Comment on Cool dudes by Faustino

July 29, 2011, 6:19 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Cool dudes by hunter

≪ Previous: Comment on Loehle and Scafetta on Climate Change Attribution by Martha

$

0

0

A brilliant article in The Australian today by Joanne Nova, a non-male, at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/climate-change-suspect-must-be-given-a-fair-trial/story-e6frg6xf-1226104017991 .

Nova begins: Governmnets across the world have paid billions to find links between carbon dioxide and the climate, but very little to find the opposite, and that’s a problem.

Teams of professionals have searched high and low for any possible hint that CO2 poses a threat, and that is all very well, but no one has been paid to find otherwise. CO2 has been convicted without a defence lawyer.

It is self-evident that any expert in a field will reap more rewards, fame and fortune if their field is critically important. Why would anyone expect such experts to go out of their way to hunt down evidence that might suggest their field ought not be the centre of a global economic transformation?

When results come in that conflict with catastrophic model predictions, hordes of researchers scour every nook and cranny to find early warm biases, or recent cold biases, and they may legitimately find some. But no one is paid to hunt down the errors or biases leading the other way. The vacuum sucks.

---

Comment on Cool dudes by hunter

July 29, 2011, 6:31 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Cool dudes by hunter

≪ Previous: Comment on Cool dudes by Faustino

$

0

0

tt,
You are getting warmer.

Comment on Cool dudes by hunter

July 29, 2011, 6:32 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Cool dudes by Balazs

≪ Previous: Comment on Cool dudes by hunter

$

0

0

tt,
Your definition of ‘denier’ marks you not only as a resolute bigot, but not really very bright.

Comment on Cool dudes by Balazs

July 29, 2011, 6:34 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Cool dudes by hunter

≪ Previous: Comment on Cool dudes by hunter

$

0

0

It is not true. According to Real Climate (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/how-soon-is-now) Willie Soon alone got $1 million from fossil companies in ten years that comes up to a whoping $100K/yr. Evidently, going after Dr. Hansen for the $1.2 million he earned personally besides is $180K/yr salary at NASA is inquisition like witch hunt and harassment (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/8169053/right_wing_ati_attempts_to_character.html). I would be interested to know however, how Dr. Hansen spends his money while maintaining low carbon footprint.

Comment on Cool dudes by hunter

July 29, 2011, 6:35 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Cool dudes by Gary from Chicagoland

≪ Previous: Comment on Cool dudes by Balazs

$

0

0

Luis,
You miss the answer, and it is plain sight.
Not one of the AGW community policy initiatives have worked, nor will they work.
It is not possible to do something today to control the climate in 10 years, much less 100.
That you come back to cheap shallow caricature descriptions of the situation is, I guess, a manifestation that you really have no understanding of the issue.

Comment on Cool dudes by Gary from Chicagoland

July 29, 2011, 6:37 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Cool dudes by hunter

≪ Previous: Comment on Cool dudes by hunter

$

0

0

I agree with Steve, the more I researched global warming, the more errors I found in the basic scientific method. I do not depend on any money grants or jobs related to AGW, so this allowed me to think independently. I am highly educated in science, so I already knew walking into this issue how to find the answers to my questions. I also happen to be male with some money in my pocket, which tends to make me more conservative. I guess this makes me a “cool dude” now.

Comment on Cool dudes by hunter

July 29, 2011, 6:45 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Cool dudes by Jim Owen

≪ Previous: Comment on Cool dudes by Gary from Chicagoland

$

0

0

It would be instructive if the believers who apparently defend the faux paper that started this thread could reflect on Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales.
Particularly The Miller’s Tale. Chaucer understood well how easily duped the best and brightest are, and all-too-human desires of the educated.

Comment on Cool dudes by Jim Owen

July 29, 2011, 6:45 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Cool dudes by hunter

≪ Previous: Comment on Cool dudes by hunter

$

0

0

Arno –
This is why sociology is not a science

Yes – their own professional society recently proclaimed that sociologists are not scientists. Big fuss about that one. But this illustrates the point.

---

Comment on Cool dudes by hunter

July 29, 2011, 6:47 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Cool dudes by Jim Owen

≪ Previous: Comment on Cool dudes by Jim Owen

$

0

0

Gary,
Think of this ‘paper’ as a guide for the AGW believer on how to pretend skeptics are less than human.

Comment on Cool dudes by Jim Owen

July 29, 2011, 6:50 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Cool dudes by Jim Owen

≪ Previous: Comment on Cool dudes by hunter

$

0

0

Pekka –
It occurs to me that someone recently used the Gallup poll on a previous thread here – and that after looking at the questions, I told them that those questions failed in any way to define the subject or the pertinent issues. Using the results of that poll means they started with data that was meaningless and then made it more so.

Comment on Cool dudes by Jim Owen

July 29, 2011, 6:58 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Cool dudes by Jim Owen

≪ Previous: Comment on Cool dudes by Jim Owen

$

0

0

Max –
The positive correlation between self- reported understanding of global warming and climate change denial among conservative white males is compelling evidence that climate change denial is a form of identity-protective cognition, reflecting a system-justifying tendency.

I think a more correct conclusion would be –

The positive correlation between self- reported understanding of global warming and climate change denial among conservative white males is compelling evidence that climate science fails to present a convincing case for future catrastrophic climate conditions and therefore, for the massive sociological and economic disruption that would result from the presently proposed mitigation policies.

Comment on Cool dudes by Jim Owen

July 29, 2011, 7:07 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Cool dudes by Jim Owen

≪ Previous: Comment on Cool dudes by Jim Owen

$

0

0

tt –
Your “too funny” comment is being somewhat condescending to Martha, don’t you think?

And why do yo think Mothra deserves any more than condescending?

your comment ” if you are reading this post, odds are that you are a ‘cool dude’” shows you you do accept the validity of the statistics presented.

Your logic sucks swamp water and your conclusion is s valid as that of the paper in question.

Comment on Cool dudes by Jim Owen

July 29, 2011, 7:14 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Cool dudes by Kip Hansen

≪ Previous: Comment on Cool dudes by Jim Owen

$

0

0

tt –
There are a number of them here. But I’ll let them speak for themselves.

I also know a number of them who are not denizens of this blog.

Comment on Cool dudes by Kip Hansen

July 29, 2011, 7:14 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Cool dudes by gyptis444

≪ Previous: Comment on Cool dudes by Jim Owen

$

0

0

My comment about social scientists’ liberal/progressive/Democratic upbringing was a commentary on the US ‘higher’ education system, the students it puts out, and the questionable quality of their ‘scientific’ studies.. It was not intended to reflect on Dr. Curry, whose work and blogsphere efforts I admire.

Comment on Cool dudes by gyptis444

July 29, 2011, 7:16 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Spencer & Braswell’s new paper by PaulM

≪ Previous: Comment on Cool dudes by Kip Hansen

$

0

0

Luis,
My reasons for ‘not doing anything’ are as follows
(a) the monopolistic funding of CAGW by governments eager to find new taxes
(b) the malfeasance of IPCC as documented in the IAC review of IPCC’s processes.
(c) I have little confidence in IPCC’s unvalidated computer models which are based on many assumptions some of which have already been proven to be incorrect. Others have demonstrated that such ‘curve fitting’ exercises have little predictive power.
(d) the lack of integrity of many ‘climate scientists’ on the CAGW side attempting to stifle all opposing views, marginalising and suppressing publications by scientists with counter evidence – pal review etc..
(e) the emerging scientific evidence that IPCC has very likely overestimated the climate sensitivity (for example see Roy Spencer’s recent publication)
(f) the demonstrably economically damaging and environmentally ineffective ‘solutions’ being proposed
(g) coming from a medical background, I am familiar with the admonition ‘primum non nocere’ i.e. first do no harm. It is my view that the proposed ‘solutions’ are extremely harmful (to our economy, our freedoms, our choices, our standards of living) and will compromise our ability to adapt if that is what may be needed in the long run.
(h) the precautionary principle is nnot a valid argument as it can be applied to any conceivable disaster e.g. we must spend billions of dollars to prevent the next asteroid impact – astronomers tell us it is only a matter of when not if. If an asteroid impact wiped out the dinsoaurs what chance will we have?

---

Comment on Spencer & Braswell’s new paper by PaulM

August 1, 2011, 1:54 am

≫ Next: Comment on Slaying a greenhouse dragon by kuhnkat

≪ Previous: Comment on Cool dudes by gyptis444

$

0

0

No no no no no. Computer models do not offer objective data. Computer models are written by human beings. These people choose what to include in the model and what to ignore. They choose the values of the parameters that make up the model. They choose the initial conditions to start the model off.

As omnologos and hunter point out, the only problem with term “alarmist computer model” is a missing ‘s.

Comment on Slaying a greenhouse dragon by kuhnkat

August 1, 2011, 1:57 am

≫ Next: Comment on Spencer & Braswell’s new paper by Chief Hydrologist

≪ Previous: Comment on Spencer & Braswell’s new paper by PaulM

$

0

0

Askolnick,

umm, I hate to break it to you, and Einstein would have told you something similar, but, Einstein was wrong.

As far as your silly microwave example, we are talking about black bodies right?? Exactly where in the theory is there any mention of black bodies being self powered?? Where in the microwave emitter do you see the equation absorptivity equals emissivity?? A black body emits a range of radiation. Microwaves emit a very narrow range under a powerful and specific stimulus and temperatures much higher than a blackbody could. Does even the sun emit enough microwave radiation from such a small area to heat the needle??

How many photons normally come from an emitter the size of the microwave’s, that is at the correct temperature to create the microwave radiation like a blackbody, in two minutes? How many photons come from the microwave oven’s emitter in two minutes? You are a silly person. No, I do not need the exact number as we both know that materials, undriven will NOT emit enough radiation at that wavelength to warm your wet nailpolish. Next you will be trying to tell us that the earth and its atmosphere operates like a CO2 laser.

The issue is energy density. Atmospheric CO2 has little energy density. If you concentrated the energy from a large area onto one square inch of the earth THEN you would get a microwave like situation and could heat that small area to a higher temp. Using a magnifying glass to concentrate the sun’s rays would be similar. Of course, this means that there is NO, or less, energy going to the areas from which the energy was taken. In other words a passive system will never exceed the density of the driving system over the same area. The average temp will still be the same. Since over half the IR is not going toward the ground you are then stuck with the fact that the passive emitters do not even have half of the energy density of the driver to heat the driver. You must also consider that most of the energy is going to heat the non-ghg gasses through collisions in the atmosphere so you have very little energy density.

Oh, and one little point. If CO2 acts similar to a microwave, exactly why can’t it emit all the heat that is supposed to stack up in the upper troposphere to cause that nasty heating up of the earth?? If it can’t be emitted then you have just proven that Claes is more correct than you are. If it can be emitted I think you just disproved AGW.

Comment on Spencer & Braswell’s new paper by Chief Hydrologist

August 1, 2011, 1:58 am

≫ Next: Comment on Climate pragmatism by Chief Hydrologist

≪ Previous: Comment on Slaying a greenhouse dragon by kuhnkat

$

0

0

When the Southern Annular Mode is positive – storms spinning off the polar front push further in higher latitudes. The circumpolar flow through Drakes Passage is reduced. Cold southern ocean water piles up off the coast of South America and upwelling in the region of the Humboldt Current intensifies – initiating La Nina. When SAM goes negative – the cold tongue slows, temps in the ocean surface increase and the trade winds falter – initiating an El Nino in which warm water piled up against Australia and Indonesia flow eastward across the Pacific.

Solar UV heats ozone in the middle atmosphere and is significant source of warmth and variability above the Antarctic (and Arctic).

http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2011/anomnight.7.28.2011.gif

You can see in the map cold upwelling still in the south east Pacific. The conditions for a La Nina are still in progress. Once the ITCZ moves to the north in the SH spring – La Nina is odds on of reforming stronger than last year. ENSO is a SH summer phenomenon.

There is a similar process in the NH – with a different oceanic morphology. I would link it physically to the PDO.

ENSO is a southern hemisphere summer phenomenon. SAM responds to temperature in the middle and upper atmosphere. Colder and air densities increase. So it tends to be more positive in winter – which is when the polar fronts most commonly have landfall in southern Australia and Africa, New Zealand and South America.

Complex system I believe – where solar UV pushes systems past La Nina threshold and then feedbacks of wind, cloud, currents and waves kick in. Upwelling in the Humboldt Current is the ENSO switch.

In a La NIna – clouds form over cool seas and are carried on the trade winds to create rain in Australia, Asia and Africa. In an El Nino cloud dissipates over warm water – but the sub-tropical jet streams carry high cloud and moisture over north and south America.

La Nina result as a global average in increased reflected shortwave – strongly in the tropical Pacific – and vice versa for El Nino.

Comment on Climate pragmatism by Chief Hydrologist

August 1, 2011, 2:04 am

≫ Next: Comment on Cool dudes by Lars Per

≪ Previous: Comment on Spencer & Braswell’s new paper by Chief Hydrologist

$

0

0

We should welcome economic development for the worlds poorest and deal with resources through markets – not as a theoretical problem.

Comment on Cool dudes by Lars Per

August 1, 2011, 2:30 am

≫ Next: Comment on Spencer & Braswell’s new paper by commieBob

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate pragmatism by Chief Hydrologist

$

0

0

Well good for your wife.
You said: “The scientific method is the method scientists use”. That’s a circular argument that is implying that all scientists use always a scientific method and all method scientist use is scientific method.
To clarify what I mean see following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_methodology
it would be desired that all scientists use the scientific method. Hope we can clarify any spelling issues and can agree on it? I am not a native english speaker so, sorry for the extra 5 letters, I hope you are able to get over it and understand the meaning, wikipedia has a redirect for it see above.
Do you agree that we should accept only scientific work and results done according to the scientific method?