Climate Change - the big debate
Discussion
PRTVR said:
mybrainhurts said:
VPower said:
TB I've just added these links to the Wiki I started
How does one access these wikifandangos...?turbobloke said:
Ta muchly, gentlemen...
Ali G said:
If anybody is looking for a little reading material over the weekend -
Appologies if this has been posted before - did a search but could not find anything 'Vonk' like..
A reply to Vonk: Radiative Physics Simplified II
Just to say thanks for that link Ali G.Appologies if this has been posted before - did a search but could not find anything 'Vonk' like..
A reply to Vonk: Radiative Physics Simplified II
Very easy to understand, with the replies making the minuscule CO2 impact (IMHO) even more understandable.
Guam said:
turbobloke said:
Just the usual irrelevance and diversion but yes this time by proxy, odd. Hope the hospital thing turns out OK.
Thanks TB, Sadly not, we lost the 94 year old FIL to widespread Cancer yesterday (Saturday), the astounding thing was he felt no Pain until near the end even though it was everywhere. Thursday was the first day he needed to have any Pain Meds after going into Renal Failure on Tuesday.dickymint said:
Could somebody summarise the last couple of days for me as I haven't quite caught up. Ta.
Well,It seems that someone from another forum decided to argue the toss re. MMGW, he seemed OK, but he was being used as a proxy. When some on PH found out, the believer forum sent over its ‘big guns’ – who came over, very smug, very self-assured – and thought he’d get some kudos from his own forum for showing us how wrong we are.
This didn’t seem to work, and may have backfired somewhat, thanks in no small part to TB, Guam and AliG – amongst others.
The net result is this – some of us who weren’t 100% sure about MMGW were left in no doubt that this is indeed a scam.
So – well done Bad Science……
(That’s my take on it, anyway…)
chris watton said:
dickymint said:
Could somebody summarise the last couple of days for me as I haven't quite caught up. Ta.
Well,It seems that someone from another forum decided to argue the toss re. MMGW, he seemed OK, but he was being used as a proxy. When some on PH found out, the believer forum sent over its ‘big guns’ – who came over, very smug, very self-assured – and thought he’d get some kudos from his own forum for showing us how wrong we are.
This didn’t seem to work, and may have backfired somewhat, thanks in no small part to TB, Guam and AliG – amongst others.
The net result is this – some of us who weren’t 100% sure about MMGW were left in no doubt that this is indeed a scam.
So – well done Bad Science……
(That’s my take on it, anyway…)
Guam said:
Thanks TB, Sadly not, we lost the 94 year old FIL to widespread Cancer yesterday (Saturday), the astounding thing was he felt no Pain until near the end even though it was everywhere. Thursday was the first day he needed to have any Pain Meds after going into Renal Failure on Tuesday.
Tom, So sorry to hear of your loss. As TB has said 94 is a damn good innings. Lost my Granfather in law to the big C @ 95 (some years ago), he too had soldiered on, not letting the pain get to him; he even got banned from the local cricket club @ 94; for cheating at dominoes!!dickymint said:
Could somebody summarise the last couple of days for me as I haven't quite caught up. Ta.
It's a lot of pages (I had 20+ to catch up on after one day) but it is worth at least skipping back through them - it's hysterical!To see how Face First having made blanket judgments on another thread was directed here and within minutes moved from 'layman' credentials and spouting what the Guardian and BBC had to say about CO2 (yes, really!) to listing - and suggesting he knew about - a whole host of papers on several fields. This seemed very suspicious and then, lo, he was rumbled. He'd been asking for help on 'Bad Science' and regurgitaing the spoon fed snippets. Hysterical.
Even more amazing was that he stayed around after being outed but then showed a darker side by posting comments made by Guam and TB over there - despite being asked not to - for the wolves to tear into. Pack leader seems to be one Dean Troll who came over and polluted the thread with 90 posts in a day, which he boasted about over there before departing to somewhere he can look more accomplished and smug (he didn't seem too convincing over here!). Obvious trolling.
There was also a guest appearance from the late (well, tardy) unlamented Hairy Krishna who dropped in a few "closed argument, not worth bothering with Ph" poison barbs (confirming their stated view that PH would just be populated by car obsessed knuckle draggers bitter about tax) before justifying his conduct prior to a final (allegedly) flounce out.
But Plunk thinks alls well and that they are an honourable crowd so I could be totally wrong, of course! It's been brilliant.
Guam said:
turbobloke said:
That's a good innings to celebrate but sorry to hear the news. Condolences to you and yours.
Thanks TB, Celebrate is the word I am using, he went right through 1939-45 in the RA Having Been at Hellfire Corner, the Italian Campaign (Including Monte Cassino) with some time on 25 pounders and Later on 105mm Howitzers, the 25 Pounders were real white of the Eyes stuff. He was an Amazing guy and the last of what we could call "True Brits" on here 
dickymint said:
Thanks all for the updates. I gave up last night with about 5 pages left to go through. Now up to date - Phewww!
Can't say I blame you. There was nothing new, but the entertainment factor was there if you like that sort of thing.Reverting back to the "Hairy Krishna who dropped in a few "closed argument, not worth bothering with Ph" comment, this is symptomatic of the Believer mindset, firstly how can a position of climate realism have any connection with a closed argument description? It's hypocrisy (again) since Believers generally adopt a stance where 'the science is settled and the time for debate is over' but obviously that's just to avoid the embarrassment that a lack of evidence and a lack of sound science will bring their way in any open debate, and simultaneously to railroad their views and associated policies through without due consideration. Exactly the opposite of the claim made by Hairy on his way out (presumably).
The fact remains that natural science is all about noting the behaviour of physical, chemical and biological systems and attempting to understand and explain them, with AGW we are still waiting for a human signal to analyse and understand, clearly that's tough to stomach as a True Believer. Inventing one and justifying its place by (seemingly deliberately) organising a sustained campaign to marginalise many natural forcings not considered fully or at all by IPCC boy scouts is simply not science, and putting treatments in place such as treating the Beer Law as a bulk temperature device is junkscience.
Just a bit more on this, as The flawed logic seems to elude Believers. How can a climate modelling process that omits or inadequately represents significant climate forcings reach the right result via the right means?
The all-important SPM, which forces science to be subservient to the political summary as part of the core IPCC methodology, shows what's going on - take AR4 SPM. Solar irradiance is considered as having a low LOSU (level of scientific understanding) which perhaps is a subtle way of acknowledging an averted gaze. There's no indication of any likelihood that Shaviv's key paper is being taken on board any time soon, it stated: "We find that the total radiative forcing associated with solar cycles variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than just those associated with the TSI variations, thus implying the necessary existence of an amplification mechanism, though without pointing to which one." The peer reviewed (ho ho) climate science literature has sound science ready for IPCC attention in terms of mechanisms beyond TSI and linked to the solar wind, some for so long it almost makes you think there are deliberate attempts to keep science that could 'do some damage' out of print and out of IPCC reports.
Which reminds me, talking about abusing the peer review process to limit damage and keep damaging science out of IPCC reports:
Email from Ed Cook to Keith Briffa
Hi Keith <snip> I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. They use your Tornetrask recon as the main whipping boy. I have a file that you gave me in 1993 that comes from your 1992 paper. Below is part of that file. Is this the right one? Also, is it possible to resurrect the column headings? I would like to play with it in an effort to refute their claims. If published as is, this paper could really do some damage.
Email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann
...I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is ! Cheers Phil
It's no less disgraceful for seeing it again. But of course Climategate revealed nothing, just some hearty chaps doing wicked science stuff to save fluffy bunnies. And some people still stick up for this junkscience propped up by appalling behaviour suborning science.
I'm surprised that that Good Ole Boy Yankee Doodle didn't return overnight to put us right.
Yankee, if you're reading this later (and I'm sure you are, you being so smug an' all) could you comment on our replies and answer the questions we posed to you?
After all, that would be fair. What with you coming over here with your hi fallutin' ways.
If you don't answer then that just wouldn't be cricket. You do know about cricket? It all started with a bat and a ball.
The very first bats had a curve at the end.
Rather like a hockey stick.
Yankee, if you're reading this later (and I'm sure you are, you being so smug an' all) could you comment on our replies and answer the questions we posed to you?
After all, that would be fair. What with you coming over here with your hi fallutin' ways.
If you don't answer then that just wouldn't be cricket. You do know about cricket? It all started with a bat and a ball.
The very first bats had a curve at the end.
Rather like a hockey stick.
Lost_BMW said:
It's a lot of pages (I had 20+ to catch up on after one day) but it is worth at least skipping back through them - it's hysterical!
To see how Face First having made blanket judgments on another thread was directed here and within minutes moved from 'layman' credentials and spouting what the Guardian and BBC had to say about CO2 (yes, really!) to listing - and suggesting he knew about - a whole host of papers on several fields. This seemed very suspicious and then, lo, he was rumbled. He'd been asking for help on 'Bad Science' and regurgitaing the spoon fed snippets. Hysterical.
Even more amazing was that he stayed around after being outed but then showed a darker side by posting comments made by Guam and TB over there - despite being asked not to - for the wolves to tear into. Pack leader seems to be one Dean Troll who came over and polluted the thread with 90 posts in a day, which he boasted about over there before departing to somewhere he can look more accomplished and smug (he didn't seem too convincing over here!). Obvious trolling.
And I think, in the interest of fairness, that it needs pointing out that:To see how Face First having made blanket judgments on another thread was directed here and within minutes moved from 'layman' credentials and spouting what the Guardian and BBC had to say about CO2 (yes, really!) to listing - and suggesting he knew about - a whole host of papers on several fields. This seemed very suspicious and then, lo, he was rumbled. He'd been asking for help on 'Bad Science' and regurgitaing the spoon fed snippets. Hysterical.
Even more amazing was that he stayed around after being outed but then showed a darker side by posting comments made by Guam and TB over there - despite being asked not to - for the wolves to tear into. Pack leader seems to be one Dean Troll who came over and polluted the thread with 90 posts in a day, which he boasted about over there before departing to somewhere he can look more accomplished and smug (he didn't seem too convincing over here!). Obvious trolling.
1) My 'blanket judgments' were wrong, I was wrong to make them, and I stated as such along with an apology.
2) I maintain my 'layman credentials' and am quite capable of evidencing my position using credible sources such as papers and other literature.
3) That time lines establish that I asked for help on the Bad Science forums after posting here, thus refuting any accusations of trolling. Further more, I've not regurgitated any of their arguments (no more than I have 'regurgitated' arguments from, say, peer reviewed journals etc).
4) I stopped posting comments from here on there when asked to do so, as established by a detailed discussion on forum clock differences.
I hope that helps.
Sorry to hear about the FiL Tom, but a good innings as TB said. Ones Pater was in the HAC, perhaps their paths crossed?
Ali, the slagging off and name calling is a sure sign of the quality of the members over at BS, I, once again apologise for the repercutions my internet 'faux pas' caused........entertaining though it was
Ali, the slagging off and name calling is a sure sign of the quality of the members over at BS, I, once again apologise for the repercutions my internet 'faux pas' caused........entertaining though it was
Facefirst said:
And I think, in the interest of fairness, that it needs pointing out that:
1) My 'blanket judgments' were wrong, I was wrong to make them, and I stated as such along with an apology.
2) I maintain my 'layman credentials' and am quite capable of evidencing my position using credible sources such as papers and other literature.
3) That time lines establish that I asked for help on the Bad Science forums after posting here, thus refuting any accusations of trolling. Further more, I've not regurgitated any of their arguments (no more than I have 'regurgitated' arguments from, say, peer reviewed journals etc).
4) I stopped posting comments from here on there when asked to do so, as established by a detailed discussion on forum clock differences.
I hope that helps.
In the same spirit of fairness - or more truthfully, accuracy - the troll referred to was the legend in his own lunchtime 'Dean Ninety' and, you did not maintain your lay personage, initially, but posted papers etc. here as if you had sourced them/ were 'learned' before it was revealed that you were being fed. If that's not regurgitating a line - by offering arguments from others as if your own (choice, at least) then I'm Martian.1) My 'blanket judgments' were wrong, I was wrong to make them, and I stated as such along with an apology.
2) I maintain my 'layman credentials' and am quite capable of evidencing my position using credible sources such as papers and other literature.
3) That time lines establish that I asked for help on the Bad Science forums after posting here, thus refuting any accusations of trolling. Further more, I've not regurgitated any of their arguments (no more than I have 'regurgitated' arguments from, say, peer reviewed journals etc).
4) I stopped posting comments from here on there when asked to do so, as established by a detailed discussion on forum clock differences.
I hope that helps.
Capable of evidencing your position using credible sources? We all are. The problem you have is that you asked for sources from BS and quickly posted them here as if you were well informed; the position you masqueraded. Tell us honestly, did you read any/ all of them before quoting the title or a synopsis/ comment on why it countered an argument, from say TB? If so you must be a bloody fast reader looking at some of the timings.
Even if the time stamps clear one aspect the tone of the posts you made on BS (how appropriate) were disingenuous as at odds with your supposed open mindedness here =>
PH "I'm open minded and willing to learn - tell me more" . . .
BS "They've quoted this, help me to counter it!" type crap.
Unconvincing I'm afraid.
Ok, so 'flouncing out' as you put it is not productive and makes me a bit of an arse. I do find this thread intensely frustrating and do feel that it's largely pointless as a scientific debate though. It was no my intention to make PH look like 'knuckle draggers', quite the opposite, I was just pointing out that they were going to get nowhere.
As an illustration of the pointlessness, on this very page for example the 'all radiation that can be absorbed by CO2 is already being absorbed close to the surface' statement is being made again. This is quite wrong, and we've had the debate before. This is not a controversial area of science; this is not one where we're relying on climatologists dicking about with tree rings.
In the cold war era a very large amount of money was poured into working out exactly how IR propagates through the atmosphere so we could look for Soviet bombers. This was not research influenced by any kind of environmental policy. This resulted in things like the HITRAN database (http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/hitran/) which can be used to calculate to a very, very high level of precision what effect varying CO2 concentrations have on IR absorption.
An IR absorption spectrum looks like this;
This is at a temperature of 300K, roughly atmospheric pressure and 400ppm CO2 concentration which is not far off where we are now. That is the transmission with a path length of 2m. The peak and the two visible humps correspond to different states with different rotational quantum numbers. You can see that the central peak is basically saturated already, within only 2m. This does not mean that adding further CO2 will not increase the absorption. The graph below shows a doubled CO2 concentration with other parameters the same;
You will see that the absorption spectrum is different. This holds for much greater transmission lengths (i.e. the whole atmsophere) and smaller CO2 increases. Rather than me faffing about with various lengths through the atmosphere, concentrations etc I invite anyone who is genuinely interested in this to spend a bit of time playing with the calculations themselves – the online version of HITRAN used to generate the spectra is here; http://www.spectralcalc.com/calc/spectralcalc.php
There are many papers which validate the HITRAN calculations available from the HITRAN site linked earlier.
The more sophisticated sceptic argument is that the IPCC over weight this change in absorption spectra, as discussed here; http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/hug-barrett.htm . I find it unconvincing - your mileage may vary. Either way, even Hug et al acknowledge that further CO2 increases will increase temperature but disagree over the magnitude. The ‘more CO2 will make no difference’ argument is entirely unsupportable.
As an illustration of the pointlessness, on this very page for example the 'all radiation that can be absorbed by CO2 is already being absorbed close to the surface' statement is being made again. This is quite wrong, and we've had the debate before. This is not a controversial area of science; this is not one where we're relying on climatologists dicking about with tree rings.
In the cold war era a very large amount of money was poured into working out exactly how IR propagates through the atmosphere so we could look for Soviet bombers. This was not research influenced by any kind of environmental policy. This resulted in things like the HITRAN database (http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/hitran/) which can be used to calculate to a very, very high level of precision what effect varying CO2 concentrations have on IR absorption.
An IR absorption spectrum looks like this;
This is at a temperature of 300K, roughly atmospheric pressure and 400ppm CO2 concentration which is not far off where we are now. That is the transmission with a path length of 2m. The peak and the two visible humps correspond to different states with different rotational quantum numbers. You can see that the central peak is basically saturated already, within only 2m. This does not mean that adding further CO2 will not increase the absorption. The graph below shows a doubled CO2 concentration with other parameters the same;
You will see that the absorption spectrum is different. This holds for much greater transmission lengths (i.e. the whole atmsophere) and smaller CO2 increases. Rather than me faffing about with various lengths through the atmosphere, concentrations etc I invite anyone who is genuinely interested in this to spend a bit of time playing with the calculations themselves – the online version of HITRAN used to generate the spectra is here; http://www.spectralcalc.com/calc/spectralcalc.php
There are many papers which validate the HITRAN calculations available from the HITRAN site linked earlier.
The more sophisticated sceptic argument is that the IPCC over weight this change in absorption spectra, as discussed here; http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/hug-barrett.htm . I find it unconvincing - your mileage may vary. Either way, even Hug et al acknowledge that further CO2 increases will increase temperature but disagree over the magnitude. The ‘more CO2 will make no difference’ argument is entirely unsupportable.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff