Climate Change - the big debate
Discussion
Guam said:
ZondaMark said:
And a third...
I Think you need to bring your friend in herehe said:
Also, did you actually read the article for #59 here? http://www.skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effe... Comments are worth a read too. I've just noticed that one of the papers turbobloke uses is directly debunked on that site (comment #22 onward).
Give me time to get the popcorn first though
Comments on numbers of peer-reviewed papers as per a willy waving contest are a waste of time - although some (enough) were included, the stranglehold on peer review means that good science was kept out of the literature. The remarks dismiss quality science from top people in their field e.g. Nir Shaviv's rebuttal of Sloan and Wolfendale in there on the web for global peer review, not a backroom with IPCC Boy Scouts keeping out science 'even if it means redefining what the peer reviewed literature is'.
What ZondaMArk's 'friend' is saying is mostly opinion i.e. he says the alternatives I posted "have been debunked", well if it's the same debunking as per the original site then it's just more junkscience.
It was an exercise I wanted to carry out but it's not the key issue.Or, the key issues. These are:
1) There is no visible signal in global climate temperature data with established causality to anthropogenic carbon dioxide. The IPCC said so.
Draft:
"Finally we come to the most difficult question of all: 'When will the detection and unambiguous attribution of human-induced climate change occur?' The answer to this question in the light of the very large signal and noise uncertainties discussed in this Chapter is 'We do not know'.
Published:
"Finally we come to the most difficult question of when the detection and attribution of human induced climate change is likely to occur. The answer to this question must be subjective, particularly in the light of the very large signal and noise uncertainties discussed in this Chapter.
(IPCC SAR 1995 WG1 Ch 8 Section 8.6)
Since 1995 there has been no significant warming, didn't Jones say so (oh yes as per the believer site his remark was taken out of context opr something) so no visible signal as at 2010.
2) There is no causality in ice, floods, bears, etc in the absence of 1. This was demondtrated by reference to IPCC scientists (Landsea) and peer reviewed research (Gray) on hurricanes, Barredo's paper on floods, the study on arctic ocean ice, and there's plenty more.
These two key issues are the only substantive evidence that demonstrate the existence of MMUGW, so ZondaMark's 'friend' had better say where the missing signal is and tell the IPCC, also indicate where causality has been established a prioiri not under IPCC assumptions, or be recognised as just another spinner batting for the cause.
What ZondaMArk's 'friend' is saying is mostly opinion i.e. he says the alternatives I posted "have been debunked", well if it's the same debunking as per the original site then it's just more junkscience.
It was an exercise I wanted to carry out but it's not the key issue.Or, the key issues. These are:
1) There is no visible signal in global climate temperature data with established causality to anthropogenic carbon dioxide. The IPCC said so.
Draft:
"Finally we come to the most difficult question of all: 'When will the detection and unambiguous attribution of human-induced climate change occur?' The answer to this question in the light of the very large signal and noise uncertainties discussed in this Chapter is 'We do not know'.
Published:
"Finally we come to the most difficult question of when the detection and attribution of human induced climate change is likely to occur. The answer to this question must be subjective, particularly in the light of the very large signal and noise uncertainties discussed in this Chapter.
(IPCC SAR 1995 WG1 Ch 8 Section 8.6)
Since 1995 there has been no significant warming, didn't Jones say so (oh yes as per the believer site his remark was taken out of context opr something) so no visible signal as at 2010.
2) There is no causality in ice, floods, bears, etc in the absence of 1. This was demondtrated by reference to IPCC scientists (Landsea) and peer reviewed research (Gray) on hurricanes, Barredo's paper on floods, the study on arctic ocean ice, and there's plenty more.
These two key issues are the only substantive evidence that demonstrate the existence of MMUGW, so ZondaMark's 'friend' had better say where the missing signal is and tell the IPCC, also indicate where causality has been established a prioiri not under IPCC assumptions, or be recognised as just another spinner batting for the cause.
ZondaMark said:
Guam said:
ZondaMark said:
And a third...
I Think you need to bring your friend in herehe said:
Also, did you actually read the article for #59 here? http://www.skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effe... Comments are worth a read too. I've just noticed that one of the papers turbobloke uses is directly debunked on that site (comment #22 onward).
Give me time to get the popcorn first though
Yesterday I said:
And I just fed them 127 attrition loops...
If they come on here they should read this thread and the Climate Cat thread from start to finish and only offer comment on anything we haven't included as the rest has been dealt with already.Preferably, just the two points in my previous post need attending to, for brevity.
Finally for tonight, what's wrong with PH chat? Why the age-old knee-jerk about peer reviewed papers?
The IPCC were shown to include mountain guide banter, pressure group PR, typos and the rest in its latest report, all dressed up as science not grey lit. That was in my posts against the junkscience website's point number 100.
If nothing else, with a lack of credible data and lack of sound science, the IPCC's Boy Scouts should at least offer the same courtesy to others as the IPCC sees fit to accord itself and its sources.
The IPCC were shown to include mountain guide banter, pressure group PR, typos and the rest in its latest report, all dressed up as science not grey lit. That was in my posts against the junkscience website's point number 100.
If nothing else, with a lack of credible data and lack of sound science, the IPCC's Boy Scouts should at least offer the same courtesy to others as the IPCC sees fit to accord itself and its sources.
ZondaMark said:
And a third...
Apart from emphasising my previous comment that we're asked to take friendy's word about the so-called 'debunking' I can't resist another reply, as if nothing else it will help prepare for he said:
Also, did you actually read the article for #59 here? http://www.skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effe... Comments are worth a read too. I've just noticed that one of the papers turbobloke uses is directly debunked on that site (comment #22 onward).
Yes, friendy, I read that. I've read it before. The comments are particularly amusing in places. Such as the contributor who obviously isn't well versed on the chemistry of planetary atmospheres as they are (predictably) hung up on the carbon dioxide in Venus' current atmosphere but not aware of the past role of sulphur dioxide and water vapour.
As to the main point, we've discussed saturation and desaturation so many times on here. In particular, saturation is in the scientific literature that friendy so loves.
Hug, H., Chemische Rundschau (1998) and Klima 2000 2, 23-26 (1998)
The desaturation notion was covered in my responses, I didn't consider saturation worthy of anything beyond what's already on here in the two halves of this thread and doubtless others. In addition it's not worth mentioning the abuse of the Beer Lambert Law as a temperature device, or the implications when it's applied properly.
ETA I think friend is ludo
as the same tactics are evident: say 'it has been debunked' then post a link and run for the hills. The link then claims that the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to atmospheric layers. Ho hum.G'night
Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 7th November 22:47
See, I knew plunky was right all along (BTW plunky, you didn't answer my question about what, exactly, we should do about stopping all this nasty CO2 rising?)
Very interesting ZondaMark (have you got one and are you happy with it?). I'm always interested in new information and evidence about this subject, so am very grateful for your friends input. I did show this to a friend of mine, who said he thought it would be a really good idea for your friend to post up directly, to debate point by point, with all his peer reviewed evidence and proof of MMGW. My friend, rather unkindly I thought, suggested if you friend isn't up to it, or can't be bothered, he's nothing more than an opinionated areshole with nothing but the usual empty rhetoric. I'm sure this isn't the case, so look forward to his contributions asap. After all, this is a pressing matter and we need to understand the truth. TIA.
ZondaMark said:
my friend's response said:
yada yada
Lost_BMW said:
Who is your 'friend'? Or, if you aren't prepared to say 'what' is he?
Not a climate specialist.Lost_BMW said:
And, what was your purpose in the questions behind your 1st post, and in your subsequent ones?
I'm good with numbers, not so with the science behind them. Where there's an issue about numbers (e.g. implying correlation=causality) I can deal with it; when it comes to theory and evidence, I don't know where to look and just end up between two conflicting ideas. 
ZondaMark said:
Evening all,
To be brutally honest, I've been out for the evening and am not quite suited to particularly intellectual or scientific discussion atm. Given that I'm also going out in around 6 hours and would like some sleep, I would be eternally grateful if those more in the know than I could offer some input regarding this page which I was pointed to by a warmist earlier, unwilling not only to engage in any reasoned exchange, but to consider the possibility that he and his crowd may just be wrong:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
I would be very suprised if ZondaMark and his friend are not one and the same.To be brutally honest, I've been out for the evening and am not quite suited to particularly intellectual or scientific discussion atm. Given that I'm also going out in around 6 hours and would like some sleep, I would be eternally grateful if those more in the know than I could offer some input regarding this page which I was pointed to by a warmist earlier, unwilling not only to engage in any reasoned exchange, but to consider the possibility that he and his crowd may just be wrong:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
The style of writing and excellent grammar is remarkably consistent.
The friend transforms from being "which I was pointed to by a warmist earlier, unwilling not only to engage in any reasoned exchange" to becoming a full-on chatterbox friend.
The opening lines "I've been out for the evening and am not quite suited to particularly intellectual or scientific discussion" I am uneasy with, it appears to be a clever way of laying the bait more than anything else.
I would be very suprised if Mark's friend appears, but one would think he would jump at the opportunity if he actually exists. Bring him along Mark, prove me wrong please.
turbobloke said:
Finally for tonight, what's wrong with PH chat? Why the age-old knee-jerk about peer reviewed papers?
The IPCC were shown to include mountain guide banter, pressure group PR, typos and the rest in its latest report, all dressed up as science not grey lit.
Just for those that didn't see the IPCC's typo...The IPCC were shown to include mountain guide banter, pressure group PR, typos and the rest in its latest report, all dressed up as science not grey lit.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/838773...
Here's a couple more IPCC related links...
http://www.john-daly.com/guests/un_ipcc.htm
http://climateresearchnews.com/2010/01/un-ipcc-act...
kerplunk said:
oh dear oh dear...
Ah ha. You spotted the irony and hypocrisy. That'll be the irony and hypocrisy of somebody citing a blog that props up junkscience with no credible supporting data, criticising Nir Shanviv's blog which contains sound science supported by the data. If the IPCC can accept mountain guide banter and pressure group PR this does open up what is meant by the scientific literature, and the Climategate Team did say they were redefining it.
Or, you got the invisible signal and the non-causality sorted at last?
mybrainhurts said:
Ludo unfrocked? It had gone through my mind...
"Not a climate specialist" so the book is still open And there's only 125 attrition loops before Christmas
deeps said:
The opening lines "I've been out for the evening and am not quite suited to particularly intellectual or scientific discussion" I am uneasy with, it appears to be a clever way of laying the bait more than anything else.
Intellectual and/or scientific discussion can be on the options list for the 'not a climate specialist' friend of ZondaMark.Do we only ask for data on a visible signal that nobody else has found, and/or an established causal link to ice and floods etc that nobody else has established? The two key points are (as per previously):
1) There is no visible signal in global climate temperature data with established causality to anthropogenic carbon dioxide. The IPCC agree.
Draft:
"Finally we come to the most difficult question of all: 'When will the detection and unambiguous attribution of human-induced climate change occur?' The answer to this question in the light of the very large signal and noise uncertainties discussed in this Chapter is 'We do not know'."
Published:
"Finally we come to the most difficult question of when the detection and attribution of human induced climate change is likely to occur. The answer to this question must be subjective, particularly in the light of the very large signal and noise uncertainties discussed in this Chapter."
(IPCC SAR 1995 WG1 Ch 8 Section 8.6)
Since 1995, episodes of warming have been due to El Nino, a natural phenomenon.
2) There is no causality in ice, floods, bears, etc in the absence of 1. There is peer reviewed research on this e.g. Gray on hurricanes, there's Barredo's paper on floods, the study on arctic ocean ice, and so on.
So a pointer to the above causal signal and/or an established causal link to ice mass changes etc would be good, particularly as the data is already available and show that these do not exist.
And the rats start to desert the sinking ship:
“The Barendrecht CO2 storage project was cancelled yesterday by the new Dutch government on grounds of a complete lack of acceptance by the local community. The project was aimed to provide (the learning for a) legal and technical framework prior to implementing larger scale CCS projects on Land in NL. The government also has expressed a preference for implementing nuclear power prior to any CCS project, but also wants to pursue CCS in the north of the country, where the bulk of depleted gas fields is situated.”
“The Barendrecht CO2 storage project was cancelled yesterday by the new Dutch government on grounds of a complete lack of acceptance by the local community. The project was aimed to provide (the learning for a) legal and technical framework prior to implementing larger scale CCS projects on Land in NL. The government also has expressed a preference for implementing nuclear power prior to any CCS project, but also wants to pursue CCS in the north of the country, where the bulk of depleted gas fields is situated.”
Guam said:
turbobloke said:
Decent summarry again TB and an easy read for the layperson imho Of course its not a peer reviewed document so the accolytes will say its full of garbage (even though it isnt), mind you as they have seriously messed around with the Peer review process its inconcievable that much seriously critical science, can make it through the "gatekeepers" !
UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and anecdotes in a climbing magazine article
deeps said:
I would be very suprised if ZondaMark and his friend are not one and the same.
Afraid not. If you care to trawl through the threads on here I come up every now and then to point out the lack of sound numerical reasoning on the warmists' part.deeps said:
The style of writing and excellent grammar is remarkably consistent.
Thanks. I'd like to think mine was better. 
deeps said:
The friend transforms from being "which I was pointed to by a warmist earlier, unwilling not only to engage in any reasoned exchange" to becoming a full-on chatterbox friend.
What does that prove? It's part of an exchange on Facebook in response to an article that was posted. He refused to argue with 'deniers of science', so I thought I'd come here and get some science for him.deeps said:
The opening lines "I've been out for the evening and am not quite suited to particularly intellectual or scientific discussion" I am uneasy with, it appears to be a clever way of laying the bait more than anything else.
To clarify, I was a bit worse for wear. Took me ages just to write out that first post and make sure it made sense.deeps said:
I would be very suprised if Mark's friend appears, but one would think he would jump at the opportunity if he actually exists. Bring him along Mark, prove me wrong please.
Like I say, I've asked him but the idea has been side-stepped. I told him he's got nothing to lose if he knows he's right. Perhaps his no-show is because he himself isn't a climate specialist, and so relies on everything fed to him by the consensus. If it was me, I could just open up a new account and dive straight in.Edited by ZondaMark on Monday 8th November 12:02
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff