Hey ! GTW,

Do you think the word 'hoax' in the thread title may pertain to those who are trying to paint current understasnding as such and does not involve 'current understanding' at all?

Makes more sense to me when I read the thread and title?

Much as you'd like to think otherwise SC, nobody really cares if some rabid sceptic with mad haxxor skillz raided data from a private email account somewhere because it isn't part of the debate. In fact its just a lowlife crime. What is part of the debate, is the peer reviewed literature. It's a shame you don't talk about that much, but it does demonstrate that you've got nothing much to say other than trying to glorify a crime.

Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 

The two are connected in case it as slipped your mind, gosh you warmers really are blinkered. Peer reviewed literature isn't worth diddley squat, as those e-mails suggested! 

Originally Posted by: TomC 

I see you have lost another argument SC.  You don't seem able to engage in discussing the facts, you merely fall back on tedious and over-used prejudices.

Let's try again.  The emails were stolen, i.e. obtained illegally.  They were stolen to order for a specific purpose.  I can think of nothing that justifies that action and if you condone it in any way whatsoever then your judgement is suspect.

It speaks volumes for the desperation of the sceptic/denier lunatic fringe that this non-event in terms of adding value to the debate should be held in such high regard.

Let us know when (a) you have your moral compass re-tuned and (b) want to engage in discussion about the facts.

Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 

Gandalf said:

"You don't seem able to engage in discussing the facts, you merely fall back on tedious and over-used prejudices."

The worthwhile facts, related to this thread and under discussion are the contents of some emails. Ethics are a seperate issue, but Jeff puts that argument to bed, and still you will not discuss them

And you along with Devonian have time and time again recently in this thread, demonstrated your extreme prejudices and reiterated them - some say "bleated".

Below, I have posted the definition of a troll from Wiki:

a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response.

Do you fit the description with regard to your recent contributions here? .

Originally Posted by: TomC 

The irony in Gandalf's rant is quite remarkable, and just highlights the impossible task sceptics of AGW have, to engage in a serious discussion with those proponents of AGW. Another debate shut down! 

Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 

Serious discussion SC involves actually talking about science not hurling insults, you need to learn that. The science must be in the peer reviewed literature too as in all physical science topics that is the source of the current understanding of a subject and debate about it.

Originally Posted by: polarwind 

I reject the science Tom, all our warming can be attributed to natural variability within our climate sytem. There is no evidence what so ever to suggest the small increase in CO2 levels has lead to any increase in global temperatures. You are trying too make a cake without eggs and flour

 Your evidence consist of manipulated data, hopeless computer simulated modelling, and a complete lack of understanding of albedo effects.

 

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

 You see the problem is that you are in no position to reject the science. It is known that the increased CO2 produces a radiative forcing of about 2.5 W m-2. . Doubling atmospheric CO2 produces a forcing of about 4 W m-2 which corresponds to a warming of about 1C without feedbacks. You will not find a physicist who doesn't accept that because it follows directly from the structure of the CO2 molecule

Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 

Obviously your another one who suffers from selective reading, read the above post of mine. It's not about the laws of Physics Tom, it's about climate sensitivity and that my friend is something climate scientist are as clueless as any layman out there.

Originally Posted by: Ulric 

The laws of physics are critical to understanding AGW, the laws of physics tell us that AGW must be happening and at least contributing to the warming of the planet. The feedbacks require other laws eg Clausius Clapeyron relation but lets start with the basic radiative forcing by CO2

Wow

That should be held up as a classic for defining the completely unsustainable position of the denier.

I have detected an increasing desperation in your posts, SC.  This is just so patently rubbish that there is scarcely any merit in either the post or trying to debate it's contents (Polarwind take note)

You are right Gandalf the post is nonsense, but I'm not sure what it has to do with polarwind's posts which, in my opinion, raised some very valid questions.

You do wonder don't you?

I must admit I found Solar Cycles post a total revelation. 

I think this thread should be 'unstickied' and allowed to slip away quietly.  It is an anachronism and a reflection of some of the bizarre views that exist and can be seen all over the Internet.

Over the years here I have tried to find some common ground but every time we get close the denier/sceptic band pull away again.  First we got acceptance that there was warming occurring - now that has been challenged.  Then we get acceptance of the basic science - and then someone like SC challenges even that basic starting point.

Ho hum.

Hi NS - that reference was only in relation to his questioning my posting style when responding to some of the bizarre comments that appear in here.

I'm all up for debate of the 'issues' that science brings us but , as with many other things in life, the more info you glean supporting a notion then the more likely you are to lend credence to it? I know that all change starts in one spot but I have not come across that 'spot' in as far as our manipulation of climate is concerned. I read a preview of a groups work into proving man's role in climate change over his expansion across the planet (and the changes he wrought) and when this paper goes live (in spring) we will be faced with paleo evidence of how easy it is to upset natures 'balance' (as if we can't see that all around us today?).

If deforestation and agriculture, over the last 8,000 years, is 'measurable in impact' then what of burning hundreds of paleo Forrest's since 1750?

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110325/full/news.2011.184.html

Is all of this not an exercises in 'cause and effect'? If we are looking at a closed system (as near as damn) then how can we alter the balance and not expect that 'alteration' to generate change? Didn't Newton have something to say about a body staying still, or in permanent motion, until acted up on by some 'external force'?

Solar Cycles tells us he or she rejects the science.

I would suggest they start by reading the science, because they very clearly have not!!!

Cheers - John

Tiny amounts of the total mass of data were unavailable because it wasn't the scientist's concerned to release - it was data lent to them by countrys who put a embargo on such data. I'm amazed how hard that has been for some people to understand that...

But now most of that tiny amount of missing data is also available.

Anyway, you'll call for people like McIntyre and Watts to open up all their email boxes - just in case they're hiding some tiny amount of data? Why haven't we seen the notebooks people like Watts use? Why haven't we be able to go through McIntyre's dustbins looking for tiny bits of data he's 'hidden'? Well? I tell you such request are just as fatuous as those who claim the data is missing and the science a religion.

Ahh, but they don't need to read it - they know it's wrong. Nice circle isn't it....

And if it's right? And who is pushing extreme conjectures? No scientist (and I mean NO scientist) I can think of. A few extreme sceptic say scientists are pushing extreme views but you should be the last person to fall for such right wing claptrapery.

I think part of the problem for many is they do not understand how conservative much of science is with it's conclusions?

 Folk seem to read 'in all probability' or 'over 90% certain' and see a wrong thing and not an overly cautious person trying to tell their 'truth' the best that they are able?

But the proverbial cart is being placed afore the horse here, is it not? Forecasting errors are being posited as such before they have had even 0.1% of a chance to pan out so that their accuracy or otherwise may be evaluated.

As a general follow-up to the dismissal of the literature by some commentators on here, I'll repost the comment that nails it IMO: from Ray Ladbury, who is - OK - known for being outspoken (who can blame him frankly given some of the absurd accusations echoed about regarding climate scientists in general), but when one digests his words slowly they do tend to have a ring of truth about them. Ray is a sound bloke once you get to know him. This was posted elsewhere some 18 months ago, but it is still good advice - indeed it is the best advice that a newcomer to this whole barney could have, and the "IGNORANT" in the first sentence is not an insult - it's implying there's a fascinating world out there once you start reading the literature instead of the Tabloids - so please set forth on that journey. I've appended my comments in square brackets:

"If you don’t know about or understand the evidence that shows incontrovertibly that we are warming the planet, you are IGNORANT. No sin here. You can rectify your ignorance by hard study. [JM - that's the vast majority of us including me, though I'm striving to rectify it]

If you refuse to put in the hard study, then you are WILFULLY IGNORANT and your opinion is worthless. [JM - applies to anything pretty much - sea-angling for example - if you don't work at it, gaining experience and understanding, you'll never up your catch-rate, and blaming e.g. the local East European population might make you feel briefly more comfortable, but will it help? Will it heck!]

If you refuse even to look at the evidence even when it is shoved in front of your face and still insist you understand better than all the experts, then you are a DENIALIST. [JM - true - and I specifically reserve the term these days for people who are paid to spread misinformation for political purposes - the well-known U.S. rightwing thinktanks come immediately to mind. The term "skeptic" is utterly abused with regard to these people: ALL scientists need to maintain skepticism to counter the very human phenomenon of confirmation-bias with which we are every one of us afflicted]

Finally, if you insist that all the scientists are engaged in a global hoax to preserve their lucrative grants (which amount in salary to about what a mid-level IT administrator would make), then you are an IDIOT." [JM - can anybody in their right minds really envision a truly global conspiacy, involving a few thousand scientists from countries as diverse in politics and faiths as China, Iran, the USA, Germany, Russia, Bolivia, etc etc etc managing to achieve same right under the noses of their extemely diverse political systems? Consider for one moment: not ONE religion has ever accomplished such a takeover, despite myriad wars fought in its name, over very many centuries if not longer...]

No: I think Ray nailed it fair and square with those four points. Perhaps the most succint post ever made on the subject, though I expect howls of derision for reposting it!

Cheers - John

What an excellent post.

NS why is my post rubbish, the evidence for warming caused by AGW  is far from settled. I've read countless IPCC papers, and none of them offer any conclusive proof, as my post highlights. 

Just too add also that climate models only ASSUME that their is a large positive feedback as the world warms, note the word ASSUMED, it crops up a few times.

Climate models underestimate the increase of evaporation with temperature.

Climate models overestimate the effect of CO2. This is down to global recorded temps, which contains the UHI component..

The sensitivity of climate models depends on the ASSUMED value of aerosol forcings. This is not measured, but only ASSUMED!

So we have a theory that is settled on ASSUMPTIONS! 

Thanks for putting words into my mouth.  I don't think I have suggested this? 

Which part of your statement:

'I reject the science Tom, all our warming can be attributed to natural variability within our climate sytem. There is no evidence what so ever to suggest the small increase in CO2 levels has lead to any increase in global temperatures. You are trying too make a cake without eggs and flour'

are you suggesting isn't worthy of derision?

1. The global temperature record shows quite clearly that there is a warming trend that is not explained by any known natural cycles.


2. We haven't had a 'small increase in CO2 levels' - we have had a 40% increase in CO2 levels.  That figure is increasing by around another percentage point each year.

You make these daft unsupported statements and you wonder why you get these responses?

Nobody is going to take your odd opinions seriously if you resort to such statements.

But your original post didn't use the word 'assumptions' (not 'assumed' by the way, as you are in nit-picking mode).

You cannot wriggle out of it that easily - or indeed at all.

It's a common theme amongst the rabid deniers that they change the subject or refuse to answer a valid question when they realise they've been found out yet again.

Now, would you care to deal with the facts as I enumerated above or are you going to indulge in some more ducking and diving?

SC, I think you are right to question the science, as should everyone. I also think you have a point regarding the climate models given the erratic performance of the weather models after only 4-5 days. Perhaps there is a difference and I'm happy for someone to explain why?

I also think you are right to highlight the many ambiguities in climate science including feedbacks, range of warming etc.  So on reflection, I was perhaps too harsh to dismiss your post as total nonsense.

Having said that I must say that to reject the science seems bizzare. If 99.9% of the experts in a particular field are telling you something then I think it is probably a good idea to listen to them. It is clear the world has warmed and that CO2 has increased. As Gandalf says, there is no known natural cycle that accounts for this - at the moment

I'm prepared to accept the science, while keeping an open mind and an awareness of the ambiguities. My interest lies in the politics of climate, not so much on the 'is it happening', more the 'what we do about it'. 

Aye, Northern Sky, and I agree on that. We have big problems coming up with shortages in liquid (=transport) fuels too. Surely to goodness it makes sense to look at any possible workarounds, rather than to keep pretending that none of this will happen!!??

The people I call deniers are extremely, extremely dangerous, for the simple reason that they can not see a single problem with ever-continued human expansion and consumption. As Douglas Adams would have said: "This is, of course, impossible"!

If you think it's possible folks, then shove some yeast in a jar with a handful of sugar & a bit of water - see what the ultimate result is!

Cheers - John

I'll have a stab NS. The weather model may be wrong after 4-5 days, but only (as an example) because a weather system went a couple of hundred miles north or south of its predicted path. What the weather model showed would still be within the range of expected weather - it just happened to be incorrect. Now, if you ran the weather model for 50 years, you'd have no hope of it ever predicting the weather correctly beyond a week or ten days. However, if it's good model*, the range of weather it provides at a point should average out to give the actual climate at that place - the right amount of sunshine, rain, snow, right range of temperatures etc. This is essentially what climate models do, except they run at lower temporal and spatial resolution than weather models despite including more variables (to save on computing time).

So if your climate model produces the right kind of weather consistently (i.e. the climate, with its inherent variability), it hardly matters that it can't predict next Tuesday's weather.

*This is oversimplified - climate models are not just weather models run for longer. For example, weather models ALL have a radiative drift because they're not in equilibrium. They don't need to be, because they only run for a couple of weeks and the imbalance doesn't wind up having an effect. Some climate models need an artificial correction to counteract this, but more modern ones, starting with HadCM3, are good enough not to 'drift'.

Yes the uncertainties do need highlighting. However SC is not correct in his assertion that climate models assume positive feedback; that's an emergent property of the models. In fact I can tell you four of the main factors that cause it to emerge:

i) The absorption characteristics of all GHGs are programmed in. Most importantly, that includes water vapour.

ii) The clausius-clapeyron equation is programmed in. This governs evaporation and the humidity of the model's atmosphere. That equation dictates that humidity increases with temperature (and of course we know water vapour is a GHG, ergo positive feedback).

iii) The albedo of various surfaces is programmed in. Most importantly, that includes ice and snow.

iv) Because ice and snow cover increases with a cooling climate and decreases with a warming climate, it must be a positive feedback.

What's more, climate models do not overestimate the effect of CO2. The radiative effect of CO2 is well known, it's pretty much impossible to mis-estimate. It's what the model then does with that particular radiative forcing that is important, but it certainly can't be claimed to be an oversensitivity to CO2. If a model is oversensitive, it's because it's oversensitive to all forcing, not just CO2 forcing.

If 99.9%  Did you get that figure from reliable source?

not thatb wilki is overly reliable but here is a list of sceptic scientists...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

But either way, since when did science become ruled by consensus? If 99.9% of scientists believed the world to be flat or the Earh is the centr of the universe, that would not make it right. So it is with the AGW THEORY.  There is some evidence that Man made Co2 is helping warm the earth above its norm (whatever that is), but equally there is evidence showing that Man made Co2 has little or no effect. The truth is, there is a great element of doubt and the whole thing has become an economic and political nightmare. Could you imagine if someone proved to the world that man made AGW did not exist?

There would be world wide chaos as people wonder why they are paying co2 taxes on this, that and everything! It is in no ones interest to have the AGW theory debunked, there simply is too much money at stake for goverments and companies!!