• 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:
As I mentioned, most of the "criticisms" seemed lo be pulled from the paper's self criticisms. Actually reading the paper helps.
Click to expand...

Well gee, lucky I have looked at the paper then isn't it?

What do you think about RCs criticism of the method they used to determine the uncertainty of the models? What do you think about Douglass et al. using RAOBCORE v1.2 rather than the more recent v1.4? Are these valid criticisms? If not, why not?

Why do you think Douglass et al. came to a different conclusion to Thorne et al?

These are the sorts of things that you should answer instead of just saying, it's "pap" and it "seems to not be worth discussing."

If the criticisms are unfounded and are addressed in the paper already then you can just point the way can't you. Wouldn't that be a little bit more constructive?
 
a_unique_person said:
As it turns out, the reporter was actually indulging in some creative paraphrasing....(err, lying).

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/12/simon_caldwell_is_a_liar.php#more
Click to expand...

Wow. If you're going to tell a lie, tell a great big one. I fell for it - and my bad. I must confess to an uncharitable attitude towards the Vatican. Thanks for chasing it down.

"Respecting the environment does not mean considering material or animal nature more important than man. Rather, it means not selfishly considering nature to be at the complete disposal of our own interests, for future generations also have the right to reap its benefits and to exhibit towards nature the same responsible freedom that we claim for ourselves. Nor must we overlook the poor, who are excluded in many cases from the goods of creation destined for all. Humanity today is rightly concerned about the ecological balance of tomorrow. It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances."
Click to expand...

Moderate and sensible. Not Daily Mail material by any stretch. So it morphs into

"Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology.
The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering."
Click to expand...

Shameless. Contemptible. Typical Daily Mail.


From the Daily Mail piece, and a sample of crimson-cap scientific accumen :

"In October, the Australian Cardinal George Pell, the Archbishop of Sydney, caused an outcry when he noted that the atmospheric temperature of Mars had risen by 0.5 degrees celsius.
"The industrial-military complex up on Mars can't be blamed for that," he said in a criticism of Australian scientists who had claimed that carbon emissions would force temperatures on earth to rise by almost five degrees by 2070 unless drastic solutions were enforced."
Click to expand...
 
mhaze said:
Yes, it is regurgitated pap.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. Where's it regurgitated from?

You may ignore everything Spencer Weart says.:) For your dose of pro AGW spectroscopy go to Eli Rabbet. He knows that stuff. Weart could not tell a differential equation from a cube root.
Click to expand...

The CO2 and H2O absorption measurements that were made in the 40's under the auspices of the US Air Force weren't taken by Spencer Weart, just reported by him as historical fact. They're what lie at the heart of AGW science. I think Eli Rabbet would confirm that if you asked him.

Do you have any comment to make on those measurements and/or their implications?
 
mhaze said:
[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_14224476190301dd1a.png[/URL]

Models are wrong.
Click to expand...

Where are the error bars on the observations? I thought you were keen on error bars.

The models won't be exactly right in every respect, of course. Theory predicts that the temperature gradient between surface and mid-troposphere will flatten, implying faster warming up there (until equilibrium, but we're far away from that). What theory is not so good at - in the real fluid world - is predicting how much quicker.

Which goes some way to explain why it's become a contrarian focus. Lots of wriggle-room and uncertainty. Unlike, say, nights and winters warming more than days and summers, which anybody can understand and observe for themselves.
 
Pixel42 said:
2007 data confirms warming trend

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7142694.stm
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link.

Hanging a hat on something in there :

""The year began with a weak El Nino... and global temperatures well above the long-term average," said Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA).

"However, since the end of April, the La Nina event has taken some of the heat out of what could have been an even warmer year."
Click to expand...

"Taking the heat out" is a fine choice of words. During La Nina's heat is taken out of the surface system and stored away in the Western Pacific. El Nino's let it back out. The next long El Nino is going to be something to watch. From a safe perch, of course. And it will come.
 
From realclimate.

Previously, the claim was that satellites (in particular the MSU 2LT record produced by UAH) showed a global cooling that was not apparent in the surface temperatures or model runs. That disappeared with a longer record and some important corrections to the processing. Now the claim has been greatly restricted in scope and concerns only the tropics, and the rate of warming in the troposphere (rather than the fact of warming itself, which is now undisputed).
Click to expand...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/#more-509

So it is even more cherry picking than I at first thought. They are only referring to the rate of warming.
 
mhaze said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_14224476190301dd1a.png

Models are wrong.
Click to expand...

Models are looking good

http://www.realclimate.org/images/dpcs_corr.jpg

dpcs_corr.jpg
 
a_unique_person said:
Fair go, the paper it's rebutting only came out yesterday! As for peer reviewed work, you'd be almost silent if that's all you came up with here.
Click to expand...

And who wrote that hot-off-the-press, rushed to the blog rebuttal at RC?

Hint: when Douglass et al responds, we would like to know exactly who the idiot was.
 
fsol said:
Originally Posted by mhaze
As I mentioned, most of the "criticisms" seemed lo be pulled from the paper's self criticisms. Actually reading the paper helps.

​
Well gee, lucky I have looked at the paper then isn't it?
Click to expand...
I'm reminded here of one of AUP's best comebacks, which I shall quote hoping you get the irony (my intent), and not the affront (unclear which way he meant it)-

"Feeling lucky, punk?"
What do you think about RCs criticism of the method they used to determine the uncertainty of the models? What do you think about Douglass et al. using RAOBCORE v1.2 rather than the more recent v1.4? Are these valid criticisms? If not, why not?
Click to expand...
Uncertainty is well discussed in the paper, and spun out of context in RC. I have no problem with the handling of uncertainty vs. range or the choice of the standard deviation definition. Do you?

As for the choice of RAOBCORE v.12 vs. v1.4? Beats me. We can just let Douglass et al. explain that. No doubt there is a good reason. If it does not surface in a few days I'll email them.
Why do you think Douglass et al. came to a different conclusion to Thorne et al?
Click to expand...
You've read the paper, then you understand that Douglass et al. discusses this very issue. Is there a point in quoting from the paper to refute the point made poorly by RC? IF RC makes a point that is already discussed in the paper it's somewhat moot, isn't it?
  • RC rushes out this poorly spun "Rebuttal" (but no one would sign their name to it)
  • RC won't link to the actual article (give the audience predigested pap, not real food).
These are the sorts of things that you should answer instead of just saying, it's "pap" and it "seems to not be worth discussing." If the criticisms are unfounded and are addressed in the paper already then you can just point the way can't you. Wouldn't that be a little bit more constructive?
Click to expand...
Pap -
1. A soft food for infants, made of bread boiled or softtened in milk or water. 2. Nourishment or support from official patronage; as, treasury pap. [Colloq. & Contemptuous]
​
Gee, I don't know. "Pap" fits pretty well.:D
 
mhaze said:
=As for the choice of RAOBCORE v.12 vs. v1.4? Beats me. We can just let Douglass et al. explain that. No doubt there is a good reason. If it does not surface in a few days I'll email them.
You've read the paper, then you understand that Douglass et al. discusses this very issue. Is there a point in quoting from the paper to refute the point made poorly by RC? IF RC makes a point that is already discussed in the paper it's somewhat moot, isn't it?
  • RC rushes out this poorly spun "Rebuttal" (but no one would sign their name to it)
  • RC won't link to the actual article (give the audience predigested pap, not real food).
Click to expand...

Gavin would be the author, since he has signed all the comments.

The peer reviewed response is already out there, as stated in the RC topic.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL029875.shtml

If they had to do peer reviewed science on every denier claim, they would never get any real work done. Gavin et al actually have day jobs doing real research.
 
a_unique_person said:
Gavin would be the author, since he has signed all the comments.

The peer reviewed response is already out there, as stated in the RC topic.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL029875.shtml
Click to expand...

Reverse that to get it right.
Douglass is a response to Thorne.

If they had to do peer reviewed science on every denier claim, they would never get any real work done. Gavin et al actually have day jobs doing real research.
Click to expand...
Wow. Now I get it.

Peer reviewed article by Douglass ..... "denier claim"
Blog by Gavin refutes peer reviewed article.
Gavin must be very important.
By the way....

Why didn't he do very well debating Michael Crichton?

(Gavin speaketh...)


Did the audience not buy into it?

The style of grammer and the level of professionalism of the article at RC leads me to think that it was not written by Gavin. He's pretty sharp.
 
Last edited:
a_unique_person said:
Models are looking good

http://www.realclimate.org/images/dpcs_corr.jpg

[qimg]http://www.realclimate.org/images/dpcs_corr.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

I am not so sure.

According to that article, those confidence bands represent 80% confidence. Taking that chart as read effectively means that the models can't simulate any trend statistically different from zero at any altitude for any acceptable level of statistical certainty (usually 95% at a minimum).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom