Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[Kawasicki]

plunker said:

loafer123 said:

plunker said:

Pointing out the current uncertainties re clouds is valid comment but clouds could just as easily serve to amplify the forcing from CO2 as offset it.

Did I miss the memo? I thought the science was settled?

Large uncertainty re clouds is no big secret so you've missed a great deal by the looks.

.
No, I also read that the science was settled. 97% of climate scientists are in agreement.

Do you think you know better? On a blog, a car related blog?

[plunker]

Globs said:

plunker said:

could

Clouds 'could' rinse your car. 'Could' put out a fire. 'Could' fill up a lake.

The point is that they are fundamental to the energy equation and you don't know either:

1) The current cloud albedo
2) Future cloud albedo variation

So your equation is invalid. Period.

Svenson claims to predict subtle variations due to space weather in 'The Cloud Theory'
http://thecloudmystery.com/The_Cloud_Mystery/Home....
he may or may not be correct, but unless you can predict them your climate prediction is stuffed.

I haven't made a prediction nor do I have any equations, and I'm not sure it's right to say we don't know the current cloud albedo since there are now satellites supposedly measuring it, but yes I think how water vapour/clouds respond will be the main deciding factor for climate sensitivity to CO2 forcing.

[robinessex]

Kawasicki said:

plunker said:

loafer123 said:

plunker said:

Pointing out the current uncertainties re clouds is valid comment but clouds could just as easily serve to amplify the forcing from CO2 as offset it.

Did I miss the memo? I thought the science was settled?

Large uncertainty re clouds is no big secret so you've missed a great deal by the looks.

.
No, I also read that the science was settled. 97% of climate scientists are in agreement.

Do you think you know better? On a blog, a car related blog?

Are you the only dumbo who believes the 97% rubbish? You can dismiis that with commonsense and logic. Or read the past postings here.

[plunker]

Kawasicki said:

plunker said:

loafer123 said:

plunker said:

Pointing out the current uncertainties re clouds is valid comment but clouds could just as easily serve to amplify the forcing from CO2 as offset it.

Did I miss the memo? I thought the science was settled?

Large uncertainty re clouds is no big secret so you've missed a great deal by the looks.

.
No, I also read that the science was settled. 97% of climate scientists are in agreement.

Do you think you know better? On a blog, a car related blog?

I 97% sure there's large uncertainty about clouds and it's no great secret - see IPCC reports.

[PRTVR]

plunker said:

Kawasicki said:

plunker said:

loafer123 said:

plunker said:

Pointing out the current uncertainties re clouds is valid comment but clouds could just as easily serve to amplify the forcing from CO2 as offset it.

Did I miss the memo? I thought the science was settled?

Large uncertainty re clouds is no big secret so you've missed a great deal by the looks.

.
No, I also read that the science was settled. 97% of climate scientists are in agreement.

Do you think you know better? On a blog, a car related blog?

I 97% sure there's large uncertainty about clouds and it's no great secret - see IPCC reports.

But that doesn't add up, if there is uncertainty about cloud's there must be uncertainty about temperature rise atributed to CO2, you cannot have a major player with uncertainties but certainties with a trace gas.

[Globs]

plunker said:

I'm not sure it's right to say we don't know the current cloud albedo

So what was the Albedo yesterday at 12 GMT?

Remember the nearest the appendix sources in IPCC's AR4 could get is within a 10% agreement of each other.
Note that a 1% error blows the AR4 forcing values away.
Note also the satellite needs to always be seeing the full, sunny side.

BTW the equation to which I refer is at the CENTRE of AGW, but of course anyone on this thread would already know that.

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/...

[plunker]

PRTVR said:

plunker said:

Kawasicki said:

plunker said:

loafer123 said:

plunker said:

Pointing out the current uncertainties re clouds is valid comment but clouds could just as easily serve to amplify the forcing from CO2 as offset it.

Did I miss the memo? I thought the science was settled?

Large uncertainty re clouds is no big secret so you've missed a great deal by the looks.

.
No, I also read that the science was settled. 97% of climate scientists are in agreement.

Do you think you know better? On a blog, a car related blog?

I 97% sure there's large uncertainty about clouds and it's no great secret - see IPCC reports.

But that doesn't add up, if there is uncertainty about cloud's there must be uncertainty about temperature rise atributed to CO2, you cannot have a major player with uncertainties but certainties with a trace gas.

There is uncertainty about temperature rise attributed to CO2 - see Ipcc reports. They use probabilistic language.

[plunker]

Globs said:

plunker said:

Remember the nearest the appendix sources in IPCC's AR4 could get is within a 10% agreement of each other.

10% what. You're first post cited numbers but not units. Got a link?

[Globs]

plunker said:

Globs said:

Remember the nearest the appendix sources in IPCC's AR4 could get is within a 10% agreement of each other.

10% what. You're first post cited numbers but not units. Got a link?

Sigh.

Deep breath.

Albedo is a ratio, there are no units. Estimates range from 0.30 to 0.33, a 10% variation. Again, no units.
The reference for this is in AR4 - the appendix dealing with albedo estimates.

https://www.google.co.uk/

[XM5ER]

plunker said:

There is uncertainty about temperature rise attributed to CO2 - see Ipcc reports. They use probabilistic language.

Gavin Schmidt has gone on the record now, saying the temp rise since 1950 is 70% attributable to CO2. Check his twitter feed.

[robinessex]

XM5ER said:

plunker said:

There is uncertainty about temperature rise attributed to CO2 - see Ipcc reports. They use probabilistic language.

Gavin Schmidt has gone on the record now, saying the temp rise since 1950 is 70% attributable to CO2. Check his twitter feed.

So when is he going to claim the $100,000 for prooving that ?

[Globs]

XM5ER said:

Gavin Schmidt has gone on the record now, saying the temp rise since 1950 is 70% attributable to CO2. Check his twitter feed.

Then according to Gavin Schmidt and IPCC's AR4 there can be no more warming because the equilibrium point has already changed.
Problem solved.

Isn't science a bh?

[DapperDanMan]

robinessex said:

Kawasicki said:

plunker said:

loafer123 said:

plunker said:

Pointing out the current uncertainties re clouds is valid comment but clouds could just as easily serve to amplify the forcing from CO2 as offset it.

Did I miss the memo? I thought the science was settled?

Large uncertainty re clouds is no big secret so you've missed a great deal by the looks.

.
No, I also read that the science was settled. 97% of climate scientists are in agreement.

Do you think you know better? On a blog, a car related blog?

Are you the only dumbo who believes the 97% rubbish? You can dismiis that with commonsense and logic. Or read the past postings here.

Is there any need for that response in this forum?

Clearly 97% of climate scientists also believe it so by definition the poster isn't the only one. Of course they may not be dumbos so your statement could be correct (although I see no evidence to back it up). But of course if they aren't dumb then how come they have it so wrong (from your point of view)? Therefore if your statement is correct it is also wrong at the same time.

If it is between science and a conspiracy theory I will take science every time. If climate change is in no way affected by man or only slightly affected by man then someone needs to go out there and prove it. By proof I don't mean naysaying of what anyone says I mean experimental proof that can be reproduced. So please go and do the research and present your proof for the world to see and then if that proof is compelling enough for the 97% then that will become science.

Do you understand that science is an endeavour to prove itself wrong and that there are no absolute certainties? What those who argue against man contributing to climate change in a significant way mistake for a weakness in science is actually the strength of science.

• Build a model
• Collect the data
• Data doesn't fit the model then revise the model
• Collect the data
• and repeat as necessary

So the inconvenient truth is put up or shut up.

Edited by DapperDanMan on Tuesday 28th March 16:11

[Jinx]

DapperDanMan said:

Is there any need for that response in this forum?

Clearly 97% of climate scientists also believe it so by definition the poster isn't the only one. Of course they may not be dumbos so your statement could be correct (although I see no evidence to back it up). But of course if they aren't dumb then how come they have it so wrong (from your point of view)? Therefore if your statement is correct it is also wrong at the same time.

If it is between science and a conspiracy theory I will take science every time. If climate change is in no way affected by man or only slightly affected by man then someone needs to go out there and prove it. By proof I don't mean naysaying of what anyone says I mean experimental proof that can be reproduced. So please go and do the research and present your proof for the world to see and then if that proof is compelling enough for the 97% then that will become science.

Do you understand that science is an endeavour to prove itself wrong and that there are no absolute certainties? What those who argue against man contributing to climate change in a significant way mistake for a weakness in science is actually the strength of science.

• Build a model
• Collect the data
• Data doesn't fit the model then revise the model
• Collect the data
• and repeat as necessary

So the inconvenient truth is put up or shut up.

Professor Richard Tol said:

http://richardtol.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/now-almos...
TL:DR "If you want to believe that climate researchers are incompetent, biased and secretive, Cook’s paper is an excellent case in point."

[DibblyDobbler]

DapperDanMan said:

• Build a model
• Collect the data
• Data doesn't fit the model then revise the model data
• Collect the data
• and repeat as necessary

So the inconvenient truth is put up or shut up.

Fixed that for you

[Terminator X]

hairykrishna said:

That's two posts in a row claiming that because the climate is a chaotic system it's impossible to model. Is this a new 'sceptic' meme? Of course it's possible to model a chaotic system. Using that model and a large number of initial states you can produce a probability distribution of it's possible future states. It's not like it's some unexpected result that the GCM's show warming with increasing CO2. We know the radiative forcing changes for a change in CO2. Why would you expect no change?

How successful has it been so far if you look back at old models, say 25-30 years ago, vs what they predicted for today?

TX.

[DapperDanMan]

DibblyDobbler said:

DapperDanMan said:

• Build a model
• Collect the data
• Data doesn't fit the model then revise the model data
• Collect the data
• and repeat as necessary

So the inconvenient truth is put up or shut up.

Fixed that for you Made that what I want it to be to fit my narrative

Like I said prove or shut up.

[DapperDanMan]

Jinx said:

DapperDanMan said:

Is there any need for that response in this forum?

Clearly 97% of climate scientists also believe it so by definition the poster isn't the only one. Of course they may not be dumbos so your statement could be correct (although I see no evidence to back it up). But of course if they aren't dumb then how come they have it so wrong (from your point of view)? Therefore if your statement is correct it is also wrong at the same time.

If it is between science and a conspiracy theory I will take science every time. If climate change is in no way affected by man or only slightly affected by man then someone needs to go out there and prove it. By proof I don't mean naysaying of what anyone says I mean experimental proof that can be reproduced. So please go and do the research and present your proof for the world to see and then if that proof is compelling enough for the 97% then that will become science.

Do you understand that science is an endeavour to prove itself wrong and that there are no absolute certainties? What those who argue against man contributing to climate change in a significant way mistake for a weakness in science is actually the strength of science.

• Build a model
• Collect the data
• Data doesn't fit the model then revise the model
• Collect the data
• and repeat as necessary

So the inconvenient truth is put up or shut up.

Professor Richard Tol said:

http://richardtol.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/now-almos...
TL:DR "If you want to believe that climate researchers are incompetent, biased and secretive, Cook’s paper is an excellent case in point."

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-sc...

Anyone can pick a random article to support their point of view can't they.

Is there consensus that the earth is in oblate spheroid?
Is there consensus that if you release an apple from your hand it falls to the ground?
Is there consensus that the earth orbits the sun?

You see consensus doesn't mean it is wrong.

If you start from a conclusion and work backwards you will find you are right.

[DibblyDobbler]

DapperDanMan said:

Like I said prove or shut up.

Gosh you're a bit aggressive Dan!

Revisions to the data are well known and documented - you could argue they are warranted but you must be aware of them surely?

[Jinx]

DapperDanMan said:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-sc...

Anyone can pick a random article to support their point of view can't they.

Is there consensus that the earth is in oblate spheroid?
Is there consensus that if you release an apple from your hand it falls to the ground?
Is there consensus that the earth orbits the sun?

You see consensus doesn't mean it is wrong.

If you start from a conclusion and work backwards you will find you are right.

Random article? It was a follow up from when Professor Richard Tol had demolished the original John (not a scientist) Cook's 97% paper. FFS there is no consensus. It is a lie. SKS is a website by a car-fking-toonist.