Matthew England will talk about climate models this Sunday 23rd August in the Powerhouse Museum as part of the Ultimo Science Festival. The press release says:

Climate modeller challenges skeptics

With the Government’s emissions trading legislation now delayed, one of Australia’s leading climate scientists, UNSW Professor Matthew England has thrown down the gauntlet to climate skeptics to update their thinking.

“Those that deny basic climate science question climate modelling and fundamental climate physics. But each of their arguments is wrong, outdated, or irrelevant. Most of their claims have long been refuted by the scientific community, the national academies, and so on. Others need no refuting: they fly in the face of basic geophysical measurements, or they are so appallingly wrong they go against simple high-school physics,” England says.


The award-winning oceanographer, who is co-director of UNSW’s Climate Change Research Centre, will discuss the whys and wherefores of climate modelling and provide the most up-to-date climate predictions out to the year 2100 (since the IPCC report of 2007), at the Ultimo Science Festival on Sunday.

“This talk will show the step by step of how the models work, how they have evolved over the past 50 years, where they can be trusted, and what their uncertainties are. I will also address many of the skeptics’ claims and show why they are wrong,” England says.

But the latest research is not a pretty prediction, according to England.

“We need a fairly dramatic change in the way we power this planet, away from the old carbon-intensive technologies and into a new era of clean energy. We need to do this very quickly to give us any chance of staying below a net 2 degrees Celsius global average warming.

“Alarmingly, even at that level of warming we will lose most of the world’s coral reefs and around 20 to 30 per cent of species will face potential extinction. The Greenland ice sheet is likely to disintegrate completely if we warm in excess of 2.5 degrees C, that’s a seven-metre sealevel rise” he says.

England says we have already emitted half the greenhouse gases we can if we are to have a reasonable chance of staying below a net 2 degrees Celsius global average warming.

“Every year that there is inaction, this locks in a greater level of climate change. Climate change is now unavoidable, but we can determine, to some extent, what level of change we are prepared to commit to,” says England. “If we care about minimising the impact on heat extremes, bushfires, human health, our ecosystems and our capacity to produce food and have a secure freshwater supply, greenhouse gas emissions need to peak in the next decade and then decline rapidly.”

Comments

  1. #1 Troll
    August 20, 2009

    @98–If you’re saving the biosphere–then per capita emissions of GHG and selfish hypocrisy is irrelevant–it is the total amount of those gases that are released into the atmosphere that counts—now if you’re talking politics…..

    elspi–We have just doomed human civilization. Lets go to Disneyland???????????

    Are you making a prediction about human civilization?

  2. #2 elspi
    August 20, 2009

    “Are you making a prediction about human civilization?”
    Someone need to pull their head out of their ass and read “six degrees”.
    The question is no longer “how many millions will die”
    but “how many billions will die” If that number approaches 6, then it is all over.
    And no, I won’t live long enough to see the bitter end, but my children likely will.

  3. #3 Vince Whirlwind
    August 20, 2009

    Our species has an intellectual heritage stretching back many, many millenia.
    By comparison, our species has a mere 350-year-old history of rational, scientific thought, which in any case has not reached at least half the planet and has in addition passed a great many others by – as evidenced by the Denialists (and Creationists, anti-vaccinators, Homeopaths, Astrologers, etc…) we are all familiar with.

    My point is that we are surrounded by an ocean of ignorance which will never be cured except by the application of vast amounts of time.

    So it is apparent that our species will never agree on curtailing CO2 emissions (it’s already far too late for the half-measures that have been proposed, in any case) and elevated CO2 concentrations are an indefinite fact of life from now on.

    What’s the *real* climate debate we should be having?

    Here’s what i think:
    – should we allow catastrophic climate change to proceed but take the necessary steps so that we rationalists survive in a world where the ignorant are dying-off like flies, thus giving our species a much brighter genetic future or is this too much like eugenics?
    – should we be developing technology to pump the atmosphere full of the appropriate gas/particulates to create a good solar shading effect thus cancelling out the effects of CO2?
    – should we be developing technology to rapidly suck large amounts of CO2 out of the atmosphere, such as perhaps vast ocean algae beds?

  4. #4 Janet Akerman
    August 20, 2009

    Troll,

    You are proudly trolling here based on what confidence? Are you assuming that the laws of physics and nature will change in the face of [US public opinion](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/30/climate-change-us)?

    How pleasent it must be for you if you believe that olligarchal PR and concentration of media ownership will validate your views on the [science of climate](http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf).

  5. #5 Troll
    August 20, 2009

    “Are you making a prediction about human civilization?” Someone need to pull their head out of their ass and read “six degrees”.
    See elspi–You really don’t have to worry too much whirlwind the “rationalist” already has a solution. Good night to all–don’t stay too late saving the biosphere.

  6. #6 Anonymous
    August 20, 2009

    Someone (I forget who) once said that debating a creationist was like playing chess with a pigeon. The pigeon will knock over the chess-pieces, crap all over the board, and then fly back to its flock to proclaim victory.

    The same can certainly be said about AGW deniers. Hopefully Morano’s pigeons have finished crapping all over this message board and are now on their way back to rejoin their flock (to proclaim victory whilst crying about persecution, no doubt).

  7. #7 Chris O'Neill
    August 20, 2009

    Girma:

    It is position that started with “Global Warming” but changed the term to “Climate Change” when the trend is for cooling.

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed in 1988 when no-one was asserting there was a cooling trend. (BTW there is no CLIMATIC cooling trend.) Please stop propagating bullshit. It makes it obvious you’re a politically-motivated idiot.

  8. #8 Fran Barlow
    August 21, 2009

    @98–If you’re saving the biosphere–then per capita emissions of GHG and selfish hypocrisy is irrelevant–it is the total amount of those gases that are released into the atmosphere that counts

    That doesn’t parse. Steps to reduce emissions are

    a) taken by individual jurisdictions
    b) will confront each jurisdiction with site-specific costs

    but

    c) CO2 doesn’t respect jurisdictional borders

    If there is to be a global carbon budget, it is both fair and most feasible that the burden of avoiding these emissions be settled according to

    1) Historic contribution to the existing dangerous inventory
    2) Continuing per capita contributions
    3) Wealth per capita (especially since it is argued that this was a consequence of burning the said fossil fuels, clearing the land, forming the concrete etc)

    Given that political support must be obtained for such programs then the concept of fairness in settling burdens associated with mitigation policy is indispensible.

    Basing contribution on emssions by jurisdiction would simply skew the burdens of any program away from wealthy countries with small populations but high per capita carbon fuel usage and settle it on large countries with comparatively modest usage who have done little to contribute to the existing problem. If China were to break itself up into 5 smaller jurisdictions each a little smaller than the US in population then each would then be a minor emitter, but little aside from the accounting would be different.

    If emitting industrial scale CO2 is essential to maintaining the basic usages of contemporary society in the short term but we must live within a global carbon dioxide budget, then it makes sense that everyone should have the same budget regardless of where they live, with only modest allowances to take account of specific site-based human need issues. In so far as technology transfer can abate these in some places, given financial assistance, this could then be a trade-off.

    But simply pointing to China and India and asserting that they are entitled to emit less per capita than we are is cynical and disingenuous and a backdoor attempt to do an end run around mitiagtion policy through subverting its effects.

  9. #9 Gaz
    August 21, 2009

    Girma (@96): 1878, was the hottest year in the 91-year interval from 1850 (the start of the Hadley Centre data set) right through to 1940.

    And 2008 was unusually cold, compared with the rising trend, because of a La Nina event.

    You have chosen these two years, which are both obvious outliers, to measure temperature change because you think you can avoid facing the truth by means of cheap-ass debating tricks.

    Well, you can’t.

    Even when you choose these aberrent years, even when you ignore proper techniques for estimating trends, and even though most of the CO2 emitted by humans was emitted after the first 80 years of your 130 years had already elapsed, you *still* get a significant temperature rise.

    Every time I read the crap people like you offer up in opposition to the bleeding obvious I become just that little bit more confident in my position as an AGW [alertist](http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22National+security+has+been+significantly+upgraded+to+detect%2C+prevent%22&meta=&aq=f&oq=).

  10. #10 Bernard J.
    August 21, 2009

    Girma at #.

    It was [Frank Luntz](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz#Global_warming) who coined the term climate change, in a cynical attempt by the Republican administration to manipulate public perception and make the sheep believe that the problem was not an important one.

    Even Luntz now believes the science of warming, and in interviews has expressed his chagrin at having coined the phrase.

    And you should be mortally ashamed of your cherry-pick so nicely rebutted by Gaz. The rest of your points are equally without merit – as, in fact, are the points of all of your trollish pack-mates. It is especially evident that this is the case, because not a one of you made a case with even a skerrick of evidence. Your guru Morano enjoys a science-free world, does he not?

    Following on from the themes of elspi and Vince Whirlwind, I can’t help but think (in my idle fantasies) that one should be forced to publicly register either one’s support or Denial of AGW.

    Thus, when the time comes that the costs of whatever action humanity takes begin to manifest, people should be penalised according to how they contributed to the decisions made… The Denialists should all be given no opportunity for rescue from the economic and ecological sequelæ of global warming should it occur, and if on the other hand there is no warming in 30-50 years, the AGW proponents (or their estates) should compensate those who resisted any action – after the benefits that acrue from transitions from fossil fuel industries are deducted…

    I know who would come out on top in either case – and it wouldn’t be the Denialists.

  11. #11 Brian D
    August 21, 2009

    Minor correction, Bernard: Luntz suggested Republicans start using “climate change”. He couldn’t have invented the term, given that the “CC” in “IPCC” (amidst other references) predates the Luntz Memo.

    Btw, #74? Janet, you win one (1) internets.

  12. #12 Bob Armstrong
    August 21, 2009

    Re # 45 and responses 46 and 53 :

    Please don’t read more than I am writing .

    Yes “Emissivity/absorption are functions of wavelength” . I am currently implementing the extension to my implementation of Stefan-Boltzmann/Kirchhoff to full spectra at which time I will have experimentally verifiable values for whatever assumptions of surface and atmospheric spectra you may wish to make .

    I have not mentioned any experiment here , just basic , classical theory . And the issue is that at least 2 pages on Wikipedia , and at least one climate text that those pages reference , and a not uncommon assumption in blog comments I have seen , start with the gray-body case with a scalar Absorption/Emission , AE , parameter :

      ( AE * SunSolidAngle * TempSun ^ 4 ) = ( TempEarth ^ 4 )

    This equation is wrong by a factor of ( 1 – AE ^ .25 ) or about 9% on the common assumption that earth has an absorptivity of about 70% . The equation is structurally wrong not even containing a factor for the emissivity of the earth .

    From this foundation , I have never seen a quantitative theory of “forcings” , which I don’t find surprising since this foundation is wrong .

    Instead I keep seeing absolute impossibilities such as the notion that Venus’s extreme temperature is due to some sort of “runaway” effect . Utter physically impossible garbage .

  13. #13 Steve Chamberlain
    August 21, 2009

    Klem | August 20, 2009 8:27 AM:
    “The AGW Believers never want to debate the skeptics anymore, because they ALWAYS lose. The skeptics on the other hand are still demanding debates but the Believers never accept.”

    So you’ve not even heard of Monbiot’s challenge to Plimer let alone how Plimer completely bottled it? Bit of a surprise that, you being so well-informed and all…

  14. #14 Bernard J.
    August 21, 2009

    Girma at #.

    It was [Frank Luntz](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz#Global_warming) who coined the term climate change, in a cynical attempt by the Republican administration to manipulate public perception and make the sheep believe that the problem was not an important one.

    Even Luntz now believes the science of warming, and in interviews has expressed his chagrin at having coined the phrase.

    And you should be mortally ashamed of your cherry-pick so nicely rebutted by Gaz. The rest of your points are equally without merit – as, in fact, are the points of all of your trollish pack-mates. It is especially evident that this is the case, because not a one of you made a case with even a skerrick of evidence. Your guru Morano enjoys a science-free world, does he not?

    Following on from the themes of elspi and Vince Whirlwind, I can’t help but think (in my idle fantasies) that one should be forced to publicly register either one’s support or Denial of AGW.

    Thus, when the time comes that the costs of whatever action humanity takes begin to manifest, people should be penalised according to how they contributed to the decisions made… The Denialists should all be given no opportunity for rescue from the economic and ecological sequelæ of global warming should it occur, and if on the other hand there is no warming in 30-50 years, the AGW proponents (or their estates) should compensate those who resisted any action – after the benefits that acrue from transitions from fossil fuel industries are deducted…

    I know who would come out on top in either case – and it wouldn’t be the Denialists.

  15. #15 Vince Whirlwind
    August 21, 2009

    [i]I can’t help but think (in my idle fantasies) that one should be forced to publicly register either one’s support or Denial of AGW.[/i]

    [b]Oooh, yeah[/b] – that’s my current fantasy too.

    The idea of pinning the cost of rescue on them is a bit far-fetched, but at the very list we could use that register as a means of permanently excluding these bleeding idiots from any position of political or bureaucratic influence and power.

    I’m not worrying about the kooks like our trolls – they are an irrelevance – it’s the otherwise normal-seeming people who have somehow absorbed the ludicrous Denialist “arguments” without realising how self-evidently non-sensical they are. I worry about these people making dexisions that affect me and the rest of humanity.

  16. #16 Girma
    August 21, 2009

    In this “Global Warming Swindle” an organization called the Inter GOVERNMENT Panel on Climate change was formed by GOVERNMENTS to summarize the so called “peer reviewed” papers written and reviewed by people whose projects are all funded by GOVERNMENTS to come up with results that give GOVERNMENTS more economic power and revenue. Would you believe the summaries if I replaced GOVERNMENT in the above sentence with BUSINESS? Why?

    The result of the summaries is the claim that an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere of 0.01% since the industrial revolution has caused global warming, ignoring the effects of 1) variation in solar radiation, 2) variation in the orbits and tilt of the earth, 3) variation in the green house effect of from 1% to 4% water vapor in the atmosphere, 4) variation in the circulation in the atmosphere, 5) variation in the circulation of the sea and 6) variation in other variables that affect global temperature.

    The method they use is by scaring us that global temperature is increasing like a hockey stick that it was flat before but is increasing vertically now, despite the fact that the global mean temperature has not increased for more than a decade:

    Mean Global Temperature Anomaly

    Fortunately, they admit the technique to be used to achieve their objective:

    “… we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. …Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective, and being honest.”

    http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DetroitNews.pdf

    They want us to believe the global mean temperature to be flat and they scare us when it is increasing as they are doing now, and when it is decreasing as they did when we were kids (Science News, March 1, 1975):

    “If global temperatures should fall even further, the effects could be considerably more drastic. According to the [ACADEMY REPORT] on climate, we may be approaching the end of a major interglacial cycle, with the approach of a full-blown 10,000 year ice age, a real possibility. Again, this transition would involve only a small change of global temperature 2 or 3 degrees but the impact on civilization would be [CATASTROPHIC].”

    Why did they change the term “Global Warming” to “Climate Change”? Why do they state the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere as 380 parts per million, but never as 0.038%? In their mean global mean temperature graph, why don’t they show the temperature as it is, say, as 14.3 degree centigrade for one year and 14.6 for the next (a true small change of 2.1% on the graph), but they show only the decimals of the temperature as 0.3 degree centigrade for one year and 0.6 for the next (an artificial massive change of 100% on the graph)?

    Fortunately, the global mean temperature has refused to match their computer prediction (proof of garbage in – garbage out) by not increasing since 1998 as shown in the link above. What do you call a belief contrary to reality? What do you call Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)?

    Cheers

  17. #17 Bernard J.
    August 21, 2009

    Oops. Sorry about the double post. I’m trying out a friend’s wireless modem, and it dropped out. When I reset it I seem to have resent the post as well.

    And thanks for the clarification Brian D. I should have been more explicit, and noted that Luntz coined the popular use of the term in a political sense. Perhaps I should have said “promoted” rather than “coined”.

    The pendant in me is most decidedly peeved with the side whose voacbulary does not multi-task well with crying twins in the room!

  18. #18 Bernard J.
    August 21, 2009

    The result of the summaries is the claim that an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere of 0.01% since the industrial revolution has caused global warming

    shows us that Girma is innumerate.

    Why do they state the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere as 380 parts per million, but never as 0.038%?

    shows us that Girma has no familiarity with numerical psychology.

    In their mean global mean temperature graph, why don’t they show the temperature as it is, say, as 14.3 degree centigrade for one year and 14.6 for the next (a true small change of 2.1% on the graph)

    Shows us again that Girma has no familiarity with numerical psychology, nor with basic science – else s/he would have used the kelvin scale to exaggerate his/her claims even more, whilst simultaneously understanding that degrees and fractions of degrees changes to global mean temperature have significant biotic and abiotic impacts.

    Why did they change the term “Global Warming” to “Climate Change”?

    shows us that Girma is unable to assimilate the information from a (repeated!) post that explains how the term “climate change” was used by a Republican (= conservative, fundamentalist, denialist) government in an attempt to hijack the public’s response to the of implications global warming. It was not promoted in the public domain by AGW proponents in order to create ‘hysteria’.

    Girma, you’re not a very clever person, are you?

  19. #19 Chris O'Neill
    August 21, 2009

    Self-confessed troll (i.e. self-confessed jerk):

    per capita emissions of GHG and selfish hypocrisy is irrelevant–it is the total amount of those gases that are released into the atmosphere that counts

    Total GHGs = emissions per capita X population

  20. #20 Janet Akerman
    August 21, 2009

    Girma writes:
    >*”In this “Global Warming Swindle” an organization called the Inter GOVERNMENT Panel on Climate change was formed by GOVERNMENTS to summarize the so called “peer reviewed” papers”*

    Are you disputing that the evidence is peer reviewed Girma?

    Girma continues:

    >*”written and reviewed by people whose projects are all funded by GOVERNMENTS to come up with results that give GOVERNMENTS more economic power and revenue.”*

    Not a clever conspiracy theory Girma, it falls over when considering that George Bush was both trying to gag the scientists while also being responsible for funding the scientists from the country with most representation in the IPCC.

    >*”Would you believe the summaries if I replaced GOVERNMENT in the above sentence with BUSINESS? Why?”*

    Why not, because business are forced to into positions where they are dominated by the profit motive. Leading to examples like suppression of smoking science, suppression asbestos health risks and melamine contamination of food.
    Government on the other hand, with proper regulation (i.e. when they are not bought by business interests)can be forced to be accountable to the demos rather than profits.

    The rest of your post regarding claims of what the IPPC ignore is utter bollocks. Go back and read the reports and stop parroting such false and utter garbage.

  21. #21 Janet Akerman
    August 21, 2009

    Apologies Girma,

    I forgot to mention you are smoking your own belly button lint when you believe your own misrepresentation of Schneider. You ‘conveniently’ left out the last part of his quote where he explains his belief in being both effective and honest.

    It the same as if I told people that Girma says:
    *”the industrial revolution has caused global warming”*

    Cos that’s what you said.

    So don’t be a jerk and stop inhaling your own excrement.

  22. #22 Gaz
    August 21, 2009

    Girma, you really need to examine your paranoia about governments.

    Is democracy really so flawed?

    You know, the system where the people elect governments, which then govern? And if they don’t do what the people want, they are voted out? Sure, it ain’t perfect, but really!

    You seem to have the view that whoever does scientific research must be always, by definition, be lying because they receive funding from somewhere. Do you check under your bed for monsters every night before you go to sleep? Are you stockpiling ammo and canned food for the day when the UN takes over? Come on, get a grip!

    And do you *really* think there’s something so wrong with scientists talking about a temperature anomaly rather than “the temperature as it is”, as you call it?

    I mean, what they’re examining is how much temperatures have changed from what they were before, so why not compare temperatures with what they were before? What could be more obvious?

    Anyway, expressing the temperature in, say, the Celcius scale is really just comparing it with the freezing point (well very close to it – let’s not get bogged down in talk of triple points) of water at sea level. It’s just an anomaly using a different base.

    What would you prefer to hear:

    a) The global average surface temperature has risen by 0.7 K from 284.9 K in the first half of the 20th centruy to 285.6 K in the past decade,

    b) The global average surface temperature has risen by 0.7 from from 13.7 degrees C in the first half of the 20th century to 14.4 degrees C in the past decade, or

    c) The global average surface temperature has risen by 0.7 from from -0.3 degrees C below the 1961-1990 average in the first half of the 20th century to 0.4 degrees C above the 1961-1990 average in the past decade?

    You can take your pick because they say the same damn thing!!!

    And by the way, bonus points to you for bravely following up your ludicrous cherry-pick of 1878 and 2008 at #96 with another at #117.

    Playing the 1998 card – it really is the weapon of choice when you want to blast any remaining traces of your credibility to smithereens.

  23. #23 Fran Barlow
    August 21, 2009

    Bernard J@118 …

    You are having a bad day … pendant?

    The pedant in me couldn’t resist getting out the blue pencil …

    Good luck with the littlies …

  24. #24 Barton Paul Levenson
    August 21, 2009

    Klem says:

    I know of one skeptic by the name of Dr. Richard Lindzen who happens to be the number one climate scientist in the world.

    Says who? You? Lindzen hasn’t published a climatology paper in 17 years. And that was the “iris” paper which was shot down by satellite observations.

    He’s also the guy who repeats denier garbage like “global warming stopped in 1998!” As a professional scientist (at one time, though not recently), he had to have taken at least one data analysis course and he must know that’s a crock, and more importantly, know why it’s a crock. But he repeats it anyway. What does that tell you?

  25. #25 Barton Paul Levenson
    August 21, 2009

    Freddy:

    Could someone direct me to the peer reviewed study that contains the empirical data that irrefutably connects CO2 as a climate driver?

    Attribution studies:

    Came RE, Eiler JM, Veizer J, Azmy K, Brand U, Weidman CR (2007) Coupling of surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the Palaeozoic era Nature 449, 198-201

    J. L. Lean and D. H. Rind (2008) “How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006?, Geophys. Res. Lett.35, L18701

    Carbonate-silicate cycle:

    Walker, J.C.G., Hays, P.B. and J.F. Kasting, 1981. “A Negative Feedback Mechanism for the Long-Term Stabilization of Earth’s Surface Temperature.” J. Geophys. Res. 86, 9776-9782.

    Greenhouse effect:

    Arrhenius, S.A. 1896. “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground.” Phil. Mag. 41, 237-275.

    Fourier, J.-B. J. 1824. “Memoire sur les Temperatures du Globe Terrestre et des Espaces Planetaires.” Annales de Chemie et de Physique 2d Ser. 27, 136-167.

    Tyndall, J. 1859. “Note on the Transmission of Radiant Heat through Gaseous Bodies.” Proceed. Roy. Soc. London 10, 37-39.

    Will that do for now?

  26. #26 Barton Paul Levenson
    August 21, 2009

    More Freddy:

    Just looking for the study that has some form of directly measured CO2 correlation to temps

    Try here:

    http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/Correlation.html

  27. #27 Barton Paul Levenson
    August 21, 2009

    Klem:

    They conclude that it’s CO2 because they can’t concieve of any other explanation.

    Wrong! They conclude that it’s CO2 because of radiation physics. Go look up Arrhenius’s paper; it’s available free on the web.

  28. #28 Squidly
    August 21, 2009

    I am a Computer Scientist and Software Engineer working in various fields for the past 30 years. I have been browsing through and inspected various parts of a couple of these GCM’s for a while now (General Circulation Models .. ie: THEY ARE NOT CLIMATE MODELS).

    Most notably, I have spent some time inspecting Model-E by Gavin Schmidt’s team at the GISS. I am truly astounded at the atrocious quality of the code I have reviewed. This type of coding would never get a passing grade in any job I have ever had, and further, I would not have a job if I were to produce garbage such as contained in the models I have reviewed. While I understand that the bulk of this code is legacy and has evolved over a long period of time, by Gavin’s own words, the code within the GCM’s at GISS are of sub-standard quality. Further, by Gavin’s own words, there is NO review of these codes and processes. Further still, by Gavin’s own words, there is NO emphasis placed on quality control, validation, source control management or review processes. Continuing further, by Gavin’s own words, they deem these processes unnecessary and completely dismiss any quality control standards or review.

    In my view, there is a plethora of issues surrounding the design, development and coding of all of the GCM’s that I have reviewed. To suggest that these applications can predict anything is extremely foolhardy. I simply laugh at these people that accept results of these models as empirical evidence and hard foundation for future events. It is simply laughable.

    Consider this, Microsoft employs many thousands of programmers. Microsoft enjoys one of the largest monetary budgets on the planet for software development. Microsoft also employs one of the largest Quality Assurance teams in the world. Microsoft also releases garbage software all the time (ie: various Windows releases, especially first releases). If Microsoft were creating a GCM, given their track record, would you trust the results? We are talking about the largest and most successful computer software company in the world.

    Now, consider the fact that there are very few actual Computer Scientists or Software Engineers engaged in the coding and production of GCM’s. By-in-large, most of the programmers are Mathematicians and Physicists. None of which have any qualifications or proper knowledge of software design, which is why most CGM’s are still written in FORTRAN (and rather old versions at that). Few, if any, of the “Climate Modelers” are in any way competent Software Engineers or have any acceptable knowledge of software design. They know the physics, but they do not know how to effectively program a computer to use those physics.

    Finally, there has not been a single GCM to date that has been able to effectively, within reasonable error, been able to predict the climate of the past 10-15 years. Why would one have faith (and at this point it IS nothing more than faith), that these GCM’s are able to do this for climate out to the year 2100? Again, it’s simply laughable.

    Not only did the UN IPCC AR4 report cite little to no confidence in GCM results (yes, it IS in there, you must read the actual report contents, not the summary for policy makers), many additional papers and studies have concluded the very same things. The climate is simply not responding as GCM’s have suggested or predicted. This is not to say that GCM’s will never be able to perform these functions within acceptable error constraints (although I personally believe they won’t), but they certainly can NOT do this now, not by any stretch of the imagination. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous if not fraudulent.

    I have found it utterly amazing what people will believe. Just because some nerdy guy in a lab coat tells them that they have a machine that will predict the future, sheeple will believe it.

    In closing, I seriously doubt that Professor England will debate anyone at this roadshow. I do not believe he will accept any rebuttal at all. If he would, I would love to be there to provide that rebuttal. I will enjoy ready about the results of this dog-and-pony show and hear what he as to say as he is claiming he “will prove the skeptics wrong”. This would be some event, as it would be a landmark first for sure.

  29. #29 Barton Paul Levenson
    August 21, 2009

    Bob Armstrong suggests that “the equation for the temperature of the planet” is the equivalent of

    a theta Ts^4 = Te^4

    where a is the Earth’s absorptivity, theta the “SunSolidAngle,” Ts the solar temperature and Te the Earth’s temperature. Instead, he says, it should be:

    a theta Ts^4 = e Te^4

    where e is Earth’s emissivity. He concludes, “How can anybody claim to have a science , when they have the most fundamental physics wrong ?”

    This is all wrong in so many ways it’s hard to know where to start. First, as Armstrong himself notes, for a gray body approximation using Kirchhoff’s law, a = e, so both should drop out of his equation. Second, the actual equation for Earth’s radiative equilibrium temperature (not its surface temperature) is

    Te = (S [1 - A] / [4 sigma]) ^ 0.25

    where S is the solar constant, A the Earth’s (or another planet’s) bolometric Bond albedo, and sigma the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. You can get the Sun’s temperature in there by substituting the equation for the solar constant:

    S = (R / a)^2 es sigma Ts^4

    where R is the sun’s radius, a the Earth’s (or another planet’s) semimajor axis, and es Solar emissivity. For such a calculation, the emissivity of the “top” of Earth’s atmosphere is assumed to be 1 and thus drops out. The Sun’s emissivity is also about 1 and can be ignored.

    No one is ignoring Kirchhoff’s Law, Bob. And I don’t know where you got your equations, but they’re wrong. I recommend you look into a good textbook on planetary astronomy. Bill Hartmann puts out a good one (“Moons and Planets”) every decade or so.

  30. #30 Barton Paul Levenson
    August 21, 2009

    Alan posts:

    Can anyone produce an example of a blog post has that has resulted in anyone changing to or from a denialist?

    It’s rare, but it happens. I think I’ve convinced the guy on the amazon.com forums who signs himself “Vainamoinen.”

    Guys, we really do need to cut the deniers a break. They don’t know the stuff we know, and what they’ve picked up from denialist blogs and right-wing talk radio sounds plausible to them and prevents them from realizing how many of their questions sound. Answer the questions! The hard-core science deniers won’t be affected, but those with an open mind will be, as will lurkers trying to figure this issue out. Remember that the vast majority of the public is NOT science literate. Politeness matters.

    I have been impolite myself on many occasions when I didn’t have to be, so this remark is aimed at myself as much as anyone else here.

  31. #31 Barton Paul Levenson
    August 21, 2009

    Girma:

    Man Made Global Warming is a position that calls a gas called CO2 a pollutant, but actually it is plant food and is naturally released every second in volcanoes along the edges of tectonic plates of the continents as well as in forest fires started by lightning strike.

    All the volcanoes in the world release about 200 million tons of CO2 a year according to the US Geological Survey. Human technology releases about 30 billion. Divide A by B. Discuss.

    It is position that started with “Global Warming” but changed the term to “Climate Change” when the trend is for cooling.

    There is no global cooling trend:

    http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/VV.html

    http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/Ball.html

    http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/Reber.html

    It is a position that states the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere as 380 ppm, never as 0.038%.

    It’s the same figure. Why do you think the units are important? Do you think because CO2 is a small portion of the atmosphere, it is therefore unimportant in Earth’s radiation balance? Do you know any radiation physics?

    It is a position that plots the mean global temperature graph with the integer parts chopped off and called anomalies in order to magnify the temperature variation to give the incorrect perception of larger temperature variation (like looking at a profile of a surface through a magnifying glass).

    That is neither how anomalies are calculated nor why they’re calculated. They are the difference from a base standard (e.g. the 1961-1990 average), and are used because temperature deviations are easier and more precise to measure than temperatures.

    It is a position that believes in global warming because the global temperature increased by 0.8 deg C in hundred years. However, if you start from 130 years ago, from 1878, the increase is only 0.33 deg C.

    That’s not how such increases are measured. You need to use all the points, and you’re not allowed to select start and end points arbitrarily. Do you know what linear regression is?

    AGW is just belief without evidence.

    See above.

  32. #32 Squidly
    August 21, 2009

    Klem:

    They conclude that it’s CO2 because they can’t concieve of any other explanation.

    Wrong! They conclude that it’s CO2 because of radiation physics. Go look up Arrhenius’s paper; it’s available free on the web.

    Sorry Klem, if what you are saying is true, then they would have blamed it on water vapor, not CO2, as water vapor is clearly an overwhelming forcing by comparison to CO2, and, overlaps and saturates most all of the long-wave spectrum of CO2. So that you are suggesting is simply illogical.

    CO2 is the culprit because nobody can gain (ie: Governments for control, or Al Gore for money) anything from trying to blame water vapor. I suspect that if cars were fueled by water, and electricity was made by water, then we would be seeing water vapor demonized just like CO2. Governments would want to ration and control water, and Al Gore would have created a water vapor offset exchange.

    This stuff is such silly nonsense. Has nobody learned anything from the past? We’ve been down this road before. The scenery has not changed.

    Would love to debate this stuff with you further, but I need to get back to coding (real coding).

  33. #33 Barton Paul Levenson
    August 21, 2009

    Bob Armstrong:

    Instead I keep seeing absolute impossibilities such as the notion that Venus’s extreme temperature is due to some sort of “runaway” effect . Utter physically impossible garbage .

    The runaway greenhouse effect is something that happened on Venus in the past. What maintains its temperature now is simply the greenhouse effect. I recommend reading Kasting’s many papers on early Venus and Earth. The classic papers on the runaway greenhouse effect, however, were by Ingersoll in 1969 and Rasool and de Bergh in 1970. It’s quite a physically realistic idea, based on such simple factors as the saturation vapor pressure of water and how that varies with temperature.

  34. #34 Barton Paul Levenson
    August 21, 2009

    Girma:

    The result of the summaries is the claim that an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere of 0.01% since the industrial revolution has caused global warming, ignoring the effects of 1) variation in solar radiation, 2) variation in the orbits and tilt of the earth, 3) variation in the green house effect of from 1% to 4% water vapor in the atmosphere, 4) variation in the circulation in the atmosphere, 5) variation in the circulation of the sea and 6) variation in other variables that affect global temperature.

    All those factors and known and taken into account. In detail:

    1. Global climate models use TSI reconstructions to include the solar influence. It’s negligible for the past half century.

    2. The Milankovic Cycles operate on a time scale of tens of thousands of years. They’re irrelevant to climate modeling on a century scale.

    3. Every global climate model accounts for the radiative effect of water vapor. You can’t get a realistic temperature for the Earth’s surface without it.

    4. What do you mean by “variation in the circulation in the atmosphere” and how does that affect the mean global annual surface temperature (Ts)?

    5. Ditto the sea. Are you talking about sea-air temperature exchanges like El Nino? They don’t affect the trend.

    6. Since the known variables account for almost all the variance, the rest can be ignored, by definition.

  35. #35 Squidly
    August 21, 2009

    Alan posts:

    Can anyone produce an example of a blog post has that has resulted in anyone changing to or from a denialist?

    It’s rare, but it happens. I think I’ve convinced the guy on the amazon.com forums who signs himself “Vainamoinen.”

    Guys, we really do need to cut the deniers a break. They don’t know the stuff we know, and what they’ve picked up from denialist blogs and right-wing talk radio sounds plausible to them and prevents them from realizing how many of their questions sound. Answer the questions! The hard-core science deniers won’t be affected, but those with an open mind will be, as will lurkers trying to figure this issue out. Remember that the vast majority of the public is NOT science literate. Politeness matters.

    I have been impolite myself on many occasions when I didn’t have to be, so this remark is aimed at myself as much as anyone else here.

    Sorry, one last post … although I certainly respect your politeness, as I wish more people would conduct themselves more appropriately on this matter, in response to the rest of what you are saying … ROFLMAO … you made my morning … can’t stop giggling … seems you are searching for a clue … good luck!

  36. #36 Squidly
    August 21, 2009

    @ Bob Armstrong:

    Really, this is my last post, I promise, but I just couldn’t help myself on this one.

    Bob, go back and study just a little bit more, I think you will find some very inconvenient information about Venus that just won’t fit the illogical idea (and physically impossible) that Venus somehow had a runaway greenhouse effect. This Venus issue, which originated from an out of context quote from Stephen Hawking back in 1983, is just an exercise in hilarity. I have been down this road with my father (retired MIT engineer) in which he finally had to concede that I was in fact correct that Venus is not some mystical “greenhouse”, and is in fact, still a “hot rock”. Little to no shortwave radiation even makes it to the surface. Dig a little deeper, you will find that the heat on Venus is easily explainable without the magical “greenhouse effect”.

    More laugh’s this morning than I deserve…cheers!

  37. #37 Jeff Harvey
    August 21, 2009

    Klem says, “Not sure how many Jeff, but I know of one skeptic by the name of Dr. Richard Lindzen who happens to be the number one climate scientist in the world”.

    I assume this is the same Lindzen who admitted before congressional testimony about ten years ago that he was receiving more than 2000 dollars a day in consulting fees from the fossil fuel industry? And yet this is not supposed to influence his science?

    Besides, Klem, in what unique position are you of all people in to conclude that Lindzen is the “number one climate scientist in the world”? Just because he rehashes what you wnat to hear?

    Klem, your scientific acumen, like that of the other sceptics posting here, is as deep as a puddle. If Morano, a hack in my opinion, has linked to this site and unleashed his army of trolls, its no small wonder that its suddenly become overrun by know-nothings. I appreciate Barton’s and Bernard’s efforts to demolish this troll army.

  38. #38 Squidly
    August 21, 2009

    @ 135 Girma:

    Sorry, lied, last one this time for sure.

    Girma, you know these things? How many GCM’s (General Circulation Models) have you reviewed? And I don’t mean reading resulting output somewhere. I mean, how many models have you opened the hood on and inspected for yourself? How many routines have YOU pulled apart to validate their processes? Are you sure what you are claiming is true? I have been under the hood of a few, and I can tell you, they are missing far more processes than they are including. I am not a physicist, but I have still been left thinking, “where is this?”, “where is that?”, “why isn’t this considered?”, almost endlessly. And if I have these questions, I suspect others would have far more. To date, I have seen no answers to any of these questions (and I HAVE questioned people like Gavin Schmidt of the GISS).

  39. #39 Jeff Harvey
    August 21, 2009

    Squidly, like the other trolls here, had me on the floor with this howler:

    “CO2 is the culprit because nobody can gain (ie: Governments for control, or Al Gore for money) anything from trying to blame water vapor”.

    Its strange how the trolls like Squidly ignore the blatant fact that a large number of immensely powerful multinational corporations that make the environmentalist lobby pale by comparison gain IMMENSELY from blaming water vapor, the sun, Al Gore (because he is fat), and any other factor for climate change, in order to ensure high profit margins (in other words, for $$$$$$$). When the shoe is on the other foot, it suddenly doesn’t seem to fit.

    I also find it hard to fathom why the troll army somehow believes that humans cannot influence climate when we have influenced other natural processes generated over immense spatio-temporal scales. The nitrogen cycle, the carbon cycle and the phosphorus cycle have all been profoundly affected by human activity. Nutrient cycles in terrestial ecosystems have thus been altered. Human activity led to a rapid thinning of the ozone layer over the southern hemisphere; human activity is leading to the rapid expansion of drylands and deserts, and human activity is certainly altering local climate patterns. Humans are draining aquifers at rates far exceeding their renewal, as well as soil fertility. We are slashing and burnbing our way across the biosphere, with tropical forest cover reduced by more than 50% since 1950. Humans co-opt 50% of freshwater flows and more than 40% of net primary production, a figure that is increasing. We are responsible for the most rapid loss of species and genetically distinct populations in 65 million years, and certainly a range of critical ecosystem services have been reduced by human actions. Yet this army of distorters just cannot get a grip on humans influencing large-scale climate patterns.

    The reason why is because these people are driven by short-term economic expediency for the privileged few. They loathe science but it is the only tool that they can twist and distort in their effort to ensure that business-as-usual is the ONLY business, and to hell with the future. I have debated several well known anti-environmentalists – for that is what they are – and have never found any of their arguments to be much of a problem. As a senior scientist, I find that the scientific grasp of many of the anti environmentalists is at the level of a high school student (and a bad one at that).

    Yet these people persist. Given their abhorence of science, we can expect them to be around for quite awhile, particularly as things get worse and thresholds are approached. This is not a scientific debate because science is NOT on their side; it’s more like a street fight.

  40. #40 Chris S.
    August 21, 2009

    Folks, I am disturbed and disappointed by the responses to Joe & Freddy upthread. Whether they be trolls or genuine seekers after knowledge the response can be better, and how can one be sure which they are on the strength of one or even two posts? Is there a reputable web page* that provides empirical data that irrefutably connects CO2 as a climate driver? If so, is it not just as easy to link to that page than to exhort them to “do their own homework?” In addition, linking to said page will have two benefits – education of the questioner and any others who follow it, and also an increase in the web page’s hit rate. Let’s bear in mind that the only access to education in this field for most people is Dr. Google. The scorn heaped on these people, though entertaining at times, only serves to alienate the very people we need to actively engaged.

    The denialsphere has got its act together recently and by-and-large are all singing from the same hymnsheet. Contrast this with the scattergun responses we see to standard denier memes we see so frequently here & at similar sites and the outlook looks poor. I propose some measures to increase the co-ordination of responses in order to improve communication of the important issues.

    1) The collation of a set of links that everyone uses to counter the standard denialist memes & FUD questions.

    2) A reining in of the attack dhogs so they restrict their bile to those who repeatedly demonstrate a lack of willingness to understand the issue.

    3) A concerted attempt by those who care enough and know the science to resist the temptation to scornfully declaim like a preacher and instead adopt a more tolerant teacher approach.

    There are trolls on both sides of the debate, let’s not let those who are tolerated because they are ‘on message’ lose it for us.

    *Unfortunately Real Climate has been the subject of a concerted smear campaign and, like it or not, s%!t sticks. Understandably the proprietors of that site have become weary of the continued accusations & insinuations but their recent responses have appeared (to me at least) petty & (more importantly) unconvincing. We have to regard RC for the time being as a lame duck who’s impartiality is – to those already suckered by the denialsphere – questionable.

  41. #41 Jeff Harvey
    August 21, 2009

    “Man Made Global Warming is a position that calls a gas called CO2 a pollutant, but actually it is plant food”

    More primary school nonsense from Girma… This statement reflects a total inability to understand basic terrestrial ecology…

    OOOH THE PAIN, THE PAIN, THE IGNORANCE, THE STUPIDITY…

  42. #42 Chris S.
    August 21, 2009

    #139 “”where is this?”, “where is that?”, “why isn’t this considered?”,”

    Squidly, please define “this”, “that” and “this” surely if you had some (legitimate) examples your previous post was a fine opportunity to present them?

  43. #43 Squidly
    August 21, 2009

    @ 141 Chris S.

    Folks, I am disturbed and disappointed by the responses to Joe & Freddy upthread. Whether they be trolls or genuine seekers after knowledge the response can be better…

    Chris, I appreciate the attempt (futile I believe). You are correct in that I personally am one of those that seeks truth and knowledge. I am a scientist myself and I must say, this certainly is NOT a scientific blog.

    I think I have had read enough adhomen attack garbage for one evening (morning). Guess it was MY mistake for stumbling in here and trying to present my own point of view, which I might add is an ever evolving view, as it *should* be.

    Best wishes to all, and take care… oh, and try to exercise the cranium just a little bit…

  44. #44 Mark
    August 21, 2009

    > How many GCM’s (General Circulation Models) have you reviewed?

    > To date, I have seen no answers to any of these questions (and I HAVE questioned people like Gavin Schmidt of the GISS).

    > Posted by: Squidly

    How many have YOU reviewed and looked under the hood?

    After all the GISS model has been out there for you to do so for ages. Yet apparently you haven’t (else you would have mentioned it).

    I HAVE questioned people like yourself about what they consider to be wrong and they still insist that the models are fitting to the data not phsyical models like the one that they use to show CO2 has no effect: Beers’ Law.

    That they consider this to be true shows they have not looked at the code in even the most cursory manner: they don’t WANT to know if they are right (and neither do you), so they (and you) don’t want to check up.

  45. #45 Squidly
    August 21, 2009

    @ 143 Chris S.

    Some simple examples are cloud cover, cloud reactions, precipitation, GCR’s, just to name but a tiny few.

    I would love to delve into this further with you, as I find it very interesting stuff. But, I don’t care much for the name calling garbage, the unfounded B.S. (bad science) that is floating around here, and I have piddled away far too much of my morning on this already, and unlike most “climate modelers”, I DO have deadlines, I DO have a CIO that I have to report to, I DO have an IT staff meeting to conduct in a few hours, and I DO have a lot of code review and validation to conduct before the days end, and all of this after a night of my own programming. Phewww.. It just never ends.

    Again, you all take care…

  46. #46 cce
    August 21, 2009

    The “saturation” argument was debunked 50 years ago. But recognizing that would require “learning from the past.”

    http://onramp.nsdl.org/eserv/onramp:16572/n7._Plass__1956corrected.pdf

    And the idea that the “Venus Runaway Greenhouse” originated with Stephen Hawking in 1983 is demonstrably false. Google Scholar returns 55 hits of publications before 1983 with the words “Venus” and “runaway greenhouse”, two of which Barton has already mentioned.

  47. #47 sod
    August 21, 2009

    *Unfortunately Real Climate has been the subject of a concerted smear campaign and, like it or not, s%!t sticks. Understandably the proprietors of that site have become weary of the continued accusations & insinuations but their recent responses have appeared (to me at least) petty & (more importantly) unconvincing. We have to regard RC for the time being as a lame duck who’s impartiality is – to those already suckered by the denialsphere – questionable.

    this is their one and only target! to cast doubt and throw sh*t, in the hope that some of it sticks.

    they don t have a single fact. zero knowledge. just power to influence the stupid.

    the claim that RC is “questionable” (even if only to those sucked into the “denialsphere”is simply false. it is written by the guys who do the real science. who support their peer reviewed papers with real facts. the people who get sucked away from this, are simply stupid.

  48. #48 Mark
    August 21, 2009

    > You are correct in that I personally am one of those that seeks truth and knowledge.

    I nearly laughed out loud (I hate LOL unless you REALLY laughed out loud) at this.

    Yeah.

    You seek truth that you want to BE the truth. You seek knowledge that you’re right.

  49. #49 jodyaberdein
    August 21, 2009

    Bets on

    1) how many ‘goodbye i’m outta here’ posts squidly has yet to make?

    2) number of times squidly will denounce the use of ad-hom argument whilst using it in the same paragraph?

    Anyone?

  50. #50 Mark
    August 21, 2009

    > Some simple examples are cloud cover, cloud reactions, precipitation, GCR’s, just to name but a tiny few.

    1) cloud cover: can warm or cool depending on height. And unless water vapour today acts considerably different from the way it did in the past, the paleo record shows that this cannot move the temperature change to CO2 doubling outside the 2-4.5C range per doubling from the models.

    2) cloud reactions: what? you think they’ll be upset and cry on us? What “cloud reactions” that aren’t in “cloud cover”?

    3) Precipitation: when it comes to climate, it doesn’t matter if the rain is 3 hours late. Look in an atlas. It’ll have a graph there of climatic rain for the region you see mapped. There IS no problem wrt precipitation ***when it comes to climate***. Weather forecasting is different, but that’s not climate.

    4) GCR: Since there is no change in GCRs that make any significant difference over the last 50 years and the temperature has gone up, what about GCRs needs to be worked on? Some have fitted a graph to data (Svenmark?) and put in unphysical constraints to get a fit and have said that this means GCRs are at fault. Yet forget to project what will happen when GCR’s change.

    So (1) is constrained by evidence and still falls within the model output. (2) is nonsense. (3) is no problem for *climate*. (4) doesn’t explain what’s going on at the moment so even if it were modelled incorrectly, it would still have no effect.

  51. #51 Squidly
    August 21, 2009

    @ 145 Mark

    I thought I made that clear in prior posts. Yes, I have looked through a few, mostly GISS Model-E ( http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/ ) because it is readily available online. I have looked at a few of the others from the GISS site too, but they are older incarnations and not of much use anymore. I have gone through a good portion of the code in Model-E and have tried to make heads or tails out of a lot of it. I freely admit there is a whole lot in there that I don’t understand, and their coding practices and lack of discernible documentation makes it virutally impossible to get a very firm grasp on a whole lot of the processes involved. Their code is a wild maze of kludges and fudging here and there, which obfuscates the system even more. I have compiled and run portions of Model-E, but it is difficult to get the entire application components all working properly, at least in my environment. I am however currently running three others. You can go check one of these out for yourself at http://www.ccsm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm3.0/ (the other two you cannot, as I acquired them through my own sources at NASA). Here are a couple of Open Source projects that are interesting, but quite in their infancy: http://sourceforge.net/projects/climate-model/ and http://www.cquestrate.com/ .. I am doubting that the second one will really get off the ground however. I think you will find that most of these Open Source projects, unfortunately, don’t usually get very far when attempting something as complex as a climate model. The CCSM project looks the most promising to me. I used to also run another one that was pretty cool, that you can get through the BOINC project and works like SETI@home. Its just kind of a fun little toy (with nice animated graphics and all), but it can take a month or more of operation to get it to the current date, at least on my humble computers. Obviously, I don’t have the computers that NASA does (my fried does, as he works there) so it is difficult for me to do anything more than just play around, as far as execution is concerned. It takes hundreds of model runs to accumulate enough data for an “average”, which is what most GCM’s require. That takes a tremendous amount of computing power, which I don’t have.

    Anyway, thanks for the morning bashing! I really appreciate it! Especially from someone without a clue.

    You take care!

  52. #52 Jeff Harvey
    August 21, 2009

    “You are correct in that I personally am one of those that seeks truth and knowledge. I am a scientist myself and I must say, this certainly is NOT a scientific blog”.

    This coming from the same person (Squidly) who said:

    “CO2 is the culprit because nobody can gain (ie: Governments for control, or Al Gore for money) anything from trying to blame water vapor”.

    And then, when challenged on several points, he/she claims that they are seeking “truth and knowledge”.

    Utter hypocrisy. Squidly, you didn’t come on here to debate science. Come clean, will you? If you write the kind of nonsense you did above and then claim that this isn’t a scientific blog, then its because the shallowness of your arguments have been exposed. I am a senior scientist in population ecology and I am always challenging the so-called sceptics to discuss the effects of climate change on natural communities and ecosystems. More often than not I read responses like that from Girma, basically grade school level stuff that has been dismissed in the empirical literature for years.

    The problem is that, like it or not, there are very few environmental scientists/population-evolutionary ecologists who are climate change/AGW sceptics. If you exist, come out, come out wherever you are! As I said above, there are plenty of reasons to be concerned about the rate of climate warming and its effects on already seriously simplified and stressed natural ecosystems and their biota. I am afraid that I will require better arguments than ‘C02 is a nutrient, not a pollutant’, or ‘an increase in atmospheric C02 will create a green utopia’ or ‘warming is good for the planet and its inhabitants’ if I am to engage in serious debate. These arguments have been shredded innumerable times by myself and others on other threads and by many colleagues in the life sciences in the empirical literature.

  53. #53 Mark
    August 21, 2009

    > 1) The collation of a set of links that everyone uses to counter the standard denialist memes & FUD questions.

    Realclimate has just such a section both in the “Start Here” section and in the sidebar.

    This doesn’t seem to have stopped any such continuously debunked “theories” from being regurgitated by the knuckle-draggers.

    > 2) A reining in of the attack dhogs so they restrict their bile to those who repeatedly demonstrate a lack of willingness to understand the issue.

    See the answer to #1.

    > 3) A concerted attempt by those who care enough and know the science to resist the temptation to scornfully declaim like a preacher and instead adopt a more tolerant teacher approach.

    Such an action is one that is seen in YOUR eyes and this does NOT mean that it is really happening.

    But I guess if you KNOW that AGW is wrong, then someone answering your questions with “you’re wrong” with less than a dissertation appended seems like they’re declaiming like a preacher, since if you’re looking to take offense, YOU WILL FIND IT.

    And I’d like to ask ChrisS why these purported problems do not seem to be driving people away from the denialist side. I have heard NOBODY say that this sort of thing:

    http://notahedgehog.wordpress.com/2008/12/25/the-christmas-spirit/

    has put them off the denialist side.

    NOT. ONE. PERSON.

    I have not even met anyone who has met or even heard of one such event.

    And Watt’s blog is chock-full of what you declaim here yet you don’t take him to task. Pielke allows NO COMMENTS AT ALL. Yet you don’t seem to care that he is more preacher-like (what preacher lets the crowd ask questions of the preacher-man?).

    I see this “complaint” done one-sidedly so often it must have a common cause and one that isn’t inferred by the words but implied by the *lack* of actions.

    And that is that the denialists know that they are idiots and have nothing but the table to bang on. And having this pointed out in scornful terms makes them look like idiots.

    And looking like idiots is not what they want to seem.

    They want it to look like there is genuine and reasoned concern about AGW and “problems” with it. So they must stop the scorn being applied when it is so richly deserved since that kills that “concern” since it is now show up in stark relief as unreasoned and spurious concern.

    You must EARN respect.

    You cannot DEMAND it.

  54. #54 Chris S.
    August 21, 2009

    @sod (#148)
    It is unfortunate but RC is viewed in the same way in the denialsphere as we view Watts & his ilk. Thus, if a claim is backed up by a link to RC this is viewed by the “suckers” I mention above in much the same way as you or I view a claim backed up by a link to Lindzen or Morano. i.e it is dismissed out of hand. The smear campaign has been successful we have to live with that fact and deal with it. Repeatedly stating the truth (that “it is written by the guys who do the real science. who support their peer reviewed papers with real facts”) will only fall on deaf ears.

    Sad, but true.

  55. #55 Mark
    August 21, 2009

    > I thought I made that clear in prior posts. Yes, I have looked through a few, mostly GISS Model-E ( http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/ ) because it is readily available online.

    Then why did you make the assumptions you posited in your many randomised grunting posts?

    Why did you have to ask Gavin anything? The source code is there. Nothing not in the source code is in the model. It is complete.

  56. #56 jodyaberdein
    August 21, 2009

    Wow, that was quicker than expected. Odds have changed. i’m going for two more adieux and also two ad-homs.

  57. #57 Mark
    August 21, 2009

    > Repeatedly stating the truth (that “it is written by the guys who do the real science. who support their peer reviewed papers with real facts”) will only fall on deaf ears.

    But such people would ignore any evidence or counter that shows them wrong.

    Making your other post about “what we should do” completely meaningless. By your own admission.

    After all, one of the reasons I’ve heard that the dozen or so other papers showing a hockey stick is wrong is because they all worked with Mann at some point and so are tainted.

  58. #58 Mark
    August 21, 2009

    > where e is Earth’s emissivity. He concludes, “How can anybody claim to have a science , when they have the most fundamental physics wrong ?”

    BPL you miss the weaselling there.

    Bob IS RIGHT.

    He cannot claim to have a science because he has the most fundamental physics wrong.

    What he missed out was the trifling point that he was demonstrating what he was complaining about.

    And he rolled in a couple of suckers who thought Bob was showing science.

  59. #59 Michael
    August 21, 2009

    Finally, there has not been a single GCM to date that has been able to effectively, within reasonable error, been able to predict the climate of the past 10-15 years. Why would one have faith (and at this point it IS nothing more than faith), that these GCM’s are able to do this for climate out to the year 2100? Again, it’s simply laughable.

    Not only did the UN IPCC AR4 report cite little to no confidence in GCM results (yes, it IS in there, you must read the actual report contents, not the summary for policy makers), many additional papers and studies have concluded the very same things. The climate is simply not responding as GCM’s have suggested or predicted” – Squidly

    The limitations of the GCMs has been made quite clear, and on one has suggested that a single GCM can predict the climate to 2100. Results have been reported with the appropriate circumspection – in terms of probability and ranges.

    Quibbling over the ‘code’ is nonsense. Nearly every piece of substantial code could be written in various ways. As you said yourself, MS, with the best respoiurces at it’s disposal doesn’t always do a good job.

    I think you can’t see the climate for the code.

  60. #60 Mark
    August 21, 2009

    > All of your rage and name calling

    > Posted by Troll

    Irony: See above.

  61. #61 MAB
    August 21, 2009

    Chris S,

    How are you planning on dealing with all the Gish Gallop above?

    If you provide a set of links, where will you link to if not RC, AR4 etc? And what will be the response when you provide those links?

    >i.e it is dismissed out of hand. The smear campaign has been successful we have to live with that fact and deal with it. Repeatedly stating the truth (that “it is written by the guys who do the real science. who support their peer reviewed papers with real facts”) will only fall on deaf ears.

    In this context and the inevitable smearing of what ever links your provide, can restate your plan?

  62. #62 Mark
    August 21, 2009

    > a single GCM can predict the climate to 2100.

    Only tecnically true in that you have to read that as “predict THE climate to 2100″. As in the actual real track of climate over that time.

    But like rolling a ball down a bumpy hillside, you don’t know the EXACT track the ball will take, but you DO know it’s going DOWN.

  63. #63 TrueSceptic
    August 21, 2009

    81 Tim,

    Thanks. I did wonder why this thread exploded. I’m struggling to catch up!

    It’s so depressing to read the same old faux sceptic comments and questions yet again.

  64. #64 Chris S.
    August 21, 2009

    Mark @154 demonstrates precisely the post that I find counterproductive. I don’t take Watts etc. to task because I see no need to visit their sites, filled as they are with pseudoscientific garbage. I visit RealClimate and read their posts but have long ago stopped reading the comments filled as they are with argumentative tripe. Commentators like Mark obviously enjoy the argument and, as such, flail around at anyone & everyone they feel they can attack.

    As far as respect is concerned – how can someone who knows nothing gain any respect in the subject? As things stand here & elsewhere anyone who asks a question is treated with scorn & derision. There seems to be an increasing paranoia on these lines – anyone asking a question must be a denialsit troll. Again, this outlook can only do harm to the cause.

    We can either behave like idiot bullies, or we can behave like concerned teachers – choose your masque.

  65. #65 Chris S.
    August 21, 2009

    MAB @#162: Simple & clear-everyone post the same link (not RC for reasons outlined above – perhaps “how to talk to a global warming skeptic, or BPL’s concise contributions) and NOTHING ELSE. If the “questioner” continues to display a willful ignorance, then unleash the likes of dhog & Mark as they clearly are just troll bait and our resident trolls can have at them, if they show evidence of learning then show them encouragement.

    As it stands most expect any genuine question to be a denialist by default – this will only be a self-fulfilling prophecy as you drive people to the more “understanding” denial sites.

    I’ll ask again – is it easier to post a link to an answer or to tell someone tersely to “do their own homework”?

  66. #66 Chris S.
    August 21, 2009

    #164 Truesceptic

    “It’s so depressing to read the same old faux sceptic comments and questions yet again.”

    And why do we see the same over & over again? Because they are better disseminated and because refutations in comments threads are nearly always encased within personal attacks and kneejerk “you’re a denialist” accusations. How better to send someone running to the protective bosom of the Watts crowd who tell them, kindly, what they want to hear?

  67. #67 Mark
    August 21, 2009

    > And why do we see the same over & over again?

    > Posted by: Chris S.

    Because the espouser of the question wants to prove AGW doesn’t exist.

    They don’t want to find out anything, they want to know they are right.

    Not because they’re better disseminated. The rebuttals are as disseminated (unless the blog owner removes the post. Are you suggesting that denialist posts be deleted?) because they are done after YET ANOTHER blog post grunts out the same stale talking point.

  68. #68 Mark
    August 21, 2009

    > don’t take Watts etc. to task because I see no need to visit their sites, filled as they are with pseudoscientific garbage.

    But despite that AND that their site does the same stuff you’re complaining of, NOBODY IS LEAVING DENIALISM because of the rudeness.

    YOUR post is what I call timewasting.

    It’s a problem that, like many denialist points are MADE UP.

    Find an example where the problem exists against denial of AGW.

    You won’t.

    All you’ll find is people who have NEVER shown any reasoning that accepts AGW saying “I used to think it was real until all the ad-hom and sarcasm from the pro-AGW religious zealots…”.

    The “problem” you point out DOES NOT EXIST.

  69. #69 Eli Rabett
    August 21, 2009

    Bob Armstrong, you will find your “implementation” in just about any book on radiation exchange in atmospheres. Goody and Young spring to mind, Ray Pierrehumbert has a beta version of his forthcoming book on the web.

    To first order an albedo of .3 for the earth is a good estimate AS VERIFIED BY OBSERVATIONS (you could, as Eli recalls look at reflection from the moon to get this before satellites)

    It is wonderful how people with no experience in a subject believe that the obvious has been missed and they are the ones to find it

  70. #70 Eli Rabett
    August 21, 2009

    Girma tries to sneak one by, unfortunately he succeeds

    The result of the summaries is the claim that an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere of 0.01% since the industrial revolution has caused global warming

    CO2 has increased from ~280 to ~380 ppm since the industrial revolution. that is an increase of over 30%. CO2 comprises the majority of greenhouse gases where the atmosphere effectively radiates to space (the water vapor condenses out lower down)

  71. #71 Eli Rabett
    August 21, 2009

    Chris, you only have to look at the reception that Judith Webster got at CA to know that you are wrong. For laughs go look at the nut jobs over at Marohasy

  72. #72 Chris S.
    August 21, 2009

    “Are you suggesting that denialist posts be deleted?”

    No, I’m suggesting a more co-ordinated response to them than scattergun attacks from those with little knowledge & plenty of ire.

    A quick question for you so I know where we stand and can decide whether to continue paying any attention to your posts: Which do you care more about – the continuing negative effects of climate change, or winning an argument on a forum?

    Personally I care more for the former which is why I am advocating a better engagement with questioners than just shouting “You’re wrong you ignorant f^ck” in their faces.

    Looking up I see an example of the tenor of answer I would prefer from Eli – though the inclusion of a weblink to the citation would round it off perfectly. And the last sentence is unnecessary.

  73. #73 Eli Rabett
    August 21, 2009

    Squigly nonsense

    I think you will find that most of these Open Source projects, unfortunately, don’t usually get very far when attempting something as complex as a climate model. The CCSM project looks the most promising to me. I used to also run another one that was pretty cool, that you can get through the BOINC project and works like SETI@home. Its just kind of a fun little toy (with nice animated graphics and all), but it can take a month or more of operation to get it to the current date, at least on my humble computers.

    Unfortunately this simply shows that squig is hallucinating. The community model has been around for a LONG time, is used professionally and is always being improved and maintained by the user community, ucar and ncar. Since it is designed to be used by many groups, the level of software coding is professional.

    Squig complains about getting large code to run on his computer. Welcome to the real world Squig. This is always an issue and is why people work a long time to port applications and get funding for large computers.

    Squig refers to the Oxford climateprediction.net. He might go look at what the serious purpose of that was, which would also give some of the other denialists a clue about why no model (not just of climate) is complete.

    In short, Squig shows clearly that he is a Dunning Kruger kid trying to impress people with how much he does not know.

  74. #74 Girma
    August 21, 2009

    Bernard J #119

    I wrote, “The result of the summaries is the claim that an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere of 0.01% since the industrial revolution has caused global warming”

    You wrote, “…shows us that Girma is innumerate

    Thank you for that.

    Let us look at the data.

    1) Proportion of CO2 before the industrial revolution was 280 ppm. 2) Proportion of CO2 now is 380 ppm. 3) Increase in CO2 since the industrial revolution is 100 ppm. 4) Therefore, the proportion of this increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.01%

    Am I innumerate?

  75. #75 Chris S.
    August 21, 2009

    #172 Eli.

    I have no interest in what the chorus at CA or Marohasy have to say. We need to realise that the message we are giving is something that people don’t want to believe. Now, if a doctor has to tell someone they have terminal cancer how do you think they go about it? Do they sit them down and break the news as gently as possible or do they give it bluntly & tell them that they are stupid if they don’t immediately accept it?

    Polls are showing that fewer & fewer people (in the US at least) are accepting the reality of AGW. Watts has been voted Science blog of the year. Blog science is gaining greater credence to the layman than real science. These are worrying trends. I can’t see how statements like “It’s a body of work, going back 150+ years. Do your own homework.” (#25) “Do you have any irrefutable proof that CO2 is not a climate driver?” (#27) “Why should we do your homework for you?
    And what do you think the alternative is, that thousands of climate scientists around the world are just making shit up?” (#49) are of any help compared with just providing a link to the answer, or at least providing some sort of explanation. It may not convince the questioner, but it may have some influence on others viewing a thread that do not necessarily post.

  76. #76 Jeff Harvey
    August 21, 2009

    Girma,

    Like other things, you are very innumerate. You are mistaking the actual contribution of C02 to the total pool of atmospheric gases with the actual increase in this gas alone which is of course much higher than 0.01%. This increase has profound implications for global and regional climate patterns, just as a trace amount of dioxin in the human system or venom from Atrax robustus might be fatal to a human being. So let’s settle on middle ground and just say that you are intellectually dishonest. Fine.

    Your ealier inane comment with respect to C02 being a nutrient and not a pollutant totally belies the fact that you know nothing about complex adaptive systems and terrestrial ecology. Its clear to me that you’ve gleaned your knowledge, if one can call it that, from web sites such as the Greening Earth Society, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, or others set up and funded by polluting industries with an axe to grind. Speaking as a scientist, my advice is to get off your butt and read some of the primary literature, instead of parroting arguments from those who are distorting science. Avoiding appalling web sites like Morano’s would be a good start.

  77. #77 Andrew Dodds
    August 21, 2009

    Girma –

    Yes, you are innumerate, or at least illiterate; the sentence ‘Therefore, the proportion of this increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.01%’ is not a properly formed sentence.

    You could say:

    ‘Expressed as a percentage of the total atmosphere, the increase in CO2 is 0.01%’, if you were trying to intentionally decieve. Of course, should you regard 0.01% as an unimportant quantity, I would suggest you try increasing the concentration of Cyanide ions in your body to 0.01% of your total body mass. (OK, don’t, because you’ll die)

    If you wanted to be use the word ‘proportionate’, you could say that ‘The proportion of the atmosphere that is CO2 has increased from 0.028% to 0.038%, an increase of roughly 35%’. That would be clearer. You do want to communicate clearly, don’t you?

  78. #78 P. Lewis
    August 21, 2009

    It helps, Girma, if you get your terminology right.

    A _proportion_ is a statement that _two ratios are equal_. It is an equation with a ratio on each side.

    2/5 = 4/10 is an instance of a proportion.

    A proportion is _not_ a percentage.

    Feel free to try making a proportion out of your data. 380/280 = 1/10000 WRONG. 380/280 = 19/14 CORRECT = ~1.36

    The _amount_ of pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 was ~280 ppm. The increase has been about 100 ppm.

    The _percentage increase_ in going from 280 to 360 ppm is [(Final - Original)/Original] * 100 and the answer is ~36%.

    That’s probably about Key Stage 3 maths (in UK educational parlance): about 11 or 12 years old probably.

    Ooo! And look: ~1.36 and ~36%. Now, I wonder if …

  79. #79 Girma
    August 21, 2009

    Why do we need CO2 for global warming?

    During summer, increase in temperature results in increase in water vapor from evaporation from the sea. This could increase the water vapor from a low of 1% to 4% of the atmosphere. Why does not this 3% increase in water vapor does not cause run away global warming, but an increase of 0.01% in CO2 since the industrial revolution causes catastrophic global warming?

    Dear AGW believers, is this global warming?

    TRUE Mean Global Temperature

  80. #80 Boris
    August 21, 2009

    “I could just be TOLD what the evidence is, simply, instead of being sent on a turkey chase to websites where the comments are totally damning to the arguments the websites try to make. (aka Boris’ links)”

    You expect us to write a book in comments at Deltoid?

    But, anyway, dhogaza was right I guess. My score so far:

    People dhogaza said were trolls: 473
    People who weren’t really trolls: 0

  81. #81 Jeff Harvey
    August 21, 2009

    Chris S,

    I agree with you that we need to counter the anti-environmetnalsits with hard empirical evidence. This evidence DOES exist. The problem is that many of us here post during breaks or when we get the time to do so. I am a busy scientist who gets paid to conduct research, give lectures, supervise students and the like. If I sat around here all day challenging the kinds of inane comments that pop up from the sceptics, then I’d never get anything else done. In previous threads I have expended a lot of energy countering the vast sea of nonsense about issues dealing with the environment, some of it with respect to climate change and its effects on communities and ecosystems. Bernard, Barton, Sod, Mark, d’hogaza, bi-int, and others have also expended a lot of effort in this respect.

    The fact is that when every new sceptic shows up I just cannot rewrite volumes debunking their nonsense. Is the climate changing rapidly? Most certainly, especially in higher latitudes. Does this have ecological consequences? Absolutely it does; the changes now occurring are in all likelihood unprecedented in many hundreds of thousands of years, at least in terms of scale. We are talking about a largely deterministic system (at least in terms of short time scales) being forced out of equlibrium. Sure, climate is dynamic and changes occur, but not in single human lifetimes or less at the rates we are now seeing. The problem with people is that we have evolved as a species to respond to what we perceive as instantaneous threats: a bear on the path ahead, a violent storm, an earthquake. We have not evolved to respond to what we perceive as gradual change but which in the context of largely deteministic systems is actually exceedingly fast.

    There is little doubt that natural systems, already stressed by a wide range of anthropogenic assaults which are well-known, are having now to adjust to climate change which is rapid. Food webs will certainly unravel, there will be many losers (particularly amongst habitat specialists) and the consequences for the ways in which natural systems function and the services emerging from them that sustain us is likely to be dire.

    I have gone over this a million times before, in much more detail than I will here. I simply do not have the time to write a volume full of references (they DO exist, trust me) showing what I know to be happening. I have yet to meet a population ecologist denying the scale of changes now occurring. Most of those sceptics posting here appear unable to tell a mole cricket from a giraffe, yet they comment freely as if they had imbued wisdom on environmental science that somehow has been missed by those (like me) working in the field for more than 20 years.

    Please excuse the typos, but I am busy and do not have the time to write (another) tutorial. If the sceptics and denialists wish to believe in the tooth fairy and in those with clear political and financial agendas, then that is their prerogative (with apologies to Britney Spears).

  82. #82 Girma
    August 21, 2009

    AGW believers, is this global warming (aka climate change)?

    [True Mean Global Temperature](http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/TrueMeanGlobalTemperature.htm)

  83. #83 TrueSceptic
    August 21, 2009

    176 Chris S,

    I would agree with you if we were talking about genuine sceptics or those simply lacking information and unsure where to find it. In either case, we can expect reasonable questions to which we can supply reasoned answers, supported as needed by references to published science.

    But we are not talking about those. We are talking about denialist trolls _masquerading_ as those. Perhaps I’ve spent too much time skimming denialist blogs (I have a sick sense of humour, as you might guess from the [The Christmas Spirit](http://notahedgehog.wordpress.com/2008/12/25/the-christmas-spirit/) collection) but there are certain “tells” that one recognises. Things that should stand out are uses, veiled or otherwise, of the logical fallacies of ‘Begging The Question’ and ‘Non Sequitur’, combined amusingly enough with frequent misuse of ‘Ad Hominem’ accusations.

    I understand your intention but fear you are being a little naive. Some others, like dhogaza and Mark, might appear to be overly aggressive but they know their foe!

  84. #84 Girma
    August 21, 2009

    Andrew Dodds #178

    Thank you.

    You wrote, “If you wanted to be use the word ‘proportionate’, you could say that ‘The proportion of the atmosphere that is CO2 has increased from 0.028% to 0.038%, an increase of roughly 35%’. That would be clearer.”

    I would prefer you instead wrote, “If you wanted to be use the word ‘proportionate’, you could say that ‘The proportion of the atmosphere that is CO2 has increased from 0.028% to 0.038%, an increase of roughly 0.01% (0.038-0.028)’. That would be clearer.”

  85. #85 Andrew Dodds
    August 21, 2009

    Girma –

    Yes. Scale on the graph isn’t very good, though.

  86. #86 Andrew Dodds
    August 21, 2009

    My previous comment referenced the graph.

    An increase from 0.028% to 0.038% is an increase of 36%, as others have said. Not sure how you keep getting this wrong.

  87. #87 Michael
    August 21, 2009

    As far as Girma’s innumeracy goes, on a scale of 1-10 I’d rate him/her/it an ‘F’.

  88. #88 Girma
    August 21, 2009

    You AGW believers, I dare you to use the term “Global Warming” instead of “Climate Change”. You would not, because you will always win when you use “climate change”: cooling is climate change, warming is climate change, forest fire is climate change and so on and so forth.

    The only issue was “Increase in CO2 causes global warming”. Unfortunately, now global warming has been replaced by “climate change” and CO2 by “carbon”. The deception continues.

  89. #89 MAB
    August 21, 2009

    Global Warming

  90. #90 Michael
    August 21, 2009

    I wonder if Girma’s bank manager has had to adopt the Girma method of calculating increases?

    No 6.25% rates for Girma. No, his stoic bank mamager traipses off to his trusty abacus, calculates the net worth of the world, compers it to Girma’s investment and then reports back – ‘We can offer you a 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
    00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
    00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
    00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
    00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
    00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
    00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
    00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%

    increase in your investment today sir!’

  91. #91 MAB
    August 21, 2009

    Global warming caused by CO2.

  92. #92 Michael
    August 21, 2009

    preview you fool!

  93. #93 Mark - BLR
    August 21, 2009

    Re: Chris@6 – IPCC TAR and AR4 quotes

    Note that Clem@16 answered your original question. The following are also from the TAR (WG1 report, 2001).

    - Page 88, section 1.1.2 : “Water vapour is the strongest greenhouse gas” [ NOT CO2 ... ]

    - Page 91, section 1.2.2 : “Climate varies naturally on all time-scales”

    - Page 429, section 7.2.2.3 : “At present, the underprediction of boundary-layer clouds is still ONE OF the most distinctive and permanent errors of AGCMs” [ my emphasis ]

    - Page 432, section 7.2.3.3 : “… the difficulties all GCMs have in simulating the Madden-Julien Oscillation …”

    - Page 440, section 7.3.7 : “… since natural variability in the climate system is not fully predictable, it follows that there are inherent limitations to predicting transitions and thresholds” [ in the THC section, but this principle applies elsewhere ]

    - Page 493, section 8.5.5 : “Accurate simulation of current climate does NOT guarantee the ability of a model to simulate climate change correctly” [ my emphasis ]

    - Page 536, section 9.2.2.4 : “There is also the possibility of seriously flawed outliers in the ensemble corrupting the results”

    - Page 575, section 9.3.6.6 : “… (although agreement between models does not guarantee that those changes will occur in the real climate system)” [ NB : This is my personnal favourite TAR quote, despite it being in brackets I still don't know how it got past the "censors" ... ]

    - Page 589, section 10.2.1 : “Past analyses have indicated that … AOGCMs have substantial problems in reproducing present day climate characteristics”

    - Page 705, section 12.2.2 : “These findings emphasise that there is still considerable uncertainty in the magnitude of internal climate variability”

    - Page 729, section 12.5 : “… it is not possible to distinguish an anthropogenic signal from natural variability on five year time-scales”

    - Page 773, section 14.2.1 : “Models are of limited use without observations”

    - Page 784, section 14.4 : “The elimination of models because they are in conflict with climate-relevant data is particularly important” [ I "particularly" agree with this quote ! ]

    ====================================

    The AR4 (2007) report I got as PDF files. The page numbers below refer to the number “printed” at the bottom of the page.

    - Page 115, FAQ 1.3 “box” : “Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas …”

    - Page 592, section 8 : “… IMPORTANT deficiencies remain in the simulation of clouds and tropical precipitation” [ my emphasis ]

    - Page 593, section 8 : “… SUBSTANTIAL uncertainty remains in the magnitude of cryospheric feedbacks within AOGCMs” [ my emphasis ]

    - Page 601, FAQ 8.1 “box” : “Nevertheless, models STILL show SIGNIFICANT errors” [ my emphasis ]

    - Page 627, section 8.5 : “Society’s perception of climate variability … is largely formed by the frequency and the severity of extremes” [ and how they are reported by the mainstream media ?!? ]

    ===================================

    The science is NOT (and never will be) “settled”, the debate is NOT over.

  94. #94 dhogaza
    August 21, 2009

    When it comes to the issue of whether the software solves the correct problem, this is a matter of traceability between each release of the software and the algorithms – as expressed in scientific articles, which have been reviewed by the scientific community – which are in fact a specification of the problem to be solved.

    This is an excellent comment, which brings me to squidly’s complaint that Model E “isn’t professionally documented”.

    If you look at. say, the dynamic cloud modeling module, on the surface it appears to be very poorly documented, indeed. However the code references a refereed, published paper by a subset of the modeling team. It is there that you’ll find the physics and an overview of how the physics is being modeled. For scientists, this is far more accessible than the code. Getting the physics right is the hardest part. And it does serve very much as a specification, one that’s very precise, and one that can be used to check the resulting implementation.

  95. #95 Michael
    August 21, 2009

    umm…..what does AGW stand for again???

  96. #96 dhogaza
    August 21, 2009

    It’s gotta be said …

    Squidly don’t know squidlyshit.

    Don’t waste your time.

  97. #97 Mark
    August 21, 2009

    > an increase of roughly 0.01% (0.038-0.028)’. That would be clearer.”

    > Posted by: Girma

    What does the effect of that 90% of atmosphere that is in diatomic form have wrt IR?

    NONE.

    Therefore the relationship of CO2 to that other stuff is irrelevant.

    If you want to go to absolutes, the one you should be using would be in Gigatons.

  98. #98 MAB
    August 21, 2009
  99. #99 MAB
    August 21, 2009

    Global Average Temperature Jumps By The [Highest Ever Amount](http://www.azocleantech.com/Details.asp?newsID=6409) In One Month.

    Mmm.

  100. #100 Chris S.
    August 21, 2009

    #182 Jeff: I know those references exist, I’ve evenwritten a few of them! I’m reluctant to fully disclose my identity but I’ve been working on the longest entomological record in the world for a while (it’s in the same institute as the longest experiment), you’ll probably be able to work it out…

    The scenario I’m envisaging would negate the need for expending too much energy on refuting long debumked claims. I’ll try a bit harder to spell it out:

    Stage 1) A question is asked that may appear to originate from the denialsphere, or it may not. Respondent(s): “That’s covered here (link) have a look and come back to us. (IMPORTANT: every responder gives the same link)

    Stage 2a) Questioner returns with further questions related to the link given – these also may be denier memes but they show they have read the initial link. Respondant(s): “Good point – see here (link) for further work in this area”

    Stage 2b) Questioner returns with further questions that make it clear that they have not read the link. Respondant(s): “You don’t seem to have read the last post come back when you have (no further reponse)

    Stage 2c) Questioner returns with unrelated question to his/her first. Respondant(s): “Did you check the link I gave you earlier – what did you think? (No further response until 2a is fulfilled or 3b occurs)

    Stage 3a) Questioner returns with further related questions – continue linking to answers.

    Stage 3b) Questioner continues to ignore the link(s) given or continues to post unrelated FUD. Respondant(s) “Dhogaza, Mark etc. he’s all yours, have at it”

    There, no extra work, no chance of accusations of ad hom or unreasonableness and denialist memes firmly refuted.

    Now, this approach requires two things – a repository of standard (good) answers to possible questions and, more importantly a degree of co-ordination amongst the AGW blog community that we have not yet seen. We know that there is such a community – it includes such regular commentators as (in no particular order) BPL, dhogaza, Hank Roberts, Marion Delgado, Eli, Truesceptic, ScruffyDan, John P Reissman, tamino, MAB, Penguindreams, CM, Ray Ladbury, Greenfyre, Timothy Chase, frankbi, Mark, Mark Byrne etc. etc. (apologies to those I’ve left out). If this community can come together & form a united front refusing to be distracted by FUD then we can start chipping away at the edifice of crud that the deniers have constructed.

    One last thing – although the questioner may be a denialist troll, there may be genuine seekers for knowledge “lurking” looking for the answers and looking to see if the answers they’ve been given by the Watts crowd have any traction – these are the people we should be taking into account in these exchanges.

    Aggresion never works in the teaching environment, we must view these comments threads as opportunities to teach, not get our rocks off shouting down the ignorant.