Simple Question About AGW

[mhaze]

No, the other GHGs were included in Scenarios B and C:

(my emphasis)

Oh, the trace gas analysis of those scenarios is reverse engineered by Steve McIntyre, there are probably a dozen threads where that is gone into in quite intricate detail.

Here's the bottom line. In 1988 Hansen shouted to the Senate:

(B and or C) "Do as I instruct you and control CO2"
(A) "Fear Business as Usual if you don't do as I tell you and control CO2".

The Senate did nothing, so Business as Usual was what occurred. That can't be argued, because B and C had emissions control plans in effect.

So the conditions that he told them would be dire and drastic occurred, and were not dire and were not drastic. Pretty simple stuff.

[fsol]

Oh, the trace gas analysis of those scenarios is reverse engineered by Steve McIntyre, there are probably a dozen threads where that is gone into in quite intricate detail.

Here's the bottom line. In 1988 Hansen shouted to the Senate:

(B and or C) "Do as I instruct you and control CO2"
(A) "Fear Business as Usual if you don't do as I tell you and control CO2".

The Senate did nothing, so Business as Usual was what occurred. That can't be argued, because B and C had emissions control plans in effect.

So the conditions that he told them would be dire and drastic occurred, and were not dire and were not drastic. Pretty simple stuff.

Except business as usual isn't what happened. So why you keep trying to say that it is so I don't know.

[Pipirr]

Here's the bottom line. In 1988 Hansen shouted to the Senate:

(B and or C) "Do as I instruct you and control CO2"
(A) "Fear Business as Usual if you don't do as I tell you and control CO2".



No, he didn't.

Liar.

[David Rodale]

Except business as usual isn't what happened. So why you keep trying to say that it is so I don't know.

Will you also say Hansen did not state ocean warming is the "smoking gun"?

[Round Robin]

Now you should be wondering what was the real income of the other trace gases. Did they follow the "trend"? If so, then the model is wrong, would you agree?

Stop moving the goalposts, please.

My point was that "business as usual" CO2 emissions was only one component to a prediction that included many worst-case conditions to create an upper bound. To be sure, not all of these conditions turned out to be worst-case (as expected), so despite CO2 emissions being higher than predicted for Scenario B, observations didn't track Scenario A because the other components were not also worst-case (e.g., there was a major volcano, but this was not predicted in scenario A, but was in B and C). These were just three sets of predictions ranging from "high side of reality" (A) to "draconian" (C), with "most plausible" (B) in between. (Hansen's descriptions) It is unreasonable to assume that all components of scenario B (or A or C) would have played out as predicted.

This got started because of a comment about Michaels using Hansen's A/B/C graph for testimony, but having erased B and C to "prove" Hansen was wrong by 300%. I considered that to be misleading and dishonest and I still do, for all the reasons I've detailed above. If you want to argue about isolating the effects of various forcings in each scenario versus observations over the last 20 years, I'm not your man--that's outside my knowledge and must claim ignorance:). I am, however, perfectly capable of reading his papers and understanding his proposed boundary conditions.

[mhaze]

It got started because you said this - My understanding is that Hansen never put forth "Scenario A" as a probable scenario,
And I've shown you that he clearly considered Scenario A not as a desirable possibility, but as a probable one. That is to say, the outcome in the absence of governmental top down regulation of CO2. Since Scenario A was his estimate made in 1988 of the future without CO2 controls, and since we didn't have CO2 controls, there you are.

Oh, wait - he got it wrong about the effects of no government regulation of CO2? No kidding?

Gee, the drastic future of Scenario A did not occur? No kidding?

One of many Forecasts of Doom attributed to Scenario A. The business-as-usual scenario, with five degrees Fahrenheit global warming and ten degrees Fahrenheit at the ice sheets, certainly would cause the disintegration of ice sheets. The only question is when the collapse of these sheets would begin. The business-as-usual scenario, which could lead to an eventual sea level rise of eighty feet
But did Hansen stop fomenting alarmism when Scenario A fizzled? Nope, the above quote is from 2006. Hence your... "Sliding Ten Year Forecast of Doom".
As quoted in the Washinton Post, 2007 - "It's not something you can adapt to," Hansen said in an interview. "We can't let it go on another 10 years like this. We've got to do something."
As quoted in 2004 in USA Today -He echoes a warning by NASA scientist James Hansen in 2004 that the window for action is only 10 years.
Pretty funny, isn't it? Now, what exactly should we be all worried about? Certainly not Scenario A. Oh, wait, that means we do not need to worry about not regulating CO2? No? Yes, we do need to worry, because it's a
"Sliding ten year forecast of Doom".:D

So do you still want to maintain that your original statement is correct?

Hansen never put forth "Scenario A" as a probable scenario,

Why, you would take away Hansen's cherished Sliding Ten Year Forecast of Doom. You can't do that. He clearly loves that future Scenario! You are asking for rationality, or it's application to Hansen and his view of climate science.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

True believer signs.........due RR requeriments, Hansen is unfalsiable, because any outcome would comply with the predictions....

[mhaze]

If so they would do well to pick a better poster child, because Hansen is a nut.

[Round Robin]

And I've shown you that he clearly considered Scenario A not as a desirable possibility, but as a probable one.

I accept that you sincerely believe that, but you did not show this clearly, in my opinion. He stated clearly in his 1988 paper, "Scenario B is perhaps the most plausible of the three cases."

I'm rather new to this Hansen "debacle", so I started by reading his source material and did not come to the same conclusion you did. If I had begun reading his work, but with the prior belief that he was a raving alarmist, I can't honestly say I wouldn't come to the same conclusion as you, but I'm not sure it would be fair.


Since Scenario A was his estimate made in 1988 of the future without CO2 controls, and since we didn't have CO2 controls, there you are.


Scenario A was "his estimate made in 1988 of the future without CO2 controls", but also no volcanos, higher-trending non-CO2 trace gases, etc. To reiterate, "Business as usual" referred only to the CO2 emissions, not the other considerations in the prediction.

[mhaze]

I accept that you sincerely believe that, but you did not show this clearly, in my opinion. He stated clearly in his 1988 paper, "Scenario B is perhaps the most plausible of the three cases."

I'm rather new to this Hansen "debacle", so I started by reading his source material and did not come to the same conclusion you did. If I had begun reading his work, but with the prior belief that he was a raving alarmist, I can't honestly say I wouldn't come to the same conclusion as you, but I'm not sure it would be fair.....

It's certainly interesting how many people start with a sincere belief in AGW through reading the likes of IPCC and NAS, then wind up defending Hansen, whose beliefs are not in line with the IPCC or NAS, and who is a far left radical environmentalist who is right now demanding and attempting to legislate coal fired power plants out of existence.

So in answer to "prior belief he was a raving alarmist", I'll repeat: You can't make this stuff up, you just go to Hansen and there is a candy store full of gems of raving alarmism. So, go ahead and defend Hansen: You have now officially moved out of the middle ground of IPCC/NAS into the radical fringe of 80 foot towering sea level increase nut cases.

Now, back to ...

I accept that you sincerely believe that, but you did not show this clearly, in my opinion. He stated clearly in his 1988 paper, "Scenario B is perhaps the most plausible of the three cases."

You have made no case in asserting this, and still duck and dodge my correction of your original statement. The reason you have made no case is very simple. Scenario C was draconian emissions cuts. That did not occur. Scenario C, I believe we could agree, was not probable.

Scenario B was a situation with moderate emissions controls. From the point of view of 1988, that was certainly a possible, or a probable future.

Scenario A was a situation with no emissions controls. Again, from the point of view of 1988 (given the divide in the political parties) this was also, clearly a possible, or a probable future.

Your statement was simply incorrect. Business as Usual is what actually happened. The only place where this can be debated is on the inclusion of volcanos in Scenario B and C (but not in A). Now, it can be said "But a volcano did occur!"

Well, you know what? Using that to support Scenario B is an erroneous conclusion. The right conclusion is that the study and it's methods were flawed. Since the possibility of volcano is unchanged regardless of man's actions on CO2 controls, the correct method would have been to enumerate Scenarios A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, and C2, where (1) indicates no volcano, and where (2) indicates volcano.

Accordingly, when you argue pro Hansen, you are arguing in favor of confusion, poor or non existent scientific method, bad concepts of forecasting and poor modeling. It would seem to me that this does not get you anywhere meaningful. Well, of course, unless you believe and would like to support the nutty things he says.

[Round Robin]

It's certainly interesting how many people start with a sincere belief in AGW through reading the likes of IPCC and NAS, then wind up defending Hansen, whose beliefs are not in line with the IPCC or NAS, and who is a far left radical environmentalist who is right now demanding and attempting to legislate coal fired power plants out of existence.

It's a fair point if you have if Hansen truly is the nut you make him out to be. As I said, I'm pretty new at studying climate change (only a few months) and have very little knowledge of him. I stay away from climate blogs in general because I find them too "us vs. them". I get my knowledge--what there is of it--from what I think are better sources as you know (NAS, IPCC, the occasional SciAm, NatlGeo article, Nova, etc.) As such, I do not see the soap-opera behind the scenes.

I am basing my opinion of this issue solely on what I have read in the few papers/articles I have cited in the last few days. It's really not so much that I am defending the man James Hansen; I saw a provocative claim by Michaels (and then Crichton) that he was 300% wrong and thought that deserved investigating since Hansen is pretty prominent at NASA GISS. So, I read his account on the APS, then his 1988 paper, then, thanks to you, his congressional testimony. None of it struck me as terribly alarmist--honestly--and I don't like the politics of fear no matter who uses them.

You and I ended up arguing over semantics ("business as usual", "most plausible" etc.) and I think we both just got carried away. Frankly, you seem to enter any discussion about Hansen with a pre-conceived opinion; I entered this discussion with little-to-no knowledge of him, so if I allow that your opinion is more informed, you must also accept that mine is relatively unbiased (so far). I have tried to debate this issue politely, but the way that you, LR, and DR pounce on issues like this and relative noobs like me really lowers level of discourse.


So in answer to "prior belief he was a raving alarmist", I'll repeat: You can't make this stuff up, you just go to Hansen and there is a candy store full of gems of raving alarmism. So, go ahead and defend Hansen: You have now officially moved out of the middle ground of IPCC/NAS into the radical fringe of 80 foot towering sea level increase nut cases.


You make quite a leap lumping me with the radical fringe. While I intend to go learn more about Hansen, I will remind you that I am not and have not been defending him as a "raving alarmist"; I was reacting to what I felt looked like an unfair accusation about a paper he wrote in 1988. I still think the accusation is unfair. We still disagree on that point and probably will continue to. I've made my point and stand by it. You've made yours and presumably stand by it. It's probably best if we leave it at that, because life's too short for one more flame war. :)

I allow that my opinion may change as I learn more about him and the history of this issue. But I must be honest and say that I find your, DR's and LR's vitriolic attacks highly unpersuasive.

[mhaze]

You make quite a leap lumping me with the radical fringe. While I intend to go learn more about Hansen, I will remind you that I am not and have not been defending him as a "raving alarmist"; I was reacting to what I felt looked like an unfair accusation about a paper he wrote in 1988. I still think the accusation is unfair. We still disagree on that point and probably will continue to. I've made my point and stand by it. You've made yours and presumably stand by it. It's probably best if we leave it at that, because life's too short for one more flame war. :)

I allow that my opinion may change as I learn more about him and the history of this issue. But I must be honest and say that I find your, DR's and LR's vitriolic attacks highly unpersuasive.

Well, FYI, the "unfair accusation" that you refer to refers to the Senate testimony of Hansen, not Hansen 1988 et al. These documents are dissimilar in numerous respects.

A. Hansen: 80 foot sea level rise prediction due to man's CO2 use.
B. IPCC does not agree.
C. Hansen is far left radical environmentalist.
Pretty simple, right?

It's not uncommon at all that I argue from the center against the radical fringe. People presume, incorrectly, that they can present their radical ideas as consensus or mainstream.

[fsol]

Will you also say Hansen did not state ocean warming is the "smoking gun"?

What you have just written has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote. If you are going to try and engage with me umm...at least engage with me. Don't just type whatever random nonsense comes into your head.

[Round Robin]

Well, FYI, the "unfair accusation" that you refer to refers to the Senate testimony of Hansen, not Hansen 1988 et al. These documents are dissimilar in numerous respects.


My mistake; I meant the testimony, not the paper.


A. Hansen: 80 foot sea level rise prediction due to man's CO2 use.
B. IPCC does not agree.
C. Hansen is far left radical environmentalist.
Pretty simple, right?


It would be simple, but I followed that link to his testimony you sent a few posts back again and didn't see anything in there about an 80' sea level rise, etc. Was that part of the Q&A or something (not included in the transcript), because it wasn't in his oral or written testimony

[mhaze]

My mistake; I meant the testimony, not the paper.
It would be simple, but I followed that link to his testimony you sent a few posts back again and didn't see anything in there about an 80' sea level rise, etc. Was that part of the Q&A or something (not included in the transcript), because it wasn't in his oral or written testimony

Hansen makes such statements in published articles, interviews, and press releases. I provided the link to one (of many) instances of his talking about an 80 foot sea level rise.

[varwoche]

A. Hansen: 80 foot sea level rise prediction due to man's CO2 use. Yet another gross mischaracterization (in a relentless stream).

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3543779#post3543779)
I read the book. It reminds me of a childs action cartoon. I could just see Mr Evils son saying "Just let me shoot him, dad". It had everything but the sharks with the frikken laser beams on their heads.


How did you like the outcome for the actor?

Still No Answer?

With the pontificating comments on the literary (lack of) merits of State of Fear by FSOL, CP, and other warmers....

AUP or at least one person, had actually read it?

Right? No.....

Conclusion:

Subject matter knowledge: 0

Hmmm.... One does wonder about actual subject matter knowledge on other subjects...

[Pixel42]

A. Hansen: 80 foot sea level rise prediction due to man's CO2 use.
B. IPCC does not agree.
C. Hansen is far left radical environmentalist.
Pretty simple, right?
I for one cannot see how C follows from A and B. Even if I assume the truth of A and B, the only C I get is "Hansen made a prediction with which the IPCC consensus view does not agree". That tells me nothing about Hansen's political views. Maybe he underestimated the importance of certain forcings when creating his model, or made a mistake in his calcuations. These things happen in cutting edge science :shrug:

[fsol]

Still No Answer?

With the pontificating comments on the literary (lack of) merits of State of Fear by FSOL, CP, and other warmers....

AUP or at least one person, had actually read it?

Right? No.....

Conclusion:

Subject matter knowledge: 0

Hmmm.... One does wonder about actual subject matter knowledge on other subjects...

I said nothing about the literary merits of that book, let alone pontificated on the subject. Why do you insist on making things up? It really doesn't help convince anybody to take you seriously.

[a_unique_person]

Still No Answer?


What's to say about it? Not a high point in literature.

[mhaze]

I said nothing about the literary merits of that book, let alone pontificated on the subject. Why do you insist on making things up? It really doesn't help convince anybody to take you seriously.

Hook, line and sinker? (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3543708&postcount=965)

[mhaze]

I for one cannot see how C follows from A and B. Even if I assume the truth of A and B, the only C I get is "Hansen made a prediction with which the IPCC consensus view does not agree". That tells me nothing about Hansen's political views. Maybe he underestimated the importance of certain forcings when creating his model, or made a mistake in his calcuations. These things happen in cutting edge science :shrug:

which is why I posted a dozen or so direct Hansen quotes one page back in this thread. Such as:

If human beings follow a business-as-usual course, continuing to exploit fossil fuel resources without reducing carbon emissions or capturing and sequestering them before they warm the atmosphere, the eventual effects on climate and life may be comparable to those at the time of mass extinctions

[a_unique_person]

which is why I posted a dozen or so direct Hansen quotes one page back in this thread. Such as:

If human beings follow a business-as-usual course, continuing to exploit fossil fuel resources without reducing carbon emissions or capturing and sequestering them before they warm the atmosphere, the eventual effects on climate and life may be comparable to those at the time of mass extinctions

"May Be", is what he said. This is a question of risk management. The US and the "Coalition of the Willing" were prepared to bet a trillion dollars on WMD that weren't even there.

[zooterkin]

Hook, line and sinker? (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3543708&postcount=965)

You do realise that link doesn't back your assertion, don't you? In fact, quite the opposite; fsol makes no claims about the literary merits of the book.

[mhaze]

You do realise that link doesn't back your assertion, don't you? In fact, quite the opposite; fsol makes no claims about the literary merits of the book.

I stand corrected, he only pontificated.:)

[mhaze]

"May Be", is what he said. This is a question of risk management. The US and the "Coalition of the Willing" were prepared to bet a trillion dollars on WMD that weren't even there.

I simply point out that Hansen's beliefs are not mainstream but are far radical views.

The phrase "radical far left environmentalist" is intended as descriptive, not perjorative.

[Alric]

I simply point out that Hansen's beliefs are not mainstream but are far radical views.

Hardly. Science magazine publications would be the mainstream. Opposition without theoretical or empirical basis would be the radical view.

[fsol]

Hook, line and sinker? (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3543708&postcount=965)

Could you point out where I pontificated about the literary merits of Crichtons book in that post? I fail to see it. I fail to remember ever posting about it and I see from your link to my post that my memory is correct on this issue at least.

[Pixel42]

I simply point out that Hansen's beliefs are not mainstream but are far radical views.

The phrase "radical far left environmentalist" is intended as descriptive, not perjorative.
I haven't seen any quotes about Hansen's beliefs, only about the predictions of his climate models, which seem to be based on reasonable estimates of climate forcings. Those predictions may or may not be correct, but they don't tell me anything about his political views.

[mhaze]

Do you think the quotes I provided from Hansen are predictions of his climate models?

[Pixel42]

Do you think the quotes I provided from Hansen are predictions of his climate models?
You mean in post #969 and in the article linked in it? Predictions from climate models, and statements of the observations on which those climate models are based, yes. There's also some criticism of Bush's actions (or rather lack of them) in response to those predictions in the linked article, but even that isn't a reliable indication of his political views. It's perfectly possible to criticise specific actions of a politician with whose policies you otherwise broadly agree.

I'm not saying Hansen's political views aren't left of centre, for all I know they may be. I'm just saying that "does scientific research whose results support the existence of AGW" does not automatically equal "is a radical far left environmentalist".

[mhaze]

You mean in post #969 and in the article linked in it? Predictions from climate models, and statements of the observations on which those climate models are based, yes. There's also some criticism of Bush's actions (or rather lack of them) in response to those predictions in the linked article, but even that isn't a reliable indication of his political views. It's perfectly possible to criticise specific actions of a politician with whose policies you otherwise broadly agree.

I'm not saying Hansen's political views aren't left of centre, for all I know they may be. I'm just saying that "does scientific research whose results support the existence of AGW" does not automatically equal "is a radical far left environmentalist".

With over 1000 media interviews, perhaps he is actually more politician than scientist.

[Pixel42]

With over 1000 media interviews, perhaps he is actually more politician than scientist.
Was Carl Sagan a politician? Is Richard Dawkins a politician?

What an absurd statement.

[mhaze]

Was Carl Sagan a politician? Is Richard Dawkins a politician?

What an absurd statement.

They were not running gov. agencies. Not comparable.

[Pixel42]

They were not running gov. agencies. Not comparable.
True. Scientists who run governmental agencies are bound to do far more media interviews than university professors.

[TrueSceptic]

[quote=Round Robin;3545410][quote=mhaze;3545383]

No one said that they did not agree with my statement:

Care to provide an impartial source?

Okay, since you insist, I'll repeat it a 3rd time. Scenario A was cited by Hansen as "business as usual". Source, Hansen. Oh wait, I already said that, twice. Hmm, same source as RR.
This is tiresome to the extreme.

No one claims that Hansen did not describe A as BAU, despite your endless repetitions.

The issue is whether he said in 1988, not 1998, that he saw B as most likely, IOW that it was more likely than A.

How hard can this be?

[TrueSceptic]

Stop moving the goalposts, please.

My point was that "business as usual" CO2 emissions was only one component to a prediction that included many worst-case conditions to create an upper bound. To be sure, not all of these conditions turned out to be worst-case (as expected), so despite CO2 emissions being higher than predicted for Scenario B, observations didn't track Scenario A because the other components were not also worst-case (e.g., there was a major volcano, but this was not predicted in scenario A, but was in B and C). These were just three sets of predictions ranging from "high side of reality" (A) to "draconian" (C), with "most plausible" (B) in between. (Hansen's descriptions) It is unreasonable to assume that all components of scenario B (or A or C) would have played out as predicted.

This got started because of a comment about Michaels using Hansen's A/B/C graph for testimony, but having erased B and C to "prove" Hansen was wrong by 300%. I considered that to be misleading and dishonest and I still do, for all the reasons I've detailed above. If you want to argue about isolating the effects of various forcings in each scenario versus observations over the last 20 years, I'm not your man--that's outside my knowledge and must claim ignorance:). I am, however, perfectly capable of reading his papers and understanding his proposed boundary conditions.
Excellent summary (again) RR. :D

Of course the contrarians stop at nothing in their attempts to discredit Hansen (or Mann).

[TrueSceptic]

Accordingly, when you argue pro Hansen, you are arguing in favor of confusion, poor or non existent scientific method, bad concepts of forecasting and poor modeling. It would seem to me that this does not get you anywhere meaningful. Well, of course, unless you believe and would like to support the nutty things he says.
Mhaze,

You clearly have a thing about Hansen and his dodgy models. Care to show us any better ones being made at the time, late 80s?

[TrueSceptic]

I allow that my opinion may change as I learn more about him and the history of this issue. But I must be honest and say that I find your, DR's and LR's vitriolic attacks highly unpersuasive.
I wonder: as they watch TV or listen to the radio and some item about warming, ice loss, etc., comes up, do they swear at the "box":-
Lies! It's all far left green propaganda!

[TrueSceptic]

You do realise that link doesn't back your assertion, don't you? In fact, quite the opposite; fsol makes no claims about the literary merits of the book.
What's funny about this is that it was Mhaze who told us this

I don't recall the graph being in the novel, although there were perhaps 30 some graphs, but there was something like a reference to Hansen or a prominent scientist talking to a Senate committee along the lines of "This scientist was wrong by 300% in his prediction", which (Again, if I recall correctly) in one of the 400 some footnotes was attributed to Michaels.

What a slime thing he is.

[Round Robin]

Excellent summary

Thank you, TS.

Regarding this whole Hansen thing, I think that we have all found primary source documents that allow us to be reasonably confident in claiming the following:


Hansen considered the CO2 component of the Scenario A predictions to be "business as usual" (and BAU CO2 is what occurred)
Hansen believed that Scenario B was the most plausible combination of all components of the A/B/C predictions (and none of the scenarios occurred in total)

Can we all agree that is fair?

My inference, because I have found no written proof of this, is that Hansen, therefore, did not believe it was likely for CO2 emissions to be worse than "business as usual" in the coming decades, so it was sensible to use BAU as a component of the Scenario A (worst case) forcing predictions. Any question as to the accuracy of the models, the sensitivity assumptions, etc., I am not qualified to comment on as I have not studied that yet. (heck; even if I did study those things I'm not sure I'd be qualified to comment! :))

I'm not here to dispute whether or not he is a far-left radical; I have no position on that yet, as I have not studied him beyond the three or so source documents we've been discussing. I merely propose that the above summary of the whole Scenario A/B/C question is reasonable and balanced. Can't we all just get along? :)

[TrueSceptic]

Thank you, TS.

Regarding this whole Hansen thing, I think that we have all found primary source documents that allow us to be reasonably confident in claiming the following:


Hansen considered the CO2 component of the Scenario A predictions to be "business as usual" (and BAU CO2 is what occurred)
Hansen believed that Scenario B was the most plausible combination of all components of the A/B/C predictions (and none of the predictions occurred in total)

Can we all agree that is fair?

I think so. GCMs require huge amounts of computing power and this was very limited then (and still is relative to the complexity of the models). Ideally Hansen would have run a very large number of scenarios with different combinations of factors. He used just 3 to represent the many. It would be strange for the middle of the 3 not to be considered most likely, even if A was labelled BAU.

Had Michaels been honest in 1998, he would have shown all 3 scenarios and argued that B, although closest to what had actually happened in terms of temperature rise, was based on factors that didn't develop exactly as the model assumed, and that the model was therefore weak. He didn't.


My inference, because I have found no written proof of this, is that Hansen, therefore, did not believe it was likely for CO2 emissions to be worse than "business as usual" in the coming decades, so it was sensible to use BAU as a component of the Scenario A (worst case) forcing predictions. Any question as to the accuracy of the models, the sensitivity assumptions, etc., I am not qualified to comment on as I have not studied that yet. (heck; even if I did study those things I'm not sure I'd be qualified to comment! :))

We always seem to end up arguing about the credibility of the scientists, and when that fails, move on to the reliability of the data, so actual science rarely enters into it. :(

I'm not here to dispute whether or not he is a far-left radical; I have no position on that yet, as I have not studied him beyond the three or so source documents we've been discussing. I merely propose that the above summary of the whole Scenario A/B/C question is reasonable and balanced. Can't we all just get along? :)
Agreed.

I think that Hansen cares passionately about the future of the biosphere; I don't think this necessarily indicates a left/right position.

If you see myself or others being abusive, you will rarely see that it is unprovoked. You might also understand that it is hard to remain polite after seeing the same disreputable tactics and outright garbage being repeated over and over. I'm impressed that you are still as polite as you are. :)

[Round Robin]

Had Michaels been honest in 1998, he would have shown all 3 scenarios and argued that B, although closest to what had actually happened in terms of temperature rise, was based on factors that didn't develop exactly as the model assumed, and that the model was therefore weak. He didn't.

That seems like a fair compromise; it neatly incorporates everyone's views, in my opinion.

[Bluefire]

That seems like a fair compromise; it neatly incorporates everyone's views, in my opinion.

Depends on what is supposed to be judged.

If we are to judge how good the science behind the model is, and the performance of the climate-modeling, then it is very much reasonable to say that the differing factor between A,B and C developed in accordance with A, and that as such, A is the relevant prediction to judge against the resulting temperature trend.

If we are to judge how well Hansen can predict political actions, sure , then B was the "most probable" from him. But that isn't really relevant to most discussions.

[Round Robin]

Depends on what is supposed to be judged.

If we are to judge how good the science behind the model is, and the performance of the climate-modeling, then it is very much reasonable to say that the differing factor between A,B and C developed in accordance with A, and that as such, A is the relevant prediction to judge against the resulting temperature trend.

If we are to judge how well Hansen can predict political actions, sure , then B was the "most probable" from him. But that isn't really relevant to most discussions.

Well, when I say "everyone's views", I meant the handful of people debating this point over the last few days. Still you make a fair point: it is presumptuous of me to assume that all views (even of the few of us debating) were incorporated. Now that I think of it, they probably weren't. :)

[Slimething]

Did you really mean to say that?

Yup. Are you arguing that my statement is self-contradictory? In your mind is elting ice = poles warming faster than the tropics?

[Slimething]

Science is the study of nature. Anthropology is the study of humanity. Unless you want to claim that humanity is not part of nature, you are simply wrong.

Amazing logic here. The study of anything that is natural is therefore science. Suddenly, I realize that religion, economics, politics and so on are sciences. :boggled:

Why do I get the impression that you are either very young or not at all trained in science? :confused:

[Slimething]

Completely incorrect. Computer models are simulations of natural physical processes. Of course they are subject to error because of the simplifications inherent in them as well as (normally) the incomplete understanding of the physical process that the model is simulating.

Let me get this straight. You believe that computer models self-generate in computers and are incorrect only because the code over-simplifies nature? So, at no time is a scientist with a hypothesis and a software engineer involved in creating said model? Do you realize that you've just stated that something can come from nothing?

Polar regions are much more sensitive to changes than tropical regions because of the reflective properties of snow and ice. Snow and ice reflect more than 80 percent of the insolation back into space. Therefore, a decrease in snow and ice extent will lead to an decrease in the amount of insolation reflected and thus an increase in the amount of insolation absorbed. This will amplify the warming.

You may be late to the show here. I'm not asking whether or not the poles warm. I'm asking why the tropics aren't.

Tropical regions are also proficient at exporting heat. The rest of the Earth would be cooler if local temperature was solely a function of local processes.

To export heat, the heat must first be present. Why isn't it? The atmosphere in the tropics apparently is showing no tendency towards heating although one would expect that region to be most vulnerable to AGW. That's all I'm asking right now.

[TrueSceptic]

That seems like a fair compromise; it neatly incorporates everyone's views, in my opinion.
I don't see it as a compromise. More of an accurate view (IMO!).

[Slimething]

CO2 trapping photons and heating up Earth's surface??? Where did you get that idea from? That is not an accurate summation of the AGW theory. Do you understand this topic?

I think you need to read up on the physical basis for the GHG AGW hypothesis. It's been covered in other threads. AUP can point you to a very good on-line textbook on the subject.

Ummm, the tropics are hotter than the poles. And no GW theory is predicting that this will change.

Ummm, you need to read the thread.

[TrueSceptic]

Amazing logic here. The study of anything that is natural is therefore science. Suddenly, I realize that religion, economics, politics and so on are sciences. :boggled:

Why do I get the impression that you are either very young or not at all trained in science? :confused:
Where do I get the impression that you are a dogmatic, narrow-minded ignoramus? Oh, I know: from what you post!

[Round Robin]

I don't see it as a compromise. More of an accurate view (IMO!).

Yeah, I already came to the conclusion that I have no right to speak for anyone else by declaring this a compromise. Apologies to all involved for my presumptuousness. :(

[Alric]

I'm asking why the tropics aren't.

Besides another thread, do you have a reference for this statement?

I believe the tropics are. :)

But seriously, do you have a references for the tropics not warming?

[Slimething]

Greenhouse gases don't absorb light, they're transparent to it. They absorb infra-red radiation. Surfaces absorb (or reflect) light, and emit infra-red. Absorbed light is the energy-income, and infra-red the energy outgoings, of the global energy budget. (That's from radiative physics, which is founded on observations.)

Since I'm a scientist, I use the word "light" to refer to the entire EM spectrum. Your milage varies. In either case, that's how GHG AGW is supposed to work, absorbance of light by CO2 and efficient reradiation.


The greenhouse effect is a local (the Earth's surface) phaenomenon in which the Sun plays no part. It is just as effective at the poles as it is at the equator (or anywhere else), and its effect is to reduce outgoings. Since the poles import heat from the tropics (thermodynamics) their energy-balance is going to increase faster than the equatorial region (which exports heat by other than radiative means). Other things being equal, such as a flat Earth.


You are wrong. You make the distinction between magnitude of warming and rate of warmng. Both phenomena are directly proportional to the concentration of CO2 (Beer's Law) and the intensity of sunlight (first-order thermodynamics and Beer's Law). Any statement that GHG warming is the same all over the planet means that light is not part of the equation and the theory of AGW falls apart. You really need to study up on the physics here. Your hand waving is getting obvious.

From your increasingly garbled responses I can see how you might be scared of me (there's a hint of panic in there) but I don't set out to frighten anybody.

I was only pointing out that the only reason anyone would pay attention to someone like you on a scientific topic is your clammor that we are all in peril from AGW. Otherwise, why would anyone listen to the likes of you or know-nothing politicians?

[Slimething]

Besides another thread, do you have a reference for this statement?

I believe the tropics are. :)

But seriously, do you have a references for the tropics not warming?

I am referring to the lack of an atmospheric hotspot at the tropics. mhaze posted that there was a lack of it and CD confirmed that any warming would necessitate such a hotspot. So, as most of us agree that warming is or has occurred, I'm asking why no hot-spot.

My purpose is not to disprove AGW, as I don't think it can be. It's practically unfalsifiable. I want people to realize what the models are and that they are imperfect at the moment. Some cling to them as if they were theory, though.

[Alric]

Since I'm a scientist, I use the word "light" to refer to the entire EM spectrum.

Well you shouldn't. The entire EM spectrum is the entire EM spectrum. Light, is that small portion of the EM spectrum that can interact with photoreceptors in animal eyes.

[Alric]

mhaze posted....

I mean a reliable primary reference...

[Slimething]

Where do I get the impression that you are a dogmatic, narrow-minded ignoramus? Oh, I know: from what you post!

That's OK. No need to apologize for your mischaracterization of science. Indeed, that takes a lot of honesty and integrity to admit an error.

Be well.

[TrueSceptic]

Yup. Are you arguing that my statement is self-contradictory? In your mind is elting ice = poles warming faster than the tropics?
You said (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3537606&postcount=911)

I followed your link and found text telling me that ice in the poles was melting but nothing about predictions that the poles should get warmer than the tropics.

Try it again. Perhaps Mhaze will let you borrow his famous "grammer tense" ;) ?

[TrueSceptic]

Let me get this straight. You believe that computer models self-generate in computers and are incorrect only because the code over-simplifies nature? So, at no time is a scientist with a hypothesis and a software engineer involved in creating said model? Do you realize that you've just stated that something can come from nothing?

That must be an all-time great straw man!

[TrueSceptic]

Yeah, I already came to the conclusion that I have no right to speak for anyone else by declaring this a compromise. Apologies to all involved for my presumptuousness. :(
No, it was only my view. It is your equally valid opinion that it is a compromise. :D

[TrueSceptic]

I was only pointing out that the only reason anyone would pay attention to someone like you on a scientific topic is your clammor that we are all in peril from AGW. Otherwise, why would anyone listen to the likes of you or know-nothing politicians?
What clammor (sic)? Where? Why would that be a reason, even if it were true? Why would anyone listen to an arrogant ignoramus like you?

[TrueSceptic]

That's OK. No need to apologize for your mischaracterization of science. Indeed, that takes a lot of honesty and integrity to admit an error.

Be well.
Kindly define science for us.

[mhaze]

Depends on what is supposed to be judged.

If we are to judge how good the science behind the model is, and the performance of the climate-modeling, then it is very much reasonable to say that the differing factor between A,B and C developed in accordance with A, and that as such, A is the relevant prediction to judge against the resulting temperature trend.

If we are to judge how well Hansen can predict political actions, sure , then B was the "most probable" from him. But that isn't really relevant to most discussions.

Correct.

[mhaze]

You said (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3537606&postcount=911)

Try it again. Perhaps Mhaze will let you borrow his famous "grammer tense" ;) ?

Unnecessary, it is the net cast of your own ignorance that ensnares you, while others only patiently explain how you may step out of it.

[Alric]

If you are into podcasting you might be interested in the latest podcast of the NY academy of sciences.

"Mar 21, 2008
The Rapidly Changing Climate System
Michael Oppenheimer
A Princeton geosciences and international affairs professor, and a leader of the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, gives a global warming overview."

http://nyas.cachefly.net/climate_change.mp3

Most misconceptions addressed. With data.

[TrueSceptic]

Unnecessary, it is the net cast of your own ignorance that ensnares you, while others only patiently explain how you may step out of it.
You're a funny guy. Let's see. You can't even read what you wrote.

[mhaze]

I mean a reliable primary reference...

Already posted to you.

[mhaze]

Regarding this whole Hansen thing, I think that we have all found primary source documents that allow us to be reasonably confident in claiming the following:
Hansen considered the CO2 component of the Scenario A predictions to be "business as usual" (and BAU CO2 is what occurred)
Hansen believed that Scenario B was the most plausible combination of all components of the A/B/C predictions (and none of the scenarios occurred in total)Can we all agree that is fair?

These statements are correct based on what Hansen actually said. It's quite irrelevant if they are fair.

My inference, because I have found no written proof of this, is that Hansen, therefore, did not believe it was likely for CO2 emissions to be worse than "business as usual" in the coming decades, so it was sensible to use BAU as a component of the Scenario A (worst case) forcing predictions. Again, correct. BAU is life without CO2 emissions controls. He could have varied Scenario A based on say, third world industrial development. He should have included volcano/no volcano option in all three Scenarios. But, that would not have created the most alarming "Scenario A" so .... no volcano in Scenario A ...... but include them in the other scenarios...

I'm not here to dispute whether or not he is a far-left radicalI am only trying to be descriptive and clearly indicate when someone is to the middle or to the side. As another example, Gavin Schmidt of www.realclimate.org (http://www.realclimate.org) in an interview in New York said "I'm just a far left radical environmentalist". Now, I think we could say, uuhh, Gavin Schmit was a far left radical environmentalist....

This could be debated....maybe he was joking:) But Hansen isn't joking when he talks about 80 foot sea level increases....

[a_unique_person]

I am referring to the lack of an atmospheric hotspot at the tropics. mhaze posted that there was a lack of it and CD confirmed that any warming would necessitate such a hotspot. So, as most of us agree that warming is or has occurred, I'm asking why no hot-spot.

My purpose is not to disprove AGW, as I don't think it can be. It's practically unfalsifiable. I want people to realize what the models are and that they are imperfect at the moment. Some cling to them as if they were theory, though.

The models are imperfect, the IPCC clearly states that. They are based on theory.

[Slimething]

The models are imperfect, the IPCC clearly states that. They are based on theory.

Aye. The IPCC report is, to me, a very balanced document that is misquoted and misconstrued by too many. They plainly caution that correlation is not causality and that it's only a weight of the evidence approach that leads to the conclusion that AGW is a threat. I can buy that.

And, yes, the models are based on theory but the models are not theory themselves.

Again, I write, that people have to be patient and calm. The underlying physics of GHG AGW is patent and convincing. I agree with mhaze that the magnitude of the warming is not so great. I also agree with mhaze that there it too much speculation about what will happen and it's based on very little hard evidence.

Thanks, AUP.

[Slimething]

What clammor (sic)? Where? Why would that be a reason, even if it were true? Why would anyone listen to an arrogant ignoramus like you?

Kindly define science for us.

Why? You've already said that no one should listen to me. Kindly take that to heart and act on it.

IOW, buy a dictionary. You'll find it quite useful as you progress through high school.

[Slimething]

Well you shouldn't. The entire EM spectrum is the entire EM spectrum. Light, is that small portion of the EM spectrum that can interact with photoreceptors in animal eyes.

All the scientists I know, including myself, mean electromagnetic radiation. It's all light. I'll point out that most people do the same thing when they speak of "UV light" and "infrared light". Don't tell me you've never used those terms! Do you really expect scientists to go around saying "EM radiation" when "light" is not incorrect?

BTW, your definition of light is flawed. Light outside the visible spectrum fully interacts wtih photoreceptros in animal eyes. Moreover, how do you know which wavelengths a particular animal can see? Many insects can see UV. Many nocurnal predators can see IR.

[Alric]

Are you not including humans with animals? Some animals do see uv and/or infrared light, as you correctly point out. That is what makes uv and ir radiation also light. X-rays, for example are not perceived by any animal photoreceptor and that is why you never hear the term x-ray light.

Read my definition again and you'll see its correct.

[fsol]

Wonders if this is an appropriate thread to stick this.

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/03/beckies-as-tonstant-weader-knows-eli.html

The full comments on Beck are linked to as word files in Rabbetts blog post. Neither E+E or Beck come out of it very well. But that isn't really surprising. We knew that already, well most of us anyway.

[a_unique_person]

Wonders if this is an appropriate thread to stick this.

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/03/beckies-as-tonstant-weader-knows-eli.html

The full comments on Beck are linked to as word files in Rabbetts blog post. Neither E+E or Beck come out of it very well. But that isn't really surprising. We knew that already, well most of us anyway.

I am not a scientist, but even I could tell that Beck's paper was preposterous.

Papers I never want to see again.

180 Years of atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects
Anything by Archibald, a self confessed fiddler of data.

[TrueSceptic]

Why? You've already said that no one should listen to me. Kindly take that to heart and act on it.

IOW, buy a dictionary. You'll find it quite useful as you progress through high school.
I see. Instead of answering a simple question, you resort to pathetic insults.

[TrueSceptic]

All the scientists I know, including myself, mean electromagnetic radiation. It's all light. I'll point out that most people do the same thing when they speak of "UV light" and "infrared light". Don't tell me you've never used those terms! Do you really expect scientists to go around saying "EM radiation" when "light" is not incorrect?

BTW, your definition of light is flawed. Light outside the visible spectrum fully interacts wtih photoreceptros in animal eyes. Moreover, how do you know which wavelengths a particular animal can see? Many insects can see UV. Many nocurnal predators can see IR.
You're a scientist? You must be the most illiterate one on the planet!

[mhaze]

You're a scientist? You must be the most illiterate one on the planet!

You can't even read what you wrote.

Where do I get the impression that you are a dogmatic, narrow-minded ignoramus?

What a slime thing he is.



Translated:

High school student debates scientist, loses substantial arguments, repeatedly, resorts to personal attacks, repeatedly.

[Megalodon]

Translated:

High school student debates scientist, loses substantial arguments, repeatedly, resorts to personal attacks, repeatedly.

If you add "high-school student puts scientist on ignore", you have my story with David Rodale :D

[Alric]

BTW, your definition of light is flawed...

I did find that physicists have been referring to the entire EM spectrum as "light". I think most biologists would disagree with that usage.

One way to get around it would be to distinguish "visible light" from "light" but that is rather inelegant and ignores the biological concept that is light.

Anyway, this is off topic and it appears we are both right depending of the context and discipline.

[TrueSceptic]

Translated:

High school student debates scientist, loses substantial arguments, repeatedly, resorts to personal attacks, repeatedly.
This is false on several counts, but the important one is that someone calling himself a scientist doesn't even know what the word means.

As for personal attacks, shall we check and see who always does it first? Not me, pal.

[EliRabett]

in Hansen's 1988 scenerios until about 2000, when C goes flat. Differences between A and B only appear ~2010. The differences between the scenarios before 2000 are in other trace gas forcings and in volcanic eruptions. See the post RTFWR or... No more Mr. Nice Bunny at Rabett Run rabett dot blogspot dot com/2006/10/rtfwr-or.html for the original diagram (sorry can't post URLs here). In other words, splitting the difference btw A and B is wrong.

[Pipirr]

Here's the direct link to the bunny burrow:

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/10/rtfwr-or.html

[TrueSceptic]

in Hansen's 1988 scenerios until about 2000, when C goes flat. Differences between A and B only appear ~2010. The differences between the scenarios before 2000 are in other trace gas forcings and in volcanic eruptions. See the post RTFWR or... No more Mr. Nice Bunny at Rabett Run rabett dot blogspot dot com/2006/10/rtfwr-or.html for the original diagram (sorry can't post URLs here). In other words, splitting the difference btw A and B is wrong.
If you are the real Rabett, welcome. :D

You can post URLs after a few posts but I can't remember how many.

[mhaze]

in Hansen's 1988 scenerios until about 2000, when C goes flat. Differences between A and B only appear ~2010. The differences between the scenarios before 2000 are in other trace gas forcings and in volcanic eruptions. See the post RTFWR or... No more Mr. Nice Bunny at Rabett Run rabett dot blogspot dot com/2006/10/rtfwr-or.html for the original diagram (sorry can't post URLs here). In other words, splitting the difference btw A and B is wrong.

I also didn't see any logic in splitting differences. A is A and B is B and C is C. A, B and C are best considered as (CO2 plus trace gas CO2 equivalent) = total co2 equivalent (forcing).

Note there is one sure method to establish that Scenario B is what did occur. Click to enlarge.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1422447e6682dc9bcd.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=11405)

from http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001330temperature_trends_1.html

Just use Hansen's GISS numbers.

Almost magically they are sooo close to Hansen's predictions!:D

[Slimething]

Anyway, this is off topic and it appears we are both right depending of the context and discipline.

Yeah. Life's too short. I say to-may-toe and all that jazz.

I'm a chemist, not a physicist but, trust me, most of us are too lazy to say electromagnetic radiation when we can get away with light.

[Slimething]

This is false on several counts, but the important one is that someone calling himself a scientist doesn't even know what the word means.

Oh, small one, I know perfectly well what science is. It's my livelihood. You're the one who thinks it means the study of any natural phenomenon. I advised you to buy a dictionary but perhaps even that is too advanced for you. Pick up a primer from last year and learn your ABCs first. Then you'll find that words in the dictionary are listed in bold starting with the a's then b's, c's and so on. The definitions follow in normal face after the pronunciation and the part of speech the word is. Now, look up science and let us know what you find.

As for personal attacks, shall we check and see who always does it first? Not me, pal.

Frankly, you have offered nothing but personal attacks. You have offered nothing of substance to this discussion. Nothing at all. Please point if out to me if I've missed it.

[TrueSceptic]

Oh, small one, I know perfectly well what science is. It's my livelihood. You're the one who thinks it means the study of any natural phenomenon. I advised you to buy a dictionary but perhaps even that is too advanced for you. Pick up a primer from last year and learn your ABCs first. Then you'll find that words in the dictionary are listed in bold starting with the a's then b's, c's and so on. The definitions follow in normal face after the pronunciation and the part of speech the word is. Now, look up science and let us know what you find.

Frankly, you have offered nothing but personal attacks. You have offered nothing of substance to this discussion. Nothing at all. Please point if out to me if I've missed it.

Clearly, this illustration of GWS behaviour belongs elsewhere.

[varwoche]

In short, you have no refutation to offer.

Anyone else? Yes, there's a new study that refutes. Here's the abstract (http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/3/2/024001/): A decrease in the globally averaged low level cloud cover, deduced from the ISCCP infrared data, as the cosmic ray intensity decreased during the solar cycle 22 was observed by two groups. The groups went on to hypothesize that the decrease in ionization due to cosmic rays causes the decrease in cloud cover, thereby explaining a large part of the currently observed global warming. We have examined this hypothesis to look for evidence to corroborate it. None has been found and so our conclusions are to doubt it. From the absence of corroborative evidence, we estimate that less than 23%, at the 95% confidence level, of the 11 year cycle change in the globally averaged cloud cover observed in solar cycle 22 is due to the change in the rate of ionization from the solar modulation of cosmic rays.

[mhaze]

Yes, there's a new study that refutes. Here's the abstract (http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/3/2/024001/):

The only question is, should it be discussed, or is it in the category of Lockwood and Frolich, too bad and too obviously refuted by a quick google check, to make it worthwhile to discuss?

Hmm....

Quickly reading the article, I'm puzzled. This refutes what, exactly? And according to who?

[mhaze]

Yes, there's a new study that refutes. Here's the abstract (http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/3/2/024001/):

Quite curious.

Three peer reviewed articles on cosmoclimatology appear the same week. Two support a cosmic ray influence on climate, one (Sloan) disputes it lamely. Asked to defend Sloan after bringing it into discussion (and after not mentioning the others), we have a notable response from Varoche.

Dead Silence.

Here are the three papers-Rusov et al. I (http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.2765) (PDF (http://arxiv.org/pdf/0803.2765))
Rusov et al. II (http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.2766) (PDF (http://arxiv.org/pdf/0803.2766))
Sloan & Wolfendale (http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.2298) (PDF (http://arxiv.org/pdf/0803.2298))
Considering the somewhat obvious errors in Sloan, we can say the current science leans in the direction of a cosmic ray influence on climate.

[bobdroege7]

Quite curious.

Three peer reviewed articles on cosmoclimatology appear the same week. Two support a cosmic ray influence on climate, one (Sloan) disputes it lamely. Asked to defend Sloan after bringing it into discussion (and after not mentioning the others), we have a notable response from Varoche.

Dead Silence.

Here are the three papers-Rusov et al. I (http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.2765) (PDF (http://arxiv.org/pdf/0803.2765))
Rusov et al. II (http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.2766) (PDF (http://arxiv.org/pdf/0803.2766))
Sloan & Wolfendale (http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.2298) (PDF (http://arxiv.org/pdf/0803.2298))
Considering the somewhat obvious errors in Sloan, we can say the current science leans in the direction of a cosmic ray influence on climate.


arXiv?

peer reviewed, shirley you jest!

Published in what journal?

It's a large flaming ball of gas and its coming straight toward us.

[varwoche]

Quite curious.

Three peer reviewed articles on cosmoclimatology appear the same week. Two support a cosmic ray influence on climate, one (Sloan) disputes it lamely. Asked to defend Sloan after bringing it into discussion (and after not mentioning the others), we have a notable response from Varoche.

Dead Silence. It would have been a notable accomplishment for me to comment about things that I didn't know existed! Quite curious indeed. :D To say that I don't take you seriously is a vast understatement mhaze, and this sort of childish idiocy doesn't help your cause much. Notwithstanding, thanks for posting the links -- I'll check them out as soon as I can.

[mhaze]

Correction, the first two are not peer reviewed by way of publishing in arXiv. But note that most arXiv articles are also submitted to peer reviewed journals for publication.

Varoche: Oh, okay. Well, if you didn't know about them, I retract my bit of spin there, clearly inappropriate.

[zooterkin]

Varoche:

Didn't we do this before? It's varwoche.

[bobdroege7]

Correction, the first two are not peer reviewed by way of publishing in arXiv. But note that most arXiv articles are also submitted to peer reviewed journals for publication.

Varoche: Oh, okay. Well, if you didn't know about them, I retract my bit of spin there, clearly inappropriate.

But note that most peer reviewed journals reject any submitted manuscripts that have already been published out of hand.

Editor Sir, what should I do with this manuscript, it's already been published on arXiv?

Float test it, son.

Damn, Sir it flunked the float test.

Better fish it out, and file it in the circular file.

[mhaze]

But note that most peer reviewed journals reject any submitted manuscripts that have already been published out of hand.

Editor Sir, what should I do with this manuscript, it's already been published on arXiv?

Float test it, son.

Damn, Sir it flunked the float test.

Better fish it out, and file it in the circular file.

Isn't it more in the line of a online repository/archive? More than 80% of the articles there are published elsewhere, if I recall correctly.

Not that this has anything to do with the quality of the reasoning, logic or data in the paper; on the contrary, it is a way to avoid the reasoning, logic, data, and most of all, the conclusions, in the paper.

Not that these are the only three articles on cosmoclimatology, either, they just happened to appear about the same time.

Question: Is there a discussion on cosmic ray effects on cloud formation in IPCC AR4? If so, where?