The AGW denialists rules for discussion

Mercurius has listed the things AGW denialists will accept as evidence:

1) Nothing that was recorded by instruments such as weather-stations, ocean buoys or satellite data. Since all instruments are subject to error, we cannot use them to measure climate.

2) Nothing that has been corrected to account for the error of recording instruments. Any corrected data is a fudge. You must use only the raw data, which is previously disqualified under rule #1. Got that? OK, moving along…

3) Nothing that was produced by a computer model. We all know that you can’t trust computer models, and they have a terrible track record in any industrial, architectural, engineering, astronomical or medical context.

4) Nothing that was researched or published by a scientist. Such appeals to authority are invalid. We all know that scientists are just writing these papers to keep their grant money.

I get the feeling he has been reading Joanne Nova…

Read the whole thing.

Comments

#1 Fran Barlow
August 5, 2009

I took a look at the list Barton Levenson@98 and as far as I can tell none is a climate scientist or has published anything that recommends insight into the science they are complaining about.

There’s the usual assortment of geologists, engineers etc a couple claiming meteorologuy (buit nothing relevant in publication) and some are identified with Astroturf sites opposing mitigation.

If anyone wants a run at the list:

http://tinyurl.com/filth-merchant-frauds

Fran
#2 ben
August 5, 2009

But based on your logic. The research I linked to would be halted because the initial assumption before the research started may have indicted that humans had a negative impact for the species monitored.

Not true, this is not what my logic stated. I claimed there would not be as much money, not that there would be no money. Learn to read.

ben, like so many, many deniers, can’t resist imputing evil motives to the scientists:

Who said I was a denier? Just like Tim’s not anti-gun. I simply find it interesting that I haven’t seen any research in which serious folks on the warming side show what happens if, in a reasonable way, their assumptions are wrong. Granted that if this showed the possibility for cooling or no warming the “right wing establishment” would be all over it, but then serious science IS NOT WORRIED ABOUT SUCH THINGS.

This is just like a grad student that my sister talked to at the University of Texas where she is a research fellow. He told her about an interesting discovery they had made about evolution, but they didn’t make an announcement about it in the press because “it would give Christian fundamentalists more room to argue for intelligent design / creationism.” Creationsism/ID is totally stupid, scientifically, but for these scientists to be afraid in this way… Galileo really had more balls than these cowards.

blockquote>You’ve obviously never written even the simplest climate model, have you?

Nope. I have a Ph.D. from the University of Washington in Aerospace Engineering, awarded 2008, specializing in control systems. I’ve written about a billion dynamics models, and I do know how dynamical systems work. I do know that many assumptions must be made about complicated systems in order to make them tractable. I do know that just about everything in the world is nonlinear, but that except for textbook cases, nonlinearities are very difficult to deal with analytically.

I also know that the earth’s climate is dynamic, and that to simulate it exactly, you’d pretty much have to use a CFD program with an intractable number of cells. Hence, I’m pretty certain that massive simplification takes place in these models, and I wonder what is the effect of these simplifications.

I also am fairly certain that in general the earth’s climate system is stable to introduction of greenhouse gases. If it were not, the earth’s climate system would have run away eons ago.

PS can someone check the IP address for ben ‘cos he could be Ray…

My IP address is static: 63.224.36.203. I don’t know who is this Ray person. Don’t you people ever get bored of slapping each other on the back all day?
#3 Lee
August 5, 2009

ben:
“I also am fairly certain that in general the earth’s climate system is stable to introduction of greenhouse gases. If it were not, the earth’s climate system would have run away eons ago.”

Dude. Define “stable.” If you mean, earth tries to stay at the same temperature, you’re refuted by the existence of glacial/interglacial stades. If you mean that feedback is converging,not diverging – that is exactly what climate theory tells us.

If you’re trying to say that positive feedback implies a high probability of runaway instability – and you really have done modeling – you know better.
#4 ben
August 5, 2009

Dude. Define “stable.”

The term stable is already well defined for dynamical systems.

If you mean, earth tries to stay at the same temperature

I do not mean this.

If you mean that feedback is converging,not diverging

Huh? Converging to what? Feedback is feedback. The system can converge, I don’t know what you mean by “feedback is converging.”

In any event, that part of my comment was dumb. I was thinking of something else and I was blathering.
#5 Chris O'Neill
August 5, 2009

PS can someone check the IP address for ben ‘cos he could be Ray…

Hardly worth it since there’s an endless supply of science-denying trolls.
#6 Mark
August 5, 2009

> The term stable is already well defined for dynamical systems.

A dynamic system changes, though. That’s the DEFINITION of dynamic.

So how can a dynamic system be stable?

> I don’t know what you mean by “feedback is converging.”

Then educate thyself.

A feedback less than one converges on a non-infinite final value at infinity.

It CONVERGES to that value as the feedback feeds back on the feedback.

A feedback more or equal to one attains infinity if you continue to infinity.

It DIVERGES from any value as the feedback feeds back on the feedback.

Your ill-education may be why you are confused. That is your problem, not the science.

> In any event, that part of my comment was dumb.

Wisdom *starts* when you understand what you do not understand.
#7 Paul
August 5, 2009

Ben:
>Not true, this is not what my logic stated. I claimed there would not be as much money, not that there would be no money. Learn to read.

But my point was that the funding was not based on a known outcome. You imply that the outcomes are known and that is why funding is available.
#8 TrueSceptic
August 5, 2009

Mark,

I think Ben knows his stuff when it comes to control theory. His company makes products in that sector.

The issue is: to what degree does expertise in one sector translate to expertise in another?
#9 Mark
August 5, 2009

> I think Ben knows his stuff when it comes to control theory.

It isn’t in evidence when ben says:

> I don’t know what you mean by “feedback is converging.”

Since that is not even advanced mathematics. I did the converging series in maths when I was 13…
#10 Mark
August 5, 2009

TrueSkeptic, maybe you’d better ask yourself: doesn’t the janitorial staff work for the same company?

Wither now the assumption of education..?
#11 Martin Vermeer
August 5, 2009

So how many models say that adding more CO2 on its own to the atmosphere gives a cooling effect?

All of them… in the stratosphere
#12 TrueSceptic
August 5, 2009

Mark,

I see no reason for him to lie. His company is Sector 7G and here’s his [resumé](http://63.224.36.203/resumes/Ben_Triplett_Resume.pdf). If I’m too trusting then too bad.
#13 TrueSceptic
August 5, 2009

111 Martin,

Good answer!
#14 Mark E. Gillar
August 5, 2009

Bernard J,

No, the interview couldn’t be moved unless I wanted to fly out of state to conduct it.

Interesting theory on your part. If I don’t attend a conference Mr. Mashey directs me toward, I’m a coward…LOL

Mr. Mashey was actually the one who decided to post my full name here assuming that I would run away. Well that didn’t happen did it? I actually confirmed that he was correct and began using my full name here.

I notice you haven’t come clean with your full name. Kind of ironic having someone too afraid to use their full name calling me a coward. That didn’t occur to you Ben?
#15 Mark E. Gillar
August 5, 2009

Bernard, J

In your opinion, is Brenda Ekwurzel a real climate scientist? Just trying to figure out who in your estimation
the real players are.

Here is a great vid of her debating Chris Horner:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS-kMuzJkEI
#16 Bernard J.
August 6, 2009

Mark E. Gillar.

If “cowardice” was too harsh, I apologise, but I would have thought that you had plenty of time to book both engagements without conflict, and [by you own words](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/monckton_caught_making_things.php#comment-1618740):

Unlike most of the people I meet who support one side or the other, I do believe in balancing the information I take in.

Given that you [also said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/monckton_caught_making_things.php#comment-1618527):

I’ll will also try my best to be at the conference.

I assumed that you might actually have meant it, and that you were open to passing your own perspectives through the sieves of expert understanding in the field that you find fault in.

If it wasn’t fear of having your ideology displace, so be it, and I stand corrected.

You can hardly claim though that you have sought to address the imbalance in your understanding of climatology if you eschew a prime opportunity to test your own beliefs in a forum such as the TAMU conference. Anyone with half a grain of intention of properly understanding climate change – especially if they comment publicly upon it, as you do – should have bent over backward to attend so close an opportunity: that you did not indicates to me that your priorities are not likely to be aligned with actually understanding the science.

As to the video, I am on dial-up and will continue to be so for a number of months yet, because of a quirk in our local exchange, and I do not intend to sacrifice my time online downloading videos. Perhaps someone else will comment on it instead, or perhaps you can just make your point straight out.

And with respect to my partial anonymity, I have explained several times before on Deltoid that in the past I have made the mistake of posting my full name on the Interweb, only to have my work email accounts subsequently completely spammed by people of a somewhat nasty persuasion, to the point that they have had to be closed. It has nothing to do with cowardice, and everything to do with maintaining an operable internet access in the face of those who think it amusing to ruin peoples’ right to the same. It is also the request of my institution’s IT crowd, following the floods of spam that I have received.

In other – professional – arenas I am known by my full identity, and justly so, because there is an expectation and a need. On a blog and in my own humble case, there is no such need.

Personally, I don’t care if you are Dash Riprock the Seventy-ninth, or if you are just Mark E. Gillar – it is simply the validity of your arguments that matter on a forum such as a blog, and I would expect that the same applies to me. On Deltoid, my identity is not germane to the matters at hand.
#17 Mark
August 6, 2009

> I see no reason for him to lie. His company is Sector 7G and here’s his resumé. If I’m too trusting then too bad.

> Posted by: TrueSceptic

Try reading his comments then.

Explain:

> I don’t know what you mean by “feedback is converging.”

from someone you think has that resume.
#18 Mark
August 6, 2009

> If it wasn’t fear of having your ideology displace, so be it, and I stand corrected.

Although scientific inquiry and proven theories depend on evidence (as in “that which is seen”) and Occam says the simplest process is likely the answer to any query, therefore the *simplest* answer to “why didn’t MEG go?” is “He doesn’t want to go”.

Given the paucity of information against that proposition, your conclusion was tentative but not demonstrably wrong.
#19 MAB
August 6, 2009

>from someone you think has that resume.

Why not? Should every PhD from every discipline have a robust understanding of climate science?
#20 Mark
August 6, 2009

> Why not? Should every PhD from every discipline have a robust understanding of climate science?

> Posted by: MAB

MAB, that’s not climate science.

It’s maths at secondary-school level.

And didn’t you also say:

> I think Ben knows his stuff when it comes to control theory.

Because of his resume?

Well, if feedback convergence is climate science, how does him knowing his stuff about control theory relate?

I put forward the proposition that feedback convergence ISN’T climate science, it’s maths.

It seems you think so too, except in your last message.
#21 ben
August 6, 2009

A dynamic system changes, though. That’s the DEFINITION of dynamic. So how can a dynamic system be stable?

This question shows lack of understanding of dynamic systems.

For the record, I do not claim a robust understanding of climate science.

As to “the feedback is converging” or “feedback convergence,” these terms are not commonly used in science or engineering. If they were, you would not get these results on the first page of a google search, or google scholar search.

Searches for “feedback convergence” or “feedback is converging” return no meaningful results with those exact phrases. They are not used. In control systems they have no meaning. Systems, including those with feedback, converge, and this is what folks care about. Obviously the feedback reaches steady state if the system it feeds back on does, because the term feedback refers to a feeding back of the system state.

My textbooks all have a lot of references to “feedback” and some to “convergence” but none to feedback convergence. My math books have a lot of references to “convergence,” mostly for sequences and series, but none to “feedback convergence.” I know what convergence is, I just have never heard anyone refer to “feedback that is converging.”
#22 Lee
August 6, 2009

sigh…

Positive feedback can cause a system to converge to a new state, or to diverge into a runaway.

I am not a systems person or a modeler – I’m a biologist. But I know at least this much.

I used a sloppy shorthand, and it seems nearly everyone here understood it except ben. So, ben, I apologize for confusing you by using a sloppy phrase that is not the precise and preferred form that you use inside your field.
#23 ben
August 6, 2009

Hey Lee, I only said I didn’t know what you meant. The other guys here jumped on me for it, so I defended myself… I don’t have any problem with what you wrote, I just didn’t know what you meant.
#24 Martin Vermeer
August 6, 2009

Mark E. Gillar,

I just lost five minutes of my life looking at the Ekwurzel-Horner video. That you even call that a “debate” — great or not — tells me all I need to know about you. Don’t you believe in moderation? Equal time for both sides? Opportunity for riposte?

I think Brenda was great in the few seconds thrown at her. She didn’t need to lie once.
#25 Barton Paul Levenson
August 6, 2009

ben writes:

blockquote>”You’ve obviously never written even the simplest climate model, have you?”

Nope. I have a Ph.D. from the University of Washington in Aerospace Engineering,

An engineer. Why am I not surprised?

awarded 2008, specializing in control systems. I’ve written about a billion dynamics models, and I do know how dynamical systems work. I do know that many assumptions must be made about complicated systems in order to make them tractable. I do know that just about everything in the world is nonlinear, but that except for textbook cases, nonlinearities are very difficult to deal with analytically.

I also know that the earth’s climate is dynamic, and that to simulate it exactly, you’d pretty much have to use a CFD program with an intractable number of cells. Hence, I’m pretty certain that massive simplification takes place in these models, and I wonder what is the effect of these simplifications.

Shorter ben: I’ve got lots of experience with a completely different kind of computer model, and without looking at the type I’m talking about, I’ll just assume they’re like mine and lecture everybody about how they work.

I also am fairly certain that in general the earth’s climate system is stable to introduction of greenhouse gases. If it were not, the earth’s climate system would have run away eons ago.

Earth’s climate is stabilized, over millions of years, by something called the carbonate-silicate cycle, which you’d know about if you had ever studied geochemistry, or planetary astronomy, or climatology. It does, in fact, fail from time to time, causing the climate to run away, as in the “Snowball Earth” episodes 2.3 billion, 800 million and 600 million years ago.

And approximate stability is not the same as “stable enough to maintain a careless human civilization.”
#26 MAB
August 6, 2009

Mark @ 117 writes:

And didn’t you also say: “*I think Ben knows his stuff when it comes to control theory.*”

No. Perhaps someone else?

But more relevant than Ben’s resume, hes just stated:

> *For the record, I do not claim a robust understanding of climate science. *
#27 TrueSceptic
August 6, 2009

126 MAB,

I agree. I suggest that anyone interested should:-

a) read the relevant posts;

b) not accuse people of ignorance of a specialised subject without being sure what that subject is.
#28 ben
August 7, 2009

Shorter ben: I’ve got lots of experience with a completely different kind of computer model, and without looking at the type I’m talking about, I’ll just assume they’re like mine and lecture everybody about how they work.

Actually, I have a fair bit of experience with the type of computer model that could simulate the climate system nearly perfectly, but there simply aren’t sufficient computational resources available yet to undertake such a project. If there were, a finite volume approch would do the job nicely.
#29 Barton Paul Levenson
August 7, 2009

ben writes:

Actually, I have a fair bit of experience with the type of computer model that could [emphasis added] simulate the climate system nearly perfectly

I.e., none with actual climate models. Keep blathering about something you’ve never studied, ben, it’s amusing to those of us who have actually done their homework in this respect.

P.S. I’ve been writing RCMs since 1998.
#30 Chris Winter
August 7, 2009

To answer Mark E. Gillar’s question, I think Brenda Ekwurzel is a real climate scientist.

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/experts/brenda-ekwurzel.html

But I’m sure having moderator Bill Hemmer introduce her as “a federal climate scientologist” did not exactly bolster that impression for the public. Did he ever apologize, I wonder?

I’ll second the comment of Martin Vermeer: This was in no way a debate when she was barely allowed to get a word in edgewise.
#31 Chris Winter
August 7, 2009

Per the original topic, Mercurius’ rules are great, but I think we need another corollary:

H) Science is not done by consensus, so a consensus of scientists means nothing — unless it’s a consensus of our scientists.
#32 ben
August 7, 2009

P.S. I’ve been writing RCMs since 1998.

Right. Are your models exact, or do they make simplifications? At what scale do they capture the physics of the system? Do you model individual raindrops? Do you model rain at all? Do you model clouds? If so, do you model “real” clouds, or do you have an approximate cloud model? Do you model the energy taken out of the system by wind turbine farms? Do you model the decrease in circulation and the resulting decrease in convective heat transfer due to the wind farms? What sort of details do your models capture, what do they omit, and why is any of this important or not? Thanks!

How do your simplifications affect the outcome?
#33 luminous beauty
August 7, 2009

[Cloud](http://www.vterrain.org/Atmosphere/Clouds/) models.
#34 Former Skeptic
August 7, 2009

@ben:

You appear to be of reasonable intelligence. Why not display some curiosity (IMO a trait all Ph.D. holders should have) by reading [Chp 8 of IPCC AR4 WG1 (note, pdf format)](http://tinyurl.com/lrjseo) before shooting off questions about climate models that have already been answered ad infinitum?

I usually recommend engineering Ph.D. students – who generally claim to know the minutiae of all things modeling – to read this chapter. Usually, almost all accept that their engineering background is simply inadequate. The one or two who don’t are usually full of it and the Dunning-Kruger effect applies.
#35 ben
August 8, 2009

Thanks for the link, former skeptic, this will make for interesting reading. The first page of the Executive Summary is interesting of itself for its noting of all the biases that are still problematic in various aspects of the models, and for its honesty in explaining how many “firsts” have been accomplished by the newest models. Looks to me like these models still have a LONG WAY TO GO.

The fact remains that these models are generalizations of the physics that could be captured via a finite volume approach if computational overhead was not a concern. As it stands, we are decades, if not centuries, away from such an undertaking.
#36 Former Skeptic
August 8, 2009

@ben:

I’m sorry, but you must be interpreting something that is not there on the first page of ar4-wg1-chp8. How can you not see the key statement of the exec summary:

Climate models are based on well-established physical
principles and have been demonstrated to reproduce observed
features of recent climate (see Chapters 8 and 9) and past climate changes (see Chapter 6). There is considerable confidence that Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models (AOGCMs) provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental and larger scales. Confidence in these estimates is higher for some climate variables (e.g., temperature) than for others (e.g., precipitation).

Try as I might, I don’t see “noting of all the biases”, nor “many ‘firsts’ have been accomplished by the newest models” standing out above that. It’s a verrrrrrrrrrry longgggggggggg stretchhhhhhhhh to conclude, nay, SHOUT that climate models have A LONG WAY TO GO (sic).

And why the hasty, un-scholarly generalization and IMO puerile conclusion-jumping based on ONE page? What happened to reading the whole paper instead of the abstract/exec summary?
#37 ben
August 8, 2009

Let me go through the summary paragraph by paragraph then.

There have been ongoing improvements to resolution,
computational methods and parametrizations, and
additional processes (e.g., interactive aerosols) have been
included in more of the climate models.

So there are processes that have been, and are still being, left out of the climate models? How does this change the warming reported every year over the last 20 years? I remember when I was still doing my undergraduate work in 1999 and claims were being made that “the science was settled.” Now we get claims that “the science is really settled.”

Most AOGCMs no longer use flux adjustments, which
were previously required to maintain a stable climate.
At the same time, there have been improvements in
the simulation of many aspects of present climate. The
uncertainty associated with the use of flux adjustments
has therefore decreased, although biases and long-term
trends remain in AOGCM control simulations.

Interesting. So back in 1999 when the science was settled, these “flux adjustments” were required to “maintain a stable climate” and yet the model data was cited as a reliable indication for AGW? What about those biases and long-term trends that remain in the control simulations?

Progress in the simulation of important modes of climate
variability has increased the overall confi dence in the
models’ representation of important climate processes.
As a result of steady progress, some AOGCMs can now
simulate important aspects of the El Niño-Southern
Oscillation (ENSO). Simulation of the Madden-Julian
Oscillation (MJO) remains unsatisfactory.

Sounds good, progress has been made. But that is a relative statement. How much progress? Where did we start? Where are we now? The models can simulate “aspects of ENSO.” But it can’t simulate ENSO then, is that what I’m to understand? And the MJO simulation remains unsatisfactory? Is this significant, or can I forget and simply conclude that the models are 100% spot on and that AGW is real?

The ability of AOGCMs to simulate extreme events,
especially hot and cold spells, has improved. The
frequency and amount of precipitation falling in intense
events are underestimated.

Another relative statement. When I went from an F to a D in sewing class in seventh grade, I improved, but I still sucked. What about this underestimation of precipitation falling in intense events? Significant? Seems like its important. Maybe as warming increases we’ll see more intense events and hence a buffer of sorts against future warming?

Systematic biases have been found in most models’
simulation of the Southern Ocean. Since the Southern
Ocean is important for ocean heat uptake, this results in
some uncertainty in transient climate response

Good to know. How much uncertainty? What is the scale of the effect of this uncertainty on the modelling of the overall climate?

Here’s something from the second page of the Executive Summary:

There is currently no consensus on the optimal way to divide
computer resources among: finer numerical grids, which allow
for better simulations; greater numbers of ensemble members,
which allow for better statistical estimates of uncertainty; and
inclusion of a more complete set of processes (e.g., carbon
feedbacks, atmospheric chemistry interactions).

They are acknowledging what I was saying earlier, that their numerical grid is more course than they would like because computational resources are limited. And how about this about sea ice:

Despite notable progress in improving sea ice formulations,
AOGCMs have typically achieved only modest progress in
simulations of observed sea ice since the TAR. The relatively
slow progress can partially be explained by the fact that
improving sea ice simulation requires improvements in both
the atmosphere and ocean components in addition to the sea ice
component itself.

Doesn’t sound so good. Look, I’m not saying that these models are not usefull, but it seems that they are trusted in the warming community a little too much. Folks have trouble doing flow simulations around a single set of landing gear, and often the drag in such a simulation is highly underestimated. Why would I assume that climate models do much better at simulating the entire earth/sun system?

Now that said, FAQ 8.1, Figure 1. is quite compelling. I’m curious though how much, if any, of the data from the black line (observations) was used in the simulations to help steer it to the “right” number? Are these simulations given a starting point and then run without any outside influence? Obviously they’d need disturbance factors such as the volcanic eruptions, I am simply asking if the models are fed temperature data in order to make correctsions. If not, then the results are impressive. If so, then I’m a little skeptical.

I’m not saying that the state of the art of climate modelling is wrong, nor that I even know exactly how it is done. And please don’t call me a denier or a skeptic. I am neither. I hope that all of AGW is miraculously proven wrong, since how could that be a bad thing. I’m also not convinced that global warming will lead to death and destruction on an awesome scale. I’m further not convinced that even if such is true, that there’s a damn thing we can do about it. And even if we could do something about it, I’m not convinced that the cost of doing so is worth the outcome.
#38 bi -- IJI
August 8, 2009

Shorter ben:

I don’t know much about climate models, but I know that climate models don’t replicate natural processes down to the last atom, therefore we should do nothing to stop global warming.

Actually, even if they do replicate natural processes down to the last molecule, they still don’t replicate monetary processes down to the last $$$¢¢¢. Therefore, we should still do nothing to stop global warming.

Note that if we do nothing, there are no uncertainties. Therefore, doing nothing is absolutely OK.
#39 Barton Paul Levenson
August 8, 2009

ben writes:

Right. Are your models exact, or do they make simplifications?

They certainly don’t include one atom for every atom in the climate system.

At what scale do they capture the physics of the system?

Depends on which physical law we’re talking about. I use twenty levels of atmosphere and one of ground.

Do you model individual raindrops?

No. Why on Earth would I need to?

Do you model rain at all?

No. Why on Earth would I need to?

Do you model clouds? If so, do you model “real” clouds, or do you have an approximate cloud model?

I certainly don’t model “fake” clouds. I use a cloud scheme based on that used by Kiehl and Trenberth in their 1997 energy budget paper.

Do you model the energy taken out of the system by wind turbine farms?

No. Why on Earth would I need to?

Do you model the decrease in circulation and the resulting decrease in convective heat transfer due to the wind farms?

No. Why on Earth would I need to?

What sort of details do your models capture, what do they omit, and why is any of this important or not? Thanks!

I use a ten-gas atmosphere, 54 absorption bands for four greenhouse gases and two types of cloud, a diffusion factor of 1.66, a three-level cloud scheme, an energy-balance algorithm for radiative transfer, a convective adjustment scheme with a fixed maximum of 6.5 K/km as in Manabe’s early papers, and reference-book figures for albedos, specific heats, molecular weights, and so on. Major processes include the equation of radiative transfer and Kirchhoff’s law.

How do your simplifications affect the outcome?

So far I get a higher climate sensitivity than most other simulations, which means I have to improve my representation of the physics. I do reproduce the approximate surface temperature of the Earth and most of my stratosphere is isothermal (not all of it, since I don’t incorporate a separate mesosphere or exosphere).
#40 Barton Paul Levenson
August 8, 2009

ben writes:

The models can simulate “aspects of ENSO.” But it can’t simulate ENSO then, is that what I’m to understand?

No, ben, they can’t simulate ENSO, since ENSO is weather and not climate and is probabilistic. As long as they produces ENSO-like cycles, they are being realistic enough.

And the MJO simulation remains unsatisfactory? Is this significant, or can I forget and simply conclude that the models are 100% spot on and that AGW is real?

The models don’t have to be 100% spot on to conclude that AGW is real. You’re using a fallacy of equivocation every time you blather about “the science is settled” versus “the science is more settled.” That AGW is real is settled. The details, especially for specific regions, are not settled. It’s not that hard to understand.
#41 Mark
August 9, 2009

re post 126, MAB:

Post was True Skeptic then.

You didn’t gainsay it either, though, so you COULD have done that instead of going “no, maybe it was someone else” (when you could have SAID who it was by, oh, SEARCHING.

So, can you and TS talk over whether knowing what a converging series is part of control theory or part of climate science or, as I put it, BOTH.
#42 Mark
August 9, 2009

> But more relevant than Ben’s resume, hes just stated:

> > *For the record, I do not claim a robust understanding of climate science. *

But is the converging series and feedback (of ANY sort, say op-amp theory) climate science and climate science ALONE?
#43 Mark E. Gillar
August 9, 2009

“You’re all nothing more than foot soldiers in a war you’ve been duped into fighting. A war the true purpose of which most of you do not even understand.”

- Mark E. Gillar
#44 luminous beauty
August 9, 2009

>I hope that all of AGW is miraculously proven wrong…

Sorry to have to tell you this, ben, but that is practically a textbook example of [denial](http://www.minddisorders.com/Del-Fi/Denial.html).

Note that narcissism is indicated by the cartoon-like exaggerated individualism of right libertarian ideology (ego) and belief that one’s native country is exceptionally virtuous (superego), particularly in cases where it is not (denial again); two character traits you consistently and reflexively manifest.

Get some therapy, man. Venting your confused state to those who have little sympathy for your obsessions ain’t gonna help.
#45 Mark Byrne
August 9, 2009

>”You’re all nothing more than foot soldiers in a war you’ve been duped into fighting. A war the true purpose of which most of you do not even understand.”

>Mark E. Gillar

Mark EG, Who is? Sounds a pretty empty claim to me. Verging on religious. The sort of claim that could be applied by any side in almost any debate.
#46 Ryan W.
November 28, 2009

Mark – “Funny how they CAN wait for the smoking gun (that they’ll accept as a smoking gun, too!) when it comes to climate change…”

You do realize in this analogy you’re George W. Bush? You okay with that? And catastrophic AGW is then the Iraq war of climatology?

>>”Overturning a well-established theory with one paper? The author(s) would probably get a Nobel Prize.”

Assuming, of course, that you could get a publication willing to peer review and publish it. Which Mann et al don’t seem to want to allow.

>>Bernard J. – “BBH, news flash – there is no debate in the world of science. ”

That’s why it’s not science. Science does not work by consensus. It works by producing predictive models and allowing genuine debate. If you have to defer to consensus, that’s politics, not science. And cases where consensus have been forced by scientists and authorities in order to act politically tend to steamroll some important information in the process. We have clear evidence that prominent AGW scientists promoted their case not by criticizing the methods of their opponents, but by coercing journals that publish papers with alternative conclusions to stop doing so. With this discovery, the ‘science by consensus’ argument is entirely debunked.

In order to back up AGW, a fairly small group of people have entirely rewritten the medieval warm period, “corrected” radiosonde data in precisely the manner needed to make it correspond with their hypothesis, refused to release, have lost and have made up data (as shown by the recently ‘released’ CRU emails…) Doing this once or twice may be part of a legitimate paradigm shift. But this is a very consistent pattern of forcing the points to fit the curve. Anyone but the devoutly incurious would begin to wonder.

Al “The center of the earth is several million degrees” Gore either doesn’t know the difference between CO2 as a lagging indicator and CO2 as a leading indicator. Rather basic mistake, no? Alan, if you wanted an example of Sokol-ing Al Gore and the Nobel Acadamy are living breathing accidental examples of this. Now if you’d like to try your hoax with someone who actually claims to be a skeptic performing some kind of gatekeeper function, I’d be interested to watch. Otherwise, you’re doing it wrong. Trolling message boards with BS info does not make you Alan Sokol.

luminous beauty – Thanks for the Sagan quote. You beat me to the punch.

I would also be more likely to believe in catastrophic AGW if those most politically concerned with it were also more willing to embrace nuclear power, nuclear reprocessing, iron fertilization of the earth’s dead zones and fusion research. But oddly, they are very consistently opposed to such things, and frequently are responsible for erecting political roadblocks to them.

Instead, they always jump straight to regulation (after a few gratuitious ad hominems. You can always tell the person who is correct in an argument. It’s the one whose argument replaces insults for logic!) Also, Enron had pushed hard for carbon credit trading boards, which they could have profited from. Those who think that calling their opponents oil-industry dupes is an effective scientific argument might take the time to factor in the economic interests of those who believe in catastrophic AGW. Or they could just address the science. Namely; if you can’t release your data, your work should not be considered ‘peer reviewable.’