It’s worth noting that the formulation originates from the article of Bernstein:
As an aside, as a colleague points out, bullying of a somewhat less egregious sort seems relatively common among international law scholars, where those who are outside the predominant leftist consensus are considered beyond the pale.
Judith just linked that to the climate science.
Buzz Fledderjohn, at this point, I think everyone can see you have nothing of value to offer. You’re not even attempting to address what people say, and the things you do say amount to nothing more than hand-waving.
If you start saying things worth responding to, I’ll atart responding again.
the big problem with academics is they are too nice . my standard response to bullying in any form is a punch in the face.
Buzz:
The uncertainties can mean that man-made influence is far more than central estimates as much as they can mean they are lower.
If someone had said to you, “The uncertainties can mean that man-made influence is far less than central estimates as much as they can mean they are higher”, you would probably (rightly) accuse them of being biased.
Buzz:
What do you call direct measurements of up and downwelling IR absorption bands?
I’d call them direct measurements of up and downwelling IR absorption bands. What would you call them?
Ouch!
oh look ,it is peter the thief attempting to be taken seriously.big problem peter,dishonesty is dishonesty ,that makes you untrustworthy .this ties in well with the annunciations of climate scientists of the cagw persuasion based on the output of climate models that have but a fraction of the relevant input,which appear untrustworthy.
not one single negative effect of the slight warming up until the late nineties can be documented,simply because there have been no negative effects.
the rubbish trotted out by various advocates of mitigation based on projections of warmist scientists has now been realised for what it was. spending on this futile exercise will slowly but surely be reigned in,and not before time.
let us have no more disastrous waste of taxpayers funds like the insane building of desalination plants in austrailia to mitigate for excessive droughts due to cagw that to date have never been required ,while the dams fill with rain that was forecast never to come by the warmists.
european seas and landscapes covered in wind turbines that contribute a fraction of our energy requirements at a cost several multiples of conventional generation. turbines that will fail long before their predicted lifespan ,requiring more taxpayer funding for removal.
worst of all,increased winter deaths in northern europe as a result of increased energy costs,costs driven by insane subsidy of systems doomed to fail from the outset. several cold winters in a row now would have a devastating effect,particularly on the young ,elderly and infirm. you and many of your colleagues should hang your head in shame . utterly disgraceful the lot of you.
No, Joshua attacks a generalisation by picking out some inevitable specific, in effect, attacking the flea on the elephant’s back whilst ignoring the pachyderm.
i am sick to the back teeth of supposed left right issues,as though humanity can be split down the middle by only two viewpoints,outdated viewpoints at that.
more like rational thinking vs what or who is out to get us next.
appears judith hit a raw nerve here ,highest concentration or warmist lunatics i have ever witnessed on a blog in recent times.
Essentially a very long-winded way of avoiding saying that what needs to ,is for climate scientists to start doing honest science. (And Yes Judith, is it that simple).
Which may of course be impossible, since government – the funder of climate science – has a colossal vested interest in an alarmist outcome being predicted. Being an honest climate scientist will do your government-funded career no good at all.
Sam, further to this please note that in the Antarctic the energy imbalance cools the ocean.
Antarctic ice freezes largely from below.
FOMD made a slight error in commenting on Arctic ice when he said the effect is strong in the shallow Arctic Ocean.
Due to it’s shallowness there is no deep sea trapped heat available to melt Arctic ice.
Just the normal warm currents from the North Sea that have been coming up in summer due to the sun in perpetua.
I am sure he will apologise for the confusion.
Daniel,
The NY Times is, like most of western “mainstream media,” peopled with people who have never known anything but the group think and dogma of progressivism. All they have ever heard is revisionist progressive history, the blissful wonders of central planning, and the evil of the western culture created by racist, sexist, homophobic, dead, white males.
They have been taught to be critical of those who dissent from the “consensus,” but have been programmed never to engage in real critical analysis, particularly regarding the consensus – on anything.
Of course they print the loony imaginings of Mann as revealed truth. It’s all they know.
Nah, David Hagen is right, you know it.
Invective on either side is bullying and used when reason is insufficient.
Bullying can be stress relieving for someone losing an argument
Means you get a little bit back on the side but the overall effect is you are perceived to be losing.
Ok if both of you like playing hardball but makes everyone else around a bit queasy.
Not that it bothers hardball types of course.
“The paper reminds us that such assessment reports are a means of politicization of science.”
That is but a surface issue. The politicization of climate science stems from the obvious facts that (a) it it politically financed, and (b) its financier has a vested interest in the outcome (alarmism means more taxes etc).
The IPCC falls into the same vested interest category, since everyone who works there is on government money too.
Though there are of course a handful of exceptions.
‘One important development since the TAR is the apparent unexpectedly large changes in tropical mean radiation flux reported by ERBS (Wielicki et al., 2002a,b). It appears to be related in part to changes in the nature of tropical clouds (Wielicki et al., 2002a), based on the smaller changes in the clear-sky component of the radiative fluxes (Wong et al., 2000; Allan and Slingo, 2002), and appears to be statistically distinct from the spatial signals associated with ENSO (Allan and Slingo, 2002; Chen et al., 2002). A recent reanalysis of the ERBS active-cavity broadband data corrects for a 20 km change in satellite altitude between 1985 and 1999 and changes in the SW filter dome (Wong et al., 2006). Based upon the revised (Edition 3_Rev1) ERBS record (Figure 3.23), outgoing LW radiation over the tropics appears to have increased by about 0.7 W/m2 while the reflected SW radiation decreased by roughly 2.1 W/m2 from the 1980s to 1990s (Table 3.5).’ AR4 WG1 3.4.4.1
This is apparent in multiple instruments and in ocean temps. We have the argument that early century warming was different – and simultaneously that it was CO2. That late century warming was definitely CO2 radiative imbalance – while the available evidence suggests it wasn’t. That the current hiatus is caused by ocean uptake – while the warming before that was not increase in heat flux fro the ocean associated with ENSO.
Multiple personality disorder seems seems the obvious conclusion – all of them unpleasant and not too bright. FOMBS even talks about himself in the third person.
Agreeing with Springer again
No Carbon tax.
It is regressive, destroys the science we all espouse, hurts people and has no rational basis, just a fear of the unknown.
Further to that, Judith, an unknown cannot by definition, be quantified. Is it a big unknown or a small unknown or a Donald Rumsfeld unknown? We do not know and the flag cannot stretch that far.
Pekka, good to see you back, sorry for being bullying in the past.
If we want a rational world reduce the population by fair means, pay people not to have kids, let people take up extreme sports and bring in euthanasia for those that want out.
Farm more intensively and cleverly, reuse resources and step up scientific research into multiple alternative energy sources.
And help people , do not stun them or abuse them by cutting off power.
No carbon tax.
As for the hypocrites in the Australian Labor Party and the Greens , driving their cars, and at the same time sending billions of tons of coal overseas while pretending to impose a carbon tax, good riddance.
A SIMPLE, COMPREHENSIVE TABLE OF CLIMATE FEEDBACKS. Can you point me to it?
Yes, Google Images will instantly pull up a bunch of the “box” diagrams with arrows going this way & that. Some of these are illustrative, some seem to be versions of something actually incorporated into GCMs or earlier, cruder computer models.
But where is a simple comparative table — a literal spreadsheet, if you will — comparing positive feedbacks against negative feedbacks, and including:
– an estimated range of their spatial scale/scope (ie highly local, regional, polar, global),
– estimated range of impact on temperature,
– time-scale (“hi freq vs. low freq”)
– uncertainty bars would be nice
– & maybe some links to sources for each.
I’m talking about a literal TABLE, with columns and rows. So you can see side by side an inventory of ALL the known & postulated feedbacks, from largest to smallest.
I’ve poked around around a fair amount, and the closest thing I’ve found is from a hyper-alarmist who is not even a climate scientist (sorry trying to remember the name/link…)
I haven’t tried going thru all the print textbooks. I’m lazy. I’ve been considering making one myself, I’ve probably found about a dozen new damping feedbacks in studies over the last year alone. But like I said, I’m lazy, I’d rather not work on the chart if I don’t have to. It’s got to be out there somewhere… or not?
I keep seeing these negative feedbacks but none of the activists or media hype seem to reference them. They only talk up amplifying feedbacks. For obvious reasons, it sells the danger.
All data is stored in tables, so…
Got a sheitload of tables in Google images by adding ‘table’ to the search string.
R. Gate, you seem to be a knowledgable participant.
1. The GCMs produce rubbish results
2. The oceans are reservoirs which impose latency of 100 – 1,000+ (?) years
3. 60% of the non-condensing aCO2 is reabsorbed (aka condenses) each year
4. Notwithstanding an unprecedented propaganda effort by the IPCC and many OECD countries, the emissions of GHG by the developing world has accelerated beyond worst case scenarios
Can you convergence in that above to anything vaguely resembling a plausible objective argument?
There is almost nothing which could be called closure/containment/science/effective-policy
