Linking is fubar’d again … but nothing surpasses the efforts of team Watts/WUWT to unlink climate-change denialism from climate-change reality!
Comment on Berkeley Earth Update by A fan of *MORE* discourse
![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=ffffee&fg=ff0055&s=1 "\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}")
↧
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth Update by manacker
Perception = reality?
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth Update by manacker
Eli
experimental “evidence” (not “proof”)
Perception = reality (?)
A sizeable number of humans (arguably the majority?) “perceive” that there is a single supreme diety of some sort.
[Sort of like the "scientific consensus" being used to suggest "evidence" that the CAGW premise is valid.]
Max
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth Update by A fan of *MORE* discourse
To appreciate the audacity of the Watts/WUWT community’s denialistic spin cycle, a helpful reference is the CU Sea Level group’s recent survey:
Comparison of Global Mean Sea Level Time Series from TOPEX/Poseidon, Jason-1, and Jason-2Conclusion The accuracy of the [global mean sea-level] estimates continues to improve … This will increase confidence in the satellite altimetry sea level record for use in monitoring climate change and provide a more accurate accounting of the sea level budget.
Hmmm that CU conclusion sounds like it fits right in to an emerging scientific consensus!
And the implications of that scientific consensus — that global warming is real, serious, and accelerating — are (of course) precisely what community of cherry-picking, quibbling, abusing denialists who post at Watts/WUWT seek to deny!
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth Update by manacker
Vaughan Pratt
Don’t know whether or not you realize it, but you have fallen into David Springer’s “logic trap” with your response.
DS states:
to the question “do greenhouse gases positively raise the earth’s average surface temperature”? I neither believe they do or believe they do not. I’m an experimentalist not a theorist. Show me the well controlled repeatable experiments.
You respond with several paragraphs of eloquent prose describing various aspects of the hypothesis, but do NOT cite any “controlled repeatable experiments”, which would provide empirical evidence to support the hypothesis, as David has requested.
This should be easy for someone (pardon me if this sounds snarky) who can predict the average temperature for the year 2100 to within “a millikelvin”.
Max
↧
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth Update by manacker
Fan
Like the sphinx, you speak in riddles.
After pointing out to you that a two-year "blip" in the SL record meant nothing you come back with a strange post regarding WUWT.
I've visited WUWT occasionally as a lurker, but do most of my blogging here. I also do not live in the USA and have not followed Karl Rove's pre-election prognoses. So I don't really understand what you are suggesting by "math that <strike>you</strike> <strong>I</strong> do as a denialist to make <strike>yourself</strike> <strong>myself</strong> feel better".
Please 'splain. (In English - with or without cutie smileys).
Max
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Mark Harrigan
Hi Peter,
With respect it is you that are broadening the discussion. Perhaps based on a misunderstanding of what the Stern/Smith paper is about?
My sole reason for pointing you at the Stern/Smith paper was to draw attention to the statement on page 3
The fact that uncertainties are large cannot be taken to imply that the risks are small, or that policy-makers can act as if the risks were small.
In other words that One need only show that there is a non-negligible risk that the damage function is high to require that suitable policy action be forthcoming .
You keep calling the paper a philosophy paper. As I have said repeatedly it isn’t. It’s about how science, particularly the models of climate science, should best be used to inform policy, given that they ARE highly uncertain – especially at a regional level. It is published in Philosophical Transactions A of the Royal Society which, despite it’s name which must have mislead you is devoted to a specific area of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences. – not to philosophy of science. The name refers to the historical use of “Natural Philosophy” to refer to science back in the days when Isaac Newton first published some of his treatises on light in it.
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/site/misc/about.xhtml
If you do not accept the conclusion I refer to above from the paper- just say so. But please say why not. I do support this conclusion as I have already explained and it is an important basis of the case I am making.
The list of references you provide critiquing Stern’s economic review are irrelevant. I have not referenced his economic calculations. And you cannot render a conclusion of one of the authors of the paper above invalid by reference to a separate (invalid) conclusion on a different topic.
Should I think that all of the GWPF conclusions are utter BS because Plimer (a person who has been shown to have said the most ridiculous false things about climate science) is one of the referenced people? http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91
Of course not – all such papers and dissertations should stand on their own merits.
I am not familiar with the details of Lilley’s critique of Stern’s economic analysis but I am aware of the short comings of the Stern review – which is why I have not referred to it. A quick look at the executive summary of the GWPF Lilley rebuttal of Stern seems sound. I wouldn’t use the Stern Review as a basis for what action is economically justified.
Regarding your links suggesting “corruption” of the Royal Society and “corruption” of science. I’ll read them. But I am highly skeptical of all claims that rest on some sort of conspiracy ideation about the “corruption of science”. It’s an awfully big claim and it’s a claim frequently made by those who wish to reject the conclusions of climate science and I have never seen it substantiated.
I’m away for the weekend so I will print some out and read them while I am away. Perhaps they will show some shortcomings, large or small?
The whole bunk about the Hockey Stick controversy has been debunked more times than I’ve had hot dinners http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy . If people wilfully refuse to understand that the so called MWP was NOT a global phenomenon but a regional one and that upper latitude tree proxies started to diverge from other proxies recently and so are no longer reliable I can’t help them. In any event it’s irrelevant to our discussion.
I will have to deal with your other response when I get back. have a good weekend :)
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth Update by manacker
Fan
There is another point you may want to consider when you think about sea level rise.
SL has been fluctuating ever since modern records started in the 18thC (and even earlier).
Over the 18thC SL sank very slowly at a linear rate of around 35 mm/century. The trend reversed around 1800 and the increase over the 19thC was around 150mm/C.
Over the 20thC the total increase stayed around the same at 170 mm, with the first half of the century at a slightly faster linear rate (2.0 mm/year) than the second half (1.4 mm/year).
Basis: tide gauge data from Jerjeva et al. (2008) and Holgate (2007)
As the Holgate graph which I posted showed, there have been major oscillations in the decadal rate of SL rise, from sharp rising to sinking.
Tide gauge records are still being kept today (these measure SL at various coastlines, where humans live), but the new method of measurement is by satellite altimetry (measures the entire ocean, except coastlines and polar regions, which cannot be captured by satellites).
The apparent “increase” in rate of SL rise 1993-2003 vs. 1961-2003, from 1.8 to 3.1 mm/year (which was ballyhooed by IPCC in AR4), was a result of this change of measurement methodology and scope, rather than a real “acceleration”. In addition, satellite altimetry has been hounded by major measurement errors and discrepancies, which often exceeded the measured trend itself, as conceded by the NOAA scientists involved.
http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU04/05276/EGU04-J-05276.pdf
As Carl Wunsch has wisely advised us:
http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/Wunschetal_jclimate_2007_published.pdf
The widely quoted altimetric global average values may well be correct, but the accuracies being inferred in the literature are not testable by existing in situ observations. Useful estimation of the global averages is extremely difficult given the realities of space–time sampling and model approximations. Systematic errors are likely to dominate most estimates of global average change: published values and error bars should be used very cautiously.
Sounds like good advice to me, Fan – how ‘bot you?
Max
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by manacker
Mark Harrigan and Peter Lang
Pardon me for cutting in, but one statement made by Mark Harrigan needs more analysis.
The GWPF premise that a substantial threat from AGW is not negligible is purely conjectural.
It results from the IPCC reports, culminating in AR4.
Counter-arguments to these (for example, by Ian Plimer) are written off by Mark:
Should I think that all of the GWPF conclusions are utter BS because Plimer (a person who has been shown to have said the most ridiculous false things about climate science) is one of the referenced people?
To which specific “ridiculous false things” are you referring, Mark? Can you be a bit more specific?
One can point to several examples of “ridiculous false things about climate science” in the IPCC reports. I’ll be a “bit more specific” by citing some examples:
http://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/ipcc
Of course, there were also the “ridiculous false” forecasts of 0.2C per decade warming for this century, which have fallen totally flat.
So should we “write off” the IPCC reports in their entirety because of these “ridiculous false things about climate science” in these reports?
If so, one can forget about the GWPF conclusions, which are based on IPCC.
Max
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by manacker
Masrk Harrigan
You write:
people wilfully refuse to understand that the so called MWP was NOT a global phenomenon
Huh?
There are many independent studies from all over the world, using different paleo-climate methodologies, which all point to a MWP that was slightly warmer than today. I can cite links, if you are truly interested.
Then there is historical data from all over the civilized world at the time (crop records, sea charts, etc.) showing that temperatures were warmer.
In addition, there is actual physical evidence, such as carbon-dated remains of old trees recovered under receding glaciers high above the present tree line or medieval farm buildings buried in the Greenland permafrost, etc.
Sure, just like today, there may be some parts of the world that are cooling rather than warming, but these were (and are) the exception that “proves the rule”.
If you “willfully refuse to understand” all the data out there confirming a global MWP, that is your problem.
But the data are there. All you have to do is look.
Max
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth Update by A fan of *MORE* discourse
Now that the CU group has embraced Carl Wunsch’s good advice, Carl’s concerns from 2007 are now largely outdated, eh Manacker?
So the recent sea-level rise-rate really *IS* mighty fast, eh?
`Cuz hey … cimate-change skepticism has gotta keep-up with the ever-accelerating pace and strength of climate-change science … not to mention, the ever-strengthening magnitude of global climate-change itself, right Manacker?
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth Update by Bob
Eli, how fast do you think Strasberg’s fastball would be if he were throwing a cueball, instead of a baseball?
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth Update by Bob
Vaughn, depends where you accelerate it. In deep space, according to Sir Arthur Eddington, the only thing that will happen to the thermometer is that it will shrink as it approaches the speed of light.
↧
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth Update by manacker
Fan
As I wrote, come back when you have some data (like at least one decade’s worth).
See ya later.
Max
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth Update by willard (@nevaudit)
If the thermometer shrinks, then it’s colder, at least according to mine.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Beth Cooper
Re comments on MWP, there’s a paper by earth science professor
Zunli Lu re MWP as a global phenomenon:
http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/03/23/antarctica-new-evidence-medieval-warm-period-and-little-ice-age-were-global/
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth Update by kim
Heh, it’ll be obvious after we see it. Nail that coin on the mast.
======
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Dennis
Help me here Fan, is a wave worse than a spasm?
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by curryja
A guest post from Makarieva and Shiel should be coming within the next few days, best to defer discussion on this until the topical post.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by David Springer
Being an equal opportunity unemployer I tend to eschew GWPF as biased but it’s bias based on hearsay not witness. I was a bit surprised by the article you linked as it seemed fair and balanced. The more dogmatic on both sides can likely find plenty to dislike in it. I was wondering if you found anything at all objectionable.
↧
