Presentation on climate change

[xahrx]

@Poptech

@xahrx

Bullshit. I’ve been in many a debate where skeptics lose it because they deny basic and well understood facts like the nature of greenhouse gases.

That depends on who you are talking to, you can find extremists on both sides. But you should know better that skeptical scientists arguing this are not making these claims and thus implying it with your statement is disingenous.

I never said skeptical scientists, I said skeptics.

@Poptech

@xahrx

CO2 and Methan are greenhouse gases. If you don’t think this is certain, I invite you back to high school level science.

I don’t think anything is certain until it has been empirically proven (yes I am aware of the experiments). The term greenhouse gases is misleading as even with the common theory it is nothing like a greenhouse. Forcing, Sensitivity and Residence Time are in wide dispute.

Yes, they are, and that’s the crux of the issue as to how they will affect the climate, if at all. However, their behavior vis a vi IR is well established. Their is no possibility of empirically establishing the effect in the climate system because there’s no way in hell to run a controlled experiment. And arguing the difference between an actual greenhouse and the greehouse effect is nonsense as no one but a few dipsitcks are claiming the greenhouse effect is based on what happens in greenhouses.

@Poptech

@xahrx

The Earth has warmed over the last century, that is also a statement that is virtually certain, though some would like a full on audit of the temperature record and proxy studies before saying it is so, which I wouldn’t disagree with.

The centuries accepted warming is +0.6C and the warming originated at the end of the LIA.

And indeed, if you’ll actually read my posts rather than simply posting knee jerk skeptic talking points you will see I have addressed the issue of where the ‘trend’ should or should not be started, and that starting one in 98 to show cooling is no more or less valid that starting one at the end of the LIA to show warming. So what’s your point?

@Poptech

I have not seen any debate on this paper including it’s authors. I don’t run from anything based on peer-pressure or appeals to authority. Please provide the ample discussion at the skeptics sites, I am not interested in RC or Rabett Run.

Do your own search, I’m not your grad student flunky. Just because RC is an activist site doesn’t mean what they say is always wrong. It’s too bad you don’t care about Rabett Run, they’ve got a complete debunking of Gerlich/Tscheuschner there. Put simply their math is wrong, and when done correctly there is always the proper increase in entropy and tranfer from warm to cool body required to the second law to hold. As for appeals to authority, unless you’re qualified to do the math yourself, which I doubt and I myself certaily am not, authority is all you have. All the alarmists have ripped this paper’s authors a new one, I know of few skeptics who take it seriously if any.

[Poptech]

@xahrx

I never said skeptical scientists, I said skeptics.

Than which “skeptics” are you refering to because I have not heard this as a common argument as you implied

@xahrx

Their is no possibility of empirically establishing the effect in the climate system because there’s no way in hell to run a controlled experiment.

Which is why I do not replace my skepticism with faith as you have. You claim people should accept things as “fact” that have not been empirically proven.

@xahrx

And indeed, if you’ll actually read my posts rather than simply posting knee jerk skeptic talking points you will see I have addressed the issue of where the ‘trend’ should or should not be started, and that starting one in 98 to show cooling is no more or less valid that starting one at the end of the LIA to show warming. So what’s your point?

It is very valid as all the models, including those based on just the “greenhouse theory” suggest perpetual warming with no cooling

@xahrx

Do your own search, I’m not your grad student flunky. Just because RC is an activist site doesn’t mean what they say is always wrong.

Actually it means everything they post is suspect. I am not one for Fenton Communications funded sites. Their wiki shill William Connelly has recently been removed as Wiki administrator after supressing thousands of articles.

@xahrx

It’s too bad you don’t care about Rabett Run

That is not a published criticism. I have read these “rebuttals” from alarmist sites. Do you have any that include a response from the author fo the paper? If not don’t believe everything you read because they made the same claims about one of Michael’s papers which turned out not to change the conclusion.

[xahrx]

@wilderness

@xahrx

Bullshit. I’ve been in many a debate where skeptics lose it…

then you say:

@xahrx

…had their new assholes torn for them.

Does this mean you lost it or are a skeptic? No need to answer. Simply thought how inconsisently funny this was.

Please tell me what that ‘inconsistency’ is, I’m dying to know.

[Esuric]

@xahrx

Please tell me what that ‘inconsistency’ is, I’m dying to know.

Don’t die, it’s not worth it.

[xahrx]

@Esuric

@Poptech

I don’t think anything is certain until it has been empirically proven (yes I am aware of the experiments). The term greenhouse gases is misleading as even with the common theory it is nothing like a greenhouse. Forcing, Sensitivity and Residence Time are in wide dispute.

Well, it’s a scientific fact that CO2 and Methane capture and retain heat. But it’s also a scientific fact that greenhouse gasses are the result of increased temperatures, and not the cause.

No, it’s not. It’s a fact that the proxies we have indicate that CO2 increases follow temperature increases. The temperature increase likely leads to more CO2 being released from the ocean and any melt that occurs. That does not mean the temp increases cause the release of CO2 exclusively, they are just a contributing factor in a complex, compound process. Delay in the response of the planet’s temperature along with decreased reflectivity from the poles due to melt because of a prior modest increase in CO2, which is then accelerated because the warming speeds release from other areas, is one of the potential positive feedback loops within the climate. All told it is not unreasonable that CO2 concentrations and ice loss may lag temperature increases, and regardless one would still have to account for additional CO2 in the atmosphere. What temp increases preceeding CO2 does mean is that CO2 may be a bit player in a larger cycle of forcings which will overshadow any contributions man has made. What we have contributed may be easily brought back into solution somehow in the oceans and/or dealt with through some other means such as increased plant life due to CO2 fertilization.

[Poptech]

@xahrx

Please tell me what that ‘inconsistency’ is, I’m dying to know.

I suspect he is a “moderate” someone who wants to believe they are objective and everyone else is not. Then he cites Rabett Run who’s author claims to be a bunny rabbit but since the bunny posts alot about climate science we should take it seriously? Come on.

[Poptech]

@xahrx

That does not mean the temp increases cause the release of CO2 exclusively, they are just a contributing factor in a complex, compound process.

Of course it could mean just that.

@xahrx

Delay in the response of the planet’s temperature along with decreased reflectivity from the poles due to melt because of a prior modest increase in CO2, which is then accelerated because the warming speeds release from other areas, is one of the potential positive feedback loops within the climate.

It accelerates it so much that some other force just puts on the brakes? Absolutely none of the CO2 positive feedback loops has ever been proven empirically.

The only conclusion that can be drawn from the ice-cores is that CO2 does NOT drive temperature changes.

[xahrx]

@Poptech

@xahrx

I never said skeptical scientists, I said skeptics.

Than which “skeptics” are you refering to because I have not heard this as a common argument as you implied

Troll the internet on your own, I’m not going to waste the time looking up past claims of something so trivial and idiotic.

@Poptech

@xahrx

Their is no possibility of empirically establishing the effect in the climate system because there’s no way in hell to run a controlled experiment.

Which is why I do not replace my skepticism with faith as you have. You claim people should accept things as “fact” that have not been empirically proven.

Please quote where I have demonstrated said “faith”.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, experiments have proven that. What overall effect that will have in the climate is up for debate. That’s what I have said. If that is a statement of faith to you then you are: one, illiterate; two, too caught up in this issue that you need to argue with people you don’t even have any disagreements with.

@Poptech

@xahrx

And indeed, if you’ll actually read my posts rather than simply posting knee jerk skeptic talking points you will see I have addressed the issue of where the ‘trend’ should or should not be started, and that starting one in 98 to show cooling is no more or less valid that starting one at the end of the LIA to show warming. So what’s your point?

It is very valid as all the models, including those based on just the “greenhouse theory” suggest perpetual warming with no cooling

And a cooling ‘trend’ of ten years right after a heat spike is just as meaningless and proves just as little as a warming ‘trend’ of 100 years right after an unusually cool period. I have already said the models are inadequate and essentially useless. From my above post: “The computer models though are the crux the AGW argument. The whole turning point of this whole debate is that because these precious models can’t account for warming for the last few decades unless man made influeces are assumed, then man must be altering the climate. This is circular and ridiculous. The modelers admit their models don’t even account properly for cloud feedback among others, and don’t incorporate well known weather patterns like PDO. Now we know they didn’t predict the current cooling.”

So what point is it exactly that you’re trying to make, or did you not even bother to read my posts beyond the first bit of verbiage that indicated I wasn’t a die hard, damn the torpedos skeptic of all science down to and including basic physics and chemistry?

@Poptech

@xahrx

Do your own search, I’m not your grad student flunky. Just because RC is an activist site doesn’t mean what they say is always wrong.

Actually it means everything they post is suspect. I am not one for Fenton Communications funded sites. Their wiki shill William Connelly has recently been removed as Wiki administrator after supressing thousands of articles.

Once more, from my above post: “RealClimate is paid for by left wing activist orgs and run by people close to and totally mixed in with the whole Climategate fiasco which is turning out to run much deeper than even most skeptics expected.” Yes, everything they post needs to be looked at carefully. That doesn’t mean everything they post is wrong. And when they post a 20 year old study by Hansen, schmuck that he is, that says due to orbital and other factors CO2 release and ice loss might trail temperature increases, that’s worth looking into. Is that too fine a point for some reason?

@Poptech

@xahrx

It’s too bad you don’t care about Rabett Run

That is not a published criticism.

So what? I thought appeals to authority were beneath you, now you dismiss a criticism because it hasn’t been published in a main stream journal and/or the author hasn’t responded? You want to dismiss a 100 year trend in temperature but think a ten year trend in cooling is significant? Care to apply the same standards to yourself as you do to everyone else? The paper suggests at base that the mechanism that keeps the Earth mild, the moon freezing, and Venus insanely hot, doesn’t exist. Instead of trying to over turn fairly well established ideas with one apparently poor paper, maybe you could concentrate on the actual and very real weaknesses with the theory such as the claimed climate sensitivity level to CO2, the idea of dominant negative feedbacks and how that contradicts the idea of a largely stable system over the years, etc.

[alimentarius]

Is it true that the IPCC was founded to promote AGW? Source?

[xahrx]

@Poptech

@xahrx

That does not mean the temp increases cause the release of CO2 exclusively, they are just a contributing factor in a complex, compound process.

Of course it could mean just that.

It could mean God farted. There are other mechanisms for CO2 release, none of them contradict AGW theory. What’s at issue in this particular point is how much does the CO2 we’ve added to the atmosphere result in warming, and will its contribution be significant or overshadowed by other forcings. And the real point is that, since it was predicted to some degree by the very people who are alarmists, it’s not a refutation of the underlying theory.

@Poptech

@xahrx

Delay in the response of the planet’s temperature along with decreased reflectivity from the poles due to melt because of a prior modest increase in CO2, which is then accelerated because the warming speeds release from other areas, is one of the potential positive feedback loops within the climate.

It accelerates it so much that some other force just puts on the brakes? Absolutely none of the CO2 positive feedback loops has ever been proven empirically.

The only conclusion that can be drawn from the ice-cores is that CO2 does NOT drive temperature changes.

No, it means none of the past increases in CO2 have lead to run away warming. A student of Austrian Economics should know the dangers of trying to use the past to ‘predict’ the future in open ended complex systems. Since there were no brainy monkeys burning fossil fuels nonstop and on a large scale during those previous times either, it’s quite reasonable to question what affect the additional CO2 will have, if any, and whether or not that forcing which ‘put the brakes on’ before is going to do the same again. I’m inclined to believe it will. However, just as it’s wrong for alarmists to go around villifying skeptics, it’s wrong to discount everything AGW proponents say too.

[Esuric]

Can you please explain why other planets, during this same period, also experienced global warming? Are there hummers on Triton? And yes, global cooling absolutely invalidates AGW, especially since there’s an alternative theory which explains this cooling phenomenon.

Also, climatology and astrophysics are natural sciences, while economics is a social science. They are intrinsically different, and employ different methodologies. So stop.

[xahrx]

@alimentarius

Is it true that the IPCC was founded to promote AGW? Source?

Sort of. they were founded under the assumption that climate change was real and significant and that we had to Do Something! about it. Check their founding documents/mission and vision statements and of UNEP too. It’s pretty much all you’ll need.

[alimentarius]

“to prepare a comprehensive review and recommendations with respect to the state of knowledge of the science of climate change; social and economic impact of climate change, possible response strategies and elements for inclusion in a possible future international convention on climate.”

Climategate according to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident

[xahrx]

@Esuric

Can you please explain why other planets, during this same period, also experienced global warming? Are there hummers on Triton? And yes, global cooling absolutely invalidates AGW, especially since there’s an alternative theory which explains this cooling phenomenon.

My guess would be the sun.

Once more, do you need me to spell it out for you: I AM A SKEPTIC. I DO NOT believe the IPCC. I DO NOT believe the alarmists. I DO NOT think the Earth is warming significantly or heading into a period of runaway warming due to fossil fuel use. However, I also have a shred of humility and also know that I DO NOT know everything, and so am not going to so blythely dismiss decades of work which might indicate man made influences in the climate.

@Esuric

Also, climatology and astrophysics are natural sciences, while economics is a social science. They are intrinsically different, and employ different methodologies. So stop.

Irrelevant to the point. Weather and climate, like the economy, are causal systems that are too complex to study in a laboratory. As such some of the restrictions that apply to the study of economics apply to the study of the climate, some do not. Lab experiments are possible in climate science, but with very limited applicability. The climate is deterministic, the economy is not, but even taken as such as many do, determinism does not lead to predictability. Many of the same issues arise, which is why economists tend to make good critics of climate science.

[alimentarius]

Couldn’t find it.

[alimentarius]

IPCC is peer review based, right? Hence, lots of scientists review each report, so will it not be impossible for a small group of dishonest scientists to get such a significant influence?

As long as I haven’t myself done climatic research, isn’t it fair to assume that the majority of the scientists are right?

[xahrx]

@alimentarius

IPCC is peer review based, right? Hence, lots of scientists review each report, so will it not be impossible for a small group of dishonest scientists to get such a significant influence?

It’s supposed to be peer review based. Recently it has been demonstrated that they have at least one referred to un peer reviewed work to support an alarmist claim even when peer reviewed work existed which said otherwise. It has also been showed by Roger Pielke that the IPCC ignored a lot of peer reviewed work on the surface temperature for no apparent reason other than it didn’t agree with their desired conclusions. It has further been shown in the climategate emails and a few reconstructions of events/time lines that the hockey team purposefully pushed to have papers delayed so they could get responses through, and that they gamed the process so the people they were critical of didn’t have ‘the last word’ as they would have normally. There is also the larger issue of where the grant money goes and what affect that has on the very production of work skeptical of the politically approved ‘consensus’.

@alimentarius

As long as I haven’t myself done climatic research, isn’t it fair to assume that the majority of the scientists are right?

No, it isn’t. Science is not a majority rules field. It is also wrong to assume the IPCC is made up of scientists, it is made up of political appointees, some of whom happen to be scientists.

[alimentarius]

How many scientists have reviewed the report?

[alimentarius]

@xahrx

Recently it has been demonstrated that they have at least one referred to un peer reviewed work to support an alarmist claim even when peer reviewed work existed which said otherwise. It has also been showed by Roger Pielke that the IPCC ignored a lot of peer reviewed work on the surface temperature for no apparent reason other than it didn’t agree with their desired conclusions.

Source to these claims?

[xahrx]

No idea. Review comments are not made public, so there’s no real way to know who reviewed what and when. Some reviewers may have reviewed only sections, some the whole report, some may have found it wanting, some may have agreed with it totally. The IPCC doesn’t make review notes and comments public so there’s no way to know who spent time on what and what their opinion was generally speaking.