Fireworks during live broadcast between climate change advocate David Appell and meteorologist Chuck Wiese
My friend, Lars Larson, who runs a nationally syndicated radio program called the Lars Larson Show decided to stage a debate between two people who are regulars here at WUWT. One uses his real name to comment here, the other also used his real name in the past, got banned for bad behavior, and then started using fake names and fake email addresses (by his own admission) to get his points across here. I’ll let you guess which is which.
From the show’s website:
Weather Wars: A Climate Change Debate From The Bloodworks Live Studio
Today, we feature a one hour debate live from 1 pm – 2 pm PT between two of the most vocal advocates for and against the argument that human beings have caused “global warming” or “climate change” and that humans must cure it by changing our behavior. We will hear from:
David Appell Ph.D.
David is a science writer who makes his home here in the northwest and writes frequently about today’s subject. He has a Ph.D. in physics and math and has worked as a systems engineer and a software developer. Mr. Appell has written to me often and challenged some of the things I say on the radio so I invited him to come here and debate today’s subject.
Chuck Wiese
Chuck is a meteorologist trained at Oregon State University, he’s a retired airline pilot and he’s a fervent critic of anthropogenic global warming and more recently what’s come to be called “climate change”. Chuck and Lars have been friends a long time and Lars watched him on television as a kid, when, Chuck, as a teenager was one of the youngest weather forecasters on television here in the Northwest.
Watch the debate below (Live video starts at the 8 minute mark):
Things got heated between Chuck and David during a commercial break:
And it didn’t stop when the debate ended:
And even when the gentlemen were on there way out: (WUWT is mentioned)
UPDATE 6/30/2018:
The last three videos showing David Appell in heated arguments with Chuck Weise were taken between segments and after the show ended. Apparently, there was supposed to be some legal waiver offered by the radio show producer and signed by Appell, [which didn’t happen according to Appell] so Mr. Appell requested that the videos be removed from YouTube by the Lars Larson show.
As readers who saw the videos know, the videos did not reflect well on Mr. Appell due to the behavior he exhibited, so I can certainly understand why he wanted them removed. But the Internet never forgets, and copies exist, so perhaps that will get sorted out in the future.
Anthony
UPDATE: 7/1/18 10:45 PM PST
In the comment thread, I made this prediction after putting David Appell on moderation because he started posting on his blog that I’m a “liar” for having an opinion about those removed videos.
Prediction: your ego won’t let you walk away, so you’ll write something else nasty about me, and then as you’ve done before by your own admission, you’ll try to comment here using fake name, fake emails, and spoofed IP addresses.
And I was right about the first sentence so far. He’s posted another “boo-hoo Watts is mean to me” missive on his blog, saying he left me a voice message asking that I remove the comment about his asking the Lars Larson show to remove those videos. Then when I didn’t return his phone call in a time period of his choosing (he left it on my office phone Saturday at 11AM) he writes this missive where he claims I “didn’t return his call”. Well, David, that’s wrong, I couldn’t.
Two reasons:
- I wasn’t in the office this weekend, I was out of town. I have a life. I don’t sit in front of the computer all weekend like you apparently have. The only reason I got the message on a Sunday night was because I came in to check on the A/C system Since we hit a high of 106F here today. Otherwise I would have got the message Monday morning.
- The message itself was so badly spoken, that even the closed caption voice to text live Interpreter (Caption Call Phone) I use do to my hearing loss couldn’t even make it out. So not even sure what the message was in entirety, I got bits and pieces of it.
I recall once when I called David, he made a post about it complaining that I left him a voice message. He was outraged.
The rules of the interaction change by the minute when dealing with Appell, and interaction with him never ends well as Chuck Weise, Lars Larson, and thousands of readers have discovered in this thread. The whole episode reflects very badly on Mr. Appell, and I’m reminded of sage advice from a computer that learned how to deal with impossible scenarios:
Winning move: Don’t engage David Appell
Chuck and David,
Thanks for agreeing to appear on Lars’ show, and to him for arranging it.
I hope that all commenters will be respectful enough to continue sharing their viewpoints on WUWT ad infinitum, without trying to bite ’em.
What’s so wrong with a little snack before meal time?
I find it hard to believe that Appell has a has a PhD in physics and math. I have noticed for a long time that he spouts unscientific nonsense.
Prove it.
Prove AGW/CAGW.
@ur momisugly DA …prove what? Bratby’s comment does not state that you do not hold a degree. The implication is that after reading your comments one would doubt that you actually hold a degree.
David stated he never worked in the field of his PhD. He decided a writer’s life was for him. Lazy?
Cue a whole lot of abuse directed at Appell.
But it’s the sceptics who are the good guys.
Hilarious.
Pointing out glaring error isn’t abuse.
Name calling isn’t warranted, but CACA advocates are the first and worst offenders on that score.
What “glaring error,” specifically?
Too many to mention all. But for starters how about the fact that under riding CO2, Earth cooled dramatically from the 1940s until 1977, when the PDO flipped. Then it accidentally warmed for about 20 years, thanks to higher solar activity, until the super El Nino of 1998 blew that accumulated heat off, followed by 20 years of flat T, until the super El Nino of 2016, since which Earth had been rapidly cooling.
Again, I note, all these ups, downs and sideways under steadily rising CO2. Hence there is no observed correlation between more CO2 and warmer air.
That’s not a ‘glaring error’. I’d say you represented a badly grounded interpretation of why the temperatures rose after 1950. There’s no question that ocean circulation very much controls temperature at a short scale. There is still a long-term warming that many attribute mostly to rising CO2.
I guess you could find more glaring errors than that.
Temps didn’t start rising again until the end of the 1970s, a glaring error on your part.
Atmospheric CO2 increased by around 74 ppm over the course of the 40 years of the satellite record. In that same period global temps have risen around 0.5C. Some portion, if not most or all, of that rise is natural. That doesn’t say much for the power of CO2 to warm the planet, imo.
We were, according to the best science of the time, entering an ice age by the 1970’s.
The current climate consensus has worked hard to lie about that, but the evidence is there.
It’s the internet. It’s not for wimps. A bit of verbal (typed) abuse is harmless. Besides, it brings some levity to a debate that David and his mates take far too seriously.
As I asked Chuck (esp) and Lars, what natural factors are causing modern warming?
Neither had an answer. Does anyone here?
(Include data and proof, or don’t bother.)
That is a another lie, Appell. I stated specifically on the program that with the OLR rising rather than decreasing as GHG science requires, that the current warming is being caused by an external energy source. That would be the sun given past research that showed the cloud albedo between 1984-1997 declined .6%, equal to 2.3 WM-2, and has remained about the same since. That equals roughly the same output energy measured by the satellites as the warming surface has responded. You only hear what you want to, Appell.
Long-term global distribution of earth’s shortwave radiation budget at the top of atmosphere, N. Hatzianastassiou et al, Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss (2004)
Here is a direct link to the paper, Appell. For someone who claims to be literate in climate research, you sure aren’t up to speed:
https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/5/2847/2005/acp-5-2847-2005.pdf
Chuck:
Are you aware of Hatzianastassiou et al’s later papers in 2005 and 2011, the latter finding that the earlier trend reversed around the turn of the century, leading to global dimming of between -0.44W/m2 (NH Land) and -5.62 W/m2 (SH Ocean). SH temperatures simultaneously warmed markedly.
The conclusion: …..
“Our findings on post‐2000 GDB can have implications for evaporation and the hydrological cycle as well as for global warming since it has been shown (Wild et al., 2007) that solar dimming masked greenhouse warming up to the 1980s, while the subsequent brightening in the 1990s led to accelerated global warming. Therefore, the post‐2000 dimming and associated inter‐hemispherical differences, documented in this study, are expected to have similar effects that need to be systematically monitored and further investigated in the future.”
2011 paper ….
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/asl.361
Anthony: Yes, I’ve seen this. When you look at the spectrally integrated OLR you see dips right around and after Mt. Pinnatubo’s eruption in the early 90’s and again with the super El Ninio of 1998. But in each case, the OLR recovered and is emitting more radiation than the effective earth temperature calculated by about 2 Wm-2 than at the beginning of the record. That’s not far from the warming seen by the satellites but more importantly contradicts GHG warming because the OLR was calculated by failed models to decrease by 3 Wm-2 by now. So the GHG signature of warming is missing from the beginning of the record and the record implies that additional external energy has reached the surface from sunlight and is the driver of the warming.
Arm-waving B.S. at its finest.
Do you care to elaborate? I’m referencing from NOAA satellite OLR.
Same causes as for the late 19th century warming cycle and the early 20th century warming cycle. We’re in the Current Warming Period, following the Little Ice Age cooling period.
Here are the natural cycles of the Holocene, same as for prior interglacials:
Holocene Climate Optimum: 5 Ka
Cool Period: 4.5 Ka
Egyptian Warm Period: 4 Ka
Cool Period: 3.5 Ka
Minoan WP: 3 Ka
Greek Dark Ages CP: 2.5 Ka
Roman WP: 2 Ka
Dark Ages CP: 1.5 Ka
Medieval WP: 1 Ka
LIA CP: 500 years ago
Current WP: now.
Peak of each WP has been lower than the previous, because we’re headed back into the next ice age.
David Appell,
You ask,
“As I asked Chuck (esp) and Lars, what natural factors are causing modern warming?
Neither had an answer. Does anyone here?
(Include data and proof, or don’t bother.)”
Of course I have an answer; every scientist does.
The answer every scientist would provide is,
THE MODERN WARMING HAS TO BE ASSUMED TO BE CAUSED BY WHATEVER “FACTORS” CAUSED THE MANY SIMILAR PREVIOUS WARMINGS UNLESS A DIFFERENT “FACTOR” IS SHOWN TO BE RESPONSIBLE.
This is the only scientific answer to your question because it is an application of the scientific Null Hypothesis (which is an effect of the principle of parsimony) as it applies to consideration of the causes of the warming.
However, one pseudoscientist whose company you say you are pleased to share (i.e. Nick Stokes) claims the Null Hypothesis does not exist and, therefore, I suspect you may also want to make that claim. Therefore, it may help you when I ask if you are wanting to suggest that because the cause(s) of such warming is not known then the cause must be an affect of witches so we should identify them and burn them at the stake? Or do you have some similar superstitious nonsense you want to promote?
Richard
From the 1970s throughout the western world we acted to reduce Sulphate emissions. Sulphates cause the production of clouds and are known to have a cooling effect.
It does not take a genius to work out at if sulphates cause cooling, then reducing their output from 1970 to around 2000 when the measure were fully implemented, would cause warming.
And that warming is concentrated over land around 3 days “downwind” of major pollution areas in Canada and over N.Asia.
And there’s no doubt in my mind, this warming scare would have been over years ago, if it were not for the fact that the subject were taken over by eco-zealots who pushed and coerced the group think that led to the manipulation of temperature to fit their meme.
David Appell
Again, forgive me as I’m not a scientist.
Does science tell us that the absence of evidence for a particular argument proves the other side of the argument right?
Doesn’t the answer “We don’t know” raise the question that something else is happening we don’t understand, rather than zeroing in on the fall back position of the flawed concept that CO2 is the sole culprit?
“David Appell
As I asked Chuck (esp) and Lars, what natural factors are causing modern warming?”
Can you define “modern warming”? What, scientifically, do YOU mean by “modern warming”?
First appeals to authority, now argument from ignorance.
Will David complete the hat trick before the day is out?
Basically David is claiming that since we can’t think of anything else, it must be CO2 wut done it.
Someone as smart as David claims to be should be able to avoid such blatant logical blunders.
Surprised it hasn’t happened before. I still say they need to get back to basics. CO2 does not determine climate. Location does. *SMH*
Climate Debate Version 2050, Rev: 1.1.11. Issue: 97 Adjustment: 67953217897
The Women Said:
When I took the kids to school today I met Mandy. She said was going shopping
I said that that would be nice
She said she *hoped* so and I said why might it not be.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhh, no reason she said said.
Well actually, one of Betty’s boys said Betty said she might be saying she was going shopping today.
You might bump into her I said. Betty’s nice when she’s not having one of her funny turns
I hope you didn’t say that I said. Why not?
Its actually because Betty had a nasty bout of anthrocene last week Mandy said. She might still even have in year 2050 she said
What did her doctor say I said.
He said to say nothing. Delete everything and give the dog some dinner he said.
The other doctors all say the same. He said.
I can’t believe he said that I said.
Oh yes, Michelle says he says that all the time and I said it to Mandy when she said it to Lizzie when she was saying something on the phone.
What did she say then I said?
Oh she whispered when she said ‘it was really awful’ Had to adjust the volume.
Good job that’s all you had to adjust I said
I knoooooow. Doctors just say anything when they’re adjusting their dogfood I said.
And Davina said the anthrocene is getting worse even though her husband says he thinks it might be OK because his mate at work said his wife had it and she said it wasn’t all that bad.
Or so she said. But she’ll just say anything. Pippa is like that especially when the TV is on.
I think she just wants you to Go Away.
Oooooh that’s maybe not so good. Did she *really* say that I said.
Oh yes. And she said that Tat Magazine had an article that said that if your husband says Michelle’s anthrocene is getting better, it actually isn’t. They said someone studied it.
They said that it’s THE latest trend you know. That’s what it said in the article. It must be true.
And in 2030 they say its going to be really *really* bad. Almost everybody will have it by then.
Davina says so too. Some people might not make it to their 970th birthday they said.
Somebody said it’s ‘something in the air’ Plastic probably.
Yeeeeees, now that would be bad. I overheard Janie saying something like that too.
She said she hopes she doesn’t get it and she said she hopes Pippa will be OK. Unless her husband gets it she said
I said I thought he already had it, either that he keeps a Boa Constrictor in his underpants.
No said Mandy, that’s not a Boa -see the Tesla in the driveway. Wink wink?
I just didn’t know what to say and we giggled.
Watching David try and shut down debate by shouting, “send your work to a journal!” amuses me.
More people around the globe read blogs than read scientific journals. If I wanted to get my message out I’d be doing it on a blog, not in some dusty journal. The internet has been a liberating force for ideas, scientific and otherwise, that would not have previously seen the light of day.
I think it’s time for you to join the modern world David.
I do not agree with David but he did a good job. I think David presents the case for AGW theory as good as anyone.
He did a good job of repeating “you’re wrong!” just like Karoly here in Australia.
You mean that he mad it clear how incredibly wrong his position is?
I think the climate test is on and which way the climate goes from now over the next few years is going to either make David’s case or destroy it.
As I have said I think this year is a transitional year to a cooler climate moving forward due to solar which I think will lower overall oceanic temperatures while increasing the albedo slightly.
It is very unlikely that climate will tests AGW hypothesis supporters because lots of statements are not measurable but for rest there always are some excuse.
Even abrupt fall in ice age would be claimed as proof of AGW theory.
In my opinion real scientists always are questioning everything. Including their own understanding, perception, etc. They always are searching a ways how to verify current understanding.
WOW! David…you lost it. Earth is NOT a black body dude! FAIL!
Appell is an veteran professional propagandist. There’s no atrocity he can’t spin, rationalize and support if it fits his Leninist religion.
No one is being asked to make the serious personal and economic sacrifices needed to achieve the carbon emission reduction targets which AGW believers such as David Appell say are necessary. And so the public debate over the validity of today’s mainstream climate science has yet to reach a critical mass.
If the world’s dependence on fossil fuels is to be ended early, within the next thirty years to fifty years, governments everywhere must intervene directly in the energy marketplace to make all carbon fuels as scarce and expensive today as they will be in a hundred years time.
The only practical means for achieving this goal lies through powerful government action. That action must include enactment of a stiff tax on carbon, mandatory energy conservation measures; and eventually, direct government control over how much carbon fuel can be produced and consumed, by whom, and for what purposes.
There’s no other practical way. But so far, those who sound the alarm about climate change haven’t gone nearly as far as they have to go if they are to be fully honest with the public concerning what measures are necessary to bring an early end to the world’s dependence on carbon fuels.
Do these AGW believers have so little confidence in the validity of today’s mainstream climate science that they are afraid to face the widespread public debate which is certain to follow if serious personal and economic sacrifices are ever demanded of the voting public in the name of fighting climate change?
In other words, the only real solution, assuming that CAGW is real, is worldwide totalitarianism. Is your point that since few in the movement are willing to state that publicly, they don’t really believe in CAGW, or that they are cowards?
Appell has long parrotted the gibberish that natural causes have been ruled out.
It’s a stunningly stupid contention given the complex nature of the global climate and infancy of science trying to sufficiently profile it.
So when he demands an answer to what is causing the modern warming and acts like it’s a gotcha he is displaying an adolescent deceit that progressives always try to posture as a superior understanding.
Again, there is no topic that progressives like Appell will ever carry on a normal discussion about.
Mostly because they refuse to acknowledge any point as queried and respond accordingly.
Yes, the assertion that just because I can’t explain recent weather trends means that their pet theory must be correct is very aggravating. This isn’t the only unscientific attitude they show, but it is one of the most obvious. They take advantage of the fact that the general public doesn’t like uncertainty and step in to fill the void.
Heck, consider the 1930s – no one can explain the weather extremes in that decade!
What’s are data and evidence that natural factors are even partly responsible for modern warming?
What natural factors are causing modern warming?
David Appell,
You ask,
“What natural factors are causing modern warming?”
I don’t know. I know several things it could be but nobody knows what it is .
You claim to know everything so you tell me, and please provide the evidenced supporting your answer.
Richard
Is one of the things it “could” be, be CO2?
There’s a small effect from incremental CO2, but deterministically, it’s far to small to obsess about and far less than it would need to be to justify the trillions of dollars the UNFCCC wants to coerce from the developed world in order to distribute to the developing world under the guise of climate reparations.
CO2 is a powerful greenhouse. See, for example: PETM
See for example the fact that the PETM was due to Milankovitch cycles.
C. P;aul Pierot,
NO! It is certainly not.
Richard
Richard, so you have no natural factors to offer. Neither does anyone else. Not convincing, to say the least.
Meanwhile, there is every expectation that putting more IR absorbing gases into the atmosphere will warm the surface.
Everything scientists from decades ago said would happen is happening: warmer surface, warmer troposphere, ice melting, seas rising, hot spot, tropopause rising, species moving poleward and upward, ocean acidification, cooler stratosphere (yes, even after accounting for ozone loss), warmer SSTs, ocean receiving massive amounts of heat.
But those scientists knew nothing, right? Sure.
David Appell,
You lying bar steward! I did NOT say I “have no natural factors to offer”.
I said, “I know several things it could be but nobody knows what it is.”
And you followed that lie with series of woppers, viz.
“Everything scientists from decades ago said would happen is happening: warmer surface, warmer troposphere, ice melting, seas rising, hot spot, tropopause rising, species moving poleward and upward, ocean acidification, cooler stratosphere (yes, even after accounting for ozone loss), warmer SSTs, ocean receiving massive amounts of heat.”
Nothing those so-called”scientists from decades ago said would happen” has happened.
First, they said it would cool from anthropogenic SO2 emissions but it warmed after 1970.
So they morphed that scare,
They then said it would warm from anthropogenic CO2 emissions. It stopped warming around 2000.
They said rate of sea levwl rise would increase. It didn’t.
They said weather extremes would increase. They didn’t.
Etc,
Perhaps you would consider crawling back under your bridge now you have completely destroyed what little credibility you had?
Richard
Your question is wrong to begin with. What we have is a climate system that exhibits natural periodic, quasi-periodic and chaotic variability around some mean. The known periodic influences have periods spanning from 24 hours to over 100K years and the short term chaotic variability can far exceed 1C p-p. Good enough data simply isn’t available to make legitimate claims that there’s anything unusual about the current climate and especially claims based on anomalies tortured from cherry picked data, adjusted or not. All we can conclude is that it’s been unusually warm and stable for the last 10K years or so as compared to the behavior during the last million years and that this nice relatively warm and stable climate has been largely responsible for the rise of civilization.
In any of these “debates”, often a comment made by the CAGW supporter goes unchallenged leaving the audience to possible think the statement is correct.
Example: saying the number of skeptical scientists is very small (counted on one hand). This is not correct, as we all know.
Or, when a CAGW supporter cites a peer-reviewed study as supporting a position, it should be pointed out that there are other peer-reviiewed papers that disagree. This “battling papers” situation solidifies the concept that the science is not settled. The skeptical panelist doesn’t have to necessarily argue the point the papers are making. It is enough to show to the audience that the particular point remains uncertain. The importance of continually showing that the science is not settled can’t be overdone.
I’m a “CAGW supporter?” Where did I use the word “catastrophic?” And what do you mean by “catastrophic?”
David Appel. The name itself evokes either laughter or pity.
What an ignorant, pompous ass.
More insults.
As an outsider and layman I find the verbal abuse distracting and childish. Both sides have been guilty of it to some extent, but especially the alarmist position seems to be really good at it. That kind of behaviour belongs in the kindergarden, not in a serious debate about important issue. It’s also frustrating having to shift through all the BS, just in order to find some actually relevant things. Because I don’t give a sh*t what this person thinks about other, and i’m not interested in arguments from authority. If I were, I would join the Catholic church. If all you have to say is that this person is stupid, and is publishing things in wrong places, then don’t say anything at all, because that is not relevant. We live in a sad times, if these supposed “scientists” don’t know what a logical fallacy is. This whole thing has become a giant mess, which doesn’t exactly instill a great deal of confidence and interest in it.
This thread was beyond infantile.
Using the “find” feature, the fact that Apell wrote about 180 responses is just over the top, especially considering the clownish nature most of them.
Ya have to give Apell points for sticking to his guns, but then so did the Black Knight in Monty Python’s “Holy Grail”
Just curious about all the talk about publishing in peer reviewed journals. I did a little search on a couple of search engines (googlescholar, primo, etc) and could not find many peer reviewed journal articles by either Wiese or Appel. I did find a patent of Chuck’s (I think) on a wind measurement technique, but I didn’t find any easy list. For Appel, it looks like he has a list of publications up at
http://www.davidappell.com/publications.html
On that list the only peer reviewed journal papers I found were a couple back in the late 1980s that look like they may have been his student work under Sterman at Stony Brook in particle physics. After that it looks like he ceased publishing in peer reviewed journals. I found none in climate related disciplines.
Anyone else have a more complete result?
I have followed this discussion from start to finish. I assumed that from the arrogant, aggressive assertions and questions from Appell that he was a major contributor to the “science” of global warming and must have copious examples of peer reviewed literature. It would seem that my search was in vain. He appears to have peaked at university, dabbled in software, done graduate work in the creative writing department at Arizona State University and written fiction. I don’t know why anyone bothers with him.
I regularly see the view of anyone who dares comment on AGW being dismissed as irrelevant if they do not work or have qualifications in climate science, so David Appell, I dismiss your comments as being irrelevant.
I wondered about how many physics phds continue doing research and publishing in physics compared to those who drop out. I looked a little bit for an APS study that might shed light on that but didn’t find any that hit the mark. So instead, I looked at an old roster from my days as a graduate student in a theoretical physics center. In the roster I looked at, there were about 15 phd students at that time, in various stages of completion. Of those, 6 have gone on to academic positions, 3 went to national labs, and 1 went to industry. All of these continued to work and publish in physics. 3 of the others went into business analytics. The last time I looked , albeit many years ago, they were involved in milking returns from the stock market. The 2 others also dropped out of physics, 1 going to a government agency, and 1 wandered off to travel the world using his family’s funds. I have no idea what either of them have been doing. Several of those in academia have written books on their work for the general public and one has written some fiction. In total, the dropout rate (stop publishing research in physics) from one particular sample of theoretical phd students is about 5/15 or 1/3.
I have no idea what any of their views are on climate science. With the ones I still see from time to time, the subject never comes up.
Several times, Appell asked for a time that climate has changed, ‘ … more rapidly … ‘ or ‘ … faster … ‘ than it is happening now. Yes, it is a paraphrase of his request.
If anyone is familiar with Richard Alley, Penn State (yes, the same Penn State), he is in line with the larger portion of the geological community, that Pleistocene glacial/interglacial transitions were, ‘ … abrupt … ‘, or in a more generic sense, very rapid.
We all seem to agree that since the early part of the Industrial Revolution, the Earth has been in a “warming” regime. We have measured/observed/calculated something between one-and-two Celsius degrees in approximately one-to-two centuries.
This is NOT a rapid change in temperature, and it is NOT more rapid than it has ever taken place.
Since we know that Richard Alley is certainly not a skeptic, or “den1er” in any sense of the word, Appell should be willing to accept testimony from Alley (since, in Appell’s universe, anyone who agrees with him is a real “scientist”, and not an “id1ot”).
In 2011, Alley argued that at least one transition was some six or seven Celsius degrees, in the span of a decade; in a subsequent video (which I regret I am unable to locate), he offered the opinion that the time frame was **closer** to just ONE year.
Since we know Appell will inevitably require a reference, and we know that he will not bother to check it out (since it refutes one of his cherished myths), I have included the original reference, along with a quote (the $$$ quote) from the article.
Alley does not attribute the temperature change to carbon dioxide, even though he considers CO2 to be the ‘climate control knob’. The cognitive dissonance, burns!
URL: http://earthsky.org/earth/richard-alley-on-abrupt-climate-change
(I do not trust that the url showed up, so I am re-typing it here; sorry if there is duplication:
http://earthsky.org/earth/richard-alley-on-abrupt-climate-change
And here is the quote that shows his actual thoughts; this is also the consensus of the geological community. Around the mid-1990’s, the evidence became compelling that transitions were not ‘thousands of years’ (as I had been taught, in the 1960’s and 1970’s), but time frames measured in decades:
Alley says, “He gave us an example of what he means. Today, climate scientists predict that temperatures will rise a few degrees Fahrenheit in the next hundred years. Ice cores from Greenland show that – around 11,500 years ago – average temperatures in Greenland increased by about 15 degrees Fahrenheit, over the course of 10 years or so. Alley said this abrupt change was prompted – at least partially – by melting polar ice, which altered ocean circulation and weather patterns. As today’s climate warms, ice is again melting near Earth’s poles. ”
Since there is no mechanism for cycling trillions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere on the time frame of a decade, possibly less, then some ‘natural’ factors are more likely as the explanation for the abruptness of climate change, which means that the temperature change during the Industrial epoch can be largely natural (Occam).
Appell tells us, authoritatively, that the, ‘ … Earth should be in a cooling phase … ‘. Sorry, I call hubris on this. The climate is a coupled, dynamic, non-linear system; we have not even reached the stage knowing what we do not know. Exactly HOW do we “know” what the Earth climate system ‘should be’ doing? Prove to us that all factors, known and unknown, ‘should’ be causing a cooling. Quantify the amount of ‘natural’ climate change, and the amount of anthropogenic climate change. You’re a Ph D in Physics, so quantifying the amount of human-caused climate (temperature) change is what you should be able to do, without any reservations.
You truly believe that a single factor, carbon dioxide, controls the Earth’s atmospheric temperature? This is not possible in a system as complex as Earth climate/atmosphere.
That we do not know the magnitude of natural processes (or even which ones affect climate) just means that the science is NOT ‘settled’.
My regards,
Vlad
Vlad: Our current rate of warming is about 30 times faster than the average rate after the last ice age (glacial period) ended.
From Shakun et al Nature 2012 Figure 2a:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html
global temperature anomaly in year -18,000 is -3.5 C
global temperature anomaly in year -11,000 is about 1.0 C
so the average temperature change is 4.5 C in 7000 years, or ~ +0.006 C/decade, compared to NOAA’s current 30-year trend of +0.18 C/decade
So that’s a factor of 28 now compared to then.
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/06/current-warming-30-times-faster-than.html
As I stated, you would not bother to refer to the reference. Richard Alley himself stated, QUOTE, ” … average temperatures in Greenland increased by about 15 degrees Fahrenheit, over the course of 10 years or so. ” UNQUOTE. Instead of looking at the reference, which you and I both know you would have demanded, you throw a red herring into the mix.
The current consensus of the geological community is that Pleistocene glacial/interglacial transitions were on the order of (at least) several Celsius degree, within a time span of DECADES; and of late (the above is 2011), Alley has even gone to advocating that we are looking at a time span LESS THAN A DECADE. This has been the position of the geoscience community since the mid-1990’s; that you are unaware is not a surprise.
Please direct your comments towards Alley’s contention, not mine; refute Alley. I am pointing out that your request, for a time when climate changed, ” … faster … ” than at present, is now considered to be the best interpretation of the data and evidence we have collected. Show us your OWN research, not someone else’s, that proves Alley is full of “hot air”.
You’re a Ph. D. in Physics; since you’re a climate expert as well (no, you’ve never stated those words, to my knowledge, but your postings here, and the original video w/ Mr. Wiese are prima facie evidence that you believe this to be the case), I’ll look at what you have published in the way of refutations of Alley, and the geological community.
Best regards,
Vlad
Ha ha ha, his paper was shown to have serious problems.
It was exposed very well right here by Willis Eschenbach
A reply to Shakun et al – Dr. Munchausen Explains Science By Proxy
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/06/a-reply-shakun-et-al-dr-munchausen-explains-science-by-proxy
The extra videos have been removed from youtube.
I felt bad that David wasn’t getting any traction on his web site, so I re-posted the question I’ve been asking that he refuses to answer. What’s the over/under on whether he will answer or censor on his own blog? I’ll post the link to his blog here for easy access to answers …
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2018/06/happy-with-my-debate-performance.html
David,
You won’t answer this on Anthony’s blog, so I will ask it here and I will be more precise so you can understand the question. I’ll cross post this to WUWT so that you will be less inclined to censor it.
At the Earth’s 288K average temperature, it emits about 390 W/m^2. If 1 W/m^2 of forcing nominally increases the surface temperature by 0.8C as the IPCC claims, then the surface emissions increase by slightly more than 4.3 W/m^2. You can verify this with the SB LAW and the IPCC AR’s, which are sufficient references.
For the surface emissions to increase by 4.3 W/m^2, the surface must be receiving 4.3 W/m^2 more to replenish these emissions, or else the surface will cool. This is a consequence of COE which on it’s own is a sufficient reference.
1 W/m^2 of the replenishment energy comes from the W/m^2 of forcing. What is the origin of the other 3.3 @/m^2?
To keep you from going down a rabbit hole, I’ll let you know what’s not the origin.
Feedback can not be the origin, for if 1 W/m^2 of input resulted in 3.3 W/m^2 of feedback, COE tells us that all Joules are the same, thus each of the accumulated 240 W/m^2 of solar forcing must also result in 3.3 W/m^2 of feedback, which would result in surface emissions over 1000 W/m^2 corresponding to a temperature close to the boiling point of water, which is clearly not the case. Furthermore, the reference Hansen and all that followed used for feedback specifies a stability criteria which can be distilled down to stability as long as the feedback is <= the forcing and 3.3 W/m^2 of feedback is clearly much greater than the forcing, thus represents an unstable system. Acceptance of COE and the reference used by Hansen for feedback are the only references required to see why it can't be feedback.
Latent heat, convection and other energy transported by matter into the atmosphere can not be the source either. If you subtract out the return of latent heat and thermals from Trenberth's 'back radiation' term, all that's left is the power replacing the BB emissions of the surface consequential to its average temperature. If you can say what effect the energy transported by matter, plus its return to the surface has on the average surface temperature and its average emissions other than the effect they are already having on that temperature and its emissions, you might be able to make a point, but once more, COE stands in your way.
The first thing to do, when one thinks they’ve found some simple and basic flaw in climate science (or any science), is ask oneself why millions of scientists before you didn’t find that same “flaw” in the 200 years they have been thinking about that science. What did/do they know that I don’t? So you have to start digging…. And not jump to the conclusion that climate science is all wrong because one thinks they have found some fundamental flaw in what is really not-very-complex physics. (This is something Chuck Wiese doesn’t do with his claims about CO2.) Because it’s ALMOST always the case that I’m the one making a mistake, not the consensus.
David,
Yes, jump on the bandwagon as these ostensibly intelligent scientists can’t all be wrong. But what about the many scientists on the other side? A fake 97% claim doesn’t make them go away, besides, most skeptics believe the effect from CO2 is finite and are among the 97%, it’s just that skeptics understand the effect is no where near as large as the IPCC requires in order to justify its existence and the agenda of the UNFCCC that the IPCC’s fake science is chartered to support. I’m completely perplexed as to why those on your side fail to see the obvious conflict of interest that has driven climate science into a dark place, but then again, political bias exhibits this kind of blindness all the time. Your bias must be impenetrable if you can’t see and/or ignore this clear and present danger to science itself. If you were to write an objective, investigative journalism piece on this to uncover how international politics has destroyed science through the IPCC, it could be Pulitzer Prize material.
The ‘consensus’ is almost always wrong when it comes to issues of science as the only reason a ‘consensus’ is required is if there is no definitive proof for what the consensus wants to believe. Your blind belief in a broken consensus is quite disturbing. You don’t have to look very hard to see examples of this in the past and if you don’t learn from prior mistakes, you’re not learning.
I’ve done a very deep dive into how and why climate science broke and which has been the primary focus of my research once I discovered how incredibly broken it actually is. Hansen is central to how it broke and as far as I can tell, his pursuit was driven by ego for having been called a lunatic by the Reagan and Bush administrations for his chicken little proclamations of doom cause by CO2 emissions. His broken feedback paper (1984) along with Schlesinger’s ‘corrections’, which actually added even more errors, formed the primary theoretical basis for a climate sensitivity large enough to justify the formation of the IPCC in it’s pursuit of justifying the agenda of the UNFCCC. If you’re unfamiliar with the many errors in the consensus feedback model, look here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/07/how-climate-feedback-is-fubar/
This is the keystone error that upon correction, will cause the whole house of cards called ‘consensus’ climate science to collapse. If you can’t recognize this truth, then you need to pay more attention.
I didn’t say “jump on the bandwagon.” I wrote think for oneself, and don’t make ridiculous claims that one has found some deep overlooked flaw in the basics of a scientific field.
Having to insult good scientists like Hansen means you have a very weak hand and no one serious is going to pay attention to you.
David Appell,
I always recognise the value of experience and, therefore, I take notice of your comments pertaining to those who “have a very weak hand and no one serious is going to pay attention to”.
However, nobody has insulted Hansen and I l know of no good science he conducted. Perhaps you know of some you can cite and explain why you think it is good?
Richard
Appell, what you refuse to accept is the fact that James Hansen, a self declared expert in atmospheric science, should have been asking himself this question before he ever thought he could construct a climate model that would accurately model earth temperature, weather and climate with atmospheric CO2 mixed with the earth’s hydrological cycle. I have repeatedly tried to convey to you that CO2 cannot and doers not control the earth’s OLR in the presence of a water hydrological cycle. The cycle itself controls the IR flux and maintains a stable optical depth. Therefore, CO2 has no effect on earth temperature with these conditions.
The founding principles of atmospheric science demonstrated this fact with impirical calculation years ago. James Hanson and those like you have ignored this important work and have failed to ever refute it. The only thing between these calculations and Hansen’s failed ideas are failed climate models. Your failure to see this is incomprehensible and demonstrates that you are incompetent in this subject, just like Hansen is who today still views himself a success with a trail of complete failures in every aspect of climate that he predicted would happen by this time. Every last one of his predictions were wrong and you are not hiding the fact that your continuing belief in his ideas are making the fool out of you that you articulate well on this blog.
Chuck, you never convince me because you have never been quantatative or analytical. You just wave your hands. Let’s see your calculations and equations. Compare to observations. Publish and let experts review your claims. Hansen and other modelers are well aware of the Earth’s hydrological cycle.
Climate models have not “failed.” You and others her repeat that like a mantra, yet never show any actual failures. (The Christy graph was deceptive.) Here are the successes:
http://blogs.reading.ac.uk/climate-lab-book/files/2014/01/fig-nearterm_all_UPDATE_2018-panela.png
Nor did Hansen’s 1988 model fail, once you account for that forcings that actually occurred instead of what he projected, as I said on Thursday — especially methane and CFC forcings:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/06/30-years-after-hansens-testimony/
David Appell,
The reason Chuck Wise cannot “convince” you is because nobody can alter a closed mind.
The reason you convince nobody is because you rant, rave and insult but provide no cogent arguments.
Richard
And by the way, Chuck, yes the water vapor feedback has been observed, and it’s not negative, it’s positive (of course):
IPCC 5AR WG1 Ch2 Figs 2.30 & 2.31 documents positive trends in water vapor in multiple datasets.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter02_FINAL.pdf
“Attribution of observed surface humidity changes to human influence,”
Katharine M. Willett et al, Nature Vol 449| 11 October 2007| doi:10.1038/nature06207.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7163/abs/nature06207.html
“Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content,” B. D. Santer et al, PNAS 2013.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.abstract
Appell, the papers you present here from “peer reviewed” journals reveal the deceptive tactics the authors use to make a point. In the first paper, they talk about stratospheric water vapor trends but fail to give a concentration, and instead, use an anomaly figure in ppmv. At these altitudes and pressures, additional optical depth is negligible with water vapor just like you would find if they revealed the very small concentration number.
In the second papers, you would expect evaporation at the surface to increase as it did with the small warming we have had, but at those pressures and temperatures, increasing the optical depth will have a negligible effect on the transmission through the layer unless the layer saturates at near 100% humidity. That is ALWAYS what constrains minimum and maximum temperatures at and below 1000 millibars. What counts is whether the humidity is increasing at lower pressure higher up where temperatures are colder, and I’ve told you time and time and time and time again, Appell, the NOAA trends for water vapor at these pressures, 500 millibars and lower have declined over time as you would expect from a negative feedback scenario that founding principles predict.
No matter what those of us who understand radiative transfer tell you, Appell, you just don’t get it. This is why I think you are incompetent. I am convinced that if you carried these attitudes into a classroom that discussed radiative transfer, you would get a D in the course, or worrrse.
“How much more rain will global warming bring?” F.J. Wentz, Science (2007), 317, 233–235.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/317/5835/233
“Analysis of global water vapour trends from satellite measurements in the visible spectral range,” S. Mieruch et al, Atmos Chem Phys (2008), 8, 491–504.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/8/491/2008/acp-8-491-2008.html
Appell, your incompetence continues to glare. This adds nothing to the discussion and I already explained this from your last post.
Finally, Chuck, unlike what you said, the tropical tropospheric hot spot occurs with *any* surface warming — basic atmospheric thermodynamics: the moist tropics send proportionally more water vapor into the troposphere (relative to other latitudes), which cools as it rises, condenses and releases latent heat. = hot spot. Read Sherwood and Nishant 2015 for the data showing it’s real. (Up until recently the available data had too large of uncertainties, so the hot spot couldn’t be ruled in or out. It’s been found.)
Appell,
Your repetitions of refuted points are tiresome.
Read the explanation of the ‘hot spot that I wrote to educate you upthread.
Write less, read more and try to learn much, much more because your lack of understanding of climate science is embarrassing.
Richard
Richard, again, I’m just not interested in wading through your invective and pedantry.
David Appell;
You say
“Richard, again, I’m just not interested in wading through your invective and pedantry.”
In that case, stop repeating falsehoods that have already been refuted.
Alternatively, and preferably, apologise for your disgraceful behaviour here then retire from the scene.
Refuting your lies is NOT “invective and pedantry” and needs to be done for the benefit of all.
Richard
Appell;
I copy my refutation of that twaddle from upthread.
“David Appell;
I correctly wrote,
“But the ‘hot spot’ has not occurred, and this is indicated by independent measurements obtained by radiosondes mounted on balloons (since 1958) and by MSUs mounted on satellites (since 1979).
The ‘hot spot’ is so large an effect that it should be clearly seen if the models provide a representation of model climate change as it exists in the real world. And the warming from “well mixed greenhouses gases” has been greatest most recently in the modelled period so should be very obvious in the radiosonde and MSU data. Simply, the ‘tropospheric hot spot’ is absent from the real-world observations.”
And you have replied,
“Richard Courtney, up until recently there were too many uncertainties in the data to identify the “hot spot.” But in 2015 it revealed itself:
“Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2),” Steven Sherwood and Nidhi Nishant, Environ. Res. Lett. 10 (2015) 054007.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/5/054007/article
Here’s the relevant figure from that paper:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/05/17/tropospheric-hot-spot/”
SAY WHAT!
Please don’t try to pretend you believe the nonsense you have posted in your reply to me.
I cited radiosonde data that is direct measurements of temperature obtained by using calibrated air temperature sensors mounted on weather balloons, and it is confirmed by similar temperature indications provided by the completely independent remote measurements of temperature provided by microwave sounding units mounted on satelites,
The paper you cite claims that windspeed around the weather balloons provides a better indication of the temperature than the direct measurements of temperature from the calibrated temperature sensors. That is risible: only ‘climate science’ pal review could get such nonsense published.
Be honest, you posted your reply to me as a laugh, didn’t you ?
Richard”
Richard
More glaring incompetence, Appell. You do not get a hot spot from normal moist convection unless it is sustained and reaches pressures less than 300 millibars which is what was forecast by failed modeling. In reality, this happens only in scattered pockets of severe thunderstorms, Appell, and at those pressures, the latent heat released is rapidly radiated away with little absorbing constraint from above. You also need conditional instability to form in a deep layer of troposphere that typically sees potential energy stored approaching 5 KJkg-1. If you had even a clue about how potential energy reaches those levels, you would realize a steepening environmental lapse rate that brings this about is caused by an approaching synoptic low pressure system that creates the lift necessary and that can only occur with a strong temperature gradient going COLD on the north flank, or thermodynamic forcing from a dry line ( which is also cooler on the north flank ) impinging on a tropical wave coupled with difluence at higher altitudes.
If AGW were real as forecast by these failed models, these scenarios would become impossible to achieve. Severe weather would lessen, the mid latitude baroclinic boundaries would be forced to migrate northward and the earth would become plagued with problematic drought, not these ridiculous scenarios touted in that paper by Francis/Vavrus that I countered that belongs on a toilet paper dispenser.
Your explanations and claims are beyond ridiculous, Appell.
David,
If AGW were a thing, then Earth should have warmed from the 1940s until the PDO flip of 1977. But it didn’t. Instead, the planet cooled dramatically, under rising CO2.
Clearly, there are feedback mechanisms which can and do overpower whatever GHE might exist from increased plant food in the air. So far having four molecules of photosynthesis substrate rather than three per 10,000 dry air molecules has been a great boon to life on Earth.
What does science say about the 1945-1970 period? Have you researched that?
Of course. Why would I mention it without having studied the period intensely?
In the late 1970s, science clearly knew that Earth had cooled dramatically since the end of WWII. Indeed it was obvious by the early 1960s.
Look at NCAR’s global temperature record for 1979. Even later “adjustments” haven’t been able to erase the fact of postwar global cooling.
Do you really not recall the concern over global cooling by scientists in the 1970s?
That Earth cooled dramatically under rising CO2 is a scientific fact, ie an observation of nature.
What happened to the links for the last three postings?
I’m guessing that DA was embarrassed by his behavior, and threatened a lawsuit since no waiver was signed. Thus, they are down. Regardless, what a marked difference I find between most “skeptics” and most “warmists” (for lack of better terms.) On one side you have Judith Curry, who carries herself with scientific dignity when presenting a public forum. On the other, Mann and DA, both blustery and arrogant. I think that’s telling.
A fabrication to insult my character. An false accusation made up, based on no evidence whatsoever.
David, what I wrote above is a hypothesis of what occurred followed by a behavioral observation. The hypothesis could be wrong, it why I used “guessing” in my statement. My observation is just that. It certainly wasn’t fabricated …. it was MY observation. And there is plenty of evidence which others could use to back up my observation of Dr. Curry, you and Dr. Mann. There are times when your comments do you no favors. I can guarantee that I choose my words carefully. I’m a well trained scientist.
It’s possible Appell threatened Larson with legal issues, it’s also possible something else happened. But having met David Appell, and knowing how thin-skinned he is, I’m inclined to think the former.
If that’s the case, it doesn’t reflect well on him. I have those videos.
Hell, after what has been presented in this thread…
I give him two thumbs up for joining the discussion here, but he has some issues that he’s not dealing with very well.
More insults.
What “insult” LOL.
You only gave him 2 thumbs up. Thus DA feels insulted.
Absolutely false, Anthony. Correct yourself.
Remember AGU? When I tried to find a battery for you? When I stood up at the end and offered you my hand to shake?
Remember what you wrote afterward?
what is “absolutely false? That is was you, that is was something else, or that you are thin skinned?
I did not threaten anyone with legal issues. I pointed out that no waiver was offered or signed, and asked them to please remove the video taken after the show concluded.
OK, thanks for the straight forward clarification.
So you made a legal point that no waiver was signed and politely requested your legal right not to have it publicly available be respected.
That IS the first level of a legal action. The implicit threat of further legal action if the request is not respected is clear for all to see and well understood.
So Anthony’s comment was NOT “absolutely false”. It was pretty close to the mark.
Stop making things up. I never said *anything* about “rights” or legal or anything legal. I never made any threats. I write exactly what I said above. So stop it with the accusations about something you know nothing about.
Watts’ comment is absolutely false. Neither he nor the moderator has yet removed it or clarified it.
[Nothing false about my comment, it was an opinion and it stands. You admit you asked the videos to be removed, because of the legal waiver not being in place. And as I said, it doesn’t reflect well on you to ask the show to have videos removed from YouTube – Anthony]
And… before I could get back here and join the discussion, you spouted off a “Anthony Watts is lying about me” at your non-read blog Quark Soup.
David, I had an opinion and gave you benefit of the doubt by saying “it could be something else” . But, you’ve clearly proven you’re thin-skinned, just as I said, and you’re also a jerk.
OK, back in permanent moderation you go. Once again my tolerance for you has been reached. Good day sir.
P.S. Prediction: your ego won’t let you walk away, so you’ll write something else nasty about me, and then as you’ve done before by your own admission, you’ll try to comment here using fake name, fake emails, and spoofed IP addresses.
Don’t blame you, sir, but personally, I like having such a blatant scientific ignoramus and vile person to represent the antiscientific position, ie those who deny the natural variability of climate.
Understand that patience for personal attacks has its limits. Even climate skeptics aren’t long-suffering, cheek-turning saints.
Felix,
I have to disagree, because as the Moderator who had to read many of his replies, was being lied to a few times by him yet kept my manners in check. He accused me of censoring his comments, yet I never did any, he persisted in promoting his lie. I asked him where did I do it, he NEVER answered it.
He is not worth it.
Stop making things up. A waiver is a legal document, you do not have to use the word “legal” when referring to one. You ARE invoking legal rights.
I may not know everything about this affair but that does not mean I “know nothing about” it. More lies and misrepresentation.
If you point out that they do not have the legal right to publish because you did not sign the legal authorization to do so and request they remove the content you find embarrassing; it is the first step of a legal process.
If you had simply asked them to remove it because you find it embarrassing, you may have had half a chance of a disingenuous argument that it was not a legal process. Since you, by your own admission above, did make reference to the lack of a legal authorization you ARE making the first steps of a legal process to get it removed.
The threat of further action is implicit in your legal framing of your request. END OF.
BTW if you are serious about reducing carbon footprints to “save the planet” consider reducing your intake of fats and carbohydrates. You are clearly consuming more than is necessary to sustain a healthy life.
“This video has been removed by the user. ”
Does that mean Lars Larson removed them ? Was he the YT “user”?
The first one was posted by “Bloodwork live studio” , under standard youtube license. It is unclear who “user” is in the case of the other three.
YT = Google = media bias and censorship.
Clearly someone is keen for the world not to see Appell making an oaf of himself. Though he would be at the top of the list it is not necessarily him.
I’m not too keen on throwing out a hypothetical accusation and then going into “if that’s the case”.
Anthony, can you contact your friend Lars and get the real deal on who is censoring this?
I read every post, very painful.
What would DA do for a living if he shifted sides? Always follow the money.
The only “side” I’m on is that of science and evidence. That’s what the places I write for want to offer to their readers.
David Appell
And the science shows that we don’t have a problem now, and the evidence shows that there is no reason to expect a problem in the future.
I disagree. The vast majority of climate scientists do too, and many others who know the science.
That speculation (and make no mistake about it— it is speculation) is based entirely on multi-variate computer models where we don’t even know the variables, much less the coefficients.
Hell, we may not even know which variables are dependent and which variables are independent.
“With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.”
-John von Neumann
Just like the Nikolov and Zeller model, right? It was just curve fitting. Anyone can do that:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2017/12/major-new-discovery-using-principle-of.html
David, it’s your holier than thou attitude that people are rebelling against. Just because you believe it, dosen’t make it true. We would welcome discussion, but you do not discuss, you dismiss. As per exhibit “A” above.
I don’t “believe” in AGW, I understand and accept the evidence for it.
David A,
Do you accept the evidence against it?
David A,
I believe you are a “believer”.
David Appell
When was the last time AGW negatively impacted your life?
David Appell–“I don’t “believe” in AGW, I understand and accept the evidence for it.”
If that is true, then you should post that evidence here.
Speculation, no matter how well it is dressed up, is not science.
It’s odd that you would claim this based on your position since there’s absolutely no physics or unadjusted data confirming the absurdly high climate sensitivity claimed by the IPCC and even the adjusted data is having trouble reaching the threshold required by the IPCC to justify its existence.
Right, again with the IPCC is all wrong, they have no physics, no data, no evidence, they’re publishing pseudoscience, they’re liars and frauds. Sure, sure.
I’m not interested in debating such things, which I consider ridiculous (and even more so with people who write such things under a safe pseudonym).
David Appell–“Right, again with the IPCC is all wrong, they have no physics, no data, no evidence, they’re publishing pseudoscience, they’re liars and frauds. Sure, sure’
Glad to see David is finally wising up about the foundation of the trillion dollar climate scam.
You need to understand that the one thing at the root of the debate is the magnitude of the climate sensitivity claimed by the IPCC. The reason is because there’s virtually no overlap between the IPCC’s claimed range and the sensitivities derived and measured by skeptics. You can’t defer to the authority being challenged to provide support for what’s being challenged. This is called circular reasoning.
Only the scientific method is the proper arbiter of what is and what is not science. A political organization like the IPCC has no business whatsoever getting involved in the science, yet they have become the arbiter of what is and what is not climate science by what they publish in their reports and they only publish what’s consistent with their requirement to support the agenda if the UNFCCC, as their charter requires. This is such an obviously transparent conflict of interest and the fact that it escapes your perception is a strong indication of your intrinsic political bias. Only the irrational derangement caused by political bias can make someone so blind to something so obvious.
Out of curiosity, where do your readers read ?
Weather wars debate: Appell vs. Harley