Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alwyn:
As an alternative to entrenched positions and culture war, could there be a room for a 'meeting of moderate minds'? Here's a first draft of what this might look like...[snip]

---

quote:

---

"I’ve been working on the scientific questions of climate for a long time, and I’m seeing them trivialized and ‘stupidified,’ and I’m upset by that."

---

Cheers,

- Chris.

PS: an apology also, if one is needed, for sucking Alan back into a debate he was trying to extricate himself from

--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alwyn:
As an alternative to entrenched positions and culture war, could there be a room for a 'meeting of moderate minds'? Here's a first draft of what this might look like...

Suppose believers in (human-caused) climate change accepted that:-
- There have been panics that were unfounded, like the 'millenium bug'
- Some of the climate science will probably turn out to be wrong; scientific knowledge moves on and sometimes there are surprises
- As human beings, scientists are vulnerable to 'following the herd' like anyone else
- We aren't 'certain' of any particular scenario; we don't have categorical evidence; not all scientists agree; everyone (scientists or not) have a right to question the validity of climate science; if we are to make sacrifices, we'll need strong evidence to justify them
- Following the recent 'email hacking' incident, probably some scientists have worked together to oppose climate sceptics (whether or not their conduct was understandable or justifiable)

Suppose believers in climate scepticism accepted that:-
- Some warnings by scientists in the past have turned out to be right; for example, smoking is addictive even though some tobacco executives reportedly denied this
- Some of the climate science will probably turn out to be right (whether or not the consequences will be as serious as environmentalists claim)
- Even though they are flawed human beings, scientists have investigated this issue using scientific techniques that deserve some credibility
- We don't necessarily wait for categorical proof before responding to potential threats; for example, we don't wait until an invasion of our countries is in progress before building warships and warplanes
- If climate science is wrong, it could be wrong in either direction (over-estimating or under-estimating); even if it is wrong, moving to a more sustainable economy and energy supply is desirable because the Earth's total resources are limited.

Any takers - or modifications?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
I wonder if anyone would be interested in answering the folowing questions arising from Professor Lindzen's article above:-

He claims that the warming observed to date could quite easily be caused by El Nino events, volcanic eruptions or changes in solar radiation. Is this correct?

He says that Europe was warmer in the Middle Ages than it is today. Is that correct?

He says that the Greenland Icesheet is actually expanding and that the Greenland temperature is now lower than it was in 1940 and is little changed since records were first taken in 1780. True?

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You claim to have looked objectively at both sides of the argument. You've repeatedly trotted out the 800year lag inthe Vostok core as though this somehow destroys the theory that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and artificially increasing the concentration of CO2 is driving the current climate change. I've repeatedly explained that scientists a) acknowledge the time lag in the ice core records, b) understand where the lag comes from using their climate theory (ie it's not anomalous data that invalidates the theory, but is something the theory predicts and so supports the theory) and c) that the current scenario is different and so the same lag isn't to be expected.

---

quote:

---

Of course, you may not be convinced by the arguments I've presented. But, if you've failed to understand them (and, I've tried hard to make it fairly clear), especially if you've failed to ask questions about the bits you don't understand to help you understand, then you can't claim to have looked objectively at the argument.

---

quote:

---

I don't know what you mean by a lag of several centuries, Vostok is fairly standard results for our own conditions and that's c800 years.

---

quote:

---

Other ice records vary a bit on the length of the lag, and it changes a bit for each glacial/interglacial interface. 800 years is several centuries, so is 500 years or 1000.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanityman:
Myrrh, I'm at a bit of a loss over how to continue this debate constructively. I know that the subject can easily inflame tempers, which is why I normally stay away from it - I don't trust myself not to lose my temper and start arguing emotionally. In my experience, when this happens any opportunity for communication or mutual understanding is lost. If I have come over as personally insulting or testy, I apologise. From the tone of your last post, it certainly seems like something has made you angry.

---

quote:

---

However, it's not anger that bothers me, so much as statements like:

quote:

---

They [hockey sticks] were created to destroy our real climate history.

---

quote:

---

put back the MWP obliterated by these scientific frauds

---

quote:

---

I do not accept the deliberate frauds and cover up by more dishonest tweaking of Mann et al and the IPCC

---

quote:

---

Sigh, NOAA is corrupt. If you had even the slightest idea of how they screw temperature you'd not give them the time of day

---

quote:

---

They're foremost charlatans. They've been shown to be this from the beginning of the IPCC certainly, the only question is, who is pulling their strings?

---

quote:

---

That there have been countless coverups and mad attacks against anyone contradicting the claims

---

I'm sorry, Myrrh, you sound exactly like like a conspiracy theorist.

---

quote:

---

If you systematically discount anyone who disagrees with you - especially professional researchers in the field, who produced the very data that the "junk science" sites you favour twist into their own alternative theories - then you are in a place where you cannot and will not listen to anyone who knows the science better than you and might be in a position to change your mind.

---

quote:

---

The dwarves are for the dwarves, to take a quote out of context.

Given that you don't trust the CRU, NOAA, NASA or Mann and anyone he's ever published with, are there any sources of actual scientific information that you regard as valid? If the answer is "none," then it's pointless me trying to engage with you further, as we have no common ground in sources of information that we both agree are valid.

---

quote:

---

The trouble - from my POV - is that that list of things distrusted seems to include 1st year degree textbooks in your case, and crank websites in mine.

---

quote:

---

Have you actually read the debunking? Tell me what you think when you've read it.

---

quote:

---

I read the paper which was written and thought it raised some valid points, although it did come over as having an agenda. Looking at the background of the authors (one of whom was an economist, not a scientist) didn't give me a great deal of confidence. I then read the follow up paper that I quoted, which took their criticisms into account, allowed for them, and then showed that the conclusions were unchanged. I also found a lot of similar studies done subsequently that also found similar conclusions.

Just because someone has "debunked" a paper doesn't mean they have the last word. What they did was publish a paper that disagreed with the research, which in the normal process of scientific to-and-fro (which can get pretty personal and heated even in less controversial areas btw, scientists being human) was subsequently shown not to invalidate the original paper. Subsequent work showed that the conclusions of the original were valid. Why should I pay any more attention to your "debunking?" It's old hat.

---

quote:

---

In his book An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore ignores this time lag in order to create a false image of a frightening rise in temperature caused by CO2 emissions today. He graphs CO2 and temperatures as rising and falling in parallel, thus depicting the “repeating correlation” that Patterson questioned: the two lines move in tandem, and the spike in CO2 to over 350ppm today runs ominously off the graph. This is visually powerful—but is it accurate?
Gore’s graph distorts the issue in two ways. First, it does not accommodate the earlier CO2 levels of up to 5000ppm, or 16 times those of today. The graph I presented in this article, Figure 1 above, has a higher vertical CO2 axis, and depicts today’s CO2 variations in accurate proportion to earlier changes: as tiny waves at the bottom right-hand side of the graph. Gore also omits values on the temperature axis, an egregious omission that makes it impossible to quantify the scale of temperature variations. Second, Gore conflates correlation with causation. His parallel CO2 and temperature lines obscure the fact that large temperature rises preceded small CO2 rises by 500 to 1500 years. Perhaps it is inconvenient for Gore to accept that the huge 22°F temperature changes in the Vostok ice core samples cannot be explained by the tiny—100ppm—changes in CO2 that followed those temperature changes. Readers may properly conclude that Gore’s CO2 / temperature graph is a distortion of the historical record designed to elicit an emotional response for a political purpose. (Taken from the John David Lewis link I posted above)

---

quote:

---

The thing is, if none of the sources I depend on as reliable (the peer-reviewed scientific literature, what I know of my degree subject, articles by people who have academic posts at respectable universities who are studying the field in question) are the same are the ones you rely upon (make your own list here) then we're never going to agree. I only note in passing that if you think all of academia is so corrupt, who do you think wrote the textbooks you used at school? Looks like all your education was worthless too. Good think we have the internet...

- Chris.

---

quote:

---

. In a minority report issued December 20, 2007, members of the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee reported that “Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming.”

Many of these scientists were expert reviewers for the UN IPCC—an Intergovernmental and not an Interscientific panel—which ignored their comments and critiques when they disagreed with the IPCC’s political mission.

The scientists include IPCC 2007 expert reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Canadian PhD meteorologist with over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography. He wrote: “To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process.”

---

quote:

---

Vincent Gray of New Zealand, an expert reviewer on drafts of the IPCC reports going back to 1990, and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of “Climate Change,” wrote for the Senate committee: “The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers' might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so.”

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
I thought this article written 2 years ago says it all:-

Article

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanityman:
Myrrh, you sound exactly like like a conspiracy theorist.

---

I do wish people would stop and think before they use the attack 'conspiracy theorists' as a defence..

..............

I've lost count of the number of such manipulations I've seen in my research into this subject. It takes careful reading to spot these, and I gave up checking finally because I found these methods to be a recurring pattern in all such presentations, from NOAA and IPCC to sensationalist reporters picking up on a good story. This method hides the lack of actual scientific discipline.

.........

The only conclusion I can reach, which has reason on its side .... is that we are being manipulated.

.......

Why should I believe your sources and not the likes of these?


Myrrh

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
He claims that the warming observed to date could quite easily be caused by El Nino events, volcanic eruptions or changes in solar radiation. Is this correct?

---

quote:

---

He says that Europe was warmer in the Middle Ages than it is today. Is that correct?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Rather more heat will not be a good thing overall but some people still claim that it'll be lovely, having more CO2 and higher temperatures, either because they either know nothing about it or because someone is paying them to say so.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanityman:
Myrrh, you sound exactly like like a conspiracy theorist.

---

I do wish people would stop and think before they use the attack 'conspiracy theorists' as a defence..

..............

I've lost count of the number of such manipulations I've seen in my research into this subject. It takes careful reading to spot these, and I gave up checking finally because I found these methods to be a recurring pattern in all such presentations, from NOAA and IPCC to sensationalist reporters picking up on a good story. This method hides the lack of actual scientific discipline.

.........

The only conclusion I can reach, which has reason on its side .... is that we are being manipulated.

.......

Why should I believe your sources and not the likes of these?


Myrrh

---

Myrrh, you sound exactly like a conspiracy theorist. In your own words, above.

"The only conclusion"?

Of course that is not the only conclusion which can be drawn, which has reason on its side, from the evidence in the public domain. You ruin any case you may have by such obvious over-statements. It may indeed be the only conclusion you can draw. But unfortunately, that says more about you than the evidence you have considered.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Yes, if cover up of bad scientific practice makes those like me think there is a conspiracy to con us then we're conspiracy theorists and proud of it! The emperor isn't wearing any clothes.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:
If you think there is any basis to this claim then have a go at convincing me that [...]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:
You really expect me to take you seriously as a scientist
[...]
You lost all credibility for me
[...]
Those who [don't agree with me about the Hockey Stick] are not scientists, and since they continue to promote a falsified hypothesis are party to the deception, the con.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Classic conspiracy theory behaviour.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:
I have no idea as to what sort of scenario you think we should be responding to.

---

It's nonsense to say I'm judging science by how alarming it is (if that even makes sense). And it's no good asking me about the future, I don't have a clue, and I seriously don't think anybody has. But we are causing some warming, so there's a productive debate to be had around adaptation and mitigation, on technological solutions as well as cutting-down emissions. But there's absolutely no point in panic and scare-mongering. [/QB]

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:
That there is a time lag is objective from all kinds of research, whether your models include it or not is subjective.

---

quote:

---

You keep saying the current scenario is different, but you offer no proof of it being so.

Why is it different? Why should CO2 suddenly behave out of character?

---

quote:

---

"Now, what's the issue with the scientific description of why there's a lag of several centuries between the start of warming and the rise in CO2 concentrations? Or, why scientists don't consider the current situation to be the same?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, I have no idea what you're talking about. Please be more specific. I don't know what you mean by a lag of several centuries being an issue, Vostok is fairly standard results for our own conditions and that's c800 years and there's nothing to show this is going to be any different in the future in our conditions.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Does anyone really have a complete handle on all the global warming science? I personally haven't gone beyond reading articles in the paper, one book and a few blogs...

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alwyn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luke:
... after reading the Climate Caper by Garth Paltridge a climate scientist with the CSIRO ...

---

I found a thoughtful review by Richard D North who "very much wanted to like The Climate Caper on the grounds that its sceptical case seems pretty reasonable".

The reviewer found that "Dr Paltridge accepts that there will be some warming as a result of human emissions of greenhouse gases. But he thinks the evidence suggests that the effect may not be large or awful. He makes two main suggestions as to why so many scientists are in the alarmed camp. One is that they have succumbed to the herd mentality which large funding and political nudges will produce. The other is that so much of the work depends on climate computer models whose predictions are fallible mostly because they are highly susceptible both to the quality of the data put in and to the tweaking which can and perhaps must be done to make them accord with present reality.

It is easy to imagine these arguments are important, and they are put attractively in this book. But it’s hopeless, really. Some of Dr Paltridge’s case is weak because purely anecdotal: he thinks he has come across closed minds amongst alarmists during personal run-ins with the mainstream. The rest of his case is weak on much more important grounds. Again and again he asserts failings and weaknesses in computer models or the real-world assumptions which form their input, but either can’t or won’t back it up by reference to anyone else’s work."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanityman:
Luke, thanks for the temperate tone of your response.

---

quote:

---

... I think it's true that contrarian publishers have a hart time getting into print in peer-reviewed journals. There's a number of reasons this could be true:

• The establishment is defensive, and unwilling to give their political opponents a toehold which they know will be used to beat them with long after other papers come out that modify or explain the controversial paper's conclusions;
• Their peers (the ones doing the reviewing) genuinely find the science to be lacking, and are doing their job in excluding weak papers;
• A conspiracy to eliminate papers that aren't written by the Cabal™.

I think the first two are reasonable, and the last isn't. I'm sure the "over unity" (perpetual motion machine scams) brigade have similar complaints about finding it difficult to get published in engineering journals! I do note that scientists like Lindzen can and have been published, despite disagreeing with some of the consensus. It does seem to be a minority view amongst actual climate scientists though, according to a 2007 survey I posted earlier - it's not that they disagree and can't get published.

---

quote:

---

To clarify, I didn't say that cap and trade was a solution: I said that it had been put forward as one. I don't really have an opinion on c&t, as I don't know enough about it.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm not sure you even see the impact of your own posts, Myrrh. Here is what you said.

quote:

---

Yes, if cover up of bad scientific practice makes those like me think there is a conspiracy to con us then we're conspiracy theorists and proud of it! The emperor isn't wearing any clothes.

---

Note the rhetorical "if". As I read your post at this point, you mix assertion with conviction, conclude conspiracy and are proud of it. Classic conspiracy theory behaviour. It's OK for shooting the breeze here, but it doesn't fly in a court of law, or anywhere where rules of evidence are respected, because it amounts to a blanket demeaning of others. So it damages your overall argument.

---

quote:

---

AIRS - the quintessential greenhouse gas sensor of our time

It comes as a surprise to many, but water vapor is the most dominant greenhouse gas in the Earth's atmosphere. It accounts for about 60% of the greenhouse effect of the global atmosphere, far exceeding the total combined effects of increased carbon dioxide, methane, ozone and other greenhouse gases. AIRS advanced technology makes it the most advanced water vapor sensor ever built. Beyond water vapor, AIRS measures all the other primary greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide, the largest source of anthropogenic greenhouse gas, carbon monoxide, methane, and ozone.
What is AIRS

---

quote:

---

In August 2007, the UK Met Office was finally forced to concede the obvious: global warming has stopped. (LINK) The UK Met Office acknowledged the flat lining of global temperatures, but in an apparent attempt to keep stoking man-made climate alarm, the Met Office is now promoting more unproven dire computer model projections of the future. They now claim climate computer models predict “global warming will begin in earnest in 2009” because greenhouse emissions will then overtake natural climate variability. New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears

---

quote:

---

In a stunning turn of events data (quietly) released by NASA shows that the 4 warmest years ever recorded occurred in the 1930's, with the warmest year on record being 1934 (not 1998).
..
Data discovered on NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) website revises recorded temperatures for the United States. It is expected that similar revisions will also be made for global temperature recordings. This information was discovered by Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit on Wednesday (8/8/2007). No NASA press release, no James Hansen (head of GISS) announcement, nothing. Could it be because they don't want anyone to see it? The data is certainly devastating for the Al Gore camp which has based much of their Carbon Credits sales pitch on recent temperatures (e.g. claiming that 1998 was the warmest on record).

Other aspects of the data are just as stunning.

Only 4 of the top 10 warmest years occurred in the past 10 years (1998, 1999, 2006)

Out of the top 10 warmest years half occurred before 1940

The years 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2004 were cooler than the year 1900

1996, just two years before what Al Gore called the hottest year in the history of the planet, was actually cooler than average.

1921 was the third warmest year in recorded history (behind 1934 and 1998). NASA Revises Temperature Data

---

quote:

---

Let’s pause for a second. The IPCC has said that the authors of the scientific papers will have to change their findings if they depart from the summary in order to bring them into line with it. In other words, research which apparently shows that the panic over man-made global warming is exaggerated misleading and wrong is to be altered to support the summary’s view that man-made global warming is even worse than previously thought.

There have been protests. Harvard University physicist Lubos Motl has written:

"These people are openly declaring that they are going to commit scientific misconduct that will be paid for by the United Nations." Why do they have to lie?

---

quote:

---

Let's start with the infamous 1992 quote of Richard Sandor, Chairman and CEO of the Chicago Climate Exchange, the commercial brainchild of Al Gore's supposedly well intentioned efforts to alert the world to "global warming:"

"Air and water are no longer the free goods that economics once assumed. They must be redefined as property rights so that they can be efficiently allocated."
..
They cited a perceptive article by Daniel Taylor which spells out concerns which I share:

"In a report titled "The First Global Revolution" (1991) published by the Club of Rome, a globalist think tank, we find the following statement: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.... All these dangers are caused by human intervention... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself"

..

Richard Haass, the current president of the Council on Foreign Relations, stated in his article 'State Sovereignty Must be Altered in Globalized Era,' that a system of world government must be created and sovereignty eliminated in order to fight global warming, as well as terrorism. 'Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function,' says Haass. 'Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves...'

Holocaust Or Hoax? - The Global
Warming Debate Heats Up By Leland Lehrman

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:

You keep saying the current scenario is different, but you offer no proof of it being so.

Why is it different? Why should CO2 suddenly behave out of character?

---

Of course CO2 isn't behaving out of character. I've never said CO2 is behaving any different now than at any other time in history. Tell me where I've even suggested such an absurdity.

What I have said is that the cause of increased CO2 concentrations is different. It's now due to burning fossil fuels, rather than outgasing from oceans bringing CO2 from deep reservoirs.

---

quote:

---

The same could be said about other aspects of the science. Even when you've raised questions it's been painfully obvious that you're not understanding. And, often it seems you're not even attempting to understand. That's why I've decided not to try and explain science to you, it's just not worth spending the time writing stuff that doesn't even seem to be read beyond the level of seeking something to hang another paranoid diatribe on.

If anyone else wants to try and understand the science better, just ask. I'll do my best to explain it. And, if someone does understand it and still has good reasons to not accept the conclusions I'll be interested to read those and think about them seriously.

---

quote:

---

The 2001 report asserts that the medieval warming period was fiction, and that its inclusion in 1996 was erroneous. However, the scientists at co2science.org have assembled a massive amount of data supporting the presence of the medieval warming period. The problem with the medieval warming period is that if it existed, then the industrial use of CO2 emitting fossil fuels cannot be considered the sole or even dominant cause of global warming.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:
You're saying CO2 is behaving out of character

---

quote:

---

you're saying it is now driving global warming, when never in our history has research ever shown it to do this.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:
You're saying CO2 is behaving out of character

---

I'm NOT saying that. It doesn't help any discussion to put words into other peoples mouth, especially when they've been saying the exact opposite.

---

quote:

---

CO2 is CO2, it'll behave in the atmosphere the way it behaves. Which is, it absorbs IR (in defined energy ranges) and transfers that energy to the atmosphere where it is re-irradiated as black-body radiation. Hence, it (along with some other gases) increases IR absorption into the atmosphere, and raises air temperatures.

---

quote:

---

you're saying it is now driving global warming, when never in our history has research ever shown it to do this.

---

quote:

---

What I've said (on previous threads, I don't recall directly addressing it here) is that human activity is currently increasing the concentration of CO2 (and other greenhouses gases) in the atmosphere directly. In the records from ice cores etc we see CO2 concentrations changing in response to other influences (eg: outgasing of dissolved CO2 from warming oceans). In both cases CO2 does the same thing in the atmosphere - make the air warmer by absorbing IR radiation (see above).

---

quote:

---

CO2 drives global warming. It always has done (OK, the loss of CO2 from the atmosphere drives global cooling).

---

quote:

---

The reasons why CO2 concentrations change in the atmosphere differ at different times in the history of the Earth.

---

Posted                       

Myrrh, I'm afraid the sheer volume of your postings makes it very difficult to keep up with. I'm afraid this doesn't mean that I agree with all of your previous statements .

In the short time I have available, I'd just like to look in a bit of detail about a couple of the claims you made in your penultimate message.

quote:

---

posted by Myrrh:
Since water vapour is the bug bear of 'climate modelers', they don't include it in its own right but only as a 'feedback to enhance CO2 effects', which is balderdash, but actually AGM exclude because it is the highest, most dominant, greenhouse gas.

---

quote:

---

from the Inhofe report:
"In August 2007, the UK Met Office was finally forced to concede the obvious: global warming has stopped. (LINK) The UK Met Office acknowledged the flat lining of global temperatures...

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Myrrh

I am saying that your assertion of conspiracy demeans your arguments about the science. It adds nothing to those arguments but detracts from the credibility of your posts in so far as they comment about the science.

---

quote:

---

I don't think there is much to be gained from discussing whether you are a part (unwitting or otherwise) of an unproven global counter-conspiracy against this unproven global conspiracy.

Basically my considered answer to the OP is that the proposition advanced by Lord Monckton is a most unlikely conspiracy theory. Neither his scepticism about the science nor his previous involvement in government make such an assertion in the least likely. The evidence of the continuing behaviour of governments in support of their national interests, coupled with their weak co-operation over international matters, is impressive enough to rule it out - unless one has an a priori penchant for minority views and conspiracies. Monckton-like assertions simply scratch where some people itch. So I am very sceptical about that on the basis of non-scientific evidence (the long term, continuing and obvious behaviour of heads of government in the national self-interest). But I am not part of a counter-conspiracy of sceptics.

---

quote:

---

I'm going to leave any further discussion about the science to those with the necessary background.

---

There is no science, is all you need to know...


Myrrh

Chris, not only to avoid making this another long post, will come back to this later this weekend.

M.

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:

Those who don't toe the line are force to resign like Christopher Landsea.

---

quote:

---

1. Mr. Landsea maintained that the lead author of the IPCC reports should not voice any opinions on climate change issues. The IPCC refused to muzzle anybody; they have a "freedom of speech" policy.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Rather than modeling, let's test. Lets build a satellite that measures the radiation the Earth is receiving and the radiation it's giving off. Subtract one from the other and you're done.

Such a satellite could give valuable information about what types of terrain/weather patterns are better at warming or cooling. We could then make smart, economical choices about the costs of mitigation instead of running around like Chicken Little.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:
We have given up any idea of national interest to this greater idea to x who are not accountable to us in any way.

<snip>

The opposite of that would be along the lines John Paul II proposed . . .

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
There seems to be a labyrinth here. For example, the IPCC is directed to perform tasks set by the WMO executive council, UNEP governing council, and UN framework convention.
[...]
All in all it looks like bureaucracy gone wild.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Take one bathroom and run a bath of cold water, put into bathroom small background heat source, open a window, close the door and pump in CO2 through the keyhole. How long do you think it will take to a) warm the bathroom b) warm the water, at 400 ppm relative to the amount of heat and conditions in said bathroom?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Sanityman, the link you provide on how climate scientists model water vapor is the sort of science that makes me doubt the climate models. In it they look at "long wave radiation". They treat it as a single thing.

---

quote:

---

The truth is that the radiation exists across a spectrum. It behaves differently at different frequencies (wavelengths). One of these effects is that much more energy is contained in the higher frequencies (shorter wavelengths) where there is little absorption from CO2.

This is a technical point that I know from my work in radar design. It's not common knowledge across all fields of science. The point is that it's an easy and honest mistake to make. But it demolishes models which fail to take it into account.

---

quote:

---

Rather than modeling, let's test. Lets build a satellite that measures the radiation the Earth is receiving and the radiation it's giving off. Subtract one from the other and you're done.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:

Whether those using the science to get control care whether the science is there or not I doubt very much, but that in using it they, whover 'they' are, would be keen to keep the momentum going if it is shown not to be there, I don't doubt.
[Italics mine - B62]

.........

There is no science, is all you need to know...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Full of Chips:
Doubtless though, the global science community, if equipped with appropriately furnished bathrooms, would do a much better job on climate change modelling than they can ever hope to with their biased and inadequate computer models.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Sanityman, the link you provide on how climate scientists model water vapor is the sort of science that makes me doubt the climate models. In it they look at "long wave radiation". They treat it as a single thing.

The truth is that the radiation exists across a spectrum. It behaves differently at different frequencies (wavelengths). One of these effects is that much more energy is contained in the higher frequencies (shorter wavelengths) where there is little absorption from CO2.

This is a technical point that I know from my work in radar design. It's not common knowledge across all fields of science. The point is that it's an easy and honest mistake to make. But it demolishes models which fail to take it into account.

---

• Communicate exactly, using the exact terminology and maths developed for that purpose. This is exact, but goes over most people's heads: thus they fail to communicate;
• Simplify, paraphrase, use metaphors and regular English. You communicate, but by simplifying, you run the risk of being misunderstood, or or people taking the metaphors you employed to be what you actually believe[1]: thus, you fail to communicate.

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
So does that mean you support my claim that the models are incomplete?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:
I hope that persuades you Spawn that the climate modellers may have more of an idea of future developments in climate than you!

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:
Since water vapour is the bug bear of 'climate modelers', they don't include it in its own right but only as a 'feedback to enhance CO2 effects', which is balderdash, but actually AGM exclude because it is the highest, most dominant, greenhouse gas.

This new figure from the state of art satellite data has thrown a spanner into the works from which there is no sensible way of recovering the momentum of 'CO2 driven global warming'.

In other words, not only were the models junk to start with because they excluded water vapour in its own right as a greenhouse gas, but they have blocked its existence out of their thinking completely. And then their state of the art machinery insists they take notice of it. What are those who are promoting AGM to do?

They manage to avoid all reference to water vapour's exclusion from calculations in their propaganda, but this is "their own data" and should have confirmed their 'assumptions', instead it's destroyed AGW.

So yes, it is a bloody obvious conspiracy to hide the facts, because this state of the art data gatherer which was working so well until it came up with this bomb shell is crashed, we've been told. No more data. Now, I haven't been able to find anything on this on their website, it is however still available as cached pages on an archive machine. So far they haven't blocked it, at least to the day I recovered it. (It's still up).

Some here no doubt will continue to find excuses for this, but I think this calls for a suspension of common sense beyond the rational because these years of promoting AGM have shown us a whole slew of such examples as this tampering of data. The latest emails in the long line of these.

The emperor still isn't wearing any clothes.

quote:

---

AIRS - the quintessential greenhouse gas sensor of our time

It comes as a surprise to many, but water vapor is the most dominant greenhouse gas in the Earth's atmosphere. It accounts for about 60% of the greenhouse effect of the global atmosphere, far exceeding the total combined effects of increased carbon dioxide, methane, ozone and other greenhouse gases. AIRS advanced technology makes it the most advanced water vapor sensor ever built. Beyond water vapor, AIRS measures all the other primary greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide, the largest source of anthropogenic greenhouse gas, carbon monoxide, methane, and ozone.
What is AIRS

---

So what we have Barnabas, is not science. As of the end 2008 this data is still not freely available.

---

quote:

---

I think this calls for a suspension of common sense beyond the rational

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanityman:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
It appears to be freely available to those able to figure out how to use a web browser. It took me less than 30 seconds to find the data page for the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS)

---

Intersting co-incidence: a page summarising data sources has been put up by the Cabal™ members at realClimate:

quote:

---

Much of the discussion in recent days has been motivated by the idea that climate science is somehow unfairly restricting access to raw data upon which scientific conclusions are based. This is a powerful meme and one that has clear resonance far beyond the people who are actually interested in analysing data themselves. However, many of the people raising this issue are not aware of what and how much data is actually available.

---

On a side-note, I noticed another article, by Peter Laut, emeritus professor of physics at The Technical University of Denmark, showing the bad science and misrepresentation in claims by two Copenhagen climatologists,Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis‐Christensen. These two are part of Inhofe's much vaunted "400 international scientists" in that senate minority report mentioned earlier (given that that list incorporated non-specialists, weathermen and shills for the energy industry, this may come as no surprise). Their 1996 paper (yes, that out of date) has been paraded by global warming sceptics seeking to "prove" that solar cycles were behind the warming trend. Unfortunately, their analysis was based on a short data sample, and was shown by subsequent observations (i.e. a larger data set) to be spurious; further details in the linked article.

I haven't heard people talking about solar cycles on this thread, but it's a good example of old, invalid papers being claimed to "disprove" the current understanding, which are then used in the popular media to sow doubt and confusion - for example, the infamous Channel 4 documentary.

- Chris.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Now you admit the models are weak in some areas. Are the missing parts less important than a single butterfly?

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:

Whether those using the science to get control care whether the science is there or not I doubt very much, but that in using it they, whover 'they' are, would be keen to keep the momentum going if it is shown not to be there, I don't doubt.
[Italics mine - B62]

.........

There is no science, is all you need to know...

---

At this point, I give up, Myrrh. Convictions such as yours are way past the point of serious discussion.

---

quote:

---

At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,
I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is
trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere to it !

---

quote:

---

B.Idsol

B. Idso1

(1) Department of Agriculture, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, 4331 East Broadway Road, Phoenix, 85040, AZ, USA

Received: 30 January 1984

Summary Several natural experiments are analyzed to yield equilibrium values of a surface air temperature response function and a feedback factor for Earths atmosphere. The former parameter, the change in surface air temperature induced by a change in radiant energy absorbed at the surface, is demonstrated to have a value of about 0.1 K (Wm–2)–1; while the latter parameter, the ratio of feedback-induced change in radiant energy to the surface of the Earth divided by an initial or primary change in radiant energy to the Earths surface, is demonstrated to have a value of about 1.25. These two numbers imply that the maximum warming to be expected from a doubling of Earths atmospheric CO2 concentration from 300 to 600 ppm is only about 0.1 K, a result so small as to possibly be completely counter-balanced by the CO2-induced reduction of solar radiation transmission to the Earths surface.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanityman:

quote:

---

posted by Myrrh:
Since water vapour is the bug bear of 'climate modelers', they don't include it in its own right but only as a 'feedback to enhance CO2 effects', which is balderdash, but actually AGM exclude because it is the highest, most dominant, greenhouse gas.

---

I don't like flat contradiction, but what you've posted here is just not true: water vapour is acknowledged as a greenhouse gas, and is included in climate models. Here is a climate scientist describing how his models treat water vapour. The "feedback" thing is because the hydrological cycle brings the water vapour in the earth's atmosphere back to equilibrium within days. Compare this with CO2, with has an atmospheric lifetime of decades to centuries, or CH4, which is decades. Your statement makes me think you misunderstand what they mean by feedback in this context - which I wasn't clear on until I looked it up.

Incidentally, H2O is a greenhouse gas for exactly the same reasons that CO2 is. Can I take it that you therefore acknowledge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and therefore capable of warming the earth? I mention it as this has relevance to the question you asked Alan.

Please stop saying that climate scientists "ignore" water vapour. It's not true.

---

quote:

---

Nov 25, 2009
Are we feeling warmer yet?
Study by New Zealand Climate Science Coalition

There have been strident claims that New Zealand is warming. The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), among other organisations and scientists, allege that, along with the rest of the world, we have been heating up for over 100 years.

But now, a simple check of publicly-available information proves these claims wrong. In fact, New Zealand’s temperature has been remarkably stable for a century and a half. So what’s going on?

---

quote:

---

Dr Jim Salinger (who no longer works for NIWA) started this graph in the 1980s when he was at CRU (Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, UK) and it has been updated with the most recent data. It’s published on NIWA’s website and in their climate-related publications.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

quote:

---

One of the foundational components of the scientific method is the idea of reproducibility (Popper 1959). In order for an experiment to be considered valid it must be replicated. This process begins with the scientists who originally performed the experiment publishing the details of the experiment. This description of the experiment is then read by another group of scientists who carry out the experiment, and ascertain whether the results of the new experiment are similar to the original experiment. If the results are similar enough then the experiment has been replicated. This process validates the fact that the experiment was not dependent on local conditions, and that the written description of the experiment satisfactorily records the knowledge gained through the experiment. From Rand and Wilensky 2006

---

Guest post by Willis Eschenbach – originally posted on Omniclimate with an updated version here per Willis’ request.


UPDATED 11/24/09 8:30PM PST

People seem to be missing the real issue in the CRU emails. ...To me, the main issue is the frontal attack on the heart of science, which is transparency.

Science works by one person making a claim, and backing it up with the data and methods that they used to make the claim. Other scientists then attack the claim by (among other things) trying to replicate the first scientist’s work. If they can’t replicate it, it doesn’t stand. So blocking the FOIA allowed Phil Jones to claim that his temperature record (HadCRUT3) was valid science.

This is not just trivial gamesmanship, this is central to the very idea of scientific inquiry. This is an attack on the heart of science, by keeping people who disagree with you from ever checking your work and seeing if your math is correct.

As far as I know, I am the person who made the original Freedom Of Information Act to CRU that started getting all this stirred up. I was trying to get access to the taxpayer funded raw data out of which they built the global temperature record. I was not representing anybody, or trying to prove a point. I am not funded by Mobil, I’m an amateur scientist with a lifelong interest in the weather and climate. I’m not “directed” by anyone, I’m not a member of a right-wing conspiracy. I’m just a guy trying to move science forwards.

.....


OK, so far we have a couple of scientists discussing issues in a scientific work, no problem. But as he found more inconsistencies, in order to understand what was going on, in 2005 Warwick asked Phil for the dataset that was used to create the CRU temperature record. Phil Jones famously replied: ......


The Scientific Method

---