|
Post by icefisher on Sept 23, 2011 23:12:10 GMT
Even that doesn't mean that Lindzen and Spencer aren't onto something. It means that if they are onto something they've made a pigs ear of proving it.
what it puts them is a pigs ear closer to proving it than the IPCC got. The IPCC had to rely on the "no other mechanism" argument to get there.
What would be a true travesty would be no update to Santer statistics and the IPCC continuing to rely on that archaic analysis. In my world that would be wholly and completely unacceptable in view of natural variation overwhelming AGW.
The crappy monitoring argument holds water with regards to all results not just selected results so its of zero utility here with regards to attribution.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 24, 2011 2:37:20 GMT
magellan, You are determined to insist that Dessler 2010 is putting forward a strong argument for short term positive cloud feedbacks in models. I think that with large error bars, low R2, words like "suggest" and phrases like "Obviously the correlation is weak" he is not being so dogmatic, and I've been pretty consistent in stating that. The phrase about "suggesting" that models may be doing a good job of short term feedbacks is arguably fair enough in the very clear context of a very short set of observations, though I for one haven't chosen to argue that point. In short you are arguing with a strawman, and up to now I'm roughly in agreement with Sigurdur. What Dessler *has* done, though, is identify the easily identifiable arguments (so easy that even I spotted them) that destroy Lindzen and Spencer's analyses. Even that doesn't mean that Lindzen and Spencer aren't onto something. It means that if they are onto something they've made a pigs ear of proving it. Blah blah blah. Talk is cheap, but I'm willing to bet what the outcome will be in about 12-18 months assuming Trenberth and his ilk aren't allowed to redefine the scientific method along with the peer review process The same type of arguments you are promoting were done with Mann, Hansen, Santer and Steig, Rahmstorf et al. The same tactics, same rhetoric, same ad hominem attacks against Spencer and Lindzen by the Team as was done against those who after several months and years prevailed against the aforementioned. You've shown nothing concrete to discredit Spencer or Lindzen, just as your accusation that Spencer "cherry picked" his selection of models implying he was dishonest in his methodology, was all wet. We do know however there is proof the Team has been shown to be a motley crew of liars and slimeballls, not because someone on a blog accused of them of it, but by their actions.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 25, 2011 18:55:36 GMT
Your talk is the cheapest of all. You don't engage. You just look for ways to misrepresent and libel.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 25, 2011 19:07:35 GMT
Even that doesn't mean that Lindzen and Spencer aren't onto something. It means that if they are onto something they've made a pigs ear of proving it.what it puts them is a pigs ear closer to proving it than the IPCC got. The IPCC had to rely on the "no other mechanism" argument to get there. What would be a true travesty would be no update to Santer statistics and the IPCC continuing to rely on that archaic analysis. In my world that would be wholly and completely unacceptable in view of natural variation overwhelming AGW. The crappy monitoring argument holds water with regards to all results not just selected results so its of zero utility here with regards to attribution. The crappy monitoring system is slowly being improved. It is what we have to work with today. Notice that Steve does NOT discount Spencer/Lindzen etc. He is smart, he understands that we all have to look at the proof and the negation with the same set of eyes. Frm his posts, they would lead one to believe that he does this. There are certainly a lot of "holes" in AGW. I am to the point that we know,.....well...have been at this point for a long time....that co2 will inhibit heat exodus. The part that I look at is to what DEGREE does it inhibit that exodus. The claims by some are so exageratted that it isn't funny. The vocal few do NOT the science make.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 25, 2011 19:53:12 GMT
There are certainly a lot of "holes" in AGW. I am to the point that we know,.....well...have been at this point for a long time....that co2 will inhibit heat exodus.
The part that I look at is to what DEGREE does it inhibit that exodus. The claims by some are so exageratted that it isn't funny. The vocal few do NOT the science make.
An important point is the fact that CO2 inhibits the exit of heat is neither unique nor does it follow that more CO2 will inhibit more heat.
The fact is all the gases in the atmosphere in one way or another inhibit heat going to space.
The fact is back radiation most likely does not exist to the kind of levels required to ascertain continued net attenuation by more CO2. Steve was unable to provide a shred of science to support the idea nor explain the fundamental accounting differences between liquids/solids and gases in the atmosphere.
CO2 being a better emitter than other gases in the atmosphere will put heat in the atmosphere during the day and extract it at night.
Our poor monitoring systems are unable to tell, according to Steve, if the planet for the past 14 years is warming or cooling or what the fate of the missing heat is. If we can't determine that today with CO2 forcing at record levels we sure couldn't have determined it in the past.
Fact is AGW is only supported by questionable accounting practices. One that violates the "entity" concept! ENRON violated the entity concept hiding liabilities in unconsolidated subsidiaries. We had people go to prison, commit suicide, and probably die of the stress of getting caught.
In AGW there is less knowledge of where the fungible assets are (heat) but ignorance is not a scientific principle. Though perhaps people with the proper accreditation should know something of these issues and indeed they are very quick to seize on the concept in defense of a lack of warming.
The entity cannot be the atmosphere at one time, then the combined atmosphere and ocean another time. This is how the entity concept is violated.
And maybe people who should know better should be held accountable for it in some way or the other.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 15, 2013 3:14:29 GMT
magellan, You are determined to insist that Dessler 2010 is putting forward a strong argument for short term positive cloud feedbacks in models. I think that with large error bars, low R2, words like "suggest" and phrases like "Obviously the correlation is weak" he is not being so dogmatic, and I've been pretty consistent in stating that. The phrase about "suggesting" that models may be doing a good job of short term feedbacks is arguably fair enough in the very clear context of a very short set of observations, though I for one haven't chosen to argue that point. In short you are arguing with a strawman, and up to now I'm roughly in agreement with Sigurdur. What Dessler *has* done, though, is identify the easily identifiable arguments (so easy that even I spotted them) that destroy Lindzen and Spencer's analyses. Even that doesn't mean that Lindzen and Spencer aren't onto something. It means that if they are onto something they've made a pigs ear of proving it. Blah blah blah. Talk is cheap, but I'm willing to bet what the outcome will be in about 12-18 months assuming Trenberth and his ilk aren't allowed to redefine the scientific method along with the peer review process The same type of arguments you are promoting were done with Mann, Hansen, Santer and Steig, Rahmstorf et al. The same tactics, same rhetoric, same ad hominem attacks against Spencer and Lindzen by the Team as was done against those who after several months and years prevailed against the aforementioned. You've shown nothing concrete to discredit Spencer or Lindzen, just as your accusation that Spencer "cherry picked" his selection of models implying he was dishonest in his methodology, was all wet. We do know however there is proof the Team has been shown to be a motley crew of liars and slimeballls, not because someone on a blog accused of them of it, but by their actions. Talk is cheap, but I'm willing to bet what the outcome will be in about 12-18 months assuming Trenberth and his ilk aren't allowed to redefine the scientific method along with the peer review process New paper confirms findings of Lindzen & Spencer of very low climate sensitivity to CO2A paper under review for Earth System Dynamics uses a novel technique based on satellite data and surface air temperatures to find that global warming due to increased CO2 is is much less than claimed by the IPCC. According to the author, the findings confirm those of Spencer & Braswell and Lindzen & Choi that a doubling of CO2 levels would only lead to an increase in top of the atmosphere temperature of 0.67°C, or global surface temperature of about 0.18°C, instead of the alleged 3°C claimed by IPCC computer models.
The observations indicate a climate feedback parameter of 5.5 Wm−2 K−1, which is in very close agreement to that found by Spencer and Braswell (2010) of 6 Wm−2 K−1, as well as that found by Lindzen and Choi (2011). A climate feedback parameter of 5.5 Wm−2 K−1 corresponds to global warming at the surface of only [1 Wm-2]/[5.5 Wm−2 K−1] = 0.18 °C per doubling of CO2 levels [or 3.7/5.5 = 0.67°C at the top of the atmosphere], far less than the 3°C global warming claimed by the IPCC. New paper finds climate sensitivity to CO2 is about 63% less than IPCC claims A paper under review for Climate of the Past finds on the basis of reconstructed temperatures and CO2 during the Oligocene epoch that the climate response to increased CO2 is only about 1/3 of that estimated by the IPCC. According to the author,
"Climate sensitivity estimated from the [fossil evidence] is 1.1 ± 0.4 °C ...compared with the IPCC central value of 3 °C."
In addition, the author finds that the low climate sensitivity of 1.1°C per doubling of CO2 levels is confirmed by being "of similar order to sensitivity estimates published from satellite observations of tropospheric and sea-surface temperature variations."
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 15, 2013 4:44:36 GMT
Thanks for the papers magellan.
|
|
|
Post by justmeanu on Jan 18, 2013 22:46:33 GMT
The saddest thing about all this bull is that as a layman I am unable to believe anything that a scientist says anymore. Mr scientist you have consistently lied to us for your own benifit., shame on you. Previously my ears would prick up with a CSIRO announcement, now there is a very good chance it's just all bollocks. May you rot in hell.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 18, 2013 23:09:18 GMT
The saddest thing about all this bull is that as a layman I am unable to believe anything that a scientist says anymore. Mr scientist you have consistently lied to us for your own benifit., shame on you. Previously my ears would prick up with a CSIRO announcement, now there is a very good chance it's just all bollocks. May you rot in hell. It is always best to treat any scientific report as if it were from an equivocator. Sometimes correct sometimes not, sometimes with an agenda. This is the real reason that all scientific reports MUST carry the original data and methods to allow the reader to repeat the exercise to satisfy themselves that the claim of the report is valid. Hence the Royal Society motto (which they appear to have forgotten ) " Nullius in Verba" ( Take no-ones word for it) Not quite its all bollocks but not far off - it might be so check. The Royal Society was founded in 1660, so your problem is not a new one! This is why one of the issues people have with climate 'scientists' is that they rarely provide their data with complete description (meta data) and obfuscate their methods. The Met Office has just acknowledged that they have no idea how their models of the stratosphere work for example. But they still use them! What is different in the recent few decades is the huge rewards being paid to scientists that provide their funders with the 'desired result'. This is often delivered with much fanfare before peer review - and then published without data or methods and any attempts to obtain data and methods are actively fought off. One of the main impacts of the whole AGW 'scare' will be just what you are claiming though - a total lack of trust in science. This is already seen now with long range forecasts from the Met Office which are universally distrusted. If scientific method was being followed it caters for innate lack of trust. It is not being followed therefore I have sympathy with your point of view. Solution? enforce the scientific method once more and consign 'post normal science' the trash bin of history.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 19, 2013 0:13:44 GMT
I agree Nautonnier. When GCM's were 1st run, they should have never left the field of scientific endeavor. Today, they are slightly better, but most certainly not up to speed to be used for long term planning or mitigation.
The current funding train is insane and has bred a lot of "junk science". It has gotten so bad that folks now don't trust inoculations against serious virus, etc. There is nothing without risk, but time has shown that Polio vaccinations work, small pox works, typhoid works, etc etc.
Confirmation is required via science. Presently, one has to look at papers published with dramatically different results as outliers. The idea that you run 24 models, each individually wrong, and accept the mean value of the outcomes is laughable.
Do these folks really think that most of the population are that scientifically illiterate?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 19, 2013 5:01:24 GMT
"Do these folks really think that most of the population are that scientifically illiterate? "
Yes, they do.
Unfortunately, thanks to the same folk who are also teaching at universities and high schools and failing at that too. The population at large has been totally 'dumbed down'. Not only that but all curiosity about the world seems to be educated out of them. It is all learn by rote to get a GPA not actually get your head around what you are learning.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 23, 2013 3:02:18 GMT
hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/01/models-have-it-wrong-again-new-paper.htmlA paper published today in the Journal of Climate finds that the global average feedback from clouds is negative, not positive as claimed by climate alarmists. Most climate models are programmed to assume clouds act as a positive feedback that accelerates global warming, but this paper and many others based on observations show this assumption is incorrect. Does 'A.E. Dessler' ring a bell?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 24, 2013 15:52:57 GMT
hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/01/models-have-it-wrong-again-new-paper.htmlA paper published today in the Journal of Climate finds that the global average feedback from clouds is negative, not positive as claimed by climate alarmists. Most climate models are programmed to assume clouds act as a positive feedback that accelerates global warming, but this paper and many others based on observations show this assumption is incorrect. Does 'A.E. Dessler' ring a bell? Well everything sounded good until you pointed out that the results were from observations you know that will never be accepted - have these observations been confirmed by climate models - if not the observations will just need adjusting until they do match the models - there's some nice homogenization and sensor recalibration methods shown with Argo and several of the Aqua satellites that might be useful. (/sarc)
|
|
tsh
Level 2 Rank
Posts: 69
|
Post by tsh on Jan 30, 2013 19:25:26 GMT
The saddest thing about all this bull is that as a layman I am unable to believe anything that a scientist says anymore. Mr scientist you have consistently lied to us for your own benifit., shame on you. Previously my ears would prick up with a CSIRO announcement, now there is a very good chance it's just all bollocks. May you rot in hell. What you neglect is that the majority of scientists are honest in their investigations, and are not going to be making a very good effort to communicate any uncertainties or alternatives to their audience. Certainly they are an order or magnitude more honest than the average white goods salesperson who makes a commission from selling an extended warranty with the product. To some extent, scientists are trying to please their public. The message is further lost in translation when the news media and PR goons get hold of a story. Most of this mess is not the fault of the individual scientists. When you look at the detail close up, it's easy to get caught up in the mass hysteria and not see the bigger picture.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 30, 2013 21:33:59 GMT
tsh: Group think and "SkepticalScience Syndrome" run pretty rampant in regards to Climate Science.
|
|