Moderated Global Warming Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
CapelDodger said:
No hangs. No downtime at all, in fact. No overheads. Unhackable source code. Not designed by a committee. There's a lot to like about the Big Bad Analogue Model.
Click to expand...

Bah... you'd have to go to the moon to get an outside perspective on the experiment. And try getting it into the lab... nightmare!

It's relatively slow, true, and lacks save-points and data-dumps (that's analogue for you, it comes at the price of precision), but think back ten years or so and it's given us quite a show. This season's climax (about the next two years in BBAM terms, with an overlay of next season's opener) is building up to be a doozy.
Click to expand...

Yes, but think about the magnificent rate of ice recovery this winter! Unprecedented! :D

Meanwhile we're still being instructed on the water-vapour feedback just as we were ten years or so ago (and twenty, and thirty ...) but with no reference to the extreme rainfall which has become such a feature in recent years.
Click to expand...

I'm waiting for that Iris to start preventing warming anytime now...
 
BenBurch said:
That is the bottom line, and why the deniers must also attack those who make measurements.
Click to expand...

Except when they happily comment "The Earth has been hotter with lower CO2 levels and colder with higher CO2 levels. The Earth has been only mildly hotter with far higher CO2 levels." In that case measurements are exact enough, and elastic "mildly hotter" and "far higher" let them stretch enough to "win the point".

This complements the calculated approach of bullies as it was described by a_unique_person, making it the strategy of the "fish hook" which belongs to the realm of dialectics and an adversarial system (intended without impartial part) but not to science.
 
aleCcowaN said:
Except when they happily comment "The Earth has been hotter with lower CO2 levels and colder with higher CO2 levels.
Click to expand...
Why is this considered an argument against AGW? There are many other things beside CO2 levels which are known to have had a significant effect on global temperatures. Plate tectonics, for example: AIUI a supercontinent over one of the poles results in a world with significantly lower global temperatures than one where all the continents are near the equator, even if the CO2 level is the same in both cases.
 
Pixel42 said:
Why is this considered an argument against AGW?
Click to expand...
I only referred it as an instance of bias related to measurements: estimations about 500 million years ago are exact when it is convenient and ice cores or thermometers are instruments used by feverish morons.

The original argument of Kirkpatrick was in the lines of "there are many variables involved so any assertion that takes a few is questionable; particularly, you can't be sure about CO2", that is, same old, same old. It was a case of ceteris paribus on demand: the sun is an implied constant factor (though a few days later the same people will speak of solar cycles justifying natural warming). Of course, if circumstances demand, it'll be said that a constant sun was no their intention, but to show the inextricability of the problem and depict the denialist as a person who weights carefully all what is needed instead of being "warmers" that jump immediately to conclusions mumbling "tiddledy-dee, CO2!"
 
Last edited:
aleCcowaN said:
I only referred it as an instance of bias related to measurements: estimations about 500 million years ago are exact when it is convenient and ice cores or thermometers are instruments used by feverish morons.1The original argument of Kirkpatrick was in the lines of "there are many variables involved so any assertion that takes a few is questionable; particularly, you can't be sure about CO2", that is, same old, same old. It was a case of ceteris paribus on demand: the sun is an implied constant factor (though a few days later the same people will speak of solar cycles justifying natural warming).2 Of course, if circumstances demand, it'll be said that a constant sun was no their intention, but to show the inextricability of the problem and depict the denialist3 as a person who weights carefully all what is needed instead of being "warmers" that jump immediately to conclusions mumbling "tiddledy-dee, CO2!"
Click to expand...
Not a bad attempt to see things from the other side, except for the "denier".
1. I agree. If it's appropriate to question proxies for the last thousand years, it's appropriate to question proxies for 500 mya. Depends on which proxies, and how they're selected. Tree ring width responds to temperature and rainfall and fertilization. Furthermore, the microclimate in which one tree or stand of trees grew does not have to match the contemporary microclimate of a grove farther upstream. Do you dispute the broad generalization that the atmosphere of the Ordovician had more CO2 than today?
2. Dunno who implied a constant solar flux. If positive feedbacks dominated, we'd see more exaggerated cycles, or perhaps not even be here to make observations.
3. I try to avoid "alarmist" or other names for people who advance the CO2/AGW hypothesis. Someone once said "Not all religions need a god. Every religion needs a devil".
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
We obviously read different sources. McIntyre (Climate Audit) describes ongoing obstruction.
Click to expand...

You know, right, that McIntyre is pretty close to alone?

It is sort of like believing Immanuel Velikovsky at this point in time. Back in the 70s, it wouldn't have been so far outside of the consensus that you could be criticized for choosing to believe it, but Malcolm, in all sincerity I have to tell you that the science is compelling and too many different things can be observed that lead to the conclusions;

1. The planet on average is getting warmer.
2. The Amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing.
3. We can measure that CO2 and determine that the source is fossil fuels.
4. The stratosphere is cooling, proving that the radiative balance has changed.
5. We have laboratory and theoretical reasons to believe that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause the radiative balance to change in the amounts we observe.
6. The warming planet is changing weather patterns and sea levels and we have a hell of a lot of money invested in the climate patterns and coastlines we have seen since the beginning of the industrial era.
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
We obviously read different sources. McIntyre (Climate Audit) describes ongoing obstruction.
Click to expand...

Obstruction? The reason he can't p[rove his little conspiracy theory isn't because people are obstruction him it's because he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

No one is under any obligation to do him favors, especially when he's making an ass of himself and slandering the people he wants favors from. There is nothing stopping him from doing the work himself and publishing his results, well nothing other than the he doesn't like the results anyway.
 
lomiller said:
Obstruction? The reason he can't p[rove his little conspiracy theory isn't because people are obstruction him it's because he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

No one is under any obligation to do him favors, especially when he's making an ass of himself and slandering the people he wants favors from. There is nothing stopping him from doing the work himself and publishing his results, well nothing other than the he doesn't like the results anyway.
Click to expand...

At least Muller did what a scientist would do, he went out and created his own temperature record, and verfied what Jones and the CRU came up with independently.

McIntyre is not worth an auditors shoe lace, he is a walking ego in search of worship.
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
We obviously read different sources. McIntyre (Climate Audit) describes ongoing obstruction.
Click to expand...

You mean he looks for trouble. I remember the huge, and ongoing, indignation because the source code for GISS Model E. The code was released, and everyone forgot about auditing it, except for one poor incompetent who had no idea what he was looking at. He still complained about it though. In other words, it's not the code or the data they want, they just want to find something to complain about. McInytre is now reduced to just attacking people, or going back over issues that are long gone. His endless harassment of individuals, all pretense of doing anything about the science has long gone. He just wants blood.
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
Not a bad attempt to see things from the other side, except for the "denier".
1. I agree. If it's appropriate to question proxies for the last thousand years, it's appropriate to question proxies for 500 mya. Depends on which proxies, and how they're selected. Tree ring width responds to temperature and rainfall and fertilization. Furthermore, the microclimate in which one tree or stand of trees grew does not have to match the contemporary microclimate of a grove farther upstream. Do you dispute the broad generalization that the atmosphere of the Ordovician had more CO2 than today?
2. Dunno who implied a constant solar flux. If positive feedbacks dominated, we'd see more exaggerated cycles, or perhaps not even be here to make observations.
3. I try to avoid "alarmist" or other names for people who advance the CO2/AGW hypothesis. Someone once said "Not all religions need a god. Every religion needs a devil".
Click to expand...

Let's see
1) I don't "dispute" proxies. I was speaking of measurements in general and the biased manipulation of them. I did understand you had used that in previous posts.
2) You are playing here by implying some adjective is there or it is not. You are openly playing with "total positive feedback in the system" and "positive feedback with two elements of the system". Your arguments about this started with that and I see you want to continue that common exploit.
3) Good for you, a calm appearance is good in the adversarial system or any other discipline that makes a living from dialectics. I prefer long original reasoning more than a roll-o-deck of platitudes. About the demonization of the opponent, I already explained it in my very first post here.
 
My only experience with McIntyre goes back about 5 years ago. On his climateaudit site he was implying that something fishy was going on at NOAA because they were not reporting some data that was easily available to them - for instance only compiling some of the data from certain weather stations. If my memory serves me correct he was using Dulan and showing that NOAA was not reporting data that he could find available at weather underground. If he could find it, why couldn't NOAA, and how much does that distort their data, and what reasons could they have for doing so except either 1) incompetence or 2) purposeful distortion.

I pointed out the examples in question clearly showed that the station was NOT reporting at those times, yet despite weather underground clearly stating the the station was not reporting at said time...it had weather! How? Well weather underground also clearly stated that in such cases it was just using nearby reported weather and previous weather in a matrix to come up with estimates for stations not reporting at that time. Case solved. Conspiracy over. McIntyre grudingly conceded that it was possible that he was wrong, but still felt that it was by far more likely that he was correct (based on what? I don't know), and as far as I know, never posted a correction, or let his readership know that it might not have been NOAA that was incompetent.

Perhaps things have improved since then, but my opinion at the time was that both McIntyre and the vast majority of the posters on the site had a lot of interest in confirming their conspiracy, and little interest in what was actually correct.
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
Sounds like you don't read him. He's far more statistically fluent that Mann or Jones.
Click to expand...

If you mean McIntyre, no, he's not. That's why his attempts to "break the Hockey-Stick" have been so statistically incompetent. He is pretty fluent when it comes to talking himself up and spouting jargon to impress the likes of you.

He's also good at slimy innuendo but lacks the stones to make direct and unambiguous accusations. Notice how much time he devotes to "I didn't say that" when people call him on what he's clearly implying (Penn State harbours paedophiles, Mann is at Penn State, makes you think doesn't it?). McIntyre is a lowlife scumbag who rose without trace to the top of the sewer - a position which he clearly relishes.

So what's your opinion of Monckton, out of interest?
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
Sounds like you don't read him. He's far more statistically fluent that Mann or Jones.
Click to expand...
Oh Rly?

I'd love to see your evidence on that. On one side two guys with PhDs and proven history of publishing scientific papers that have passed peer-review and one guy with a BSc in maths, with minimal published credentials that has been picked up repeatedly for some barefaced buffoonery on Climate Audit...
 
Megalodon said:
Bah... you'd have to go to the moon to get an outside perspective on the experiment. And try getting it into the lab... nightmare!
Click to expand...

This is total-immersion science.

Yes, but think about the magnificent rate of ice recovery this winter! Unprecedented! :D
Click to expand...

Quite likely, but there's just a slight possibility that it won't be. These are pretty much uncharted waters, after all.

I'm waiting for that Iris to start preventing warming anytime now...
Click to expand...

Lindzen still serves it up to lay audiences, apparently. It's the cheque that's forever in the post.

Deniers seem to have no sense of time passing. If data was once not easily available online for free it is forever unavailable. If Lindzen's Iris is about to kick in and save the day it is forever about to do so. If Watts's peer-reviewed take-down of the US temperature record is just one more draft away it remains forever so. No question is raised as to whether they are real - that's been a matter of belief from the outset - it's just a matter of demonstrating the fact.

As for BEST : It. Never. Happened.
 
It was McIntyre's the first things I read regarding this whole subject, back in 2008. Not that I was indifferent or have though it was a false alarm or an exaggeration.

I read the article about McIntyre in Wikipedia, and some parts looked to me like Indiana Jones' biography, what I attributed to some admirers editing that mercurial wiki and not to something to blame on him. Then I started to read their articles and the whole story of the "hockey stick". Mamma mia! My lack of experience with spoken English was an advantage because it made noticeable the distortions of the discourse. My own education and experience let me spot then omissions and twisting towards pre-formatted conclusions. I have to say that the individual looks courageous and has a level of knowledge that can convince in the level of an earth science or math professor in high school, but not people with higher education in the disciplines that are important to the subject.

After that first week, I never read more from his "pen". Has he improved?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom