Fair enough.

If this were a baseball game, it’s the bottom of the 9th innings, currently your on first base and you need a home run to win…

Can you demonstrate that IPCC Sanctioned Climate Science is indeed Science and get off first base?

WRT: ““What would it take to convince you that GW or AGW is real? What is the one absolute irrevocable fact that would convince you that we need to act to prevent total disaster?””

To be convincing – one must first be credible.

Please demonstrate answers to these questions.

1. Is the current practice of “Climate Science” as sanctioned by the IPCC in fact Science – as opposed to pseudoscience.

1a. Are the Temperature data measurements credible, using calibrated instruments set to defined and commonly accepted industrial standards of operation.

1b. Are the Temperature Data storage methods credible, using techniques in accordance with defined and commonly accepted industrial standards for Data and Configuration Managment.

1c. Are the Temperature Data evaluation and interpretation methods and software, documented, transparent and freely available for the inspection of third parties.

1d. Is the IPCC Peer Review process, objective and independent?

1e. Are the results of the IPCC sanctioned climate science activities repeatable by independent scientific bodies?

1f. What proportion of IPCC sanctioned climate science activities actually test the link between man-made emissions of CO2 and global warming.

1g. What are the defined and published falsification criteria for the concept that man-made emissions of CO2 cause global warming and that the warming will be of a magnitude as to cause catastrophic damage.

Successfully answering the above questions would give credibility to the idea that current climate science activities are in fact science.

If you can do that, then I will specify in detail the next two sets of questions to determine if your position is credible enough to cast doubt on the sceptic position.

I.e.

2. If Climate Science is Science, is AGW (catastrophy – see 3. next) correct? and
3. If Climate Science is Science, and it is correct that man-made emissions of CO2 cause global warming and that the warming will be of a magnitude as to cause catastrophic damage. Is Cap and Trade, Carbon Taxes and other Carbon reduction schemes the best approach (Cost/Benefit Analysis for a Cost effective solution) to dealing with the problem of catastrophic damage.

To recap – there is no single fact – first show me that we are dealing with science and not politics/pseudoscience.

Want to guess why Dr. Spencer is being censored?

Here’s a hint:

Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann is a “referee” for the journals Nature, Science, Climatic Change, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, JRG-Oceans, JRG-Atmospheres, Paleo Oceanography, Eos, Climate Change, International Journal of Climatology, and the UN/IPCC, and an advisor to the grant programs of the NSF, NOAA, and DOE.
Hmm-m-m…

In the corrupted peer-review system of climate science [see the Wegman Report], the role of the anonymous referee confers the unilateral power to reject any papers that are deemed, in the personal opinion of the referee, not to meet vague scientific ‘standards’.

This is the same Michael Mann who refuses to publicly archive his taxpayer funded data and methodology, claiming it is his own personal property.

Mann is clearly — and unethically — using his position to silence his critics. He should be investigated for misappropriating taxpayer money.

But don’t hold your breath.

Only if it’s recognized as such :)

JimB

You’re right. I’m here to learn.

The truth shall set you free,
Will

My error. I was looking at deg C. not deg F. He said F. I can buy 0.5 C.

My map shows a slight warming. Just not that much.

The inadequacies of the Saffir-Simpson scale for measuring the impact of landfalling storms were well-illustrated this season with Hurricane Ike. Barring post-season upgrading by the NHC (remember that Andrew was carried as a Cat 4 for ten years before it was upgraded), Ike was a solid Cat 2, but it still had the effects of a major hurricane on Galveston Island.

Joe Bastardi at Accuweather has developed a metric for hurricane impact using criteria in addition to central pressure and wind speed. Two of the factors he includes are the angle of attack on the coast and whether the storm is intensifying at landfall (as Ike was) or diminishing (as, e.g. Rita was in 2005). For an intensifying storm, initial contact with land may actually tighten the eye up leading to a sudden drop in central pressure and a ramping up of wind speeds. Katrina hit south Florida as a solid Cat 1, defying the overlords at the NHC, who insisted that it would be no more than a strong tropical storm.

“November 9, 2008:
The two papers we had submitted to Geophysical Research Letters have both been rejected, with instructions to not resubmit either one. The first paper showed how none of 18 IPCC climate models, in over 1,000 years of global warming simulations, ever exhibits the negative feedback we have measured from global satellite data.

The second paper revealed new satellite evidence that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation modulates the Earth’s radiative balance by an amount that, when put into a simple climate model, can explain 75% of global warming over the 20th Century….including the slight cooling between 1940 and 1980.

Since our previous publications have been basically censored by the news media, and I have now experienced scientific censorship (which I suppose was long overdue), I have decided to take my message to the people in a second book.”

danbo (15:58:30) :

Where did they get this “On average, the tropical Atlantic was about 1.0 degree Fahrenheit above normal during the peak of the season.”

When I was dancing with Gustav, I suspected this. I saved the SST Anomaly map for “Aug 23rd”.

This is the SST map for the 25th August http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.8.25.2008.gif.
They would have been correct if they had stated northern tropical Atlantic, the sea from the Cape Verde islands to the Caribbean was about 1 degree warmer. As this is the significant stretch of sea for hurricane formation this must have been that the referred to.
You are right though that the tropical Atlantic was not warmer than average over the whole.

Graeme Rodaughan (14:57:23) :
Will, you make a claim that “Decelerating growth in tropical forest trees — thanks to accelerating carbon dioxide”

I think what Will is refering to is this study http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19626271.900-cosub2sub-dont-count-on-the-trees.html
Tree growth was reduced by 50% after local temperature rises of 1 degree C. I think Will is referring to the result of extra CO2 rather than the effects of the extra gas itself.

Extra CO2 can increase plant and crop growths as long as there is sufficient water and food to support this extra growth. The shortage of water would be the key to the extra CO2 being a plus or a negative result.