“Therefore the “null” hypothesis regarding the sun must EXCLUDE the impact of changes in direct solar irradiance, right?”
Okay lets do that:
The influence of non-TSI changes in the Sun on global temperature is indistinguishable from zero.
Kind of contradicts all that Alex Rawls fuss about the Sun having more influence than the IPCC reported.
lolwot, “33C is a ballpark estimate based on making the atmosphere IR and holding everything else fixed. The assumptions underlying it are well understood. You can try adding in extra details like thermal inertia and not using global averages, but when you do you’ll find the greenhouse effect remains.”
Time will be the judge. Still, the lack of a uniform radiant source and shell at the surface reduces the impact by nearly 50%, 0.8 versus 1.5 at the high end. The Turbopause impact also implies that gravity waves influenced by tidal forces have a larger than expected impact on climate. I believe Richard Lindzen has a paper or two on the subject.
In short, there is a lot more to climate than the “experts” ever imagined.
I think you grossly overestimate your own expertize and grossly underestimate theirs.
Let’s leave what I wrote aside for the moment. Let me ask you this:
In general terms, do you agree that a scientist with a political agenda has become by reason of that agenda, less trust worthy wrt to the way he conducts research?
If the answer is “yes,” then are you by some ineluctable David Wokickian leap of logic ipso facto calling for all research funding to scientists who act as expert witnesses to be stopped?
Last time David, you’re obviously free to draw whatever conclusion you wish from my comment, but to do it you have to ignore my specific and pointed statement to the contrary. It seems to me that since it’s my comment, I ought to know what I meant. But that seems to carry no weight for you.
I submit that your logic is faulty. Just because something is problematic it is not by definition necessarily to be eliminated.
Around 11:48 Muller says rural stations show the same warming as others. That seems to be called into question in some recent studies.
Around 17:23 Muller admits the attribution of warming to humans is a gut feeling. Not science.
Robert Lackey:
> Scientific information must remain a cornerstone of public policy decisions, but I offer cautionary guidance to scientists: [...]
Cautionary: Giving or serving as a warning; admonitory.
Admonitory: Expressing admonition.
Admonition: Mild, kind, yet earnest reproof.
Reproof: The act, an instance, or an expression of reproving; a rebuke.
Reproving: To voice or convey disapproval.
Disapproval: The act of disapproving; condemnation or censure.
Condemn: To pronounce judgment against.
***
It might be tough to speak against normative science in a non-normative way.
Max, since I make my living as a expert I do not agree that expert opinion is nearly worthless. It is just a matter of understanding its limits in any given case, often via disagreement.
As for the rest attribution is not the immediate issue, just trends. I am sure AR4 has lots of citations, plus the IPCC and USGCRP both have special studies on this. There is a genuine scientific debate here. Accusing your opponent of lying is counter productive.
See Ryan Maue’s graph of Accumulated Cyclone Energy.
=============
No Poker I do not believe that offering expert testimony makes one untrustworthy as a scientist. I find the claim ridiculous.
You’ve recursed yourself into a tight situation.
==============
lolwot, “I think you grossly overestimate your own expertize and grossly underestimate theirs.” It has nothing to do with my expertise, likely more to do with my lack of expertise, I try to triple check everything and assume nothing.
As far as “their” expertise, the anomalies are revealing their short comings. Trenberths “minor adjustment” was nearly 20 Wm-2 of “atmospheric window” energy exchanged between surface water and cloud water, mixed phase clouds. Clausius-Clapyron does not deal well with supersaturation or physical water in the atmosphere which can become an effective IR ground plane.
When climate science selected the most chaotic layer of the planet for a “reference” they doom themselves to failure. KISS Keep It Simple Stupid
David,
It suffers from No. 21.
I’m not gonna bother with this. I’ll depend on previous judgement that both these contestants are usually right.
==============================
David, I like it. Are you interested in doing a guest post on this, or can I re-post?
I concede that was too narrow on my part, and I gave you wiggle room thereby. What I should have asked was, do you believe scientists with a political agenda are less trustworthy wrt to their research? The answer has to be yes it seems to me. So I repeat my question, are you then calling for all funding to such scientists to be stopped? I doubt it, since you’ve already deemed such an idea preposterous.
For fleas, it’s like McDonald’s Playland. Fast food and fast fun.
=======
willard -
Here I am yet again, about to accuse you of pretending to be unable to follow the conversation. I retract. You are not pretending.
David, arguing that you cant be a bully because you have no power, is a non sequitor. Bullies succeed because of the perception that they have power, not actual power. Which is why its best to punch them in the nose.
So, I’ll stick with my point. You’re a weak bully. You’ve proved that by admission. So, I fail to see why you cant agree with yourself on the matter.
Vaughan
Personally I do find the issue of inside vs. outside “consultants” to be critical. The merits of the position is critical and not from where it came. It would not matter if the vast majority of CO2 mitigation actions were recommended by an internal or external individual, the recommendation would still likely be a poor use of limited resources. That said, if someone can show such an action that makes sense I’d support it.
The new paper mentioned above is now on the PROM menu at Principia Scientific International
