|
Post by jimcripwell on Mar 28, 2009 14:10:15 GMT
steve writes "As I've said before, no climate scientist says "the science is settled". "
I know Dr. Pachauri is not a climate scientist, but he packs a lot of clout with the uninformed masses. I do wish that somehow you could get this message to him. If the science really is NOT settled, do you agree, as glc did, that governments, e.g. the EPA in the USA, should not be trying to curb the production of CO2 by buring fossil fuels? That is, we can go on burnig as much coal as we like to generate electricity.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 28, 2009 19:33:59 GMT
It means what it says. Are you surprised that the IPCC report contains such an admission? Could it be that it is not quite so managed into the "party line" as you believed? As I've said before, no climate scientist says "the science is settled". The feedback issue is a difficult problem to solve, and approaches include looking at recent and prehistoric climate as well as more detailed analyses of changes in energy budget and observations of cloud changes etc. That said, it's very hard to get the clouds to change such that they significantly negate the impact of warming. That said, it's very hard to get the clouds to change such that they significantly negate the impact of warming. It is those types of unsubstantiated statements typically by warmologists that make my blood boil. You no more have evidence for that than CO2 drives temperature. Start backing your statements with proofs and I'll resort to less vitriolic responses. Now, give references to show that cloud dynamics are understood enough to support your claim.What the very obscure blurb in AR4 illustrates is climate models are nothing more than engineering code fudged to match expected outcomes. If warming is assumed to be correct, the models are programmed to give the desired result; damn the clouds. Would you care to show otherwise? Anyone claiming GCM's contain all the relevant and correct physics are either ignorant or liars. Well, they could be a modeler too It is no different to say "the science is settled" than quotes such as "this is the smoking gun we've been looking for", "consensus", "unequivocal" or any one of the many one line summations that equate to "the science is settled". It all means the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 29, 2009 0:42:00 GMT
Straight from Hansen's pie hole: www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2009/Copenhagen_20090311.pdfWe do not have measurements of aerosols going back to the 1800s – we don’t even have global measurements today. Any measurements that exist incorporate both forcing and feedback. Aerosol effects on clouds are very uncertain. Even if we accept the IPCC aerosol estimate, which was pretty much pulled out of a hat, it leaves the net forcing almost anywhere between zero and 3 watts. And the kicker: Climate models, using typical presumed scenarios of climate forcings for the past century, suggest that the planet should be out of energy balance by +0.75 ± 0.25 W/m2, but observations of ocean heat content change (averaged over the 11-year solar cycle) suggest an imbalance of only +0.5 ± 0.25 W/m2 (absorbed solar energy exceeding heat radiation to space). So there you have it. The "smoking gun" is not even a CO2 pistol. Yet, if we only knew the true effect aerosols have on clouds, the models would be spot on. Yes, yes, pulling the curtain away reveals a bunch of bumpkins pulling levers on GCM's. To believe Hansen and IPCC sycophants, the climate is simply discovering the secret recipe. Once we know the ingredients of the aerosol component, the GCM's knobs can be adjusted a little here or there, a few more lines of code added, and viola!, instant climate control! Wow, if I had only known it were that simple, it would have saved a whole lot of time and there would have been no need to question AGW.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 14, 2009 2:25:46 GMT
This is for Steve since he complained of us hijacking another thread:
I am not interested in links to more theoretical research papers, peer reviewed or otherwise. There is no shortage of those. I am interested in direct evidence that supports the basic tenets of CO2 AGW.
The list is on the first page. Please, no more lectures and links to old papers. Most of us are familiar with the hypotheses, so it is not necessary to regurgitate.
Thus far each and every "fingerprint" of AGW has turned out to be a bust.
No more climate models, crystal balls or suggestions to read IPCC, just the hard facts that support your POV. I can't imagine why it is so difficult to provide current observational evidence and experimental data if the physics is supposedly so cut-and-dry.
Observations trump theory.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 14, 2009 10:57:04 GMT
I'm a bit late to these comments. Been too busy tangling with Kiwistonewall and Poitsplace. steve writes "As I've said before, no climate scientist says "the science is settled". " I know Dr. Pachauri is not a climate scientist, but he packs a lot of clout with the uninformed masses. I do wish that somehow you could get this message to him. If the science really is NOT settled, do you agree, as glc did, that governments, e.g. the EPA in the USA, should not be trying to curb the production of CO2 by buring fossil fuels? That is, we can go on burnig as much coal as we like to generate electricity. "The science is settled" is an absolute statement which will never be true. All this debate about a phrase is something that has been invented, probably by Republican/right-wing Canadian lobbyists, as a bogus issue to induce doubt into the general public as well as a tendency within the general public to insist that something is proved absolutely before any action is taken. A similar sort of doubt-mongering has led to death and disability of many children in the UK over the MMR debacle.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 14, 2009 11:06:01 GMT
It means what it says. Are you surprised that the IPCC report contains such an admission? Could it be that it is not quite so managed into the "party line" as you believed? As I've said before, no climate scientist says "the science is settled". The feedback issue is a difficult problem to solve, and approaches include looking at recent and prehistoric climate as well as more detailed analyses of changes in energy budget and observations of cloud changes etc. That said, it's very hard to get the clouds to change such that they significantly negate the impact of warming. That said, it's very hard to get the clouds to change such that they significantly negate the impact of warming. It is those types of unsubstantiated statements typically by warmologists that make my blood boil. If you reread the context, it relates to a quote about GCMs. It is very hard to create a GCM that produces reasonable climate and weather, and also includes a strong negative cloud feedback. You need to watch this tendency of yours to display your anger in response to perceived provocation. On the other thread I was *agreeing* with your sceptic links (that high CO2 in cities wouldn't add much to city warming) but you were still getting riled!
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 14, 2009 11:35:35 GMT
This is for Steve since he complained of us hijacking another thread: I am not interested in links to more theoretical research papers, peer reviewed or otherwise. There is no shortage of those. I am interested in direct evidence that supports the basic tenets of CO2 AGW. The list is on the first page. Please, no more lectures and links to old papers. Most of us are familiar with the hypotheses, so it is not necessary to regurgitate. Thus far each and every "fingerprint" of AGW has turned out to be a bust. No more climate models, crystal balls or suggestions to read IPCC, just the hard facts that support your POV. I can't imagine why it is so difficult to provide current observational evidence and experimental data if the physics is supposedly so cut-and-dry. Observations trump theory. If I were able to limit my opponents right to use only the evidence I considered acceptable, I'd probably win all my arguments as well. Here's observations for 1. though: Letters to Nature Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001) | doi:10.1038/35066553; Received 17 May 2000; Accepted 15 January 2001 Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J. Bantges
|
|
|
Post by FurryCatHerder on Apr 14, 2009 15:01:15 GMT
This is for Steve since he complained of us hijacking another thread: I am not interested in links to more theoretical research papers, peer reviewed or otherwise. There is no shortage of those. I am interested in direct evidence that supports the basic tenets of CO2 AGW. The list is on the first page. Please, no more lectures and links to old papers. Most of us are familiar with the hypotheses, so it is not necessary to regurgitate. Thus far each and every "fingerprint" of AGW has turned out to be a bust. No more climate models, crystal balls or suggestions to read IPCC, just the hard facts that support your POV. I can't imagine why it is so difficult to provide current observational evidence and experimental data if the physics is supposedly so cut-and-dry. Observations trump theory. The number of years over the past 20 years where that year's global average temperature was in the top 10. Even last year was #8 of the top 10 in the modern recorded era. Not "some random number", but #8, with the rest of the 12 previous years filling things out.
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Apr 14, 2009 18:07:03 GMT
I'm a bit late to these comments. Been too busy tangling with Kiwistonewall and Poitsplace. steve writes "As I've said before, no climate scientist says "the science is settled". " I know Dr. Pachauri is not a climate scientist, but he packs a lot of clout with the uninformed masses. I do wish that somehow you could get this message to him. If the science really is NOT settled, do you agree, as glc did, that governments, e.g. the EPA in the USA, should not be trying to curb the production of CO2 by buring fossil fuels? That is, we can go on burnig as much coal as we like to generate electricity. "The science is settled" is an absolute statement which will never be true. All this debate about a phrase is something that has been invented, probably by Republican/right-wing Canadian lobbyists, as a bogus issue to induce doubt into the general public as well as a tendency within the general public to insist that something is proved absolutely before any action is taken. A similar sort of doubt-mongering has led to death and disability of many children in the UK over the MMR debacle. Give me a break. Another example of going in a completely different direction to avoid the real issue: ANY STATEMENT THAT INDICATES THE "SCIENCE IS SETTLED" IS COMPLETELY FALSE ANS MISLEADING TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. Many AGW alarmists have made such statements, in attempts to bolster their fear-mongering.
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Apr 14, 2009 18:09:26 GMT
This is for Steve since he complained of us hijacking another thread: I am not interested in links to more theoretical research papers, peer reviewed or otherwise. There is no shortage of those. I am interested in direct evidence that supports the basic tenets of CO2 AGW. The list is on the first page. Please, no more lectures and links to old papers. Most of us are familiar with the hypotheses, so it is not necessary to regurgitate. Thus far each and every "fingerprint" of AGW has turned out to be a bust. No more climate models, crystal balls or suggestions to read IPCC, just the hard facts that support your POV. I can't imagine why it is so difficult to provide current observational evidence and experimental data if the physics is supposedly so cut-and-dry. Observations trump theory. The number of years over the past 20 years where that year's global average temperature was in the top 10. Even last year was #8 of the top 10 in the modern recorded era. Not "some random number", but #8, with the rest of the 12 previous years filling things out. Yes...and according to the IPCC's models, what are the odds that we would have gone 11 (soon to be 12) years without a new record warm year? Less than 5%.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 15, 2009 15:48:48 GMT
I'm a bit late to these comments. Been too busy tangling with Kiwistonewall and Poitsplace. "The science is settled" is an absolute statement which will never be true. All this debate about a phrase is something that has been invented, probably by Republican/right-wing Canadian lobbyists, as a bogus issue to induce doubt into the general public as well as a tendency within the general public to insist that something is proved absolutely before any action is taken. A similar sort of doubt-mongering has led to death and disability of many children in the UK over the MMR debacle. Give me a break. Another example of going in a completely different direction to avoid the real issue: ANY STATEMENT THAT INDICATES THE "SCIENCE IS SETTLED" IS COMPLETELY FALSE ANS MISLEADING TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. Many AGW alarmists have made such statements, in attempts to bolster their fear-mongering. Me? Avoid the real issue? You mean the high likelihood that our grandkids are going to be *extremely* pissed off with us that we've greedily stolen all the oil, burnt it up on consumer crap and stupidly inefficient cars, and passed on a world where they can forget about the space programme, the search for the Higgs boson, building fusion reactors, the pursuit of art, history and archaeology, and living in a clean and healthy environment, because they'll be too busy fighting for food, water and a place to live in an over-heated, energy deprived world. Please find me a quote from a climate scientist that says "The science is settled[full stop]"
|
|
|
Post by FurryCatHerder on Apr 15, 2009 15:52:09 GMT
Yes...and according to the IPCC's models, what are the odds that we would have gone 11 (soon to be 12) years without a new record warm year? Less than 5%. I don't know that the IPCC ever claimed that every single year in a row was going to be a new record. What is significant is that last year wasn't outside the top 10.
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Apr 15, 2009 16:25:53 GMT
They don't need to say it "The science is settled". They have taught all their political pit bulls like Gore to say it for them. And I don't see them having any reservations about what Gore says.
Hansen is Gores primary adviser.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 15, 2009 17:01:30 GMT
They don't need to say it "The science is settled". They have taught all their political pit bulls like Gore to say it for them. And I don't see them having any reservations about what Gore says. Hansen is Gores primary adviser. The reason why people such as Fred Singer go on about "the science is settled" is so that they can say "well no. Science is never settled". So it makes no difference to the facts what a politician says - it's purely a rhetorical trick. But it's a rhetorical trick based on a lie. Politicians such as Gore don't say it either (OK you might find an occasional politician has said it). Is it more correct to say that sceptics have been trained by the oil-funded PR merchants such as Singer to keep making the claim? Where else could the claim have come from? What scientists, politicians (and I) would say is something along the lines that it was beyond reasonable dispute that CO2 is warming to the climate, and that the evidence points to future warming from CO2 posing significant risks.
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Apr 15, 2009 21:54:15 GMT
Give me a break. Another example of going in a completely different direction to avoid the real issue: ANY STATEMENT THAT INDICATES THE "SCIENCE IS SETTLED" IS COMPLETELY FALSE ANS MISLEADING TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. Many AGW alarmists have made such statements, in attempts to bolster their fear-mongering. Me? Avoid the real issue? You mean the high likelihood that our grandkids are going to be *extremely* pissed off with us that we've greedily stolen all the oil, burnt it up on consumer crap and stupidly inefficient cars, and passed on a world where they can forget about the space programme, the search for the Higgs boson, building fusion reactors, the pursuit of art, history and archaeology, and living in a clean and healthy environment, because they'll be too busy fighting for food, water and a place to live in an over-heated, energy deprived world. Please find me a quote from a climate scientist that says "The science is settled[full stop]" First paragraph is pure alarmism, nothing new there, nothing worth responding to. Second, they don't have to say just those words and leave it at that to indicate the science is settled. Calling skeptics "denialists" is just one way that many AGW proponents have acted as if there is no room for debate on the issue. That is basically the same as saying the science is settled. The difference is merely semantics.
|
|