Mercurius has listed the things AGW denialists will accept as evidence:
1) Nothing that was recorded by instruments such as weather-stations, ocean buoys or satellite data. Since all instruments are subject to error, we cannot use them to measure climate.
2) Nothing that has been corrected to account for the error of recording instruments. Any corrected data is a fudge. You must use only the raw data, which is previously disqualified under rule #1. Got that? OK, moving along...
3) Nothing that was produced by a computer model. We all know that you can't trust computer models, and they have a terrible track record in any industrial, architectural, engineering, astronomical or medical context.
4) Nothing that was researched or published by a scientist. Such appeals to authority are invalid. We all know that scientists are just writing these papers to keep their grant money.
I get the feeling he has been reading Joanne Nova...
Read the whole thing.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Too funny:
"F) Your position is based on religious faith, not on the science. I can tell because you pay attention to the scientific instruments, the corrected data, the computer models and the writings of published scientists, instead of what I know, deep in my heart to be the truth: that AGW is a giant hoax and a fraud."
:D
Thanks for the link, Tim.
I can swear, hand on heart, that I've never heard of Joanne Nova, much less read anything by her. Could this be data point #1 for a hypothesis that my humble little screed has the power to predict climate change denialists' behaviour? (And I didn't even need a computer model!)
**cue spooky theremin chords**
please guys take a look and post a comment. the whole piece is definitely worth reading...
I think you've forgotten another corollary to the rules 1-4:
H) If any data, raw or corrected any computer model, or any paper published says that AGW is wrong it is, unlike in points 1-4 assertions, completely true and accurate.
I think we also need a meta-rule about how to debate:
i) I can point you to weblogs or just things I cribbed from somewhere and use them as PROOF AGW is wrong and this is valid.
ii) You can't. You have to point to a reviewed source that counters anything I post.
iii) I can destroy an entire paper in four seconds by saying it's all wrong.
iv) You can't. If you spent less than four days it shows you didn't read it. If you took four days or more it shows that you are nitpicking.
v) If I use a research paper to debunk your research paper, it works.
vi) If you use a research papaer to debunk my debunking research paper, it doesn't because your paper will be written by scientists who have worked with the original author(s) so therefore they ARE the original authors.
vii) As a corollary to (vi) you can't point me to a counter to a rebuttal by the original author: he's biased, but unless and until my author gives a counter to a rebuttal of his work, there's no valid criticism.
Environmentalists are often accused of wanting to make humanity live in caves. Logically though, it is climate change deniers that want this by rejecting technology.
I notice that on Anthony Watts web site, he has a 'widget' in the right hand column called 'Mars Today'. We of course know of the 'huge' amount of instrumentation pointing at Mars, that obviously gives us a much clearer picture of Mars than the sparse instrumentation monitoring Earth.
The Mars instrumentation is also created with divine authority, which makes it super accurate.
As I've posted in larvatusprodeo site, I think there's one missing caveat on those rules for discussion: "unless they show that there isn't any AWG". Then they would trust it wholehearted (old MSU UAH, short-term RATPAC, we know nothing about clouds but Spencer's model can explain GW by clouds responding to PDO...) Because the only real criterion of skeptics to balance the evidence is: wether the data/corrections/models/papers back (or not) AGW. That's why they find so many [emphasis added] arguments; because they don't need to follow any coherence or internal logic, so it's not a problem that their arguments are (always) mutually exclusive.
More on this topic:
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/12/20/will-the-real-skeptics-plea…
http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2009/07/litmus-test-for-naysayers.ht…
Just noticed that GW Bush said of the intel about Iraq and WMD's "We cannot afford to wait for the final proof, the smoking gun, which could come in the form of a mushroom cloud".
Funny how they CAN wait for the smoking gun (that they'll accept as a smoking gun, too!) when it comes to climate change...
WRT to Rule 3) on climate models. Data from instruments proves that climate models are worthless.......erm, umh. Here Rule 1) is suspended, but only in this special case which is proved...... because, because...... Gavin Schmidt is as arrogant and wrong as AlGore and David Evans wasn't just a programmer at the AGO despite 32 degrees from Stanford! There! Do I make myself clear.
However you forget the the 'Contextual Inverse Conclusion Rule', viz
"In any study using any and/or all of these techniques and technologies that may be misrepresented as disproving climate change, it shall be a given that these techniques and technologies are absolutely infallible and the alleged conclusion is thereby shown to be indisputable."
Their list goes up to 11, or maybe 12.
Don't forget the section on Interfering With Public Debate (most of these are also applied when Interfering With Blogs):
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/31/recess-harassment-memo/
Pul-lease; this is so overblown it's not even funny ...
.
.
.
> All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. Arthur Schopenhauer German philosopher (1788 - 1860)
Yes ray:
1) There is no possible way we can change the climate! pre 1990
2) I'll sack you if you publish any work promoting AGW! pre 2008
3) IPCC report accepted
@Ray:
Get back in your thread!
Mark,
Where's your 'smoking gun' gone for the last 10 years?
Has anyone ever seen Dave Andrews and George Will at the same place and the same time? Just checking.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/20/AR20090…
"... The difference between climate variability and climate change is critical, not just for scientists or those engaging in policy debates about warming. Just as one cold snap does not change the global warming trend, one heat wave does not reinforce it. Since the beginning of the 20th century, the global average surface temperature has risen 1.33 degrees Fahrenheit.
Evidence of global warming has been documented in widespread decreases in snow cover, sea ice and glaciers. The 11 warmest years on record occurred in the past 13 years.
While variations occur throughout the temperature record, shorter-term variations do not contradict the overwhelming long-term increase in global surface temperatures since 1850, when reliable meteorological recordkeeping began. Year to year, we may observe in some parts of the world colder or warmer episodes than in other parts, leading to record low or high temperatures. This regional climate variability does not disprove long-term climate change. While 2008 was slightly cooler than 2007, partially due to a La Niña event, it was nonetheless the 10th-warmest year on record...."
Ray, as if to demonstrate greenfyre's 'Contextual Inverse Conclusion Rule', writes:
A mobius strip of stupid.
Aaargh. Elementary logic FAIL.
The Schopenhauer quote has the structure "If x is true, then x is first ridiculed, then violently opposed, then accepted." In other words, If A, then (B and C and D).
Let's accept that Schopenhauer is correct, for the sake of argument. Notice that he did not say "only truth is ridiculed then opposed then accepted." Many other things could also be ridiculed then opposed then accepted.
So even if climate change denial met conditions B and C and D, this would not be enough to make it true, even if the original statement is correct! The Logic FAIL here is a very basic error known as Affirming the Consequent. And climate change denial hasn't met all three conditions, it's only met the first - ridicule. So the argument is really:
If A, then (B and C and D)
B
(Subconclusion: therefore B and C and D)
Therefore A.
Yikes. Epic Logic Fail.
(Sorry if this should go in the Ray thread, it's just such a common denialist argument form and such a bad error).
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed."
Unfortunately for you, bullshit passes through the same first stage.
> passes through the same first stage
But truth and bullshit come from opposite ends of the food tube.
Always consider the source.
To be more accurate AGW denialists will accept all of 1-4 as evidence that contradicts AGW. They just won't accept any of them as evidence that supports AGW.
@Chris Noble (#20)
That's exactly right! I think that that was implied though (and Mercurius' post flat-out says "All Iâm asking for is evidence of your AGW claims.") so Tim's link should be read as "Mercurius has listed the things AGW denialists will accept as evidence[for AGW]". But yes, we are talking about double standards and cherry-picked evidence.
Yep Tim, that Mann computer model sure turned out to be reliable. What was it I read? Oh yes, even statistical noise pumped through that thing spit out a hockey stick graph. What's that old line Tim, garbage in, garbage out? Hey let's give Mann credit, he did get rid of the little ice age and the medieval warm period which were becoming quite a pain in the ass to the UN IPCC.
Yes the models are so accurate. Let's invest trillions based on computer model predictions. Why not? Especially if most of it goes into research right boys?
I do have a question for the group. If one of you eggheads ever completed a study which produced results that cast doubt upon the religion of AGW, would you try to publish it as is or falsify the results? If you chose the former, what would happen to your career? Just wondering.
Dave Andrews writes:
http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/VV.html
OK, who linked to this thread.
David Andrews- smoking guns such as stratospheric cooling, warmer nights and one or two others that I have forgotten all confirm AGW. You have heard of stratospheric cooling? What do you think causes it?
Mark E. Gillar writes:
Yes, Mann's original method (since corrected) produces a hockey stick even on random data. But you left something out, didn't you? The curve so produced is about 1/16th as deep as the curve Mann actually found, and on the scale of his graph would be indetectable to the eye.
Nope. He just showed that they weren't as extreme as the deniers still maintain that they are. Mann et al. weren't the only ones to find that, either. Here's the comprehensive debunking of the idea that the Medieval Warm Period was either global or warmer than today:
Bradley, R.S., Hughes, M.K., and H.F. Diaz 2003. "Climate Change in Medieval Time." Science 302, 404-405.
AGW theory isn't based on computer models. It's based on radiation physics. Arrhenius didn't use computer models when he originally proposed the theory in 1896, nor did Callendar in 1938.
You don't know much about how science works, do you? Nobody gets research money for questions that are already settled. They get it for investigating things that aren't known yet.
And the imputation of dishonesty is really hypocritical for someone arguing for the fossil fuel industry's side of the argument. Exxon-Mobil doesn't want to continue making 40 billion dollars a year profit, I suppose?
Falsify the results? My, my, aren't we slinging the accusations today.
Overturning a well-established theory with one paper? The author(s) would probably get a Nobel Prize.
Let me put my '2 Bob's' worth in. I'll restrict myself to the 4 point above.
The statement in point 1 is not true in my opinion. No 'denier' would espouse this. As for me, I look at my thermometer in my kitchen every morning. I will admit, recently I've been very tempted to not believe it, that being it should never be this cold ! :-)
Point 2 is correct. Adjusting data wherever is a fudge. Omitting data is a fudge.
Point 3 is true, current computer models have close to zero predictive power when it come to global climate predictions - short or long term. (Computers work fine for some engineering, mining & medical applications etc..)
Point 4. Not true. A lot of published science is perfectly OK, whether it is 'peer reviewed' or not. Peer review is not supposed to be a 'validation' process.
On 'Authority', there is no room or place for 'Authority' in science. Look up any definition of Science. Tell me it mentions anything about 'authority' there. Granted there are 'distinguished' Scientists, but these guys are pretty rare, and they themselves would never claim that they were any kind of 'Authority' in their field of study. It would be 'un-gentlemanly' to boot.
And for sure, a lot papers are structured for the 'money grab'. I can understand this, as money for research is always tight. However, AGW should not be allowed to 'de-base' the scientific method as a short term means to an end.
I'm pretty sure I that fit into the category of 'denier'. I reckon however that many of you 'warmists' don't even know what it is I'm denying. Is it Climate Change ?
If you think yes, then you would be wrong.
> "Where's your 'smoking gun' gone for the last 10 years?
> Posted by: Dave Andrews
Stratospheric cooling.
200x temperatures higher than any pre-1998 year and CO2 higher in 200x than any pre-1998 year (and same for pretty much the last 30 years).
> that Mann computer model sure turned out to be reliable. What was it I read? Oh yes, even statistical noise pumped through that thing spit out a hockey stick graph
You may have read it, but can it be done?
Go ahead. See for yourself.
Of course, one reason for being able to do that is because you are using the wrong tools.
I.e. This screw is broken. No matter how hard I hit it with a hammer, it won't nail these two pieces of wood together.
> I do have a question for the group. If one of you eggheads ever completed a study which produced results that cast doubt upon the religion of AGW, would you try to publish it as is or falsify the results?
Apparently it already has.
Several denialist sites have been pushing Gerlich's paper as published in a peer reviewed paper.
So apparently the answer is "yes".
PS note how the denialist papers never say what their errors bars are or what their confidence in their output is?
> Overturning a well-established theory with one paper? The author(s) would
> probably get a Nobel Prize.
To elaborate, sometimes papers that claim to cast doubt on AGW (or at least their press release does) do get published... in the peer reviewed literature even. The IPCC's black helicopters don't catch everything.
...but a Nobel prize? Nah. It's not enough to be a dissident, you also have to be right.
Mark E Gillar #22, thanks for demonstrating the point of the post in the flesh, as it were. I would be careful with libelous statements under my own name if I were you.
> The statement in point 1 is not true in my opinion
Yeah, well we know what your opinion is worth, Billy Bob...
But the FACTS of the case are in support of the points put forward as "the unwritten rule" for the anti-AGW crowd.
"computer models aren't science". Remember that? You've said it. Lots of deniers of AGW say it all the time.
"they are doing what their political masters tell them" or "they just want to get on the gravy train" that last one is even on this very thread.
"Where's the RAW DATA!" All over the shop this is said as why the models are broken: the accusation is that the data is fiddled so the corrected data is wrong.
"The US stations are badly sited" And here if there is no correction you have bad data. But here they demand correction. Which then means they don't have the raw data. See above.
Actual facts.
And they support the four points Tim has repeated here.
They do not support your opinion.
Which is kind of par-for-the-course with you.
>All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed.
That would be AGW. Initially rejected by joe public and industry, because the weather was obviously not changing.
>Second, it is violently opposed.
As AGW has got more acceptance, mad cap amateurs with an economic interest set up groups to oppose the idea.
>Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. Arthur Schopenhauer German philosopher (1788 - 1860)
The opposition to AGW start losing, Exxon Mobil reigns in the cash to opposition groups and reluctantly gets on side. Governments start taking it seriously.
As is, of course.
I'm sure it would be fine. I'd be far more worried about my career if I chose the latter. Once again: of course.
No you weren't. Your comment reeks of certainty, not curiosity.
Martin Vermeer wrote: "Mark E Gillar #22, thanks for demonstrating the point of the post in the flesh, as it were. I would be careful with libelous statements under my own name if I were you."
Oh, it's not as if he needs to worry. It's the denialists (latest exhibit: Watt and the youtube kerfluffle) who use legal bluster to silence people who disagree with them.
Click on the link behind Mark E. Gillar's name to know where he's coming from and why he's posting here. He needs material for his blog:
"Dedicated to Bitter Small Town Americans Who Cling to Their Guns and Religion"
Don't feed the trolls.
Harald Korneliussen, yes I know. The scientists are too busy with their science to be bothered with legal kerfuffles. Still, it's not fair -- there's a lot that crosses the line, and IMHO it should have consequences.
Perhaps there should be a legal aid fund for climatologists. There should have been one when they tried to silence Hansen.
Where's your 'smoking gun' gone for the last 10 years?
Maybe we can talk next year if you keep using only the last 10 years running as your talking point.
My smoking gun has been smoking for the last 20+ years, except for the one bad bullet.
I did my own simple little experiment over at Jennifer Marohasy's blog. I noticed that any comment in support of global warming science is quickly howled down. I noticed that most comments supporting her line get no reply, although a few get some support.
I started to sprinkle in a few experimental comments.
I posted some barking mad loony posts that claimed to refute global warming. These got no reply. Is silence consent?
I posted some reports of real science that had nothing to do with global warming but declared that it refuted global warming - only one reply, from one of the few reality based commenters on Marohasy, who rightly called it "crap". Silence from Marohasy's cheer squad.
In the most interesting experiment, I made stuff up and made it sound like science. It was rubbish but it included some correct irrelevant chemistry. More importantly, the comment claimed to have found a non-human source of carbon dioxide. This got enthusiastic support and requests for more information.
OK, my little stunts were not up to the standard of Alan Sokal and I don't think I plumbed the depths of ignorance and gullibility in the anti-science world but they were enough to leave me depressed and despondent. Plenty of influential people believe this nonsense.
Ray @ 39, I think you'll find that the ridicule you people get is exasperated rather than hysterical - rather like the ridicule my namesake gets for his delusions, and for much the same reason.
Now, get back under your bridge!
There are dangers here of going meta or ad hom. AGW advocates should remain fixed on the science where we really do have denialist fail.
Correct Alan (#38), lots of people do believe the AGW nonsense. Kate Blanchett, Bono (U2) and of course Al Gore do. Everyone knows these guys, and they all 'sound genuine' enough..
But has anyone heard of Fred Singer or Steve McIntyre ?
You guys might have, but the average suburban 'green warrior' hasn't.
Redress this balance, and then we might start to really have a debate.
BBH, news flash - there is no debate in the world of science. You're about three or four decades behind the pack in this regard.
Oh, and science isn't about a popularity contest or about celebrity. Nor is it about how people "sound". It is about the evidence, and the evidence doesn't stack up for the Denialist cause.
Gawd, that must really irk you, mustn't it?
Of course, if you disagree, you will have a cogent list of references that climatologists cannot refute. You're welcome to test such here...
No worries Bernard J, 'The science is settled' There is 'no time to debate', we have to 'act now' before we go 'over the tipping point'. Because 'The Authority', the IPCC 'said so' ? Really ?
OK, lets say I am wrong, as you guys attest and I really have no idea and climate really is 'out of control'.
What then ? Do you really think an ETS carbon tax here and / or overseas will somehow 'control climate' ?
Billy Bob
I work in an industry that makes money by exploiting the fact that carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation more than oxygen, nitrogen and argon.
Please publish research showing that it does this in a furnace but not in the atmosphere. You will need to describe your experimental apparatus, measurement equipment and technique and provide a scientific basis for your results. You will need to explain the circumstances in which the Beer-Lambert law does not apply or re-write the quantum mechanics of molecular vibration absorption spectroscopy.
I promise that if you or anyone else does so, I will fly to Oslo at my own expense and loudly applaud the award of a Nobel Prize.
Before readers invest effort into Billy Bob Hall, we should all be aware of [Bill Bob's intentions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/jim_lippard_on_plimer.php#comme…).
>I haven't got the faintest knowledge of the subject, but so long as I have wasted a few seconds of your precious time... well that's good enough for me. ;-)
(Billy Bob Hall, July 2009)
They laughed at Galileo. They laughed a t Einstein. They laughed at Bozo the Clown Ray.
Very Good Observa.
There are at least five conditions that need to be fulfilled in order for Beerâs law to be valid. These are:
1. The absorbers must act independently of each other;
2. The absorbing medium must be homogeneously distributed in the interaction volume and must not scatter the radiation;
3. The incident radiation must consist of parallel rays, each traversing the same length in the absorbing medium;
4. The incident radiation should preferably be monochromatic, or have at least a width that is more narrow than the absorbing transition; and
5. The incident flux must not influence the atoms or molecules; it should only act as a non-invasive probe of the species under study. In particular, this implies that the light should not cause optical saturation or optical pumping, since such effects will deplete the lower level and possibly give rise to stimulated emission.
If any of these conditions is not fulfilled, there will be deviations from Beerâs law.
Can you in all 'hand on you heart' honesty say that you have control of these '5 pre-requisites' in the global atmosphere. Or doesn't it really matter ? Or is there another 'absolute', that being nothing can 'deviate' from what the IPCC says ?
>Schopenhauer was trying to convey the idea that we should not dismiss an opinion, theory, viewpoint etc on the grounds it is considered ridiculous by an opposing consensus, because it is common for new statements of truth, or true statements that differ to the prevailing consensus of opinion, to go through these stages of ridicule and rebellion before being accepted.
Yes, fine.
AGW is the new theory that is annoying the established norm.
So you seem to be saying that AGW should not be dismissed by Anthony Watts, Plimer, you and many others as being ridiculous, because AGW differs from the prevailing consensus that has existed for hundreds of years (maybe thousands). It will, according to you, be accepted.
1) I wonder if Mark Gillar managed to get over to that June conference at TAMU, a few miles away, and actually talk to real climate scientists, as I suggested here? I've been hoping for a report on that conference.
2) And presumably, Mark has been enjoying the balmy weather in TX this summer.
===
For everybody else:
I killfiled Ray long ago, but I thought he had another thread of his own? Did Tim remove the prohibition?
Beers law consists of how opaque a thickness of absorptive gas is to radiation passing through the ENTIRE THICKNESS.
Now, unlike the small cylinder of gas your lab experiment uses, the atmosphere is at different temperatures at different heights.
This is an element you forgot in your list of five:
6) The medium should not itself be a source of radiation
7) The medium should be homogeneous throughout its length
Both of which are false in the atmosphere of a real planet.
This work was done in 1956 by Gilbert Plass.
His discovery was that you could not take the entire atmosphere as a single layer but had to deal with the atmosphere as a series of higher layers interdependent on the flux through it.
[Billy Bob Hall #48](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/the_agw_denialists_rules_for_d…)
When you [lift material from wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer%E2%80%93Lambert_law#Prerequisites), please attribute it properly. They [ask you to do so](http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#Information_for_re-use…). So yes, you _can_ plagiarize wikipedia.
BBH:
Pretty amazing knowledge turn-around for someone who just a few days ago said:
I think it's rather more likely he's still an ignorant jerk.
Billy Bob writes:
Crap! You don't understand what "fudge" means. It refers to faking data or altering it to falsely prove your theory. Adjusting for instrument errors or statistical mistakes is what scientists and statisticians are SUPPOSED TO DO with data that requires it. If you want to understand a galaxy's radial motion relative to our galaxy, you subtract the red shift first. That's not "fudging the data," it's "adjusting for a known bias."
Ignorance. Global climate models predicted that the globe would warm, and about how fast, and about how much. They predicted that the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool. They predicted that nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures and winter temperatures more than summer temperatures. They predicted polar amplification. They predicted that the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic. They predicted the magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption. They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right. They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data. They predicted the amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO, the response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole, the expansion of the Hadley cells, the poleward movement of storm tracks, the rising of the tropopause, the rising of the effective radiating altitude, the clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics, and the near constancy of relative humidity on global average. They predicted the expanded range of hurricanes and cyclones--a year before Katrina showed up off the coast of Brazil, something which had never happened before. Looks like a pretty good track record to me.
Point 4. Not true. A lot of published science is perfectly OK, whether it is 'peer reviewed' or not. Peer review is not supposed to be a 'validation' process.
That's exactly what it's supposed to be. It's the first bar a paper has to pass. If something doesn't make peer review, it either has nothing original to say or is obvious garbage.
Crap again. A physicist who has studied relativity for thirty years knows more about it than a teenager who thinks he has "disproved Einstein." If I didn't have the math to follow either, I would go with the scientist every time. So would anyone in their right mind.
How the hell would you know? Care to cite a specific example? Do you work in grant approval?
"A little learning is a dangerous thing./Drink deep, or do not drink, of the Pierian spring."
Billy Bob writes:
News flash: The Beer-Bouguet-Lambert Law is a special case of the Equation of Radiative Transfer, which comes in about a thousand different forms. For use in a global climate model, it is easy to incorporate the effects of scattering, solid angle, etc. For a radiative-convective model, which only works in one direction, you don't even have to bother with solid angle; you get very close to the right angle just by multiplying the optical path by a mean diffusion factor (usually 1.66). But someone like Alan who does this for a living, or me with my RCMs, for that matter, will often call such equations "Beer's Law" just as a form of shorthand (the other common phrase is "ERT"). Someone who knows radiation physics will know what we mean.
Chris O'Neil, Barton Paul Levenson,
see Observa's comment at [#46](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/the_agw_denialists_rules_for_d…) and mine at [#52](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/the_agw_denialists_rules_for_d…)
___All___ that Billy Bob has done is blindly lift a section from wikipedia to create the ___impression___ he actually knew what he is talking about. In doing so he wasted an estimated quarter of an hour of your time each. _That's_ his sole goal.
If a denialist suddenly seems to do work or exhibit understanding, google for characteristic phrases of their replies. It was the same for betula.
#56 bluegrue: Well, in Billy Bob's defence, I for one got a chuckle out of this attempted gotcha... "Aha! Beer's Law! Take that fancy, schmancy science-types! I bet you haven't taken this in account!!! Nyah!".
The cut-n-paste from Wikipedia was an especially nice touch. Heaven help us if he gets his hands on Liou's book.
I would personally add:
3a) No calculations that work from the basic laws of physics without a detailed computer model. The heat balance of the Earth is complicated, and if you try to make an approximate calculation without a computer model you're sure to simplify some of the second- and third-order effects. Leaving out or approximating any effect at all, no matter how small, makes it invalid.
I trust you've all seen this?
The denial industry's amorality is turning toward illegality. No surprise. Corruption only spawns greater corruption when people of good will fail to act.
On a related point, when you consider that denialists rely on very much the same amoral group of moneyed interests to inform their world view, their collective dumb-in-the-headness becomes far less inexplicable.
However, there is still a bit of a selection process involved, in that only those overwhelmingly lacking in scruples or without the cognitive faculties to see through the lies can stay with the program. Speaking of which, I see that Ray's been let off his leash. Pity.
No Worries bluegrue. I thought the wikipedia stuff was 'common knowledge', and anyway it sure didn't take you smart guys too long to find it eh ? No flies on you there - that's for sure.
I could have put a 'foot-note', but no point really, these are probably worthless just like all the 'foot-notes' in Ian Plimers book.
Yes, true I'm no expert on Beer's Law, I never claimed to be. In fact, for the record I will humbly claim there is lots I don't know about. And I'm not ashamed to admit it. That's the difference between me any many 'warmists'. I am just a very small anchovy in the 'global warming debate pizza' - but always willing to learn though. Are you ?
Could the people on this thread arguing that somehow the basic physics of radiative transfer somehow don't apply to the atmosphere, please move post haste to their local university library and check out the following book:
A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation
by Grant W. Petty.
It was used in my introductory meteorology courses, and was fairly readable, though not particularly detailed. When you've actually understood what the hell it is that you're talking about, then come back and argue.
If you can't get a hold of it, please read the following lectures on stellar atmospheres and atmospheric radiation are free and reasonable good (although due to the nature of lecture notes, can never reach the level of detail one would get from a textbook):
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Earth--Atmospheric--and-Planetary-Sciences/12…
http://www.astro.uvic.ca/~tatum/stellatm.html
That is all.
You're so believable Billy Bob.
Martin,
DO you realize how many aricles I could quote on the "Red Noise" hockey stick graph issue??? Even Nova's recent piece makes reference to it. Hardly new at all. Very well documented.
Thanks Chris O'Neil. Nice to get some support now and then, otherwise I wouldn't be here on this blog. :-)
Hey Bart (#54), Thanks for the detailed list of how well the climate models are 'working'. One small thing I still cannot understand though. How come they have not predicted the recent very strong global cooling trend ? If you don't think there is a cooling trend, we can of course wait another year check the trend a bit closer if you like. :-)
This pesky climate... it seems to keep changing ! :-)
Oh, and one more thing, can you please supply me with the current definition/s of what Science is. Please use any reference source you like. I must have missed something on that 'Authority' bit somewhere. Thanks in advance. :-)
> How come they have not predicted the recent very strong global cooling trend ?
Because there is no global cooling trend, strong or not.
Which means they predicted it not being there with disconcerting accuracy...
>"How come they have not predicted the recent very strong global cooling trend ?"
Billy Bob, the lack of a strong cooling trend, and continuing level of near record temperatures is why you couldn't win nor [take my bet](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/piers_akerman_takes_denial_to.p…).
Take the bet, Billy Bob, take the bet...
2 Mercurius,
So you've never heard of the notorious [Skeptics Handbook](http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/) ?
BTW just for background, she's the partner of "rocket scientist" [David Evans](http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html)
Billy Bob is so good at recognizing his own shortcomings.
32 Paul UK,
Exactly. The "sceptics" like to identify themselves with Galileo but they're too deluded to realise that they're the ones pointing at the sun and shouting "You fool! Anyone can see that the sun is moving, not the earth!"
38 Alan,
It's not possible to parody the denizens of the Marohasy Bog. See anything by Bird or Hissink. This is a variation of Poe's Law.
Yes, computer models are so accurate that there are 10 of them and each one gets a different right answer. Amazing!
> Yes, computer models are so accurate that there are 10 of them and each one gets a different right answer. Amazing!
> Posted by: ben
Ah yes.
So how many models say that adding more CO2 on its own to the atmosphere gives a cooling effect?
Would that be "none"?
Ben: Please define "projection" in the context of climate model output.
#64 Mark Gillar o Bryan, TX
So, did you, or did you not attend that climate conference 8 miles away @ TAMU? You had a fine chance to meet real climate scientists and talk to them.
ben:
And not only that, every method of measuring the speed of light produces a different right answer.
Your argument is a strawman ben.
Do you care that you look like an idiot when you make strawman arguments? Do you care that people reading you think you're an idiot?
Chris, it certainly hasn't stopped you from posting has it?
Well, if it isn't the venerable Mr. Mashey.
Sorry John, I went to Dallas to interview
Plelim McAleer and had to miss it.
His film Not Evil Just Wrong should be a good one.
I know I'm looking forward to it. I'm sure Tim will want to review the DDT section of the film.
As for meeting a "real" climate scientist, your comment
reminds me of something one of my professors said in class
one day. He said according to his wife, any doctor he went to was just a doctor and any doctor she went to was a "real" doctor...LOL Would I be wrong if I suggested that you think any climate scientist I respect is just a climate scientist and any climate scientist you respect is a "real" climate scientist?
As for Dessler, I'm actually sorry I missed it. If you know of other opportunities, please let me know. I would like to view one of his presentations.
Finally, John it's not necessary for you to keep reminding me of my home's proximity to Texas A&M University. I'm well aware of the distance.
Take care John. I look forward to chatting with you.
Let's see, what's the range of different projections over the next 50 years for the average temp of the earth? The low end is something like 2 deg C, and the high end is something like 10 deg C? Whatever it is, it's a wide margin. Something like 100% difference or more.
Since the "fast" result of Galileo, most measurements of the speed of light are within, what, 2.9999x10^8 and 3.0x10^8, for a difference of 0.00001%?
Not apples to oranges, Chris.
Mark E. Gillar.
John Mashey might not say it, but I will: from my perspective your avoidance of the conference at TAMU was cowardice. You had plenty of time to arrange your arse and book, and to slot other stuff arround it. An interview is certainly moveable to a dy or so, heck, even a week or so, either side. And how long before the conference had you lined up the interview anyway?
You had no interest in engaging with real scientists who understand the material far better than do you. If you had, you would have had to admit the shortcomings in your own stance.
And we can't have that, can we?
Gah... People with my name making stupid arguments.
Ben, assuming that you are talking about the models in the IPCC reports, the reason that they give different answers is that they are running different scenarios, or they are using different parameters, or whatever.
Climate modelling is an inexact science. There will be error bars. There will be uncertainty. There will be a probability distribution for the output.
Non-scientists (and AGW skeptics) continually fail to understand the epistemological modesty that is part of the scientific method.
>Ray, please do not post comments to any other thread.
>Everyone else, please do not respond to Ray in any other thread.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/ray_thread.php
There is a difference between using the same model with different scenarios and parameters, and using different models with the same scenarios and parameters, or different models with different parameters and scenarios.
The problem here is that nobody knows which parameters to use. Just like when I run a parameter estimator on a system in order to learn what the parameters are. I can't simultaneously estimate all of the parameters, so I have to approximate a few at the beginning, and then have a look at what happens with the estimated parameters afterward. Then there's the problem that parameters that I approximated at the beginning are also assumed to be constant, when in reality they are different for different states of the system.
I have a feeling that these climate models are the same way, and I do know that you can take just about any model you have and fudge the parameters in different ways in order to achieve desired outcomes.
Here's an honest question: would there be as much money available for climate research if the results showed no significant impact from human activity?
ben:
Five apples are apples, not oranges.
Just in. Ole Andrew Bolt is a watchin...
'Consensus' Takes Another Hit! More than 60 German Scientists Dissent Over Global Warming Claims! Call Climate Fears 'Pseudo 'Religion'; Urge Chancellor to 'reconsider' views.
Read all about it !
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2282/Consensus-Takes-Another-Hit-More-tha…
Well done Alan@39
The Angry Penguins[Scientific Chapter] live.
Ben@86
Honestly, I don't know. The science involved in long range climate forecasting has other overlaps in a lot of other applications apart from the obvious benefits of being able to predict future climates.
On the other hand, if it was shown that the global climate was generally indifferent to the insults of humanity, that would raise a whole stack of other very interesting questions for scientists to pursue. So either way the atheist global communist science conspiracy can continue to defraud the public purse via their grant extortion project. :-)
Hey, I love grant extortion money as much as the next guy, just so you know I'm not kidding myself. It's just that the work I used to do had no policy implications, and there wasn't a compelling need to expand the public gravy train beyond the few researchers who had a look at the stuff I worked on. But if there was, I'm pretty sure my grad adviser would have milked it for all it was worth.
Grubbing for research money is a royal PITA, and if you find easy money, it's hard to resist.
If the dominant motivation is money, then we'd need to look closely at the actions and incentives for most profitable corporation in history Exxon. Who are they funding?
Or you could look at other government funded sectors that get way more than pure science. Such as roads.
However, my experience is that people are not equally motivated by money. And those who are disproportionaly motivate by money dont go into sciecne, they instead opt for industries with higher buck for your bang.
But Ben there are obviously the odd exception to the rule, interesting to see your motivations laid bare.
Exxon: $12Billion PROFIT a year.
That is AFTER the payments for payroll, etc.
For one single company, admittedly one of the biggest in that industry.
The British Met Office total cost: £82Million.
For one single company, admittedly one of the biggest in that industry.
Contrast and compare...
> Grubbing for research money is a royal PITA, and if you find easy money, it's hard to resist.
> Posted by: ben
Hence the tenured professor Lindzen, Plimer et al.
It's far easier to deny AGW than work on it, and the pay is much better.
> Just in. Ole Andrew Bolt is a watchin...
> 'Consensus' Takes Another Hit!
I thought consensus wasn't science? Or has that rule changed now?
> The problem here is that nobody knows which parameters to use.
Yup, Dry adiabat ~10C.
Latent heat of water, gravity, height of the earth above MSL, etc.
All known parameters.
YOU don't know what parameters to use. Then again you don't know about climate science.
PS can someone check the IP address for ben 'cos he could be Ray...
> The low end is something like 2 deg C, and the high end is something like 10 deg C? Whatever it is, it's a wide margin. Something like 100% difference or more.
And when engineers make a bridge to take 100T load, they make a bridge that can take without too much flex or strain 200T. Which means it could take maybe 400T.
Engineering for 100T could result in 400T loads being taken.
Engineers wanting to take down an unsafe block of flats in an earthquake area rig it to blow.
Boom.
The pillar supports blow, the rest of the building is unshaken and falls straight down.
It could have taken an earthquake...
Ben is not so much grabbing at straws as grabbing handfuls of nothing while falling a long way saying "I ain't dead yet, so this must be safe...".
One word ben:
Splat.
> As for meeting a "real" climate scientist, your comment reminds me of something one of my professors said in class one day.
Shorter M.E.G:
"I don't wanna go!!!! Mr Pooty-pants. So there."
What most of his professors said to him was "You'll get nowhere with an attitude like that, kid". That professor was trying to say that even if M.E.G got a Doctorate, he'd still be dumb as dogs*t.
I'll repeat the question ben ran away from:
> So how many models say that adding more CO2 on its own to the atmosphere gives a cooling effect?
There's a simple meta-rule that covers all this.
Think up every logical fallacy, error in interpreting data, non-scientific argument and type of scientific fraud, then accuse the other side of all those transgressions, while liberally using them yourself to support your non-existent case.
Example: accuse people you call "warmists" and "alarmists" who you allege are only doing that kind of research because they're following the money of ad hominem attack.
Billy Bob writes:
There is no "recent very strong global cooling trend." Start here:
http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/VV.html
http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/Ball.html
http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/Reber.html
ben, like so many, many deniers, can't resist imputing evil motives to the scientists:
You've obviously never written even the simplest climate model, have you?
Billy Bob posts:
1. Did they do so in a research paper of any kind, peer-reviewed or not? Or did they do so in a press release or petition?
2. How many of the "scientists" are climatologists?
Ben:
>I have a feeling that these climate models are the same way, and I do know that you can take just about any model you have and fudge the parameters in different ways in order to achieve desired outcomes.
You seem to be accusing scientists of being liars based on a feeling. But your feelings are conditioned by beliefs you have accumulated since birth.
eg. what you are talking about is prejudice based on your personal experience.
Ben:
>Here's an honest question: would there be as much money available for climate research if the results showed no significant impact from human activity?
There is no certainty in the outcomes of research, one can invest in a study of trees over a period of a decade, assuming that the trees would suffer, but the result can show that some trees benefit:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090803173246.htm
But based on your logic. The research I linked to would be halted because the initial assumption before the research started may have indicted that humans had a negative impact for the species monitored.
> Example: accuse people you call "warmists" and "alarmists" who you allege are only doing that kind of research because they're following the money of ad hominem attack.
> Posted by: Philip Machanick
It's called "projection" and it is the reason for the canard "there is no honour among thieves".
Billy assume that others are as nefarious and underhanded as he is.
I took a look at the list Barton Levenson@98 and as far as I can tell none is a climate scientist or has published anything that recommends insight into the science they are complaining about.
There's the usual assortment of geologists, engineers etc a couple claiming meteorologuy (buit nothing relevant in publication) and some are identified with Astroturf sites opposing mitigation.
If anyone wants a run at the list:
http://tinyurl.com/filth-merchant-frauds
Fran
Not true, this is not what my logic stated. I claimed there would not be as much money, not that there would be no money. Learn to read.
Who said I was a denier? Just like Tim's not anti-gun. I simply find it interesting that I haven't seen any research in which serious folks on the warming side show what happens if, in a reasonable way, their assumptions are wrong. Granted that if this showed the possibility for cooling or no warming the "right wing establishment" would be all over it, but then serious science IS NOT WORRIED ABOUT SUCH THINGS.
This is just like a grad student that my sister talked to at the University of Texas where she is a research fellow. He told her about an interesting discovery they had made about evolution, but they didn't make an announcement about it in the press because "it would give Christian fundamentalists more room to argue for intelligent design / creationism." Creationsism/ID is totally stupid, scientifically, but for these scientists to be afraid in this way... Galileo really had more balls than these cowards.
blockquote>You've obviously never written even the simplest climate model, have you?
Nope. I have a Ph.D. from the University of Washington in Aerospace Engineering, awarded 2008, specializing in control systems. I've written about a billion dynamics models, and I do know how dynamical systems work. I do know that many assumptions must be made about complicated systems in order to make them tractable. I do know that just about everything in the world is nonlinear, but that except for textbook cases, nonlinearities are very difficult to deal with analytically.
I also know that the earth's climate is dynamic, and that to simulate it exactly, you'd pretty much have to use a CFD program with an intractable number of cells. Hence, I'm pretty certain that massive simplification takes place in these models, and I wonder what is the effect of these simplifications.
I also am fairly certain that in general the earth's climate system is stable to introduction of greenhouse gases. If it were not, the earth's climate system would have run away eons ago.
My IP address is static: 63.224.36.203. I don't know who is this Ray person. Don't you people ever get bored of slapping each other on the back all day?
ben:
"I also am fairly certain that in general the earth's climate system is stable to introduction of greenhouse gases. If it were not, the earth's climate system would have run away eons ago."
Dude. Define "stable." If you mean, earth tries to stay at the same temperature, you're refuted by the existence of glacial/interglacial stades. If you mean that feedback is converging,not diverging - that is exactly what climate theory tells us.
If you're trying to say that positive feedback implies a high probability of runaway instability - and you really have done modeling - you know better.
The term stable is already well defined for dynamical systems.
I do not mean this.
Huh? Converging to what? Feedback is feedback. The system can converge, I don't know what you mean by "feedback is converging."
In any event, that part of my comment was dumb. I was thinking of something else and I was blathering.
Hardly worth it since there's an endless supply of science-denying trolls.
> The term stable is already well defined for dynamical systems.
A dynamic system changes, though. That's the DEFINITION of dynamic.
So how can a dynamic system be stable?
> I don't know what you mean by "feedback is converging."
Then educate thyself.
A feedback less than one converges on a non-infinite final value at infinity.
It CONVERGES to that value as the feedback feeds back on the feedback.
A feedback more or equal to one attains infinity if you continue to infinity.
It DIVERGES from any value as the feedback feeds back on the feedback.
Your ill-education may be why you are confused. That is your problem, not the science.
> In any event, that part of my comment was dumb.
Wisdom *starts* when you understand what you do not understand.
Ben:
>Not true, this is not what my logic stated. I claimed there would not be as much money, not that there would be no money. Learn to read.
But my point was that the funding was not based on a known outcome. You imply that the outcomes are known and that is why funding is available.
Mark,
I think Ben knows his stuff when it comes to control theory. His company makes products in that sector.
The issue is: to what degree does expertise in one sector translate to expertise in another?
> I think Ben knows his stuff when it comes to control theory.
It isn't in evidence when ben says:
> I don't know what you mean by "feedback is converging."
Since that is not even advanced mathematics. I did the converging series in maths when I was 13...
TrueSkeptic, maybe you'd better ask yourself: doesn't the janitorial staff work for the same company?
Wither now the assumption of education..?
All of them... in the stratosphere :-)
Mark,
I see no reason for him to lie. His company is Sector 7G and here's his [resumé](http://63.224.36.203/resumes/Ben_Triplett_Resume.pdf). If I'm too trusting then too bad.
111 Martin,
Good answer! :D
Bernard J,
No, the interview couldn't be moved unless I wanted to fly out of state to conduct it.
Interesting theory on your part. If I don't attend a conference Mr. Mashey directs me toward, I'm a coward...LOL
Mr. Mashey was actually the one who decided to post my full name here assuming that I would run away. Well that didn't happen did it? I actually confirmed that he was correct and began using my full name here.
I notice you haven't come clean with your full name. Kind of ironic having someone too afraid to use their full name calling me a coward. That didn't occur to you Ben?
Bernard, J
In your opinion, is Brenda Ekwurzel a real climate scientist? Just trying to figure out who in your estimation
the real players are.
Here is a great vid of her debating Chris Horner:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS-kMuzJkEI
Mark E. Gillar.
If "cowardice" was too harsh, I apologise, but I would have thought that you had plenty of time to book both engagements without conflict, and [by you own words](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/monckton_caught_making_things.p…):
Given that you [also said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/monckton_caught_making_things.p…):
I assumed that you might actually have meant it, and that you were open to passing your own perspectives through the sieves of expert understanding in the field that you find fault in.
If it wasn't fear of having your ideology displace, so be it, and I stand corrected.
You can hardly claim though that you have sought to address the imbalance in your understanding of climatology if you eschew a prime opportunity to test your own beliefs in a forum such as the TAMU conference. Anyone with half a grain of intention of properly understanding climate change - especially if they comment publicly upon it, as you do - should have bent over backward to attend so close an opportunity: that you did not indicates to me that your priorities are not likely to be aligned with actually understanding the science.
As to the video, I am on dial-up and will continue to be so for a number of months yet, because of a quirk in our local exchange, and I do not intend to sacrifice my time online downloading videos. Perhaps someone else will comment on it instead, or perhaps you can just make your point straight out.
And with respect to my partial anonymity, I have explained several times before on Deltoid that in the past I have made the mistake of posting my full name on the Interweb, only to have my work email accounts subsequently completely spammed by people of a somewhat nasty persuasion, to the point that they have had to be closed. It has nothing to do with cowardice, and everything to do with maintaining an operable internet access in the face of those who think it amusing to ruin peoples' right to the same. It is also the request of my institution's IT crowd, following the floods of spam that I have received.
In other â professional â arenas I am known by my full identity, and justly so, because there is an expectation and a need. On a blog and in my own humble case, there is no such need.
Personally, I don't care if you are Dash Riprock the Seventy-ninth, or if you are just Mark E. Gillar â it is simply the validity of your arguments that matter on a forum such as a blog, and I would expect that the same applies to me. On Deltoid, my identity is not germane to the matters at hand.
> I see no reason for him to lie. His company is Sector 7G and here's his resumé. If I'm too trusting then too bad.
> Posted by: TrueSceptic
Try reading his comments then.
Explain:
> I don't know what you mean by "feedback is converging."
from someone you think has that resume.
> If it wasn't fear of having your ideology displace, so be it, and I stand corrected.
Although scientific inquiry and proven theories depend on evidence (as in "that which is seen") and Occam says the simplest process is likely the answer to any query, therefore the *simplest* answer to "why didn't MEG go?" is "He doesn't want to go".
Given the paucity of information against that proposition, your conclusion was tentative but not demonstrably wrong.
>from someone you think has that resume.
Why not? Should every PhD from every discipline have a robust understanding of climate science?
> Why not? Should every PhD from every discipline have a robust understanding of climate science?
> Posted by: MAB
MAB, that's not climate science.
It's maths at secondary-school level.
And didn't you also say:
> I think Ben knows his stuff when it comes to control theory.
Because of his resume?
Well, if feedback convergence is climate science, how does him knowing his stuff about control theory relate?
I put forward the proposition that feedback convergence ISN'T climate science, it's maths.
It seems you think so too, except in your last message.
This question shows lack of understanding of dynamic systems.
For the record, I do not claim a robust understanding of climate science.
As to "the feedback is converging" or "feedback convergence," these terms are not commonly used in science or engineering. If they were, you would not get these results on the first page of a google search, or google scholar search.
Searches for "feedback convergence" or "feedback is converging" return no meaningful results with those exact phrases. They are not used. In control systems they have no meaning. Systems, including those with feedback, converge, and this is what folks care about. Obviously the feedback reaches steady state if the system it feeds back on does, because the term feedback refers to a feeding back of the system state.
My textbooks all have a lot of references to "feedback" and some to "convergence" but none to feedback convergence. My math books have a lot of references to "convergence," mostly for sequences and series, but none to "feedback convergence." I know what convergence is, I just have never heard anyone refer to "feedback that is converging."
sigh...
Positive feedback can cause a system to converge to a new state, or to diverge into a runaway.
I am not a systems person or a modeler - I'm a biologist. But I know at least this much.
I used a sloppy shorthand, and it seems nearly everyone here understood it except ben. So, ben, I apologize for confusing you by using a sloppy phrase that is not the precise and preferred form that you use inside your field.
Hey Lee, I only said I didn't know what you meant. The other guys here jumped on me for it, so I defended myself... I don't have any problem with what you wrote, I just didn't know what you meant.
Mark E. Gillar,
I just lost five minutes of my life looking at the Ekwurzel-Horner video. That you even call that a "debate" -- great or not -- tells me all I need to know about you. Don't you believe in moderation? Equal time for both sides? Opportunity for riposte?
I think Brenda was great in the few seconds thrown at her. She didn't need to lie once.
ben writes:
An engineer. Why am I not surprised?
Shorter ben: I've got lots of experience with a completely different kind of computer model, and without looking at the type I'm talking about, I'll just assume they're like mine and lecture everybody about how they work.
Earth's climate is stabilized, over millions of years, by something called the carbonate-silicate cycle, which you'd know about if you had ever studied geochemistry, or planetary astronomy, or climatology. It does, in fact, fail from time to time, causing the climate to run away, as in the "Snowball Earth" episodes 2.3 billion, 800 million and 600 million years ago.
And approximate stability is not the same as "stable enough to maintain a careless human civilization."
Mark @ 117 writes:
And didn't you also say: "*I think Ben knows his stuff when it comes to control theory.*"
No. Perhaps someone else?
But more relevant than Ben's resume, hes just stated:
> *For the record, I do not claim a robust understanding of climate science. *
126 MAB,
I agree. I suggest that anyone interested should:-
a) read the relevant posts;
b) not accuse people of ignorance of a specialised subject without being sure what that subject is.
Actually, I have a fair bit of experience with the type of computer model that could simulate the climate system nearly perfectly, but there simply aren't sufficient computational resources available yet to undertake such a project. If there were, a finite volume approch would do the job nicely.
ben writes:
I.e., none with actual climate models. Keep blathering about something you've never studied, ben, it's amusing to those of us who have actually done their homework in this respect.
P.S. I've been writing RCMs since 1998.
To answer Mark E. Gillar's question, I think Brenda Ekwurzel is a real climate scientist.
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/experts/brenda-ekwurzel.html
But I'm sure having moderator Bill Hemmer introduce her as "a federal climate scientologist" did not exactly bolster that impression for the public. Did he ever apologize, I wonder?
I'll second the comment of Martin Vermeer: This was in no way a debate when she was barely allowed to get a word in edgewise.
Per the original topic, Mercurius' rules are great, but I think we need another corollary:
H) Science is not done by consensus, so a consensus of scientists means nothing â unless it's a consensus of our scientists.
P.S. I've been writing RCMs since 1998.
Right. Are your models exact, or do they make simplifications? At what scale do they capture the physics of the system? Do you model individual raindrops? Do you model rain at all? Do you model clouds? If so, do you model "real" clouds, or do you have an approximate cloud model? Do you model the energy taken out of the system by wind turbine farms? Do you model the decrease in circulation and the resulting decrease in convective heat transfer due to the wind farms? What sort of details do your models capture, what do they omit, and why is any of this important or not? Thanks!
How do your simplifications affect the outcome?
[Cloud](http://www.vterrain.org/Atmosphere/Clouds/) models.
@ben:
You appear to be of reasonable intelligence. Why not display some curiosity (IMO a trait all Ph.D. holders should have) by reading [Chp 8 of IPCC AR4 WG1 (note, pdf format)](http://tinyurl.com/lrjseo) before shooting off questions about climate models that have already been answered ad infinitum?
I usually recommend engineering Ph.D. students - who generally claim to know the minutiae of all things modeling - to read this chapter. Usually, almost all accept that their engineering background is simply inadequate. The one or two who don't are usually full of it and the Dunning-Kruger effect applies.
Thanks for the link, former skeptic, this will make for interesting reading. The first page of the Executive Summary is interesting of itself for its noting of all the biases that are still problematic in various aspects of the models, and for its honesty in explaining how many "firsts" have been accomplished by the newest models. Looks to me like these models still have a LONG WAY TO GO.
The fact remains that these models are generalizations of the physics that could be captured via a finite volume approach if computational overhead was not a concern. As it stands, we are decades, if not centuries, away from such an undertaking.
@ben:
I'm sorry, but you must be interpreting something that is not there on the first page of ar4-wg1-chp8. How can you not see the key statement of the exec summary:
Climate models are based on well-established physical
principles and have been demonstrated to reproduce observed
features of recent climate (see Chapters 8 and 9) and past climate changes (see Chapter 6). There is considerable confidence that Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models (AOGCMs) provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental and larger scales. Confidence in these estimates is higher for some climate variables (e.g., temperature) than for others (e.g., precipitation).
Try as I might, I don't see "noting of all the biases", nor "many 'firsts' have been accomplished by the newest models" standing out above that. It's a verrrrrrrrrrry longgggggggggg stretchhhhhhhhh to conclude, nay, SHOUT that climate models have A LONG WAY TO GO (sic).
And why the hasty, un-scholarly generalization and IMO puerile conclusion-jumping based on ONE page? What happened to reading the whole paper instead of the abstract/exec summary?
Let me go through the summary paragraph by paragraph then.
So there are processes that have been, and are still being, left out of the climate models? How does this change the warming reported every year over the last 20 years? I remember when I was still doing my undergraduate work in 1999 and claims were being made that "the science was settled." Now we get claims that "the science is really settled."
Interesting. So back in 1999 when the science was settled, these "flux adjustments" were required to "maintain a stable climate" and yet the model data was cited as a reliable indication for AGW? What about those biases and long-term trends that remain in the control simulations?
Sounds good, progress has been made. But that is a relative statement. How much progress? Where did we start? Where are we now? The models can simulate "aspects of ENSO." But it can't simulate ENSO then, is that what I'm to understand? And the MJO simulation remains unsatisfactory? Is this significant, or can I forget and simply conclude that the models are 100% spot on and that AGW is real?
Another relative statement. When I went from an F to a D in sewing class in seventh grade, I improved, but I still sucked. What about this underestimation of precipitation falling in intense events? Significant? Seems like its important. Maybe as warming increases we'll see more intense events and hence a buffer of sorts against future warming?
Good to know. How much uncertainty? What is the scale of the effect of this uncertainty on the modelling of the overall climate?
Here's something from the second page of the Executive Summary:
They are acknowledging what I was saying earlier, that their numerical grid is more course than they would like because computational resources are limited. And how about this about sea ice:
Doesn't sound so good. Look, I'm not saying that these models are not usefull, but it seems that they are trusted in the warming community a little too much. Folks have trouble doing flow simulations around a single set of landing gear, and often the drag in such a simulation is highly underestimated. Why would I assume that climate models do much better at simulating the entire earth/sun system?
Now that said, FAQ 8.1, Figure 1. is quite compelling. I'm curious though how much, if any, of the data from the black line (observations) was used in the simulations to help steer it to the "right" number? Are these simulations given a starting point and then run without any outside influence? Obviously they'd need disturbance factors such as the volcanic eruptions, I am simply asking if the models are fed temperature data in order to make correctsions. If not, then the results are impressive. If so, then I'm a little skeptical.
I'm not saying that the state of the art of climate modelling is wrong, nor that I even know exactly how it is done. And please don't call me a denier or a skeptic. I am neither. I hope that all of AGW is miraculously proven wrong, since how could that be a bad thing. I'm also not convinced that global warming will lead to death and destruction on an awesome scale. I'm further not convinced that even if such is true, that there's a damn thing we can do about it. And even if we could do something about it, I'm not convinced that the cost of doing so is worth the outcome.
Shorter ben:
I don't know much about climate models, but I know that climate models don't replicate natural processes down to the last atom, therefore we should do nothing to stop global warming.
Actually, even if they do replicate natural processes down to the last molecule, they still don't replicate monetary processes down to the last $$$¢¢¢. Therefore, we should still do nothing to stop global warming.
Note that if we do nothing, there are no uncertainties. Therefore, doing nothing is absolutely OK.
ben writes:
They certainly don't include one atom for every atom in the climate system.
Depends on which physical law we're talking about. I use twenty levels of atmosphere and one of ground.
No. Why on Earth would I need to?
No. Why on Earth would I need to?
I certainly don't model "fake" clouds. I use a cloud scheme based on that used by Kiehl and Trenberth in their 1997 energy budget paper.
No. Why on Earth would I need to?
No. Why on Earth would I need to?
I use a ten-gas atmosphere, 54 absorption bands for four greenhouse gases and two types of cloud, a diffusion factor of 1.66, a three-level cloud scheme, an energy-balance algorithm for radiative transfer, a convective adjustment scheme with a fixed maximum of 6.5 K/km as in Manabe's early papers, and reference-book figures for albedos, specific heats, molecular weights, and so on. Major processes include the equation of radiative transfer and Kirchhoff's law.
So far I get a higher climate sensitivity than most other simulations, which means I have to improve my representation of the physics. I do reproduce the approximate surface temperature of the Earth and most of my stratosphere is isothermal (not all of it, since I don't incorporate a separate mesosphere or exosphere).
ben writes:
No, ben, they can't simulate ENSO, since ENSO is weather and not climate and is probabilistic. As long as they produces ENSO-like cycles, they are being realistic enough.
The models don't have to be 100% spot on to conclude that AGW is real. You're using a fallacy of equivocation every time you blather about "the science is settled" versus "the science is more settled." That AGW is real is settled. The details, especially for specific regions, are not settled. It's not that hard to understand.
re post 126, MAB:
Post was True Skeptic then.
You didn't gainsay it either, though, so you COULD have done that instead of going "no, maybe it was someone else" (when you could have SAID who it was by, oh, SEARCHING.
So, can you and TS talk over whether knowing what a converging series is part of control theory or part of climate science or, as I put it, BOTH.
> But more relevant than Ben's resume, hes just stated:
> > *For the record, I do not claim a robust understanding of climate science. *
But is the converging series and feedback (of ANY sort, say op-amp theory) climate science and climate science ALONE?
"You're all nothing more than foot soldiers in a war you've been duped into fighting. A war the true purpose of which most of you do not even understand."
- Mark E. Gillar
>I hope that all of AGW is miraculously proven wrong...
Sorry to have to tell you this, ben, but that is practically a textbook example of [denial](http://www.minddisorders.com/Del-Fi/Denial.html).
Note that narcissism is indicated by the cartoon-like exaggerated individualism of right libertarian ideology (ego) and belief that one's native country is exceptionally virtuous (superego), particularly in cases where it is not (denial again); two character traits you consistently and reflexively manifest.
Get some therapy, man. Venting your confused state to those who have little sympathy for your obsessions ain't gonna help.
>"You're all nothing more than foot soldiers in a war you've been duped into fighting. A war the true purpose of which most of you do not even understand."
>Mark E. Gillar
Mark EG, Who is? Sounds a pretty empty claim to me. Verging on religious. The sort of claim that could be applied by any side in almost any debate.
Mark - "Funny how they CAN wait for the smoking gun (that they'll accept as a smoking gun, too!) when it comes to climate change..."
You do realize in this analogy you're George W. Bush? You okay with that? And catastrophic AGW is then the Iraq war of climatology?
>>"Overturning a well-established theory with one paper? The author(s) would probably get a Nobel Prize."
Assuming, of course, that you could get a publication willing to peer review and publish it. Which Mann et al don't seem to want to allow.
>>Bernard J. - "BBH, news flash - there is no debate in the world of science. "
That's why it's not science. Science does not work by consensus. It works by producing predictive models and allowing genuine debate. If you have to defer to consensus, that's politics, not science. And cases where consensus have been forced by scientists and authorities in order to act politically tend to steamroll some important information in the process. We have clear evidence that prominent AGW scientists promoted their case not by criticizing the methods of their opponents, but by coercing journals that publish papers with alternative conclusions to stop doing so. With this discovery, the 'science by consensus' argument is entirely debunked.
In order to back up AGW, a fairly small group of people have entirely rewritten the medieval warm period, "corrected" radiosonde data in precisely the manner needed to make it correspond with their hypothesis, refused to release, have lost and have made up data (as shown by the recently 'released' CRU emails...) Doing this once or twice may be part of a legitimate paradigm shift. But this is a very consistent pattern of forcing the points to fit the curve. Anyone but the devoutly incurious would begin to wonder.
Al "The center of the earth is several million degrees" Gore either doesn't know the difference between CO2 as a lagging indicator and CO2 as a leading indicator. Rather basic mistake, no? Alan, if you wanted an example of Sokol-ing Al Gore and the Nobel Acadamy are living breathing accidental examples of this. Now if you'd like to try your hoax with someone who actually claims to be a skeptic performing some kind of gatekeeper function, I'd be interested to watch. Otherwise, you're doing it wrong. Trolling message boards with BS info does not make you Alan Sokol.
luminous beauty - Thanks for the Sagan quote. You beat me to the punch.
I would also be more likely to believe in catastrophic AGW if those most politically concerned with it were also more willing to embrace nuclear power, nuclear reprocessing, iron fertilization of the earth's dead zones and fusion research. But oddly, they are very consistently opposed to such things, and frequently are responsible for erecting political roadblocks to them.
Instead, they always jump straight to regulation (after a few gratuitious ad hominems. You can always tell the person who is correct in an argument. It's the one whose argument replaces insults for logic!) Also, Enron had pushed hard for carbon credit trading boards, which they could have profited from. Those who think that calling their opponents oil-industry dupes is an effective scientific argument might take the time to factor in the economic interests of those who believe in catastrophic AGW. Or they could just address the science. Namely; if you can't release your data, your work should not be considered 'peer reviewable.'