Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
Anthony Watts’s post Meh, same old ‘gloom and doom’ from the IPCC over new climate report at WattsUpWithThat prompted this one. I started to write a comment on that thread that began with, The IPCC is nothing more than a… and I went on from there, trying with some success to limit my word count. But I didn’t post it. I figured it would make for a great topic of discussion all by itself, with everyone adding their own continuation to that preface.
So to start the ball rolling, here’s what I came up with.
The IPCC is nothing more than a report-writing entity:
- that was created by politicians for use by politicians to achieve an political-agenda-driven goal
- that relies on politician-financed climate models that were designed, and continue to operate, with the single-minded intent of showing bad things will happen in the future if we continue to consume fossil fuels.
The IPCC and their reports provide no value to anyone other than the politicians who created that body.
That was a first attempt, pretty much rolled off the keyboard with a few tweaks.
So, if you would, please add your continuation of, The IPCC is nothing more than a…
And if you like, consider adding to another preface, If the politicians were truly interested in helping humanity and the planet…
I’m looking forward to reading what you have to say.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
that was created by politicians for use by politicians to achieve a permanent entity that has enough superficial credibility to back political pet projects ($$$$ and power).
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is Nothing More Than a…
minuscule group of hoax-perpetrating political appointees.
Thanks for the lead, Bob.
The IPCC is a nightmare in search of a dream
UN is the epitome of ‘design by committee’ and their misbegotten offspring known as the IPCC is one of their political committees of speculative design.
IPCC combines several spurious and nefarious concepts for delivering their assignment.
a) Sponsors can purchase specified results with funding.
b) Political powers are promised and receive specified results based on power(s) or allocations received.
c) Subcommittees are primarily based on political interests
d) Subcommittees are comprised of multitudes of workers hashing, rehashing and regurgitating preferred reports. This has been described as the ‘infinite chimpanzees at infinite typewriters’ method of writing.
Science never had a chance with the IPCC because the IPCC never intended to utilize science to accomplish anything beyond selling the message politicians and the wealthy purchased.
If Martin Heideggar and Franz Kafka had a child, it would be the IPCC. The IPCC “challenges forth” a new perspective based on humanity’s so-called technology paradigm. That new perspective grasps at the control of the climate as humanity’s ultimate responsibility. Climate control is modern man’s greatest duty to future generations. And this duty cannot be left to individual simpletons; only the best bureaucratic minds can weave the necessary byzantine rule and endless regulatory labyrinths necessary to wield such power.
Behold humanity’s newest and greatest Tower of Babel: Control of the Earth’s climate system. At it’s heart, the IPCC is trying to convince people they can control the climate…a fool’s errand (in my opinion).
The IPCC is nothing more than a 97% consensus that PT Barnum’s theory “That there is a sucker born every minute” is a fact.
scienceinpolitics November 2, 2014 at 3:11 pm
I would be happy, believe it or not. I want you to be right. You’re not drawing a trend line though with the 1998 thing. You’re picking a maximum, and drawing a horizontal line. You’ll agree that the trend since the industrial revolution has been clearly positive, right? So it’s not crazy to think the Earth is warming?
And please explain to me why sea levels are rising.
You seem to be one of the few warmists who is open minded, so let’s dig into some of your concerns.
1. Arctic ice. Yes, Arctic ice has receded in recent times. But is it currently receding. Those are two different things. I’d suggest you take a look at the WUWT Sea Ice page and get familiar with the data conveniently graphed for you directly from the top research facilities in the world:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
Even if you disagree and conclude from those graphs that Arctic ice is continuing to recede, you cannot argue that it has disappeared, which is what the climate scientists predicted would happen by now. This speaks to the crux of the argument, which is what is sensitivity? If it was high, the Arctic ice would undoubtedly be gone by now. But it isn’t, and the rate of “decline” had dropped to near zero. This suggests that sensitivity is not high, but low, and if that is the case, then indeed we have little to be concerned about.
2. Antarctic ice. Scroll down far enough, and you’ll get to the Antarctic section. Easy to see that Antarctic ice is hitting record levels. So, do record ice levels in the Antarctic mean that an ice age looms? Of course not. No more than low ice levels in the Arctic are indicative of massive warming. But the facts that we are hitting record Antarctic ice levels while at the highest CO2 levels ever again suggests that sensitivity it low, well within natural variability.
3. 1998. You complain about this “cherry picked” date a lot. The “pause” in rising global temps is not calculated from 1998. It is calculated as the length of time when temperature increases could be classed as insignificant. That is, so small that they are smaller than what we can actually measure given natural variability (and if they are THAT small, again, nothing to worry about). For most temperature data sets, the calculated period for which this is true actually starts BEFORE 1998. So 1998 is neither here nor there from a skeptic perspective.
4. Hottest decade. Well let’s put a dollar in a jar every day for 100 days. On day 101, we start putting in a penny a day. On day 101, we would now have $100.01 in the jar, more than ANY day in the past. In fact, the last ten days would be the highest ten days in the 101 day record. See the problem? The statement is true, but there is not practical difference between $100.00 and $100.01. The same is true of the temperature record. It has been rising at pretty much the same rate for 400 years. Well, until about 18 years ago when it stopped. Point being that 25% of all the CO2 released by man since the industrial revolution began was during that time. Again, this suggests that natural variability is much larger than sensitivity to CO2, which in turn is very low.
5. The reason the pause is so important to understand is because the climate scientists said so. It was the top scientists at HadCrut (one of the two official land based temperature records in the world), a Dr Phil Jones, who said that if temps flattened out for more than 10 years, it would mean that the models (and the science upon which they rested) were wrong. As 10 years approached, Dr Ben Santer (associated with NASA and GISS, the other official land based temperature set) said it was actually 15 years that would prove such a thing. Then he changed his mind again and said 17 years. So, according to the climate scientists themselves, the models and the science upon which they are based, are wrong. Cleverly hidden in IPCC AR5 is an actual admission that this is the case.
6. I suggest that you find out what Stefan-Boltzmann Law is and learn how to apply it. One curious thing you will learn is that climate science suggests a direct sensitivity to CO2 of Doubling=3.7w/m2=1 degree C. Do the math, and you’ll discover that at an average surface temperature of 15C, that translates into only 0.6 degrees. Which one is correct? They both are. The trick is to understand how much the temperature changes in the warm parts of the earth versus the cold parts. What you will discover is that most of the warming happens at the very coldest temps, and very little at the warmest temps. So, the number is correct, but misleading.
7. Note in point 6 above the reference to “doubling”. CO2 is logarithmic, hence the doubling reference. So, the warming from 200 ppm to 400 ppm is exactly the same as 400 ppm to 800 ppm. Se the problem? Pre-industrial levels were 280. So, the IPCC likes to mislead you by referring to sensitivity to CO2 increases in terms of pre-industrial levels. But the truth is we’re not AT pre-industrial levels. We’re currently at close to 400 ppm and we can’t even measure enough warming to say with any certainty that it is even statistically valid, it is that small. So, given that we are adding 2 ppm per year, it will take us another 200 years to double CO2 from where we are now. Given how small the measure temperature increases are, if they even ARE increases, in the context of natural variability, this is the same as zero.
I could go on, but I think you should get the drift by now. It isn’t a matter of the claims of climate scientists being wrong, it is a matter of putting them in their proper perspective. Once one does, there is very little to be concerned about, and certainly not enough evidence to condemn, with a great deal of certainty, billions of people to starvation, poverty and death in order to reduce CO2 emissions. Until there are viable alternaitves to fossil fuels, that is precisely what you would be doing by dramatically cutting CO2.
Thank you for taking the time, great way to explain what is happening.
David, you are a person I can talk to, especially because of your appreciation of Stefan-Boltzmann. I hope you can objectively view my rebuttals, and at least concede that I’m not crazy to think that the Earth is warming due to anthropological causes (which you kind of do when you say “It isn’t a matter of the claims of climate scientists being wrong”).
1) Global SEA ice has been constant. Where there is no land, ice has been lost. However, where there is land, the sea ice has increased (for a net change near 0). What about land ice? What about Antarctic land ice?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
2) Again, you’re not paying attention to land ice. Land ice melt is not within natural variability.
3 & 4 & 5) “For most temperature data sets, the calculated period for which this is true actually starts BEFORE 1998”. Yeah, like 1997. There is a major point I want to make. If you take the maximum in 1940, it took 40 YEARS for temps to get above that point again consistently. That means that from 1940-1980, you would’ve had a field day talking about pauses. I don’t know the exact numbers, but would you agree about 15% of man made CO2 was released over that 40 year period?
And most importantly, most centuries I only accumulate or lose $5. Why such volatility, why do I all of a sudden have $100 (which is nice)? Will I be so lucky as to have $100 next century? Because I really can’t explain the last $100 without humans.
6 & 7) We agree a lot on these two points. First, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is awesome. It was very closely related to the foundation of quantum mechanics.
Anyway, I haven’t proposed any cuts to CO2 on here (I’m trying to get people to agree that the Earth is warming). Yes, I do think we have to cut emissions, but the results will be two generations from now. One major point, India provided electricity to about 50% of it’s people, which is a lot of people, and only raised their carbon emissions 15% (excuse me for linking to my own blog).
http://scienceinpolitics.com/2014/10/19/improving-electricity-access-doesnt-significantly-increase-greenhouse-gases/
I think what you’re trying to do albeit briefly is estimate climate sensitivity empirically, but we simply can’t do that yet because there is too much margin of error (which I think we can agree on).
I think the best summary of climate sensitivity you’ll find (for a doubling of CO2) is here:
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf
And this shows agreement about 3 degrees Celsius. Let’s not forget that we’ve doubled methane too.
Lastly, I’m kind of pressed on time, but I want to make sure to address your summary:
“It isn’t a matter of the claims of climate scientists being wrong, it is a matter of putting them in their proper perspective. Once one does, there is very little to be concerned about, and certainly not enough evidence to condemn, with a great deal of certainty, billions of people to starvation, poverty and death in order to reduce CO2 emissions. Until there are viable alternaitves to fossil fuels, that is precisely what you would be doing by dramatically cutting CO2.”
I completely agree with every statement in this paragraph, except “there is very little to be concerned about”, and “that is precisely what you would be doing by dramatically cutting CO2”. I think you can cut significant CO2 emissions from people who can afford it (like Americans and Canadians) because that’s where most of the CO2 is coming from anyway. I think Americans can afford it and live the same way because our military budget is entirely too high, and that can be efficiently reallocated to subsidize renewable energy costs (I’m also libertarian when it comes to foreign policy). I agree that we have very little to be concerned about in the short term, but I don’t agree two generations from now have very little to be concerned about. Just because it’s in the future doesn’t mean we should ignore it. We’ve shown that in the next 30 years there will be some positives due to global warming, but with current trends there will be a grotesque cost in 100 years.
Climate sensitivity is a pseudoscientific concept that links an observable (CO2 concentration change) to an unobservable (equilibrium temperature change). A legitimate science is built on observables.
Please expand on equilibrium temperature change being an unobservable. I want to know what you mean by that.
scienceinpolitics:
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify. The equilibrium (aka steady-state) temperature is a theoretical construct that can be computed but not observed. If a climate system could be described by a set of differential equations (a big if), the equilibrium temperature could be computed by setting the values of all partial derivatives of the temperature with respect to the time to nil. In making it sound as though the equilibrium temperature can be observed climatologists have been guilty of the fallacy of misplaced concreteness. They have confused abstract with concrete objects.
You sound like a mathematician. They have enviable standards for concreteness. I hope I understand what you’re saying correctly.
Our knowledge of greenhouse gases is concrete. We can directly compute with physical laws that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in a one degree Celsius of global warming (a strangely simple result). We can directly compute the contribution of each greenhouse gas to the warming of the Earth, and that is also very concrete.
You’re right, we don’t completely understand all the other variables. There are clear positive feedback loops and negative feedback loops, and concentrations of other things, like aerosols, are also changing. However, we know those indirect effects do exist. I don’t think it’s pseudo-scientific to attempt to incorporate those indirect feedbacks ( the water vapor feedback, the ice-albedo feedback, the cloud feedback, and the lapse rate feedback) into models. Those are all feedbacks that have scientific merit, albeit with some degree of uncertainty. That’s why we have confidence intervals. 95% confidence doesn’t satisfy a mathematician, or even a physicist, but it is worthy of consideration for policy.
scienceinpolitics:
Thanks for taking the time to reply. In the description of the fallacy called “misplaced concreteness,” the terms “abstract object” and “concrete object” have different meanings than the ones you assume in your blog post.
The author of the book “The Enigma of Probability and Physics,” Lazar Mayants, addresses these meanings in detail. He explains that a “concrete object” is a physically existing object; it has a number of different properties and differs in the value of at least one property from every other concrete object in a class of concrete objects. Thus, as you and I are both concrete humans we differ from each other and from every other concrete human in the value of at least one of our properties. if you, like me, are a citizen of the U.S. then we differ in the values of our social security numbers, for example.
An “abstract object” is formed from a class of concrete objects through abstraction (removal) of the description of it from properties in which the values of these properties vary among the members of the class. Thus, for example, the abstract “cow” has no color for concrete cows vary in their colors while the abstract “U.S. citizen” has no social security number for concrete U.S. citizens vary in their social security numbers.
and at least concede that I’m not crazy to think that the Earth is warming due to anthropological causes (which you kind of do when you say “It isn’t a matter of the claims of climate scientists being wrong”).
Well no, you’re not crazy, provided that we stick to the direct effects of increased CO2. The question is what are the feed back responses? How large are they? Are they positive or negative? You suggested a link to an article at SkS which claims about 3 degrees. I’ve learned a long time ago to discount heavily anything on that site because when I ask tough questions of them, or point our errors, my comments get deleted.
That said, the most recent studies on sensitivity have been hovering around the 1.5 degree mark. If you search on WUWT you’ll find at least a dozen papers in the last year reporting about the same number. These are reports that are based on data, not on computer models. Only the computer models are coming up with sensitivities higher than 2 degrees, and even the IPCC has recently admitted in their own report that the models are running much hotter than reality and need to be re-thought. In fact, in addition to the papers showing low sensitivity based on actual data, there are now 52 papers coming up with excuses as to why the models are wrong. I’ve read most of them, and they are so full of holes that one can only be surprised that they passed peer review at all. But the point is that the best climate scientists in the world have come up with 52 different explanations as to why the models should be right and the data wrong. They can’t all be right. If even one of them is right, that means the other 51 are wrong. Does that sound like a consensus to you? Does it not seem more likely that they are all wrong and the data is right?
So, we have models that the IPCC admits are wrong, and the climate scientists trying to claim a consensus while having 52 different reasons as to why the models are wrong.
The most likely conclusion is that sensitivity is low, period. We are left with taking action that will crich economies and throw billions into poverty and starvation NOW to fight something that MIGHT happen generations from now. The notion that we simply cannot adapt to such small changes in temperature over a period of generations is simply illogical.
Okay, Ill look at climate sensitivity studies this afternoon or tomorrow.
I like that you avoid attacking specific claims of the IPCC
scipol,
I like that you are incapable of posting any measurements of AGW. That is the same proiblem the IPCC has.
That is specific, no? Neither you nor the IPCC really has anything. Without a measurement quantifying the percentage of global warming attributable to human emissions, they’ve got nothing. Neither do you.
Every physical process can be quantified [unless it is so minuscule it is down in the noise]. So what the IPCC is claiming is just a giant head fake: a scare, intended to give them more money and power. Only those who can’t think it through fall for it.
Forgot to address your point that heat gained due to CO2 is logarithmic. Yes, but we are keeping pace to double CO2 often enough for the temperature change to be scary within 100 years. I know long term problems aren’t important to politicians though.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html
sci-pol,
You completely ignored davidhoffer’s point that global warming stopped almost twenty years ago. All your speculating founders against the rocks and shoals of that central fact. You cannot explain how or why the alarmist crowd was so totally wrong in their predictions of runaway global warming.
Regarding the log-log response of T to CO2, by now any further rise in that harmless trace gas will cause no measurable warming — as the real world is showing us: despite the rise in CO2, global warming has stopped.
The alarmist crowd is running around in circles and clucking like Chicken Little about the rise in CO2. But we cannot get it through their thick heads that CO2 has risen from 3 parts per 10,000, to only 4 parts in 10,000 — in over a century. They look very foolish trying to convince us that matters. It doesn’t, as the planet is making clear.
You continue to cherry-pick whatever you can find that feeds your confirmation bias. If you would just relax and try to look at the situation objectively, you would see that there is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening. In the recent geologic past, global T has fluctuated by tens of degrees, within only a decade or two. So, now we are supposed to go crazy over a mere 0.7ºC fluctuation, over a century or more?? Don’t you have a million better things to worry about?
The global warming scare has run it’s course. Don’t be the last jamoke to finally see the light.
Global warming hasn’t stopped. Like I said in another comment somewhere, it took until 1980 for temps to be consistently above where they were in 1940. Was that a 40 year pause?
Despite that 40 year “pause”, there’s this new thing called a trend line that allows us to show that the Earth still warmed anomalously over the 20th century compared to any recent centuries. I’d like you to convince me that a similar surface temperature trend, or even more positive one, won’t happen again this century.
Forgot to address your point that heat gained due to CO2 is logarithmic.
Wrong. The amount of heat gained due to CO2 increases is almost zero. There’s a substantive difference between heat gain and modification of the energy flux profile from TOA to surface. You need to understand the difference in order to have this conversation.
As for the EPA, I get my data straight from the Manua Loa web site where it is clear that we’re doing about 2 ppm per year with slight acceleration. Very slight. We’re 200 years to the next doubling, and with sensitivity so low, that’s a rounding error. Nothing to do with being a politician.
Here’s a 2009 MIT study that projects a doubling of CO2 by 2100:
http://globalchange.mit.edu/files/document/MITJPSPGC_Rpt169.pdf
Their analysis seems more rigorous than yours, although I admit I haven’t gone through it point by point.
I think moving forward we’d have to agree on two numbers. One, climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2. My current understanding is that we are 95% sure that number is 1.5-4.5 degrees Celsius, and you think it has a good chance of being 1.5. Like I said before, I’m still looking into this, so you could be right.
Two, we’d have to agree on how much temperature change is dangerous. The IPCC says 2 degrees Celsius over pre industrial levels is a dangerous threshold we don’t want to cross. Do you disagree with that?
Given that the magnitude of the climate sensitivity is insusceptible to measurement, when a person states that he is 95% sure that the true magnitude lies between 1.5 and 4.5 isn’t this person spouting scientific nonsense?
I disagree that climate sensitivity is insusceptible to measurement. Weve used multiple lines of evidence to narrow it down to 1.5 to 4.5.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm
scienceinpolitics:
The Skeptical Science article to which you link states inaccurately that “a wide variety” of methods are used in assignment of numerical values to the climate sensitivity. Actually, there are two. One is to use climate models. The other is to use Bayesian parameter estimation with global temperature and/or proxy data.
Use of climate models does not result in a value being assigned to the probability that the correct value for the climate sensitivity lies between 1.5 and 4.5. Use of Bayesian parameter estimation does this provided that a prior probability density function over all of the various possible climate sensitivity values is supplied. Prior PDFs of this description are of infinite number. Each prior PDF yields a different value for the probability. There is not a logically justifiable basis for selection of a particular prior PDF from among the many possibilities. If one is a professional climatologist with a mortgage to pay and kids to put through college the smart but dishonest thing to do is select a prior PDF that suggests a high sensitivity and to hide the fact that selecting a different prior PDF would have yielded a low sensitivity.
sci-pol says:
Global warming hasn’t stopped.
I wish I had a magic wand that could eliminate confirmation bias. You would be the first customer.
Global warming has stopped, about eighteen years ago. Your cherry-picking of 40 years is only an attempt to avoid that fact. The planet has been waming in fits and starts — naturally — since the LIA.
Dr. Phil Jones shows that in this graph.
Next, you say:
I’d like you to convince me that a similar surface temperature trend, or even more positive one, won’t happen again this century.
I’d like you to convince me there isn’t a black cat hiding under your bed. We’re mighty tired of “what if” speculation. Deal in facts and evidence, please.
Next, after reading it, I think your linked MIT paper is nonsense. It reads very much like the Sokol paper. I note that MIT’s head of atmospheric studies, Prof Richard Lindzen, is not one of the co-authors. I wonder why not? Maybe it’s because as the paper makes clear, the goal posts are always being moved.
Lindzen writes:
That paper reeks of grant trolling. Scientists have been trained with grant funds the way Pavlov’s dogs were trained with dog biscuits. Best if you stick with scientific evidence, and be aware that evidence consists of verified obseravtions and raw data. Anything else can easily lead you to wrong conclusions.
Dr. Phil Jones’ graph still shows warming, the first half of the graph is nearly completely under the 0 line, and past 1975 it’s nearly all above it.
And your 18 year window isn’t cherry picking data, yet my 40 year window is?
I’ll admit I got lazy when I said “I’d like you to convince me otherwise”. Better put, the warming trend and sea level trend convince me that the earth is currently warming at an unnatural rate.
sci-pol says:
I disagree that climate sensitivity is insusceptible to measurement.
Then by all means, POST A MEASUREMENT of AGW! Make sure it quantifies the percentage of overall global warming that is specifically attributable to human emissions.
After asking for a couple of years now, no one has ever been able to produce a testable, verifiable measurement showing the % of AGW. If you can post such a measurement, you will be the first.
Every physical process is measurable, except those that are below the background noise level. Signals swamped by background noise are just too minuscule to measure. But they are also irrelevant.
You made the claim, science politician, now let’s see your measurement.
Next, I have explained to you that Dr. Phil Jones designated the year 1997 as the start year. Go argue with him if you don’t like it. And your ’40 year’ cherry-picking is simply more confirmation bias. You found a “40 year” factoid that you mistakenly believe validates your argument. It doesn’t.
Finally, define “unnatural”. Keep in mind that global temperatures have been on the order of TENS of degrees of change within a decade or two, and that CO2 has been almost twenty times higher in the past. Explain to us that those were “unnatural” events. Explain to us how the current *tiny* 0.7ºC fluctuation, over a century, is “unnatural”. You made the claim. Back it up.
All your posts are the same. You desperately want to believe in something that just isn’t there. That’s not science, that is just wishful thinking.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years
tell me that the past 100 years did not involve a relative spike to previous temperatures. The spike is unnatural, and we can explain it.
Agw is easy to prove
1) did humans increase greenhouse gases?
Yes
2) are greenhouse gases higher than they have been in a really really long time?
Yes
3) do greenhouse gases warm a planet?
Yes, check venus
Is the earth gaining heat content?
Yes
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
@SIP – YOu must be new to the debate. Wiki for Climate science, really? Have you not heard of William Connolley? Please get some reputable material.
Okay, Ill start using the 9,000 peer reviewed IPCC papers. What do you want to contest?
Why did you not use them in the first place instead of Wiki?
Because I was on mobile, and I can be lazy. What graph, table, or claim in the IPCC AR5 do you want contest?
If the use of a mobile device proves to be too restrictive for you, perhaps you should think more, and react less. And then post when you are sitting at a computer. lazy, sloppy, incompetent, or just wrong. The result is the same.
Do you agree with the AR5 conclusions?
I agree with science, not voodoo. If you can show the science behind their conclusions, then you are have no clue what you are talking about. As there is none. Show me the work they used to arrive at a 95% confidence level. Statistics is not a “made up” branch of math. The equations are well documented and known. Yet the AR5 only claims that confidence level, it never shows the data or the calculations to arrive at it.
You are free to believe anything you want. But belief belongs in a Church, not a science lab.
@dbstealey
You claim “of TENS of degrees of change within a decade or two,”
..
Can you please post a citation to the physical evidence of this?
juan,
Of course I can. If I do, will you concede the point?
@dbstealey
…
I have to examine the evidence first.
sci-pol says:
tell me that the past 100 years did not involve a relative spike to previous temperatures.
No problem:
The past century did not involve a relative “spike” in global temperature.
Over the past ≈150 years, global T has fluctuated by about 0.7ºC. That is nothing. If you want to see a spike, observe the short term [natural] change in the RB Alley chart below.
Next, you say:
Agw is easy to prove…
Well, if it is or it isn’t, you certainly have proven nothing with your assertions. And I am still waiting to see that “measurement” you claim to have.
Next, ‘juan’ says:
I have to examine the evidence first.
Copout. Let’s call a spade a spade: no matter what evidence I provide, you will squirm around and never concede anything.
That is the sign of a closed mind. You have one. Cures are few and far between.
But for the benefit of other readers, here is ice core evidence as provided by Prof R.B. Alley in a peer reviewed paper:
http://postimg.org/image/423wa6glr/
Global T fluctuated both up and down by more than TEN degrees. That puts the current Chicken Little clucking into some needed perspective.
Global temperature is never static. It is never completely flat. Climatologist Richard Lindzen of MIT writes:
.7 degrees is significant, and 2 degrees is where we are headed. Your Alley spike can also be significant. Im sure a 15 degree change correlates with dramatic atmospheric changes and extinctions.
Just because the climate changes abruptly every once in awhile without humans doesnt mean humans didnt cause this spike. Greenhouse gases are still being released into the atmosphere at unprecedented rates.
@dbstealey
…
I’m sorry, your evidence does not prove that global temperatures can have “TENS of degrees of change within a decade or two”
…
You know better. One geographical location is not a good proxy for global temperature. Your evidence fails
Juan is right. I didnt catch that was in just one place
juan says: [ ” … ” ]
Do I have your number, or what? I had you pegged exactly:
no matter what evidence I provide, you will squirm around and never concede anything.
Next, pol-sci says:
.7 degrees is significant
Another baseless assertion. No, 0.7º is not significant in any way. So, who should we believe? Prof Richard Lidndzen of MIT? Or some anonymous know-nothing?
That’s what they call a ‘no-brainer’ question.
Read Lindzen’s bolded statement in my post above, Mr Know-nothing.
You shouldnt believe anyone based on their credentials alone. Thats why i havent used the argument that so many scientists agree on climate change (i hate when people use that). I care about data, although over the course of this discussion i have been somewhat sloppy. Anytime im sloppy you point it out, and i appreciate that.
Im not sure why this website and its users have a sense of superiority though. I havent called you anything, i dont know why you have to disgrace this debate with personal attacks.
@dbstealey.
…
How come there is no corresponding data from Antarctica that can confirm the Greenland data?
sci-pol,
I didn’t appeal to any vague ‘consensus’, I made a direct comparison between your view and that of Prof Lindzen. You cannot both be right. So once again: who should we believe? You? Or MIT’s head of atmospheric sciences?
Sorry bud, you lose that contest hands down. You are wrong and Lindzen is right: A tiny 0.7º fluctuation is certainly insignificant. Time for you to stop digging your hole.
juan says:
How come there is no corresponding data from Antarctica that can confirm the Greenland data?
‘How come’, eh? The fact is, there is plenty of evidence. But when I offered you evidence before, you waffled, and welshed. Then when I posted peer reviewed evidence, you did exactly as I predicted: you squirmed around trying to avoid the box you’re in.
You do not debate in good faith, Mr. juan. Like most climate alarmists, you have made up your mind, but now that you’ve been proven to be flat wrong, you don’t have the cojones or the decency to man-up and admit it. You play word games instead.
So you can go dig up the Greenland and polar data yourself. I have it in my ice core folder, and I can post it. And I would, but as I pointed out, you don’t debate in good faith. So go do your own homework.
That’s your job, anyway, since the man-made global warming conjecture is yours. Skeptics only have to falsify it, which we have, repeatedly and decisively. We have torn that nonsense to shreds. Planet Earth is doing the same thing: global warming stopped many years ago.
So now you are too impotent to do anything except run interference. You have no credible facts that would rescue your belief system at this point. You lost the debate.
You have one chance to rescue your position. You can try to find at least one measurement of AGW. Just one, showing the percentage of man-made global warming, out of the total [very minor, natural] global warming of only 0.7ºC. Show us the percentage. Good luck with that.
I don’t think you can do it. And if you cannot post even one such measurement, then your entire conjecture is based on evidence-free assertions, and thus it crashes and burns. You are no different from a religious acolyte; you are certainly no scientist; really, you’ve got nothin’.
If you can’t post at least one (1) verifiable, testable measurement of AGW, your entire conjecture is falsified. So either man-up and post one measurement, or man-up and admit you have nothing.
A tad dramatic, are we?
Einstein once said the universe isn’t expanding. Are we to believe him, or me when I say it is? Newton once said the reason planets don’t collide with each other is due to God (when talking about the three body problem). Which do we believe, Newton or me when I say it isn’t due to God? I can find doctors that said smoking was good for you, and I can find scientists that didn’t find anything wrong with leaded gasoline. This isn’t because I’m smarter than any of these men. It’s because of the evidence that we’ve come to accept.
As for AGW, please check section 8.5.2 of the IPCC report, especially figures 8.18, 8.19, and 8.20. Figure 8.19 decouples natural RF from anthropogenic 🙂
Also, I can make a direct comparison between Prof. Lindzen and an international panel of scientists with an awesome conflict of interest policy:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-conflict-of-interest.pdf
As well as a means of addressing alleged errors:http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/factsheets/FS_ipcc_deals_errors.pdf
So please, if Lindzen has any qualms with the IPCC report, please have him report COI or any alleged errors 🙂
sci-pol,
If anyone needed solid evidence that you are a complete know-nothing, your last post confirms it beyond any doubt.
What you did was trot back to your alarmist blog for some [irrelevant] talking points. Your ‘conflict of interest’ link does not apply to Prof Lindzen, which you would know if you had read it. Lindzen is the internationally recognized and esteemed expert on the climate, with more than twenty dozen peer reviewed publications to his credit. All you did was throw out some nonsense that doesn’t apply.
But it does apply to the IPCC itself. Being a noob, you probably don’t know that the IPCC was caught red-handed using about 40% of their input from an NGO/QUANGO that has ulterior motives; the World Wildlife Fund [WWF]. So thanx for indicting the corrupt UN/IPCC. They deserve it.
The alarmist crowd hates Dr. Lindzen because he has destroyed their arguments. But they can’t touch him because he is head of the atmospherics sciences department at MIT — arguably the world’s premier engineering school. MIT would not have kept Dr. Lindzen in that lofty position if he was the kind of scientist despicable know-nothings like you and your pals allege.
On the other hand, you are trying to defend an anonymous bunch of self-serving climate rent-seekers riding the world’s carbon scare gravy train. Furthermore, the IPCC has been wrong on every last one of it’s predictions [which they pretend are “projections”, but we know better — if they had been right, they would have been crowing about their predictions].
All you have been doing here is posting nonsense. Your comments reek of cherry-picking, confirmation bias, and endless appeals to always-wrong authorities. Until you can post even one measurement showing the % of AGW, you have absolutely nothing but baseless assertions.
Run along now back to your alarmist blog. You need some new talking points, because the ones you’re using here are old and busted. Better yet, read the WUWT archives for a few months, like you’ve been advised. You are so uneducated that you need a lot of basic information just to get up to speed on the subject. We have to deal with know-nothings all the time here. If you want to run with the big dogs, at least get a basic idea of what you’re talking about. Right now, you don’t know.
Come back when you can post a measurement of AGW — or when you are man enough to admit you don’t have one. Because right now you have zero credibility.
@dbstealey
…
I asked for evidence, and you did not provide it. You’ve lost the argument. One geographical ice core does not proxy the entire globe. You post ” I have it in my ice core folder,” yet you are not capable of answering why there is no corresponding data from Antarctica.
juan,
I told you I have plenty of information, but since you don’t debate honestly, you will have to do your own homework. It’s easy to find, and it flatly contradicts your religious beliefs.
Read my response to sci-pol above. Read it good, because it applies to you, too.
You falsely claimed that I didn’t provide evidence. You are a liar. I posted a link showing ice core evidence. But you don’t debate honestly, do you? So why should I pay any attention to a knucklehead like you?
You’re all over the map here. You never answer a question, and when I helpfully straighten out the misinformation you post, and educate you, your typical tactic is to completely ignore what I wrote and MovOn to something else. And of course, you’re a liar. That is not even arguable, based on the evidence here.
You do not debate in good faith. No doubt that is because you are incapable of answering the one question I’ve asked repeatedly: Do you have even one mesurement of AGW?
No, you do not. Therefore, your carbon scare nonsense is debunked. All you do is emit baseless assertions. But that is not good enough here at the iinternet’s Best Science site.
You’ve lost the argument, bud. You are just not man enough to admit it.
@dbstealey
..
You keep dodging the issue.
…
In fact, as I have posted “You know better”
juan, you’re an idiot and a liar. Go away.
polsci says:
Agw is easy to prove
I am still waiting for your ‘proof’. But of course, you cannot post any such proof, any more than juan can start telling the truth.
You cannot prove me wrong, either: you have no measurements of AGW. Not a single one. The whole debate is predicated on the claim that AGW exists — but no one can show any AGW! Thus, you lose the argument, and the debate. juan has to lie to make his arguments, and you make claims that you cannot back.
Don’t you jamokes know how lame you are? You’ve got absolutely nothing, but you still insist on cluttering up this excellent science site with your baseless assertions and lies. Really, that is typical of climate alarmist cult members. Knowledge and honesty are foreign to you.
Lol, “Juan, you’re proving me wrong, go away.”
You are a bonafide religious zealot dbstealey. I just provided you with the section of the devil worshiping IPCC report that gives AGW numbers. What do you do? Cling to Lindzen’s credentials. But since you’re too lazy to see for yourself, I’ll do the work for you:
From 1998-2011, we were responsible for .38 W/m2 per decade increase RF of the total .22. That’s 173% of the total increase in RF
From 1970-2011, we were responsible for .34 W/m2 per decade increase of the total .41 W/m2 per decade, so 83% of RF
From 1951-2011, we were responsible for .33 W/m2 per decade increase, which is very near the total number, for 100% change in the RF. This is intuitive,because natural change in RF should be near zero for any 50 year Holocene period.
If you’re interested in error bars, check figure 8.19
@dbstealey
..
I suggest you add this paper to your “ice core” folder.
..
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7312/full/nature09313.html
…
It is direct empirical evidence that the southern hemisphere was **NOT** following the northern hemisphere during the time period your graph shows.
..
As I have said, one geographical location is not a good proxy for global temperatures.
Let’s see if he “calls a spade a spade”
juan,
You lost the debate when you lied. Go away, liar.
polsci,
You couldn’t answer a measurement question if your pathetic life depended on it, could you?
perfect example of closed mindedness
Considering your sources (wiki, SS), it is not surprising you think Liars are to be trusted.
scipoltroll,
Deflecting, deflecting, always deflecting…
Where’s that measurement?
Where’s your “proof” of AGW?
You’re just a troll, aren’t you?
I literally just gave it to you. There’s a lot of supplementary material for chapter 8 of the AR5, I’m not going to put it all on here. But I gave you your AGW measurement. Now refute it with data (yes, that requires you digging through the devil-worshiping IPCC supplementary data). And I will even do you the favor of personally submitting your data to the IPCC following their alleged errors procedure.
@scienceinpolitics
…
Once Mr Stealey beings to call you names, you know you have won the argument
Yeah, I’m going to retire from this thread. Thank you for showing diligence with the Antarctica measurement.
I’m comfortable leaving because 1) I provided Mr. Stealey with the measurement he asked for and 2) gave him the open-source location where he could examine the methods which are very hard to transcribe to a comments section. 3) I will keep an open mind if he can provide research to disprove the methods I provided.
Actually, you did none of the 3. You SAID you were going to, yet never produced.
I can see why you have an affinity for liars.
Chapter 8, AR5. Anthropogenic global warming. I’ve transcribed it a few times here. I suggest you read it yourself. If you have any qualms, let me know, and I’ll check the supplementary data.
If we find an error, we can report it. That’s the cool part about science, it adapts to new information. We’re on the same team, believe it or not. I think both of us strive for a complete understanding of climate change, real or not, and from that we can deduce intelligent policy.
Evading the question and claim.
Are you going to put up? It is clear from your behavior you are not shutting up (even after saying you were). Another lie.
For what question have I not provided an open source place for you to see for yourself? In addition I gave RF changes due to humans compared to natural RF changes. What more do you want?
More evasion. Are you capable of answering a direct question?
provide the information that DB requested. Your links do not. They do not even address it! Stop evading and man up.
BTW: In case you have not realized yet, the IPCC does NO Science. So there is nothing in any AR that is even remotely resembles scientific work. It is a SUMMARY of science and propaganda papers. So it CANNOT be used to satisfy DB’s request even by a total incompetent individual.
The papers it summarizes could if they ever actually addressed the question raised.
So you are not only evading the question, you do not even know what you are talking about!
Then you should have no trouble finding at least one error. Please, provide me with an error in AR5 (I’ll be very patient…take your time). If it already hasn’t been submitted via their policy, I will submit it for you. If you don’t think I will do it justice, you can submit it.
What part of the word “Summary” do you not understand? Your sock puppet seems to have a problem with dictionaries, so let me provide you with a dictionary definition:
Summary, brief, digest, synopsis are terms for a short version of a longer work.
Do I need to define any other words for you? Go ahead, take your time, I will wait.
Oh, since you’re too lazy to go through the supplementary material, and read the referenced papers, the entire AR5 must be wrong?
Are you ESL SIP? I ask because you are attributing words to me that appear nowhere in my writings. Or are you simply trying to construct a straw man?
To head off your reconstruction of the Scarecrow, let me again REPEAT what I said:
Let me also add what the IPCC Charter States as its purpose (thanks to Bob Tisdale):
Now, are you going to discuss what I said? Or continue to play with your bale of hay?
I assume when you say “BTW: In case you have not realized yet, the IPCC does NO Science. So there is nothing in any AR that is even remotely resembles scientific work. It is a SUMMARY of science and propaganda papers” that you want to discount the AR5 entirely?
Apparently you have never heard what ASS-uME is all about. You are free to assume all you want to. You are not free to construct strawmen or move goal posts. Which negates about 90% of your comments.
political science troll says:
1) I provided Mr. Stealey with the measurement he asked for… I literally just gave it to you.
No, you didn’t. there is no measurement to be found. But I guess lying is a tactic of the alarmist cult.
But maybe I’m mistaken. That’s always possible, and I don’t like to find out someone is telling lies here. So I’ll give you another chance:
Post a verifiable measurement quantifying the percentage of human-caused global warming, out of the total global warming of ≈0.7ºC over the past century+.
Since you stated categorically that you have provided that measurement, humor me. Let’s see it again — because I can’t find it anywhere. You wouldn’t lie about that, would you? Or, maybe you and ‘juan’ are the same.
Just to be clear: throwing out a link and claiming it answers my request is a non-starter. Post the measurement, then link to your source if you want to. Post the % of AGW. Simples. Anyone could do it — IF they had a measurement. But so far, you don’t.
That’s twice now that you have claimed to have posted something that I can’t find. First, you said you had proof of AGW. So fine, just post that ‘proof’, right here where everyone can see it. And now you claim that you posted a verifiable, testable measurement of the quantity of global warming attributable to human emissions. Post that measurement right here too, where we can all see it.
I am challenging you to produce that measurement, because I’m convinced you’re winging it. You have no such measurements. Isn’t that a fact? I think so. Prove me wrong.
Show us you’re telling the truth: post a measurement of human-caused global warming, as described above; a real measurement, not some vague link. And post your “proof” of AGW.
If you don’t have any measurements, then you’re just a BS artist cluttering up the thread with mendacious fabrications, just like juan is. You don’t want the rest of your depleted credibility to evaporate, do you? If not… then post those measurements.
Finally, if you’re going to ‘retire’ from this thread because you can’t support what you claimed, then I suggest you retire from this site. Permanently. Because your comments are all on record here, and I’ll be happy to remind folks that you tried winging it.
So let’s be clear: you have been run out for trying to pretend that you have information you don’t have. The same with juan. You are both fakes, who cannot argue your way out of a wet paper bag. You lost your arguments. Neither one of you can post the facts you pretend to have. You are typical carbon scare lemmings; you get your talking points from thinly-trafficked alarmist blogs, and try to sell them here. As you found out, that doesn’t work.
@juan:
Pf-f-f-ft.
Coming from a proven liar, your opinion means less than nothing.
It is easy to prove that a verifiable measurement quantifying the percentage of human-caused global warming over the past century is not possible..
Terry Oldberg,
If they had just said that, there wouldn’t be any problem. But they tried to wing it, and pretend they had posted measurements.
Since there are no measurements of AGW, the whole conjecture is on very shaky ground. AGW may exist, as I’ve said repeatedly. But if it does exist it is so minuscule that it is inconsequential, and therefore AGW should be disregarded in all policy discussions.
IPCC figures, from CH. 8 of AR5, are as follows:
From 1998-2011, we were responsible for .38 W/m2 per decade increase RF of the total .22. That’s 173% of the total increase in RF.
From 1970-2011, we were responsible for .34 W/m2 per decade increase of the total .41 W/m2 per decade, so 83% of RF
From 1951-2011, we were responsible for .33 W/m2 per decade increase, which is very near the total number, for 100% change in the RF. This is intuitive,because natural change in RF should be near zero for any 50 year Holocene period.
Please, attack their methodology. Science welcomes it.
scienceinpolitics:
Your reply to dbstealy is not responsive to his request from you.
Terry Oldberg,
sci-in-pol keeps trying to pass off his non-responses as measurements. But they’re not, as you noticed. His “intuitive” response is certainly neither evidence, nor is it a measurement. It is merely another assertion, which is all he ever has.
That is not nearly good enough. As stated repeatedly, we need the % of AGW quantified, out of total global warming. But so far, no one has ever posted that. Thus, it is only a belief, which is typically given as “most” global warming is caused by human emissions. or “about half” or “a significant amount”, etc. But those assertions are meaningless opinions. They are not measurements quantifying the percentage of human-caused warming.
Every physical process can be measured, as long as it is not below the background noise level [and if it is below background noise, it is too small to bother discussing].
They keep tapdancing around the meausrement question, which is central to the entire AGW debate. If they would just admit they cannot produce the requested measurement(s), we could move on. But that would require them to admit they lost the AGW debate, and they cannot admit that — even though everyone else sees it.
Next, juan says:
…one geographical location is not a good proxy for global temperatures.
Of course it is, as I have shown repeatedly [charts available, if the first dozen times I posted them didn’t sink in]. Changes in global T are reflected in both poles and in Greenland at the same time. When global T rises, it rises simultaneously in the ice core evidence in all locations. When global T falls, that too is reflected in all locations. Thus, global warming and cooling can be followed over time.
These guys can’t even get the basics right; no wonder they’re always coming to the wrong conclusion…
dbstealey:
I think his nonresponsiveness is associated with the notion that the ratio of the
change in the equilibrium temperature to the change in the logarithm of the CO2 concentration, “the equilibrium climate sensitivity” (TECS) is a constant. This notion is logically and scientifically unjustified but is an assumption of the pseudoscience of global warming climatology. If TECS were a constant one would have only to multiply the change in the anthropogenic CO2 concentration by TECS to get the change in the equilibrium temperature that is anthropogenic in origin.
I suspect that climatologists came to the conclusion that it was OK to assume TECS to be a constant because they could assign a probability density function to the numerical value of TECS through the use of Bayesian parameter estimation plus global temperature or proxy data. They failed to deal forthrightly with the fact that their choice of a particular prior probability density function from among the infinite possibilities was arbitrary yet controlled the resulting public policy. If one were a Marxist one chose a prior probability density function that yielded a high value for TECS. The Marxists prevailed.
@dbstealey
…
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7312/full/nature09313.html
…
You lost the argument.
juan:
Correction: climatologists ASSUME heat gained due to CO2 to be logarithmic. This assumption is not logically justified.
Mr Oldberg.
…
What I was talking about is a totally different subject than what Mr Scienceinpolitics was talking about.
…
My discussion with Mr Stealey has to do with, “One geographical location is not a good proxy for global temperature.” This can be seen if you follow my posts from the beginning of the thread. .
Terry Oldberg,
I think you’re right. I’ve commented often that sensitivity can’t be a constant. The actions of the real world make that clear.
As for the continuing nonsense emitted by the mendacious ‘juan’, he is again cherry-picking just one small region of the globe and claiming that it… what? Proves something?
The only thing it proves is that juan is completely clueless.
Still waiting for that measurement, juan me boi. Unless you can post a measurement of AGW, you are only bloviating; the only thing you are any good at. Your suckage is on an asymptotic curve, and can hardly get any more ridiculous.
dbstealy:
Suppose X and Y are variables. The measured value of X and the measured value of Y provide a description of a statistically independent event. If we observe a number of these events we can plot them on X-Y coordinates. This plot provides a visualization of the mathematical object that is called “the relation from X to Y.” There may be scatter in this relation. If there is, it is apt to state that this relation is not a “functional relation.”
This description may be applied to global warming climatology by identifying X as the change in the logarithm of the CO2 concentration and Y as the change in the equilibrium temperature. Climatologists claim that the relation from X to Y is a linear functional relation. As the value of Y is insusceptible to being measured, measurements cannot prove these climatologists wrong.
That measurements cannot prove them wrong has the significance that their methodology is not what one would ordinarly call “scientific.” However, they deal with this problem via applications of the equivocation fallacy. In climatology, “scientific” is a polysemic term. This term changes meaning in the midst of climatological arguments. By logical rule one cannot draw a conclusion from an equivocation but most people don’t know that. They draw the conclusion that scientific research is the basis for curbs on CO2 emissions when this methodology was pseudoscientific. That’s global warming climatology in a nutshell.
@dbstealey
…
The Antarctic ice cores do not match the Greenland ice cores.
The paper I cited shows that the southern hemisphere did not follow the northern hemisphere during the Younger Dryas event. Note that Antarctica Dome C cores do not even drop during that time
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/images/data4-climate-changes-lg.gif
You made a grave mistake in assuming that one geographical location was proxy for the entire earth.
Love when data is the punch line in an argument.
@scienceinpolitics
…
Mr Stealey has a hard time with reality. But as you have indicated, the data is all that matters.
juan, thanx for posting a chart that proves me right. It is always amusing when an alarmist shoots himself in the foot.
Here are more charts which prove conclusively that both poles and Greenland warm and cool simultaneously:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/8/8f/Ice_Age_Temperature_Rev.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/Ice-core-isotope.png/800px-Ice-core-isotope.png
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/3cores.png
http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/IMAGESGISP2/Bender-NSF.GIF
http://essayweb.net/geology/quicknotes/images/450%20thousand.jpg
Here is a reasonable explanation. Ice ages and warm ages are caused by extra-terrestrial influences, so naturally they will all coincide:
http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/correlation-eccentricity-fig.png
I’m not as astute as Juan, but those timescales don’t look on the same scale as a decade, which I believe was the original contested issue. You asserted that Earth’s temps changed 10s of degrees in one decade, right?
@dbstealey
…
Your 1st chart does not have the resolution for the Younger Dryas (it doesn’t show it)
Your 2nd chart does not have the resolution for the Younger Dryas (It doesn’t show it)
Your 3rd chart does not have labels on the X-axis or Y-axis
Your 4th chart does not have the resolution for the Younger Dryas (it doesn’t show it)
Your 5th chart does not have the resolution for the Younger Dryas (it doesn’t show it)
Your 6th chart does not have the resolution for the Younger Dryas (it doesn’t show it)
Can you post a chart of Antarctica Dome C with this time scale? =====> http://s27.postimg.org/weze0n2c3/1zoanbc.jpg
It’s fun ‘n’ easy deconstructing ‘juan’ and his clueless sidekick. Their ineptitude is amusing. Now juan is so riled up he is posting multiple serial comments, shooting himself in the foot.
juan started digging his very deep hole here:
One geographical location is not a good proxy for global temperature.
I showed that it is, in the case of ice cores. It is widely accepted among geologists that ice core evidence proves the concurrent changes in global temperature [T] over geologic time scales. There is no argument about that fact except from these two high school graduates, whose typical reaction is the same as a Jehovah’s Witness being told that their religion is not the real, true religion. We get much amusement from the True Belief of climate alarmists, which cannot be penetrated by logic or common sense.
juan keeps digging:
I’m sorry, your evidence does not prove that global temperatures can have “TENS of degrees of change within a decade or two”
I posted ice core evidence compiled by noted climatologist R.B. Alley, verifying that global T has indeed fluctuated by tens of degrees within a decade or two. So, what does the diggerboi ‘juan’ do? He argues that the link isn’t any good — rather than contacting Prof. Alley for corroborration [I would do that, but I’m not a chump; juan needs to do his own homework].
Next, juan lamely asks:
How come there is no corresponding data from Antarctica that can confirm the Greenland data?
There are mountains of evidence are available! But juan ignorantly disputes that. So I helpfully tried to educate him by posting several more graphs of ice core evidence, all from different sources, and all of them proving that Greenland T and polar temperatures move in the same direction, concurrently. juan himself adds to the amusement by posting a graph that directly contradicts his own Belief.
No credible person could argue with all those charts — but juan does, because they contradict his Belief. juan would argue that white is black, and war is peace, and ignorance is strength before he admitted that verifiable evidence contradicts his True Belief.
Earlier I had predicted that no matter how much verifiable, testable evidence I post, juan will never accept any of it. Why not? Because if he did, he would have to admit that his ‘climate change’ belief is flat wrong — and juan’s ego cannot accept being wrong. I commented to juan at the time:
Do I have your number, or what? I had you pegged exactly: no matter what evidence I provide, you will squirm around and never concede anything.
Those were my words, verbatim, and juan made them come true. Contrast that prediction with the alarmist crowd, which has never made an alarming prediction that has come true. Isn’t juan amusing? I can predict what he will say.
juan even tried to denigrate the internationally esteemed climatologist Dr. Richard Lindzen, simply because Lindzen, too, contradicts juan’s belief. juan is only a high school grad, ignorantly criticizing the author of more than twenty dozen peer reviewed papers on the climate! Isn’t juan cute? He amuses me with his presumption.
Then, juan keeps baselessly asserting that I’ve ‘lost the argument’. As if. Assertions of a H.S. grad, vs empirical evidence! He’s gone off the deep end for sure. It’s straitjacket time for juan.
Finally, juan finishes up with multiple ornery assertions. He just doesn’t like the charts I posted; I get it. since juan cannot falsify the charts I posted, and since he knows better than to contact the scientists who produced them, juan throws a tantrum: “it doesn’t show it”, repeated for every chart without explanation. He adds, “The Antarctic ice cores do not match the Greenland ice cores,” despite the numerous charts I posted showing conclusively that they match exactly. Even the chart that juan posted shows that.
This particular 2-chump peanut gallery is funny and amusing. They have no facts, only their baseless assertions. If juan wanted to falsify any of the charts I provided, he would need to post contradictory evidence, instead of merely asserting, “it doesn’t show it”. But since he has no evidence [and probably doesn’t even understand what ‘evidence’ means, his impotent response is to assert that he simply doesn’t agree with them. That’s because he has no evidence to the contrary.
Keep digging, juan. You are amusing to the grownups here, if nothing else.
Hi dbstealey. Yep, in my opinion, long term ice cores can give a climate perspective… where weather can vary from place to place, long term trends in ice tell a different story vis a vis climate. So naturally, I would not be too skeptical, unless I heard valid reasons why not and explored them. You have your facts straight, and don’t spout opinions so much as well studied truths.
One thing I always wonder about is the validity of CO2 in captured air in ice core samples. The pressure and remelt of the bubbles of atmosphere in the deep ice under pressure has to have an effect. Anyway – I am not an expert of the CO2 historical measures… so to me the jury is out on the proxy data. The stomata proxies with carbon 14 dating seem like a good tracer for CO2 though…
@dbstealey
…
You would be a total failure as a scientific researcher. You provided one geographical location where it shows that the temperature dropped about 10 degrees over the course of two decades in Greenland. This does not prove that global temperatures dropped, as the Antarctic Dome C ice core shows rising temperatures during the same time period. Additionally the link to the New Zealand glacier study shows the Younger Dryas event was not global.
All R B Alley’s study shows it that Greenland’s climate changed, and the data I provided shows that the two hemispheres of the earth were NOT in sync.
You posted: “There are mountains of evidence are available! ” ….and I asked for the corresponding Antarctica Dome C core data………and you failed to provide it. The reason you did not provide it is because if you did, it would show that my point that one geograpical location is not a proxy for the globe is true.
ALL of your charts do not have the proper time resolution to show the Younger Dryas event. In fact none of your “chrarts” show a 10 degree (or more) change in global temperatures !!!!!
You posted: “juan even tried to denigrate the internationally esteemed climatologist Dr. Richard Lindzen” …..I challenge you to copy / paste where I even mention him. You seem to be confusing me with someone else.
..
You have lost the argument that the global temperature can change tens of degrees in decades.
@dbstealey
..
This chart you posted ——->
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/3cores.png
…
Too funny.
It isn’t even labeled.
…
If that’s how you present “evidence” ????
Hi Mario,
Yes, I have my facts straight as always. The high school graduate juan presumes to know better, but he can be disregarded as someone who cannot understand a simple chart. I posted quite a few charts, all of which show the same fact, but the H.S. grad [who presumes to know more than climatologist Richard Lindzen] tries to nitpick one of them because he doesn’t understand it’s provenance. Of course, there is a lot that juan can’t understand.
Stupid is as stupid does, and some folks will never get it. Everyone here except juan understands the evidence. He is just flailing around because he doesn’t understand, and because he staked out his alarmist position early on; now that Planet Earth is making a fool of alarmists, juan is unable to accept reality like the rest of them. So we get some amusement from juan’s inability to understand the basics.
Somehow we’ve gotten off the topic of this article, which is the rent-seeking IPCC. The IPCC is nothing more than a debunked ‘authority’ that gives the clown college commenters here a rationale to keep their ignorance on display. At least the IPCC gets something for it’s pseudo-science: they get taxpayer loot — while the fools who can’t disengage or accept reality get nothing for their wasted efforts.
It is very telling that skeptics are always the ones posting facts, and the ignoratii are impotently trying to contest the mountain of facts provided. Folks like juan never post any facts, because they have none. Their climate alarmism has been so thoroughly debunked that the educated commenters have moved on, leaving the high school grads to keep arguing with the big dogs. Sucks to be clueless juan and his ilk, but that’s all that remains of the climate alarmism contingent…
@dbstealey
..
Thank you so much for your ad-hominem attack.
It is very enjoyable to prove you wrong and see you resort to using it as your fallback position.
Once you start calling someone names, and posting slurs against them, it’s potent evidence that you have lost the argument.
Ad hominem Juan? Perhaps you should learn the meaning of terms before using them. DB used no ad hominems. Since you got that wrong, it is safe to way the rest of your comment is also incorrect. But then that was already proven.
Phil Jourdan says:
Are you going to put up? It is clear from your behavior you are not shutting up (even after saying you were). Another lie.
If they couldn’t lie, they wouldn’t have much to say. I proved juan is a liar, it is right in his comments. If it were not for his silly bluster, what would he have? He has zero evidence to support his globaloney, and he cries like a child when it’s pointed out.
And:
I agree with science, not voodoo… You are free to believe anything you want. But belief belongs in a Church, not a science lab.
The 2-chump peanut gallery here only takes vague positions. They never commit, because they know they would be ripped to shreds. Instead they turn the Scientific Method on it’s head, hoping to put the onus on skeptics.
It doesn’t work that way. Alarmists, including the self-serving IPCC, have the onus of showing that human emissions cause AGW. They have failed miserably. So badly, in fact, that the only lemmings left are the two high school grads here. But they will not take a position. They are afraid. Skeptics, on the other hand, are not afraid to debunk the alarmist nonsense we see coming from the anonymous cowards ‘juan’ and politicalscience.
I am still waiting for just one (1) measurement quantifying the % of human-caused global warming. If juan and his sidekick cannot produce even one measurement, then their only value here is amusement. They are arguing without a single fact to support them. No wonder they are getting slaughtered. Everyone sees it but them.
As you say, Phil: put up or shut up. They can do neither.
They are also moving the goal post every time they cannot answer your challenge, and you are accommodating them. Keep their feet to the fire. I very much would like to see their quantification calculations of the ACO2 and calculated affects on temperature. But they then had you chasing ice cores, which they could not read or understand, and then move the goal posts again when you presented that evidence.
Watch their pea. It is always in their hand.
It’s worse than that, Bob.
The IPCC is less than a…
The IPCC is a criminal enterprise, nothing more, nothing less.
Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Criminals?
Insane Clown Posse
The IPCC is toast
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is Nothing More Than a…wait……..who?????
The IPCC is nothing more than a massive fraud to defraud humanity of it’s humanity.
Without the technology of the past 10,000 years, we will revert to cave person days but without natural instincts. of course, the ultra greens will never tell you that inNeolithic times, the planet supported around 7 million humans, not7 billion. The outright power the parent body of the IPCC ( the UN) wants will give us dehumanizing slavery as a bonus- so much for the freedom of the jungle.
As for if politicians really cared for humanity and the planet they would not be politicians. alternate answer- they would jump off the nearest cliff.
What those compliant in the grand scam do not realize is that they’re all being set up.There is only going to be one victor, which has been predetermined. The rest, like in all good James Bond plots, are going to be double crossed. Theymay think they are going.To be part of the New World Order ( old world orderon steroids) but they will be badly mistaken. The avowedly anti- capitalist UN will make sure of that. To Bill Gates another Bilderburgs- you WILL be betrayed, especially the compliant media.
As i recall there is no cliff in The District of Carnage tall enough to be one hundred percent sure of a total wipe out.
I propose a two hundred fifty foot tall artificial cliff next to Washington Monument .
It is all about money .
Those advocating global warming ,climate change or whatever the next monicker will be , are the barnacles clinging to the ship of government .
Those denying climate change are trying to scrape some of the barnacles from ship of government , thus protecting their financial interest from ‘ freeloaders ‘ .
Wheat production in 1950 was approximately 45 million bushels on some 60 million plus acres. In 2011 the production was approximately 60 million bushels on 44 million acres. Many factors were responsible , but i am sure favorable climate conditions was a factor. This is approximate, can’t find the charts.
Fossil fuels played a leading roll in research and input to modern methods of farming . How else would we have fed a population doubling in the sixty one years . Is that a bad thing in the eyes of climate change barnacles ?
If left to the global warmers we would still be in the era of Stalin and Mao .
No, it’s about money, power, status, and pride. Complex aspects of human behaviour can never be reduced to one variable. All attempts to do so miss vital aspects of the problem.
If global warming is so bad , i just have to ask this : Why do almost all winged creatures such as geese and ducks in northern hemisphere wing it south every winter ? and since modes of travel have become easy you can in include northern clime ‘ snowbirds ‘ also .
The IPCC is nothing more than The International Panel of Carbetbagging Careerists.
Carpetbagging
… living proof that scientists are not yet proof against ideologues who get control of their purse-strings. Money talks, and the IPCC is its mouthpiece.
“Nothing can come of nothing.”
William Shakespeare.
King Lear.
Wisdom from the Bard.
But what do you mean by it here?
Are you just trolling the atheists?
…a foetid puddle of syphilitic walrus sponge. Apologies to syphilitic walruses.
…A Parasitic circle of faith, within a narcissistic circular argument.
The IPCC is nothing more than a political party with its own agenda and ideology. Like Scientology it uses science to sound respectable.
A web poll by the ABC Australia on the IPCC’s statement “Is the InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change right that, on current fossil use ‘projectories’, we are heading for a global warming of four or five degrees by century’s end?” is currently running at [84% disagree, 16% agree]. Seems like the Ozzie public are more scientifically literate than the Ozzie ABC.
The IPCC will soon discover that the trouble with their climate agenda is that sooner or later they will run out of somebody else’s money.
Climate Science is actually Big Business.
$360 billion (0.5% of World GDP) is spent on research and alternative energy each year.
That is roughly the same size as the total worldwide sales of smartphones. ie. BIG Business.
Sceptical scientists are getting about 0.001% of that amount so it only pays to be on the pro-global-warming side where 99.999% of the money is. Its bought and paid for.
You’re right, the $4.9 trillion oil and gas industry (still excluding coal) don’t have enough money to support their horse in the race.
They don’t need to because there is real economic demand for their products.
There’s also real economic demand for leaded gasoline. Do you suggest we go back to using that?
Bill Illis,
As usual, sci-pol is thoroughly onfused, conflating the total of goods and srvices with the money spent flogging the repeatedly debunked carbon scare. But what else would we expect from a high school graduate?
You were just thoroughly debunked by Juan. Since you’re batting 0-1, it’s tough for me to start unequivocally trusting you over 831 math and science minds who used 9,200 peer-reviewed studies to come to their conclusions.
I’m sorry if you don’t like consequences because they’re kind of scary.
scipol,
Albert Einstein wrote that it did not require 100 scientists to prove him wrong, only one fact.
Despite my constant measurement requests, you have provided NO facts, only your bogus appeals to authority and your ridiculous claims that the high school grad ‘juan’ has ever prevailed in any debate; he hasn’t, and neither have you. That is one big FAIL.
I’m laughing at your high school level of immaturity. As usual, I suggest you read the WUWT archives for a few months to try and get up to speed on the IPCC — because right now, you are woefully inept. You just do not understand, so you take the corrupt IPCC’s word on faith alone.
Finally, your truly pathetic numbers are swamped by the OISM’s 32,000 American scientists who co-signed a short statement that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. That guts both the IPCC, and the really stupid alarmist claims of “consensus”. Because your cult has never been able to come anywhere near the OISM’s numbers.
Thus, the consensus [for whatever that is worth in science] is entirely on the side of skeptics.
@dbstealey
…
Incredible.
Out of the 10.6 million science graduates that are qualified to sign the OISM petition, 32,000 have signed it.
…
That’s an amazing 0.3% !!!!
..
Why haven’t the other 99.7% signed it?
…
But don’t worry, the consensus argument you are pushing doesn’t work .
And 75 were used to create the 97% consensus number. What is 75 of 10.6 million? What new math gets you to 97% there Juan?
juan, high school grads like you are easy peasy to out-argue:
Let’s just apply your ‘reasoning’ to any number of alarmist groups you like. What percentage are they out of the population? Where is your other 99.998%? Incredible is right; you are not credible.
The plain fact is that the OISM Petition destroyed Kyoto. It was sunk by that very large number of scientist co-signers. All of them have degrees in the hard sciences [compare that with certain high school commenters here], including more than 9,000 PhD’s.
You write: the consensus argument you are pushing doesn’t work .
That was exatly my point. Sorry it flew right over your head [but then, you’re only a high school graduate.] Consensus means nothing in science, as I pointed out. But your ilk always brings it up, because you’ve got nothing else. You certainly have no evidence or facts to support your global warming nonsense.
If you believe you have facts, then post just one fact: post an empirical, testable measurement quantifying the percentage of global warming caused by human activity, out of the total global warming of 0.7ºC. If you can post such a measurement, you win the debate. If you can’t, you lose. Simple as that. You can win the debate with one verifiable measurement.
Up to now you have tapdanced all around without answering. Now is your chance to show us you have any credibility. Post a verifiable measurement. Because that is what the entire debate is about.
The ball is in your court. I think you will flub it as usual. But I’m giving you another chance.
The answer to your question is simple. We are responsible for 100% of the change in radiative forcing since 1951 (natural change in radiative forcing over that time period was near 0 W/m2 per decade). We are responsible for .19 W/m2 to .4 W/m2 change per decade over that time period. The data and proof for that claim are in Chapter 8 of AR5, the place where I directed you earlier.
Since radiative forcing is the driver of climate change, we are 100% responsible for overall gains in temperature since 1951.
@scienceinpolitics November 6, 2014 at 11:32 am:
++++++++
It’s easy to quote political writings as if the words are your own thoughts. However,it’s more difficult to debate when you do not understand the science behind the words. Politics is not science. But, forget all that, and prove that you understand. Answer this question.
Since all the proof that man caused the temperature to rise, and that CO2 is the knob comes from the IPCC models; could you point us to the model that correctly projected the temperature response that was 100% caused by mankind? Oh – wait, we’ve seen the proof… and the models ran hot… way hot.
All I am asking is for you to find that nugget of proof that you understand the words you write down here.
1) From your tone, I feel like you mistakenly think I want global temperatures to warm dramatically
2) Surface temperature changes depend on a climate sensitivity coefficient. That climate sensitivity coefficient is usually given in the form “heat gained in response to a doubling in CO2″(because CO2 is undeniably understood in absence of feedbacks)
Right now, the IPCC has set climate sensitivity likely to be 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius per doubling of CO2. You’re right, .7 degrees Celsius corresponds to lower end of IPCC sensitivities. THIS IS A GOOD THING. Does absolve us from being guilty of causing warming? No.
@scienceinpolitics November 6, 2014 at 12:02 pm
You wrote: “1) From your tone, I feel like you mistakenly think I want global temperatures to warm dramatically”
No – I do not think you want this.
You wrote: “2) You’re right, .7 degrees Celsius corresponds to lower end of IPCC sensitivities. THIS IS A GOOD THING. Does absolve us from being guilty of causing warming? No.”
The only model that is close to where we are in reality, is the model that was programmed with “Best Case Scenario” we are NOT at Best Case Scenario, we are at Business as usual, and so the expected warming is double of what we have.
So thank you for helping to prove that the IPCC models are based on failed science. What you wrote is NOT possible based on what you now know.
I disagree with the notion of “failed science”. Science learns and adapts. The AR5 is well ahead of the AR3 simply because we know more.
I’m also unsure what you’re referring to when you say “what you wrote is not possible based on what you now know”. I’ve been active on this thread, so I’m not positive what claim you’re talking about.
I’m also worried about the oceans acidfying and sea levels rising. Can you help temper those fears?
You now know that the only model that came close to the observed temperatures is the model that was programmed specifically to show what temperatures would be if CO2 levels were cut way down, to several decades ago. So, if we achieved a significant reduction in CO2. However, CO2 has increased to “business as usual” in which case the models show we should have warmed twice as much.
You now know this… that the theory fails. CO2’s affect on climate is not as the IPCC’s models predict. That means FAIL.
And there you have the debate in a nut shell – HAS SET. Just one question. When did the IPCC get to “set” the laws of physics? As has been shown here by me (and by Bob Tisdale elsewhere), the IPCC does NO SCIENCE. They summarize other cherry picked work. And yet, they have the omnipotent power to SET physical laws.
How nice.
While I appreciate you pointing out my sloppiness, I do think you know what I meant. Can you give me your best climate sensitivity estimate (in terms of RF OR temperature change due to doubling of CO2)? This is a softball, WUWT has provided all the estimations on one end of the scale.
scienceinpolitics:
The existence of “the climate sensitivity” aka “the equilibrium climate sensitivity” (TECS). is at issue in your conflict with dbstealy. I’ve argued that TECS does not exist. You’ve not refuted my argument.Thus for you to insinuate that TECS does exist is not fair play.
AHA! You found me out! I am no mind reader. I can only comment on what you write, not what you think!
But you still want me to be a mind reader. First you declare that the IPCC can set the laws of physics, Now you want me to discern WHICH climate sensitivity you want to hear. So many to chose from, and no clue what you are thinking. Hmmm, now that is a real non-starter.
And lucy tries to move the goal posts again.
I gave you a softball. WUWT provides non alarmist measurements of climate sensitivity. All you had to do was transcribe one of them, and i dont have the expertise to refute them. I wouldve given you a list of climate sensitivity estimations. All are valid in my opinion if they pass peer review unless its like 6 bc that is impossible by historical observations
“Climate sensitivity” is, however, scientific nonsense.
It’s useful in the same way Newton’s theory of gravity is useful. Yes, there are more precise ways to do it. However, you can still make it to the moon.
scienceinpolitics: You wrote: “relies on politician-financed climate models” I would add a few adjectives like “best available” and “accurate over long periods”
+++++++++++
Regardless of your adjectives, the models are not accurate in the short term, and could not be accurate in longer terms based on their trajectory. They fail miserably to project climate. There are people here that understand why these models cannot work. IPCC does not attempt to model the climate system using phenomenon that affects the climate. For example, they do not include the ENSO process… and ENSO process has been shown to account for most of the changes in climate over the time span the IPCC has been in business.
The models are fatally flawed because IPPC’s charter is to prove CO2 is the climate knob. The models work by using CO2 for initial slight warming and then count on water vapor feedback as always being positive. Satellites show water vapor to be both positive and negative – leaning mostly towards negative feedback. So the IPCC has that part wrong based on observations, which is very inconvenient to them.
The Summary for Policy Makers is the most widely distributed portion of IPCC reports. They are prepared by politicians mostly… and their purpose is to drive policy to protect us from catastrophe. Read the summaries, read the statements coming out from the IPCC which get more and more severe as their time runs out. Listen to what Pachuri says himself! Here’s a recent link.
http://www.praguepost.com/world-news/42480-pachauri-we-really-need-action-on-climate-change-now
They need to create fear by any means necessary to survive. This is not science… it’s politics.
So once you agree here, then we are in full agreement!
scienceinpolitics:
To analogize Newton’s model of gravity to the climate sensitivity model is not apt. A system is controllable if and only if the mutual information of the associated model is non-nil.The mutual information of Newton’s model is non-nil. The mutual information of the climate sensitivity model is nil. For the purpose of controlling a space ship Newton’s model is useful. For the purpose of controlling Earth’s climate the climate sensitivity model is useless.
it was not a softball, it was a tarball. Sorry, I told you that I do not appreciate your moving goal posts. You are flailing all over the board trying to salvage some modicum of satisfaction after having been soundly thrashed in the debate. That I am not falling for your misdirections is plain to see. I am not sorry that I refuse to chase your white rabbits down your rabbit holes.
If you want to start a different discussion where perhaps you have a chance to regain some dignity, be my guest! And I will CHOOSE whether to participate or not. That is how it works,
A premise to the argument of scienceinpolitics is the proposition that “radiative forcing is the driver of climate change.” Rather than being true this proposition is untestable as the equilibrium temperature is unobservable. Thus, the winner of the debate between dbstealy and scienceinpolitics is: dbstealy!
Wrong. It is the driver by definition.
Adding energy to the Earth system warms the system. Losing energy cools it. Radiative forcing is the measure of energy flux.
The radiative flux or climate sensitivity claim has just been cut in half from what it used to be. CO2 is not energy…, it’s only hypothetically equated to a radiated flux. You’re confused
CO2’s relation to radiated flux is well understood in absence of feedback. Do we agree?
Do you agree that the IPCC’s models in fact are wrong. Do you know how they work? They apply an initial forcing based on CO2’s theoretical forcing. The models then use varying amount of positive feedbacks from mostly water vapor to get the warming. They mostly use positive feedbacks (at least in net they are all positive) and not negative feedback. That is why, as you know, that none of the models correctly come close to predicting the climate. The one exception is the model that was programmed to show the climate if we reduced CO2 drastically… if we did that, the model projected that the climate would be similar (albeit warmer still) than today. You know this right?
If you do know this, then why are you arguing?
I know that some of the newer models don’t input radiative forcing, but instead derive it.
I disagree that they are mistaken on radiative forcing. If you look at HadCrut4 data vs. CMIP5 data from 1951-2011, radiative forcing was spot on. Observed temperature change was about one standard deviation too low for that period. I’m looking at Box 9.2, Chapter 9, AR5.
I’m not claiming infallibility, you’ve made me research hard and I appreciate that.
Well stated Terry. I will clarify, they have misstated that CO2 is solely responsible for the derived forcing, hence the climate sensitivity of CO2. It’s off by at least 1/2 assuming the climate would otherwise be at statis, which I believe it is not.
I wrote: Mario Lento November 6, 2014 at 1:22 pm
Well stated Terry. I will clarify, they have misstated that CO2 is solely responsible for the derived forcing, hence the climate sensitivity of CO2. It’s off by at least 1/2 assuming the climate would otherwise be at statis, which I believe it is not.
CORRECTION – I meant scienceinpolitics, not Terry
scienceinpolitics:
In logical terms, that “radiative forcing is the driver of climate change” is an example of a proposition. A proposition may be true by definition in theology but not in science. If you know of a proof of this proposition please provide a citation to it.
In order to heat something you have to add energy to the system, no? An isolated body can’t heat itself without converting matter (or something else, theoretically) into energy?
scienceinpolitics:
Not exactly. To heat something you add heat to it. In thermodynamics, heat is one of three forms of energy. The other two are work and internal energy.
Okay, delta F (change in radiative forcing) is a measure of heat gained vs. heat lost, no?
scienceinpolitics:
According to IPCC AR4 ( http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-2.html ) the “radiative forcing” is “the change in net (down minus up) irradiance (solar plus longwave; in W m–2) at the tropopause after allowing for stratospheric temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium, but with surface and tropospheric temperatures and state held fixed at the unperturbed values’.” That electromagnetic energy is confined to moving in the up and down directions implies that the “radiative forcing” is a property of a one-dimensional model rather than the real world. In the real world, electromagnetic energy can and does move in many different directions including sideways. By adding the term “the” to the term “equilibrium climate sensitivity” climatologists imply that the equilibrium climate sensitivity is a property of the real world when it is only a property of a model. In doing so they mislead a lot of folks perhaps including you.
Horizontal motion doesn’t matter; all that matters is the summation of perpendicular motion. Vectors have x and y and z components. Really, it’d be easier to use spherical coordinates in this case.
Anyway, we are just interested in how much radiance goes in and out. If a particle is going diagonally, all that counts in our power measurement is the power vector along a perpendicular axis through the center of the earth.
I don’t have much experience teaching physics. Therefore I’m not sure this argument is going to go anywhere.
scienceinpolitics:
The problem under discussion lies within the discipline of heat transfer. In solving such a problem analytically one solves for the heat flux vector and temperature at every space-point. Though I’ve completed many a course in heat transfer and solved many a problem in heat transfer professionally I’m unaware of a theorem stating that the vertical component of the radiative heat transfer vector is the only one that matters. In fact, such a theorem would be impossible to prove for the horizontal components carry heat. Though the horizontal components do matter the magnitudes of them are confined to nil in a one-dimensional model.
The only “source” of energy that can “add energy” to the earth system is the Sun. period (ok, except for the .02% the earth generates internally). So now you are arguing the Sun is adding energy. And that helps your misdirection how? No one is debating the effect the sun has on the climate of the planet. At least not here so far. Stop moving the goal posts.
Yes, the Sun adds energy constantly. It’s more relevant how much energy we are preserving through the greenhouse effect.
Again, thank you for catching me being sloppy. If the Sun was solely responsible for the Earth’s temperature, the surface temperature of the Earth would be like -20 degrees Celsius (I have a feeling you’re going to ask me to look that up. I will look it up if you wish). The Earth has a blanket of greenhouse gases that traps and preserves heat. If there are more greenhouse gases, there is a thicker blanket. You probably don’t sleep underneath a trash bag. If more heat is preserved than in the past because we are adding thickness to the blanket, then the Earth gets warmer. This energy flux can be expressed in Watts per square meter.
I was very meticulous in saying “adding” energy. You were again sloppy, perhaps due to lack of sleep, perhaps due to ignorance. As I told you previously, I am not a mind reader, so I can only take you at what you write. Not what you imagine you write or think.
And you are still avoiding the question. And doing a lousy job of it. Now that your sock puppet is gone, I suspect you are feeling kind of lonely.
To the contrary, you have been delightfully entertaining
A shame you do not know the difference between entertainment and education. But then many do not know the difference between science an religion.
Non sequitur SIP. Your opinion is noted. However the request was for the actual data. Show us the numbers and the work. No one cares about your opinion. It has no basis in fact until you produce the numbers and calculations.
I want to know what you want to be shown. Help me help you. What claim have I or the IPCC made that you are disputing? If there’s no specific claim that you disagree with, I don’t know why we are arguing.
So it does seem you have a problem with the English language. I want you to provide the information that DBStealey requested. He has asked multiple times. You have yet to do so. Instead you keep moving the goal posts and pontificating on subjects you have no clue on.
So please, either tell us you have no clue, or produce the evidence.
If youre talking about AGW then I did provide such measurements
No you have not. Stop lying, it does not become you. You were asked for facts and measurements. You have yet to deliver on either.
@dbstealey
…
0.3% is a very very small number of science graduates.
…
10,600,000 – 32,000 = 10,568,000
…
Your “32,000” looks pretty small compared to 10,568,000
…
You would need 318,000 signers to get to 3.0 % which would be a 994% increase.
..
These numbers do not bode well for your “petition”
@juan November 6, 2014 at 10:53 am
…
0.3% is a very very small number of science graduates.
…
10,600,000 – 32,000 = 10,568,000
…
Your “32,000” looks pretty small compared to 10,568,000
++++++++++++
I think you’re confused. A poll does not count every single person in a study. But by your metric, the 97% of scientists claim is a poll of hand selected people. The actual number of people who answered the question, “does CO2 cause global warming” was 77 total people. You need to understand what a poll is, and it seems you do not.
On the other hand, the OR petition is in fact real people who’ve signed a petition. The same is not true of your 97% claim. You simply do not have a grasp of what you are talking about.
10,600,000 – 75 = 10,599,925.
To get to your 97%, you need 10,281,925 more. Which is a 13,709,233% increase over what you got.
@dbstealey
…
I am not deflecting anything. You brought up the subject of 32,000 petition signers. Try to stay on the subject YOU brought up.
juan says:
Your “32,000” looks pretty small compared to 10,568,000
Debating juan is like debating a talking head on TV. He simply doesn’t listen. As I pointed out, the OISM numbers are far more than the total of all scientists and engineers that the alarmist cult has ever been able to count. Comparing the petition signers to the population as a whole is pure misdirection. If it were not for his misdirection and deflection, ‘juan’ would have nothing to say.
Those 32,000 scientist [including more than 9,000 PhD’s], all with degrees in the hard sciences, are way more tha ‘juan’ could ever come up with, and that is the relevant comparison — not juan’s apples and watermelons comparison, which has nothing to do with reality.
Face it, high schoolboi, skeptic scientists [the only honest kind of scientists] far outnumber any group od rent-seeking nincompoops you can find. It’s not even a contest. You lose.
And as usual, more deflection and misdirection [“Look over there! A kitten!].
I did not request oil and gas numbers. I only requested a simple measurement. The whole debate is over whether human emissions cause global warming, therefore naturally the taxpaying public expects to see some numbers. Show us a number!
Instead, what we get here are clueless high school graduates like juan, who think they understand. But clearly they don’t, since they cannot post even one simple measurement. Not one! So they misdirect and deflect, always avoiding the question. They cannot post the one thing that would rescue their credibility: a measurement. So again, they lose the debate.
juan says:
I am not deflecting anything.
LOLOL!! The same guy who constantly deflects tries to deny it! The fact is that the OISM Petition is directly connected with the IPCC’s involvement with the failed Kyoto Protocol. This article concerns the IPCC. So juan’s usual reaction is expected.
@dbstealey
…
There are 10,568,000 people with degrees in sciences that have NOT signed the OISM petition.
…
Please stop using the “consensus” argument. The 32,000 signers do not represent anything.
And there are 10,599,925 that did not agree with the Doran Zimmerman Consensus number. 10,599,925 is greater than 10,568,000. At least in real world math.
Mario Lento,
In addition, the Oregon petition was signed only by American scientists. If it was open to the rest of the world, there would be about twenty times more co-signers.
They had to download the petition to co-sign it, then sign it, and affix postage, and mail it in. No emails were accepted, as the bogus “97%” meme allowed. Heck, we don’t even know if those 95 out of 97 “97%” respondents were real people! We are expected to take a cartoonist’s word for it — a cartoonist who has been repeatedly accused of dishonesty by numerous commenters here. Oh, and Lewandowsky’s worthless word for it, too.
I just love debating the OISM petition here. Whenever it comes up, I can totally bury the other side with facts. So far I have held back a lot of information. I’m just giving the clueless ‘juan’ plenty of rope, hoping he takes the bait… ☺
We all agree consensus does not equal fact. Agreement. Why are we arguing about that point? Theoretically we are all on the same team, trying to understand the climate better, right? So why not just agree to agree consensus does not equal fact?
SIP – Fastest retreat outside of the Italian Army’s debacle in Albania in 1940!
I think you are more interested in antagonizing than you are proving anything.
I am more interested in separating the wheat from the chaff. So far, all I have found in your posts are chaff. You decided you did not like to be corrected when I corrected you on several errors, and so decided you had to browbeat me into submission. Perhaps you are finding out I do not browbeat.
You cant even find one falsifiable claim in the AR5, and youre mad at me for defending it
scienceinpolitics:
If AR5 makes no falsifiable claims then none of the claims that are made by it are scientific.
They are falsifiable if you find systematic errors. Im just willing to bet phil hasnt done that. He seems almost close minded to it.
And here we have another “tar-baby” comment, where the wiley SIP seeks to trap the unwary into a game of “Nuh, uh!”. Hoping to then divert the discussion once more with non sequiturs and irrelevancies.
Alas, I really do not care what you opinion is. I prefer to remain with the facts. I stated my fact at the beginning (or near enough). You have YET to even try to refute or rebut it. Until you concede that fact (or at least offer a rebuttal), the conversation stays on point. I think they call that a whiff on your part.
Tsk, Tsk, you silly boy! I am not mad at you. I could not care less about you. Nor have I even delved into the “false claims” of any AR. So that is just another attempt by you to move the goal posts. Why you feel you need to move the goal posts when you are shown to be wrong is simply the actions of an immature person.
If you want to pick apart the claims of any AR, we can start a new thread. But until the current one is resolved, you will be arguing with yourself. As you are now.
Hi dbstealey:
Much of Juan’s argument is that he does not understand what a poll is, nor does he understand how to interpret statistics in the context of the discussion. He’s all over the place.
I always assume people want to seek truth. When they argue irrationally rather than attempt to understand, the learning stops. I just do not understand why this has to be so hard dealing with people who refuse to open their eyes and see what’s going on.
@dbstealey
…
If there are over 10 and a half million qualified signers in the USA, how many qualified signers would there be in the entire world if they allowed foreign signatures?
@Mario
…
We are not discussing polls here.
Just numbers.
The significance of 32,000 out of 10,600,000.
It is a miniscule proportion.
This is not statistics either. It’s just the fact that Mr Stealey seems to think that 32,000 is a big number when it really isn’t considering the population of qualified signatories. It represents only 0.3%.
Juan: Slow down and try to follow me. You wrote: “The significance of 32,000 out of 10,600,000. It is a miniscule proportion.”
Stop and think about the number that represents your claim, that 97% of scientists agree. Your claim is based on 77 selected people, of which 75 out of 77 derives the so called consensus. So, in your own terms, 77 is much smaller.
and 75 = .0007% of 10,600,000. So how do you make that 97%?
Here is ‘juan’, deflecting again:
There are 10,568,000 people with degrees in sciences that have NOT signed the OISM petition.
Misdirection, as I have repeatedly pointed out. The comparison is between the number of co-signers of the OISM Petition, and ALL signers of ALL similar alarmist petitions.
There is no comparing co-signers with any arbitrary population. That is simply desperation — a feeling that juan is mighty familiar with, since he has lost every debate point he’s tried.
So now, juan invents a bogus ‘comaprison’, trying to equate the OISM numbers with the total population. If that was necessary, polling firms like Gallup would never be able to take a random 3% sample, and show what the overwhelming majority think about an issue.
But no one has ever accused juan of having common sense. He is locked into a losing argument, and it is my pleasure to deconstruct it for him.
juan says:
Please stop using the “consensus” argument.
LOLOL!! The “consensus” argument is your argument! It has always been the crutch the alarmist crowd relies on when all their other arguments fail. Debunking the so-called “consensus” is the duty of skeptics, and we do it with pleasure because it’s fun ‘n’ easy! And we like to see high school graduates like juan squirm. That’s fun, too.
Finally, measurement-free juan says:
The 32,000 signers do not represent anything.
Heh. And War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength, etc.
juan me boi, what those 32,000 professional co-signers represent is the overwhelming position of most American scientists. You just don’t like the fact that your side is incapable of coming anywhere near to those astronomical numbers. Thus, your science suckage continues… ☺
@dbstealey
..
” 32,000 professional co-signers represent is the overwhelming position of most American scientists”
…
32,000 / 10,600,000 = 0.003 or 0.3%
…
When did 0.3% become “overwhelming?”
Since when did .0007% become 97%?
juan, I am beginning to suspect you are beckleybud, since you argue incessantly despite every argument you make being thoroughly debunked. For example, Mario and I have easily debunked your really stupid fixation on wrong/inappropriate numbers. But you still post them, always digging your hole deeper.
Next, as a taxpayer I have a serious question for you:
Are you gainfully employed? It doesn’t seem so, since according to your time stamps you comment around the clock, 24/7. Are you are some kind of public welfare assistance [or are you cheating you employer by commenting on blogs instead of doing the work you’re paid to do]?
So really, how do you explain your non-stop commenting? aside from the painful spanking you’re getting here, how is it you can comment incessantly?
You should really go for a college degree, even if it’s in the humanities. Who wants to employ a high school graduate? But if you’re too lazy to study, you could always learn a lot by reading the WUWT archives. You really do need to get up to speed on the subject.
@dbstealey
.
Thank you so much for your ad-hominem attack.
It is very enjoyable to prove you wrong and see you resort to using it as your fallback position.
Once you start calling someone names, and posting slurs against them, it’s potent evidence that you have lost the argument.
Sorry Juan, you have proven nothing. To prove something, you need facts. So far, you have failed to produce any facts germane to DB’s requests. We are still waiting for you to do so.
@juan:
Truth is an ultimate defense, thus it is not ad-hom, but an accurate label. And I have to laugh at you for always proclaiming how you ‘won’ the debate, when you are incapable of posting even one simple measurement.
Only chumps self-proclaim like that. As I’ve pointed out, you and your high school sidekick are the 2-chump peanut gallery. It is amusing to watch you self-proclaim, but it means nothing. Get three or four other readers to take your side, and you will have some credibility. Good luck with that.
And you never answered this taxpayer’s question: how is it you can comment here 24/7, around the clock?? Are you on government assistance? Are you a bum? I’m retired after a 30+ year carreer in a closely related scientific field, working in a Metrology lab, and I take care of an invalid at home. But you? We know you’re only a high school grad. Nothing wrong with that — if you’re under 23. But really, how is it you have all that free time? How can you emit your nonsense pixels around the clock? Are you gainfully employed? Or are you on the dole?
@Mario
…
Could you please do me a favor?
Could you post a link to my comment that makes any mention of “97% of scientists”
…
I don’t recall mentioning that, but I’m sure you know where I said it.
Juan: You’re arguing about a consensus of scientists. That is the origin of the term.
Juan:
This is a science blog. You’re not making much sense with your statements related to the science –specifically your back and forth with dbstealey. The typical poster here is educated and comes to learn or debate based on science. I’m here to learn from those who have studied the science and can explain it.
I trust you wish to seek truth, rather than argue around in circles without any gain in knowledge. Those of us who are understand the physics and or science and politics behind the claims can have spirited debates, but the object is to find reason and truth.
It is quite easy for most of us to see you’re not making any sense. That’s fine, if you don’t understand. If you lack the background to understand, people will help you out here. But when you lack the knowledge and yet argue without a basis in fact, people are going to get frustrated with you. I see this happening, and it is not productive.
@Mario
…
Could do me another favor?
..
Could you please ask Mr. Stealey to dispense with the name calling?
..
Thank you in advance.
Hi Juan: I will not call you names.. so between the two of us, you have a 50% reduction already. 🙂
Mr. Lento cannot do the impossible. Your claims of harm are ill founded. Mr. Stealey’s choice of words may not be diplomatic, but asking questions or attacking your arguments are NOT ad hominems. Again, learn the meaning of terms before using them.
You were discussing a consensus with dbstealey. You did not claim, as I thought, that there is a consensus. But on the subject of that, I assumed you believed a consensus was that most scientists agreed. I assume this because you cite the IPCC, who claim there is consensus. Anyway, there is a poll, that I am sure you are familiar with, that 97% of scientists agree that man is causing CAGW.
Sorry for the confusion. I trust, otherwise that what I wrote makes sense.
Yes – that was @scienceinpolitics… dam I got you two confused.
(Snip. Since you used another commentator’s name, you may take a cooling off period. Future comments will be snipped for the time being. ~mod.)
The angle at which they enter or exit matters though. Thats why photons dont impart as much energy at the poles; their momentum is not perpendicular to the surface of the earth
@juan,
Other folks say the same things about you that I do. For example:
Much of juan’s argument is that he does not understand what a poll is, nor does he understand how to interpret statistics in the context of the discussion. He’s all over the place…. as you know, that none of the models correctly come close to predicting the climate… the IPCC models are based on failed science. What you wrote is NOT possible based on what you now know… You’re confused… If you do know this, then why are you arguing?… the OR petition is in fact real people who’ve signed a petition. The same is not true of your 97% claim… You must not be aware that burning wood releases a lot more CO2 than burning natural gas, about twice as much, in fact… You simply do not have a grasp of what you are talking about… Juan: This is a science blog. You’re not making much sense with your statements related to the science… It is quite easy for most of us to see you’re not making any sense… If you lack the background to understand, people will help you out here. But when you lack the knowledge and yet argue without a basis in fact, people are going to get frustrated with you. I see this happening, and it is not productive….
And so on. That’s only a partial list. For some reason you keep whining about your hurt feelings, so I will tell you exactly how to completely avoid that:
Either:
a) Post a measurement of AGW, as I have asked about a dozen times now, or
b) Admit that there are no such measurements
This is the crux of the whole debate. It is the central question. But for some reason, you keep avoiding it [and not just you, but your sidekick polysci, too]. Whenever you are asked a hard question you dissemble, change the subject, or otherwise avoid it.
As someone stated above, people are going to get frustrated with your comments because you are all over the map. You never answer a question, even though you constantly ask questions. You keep re-stating certifiable nonsense about what petition numbers mean, when it is obvious to the most casual observer that OISM cannot be compared with some vague population numbers, as you continually try to do. If you want to compare, then compare the OISM numbers to whatever alarmist co-signers’ numbers you can find; that is the honest way to compare numbers. And so on.
You don’t get respect here because you argue in bad faith. When I am proven wrong I admit it. That has happened a number of times over the years. But you have never proven me wrong here; conversely, I have repeatedly proven you to be wrong. You’re like the California woman who ran for office and lost by about thirty points, but she wouldn’t concede — she refused to do the stand-up thing and admit she lost.
You act the same, always changing the subject when you’re cornered — and you are cornered a lot. So of course you won’t get the respect you crave.
We respect people who are interested in knowledge, instead of creating incessant running arguments. Knowledge is what it’s all about. My entire argument is over the complete absence of any verifiable measurements. But rather than simply admit there are no such measurements [which would get you a lot of respect], you have posted dozens upon dozens of comments, always acting as the slippery eel, and never manning up and admitting it when you can’t answer a direct question.
if you want respect, you will have to start debating in good faith for a change. If you won’t, then stop the complaining about your hurt feelings. Nobody cares but you. We care about knowledge here, and you should too. That means admitting when you’re wrong, and admitting it when you haven’t got an answer.
Good dbstealey. You are forcing people who make arguments based on belief, to actually defend their beliefs. What they do is regurgitate claims from the political science aspect of AGW, and there is not factual basis to back them up.
Skeptics are skeptical because we don’t spread opinions or beliefs, per se, but instead question claims and try to understand the facts to back up those claims.
So when an AWG believer is faced with hard questions, like your asking, they have nothing.
@dbstealey
…
You posted that other people have said to me, “You must not be aware that burning wood releases a lot more CO2 than burning natural gas, about twice as much”
…
I applaud you for your attempt at intimidation, however you are driving down a dead end street.
..
Where I live there is a forest behind my property.
In this forest, a lot of trees die and fall down.
When a tree falls down it rots.
When a dead tree rots it releases CO2.
….
I happen to have the luxury of being able to scavenge the dead, fallen trees for firewood.
I use them to heat my home. If these dead trees were left to rot, they would release the same amount of CO2 as I release burning them for heat.
…
So, guess what.
..
The amount of CO2 release is the same if the tree rots or if I burn it for heat.
….
If I burn the dead wood for heat, I don’ need to burn heating oil for heat.
…
Using biomass for heating is carbon neutral. I’m sure you understand that fact. If you don’t understand this, then you need to talk to someone that does.
…
PS ……you are the only person that is frustrated by my comments, any other person doesn’t seem to have an issue with me. You keep asking some irrelevant question that does not apply to the discussion at hand, and are attempting to deflect to it. Your OISM petition is a joke, and your understanding of the Younger Dryas event is seriously lacking.
I’m not here to gain “respect”….I’m here to put your feet to the fire. Your talking points have serious flaws, and you even post a graph with no labels.
I am interested in gaining knowledge, but I avoid people that resort to name calling when they refuse to admit to the error in their thinking, logic and facts.
Hopefully you will learn to accept the fact that there are people that know a lot more than you know, and that when they point out to you that you are wrong, you will learn not to call them names, or post slurs against them. People like you that ridicule others that have opinions adverse to yours are one reason this blog is subject to such ridicule. Your arrogance is appalling, and I will not hesitate to post facts that show you to be less than knowledgeable about reality.
Yet that chain saw does not burn wood.
@philjourdan: I am mostly responding to our friend Juan. (I am not using negative name calling 🙂
There is a certain truth to that chain saw notion, Phil, that counters in equal weight to Juan’s claim. I like it!
Juan could use an axe, but then the calories he burns need to be replaced or weight loss occurs. Losing weight is also a CO2 producer… and unless that weight loss led to some useful work being done – it’s pure greenhouse Armageddon. We just might need to regulate weight loss activity as it will scorch the earth. Image if 1Billion people lost 50 pounds and what that would do to “pollute” the atmosphere with bad breath and all that polluting CO2. /sarc And then there the limitation of about 1kWh of work people can get out of a days hard work and the cost of food to sustain that energy. I digress.
The idea, though, of burning dead rotting wood is feasible in some limited cases, it does not burn cleanly or as efficiently as a power plant can burn gas or coal and is not feasible (does not scale) for use in anything but limited cases. And if we scaled this up, there would be significant real pollution and all those doctors’ bills treating the asthma and other maladies that follow; whereas efficient burning with mostly CO2 and H2O released produces little pollution… and benefits life on earth in almost every conceivable way including making food cost less to grow.
So Juan’s argument, while clever, is only that. It does not advance the discussion in any sort of practical way.
juan sez:
…you are the only person that is frustrated by my comments, any other person doesn’t seem to have an issue with me.
Wrong, as usual, ‘juan’. How can one jamoke be so wrong, so often?? He claims no one else is frustrated with his refusal to debate in good faith. This is just one of many similar comments by other commenters, directed at ‘juan’:
… when you lack the knowledge and yet argue without a basis in fact, people are going to get frustrated with you. I see this happening, and it is not productive…
juan doesn’t even remember what has been said about him in this thread. There are plenty of similar derogatory comments about ‘juan’, but I don’t have the inclination to collate them all. See my recent comment above quite a few similar examples.
‘juan’ badmouths this excellent site, saying …one reason this blog is subject to such ridicule. ‘juan’ me boi, this site is too good for you. It is the internet’s Best Science site for three years running. The fact that you insult it and everyone else here is reason enough to disrespect your comments.
‘juan’ says: I’m not here to gain “respect”. Good thing, too, because it wouldn’t work. I’ve explainted to ‘juan’ in detail how to get readers to respect him. But as he admits, he’s not here for respect. That’s good; that way he won’t be disappointed.
Next, ‘juan’ says:
I am interested in gaining knowledge
Patently false. ‘juan’ is here to argue, no more and no less. He is a climate alarmist True Believer, and he doesn’t like it when folks question his religious beliefs. And when he argues, which is incessantly, he never responds to other readers’ questions. Rather, he constantly deflects.
‘juan’ says:
Hopefully you will learn to accept the fact that there are people that know a lot more than you know,…
There always are. But ‘juan’ is not one of them. Not even close.
Finally, ‘juan’ continues his incessant whining, complaining that he is not treated with kid gloves. Yet at the same time, ‘juan’ regularly makes comments such as this:
You would be a total failure as a scientific researcher… and similar insults — which roll off me like water off a duck’s back. Because I just consider the source: a high school graduate who doesn’t work for a living. Put me out to pasture the day I respect someone like that.
I don’t snivel about insults like ‘juan’ does. Why not? Because like others, I don’t care about juan’s opinions. They mean less than nothing to me. OTOH, ‘juan’ desperately craves respect, and he complains because he doesn’t get any here. So I have helpfully explained how ‘juan’ can get respect: simply man up and answer a couple of straightforward questions. Quit deflecting, and misrepresenting. Stop hiding out, and running away from having to answer questions. In short: man up. The ridicule will stop.
But ‘juan’ wants things only his way. So if that’s the way he continues to respond here, then he had better get ready to do a lot more complaining. If ‘juan’ continues with his refusal to argue in good faith, he’s going to have a lot more to complain about.
Now, about that measurement question…
[snip]
Back to the issue at hand.
The OISM petition represents only 0.3% of the qualified signers.
Why haven’t the 99.7% signed this petition?
juan:
Regarding the OISM petition, what argument are you trying to make?
That is called a self fulfilling stupid statement. This site is posting your comments. How many of DB’s are posted on alarmist’s sites? (hint – you have more fingers).
Why would you post something that is blatantly a lie and demonstrably stupid by your posting it?
@dbstealey
…
CONGRADULATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
…
Your last post did not include calling me names.
..
Progress is slow, but at least you have stopped that offensive behavior.
…
Kudos
Mr Oldberg.
…
With regard to the OISM petition, 32,000 signatures out of a population of 10.6 million qualified signatories only represents about 0.3%
In other words, the number of people that have signed the petition is insignificant.
‘juan’:
Answer this question, or I’ll start again:
Can you post even one measurement quantifying the percentage of human-caused global warming, out of the total of ≈0.7º of total warming?
If you cannot find such a measurement, that’s OK. But of course, you know the follow-up…
Terry Oldberg,
Excellent question. ‘juan’ is deflecting again.
I have patiently explained to him that the legitimate comparison is between the OISM numbers and any other co-signer numbers from the alarmist side that ‘juan’ can find.
But he constantly deflects, trying to compare the number of OISM co-signers with the total population.
As I’m sure you know, that is not a legitimate comparison. It is deliberately deceptive. ‘juan’ thinks he’s fooling people here. But he’s not, he is only exposing his simpleminded mendacity.
@dbstealey
…
I’m so so sorry.
I apologize for mistakenly giving you “kudos” for refraining from name calling.
I missed your use of the term ” jamoke ”
…
Maybe your next post will be better.
@dbstealey
Your deflection away from the topic of the OISM petition is annoying.
…
Please try to stay on topic and refrain from deflection
…
32,000 signatories out of 10.6 million is 0.3%
75 is .0007% so 32k is 427 times the size.
‘juan’,
Like most things you opine on, I will bet you don’t know what a ‘jamoke’ is.
As you furiously search the internet to be able to pretend you know, I’ll remind you that all you had to do to get some modicum of respect here is to either post a measurement of AGW, or admit you don’t have one.
So no one cares about whether you’re sorry or not. Either put up, as they say, or shut up.
You can’t do either one, can you?
‘juan’,
Where I come from, a jamoke is someone who wastes his time all day in a coffee shop, passing the time and not amounting to much.
So, why won’t you answer the question?
And I note that you’re still commenting around the clock.
Terry Oldberg,
I don’t understand it, but WordPress seems to be misplacing comments. I just noticed your last post, which was out of order. Maybe you could re-submit it, because it was a good comment.
dbstealy:
Thanks for connecting. Anthony’s new software orders comments in a manner that orders comments by thread of conversation as well as chronological order. The old software ordered them chronologically.
My latest comment, dated Nov. 6 at 7:13 pm, is addressed to juan. The comment is:
“Thanks. The sample of 32,000 could be described as highly biased leaving us in the dark about the opinions of scientists in general.” Hopefully this comment will lead to discussion of how scientific issues are resolved. They are not resolved by a majority of votes or by consensus but why this is so is not obvious.
‘juan’,
If deflecting is the best you can do, you need help.☺
@dbstealey
…
LMAO…….there’s no deflection. This is about OISM and you haven’t addressed the 0.3% number.
(Apologies Mr. Oldberg. Commenter juan used your name here. ~ mod.)
Terry Oldberg,
There were about 32,000 American scientists who co-signed a statement saying that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. They do not claim to represent all scientists. But the number is so much higher than any opposing statement, that it must carry some weight.
If there were 32,000 alarmist scientists opposing what the skeptics co-signed, then it would be fair to argue that the questiuon is unresolved. But it is so very lopsided that anything from the alarmist side must be viewed with a jaundiced eye.
The alarmist crowd has had since 1997 to gather enough signatures to equal the OISM numbers, and they have tried repeatedly. But they have not come close.
It means something when a scientist co-signs a statement like that. The easy way out would be to go with the funding. But they stood up to be counted, and the alarmist crowd has been unable to get even 10% of the OISM’s numbers.
Furthermore, every OISM signatory was vetted, and their names appear on the site. Every one of them has a degree or more in the hard sciences, including more than 9,000 PhD’s. Any ‘appeal to authority’ by the alarmist crowd must contend with thoise numbers.
Did answer your question? If not, make it clearer and I’ll try to be more concise.
dbstealey:
I was unaware of the opposition’s inability to gather 10% as many signatures. Thanks for the news.
@ur momisugly dbstealey November 6, 2014 at 7:25 pm
“Where I come from, a jamoke is someone who wastes his time all day in a coffee shop, passing the time and not amounting to much.”
I like the Baskin Robins Jamoke Almond Fudge, which has been renamed to Jamoca Almond Fudge… mmmmm!
Do Mr. Stealey and Mr. Lento stand by the original premise of the article,
“The IPCC is nothing more than a report-writing entity:
that was created by politicians for use by politicians to achieve an political-agenda-driven goal
that relies on politician-financed climate models that were designed, and continue to operate, with the single-minded intent of showing bad things will happen in the future if we continue to consume fossil fuels.”?
Specifically, “single-minded intent”?
I support the premise of this article. What say you?
Ok, I ask for the purpose of learning and getting on the same page. Here’s my take:
“created by politicians” isn’t a jab. So were child labor laws.
“use by politicians” again, isn’t a jab. Any data can be used by politicians. I hope politicians use as much peer-reviewed information as they can.
“to achieve a political agenda driven goal” seems absurd on the surface, but I don’t think you can prove that premise wrong or right. One can always argue for ulterior motives, just like the 9/11 conspiracy. I think the data provided and referenced in the AR5 speaks for itself.
“relies on politician-financed climate models” I would add a few adjectives like “best available” and “accurate over long periods”
“single-minded intent to show that bad things will happen” can be coupled with “political agenda driven goal”. So, for one, I think Bob is being redundant.
Redundancy aside, that’s the only thing I disagree with. I would replace the phrase “bad things will happen” with “what things will happen”. What things will happen (on long time scales) just happen to be bad.
Since when did the creation of a law, become a scientific endeavor?
To save an extra click, I’m going to start commenting at the bottom of the thread. I’ve been away for awile, and I notice that Mr Political science has been mentioning me. It is so fun ‘n’ easy deconstructing his pseudo-science that I will resume there.
Glad youre enjoying it too
SiP,
There is a question for you at the bottom of this thread.
scienceinpolitics: You wrote: “relies on politician-financed climate models” I would add a few adjectives like “best available” and “accurate over long periods”
+++++++++++
Regardless of your adjectives, the models are not accurate in the short term, and could not be accurate in longer terms based on their trajectory. They fail miserably to project climate. There are people here that understand why these models cannot work. IPCC does not attempt to model the climate system using phenomenon that affects the climate. For example, they do not include the ENSO process… and ENSO process has been shown to account for most of the changes in climate over the time span the IPCC has been in business.
The models are fatally flawed because IPPC’s charter is to prove CO2 is the climate knob. The models work by using CO2 for initial slight warming and then count on water vapor feedback as always being positive. Satellites show water vapor to be both positive and negative – leaning mostly towards negative feedback. So the IPCC has that part wrong based on observations, which is very inconvenient to them.
The Summary for Policy Makers is the most widely distributed portion of IPCC reports. They are prepared by politicians mostly… and their purpose is to drive policy to protect us from catastrophe. Read the summaries, read the statements coming out from the IPCC which get more and more severe as their time runs out. Listen to what Pachuri says himself! Here’s a recent link.
http://www.praguepost.com/world-news/42480-pachauri-we-really-need-action-on-climate-change-now
They need to create fear by any means necessary to survive. This is not science… it’s politics.
So once you agree here, then we are in full agreement!
scienceinpolitics says:
You cant even find one falsifiable claim in the AR5…
Has the IPCC made any falsifiable statements? Please give us an example… If you’re still around. Maybe ‘juan’ got caught being unethical, but you are still welcome, and possibly you can be educated. There’s always hope, and we’re here to help. Really.
Alternative energy is separate from climate science. It is incorrect to lump the two together. Some of the spending on alternative energy is “investment” and generates returns.
Subsidy farming?
Oh!?
Ever invest any real money in ‘alternative energy’ that did not benefit from subsidies that actually returned a profit?
Now about your first claim that “Alternative energy is separate from climate science.”:
If your claim is correct than ‘alternative energy’ would include any possible new energy source, including fossil fuel sourced technologies.
The moment there is an insistence that ‘alternative energy’ be non-CO2 emission technology, one must include the source of that rule as a driver. The source for that rule is the catastrophic climate science club who are desperately trying to demonize CO2.
@ATheoK
..
Have I invested any real money in alternative energy?
…
Is buying a chainsaw to cut firewood considered an investment in “alternative energy”? If so, yes I have.
Then you have not Juan. Firewood is not an ‘alternative’ energy that prevents CO2 from entering the atmosphere. Alarmists and governments have banned wood fires in many places and the EPA requires new wood stoves to meet a very difficult standard; older wood stoves that do not meet the standard are not to be sold, bartered or given.
Is buying a chainsaw to cut firewood considered an investment in “alternative energy”?
No.
Chainsaws run on fossil fuels Juan. Use a hand saw.
Wrong Juan:
Climate (political) Science and Alternative Energy are intimately connected.
Something that guarantees a negative return on investment is not an investment. PV Solar and Wind Turbines cost substantially more and require an increase in energy cost as a result. Skyrocketing prices is the result, as well as a lower standard of living, especially for the poorest.
Climate Science has been corrupted by politics to create fear of CO2. This has lead to the government taking MY money, and paying people to build these things that no one would be able to make profitably with my money.
Juan,
You must not be aware that burning wood releases a lot more CO2 than burning natural gas, about twice as much, in fact:
http://www.volker-quaschning.de/datserv/CO2-spez/index_e.php
If you want to go Green, use a natural gas furnace rather than a wood stove.
The UN and its IPCC are nothing but a cesspool of leftist corruption. The left have all their eggs in the man made global warming / climate change scam.
Why do you say leftists? There are lots of Republicans that believe that AGW is real – examples include Jon Huntsman, George Schultz and Colin Powell.
Their involvement & investment in “Green Energy” & nuclear power give them financial motivations for “believing” that.
A few RINOs claim to believe that man-made global warming is occurring & a problem, but the vast majority of Leftists have embraced the religion of CACA as a vehicle for control of society & a source of tax receipts.