In honor of Jeff Id closing The Air Vent, I’m going to take the day off and spend more time with my kids.
Be civil and keep the topics germane. Don’t make me come back here. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
LOL!
After, I posted, I read the comment by latitude. Talk about “religious conviction”!
Great minds, latitude …
crosspatch says:
January 23, 2011 at 2:00 pm
Does anyone else find “wind chill” temperature forecasts annoying?”
Yes, me too. I hate the wind chill maps. Apparently the real temperature is not dramatic enough. On my local news you don’t even really get the temperature map anymore, just wind chill maps.
“My question: will a massive government program be required to move the Loch Ness monster north as well?”
Great question, Al Gored. In fact, Al Gore has stepped in and generously offered to personally fund cranes, jets, a massive diesel fueled aquarium on wheels – “whatever it takes; no carbon relocation footprint is too large to save this creature from the ravages of man’s carbon emissions”.
Having read Jonah Lehrer’s thought inspiring article “The Decline Effect” linked on this blog, I spent a day tracking discussions the article had generated. A few things struck me. The ease with which scientists dismissed his concerns about the scientific method as pseudo-science without actually countering his arguments. The generally hostile reception he recieved. Their attempts to villify the whole long article on basis of one controversial term “believe” at the end of the article. (Which read in context, wasn’t that controversial or “post-modernist” at all.) I think these replies, whether they realised it themselves, only helped to strenghten Lehrer’s verdict.
An underlying current, one shared by Lehrer himself, seemed to be the worry that publicly voicing such concerns – similar to those in medical science wanting to hush Ioannidis’s research while quietly agreeing with much of it – would give fuel and ammo to the climate change deniers. So pervasive was this worry that it really makes you think. How has (C)AGW so strongly captured the imagination of the general scientists, that it even affects the way they now see the role of epistemology and the philosophy of science in public discourse!
On basis of this, I think I accumulated a stronger feeling how big AGW really is. It is probably the largest ever scientific edifice to have caught public and political attention. It has somewhat altered the culture of science, it has been woven to the fabric of the mainstream culture and consciousness from education to collective images in everyday journalism.
The shockwaves the eventual collapse of AGW will cause will penetrate the societal fabric on so many levels. The resulting mistrust will create an opportunity for a broader discussion of the biases that have become an accepted part of the western society on many different levels. What causes them, are they part of human nature, what are their political or ideological roots etc. And it must eventual force an overhaul of the now vastly broken scientific method as described by Lehrer and Ioannidis.
The struggle against (C)AGW will eventually be also a philosophical and political struggle. This is a very important fight the skeptics are fighting, I’m more and more convinced of it.
TimC says:
January 23, 2011 at 12:38 pm
@Al Gored: in your first post, the NYT article also said:
“Mountain species face even starker limitations: As they climb upward they find themselves competing for less and less space on the conical peaks, where they run into uninhabitable rocks or a lack of their usual foods — or have nowhere farther to go.”
Bzzzzzzt. Wrong again NYT: see Anthony’s earlier thread as below:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/20/another-ipcc-claim-contradicted-with-new-science/
———-
Right on Tim. That is why I included some text, and that in particular. The whole NYT article is more of the same, a collection of cliche ‘climate change’ fairy tales.
And I love this ‘trick.’ They explain that “an increasing number of settlers who have moved here to farm have impinged on bird habitats and reduced bird populations by cutting down forests and turning grasslands into fields,” which is the real problem, but then they tack the planetary fever on to that… which is standard practise now if you want to ensure getting research funds.
On this tangent we see the confluence of the relatively new junk science/industry called ‘Conservation Biology’ with the AGW project.
Save the pikas!
RomanM says:
January 23, 2011 at 4:10 pm
LOL!
After, I posted, I read the comment by latitude. Talk about “religious conviction”!
Great minds, latitude …
============================================
Were we separated at birth? LOL
Always check any links that Gates posts…………………..
@Michael
Ireland Government Crumbles As Green Party Pulls Out Of Ruling Coalition
Seems it has happened, although they do say they will do what they can to push the finance bill through.
Last Sunday there was a report that TDs (equivalent to Congressmen) in Fianna Fail, the main coalition partner, would not vote through a climate change bill which was supposed to be voted in alongside the finance bill.
This would have brought into law more stringent regulations on CO2 than the EU directives have already set. My guess is that this is the Green Party riposte. The sight of John Gormley (Green Party leader) gloating about it during the week made me sick to my stomach.
I really don’t know whither Ireland now. We have enough in the kitty not to have to go to the bond markets until the middle of the year, but after that is anybodies guess. While there are some good politicians in Fine Gael, the main opposition party, their leader is an unreconstructed Muppet. We desperately need something akin to the Taxed Enough Already Party in America.
On the plus side, our exports are higher than our imports and increasing, and if we stick to the four year plan, we’ll come out of it OK. The government own most of the banks now, and can expect a large premium over what they paid for them once they sell them off in the years to come.
On the negative side, we have 450,000 government workers (out of a total working population of ~1.8 million, i.e. 1 in 4), only 150,000 of which could be called front line workers (police, nurses, doctors, teachers, army, etc). I don’t begrudge the front line workers a cent, but we’ll be paying for the rest of them for the rest of their lives, and I do begrudge that. I’m just glad my daughter emigrated when she did.
A while ago I accidentally came across a site about weather stations all around the world being surveyed. Some of them did seem to be in rather odd places.
I can honestly appreciate Mr Watts need for rest, as I have only been a reader of this site and I am worn out.
My good lady says I’m mad for reading it and you guys are mad for writing it.
You are just measuring your appendages on a crib board. I must admit there doesn’t seem to be many of the female gender ranting on these sites or spouting ad homs or death threats.
Is this just all intellectual sports teams?
What I really want is an explanation. What is this all based on?
In layman’s terms what information is input to create the climate models that predict the problem?
Instead of discussing if an angel is dancing on the head of a needle how about having a “Show me (the world) the Money” debate.
I firmly believe that the whole subject is based on politics and control. For a start I work in an engineering environment and have never met a single person who believes in the man made part of the debate (?).
If you think that we can affect this planet just stand on the edge of the Grand Canyon, lay on the ground looking at the night sky or surface through a polynia and stand at the North Pole and ask yourself “How big do you feel?”
Good on ya, Anthony! Please thank your family for allowing us to borrow you!
So, we’ve managed to survive the hottest year ever. We’ve suffered from extremes of heat, extremes of cold, extremes of wet, and extremes of dry. Pretty much like every other year… If we hadn’t been told it was the hottest year ever, what would we have observed that would tip us off?
If we pick the proper cherries, and are willing to call 1998, 2005, 2010 roughly “a decade”, we come up with a trend of about 0.02C per decade. That’s 0.2C per century, 2C per thousand. The seas will boil in less than 43000 years at that rate. Personally, I’m terrified! (/sarc)
Best,
Frank
R. Gates says:
January 23, 2011 at 2:31 pm
That water vapour thingy…
Almost all the northern hemisphere landmass is currents under cloudcover due to the warm waters in the Arctic creating a whole pile of water vapour in the atmosphere.
Really is impressive to see!
A quick question from a layman…
Much is made of yearly global temperature averages. How does the fact that the yearly calendar splits winter in half effect the yearly temp avg?
R. Gates says: January 23, 2011 at 12:21 pm
“But it seems some AGW skeptics are somehow certain that there is absolutely no relationship between anthropogenic GHG build-up and changes in natural ocean cycles. How do they know this? It seems a matter of “faith”, and as such, would be similar to a religious conviction”
Yesterday you wrote on the MET thread that: “I do have faith that the models are giving me general information about trends, though not about the exact timing and particulars.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/21/what-sort-of-forecast-does-the-met-office-supercomputer-make/#comment-580442
Yesterday you were faithful, today, not so much?
Al Gored says:
January 23, 2011 at 11:04 am
Just for the fun of it, how many species have become extinct in the last 20 years?
I keep hearing dozens are passing away every month or so.
Don’t forget, we’ve been experiencing global warming for decades. Should be something somewhere.
Where is the body count kept?
Just wondering.
Jack Simmons says:
January 23, 2011 at 5:23 pm
Just for the fun of it, how many species have become extinct in the last 20 years?
=======================================================
Hundreds, but they were mostly nematodes….
…and there’s over a million species of nematodes so we’ve still got a ways to go 😉
Jack, just so you know, about 97% of all species do not have backbones.
H.R. says:
January 23, 2011 at 11:26 am
James Barker says:
January 23, 2011 at 11:18 am
“And AGW is causing the expansion of coral habitat?”
Interesting link, but those corals might be in for a surprise over the next twenty years, eh?”
Be aware that this post is not by the one, the only, and the original H.R. There is H.R. and HR, but I’m not sure who H.R. is. (The other H.R. must be getting paid by ‘Big Oil,’ eh?)
@Peter Plail
“et al“… Very funny, lol! I think you brightened the mods’ day. (And you adroitly deflected attention from my fat-fingered typo; ‘evean.’ :o)
Just The Facts says:
January 23, 2011 at 5:23 pm
R. Gates says: January 23, 2011 at 12:21 pm
“But it seems some AGW skeptics are somehow certain that there is absolutely no relationship between anthropogenic GHG build-up and changes in natural ocean cycles. How do they know this? It seems a matter of “faith”, and as such, would be similar to a religious conviction”
Yesterday you wrote on the MET thread that: “I do have faith that the models are giving me general information about trends, though not about the exact timing and particulars.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/21/what-sort-of-forecast-does-the-met-office-supercomputer-make/#comment-580442
Yesterday you were faithful, today, not so much?
______
It’s all about trends, not about exact timing and certainly not about tipping points. I think in general the ensemble of the GCM’s gives us a pretty good idea of what to expect, and as such, I have confidence in the basic science behind the trends shown in them. But I have no confidence “or faith” that they can predict tipping points, as it is impossible to do so for dynamical systems such as climate at the edge of chaos. Everytime a tipping point is crossed, the GCM’s will have to take that into account for there next scenario. This failure on the part of GCM’s to properly account for the chaotic nature of climate is a weakness, and will never be fully overcome, but it doesn’t render them useless at all, for they can still show trends, and in this way, I have “faith” in them, for there is still an underlying deterministic basis to climate, as it is not a random walk, though many people confuse chaos theory with the random walk, which it most definitely is not.
Joe Lalonde says:
January 23, 2011 at 5:06 pm
R. Gates says:
January 23, 2011 at 2:31 pm
That water vapour thingy…
Almost all the northern hemisphere landmass is currents under cloudcover due to the warm waters in the Arctic creating a whole pile of water vapour in the atmosphere.
Really is impressive to see!
____
I’ll have to check that out. Thanks for the heads up…
latitude says:
January 23, 2011 at 4:04 pm
R. Gates says:
January 23, 2011 at 12:21 pm
But it seems some AGW skeptics are somehow certain that there is absolutely no relationship between anthropogenic GHG build-up and changes in natural ocean cycles. How do they know this? It seems a matter of “faith”, and as such, would be similar to a religious conviction.
=======================================================
Gates, that was funny….
Did you actually read any of the articles you linked?
The only ‘science’ there is trying see how many “can”, “might”, “could be”, “quite likely”, “may be”…………and on and on and on……they can fit into just one paper.
_____
I read all the papers, front to back that I post. My whole point of these was in response to Smokey’s certainty that there was no way that GHG’s could affect ocean cycles, and I pointed to the fact that many professional scientists obviously don’t agree with his certainty and continue to look for possible links.
I am still waiting for Smokey to give his citations to peer-reviewed papers that conclusively show that there is absolutely no link between the 40% increase in CO2 since the 1700’s and changes in natural ocean cycles.
As usual, Gates wants skeptics to prove a negative. Will someone please wake me when he understands the scientific method?
DaveK says:
January 23, 2011 at 4:33 pm:
“You are just measuring your appendages on a crib board. I must admit there doesn’t seem to be many of the female gender ranting on these sites or spouting ad homs or death threats.”
Keep investigating… eventually you shall run into Pamela Grey 😉 She is not one of “ad homs”, but she will let you know of her “data” discontent. Kim likes haikus if that strikes your fancy, and Lucia is a genius, but no ad homs. There is a a greeny girl that likes Joe Romm…she writes for a newspaper or something. Good luck finding what you are looking for…
Smokey says:
January 23, 2011 at 6:20 pm
As usual, Gates wants skeptics to prove a negative. Will someone please wake me when he understands the scientific method?
_____
??? I can only laugh. I can site at least 5 simple and verifiable real-world effects that GCM’s have predicted would occur and have occurred when factoring in the increases in CO2 since the 1700’s. The prediction and occurrence of these effectcs, by the way, makes AGW a Theory, not a conjecture or a hypothesis. Those effects are:
1) A decline in seasonal Arctic Sea ice, leading to an ice free summer Arctic Ocean by 2100 at the latest.
2) An increase in global water vapor
3) An increase or acceleration in the hydrological cycle leading to greater downpours
4) A cooling of the stratosphere
5) Increase in global temperatures beyond what would be expected by natural cycles
It is now up to those who doubt the AGW Theory to propose an alternative theory that explains the simultaneous occurrence of these effects, just as someone who doubted the Theory of Relativity would have to propose an alternative theory that explains all the effects this theory can both explain and predict. This scientific reality is not convenient for those skeptical of AGW, and thus, their only recourse seems to be to claim that those who believe that the Theory of AGW is likely correct, don’t understand the nature of the scientific method.
R. Gates says:
January 23, 2011 at 6:12 pm
Here is the website that has a good animation to clear the clouds and see where they are to the land mass.
http://uk.weather.com/mapRoom/mapRoom?lat=10&lon=0&lev=1&from=global&type=sat&title=Satellite
latitude says:
January 23, 2011 at 4:04 pm
Gates, that was funny….
Did you actually read any of the articles you linked?
The only ‘science’ there is trying see how many “can”, “might”, “could be”, “quite likely”, “may be”…………and on and on and on……they can fit into just one paper.
_____——
R. Gates says:
January 23, 2011 at 6:18 pm
I read all the papers, front to back that I post. My whole point of these was in response to Smokey’s certainty that there was no way that GHG’s could affect ocean cycles, and I pointed to the fact that many professional scientists obviously don’t agree with his certainty and continue to look for possible links.
========================================================
They may be looking/funding/money, but they have not found one single connection either. It’s all the usual double speak.
Our government is pouring $billions into this, and as a result everyone is trying to get their hand into the pot. From chickens causing global warming to who knows what.
Smokey is right Gates, there’s no science saying that.
You’re right when you talk about a “science of trends” because that’s all it is.
But a science of trends is not science, it’s gambling.
“if this trend continues”
I see I’m dueling with an unarmed person. It’s really not fair.
OK, by the numbers:
• Gates’ first assertion cannot be validated before 2100
• As previously explained, relative humidity is declining
• See link above
• The null hypothesis has never been falsified. Current parameters are well within historical norms
Finally, no GCM predicted the lack of warming over the past decade [per Phil Jones]. Therefore, computer models cannot predict. Further, the “cooling stratosphere” has taken the place of the “fingerprint” of global warming: a warming troposphere. But that GCM model prediction was also falsified. So the alarmists moved the goal posts to the stratosphere.
A stopped clock is right twice a day – just like GCM’s. But the verifiable fact that GCM’s cannot reliably predict blows a hole in the presumption that CAGW is a “theory.” It is not. It has been degraded from a falsified hypothesis, down to a conjecture; an opinion.
Keep digging, I like it!
It is now up to those who doubt the AGW Theory to propose an alternative theory that explains the simultaneous occurrence of these effects
=================================================
Mother Nature