Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

Status
Not open for further replies.
CRUtemp http://woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vgl/from:2002.8/every:12/plot/crutem3vgl/from:2002.8/every:12
HadSSTs
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3nh/from:2002.8/every:12/plot/hadsst3sh/from:2002.8/every:12

Satellites
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah-land/from:2002.8/every:12/plot/rss-land/from:2002.8/every:12

Easy to see why skeptics are skeptical.

But I understand how much the alarmists want, even need a record warm reading from somewhere at this point. Anywhere.

It's getting hard to keep the fever pitch going.
 
It's funny that the GISS "warmest November EVAH!" story actually shows the cooling trend that has become obvious for parts of the world. Even with the "HOTTEST EVER OMG!!" the evidence still shows reality.

If they combined the satellite data to complete the arctic, they couldn't make the claim. Not that any of this will slow down the alarmists train wreck.
 
r-j said:
CRUtemp http://woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vgl/from:2002.8/every:12/plot/crutem3vgl/from:2002.8/every:12
HadSSTs
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3nh/from:2002.8/every:12/plot/hadsst3sh/from:2002.8/every:12

Satellites
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah-land/from:2002.8/every:12/plot/rss-land/from:2002.8/every:12

Easy to see why skeptics are skeptical.

But I understand how much the alarmists want, even need a record warm reading from somewhere at this point. Anywhere.

It's getting hard to keep the fever pitch going.
Click to expand...

you have a problem with the adjustments from HadCrut 3 to 4?
you do not understand why NH and SH show slightly different temps?
you don't understand why also the SAt records are slightly different?

its not so easy why deniers are confused. explain.
 
r-j said:
Nobodies trying to claim they are smarter than Freeman Dyson.
Click to expand...

1) Appeal to authority. Dyson is not a climate scientist.
2) Ad hominem. DC's intelligence is not in question.
3) What does science have to do with IQ ?
4) Strawman. DC never said anything of the sort.

That's a LOT of fail.
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
What do you mean "the"? Which?
Click to expand...

Scientists with expertise in relevant fields, obviously.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
As I argued earlier, 95% of "scientists" (for convenience, operationally defined as people with advanced degrees that require undergrad coursework in statistics, differential equations, or biochemistry, who are paid to gather and analyze data) don't do any climate-related work. So this is just artificially concocting a consensus.
Click to expand...

Well, it's good that your definition is wrong then. I thought you had been a climate denier for long enough to understand the reference I made.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
Really? You're going to claim that "basic physics" DOES predict an open-ended greenhouse effect without feedbacks? Maybe you and Macdoc (who argued that Dyson is "not a climate scientist") should argue.
Click to expand...

Nope, I'm not going to claim that. I'm claiming that nobody has to "assume" any positive feedback.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
The 95% figure is inflated by the tactics you use above.
Click to expand...

Nope.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
If "basic physics" confers a sufficient platform from which to pronounce, Dyson, Giaever, Motl, and Lewis trump Phil Jones and Michael Mann any day. You might want to reconsider that point about what "basic physics" implies.
Click to expand...

What about the rest of the 95% of scientists in relevant fields?

"Basic physics" implies that denying the greenhouse effect is pretty damn stupid. I don't know if either of the four gurus you listed do so. I have a feeling they don't.
 
r-j said:
I think I see the problem here. I base my commentary on evidence, which is why I find it easy to link to why I say something.
Click to expand...

As opposed to all those stupid scientists, right ? :rolleyes:

Nah, they never use evidence. Stupid science. Worthless. I mean, do we even need knowledge when we have the holy books ?
 
Belz... said:
1) Appeal to authority. Dyson is not a climate scientist.
Click to expand...
Actually Dyson was part of team that worked under Alvin M. Weinberg at Institute for Energy Analysis on climate studies, which in part pioneered the change of climate science from vague theoretical speculation into a strong precise multidisciplinary observational science.

Belz... said:
That's a LOT of fail.
Click to expand...
On your part
 
MacDoc who argued that Dyson is "not a climate scientist
Click to expand...

He is not a practicing climate scientist and any loosely related papers go back to 1979 so using him as your "champion" is just flat out hilarious and he is the first to admit "he does not know much about the technical facts".....but he's your bedrock authority......what a joke.

In reply, he notes that "[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much,
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson

You ignore the 2,000 climate related papers in 2012 done by practicing scientists because you are miffed with SciAm for being activist against your ilk.
Bout time they spoke out....even LA Times and Reddit are fed up with the AGW deniers and have banned their letters and posts.

Is Exxon head and other fossil fuel companies finally acknowledging C02 impact wrong about AGW or are you.? Easy question...yet to see an answer.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
You'll have to explain that. Merely turning something around doesn't make it a point. It was a strawman and an ad hominem, and intelligence has nothing to do with anything.
Click to expand...

You claimed he wasn't a "climate scientist" but you completely ignore the fact that climate science owes a lot to Dyson for the contributions he made in transforming what was a vague speculation into a strong multidisciplinary observational science.

As I pointed out in at least 3 posts above, if Dyson takes "jabs" at AGW, it is NOT from the denier perspective, it is to strengthen its weaknesses.

PS The real problem is the attempt by many deniers like Malcolm to quote mine Dyson out of context. Which then riles up the legions of climate scientists to improperly discount Dyson's contributions to climate science, which BTW are not trivial.
 
RB - hanging your own hat on Dyson does not enhance your position at all.
You need the underlying science - Dyson was a dreamer with big ideas and he is past best by date.
 
Red Baron Farms said:
Actually if anything, it would be you and me that are "Not fit to shine their shoes" of all 3.

A bit more subtle? If you call not being a AGW denier at all "a bit more subtle" :jaw-dropp
Click to expand...

You are welcome to your opinion about Dyson (and our respective "worthiness"), but it doesn't take very much investigation to see that he doesn't well compare with either Hawking or Einstein. Dyson doesn't know the models and that is precisely one of the areas he speaks upon with an arrogant ignorance. His arrogance is more motivated by not really caring about the issue more than it is from being overly invested in the same Conservative vs. Liberal politics agenda distorted perspective of most of our trolls. But disinterest can possess blinders every bit as effective as special interests as they don't allow one to perceive the range of impacts/influences and the context of such interactions.

Dyson is more stuck in the science of the seventies with little understanding of what has changed and been discovered over the last 4 decades, and in arguing from his knowledge of what was understood then, he is ignoring and misstating much of mainstream climate science as it currently exists. Perhaps my judgments are a bit harsher than they should be, but if he really wants to discuss modern Climate Science, you would think an intelligent person would take the time to study and learn a bit about the modern state of the science before you began making public statements of opinion about that science.

If you wish to talk about Dyson and his views rather than climate science, he is not shy in his own promotion of his variant of Deus ex machina religious beliefs. Of course, it isn't too surprising that when you spend your entire life devoted to hammers that all problems look like nails.
 
Last edited:
macdoc said:
RB - hanging your own hat on Dyson does not enhance your position at all.
You need the underlying science - Dyson was a dreamer with big ideas and he is past best by date.
Click to expand...
I really am not trying to "advance my position" in my comments about Dyson, or Malcolm's improper and dishonest quote mining of Dyson.

The bottom line is that Malcolm was wrong in quote mining Dyson in such a way as to make it appear Dyson was a AGW denier. Freeman Dyson ISN'T a climate denier.

Then many here started attacking Dyson! Sorry but you are all attacking the wrong man. Malcolm is the dishonest one, or maybe if not Malcolm, at least the bloggers he pulled the Dyson quotes from.

The only relationship between any position I have on AGW that in any way is related to what Dyson has said is related to the weakness in the AGW models not taking into account the complexity of biology, or human ingenuity in possibly using that complexity as a mitigation tool.

But truth be told while I agree with that, Dyson's specific comments on biology, like bioengineered trees, I don't agree with at all. Forests at best are a short term bandaide, because forests, taken from a long term perspective, are nearly carbon neutral.

So once again, this isn't about hanging my hat on Dyson, I happen to disagree with him myself. This is about many here taking a knee jerk reaction about an out of context quote mined Dyson comment and using it as a fail attempt to attack one of the great scientists of the 20th Century. Lame IMHO.
 
Last edited:
r-j said:
CRUtemp http://woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vgl/from:2002.8/every:12/plot/crutem3vgl/from:2002.8/every:12
HadSSTs
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3nh/from:2002.8/every:12/plot/hadsst3sh/from:2002.8/every:12

Satellites
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah-land/from:2002.8/every:12/plot/rss-land/from:2002.8/every:12

Easy to see why skeptics are skeptical.

But I understand how much the alarmists want, even need a record warm reading from somewhere at this point. Anywhere.

It's getting hard to keep the fever pitch going.
Click to expand...

What is the basis of your assertion that NOAA is deliberately misrepresenting climate data?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/11/


What is the basis of your assertion that UAH is deliberately misrepresenting climate data?

http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2013/december/Dec2013graph.png

(btw UAH has determined 2013 to be the fourth warmest year in the modern temp. record.)
 
okay r-j - .the atmosphere temperature gain is relatively flat - you've been told ad nauseum why and you don't listen.

care to explain this??

heat_content2000m.png

You been informed that the deep ocean is picking up more heat. The mechanism is likely La Nina or this
http://www.livescience.com/42459-huge-ocean-internal-waves-explained.html
with permission

SO2 and other particulates cool the atmosphere like a volcano....did so in the 50s-70s and likely are having an impact again as solar radiance getting to the ground in some parts of China is down 25% and I;m sure a similar situation in other parts of the far east due to the Asia brown cloud.

These are not "mysterious occurences" as they apparently are for you.

They are part of an anthro dominated atmosphere whose optical properties are mucked compared to pre-industrial.

Inevitably the planet will move off fossil hydrocarbons. Managing that is a challenge best begun, like Sweden and others now.

Your continual flack of nonsense about warmers etc is just puerile in the deepest insulting sense of the word.

Put out a thesis, back it with science not inane commentary from a position of ignorance over the most basic climate science. A position you've demonstrated time and again.
 
Trakar said:
You are welcome to your opinion about Dyson (and our respective "worthiness"), but it doesn't take very much investigation to see that he doesn't well compare with either Hawking or Einstein. Dyson doesn't know the models and that is precisely one of the areas he speaks upon with an arrogant ignorance. His arrogance is more motivated by not really caring about the issue more than it is from being overly invested in the same Conservative vs. Liberal politics agenda distorted perspective of most of our trolls. But disinterest can possess blinders every bit as effective as special interests as they don't allow one to perceive the range of impacts/influences and the context of such interactions.

Dyson is more stuck in the science of the seventies with little understanding of what has changed and been discovered over the last 4 decades, and in arguing from his knowledge of what was understood then, he is ignoring and misstating much of mainstream climate science as it currently exists. Perhaps my judgments are a bit harsher than they should be, but if he really wants to discuss modern Climate Science, you would think an intelligent person would take the time to study and learn a bit about the modern state of the science before you began making public statements of opinion about that science.

If you wish to talk about Dyson and his views rather than climate science, he is not shy in his own promotion of his variant of Deus ex machina religious beliefs. Of course, it isn't too surprising that when you spend your entire life devoted to hammers that all problems look like nails.
Click to expand...

1) Dyson is not "stuck" anywhere. He has one of the most "unstuck" minds in science!
2) Dyson absolutely is NOT similar in any way to "overly invested in the same Conservative vs. Liberal politics agenda distorted perspective of most of our trolls. " In fact Dyson isn't even a conservative, he is far left politically. Just because some politically motivated conservative trolls here quote mined Dyson out of context, it doesn't make Dyson conservative. Nor does that make his comments motivated by politics, in fact his motivation is to challenge modern main stream climate scientists to improve their models!
3) Your comments about his religious views are in the wrong forum.
The media rarely mention the fact that the great majority of religious people belong to moderate denominations that treat science with respect, or the fact that the great majority of scientists treat religion with respect so long as religion does not claim jurisdiction over scientific questions. - Dyson
Click to expand...
This jurisdiction here is science, please respect that as Dyson has his entire life.
 
Red Baron Farms said:
1) Dyson is not "stuck" anywhere. He has one of the most "unstuck" minds in science!
2) Dyson absolutely is NOT similar in any way to "overly invested in the same Conservative vs. Liberal politics agenda distorted perspective of most of our trolls. " In fact Dyson isn't even a conservative, he is far left politically. Just because some politically motivated conservative trolls here quote mined Dyson out of context, it doesn't make Dyson conservative. Nor does that make his comments motivated by politics, in fact his motivation is to challenge modern main stream climate scientists to improve their models!
3) Your comments about his religious views are in the wrong forum.

This jurisdiction here is science, please respect that as Dyson has his entire life.
Click to expand...

To be honest, Red Baron Farms, it would appear as though Dyson doesn't respect modern climate science, so I'm not sure why I should respect his opinions on it. As Trakar said, Dyson appears disinterested in the advances made in climate science since his involvement, and in his public statements he appears to admit that he doesn't really know anything about the technical details, but he opines anyway. That's not being respectful towards science.
 
uke2se said:
To be honest, Red Baron Farms, it would appear as though Dyson doesn't respect modern climate science, so I'm not sure why I should respect his opinions on it. As Trakar said, Dyson appears disinterested in the advances made in climate science since his involvement, and in his public statements he appears to admit that he doesn't really know anything about the technical details, but he opines anyway. That's not being respectful towards science.
Click to expand...
Appearances can be deceiving, especially when those appearances are created from out of context quote mining.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom