JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



School president censors science

Michael Kundu, Board President of Marysville (Washington State, USA) District #25 has written to colleagues to urge them to trash a free science resource that discusses logic, reason and evidence, and the core of science. The Skeptics Handbook has arrived at school board presidents’ desks around the US.

“I would encourage all of you to stuff that junk mail directly into the recycle basket.”

In a spot of unwitting self-parody he states:

“…we need to have the ability to tell fact from fiction.  This last mailing is an excellent example of ‘fiction’.”

Thus Michael Kundu, whale photographer, pronounces the data from NASA, Hadley, UAH, CSSP, IPPC, as fiction.

Michael Kundu Censors Science

Michael Kundu has no evidence or logical reason to back his claim. He exhorts everyone to use good sources (then uses Wikipedia), and make intelligent decisions to spot the propaganda, and gives nothing except logical errors. All he can offer is the typical, low base ad hominem attack. So on a science topic, he reasons by ‘smear’.

“I am sure that history will file your names alongside such ‘credentialed luminaries’ as Hwang Woo-suk, Luk Van Parijs, Jon Sudbo, and William Summerlin.”

“if you want to continue spreading your propaganda, I am sure the oil industry (I understand that they had another year of record profits) can provide you with significant funding,”

Thus proving to be rude, ignorant, and unable to reason. He is at least up front about it. It was honest of him to CC Bob Carter in at the start. Though it appears to be more unfounded arrogance than an attempt to communicate.

Professor Bob Carter writes:

“As the president of a school district board, you have a particular responsibility to encourage informed discussion on controversial matters of the day, rather than to denigrate in ignorant fashion one aspect of a complex, multi-sided argument of which you happen to disapprove.

The Skeptics Handbook is a carefully and accurately written account of matters to do with contemporary climate change. Every statement in it is founded in data contained in numerous research papers in refereed scientific journals.”

Joseph Bast agrees:

…none of our work is “propaganda.” More than 100 academics and 150 elected officials participate in our research and education programs.”

Kundu is up for reelection this year.

So people, email your friends in Marysville, Washington: pass the word around.  Even if you don’t agree with sceptics on climate, do you really want someone so rude and ignorant involved in your child’s education?

It’s a shame that a man brave enough to enter Siberia covertly to film slaughtered whales and expose Russian censorship is hypocritically censoring views in US schools on something as important as climate science. Is he really a fighter to get out the whole story? Not if he’s been fooled by the propaganda himself.



My reply to Kundu

Dear Michael,

Thanks for your thoughts. Like you, I’m passionate that our educators use accurate scientific information and be able to help our students tell fact from fiction. That’s exactly why I wrote The Skeptics Handbook. The climate, the fauna, our kids; it’s too important to get wrong.

That’s why I know you will be as concerned as I am that your recent emails failed to pass the test of basic reasoning and thus qualify as Junk-emails. Unfortunately you were not only unable to come up with any logical reason to back up your exhortation to censor a free scientific resource, but it appears you didn’t even read the booklet you call ‘propaganda’. If you had, you’d see I’ve already described most of rules you break.

Michel Kundu’s Scorecard for Logic and Reason

……………………………. Argument from Authority   1
  Ad Hominem Attack   3
  Conflating irrelevant issues   1
  Baseless assertions   3
  Selection bias in survey   1
  Argument from Ignorance   1
  Bonus point for breaking the first amendment   1
  Total   -11

The ‘ad hom’. Your method for analyzing Earth’s climate by looking at the history of a particular think tank is doomed to fail. There has never been a single instance of a think-tank induced climate change. For a better way to analyze the climate, scientists use thermometers and weather balloons. Fraudsters use bluff, bluster and censorship. Is it not fraud to act as an authority on science education if you are unable to reason?

 

You have no evidence. You mistakenly believe that the hypothesis of the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect is proven unless you notice a compelling paper against it published in Nature or another esteemed journal. As attractive as it sounds, this is argument from ignorance. In science, theories are vindicated by evidence, not by a lack of it.

There are over 115 scientific journals on earth and atmospheric sciences. So it’s no wonder you’ve missed so many papers that don’t support your unresearched position. My links and sources are here.

Bob Carter provided these links:

You will find my listed scientific research papers here.

In addition, many useful articles on global warming are listed here (articles 92, 95 and 115 being particularly suitable for persons who manifest scientifically erroneous views such as those that you appear to espouse).

Joseph Bast provided these links:

1. More Peer-Reviewed Studies Contradict Global Warming Alarmism – by

2. Still More Peer-Reviewed Studies Contradict Global Warming

3. Scores of Peer-Reviewed Studies Contradict Global Warming Alarmism

On Tuesday, Heartland is releasing an 880-page book on climate change that cites thousands of peer-reviewed articles while arriving at the conclusion that global warming is not a crisis. The entire book will be available at www.nipccreport.org.

Furthermore: you claim most educational decision makers agree with you and are able to “see through the fog of propaganda” because only 1 in 50 responses disagreed with your email. However your study suffers from a crippling flaw. You assume that those who disagree with your loaded inaccurate letter would bother to reply. All you have proved is that most people who disagree with you will ignore you.

Likewise you claim that you can see through propaganda yourself, but have not given a single example of how the booklet is wrong, misleading, or incorrect. If you could provide any examples I would be most happy to issue an immediate correction. I await your response keenly.

Based on your reasoning so far, the fog of propaganda you speak of not only does not exist, but you could not spot a real fog if you were surrounded by it, which indeed you are. I sympathize.

As for your libelous insinuations that I must be paid by oil companies – that’s not only a meaningless Ad hom attack, it’s also wrong. I wrote the entire Handbook pro bono with no financial assistance from anyone. It was finished before I had any contact at all with The Heartland Institute (and as Joe Bast points out, 95% of their funding comes from non-energy sources anyway).

It is a remarkable un-coincidence that Heartland approaches people who independently hold similar views.

To rectify the unwarranted censorship and libelous claims – all you need to do is send this email around to your mailing list. If I am as fringe and junky as you make out, they will all recognize your skill, and my flaws immediately. Right?

That’s free speech.

Most sincerely,

Joanne Nova

Click here for the full email exchange including Bob Carter and Joseph Bast’s responses.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.7/10 (9 votes cast)
School president censors science, 8.7 out of 10 based on 9 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/yagt86c

686 comments to School president censors science

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Nice cartoon. I hope I don’t get on your bad side, Joanne.

    (The hopefully former) Board President Mike Kundu is yet another good example of reasons to worry about the future of science (and civilisation for that matter).

    I don’t expect the next generation of scientists to be worth very much if people like Mike Kundu have anything to do with public education.

    Let’s face it. Lysenko didn’t do the Soviet Union much of a service to help the Soviets advance their lot in life


    Report this

    20

  • #

    Very interesting post. Mr. Kundu certainly hits many of the fine points that any self-respecting devout global warming alarmist would spout. It’s almost as though he had a script. As I read his e-mail, I actually wondered if this might not be some kind of parody on the propaganda.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    If only Kundu could really hear himself, I think he would be shocked. A book burning, School Board President.
    Professor Bob Carter, Mr. Joseph Bast, and JoNova give me hope.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Joanne,

    Whereas this is a very important and distressing eventuality, I’m afraid I have to agree with Mr Kundu on one point – you must have too much time on your hands.

    What on earth were you, and Bob Carter and Joe Bast, thinking of when you expended all that time and energy in bothering to respond to this guy? What did you hope to achieve? Did you have the impression that he was an open-minded logical person who you could have a reasonable discussion with? Sheesh, now all you have done is give him the satisfaction of knowing that he hurt you, plus produce further consolidation of his stance.

    Note, however, that the other side of the coin is also true… whether he would ever admit it or not, for him to circularise his schools with his “warning”, it shows people like Kundu are worried, and I hope it is a sign they are losing ground.


    Report this

    10

  • #

    Steve, my friend, all we have is the “other side of the coin”. Thank god that Mr. Carter, Mr. Bast and JoNova didn’t let Kundu go unchallenged. Reason must be heralded! Science our champion! As were Mr. Carter, Mr. Bast and the beautiful and wickedly smart JoNova!


    Report this

    10

  • #

    This is episode #1,657 in the sad saga of close-mindedness among AGWers. Have you seen what happened at RC, where they hurriedly closed down discussion on Steig’s paper? And have you noticed how surprised Chris Mooney was when Marc Morano put a link to his blog, as if no self-respecting warmist would even contemplate linking, let alone reading anything not complying to their prejudices?

    Just remember…in every scientific field but one, scientists are constantly seeking debate (instead of cutting it off), are not scared of debating non-scientists holding different views, and win those debates hands down (think Velikovsky, think UFOs, think evolution). And people that are on the “science’s side” do just as well.

    Why would things be different in that one scientific field, is anybody’s guess. Including the possibility that it’s not that “scientific” after all


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Blake,

    Sadly, I disagree with you. I totally understand your sentiments, and I also understand that it is difficult to not try and defend what you feel is the truth. But I was serious in my earlier comment. What good (apart from providing a meaty nucleus for a discussion on this blog) has been achieved by not “letting Kundu go unchallenged”. Has it helped Kundu (apart from providing him with a bit of entertaining sport)? Has it helped Joanne (apart from letting her get a bit of bile off her chest)? Has it helped Kundu’s schools or the students therein? No. Has “reason been heralded”? No I don’t think so.

    In the meantime, while the leaders of the rationalists are having their energies distracted into petty spats with idiots, the fanatics are developing some very powerful resources, and getting themselves real organised. See…
    http://www.youtube.com/user/homeproject?blend=1&ob=4
    See…
    http://www.signon.org.nz
    … a Greenpeace lobbying site where you can see blatantly false statements such as “There has been dramatic loss of ice in both the Arctic and in Antarctica. The Arctic icecap has entered what’s been called a ‘death spiral’ and for the first time in human history, you can take a ship around the North Pole.”

    Wow, these guys are making some serious headway. Hundreds of dedicated people on the city streets with fancy brochures and well-organised petitions, vigorously proselytising.

    Somehow, we have to find a way to forget the Mike Kundus, and taking a broader perspective on the fight.


    Report this

    01

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Good point, Mike Goad. Kundu was making a joke all along.

    Kundu has a pretty good sense of humour, then.

    Children need to hear the truth of the matter, and certainly not the idea there is some sort of “debate” about the whole thing:

    The Earth is not warming, and CO2 in the air has nothing to do with making the air temperature go up or go down.

    Nothing at all.


    Report this

    10

  • #

    People like Kundu have to be challenged. Even if they don’t open their own minds, the replies to him are there for others to read and I expect, in his own mind, he may have second thoughts about what he has written and how he expressed himself. The Kundu’s of this world need to be exposed for their narrow-minded attitude. Well done Joanne and the Heartland Institute.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    wilbert Robichaud

    we have the same sad mentality in our school system here in British Columbia. sadly Mike Kundus does not understand that one of the most important differences between education and propaganda is how they deal with great controversies.
    In education, students are taught about the controversies.In propaganda,they are shielded from them.
    In education, students are taught both sides of the important debates. In propaganda, they are taught only one.In education, students are taught both the strengths and the weaknesses of the officially favored theory. In propaganda, they are taught only its strengths.
    In short, education is the training of minds, while propaganda is the training of prejudices. In a democracy, the public schools should not propagandize, but educate.

    http://www.bcscience.com/bc10/pgs/links_u1.html

    youtube is well used by the alarmist as Steve stated
    another series of videos on you tube.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFGU6qvkmTI&feature=email

    remember in that world two plus two makes 6.

    Blake you said thank God..you could have said thank Obama since the two names are interchangeable.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Mister Polar Bear, and Mister Penguin have the following message:

    “Stop worrying about CO2 in the air and get on with your lives!”


    Report this

    00

  • #

    The point of this is the expose of arrogant ignorance. When Kundu CC’d Bob Carter he was up for a fight, and presumably one he was utterly confident he could win.

    Before I publicly shame him, don’t you think it’s polite of me to give him a chance to reply?

    AGW believers pay too much attention to Science Theatre. But sceptics pay too little.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Todd

    Steve,

    I like your reasoning, except I think you’re wrong on letting Kundu go unchallenged. A lack of response implies contrition, or even worse, acknowledgement and acceptance of the offender’s points and/or propaganda. This is exactly why the mainstream media does not show anything on the other side of the debate. Unfortunately most people take it at face value and walk away believing they heard the truth, since the other side “must not have anything to say about it”. I call it implied concensus through omission, and they do it very well.

    Keep up the good fight though – I’m with you all the way, and the rest of you too.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Sceptics need to howl about it to make themselves heard.

    I’m not necessarily advocating the harsh yelling sometimes heard out of me, either.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Here’s an idea: Send Joanne on US media tour.
    Why? Because the media will be more apt to give time to an attractive, smart, confrontational, Ozzy accented, realist with a message.
    Put her up against Henry Waxman… Debate over.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Assuming viewers could stand the sight of the buck-toothed, nickering righteousness of Waxman at all.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tomas E Rivas Salcedo

    Fisrt, I need to apologize for my english.
    Interesting debate (or maybe pointless mail war), at least viewed from outside.
    It’s the kind of mails that I never see on my country (Mexico), The science community here, its speechless in criticizing the AGW, no word, no paper, no mails with a contrary point of view. Badly for me, I’m feel alone in the anti-AGW side.
    I hope a Spanish version of the Skeptics Handbook its planning, its an amazing tool for education.
    Thanks for your amazing work Joanne.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bill Yarber

    Joanne

    Excellent rebuttal. Mr Kundu is a prime example of what is wrong with our educational system in this country. How much do I need to donate to your web site to get a copy of your book “A Skeptics Handbook”? Please use my email address to let me know. Thnaks.

    Bill


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Joanne,

    “The point of this is the expose of arrogant ignorance.”
    Yes. A good and important idea.

    “When Kundu CC’d Bob Carter he was up for a fight”
    Yes, and poor old Bob suffered the indignity of taking the bait, much to Mr Kundu’s presumed delight.

    “Before I publicly shame him, don’t you think it’s polite of me to give him a chance to reply?”
    Nope. Very nice of you, but… nope, in my opinion he is entitled to no courtesies from you.

    “AGW believers pay too much attention to Science Theatre. But sceptics pay too little.”
    Theatre works best with a receptive audience.


    Report this

    11

  • #
    Todd

    Steve,

    Why do you feel the need to reply? Do you have too much time on your hands? :) Just trying to prove a point.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    John K

    Perhaps Mr Kundu could host a book burning party and invite all his colleagues over.

    J


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jeff

    Hi Joanne,
    Mr Kundu’s response to the easy to understand scientific facts of “Skeptic’s Handbook”, just goes to prove how much these people have to lose if AGW is proven to be a scam of immense proportions. Loss of face,loss of credibility, loss of power and loss of their latter day “religious beliefs” in Man Made Global Warming.

    I know I won’t be inflating your ego by comparing you with Galileo Galilei, but the comparison is there, particularly with calls for jail(US) or execution by some sections of the AGW sect, for heresy against “Gore’s Law”
    Galileo’s charge by the Inquisition was “false and contrary to the Scripture”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jeff

    It may be a possibility that Mr Kundu’s vehment reaction to Joanne’s “Skeptic’s Handbook” may be a blessing in disguise.
    As the handbook is also available on line, and people being what they are – ie. curious, could result in more people accessing the publication.
    Can you really see the parents of 11,000 students discarding the handbook en masse? Probably most of them think Mr Kundu sux.
    People are funny critters.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Mr Kundu was actually sending messages to whales.

    I’ll bet they are about the only audience he ever gets.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Todd,

    I will take your questions at face value.

    Like most folks here, I post comments to the blog in the hope that they will make a positive contribution, and someone will find some value in them.

    In this case, apparently you are not one who found value in what I said. Fair enough.

    I am not sure about “prove a point”, but I was certainly trying to make a point. In this, I am primarily motivated by a great distress about the way that science, truth, logic, common sense, etc have been so easily and tenaciously subverted around the world, as evidenced by the behaviour of Mr Kundu. I am deeply disturbed by the way human populations can be swayed and controlled by fear. I am very worried about where this global warming hoo-ha is leading us to, because I do not perceive the action taken by the rational to be all that effective in countering the forces of fear.

    It is therefore my fond (though perhaps deluded) hope that out of forums such as this, there may emerge some kind of direction, some kind of plan, some kind of cohesive action, that will be effective in making some headway. Maybe somebody can show where there is in fact effective action being taken. Or maybe somebody will feed in some good ideas in response to my comments.

    So that’s why I bother to reply.


    Report this

    20

  • #

    Steve, it’s all good. I liked you points… Full of concern, starved for more concrete action.
    As far as us Realists making more impact, you’re thinking beyond blogs. Any ideas?
    I’ll say again, JoNova US tour. They’ll attack her like they do Coulter and Palin and that’s why she’ll get media time. Take advantage of that time to educate, plant seeds of reason. The silent majority will lover her, the rabid left will hate her, but beyond the soap opera, she’ll roll. Teaching, planting nagging questions in the backs of minds, building reason. The truth is with her.
    (oh boy, I have no idea what she thinks of this) Of course this would require funding, planing, media support, but I would love to see it. How about it?


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Jeff

    G’day Steve Schapel,
    “I am primarily motivated by a great distress about the way that science, truth, logic, common sense, etc have been so easily and tenaciously subverted around the world, as evidenced by the behaviour of Mr Kundu. I am deeply disturbed by the way human populations can be swayed and controlled by fear. I am very worried about where this global warming hoo-ha is leading us to, because I do not perceive the action taken by the rational to be all that effective in countering the forces of fear.”

    I too am distressed by the ‘dumb down of science’ that has occurred over the last 20 or so years. Example, my granddaughter entered university, courses first semester:- mathematics, chemistry and civil engineering.
    First assignment- watch Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”.
    She was horrified, and when I was told about some weeks later, I was livid.
    I also have taken students in an Adult Educ courses on basic electronics, a subject that requires some basic physics knowledge. Problem I found that this basic science is not there. I feel those that have an agenda to push ie. Global Warming know that basic science is lacking in the general population, so can influence the average person with pseudo science and statements such as the ‘science is set’ or there is ‘consensus science’ – definitely an oxymoron.
    Add to that, the media has no qualms about using recycled photos of collapsing ice shelves (Wilkins)to add to the scare, with our own Environment minister using a trash consensus science statement about the sea levels are going to rise 20m due to the Antarctic ice melting.
    I feel Joanne, as an educator, would have found similar.

    In the previous century there has been numerous attempts to alarm the populace – eg. the Great Freeze of the early ’70′s, led by the same old offenders, Stephen Schneider, Paul and Anne Ehrlich, Obama’s present science advisor John Holdren, amongst others.

    What’s the answer? I don’t know, that’s why I keep blogging.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Blake,

    Yes, I am “thinking beyond blogs”. Blogs are a fantastic resource. But in my experience the rationalist blogs are most useful in keeping the existing rationalists informed and connected, and don’t have a lot of impact on the great unwashed.

    Media exposure of sceptic spokespeople is always good, I suppose. Though I have often been saddened to see interviewers peddling their own warmist agenda under the guise of interviewing someone vaguely open-minded.

    Still, there is no doubt that Joanne is a brilliant person, highly skilled at keeping the focus on what’s relevant. I certainly support any attempts to persuade her to take an active leadership role. From my perspective, I would say a trip to New Zealand would be more important than a trip to the US! ;-)

    But somehow we need more than media interviews and written statements. See, the alarmists’ case has the advantage of appealing to powerful emotions such as guilt, fear, sentimentality, self-righteousness, authoritarian subservience. So they can make gut-wrenching movies and promotional material. By comparison, the sceptics’ dry appeal to logic and factual observations and scientific rectitude just doesn’t cut the mustard.

    Also, the alarmists seem to have the rallying power to get teams of pimpled idealists out campaigning. Thus Greenpeace claim their project to get a petition to the New Zealand government currently carrries over 52,000 signatures. I don’t see anything so energetic being done by sceptics.

    Again, I have more questions than answers. But… the heat is on.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    Steve, I share your frustration with disparity between “action” levels of alarmists and realists (your apt description of the “pimpled idealists” made me laugh).

    I don’t know what the answer is either; perhaps we have to take to the streets with t-shirts, pamphlets and petitions as they do. But we’d need some planning and coordination first … It would be great to meet up with like-minded people in our local areas for some brainstorming.

    Does anyone else here apart from Joanne and myself live in Perth? You are welcome to email me on annekit@live.com.au if you are interested in getting together.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    Meanwhile, here is some light entertainment:

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2009/6/the-aztec-solution

    Tomas E Rivas Salcedo (#17): !Este articulo te divertira!

    The writer is apparently a Perth playwright … I shall look out for his name in local productions.

    After you’ve finished reading, click on “Home” and see a 4 part report from the 3rd Heartland Climate Change conference by Bob Carter.

    I love Quadrant.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kay Buccola

    I live about 30 fossil-fuel-burning minutes from Marysville, WA. I had this recent email exchange with school board president Michael Kundu:

    Dear Mr Kundu:

    I, and increasingly more local citizens are following with interest your recent exchange with Australian scientists.

    Could you or a science teacher from your district please provide me with one specific study which conclusively shows that CO2 is the CAUSE of climate changes? Remember that correlation is not causality and connection is not causality. For example, the Vostock Ice core samples showed a clear correlation between temperatures and CO2. That is, CO2 rises AFTER temperature rises. It is EFFECT, not cause.

    Even the IPCC’s chapter 9, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change” Executive Summary ends with “Incomplete global data sets and remaining model uncertainties still restrict understanding of changes in extremes and attribution of changes to causes…” (pg 666) In other words, even the IPCC has not firmly established the cause of climate changes. And yet all prescribed changes in public policy and lifestyle are predicated upon CO2 being the culprit.

    In order to justify Anthropogenic Global Warming being taught to our children, with no dissenting voice allowed, at least this one thing must be scientifically proven. Where is the proof of cause?

    I look forward to receiving this information.

    Kay Buccola
    Woodinville, WA

    On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 6:05 PM, Michael Kundu

    <projseawolf@earthlink.net > wrote:

    Kay, you sound like you’re reciting the talking points out of
    the Heartland/Australian marketer’s propaganda.

    If you’re looking for something to spend your time on, why not
    apply your causality logic to investigate what proof there is
    that God actually exists. Consistency is the key here, Kay – a
    point lost on so many of the extremist, right-wing followers of
    the Heartland cult.

    If you’re concerned about what our students are learning, run
    for school board.

    Goodbye.

    On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Kay Buccola wrote:

    You did not answer the scientific question I posed. Please answer.

    Thank you for your kind words and your assumptions about my views and person. Quite tolerant.

    Mrs. Buccola


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    I think that if a school was to teach whatever religious or political pressure groups mail out to them as “science” it would be very irresponsible.

    New science should start by approaching the scientific journals and conferences, and once established, tested and confirmed it would be appropriate to look to include it in the school curriculum.

    Whatever your personal views of climate change, (or intelligent design), it is wrong to try to do an end-run around the scientific process, and jump straight into the classroom.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    Mrs Buccola didn’t ask about intelligent design, Robin. Kundu was the one who brought up God in his unbelievably crass reply to her reasonable request.

    He didn’t answer her question.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Kay,

    Mr Kundu has already revealed what calibre of person he is, so the almost surreal tone of his reply to you would come as no surprise.

    But if you have any contact with parents or teachers in schools in Mr Kundu’s territory, I hope you can take any opportunity to inform them.

    Thank you.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] This post was Twitted by Cybernuke – Real-url.org [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    The problem is, Mr Kundu isn’t paying attention because no one influential to him is speaking to him.

    So I asked someone who Mr Kundu might listen to to speak to him. Thus:

    “Hey, Mike Kundu of the Left-Liberal/Al Gore/zero growth/Sierra Club establishment: You’ve got your CO2/climate story back-asswards!”

    - Signed, Walter the Hump-Backed Whale


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Anne-Kit Littler wrote:

    Mrs Buccola didn’t ask about intelligent design, Robin. Kundu was the one who brought up God in his unbelievably crass reply to her reasonable request.

    I wasn’t bringing up ID because that someone mentioned it. I brought it up because like this, people are trying to inject it straight into schools without going through the scientific process.

    And my point is that it doesn’t really matter how sure you are that greenhouse gasses don’t increase the greenhouse effect, that’s not the way to do it. You show the scientific community first. Then you get your findings repeated, reproduced, and the correct theory built up.

    If you let people do an end-run around the scientific process, there will be homoeopathy, voodoo, levitation, time cube, and dianetics taught in high schools.

    People here almost certainly disagree with Kundu’s beliefs and demeanour, but his response to speculative and unverified science appearing on his desk is entirely appropriate for a member of a school board, and he seems like a asset to the board and to the children for that reason.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    stone-cold discussion thread killa


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kendra

    Technical issues aside – as I’m not trained in any aspect of climatology – but as someone who did go to school before the dumbing down began and learned what the scientific method is as well as some things about logic – there is absolutely no way to judge Mr. Kundu’s communications as possessing any degree of intelligence or knowledge.

    Absolutely appalling.

    Brian Valentine – nice to see you here – just discovered the site.

    Haven’t checked yet, but understand the booklet is downloadable – I’ll try to find it.

    Have a good day in this insane parallel world, everyone.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Oh – Hi Kendra with the pretty name

    Write to me sometime, bgvalentine@verizon.net

    Joanne has done a wonderful service here, you you think?


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Kendra

    Thank you Brian, I’d love to!

    At work, just wanted to add one more remark: I’m going to send the link to the booklet to someone who had taken for granted the idea of consensus science (as well as the petition sites, etc – not to use “authority” but simply to show their is disagreement).

    Anyway – wondering if the word “Skeptic” in the title is creating kneejerk reactions?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Yes, I think “Skeptic” probably works against it. Probably like when I hear the words: “Global Warming” … Makes me cringe.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve

    Robin said (#37),

    “…but his response to speculative and unverified science appearing on his desk is entirely appropriate for a member of a school board…”

    If that were his true motivation, Robin, then Mr. Kundu would equally have dismissed the theory of AGW from discussion in his school district as it is purely speculative and unverified science. Unfortunately, the tenor of Mr. Kundu’s note shows that his motivation is not about education, but indoctrination. He has chosen sides in a very contentious, unresolved debate and shows he will censor anything that does not conform to his prejudiced, personal view. This is simply history repeating itself in the guise of enviro-McCarthyism.

    Note to self: keep kids away from Marysville District #25.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Tony

    I am not unhappy with the position of Mr.Kundu. He writes as someone who has discovered he is wrong and is waiting for an appropriate time to acknowledge it. I have sympathy for him. It will not be easy.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Robin,

    You obviously haven’t read “The Skeptics Handbook”, have you? Or if you have, and you think it is about “speculative and unverified science” you must have a different edition than mine!

    Oh, and by the way, on a technical note, I have yet to meet anyone who is trying to prove that “greenhouse gasses don’t increase the greenhouse effect”.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Anne-Kit,

    Thank you for pointing to (#30) the Quandrant article, which I enjoyed very much, and also Bob Carter’s series. To be honest, I had not seen Quadrant before, but it sure looks great.

    By the way, if I was in Perth (which I’m not, I’m in Wellington, New Zealand) I would certainly accept your invitation to get together.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Larry Wagner

    We need to constantly challenge folks like Michael Kundu.

    I had taught high school science in California for 39 years before retiring seven years ago. I am appalled that a publicly elected school board member could show such disdain for the National Science Teachers Position Statement on Environmental Education. I think that the residents in Marysville might be interested in the NSTA Position Statement and act accordingly in the upcoming election. I also list the NSTA Declarations for Michael Kundu to ponder.

    “NSTA strongly supports environmental education as a way to instill environmental literacy in our nation’s pre-K–16 students. It should be a part of the school curriculum because student knowledge of environmental concepts establishes a foundation for their future understandings and actions as citizens. Central to environmental literacy is the ability of students to master critical-thinking skills that will prepare them to evaluate issues and make informed decisions regarding stewardship of the planet. The environment also offers a relevant context for the learning and integration of core content knowledge, making it an essential component of a comprehensive science education program.”

    Declarations

    * Environmental education programs should foster observation, investigation, experimentation, and innovation. Programs should be developed with grade-appropriate materials and should use a range of hands-on, minds-on instructional strategies that encourage active learning.

    * Environmental education programs and curricula should address student outcomes as specified in the National Science Education Standards, be grounded in sound research, and reflect the most current information and understandings in the field.

    * All learners are expected to achieve environmental literacy and an appreciation for and knowledge of a range of environmental issues, perspectives, and positions.

    * All learners should be taught how to think through an issue using critical-thinking skills, while avoiding instructor or media bias regarding what to think about the issue.

    * Environmental education should provide interdisciplinary, multicultural, and multi-perspective viewpoints to promote awareness and understanding of global environmental issues, potential solutions, and ways to prevent emerging environmental crises.

    * Developers of environmental education programs should strive to present a balance of environmental, economic, and social perspectives.

    * Appropriate technologies should be used to enhance environmental education learning experiences and investigations.

    * Environmental education programs and activities should be fostered through both formal and informal learning experiences.

    * Collaborations among schools, museums, zoos, aquaria, nature centers, government agencies, associations, foundations, and private industry should be encouraged to broaden the availability of educational resources, engage the community, provide diverse points of view about the management of natural resources, and offer a variety of learning experiences and career education opportunities.

    —Adopted by the NSTA Board of Directors
    February 2003

    http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/environmental.aspx

    I think that the next step might be to get the National Science Teachers Association involved in the process!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kendra

    Oops, embarrassing typo (their) – corr: … there is disagreement.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    me too typos


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    A couple of days ago I bemoaned, in a comment here, the lack of organised sketics public action. Since then, I have learned of this campaign… http://www.hotairtour.org/

    It is in the US, politically aligned, and focussed on opposing the legislation. But still, I had no idea anything on that scale was being done, and I was encouraged to know about it.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Here’s some real “fiction” for Board President Kundu:

    I said, “Why did you do it? The Lessons. You taught us exactly what we needed to know to use our powers. I thought we were these wolf cubs, growing up into giants that would eat the sun and moon—why teach the cubs how to hunt?”

    “Poetically asked, Miss Windrose. I admire your turn of phrase.”

    “Thank you. Now answer the question.”

    He looked away from me and out the window. Maybe he watched the lights of distant vessels on the sea. Maybe he looked at the stars. “I was an educator before I was a soldier, miss. I taught mankind how to break and ride horses, for example. Educators know there are only two types of schooling: indoctrination and education.

    “Indoctrination teaches a student how to cleave to a party line, and to recite the slogans and bromides of the accepted conformity. He is taught only how to swallow lies, and there is no assurance he will not swallow the propaganda of foes as easily as that of friends. Such folk are hopelessly provincial to their time and place. Unable to distinguish truth from fable, they swallow both or spit both out, and become zealots, or, worse yet, cynics. The zealot holds that truth can be won with no effort; the cynic, that no effort will suffice.

    “Education teaches the art of skeptical inquiry. The student learns the thoughts of all the great minds of the past, so that the implications and mistakes of philosophy of various schools are not unknown to him. And he learns, first, current scientific theories and, second, how frail and temporary such theories can be. He learns to be undeceived by those who claim to know a last and final truth.

    “How else was I to deal with a dangerous race of world-destroying monsters? If I taught them to reason, maybe they could be reasoned with.”

    – John C. Wright, “Titans of Chaos”, p. 372, Tor paperback edition.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Robin

    Steve wrote:

    If that were his true motivation, Robin, then Mr. Kundu would equally have dismissed the theory of AGW from discussion in his school district as it is purely speculative and unverified science.

    Well, your opinion there is out of sync with the established and reproducable beliefs of the scientific commmunity.

    Increasing the concentration of greenhouse gasses does increase the greenhouse effect. If you think that that is “purely speculative and unverified”, then you need to take that view to the scientific community, not to schools.


    Report this

    11

  • #
    Robin

    Steve Schapel wrote:

    Oh, and by the way, on a technical note, I have yet to meet anyone who is trying to prove that “greenhouse gasses don’t increase the greenhouse effect”.

    Meet Brian Valentine, Petroleum technologies engineer by profession, and perveyor of the view that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist by hobby. (And therefore can’t be made to increase by any change in atmosphere.)

    But, if you accept that greenhouse gasses increase the greenhouse effect, then the rest is pretty clear.

    Human activity has increased the concentration of greenhouse gasses. What am I missing?


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    No kidding, Robin, at some point you really are going to have to stop with the tricky little word games.

    For a start, what on earth is the meaning of “the established and reproducable beliefs of the scientific commmunity”? That’s just gobbledegook.

    And then you bring up greenhouse gasses (sic) and the greenhouse effect. Steve did not mention anything about that. He made reference to the “theory of AGW”. Well, to be pedantic, by definition it is not a “theory”. But you know as well as I do what he was talking about – the idea that increasing atmospheric CO2 is causing or will cause dangerous climate change. Calling that idea “speculative and unverified” is an understatement.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Robin, aren’t you supposed to be over at the gin mill downing a few pints and berating your cohorts for what they don’t know?

    Oops – forgot – its 10:43 in the morning where you are –

    but well – you can get an early start


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Since there’s talk here about education, I feel this would be an appropiate time to post the “Tactics used by Alarmists”. Here they are as follows:

    1. Information laundering through ignoring or misrepresenting peer-reviewed scientific findings.

    2. Cherry Picking Facts.

    3. Shifting the focus away to something other than research based on Observation.

    4. Their trademark effort to stifle legitimate debate and silence those who won’t accept their dogma.

    I feel these are very accurate. Have you also heard about “The Three Stages of Truth” by Authur Schopenhauer- German Philosopher 1788-1860??

    1. First, it is Ridiculed.

    2. It is violently opposed.

    3. It is accepted as being self-evident.

    I pray the 3rd stage happens soon…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Robin: “What am I missing?”

    At a guess, I’d say about 95%.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    A little too generous, Steve


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Hi Denny, I totally agree! “I pray the 3rd stage happens soon… 3. It is accepted as being self-evident.”

    “1. Information laundering through ignoring or misrepresenting peer-reviewed scientific findings.”

    You mean like Al Gore using an out-of-date ice core graph that misleads us?
    Like ‘adjusting’ satellite data, ARGO bouys, urban sensors next to air conditioners, and increasing error margins to include ‘every outcome’?

    “2. Cherry Picking Facts.”

    Oh, like ignoring all the studies that show the Medieval warm period was … warm.
    Or only looking at warming from 1979-2001?

    “3. Shifting the focus away to something other than research based on Observation.”
    Yes. Like looking at models and not radiosondes? Like refuting the cooling in Antarctica by ‘estimating’ temperature from stations that don’t exist?

    “4. Their trademark effort to stifle legitimate debate and silence those who won’t accept their dogma.”
    You mean like calling us ‘deniers’, launching websites like DeSmo and SourceWatch to promote the illogical ad hominem attacks on scientists?

    “I feel these are very accurate. Have you also heard about “The Three Stages of Truth” by Authur Schopenhauer- German Philosopher 1788-1860??”
    Yes, once again. Spot on.

    “1. First, it is Ridiculed.”
    Oil funded dinosaurs

    “2. It is violently opposed.”
    ‘they should be jailed!’

    “3. It is accepted as being self-evident.”
    The polls show the public are seeing through the tactics.

    Whatever you say Denny, assessing ‘Tactics’ as a way of deciding who is right is destined to dump you in a fog of bad reasoning, but keep going if you like. We get a free kick every time. :-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Denny, you’re not dumb enough to believe that “man-made global warming” nonsense, are you?

    Tell me you’re not.

    I thought only but a handful believed that story anymore.

    (The rest who say they do, actually have an ulterior motive for saying they do. Like Al Gore. Tell me his behaviour evem remotely suggests that he believes a word of it. Of course he doesn’t believe in AGW, and as far as I am concerned, no one in their right mind would.)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Brian,

    I suppose we should leave Denny to speak for himself. But I have read his post multiple times, trying in vain to see what got you thinking he is a warmist?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    My impression I suppose.

    Denny are you a global warmer?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Steve Schapel wrote:

    No kidding, Robin, at some point you really are going to have to stop with the tricky little word games.

    Could you be more specific about what you are accusing me of?

    For a start, what on earth is the meaning of “the established and reproducible beliefs of the scientific community”? That’s just gobbledegook.

    I mean that global warming is established by multiple lines of evidence.

    And then you bring up greenhouse gasses (sic) and the greenhouse effect. Steve did not mention anything about that. He made reference to the “theory of AGW”. Well, to be pedantic, by definition it is not a “theory”.

    Why isn’t it a theory?

    But you know as well as I do what he was talking about – the idea that increasing atmospheric CO2 is causing or will cause dangerous climate change. Calling that idea “speculative and unverified” is an understatement.

    That’s clearly your opinion, but it is not backed up by scientific organisations of international standing. Nor any peer reviewed research. So the question is, under what circumstances should we let an idea do an end run around the scientific community and be injected straight into the school curriculum?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Steve Schapel qrote:

    Robin: “What am I missing?”

    At a guess, I’d say about 95%.

    At some point you really are going to have to stop with the tricky little word games. Because that comment doesn’t mean anything specific.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Hi all,

    Looks like Denny is well aware of the parody in his post… Cheers Denny!
    http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?515.last


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Matt Buckels

    Am I the only one here who thought Denny was on your team??? He says “Tactics used by Alarmists”


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] of JoNova: Michael Kundu, Board President of Marysville (Washington State, USA) District #25 has written to [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    The statement

    1. Information laundering through ignoring or misrepresenting peer-reviewed scientific findings.

    gave it away.

    Denny you aren’t dumb enough to mock Joanne, are you?

    How trite.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Ha! Matt. You’re right. I’ve read ‘Denier Tactics’ to many times. I misread it, but still suspected Denny was a supporter, it was just that having fired off the responses to the familiar tactics lines I slipped into Mock-mode right on the last line. (That’ll teach me for commenting at a quarter to two in the morning. Or, maybe it won’t. 1am now :-) )


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Robin,

    I thought you were being deliberately obstructive, but it now appears you may just be simple. If so, I apologise for my sarcastic remark.

    Nevertheless, you have frequently used terminology that appears to be deceptive. As just one example, “global warming is established by multiple lines of evidence”. At face value, this is pretty much meaningless. However, if by “global warming” you mean the idea that increasing atmospheric CO2 is causing or will cause dangerous climate change, then the statement is simply false, i.e. not true.

    You have also frequently twisted the argument to answer something that was not stated and implied. As just one example, you imply that a person who questions the AGW speculation is automatically against the Greenhouse Effect theory. This is a very simplistic leap of logic, and misses 95% of what’s relevant to the question.

    I do not mean to imply that the Greenhouse Effect is not valid. That is not what I think. I think it is a very useful theory.

    As you are no doubt aware, the contribution of CO2 to the Greenhouse Effect is logarithmic. So the first 50 ppm has a significant effect. The next 50ppm considerably less so, et cetera. By the time we get to existing atmospheric concentrations, the Greenhouse Effect contribution of an additional 50ppm is very small. So I was not saying the contribution of atmospheric CO2 as a whole is insignificant, just that further increases will be. See?

    In addition, the significance of CO2′s Greenhouse Effect contribution has to be assessed in comparison to other factors affecting climate. Empirically, it appears that many other factors are much more important. If you don’t take these other factors into account, you’re missing 95% of what’s relevant. At least 95%.

    With a considerable stretch of the imagination, you can say that there is a correlation between increasing average global temperatures, and increasing atmospheric CO2 conentrations, over the last 30 years. This is not consistent with other periods in the recent past. In order to suspect causality, I don’t think you can say the period 1979-2009 is a special case, that is somehow different from other recent periods where the temperatures appear to have increased at a similar rate, but CO2 was not similarly increasing. Yes, that period is exceptional in terms of the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. But it is certainly not exceptional in terms of global temperature fluctuations. So there’s that hypothesis out the window. If you don’t take account of these facts, you are missing 95% of what’s relevant.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    And now, Ladies and Gentlemen, we wait for Robin’s summary of information gathering on Steve.

    “Steve Schapel CLAIMS to be a …

    And Steve Schapel SAYS he is a …

    and Steve Schapel’s mamager says Steve Schapel is a …

    and I’m going to write to Steve Schapel’s manager to find out if it is true that Steve Schapel is a … and how could Steve Schapel CLAIM to be a … and then he … and did you know that Steve Schapel …”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wilbert Robichaud

    I wish we could stop using the (GE) greenhouse effect as an analogy since the earth is not like a greenhouse. The GE was invented by the alarmist and as long as we keep using these words we validate the EcoChondriacs poor understanding of the atmosphere. There as to be a better description..maybe some climatologists have a better terminology?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    I do have some better terminology that isn’t printable here.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Wilbert,

    In my opinion, it would be a waste of time trying to change this. It is a well-established terminology to describe a certain phenomenon. Our language abounds with examples of such terminology, and the reasonable person understands the words’ intended meaning without getting confused by literal interpretation. Otherwise, you will have to campaign to no longer refer to the “Saturn’s rings” because they are not rings, and stop referring to the “Big Bang”, and “survival of ther fittest” is also out, and we can’t call a toothbrush a toothbrush because it is not made of teeth. I predict if we manage to find a substitute for the term “Greenhouse Effect”, and successfully have the new term magically substituted throughout all literature and discourse, the “EcoChondriacs’ poor understanding of the atmosphere” will be improved by approximately zero. No, I think I will keep using the term, within it’s correct and valid meaning.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    wilbert Robichaud

    I know what you are saying But the Earth is not like a greenhouse… open space versus closed space. A Greenhouse let the heat in and traps it inside without any way to escape,unless you open a door or vent. I know I am getting away from the post but we must come up with something that would counter this fiction with a name that would open the mind and give the mindless a deer in headlight look.
    ” “EcoChondriacs’ poor understanding of the atmosphere” will be improved by approximately zero.” .Now! now! do not give up. :-) it is the public majority who need to be reached and they are waiting for some common sense approach for something they can relate to ..( too?.. this one always get me). and use in their favor. Right now “we” the voters have 3 or 4 different political groups all advocating the absurdity that 2 plus 2 makes six and we are suppose to vote for the less stupid? No wonder Voters turn out is so low at election time. If these alarmist can come up with terminologies that are wrong surely there must be some proper ones out there…maybe I should get on this and see what I can come up with(hey)? :-)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    We’re waiting for a hero. Someone to rally around. I know there are many great scientists that are close to fitting the bill, but for whatever reason they’re not breaking through (are they?). We need a charismatic, entertaining, smart, anti-Gore.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kay Buccola

    Robin,

    Please checkout http://www.petitionproject.org to see that over 31,000 scientists, 9,000 of whom have PhD’s have staked their professional reputations on signing the petition which reads

    “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

    There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.”

    Click on “Summary of peer-review research” and read the 12 page study by 3 PhD’s. It is far and away the most concise and comprehensive piece showing the true status of current climate science.

    An intellectually honest person will be quite amazed.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Mrs Buccola, that would have all the influence on Robin as it would on a duck-billed platypus


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jeff

    Blake,
    How about Lord Christopher Monckton?

    He’d fit the bill – charismatic, eloquently spoken, very sharp wit, a very avid climate dissenter – and he has got to catch up with Al Gore after the rude dismissal from speaking at the Democrat led Waxman-Markey hearing in the US Congress, where Al Gore was given a hearing to push his agenda. The Republicans had invited Monckton to the hearing.


    Report this

    10

  • #

    Regarding a hero… …Perhaps a whole bunch of them.
    We really need a National Reason Campaign.
    To start: A 30 sec spot with sensible everyday people questioning AGW.
    We flood the air waves.
    Then, two weeks later…
    Then we follow up with another 30 sec. spot. A well written theme, where one “science hero” after another picks up a sentence where the last left off. These heros might represent a large spectrum of nationalities, (in english).
    Our world-wide hero’s would be taken from highest standings in our world wide science community.
    Then we wait for George Soros to fund something for Al Gore, and we respond, by exposing their theme. Cleverly nailing
    their dramatic scare tactics as a super fund for their new world order.
    In the mean time we develop a series of hard hitting, entertaining of Youtube videos. Flood it.
    Cost: A cool 10 million
    Result: Huge and lasting impact. Could save us all billions.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Steve Schapel wrote:

    At face value, this is pretty much meaningless. However, if by “global warming” you mean the idea that increasing atmospheric CO2 is causing or will cause dangerous climate change, then the statement is simply false, i.e. not true.

    Well “dangerous” is a awkward and ill defined adjective. You will be aware of the recent estimates that climate change is responsible for about 325 million people are seriously affected by climate change per year, (and the guess was about 300,000 deaths) worldwide. (The Economist

    You should also be aware of WHO estimates of 160,000 deaths per year attributable to climate change as at 2000. (Nature)

    So those that have had a serious epidemiological look at the numbers seem to be saying that it is considerably more dangerous than terrorism or Swine Flu or running with scissors.

    What scientific basis do you have for claiming that climate change being dangerous is “not true”?

    As you are no doubt aware, the contribution of CO2 to the Greenhouse Effect is logarithmic. So the first 50 ppm has a significant effect. The next 50ppm considerably less so, et cetera.

    That’s right. The climate sensitivity to CO2 in stated in degrees per doubling of CO2, because this is more approximately constant than per given increase (say 50ppm).

    And it is about 3°C per doubling.

    By the time we get to existing atmospheric concentrations, the Greenhouse Effect contribution of an additional 50ppm is very small. So I was not saying the contribution of atmospheric CO2 as a whole is insignificant, just that further increases will be. See?

    And we can be a bit more specific than “very small”. The pre industrial CO2 level was about 270ppm. 50ppm on that is about 0.29 doublings, or about 0.9°C.

    Current levels are about 390ppm (globally averaged, but not seasonally corrected). 50ppm on that is about 0.17 doublings, which is about 0.5°C.

    Neither 0.9°C nor 0.5°C is insignificant. Both would be more than half of the observed warming of the last century.

    In addition, the significance of CO2’s Greenhouse Effect contribution has to be assessed in comparison to other factors affecting climate. Empirically, it appears that many other factors are much more important. If you don’t take these other factors into account, you’re missing 95% of what’s relevant. At least 95%.

    Perhaps you would be kind enough to mention what these “other factors affecting the climate” are, and what peer reviewed papers have established their existence and shown that they have 20 times the effect of the CO2 greenhouse effect on climate.

    In order to suspect causality, I don’t think you can say the period 1979-2009 is a special case, that is somehow different from other recent periods where the temperatures appear to have increased at a similar rate, but CO2 was not similarly increasing.

    Two points:

    1) We don’t need to suspect causality. We know the mechanism of the causality. It is the greenhouse effect.

    2) Current climate change is very rapid. When was there another period of climate change this fast? (When CO2 was not increasing?)

    Yes, that period is exceptional in terms of the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. But it is certainly not exceptional in terms of global temperature fluctuations.

    That’s an interesting argument if it’s true. When are these other global temperature fluctuations?

    ____

    All this discussion of the scientific basis of the CO2 greenhouse effect is amusing enough, but the point with respect to this thread isn’t if you believe it or not. It is, given that the scientific consensus (right or wrong) is that global warming is real and anthropogenic. So on what basis should counter-scientific speculation be allowed access to the classroom without going through the the scientific process?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Matt Buckels

    Jeff – I pray every day that Monckton will remain the key spokesman for the sceptical movement.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Wilbert: “Now! now! do not give up.”

    Absolutely agree. No way I’m giving up. That’s not what I meant. It’s just that I really don’t think that coming up with another name for the Greenhouse Effect is likely to make a lot of difference. Better to persistently and clearly explain what the Greenhouse Effect *is*. I know it involves quite different principles and processes from a physical glasshouse. Same as I know that a camel train isn’t pulled by a locomotive, and the mouth of a river is not where the food goes in. I also know that a lot of people do not understand what you and I know about global warming / climate change. But in my opinion, the potential confusion produced by the name of the greenhouse effect is a very minor factor. After all, most people don’t know the physics of a horticultural glasshouse either. No, they are confused because of the biased, emotionally-charged information they have been fed by the mass media.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    wilbert Robichaud wrote:

    I know what you are saying But the Earth is not like a greenhouse… open space versus closed space. A Greenhouse let the heat in and traps it inside without any way to escape,unless you open a door or vent.

    A glasshouse slows heat loss by blocking loss by convection. The greenhouse effect slows heat loss by blocking radiation. They are similar in that the warming comes from slower heat loss.
    This, I think, is the origin of the terminology.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    There is no scientific consensus on AGW. There is a political consensus for an predetermined cause.

    Even if there were a consensus, it’d be of little value if the underlying basis of the consensus is faulty:

    It is amazing that some political leaders proclaim the debate over global warming is “over” when some of the meteorological community’s best minds continue to clash over the nature and magnitude of a phenomenon that could entirely offset the effects of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. (Climate Change Reconsidered , the 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), page 17)

    The hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming and the predictions of future temperature rise are heavily dependent upon computer models that do not incorporate many of the significant complexities of Earth’s climate.

    “I know that the IPCC supposedly has thousands of experts who all say that global warming is a crisis. I was one of the people who worked on that report. The reality is they never asked us if we agreed with the conclusions, and only a handful of authors had a say in the final summary. In any case, I don’t care how many professors agree or disagree on something, what matters is whether I agree with the data.

    Our best current data sets do not support the idea that CO2 is causing a global warming problem. New laws to reduce CO2 levels will lead to higher energy prices and more unemployment, and would not affect global CO2 levels anyway. Americans seem to be realizing that costly CO2 regulations are a bad idea. I agree.” Climate change? Check this data posted today, by Ross McKitrick, a professor of economics at the University of Guelph, in Ontario, where he focuses on environmental economics.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    The greenhouse effect is the heating of the surface of a planet or moon due to the presence of an atmosphere containing gases that absorb and emit infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases, which include water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane, are almost transparent to solar radiation but strongly absorb and emit infrared radiation. Thus, greenhouse gases trap heat within the surface-troposphere system. This mechanism is fundamentally different from that of an actual greenhouse, which works by isolating warm air inside the structure so that heat is not lost by convection.

    Greenhouse effect – wikipedia


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Kay Buccola wrote:

    Robin,

    Please checkout http://www.petitionproject.org to see that over 31,000 scientists, 9,000 of whom have PhD’s have staked their professional reputations on signing the petition which reads

    “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

    There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.”

    Click on “Summary of peer-review research” and read the 12 page study by 3 PhD’s. It is far and away the most concise and comprehensive piece showing the true status of current climate science.

    There a number of reasons why the infamous Oregon petition is an unreliable judge of scientific opinion.

    The dishonesty of making the covering article look as if it had been submitted it PNAS aside, there were no checks of the identity of the signatories, and many were impenetrable to attempts to verify them (and some that were verifiable, when contacted had no recollection of such a petition). (see: SKEPTICISM ABOUT SKEPTICS – Scientific American)

    An intellectually honest person will be quite amazed.

    Yes they would.

    ____

    A fair attempt to get around the self-selection bias, (and packing by some extremists in the climate change skeptical community who seemed to have signed the Oregon petition on behalf both of people who didn’t exist, and who didn’t agree with the petition), was done by Doran and Zimmerman.

    They sent questionnaires to people, rather than let them self-select: “An invitation to participate in the survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists.
    The database was built from Keane and Martinez [2007], which lists all geosciences faculty at reporting academic institutions, along with researchers at state geologic surveys associated with local universities, and researchers at U.S. federal research facilities (e.g., U.S. Geological
    Survey, NASA, and NOAA (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) facilities; U.S. Department of Energy national laboratories; and so forth).”

    The results are probably a bit more reasonable than the Oregon petition.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    Robin scores a spectacular own goal (#82), in quoting “The Economist’s” coverage of the Kofi Annan report of 300,000 “climate deaths”! Here is the entire text:

    (Headline): Go on, guess

    May 29th 2009

    (Sub-headline): Seat-of-the-pants estimates won’t be enough to cool the world

    THE human impact of climate change “IS DIFFICULT TO ASSESS RELIABLY”, say the authors of a new report from the Global Humanitarian Forum, a think-tank run by Kofi Annan, a former United Nations secretary-general, aided by a raft of eminent folk. But they MAKE A STAB, reaching the conclusion that 325m people around the world are seriously affected by climate change every year and that this number COULD more than double, to around 660m, by 2030.
    As in so many reports of this kind, the trend looks plausible, but there seems LITTLE BASIS for the exact numbers. For example, the authors attribute two-fifths of an expected increase in weather-related disasters to climate change and use this as a basis for all their other sums. But they offer NO CONVINCING RATIONALE for this approach, and admit with refreshing candour that “the real numbers may be significantly lower or higher.”
    On slightly firmer ground, the authors elaborate on the familiar point that most of the damage from a changing climate will be felt in poor countries. Warmer temperatures are actually leading to increased crop yields in some parts of North America and Russia. But areas where yields are falling because of climate change include sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, where the victims are small farmers eking out an already meagre living. And the countries seen as most vulnerable to climate change are all poor: they include Somalia, Burundi, Niger, Eritrea, Afghanistan and Chad.
    Nor are people in those countries well placed to adapt to change. As their livelihood vanishes, they are more likely to fuel the ranks of the temporarily or permanently displaced. The eminent writers duly propose a huge (nay, hundredfold) boost in funding to help the poor cope with a shifting climate—through drought-resistant crops, for example.
    In another HAPHAZARD estimate, the authors of “Human Impact Report: Climate Change—Anatomy of a Silent Crisis” say 26m people have already been displaced by climate change. But here again, ACCURACY IS IMPOSSIBLE. Should Cyclone Aila, which hit Bangladesh and India on May 25th and affected hundreds of thousands of people, be classified as a climate-change event? Even if scientists could agree on the contribution of global warming to the rising frequency of such disasters, it would still be hard to classify the causes of any given catastrophe. Nor is it easy to disentangle the effects of climate change from those of avoidable failures in policy.
    In South Asia, for example, climate change is likely to bring more water to a perennially thirsty region. A blessing in disguise, then? No, because so little progress has been made on ways to trap and use this water when it cascades down in a short space of time. Given that governments have missed so many obvious tricks, is there any reason to assume that more money thrown at the problem will be spent wisely? Coping with climate change will certainly cost money—it is anyone’s guess how much—but plenty of wisdom will be needed too.” (emphasis mine – and I got tired of emphasising ’cause the article is so full of emphasis-worthy quotes)

    This “report” is based on nothing but guesswork and has been thoroughly discredited since its publication, not only by The Economist (and no, I couldn’t be bothered looking up the other discreditors but will if Robin challenges me!)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    There is no scientific consensus on AGW.

    Well, of those climatologists who are currently publishing papers most of which are on climate change, about 97% believe that anthropogenic activity has a signficant influcence on changing global mean temperatures.

    So that’s a near consensus about a particular aspect of AGW. Particularly the “A” bit.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Anne-Kit Littler wrote:

    Robin scores a spectacular own goal (#82), in quoting “The Economist’s” coverage of the Kofi Annan report of 300,000 “climate deaths”! Here is the entire text:

    The 300,000 is a guess. It could be much higher or much lower. Neither of which affects the conclusion that climate change is dangerous in the sense that it is killing people.

    Which is what “dangerous” means.

    I’m not sure where you got the idea that my point was that these numbers are accurate. It was not. The point is that people are dying.

    I am dissappointed that all you have to offer is a straw man fallacy, and more dissappointed that your approach is to consider a free exchange of ideas as a playing field in which people try to score goals.

    Deaths due to climate are up. If you make the WAG that 40% of these are attributable to the anthropogenic influence, you get 300,000 such deaths. The 40% could be wrong. That there are some deaths couldn’t. That’s all.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Mike Goad wrote:

    The greenhouse effect is the heating of the surface of a planet or moon due to the presence of an atmosphere containing gases that absorb and emit infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases, which include water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane, are almost transparent to solar radiation but strongly absorb and emit infrared radiation. Thus, greenhouse gases trap heat within the surface-troposphere system. This mechanism is fundamentally different from that of an actual greenhouse, which works by isolating warm air inside the structure so that heat is not lost by convection.

    Yes.

    A different mechanism.

    But both reduce heat loss, causing warming.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Robin,
    by only reading things Team AGW produce you put yourself at a big disadvantage. The Oregon Project is not the same as the Petition Project (notice – it’s got a different name?). The newer project redid everything, with checks, all via donations, and I have a feeling they don’t accept donations from corporates either. Why don’t you read the story of the people and project you attack instead of lazily repeating old outdated criticms?

    Ask yourself why volunteers should have to go to all this trouble in the first place? Could it be because no one funds the ‘other side’. Your research is sloppy, one sided and out of date. Are you looking for the answer to the climate or just trying to defend your unshakeable belief in authority? The only evidence you quote is The Mass Of Agencies, Associations, and Organisations and the supposed Mainstream Consensus. In scientific logical terms this is like tugging a forelock to the King, the Pope, or Leonardo di Caprio. It proves nothing.

    We’ll take your opinions seriously if you show you are looking at both sides, AND recognise that opinions of international committees are not scientific evidence.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Joanne Nova wrote:

    Robin,
    by only reading things Team AGW produce you put yourself at a big disadvantage. The Oregon Project is not the same as the Petition Project (notice – it’s got a different name?).

    The name has always been the Petition Project. It’s called the Oregon petition to differentiate it from other petitions, because it was organised by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

    The newer project redid everything, with checks, all via donations, and I have a feeling they don’t accept donations from corporates either.

    It is not a newer project, and it did not redo everything. There are checks on the new signatures, but the original ones that were not checked are still there.

    Why don’t you read the story of the people and project you attack instead of lazily repeating old outdated criticms?

    Jo, it’s the same petition.


    Report this

    01

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    Excuse me while I roll around the floor laughing, Robin, buy YOU brought up the straw man when you referred to the article about 300,000 “climate deaths” in response to Steve’s assertion that there is no proof of anthropogenic warming. Your article, if you read it carefully, actually mentions nothing about “human caused climate change”, rather “human EFFECTS of climate change” (i.e. effects ON humans, not BY humans)which incidentally are equally hard to quantify. So in effect you are saying something like this: “Yes, global warming and climate change IS caused by humans, because 300,00 people have already died from it!” Absurd and illogical.

    Robin: “Deaths due to climate are up. If you make the WAG that 40% of these are attributable to the anthropogenic influence, you get 300,000 such deaths. The 40% could be wrong. That there are some deaths couldn’t. That’s all.”

    Really. Deaths due to climate are up, says Robin of Sydney. Well, that should convince even the toughest sceptic that climate change is caused by burning of fossil fuels! I have no idea what a “WAG” means – apart from a rather derogatory term used by British tabloids for “Wives and Girlfriends” of famous footballers – but I’m guessing it’s some kind of guess. You are making an awful lot of assumptions and wild guesses, Robin, and basically, as you admit, they could all be wrong. Are some deaths caused by climatic factors? Why, yes. Point is, that is nothing new, and it’s not what your side and mine are arguing about. So don’t accuse me of introducing straw man arguments.

    And that you are “dissappointed that [my] approach is to consider a free exchange of ideas as a playing field in which people try to score goals” is hysterical, given your recent attempt to comprehensively discredit Brian Valentine through attacking his professional credentials and even writing to his boss.

    “Free exchange of ideas” … Pompous and preposterou coming from you.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    “Preposterous” – (preposterou sounds like a Greek surname ;-)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    The glass of a green house prevents the exchange of heat by contact and convection with outside air.

    The greenhouse gas molecules absorb infrared radiation, preventing that radiation from escaping from earth. As I understand it, and I’m NOT a scientist, at current concentrations of CO2, virtually all of energy of three or so wavelengths of infrared radiation gets absorbed within a short distance of their source, say about 30 feet. If CO2 is doubled, then it just means essentially ALL of the infrared radiation in those wavelengths gets absorbed in a shorter distance, say 20 feet.

    So, since essentially All energy from these three wavelengths is absorbed by current levels of CO2 and more CO2 is supposed to be more effective, then I guess that doubling CO2 is going to stop more of ALL of these infrared wavelengths from escaping the atmosphere. And since more of ALL is not escaping, global temperatures are rising.

    Sounds like proof to me. ;)

    There you have it, Joanne. What more proof do you need?

    Again, I’m not a scientist, and, since I don’t have the credentials, I probably shouldn’t be writing about this stuff. However, my thermodynamics and fluid flow common sense tells me that the science of AGW makes as little sense as tying global temperature change to something like US postal rate changes.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Wow! Talk about Kung Fu Alarmism!

    Robin is taking on a dozen sceptics at once!

    Go Robin!

    Who is Robin trying to convince with all of this?

    Why, Robin, of course.

    This is Robin’s method of ridding himself of the nagging voice that repeats in his ear, “Robin, the CO2 in the air really isn’t doing anything to the climate, and the CO2 is necessary for plant life, and all this yelling is meaningless …”


    Report this

    10

  • #

    Art Robinson Responds to Petition Slander
    http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p1834.htm

    http://www.sodahead.com/blog/83587/the-global-warming-petition-project/
    “Between October 2007 and March 2008, a new campaign for signatures was initiated. The majority of the current listed signatories signed or re-signed the petition after October 2007.”

    OK, so only 15,000 (or more) scientists signed it and were verified in the last 18 months. O-boy. And how does that show there is A Consensus?

    http://www.petitionproject.org/frequently_asked_questions.php
    The Petition Project is financed by non-tax deductible donations to the Petition Project from private individuals, many of whom are signers of the petition. The project has no financing whatever from industrial sources. No funds or resources of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine are used for the Petition Project. Donations to the project are primarily used for printing and postage. Most of the labor for the project has been provided by scientist volunteers.

    Whatever – it wouldn’t make one bit of difference to the scientific debate for which there is no evidence. Even if 90% of the signatories were faked (and no one is claiming that). There would still be more independent scientists than the IPCC has.

    I guess those who believe in authority need to debunk this despite the facts about it AND the fact that it doesn’t make any difference to the evidence. “There IS A Consensus! (I need my consensus) (Please God, don’t confuse me!) “I have to believe scientists have one mind and group think works”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wilbert Robichaud

    Robin how about the report”AGW causes more kidney stones”? making up numbers out of thin air is an easy task by the WHO.
    Tim Ball regarding the greenhouse effect.

    http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS_Greenhouse%20Effect.pdf

    why not call it the earth climate system? ECS..mistakenly known as the greenhouse effect??
    like we keep hearing about Carbon. carbon “diamond” or graphite should also be corrected whenever possible.last election during the Q&A period I asked all 3 party candidates “why should i vote for someone who keep calling a gas… Carbon?” and proceeded to explain the difference. Their entire speeches after that when it come to talk about cap and trade or ” carbon tax ” was mass confusion and they lost face and votes. people were asking after the meeting, why don’t we hear about this on the news?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Many of the people listed on the Petition are working toward modification of AGW Policy statements of the scientific Societies of which they are members.

    By and large, these Policy staements do not reflect member’s views of AGW – the statements were decided upon by a few of the staff and elected management of the Societies and few members were actually polled to for an accurate representation of member views.

    Reason: Many of these Societies seek to have their imprimatur on Government recommendations, standards, etc and Society management believed it not to be in the Society interest to appear as “outliers” – once a few did it, the remainder of Societies felt compelled to avoid Black Sheep syndrome.

    In time, the AGW statements from Societies will be modified or discarded entirely.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Regarding deaths due to global warming… cold snaps kill more people than heat waves, so has anyone calculated how many people we have saved in the last 200 years?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    So, since essentially All energy from these three wavelengths is absorbed by current levels of CO2 and more CO2 is supposed to be more effective, then I guess that doubling CO2 is going to stop more of ALL of these infrared wavelengths from escaping the atmosphere. And since more of ALL is not escaping, global temperatures are rising.

    That’s my understanding as well, but the distance would have to be quite a bit longer than 30 feet. I mean, CO2 is only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere.

    I’d like some reference to the formula concerned and the rolloff curve, sadly, I don’t have the ability (at this stage) to do those calculations from scratch. Also, the “chunk” of air that absorbs the infra red gets hot, so it moves upward. Some other “chunk” of air moves into the original place. In the process, that energy from the infra red gets spread around, so the difference between it being absorbed at high altitudes and low altitudes is going to be a very messy. I’m totally suspicious of the presumption of linearity in the AGW results.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    In time, the AGW statements from Societies will be modified or discarded entirely.

    You forgot the bit about how after a decade of cooling they will all lose their nerve and panic. It is soooo important to keep up with the latest fashion statement, and warming was last year, cooling is this year. We are scientists so we know this stuff.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    I am not a climate scientist either. But I heed the words of people like Richard Lindzen and Vincent Gray, who appeal to sceptics not to lose credibility by throwing the baby out with the bath water.

    Atmospheric CO2 *does* contribute to the greenhouse effect, and increasing CO2 *will* strengthen the greenhouse effect. There is no benefit in trying to pretend otherwise. I don’t think this should be in question. I think what should be in question are things like:
    To what degree (no pun intended) is this a factor in the overall climate change?
    Is this a good or a bad thing? Why?
    Is this greenhouse effect impact of increasing CO2 balanced/over-ridden by other much more powerful influences on the climate, such that it pales into insignificance?
    To what degree is atmospheric CO2 increase attributable to industry?
    To what degree can human societies control/influence climate by manipulating atmospheric CO2?

    I prefer to acknowledge that increasing atmospheric CO2, taken in isolation, does produce a tendency (albeit a very small one) to warming. And then go on to explain why this is not important or significant.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    But if in isolation only – what meaning does it have?

    Until somebody writes doen a procedure to measure the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere, AMIDST THE BACKGOUND – it remains for me an undefined quantity

    Robin starts hootin’ and hollerin’: “Lot os people have measured the effect.”

    Wrong. The effect is not measurable directly.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Anne-Kit Littler wrote:

    Excuse me while I roll around the floor laughing, Robin,

    Not interested, Anne-Kit.

    buy YOU brought up the straw man when you referred to the article about 300,000 “climate deaths” in response to Steve’s assertion that there is no proof of anthropogenic warming.

    No, Anne-Kit. In response to his assertion that it wasn’t dangerous.

    Your article, if you read it carefully, actually mentions nothing about “human caused climate change”, rather “human EFFECTS of climate change” (i.e. effects ON humans, not BY humans)which incidentally are equally hard to quantify.

    Does it Anne-Kit? My reading is that “climate change” and “anthropogenic climate change” are not significantly different terms when discussing the present and future.

    “Science is now unequivocal as to the reality of climate change. Human activities, including in particular emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide are recognized as its principle cause. This report clearly shows that climate change is already causing widespread devastation and suffering around the planet today. Furthermore, even if the international community is able to contain climate change, over the next decades human society must prepare for more severe climate change and more dangerous human impacts.” (Human Impact Report.

    But in either case, Anne-Kit, the other paper looking at 2000, does look at deaths and disease from human-induced climate change.

    So in effect you are saying something like this: “Yes, global warming and climate change IS caused by humans, because 300,00 people have already died from it!” Absurd and illogical.

    No, Anne-Kit, I am saying that climate change is dangerous, because 300,000 people per year are dying from it, and 1,000 times that are seriously affected.

    Really. Deaths due to climate are up, says Robin of Sydney.

    No, Anne-Kit, says the World Health Organisation in the paper published in Nature, the second most respected scientific publication in the English language, and more recently says the Global Humanitarian forum in the Human impact report cited.

    I find it difficult to believe that you missed my citations, given that you discussed one of them at length.

    You are making an awful lot of assumptions and wild guesses, Robin, and basically, as you admit, they could all be wrong.

    As I have said above: They could be underestimated. They could be overestimated. The margin of error is high. These are the best estimates that we have.

    Are some deaths caused by climatic factors? Why, yes. Point is, that is nothing new, and it’s not what your side and mine are arguing about. So don’t accuse me of introducing straw man arguments.

    Then don’t make straw man arguments. My point was not, as you argued vehemently against, that the error on these estimates was low. It was that climate change is dangerous.

    And that you are “dissappointed that [my] approach is to consider a free exchange of ideas as a playing field in which people try to score goals” is hysterical, given your recent attempt to comprehensively discredit Brian Valentine through attacking his professional credentials and even writing to his boss.

    No, Anne-Kit, I explicitly refrained from writing to his boss, even though his CV seems to imply that he is manager in a part of the organisation two tiers above his boss.

    I wrote to the reference that Brian asked me (emphatically) to write to, Prof. Ohadi. Brian said that since none of the faculty staff lists mention him, nor any of the news archives, Prof Ohadi would confirm his tenure at Maryland University. He hasn’t to date, and I still have questions about Brian’s position as a associate professor there.

    Because of the discrepancies between Brian’s claims and the staff directory at Maryland, I took from my own time to e-mail exactly who Brian asked me to email.

    Anne-kit, this has been a long post, and has not advanced the conversation at all, but is been spent entirely on correcting your post. I would greatly appreciate any accuracy that you can manage in your future posts to me, because I view this defense against straw men and (apparently intentional) inaccuracies as a waste of my time.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    I view this defense against straw men and (apparently intentional) inaccuracies as a waste of my time.

    Then why waste your time trying to determine if people (me) have lied about their background, you muttonhead


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Brian G Valentine wrote:

    Then why waste your time trying to determine if people (me) have lied about their background, you muttonhead

    I did that on your own good request, Brian. You were, I recall, somewhat emphatic.

    Frankly, the Prof. Ohadi thing was generally the much smaller part of my posts. But you didn’t take up any aspect of the discussion about climate.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Mike Goad wrote:

    The glass of a green house prevents the exchange of heat by contact and convection with outside air.

    Yes.

    The greenhouse gas molecules absorb infrared radiation, preventing that radiation from escaping from earth. As I understand it, and I’m NOT a scientist, at current concentrations of CO2, virtually all of energy of three or so wavelengths of infrared radiation gets absorbed within a short distance of their source, say about 30 feet.

    I can’t vouch for the 30 feet figure. (Do you know where it comes from?)
    But certainly it is this full absorbance in certain parts of the spectrum (saturation) that is why increasing CO2 only increases temperature about logarithmically. The parts of the spectrum in which adding more CO2 makes a difference slowly shrinks as parts of the spectrum become saturated.

    Nevertheless, a doubling of CO2 will increase the temperature about 3°C. This is a lot less than the effect of adding 390ppm CO2 from a starting point of a lot less than the current 390ppm. But neither is it negligible.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Hi Jo, Hi everyone! I’ve been pretty busy this weekend so no time for the internet. I would like to say great responses!
    Jo is correct on Post 65! I posted this article at this Web Site; http://www.globalwarminghoax.com I hope you all checked it out. It’s one of many here in the States fighting the BS that’s going on here. I’ve been helping out there while I was unemployed! Now I found work, my time is limited! I still try to post articles at the “Latest Forum Post”. I do comment at times at the “Chat Box”. Stop by when you can..I check here when I can to bush up on the “Skeptic’s Handbook” and other articles and read the comments…

    Thanks Jo, you are great! You did a great comparison at post 59.

    Thanks Matt for your alert view at post 66!

    Brian, I am surprised you didn’t pick up that I am a Skeptic. I would NEVER mock Jo! I have too much RESPECT for Her!! I admire Her continuity, intensity and expansion of Thought! Very few can do this and come down to the laymans level to communicate…All I can say is “God Bless those who can see thru the “Fallacy” of AGW and search for the REAL Truth! Then let it be know to others who need to be lead….


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Well, my apologies Denny, and I am glad to count another Skeptic among us here in the US


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jeff

    G’day MattB,
    Yes Lord Monckton would be a good choice as spokesperson, particularly if they would allow him to debate the Gorical (sounds better, rhymes with comical).
    But MattB doesn’t like that idea,
    Maybe Dr David Evans – mathematics and science
    But MattB doesn’t like that idea,
    Maybe Professor Ian Plimer – Professor of geology
    But MattB doesn’t like that idea,
    Maybe Joanne Nova – educator, climate sceptic, author
    But MattB doesn’t like that either, what was the comment – she only writes kids books???
    Maybe Dr Barry Brook, as your always quoting “Brave New Climate”
    MattB would like that. He could go and watch the wise words of the Dr on cult of Ching Hai’s “Supreme Master TV”. Or read the write up in today’s ‘Save Our Snowy’ News, or even read the last few days on Agmates.
    Oh yes, you may have to go Vegan first, so you don’t feel guilty about having such a large carbon footprint.

    G’day Matt Buckels, howya going?
    J.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Not speaking for myself, but from comments from others, the Viscount Monckton has occasionally put people off by appearing to condescend.

    It’s just the man’s demeanour, he doesn’t like to fight hostility with the same.

    By the same line of reasoning, I cannot fathom how Gore has ANY followers whatsoever – because he METHODICALLY condescends to people 1. to cover the lack of knowledge he is painfully aware of 2. he is another shallow entity who believes that the best weapon against anyone is ridicule


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Brian, your apology is accepted! I do appreciate your knowledge on this subject also…just remember that at times it pays to be “Humble”, to speak yet not to speak, if you know what I mean!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Oh Brian, by the way, I think we both know that there are more People that are Skeptics but have not spoken…The Silent Majority?? Remember that title??? Very powerful if you think about it…I believe the Republicans used it in the 80′s with Ronald Reagan…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jeff

    The question of whether more people die because of “Global Warming” as the Warmista’s tell us or die because of cold, is answered in WikiAnswers
    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_Hot_weather_or_cold_weather_cause_more_deaths

    There are estimates around on how many additional people died in the UK from cold due to the fact that electricity for heating costs have gone through the roof, due to their ETS/carbon trading.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jeff

    Hi Brian G. Valentine,
    I feel that Viscount Monckton’s demeanour would be an asset if he had to deal with an aggressor. There’s nothing more off-putting for an aggressor in an argument, than to have their opponent appear to condescend.

    Al Gore is apparently easy to turn to a blubbering —–
    If you watch the Debate on the Hill, for the Waxman-Markey bill before Congress, the debates with Sen.Newt Gingrich and Sen.Steven Scalise makes for interesting viewing, especially when Enron is mentioned.(on Youtube)

    The debate that will never happen, will be Monckton v Gore. (Gore’s risen above that sort of thing, was reported)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Joanne Nova Wrote:

    Your research is sloppy, one sided and out of date.

    I have tried to discuss the particulars of several papers with you Jo, and have thus far received the information that you will address them in a pending post.

    So I think this judgment of sloppy and out of date are premature.

    One sided is probably justified, but I stand ready to accept any other side that is coherently presented.

    Are you looking for the answer to the climate or just trying to defend your unshakeable belief in authority?

    I’m interested in what climate change skeptics believe.

    But with respect to this thread, science does progress by consensus. It does look like sending a counter-consensus view to schools does set a worrying precedent that would allow a wide range of poorly supported pseudoscience into the classroom.

    I sympathize with fact that it is difficult to get a new scientific idea into the journals, especially if it contradicts a large body of work, but my own strong opinion is that that should be done before approaching schools and politicians.

    The only evidence you quote is The Mass Of Agencies, Associations, and Organisations and the supposed Mainstream Consensus. In scientific logical terms this is like tugging a forelock to the King, the Pope, or Leonardo di Caprio. It proves nothing.

    Well I have discussed papers in the past, but the point that is relevant to this thread is that about 97% of actively publishing climate researchers have the belief that human activity has a significant influence on global mean surface temperatures. And while I agree that that proves nothing of itself, it is still these people that need to be convinced before introducing a new idea into the school curriculum.

    We’ll take your opinions seriously if you show you are looking at both sides, AND recognise that opinions of international committees are not scientific evidence.

    I agree that the opinions of international committees are not scientific evidence. They can, however, present scientific evidence.

    I think that scientific organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science (which publishes the esteemed journal “science”), the National Academy of Science (which publishes the respected journal PNAS), the American Meteorological Society (which publishes 11 peer reviewed journals), and the American Statistical Association (which publishes 12 peer reviewed journals) are strongly influenced by the scientific evidence, and their support of the findings of the IPCC is indicative of the scientific consensus.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Thank you Denny for your advice to me – needed, noted, and as appreciation, heeded.

    Robin, note that PNAS submissions are not reviewed if submitted by an Academy member.

    Let’s face the truth. These journal articles are reviewed by people who are probably sympathetic to the AGW story.

    A paper is submitted, the Editor finds 3 or 4 reviewers or referees for it (the term Referee has a somewhat different meaning in the US than it does on the Continent), these reviewers are anonymous to the author(s), and you don’t need to be too clever to guess that a Journal editor is not going to send some article off to

    me

    Bob Carter

    Roy Spencer

    Willie Soon

    Fred Singer

    or a lot of other people.

    How many Hansen papers do you think have been reviewed by Pierrehumbert, and conversely?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Brian,

    Let’s suppose you have a large container of water. Let’s say there is a hole in the container, and some water drips out. Suppose also that there is a big pipe through which water flows into the container, at a variable rate. And finally, suppose there is a large powerful pump, that is constantly pumping water, at a variable rate, out of the container.

    Along comes Chicken Little, squawking about “stop the drip, or a polar bear will die”. Which of the following do you think is the best response?…
    1. Tell CL there is no hole.
    2. Tell CL there is no water coming out of the hole.
    3. Tell CL you do not accept the validity of the drip because the drip rate may be affected by the pump rate.
    4. Tell CL to get a life, the drip is inconsequential to the amount of water in the container.
    5. Tell CL to shut up or you’ll get Monckton to call her a bed-wetter.
    6. Find that polar bear and watch in case it needs resuscitation.
    7. Something else.

    As you no doubt realise, my own preference is 4.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Robin, free speech is where I get to publicly ask the question “Have you got any evidence for this?” and I can ask that question any where I like.

    With free speech then, you can answer that question, if only you could find THE missing paper.

    As it is, you refer to the opinions of committees, but are you too lazy to check it out yourself? Go on read Chapter Nine, and find THAT mystery paper, the one that shows that carbon will cause significant warming.

    Pseudo sceptics seem to enjoy debunking anything as long as they have ‘authority’ behind them. This is not sceptiscm. It’s faith in government committees, or official associations.

    Here’s Chapter Nine. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

    If we let schools censor free speech children don’t learn to think. The next generation could end up being duped by an even more vacuous claim than the climate scam.

    To show Kundu (and you) can think, we need evidence. Faith in the scientific process, or in associations, or university hiring techniques, or worse, in ‘investigative journalists’ and the media; it’s not thinking.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Brian, to avoid confusion… my last post was in response to your comments at #106.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Robin,

    I can’t vouch for the 30 feet figure. (Do you know where it comes from?)

    I got it from my memory since I haven’t looked at much climate change material since before we started traveling on May 1. I can see the page from the paper in my mind, but can’t find it, and, after spend a couple of hours searching for it, I’ve got other things to do. I was obviously off by over a factor of three, though. I’m sure the paper really said 30 meters.

    But certainly it is this full absorbance in certain parts of the spectrum (saturation) that is why increasing CO2 only increases temperature about logarithmically. The parts of the spectrum in which adding more CO2 makes a difference slowly shrinks as parts of the spectrum become saturated.

    My understanding is that there is little of the long wave radiation spectrum that is susceptible to more CO2 that is not already saturated.

    Nevertheless, a doubling of CO2 will increase the temperature about 3°C. This is a lot less than the effect of adding 390ppm CO2 from a starting point of a lot less than the current 390ppm. But neither is it negligible.

    So, if I go from 200 to 400 ppm, the global temperature anomaly will be 3 degrees higher at 400 ppm than at 200 ppm. And at 800 ppm the anomaly will be 3 degrees higher than at 400 ppm. From 200 to 800 ppm, that’s 6 degrees C!

    OMG!

    If that’s the case, then AL Gore and the IPCC don’t need the climate models’ positive cloud feedback to get to their doomsday scenario.

    As I see it, when CO2 is already removing essentially ALL of the long wave radiation energy that it can at current global concentrations, it’s really difficult to get much more energy out no matter how high the concentration is.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    On the other hand, Steven, there might be more than one reason for the hole.

    The hole has always been there

    I put the hole there

    Admitting the second, the first response will be, “well if you put it there then take ownership and fix it”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Brian,

    The reason for the hole is irrelevant, if its effect is inconsequential.

    On the other hand, if it was important enough, and if it would make a real difference, and if it is actually possible to fix the hole, then the hole should be fixed, regardless of who caused it.

    But here’s what I neglected to tell you… Fixing the hole requires a substance only obtainable by the removal of the gonads of all males whose surname begins with ‘V’. So the price is high and we’d better make sure you’re real keen!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    ah – we come now to an observation about human nature.

    If there is some imperfection at all, which are people likely to see – the fact that the imperfection is meaningless compared with the whole thing?

    Or the imperfection alone?

    And if indeed the imperfection was the result of (accident, vandalism) or anything else that can be attributed to an identifiable human source –

    then what is the first thing that people are going to demand?

    And all the talking in the world isn’t going to change (a lot of) people’s mind’s about it


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Brian,

    I think I understand what you are saying. And I really regret having to respond like this… The logical consequence of this train of thought is to end up doing exactly the same as we accuse the AGW alarmist brigade of – twisting and filtering the truth to promote our agenda. I do not support this.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Robin (#82): “When are these other global temperature fluctuations?”

    By some accounts, I think approximately 1906-1940 would qualify as one example.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Well there is no truth to be twisted or filtered: the effect of AGW cannot be measured directly, it can be inferred upon the assumptions made, and if there is no direct observation, all the hollering there is is meaningless


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    Wow, there’s been a lot of activity since I responded to Robin – great to see so many different people joining the forum!

    What can I say to your latest opus in response to me (#107), Robin? It is clear to me and to anyone here with half a brain that you do not understand the definition of “straw man argument”. Either that, or you are too blinded by self-righteousness to recognise one when perpetrated by your good self.

    Yes, your posts are long and do not advance any conversations at all, but are spent entirely on “correcting” other people’s posts. They are tedious, repetitive and a waste of our time. You are obviously not “interested in what skeptics think” at all, you are just here to be as much of a nuisance as you can.

    You must have too much time on you hands, because I can’t imagine this is the only blog you grace with your presence.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Brian,

    The AGW conjecture can be stated in its simplest terms like this:
    “Industrial increase of atmospheric CO2 concentrations is causing, or will cause, catastrophic climate change.”
    Ok?

    Well, there is a heap wrong with this statement, which many smart people have written whole books about.

    But you don’t see those smart people saying there is no Greenhouse Effect. No. Because there *is* a Greenhouse Effect, and atmospheric CO2 *does* play a significant part. So when you say “there is no truth to be twisted or filtered”, I have to respectfully disagree. In the words of Dr Vincent Gray: “Anybody who claims that there is no greenhouse effect is plain wrong and should be ignored.”

    Now for the good news… It doesn’t matter. The AGW statement that “industrial increase of atmospheric CO2 concentrations is causing, or will cause, catastrophic climate change” is just as wrong as it ever was. If you truly understand what the Greenhouse Effect is and does, and the part that it plays in the grand scheme of things, you will understand that it neither strengthens nor weakens the AGW case.

    I recently had the great privilege of hosting Hungarian physicist Dr Miklos Zagoni, associate of Dr Ferenc Miskolczi, when he visited New Zealand to address a parliamentary Select Committee. Wow, those guys are really stretching the understanding of how this stuff works. It’ll make you cross-eyed, but see http://hpsregi.elte.hu/zagoni/NEW/New_developments.htm

    Here’s some other really cool info, somewhat related, just released today: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/14/the-thermostat-hypothesis/

    So you see, there’s obviously a lot to it. But note that none of these world-class sceptical scientists is saying there is no greenhouse effect. They’re no fools.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Thank you, Steve, I have read a lot from both of them, and you are fortunate to have heard them first hand.

    Vincent is as liable to argue with sceptics as he is with anyone else, and not all of his letters to others have I greatly admired, although I haven’t had any heated words with him.

    Anne Kit, Robin comes here to “try to educate” and “to correct mistaken impressions” and he “feels he is doing a service” for “people who aren’t aware of the truth” possibly because “they haven’t heard it” and he “hopes that his education will be meaningful” for “people who don’t know what they are talking about” and we should all be very grateful that he comes here to bring this enlightenment free of charge.

    If he is crossed he will devote excessive amounts of time investigating the backgounds of people on the Internet so that he can cheerfully post what he feels will be embarrassing to other people.

    So – word to the wise – don’t call him a “fool” or a “muttonhead” or any other less-considered names because you’ll be sorry!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    I recently had the great privilege of hosting Hungarian physicist Dr Miklos Zagoni, associate of Dr Ferenc Miskolczi, when he visited New Zealand to address a parliamentary Select Committee. Wow, those guys are really stretching the understanding of how this stuff works.

    It’s certainly the clearest explanation I’ve seen so far. Not that I understood all of it, but the “always on the border of saturation” seems like an interesting approach and if it holds then it becomes a really good simplifying principle.

    The implication of Miskolczi’s theory is that the glacial/interglacial cycle is indeed driven by fluctuations in the Earth’s orbit (Milankovic cycles) and the only amplifying “gain” factor is changing surface albedo such as snow and ice cover (which fortunately for humans, is reasonably easy to engineer). Everything else is short term fluctuations limited in time by the energy storage capacity of atmospheric H2O.

    When you let a Hungarian have access to maths and physics, it’s more dangerous than giving plutonium to North Korea. If there’s a treaty the world really needs to draft right NOW, it would be something to keep those Hungarian’s under control :-)

    Come to think of it, the other implication of Miskolczi is that an open-loop model exists to give a good fit for the Vostok ice-core data with temperature driving CO2 (give or take a few time constants and transfer functions). If the Hungarians take the prize on this one, might as well get second place with a collaborating theory.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Everyone:
    If you could select one Motion Graphic (animation) to visually explain a difficult theory (like: Greenhouse Effect is logarithmic.) Which would you choose?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Paint your house. The first coat covers most, successive coats have negligibe effect on permitting light through


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Robin, in #119, says,

    “I think that scientific organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science (which publishes the esteemed journal “science”), the National Academy of Science (which publishes the respected journal PNAS), the American Meteorological Society (which publishes 11 peer reviewed journals), and the American Statistical Association (which publishes 12 peer reviewed journals) are strongly influenced by the scientific evidence, and their support of the findings of the IPCC is indicative of the scientific consensus.”

    The “scientific consensus” is actually, these days, more a consensus about funding. Government funding depends on marching in lockstep with governments’ drumming up the pseudo-crisis of catastrophic human-caused global warming. If you don’t march to your government’s drum, government will not pay you to do research that supports their point of view. These politically motivated scientists at AAAS, NAS, NCAR, ASA, and AMS know which side of the government bread has the butter on it, so they support that side. Absent such support, the “consensus” would not exist.

    And what do governments get out of this crisis? That’s really easy to answer. They get more control over their economies. They get more control over the personal lives of their citizens. They get more cap-and-thieve tax money. “Science” has become their lapdog tool to increase their control, their income, and their Jesus-complex (“We politicians are the world’s salvation from climate apocalypse!”).

    The true believers in the pseudo-scientific crisis called global warming constantly complain about their opponents being funded by “those evil and greedy energy companies.” The pot is calling the kettle black, since the global warming crisis is almost entirely funded by money extorted from taxpayers in rich countries in the Western Hemisphere.

    The only chance we’ve got of being saved from the greed for power and money expressed by nearly every Western government is that some of the Eastern Hemisphere economies, both democratic and authoritarian, will stand up to the power-hungry, greedy, and rapacious Western governments, and tell them where to dump their government-spawned pseudoscience. Preferably where the sun doesn’t shine.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Tel,

    A lot of the technical detail goes over my head too. But my understanding is that Miskolczi does not claim to have a comprehensive explanation/proof for “how” it happens that the greenhouse effect is compensated for. It’s just that the evidence (i.e. the empirical measurements, and the calculations based on them) clearly indicates that *something* does compensate.

    Thanks for the amusing comment about the Hungarians’ mental predelictions. :-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    But my understanding is that Miskolczi does not claim to have a comprehensive explanation/proof for “how” it happens that the greenhouse effect is compensated for.

    By my reading, they do have a “hand waving” explanation.

    In simple terms, think of a very dry atmosphere with minimal GHG and no H2O. Adding a small amount of H2O into this atmosphere has a large effect on infra-red capture so the effective “gain” of how much warming you get for how much H2O you add is a high gain. Positive feedback ensures that each bit of warming delivers more H2O providing the available supply of H2O is large enough.

    On the other side of the coin, think about a very wet atmosphere. In this case the H2O in the low atmosphere casts a shadow on the higher atmosphere so you get heating in the low atmosphere and cooling in the high atmosphere. However, warm H2O at low altitude tends to rise, and cool H2O at high altitude tends to fall so under these situations, the “gain” achievable by adding more water to the atmosphere is negligible and convection carries the energy upwards.

    Thus in summary:

    Low H2O concentration => greenhouse effect delivers high gain,
    convection is not particularly effective.

    High H2O concentration => greenhouse effect delivers low gain,
    and convection + latent-heat deliver highly effective heat transport.

    Thus, there are forces pushing toward the middle from both of the extremes. In the long term, they must come to a balance (although we know that balance is highly dynamic in the short term).

    I’ll also point out that Miskolczi implicitly makes a prediction that adding CO2 should automatically displace some H2O (proportional to their relative GHG efficiency) in order to maintain the “borderline saturated” equilibrium, so we should expect the air to get dryer as more CO2 is added (all other factors being equal).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Joanne Wrote:

    Whatever – it wouldn’t make one bit of difference to the scientific debate for which there is no evidence. Even if 90% of the signatories were faked (and no one is claiming that). There would still be more independent scientists than the IPCC has.

    I don’t think that those numbers can be accurately compared.

    To partake in the petition, you need to go online and put your name in a box, or write it on the card and put it in the post.

    To partake in the IPCC, you need to be an expert in the field, you need to be able to take a year or so away from your career, and other time commitments, and you need to be the sort of person who would take on this thankless task of reviewing the scientific literature.

    Doran and Zimmerman, 2009 is a better comparison. And it attempts to control self-selection bias.

    I guess those who believe in authority need to debunk this despite the facts about it AND the fact that it doesn’t make any difference to the evidence. “There IS A Consensus! (I need my consensus) (Please God, don’t confuse me!) “I have to believe scientists have one mind and group think works”.

    It’s not a matter of believing in authority. It’s a matter of believing in science.

    The scientific process is an iterative one. If an idea can’t be confirmed then the scientific community ignores it until new evidence comes to light.

    Neither do scientists have one mind. So the consensus carries considerable weight, and should be confronted with evidence, rather than circumvention.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Thank you very much, Tel. Yes, that is exactly my interpretation as well. I’m sorry I didn’t make my meaning clear before. I just know that Dr Zagoni has been careful, and rightly so, to emphasise that these are proposed explanations, i.e. hypotheses for the phenomena, and require further investigation. But the observed evidence for the phenomena themselves is very strong. I think it is a distinction worth making.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    As I mentioned before to Barton, the IPCC deck was stacked from the outset by interviews with people before they were invited to participate in IPCC.

    I was nominated by DOE but not chosen to participate because I had arrived at my conclusion about AGW many years earlier for DOE (1987).

    Pachauri was a pretty strict “bouncer” for the IPCC party – but Ben Santer was by far the worst. He didn’t want anybody there who wasn’t RAVING about the evils of AGW.

    Thanks to Ed Teller’s lead of support of the Petition, many scientists from the DOE labs followed suit. Joanne is quite accurate that the Petition is far more representative of independent thought than the IPCC is.

    Interesting that Teller founded the Lawrence Livermore lab – the same institution that is home to Ben Santer.

    Many still in the DOE lab system are afraid to speak out against AGW, despite my encouragement to do so.

    My protection to being an outspoken sceptic resides in the Senate of the US, and James Inhofe in particular. Without him, I probably would be quietly asked not to speak out.

    Robin – even before you get your opinions out about all of this please take them and SHOVE THEM


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    wilbert Robichaud wrote:

    Robin how about the report”AGW causes more kidney stones”? making up numbers out of thin air is an easy task by the WHO.

    I think that the relationship between temperature and kidney stone incidence is well supported by data. What makes you think that the WHO is “making numbers up out of thin air”?

    Tim Ball regarding the greenhouse effect.

    Tim Ball has some very non-mainstream views. Such as we should encourage AGW, because it will be good for Canada. Which is certainly true in terms of arible land, heating costs, and crop yields. Not everyone gets to be Canadian though.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Brian Valentine wrote:

    In time, the AGW statements from Societies will be modified or discarded entirely.

    That’s highly speculative, and it hasn’t happened yet.

    But in the meantime, the positions of those societies are as stated, and they do currently speak of the consensus.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    WHO claims the numbers are fabricated? Paul Reiter, for one.

    Folks, to hear Tim Ball’s opinion of CO2 and climate, please watch “the great global warming swindle,” and you’ll hear, right out of Tim Ball’s mouth,

    “CO2 has nothing to do with climate. Nothing at all.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Strange Twists of Fate:

    While taking courses at Harvard, Gore was req’d to fulfill some “general science” electives.

    One of those requirements was fulfilled in a course by Roger Revelle.

    Gore was so taken by the work Revelle was pursuing at the time that he later made a career out of it, whilst floundering for an identity after he lost the 2000 election.

    Now then – if Gore had taken another course to fulfill his “science” elective requirements, the World would probably never be considering this momentous nothing right now!

    Kismet!

    [Revelle of course recanted his earlier advice in more or less a "death bed confession." Gore had the power at the time to attempt to supress the confession, when Gore found out through the Courts that he couldn't, he repaid his former mentor with the label "senility." Now THERE'S gratitude for you]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Joanne Nova Wrote:

    Regarding deaths due to global warming… cold snaps kill more people than heat waves, so has anyone calculated how many people we have saved in the last 200 years?

    Winter time has higher mortality, but cold snaps don’t kill many people. Heat waves do kill.

    With respect to US cities:

    Although daily winter mortality is usually higher than summer, the causes of death that are responsible for most winter mortality do not vary much with temperature. Using models that estimate climate change for the years 2020 and 2050, it is estimated that summer mortality will increase dramatically and winter mortality will decrease slightly, even if people acclimatize to the increased warmth. Thus, a sizable net increase in weather-related mortality is estimated if the climate warms as the models predict.

    An evaluation of climate/mortality relationships in large U.S. cities and the possible impacts of a climate change. L S Kalkstein and J S Greene, Environ Health Perspect. (1997)

    But in any case, the highest mortality due to climate change are in Africa and South East Asia. The cold is much less deadly there than the food and clean water security.

    So, overall, yes, mortality from some causes is reduced because of anthropogenic climate change, but even in the developed world it is not clear if this is greater than the increased mortality from myocardial infarction. But counting malnutrition and disease, climate change is “dangerous”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Tel wrote:

    I’m totally suspicious of the presumption of linearity in the AGW results.

    I think that there is no presumption of linearity. The response is about logarithmic.

    The other kind of linearity, that the effect of CO2 forcing is about the same as the effect of the total forcing less the effect of all forcing except CO2 forcing, is not presumed either; it is an interesting result from climate models.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Enslavement of people in developing nations by prevention of financing coal energy electricity generation is probably the worst form of abuse anyone could do to these people – keeping them peasants eeking out an existence by scratching the soil for eternity …

    Oh Christ, what’s the use.

    Robin you would have to live amongst them to understand what “dangerous” in terms of day to day existence is.

    That’ll never happen. You’ll just sit by in the comfort of Sydney stamping your feet that the world live by your miserable ideals, damn it all


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Tel wrote:

    You forgot the bit about how after a decade of cooling they will all lose their nerve and panic. It is soooo important to keep up with the latest fashion statement, and warming was last year, cooling is this year. We are scientists so we know this stuff.

    Where does that even come from Tel?

    The climate is warming at about 0.1something °C per decade. An El Nino alone will have an effect of about twice that. So 20 years of cooling is not exceptional in the long term warming trend.

    A decade of cooling (should that happen) is completely unexceptional, and wouldn’t change any educated person’s understanding of climate.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Robin,

    tricked yourself again. Would it make any difference to anything climactically if all the climate scientists were suddenly sucked into a parallel universe? If it would, then any discussion of “Ive got more scientists than you” would be meaningful. As it is, you seem to be unable to help yourself. You admit science is not done by consensus, and authority is not ‘evidence’ so why keep coming back to it?

    Here’s another mind boggler – is the scientific process infallible? IS there a rule of logic that says: “Proof by Committee counts?” Can you imagine any possible way that committees and associations and peer review could be wrong? Has it ever happened in the past that large groups of humans in educated committees came to incorrect conclusions? Does the UN ever make errors on a mass scale involving hundreds of thousands of deaths? If you can admit that even one of these events can occur or has occurred, then you have to admit you need to READ THE EVIDENCE yourself. Counting PhD’s and voting on science is the mark of a disciple of bureaucracy, a faithful believer of government decree, and if so, you are not a sceptic, but a follower.

    Consensus is a political construct not a scientific law. Do you think or bleat?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Steve Schapel wrote:

    To what degree (no pun intended) is this a factor in the overall climate change?

    About 3°C per doubling.
    (About 1.6°C since preindustrial levels.)

    Is this a good or a bad thing?

    Bad, overall.

    Why?

    The increased mortality amongst humans, decreased biodiversity, widespread damage to the boreal forests, widespread damage of the amazon forest, damage to the oceanic food web starting with calcifying organisms, changes to croplands, decreased fresh water security, increased range of tropical diseases … you’ve read the papers.

    Is this greenhouse effect impact of increasing CO2 balanced/over-ridden by other much more powerful influences on the climate, such that it pales into insignificance?

    It’s pretty significant. Since the last half of last century its the most significant (probably).

    To what degree is atmospheric CO2 increase attributable to industry?

    Does land use change count as industry? If so, all of it.

    To what degree can human societies control/influence climate by manipulating atmospheric CO2?

    That’s a social sciences question. I don’t have a clue.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Joanne Nova Wrote:

    You admit science is not done by consensus, and authority is not ‘evidence’ so why keep coming back to it?

    I was trying to keep my responses in chronological order, but I have to respond to that.

    Science is done by consensus!

    There’s no world science court that sits in judgement of scientific proposals, elections by which scientific ideas are accepted or rejected by democracy, and no monarch of science that decides which scientific ideas are correct (now that the Catholic Church is keeping out of science).

    It’s done by consensus.

    And I keep coming back to it because I think that it is important that scientific ideas get integrated into that consensus or rejected on the basis of evidence before they go to the schools.

    And so I disagree with the thesis of this thread that a school president has censored science, because until an idea is part of the consensus, it is not science; it’s a proposition with not very compelling evidence yet.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    “Polywater is a newly discovered phase of water. It is more stable than ordinary water. It might be the case that polywater could convert all ordinary water into polywater, which is undrinkable. So we need to spend X million of dollars to find out more about polywater.”

    “That’s right! The scientific consensus is, polywater exists and can be specially prepared. There are loads of peer-reviewed papers describing the properties of polywater, these papers are the result of model simulations.”

    3 years later

    “Polywater is nothing more than ordinary water with some colliodal contaminants.”

    “That’s right! We knew that all along”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Brian G Valentine wrote:

    A paper is submitted, the Editor finds 3 or 4 reviewers or referees for it (the term Referee has a somewhat different meaning in the US than it does on the Continent), these reviewers are anonymous to the author(s), and you don’t need to be too clever to guess that a Journal editor is not going to send some article off to

    me

    Bob Carter

    Roy Spencer

    Willie Soon

    Fred Singer

    or a lot of other people.

    A journal exists on it’s reputation. If an editor thought that You or Fred Singer would be good at spotting poor research, then they would use you.

    I don’t accept that all the journals have a bias against certain types of climate research. Just against poor research.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Brian G Valentine:

    “That’s right! The scientific consensus is, polywater exists and can be specially prepared. There are loads of peer-reviewed papers describing the properties of polywater, these papers are the result of model simulations.”

    3 years later

    “Polywater is nothing more than ordinary water with some colliodal contaminants.”

    “That’s right! We knew that all along”

    Which shows that science changes its views based on evidence. (Although polywater was always somewhat controversial.

    The understanding that CO2 is a greenhouse gas has been part of optics for over a century, and has only been confirmed by experiments.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Robin, you’re a hard sell.

    But I admire your tenacity.

    If I write comments on global warmist web sites, I am hooted down, ridiculed, mocked so much I just don’t feel like saying any more after about 3 rounds of it.

    But you plough along, still


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Robin,

    I have no intention of pursuing the bizarre claims you have made in #152. I am one of those people who want to see evidence to support such statements, but I have seen you systematically fail to provide evidence when requested. You’re not going to change your mind on the basis of anything I have to say, and I’m not going to change mine either except on the basis of evidence.

    But this is interesting:
    “you’ve read the papers”

    Nope. Not a single one. I avoid them as much as I can. Nor do I listen to radio. Got no TV either – got rid of that one in 1971! Can’t remember the last time I actually watched something on a TV… quite a few years ago, for sure – it would have been a cricket match I think (ask Brian to explain what cricket means ;-) ).

    You know why? Because I figured out that the mass media don’t give me correct information. I can usually pick someone who gets the bulk of their world view from the mass media (i.e. the entertainment industry). It seems to affect the ability to think objectively, even in intelligent people.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    ha ha – I never owned or watched a TV in my life

    Dang – Sceptics are so VASTLY more interesting people than the “consensus” lovers, their humour better, their perception better, and I am very grateful indeed to have the opportunity to know some more better

    Wonderful, wonderful.

    [People like Kundu, the subject of this article, seem so DULL and DIMWITTED to me, I don't know the person personally, all I can say is, his refusal to even LOOK at sceptic literature of any variety reminds me of the Bible-brandishing sort that bohemians avoid like the plague]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Joanne Wrote:

    Robin, free speech is where I get to publicly ask the question “Have you got any evidence for this?” and I can ask that question any where I like.

    I didn’t think Australia had a provision for free speech.

    With free speech then, you can answer that question, if only you could find THE missing paper.

    As it is, you refer to the opinions of committees, but are you too lazy to check it out yourself? Go on read Chapter Nine, and find THAT mystery paper, the one that shows that carbon will cause significant warming.

    Haven’t I cited half a dozen papers that put the climate sensitivity to CO2 at about 3°C per doubling?

    Here are the papers that I have bookmarked that talk about either the climate sensitivity or that the recent warming is mostly anthropogenic:

    Using multiple observationally-based constraints to estimate climate sensitivity

    Robust Bayesian Uncertainty Analysis of Climate System Properties Using Markov Chain Monte Carlo Methods

    Attribution of regional-scale temperature changes to anthropogenic and natural causes

    Efficiently Constraining Climate Sensitivity with Ensembles of of Paleoclimate Simulations

    Climate sensitivity estimated from ensemble simulations of glacial climate.

    Climate sensitivity constrained by temperature reconstructions over the past seven centuries.

    Effect of climate sensitivity on the response to volcanic forcing (abstract)

    The Climate Sensitivity and Its Components Diagnosed from Earth Radiation Budget Data

    Constraining climate forecasts: The role of prior assumptions

    An Observationally Based Estimate of the Climate Sensitivity

    Probabilistic climate change projections using neural networks

    Estimated PDFs of climate system properties including natural and anthropogenic forcings.

    Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate.

    Estimation of Natural and Anthropogenic Contributions to 20th Century Temperature Change.

    Anthropogenic Warming of Earth’s Climate System.

    External Control of 20th Century Temperature by Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings.

    Earth’s Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications.

    Climate sensitivity constrained by CO2 concentrations over the past 420 million years.

    Of course, there are a lot more cited by the IPCC.

    If we let schools censor free speech children don’t learn to think. The next generation could end up being duped by an even more vacuous claim than the climate scam.

    I’m all for teaching critical thinking in class.

    I’m not for special interest groups being allowed to do an end run around the scientific process, and inject dianetics or time-cube into the classroom.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Joanne Wrote:

    Robin, free speech is where I get to publicly ask the question “Have you got any evidence for this?” and I can ask that question any where I like.

    I didn’t think Australia had a provision for free speech.

    With free speech then, you can answer that question, if only you could find THE missing paper.

    As it is, you refer to the opinions of committees, but are you too lazy to check it out yourself? Go on read Chapter Nine, and find THAT mystery paper, the one that shows that carbon will cause significant warming.

    Haven’t I cited half a dozen papers that put the climate sensitivity to CO2 at about 3°C per doubling?

    Here are the papers that I have bookmarked that talk about either the climate sensitivity or that the recent warming is mostly anthropogenic:


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Using multiple observationally-based constraints to estimate climate sensitivity

    Robust Bayesian Uncertainty Analysis of Climate System Properties Using Markov Chain Monte Carlo Methods

    Attribution of regional-scale temperature changes to anthropogenic and natural causes

    Efficiently Constraining Climate Sensitivity with Ensembles of of Paleoclimate Simulations

    Climate sensitivity estimated from ensemble simulations of glacial climate.

    Climate sensitivity constrained by temperature reconstructions over the past seven centuries.

    Effect of climate sensitivity on the response to volcanic forcing (abstract)

    The Climate Sensitivity and Its Components Diagnosed from Earth Radiation Budget Data

    Constraining climate forecasts: The role of prior assumptions

    An Observationally Based Estimate of the Climate Sensitivity

    Probabilistic climate change projections using neural networks

    Estimated PDFs of climate system properties including natural and anthropogenic forcings.

    Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate.

    Estimation of Natural and Anthropogenic Contributions to 20th Century Temperature Change.

    Anthropogenic Warming of Earth’s Climate System.

    External Control of 20th Century Temperature by Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings.

    Earth’s Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications.

    Climate sensitivity constrained by CO2 concentrations over the past 420 million years.

    Of course, there are a lot more cited by the IPCC.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
  • #
  • #
  • #
  • #
  • #
  • #
  • #
  • #
  • #
  • #
  • #
  • #
  • #
  • #
  • #
  • #
  • #
  • #
  • #
  • #
    Robin

    Of course, there are a lot more cited by the IPCC.

    If we let schools censor free speech children don’t learn to think. The next generation could end up being duped by an even more vacuous claim than the climate scam.

    I’m all for teaching critical thinking in class.

    I’m not for special interest groups being allowed to do an end run around the scientific process, and inject dianetics or time-cube into the classroom.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Mike Goad wrote:

    My understanding is that there is little of the long wave radiation spectrum that is susceptible to more CO2 that is not already saturated.

    Well, the current climate sensitvity is about 3°C per doubling. If that’s “little” then it’s little.

    So, if I go from 200 to 400 ppm, the global temperature anomaly will be 3 degrees higher at 400 ppm than at 200 ppm. And at 800 ppm the anomaly will be 3 degrees higher than at 400 ppm. From 200 to 800 ppm, that’s 6 degrees C!

    Yes, about that.

    OMG!

    If that’s the case, then AL Gore and the IPCC don’t need the climate models’ positive cloud feedback to get to their doomsday scenario.

    Well, the 3°C is the total climate’s reponse. It includes feedbacks.

    As I see it, when CO2 is already removing essentially ALL of the long wave radiation energy that it can at current global concentrations, it’s really difficult to get much more energy out no matter how high the concentration is.

    Well, the best estimates to date are that increasing CO2 will increase the temperature by about 3°C per doubling. Which is some more energy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    Re: Free Speech

    Australian legislative principles are based on English common law which states, paraphrased, that “everything is permitted unless it is expressly prohibited”.

    Ergo, because we have no law prohibiting free speech, we enjoy free speech.

    Unless of course the proponents of an Australian Federal Charter of Rights have their way … but that’s another debate.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Steve Schapel wrote:

    Robin (#82): “When are these other global temperature fluctuations?”

    By some accounts, I think approximately 1906-1940 would qualify as one example.

    Well CO2 was increasing over that time and contributing to the temperature rise.

    What scientific basis do you have for claiming that climate change being dangerous is “not true”?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Robin (#153)

    I asked you (#45) whether you had read “The Skeptics Handbook”. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that there is a “proposition”, and that there is an attempt to push this proposition into classrooms. That is not how I understand the situation. A central tenet of “The Skeptics Handbook” is the scientific method. I understood (correct me if I’m wrong, Joanne) that the intended audience, which Mr Kundu attampts to “protect”, is science teachers, not the school students. I understood it was an attempt to help them understand some of the ways in which the widely promoted anthropogenic global warming conjecture does flout correct scientific principles. Yes, it does argue the sceptics’ case, of course. But the sceptics’ case does not primarily consist of a “proposition” at all. The proposition is the AGW proposition, and the sceptics’ case is primarily to be critical of the short-comings of the AGW proposition.

    But anyway, I have the feeling I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    “Science is done by consensus!”

    Thus, four hundred years later after this style of thinking was shown to be fallacious and the world emerged from the dark ages, Robin Grant is still stuck in feudal reasoning. If Robin had been born in 1600 he would have sided with the Pope against Galileo. Galileo clearly did not believe the consensus.

    We have standards of logic and reason, and you are not meeting them.

    Science is done by observation.

    Re #162 -#179: You figure out if any of them are not from models, which don’t count, and try again for some observational evidence OK? Stop wasting our time.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    The climate is warming at about 0.1something °C per decade. An El Nino alone will have an effect of about twice that. So 20 years of cooling is not exceptional in the long term warming trend.

    I’m well aware of that, and equally aware that to understand the methodology of the scientific publication industry you need merely watch some 8 year olds playing soccer. I stand by my original statement — none of those guys can hold their nerve for longer than a decade.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Robin,

    Robin Grant said:

    Well, the best estimates to date are that increasing CO2 will increase the temperature by about 3°C per doubling

    Where is the physical evidence — the proof — that additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will result in higher global temperatures?

    Climate models do NOT qualify as PROOF. Climate models take climate assumptions and predict climate trends just as financial models take financial assumptions and predict financial trends — and some of us are feeling the proof of how inaccurate financial models are. I do not want to feel the financial impact of policies based on unproven climate model predictions.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Mike,

    Robin also said that the 3°C figure “includes feedbacks”. This refers to the assumption that the small greenhouse effect contribution of increased CO2 will be multipled by other factors. This was originally a worthwhile guess. Let’s give credit where credit’s due – this was an idea that was worth exploring. Now, however, there is enough water under the bridge to reject this idea. For one thing, the empirical evidence just doesn’t confirm it. In that sense, it *is* scientific… come up with an idea, make a prediction based on the idea, and see if the evidence supports the prediction – which in this case it doesn’t. For another thing, there are now a lot of plausible interpretations of climate processes that involve negative feedback. To be honest, it’s all up in the air. ;-)

    End result: Robin’s got a damn cheek trying to bamboozle us with “the best estimates to date”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Robin, I’m thumbing through a few of your bookmarks (at random based on interesting sounding names).

    #164 (STOTT 2003):

    They took a computer model, tweaked some input weighting factors for that model and managed to get results that were somewhat consistent with measured observations. It is vague about exactly how the “Natural” input is calculated (for example, were the natural variations in the earth’s orbit included), and seems to ignore changes in surface albedo. I’d put this one into the category of, “these are the things I can think of, so it must be one of those”, plus a presumption that the model is correct when in fact it is one of many possible ways to get plausible results (needing Occam’s Razor to sort them).

    #166 (von Deimling 2006):

    I had a great deal of difficulty following the logic of this one because it meanders so much, but I think that climate sensitivity was an input to the computer model and that main objective seemed to be running the model a many times and noting the negative correlation between the climate sensitivity and various cooling factors (atmospheric dust, etc) as output from the model (i.e. the whole paper is a study in the properties of the computer model). I’m a little surprised that these things would be correlated at all so that is in itself a result, the paper seems to neglect any explanation of why this correlation occurs (maybe it’s obvious to everyone “in the know”). How this measures climate sensitivity I cannot fathom.

    Anyhow, maybe I’ll look at some others later on.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Earl Allen wrote:

    The “scientific consensus” is actually, these days, more a consensus about funding. Government funding depends on marching in lockstep with governments’ drumming up the pseudo-crisis of catastrophic human-caused global warming. If you don’t march to your government’s drum, government will not pay you to do research that supports their point of view. These politically motivated scientists at AAAS, NAS, NCAR, ASA, and AMS know which side of the government bread has the butter on it, so they support that side. Absent such support, the “consensus” would not exist.

    Yeah, the conspiracy theory isn’t really that compelling.

    If you think about all the scientists and journal editor’s who’s career and reputation could be much better served by publishing those findings that would overturn the paradigm, many of whom have guaranteed incomes, most of whose income is not tied to climate science, who come from hundreds of different countries (and so different governments), it comes across as somewhat paranoid-delusional.

    But it’s not falsifiable, so you could be right … for a huge multinational conspiracy controlling all the worlds academic journals, research institutions, and universities, and chooses to bring this power to bear on what climate change research becomes published.


    Report this

    01

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    I scroll don this page and see some 50 photos of Robin

    : (


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    down not don


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Brian G Valentine wrote:

    Enslavement of people in developing nations by prevention of financing coal energy electricity generation is probably the worst form of abuse anyone could do to these people – keeping them peasants eeking out an existence by scratching the soil for eternity …

    Hmmm.

    The “All in the Mind” podcast from ABC national radio recently had a couple of episodes on work with a group of child soldiers in Sierra Leone. At their recruitment their parents were shot and killed, which they all but one saw, (and one was forced to do it). The violence and rape perpetrated on their own countryment that followed wasn’t really theraoutic either.

    And you think that it being slightly easier to get international funding for renewable power sources is “worst form of abuse anyone could do to these people”?

    Think outside the box a little, mate. There’s a lot worse abuse that renewable energy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Joanne Nova wrote:

    Robin, tricked yourself again.

    1) How?
    2) What were the other times?

    Here’s another mind boggler – is the scientific process infallible?

    The scientific process adjusts its understanding to match observations. So despite its fallibility, it is self-correcting (eventually).

    IS there a rule of logic that says: “Proof by Committee counts?”

    No, that’s not a rule of logic. The importance of the position of the scientific consensus, is that that is what we know so far. If you want to know how, you have to look at the individual papers.

    Can you imagine any possible way that committees and associations and peer review could be wrong?

    Sure. Optics has stood a few centuries though. Any exceptions would be ones that don’t apply in any of the situations in which we’ve studied optics to date.

    Has it ever happened in the past that large groups of humans in educated committees came to incorrect conclusions?

    Sure. Warren and Marshall had a bit of a struggle for a while. Their struggle was getting people to reproduce their work though. Once people tried it was confirmed. So it’s not like climate science which is being continuously tested.

    Does the UN ever make errors on a mass scale involving hundreds of thousands of deaths?

    Not to my recollection.
    I dare say you’ve got something in mind though?

    If you can admit that even one of these events can occur or has occurred, then you have to admit you need to READ THE EVIDENCE yourself.

    Well, as you will know from other posts, that I have read evidence myself, and in particular the 2000 science paper by Stott et al. was the one that I first found compelling.

    Counting PhD’s and voting on science is the mark of a disciple of bureaucracy, a faithful believer of government decree, and if so, you are not a sceptic, but a follower.

    I don’t have the time or training to keep at the forefront of every field of human investigation. As a skeptic, I ecourage the view that peer reviewed science, observations, and tests guides people above superstition and speculation.

    And what the scientific community believes is a good guide of that. Also, when there is a consensus, it is also science as we know it.

    Consensus is a political construct not a scientific law.

    Consensus in science is our understanding. It is the end of the scientific process for an idea/hypothesis/theory/consensys. It is certainly open to review if new evidence comes to light, but it is not a political construct, it is a stage of scientific understanding.

    Do you think or bleat?

    Everyone bleats, but I claim that I am more susceptible to evidence and less to superstition and pseudoscience than most. Certainly I am aware of the issue.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Mike Goad wrote:

    “Interestingly, the peer review process in most scientific journals does not use a consensus based process. Referees submit their opinions individually and there is not a strong effort to reach a group opinion.”

    Sure.

    Writing a paper does not achieve consensus, it presents an idea. Most papers are eventually refuted. The value of the scientific journals is more to get the wide range of ideas into the scientific community. Consensus come much later. (But not for most papers).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Steve Schapel wrote:

    Robin,I have no intention of pursuing the bizarre claims you have made in #152.

    Well, they are part of the consensus, so technically, it is the refutation of these claims that are bizarre.

    I am one of those people who want to see evidence to support such statements, but I have seen you systematically fail to provide evidence when requested.

    Pardon me. I do try to answer questions.

    Could you please point out the systematic requests for evidence that I have unintentionally missed?

    You’re not going to change your mind on the basis of anything I have to say, and I’m not going to change mine either except on the basis of evidence.

    I’m very susceptible to evidence.

    But this is interesting:
    “you’ve read the papers”

    Nope. Not a single one. I avoid them as much as I can. Nor do I listen to radio. Got no TV either – got rid of that one in 1971! Can’t remember the last time I actually watched something on a TV… quite a few years ago, for sure – it would have been a cricket match I think (ask Brian to explain what cricket means ).

    You know why? Because I figured out that the mass media don’t give me correct information.

    By papers I mean scholarly papers as published in academic journals. Not papers as in newspapers.

    I can usually pick someone who gets the bulk of their world view from the mass media (i.e. the entertainment industry). It seems to affect the ability to think objectively, even in intelligent people.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Steve Schapel wrote:

    …I understood it was an attempt to help them understand some of the ways in which the widely promoted anthropogenic global warming conjecture does flout correct scientific principles…

    And it is the claims that it flouts correct scientific principles should be taken to the scientific community and not the schools.

    Because it’s not mainstream thought that it does “flout correct scientific principles”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Joanne Nova wrote:

    “Science is done by consensus!”

    Thus, four hundred years later after this style of thinking was shown to be fallacious and the world emerged from the dark ages, Robin Grant is still stuck in feudal reasoning.

    Joanne, ideas become integrated into our understanding by consensus. That’s the process. You might have a problem with that process, but it is very contrived to claim that that is not the process.

    If Robin had been born in 1600 he would have sided with the Pope against Galileo. Galileo clearly did not believe the consensus.

    Well, that doesn’t actually change how science works, Joanne.

    And one of the problems with using common mythology instead of history in your arguments by analogy, is that your points might not stand analysis.

    There was a strong consensus of the heliocentric solar system outside Italy in Galileo’s time. (And probably inside Italy, but less openly written about, due to the position of the Church).

    We have standards of logic and reason, and you are not meeting them.

    Sorry? You think that I am being illogical by stating the plain truth that science progresses by consensus?

    Science is done by observation.

    Yes. And when those observations separate a hypothesis from a theory, the theory becomes part of the consensus, and science progresses.

    Re #162 -#179: You figure out if any of them are not from models, which don’t count …

    Which models don’t count, would you say?

    and try again for some observational evidence OK?

    Ok … how about “An Observationally Based Estimate of the Climate Sensitivity” for starters?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Tel wrote:

    I’m well aware of that, and equally aware that to understand the methodology of the scientific publication industry you need merely watch some 8 year olds playing soccer.

    For example?

    I stand by my original statement — none of those guys can hold their nerve for longer than a decade.

    The climate sensitivity has been at about 3°C per doubling for over 3 decades now.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Mike Goad wrote:

    Where is the physical evidence — the proof — that additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will result in higher global temperatures?

    The proof is in the physics of optics, from which the greenhouse effect is derived.

    CO2 is more opaque to frequencies of EMR that the earth radiates than those that the sun radiates. So increasing the concentration of CO2 increases the global mean surface temperature by decreasing the rate at which heat is dissipated to space.

    As for the 3°C figure, there are multiple lines of evidence. In the list of papers above, I would point you to the two Earth radiation budget papers, the volcanic forcing paper, the analysis of the past 7 centuries, and the past 520 million years, the multiple observationally based constraints paper (which also includes some climate modelling), and the Monte Carlo methods paper (which analyses a wide range of papers, again many of them include modelling), if you want some that have additional evidence to climate models.

    Climate models do NOT qualify as PROOF.

    No, they are evidence. For some things they provide strong evidence.

    Climate models take climate assumptions and predict climate trends …

    The effects of the assumptions is measured by choosing extreme values of the parameters and then running the model to see how different the outcomes are.

    So you can use the model to produce both the climatic response and the robustness of that response to getting the assumptions wrong.

    …just as financial models take financial assumptions and predict financial trends — and some of us are feeling the proof of how inaccurate financial models are.

    I think the recession is a result of bundling high risk investments with other investments, and them trading them as a secure investment, rather than a particular failure of modelling.

    And neither is a financial model based on physics in the way a General Circulation Model is.

    I do not want to feel the financial impact of policies based on unproven climate model predictions.

    Are you happy to feel the financial impact of failing to enact policies based on unproven climate model predictions? Because our best estimates to date are that they’ll be 10 to 20 times the cost of the former.

    (Of course the bulk of that cost will be paid by our grandchildren and the Bangladeshis.)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Errata: And the neural net paper. (And 420 million not 520 million)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Steve Schapel wrote:

    Robin also said that the 3°C figure “includes feedbacks”. This refers to the assumption that the small greenhouse effect contribution of increased CO2 will be multipled by other factors. This was originally a worthwhile guess. Let’s give credit where credit’s due – this was an idea that was worth exploring. Now, however, there is enough water under the bridge to reject this idea. For one thing, the empirical evidence just doesn’t confirm it.

    Scientists who have looked at past climate have shown that there is postive feedback. Over the past 420 million years the climate senstivity has been probably robustly over 1.5, which is positive feedback (the direct effect of CO2 is only about 1.0)
    The analysis of the earth’s radiation budget shows positive feedback.

    In fact I’ve posted 17 papers and 1 abstract from which postitive feedback can be inferred.

    Can you provide such a wide range of methodologies that show that there is no such feedback?

    What then are you rejecting the peer reviewed scientific evidence?

    End result: Robin’s got a damn cheek trying to bamboozle us with “the best estimates to date”.

    Look, I’m only presenting some of the science. These are just papers that I had bookmarked for various reasons. I would be delighted to read any and all papers that you find that claim that the climate sensitivity is less than 1°C per doubling.

    But if you can’t even present one, I’d have to say I’ve got an opposite opinion about who’s got a damn cheek.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Tel wrote:

    Robin, I’m thumbing through a few of your bookmarks (at random based on interesting sounding names).

    Thank you Tel!

    And respect to you for considering evidence!

    #164 (STOTT 2003):

    They took a computer model, tweaked some input weighting factors for that model and managed to get results that were somewhat consistent with measured observations. It is vague about exactly how the “Natural” input is calculated (for example, were the natural variations in the earth’s orbit included), and seems to ignore changes in surface albedo. I’d put this one into the category of, “these are the things I can think of, so it must be one of those”, plus a presumption that the model is correct when in fact it is one of many possible ways to get plausible results (needing Occam’s Razor to sort them).

    This was a significant paper because it was one of a watershed in between the 2001 and 2007 IPCC reports in which modelling sophistication and computing power became available to distinguish between anthropogenic and natural warming on a regional scale (albeit large regions … continents).

    Models are tuned to observations. Because the field of observational data is so much larger than the number of unknown parameters, there is sound mathematical reason to believe that the resulting accuracy is partly genuine. It has been noticed that models do a better job of predicting temperature than they should given their estimated error, so their is also sound mathematical reason to suspect that the accuracy is partly an artifact of the process (or the state of the climate). (see: <a href=”http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL034932.shtml”Why are climate models reproducing the observed global surface warming so well?).

    I think that HadCM3 uses a solar irradiance forcing that includes the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit, and it certainly includes ice albedo, but not as a forcing. The ice cover is modelled, and the resulting surface albedo is used in the radiative transfer calculations of each step. (I assume sea ice affects the ocean model’s dynamics too).

    I don’t think that there are many ways to get plausible results. The unknown parameters are overdetermined.

    #166 (von Deimling 2006):

    I had a great deal of difficulty following the logic of this one because it meanders so much, but I think that climate sensitivity was an input to the computer model and that main objective seemed to be running the model a many times and noting the negative correlation between the climate sensitivity and various cooling factors (atmospheric dust, etc) as output from the model (i.e. the whole paper is a study in the properties of the computer model). I’m a little surprised that these things would be correlated at all so that is in itself a result, the paper seems to neglect any explanation of why this correlation occurs (maybe it’s obvious to everyone “in the know”). How this measures climate sensitivity I cannot fathom.

    This paper one of the ones cited in the 2007 IPCC report in the chapter on attribution. (Is it chapter 9?).

    No model has climate sensitivity as an input. They varied other parameters, and used a range of models and that produced the range of climate sensitivities that they are talking about.

    Yes, this paper uses models.

    Climate sensitivity is poorly known because it is affected strongly by everything else. If you consider the model as a way to calculate the transfer of a climatic forcing to a mean global temperature then climate sensitivity can only be calculated at the end of all the feed-backs and interactions. So it is affected by everything.

    Anyhow, maybe I’ll look at some others later on.

    I look forward to it, and thank you for your open mindedness, and preparedness to read some science.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Robin in #190 says,

    “But it’s not falsifiable, so you could be right … for a huge multinational conspiracy controlling all the worlds academic journals, research institutions, and universities, and chooses to bring this power to bear on what climate change research becomes published.”

    Falsifiable. And it’s not a conspiracy. It’s just self-interested greed on the part of those who do governmental “science.” When science is done sans government funding and the government-control bias is removed, the evidence tells us that increasing the concentration of atmospheric C02 has a vanishingly (nearly unmeasurable) small effect on the planet’s temperature. Furthermore, the evidence for any human contribution to the rise in C02 concentration is either missing or unmeasurable. CO2 has been absorbed and outgassed by the vastness of the oceans for far longer than humans have even existed on the face of the planet. Adding a piddly 10-20 GTonnes of CO2 to the 150 GTonnes or so that circulate through the oceans each year is unlikely to produce any measurable concentration increase. The circulation of CO2 through plant respiration (and consequent O2 outgassing) might double the circulation number to, let’s say 300 GTonnes of C02. Of course, all these are ballpark estimates, but try to find any paper in your set that even addresses this absorption/outgassing.

    Let’s be evidential, and admit that the “science” on your side of the equation is done for the greedy benefit of those scientists who receive literally billions of US$ to prop up a claim that government solutions alone are capable of handling a government-created “crisis.” These governmentally-biased propagandists (let’s not demean the word “scientist”) use GIGO computer models to prognosticate a “climate forecast” 10 to 100 years in the future that is only marginally better than visiting your local psychic.

    I admit that there is a difference between weather and climate, but the evidence shows us that weather forecasters are incapable of forecasting the local weather (a far more quantifiable, model-able, and measurable phenomenon) more than a few hours into the future. As a flight instructor, I deal with these inaccurate forecasts every day of my life. Why is it that government-bribed scientists always seem to come up with a (currently falsified) prediction that the “climate” will continue to get hotter in the future?

    Joanne’s Handbook requests that you provide evidence. So far, you have provided non-abstracted links to papers that follow the “consensus” of government-financed research. Can you find just ONE paper that doesn’t have that governmentally biased taint of dirty coerced money, and that gives us evidence of your “consensus” that is not based on a computer-psychic prediction? Just one, Robin, just one. That’s all we ask.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Can you find just ONE paper that doesn’t have that governmentally biased taint of dirty coerced money, and that gives us evidence of your “consensus” that is not based on a computer-psychic prediction?

    Oh, sure.

    Any paper at all by Jim Hansen.

    BWAHAAAHAAAHAAAAHAAAHAA


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Robin,

    It’s obvious that you are not convincing anyone here. (rhetorical statement – no response required or desired)

    It’s also obvious that you have a lot of time on your hands, since you are responding to almost everything that is posted here. I wasn’t going to say “too much time on your hands” as that is judgmentally just saying that you’re wasting your time doing something worthless since it obviously is of some value to you. I just know that, as a retiree, I have a lot more free time than most and I feel it would be a waste of MY time to TRY to change the opinions of others without demonstrating proof that I am right and they are wrong.

    I don’t think you are impressing anyone here — quite the contrary –, so why bother?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Robin,

    Lets do Science By Consensus:
    1/ Who votes? Did I miss it? Do we only allow climate scientists to vote, and how do we know if they are a climate scientist? Only paid up union members maybe? Or do we allow a free for all for anyone with a science degree, and is a climate scientist worth 10 points compared to say, 1 point for a genetic engineer? Can we get double points for a nobel prize winner?)
    2/ Who counts the votes? Can I vote for the people who count the votes?
    3/ Who arbitrates on the call? (Does 31,000 in a mail out beat the IPCC-my-junket-is-better-than-your-junket crowd?)
    4/ What (Shock) happens if the theory is wrong? Who can speak against it? ANS: No one, because science is done by consensus and the consensus is never wrong, see point 1 and start again.

    It’s good to know that science is finished now. We can save lots of time….

    It won’t matter if the planet cools more either. Someone will figure out how to plug in a model to help the atmosphere correct that.

    And poor Galileo – so he almost died for something that was a consensus after all. All that struggle for nothing. He must be p….


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    [name calling removed]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Junket? What “junket” are you talking about

    Do you have any idea how much it cost the DOE to send Ben Santer to Paris, Barcelona, Bali …

    I know how much it cost but I can’t tell you how much it cost because that is not something I have the right to reveal

    ALL OF THAT TO HAVE HIM COME BACK AND TRY TO TEAR THE COUNTRY DOWN

    NOW I’M THE ONE GETTING OFF INTO TEMPER


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Robin (#197):
    “And it is the claims that it flouts correct scientific principles should be taken to the scientific community and not the schools.”

    Oh, there are very many members of the scientific community who have considered this question, and agree with the claim.

    “Because it’s not mainstream thought that it does ‘flout correct scientific principles’.”

    For one thing, I do not support that teachers should only be exposed to “mainstream thought”. But in any case, I am not sure what “mainstream thought” means here. I am in no position to survey this, but my impression is that a very large proportion of people, both scientists and non-scientists, who have had a *genuine independent opportunity* to assess and decide on this question, end up being in doubt about the alleged “mainstream thought”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve

    Robin said (#52)

    “Well, your opinion there is out of sync with the established and reproducable beliefs of the scientific commmunity.”

    Well, Robin, I can’t argue with that comment. The AGW scientific community is most assuredly sustained by a belief. It has to be because there is no definitive observational data to back up AGW theory (and I’ve been waiting for it for almost 3 years now). I am not sure what a “reproducable belief” looks like but I’m pretty sure it has a strong correlation to the amount of grant money received.

    “Increasing the concentration of greenhouse gasses does increase the greenhouse effect.”

    On that point, I think we all agree. The pertinent issue is the sensitivity of the biosphere to said greenhouse gasses. And that is where the scientific opinion diverges greatly. And if you not respect that divergence, then you are not looking at ALL of the data.

    “If you think that [the greenhouse effect] is “purely speculative and unverified”, then you need to take that view to the scientific community, not to schools.”

    The only thing speculative and unverified in this debate are the computer models. Over just the past few years, the creators of those models have themselves changed the name of their output from predictions to projections to scenarios. As we all know (or at least should know), a scenario is something that COULD happen if all the assumptions are correct. And the observational data has, at least to date, shown that the assumptions within those models need some unbiased review.

    Lastly, I do not think that theories, even in their infancy, should be banned from schools. What I DO think, is that any presentation of those theories should be prefaced with a balanced, unbiased, and always updated statement of what is known and what is not known. That is NOT what Mr. Kundu stated. And that is why I took him (and you) to task on this particular issue.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Well put, Steve (#211).

    It is clear that some people, including Robin apparently, equate “the scientific community” with “the AGW scientific community”. Whereas we really have to count Lindzen, Carter, Plimer, Watts, Spencer, Monckton, Soon, Miskolczi, Peden, Evans, Gray, Archibald, Kininmonth, Kemm, Ball, de Freitas, etc, etc, etc, etc, as part of the scientific community. I don’t know why I started that list, because the full list is huge.

    (Oh, and by the way, don’t anyone please waste their keyboard trying to discredit any of these people based on what sort of degree they have, or what clubs they belong to, or what media they use to publish their work. Ok?)

    I know I am skating pretty close to the edge of an argument by authority, and that’s not my intention here. But to say that we have to refer/defer to “the scientific community”, when people of the above calibre have been pulling it to pieces for years, is just silly.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    [name calling removed]

    You have said yourself that this is a better site than many others, I’d like to make a polite request that we keep the tone up.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Models are tuned to observations. Because the field of observational data is so much larger than the number of unknown parameters, there is sound mathematical reason to believe that the resulting accuracy is partly genuine.

    Of course they are tuned to observations, but this merely means that someone has spend enough time twiddling with various input parameters until they get the output to fit some table of values. This proves nothing about predictive capability. Given enough fiddle-factors, any model can reproduce any table of values.

    Consider that I may be given a table of trigonometric results: theta, sin(theta) and I come up with the theory that trigonometry is really just polynomials. So I model the table of results with a polynomial until I get a good fit, and this works really well for interpolation within that span of the trig function. It is, however, completely useless for extrapolation to new regions of the trig function because of the underlaying mathematics that says trig functions are not polynomials.

    For someone who does understand the fundamentals of trig, they can use carefully selected polynomial expansions to calculate that function, provided they suitably pre-process the inputs, and providing they understand that each expansion only works over a certain region.

    Then there’s also the complexity of the model, if a simpler model comes along that also fits observable data then by Occam’s Razor we should favour the simpler model. Current climate models attempt to reconstruct the entire atmosphere from small component physics, akin to reconstructing biology by mass simulation of atomic interactions. High complexity models must always be treated with high levels of caution.

    No other sphere of scientific study has achieved the sort of modeling breakthrough that climate study is claiming, including those where arbitrarily large amounts of experimental data are available, and where experiments can be tailored to exactly the conditions that need to be studied. Probably the electronics industry is furthest ahead, but I’ll tell you right now that if you just get a circuit that is more than a moderately trivial circuit and punch it into a simulator then you are very likely to get artifacts from that simulation that don’t exist in the real world, and you are almost guaranteed to find peculiarities of the real world that don’t exist in the simulation. There’s a whole industry of people who tweak these simulations to make them useful for particular problems in narrow areas of study. Generally, some circuit design will evolve while the simulation of that circuit design also evolves.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wilbert Robichaud

    “Can you find just ONE paper that doesn’t have that governmentally biased taint of dirty coerced money”

    only one? Peer-Review Papers Skeptic of “Man-Made” Global Warming.
    180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods (PDF)(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 2, pp. 259-282(24), March 2007) Beck, Ernst-Georg.

    Industrial CO2 emissions as a proxy for anthropogenic influence on lower tropospheric temperature trends
    (Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L05204, 2004)
    A. T. J. de Laat, A. N. Maurellis.

    Oceanic influences on recent continental warming (PDF)
    (Climate Dynamics, 2008)G.P. Compo, P.D. Sardeshmukh.
    just to name a few.

    On the other hand here is a list of some experts in the Alarmist camp.
    Al Gore, B.A. Government, Divinity and Law School Dropout (no science degree)
    Bill Maher, B.A. English (no science degree)
    Bill McKibben, B.A. (no science degree)
    Daryl Hanna, B.F.A. Theater (no science degree)
    Edward Norton, B.A. History (no science degree)
    Oprah Winfrey, B.A. Speech and Drama (no science degree)
    Prince Charles of Wales, B.A. (no science degree)
    Sheryl Crow, B.A. Music Education (no science degree)
    ABC Bob Woodruff, J.D. Law (no science degree)
    ABC Sam Champion, B.A. Broadcast News (no science degree, not a meteorologist)
    CBS Harry Smith, B.A. Communications and Theater (no science degree)
    CBS Katie Couric, B.A. English (no science degree)
    CBS Scott Pelley, College Dropout
    CNN Miles O’Brien, College Dropout
    NBC Ann Curry, B.A. Journalism (no science degree)
    NBC Anne Thompson, B.A. American studies (no science degree)
    NBC Matt Lauer. B.A. Communications (no science degree)
    NBC- Meredith Vieira, B.A. English (no science degree)
    FOX Shepard Smith, College Dropout.
    John McCain, B.S. (graduated 894th out of 899 in his class)
    Newt Gingrich, Ph.D. Modern European History (no science degree).
    Pat Robertson, M.A. Divinity (no science degree)
    Meghan McCain, B.A. Art History (no science degree).
    The same Meghan McCain who said to have voted for Al Gore in 2000…When She Was Too Young to Vote.
    Robert F. Kennedy Jr, J.D. Law (no science degree)arrested in 1984 and charged with heroin possession.
    Bill Nye, B.S. Mechanical Engineering (Bill Nye the Science Guy)
    Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics (RealClimate.org)
    James Hansen, Ph.D. Physics (NASA)
    James Lovelock, Ph.D. Medicine, D.Sc. Biophysics
    Joe Romm, Ph.D. Physics
    John P. Holden, Ph.D. Theoretical Plasma Physics
    Lonnie Thompson, Ph.D. Geological Science
    Michael Mann, Ph.D. Geology (RealClimate.org)
    Michael Oppenheimer, Ph.D. Chemical Physics
    Michael Tobis, Ph.D. Atmospheric and Oceanic Science
    Rajendra K. Pachauri, Ph.D. Industrial Engineering (IPCC Chairman)
    Richard C. J. Somerville, Ph.D. Meteorology
    Robert T. Watson, Ph.D. Chemistry
    Steven Schneider, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics.
    Tom J. Chalko, Ph.D. Laser Holography
    Alden Meyer, B.A. Political Science, M.A. Human Resources
    Lord Nicholas Stern, Ph.D. Economics
    Ronald Bailey, B.A. Philosophy and Economics (Science Correspondent, Reason Magazine)
    Steve Rayner, Ph.D. Anthropology…etc.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin M Grant

    Earl Allen wrote:

    …When science is done sans government funding and the government-control bias is removed, the evidence tells us that increasing the concentration of atmospheric C02 has a vanishingly (nearly unmeasurable) small effect on the planet’s temperature.

    Really.

    I wasn’t aware that research from universities, nor publications in peer reviewed journals showed that.

    Do you have a few examples?

    …Furthermore, the evidence for any human contribution to the rise in C02 concentration is either missing or unmeasurable.

    Really.

    Well 1751 to 2006 saw fossil fuel combustion and cement production release 329 billion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere. (Source: CDIAC). That converts to about 1200 billion tonnes of CO2. (since CO2 weighs about 44/12 what C weighs).

    Over that time we saw CO2 go from 270 to 380ppm by volume, which is 110ppm(v). Now CO2 has an atomic mass of about 44 and and air is about 29, so that’s about 165ppm by weight.

    The atmosphere weighs about 5.1 x 10^(18) kg, so that’s about 840 billion tonnes of CO2.

    So human activity explains all of the increase in the atmosphere, plus about 350 billion tonnes of CO2 dissolved in the oceans, and that’s without considering land use change.

    Which of these numbers is vastly different if you use non-government figures?

    Let’s be evidential, and admit that the “science” on your side of the equation is done for the greedy benefit of those scientists who receive literally billions of US$ to prop up a claim that government solutions alone are capable of handling a government-created “crisis.”

    Let it not be said that I refused to be evidential. What is your evidence?
    (Although I’m unlikely to find claims that the scientists are all comitting fraud compelling, so feel welcome to look for strong evidence).

    I admit that there is a difference between weather and climate, but the evidence shows us that weather forecasters are incapable of forecasting the local weather (a far more quantifiable, model-able, and measurable phenomenon) more than a few hours into the future. As a flight instructor, I deal with these inaccurate forecasts every day of my life. Why is it that government-bribed scientists always seem to come up with a (currently falsified) prediction that the “climate” will continue to get hotter in the future?

    Essentially because the models show an energy imbalance. (As do measurements of the earth’s rediation budget, although the error in these measurements is still an order of magnitude worse than that from models.)

    So although the models are not crash hot at showing where the warming will be on a given day, there is a necessity from conservation of energy that it will be somewhere. This is why models are remarkably good at predicting global mean surface temperature, but not regional temperature nor which year the El-Nino falls on.

    Joanne’s Handbook requests that you provide evidence. So far, you have provided non-abstracted links to papers that follow the “consensus” of government-financed research.

    Well, i claim that it is also, non governement-financed research. (And I also claim that the bias of democratic governments is towards global warming denial, because no democracy wants to spend money on projects which pay off only outside their term – and the changes made to the IPCC reports by the government delegations of USA, China, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait support this view, as does the conflict between NASA and the Bush administration).

    Can you find just ONE paper that doesn’t have that governmentally biased taint of dirty coerced money, and that gives us evidence of your “consensus” that is not based on a computer-psychic prediction? Just one, Robin, just one. That’s all we ask.

    Of the consensus?

    Well, Naomi Oreskes is employed (a Professor of History and Science Studies) by the University of California San Diego, not a government research body.

    This essay, which showed that of the 928 scholarly papers with the ISI keywords “global climate change” (The linked article erroneously says “climate change”) published 1993 to 2003, not one found against the basic consensus that most of the warming of the last half of the 20th century was probably attributable to human activity.

    The essay was published in Science, the journal of the AAAS, which is also not a government body.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin M Grant

    Earl Allen wrote:

    …When science is done sans government funding and the government-control bias is removed, the evidence tells us that increasing the concentration of atmospheric C02 has a vanishingly (nearly unmeasurable) small effect on the planet’s temperature.

    Really.

    I wasn’t aware that research from universities, nor publications in peer reviewed journals showed that.

    Do you have a few examples?

    …Furthermore, the evidence for any human contribution to the rise in C02 concentration is either missing or unmeasurable.

    Really.

    Well 1751 to 2006 saw fossil fuel combustion and cement production release 329 billion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere. (Source: CDIAC). That converts to about 1200 billion tonnes of CO2. (since CO2 weighs about 44/12 what C weighs).

    Over that time we saw CO2 go from 270 to 380ppm by volume, which is 110ppm(v). Now CO2 has an atomic mass of about 44 and and air is about 29, so that’s about 165ppm by weight.

    The atmosphere weighs about 5.1 x 10^(18) kg, so that’s about 840 billion tonnes of CO2.

    So human activity explains all of the increase in the atmosphere, plus about 350 billion tonnes of CO2 dissolved in the oceans, and that’s without considering land use change.

    Which of these numbers is vastly different if you use non-government figures?

    Let’s be evidential, and admit that the “science” on your side of the equation is done for the greedy benefit of those scientists who receive literally billions of US$ to prop up a claim that government solutions alone are capable of handling a government-created “crisis.”

    Let it not be said that I refused to be evidential. What is your evidence?
    (Although I’m unlikely to find claims that the scientists are all comitting fraud compelling, so feel welcome to look for strong evidence).

    I admit that there is a difference between weather and climate, but the evidence shows us that weather forecasters are incapable of forecasting the local weather (a far more quantifiable, model-able, and measurable phenomenon) more than a few hours into the future. As a flight instructor, I deal with these inaccurate forecasts every day of my life. Why is it that government-bribed scientists always seem to come up with a (currently falsified) prediction that the “climate” will continue to get hotter in the future?

    Essentially because the models show an energy imbalance. (As do measurements of the earth’s rediation budget, although the error in these measurements is still an order of magnitude worse than that from models.)

    So although the models are not crash hot at showing where the warming will be on a given day, there is a necessity from conservation of energy that it will be somewhere. This is why models are remarkably good at predicting global mean surface temperature, but not regional temperature nor which year the El-Nino falls on.

    Joanne’s Handbook requests that you provide evidence. So far, you have provided non-abstracted links to papers that follow the “consensus” of government-financed research.

    Well, i claim that it is also, non governement-financed research. (And I also claim that the bias of democratic governments is towards global warming denial, because no democracy wants to spend money on projects which pay off only outside their term – and the changes made to the IPCC reports by the government delegations of USA, China, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait support this view, as does the conflict between NASA and the Bush administration).

    Can you find just ONE paper that doesn’t have that governmentally biased taint of dirty coerced money, and that gives us evidence of your “consensus” that is not based on a computer-psychic prediction? Just one, Robin, just one. That’s all we ask.

    Of the consensus?

    Well, Naomi Oreskes is employed (a Professor of History and Science Studies) by the University of California San Diego, not a government research body.

    This essay, which showed that of the 928 scholarly papers with the ISI keywords “global climate change” (The linked article erroneously says “climate change”) published 1993 to 2003, not one found against the basic consensus that most of the warming of the last half of the 20th century was probably attributable to human activity.

    The essay was published in Science, the journal of the AAAS, which is also not a government body.

    ____

    Posts that link to Oreskes’ Essay end up in the spam folder for some reason. (Joanne Nova had to intervene when I tried to link in another thread … I am sure it is not deliberate censorship on her part.)

    Anyway the first hit on this search is the paper I am trying to link.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    because of the underlaying mathematics that says trig functions are not polynomials.

    Well they are, to order (epsilon), epsilon arbirary, if we agree that a truncated power series is a “polynomial”

    but I’ll tell you right now that if you just get a circuit that is more than a moderately trivial circuit and punch it into a simulator then you are very likely to get artifacts from that simulation that don’t exist in the real world, and you are almost guaranteed to find peculiarities of the real world that don’t exist in the simulation

    True, iff the circuit elements are nonlinear over the (i,v) range of interest. If “constants” defining the circuit elements are actually functions of i or v then the circuit may have more than one (or a time dependent) output, which may be found in the simulation, the circuit, both, or neither.

    Brings up a good point of the climate simulations. I believe that parameters such as “climate sensitivity” are actually coupled to other parameters, the coupling unaccounted for, and stabilising in all cases.

    In general, such parameters are considered independent

    [to which Robin graciously adds his t'pence about my "abilities" to decide any such thing. I am a marvelous mind reader, aren't I]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    by-the-by I thought M Tobis was PhD of comp sci


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wilbert Robichaud

    “The fact remains that Oreskes deliberately and deceptively called a paper “The scientific consensus on climate change” while using the search term “global climate change” thus leaving out 11,000 papers! Oreskes cleary cherry picked papers. This alone debunks her study. Even still as a direct criticism, every part of Peiser’s study stands except that when you criticize only Oreskes’ cherry picked papers (928 not 12,000) the 34 papers Peiser found doubting AGW may not have been included in Oreskes’ paper. No kidding! So he withdrew only this as a direct criticism of her paper. The rest of his criticism remains such as only 13 (1%) explicitly endorse the ‘consensus view’. Removing the 34 papers is irrelevant as Peiser’s study cleary shows that no consensus exists and Oreskes was not looking at all the papers (928 out of 12,000). Conclusion: Oreske’s paper is debunked and worthless.”
    “I have stressed repeatedly, Oreskes entire argument is flawed as the whole ISI data set includes just 13 abstracts (less than 2%) that explicitly endorse what she has called the ‘consensus view’. In fact, the vast majority of abstracts do not mention anthropogenic climate change.” Benny Peiser.

    Benny Peiser’s paper has NOT been refuted. Propaganda sites continue to intentionally distort Dr. Peiser’s clear position on this.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Thank you, Wilbert, for clarifying Dr Peiser’s position on this.

    I hope many will understand the meaning of what Peiser has concluded – that people cannot, of their own volition, define what constitutes a “consensus”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin M Grant

    Joanne Nova wrote:

    Lets do Science By Consensus:
    1/ Who votes? Did I miss it? Do we only allow climate scientists to vote, and how do we know if they are a climate scientist? Only paid up union members maybe? Or do we allow a free for all for anyone with a science degree, and is a climate scientist worth 10 points compared to say, 1 point for a genetic engineer? Can we get double points for a nobel prize winner?)
    2/ Who counts the votes? Can I vote for the people who count the votes?
    3/ Who arbitrates on the call? (Does 31,000 in a mail out beat the IPCC-my-junket-is-better-than-your-junket crowd?)

    I don’t think that a consensus is a democracy. Certainly there are no votes, but a theory becomes the accepted theory when there are no longer any competing ideas coming through.

    4/ What (Shock) happens if the theory is wrong? Who can speak against it? ANS: No one, because science is done by consensus and the consensus is never wrong, see point 1 and start again.

    When new evidence is presented, current theories are reconsidered. Science is an iterative process.

    It’s good to know that science is finished now. We can save lots of time….

    It won’t matter if the planet cools more either. Someone will figure out how to plug in a model to help the atmosphere correct that.

    I’ve heard this discussion between young earth creationists and biologists.
    “Science is not decided by consensus.” – Intelligent design proponent.
    “Well, yes it is” – Biologist.

    And it is.

    But certainly not, as you correctly point out, by vote.

    And poor Galileo – so he almost died for something that was a consensus after all. All that struggle for nothing. He must be p….

    Being called to the Vatican that last time could have killed him. Especially with the Plague in Italy at the time. But he misjudged that it would be okay to publish, partly because there was a consensus. (And Italian science was falling behind the Germans, who thought that the geocentric system demanded by the church was irrelevant and backwards.)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin M Grant

    Steve Schapel wrote:

    Oh, there are very many members of the scientific community who have considered this question, and agree with the claim.

    Such people exist, but my perception is that “very many” is pushing things a bit. Do you find the Doran and Zimmermann survey credible?

    The consensus is fairly overwhelming amongst scientific organisations and universities.

    For one thing, I do not support that teachers should only be exposed to “mainstream thought”. But in any case, I am not sure what “mainstream thought” means here. I am in no position to survey this, but my impression is that a very large proportion of people, both scientists and non-scientists, who have had a *genuine independent opportunity* to assess and decide on this question, end up being in doubt about the alleged “mainstream thought”.

    Only if by “a very large proportion” you mean about 20% of scientists, about 10% of climatologists, and about 3% of climatologists who are currently actively publishing in the field of climate change.

    When I hear “a very large proportion” I think of something considerably over 50%.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Steve wrote:

    The AGW scientific community is most assuredly sustained by a belief. It has to be because there is no definitive observational data to back up AGW theory (and I’ve been waiting for it for almost 3 years now).

    Did you notice any of the papers that I bookmarked during your three year wait?

    “Increasing the concentration of greenhouse gasses does increase the greenhouse effect.”

    On that point, I think we all agree.

    Well, Brian disagrees. But I take your point.

    The pertinent issue is the sensitivity of the biosphere to said greenhouse gasses. And that is where the scientific opinion diverges greatly. And if you not respect that divergence, then you are not looking at ALL of the data.

    It diverges from about 1.6°C to about 6°C per doubling. Since the industrial revolution there has been a movement from 270 to 390ppm, which is log(390/270)/log(2) = 0.53 doublings. Which gives us 0.8°C to 3.2°C of warming due to anthropogenic CO2 alone. Which is most or all of the warming no matter what point in the divergence that you pick.

    Over just the past few years, the creators of those models have themselves changed the name of their output from predictions to projections to scenarios. As we all know (or at least should know), a scenario is something that COULD happen if all the assumptions are correct.

    The amount of CO2 that will be released into the atmosphere in the future is a function of technology, the economy, and mitigation strategy. Different choices provide different scenarios.

    And the observational data has, at least to date, shown that the assumptions within those models need some unbiased review.

    How has it shown that?

    I see good correlation between modelled and measured mean global surface temperatures.

    Lastly, I do not think that theories, even in their infancy, should be banned from schools. What I DO think, is that any presentation of those theories should be prefaced with a balanced, unbiased, and always updated statement of what is known and what is not known.

    I’m wary of that language because it is very similar to the language used by the creationists to get ID into the science classroom.

    Of course the discussion of every scientific theory is not hurt by a balanced, unbiased statement of what is known and unknown. (Nor a discussion of critical thinking). Singling out what is known about global warming for particular analysis could easily give a biased impression.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Steve Schapel wrote:

    Whereas we really have to count Lindzen, Carter, Plimer, Watts, Spencer, Monckton, Soon, Miskolczi, Peden, Evans, Gray, Archibald, Kininmonth, Kemm, Ball, de Freitas, etc, etc, etc, etc, as part of the scientific community. I don’t know why I started that list, because the full list is huge.

    I’m not saying Lindzen and Carter don’t exist. I’m saying that they are a very small minority. About 3% of climate change climatologists.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Tel wrote:

    Of course they are tuned to observations, but this merely means that someone has spend enough time twiddling with various input parameters until they get the output to fit some table of values. This proves nothing about predictive capability. Given enough fiddle-factors, any model can reproduce any table of values.

    Sure, but there are not that many fiddle-factors. Only about half a dozen.

    Consider that I may be given a table of trigonometric results: theta, sin(theta) and I come up with the theory that trigonometry is really just polynomials. So I model the table of results with a polynomial until I get a good fit, and this works really well for interpolation within that span of the trig function. It is, however, completely useless for extrapolation to new regions of the trig function because of the underlaying mathematics that says trig functions are not polynomials.

    For someone who does understand the fundamentals of trig, they can use carefully selected polynomial expansions to calculate that function, provided they suitably pre-process the inputs, and providing they understand that each expansion only works over a certain region.

    Sure, and models are more accurate at picking the mean global surface temperature than than the estimated implies. So it is likely that if the climate flicks to a different state, we will find that the parameters are only this good for the current region, and that we will be able to make a better estimate of the parameters for the general case.

    Then there’s also the complexity of the model, if a simpler model comes along that also fits observable data then by Occam’s Razor we should favour the simpler model.

    Well, in this case complexity is simply accuracy by another name. Occam’s Razor doesn’t apply. (Which is for use when you have multiple theories that explain the same data, not when you have multiple approaches to produce the data.)

    No other sphere of scientific study has achieved the sort of modeling breakthrough that climate study is claiming, including those where arbitrarily large amounts of experimental data are available, and where experiments can be tailored to exactly the conditions that need to be studied. Probably the electronics industry is furthest ahead, but I’ll tell you right now that if you just get a circuit that is more than a moderately trivial circuit and punch it into a simulator then you are very likely to get artifacts from that simulation that don’t exist in the real world, and you are almost guaranteed to find peculiarities of the real world that don’t exist in the simulation. There’s a whole industry of people who tweak these simulations to make them useful for particular problems in narrow areas of study. Generally, some circuit design will evolve while the simulation of that circuit design also evolves.

    Modelling of buildings and bridges and vehicles is pretty sophisticated. There’s less error because construction choices are made that are unambiguous to model, but you can say which screw will need to be replaced before the others and when.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    wilbert Robichaud wrote:

    “The fact remains that Oreskes deliberately and deceptively called a paper “The scientific consensus on climate change” while using the search term “global climate change” thus leaving out 11,000 papers! Oreskes cleary cherry picked papers.

    Sorry, how is the titling of the paper “deliberately deceptive?”

    Cherry picking would be looking through the papers and choosing the ones that meet your requried criteria. Oreskes chose all 928 papers that met the search term in the decade that she looked at. That’s not cherry picking.

    “Benny Peiser’s paper has NOT been refuted. Propaganda sites continue to intentionally distort Dr. Peiser’s clear position on this.

    Peiser’s study hasn’t even been published.
    He also withdrew his criticism of Oreskes’ paper, and admitted that he only found one that rejected AGW (and that wasn’t peer reviewed). (see ABC, mediawatch)

    Is this not the case?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    player

    Robin,

    I just found this blog yesterday (from WUWT, and have watched with much amusement as you buttress your beliefs in AGW by attempting to overwhelm everyone who argues against you with citations. I am an elementary particle physicist by training and in my research days have learned a thing or two about the scientific method, models, simulations and the like.

    WIth all the respect in my heart, I’d like to suggest to you that there are two things about science that have been universal throughout history. First, data drives good science, NOT consensus. Secondly, for a hypothesis to make it to be a theory, it MUST be falsifiable. Theories cannot be proved, but they can be falsified, to paraphrase Einstein.

    So I (and I suspect many of those who are labeled sceptics or deniers) don’t really care about consensus as being an indication that AGW is correct. Or that model predictions agree with each other. As Joanne has repeatedly and eloquently asked, where is the evidence?

    I have seen much evidence that is not consistent with AGW, especially over the last 10 years. I still have an open mind on this – its too early to conclude anyhing. I’d rather wait another 10 years and see if the ocean heat content continues to stay flat, and if the troposphere temperature around the tropics continues to not increase, before I’ll be sure. I definitely haven’t seen anything conclusive from AGW proponents – mostly playing with AOGCM models or arcane statistics – with real data analysis being relegated to a secondary pastime, pursued only by some of the more diligent ones.

    The science is definitely not settled – and having 97% of any group of people believing in that means nothing. Nature will tell us what is right, not the IPCC. I have seen more signals disappear with more data than get stronger – much as I wished that the data would support my pet signal. Humbling but true.

    I am still looking for an AGW proponent to tell me what will falsify AGW. Ocean heat content? Tropospheric temperatures? A few threads ago you posted a citation claiming that global cooling was a consequence of AGW! To me thats a set of models with too many tunable parameters, if any outcome can be generated! If global temperatures stayed the same in 2100, that would interpreted as consistent with AGW, given the enormous variance in AOGCMs and the deep uncertainties in modelling clouds and cloud cover.

    So, Robin, tell us what will falsify AGW. I know you believe in it. And I admire your tenacity in defending it, even if it just repeating a lot of the state of the art in AGW propaganda. You have been convinced by it – and if I convinced you that you too should be a sceptic, I would be doing you a great disservice. The data should make or break you as a believer, not the IPCC or Joanna or Brian or myself. So what does Nature have to do to falsify the AGW hypothesis?

    You point to the paucity of journal publications that disprove AGW… how do you disprove a model? Sceptics aren’t claiming that they have a better model. They are saying that the data doesn’t show the cause for alarm. All that we can do is wait for more years of data. So I do not expect the volume of publications from sceptics that I do from AGW proponents – all I expect is diligent careful measurements from all experimental climate scientists, chemists, physicists, geologists, oceanographers, and the like – ones that don’t take sides.

    And as far as consensus goes, I’m happy it works for you, as it does for a bunch of politicians, industrialists, policy makers an other vested interests, all for their own reasons. Scientists use other ways to determine what reality is – data.

    Cheers.

    P.S> Great blog, Joanne! Keep up the good work!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    Dear player,

    A big thankyou for that clear and level headed exposition! How refreshing.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    player

    Thank you, Anne-Kit! Thats a nice welcome for a first post!

    Cheers.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    Hey Joanne, we just this minute received in the office the “Skeptics Handbook” with great cover letter from the Australian Climate Science Coalition – thanks! And fantastic to actually see it in print.

    I shall bring it with me tomorrow when I meet with my employer at Parliament House.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    player wrote:

    Robin,

    I just found this blog yesterday (from WUWT, and have watched with much amusement as you buttress your beliefs in AGW by attempting to overwhelm everyone who argues against you with citations.

    Not at all. If I was trying to do that I would start at the papers cited by chapter 9 of the IPCC reports, and put down several hundred citations.

    These are merely papers that I have bookmarked because of some personal interest that show that the current warming is anthropogenic.

    I am an elementary particle physicist by training and in my research days have learned a thing or two about the scientific method, models, simulations and the like.

    Hello.

    WIth all the respect in my heart, I’d like to suggest to you that there are two things about science that have been universal throughout history. First, data drives good science, NOT consensus.

    Consensus lets you know when it’s right.

    Secondly, for a hypothesis to make it to be a theory, it MUST be falsifiable. Theories cannot be proved, but they can be falsified, to paraphrase Einstein.

    So I (and I suspect many of those who are labeled sceptics or deniers) don’t really care about consensus as being an indication that AGW is correct. Or that model predictions agree with each other. As Joanne has repeatedly and eloquently asked, where is the evidence?

    Each of the papers that I have cited describe evidence.

    I have seen much evidence that is not consistent with AGW, especially over the last 10 years.

    What?

    I still have an open mind on this – its too early to conclude anyhing. I’d rather wait another 10 years and see if the ocean heat content continues to stay flat, and if the troposphere temperature around the tropics continues to not increase, before I’ll be sure. I definitely haven’t seen anything conclusive from AGW proponents – mostly playing with AOGCM models or arcane statistics – with real data analysis being relegated to a secondary pastime, pursued only by some of the more diligent ones.

    Can you be more specific? What papers use arcane statistics? Why are they arcane?

    The science is definitely not settled – and having 97% of any group of people believing in that means nothing. Nature will tell us what is right, not the IPCC.

    Can you give some backing for this claim?
    Who is providing a counter argument?
    What aspect of the science is not settled?

    I have seen more signals disappear with more data than get stronger – much as I wished that the data would support my pet signal. Humbling but true.

    Are we talking climate or particle physics here?

    I am still looking for an AGW proponent to tell me what will falsify AGW. Ocean heat content? Tropospheric temperatures? A few threads ago you posted a citation claiming that global cooling was a consequence of AGW!

    I don’t recall that. Can you point out the post?
    I don’t think that global cooling can be a consequence of AGW.

    So, Robin, tell us what will falsify AGW.

    Lots of things could have falsified it. If CO2 were not a greenhouse gas. If the warming were not accompanied by a cooling of the stratosphere. If the warming were not accompanied by a reduction in diurnal temperature range would all point to a mechanism different from the greenhouse effect.

    If the proportion of carbon-14 or carbon-13 in the air had not decreased it would point to a different source of CO2 than the combustion of fossil fuels.

    If global mean surface temperatures returned to 1900 levels without some obvious cooling cause such as an extraterrestrial impact of supervolcano, that would be a problem for AGW.

    If it were shown that CO2 didn’t have the absorbtion spectrum in the IR that it has, that too would falsify AGW.

    Most of these are pretty unlikely. Just by way of calibration, can you tell me what would falsify gravity?

    I guess the main thing that would falsify AGW is if there was no warming. If temperatures drop to the mean value of the 70s or even 80s it would raise some questions. (As it is they are a good 0.1°C warmer than the 90s.) Or if CO2 and CH4 were not greenhouse gasses – which would take evidence so strong it is difficult to concieve of.

    I know you believe in it. And I admire your tenacity in defending it, even if it just repeating a lot of the state of the art in AGW propaganda.

    Make up your mind. Either I’m flooding the forum with scientific citiations or I’m repeating propaganda. Or do you claim that the scientific evidence is propaganda in this case?

    So what does Nature have to do to falsify the AGW hypothesis?

    I asked this question of Joanna on the other thread. I should ask it of you to. What does Nature have to do to falsify AGW denial?

    You point to the paucity of journal publications that disprove AGW… how do you disprove a model??

    By showing that it doesn’t describe the system to the assumed accuracy. By coming up with the mechanism that is happening in reality that is not being correctly modelled.

    But you make the common mistake of claiming that the evidence requires models. Several of the papers that I have cited above do not use GCMs. So even without models there are several lines of evidence that show that the climate sensitivity is about 3°C per doubling. Or (or therefore) that the recent warming is anthropogenic.

    Sceptics aren’t claiming that they have a better model. They are saying that the data doesn’t show the cause for alarm.

    What is the basis for that?
    Why do you think that the climate sensitivity is less than 0.5 or so?
    How do you answer evidence from the earth radiation budget, from past climate, from paleoclimatic reconstructions, and from a plethora of observational evidence to the contrary?
    It seems to me that you’re missing a lot of evidence.

    All that we can do is wait for more years of data.

    We can estimate climate sensitivity now to within a margin. The case was clear in 2001. It is much stronger now.
    Can you make it clearer why the only thing we can do is wait? It seems to me that we have more than enough evidence now.

    So I do not expect the volume of publications from sceptics that I do from AGW proponents – all I expect is diligent careful measurements from all experimental climate scientists, chemists, physicists, geologists, oceanographers, and the like – ones that don’t take sides.

    Ignoring clear findings in the data is not “not taking sides”. It is strongly taking a side.

    And as far as consensus goes, I’m happy it works for you, as it does for a bunch of politicians, industrialists, policy makers an other vested interests, all for their own reasons. Scientists use other ways to determine what reality is – data.

    And they argue about the interpretation of that data. And when the arguments stop they know that they agree … consensus!

    Then it can go to the textbooks, the schools and the politicians.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    Western Australia’s Curtin University Research:

    “Ice Shelves stable over six years”

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25648336-11949,00.html


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I used to accept that the Earth was warming because of rising concentrations of carbon dioxide, although I was a little troubled by some of the media buzz around it. The electric power company I worked for had committed to limiting its carbon emissions at or below its 2000 levels, so there had to be substance behind global warming theory.

    I’m not sure at what point I stopped simply accepting anthropogenic (human caused) global warming. I can say that for well over a year I’ve been reading a lot of climate change related material and have a much better understanding of the topic than I once had.

    Below is some of what I’ve come to believe and understand related to the Earth’s climate.

    …… Anthropogenic global warming is an unproven hypothesis.

    …… Even though anthropogenic global warming is an unproven hypothesis, it is likely that some warming may be occurring due to human activities such as land usage and urbanization.

    …… There is no proof that continued rise in CO2 will result in continued rise in global temperatures.

    …… Carbon dioxide acts as a greenhouse gas by absorbing infrared radiation in three narrow bands of frequencies, (2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM)), meaning that most of the heat producing infrared radiation frequencies escapes absorption by CO2. The main peak, 15 µM, is absorbed completely within about 10 meters of the ground meaning that there is no more to absorb. Doubling the human contribution of CO2 would reduce this distance. Reducing the distance for absorption would not result in an increase in temperature.

    …… Earth is a water world. It is also a very complex — and chaotic — heat transfer mechanism. Changing one minor parameter, such as carbon dioxide, will likely result in compensation in some other aspect of the global heat transfer process.

    …… Q = mc∆T;

    …… The science of climate change is not settled. Science is never settled. There is always more to learn, more to add.

    …… Consensus on climate change is not science. It’s politics. Science isn’t done by consensus, as I understand it.

    …… For a scientist to be a skeptic on climate change is not a bad thing. Skepticism and questioning are important aspects of science.

    …… The Earth appears to have been cooling overall for most of this young century.

    …… The reports of the danger to polar bears are premature. They are also recycled over and over again.

    …… Predictions of catastrophes caused by global warming are premature. Many are recycled over and over. Predictions based on unproven hypotheses is irresponsible and dangerous when they are used to make policy.

    …… The prediction of an Arctic free of ice is premature. AMSRE-A Sea Ice Extent has 6 1/2 years of history. The sea arctic sea ice extent currently higher than most of the other years at this point in the annual cycle. AMSRE-A = Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer – Earth Observing System.

    …… Antarctic sea ice extent is getting larger.

    …… A recent survey found Arctic ice to be thicker than expected. (radiobremen)

    © 2009 M. Goad, Arkansas, USA


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Mike Goad wrote:

    Below is some of what I’ve come to believe and understand related to the Earth’s climate.

    There is no proof that continued rise in CO2 will result in continued rise in global temperatures.

    That’s not right, Mike. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Increasing it’s atmospheric concentration increases the greenhouse effect.

    Carbon dioxide acts as a greenhouse gas by absorbing infrared radiation in three narrow bands of frequencies, (2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM)), meaning that most of the heat producing infrared radiation frequencies escapes absorption by CO2. The main peak, 15 µM, is absorbed completely within about 10 meters of the ground meaning that there is no more to absorb. Doubling the human contribution of CO2 would reduce this distance. Reducing the distance for absorption would not result in an increase in temperature.

    There is plenty of the absorbance spectrum of CO2 that is not saturated. Optics is a very well understood science, and this point is not controversial.

    Science is never settled. There is always more to learn, more to add.

    Is the science settled about the world not being flat?

    Consensus on climate change is not science. It’s politics. Science isn’t done by consensus, as I understand it.

    It is scientists, not politicians that that are in consensus.

    Skepticism and questioning are important aspects of science.

    Yes. But skepticism is only useful when it is informed skepticism. A discussion of why the climate sensitivity might be nearer 1.5 than 4 is good if it is informed. A discussion of whether or not CO2 is fully saturated is not, because the answer is well known.

    The Earth appears to have been cooling overall for most of this young century.

    The mean temperature for this decade is much warmer than the mean temperature for last decade. Trends of half a sunspot cycle are awkward to spot statistical significance.

    The reports of the danger to polar bears are premature.

    The northern summer sea ice extent is trending downwards.

    This year, ice older than two years accounted for less than 10% of the ice cover at the end of February. From 1981 through 2000, such older ice made up an average of 30% of the total sea ice cover at this time of the year. (NSIDC)

    Young ice is thinner, warmer, and has a lower melting point than perennial ice.

    Polar bears are not going to be extinct in the wild in the first half of this century, but most populations will be adversely affected by the reduction in sea ice that we are seeing.

    Antarctic sea ice extent is getting larger.

    Models have long predicted that Antarctica will be more robust to warming than the Arctic. (The peninsular, however, is seeing rapid warming.) The increased precipitation due to warming is increasing the glacier flow rates which is pushes out more ice.

    The Antarctic has nearly no multi year sea ice, so you can’t use it to track climate trends like you can with the northern sea ice.

    A recent survey found Arctic ice to be thicker than expected.

    Good. But that doesn’t reverse climate change. Expectations have been pretty low since the northern summer sea ice extent dropped 25% in one year in 2006.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Robin said: “Is the science settled about the world not being flat?”

    That’s not science. That the earth is a globe is well a proven fact.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Plonk

    Robin,
    at 237 you stated “Consensus lets you know when it’s right”
    Leaving out the dubious IPCC, Herd mentality proves nothing. I have more respect for the few brave souls who are prepared to stand up for what they believe in AGAINST the herd – right or wrong! History is littered with examples of the consensus getting it wrong.
    Personally I agree with Socrates “The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.”
    One example of herd thought that might interest you- http://www.suppressedscience.net/inertiaofscientificthought.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wilbert Robichaud

    I like the list of scientific institutions by Robin.
    They all agreed with the IPCC!!! .. must have been a mind boggling task to achieve that consensus. They have their own members on the IPCC review board.. like other IPCC members such as Hansen Gavin S. Stephen Schneider M Mann Connolly the WWF, sierra club, greenpeace ..etc
    It should not be no surprise if they all agreed with their own reports.

    and then we get the good old “5.1 × 1018 kilograms..wow! without a mention that CO2 is still only .036% of the atmosphere and .018% is attributed to mankind.

    Then we get this…”270 to 390ppm, which is log(390/270)/log(2) = 0.53 doublings. Which gives us 0.8°C to 3.2°C of warming due to anthropogenic CO2 alone.”
    satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8C over the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded.The only way to get 3.2C is to add the “heat Islands” from urban areas or the old IPCC assumption. humans are the cause of the recent increase of CO2 doesn’t tell anything about the influence of increased CO2 on temperature!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    When one steps back and looks at it, the thought of burning 0.0000000000002% by weight of the Earth’s crust to conrribute a 0.0003% by weight to the Earth’s atmosphere each year will cause some kind of carastrophic damage –

    The idea is nuts. It’s just plain nuts.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    By the way Mike Goad, your Power Company just did that as a PR stunt.

    They knew they could buy the excess off the grid (for a while, anyway) to make up the difference.

    That stunt can’t be kept up in perpetuity, however


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Brian – Actually, they did it by buying nuclear power plants that were struggling to go it alone. The company is now the second largest nuclear utility in the United States. As well, through life extensions, power uprates, reduced outage time, and improved efficiency, they’ve increased actual power produced. They’ve also started working towards at least 2 new nuclear power plants, but haven’t yet committed as there is still a lot of uncertainty in the prospects for new nuclear.

    The prettiest blue in the world, in my view, is Cherenkov blue, when all the other lights are out.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    I love Čerenkov blue, too. I’m from DOE, sure enough!

    I knew about the cooperative agreements with the nuclear facilities. That’s what I meant by “buying it off the grid”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    The US needs to build up base load capacity or we’re headed for trouble

    We need COAL COAL COAL

    We need NUCLEAR NUCLEAR NUCLEAR

    We need to UPGRADE UPGRADE UPGRADE transmission and distribution

    And we need to start drilling our own oil and increase refinery capacity like mad.

    As I see it, the Obama Administration will throw a few tens of billions dollars down the toilet on solar and wind projects and so on –

    but only for 3½ more years, then someone with some COMMON SENSE will take over and clean up the mess.

    He can only ruin just so much, and waste just so much, in so short a time span


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Hey – want to see a “Game Changer*”?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/16/obama-climate-change-impacts

    EVERYTHING about the HISTORICAL climate in this thing is wrong.

    What an embarrassment!

    *US Science Advisor John Holdren


    Report this

    00

  • #

    “The conclusion is inescapable: The U.S. temperature record is unreliable. The errors in the record exceed by a wide margin the purported rise in temperature of 0.7C (about 1.2F) during the twentieth century.” Watts Up With That


    Report this

    00

  • #
    W. Earl Allen

    The “game changers” can’t even seem to get their corrections corrected.

    • This article was amended on Wednesday 17 June 2009. We confused the absolute with the incremental in reporting that a rise in temperature of 1.5F corresponds to an decrease of 17C. It is a rise of 0.8C. This has been corrected.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve

    Robin said (#153)

    “Science is done by consensus!”

    Well, that’s a wrap for me for me on this thread. I’ve got better ways to spend my time than reading the thoughts of someone hopelessly lost in groupthink, incapable of looking further back in time than the last 100 years.

    To my fellow skeptics, cheers!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I agree with Steve.

    The comments have degenerated to a debate between Robin and everyone else.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    player

    Hello Robin,
    My day job interferes with me making too many posts a day, so sorry for the delay in responding.

    Firstly, let me clarify my stance. I am not quite a “denier” of AGW in the sense of claiming that a) the global temperature does not show a rising trend and b) That CO2 cannot induce climate forcing.

    Rather, I’m more of an AGW sceptic, i.e.

    - The data to date is unconvincing that GW is all AGW. Pure CO2 forcing has been augmented by positive feedback mechanisms that are poorly understood to create alarming predictions of temperature increases, but the results have been portrayed as final and binding.
    - There are serious doubts in my mind about the accuracy of the surface temperature measurement, especially in the US.
    - The entire body of evidence and data to date is not consistent with AOGCMs being accurate. Joanne’s post on “Missing Climate Headlines” does a great job in highlighting some of these deficiencies. Ocean heat content, satellite temperature in the tropics, Antarctic ice growth, lack of warming over the last decade – among others, are not consistent with GW being AGW.
    - The accuracy of past temperature records through proxies is questionable at best, sloppy inaccurate analysis at its worst.
    - Natural causes for temperature rise such as solar effects, PDO, ENSO appear to be capable of explaining some of the variation in temperature, but are hardly acknowledged by the AGW party line.

    Bottom line: If I study the totality of evidence today, I’d accept a 1 – 1.5 degree/century increase, and see no compelling evidence that its 3 degrees or 5 degrees/century. Over a 100 year period that is hardly what I would call catastrophic, especially one that warrants spending trillions of dollars.

    Now to some of your questions:

    Arcane statistics? Lets start with Mann et al 1998. The Wegman report details why the statistics are arcane an in fact incorrect.

    Q: Can you give some backing for this claim?
    A: See above
    Q: Who is providing a counter argument?
    A: Nature.
    Q: What aspect of the science is not settled?
    A: See above.

    (sorry I haven’t mastered block quotes)

    Q: Are we talking climate or particle physics here?
    First hand, in particle physics. Although this is by no means unique to any field where statistical inferences have to be derived.

    Q: I don’t recall that. Can you point out the post?
    A: In the post about Postage stamps and AGW. I’ll dig out the paper once I get some time.
    I don’t think that global cooling can be a consequence of AGW.
    A: My bad – I should have written “is consistent with” instead of ” a consequence of”. You are right.

    Q: Just by way of calibration, can you tell me what would falsify gravity?
    A: Newtonian gravity was falsified early in the 20th century, and was superseded by General Relativity. General Relativity is likely to be falsified by something else. Observation of repulsion – i.e. the gravitino not being a spin 2 object, would be a pretty serious problem for quantum gravity theories, and all preceeding theories. I took one single observation to overturn Newtonian Gravity being universal, the precession of Mercury’s orbit – despite the spectacular successes of Newtonian Gravity. And so it is with all theories, one piece of data can falsify them.

    What you did not specify in your falsification criteria was, how long should no temperature rise continue before we say AGW is not viable? I am not disputing that CO2 can cause forcing (there is physics there), I am only disputing that we understand all the feedback mechanisms to derive the true climate sensitivity to CO2 concentration increase. So it appears to me that to falsify AGW we will have to wait for more data. To shut sceptics like myself up, I’d like Nature to be consistent with AOGCM projectons today and in the near future before I take predictions a 100 years from now seriously.

    Q:Make up your mind. Either I’m flooding the forum with scientific citiations or I’m repeating propaganda. Or do you claim that the scientific evidence is propaganda in this case?

    A: You seem to be under the impression that just because a result is published in a peer reviewed journal, it is scientific fact. It is not. It only becomes fact when other attempts to reproduce the result are successful as well, and there are not outstanding results or data that contradicts it.

    The classic example of “Correlation is not causation” – the study that apparently demonstrated that children who sleep with lights on develop myopia more frequently was peer reviewed and published, and widely reported in the press. The study was overturned when people realized that the parents left lights on were also myopic, and so the real cause was genetics, and had nothing to do with lights. So yes, I have made up my mind, uncorroborated controversial citations are in fact propaganda.

    And once again, consensus does not define science. The Yang-Lee parity violation assumption that Brian uses illustrates that pretty well.

    Cheers.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    I’ll go along with most of what Player says – excepting the following:

    Suppose at the outside we have see a 1.5 deg. C rise in temp over a century.

    OK. That is in the range of natural climate variability! Show me how to disentangle the CO2 contribution of that.

    You can’t! I KNOW that if CO2 is neglected, that I can show pretty much the whole 1.5 was geothermal of origin – IF I NEGLECT EVERYTHING ELSE.

    Similarly, I can show the whole effect was Solar of orgin.

    Or anything else you like – the sum and substance of which is, that’s what you mean by natural variability!

    Putting the CO2 thing in there as a quantity that has a quantitative interpretation HAS NO MEANING if it comes within the range of everything else that could have or did have an influence on the climate.

    Some days I think that I’m the only blockhead there is who thinks that what I have said makes any sense


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Mike Goad wrote:

    Robin said: “Is the science settled about the world not being flat?”

    That’s not science. That the earth is a globe is well a proven fact.

    So science doesn’t include any facts?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Plonk wrote:

    Leaving out the dubious IPCC, Herd mentality proves nothing.

    As Einstein is paraphrased as saying above, theories are not proved, but disproved.

    Semantics aside, I wasn’t saying that herd mentality is sufficient evidence, I was saying that sufficient evidence eventually aligns scientists behind a theory.

    And this is how it progresses. The mechanism by which ideas get into the school curriculum is that first they are judged true, not by vote or by act of committee or by decree of a monarch (or pope) but by consensus.

    That’s what the word consensus means … a general agreement. Science, being the cat herd that it is (conspiracy theories about global warming research fraud aside), has no more formal mechanism by which theories become accepted truth.

    There’s just consensus.

    Many people posting here have tried to construct a false dichotomy, because the idea that science progresses by consensus is abhorrent to their politics, and saying science progresses not by consensus, but by experimentation, interpretation and tests. (One gentleman even suggested “data”, which is a bit contrived, but he wanted to make the point that the only thing to do is wait … for more data).

    There is no dichotomy. Science progresses by these things too.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    wilbert Robichaud (post :

    Hi!

    I still find the conspiracy theory that scientific organisations only agree because of the IPCC highly unlikely. There must be the better part of 100 organisations on that list. They are from different cultures both academically and socially. They are from different language groups, and from countries with different governments and different economies. Surely some professional or scientific society, or university would stand up for truth, (and take the kudos of overturning the paradigm).

    But I repeat myself. If you don’t think the conspiracy theory is nuts, know that I find in uncompelling.

    The CO2 calculation was to show that the increase is due to human activity. It seems to be that it is. (There is also first order evidence of this from the change in isotope ratios of Carbon in the atmosphere).

    Yes, it is also only 390ppm(v). I’m sorry you feel I was being dishonest by not metioning it. I thought it was fairly well known, and I don’t see how it affects the fact that there is multiple lines of evidence that show that human activity is responsible for the meansured increase in atmospheric CO2.

    I’m not sure what your point is about the rate of temperature increase. You seem to be saying that CO2 warming can be tested by measuring this rate. Do you have a citation for the details of what is expected under CO2 warming compared to other warming?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    player wrote:

    My day job interferes with me making too many posts a day, so sorry for the delay in responding.

    Not at all.

    Thanks for taking the time to respond.

    The data to date is unconvincing that GW is all AGW. Pure CO2 forcing has been augmented by positive feedback mechanisms that are poorly understood to create alarming predictions of temperature increases, but the results have been portrayed as final and binding.

    I don’t think it is fair to say that the positive feedback mechanisms are poorly understood, given that they are reproduced in models.
    The mechanisms are generally very well understood. (Clouds and cloud feedback do remain a large source of error)

    I don’t see these results that are portrayed as final and binding. I see estimates of a range of climate sensitivities, and the confidence interval stated in every case. (Well, the denialist literature has a tendency to not include estimates of accuracy nor treatment of errors, and will occasionally just make absolute statements. But the scientific literature is not like this.) Do you have an example of the sort of portrayal that you are talking about?

    There are serious doubts in my mind about the accuracy of the surface temperature measurement, especially in the US.

    Well, the US has a good history of measurement. And comparison of still to windy days and urban to rural trends show that the UHI effect is undetectable. So I’m not sure of what might be the basis of these serious doubts. Nevertheless, 70% of the world is ocean, so that is the part that needs to be accurate to detect global effects. And only 2% of the world is the US.

    The entire body of evidence and data to date is not consistent with AOGCMs being accurate.

    They’re not perfect with regional climate. They’re fairly spectacular with global mean temperature.

    Ocean heat content, satellite temperature in the tropics, Antarctic ice growth, lack of warming over the last decade – among others, are not consistent with GW being AGW.

    Ocean heat content seems to be increasing. I suspect that you are considering out of date data when you say that it is not in line with AGW.

    Satellite temperatures are non-trivial to isolate, and a poorer judge of lower troposphere temperature than land/ocean based measurements. They do confirm warming though.

    Antarctic ice growth is perfectly in line with predictions under AGW.

    There has been warming over the last decade. The lack of warming over the past 7 years is not out of line with AGW. (There was a similar period in the 70s and 80s at the end of the sunspot cycle).

    The accuracy of past temperature records through proxies is questionable at best, sloppy inaccurate analysis at its worst.

    The IPCC 2007 report had 12 recent northern hemisphere temperature reconstructions. (And there has been one high profile one since).

    Do you claim that they are all “questionable or sloppy”?

    Is there some common procedure that was sloppy, or do you have different objections to each paper?

    Natural causes for temperature rise such as solar effects, PDO, ENSO appear to be capable of explaining some of the variation in temperature, but are hardly acknowledged by the AGW party line.

    I’m not aware of this lack of acknowledgement. Meehl et al. (linked above) is one of a couple of papers that separates the warming into that attributable to any forcing. (PDO and ENSO not being forcings, but certainly their effect on temperature is noted, if imperfectly modelled).

    If I study the totality of evidence today, I’d accept a 1 – 1.5 degree/century increase, and see no compelling evidence that its 3 degrees or 5 degrees/century. Over a 100 year period that is hardly what I would call catastrophic, especially one that warrants spending trillions of dollars.

    How much is a life worth? The (approximately) 300,000 deaths per year we are seeing today is only from 0.8°C of warming. (Approximately) 300 million significantly adversely affected has a dollar cost too. Another 1-1.5°C takes us to high cost/high casualty tipping points such as the loss of the northern summer sea ice.

    And the warming doesn’t stop until you stop burning fossil fuels.

    … My real life is pressing, but I’ll respond you the rest of your post presently. Thanks again for your response to my questions.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Learn to “Shadowbox” – in your spare time, in the comfort of your home!

    Send $5 and self-addressed stamped envelope to:

    Time-Waster Productions
    PO Box 600
    Chicago, Illinois 60616


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Michael Collard

    300,000 deaths per year.

    The problem I have with this is the implication that the only way to prevent these deaths is to do something about global warming. This isn’t so.

    These people aren’t dying from the heat; they are dying from malaria, diarrhea, and other diseases that afflict the poorer parts of the world. And 300,000 is only a fraction of the total number of people who die from these diseases each year. All of these lives could be saved by relatively simple and inexpensive actions that have nothing to do with the warming. And these same actions would save thousands of others who are dying from these same diseases, but whose deaths aren’t being blamed on the use of fossil fuels.

    Climate change mitigation would be the most difficult and least effective way to save these lives.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    yeah like water treatment plants that use more electricity than can provided with a solar panel or two

    and lots of mechanical power to drill or dredge or dam for water where it is needed


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    OK Robin, answer this.

    The IPCC uses a heuristic to estimate forcing power, which for doubling CO2 is about 3.7 W/m^2. I’ll concede that this is a reasonably conservative upper limit if you ignore the effects of water vapor and clouds. However, the heuristic called the climate sensitivity, whose ‘consensually’ agreed value is 0.8, multiplies this 3.7 W/m^2 into 3 degrees of change. The difference in solar forcing energy between perihelion and aphelion is about 80 watts/m^2. Dividing by 4 gives us an average forcing of about 20 watts/m^2. Multiplying by 0.8 tells us that the average global temperature between June and January should be about 16C which is clearly not evident and in fact, the temperature difference is 4C in the opposite direction, owing to the northern hemisphere winter snow that is close to maximum at perihelion. The sensitivity metric is not CO2 dependent and even if CO2 was at fault, any other temperature increase will have the same effect. You might try and claim that the system responds too slowly, but seasonal change indicates otherwise. The change in energy between perihelion and aphelion varies at the same rate as the seasonal solar energy so a response can’t be fudged away.

    The IPCC heuristic unambiguously implies that as a consequence of feedbacks (CO2, ice and other), any increase in surface energy will have an ultimate effect on the surface temperature equivalent to more than 4 times that of the original forcing energy. This effect is not present in any of the data. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it had to be done.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wilbert Robichaud

    The IPCC 2007 report had 12 recent northern hemisphere temperature reconstructions. (And there has been one high profile one since).http://www.realclimate.org/images/ipcc_6_1_large.jpg.

    again the IPCC? and realclimate to boot. M Mann who happens to work for the IPCC and owner of realclimate with his famous broken hockey stick graph.
    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin M Grant

    player wrote:

    Arcane statistics? Lets start with Mann et al 1998. The Wegman report details why the statistics are arcane an in fact incorrect.

    That’s a fairly controversial example, and it only reflects upon past climate, not the current one.

    Pus the Wegman report is a bit dubious, in that it wasn’t peer reviewed itself. The National Academies Report gave Mann et al a near total vindication, and I think that it was the more scientific and less political of the two reports.

    Do you have a better example of a paper that looks at an aspect key to the anthropogenic or natural cause of the current warming that uses “arcane statistics”? Such as an estimation of the climate sensitivity or a decomposition of the warming into responses to natural and anthropogenic forcing? With a less controversial example of “arcane statistics”?

    Q: Can you give some backing for this claim?
    A: See above
    Q: Who is providing a counter argument?
    A: Nature.
    Q: What aspect of the science is not settled?
    A: See above.

    I was looking for something a bit more specific. You see your claims that “The science is not settled” don’t have any backing on its own. What papers in the peer-reviewed literature are countering the basic consensus?

    I think you know that “Nature” is providing a counter argument is not answering the question. In order to believe you, I need to know what aspect of nature, who measured it, and why it contradicts the consensus. Do you understand my position? I’ve been keeping an eye on the research, and it seems to me that Nature supports AGW. You need to give me an example of where it doesn’t to answer the question.

    As for

    “which aspect of the science is not settled”. See above.

    Do you mean that the temperature reconstructions over the last 1000 years or so are the part of the science that is yet to be settled?.

    Sure there’s some error there. Proxies have a way of measuring local and not global temperature variation.

    If that’s all then I take it you fully accept that the climate sensitivity is about 3°C? Because that’s where there is a consensus. Past temperature reconstructions by proxy don’t enjoy a consensus, and I am happy to agree that there are some significant unknowns.

    My bad – I should have written “is consistent with” instead of ” a consequence of”. You are right.

    I don’t think global cooling is consistent with AGW either.
    Are you sure that post was by me?

    What you did not specify in your falsification criteria was, how long should no temperature rise continue before we say AGW is not viable? I am not disputing that CO2 can cause forcing (there is physics there), I am only disputing that we understand all the feedback mechanisms to derive the true climate sensitivity to CO2 concentration increase.

    Well unlike particle physics where the theories are discrete in the sense that finding a graviton will define this result as right or wrong, the climate sensitivity is something to be measured, it could sit in a continuous range, and the laws of physics don’t step from one set to another as it is pinned down to a more and more accurate value.

    I have seen a list of 60 peer-reviewed estimations of climate sensitivity, and that stopped about a decade ago, so most of the 17 papers I cite above are not amongst them. So there are probably 70 or 80 such papers now. And as we both accept CO2 does increase the temperature. So the question is how much?

    I could be convinced by only a few papers using a range of evidence that the climate sensitivity is less that 6, 5, 4 or even 3.

    To convince me that it is less than 1.5 would take a vast amount of evidence … either 50 odd papers confirming this low value, or several papers, and a decent credible explanation of why existing techniques have been so much in error.

    In terms of how long a period would have to pass without significant warming, again, it would be whether or not such a period is statistically explicable or not. 7 years of during a decline is solar irradiance in the absence of a strong El-Nino is completely expected. At a guess I would say that three sunspot cycles, about 33 years would start to look statistically awkward – but I’d still do the statistics. A bit El Nino at the start of the 33 years and a big La Nina at the end combined with certain configurations of volcanic, aerosol and solar forcing might be perfectly explicable. Something outside the 95% confidence interval given current understanding would make me sit up, and something outside the 99% confidence interval would make me very seriously question.

    To shut sceptics like myself up, I’d like Nature to be consistent with AOGCM projections today and in the near future before I take predictions a 100 years from now seriously.

    Well they’re disturbingly spot on already with respect to global mean surface temperature.

    And you don’t need AOGCMs to establish that the climate sensitivity is over 1.5. Several of the papers that I have linked above provide independent evidence of that. (Which establishes AGW, unless you don’t accept that the increase in greenhouse gasses is anthropogenic, and there is strong direct evidence of that).

    You seem to be under the impression that just because a result is published in a peer reviewed journal, it is scientific fact. It is not. It only becomes fact when other attempts to reproduce the result are successful as well, and there are not outstanding results or data that contradicts it.

    Not at all. As I have said above science is an iterative process. But you seem to be under the impression that peer reviewed scientific research is propaganda if it doesn’t deny AGW. It is not. If there is some political or financial conflict of interest that is undeclared then the paper is withdrawn and the author’s career in respectable science ends.

    So yes, I have made up my mind, uncorroborated controversial citations are in fact propaganda.

    None of those papers are particularly controversial. And the suggestion that they are uncorroborated is difficult to understand. At the least the corroborate each other, but the scientific literature has about 70 papers that estimate climate sensitivity, and only half a dozen end up with a interval that doesn’t include about 3°C. Surely 60 peer reviewed papers using a wide range of evidence that all fall in agreement counts as corroboration?

    And once again, consensus does not define science. The Yang-Lee parity violation assumption that Brian uses illustrates that pretty well.

    But, apparently sexism does define science. It was Wu who established the violation.
    And, as pointed out, this is very different to the climate situation. The climate sensitivity is much studied. Parity non-conservation was discovered as soon at it was looked for. (And confirmed independently before Wu’s paper hit the Journals).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    player

    Robin,
    Before I respond to your most recent post in more detail, as there is so much discussion of “consensus is science” on this thread, I’d like to add my $0.02.

    The minimum bar for any theory to be accepted as valid is a) 100 % of the data should be consistent with it b) It should make predictions that are falsifiable and c) there should be sufficient data to validate that it is not falsified.

    The number of publications in favor of a theory has nothing to do with its validity. A great example is supersymmetry in particle physics. Since it was introduced in the early 70′s, there have probably been more papers with SUSY in it that any other topic in particle physics for the last 30 years. It is an elegant, brilliant formalism and solves many of the very serious problems with the Standard Model.

    Some of the best known physicists of the world have researched and written about it, 100s of millions have been spend by international collaborations, looking for SUSY particles, but there has been one persistent problem with SUSY. Not a single supersymmetric particle has been observed.

    The status of SUSY – not yet a physical theory, even though the vast majority believe that it has to be true, or at least, will be reincarnated in superstring formalisms. Superstrings of course suffer from the same issues too.

    SUSY satisfies a) and b) but not c). The consensus as you describe it is far stronger than AGW. But the jury is still out. Perhaps the LHC will show a signal. Till then SUSY is wishful thinking.

    AGW does not satisfy a) – there are still outstanding issues with data. I know you assert otherwise – I don’t agree.

    Satellite measurements are a serious problem that isn’t going away. While still not inconsistent with AGW, the 7 year lack of rise in temperature is dangerously near excluding OAGCMs at 95% CL – more data will tell, but it certainly implies that unless that rights itself, that bit of science isn’t settled – both sides are waiting with bated breath to see what happens. 2009 is not looking too warm either, so far….

    AGW may be able to satisfy b) (tell me how many years I need to wait for temperature to be flat or falling) and c)only after more data is collected over the next several years.

    Transalation: The jury is out. I remain, yours truly, a sceptic.

    And by the way, your curious statistic about 97% of climatologists agreeing with AGW, and thereby establishing consensus in your eyes – where do you get this statistic? Who you define as a climatologist? And do they agree with runaway AGW as per the IPCC? And what is the time period that you consider? And do only climatologists have a say on whether AGW consensus exists?

    I will address your comments in the previous post in more detail as time allows.

    Cheers.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    player

    Brian,
    You said -
    “OK. That is in the range of natural climate variability! Show me how to disentangle the CO2 contribution of that.”

    Fair enough – given the current uncertainty on forcings, its not clear how to do this today. The hope is that in the future decades, we will have much better high resolution accurate data over a longer period of time, and we will better understand the dynamics of climate, and have more computing power, and be able to resolve this. But, I could be wrong – climate systems may turn out to be chaotic in some sense and we may never be able to tell.

    Point taken.

    Cheers.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Wu conducted an experiment suggested to her by Chen-Ning Yang to prove parity breadown in beta decay

    Ladies and Gentlemen, Left and Right have an ABSOLUTE meaning in this Universe!

    Surprise, surprise. I think I know why this is but I’m not going to describe it here

    And as East and West on all flat maps
    (as I am one)
    are One,
    So Death shall touch the resurrection


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wilbert Robichaud

    ” Pus the Wegman report is a bit dubious, in that it wasn’t peer reviewed itself. ” the same goes with the MBH98/99 is was not peer reviewed why we needed M&M. in 2002 …maybe PUS is the right word to use here.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Gee, Wilbert, give him a break, will ya?

    Today’s winner of the Trou du (Q) award goes to …

    none other than …


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    last week’s winner …


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    If you examine the credentials of most of the scientists who are on the AGW side, They tend to be environmental scientists, oceanographers, meteorologists, anthropologists and those from other ‘soft’ sciences who tend to be more interested in the ‘what if’ part of science. The kinds of scientists who are more often skeptics are from the ‘hard’ sciences like physics, chemistry, biology and the engineering disciplines who are more interested in the ‘why’ part of science. The skeptics either understand how to quantify the underlying physical mechanisms, or are skeptics because so many AGW arguments contain the obvious markers of junk science (http://www.palisad.com/co2/junk_sci.html). I know that there are exceptions in both directions, but I’m just pointing out an observed trend.

    The consensus among all scientists is that greenhouse gases have some effect on the climate. The tipping point in the debate is whether or not this effect is big enough to worry about. Those on the AGW side are blind to the many other important factors and insist that theirs is the only one that matters and falsely extend the consensus to embrace their false ideology. That so many have been suckered in to this illustrates a basic failure of all educational systems to instill the basic rigors of objective scientific debate into the curriculum. As scientists, we should be embarrassed that the AGW hoax has been able to achieve as much traction as it has.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin M Grant

    Michael Collard wrote:

    300,000 deaths per year.

    The problem I have with this is the implication that the only way to prevent these deaths is to do something about global warming. This isn’t so.

    I don’t disagree with that. And even the most hopeful of amelioration advocates are now talking adaptation as well, because it looks simply too late.

    These people aren’t dying from the heat; they are dying from malaria, diarrhea, and other diseases that afflict the poorer parts of the world. And 300,000 is only a fraction of the total number of people who die from these diseases each year. All of these lives could be saved by relatively simple and inexpensive actions that have nothing to do with the warming. And these same actions would save thousands of others who are dying from these same diseases, but whose deaths aren’t being blamed on the use of fossil fuels.

    My understanding is that reducing fossil fuel use is cheaper than much of the life saving international aid that we engage in. But not certainly not all. In many areas drinking water can be provided by digging a relatively cheap well, and mortality can be dramatically reduced. (Of course it’s not generally being done, but the world’s like that).

    Climate change mitigation would be the most difficult and least effective way to save these lives.

    I don’t think that that’s completely fair.

    And oil won’t go forever, so we’ll have to change that technology at some point. Do you want a controlled change now, or a sudden exponential growth in cost then, accompanied by the environmental destruction, abandonment of coastal infrastructure and changes to the location of arable land?

    Encouraging clean technologies now is a win-win outcome. Or a “no-brainer” as we call them down here.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin M Grant

    co2isnotevil:

    OK Robin, answer this.

    The IPCC uses a heuristic to estimate forcing power, which for doubling CO2 is about 3.7 W/m^2. I’ll concede that this is a reasonably conservative upper limit if you ignore the effects of water vapor and clouds. However, the heuristic called the climate sensitivity, whose ‘consensually’ agreed value is 0.8, multiplies this 3.7 W/m^2 into 3 degrees of change. The difference in solar forcing energy between perihelion and aphelion is about 80 watts/m^2. Dividing by 4 gives us an average forcing of about 20 watts/m^2. Multiplying by 0.8 tells us that the average global temperature between June and January should be about 16C which is clearly not evident and in fact, the temperature difference is 4C in the opposite direction, owing to the northern hemisphere winter snow that is close to maximum at perihelion. The sensitivity metric is not CO2 dependent and even if CO2 was at fault, any other temperature increase will have the same effect. You might try and claim that the system responds too slowly, but seasonal change indicates otherwise.
    I’m taking your figures on faith, but given that, yes, that’s exactly what I would claim.

    The time for the climate to reach 60% of its response to an increase in forcing is something in the range 25-50 years. (Depending on what the climate sensitivity is, (see Hansen et al.))

    The response to harmonic forcing on an annual frequency would be powerfully damped.

    The change in energy between perihelion and aphelion varies at the same rate as the seasonal solar energy so a response can’t be fudged away.

    Needless to say, (given my response above), I’m not understanding this. Seasons occur because the sun is shining more directly on a part of the globe. The mean global surface temperature is not affected much, and the processes that have to complete before it is affected don’t have to have completed.

    The IPCC heuristic unambiguously implies that as a consequence of feedbacks (CO2, ice and other), any increase in surface energy will have an ultimate effect on the surface temperature equivalent to more than 4 times that of the original forcing energy.

    I thought that the middle value of about 3°C was about 3 times. But ballpark, I agree.

    This effect is not present in any of the data. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it had to be done.

    Well, it’s present in the temperature/CO2 concentrations of the last 700 years, and the last 420,000,000 years. It is present in earth radiation budget data. It is present in volcanic forcing – global temperature data. In fact it is present in all the 17 papers I cite above.

    In what data is it not present?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    player

    Robin,

    That’s a fairly controversial example, and it only reflects upon past climate, not the current one.
    Pus the Wegman report is a bit dubious, in that it wasn’t peer reviewed itself. The National Academies Report gave Mann et al a near total vindication, and I think that it was the more scientific and less political of the two reports.

    Isn’t it though? You asked for an example. That one is the grand daddy. Amazingly, no one in the community of “climatologists” even bothered to try to reproduce it – one of hallmarks for a result to be scientifically valid, until an unknown geologist and a professor in Canada took the paper to task 5 years later. This is the quality of peer reviewed climatology research?

    Wegman had no axe to grind with anyone, nor any political agenda. His analysis of the social relationships between the tight cabal of so-called climatologists who were co-authoring and reviewing Mann was actually very telling as well, and helped me understand why so many papers were rubber stamped in the review process, an why no one bothers to cross check results.

    But, if you want a more recent example of this, try Steig et al 2008 on Antarctic temperature rise. The PCA technique with only 3 PCs surfaces again. No peer-reviewed publications to refute it yet – but Ryan O. is trying to get funds together to submit the refutation for publication.

    You seem to believe that peer review is the only way to have a scientifically result. The wonderful thing about science is that it does not care what degrees or credentials the investigator has. If the logic and methods are clear and reproducible, I don’t care if its written on a napkin or a journal, if the author is a Nobel Laureate or an administrative assistant – its a valid scientific result. You may disagree but thats not the way science works.

    And, it doesn’t matter if there are 10,000 peer reviewed articles supporting AGW, one single data based result against it can and will overturn it.

    Cheers.
    PS. I am trying to keep response to one topic at a time. Answering 50 questions in one response is too tedious.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wilbert Robichaud

    “Encouraging clean technologies now is a win-win outcome. Or a “no-brainer” as we call them down here.”
    Clean Energy? what is Clean Energy? what is it built with?
    we need oil to built them and we need the industrial complex with it’s evil CO2 emmission.
    We will need more mines to produce these raw materials. We will need more Chemical plants for the acid for the batteries for electric cars and more ..gasp! Lead. the plastic needed will have to come form oil meaning more drilling. Add all the trucks and machinery’s needed to haul.all the landscape destruction. is that not exactly what the Environmentalist are all against?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin M Grant

    wilbert Robichaud wrote:

    The IPCC 2007 report had 12 recent northern hemisphere temperature reconstructions. (And there has been one high profile one since).http://www.realclimate.org/images/ipcc_6_1_large.jpg.

    again the IPCC? and realclimate to boot.

    Is that an argument?

    If the IPCC left out any important northern hemisphere temperature reconstructions, please point me to them, and I’ll consider them.

    Those are the 12 that I know about, that were prior to the 2007 IPCC report.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin M Grant

    Player wrote:

    While still not inconsistent with AGW, the 7 year lack of rise in temperature is dangerously near excluding OAGCMs at 95% CL

    Okay, I think that that’s not even nearly right. 7 years is not even exceptional, certainly not during a period of declining solar irradiance.

    Do you have a scientific source that backs this claim?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Robin M Grant: “… as we call them down here”

    Down, but not out, eh?

    Any relation to Ulysses S Grant?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Player,

    I thank you for your very clear and pertinent comments.

    I hope you won’t now think me impertinent. One of the things that raises the tone of this blog is that most of the key commenters identify themselves by name. If you have a good reason to not do so, then so be it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wilbert Robichaud

    Kevin Trenberth, an advisor to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), made some startling admissions regarding the IPCC’s use of computer General Circulation Modules (GCMs)
    Nature magazine.. Trenberth concedes GCMs cannot predict future climate and claims the IPCC is not in the business of climate prediction. Among other things, Trenberth asserts “. . . there are no (climate) predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been”. Instead, there are only “what if” projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios. This might be news to some people.

    IPCC and realclimate ..Gavin S. “GCMs modeler” is running RC owner: M Mann..IPCC reviewers Gavin S. and M Mann.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Robin,

    Maybe you could consider using another word than “consensus”. If you use a word to mean something different from what most other people understand it to mean, you run the risk of the type of confusion we have experienced here over the last day or two.

    I think some dictionaries allow a meaning similar to what Joanne was referring to when she talked about votes and stuff, i.e. a majority opinion. But I think the more common understanding is that it is a common understanding, i.e. a viewpoint that has been arrived at by taking account of the perspective of everyone involved, to the extent that it is acceptable to all. Borders on unanimity.

    I think I know what you are getting at. You mean that a theory gains greater acceptance as a result of gaining greater acceptance. Right?

    Why some of the sceptics are so sensitive to this type of approach is because such a profound tautology can in practice so easily be confused with a statement about whether the idea is correct. I know you wouldn’t do this yourself, but I have seen instances of where AGW advocates have implied that the AGW conjecture is demonstably true because it has gained greater acceptance. And you know what, they sometimes use the word “consensus” in this context. It is allied to the famous “the debate is over” gobbledegook.

    So you see, I am not sure what is a better word for what you are trying to express, but “consensus” is possibly ill-advised.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    player

    Robin:

    Okay, I think that that’s not even nearly right. 7 years is not even exceptional, certainly not during a period of declining solar irradiance.
    Do you have a scientific source that backs this claim?

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/ipcc-projections-overpredict-recent-warming/

    I like Lucia – she is fair – looks at the data and doesn’t reach any unwarranted conclusions. Like I said, it doesn’t invalidate IPCC AR4, but raises a lot of eyebrows. Now, as you say, if we have to wait 33 years of this before AGW can be falsified definitively, well, lets wait instead of spending trillions. We got a 7 year start!

    Cheers.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Hey there Player

    Chaotic or not, the stochastic noise of the climate backgound is probably pretty close to white

    Makes you wonder what could be discerned from that

    although the 3 deg. K radiation of the cosmic background (that is the cosmic background) was discerned

    but it was known, that whatever temperature it corresponded to, would be a complete Planck spectrum of a black body (and was the only thing in the Universe that could be so)

    in this case we have no such formal distribution, but we have

    (I gave a talk on this at Heartland in March in NY)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Robin, Re 274,

    I’m aware of the Hansen paper and don’t put much stock in it. His arguments have been widely disputed, so I won’t waste my time disputing them individually or disparaging him, so I’ll only complement him on his achievements. I think it was brilliant in the way that he brought his pet cause to the forefront despite an utter lack of unambiguous evidence. Manipulating politicians like Gore is not an easy thing to do. Making this a political issue was a stroke of genius. Right or wrong, he could get his way. The way that the error in the data was pushed in favor of his theory, or more likely, small corrections that go against AGW are the first things cut from budgets, was so well obscured and justified that he felt comfortable in citing this data anomaly as support of his claims. He happens to be wrong, but I’m sure he would have a difficult time letting go of this as his career is defined by his position on AGW. Wasn’t he the first to raise the alarm?

    More to the point, there’s no evidence to support the kind of time constants required for your hypothesis to be true. Contrary to your claim, the global average temperature does change by quite a lot. Local averages have monthly variability far in excess of this, even over oceans. More importantly, the combination of the various latitudinal slices of the Earth as small as 2.5 degrees exhibit the precise response of the climate system to incident energy variability. Here are some temperature plots. The first is a plot of the global average monthly temperature and the second has plots of the average temperatures for each of 3 60 degree slices of the planet. BTW, this data is directly from the isccp.giss.nasa.gov web site which is under Hansen’s control. You can see the little post 9/11 bias in the data very clearly as a discontinuity. This was caused by a change in the way the data was processed, but was apparently not propagated to all of the data. It’s a mini version of the hockey stick flaw which has also been cited as evidence of warming.

    http://www.palisad.com/co2/avg_temp.gif
    http://www.palisad.com/co2/avg_temp_3.gif

    The mean climate system thermal lag is about 45 days, which is the typical lag between minimum/maximum seasonal solar input and the seasonal minimum/maximum temperatures. This can be extracted from the daily satellite data, also supplied by Hansen. Again I give him credit for collecting all of the data needed to support his case. It just happens that the data shows otherwise. But this is just as good of a result, if not better, since we don’t need to needlessly suffer the economic harm from a carbon regulatory regime.

    What possible mechanism can store up such a huge deficit of missing warming? What mechanism can manifest such a delay? I’m giving you an opportunity to explain, in your own words. Don’t just cite some incestuously reviewed, paper. If you can’t unambiguously answer these in a few sentences, then you probably don’t understand yourself and are relying on a faith based argument.

    Perform the exercise of calculating how much energy it takes to raise the temperature of the ocean from 0C to the temperature profile of today. It’s only the order of a few weeks of incident solar energy, How can such a small energy pool manifest a response delay of decades? The *ONLY* effect with long time constants is the ebb and flow of surface, the magnitude of which can also be inferred from Hansen’s satellite data based on the measured seasonal variability over time and space. This time constant can be inferred from the ice core data.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    player

    Steve Schapel:

    thank you for your very clear and pertinent comments.
    I hope you won’t now think me impertinent. One of the things that raises the tone of this blog is that most of the key commenters identify themselves by name. If you have a good reason to not do so, then so be it.

    Sure.

    I am Subramanian Kartik (Kartik to most who know me), living in Chicago, Illinois. Post-doc at DESY/HERA while at LSU, doctoral work at Fermilab while at Indiana University, Masters from IU, MS from Indian Institute of Technology in Bombay, India. Now in the private sector (computing) for the last 13 years. Currently a Distinguished Engineer at EMC Corp.

    Hope that helps! BTW, I will still use player as my handle.
    Cheers.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    But Subramanian is such a hallowed name, I couldn’t see why you wouldn’t prefer that to the very questionable, “player”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    player

    BrianL

    But Subramanian is such a hallowed name, I couldn’t see why you wouldn’t prefer that to the very questionable, “player”

    Long story… some other time…;^)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Robin,

    Perhaps the piece of information you don’t see yet is that the data shows how the climate responds very quickly to changes in forcing. Seasonal solar variability, seasonal ebb and flow of surface snow, CO2 levels anything that can be measured and that has an effect, does so very quickly, except biology and the ebb and flow of surface ice. Even the difference between night and day requires fast response times.

    Most of this can be inferred directly from the satellite data and no measurable effect operates over time periods longer than the order of months. There’s enough satellite data that even multi-decade trends would be obvious and none are present. The data is all publicly available and you can examine it for yourself if you don’t trust my analysis.

    Please try and cite a specific exception. CO2 solubility is virtually instantaneous. Consider how long it takes carbonated water to go flat. The thermal lag of the Earth’s thermal mass is well quantified and only on the order of weeks. What else is there?

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Kartic,

    Thank you very much.

    I am interested in your idea that it will help us to know “the truth” if we wait a little longer.

    If we measure atmospheric CO2 concentrations and global temperatures over the next 20 years, I am not sure what that will give us that we don’t already have. The CO2 will either increase or decrease (my money is on increase) and the temperatures will trend warmer or cooler (my money at this stage is on cooler).

    But then what? Don’t we have historical examples of whichever way it goes? Warming while CO2 increases. Warming while CO2 decreases. Cooling while CO2 increases. Cooling while CO2 decreases. We’ve seen them all. So how will it help to have one more example of one or the other of these scenarios? Don’t we already have enough information to make an informed assessment?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    You asked for an example. That one is the grand daddy. Amazingly, no one in the community of “climatologists” even bothered to try to reproduce it – one of hallmarks for a result to be scientifically valid, until an unknown geologist and a professor in Canada took the paper to task 5 years later. This is the quality of peer reviewed climatology research?

    Wegman had no axe to grind with anyone, nor any political agenda. His analysis of the social relationships between the tight cabal of so-called climatologists who were co-authoring and reviewing Mann was actually very telling as well, and helped me understand why so many papers were rubber stamped in the review process, an why no one bothers to cross check results.

    Which suggests that a spoof paper might be interesting to try. Just knock up a spectacular AGW result (but not so very spectacular as to raise suspicions) and get it published (maybe under a nome de plume). If anyone emails asking for further details or wants your raw data sets then send back a polite email stating that these are not available for strict national security reasons. If they email a second time then send back a polite reply, “OK, you caught me, it really is a spoof but please don’t blow my cover, I’m trying to spin this as long as possible.”

    I can see potential.

    Might require cooperation from a few well placed university officials, they probably check new names with more caution. Could require a slow buildup of a promising fictitious career.

    This is of course a fully legitimate line of scientific inquiry, admittedly on the topic of sociology, not physics.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    player

    Tel:

    A sting operation? Great idea. I’d suggest holding a press conference before even submission of the paper to a journal, and absolutely refusing to show the data to anyone else! That would be the norm these days in publishing Climate related research.

    Cheers.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    It wouldn’t even raise eyebrows to submit a study that doubled the result of already published claims:

    “Sea levels to rise 6 meters, not 3, in 50 years”

    “Ice shelf to disintegrate in 25 years, not 50″

    “Ice-free summer Arctic in 15 years, not 30″

    “No rain in western Australia for 100 years”

    If asked for data, simply refer to the original authors, saying they have made a mis interpretation of their own data.

    “Tel” is short for – “Telephone”? Just jokin’ with an as yet ANONYMOUS blogger


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Robin: “Science progresses by these things too…. (referring to consensus and evidence)”

    No science doesn’t progress by consensus. In a true consensus science remains stuck, not open to new ideas or revolutionary thinking. As the saying goes… Science progresses funeral by funeral.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    The mean climate system thermal lag is about 45 days, which is the typical lag between minimum/maximum seasonal solar input and the seasonal minimum/maximum temperatures. This can be extracted from the daily satellite data, also supplied by Hansen. Again I give him credit for collecting all of the data needed to support his case. It just happens that the data shows otherwise. But this is just as good of a result, if not better, since we don’t need to needlessly suffer the economic harm from a carbon regulatory regime.

    If you believe that the relevant thermal mass makes a low pass filter (seems reasonable) and you have some way to justify that a first order filter is a good approximation (less reasonable), then knowing the phase shift of a sinusoidal drive signal allows you to calculate the time constant of that filter. For a phase shift close to 90 degrees (one quarter wave) you can’t get a meaningful answer.

    Doing a bit of searching for coldest days of the year and warmest days of the year, there seems to be a big variation
    depending on region, so local features dominate. Not sure how sensible it is to average across regions here, because the local region becomes the dominant defining filter for that measurement point.

    Here’s a rough table (all numbers in days) of the equivalent first order filter time-constant. This can be used to estimate the filtering effect for any particular region.

    MIDWINTER TO COLDEST DAY / 1ST-ORD TIME CONSTANT
    0 / 0
    2 / 13
    4 / 25.5
    6 / 38
    8 / 50.5
    10 / 63.5
    15 / 96.5
    20 / 131
    25 / 167.5
    30 / 207.5
    40 / 300.5
    50 / 425

    Once the time constant is known, we also know the percentage of amplitude attenuation for a sinusoidal signal of known frequency going through this filter. Here’s another table (left hand column in days, small attenuation implies big output signal):

    1ST-ORD TIME CONSTANT / ATTENUATION (365 DAY PERIOD SINUS)
    0 / 0.0%
    13 / 0.1%
    25.5 / 0.2%
    38 / 0.5%
    50.5 / 0.9%
    63.5 / 1.5%
    96.5 / 3.3%
    131 / 5.9%
    167.5 / 9.1%
    207.5 / 13.1%
    300.5 / 22.8%
    425 / 34.8%

    Thus, you apply the inverse attenuation factor to each region (thus undoing the filter damping), if you have enough time series data for each region to calculate the necessary phase shift.

    Hmmm, anything near the equator won’t work by this method because of the extra harmonic (two peaks per year) but should be pretty good for places with a strong yearly seasonal variation. You could get better results by fitting the real harmonics of the input wave to the filter but that’s a much bigger calculation, then you can cover the equator too.

    What possible mechanism can store up such a huge deficit of missing warming? What mechanism can manifest such a delay?

    I could easily accept that the larger thermal mass of the deeper rock (and deep ocean) would take a long time to change temperature, and thus result in long delays. I could NOT accept that slow changes of the core temperature could happen by any external energy balance without being measurable first at the surface (on a much shorter time constant). Since we are arguing about how much the damping filter will distort the measurement, the deeper core is irrelevant. Some local regions are strongly influenced by ocean currents moving energy from elsewhere (e.g. Sydney gets additional phase lag at the onset of winter because warm water comes South down the coast in Autumn). Seasonal ocean currents are basically impossible to model, maybe you could take measurements and subtract them out. Come to think of it, seasonal rainfall also represents large scale energy transport, adding further phase error.

    The other things I can think of are chemical changes, biological changes and surface feature changes, all of which will swing the radiation balance one way or another to some greater or lesser extent. Some of these can be happening during the year (like trees losing leaves or snowfall) but they also change year to year (new trees growing or old trees dying, buildings being constructed, roads, etc) which interferes with mapping against any trend in CO2.

    Plus of course there are long-term time constants in the sun and in Earth’s orbit, which would also need to be independently measured and subtracted out somehow (subtracted out of a non-linear system, impossible by definition).

    Probably it’s valid for temperate, inland, desert regions without seasonal rainfall.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Mr Telephone,

    A first order lumped parameter approximation is probably not very good, second order better

    use fft to resolve harmonics (but you really don’t have enough data here)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    “Tel” is short for – “Telephone”? Just jokin’ with an as yet ANONYMOUS blogger

    You can clicky thru to my website, and no one asked my opinion on what name I should have to live with. I’m sure I’ve posted my website links more explicitly in earlier chapters round here (I can’t hold everyone’s hand all the time).

    I’ll admit that I’m on the amateur side of climate research, I make money on computing, not the physical sciences. I can at least check equations for balanced units which puts me ahead of most science students :-) and I did quite a bit of military contract work (tech work & maintenance, not shooting people) which teaches you how to quickly detect inconsistencies.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Ah, thank you for the clarification, Mr Linux.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    A first order lumped parameter approximation is probably not very good, second order better

    Second order filters have two time constants so you can’t reconstruct the filter from a single sinusoidal probe. With enough harmonics in the probe it would work, but higher order models often create more errors than they eliminate unless your available data is very clean (and weather data certainly is not that).

    Is there a physical basis for believing that a chunk of rock with the sun shining on it is second order? There’s only one energy storage element — the rock. I’d be much more worried about long distance energy transport messing it up.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    yes there is

    Div (k(T)GRAD(T)) = 0

    -k(T)(partial T/ partial r)|(boudary) = specified


    Report this

    00

  • #
    player

    Steve:

    Warming while CO2 increases. Warming while CO2 decreases. Cooling while CO2 increases. Cooling while CO2 decreases. We’ve seen them all. So how will it help to have one more example of one or the other of these scenarios? Don’t we already have enough information to make an informed assessment?

    I believe that temperature is not a good way to establish (or refute) AGW. The core tenet of AGW is that as we add 1 molecule per 100,000 of CO2 every 5 years, due to the way CO2 absorbs and re-radiates energy back to the earth, the CO2 (and associated feedback mechanisms) effectively trap heat on Earth and prevent it from radiating it back into space.

    So the true fingerprint of AGW is the heat content of the earth increasing as CO2 increases. However, as Roger Peilke. and others ave argues, this anomaly of excess heat is cumulative, so regardless of whether temperature fluctuates due to heat redistribution (PDO, ENSO, AMO,…), the heat has to go somewhere. This is an inescapable prediction of AGW. So we have been accumulating this anomaly over the last 7 years or so. I reproduce Peilke Sr.s summary

    http://climatesci.org/2009/02/09/update-on-a-comparison-of-upper-ocean-heat-content-changes-with-the-giss-model-predictions/

    OBSERVED BEST ESTIMATE OF ACCUMULATION Of JOULES [assuming a baseline of zero at the end of 2002].

    2003 ~0 Joules
    2004 ~0 Joules
    2005 ~0 Joules
    2006 ~0 Joules
    2007 ~0 Joules
    2008 ~0 Joules
    2009 ——
    2010 ——
    2011 ——
    2012 ——

    HANSEN PREDICTION OF The ACCUMULATION OF JOULES [ at a rate of 0.60 Watts per meter squared] assuming a baseline of zero at the end of 2002].

    2003 ~0.98 * 10** 22 Joules
    2004 ~1.96 * 10** 22 Joules
    2005 ~2.94 * 10** 22 Joules
    2006 ~3.92 * 10** 22 Joules
    2007 ~4.90 * 10** 22 Joules
    2008 ~5.88 * 10** 22 Joules
    2009 ~6.86 * 10** 22 Joules
    2010 ~7.84 * 10** 22 Joules
    2011 ~8.82 * 10** 22 Joules
    2012 ~9.80 * 10** 22 Joules

    This is a serious issue. While we may have to wait for 33 years like Robin says to falsify AGWs temperature projections, I don’t believe AGW will last 33 years of heat deficit. Certainly, he temperature must go up with this much heat, but may be masked by other local phenomena.

    So CO2 going up and down, or Temperature going up or down – I agree, we’ll have to wait a while. But the heat measurements are different, as they add up. To make up the deficit over the last 7 years is quite a task. In my mind, this already falsifies AGW. At some point, the general population will catch on.

    Again from Pielke Sr.

    For the observations to come into agreement with the GISS model prediction by the end of 2012, for example, there would have to be an accumulation 9.8 * 10** 22 Joules of heat over just the next four years. This requires a heating rate over the next 4 years into the upper 700 meters of the ocean of 2.45 * 10**22 Joules per year, which corresponds to a radiative imbalance of ~1.50 Watts per square meter.

    This rate of heating would have to be about 2 1/2 times higher than the 0.60 Watts per meter squared that Jim Hansen reported for the period 1993 to 2003.

    Cheers, K.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Subramin,

    I believe the Devils of the Earth, who have given us this Coal and Oil in the first place, have Hidden Away this Heat for their mysterious and nefarious Purposes, and they will Release this deadly Heat, at the time, of their choosing


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    In #300, I would like to write the Neumann boundary condition as

    -k(T) (partial(T) / partial(n))|(boundary) = 0

    where n is the outward directed normal to the surface


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    DANG

    The heat flux at the boundary is not zero – I mean, specified in advance


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Tel, Re 295.

    Another way to look at the problem is the following equation.

    Pi(t) = Po(t) + dE(t)/dt

    Pi is the energy entering the system (Sun), Po is the energy leaving (reflected and radiated) and E is the energy stored in the system (the Earth’s thermal mass). dE(t)/dt is the instantaneous rate of energy entering or leaving the thermal mass. This equation is simply a statement of COE and must always be true, whether or not the planets temperature is constant (dE/dt = 0), increasing (dE/dt > 0) or decreasing (dE/dt < 0) and independent of any energy imbalance.

    If dE/dt is positive, as Hansen suggests, than E and the subsequent surface temperature, and hence Po, will be increasing. As the temperature increases, Po increases and necessarily, dE/dt must be reduced. Eventually, E(s) increase Po to the point where it is equal to Pi and dE/dt drops to zero. In practice, dE/dt varies widely around zero and has an average value since the equilibrium Es, and thus temperature, is *DEFINED* to be the point where dE/dt is equal to 0. Claims that dE/dt is always positive, or that it even has a non zero average value are wrong and would only be the case if you redefine the average temperature!

    Relative to the lag, as Pi in increasing, dE/dt is positive and energy goes into storage. When Po is decreasing, dE/dt flips sign and becomes negative as the thermal mass releases heat energy. Relatively speaking, temperatures are less than they would be relative to a static equilibrium as solar energy increases and more than at static equilibrium as the temperatures decreases (owing to the relative sign of dE/dt).

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    for P you mean power


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    brian,

    Yes, Pi and Po are in units of power, which is energy per unit time. dE/dt also has units of energy per unit time and is closer to the formal definition of power. Another typo is that ‘is zero’ is missing between ‘has an average value’ and ‘since the equilibrium’ in the second paragraph.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Brian (#293): “Ice-free summer Arctic in 15 years, not 30″

    Hey, wasn’t that already supposed to be by 2012?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Georgie,

    Insolation is normally expressed as power per unit of area anyway (a the best units of irradiance, but that’s all we are usually given)

    and for “equilibrium” you definitely mean “steady state”. Equilibrium is defined nowhere, for this

    Stevie,

    The feckless trio of Arctic explorers, egged on by Prince Chucklehead of Dopesville, didn’t determine a whole lot except that the Arctic is pretty cold and pretty icy, and given the severity of their misery, they would probably NOT subscribe to the year, 2012 if asked. (Before their journey, they may have concurred with that value.)

    In interviews, reporters seemed to steer away from disturbing questions like “you don’t feel like anybody “used” you or “played” you for fools to do this, do you?”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Kartic (#301),

    I have been avidly following and participating in this global warming debate for over 10 years. The information you have provided here is a whole angle on it that I was not aware of, and it has helped me a great deal in my understanding. So you have my deep gratitude.

    I am not sure what an “observed best estimate” is. To me, it’s either observed or it’s an estimate, it’s hard to be both. I am not a scientist, though, so have to be guided by respect for people like Dr Pielke.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Is there a reason a paper based on this concept wouldn’t get published?

    A new type of battery is being developed where for each 10 watts of energy stored, you get 55 watts of energy back out. This battery is based on the revolutionary physics developed by scientists to explain how greenhouse gas forcing is important to the climate. Scientists caution that we really only know that this works at the planetary scale and there are still significant obstacles in the way of scaling this effect to usable levels. Scientists are cautiously optimistic that they can get it to work, since even if the practical limit is only 11 watts of output per 10 watts input, batteries can be stacked together to produce larger net efficiencies.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Oh for Heaven’s sake, Georgie, I patented that a long time ago.

    I also patented an oven, which requires no external power source, which cooks raw chickens based on the water “feedback” principle, so long as a little CO2 is added continuously to speed up the cooking process

    (roughly 2x the ave CO2 content of the surrounding air)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    I figure with my Eco-battery, I can sell a can of carbonated water with a few electrodes on it for 19.99 + SH. When customers complain, I can say that they didn’t read the fine print and must wait 50 years for the amplified power to come back out. Then I can sell them a 50 year warranty for only 1.99 per year. Why does this sound familiar?

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    You really ought to get with Nick Stern to sell carbon trading – right now, he’s having a rough go of it convincing people they won’t lose money.

    One additional note about the Yang-Lee discovery:

    The important point was not that parity isn’t conserved in weak interactions, because if parity was not conserved AT ALL, one could easily envision situations for which momentum couldn’t be conserved, either.

    For weak interactions it may be said that parity conservation takes a different form: replacing a particle by its antiparticle in a weak interaction for which parity is not conserved, then the weak interaction corresponding to the antiparticle preserves parity with the original weak process.

    That does not contradict anything.

    Enough of my blathering blithering for one day


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    player wrote:

    And by the way, your curious statistic about 97% of climatologists agreeing with AGW, and thereby establishing consensus in your eyes – where do you get this statistic?

    Doran and Zimmerman (http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf)

    Who you define as a climatologist?

    those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who
    also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed
    papers on the subject of climate change

    And do they agree with runaway AGW as per the IPCC?

    Runaway global warming? The IPCC puts the climate senstivity at 3°C per doubling.

    “runaway AGW” sounds like an infinite warming per doubling of CO2. Which is more than the 3°C that is stated as most likely by the IPCC.

    What do you mean by runaway warming?

    And what is the time period that you consider??

    Current warming.

    And do only climatologists have a say on whether AGW consensus exists?

    They’re the best informed to judge the evidence.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    player

    Robin:

    They’re the best informed to judge the evidence.

    So paleontologists have no say? Chemists don’t? Physicists don’t? Geologists don’t? Oceanographers don’t? Statisticians don’t?

    So the climatologists you are promoting are effectively saying that the rest of the world is incapable of judging whether their work has substance? Isn’t that really convenient – trust us, the IPCC Clmatologists, because the rest of you are obviously idiots. We won’t let you see the data, we don’t have to reproduce the result, and don’t you dare question our results because only we are qualified to judge it.

    I guess by the same token, I sholdn’t take a single word on statistics as true by any of Mann, Stieg, Santer, Hansen, etc papers, as they are not statisticians! Thanks for giving us the grounds to reject all their work!

    Sheesh! You have taken the definition of science to a new abyss.

    Cheers, Kartik.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    player

    Robin:

    Doran and Zimmerman (http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf)

    Fascinating read! Some pertinent information was left out of your 97% number, that I found most interesting.

    There were two questions
    1. When compared with pre-1800s
    levels,
    do you think that mean global temperatures
    have generally risen, fallen, or
    remained relatively constant?
    2. Do you think human activity is a significant
    contributing factor in changing
    mean global temperatures?

    Over 10,000 people in some geosciences program or the other were polled, about 30% responded. 90% said yes to Q1 and 82% to Q2.

    That means about 1 in 5 did not believe that AGW was real, this with over 90% of the respondents in geosciences having PhDs! Also, more that 90% of the respondents were in the US. Wonder where the international geosciences research is done these days.

    Of the 10,000 or so polled, and the 3000+ who responded, only 79 were considered “real climatologists” actively publishing. They had 97% affirmative responses to Q2. I’d love to know where their grant funding comes from, but thats not one of the questions…..

    In contrast, 600 of the 3000 geosciences people polled said no to Q2. And the silent 7000 ones who didn’t vote – guess we’ll never know.

    This sound like overwhelming consensus, anyone?

    Cheers, K.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Player,

    Don’t forget that by peer reviewed, it means reviewed by other climatologists who are all part of this same consensus of belief. But it’s clearly too complicated for the climatologists. The rational for using heuristic based models is because a first principles models are to complex to think about. The heuristics all *ASSUME* AGW, so of course they will agree with the hypothesis. But as anyone should know, building a case on an assumption to prove the assumption is not rigorous science.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    player

    George:

    Excellent point! AGW supporters write papers supporting AGW with co-authors supporting AGW who get reviewed by AGW supporters and publish results cited by AGW supporters, spurring more publications supporting AGW – ths starting the cycle all over again. And of course, how dare someone who isn’t a climatologist question this! This is what the Wegman report detailed in mathematical terms.

    Hmmmmm….

    Cheers, K.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Ah, thank you for the clarification, Mr Linux.

    More accurately, Mr Wannabe Linux, but we’re all doing what we can. I probably make more money repairing Mr Telephone these days, but Mr Telephone has Mr Linux inside of him. Skillset convergence and all that. I think it’s probably unfair to condemn the readers to any more boredom so I’ll change the topic.

    http://www.solarsailor.com/

    If you check out that boat, I built the prototypes of the motor controllers (someone else did the circuit design) and I wrote the first working version of the controller code (earlier versions did not actually spin the motor, a lot of professional coders spend their lives with a broom in hand), and I put together a nice mini-rig out of a laser print engine to allow desktop-level test runs.

    The boat works, it runs as a ferry somewhere near Sydney, and I think it has popped up doing runs at various places along the East coast of Australia.

    I still think that what these guys are doing is a good idea, but uptake on the idea has been very slow. Diesel is cheap, reliable, easy to use and and easy to maintain. Hybrids have more parts and inevitably that means more cost and more things that are going wrong. But we have to move technology forward and the only way to do that is to have a go. There will never be a generation 2 without a generation 1.

    Having said that, I have not bought a hybrid car myself because they cost more, they are harder to repair and petrol is still reasonably cheap. Hybrid boats have a bunch of advantages over hybrid cars because weight isn’t as much of a big deal and wind is more applicable.

    I really do think that the world is going to need to move forward with alternative energy but I just don’t see Greenie alarmism as useful in promoting that progress. Certainly having Greenies bashing everyone over the head is nothing more that a recipe for resentment and a waste of resources fed into infighting that could be spent doing real world tech.

    I’ve run into a lot of Greenies over the years, and into Greenie/Bureaucrats too. I once asked a Greenie/Bureaucrats if he could calculate how many joules went into ironing and pressing his pristine shirt and suit. He gave some response about making sacrifices for what we believe in which resonated with strong undertones that he was not about to sacrifice anything he ever did for anyone and that was a bit of a moment of understanding for me — these guys are expert BS artists and nothing more. I guess I met Mr Wannabe Al Gore (probably one of many).

    Anyhow, I’ve actually done at least one real-world thing to move the green cause forward, and not by over-regulating someone else’s life either.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    player wrote:

    So paleontologists have no say? Chemists don’t? Physicists don’t? Geologists don’t? Oceanographers don’t? Statisticians don’t?

    So the climatologists you are promoting are effectively saying that the rest of the world is incapable of judging whether their work has substance? Isn’t that really convenient – trust us, the IPCC Clmatologists, because the rest of you are obviously idiots. We won’t let you see the data, we don’t have to reproduce the result, and don’t you dare question our results because only we are qualified to judge it.

    I guess by the same token, I sholdn’t take a single word on statistics as true by any of Mann, Stieg, Santer, Hansen, etc papers, as they are not statisticians! Thanks for giving us the grounds to reject all their work!

    Sheesh! You have taken the definition of science to a new abyss.

    Cheers, Kartik.

    That’s not what I said.

    Nice rant though.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Brian #309,

    The equilibrium state and the steady state are driven by the same condition, that is, dE/dt == 0, so I sometimes interchange them. This can be seen if we consider what happens to the system if Pi is held constant. If Pi stops moving when dE/dt is positive, the surface energy and hence Po will increase, reducing dE/dt until dE/dt is zero and Pi=Po. The opposite happens if dE/dt was negative, but leads to the same result. For this equation, dE/dt can be non zero at equilibrium if incident energy is doing work other than heating up the thermal mass of the planet or if there was some internal source of heat, both of which are finite, but small effects.

    In the real climate system, this is a little trickier because Po is dependent on Es, but the bottom line is that if Pi stops changing, dE/dt must still must become zero. The way that my model works is to start by calculating Po as a function of surface and cloud temperatures, filtered by atmospheric absorption and weighted by the percentage of cloud cover. Other equations define the energy flux entering and leaving the surface and clouds. The result is a set of simultaneous differential equations whose coefficients are determined directly from satellite measurements and which contains no assumptions about the behavior. This set of equations is then synthesized into a large hierarchy pf interacting model instances representing each of the 280 km on a side pieces of real estate in the aggregated satellite data and generates all of the inter relationships between the slices.

    The system always strives to achieve equilibrium, where the system is modeled as a pool of hot and a pool of cold, separated by an isothermal surface roughly intersecting the jet streams and bisecting the thermocline, whose temperature is related to Es and the instantaneous average global surface temperature. The jet streams are free to wiggle around to change the ratio of heat to cold presented to space in order to meet the desired equilibrium condition which in the process determines whether energy is added to or removed from the respective pools on either side of the jet stream, thus determining dE/dt and ultimately, the new surface temperature.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    I’m more of a Solaris fan, than a Linux fan, but both are better than Windos. I admire Bill Gates for the same reason I admire Jim Hansen. Both were able to turn junk into multi-billion dollar endeavors.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin Grant

    player wrote:

    Robin,
    Isn’t it though? You asked for an example. That one is the grand daddy.

    That’s your grand daddy example?

    An equivocal criticism of just one of a dozen northern hemisphere temperature reconstructions, which has no direct implcation for the causes of the current warming?

    Amazingly, no one in the community of “climatologists” even bothered to try to reproduce it –

    It’s been reproduced a dozen times.

    Wegman had no axe to grind with anyone, nor any political agenda.

    On the other hand, the only reason that the report was comissioned was that there were politicians who didn’t like the National Academy’s vindication of Mann (et al)’s work.

    His analysis of the social relationships between the tight cabal of so-called climatologists who were co-authoring and reviewing Mann was actually very telling…

    I think you’re being paranoid. Cutting edge northern hemisphere temperature reconstructions over a 1000 year or so time period is a small world.

    … as well, and helped me understand why so many papers were rubber stamped in the review process, an why no one bothers to cross check results.

    Yeah. Little conspiracy theories are more credible than grand ones, and there may be some small effect. The work’s been reproduced a dozen times though.

    But, if you want a more recent example of this, try Steig et al 2008 on Antarctic temperature rise.

    Do you this one?

    You seem to believe that peer review is the only way to have a scientifically result. The wonderful thing about science is that it does not care what degrees or credentials the investigator has. If the logic and methods are clear and reproducible, I don’t care if its written on a napkin or a journal, if the author is a Nobel Laureate or an administrative assistant – its a valid scientific result. You may disagree but thats not the way science works.

    There’s an especially low signal to noise ratio in climate change writing. (Due to special interest groups such as ExxonMobil offering the $10,000 bounty to any op-ed piece refuting the IPCC). Peer review filters out some of the more blatant rubbish.

    And, it doesn’t matter if there are 10,000 peer reviewed articles supporting AGW, one single data based result against it can and will overturn it.

    If it explains why the 10,000 papers were erroneous, and if it is reproduced. Much more likely, it will be found to be wrong.

    PS. I am trying to keep response to one topic at a time. Answering 50 questions in one response is too tedious.

    I have only asked questions where your own good claims need justification.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Robin,

    I’m still waiting for an answer to where the missing heat is and what physical mechanism can cause a multi-decade delay. If you claim the ocean again, then you didn’t perform the calculation I suggested earlier. Look at the satellite data, there are 10′s of thousands of data samples which clearly show relatively rapid adaptation to changes in incident energy. While water, ice, desert and vegetation all respond a little differently, they all respond in days, not decades, to changes in forcing. What evidence supports longer response times? You can try and claim that AGW requires longer response times, but that’s not evidence that longer response times actually exist. This only means that if you can’t support longer response times, AGW is invalid.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin Grant

    player wrote:

    Robin:

    Okay, I think that that’s not even nearly right. 7 years is not even exceptional, certainly not during a period of declining solar irradiance.
    Do you have a scientific source that backs this claim?

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/ipcc-projections-overpredict-recent-warming/

    This doesn’t account for the La Nina, nor the sunspot cycle. The IPCC trend is a long term trend, not a 7 year trend.

    Prediction models such as the hadley centre’s DePreSys showed an expected cooling over a short time period.

    Do you have a scientific source that would get past a curtsory peer review? (This is sort of what I meant by “scientific”).

    Now, as you say, if we have to wait 33 years of this before AGW can be falsified definitively, well, lets wait instead of spending trillions. We got a 7 year start!

    We don’t have to wait. We’ve got the last 33 years. You get about 0.16°C per decade of warming. (From the Hadley Centre’s data set).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Kartic (#301),

    Ok, I have now had a chance to look through the Pielke information more closely. And it seems that it does not address itself to the question of causality… Is that right?

    In other words, there is a proposal for a test for nett warming (or otherwise). But there is nothing to assess the part played by atmospheric CO2 in any warming or lack thereof.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin Grant

    Co2isnotevil wrote:

    If you examine the credentials of most of the scientists who are on the AGW side, They tend to be environmental scientists, oceanographers, meteorologists, anthropologists and those from other ’soft’ sciences who tend to be more interested in the ‘what if’ part of science. The kinds of scientists who are more often skeptics are from the ‘hard’ sciences like physics, chemistry, biology and the engineering disciplines who are more interested in the ‘why’ part of science. The skeptics either understand how to quantify the underlying physical mechanisms, or are skeptics because so many AGW arguments contain the obvious markers of junk science (http://www.palisad.com/co2/junk_sci.html). I know that there are exceptions in both directions, but I’m just pointing out an observed trend.

    The other observations that should be made are the the skeptics are very much fewer, don’t tend to be more revoved from the speciality of Climate Science, tend to be older, retired, have a background in science denial for Phillip Morris, and are more often fictitious than pro AGW scientists.

    I know that there are exceptions in both directions, but I’m just pointing out an observed trend.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin Grant

    co2isnotevil wrote:

    Robin,

    I’m still waiting for an answer to where the missing heat is and what physical mechanism can cause a multi-decade delay.

    Thank you, co2isnotevil. I too am still waiting for you to give some examples of what data the feedback is not present in.

    What missing heat is this, CO2? Oceaninic heat content continues to rise.
    (ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat08.pdf)

    Feedback invloves warming the top of the ocean, which increases evapouration rate, and increases the atmospheric water content, and with it the greenhouse effect; iterate. It is slow because of the specific heat of the oceans, and because the process needs to iterate.

    Another process is the melting of ice, and the increase in albedo, which warms the surrounding land or ocean, which melts more ice; iterate. This is slow because of the latent heat of fusion of ice, and because the process needs to iterate.

    What evidence supports longer response times?

    I get my 25-50 years from Hansen et al, linked above. Feel free to cite a paper that makes a different calculation.

    This only means that if you can’t support longer response times, AGW is invalid.

    No it means that I can’t support longer response times. If you think that you’ve found a paradigm shifting discovery, I encourage you to write it up, and send it to Nature.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Robin.

    The data that this is not present in is found here: http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov (Hansen’s data!). If you look through the corresponding ftp site, there are files called Bxxxmyyyp.dat as derived from the D2 data set, where xxx is a number (i.e. 116 is surface temperature) and yyy is a region (i.e. glb -> global, wat -> over water, etc.). B116m3060p.dat is particularly revealing. This is the 30 degree slice between Antarctica and the bottom of Africa and S America. This is mostly water and shows 6-8C of seasonal variability whose min/max occurs in the month following perihelion/aphelion. This represents an average flux deficit of of about 10 w/m^2 per month for half of the year and -10 w/m^2 per month for the other half of the year. Yes, the Earth is always out of balance one way or another, it just averages out to be zero. The very definition of the average temperature is when the this average flux is zero. Variability of more than 1C in year to year averages also requires smaller average flux imbalances, but none the less, some years the net is positive and some years it’s negative. Claiming that there is an accumulating deficit that is otherwise unobservable as a temperature change makes no sense.

    BTW, models iterate, but nature doesn’t. Again I refer you to the concept of time constants and exponential decay. The specific heat of water is 1 kcal to increase the temperature of 1 kg 1C. This is not so much that it provides decades of inertia, just weeks. The ebb and flow of surface ice is important, and is the only thing with a time constant long enough to see in the ice core data. However, the fraction of a degree in average temperature increase that doubling CO2 does is not going to melt enough ice to have a 4 times bigger effect than the original surface energy increase. Besides, ice feedback that enhances warming requires acting against a built up reserve of ice. We are currently close to minimum ice, so there’s not a lot of extra reflectivity to give up that can cause any additional warming. Ice feednack saturates at minimum/maximum ice. If the Earth was transitioning out of an ice age it would be a different story and in fact, climate sensitivity quantifications *ASSUME* that this is the case which is one of it’s many flaws.

    Examine how quickly the surface temperature changes (i.e. ocean temperature) relative to changes in the incident energy. I suggest you look at time constants and first order LTI equations to understand the basic behaviors of differential equations. While wikipedia climate related articles are generally poor, the section on time constants is relatively accurate. The climate is a nonlinear system, but many of the same rules apply, specifically with regard to stability and convergence.

    Citing Hansen et-all doesn’t answer my question. It just tells me that you blindly accept what Hansen says. Do you pay attention to the abstracts? Most say something to the effect of ‘Our model which assumes AGW …’. This is an immediate disqualification of any results presented by any paper. I also don’t see the need to cite a paper when something is so obvious. To me first principles are far more important than anything anyone might hypothesize in a paper, incestuously reviewed or otherwise. Do I really need to cite a paper to describe the behavior of LTI and NLTI systems? I can reference some text books …

    Again, I ask the same question. What possible mechanism can account for the multi-decade time constants required for AGW arguments to be reconciled against the data. I know you can’t answer this because there is no answer, but please try anyway, as it will help you see the light. Take your time, I’ll be out glacier hiking/skiing in the Sierra’s for the next few days. It’s been unusually cool and the snow pack is still very good, especially above 10K feet, although the lifts stopped running a few trips ago.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    The data that this is not present in is found here: http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov (Hansen’s data!). If you look through the corresponding ftp site …

    Excuse my ignorance … how do I do that?

    BTW, models iterate, but nature doesn’t. Again I refer you to the concept of time constants and exponential decay.

    The continuity correction you would have to make between a half hour step and continuous exponential decay wouldn’t make that much difference would it?

    The specific heat of water is 1 kcal to increase the temperature of 1 kg 1C. This is not so much that it provides decades of inertia, just weeks.

    How deep is your ocean? Just 1 metre?
    Radiative forcing from CO2 is 1.7 W/m²

    Sea water has a density of about 1030 kg/m³, and a specific heat capacity of about 3993 J/kg/K.

    In round numbers, the ocean is about 3800m deep, so raising it’s temperature 1.5 K (from climate sensitivity of about 2.8 K per doubling, and increase in CO2 of 0.54 doublings) would take about:

    1.5*(1030*3800*3993)/1.7 = 14 billion seconds or 440 years.

    Of course correct handling would have the 1.7 slowly reduce by exponential decay, (but the time constant would be unknown without modelling the evaporation and greenhouse effect of the water vapour), so the 440 years would be a considerable underestimate.

    Obviously the climate responds faster than this, because the ocean doesn’t heat to it’s full depth quickly enough to make a difference. But the oceans are plenty big enough to take decades to finish responding to an increase in radiative forcing, even without considering melting ice.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    player

    Robin:

    What missing heat is this, CO2? Oceaninic heat content continues to rise.
    (ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat08.pdf)

    Not true – not lately. You reference just one of the publications, which still shows almost no heat increase from around 2003 onwards. More recently, a well written review can be found at

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/06/the-global-warming-hypothesis-and-ocean-heat/

    which discusses in depth, more recent measurements, notably Loehle 2009, which demonstrate quite well that we have a considerable deficit of heat content compared to IPCC projections. If the claim is that that the science is “settled” on the ocean heat issue, I beg to differ. This continues to be a major battleground with data favoring flat heat content, albiet for only several years. The evidence mounting is enough for me to continue be a sceptic.

    Cheers, Kartik.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    player

    Steve:

    In other words, there is a proposal for a test for nett warming (or otherwise). But there is nothing to assess the part played by atmospheric CO2 in any warming or lack thereof.

    Far as I can tell, yes. IPCC claims that the ocean heat content should increase monotonically – the test is to (in)validate this.

    Cheers, K.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Robin,

    Before I hit the road, here’s one more thing to consider.

    The Earth system closed loop gain is easily calculated as the ratio of the incoming energy (255K/240W/m^2) to the surface energy (289K/396W/m^2) which works out to a gain of 1.65. Most of the energy captured by GHG is in the lower atmosphere, where most of this is retained near the surface. Spectral analysis shows that about 33% of the surface energy (130 W/m^2) is absorbed by GHG, which by itself supports a gain of only 1.50, however; this only applies for clear sky and on average, 65% of the sky is covered in clouds.

    The remaining gain component comes from clouds. This can be calculated as the ratio of cloud energy seen from space (262K/267W/m^2 reduced by 13% atmospheric absorption) to the surface energy, which results in a cloud gain of 1.7. If you calculate the cloud percentage weighted gain,
    .35*1.5 + .65*1.7 = 1.63
    which is within 1.5% of the measured gain of 1.65 and well within the measurement error. The atmospheric absorption above clouds is less because of the relatively low water vapor.

    Increasing absorption by 2.3% (3 W/m^2 ) only increases the surface component of the gain to 1.52 and the cloud component to 1.78 for a net gain @ 65% cloud coverage of 1.69, which is an increase of 2.4%. A 2.5% increase in surface energy is 406 W/m^2 or 290.9K, which is a 0.9K increase.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    player

    Robin:

    It’s been reproduced a dozen times.

    When, Robin, when? Not until a much maligned petroleum geologist took Mann et al to task 5 years after it was published! Why would any sane scientist in any discipline believe anything produced by the IPCC climatologists, when the basic protocols to ensure integrity of a result are not enforced in the entire community of practitioners? The unverified result was the headline in the IPCC 2001 report and disseminated all over the world as established science.

    In physics, as soon as an intriguing result is produced, there is a mad scramble to validate it by multiple groups, and the result is not considered valid until it is independently verified. Without this, its garbage. AS I said, I am beginning to suspect that climate science is an oxymoron.

    Cheers, K.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    player

    Robin:

    Do you this one?

    Yep. My bad. Steig et al 2009 in Nature – front cover picture.

    Cheers. K.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    player

    Robin:

    We don’t have to wait. We’ve got the last 33 years. You get about 0.16°C per decade of warming. (From the Hadley Centre’s data set).

    Last I checked, 0.16 deg/decade is 1.6 deg/century, which is right about what I believe the sensitivity is (maybe a little higher that the 1-1.5 deg/century I think may be right). What I disagree with is 3-5 degrees/century. So lets wait till we can establish the 3-5 deg/century before spending trillions! If AGW is right, then as proponents claim, the world will set global temperature records successively in the next 5-10 years anyway, and the IPCC predictions will be well on track, right? Lets wait!

    Cheers, K.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    player

    robin:

    If it explains why the 10,000 papers were erroneous, and if it is reproduced. Much more likely, it will be found to be wrong.

    This does not mean all 10,000 are erroneous – they may be solid results that have been incorrectly interpreted. Any new superceding theory must also agree with any data in these 10,000. A contrary result based on data invalidates the theory, not other experimental results, unless they were model dependent.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin Grant

    player wrote:

    What missing heat is this, CO2? Oceaninic heat content continues to rise.
    (ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat08.pdf)

    Not true – not lately. You reference just one of the publications, which still shows almost no heat increase from around 2003 onwards. More recently, a well written review can be found at

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/06/the-global-warming-hypothesis-and-ocean-heat/

    No, you’ve got it the wrong way around. My linked article has the up to date data (Which does not show no heat increase). Watts Up With that is using Willis’ data before the well publicised retraction and correction. (There’s a well written write up about that here: Correcting Ocean Cooling. Page three is the gutsy bit.)

    which discusses in depth, more recent measurements, notably Loehle 2009, which demonstrate quite well that we have a considerable deficit of heat content compared to IPCC projections. If the claim is that that the science is “settled” on the ocean heat issue, I beg to differ. This continues to be a major battleground with data favoring flat heat content, albiet for only several years. The evidence mounting is enough for me to continue be a sceptic.

    Not really a battleground. Loehle 2009 is not a paper of any scientific significance (And Energy and the Environment isn’t a peer reviewed journal.) Most scientists in the field wouldn’t have heard of it, and it is further out of line with other measurements than Willis’ original data prior to the discovery of the errors of measurement. Willis’ data has been corrected, and now ocean heat content is in line with the thermal expansion of the oceans, and with energy flux at the top of the atmosphere measurements.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Robin, re 331,

    Try this,

    ftp://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/pub/data/D2BASICS/

    There is a readme file there as well.

    The ocean temperature does not uniformly increase. The temperature profile is that the top few hundred meters or so is relatively close to the surface temperature, this drops at a rate of about 3C per 100m through the thermocline and there’s a sharp transition at about 4C, where the temperature starts to decrease at a rate of about 1C per 2K feet until it asymptotically reaches 0C at the bottom. At the poles, there is no thermocline and the polar ice caps are thermally connected to each other through the deep water pool of cold. The temperature profile of the thermocline is consistent with it acting as an insulating layer between the cold deep ocean and warm surface waters.

    http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/Water/images/temperature_depth_jpg_image.html&edu=high

    Only the top few hundred meters of the ocean around the equatorial zones needs it’s temperature increased, not the entire volume of the oceans. The bottom will be OC (max density of salt water at deep ocean pressures), independent of what is happening on the surface. If we count only the top 200 meters of half of the ocean (the factor of 0.7 is for 70% surface water), we get,

    0.7*0.5*200*1030*3993 = 2.9E8 joules/K

    The total energy from the Sun is 350 W/m^2 (excluding reflection). 2.9E8/350 = 8.3E5 seconds = 9.6 days of Solar energy for a 1C increase, or about 150 days for energy to raise the average ocean surface temp from OC to 22C. My point here is the ratio of the in/out flux to the stored energy is relatively large and that this is what determines the time constant, not the time it takes for just the incremental effect of the increase to exhaust the energy in the pool.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    player

    Robin:

    No, you’ve got it the wrong way around. My linked article has the up to date data (Which does not show no heat increase). Watts Up With that is using Willis’ data before the well publicised retraction and correction. (There’s a well written write up about that here:

    Willis retraction is discussed in the WUWT link I pointed you to – his correction to ARGO warm and cold bias turned his decreasing trent to a flat trend after around 2003. Consistent with Cazenave 2009 and Levitus 2008 (your reference)which seem to show slight warming but not at the level of what IPCC/Hansen predict.

    I can see why you don’t like Loefle 2009. Attacking the Journal as unimportant is a not a very novel tactic to supress results that don’t agree with AGW – seen that a lot. I am sure attacks on his personal integrity and affiliations will start soon. Thats why I am the sceptic and you are the believer.

    Climate Science is done by the chosen 76 (from the survey), as far as I can tell – everyone else is either an oil or tobacco lobbyist, or should be ignored because they publish in places that won’t allow the influence of the 76.

    Which only makes me even more entrenched as a sceptic. The entire fate of the world is being controlled by a group of 100 or so self-proclaimed experts in climatology. Everyone else does not belong to the club.

    Cheers. K.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin Grant

    co2isnotevil wrote:

    Increasing absorption by 2.3% (3 W/m^2 ) only increases the surface component of the gain to 1.52 and the cloud component to 1.78 for a net gain @ 65% cloud coverage of 1.69, which is an increase of 2.4%. A 2.5% increase in surface energy is 406 W/m^2 or 290.9K, which is a 0.9K increase.

    Yeah, that’s all you get directly from a doubling of CO2. The other 2K comes from water vapour feedback and albedo change from melting sea ice.

    (I’m assuming that’s what your 3 W/m^2 is from about a CO2 doubling … if not, what is that from?)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    The problem is, this group of 76 believe that everything they have claimed is completely true – and more!

    In an interview on FORAtv on global climate change, Jim Hansen told the interviewer that his climate models were “sluggish” representations of the real world,

    meaning that his computer modelling has been a SLOWER respresentation of what is happening than has actually happened!

    I nearly fell out of my chair. He couldn’t possibly be aware of what he is saying.

    His job and his claims appear to be entrenched, thanks to his association with Gore


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin Grant

    player:

    Robin:

    It’s been reproduced a dozen times.

    When, Robin, when?

    Jones et al., 1998;
    Mann et al., 1999
    Briffa et al., 2001
    Esper et al., 2002;
    recalibrated by Cook et al., 2004a
    Briffa, 2000; (calibrated by Briffa et al.,2004)
    Mann and Jones, 2003
    Rutherford et al., 2005
    Moberg et al., 2005
    D’Arrigo et al., 2006
    Hegerl et al., 2006
    Pollack and Smerdon, 2004; (reference level adjusted following Moberg et al.,2005)
    Oerlemans, 2005
    Mann et al., 2008


    Report this

    00

  • #

    … models are not evidence. Evidence are observations by someone at some time and place, independent of theory. Models are humungous numbers of calculations, each of which individually could be performed on a handheld calculator. So models are theory, not evidence. Yes, the climate models do contain some well-established science that has been verified by empirical observations, but they also contain a myriad of assumptions, omissions, guesses, and gross approximations, a mistake in any of which can invalidate the climate models. Model Temperature Projections Are Not Evidence


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin Grant

    co2isnotevil wrote:

    Robin, re 331,

    Try this,

    ftp://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/pub/data/D2BASICS/

    There is a readme file there as well.

    Cheers. I’ll try to have a look at it over the weekend.

    Only the top few hundred meters of the ocean around the equatorial zones needs it’s temperature increased, not the entire volume of the oceans. The bottom will be OC (max density of salt water at deep ocean pressures), independent of what is happening on the surface. If we count only the top 200 meters of half of the ocean (the factor of 0.7 is for 70% surface water), we get,

    0.7*0.5*200*1030*3993 = 2.9E8 joules/K

    The total energy from the Sun is 350 W/m^2 (excluding reflection). 2.9E8/350 = 8.3E5 seconds = 9.6 days of Solar energy for a 1C increase, or about 150 days for energy to raise the average ocean surface temp from OC to 22C. My point here is the ratio of the in/out flux to the stored energy is relatively large and that this is what determines the time constant, not the time it takes for just the incremental effect of the increase to exhaust the energy in the pool.

    You can have the 0.7 and the 200 instead of 3500. That’s still 2 decades. (Well, one and a half, but the forcing will decrease over that time too).

    You can’t have that the anthropogenic part of the greenhouse effect is the entire solar flux at the top of atmosphere. We’re calculating the time for the climate system to respond to anthropogenic CO2 forcing, not to having the sun switched on.

    My point here is that decades is credible and weeks isn’t.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin Grant

    player wrote:

    Robin:

    We don’t have to wait. We’ve got the last 33 years. You get about 0.16°C per decade of warming. (From the Hadley Centre’s data set).

    Last I checked, 0.16 deg/decade is 1.6 deg/century, which is right about what I believe the sensitivity is (maybe a little higher that the 1-1.5 deg/century I think may be right). What I disagree with is 3-5 degrees/century.

    It’s a function of greenhouse emissions as well as a fuction of time.

    Greenhouse emissions were accelerating until the credit crisis, and China’s economy is already growing again.

    So lets wait till we can establish the 3-5 deg/century before spending trillions! If AGW is right, then as proponents claim, the world will set global temperature records successively in the next 5-10 years anyway, and the IPCC predictions will be well on track, right? Lets wait!

    The point of acting is that it is much cheaper the earlier that you start cutting emissions. (Becuase the CO2 lasts centuries) and that the cost of reducing emissions is about 10% of the cost of adaptation. (If you value your grandchildren nearly as much as yourself).

    So you should act now, and then if the temperature follows the low end of predictions, then wind the carbon tax back a little. (Or sell more credits or whatever). It’s not like the clean technologies will be a loss to the economy even in that case, because the oil won’t last forever.

    Right? Lets act before it costs tens of trillions! It’s a no brainer.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin Grant

    player wrote:

    Willis retraction is discussed in the WUWT link I pointed you to – his correction to ARGO warm and cold bias turned his decreasing trent to a flat trend after around 2003. Consistent with Cazenave 2009 and Levitus 2008 (your reference)which seem to show slight warming but not at the level of what IPCC/Hansen predict.

    What do the IPCC predict should happen to the ocean heat content over the falling forcing of a sunspot cycle? I didn’t notice where they did short term predictions in the 2007 report. Can you remind me where it is?

    I can see why you don’t like Loefle 2009. Attacking the Journal as unimportant is a not a very novel tactic to supress results that don’t agree with AGW – seen that a lot.

    It’s not a journal.

    There’s a low signal to noise ratio in the popular press on global warming.

    You can see that the trend is different from that in the scientific literature. The trend in the scientific literature also now agrees with the radiation budget measurements, and with sea level rise. Which even without the fact that Loefle 2009 is a popular press article, would suggest that Willis is correct and Loefle is wrong.

    But peer review does raise the signal to noise ratio. I’m not particularly inclined to read an article from the popular press that contradicts scientific research, because I have a finite amount of time, and one can be fairly confident that it is the science that is correct.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin Grant

    Mike Goad wrote:

    …Yes, the climate models do contain some well-established science that has been verified by empirical observations, but they also contain a myriad of assumptions, omissions, guesses, and gross approximations, a mistake in any of which can invalidate the climate models.

    Can you please give some examples of the myriad of omissions and some examples of the myriad of gross approximations?

    Thanks.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Can you please give some examples of the myriad of omissions and some examples of the myriad of gross approximations?

    Try reading There Is No Evidence for starters.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Mind if I play?

    Omissions

    What must be a number of interactions amongst forcings, because when feedback are adjusted so has to make the simulations of the historical climate match the historical temperature records, the rainfall patterns are (mostly all) wrong. That means that heat transfer, within and external of the atmosphere, must be incorrect.

    The interaction of the Sun’s magnetic field with the Earth’s, which, at certain field strengths, influences cosmic rays attributed to cloud seeding and formation

    Heat patterns geothermal of origin, that account for sub-sea volcanism and accasional aberrant behaviour of heat extraction from geothermal wells

    The origin and infuelce of sulphate aerosol, which appear in the models for no other purpose than to mitigate the influence of GHG. The suilphate influence cannot be as represented in the models, because satellite temperature measurements in the IR are not adjusted for the same sulphate temperature correction as the models are

    Atmospheric dynamics of the lowere stratosphere -upper troposphere, because wind circulation patterns in these regions are reversed by the models from what is known to be the true direction of the winds through which jets travel

    Stabilising influences of nocturnal water evaporation

    The influences of pollution on cloud formation

    Gross Approximations

    It is known that the CGM must be periodically stopped and then restarted at the conditions of blow-up of solutions from mesh elements to mesh elements. This is done by means of flux correlations – wherein new initial conditions are generated by (some other) models for the calculations to begin again. Thus the model simulation at any given time is no better than the errors introduced by resetting the initial conditions, which, at any given time, are unknown (if future) or interpolated (from incomplete data of the past)

    Thermal conductivities of air are not corrected for ionization in the upper atmosphere

    Isotherms of ocean temperatures are grossly approximated and, in isolation, do not even account for such phenomena as trade winds

    there are more, I’m getting bored


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Thanks to Dr David Evans and my new friend, Mike Goad for that.

    I sent it to a number of friends of mine


    Report this

    00

  • #
    player

    robin:

    What do the IPCC predict should happen to the ocean heat content over the falling forcing of a sunspot cycle? I didn’t notice where they did short term predictions in the 2007 report. Can you remind me where it is?

    Are you saying now that the IPCC models predict reality accurately for 100 years EXCEPT when other natural phenomenon muck it up, like solar activity, ENSO, PDO, AMO, Volcanic activity, and a host of other natural causes that haven’t been modeled in the AOGCMS?

    If yes, thank you very much for making my main point – that the AOGCMs do not account for what really happens, and therefore cannot be trusted even in the present time, leave alone in a century!

    If the answer is no, then I expect the AOGCMs to be able to accurate model this decade. And they don’t. Ergo – junk science.

    Cheers, K.

    This is why AGW is a crock.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Robin bewails the fact that he feels “lonely” here


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin Grant

    player wrote:

    Are you saying now that the IPCC models predict reality accurately for 100 years EXCEPT when other natural phenomenon muck it up, like solar activity, ENSO, PDO, AMO, Volcanic activity, and a host of other natural causes that haven’t been modeled in the AOGCMS?

    No, I’m saying I can’t find the predictions that you are talking about. Where are they?

    Note that the IPCC does not do research, they report on the reasearch that has been done. So there is no such think as “an IPCC model”, much less “IPCC models”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin Grant

    Mike Goad wrote:

    Can you please give some examples of the myriad of omissions and some examples of the myriad of gross approximations?

    Try reading There Is No Evidence for starters.

    No thanks. Can you say which pages I should look at to find some examples of the myriad of omissions and some examples of the myriad of gross approximations?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    The IPCC most certainly has approved which GCM predictions are taken as evidence for the AR.

    Guess what – to a small degree of variation, the predictions look like GISS predictions.

    I wonder how that happened, a mystery


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    To find that info in David Evans’s essay, Robin, all you need to do is scroll down the pages until you find what you are looking for.

    You’ll be all right, I promise! Nothing will happen to you.

    [Global warmers must think this is something akin to "pornography"]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Brian G Valentine wrote:

    The IPCC most certainly has approved which GCM predictions are taken as evidence for the AR.

    Guess what – to a small degree of variation, the predictions look like GISS predictions.

    The IPCC looks at all the published research.

    Which GCMs do you claim are left out?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    The point of acting is that it is much cheaper the earlier that you start cutting emissions. (Becuase the CO2 lasts centuries) and that the cost of reducing emissions is about 10% of the cost of adaptation. (If you value your grandchildren nearly as much as yourself).

    So you should act now, and then if the temperature follows the low end of predictions, then wind the carbon tax back a little. (Or sell more credits or whatever). It’s not like the clean technologies will be a loss to the economy even in that case, because the oil won’t last forever.

    This is incorrect logic because economic activity universally results in improved technology, which provides options in future that do not exist now. As I pointed out above with the hybrid boat, the technology that we have now for alternative energy isn’t very good, compared with the established fuel-burning technology. Throttling economic activity merely draws it out longer making it slower for us to develop better technology.

    Think of the CO2 generated by those massive computer models calculating climate change… there’s an example of positive feedback for you. I wonder if the climate modelers bother to include the effects of more government grants being handed out for more climate modeling?

    There’s a worse problem with the Central Planners and the way government operates. If a Carbon Tax is introduced and then we see some cooling, that will be used as justification for more Carbon Tax (because hey it must be working), then we see some warming and that also will be used as justification for more Carbon Tax (because hey we need it to stop the warming). The middle-men who profit from their position as Carbon gatekeepers set themselves up to ensure their position of power is eternal. If you check the history of the USA, the Federal income tax was introduced as a “special measure” for wartime and it was promised never to rise, and guaranteed to be removed again (starting with the Civil War, then same thing happened again with the Sixteenth Amendment in the buildup to the First World War). Of course, none of those promises were worth diddly squat, government grows and grows, tax is virtually impossible to repeal.

    Thus, before we bring in a Carbon Tax, we need to be completely sure there is a good reason for it. Not maybe a little bit sure, guess so kind of sure but we need to be sure enough to make a commitment that we can never step back from.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    This is incorrect logic because economic activity universally results in improved technology, which provides options in future that do not exist now.

    You don’t burn the money when you tax it. It’s income for the government. You can lower other taxes in response.

    There’s no loss to the economic activity.

    If emitting carbon is expensive, the uptake of improved technology will be quicker. (As probably will its development).

    Neither does economic activity always result in improved technology, there also needs to be an economic incentive.

    Microsoft has had 90% of the operating system economic activity on the planet for a couple of decades, and improvement has been greatly retarded because with a monopoly, there was no reason to waste funds on development. Ergo economic activity does not imply improved technology.

    Similarly with fossil fuel technologies. Increasing the financial incentive to use clean technologies will increase the development of clean technologies, and also the uptake of green technologies … which will generally improve the cost of implementing green technologies because of the economies of scale kicking in earlier.

    Thus, before we bring in a Carbon Tax, we need to be completely sure there is a good reason for it. Not maybe a little bit sure, guess so kind of sure but we need to be sure enough to make a commitment that we can never step back from.

    It’s easy to step back from. You reduce the carbon tax again. (and increase income or sales tax to compensate). Because the costs of this are so much lower than the costs of adaptation, it’s also the sensible thing to do if you’re not sure.

    (Of course, I think that we’re pretty sure, but at 10 to one, you’d want to be 90% sure that it’s not the case for it to be a bad decision not to buy the insurance.)

    How It All Ends.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    … for it to be a bad decision to buy the insurance, I mean.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Brian G Valentine wrote:

    Mind if I play?

    If you’re prepared to have people respond to your post.

    What must be a number of interactions amongst forcings, because when feedback are adjusted so has to make the simulations of the historical climate match the historical temperature records, the rainfall patterns are (mostly all) wrong.

    What is the signal that is getting this feedback, given that you don’t believe in the greenhouse effect?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    wilbert Robichaud wrote:

    Clean Energy?

    Yes. Clean Energy.

    what is Clean Energy?

    Low CO2 emission Energy.

    Nuclear, Wind, Geothermal … Hydro only if the lake doesn’t flood vegetation. Possibly some of the emerging concentration solar technologies. Possibly tide. Some people think photoelectric.

    The technologies are becoming more cost competitive by the month.

    what is it built with?

    Optimally fly ash concrete and battery electric or fuel cell or biofuel equipment. But there are dramatic savings to be made by going wind/nuclear over coal/gas in terms of greenhouse emissions even if emissions during construction and fuel mining and delivery are not ameliorated.

    Getting wind to your plant is lower emission than getting Uranium to it. Disposing of used wind is also lower emission. But Nuclear can be better controlled to meet daily peak demand.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    I guess I didn’t make myself clear, before, that I certainly don’t deny that CO2 is a “greenhouse” gas, but what I do doubt very much, is that the influence of that can be discerned amidst the backgound of other influences that are known or have the potential to influence the climate.

    I don’t think there would be a sceptic in the World if there were significant temperature or climate changes over the past 100 years that lie outside of statistical and known variations of climate changes;

    I suppose that a lot of this has to do with one’s interpretation of “significant,” but compared with other measureable quantities that have given rise to the observation or discovery of new phenomena, this statistical variation is not something that falls within the range of “new influences” outside of the known.

    There are numerous “forcing,” surely. [To me "forcing" and "feedback" are their own plural.] One remarkable property of climate over the ages is the remarkable stability to perturbation – there must certainly be interaction among all the possible forcing that are not yet accounted for this to happen, the result of which must be “forcing in the other direction,” better known as damping.

    I think too much time has been spent (or maybe wasted) trying to find negative “feedback” that reverses the effects of the “positive.”

    To me, this is the wrong approach.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    You don’t burn the money when you tax it. It’s income for the government. You can lower other taxes in response.

    There’s no loss to the economic activity.

    If emitting carbon is expensive, the uptake of improved technology will be quicker. (As probably will its development).

    As a thought experiment, let’s make a rule that all supercomputers running climate simulations must run on solar power and (because we want to avoid a displaced “footprint”) the photo voltaic cells driving that supercomputer must be on the roof of the building that houses it (no grid connect). This includes monitors, hard drives, backup systems, network routers, the lot. All must be solar power, that’s my rule to test whether these guys want to eat their own gravy.

    Let that run for a few years and maybe we take a look at how their simulations are going?

    What I’m saying here is that technology requires energy input.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Looking at renewable energy [neglecting for the moment breeder reactors] the cost is so high, the efficiency so low, the land use such a waste, the difficulty in maintianing any sort of reliablility in systems that rely on weather and are thus inherently chaotic

    - this boils down to waste, just waste waste waste pure waste.

    Modern civilisation IS reliable energy including reliable electric power, incliding a National grid, including an infastructure to support it.

    The return to some midieval feudal states just to make some energy scheme workable –

    is right off the reservation.

    Maybe one day somebody can use this approach to colonize Mars, but this won’t work here in the West


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    People used to come into former CEO Jack Welch’s office all day with “new ideas for GE to get involved with.”

    When asked, “how do you decide which ideas have merit, and which do not?”

    - Welch pointed to his nose.

    That is the overall problem with AGW. The whole thing just doesn’t “smell right”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Brian G Valentine wrote:

    June 20th, 2009 at 3:51 pm

    People used to come into former CEO Jack Welch’s office all day with “new ideas for GE to get involved with.”

    When asked, “how do you decide which ideas have merit, and which do not?”

    - Welch pointed to his nose.

    That is the overall problem with AGW. The whole thing just doesn’t “smell right”

    This is why I think that it is a good idea to teach critical thinking in schools.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Absolute agreement

    : )


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    Robin:

    “You don’t burn the money when you tax it. It’s income for the government. You can lower other taxes in response.

    There’s no loss to the economic activity.”

    Utopianism, how sweet. Wait, wait, I know, Robin Grant runs for Prime Minister, we all vote for him and he will single handedly fight the bureaucracies and the opposition and lower taxes for us when he sees fit.

    Any takers?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    Critical thinking in schools and taking on bureaucracies: Margaret Thatcher tried but failed to take on the Education Department in the UK in the 80′s and that’s why the education system there is in shambles. I can just imagine any government, once carbon taxes are in place, trying to take on the Climate Change Department and try to reduce their funding and raison d’etre!

    If anyone is interested in the education debate, read Melanie Phillips’ excellent “All Must Have Prizes” and the Australian “Dumbed Down” by Kevin Donnelly. School children in US, UK and Australia are taught WHAT to think, not HOW to think, thanks to Outcomes Based Education and political correctness.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Taxes are well-known incentive for business!

    Industries are continually clamouring, “More taxes for us! Please! Carbon taxes will boost our bottom line dramatically!”


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Quoting part of post #88 Robin wrote:

    “There a number of reasons why the infamous Oregon petition is an unreliable judge of scientific opinion.

    The dishonesty of making the covering article look as if it had been submitted it PNAS aside, there were no checks of the identity of the signatories, and many were impenetrable to attempts to verify them (and some that were verifiable, when contacted had no recollection of such a petition). (see: SKEPTICISM ABOUT SKEPTICS – Scientific American)”

    I obligingly looked in the link and was amazed that another worthless criticism of the Petition Project was so easily swallowed!

    Here is the ENTIRE witten content I quote from the link concerning the Petition Project:

    “SKEPTICISM ABOUT SKEPTICS

    Many conservatives regard the “scientific consensus” about global warming as a media concoction. After all, didn’t 17,100 skeptical scientists sign a petition circulated in 1998 by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine? (See http://www.oism.org/pproject and http://www.prwatch.org/improp/oism.html on the World Wide Web.)

    Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition—one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers‐a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.”

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

    All from a sample base of 30 names!

    Where are the details of this highly scientific study?

    The Robin goes on with more silly effort to attack the Petition Project:

    “A fair attempt to get around the self-selection bias, (and packing by some extremists in the climate change skeptical community who seemed to have signed the Oregon petition on behalf both of people who didn’t exist, and who didn’t agree with the petition), was done by Doran and Zimmerman.”

    I once again looked at the link Robin privided.Once again NO credible attack was made against the Petition Project itself,BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER MENTIONED AT ALL!

    It is obvious that you fail see why attacking the Petition Project in this manner only makes you seem irrational.Here is the actual petition that people were asked to consider signing after reading a science papers in the UPDATED version:

    http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWPetition.pdf

    I have dealt with many feeble objections against the petition over the years.Yours spectaculary failed as well since your two links did not support your claim,quoting you again:

    “There a number of reasons why the infamous Oregon petition is an unreliable judge of scientific opinion”

    If there were evidence of fraud such as packing names onto the petition signee list of people who never signed.It would be easy to prove it.But it never happens does it?

    He he…..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Well, I signed it.

    Now Robin knows that 1 of 31,700 signatures is authentic.

    only 31,699 left to verify


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Brian G Valentine wrote:

    June 21st, 2009 at 11:18 pm

    Absolute agreement

    : )

    Humans are superstitious by nature.

    If you think that “smell” is a judge of logic and reason isn’t. You’re going to get it wrong much more often that you’re going to get it right.

    Critical thinking is the knowledge of these frailties of human reasoning, and the ability to recognise them in oneself, and thereby avoid them. (As much as possible).

    Smell is not evidence, it is the sum of your preconceived notions. Considering it as evidence is yet another way to avoid evidence and maintain your current beliefs, whether they are right or wrong.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Anne-Kit Littler wrote:

    Robin:

    “You don’t burn the money when you tax it. It’s income for the government. You can lower other taxes in response.

    There’s no loss to the economic activity.”

    Utopianism, how sweet.

    How is a change to taxation “Utopianism”?

    Was the GST “Utopianism” too, simply because other taxes were lowered?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    sunsettommy (Thomas Pearson) wrote:

    All from a sample base of 30 names!

    30 samples gives you a maximum standard margin of error of about 5%. ((p)(1-p))/√n. It’s not that bad for a cheap glace to see if a survey is good or not. The Oregon Petition was poor enough that it’s shortcomings show up on this resolution.

    The point is that there were signatories there who had not signed the petition and other signatories that didn’t exist. (And some who had died).

    There are much better surveys of scientific opinion than the Oregon Petition.

    sunsettommy (Thomas Pearson) wrote:

    Where are the details of this highly scientific study?

    The reporter at the Scientific American, took a sample of names on the petition, and tried to contact the people.

    It’s not especially rigorous, but you don’t need much rigour to find that some of the signatories never heard of the petition, some have since changed their minds, some have since died, and some never existed. Therefore the claims of 31,000 scientists does not relate to 31,000 existent scientists who still hold that belief.

    I’m slightly amused by this criticism of Scientific American by you. You do know that the details of the petition have not been released. They don’t want you knowing how many survey cards were sent out to date.

    sunsettommy (Thomas Pearson) wrote:

    I once again looked at the link Robin privided.Once again NO credible attack was made against the Petition Project itself,BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER MENTIONED AT ALL!

    You have mistaken my meaning. Doran and Zimmermann is an example of a reasonable survey or scientific opinion, not a critique of a highly questionable one. And neither would it be. It’s a scientifically based survey published in a peer-reviewed journal. The Oregon Petition isn’t really of an academic standing in which it would warrant any attention in such a forum.

    A pop-science magazine such as Scientific American might have a go though.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    If you think that “smell” is a judge of logic and reason isn’t. You’re going to get it wrong much more often that you’re going to get it right.

    Nah. And the older you get, the better your intuition gets – because you have seen so much in the past.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Robin writes:

    “30 samples gives you a maximum standard margin of error of about 5%. ((p)(1-p))/√n. It’s not that bad for a cheap glace to see if a survey is good or not. The Oregon Petition was poor enough that it’s shortcomings show up on this resolution.

    The point is that there were signatories there who had not signed the petition and other signatories that didn’t exist. (And some who had died).

    There are much better surveys of scientific opinion than the Oregon Petition.”

    The survey in that link was bereft of any compelling details.That is why it is not worth anything.It could be designed to achieve a biased purpose.WHO are those 30 names they did not tell us about?

    That is the second time you have made a claim that people’s names are on the petition who never signed it.How about the idea of proving it beyond mere statements? Otherwise you are blowing smoke and I am immune to it, since I have been dealing with these lame claims for 10 years now.

    If they happened at the rate you seem to imply why no lawsuits for fraud? It should be easy since the names are prominently displayed at the Petition Project website.

    The Scientific American did not discredit anything since it was a contrived survey with the purpose of trying to cast doubts against names that are apparently real.Even S.American thinks they are real.Despite that they failed to provide details past the 30 names for the rest of us to check.How about telling us who those 30 names were?

    Robin writes:

    “The reporter at the Scientific American, took a sample of names on the petition, and tried to contact the people.”

    But of course they could not tell us who those 30 names they came up with.They also did not tell in any detail how often they tried to contact people.

    “It’s not especially rigorous, but you don’t need much rigour to find that some of the signatories never heard of the petition, some have since changed their minds, some have since died, and some never existed. Therefore the claims of 31,000 scientists does not relate to 31,000 existent scientists who still hold that belief.”

    It is not difficult to actually to make two dots and have a line go from one to the other.You keep claiming that some signatories never heard of the petition.If this was true why not those alleged victims demand to have the names taken off the list of file a class action lawsuit? You do know what Fraud is,do you?

    But it never seems to happen.The names are listed at the Petition website and the signed papers are supposed to be on file.All explained at the OSM website.Why does the obvious point of attack elude you and the alleged victims?

    If some of the people who earlier signed the petitions changed their minds,all they have to do is request that their be removed.After all they do know where to have it done,as they have no excuse for not knowing where the website is.

    “I’m slightly amused by this criticism of Scientific American by you. You do know that the details of the petition have not been released. They don’t want you knowing how many survey cards were sent out to date.”

    I was a subscriber of that magazine for a while,I am aware of their reputation.I am aware that the only details of the Petition is what we see at the website.We both know that they have not posted actual paper ballots on the website,but they did publish the NAMES there.As I have written several times now,that it is fraud to add peoples names to a petition without SIGNED approval.But I never see these easy to prove lawsuits of alleged wrongdoing.When will that ever sink in you people?

    They only published how many people signed the paper ballots that were mailed in.The total number of ballots they sent out is not relevant,because they only showed evidence that there are no “scientific consensus” existing that you alarmists commonly lyingly claim exist and that a lot of people who signed thought the Kyoto Treaty was bad.That was the main purpose of the petitions.

    Quoting from your first link:

    “Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science.”

    Did they tall us who those 30 people were?

    How do we know that,

    “Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition—one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages.”

    is true since Scientific American did not tell us who those 30 people were.I suppose that you are going to just accept their unsupported claims.

    He he…..

    “You have mistaken my meaning. Doran and Zimmermann is an example of a reasonable survey or scientific opinion, not a critique of a highly questionable one. And neither would it be. It’s a scientifically based survey published in a peer-reviewed journal. The Oregon Petition isn’t really of an academic standing in which it would warrant any attention in such a forum.”

    I am aware of what you are trying to do.But it still does not prove your claims against the Petition Project.That is because you are unhappy that your cherished consensus is proven false and that a lot of signatories thought the Kyoto Treaty was a bad idea.

    The meaning of the words Petition and Survey are not the same.

    The Oregon Petition Project told us what they did to get people to sign the paper ballots.They then posted the results of the balloting on the website.It is all spelled out clearly what they did,right in their website.Too bad you are being irrational about it.

    “A pop-science magazine such as Scientific American might have a go though.”

    ROFLMAO!

    If they just provide more details such as actual names of just 30 people,then I might take them more seriously.

    Scientific American has been declining for years and a reason why I left that increasinly ragged magazine.They were incredibly unfair with Bjorn Lomborg a while back.

    Robin you apparently fail to see how feeble the claims are against the Petition list really is.If they really had a compelling case against it,they would have done far better than they have.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    “Brian G Valentine:
    June 22nd, 2009 at 6:26 am
    Well, I signed it.

    Now Robin knows that 1 of 31,700 signatures is authentic.

    only 31,699 left to verify.”

    I think you meant for Robin to disprove.

    I know of a few more who signed it too,and even a few who stated the REFUSED to sign it!

    I know since they told me.

    LOL


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Sounds like a good enough sample to me, Tommy.

    So, we can conclude that all signatures to the Oregon Petition are authentic and credentials are accurately represented.

    To at least 99% certainty.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Brian G Valentine wrote:

    Nah. And the older you get, the better your intuition gets – because you have seen so much in the past.

    Poor critical thinking is poor critical thinking at any age.

    I’m yet to see a study that shows the intuition improves with age. I’ve seen ones that show that intuition’s correctness is not related to how sure the person is. And you sound pretty sure your nose is better than your brain.

    I recommend using the brain in all cases.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    WHO are those 30 names they did not tell us about?

    They were a random sample.

    If they happened at the rate you seem to imply why no lawsuits for fraud? It should be easy since the names are prominently displayed at the Petition Project website.

    Because its difficult and expensive to prove that you have suffered financial loss by being on the petition.

    But of course they could not tell us who those 30 names they came up with.They also did not tell in any detail how often they tried to contact people.

    They’re a pop science magazine, not the high court.
    Crikey, if your standards of record keeping are that high, why doesn’t it offend you that the Oregon Petition won’t say how many cards it sent out? Or how any verification was done?

    Scientific American are not known for their fraud. And neither are they the only one who noticed that the Oregon petition was dodgy.

    http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?fded5949-97a0-41e8-ad66-bba0fa15e61f

    http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19980501&slug=2748308

    http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=s04201998

    You keep claiming that some signatories never heard of the petition.If this was true why not those alleged victims demand to have the names taken off the list of file a class action lawsuit? You do know what Fraud is,do you?

    Because no verifiable financial damage has been done.

    If some of the people who earlier signed the petitions changed their minds,all they have to do is request that their be removed.After all they do know where to have it done,as they have no excuse for not knowing where the website is.

    Do they?
    When I change my mind about something, I’ve never thought to wrack my brain to see if it affects any of the petitions that I’ve signed over the years, and then write to them all asking them what the wording of the petition was so I can decide if my new position is counter to the wording and get my name removed if warranted.

    Do you? Do you also go through all the petitions that you’ve had your name removed from, to check if you should unremove your name from them?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Brian G Valentine wrote:

    Well, I signed it.

    Now Robin knows that 1 of 31,700 signatures is authentic.

    only 31,699 left to verify

    Well, no, I can’t even verify that one. There doesn’t appear to be a Brian Valentine amongst the signatories.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Robin,

    Regarding #342, it’s good that you can concede that the effect of doubling CO2 is limited to 0.9C, excluding the hypothetical feedback. Many of your
    fellow AGW believers can’t even get this far. According to radiative transfer codes, CO2 reflects about 40 W/m^2 (a better characterization than
    absorb or capture), or about 10% of the total surface energy @ 289K, and a third of all greenhouse gas reflection. While increasing CO2 reflection by
    nearly 10% (3.7 W/m^2) by doubling the CO2 concentration is a bit of a stretch, it’s only off by a factor of 2 and hardly worth arguing about.
    The bogus energy amplification of 5.5 implied by the IPCC sensitivity heuristic is so far out of bounds that it deserves serious argument and my
    reasons for rejecting it haven’t changed.

    Now, lets move on to how CO2 operates, starting with what it doesn’t do. It doesn’t create energy, retain energy permanently or hide energy in any way. It’s only climate related action is to defer the release of surface energy whose original source was the Sun. Quantifiably and qualifiedly, the reflection of red light, while letting the other colors pass is a simple, yet accurate way to describe the effect of CO2 if you consider the radiation of the Earth to be the visible spectrum.

    The radiative transfer codes tell us that about 11% of the Earth’s emitted energy spectrum is reflected by CO2, about 21% is reflected by water vapor and another percent or so is reflected by other gases. The remaining 2/3 of the surface energy passes through a relatively transparent atmospheric window bounded by the CH4 absorption line on one side (about 7.5u) and the CO2 line on the other (about 15u). It’s not completely transparent owing to relatively weak water vapor continuum absorption and the weak ozone line at about 10u.

    After capturing a 15u photon, the temperature of a CO2 molecule is increased by hundreds of degrees C. This energy is rapidly transferred to the other gases in the atmosphere per the Kinetic Theory of Gases and is either sent into space, or sent back to the surface. This energy transfer has the property of transforming the original narrow band energy into broad band energy, 10% of which will also be absorbed and reflected by other CO2, possibly after a subsequent absorption and emission by the surface, and so on and so forth. After a short time, all of the energy in the captured 15u photon will find it’s way into space. For perspective on the time constant, consider radiative cooling on a dry, clear winter night. When there is little atmospheric water vapor, more of the energy reflection is via CO2, which clearly isn’t enough to keep the temperature from falling
    rapidly. For all intents and purposes, the greenhouse effect of CO2 is a dinural effect, whose influence extends the escape of energy accumulated during the day into the night.

    A significant difference between GHG reflected energy and incident energy is that incident energy from the Sun is ‘new’, while GHG reflected energy is ‘old’. If you count the forcing of this energy as it came from the Sun, you can’t count it again when it’s bounced back to the surface by GHG. Technically speaking, forcing is something that drives the system. GHG ‘forcing’ simply reorganizes existing energy by modifying the setpoint between the surface energy and the energy leaving the planet. Treating GHG reflected energy as if it was new forcing energy is why many models fail to converge and predict nonsense runaway effects.

    A feedback you may not appreciate is that the emission spectrum moves away from the CO2 line as it warms, proportionally reducing energy reflected by CO2 by more than the CH4 reflected energy increases. If you look at the absorption spectrum it’s a band pass filter for energy with wavelengths between about 8u and 14u. The climate works as a sweet spot amplifier, where the sweet spot is the energy spectrum between 8u and 14u. The climate system operates by maximizing the amount of energy passing through this sweet spot, which just happens to coincide with a temperature range consistent with liquid water and ideal for biology.

    Regarding post #386. The time constant relative to the forcing component alone is meaningless. The time constant is a system level attribute which can be related to the ratio of the stored energy to the total energy flux. For example, in an RC circuit, the time constant is given by R times C. R is inversely proportional to flux (current increases with smaller R) and C is proportional to the amount of energy that can be stored. All it means when we can detect changes in the heat content of the oceans is that the oceans respond faster than you think to changes in energy.

    Another point about the oceans is that cold water sinks and warm water rises. There is no where for heat to hide, except on the surface, where it immediately contributes to the global average surface temperature. There is also little energy flux between the deep oceans and the surface. The evidence of this is dT/dx through the thermocline. The magnitude of this is small and on the order of the energy flux from the Earth’s surface, except opposite in sign. The thermal connection between the deep ocean and surface waters at the equator goes through the poles.

    Incremental GHG reflection, or for that matter, energy from any source, can’t accumulate as you say without resulting in immediate warming. The idea that energy gets stored in the thermal mass and that the warming it produces is deferred by decades violates COE. As the thermal mass warms, it radiates more energy which causes it to cool. It doesn’t matter what caused it to warm, this very strong negative feedback from thermodynamics keeps heat from accumulating without bounds.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Intuition IS the brain, Robin – it’s the brain working in gestalt mode


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Robin, Re #328

    Yes, I have noticed that many of the skeptics are among those who have been able to take time time necessary to go out and actually understand the science. I don’t consider that a negative. While not retired myself, I don’t need to work all the time and can dedicate time to this. I do this because I recognize that the consensus is absolutely and irreconcilably wrong and if we allow the agendas underlying this false consensus to proceed, I will never be able to retire.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Robin, again Re #328.

    BTW, the only correlation involving those who deny the cigarette and cancer link is with those who smoke, which is a factor unrelated to the actual science. Ad hominem attacks aside, it’s very common that AGW proponents fail to discern the difference between correlation and coincidence.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kendra

    co2isnotevil:

    I don’t understand – please clarify the first sentence in your post no. 390!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Kendra,

    This was in response to another post which denigrated a skeptic because of a history of denial of the cigarette to cancer link where I simply pointed out that the motivation for such denial is addiction which has nothing to do with climate and CO2. The correlation is from my experiences, where the only people I have ever met who deny the cigarette to cancer link were smokers themselves.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kendra (Schauwecker) Switzerland

    Thanks co2: However, I have studied the cigarette to cancer link in depth and while, yes, there is a correlation – but not causation – this is only one of many other correlations, indeed I think Post Offices have even played a role.

    I will take your intent for the meaning of the word link simply to be a contributary factor (correlation) among many, many others. I do have the problem with your assumption that those few who might deny ANY link are only smokers (actually some are authentic scientists – heretics, I guess!), as I’ve come across many non-smokers who simply question the “science.” However, I know of no one who does not deny smoking might play a role, to some extent, and in some circumstances. Thank you for at least not calling them “shills of big tobacco.”

    Actually, in my intensive study of smoking and health, I do believe that for certain at risk people, smoking taken together with other “confounders” plays a contributory role in some cases. So I am glad you said link, rather than causation.

    Anecdotes:

    1. One of the studies to “prove smoking causes cancer” has various information that can be compared aside from what was touted in press releases. For instance: comparing non-smokers who didn’t eat vegetables with smokers who ate vegetables showed a better outcome for the veggie smokers.

    2. Women in Hong Kong who stir fry a lot have a high risk of lung cancer.

    3. Japanese smoke like chimneys and have a lower risk.

    4. Comparisons between rural and urban areas show a much stronger link to developing cancer in the urban (exhaust, other pollution) areas.

    I could go on infinitum – and then there’s the whole secondary smoke scam.

    I can get links for everything, but this is “off-topic” so I only want to make one point. Pseudo/politicized science is taking many forms and for many reasons (have you noticed the obesity crisis?) Although we must choose our battles, we must acknowledge that junk science must be fought on every level, we are all truthseekers.

    The Tobacco Control movement is a forerunner, amicrocosm of everything that’s going on, based on totally corrupt, biased, cherry-picked studies, etc., etc., and everyone seems to confuse the word Unpleasant with the word Harmful. Lives have already been destroyed, people have been stigmatized, cultures have been vandalized, property and civil rights usurped, businesses and jobs lost, onerous taxes without representation imposed. The consequences we fear for schemes such as cap and trade has already been imposed on a significant percentage of adults, who are suffering from draconian meansures everyday. It’s all already happened, in the interests of special lobby groups using junk science and those who are zealots/tyrants. And no one gives a damn – after all they’re only lowlife smokers.

    Interestingly, all of my colleagues who have discovered the fraud and lies in that area have gone on to look at other so-called science, notably climate change. Without exception, they get it. Whereas they, the lowly smokers who “smell like an ashtray” are considered quantité negligable – because you don’t approve.

    To sum up, we all have to pick our battles, but when it comes to fraudulent science to push through totalitarian measures, we must stand together against the use of it for social and economic control in whatever context it appears. We choose our areas of expertise, mine is tobacco control but now educating myself in climate change as well. I originally started with FDA / pharma bogus science and corruption.

    Joanne, forgive me for the off-topic but this is something that must be brought up. The same forces are driving and corrupting a number of areas. Thanks for your patience.

    I love your site (looking forward to more).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    I smoke tobacco – so big deal – Al Gore says smoking causes global warming!

    Al Gore’s family became rich enough as tobacco growers and merchants for Albert and his father Albert to run for political office – and get fat – instead of working for a living

    Now THAT shows the evils of tobacco very clearly, if you ask me


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Brian G Valentine wrote:

    I smoke tobacco – so big deal – Al Gore says smoking causes global warming!

    Do you have a citation for this?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    I have studied the cigarette to cancer link in depth and while, yes, there is a correlation – but not causation –

    I didn’t know that there wasn’t a causal link. I knew that second hand smoke caused the build-up of carcinogens in the lungs of pigeons, and exposure to second hand smoke of mice with lung cancers significantly increased the tumour size, weight, capillary density, VEGF and MCP-1 levels, and circulating endothelial progenitor cells, but I haven’t seen anything for humans.

    Why do people who smoke get cancer? (Or vice-versa)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    co2isnotevil wrote:

    BTW, the only correlation involving those who deny the cigarette and cancer link is with those who smoke, which is a factor unrelated to the actual science. Ad hominem attacks aside, it’s very common that AGW proponents fail to discern the difference between correlation and coincidence.

    AGW proponents are about 80% of the scientific community and about 97% of actively publishing scientists in the field of climate change. So I suspect that your generalisations about mistaking correlation with causation are unsupportable.

    I didn’t say that it wasn’t co-incidence. Whether or not institutions such as the Heartland Institute and Junkscience take on both issues from the less mainstream scientific perspective because of a collaboration of science denial managed from the industry end, with a view to better obfuscating their industry ties than by being a one issue group, the fact remains that many of the high profile denialists are vociferous on both issues.

    Lindzen, (the late) Singer and Seitz, are probably the highest profile deniers outside the blogosphere, and they have all also spoken about the smoking/cancer link.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    co2isnotevil wrote:

    Yes, I have noticed that many of the skeptics are among those who have been able to take time time necessary to go out and actually understand the science.

    The Doran and Zimmerman survey shows that to be exactly wrong. The more someone knows about science, and the more a scientist knows about climate science, and the more a climate scientist knows about climate change all lead to a greater acceptance that the warming is significantly anthropogenic.

    I don’t consider that a negative. While not retired myself, I don’t need to work all the time and can dedicate time to this. I do this because I recognize that the consensus is absolutely and irreconcilably wrong and if we allow the agendas underlying this false consensus to proceed, I will never be able to retire.

    So you think that climate science is absolutely and irreconcilably wrong eh?

    Which is your main point of contention?
    a) human activity has increased the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gasses.
    b) increasing the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gasses increases the greenhouse effect.
    or
    c) the resulting warming is the same order of magnitude as can be found from a wide range of evidence (some of which I cite above)

    Because you seem to accept b and c, to within an order of magnitude. (Even to within a factor of 3). But point (a) can be shown from observational evidence, so it appears that this misunderstanding can be rapidly resolved. (And you can peacefully retire).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    co2isnotevil wrote:

    I’m aware of the Hansen paper and don’t put much stock in it. His arguments have been widely disputed, so I won’t waste my time disputing them individually or disparaging him, so I’ll only complement him on his achievements.

    I’m not aware of such refutations. Do you have a citation for some of them? Were the refutations also published in Science? I couldn’t find them.

    I think it was brilliant in the way that he brought his pet cause to the forefront despite an utter lack of unambiguous evidence. Manipulating politicians like Gore is not an easy thing to do. Making this a political issue was a stroke of genius. Right or wrong, he could get his way. The way that the error in the data was pushed in favor of his theory, or more likely, small corrections that go against AGW are the first things cut from budgets, was so well obscured and justified that he felt comfortable in citing this data anomaly as support of his claims. He happens to be wrong, but I’m sure he would have a difficult time letting go of this as his career is defined by his position on AGW. Wasn’t he the first to raise the alarm?

    You seem to have got sidetracked into an ad-hominem against Hansen. There US has a few hundred scientists who are regularly publishing papers on climate change counting earth scientists alone. Climate change doesn’t hinge on Hansen, he’s just one of hundreds. And ad hominem is a logical fallacy. If you want be to believe he is wrong, you’ll have to show me why.

    http://www.palisad.com/co2/avg_temp.gif
    http://www.palisad.com/co2/avg_temp_3.gif

    Your figures have a much more significant annual periodicity than any global temperature data I have seen, including the NASA set, from where you seem to be claiming you sourced your data.

    Why the difference?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Tel wrote:

    What I’m saying here is that technology requires energy input.

    Less so than transportation or construction.

    And Wind is very competitive economically. (Figures for the US were wind power cost about 5% more than gas power … hardly an economic collapse even without the economies of scale that a carbon tax would facilitate.)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Robin, re #398

    My point of contention is with c). The effect predicted by the IPCC of 3C for doubling CO2 is way off. The maximum supportable by the physics is less than 1C, including feedbacks, and even that uses the inflated forcing power predicted by the IPCC heuristic. The most significant warming seen in the nearly 25 year weather satellite data history is a documented change in the way that the data was processed, shortly after 9/11, which ended up biasing the surface temperatures by as much as 1C, but still within the margin of error. Over this same 25 year period, almost 1C of the suspected warming should have occurred and it hasn’t. Unless you recognize this discontinuity in the data, you can be misled to see a small temperature increase when examining only yearly averages. I’ve seen oblique references to Hanson using this in his papers as evidence of warming, which is particularly disconcerting, as he is the gatekeeper of the satellite data.

    Here are plots of Hanson’s data.

    http://www.palisad.com/co2/avg_temp.gif
    http://www.palisad.com/co2/avg_temp_3.gif

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin Grant

    co2isnotevil wrote:

    The maximum supportable by the physics is less than 1C, including feedbacks, and even that uses the inflated forcing power predicted by the IPCC heuristic.

    The calculations above show that the physics gives about 1°C, excluding feedbacks, not, as you claim, including feedbacks.

    Do you accept that it is physically possible for the feedbacks to be positive?

    co2isnotevil wrote:

    The most significant warming seen in the nearly 25 year weather satellite data history is a documented change in the way that the data was processed, shortly after 9/11, which ended up biasing the surface temperatures by as much as 1C, but still within the margin of error.

    Where is that documented?

    Why wasn’t the new processing technique backdated to the past data?

    co2isnotevil wrote:

    Here are plots of Hanson’s data.

    http://www.palisad.com/co2/avg_temp.gif
    http://www.palisad.com/co2/avg_temp_3.gif

    Yes, so you said above. The periodicity looks strange compared to other temperature data sets, including NASA’s (which would be Hansen’s). What is the cause of the 12 month periodicity in this data, when such a peridicity doesn’t occur in other global temperature data?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Robin,

    At 3.7 W/m*2, the open loop increase in surface temperature from Stefan-Boltzman is 0.67 C. This can be calculated as follows:

    P = oT^4, where o=5.6704E-8 W/m^2K^4.

    289K -> 395.55 W/m^2

    395.55 + 3.7 = 399.25

    399.25 W/m^2 -> 289.67K

    dT = 289.67 – 289 = 0.67C

    The net feedback has many components, The most important relative to long term climate change is that of surface ice, which is highly positive during transitions between ice ages and interglacials. At minimum and maximum extents, the feedback is still positive, but it’s magnitude is greatly reduced and approac. The reason is that the system is at one end or the other of the dynamic range of the ebb and flow of surface ice. Consider the limits. If there is no ice whatsoever, there is no ice feedback. Similarily, if the Earth is 100% covered in ice, there is no ice feedback.

    The next most important long term feedback component is biology. As energy drops and biomass shrinks, energy is shifted from constructing biomass to heating the planet and as more incident energy drives biomass increases, energy is shifted from heating the planet to constructing biomass. This is a moderate negative feedback with time constants on the order of centuries, as ecosystems adapt.

    Other effects, like outgasing and the effect CO2 has on surface temperature act so quickly that they’re not apparent in the ice core data.

    The long term average feedback seems close to 0. It seems more positive during transitions between ice ages and interglacials and is closer to zero, or even negative, at the climate limits. The fact that it’s different between transitions and at the limits is another reason why the IPCC estimate of climate sensitivity is bogus.

    You also seem to be confusing feedback with gain. Both must be considered before understanding the response. In fact, the real effect of CO2 is not to force the system, but to change the response of the system to changes in incident energy.

    The 1C value comes from observations, where even with the various biases and inaccuracies in the data, the CO2 has increased by enough since weather satellite data has been accumulated that if the no feedback effect of doubling CO2 was greater than 0.67C, should be discernible in the data and it’s not, which means that even the 3.7 W/m^2 number is an over estimation.

    The data in the plots I sent is directly from the GISS ftp site. It’s extracted from the D2 data set which aggregates samples from many satellites into 280 Km on a side regions of surface and reports monthly averages for each 3 hour portion of the day. The data reported is surface temperature, cloud temperature, cloud reflectivity/emissivity (optical depth), surface reflectivity and the percentage clouds, all of which are relatively trivially connected to the measured radiance values from the satellites. Pressure and atmospheric vertical temperature profiles and over 100 other derived cloud type and subtype classification variables are also in the data set.

    Did you notice that the global average is lower in January and higher in June? The Sun is closer in January and about 80 W/m^2 more energy arrives than in June. This is also highly obscured in the Nasa data as most of their incident energy data is AU normalized, which cancels out the variability between perihelion and aphelion.

    The data documentation is here:

    http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/errors.html

    I also have email confirmation from Rossow that this is a calibration issue with no plans to fix it. The error labeled, “Systematic Decrease in Surface Temperatures Due to Changes in NOAA Operational Sounder Analysis” is the one he said was responsible when I pointed out the error, although the timing isn’t exactly right. There are several other changes that would seem to be related in the 10/2001 time frame, but they were only applied to other data sets and not the D2 data set.

    This error is present in many of the NASA data sets. It can be obscured by reporting a running average of 3-12 months. Then it just appears as a slow temperature increase.

    The reason it’s not fixed is most likely because of discretionary budgeting. Why should Hansen budget money to fix something when it doesn’t help his case. I wouldn’t even be surprised if the data processing changes were put in place because it made his case appear better by pushing error in a favorable direction.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    EJ

    Is there an ignore the idiot button? I tried to follow the thread, but the idiot Robin …

    I am sorry, but he/she is like a sociologist in a physics lab.

    Is there a button, seriously?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wilbert Robichaud

    … it is like trying to pick up a turd from the clean end.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin Grant

    Brian G Valentine wrote:

    June 23rd, 2009 at 3:09 am
    Robin that’s crazy

    http://www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_last_name.php?run=V

    You are there.

    The link above takes you to here though:

    http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p435.htm

    Where you aren’t.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin Grant

    EJ wrote:

    Is there an ignore the idiot button? I tried to follow the thread, but the idiot Robin …

    I am sorry, but he/she is like a sociologist in a physics lab.

    Is there a button, seriously?

    You don’t log in to view the page, so I think that all comers are being served the same HTML.

    So your choices seem to be skip over the comments you don’t like yourself, or make an ad hominem post, to try to drag the person down to your level, where you can beat them with experience.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin Grant

    wilbert Robichaud wrote:

    … it is like trying to pick up a turd from the clean end.

    Than you for this insightful comment.

    It doesn’t answer all the points that you have left dangling above though.

    1) I think that the relationship between temperature and kidney stone incidence is well supported by data. What makes you think that the WHO is “making numbers up out of thin air”?

    2) You claimed that Oreskes’ essay was deliberately deceptively titled, and cherry picked.

    How is the titling of the paper “deliberately deceptive?”

    Cherry picking would be looking through the papers and choosing the ones that meet your requried criteria. Oreskes chose all 928 papers that met the search term in the decade that she looked at. That’s not cherry picking.

    3) you claim that “Benny Peiser’s paper has NOT been refuted.

    How do you explain his coresspondence with mediawatch (linked above) in which he withdrew his criticism of Oreskes?

    And his acceptance that only 1 of his 34 papers was correctly classified as refuting the consensus. (And that one was not peer reviewed).

    4) You claimed that the information I posted about 12 recent northern hemisphere temperature reconstructions was biased because these papers were mentioned in the IPCC report.

    Can you provide some citiations to other reconstructions that were not represented? Or provide some reason for suspecting that these papers are erroneous?

    Thanks!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Tell it to the Marines


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Robin,

    When you were on the oism site, did you look at this?

    http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    EJ

    I caution Robin that, once shown wrong, then forever after suspect. Just like a witness in a trial.

    Real world professionals don’t get a second chance, nor do real world witnesses. Why should you or the myriad of the scientists you lean on get a second chance?

    Robin, go to Wiki, they have a great description of the ‘Scientific Method’. There is a word in there, empirical, that is inherent for a theory to be scientific.

    History shows again and again, … the folly of men.

    95% of all GCM’s are currently falsified, let alone unvalidated.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    EJ wrote:

    I caution Robin that, once shown wrong, then forever after suspect. Just like a witness in a trial.

    So you would agree that because of the dishonesty and poor verification of the Oregon Petition in the past, we are correct to be suspect of them now.

    Good.

    95% of all GCM’s are currently falsified, let alone unvalidated.

    They produce some things better than others, and global mean temperatures better than regional temperatures.

    But “falsified” means forged or tainted. The suggestion that the world’s climate scientists are all committing fraud is the conspiracy theory that I find so poor an argument, both for its logical weakness (show me what aspect of the models is non-physical, rather use what is essentially an ad hominem against climate modellers), and for its highly speculative and frankly unlikely conclusions (explain why 97% everyone is comitting this fraud, no matter how young, from what country, whether they work for a private, government or educational research organisation).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    co2isnotevil wrote:

    Robin,

    When you were on the oism site, did you look at this?

    http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

    No I didn’t George.

    Do you think using the 0.1% of the worlds surface that is the Sargasso sea to imply that temperatures were warmer in the MWP than now is disingenuous, when all the northern hemisphere temperature reconstructions have shown the opposite?

    And do you think that claiming the shortening of glaciers that began before the use of hydrocarbon fuels is disingenuous because CO2 had been rising from land use change since a couple of centuries before that?

    And do you think that looking for a correlation between CO2 levels and temperature is naieve, considering we know that there is a 25-50 year lag?

    And don’t you think arguments that it is solar activity that is causing the current warming are clearly wrong because there has been a cooling of the stratosphere, showing that it is something keeping the heat trapped in the troposphere, not extra irradiance from above that is causing the warming. And that most of the warming has occurred in winter and at night, also eliminating the sun as a cause?

    And do you think that the claims that the temperature change is small because, it is small compared to day night difference, (of the 110°C range that is not much short of the full range from the coldest to the hottest temperatures measured on earth), is disingenuous because many species exist only in an annual mean temperature range of less than 0.5°C, so it is significant for biodiversity? (In a way that 110°C is not, since no species exists comfortably at both extremes of this.)

    This is the sort of writing that demonstrates the need for peer review, because there is such a low signal to noise ratio on the subject of climate change. (And perhaps this is why these people put out their paper that they included with the first petition formatted to look as if it was a submission to PNAS; so that people would give it some respect that it clearly doesn’t deserve).

    I would be embarrassed to be associated with a group that was involved in such blatant misrepresentation. I don’t think that OISM do denial any credit, and am genuinely surprised that people such as Thomas would defend them over Scientific American, who can be a bit sensationalist, but don’t had a history of reporting outright lies.

    I personally think that climate change scepticism would be best served by admitting that the OISM are and have been disingenuous, and that their approach is not representative of the sceptical community in general, rather than tainting yourselves with association with such purposeful misinformation. Don’t you?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Robin,

    You say, “But “falsified” means forged or tainted.”

    That’s a misunderstanding of the concept of scientific falsifiability.

    Falsifiability (or refutability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is “falsifiable” does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment. Falsifiability is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science. The term “Testability” is related but more specific; it means that an assertion can be falsified through experimentation alone. (Wikipedia)

    The test that a theory is scientific, according to the influential views of Karl Popper. Especially in Conjectures and Refutations (1963), Popper argued that science can never prove things to be true, but it can prove them to be false. It can never prove things to be true by what has been known since Hume as the ‘problem of induction’. ‘All swans are white’ is either part of the definition of the word ‘swan’, or a generalization about swans based on observations of all known examples. When settlers first saw black swans in Western Australia, they could have denied that what they saw were swans. As Hobbes said, ‘True and false are attributes of speech, not of things’. However, as a purely linguistic convention, it has been agreed that black swans are swans. Therefore ‘All swans are white’ is an example of a falsifiable, and false, scientific generalization. Thus a Popperian scientist must try to formulate a generalization which the scientist believes to be true but formulates in a way that is open to falsification. (answers.com)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wilbert Robichaud

    He withdrew only this as a direct criticism of her paper. The rest of his criticism remains such as only 13 (1%) explicitly endorse the ‘consensus view’. Removing the 34 papers is irrelevant as Peiser’s study cleary shows that no consensus exists and Oreskes was not looking at all the papers (928 out of 12,000). Conclusion: Oreske’s paper is debunked and worthless.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Mike Goad wrote:

    Robin,

    You say, “But “falsified” means forged or tainted.”

    That’s a misunderstanding of the concept of scientific falsifiability.

    I suppose he could have meant scientific falsifiability. But a climate model isn’t a theory or assertion, to which the term scientific term “falsifiable” would apply. It’s a tool for understanding how each individual physical process takes part in the climate system. They can certainly be inaccurate, but I don’t think that that’s the scientific concept that you are talking about.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Re #413

    Robin, with all you like to plaster on these pages as your “knowledge” – I cannot believe you’re that naïve

    Wow that one was a shock to me


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wilbert Robichaud

    How is the titling of the paper “deliberately deceptive?”

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7228/full/nature07669.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    hahaha

    makes my day


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    wilbert Robichaud wrote:

    He withdrew only this as a direct criticism of her paper.

    Only what?

    The rest of his criticism remains such as only 13 (1%) explicitly endorse the ‘consensus view’.

    Why would a paper explicitly endorse an accepted truth?

    I don’t think you would find many papers in the last 20 years explicitly endorsing that the world is not flat either.

    It is that most papers simply implicitly endorse the scientific view, and go on to study impacts, or methods of study, or mitigation proposals that shows how strong the consensus is in the scientific community. (That and the complete lack of peer reviewed papers refuting the consensus).

    Removing the 34 papers is irrelevant as Peiser’s study cleary shows that no consensus exists,

    I don’t think that it does. To do that I claim it would have to show that there are papers that either explicitly or implicitly reject the consensus. Which, once the 34 papers are removed, it doesn’t.

    (Also note that from EJ’s logic above: “once shown wrong, then forever after suspect.” So given that he misclassified the not one, but thirty four papers, his remaining conclusions are suspect).

    … and Oreskes was not looking at all the papers (928 out of 12,000).

    She was looking at all the peer reviewed journal articles. Once you leave that realm, you get a lot of noise in with the signal. Her choice was probably the correct one for judging the opinion of the scientific community.

    Conclusion: Oreske’s paper is debunked and worthless.

    No. Oreskes’ essay was accurate and valid.

    Peiser’s was wrong on at least one point that we agree on. (That he misclassified 34 papers as rejecting the consensus position), and I would also say that he was wrong in his conclusion that a low number of explicit endorsements is a sign that the consensus is not universal. Quite the opposite.

    Whether or not this is the case, the Oreskes sample of papers was not debunked or worthless. Her finding, that there are no papers rejecting the consensus either implicitly or explicitly was confirmed by Peiser. (Once he got around to admitting it).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    wilbert Robichaud wrote:

    How is the titling of the paper “deliberately deceptive?”

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7228/full/nature07669.html

    I’m not sure I understand the symbolism.

    The question was how is the title: “BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change” deliberately deceptive?

    Your answer is a link to a paper published in a different journal, by different authors, looking at temperature trends of the surface of the Antarctic Ice Sheet.

    I don’t doubt that you are exactly right, give or take the surrealism, but could you be more plain?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wilbert Robichaud

    Jones et al., 1998;
    Mann et al., 1999
    Briffa et al., 2001
    Esper et al., 2002;
    recalibrated by Cook et al., 2004a
    Briffa, 2000; (calibrated by Briffa et al.,2004)
    Mann and Jones, 2003
    Rutherford et al., 2005
    Moberg et al., 2005
    D’Arrigo et al., 2006
    Hegerl et al., 2006
    Pollack and Smerdon, 2004; (reference level adjusted following Moberg et al.,2005)
    Oerlemans, 2005
    Mann et al., 2008

    M Mann?? well we know how accurate and Honest that one is.
    Jones?? how do you know it is a valid study since he has refused to release the data under FOI?
    D’Arrigo et al?… bristlecones as a proxy? no sense going any further.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    player

    Jones?? how do you know it is a valid study since he has refused to release the data under FOI?

    Being a scientist by training, I too put a lot of weight on peer reviewed literature, as long as there s transparency in the process.

    When Phil Jones is on record making the following statement:

    “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
    Phils Jones in a letter to Australian Climatologist Warrick Hughes Feb 21 2005

    These publications are no longer considered scientific works. This violates some of the deepest ethical guidelines in science – full transparency of data and code.

    I believe McIntyre and Lucia and Watts and a host of other people who have not published their work in a so-called “peer-reviewed” journal more than Chosen 76 because everything they present is backed by both data and code, so anyone can check and reproduce their work. And they are absolutely open about it as well.

    Mann 1998 started that trend of refusing to give data and it persists till today. They are a blot to all science, not to mention their results based on “secret” data and “secret” analysis have been shown to be blatant manipulations of the truth.

    Cheers. Kartik.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    The deception of Gore and the IPCC has succeeded here in the states. Congress just passed the largest Tax on our nation, disguised as a rescue for the environment. Vote: 219 to 212
    We can only hope the Senate stops this madness.
    This bill will crush jobs and send the rest to china.
    And so this will do no measurable good for Global Warming.
    This is really an assault… Hell it’s war on our freedoms, that will help feed the Socialist agenda for a generation with the biggest tax increase in our countries history, which will drive up the cost of everything. Raise taxes & kill jobs.
    Thanks Robin, you and yours have sold the crap that after billions of year of warming and cooling, I am currently to blame. Brilliant.
    And don’t giver me some shit about Green Jobs. This Cap N Trade legislation will lead to massive corruption, and do nothing for the environment. Our government can run crap efficiently: Post office? Rail Roads? Health care? What?
    It’s all subsidized, never pullin’ it’s own weight. You Friggin’ Idiot. G*dDa*nitM*th**F**kers!!
    Good job to all you brilliant Skeptic Scientist too, Co2% this – HydroCarbon that… If you all so friggin smart why can you get the truth out?!!
    OK, thanks for letting me rant. I’m calming down Dang it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wilbert Robichaud

    Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wilbert Robichaud

    the article is an example of ” deliberately deceptive “


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    wilbert Robichaud wrote:

    the article is an example of ” deliberately deceptive “

    Ah. This begs at least two questions:

    1) How does that explain how the title of Oreskes’ essay (published in Science) is deliberately deceptive?

    and

    2) In what way is the peer reviewed paper, published in Nature (no less), deliberately deceptive?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    Blake wrote:

    The deception of Gore and the IPCC has succeeded here in the states. Congress just passed the largest Tax on our nation, disguised as a rescue for the environment. Vote: 219 to 212

    Again, Congress is acting on the accepted science.

    If you think that the IPCC is deceptive, you need to show the scientific community. In the meantime it would be (continued) madness to continue to pursue a high carbon emission economy, when the cost of adaptation are so many more times the cost of reduction of emissions.

    Policy should not ignore science. You think your particular pet conspiracy theory deserves an end run around the scientific process, but this is the logical fallacy of special pleading.

    Unfortunately the bill was so weakened to get support from coal and oil producing states, that it is nearly useless, and will retard international negotiations by not keeping up with Europe. On the other hand, it is a start.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    player wrote:

    Being a scientist by training, I too put a lot of weight on peer reviewed literature, as long as there s transparency in the process.

    Good.

    When Phil Jones is on record making the following statement:

    “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
    Phils Jones in a letter to Australian Climatologist Warrick Hughes Feb 21 2005

    These publications are no longer considered scientific works. This violates some of the deepest ethical guidelines in science – full transparency of data and code.

    On the other hand Jones is only one scientist.

    And he as been co-author on a couple of papers with about 500 citations, so some of his work has received more scrutiny than most.

    I believe McIntyre and Lucia and Watts and a host of other people who have not published their work in a so-called “peer-reviewed” journal more than Chosen 76 because everything they present is backed by both data and code, so anyone can check and reproduce their work. And they are absolutely open about it as well.

    I believe that what they do isn’t really research, but commentary. And being, as it is, counter to the findings of the research, is difficult to undervalue in terms of its scientific merit or in what it adds to scientific knowledge.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin

    wilbert Robichaud wrote:

    Jones et al., 1998;
    Mann et al., 1999
    Briffa et al., 2001
    Esper et al., 2002;
    recalibrated by Cook et al., 2004a
    Briffa, 2000; (calibrated by Briffa et al.,2004)
    Mann and Jones, 2003
    Rutherford et al., 2005
    Moberg et al., 2005
    D’Arrigo et al., 2006
    Hegerl et al., 2006
    Pollack and Smerdon, 2004; (reference level adjusted following Moberg et al.,2005)
    Oerlemans, 2005
    Mann et al., 2008

    M Mann?? well we know how accurate and Honest that one is.

    Well it’s accuracy isn’t really disputed in the scientific community since the national academies report vindicating his findings.

    Jones?? how do you know it is a valid study since he has refused to release the data under FOI?

    I haven’t heard about this. But the great Newton wrote in Latin to cut down on the correspondence from the undereducated; and I think a lot of good scientists don’t consider the popularisation of science as part of their job.

    D’Arrigo et al?… bristlecones as a proxy?

    There are lots of metrics used as a temperature proxy, and none of them are especially compelling to the intuition.

    But if you combine many that are affected by climate you increase the acc