• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Global warming

mhaze said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_14224475f6d8b3d4f3.png

The fingerprint of AGW in the upper troposphere was never there.

Klaus is against dogma. RC is pretty dogmatic in my opinion, granted there are exceptions. RC is much easier to read than climateaudit....
Click to expand...

Nice two step there. They only refer to the upper troposphere, not to the stratosphere, or the non tropical upper troposphere or lower troposphere.

I'll give you a tip. There will be many areas that you can pick with the model predictions that won't be right, as the years pass by.
 
mhaze said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_14224475f6d8b3d4f3.png

The fingerprint of AGW in the upper troposphere was never there.
Click to expand...

Ok. A link to the source of Your clipping would be nice to begin with.

Regional vs Global. There is a difference. Oh, that's probably "dogma" best ignore that then. Here of course we see that the models aren't good enough to predict AGW. Now in the other(? hard to tell without a reference) paper the model predictions seem to be good enough to disprove AGW.

It does remind me somewhat of this

There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.
"That's some catch, that Catch-22," [Yossarian] observed.
"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.
Click to expand...
Klaus is against dogma. RC is pretty dogmatic in my opinion, granted there are exceptions.
Click to expand...
If Klaus is against dogma he does a pretty good impression of a dogmatic person.

RC is much easier to read than climateaudit....
Click to expand...
Could be because of this principle..."If you can't explain something to a first year student, then you haven't really understood it." Maybe.
 
Stoat has a go at Singer et al.

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/12/tropical_trends.php

The issue of reconciling tropical temperature trends at the sfc and in the troposphere rumbles on, although in a not very serious way: its a good subject for research, but it doesn't seem to be a major septic playing point, probably because the issue is too complex to get much traction.
A brief recap: once upon a time the satellites said the trop, globally, wasn't warming. That disappeared ages ago. We're now looking only at the tropics, which are warming too, and the remaining issue is whether the trop warming is compatible with the surface warming. Models and (we believe) basic physics says the trop T mid-height should warm about 1.4 times as much as the surface. Everyone agrees that for changes like the seasonal cycle, this is true. The issue is whether its true for the long-term trend.
Enter "A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions" by David H. Douglass John R. Christy Benjamin D. Pearsona and S. Fred Singer" in press in IJC; and "Tropical vertical temperature trends: A real discrepancy?" by P. W. Thorne, D. E. Parker, B. D. Santer, M. P. McCarthy, D. M. H. Sexton, M. J. Webb, J. M. Murphy, M. Collins, H. A. Titchner,1 and G. S. Jones; GRL VOL. 34, L16702, doi:10.1029/2007GL029875, 2007.
You don't have to go far to see that Thorne et al is a higher quality paper. The basic conclusion is that the uncertainty in the trends from the satellites is large enough that there is no inconsistency.
Weirdly enough, Singer et al come to the opposite conclusion: that they are inconsistent. I doubt very much whether their error analysis is good enough to conclude this. One problem is that they lump all the IPCC runs together, without noticing that some are rubbish (though to be fair the IPCC does this too). There are clearly errors in the review copy: model 17 has a trend, in unspecified units, of 219 at the sfc at -1275 at 1000 hPa; they should be very nearly the same (model 2 has a simlar problem. Curious. Singer et al very late on remove these "outliers"). The uncertainty in the modelled trends is taken to be the inter-model SD/sqrt(n-1), which I think is dodgy. And table III invites us to believe that the obs have no uncertainty, which is tricky, since they disagree amongst themselves.
Click to expand...
 
fsol said:
It's beautiful. The Daily Mail and the Pope in one bite sized piece. :covereyes
Click to expand...
His remarks reveal that while the Pope acknowledges that problems may be associated with unbridled development and climate change, he believes the case against global warming to be over-hyped.


A broad consensus is developing among the world's scientific community over the evils of climate change. But there is also an intransigent body of scientific opinion which continues to insist that industrial emissions are not to blame for the phenomenon.


Such scientists point out that fluctuations in the earth's temperature are normal and can often be caused by waves of heat generated by the sun. Other critics of environmentalism have compared the movement to a burgeoning industry in its own right.


In the spring, the Vatican hosted a conference on climate change that was welcomed by environmentalists. But senior cardinals close to the Vatican have since expressed doubts about a movement which has been likened by critics to be just as dogmatic in its assumptions as any religion.


​
From your linky. And your problem with this is.... ?
 
a_unique_person said:
Stoat has a go at Singer et al.

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/12/tropical_trends.php
Click to expand...

My My My.

Even when you try to get away from RC, you are still at RC.

You have linked to a comment by Connelly, a primary RC contributer. As usual, the blog comments are more telling than the dogmatic article by Connelly.

Why is there such a rush to discredit a scientific published paper by bloggers who refuse to link to the paper?

Must you go ask skeptics for actual sources?:)
 
a_unique_person said:
Stoat has a go at Singer et al.

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/12/tropical_trends.php
Weirdly enough, Singer et al come to the opposite conclusion: that they are inconsistent. I doubt very much whether their error analysis is good enough to conclude this.
​
Click to expand...
Weirdly enough, Singer et al come to the opposite conclusion: that they are inconsistent.
​
Duhh... Yes, that is the subject of the paper.
I doubt very much....
​
And does anybody care about your doubts?

Not a critique phrased as a scientist, but a polemicist.

Someone with....

Dogma.
 
fsol said:
RC is much easier to read than climateaudit....
​
Could be because of this principle..."If you can't explain something to a first year student, then you haven't really understood it." Maybe.
Click to expand...

Yes! You definitely have the answer there.

RC predigests those annoying facts and spits them out for people who want such. A Climate Nannyblog. Only the bottles of warm milk for the readers are lacking.
 
mhaze said:
Yes! You definitely have the answer there.

RC predigests those annoying facts and spits them out for people who want such. A Climate Nannyblog. Only the bottles of warm milk for the readers are lacking.
Click to expand...

Not for the first time you misunderstand the point.
 
mhaze said:
His remarks reveal that while the Pope acknowledges that problems may be associated with unbridled development and climate change, he believes the case against global warming to be over-hyped.


A broad consensus is developing among the world's scientific community over the evils of climate change. But there is also an intransigent body of scientific opinion which continues to insist that industrial emissions are not to blame for the phenomenon.


Such scientists point out that fluctuations in the earth's temperature are normal and can often be caused by waves of heat generated by the sun. Other critics of environmentalism have compared the movement to a burgeoning industry in its own right.


In the spring, the Vatican hosted a conference on climate change that was welcomed by environmentalists. But senior cardinals close to the Vatican have since expressed doubts about a movement which has been likened by critics to be just as dogmatic in its assumptions as any religion.


​
From your linky. And your problem with this is.... ?
Click to expand...

It wasn't my link and I didn't say I had a problem with it. Uk based followers of the thread are probably familiar with the perception of the Daily Mail amongst a significant portion of the population, myself included. The icing on the cake is the marvellous quote from The Pope, who apparently enjoys throwing stones about inside glass houses. Although, I'd imagine his house is made from bullet proof glass...just in case Our Lady of Fatima is busy and she hasn't arranged a locum.
 
mhaze said:
My My My.

Even when you try to get away from RC, you are still at RC.

You have linked to a comment by Connelly, a primary RC contributer. As usual, the blog comments are more telling than the dogmatic article by Connelly.

Why is there such a rush to discredit a scientific published paper by bloggers who refuse to link to the paper?

Must you go ask skeptics for actual sources?:)
Click to expand...

Once again, I am not a scientist, I am especially not a scientist who is researching in this area. Scepticism from ignorance is no advance in the debate.
 
mhaze said:
"In the spring, the Vatican hosted a conference on climate change that was welcomed by environmentalists. But senior cardinals close to the Vatican have since expressed doubts about a movement which has been likened by critics to be just as dogmatic in its assumptions as any religion."​
Click to expand...

Thee's no doubt that critics of of AGW often describe it as dogmatic and a religion. What is very much in doubt is the ability of senior cardinals or Benny Da Pope to judge the validity of those acccusations.

While it's true that "A broad consensus is developing among the world's scientific community over the evils of climate change" (to put it mildly), the contrary message is not only pushed by "an intransigent body of scientific opinion" but by a multi-faceted lobby. It seems the vatican has been nobbled. Considering the ludicrous things they (presumably) believe, that can't be too difficult.

The cynic in me naturally wonders how much Church money is invested in the fossil-fuel industry.
 
CapelDodger said:
Thee's no doubt that critics of of AGW often describe it as dogmatic and a religion. What is very much in doubt is the ability of senior cardinals or Benny Da Pope to judge the validity of those acccusations.

While it's true that "A broad consensus is developing among the world's scientific community over the evils of climate change" (to put it mildly), the contrary message is not only pushed by "an intransigent body of scientific opinion" but by a multi-faceted lobby. It seems the vatican has been nobbled. Considering the ludicrous things they (presumably) believe, that can't be too difficult.

The cynic in me naturally wonders how much Church money is invested in the fossil-fuel industry.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the multi faceted "pro environmental lobby".

So these guys in the Vatican see right through Hansen's preaching (likely from having considerable experience in the profession of preaching?)
Hansen.

thick ice sheets provide not only a positive feedback... potential for cataclysmic collapse.....projected warmings under BAU would initiate albdeo-flip changes...

possible to save the Arctic from complete loss of ice...if absolute reduction of air pollutant forcings is achieved along with a reduction of CO2 growth...most rapid feasible slowdown of CO2 emissions, coupled with a forced reductions of other forcings, may just have a chance of avoiding disastrous climate change.....albedo feedback whipped the planet to hellish hothouse conditions...whipsaw between cold and warm.........imminent peril is initiation of dynamical and thermodynamical processess on the West Antartic and Greenland ice sheets....devastating sea-level rise will inevitably occur....activate the albedo-flip trigger....BAU GHG scenarios would cause large sea-level rise this century......best chance for averting ice sheet disintegration seems to be intense simultaneous efforts to reduce both co2 emissions and non-co2 climate forcings...
​
How's the Arctic doing? Any Polar Bears drowning lately?
 
mhaze said:
You have linked to a comment by Connelly, a primary RC contributer. As usual, the blog comments are more telling than the dogmatic article by Connelly.
Click to expand...

Connelly says :
"There are clearly errors in the review copy: model 17 has a trend, in unspecified units, of 219 at the sfc at -1275 at 1000 hPa; they should be very nearly the same (model 2 has a simlar problem. Curious. Singer et al very late on remove these "outliers"). The uncertainty in the modelled trends is taken to be the inter-model SD/sqrt(n-1), which I think is dodgy. And table III invites us to believe that the obs have no uncertainty, which is tricky, since they disagree amongst themselves."
Click to expand...

Is he wrong?

Thorne et al conclude that "the uncertainty in the trends from the satellites is large enough that there is no inconsistency". (That doesn't appear to be dogma.) Singer et al come to the opposite conclusion. Why is that, do you think?

We know that Singer has been denying AGW for decades (when he hasn't been busy denying tobacco's effects on health), and Christy for a good while, so naturally one suspects they reached their conclusion before they made the data fit their dogma.

Singer and Christy have also been known to describe AGW as a "religion". Not very scientific, but they do engage in polemics a lot. Singer, for instance, was one of the Swindlers (I can't recall if Christy was).

Must you go ask skeptics for actual sources?:)
Click to expand...

There's clearly little point in asking you or David Rodale; you seem to prefer isolated pictures clipped (I presume, for want of correction) from ClimateAudit.
 
mhaze said:
Don't forget the multi faceted "pro environmental lobby".
Click to expand...

Don't you forget the multi-faceted anti-AGW lobby - which, by the way, includes the Daily Mail. (They also have a thing about MMR, and about Princess Diana being murdered by MI6.)


So these guys in the Vatican see right through Hansen's preaching (likely from having considerable experience in the profession of preaching?)
Click to expand...

Rather, they haven't seen through the lobbying they've been subjected to. They seem to have bought into AGW as stepping on their territory. They're understanding of science - even in principle - is questionable. The Vatican is a highly politicised institution - perhaps not in the way you understand politics, but politicised all the same. They don't have much time to spare on science. Remember, these are the people who claim that HIV can wriggle through condoms.

How's the Arctic doing? Any Polar Bears drowning lately?
Click to expand...

The Alaskan Arctic has been remarkably warm recently, for the time of year.

All the polar bears are tucked-up in dens in a dormant state (not actual hibernation, but close). They come out when the Sun comes up. They're not really cut out for hunting in the dark (the colouration gives that away), and anyway their prey isn't on the ice at this time of year.
 
CapelDodger said:
Thee's no doubt that critics of of AGW often describe it as dogmatic and a religion. What is very much in doubt is the ability of senior cardinals or Benny Da Pope to judge the validity of those acccusations.

While it's true that "A broad consensus is developing among the world's scientific community over the evils of climate change" (to put it mildly), the contrary message is not only pushed by "an intransigent body of scientific opinion" but by a multi-faceted lobby. It seems the vatican has been nobbled. Considering the ludicrous things they (presumably) believe, that can't be too difficult.

The cynic in me naturally wonders how much Church money is invested in the fossil-fuel industry.
Click to expand...

My guess is it's another 'reds under the bed' scare.

I can actually point you to these people if you want. They are a motly collection of lost souls who stand on a street corner in the city from time to time, and are ignored by 999 out of a 1000 people who wander past. That they are the secret driving force behind the IPCC and the scientific research is laughable.
 
David Rodale said:
BTW, I ran a quick statistical R squared (which Capeldodger hasn't the foggiest what it means) check on the last ten years of temps vs CO2 levels. It's not pretty for AGW.
Click to expand...

I don't need to know what r-squared is to realise that no correlation between CO2-load and temperature can be expected except in an equilibrium state - which this isn't. AGW is a cumulative effect. It doesn't create energy, it changes the planet's energy-budget - the energy comes from the Sun. Doubling pre-industrial CO2-load overnight will not cause a 2C warming overnight. It will over decades.

If I'm wrong, explain to me why your r-squared calculation is significant.

Global temperatures are not yet at equilibrium with current CO2-load, which is continuing to increase and will for the foreseeable future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom