Global warming

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

If there's something in there you kept to yourself, well, this Forum obviously isn't important to you. I'm sure you told all your floozies about it :mad:. You just don't care about us any more, do you?


Actually, I just don't care about you.

:deadhorse



I mostly hang out here, JREF Forums. Not RealClimate - which has gained the iconic status of Al Gore, the IPCC, and Hansen, I've noticed.

Naturally there's a lot of "What about this, eh?" that goes on, it being a public forum and all, but there's also a lot of "I heard this, from here" and "I heard this, and thought ..." .

I'm far less interested in where you've heard something than I am in what you've heard. Only then might I care about where you heard it.

So what have you heard?I heard that no one has solved the warmers problem, that you can't warm the planet by 5C just adding CO2, even taking albedo into account.

[a_unique_person]

Regarding the possible consequences of CO2 in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere. With CO2 we are talking about "three body problems". The interaction of the molecules with the rest of the atmosphere are impossible to model with computers. It appears impossible to know the relative proportion of energy transferred from CO2 via re emitted photons, and the proportion transferred to surrounding molecules as kinetic energy. In turn this implies lab experiments on CO2 do not provide a valid factual basis for the behavior of CO2 in the upper atmosphere. Also note the 2nd law of thermodynamics, energy does not move from a cold area to a hot area.

I know I'm going out on a limb here, but that sounds like utter piffle.

[a_unique_person]

I heard that no one has solved the warmers problem, that you can't warm the planet by 5C just adding CO2, even taking albedo into account.

:confused: 5C to 6C is the upper limit of projections, but even 3C is going to have drastic consequences, as we reach a tipping point for major changes to climate and ecosystems. Do you feel lucky, punk?

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Your reading skills are in a low tipping point AUP

[David Rodale]

:confused: 5C to 6C is the upper limit of projections, but even 3C is going to have drastic consequences, as we reach a tipping point for major changes to climate and ecosystems. Do you feel lucky, punk?

A fairytale. Please locate that in IPCC AR4.

[mhaze]

note the 2nd law of thermodynamics, energy does not move from a cold area to a hot area.
I know I'm going out on a limb here, but that sounds like utter piffle.

You do not, maybe, want another chance at this one?

[Walrus32]

You do not, maybe, want another chance at this one?

Entropy, anyone?:)

[a_unique_person]

You do not, maybe, want another chance at this one?

I'm not arguing about the 2nd law, I'm saying your portrayal of the issue is piffle.

If convection was the overall driver of the issue, the stratosphere would not be cooling while the troposphere is warming. Clearly something other than just convection is at work.

[a_unique_person]

A fairytale. Please locate that in IPCC AR4.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch10.pdf page 826

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3009049#post3009049)
:confused: 5C to 6C is the upper limit of projections, but even 3C is going to have drastic consequences, as we reach a tipping point for major changes to climate and ecosystems. Do you feel lucky, punk?
A fairytale. Please locate that in IPCC AR4.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch10.pdf page 826

No tipping points there...

Do you feel unlucky, punk?

[a_unique_person]

No tipping points there...

Do you feel unlucky, punk?

Once the feedback kicks in, there won't be any going back, that is, a tipping point. Even if we did manage to reduce CO2, the changes in albedo, the release of methane, etc, will be beyond our ability to undo what we have started.

[mhaze]

I'm not arguing about the 2nd law, I'm saying your portrayal of the issue is piffle.

If convection was the overall driver of the issue, the stratosphere would not be cooling while the troposphere is warming. Clearly something other than just convection is at work.

How can you not argue about the second law of thermodynamics and still want to more energy from a cold area (tropo and stratosphere) to a hot area(surface)?

[a_unique_person]

How can you not argue about the second law of thermodynamics and still want to more energy from a cold area (tropo and stratosphere) to a hot area(surface)?

It is radiation, not convection, that is transferring the energy. The second law is about convection.

[mhaze]

It is radiation, not convection, that is transferring the energy. The second law is about convection.
So if you have a block of metal glowing white hot, and another glowing red hot, energy can be transferred from red to white by radiation resulting in a net gain of heat by the white hot block.

[a_unique_person]

So if you have a block of metal glowing white hot, and another glowing red hot, energy can be transferred from red to white by radiation resulting in a net gain of heat by the white hot block.

In this situation, as has been described before, the radiation from the sun is largely transparent to the atmosphere, and strikes the earth. The radiation from the earth is at a different frequency, and the atmosphere can absorb it, including a band that is absorbed by CO2. That radiation is then released in a random direction, some to continue it's path out to space, some to head back to earth or the atmosphere. The CO2 is sort of like a rubber wall that the radiation bounces off.

The actual release of the absorbed radiation, and the direction in which it heads, has nothing to do with the temperature of where it is coming from and where it is going to.

[mhaze]

Once the feedback kicks in, there won't be any going back, that is, a tipping point. Even if we did manage to reduce CO2, the changes in albedo, the release of methane, etc, will be beyond our ability to undo what we have started.

And you completely ignore that page 826 of chapter 10 does not substantiate your assertions, which remain your personal unsubstantiated beliefs.

As Diamond noted, you use citations as flyswatters, having no concept of their meaning or purpose.

[a_unique_person]

So if you have a block of metal glowing white hot, and another glowing red hot, energy can be transferred from red to white by radiation resulting in a net gain of heat by the white hot block.

The radiation will be sent in all directions by both, with some going from the red hot to the white hot, and vice versa. The white hot will be sending out more than the red hot.

If the white hot was a globe, surrounded by red hot little balls, then all the radiation would be trapped by the little balls, and which would then re-radiate it out in random directions, some of which would go back to where it came from in the first place.

[a_unique_person]

And you completely ignore that page 826 of chapter 10 does not substantiate your assertions, which remain your personal unsubstantiated beliefs.

As Diamond noted, you use citations as flyswatters, having no concept of their meaning or purpose.

That was in reference to the claim of the rise being at least 3C, up to 6C or so.

[mhaze]

That was in reference to the claim of the rise being at least 3C, up to 6C or so.

Your reference does not support your assertion. Further, it presumes a 1% CO2 rise per year, it does a 1000 year projection, and the 3C - 6C "worst case" is for 1200 ppm CO2. There is NO mention of tipping points, which are the basis for your entire Alarmist point of view.

Using the data on the page you reference, and it's projections LR is correct.

Burning all fossil fuel reserves, you could not reach a 5C increase.

Misuse of references, intellectual dishonesty, and a refusal on repeated requests to acknowledge the problems.

[oponol]

So if you have a block of metal glowing white hot, and another glowing red hot, energy can be transferred from red to white by radiation resulting in a net gain of heat by the white hot block.

The important point is that there is energy flowing from the red hot block of metal to the white hot block of metal. That extra energy will make the white hot block of metal slightly hotter than if the red hot block of metal wasn't there.

Of course the net energy flow is from the white hot block of metal to the red hot block of metal, just as the net energy flow is from earth's surface to the atmosphere. But that doesn't mean the atmosphere cannot provide energy to the surface.

[CapelDodger]

Not clever, just pointing out figures like that are statistically meaningless with error bars that large.

You are forgiven, but don't let it happen again unless you're going to share.

Said figures and error-bars are entirely the product of mhaze's imagination. OK, mhaze can make up some stuff that's statistically meaningless. So what?

This only arose because mhaze was claiming 50-80% inaccuracy in ice-extent reports. Which is rubbish, I'm sure you'll agree. His "thought experiment", if I can so dignify it, was where he retreated to. Without, of course, conceding that his 50-80% inaccuracy claim was actually based on predictions, not reports, and was therefore bollocks.

This was another thread, as I recall; it can be hard to keep track.

[CapelDodger]

I heard that no one has solved the warmers problem, that you can't warm the planet by 5C just adding CO2, even taking albedo into account.

What about taking water vapour and methane feedbacks into account?

(Actually, I was hoping for something on Africa. No news from there? Apart from the floods, of course.)

[a_unique_person]

The important point is that there is energy flowing from the red hot block of metal to the white hot block of metal. That extra energy will make the white hot block of metal slightly hotter than if the red hot block of metal wasn't there.

Of course the net energy flow is from the white hot block of metal to the red hot block of metal, just as the net energy flow is from earth's surface to the atmosphere. But that doesn't mean the atmosphere cannot provide energy to the surface.

What he said :).

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3007236#post3007236)
Regarding the possible consequences of CO2 in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere. With CO2 we are talking about "three body problems". The interaction of the molecules with the rest of the atmosphere are impossible to model with computers. It appears impossible to know the relative proportion of energy transferred from CO2 via re emitted photons, and the proportion transferred to surrounding molecules as kinetic energy. In turn this implies lab experiments on CO2 do not provide a valid factual basis for the behavior of CO2 in the upper atmosphere.

Also note the 2nd law of thermodynamics, energy does not move from a cold area to a hot area.

Originally Posted by AUP
I know I'm going out on a limb here, but that sounds like utter piffle.
The important point is that there is energy flowing from the red hot block of metal to the white hot block of metal. That extra energy will make the white hot block of metal slightly hotter than if the red hot block of metal wasn't there.

Of course the net energy flow is from the white hot block of metal to the red hot block of metal, just as the net energy flow is from earth's surface to the atmosphere. But that doesn't mean the atmosphere cannot provide energy to the surface.

I don't think I said it could not provide energy to the surface. Check the sentence bolded above. Opinion?

[CapelDodger]

Your reference does not support your assertion. Further, it presumes a 1% CO2 rise per year, it does a 1000 year projection, and the 3C - 6C "worst case" is for 1200 ppm CO2. There is NO mention of tipping points, which are the basis for your entire Alarmist point of view.

Using the data on the page you reference, and it's projections LR is correct.

Burning all fossil fuel reserves, you could not reach a 5C increase.

The 3-6C includes 5C. So how does the data support that it can't reach 5C? It kinda says that it can.

It's not just the fossil-fuels you have to take into account, there's also CO2 and methane from melting permafrost. That's already happening, which may represent a tipping-point that's already been passed.

If the Amazon rain-forest dies back to savannah there'll be another big chunk of CO2 from there. That's being watched closely.

Tipping-points and 5C-plus climate change are evident in climate history. Look what happens between a glaciation and an inter-glaciation. A slow warming, then wham, a whole new tempo. That's a tipping-point.

Misuse of references, intellectual dishonesty, and a refusal on repeated requests to acknowledge the problems.

On a different tack, there are severe problems with the Avery-Singer indeterminate cycle if it's solely based on D-O events. Which apparently it is. Those involve very sudden warmings around Greenland when some tipping-point is reached, and bear no similarity to what's going on in the real world.

[a_unique_person]

I don't think I said it could not provide energy to the surface. Check the sentence bolded above. Opinion?

There are several factors in the computer models that cannot be directly modeled, but are incorporated via observation and tuning. That this has to be done seems to be one of the big complaints about the models, but they still come up with reasonable outputs.

[CapelDodger]

I don't think I said it could not provide energy to the surface. Check the sentence bolded above. Opinion?

The sentence actually being referred to is

Also note the 2nd law of thermodynamics, energy does not move from a cold area to a hot area.

You said that for some reason. And, as has been pointed out, it's bollocks.

As to your highlighted sentence, it's not impossible to know how the energy is absorbed. There's plenty of theory available, and observations to test it on. Most of the radiation is absorbed by conversion to kinetic energy.

Observation of the big bad analogue experiment supports the theory. If you take a look around you'll notice that the atmosphere is getting warmer - just as theory predicts.

[CapelDodger]

Your reading skills are in a low tipping point AUP

Your posting skills are clearly at a low ebb.

I distinctly remember you posting that McIntyre, fresh from from cooling-down the US, was in the process of cooling-down Africa and there was some big announcement coming soon. That was a while back. Any progress on that, or has McIntyre lost his mojo?

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3011030#post3011030)
I don't think I said it could not provide energy to the surface. Check the sentence bolded above. Opinion?
The sentence actually being referred to is
Quote:
Also note the 2nd law of thermodynamics, energy does not move from a cold area to a hot area. You said that for some reason. And, as has been pointed out, it's bollocks.

Care to elaborate on that a bit?

[a_unique_person]

Care to elaborate on that a bit?

It's about 30 years since I did some basic thermodynamics. The classic science story was the turn of previous century, physicists seemed to have all the basic science under control, it was just a matter of refining the existing knowledge. Except for the black body radiation issue, but it was assumed that was just a minor detail to be worked out.

Radiation, it turned out, was emitted not as a continuous stream, but as particles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck

As Oponol has already said, the energy is radiated by earth, but a part of it is captured in the troposphere by gas molecules, some of which will be CO2. It is then re-emitted in a random direction. Some of this will go back to earth. Then it will be re-emitted again. Less of this will be captured. The sun will continually feed this cycle. The net effect is to slightly raise the temperature of the earth. The "greenhouse effect", not by convection, but by radiation. Increase the amount of CO2, you increase the amount of radiation trapped.

[mhaze]

It's about 30 years since I did some basic thermodynamics. The classic science story was the turn of previous century, physicists seemed to have all the basic science under control, it was just a matter of refining the existing knowledge. Except for the black body radiation issue, but it was assumed that was just a minor detail to be worked out.

Radiation, it turned out, was emitted not as a continuous stream, but as particles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck

As Oponol has already said, the energy is radiated by earth, but a part of it is captured in the troposphere by gas molecules, some of which will be CO2. It is then re-emitted in a random direction. Some of this will go back to earth. Then it will be re-emitted again. Less of this will be captured. The sun will continually feed this cycle. The net effect is to slightly raise the temperature of the earth. The "greenhouse effect", not by convection, but by radiation. Increase the amount of CO2, you increase the amount of radiation trapped.

And as they head downward, every photon that collides with another molecule is thousands of times likelier to hit a water molecule than another CO2 molecule, because of the relative ratios of those molecules. Every time gas gets another bundle of kinetic energy, it expands slightly relative to the gravity field - using up that kinetic energy.

Sure looks like this is primarily a convective heat transfer system, not radiative. But you would like to focus on the (approximate) 1/1000 of the energy system that is radiative and claim that it is the major driver.

O....kay.....

Which does lead us right back to Kristian Byrnes comments -

Another problem that has been suggested with the whole radiative-heat transfer theory proposed by the IPCC is because as altitude increases, density decreases, thus leading to fewer and fewer collisions. There are fewer molecules in a unit of space above than below. I would agree that CO2 molecules would suffer fewer collisions at higher altitudes and have a chance to relax and emit their photons in all directions, 50% in an upward direction and 50% in a downward direction. But the photons headed upward are going to travel farther than the photons traveling downward because of the lower density above. Further, as the photons travel downward and are absorbed by CO2 molecules, they are again subjected to collisions. This makes me wonder how a photon can make it back to the surface of the earth and reheat the surface.

[oponol]

I don't think I said it could not provide energy to the surface. Check the sentence bolded above. Opinion?

"It appears impossible to know the relative proportion of energy transferred from CO2 via re emitted photons, and the proportion transferred to surrounding molecules as kinetic energy."

I don't see why it's impossible to know, it's physics all the way down.

[oponol]

And as they head downward, every photon that collides with another molecule is thousands of times likelier to hit a water molecule than another CO2 molecule, because of the relative ratios of those molecules.

Depends on the height, water vapor concentration drops off exponentially with height wheras co2 concentration is virtually constant throughout the lower atmosphere. At higher heights the chance of colliding with a co2 molecule rather than a water vapor molecule becomes higher.

Another problem that has been suggested with the whole radiative-heat transfer theory proposed by the IPCC is because as altitude increases, density decreases, thus leading to fewer and fewer collisions. There are fewer molecules in a unit of space above than below. I would agree that CO2 molecules would suffer fewer collisions at higher altitudes and have a chance to relax and emit their photons in all directions, 50% in an upward direction and 50% in a downward direction. But the photons headed upward are going to travel farther than the photons traveling downward because of the lower density above. Further, as the photons travel downward and are absorbed by CO2 molecules, they are again subjected to collisions. This makes me wonder how a photon can make it back to the surface of the earth and reheat the surface.

Because all layers are emitting downward and all layers are being warmed by absorbing photons emitted from layers above. It cascades down.

[mhaze]

Depends on the height, water vapor concentration drops off exponentially with height wheras co2 concentration is virtually constant throughout the lower atmosphere. At higher heights the chance of colliding with a co2 molecule rather than a water vapor molecule becomes higher.

Because all layers are emitting downward and all layers are being warmed by absorbing photons emitted from layers above. It cascades down.

It might be useful to simplify here (for the purposes of discussion) and assume that all downward tracks at the 30,000 foot level are absorbed by water vapor, and all upward tracks at th 30,000 foot level are absorbed by CO2. All downward tracks then affect the water cycle and radiative downward impacts are laughably small.

But leaving the effects on the water cycle aside, your exposition above of the radiative model is still inadequate, as you neglect to mention that in all of those layers subject to that radiative cascading, air is getting thermal energy, and as it heats up, the entire air mass moves up and/or sideways, but seldom down.

Just saying that a cold layer can transmit energy to a hot layer by way of re emission of photons (radiative) is clearly wrong. Both kinetic and radiative mechanisms must be accounted for in their relative proportional impacts on energy transfer.

Because of these factors, I think that my original assertion that standard AGW/IPCC 2007 overemphasizes the "radiative model" is essentially correct (leaving aside a heap of published work in 2007 that supports my position).

[a_unique_person]

It might be useful to simplify here (for the purposes of discussion) and assume that all downward tracks at the 30,000 foot level are absorbed by water vapor, and all upward tracks at th 30,000 foot level are absorbed by CO2. All downward tracks then affect the water cycle and radiative downward impacts are laughably small.

But leaving the effects on the water cycle aside, your exposition above of the radiative model is still inadequate, as you neglect to mention that in all of those layers subject to that radiative cascading, air is getting thermal energy, and as it heats up, the entire air mass moves up and/or sideways, but seldom down.

Just saying that a cold layer can transmit energy to a hot layer by way of re emission of photons (radiative) is clearly wrong. Both kinetic and radiative mechanisms must be accounted for in their relative proportional impacts on energy transfer.

Because of these factors, I think that my original assertion that standard AGW/IPCC 2007 overemphasizes the "radiative model" is essentially correct (leaving aside a heap of published work in 2007 that supports my position).

Clearly wrong? What do you think the researchers have been doing all these years with all that research money? Every point that has been raised as a doubt, the scientists have already thought of. That's their job, that's why they have conferences, that's why they pool specialist knowledge. The idea that they could miss the bleeding obvious that some amateur on the internet thought of, is a common meme, but it's ridiculous.

The warming has been measured, on the ground. McIntyre, for all his waffling on and childish 'waldo' games, verified it to himself on his own web site. His response is to find points in the Southern Hemisphere to cherry pick, where the prediction already is that the Southern Hemisphere will not warm as quickly.

The completely independent Australian temperature record verifies the world temperature record, a rise in anomolies, although it is not as high as the rise in the Northern Hemisphere, as predicted by the models.

[CapelDodger]

Because all layers are emitting downward and all layers are being warmed by absorbing photons emitted from layers above. It cascades down.

And gets kicked back up, and sideways. It's like a frickin' pinball machine up there. Eventually the ball always goes down the slot; put in some extra bumpers and, on average, it'll stick around longer. In the end - in equilibrium - the infra-red photons emitted from the top of the fluid skin on Planet Earth will equal, in energy, the photons coming in.

There's really nothing freaky about that, is there? And yet it seems an impossible struggle to get it across. Human nature - waddaygonnado?

[CapelDodger]

And as they head downward, every photon that collides with another molecule is thousands of times likelier to hit a water molecule than another CO2 molecule, because of the relative ratios of those molecules.

True, and the same applies to a photon heading in any direction - up, down, sideways. But why is that water-vapour there?

If there were no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere - entirely infra-red transparent - there would be no liquid water at the surface, and the tiniest wisp of water-vapour during daylight (from sublimation). Water-vapour is only in the atmosphere in significant quantities because the greenhouse effect of CO2 raises much of the Earth's surface above freezing-point.

Water-vapour is a feedback not a forcing.

Every time gas gets another bundle of kinetic energy, it expands slightly relative to the gravity field - using up that kinetic energy.

Expands relative to the gravity field? WTF is that supposed to mean?

The gas that's getting the extra kinetic energy is the entire troposphere. It has nowhere to expand to except upwards. It also has the option of increasing its pressure, and in practice it does both. The tropopause moves up until pressure is equalised with the stratospheric pressure.

The predicted rise of the tropopause has been observed.

Sure looks like this is primarily a convective heat transfer system, not radiative. But you would like to focus on the (approximate) 1/1000 of the energy system that is radiative and claim that it is the major driver.

Within the troposphere there is a predominant convective element to heat transfer, but at the tropopause that convection pretty much stops, and it's clearly nonsense to suggest that convection is the mechanism by which the atmosphere as a whole emits energy into space. It's all radiative out there.

[mhaze]

Clearly wrong? What do you think the researchers have been doing all these years with all that research money? Every point that has been raised as a doubt, the scientists have already thought of. That's their job, that's why they have conferences, that's why they pool specialist knowledge. The idea that they could miss the bleeding obvious that some amateur on the internet thought of, is a common meme, but it's ridiculous.

With all due respect, the argument from Authority should be rejected.

Reason: No authoritative source reference provided that covers the base material summaried in these now familiar questions 1 and 3.

Unanswered Questions and Challenges

1. A challenge for AGW believers to cite a scientific atmospheric study that provided empirical evidence of the hypothesized greenhouse effects of CO2 in the atmosphere.

3. Can a AGW believer show correlation or causation, or any relationship, between global temperature and global atmospheric CO2 levels?

[CapelDodger]

It might be useful to simplify here (for the purposes of discussion) and assume that all downward tracks at the 30,000 foot level are absorbed by water vapor, and all upward tracks at th 30,000 foot level are absorbed by CO2. All downward tracks then affect the water cycle and radiative downward impacts are laughably small.

That's just laughable. Why should water-vapour be transparent on the way up but not transparent on the way down? You may find some use for that idea, but doesn't simplify matters.

Here's the simple picture. Planet Earth is a big ball of rock. Covering its surface is a very thin skin of fluids. Radiation from the Sun introduces energy into the fluid (and an even thinner layer of said ball of rock), and the fluid layer emits the same amount - by radiation, the currency the energy arrived in, the currency of Space. This applies, of course, when the fluid skin is in equilibrium with its surroundings.

When it's out of equilibrium - as it is now - energy in doesn't balance energy out, and the fluid skin warms or cools. Currently, for well-understood reasons, energy in is greater than energy out and the fluid skin is warming.

It's simple, really.

[a_unique_person]

With all due respect, the argument from Authority should be rejected.

Reason: No authoritative source reference provided that covers the base material summaried in these now familiar questions 1 and 3.



Not if the person is relying on an Authority in that field, which I am. Face it, a few guys babbling on on the internet is not substitute for hard research, money and man-hours.

I also believe you are still making an argument from ignorance. There is plenty of research out there that answers your questions, if you go out there and find it, and read it.

Have you read the whole of the IPCC TAR4 yet?



Unanswered Questions and Challenges

1. A challenge for AGW believers to cite a scientific atmospheric study that provided empirical evidence of the hypothesized greenhouse effects of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Christies own temperature records, (once he removed the errors that he didn't want to find), do just that, the troposphere is warming, the stratosphere is cooling, exactly as predicted.



3. Can a AGW believer show correlation or causation, or any relationship, between global temperature and global atmospheric CO2 levels?


Read the 4AR. You did say 'any', and it's quite clearly demonstrated using the temperature record and models. I suspect that won't be good enough for you, though.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf

9.4.1.2 Simulations of the 20th Century

[CapelDodger]

1. A challenge for AGW believers to cite a scientific atmospheric study that provided empirical evidence of the hypothesized greenhouse effects of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The big bad analogue model is providing all the empirical evidence required.

The greenhouse effect of CO2 was only hypothesised in the first place to explain the empirical evidence that the world is warmer than thermodynamics would suggest for a big rock with no (or a transparent) atmosphere. That was a century and a half ago, before it was a political issue. It's been well established as a theory since then, with all the trappings of mechanisms. There's no refuge in calling it a "hypothesis". The greenhouse effect is real. You owe your life to it.

3.

Glad to see 2 has been dropped.

Can a AGW believer show correlation or causation, or any relationship, between global temperature and global atmospheric CO2 levels?

More CO2, warmer world, other things remaining equal. Which they have in recent times. The cause is explained by the science. Just how much warmer for any given CO2-load is uncertain, within limits. What is certain is that at the current CO2-load it's as warm as now and getting warmer. That's just for current CO2-load, which is itself increasing.

Given your attitude, you'd be well advised to drop the "believer". I, along with a host of other informed observers, am convinced. I don't do belief. You, on the other hand, seem to do disbelief in a big way, backed up by wilful (and determined) ignorance. Which is not the same as scepticism.

[a_unique_person]

Patrick J Michaels and McKitrick screw up. http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/patMichaels.html

I wonder if McIntyre has been looking for Waldo there?

[a_unique_person]

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22510443-662,00.html



THE drought could produce some of the worst food shortages since World War II.
Chairman of Australian Vegetable and Potato Growers Federation Michael Badcock does not believe rationing will be needed, but he says some products will be difficult to find if the drought continues.
"It will get tighter and some products may be difficult to buy," he said yesterday.
Federal Agriculture Minister Peter McGauran warned that Australia's food industry might have to "reprioritise" to meet domestic demand.
He agreed that Australian consumers would experience shortages and would be paying "significantly higher prices".
"Global shortages and rising world prices are also contributing to price increases," he said.
"It is difficult to predict the extent of the effects of the drought, but reduced food availability and higher prices are already emerging and will worsen as the drought continues."
Mr Badcock said it was not just the drought that was a problem, and that available food in storage around the world was the least it had been since World War II, a matter of a few weeks' supply.
With failed crops in Australia, importers were "finding it quite difficult to top up their shelves with imported product".
Mr Badcock said extreme weather was causing problems around the world.
"In Europe, they had an extremely dry spring, then rain and floods in summer, so they had a poor season for growth and then problems at harvest time."




We had the same thing here, average rainfall looks fine, but it largely consisted of floods and showers, not the same thing.

[mhaze]

We had the same thing here, average rainfall looks fine, but it largely consisted of floods and showers, not the same thing.

You've had floods and showers?

[mhaze]

Patrick J Michaels and McKitrick screw up. http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/patMichaels.html

I wonder if McIntyre has been looking for Waldo there?
Whoaoa! AUP, you have a real scoop there! Exxon! Exxon Alert! Whooa!! leaked memos! Cato Institute! In 1995 Harpers Magazine author Ross Gelbspan reported that Pat Michaels has received more than $115,000 (http://dieoff.org/page82.htm) from coal and energy interests. In 2006 a leaked memo (http://www.desmogblog.com/vampire-memo-reveals-coal-industry-plan-for-massive-propaganda-blitz) from the Intermountain Rural Electric Association (IREA (http://www.intermountain-rea.com/index.htm)) details payments of at least $100,000 and the soliciting of more money for Michaels et al from other coal outlets. Pat Michaels is also a Visiting Scientist with the George C. Marshall Institute (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_C._Marshall_Institute) and a Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies with the Cato Institute (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cato_Institute). Both of which receive funding from Exxon Mobil and other oil interests.

[a_unique_person]

You've had floods and showers?

What the farmers need is soaking rain.

[a_unique_person]

Whoaoa! AUP, you have a real scoop there! Exxon! Exxon Alert! Whooa!! leaked memos! Cato Institute! In 1995 Harpers Magazine author Ross Gelbspan reported that Pat Michaels has received more than $115,000 (http://dieoff.org/page82.htm) from coal and energy interests. In 2006 a leaked memo (http://www.desmogblog.com/vampire-memo-reveals-coal-industry-plan-for-massive-propaganda-blitz) from the Intermountain Rural Electric Association (IREA (http://www.intermountain-rea.com/index.htm)) details payments of at least $100,000 and the soliciting of more money for Michaels et al from other coal outlets. Pat Michaels is also a Visiting Scientist with the George C. Marshall Institute (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_C._Marshall_Institute) and a Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies with the Cato Institute (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cato_Institute). Both of which receive funding from Exxon Mobil and other oil interests.


You ducked the point, but you get the idea of who Cato will give a job to.

[mhaze]

You ducked the point, but you get the idea of who Cato will give a job to.

Cato is a pretty fine outfit in my opinion.

Did you have a point other than quoting a smear website?

[mhaze]

Read the 4AR. You did say 'any', and it's quite clearly demonstrated using the temperature record and models. I suspect that won't be good enough for you, though.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf

9.4.1.2 Simulations of the 20th Century

Your last AR4 reference of page 826 did not do too well in supporting your tipping point beliefs.

Do you have specific page which you would like to provide relative to this matter?

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3014252#post3014252)
You've had floods and showers?


What the farmers need is soaking rain.

Probably blame it on global warming, right?

[a_unique_person]

Your last AR4 reference of page 826 did not do too well in supporting your tipping point beliefs.

Do you have specific page which you would like to provide relative to this matter?

The quote was a reference to expected temperature ranges, which it did.

Did you read the link?

[a_unique_person]

Probably blame it on global warming, right?

Weather patterns are changing, as predicted.

http://www.dar.csiro.au/news/2000/mr09.html

El Nino = drought.


Tipping points from Realclimate

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/runaway-tipping-points-of-no-return/

[stevea]

Wow - I'm just amazed at how people who clearly have no knowledge of basic physics can argue so vociferously over a topic they clearly do not understand in any depth. I have an MS in physics an I would not propose that I am capable of supporting some of the arguments here - even the few I tend to agree with. I sincerely appreciate that the two major proponents here are trying to grapple with the fundamental issue, but they both could use a trip to a library for a course in thermal physics.

Do you two NOT understand why a simple blackbody model is insufficient for the earth ? Do you not understand that the spectral absorption of CO2 & H2O and NOT their molar concentrations are the relevant issue ? It's like listening to 3rd graders argue about the Cauchy-Riemann eqn.

The idea of using recent weather data as support for a particular climate model is nonsense; such data can at most eliminate erroneous theories. One can obviously propose thousands of different models that match any observed dataset in such a complex system.

==

As I've suggested before, the entire point is moot unless a practical, politically implementable solution is available. Well here at least is a proposed solution
that has a semblance of the necessary properties ...
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7014503.stm

That we have increased the atmospheric CO2 is relatively uncontested and that is has an impact on biosphere is not so difficult to demonstrate. So is a carbon sequestration system worth the cost, given the contestable evidence for AGW and the catastrophic-GW theories ? Of course any sequestration system has an environmental impact too.

I can't imagine for a moment that some international agreement like Kyoto can actually reduce human CO2 emmisions by enough to matter. That's a fuzzy-thinking liberal fantasy. When your kids are going to bed cold and hungry people will do most anything, environment be d*mned. Our propensity to reproduce up the the limits of available resources ensures our global dependence on high energy usage or else massive deaths.

[a_unique_person]

Wow - I'm just amazed at how people who clearly have no knowledge of basic physics can argue so vociferously over a topic they clearly do not understand in any depth. I have an MS in physics an I would not propose that I am capable of supporting some of the arguments here - even the few I tend to agree with. I sincerely appreciate that the two major proponents here are trying to grapple with the fundamental issue, but they both could use a trip to a library for a course in thermal physics.

Do you two NOT understand why a simple blackbody model is insufficient for the earth ? Do you not understand that the spectral absorption of CO2 & H2O and NOT their molar concentrations are the relevant issue ? It's like listening to 3rd graders argue about the Cauchy-Riemann eqn.

The idea of using recent weather data as support for a particular climate model is nonsense; such data can at most eliminate erroneous theories. One can obviously propose thousands of different models that match any observed dataset in such a complex system.

==

As I've suggested before, the entire point is moot unless a practical, politically implementable solution is available. Well here at least is a proposed solution
that has a semblance of the necessary properties ...
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7014503.stm

That we have increased the atmospheric CO2 is relatively uncontested and that is has an impact on biosphere is not so difficult to demonstrate. So is a carbon sequestration system worth the cost, given the contestable evidence for AGW and the catastrophic-GW theories ? Of course any sequestration system has an environmental impact too.

I can't imagine for a moment that some international agreement like Kyoto can actually reduce human CO2 emmisions by enough to matter. That's a fuzzy-thinking liberal fantasy. When your kids are going to bed cold and hungry people will do most anything, environment be d*mned. Our propensity to reproduce up the the limits of available resources ensures our global dependence on high energy usage or else massive deaths.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I'm quite happy to acknowledge my limited understanding of the topic, I'm just doing the best I can. I am also happy to refer people to the IPCC reports, but that doens't seem to satisfy a lot of people for some reason :confused:.

The weather patterns, not just isolated events, seem to be changing in Australia, and research is underway into establishing if that is permanent or not. What is happening is certainly in accord with predictions. El Nino = Drought for Australia. The prediction was for more frequent and more powerful El Nino, and that's what's been happening. This is for not just one year, but for about ten years now, since the massive El Nino of 1998. All capital cities are now investing in desalination plants. That's not just because of increased demand, but reduced inflows as well.

If the liberal dream of Kyoto isn't going to work, then what is?

[a_unique_person]

Do you two NOT understand why a simple blackbody model is insufficient for the earth ? Do you not understand that the spectral absorption of CO2 & H2O and NOT their molar concentrations are the relevant issue ?

I'm all ears :confused:.

[bobdroege7]

Also note the 2nd law of thermodynamics, energy does not move from a cold area to a hot area.

from wikepedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

Heat cannot spontaneously flow from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature.
Informally, "Heat doesn't flow from cold to hot (without work input)", which is obviously true from everyday experience. For example in a refrigerator, heat flows from cold to hot, but only when electrical energy is added. Note that from the mathematical definition of entropy, a process in which heat flows from cold to hot has decreasing entropy. This is allowable in a non-isolated system, however only if entropy is created elsewhere, such that the total entropy is constant or increasing, as required by the second law. For example, the electrical energy going into a refrigerator is converted to heat and goes out the back, representing a net increase in entropy.


Saying that energy transfer from cold to hot is impossible according to the second law of thermodynamics is wrong!

what the second law actually states is that energy transfer from cold to hot is improbable, or requires work.

and expanding gases perform work!

At least that is within my experience as I rely on expanding gases performing work in order that my combustion engine powered vehicle gets me to work on time.

thanks

[bobdroege7]

Not clever, just pointing out figures like that are statistically meaningless with error bars that large.

You are forgiven, but don't let it happen again unless you're going to share.

Statistically meaningless, surely you are joking!

+/- 10% an be a useful and honest way of conveying how much you know. Even so the odds that the area of ice actually increased is pretty slim.

[Geckko]

Weather patterns are changing, as predicted.

http://www.dar.csiro.au/news/2000/mr09.html

El Nino = drought.


I read this only a couple of days ago.

Australia has been experiencing natural cyclical shift.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22489358-30417,00.html

[a_unique_person]

Do you two NOT understand why a simple blackbody model is insufficient for the earth ? Do you not understand that the spectral absorption of CO2 & H2O and NOT their molar concentrations are the relevant issue ? It's like listening to 3rd graders argue about the Cauchy-Riemann eqn.


CO2 and H20 absorb radiation at different bands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

Earth as a black body

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body

[mhaze]

from wikepedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

Saying that energy transfer from cold to hot is impossible according to the second law of thermodynamics is wrong!

what the second law actually states is that energy transfer from cold to hot is improbable, or requires work.

and expanding gases perform work!

thanks
the work that expanding gases do not do is re emit a photon with energy that was already used up to make the gas expand.

[bobdroege7]

the work that expanding gases do not do is re emit a photon with energy that was already used up to make the gas expand.

checkmate dude!

already used up to make the gas expand, now that photon that the earth emitted is lost forever and the earth has warmed proving the theory of global warming by CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

thanks for playing this thread can now be closed

[David Rodale]

Statistically meaningless, surely you are joking!

+/- 10% an be a useful and honest way of conveying how much you know. Even so the odds that the area of ice actually increased is pretty slim.

See how many articles you can find that publish +/-10% error range as a "useful" number, even in climate "science".

[bobdroege7]

See how many articles you can find that publish +/-10% error range as a "useful" number, even in climate "science".

http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila/#eris

Initial estimates of the size of Eris were greater than +/- 10%

First one I tried to find that supports my claim that +/- 10 % is useful

1 for 1, can I stop now or do you need more?

[mhaze]

The quote was a reference to expected temperature ranges, which it did.
Read the 4AR. You did say 'any', and it's quite clearly demonstrated using the temperature record and models. I suspect that won't be good enough for you, though.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/...Print_Ch09.pdf (http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf)
9.4.1.2 Simulations of the 20th Century

And which it did not do was prove out your silly idea of "tipping points", which has no basis in any IPCC document.

As far as I can tell here is your count on vague arguments from Authority -

Number of times AUP has said "Read the IPCC" - 265.
Number of times AUP has provided a page reference in the IPCC - 1

[mhaze]

checkmate dude!

already used up to make the gas expand, now that photon that the earth emitted is lost forever and the earth has warmed proving the theory of global warming by CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

thanks for playing this thread can now be closed

Would you care to elaborate a bit on that?

Bob, keep in mind that my hypothetical situation of + or - 10% was a specific issue of looking at year to year change and the way that errors multiply out.

[bobdroege7]

the work that expanding gases do not do is re emit a photon with energy that was already used up to make the gas expand.

I'll elaborate a bit,

You are saying that the CO2 molecules absorb a photon and then the CO2 gas expands.

right?

And the energy from the photon was used up in making the CO2 gas expand.

right?

So the energy of the photon was absorbed by the CO2 gas, and the CO2 gas cannot re-emit the photon.

so in conclusion the earth gives of infared light and the CO2 gas absorbs it and does not re-emit the infared light thereby warming the atmosphere.

got it global warming is proved scientifically by mhaze.

thanks for playing

game over

[varwoche]

Did you have a point other than quoting a smear website? Pardon the interjection... Given the never-ending stream of sources you cite that would have to strive to achieve dubious, this is pretty funny.

But that said, I don't trust random websites either. Here (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/) is an article written by Hansen and published on the NASA website that supports the claim that Michaels willfully and egregiously misled congress.

p.s. You omitted the [/o'reilly] tags. ;)

[David Rodale]

http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila/#eris

Initial estimates of the size of Eris were greater than +/- 10%

First one I tried to find that supports my claim that +/- 10 % is useful

1 for 1, can I stop now or do you need more?

It is not "useful" for the example given by MHaze in statistical methodology, which you evidently aren't grasping.

Keep going until you understand what was meant by "useful" in statistical language, and while you're at at, where's that comprehensive refutation of Gerlich's 'Falsification of the atmospheric.....'? Did you forget about it?
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Falsification_of_CO2.pdf

If you get stuck, you can email the authors with questions which they will answer, but it must in a respectful manner.

[mhaze]

Pardon the interjection... Given the never-ending stream of sources you cite that would have to strive to achieve dubious, this is pretty funny.

But that said, I don't trust random websites either. Here (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/) is an article written by Hansen and published on the NASA website that supports the claim that Michaels willfully and egregiously misled congress.


I've read it, the rebuttals ad nauseam. Disagree but not interested in the effort to side step the discussion into personalities, thanks. Nonethess, I agree with your approach. We can understand this (or another) event by going to the original sources.

[mhaze]

I'll elaborate a bit,
You are saying that the CO2 molecules absorb a photon and then the CO2 gas expands.
right?
And the energy from the photon was used up in making the CO2 gas expand.
right?
So the energy of the photon was absorbed by the CO2 gas, and the CO2 gas cannot re-emit the photon.
so in conclusion the earth gives of infared light and the CO2 gas absorbs it and does not re-emit the infared light thereby warming the atmosphere.
got it global warming is proved scientifically by mhaze.
thanks for playing
game over

Noooo......

Let's look at a more general subject.

What convinces you of AGW and/or that it is a problem?

[a_unique_person]

Pure Comedy at climateaudit.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2123#comments

Ignorance reigns.

The three stooges comes to mind.

[a_unique_person]

And which it did not do was prove out your silly idea of "tipping points", which has no basis in any IPCC document.

As far as I can tell here is your count on vague arguments from Authority -

Number of times AUP has said "Read the IPCC" - 265.
Number of times AUP has provided a page reference in the IPCC - 1

You keep on asking questions, when a huge amount of money, time and effort has gone into creating a report that presents the science as it is understood at this time. Read it. Then argue against it. There's no point asking me what I think, there's no point asking about this or that point when you haven't understood the scope of the whole issue. Read it. Then ask your questions. The reason I haven't given references to pages yet is because of that, but I gave up. The index lists all the areas covered, read it. IANAS.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

It's not my job to educate you, and I'm not qualified to. Get the info from the experts.

[a_unique_person]

I've read it, the rebuttals ad nauseam. Disagree but not interested in the effort to side step the discussion into personalities, thanks. Nonethess, I agree with your approach. We can understand this (or another) event by going to the original sources.

So you'll read the 4ar.

[mhaze]

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html


Why don't you quote some things that you think are relevant?

[mhaze]

So you'll read the 4ar.

The original sources are the peer reviewed articles listed in the bibliography of various sections of the your treasured IPCC documents.


Number of times AUP has said "Read the IPCC" - 270.
Number of times AUP has provided a page reference in the IPCC - 1

[mhaze]

Pure Comedy at climateaudit.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2123#comments

Ignorance reigns.

The three stooges comes to mind.

You have posted to "Unthreaded #21", not to a specific comment. These threads rack up about 600 comments in a few days and are then closed and a new one started.

Thanks for leading people to this excellent reference - you have saved me the trouble. Referencing "comedy" helps - people always like a laugh.

Of course at climateaudit you will find reasoned, civil debate between scientists (both pro and skeptic) and amateurs.

But were you trying to link to some specific comment?

If so, will you let us know which one(s)?

I liked post #16

Dennis Wingo says:
September 29th, 2007 at 12:55 pm


...the graduate textbook, “The Quantum Theory of Light” by Loudon, page 81-90.

There are two crucial equations that govern how the partial pressure of CO2 and any increases or decreases, effect absorption and emission of radiation. send an email to me at wingod at earthlink.net and I will scan them and send them to you.


The most interesting thing to me is that both of the crucial equations (collision or pressure broadening, and doppler broadening) are temperature dependent to the square root power, making them a feedback and not a forcing mechanism.


The explanation on realclimate.org is just wrong.

[a_unique_person]

Why don't you quote some things that you think are relevant?

It's all relevant. AGW is a complex topic, and people keep on demanding evidence. Here it is, in spades, with references to the source research.

[CapelDodger]

Do you two NOT understand why a simple blackbody model is insufficient for the earth ? Do you not understand that the spectral absorption of CO2 & H2O and NOT their molar concentrations are the relevant issue ? It's like listening to 3rd graders argue about the Cauchy-Riemann eqn.[/quote/

In post #1539 I said :

[QUOTE]Here's the simple picture. Planet Earth is a big ball of rock. Covering its surface is a very thin skin of fluids. Radiation from the Sun introduces energy into the fluid (and an even thinner layer of said ball of rock), and the fluid layer emits the same amount - by radiation, the currency the energy arrived in, the currency of Space. This applies, of course, when the fluid skin is in equilibrium with its surroundings.


That doesn't assume a blackbody model, but does assume a balance of energy in and energy out in an equilibrium - which seems to me a truism. The energy has to go out as radiation, surely? Not necessarily in a blackbody spectrum, of course. As I understand it, "blackbody" refers to solids, not gases.

The idea of using recent weather data as support for a particular climate model is nonsense; such data can at most eliminate erroneous theories. One can obviously propose thousands of different models that match any observed dataset in such a complex system.

One can, but most are likely to be unskilful in prediction. The thing about, say, Hansen's 1988 model is that it not only fits observations up to that time but also observations made subsequently. Which is quite robust support, to my mind.

I don't agree that climate is a very complex system to model. Weather is far more complex, as is ice-dynamics (a real bitch from what I've heard).

As I've suggested before, the entire point is moot unless a practical, politically implementable solution is available.

I find enjoyment in science for its own sake. There's no practicable solution to what cosmology tells us, but it's still way cool.

I steer clear of solutions to AGW since that subject really is moot. The near to middling future will be event-driven, not policy-driven.

The thing that most concerns me is the assault on science per se, of which climate-change denialism is one example.

That we have increased the atmospheric CO2 is relatively uncontested ...

Relatively uncontested? Heliocentrism is relatively uncontested.

CO2-load is not difficult to measure (it was a common test of laboratory skills by the late 19thCE, when such practical matters were more highly-valued than in today's scientific enviroment) and it's risen from about 290ppm to about 380ppm in the last century. Over the same period oceans have taken up a considerable amount of CO2 themselves. Meanwhile vast amounts of fossil-fuel has been consumed.

It surely can't be reasonably contested that we've jacked-up atmospheric CO2-load by about a third.

I can't imagine for a moment that some international agreement like Kyoto can actually reduce human CO2 emmisions by enough to matter. That's a fuzzy-thinking liberal fantasy. When your kids are going to bed cold and hungry people will do most anything, environment be d*mned. Our propensity to reproduce up the the limits of available resources ensures our global dependence on high energy usage or else massive deaths.

Thomas Malthus, thou art avenged! :)

When it's not their own kids that are cold and hungry most people won't sacrifice anything significant for them. When a Louisiana politico loses one of his homes to a hurricane it's not exactly a rocket up his fundament. And it's the politicians that have the power to make a difference. Which they won't exercise.

The cold and hungry will indeed do anything, but if it impinges on the better-off they won't be allowed to. They are cold and hungry because they're powerless, so what they actually do adds up to squat. Let's face it, we could - in global terms - lose the whole of Sub-Saharan Africa without even noticing the bump.

OK, that's my excursion into the political realm done :). As I've said before, we're screwed. So some are more screwed than others, meh. It was ever thus.

[CapelDodger]

"There are two crucial equations that govern how the partial pressure of CO2 and any increases or decreases, effect absorption and emission of radiation. send an email to me at wingod at earthlink.net and I will scan them and send them to you.


The most interesting thing to me is that both of the crucial equations (collision or pressure broadening, and doppler broadening) are temperature dependent to the square root power, making them a feedback and not a forcing mechanism."

Equations aren't feedbacks or forcings. They're equations.

A forcing would be something akin to an increase in CO2-load. What the equationsy appear to represent is variation in the absorption mechanism due to temperature-change. That might well represent a feedback effect, but it's one step removed from actual absorption and the warming it causes.

"The explanation on realclimate.org is just wrong."



Not on this rather confused individual's say-so it isn't.

[mhaze]

nnnnnnooooooooooo comment on that little gem of innuendo by the local math phobic.

[CapelDodger]

I've read it, the rebuttals ad nauseam.

There are no rebuttals to Michaels lying to Congress. It was done very publicly. He presented Scenario A as the prediction while erasing Scenarios B and C - where Scenario B best matched the actual outcome, both in CO2 and in temperature. That is lying. Caught, as we say this side of the pond, bang-to-rights.

Disagree but not interested in the effort to side step the discussion into personalities, thanks.

That is seriously rich. Al Gore? Hansen? Mann? Are these not persons? Prick them, do they not bleed? Call them liars, are they not hurt and offended?


Nonethess, I agree with your approach. We can understand this (or another) event by going to the original sources.

Which was not what Michaels presented to Congress. What he presented was the original source with scenarios B and C air-brushed out. The fact that he did so is what marks him out as a liar.

Why he lied is anybody's guess. Money, fame, political ambition, ideological imperative, who knows? What we do know is that he lied.

[CapelDodger]

nnnnnnooooooooooo comment on that little gem of innuendo by the local math phobic.

That's all you've got?

You seem driven to say something, even when you've nothing to say.

Personal note : A-level Pure Maths, Applied Maths and Physics. Degree in Computer Science. I have never found maths frightening in the slightest. Not even alarming. Nor physics, for that matter.

You, on the other hand, appear to be deeply phobic about the science behind AGW. Excuses such as "SciAm costs money" do rather give it away.

It's much like your use of "believer" in regard to those who accept AGW - however good their reasons - while accepting 60-80 year cycles as gospel because you're comfortable with them.

The impression you give is of a very frightened person, trying to conceal it with bombast. I suggest you think twice before accusing me of the same. There are, after all, people watching.

[mhaze]

My apologies. I thought you had said something to the effect earlier that you were math phobic, but granted that was in the context of one of the messages in which you mentioned having been drinking too much.

On these equations.

You might want to take a look at them before pronouncing a verdict?

Or is that unnecessary?

[CapelDodger]

It's all relevant. AGW is a complex topic, and people keep on demanding evidence. Here it is, in spades, with references to the source research.

The IPCC reports are, after all, what was demanded by the most sceptical audience of all - the sovereign governments of the world that really have enough to contend with without climate, previously a given constant, becomg a variable. They are the customers, and they really don't want it to be so. And yet they are persuaded.

They're not doing anything yet, of course, because they still have all those more traditional priorities to deal with. Such as economic growth. But they're persuaded enough to talk about discussing doing something about it at some point. And enough to say, very loudly, how much they care about the subject.

We're screwed. Again.

[CapelDodger]

My apologies. I thought you had said something to the effect earlier that you were math phobic, but granted that was in the context of one of the messages in which you mentioned having been drinking too much.

As I recall, I said "too smashed". It wasn't me that brought up the "math phobic", it was you, but - smashed though I was - it was clearly directed at me. As was this more recent example.

On these equations.

You might want to take a look at them before pronouncing a verdict?

Or is that unnecessary?

Well, yes, it is. The guy described what the equations concerned - the variation in the mechanism of absorption with temperature. That's a feedback almost by definition, but it's the absorption that changes the temperature in the first place. Which is why CO2 is a forcing.

Why is this not obvious?

[CapelDodger]

checkmate dude!

already used up to make the gas expand, now that photon that the earth emitted is lost forever and the earth has warmed proving the theory of global warming by CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

thanks for playing this thread can now be closed

You'd think so, wouldn't you?

[mhaze]

Quote:
On these equations. You might want to take a look at them before pronouncing a verdict? Or is that unnecessary?
Well, yes, it is. The guy described what the equations concerned - the variation in the mechanism of absorption with temperature. That's a feedback almost by definition, but it's the absorption that changes the temperature in the first place. Which is why CO2 is a forcing.

Why is this not obvious?

Why is it not obvious that one should look at the equations (or the actual facts) before pronouncing a verdict? Well, one reason I can think of is that a person might want to actually get the right answer.

But hey, if you are content to pronounce your verdict on this small bit of science, without looking at the actual chapter from a graduate level textbook then we shall just leave it right there.

You alleged a while back that the theory of CO2 and the greenhouse effect was well understood, that it could be found in textbooks.

Now you are faced with a textbook chapter that appears to contradict some part of your belief set. You can either prove the chapter wrong, stand firm on your belief set(no facts needed then), or study the chapter and correct whatever if any beliefs you have that are factually incorrect.

Let me know your choice.

By the way, I'm still waiting for some references from you regarding sub acquired or other historical sea temperature data that you have said refutes the well known and understood 60-80 year climate cycles.

Oh, I'm also waiting for an analysis of or rebuttal of Singer based on Osborn and Briffa's criticism by Burger et. al.

[a_unique_person]

[indent]Why is it not obvious that one should look at the equations (or the actual facts) before pronouncing a verdict? Well, one reason I can think of is that a person might want to actually get the right answer.

But hey, if you are content to pronounce your verdict on this small bit of science, without looking at the actual chapter from a graduate level textbook then we shall just leave it right there.

You alleged a while back that the theory of CO2 and the greenhouse effect was well understood, that it could be found in textbooks.

Now you are faced with a textbook chapter that appears to contradict some part of your belief set. You can either prove the chapter wrong, stand firm on your belief set(no facts needed then), or study the chapter and correct whatever if any beliefs you have that are factually incorrect.

Let me know your choice.

By the way, I'm still waiting for some references from you regarding sub acquired or other historical sea temperature data that you have said refutes the well known and understood 60-80 year climate cycles.

Oh, I'm also waiting for an analysis of or rebuttal of Singer based on Osborn and Briffa's criticism by Burger et. al.

Once again, scientists who specialise in this field of research, around the world, have a certain view of what an equation means. Some anonymous hacker on a web site disagrees, so he must be given creedence, and doubt reigns.

[mhaze]

Once again, scientists who specialise in this field of research, around the world, have a certain view of what an equation means. Some anonymous hacker on a web site disagrees, so he must be given creedence, and doubt reigns.

If an AGW belief set causes you to make a statement such as the above when the subject is only the content of a single chapter out of a graduate level textbook, you might want to consider if that is something of a problem.

[a_unique_person]

If an AGW belief set causes you to make a statement such as the above when the subject is only the content of a single chapter out of a graduate level textbook, you might want to consider if that is something of a problem.

Qualified scientists vs anonymous post on web site? Who do I believe... hmmm.... The qualified scientist is my pick, again.

[bobdroege7]

It is not "useful" for the example given by MHaze in statistical methodology, which you evidently aren't grasping.

Keep going until you understand what was meant by "useful" in statistical language, and while you're at at, where's that comprehensive refutation of Gerlich's 'Falsification of the atmospheric.....'? Did you forget about it?
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Falsification_of_CO2.pdf

If you get stuck, you can email the authors with questions which they will answer, but it must in a respectful manner.

Here is what Steve McIntyre says about Gerlich.

He says its trash and so do I.

so why don't we forget about it.


http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2123#comments

#27. Again I do not want “skeptic” articles cited on this topic. I know that literature. I do not want to discuss Gerlich on this site. I am not interested in expositions why the effect is impossible - it isn’t. Can people simply STOP posting “skeptic” references on this. This site is devoted to auditing and verification of articles being relied on by IPCC for policy purposes. The skeptic literature is not relied on, so I’m not interested in hosting discussions of it. Period.

[bobdroege7]

Noooo......

Let's look at a more general subject.

What convinces you of AGW and/or that it is a problem?

So you refute your own argument?

What convinces me?

the earth gives off infared, and CO2 absorbs it, blocking it from reaching space thereby warming the earth, and since we are burning fossil fuels raising CO2 in the atmosphere, which can be verified by the isotopic ratios in the atmosphere, thus we are causing it.

It really is as simple as that.

How much of a problem it actually is, only time will tell, but if it leads to our using more renewable energy sources, it is a good problem to solve.

We will eventually run out of fossil fuels anyway.

[a_unique_person]

That thread is pure comedy.



#136
Let me restate that question:
Question: Has anyone established the level (concentration x distance) at which IR absorption by water vapor is essentially complete?



:hit:

[mhaze]

Here is what Steve McIntyre says about Gerlich. He says its trash and so do I. so why don't we forget about it.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2123#comments

#27. Again I do not want “skeptic” articles cited on this topic. I know that literature. I do not want to discuss Gerlich on this site. I am not interested in expositions why the effect is impossible - it isn’t. Can people simply STOP posting “skeptic” references on this. This site is devoted to auditing and verification of articles being relied on by IPCC for policy purposes. The skeptic literature is not relied on, so I’m not interested in hosting discussions of it. Period.

McIntyre does not in his comment say Gerlich is trash. In the comment you quote he doesn't say that. He is just talking about what discussions he wants to occur on his website that he owns, "climateaudit.org".

Go back and look at the header for Unthreaded #20 or many other points at McIntyre's comments. You will find a consistency.

Unthreaded #21 (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2123)

By Steve McIntyre
No discussion of CO2 measurements, thermodynamics, theory of radiation, etc. please - other than to identify interesting references - and something more than the title is usually helpful. How hard can that be? If anyone can identify a clear exposition of how 2xCO2 leads to 2.5 deg C, please do so. (I’m not taking any position on the matter, I’m just trying to identify the best possible exposition. )


Unthreaded #20 (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2047)

By Steve McIntyre
No discussion of CO2 measurements, thermodynamics, theory of radiation, etc. please - other than to identify interesting references.

[mhaze]

So you refute your own argument?

I'm not willing to teach you basic things. We went through that on a simple statistics question and now it is another subject and you are again making errors. So I thought changing the subject made a lot of sense. The point of this discussion is not, believe it or not, to ridicule or make a laughing stock of other people, who mostly with good intent, make postings that are wrong.


What convinces me?

the earth gives off infared, and CO2 absorbs it, blocking it from reaching space thereby warming the earth, and since we are burning fossil fuels raising CO2 in the atmosphere, which can be verified by the isotopic ratios in the atmosphere, thus we are causing it.

It really is as simple as that.

How much of a problem it actually is, only time will tell, but if it leads to our using more renewable energy sources, it is a good problem to solve.

We will eventually run out of fossil fuels anyway.

Basically, Gore's take on the matter then?

[a_unique_person]

I'm not willing to teach you basic things. We went through that on a simple statistics question and now it is another subject and you are again making errors. So I thought changing the subject made a lot of sense. The point of this discussion is not, believe it or not, to ridicule or make a laughing stock of other people, who mostly with good intent, make postings that are wrong.



Basically, Gore's take on the matter then?

:rolleyes:

[bobdroege7]

McIntyre does not in his comment say Gerlich is trash. In the comment you quote he doesn't say that. He is just talking about what discussions he wants to occur on his website that he owns, "climateaudit.org".

Go back and look at the header for Unthreaded #20 or many other points at McIntyre's comments. You will find a consistency.

Unthreaded #21 (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2123)

By Steve McIntyre
No discussion of CO2 measurements, thermodynamics, theory of radiation, etc. please - other than to identify interesting references - and something more than the title is usually helpful. How hard can that be? If anyone can identify a clear exposition of how 2xCO2 leads to 2.5 deg C, please do so. (I’m not taking any position on the matter, I’m just trying to identify the best possible exposition. )


Unthreaded #20 (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2047)

By Steve McIntyre
No discussion of CO2 measurements, thermodynamics, theory of radiation, etc. please - other than to identify interesting references.


By Steve McIntyre in post #28,

I do not want to discuss Gerlich on this site. I am not interested in expositions why the effect is impossible - it isn’t.

The effect is impossible - it isn't

Do you understand, McIntyre says the greenhouse effect isn't impossible.

In other lines of discussion where I quoted you, I was following your lines of logic and taking me where they lead.

So what errors am I making.

And what statistical error did I make? On the arctic ice question? Well statistically speaking the likelyhood of the ice actually increasing based on those measurements is there, but it is smaller than the likelyhood that the ice area decreased by a good margin.

+/- 10% statistically insignificant? That is the error that you and another poster are making.
Remember the ice statistics? They were reported to one significant figure, therefore in that case +/- 10% is significant.

And also, it was not my intent to ridicule you, and if I did I did it with your own words.

And by the way, continue to try to teach me some basic things.

And to repeat, McIntyre says the greenhouse effect is possible!

[mhaze]

Qualified scientists vs anonymous post on web site? Who do I believe... hmmm.... The qualified scientist is my pick, again.

Disingenous.


The admitted amateur, an anonymous poster on a website, posts a reference to a graduate level textbook written by qualified scientists.
You, also an admitted amateur, also an anonymous poster on a web site, assert that you will have to go with qualified scientists rather than an anonymous poster on a web site.
Hmm....(looking at chapter in textbook in question....)

Hmm....

[David Rodale]

So you refute your own argument?

What convinces me?

the earth gives off infared, and CO2 absorbs it, blocking it from reaching space thereby warming the earth, and since we are burning fossil fuels raising CO2 in the atmosphere, which can be verified by the isotopic ratios in the atmosphere, thus we are causing it.

It really is as simple as that.

How much of a problem it actually is, only time will tell, but if it leads to our using more renewable energy sources, it is a good problem to solve.

We will eventually run out of fossil fuels anyway.

We can argue all day about the CO2 record, and despite the arguments put forth about "re-emitting radiation", the fact remains there is ZERO direct evidence supporting the hypothesis that CO2 drives climate, isn't that the truth? There are no first principles supporting the hypothesis. If there were, we'd all have the author's names and article memorized. All you've really got are climate models and those are "tuned" (forced) by parameterization to match whatever outcome is desired; it is a perpetual process. If it is assumed that positive feedbacks are dominant and climate sensitivity is higher, this is programmed into the models. As Slimething has so eloquently described, climate models cannot be validated. Each time an observation doesn't agree with the models, they must be "tuned" (forced) to match, then it is claimed climate models are reliable......after the fact. Since the climate is infinitely complex, simplifying models (a requirement) does not make them more reliable. We can discuss models in detail if you'd wish.

So you're saying the CO2 hypothesis is a linear function? It in fact is not, but rather logarithmic; the more CO2, the less effect it has. Shall we discuss diminishing return?

Have you found the missing CO2 sink? There should be 50% more than is reported. Where is it? They've been looking for it for 20 years. Some say it may be here or there, but where is it really?

Renewable energy sources? Which ones are that? Shall we burn our food (I do heat our home with corn)? That seems to be the current craze, but then "bio fuels" actually create more "greenhouse" gases than oil don't they? A few years ago the big fad was hydrogen, where's that at? It would appear nuclear energy is the only logical choice to meet our growing demand for energy, wouldn't you agree?

What is the optimum "global" temperature? What timescale in history in your estimation would be a more favorable climate? Is it a bad thing for Greenland to grow potatoes? Is it not good we use less energy to heat our homes as a result of warmer weather?

Met O has conceded AGW is currently taking a backseat to "natural variation" (whatever that means), hence the need for their 'new and improved' GCM with promises of global warming "returning with a vengeance" by ~2012. How can this be? Remember, rising CO2 levels equals rising temperatures, but it's not working out right now is it? Solar cycle 24 is what Met O is counting on to resurrect AGW. Should SC24 be weak as many solar watchers predict, and temperatures continue to fall, can we finally put this whole notion of AGW to rest? Alas, you folks will be back here trying to convince us global cooling is caused by global warming as well.

[David Rodale]

By Steve McIntyre in post #28,

I do not want to discuss Gerlich on this site. I am not interested in expositions why the effect is impossible - it isn’t.

The effect is impossible - it isn't

Do you understand, McIntyre says the greenhouse effect isn't impossible.

In other lines of discussion where I quoted you, I was following your lines of logic and taking me where they lead.

So what errors am I making.

And what statistical error did I make? On the arctic ice question? Well statistically speaking the likelyhood of the ice actually increasing based on those measurements is there, but it is smaller than the likelyhood that the ice area decreased by a good margin.

+/- 10% statistically insignificant? That is the error that you and another poster are making.
Remember the ice statistics? They were reported to one significant figure, therefore in that case +/- 10% is significant.

And also, it was not my intent to ridicule you, and if I did I did it with your own words.

And by the way, continue to try to teach me some basic things.

And to repeat, McIntyre says the greenhouse effect is possible!

That's like saying OJ is innocent because was pronounced not guilty.

And please, stop while you can save face on the statistical comments.

If you'd been following CA since it's inception, you'd know exactly what Steve M is requesting. After 250 posts, Tom Vonk gets it:

Steve McIntyre I know the answer on your original question .
It is called quantum thermodynamics .
However it has a rather fatal drawback - it doesn’t exist .
Why ?

Statistical thermodynamics proceeds from classical mechanics and classical definitions of pressure and temperature as being emerging parameters of a big amount of randomly moving particles .
As for (semi)classical radiation theory it is actually quite simple - rule 1 everything is black body , rule 2 everything is in the Planck law (derived from Bose Einstein statistics) .
Of an important note and one that is often forgotten is that a black body is necessarily isothermal - if it is not isothermal , then it is not a black body .
Specifically the Earth or any planet for that matter are not a black bodies .

Now your question must be reformulated to be more precise .
What you ask is “Given a variation of radiative properties (emissivity , absorptivity) of a real gaz submitted to a given radiation what would be the variation of its temperature ?”

Can the classical thermodynamics answer this question ?
Clearly no because the considered gaz is neither a black body nor in equilibrium .

As neither Einstein Bose statistics nor consequently the Planck’s law work , you have to construct the absorption/emission law for a specific non black body FLUID case .
However this must necessarily be a quantum mechanical theory as you need to know how a given matter distribution interacts with a given electromagnetical field .
It turns out to be a question of staggering complexity even in the simplest cases where no feedbacks and movements take place .

What does all that boil down to ?
That the indeed ONLY possible answer is “It is so because the computer model says so .”
You may like it or not but you have to live with it - that’s the only answer you will get .
Excuse me but I find it a very naive idea that there would be some “mainstream” physics and some “renegade” physics .
Actually we all work with the same Navier Stokes , Schrödinger , Boltzmann etc .
Of course there are differences among physicists - for instance a Gavin has not the brains to understand a tenth of what a Lubos Motl understands but they both use the same physics.

Therefore what distinguishes strongly is only the stance to computerized numerical simulation .
Some believe that computer produce meaningful results and you might call that stance “mainstream” and some believe that they don’t and you might call them “sceptics” .
During the years I have read and written about climate physics , I have found that there is only one relevant question and that is “Can numerical simulations converge to real physical solutions and if yes , under what conditions ?”
There are regrettably few people who are dedicated to such questions that are of paramount importance - Dan Hughes is one of them and his blog is one of the most relevant to the whole climate debate (question of climate sensibility included) .


Or, you could read Gavin Schmidt's pseudoscience :D
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/why-does-the-stratosphere-cool-when-the-troposphere-warms/

[a_unique_person]

We can argue all day about the CO2 record, and despite the arguments put forth about "re-emitting radiation", the fact remains there is ZERO direct evidence supporting the hypothesis that CO2 drives climate, isn't that the truth? There are no first principles supporting the hypothesis. If there were, we'd all have the author's names and article memorized. All you've really got are climate models and those are "tuned" (forced) by parameterization to match whatever outcome is desired; it is a perpetual process. If it is assumed that positive feedbacks are dominant and climate sensitivity is higher, this is programmed into the models. As Slimething has so eloquently described, climate models cannot be validated. Each time an observation doesn't agree with the models, they must be "tuned" (forced) to match, then it is claimed climate models are reliable......after the fact. Since the climate is infinitely complex, simplifying models (a requirement) does not make them more reliable. We can discuss models in detail if you'd wish.



Hansen testimony to Congress. Ten years later, vindicated, his projection was correct.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/hansen_re-crichton.pdf (http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/hansen_re-crichton.pdf)

So you're saying the CO2 hypothesis is a linear function? It in fact is not, but rather logarithmic; the more CO2, the less effect it has. Shall we discuss diminishing return?



No need to, that's already factored into the models ;). The change still produces the feedback effects that are being observed. (No need for models to let us see that).



Have you found the missing CO2 sink? There should be 50% more than is reported. Where is it? They've been looking for it for 20 years. Some say it may be here or there, but where is it really?

:confused:

Renewable energy sources? Which ones are that? Shall we burn our food (I do heat our home with corn)? That seems to be the current craze, but then "bio fuels" actually create more "greenhouse" gases than oil don't they? A few years ago the big fad was hydrogen, where's that at? It would appear nuclear energy is the only logical choice to meet our growing demand for energy, wouldn't you agree?

The bio fuels is a response to the Bush administrations attempts to wean itself off foreign oil, ditto hydrogen. I would ask Bush and friends why these directions are being pursued.


What is the optimum "global" temperature? What timescale in history in your estimation would be a more favorable climate? Is it a bad thing for Greenland to grow potatoes? Is it not good we use less energy to heat our homes as a result of warmer weather?

Wrong question. Where we are is what we are adapted to. The rocks don't care what temperature it is. The eco systems do.

Australia and other similar climates are headed for more droughts, and higher temperatures. A country that has been a major wheat exporter is just about to face serious food problems.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/nation-faces-a-barren-future/2007/10/02/1191091074604.html

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22510443-662,00.html



"THE drought could produce some of the worst food shortages since World War II.

Chairman of Australian Vegetable and Potato Growers Federation Michael Badcock does not
believe rationing will be needed, but he says some products will be difficult to find
if the drought continues.

"It will get tighter and some products may be difficult to buy," he said yesterday.

Federal Agriculture Minister Peter McGauran warned that Australia's food industry might
have to "reprioritise" to meet domestic demand.

He agreed that Australian consumers would experience shortages and would be paying
"significantly higher prices".

"Global shortages and rising world prices are also contributing to price increases," he
said.

"It is difficult to predict the extent of the effects of the drought, but reduced food
availability and higher prices are already emerging and will worsen as the drought
continues."

Mr Badcock said it was not just the drought that was a problem, and that available food
in storage around the world was the least it had been since World War II, a matter of a
few weeks' supply. "


Met O has conceded AGW is currently taking a backseat to "natural variation" (whatever that means), hence the need for their 'new and improved' GCM with promises of global warming "returning with a vengeance" by ~2012. How can this be? Remember, rising CO2 levels equals rising temperatures, but it's not working out right now is it? Solar cycle 24 is what Met O is counting on to resurrect AGW. Should SC24 be weak as many solar watchers predict, and temperatures continue to fall, can we finally put this whole notion of AGW to rest? Alas, you folks will be back here trying to convince us global cooling is caused by global warming as well.I think you will find your powers of fiction have nothing to do with what the Met is thinking.

[mhaze]

That's like saying OJ is innocent because was pronounced not guilty.

And please, stop while you can save face on the statistical comments.

If you'd been following CA since it's inception, you'd know exactly what Steve M is requesting. After 250 posts, Tom Vonk gets it:



Or, you could read Gavin Schmidt's pseudoscience :D
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/why-does-the-stratosphere-cool-when-the-troposphere-warms/

LOL...

I post on this forum that RC got the radiation physics wrong and I get attacked.

But even Gavin says he got it wrong. (Of course he's still got it wrong).

Direct from Gavin at Realclimate -
14/Jan/05: This post was updated in the light of my further education in radiation physics.
25/Feb/05: Groan…and again.

[a_unique_person]

LOL...

I post on this forum that RC got the radiation physics wrong and I get attacked.

But even Gavin says he got it wrong. (Of course he's still got it wrong).

Direct from Gavin at Realclimate -
14/Jan/05: This post was updated in the light of my further education in radiation physics.
25/Feb/05: Groan…and again.

RC has admitted when it was wrong, and has kept the record of the changes and updates. Deniers seem to ignore that fact that Christy got it wrong for years with his 'high quality' satellite data that proved warming wasn't happening and proved the models were wrong, or that CA has got the source code, and verified the existing temperature records are correct, even allowing for substandard recording stations.

Gavin has an update

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/the-sky-is-falling/

with links to a correct analysis. (not by Gavin, so are they wrong too?)

So your point is what?

[bobdroege7]

That's like saying OJ is innocent because was pronounced not guilty.

And please, stop while you can save face on the statistical comments.

If you'd been following CA since it's inception, you'd know exactly what Steve M is requesting. After 250 posts, Tom Vonk gets it:



Or, you could read Gavin Schmidt's pseudoscience :D
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/why-does-the-stratosphere-cool-when-the-troposphere-warms/


No, I can't stop.
What if the series of measurements continues?
ie, at what point in the following series can you make a statistically valid statement?

1,000,000 +/- 10%
900,000 +/- 10%
800,000 +/- 10%
700,000 +/- 10%
600,000 +/- 10%
500,000 +/- 10%
400,000 +/- 10%
300,000 +/- 10%
200,000 +/- 10%
100,000 +/- 10%

A blanket statement that because the measurement is +/- 10% and there are only 2 measurements, therefore the measurement is useless, is well useless. I even admitted that based on that set of measurements the ice area could actually be increasing.

And I never said the CO2 effect was linear, logarithmic or any function of any kind. All I have said is increased CO2 causes increased temperature.

I have never said CO2 is the main driver of climate, water vapor is a stronger greenhouse gas but the 2 gases absorb infared light at different frequencies and thus both contribute to the "greenhouse effect" independantly.

Yes to nuclear power, right now it is the best choice but wind and solar offer some use.

Biofuels, you are correct that they add more problems than they solve.

And natural gas? Herd behavior amongst the utility executives is all I can say, other than shoot them, the utility executives that choose natural gas and deregulation over nuclear and clean coal technology. (now that's a misnomer)

Is warmer better?
I guess we will find out, sooner or later.

[mhaze]

Now your question must be reformulated to be more precise .
What you ask is “Given a variation of radiative properties (emissivity , absorptivity) of a real gaz submitted to a given radiation what would be the variation of its temperature ?”

Can the classical thermodynamics answer this question ?
Clearly no because the considered gaz is neither a black body nor in equilibrium .

As neither Einstein Bose statistics nor consequently the Planck’s law work , you have to construct the absorption/emission law for a specific non black body FLUID case .
However this must necessarily be a quantum mechanical theory as you need to know how a given matter distribution interacts with a given electromagnetical field .
It turns out to be a question of staggering complexity even in the simplest cases where no feedbacks and movements take place .


All the above is correct in terms of explaining why the models do not work. But it does not address why empirical atmospheric tests are not being done.

I'm going to ask the question about the merits of actual atmospheric experiments (Meteor crater, etc) to Motl.

[mhaze]

By Steve McIntyre in post #28,

I do not want to discuss Gerlich on this site. I am not interested in expositions why the effect is impossible - it isn’t.

The effect is impossible - it isn't

Do you understand, McIntyre says the greenhouse effect isn't impossible.


Of course. We have been discussing the explanations of the greenhouse effect and how they are wrong, in particular, with specific reference to CO2. I do not think that anyone is or has been saying that the air acts somewhat like a blanket to keep heat in.

The central question regarding CO2 is the extent of this effect, is it perhaps 0.1 - 1.0 C for a doubling of CO2, or is it 2.5C for a doubling of CO2. Is it negligible or very important?

And what statistical error did I make? On the arctic ice question? [/quote]

Your answer was numerically wrong. I believe it was plus or minus 190K. That was explained. The general issue here which is important is the difficulty of extracting small signals from noisy data. If the signal is much smaller than the noise, it should be obvious it is no cakewalk.

[CapelDodger]

The bio fuels is a response to the Bush administrations attempts to wean itself off foreign oil .../quote]

It's far more primitive than that; it's greenwash on farm subsidies for political reasons.

[quote]... ditto hydrogen.

What a joke. Henry Ford's innovation had fittings for spare gas-cans because the infrastructure followed the demand. It cost a lot and took a long time to develop. A hydrogen delivery infrastructure designed, financed (from China?), built (in China?) and installed across the US (by Chinese? Hey, it worked for the railroads :)) just like that ... ain't gonna happen.

Wrong question. Where we are is what we are adapted to.

Playing Devil's Advocate here, but that doesn't really apply to Australia, does it? Not for the majority population and economy. It looks to me like an accident of history waiting to happen.

[CapelDodger]

Of course. We have been discussing the explanations of the greenhouse effect and how they are wrong ...

Given that it's a discussion, shouldn't that be whether they are wrong? Was the discussion over, for you, before it even started?

[CapelDodger]

Is warmer better?
I guess we will find out, sooner or later.

It will certainly be different. For those dependent on things being like they are (or recently were), that's not good. For those who already live in an artifical environment - Las Vegas being the epitome - it may not matter much. For people with houses on several continents, it's an opportunity.

[CapelDodger]

That thread is pure comedy.



:hit:

Even between all of us, we AGW Believers could not have designed a better mhaze. Hats off to whoever did the job, I say.

[bobdroege7]

Of course. We have been discussing the explanations of the greenhouse effect and how they are wrong, in particular, with specific reference to CO2. I do not think that anyone is or has been saying that the air acts somewhat like a blanket to keep heat in.

The central question regarding CO2 is the extent of this effect, is it perhaps 0.1 - 1.0 C for a doubling of CO2, or is it 2.5C for a doubling of CO2. Is it negligible or very important?

And what statistical error did I make? On the arctic ice question?

Your answer was numerically wrong. I believe it was plus or minus 190K. That was explained. The general issue here which is important is the difficulty of extracting small signals from noisy data. If the signal is much smaller than the noise, it should be obvious it is no cakewalk.[/QUOTE]

According to this wikepedia source, I got the correct answer 100K +/- 190K.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propagation_of_error

the problem is not the signal to noise ratio, rather it is the treatment of the data that introduces the errors.

And excuse me for being wrong, I though you were arguing that there was no greenhouse effect due to CO2.

And as for Gore, I have been concerned about the greenhouse effect due to CO2 since before Al invented the internet.

[bobdroege7]

[INDENT]

By the way, I'm still waiting for some references from you regarding sub acquired or other historical sea temperature data that you have said refutes the well known and understood 60-80 year climate cycles.



I can give you some sub acquired historical arctic sea temperature data.

In November of 1983, north of Franz Joseph land in the arctic ocean under the ice the seawater temperature was 28 degrees F, day in day out.

The data is of course classified.

and this

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2007/seaice.shtml

shows no evidence of any 60-80 year cycle for arctic ice extent.

[mhaze]

Your answer was numerically wrong. I believe it was plus or minus 190K. That was explained. The general issue here which is important is the difficulty of extracting small signals from noisy data. If the signal is much smaller than the noise, it should be obvious it is no cakewalk.
According to this wikepedia source, I got the correct answer 100K +/- 190K.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propagation_of_error

the problem is not the signal to noise ratio, rather it is the treatment of the data that introduces the errors. Allright, I'll bite
ice decreased by 100,000 +/- 190,000
which means it could have increased
thanks for the excercise
But no to your answer, because they are two separate observations.
2005 - Ice was somewhere between 900 and 1100.
2006 - Ice was somewhere between 810 and 990

Ice could have increased by 90k or decreased by 290k. Or anywhere in between...
My bad - I misread your response as 1 million plus or minus 190,000. We have the same answer.

Your wikipedia reference didn't impress me but one of the links there had a very nice summary of problems of uncertainty (http://www.av8n.com/physics/uncertainty.htm) in science. Anyone who read that a couple of times and thoroughly understood it could grasp a lot of the issues that McIntyre works on at www.climateaudit.org. (http://www.climateaudit.org./)

You asked earlier - What if the series of measurements continues?
ie, at what point in the following series can you make a statistically valid statement?

1,000,000 +/- 10%
900,000 +/- 10%
800,000 +/- 10%
700,000 +/- 10%
600,000 +/- 10%
500,000 +/- 10%
400,000 +/- 10%
300,000 +/- 10%
200,000 +/- 10%
100,000 +/- 10%

A blanket statement that because the measurement is +/- 10% and there are only 2 measurements, therefore the measurement is useless, is well useless. I even admitted that based on that set of measurements the ice area could actually be increasing.
The easiest way to answer this would be to make a simple x y plot where instead of one x value, each x value is a little vertical line. The top of the line is the max extent of the value, the bottom is the lowest possible value. (we are NOT using probability distributions here, just a simple plus and minus 10%, and we are presuming each observation is a completely independent observation done in similar fashion and with similar instruments). In the real world, all measured numbers are probability distributions....

The two obvious conclusions from your series are that (1) the error bounds are decreasing each year (2) ice is going to zero or may already have.

Beware of graphs in climate science that do not have error bounds....

[mhaze]

I can give you some sub acquired historical arctic sea temperature data.

In November of 1983, north of Franz Joseph land in the arctic ocean under the ice the seawater temperature was 28 degrees F, day in day out.

The data is of course classified.

and this

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2007/seaice.shtml

shows no evidence of any 60-80 year cycle for arctic ice extent.

No evidence, because it is an article about forward projections of models??? But this is a very uncomplicated issue of history, right?

Two references we have discussed here before on the subject (of course there are others) are these -

Climate Change and long-term fluctuations of commercial catches: (ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/y2787e00.pdf) The possibility of forecasting. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper #410
Polar history shows melting ice-cap may be a natural cycle (http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-04-21/polar.htm)

You commented - And I never said the CO2 effect was linear, logarithmic or any function of any kind. All I have said is increased CO2 causes increased temperature.

I have never said CO2 is the main driver of climate, water vapor is a stronger greenhouse gas but the 2 gases absorb infared light at different frequencies and thus both contribute to the "greenhouse effect" independantly.
It should of course be possible to quantify the general phrase "increased CO2 causes increased temperature."

AGW Believers always want to side track any conversation that gets numerical like this. Their scripted responses from the Believers have a lot of grammer, but very little if ever - actual numbers. They seem to really want to avoid numbers.

Want to look at the heat capacity of CO2 in the atmosphere? That would be figuring how hot the CO2 fraction of the atmosphere must get to result in a certain change in ground temperature - say a 1C increase. It would seem this is relevant to the general assertion "increased CO2 causes increased temperature".

[David Rodale]

I can give you some sub acquired historical arctic sea temperature data.

In November of 1983, north of Franz Joseph land in the arctic ocean under the ice the seawater temperature was 28 degrees F, day in day out.

The data is of course classified.

and this

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2007/seaice.shtml

shows no evidence of any 60-80 year cycle for arctic ice extent.

Since the climate models have been invalidated accordingly, does it also suggest IPCC AR4 Chapter 3 is erroneous and all current and preceding studies of Ocean Multi-Decadal Changes and Temperatures are as well? It is curious volcanoes are not mentioned in the news release.


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_103234703bad860e42.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8637)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_103234703baf49a7ea.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8638)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_103234703bb11bd91d.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8639)

Where does CO2 fit in with all this?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032346f107c6ad21e.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8410)

[bobdroege7]

No evidence, because it is an article about forward projections of models??? But this is a very uncomplicated issue of history, right?



Alright, we're cool on statistics.

I was pointing to the red ribbon part of the graph in the article quoted, which is the historical record of the extent of the sea ice. It is 50 years long and has a period of at least 80 years easily.

thats the evidence

i annot find any evidence of the 60-80 year sea ice cycles that are in magnitude comparable to today. The cycles may be there but the present magnitude is unprecedented.

[David Rodale]

Alright, we're cool on statistics.

I was pointing to the red ribbon part of the graph in the article quoted, which is the historical record of the extent of the sea ice. It is 50 years long and has a period of at least 80 years easily.

thats the evidence

i annot find any evidence of the 60-80 year sea ice cycles that are in magnitude comparable to today. The cycles may be there but the present magnitude is unprecedented.

It's unprecedented in that it's only been monitored since 1972 and 1979 with satellite.

[stevea]

In post #1539 I said :
...
The energy has to go out as radiation, surely? Not necessarily in a blackbody spectrum, of course. As I understand it, "blackbody" refers to solids, not gases.
[... and then ....]
I don't agree that climate is a very complex system to model. Weather is far more complex, as is ice-dynamics (a real bitch from what I've heard).


OK - then let's see the exposition of your simple climate calculation rather than all your verbiage. My point remains that there is absolutely nothing simple about it, and the radiation model. {no blackbody is not a gas vs solid matter}.

On the issue of many theories that fit the data ....
One can, but most are likely to be unskilful in prediction. The thing about, say, Hansen's 1988 model is that it not only fits observations up to that time but also observations made subsequently. Which is quite robust support, to my mind.

Nonsense - all models that fit the data are equally 'skillful' (what a nonsense concept). Just because one was proposes prior to the presentation of the most recent data has no bearing on the validity of it's assumptions beyond the fact that it has not been eliminated as invalid/incorrect. This problem is very similar to 'models' that attempt to predict fluctuations in the stock market based on various factors. Success of a short period is not supportive of the model in preference to new models which also match the same data.


I find enjoyment in science for its own sake. There's no practicable solution to what cosmology tells us, but it's still way cool.

Same here - but this issue is primarily political, not scientific, as the great vehemence on this forum and elsewhere indicate. Good choice of analogy, as cosmologists and climatologists are almost equally incapable of creating any useful experiment, so the validation of these sciences are equally weak and feeble.

The thing that most concerns me is the assault on science per se, of which climate-change denialism is one example.

Here we agree. There is a good bit of know-nothing-ism in climate change denial, but I don't see a lot of denial on this forum or the others I read. The question of the cause of the admitted change is instead the primary topic. The AGW side is IMO overly dismissive of the opponents arguments, and overly confident in their weak underpinnings of their conclusions. This does not mean they are ultimately wrong.

The other offense by some on the AGW side is the claim that 'the debate is over'. That is the most anti-science, anti-reason argument that has been made in my lifetime of a topic of fact. If we adhered to that logic then we would also should throw out the einstein-lorentz eqn since clearly newtonian mechanics and 2 centuries of experimental observation ended that debate.


Relatively uncontested? Heliocentrism is relatively uncontested.

CO2-load is not difficult to measure {...}

Actually it is quite difficult to get a good survey of the entire atmosphere and your dismisal stating it was possible to get a good single point reading in a near sea level lab in Western Europe on the late 1800s is not a valid argument that atmospheric CO2 was well known at that time.

My point was that not everyone agrees on the precise level of anthropomorphic CO2 in the atmosphere. I've read recent articles suggesting the current measurements overstate the the anthropomorphic CO2 component by ~25%. I do not necessarily agree with those articles, but there is a question as to the precise figure.

Yes - it is contested in the detail, and no your comparison to heliocentrism is a ridiculous strawman. Please stop obfuscating.


It surely can't be reasonably contested that we've jacked-up atmospheric CO2-load by about a third.

Yes. My point remains that despite niggling about the precise amount it is almost universally admitted that humans have significantly increase atmospheric CO2 levels. The CO2 increase should, due to many separate reasons, have an impact on the biosphere beyond climate, and that we should have some agreement that reducing atmospheric CO2 is a good idea, despite disagreement about the extent of climatic impact.


When it's not their own kids that are cold and hungry most people won't sacrifice anything significant for them. When a Louisiana politico loses one of his homes to a hurricane it's not exactly a rocket up his fundament. And it's the politicians that have the power to make a difference. Which they won't exercise.

You subscribe to a theory of government entirely different from mine. 'Leaders' IMO only can lead within limits based on the extent that the 'followers' agree to follow. Having an informed public debate on CO2, ozone climate and other issues is ideally a prerequisite to a political solution. We are instead having an uninformed debate in which authorities dictate the solution and announce that all discussion is over before the facts have been presented and discussed. As you may recall 'argument from authority' is an invalid form of argument, but it is what most of the sheeple accept these days on any technical topic.

My argument goes farther. Will China idle the massive coal power infrastructure and thus destroy the economy they are rapidly creating ? Will those who mine coal cease because they know it is harmful. No - I don't see that happening now or ever. Perhaps (and I doubt it) your children in N.America and Western Europe won't go to bed cold if we invest in enough nuclear power fast enough, but someone else will still be burning the same fossil fuels, polluting the one atmosphere and perhaps changing the one planetary climate. I don't think a substantial fossil fuel reduction program is enforcable no matter how many politicians agree.

Let's face it, we could - in global terms - lose the whole of Sub-Saharan Africa without even noticing the bump.

Right, but population decrease was not the problem (more of a solution actually). What if, for example the Chinese set up coal fired plants and coal mines in SS.Africa (I've no idea what their coal reserves are like) and that this somehow befitted the local population. The population would be drawn to using these despite envronmental damage and the impact would be planetary. What force of politics would stop this sort of event ? None that I can imagine.

[bobdroege7]

Since the climate models have been invalidated accordingly, does it also suggest IPCC AR4 Chapter 3 is erroneous and all current and preceding studies of Ocean Multi-Decadal Changes and Temperatures are as well? It is curious volcanoes are not mentioned in the news release.


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_103234703bad860e42.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8637)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_103234703baf49a7ea.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8638)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_103234703bb11bd91d.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8639)

Where does CO2 fit in with all this?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032346f107c6ad21e.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8410)

I'll admit that I cannot answer your question.
And that the annual atlantic multidecadal oscillation does show periodicity in the 60-80 year range.

But for the models, it is not an all or nothing question. Admittedly they do not do well on modeling the atlantic and pacific decadal and multidecadal ocillations.

[David Rodale]

I'll admit that I cannot answer your question.
And that the annual atlantic multidecadal oscillation does show periodicity in the 60-80 year range.

But for the models, it is not an all or nothing question. Admittedly they do not do well on modeling the atlantic and pacific decadal and multidecadal ocillations.

What parameters need adjusting or added to force the models to agree with the observations? Less cloud cover? Higher solar influence? Lower aerosol? Ocean current fluctuation? That is the conundrum isn't it?

Climate models are continuously parameterized to match observations after the fact, but does it make them more reliable?

[mhaze]

What parameters need adjusting or added to force the models to agree with the observations? Less cloud cover? Higher solar influence? Lower aerosol? Ocean current fluctuation? That is the conundrum isn't it?

Climate models are continuously parameterized to match observations after the fact, but does it make them more reliable?

That is like saying that if I made careful notes on the last 1000 responses of a mechanical Las Vegas slot machine, and carefully programmed a computer to produce those responses, that the computer would then produce a correct answer for the 1001th try.

Obviously, that is wrong. The model must accurately represent the physical realities and their interactions. The very concept of parameterizing models to match history is flawed.

Valid Exceptions: Such models may well be of use in educational environments or in looking at limited scenarios and trying to understand them.

[CapelDodger]

OK - then let's see the exposition of your simple climate calculation rather than all your verbiage.

I don't have a climate calculation - I don't even know exactly what you mean by it.

My point remains that there is absolutely nothing simple about it, and the radiation model. {no blackbody is not a gas vs solid matter}.

I do have the simple calculation that, at equilibrium, energy in equals energy out, so the energy change is zero. If they're not equal, energy change is non-zero and there isn't an equilibrium. The energy out does depend on temperature, so eventually a new equilibrium is reached. It's that simple.

Climate isn't terribly complicated. Just by normal observation we can see that winters are cooler than summers, and climate is even further removed from day-to-day variations in weather.


On the issue of many theories that fit the data ....


Nonsense - all models that fit the data are equally 'skillful' (what a nonsense concept).

Not equally skilful at prediction. For that, models have to reflect real influences that make the data non-random.

Just because one was proposes prior to the presentation of the most recent data has no bearing on the validity of it's assumptions beyond the fact that it has not been eliminated as invalid/incorrect.

If climate is as complicated as you suggest and a model turns out to predict its behaviour, that's pretty robust support for the model's validity.

This problem is very similar to 'models' that attempt to predict fluctuations in the stock market based on various factors. Success of a short period is not supportive of the model in preference to new models which also match the same data.

The fundamental difference here is that such models, by their existence, influence the system they're modelling. If investment decisions are made based on them, the system now becomes the old system plus the model - which, of course, is not the system that was modelled.

The same can't be said of climate models. The climate doesn't change its behaviour however well (or badly) we model it.

Same here - but this issue is primarily political, not scientific, as the great vehemence on this forum and elsewhere indicate. Good choice of analogy, as cosmologists and climatologists are almost equally incapable of creating any useful experiment, so the validation of these sciences are equally weak and feeble.

Do you ever just stop and smell the roses?



Here we agree. There is a good bit of know-nothing-ism in climate change denial, but I don't see a lot of denial on this forum or the others I read.

It's not scientific ignorance that's the problem - that's always been widespread. The problem is the imputation of bias, corruption, mendacity and/or careerism to the field of science, and that you'll see a lot of. Science as "political correctness". Science as an ideology. Science as a gulag ruled by fear and ambition with the IPCC taking the role of the OGPU, and Hansen the role of Stalin. Science as something that cannot be trusted. A vile parody of what science is - the greatest and purest achievement of mankind.


The question of the cause of the admitted change is instead the primary topic. The AGW side is IMO overly dismissive of the opponents arguments, and overly confident in their weak underpinnings of their conclusions. This does not mean they are ultimately wrong.

I'm certainly dismissive of Diamond's position that AGW is a Marxist ploy. or of any position that depends on Singer, McIntyre, or the tiny crew of the Good Ship Weasel.

The other offense by some on the AGW side is the claim that 'the debate is over'. That is the most anti-science, anti-reason argument that has been made in my lifetime of a topic of fact.

The debate is clearly not over. There were two major debates in the last fortnight, one UN-sponsored and the other Bush-sponsored. The debate as to whether AGW is real does seem to be over where it matters - in politics and science. And in public perception, despite the continued hostility of much of the media and an understandable desire for it not to be true.

Actually it is quite difficult to get a good survey of the entire atmosphere and your dismisal stating it was possible to get a good single point reading in a near sea level lab in Western Europe on the late 1800s is not a valid argument that atmospheric CO2 was well known at that time.

It wasn't an argument, it was a statement. Arrhenius addressed the subject because it had been noticed that CO2 measurements were on the up.

My point was that not everyone agrees on the precise level of anthropomorphic CO2 in the atmosphere. I've read recent articles suggesting the current measurements overstate the the anthropomorphic CO2 component by ~25%. I do not necessarily agree with those articles, but there is a question as to the precise figure.

Where's the other stuff coming from? We know we're putting billions of tons of the stuff out there every year and we know that there's more CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans, year-on-year. We also know that some of it's going into sinks we haven't precisely identified because we're putiing out more CO2 than is appearing in the atmosphere and oceans - the thin fluid skin on Planet Earth. There's no call for any other input.

Yes - it is contested in the detail ...

So it might be, but you didn't include that little detail at the time. You said a human contribution is relatively uncontested. As we all know, there are those that blame underwater volcanic activity for the extras CO2 and claim humans have nothing to do with it.

... and no your comparison to heliocentrism is a ridiculous strawman.

It was an analogy, not an argument, strawman or otherwise.

Please stop obfuscating.

You're a very combative sort of chap, aren't you?


My point remains that despite niggling about the precise amount it is almost universally admitted that humans have significantly increase atmospheric CO2 levels. The CO2 increase should, due to many separate reasons, have an impact on the biosphere beyond climate, and that we should have some agreement that reducing atmospheric CO2 is a good idea, despite disagreement about the extent of climatic impact.

Whether it's a good idea or not depends on the goal. I don't doubt there are influential Russians arguing that an ice-free Arctic is a damn' good idea. In fact, there's been quite a flurry of flag-planting way up north of late, and the Canadians are seriously militarising their northern coasts for the first time. Canadian policy has also shifted from a "green" stance to a more "lets not be hasty" one over recent times.

You subscribe to a theory of government entirely different from mine.

History is my big thing, not science.

'Leaders' IMO only can lead within limits based on the extent that the 'followers' agree to follow.

Indeed. But to get the real flavour replace "followers" with "following". The Sopranos can teach a lot about history.

Having an informed public debate on CO2, ozone climate and other issues is ideally a prerequisite to a political solution.

Having an informed public would be a major first. For most people, being informed is an effort without a motive.

We are instead having an uninformed debate ...

Who do you mean by we?

... in which authorities dictate the solution ...

What authorites have dictated what solution :confused:?

... and announce that all discussion is over before the facts have been presented and discussed.

Again, authorities are doing this?


As you may recall 'argument from authority' is an invalid form of argument ...

Indeed. Who are these authorities, and who's arguing from them?

... but it is what most of the sheeple accept these days on any technical topic.

Fortunately the sheeple - or proles, as I generally refer to them - have no more than mob power, and that's usually a broken reed.

My argument goes farther. Will China idle the massive coal power infrastructure and thus destroy the economy they are rapidly creating ?

Of course not. However many Chinese go to bed cold, hungry, and up a tree because of the floods, the prosperous and influential will sigh and send in some charity, but as long as they're OK nothing's going to change.

The cold and hungry die off. A shame, but hey, they were unsustainable.

[CapelDodger]

The model must accurately represent the physical realities and their interactions.

So they should, if they're going to be of any use.

The very concept of parameterizing models to match history is flawed.

Parameters are derived from observations of reality. Would you have it some other way? Should they just be made up, as Lindzen did to construct his Iris Theory? Now there's a model that didn't pan out.

In contrast, the Hansen et al model of 1988 performed very well. That's because it was designed to model the real system instead of, as in the Iris Theory case, invent one to provide a desired answer. That being, of course, that there'd be a strong negative feedback to AGW. So no need to worry about it. No cause for alarm.

[a_unique_person]

No evidence, because it is an article about forward projections of models??? But this is a very uncomplicated issue of history, right?

Two references we have discussed here before on the subject (of course there are others) are these -

Climate Change and long-term fluctuations of commercial catches: (ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/y2787e00.pdf) The possibility of forecasting. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper #410
Polar history shows melting ice-cap may be a natural cycle (http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-04-21/polar.htm)

You commented -And I never said the CO2 effect was linear, logarithmic or any function of any kind. All I have said is increased CO2 causes increased temperature.

I have never said CO2 is the main driver of climate, water vapor is a stronger greenhouse gas but the 2 gases absorb infared light at different frequencies and thus both contribute to the "greenhouse effect" independantly.
It should of course be possible to quantify the general phrase "increased CO2 causes increased temperature."

AGW Believers always want to side track any conversation that gets numerical like this. Their scripted responses from the Believers have a lot of grammer, but very little if ever - actual numbers. They seem to really want to avoid numbers.



You are asking for detailed science from interested amateurs? You won't get it. Ask a scientist for the detailed information.

There is plenty of information on it, guess where. Complete with references. http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf chapter 9.6.


I have already linked to a simple model from realclimate on the matter, have you forgotten that? You can even download a GCM on to your PC and play with that if you want.

[a_unique_person]

I'll admit that I cannot answer your question.
And that the annual atlantic multidecadal oscillation does show periodicity in the 60-80 year range.

But for the models, it is not an all or nothing question. Admittedly they do not do well on modeling the atlantic and pacific decadal and multidecadal ocillations.

You could read some actual science on the subject.

http://crga.atmos.uiuc.edu/publications/Causes_of_dT.pdf



According to our results, the anthropogenic effect, while present during the entire 20th century, has steadily increased in size (Fig. 2A) such that it presently is the dominant external forcing of the climate system. Nonetheless, the residual factor is at work within the climate system. What is the residual factor responsible for the observed 1904-1944 warming and subsequent 1944-1976 cooling? A possible explanation for this was given by Schlesinger and Ramankutty [1994] as being the result of a temperature oscillation over the North Atlantic Ocean and its adjacent land areas with a period of 65-70 years. Another possible explanation is a missing climate forcing [Hansen et al., 1997]. Accordingly, it is prudent not to expect
continued year-after-year warming in the near future and, in so doing, diminish concern about global warming should global cooling instead manifest itself again.



There is a cycle, and their is AGW.

[CapelDodger]

I'll admit that I cannot answer your question.
And that the annual atlantic multidecadal oscillation does show periodicity in the 60-80 year range.

I'm comfortable with that as well, not least because a 60-80 year wet/dry cycle was identified in the Dustbowl territory way before AGW became a political issue. Not long after the Dustbowl emerged, in fact. It turned out that the region was developed during the wet phase, with the implicit assumption that climate doesn't vary. Oops.

As I say, no problem with the period, but there's no sign back there of such an amplitude as we're witnessing. If the North-West passage had been open 60-80 years ago somebody would have noticed! If only to promote the Yellow Peril, which was big in those days.

But for the models, it is not an all or nothing question. Admittedly they do not do well on modeling the atlantic and pacific decadal and multidecadal ocillations.

I can't help thinking there's gonna be a lot of catch-up modelling as (and more so after) the plot inexorably unfolds. At some point, in any particular field, there has to come a screw-it moment : just get the observations and work it out later. This is one big bad unplanned experiment going on all around us. Nobody's ever going to reproduce it, at least not on Planet Earth. The cost is prohibitive. Next time you fill your tank think "this is the merest wisp of a one-third increase in CO2-load" as you pay for it, and do a simple calculation :).

[CapelDodger]

You could read some actual science on the subject.

You could use more diplomatic phrasing.

There is a cycle, and their is AGW.

Indeed, AGW is a new influence. Cycle me this, cycle me that, give me some evidence and I'm open to it. They can perhaps help explain something of the past. What they don't explain is the present, subject to the new influence.

[David Rodale]

As I say, no problem with the period, but there's no sign back there of such an amplitude as we're witnessing. If the North-West passage had been open 60-80 years ago somebody would have noticed! If only to promote the Yellow Peril, which was big in those days.


Somebody did notice, but since AGW's history of the world began in 1979, we'll never really know for sure, and now that Arctic ice minimum was Sept. 16, we'll just have to wait until next year.
http://www.athropolis.com/map9.htm#3
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032347044e2b737d7.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8644)

[a_unique_person]

You could use more diplomatic phrasing.

:o

[bobdroege7]

:o

hey, if I took offense at that, I'd be rather thin skinned, but I liked the interested amateur comment better.

I was just arguing against the CO2 can't cause global warming stance.

There is a cycle, and their is AGW.

And I was trying to get here, but ran out of time.

sorry to let the team down

[bobdroege7]

Somebody did notice, but since AGW's history of the world began in 1979, we'll never really know for sure, and now that Arctic ice minimum was Sept. 16, we'll just have to wait until next year.
http://www.athropolis.com/map9.htm#3
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032347044e2b737d7.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8644)


Ah, but there's open and then there is open

http://www.athropolis.com/arctic-facts/fact-amundsen.htm

His journey took three years to complete - he and his crew had to wait while the frozen sea around them thawed enough to allow for navigation.

I dare say the trip would have been easier a month ago.

[mhaze]

Ah, but there's open and then there is open

http://www.athropolis.com/arctic-facts/fact-amundsen.htm

I dare say the trip would have been easier a month ago.

Ask that question to the poor Warmer who got stuck in the ice trying to make the transit a month ago in his sailboat.

Wonder if he's still up there fighting off the polar bears?

[mhaze]

I was just arguing against the CO2 can't cause global warming stance.


Well, it's pretty easy to figure, say, the number of watts required to run a refridgerator....

Want to look at the heat capacity of CO2 in the atmosphere? That would be figuring how hot the CO2 fraction of the atmosphere must get to result in a certain change in ground temperature - say a 1C increase. It would seem this is relevant.

[David Rodale]

Ah, but there's open and then there is open

http://www.athropolis.com/arctic-facts/fact-amundsen.htm
I dare say the trip would have been easier a month ago.
Is that like being almost pregnant?

http://www.athropolis.com/arctic-facts/fact-st-roch.htm
In 1944, St. Roch returned to Vancouver by way of a more northerly Northwest Passage route - cutting the time down to just 86 days.

Both of those expeditions were done in wooden boats.

I dare say the trip would have been easier a month ago.
That's fine, so how many did in 2007? Adrian Flanagan thought he'd tame the Arctic last month in his titanium skinned boat, but it was not to be. Reading news flashes one might assume the NWP is "open to navigation", as if to infer it's akin to the Mississippi River. It's far from "open to navigation"; is actually quite treacherous.

It's not unlike reports stating the Arctic having the "lowest ice in recorded history", meaning since 1979, but most don't clarify that.

This Spring a group of scientists with the intent of drawing attention to 'global warming' by swimming in melted areas of the North Pole, called off their expedition due to it being colder than expected.

[bobdroege7]

Well, it's pretty easy to figure, say, the number of watts required to run a refridgerator....

Want to look at the heat capacity of CO2 in the atmosphere? That would be figuring how hot the CO2 fraction of the atmosphere must get to result in a certain change in ground temperature - say a 1C increase. It would seem this is relevant.

Okay, I did that, now explain how the following 2 tables helps your cause.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/carbon-dioxide-d_974.html

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-vapor-d_979.html

See the heat capacity of CO2 is less than that of water, which means that when a mole of water vapor and a mole of CO2 each absorb an infared photon per molecule, the amount of temperature increase for the CO2 atoms is greater than for the water atoms.

[bobdroege7]

This Spring a group of scientists with the intent of drawing attention to 'global warming' by swimming in melted areas of the North Pole, called off their expedition due to it being colder than expected.

cept one person did

http://www.globerambler.com/man-swims-at-north-pole-the-record-is-both-triumph-and-drama

I don't think either side can make their case here. Like you said recorded history only goes to 1979, and that is not long enough to make a case for 60-80 year ice extent cycles.

But like I said before, last time I was there under the ice, there were no polynyas big enough to swim in let alone surface a submarine. But then again we didn't cover the whole ice cap either.

[CapelDodger]

Well, it's pretty easy to figure, say, the number of watts required to run a refridgerator....

Want to look at the heat capacity of CO2 in the atmosphere? That would be figuring how hot the CO2 fraction of the atmosphere must get to result in a certain change in ground temperature - say a 1C increase. It would seem this is relevant.

The CO2 in the atmosphere is well-mixed with the other gases, so it's in thermal equilibrium with them. Which is to say, when a molecule of CO2 gains kinetic energy it quickly shares it with the other molecules it collides with. (That's from basic thermodynamics.)

[CapelDodger]

In 1944, St. Roch returned to Vancouver by way of a more northerly Northwest Passage route - cutting the time down to just 86 days.

Still nearly three months, which is a long time for such a short journey by a powered vessel through an open passage, don't you think?

Both of those expeditions were done in wooden boats.

Amundsen was famously intrepid. There's rumour of portages being involved, but that may just be malicious. Polar exploration was fiercely competitve back in the day.


That's fine, so how many did in 2007? Adrian Flanagan thought he'd tame the Arctic last month in his titanium skinned boat, but it was not to be. Reading news flashes one might assume the NWP is "open to navigation", as if to infer it's akin to the Mississippi River. It's far from "open to navigation"; is actually quite treacherous

From satellite observation it was open all the way through at one time this last summer. Had that happened 60-80 years ago it would have been noticed, even without satellites. The ice moves around a lot up there, so one part of the passage can be clear while the rest isn't. Having it clear all the way through is significant.

It's not unlike reports stating the Arctic having the "lowest ice in recorded history", meaning since 1979, but most don't clarify that.

Records pertaining to Arctic ice go back much further than that. From those RCMP bases serviced by the St Roch, for instance. Then there have been expeditions to the North Pole since the late 19thCE, made in summer for obvious reasons. Logs from whaling ships. Observations from Spitzbergen, Bear Island and other such places. The first trip to the White Sea from Britain was by Challenger's in the mid-16thCE, also in the summer. Three ships - wooden and sail-powered, obviously - set out in summer, one (as I recall) returned in the next summer. More such trips followed, including, of course, the Arctic Convoys of WW2 (which, you'll recall, occurred 60-80 years ago).

And of course there were those second-strike submarines skulking out there in the MAD old days.

Arctic sea-ice extent before 1979 is not a complete mystery.

This Spring a group of scientists with the intent of drawing attention to 'global warming' by swimming in melted areas of the North Pole, called off their expedition due to it being colder than expected.

Wimps. How Amundsen would have mocked them.

Lewis Pugh, I suspect, is a Welshman and so by definition intrepid.

[CapelDodger]

:o

:)

[CapelDodger]

hey, if I took offense at that, I'd be rather thin skinned, but I liked the interested amateur comment better.

I'm constantly amazed at the offenses taken and ongoing bloodfeuds around here between people who are essentially in agreement.

I would surmise that, having passed the psychometric tests to get under-ice submarine duty, you're not quick to anger over trifles :).

(Excuse the "skulking" thing, but there it is, I'm from a sea-faring family on my father's side and there are relatives I never met because of submariners. Some attitudes are learnt very early on and just don't go away. I don't let them govern me.)

I was just arguing against the CO2 can't cause global warming stance.



And I was trying to get here, but ran out of time.

The trajectory was clear :).

One thing about the "there's a cycle so there isn't anything else" position is that cycles do turn around, and they're chosen because they're peaking around now, since "now" is what needs explaining away. If the 60-80 year cycle is associated with the Dustbowl era it certainly should be turning around soon. Say, in the next three-to-eight years.

Singer's 1500-year plus or minus 500 cycle (does something so imprecise really count as cyclical? I'm not convinced) should also be peaking around now, although it could be gripped onto for another few centuries, perhaps as late as 2700 at a stretch. It'll become increasingly difficult to argue that there was a Medieval Warm Period equally as warm but I imagine some hold-outs will try.

After three-to-eight years, though, we'll hear no more of the 60-80 year cycle (except in mockery). Mark my words :cool:.

[mhaze]

My point remains that despite niggling about the precise amount it is almost universally admitted that humans have significantly increase atmospheric CO2 levels. The CO2 increase should, due to many separate reasons, have an impact on the biosphere beyond climate, and that we should have some agreement that reducing atmospheric CO2 is a good idea, despite disagreement about the extent of climatic impact.

One minor point about your first comment here. There has been an assertion that over the 8000 years of the Holocene erase, approximately 40 ppm of CO2 was introduced into the atmosphere gradually - thus in the absence of human activity, the level in about year 1800 would have been 240 ppm.

Research has shown this to be false, and has also shown that during the Holocene there was considerable rapid fluctuations in CO2 level. This is not to say that we are not now contributing approximately 100 ppm, just that the climate is dynamic and the natural level of CO2 does vary, roughly say between 2xx and 3xx. There is no baseline, static level which is "right".

The second point you make can be vigorously debated on several levels as I am sure you are aware. You can't have an international agreement to control CO2 when the Asian countries producing the huge brown clouds are excluded and when those clouds are known to constitute more than 50% of the problem in those areas. That makes no sense. You are then attacking one thing, a possible non problem and ignoring a known problem.

We could wind up as successful at understanding and controlling "the CO2 problem" as we have with controlling those dangerous freons, proven scientifically to be responsible for the ozone hole.:)

[a_unique_person]

That is like saying that if I made careful notes on the last 1000 responses of a mechanical Las Vegas slot machine, and carefully programmed a computer to produce those responses, that the computer would then produce a correct answer for the 1001th try.

Obviously, that is wrong. The model must accurately represent the physical realities and their interactions. The very concept of parameterizing models to match history is flawed.

Valid Exceptions: Such models may well be of use in educational environments or in looking at limited scenarios and trying to understand them.

Or when there is no alternative. I would have thought that this situation warrented that.

Your analogy also fails. The slot machine produces random results, the climate incorporates physical reactions within restraints. As Hansen has publicly demonstrated, his model's prediction from ten years ago was correct, even for a model that is not as advanced as the models they are using today.

There is a lot of work put into validating the models.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch08.pdf

Have you read it yet?

[mhaze]

Or when there is no alternative. I would have thought that this situation warrented that.

Your analogy also fails. The slot machine produces random results, the climate incorporates physical reactions within restraints. As Hansen has publicly demonstrated, his model's prediction from ten years ago was correct, even for a model that is not as advanced as the models they are using today.

There is a lot of work put into validating the models.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch08.pdf

Have you read it yet?

Where exactly do you find the word "validate" used in connection with "models"?

[a_unique_person]

Where exactly do you find the word "validate" used in connection with "models"?



This chapter assesses the capacity of the global climate
models used elsewhere in this report for projecting future
climate change. Confidence in model estimates of future climate
evolution has been enhanced via a range of advances since the
IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR).



:rolleyes:

[Walrus32]

I still don't see "validate".

[PogoPedant]

I still don't see "validate".

Indeed. And as we all know, if a paragraph does not use the word 'validate', then it cannot possibly be about any form of 'validation'.

Just like the last sentence cannot possibly be sarcastic.

[Walrus32]

Not sarcastic at all. A question was asked, and it wasn't answered.

Vincent Gray, "Spinning the Climate", 27 September 2007:


"...The first draft of the 1995 Report had a Chapter 5 "Validation of
Climate Models" as in the First Report. I pointed out that it was wrong since no climate model has ever
been "validated", and they did not even try to do so. They thereupon changed the word "Validation" to
"Evaluation" no less that fifty times.

Perhaps I should explain what is meant by "validation". It is a term used by computer engineers to
describe the rigorous testing process that is necessary before a computer-based model can be put to use. It
must include successful prediction over the entire range of circumstances for which it is required. Without
this process it is impossible to find out whether the model is suitable for use or what levels of accuracy
can be expected from it."

[CapelDodger]

Indeed. And as we all know, if a paragraph does not use the word 'validate', then it cannot possibly be about any form of 'validation'.

Just like the last sentence cannot possibly be sarcastic.

Ironic, not sarcastic. Sarcasm is what the lower orders do :).

From his response, I don't think walrus32 does irony. Nor comprehension in any serious sense.

[a_unique_person]

Not sarcastic at all. A question was asked, and it wasn't answered.

Vincent Gray, "Spinning the Climate", 27 September 2007:


"...The first draft of the 1995 Report had a Chapter 5 "Validation of
Climate Models" as in the First Report. I pointed out that it was wrong since no climate model has ever been "validated", and they did not even try to do so. They thereupon changed the word "Validation" to "Evaluation" no less that fifty times.

Perhaps I should explain what is meant by "validation". It is a term used by computer engineers to describe the rigorous testing process that is necessary before a computer-based model can be put to use. It must include successful prediction over the entire range of circumstances for which it is required. Without this process it is impossible to find out whether the model is suitable for use or what levels of accuracy can be expected from it."

Vincent Gray is one more of the lunatic fringe who has no idea what the current state of the art is in research, since he retired 20 years ago and has not been actively researching and publishing in that field. This self proclaimed 'expert reviewer' is one of the more forgettable particpants in the process.

An example of his insight.

"Delete "change". The word has an unfortunate commotation, as it is defined legally by the Framework Convention on Climate Change as restricted to" human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere". The IPCC tries to alter this definition by a footnote to the "Summary for Policymakers" (page 3) but this leads to confusion as the
public may not notice this and assume that you are referring only to the redtricted definition. You should therefore avoid using the term"climate change" altogether to avoid this confusion
[VINCENT GRAY (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 88-28)]"

Ad nauseum.

Finally, have you read the chapter? It's quite comprehensive, and discusses the limitations of the models and just what they can be expected to produce under the constraints they operate under.

[CapelDodger]

One minor point about your first comment here. There has been an assertion that over the 8000 years of the Holocene erase, approximately 40 ppm of CO2 was introduced into the atmosphere gradually - thus in the absence of human activity, the level in about year 1800 would have been 240 ppm.

Research has shown this to be false ...

That is not the case.

... and has also shown that during the Holocene there was considerable rapid fluctuations in CO2 level.

Nor is that the case.


This is not to say that we are not now contributing approximately 100 ppm ...

Best not, really, since it's based on direct measurements over the recent past.

... just that the climate is dynamic and the natural level of CO2 does vary, roughly say between 2xx and 3xx.

Such variations are claptrap. We know that we're pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year and the year-on-year increase of CO2-load varies between 0.5 and 2.5 ppm pa. You're claiming that in other periods of the Holocene CO2-load varied between 120 and 360ppm over short periods. Or possibly between 240 and 720ppm; your post isn't terribly precise.

This is not credible.

There is no baseline, static level which is "right".

There's normal. Forget right and wrong. "Normal" does not include huge CO2-fluxes for no apparent reason that just happened to stop when precise measurement became available. Which was about the time that fossil-fuel consumption got into its stride - a very apparent reason for a large CO2-flux.

The second point you make can be vigorously debated on several levels as I am sure you are aware. You can't have an international agreement to control CO2 when the Asian countries producing the huge brown clouds are excluded and when those clouds are known to constitute more than 50% of the problem in those areas. That makes no sense. You are then attacking one thing, a possible non problem and ignoring a known problem.

We could wind up as successful at understanding and controlling "the CO2 problem" as we have with controlling those dangerous freons, proven scientifically to be responsible for the ozone hole.:)

"Asian Brown Clouds". At least we've moved on from the peril being yellow.

When it all goes to <Rule 8>, of course, we'll be able to blame the Chinese. And justify our own inaction in the process.

The Chinese are to blame for the ozone hole, after all. (Irony)

[Schneibster]

Well, I'm back, and nothing has changed except the climate. :D

[Schneibster]

One minor point about your first comment here. There has been an assertion that over the 8000 years of the Holocene erase, approximately 40 ppm of CO2 was introduced into the atmosphere gradually - thus in the absence of human activity, the level in about year 1800 would have been 240 ppm.

Research has shown this to be false, and has also shown that during the Holocene there was considerable rapid fluctuations in CO2 level. What research, performed by whom, and published in what peer-reviewed journal of geophysical or climate research? Linky-poo, perhaps? CD seems to have tired of looking over articles with incestuous citations; I am not tired. I haven't been here in a while, and it looks like there's plenty of work for the weed-whacker.

[CapelDodger]

Well, I'm back, and nothing has changed except the climate. :D

Hey dude, long time :) !

The weather has changed around these parts, of course, but not very much considering that it's autumn now. Piers Corbyn's predictions of a stormy August and no late summer have been soooooooo frickin' busted that ... it'll make no difference at all to those who believe in him :rolleyes:.

[Schneibster]

Good to see you too, CD.

[mhaze]

Not sarcastic at all. A question was asked, and it wasn't answered.

Vincent Gray, "Spinning the Climate", 27 September 2007:


"...The first draft of the 1995 Report had a Chapter 5 "Validation of
Climate Models" as in the First Report. I pointed out that it was wrong since no climate model has ever
been "validated", and they did not even try to do so. They thereupon changed the word "Validation" to
"Evaluation" no less that fifty times.

Perhaps I should explain what is meant by "validation". It is a term used by computer engineers to
describe the rigorous testing process that is necessary before a computer-based model can be put to use. It
must include successful prediction over the entire range of circumstances for which it is required. Without
this process it is impossible to find out whether the model is suitable for use or what levels of accuracy
can be expected from it."

Not in defense of AUP's wrongness, but it was probably the case that he did not really understand the meaning of the phrase as it is used in computer science. Hence my question - but it looks like we've settled it, no the models are not validated. Already knew that, but just wanted to bring it out for discussion.

Shall we go back to Hansen's discussion of the models and note from his words their status in comparison to "validation"? Perhaps it is simpler to just leave this minor topic as closed.

[CapelDodger]

Not in defense of AUP's wrongness, but it was probably the case that he did not really understand the meaning of the phrase as it is used in computer science. Hence my question - but it looks like we've settled it, no the models are not validated. Already knew that, but just wanted to bring it out for discussion.

Shall we go back to Hansen's discussion of the models and note from his words their status in comparison to "validation"? Perhaps it is simpler to just leave this minor topic as closed.

I imagine the topic would be opened again fast enough if the models ever become invalidated, but that's a vacuous hypothesis (pertaining to circumstances that won't occur). The Hansen et al 1988 model hasn't run out of projection yet, and there are others which started up later. Twenty years of not being invalidated is a robust track-record. No conceivable track-record will be good enough for some, but that hardly counts as invalidation.

The models, and they're continued survival through the next twenty years of potential invalidation, will continue to be trumpeted by the likes of me. I know when I've picked the right horse, and I know when losers are weaseling about it not being a proper horse-race.

The models, or Singer's Salvation Cycle. My money's on the models.

There's Solar Cycle Twenty-Something in the race as well, but that'll fade early. The 60-80 year Dick-Cycle (no offence to Dr Dick) of Arctic ice-extent will barely leave the stalls. The Iris Theory scratched before the race even began. (Bluetongue virus, apparently. Any old excuse, if you ask me.)

[Schneibster]

Cycle 24 /pedant. ;)

[mhaze]

The models, or Singer's Salvation Cycle. My money's on the models.
There's Solar Cycle Twenty-Something in the race as well, but that'll fade early. The 60-80 year Dick-Cycle (no offence to Dr Dick) of Arctic ice-extent will barely leave the stalls.

A truly amazing predictive capability.

With it, what need have you of unvalidated models?

[Schneibster]

There's only one way to validate a model, and that's run it and see if it agrees with the real world. So far, so good. What's your problem, hazy, not patient enough to see it through?

[CapelDodger]

Perhaps I should explain what is meant by "validation". It is a term used by computer engineers to
describe the rigorous testing process that is necessary before a computer-based model can be put to use. It must include successful prediction over the entire range of circumstances for which it is required.

Including the successful prediction "at this point everything goes <Rule 8>-shaped". (Alliteration. Opposite of ship-shaped :).)

Without this process it is impossible to find out whether the model is suitable for use or what levels of accuracy can be expected from it.

What kind of models are you acquainted with?

I haven't worked with models much, I'm more a systems guy; my idea of validation, in computer terms, is 100% accuracy given any input. Even if the accurate output is "Sorry, system cannot cope, please try later". I leave such matters as traffic-modelling to those that do it, and use their results to specify a safe "Sorry, we're full" load while there's still some leeway. Then price the job on that basis.

Often one's faced with demands for 100% avalability, which means chasing down that long tail of the graph at silly expense. Sometimes silly expense is available - not so much these days, but time was ...

Of course when it came to the InterNet the established traffic-models turned out to be useless. I warned people about that, but did they listen? Did they heck as like :rolleyes:.

[CapelDodger]

A truly amazing predictive capability.

With it, what need have you of unvalidated models?

It's not amazing at all. Far far be it from me to claim such an accolade.

There's no trick to it. The models only reflect well-established science, which I'm familiar with, and serve to quantify its effects, within bounds.

The model that really matters is the big bad analogue model, which has had the good grace to stay within the bounds predicted by digital models. Coincidence? I think not. In fact, I'm convinced not.

Perhaps the next three-to-eight years will convince you. I doubt it, but only time will tell for certain.

[CapelDodger]

Cycle 24 /pedant. ;)

Cycle 25 as a fall-back/realist :).

I've noticed a lot of chatter on the Solar Cycle prediction, and there's already a flavour of the fall-back coming through. I predict it'll get stronger over the next decade or so as Cycle 24 proves wanting.

Cycle 24 may well be spot-on for sun-spots, but climate change will carry on regardless. Cue contrarian chatter about inertia and Cycle 25 being the kicker.

If I'm right it won't so much be amazing as it will be "Well, duh?". If I'm wrong, I'll be very surprised.

[mhaze]

Lomborg is on Cspan (http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=8614&SectionName=&PlayMedia=No) this weekend.

http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=8614&SectionName=&PlayMedia=No

[Schneibster]

Oh, you mean the Lomborg who was judged innocent of scientific dishonesty by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty because he wasn't competent enough as a scientist to even be dishonest? That sure sounds like a creative construction of "not even wrong" to me.

Thanks for letting me know so I could avoid wasting time on it.

[mhaze]

Oh, you mean the Lomborg who was judged innocent of scientific dishonesty by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty because he wasn't competent enough as a scientist to even be dishonest? That sure sounds like a creative construction of "not even wrong" to me.

Thanks for letting me know so I could avoid wasting time on it.

Care to elaborate on this?
The interview is about his new book, "Cool it".
Do you think they will go after him again?
That would be interesting - it would help book sales, too.

[Walrus32]

Oh, you mean the Lomborg who was judged innocent of scientific dishonesty by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty because he wasn't competent enough as a scientist to even be dishonest? That sure sounds like a creative construction of "not even wrong" to me.

Thanks for letting me know so I could avoid wasting time on it.

New York Times, 23 Dec. 2003:

Danish Ethics Panel Censured for Critique of Book


"...last week the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation said the [DCSD] had exhibited ''significant neglect'' by failing to identify where the author had been dishonest, and had been ''clearly wrong'' for failing to offer Dr. Lomborg a chance to respond before its findings were published." (emphasis added)

Full article here. (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E1DA103FF930A15751C1A9659C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print)

[Schneibster]

No, I think everyone's pretty clear on the fact that Lomborg's not a scientist, and if he was, he'd have been convicted of scientific dishonesty in his own country. I see no reason to elaborate on that at all.

[Schneibster]

And while we're on the subject, http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/

Seems they have some pretty hefty criticisms on his new book, too.

[David Rodale]

Cycle 25 as a fall-back/realist :).

I've noticed a lot of chatter on the Solar Cycle prediction, and there's already a flavour of the fall-back coming through. I predict it'll get stronger over the next decade or so as Cycle 24 proves wanting.

Cycle 24 may well be spot-on for sun-spots, but climate change will carry on regardless. Cue contrarian chatter about inertia and Cycle 25 being the kicker.

If I'm right it won't so much be amazing as it will be "Well, duh?". If I'm wrong, I'll be very surprised.

Actually, we've still have not reached SC23 minimum and likely will not until next year some time (March or later I believe). There is disagreement in the solar community as to what SC24 will bring, however Schatten et al have the best track record and they predict a very weak cycle. Dikpati is predicting one off the charts in the positive direction.

As there has been no additional warming in the last several years, land or ocean, Met O has conceded this and with their 'new and improved' climate model predict (forecast?) there won't be for the next few years and that between 2009 and 2014 temperatures will exceed 1998 levels. Do you think it's any coincidence Met O's predictions coincide with SC24? Of course they don't specify, but it's quite obvious they are counting on it.

You may be correct that warming will continue in the future, however currently it is not. We are now experiencing a cooling phase which from all indications will last at least until it's clear what SC24 will do. If it's very weak as Schatten predicts, the AGW empire will crumble under it's own weight. There has been no new warming since 1998 El Nino (not an AGW phenomenon), period.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_10323470851b043f87.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8689)

[Walrus32]

Care to elaborate on this?
The interview is about his new book, "Cool it".
Do you think they will go after him again?
That would be interesting - it would help book sales, too.

I watched most of the C-SPAN presentation today. Lomberg actually believes in AGW but doesn't think its consequences are as dire as the Chicken Little crowd. The questions and answers were for the most part quite thoughtful, except for one self-impressed bore who felt compelled to preface his question with some ill-considered political rubbish.

[mhaze]

I watched most of the C-SPAN presentation today. Lomberg actually believes in AGW but doesn't think its consequences are as dire as the Chicken Little crowd. The questions and answers were for the most part quite thoughtful, except for one self-impressed bore who felt compelled to preface his question with some ill-considered political rubbish.

I've read Lomborg and was impressed. Are you saying he was the bore, or someone else? He did pretty well on the Cobert Report.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/09/co...n-lomborg.html (http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/09/colbert-report-with-bjorn-lomborg.html)

Lomburg on the Cobert Report. (http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/09/colbert-report-with-bjorn-lomborg.html)

[mhaze]

Actually, we've still have not reached SC23 minimum and likely will not until next year some time (March or later I believe). There is disagreement in the solar community as to what SC24 will bring, however Schatten et al have the best track record and they predict a very weak cycle. Dikpati is predicting one off the charts in the positive direction.

As there has been no additional warming in the last several years, land or ocean, Met O has conceded this and with their 'new and improved' climate model predict (forecast?) there won't be for the next few years and that between 2009 and 2014 temperatures will exceed 1998 levels. Do you think it's any coincidence Met O's predictions coincide with SC24? Of course they don't specify, but it's quite obvious they are counting on it.

You may be correct that warming will continue in the future, however currently it is not. We are now experiencing a cooling phase which from all indications will last at least until it's clear what SC24 will do. If it's very weak as Schatten predicts, the AGW empire will crumble under it's own weight. There has been no new warming since 1998 El Nino (not an AGW phenomenon), period.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_10323470851b043f87.jpg

http://www.solarcycle24.com (http://www.solarcycle24.com/)
the sun is currently in a state of relative calm.

Prediction of strong SC24:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...ec_cycle24.htm (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/21dec_cycle24.htm)
http://academic.evergreen.edu/z/zita...ik06GRLMar.pdf (http://academic.evergreen.edu/z/zita/articles/Dik06GRLMar.pdf)Prediction of weak SC24:
http://www.spacew.com/news/05Mar2005/index.php
http://www.iiap.res.in/ihy/talks/Ses...piyali_ihy.pdf (http://www.iiap.res.in/ihy/talks/Session3/piyali_ihy.pdf)

Met O seems to be in line with Tsonis 2007, and the theory of synchronized chaos.

Where may that lead?

[David Rodale]

http://www.solarcycle24.com (http://www.solarcycle24.com/)
the sun is currently in a state of relative calm.

Prediction of strong SC24:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...ec_cycle24.htm (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/21dec_cycle24.htm)
http://academic.evergreen.edu/z/zita...ik06GRLMar.pdf (http://academic.evergreen.edu/z/zita/articles/Dik06GRLMar.pdf)Prediction of weak SC24:
http://www.spacew.com/news/05Mar2005/index.php
http://www.iiap.res.in/ihy/talks/Ses...piyali_ihy.pdf (http://www.iiap.res.in/ihy/talks/Session3/piyali_ihy.pdf)

Met O seems to be in line with Tsonis 2007, and the theory of synchronized chaos.

Where may that lead?
More ad hom attacks?:D

Tsonis postulates a .2C drop between now and 2020. Met O is the opposite, and more.

http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/SC24.html
Moreover, Schatten, having predicted correctly the amplitude of the 2 previous solar cycles, now indicates only a low to moderate cycle. But Dikpati and Hathaway, having worked on the sun's internal plasma flows, come up with a large amplitude. Unfortunately, this method is new and still has to prove itself.

[a_unique_person]

Actually, we've still have not reached SC23 minimum and likely will not until next year some time (March or later I believe). There is disagreement in the solar community as to what SC24 will bring, however Schatten et al have the best track record and they predict a very weak cycle. Dikpati is predicting one off the charts in the positive direction.

As there has been no additional warming in the last several years, land or ocean, Met O has conceded this and with their 'new and improved' climate model predict (forecast?) there won't be for the next few years and that between 2009 and 2014 temperatures will exceed 1998 levels. Do you think it's any coincidence Met O's predictions coincide with SC24? Of course they don't specify, but it's quite obvious they are counting on it.


:eye-poppi:rolleyes:

They have not conceded anything, perhaps you could find the quote to prove your claim, or withdraw it?

Climate modeling has been worked on non stop to investigate the science, and it is now entering the next phase, integrating local cycles. Previously, technology was not able to provide with the computing power to do this.

[Walrus32]

I've read Lomborg and was impressed. Are you saying he was the bore, or someone else? He did pretty well on the Cobert Report.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/09/co...n-lomborg.html (http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/09/colbert-report-with-bjorn-lomborg.html)

Lomburg on the Cobert Report. (http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/09/colbert-report-with-bjorn-lomborg.html)

Sorry for the confusion. The bore was one of the questioners. Lomborg himself is very erudite and articulate.

[mhaze]

Sorry for the confusion. The bore was one of the questioners. Lomborg himself is very erudite and articulate.

Got it. Yep, if he shows up around here, I'm buying the beer. Got the show set to TIVO.

[mhaze]

What research, performed by whom, and published in what peer-reviewed journal of geophysical or climate research? Linky-poo, perhaps? CD seems to have tired of looking over articles with incestuous citations; I am not tired. I haven't been here in a while, and it looks like there's plenty of work for the weed-whacker.

The links have been listed already, so look around. But what's your complaint about it, anyway? Did you think the Holocene co2 level was rock solid steady?

If not, what variations would you have presumed, and why?

[Schneibster]

The links have been listed already, You don't have any links,

so look around. So you're going to try to waste my time looking for something you haven't posted because you don't have it.

But what's your complaint about it, anyway? What complaint? I asked a question. You don't have an answer. Considering how many times you've been caught lying, I don't have any problem interpreting what that means.

Did you think the Holocene co2 level was rock solid steady? Probably not, but I'm certainly not going to take YOUR word for it how big the fluctuations were.

If not, what variations would you have presumed, and why?What's it to you? How about you actually produce some data, rather than just another claim, considering your track record.

[mhaze]

More ad hom attacks?:D

Tsonis postulates a .2C drop between now and 2020. Met O is the opposite, and more.

http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/SC24.html

Interesting. Very impressive chart.

Tsonis vs Met O - Differing predictions on ocean currents?

[mhaze]

One minor point about your first comment here. There has been an assertion that over the 8000 years of the Holocene erase, approximately 40 ppm of CO2 was introduced into the atmosphere gradually - thus in the absence of human activity, the level in about year 1800 would have been 240 ppm.

Research has shown this to be false, and has also shown that during the Holocene there was considerable rapid fluctuations in CO2 level. This is not to say that we are not now contributing approximately 100 ppm, just that the climate is dynamic and the natural level of CO2 does vary, roughly say between 2xx and 3xx. There is no baseline, static level which is "right".

The second point you make can be vigorously debated on several levels as I am sure you are aware. You can't have an international agreement to control CO2 when the Asian countries producing the huge brown clouds are excluded and when those clouds are known to constitute more than 50% of the problem in those areas. That makes no sense. You are then attacking one thing, a possible non problem and ignoring a known problem.

We could wind up as successful at understanding and controlling "the CO2 problem" as we have with controlling those dangerous freons, proven scientifically to be responsible for the ozone hole.:)

Moving this to Sci GW thread, more suited there.

[a_unique_person]

Interesting. Very impressive chart.

Tsonis vs Met O - Differing predictions on ocean currents?

All of a sudden, projections are quite believable?

[a_unique_person]

I've read Lomborg and was impressed. Are you saying he was the bore, or someone else? He did pretty well on the Cobert Report.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/09/co...n-lomborg.html (http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/09/colbert-report-with-bjorn-lomborg.html)

Lomburg on the Cobert Report. (http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/09/colbert-report-with-bjorn-lomborg.html)

So do you agree with Lomborg that AGW is real? That would save wasting time with a lot of these questions. He seems to think that increasing CO2 will warm the planet.

[Schneibster]

All of a sudden, projections are quite believable?Not to mention... shudder... MODELS.

[a_unique_person]

Not to mention... shudder... MODELS.

Have they been validated?

[mhaze]

All of a sudden, projections are quite believable?

I'm just interested in understanding if Met incorporated Tsonis's concepts of synchronized chaos, if so, why did they reach different conclusions than he did.

[stevea]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I'm quite happy to acknowledge my limited understanding of the topic, I'm just doing the best I can. I am also happy to refer people to the IPCC reports, but that doens't seem to satisfy a lot of people for some reason :confused:.

The weather patterns, not just isolated events, seem to be changing in Australia, and research is underway into establishing if that is permanent or not. What is happening is certainly in accord with predictions. El Nino = Drought for Australia. The prediction was for more frequent and more powerful El Nino, and that's what's been happening. This is for not just one year, but for about ten years now, since the massive El Nino of 1998. All capital cities are now investing in desalination plants. That's not just because of increased demand, but reduced inflows as well.

If the liberal dream of Kyoto isn't going to work, then what is?

I appreciate your sincerity to learn, but the IPCC should not be a primary reference. Its a consolidation work and clearly one where we should all suspect political motives abound. For the very same reason I would not suggest that papers by the fossil fuel industry should be the primary foundation for any "conclusion" on the topic. Read them both, read the papers by the iconoclasts dissenters and see where it leads. I strongly suspect that, like this forum-column, the trend will be an unclear muddle requiring further information and I think that's a fair assessment of the topic.

Someone here noted that weather isn't climate, but climate is really little more that weather over an extended period. Weather over a 5 or 10 year period and specific events like El Nino can't really be used very effectively as "proof" of climate change. One-in-a-thousand chance events really do happen once every thousand times, and viewed in detail every event is far more unique. Just because a river crests it's expected "century" peak three times in a decade is not proof that the estimate is in error.

Unless you have a theory that can predict these events over a considerable body of data you can't really say much about the causal relationships. Let me propose a crude analogy for those who don't tract statistical analysis. Let's say for the sake of argument that some specific and definable annual weather event like El Nino occurs in average 50% of years and that we have an eqn which attempts to predict it. After 10 years let's say that the eqn has predicted 8 of 10 correctly. 80% accuracy would be a great model for such a complex phenomena, but unfortunately there is a 10% chance that you would get 8 of 10 or better correct from 10 random coin tosses. The theory may be accuracy or it may just be reasonably lucky. To be verified it either has to be extraordinarily accurate or else you need a lot of data (meaning long time periods) to verify it.

I don't believe Kyoto can work for the same reason I don't believe you can herd cats. There is no way the Kyoto signators can prevent the 3rd world or even their own citizens from burning fossil fuels when it comes down to subsistence or even lifestyle mainenance. *Maybe* if you had a planet-wide Stalinist authoritarian dictatorship you could largely enforce it, but that's not a great solution (sadly it's generally the outcome when socialist schemes like Kyoto are followed to their conclusion; see Hayek).

No if you want to remove CO2 from the atmosphere we really need to devise active solutions that remove CO2 or avoid producing it. The marketplace should decide how.

The fundamental problem of pollution is a well known and well understood economic problem often called "the tragedy of the commons". When there is a public good which everyone is free to share, then the biggest piggy gains the most and no one is motivated to maintain the good, lest the benefits his efforts go to to another. A "commons" refers to a common grazing field. The guy who gets there first with the most sheep reaps the biggest benefit, but no one is motivated to fertilize or plant seed to maintain the public commons.

The solution is just as simple as the problem - remove the commons and charge a use fee related to the cost of atmospheric carbon sequestration with credits for recapture & sequestration. This is effectively a carbon tax/carbon credit scheme, but there should be provision for credits to net consumers at even a small scale and import pollution duties to those places that generate excess CO2.

One of the ridiculous aspects of Kyoto is the "free pass" given to developing nations. Sorry but excess CO2 is gram for gram equally bad regardless of source. If that equivalence is not recognized then the result is that those paying a lesser cost for use of the commons will be advantaged and those paying more are disadvantaged causing a shift of pollution sourcing from one to the other. That's ridiculous and not helpful.

Perhaps in Oz you don't have a clear-cut example of this problem. If you go to the SW US - say around El Paso/Jaurez it is clear as day that Mexico pays little or no attention to pollution. Already w/ the NA free trade zone you have US companies well known for environmental problems creating facilities in Mexico. So the pollution to our commons remain but the source is now beyond our immediate jurisdiction. It hasn't helped the pollution situation at all. Kyoto for example would ask the US to reduce emisisons by 7% while Mexico by 0% (free-pass). The upshot is that the cost of business in the US increases so the pollution migrates a few miles south and is not abated. How is this a solution ? It's rubbish, nonsense; and worse it is economy destroying nonsense. Carbon is carbon - measure it and tax it.

[stevea]

One minor point [...] This is not to say that we are not now contributing approximately 100 ppm, just that the climate is dynamic and the natural level of CO2 does vary, roughly say between 2xx and 3xx. There is no baseline, static level which is "right".

I don't disagree. "Right level" of atmospheric CO2 is ultimately an anthropomorphism, just as the right temperature to set your home air conditioner at. Clearly all fossil & plant carbon was once atmospheric, so we should be interested in what previous levels were like and what their impact was on climate and the biosphere.

Still it would be quite remarkable if human activity had not raised atmospheric CO2 levels considerably in the past century or two. Probably as you suggest not beyond prehistoric levels, but certainly beyond the recent levels. *IF* this causes some instability in climate or biosphere then it could be catastrophic, but if not it could be a waste of effort to control. I agree that your argument plays into to the "how much should we be willing to pay", but that it has an impact on the biosphere is pretty clear.

The question of climate aside, there is some reasonable evidence that the excess CO2 impacts ocean ph and plant growth rates and ... may (if the non-equilibrium hypothesis is doubted) be causing problems.

--

The second point you make can be vigorously debated on several levels as I am sure you are aware. You can't have an international agreement to control CO2 when the Asian countries producing the huge brown clouds are excluded and when those clouds are known to constitute more than 50% of the problem in those areas. That makes no sense. You are then attacking one thing, a possible non problem and ignoring a known problem.

I think we agree. Kyoto, as I just posted is largely about the exportation of pollution from some countries to other countries, not it's elimination. Further the central treaty idea isn't nearly as extensive or equinanimous as the economic forces. If the EU, Canada and Japan decided to tax and add duties based on CO2 then it would soon become the planetary standard - even if the US dragged it's feet (I doubt it would when faced with a fair deal).

[mhaze]

I don't disagree. "Right level" of atmospheric CO2 is ultimately an anthropomorphism, just as the right temperature to set your home air conditioner at. Clearly all fossil & plant carbon was once atmospheric, so we should be interested in what previous levels were like and what their impact was on climate and the biosphere.

Still it would be quite remarkable if human activity had not raised atmospheric CO2 levels considerably in the past century or two. Probably as you suggest not beyond prehistoric levels, but certainly beyond the recent levels. *IF* this causes some instability in climate or biosphere then it could be catastrophic, but if not it could be a waste of effort to control. I agree that your argument plays into to the "how much should we be willing to pay", but that it has an impact on the biosphere is pretty clear.

The question of climate aside, there is some reasonable evidence that the excess CO2 impacts ocean ph and plant growth rates and ... may (if the non-equilibrium hypothesis is doubted) be causing problems.

Leaving aside your discussion about Kyoto for now and focusing on the CO2 issue for the time being, I'd like to summarize what is sort of a moderate, skeptical point of view as best I can.

A doubling of CO2, including forcings and feedbacks, may result in 0.5 to 1.0 C temperature rise due to a predominance of negative, not positive feedbacks. The economic and social impacts of 0.5 - 1.0 C rise is negligible. CO2 has been vasted overrated as a real world driver of climate, aerosols, soot and pollution have been underrated. There are no "tipping points" supported by even the IPCC mainstream research, it is a sort of fringe element of Warmers who believe in "tipping points". Therefore, hysteria and alarmism and "urgent action required now" can be disregarded.

Taxation or regulation of CO2 is premature, because it is not fully based on a scientific understanding, could have consequences the reverse of what was intended by well meaning people who introduce programs to control CO2. Severe unintended consequences to third world countries may occur as and if developed nations attempt control and regulation schemes that impact imports from those underdeveloped countries. A wise win-win option given uncertainty on climate issues would be large scale building of nuclear power plants, which would have to be done over the objections of radical environmentalists and their lobbies.

[mhaze]

I appreciate your sincerity to learn, but the IPCC should not be a primary reference. Its a consolidation work and clearly one where we should all suspect political motives abound. For the very same reason I would not suggest that papers by the fossil fuel industry should be the primary foundation for any "conclusion" on the topic. Read them both, read the papers by the iconoclasts dissenters and see where it leads. I strongly suspect that, like this forum-column, the trend will be an unclear muddle requiring further information and I think that's a fair assessment of the topic.


Steve, that is a very good suggestion as to an approach to understand this admittedly complex area. Having said that, I'm going to post a link that has been troubling me. It's been bantered about for some time how Hansen, although perhaps well intentioned, has been seeming to get farther and farther on the fringe. Here is a summary of his current views -

James Hansen’s Presentation to policy makers October 3rd 2007: http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/gustavus_3oct07.pdf

Short story seems to be that he advocates something of a return to primitivism, coupled with science fiction of non-existant carbon sequestration.

I'm not sure really what to say about this document. Perhaps it is best to just let it .... tell it's own story.

[stevea]

CO2 and H20 absorb radiation at different bands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

Earth as a black body

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body

Yes - we agree that CO2 and have different absorption spectra which is exactly why the previous statement assessing absorption media based in concentration is not supportable without a numeric argument.

The wikipedia says ...

If we assume the following:
1. The Sun and the Earth both radiate as spherical black bodies in thermal equilibrium with themselves.

Sorry AUP - but you've presented a classical circular argument, (begging the question, petitio principii). Your reference ASSUMES the point in question. No the surface of the earth does not have an emissivity that matches the blackbody ideal.

[Walrus32]

So do you agree with Lomborg that AGW is real? That would save wasting time with a lot of these questions. He seems to think that increasing CO2 will warm the planet.

Lomborg has said he believes in AGW, but not in the cataclysmic consequences thereof that some have predicted.

Also, he has never claimed to be a scientist, just a political scientist, and a statistician. That doesn't preclude him from writing a thoughtful, provocative book about scientific issues. If only scientist could write books about science, then we would have to throw everything by Paul Ehrlich, Helen Caldicott, Rachel Carson, Jeremy Rifkin...

(Oh wait...maybe that isn't such a bad idea...:rolleyes:)

[mhaze]

Lomborg has said he believes in AGW, but not in the cataclysmic consequences thereof that some have predicted.

Also, he has never claimed to be a scientist, just a political scientist, and a statistician. That doesn't preclude him from writing a thoughtful, provocative book about scientific issues. If only scientist could write books about science, then we would have to throw everything by Paul Ehrlich, Helen Caldicott, Rachel Carson, Jeremy Rifkin...

(Oh wait...maybe that isn't such a bad idea...:rolleyes:)

And throw out a lot of the wild crazing about economics and economic side effects of supposed "global warming" by the scientists that do believe AGW, but who clearly are not on solid footing when they drift into these economics.

Although it is worth noting (as has McIntyre) that the parallels between economic modeling and that done in "climatology" are quite strong.

[a_unique_person]

And throw out a lot of the wild crazing about economics and economic side effects of supposed "global warming" by the scientists that do believe AGW, but who clearly are not on solid footing when they drift into these economics.

Although it is worth noting (as has McIntyre) that the parallels between economic modeling and that done in "climatology" are quite strong.

:rolleyes: Scientists are not qualified to make economic pronouncements, but McIntyre is qualified to tell the scientists how to run their own business.

[CapelDodger]

Actually, we've still have not reached SC23 minimum and likely will not until next year some time (March or later I believe). There is disagreement in the solar community as to what SC24 will bring, however Schatten et al have the best track record and they predict a very weak cycle. Dikpati is predicting one off the charts in the positive direction.

It seems, then, that the science is not yet well-established. When a good track-record involves only two cycles that's hardly surprising.

Do Schatten and Dikpati differ in the mechanisms they rely on, or on different statistical analyses?

As there has been no additional warming in the last several years, land or ocean, Met O has conceded this and with their 'new and improved' climate model predict (forecast?) there won't be for the next few years and that between 2009 and 2014 temperatures will exceed 1998 levels. Do you think it's any coincidence Met O's predictions coincide with SC24? Of course they don't specify, but it's quite obvious they are counting on it.

There has been some warming recently; 2005 was as warm as 1998, 2006 was cooler but warmer than 2004. The results on 2007 aren't in yet, obviously, but with less than two months to go it looks to be at least as warm as 2006.

The Met Office model predicts little change for the next two years and then an increase after 2009 - not just until 2014. The prediction by then is that one year in two will be warmer than 1998, with or without an El Nino.

It's a bold move to come out with such a specific short-term prediction - three-to-eight years - and demonstrates a good deal of confidence in their model. The model probably includes an insolation variation averaged from the last two cycles, but more significantly the projected La Nina/El Nada conditions for the next couple of years. That's still pretty speculative stuff as well, of course.

You may be correct that warming will continue in the future, however currently it is not. We are now experiencing a cooling phase which from all indications will last at least until it's clear what SC24 will do.

We're certainly not in a cooling phase. A fairly steady phase, but not cooling. More heat than usual is being shunted away into the oceans - particularly the Western Pacific - rather than the atmosphere, but that won't continue for long. When you consider the '98 anomaly compared to '97 and '99, a similar anomaly at the next strong El Nino and starting from '98 levels is is going to be damn' warm.

If it's very weak as Schatten predicts, the AGW empire will crumble under it's own weight. There has been no new warming since 1998 El Nino (not an AGW phenomenon), period.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_10323470851b043f87.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8689)

Temperatures now are close to the '98 El Nino influenced anomaly - without the El Nino effect. It's now about as warm, year after year, as what was an anomalous year a decade ago. That's warming. The next strong El Nino will blow '98 out of the water, and there'll be one in the next three-to-eight years. Mark my words. Just how tightly bound El Nino/La Nina is to solar cycles I don't know, but I'm thinking it's not very.

Solar cycle 24 is written off already, let's face it, but that doesn't matter because there are two wildly different schools of thought one of which can be jettisoned post hoc while the other can claim validation. Solar cycle 25 is where the showdown occurs.


(All this solar cycle prediction stuff : do they use models, or is it purely statistical methods they differ in?)

[a_unique_person]

Lomborg has said he believes in AGW, but not in the cataclysmic consequences thereof that some have predicted.

Also, he has never claimed to be a scientist, just a political scientist, and a statistician. That doesn't preclude him from writing a thoughtful, provocative book about scientific issues. If only scientist could write books about science, then we would have to throw everything by Paul Ehrlich, Helen Caldicott, Rachel Carson, Jeremy Rifkin...

(Oh wait...maybe that isn't such a bad idea...:rolleyes:)

Rachel Carson was mostly right.

[a_unique_person]

Yes - we agree that CO2 and have different absorption spectra which is exactly why the previous statement assessing absorption media based in concentration is not supportable without a numeric argument.



:confused:

The wikipedia says ...


Sorry AUP - but you've presented a classical circular argument, (begging the question, petitio principii). Your reference ASSUMES the point in question. No the surface of the earth does not have an emissivity that matches the blackbody ideal.

The earth isn't, I was just putting up a link to the concept. As a simple model, it works quite well, (the shows how you can even work out the global temperature with a reasonable degree of accuracy.)

[CapelDodger]

Although it is worth noting (as has McIntyre) that the parallels between economic modeling and that done in "climatology" are quite strong.

Utter rubbish. Economic models are statistical models, climate models are physical models. They're as alike as they are to glamour models.

Ecomomic models screw up because they don't incorporate their own influence on the system they're modelling statistically. Climate models do not influence the system they're modelling physically, so they can do a much better job. As, of course, they have done over the last few decades.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Utter rubbish. Economic models are statistical models, climate models are physical models. They're as alike as they are to glamour models.

Ecomomic models screw up because they don't incorporate their own influence on the system they're modelling statistically. Climate models do not influence the system they're modelling physically, so they can do a much better job. As, of course, they have done over the last few decades.

Really, do you have evidence of climate models accurately predicting future climate?

Here (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6470.html) is an article that throws you a bone and disputes the accuracy of climate models.

[a_unique_person]

And throw out a lot of the wild crazing about economics and economic side effects of supposed "global warming" by the scientists that do believe AGW, but who clearly are not on solid footing when they drift into these economics.

One thing I notice. Economists are adamant, we can't afford to prevent AGW. However, the free market system is eminiently capable of coping with AGW.

[CapelDodger]

I appreciate your sincerity to learn, but the IPCC should not be a primary reference. Its a consolidation work and clearly one where we should all suspect political motives abound.

The IPCC reports are a good source of references to the actual published science that they collate and present to the governments that commissioned them. When it comes to the published science there are no political motives.

If the IPCC has any political motives, one would presumably be its own perpetuation. Given that its patrons are governments it will tend toward telling them what they want to hear. That is, it will be conservative. All the important governments have their own teams of scientists looking at this subject, so nothing radical will be ventured lest it get pounced on as reason to do away with them.

That's one reason why the IPCC reports have a markedly conservative take on climate change. Another, of course, is the natural conservatism of science.

Someone here noted that weather isn't climate, but climate is really little more that weather over an extended period.

Climate defines the bounds within which the weather can vary. Climate is to weather as a prison yard is to prisoners.

Weather over a 5 or 10 year period and specific events like El Nino can't really be used very effectively as "proof" of climate change.

Obviously. When it comes to AGW the relevant period is the last three decades or so of a consistent and accelerating warming trend. Very much as the science predicted. It's not proof, but it's been strong enough evidence to see the establishment of the IPCC and just about every politician making noises about their concern. Even the White House has gone hands-up to the reality of AGW. Even the Australian government has signed up to it.

One-in-a-thousand chance events really do happen once every thousand times, and viewed in detail every event is far more unique. Just because a river crests it's expected "century" peak three times in a decade is not proof that the estimate is in error.

It's good evidence that something's changed. Land-use, climate, whatever, the actuaries will be on it and the odds will drop rapidly. As one who's spent many happy hours socialising with actuaries (they're more fun than one might expect) I can assure you of that. The "century" rating is based on statistics, and when three occur in a decade the statistics have changed.


Unless you have a theory that can predict these events over a considerable body of data you can't really say much about the causal relationships. Let me propose a crude analogy for those who don't tract statistical analysis. Let's say for the sake of argument that some specific and definable annual weather event like El Nino occurs in average 50% of years and that we have an eqn which attempts to predict it. After 10 years let's say that the eqn has predicted 8 of 10 correctly. 80% accuracy would be a great model for such a complex phenomena, but unfortunately there is a 10% chance that you would get 8 of 10 or better correct from 10 random coin tosses. The theory may be accuracy or it may just be reasonably lucky. To be verified it either has to be extraordinarily accurate or else you need a lot of data (meaning long time periods) to verify it.

We've got three full decades of warming to confirm AGW, taking into account eruptions and El Nino's. There's plenty there to establish the trend. Which, as I'm sure you'll appreciate, is what really matters.

I don't believe Kyoto can work ...

Personally, I don't give a toss about Kyoto. That's more suited to the Politics forum, don't you think?

The IPCC is the interface between the scientific and political worlds so I take an interest in it. Kyoto is purely of the political world.

The major governments of the world take climate change seriously, and it's not as if they want to. Governments have enough to contend with without throwing climate change into the mix. But there it is, they can't ignore it. They have to do something. So they convene a committee to look into it (the IPCC). When asked what action they've taken they can say "We've convened a committee". Hopefully the problem will have gone away before the committee reports - and it often does. In this case, sadly not. So further action must be taken, and what better than setting targets? Targets are, by definition, some way off. And so Kyoto. And so what? It was ever thus.

Meanwhile AGW is with us and has been for a while. The only really serious matter for consideration is how we personally ride it out. Nobody's coming galloping to the rescue. AGW isn't going to be controlled, it's going to be reacted to as it makes its presence felt.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The IPCC reports are a good source of references to the actual published science that they collate and present to the governments that commissioned them. When it comes to the published science there are no political motives.

If the IPCC has any political motives, one would presumably be its own perpetuation. Given that its patrons are governments it will tend toward telling them what they want to hear. That is, it will be conservative. All the important governments have their own teams of scientists looking at this subject, so nothing radical will be ventured lest it get pounced on as reason to do away with them.

That's one reason why the IPCC reports have a markedly conservative take on climate change. Another, of course, is the natural conservatism of science.

I notice that you did not answer my request for evidence of your assertion concerning models.



The most recent IPCC documents were written by 30 scientists and 300 governmental officials. This is politics with the flavor of science.


Governments tend to attempt to garner more control over the populous. History bears this out. I do not understand why you would conclude that a governmental document would not want to use science to manipulate the people towards the goal of greater control.

[CapelDodger]

One thing I notice. Economists are adamant, we can't afford to prevent AGW. However, the free market system is eminiently capable of coping with AGW.

Regarding the whole Lomborg thing : who, frankly, gives a toss? The Stern Report has a damn' sight more substance, but in the end, so what? Nothing substantial will result. Reports aren't commissioned to be acted on, they're commissioned as a proxy for action. When they're presented they can be considered, another proxy. If the roof does actually fall in a committee can be convened to apportion blame ...

That said, Lomborg is young enough to have an angry crowd force-feed him his latest contribution.

The free market may well cope with AGW. There's always a free market, known in extremis as a black market.

Lomborg isn't a fool, he accepts AGW as fact, but in his chosen field - entirely academic - that still leaves him much room to maneouvre while being of stellar status in the contrarian world. The Dr Pangloss du jour .

Let us speak no more of him :).

[CapelDodger]

Really, do you have evidence of climate models accurately predicting future climate?

The Hansen et al climate model of 1988 accurately predicted current climate, within the stated error-bounds.

Here (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6470.html) is an article that throws you a bone and disputes the accuracy of climate models.

There's a big bad analogue model out there that doesn't dispute the accuracy of climate modelling from two decades back, let alone what can be done now. If you're disputing the accuracy of future predictions, you've no evidence to go on yet. You'll have to wait three-to-eight years for that.

So far climate models have performed very well, and I see no reason why they should become less skillful.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The Hansen et al climate model of 1988 accurately predicted current climate, within the stated error-bounds.


Just to make certain: Is this the model to which you are referring?

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf

[CapelDodger]

I notice that you did not answer my request for evidence of your assertion concerning models.

Funnily enough, I didn't get the memo about you being given priority. I guess I'm out of the loop. (Irony)



The most recent IPCC documents were written by 30 scientists and 300 governmental officials. This is politics with the flavor of science.

Numbers don't define the input. Just consider a company of infantry. And your numbers are fantasy anyway. IPCC reports aren't written, they gestate.

These government officials : which governments, what politics?

All of the science that the IPCC collates is freely avaliable.

Governments tend to attempt to garner more control over the populous. History bears this out. I do not understand why you would conclude that a governmental document would not want to use science to manipulate the people towards the goal of greater control.

Because the world is not as mysterious and scary as you seem to think. Which government does "governmental document" refer to, in your mind?

Science transcends the world of politics and nations. It can't be pressed into malign service in any more than a local sense, and not for long. Three decades of worldwide scientific concern about AGW consistently reinforced by the outcome ... what more does anybody need?

The IPCC is not equivalent to the OGPU. M'kay? (Satirical)

[CapelDodger]

Just to make certain: Is this the model to which you are referring?

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf

Quite possibly.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Because the world is not as mysterious and scary as you seem to think. Which government does "governmental document" refer to, in your mind?

Veiled ad hom much?

Science transcends the world of politics and nations. It can't be pressed into malign service in any more than a local sense, and not for long. Three decades of worldwide scientific concern about AGW consistently reinforced by the outcome ... what more does anybody need?


If the IPCC "transcends the world of politics", why does the documnet need 300 governmental officials to manage what the 30 scientist write?

[CapelDodger]

Lomborg has said he believes in AGW, but not in the cataclysmic consequences thereof that some have predicted.

No doubt, but what about the more common prediction, which is not cataclysmic but is still quite distressing? There are some who predict catacysm, and aren't there always. Porn on the InterNet - cataclysm. De-criminalise cannabis - cataclysm. The youth of today - cataclysm.

Where Lomborg is engaged is in the middle-ground, where most of the scientists and scientifically-minded are. He's into predictions of one bad against another, one good against another, all in dollar terms. He's been doing it for a while now, and at very reappraisal he inerringly comes down on the side of not doing anything to disturb the economic status quo.

There may come a time - he's young enough - when he'll have to reignite his celebrity career by a very public conversion without an explicit recantation. That's not a prediction, I'm just saying I wouldn't be surprised.

Also, he has never claimed to be a scientist, just a political scientist, and a statistician.

Yet his name keeps cropping up on the Science Forum. Weird.

That doesn't preclude him from writing a thoughtful, provocative book about scientific issues.

By the evidence so far, yes it does. He writes well, better than most weasels, and he's clever, but he doesn't have a clue about science. Lomborg is an economist, which is little better than being a Philosopher.

[mhaze]

:rolleyes: Scientists are not qualified to make economic pronouncements, but McIntyre is qualified to tell the scientists how to run their own business.

AUP, the immediate answer that pops into my head is that, yes, McIntyre is a businessman.

Not sure that's really what you wanted to here and I suspect that you mean something different than business per se.

[mhaze]

If the IPCC "transcends the world of politics", why does the documnet need 300 governmental officials to manage what the 30 scientist write?

Hmm....

Biofuels are on the list of "good things" that the IPCC suggests nations should do to prevent global warming.:D

[a_unique_person]

Veiled ad hom much?



If the IPCC "transcends the world of politics", why does the documnet need 300 governmental officials to manage what the 30 scientist write?

Because the denier countries like China, USA and Australia try to nobble the findings.

[David Rodale]

The Hansen et al climate model of 1988 accurately predicted current climate, within the stated error-bounds.

There's a big bad analogue model out there that doesn't dispute the accuracy of climate modelling from two decades back, let alone what can be done now. If you're disputing the accuracy of future predictions, you've no evidence to go on yet. You'll have to wait three-to-eight years for that.

So far climate models have performed very well, and I see no reason why they should become less skillful.

I realize this is hard to swallow for gullible warmers (nice ad hom yes?), but by 1988 a decadal temperature trend was already established. Maybe it impresses you his scenarios appear (deceptively) to have followed that general trend at first glance? Had Hansen made these predictions in 1971 and was even close, that would be something to shout about. However, Hansen was busy creating models for the global cooling gang at that time.

I keep seeing this claim that Hansen's 1988 predictions were validated and figured it would just fade away. Alas, it has not. First, notice in the graph below (Hansen's) the starting point for the observed temperature starts above the start points of the A,B and C predictions:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_10323470aeaff75e9c.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8715)

Oops, that must have been an oversight....maybe a Y2K error.

Next, using HadCRUT3 global temperature data through August 2006 with the starting point at 0 where it should be, we get this:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_10323470aebdc0202c.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8716)

Now here is GISTEMP:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_10323470af46440555.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8718)

Houston, we have a problem; there's a lot of gullible people out there.

Also, his GHG predictions were off. So, even if Hansen's "predictions" look close without properly starting at 0 (that must have been an oversight too), in reality temperatures should have been higher. Details, details.
See Hansen's 1998 paper. Pay attention to Figures 5A and 5B.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1998/1998_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

Here's a good primer on climate models:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1891-2005.49.pdf

Although my experience is with industrial modeling, the concepts and issues are similar described in the article above, except the unlicensed software engineers creating climate models are also the same ones using them.....and massaging them.

No matter how it's cut, being right for the wrong reasons is still not validation.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Because the denier countries like China, USA and Australia try to nobble the findings.

Using the word "denier" in this context is a blatant attempt at an ad hom attack. I thought the level of discourse was higher at this forum.

Yet, you make a claim. How many of the 300 were representatives of the three countries you named?

[mhaze]

I realize this is hard to swallow for gullible warmers (nice ad hom yes?), but by 1988 a decadal temperature trend was already established. Maybe it impresses you his scenarios appear (deceptively) to have followed that general trend at first glance?

Although my experience is with industrial modeling, the concepts and issues are similar described in the article above, except the unlicensed software engineers creating climate models are also the same ones using them.....and massaging them.

No matter how it's cut, being right for the wrong reasons is still not validation.

Models would be good if they gave us a run for 1971 and one for 1988, and both proved right.

But only one did, and modelers trumpet that one (of three projections) that, for a while, came close.

[a_unique_person]

Using the word "denier" in this context is a blatant attempt at an ad hom attack. I thought the level of discourse was higher at this forum.

Yet, you make a claim. How many of the 300 were representatives of the three countries you named?

I'll call them sceptics when they stop presenting rubbish like Jaworosky.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I'll call them sceptics when they stop presenting rubbish like Jaworosky.

I quoted you. What you have written is incomprehensible to me.

:confused:

[a_unique_person]

I realize this is hard to swallow for gullible warmers (nice ad hom yes?), but by 1988 a decadal temperature trend was already established. Maybe it impresses you his scenarios appear (deceptively) to have followed that general trend at first glance? Had Hansen made these predictions in 1971 and was even close, that would be something to shout about. However, Hansen was busy creating models for the global cooling gang at that time.

I keep seeing this claim that Hansen's 1988 predictions were validated and figured it would just fade away. Alas, it has not. First, notice in the graph below (Hansen's) the starting point for the observed temperature starts above the start points of the A,B and C predictions:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_10323470aeaff75e9c.jpg

Oops, that must have been an oversight....maybe a Y2K error.

Next, using HadCRUT3 global temperature data through August 2006 with the starting point at 0 where it should be, we get this:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_10323470aebdc0202c.jpg

Now here is GISTEMP:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_10323470af46440555.jpg

Houston, we have a problem; there's a lot of gullible people out there.

Also, his GHG predictions were off. So, even if Hansen's "predictions" look close without properly starting at 0 (that must have been an oversight too), in reality temperatures should have been higher. Details, details.
See Hansen's 1998 paper. Pay attention to Figures 5A and 5B.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1998/1998_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

Here's a good primer on climate models:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1891-2005.49.pdf

Although my experience is with industrial modeling, the concepts and issues are similar described in the article above, except the unlicensed software engineers creating climate models are also the same ones using them.....and massaging them.

No matter how it's cut, being right for the wrong reasons is still not validation.

What was that crashing sound? That must have been the goal posts moving. The claim was that Hansen was 300% out, by only using scenario A as his pediction.

[a_unique_person]

I quoted you. What you have written is incomprehensible to me.

:confused:

http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm

[mhaze]

What was that crashing sound? That must have been the goal posts moving. The claim was that Hansen was 300% out, by only using scenario A as his pediction.

Do you have the actual text of the Congressional testimony for that? Not the story as spun by Hansen, mind you, the actual transcript.

Nonetheless, your comment relates not to DR's rebuttal of "Hansens valid or not valid models", but to a prior issue you brought up separately, about Michaels. Changing the subject?

[a_unique_person]

Do you have the actual text of the Congressional testimony for that? Not the story as spun by Hansen, mind you, the actual transcript.

Nonetheless, your comment relates not to DR's rebuttal of "Hansens valid or not valid models", but to a prior issue you brought up separately, about Michaels. Changing the subject?

That's right, Michaels said that scenario A was the only projection Hansen made to congress, and it was 300% out. Michaels was a liar, Hansen presented three scenarios, with the most likely a reasonable estimate of the actual temperature. Michaels tried the old 'airbrusing' technique to remove the other projections.

[mhaze]

Yes, I am well aware of the story and I have read both sides of the issue on this long ago bit of mud. That's why I thought you might have the actual record of the testimony. A lot of time that will clear up confusions because you can look at the actual way people phrased things. For example, he may have said "Now look at this "high scenario" from Hansen's work blah-blah-blah. In that case, he would not have been a liar.

I'm not interested in debating it with you because I feel the actual record is available and would prove your claims, disprove them or put the truth somewhere in the confused middle ground.

[mhaze]

I realize this is hard to swallow for gullible warmers (nice ad hom yes?), but by 1988 a decadal temperature trend was already established. Maybe it impresses you his scenarios appear (deceptively) to have followed that general trend at first glance? Had Hansen made these predictions in 1971 and was even close, that would be something to shout about. However, Hansen was busy creating models for the global cooling gang at that time.

I keep seeing this claim that Hansen's 1988 predictions were validated and figured it would just fade away. Alas, it has not. First, notice in the graph below (Hansen's) the starting point for the observed temperature starts above the start points of the A,B and C predictions:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_10323470aeaff75e9c.jpg

Oops, that must have been an oversight....maybe a Y2K error.

Next, using HadCRUT3 global temperature data through August 2006 with the starting point at 0 where it should be, we get this:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_10323470aebdc0202c.jpg

Now here is GISTEMP:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_10323470af46440555.jpg

Houston, we have a problem; there's a lot of gullible people out there.

Also, his GHG predictions were off. So, even if Hansen's "predictions" look close without properly starting at 0 (that must have been an oversight too), in reality temperatures should have been higher. Details, details.
See Hansen's 1998 paper. Pay attention to Figures 5A and 5B.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1998/1998_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

Here's a good primer on climate models:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1891-2005.49.pdf

Although my experience is with industrial modeling, the concepts and issues are similar described in the article above, except the unlicensed software engineers creating climate models are also the same ones using them.....and massaging them.

No matter how it's cut, being right for the wrong reasons is still not validation.

Leaving aside the issue of "right for the wrong reasons" (Von Storch's summary of Hansen's graphs) what the three charts show is that Hansen presented a chart with a high, mid and low scenario.

We are interested in this issue as an example of the question "Have the models been fairly accurate". (Note that's a wide question, a lot of ways to address it).

Warmers maintain that Hansen's middle scenario was proved "right". HADCRUT3 and GISTEMP overlays on the graph show that the "right" scenario was "wrong".

Clearly it looks like if Warmers want to maintain the models have had good predictive ability, they need to provide evidence other than Hansen's 1988 screnarios. But there are dozens of climate models and we are hindcasting looking for some run, with some parameters, that got it right, so if enough runs were made, someone should have gotten it right.

Right?

That's really pretty lame.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Rachel Carson was mostly right.

You like mass murderers, don't you?
I'll send you to REASON magazine.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34823.html
Carson was also an effective popularizer of the idea that children were especially vulnerable to the carcinogenic effects of synthetic chemicals. "The situation with respect to children is even more deeply disturbing," she wrote. "A quarter century ago, cancer in children was considered a medical rarity. Today, more American school children die of cancer than from any other disease [her emphasis]." In support of this claim, Carson reported that "twelve per cent of all deaths in children between the ages of one and fourteen are caused by cancer."
Although it sounds alarming, Carson's statistic is essentially meaningless unless it's given some context, which she failed to supply. It turns out that the percentage of children dying of cancer was rising because other causes of death, such as infectious diseases, were drastically declining.
In fact, cancer rates in children have not increased, as they would have if Carson had been right that children were especially susceptible to the alleged health effects of modern chemicals. Just one rough comparison illustrates this point: In 1938 cancer killed 939 children under 14 years old out of a U.S. population of 130 million. In 1998, according to the National Cancer Institute, about 1,700 children died of cancer, out of a population of more than 280 million. In 1999 the NCI noted that "over the past 20 years, there has been relatively little change in the incidence of children diagnosed with all forms of cancer; from 13 cases per 100,000 children in 1974 to 13.2 per 100,000 children in 1995."
Clearly, if cancer incidence isn't going up, modern chemicals can't be a big factor in cancer. But this simple point is lost on Carson's heirs in the environmental movement, who base their careers on pursuing phantom risks. The truth is that both cancer mortality and incidence rates have been declining for about a decade, mostly because of a decrease in the number of cigarette smokers.

...
The Great Cancer Scare launched by Carson, and perpetuated by her environmentalist disciples ever since, should have been put to rest by a definitive 1996 report from the National Academy of Sciences, Carcinogens and Anticarcinogens in the Human Diet (http://www.nap.edu/books/0309053919/html/). The NAS concluded that levels of both synthetic and natural carcinogens are "so low that they are unlikely to pose an appreciable cancer risk." Worse yet from the point of view of anti-chemical crusaders, the NAS added that Mother Nature's own chemicals probably cause more cancer than anything mankind has dreamed up: "Natural components of the diet may prove to be of greater concern than synthetic components with respect to cancer risk."

[mhaze]

John Tierney, writing in the NYT, "Diet and Fat" (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/science/09tier.html?ex=1349668800&en=67642ef2330f51af&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink), says that the scientific consensus on diet and fat....

WRONG!!!

Recently scientists figured out they are clueless about the mechanisms of ozone formation and how or if CFCs affect them.

Consensus....WRONG AGAIN!!!

Can anybody think of some other areas where there might be a "scientific consensus" that might be wrong?

Hmm.....

[mhaze]

Inaccuracies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth (http://newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html)

The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth has been the subject of a legal action by New Party member Stewart Dimmock. Although a full ruling has yet to be given, the Court found that the film was misleading in 11 respects and that the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisors served only to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.


In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that
1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination.

3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

The inaccuracies are:
The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

[Schneibster]

Thanks for drawing my attention to this.

The paper makes interesting claims in those pages:

1. There are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the ctitious atmospheric greenhouse eect, which explains the relevant physical phenomena. The terms \greenhouse eect" and \greenhouse gases" are deliberate misnomers.The differences between the way a greenhouse works to retain heat and the way the atmosphere works to retain heat are obvious. Nobody in their right mind thinks that the Earth's atmosphere is covered with glass. The author spends over half the paper "proving" that the Earth's atmosphere is not covered with glass. This is redundant, to say the least. It's also a strawman.

2. There are no calculations to determinate an average surface temperature of a planet
-with or without atmosphere,
-with or without rotation,
-with or without infrared light absorbing gases.By this reasoning there are no calculations appropriate to determine the average temperature of a room in your house, much less a planet. Not to mention, "average" is a mathematical term, and maintaining that numerical values are not subject to mathematics seems a bit odd to me. How about you?

The frequently mentioned difference of 33 C for the fictitious greenhouse effect of the atmosphere is therefore a meaningless number.OK, so why isn't the surface of the Earth the same temperature as the surface of the Moon? You know, 107C during the day, with hot spots up to 123C, and -153C at night, with cold spots down to -233C? After all, the Moon is at the same distance from the Sun as the Earth is; if the atmosphere doesn't warm it up, shouldn't it be the same temperature?

Here is the data for the Moon (http://www.solarviews.com/eng/moon.htm).

3. Any radiation balance for the average radiant flux is completely irrelevant for the determination of the ground level air temperatures and thus for the average value as well.But I thought there WASN'T an average value. Isn't that what was said just a few short bullet points ago? Must have been my imagination.

4. Average temperature values cannot be identied with the fourth root of average values of the absolute temperature's fourth power.Who says they are? Please provide a link. Meanwhile, are you familiar with RMS averaging, and its use in power electronics? Is RMS averaging equally inaccurate? (Caution: there are many EEs here.) And that's just for starters.

5. Radiation and heat flows do not determine the temperature distributions and their average values.This is wrong on so many levels, it's difficult to even say anything coherent about it.

First, radiation IS a heat flow. Second, temperature is merely a convenient measure of heat; it is in fact a derived value, determined by, among other factors, the heat content of an object. Third, if heat moves, then temperature changes; and it goes down where the heat came from, and up where it went to. So, in fact, heat flow DOES determine temperature distribution. Fourth, I thought there wasn't any "average temperature?" It was claimed earlier (and this is not the first time I have said this) that there is no such thing as "average temperature" (however wrong that statement may be). So this statement is not only inconsistent with physics, it's also internally inconsistent with results the author has already claimed to have proven.

6. Re-emission is not reflection and can in no way heat up the ground-level air against the actual heat flow without mechanical work.The complete lack of knowledge of scattering that this statement reveals is astounding in someone who claims to know anything about physics.

Furthermore, the author appears to have constructed another strawman, specifically attempting to convey that ground-level air is warmed by the re-emitted radiation returning from the atmosphere. Ground-level air is heated BY THE GROUND, as anyone who is not either an idiot or obfuscating would know. Mixing then carries this heat upward, since warm air rises, as anyone who is not either an idiot or obfuscating would also know.

Finally, re-emission does not have to be reflection in order to have the stated effect.

7. The temperature rises in the climate model computations are made plausible by a perpetuum mobile of the second kind. This is possible by setting the thermal conductivity in the atmospheric models to zero, an unphysical assumption. It would be no longer a perpetuum mobile of the second kind, if the \average" fictitious radiation balance, which has no physical justication anyway, was given up.The thermal conductivity of air is a parameter specified in such models; the standard thermal conductivity constant, k, is used. Its units are W/mK. See this (http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=AJPIAS000067000010000885000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes), which suggests using it to construct extremely simplified models suitable for undergraduate work in atmospheric modeling.

This guy seems to have a real problem with "average;" now, it's average radiation balance. Whatever.

8. After Schack 1972 water vapor is responsible for most of the absorption of the infrared radiation in the Earth's atmosphere. The wavelength of the part of radiation, which is absorbed by carbon dioxide is only a small part of the full infrared spectrum and does not change considerably by raising its partial pressure.What "small part?" You mean 12%? See Wayne (1985). Note that changes between 1956 and 1984 (the latest data available at the time of publication) are documented, as is the change in the level of trapped radiation as a result.

9. Infrared absorption does not imply \backwarming". Rather it may lead to a drop of the temperature of the illuminated surface.So, I'll go cool my hands in front of a fire.

This cannot be serious. Absorption of infrared radiation leads to cooling??!!?

10. In radiation transport models with the assumption of local thermal equilibrium, it is assumed that the absorbed radiation is transformed into the thermal movement of all gas molecules. There is no increased selective re-emission of infrared radiation at the low temperatures of the Earth's atmosphere.First, these two sentences are not related to one another in any way that is apparent. Second, the strawman is re-erected: re-emission leads DIRECTLY to warming of the lower atmosphere. Nothing of the kind is happening, or is asserted to be happening by anyone with the most basic knowledge of physics. It is the ground that is warmed, not the air. The ground then warms the air.

11. In climate models, planetary or astrophysical mechanisms are not accounted for properly.
The time dependency of the gravity acceleration by the Moon and the Sun (high tide and low tide) and the local geographic situation, which is important for the local climate, cannot be taken into account.Astrology? I can't make sense of this in any other way.

12. Detection and attribution studies, predictions from computer models in chaotic systems, and the concept of scenario analysis lie outside the framework of exact sciences, in particular theoretical physics.Actually, considerable work on nonlinear dynamical systems has been done, and numerical simulations of such systems are common in fluid dynamics, geophysics, and other disciplines. Ever hear of the Navier-Stokes equations? I don't suppose THOSE have anything to do with physics, huh? :rolleyes:

This is now officially boring. I could continue and blast every other remaining point, but what's the use? This is a waste of time, and it's now obvious that so is the "paper." Amusing, but has nothing to do with science, other than claiming to be such.

[Schneibster]

I thought this thread was about science, not bashing popularizations of same. I've personally never seen AIT.

[mhaze]

Umm...well, the "Science" thread is hopefully just science. This one is labeled just "Global warming", so I thought that would fit.

[Schneibster]

Recently scientists figured out they are clueless about the mechanisms of ozone formation and how or if CFCs affect them.

Consensus....WRONG AGAIN!!!CFCs' effects aren't on formation of ozone.

[CapelDodger]

Yes, I am well aware of the story and I have read both sides of the issue on this long ago bit of mud. That's why I thought you might have the actual record of the testimony. A lot of time that will clear up confusions because you can look at the actual way people phrased things. For example, he may have said "Now look at this "high scenario" from Hansen's work blah-blah-blah. In that case, he would not have been a liar.

You say you've "read both sides", but there is only one side. Michaels presented a graph showing only Scenario A (high emissions) against the outcome and did not present the other scenarios. Deliberate deception. Otherwise he'd have presented all scenarios - but he didn't. No blah-blah-blah. Nada.

I'm not interested in debating it with you because I feel the actual record is available and would prove your claims, disprove them or put the truth somewhere in the confused middle ground.

No confusion. Michaels presented the Hansen et al graph with Scenarios B and C erased. It's a matter of public record. He made no mention of emission scenarios at all, just "this is Hansen's projection which is radically different from the outcome". A lie. Intentional and prepared in advance .

What's the "other side" of that? There isn't one, is there? You just made that up.

Pat Michaels is a liar. Live with it.

[CapelDodger]

Hmm....

Biofuels are on the list of "good things" that the IPCC suggests nations should do to prevent global warming.:D

A chapter and page reference for that would be considerate, don't you think?

I've searched the Summary For Policymakers and there's no mention of biofuels. Are you sure this isn't just something you've made up?

The "Summary" refers to the science and projected impact of climate change. Policies are the domain of the policymakers. Biofuels, carbon trading, ignore it, whatever - that's for the governments to decide.

Heavy use of biofuels is a highly contentious issue that most environmental organisations oppose. In the US it's a highly politicised issue, used to justify subsidising Iowa corn-farmers while spreading some greenwash and Homeland Security energy-independence hogwash. In Brazil it has proved a lifeline for that traditional economic mainstay, sugar-production. Some European governments like the idea because they're also used to heavy agricultural subsidies. Mostly governments like it because doesn't say "you people have to drive less in smaller cars".

None of this has anything to do with the IPCC. The IPCC was commissioned by national governments, under the auspices of the UN, to collate and regularly report on the current state of climate-related science. It was not commissioned to advise those governments on what to do about it. Policymakers have their own policy-wonks to do that for them.

(I know I'm repeating myself, but sometimes that's what you gotta do.)

[mhaze]

I'll look around, give me a day or so. It was in an appendix to the SPM entitled something like "Recommendations for Mitigation". Came up in a discussion in one of these threads a while back where the question was could someone find a factually wrong statement or a lie in the IPCC stuff.

I thought that citing the promotion of biofuels was worth mentioning in that context. Of course, remember here that the SPM really is political - a lot of people don't know that or understand what it means.

There's another totally ridiculous, science fiction appendix on Carbon Sequestration, which we all know does not exist. They might have gotten a few scientists to sign off on that one, no engineers would have.

Again, written for the politicians...

[mhaze]

Incidentally, CD, why is it that the British Gov. underwrites most of the cost of the IPCC? Is that even true, I read it somewhere with no authentication and wouldn't be sure how to figure it out. Not looking for a conspiracy, just curious.

[CapelDodger]

I realize this is hard to swallow for gullible warmers (nice ad hom yes?) ...

That's not an ad hom, it's a sneer. Ad Hominem pertains to a style of argument, not to personal styles.

... but by 1988 a decadal temperature trend was already established. Maybe it impresses you his scenarios appear (deceptively) to have followed that general trend at first glance? Had Hansen made these predictions in 1971 and was even close, that would be something to shout about.

The model was run from 1959 conditions. You can read about it at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/


"These experiments were started from a control run with 1959 conditions and used observed greenhouse gas forcings up until 1984, and projections subsequently (NB. Scenario A had a slightly larger 'observed' forcing change to account for a small uncertainty in the minor CFCs). It should also be noted that these experiments were single realisations. Nowadays we would use an ensemble of runs with slightly perturbed initial conditions (usually a different ocean state) in order to average over 'weather noise' and extract the 'forced' signal. In the absence of an ensemble, this forced signal will be clearest in the long term trend."


So the decadal trend was reproduced by the model.

If we cast our minds back twenty years we'll realise why there weren't ensemble runs. With the computer power available back then three complete runs was asking a lot.

However, Hansen was busy creating models for the global cooling gang at that time.


A baseless accusation.

In the 70's climate models were castles-in-the-sky stuff, beer-talk, "If we had wings we could fly ...". I was at UEA in the 70's and there's more computing power in a frickin' cellphone than there was on the entire campus back then. Hansen would have been better served at NASA, but a very significant proportion would have been dedicated to the space program. NASA did a lot of that back then, as I recall.


I keep seeing this claim that Hansen's 1988 predictions were validated and figured it would just fade away.

They keep getting better. As pointed out in the quote above, single runs get better over the longer-term.

And that was just a model from 1988. Imagine what more recent models have told (and are telling) us. (I'm assuming it'll require imagination on your part, since you're still fighting this old battle.)

[CapelDodger]

Incidentally, CD, why is it that the British Gov. underwrites most of the cost of the IPCC? Is that even true, I read it somewhere with no authentication and wouldn't be sure how to figure it out. Not looking for a conspiracy, just curious.

With Gordon in charge at the Treasury? And now at the Big House? Not bloody likely. The IPCC is funded via the UN. It's not terribly expensive.

This idea probably derives from the Hadley Centre and UEA's Climate Research Unit being in UK government-funded institutions. The British focus on weather and climate is a historical accident, but no less real for that. A world-spanning trading empire Ruled By The Waves naturally regards the subject as defence-related, and it's funded accordingly. Far more ships have been lost to storm than to enemy action. The Met Office - originally a Royal Navy department which still has a presence at Admiralty House - is the model of later weather services. (As I recall, the US Weather Bureau only really got going around the Spanish War when the War Department took it under its wing. Cuba, hurricane season, very expensive navy. Perceived threat from Spanish Navy : nil. The same thinking applied vis-a-vis the Philippines.)

Institutions are spawned, expertise accumulates, and the speciality survives the empire. Sadly we lost the lead in practical computing, but when it comes to weather we Brits are matchless. Apart from anything else we get a lot of it - nothing extreme, just a crowded middle. That's a geographical accident :).

[a_unique_person]

You like mass murderers, don't you?
I'll send you to REASON magazine.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34823.html

:rolleyes:

I'll send you here.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94067

[CapelDodger]

I'll look around, give me a day or so.

I'd appreciate that.

It was in an appendix to the SPM entitled something like "Recommendations for Mitigation". Came up in a discussion in one of these threads a while back where the question was could someone find a factually wrong statement or a lie in the IPCC stuff.

I thought that citing the promotion of biofuels was worth mentioning in that context. Of course, remember here that the SPM really is political - a lot of people don't know that or understand what it means.

There's another totally ridiculous, science fiction appendix on Carbon Sequestration, which we all know does not exist. They might have gotten a few scientists to sign off on that one, no engineers would have.

Again, written for the politicians...

Quite. The IPCC lies in the overlap between politics and science, and was designed by the politicians not to get out-of-hand. If politicians want biofuels or CCS in there somewhere, that's what they get. It's mood-music in place of unpopular action.

Science is far more substantial than politics, which is why the real meat in the IPCC reports concerns the science of climate change. And in that it just reports the splendid work done by research teams and institutions in the purely science world.

The science of biofuels, CCS and whatnot is patched on for political reasons. Forget that stuff. There will be no mitigation. All these diplomatic jollies to discuss talking about doing undecided stuff at some point after negotiations ...

Biofuels and CCS will come in if they make economic sense, as will nuclear power. Biofuel already makes sense in Brazil, but that has roots. Planting (so to speak) biofuel on the US economy overnight by government diktat is a silly notion. But that's where universal suffrage gets you in a democracy.

China seems to be keeping its eye on the ball. (Growth now so they're well-placed when things kick off.) Russia and Canada are taking an increasingly pragmatic approach to global warming as the new Arctic Frontier opens up in front of them. India has its eyes fixed on Pakistan/Kashmir and the next (and last) few decades of West Tibetan melt-water. The US is fixated on the Middle East. Europe is fixated on its own identity.

Far too many short-term priorities for climate-change to seriously intrude until it muscles its way in. And even then the effect and response will be regional at best. At worst it'll be local and violent.

It was ever thus.

[CapelDodger]

I thought this thread was about science, not bashing popularizations of same. I've personally never seen AIT.

Nor I.

I have watched the Are We Changing the Planet? documentary presented by David Attenborough. A guy with far more credibility (what am I saying? he's a secular saint) than Al Gore. And yet a major focus of contrarian attack is on An Interminable Truth. What's that about?

It can't just be because Al Gore's an 'Murrican, unlike David Attenborough, because otherwise the Swindle would never have got beyond UK Channel 4. I find I have to conclude that its because AIT is an easier target and Al Gore is a big fish in a small pool.

[a_unique_person]

Recently scientists figured out they are clueless about the mechanisms of ozone formation and how or if CFCs affect them.

Consensus....WRONG AGAIN!!!


"Clueless"? Give me a break.

[CapelDodger]

:rolleyes:

I'll send you here.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94067

I haven't been there but "mass murderer" ... this is malaria and DDT, isn't it? The phase-out plan that exempted use for health reasons - as in malaria and mosquitoes.

Concern for the less well-endowed of the world often seems to be conditional on the ideological point supposedly being made - in this case, the illegitimacy of regulation under any circumstances.

It's hypocrisy when pushed consciously, but simple credulity in most cases.

[a_unique_person]

This is now officially boring. I could continue and blast every other remaining point, but what's the use? This is a waste of time, and it's now obvious that so is the "paper." Amusing, but has nothing to do with science, other than claiming to be such.

But it's the deniers who are winning. Amazing.

[CapelDodger]

Inaccuracies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth (http://newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html)

The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth has been the subject of a legal action by New Party member Stewart Dimmock. Although a full ruling has yet to be given ... Well there's a thing. Please let us know how that works out.

,,, the Court found ...

Which Court is this? Queen's Bench, House of Lords, High Court, Court of Appeal? Coroner's Court?

Magistrates' Court?

You're calling it - along with the New Party and Stewart Dimmock - in evidence here. So what Court's opinion is it?

(If you're doing that font-size and colour headline thing yourself, I suggest you drop it. It comes across as being cut-and-paste. I'm just saying ...)

[mhaze]

Which Court? Beats me. Not my prissy big letters, but if the link works, it takes you to their website...

Figured you might know who these guys are or where to find out more about it.

Whoever they are, if it's a real story, it is a pretty good story.

[mhaze]

Well, maybe they have a clue or two left in their pocket. Not enough to understand the process, but that's okay - they can now figure out how it really works. That's the scientific process.

[CapelDodger]

But it's the deniers who are winning. Amazing.

Survival against all odds is not the same as winning unless the odds change drastically. Denialism survives, but its influence wanes. There'll always be some contrarians in an arena such as this. The basement-dwellers will go quiet early-on (glub-glub), but the tree-dwellers will keep screeching until the last possible moment.

[Schneibster]

High Court, according to the story in the Telegraph. Looks like they lost, too. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/10/02/eagore102.xml)

[Schneibster]

There's a link in the story to an earlier one, noting the lawsuit. There's a picture of Dimwit- errr, Dimrock, emmmm Dimmock in it. A picture is worth a thousand words, for sure.

ETA: You gotta love "New Party." That's just about the most amusing political party name I've seen in a month of Sundays. Marketing spin taken to the limit; to fully appreciate it you need to be aware that the most common word in advertisements is "new."

[CapelDodger]

Which Court? Beats me. Not my prissy big letters, but if the link works, it takes you to their website...

Did that, went there.

Figured you might know who these guys are or where to find out more about it.

I like to think I have my finger on the pulse over here, but the New Party is, well, new to me. I suspect it's a very few party.

Whoever they are, if it's a real story, it is a pretty good story.

Do you not even care if it's real before you spew it up? Depending on attractiveness (to your tastes) really doesn't build credibilty.

The more a story appeals to you the more closely you should question it.

[mhaze]

There's a link in the story to an earlier one, noting the lawsuit. There's a picture of Dimwit- errr, Dimrock, emmmm Dimmock in it. A picture is worth a thousand words, for sure.

ETA: You gotta love "New Party." That's just about the most amusing political party name I've seen in a month of Sundays. Marketing spin taken to the limit; to fully appreciate it you need to be aware that the most common word in advertisements is "new."

If I have it right, Schneibster's link verifies the stuff said in the "New Party" website - not that they can't show it, but they can show it but must talk about it being politics, having inaccurate science, etc.

So what's the "High Court"? is that like our Supreme court, or what here we would call District Court, Circuit Court, Superior Court in various locales - basically a second level court?

Hey, like I said, it looked good for a laugh, so I posted it. That includes the "New Party" characters, whoever they are.:)

[CapelDodger]

High Court, according to the story in the Telegraph. Looks like they lost, too. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/10/02/eagore102.xml)

Thanks for that. As you might expect, the Torygraph and I have been estranged since I left home :).

"Changes to the old guidance notes were rushed through by the Government after Stewart Dimmock, a father of two, a Kent school governor and a member of political group the New Party, asked the court to ban the film from the classroom.
Mr Dimmock argued the film was unfit for schools (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml;jsessionid=CCIBOCBIF0TONQFIQMFCFGGAVCBQ YIV0?xml=/earth/2007/09/28/eagore128.xml) because it was politically partisan and contained serious scientific inaccuracies, as well as "sentimental mush".
His lawyers accused the Government and New Labour "Thought Police" of backing the film as a way of "brainwashing" pupils on global warming."


And I'm reminded why ...

I lived in Kent for two years before I escaped to University. It was traumatic.

New Labour "Thought Police". That's the unpleasant flavour I recall from those days. Ugh.