Peter -
<blockquote> I believe I am a typical, reasonably well-informed, sceptic. </blockquote>
Then why do you promote nonsense, such as we see in this comment from you:
<blockquote>But “the science is settled” – ask any alarmist.</blockquote>
That comment is inconsistent with that self-description you just offered.
Comment on Should scientists promote results over process? by Joshua
↧
↧
Comment on Should scientists promote results over process? by manacker
Pekka
To go a step further.
In my post to Steven Mosher, I commented on his post regarding how Judith’s two groups would handle “outliers” that defy the prevailing paradigm..
My observation was that “consensus” climate science (e.g. IPCC) handles these in the “results” manner, i.e. either ignores them or rationalizes that they are meaningless.
Do you believe this observation is incorrect?
Can you provide any specific examples demonstrating that it is incorrect?
Thanks for a reply.
Max
↧
Comment on Should scientists promote results over process? by Joshua
Peter -
Here again, we see evidence that your self-description is not accurate.
The quality of those who share your views can be seen in the one line comment by WebHubTelescope a little later on.
There is nothing in the character or content in WHT’s comment that you reference that can’t be seen in countless comments by “skeptics” in thread after thread, day after day in the blogosphere. Yet you use selective reasoning to describe the correlation.
That is the reasoning of a “skeptic,” not a skeptic.
↧
Comment on Should scientists promote results over process? by Pekka Pirilä
What IPCC reports and more specifically the WG1 reports tell is not a single message. I have been most interested in the full report that’s written by scientists rather than accepted line-by-line by the government representatives as the SPM is.
There are certainly faults in each of the WG1 full report but they do present also dissenting views and they do emphasize uncertainties. They don’t discuss every dissenting paper but neither do they discuss every conforming paper. False reactions to various situations were expressed in the Climategate emails but finally very many of those initial reactions were ultimately overturned by the same scientists.
All very generic strong criticism of IPCC WG1 full reports has been based on highly questionable arguments. On more specific level the IAC review is a good example of criticism that tells about weaknesses of the work without dismissing the whole reports or their conclusions. A few weak points of AR4 WG1 have been discussed on this site but actually very few. Even those have not been outright false although some of them are likely to give a biased impression to most readers. It’s actually amazing how little to criticize has been found from the report.
Where I sometimes agree with the skeptics is in situations where some scientists present strongly claims or conclusions that cannot be fully supported by the IPCC reports or by later science without recourse to cherry picking.
↧
Comment on Should scientists promote results over process? by Joshua
David -
Note that Mosher has not replied.
And what does that mean, David? You seem to be interpreting some meaning behind Mosher’s lack of response. What meaning would that be?
Since you speak often of your expertise in logic, I look forward to your answer.
↧
↧
Comment on Should scientists promote results over process? by Pekka Pirilä
Max,
I think that you have nothing to substantiate your claim. Thus I consider it pure speculation based on prejudices.
↧
Comment on Should scientists promote results over process? by manacker
Peter Miller
An excellent in-depth response to all the points raised by Steven Mosher.
+100.
Let’s see if Mosher rebuts or accepts what you have written.
Max
↧
Comment on Climate model discussion thread by Nabil Swedan
Dear Handel,
Radiation, temperature, and energy are the same thing. You can calibrate an Infrared thermometer to indicate any of these. When the concept of back-raditions or greenhouse gas effect is considered, we inherently raise the temperature of the atmosphere above that of surface without effectively applying external energy. This “created forcing” from the atmosphere has no thermodynamical justifications and it creates errors in the climate models. There must be a better way.
↧
Comment on Should scientists promote results over process? by Ron C.
The media uproar following Sandy puts pressure on everyone to forget the process and come up with answers. The fear factor induces belief in a primitive notion: that we human beings can make sacrifices to assure more favorable weather. It’s been a recurring idea in many civilizations, but it’s surprising that these days the notion is embraced by so many otherwise educated people.
↧
↧
Comment on Should scientists promote results over process? by Joshua
Peter -
What sceptics do not like is the outright dismissal by alarmists that the sun can possibly have any effect on our climate.
Similar to your “the science is settled” rhetoric – this statement is a complete strawman.
It is amusing that you have a +100 from “rational skeptics” such as Max, and approval from “skeptical” logicians such as David W., even though your comment is full of logical fallacies such as the one I just exceprted.
No one “outright dismiss[es}” the possibility that the sun has “any affect on our climate.”
What a ridiculous characterization of what “skeptics” say!
Judith – are you reading this? Do you see what your “extended peer review community” views as solid and scientifically-based reasoning?
↧
Comment on Climate model discussion thread by markx
BBD | November 11, 2012 at 11:53 am |
“…..The empirical estimate from HS12 can be used to *validate* modelled estimates. ...... I get the sense you stopped short with HS12 which is a pity. Delve further into 3.2. Read from p. 8: ……The empirical sensitivity 3 ± 1°C for doubled CO2 is consistent with the Charney et al. (1979) …”
BBD, I am genuinely interested in this paper. We all have our own biases, (yes, I include myself) so I am very interested in hearing the other viewpoint. (and no more quotes, I promise!)
I have read this paper several times but I still don’t get his point.
We have the ice-core and ocean core temperature records: <i>empirical</i>
We can therefore calculate the forcing required to effect a temperature change to a new equilibrium state: <i>empirical </i>
We can estimate the CO2 levels at the time: <i>empirical</i> (albeit some ‘timing’ debate, and as Hansen notes, CO2 climate forcing is approximately logarithmic, as its absorption bands saturate as CO2 amount increases, but we won’t pursue those here)
We can calculate from known physics the effects of increasing CO2: <i>empirical. </i>
However, CO2 only accounts for about 30% of the “forcing” required. The balance is related to water vapour, clouds, albedo (clouds, aerosols, ice cover). <i>No empirical measure? </i>
The mechanism of a ‘sudden’ additive level of CO2 is put forward as being caused by an overriding tectonic plate causing a crustal melt and metamorphism of the subducted plate and sediments, with release of volatiles including CO2. <i>No empirical measure? </i>
He then notes his 3 degrees C per doubling of CO2 matches the forcing required and says that the empirical climate sensitivity (derived?) incorporates all the fast response feedbacks in the real-world climate system, including changes of water vapor, clouds, aerosols, aerosol effects on clouds, and sea ice. <i>But surely these are all lacking an empirical measure? </i>
Forgive me my confusion, The Hansen paper is not an easy read, but I feel the word empirical is perhaps misused there.
↧
Comment on Should scientists promote results over process? by Joshua
err… what a ridiculous characterization of what climate scientists say.
↧
Comment on Climate model discussion thread by Handel
Nabil you making a fundamental error. Energy is not being <i>created</i> anywhere; it is merely <i>moving</i> from one location to another.
If we start at the point where the earth radiates out IR , this is a cooling of the earth. Greenhouse gasses absorb some of this, and in turn radiate some of that back to earth (from the bottom of the atmosphere), and some out to space (from the top of the atmosphere). In the middle sections of the atmosphere, the radiation from greenhouse gasses is essentially trapped there, bouncing around from one molecule to another nearby, the mean free path to either space or the earth being reduced the further the distance from the top or bottom of the atmosphere.
Each loss is matched by a gain somewhere else. There is no creating or destroying of energy suggested anywhere.
↧
↧
Comment on Should scientists promote results over process? by manacker
Pekka
One example:
The question of solar forcing by a mechanism other than simply solar irradiance is raised by the cosmic ray / cloud nucleation hypothesis of Svensmark et al., which is now being tested at CERN.
This hypothesis is backed by a good correlation between solar activity and temperature over many millennia, based on paleo data, but the nucleation mechanism had not yet been demonstrated experimentally when AR4 was published.
But, rather than stating that this hypothesis might provide a partial alternate explanation for past climate changes, especially those that occurred before industrialization, IPCC simply wrote this hypothesis off as “controversial”, adding that the “cosmic ray time series does not correspond to total cloud cover after 1991 or to low cloud cover after 1994″.
Slam! Door closed.
An example of an “outlier” that was rationalized away:
The post WWII boom period of slight cooling despite rapidly increasing human CO2 emissions is mentioned in a footnote: From about 1940 to 1970 the increasing industrialisation following World War II increased pollution in the Northern Hemisphere, contributing to cooling, and increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases dominate the observed warming after the mid-1970s.
For other examples, see:
http://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/ipcc
Max
↧
Comment on Should scientists promote results over process? by JCH
Lol. For a skeptic, your gullibility is just astonishing. I didn’t know Feynman hero worshippers were so singularly dedicated to completely fooling themselves. If ACO2 were not causing additional warming over background, how could the presence of aerosols reduce warming, and absence of aerosols increase warming? All it could do is reduce background when aerosols are present, and increase background when aerosols are absent. There is no enhanced aerosol effect.
↧
Comment on Should scientists promote results over process? by JCH
SB – reestablish background when aerosols are absent.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by mwgrant
WebHub
Good remarks on the Feynman cult. I have always felt that when someone wraps the mantle of authority on his- or herself own thoughts by referencing the dead, then they are on losing. That indirect appeal to correctness is very different than referencing the actual work or history of the ‘authority’ and while appealing, it carries no authority. It is a fair game over a beer, but can not really be taken seriously outside the pub.
A couple of related notes: Goodstein’s remark on Ehrenfest, Boltzmann, and ‘our turn to study’ statistical mechanics in the first pages of ‘States of Matter’ has stuck with me for years. Perhaps there are consensus lessons the the experience of Boltzmann. BTW I still have and enjoy the book–its scope and perspective.
Regarding others at CalTech, there was this summer:
I guess there are wonderful little corners in this world.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate model discussion thread by Nabil Swedan
Handel,
Based on observations, the upper half of the atmosphere is presently cooling at about 2 deg/decade. The lower half of the atmosphere is warming, and the lower troposphere rate of warming is about 0.1 deg/decade. The average warming in the lower half of the atmosphere is therefore 0.05 deg/decade. Or the ratio between cooling and warming is 40 to1. Clearly the atmosphere as a whole is presently cooling considerably. Where does this cooling go and how? Can the concept of back-radiaitons or greenhouse gas effect explain what is happening or should we look for something else?
↧
Comment on Should scientists promote results over process? by manacker
David ojick
Thanks for that.
This is exactly the point I have been trying to get across to both Joshua (who appears not to understand) and Mosher (who made generalized “skeptics believe” claims, which I pointed out to him are false in my case).
As far as I’m concerned, we’ve beaten this to death.
Mosher does not want to rebut my deconstruction of his “skeptics believe” post. So be it.
And Joshua is only contributing meaningless blather.
Max
↧
Comment on Climate model discussion thread by Nabil Swedan
Handel,
Based on observations, the upper half of the atmosphere is presently cooling at about 2 deg/decade. The lower half of the atmosphere is warming, and the lower troposphere rate of warming is about 0.1 deg/decade. The average warming in the lower half of the atmosphere is therefore 0.05 deg/decade. Or the ratio between cooling and warming is 40 to1. Clearly the atmosphere as a whole is presently cooling considerably. Where does this cooling go and how? Can the concept of back-radiaitons or greenhouse gas effect explain what is happening or should we look for something else?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
