s a highly complex problem that involves the whole globe. You are going to have to read more than one paper.
SJT, answer me one thing:
If the IPCC paper, in all its size and complexity, adequately and unequivocally described causation, then how come they haven’t, by now, condensed all the salient points into an easy-to-read document which all can understand and none can reasonably argue against? That would have shut the skeptics up, once and for all. Why do they still feel the need to obfuscate matters by hiding the truth within tons of arcane documentation?
And, if the science is so settled, how come they’re still spending obscene amounts of taxpayer’s money on more and yet more ‘research’?
Surely, now that they’ve supplied all the proof necessary for governments to take up the baton and ‘save the planet’, they can now take up other challenges to their intellect?
Alan: “The very fact that CO2 ABSORBS some terrestrial infrared means that it’s cooler”
cooler than what, space? we need to be carefull regarding Earth’s inward/outward radiation
Gavin: “cooler than what, space?”
No, cooler than the emitter of the infrared, ie the surface.
Cohenite in particular should know that searching for a bit of AGW evidence in all the branches of physics and associated climate science is like seeking truth in the balance with right and wrong. The laws are only there to help us and that’s it with all such judgments.
Back to those comparative spheres of Earth and its fluids for a mo; we should see both the atmosphere and the oceans as thin films being pulled around the surface with all the imperfections interfering and creating dynamic patterns of infinite variety.
The casual observer hasn’t got much to stand on. Our weather chief commenting on the ACT said on AM radio today, “it’s a bit dryer in Autumn, a bit wetter in Spring and Winter seems shorter by the number of warmer days over the last ten years”
Joseph
Your well meaning statistical proof is meaningless. First of all you are using Nth Hemisphere temperature not global – why? Secondly we just dont know what the temperature or CO2 levels were 150 yrs ago with enough precision to conduct this sort of analysis. The errors in both data series are much larger than the size of this ten year lag you are trying to prove. That is why it isn’t in the peer reviewed literature.
Undoubtedly there is a correlatrion between CO2 and temps over the past 150 years, but there is just as good a correlation between solar activity and temps.
If CO2 does lead temps by 10 years, then why have temperatures fallen this decade, even though the rate of CO2 increase has been accelerating?
Can I approach this AGW fiasco from another angle and ask the obvious question “what’s all the fuss about”?
The planet emerged from the Little ice age about 150 years ago and is said to be in period of recovery.
All the info I’ve been able to find attributes the LIA temperature to be about 1- 1.5C colder than normal (?). In the intervening 150 years the planet has warmed perhaps .7 degrees C so compared to the above LIA temp record we haven’t even reached full recovery mode yet.
Also in the 20th century we have experienced the highest levels of Solar radiation in the past 11,000 years, so once again what is the fuss about?
Many solar experts tell us that at least a third of that .7C must be attributed to increased levels of solar activity and remember the increase in co2 we are talking about in the last 2 centuries ( man made or not) is .01% i.e. one hundredth of 1% of the atmosphere.
All the above is pretty straight forward but we still can’t find that pesky hot spot and with the most advanced technology available we can’t find any positive feedbacks either.
Exactly, Peter.
Let me explain it to you, Gavin. Without so-called greenhouse gases, the surface would heat the air, first conductively and then convectively as currents got set up. So the atmosphere would be the first recipient of thermal energy due to the way heat flows, from warmer to cooler. The air’s acquired heat cannot heat the surface (except of course if currents carry this air to where the surface is cooler). Having nowhere else to go, then, the thermal energy that the air acquires is radiated to space.
Adding a greenhouse gas changes nothing in this dynamic, however. Being largely transparent to infrared, air cannot be heated by radiation from a greenhouse gas, so this radiation could only heat the surface. And yet it cannot heat the surface because the surface is the very source of this energy — the gas is only passively responding to radiated surface heat. Consequently, the thermal energy that the air acquires is radiated to space. As before.
There’s no net gain in either scenario. The surface has only a finite amount of energy to transfer to the air. To the extent the air acquires heat conductively and convectively, that much less is available for radiative transfer. Since a greenhouse gas cannot stifle the other two heat-transfer mechanisms, then, whatever the air does not gain by conductive and convective transfer is an index of what energy is left for a greenhouse molecule hovering at a distance. Which isn’t much energy to begin with, considering the narrow range of wavelengths that carbon dioxide in particular is able to absorb.
Relative to the earth’s surface, CO2 is a cooler gas. A body of cooler gas cannot heat that warmer surface.
Alan – “Adding a greenhouse gas changes nothing in this dynamic, however. Being largely transparent to infrared, air cannot be heated by radiation from a greenhouse gas, so this radiation could only heat the surface.”
I am a bit confused here. Is water vapour a greenhouse gas or not? Is there such thing as a gas that absorbs some IR or is the whole field of IR spectroscopy completely wrong?
Gee Alan Siddons – well I guess it’s all over for the greenhouse effect totally then. Just wonder why the Earth isn’t a tad colder then. Sigh …
Jen’s having fun by remaining silent.
Wow, you read one whole paper… I guess that just proves it doesn’t it…
Luke, isn’t it great to get an insight into how Jen conducts a scientific investigation? I think we should call it the Jen-vestigation technique.
So now due to “Jen-vestigation” we can say there is no greenhouse effect and no global warming. What else will Jen-vestigation reveal? I put my money on “no crisis in the Murray River”
“Several papers were suggested to me, I believe in good faith..”
Don’t sugarcoat these people. They are just lunatics, barely reconstructed communists and anonymous frauds. Look at Nexus. He’s just a complete idiot.
They cannot be so stupid that they don’t know what evidence is. So they are frauds. Thats why they are always showing up anonymously. They must know they ought to be sacked from their day-job.
There was nothing good faith about the wild-goose chases these people try to send the rest of us down. There is nothing good faith about the aspersions that they cast on you specifically and others more generally.
These guys are just Gramscian anti-science pack-animals. Utopian-Eschatologists wrong-footed by the collapse of Soviet Communism.
This global warming racket is the longest evidence filibuster in all history.
Several dozens of papers were suggested to you. Not one of them in good faith.
“Don’t sugarcoat these people. They are just lunatics, barely reconstructed communists and anonymous frauds. Look at Nexus. He’s just a complete idiot.
They cannot be so stupid that they don’t know what evidence is. So they are frauds. Thats why they are always showing up anonymously. They must know they ought to be sacked from their day-job.
There was nothing good faith about the wild-goose chases these people try to send the rest of us down. There is nothing good faith about the aspersions that they cast on you specifically and others more generally.
These guys are just Gramscian anti-science pack-animals. Utopian-Eschatologists wrong-footed by the collapse of Soviet Communism.
This global warming racket is the longest evidence filibuster in all history.
Several dozens of papers were suggested to you. Not one of them in good faith”
I shall print that off and put it up on my toilet wall.
Luke boy, has remained silent on his CO2 quota from his high priests. Just seems he has never found anything in his life. Why need evidence?
luke, ender, SJT, Venus doesn’t have a greenhouse effect; it has no atmospheric water vapor and its CO2 is mostly a supercritical fluid; Venus’s warmth is due to atmospheric weight; Earth has a modestly heavy atmosphere too; all those greenhouse gases are heavy.
counters; RC have been gunning for Koutsoyiannis for some time; here is a 2006 exchange;
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=310#comment-14081
The exchange begins at comment 34 onwards; Koutsoyiannis’s point 6 is revealing; generally AGW is about refining autocorrelations; a repeating signal, as Bob Tisdale has shown, can have a multitude of possible explanations, many of which may not be the original signal; Bob’s work with regional climate patterns, PDO, IPO, AMO, SAM and the residuals shows that a repeating signal can be tandem, residual, counterpoised etc; Koutsoyiannis’s work on Hurst has shown that the repeating signal may in fact be a one off, or a signal which operates in a time frame beyond the context of other repeaters, or, as in the case of the ’98 super El Nino, it may be an extention of a otherwise well extracted signal; Hurst is therefore a proxy for stochasism. The essence of AGW is to overcome this and to substantiate the predictive quality of its models ; this is where RC is particularly disingenuous by saying that GCM’s do not seek to predict, or if they do they don’t on a regional basis; by attempting to resolve Hurst you are predicting; Tamino has offered a solution whereby a massive interpolation can extract a signal satisfying a 0.5 benchmark; the use of benchmarks is problematic as Ammann and Wahl’s deceit has shown but it cannot be avoided; as soon as you refine the range of autocorrelatives you are basing your solution on a prediction; this is how models work; a cause is selected from the range of possible autocorrelatives and then a comparison is made between data of the selected cause, CO2 increases, and the effect, temp increases; to deny this involves a prediction is hypocritical; this is why RC has ad homed Koutsoyiannis on the regional furphy basis; RC’s argument, like AGW, is predicated on global integers, ave temp, uniform CO2 etc; they also say that Hurst can only be dealt with on a sufficiently large scale, not regionally; this is, of course wrong, as this Runnalls and Oke study shows;
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2FJCLI3663.1
Hurst, stochasism and climate are manifest regionally; the GCM’s extract their data regionally and manipulate it to fit global autocorrelative refining programs; and this is the crux that RC missed; if the GCM’s define what climate will be globally using regional data, how can it be that on no occasion have they been able to match what has happened in respect of what the climate has been doing in any of those regions? Koutsoyiannis has proved that the GCM’s have not adequately dealt with Hurst and the interdependence of regional climate factors which may have a global effect but which are stubbonly resistant to a global cause and effect scenario; that and the fact that AGW is simply based on the wrong cause: CO2 increases.
“They seek it here, they seek it there,
those climate nutters seek causation everywhere. Is it proven? – Is it mere sensation?
That damned, elusive CO2 causation”.
Well you ought to. Because you are a fraud. Or an idiot. You choose. I’m no mindreader.
I’m impressed that Michael Duffy is on top of the situation. Because when I first found out that you guys had no evidence whatsoever when I’d try to tell people about it they wouldn’t believe me. Like they’d assume that the leftists must have some sort of evidence. But they have nothing at all.
I went to Deltoid to ask the mysterious dwarf-Oracle where the evidence could be found. He referred me to Annan who had one estimate of 3 degrees increase with a doubling of CO2 based on Bayesian statistics… entirely inappropriate.
Then his other estimate wasn’t based on what CO2 had done in the past. But instead on the basis of the cooling from volcanic eruptions. Nothing to do with CO2.
It wasn’t the first time the mysterious Deltoid Dwarf had sent someone astray.
I don’t know whether Dr Marohasy is just waking up to the enormity of this confederacy of arch-stupidity matched up with the outer limits of human dishonesty. Or perhaps she’s running a giant rope-a-dope. But the fact is that people are being lead astray even when they disagree. They are disagreeing but thinking that there is something in it. That the opposition has some sort of knowledge or argument up their sleeve.
Its hard to convince them that the leftists have nothing at all. Just a big fat zero.
Cohenite, use Google Scholar and search “+Venus +greenhouse effect”.
As you can see you are not in agreement with many scientists.
It is so funny that people who blog here think that physics is sometimes applicable.
NT – “It is so funny that people who blog here think that physics is sometimes applicable.”
Whats even funnier is that we have one group of people claiming that water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas and Alan and Cohenite who deny that a whole field of physics is wrong and there is no such thing as greenhouse gases.
I guess anything is possible in nu-physics.
“.. deny that a whole field of physics is wrong and there …”
Sorry that should read
.. deny a whole field of physics and there …
“Luke boy, has remained silent on his CO2 quota from his high priests. Just seems he has never found anything in his life. Why need evidence?”
Luke has provided numerous references to research and papers here. They have all been ignored. His only role here for the deniers is a bit of argy bargy.
So is the argument here that there is no greenhouse effect at all? Removing all CO2 from the atmosphere would not affect the temperature at all?
Maybe I’m misinterpreting, but that’s what it sounds like.
Look, I’m a sceptic but I cannot buy this. And I haven’t heard such an argument from any of the major sceptics.
And I’ll have to take sides with the warmers that asking questions on a couple of blogs is no way to research a matter like this. (Although you could do worse than look at Lubos Motl’s calculations on this subject.)
Demesure,
GCMs do not set relative humidity to be constant. They model an evaporation/precipitation process. Which might give you a hint as to where the El-Nino water vapor went.
” For example, when establishing causality between an environmental pollutant and an effect on an animal species, scientists would be expect to establish not only a correlation between the presence of the pollutant and an effect (for example an illness in the population), but be also able to demonstrate a dose-response relationship and describe a credible toxicological basis for the proposed mechanism linking the proposed cause and effect” – Jennifer
” Climate change was also beginning to affect whales because it was bringing exposure to new diseases, inter-species competition and changes in prey populations. As an example the Antarctic great whales were dependent on krill for food but this was alongside rising water temperatures.
Julia Marton-Lefèvre, IUCN director general, said: “To save whales for future generations, we need to work closely with the fishing industry, the military and offshore enterprises including shippers and oil developers – and we need to fight climate change.”
Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth
Well said Braddles.
This “Jen-vestigation” is no more than a publicity stunt.
I think as far as real science is concerned, the actual question that is unanswered is how big an effect CO2 will have. They have estimates, but no definitive answer. I don’t think there ever will be a definitive answer either, it’s like asking an economist to give a definitive estimate of the effect of the sub-prime mortgage crisis. They kow it will have a big negative impact on growth, but you can’t expect an exact answer.
Greenhouse gases are supposed to trap heat in the atmosphere. This is impossible in a system that is not in thermal equilibrium.
Radiating gases actually cool faster than non radiating ones, so CO2 and CH4 should cause cooling, everything else being equal.
“Radiating gases actually cool faster than non radiating ones, so CO2 and CH4 should cause cooling, everything else being equal.”
They are cooling? What are they cooling from, and down to?
To tag onto Louis’s comment, this “trapping” business might owe to confusion about what radiant absorption means. An absorption line in spectroscopy doesn’t imply anything but an emission line from another viewing angle. The two phenomena are identical. But apparently people get this mixed up with black holes or something, thinking that an infrared wavelength (a “heat ray”) is absorbed (“trapped”) by certain molecules so that heat is prevented from exiting to space. No, at the molecular level absorbed necessarily means emitted. The “heat trapping” theory people have been handed is a conceptual mess.
NT; I don’t want to google Venus; I thought you and ender might send me a postcard; anyone who knows so much about the place must be living there.
So when are you publishing then Cohenite and claiming the glory. LOL. So many theories – such little time. Every new paper uncritically added to an overwhelming pile of interlinked complexity. Head spinning mate.
Cohenite,
Ahhh ignorance is bliss isn’t it…
Here’s a couple of papers that won’t interest you
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2233863
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997GeoRL..24..289H
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980JGR….85.8223P
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0469(1969)026%3C1191:TRGAHO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1967ApJ…147..782S/0000782.000.html
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0469(1992)049%3C2256:ASOTGE%3E2.0.CO%3B2
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/286/5437/87
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0469(1975)032%3C1248%3AEOTAOV%3E2.0.CO%3B2
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983vens.book.1003D
Seems there is a lot of detail on the greenhouse effect on Venus. Still you wouldn’t be interested would you?
This is really not my field of expertise but I checked out a Norwegian unbiased scientific paper on the issue.
One scientist posed almost the same question as Jen ” What catastrophes can these 4% of antrophogenic contribution to the atmospheric CO2 content cause?”
Other scientists replied: ” This is really a strange interpretation of the issue. The thing is that the athmospheric CO2 has increased with 100 ppmv.( See Canadell 2007). It is this increase that affects the climate.”
” Even if 4% of the atmospheric CO2 content can directly be traced to human made actions , the main explanation of the net increase of the atmospheric CO2 content is human made”
Ann, are you claiming that of the 100ppm rise in CO2 levels since industrialization only 4ppm is directly attributable to humans?
What do you think is the source of the other 96ppm?
Hi NT,
The 4% of the atmospheric CO2 content can directly be traced to human made actions THROUGH ISOTOPES ( not my field, sorry). I see the net increase of the atmospheric CO2 content is 36% ( human made). Now back again to whales:)!!!
Ann, 4% of the 100ppm increase, or 4% of the 386ppm total?
So you see the 100ppm increase as ‘human made’?
Jen, can you provide a link to this paper, like you did with the Hoffman et al paper.
Then we can see if we agree with your analysis 😉
Braddles:
“So is the argument here that there is no greenhouse effect at all? Removing all CO2 from the atmosphere would not affect the temperature at all?
Maybe I’m misinterpreting, but that’s what it sounds like.
Look, I’m a sceptic but I cannot buy this. And I haven’t heard such an argument from any of the major sceptics.”
Again, I must agree. Just to look at the long term paleoclimatic history of the Earth suggests that the CO2 sensitivity (temerature rise for a doubling of CO2 levels) would be about 1.5 C (GEOCARB III modeling). Until very recently this seemed like a reasonable estimate – even though it would have a precision of about 1.0 C at the 2 standard deviation level.
However, quite recently a flaw has been found in the reasoning behind this because GEOCARB III does not take into account the emission of gases other than CO2 and the relatively short lived SO2 from volcanic action and the associated lightning.
The recent discovery of creation of large amounts of fixed nitrogen (nitrogen oxides) from volcanic action and the associated lightning, all of which will have pronounced feedback effects on terrestrial carbon fluxes, suggests that the GEOCARB IIII estimate of paleoclimatic CO2 sensitivity is itself also probably an over-estimate.
T.A. Mather, Volcanoes and the atmosphere: the potential role of the atmosphere in unlocking the reactivity of volcanic emissions, Philosophical Transactions A. In Press.
We also need to remember that the human race itself has more than doubled the global fixed nitrogen flux.
Vitousek, P. M., Aber, J. D., Howarth, R. W., Likens, G. E., Matson, P. A., Schindler,
D. W., Schlesinger, W. H. & Tilman, D. G. 1997 Human alteration of the global
nitrogen cycle: sources and consequences. Ecol. Appl. 7, 737-750.
The human race has not experienced volcanism on the scale that the planet is capable of, since the advent of civilization. The most recent magnitude 8 explosive eruptions (sometimes
popularly know as ‘supereruptions’) were approximately 74 and 26.5 thousand years
ago (Toba, Indonesia and Taupo, New Zealand, respectively, from compilation by
Mason et al., 2004).
Studies of the aftermath of Pinatubo (1991) have already tended to reduce the best estimates of CO2 sensitivity towards the lower edge of the IPCC (2007) ‘band’.
More intensive paleoclimatic studies of the global climatic effects of Toba and Taupo might well also trend the best estimate of CO2 sensitivity in the downwards direction.
Gruber and Galloway (2008) An Earth-system perspective of the global nitrogen cycle. Nature , 451, 293-296
Steve, yes that’s true, the problem has always been to determine how much of an effect CO2 has (the climate sensitivity) and never whether CO2 would have a warming effect. So good on you for highlighting where the science sits.
The problem with this Blog is that people won’t even acknowledge a greenhouse effect AT ALL. Jennifer can’t seem to acknowledge that rasing CO2 will raise temperatures.
NT; curb your arrogance; I’ll have a look at your papers; but just for the record I find it galling that AGW supporters accuse people who question the shibboleths as being rigid and inflexible; the AGW propoganda about comparisons with the garden greenhouse was a deplorable misrepresentation; I readily admit that atmospheric H2O vapor has a wonderfully varied feedback mechanism to thermal stimulus whether it be radiative sourced (and let’s be clear here, radiation isn’t heat) or otherwise; but you guys won’t even entertain that H2O can work against increasing thermal stimulus because that would contradict the enhanced greenhouse effect that we’re all still waiting for; apart from that, anyone who says that CO2’s reaction to radiative stimulation is straightforward is ignoring reality; now, off to Venus!
There were some rather bizarre comments on an earlier thread which compared belief in the greenhouse effect to belief that HIV causes AIDS or that the universe was formed in a Big Bang. This has led me to wonder how much agreement, crossover and similarity there might be between these various camps of “skeptics”.
In the light of Jen’s repeated requests for a single paper that proves causation, I found these quotes eerily similar:
“If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document.” (Sunday Times (London) 28 nov. 1993) – Dr. Kary Mullis, Biochemist, 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry
I’d like to note that Dr Mullis agrees with Our Jennifer that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist.
Dr. Serge Lang, Professor of Mathematics, Yale University:
“I do not regard the causal relationship between HIV and any disease as settled. I have seen considerable evidence that highly improper statistics concerning HIV and AIDS have been passed off as science, and that top members of the scientific establishment have carelessly, if not irresponsible, joined the media in spreading misinformation about the nature of AIDS.” (Yale Scientific, Fall 1994)
Note the contention that statistics can’t show a causal relationship.
A general comparison of HIV/AIDS denial and AGW skepticism can be found here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-ostertag/global-warming-denialism_b_107385.html
I would like to ask Jennifer what her position on HIV/AIDS is – and how is an outside observer such as myself to tell the difference between the argument presented by her and the argument presented by the HIV/AIDS skeptics.
Alan – “An absorption line in spectroscopy doesn’t imply anything but an emission line from another viewing angle. The two phenomena are identical. But apparently people get this mixed up with black holes or something, thinking that an infrared wavelength (a “heat ray”) is absorbed (“trapped”) by certain molecules so that heat is prevented from exiting to space”
I think you need to consult a few textbooks. An emission spectrum is completely opposite to an absoption spectrum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_spectrum
“An element’s ’emission spectrum’ is the relative intensity of electromagnetic radiation of each frequency it emits when it is heated (or more generally when it is excited).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_spectrum
“A material’s absorption spectrum shows the fraction of incident electromagnetic radiation absorbed by the material over a range of frequencies. An absorption spectrum is, in a sense, the opposite of an emission spectrum”
If the outward bound photon of IR radition is absorbed by a gas that has a dipole moment then it will certainly not make it out to space. The molecule that aborbs that energy will transfer it to surrounding molecules which will increase their movement, hence their temperature. This will then radiate energy in all directions. Some of this will be straight back down again. All in all the actions of greenhouse gases do prevent a portion of the exiting IR radiation to be blocked. This alters the Earth’s radiation balance causing it to warm up to keep the outgoing radiation equal to the incoming radiation. This is the reason, along with heat storage in the oceans and the action of circulation in the atmosphere, why the Earth does not have the same surface temperatures as the Moon.
The black hole you refer to I assume is your mistaking black body radiation. The Earth is actually a grey body due to its albedo and the action of greenhouse gases.
The mere fact that absorption spectrum exists shows the action of greenhouse gases.
All of this is very basic physics that even a layperson such as myself knows. For you not to know this and confuse black holes with black bodies makes a mockery of the calibre of people that get to guest post here.
Steve Short – “More intensive paleoclimatic studies of the global climatic effects of Toba and Taupo might well also trend the best estimate of CO2 sensitivity in the downwards direction.”
Dismissing for a moment the practioners of nu-physics your guess of climate sensitivity is great however you cannot know that you are correct. I read your skepticism, is not of AGW, but of the eventual effects of that AGW – which is fine in my book.
Climate sensitivity is the great unknown however it does not change our actions. The actions of AGW people is to try to reduce the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere just in case you are wrong and CS is higher that you think.
As you are in the same boat as us metaphorically and actually about uncertainty with CS then surely you must agree that action to reduce CO2 emissions are sensible in the face of this uncertainty.
NT,
Methinks that human activity is the main factor/ reason for the increase in atmospheric CO2 content. This according to the article that I quoted that was pretty convincing and with good references:
Referanser:
Bates, N. R. (2001). Interannual variability of oceanic CO2 and biogeochemical properties in the Western North Atlantic subtropical gyre. Deep Sea Research II 48 (8-9), 1507-1528.
Beck, E. G. (2007). 180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods. Energy and Environment 18 (2), 259-282.
Broecker, W.S. & Peng, T.-H. (1993): Evaluation of the 13C constraint on the uptake of fossil fuel CO2 by the ocean. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 7 (3), 619-626.
Canadell, J. G. m. fl. (2007). Contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO2 growth
from economic activity, carbon intensity, and efficiency of natural sinks. PNAS 104 (47), 18866-18870.
Endersbee, L. (2008). Global climate has natural causes. EIR Science, 52-55.
Friis, K. m. fl. (2005). On the temporal increase of anthropogenic CO2 in the subpolar North Atlantic. Deep Sea research I, 52, 681-698.
McNeil, B. m. fl., (2001). Accumulation and uptake of anthropogenic CO2 in the Southern Ocean, south of Australia between 1969 and 1996, Journal of Geophysical Research, 106, 31431-31445.
Meijer, H. A. J. og Keeling, R. F. (2007). Comment on ”180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods” by Ernst-Georg Beck. Energy and Environment 18 (5), 635-646.
Olsen, A. m. fl., (2006). Magnitude and origin of the anthropogenic CO2 increase and 13C Suess effect in the Nordic Seas since 1981. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 20 (GB3027), doi:10.1029/2005GB002669.
Peng, T. H. m. fl., 2003, Increase of anthropogenic CO2 in the Pacific Ocean over the last two decades, Deep-Sea Research II, 50, 3065-3082.
Sabine, C. R. m.fl., 1999, Anthropogenic CO2 inventory in the Indian Ocean, Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 13, 179-198.
Skjelvan, I. m. fl. (2008). Inorganic carbon time series at Ocean Weather Station M in the Norwegian Sea, Biogeosciences, 5, 549-560.
Revisiting Philipona et al.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2003GL018765.shtml
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2004GL020937.shtml
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023624.shtml
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL034228.shtml
I would have thought despite the complexities of solar brightening (aerosols), water vapour etc we do have a demonstration of increased longwave commensurate with the additional increase in CO2 over the period measured.
So would not that at least give one some confidence in the energy balance of that aspect?
“Cohenite, use Google Scholar and search “+Venus +greenhouse effect”.
As you can see you are not in agreement with many scientists”
No evidence can be found that way you idiot. One study is good enough if it has evidence. So we’ve proved outright that this is just a leftist fraud. Both sides of the argument have to get used to this. Its not some collegial disagreement of opinion.
Lukes a dishonest moron. As is NT as is Nexus, Karoly and all of that crowd. This is not a situation where some decent people are just having a mental block.
Is this now only a guys blog, laughing at fart jokes etc? 🙂
Patrick Caldon said…”How do you propose we understand reality except through a model? What are Newton’s laws if not a model of the principles of motion”?
Patrick…I don’t follow your logic. Newton’s Laws model real phenomena but they are extremely accurate and verifiable on a macro level. The Bohr model of the atom also serves its purpose for teaching basic electronics, but it does not in any way replicate reality. From those perspectives, models both accurate and imaginary, have their uses.
Electronics depends heavily on models for obvious reasons. When you repair an electronic circuit, you can do it by a method called ‘shotgunning’. That means changing parts till you get the right one, and it’s a hacker method. The proper way to troubleshoot is to measure voltages/currents and to observe waveforms. Using theory, you then deduce what ‘might’ be wrong. I say ‘might’ because anyone who has done it has encountered ‘dogs’, a reference to circuit problems that are illogical.
If you can have so much trouble understanding a fault in an electronics system, where the components are right in front of you, and the theory is well-documented and understood, how can you possibly expect to do it in the atmosphere, where the components are not anywhere in particular and some of the theories have yet to be corroborated?
Furthermore, when you repair electronic circuits you need to flip mentally between theory and practicality. For example, I was repairing a circuit once and the first thing I noticed was a large electrolytic capacitor with its guts blown out. I thought theoretically, “I’ll get back to that when I find out what the problem is”. That’s one of those Homer Simpson ‘Doh!’ situations.
That’s how I regard computer modelers. They are so caught up in theory, they fail to recognize reality when it is handed to them. Satellite and sonde data is telling them their theory is incomplete and they are dismissing the data. Not only that, they are looking for negative feedback to explain why the atmosphere is wrong. I was an experienced technician when I encountered the blown capacitor, and it ‘should’ have been a red flag that it was the problem. Instead, my mind was in theory-mode and I bypassed it to look elsewhere.
There is no substitute for practical experience. You can have all the theory in the world, but until you encounter the real thing, beyond the model, you have little hope of understanding how it works. I think that is the problem with AGW theory and I think it’s why there are no papers showing how CO2 warms the atmosphere.
When Dr. Joanne Simpson was studying clouds, she got in a plane and flew into storms. She did measurements in the storms and retrieved valuable practical data. John Christy and Roy Spencer retrieve ambient data from the atmosphere using very accurate satellite receivers.
Gavin Schmidt is publishing papers on the climate and he calls himself a climate scientist. All I can see listed for his qualifications is that he is a mathematician. I don’t think he has any practical experience at all. I am willing to bet that any papers out there on CO2 warming theory, if there are any, come from people like Schmidt.
James Hansen, Schmidt’s boss at NASA GISS, is an astrophysicist, As far as I know, from a one year undergraduate course in Astrophysics, atmospheric physics is not part of that curriculum. Neither is the study of ancient glacier systems or ice ages, which is in the domain of Geology and Geophysics. Yet Hansen bases his tipping point theory on what theoretically happened eons ago.
I am becoming deeply concerned with the influence sheer theoreticians are having on science. I think Jennifer’s point is valid.
What are you talking about An?. And why are you posting heaps of studies without the evidence when just one good one with the evidence would do?
Thats a wild goose chase. Thats not evidence.
Pick your very best one. Just one. Which one do you reckon shows CO2 to be a warming agent on a global scale. We know what happens in the lab. Now which one makes the link on the global scale rather than just speculates about it.
Ender:
“As you are in the same boat as us metaphorically and actually about uncertainty with CS then surely you must agree that action to reduce CO2 emissions are sensible in the face of this uncertainty.”
Not really. This is where we part company. You see I don’t think that a relatively piddling sensitivity of the order of 1 C (or possibly less) is reason enough to drive the entire world into an apocalyptic panic and to embark on a highly hypocritical, and morally deeply suspect exercise in global ‘moral blackmail’ of the poor by the rich.
I especially don’t think it is reason enough to require India, China and rest of the developing world to curb their CO2 emissions and thus deny them their fair chance to reach a level of civilization (in terms of food on the belly, freedom from disease and the right to an education).
Basically I’m with the level headed Bjorn Lomborg (and definitely not with the likes of the ineffably silly ‘Annimal Ann” with her lonesome blog).
I say: burn the fossil fuels and allow humanity to reach a reasonable level of affluence overall.
Sure, develop sustainable energy sources as fast as possible, sure try scrubbing power station emissions (with algae would be best 😉 and sure try ‘trading carbon credits’ especially if it makes you ‘feel good’ Rudd-spin style.
We have had two millenia of immoral material and religious exploitation and oppression of human by human. Enough already!
I am deeply suspicious of the deafening chorus of greenie hatred which rises up whenever anyone promotes things like experiments on injection of aerosols into the atmosphere, expanding nuclear energy (including the thorium cycle), stimulating the oceans’s ‘standing crop’ of cyanobacteria with iron, nitrogen etc (clearly my favourite by far) etc.
It is always comes from the same forever nay-saying pin-heads that would ban GM crops forever, ban nuclear energy, try to turn us all into vegans etc.
I seriously suspect that a lot of AGW alarmism is really a nasty sort of Malthusianism ‘that dare no speak its name’. Taking the longer view, it may even be a cynically manipulated attempt to permanently (!) arrest the development of much of humanity before the equally probable slide into lower temperatures post-Holocene interglacial – which will probably occur in this millenium anyway.
I’m not getting in your stinking boat and that’s why I’m working hard to secure the welfare of myself and family with a survivalist ‘Plan B’.
Actually what this blog ever has been good at is posting ad homs and unscientific nonsense.
One person asked Jennifer to be anonymous when she posted a guest post on Jen’s blog.This was the case with Adele Major from Greenpeace , who told Jennifer that she didn’t want to have her name published , due she was afraid of hate mails . Despite of Adele’s request, Jennifer published her entire name.
R e my own guest posts , Jennifer always change the headlines of my posts and edits the content so its more in view with her opinion.
Gordon,
If Newton’s laws are accurate and verifiable why should I not take Newton’s Laws, the ideal gas laws, etc, plug them into a finite difference model of the Earth and watch what comes out? Why will it be nonsense?
Steve Short – “You see I don’t think that a relatively piddling sensitivity of the order of 1 C (or possibly less) is reason enough to drive the entire world into an apocalyptic panic and to embark on a highly hypocritical, and morally deeply suspect exercise in global ‘moral blackmail’ of the poor by the rich.”
So you are 100% certain that CS is under 1degC?
Also putting aside your paranoid hysterics over what you call greenies why, when we can easily power a technological society with renewable power, would we need dirty energy like nuclear?
Additionally anyone that thinks that throwing energy at the poor will solve all their problems is woefully naive. The problems that keep poor people poor are not energy related so a nuclear power plant is unlikely to help the poor where the political system is unable to provide the stability to allow the poor to better their lot.
If anything the huge push for solar and wind which has made all components of renewable power such as solar panels, inverters etc much cheaper than they were 10 years ago will improve the life of the poor far more than nuclear energy. A solar panel in a village with an LED light can vastly improve life in more ways than one.
The current programs that are supplying village level power stations that do not need massive distribution systems helps the poor more than grandiose central power station projects that are foisted on a country by the World Bank that usually end up lining the pockets of the corrupt.
Your attempts to secure the welfare of your family with a Plan B seems to contradict your conviction that CS is below 1deg. Why would you need a survivalist plan? Also your pathetic attempts to link action on climate change with the poor is just sad. As I said in a previous post we in the West have used the resources of the poor and ignored them long before climate change came around. How else can approx 20% of the world’s population use 80% of the resources. Do you imagine that there is even enough nuclear and fossil fuels available for 100% of the world’s population to use as much energy as we do presently? The only reason we can use as much as we do is because they use so little. A lot of our present problems is that 2 large low energy countries are now trying to clay their way up to our level of energy use and the world economy is feeling the strain.
NT; goodness, nary a word about the phenomenal atmospheric pressure of Venus as a contributor to its temperature gradient; lots of inferences; for example; Venus’s atmospheric pressure and temperature at about 50 to 65 km above the surface of the planet is nearly the same as that of earth’s surface; due to that similarity in pressure and temperature and the fact that breathable air (21% o2, 78% N2) is a lifting gas on Venus, you could live there. Anyway, back to greenhouse; the Nakajima et al paper proposes a radiative-convective model similar to Miscolczi’s, and has this to say; “the outgoing infrared radiation has an asymptotic limit as the surface temperature increases.” The logarithmic limit applies on Venus as well. So to ender who says; “if the outward bound photon of IR radiation is absorbed by a gas that has a dipole moment then it will certainly not make it out to space. The molecule that absorbs that energy will transfer it to surrounding molecules which will increase their movement, hence their temperature. This will then radiate temperature in all directions.” Some confusion here; the logarithmic decline is a measure of Wein wavelength shift; if a layer of CO2, opaque, has warmed then sensitivity will decline no matter the dipole moment; it’s true that the temp will cause a pressure broadening so CO2 will absorb over a wider bandwidth but the process must be symmetrical and emmissions will also increase; but since that absorption also involves a kinetic movement, the source of the heat, the parcel of air will convectively rise; the opaque trap is bypassed by that; as to the transfer of kinetic energy to another particle; the odds are that particle will not be a CO2 molecule but a N2 molecule; N2 does not emmit, but it will cool by rising and replacing itself with descending air; the radiative trapping and heat transfer is much slower than convective heat transfer (cm/s compared with many metres per second) so the convective, adiabatic heat transfer and exchange will constantly overcome the opaque barrier/trap.
The question which needs to be asked of the AGW supporters is; do they think there is a risk that Earth will end up like Venus if humans continue to increase atmospheric CO2? This perhaps is a better, or at least anchillary, way of looking at the alleged causal connection between CO2 increases and temp and enhanced greenhouse.
Steve Short – “I seriously suspect that a lot of AGW alarmism is really a nasty sort of Malthusianism ‘that dare no speak its name’. Taking the longer view, it may even be a cynically manipulated attempt to permanently (!) arrest the development of much of humanity”
This is absolute and utter garbage. I really think that you need to drop the paranoid stuff and really have a look at what we do. We waste so much energy. Using renewables forces us to use energy in a far more economical way to do the same thing. Do you disaprove of energy efficiency or should be just continue to use more and more because we can?
If Western civilisation used much less energy to do the same as we do now AND stops emitting so much CO2 to reduce the chance of climate change then we will be doing two things to help the poor that you succesfully make out you care about.
1. Us using less energy means that there is more to go around and more appropriate technology to kick start the poor at a village level. Right now the true victims of Peak Oil are the poor where energy costs can be 50% of their income. We whinge about high petrol prices – they starve
2. Avoid the possibility of climate change and sea level rise that you are not 100% certain will not happen. Both these things will be far more devasting for the poor that us as we have the resources to cope with them. People on the ragged edge of survival have no such margin.
So please spare us the false concern for the poor and the paranoid rantings of right wing libertarian extremists.
“And why are you posting heaps of studies without the evidence when just one good one with the evidence would do?”
It’s like saying just pick one good paper about quantum theory. It’s an absurd question.
and a lot of work goes into any dicipline including the LAW
“Hang on Jen – you’ve called it on Editorial III with the reading of one paper supplied?
You haven’t said what you’d accept as proof yet either?”
EVIDENCE you idiot Luke! No-one said anything about proof. Show up with some evidence you moron or resign.
“2. Avoid the possibility of climate change and sea level rise that you are not 100% certain will not happen. Both these things will be far more devasting for the poor that us as we have the resources to cope with them. People on the ragged edge of survival have no such margin.”
So Ender you have just seen three threads where none of you idiots could muster a scrap of evidence and you are still pretending that CO2 is going to lead to climate change when the climate always changes.
Look. Climate rationalists who pretend that they are dealing with anything but liars and morons when they argue with these people are just doing more harm then good. More than ever now we have to identify this racket as a moronic cult. Like those comet-watching cultists who all killed themselves. Something like that.
I mean hows Enders form. Day after day lunatics like this and Luke just constantly talking their anti-science trash-talk.
Three threads, no evidence. It doesn’t phase this lunatic Ender.
Ender:
I notice this drew an equivalent rant out of you – but you allocated yourself two posts to get it off your chest.
Just one, teensy, weensy little question, please.
You say:
“Also putting aside your paranoid hysterics over what you call greenies why, when we can easily power a technological society with renewable power, would we need dirty energy like nuclear?”
Here is my question:
Please show me, out of the vast be-sandled horde of high-minded, high-thinking Gen-X or Gen-Y greenies like yourself that has been around since – well let us arbitrarily say 1975 – just a mere 33 years ago, show me one, (just one is all I ask for) who has made a world name (and a fortune) for him or herself out of ‘sustainable energy’?
Please tell me, where are the Bill Gates’s or Richard Branson’s or Annita Roddick’s of solar power, or wind power, or tidal power, or wave power, or geothermal roof power, or hot rock power, or pig poo power, or compost power, etc, etc.
Surely, if a few roach-sucking hippies like Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak and Ronald Wayne could found Apple in a garage, one of y’all could have founded the ‘great global success story of renewable power’?
After all, you lot have had a third of a century to do it! But not one!
So please spare us the false concern for the planet and the gutless fantasies of shit-useless suburban green goons.
James Haughton wrote…”A general comparison of HIV/AIDS denial and AGW skepticism can be found here”
James the only reason I am replying is that I took licence by posting an article about AIDS on Jennifer’s blog. I thought about it carefully before doing so but I felt the parallels between the two debates were so similar that people should know we’ve been down this CO2/warming path before.
That link you provided is one of the worst I have read in the HIV/AIDS debate. I’d like to have an intelligent conversation with someone like you but I find the possibility of that remote. People like yourself seem to enjoy dismissing theories out of hand without considering the facts. You did not reply to one fact I listed, or check one out. You dismissed my post out of hand because the ‘consensus’ is that HIV causes AIDS. Sound familiar?
Take this quote from your link…please (as Henny Youngman would have said):
“What is most remarkable about AIDS denialism is how it has persevered through 25 years of the epidemic”.
The HIV/AIDS theory has been in place for 25 years yet no vaccine has been found and no cure for AIDS is on the horizon. No one has a clue how HIV operates. Furthermore, no alternate theory has been seriously investigated.
In another part of the link article, the author claims that people who have been treated have survived. I beg your pardon? Does the guy have a clue what he is saying?
HIV is supposed to be a virus. AIDS is a set of opportunistic infections that invade a weakened immune system, yet most people talk as if they are one and the same. NO ONE HAS SURVIVED FULL BLOWN AIDS!! There is no treatment for it.
What the author is refering to is the highly controversial treatment for HIV, which viral expert Peter Duesberg calls a harmless virus, with potent chemicals that are extremely dangerous to the body. The real name for them is ‘chain terminators’, it sounds sinister and it is. BTW…did you read the number of citations Peter Duesberg has won as a researcher?
Anthony Faucci, one of the staunchest supporters of the paradigm has backed off recently on treating people with antiviral drugs simply because they test positive. I think the truth is slowly seeping in, after 25 years, that the drugs themselves may be what has killed so many people, not the virus.
Is that a chance you want to take? It’s a downright shame that people are being made sick through the administration of those potent chemicals. Peter Duesberg, a top-class viral researcher, has called it ‘AIDS by prescription’ and has suggested that anyone infected would be alright without the drugs if he/she stopped high-risk behavior.
Even if Duesberg is completely wrong, which is highly unlikely given his record, why has that hypothesis not been tested? Why have alternate hypotheses not been tested? The main-stream HIV/AIDS researchers wont even consider it. The scientist who discovered the most recent type of those antiviral drugs, called protease inhibitors, claimed he’d never put them in his body.
The proof in the pudding however is the people who have been brave enough to refuse treatment. If the diagnosis was only an HIV infection, and the person refused treatment, that person has survived. Magic Johnson, the US basketball star, is a prime example.
The saddest case I have read about was the plight of a mother in New York whose two kids were diagnosed as being HIV positive. Medical authorities took one child and treated the kid with aniviral drugs. The kid died. They wanted to treat the second child and the mother refused. It went to court and a judge wisely overruled the authorities. The kid lived.
Unfortunates who are suffering from full blown AIDS don’t have a chance. It’s critical to understand the difference between HIV and AIDS. There’s a reason why 66% of North American AIDS deaths are homosexual males. There’s no known virus that can distinguish between men and women or between homosexual men and heterosexual men. The disease has simply not invaded the male heterosexual community as predicted, and there’s no explanation for that from the HIV/AIDS side.
If you want to ignore those inconvenient facts that’s up to you, but it explains why you can’t understand the problem with the AGW theory. The thing that bothers me about people like you is that poor souls are dying from AIDS and no cure is in sight after 25 years. Yet people like you make light of it. You should be angry about the dicking around that is being done in the name of consensus. Shame on you.
BTW…you did not mention that Kary Mullis won a Nobel for discovering the PCR test for DNA amplification. Does it surprise you that someone with his brilliance would think the AGW theory was flawed? It seems that only tuly intelligent people can see that.
Mullis was involved directly in the debate. A theory was developed, the viral overload theory, based on his PCR test. Someone had assumed that the real level of HIV was somehow hidden in the body and used the PCR method to amplify cell culture. They reported finding a large amount of HIV that was not apparent.
When Mullis told them they had applied the test in the wrong manner, they told him he was wrong. He invented the test and he’s the expert, but the HIV/AIDS zealots told him he was wrong. That was the HIV/AIDS version of the hockey stick.
The thing that boggles my mind is how you can infer a virus is hiding, then amplify nothing to get something. Big Bang anyone?
That “boy who survived” died a couple of years ago Gordon:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/obituaries/articles/2006/03/10/nikolas_emerson_11_case_led_to_legal_fight_over_hiv/
The former Editor of The Journal Of Scientific Exploration, Henry Bauer, published a book on the HIV/AIDS issue not so long ago – It supports Gordon’s summary of the situation.
AS for Africa, AIDS is defined by the same symptoms produced by starvation and malnutrition.
As always scientific facts and beliefs/faith are different things.
Gordon
As for the Big Bang, it was literally invented by George Le Maitre in order to reconcile his theology with his faith (he was a Jesuit).
I wonder how many AGW supporters here support this belief because it isn’t a scientific hypothesis because such things are derived from prior observations.
(This might cause a cerebral short circuit in some here).
Whoops – reconcile his physics with this theology (he was a Jesuit physicist).
Patrick Caldon said “If Newton’s laws are accurate and verifiable why should I not take Newton’s Laws, the ideal gas laws, etc, plug them into a finite difference model of the Earth and watch what comes out? Why will it be nonsense”?
Patrick…if you’re asking me, I haven’t got a clue. From what I’ve read, from atmospheric physicists like Lindzen, Spencer and Christy, models are useful and feasible, but either not enough is known about the processes involved in climate, the wrong assumptions are being made, or the project is too unwieldy with modern technology.
In one of the books I read by Patrick Michaels, he described the resolution used in a typical computer model (GCM). In a GCM, the world is divided into areas of latitude and longitude. The earliest GCMs were only 2-D but modern types are 3-D and try to take in cloud conditions of different types, as well as precipitation systems, etc. Not only that, they try to account for feedbacks and a doubling of CO2.
At the time his first book was written (The Satanic Gases), circa 2000, the smallest area programmed into a GCM was the size of the state of Iowa,USA(about 56,000 square miles). That’s an area roughly 236 mile by 236 miles (more likely 560 x 100 for Iowa). Think of a similar area in your neck of the woods and consider the different weather patterns available.
In my area, Vancouver, Canada, the coast is moderate with about 72″ rainfall annually. About 250 miles inland (NE), it is desert country. Even 60 miles down the road(E), going along the US border, conditions can get extreme in the winter. We have mountains, lakes, major rivers, forests of different kinds, all in that area. Do you see the problems with trying to program that into a computer?
Michaels pointed out that major weather events take place in areas of 5 square miles, never mind 56,000 sq. mi. On top of that you have vertical space above that area and all the wind and heat circulation, etc. There’s no way to reduce the resolution appreciably because the computing power isn’t there.
Lindzen, an expert in atmospheric systems, figures the modelers are applying certain feedbacks with the wrong sign, hence the warming they predict. Modelers are also hypothesizing an unknown negative feedback that is acting for real, and keeping the atmosphere cooler than it should be. Aerosols have been investigated but most have short life spans and exist primarily in the Northern Hemisphere. If the negative feedback from them is real then the Northern hemisphere should be cooler than the Southern Hemisphere, but it’s not.
I’m trying to say that, in my understanding, the problem is a lot more complicated than applying existing valid laws. Roy Spencer makes the point that warming by means of the greenhouse effect is much more complex than what modelers are allowing for. He claims it’s not just a matter of radiant heat from the surface warming CO2 in the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect itself comes from complex precipitation systems that transport heat into the upper atmosphere via water vapour and release it. In doing that, the condensation causes cooling. On top of that, clouds formed by the precipitation system tend to reflect heat from the Sun, cooling the joint.
Lindzen has hypothesized an iris effect that cools the Earth naturally, but modelers laugh at him. Unfortunately for them, Spencer and Christy recently noted evidence for that by satellite. Furthermore, GCM’s don’t take into account other natural factor like El Nino/LaNina, or the Atlantic and Pacific oscillations. There is ample evidence that the melting Arctic ice is due to the Atlantic oscillation.
Spencer and his partner John Christy admit that CO2 ‘should’ warm the atmosphere, but they are finding the evidence is not there in the data sets they make from satellite temperature measurement. I’m confused as to why no one in the AGW camp is listening.
In case you think I’m against models, I’m not. I am against basing a serious theory on them at this time, especially considering the financial ramifications of the AGW theory. If it wasn’t for that, I wouldn’t really give a hoot. I don’t think anyone has to worry about the kind of world they will be leaving their grandchildren given the current warming. I do think they will be leaving them a financial mess if they proceed on the current course.
Bird – the acceptance of your views is reflected in your recent election results (LOL). Now off you toddle you eccentric nong and try to come up with something different as an approach at dialogue.
Cohenite – you hoo ! do we have any longwave action (see above). Step #1.
Patrick Caldron said…”That “boy who survived” died a couple of years ago Gordon”
That’s sad. Thanks for the info. I’ll check it out.
There was a similar case with Christine Maggiore (Google her), a woman who has been HIV positive for a long time and who doesn’t take treatment. Her little girl died and Christine was roundly chastised for not getting her treatment. However, the child was well, and died in very mysterious cicumstances, and suddenly, from an ear infection.
That kind of death is not the signature of AIDS. I noticed the other young kiddie died from pneumonia, one form of which is listed as an AIDS opportunistic infection, but normally incurred by male homosexuals who inhale amyl nitrate. I really hate the fact that a kid dies like that and I have to wonder if his immune system was compromised at birth. I know what the theory claims, but the thought of a virus hanging around for 10 years and killing somone makes little sense to me.
The Los Angeles coroner presumed the death was from AIDS even though there was no evidence of that. After watching another LA coroner in the O. J. Simpson trial, who I thought was a hoot, but a questionable coroner, I’ve had little faith in LA coroners.
I don’t want to be naive about this when people’s lives are at stake, and it’s not the right medium to be theorizing in, but I’m pretty ticked at the theories that have prevailed in the HIV/AIDS paradigm. I would think the first priority would be cooperation to find a cure for this miserable condition, but researchers and politicians have been playing games with it.
They should be pulling out all stops, researching all possibilities. Instead they have focused on one theory and ostracized any scientist who suggested otherwise. Please read Duesberg’s qualifications and what he has to say. I’m sure you will find sanity in his reasoning.
Steve – (and just asking in case you see this as some life threatening personal assault_ – your comment – “I’m not getting in your stinking boat and that’s why I’m working hard to secure the welfare of myself and family with a survivalist ‘Plan B’.”
errr – was that a serious comment. Do you really think Australian society is that bad. And if you do – do you think anything short of a full personal platoon will prevent it (whatever “it” is?). So this seems pretty radical sort of statement from yourself. Ender doesn’t seem like much of a threat to me.
And why get overheated about renewables – how much as gone into fusion research with very little to show (IMO). What have greenies done to incur such wrath?
Graeme – “So Ender you have just seen three threads where none of you idiots could muster a scrap of evidence and you are still pretending that CO2 is going to lead to climate change when the climate always changes.”
The problem is not that there is no evidence it is that you cannot/will not accept what is there no matter how it is presented to you.
Peer reviewed papers were presented detailing the science and you do not accept them. Case and minds closed.
Fortunately for the rest of us that accept real physics rather than nu-physics the science goes on with this blog a rather quaint backwater of septics. As you seem to be the captain of the swill please let forth with your next string of insults that I am sure are the height of your wit and intelligence.
Peer Reviewed – making sure the paper agrees with agreed theory.
Steve Short – “Please show me, out of the vast be-sandled horde of high-minded, high-thinking Gen-X or Gen-Y greenies like yourself that has been around since – well let us arbitrarily say 1975 – just a mere 33 years ago, show me one, (just one is all I ask for) who has made a world name (and a fortune) for him or herself out of ‘sustainable energy’?”
Apart from that fact that you are judging the worth of a project by the amount of money they made from it how about David Mills? He attracted Vihnod Kosla to supply some venture capital.
David Green is another who does research into solar panels and invented the laser grooved panels.
What is your point anyway? Your a scientist so read Dr Mark Diesendorf’s papers and produce a critique that shows that he is wrong. You could also show up David Mills as he is obviously wrong.
http://www.ies.unsw.edu.au/about/staff/mark.htm
http://www.ausra.com/technology/reports.html
Louis – “As for the Big Bang, it was literally invented by George Le Maitre in order to reconcile his theology with his faith (he was a Jesuit).”
Not really – why is the sky dark at night? If you can answer this then you are on the trial that lead to the big bang.
luke; eh?
Ender
You really have no knowledge of the history of science, it’s a documented fact.
Therfore you are a creationist.
Cohenite – I was trying to tiptoe among the many exciting sub-skirmishes here to engage you in a discussion on longwave re Philipona – see above.
Many, many years ago now I attended a public lecture by Dr. Mark Diesendorf at the University of Wollongong (where he briefly worked) during which he showed a whole lot of slides and raved on at length about the highly dangerous piles of ‘yellow cake’ i.e. uranium oxide clearly visible (in his photographs) in the vicinity of the Ranger No. 1 mine near Jabiru in the NT.
When I pointed out out to Mark (as ostensibly just a mug punter from from the audience) that:
(1) the yellow cake he was referring-to was actually (finely ground) sulfur and not actually uranium oxide ore; and that
(2) this sulfur in his photographed stockpiles was used for combustion to make sulfur dioxide to feed into a sulfuric acid plant producing sulfuric acid subsequently used to leach the as-mined ore (to make yellow cake); and that
(3) hey, ‘yellow cake’ is not actually yellow but more a sort of real dirty green colour,
he just about had a heart attack in front of the entire audience.
Naturally I was too easy going at the time to hammer the point home by telling him I had also just done a PhD on the uranium geochemistry and hydrogeology of un-mined uranium ore bodies in the Alligators River Region (Crocodile Dundee country for Mexicans)!
So tell me more me about all these fantastic ‘green heroes’ of yours’, mate (;-)
Ender supports Nu-Science of which one example is quoted:
“The layer of CO2 emissions in our atmosphere reflects the sun’s rays back down to the earth. This is a natural temperature-regulating mechanism which makes the earth inhabitable. The CO2 layer is made up of different greenhouse gases, e.g. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and Methane (CH4).”
Source: http://www.no-co2.com.au/
It is impolite to laugh raucously, but permissible twitter a little.
Steve,
And how was Jabiluka found? By geochemical sampling in the creeks draining Jabiluka – it was only found it because it was polluting the waterways!
But let’s not let proper science get in the way, let’s do Nu-Science, AKA Ender-Science in which the Second Law of thermodynamics is ignored. No that is really NU!
luke; I presume you mean this one;
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2003GL018765.shtml
The thing that puzzles me is, how did the LW get into the atmosphere to be, presumably, reemitted downwards according to quantum effect, when there is no evidence experimentally detected of increasing greenhouse concentrations at the Earth’s surface?
Gordon and Louis: thanks for your responses. I must admit I have never thought about HIV/AIDS from the perspective you suggest. I can only agree that the level of evidence for, and lack of scientific community support for those who dispute, the consensus position on each is remarkably similar, though I would still be interested to know if our esteemed hostess agrees.
Perhaps HIV/AIDS is outside her field of expertise. Gordon, you would I am sure be aware that atmospheric scientist Roy Spencer, whom you refer to, is a supporter of Intelligent Design, as is climatologist Tim Ball, as are many of the journalists who support greenhouse skepticism, such as Mark Steyn, Julia Gorin, Andrew Bolt and Tom Bethell. I am sure many of them would argue that intelligent design has been suppressed by a so-called “scientific consensus” who ignore the lack of evidence for evolution – and certainly if there is no evidence for the Big Bang it would support their position.
As biology is Jennifer’s area of expertise, perhaps she would care to comment, at least on how one is to identify the difference between skepticism of AGW and skepticism of evolution (since, as Gordon has obligingly demonstrated, there is no apparent difference between skepticism of AGW and skepticism of HIV causing AIDS).
“but the thought of a virus hanging around for 10 years and killing somone makes little sense to me. ”
Once again, “If I can’t understand it, you can’t prove it”.
HIV compromises the immune system, since it attacks it directly. Any opportunistic infection can come along and kill.
James Haughton,
There should be a paper by Henry Bauer in one of the JSE journals – I am a member so I’ll see if I can extract it. By memoery it is a summary of his book, (which I have but not to hand).
Bauer noticed from the medical statistics that AIDS did not spread in the US as predicted, and double checked the stats which were quite correct, and to which the US medical authorities agreed.
That said, AIDS seems to be a collapse of the immune system from particular modes of excessive sexual behaviour, drug ingestion and etc – rather than some virus targeting certain demographics.
It’s also restricted to specific demographics in the West, and presumably elsewhere.
But Bauer’s work is a necessary one to read to get an idea of the science, or actually lack of, in this area.
The parallels with AGW are somewhat striking.
“The thing that puzzles me is, how did the LW get into the atmosphere to be, presumably, reemitted downwards according to quantum effect, when there is no evidence experimentally detected of increasing greenhouse concentrations at the Earth’s surface?” – huh – this is the point actually. Measured by radiometers. Empirical evidence of the greenhouse effect.
Now we haven’t skipped off to temperature or climate sensitivity but if we have an increase in downwards longwave close to theoretical that’s pretty good for me as a start when we have a whole discussion here denying the basic greenhouse effect.
Perhaps Louis can explain the observations?
Louis (and Gordon, and Jennifer), would you agree that the case against HIV/AIDS is similar to the case against evolution?
luke; I was quoting from the Philopona paper; to wit;
“Nevertheless, changes in radiative forcing related to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations could not be experimentally detected at Earth’s surface so far.”
The rest of the paper’s conclusions that cloud-free longwave downward radiation is significant would seem to suggest uneven mixing of atmospheric CO2 and a regionalised effect over the central alps. The paper’s maths is also a bit odd; they deduct 2/3’s for temp and humidity on the basis that their model calculations show a LW flux increase 3 times what they expected from a purely anthropogenic effect; that’s a convenient assumption; so basically their deduction that there is an anthropogenic imput is entirely based on that arbitary 3 way split between what they have isolated as the 3 salient possible causes for the effect their model has found.
Finally, global warming has become an afterthought, and the “Politics and Environment Blog” has become a complete and utter joke. Someone really needs to blog most of these comments – even taken in context they are hilarious (and are probably worthy of a publication in Energy and Environment). Jennifer – aren’t you slightly embarrassed by all this? Even if we are supposed to believe that half of these people aren’t your own creation, surely this is taking it too far?
“Don’t sugarcoat these people. They are just lunatics, barely reconstructed communists and anonymous frauds.”
“These guys are just Gramscian anti-science pack-animals. Utopian-Eschatologists wrong-footed by the collapse of Soviet Communism.”
“This global warming racket is the longest evidence filibuster in all history. ”
“No evidence can be found that way you idiot. One study is good enough if it has evidence. So we’ve proved outright that this is just a leftist fraud. Both sides of the argument have to get used to this. Its not some collegial disagreement of opinion.”
“I’m not getting in your stinking boat and that’s why I’m working hard to secure the welfare of myself and family with a survivalist ‘Plan B’.”
“So please spare us the false concern for the planet and the gutless fantasies of shit-useless suburban green goons”
“I noticed the other young kiddie died from pneumonia, one form of which is listed as an AIDS opportunistic infection, but normally incurred by male homosexuals who inhale amyl nitrate.”
“You really have no knowledge of the history of science, it’s a documented fact. Therfore you are a creationist.”
Probably the most telling of all:
“Actually what this blog ever has been good at is posting ad homs and unscientific nonsense.
R e my own guest posts , Jennifer always change the headlines of my posts and edits the content so its more in view with her opinion.”
A gourmet poster hey
Hey, it’s the luvverly English language – more words and meanings than any other language on the planet!
Cain’tcha dig it, babe?
Ooohhh aaahh take a gander at the Bristols on that Stephanie, mmmmmm.
Stephanie what is your point? Are you in fact another failed analyst who was too stupid to spot this racket right from the getgo?
You diminish yourself with these comments. Its time for people like you to rewrite history and pretend that you were always somewhat dubious about the panic.
The good Doctor didn’t bring skeptics into being. In here conservative way she is likely not yet ready call these hateful frauds out for who they are in mixed company.
I was calling this a fraud when calling this a fraud wasn’t cool.
Casual readers; with great patience lets add, may wonder how we went from –
“Causal Linkage between Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming (Part 3): Causal Criteria Still Wanting”
to
“That said, AIDS seems to be a collapse of the immune system from particular modes of excessive sexual behaviour, drug ingestion and etc – rather than some virus targeting certain demographics”
I came across this article while hunting links to groups and posters on “climate change” That may well explain it
“Death Rattles of the Climate Change Skeptics”
By Clive Hamilton 19 May 2008
http://newmatilda.com/2008/05/19/death-rattles-climate-change-skeptics
James
Yes I would agree with that statement.
Stephanie
You will find that the bulk of the abuse comes from the AGW supporters – and of more recent times, similar responses from some of the sceptics.
Some of us have shown the other cheek for too long, and have decided to fight fire with fire.
If the blog has “deteriorated” in standards, which it hasn’t except in the eyes of the mendacious, then it’s principally due to a small group which, from an absence of training and qualification in science, post quite problematical comments here, usually in the form of an ad hominemn, or if not understanding the science per se, post vast quantities of links to por AGW publications in support of their position.
A frequent issue is the inability to see contraditory evidence, and when confronted with such evidence, the groups then displays extreme cognitive dissonance.
Steve Short – “So tell me more me about all these fantastic ‘green heroes’ of yours’, mate (;-) ”
So of course you dismiss all of his work from one mistake? I guess this is par for the course with you.
Have you got anything against David Mills? What about the thousands of unpaid voluteers working with the poor to set up renewable energy? I guess because they do not get fame and fortune their work is not worth talking about – by your standards.
Just one small example – these are some of the green ‘heroes’ that you would utterly dismiss.
http://www.ata.org.au/projects-and-advocacy/international-projects-group
So go ahead and mock.
Gavin,
I think you will find that it might do your case a little better than posting unsource quotes, then taking those out of context, to finally quote the writings of Clive Hamilton as evidence that the sceptics are becoming – what? – desparate.
SO I will rub your ancient snozz into it – none of your AGW supporters have come up with one refereed paper demonstrating the causal link established from the conduct of appropriate physical experiment, to demonstrate that increasing CO2 causes warming of the atmosphere.
Clive Hamilton’s article is thus similar to your own post – a last ditch effort to rescue the impossible by painting the sceptics as desperate in order to distract from the total failure to produce the evidence that there is a causal link between CO2 and atmosphere temperature.
“You will find that the bulk of the abuse comes from the AGW supporters”
Always good for a laugh, Hissink.
Louis – “You really have no knowledge of the history of science, it’s a documented fact.”
Well then Louis as a keen student of the history of science perhaps you can tell us why the sky is dark at night?
Stephanie; I thought Graeme and Steve’s admonishments were amusing; for my own part I thought I raised some, as least interesting, points about Koutsoyiannis and Hurst scaling; the Venus discussion is also interesting and I think I rebutted ender’s quaint exposition of radiative processes; luke wants to talk about Philopona’s work on downward flux, which is slightly anomalous to say the least, but I suspect may be just another example of model creativity; there’s plenty to get your teeth into; or do you have false ones?
gavin; IMO Hamilton is a rather horrid man; his censorious and imperious attitude about the temerity of OLO allowing McLean and his associates to question the shibboleth of the vast numbers of IPCC scientists writing the IPCC reports was very revealing; a good summary of Hamilton’s social and political agenda is here;
http://www.cis.org.au/Policy/spr03/polspr03-7.htm
At the end of the day, I don’t think Hamilton likes other people and the ‘utopian’, happiness-inducing measures he proposes are merely reincarnations of the tried, tested and failed utterly collectivist gibberish roughly packaged under the new banner of environmentalism. Hamilton is an elitist and he demonstrates that the most dangerous people are those who think they know what is best for other people. Unfortunately, a lot of these sorts of people are gathered under the AGW banner and they give old naturalists like yourself a bad name.
Louis; thanks for making your position clear; I do hope Jennifer, Gordon, Graeme, Cohenite and the other regulars will also clarify their positions on these contentious issues, or, if they disagree with you, explain why being skeptical of AGW is legitimate but being skeptical of the connection between HIV and AIDS, the big bang, and the theory of evolution is not.
I am now wondering about other fields of inquiry that are characterised by a few skeptics struggling to be heard above suppression by so-called experts. For example, the physicists of The International Institute for Theoretical and Applied Physics have published papers claiming to use torsion fields to produce anti-gravitic effects, yet their claims have been ridiculed by the science industry. As a reader of the JSE, is this something that you have investigated?
No it’s not anomalous Cohenite – it’s fundamental components. One would expect an increase in longwave if the effect is changing. So an attempt to measure and isolate is very interesting.
And there you go “I suspect” you say. So why debate – just wait till the latest skunk ruse drifts past and jump on it and rut it to death.
Thomas Crowley has posted a reply to Jennifer’s criticism of his paper. It can be read on John Quiggin’s blog here: http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2008/08/10/the-cis-and-delusionism/#comment-215676
I reproduce it here for the record:
I disagree with the assessment of my paper.
If you consider the observational reconstruction as model output, the reader is correct. But the statistical reconstruction of observations is completely independent of the climate model, so any statistics derived from a correlation are still legitimate to assess, and the correlations are highly significant.
The correlation with my own reconstruction is obviously not dependent on Mann et al.; the purpose of the study was to show that it is a reconstruction-independent conclusion.
The Wegman committee, at which I attended and testified, did not disprove Mann. Wegman merely pointed out that there was an error in the Mann approach. But another person testified that the error did not matter much, and I further showed my own reconstruction done in an entirely different manner.
The skeptic is correct that correlation does not PROVE causality (although comparison of individual years of cooling with independent assessments of volcanism – which cause the cooling – shows a remarkable level of agreement). I suppose “blackening” of skies by volcanism and cold years is just accidental? You can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink it.
No one can PROVE global warming. It is like using circumstantial evidence in court and the conclusion is based on the weight of evidence in favor of the conclusion – the melting of Greenland and the Arctic ice cap, independent evidence from proxy data, record temperature increases, increases in precipitation in northern mid- and high latitudes, the near-global scope of the warming, decreases in precipitation in the U.S. southwest, increases in global ocean heat storage, and sea level, the agreement in global warming trends over the last twenty years with a model prediction from 1988 – all consistent with model predictions, one can go on and on. The pile of evidence in favor of global warming is quite convincing, which is why IPCC made such a strong statement.
Alternate explanations do not wash either, nor does the natural variability argument, which I showed cannot explain the unusual nature of the 20th century warming (when compared against the background of the last 1000 years).
One can choose not to believe in global warming, but it is a choice, a believe, and trying to change the minds of people with that mindset generally does not work because very often (although not always) their mindsets are grounded in emotions, resentments, political leanings, etc that are concealed under a hazardously thin cover of “logic”.
Tom Crowley
James – now don’t try an appeal to common sense. They’ll have a collection of inconsistent contradictory explanations to all of these by days end. 🙂
Hamilton is an elitist and he demonstrates that the most dangerous people are those who think they know what is best for other people. Unfortunately, a lot of these sorts of people are gathered under the AGW banner and they give old naturalists like yourself a bad name.
no, Hives isn’t any of that. Hives is an idiot and people like Ender bender ought to be laughed out of this site for even suggesting the unhappy creep has any credibility. Hives deserves the most utter contempt.
Louis Hiisink said…”The former Editor of The Journal Of Scientific Exploration, Henry Bauer, published a book on the HIV/AIDS….”
I found a short article by Bauer. It’s mind-blowing to see how connected the HIV/AIDS and AGW environements are. There’s no doubt that we have politicized science to a point where truth is no longer the criterion.
http://www.duesberg.com/articles/new/2007,%20Bauer,%20JAPSfinal.pdf
I copied these gems from the article:
Page 4, under ‘Why Does Antiretroviral Treatment Not Improve Patients’ Health?
Bauer commented on the fact that antiretroviral treatment tends to escalate AIDS rather than retard it. He says,
“Rather than questioning the HIV = AIDS connection, researchers invented a new, highly implausible phenomenon, “immune restoration disease,” whereby for some strange and unspecified reason, resuscitation of immune function supposedly worsens clinical outcomes in certain instance”.
No kidding, they’re pumping people full of some of the most deadly chemicals ever invented for human use. The logic of HIV/AIDS researchers is unbelievable. Instead of noting the obvious, they invent a new theory, which Peter Duesberg calls ‘moving the goalposts’.
However, the saddest commentary in the article comes from the tendency of HIV/AIDS dogmatists to call dissenters ‘Holocaust deniers’. Bauer quotes Jacob Bronowski as he squats next to a pond at
Auschwitz. Scooping from it a handful of ashes he muses:
“Into this pond were flushed the ashes of some four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance. It was done by dogma. It was done by ignorance. When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, this is how they behave. This is what men do when they aspire to the knowledge of gods”.
Seeing as you have raised the topic, Gordon, what exactly is the difference between denying that HIV causes AIDS and denying that 6 million people died in the holocaust? In both cases we have the vast majority of people who have studied the issue on one side, and a tiny group of skeptics who claim that they are being suppressed by a consensus based on politics, money and faith on the other. The number of lives at stake is about the same, too.
Tom Crowley…you guys sure like to understate the fact, don’t you? Here’s what the Wegman report said:
“Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.”
With regard to McIntyre and McKitrick (M&M), they said:
“In general, we find the criticisms by MM03, MM05a and MM05b to be valid and
their arguments to be compelling. We were able to reproduce their results and offer
both theoretical explanations (Appendix A) and simulations to verify that their
observations were correct.”
With regard to Mann’s pals, with whom he collaborates for his data, Wegman said:
“there is a tightly knit group of
individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is
that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work
has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions
without losing credibility.”
What Wegman could not foresee was that the nepotism would extend to AR4, where Mann’s gaffe was swept under the rug.
You said Wegman et al did not say Mann was wrong. What’s left to be right? You seem to be participating in the damage control that Wegman refered to.
You finish with this…”One can choose not to believe in global warming, but it is a choice, a believe….”
It has nothing to do with belief or choice and everything to do with looking at the facts. Mann erased The Medieval Warm Period and The Little Ice Age that was backed by 100’s of peer reviewed papers. Both were even acknowledged in an earlier IPCC assessment. That’s why you can claim that “Alternate explanations do not wash…”. How about Loehle’s paper, done without tree rings, that defintely established the MWP and LIA?
Mann just got his Ph.D. in 1998, while TAR was in review. He made a mistake, and unfortunately for him, it was a huge mistake. I would have respect for the guy if he admitted his gaffe and got on with it instead of hanging out at realclimate and moaning, while indulging in the belief systems you mention above. You forgot to mention rhetoric.
” In both cases we have the vast majority of people who have studied the issue on one side, and a tiny group of skeptics who claim that they are being suppressed by a consensus based on politics, money and faith on the other. ”
No thats a flat out filthy dirty lie.
As for holocaust-denial thats exactly what the alarmist crowd are. They are holocaust deniers. To a man the alarmist crowd are DDT-bureaucratisation holocaust-deniers. This is a certain type of mentality here. A mentality of liars, delusion, leftist-projectors and so forth.
Heretofore such mentalities had only affected the humanities. But it was only a matter of time until this poison reached the physical sciences.
You know, I have changed my mind about this blog. I have never been more entertained.
We have people exploring every theory, no matter how irrational. We have selective application of physics. We have the new kind of scientific investigation – the Jen-vestigation – where you don’t read text books, instead only three papers and then get disappointed when you can’t find what you’re looking for.
What a funny old world we live in.
Hey James, ask Louis about plate tectonics and how oil is formed…
Oh, Cohenite, do you now understand that the greenhouse effect is something that DOES happen on Venus, and is the preferred explanation for the searing temperature there?
“Alternate explanations do not wash either, nor does the natural variability argument, which I showed cannot explain the unusual nature of the 20th century warming (when compared against the background of the last 1000 years).”
Just constant idiocy from Haughton. If its not one thing or another. The 20th century warming is easily explained by anyone not a complete idiot. You showed no such thing.
As fascinating as the HIV debate here is, it follows a long line of inappropriate comparisons which have been employed in the AGW issue; we have seen creationism, ID, the BB, the holocaust, and cigarette smoking all used to mitigate attention to the validity of AGW science; at best these are distractions, at worst a malicious form of ad hom. It has reached the stage where definitions of reality are being presented in confirmation of AGW; consider Tom Crowley’s bizarre defence of his paper; he talks of “observational reconstruction” and “statistical reconstruction of observations” and seeks to differentiate these things from models; they may be different but they are no closer to reality; his defence degenerates into some weird notion of how circumstantial evidence should be used and then lists the facts, the “weight of evidence” constituting the circumstantial evidence supporting AGW; not one of these bits of evidence; melting of Greenland and the Arctic, record temperatures -suffering base-periods! -, consistency with model predictions – Koutsoyiannis! – are not contentious, or indeed have the weight of evidence against them! Like most of AGW circumstantial evidence, Crowley’s evidence is mostly polemic whose prejudicial value so outweighs any probabtive value that it would be inadmissable in any court of law; that he can still obliguely defend Mann and by inference Ammann and Wahl, undermines his seeking of succour in law; there are 2 fundamental principles of equitable law; He Who Seeks Equity Must Do Equity and He Who Comes Into Equity Must Come With Clean Hands; any circumstantial evidence Crowley has will be well and truly defeated by these 2 maxims.
“just wait till the latest skunk ruse drifts past and jump on it and rut it to death”
I enjoy some of your flurries of wit and imagery luke, but any complaint you make about reciprocal treatment will fail at equity.
“Thomas Crowley has posted a reply to Jennifer’s criticism of his paper.”
I suggest the sound of crickets chirping will be the response.
“No one can PROVE global warming.”
Well of course not you jerk because it isn’t happening. You can hardly prove global warming if the globe is cooling. You are the biggest idiot I’ve seen in a long time.
And no you are talking idiocy. Because had extra-CO2 had a substantial warming effect it could easily be shown. That it hasn’t been shown after 50 billions of wasted money means that it is no substantial effect.
“I suggest the sound of crickets chirping will be the response.”
I don’t think so. But why would you bother. Mann went so far as using tree rings as a proxy for warming. Totally inappropriate for the 20th century, or for that time scale since extra-CO2 makes trees grow faster. Simple. Obvious.
You are part of it, its a leftist thing, which is why only prosecutions and mass-sackings can cure it.
James Houghton said…”Seeing as you have raised the topic, Gordon, what exactly is the difference between denying that HIV causes AIDS and denying that 6 million people died in the holocaust”?
You’re having me on, aren’t you James? Only a blithering idiot could deny the Holocaust given the first hand accounts of it. Even Eisenhower flipped out when he saw the evidence first hand. The White Rabbit is a first hand account of it as experienced by Yeo-Thomas. People who deny the Holocaust are usually dyed-in-the-wool Nazis or just plain people-haters.
If you have read any of my posts on it, you must have read the qualifications of Peter Duesberg. He is an expert in retroviruses and HIV is in that class. Duesberg is a top class researcher and has proved that with the many citations he has won. Why would a guy with that ability suddenly lose objectivity? Sure, he’s in a minority, but with his credentials, why is he ostracized rather than taken seriously? There’s no intelligent answer to that.
Duesberg isn’t an arrogant raver. He’s a quiet, measured person who asks questions that have never been answered. As Bauer points out in his article, the anger coming from the dogmatists seems to be about them not having the answers to the questions being raised.
I don’t know if your approach is to provoke people, but that will never work with me. I’m wondering why you don’t read what I have offered on the subject and come back with an intelligent point. If you saw the nonsense people like Duesberg have had to endure, essentially the ruination of his career, based on anger and ignorance, you might want to wonder what is going on.
I saw a debate with him and a Canadian goof who was a leading medical authority in eastern Canada. I looked forward to a good debate. Instead, all I got was an ad hominum attack on Duesberg. Every time Duesberg raised a perfectly good question, he got no answer and an insult. How long does an observer of such debates put up with rhetoric and nonsense before he wonders why it’s happening.
Haven’t you caught onto that yet? When certain people don’t have the answer, and someone asks questions, those people get angry. In the old days, they’d just find an excuse to burn the questioner at the stake as a heretic.
Finally, you’re leaning on that age old arguement that the majority know best. I don’t subscribe to that theory. I never have and maybe that’s the difference between us. I’m not claiming to be superior, I’m just saying we are different.
The shortest answer I can give you is there’s no proof whatsoever that HIV causes AIDS, just as there’s no proof that CO2 causes warming. In fact, there’s no proof that HIV exists, period. That may sound astounding but it’s true. It has never been isolated or purefied, and the tests for it don’t measure for a virus but for anti-bodies ‘thought’ to come from the immune system dealing with a virus.
Both the AGW and HIV/AIDS theories are based on consensus and both are fueling a multi-billion dollar industry. On the other hand, there are thousands of first hand accounts of the Holocaust. If you can’t see the difference between someone denying (more accurately, questioning)the HIV/AIDS paradigm, and those who question the Holocaust, then you don’t understand anything about the past 25 years of HIV/AIDS research.
“If you have read any of my posts on it, you must have read the qualifications of Peter Duesberg. He is an expert in retroviruses and HIV is in that class. Duesberg is a top class researcher and has proved that with the many citations he has won. Why would a guy with that ability suddenly lose objectivity? Sure, he’s in a minority, but with his credentials, why is he ostracized rather than taken seriously? There’s no intelligent answer to that.”
There’s no intelligent answer for Lindzen, either. It’s just random, human contrariness.
NT; some questions;
1 Do you think CO2 increases on Earth will produce Venus like conditions here?
2 The Nakajima paper refers to an asymptotic limit on the outgoing IR; if CO2 has a saturative limit to its absorption how can adding more keep the temp up? If it was due to CO2 there would have to be a temp decline, wouldn’t there?
3 Since the Venus atmosphere is largely opaque to incoming SW most of the LW is internally derived from the surface but CO2 at the surface would be a super-critical liquid; there is no water vapor, so what is catching the LW?
4 Above 50 km earth-like conditions prevail and the atmosphere is breathable; there is little CO2 and no LW opaqueness; what keeps that level warm?
5 Noone mentions the weight of the atmosphere as a contributor to the heat profile of the surface and atmosphere of Venus. Don’t you think that is strange? Consider the comparison between Venus, Earth and Mars here, remembering Mars has the same atmospheric CO2 content (but are they uniformly mixed?);
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.ea.15.050187.001131
1. No. Venus is a runaway greenhouse, Earth will become an enhanced Greenhouse (the most we can get is around 12 c hotter – as it was in the Cretaceous)
2. They seem to answer it in the next sentence: “As one of those radiation limits, the outgoing infrared radiation has an asymptotic limit as the surface temperature increases. This is caused by the tropospheric structure approaching the water vapor saturation curve.” This saturated argument is a bit hollow with me, as the sun acts like a pulsed heat source, so there is a relaxation time (for want of a more precise term) for CO2. This means that adding CO2 will make the earth heat up quicker in the morning and cool down slower in the evening.
3. This is your theory… I don’t know. Where do you get the super critical fluid model from and why would that matter? Perhaps you should pose your question to the authors of the papers, they would know more than me.
4.Don’t know.
5. Not if it’s not important. I have seen reference to the density contribution to Venutian temperatures, but these also include greenhouse effects.
I think you are missing my point. That is there is a lot of science based around the greenhouse Effect, and thousands of papers have been written about it. To calmly claim that they are wrong is a bit rich, especially when backed up by…. what is your argument backed up by again?
In the end it is the responsibility of people with alternate theories to make them so attractive that they become the mainstream theory. That’s how science works. The theory that is most attractive and explains the most wins… Until it gets beaten by something better.
Here is a clear proof, over the last 6 years of record, from the East Patagonia Coastal Shelf of the pronounced capacity of seasonal cyanobacterial blooming to markedly depress SST:
http://reason.gsfc.nasa.gov/OPS/cgi-bin/Giovanni/Giovanni_cgi.pl?west=-80&north=36&east=-55&south=-56&type=3%23Time+Plot+%28point+or+area+averaging%29&Product_A=0%23%23%23SeaWiFS+Chlorophyll+a+concentration&Product_B=5%23%23%23Aqua+Sea+Surface+Temperature+%2811+micron+day%29&landocean=landocean&b_year=1997&b_month=September&e_year=2008&e_month=February&end_date=2008%2F02%2F29&data_limit=126&cbar=cpre&cmin=&cmax=&tpbar=tpdyn&tpmin=&tpmax=&tpint=&asc_res=1.0&global_cfg=.%2Fglobal.cfg.pl&data_sys=mpcomp&pid=ocean&action=Generate+Plot
It is interesting to note that the effect is most pronounced in the most recent late 2007-8 season.
cohenite said…”As fascinating as the HIV debate here is, it follows a long line of inappropriate comparisons which have been employed in the AGW issue…”
I was hesitant to introduce any comparisons to HIV/AIDS but I was immersed in that debate long before the AGW debate started. When the AGW rhetoric began, I could not believe the similarities between the reasoning and means used in both to attack any skepticism.
I wanted people to know we’d been down that path before, and by some of the responses I got, it was clear that many people are convinced of the HIV/AIDS paradigm even though there’s no proof of it whatsoever. So, the only reason I brought it up was an attempt to raise awareness of the modus operandi of alarmists.
Also, I’ve been a long-time supporter of Peter Duesberg. I don’t agree with him entirely but I feel for the guy and hope he gets his exhoneration soon. It’s not right that a scientist of any stripe should be ostracized for being honest and by people who don’t have an ounce of his qualifications.
I don’t know if you recall the trial in Australia in which Eleni Papadopoulos, from The Perth Group, was called as a witness for the defence. Eleni has a convincing arguement that HIV does not exist.
http://www.theperthgroup.com/INTERVIEWS/cjepe.html
In the court case, she was attacked on her degree rather than on what she was saying. Eleni has a Master of Science degree, not a Ph.D. I guess the judges in Australia must be old fossils as well, because he sided with the consensus. Eleni can’t get a paper published either. I thought of her when I heard John Christy complaining about the same thing.
Gordon, sad as it may seem bu it is entirely the responsibility of the proponents of alternative theories to make them more attractive than mainstream ones. If they can’t then that is a sign that it’s not a particularly good theory. ESPECIALLY when the alternative has been proposed numerous times. This “HIV doesn’t cause AIDS” theory has been around a long time and if it hasn’t been able to be accepted by mainstream science the only credible reason is that it’s not a particularly good theory.
And here’s a nice pic of the test case zone:
http://reason.gsfc.nasa.gov/OPS/cgi-bin/Giovanni/Giovanni_cgi.pl?west=-80&north=36&east=-55&south=-56&type=2%23Area+Plot+%28time+averaging%29&Product_A=0%23%23%23SeaWiFS+Chlorophyll+a+concentration&Product_B=5%23%23%23Aqua+Sea+Surface+Temperature+%2811+micron+day%29&landocean=landocean&b_year=1997&b_month=September&e_year=2008&e_month=February&end_date=2008%2F02%2F29&data_limit=126&cbar=cpre&cmin=&cmax=&tpbar=tpdyn&tpmin=&tpmax=&tpint=&asc_res=1.0&global_cfg=.%2Fglobal.cfg.pl&data_sys=mpcomp&pid=ocean&action=Generate+Plot
Gordon. There are thousands if not millions of first-hand accounts of people who have died from AIDS. All of those people were HIV positive. (such as almost the entire board of Continuum magazine, who denied that AIDS existed right up until it killed them). There are thousands if not millions of accounts of and by people who are HIV positive whose lives are being preserved from death by anti-retroviral therapies. Why should I disbelieve those accounts, yet believe the accounts of those who died in the Holocaust? To do that would make me, as you put it, “a blithering idiot”. (And no, I haven’t read more than a few of those accounts. Neither have I read more than a handful of first-hand accounts of the holocaust. And I have only read a small number of the large number of papers which support AGW. Unlike Jennifer, I don’t thereby assume that the papers don’t exist).
Testing for the presence of antibodies is, as far as I am aware, standard practice for testing for any virus. Not just HIV.
For a succinct summary of all the available evidence (as of 2003) proving the existence of HIV and its link to AIDS, I refer you to the US National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases factsheet, “The Evidence that HIV causes AIDS”:
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhiv.htm
Sadly, not all who deny the Holocaust are obvious Nazis. It would be nice if they were. Many are highly qualified people who come across as “quiet, measured, and asking questions that have never been answered”. Harry Elmer Barnes, David Hoggan and Paul Rassinier were all professors of history at prestigious universities; Rassinier was even a survivor of a concentration camp. Perhaps if you can understand what led highly qualified men such as these to support holocaust denialism, you can understand why Professor Duesburg continues to claim that HIV does not cause AIDS (or does not exist – which is it?) and why Roy Spencer supports creationism.
Many more recent Holocaust denialists make arguments that seem to be scientific in form to support their beliefs. See “Science of Denial and Denial of Science” here: http://www.nizkor.org/features/techniques-of-denial/denial-of-science.html
I’m sure that to a non-immunologist (as I infer that you are) Duesburg’s arguments seem scientific in form too. That doesn’t mean that they aren’t wrong. The same applies to the arguments of the handful of greenhouse “skeptics”.
You may find this article in the Public Library of Science interesting: http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0040256&ct=1
I urge you to reconsider the methods by which you separate truth from falsehood, or at least balance the probabilities of each.
Graeme Bird. I will give you a “friendly” warning of the position you are placing yourself in.
Defamation (calling someone a fraud and a liar) on the internet is libel. It is not necessary to suffer financial damage to successfully sue for libel. Nor does the internet provide any anonymity as it would be easy to subpoena Jennifer’s server logs. Such cases have been successfully brought in Australia before: e.g. Rindos vs Hardwick 1993 (http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/onews/rindos.htm)
I suggest that you moderate the tone of your comments towards me, and others, in future.
James; this tone in denial is part of a trend in far right campaigning that goes back to ww2. Needless to say it is appropriately monitored today.
Gordon; fair enough; I wasn’t having a shot at you; but if you are a critic of AGW any controversial association will be used to denigrate the validity of the anti-AGW position; just another crummy element of this debate.
NT; your comparison with the Cretaceous is flawed for this reason;
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/LateCretaceousGlobal.jpg
There were no polar ice-caps during the cretaceous; I would suggest that if even if the EG was valid (which I think Spencer’s work alone defeats), the cooling mechanism of the poles – and I presume you are not proposing that the SP becomes devoid of ice – would prevent a Cretaceous like temperature regime from occuring.
Cohenite, yes that’s true about the Cretaceous. The point I was making was that the Earth won’t do a “Venus” because this the MAXIMUM the Earth will reach. This is why there is a difference between an enhanced greenhouse and a runaway greenhouse.
None of the modelling suggests it would return to Cretaceous levels either (instead focussing on, I think 2 – 3 degrees), the closest recent warmer phase was the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maxima, but again the continents were in favourable ‘warm’ positions.
Interestingly if we went back to very early periods when there was a different atmospheric composition (including more SO2, CH4, CO2 etc) we find it was even hotter despite a much cooler sun… Because of greenhouse gases and the greenhous effect.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11543544
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/234/4782/1383
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v305/n5932/abs/305281a0.html
http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/31/1/87
NT
Do you how the hypothesis of Venus having its measured temperature due to a runaway greenhouse effect was initially proposed?
I mean, do you know how………
Hames Haughton
Professionally I am an exploration geologist, diamond exploration being the speciality, but I started in base metals and am now back into this area of mining.
My diamond exploration experience had to deal with some serious geological issues with the formation of kimberlite pipes and it wasn’t until I discovered plasma physics and the theories of the plasma universe, that scientifically valid solutions presented themselves to the questions in hand.
In terms of some of the cutting edge science often published in JSE I have little experience with, so answering your question, no.
I am familiar with Louis Kervran’s work which has been badly reported in JSE in terms of some notes to the journal.
It’s the engineers and the field geologists of the various professions who are generally sceptical, mainly because they have to actually put the theories into practice.
The theories behind weather forecasting are the same for climate work, but weather forecasts are generally 50/50. To those of us in engineering or the practically oriented hard physical sciences, this success rate is essentially random, and points to the strong possibility that the theories explaining weather are wrong.
If you designed a cell phone which only worked 50% of the time, you would be quickly out of the market place, but not the weather forecasters.
This suggests that climate science has some interesting problems in its theoretical basis.
From the plasma physics and plasma universe POV, we have more powerful, laboratory tested, theories to explain weather, and hence climate.
“From the plasma physics and plasma universe POV, we have more powerful, laboratory tested, theories to explain weather, and hence climate.”
OK then Louis – how about a “weather or climate prediction” LOL.
Actually why wait – give us your hindcast stats – you must have them surely?
NT; your papers are interesting; the Kasting and Ackerman paper proposes an ancient atmosphere of 10-20 bars of CO2 producing a temp of 85-110C; that sort of CO2 concentration is similar to Venus’s and Mars; Mars is odd because CO2 there produces no greenhouse effect at all; also there are contrary opinions about whether the predominantly CO2 atmosphere of ancient earth was warm;
http://sp.lyellcollection.org/cgi/content/abstract/199/1/231
The mantle recycling idea is one that Craig O’Neill has proposed as an explanation for the different climate regimes of Venus and Earth.
Jennifer, this is absurd. you simply ignore evidence presented to you.
the greenhouse effect of CO2 can be tested with very simple experiments.
http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm
or even with coke bottles:
http://physics309.wordpress.com/2007/06/20/greenhouse-gas-experiment/
that we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere is a fact. we meassure the CO2 and we know the amount of fossile fuels we burn.
Most too crazy for me (HIV, Siddons etc). The only two here with any sort of intelligent dialogue going are NT and Cohenite. Good on you, guys. Admire your energy. Getting too old for this. Will concentrate on assembling that piece of paradise at the end of that dirt road. Gut feeling – might owe it to my kids and their kids etc. Maybe it’s just ego (a revered ancestor fantasy)? Anyway, best wishes. Bye.
See ya Steve! I bet you’re younger than me!
You idiot sod.
You’ve tried to slip the hypothesis into the conclusion!!!!
The hypothesis is this:
Will the realities of spectroscopy have a massive warming effect on the planet with increasing CO2?
And your reply to that, because you are a moron is: HERE ARE THE REALITIES OF SPECTROSCOPY. THIS IS EVIDENCE!!
You idiot. You dope. You should be euthanised right now for plumbing the outer limits of stupidity.
You tried to prove the conclusion by the hypothesis itself. Go and commit hari-kari. All it takes is a tie and the womens toilet.
“NT; your papers are interesting; the Kasting and Ackerman paper proposes an ancient atmosphere of 10-20 bars of CO2 producing a temp of 85-110C; that sort of CO2 concentration is similar to Venus’s and Mars; Mars is odd because CO2 there produces no greenhouse effect at all; also there are contrary opinions about whether the predominantly CO2 atmosphere of ancient earth was warm;”
Mars isn’t the least bit odd. And the ancient earth wouldn’t have been even close to as warm as that. The actual evidence speaks for itself.
The the fact is solar activity increases about 4% per billion years.
And even if it were to increase 1% for ten years that would make a huge difference in terms of CUMULATIVE joules.
You smart guys have just got to snap out of your static-equilibrium models. All your smarts are useless if you cannot or will not snap out of this flawed paradigm.
Stop thinking instantaneous watts and start thinking long-term joules.
“Defamation (calling someone a fraud and a liar) on the internet is libel. It is not necessary to suffer financial damage to successfully sue for libel. Nor does the internet provide any anonymity as it would be easy to subpoena Jennifer’s server logs. Such cases have been successfully brought in Australia before: e.g. Rindos vs Hardwick 1993 (http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/onews/rindos.htm)”
Hey you know what buddy?
YOU ARE A FRAUD. YOU ARE A LIAR.
And on top of that you are caught on this very blog defaming other people.
The answer is for you to shape up and to stop being a fraud and to stop being in liar.
Sort your act out, step outside, do whatever you have to do. But you are a science incompetent. And you ought never have been on the public tit except on traditional welfare to just keep you out of the way.
Paul Biggs. We cannot beat these guys by being traditional collegial scientists like Roger Peilke senior. By the way my email isn’t working. So I couldn’t email you back.
This movement will wreck everything. Its the other node of evil on top of jihadism and worse because it makes jihadism possible.
This is not some honest misunderstanding. This is a serious movement with serious momentum. We cannot soft-peddle these guys. They will destroy everything.
I’m not toning down anything. If you don’t see me pointing out that people are frauds its only because I know you’ll wipe such comments.
Think of the hateful things they’ve said to people maintaining the scientific ethos.
You idiot sod.
You’ve tried to slip the hypothesis into the conclusion!!!!
no, i have not.
here is the thesis again:
1. examine the causal link between anthropogenic carbon dioxide and warming
so the green house gas effect of CO2 is the first step.
if you accept this, the rest is calculations and models. (unless you build a model earth)
if you believe in CO2 being a greenhouse gas (and the measured increase..), but don t believe that it is warming our atmosphere, you must come up with an explanation for its lack of effect and a different explanation for the warming.
good luck.
I just have to thank Graeme Bird for the wonderful job he has done here.
Parody or not, it is the most amusing exposition of just how idiotic the climate debate can be that I have yet seen.
Once someone can prove GHGs can affect ENSO, the AMO, and the Walker Cell the AGW crowd may have something. By prove, I don’t mean after the fact model verifcation, but actually predict when these teleconnections changes state.
Once someone can prove GHGs can affect ENSO, the AMO, and the Walker Cell the AGW crowd may have something. By prove, I don’t mean after the fact model verifcation, but actually predict when these teleconnections changes state.
No sod. You tried to slip the hypothesis in as evidence for itself.
Lets go over it again. Arrenhius or someone else notices a gas-colour-warming effect in the lab. With an astounding one-step inductive leap he imagines that this will pan out to a massive heating up of the climate.
We want to get evidence for this hypothesis. So can we have evidence for this hypothesis. Rather than going back to the lab. You’ve done this same stupid thing on two threads at least now.
Restating the hypothesis as evidence for the conclusion is not going to fly. We want detection and attribution.
“Interestingly if we went back to very early periods when there was a different atmospheric composition (including more SO2, CH4, CO2 etc) we find it was even hotter despite a much cooler sun… Because of greenhouse gases and the greenhous effect.”
You just had to slip that lie into the end of the sentence didn’t you.
What about the continental layout and the resistance to circulation?
Look at the continental layout and you will see that the warm times are often when the oceans can easily circulate. This generalization follows directly from Stefan Boltzmanns law.
“1. No. Venus is a runaway greenhouse, Earth will become an enhanced Greenhouse (the most we can get is around 12 c hotter – as it was in the Cretaceous)”
Rubbish. The whole place is set up like a magnificent planetary furnace. It would be dastardly hot even without any gas-colour-adjustment.
“I just have to thank Graeme Bird for the wonderful job he has done here.
Parody or not, it is the most amusing exposition of just how idiotic the climate debate can be that I have yet seen.”
Its you who are the idiot TrueSkeptic. I’ll put up with a lot but I’m not putting up with some evidence-free-idiot like you showing up here and saying I’m running some sort of a parody.
I got where your commie-lying-ass was coming from given your last comment on Deltoid. Thats the place for you if you want to be an idiot.
And I should like people to contemplate the sort of defamatory statements that people like true-skeptic make at Deltoid before getting too worried about that poopy-pants leftist nutball Haughton getting uptight about this or that.
Now TrueSkeptic. Have you got that evidence? No you haven’t. So your whole act is fraudulent.
I’m on your side GB; in respect of Mars and Venus, the only reason I refer to Venus is to illustrate that in NT’s papers there is a startling avoidance of dealing with atmospheric weight when considering atmospheric and surface temp; temp is either a product of activity/motion or pressure or both; there sure is a lot of pressure underneath Venus’s atmosphere; there’s a fair bit underneath Earth’s (fill a plastic bottle with air at 2 kilometres and watch what happens to it when you bring it back to the surface); and there is hardly any under Mar’s.
“Maybe it’s just ego”- Steve Short.
Ah, enlightenment at last. Now spare us from your ego once and for all.
Yeah cohenite. They cut so much out and aggregate the rest to such an extent that you aren’t left with hardly anything at all.
This is understandable as a first draft to modeling. But the real problem comes when they get stooged into thinking their model represents reality.
The other objection I would make is one to do with process. These guys think they have to model the real world straight up. That would be like being in acting class and expecting to pull off every exercise with the facility of Lord Laurence Olivier without going through some sort of process.
They ought not fool themselves. They ought to start off setting up dummy models to test hypotheses.
The Goddard characters are so lost in computer-land that when the snowball earth evidence disagrees with their local version of Deep Blue they just swing it that the computer is right and reality is wrong. They conclude that there was no snowball earth but only a slushball earth.
A strata-and-heat budgets model could effortlessly account for a snowball earth. And for it melting and freezing again.
This is just so depressing. It feels like the onset to the fall of Rome or something. This must be the most depressing time at least since the 70’s. And the first time that the debasement of almost all traditional human values has infected science with such virulence. We used to expect this crap in the humanities. But not in the hard physical sciences.
Sharron:
“Maybe it’s just ego”- Steve Short.
Ah, enlightenment at last. Now spare us from your ego once and for all.”
My God, nothing better to do than breed nasty little pet avatars like flies! Jennifer should make all poster’s names linkable.
Hey, does this mean Steve Short has given up on arguing against ocean acidification as a concern? He never did explain away the findings of several studies that I referred to in another comments thread.
By the way, I think the recent threads have done a huge amount to damage the credibility of this blog and its AGW skeptic supporters from the top down. I don’t think it really deserves much attention at all any longer.
steven watkinson at August 15, 2008 11:10 AM:
“He never did explain away the findings of several studies that I referred to in another comments thread.”
FIBBER – how about an apology????
Refer:
Luke:
“But I then am puzzled why some any seemingly intelligent researchers are chasing the issue? Are they nuts or is it something I’ve missed.”
Fair comment. I’ve been repeatedly asking myself exactly the same thing.
I have a close associate, lovely feller, more AGW than me (we are working up the Southern Ocean paper together). An absolute authority on marine cyanobacteria (= algae to the old guys) especially coccolithophores i.e the ones that have biogenic calcite. At his urging, I reduced the Phreeqc modeling temperature to 0 C (he noted that some ice water mixtures deep under Arctic and Anarctic shelve get to -1.8 C) in an effort to even simulate circum-polar pteropods (calcite shells) for steven w – as the extreme case. Still could not get SI down to 0.00 any closer than 168 years out from now at current mean global CO2 increase rate (0.45%/year).
So the only possibly conclusion is that these seemingly intelligent researchers are assuming future significantly higher rate of atmospheric CO2 increase to get dates like 2020 – 2060 for decalcification to set in. I could even go with that if they were out front about it – but they NEVER state that key assumption. Why? I have no idea.
Other, fewer papers, even more puzzling, which claim to find existing decalc. effects right now must surely just be seeing the influence of confounding effects e.g. high dissolved phosphorus levels, natural organic acids, other pollutants – even marine viruses (yes, they do exist). Yet they never seem to check for these effects even though there is some limited past literature (pre-AGW movement) on them. These findings also fly in the face of the paleoclimatic literature on decalc. conditions for corals, forams, pteropods etc.
Otherwise, I am genuinely totally at a loss. At the end of the day it must all be subject to thermodynamics – toss that away and one may just as well discard AGW too! Science is not a simplistic ‘have your cake and eat it too game’, I’m sure you’d agree.
Posted by: Steve Short at August 8, 2008 09:32 PM
Cohenite, interesting paper.
“We argue that CO2 greenhouses thick enough to defeat the faint early Sun are implausible and that, if no other greenhouse gases are invoked, very cold climates are expected for much of Proterozoic and Archaean time. We echo current fashion and favour biogenic methane as the chief supplement to CO2”
This is really interesting. There were both huge glaciations and very hot periods in the Proterozoic and Archean – not surprising as they extend for 4 billion years! And they’re saying methane is the main greenhouse gas. Cool.
I think there is a greenhouse effect on mars. Just not a very big one. You can do the maths quickly if you know the irradiance from the sun on Mars.
Graeme Bird, how much have you studied the Snowbll Earth hypothesis. There is evidence both for and against it. I don’t think it’s a settled hypothesis. Sure it’s possible the Earth could have ‘snowballed’ but doesn’t mean it did.
And your comments, especially the “lie” one confound me. Have you read anything on the atmosphere of the early Earth?
Graeme and Cohenite as I mentioned earlier, if you have better theories you need to show them. I have posted numerous papers, every one appealing to the greenhouse effect and using it to explain phenomena. You have provided exactly nothing, instead preferring to use your own personal theories. Again if you want to be taken seriously you have to present your theory as more appealing than the greenhouse effect, it’s Natural Selection for theories. Or is that another phoney science for you too?
Steve, what do I have to apologise for? Doesn’t your post just admit that you don’t know why several studies got the results they did? I also believe you never properly addressed the issue of decreased rate of calcification as an issue for the viability of reefs (not just the issue of thermodynamic dissolution of existing coral skeletons.) If I recall correctly, you suggested that pH was not that important for rate of calcification, but I provided a list of studies that indicated it was, and did not receive a detailed response.
You have not commented on the recent study showing significantly decreased reproductive success of sea urchins with lower pH. No one knows how many other species may have sperm affected in a similar way, but it’s not a good look is it?
The thing is, it’s just not just all about thermodynamics, is it?
And finally, I pointed out before that in February you were talking about earth’s resources being used in an unsustainable way. Then you seemed to have switched to the idea that the ocean’s plankton will save us by sucking out CO2 faster.
So, I can’t follow whether you actually might think that reducing CO2 emissions is a good idea or not. If you think it is worthwhile, why bother with scepticism of warming or ocean acidification at all? Let us know clearly could you?
“Graeme Bird, how much have you studied the Snowbll Earth hypothesis. There is evidence both for and against it.
I’m calling bullshit on that one. You are claiming there is evidence against it on the grounds that the computer said no. Thats a confession that the Goddard model is wrong.
I’m saying you are lying. What is the evidence AGAINST the snowball earth!!!!
And watkinson. If you are going to start bedwetting about some alleged reduction of alkalinity towards neutral can you at least say what it is the fuss is about. What is your alleged rate of change in the PH? How was the ph of 1800 established? And how do you establish the effect of such a change on a species over decades by changing the ph in an experiment overnight?
You’ve got nothing watkinson. The studies are amorphous calls for more funding. They don’t amount to anything else.
“You have not commented on the recent study showing significantly decreased reproductive success of sea urchins with lower pH”
Is this when you change the ph overnight to specific organisms?
Or is this when you change the ph with glacial slowness over many decades such that no change could even so much as be detected between any two generations of urchins?
Get yourself some sort of credible experimental methodology.
Interesting point Bird. So I guess we conduct a 50 year experiment to see how fast species can adapt to changing pH levels while we double CO2 in the atmosphere? The world’s already doing that, isn’t it? And the thing is, when the answer is found that way, it’s too late if it’s not a desirable result.
If you have bothered reading any detail about the issue, you would know that the scientists raising the concerns say that the rate of decreasing pH is going to be very fast compared to geological changes in the past. Meaning less time for speciation to deal with it.
I should also indicate that I am not likely to engage in a lengthy argument with you about anything. Your style of debate alone means I just can’t take you or your arguments seriously.
Graeme Bird, you are a moron. Seriously.
Anyway. This is nothing to do with models, I know you somehow want to make this about modelling and Eggheads at Goddard, but it isn’t. The Snowball Earth hypothesis is a geological hypothesis and doesn’t realy on modelling but rather geological data. There is evidence of glaciation to equatorial regions in Neoproterozoic rocks from South Australia, for example. But the evidence isn’t unambiguous. It could be that the rocks were at high altitude. The Snowball Earth hypothesis hasn’t been confrimed, it’s still in progress.
Also note that the Snowball Earth hypothesis relies on the greenhouse effect. The hypothesis uses knowledge of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere in the Neoproterozoic. It also requires a sudden enhanced greenhouse to raise global temperatures back up and melt all that ice. TRY READING BEFORE DECLARING.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/281/5381/1342?ijkey=48d78da67bab492803c333f50c0dd84fbbef109c
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118926549/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
http://ecosystems.wcp.muohio.edu/studentresearch/climatechange03/snowball/articles/HoffmanSchragSnowballEarth.pdf
In fact here is the whole search:
http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=%2BSnowball+Earth&hl=en&lr=
They can certainly adapt faster than the suggested historica changes. If a species is that fundamentally useless that it cannot change to some tiny move towards neutral over 100’s of generations than I’m afraid it does not deserve to live.
Of course these alarmists are talking about some sort of runaway acidification. Its all book of revelations and fund-raising.
But what are you claiming is the historical rate?
Find an historical rate and some reason to believe in it or you have nothing. And you could also disaggregate whatever you come up with the effect of melting ice. Since of course melting ice during the same time period would also cause a move towards a less corrosive neutrality.
I have read the detail. I made my eyes sore trying to read the detail for anything worthwhile. All I found was evidence for and outrageous waste of money.
Guess who put me onto it? It was Annan. Not finding any evidence for catastrophic warming he sidetracked me onto ocean acidification.
I’m just waiting for whatever it is next that you guys are going to become pathologically fearful about. The problem is that these unreal worries get in the way of real problems. Our success as a country will be largely determined by what we DON’T worry about.
Its a new Greshams law. Make-believe concerns drives out the real looming disasters.
Graeme, you are a faker and I will ignore your screeching from now on. You have no supporting material and cannot conduct a scientific debate with any degree of skill.
We are never likely to double CO2 more is the pity. Look at how long it will take. .4% recurring. What will it then take to get up to 760ppm? A very long time. But before we get anywhere near that the cooling will kick in as well as the echo of the last cooling. As well the biosphere will likely be so stimulated as to soak up a lot of the CO2.
Still we can use any increase we can get hold of and we ought to be grateful for it. Hansen has the CO2 levels topping out at lower than 600ppm. A reasonably good growing environment but we’d really want better.
Come on NT. I was being very skillful about it. And when you come up with some actual evidence thats when I’ll go find something if I think your evidence is insufficient.
You weren’t helpful in any case. And you were insulting to the blog owner. So I don’t know what you are getting poopy-pants about.
Well yes I do. You are losing the chess game and instead of conceding you find a way to kick the board off the table. Its the leftist staged walkout. A good but all too common thing. You won’t be missed.
Well Birdy you’re doing a credit to the sceptic’s position – at this rate by next election you’ll have people voting for you in Dobell in droves – who knows – the units or even tens maybe. WELL DONE old son. People love eccentric radicals. We AGW types couldn’t hope for a better friend. Pls keep it up. Say what you really think. Don’t hold back now.
Right NT. As I thought you didn’t have any evidence AGAINST the snowball earth. You just are trying to say that perhaps there was not enough evidence to be totally sure about it.
But we want to go with what evidence we have. So we ought to take the snowball earth seriously and not wish it away on account of the absolute failure of leftist climate models to account for it. Which is no weakness of the snowball earth theory in the first place. Since these climate models are quite useless and cannot even predict the past.
Steven, my post of 8 August was a genuine (and polite) attempt to answer Luke’s question. I naturally assumed you had also read it and taken it as the end of the matter in so far as we could pursue it in a forum such as this. Perhaps you missed it?
You are mistaken in that all the effects you have referred-to must actually operate within the overall constraints of thermodynamics. To believe otherwise is to effectively, reject AGW itself. The fact that you can’t see that tells me a lot about your likely background. There is nothing to be gained by us debating the matter any further here as you do not have an in-depth biogeochemical training/experience and further discussion would inevitably require getting into a lot of technical detail for which I neither have the time (fully self-employed) or the inclination. I respect your interest in the subject but we must just agree to differ on it.
Regarding the other matters you have raised, I have always freely admitted that I do believe (and have always believed) in a degree of AGW. I have distinct opinions on the likely actual sensitivity of CO2. I am also currently intensely researching, with another science associate, a mechanism (oceanic cyanobacterial blooming) which we are now convinced is a neglected significant long-term mechanism of negative feedback to CO2-induced AGW (as distinct from CH4 and N2O-induced warming).
As time passes I have, and will, occasionally put up posts relating to the above matter and will be happy to debate issues around that if someone wants to do so. But I no longer want to engage in debate on most of the other matters raised in this blog because I am now rather disillusioned with the intellectual integrity, personal honesty and ethics of many who blog here – on BOTH sides.
Sincerely
Steve
Steve Short: yes, I had missed that comment to Luke, and the polite tone is appreciated, although as usual you seemingly cannot avoid venturing into a degree of condescension, and completely irrelevant speculation on the socio-political or psychological reasons behind any questioning of your arguments.
What you do avoid is answering plain propositions I put to you, and plain reasons as to why ocean acidification may be a concern even if your thermodynamic arguments are left unquestioned.
“although as usual you seemingly cannot avoid venturing into a degree of condescension, and completely irrelevant speculation on the socio-political or psychological reasons behind any questioning of your arguments.”
And you invariably approach a discussion of matters of pure science like a fresh young lawyer trying to score trivial debating points and/or to manipulate the discussion in attempt to obtain some sort of concession which you can use to pull an ad hominem (just as you did yet again above). I no interest in engaging with your boring juvenility.
Steve: You are (or were) the slipperiest fish here by far, and when you go around calling other scientists liars (in a very Graeme Bird sort of way) why shouldn’t you be pursued up hill and down dale so that we can all understand why you are right and a large number of other scientists – like, the ones actually doing experiments with sea creatures and lower pH – are wrong?
And a complaint about ad hominen from a person who writes this (about yours truly):
“It is clear you have no capacity to appreciate, absorb and understand the fascinating and wonderful complexity of the natural world and feel a neurotic need to reduce everything to moronic simplifications and logical confusions.
You simple minded, post-modernist arrogance, clearly founded on an abysmal lack of the appropriate technical education, exemplifies for me everything that is so deeply distasteful in the monolithic behaviour of the hordes of acolytes of the apocalyptic religion of anthropogenic global warming.”
is quite amusing. Your Olympic Gold Medal for hypocrisy is in the mail!
Anyway, why so reticent about being clear on whether you think CO2 emissions should be reduced, when your statement in February that “In my view what is inarguable is that we now exploiting this planet in an almost mindless way which is largely unsustainable” sure sounds consistent with a belief they should be?
Or do you prefer the idea of letting the emissions be made and then try to fix any problem with ocean fertilization? Your recent posts seem to be indicating a great interest in that direction.
Why so secret about this? (Although, I admit, maybe you have made your position clear here before and I have missed it.) If your position has never been made clear, why not? I would not be questioning you about this at all were it not for that February post, which seemed distinctly out of character.
So far no one has yet produced a refereed paper refuting Arrhenius’s ice age hypothesis. Refute that and you automatically refute AGW.
Graeme Bird,
The trouble with parodies of extremists is that they are so hard to tell from the people being lampooned. For instance, I’m still not 100% sure about shelleytherepublican.com.
I don’t think there’s anything you can say that will make me think that you are not a parodist. It will just show how good you are, and the alternative is, frankly, not something I really want to consider.
Now, what defamatory statements do you mean? And what do you want evidence for?
BTW what
Please ignore the “BTW what”.
Louis; an interesting paper which purports to have found the lowest levels of atmospheric CO2 in recent geological history -650000-800000 byp – without an accompanying, and commensurate with Arrhenius, lower than usual temperature regime is here;
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/full/nature06949.html
Berner’s historical CO2 graph for the deep past also shows a couple of periods including the present where low levels of CO2 were not correlated with low temps; the LIA of course did not feature lower levels of CO2, but in fact stable levels.
The thing about AGW is that there is no consistency with the nominated cause and effect parameters at all.
Cohenite
on a geological scale CO2 therefore seems to be independent of temperature; but temperature of what?
“Now, what defamatory statements do you mean? And what do you want evidence for?”
You really want me to repeat what you (or someone with you monicker) said at Deltoid, you stupid little bitch?
Now lets have some evidence so that you can redeem yourself. But obviously its going to have to be evidence that escapes this stupid-loop I’ve been talking about:
“”(((((((((Lab spectroscopy….. leads to paradigm about climate……. leads to speculation of what will happen to average temperature increase due to extra industrial-CO2)))))))))))”
Your arrogance implies that you have some evidence. Lets have it or just accept that you are a dishonest tramp.
I’m taking a punt and suggesting that you are female. But it doesn’t matter either way. The terms still apply.
“on a geological scale CO2 therefore seems to be independent of temperature; but temperature of what?”
Each strata ought to be able to hold energy. And as you go down to the core each relevant strata (even if separated conceptually for heat purposes rather than strictly according to standard geology) ought to be able to hold more joules than the one above.
I would say on the geological time-scale there would be a few key considerations:
1. Are the poles surrounded by land.
2. What is the RESISTANCE TO CIRCULATION of the oceans. Less resistance means a far higher equilibrium temperature. This I think is the key.
3. The air pressure. And I say this chiefly because we have a bias towards being concerned about the temperature in the troposphere.
4. Obviously the strength of the suns activities in that era.
Now the other thing to consider is that we need to have the story about the prior tens of millions of years to the time we are talking about. When talking about temperatures in geological time any snapshot model ought to be left outside.
So when the heat maximum of 55 million years ago was reached and stuck around for 100,000 years we had the following factors:
1. A prior history of perhaps 200 million years or more without an ice age. I’m suggesting that this could lead to heat buildups in the deeper earth. Perhaps even in the core.
2. It looks like the Antarctic had reached the South Pole but perhaps hadn’t surrounded it and in any case the earth had not been in this shape long enough to have the negative feedback of land ice.
3. The layout of the continents was, and had been for a very long time, incredibly open allowing for ease of circulation. Which of course means less heat differentials which means of course more heat retention due to Stefan Boltzmanns law.
As far as air pressure is concerned I don’t think this played any part. However CO2 may have played a big part in far earlier time via the mechanism of air pressure.
If you are looking at things from a strata and heat budget approach what air pressure does is it strengthens the seperation between the strata and so allows a greater heat budget in the troposphere at least.
Exactly the same as water boiling more readily on Mount Everest than it would do at sea level.
There is very significant fine structure to hemispheric and regional (e.g. great Southern Ocean (SO)) atmospheric CO2 levels if one calculates residuals relative to the ‘official’ NOAA global average. This also applies to Mauna Loa.
The purpose behind calculating % residuals relative to the (smoothly rising) global average is that this maximizes factoring out the net effects of (temporal) trends in anthropogenic emissions or upwelling and downwelling across the planet. Please download this example spreadsheet.
https://download.yousendit.com/Smp1T200eDNoeVpFQlE9PQ
Please also refer my earlier article in this blog of 4 June 2008.
(1) This is a two component graph showing average monthly daytime chlorophyll a over all oceans and average monthly daytime SSTs for the latitude band 0 (Equator) to 30 N (i.e. Sub-Equatorial NH). Note the 1998 El Nino SST effect. Next, please note the presence of a bimodal population of cyanobacteria in each annual cycle i.e. a Consortium S which blooms in summer and a Consortium W which blooms in winter. Note also the peak and trough SSTs. Note also the increased strength of the winter 2006 and winter 2008 Consortium W blooms. I suggest you print out this graph and the following ones if you can (in colour).
http://reason.gsfc.nasa.gov/OPS/cgi-bin/Giovanni/Giovanni_cgi.pl?west=-180&north=30&east=180&south=0&type=3%23Time+Plot+%28point+or+area+averaging%29&Product_A=0%23%23%23SeaWiFS+Chlorophyll+a+concentration&Product_B=5%23%23%23Aqua+Sea+Surface+Temperature+%2811+micron+day%29&landocean=landocean&b_year=1997&b_month=September&e_year=2008&e_month=February&end_date=2008%2F02%2F29&data_limit=126&cbar=cpre&cmin=&cmax=&tpbar=tpdyn&tpmin=&tpmax=&tpint=&asc_res=1.0&global_cfg=.%2Fglobal.cfg.pl&data_sys=mpcomp&pid=ocean&action=Generate+Plot
(2) Here is the equivalent graph for the oceanic latitude band right around the Equator i.e. 15 N – 15 S. Note again the presence of a bimodal population of cyanobacteria in each annual cycle i.e. a Consortium S which blooms in summer and a WEAKER Consortium W which blooms in winter.
http://reason.gsfc.nasa.gov/OPS/cgi-bin/Giovanni/Giovanni_cgi.pl?west=-180&north=15&east=180&south=-15&type=3%23Time+Plot+%28point+or+area+averaging%29&Product_A=0%23%23%23SeaWiFS+Chlorophyll+a+concentration&Product_B=5%23%23%23Aqua+Sea+Surface+Temperature+%2811+micron+day%29&landocean=landocean&b_year=1997&b_month=September&e_year=2008&e_month=February&end_date=2008%2F02%2F29&data_limit=126&cbar=cpre&cmin=&cmax=&tpbar=tpdyn&tpmin=&tpmax=&tpint=&asc_res=1.0&global_cfg=.%2Fglobal.cfg.pl&data_sys=mpcomp&pid=ocean&action=Generate+Plot
(3) Here is the equivalent graph for the latitude band below the Equator i.e. 0 – 30 S. Note the almost complete absence of the 1998 El Nino SST effect. Note also the almost complete absence of a bimodal population of cyanobacteria in each annual cycle i.e. Consortium W dominates completely (unlike the situation with the Sub-Equatorial NH.
http://reason.gsfc.nasa.gov/OPS/cgi-bin/Giovanni/Giovanni_cgi.pl?west=-180&north=0&east=180&south=-30&type=3%23Time+Plot+%28point+or+area+averaging%29&Product_A=0%23%23%23SeaWiFS+Chlorophyll+a+concentration&Product_B=5%23%23%23Aqua+Sea+Surface+Temperature+%2811+micron+day%29&landocean=landocean&b_year=1997&b_month=September&e_year=2008&e_month=February&end_date=2008%2F02%2F29&data_limit=126&cbar=cpre&cmin=&cmax=&tpbar=tpdyn&tpmin=&tpmax=&tpint=&asc_res=1.0&global_cfg=.%2Fglobal.cfg.pl&data_sys=mpcomp&pid=ocean&action=Generate+Plot
(4) Now here is the equivalent plot for the mid-NH latitudes 30 N – 60 N. Note the almost complete absence of the 1998 El Nino SST effect! Note well the now marked and very consistent presence of Consortium S and a shift of the (now stronger)Consortium W to warmer waters later in each year, relative to more equatorial waters. Note also how Consortium S has INCREASED in activity from a peak Chlorophyll a level of less than 0.6 mg/m^3 in 1997 to approx. 0.7 mg/m^3 in 2006 -7.
http://reason.gsfc.nasa.gov/OPS/cgi-bin/Giovanni/Giovanni_cgi.pl?west=-180&north=60&east=180&south=30&type=3%23Time+Plot+%28point+or+area+averaging%29&Product_A=0%23%23%23SeaWiFS+Chlorophyll+a+concentration&Product_B=5%23%23%23Aqua+Sea+Surface+Temperature+%2811+micron+day%29&landocean=landocean&b_year=1997&b_month=September&e_year=2008&e_month=February&end_date=2008%2F02%2F29&data_limit=126&cbar=cpre&cmin=&cmax=&tpbar=tpdyn&tpmin=&tpmax=&tpint=&asc_res=1.0&global_cfg=.%2Fglobal.cfg.pl&data_sys=mpcomp&pid=ocean&action=Generate+Plot
(5) This graph is the killer of the set! Here is the equivalent SH plot for the mid-SH latitudes 30 S – 60 S. Note the still-evident 1998 El Nino SST effect! Note the COMPLETE ABSENCE OF Consortium S UNLIKE THE EQUIVALENT NH ZONE 30 N – 60N but an equivalent shift of the (now solitary) Consortium W to warmer waters later in each year (relative to more equatorial waters).
http://reason.gsfc.nasa.gov/OPS/cgi-bin/Giovanni/Giovanni_cgi.pl?west=-180&north=-30&east=180&south=-60&type=3%23Time+Plot+%28point+or+area+averaging%29&Product_A=0%23%23%23SeaWiFS+Chlorophyll+a+concentration&Product_B=5%23%23%23Aqua+Sea+Surface+Temperature+%2811+micron+day%29&landocean=landocean&b_year=1997&b_month=September&e_year=2008&e_month=February&end_date=2008%2F02%2F29&data_limit=126&cbar=cpre&cmin=&cmax=&tpbar=tpdyn&tpmin=&tpmax=&tpint=&asc_res=1.0&global_cfg=.%2Fglobal.cfg.pl&data_sys=mpcomp&pid=ocean&action=Generate+Plot
These graphs, if you have the patience to let them load into your Web browser, to view them and (as I suggest) print out copies for more careful perusal, should be sufficient to convince you that the behaviour of the vast crops of oceanic cyanobacteria in the NH oceans (‘Consortia S and W), the Equatorial is markedly different to the SH below 30 S (which has only a ‘Consortium W’).
My interpretation is that the NH populations of mixed oceanic cyanobacteria are clearly responding to the more rapidly increasing NH atmospheric CO2 levels, the higher SSTs and the larger anthropogenic fixed nitrogen pollution of the NH by adaptation to establish a stronger ‘Consortium S’ population designed to consume those elevated CO2 and fixed nitrogen nutrient levels.
As I noted in my previous post, the increasing negative deviations of CO2 levels over the great Southern Ocean from the global mean CO2 level (the ‘residuals’) suggest that this CO2 fertilization effect is occurring there too. We simply can’t discern it in the NH in this manner because the NH is where the atmospheric CO2 is being overwhelmingly generated.
This is evolution in action. It is evolution in the direction of increasing adaptation-to and attenuation-of elevated atmospheric CO2 (from whatever source) and increasing SSTs (for whatever reason).
There is therefore clear evidence that on a regional basis the capacity of the oceans for CO2 removal is both variable and in some regions is actually increasing.
In my view, this is a result of the effects on cyanobacterial primary productivity of increasing CO2 fertilization, delayed fertilization from N, P, sulfite, Fe and Si fallout/washout from volcanos like Pinatubo and, perhaps most importantly, the massive and rapidly increasing input to the oceans of anthropogenic fixed nitrogen.
It can also be shown that cyanobacterial primary productivity has a negative feedback effect on SST which in turn increases CO2 solubility etc. This arises through increased sea surface albedo induced by the blooming of biogenic calcite-secreting cyanobacteria (‘coccolithophores’), reduced sea surface evaporation rates caused by multilayers of lipids formed on the sea surface during blooming (via zooplankton predation and the action of cyanobacteriophages), and enhanced lapse rates induced by nucleation of low level clouds by the emitted dimethylsulfide (DMS)(= release of latent heat of evaporation) .
Ironically, it may well be the reduced SST effects of increasing primary productivity in the coastal shelf zones of SE Asia and the Indonesian archipelago (driven by the increasing nutrient pollution of those shallow seas) which has led to the increasing dryness of the Murray Darling Basin.
McIntyre is over Beck and his CO2 measurements, and he wants no discussion on Beck because he thinks Beck is wrong.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?m=200711
OK? So can we have no more of Beck here too?
“I don’t think that it’s accurate to say that “nobody” asks this. The CO2 “sink” has worried many people. Needless to say, this has already led to many responses. This is a topic that many readers are interested in and I’m re-threading the comments to avoid the other thread from getting over-ridden. I do not want the thread to get involved in discussion of the problems with the Beck paper. That’s been amply done. NO discussion of CO2 measurement methods. Just the narrow issue of the sentence above.
It is not a topic that I’ve spent time, but I do not believe that there are any substantive issues as to the existence of increased CO2 levels.”
McIntyre himself thinks Beck is WRONG!
That doesn’t follow. McIntyre is like that. He tolerates all these leftist loons but if you put something on a thread that he thinks goes against the integrity of the thread he’ll just wipe or redirect it.
“3. The layout of the continents was, and had been for a very long time, incredibly open allowing for ease of circulation. Which of course means less heat differentials which means of course more heat retention due to Stefan Boltzmanns law.”
Bear with me for a bit Graeme…I’ve just tacked on to end of this discussion and haven’t had time to go back through the comments to see where this all started. But the reference to Stefan-Boltzmann caught my eye. That’s the delta T to the 4th law, right ? Are you saying that the more open geometry of the continents of the time allowed for a less restricted flow of ocean currents, leading to less frictional heat being generated over the seabed, and thus a lower average global temperature, leading to a reduced temperature differential beween the Earth and space with a corresponding lessening of equilibrating LW radiation to space ?
Or did you mean that it was easier then for ocean currents to shift heat around, helping smooth out regional differences…?
A nudge in the right direction would be helpful.
Apologies if you’ve already covered this in the comments above.
Looking back now through the comments it’s obvious you were referring to heat transport via the ocean currents, and the resulting smoothing out of regional differences…
But that’s a process that takes decades,surely, whereas radiative transfer of LW is instantaneous, continuing until the new equilibrium is reached.
Graeme Bird,
OK, I suppose that I have to treat a parodist in the same way I would the “real thing”.
Why would someone’s sex matter? Why even speculate about it? Does it matter only because you can slant your frothing-at-the mouth insults?
Just so that we can be under no understanding, this is what I said at Deltoid.
“Marohasy is a disgrace. Either she is pretending not to know or she really doesn’t know. Neither are acceptable for someone running the website/blog that she does.
Surely she knows that scientists should leave their politics at the door when going into the lab?”
Do you want evidence for that? The existence of this blog and this series of threads is all I need.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but all you’ve managed to show is, given enough choices of data and statistical tools, you can correlate practically anything to anything else. Correlation does not mean causation, and it’s causation that Jen’s been asking for evidence of.
I think what I’ve managed to show is that everything can be denied, even statistical associations with 99.99999999% confidence. If there’s no causality there, why does the best association occur when temperatures lag CO2 by 10 years? What is the confounding factor, considering I’m looking at cumulative human emissions estimated from fossil fuel production?
Note also that observed CO2 from ice cores over the same time period detrends the same way, as I show here:
http://residualanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/08/just-in-case-there-are-any-doubts-about.html
The detrended temperature and cumulative CO2 series are shown here:
http://bp3.blogger.com/__6PO0G1BcJM/SHjWm0gCguI/AAAAAAAAACk/BsbMNnwz0Go/s1600-h/figure2b.JPG
Critiques over at my blog are welcome. If you’d like me to try something different, ask me.
Do I think this proves beyond doubt anthropogenic global warming is real? Yeah, pretty much.
“Why would someone’s sex matter?” It wouldn’t. You’d be a mindless whore either way. As the last post attests no evidence has been given in four threads. And you haven’t backtracked at Deltoid have you you stupid slut.
The evidence I’d want would be evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic warming. But you aren’t coming up with it are you.
And you aren’t going to retract anything you said. You aren’t coming up with evidence. So obviously you are just an idiot. If you are a scientist you are a fraud.
For petes sakes Joseph you moron. All you’ve come up with is evidence that the CO2 levels are rising. But you are instead claiming that human-caused warming is REAL. Not real and tiny but just REAL. Which is a stupid statement amongst many stupid mantras that zombies like yourself are always repeating.
So you muster evidence for one proposition. But you claim vindication for another. Why would people waste time at a blog of someone who was that goddamned lame?
Can anyone tell me when this plague of stupidity will even so much as let up. Take time for a holiday? A holiday from ubiquitous stupidity. That would at least be a start.
I mean this moron Joseph shows up. Claims he’s got evidence for one thing. And then claims vindication for something entirely different.
Joseph you are a hard leftist aren’t you? You’re a lefty face it. You’re a very stupid person. That is for sure.
Graeme Bird,
I was surprised that various people have, in good faith, presented evidence. Why should I do that?
It was obvious from the outset that the challenge was not made in good faith. There is no evidence, no matter how complete and irrefutable, that would accepted by Marohasy or Duffy, let alone a foul-mouthed psychotic like you.
They haven’t presented any evidence and they weren’t in good faith. Don’t be endorsing people if you are unable to read and interpret a report. And for goodness sakes don’t be maligning people when this is the case.
If you don’t understand the issues you ought to just come back under another name and ask questions until you are able to comprehend the various points of view.
The alarmists have a rigid model. The reasoning is no good, does not relate to the real world, and it appears to be quite foolish reasoning to boot. But their paradigm is refuted outright by the total dearth of empirical evidence that would confirm their findings.
Other replacement paradigms are hard to get up but sorely needed. In the initial stages to finding a badly needed replacement paradigm there will be mistakes and other paradigms that bring in a wider view but aren’t quite there. The public funding of research which constantly reinforces the flawed paradigm gets in the way of the development of badly needed alternatives.
Try to actually understand the paradigm that you are currently supporting. Try and find its assumptions. Its hard going because alarmists aren’t going to tell you these assumptions of you ask them straight. But don’t assume that this paradigm is a good one because we know that it isn’t. Empirically it has nothing going for it. And insofar as I’ve been able to shake these guys down and admit their reasoning and assumptions that appears to be an even weaker side to the same coin.
For the benefit of anyone who wants to save this, print it out for the toilet wall, or just savour the sheer genius of it, here are my selected quotations of The Best Of Graeme Bird. 😉
—-
People who aren’t mindless leftists just admit they are wrong when they have no evidence.
So you are just lying again and you are an idiot.
No in fact David you are just lying filth.
But thats not going to happen because you are lying.
Either you have the evidence or you are a stupid slut.
You should commit Hari Kari right now to make up for your dishonour but the fact is you could not have read the evidence BECAUSE ITS NOT THERE you stupid gang moll whore.
But the fact is you are an alarmist. In which case you know jack shit about science and are in no position to lecture anyone on anything at all.
Bang up job your crowd did. Seeing as Aids (a hard disease to catch) is still with us in spades. You are just in no position to be arrogant. You are in fact a dim bulb.
No it doesn’t you are lying.
Goodness me. Whose the dope who said this. Its almost not worth scrolling through the confederacy of idiocy just to find out.
We might have to take time out to explain to the leftists just what the term “evidence” means.
You are basically lying here.
How about just coming up with some evidence you ignorant fraudulent phoney jerk?
Look you total moron. Just 1 study will do if indeed it has the evidence. Now which one has the evidence?
Those guys are just clowns.
Thats not going to work in this situation Steve. This is leftist fraud. This is a commie substitute religion. In fact we won’t be quits with this constant lying and idiocy until we get used to mass-sackings.
Sack the offender and everyone around him in 360 degrees fashion. Just save the taxpayer a lot of money.
I wish I had a time machine just so I could go back in time decades and sack John Quiggin.
But we must look to the future. This controversy has separated the honest from the liars, the scientists from the science-worker imposters, and the reasoned analysts in other fields from the merely ridiculous posers.
In economics 76 ridiculous posers signed a petition for Australia to join the Kyoto idiocy. Now when you get that many failed analysts in one line of work it means that the know-nothings are shutting out those who can actually do the job. Its not a matter of these dim bulbs being merely ineffectual. Clearly they are actively harmful.
I should like to set up an INSTITUTE FOR MASS SACKINGS AND TAX EXEMPTIONS that doubles as a political party.
You see communism in all its variants keeps cropping up in Christendom. It has done so for 1000 years. But prior to the democratic era it was always ruthlessly put down before the victims could network their way near the levers of power and start killing people in the millions.
That all ended with the democratic era. So what this means if we don’t want to be ruthlessly exterminating these hateful iterations of this virus in the Western world, we have to find other ways for democracy to prevent an outbreak in this eschatological-utopianism.
MASS-SACKINGS EARLY ON.
We want mass-sackings of taxeaters who we suspect might even be regarded as a risky prospect to fall for these various perversions and extrapolations of the book-of-revelations.
We want the spirit of Andrew Jackson to inhabit our polity. His detractors called it the “spoils system” but really it was all about not letting anyone ever fool himself that he is entitled to his current place on the public teat.
You are an idiot TrueSkeptic. And a tribal gang moll. Now lets have that evidence.
Aren’t you CO-Bedwetters just the cats pajamas when it comes to endless filibusting.
Lets have that evidence Luke. That stupid slut wasn’t in any position to say where I went off the beam so her comments were pointless. Her comments in fact are always totally mindless. Here and on Deltoid. Content-free.
Lets have some content Luke. You ought not be working at the RMIT with your level of incompetence and epistemological idiocy.
No sister. You have to go to your doctor and get a brain transplant and a slut tumour removal.
Now lets have that evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic warming or lets have your blanket retractions and an admission that you’ve been a stupid lying slut.
Evidence….. for the LIKELIHOOD….. of catastrophic warming….
Got it?
Now get moving. And for goodness sakes clean yourself up. You look disgusting.
Don’t sugarcoat these people. They are just lunatics, barely reconstructed communists and anonymous frauds. Look at Nexus. He’s just a complete idiot.
They cannot be so stupid that they don’t know what evidence is. So they are frauds. Thats why they are always showing up anonymously. They must know they ought to be sacked from their day-job.
There was nothing good faith about the wild-goose chases these people try to send the rest of us down. There is nothing good faith about the aspersions that they cast on you specifically and others more generally.
These guys are just Gramscian anti-science pack-animals. Utopian-Eschatologists wrong-footed by the collapse of Soviet Communism.
This global warming racket is the longest evidence filibuster in all history.
Several dozens of papers were suggested to you. Not one of them in good faith.
Well you ought to. Because you are a fraud. Or an idiot. You choose. I’m no mindreader.
I’m impressed that Michael Duffy is on top of the situation. Because when I first found out that you guys had no evidence whatsoever when I’d try to tell people about it they wouldn’t believe me. Like they’d assume that the leftists must have some sort of evidence. But they have nothing at all.
I went to Deltoid to ask the mysterious dwarf-Oracle where the evidence could be found. He referred me to Annan who had one estimate of 3 degrees increase with a doubling of CO2 based on Bayesian statistics… entirely inappropriate.
t wasn’t the first time the mysterious Deltoid Dwarf had sent someone astray.
I don’t know whether Dr Marohasy is just waking up to the enormity of this confederacy of arch-stupidity matched up with the outer limits of human dishonesty. Or perhaps she’s running a giant rope-a-dope. But the fact is that people are being lead astray even when they disagree. They are disagreeing but thinking that there is something in it. That the opposition has some sort of knowledge or argument up their sleeve.
Its hard to convince them that the leftists have nothing at all. Just a big fat zero.
No evidence can be found that way you idiot. One study is good enough if it has evidence. So we’ve proved outright that this is just a leftist fraud. Both sides of the argument have to get used to this. Its not some collegial disagreement of opinion.
Lukes a dishonest moron. As is NT as is Nexus, Karoly and all of that crowd. This is not a situation where some decent people are just having a mental block.
EVIDENCE you idiot Luke! No-one said anything about proof. Show up with some evidence you moron or resign.
So Ender you have just seen three threads where none of you idiots could muster a scrap of evidence and you are still pretending that CO2 is going to lead to climate change when the climate always changes.
Look. Climate rationalists who pretend that they are dealing with anything but liars and morons when they argue with these people are just doing more harm then good. More than ever now we have to identify this racket as a moronic cult. Like those comet-watching cultists who all killed themselves. Something like that.
I mean hows Enders form. Day after day lunatics like this and Luke just constantly talking their anti-science trash-talk.
Three threads, no evidence. It doesn’t phase this lunatic Ender.
Stephanie what is your point? Are you in fact another failed analyst who was too stupid to spot this racket right from the getgo?
You diminish yourself with these comments. Its time for people like you to rewrite history and pretend that you were always somewhat dubious about the panic.
The good Doctor didn’t bring skeptics into being. In here conservative way she is likely not yet ready call these hateful frauds out for who they are in mixed company.
I was calling this a fraud when calling this a fraud wasn’t cool.
No thats a flat out filthy dirty lie.
As for holocaust-denial thats exactly what the alarmist crowd are. They are holocaust deniers. To a man the alarmist crowd are DDT-bureaucratisation holocaust-deniers. This is a certain type of mentality here. A mentality of liars, delusion, leftist-projectors and so forth.
Heretofore such mentalities had only affected the humanities. But it was only a matter of time until this poison reached the physical sciences.
Just constant idiocy from Haughton. If its not one thing or another. The 20th century warming is easily explained by anyone not a complete idiot. You showed no such thing.
Well of course not you jerk because it isn’t happening. You can hardly prove global warming if the globe is cooling. You are the biggest idiot I’ve seen in a long time.
And no you are talking idiocy. Because had extra-CO2 had a substantial warming effect it could easily be shown. That it hasn’t been shown after 50 billions of wasted money means that it is no substantial effect.
You are part of it, its a leftist thing, which is why only prosecutions and mass-sackings can cure it.
You idiot sod.
You’ve tried to slip the hypothesis into the conclusion!!!!
The hypothesis is this:
Will the realities of spectroscopy have a massive warming effect on the planet with increasing CO2?
And your reply to that, because you are a moron is: HERE ARE THE REALITIES OF SPECTROSCOPY. THIS IS EVIDENCE!!
You idiot. You dope. You should be euthanised right now for plumbing the outer limits of stupidity.
You tried to prove the conclusion by the hypothesis itself. Go and commit hari-kari. All it takes is a tie and the womens toilet.
Hey you know what buddy?
YOU ARE A FRAUD. YOU ARE A LIAR.
And on top of that you are caught on this very blog defaming other people.
The answer is for you to shape up and to stop being a fraud and to stop being in liar.
Sort your act out, step outside, do whatever you have to do. But you are a science incompetent. And you ought never have been on the public tit except on traditional welfare to just keep you out of the way.
This movement will wreck everything. Its the other node of evil on top of jihadism and worse because it makes jihadism possible.
This is not some honest misunderstanding. This is a serious movement with serious momentum. We cannot soft-peddle these guys. They will destroy everything.
I’m not toning down anything. If you don’t see me pointing out that people are frauds its only because I know you’ll wipe such comments.
Think of the hateful things they’ve said to people maintaining the scientific ethos.
You just had to slip that lie into the end of the sentence didn’t you.
Its you who are the idiot TrueSkeptic. I’ll put up with a lot but I’m not putting up with some evidence-free-idiot like you showing up here and saying I’m running some sort of a parody.
I got where your commie-lying-ass was coming from given your last comment on Deltoid. Thats the place for you if you want to be an idiot.
And I should like people to contemplate the sort of defamatory statements that people like true-skeptic make at Deltoid before getting too worried about that poopy-pants leftist nutball Haughton getting uptight about this or that.
Now TrueSkeptic. Have you got that evidence? No you haven’t. So your whole act is fraudulent.
This is just so depressing. It feels like the onset to the fall of Rome or something. This must be the most depressing time at least since the 70’s. And the first time that the debasement of almost all traditional human values has infected science with such virulence. We used to expect this crap in the humanities. But not in the hard physical sciences.
I’m calling bullshit on that one. You are claiming there is evidence against it on the grounds that the computer said no. Thats a confession that the Goddard model is wrong.
I’m saying you are lying. What is the evidence AGAINST the snowball earth!!!!
Get yourself some sort of credible experimental methodology.
They can certainly adapt faster than the suggested historica changes. If a species is that fundamentally useless that it cannot change to some tiny move towards neutral over 100’s of generations than I’m afraid it does not deserve to live.
Of course these alarmists are talking about some sort of runaway acidification. Its all book of revelations and fund-raising.
You weren’t helpful in any case. And you were insulting to the blog owner. So I don’t know what you are getting poopy-pants about.
Well yes I do. You are losing the chess game and instead of conceding you find a way to kick the board off the table. Its the leftist staged walkout. A good but all too common thing. You won’t be missed.
You really want me to repeat what you (or someone with you monicker) said at Deltoid, you stupid little bitch?
Your arrogance implies that you have some evidence. Lets have it or just accept that you are a dishonest tramp.
I’m taking a punt and suggesting that you are female. But it doesn’t matter either way. The terms still apply.
“Why would someone’s sex matter?” It wouldn’t. You’d be a mindless whore either way. As the last post attests no evidence has been given in four threads. And you haven’t backtracked at Deltoid have you you stupid slut.
And you aren’t going to retract anything you said. You aren’t coming up with evidence. So obviously you are just an idiot. If you are a scientist you are a fraud.
For petes sakes Joseph you moron. All you’ve come up with is evidence that the CO2 levels are rising. But you are instead claiming that human-caused warming is REAL. Not real and tiny but just REAL. Which is a stupid statement amongst many stupid mantras that zombies like yourself are always repeating.
So you muster evidence for one proposition. But you claim vindication for another. Why would people waste time at a blog of someone who was that goddamned lame?
Can anyone tell me when this plague of stupidity will even so much as let up. Take time for a holiday? A holiday from ubiquitous stupidity. That would at least be a start.
I mean this moron Joseph shows up. Claims he’s got evidence for one thing. And then claims vindication for something entirely different.
Joseph you are a hard leftist aren’t you? You’re a lefty face it. You’re a very stupid person. That is for sure.
—-
Steve Watkinson. I don’t understand the problem you have with Steve Short’s citations. Though some might like the source, or not, the IPCC estimated that doubling of CO2 would lead to about 0.3 pH drop. Using this information, it would take a quadrupling of CO2 just to get to where there was a significant drop in SI, much less to decalcification.
Steve’s overnight compared to decadal time dependancy was relevant. In fact, such time dependancy in biological systems is usually a Biology 101 experiment. Also, given the unknown actual buffering effects of the seafloor and contential shelfs, it could easily take 64 times the level of CO2 we have now. It is an unknown.
Steve, I believe has made this point or similar, that the known attributes of sea water, that unless one takes into account the actual response of CO2 into the system, the best we have are guesses. It is assumed that it will drop 0.3. However, it should be noted that it may only drop 0.1 pH if we actually double atmospheric CO2.
In fact, from a geological/evolutionary perspective, there is a fundamental problem with the claim that we will be able to drop the pH that far by CO2. Once we have repeatable estimates based on measurement, then, could we consider that such a problem might actually occur.
The supposition that the sea urchins, for example, would not be able to survive contradicts the estimated peer-reveiwed CO2 levels shown in the past in the geological record. With levels of CO2 much higher and many calcified animals throughout these periods of high CO2 that exist today as well, the difference in the buffering capacity of now and then would have to be explained. I also agree with S Short on the response by biota to increased CO2, and NOx.
In fact, this response is taught in ecology courses. I had to do a undergraduate paper on sea urchin avoidance in ecology. One of the facets I believe Steve S would agree with me about from what I tend to call the alarmist camp, is that speices have been in competitive micro-niching for millenia. Changing conditions means changing population percentages among the micro-niching. It does not mean catastrophic loss of species. This is not to say loss of species cannot occur. However, the loss of species due to changes is not even an assumption except in unusual circumstances. What is assumed, or should be, is the population % change.
Of further note, the most common extant of a species is to be extinct.
Graeme Bird at August 16, 2008 12:23 AM…
You seem to have missed my earlier question on radiative transfer Graeme with all the interim turmoil, but I would appreciate a reply.
Coincidently, since I posted my question to you there has been extensive coverage of the issue of radiative transfer under Jen’s heading “Alan Siddons on Radiative Equilibrium” which you’ve no doubt read by now.
Your earlier comments in relation to Stefan-Boltzmann would suggest that on this particular issue you might actually be on the opposite side of the debate from Alan.
Care to comment ?
I was just making the point in my earlier post that ocean heat transport and radiative transfer couldn’t be complementary agents in smoothing out temperature differences, as you seemd to be suggesting, because of the different time scales in which they operated.
But I’m happy to be proven wrong.
Right. I did miss your question. I have to accept that a lot of what Alan and cohenite says is behind my comprehension. One doesn’t need to understand things in detail. But one does need to understand it conceptually and I cannot quite get the angle they are taking or know how I would be able to verify it. I’d have to have a wider understanding of what they were talking about. Have different paradigms fleshed out and compared in parallel.
The other commentator I find fascinating is Steven Short. All his gear sounds pretty right to me.
I’ll find your question and try and respond to it as best I can later tonight.
The wider point I think is that the standard alarmist model with its simplistic notions is really a failed paradigm. But I haven’t seen another paradigm which nicely replaces it. I suggest strata and heat budgets. On another thread I think William Kinonmonth has improved upon the calculations of that paradigm but not broken away from it.
I think a lot of people are jack of this simplistic paradigm but that doesn’t mean their own offerings are right there and ready to take over. We ought to have a general recognition that the alarmist paradigm has failed and we ought to be a little bit more open to suggestion when others come up with alternative suggestions, even if they aren’t perfectly worked out.
“Bear with me for a bit Graeme…I’ve just tacked on to end of this discussion and haven’t had time to go back through the comments to see where this all started. But the reference to Stefan-Boltzmann caught my eye. That’s the delta T to the 4th law, right ?”
Yes.
” Are you saying that the more open geometry of the continents of the time allowed for a less restricted flow of ocean currents….”
So far so good.
“… leading to less frictional heat being generated over the seabed, and thus a lower average global temperature….”
No but you already figured out what I meant..
“Or did you mean that it was easier then for ocean currents to shift heat around, helping smooth out regional differences…?
A nudge in the right direction would be helpful.”
Thats it. And if you think MARGINALLY you will see why this implies a continuing buildup of joules in the planet.
The economists came up with marginalist thinking in the 1870’s. Jevons, Walras and Menger independently. Climate science uses such massive aggregations it takes all the reality out of it. Its ok to do this but you cannot restrict yourself to the one model if you are going to do this. And you cannot fool yourself that the one model you are fixating on is going to give you the whole picture.
The alarmists in this story are worse than useless. Their mental constipation and fixation with the one model is sucking up all the oxygen.
“Looking back now through the comments it’s obvious you were referring to heat transport via the ocean currents, and the resulting smoothing out of regional differences…”
Yes thats it. Once there is less resistance to circulation the temperature will oscillate upwards. Since heat that is trapped and not evened out will radiate out proportionately more than that thermal energy saved by the colder patches.
We see this with the fusing of North and South America…. this changed the climate for the worse. Wikipedia is not to be trusted on this matter since its been corrupted by lunatics like Willaim Connelly. People who have claimed that this fusion actually warmed Europe via the Gulf stream rather than brought the temperature down pretty much everywhere and increased the length of glacial periods.
“But that’s a process that takes decades,surely, whereas radiative transfer of LW is instantaneous, continuing until the new equilibrium is reached.”
Millions of years. Since continents move only slowly. Pretty much anything in climate is going to take a long time isn’t it? Apart from the suns variation. And even that can take a long time because most of its effects are going to be moderated through a runup in the imbedded joules in the ocean….. which will lead to a buildup of water vapour. Which only really then gives you a warmer climate. There might be an entire solar cycle delay to get real action. Although there is obviously some effect of it that takes only 8 minutes.
This is the problem with simplifying everything down to watts-per-square metre. People lose any sense of the time involved. It robs people of their sense of time.
Many things that are so-called positive feedbacks over one time period could be negative feedbacks over another.
Take sea ice. Instantaneously it will likely be positive, reflecting light into space. Over a year or at least a few years it will be negative, being as it is a great insulator.
Yet if it gets to where it is cutting off the Gulf Stream it could be a positive feedback locking in a glacial period. Over still longer periods it could be negative again. So insulating the oceans that the ice age ends all at once when the orbital cycles and solar activity is right to melt it all at once.
You won’t get any of that if you are thinking of watts-per-square metre. You will be robbed of perspective.
Or take ozone. Ozone is held to be a powerful greenhouse gas. I don’t really know how relevant that is given the location of most of it. But supposing we developed a hole in the ozone layer? A more substantial and persistent one than the one we’ve seen?
Well perhaps more heat energy could radiate out in the near instantaneous sense. Or over a year. But getting rid of ozone is allowing UV to punch into the ocean. This will likely bleach micro-organisms dead and alive and send the live ones deeper in the water. It will thus increase the photic zone and allow for the oceans to absorb more energy leading to warming in the longer run. So you are robbed of that inference with the simplistic alarmist model.
The alarmist model appears to be land-based, simplistic, instantaneous and fundamentally a light-and-air show. The incredible stupidity of these guys lies partly in their insistence that people who disagree with them don’t understand this model or are ignorant of it.
These people are really loathsome when it comes down to it. They are everything anti-science. They stand for everything that gets in the way of scientific progress. What is really sickening is that each of the alarmist bigshots comes with a bunch of bully-boy groupies. They will either humiliate the people who don’t go in for zombie-like mindlessness or they will, if he does not wish to be humiliated, force the free-thinker to get himself banned.
I try to short-circuit the process by getting a kick to the throat in prior to even showing up on the science-frauds site.
“I really hate the fact that a kid dies like that and I have to wonder if his immune system was compromised at birth. I know what the theory claims, but the thought of a virus hanging around for 10 years and killing somone [sic] makes little sense to me.
I don’t want to be naive about this when people’s lives are at stake, and it’s not the right medium to be theorizing in, but I’m pretty ticked at the theories that have prevailed in the HIV/AIDS paradigm. I would think the first priority would be cooperation to find a cure for this miserable condition, but researchers and politicians have been playing games with it.
They should be pulling out all stops, researching all possibilities. Instead they have focused on one theory and ostracized any scientist who suggested otherwise. Please read Duesberg’s qualifications and what he has to say. I’m sure you will find sanity in his reasoning.”
Posted by: Gordon Robertson at August 13, 2008 07:02pm.
And later he said:
“That said, AIDS seems to be a collapse of the immune system from particular modes of excessive sexual behaviour, drug ingestion and etc – rather than some virus targeting certain demographics.
It’s also restricted to specific demographics in the West, and presumably elsewhere.”
And then:
“The shortest answer I can give you is there’s no proof whatsoever that HIV causes AIDS, just as there’s no proof that CO2 causes warming. In fact, there’s no proof that HIV exists, period. That may sound astounding but it’s true. It has never been isolated or purefied [sic], and the tests for it don’t measure for a virus but for anti-bodies ‘thought’ to come from the immune system dealing with a virus.”
Gordon, as I have said on another thread, I have worked in immunology, including HIV immunology, for over 15 years.
I have watched children infected and die, I have watched housewives and haemophiliacs, and indeed friends, die.
And they died of HIV infection, and specifically of the subsequent AIDS sequelae. These people did not take drugs, did not engage in ” particular modes of excessive sexual behaviour”, and they did not come from “certain demographics”.
I am intimately familiar with the structure, the infective biology, the mode of immunological damage, and the treatment of the virus. I could type for pages on the humoral and the cellular responses to infection. My best friend and former flatmate has worked specifically with HIV for 15 years of his 30 year career in immunology, and believe me he does not imagine the existence of the virus, nor its impacts.
For heaven’s sake, the virus is very well electron-micrographed, its genetic sequence was determined years ago, it’s serology is highly detailed, and its cousin viruses in simians and felines are well understood and their existence and effects are certainly not denied.
I have said before that I agree that Duesburg has many credible studies to his name, but this does not make him automatically correct on this matter. All of his objections to the relationship of HIV with AIDS have been scrutinised and rebutted, and indeed this scrutiny of them has helped to cement the causal relationship, as well as uncovering previously unrecognised disease processes.
I sincerely suggest that you get off your backside and head to your nearest medical faculty library and ask to be directed to texts and journals that will explain to you why you are so wrong that you’re not even wrong. Go visit your local hospital’s immunology lab, or the medical faculties research labs, and speak with the staff. Speak with people who actually know what they are talking about, and pull your head from whatever conspiracy rag you tuck under your pillow.
And if you really believe that HIV doesn’t exist, or that it is harmless if it does (this sounds familiar), then volunteer to have some virus injected into your good self.
Really.
After all, it’s not going to kill you if you are correct.
For all other readers of this blog who might not know better, and think that Robertson might be on to something – please, please think again. Don’t take his word on this – for the love of all that is good, don’t even take mine! Go to the sources I mentioned above and find out for yourself.
Make no mistake – HIV is exists, its biology is extremely well studied, its difficulty in immunological treatment is a simple matter to understand, and all of Robertson’s ‘points’ are easily refuted.
HIV, if left untreated, kills, sooner or later, except for a small percentage of very lucky, genetically fortunate individuals. HIV infection is easily avoided with basic precautionary principles, and if this prevention confronts someone’s conservative world view then it is their problem, but it should not be recklessly made someone else’s by the promotion of this despicable conspiracy theory.
That others besides Robertson, such as Hissink, repeat the idea on this blog is a travesty of ignorant prejudice. That Jennifer allows repeated statement of this dangerous and unsubstantiated meme, beyond the necessity of referring to it for comparative purposes with other denialist memes, shows a profound lapse of judgement.
The Dunning-Kruger inflicted people who parade this garbage do not understand what they are talking about, no matter how much they think that they do, and the presence of such a quantity of irresponsible pseudoscience is a severe discredit to a blog that purports to promote ‘real’ science. That it wasn’t nipped in the bud immediately, completely demolishes any credible reputation S&E might have had, and the memory of the internet will not judge S&E’s hosting of this rubbish kindly.
Seriously Jennifer, whatever our disagreement about climate science, you need to completely and immediately dissociate yourself from this HIV nonense. In fact I would recommend a thread to do so, so that there is no doubt about your stance.
Of course, you might actually support the ‘HIV does not cause AIDS’ idea. In that case I would suggest that you commence a thread to explicitly explore this, with presentation of your evidence for believing so, and perhaps you could even invite Michael Duffy to dip his Counterpoint toe into the latest non-HIV AIDS theories.
One way or another, you need to be very clear about where you stand on what is a potentially dangerous discussion on your blog.
Most importantly, unsuspecting or unknowing readers need to understand what the best alternative avenues of investigation outside of this blog are, for personal clarification, now that this theory has been allowed such substantial voice here.
Thats 15 years of not finding a solution. And its not surprising that you guys aren’t finding a solution since we see your incompetence when it comes to the climate science debate.
We find the solution by ranking and re-ranking competing paradigms in parallel not by rigidly sticking to one paradigm or by pre-emptively throwing a paradigm away in accordance to the fashion.
Yes I think it would be dangerous to get rid of the idea that HIV causes AIDS. Or to act on the idea that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS. But you can have more than one paradigm involving the idea that HIV is a cause of AIDS and on top of that for experimental purposes you ought be involving other paradigms.
No progress can be gained by simply spending money to reinforce the same paradigm over and over.
So even for the purposes of designing cost effective research projects you want at least two and possibly have a dozen paradigms being developed and ranked, reranked in parallel.
“Gordon, as I have said on another thread, I have worked in immunology, including HIV immunology, for over 15 years.”
Given your complete idiocy and utter mindlessness when it comes to the subject of the global warming science-fraud this is a sober thought indeed.
There you are over at Deltoid, an idiotic bully-boy advocate of the intellectual status quo and one cannot believe that you are going to shake this shabby epistemology in your day job.
Get your act together Bernard. The likelihood is that you are getting in the way.
Thanks Bernard J for your input. Some of us can sift through the rubbish that is peddled here, but share your concern for those that (for some unknown reason) come here seeking ‘knowledge’. However, the blog moderators do not seem to read the contents of the threads past a certain point (which is usually only a small number of posts). There is no responsibility taken for what is written here, and in the end what is tauted as a blog on science ends up being a blog on anecdotes, ideas, beliefs and blatant lies, dusted with bigotry and verbal abuse. Hopefully it will come back to bite then on the backside.
Travis,
I’ve seen a few people try to explain good science here. IMO they are doing it because they feel they have a duty to do so and I can understand that, but I believe strongly that their efforts are futile.
I don’t understand why you think that the poor moderation of these threads is the problem. The problem is the very existence of the threads themselves. The OPs of many betray ignorance, willful or otherwise, that would embarrass any reasonably able schoolchild of, say, GCSE O-Level standard.
I have an apology to make.
I have been referring to this blog for a day or so as ‘Sicence and Environment’, and not ‘Politics and Environment’.
As a scientist myself I am of course preoccupied by the proper application of science, and thus the term continuosly rattles around my head.
Silly me for not thinking carefully about the title of this blog – I should have remembered it’s about the politics, and not the science.
Yuk.. this is one vicious ol blog. I feel dirty reading it. Graeme Bird.. what a feral. What a turn-off. I’m outta here.
“As a scientist myself I am of course preoccupied by the proper application of science, and thus the term continuosly rattles around my head.”
You are not a scientist Bernard. You are a science worker. Anyone who has fallen for the global warming racket and hangs out with other nutballs at Deltoid can never be considered to be a scientist. Anyone labouring under the curse of the lone paradigm is no scientist and is only getting in the way.
Why do any of you Deltoid nutballs show up here in the first place? I’m telling you you are not fit for scientific discussion and you only get in the way.
Science is about discussing the relative plausibility of DIFFERENT paradigms. There is no place in science for the rigid and constipated favouring of a single paradigm. Much less a currently favoured one. Nor yet even one whose recent heritage comes out of leftist lunacy.
Graeme Bird.
If I may, you seem to demonstrate a very political bent in your interpretation of the conduct of science. I have previously detailed my scientific bona fides – how about you put yours on the table for all to consider?
You see, a non-inconsiderable number of the readers of your invective cannot help but wonder if you might indeed be a parody of a scientific illiterate.
Explain to us exactly why you are so ably qualified to judge whole disciplines of scientists in one fell swoop.
And try to do so without spraying spittle all over your keyboard.
No its the delusionist believers in the global warming fraud that put a political bent on it.
Clearly you are a mindless leftist goon. Or you wouldn’t buy into something so obviously from. For which you cannot come up with any empirical evidence.
This is an outgrowth of what the communists used to call DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM. You argue it out. But once the central party line is taken you believe it like mindless zombies.
Ergo it doesn’t matter what qualifications you have. You will always be a mindless idiot and totally unsuited for work in science.
The only thing the rest of us can do is cut off your funds to prevent you from getting in the way.
So obviously FRAUDULENT is what I meant to say.
Field workers are not Field Marshals. You lack the conceptual ability or objectivity to comment on matters that bridge many specialties. This can be deduced merely from the fact of you being involved with the campaign against warmer winters for the Laplanders.
Graeme Bird,
“the fact of you being involved with the campaign against warmer winters for the Laplanders”
Now that is inspired. Works on so many levels. I confess that I had underestimated the level of your talent for side-splitting comedy until now.
Yeah fine. But I’d rather you just showed up with the evidence or admitted you were wrong and dishonest.
It used to be that if you were proved wrong you didn’t go on pushing the disproven thesis.
Wrong and dishonest about what?
That you are highly delusional, possibly a danger to yourself and others?
Or that the owner owner of this blog is a fraud?
“No its the delusionist believers in the global warming fraud that put a political bent on it.
(…spray, spittle, spray…)
Ergo it doesn’t matter what qualifications you have. You will always be a mindless idiot and totally unsuited for work in science.
The only thing the rest of us can do is cut off your funds to prevent you from getting in the way.
Posted by: Graeme Bird at August 19, 2008 03:43am”
So, the short answer is that you have no scientific qualification or experience at all.
Or, to put it in other words, you have no idea what you are talking about.
From the spectacular leaps of non-logic that you employ, the demonstrable misunderstanding and indeed the antipathy to science that you display, and the unrestrained overuse of abusive venom that you direct at anyone with whom you disagree, I really have to wonder if TrueSceptic’s assessment of you at August 19, 2008 06:03am might not be very close to the mark.
You are not doing anything to convince the readers here otherwise.
James Haughton has recently pointed out your candidacy for the Liberal Democratic Party:
http://www.ldp.org.au/Candidates.html#Graeme_Bird
I’m all for the individual freedom that is so promoted by your colleagues, especially if it does not harm others in space and time, so I have no problem at all with this aspect of the party’s philosophy. However, I note that your background is in an undefined endeavour of economics, and that you are applying your stated predilection for ‘small’ government and minimal taxes to your discussions here.
So much for the absence of political bent on your part…
Graeme, if you aspire to be a representative for your electorate you need to acquire the capacity to act in a genuinely representative fashion, with genuinely representative understanding. You have to this point demonstrated no ability to do so, and I say this as an experienced voter, so don’t tell me that I don’t have a clue.
And if you want to engage real scientists, however much you might wish that they weren’t thus recognised, you seriously need to gain a proper understanding of how it works, rather than to rely on how you imagine that it works.
For someone with your scientific recalcitrance I would suggest a teriary qualification and at least five years of professional employment would be necessary for you to break past your ideological prejudice and misapprehensions.
I do have one thing to compliment you on though… I haven’t laughed this hard in a long long time, and I suspect that I am not the only person here in that boat.
Hank Roberts at
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/the_australians_war_on_science_16.php#comment-1057917
has posted an interesting link
http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm
There are a number of experimental limitations to the demonstration, but I suspect that many here won’t pick what the real ones are, nor what the messages are that can be validly taken away.
No no Bernard. You can aren’t a scientist. You can never BE a scientist. You will always be a spanner in the works.
This can be deduced merely from your backing a blatant science fraud, your contempt for evidence, your craven clinging to alleged authority and the fact that you labour under the curse of the lone paradigm.
Thats my epistemology. Whats yours.
Give us all a lecture in epistemology you dope.
Graeme Bird.
I can see that attempting to iron out the pachydermal wrinkles in your non-scientific thinking is a Sorcerer’s Apprentice task.
If I was less thick-skinned and unperturbed by the libels of one such as yourself, I would perhaps be offended by your unfounded name-calling.
As it is, I can only view you as a weak parody of Gene Ray, of whom I was reminded by david yesterday.
Everything you are Graeme, Ray does much better…
http://www.timecube.com/
The fact that the product of some members of the cheersquad here resemble Ray’s efforts, only casts an ever darkening pall on this blog.
There should be a sign below the banner on these pages that says “Beware! Abandon, all ye who enter here, any hope of real scientific discourse!”.
By the way, you do not appear to have a functional understanding of what epistemology is, either…
And speaking of scientific discourse, Graeme, I assume that you have either read every reference that has been offered in answer to this and the other two threads, or you have srutinised an annotated bibliography that has peer-reviewed each and every one of these references.
If not, then what qualifies you to claim that none of them present evidence of the nature that Marohasy and Duffy asked about?
For a proven non-scientist, you must be very widely read in climate science.
Graeme Bird.
I directed this at Louis Hissink on another thread, but I am keem to hear your response too.
You have a lot to say aboutt scientific endeavour, so perhaps you would condescend to respond to this
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/08/john_mashey_on_how_to_learn_ab.php
please.
I invite Louis Hissink (if he hasn’t already done so), Cohenite, Gordon Robertson, Ian Mott, James Mayeau, other sundry Denialists, and indeed even Jennifer, and Michael Duffy, to contribute.
Your answers will be interesting indeed.
And if you don’t believe that you need to respond, please be especially particular in explaining why you hold this stance.