Watch out for carb icing - world temp plummets.
Discussion
ludo said:
mybrainhurts said:
ludo said:
ETA: BTW, attacking the source of an argument rather than its correctness is what is known as an ad-hominem, I'm told that is the behaviour of the "True Believer".
Yes, your lot developed it into an art form.So why not give them some back...?
ludo said:
Spokey said:
ludo said:
I did notice however in the clip they selectively quote the first draft to make it look like it was originally pro-skeptic (or at least questioning) - which it wasn't (they only quoted the first sentence deleted from the original draft, not the second which strongly impled that the cold period was not evidence against a long term warming trend), so the media was doing a bit of its own manipulation there. Plus ca change...
Actually, I disagree. I thought the first draft hinted at being pro-skeptic myself. I was rather taken aback by it, after all, I was reading it on the BBC.
ludo said:
billynomates said:
ludo said:
The best thing to do is to read the blogs on both sides of the debate (RealClimate.org and ClimateAudit for example) and follow the references they give. RealClimate has a FAQ section, which is a good place to start. I too am fed up of sensationalist articles, from both camps.
RealClimate ...get real they spend most of their time deleting comments from the non believers, however strong/weak their arguments are. Mann and his henchman have steel like grip on that site, what a bloody obnoxious bunch they are.
Steve M's site doesn't do that it debugs all the crap coming from the likes of Hansen et al.
So bristlecones to you
ETA: BTW, attacking the source of an argument rather than its correctness is what is known as an ad-hominem, I'm told that is the behaviour of the "True [Dis]Believer".
Edited by ludo on Thursday 10th April 07:38
The Excession said:
ludo said:
The best thing to do is to read the blogs on both sides of the debate (RealClimate.org and ClimateAudit for example) and follow the references they give. RealClimate has a FAQ section, which is a good place to start. I too am fed up of sensationalist articles, from both camps.
I too would applaud this sentiment. I would, right about now, like to thank ludo for keeping the debate alive, neigh roaring, like one of those big bonfires you'd see on November 5th as a kid, before they were banned.Tremendous stuff!
Spokey said:
ludo said:
Spokey said:
ludo said:
I did notice however in the clip they selectively quote the first draft to make it look like it was originally pro-skeptic (or at least questioning) - which it wasn't (they only quoted the first sentence deleted from the original draft, not the second which strongly impled that the cold period was not evidence against a long term warming trend), so the media was doing a bit of its own manipulation there. Plus ca change...
Actually, I disagree. I thought the first draft hinted at being pro-skeptic myself. I was rather taken aback by it, after all, I was reading it on the BBC.
Does anyone watch Boston Legal?
Last night’s was pretty good (as always), they had one guy suing the legal firm for ‘not being green enough’,
The defence ripped into the false green credentials of the hybrid car the guy who was suing drove (giving the ‘un-green’ figures for the whole life cycle of the car) to the bottled water his prosecuting lawyer was drinking.
It was quite refreshing to see a program that has the balls to argue the other side of the story for once!
Last night’s was pretty good (as always), they had one guy suing the legal firm for ‘not being green enough’,
The defence ripped into the false green credentials of the hybrid car the guy who was suing drove (giving the ‘un-green’ figures for the whole life cycle of the car) to the bottled water his prosecuting lawyer was drinking.
It was quite refreshing to see a program that has the balls to argue the other side of the story for once!
turbobloke said:
Cue ludo scratching around for Esso adverts in the Bellingham Herald....turbobloke said:
That's a fairly balanced bit of reporting you've posted (for a change )“In three years we’ll at least know the direction we are headed,” Easterbrook said. “If we are one degree warmer in 2010 than we were in 2005, I will appear here and eat my words.”
One degree in 5 years is an unfeasibly high bar methinks, especially as 2005 was such a warm year, but the sentiment is right - with all the big claims being made about solar cycles recently it looks like the next few years will bang the nail in a few coffins one way or the other.
Edited by kerplunk on Friday 11th April 12:06
kerplunk said:
turbobloke said:
That's a fairly balanced bit of reporting you've posted (for a change )“In three years we’ll at least know the direction we are headed,” Easterbrook said. “If we are one degree warmer in 2010 than we were in 2005, I will appear here and eat my words.”
kerplunk said:
One degree in 5 years is an unfeasibly high bar methinks, especially as 2005 was such a warm year,
Indeed, AFAICS the GISS temperature anomaly hasn't changed by that much even from 1909 to the present date!kerplunk said:
but the sentiment is right - with all the big claims being made about solar cycles recently it looks like the next few years will bang the nail in a few coffins one way or the other.
Yes, both sides are making some hypotheses that are at least falsifiable in the medium term, which is a good thing.ludo said:
kerplunk said:
turbobloke said:
That's a fairly balanced bit of reporting you've posted (for a change )“In three years we’ll at least know the direction we are headed,” Easterbrook said. “If we are one degree warmer in 2010 than we were in 2005, I will appear here and eat my words.”
kerplunk said:
That's a fairly balanced bit of reporting you've posted (for a change )
One degree in 5 years is an unfeasibly high bar methinks, especially as 2005 was such a warm year, but the sentiment is right - with all the big claims being made about solar cycles recently it looks like the next few years will bang the nail in a few coffins one way or the other.
Ignoring kerplunk's false claim regarding posts, k is, by implication, damning the IPCC and its modellers. Remind us of how much enhanced greenouse warming (deg Celsius) was initially predicted for up to now, and how muxch we got. Remind us of the initial predictions of sea level rise and how much we got. Remind us of the initial predictions of ice mass loss and how much we got. All over just a few years.One degree in 5 years is an unfeasibly high bar methinks, especially as 2005 was such a warm year, but the sentiment is right - with all the big claims being made about solar cycles recently it looks like the next few years will bang the nail in a few coffins one way or the other.
Three years or five years, I'd say both are too short a timescale as we must continually look at the data for evidence of future solar activity. Late starting solar cycles being a case in point. Archibald's original submission as featured on HM Treasury website, with cooling of 1.5 deg Celsius by 2020, has the right timescale and about the right temperature change.
Archibald update here
ludo said:
Yes, both sides are making some hypotheses that are at least falsifiable in the medium term, which is a good thing.
If the current GCMs had factored in the correct forcing for soot then they would have produced much higher temperatures than they have. This means that such models have already been falsified.ludo said:
kerplunk said:
turbobloke said:
That's a fairly balanced bit of reporting you've posted (for a change )“In three years we’ll at least know the direction we are headed,” Easterbrook said. “If we are one degree warmer in 2010 than we were in 2005, I will appear here and eat my words.”
kerplunk said:
One degree in 5 years is an unfeasibly high bar methinks, especially as 2005 was such a warm year,
Indeed, AFAICS the GISS temperature anomaly hasn't changed by that much even from 1909 to the present date!turbobloke said:
ludo said:
kerplunk said:
turbobloke said:
That's a fairly balanced bit of reporting you've posted (for a change )“In three years we’ll at least know the direction we are headed,” Easterbrook said. “If we are one degree warmer in 2010 than we were in 2005, I will appear here and eat my words.”
However, I not that you do not comment that the test proposed in the article you posted is:
(i) so easy to pass as to be meaningless (1 degree in five years)
(ii) based on a five year trend when he said a ten year trend was interesting
(iii) not based on today as the start date, which means that he already knew the first couple of years were already cooler than normal, so really he is asking to be proved wrong by a one degree change in three years!
s2art said:
ludo said:
Yes, both sides are making some hypotheses that are at least falsifiable in the medium term, which is a good thing.
If the current GCMs had factored in the correct forcing for soot then they would have produced much higher temperatures than they have. This means that such models have already been falsified.However, as papers are published pointing out the shortcomings of the models, they are replicated and verified, and if they have value they are added to the model. That is how science works, it is progressive, and one would hope the models get progressively better. They are still pretty much the only meaningful way to make objective forecasts and predictions.
ludo said:
It is indeed interesting, for a start it highlights the fact that issues such as ENSO have a substantial effect on the climate (e.g. 1998 and 2008)
You mean, it highlights the domonance of natural forcings, showing that invisibly small = non-existent anthropogenic effects are nowhere, and that the IPCC plus other models can't even get that right when we've known about ENSO for how long?! Then we actually agree.Don't put your hopes in ENSO. Cooling since 2002 precedes the mid-2007 La Nina by five years and La Nina typically lasts for up to two years. Previous La Nina episodes were in 1999-2000, and a minor one 2000-2001. As of now the mid-2007 La Nina is a moderate one.
Cooling 2002-2007 was what exactly? Solar, as per the next two or three decades. Not a chance of an excuse. Dyke plugging along those lines won't stop the MMGWT edifice from collapsing.
Edited by turbobloke on Friday 11th April 12:59
kerplunk said:
ludo said:
kerplunk said:
turbobloke said:
That's a fairly balanced bit of reporting you've posted (for a change )“In three years we’ll at least know the direction we are headed,” Easterbrook said. “If we are one degree warmer in 2010 than we were in 2005, I will appear here and eat my words.”
kerplunk said:
One degree in 5 years is an unfeasibly high bar methinks, especially as 2005 was such a warm year,
Indeed, AFAICS the GISS temperature anomaly hasn't changed by that much even from 1909 to the present date!Aerosols? You know the precise score there? How's that when the IPCC switch sign for the forcing and models can't cope with it?
As ever, fiddle factor parade.
Get your razor out and stick to the straightforward strong science approach. You'll have to jump off ths sinking ship sooner or later.
As ever, fiddle factor parade.
Get your razor out and stick to the straightforward strong science approach. You'll have to jump off ths sinking ship sooner or later.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff