By popular request, here is the Jonas thread. All comments by Jonas and replies to his comments belong in this thread.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
By popular request Flying Binghi has his/her own thread. This is the only thread that FB can post to, and all replies to any comment to FB should go here.
I can't move comments, so I will delete comments that do not follow these rules.
By popular request sunspot has his/her own thread. This is the only thread that sunspot can post to, and all replies to any comment to sunspot should go here.
By popular request, Brad Keyes is only permitted to post in this thread.
By popular request. Comments from Brent and folks arguing with him are cluttering up more useful discussions. All comments by Brent and responses to comments by Brent should go in this thread. I can't move comments in MT, so I'll just delete comments that appear in the wrong thread.
> In your link, you need to look at the temperatures (not the green line) and compare the ~1940s with ñow, difference is ~0.4 °C
Hmm. Lets look again at what YOU demanded:
> temperatures have not risen by 0.8 °C since notable human CO2 emissions started,
Oh dear.
> Further, you need to apprehend that your argument is without the positive feedbacks.
The real world already has the feedbacks, both positive and negative, "built in", as it were.
Oh dear.
> But nowhere near what is needed for a positive feedback of a factor 3.
Uh, it's plenty near what's needed for a positive feedback factor of 3.
33C warming today from all GHG and feedbacks.
65% from H2O, 20% from CO2.
That means 100/20 positive feedback: 5x.
> Rather the actual observations imply feedbacks are close to zero
Nope, the actual observations are that the short-term effect is already past the 2x factor.
O Louse,
The catastrophe of AGW for you and your cohorts is that the reality represents an existential threat to your [cultural and political identity](http://faculty.washington.edu/jgastil/pdfs/IdentityProtectiveCognition…).
You poor dear. You are so unnecessarily frightened by the Boogeymen created in your own mind.
luminous b
you must have missed something badly, the ones afraid of the (anthropogenic) climate boogeyman are not on the realistic (sceptical) side.
But I'd reckon that reality is a real threat to the climate boogeyman and the cult that has been growing around him. Just look what happened here when a few details were brought to the general attention ...
> the ones afraid of the (anthropogenic) climate boogeyman are not on the realistic (sceptical) side.
Heh, I think you DID miss something there.
1) You're not a skeptic
2) You're not a realist
3) You're shit scared and busy throwing ANYTHING at the target (the frantic and uncoordinated nature of your flailing being the evidence of fear)
> Just look what happened here when a few details were brought to the general attention ...
Yup, like this little detail:
> But here's how it happens: the rate of heat loss is reduced by increasing the number of GHG molecules in the atmosphere. The sun is unaffected by these earthen attributes and still radiates as much energy as it ever did.
> And when heat in is greater than heat out of a body, that body heats up.
> When that body is the earth, that's called "Global Warming".
And what happened?
Ignored.
Because, as any toddler knows, if you can't see the baddie, the baddie can't see you! So Jonas hides his face and prays.
...aaaand back to square one, frantically moving away from the "CO2 does not trap heat" howler. So yes, Jonas, let's pretend the past few hundred posts never happened, let's call your argument (such as it is) being addressed a dozen times "flailing arms" and hope nobody takes the time to actually go back and read what came before. I give you this: you have no shame or pride whatsoever.
Oh, I loved
Well that's okay then, we're all happy to take your word for it. You've been an accurate and trustworthy source of information so far. I mean, it's not like we can find historical CH4 concentrations in twenty seconds or something, and see they've been going up since 1800 or so.
By the way, off-hand I count over a dozen spelling errors that even a rudimentary checker would catch in that last wall of whining alone. As this has been pointed out over and over, by now you are either dense as an Alzheimer-riddled post or you're doing it on purpose to either rile or distract. Which one is it?
Correction: that would be the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal.
I have thought about what Jonas said about how the phrase 'CO2 traps heat' can scare kids, and I think that scaring kids is a nasty thing to do. So therefore, I propose that we instead say that 'CO2 hugs heat'. That sounds much more friendly, even cozy. So lets do so everybody, for the children!
(Of course, it's a very quick hug, only for nanoseconds).
Jonas,
>Please note, that what has been mostly discussed (by me) is that the 90% certainty of attribution is not a scientific one. I stand by that, since no one has seen anything to the contrary (apart from flailing arms)
It is not a scientific one only in your mind. The only evidence for this you can muster is nothing but arm flailing assertions. For example:
>Yes, I read that, and these are the words written in the conclusion, and it is what the models model. Because that is what models do, the[sic] model what you told them to model!
A million monkeys pounding on a million typewriters could scarcely be expected to construct such gibbering nonsense.
Is that the best argument you have (left).
luminous b
Your acertion that the model simulations affirm them selves as being also the correct explanations, is what I call flailing arms. Your reading phrases from the Conclusion section, where they say that they believe that the models indeed are correct is another instance of 'flailing arms'
You already told me (us) that you are content with the models hindcasting the last decades reasonably well. But what is needed for acertainging that all relevant mechanisms are included is something very different. and adjusting scaling parameters is not among them.
What I said was a truism. But even such seem to elude some people here. You for one, need to be reminded that a model can only model what it is instructed to model.
And no, GCMs are not anywhere close to being able to model the climate correctly. Probably never will, since the system is too complex and chaotic.
And as I've said many times. With fluctuations from year to year (even month to month) notably larger than the effect you aim at explaining, making certaing attributions, and high levels of confidence statments nearly impossible.
Which means, that you have to repeat your experiments many times to increas your signal, and hope that the noise cancels out.
Point is: We have not made that many 'experiments' with the GCMs, and as you know, they both differ substantially when compared to each other, and so far, they have been pretty poor at predicting (ie forcasting) what is to come.
Essentially, those failures have falsified them, at least in reagard to whether they contained *all* relevant mechanisms. Meaning: They didn't! Hence 'the missing heat'
But I see that you rather ar nourishing other beliefs now (about people who don't share your convictions, or accept your rudimentary understanding as 'settled science'). Please feel free to do so, but it is as relevant as all your other personal comments. Namely: Not at all!
Andy - the relevant info is the ~nanosecond, because if anything is heating, it will be the atmosphere.
And yes, an awful lot of nonsense unfortunately is directed at children, and exactly for the wrong purposes. Or did you ever seriously think that the polar bears are threatened if it once more becomes as warm as during the MWP, or even all the preceding warm periods?
Because (as WOW noted) during this and all previou interglacials, it has been warmer before ...
>Your acertion[sic] that the model simulations affirm them selves as being also the correct explanations, is what I call flailing arms.
But I make no such assertions. I say the models are confirmed by comparison with empirical observations. I further assert the comparisons with empirical observations in these particular papers are not themselves the basis for confirmation, but rather prior research directed specifically for that purpose as described rigorously in Chap. 8. The existence of which you continue to pretend an incomprehensible ignorance.
In the psychology of denial, this is known as avoidance.
...aaaand Jonas does not understand the difference between "weather" and "climate". The regression is staggering. Jonas, you sounded much smarter when you were doing your vapid blustering about "very likely". Now that we're getting down to the nitty-gritty, your complete lack of knowledge of even the most fundamental properties of climate, CO2, GHG time lines and, well, just about everything else might even lose you standing amongst pre-schoolers.
...aaaand Jonas is too dense to use a spell-checker. Or maybe he doesn't believe in their accuracy either.
Jonas in 812: "Or did you ever seriously think that the polar bears are threatened if it once more becomes as warm as during the MWP, or even all the preceding warm periods?"
Pray tell us, how much warmer was it during the MWP, and how certain are you about that?
It's a lovely idea Andy S @ 809, but may be slightly confusing the issue for those of us who've already explained covalent bonding as for example that special hug when two oxygen atoms both fall in love with the same carbon atom...
Amazing how Jonas @ 811 manages to judiciously use the word 'we' and the most sweeping generalisations to imply insider knowledge of his utter garbage and not feel the need to reference a single statement to even give a veneer of authority to his popish pronouncements.
By which I conclude that the faithful over at Climate Scam revere him as a god amongst men who must not be challenged.
He'll be telling us that GCM's are like computer games next and haven't really progressed since Pong.
Oh, I even missed this:
The question now is whether he thinks that there is no C02 in the atmosphere, or whether we do not live in it.
...and Jonas thinks the MWP was global. I think. It's hard to follow. I'm sure he'll tell us where he was going with that soon. I can't wait.
Andy S
In the arctic regions? The MWP probably was 1-2 °C warmer. Over the entire globe, probably a little less, but similar to present. How certain? Of the former: Very, and the latter: reasonably.
But the exact levels and how much warmer it was, then or earlier, or during previous interglacials, is completely immaterial to polar bear welfare ...
I asked you if you believe, or ever did believed, that polar bears were threatened by possible anthropogenic warming. Because if your did, I understand why you wanted to avoid the question and switch topic. And I think you are smart enough to realize that the polar bear meme is directed towards those emotionally swayable, young kids as well as adault ones ...
Stu
wrt climate vs weather
The relevant term is signal-to-noise ratio when you try to measure things. The source of, or the name you give your noise is totally irrelevant. I am sorry they don't teach that at your preschool ...
Jonas, the name I want to give it is "if you think that year-to-year or month-to-month fluctuations matter, you're beyond rescue". I know you probably just learned "signal to noise" and are eager to try it out, but holy tapdancing Jebus you're refuting yourself.
And what the hell is it with the polar bears, Jonas? Why can't you stay on topic? You're the one that brought it up @638, and now you're saying the MWP is immaterial to polar bear welfare. You're arguing against yourself on several different fronts now (and doing very badly, I might add). I know it's the only way you can win, obviously, but our amusement is somewhat tempered by its pathological nature.
It's fascinating how much certainty Jonas can get out of two boreholes from central Greenland. There are more recent studies with larger coverage that give a different picture.
luminous b
You are still conflating two seperate things:
1. The attempts to model the climate system, and the work put into establishing all kinds of empirical (and believed to be relevant) phenomena and mechanisms correctly therin, and
2. The satistical assessment of how confident one can be in having captured all (really all!) of the relevant mechanisms.
Pt 2 does not follow from 1. And I don't blame you for not understanding this. You have amply displayed that your angle is another, and from a quite simple viewpoint. I am not challenging your faith. Simply pointing out, that there is no real science behind that AR4 claim, and that your attempts so far have been about almost everything else. Including Navier Stokes and conservation of energy and momentum. And downward(!?) windshear due to raindrops!
:-)
And, I might add, that the forcasting so far, actually has falsified those models (but that wasn't as known in 2006, and is thus not part of my criticism)
We can now add arctic ecology to the list of subjects Jonas has shown he knows nothing about.
Because species extinction is a self-contained event that happens every day and if they can't adapt at an appropriate rate then they didn't deserve to survive anyway seems to be the gist of it.
Andy, I don't think these boreholes tell the entire truth, but they match quite well what is known from many other sources. You have to forgive me, but I tend to get a little suspicious of all the popping up 'hockeystick science' contradicting everything that has been known for decades.
Your graph seems to be in denial even of the Greenland settlements. And you still avoid the welfare of those cute polar bear cubs ...
But I won't blame youi for that .. ;-)
Ah, those fabled Greenland settlements that the Chinese navy often restocked at when transporting Scottish wine across the North West passage every winter.
Is there anything Jonas isn't expert on?
Jonas N:
The graph is for the entire Arctic, not only southwestern Greenland. Jonas seems to have some awful problems getting his geography straight.
So I guess we also can add geography to the list of subjects Jonas has shown he knows nothing about.
...and there goes irony meter number 56. Good thing I stocked up before I waded into this thread. It's been a while since I've seen this level of denial and delusion (especially since I tuned out Th1Th2 over at RI).
Wait, Jonas, isn't your entire point against "CAGW" (excuse my spit-take at that gem) that we don't know anything, and cannot know anything about this magical chaotic thing called climate? But now we have known for decades?
Pray tell, have you changed your mind again?
Guys, I don't know why you keep debating this arrogant moron (Jonas) any more. He thinks he, and he alone, knows more than the sum of the National Academies of Sciences of every nation on Earth when it comes to climate science. He gives the term 'megalomaniac' a whole new meaning.
Now he's added conservation biology to the growing list of which he is a self-proclaimed world expert (minus the education of course). I have been reading his comments with respect to the dynamics of polar bear populations with growing amusement. I am sure that Jonas is up on all of the empirical literature showing poleward and altitudinal shifts in the distribution of many of the world's well studied plant and animal species over the past 30 years, as well as seasonal shifts in the phenology of trophic interactions (e.g see work by Both, Visser, Post, Parmesan and others). Recent evidence suggests polewards shifts are increasing in magnitude and scale, and a number of insect pests found in north Africa have been recorded in southern Europe for the first time (e.g. the voracious armyworm, Spodoptera littoralis is one such example). Winter is a major natural agent of pest control and in central Europe winters and minimal night temperatures have increased quite dramatically over the past 30 years, enhancing the survival of crop pests in more northerly biomes. And, most worrying of all is the unraveling of tightly linked trophic interactions between some tropical migrant passerines and their caterpillar prey where rapid rises in early spring temperatures have desynchronized the breeding cycle and peak abundance of their prey. Eric Post reported similar phenomena in Greenland with caribou breeding cycles and the appearance of browsing vegetation for their young. An increase in the intensity of NAO-events has been linked with sharp declines in the populations of birds like the summer tanager and the yellow-billed cuckoo in the heart of their ranges in eastern North America. Furthermore, the optimal climate windows of many biota at the edges of their ranges are being compromised as plant biomes are being squeezed on soils of inferior quality (e.g. deciduous forests onto the Canadian shield).
There are plenty of examples in the ecological literature. That is to say, if our godly expert regularly reads the pages of journals like Ecology, Ecology Letters, Nature, Science, Journal of Ecology, Journal of Animal Ecology, Functional Ecology, Oikos, Oecologia, Biological Invasions, Biological Conservation, Proceedings of the Royal Society B, Global Change Biology, Conservation Biology, Ecosystems, Advances in Ecological Research, Ecological Monographs, Journal of Applied Ecology, Basic and Applied Ecology, and other relevant sources. But of course he must be a speed-reader too! Add that to his list of truly magnificent achievements in other scientific fields. I have published in 11 of them. But heck, what the hell do I know when stacked up against the super-intellect of JONAS?
Back to reality. That warming is happening is beyond doubt. There are numerous biotic indicators showing this to be the case. That it is rapid within the context of recent history and for a largely deterministic system is also beyond doubt. But you can bet that our resident authority on life, the universe and everything (hats off to Douglas Adams) will come back with his usual verbal diarrhea.
Andy
"we also can add geography to the list of subjects Jonas has shown he knows nothing about"
This is what I'd expect from the Stu:s, the chek:s, the Wow:s and luminous b:s, the Jeff H:s and some more.
Unfortunately, this is where most of you end up after some time. And you all (even Jeff) know it is nonsense, and still you try ...
I wonder why you feel this is necessary. (And I'm glad you don't (seem to) think that the polar bears are endangeerd due to anthropogenic climate change, and realize that the purpose was the obvious)
Wrt to the reconstructions: is it now your position that one of them must be false, or as you previously maintained that all can be true (since 90% < 100%), and are you aware of that yours (linked) mixes proxies and instrumental, wheras mine is continuous with the same method over 20-thousand years?
>And downward(!?) windshear due to raindrops!
We can add [gravity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downburst) to the concepts around which Jonas has difficulty wrapping his micro-cephalic mind.
Stu - I know more about signal to noise ratio than you ever will. If you think that you know beforhand what part of your measurement was the signal, and what part is only noise, you are indeed entering woodoo science ...
Your triumphant attempt: "*Jonas does not understand the difference between "weather" and "climate".*" is exactly what I expect from you, and on par with whatever you've tried for many weeks. Completely predictable on so boringly irrelevant.
If you ever had a valid point, it drowned in between all the nonsense you've sputtered, and in those instances where I've agreed with you, you had missed that too. Or were challenging it anyway.
I have no clue why you have that need, and neither do I care. As I've said: I expect that what you bring to the table is the best you can muster ...
More idiotic wishful thinking ...
"We can add gravity to the concepts around which Jonas has difficulty wrapping his micro-cephalic mind"
This is the level where people hope to score their points ... and I believe it describes them perfectly well.
Especially when the already tried 'Navier Stokes' and conservation of energy and momentum some ~ten times before.
Jonas @ 833 "More idiotic wishful thinking ... "
Yes, we already know.
At least two or three new self-appointed Galileos just like you roll through here every year. The fact is your self-delusions of grandeur are nothing special - they're ten-a-penny out there.
Chin up though - GSW thought you were swell (although I must admit sycophants make me sick).
Jeff Harvey
If you seriously think that polar bears have survived climatic changes far more severe than the present one over 100thousands of years, but are endangered due to the present, rather benign, ones, because it might partly depend on human CO2 emissions ...
.. why don't you say so?
Because if you did, I would counter that the polar bear population has no method at all to distinguish between what has caused the variations in climate and/or temperature. And further, that whatever stress such variations put on the population are indistinguishable from what nature provides without human help.
Meaning that: If your stance is that polare bears are threatened due to anthropogenic climate change (compared to similar natural changes) you have an awful lot more to prove.
But I don't think you can and will ..
Jonas in agreement with [Mann et al., 2009.](http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Temperature_Pattern_MWP.gif) Greenland was warmer during the MCA! Too bad the rest of the planet refuses to conform to his reasonably certainly made up hypothesis.
>If you seriously think that polar bears have survived climatic changes far more severe than the present one over 100thousands[sic] of years...
A fine feat of survival that, considering polar bears have only diverged from brown bears over the last [150 thousand years.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear#Taxonomy_and_evolution)
... and just in at 835 Jonas adds speed of change as it affects ecological systems to his inventory of things he does not know about.
At this rate, a wiki of Things Jonas Does Not Know But Thinks He Does will be necessary.
Chek, while I am at it, responding to the gutter scrapings here, I totally agree:
>The fact is your self-delusions of grandeur are nothing special - they're ten-a-penny out there
Possibly, also you think that "We can add gravity to the concepts around which Jonas has difficulty wrapping his micro-cephalic mind"
and if so, it is a perfectly good measure of your understanding of the world. You know, I had a pretty good picture of it before, but that would really seal it ...
Meaning putting it beyond 'very likely' and above 'almost certain'
Of course you do, sweetheart. You know more about everything than everybody. Your expertise knows know bounds, no fields, no limits.
Ahem. Your bleating about S/N would make total sense if the models wanted to predict the weather. Which they don't. Again proving you do not know the difference between weather and climate.
I have rarely substantively addressed any of your "points" (such as they are), since others have been doing that already. I have merely been pointing out where you have been shifting the goalposts, where you abused the term "ad hominem", where you lied, where you ignored substantive responses to your infantile queries, where you felt so threatened you had to call in your puppets (sock or not), your willful misspellings (now all of a sudden substituting colons for apostrophes all of a sudden -- what the hell, Jonas, that's just dumb unless you are visually impaired), your flashes of libertarian lunacy, all of your pathological behavior.
Throw in the other fundamental problem with your "arguments": if they are so sound, why are you the only one spouting them? Why can't you convince any scientists? They can't ALL be on the IPCC payroll, can they? Why isn't Exxon knocking on your door Jonas, when your "insights" are exactly the kind of thing they'd be looking for?
Oh but you do Jonas, you do very much. You need validation so bad you can taste it. You've spent weeks of your life arguing with people that are just playing with you, trying to tease out a new howler for amusement value. We're down to brass tacks on that now, now that you've denied properties of CO2 and gravity itself. Can you top those? Fingers crossed!
Yes, we all realize you brought up polar bears to prove you don't know what the MWP is, that you can't read a graph of Arctic temperatures and that you'd embarrass yourself that thoroughly to attempt to debate something nobody but you brought up or argued in the first place. Tell me, is that your closer argument in the pub?
I'm sorry, I must have missed that one. Some idiot insisted on talking about polar bears for some stupid reason. Do you have a reference?
Hey, who wants to play creatio... denialist bingo with me?
1. Interpret any uncertainty anywhere in science as implying total uncertainty everywhere in science.
2. Trumpet any mistakes made by any scientist, and ignore the fact that these mistakes are corrected.
3. Shift the burden of proof to your critics any way you can.
4. Any facts or explanations not immediately at hand may be regarded as nonexistent.
5. Bury your opponent in quotes.
6. Use âcafeteria science.â
7. Find an instance of a scientist behaving badly, and use it to make the claim that all scientists will do the same.
8. Scientific facts and theories need have no effects except where convenient.
9. When cornered, change the subject.
10. When really cornered, call names.
11. When an explanation shows you to be absolutely wrong, ignore the explanation and reassert the original claim.
Dangit Jonas, we need more quotes!
Jonas N:
Where did I say "since the 1940s"? And why do you ignore the fact that there were substantial CO2 emissions before 1940? These had caused 30ppm of the CO2 level at that time.
You're just demonstrating how ignorant you are. 1.2°C per doubling means 0.6°C per half doubling. Half a doubling means an increase to â2 times what it was.
I'm discussing what the IPCC discussed. I have no interest in your mangled discussion. If you want to start from some other time then go ahead and get the data for GHGs and other gases from that time and start putting numbers to that instead of just waffle.
Perhaps you didn't notice where I said: "WITHOUT ANY FEEDBACK". The point being, by your own logic (aerosols produce negligible cooling and the oceans absorb neglible heat), human caused gases are easily sufficient to produce more than 100% of the observed warming, without any feedback.
Jonas N:
That might have been true even into the 1990s but the recent warming of the Arctic (which is too recent to be recorded in the ice-cores) easily overwhelms that difference.
The more Jonas N goes into detail explaining the humongous flaws of the "CAGW-science is settled" mantra the more ill-behaved pus floods out of the mouths of the unscientific groupies of IPCC. A new law of nature?
I must say its a good show. And we are many that learn a lot from reading Jonas crystal clear elaborations. Keep it up Jonas.
As I said before, the CO2-hypothesis needs to be brought back to the lab where it can be meddled with by scientists, not sectarian propagandists that rely on faith.
*As I said before, the CO2-hypothesis needs to be brought back to the lab where it can be meddled with by scientists, not sectarian propagandists that rely on faith*
That someone can say this with a straight face says all we need to know about you, Olaus. This is pure garbage. Scientists have known about the properties of C02 as a greenhouse gas for more than a century. An analogy to your simplistic crap is to say that scientists should not study any phenomena with respect to global change in the field where conditions cannot be controlled. In other words, its useless to study the effects of invasive species or habitat loss on the structure and strength of food webs because we cannot control all of the biotic and abiotic parameters that influence them.
I invariably trust the judgment of the academies of science of every nation on Earth over the musings of a Dunning-Kruger disciple who has no scientific background whatsoever. You give the impression that our understanding of climate science is based on the work of a few scientists. Wrong, kiddo. All I can say is that you qualify for the Jonas club of scientifically illiterate luminaries.
Jonas N:
>Wrt to the reconstructions: is it now your position that
> one of them must be false, or as you previously maintained
> that all can be true (since 90% < 100%), and are you
> aware of that yours (linked) mixes proxies and
> instrumental, wheras mine is continuous with the same
> method over 20-thousand years?
Jonas, none of them has to be false, because they are not reconstructions of the same thing. Central Greenland is not the same thing as the Arctic. The authors of 'your' paper seem to grasp that, as they are using the title "Past Temperatures Directly from the **Greenland Ice Sheet**". You should take the hint. Actually, central Greenland is a rather extreme place.
But don't feel discouraged: no doubt Olaus Petri thinks he has learned a lot from your crystal clear elaborations about past Arctic temperatures.
(By the way, I don't recall that I have pointed out that 90%<100%. But whoever it was, I'm sure he/she had good reasons.)
Jonas @ #71:
>And almost every single time, the supposed fact, settled truth, scientific result etc was overstated (sometimes widely) by them who referred to it.
Jonas @ #819:
>The MWP probably was 1-2 °C warmer
Jonas @ #835:
> polar bears have survived climatic changes far more severe than the present one over 100thousands of years
Jonas, having established that you deny the basic reality of the physics of CO2, we now get to this "overstating" problem......care to explain why you overstate the "scientific result" of research into the temperature record?
What is your certainty for either of your above statements?
Jeff, I don't wish to be disrespectful, but if the subject/topic that science conduct studies on is a very complex one, like the CO2-hypothesis, you have to simplify to be able to explore, draw conclusions, adjust the hypothesis etc. I have no problems with science in that respect. I told you guys before, its good science to make advanced hypothesis/conclusions based on the result of such studies. What's not good is when these conclusions etc are hijacked from the simplified "environment" in these "labs" and transforms into buzzwords like "science is settled". All uncertainties surrounding the conclusions and the actual research are gone.
And it is from this "unscientific" ground the "softer" sciences take over, producing endless of studies taking for granted what is actually a conclusion/hypothesis based on something very simplified.
Which Jonas N has pointed out with accuracy.
In that respect the CO2-hypothesis needs to be brought back to the lab. It is neither ready for softer sciences, nor for politicians/ideologists acting for the wellbeing of the planet. Unfortunately both these categories have a strong tendency to emerge into a unity/deltoid.
Oluas/Olaus said: "As I said before, the CO2-hypothesis needs to be brought back to the lab where it can be meddled with by scientists, not sectarian propagandists that rely on faith".
All you show here is that you've bought hook, line and sinker into the well financed propaganda of feudal corporations and their think tanks who seek to mislead you that climate science is somehow 'different' from other science. What you will not find is any scientific governing body anywhere on Earth who agrees with that proposition.
What you will find are some self-aggrandising cranks and/or corporate shills who do.
Olaus Petri:
We're already aware of your delusion that you think GRL is a newspaper rather than a scientific journal. You can shut up about it now.
chek, I can assure you that there is no well financed propaganda undermining the CAGW. No such evidence exist, but on the other hand, in your scientific mind that's evidence. :-)
And yes, CAGW climate science is different for reasons I mentioned in #848.
Following on somewhat from the previous post, I'd hazard a guess that Oluas/Olaus and friends would consider social sciences among the softest of what they term the 'soft' sciences.
Interestingly, the corporate war on science uses the basic bedrock ideas of Freud's nephew Edward Bernays to plant exactly the kind of memes that Jonas/Oluas/Olaus et all spout with such conviction, placed with such surgical precision that our friends can almost come to believe that they'd thought of them themselves and jealously guard their illusions.
Kind of ironic that the richest corporate entities on the planet have no problem spending PR billions on the 'soft' science that Oluas/Olaus so distrusts. Especially when the payoff can be so spectacularly effective amongst certain social groups.
Ok ckek, show me the money then. Where is this "wellfunded propaganda"? I know the answer:
They seek it here
they seek it there
These CAGW-activists seek it everywhere
Is it in heaven or is it in hell?
the well-funded propaganda is nowhere to tell
;-)
Your assurances are worthless Oluas/Olaus.
It's a matter of [public](http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/files/gcr_contributions_public07.pdf) [record](http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/press-center/reports4/koch-industries-sec…)
> Ok ckek, show me the money then. Where is this "wellfunded propaganda"
[Here you go, Jonas^WOlaus](http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/dec/13/astr…)
Chek, Wow, as I suspected noting but thin air, even calling upon the Monbiot for reassurance. What socker-punch (sic). :-)
Yes, your question was nothing but thin air. You've demonstrated that you don't want an answer and that you'll disregard the content because of the source.
Lets check that old dictionary again:
> An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man", "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.
I guess your complaint earlier:
> AGW will never rise again until you guys stop blame-gaming and come up with real facts instead of fairytales and ad homs.
> Posted by: Olaus Petri | September 25, 2011 11:15 AM
Means that denialism and your self-averred skepticism will never rise again.
Olaus Petri:
Your opinions are not reasons.
Wow # 858
By wordings in this thread is an outcome of what's been said by you and all the other name-callers on Deltoid. The fruits of crime taste bitterly.
That said, the Monbiot doesn't deliver beyond a few dollars and and pathetic conspiracy theories. What we do know with certainty is that BP, Shell etc has supported climate science with many, many millions.
Sorry chek, wow. "By" should be "My". I'm sure you can find more to comment on. ;-)
Oh dear the perils of saved URL's that go inactive.
Anyways, I said Oluas/Olaus it's a matter of [public](http://www.iwatchnews.org/2011/04/06/3936/kochs-web-influence/page/0/2) [record](http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/news-and-blogs/campaign-blog/exxon-fin…)
"Kochâs lobbying efforts on climate change are matched by a public campaign. Via three foundations â the Claude R. Lambe Foundation, the Charles G. Koch Foundation and the David H. Koch Foundation â funded and administered by Koch family members and employees, the Kochs have donated several million dollars in recent years to think tanks and groups that have sought to discredit climate science and EPAâs efforts to reduce greenhouse gases".
"Exxon has admitted - for the first time - that the climate deniers it funds are causing problems for action on climate change. This is a first for the company which has spent, since 1998, $23 million funding the climate denial industry. And it's official - Exxon made this statement in this year's Corporate Citizenship Report, released in time for its shareholder meeting."
You really are in denial not only about AGW, but also about where your crank ideas magically come from.
Chris O'Neill
But I do agree with your (I'm just curious if you agree that wee agree)
Let's assume that the IPCC has the forcings reasonably correct, together with the sensitivity (wrt forcing W/m2). Then, you say we should have about 1 °C already (without feedbacks), and you are comparing this to an observed 0.8 °C since mid 1800s.
And under the same premisses, I'd say the same thing: About 1 °C (without feedbacks), and the only point I would like to interject is that most of these anthropogenic forcings (emissions) have occured in the latter part of this 0.8°C increase, they really took off first in ~1940, and since then the warming is a meager 0.4 °C.
(But of course, emissions had started to increase slowly already before that, and provided those forcings are correct, maybe you should add another 0.1 °C)
Point in case: You see 0.8 °C of an expected 1 °C. Without feedbacks! I acknowledge the 1 °C, and see 0.4 (or 0.5) °C, also without any feedbacks.
From your view it looks like true (total) feedbacks are only slightly negative, and I too say they are negative (but a bit larger).
All this, of course, under the provsion of forcings and sensitivity being correct, and that no unknown natural variations mess up things during that time span. As you say, if these are correct:
>"human caused gases are easily sufficient to produce more than 100% of the observed warming, *without any feedback*"
That's my point too!
:-)
> By wordings in this thread is an outcome of what's been said by you and all the other name-callers on Deltoid.
And you've joined in, by your very own definition, that means your case is sunk until you can cut out the ad hominem attacks and produce some facts.
NOTE: it may be a fact that you're clueless about climate science, but this doesn't make it a fact that all other people are as ignorant.
> > "human caused gases are easily sufficient to produce more than 100% of the observed warming, without any feedback"
> That's my point too!
So your point is that you are wrong when you said that the feedbacks are zero?
Fair enough.
Chris O'Neill #844
Be careful not to confuse climate with weahter, the deconvoluted reconstructions (as in ice core data) are by necessity smoothed quite a bit (over time). If you want to make quantitative comparisions, you need to smooth the data in the same manner.
Point is, Greenland was considerably warmer, and for many years than it has been recently. I thought you knew that, because commonly the AGW-side claims that the MWP was a local phenomenon on Greenland, around some trees in central England, and a few other places.
But all that doesn't mean we couldn't have warm spells now, or back in the 30s.
> Point is, Greenland was considerably warmer
Point is, Greenland isn't the world.
If you'd spent the winter on the West Coast of Greenland, you'd have insisted that that winter was the hottest on record by several degrees.
> because commonly the AGW-side claims that the MWP was a local phenomenon on Greenland
Nope. It happened at different times around the globe. The global average changed no more than the average height of a waterbed changes when you lie on one side or another.
You DO know what a waterbed is, don't you?
As I suspected the links chek shared with us were quite useless. The first was completely embedded in conspiracy deductions the other came from Greanpeas, where the actual source wasn't accessible. A lot of conspiracy stuff nonetheless.
Either way the numbers presented are puny compared to the millions the fossil fuel lobbyists drop in the knee of climate science. The well funded "denial industry" is yet to be seen.
Ah, so Exxon are conspiring to pretend to pay to fluff up the denial of AGW, hmmm?
And another crap spelling and ad hom.
The exceedingly low quality of work we've come to expect from our resitent deniers.
> Either way the numbers presented are puny compared to the millions the fossil fuel lobbyists drop in the knee of climate science.
Got any proof of that?
Oluas/Olaus - comprehension isn't your strongpoint as is well known already.
The Greenpeace report refers to Exxon admitting - as in conceding to funding climate change denial in their 2008 annual report.
The CPI report is an investigative piece which also referred to the Koch Industries annual report whose .pdf link I provided earlier detailing donations to the web of anti-AGW think tanks and Foundations they support has now been convenienty pulled.
Your agreement isn't required, nor is there any debate about it - you're merely exhibiting another strand of your delusional thinking.
Speaking of which, please detail the millions the fossil fuel companies are spending clamouring for controls on carbon emissions. That I'd really like to see, but I suspect you pulled that claim out of your lowest orifice as with most of your other claims.
chek, your blue-deep love relations with straw-mans are interesting but it will not help your case. Where does "well funded" come from? So far all I can see its peanuts.
And chek, apparently I read a lot better that you. The Exxon-report doesn't say what you are claiming, at least not based on what was quoted by Greenpeas in your link (I couldn't open the actual report):
"in 2008 we will distcontinue contributions to several public policy interest groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner."
So? Where is the well funded denial industry and the "conspiracy" against CAGW-ology?
And please google and you will find a lot of information on donations from Shell etc to climate research.
Andy S #847
Yes you are right, they don't attempt to reconstruct the same things. That's why I was asking if you think that central Greenland did pick upp the MWP, the LIA, even the Roman WP, together with the modern warming. While the broader arctic (in your link) completely missed at least the two first ones?
And you are of course right that the truth, aditionally, can be a quite different one, hidden among the wide error bars as you attempted before when noting that [they don't even need to overlap at 90% confidence](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/rick_perry_peter_wood_and_the.p…) when they purport to reconstruct the same metric.
But I take it then, from your #828, that you too maintain that the MWP was a local phenomenon, on south western Greenland, and in its center too (and those other few places)?
Because that is what you are arguing, isn't it? And you still haven't answered if you believe (or ever believed) that polar bears are threatened by (a possible human component in the) present warming!?
But you don't need to, and neither will I ask you to speculate why polar bears so freqently show up together with CAGW-messages and similar promos. In both cases, the answers are obvious, I'd say.
> So? Where is the well funded denial industry and the "conspiracy" against CAGW-ology?
Koch.
Jonas N (871),
I said that they don't have to overlap all the time, ie at every single pair of datapoints. You are a master of misrepresentation. Playing games.
Vince W - tell me exactly which physical (radiative) properties of the CO2 molecule are you in denial of?
I was pretty accurate when I told you how does work, and you say you 'established' the opposite!?
You probably refer to the Deltoid-blog version of how facts or thruths are 'established'. It indeed does tend to 'establish' the most peculiar things ...
In Oluas/Olaus world of delusion, Reuters is now ["A lot of conspiracy stuff nonetheless".](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5341722)
["Exxon Mobil Corp](http://uk.reuters.com/article/2008/05/23/us-exxon-funding-idUKN23284461…) is pulling contributions to several groups that have downplayed the risks that greenhouse gas-emissions could lead to global warming, continuing a policy started in 2006 by Chief Executive Rex Tillerson.
Exxon will not contribute to some nine groups in 2008 that it funded in 2007. It said in its corporate citizenship report that the groups' "position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner."
The groups Exxon has stopped funding include the Capital Research Center, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, Frontiers of Freedom Institute, the George C. Marshall Institute, and the Institute for Energy Research, according to Exxon spokesman Gantt Walton.
Exxon's tone on climate change has softened since Tillerson took the reins of the company at the beginning of 2006, replacing the often-combative Lee Raymond.
Tillerson has said that nations should work toward a global policy to fight climate change and in 2006 the company stopped funding a handful of groups that were climate change skeptics". (Reuters)
And he can show no sign either of those millions (peanuts according to Oluas/Olaus) he claimed the fossil fuel companies are spending clamouring - positively clamouring I tells ya - for carbon emission controls.
Can't say I'm surprised, what with him being in a third level of denial now.
> tell me exactly which physical (radiative) properties of the CO2 molecule are you in denial of?
None.
> I was pretty accurate when I told you how does [sic] work, and you say you 'established' the opposite!?
This is because you either don't know what the physical radiative properties of CO2 are or were lying about the result.
Andy S,
Yes that is what you said, and in a [subsequent post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/rick_perry_peter_wood_and_the.p…) I explained in detail what your (quite correct) observation does indeed mean.
But no, I am definitely not playing games or words, I am sorting out what actually is there, and explaing what those statements (error bars here) mean.
I know, it is very anoying to quite a few who'd rather stick with a catchy *Exxon, Koch, denialist* or *moron* after first having tried a link to ipcc.ch, or stating that NS build on conservation of energy and momentum etc as a justification for their beliefs.
chek, it's very obvious that you are nursing an climate denial-illuminati fantasy. Fine, but it's not the same as a o proof of a "well funded denial industry" or whatever you like to call it. And repeating yourself doesn't make it more correct.
Please think before you post next time chek. The citations from Exxon is one thing, the vivid elaborations are yours and Greenpeas'.
Where you said:
> For the umpteenth time: IPCC (and Fig 9.9) presents the claimed contributions, not how that certainty is arrieved at!
Except that is a strawman. What was said:
> Figure 9.9. "Estimated contribution from greenhouse gas (red), other anthropogenic green) and natural (blue) components to observed global mean surface temperature changes, based on âoptimalâ detection analyses (Appendix 9.A)."
You then state as fiat truth:
> But it certainly means two things: Firstly that the paleoclimatology methods (presently, with available proxy data) cannot reconstruct historic temperatures with any useful certainty,
False, by the way. And
> secondly that the stated confidence intervals are not wrt a true GMT
Which is also wrong.
Nature has a variation around the mean. Any sample of a limited set of varied data will do so. And the confidence limits are not for a global mean temperature and therefore YET ANOTHER strawman.
But you seem unable physiologically to manage anything like a coherent rant.
> after first having tried a link to ipcc.ch,
You mean the place that answers your question? Yes, how dare someone try that!
We'll just have to let the intelligent decide for themselves, and the morons make of it whatever they can then, won't we Oluas/Olaus.
[This is why](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Understanding-climate-denial.html) Trollinavia cannot be instructed in the deficiencies of his/their understanding.
Nevertheless, like all of the other morbidly curious folk here I am fascinate by some of the responses that he/they manifest in order that he/they embarrass himself/themselves more and more. It seems though that Trollinavia doesn't want to address matters of error made by himself/themselves, such as when [Wow and I corrected the misapprehension that the troll has about Holocene temperature trend](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5333077).
And I am most interested in the response to [my comment about Arctic ice extent modelling](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5333077). Seems that the implications thus arising aren't to the liking of the AGW-denying troll.
> but it's not the same as a o proof of a "well funded denial industry"
[Try this then](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute#Funding)
Jonas,
...and another irony meter bites the dust.
Tell me Jonas, does CO2 trap heat or not?
Ahhh .. the australian cartoonist holds the true truths
And you've said something before, Bernard? Well then it simply must be, not only the truth, but also the proof of everything. Mustn't it?
But might I suggest, that you first attempt to establish what is actually said, before you start playing whack-a-strawmole in your imagination
I sniggered when Gonads said:
> But might I suggest, that you first attempt to establish what is actually said, before you start playing whack-a-strawmole in your imagination
[Good link](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Understanding-climate-denial.html) I hadn't seen before Bernard.
As Bernays and his latter day disciples knew well, and is amply demonstrated by our current guests, appealing/marketing your product in the correct way to the unconscious means the target invests more of their identity in loyalty to the product, which puts it beyond the rational or any kind of reasoned argument. The product in this case being anti-scientific, false knowledge, commonly referred to as propaganda.
That Oluas/Olaus et al will quite willingly believe they're resisting global enslavement by an IPCC plot, while simultaneously believing global corporations (the most feudal, anti-democratic and powerful forces in existence in human society) and their corporate front organisations have their little people's best interests at heart is a triumph of some sort. Only not in a good way.
At this point, it's safe to assume that as long you bluster rather than address it you tacitly admit the point. Either address it or show us where you want the goalposts this time.
It is exactly this kind of thing that makes you a denialist, which makes you a moron if you're doing this for free and are not funded by Exxon or Koch. Those are statements of fact, and do not become less so because you do not like them.
But chek, corporations are good. Greed is good. Self-interest is good. Haven't you read Ayn Rand? She said so.
True, Stu.
What I find odd is that secretly her admirers all imagine they're the John Galt. All of them, which doesn't quite compute...
But to be generous, I suppose it is goosd to know the intellectually repressed and emotionally stunted can get on in life, even if it is only by pandering to type.
> Greed is good. Self-interest is good. Haven't you read Ayn Rand? She said so.
But then surely if the IPCC is a big scam to get money, THAT'S good too!
It seems like greed is only good for some people.
Now that is an interesting quandary you've placed them in, Wow.
Jonas still going?
The well of stupid is deep.
Jonas N:
This is for the benefit of those who have difficulty with accepting that human GHGs etc are responsible for 100% or more of the existing warming relative to 150 years ago. If you want to believe that aerosols and the oceans have negligible effect then this conclusion is still inescapable.
No that's a view that assumes there is insignificant effect from aerosols and the oceans
Of course, with zero evidence of any substantial negative feedbacks. You have a huge problem with independent sets of empirical and other evidence that are in agreement with each other. The empirically derived sensitivity from paleoclimate and volcanic eruptions give a feedback that agrees with the existence of aerosol cooling and ocean heat absorption and also agrees with strong positive feedback from water vapor which is itself emprically observable. I could either reject every last one of these independent pieces of evidence that broadly agree with each other or believe someone who, until recently at least, was so ignorant and arrogant he wrongly thought he knew how to apply the logarithmic radiation forcing formula for Carbon Dioxide when he didn't.
Chris O'Neill
Why so stingy? I agree with you here, with the assumptions presented, we should have ~1 °C from the emissions, and what we see is at least some of this, isn't it? I wouldn't quite count all those 0.8 °C, but OK, the better half of it. And this is without the feedbacks! I totally agree!
Just remember, that these figures however, are based on that both forcings are known at the correct magnitude, that they could be seen as additive, and the climate sensitivity (wrt to those forcings) also is captured correctly.
But since this is what we assume (for the sake of discussion) I essentially agree with your position.
And you are right, aerosols (from burning of fossil fuel etc) is assumed to constitute a negative 'feedback' (ie net cooling, although that term isn't used there). I can understand the argument, at least partly, but it is not that simple (if I understand it correctly) different aerosols function in different ways. Some also cause warming, and soot influences albedo, And it is again not the simplest thing to attribute the correct magnitude of warming or cooling to their various types and mechanisms. And from what I've seen the GCM models seem to overreact to vulcano erruptions, which is not necessarily due to getting the aerosol forcing wrong, it might just as well being to high a sensitivity of the system.
I certainly wouldn't call that part of the 'science' settled. But as you say, this is the hypothesis.
However, when you come to the oceans, I find your argument more difficult to follow. Because usually, the oceans are considered to be a thermal mass or inertia, somethings that reacts and adjusts after the input change. Now the Greenhouse effect in the atmosphere is instantaneous, and it is everywhere where there are more GHGs.
But it is not the slightly higher atmospheric temperature that heats the ocean. It is the sun, and the heat is transferred away from the sea by convection, conduction, phase transition, and also LWR.
And the same goes for the proposed water vapor feedback, it is essentially adjusted in a couple of hours to at most days. You cannot argue, that this feedback (if it truly works as proposed) is waiting somewhere in the shadows to step forward later.
If you say, you'd expect a slight lag in response to an increased GHG forcing just over the sea surface, I'd understand that. But what cannot follow from any mass/damper system is a positive feedback, and amplification of the (assumed) effect. That would be unphysical.
But if you believe that there is zero evidence of negative feedbacks wrt temperature changes, you'd be very wrong. In general will passive systems in physics and nature exhibit negative feedbacks, in such as they will promt an opposing reaction when disturbed. Very broadly, you could say that is the second law of thermodynamics at work. But when it comes to temperatures, Stefan Boltzmann's law provides the most obvious and very strong negative feedback.
But that's not the central point here.
If I understand you correctly, you say that aerosols might mask some of the warming, and claim that without them, we should have seen more. But wrt the oceans I cannot see how you envision them to provide large positive feedbacks. And I don't thing that 'climate science' does either. Rather the argument is that the (assumed) missing heat somehow, must have snuck down there without anybody really noticing.
So Jonas, is the topic now "missing heat"? It's hard to keep track sometimes.
I think the topic is now noodles. As Frank Zappa once said, 'there's good noodling and there's bad noodling'.
With Jonas, it's just noodles - in bad faith. Jonas is playing the 'we don't know everything so therefore we know nothing' card now, for which he couldn't resist - indeed was literally chemically compelled - to throw in the ideologically required 'scare quotes' around the words 'climate science'. And Jonas has sixteen further sub-levels and endless basements of stupid more to go to that haven't even been hinted at yet.
Time to turn off the oxygen supply of response then nuke the sucker from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of hockey sticks--and polar bears--
Of error bars--and springs--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings."
Is there some sort of reward for the last one posting in this thread?
Wow and chek, in # 882 you once again post a link (and yet again a biased one) describing peanut money and call it proof of a well funded denial industry. Impressive, a shrink would say. The fossil fuel industry donates way more to climate science.
Do you enjoy parading completely naked in front of others? I can't see no other explanation for your strange behavior.
Olaus:
These donations are a matter of the public record. Are you saying that reality is "biased"?
Where's the line between "peanut money" and "well funded"?
[Citation needed]
You are a creepy, creepy individual.
Me creepy stu? Why?
Mork calling Orson: Its biased because they (numbers) are interpreted. Do you copy?
Exxon alone gave for instance Stanford Uni, 100 million. Just google stu. ;-)
Jonas N:
No, no, no, ignoramus. Sulphate aerosols are not a feedback. Can't you even get the simplest things right?
Chris,
That much was obvious way back when Jonas was posting his gibberish over at Bishop Dill.
Oh do tell. Interpreted how? Do you need interpretation to spin that Exxon has been funding denialists? You're not denying that they did, right?
Or is it the amount? Does that make it not count? In that case, neither does your Stanford grant, Olaus -- it's less than 0.1% than what they'll spend on more exploration and drilling.
Or is your line of counting and not counting conveniently somewhere between $28,000,000 and $100,000,000?
Again, Olaus, do tell.
Chris O'Neill
That's why I wrote:
> *'*feedback*'* (ie net cooling, **although that term isn't used there**)
As so many others, you are just looking for an excuse .. and you know it!
> No, no, no, ignoramus ..
Remember that you brought up the oceans wrt feedbacks, and if that was because of ignorance so be it. I explained why that is wrong. But please don't try to play the stupid strawmen and trolling games so many of the others have as only option left ...
Yes stu, its biased because they try to make the numbers huge, scary and 'ill-minded', like you. :-) And please keep on ignoring the other Exxon-facts I gave you. Why ruin a good black-and-white story? :-)
Olaus
All thes nonsense fossile fuel conspiracy memes are what the believers need to conjure up to keep their narrative from falling appart ...
as you pointed out, the numbers are totally ridiculous, they are barely sufficient to pay for half dozen med level staffers somewhere.
But that's not all of it. There are two more major points missing:
1. That miniscule money goes to various **organasations**, which bye Greenpeace and the CAGW-church are 'classified' as 'denialist' organisations (a nonsense term in it self), and usually pnly a very minor part of those organisations are concerned with anything wrt to climate science. The smoking gun usually is an even mor faint connection, of an individual connected to, or just invited to or comissioned by that organisation (for any purpose). The connection to climate is usually extremly weak, and much much more faint even than those miniscule amounts. This 'money' or 'well funded' is a red herring .. nothing more.
2. The second thing missing is, the connection between that money (what's left of it) and an agenda which is questionable, and cannot endure the light of day. The implication that the money is given for a specific purpose, to people saying other things than they actually mean and beleive. That there indeed is a conspiracy. That is nowhere established at all.
All that exxonsecrets is just the same kind of stuff you'd allways expect from those without any better arguments ..
Olaus,
Methinks you've had your head in the sand for far too long. Read Andrew Rowell's "Green Backlash", John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton's "Trust Us, We're Experts" and "Toxic Sludge is Good For You" or Sharon Beder's "Global Spin" and you'll see how enormous the web of corporate funded deceit goes. The anti-environmental industry, represented through think tanks, public relations firms and astroturf lobbying groups is exceedingly well funded and organized. And it has a huge influence over public policy.
Your posts clearly reveal how utterly naive you are with respect to the funding and support of these groups. I have given lectures on the anti-environmental movement at several universities abroad (Aarhus and Copenhagen, Denmark, Princeton and Stanford, U.S., Helsinki, Finland) as well as in the Netherlands where I work, and my talks were very well attended. Once one begins to search for information on the funding and support of anti-environmental organizations, and especially those relating to climate change, it is shocking how much money is involved and how large the movement is. You've never lifted a finger to search for the truth and thus remain patently ignorant of it.
By the way, when polluting industries donate monies to universities and 'green' NGOs, it should be obvious that their aim is to use the 'good cop, bad cop' strategy in which those funded will remain silent to that companies environmental record. This strategy of co-option was pioneered in the 1960s by E. Bruce Harrison, a public relations expect who argued that it was possible to silence organizations by funding them on the one hand whilst funding ant-environmental organizations with far greater sums involved on the other. This kind of behavior has been a stalwart in the arsenal of the anti-environmental lobby ever since. For purely PR purposes a company can boldly advertise that they are "Proud sponsors of Earth day" or of some environmental NGO or another on the one hand, while keeping utterly silent about the fact that they channel much larger amounts of money to right wing think tanks or PR firms actively trying to eviscerate environmental regulations on the other in pursuit of private profit. As I said, the movement is well organized and funded.
Jonas, read my last post. You do not (as usual) know what you are talking about. The money involved is not miniscule. Thinks tanks alone receive billions from polluting industries, and these have significant influence over public policy. PR firms (ever heard of any? Burson-Marsteller? Hill-Knowlton? Ketchum? Edelman PR?... and many others are very active in this area.
Again, like Olaus you have done no research in this area and therefore do not think that is exists. Wrong, kiddo.
Jeff, I'm rather well informed thank you. The well funded climate denial industry can only exist if adding a sparkling but spacious illuminati-theory. There is a lot more substance in Jonas # 907 than in your #908.
I'm also well aware of environmental scams/pollutions made by big corporations. That's bad stuff, of course.
And I believe you, your audiences are very likely impressed when you have a talk. A reverend at a camp meeting usually get that kind of response. However, sorry to tell you, that doesn't reflect the accuracy of your arguments and facts.
Not speaking of minuscule money trying to muscle in on scientific domains, we can have a look at the budget of WWF...;-)
To sum it up Jeff: You need a colorful and dramatic fairytale narrative to make your point, me and Jonas do fine without such things. On top of everything, we can show, beyond criticism, that for instance WWF has tons more money that they use in its effort to have an impact on climate science. No illuminati-narrative needed there, my friend.
As an extra I can inform you that I don't like any kind of lobbying that can compromise the integrity of science (Exxon or WWF).
Jeff H
'Trust us, we're the experts', or
'Trust them, they are the experts' or
'Trust me to trust them, they are experts, and I mingle with them'
that is the meme you have been trying here. And it has been essentially devoid of substance. You haven't even dared to adress one singe question, or open one paper to see what it actually says. Only your never ending whining from the sideline ...
As Olaus has pointed out, the sums these conspiracy sites mention are utterly ridiculous, and watered down further before you even can say it funds anything wrt 'climate'.
The allegation/insinuation that they are spent with the purpose to 'buy' untrue insincere assertions and to pay false witnesses is pure conspiracy theory.
But you are correct, such conpsiracy theories flourish in certain 'environments'. And if you are among them, and even fuel them with the kind of 'arguments' 'logic' and fantasized 'facts and truths' about everything not agreeing with your stance you've displayed here, I can see where you find and give such 'confirmation'.
If you again are just freely making things up instead, that would certainly both describe and partly explain what can be found there. But I believe you: There are huge enclaves among the liberal, the greens, and general lefties, who think that *'if it's corporate, it must be evil'*. And even if we can't see it, *'it just must be, because we know'* and thus *'it must be hidden, concealed, done secretly'*, ie *'even more evil'*.
And the funny thing is that those are often the ones first to complain when they don't get (=receive) what they need, what they believe is their right, what they claim they deserve. But htey have neverending list and demands about what others shoud do and deliver and pay for, often enforced by the state.
And who make derogatory remarks about cardbox factories and their workers, but feel 'elevated' because they think dont work for the money ...
Usually that is the perceptive level there Jeff. And agian you are confusing 'Not have swallowed .. ' with 'not having studied ... '
People who sound like you are a dozen a dime, trust me, I'm an expert!
;-)
> That miniscule money goes to various organasations,
[And Pat Michaels](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/25/michaels-climate-scep…)
[And lots of "Charities" board posts](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/09/global-warming-p…)
And so on.
Forty million here, forty million there, soon you have some REAL money!
[As for questionable methods funded...](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/yet_another_example_of_wegman.p…)
> People who sound like you are a dozen a dime, trust me, I'm an expert!
> 176
> Clippo, once mor you are wrong in your guesses. And I already told you that I know what I'm talking about
> Posted by: Jonas N | September 15, 2011 4:09 PM
Irony meter pegged at maximum.
Jonas,
My advice to you: don't discuss subjects in which you know absolutely nothing. The fossil-fuel lobby does not invest peanuts into advocacy. They funnel huge amounts of money through a wide range of channels in order to influence policy-making decisions.
Also, the title of the book by Stauber and Rampton, which you clearly did not get, is meant to be sarcastic. The authors detail how powerful industries pay for scientific experts using techniques first honed by Edward Bernays (who of course you have never heard of) and later adopted by a wide range of think tanks and public realtions firms. These techniques have been employed to sell wars, defend western atrocities, foreign policy decisions and to downplay threats to the environment. You have a lot of reading to do before you can contribute anything in this area.
Effectively, and in keeping with your behavior, you have strayed well beyond your competence. Its an area I will demolish you on as I have researched it in quite some depth for the past 15 years, and, as I said I have presented many lectures on it, as well as interviews on radio and in newspapers like the Guardian and Independent. Again, I advise you to stick with mangling climate science, an area where I admittedly rely on the expertise of climate scientists. But when you stray into ecology or science and advocacy-related areas, your ignorance is really manifested.
Finally, its a bit rich for you, an admitted right wingnut, to claim that I belittle cardboard box factory workers. People like you would probably be happy to see all government decisions put in corporate boardrooms, where said workers would be paid even less than they already are. I only criticized idiots like you who have no formal training in complex fields in which they think they know a lot. As others here have pointed out, you are a greehorn, Jonas. A legend in your own mind. And I would similarly criticize others in any profession outside of science who attack the prevailing wisdom (as evidenced by the views of the National Academies of Science in every nation on Earth) in fields like climate science.
Olaus,
You are clearly not informed at all. Greenpeace and WWF depend primarily on public contributions. Astroturf lobbying groups, think tanks and PR firms receive huge amounts of funding from polluting industries with an axe to grind. There is no comparison.
Second, NGOs contribute a paltry amount of money for lobbying purposes compared with corporations. In 1998, for instance (see Stauber and Rampton, 2001), ALL NGOs - covering an immense array of fields, from pensions, to civil rights to anti and pro-abortion groups to environmental issues - invested 4.7 million dollars in lobbying members of Congress. The same year, agro-biotech companies invested 1.3 billion dollars and energy corporations 58 million dollars in lobbying members of Congress. And this amount excludes corporate donations for election campaigns. Factor that in and the amounts of money sloshing around the corporate anti-environmental fund is HUGE. And of course this influences policy-making decidions. Again, you think you know a lot about an area in which you know very little. Get off your backside and do some research. I have. And the picture that emerges is truly shocking in its scale and scope.
*me and Jonas do fine without such things*
The brainless brothers, you mean.
Jonas N:
Shutup and come back when you can avoid saying "aerosols is assumed to constitute a negative 'feedback'".
As if you're not. What a hypocrite you are. Why don't you deprive me of my "excuse". Go ahead, I dare you.
For someone who is so ignorant, you do an awful lot of pontificating.
You gave your opinions that started out with a crap statement.
As if you don't. Your hypocrisy is staggering.
Jeff, you are something extra, I have to admit. Reinforcing your epic illuminati drama with even more big words about your own excellency will not make your case stronger.
Tendentious conspiracy crap isn't evidence. Its crap with a suffix.
WWF get big donations, and guess what Jeff, I have no trouble with that. I have big problems with its (WWF's) impact on science. And again: I don't like the phenomenon as such, WWF or Exxon or whatever...
> I have big problems with its (WWF's) impact on science.
Yes, I guess that having a voice that isn't getting paid [28 million a year for selling fossil fuels](http://www.ncpolicywatch.com/2011/05/31/stacking-the-deck-for-humanity/) is a big problem for the devout randian.
No, these fellas are just in it for the little guy: those earning less than 20 mil.
[That link again](http://www.ncpolicywatch.com/2011/05/31/stacking-the-deck-for-humanity/)
Wow, Sancho Pancha strikes back. ;-)
Ah, I see you only know enough literature to know the memes, not the meanings.
Quelle suprise.
@Olaus, Jonas
Actually you do have a point about the big 'green' advocacy groups, they do have a huge budget for this sort of thing, even IPCC author representation in some cases - It's a bit rich complaining about pitance funding on the 'denialist' side.
Chris O'Neill
>Shutup and come back when you can avoid saying ..
Yes, that is the argument many are trying to make. Any excuse to depart from the matter is good enough. Especially when you just got cought ot being wrong about oceans and feedbacks. It is rather depressing indeed ..
And you are wrong: Your point is that aerosols are not a feed back from CO2-levels. that is correct. But they are indeed a 'negative feedbacks' (according to the hypothesis)from the of burning fossil fuels, especially with the simpler powerplants. You know that, because it was indeed your point, that they act in a cooling manner. I am fully aware that it usually is not worded like this, hence my explanation. And you know that too, you are not that stupid. So quit whining about being unhappy over semantics. If you really do not know what I'm am talking about, its quite OK to just ask. But here you do, and were looking for an excuse switch from your(!) topic ..
> For someone who is so ignorant ...
Nope. Sorry, but inventing things will not help you (either)
> What a hypocrite you are.
Nope. Sorry, but inventing things will not help you (either)
>Your hypocrisy is staggering.
See above!
OK, are you done whining? Because I hade a question for you. I told you that I don't agree with your oceans beeing a positive feedback and why. So I asked you to clarify how you were thinkging.
Instead, twice now, you started bitching like the other dumbfucks here. Stop that, you can do better that them. At least that is what I thought ...
So for the third time: Do you want to elaborate on your ocean feedbacks? Or is it a WO?
> even IPCC author representation in some case
Really?
> pitance funding on the 'denialist' side.
Yeah, a few score million dollars here, a few million dollars there. Just a pittance when one single oil company makes 30,000 million a year.
> > What a hypocrite you are.
> Nope. Sorry, but inventing things will not help you (either)
Well, what if it isn't invented?
Gonads in post 911:
> People who sound like you are a dozen a dime, trust me, I'm an expert!
Gonads in post 176:
> Clippo, once mor you are wrong in your guesses. And I already told you that I know what I'm talking about
Of course the requirements of a denialist is primarily to ignore reality. It has the secondary effect of making them immune to error. As far as they can tell...
Yeah,
IPCC has become more of a greenpeace advocacy 'outlet'.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/press/releases/New-IPCC-repo…
Seems that way to me anyway.
> IPCC has become more of a greenpeace advocacy 'outlet'.
Nope.
You might as well say it's become a [manganese mining advocacy outlet](http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/climatechange/2009/07/some_climate_models_ar…)
> Seems that way to me anyway.
Yes.
It tells us rather more about you than it does about reality, mind.
*Reinforcing your epic illuminati drama with even more big words about your own excellency will not make your case stronger*
That is also a bit rich given your boundless support for Jonas who forever proclaims how much he knows about climate science et al. when its clear that doesn't have a clue.
Sure, I'll blow my own trumpet here because, unlike you, I have bothered to read around the subject a lot over the past 15 years. The university talks were all invited, so I make no apologies there, either. But most importantly, I can and will back up what I say with facts. And the fact is that there is no comparison between the WWF or any NGO for that matter and one of the four big sister oil multinationals when it comes to influencing policy-related decisions. Environmental NGOs, even when you put all of them together are puny when it comes to the influence over government policy rendered by transnational corporations. In the US there has long been a revolving door between corporate directorships and the seats of regulatory bodies in government. Again, this harks back to E. Bruce Harrison who pioneered the kinds of greenwashing we see today.
What's utterly remarkable is that we are even having this debate. Its a no-brainer. There's utterly no doubt that corporate influence on government policies the world over are enormous. But as long as you don't know much of anything about it, I might as well be discussiong this with a cockroach. Heck, I'd get more from that.
*IPCC has become more of a greenpeace advocacy 'outlet'*
Utter drivel. Not even worthy of a dignified response.
*WWF get big donations, and guess what Jeff, I have no trouble with that. I have big problems with its (WWF's) impact on science. And again: I don't like the phenomenon as such, WWF or Exxon or whatever...*
More utter drivel. You guys are making a habit of it. Big donations from whom? Read my earlier post, Olaus. I presented actual published and verifiable data showing exactly how much money environmental NGOs and TNCs spend lobbying members of Congress. There is NO comparison. It ain't even close. Add in corporate donations for political campaigns and your argument becomes even more embarrassing. As I said, learn a little before you open your mouth.
And WWF influencing science? HA HA HA HA HA! Earth calling Olaus: Proof please. But of course there isn't any. All environmental NGOs do is publicize the results of peer-reviewed science that they had nothing whatsoever to do with. But there's a lot of evidence of the oil and coal giants fund think tanks that do publish glossy reports attempting to debunk climate change and other environmental threats, and that these are often delivered to policy makers personally by their army of lobbyists.
Again, this debate is a no-brainer. Its even more ridiculous than Jonas's failed attempts to impugn the reputation of most climate scientists and every academy of science on the planet.
Wow, I understand that you havn't read the whole novel. Regardless, the donkey-riding squire follows his master out of greed and loyalty. Spot on, me thinks. Sancho often admires and gets absorbed by the Don's megalomanic craziness even though he his supposed to represent "realism". Well...maybe you are right Wow. The "realism" is never present in your case.
I stand corrected. :-)
Tell you what, Olaus, you go on assuming what you think is true, and reality will ignore you.
Deal?
As I said Jeff,
I have heard your conspiratory ideas many times, and from many more than only you.
You've already been pointed to what is **really** missing in those theories, all we ever get to hear is these imaginary 'smoking guns', never the actual crime.
I know that the title was sarcastically meant, I merely pointed out that this is the same approach you've tried for a month now!
You know, we are not discussing public politics here. Of course there is all kinds if lobbying and behind the scenes murkiness in politics. But you seem to argue that this is restricted to one side.
How clueless can one be?
And yes, you did indeed try to 'belittle' me with your repeated refence to 'if am only a cardbox factory worker'. Don't worry, it's what I expect from you, people like you.
And your incessant rants about what formal training I have is so frikking stupid, it is unbelievable. It is totally clear that you know less about real science than I do, and you have been wise to avoid any point about such I ever discussed here. (Although your idiotic fantasies are of course the stark opposite of wisdom, which I don't think you possess much of, in any field).
But not only have you avoided any specific detail about what the 'climate sciences' actually does say, when you read the papers, and check what is done ..
.. you even avoided answering a quite simple and direct answer in a field were you proclaim some prowess:
I asked if you believed that the (possibly) anthropogenic part of the more recent warming, in any way poses a real threat to the polar bears (which you know so prominently riddle all the eco and NGO money laundering pamphlets, and all other kind of propaganda and advertisemnets)
And by real, I mean compared in quantity to other known kinds of threats?
On final question. You say:
>As others here have pointed out, you are a greehorn, Jonas. A legend in your own mind.
Yes, I have seen various signatures trying to 'establish' that as a 'fact' to be a 'truth'.
I understand that, emotionally, you feel closer to them, also that on the general CAGW-scare you tend to lean more towards their scary fears.
But do you really think that referring to them, and how they go about to 'establish' their beliefs is in any way something that strengthens your view?
I mean the ones barking on your side have tried the most pathetic things to score petty points, brainless insinuations about not knowing of 'gravity', 'geography', 'energy and momentum conservation', and those have been the best(!) attempts, words that actually have a meaning.
The bulk has been way down in the 'nether regions' and omong them so utterly illogical nonsens, it is hard to imagine that there is a grown up at the keybord.
Are those the ones you draw your 'support' from here, Jeff?
BTW #930
There is absolutely nothing 'dignified' about what you have mustered here. Absolutely nothing Jeff! I don't think you even know what that word means (among lots of other words)
Ah, you push down one turd, and another one pops right back up.
> I asked if you believed that the (possibly) anthropogenic part of the more recent warming, in any way poses a real threat to the polar bears
Really? Where? Ah, that's right: in your head.
Yes, it does is the answer.
Jonas, it's quite simple really.
In your own mind you're the world's leading scientist. You fully believe this and some of your simple-minded cohorts like Oluas/Olaus and GSW do too.
However out in the real world, where real scientists do real, professional scientific work, you're recognised as a moron.
It really can't be expressed any simpler than that. How your ego handles that reality is neither here nor there on a public forum.
> You fully believe this and some of your simple-minded cohorts like Oluas/Olaus and GSW do too.
Oh, no, GSW is just being an arsehole. He doesn't actually believe anything other than he's cool and everyone else a dork.
Jeffie #929, I have to correct you. Jonas doesn't claim that he knows climate science better than anyone else. He highlights how little you guys know about the real science and how far off the charts you are from what that real science says. Get the difference?
It goes like this:
1. Jonas asks a straight forward Q about the science behind for instance the 90-95% figure.
2. The dogmatic and worried climate threat crowd calls Jonas an idiot etc and get off topic with stupidities besides his Q, preferably something along the lines that the Elders of climate denial rules and funds a climate denial industry or that Jeffie is a demi-god of some kind that can exalt an audience of believers.
3. Jonas answers and repeats his Q again.
4. See 2.
5. See 3.
etc.
Wait, did this clown actually bring up polar bears AGAIN?
Yes, yes he did. In its eternal search for something to complain about without making an actual complaint, Gonads has just done that.
Socks,
1. He and you keep complaining about the 90%. Except that the evidence for it is available and you both keep getting it wrong.
2. Gonads IS an idiot. The fact that he can't actually state what his problem is is indication of such.
3. Jonas answers bugger all and asks many different questions (see 4)
4. Repeat 3.
I think spelling is only a problem for Jonas when he gets really upset. I involuntarily ducked to avoid the spittle at that one.
Poor thing. He's working so hard for that validation, too.
Jonas N:
Yes Alice.
Switch to what? I gave you a failing grade on your assignment and asked you to repeat it without your mistake. Where is the switch in that?
How easily you forget who it was that stuffed up the radiation forcing function of CO2.
I never said the oceans were a positive feedback, or any other type of feedback. Your attention is appalling.
You can read through Rahmstorf and Zedillo 2008. They've done all this with citations before.
Jonas writes, *It is totally clear that you know less about real science than I do*
Really? Then prove it smartie pants. Let's see your CV and compare it with mine. But of course, there is NO comparison. Sorry to rain on your parade. You couldn't ever stand in the same room as me when it comes to science, you moron. Let me make that abundantly clear. Until you actually do scientific research and publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal, Jonas, you are a nobody. A nothing. You should be flattered that so many of us here respond to your crap.
The most ironic thing is that I have constantly said that my qualifications lie outside of climate science, so in formulating my opinion on climate change, I DEFER TO THE OPINIONS OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF RESEARCHERS IN THE FIELD AND TO THE STATEMENTS RELEASED BY ACADEMIES OF SCIENCE OF EVERY NATION ON EARTH. I emphasize this because it is crucial to the debate.
Note how these two twits consistently ignore this salient point. If every Academy of Science on Earth and its members are wrong, and a schmuck like Jonas is correct, then science as we know it is dead. Kaput. Finished. But Jonas and his slavish fan never explain this little detail - why they are correct and these academies - represented by thousands of scientists with immense qualifications - are wrong. Instead they wriggle out of any response. I have asked these two this question and I will ask it again:
ARE THOSE SCIENTISTS WHO CONTRIBUTED TO THE IPCC FINAL DRAFT AND ALL OF THE MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES I MENTIONED LIARS? CHEATS? DECEIVERS? OR ARE THEY SIMPLY NOT AS SMART AS YOU JONAS? Come on now, big guy, let's see you address that.
But expect more attacks on me and my integrity as a scientist. Its easy for Jonas because he hasn't apparently got any integrity whatsoever.
(pre-emptive answer to Jeff)
No Jeff, REAL science. None of that peer-reviewed IPCC sciency-fiency stuff. They keep saying it. REAL science. Not that Greenpeace-funded crap that says things they don't like.
Oh, and polar bears.
(Gotta love how the true colors came out pretty quick once we started talking money and politics!)
Chris O'Neill
You've mentioned oceans (and their heat uptake) many times in connection with feedbacks, absence of negative ones (you were wrong there too) and existance of positive ones. You mention stron positive due to water vapor.
And as I told you repeatedly, your statements were vague and imprecise. I did not follow what (if anything) you were trying to say). That's why I **asked** you in #894:
>However, when you come to the oceans, I find your argument more difficult to follow
If you weren't saying anything, why have you been coming back to the oceans? What is it you indeed did want to say? Especially since your major point here has been that your (general) argument was without any feedbacks.
And can I ask you if you have indeed read Rahmstorf and Zedillo, and understood it (not just searched and opened in a browser)? Are you saying that they did the 'thinking' you have presented here? Or is the source of that thinking?
Because, so far we seem to agree (generally) on what has been observed. Only difference is that I think you want to stuff a little too much of those 0.8 °C in after emission increases, and I'd say your 1.2 °C for a doubling is a little on the high side. But those are minor details.
Your argument was about the feedbacks, as you said, your initial point was that these 0.8 °C (or so) where explained without such.
> You mention stron positive due to water vapor.
Unless alien heat rays have vapourised the oceans, they are not made of water vapour.
> Your argument was about the feedbacks, as you said, your initial point was that these 0.8 °C (or so) where explained without such.
No. The 0.8C means that there is already a positive feedback, even though steady state has not been reached.
Therefore feedbacks are positive.
Jeff
Somebody who for more than a m,onth incessantly needs to make up his own facts and thruths is not a real scientist. Somebpdy who incessantly appeals to authority, and refuses to read the litterature is not a scientist. Somebody whose logic is as the one you you've displayed here, and who incessantly obsesses about political motives and corporate conspiracies is not a real scienctist.
I am perfectly aware of that there are branches of academia, riddled with angry activists, political utopians, where the motiviation for ones existance and engagement is political, other strongly held beliefs, and even activist. But I would say that is much more common inarts and softer sciences.
I am also aware of that there, people also publish papers, have journals, go to conferences and workshops, talk to and visit each other etc and polish their CVs.
But real science adheres to the scientific method, and is very careful with what conclusions actually can be drawn (even mor so what conclussions are **not** supported) from the observations and data you have.
You Jeff, have shown here, for a month, that you are not capable of doing any of those things properly! Not one single one of them! Still you came here and shout, and say that people who are should be flattered by you responding (such nonsense) and you even seem to include the hords of complete dumbfucks yapping along here.
Still after one month of endless repitition of what is actually said, you are unable to comprehend that, and instead make up your own fantasies.
And still you only seem to be capable of thinking in collectives, notably collectives that you pretend to speack for. First it was 'the scientifcic community', thereafter it has been a bunch of other ones. And although it has been pointed out repeatedly, you refuse to check what these people actually say. What work was actually done, what statement an acadamy actually wrote, how they did go about to acertain that the membership endorsed that statement, and even what value such endorsment actull can carry.
Heck, you seem to call yourself 'scientist' and you endorse a whole lot you know nothing about. (I am not questioning your faith here, only tha value of it).
At every turn, Jeff, you have chosen to refuse to check the details, and started mouthing off instead ..
That is why it is impossible to take you seriously.
> Somebody who for more than a m,onth incessantly needs to make up his own facts and thruths is not a real scientist.
Yes.
Now look in a mirror.
> But real science adheres to the scientific method, and is very careful with what conclusions actually can be drawn (even mor so what conclussions are not supported) from the observations and data you have.
Excellent. So you agree that the IPCC is showing real science and McIntyre et al are doing bogus science.
Brilliant, we're getting consensus.
> What work was actually done, what statement an acadamy actually wrote, how they did go about to acertain that the membership endorsed that statement, and even what value such endorsment actull can carry.
Excellent. So you agree that the NAS and so forth have done all the necessary work to ascertain that their agreement to the IPCC conclusions is based on solid evidence of both what they are supporting and the extent to which their support reaches.
You're now in complete agreement with the IPCC!
Why is anybody bothering to talk to this idiot?
Sure, point out the glaring errors, failures of logic and general ignorance for the benefit of lurkers.
But it's beyond obvious that it's pointless to engage directly with it. It desperately craves attention (of any sort) and even conclusively demonstrating its cluelessness just reinforces the outpourings of drivel.
[Some support for the IPCC conclusions](http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf)
255 National Academy of Sciences members, including 11 Nobel laureates, defend climate science integrity
So, given that you agree that academies will have done some work to ascertain what they're agreeing to, you too will be agreeing with the IPCC.
Jonas N:
I'm saying if you want to understand what I said because it was too vague and imprecise for you then read Rahmstorf and Zedillo. All your questions and more are answered there so why do you want to waste time here?
BTW, I know very well that Stefan-Boltzmann radiation is a very strong negative feedback but this is so obvious that it's not included in the list of feedbacks that cause a divergence from black body temperature which is the issue for people who are not interested in being a smart-arse. Other than that there are no likely significant negative feedbacks. But you probably still don't know what "feedback" means anyway.
Somebody earlier was asking about WWF links with the IPCC. Donna Laframboise has a recent piece on NGO 'infiltration' of the IPCC;
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/09/27/here-an-activist-there-an-act…
It's almost as if WWF/Greepeace were the IPCC!
Chris O'Neill
You need to remember that we are at Deltoid. Of the many hundred comments directed at me (or about me) I'd say a very small minority are at all possible to take seriously. Smart-arse comments or only attempted ones are so abundant here, that it is very difficult to extract reasonable viewpoints in between them. You for instance have tried several too. Just see your last sentence. So stop complaining, will you please?
I take it from your answer that you have eyed through R&Z maybe even read it, but maybe not really dug into the details and checked them, ie as so often. Thanks at least for not claiming anything untruthful.
I still don't understand what you meant by oceans wrt feedbacks, but I guess you will not give me a better answer.
And it is good that you are aware of the S-B T^4 relation. But I must repeat, in physics and nature of passive systems (no internal sources of energy, or active mechanisms decreasing enthropy) such as the atmosphere, it is exceedingly rare to find globally positive feedbacks.
There can of course be such locally, and there might be due to non linearities of bifurcations in some limited state regime. But globally and esp wrt energy, heat and temperature (eg with passive molecules as here) such are very rare. And large positive ones are even rarer. The vast majority of all passive mechanisms exhibit negative feedbacks, at least on the global average.
And the S-B relation is central in the establishment of climate science. As you say, it is what is going on, under the appearant altitude where S-B gives the correct picture, when viewed from afar, that is the topic. But you knew that already, didn't you?
> Somebody earlier was asking about WWF links with the IPCC.
Nope, nobody asked for that.
> It's almost as if WWF/Greepeace were the IPCC!
No, it's almost as if someone were an idiot and wanted to pretend that the WWF/Greenpeace were
a) the same thing
b) the IPCC
Oh, it's you!
> I still don't understand what you meant by oceans wrt feedbacks
He means "Stop talking bollocks, I never called oceans feedbacks".
> such as the atmosphere, it is exceedingly rare to find globally positive feedbacks.
[Wrong](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance). It is, in fact, extremely common.
But you already knew that, didn't you.
Jonas N:
I don't care what you don't understand. You obviously have no great interest in understanding if you haven't already read something along the lines of Rahmstorf and Zedillo.
BTW, anyone who thinks Sulphate aerosols are a climate feedback has no idea what feedback means.
Some examples of positive feedbacks in nature: fire spreading (heat or sparks from fire sets fire to nearby combustible material), build-up of black hole, blood-clotting system, various immunological responses, ice/snow albedo feedback, reproduction in animal populations.
Hi GSW! Shocking links, I tell you. Hey, do me a favor, because I am really confused right now. Could you explain the difference between "associated with" and "paid to produce a certain outcome"?
Logic according to Donna Laframboise,
>WWF relies on scientists to produce reliable information.
>THEREFORE: The scientists WWF rely on are unreliable.
>WHY: Because Donna Laframboise says so, that's why.
Do we see a pattern here?
luminous, why are you disputing the word of a self-employed photographer who is totally, totally NOT flogging her upcoming book?
(To the Swedish peanut gallery: THAT is ad hominem. Just to show you what it actually looks like. For more examples, see Donna's entire site.)
GSW, thank you again for the link -- that woman is pure comedy gold. Under "Smart People", she has listed Michael Chrichton. Absolutely priceless.
>But I must repeat, in physics and nature of passive systems (no internal sources of energy, or active mechanisms decreasing enthropy[sic]) such as the atmosphere, it is exceedingly rare to find globally [net, ed.] positive feedbacks.
Yes, and lowering the rate at which energy is dissipated from the system (radiative properties of increasing greenhouse gases) is a good definition of an active mechanism producing decreasing entropy.
Tell us something we don't know, idiot.
luminous, you seem to forget that CO2 doesn't trap heat. QED.
Right, Jonas?
Andy S
If you had read what I actually said, you would have found that those things are already covered.
1. Fires and explosives are indeed local instabilites, within a limited range of state, a positive feedbacks if you will. And after they've been exhausted you'll need more energy to recreate the original state, than you made available through that fire/explosion. Ie a negative feedback in the greater scheme of things.
2. Black holes, the ultimate collapse of matter: I'll grant you that! Not applicable here though ...
3. Blood clotting,
4. Immunological responses,
5. Animal populations etc (you can come up with many more good examples), may all display positive feedbacks, especially locally and/or for a limited time, but are also bounded by external limiting factors, which then should be seen as negative feedbacks on the slightly larger scale. But life is definitely not a passive system.
6. Population dynamics and evolution of such. Now there is a real example of irreversible positive feedbacks at work. Competing species may do so for a long while, under restrictions of local negative feedbacks, but may ultimately lead to one completely taking over in that struggle. But again, those are **not** passive systems.
7. Ice cover, snow and albedo, are relevant, but again within a limited range, and again in response to some other cyclical changes (with zero mean value). If Milankovic cykles indeed cause the transition between glaciation and interglacials, and albedo helps to reinforce that, there is a good example of relevant positive feedback with a limited range. If glacatic arms and cosmic rays contribute, the same may apply, but at larger cycle times.
8. For the remote possibility that **anyone** is unaware of this: Resonance in a passive system is a perfect example of a **negative** feedback. Harmonic (and other) oscillations have zero mean value, and are the result of a system striving to return to it's orignal state after a perturbation. Observable oscillations over some time require very low dissipation or losses (which may be achieved in laboratory situations, but are very rare in the more complex nature, with all its interactions with other systems). Furhter, an appearant 'amplicifation' can be accopmplished by exciting such a system near one of its resonance frequencies. An amplfication of the effect of the original cause, but again. That response is a result of negative feedbacks, and the mean value is still zero (although the amplitude is amplified)
Point in case: What we are talking about is the CO2 level in the atmoshpere. It might have some effects on shifting the equilibrium position of the entire system, I hold that as definitely possible. If so, I'd expect it to work as a negative feedback, especially on the cooling side, ie hindering that it gets quite as cold in the dark cold and dry winter nights closer to the poles. (also in deserts, but less relevant there), and this might shift the equilibrium point uppwards. Large general (and unlimited in state) positive feedbacks on the upper side I think are far more questionable, especially when considering the entire global atmosphere and its mean temperature.
But now we are far outside the original topic. It was Cris O'Neill mentioning feedbacks again and again (that he didn't need them) together with observed temperatures and oceans and aerosols. And whatever point he might have had, it still escapes me. Because everything he indeed did say is very close to what I too would say. Essentially boiling down to, that what we see is nowhere near those large (and dearly needed) positive feedbacks.
And I think that is why he is trying to shift foot in this topic too.
@stu
Reading thru your posts, I'm trying to figure out where you are coming from on this (they're a bit too Father Jessop for me)
Are you saying that WWF employees DO NOT also act as lead authors on the IPCC reports? or do you accept that they do?
Jonas,
Only you and a few of your similarly deluded acolytes do not take me seriously. Note that most posters on this thread take me very seriously indeed.
And I don't call myself a 'scientist'. I AM a scientist in every meaning of the word. Unlike you, I took the time and effort to study for a BSc, and then a PhD, and then did three post docs before coming to work at the research institute where I am no employed. To be honest, I do not give a rat's ass what you think of me - its what my peers think of me that counts, and in my fields of research I have a good reputation.
Most importantly, when one strays outside their field of training they are risking ridicule and contempt, especially when their views run counter to the prevailing wisdom in that field. Of course its important to defer to experts in the field of climate science. I am sure that you defer to experts in a huge range of fields every day without consciously thinking about it, whether its experts in electrical engineering, automobile manufacturing, medicine, food production etc. We trust people with training in these fields to have produced the conditions that make our lives as comfortable and as safe as they are. Who am I to tell a doctor that I know more than he does about some aspect of medicine in which he has been specifically trained and I have not? But you are like a car without brakes. You routinely smear scientists simply by association. And, moreover, I have challenged you on the ecological basis of global change including AGW, and you quickly backed down. Good for you. You were at least smart enough to know that when you did eventually stray into a field in which I am trained, that you were (excuse the pun) indeed walking on thin ice.
Your very arguments appear to impugn the vast majority of climate scientists and other scientists who think that the evidence supporting AGW is very strong and growing, and further, that we ought to do something about it. Given your predilection for distorting facts, you seem to infer that most scientists who defend this position, including me, are deceivers or liars.
Finally, you accuse me of being hysterical etc. when your posts are increasingly becoming riddled with spelling and grammatical errors. This reveals that it is you who is becoming more and more frustrated, and I can see you now, frothing at the mouth whilst banging your reply. The truth is that you have lost a debate you never were going to win. By sheer number and expertise, your arguments have been vanquished by the scientific community. Making up your own facts - such as suggesting that the Arctic was warmer during the MWP (a point which has no empirical basis whatsoever) - reveals clearly that as your arguments were progressively shattered, you resorted to desperately creating your own truths.
Ultimately, I totally agree with Michael's comment @949.
GSW:
Why would I dispute that? And why does it all of a sudden matter? I thought that nothing like that counted unless at least $100,000,000 was involved? It's pathetic enough that you make up these arbitrary rules, but could you at least try to be consistent? Are you still unaware of that magical "scrolling up" ability?
Again:
Could you explain the difference between "associated with" and "paid to produce a certain outcome"?
Case in point:
*Competing species may do so for a long while, under restrictions of local negative feedbacks, but may ultimately lead to one completely taking over in that struggle*
Ugh.... I will not even begin to dissemble the simplicity of this remark...
Chris O'Neill
Are you still trying with those bitching smart-arse remarks? To achieve what? You pointed me to R&Z some hours ago, before that you've been arguing something (as it seems) slightly different. If you don't know what you did argue, I can accept that. I won't even hold it against you, or call you "so ignorant" or a 'staggering hypocrite', but if you don't know what you meant, if you can't even explain what you wrote, I am left with guessing, and I'd guess that you did the best you could muster. And now, you hope that R&Z can cover for you. And no, I hadn't seen that paper before.
Moreover: I do know what feedbacks are, I even told you. And your feeble attempt to score some semantic points I think better describes your part of the argumnet than what you actually do deliver wrt feedbacks and oceans for instance.
Jonas @ #969 "...before that you've been arguing something (as it seems) slightly different.
How many imploded irony meters are we up to this week?
Jeff, you don't need to dissemble anything. It was meant to be simple. Partly for your benefit ...
So you wouldn't get confused or distracted from what the main message is/was:
Large positive feedbacks throughout the entire range of state space, are extremely rare in passive physical systems occuring in nature, where they interact with their surroundings. Positive feedbacks exist, but are usually limitid in range and time.
Jonas,
The Clausius-Clapyron relation strongly implies that, given the pretty much unlimited availability of liquid water available for evaporation, as atmospheric temperatures rise on average, so too will the average specific humidity of the atmosphere rise, at an exponential rate, while the relative humidity stays constant.
A result strongly supported by the empirical evidence.
>For the remote possibility that anyone is unaware of this: Resonance in a passive system is a perfect example of a negative feedback.
So when the bridge collapses from harmonic amplification exceeding its stress limits, that is a net negative feedback?
Very funny!
@stu
Sorry stu, like I said, it's hard to tell sometimes when you are being serious.
WWF and Greenpeace do seem to be able to 'infiltrate' the IPCC with employees, makes you wonder how much reliance you can put on it as being 'Science' rather than paid for 'advocacy'.
"Could you explain the difference between "associated with" and "paid to produce a certain outcome"?"
Why?
GSW,
Could it be that Greenpeace and WWF hire scientific advisers who are, outside of their association with those groups, qualified experts in their fields?
Naw.
Uh-oh, guys, I think Jonas is getting angry.
...says the guy whose original winning point was to whine about "90%". But it's feedback now, right? Or are we back to polar bears?
Hmm. I'm just a poor ESL, so let me look that up.
in·fil·trate
I'm assuming you're going for
"to move into (an organization, country, territory, or the like) surreptitiously and gradually, especially with hostile intent"
Yes, it seems you're totally correct. Except for the surreptitiously part, and the hostile intent part. So actually, no, you're completely wrong.
Scare quotes do not a conspiracy make.
So let me get this straight: the WWF and Greenpeace have taken over the IPCC, either paying off or brainwashing thousands of climate scientists?
Ah, so you can't. No wonder.
So, to recap:
People that work for the WWF having a part in the IPCC: global conspiracy to pervert science in order to drum up donations (or something).
Oil companies specifically commissioning bunk science with the specific purpose of swaying public opinion in order to maximize profits: "peanuts".
Useful idiots, indeed.
@LB
I think you might be being a little naive here LB. I'd love to see you argue the same in Pat Michael's defence.
;)
Sorry stu 975, It's still difficult to work out when you are being serious and when you are being sarcastic, you could read it either way.
You guys are all into the minutiae of conspiracy theories, Exxon etc.... I consider it more from the 'inappropriate relationship' or 'conflict of interest' point of view.
There is always going to be the suspicion that the report is written from the perspective of the NGO (WWF/GP) that pays his salary.
>There is always going to be the suspicion that the report is written from the perspective of the NGO (WWF/GP) that pays his salary.
But can that suspicion be supported by any kind of empirical fact?
Not by Donna Laframboise, apparently.
GSW, It seems you have memorized the Merchants of Doubt handbook. Your masters must be pleased.
GSW,
[Pat Michaels](http://climatecrocks.com/2010/12/12/ben-santers-beatdown-of-michaels-re…) is in need of some defending, indeed.
By stating the fact that Exxon & the Koch brothers have been sponsoring scientifically laughable denialism? That's a matter of public record. Tapdancing around it and calling it a "conspiracy theory" is psychotic.
An actual conspiracy theory would be, oh, I don't know, that the WWF and GP have bought every scientist that contributed to and reviewed the IPCC reports for instance? Why? For donations? Are you serious?
You deloids are sure suffering from a collective tourettes not only lacking emotional control but also logics and common sense. It boils down to this:
1. After a lot of initial arm waving and loud mouthing from you guys, we all conclude that the IPCC-figure 90-95 % is a political and opinionated number, not a scientific one.
2. IPCC does not conduct research. It makes summaries, even for policy makers.
3. The staff of the supposedly un-biased IPCC is full of biased WWF and Greenpeas personal.
4. See. 1.
And before you little Napoleons start whining: I still don't like biased research summaries of any kind. Why don't you guys admit that you are out of your depth? Thank god that CAGW is losing its scientific colors. Hopefully soon it will be looked upon for what it is: yet another scientific hypothesis kidnapped from the lab and infested with politics and idealism by white privileged middle-aged heterosexual men in the hunt for prestige and status.
Jonas N:
What bitching smart-arse remarks?
to you
Please, please, please spare us the straw-man arguments. You agreed to that earlier but obviously you can't help going back on your word.
to you
It's obviously beyond my powers to explain to you, so you'll just have to do what a diligent student would do and read the literature on the subject. If you want to discuss details in Rahmstorf and Zedillo (because surely it's what the scientists say that matters rather than little old insignificant me) I'll consider doing that but without that basic knowledge of the subject you're just wasting everyone's time.
As I said, You obviously have no great interest in understanding if you haven't already read something ALONG THE LINES OF Rahmstorf and Zedillo.
Sure, I believe every internet ignoramus who comes along and says "I do know".
My statement:
"The empirically derived sensitivity from paleoclimate and volcanic eruptions give a feedback that agrees with the existence of aerosol cooling and ocean heat absorption and also agrees with strong positive feedback from water vapor which is itself emprically observable"
does NOT MEAN that oceans generate a positive feedback. You spend far too much time arguing and waffling and far too little time thinking and studying. Rahmstorf and Zedillo go through all of this in far more detail than I'm prepared to waste time on explaining to arrogant ignoramuses such as yourself.
It is good that you think that oceans do not constitute a positive feedback, Chris O'Neill. Because I really wondered why you kept bringing them up, while pounding on about 'This is without feedbacks!'
Your statement:
>The empirically derived sensitivity from paleoclimate and volcanic eruptions give a feedback that agrees with the existence of aerosol cooling and ocean heat absorption and also agrees with strong positive feedback from water vapor which is itself emprically observable
which I of course had read several times, is quite vague and makes no real tangible sense about a physical world. Of course I know how the line of arguing wrt to feedbacks goes, and given that I can somwhow attempt to reconstruct what you possibly could have meant. I'd reckon it goes something like:
'Our hypotheses say large positive feedbacks, and we also hypothesize about aerosols cooling quite a lot, and that the missing heat may be found deep in the oceans. These two *sets of counteracting* hypotheses *are consistent* with the fact that observations *show less* than what (estimated) direct forcings are supposed to give ..
Now, you wouldn't phrase it like this, but if there ever was a point behind what you've been going on about, I surmise it was something like this. And if so, it is a quite weak argument. I'd expect R&Z to list and put numbers to this to add upp to ~the same. I'll get back to that ..
I you don't even know when you try your cheap snide remarks, I feel sorry for you. And being on Deltoid, your complaining about waffling hypocritical ignorance and arrogance, wasting peoples time is purely laughable. Or don't you read what there is written on your side, sometimes even in 'support' for you?
Or even worse, can't you even see all nonsense these sputterings contain?
Naw, Chris, do better than that. I tell you, appealing to and fishing for cheering from the bottom here, is not strengthening anything you say .. Just leave it (if you can)
Please people, the immensity of Jonas/Olaus/GSW's stupidty and ignorance is matched only by their intellectual dishonesty that makes it immpossible to get them to change their minds regardless of what arguments or evidence is presented, so you are wasting your time; go do something productive with it, like John Mashey does.
luminous b
Changing the (passive) insulation properties might (possibly) shift the equlibrium point of a system. And in that shift temporarily create an energy imbalance. This does not, however, constitute a mechanism for generally decreasing entropy, and it is not an active mechanism. Putting that insulation there might be seen as actively doing so. But we are not talkning about that, but instead of large (possible) positive feedbacks within that passive system.
I don't think you are an idiot, but you sure do make a lot of really idiotic remarks ...
And if you indeed think that a breaking a structure, or a rock rolling down a slope, are good examples of the kind of feedbacks that are needed, just say so ...
:-)
It would make my preceding point excellently once more.
Jonas
Please explain why the temperature usually drops after sunset.
Please list the co-efficients you would use in a Henderson smoothing analysis of overnight minimum tempertures.
> After a lot of initial arm waving and loud mouthing from you guys, we all conclude that the IPCC-figure 90-95 % is a political and opinionated number, not a scientific one.
Yup.
The scientific number is >95%.
> IPCC does not conduct research. It makes summaries, even for policy makers.
Yup.
Doing well.
> The staff of the supposedly un-biased IPCC is full of biased WWF and Greenpeas personal.
Damn. Fell at the third fence.
Nope, the WWF and Greenpeace sources are reliable sources. You went from fact to your inherent bigotry.
Git-boy, where is your proof that Greenpeace sponsored the science in the IPCC?
All you've got is peanuts. Which fits with your simian intelligence. Monkey see, monkey do. You ape your heroes off Fox news, thinking it revolutionary thinking.
You're a stooge.
"...we all conclude ..."
Perhaps your mothers will be kind enough to pretend they give the slightest damn.
KABOOM!
And back to Costco for a new batch of irony meters.
Dear wow, you have been drooling all over the place (in capital letters) that IPCC isn't a research organization. Fine with me. I totally agree. The IPCC mandate is to impartially gather climate science and write summaries for policy makers. But hold on now wow, because this is a fast one, at least for the little thing between your large ears:
With respect to the staff of IPCC, there is almost impossible to distinguish WWF:ians and greanpeas from scientists.
Ergo....?
Don't bother to answer Sancho. I will do it for you. You let me know if I got it right, please? For you these very tight bonds with activism is a guarantee for objectivity, hence the 90-95% figure (for instance) must be a non-biased scientific one and the wordings in the summaries must be un-affected by opinions. :-)
Did I miss anything?
> (in capital letters) that IPCC isn't a research organization.
Ah, another insane imagination. Nope, I've not drooled all over the place in capital letters.
Unless you're talking about putting IPCC in capital letters. Which is correct when using an initialism.
This sort of fantasy is entirely why you are a complete nutcase.
And please note the question as actually asked:
> where is your proof that Greenpeace sponsored the science in the IPCC?
The science IN the IPCC. Not the science the IPCC did.
But you can't really understand anything because you're ideologically opposed to it.
And the 95+% is the scientific answer.
> Did I miss anything?
Yes. The point, the content and the question. But apart from that, you nailed it...
And given you haven't disagreed, you are fine with the science showing a 95+% confidence in the case for AGW.
Y'know Oluas/Olaus if you actually researched for yourself instead of gullibly believing trash blogs and helplessly osmosing their trash language, you could [find out for yourself.](http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_structure.shtml) You may even be able to open your eyes enough to recognise that not all are white and not all are male, although it's unlikely your preferred fantasy interpretation will ever accept that, and they may actually be in drag, heavily tanned or be convincingly made up.
Bear in mind too that intellects far more able, motivated and critical than yours (and who probably drool less) from organisations with much more to lose accept the governing structure of the IPCC. There are of course those from your own end of the spectrum who accuse Rajendra Pachauri of being a 'train driver', but the vast majority of people, even contrarians, are intelligent.
Incidentally, well done on spelling your own name consistently for the past few days now.
At least we've seen some progress.
Yet another drooling exercise by the wowie. What a surprise. :-)
The IPCC is crammed with climate scare activists. The science they shall interpret and make summaries of contains humongous (or humangous?) levels of uncertainties. In wowies little mind that makes IPCC scientific.
:-)
*The IPCC is crammed with climate scare activists*
Evidence please.
*The science they shall interpret and make summaries of contains humongous (or humangous?) levels of uncertainties*
Evidence please.
But of course you have none. Like your equally loony sidekick, you have no intellectual authority whatsoever in any field of science. That leaves you with your twisted political bias to fall back on. And we all know where that is coming from.
Fact is, Olaus, that you are a complete and utter dork. A right wingnut as I said earlier. Please do us all a favor here and crawl back under the rock from which you slithered out.
Yup, more insane fantasizing from Mr Sock.
At least he agrees that there's a 95+% confidence behind AGW scientifically, so we're getting progress.
[According to even a hostile source](http://conservapedia.com/Greenpeace) Greenpeace revenues are ~14million a year.
Exxon alone makes [380billion a year](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil)
Whilst the Heartland Institute by their own admission [must be getting revenues of 2 million](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#Funding)
[GWPFI get 0.5 million](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation#Funding)
[AFP get 6million](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_for_Prosperity)
[IER another 0.1million](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Energy_Research)
[And many many more](http://www.fightcleanenergysmears.org/behind_the_smears.cfm)
Whilst the energy industry spends [65 million on senators](http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=36)
[According to even a hostile source](http://conservapedia.com/Greenpeace) Greenpeace revenues are ~14million a year.
Whilst the energy industry spends [65 million directly on senators](http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=36)
Jonas N:
You just don't get it, do you? My words "empirically derived" and "empirically observable" imply the existence of citations supporting those claims. I did also mean to imply that aerosol cooling and ocean heat absorption are empirically observable which, of course means there are supporting citations. The only "argument" I'm restating is that all these empirical observations agree with each other. So far all you have done is reject every last one of these empirical observations and derivations (you are nothing if not arrogant) so you haven't actually attacked my argument that they are consistent with each other.
My purpose in citing Rahmstorf and Zedillo (apart from the vain hope of providing you with some education) is to provide the citations implied in my statements about empirical observations and derivations.
I feel sorry for you in the same way I feel sorry for Andrew Bolt (who is also a climate science denialist). As with Bolt, you cannot understand why the rest of the world so violently disagrees with you. It is a very sad place to be.
Sensible people.
Close this tab, and don't look over your shoulder. Let the trolls petrify in the good old Scandinavian tradition.
It's the first thing that I will be doing after I click "post".
1000! Now can we all agree that Joanas is a stupid ponce and that GSW and Oh, you ass are both sockpuppets and be done with this?
What an odd, stupid and specific spelling error. Now where did I see someone using ":" when they meant "'" before?
Its like plague...
Yes, jeffies, wowies, stuies, bernies, etc now understand that IPCC is full of activists dressed up as scientists and that figures and statements in the IPCC-reports often are opinions that mirrors the beliefs of the same activists. The real science says something else, which Jonas successfully has highlighted. Scary stuff I have seen on Deltoid. Fanatics, megalomaniacs, hysterics pouring their hate on anything that doesn't match religious beliefs.
Jonas vs the big emotional conspiracy watermelon (with all its brown and black seeds) 1000-0.
Stu, I understand that you will have a sleepless sherlock-weekend over a spelling error from individuals you don't find interesting. :-)
Ah yes, re-assert original, laughable points that have been repeatedly addressed and run away. I presume the object is to try and leave that dingleberry as the last post and slink off, claiming victory and hoping nobody will actually read anything that came before.
Hey Olaus, would you care to address why you, Jonas and only you and Jonas have a problem with apostrophes and colons? I just looked at the standard Swedish keyboard layout, and that does not seem to be a plausible cause.
My, my stuie, you really are obsessed. :-)
Ok, I will give you a clue to ponder about. The spelling error might have something to do with our common nationality.
A cliffhanger...
The person who wrote the above accuses others of name-calling. Incredible what lack of self-awareness there is.
Bernard and Rattus,
You are right.
How can one respond to such howlers as: "[Resonance](http://science.jrank.org/pages/5817/Resonance.html) in a passive system is a perfect example of a negative feedback."
We're now plumbing the bottomless depths of stupid.
Goodbye, you poor, poor dears.
So plural is denoted with a colon in Swedish? How odd. Also odd that only you and Jonas carry it over. The rest of the roving band of sycophants did not seem to have this problem.
And Olaus, you are fascinating. I find pathological denial an absolutely riveting mental illness.
Can't resist a parting gift to;
>Our dear friends who live under bridges,
>With bulging occipital ridges;
>>Your dissonant vibes
>>And juvenile jibes
>Sting less than the bites of small midges.
Keep it up stuie. :-)
Luminious B, from the start "you" set the tone. The hate-mode is a constant on this blog. The levels of obsession and intolerance are scary and close to pathological.
...and back to tone trolling. I think someone is going to bring up polar bears again soon, and then we'll go back to "Greenpeas".
Olaus and Jonas: if you're going to Gish gallop in a circle, at least try to increase the radius so that we'd actually have to move to swat at each part.
*The real science says something else, which Jonas successfully has highlighted*
The 'real science' that eludes members of every National Academy of Science on Earth and >95% of climate scientists, but which is discovered by a semi-literate Scandinavian.
Olaus, you really have lost it. You need professional help.
Yes Jeff, I know that the real science has been kidnapped and interpred by guys like you. Your affected beliefs and bad-mouthings count for nothing.
@Olaus, Jonas,
It:s been a good thread this Jonas - covered a lot of interrelated points.
I think Olaus' #980 post was a good summary of the problems with the IPCC process and what the so-called 'Science' says.
In particular, (#980)
"After a lot of initial arm waving and loud mouthing from you guys, we all conclude that the IPCC-figure 90-95 % is a political and opinionated number, not a scientific one."
and
"The staff of the supposedly un-biased IPCC is full of biased WWF and Greenpeas personal."
Surely all most be aware and now recognize this? It's been an education for some I expect.
Over a thousand comments as well, my word!
Indeed GSW, the deltoid:s should be grateful. The belief:s of have been CAGW deflated. It:s good when sanity win:s over religious doctrin:s. ;-)
Olaus Petri:
Yep, sure is.
@Olaus 1016
;)
Olaus and GSW
I'm a little behind answering some posts, but its true, the alarmist and scare of CAGW is exaggerated and inflated by many, and propped up with sheer unrelated nonsense too, such as polar bears, Himalayan freshwater, low lying islands and countries being threatened på CO2 etc.
A good way to spot an emotionally motivade activist is to see how angry they get when it turns out that the threat was much lower, or even non existent. How upset they become when (one of their cherished) doomsday is cancelled or only postponed ..
How they emotianlly derail over a threat being lowered or disapearing, when the world turns out to be in better shape than they envisioned (hoped?). Albeit, I would'nt call that 'sanity winning' ...
Self-reinforcing conversations of encouragement amongst morons, their socks and admirers such as Jonas, Oluas/Olaus and GSW above are almost fascinating displays of derangement. And the good thing about the internet is you avoid the drool and flecks of spit.
@chek
Thanks chek, your #1020 post is a good summary of the lack of arguments from your side, just repeated abuse. No wonder belief in CAGW is waning, even you guys don't seem to have the strength,or knowledge, to put up much of case. Well done keep it up!
Unfortunately for your 'argument' GSW this thread (and the previous) is ample evidence that your goon cohorts have no case, and neither the comprehension nor education with which to make one.
You just continue wallowing in the stupid both here and at Montford's. Reality really doesn't care about your interpretations of it.
Chek, that was uncalled for. I think we agree on most topics. The only thing left is the misuse of colon:s, I reckon. :-)
It took us some while, but when you deltoids finally understood how biased many of the IPCC-workers were, your vision brightened considerably. Good for all of us. Any juror would get disqualified from sitting in on a case if s/he had a tenth of the personal involvement carried by many IPCC-workers. And if found out during court, a mistrial would be the result.
Chek, Chris,
Allow the trio of stupidity to wallow in their own perception of intellectual authority. Of course, they have none, and have been reduced to self gratification. As I have said before, science has left people like these far, far behind. They are reduced to contaminating web sites such as this with their venomous ignorance, because it feeds into some deluded belief that their views are taken seriously in scientific circles. The truth is that Jonas and his acolytes are invisible. No one has, or ever will hear of them. They don't do science and are rightfully terrified of submitting their ideas within a scientific arena where they would be ridiculed and ignored.
Correct Jeff, this site isn:t about science. Its a place for conspiracies, strong beliefs, pointing fingers, ad homs, worshiping, fantasies, and so on. Put together we have a cyber-sect of Hubbardian dimensions.
I wish you well though.
You're right Jeff, horses to water etc..
You only have to see the latest from Oluas/Olaus where he doesn't know what the IPCC is, what its function is or how it works because all his information is third rate and third hand. But he 'knows' - because he's been told - that it's up to no good.
Then he accuses this as being a site for 'conspiracies', and then doesn't understand that scorn is the only appropriate response to such infantile dribblings.
The derangement isn't even consistent.
Chek, it must be uncomfortable. It can't be fun finding out that one's religion is becoming more and more marginalized and ridiculed.
The Climate Scare Age has seen its best days â in hard science. In sociology and psychology it will soon be a bread winner again. You guys might find some comfort in that you still will be in the centre of attention. ;-)
Chek, it must be uncomfortable. It can't be fun finding out that one's religion is becoming more and more marginalized and ridiculed.
The Climate Scare Age has seen its best days â in hard science. In sociology and psychology it will soon be a bread winner again. You guys might find some comfort in that you still will be in the centre of attention. ;-)
Yeah, that's about enough of this. Time to leave the denialists to flail by themselves. The entire cycle for them is now
1. Bring up vapid argument
2. Get refuted
3. Whine about tone
4. Wait a day
5. Proclaim victory
6. ???
7. Profit!!!
@Olaus,
Agree with you Olaus. I think the CAGW crowd are in 'denial' though ;)
Jonas made his points, they didn't like them, so paper over as best they can and look the other way. Works for them I suppose.
I wonder how Jeff is getting on finding out about science. He never did come back on that, pity.
;)
I hope this fierce debate is over shortly as I find it quite ridiculuos with all the invective statements flying around. I have debated Jonas N for many years on The Climate Scam blog and I find many of his postings here showing the same traits (blindness to his own weaknesses for example, or his trust in his intellectual supremacy) but, for heaven's sake, he believes what he does and sticks to his convictions - right or wrong. And we all have our convictions don't we? Let's discuss the facts without emotional exaggerations and ad hominem!
Gunbo, look up what ad hominem means. Hint: it is not a synonym for insult.
GSW, methinks Jeff is studying science right now. In his short moment of clarity he proclaimed that he, for some time, would bury himself in the literature in a hunt for answers. In other words will it soon be time for Jeff to wake up from the dead and tell us about his visit to the other side. Hopefully he didn't stay away from the light, or we will have old zombie-Jeff back roaming the threads.
* In other words will it soon be time for Jeff to wake up from the dead and tell us about his visit to the other side. Hopefully he didn't stay away from the light, or we will have old zombie-Jeff back roaming the threads*
You guys are a real hoot. Jonas has admitted that he either does not read the empirical literature or else has forgotten what he has read. GSW sticks around here because he thinks he's cool in promoting his right wing idealogical bias. And Olaus depends on both of these luminaries for his science education; in other words, he doesn't read peer-reviewed papers either. And here they are, expecting me to do their homework for them. How crass.
Olaus, I don't think you can name more than 1 or 2 peer-reviewed journals without googling them first. In case you hadn't noticed, I actually write and publish articles in peer-reviewed journals. A lot of them. Understand? It means I actually do science, and just don't pollute weblogs with my own anti-environmental musings. You guys try and act like teachers giving out assignments to students when you've never done any assignments yourselves. At present, I am writing 3 manuscripts, overseeing 2 new grant proposals, supervising 3 PhD and 2 Master's students and am involved in 2 experiments. Perchance, what scientific pursuits are you three wise men involved in at present? Umm... let me see... nothing?
Olaus, Jonas and GSW, when you three can provide evidence that you have poured through the empirical and theoretical literature on AGW, and can show that you possess some basic understanding of the science underlying it, then I will divest some of my time in that endeavor. But until now you've shown absolutely nothing here which indicates that your understanding of climate science goes beyond high school level, and on its effects you are at a level well below that. Instead, its clear that you views are contaminated with a right wing political agenda and a hatred of science (Jonas more-or-less let the cat out of the bag when he accused his opponents of being 'liberals'.
As a parting shot, its amusing when non-scientific blowhards think that they can lecture working scientists on fields in which they have no expertise whatsoever. As many of us here have pointed out, this reeks of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Until you can provide evidence that you have any basic understanding of science, then forgot me doing any of your work for you. As I said, unlike you I actually do scientific research.
"How can one respond to such howlers as: "Resonance in a passive system is a perfect example of a negative feedback.""
I am pretty sure they stole that from Star Trek.
Don't get me wrong Jeff, I'm sure there is a market for the kind of stuff you peddle,
~imminent food web collapse because indigenious Scarabaeinae aren't getting enough fibre in their diet ~ endless amounts of that sort of thing.
But it:s obvious that you are predisposed to reaching conclusions like these as a matter of form. Barely plausible hypothesis are elevated to the level of near certainty as a result of advocacy/agenda goals, you're sort of a mini self IPCC.
It maybe many things Jeff, but you can't call it science.You:re a peddler of Doom, nothing more.
I've lost track of the number of parthian shorts you've left. You strain credulity in most everything.
@smithy
No, the terms and concepts would not seem quite so 'alien' if you had attended an undergraduate engineering course.
If the conversation is closing - Jonas N, get yourself published man! Olaus, I think a sports team would benefit more from your passion than science can. Hi GSW!
Jeff, I'm not sure what your field of research is but from your poor understanding of science I guess it must be crystal balling based on an unverified hypothesis of some kind. ;-)
I have sympathies with your position though, having invested all your prestige in an once fashionable climate threat thong. Now its itching between the cheks (sic) and its not cool at all prancing around on the beach in such a stupid suit. But its all you got, and hardly surprising you get were agitated when better looking guys show up, leaving you seeking comfort in the narcissistic personality of yours.
Mirror, mirror on the wall...;-)
Jeff,
Please just ignore GSW's and Olaus's preschooler taunts. This has been going on for too long.
(But I have to admit I laughed at GSW's "Parthian shorts". Yes, the ancient Parthians were much feared for their short legged trousered)
Jeez, just popped in to this troll fest. This thread is dire. So, adding to the nonsense...
Petri is a shallow dish. He's easily seen through. Not a lot of people know he was acquainted with a Koch.
My initial bet would be it's Tit Curtain in Lutheran sock finery, judging from his dislike and baiting of all things Jeff.
*imminent food web collapse because indigenious Scarabaeinae aren't getting enough fibre in their diet ~ endless amounts of that sort of thing.*
I don't even know why I should dignify this kind of rank and wilful ignorance with an answer. Its exactly the kind of puerile garbage that I have had to deal with over the past 10-15 years from idiots on the far right end of the political spectrum who think that they are clever and witty. GSW is neither; just another semi-literate idiot. *Sigh*.
One thing that I have done here is to say exactly what my qualifications are, and so have John Mashey, Eli Rabett and other posters who use anons; by contrast Jonas and Olaus have remained completely silent when I have asked what their day jobs are. The silence speaks volumes in terms of how they think this would be received on Deltoid. As for GSW, he once said that he has a background in physics, but as Bernard pointed out this might mean that he's a security guard at the gate of a physics department of a university.
Here we have a debate where three people - Jonas, Olaus and GSW - are claiming that the vast majority of scientists working in the field of climate science are either liars, deceivers or else are plain wrong and don't understand their own research, and by association the three stooges are levying the same accusation at Academies of Science the world over. In such an instance, it is important to know exactly what the professional qualifications Jonas, Olaus and GSW possess that elevates their arguments above those held by most of the trained experts in the field. This is because professional expertise matters, as it does in any field where the conventional wisdom is challanged. But these three dorks have repeatedly fended off this area of enquiry. We can only ask ourselves, why is this? Hell, they don't have to tell us their names, as I and a few others have done, but just what their professional backgrounds are. Are you clowns up to this? And if not, why not?
[GSW](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-538647…),
In passive systems design, i.e., those having self-regulating controls, the positive feedbacks from harmonic resonance are counteracted by damping mechanisms, i.e., negative feedbacks, tuned to the resonant frequency of the design components. A prime example of this is shock absorbers on suspension systems.
Evolved physiological systems often display very similar characteristics, e.g., the muscles of the human neck serve to dampen the resonant frequency of the human head so that the head does not bounce around like a bobble-head doll, although such is not readily apparent in your individual case.
In the Earth's atmosphere and hydrosphere, unfortunately, such tightly coupling between positive and negative feedbacks rarely exists and tend to have more stochastic relationships, hence such anomalous phenomena as tornadoes, hurricanes and various soliton waves, where uncontrolled positive feedbacks of harmonic resonances become catastrophically destructive.
Jonas and, by extension, your humble self are not just wrong, you're [wronger than wrong](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=wronger-than-wrong)
>such tightly coupling between positive and negative feedbacks rarely exists...
Should read:
>such tightly coupled positive and negative feedbacks rarely exist...
@Andy S
lol! Yes apologies, a typo, parthian sho(r)ts. On reflection though, it is a slightly better mental image then Olaus' uncomfortable "climate threat thong" for Jeff - I'll stick with parthian shorts.
;)
@Jeff
I'm happy for you to keep guessing who I am - my background is Physics though.
;)
Physicists are quite an arrogant bunch, the belief in the "ignorance of experts" is ingrained. All that is important is what can be shown, demonstrated and proved. What somebody 'thinks' is of little value.
I don't know if you have a physics department near you, if you do, pop along sometime and get them to explain "the ignorance of experts" to you - perhaps you could also expound your views on 'experts', perhaps they wouldn't even laugh.
Also, We've been thru this before. Please take off your "I am a scientist" badge, it's wearing pretty thin. You may think it adds "respectability" to you, but it's a humiliating insult to the rest of the community!
You're a Zoologist for goodness sake! In the Science 'pecking order', that:s virtually indistinguishable from a farmer!
Yes, the "puerile garbage" of imploding food web doom - well, I will accept that you are more of an 'expert' at this than I.
;)
@LB
Sorry LB, I was referring to the language employed - somebody said it was like something out of Star-Trek, it's not, it's undergraduate level stuff.
GSW,
OK, just so you know that the language as employed by Jonas was sophomoric guff, Ã la Star Trek.
@LB,
LB,LB,LB... It's not guff,it's a perfectly valid way to view a 'system'. I missed the context of the original conversation, but there is nothing wrong with using this type of language in discussion.
Now, if Jonas had brought up "flux capacitors" or Dilithium crystals ripping holes in the Space Time continuum, then you'd have a point.
But he didn't.
;)
>I missed the context of the original conversation...
Obviously.
You could scroll back. You would then discover that Jonas made some statements that were pure guff. Or, you could continue to wallow in ignorance, such as is your style.
@LB
Fair enough, if you say so LB.
;)
L.B., surely you know by now, blogscientists (who practice tripescience) don't bother with qualifications or experience.
No, they have 'backgrounds'.
Because it's hard to be more vague and meaningless and still dupe the occasional moron such as Andrew Montford for example, who is only too chuffed to have alumni such as GSW.
GSW,
Oh no, not the ' physics is sound science' crap. I suppose you have lots of studies in the peer-reviewed literature? Nope? I thought not. Another pseudo-intelelctutal trying to give the impression that he know something about science. GSW, do us all a favor and bugger off elsewhere to one of the denial sites where they wet their pants every time you write a comment?
I am not a zoologist but a population ecologist... get that straight. And ecology is quite possibly the most complex of the sciences because of the profoundly non-linear relationship between cause-and-effect. In other words, change one small parameter in a system and it can have disproportionate effects across all kinds of scales. But, heck, why tell you, with your science-lite education?
One last point for one of the three idiots (GSW):
You still are evading the question I raised (too uncomfortable for you, I guess). It also shows really how thick you are. Maybe I can penetrate your dense skull if I try often enough.
Milky way to GSW: I never claimed to be an authority on climate science. Oh, but the contrary. What I said, if you can get this into your noggin, is that THE VAST MAJORITY OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS ALONG WITH EVERY NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE ON EARTH agrees that AGW is a serious problem and that we ought to do something about it. In these circumstances, it takes those disputing this conclusion to provide considerable evidence that these esteemed scientists and bodies are incorrect.
In other words, GSW, given the immense scientific support for AGW, claims that it isn't happening or that humans are not primarily responsible require a deep understanding of the science and the peer-reviewed literature. Sadly, you, Jonas and Olaus don't collectively stack up, either in terms of what you know, what you have written, and with respect to your qualifications. If anyone is being arrogant here as to what they know, its your trained monkey (Jonas) who as far as I know has NO scientific expertise in the field of climate science whatsoever. He hasn't got a relevant degree, hasn't written any studies in any published format, and clearly is a complete unknown in scientific circles. Like it or not, dingbat, qualifications matter.
I fully expect you to respond to this with more jibes saying that ecologists are worthless, that I am arrogant etc. etc. etc. etc. But you never answer my question which is: how is it that 95% of climate scientists and every major scientific body on the planet has it completely wrong and a very small coterie of people, including neophytes like Jonas, but very few statured scientists, has it right? The mind boggles.
And to reiterate, I have said time and time and time and time and time again that I am not a climate scientist and so I defer to the experts in the field who agree that humans are forcing climate. That is good enough for me, even if it isn't good enough for goofballs like you and your right wing Swedish buddies.
Jonas N, Olaus Petri, Ingvar Engelbrecht, Pehr Bjornbom and GSW.
It seems that I am forced to post here for one last occasion.
[Your time starts now](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/10/october_2011_open_thread.php#co…).
Jeffie, repeating that you are a great scientist doesn't help your case, GSW's down to earth comment # 1046 in mind. ;-). It's not your credentials in ecology that's on the line. It is very clear that your are not a climate scientist, on the contrary its very obvious, which is one of the major points put forward in this thread. Given the extremely high levels of uncertainty, few scientists actually preach and scare the way you do. Instead they are more moderate, well aware that they are dealing with a hypothesis. In an elegant socratic way Jonas made that clear for anyone outside the sect. Good maieutics by him. Many facts and "truths" are inventions in the minds of CAGWs. Science isn't settled. End of story.
It is the likes of you Jeff that has gored climate science (and the IPCC) into religion (CAGW) "You" have hijacked the CO2-hypothesis from that lab and poisoned it with politics and idealism. Not only are you biased beyond decency, you are also blind to the limits of what science actually can say. Even more scary is that you thrive on conspiracies, seeing profound evil everywhere.
My professional background has nothing to do with your poor defense of CAGW-science. CAGW (science is settled, nota bene) is an invention in your asphyxiated scientific mind. It seems to be an outcome of an authoritarian personality, well described by Adorno in the literature. Therefore, when someone with a sceptic mind still intact, with a background in the natural sciences (like Jonas and GSW), put you to the test, you crack and start cursing and blaming everything but yourself and your lack of arguments.
luminous b
I noted long ago that you are talking about things you don't master, or not understand at all. But just as a friendly reminder:
It is not very wise, to challenge what somebody says, adding phrases like 'plumbing the bottomless depths of stupid' or 'wallow in ignorance', and at the same time provide a link that perfectly well illustrates what I am saying.
As usual, you have not even tried to grasp the topic, and instead bring up things you only vaguely know, hoping that they somehow may prove me wrong
Which seems to be the major motivator here. And,if so, a good candidate for explaining why comment quality and substance is so sparse. (Others have tried with 'gravity' 'geography' 'spelling', you have tried with 'conservation of energy and momentum' and 'calibrating is not curve fitting' ... And it perfectly well describes the level of most here.)
To repeat:
>Resonance in a passive system is a perfect example of a negative feedback.
And make sure to heed the word 'passive', and then also remember that positive feedbacks 'needed' for a CO2 climate scare aren't oscillations around zero mean value.
> but which is discovered by a semi-literate Scandinavian.
I believe you meant "sub-literate".
Olaus,
First things first. You are an idiot. A fool.
Glad I got that off of my chest.
To respond to your innane post. Jonas is not a climate scientist and neither are you. In fact, both of you aren't scientists in any way, shape or form. The point I have repeatedly made - and which you, Jonas and GSW refuse to answer - is to explain how trained climate scientists and esteemed scientific academies have it all wrong and a few uneducated right wing dolts like you have it all right. I am nothing more than a convenient punching bag for you to vent your frustrations out on. You need a scapegoat? Then ignore the immense scientific support for AGW amongst people in that field of research and attack anyone who dares defend them.
I never said that I was a great scientist. But certainly I am miles better than you, Jonas or GSW. I've gone through the efforts of pursuing an academic career in science, which, judging by the inellectual quality of your posts, you clearly haven't. My great crime in your eyes is to have defended colleagues in climate science from idiots like you. Again, by sheer association, you are suggesting that the climate science community is made up of deceivers and liars. You and Jonas are also rank cowards: I don't see you writing to climate scientists and spewing forth your nonsense, nor do I see a paper in the pipeline. Its akin to someone claiming that some surgical technique commonly practiced by experts in medicine is completely flawed, and arguing this to people working in a bank whilst avoiding medical departments at universities and at hospitals. Why don't you and Jonas email climate scientists with your 'great' ideas? Afraid? Of course you are. So you huff and puff on general web sites and proudly bang your chest as if you are full of knowledge and wisdom.
Idiots.
Speaking of which:
Bernard J had stooped to new levels of childishness, and even is proud of it. Utterly amazing ... :-)
And Gunbo boasts that he has 'debated me for years' (which a very generous and flattering description of his activity), that he hopes this 'fierce debate' soon is over (which again is a very generous use of the word 'debate') and that people would stick to the facts (which is the one thing he usually tries to avoid when anything wrt climate is discussed). No, his 'interest' is usually phsyco babble about the motives, agendas (and personalities) of those whose arguments he doesn't understand and cannot counter, not even evaluate.
I wonder why he felt the need to pop up here.
Jeffie, you need "to phone home". Urgently.
The only thing that gets of your chest are heavily affected opinions that mirrors your apparent megalomanic inner self. "I have never said that I'm a great scientist", you say. Hilarious. :-)
Further I have never claimed to be a climate scientist, nor have Jonas for all I know. What I have said is that you (and your minions) are sodomizing climate science turning it into unscientific blabbering worthy of a camp meeting. Honors to doomsday preachings and pointing fingers by CAGW-nutologist like yourself Jeff, climate scare science is more and more looked upon with disgust. Believe me, soon it will be climacteric science.
If your research in ecology is up to par or not is not up for debate, is it? Unless you say that it is confirming and testing the CO2-hypothesis? Well is it? If not, stop drooling about it.
You become a punching bag when you can't put your money where your mouth is. So far you have not been able to demonstrate the "science" that back up your "science is settled"-hollering. And that answers your Q why I'm not mailing real climate scientists. They rarely act and behave like you do. Some do, but they are not in majority. The rest of the climate scare "whiner sänger knäben" are from disciplines like yours, following up on the "if its true" totally ignoring the BIG "if" in the scare, ergo the scientific part.
Sum: sceince isn't settled. And I'm a correct, not right. ;-)
re 1060, I know tit for tat belittlement can fool any of us, but with your human integrity intact Jonas N, why pop up here and elsewhere without summary notations of the evidence for your positions?
Andrew S
Bernard left a link in #1055. Wrt Gunbo, I'm afraid you have to take my word for it (unless you can read and understand swedish). But to be fair to Gunbo, although some occasional strays to ad homs, he is way more civil and measured that what most here can muster .. Just not attuned to what science is, how it works, what it says and can say about climate and how it functions and varies .. (which probably is why he considered this place as friendly turf)
Olaus writes, *What I have said is that you (and your minions) are sodomizing climate science turning it into unscientific blabbering worthy of a camp meeting*
Good, now we are getting somewhere. Please explain what you mean by 'me and my minions'. I am not a climate scientist and therefore have no influence on debates dealing with the field (just like you and your right wing Scandinavian twin). So by saying 'me and my minions' you must be taking a pot shot at the climate science community. Is this correct? And also at scientists who signed up to the National Academies and who argued that human activities are profoundly influencing climate.
Tell me Olaus, how many actual working scientists do you know? I mean personally. Moreover, how many of these are working climate scientists? I ask because the more you write, the deeper into the sh@# you go. And, to reiterate, you write as if the debate on the human influence on climate just began yesterday, and as if few scientists work in the area and have opinions on it. An alternative scenario is that you write as if the only debates over human influence on climate are a few occurring on blogs like Deltoid. Its as if the dozens of conferences held at venues around the world, combined with a huge empirical and theoretical base does not exist. I am sure that scientists working in the field would find your posts absolutely hysterically funny. I find them quite pathetic. My colleagues would too.
But the truth is, as I said before, you are an idiot, who is well out of his depth in any scientific discussion. No wonder you and Jonas and your brethren end up polluting a few web sites. You are both stuck in the bush leagues, pal, and if you want to get even to A ball (three steps away from the big leagues) you are going to have to do a lot better than this. Its not surprising that just about everyone has bailed from this appalling thread. You guys are a joke. Its time I left here, too, as Bernard suggested.
> Further I have never claimed to be a climate scientist, nor have Jonas for all I know.
Which just goes to show you don't know much at all:
> Clippo, once mor you are wrong in your guesses. And I already told you that I know what I'm talking about.
> Posted by: Jonas N | September 15, 2011 4:09 PM
Well Jeff, I know many working scientist. So? They sure never talk in the way you do, pro AGW or not. None of them would be comfortable with your hysterical rantings and ugly fantasies about anyone not sharing your belief system.
Apparently your CAGW-ists are so many that you can't come up with any supporting the stuff you invent they say, which, by the way, is the major theme of this thread. ;-)
And I hate to brake it to you again but my (or Jonas' and GWS') professional credentials has nothing to do with your shortcomings in this thread.
Climate science is a rather new science. Nothing wrong with that. And I still believe the CO2-hypthesis deserves scientific inquiries.
Take care Jeff. Give nurse Ratched my best.
Wow, your reading disabilities really are severe. Climate dyslexia?
Olaus
The sh## is getting deeper for you. You write, *Apparently your CAGW-ists are so many that you can't come up with any supporting the stuff you invent they say, which, by the way, is the major theme of this thread*
As I said, you lunatic, I AM NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST. Please read and re-read that statement until it sinks in. My only intention in countering your silly nonsense was to defend the integrity of most of the climate science community who would strongly disagree with the arguments that you and Jonas spew out here. Why else would the IPCC and Academies of Science the world over consider AGW to be such a threat? You NEVER answer this simple point. All you and Jonas do is parade your ignorance on here and steer well away from admitting the fact that its you who are in the vast minority of scientific opinion. Get that through your thick skull, will you? I don't need to prove anything to you or Jonas or whoever; that has already been done in the peer-reviewed literature, on which the IPCC and the scientific academies of every nation are in agreement!
Furthermore, why are you and Jonas not taking this debate up with climate scientists and these esteemed academic bodies? Why aren't you and your stupid buddy writing rebuttals to the scientific journals, hounding climate researchers with questions, and signing up to attend conferences? Answer me this, dopey? But you never, ever do.
However, you are partially correct in one thing: your professional credentials have nothing to do with me in this thread. I agree with this. BUT THEY BLOODY WELL DO WHEN IT COMES TO COMPARING THEM WITH THE BULK OF THE SCIENTISTS DOING THE CLIMATE RESEARCH WHO AGREE THAT HUMANS ARE DRIVING CLIMATE CHANGE. Do you understand this, Olaus you thicko? And this is when your credentials look, shall I say, comical? I know a number of climate scientists and they think that AGW is very real. You should be taking your stupid ideas to them, where these ideas would be stripped bare and dismantled bit by bit.
And its clear you don't know many scientists at all. Reading the nonsense you spew out, most would agree with me that you are a fully fledged, bonafide idiot. Certainly all of my colleagues do; they only question why I waste my valuable time on clowns like you who clearly cannot read and write properly.
And, for the last time to reiterate the global scientific consensus over AGW:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
This includes:
American Association for the Advancement of Science
*As the world's largest general scientific society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science adopted an official statement on climate change in 2006: The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society....The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now*
Also:
American Physical Society:
*Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes. The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earthâs physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now*.
*Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earthâs climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases*.
Debate over, Olaus. You lose.
Buh-bye.
No worries Jeff, we are on level here. I do not think that you are climate scientist. Where on earth did you get that from? Yet again you amaze me with what you can come up with.
Read after me: "Jeff is not a climate scientist, he is climate scare propagandists distorting what climate science is and actually say".
Get it this time?
OK, you are back to square one. Now show us the science that supports the AAAS' and APS' politically bolstered fluffy phrasings? And guess what, you will come up empty handed. The key here is what's emphasized in the second paragraph of the ASP citation: the uncertainties. The rest is political bull (regarding what the actual science say about "science is settled").
And hey, are a board of physics (not working with climate science) now worthy to be called a board of "climate scientists"?. You are something Jeff, I'll give you that. ;-)
I have already told you, and many times, that if you strive to understand the physical world, nature, reality if you will, and to make scientific quantitative statements about it, even explaining how and why things behave there ..
.. you need to adhere to **real** science, and **the scientific method**. Which strictly prohibits your feelings, political leanings, your fantasies and whishful thinking etc to be involved. Where voting, consensus, many agreeing are no issues whatsoever! And you absolutely never get to make up your own 'facts and truths'! Never, Jeff! and even then, you need to be very meticulous about how you go about it, if you want to call it real science .
You are obviously not only unfamiliar with what that term (the scientific method) means, but even completely unaware of your lack of knowledge understanding, even after things have been pointed out to you many times.
Your ignorance might be forgiven (for that is what it is), but your blustering here has had absolutely no connection at all to anything being discussed.
Early on, you tried proclaiming that I never read any scientific literature (what an utterly moronic claim to make, even more so after the opposite was obvious). And when even simpler details what it said in the literature were discussed (by others) you totally bailed. You had absolutely nothing to contribute to the topic. Only your stupid rants of 'defending your colleagues'
But without knowing what is being discussed, without knowing what they actually say and do in their papers, and with absolute zip understanding of both simple physics, math, statistics, logic and most of all, how *real science** is conducted.
You use a lot of words, like:
*idiot, moron, stupid, lunatic ..*
and none of these words have any tangible meaning here. But are very indicative of how much you understand of both the topic, and your relation to it. And the funny thing is, you do it over and over again!
> .. you need to adhere to real science, and the scientific method.
So why do you fail time and again to do so, Gonads?
> Which strictly prohibits your feelings, political leanings, your fantasies and whishful thinking etc to be involved.
So why does GSW and Olaf keep whining on about how Greenpeace/WWF are so bad that this proves that the IPCC is all completely wrong?
> Where voting, consensus, many agreeing are no issues whatsoever!
Except reality is what most people will see. A "reality" that only one person sees is not consensus and not considered real.
> You use a lot of words, like:
> idiot, moron, stupid, lunatic ..
Yup, this is an accurate description of your ravings.
Just because you don't like them doesn't make them false and doesn't mean they have no tangible meaning.
> Early on, you tried proclaiming that I never read any scientific literature
How can someone *try* to proclaim?
And you've admitted you've not read any of the science in the IPCC. Again, just because YOU don't like it doesn't make it false.
Reality is refined by consensus and the consensus is that you're an idiot, a lunatic, a moron and stupid.
Jeff, the following should have preceded my last post:
Yes, you've boasted countless times about your fine CV, and that all kinds of academics publish reports, in journals, and convene at workshops, conferences etc is also true. And that many generally call this endeavor 'sience' and 'scientific research'. And that's why I was careful to distinguish between a (general) set of procedural practices, and **real** sience which requires something additional, and quite specific, usually referred to as: Adherence to the **scientific method**.
And no, nothing, and I really mean **nothing at all**, of what you have performed here gives any at all indication to that you even know what that is!
Obviously, you are strongly guided by some wacko political beliefs you hold when it comes to 'assessing' the cause of why there are different views on things, what people disagree about, or only what they think the science actually supports.
That, and your compulsive urge to just invent 'facts and truths', how orhter people really are, what their expertise is not, what educations they don't have, what jobs and positions they don't hold, or who won and who lost etc ..
All these (strongly felt, I'm certain) beliefs and needs, show beyond any doubt that you are not capable of conducting real science. And of course not, discussing anything of relevance about such either ...
*Now show us the science that supports the AAAS' and APS' politically bolstered fluffy phrasings*
That's your job, dickweed. And since you don't know the scientific basis upon which they made these statements, you are in no position to challenge them. Its your opinion that these conclusions are 'politically bolstered', and nothing else. Where is your proof? On what basis do you, of all people, make such an allegation? You can't help wearing your right wing heart on your sleeve, can you?
Which supports what I have said all along: that your opinion on climate science is heavily contaminated with your political views. If you are living in Sweden, then I am sure that you love the bunch of xenophobic right wing anti-scientific pro-business zealots that are in power there (much like here in Holland). Certainly most of the scientists I know in Sweden loathe them and rightfully so.
Then Jonas opines, *You use a lot of words, like:
idiot, moron, stupid, lunatic ..and none of these words have any tangible meaning here*
Oh, but they do. Olaus above sunk himself further into the mire when he claimed that every scientific body on Earth is 'politically motivated' in defending AGW but without a shred of evidence to prove it. And then Jonas claims to say that we need to stick with science and the scientific method, as if these esteemed bodies did not!!!!!
You guys couldn't debate a dead mole cricket. Don't you realize how utterly hypocritical you sound?!?!
Get over yourself Jonas. Your pals Oluas/Olaus and GSW may find you very 'sciency' - and more fool them - but as I've pointed out to you before, real professional scientists haven't got the time of day for you. Not the pretend science that you play at - but the real thing that people get paid to do and have expert opinion that other professionals consult.
If you had some kind of 'case' you would make it - clearly, unambiguously and with citations. All you and your buds have been doing here for four weeks here is pissing ant-IPCC nonsense against the wall.
Jonas,
Have you written to the National Academy of Sciences in the United States claiming that they 'ignore the scientific method'? Or have you written to any number of climate scientists claiming that they 'do not properly oberve the scientific method'?
Who the hell do you think you are? Galileo? I have never seen anything so ridiculous in my life than when some schmuck writes into a general science blog arguing that he, and he alone, respects the 'scientific method' when it comes to climate change. Read this you silly moron: I am defending the integrity of thousands of climate scientists whose work, using 'scientific methods', strongly suggests that humans are driving climate warming. You and Olaus write as if these people do not exist, and as if the thousands of scientists who contributed to the IPCC reports as well as members of esteemed scientific bodies that argue in support of AGW including Nobel Prize winners and the like are made up of people who do not respect 'the scientific method'. And where do you parade this ignorance? On a general science blog. Not in the halls of some major learning institution or body, but in the far flung corners of a science blog. This defies logic or rational explanation.
Honestly, you guys are totally nuts. Let me out of here!
So Jeff
Yes, you have repeatedly referred to numerous academies. One of your cheering fellows even provided a link and document. HAve you even read that one?
It was merely a repetition of the IPCC wordings from the SPM. Just copy-paste. And a bunch of signatures. Nothing more ..
Had you even read what they said? And do you have any clue at all how they went about ensuring that
1. The IPCC actually both got it right, and that the science they refer to, actually establishes that? And
2. That their membership in its entirety actually stood behind those proclamations, and had a possibiltiy to review them and decide upon and/or influence those statements.
Well, Jeff, have you? Or are you again just hoping that everybody agrees with a position you hardly can phrase and formulate correctly?
Wrt the APS, there is considerable dissent in the ranks, and exactly for the reasons Olaus and I mention. The members weren't asked at all. Many do not agree at all. It was politics from the beginning, and as usual there, dissent has to be quashed and shouted out.
I wonder if there is any of those academies you refer to, which has properly gauged its membership, and if so given the members a possibilty to declare their position in a non-biased way?
Well, Jeff, do you know any such case? (I don't, and the ones I do know have been the opposite, and with fierce opposition)
But still, agreeing is not science. And signatures, number of members or academies, or political bodies behind isn't either ...
Jeff, thanx for cross posting:
>Have you written to the National Academy of Sciences in the United States claiming that they 'ignore the scientific method'?
Because you made exactly my point, before even I posted it!
The board or regents of a body, an organisation, an academy for instance is not doing science, and is thus not adhering to any *scientific method* when it makes public statements, signs petitions or other documents.
And this is true, even if they have all the members, or a vast majority of them behind them when doing so!
And it is of course equally true, if they do so without consulting or checking if those statements are completely (or obnly genereally) agreed upon among the members! Or if therre is fierce opposition ...
But Jeff, I've told you the same thing dozens of times. You cannot appeal to authority as an argument in a scientific question. Especially if you don't even understand what that question is!
> It was merely a repetition of the IPCC wordings from the SPM. Just copy-paste. And a bunch of signatures. Nothing more ..
So it was a quote of what a science group specifically agreed to that they then signed.
This is how you say "We agree with X".
This is why you get called "a moron".
At least in the real world.
You probably ascribe more to Poptart's method of supporting: ignore what the author said and just keep insisting that it says what you want it to say.
This is why you get called "a lunatic".
Telling lies doesn't help your case Jonas. It only once again illustrates your delusions wrt reality.
Happer and his gang couldn't even scrape up half a percent of support within the APS membership when they were on their little anti-IPCC crusade.
So much for your 'considerable dissent'. And your pathetic accompanying unsupported innuendo is just pitiable. If you had a 'case' you would make it - clearly, unambiguously and with citations.
Jonas,
I am sure that many scientific members of these organizations do not agree with the hypothesis that the current warming has a singnificant human fingerprint. But most do. Last time I saw, in a democracy the majority view prevailed. Besides, you need proof to support your allegations. Do you have any? Of course not. Just a few smears claiming that Greenpeace and the WWF had infiltrated the IPCC process (a conspiracy to end all concpiracies). Where is the list of scholars disagreeing with the views of their scientific academies? All you've got are the already discredited 'Oregon Petition' of Robinson and a few others lists signed by just about any Tom, Dick or Harry or else the 'usual suspects'. You and Olaus argue that the IPCC and Scientific Academies are politically motivated because it suits your narrative. No evidence needed; just make a sweeping allegation that the science behind climate change has been contaminated by political leftists and move on. You've been reading the words of too many think tank people like Myron Ebell or Ronald Bailey.
Your last ditch efforts here are futile. I have asked why you don't write to these bodies demanding to be heard. Given how many words you've spewed forth on this thread, I am certain that you could have also written 3 or 4 papers in the meantime. If you are so passionate that most scientists are liars and deceivers when it comes to climate change, or else are unable to understand their own work, then go out and make your case where it counts. You won't convince most of the sensible people who write into progressive web sites like Deltoid. In that regard the only people you are preaching to are the converted, like Olaus and GSW, those who believe that science has been hijacked by lefty extremists out to create a world government and to subjegate all of our freedoms.
Jeff
> some schmuck .. arguing that he, and he alone, respects the 'scientific method' when it comes to climate change
How many times have I told you not to make up your own facts? For God's sake, can you stop that kindergarten behavior and pretend to be a grown up man for once?
Where I come from, where science is taken seriously, where real scientists do the bestthey can to understand their subject of study .. *all of them* adhere to the scientific method. And even then there are many pitfals. And work and progress both arepainstaikingly slow and surrounded by carefully listed and explained ´caveats and subject to stated preconditions that must also be correct for a result to be valid.
I Would assume that every serious climate scientist tries exactly that. And mostly, **when you actually read the science** (not only bluster nonsense on a blog like you, Jeff) you see that they are quite careful when describing and stating their results.
But you mustn't confuse the words and tentative explanations and conclusions found in the discussion section, or what they hope it to mean, for the carried out science. You must check the latter, and do it carefully.
And you, unfortunately, are in no position to do so.
And Jeff, most (a vast majority) of those revered 'climate scientists' don't even work on the topic, on **what** causes the climate to vary and fuctuate, and what mechanisms control its function. As Olaus said, the 'thousands' of them we keep hearing about either assume that the models got it right, are studying the effects of observed (and tentative future) warming, or they attempt to assess historical changes.
Again, those numbers you keep repeating are not relevant.
> And Jeff, most (a vast majority) of those revered 'climate scientists' don't even work on the topic, on what causes the climate to vary and fuctuate
They do.
That's why there are so many papers referred to.
But I guess you'd have the figures, yes? You wouldn't be using your nonscientific feelings to make that statement, would you?
Jeff
Congratulations. The first sensible comment from you in a long time:
>I am sure that many scientific members of these organizations do not agree with the hypothesis that the current warming has a singnificant human fingerprint
And you are right in your next statment too (or so I'd assume): Most of them do, agree with a greneral statement, or at least to some part agree.
But that has been my point for a long time! Actually several points:
1. First, you need to scrutinize what they actally would be agreeing to. (Mostly they are lofty phrases, intertwined with policy recommendations, ie not scientific)
2. All do not agree, neither with the statments of knowledge, or/nor with the policy positions.
3. Agreeing, or not agreeing is not science, it constitutes statements of opinion. Which is what I and Olaus have been saying for a long time.
Thank you for finally acknowledging the obvious!
But after a promising start, you again lose contact with reality, and go on about 'majority opinion' and 'all scientists are liars' and more nonsens.
Why not just grow up, Jeff, and stay grown up?
Just to break the monotony:
Knutti and Hegerl, The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earthâs temperature to radiation changes (Review article), Nature Geoscience, 2008.
Abstract
The Earthâs climate is changing rapidly as a result of anthropogenic carbon emissions, and damaging impacts are expected to increase with warming. To prevent these and limit long-term global surface warming to, for example, 2 °C, a level of stabilization or of peak atmospheric CO2 concentrations needs to be set. Climate sensitivity, the global equilibrium surface warming after a doubling of
atmospheric CO2 concentration, can help with the translation of atmospheric CO2 levels to warming.
Various observations favour a climate sensitivity value of about 3 °C, with a likely range of about 2â4.5 °C. However, the physics of the response and uncertainties in forcing lead to fundamental difficulties in ruling out higher values. The quest to determine climate sensitivity has now been going on for decades, with disturbingly little progress in narrowing the large uncertainty range. However, in the process, fascinating new insights into the climate system and into policy aspects regarding mitigation have been gained. The well-constrained lower limit of climate sensitivity and the transient rate of warming already provide useful information for policy makers. But the upper limit of climate sensitivity will be more difficult to quantify.
Jeff, stop inventing your own 'facts':
> you are so passionate that most scientists are liars and deceivers when it comes to climate change
I have never even been close to making that claim. I have said that the IPCC is a political body, the coordinating, lead, and other authors are politically chosen, the drafts and final summaries are checked and approved of by bureaucrats etc ... and that the assessments and summaries should be read as such.
For instance, I have claimed and nobody has really shown anything to the contrary, that the 90% certainty from the AR4 is a 'reasoned' number, not a scientific result.
And I don't know how many I can convince. You are probaly right, that there is a whole lot I will never reach. I'd assume that those who sincerely believe that fossile fuel propaganda and seeded doubt is the reason for the climate scare losing its traction ... those I'll never reach.
But a few here have had at least some sensible comments and remarks. And were also capable of putting them forward with the childish abuse and abrasive language. And I think that some of them at least have seen things from a slightly new perspective.
I don't know if you've been fed the opposite view, but the CAGW -version is not gainging support, it is losing it quite quickly (this is not an argument, just an observation) and in the world of real science, climate science has never had such a high standing ... nowadays it is openly compared to gender studies and other fields riddled with political hacks and activists.
But, that is not an argument either. I am certain that there is plenty of good science carried out too wrt climate and change ... But this will never make the headlines you seem to draw upon. And unfortunately, I don't think that the IPCC will convert to become a more serious body either, after the track they've taken ..
> I have said that the IPCC is a political body
Which, since the IPCC says it is not a political body but a scientific one, is you claiming they are liars.
> For instance, I have claimed and nobody has really shown anything to the contrary, that the 90% certainty from the AR4 is a 'reasoned' number, not a scientific result
It's "Greater than 95%" that is the scientific result.
And you've never claimed it wasn't.
But you've never acknowledged that the science is MORE certain than the political sphere.
> Agreeing, or not agreeing is not science, it constitutes statements of opinion. Which is what I and Olaus have been saying for a long time.
Nobody agreed that Cold Fusion worked. Therefore it was proven wrong.
Everybody agrees that the moon orbits the earth because it's been scientifically proven.
You "neglect" that agreement can easily mean that you did the science and got the same result.
> All do not agree, neither with the statments of knowledge, or/nor with the policy positions.
That isn't science, though, is it.
What you need to do is show that those who disagree reached that decision scientifically or polemically.
Jonas,
>Resonance in a passive system is a perfect example of a negative feedback.
What is widely considered to be the very first modern scientific observation was made by a young and bored Galileo Gallilei as he was watching a swaying cathedral chandelier and timing its oscillations with his pulse.
Imagine his astonishment when he discovered that despite the gradually diminishing amplitude, which we now know is caused by the entropic negative feedbacks induced by air and bearing drag, had __absolutely no effect__ on the resonant frequency of the chandelier, which remained constant.
You keep saying you know what you're talking about, but every other statement you make proves that you don't.
That, and the fact when you are shown to be in error, you completed and redundantly fail to understand the scientific reasoning that explains exactly why you are in error, is why you are an idiot.
@LB
Sorry LB, I don't really know what point you are making
"had absolutely no effect on the resonant frequency of the chandelier, which remained constant."
You state later that it shows Jonas is wrong. How?
luminous b
You are still rambling nonsense. The existence of resonance, of an eigenfrequency, is intimately connected to the **negative feedback** of the system, of an opposing force that wants to return it towards its original (static equlibilrium) state when perturbed. This may be accomplished by a spring reacting with a force opposite to its deflection, or gravity pulling a pendulum back towards lowest potential energy. This is true without any damping and/or friction, and if such were present, they'd too constitute negative feedbacks, however not on position, but on motion (speed/direction)
The eigenfrequency(ies) of such a system depend on its properties, spring stiffness and mass, or gravity and pendulum length. And higher negative feedbacks (spring stiffness/gravity) will cause faster return towards the unperturbed position, ie higher eigenfrequencies.
You have absolutely no valid point at all here.
Possibly, you were envisioning the response of such a system when (actively) excited (perturbed) near its eigenfrequency, where you'd get an amplification of the **amplitude** for that perturbation compared to the static response.
And eigenfrequencies, and resonance, are still perfect examples of negative feedbacks, as I said.
No wonder, you've gotten so much else so wrong too, luminous. This is really highschool level physics. At least were, when I went to school ...
@Jonas
How are you doing Jonas? You haven't been for couple of days, but good to have you back ;)
I stan by GSW. Good call as usual Jonas, and without using capital letters, unsubstantiated conspiracies, profanities and jeffian nonsense.
Jonas, that isn't a feedback, or if you should nonsensically and nonphysically insist on defining it as such is a zero or neutral feedback, i.e., no feedback at all.
Feedbacks are a return on the output of a system to the input. Positive feedbacks, increasing the input energy, negative feedbacks decreasing the input energy. Return of a spring or a pendulum does neither of these, since the input energy from the initial perturbation remains constant throughout the oscillation after accounting for entropy, merely transitioning between potential and kinetic energy.
We can add feedbacks to the list of which physical entities Jonas hasn't the faintest understanding.
luminous b
Negative feedback is the countaracting to a change. A spring is essentially the first thing that springs(!) to mind ...
Feedback is not constrained to energy(*), it is in reference to 'signal' of almost any kind. As you say: "Feedbacks are a return on the output of a system to the input"
You force the pendulum, the playground swing, the spring etc to a position outside its natural equilibrium, and it responds with an opposing force. A damper has the same function, but responds to rate of change rather than absolute change. Friction responds to direction of change ..
Furthermore you are wrong about "Positive feedbacks, increasing the input energy, negative feedbacks decreasing the input energy"!
(*) As you noted just below, conservation of energy in a system means that the total energy does not change. Exciting a system at/near its resonance frequency requires no energy at all. Only during the transient start-up is there any energy consumed from the source, and transferred to the resonator. Thereafter the only energy fed into the system is equal to the one consumed by damping/fricton. Ie conservation of energy (which is selfevident, and completely unrelated to if feedbacks within the system are positive or negative)
As I said: highschool physics ...
luminous b
>Positive feedbacks, increasing the input energy, negative feedbacks decreasing the input energy.
This, if taken litereately, sounds like you abandoned conservation of energy (and maybe momentum too?)
Good for you I don't take you literately. Or seriously!
>Negative feedback is the countaracting[sic] to a change.
No, it's not. You are making things up.
>Feedback is not constrained to energy(*), it is in reference to 'signal' of almost any kind. As you say: "Feedbacks are a return on the output of a system to the input"
True, but in the specific systems we are discussing, it __is__ energy. You can consider this is positive informational feedback to your comment, but will you respond rationally, i.e., with more positive feedback? I doubt it.
>Furthermore you are wrong about "Positive feedbacks, increasing the input energy, negative feedbacks decreasing the input energy"!
That's how physical feedbacks are generally defined in textbooks and the technical literature. Take it up with them.
>As you noted just below, conservation of energy in a system means that the total energy does not change.
No, I didn't, and no, it doesn't. You are making things up. The definition of conservation of energy is that energy is neither created nor destroyed. Systems are always losing energy (entropy) or gaining energy from inputs external to the defined system.
>Exciting a system at/near its resonance frequency requires no energy at all.
Hahahahahahahahaha!
You're an idiot.
*I stan [sic] by GSW. Good call as usual Jonas, and without using capital letters, unsubstantiated conspiracies, profanities and jeffian nonsense*
That's because you have no case to answer, idiot.
Jonas writes: *Agreeing, or not agreeing is not science, it constitutes statements of opinion. Which is what I and Olaus have been saying for a long time*
Then you and Olaus ought to get off your asses and do the science. Olaus just supinely supports anything you say, so he's worse than useless and ought to bugger off. But if you are so dedicated to 'good scientific practice', why the hell did you end up on a blog? Is this the extent of your confidence? I challenge you to write an an article and to send it to a peer-reviewed journal where, if published, it will reach a broader audience. Moreover, while you are at it, submit a title and an abstract to a major international conference on climate change, where you can give a seminar and show those attending how much you know (or don't). Heck, that's what scientists do. I have been to three conferences this year, one in South Africa, one in France and one here in the Netherlands. I presented a Plenay lecture on multitrophic interactions at one, a lecture at another on host usurpation by parasitic wasps, and a keynote lecture on the effects of invasive plants on community and ecosystem processes at the third. But you are going to make zilch impact by writing into blogs.
But will you follow my advice? Of course you won't. And aside from a few equally anonymous members of your fan club (Olaus, GSW), your words will reach few people, and certainly not those who matter. if it makes you feel like a big shot writing into a few weblogs and strutting your stuff, well then fine. But don't expect the field of climate science to be rocked on its foundations because Jonas N writes to Deltoid. Your views mean nix until they have been thrown into the the larger scientific arena.
Now your two adoring pups, GSW and Olaus, can waffle on all they like about how great you are and how much your bring new insight into climate science, but they are also nobody's with no scientific pedigree at all, and certainly not where it counts. But if it soothes your ego for them to consistently say that your brilliance exceeds 95% of the scientists working in the field of climate change, then soak up the adulation. Too bad your fan club does not go much beyond these two clowns, however.
@LB
Just an idle enquiry, did you do physics at school?
luminous b
You obviously have no clue what you are talking about. Conservation of energy means that it is neither destroyed or created. (Change in) Entropy is not energy, it is merely energy in one form transformed to another.
Steady state harmonic excitation transfers no net energy at all to the system from what excites it (apart from dissipation), and this is true regardless of if you are near a resonance frequency or not, close to anti resonance, or anywhere in between.
If you really didn't know that, you really shouldn't use 'difficult' words like 'resonance' or 'energy' or 'entropy' or 'conservation' ..
And you really didn't seem to know that .. either!
luminous b
>True, but in the specific systems we are discussing, it is energy
**I** was discussing the passive system of the atmosphere, and how extremley rare global positive feedbacks are (which are not limited in range). One of the most stupid commenters here brought up resonance as a counter example of positive feedbacks in passive systems. The nitwit was dead wrong, I merely pointed this out. And nobody challanged that and defended this nonsense. Not even the nitwit!
Nobody except you! You attempted to use **resonance**, with zero mean value, as an example of how you can create a larger response to an input change (presumably CO2-forcing).
It makes no sense what so ever! Not even with your energy/entropy squirming ..
Do you even know what point it is you are trying to make?
Jeff H
>Then you and Olaus ought to get off your asses and do the science
This is what I actually do. I read the science, and see what there is done. You repeatedly challenged me, told me I had never read a scientific paper. Which of course was Jeffian garbage. But when I detailed what was actually done in the published literature, all the loudmouths here suddenly and simultaneously just 'happened' to want to switch topics again.
> I challenge you to write an an article and to send it to a peer-reviewed journal where, if published, it will reach a broader audience. Moreover, while you are at it, submit a title and an abstract to a major international conference on climate change, where you can give a seminar and show those attending how much you know (or don't)
What the heck do you know of what I do professionally? The only thing you know for certain is that I do not need to make things up, just because I wish them to be true, just because they would fit a political wacko narrative so much better. The only thing you know is that I can actually argue my stance here. Which is far more than you are capable of ..
You are right that I (personally) will not 'rock the foundations of so called climate science', but reality will. Eventually. Rock it its foundations, vleanse it of its activists, or make it return to proper scientific practices, or both (I hope).
And it's funny that you try to demean comments here at Deltoid, you who waded in here a month ago proclaiming 'I'm a senior scientist ... ' and still haven't contributed one single grain of any substance.
Although equally feeble, some of the others on your side at least try to use words pertinent to the simplest level of understanding (although most often failing miserably). You don't even dare to do that.
Well, if anything positive should be said about your performance (and judgement) here, it would be that you wisely have chosen not to engage on the substabce of one single issue here ..
And I don't think that 95% of the 'climate scientists' disagree with me, but I'd expect that some 5% do. And you got this wrong again, partly because you still don't know what I am actually saying, and confuse this with your pastiche of a 'denier' ..
Which is why you were pathetic in the first place ..
Jonas,
>Steady state harmonic excitation transfers no net energy at all to the system from what excites it.
You've got this bass ackwards. How is any 'passive' physical system 'excited' without the external input of energy?
A spring must be compressed or stretched to begin vibrating. A pendulum must be lifted to a higher gravitational potential to begin swinging. These are the initial input energies. The net energy, or amplitude, of the oscillating spring or pendulum can be increased or decreased by being bumped in the right direction by an external input of force acting at the resonant frequency of the spring or pendulum. These are resonant feedbacks, positive and negative. There is no feedback on a freely oscillating spring or pendulum other than friction, which is not a resonance feedback, but steady state entropic decay.
Jonas,>Do you even know what point it is you are trying to make?
Yes. You do not understand simple mechanical feedback, much less feedbacks in complex dynamic systems.
And, as a consequence, for arguing things you don't understand, an idiot.
luminous b
Are you able to integrate a sine-wave over time? Do you think there is a positive net amount, increasing with time? Really?
You need a phase lag in the steday state harmonic response to give you a net energy transfer. And that would then exactly correspond to the energy loss due to friction and damping causing that exact very phase lag.
As I told you early on, the only energy transfer is in the transient phase, when going from a system at rest to an excited stage. Thereafter the only energy transferred is the net loss due to dissipation (which of course also is a negative feedback)
And you are still totally wrong:
The very existance of a "freely oscillating spring or pendulum" system relies completely on negative feedbacks (and absence of dissipation)
You've tried using 'idiot' many times now. It sure does apply, only not quite the way you might have thought ...
Jonas,
>The only thing you know for certain is that I do not need to make things up...
But that doesn't explain why you do it.
Jonas
>As I told you early on, the only energy transfer is in the transient phase, when going from a system at rest to an excited stage.
The only energy transfer necessary to start a resonant system in motion. However, additional energy added from outside at the resonant frequency produces a __feedback__. A feedback that can increase the amplitude, or can overcome the entropy of friction for as long as the external force can be applied. Think: weights + escapement triggered by the pendulum on a pendulum clock There is no such feedback in a freely oscillating system, no matter how many times you assert the opposite.
Thereafter the only energy transferred is the net loss due to dissipation (which of course also is a negative feedback)
Yes, the only energy transfer, hence the only feedback. Zero feedback from harmonic resonance. Hence, the statement:
>Resonance in a passive system is a perfect example of a negative feedback.
is nonsense.
Actually it does, and this is what you "rational" folks with autistic tendencies need to understand. Without lying they would have no case at all, GW denial would vanish, even the most gullible citizens would be well informed and would accept the findings of science ... but you folks soldier on here, trying to get these trolls to admit the truth ... but they have no respect for it and would be demolished if they were to do so, so it's completely against their perceived/short-term interests.
The "rational" community needs to get past the idea that "the truth will out" -- it won't, not without a whole lot of help in the social arena.
ianam: that's why threads like this do have a point... as demonstration of and reference for the denialists' delusion, evasiveness, mendacity, political extremism, schizophrenia and delusions of grandeur.
Demonstrating it to whom? We already know it, and no one who doesn't is looking here. And despite all those attributes, the denialists are still winning the greater battle in the social arena and have massively blocked governmental action. You can post here all you want pointing out their lies, but that doesn't sway the populace, who will never see it. It is, as I said, autistic-like wankery. There are far better ways to spend your time, even if you devoted it entirely to demonstrating all those things you mentioned ... to a wider audience.
P.S. Your response is just more of the same of what I responded to in 1108, this ridiculous notion that it hurts denialistas to lie. On the contrary, it's the only strategy they've got, so it only helps their cause. Ah, but you think that, if we show they're lying ... no sorry, you don't understand epistemology. We can claim to show they're lying, but they'll just claim otherwise and say we're the ones who are lying or out of our depth. Of course we know that's ludicrous nonsense, but people uneducated in science or lacking critical thinking skills do not, and generally can't tell who is telling the truth. As a friend of mine, a rather typical person, says, "I don't know who to believe" ... she doesn't know how to evaluate evidence, so she depends on trust but doesn't know who to trust ... e.g., she tends to believe the "alternative medicine" crowd because they appeal to her prejudices ... and for most people, that's what works, not pointing out all that stuff you mentioned. Sad but true, and something "our side" needs to come to grips with.
Speaking of excitations, Jeff is going into a permanent fetus-spasm mode. To the wider audience it looks very uncomfortable.
Ianam certainly has a point. To an external observer, this thread must just seem like a lot of noise, and might even be quite off-putting. And the insult-slinging doesn't improve things. (If you have to insult somebody, at least try to do it with some finesse.) These are things that actually benefit the trolls. It even makes it easier for them to lie.
*Speaking of excitations, Jeff is going into a permanent fetus-spasm mode. To the wider audience it looks very uncomfortable*
Wishful thinking, Olaus. You and your heroes don't bother me much at all. But if it bolsters your ego, then go with it. And 'wider audience'? I suppose you mean you, Jonas and GSW...
Jonas: You aren't doing any science here. Your 'science' doesn't mean squat if paraded over a web log. The only place it matters is when its thrown to the lions in a peer-reviewed journal or a relevant conference. But its clear from your evasive responses that you don't intend to go that route. Instead, you'll contaminate the web logs in a rather feeble attempt to impress the general audiences who read them.
Science by blog generates interesting discussions, but don't expect the minions at WUWT, CO2 Science or CA to make much impact on the academic world. At least McIntyre - sort of - has had the guts to test some of his ideas in academic circles.
As for your remark, "And I don't think that 95% of the 'climate scientists' disagree with me, but I'd expect that some 5% do", this is pure fantasy. You don't personally know any climate scientists. I do, as it turns out, and they certainly do not agree with you. Those I have spoken with - in Holland, denmark and the United States - wouldn't touch your ideas with a barge pole.
> And the insult-slinging doesn't improve things
Given the assertion that:
> To an external observer, this thread must just seem like a lot of noise, and might even be quite off-putting.
In what way is it disimproved?
Or are we "concerned" over naughty words, even when accurately applied?
> I stan by GSW
No, you Olaus by GSW.
Wow,
Insults do not harm the trolls: their hide is made of stone.
And insults are not likely win the sympathy of any bystanders (no matter how accurately applied).
So leave them to the trolls.
> Insults do not harm the trolls: their hide is made of stone.
That wasn't the question I asked.
Given that the thread is apparently already broken goods, how does the insults make the thread worse?
@ianam, Andy S
I'm interested in the points you made too. I did jury service a few years back and I was surprised by how much 'weight' was given to witness' testimony who were percieved as being 'nice' and therefore somehow more 'honest' than others. I think this is a very human way of evaluating things, from a survival point of view, all that matters is that the strategy you adopt get's it right more often than wrong. ;)
There's no doubt that since the email scandal, public opinion has shifted more towards the sceptic side of the argument. Some climate scientists are maybe not as 'nice' as they could be, if you won't share you data , then you have something to hide, if you have something to then... etc - that train of thought. People are used to understanding and 'resolving' issues at this level. It's readily absorbed and means you don't have to consider the hard science bits. It's human.
You see this same appeal to 'human logic' on the other side as well though. I watched some of the Gore's reality day, kept tuning in when I could, all I remember about it is endless re runs of the 'tobacco industry' interspersed with video of floods etc. People understand these things and it's easier to communicate than the science.
Similarly, the argument is put forward that most climate scientists, all national academies agree, and that therefore you shouldn't disagree either. This sort of "9 out of 10 cats prefer" argument works for people who cannot/will not address the science themselves.
I think it was one of Schneider's papers, making an argument along these lines based on number of PhD's, published papers etc. There's no scientific 'value' in such studies, anecdotaly it's worth noting the unpublished patent clerk had more to say than the Nobel laureate, if you know what I mean.
So I agree, the weather barometer of public opinion is not governed by the science, but rather the 'circus' surrounds it.
"There's no doubt that since the email scandal"
The only scandal is how many people were taken in by the denialists constructing a scare when there was nothing there.
Are you congenitally incapable of making a true statement GSW? Or does it just suit you not to?
Einstein was never a mere 'patent clerk', despite how well you consider that lie may suit your companion troll.
ianam & Andy,
You are correct that this kind of closed merry-go-round discussion has no real impact on either public policy or public perception, but it can be good fun. It is a bit of a cat and mouse game. Of course, those in denial are already caught in a trap of their own devise, but it is entertaining to allow them some little slack and watch the depths of absurdity to which they will descend in order to preserve their narcissistic point of view.
And sometimes the stress of defending absurdities forces a flash of honesty, as above, where GSW tacitly admits the 'argument' isn't at all about science or truth, but about manipulating perceptions through the art of dissembling. As the saying goes, "A lie can travel halfway round the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." The only advantage for the truth is only the truth can persist in completing the journey.
luminous b
You are mixing up several things here, and seem quite confused. A feedback response (to an input) must be of the same kind as the input itself.
Applying a force to a system (mass attached to a spring, or a pendulum) results in a opposing reaction force. This is called a 'negative feedback'.
And as you are very well aware of, such a system may be in resonace (without external forces, or input energy). Thus the very phenomenon of resonance is a perfect example of what negative feedbacks can look like. This is true without dissipation, as well as with ...
Before you claimed:
>Positive feedbacks, increasing the input energy, negative feedbacks decreasing the input energy
which is patently wrong! Since energy does not amplify or is created in a passive system. It might be consumed and dissipated, which also constitutes a negative feedback to a static force, and of course also a harmonic one. As I said, and I repeat:
>Steady state harmonic excitation transfers no net energy at all to the system from what excites it (apart from dissipation), and this is true regardless of if you are near a resonance frequency or not, close to anti resonance, or anywhere in between.
Judging from your previous:
>>Exciting a system at/near its resonance frequency requires no energy at all.
>Hahahahahahahahaha! You're an idiot.
you seem unaware of this too.
And as I've pointed out repeatedly, the only transferred energy (apart from dissipation) to such a system is in the transient, when you **increase** the amplitude (from zero for instance)
You say:
>There is no feedback on a freely oscillating spring or pendulum other than friction, which is not a resonance feedback, but steady state entropic decay
which of course is noncense since the oscillation is the very result of the negative feedback.
There is not even such a term as 'neutral feedback'!?
If you are studying a dynamic system, and how it responds to a harmonic excitation, you will find that the amplitude (the response) depends on the force applied and its frequency. And you will find that for some frequencies the amplitude becomes very large, and for others almost zero.
And once you (after a transient start up) reach steady state, no additional energy is transfered and accumulating, only the dissipated is constanty re-supplied.
This is so elementary physics, it's laughable.
You have attempted so many contradicting (and sometimes non-physical) 'explanations' of how resonance should be viewed as a 'positive feedback' in a passive system ..
.. and nothing you have come up with or described has anything to do with this. Every (correct) statement you have made, is true if you are near a resonance frequency, and is **equally true** if you are not, or if you are close to anti resonance.
You seem to want to view **amplitude** as a positive feedback **to what** exactly?
How does the amplitude reinforce, amplify what causes it in the first place? Because that is what you need show, that an input creates a response, and that this response that amplifies that input.
As with the fire in pt 1) in #964: The initial heat lights more fuel creating even more heat as it burns, and as long as fuels is abundant, it provides a positive feedback.
Or power steering, where a torque on the wheel (through a hydraulic system) furhter **increases* that torque to facilitate steering at low speed.
You need a response **of the same kind** as your input, and it is the sign of that response which determines if it is a positive or negative feedback.
Opposing direction: Spring, pendulum = Negative
In the same direction: Fire /power steering = Positive
Now please be a good boy, and get these basic concepts into your head, will you!?
Jeff
Since you are unable to even read what I say, and instead incessantly wrestle with those strawmen you invent, how would you even be able to estimate how many of the climate scientists agree?
And if we restrict ourselfs to those who acually are *real scientists* my odds would improve even more.
Now ask yourself: How many of those 'climate scientists' have seen any real scientific basis for that AR4 claim of 90% certainty?
Do you really think 5% truly have seen such? Or do you think it is possible that many of them, just like you and many in general **assume** that there is real solid science behind it, because others have said so too, and since the IPCC has said so?
And although I have told you many times that making up 'facts' is a big no-no in (real) science, you continue to try this as your foremost 'method' ..
And the result is accordingly nonsensical ...
luminous beauty,
Then I suppose that this could be fun to throw into the mix:
âOrganized Climate Change Denialâ
"Nonetheless, it is reasonable to conclude that climate change denial campaigns in the U.S. have played a crucial role in blocking domestic legislation and contributing to the U.S. becoming an impediment to international policy-making (McCright and Dunlap 2003; Pooley 2010). The financial and organizational resources and political and public relations expertise available to and embodied in the major components of this machine, and the various actorsâ ability to coordinate efforts and reinforce one anotherâs impacts, have certainly had a profound effect on the way in which climate change is perceived, discussed and increasingly debatedâparticularly within the U.S."
No, it's called Newton's third law of motion and he never called it feedback as far as I'm aware. No doubt this bozo will keep lecturing an electronics and control engineer on what feedback is.
At #1119 GSW was burbling "...unpublished patent clerk had more to say than the Nobel laureate"
Is the relevance that a patent idiot is now about to redefine Newton?
Jonas,
What Chris said.
GIGO.
You are apparently trapped in a positive feedback loop, wherein your initial idiocy is amplified by each successively iterated point of idiocy, the level of which seems to be rising exponentially from mere foolish balderdash to gibbering lunacy.
For your your own sake, I advise you to step back from the computer before your head implodes.
Puh-lease Jonas. I know that you have a massive ego, but you make yourself look plainly silly when you suggest that you - and you alone - can separate 'real scientists' from phonies. You just make things up as you wish. You berate the 90% certainty figure re: the anthropogenic fingerprint on the recent warming put forward by the IPCC, but, seem pretty confident that 5% of scientists would disagree with your views. Talk about hypocrisy: the IPCC figure is 'political' in your view whilst the other must be correct because you said so.
Well, chum. if you are confident that only 5% or climate scientists would disagree with your views, then you have no reason not to write up your Earth-shattering views into an article for a top peer-reviewed journal, do you? And of course you will want to disseminate your wisdom to a wider scientific audience made up of experts, so I expect you to sign up for several major international conferences on climate change where you can present your mind-boggling knowledge to the real experts.
But, as I said, earlier, of course you won't do either of these things, because your ideas would be chewed up and spat out by professional climate scientists. And of course, you have two things that you desperately wish to retain: your credibility amongst your small fan club here, and, more importantly, your bloated ego. So general science blogs is where you will stay.
I have to admit one thing Jonas: you are a real piece of work.
@Andy S 1125
I wouldn't go around quoting Joe Romm with a straight face. It'll just reflect badly on you.
;)
@chris 1126
I don't personally have a problem with how Jonas has expressed things. It is very unlikely that Newton used the word 'feedback' as this is a 20th century term, also, as our 17th century philosopher wrote his principia in Latin, had the words 'Negative feedback' appeared in the text, believe me you would be aware of it.
As for the rest, "reaction" force could equally well be replaced by "spring" or "restoring" force it's not an issue.
"No doubt this bozo will keep lecturing an electronics and control engineer on what feedback is."
Now I know your not referring to LB as the "electronics and control engineer" ;), so I assume you mean you.
And you will know that phase shift oscillators use "negative feedback" to produce resonance at a characteristic frequency. By analogy, in Jonas passive system, it would not be inappropriate to use the same term to describe the "out of phase" response of the spring, so where's the beef?
@chek 1127
"Is the relevance that a patent idiot is now about to redefine Newton?"
Not sure what the relevance of your post is chek, but that is exactly what a patent clerk did 106yrs ago.
;)
GSW,
FAIL
If you weren't such a brain dead lazy wanker, you would know Andy wasn't quoting Joe Romm.
A bad reflection in your eyes, is a mark of distinction to the rational world.
Andy,
I Like the flow chart, but it needs a box at the bottom for True Believers like Jonas, GSW, et al.
@LB
Sorry Andy, LB. I saw Joe Romms picture on the top of the page and thought "Oh no". Didn't get any further, apologies.
;)
Jeff,
You can't communicate with the brain dead.
'Patent clerk' is another fiction you're employing in the promotion of your protégé Jonas, GSW. However, myths and reality are two different very things. The only thing 'special' about Jonas are his needs
According to [Einstein's employer](https://www.ige.ch/en/about-us/einstein/frequently-asked-questions.html), he was "hired as a technical assistant, level III ... promoted to technical assistant, level II" who in July 1909 "handed in his resignation and began a position as Professor Extraordinary in theoretical physics at the University of Zurich".
I'll readily believe Jonas is a clerk in the modern usage of the term, but I won't be expecting him to take up any professorship anytime this century.
chek,
Einstein's actual job title even understates his position. He was their go to guy for all things electrodynamic.
... and during a period of [frenetic development](http://inventors.about.com/od/timelines/a/twentieth.htm) LB.
Of course the lowly clerk myth, which also like 'secretary' doesn't mean today what it meant a century ago, gives every D-K on the planet clearance to put on their emperor's clothes and overturn half-a-dozen paradigms before breakfast.
Chris O'Neill
No, Newton's law is somethinge else. Systems invovling mass/springs or pendulums, of course have to obey Newtons laws, but their behavior is not referred to as the laws themselves.
>No, it's called Newton's third law of motion
That was a really **really** stupid remark, Chris. Because, I didn't think you were going to join in on the nonsense-level many others here cannot rise from. If you remember it was 'Wow' trying to identfy 'resonance' as a positive feedback i a passive system. Well, which was nonsense as we all know now. But luminous b thought he'd give it a try anyway, and came up with the most fantastic drivel of 'input energies being increased or not' and Galileo watching etc. And now cannot back track without making things even worse.
But involving Newton, as a trump card!? What were you thinking, Chris? Now, from the likes as Wow, chek, Michael, Stu (and of course luminous) I would expect thinks like:
>Is the relevance that a patent idiot is now about to redefine Newton?
I mean not only wrongly ascribing system behaviour as 'Newton's third law' but even calling it **"to redefine Newton"**!?
Is there no bottom level to what idiotic nonsense people where will try (often without any real knowledge at all) just because they so desperately want to fault me?
Really? 'Conservation of energy and momentum' 'gravity' and now 'Newton's third law'!?
The whole Resonance-merry-go-round-detour, originated from one such (really stupid) attempt! And without even being provoked, many in the crowd jump in to join the intellectual self mutilation ..
No, luminous phrased it quite well, but once again got it upside down:
>You [plural] are apparently trapped in a positive feedback loop, wherein your initial idiocy is amplified by each successively iterated point of idiocy, the level of which seems to be rising exponentially from mere foolish balderdash to gibbering lunacy.
And this is how utterly pathetic discussions here become quite quickly. When I first commented here, quite a lot were boasting that they were 'on the side of science', that they were 'in the know', that they were so knowledgeable, so educated, so familiar with science, that they were indeed 'reading the peer reviewd literature'. And that anybody not agreeing on any detail, was a 'denialist', was 'anti science', was a useful or stupid idiot, had been conned by corporate propagande (if not a payd shill for the fossil industry), was uneducated, semi illiterate, probably republican creationist flat earther.
All these memes have since been repeated many times. And by a crowd, that hopes to score a point by **wrongly** bringing up Newton's third law or conservation of energy and momentum, and gravity ...
Absolutely pathetic!
I looks like your own narrative, whishful thinking and projections have kidnapped whatever remnants of actual knowledge, reason, and judgment there might have been before, and lured you deeper and deeper into your own fantasy wonderland. To a level where you are completely lost, and randomly and desperatly try new phrases and words in the vain hope that they might unlock the evil spell that got you so deep into that dark forrest ...
Seriously, are you doing equally poor in your awake and real lives?
Congratulations Jonas @ #1140 - your brave self-diagnosis seems pretty much on-the-mark to me.
"I (sic) looks like your own narrative, whishful (sic) thinking and projections have kidnapped whatever remnants of actual knowledge, reason, and judgment there might have been before, and lured you deeper and deeper into your own fantasy wonderland".
Bravo on taking that first but very important step.
Step two is exactly the same thing again, but this time in the first person.
chek
do you know what you meant when you wrote:
>a patent idiot is now about to redefine Newton?
If so, please specify
Jeff H
Do you even know what your point is here? Of course I can identify sub standard (and junk-) science quite easily in some cases. And of course I cannot do that equally easily in others. And of course I can, at least superficially, determine when if something **seems to be** proper science, if it is along my lines of expertise, and of course I might still overlook some crucial detail which lowers its relevance, or generality of its findings. And nowhere have I claimed that *I and I alone* am the one who can make such calls.
But to repeat, for the twentieth time:
A person who creates his own 'facts' because they then agree with his 'hypothesis' is not doing science. A person who does this as his main 'method' when trying to make his point, and who isn't even aware of this, cannot be a real scientist.
And still, more than a month later, you don't even know what I have said wrt that 90% figure.
And you still seem to miss that the IPCC claims that their assessments are based on the best available science, whereas I **do not** make such a claim when I express a rough (and personal) guesstimate here, especially in response to someone (you) trying to do he same, but without even knowing what my stated position is. The word 'hypocrisy' is (as so many others) completly inapplicable here.
You have repeatedly used the phrase 'earth shattering views' but ar incapable of identifying what those would actually be.
The claim that this AR4 90% figure was not based on proper science, is hardly 'earth shattering', and neither is the observation that a system, when perturbed strives to return to its unperturbed state constitutes a negative feedback.
But, Jeff, you only rehash the same comment over and over again. To no avail. I didn't list you among the real dumbfucks just above, because you are 'wise' enough to clinically stay away from the substance and essence of every topic detail I've adressed here (although wise' is about the least descriptive of your delivery here I can think of)
I think your most concise view here has been: "Go away!"
ANd since you never contribute, since you only are frustrated, since you don't understand any of the topics ... I really wonder: Why don't you?
> a patent idiot is now about to redefine Newton?
I believe I can field that question.
Yes, check does know what he's talking about and the fact that you don't indicates his meaning is correct.
"a patent idiot" is you, Gonads. YOU are the patent idiot.
Wow, it seems you made it halfway through that sentence ...
Nope, I finished the sentence. Your inability to read indicates the truth of Chek's statement that you are patently an idiot.
And story repeats itself. Jonas elaborates and clarify in seriatim, the serfs of CAGW barks and drool in hysterical fashion.
As a tertius interveniens I find it fascinating.
*Of course I can identify sub standard (and junk-) science quite easily in some cases*
The science God has spoken. And his puppy dog (Olaus) has responded with adulation. Enough said.
Michael @1136: Point noted.
Jeffie, don't worry, the towel (yours) hit the canvass a long time ago. Spitting out incoherent drivel from a recumbent position is all you got left (not right). Good riddance.
Being a neutral bystander I find it a bit sad though.
The bozo thinks this:
"To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction"
is something else.
Still waiting for him to continue his lecture about feedback after being led off by his even dumber sidekick. It's more than obvious that he has no idea what climatic feedback means, or any other type of feedback for that matter, to wit:
Earth to planet Jonas: a climatic feedback is a forcing that arises BECAUSE of increased atmospheric temperature. Fossil fuel-generated aerosols don't get into the atmosphere because the atmosphere is getting warmer.
By the way, how are you going with publishing your papers on refuting the empirically observed radiative forcing from aerosols, the climate sensitivity empirically derived from the ice-core record, the Clausius-Clapeyron relation which causes water vapor feedback, the climate sensitivity empirically derived from the effects of volcanic eruptions and the empirically observed increase in ocean heat content (I've run out of allowed links). I know you have no problem with my argument that these independent lines of evidence agree with each other so you must be very, very busy getting refutations of all these papers published. Either that or you're a complete bozo.
Jeff Harvey:
Jeff, you've got to realize that it was the IPCC that invented positive climatic feedback, along with all the fabricated empirical evidence of satellite observations, the million plus ocean temperature profiles, the ice-core records, the volcanic eruptions, the Clausius-Clapeyron relation and all the other data fabrications that needed to be made so as not to contradict positive climatic feedback (outside S-B for the numbskulls). Jonas's 95% honest scientists had nothing to do with the IPCC and all these fabrications. They were all made up by the IPCC and their dishonest 5% of climate scientists.
Chris O'Neill
Yes, the laws of Newtons, all of them, is something else than a system's behavior under load. And I already told you that this system, in every one of its parts, of course still will adhere to the laws of Newton.
And I already told you that I used the term 'feedback' wrt to fossile fuel burning, not in the cusomary way! And explicitly, I didn't call inte a 'climatic feedback'. And I never said that aerosols are getting into the atmosphere *because* it is getting warmer. And you know I didn't and you know I wouldn't. Only the real dumbfucks here repeatedly try supid stuff like that.
So please stop such childish posturing ..
But Chris, and I am serious here:
If this is too high level for you, I mean, if you really thought Newton's third law makes a deforming spring not constituing a negative feedback, then I seriously overestimated your level of understandning of anything.
Then, reading and explaining papers you've found googling would be way over your head. And they still might be. But if you are on the level thinking that the laws of Newton can make the point for Wow or luminous ... then there is no chance at all.
PS And I don't think you are all that t well suited spotting all the bozos in the room, Chris
> And I already told you that I used the term 'feedback' wrt to fossile fuel burning, not in the cusomary way!
Ah, the old "Humpty Dumpty" dodge.
Yes, people can't understand your meaning when you use words in your own peculiar way and don't explain why you want to use that word than any of the more normal meanings.
> But if you are on the level thinking that the laws of Newton can make the point for Wow or luminous
Ah, good old gonads. Always ready to screw up. No, the point is that YOU don't understand Newton's laws if you're of the mind to call them "feedbacks". Even under your extremely singlular and previously unused version of "feedbakcs" where any normal hominid would have used "forcings".
Who cares if you use it in a way that no-one else does? If you don't use the same meaning as everyone else then what you're saying is gibberish.
Never said you did. You have a bizarre inability to read the words in front of you.
Never said you did. Your bizarre inability to read the words in front of you continue to astound.
Incredible. You accuse me of childish posturing and yet you deliberately use meanings for words that no-one else uses. What hypocrisy. As I said, earth to planet Jonas, use the meaning for words that everyone else uses.
> Never said you did. You have a bizarre inability to read the words in front of you.
Maybe because Gonads here reads your words and uses his own special interpretation of what they mean.
Chris
>Who cares
You obviously, since you keep obsessing about it.
>Never said you did
>Never said you did
I have no idea why you said such childish things as you did say. It was even more childish than pointing out that a mechanical system also obeys the laws of Newton.
And yes, I think you are increadibly childish, and that your grasp of the topics discussed is very rudimentary. That even when explained in detail, all you can muster is childish wordplay ..
And as I've said before: I am convinced that people use the best arguments they have (left)
I'm just going to translate the words from Gonads there with nonstandard meanings like he always uses so we can all see what he's saying:
> I have no idea why I said so many childish things, it's even more childish whining about you pointing it out.
So there we have Gonads admitting he's being childish. Of course, we had to translate some of the words to meanings specific to Gonads there, but that's what he does, so that's OK.
Jonas,
The most infantile psychological projection can be characterized by the phrase, "I know you are, but what am I?" All your ranting, with its self-contradictory pseudo-scientific incoherent and rambling rationalizations, boils down to this.
You are one sick puppy, dude.
Olaus,
Too bad you haven't noted that everyone here but GSW thinks you and Jonas are complete idiots. And that's a lot of contributors. I am sure that you must be writing Jonas love letters in your spare time, such is your slavish admiration of his nonsense. Luminous beauty sums him up @1158 - and you along with it.
...and neither is the observation that a system, when perturbed strives to return to its unperturbed state constitutes a negative feedback.
I think we have here, another previously unknown law of science from the genius that is Jonas. No, wait, I think Aristotle said something like that.
One might think all that striving would make systems more tired and cranky than unperturbed.
luminous b
May I remind you, that you too hoped that 'the third law of Newton' would make your case somehow?
Do you even remember what it was you were trying to prove?
That general and wide-reaching positive feedbacks in passive systems are quite frequent (ie, not only locally limited ones, like rolling a rock down a slope)
And your problem is that you were the one using all kind of "self-contradictory pseudo-scientific incoherent and rambling", first wrt to the claimed statistical 90% confidence of the AR4, and thereafter about 'conservation of energy and momentum', of 'gravity', then about 'resonance', and you even joined in on the laws of Newton.
And everytime you got it wrong ...
Jeffie #1159, that was quite funny coming from a guy with such an intense homoerotic relation with his distorted self-image. You deltoids are apparently not only anal when in comes to reveal what kind of science that is settled? You sure are a keeper Jeffie. ;- )
But seriously, what about acting civil for a change? Jonas has many valid points that you can benefit from. I don't believe for a second that you want to end this debate looking as sheepish as you do right now. The only guys thinking that kind of wholly look is hot are chek, stu, LB, wow, and perhaps Chris.
You are better than that.
I'll do another interpretation using gonad's method of meaning:
> I've never know what I've been trying to prove.
It has, unlike Jonas' other ramblings, been accurate in its description of his abilities here.
> That general and wide-reaching positive feedbacks in *NATURAL* systems are quite frequent
This is correct, your statement is NOTHING like what we've been tryng to prove to you.
This is why you fail completely at understanding science.
You have absolutely no brain whatsoever.
> Jonas has many valid points that you can benefit from.
Which ones?
Go on, just name one.
Then we can have a look and see
a) if it's actually valid
b) if it hasn't been addressed before
c) whether even his bestest fanbois know what the hell this idiot is talking about
Confused, incoherent, rambling, whining and ignorant of the basics. It's not a good look for the supposed all-conquering troll, is it Jonas?
Even fellow English speaking climate scammers following this must be wondering in dismay whatever happened to their hot shot.
But Jeffie, Dear
>everyone here but GSW thinks you and Jonas are complete idiots
Firstly: I am not an idiot, and you know that too. You are just too embarrassed to admit it.
Secondly, you are once again pretending to speak for a vast majority. Earlier, you even pompously tried to speak for the entire 'scientific community'. Now you proclaim that everybody here is on your level of not understanding any of the topics ...
> Firstly: I am not an idiot
The idiot is ALWAYS the last to know.
You ARE an idiot.
> Now you proclaim that everybody here is on your level of not understanding any of the topics ...
Given how crappy you've been with writing what other people have said before, I'm gonna give that a great big [ citation needed ].
Of course, you won't be able to, just like your other sock won't actually be able to get one single point you've made in a coherent manner, let alone a valid one.
Chek
Do you know if you meant anything at all by:
>a patent idiot is now about to redefine Newton?
If so, what was it?
Jonas,
>Do you even remember what it was you were trying to prove?
Yes. it was that the statement, "Resonance in a passive system is a perfect example of a negative feedback" is nonsense.
So is, "Applying a force to a system (mass attached to a spring, or a pendulum) results in a opposing reaction force. __This is called a 'negative feedback__'".
Not even close. I mean free speech allows you to 'call' it anything you want, but scientifically, it is gibberish. If this were true then every mechanical action would constitute a negative feedback, making the term meaningless.
> If so, what was it?
It was "You, Jonas, the patent idiot, is about to redefine Newton as being someone other than the actual person they were".
But we already know you're the idiot, so why would you understand it any more the second time than the first?
luminous b
Unfortunately you are the one disconnected from science. I already gave you several examples of mechanical systems with non-negative feedbacks.
1. Power steering (but it requires an external supply, ie contains active components)
2. Giving a rock some momentum, so that it can start rolling down a slope, gaining even more momentum (but limited in range, and you can do it only once)
3. Any balancing system, were loss of balance worsens the imbalance. You even mentioned the head pivoted on the neck as example
Regarding the alleged "negative feedback" in the pendulum system: one might want to consider that after a while the pendulum actually comes back to the position where it was released (disregarding friction). So much for the "return to its unperturbed state".
> I already gave you several examples of mechanical systems with non-negative feedbacks.
And we gave you one example of a natural system with positive feedbacks: resonance.
> Giving a rock some momentum, so that it can start rolling down a slope
That's a non feedback.
> Any balancing system, were loss of balance worsens the imbalance.
Nope, that's a conditionally stable state, not an example of any sort of feedback, but you already demonstrated the same lack of understanding in the earlier example.
Note: none of them prove that positive feedbacks don't exist in nature, as you asserted earlier.
wow, your micro(ce)phallic tirades are high pitched, I'll give you that. But I can't really blame you for falling out like that. Jonas undressed you rather direct, and the little thing that was exposed underneath your pompous costume was...well, very not robust.
Naturally you want to safe face being a bit rude...:-)
Jonas,
>I already gave you several examples of mechanical systems with non-negative feedbacks...
Yes, all kinds of systems can have positive or negative feedbacks or no feedbacks or net neutral feedbacks. And all these systems obey Newton's Third Law of Motion. That just makes the incredibly absurd assertion, as embodied in your statement,
>Applying a force to a system (mass attached to a spring, or a pendulum) results in a opposing reaction force. This is called a 'negative feedback",
even more ridiculous.
You not only don't understand what I, and others are saying with respect to your ridiculous assertions, you don't even understand what you, yourself, are saying.
I think that describes 'patent idiot' quite well, and I am nigh unto absolutely certain you will continue to deny it until long after the cows have all come home.
*Jonas undressed you rather direct*
Olaus, given your adoration of all things Jonas, I'm sure this is giving you wet dreams...
I'd like to clarify something about friction being a negative feedback.
When object in motion encounters constant friction, it slows down. Because it is slower, the amount of friction it encounters over a fixed period of time is reduced, thence slowing the object a little less, further reducing the net amount of friction over time, reducing the velocity by an even smaller amount, and so on. This constitutes a __feedback loop__, which is an __essential defining element in what constitutes a feedback.__
Note also, this is a relationship between __two very different forces__, the momentum of the object and surface resistance to the medium across which it travels, __each causally feeding back upon the other__. Another essential defining element in what constitutes a feedback.
Two things Jonas doesn't seem to know about what is normally construed in science and engineering as feedbacks.
@LB 1177
I think your last contribution may just kill the thread.
Jeffie, what a knocker! By the way, you didn't tell me that you were a fantastic super-scientist. Since that's a first I get a bit concerned. Are you OK? Are you uncomfortable in Jonas full nelson?
The science as defined by CAGW-sectarians is something extra. They believe we can crystal-ball future climate without full understanding of what (how and why) causes climate change. It's truly amazing. And when somebody let them know how week their case is in terms of "science is settled", they fetus up and start touretting the messenger.
Even worse is that its not only our lack of understanding of climate change that makes the CAGW-doctrines ridiculous. There is also a lot of true anthropogenic stuff messing up their apocalyptic vision. And when that simple information is passed on to them they go bananas even more.
How can anyone, with some kind of intellectual honesty/capacity left (that's Right Jeffie), still defend the dogma of the CAGW when the crystalball-modelers are not even capable to adjust their scenarios/predictions wrt for instance China's increased use of fossil fuels? The other day we learned that the not-so-fast-anymore-global-warming was "China's fault. They are...eh... burning so much coal these day...eh...that the aerosols are slowing the warming down...eh....at the moment...ehh...and we had no crystal ball telling us that China was going to need more energy....eh...etc"
FACTS:
1. We humans has a hard time predicting mankind's future need of energy.
2. We "humans"/crystalball-climate scientists can't even "remember" to add all anthropogenic parameters into the crystal ball.
3. CAGW is a sect
Andy S
>consider that after a while the pendulum actually comes back to the position where it was released
Yes,it does. And the system will reverse there, and once again try to 'return' it towards its unperturbed position, then passing it to reverse on the other side. And and so it goes on back and forth. This phenomenon is called resonance- or eigenfrequency. Which was the first thing I pointed out:
The spring (or gravity) trying to keep the system at its nominal unperturbed state, forcing it back towards it when perturbed, constitute negative feedbacks, and the phenomenon of resonance is a good example of such.
The key words here Andy S, are **try to return it, to keep it there**, ie the sign of the reaction determines whether the feedback is positive or negative. There is no such thing as a 'neutral feedback' (a feedback term without a sign!?)
Resonance is just a peculiar or entertaing feature of any system which has a natural (unperturbed) state it wants to return to.
luminous b #1177 - Just a few small pointers:
In the most common and widely used understanding of friction, ie and as you said constant (coefficient of) friction µ, you just severely violated Newton's second law.
Further, momentum has dimension [mass*length/time] while force has dimension [mass*length/time²]. They are distinctly different physical quantities and thus cannot *feed of each other*. (But of course, both will be present in a dynamical system when perturbed, and I understood your handwaiving)
Let me rephrase this for you correctly:
>When object in motion encounters constant friction, it slows down. [Although] it is slower, the amount of friction [force] it encounters over a fixed period of time is [exactly the same], thence slowing [ie decelerating] the object [with exactly the same amount], [while the constant] net amount of friction [remains unchanged], reducing the velocity [as long as it is positive] by [exactly the same rate until it stops]. This constitutes a feedback loop, which is an essential defining element in what constitutes a feedback
The initial velocity (providing your momentum) is reduced by the friction force causing it to lose momentum. As you say, a perfect example of one type of negative feedback. (You only mustn't confuse momentum for a force. And of course never ever violate the laws of Newton)
But, let me give you a (only) sligtly different example. Also with an object given a initial momentum (velocity) from an unperturbed state, a spring loaded mass:
>When [that] object in motion encounters [the counteracting spring force], it slows down. Because it is slower, the amount of [distance it travels] over a fixed period of time is reduced, thence [reducing the **additional** force the spring picks up], further reducing the net amount [of remaining momentum, by] reducing the velocity by an even [larger] amount, and so on. This constitutes a feedback loop, which is an essential defining element in what constitutes a feedback
Now, you may combine those two, spring and friction. And still the same observation will apply.
And as a bonus, I can inform you that what you described, was not friction, but viscosity. Your description would have been completely accurate if you had said that it describes a viscous damper (linear, on non linear), where the counteracting force depends on the **velocity** of the object (not only the direction, as with friction)
And you may of course combine all three, the spring, the friction, and the viscous surrounding fluid or a damper. And the same observations still apply: The system perfectly well (as you say) illustrates a negative feedback. Actually three different types. with slightly different features.
But I am repeating my self, ain't I? I already mentioned this in #1095, where I wrote:
>You force the pendulum, the playground swing, the spring etc to a position outside its natural equilibrium, and it responds with an opposing force. A damper has the same function, but responds to rate of change rather than absolute change. Friction responds to direction of change ..
I just have a thing about intellectually dishonest misdirection.
You are accusing me of saying things I didn't say. Again, where did I say you called it a 'climatic feedback', and where did I say you said that aerosols are getting into the atmosphere because it is getting warmer? If there are no answers to these questions then you lied about what I said.
Well, no. The first pseudo-scientific incoherent rambling about resonance was here:
As any electrical or mechanical engineer will tell you, resonant systems have a very low (net) negative feedback. BTW, a system striving to return to its original state after a perturbation has a restoring force. A restoring force is not a feedback.
By the way, we still haven't heard anything from planet Jonas about his forthcoming publications of refutations of every last piece of empirical evidence for climatic feedback. You know, the ones that all agree with each other. On the other hand, perhaps his only mistake is to leave out the quotes on 'feedback' whenever he writes the word because after all, the word feedback has a different meaning on planet Jonas from the one that is used on earth by engineers and scientists and the IPCC. So when he says something like "the IPCC has overestimated positive feedbacks", he actually means 'feedbacks' in the planet Jonas sense which has nothing to do with what feedback means here on earth.
Chris O'Neill
>I just have a thing about intellectually dishonest misdirection
>You are accusing me of saying things I didn't say
>you lied about what I said
Nowhere did I accuse you of that. But I replied to some really childish (Stupid) strawman statements of yours. And I don't have a clue why you felt it necessary to bring those up. Or refer to laws of Newton for that matter. And you write:
>we still haven't heard .. about his forthcoming publications of refutations of every last piece of empirical evidence
after just before having said you *"just have a thing about intellectually dishonest misdirection"*
No Chris, you seriously need to stop such imature display. Especially if you, on top of that, are wrong in your childish word play.
A restoring force (that's the one you just called 'Newton's third law'!?) gives you that negative feedback to a forced change, just as I explained.
You seem to have an extremly rudimentary understanding of the physics involved. And you seem to think that only your limited understanding of feedback is valid.
Well it's not, and in this case not even relevant. As I said
>General, and widely applicable positive feedbacks are very rare in passive systems.
That a passive system may exhibit resonance is true, but it is a system feature, and not a positive feedback, as was claimed
Chris (contd.)
You need to stop you childish pouting if you want me to take you seriously. You have linked a chapter of Rahmtorf (from a book by him and Zedillo).
But when asked, you didn't say you had read it, just stated *I should be aware of things in there*.
Thereafter you repeatedly tried to say *empirical* when referring to feedbacks and how they were determined. But given the level of understanding you display here, I find it highly implausible that any details may be worth discussing with you.
You seem unfamiliar with the entire complexity of what is being discussed, and instead post google searhces where you looked for 'empiracl' and 'feedback' etc.
And this is unfortunately often the level at sites like this one: 'I have a link here with those words ... therefor I am right ana you wrong'
From people who often even haven't read that linke. let along understood what it says and what actually is done.
I fear you are just one more of those ...
> We humans has a hard time predicting mankind's future need of energy.
The power companies manage to do well enough to remain solvent.
I guess this proves that you don't have to be absolutely accurate in your models to be useful.
> We "humans"/crystalball-climate scientists can't even "remember" to add all anthropogenic parameters into the crystal ball.
Well, *you* (possibly) humans can't remember to do so, but there's attributions galore all figured into the GCM models. download the GISS Model E code and see for yourself.
Dear wow, of course you may talk about whatever you find interesting, but when answering me, please try to be on topic, ergo the excuse blaming the chinese for the not accounted for steady state (close to) of GW (the last decade).
> Jonas has many valid points that you can benefit from.
Which ones?
Go on, just name one.
Then we can have a look and see
a) if it's actually valid
b) if it hasn't been addressed before
c) whether even his bestest fanbois know what the hell this idiot is talking about
> but when answering me, please try to be on topic, ergo the excuse blaming the chinese for the not accounted for steady state (close to) of GW
Really, when did the "topic" change to that?
In post #5
> Clippo - You entirely miss the point. I never said that statistics aren't useful. I've been saying the contrary here for a week. But they need to be correctly applied.
Was what "the topic" was.
You said:
What is your point in saying "I didn't call inte a 'climatic feedback'? Well, yes, but you didn't say Matthew Flinders circumnavigated Australia. So, bloody what? What is the point of your non-sequitur if it wasn't to imply that I accused you of saying that?
So bloody what if you didn't? What is your point?
Even if that was true, it's far better than the crap understanding of physics you have. You don't even know what feedback is.
Oh dear, the bozo might not take me seriously. What am I going to do!?
I've read some of it, if it really means that much to your argument. Have you?
I would think that's far more important if you're interested in making sense.
I actually did say empirical.
This coming from someone who uses a different meaning for 'feedback' from everyone else.
Oh how convenient. So this is your "get out of jail free" card? You can't lift one finger to mention anything any scientist says but can write comment after comment of rhetoric. You are so convincing.
You are definitely unfamiliar with the entire complexity of what is being discussed. Witness your capitulation on feedback.
Well, no. I posted google searches on the titles of important papers in those subjects to show not just those important papers but similar ones as well. You wouldn't notice that of course.
And you also didn't notice when I posted a link to just one paper, Annan and Hargreaves, (which I've read for your information) choosing instead to completely ignore it.
So in the end, all you're good for is making weak excuses for not dealing with what scientists actually say. And of course, making up your own meanings for words and trying to bluff people into thinking you know what you're talking about.
Oh I'm quaking in my boots, my boots, my boots.
wow, # 1189
I'll help you out. Stop addressing stuff from my #1179 if you want to discuss Jonas #5.
Its very simple, if you are not a CAGW:ist. ;-)
Nothing in FACT #1 you had about china.
So you agree that modelling can give useful answers that allow economic activity to be undertaken with risk so well controlled businesses are able to flourish.
And the same applies to Climate Modes.
Your FACTS: #1 proves that models don't have to be 100% accurate to be useful.
Just one thing I had to address:
Speak for yourself, sparky. These kind of silly assertions work a lot better when there aren't people around who make a living off of doing exactly that. And pretty well, I might add.
Stu, it's a difficult job, but still done well enough for people to make money from.
If even hard predictions mean you can still make *useful* predictions, then the hard prediction of future climate can STILL make *useful* predictions.
In short: Sock #2 has proven the denialist canard of "models aren't good enough" wrong.
A smashing own goal.
Hence Sock's diversion to irrelevant parts of the same post.
First things first regarding this über-stupid detour around feedbacks.
To position something mechanically with a device is one of the absolut simplest control mechanisms imaginable. And such a decive being flexible makes it a spring. The spring property works as a negative feedback wrt to adjusted postion. If actual and adjusted position (temporarily) do not match, the spring works as to **diminish** that difference, ie a **negative** feedback by its most basic original defintion: the sign of the correction/restoring term is **negative**.
If that 'something' has inertia, we have a mass-spring system. And as **everybody** knows, such may display oscillations and resonance frequencies (depending on system properties, esp with low friction and damping) (*)
Ergo, the phenomenon 'resonance' is a very good example/illustration of a negative feedback in a passive system. Just as I said ...
Simple elementary physics. Challenged by nobody (except maybe those few beyond rescue)
So why has this been a (non-) topic for days? What did those involving 'increased input energy', 'forces feeding off momentum', Newton's third law, 'redefining Newton', 'neutral feedbacks' even 'zero feedbacks' hope to accomplish?
Well, you tell me. But I have a pretty good idea already ..
(*) The phenomenon of resonance can be, and is utilized for all kinds of ingeneous technical, engineering and other purposes. Often toether with active actuators.
wow (and stu), so you did want to address my #1179. :-) Sorry fellas, with that kind of communication skill, its no wonder you always end up looking like infected baboon areses
And ass-usual you guys can't stick to what's actually been said and invent straw man to tussle with. Nobody has anything against modeling as such. Got it, this time?
I for one, just find it very amusing how much faith you guys have in crystal balling. Remember, "we" couldn't even get the anthropogenic stuff out of the way (ehhee...we didn't think about that...ehhehhh..). :-) Or more likely, it was the best lame excuse "you" could come up with. Nonetheless the crystal ball got it wrong based on something very simple compared to all the unknowns regarding climate change.
Very convincing...
Chris O'Neill
I don't need the 'get out of jail free card'
This is the method used by almost all here, who invent the most fantastic things in the often blind and desperate hope to fault me ..
I have not used the term feedback incorrectly once, I don't even think I have been that sloppy stating the necessary conditions for how I have used it.
If your understanding of the term is as limitid as you describe, then of course I'd expect Newton's third law to pop up in support of other's gibberish.
But is this really the level you are playing at?
If we scroll back, it was you who claimed that:
1. We already see **less** heating than one should expect from the direct forcings (without feedback)
2. But such are present, and you mentioned water vapor, aerosols, and (somehow) oceans in connection with those. Although denying that meant that oceans were any kind of feedback.
I tried to interpret ad formulate all what you said, and I think you meant (In #982):
>'Our hypotheses say large positive feedbacks, and we also hypothesize about aerosols cooling quite a lot, and that the missing heat may be found deep in the oceans. These two sets of counteracting hypotheses are consistent with the fact that observations show less than what (estimated) direct forcings are supposed to give ..
As I said, you wouldn't phrase it like that. But the essence, the substance of all that feedback arguing usually boils down to this. The high climate sensitivity narrative amounts to:
>It is high indeed, but it it presently masked so we can't see it. But we know it is, all that heat is in the pipeline, therefore everything is much worse than we thought.
And as you say, the *empirical* observations are *'consistent'* with that narrative (but also with many others)
That is why I asked if this was 'consistent' with your position, if this was the core of your argument. That the various feedbacks (and other mechanisms) seemling cancel each other so that we se only ~0.7° (or a little less) of what we should expect.
You never got back, and since then you have been awfully occupied with childish posturing, intentinal misunderstanding, strawmen, and pure nonsense.
And you need to step up from that. At the level you've been the last few days, it is impossible to take you seriously.
(But as I said, I notice that many regress to almost infancy if contradicted and not being able to 'win your points' just because you wanted to, or demand that you should be believed)
I have once stated that the only instance you don't need to argue is when you know you are right. It seems Jonas N is challenging that and quite successfully too.
But I do think my method saves time.
Jonas,
>In the most common and widely used understanding of friction, ie and as you said constant (coefficient of) friction µ, you just severely violated Newton's second law.
>Further, momentum has dimension [masslength/time] while force has dimension [masslength/time²]. They are distinctly different physical quantities and thus cannot feed of each other. (But of course, both will be present in a dynamical system when perturbed, and I understood your handwaiving)
Newton's Second Law states that the vector sum of all forces acting on a body is equal to the change of momentum with respect to time (acceleration or deceleration). Since __change of momentum with respect to time__ is the quantity of interest here and dimensionality is conserved, no, Newton's second law is not violated, not even a little bit. If you knew a little calculus and actually understood what Newton's Laws were all about, you'd know that momentum and force are really very closely related, and not make such idiotic statements.
>Let me rephrase this for you correctly:
>>When object in motion encounters constant friction, it slows down. [Although] it is slower, the amount of friction [force] it encounters over a fixed period of time is [exactly the same], thence slowing [ie decelerating] the object [with exactly the same amount], [while the constant] net amount of friction [remains unchanged], reducing the velocity [as long as it is positive] by [exactly the same rate until it stops].
Again, your grasp of basic physics is tenuous. Kinetic friction with a constant co-efficient is dependent on distance not time. For small angles, i.e., >10° from center, (which is what we are concerned with here, particularly in the context of harmonic resonance), pendulums are isochronous. Their period is virtually constant, independent of the angle of swing. Since the distance swept out by the pendulum, and thus the motion through the supporting bearing, decreases with decreasing momentum while the period of a single oscillation remains the same, the net friction in the supporting bearing __decreases per unit of time.__
If your example held, there would be no feedback. The change in net friction would be constant relative to change in momentum, as is the case with linear motion.
Jonas N wrote:
> First things first regarding this über-stupid detour around feedbacks.
I was just wondering when we can get back to the über-stupid discussions before this detour.
Jonas
You don't understand momentum or friction or Newtons second law.
Is there ANYTHING in physics you understand??????????
Spare us the 70 lines of gibberish and stick to the actual (misunderstood) physics, and
maybe we can unburden you of some of your flaming ignorance.
That wasn't my point, it was only Andy's. I'm with Wow (#1115): I don't think anything said in this thread matters either way. And I have nothing against naughty words or pointing out what foul garbage these people are.
lb #1122: If that's your idea of good fun, but clearly there are people here who think they are achieving more than that. And again I reject this notion that the denialista are "caught in a trap" ... that would only be true if the mere act of lying debilitated one, but it doesn't. The denialistas could assert that the CRU emails caught the "global warming alarmists" in a trap of their own devising, revealing that the whole thing is a hoax and a sham, and in terms of real world effects they would be more correct, and not six commissions or 100 commissions that exonerate them will change that. Your comment that "only the truth can persist in completing the journey" is a silly fantasy ... just look at religion. Or the logic of material implication: from a falsehood, all claims follow, whereas from truth only truth follows; truth is hobbled by consistency, whereas falsehood has no such limitations. And as I said, you fail to understand epistemology ... people are free to believe anything, true or false; truth only compels people to believe if they are committed to only believing what's demonstrably true, but few people are, and even those of us who are often fail at it.
No, luminous b
You've got it wrong. And of course I know Newton's laws. Much better than you here trying .. I don't even know what.
Read your origninal statement again, and read it carefully:
>When object in motion encounters constant friction, it slows down. Because it is slower, the amount of friction it encounters over a fixed period of time is reduced, thence slowing the object a little less, further reducing the net amount of friction over time, reducing the velocity by an even smaller amount, and so on
You see, in the case of friction, the frictional force is constant (you specifically stated constant friction). And you (now, correctly) stated that change in momentum over (a **fixed** period of) time is proportional to the (**constant**) frictional force and the (**fixed** period of) elapsed time.
Let me repeat that: The loss of momentum (meaning *loss of velocity**) is proprtional to the (**constant**) frictional force, and the time elapsed. As long as there is motion and thus friction, the deceleration will be **constant**. But what you claimed was that:
>slowing the object a little less, further reducing the net amount of friction over time, reducing the velocity by an even smaller amount
This sentence is wrong i every single one of its parts:
1. *Slowing* is constant, ie *decelaration* is constant, because
2. frictional force is constant (and constant over time)
3. reducing the velocity (over time) is constant
Your sentence twice claims that deceleration (ie 'slowing') is dependent on velocity(*). But it's not. It depends only on (frictional) force acting, which is constant.
And you also said that they fed of each other, that friction reduced velocity, and that reduced velocity then lowered(?) friction, or the effect of net friction.
So you violated Newtons second law, before. And when this was pointed out, you started mouthing of instead. And no, it is not friction that is proprtional to neither time nor distance. (You even stated it was constant). What is proportional to *distance* is the **work** done by that frictional force.
That work is proportional to force and distance (which of course is lowered for a fixed force and time, if the velocity is lower). And that work is equal to the loss of kinetic energy of the mass (which is proportional to velocity²), and is converted into heat (energy) through that friction.
So you got things bungled up again, luminous, as so many times before. And your comments about me 'not understanding cacluculs, Newton's laws, or making idiotic remarks' once again blow up in your own face. And appearently elspi's too ..
Look, I don't mind the least. I have been watching this over and over agian, for more than a month. But you [plural] should be a little bit concerned
(*) The system feature you described, where negative feedback is lowered as velocity is lowered, is called viscosity, or a viscous damper. Look it up, if you don't believe me.
Andy S
Yes, there was a time when you pointed out that 90% < 100%, and I both acknowledged that fully correct observation, and even explained how much it was worth (with respect to all those historic reconstructions not falsifying each other): There existed a very small, almost infinitesimal propability for that ...
Since then it has mostly been kindergarten and childish posturing ..
The relevance would appear to be the difference between a patent idiot like Jonas and a patent clerk like Einstein.
As for the "9 out of 10" point (it's actually 98 out of 100, you lying sack of scum), it's usually in response to lying denialists who assert that there is no scientific consensus, that it's a hoax, that there's no evidence, that more and more scientists disagree, the Oregon petition, etc. ad nauseam. Yes, it is those lying denialists who do not face the science themselves, as a lying piece of shit like you well know ... they don't face the science produced by those 98 out of 100 and all those national institutions or considered by those scientists in order to reach their opinion. Contrary to lying denialist assholes like yourself, scientific consensus is empirical evidence because of what it says about the evidence available to working scientists, experts in their field precisely because of their familiarity with the relevant evidence ... and scientific consensus should drive policy, because it reflects the best current scientific understanding; basing it on the views of a tiny minority, even if they were to turn out to be correct, would be irrational.
That's typical of your level of scholarship. And we, whenever we see "GSW" on a post, think "Oh no, this must be a pack of lies and misdirection", but we're justified in doing so.
[Hey lb: Now that felt good.]
ianam
I see some very 'strong' ..ehrm ... 'arguments' there.
Sure then, you, and they just must be right.
Ah, so much for Gonads knowing about science:
1. Slowing is constant, ie decelaration is constant, because
2. frictional force is constant (and constant over time)
3. reducing the velocity (over time) is constant
Nope, frictional losses include the losses to the air. Which depends on velocity. Which if it's reducing over time IS NOT CONSTANT OVER TIME.
He knows what he's talking about: he knows he's talking crap.
> wow (and stu), so you did want to address my #1179. :-)
I wanted to address the lovely own goal that despite modelling future energy use of humans is hard, we do so and with enough skill to allow economic benefit to result proves that models don't have to be complete to be useful.
Therefore the canard of "the models are inaccurate" is no reason to disregard them, with energy use models or climate models alike.
wow, I know your ability to understand is very limited. Again: Modeling as such isn't a problem. Its people like you that is, ergo religious fanatics.
Please return to this entry whenever you need to refresh what's actually been said.
Aditionally, a forcing NOT at the resonant frequency of a system causes a minimal response to that forcing of the system. At the resonant frequency, the response of the system grows with each forced impulse. This is a positive feedback.
The loss from the system increases until the energy input to the system is equal to the energy lost from the system.
This is what happens with a string vibrating in a resonant cavity when the energy is input by the vibrating string to the resonant system of the cavity. This is also what happens with the solar energy input into the earth system and re-radiated as IR radiation into the resonant system of Greehouse Gasses in the atmosphere.
> Modeling as such isn't a problem.
So you agree that the climate models can give useful results. Excellent.
> Its people like you that is, ergo religious fanatics.
And your proof of this assertion is what? That we agree that the climate models are giving us useful information and that this is the proof that AGW is a problem?
But you just agreed that the climate models are useful too, so YOU must be a religious fanatic.
It might appear like magic or religion to a sycophantic imbecile like you Oluas/Olausock, someone so incorrigibly the useless (as opposed to useful, which you're not) idiot that you think Jonasock 'knows' about 'science'.
It appears he really believes he does, and because you know even less, you believe him. That's your religious belief, which you're entitled to. Unfortunately nobody else in the outside world thinks so. To them, Jonasock is beyond a joke.
But the fact remains that the data modelling by climate scientists has correctly predicted for example the warming of the arctic and if anything underestimated it. Their record based on real data and understanding real data and understanding how to correctly process real data beats the hell out of all the denier minions who witter on about 'recovery' to their flocks of easily led sheep who forget their abysmal prediction records for previous years, every year without fail.
You have nothing to contribute except empty sloganising and someone else's catchphrases passed down to you by parties you don't even know. You probably don't even realise your use of CAGW is a phase 2 reversal of the original denial that AGW is even happening and is now beyond denial. The goldfish memories and complete lack of understanding of repeater idiots like you can be reliably counted on. Oh, that and your fanatic willingness to place faith in the likes of Jonasock. Now that really is a religion.
chek
You seem like someone eager to express your views, and I've asked twice before, but now answer so far. Thus I repeat again:
Did you know what, if anything, you meant when you wrote:
> a patent idiot is now about to redefine Newton?
an if so, can please you clarify exactly what?
PS It seemed that another commenter here got as far as the third word, before derailing
> an if so, can please you clarify exactly what?
Yes, "you're the idiot" Gonads.
If you scroll back and read it in context Jonas, you'll see I was referring to GSW's hilariously implied comparison of you with Einstein (describing Einstein incorrectly as a 'patent clerk' - a clerk who records legal rights to an invention) and a patent (as in 'obvious') idiot which is the more relevant descriptor for yourself.
It also refers to your trademark confused rambling about feedbacks and if I recall (you aren't worth the scroll up) your misunderstanding of forcings. HTH.
chek
it was the *redefining of gravity* I was curious about ...
There have been quite some attempts here at, not redefining gravity itself, but the laws of Newton, or at least what they are supposed to mean and not mean.
But, intended as a joke, I can at least see that there was some funny parallel.
*[This was not posted by chek, but by Jonas]*
> it was the redefining of gravity I was curious about
Really?
So where in this question you gave:
> a patent idiot is now about to redefine Newton?
Does it say "redefining gravity"?
You see, the first hit on Google for "Newton" is about the man himself. Then a lot of institutions named after him.
wow #xx since thinking isn't your forte, understanding of text isn't either. Go back to # 1210. It might do you some good if you read it again, and very slow this time. Off you go.
Who's been feeding you your latest load-of-garbage meme, Oluas/Olaus? Can you show so much as one anti-science model by your crew that produces credible results?
1210 agrees that models are working.
And in 1209 was me saying that you are admitting that climate models work.
Seems we're both in agreement that climate models work.
chek, Sock #2 is agreeing that the climate models are working. That then is agreement with the IPCC conclusions.
If it wants to assert something different, it would need first to assert what that different thing is, since at the moment, in black and white, Sock #2 is in agreement that models work, even when incomplete.
Mistake ...
#1217 was intended at chek ...
but by me of course.
Sorry 'bout that
Nice bit of logic knotting there @ #1212, Wow.
Confused because they're stupid, acting stupid because they're confused, or just plain confused and stupid - it's so difficult to tell sometimes.
Aye, you'll notice that Sock #2 hasn't actually said what constitutes proof of religous fanaticism, but we now KNOW it can't be a belief that the IPCC is correct if we can see they're basing their conclusions on models of the climate.
But at least Sock #2 agrees that climate models are working.
If it wants to say something else, then it can always get specific.
But it is really quite amazing
The abyssmally bottomless stupidity I have seen and read here, and which is repeated over and over again, is truly beyond belief and unrivalled anywhere else.
One frequent commenter, who obvioulsy must believe that often using the word 'idiot' somehow strengthens his case, is incapable of understanding the simplest things, even when repeated multiple times.
And believes that friction is the same as the viscous losses in a fluid such as air for example ...
And this even when the commenter he thinks he is supporting(!) *exlicitly* states the opposite!
Wow, just wow!
Wow and cheek, please hold hands and read #1210 again. Then repeat.
wow # 1225, the religious part is hidden in plain sight, not for for them with sound sceptic minds, but for sectarians like deltoids viewing crytal-balling as scientific proofs. :-)
> Then repeat.
I've repeated reading it about six times now.
It still says that you agree that models work even if incomplete or on hard subjects.
Therefore you agree that the climate models work.
The rest of it is just your opinion which you haven't yet established any method by which you reached you conclusion.
Gosh. Even Gonads is getting tired of his crap!
> The abyssmally bottomless stupidity I have seen and read here, and which is repeated over and over again, is truly beyond belief and unrivalled anywhere else.
> And believes that friction is the same as the viscous losses in a fluid such as air for example ...
And here Gonads thinks that a pendulum isn't moving in air!!!
Christ on a crutch, he can't even get his puppetry right. He still can't spell. He doesn't understand high school physics. He makes up definitions as he goes along. He lies.
People, the guy is clinically insane. No more good can come of this. Would you debate John Davison?
If we could get him to shoot down a denialist canard like Sock#2 did when doing it, you betcha!
:-)
Jonas N:
You think I'm stupid enough to just believe you, do you? Especially when I know that it makes no sense to call aerosols a climate feedback by any definition of climate feedback that climate scientists use (or engineers for that matter). Anyone who thinks they can call aerosols a climate feedback, quotes or not, has been smoking some pretty strong dope.
You just demonstrate over and over again how thoroughly confused you are. You fail to separate the feedbacks (which include water vapor) which are consistent with (and must exist because of) the other non-feedback forcings (aerosols, ocean heat absorption).
The ocean forcing is CONSISTENT with feedback by other processes. That is not the same as saying ocean forcing is a feedback.
No, aerosol cooling is not a hypothesis.
This is not a hypothesis either.
As far as ocean heat absorption goes, the oceans are capable of continuing to absorb the rate of heat flow for a very long time (at the expense of expanding) so "in the pipeline" is not an appropriate description for its near future (<100 year) effect. They will likely continue absorbing at least 0.6 W/m for a long time into the future. The aerosol level depends on the rate of burning of fossil fuels so won't change much if the rate of burning of fossil fuels doesn't change much. So "in the pipeline" is not an entirely accurate description for that either unless we can actually reduce the rate of burning.
No, we did not think everything was much better before. Scientists have long suspected the sensitivity that is estimated now. The lack of warming in the 1960s was part of the reason for researching aerosols at that time.
That narrative is very inaccurate of course.
I thought it was obvious that the negative forcings (from aerosols and ocean heat absorption) were stronger than the potential feedback forcing because the temperature rise is lower with these things.
It's awfully difficult to resist whatever happened when faced with statements like "aerosols are a 'feedback'" which is either totally meaningless or completely misleading in the context of climate science, quotes or not.
Jonas,
I stand in awe of your sustained effort to seek errors in my simple description of friction as a negative feedback by misconstruing so erroneously what I'm actually saying.
When I say 'the amount of friction' encountered over time is reduced, I am saying the constant frictional force, integrated over distance, i.e. work, which is constant a fixed distance, integrated
Jonas,
I stand in awe of your sustained effort to seek imaginary errors in my simple description of friction __as a negative feedback__ by misconstruing so erroneously what I'm actually saying. Your confusion is somewhat excusable considering the gross simplification, but you should understand that I am ultimately saying exactly the same thing as you, i.e., the power (âwork/âtime) of the frictional force is reduced proportional to the deceleration, or equivalently, loss of momentum that the frictional force induces.
I chose kinetic friction rather than aerodynamic drag as an example because the mechanics are simpler. Parasitic drag (what you seem to mean by viscous friction, which is a term ordinarily used to describe the action of dashpots, shock absorbers and such components of passive control systems used to inhibit the occurrence of positive resonant feedbacks particularly inherent to springs and certainly having nothing to do with freely swinging pendulums) does change proportional to the square of velocity, so the decrease in power is more dramatic. What is conventionally meant in aerodynamics by viscous resistance or Stokes' drag, however, is another kettle of fish, having to do with very small Reynold's numbers, i.e., objects at very low speeds traveling through very viscous fluids. Here the relation to velocity is pretty much linear.
If you're tempted to digress into another long, tortured and misguided discussion of laminar flow, turbulence and, god forbid, Navier-Stokes, please don't.
All of this is a really unnecessary digression from what I had hoped to be a point of agreement; that resistant forces are a simple form of feedback, and have certain features common to what is conventionally defined by the word feedback.
That you should use such a transparent avoidance tactic away from consideration of what was explicitly my intent and engage in a confused and erroneous argument about Newton's second law, evidently as a tu quoque defense against what has been pointed out to you as your non-comprehension of Newton's third law with respect to both the initial excitation of and restorative forces in a resonant system, which doesn't contain those features common to what is conventionally defined as a feedback, is more evidence of the narcissistic delicacy of your denial laden ego, and another example of why intelligent and rational people might think you're an idiot.
luminous
I agreed with friction being a negative feedback. What I pointed out was that
what you described physically wasn't friction, but viscous damping by a
surrounding fluid (eg air), or a damper.
Amazingly you now repeat for a third time what was wrong several times before:
>When I say 'the amount of friction' encountered over time is reduced
You now say that frictional work (equating dissipated energy) is constant for a
fixed distance, which is correct. But 'amount of friction is' is not amount of
work, and as you (again correctly) state, the frictional force remains constant,
(as long as the velocity is non-zero). And fritcion **over time** is of course
equally constant under the same conditions.
And not ony did you state the opposite, you even *explaind* the opposite:
>Because it is slower, the amount of friction it encounters *over a fixed period
of time* is reduced, thence **slowing the object a little less**
I repeat, what you said there was: "the amount of friction ... *over a fixed
period of time* is reduced .. slowing the object **a little less**" [over that
same period of time]
There is no way to interpret that, as meaning anything else but what you actually
stated.
But all you said would be true, if your negative feedback were of the viscous
type. And I even agree that viscous damping **too** is a negative feedback, as is
if course the strongest one: the restoring force responding to postion itself,
not only to direction (like friction) of motion, or also to that motion's speed
(as viscous damping).
So no, luminous: In absolutely no way need i misconstrue anything you said. I
read what you actually say, and from that notice that you use more words and
terms than you master.
I don't even need to call people 'idiot' when they are completely wrong, and keep
on repeating and defending, even 'explaining' their misconceptions. But I note
that many others try that, when they run out of arguments, or possibly because
they do ... and it causes a few chuckles.
Sorry 'bout the bungled line feeds when copying.
I'll try to post it again:
luminous
I agreed with friction being a negative feedback. What I pointed out was that what you described physically wasn't friction, but viscous damping by a surrounding fluid (eg air), or a damper.
Amazingly you now repeat for a third time what was wrong several times before:
>When I say 'the amount of friction' encountered over time is reduced
You now say that frictional work (equating dissipated energy) is constant for a fixed distance, which is correct. But 'amount of friction is' is not amount of work, and as you (again correctly) state, the frictional force remains constant, (as long as the velocity is non-zero). And fritcion **over time** is of course equally constant under the same conditions.
And not ony did you state the opposite, you even *explaind* the opposite:
>Because it is slower, the amount of friction it encounters *over a fixed period of time* is reduced, thence **slowing the object a little less**
I repeat, what you said there was: "the amount of friction ... *over a fixed period of time* is reduced .. slowing the object **a little less**" [over that same period of time]
There is no way to interpret that, as meaning anything else but what you actually stated.
But all you said would be true, if your negative feedback were of the viscous type. And I even agree that viscous damping **too** is a negative feedback, as is if course the strongest one: the restoring force responding to postion itself, not only to direction of motion (like friction), or also to that motion's speed (as viscous damping).
So no, luminous: In absolutely no way need i misconstrue anything you said. I read what you actually say, and from that notice that you use more words and terms than you master.
I don't even need to call people 'idiot' when they are completely wrong, and keep on repeating and defending, even 'explaining' their misconceptions. But I note that many others try that, when they run out of arguments, or possibly because they do ... and it causes a few chuckles.
See #731.
You're catching on ...
... though that was a masterpiece.
Let me clarify Stu, Jonas can call you "idiot" now and then but he doesn't use the word as an argument like you deltoids do. It's a conclusion of his. When Jonas elaborates you sure end up (very fast) looking and behaving like real idiots though. See the difference?
I showed this thread to some colleagues of mine. Spontaneously they wondered if you guys were not only nut cases but also masochists given the level of one sided punishment displayed. :-)
But Olaus,
I **do not need** to call anyone an 'idiot'. And I don't! And I don't even think they are real idiots. But I think it is stupid to display one's lack of substance in the way quite few here can't control ..
And I certainly think there are some abyssmally stupid dumbfucks hanging here. But I don't need to call them that either. They manage just fine without my pointers ..
@Tim
Another plea for Jonas to be allowed to rejoin the rest of the community, even just on a trial basis? or even only on the open thread?
@Others
Anybody else like to add their personal support to this? This thread takes too long to load now.
Allow a [sockpuppeting](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5441424) [liar](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5324804) like Jonas free to pollute another or indeed every thread, you mean GSW?
Not one of your brighter ideas, even by your standards.
@chek
I think that is a bit rich chek. You seem to have spent most of your time on the Jonas thread over the last week, and very little anywhere else. The Jonas 'pollution' free threads don't have much to talk about, or at least interest you.
chek
I have a really really hard time believing that 'thread pollution' is any serious concern of yours? Or being honest about the debate for that matter ...
GSW
As you probably have noticed, most of the commenters jump at every opportunity to abandon the topic (whichever it happens to be) and to find an excuse to rip on the person ..
And if anything flattering can be said about them, the 'creativity' when constructing those excuses at least is 'above average' (*)
Tim too has created an excuse to succumb to their whishes and needs. If that is what he needs, then let him ...
Discussing the science has never been the purpose or priority among the majority here. If it had been, it would have shown somehow after a month and a half ..
(*) And even among those few who occasionally addressed the topic, that urge seems to get the better of them regularly.
Absolutely right (not left) Jonas. You don't need to call anyone 'idiot'. That's rather self explanatory to anyone reading this thread where the lack of scientific leverage (besides name calling) from the cheks, stus, LBs, benies, jeffies is overwhelming.
GSW @1241
Your suggestion have my support.
I don't think Jonas N is good or bad, but I know that he is a master in finding flaws in a logical chain.
Unfortunately in climate discussions, the flaws too often originate from beliefs or desires founded on personal values. And we really hate when our values are questioned.
History have learnt me that censorship is not the solution.
Jonas,
You are misconstruing 'amount of friction' to mean 'constant friction'. 'Amount' here implies some net accumulation, as in 'a mounting quantity'. By 'amount of friction', I mean both work done by friction (constant force across a fixed measure of distance) and the differential power of friction (work done by friction per fixed measure of time). I confess it would have been clearer if I had said 'the net amount of energy absorbed by friction', but it is a misconstruction for you to assume that is not what I meant.
You are also misconstruing 'fixed period of time', to mean 'over that same period of time'. I mean over an equal, but subsequent period of time.
The power becomes smaller as the velocity (less distance covered over an equal period of time) is reduced. Thus, the net work done by a constant frictional force over time is reduced.
Were what it is you are only imagining me to say were true, then I would be truly talking nonsense. It isn't and I'm not. The only rational conclusion is; you are an idiot.
The difference between restorative forces and feedback forces is:
>For restorative forces in resonant systems there is a __translation__ from potential energy to kinetic energy. Discounting friction from whatever source, the existing internal net energy of the system remains at all times the same.
>For feedback forces there is a mutual __transfer__ of externally applied energy between two components of a system, changing the net absorbed energy of the system.
Therefore the statement:
>Resonance is a perfect example of negative feedback
is nonsense. Since you stubbornly clinging to this erroneous notion despite repeatedly having your nose rubbed in your nonsense, one can only rationally conclude you're an idiot.
>I don't think Jonas N is good or bad, but I know that he is a master in finding flaws in a logical chain.
From the experience of this thread, I'd say Jonas is a master of inventing ill-founded flaws in a logical chain.
luminous
You need to realize one thing. The question whether or not something is considered a negative or postive feedback is defined solely by which sign the feedback influences the input.
As I said, a mechanical positioning of a mass/inertia with a flexibility (ie a spring) is a **negative feedback** on its position.
And (with low/negligable drag/friction etc), it is the perfect example of *Resonance*!
A damper, a viscous fluid, drag and/or friction are negative feedbacks wrt how quickly (and closely) that position is reached. It's feedbacks are on the velocity, and its direction. respectively
The above is so selfevident, that it is just flabbergasting how this may still be an 'issue' for some ...
If you indeed do understand the laws of Newton, then your initial statement
>Because it is slower, the amount of friction it encounters over a fixed period of time is reduced, thence **slowing the object a little less**
is still incomprehensible! And no, I certainly don't not need to misconstrue anything here. What you try now, looks like backpedaling and redefining.
Now you claim that by a 'fixed period of time', you didn't mean **during** that 'fixed period of time' but a 'subsequent period of equal time'.
Well, Ok, but your claim is still patently wrong:
As long as (constant) friction is present, ie as long as the velocity is non-zero (in the same direction) , the loss of velocity of any (equal) period of time **will be the same**.
(That net work/time is lower at same friction but lower velocities is self evident, and not disputed. But your claim was about velocities being **reduced a little less**)
And I simply pointed out that you were (and appearantly still are) in violation of Newton's second law.
Finally, writing something like:
>All of this is a really unnecessary digression from what I had hoped to be a point of agreement
sounds pretty lame (at best) from someone who consistently has tried to use the word 'idiot' in his many 'replies' and still tries. Or like in #294
>Jonas, OTOH, sees little because he has been feeding on the feces of nits
I can see two possibilities here:
1. You are still claiming that I misconstrue your statement of "slowing the object a little less", or
2. You are still in violation (denial?) of Newton's second law.
Because under Newton, and the conditions (we both seem to agree on), the object will slow down **by the exact same amount** per elapsed time period.
> As I said, a mechanical positioning of a mass/inertia with a flexibility (ie a spring) is a negative feedback on its position.
Nope, it's a restoring force based on the deviation from the relaxed state. There is also inertia which means that the restoring force swaps between kinetic and potential (elastic) energy, with nothing there being a "negative feedback".
There is a third possibility:
1 You're talking bollocks
Jonas,
>As long as (constant) friction is present, ie as long as the velocity is non-zero (in the same direction) , the loss of velocity of any (equal) period of time will be the same.
The fraction of velocity lost will be the same. The actual velocity lost will be smaller.
luminous
You managed to copy(?) it correctly in #1199:
>Newton's Second Law states that the vector sum of all forces acting on a body is equal to the **change** of momentum **with respect to time** (acceleration or deceleration).
And for a (constant) mass, the above states:
d(m·v)/dt = m·dv/dt = F
[where: m - mass, v - velocity, F - force in direction of v, < 0 for friction, ie opposing v]
But still you claim that for a constant frictional force F < 0, the **amount of slowing** (ie dv/dt) depends on v itself?
;-)
Well, not anywhere in the universe where Newton has a saying
PS Note: I never needed to call anybody idiot here. I think such labelling is ... ehrm ... unnecessary.
>You need to realize one thing. The question whether or not something is considered a negative or postive[sic] feedback is defined solely by which sign the feedback influences the input.
>As I said, a mechanical positioning of a mass/inertia with a flexibility (ie[sic] a spring) is a negative feedback on its position.
>And (with low/negligable[sic] drag/friction etc), it is the perfect example of Resonance!
When an ideal excited spring returns to its unexcited rest position, its kinetic energy is equal to the energy of the input. Likewise, when an excited spring is at instantaneous rest at the limits of its oscillation, the potential energy stored by the spring's resilience is equal to the input energy. The sum of Ek and Ep is equal to the input energy at all points in between. Assuming an ideal spring with 100% resilience and zero drag/friction/other external energy loss this condition would continue forever. Thus, the net effect of the change of position on the initiating input energy is zero, the feedback is zero, it is not a feedback.
Dear luminous b
I know perfectly well, how a mass spring system operates. (It seems you have some problems though). I also know that an undamped (fritcionless) system in resonance transfers its constant energy between kinetic and elastically stored. That no external energy is necessary.
I don't even know why you restate that over and over again!?
Why are you going on about energy? You already stated (copied?) that energy is conserved. You call that a zero feedback now? And you started out trying to(?) defending a 'positive feedback', you even wrote in #1094 that:
>Positive feedbacks, increasing the input energy
ie that 'input energy is increased' somehow!?
Sorry, you are making no sense at all.
You know, maybe you are stuck in the same misconception as Chris O'Neill was, believing that there is only one way to study or describe a system, or one kind of input to it.
As I said, a passive system, such as a spring holding a mass in position, constitutes a simple control system, invovling a negativ feedback (wrt to positioning that mass) exhibiting the physical phenomenon of 'resonance'
You can judge that from Newton's second law, just formulated in #1252, but with spring force F = k·x (x- position, k - spsring constant) and with
dx/dt = v
so that:
m·d²x/dt² = - k·x
where the ' - ' (the minus) signifies that the feedback in this case is negative. As I said, I'm flabbergasted that some still take issue with such basic stuff ...
But on the other hand, correctly interpreting the laws iof Newton also seems exceedingly diffictul. And I'm not even talking about you only here. Several others have jumped onto the same bandwagon ... and used a similar vocabulary.
;-)
> I also know that an undamped (fritcionless) system in resonance transfers its constant energy between kinetic and elastically stored
Nothing about resonance in an undamped system. And undamped doesn't require an absence of friction. Damping is the result of a parasitic system attached with a different resonant frequency.
Resonance only occurs when the system is being fed energy at a frequency to be compared to resonance.
In a perfect elastic system without any friction or damping the input of energy at the resonant frequency will mean an increasing energy in the system. In theory, indefinitely.
Chris O'Neill
As I have told you for some time, your childish nagging and pouting, and waffling of nonsense too, has decreased my interest in taking what you say that seriously.
I have more and more gained the impression that you also are one of the cheering bystanders, repeating the words, and occasianly throwing in a 'denialist' or some insults for 'good measure'.
And hitherto, my experience is that those who do never contribute anything of susbtance. Usually do not even understand (or only are able to correctly phrase) the arguments on their own side. Let alone arguments and chriticism coming from other directions ..
But I have now read the (whole) chapter by Rahmstorf(*), and it is really poor wrt to any substance. It is not even science, or a review of science. I don't think it even should be called an editorial about a scientific issue (although others certainly might claim that)
It seems to be a response, an attempt rebut the preceding chapter 2, by Lindzen, and does little more than over and over again repating various (more or less shaky) IPCC-claims.
It actually says just about what you have said here:
'This is the way it is. We who claim this, believe its so, and we and IPCC have published our views. We cannot think of anything else, it is very likely that the hypthesis we put forwards is the explanation ..'
Etc, a lot of circular arguing.
And I noted that you inflated the 1 °C to 1.2 °C, but if this (and only this) is what you base your beliefs on, I understand why you have sounded like you do. But I am still a little bit surprised that you thought it carried any weight, particularly much more than the preceding chapter.
(*) I had actually read it before, years ago, but didn't even consider it worth remembering for any reasons (other than its poor logic and arguments)
>But still you claim that for a constant frictional force F < 0, the amount of slowing (ie dv/dt) depends on v itself?
Yes, for constant mass, v is the dependent variable in the equation:
>F = m · âv/ât
For smaller v (x/t) one gets a smaller F with respect to time (ât). Friction is constant with respect to distance (âF/âx = 1) and consequently, the work done by friction (â« F · âx) is also constant with respect to distance. A distance which grows smaller with respect to time(squared) for a decelerating object (a = -âv/ât = -âx/ât2).
Why are you having so much trouble understanding this? It is really pretty simple. Could it be because you are a willful idiot?
>As I said, a passive system, such as a spring holding a mass in position, constitutes a simple control system, invovling[sic] a negativ[sic] feedback (wrt to positioning that mass) exhibiting the physical phenomenon of 'resonance'
This has nothing to do with resonance. It is just a balance of forces, i.e., Newton's Third Law.
>m·d²x/dt² = - k·x
>where the ' - ' (the minus) signifies that the feedback in this case is negative.
No. It signifies that the force of displacement is equal and opposite to the restorative force.
Again, Newton's third law.
I ask Tim to restrict GSW and Olaus to this thread along with their demonstrated sockpuppet Jonas; they contribute nothing of value.
Snort.
Yes, don't you. Note that climate discussions, rather than climate science, feature a lot of ignorant (or worse) folk with that characteristic.
Nope, luminous, nowhere near ...
If F is constant (and opposed to v > 0) F **does not get smaller** with time. F **constant in time** means:
(âF/ât) â¡ 0
F being constant over distance reads:
(âF/âx) â¡ 0
But this is just too surreal! Take your own equation, and just rewrite as:
> F·ât = m·âv
What this says, when F (and formally m too) is constant over time, is that the change in velocity (âv) is proportional to elapsed time ât, and independent of the magnitude of velocity. Ie that:
> F·ât = m·âv
As it of course must be if you want to adhere to Newton's second law. But it seems you stubbornly resist ... I just don't understand why!?
Contd.
What you wrote:
> âF/âx = 1
has no meaning at all. Entities F, x and 1 all have different dimension, and your expression is nonsense (again).
Further, (negative) acceleration, ie deceleration is (if you drop the erroneous sign):
>a = âv/ât
Which is negative if âv is negative (ie getting slower), which it is here since F < 0 (and ât > 0, see precious comment).
Further, the work done by constant frictional force F (ie â«F·âx) is proportional to distance x ε [0, x], which is of course dimished as v decreases. Because kinetic energy is proportional to v². Meaning that at a constant deceleration âv/ât < 0, the kinetic energy decreases at a diminishing rate, because the (equal) work done by friction decreases at an equally diminishing rate, since at decreasing velocity, the (correspodning dissipated) frictional work (over time) is lowered accordingly as v is lower.
But this is now getting so unreal that I really (and I mean really) have a hard time believing that you honestly mean the nonsense you write. And this should be interpreted in the light of me having very low expectations on your capability already from start ...
But one thing still is truly encourigning: All the others who are cheering this utter and total bizarre nonsense along ...
PS Newton's third law nowhere, and really absolutely nowhere involved any mass of any participating body, or the stiffness (spring constant) of another. If you thought so, you are in violation of yet another one .. but it seems you don't care how many 'tickets' you get anymore. Since you won't be able to pay them off anyway.
@Jonas 1262
I have to admire your perseverance ;)
On loading the thread I couldn't help noticing the first comment from Neven I think.
"Deltoid, the place where trolls come to die."
Well some 1300 comments later, is it a Deltoid record? Your still alive and giving better than you get. Good Man!
I think you may get LB and Others up 'big' school level physics by the time you're done. They are improving, they should be paying you for this.
;)
Look who finally googled "ad hominem" after 1200 posts! How cute! Now let's see if he can find one actual instance.
Obvious and stupid lie.
My, what fevered imagination.
Obvious and stupid lie. See #731. I do hope this is not a serious argument that since you did not literally use the word 'idiot' you are free and clear?
You just did. You're really not very good at this, are you?
Stu, you (read: deltoids) ought to be very grateful for all the well behaved and informed comments made by Jonas. I'm sure LB will be, when he recovers from that nasty face plant of his. Some friction and gravity on that one! :-)
The first and only law of LB?
Obvious and stupid lie. See #731 and #1240 for the former, the entire thread for the latter.
Jonas,
You are talking of constant forces, e.g., near earth gravity or a rocket with constant thrust, independent of distance or velocity.
If friction was a constant force like gravity or thrust irrespective of time or distance, then when an object, moving because of some initial pulse of momentum, reached zero velocity, then friction through a stationary medium would start accelerating the object in the opposite direction. That would be surreal!
Friction is different. Friction is not an independently constant force. It is only constant with respect to distance, i.e., the work necessary to overcome friction when pushing an object over a fixed distance, for that object over that surface, is always equal. When one pushes that same object at a slower velocity, then, in an equal period of time, one will travel a smaller distance. Therefore, the work one exerts to overcome friction with respect to time becomes smaller as the velocity grows smaller. Friction causes an object moving because of an initial pulse of energy to decelerate. A decelerating object is moving at a progressively lower velocity. Therefore, the net friction of a decelerating object grows progressively lower.
Or you could look friction not being a constant force, but merely a constant coefficient of friction, i.e., the fraction of frictional force opposing an externally applied force being constant. The constant coefficient of friction times applied force is the net frictional force. Since the net frictional force opposes and is subtractive from an initial pulse of applied force, the remnant vector of the applied force grows smaller, causing the object to decelerate. The smaller the remnant applied force the smaller the net frictional force, and so on.
It isn't rocket science and Newton's second law isn't violated. Either way, you are still an idiot.
Stu, your comments get weaker and weaker. Burly yes, but no juice. Compared to the wordings of deltoids Jonas posts are white as snow. In fact, trash talk is the common denominator of Deltoid. See the entire thread. ;-)
Why don't you get your ass over to LB and take care of what's left of him? He is just lying there like a shivering green pile. Do something Stu!!!
>>âF/âx = 1
>has no meaning at all. Entities F, x and 1 all have different dimension, and your expression is nonsense (again).
x is a dimension of F, idiot.
But I did make a mistake: âF/âx = 0
I hope you can find it in your idiot heart to forgive me.
Obvious and stupid lie. See #731 and #1240.
That is:
For a constant force; âF/âx = 0
The fact that you lead off with a personal attack statement about childishness that is not relevant to my last comment proves how weak your position is. If I'm childish then I'd much rather be childish than a pathetic jerk like you.
OK, so your main argument is ad hominem. In fact your whole comment here is little more than a substance-free ad hom.
Rather ironic coming from someone who puts up little, if any, substance in response to the claims by scientists that I mentioned.
So you keep reminding me over and over again.
Oh really. Care to point out where those words, which you put in quotes, actually are?
You just don't get it, do you? I don't care (in the arguing sense) about your opinion. Why should I care about the opinion of any pathetic jerk like you?
Did it take you the whole chapter before you realized that?
Jonas,
>Further, the work done by constant frictional force F (ie[sic] â«F·âx) is proportional to distance x ε [0, x], which is of course dimished[sic] as v decreases. Because kinetic energy is proportional to v². Meaning that at a constant deceleration âv/ât < 0, the kinetic energy decreases at a diminishing rate, because the (equal) work done by friction decreases at an equally diminishing rate, since at decreasing velocity, the (correspodning[sic] dissipated) frictional work (over time) is lowered accordingly as v is lower.
You're so close! The only problem being; if the frictional force actually were constant, then when v becomes zero (much more quickly than in reality), that constant force would either begin to accelerate the object in the normal direction or cause it to heat up exponentially or something else. It's really impossible to say what fantasy forces might do.
"Tim Another plea for Jonas to be allowed to rejoin the rest of the community, even just on a trial basis? or even only on the open thread?"
If Jonas want's let out of his box, he needs to be honest.
Can you point to an example of a post where Jonas was honest?
Even a little bit honest?
I thought not.
Still in la la land, luminous ...
It is all quite easy, but of course only if you have the ability to read and comprehend. But I can reapat once more:
As long as v > 0, frictional force is constant and according to Newton's second law then
> F·ât = m·âv
Shall I reapat that once more? Ok!
As long as the object is moving, ie has a *positive* velocity, as eg in *'is sliding with some friction over a near-smooth surface'*, ie as long as v > 0, there will be a frictional force present in the opposite direction.
Did you notice the qualifying condition *'as long as it is sliding'*, there will be *opposing* friction. And do you remember that you initially stated 'constant friction', also known as Coulomb friction, as in eg
> F = -µ·m·g
[with gravity g acting on that sliding mass m, where 'minus' signifies opposite to sliding direction]
Does that ring a bell? Well, I hope so, because this ("constant friction") is what you stated initially (in #1177).
Now would you please be so kind and insert all those **constants** in your original forumlation of Newton's second law (while still remembering that it relies on v > 0, ie there actually being friction present), giving:
> F = -µ·m·g = m·(âv/ât)
so that the (negative) acceleration, the deceleration (yes indeed: just as said, the change of v over time), will be **constant** too, ie
> -µ·g = (âv/ât) = a < 0
and if you can bring yourself to remembering that this relies on **friction being present**, ie sliding still occuring, ie v > o, the above equation states that acceleration (ie negative deceleration) is constant, as in
> (âv/ât) = -µ·g
and will remain constant, and thus **not** depend on v itself (only on the precondition, the presence of a positive v > 0).
Because, if you'd believe otherwise, if you incidentally would believe that (âv/ât) would **vary with** v, you would need the velocity v itself in that relation (*). And since it ain't there, what conclusions would you draw?
Well, I don't know about you. But I would say that, as long as it is sliding (v > o), the deceleration will be constant, v would be decreasing (at a constant rate), until it comes to a halt, so that v = 0. At that point sliding will have stopped, no relative motion, no friction, and F = 0 and therefore both (âv/ât) = 0 and v = 0, and remain so!
Can you envision that? A hockey puck sliding over the ice when given som initial velocity v > 0, which diminishes over time, due to friction, and which finally comes to halt? Well, I'm certain that even you can imagine a hockey puck lying still on the ice. But can you envision it getting there too?
(*) Now, if you had been studying a damper, a dashpot, motion in a viscous or Newtonian fluid, drag etc ... the opposing force, and thus the deceleration, would indeed have dependend on v. But with constant friction: No!
Chris O'Neill
>Did it take you the whole chapter before you realized that?
No it didn't. But once I realized I'd seen it before, i kinda lost interest, no need to rush finishing it.
And do I really
> **lead off** with a personal attack statement ?
As so many of you guys, you seem to have no understanding of causality, of cause coming before effect. Quite depressing!
>OK, so your main argument is ad hominem
No it ain't! But there just isn't much beef in there
>Rather ironic coming from someone who puts up little, if any, substance in response to the claims by scientists that I mentioned
You have brought up (copied?) most of the claims therein, and the obvious objections are already on the table. But I'd reckon you can't recognize those. Well, did you read the preceding chapter, by a real scientist? Were you at all aware, that the whole chapter was not much more a talkback at the preceding chapter and what he thinks is claimed in the media and/or by sceptics?
>Why should I care about the opinion of any pathetic jerk like you?
Well, obviously you do. And obviously you need to project heavily to rationalize that erroneous assertion. And I don't ask you to care about my opinions. But since you can't distinguish between opinions and valid arguments, or logic ... you'd have to come up with something like that.
>Care to point out where those words, which you put in quotes, actually are?
No, these aren't quotes, but I did paraphrase the gist of the chapter.
So Chris, did you find any (new, additional) argument in there not already adressed here? I mean beyond models being *'consistent with'* what they are supposed to model, and that *"there is no viable alternative explanaition"* (Note: these **"** are real quotation marks)
Well, I didn't and I've read the entire thingy, and I am far better suited than you to read stuff like that. There are a few gross errors, a bunch of smaller ones, an aweful lot of handwaiving, a great many non sequitors, and of course interwoven, the proffered IPCC hypothesis being discussed. But nothing in there strengthens the case. It does not even summarize an attempt of 'evidence' although it claims so.
But I take it, you have read those words, at least some of them. And believe they are gospel. You sure have been repeating (copying in) them here.
Well, they aren't gospel Chris, and it seems you have no method to distinguish between opinions, hopeful hypothesizing, stated hyphotheses, support for those, logical arguments for and against, criticism, objections and the substance of all those. Or lack of such. It all appears like a fuzzy blurr to you it seems.
And if Jonas says something it just must be wrong!? That's you default assumption, isn't it? Because he just must be a jerk, cannot be anything else. Even if it means redefining Newton ... right? Conceding even one minor point would be devastating for the remnants of any dwidnling self esteem, wouldn't it?
But sorry kids, this is not a viable method to learn anything. As the many comments here have shown so succintly ...
Jonas, do you agree that CO2, a "greenhouse" gas, traps heat in our atmosphere which would otherwise radiate out to space?
Like GSW pointed out, the no. uno post of this thread declared "Deltoid, the place where trolls come to die."
And it sure is a graveyard, for big pink squirming CAGW-elephants. :-)
Jonas said: "There are a few gross errors, a bunch of smaller ones, an aweful (sic)lot of handwaiving (sic), a great many non sequitors (sic)".
I think Jonas just summed up his entire performance here very elegantly.
Chek, your scientific arguments for CAGW has improved, I notice. :-)
"Requiem" :-)
Better yet, see #1108 and #1110.
*Chek, your scientific arguments for CAGW has (sic) improved, I notice*
Olaus is about as illiterate as Jonas. No wonder there is mutual adoration.
Vince, do you really think (wish, hope) to have a tiny point somewhere? What then would that be, pray tell ..
Jeff Harvey, for sure has not had one single point regarding any topic here ...
Keeps on whining about 'illiterate' but is too afraid to read anything, and even more of explaining what he might have read or understood. A total farce here
Another funny thing about quite a few here:
The keep on using the word troll, but appearantly have no idea what the term actually means
Oh no, the Jeffie elephant was only apparently dead! Nah...it is only a few excitations left (not right) in the limbic system of his playing the trumpet: his trunk's final goodbye (waving the white flag).
RIP, Jeffie "the pink CAGW-Dumbo" Harvey.
I'm wondering if Old Gonads here is actually Whiney Niel Graig. The complete lack of spelling ability is certainly similar.
Of course, these clowns now have nothing other than "Jeffie" to offer.
For all the juvenile premature crowing by the Jonas brigade, it's worth reminding them that so far Jonas et al have not even dinged the oxide on the paintwork of any of the supporting IPCC science, let alone exposed any flaws.
Jonas' vainglorious claims and offhand statements aren't refutations, and only a moron and his even more cretinous support circus would think they are.
Hehehe... the most anal retentive of them all when it comes to share science show us what he has to offer. Wow, using your "Don't touch my idol Jeff-badge" as a shield isn't an argument.
# 1285 is heavy stuff. :-)
...oh, and making stuff up.
The Jonases have no problem with that whatsoever.
Whimpering Chek brings out the heavy artillery....
:-)
...oh, and not forgetting half-witted, infantile taunts.
Olaus the illiterate:
The reasons I don't venture into this lame thread any more are twofold:
1. Unlike you and Jonas, who apparently sit on your butts all day admiring each others hollow pontificating on this thread, I am a busy scientist, and am currently working on three manuscripts, supervising several Master's and PhD students, and editing manuscripts for a peer-reviewed journal. I am also helping out with several experiments, and later this week I present a departmental seminar. Clearly you and your idol - in fact, especially him - appear to have a lot of spare time to scribble nonsense here. If that 'gets you off', then so be it.
2. Idiots like the both of you are not worth the time and effort. If you want to debate, go to a university or conference somewhere and parade your ignorance there. You must by now realize that your fan club here is very, very small.
Finally, I would like to know, Olaus the Ill, on what expert basis your colleagues through that Jonas was wiping the floor with people here. My colleagues - actual scientists as it turns out - find his musings to be quite hysterically funny.
Oh, and I decline GSWs suggestion to let Jonas back into the other threads. Given his propensity for the 'facts', combined with his lengthy rambles, I fear that he would try and take them all over.
Jeff H
You keep trying to tell people how 'important' you feel. But are you now saying that there are any **real** scientists around you were you are? You know the ones whom you have *deep, intellectual* discussions with in your lunch room?
Scientists who can distinguish eg the laws of Newton from pure gibberish? Scientists who do neither think that using the word 'idiot' is an argument nor an infantile defence mechanism?
Or are they of your variety? Who can spout nonsense for weeks without ever getting anywhere? Or worse even, the variaty that makes up its own 'truths and facts' to compensate for their intellectual impotence?
> You keep trying to tell people how 'important' you feel.
As usual, Gonads here just reads what he'd like to see.
Wow, I believe Jonas read (again) the same thing I did (again), ie what Jeffie always procure instead of anything on topic:
"I am a busy scientist, and am currently working on three manuscripts, supervising several Master's and PhD students, and editing manuscripts for a peer-reviewed journal. I am also helping out with several experiments, and later this week I present a departmental seminar."
The death-throes of Jeffie's glorified self-image is rather painful to watch. But I understand what you are getting at Wow. You think its unfair to kick a man when he is flat on his back.
> I believe Jonas read (again) the same thing I did
Yup, the same level of bad grammar as Gonads.
> what Jeffie always procure
This, however, is probably a new record for incomprebabble from you.
I take it you don't have a problem with you^WJonas saying "I know what I'm talking about", just when other people use it, yes?
Wow, if this was a grammar contest you might have valid point, but it isn't. :-)
Take the rest of your # 1295 to luminous beauty and Jeffie for correction. ;-)
"I am ... currently working ...
I am ... supervising several Masters and PhD students ...
I am ....editing manuscripts for a peer-reviewed journal...
I am ....helping out with several experiments ...
I am ....presenting a departmental seminar."
Several activities right there that the Jonases and the climatescam losers club will never have to worry about or bother with.
> if this was a grammar contest you might have valid point, but it isn't
It isn't grammar. It's actual coherency. It's not "ungrammatical" to say "what Jeffie always procure", it's incoherababble.
If you're going to talk to people, you have to ensure what you write makes sense first.
But you are still reading what you want to read, not what's written. Or, alternatively, you're so incoherent that what you're saying isn't anything near what you mean.
Hence the problem with your "grammar" errors.
Go to school, learn how to write, and then come back.
Wow, I'm fine thank you. But you are correct, I'm not used to address people that think profanties are scientific arguments or/and believe Jeffie's ridiculous self idolatry is on topic.
You're not fine. You're highly disfunctional.
> I'm not used to address people that think profanties are scientific arguments
You support them, though.
> Jonas' ridiculous self idolatry
Fixed that for you.
Dear illiterate brothers:
I am not trying to tell either of you anything. You two clowns mean nothing to me. I am only saying that I have more important things to do than to engage in daily to's and fro's with you two over a scientific issue that has moved well beyond the threshold you ahve set for it.
If you think my telling you the truth about what I am doing as a scientist is 'self idolatry', then go with it. But you have no idea what the term means. It is 'self idolatry' if I am lying as to what I do in my profession. Its clear that every time I mention my profession to you morons, you gnash your teeth and respond with all kinds of silly rebukes. Its the politics of envy, I feel. A fellow scientist told me a few weeks ago by email that its clear that you both loathe scientists, and especially those like me who clearly have been successful. Besides, I don't need nothings like you to tell me whether I am successful or not; I leave that to my peers. And given my publication list, the number of times my articles are cited in the empirical literature, and the number of invitations I get to present seminars at conferences and workshops and universities, I am doing just fine. Its these factors that are a measure of my standing in science, not comments from a pair of denialists who, like it or not, are completely invisible in the real world.
You sad sacks ought to get used to the fact that with respect to science you are way, way down the pecking order. Bottom feeders. GGRRR!! I hear more gnashing of teeth.
Sorry chaps.
@Jeff
I'd love to know, reading back your post 1301, aren't you evenly moderately embarrassed about what you put?. 'Self Idolatry' means 'worship of oneself' and there is plenty of that above.
"A fellow scientist told me a few weeks ago by email that its clear that you both loathe scientists, and especially those like me who clearly have been successful."
What kind of scientist was he? Not another Zoologist I hope, they can't all be devoid of any intellectual faculty surely.
Something I've realized on this thread too, you CAGW lot, you're all fairly repulsive human beings all round. There isn't one positive character trait that any of you seem to possess, one can forgive you for being thick, but the small minded attitude, that's a different matter.
Jonas, Olaus, Good Men! play with the Periplaneta australasiae (?) a little longer, enjoy!
;)
Dear Jeffie, if you don't need my recognition of your superiority, why is it that your screaming frustrations (ejected all over the thread) always circle around how scientifically erected you feel (sic) and that I need to worship this delusional priapism of yours? It sounds a bit hollow, to put it mildly, that it is the approval of your peers that you are after. ;-)
Bottom line Jeffie, your important pen-pal got it wrong, probably to spare your fragile narcissistic megalomanic ego. Jonas, GSW and I love science and scientists, ergo we can't stand you and the unscientific gibberish you (and your coprostasian minions) drool about regarding climate science. Doctrines, taboos, name calling and self idolatry isn't climate science. Period.
@ GSW :-)
GSW,
I was waiting for you to show up and defend the illiterate brothers. Man, you are one predictable dude. Thick as two planks, but nevertheless predictable.
You silly prat, of course I know what self idolatry means. Its a bit rich of you and Olaus to accuse me of exhibiting 'self idolatry' when Jonas has been raving on pretty much non-stop about how 'he knows what he is talking about' and how Olaus has claimed that his 'colleagues' (whatever s$*& it is they do) think that Jonas has wiped the floor with his opponents etc. You guys are utter hypocrites. Jonas is a legend in his own mind. And no, my guess is that Tim is wise enough to make sure that Jonas stays in his box with his infinite wisdom, even though he has no professional qualifications whatsoever. But then again, neither do you or Jonas' illiterate twin # 2.
Moreover, perchance, please tell me where I exhibit self-idolatry? Just because I am a scientist and I have better things to do than to respond to idiots like you and the illiterate twins? It must hurt that I have actual qualifications. Your only recourse is to try by putting down zoologists? HA! HA! HA! HA! OH, the pain that causes me! The hurt! You don't know the meaning of the term, so you throw it out thinking that it will sting. And if you'd read a single paper I'd written you'd understand (then again, perhaps not) that I am certainly not a zoologist. God only knows where primary and secondary plant chemistry, invasive plants and multitrophic interactions fit into your twisted definition of 'zoology'. Last I heard zoology was the study of animals and not plant-animal-environment interactions. But, of course, GSW, I forgot what a genius you are. Please forgive me, oh hallowed one.
Come on GSW, you must try harder, man. Call me whatever you like, but your views mean nix. Again, in the scientific pecking order you are a bottom feeder. Yup, well in the benthos with the two IB's. It must really piss you off that you, like the other two clowns, have absolutely zero standing in the scientific community. Ouch! You must look in the mirror and have to slap yourself silly thinking, "If only! If only!" But you, like your monicker, are invisible.
As for Olaus, the only scientists you like are denialists like yourself. To say that you "love science and scientists" has to be the comic line of the month. Besides, few of the scientists that you probably do admire have much of a standing in the scientific community. The bottom line is that I would put my name against yours, Jonas' and GSWs in a scientific poll any day and see who would come out light years ahead. You three have never lifted a finger in any scientific endeavor. Not one. Until you can show me that you have done the mileage, then expect me and many others on this thread to ridicule your stupid arguments. In fact, given that 99% of Deltoid contributors have long since abandoned the sinking ship that is the 'Jonas thread', perhaps you desperately need someone - anyone - to help keep it afloat. For that alone I deserve gratitude.