Comment on Can we avoid fooling ourselves? by manacker

December 30, 2012, 4:32 am

≫ Next: Comment on Can we avoid fooling ourselves? by manacker

≪ Previous: Comment on Can we avoid fooling ourselves? by A fan of *MORE* discourse

$

0

0

Fan

Your fail to address Willis’ request for “evidence” but blather on about Willis not presenting evidence. Apparently you have misunderstood.

Wiilis wrote:

“And so far, we have no evidence that changing the CO2 levels will change the temperature at all.”

To which Mosh replied:

“No evidence?

we have plenty of evidence. that evidence may not convince you, but there is evidence.”

But, despite his statement that there is “plenty of evidence”, Mosh does not cite any of this “evidence”.

Got it this time?

It’s really not that complicated, Fanny, when you concentrate a bit, but let me summarize it again for you.

Willis says there is “no evidence that changing the CO2 levels will change the temperature”

Mosh says that “we have plenty of evidence”.

BUT he does not put his “evidence” where his mouth is, i.e. he DOES NOT CITE ANY OF THIS “PLENTY OF EVIDENCE”.

As a matter of fact, Fanny, this is the Achilles’ heel of the CAGW premise of IPCC – it is not supported by empirical evidence.

Max

---

Comment on Can we avoid fooling ourselves? by manacker

December 30, 2012, 4:44 am

≫ Next: Comment on Can we avoid fooling ourselves? by David Springer

≪ Previous: Comment on Can we avoid fooling ourselves? by manacker

$

0

0

Confucius say: <em>Man who thinks he fooled others may be fooling himself</em>

Comment on Can we avoid fooling ourselves? by David Springer

December 30, 2012, 4:47 am

≫ Next: Comment on Can we avoid fooling ourselves? by manacker

≪ Previous: Comment on Can we avoid fooling ourselves? by manacker

$

0

0

Prettier Man
Emptier Rant
Entire Tramp
Enter Armpit
A Preterm Nit
Rear Tent Imp
Tramp In Tree

One of those?

Comment on Can we avoid fooling ourselves? by manacker

December 30, 2012, 4:59 am

≫ Next: Comment on Can we avoid fooling ourselves? by David Springer

≪ Previous: Comment on Can we avoid fooling ourselves? by David Springer

$

0

0

Jim D

You write

“only one problem Max, there is no IPCC ‘CAGW’ premise.”

Oh yes there is. And it is well spelled out by IPCC in its AR4 report.

Since you have (astonishingly) missed it, I will summarize the key parts of it below:

“CAGW” is the name often given to the IPCC premise, as outlined below:

1. human GHGs have been the cause of most of the observed warming since ~1950 [AR4 WGI SPM, p.10]

2. this reflects a model-predicted 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2°C±0.7°C [AR4 WGI Ch.8, p.633]

3. this represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment from anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the range of 1.8°C to 6.4°C by the end of this century with increase in global sea level of up to 0.59 meters [AR4 WGI SPM, p.13]

4.resulting in increased severity and/or intensity of heat waves, heavy precipitation events, droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high sea levels [AR4 WGI SPM, p.8],

5. with resulting flooding of several coastal cities and regions, crop failures and famines, loss of drinking water for millions from disappearing glaciers, intensification and expansion of wildfires, severe loss of Amazon forests, decline of corals, extinction of fish species, increase in malnutrition, increase in vector borne and diarrheal diseases, etc. [AR4 WGII]

6. unless world-wide actions are undertaken to dramatically curtail human GHG emissions (principally CO2) [AR4 WGIII]

That, Jim, is the IPCC premise, which has been generally called “CAGW” (for potentially catastrophic anthropogenic greenhouse warming).

Max

Comment on Can we avoid fooling ourselves? by David Springer

December 30, 2012, 5:03 am

≫ Next: Comment on Can we avoid fooling ourselves? by The Skeptical Warmist

≪ Previous: Comment on Can we avoid fooling ourselves? by manacker

$

0

0

FOAD

Comment on Can we avoid fooling ourselves? by The Skeptical Warmist

December 30, 2012, 5:10 am

≫ Next: Comment on Can we avoid fooling ourselves? by The Skeptical Warmist

≪ Previous: Comment on Can we avoid fooling ourselves? by David Springer

$

0

0

Michael,

Intelligent design? Ha! Not at all. A self-assembling living “clock” requires no clockmaker but humans seem inclined to want to posit one (usually, but not always in human form of course). To know if a self-assembling universe that has life is unusual or not would require that we study other universes. Perhaps one day we shall.

Comment on Can we avoid fooling ourselves? by The Skeptical Warmist

December 30, 2012, 5:19 am

≫ Next: Comment on Can we avoid fooling ourselves? by Tom

≪ Previous: Comment on Can we avoid fooling ourselves? by The Skeptical Warmist

$

0

0

Waggy said:

“What are the chances on a distant galaxy grains of sand learned to think?”

——–
The same chances as in this galaxy I would suppose- since life seems to be one of the prime results of these little islands of gravity called galaxies floating in much larger ocean of antigravity (also known as dark energy).

Comment on Can we avoid fooling ourselves? by Tom

December 30, 2012, 5:27 am

≫ Next: Comment on Can we avoid fooling ourselves? by Michael

≪ Previous: Comment on Can we avoid fooling ourselves? by The Skeptical Warmist

$

0

0

OK_, Now we are better able to understand your fears of women. You will need 50 shades too, from what you have written. Sweet dreams, Max…

---

Comment on Can we avoid fooling ourselves? by Michael

December 30, 2012, 5:32 am

≫ Next: Comment on Can we avoid fooling ourselves? by manacker

≪ Previous: Comment on Can we avoid fooling ourselves? by Tom

$

0

0

Should the Climate Etc mantra include – be sceptical of scepticism?

Comment on Can we avoid fooling ourselves? by manacker

December 30, 2012, 5:42 am

≫ Next: Comment on Can we avoid fooling ourselves? by Tom

≪ Previous: Comment on Can we avoid fooling ourselves? by Michael

$

0

0

Jim D

You are pulling a silly “rabbit out of the hat” with your phony calculation starting with “pre-industrial” time.

The warming of ~1C that has occurred to date has already occurred (for whatever reason). And, hey, we are dong just fine despite this warming, so it is no problem.

We can only project warming into the future starting with today – not from 260+ years ago!

So for 3C warming from CO2 from today (392 ppmv CO2) by 2100, we would need 2×392 = 784 ppmv CO2 by 2100, if we assume a (2xCO2) ECS of 3C.

At the more recently estimated ECS of 1.6C to 2C (Lewis / Schlesinger) we would need to reach CO2 levels of 1440 ppmv or 1110 ppmv, respectively.

Since these levels exceed the CO2 concentration that would occur from combusting ALL the fossil fuels on our planet, it would obviously be an absurd level of warming at the new ECS values.

So, it all depends on whether the old model-based IPCC estimates of ECS will hold, despite the new information, which is based largely on actual physical observations.

If (2xCO2) ECS is 1.6 to 2.0C, then the “C” has been removed from “CAGW” and the whole hullabaloo is all about nothing.

These new data have put IPCC between a rock and a hard spot. So, if you want to keep “CAGW” alive, you’d better “lobby” for IPCC to ignore the latest data and stick with its old model-based estimate for ECS.

I personally think “CAGW” has died a natural death (no matter how IPCC decides to handle the new data) as the physical data are out there now for all to see and IPCC will look unscientific if they ignore them or try to rationalize them away.

It would look like IPCC were trying to “fool us” by “fooling itself”.

Max

Comment on Can we avoid fooling ourselves? by Tom

December 30, 2012, 5:48 am

≫ Next: Comment on Can we avoid fooling ourselves? by manacker

≪ Previous: Comment on Can we avoid fooling ourselves? by manacker

$

0

0

Ask Robert; the next time he finds you.

Comment on Can we avoid fooling ourselves? by manacker

December 30, 2012, 6:08 am

≫ Next: Comment on Can we avoid fooling ourselves? by Jim Cripwell

≪ Previous: Comment on Can we avoid fooling ourselves? by Tom

$

0

0

R. Gates

You agree that prior to ARGO in 2003 the OHC measurements are practically worthless.

Yet you ask for evidence that there was no ocean warming prior to 2003.

Obviously, there is no compelling “evidence” of warming, cooling or no change in the ocean temperature prior to 2003.

I will agree with you that it is logical to assume that, if the atmosphere warmed by some fraction of a degree C over a prolonged period (as has been measured, albeit with some warts and blemishes in the record), then the ocean could most likely also have warmed very slightly (by a much smaller amount, due to its much higher total heat capacity).

But this is not “evidence” of increased OHC content prior to 2003.

Let’s wait until we have 20 years of REAL data (with agreement on any “corrections” or “adjustments” made to the raw ARGO data) before we talk about increased OHC, OK?

And, fer chrissakes, let’s not take worthless OHC data prior to 2003 to calculate a putative SL rise “from thermal expansion”, as IPCC has done [AR4 WG1 SPM, p.7].

Max

Comment on Can we avoid fooling ourselves? by Jim Cripwell

December 30, 2012, 6:20 am

≫ Next: Comment on How might intellectual humility lead to scientific insight? by lsvalgaard

≪ Previous: Comment on Can we avoid fooling ourselves? by manacker

$

0

0

WHT writes”According to him there is no direct empirical evidence, no evidence of a lunar “signal”, and no controlled experiment in which one can test the hypothesis. Any alignment of theory could just be chance.”

Let me bring this this out as a new piece. First, Webby, you are wrong. There is an enormous amount of empirical data on tides. We do not even need a model. There are exact mathematical equations that enable us to calculate tide heights into the indefinite future.

I dont have direct experience, but my brother-in-law lives in the UK, and for years owned boats which he sailed from Dartmouth. There were two dates which he, and whoever he rented moorings from, knew as far into the future as required; the highest tide before the winter, and the highest tide in the spring. Each autumn, he would take the boat at the appropiate time on the appropiate date, and put it as far up the river as required, safely away from winter storms. Then in the spring he did the same in reverse. I am sure he had a gentleman’s agreement, and both parties knew when the dates and times were.

But that is not the important issue. The important issue is that Webby is trying to change the subject. It does not matter if there are other examples of lack of empirical data. The issue is CAGW, and the lack of empirical data. I put it to you, Webby, directly. Do you admit and agree that there is no empirical data which proves that as you add more CO2 to the atmosphere from current levels, this additonal CO2 causes global temperatures to rise? A simple yes or no, is all that is required. Or will you be intellectually DISHONEST and refuse to answer the question?

Comment on How might intellectual humility lead to scientific insight? by lsvalgaard

December 30, 2012, 6:25 am

≫ Next: Comment on Year in Review by The Skeptical Warmist

≪ Previous: Comment on Can we avoid fooling ourselves? by Jim Cripwell

$

0

0

Yet Newton’s laws work well for tides in the not-so-hard oceans and are employed by [as invoked by you] Wolff-Patrone and Abrey et al. Perhaps you throw them under the bus too for applying ‘laws’ they shouldn’t. Go figure.

Comment on Year in Review by The Skeptical Warmist

December 31, 2012, 8:05 am

≫ Next: Comment on Year in Review by mkantor

≪ Previous: Comment on How might intellectual humility lead to scientific insight? by lsvalgaard

$

0

0

Brandon,

Thanks for the lengthy explanation and the link. All were very informative and helped to clarify the issues for me. Equally useful were the comments after the article. I assume you read them. Taking all this new information into account, I remain of the opinion that the BARBAR results were among the top 10 important science stories of the year and Prigogine would have been very interested in them, but he could have been equally as interested in the fact that Jessica Simpson was pregnant again for all I know.

You have a Happy New Year!

---

Comment on Year in Review by mkantor

December 31, 2012, 8:06 am

≫ Next: Comment on Can we avoid fooling ourselves? by j ferguson

≪ Previous: Comment on Year in Review by The Skeptical Warmist

$

0

0

Happy New Year, Dr. Curry, and best wishes for 2013.

Comment on Can we avoid fooling ourselves? by j ferguson

December 31, 2012, 8:20 am

≫ Next: Comment on Year in Review by omanuel

≪ Previous: Comment on Year in Review by mkantor

$

0

0

Hi Beth,
I don’t know how true this might be of the Climate Science gang, but you get into some disciplines, medicine for one, by never making a mistake. Friend on the faculty of a New England med school made it his business to help his students make mistakes – some of them never had, or if they had, had never realized it.

The results were chastening. One should always have the possibility of having it wrong in mind. I don’t think this is innate but can certainly be self imposed. I suppose it is like humility, which if not innate, and I am sure it is not with many of us, can at least be emulated – and possibly with the same beneficial effect as the innate kind.

There seems an unnatural phobia toward error-making in science, as there certainly is in medicine.

I repeat, that if you aren’t discovering errors in what you are doing, you aren’t looking hard enough. Clausewitz seems to have been the first to realize this and to require of new-hire generals that they had made mistakes and recovered from them intelligently.

Having written all of this, I think it possible that we outsiders are not privy to conversations about screw-ups within the climatology trade and because of this imagine that they don’t occur. This must surely be wrong.

Comment on Year in Review by omanuel

December 31, 2012, 8:44 am

≫ Next: Comment on Year in Review by The Skeptical Warmist

≪ Previous: Comment on Can we avoid fooling ourselves? by j ferguson

$

0

0

The nation needs to unfool itself, as Ron Paul warned in his farewell address to Congress: http://www.ronpaul.com/2012-12-30/ron-pauls-new-years-message-to-congress-follow-the-constitution-in-2013/

Comment on Year in Review by The Skeptical Warmist

December 31, 2012, 8:45 am

≫ Next: Comment on Year in Review by Brandon Shollenberger

≪ Previous: Comment on Year in Review by omanuel

$

0

0

Thanks for that Vuk. The differences between the Antarctic and Arctic are indeed quite stark and the natural fluctuations in each most interesting. The reduction in Arctic Sea ice over the past several decades is just one if the pieces of evidence for AGW that we warmists use. Changes in permafrost, net declines in global glacial mass, increases in ocean heat content, changes in species migration and habitation patterns, long term tropospheric warming, stratospheric cooling, shifts in the planetary waves with increasing amplitude and increasing blocking patterns, and so on, are all examples of other strong corroboration that the Earth as a system is gaining non-tectonic energy. The increasing GHG’s of CO2, methane, and N2O provide a reasonable physical basis for this Earth system energy imbalance as they represent an external forcing on the system. If you can provide evidence that the accumulation of energy in the Earth System is not occurring, or that accumulation of GHG could not cause it or that some other external forcing is more plausible then I would love to see it– and it is likely that at some point in the future a Nobel prize awaits you.

Comment on Year in Review by Brandon Shollenberger

December 31, 2012, 8:46 am

≫ Next: Comment on Year in Review by The Skeptical Warmist

≪ Previous: Comment on Year in Review by The Skeptical Warmist

$

0

0

Glad to hear it and to have been of some help!