Catholicism and Climate Change

[JasonSB]

My statement on lambda could have been figured out by a 10 year old… IMHO…Just what one of the different values is used? If you look at Gavins 2/lambda it seems that indeed he used 2X lambda

I see you still don’t get it.

There are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS being called lambda.

The lambda with all the “different values” is, as I already explained, climate sensitivity. This lambda is unknown, but we know from empirical evidence that it cannot be less than a value that implies 1.5 C of warming for a doubling of CO2, and it’s unlikely to be greater than a value that implies 4.5 C of warming for a doubling of CO2. Multiple different lines of evidence point to a value that implies about 3.0 C of warming for a doubling of CO2. More research allows us to quantify this value more accurately so expect it to change.

The claim that the figure was “doubled” by the IPCC comes from Christopher Monckton, who is a very entertaining chap but who isn’t even a scientist. He also likes to just make stuff up, call American kids “Hitler youth” if they dare interrupt him, and called a Catholic university “a half-assed Catholic Bible college” for allowing one of its professors to refute his claims.

Needless to say, the flaws in his calculation of lambda have been pointed out numerous times.

What Gavin chooses to call lambda is completely different. You could call it anything you want. I went through Gavin’s model step by step, showed you why the number 2 was in there, and yet you still don’t get it. The number 2 arises because half the radiation from the greenhouse gas layer makes it way back down to the ground, while the other half escapes into space. One half is one divided by two. One divided by TWO. Do you see the connection?

“Moon paper” article copy-and-paste]

And that’s precisely what I was talking about when I said you should now be able to see how that source has absolutely no credibility left whatsoever.

If you can’t understand Gavin’s model – well, I’m sorry, but I really can’t make it any simpler. Three simple equations derived directly from the diagram is about as simple as it can get.

You’re obviously not alone – the author of that article is obviously as clueless as the comical “Moon Paper”. One day I hope you learn enough to find it as funny as I do.

Look, here’s a very simple test to assess the credibility of your source. He says:

“Schmidt wrote that he and his colleagues took the Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody numbers and multiplied them by an additional factor of two to devise NASA’s official Earth energy budget.” (Emphasis mine.)

Let’s ignore the fact that Schmidt didn’t take “the Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody numbers” and multiply them by an additional factor of two at all and focus on the other part, because that doesn’t require any understanding of mathematics at all. He claims that the model Gavin showed is used to device NASA’s official Earth energy budget and provides a link to Gavin’s article at realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/learning-from-a-simple-model/. What do we find when we check the article?

“Learning from a simple model”

“A useful way of demonstrating that simplicity is to use a stripped down mathematical model that is complex enough to include some interesting physics, but simple enough so that you can just write down the answer.”

“So how simple can you make a model that contains the basic greenhouse physics? Pretty simple actually.”

“Note that this is just going to be a qualitative description and can’t be used to quantitatively estimate the real world values.” (Emphasis mine.)

How many times does he have to say that he is presenting a simple model that can’t be used to quantitatively estimate real world values to destroy any notion that he was presenting the model used to devise NASA’s official Earth energy budget???

Where in that article does Gavin give any hint that this simple model could possibly be the one used internally by NASA?

The article you cite makes a direct claim that this is the model, and cites that page as proof. The page says nothing of the sort. In fact, not only does the page make no claim to be “the model used by NASA”, but in fact it explicity states that it’s a simple model to illustrate the greenhouse effect that cannot be used to estimate real-world values.

The author of your article is wrong. You can see this. Everyone can see this. And yet, despite the main premise of his entire article being obviously wrong, you still think this author is somehow credible. Why?

You should ask yourself this: If you can be so easily deceived by such obviously wrong information, how on earth are you going to be able to tell when the wool is being pulled over your eyes by somebody far more sophisticated on an issue far more nuanced?

If I can’t get you to accept this instance, when the underlying maths and principles are so simple, and where anybody can see he’s clearly lying about what Gavin said, then there’s no way I’m going to be able to explain what’s wrong with arguments presented by Monckton or Michaels. Those guys are clever enough that it actually requires a little bit of understanding to see through their claims.

 

[JasonSB]

Evidently, your reference work - needs work…Just what figure is lambda figured at? Was my question and I gave a number of values…

I already explained not only how lambda is derived, but why it gets more and more accurate as the science improves. Are you not reading my posts?

You are dead in the water on this insane claim, IMHO Until the money is equal…It can not be a double standard. The overwhelming Oil / energy money is to AGW’ers.

So repeat it ALL you want - it holds no weight at all.

Wow.

You not only equate “scientific funding through grants” with “PR firms asking for and receiving payments from vested interests to promote those interests”, but you actually believe that unless the money for the latter is at least as great as the money for the former, there is nothing wrong with assigning greater credibility to the output of those PR firms???

Prove this, please. I never heard of the man - until you pointed him out.

Yes, I suspected as much. You don’t even bother trying to find out who you’re unthinkingly spreading the message of. That $150,000 sure goes a long way.

Anyway, the page I linked to has exactly the same figures you used (including the ridiculously precise “magic number”). Google “magic number 1,767,250 CO2” and you’ll get just over a hundred hits.

The first one is the page I linked to, written by Pat Michaels, on the 30th of April, 2009. I know you just love dates, so work through that list and find one page that is older than that. Every one I checked was not only after that date, but other than yours, actually referenced the first article.

I have to admire the man. He gets to pocket the $150 grand, you do the work, and you don’t even know that you’re working for him!

I disagree, maybe if the information wasn’t hidden in the first place - You AGW’ers wouldn’t be back at square one.

If the information was hidden just how did you find out about it? You didn’t even know where your magic number came from, yet you are a full bottle on all sorts of wild and wonderful theories.

If you can’t even keep the posts / posters here separate…How would you know dishonest?

Point taken – if you’ve never claimed that any scientists actually support your views then I apologise. I thought you did.

 

[JasonSB]

As far as needing to be an expert - How much of an expert does one need to be to notice the “Bolivia Effect”?

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/7350/anomalycorrelation.png

I was just going to post the image and link to the paper where it comes from so you could read it and understand (pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1987/1987_Hansen_Lebedeff.pdf), but after seeing your clear confusion regarding anomaly temperature maps and C/F conversions I think I’ll need to break it down a little.

What that diagram from Hanson’s 1987 paper shows is that temperature anomaly is strongly correlated over quite large distances. In fact, at high lattitudes, you have to go 3,000 km before there is no correlation at all, and at low lattitudes, there is still come correlation even at 5,000 km.

In other words, when it’s hotter than usual in New York, it’s likely to be hotter than usual in Boston and Washington DC as well. So if the thermometers surrounding New York say that the temperature is 1 degree above normal, you can predict that the temperature in New York will be about 1 degre above normal as well, even without a thermometer in New York itself. (This is also how rural thermometers can be used to detect and correct for UHI in nearby cities.)

It doesn’t matter what the actual temperatures are, what matters is how the temperature at that location compares to the normal temperature at that location. That difference between the temperature at that location and what is normal for that location is the anomaly, and Hanson proved that anomalies are highly correlated over long distances.

It is because of this correlation that Hanson was able to construct a global temperature anomaly without needing millions of thermometers covering the entire planet.

GISTemp doesn’t “make it up”, it takes advantage of the demonstrated correlation of anomalies over long distances to work out what the anomaly would be at a certain location if you had a thermometer there. The distance of 1200 km comes directly from the work that led to the graph above.

The fact that your source thinks it matters if some thermometers within that range are on beaches, and others are in the jungle, while the area you are interested in has snow capped peaks and cold high desert simply means that your source does not understand what was empirically shown more than 20 years ago.

And if they don’t understand that, perhaps you should question the credibility you apply to them as a source.

 

[JasonSB]

True, he was taking the IPCC’s refusal to clarify that Trenberth wasn’t - as was implied - speaking for them.

That seems a far cry from supporting your position that the theory is “rather reliant” on false claims!

That wasn’t Landsea’s concern. His objection was that the IPCC allowed a scientist to essentially speak in their name and present an opinion not supported by the science.

Did Trenberth claim to be speaking in the IPCC’s name? The IPCC thought he wasn’t. So this is what your belief that the theory is rather reliant on false claims now rests on?

It is no defense of misbehavior to complain the other side does it too.

I never said that the scientists did – on the contrary, I expressed surprise that you could characterise an entire field of research in the way you did, which I feel is completely astonishing, while at the same time failing to mention that it would be an accurate characterisation of the opposition.

Are you unfamiliar with the way the 1995 Executive Summary for the Second Assessment Report was put together or do you just assume that I am? The comment that there was “discernible human influence on climate” was inserted by the bureaucrats in the Summary and is nowhere supported by the science in the body of the work.

Sigh…

"The SPM for Working Group I, which assesses the state of the art in the physical science understanding of climate change, contained the following now-famous paragraph:

Our ability to quantify the human influence on global climate is currently limited because the expected signal is still emerging from the noise of natural variability, and because there are uncertainties in key factors. These include the magnitude and patterns of long–term natural variability and the time–evolving pattern of forcing by, and response to, changes in concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols, and land surface changes. Nevertheless, the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate. (Italics added.)

Three-quarters of this paragraph consists of caveats about uncertainties and limitations of current understanding. Nonetheless, it marked the first time the IPCC had reached a consensus on two key points: first, that global warming is probably occurring (“detection”), and second, that human activity is more likely than not a significant cause (“attribution”). Like this summary paragraph, the body of the report discussed — frequently and at length — the large scientific uncertainties about attribution. The Working Group carefully crafted the “balance of evidence” sentence in the SPM to communicate the strong majority opinion that despite these uncertainties, studies were beginning to converge on a more definitive answer to the attribution question.

…]

The Earth’s warming of a half degree C during the 20th century could be explained simply by asserting the trend to be a natural fluctuation in the climate. The IPCC scientists attempted to estimate the likelihood that natural events were responsible for the observed surface warming. They concluded that this was possible, but improbable. Critics, meanwhile, simply asserted that the warming was natural, without characterizing the probability that this was the correct explanation. Even if it did go unchallenged in a number of op-ed articles, this is a scientifically meaningless claim.

What is the probability that a half-degree warming trend in this century is a natural accident? …] This record (as summarized in Chapter 3 of the SAR) suggests that the warming of the last century is not unprecedented. But it also is not common. Perhaps once in a millennium, such proxy records suggest, a half-degree C global century-long trend could occur naturally. In my judgment (SHS), this circumstantial evidence implies that a global surface warming of half a degree has about an 80 to 90 percent likelihood of not being caused by the natural variability of the system.

…] when taken together with good physical theory and knowledge of ice age-interglacial cycles, seasonal cycles, volcanic eruptions, and now more consistent fingerprints, the vast bulk of the scientific community felt it was not irresponsible to assert that there was a higher likelihood that human climate signals had been detected. This is the basis for Chapter 8’s now-famous claim that “the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on climate.” si.umich.edu/~pne/PDF/ecofables.pdf (Emphasis mine.)

So, the scientists responsible for the claim say it was they who inserted it based on the science. Where did you get the idea that it was inserted by bureaucrats and that it was not supported by the science?

 

[JasonSB]

Even the Third Assessment Report said this:

“The fact that the global mean temperature has increased since the late 19th century and that other trends have been observed does not necessarily mean that an anthropogenic effect on the climate has been identified. Climate has always varied on all time scales, so the observed change may be natural”.

So, if an anthropogenic effect on the climate had not been identified in 2001 (according to the IPCC), how could the Summary created in 1995 claim to have found one? As I said, the summaries contain conclusions not supported by the science.

I’m learning to make it a habit to always go back to the source when it comes to your quotations.

The two sentences you quoted are an introduction to the section on attribution, not the conclusion! They explain why it’s not good enough simply to note that temperature has increased if you want to figure out whether we’re causing it or not!

Let’s look at it in context, shall we?

"The fact that the global mean temperature has increased since the late 19th century and that other trends have been observed does not necessarily mean that an anthropogenic effect on the climate system has been identified. Climate has always varied on all time-scales, so the observed change may be natural. A more detailed analysis is required to provide evidence of a human impact.

Identifying human-induced climate change requires two steps. First it must be demonstrated that an observed climate change is unusual in a statistical sense. This is the detection problem. For this to be successful one has to know quantitatively how climate varies naturally. Although estimates have improved since the SAR, there is still considerable uncertainty in the magnitude of this natural climate variability. The SAR concluded nevertheless, on the basis of careful analyses, that “the observed change in global mean, annually averaged temperature over the last century is unlikely to be due entirely to natural fluctuations of the climate system”.

Having detected a climatic change, the most likely cause of that change has to be established. This is the attribution problem. Can one attribute the detected change to human activities, or could it also be due to natural causes? Also attribution is a statistical process. Neither detection nor attribution can ever be “certain”, but only probable in a statistical sense. The attribution problem has been addressed by comparing the temporal and spatial patterns of the observed temperature increase with model calculations based on anthropogenic forcing by greenhouse gases and aerosols, on the assumption that these patterns carry a fingerprint of their cause. In this way the SAR found that “there is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols in the observed climate record”. Since the SAR new results have become available which tend to support this conclusion. The present status of the detection of climate change and attribution of its causes is assessed in Chapter 12."

And, of course, the TAR went on to make a much stronger claim than the SAR ever did: “There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.” That’s the opposite of backing away from the earlier report’s claim that there was “discernible human influence on climate”.

So why did you attempt to make it appear that the third report had not detected an anthropogenic effect in 2001 by quoting the first two sentences of an introduction describing the question that was about to be addressed, when the third sentence would have made it clear what the first two sentences were leading up to, and the actual claim made by the report directly contradicts you?

How would you characterise this on a scale of “half-truths, non-truths, and dissembling, self serving arguments made against AGW”? Personally, I don’t think it could even begin to consider rising to the rank of “half-truth”.

 

[JasonSB]

The question is not whether the raw data contains information but whether the information it contains can be extracted. Temperature stations world wide are added, moved and removed, the conditions around the stations change due especially to urban sprawl, the data collected is discontinuous. “Harry” was commenting on the chaotic nature of the data and the difficulties involved in adjusting the raw values to uncover the information they contained. Regardless of whether the raw data contains information, if it cannot be correctly interpreted then what is fed into the models is … garbage. GIGO

So your entire thesis is that Harry’s document proves that the errors added to the data caused by all the unrecorded things that have happened to the stations over the years plus the bias introduced by changes like UHI cannot be corrected despite the fact that it has been thoroughly demonstrated using every technique that you could care to think of that the adjustments actually work?

In your world view, the frustrated comments of one programmer are enough to over-ride the facts that:

1. The warming trend is the same in urban and rural areas:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/jones_china.gif

1. The areas with the most warming are at high lattitudes – well away from any urban areas:

http://mothincarnate.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/temperature-anomoly-2006.jpg

Any major cities north of Alaska that I might have overlooked?

1. The warming trend is replicated by weather balloon measurements.
2. The warming trend is replicated by satellite measurements.
3. The source code and data for GISTEMP is available from the NASA website and has not only been thoroughly “audited”, but even reimplemented in Python to give exactly the same results.
4. The source code and almost all of the data for CRUTEM is available from the CRU website, and it gives the same results.
5. Different people, some of them “skeptics”, have used different methods and even different data sources to arrive at the same results:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/compare_gmst_land.png

1. The temperature increase is not an artifact of the GHCN adjustment process:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/raw_adjusted_ghcn.png

1. The temperature increase can be reproduced using just 61 rural stations with no adjustments and at least 90 years of data:

I could go on but I think the point is made – if “garbage in” implies “garbage out”, the easily-verified fact that we do not get “garbage out” allows us to infer that we didn’t put “garbage” in. No matter how important you think Harry’s diary is, simple logic allows us to rule out that assertion.

I’m sure those simple algorithms were useful. I am more concerned about (e.g.) the differences shown in the graph I provided about the urban heat island effect.

Why? You simply showed that UHI exists. What you need to show is that it isn’t adequately corrected for, and there’s plenty of proof that it is:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Menne_2010_1.gif

skepticalscience.com/On-the-reliability-of-the-US-Surface-Temperature-Record.html

Given that Hansen seems (based on his paper with Wang) to feel it is of small importance while the California data shows it to be fairly significant, there is a problem. Throwing out a few obvious bad sites is small potatoes compared to significantly underestimating the UHI effect on thousands of others.

Firstly, the co-author of the paper with Wang was Jones, not Hanson. Hanson solves the UHI problem by carefully classifying each station as rural or urban and using the rural stations to adjust the urban ones, which was clearly described in the papers I linked to.

Secondly, what is “of small importance” is the effect it has on the overall temperature record. Why? Because cities are small. Even if you completely ignore the problem and don’t correct for it it doesn’t make any difference, as shown by the figure at point 8 above.

In fact, what NOAA actually found, as shown in the last graph above, is that the poorly-sited stations actually showed less warming overall in the maximum temperature than the best stations because what made the poorly-sited stations “poor” was their proximity to buildings that came about as a direct result of switching them over to MMTS sensors that are attached by short cables to an indoor readout device, while the “good” stations are still good because most of them are still using the older CRS systems and hence haven’t been moved closer to buildings. (At the same time, the same change gave them a greater warming trend in daily minimums, but was we’ll see soon, that’s easily corrected for as well.)

The problem is that the MMTS sensors record lower maximums than CRS systems do in the same conditions, so the switch to MMTS introduces a spurious cooling trend in the "bad’ sites that overrides the warming effect that being poorly located would otherwise have had.

The adjustments actually account for these effects correctly:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Menne_2010_2.gif

So why cast doubt on something based on a frustrated programmer’s diary when the actual information to verify it is readily available? It’s an odd weighting algorithm you’re using, that’s for sure.

 

[JasonSB]

There is scientific Evidence that the activity of the Sun has been getting hotter.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Solar_vs_Temp_basic.gif
skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

Also if you google global warming and the bible. Its in Revelation its about one of the Angels pouring one of the bowls on the Sun causing it to get hotter to scorch man.

The sun certainly is getting hotter over time as it converts hydrogen to helium – this is why it was possible to have so much more CO2 in the atmosphere in the distant past than it is now.

My understanding is that Earth will become unsuitable for life (as we know it, anyway) due to the increasing temperature of the sun in about 100 million years from now.

So in the long term, the sun will definitely be a problem, and indeed, about 40% of the warming in the early 20th century was actually caused by the sun. But right now the sun is at the lowest low it’s been in for quite a while and that is actually insulating us a fair bit from the full force of the enhanced greenhouse effect that we’ve been causing:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/PMOD_TSI.jpg

 

[kimmielittle]

Sometimes the reason you can’t convince “an inexpert kid” is purely and simply because they are “inexpert”. (Often the fact that they are a kid doesn’t help, either – kids of a certain age have a way of thinking they know more than anyone else.)

Albeit this is oft times true. Attacking the source instead of the claim, has always IMHO not led to the credibility of AGW.

It is clear that you don’t understand most of the information you are presenting and therefore are relying entirely on “Who do I trust more?”.

Actually, no. I have presented conflicting claims to AGW. I have not presented anyone as a trusted source - you, on the other hand, have.

Unfortunately you seem to be very bad at that, too. You take anything written by those on one side of the debate and somehow find a way to read malicious intent into it, while at the same time glossing over glaring errors, inconsistencies, and clear indications of bias in the sources that you do trust.

The bias has been a one-sided affair, here. Example below

Just look at the language from the James Delingpole article you referenced:

“NASA’s latest stamping-its-little-feet claims”, “why we should trust their temperature records slightly less far than we can spit”, “yet further evidence of Dr Hansen’s radical, virulently anti-democratic instincts”, “eco-fascist book”, “Like so many deep greens, Farnish looks forward to the End Times with pornographic relish”, “many of the activist-scientists pushing it passionately want the earth to be getting hotter and it for it to be largely man’s fault. These watermelons certainly don’t want the opposite to be true, because then they wouldn’t have the excuse they so desperately need to destroy the capitalist system and take us all back to the agrarian age.”

None of that set off warning bells?

Did Mr Hansen lend support via his name and affiliations, to a book supporting such things as sabotage?

Keith Farnish has it right: time has practically run out, and the ‘system’ is the problem. Governments are under the thumb of fossil fuel special interests - they will not look after our and the planet’s well-being until we force them to do so, and that is going to require enormous effort. --Professor James Hansen, Columbia University

amazon.co.uk/Times-Up-Uncivilized-Solution-Global/dp/190032248X

Once again – get access to YouTube, and watch this: slrtx.com/blog/baloney-detection-kit/

You seem, to not be able to understand what I said about UTUBES. I will try to put 1 and 1 together for you. I said " I’m not allowed to d/l UTUBES". This would indicate, that I don’t have permission - not that I don’t have the means.

Right now, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence is that global warming is real, we’re playing a large part in it, and if we don’t do something about it soon, the results will be unpleasant. Nothing in the emails changes that. Nothing in the IPCC reports changes that.

And this information is based on those who support this irrefutable hypothesis. Yet, there are many great scientific minds that don’t support it. The “evidence” is projections based upon the irrefutable hypothesis, is it not.

They do not fear their “science”. Before McIntyre made a name for himself for abusing scientists, he asked Jones for his data and Jones gave it to him!

Actually, the emails, and other actions, show not just “fear” but almost verging on paranoia - to many.

It was only later that Jones started to actively resist efforts by the “auditors” – not because of fear of being “audited”, but because he saw it as the thin end of the wedge that would eventually lead them to be doing nothing but servicing FOIA requests

Granted this is the excuse given at the time. However, They had FOI Librarians available. AND published to FTP servers, did they not?

– a denial of service attack using the law as a weapon, not to illuminate but just to slow down the science so vested interests could keep raking in the dollars.

Keenen , McIntyre, Holland had vested interests that raked in the dollars? Who’s dollars? How much?

To look at the scientists’ reactions to attacks on their credibility and honesty and ignore the attacks themselves is unfair.

Since the leaked emails surfaced - It is actually their reactions we do need to focus on - it goes to the whole of their credibility and support of their hypothesis.

You can’t provoke a reaction in a human being and then use that reaction as evidence of anything other than their reaction to your provocation.

Actually, if this were true, anyone with road rage would be acquitted , would they not?

This is why courts take that information into account.

Take into account - But do not excuse…as you seem to do.

Now if I can’t convince you, it doesn’t matter. Even if everyone thinks like you do now, humanity will probably

This is exactly why you can’t convince me - “Probabilities” and “Unknowns”.

Your generation will blame my generation and the one before,

Just as your generation does now - It’s called misdirection.

but just remember – there were those of us who were willing to put time and effort in to helping your generation avoid those consequences.

Awwwww… While this may OR may not be true - The “consequences” are also hypothetical and subjective speculations …based upon a hypothesis that CO2 is the main driver of climate.

continued

 

[kimmielittle]

continued

If the science is right, James Hanson and the like will be remembered as heroes because they sounded the early warning signs and worked tirelessly to alert the public to the consequences of their actions.

Actually, I chose my mentors / heroes very carefully. Mr Hansen, would not be one of them.

Any effort to take what I said above out of context, by you - Remember I have never supported any author - Only presented their claims

 

[JasonSB]

Not exactly. What is central to our obligations is dependent on what we reasonably believe to be true, not on what in fact is true.

In law, when assessing guilt, the question is often what a reasonable person would believe given the information at their disposal, and what effort a reasonable person would have put in to making the necessary information available to them, not what the person actually believed – because if you go down the latter path, anybody can get away with anything simply by claiming they believed it was OK.

I’ve gone through many of your claims now – such as plucking two sentences out of the 2001 IPCC report and deliberately misinterpreting them as a conclusion rather than a problem statement specifically to support a claim that the 1995 report over-reached while ignoring the actual conclusions and statements of confirmation of the 1995 report – and so I have a pretty good idea of the though processes required to arrive at the conclusions you have. (What’s even more remarkable is that this is the kind of evidence you offer to substantiate a belief that the theory is rather dependent on false claims: one guy who’s worried that they might make a false claim two years before the last report comes out, and an easily-refuted claim that a conclusion reached fifteen years ago was written by bureaucrats and not scientists.)

If you’re willing to take the chance that it’s reasonable for you to arrive at those conclusions based on those thought processes to defend the morality of your stance, that’s up to you. I disgree.

In that sense it is no different than a dispute between parents over whether or not their child is mature enough to cross the street by himself. Is it safe or is it dangerous?

And, in the real world, we don’t accept all possible answers to that question as reasonable.

If parents concluded that it was safe for their baby to crawl across the street, we would tell them that their conclusion was not reasonable and take the baby away from them on the basis that they were unfit parents. There is a line where something becomes so unreasonable that it is wrong even if the people who hold that belief disagree.

If you agree with that, then the question of whether it is moral to ignore AGW comes down to whether it is reasonable for someone to look at all the evidence available and conclude that it won’t have the detrimental effects that are claimed.

You seem to believe that it is reasonable for someone to do that, but then you support your belief using fundamentally flawed information. If your belief was reasonable I don’t think you would need to misrepresent what anybody is saying nor ignore facts on the flimsiest of evidence.

If there was no down side to adapting no one would oppose it but in fact, based on some of the proposals being made, the down side appears to be enormous.

Then argue about whether those proposals are really the best option rather than try to undermine them by denying the existence of the problem.

If people believed this there would be more clamor for developing detection and mitigation strategies to deal with wandering asteroids, which would do infinitely more damage and seem to me to be higher up the probability scale. Why aren’t you pushing for that?

Who says I’m not? Just because I favour action to prevent a problem we are causing does not in any way mean I favour no action to prevent a different problem!

As I mentioned before, risk is the product of likelihood and consequences. The likelihood of a major asteriod strike in the near future seems quite low, but the consequence can be truly catastrophic. Uncertainty in both figures makes the risk hard to pin down, but I would certainly argue that it is high enough that it warrants action to improve detection capabilities.

I haven’t seen any proposal that remotely looks like common sense;

Given the effort you’ve demonstrated so far to obtain accurate and unbiased information, I’m not surprised about that at all.

In contrast, the strategies that I’ve seen already being put into action have actually saved money.

 

[kimmielittle]

CORRECTION

And this information is based on those who support this irrefutable hypothesis. Yet, there are many great scientific minds that don’t support it. The “evidence” is projections based upon the irrefutable hypothesis, is it not.

Should read Unable to refute via Poppers Law of Falsifiability ]…instead of “Irrefutable”.

Sorry

 

[kimmielittle]

I said: “Well, as long as you think in terms of “outrageous ties” in the first place – let alone with highly respected scientists like Hanson – I hold little hope for change.”

You then responded by copying-and-pasting an opinion piece on Hanson by James Delingpole. blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100023339/james-hansen-would-you-buy-a-used-temperature-data-set-from-this-man/

I must admit, you are a class act for AGW’ers

The Claim is Mr Hansen lent his support via his name and affiliation ] to a book and author who supports such things as: “razing cities to the ground, blowing up dams and switching off the greenhouse gas emissions machine. The process of ecological unloading is an accumulation of many of the things I have already explained in this chapter, along with an (almost certainly necessary) element of sabotage.”?

Keith Farnish has it right: time has practically run out, and the ‘system’ is the problem. Governments are under the thumb of fossil fuel special interests - they will not look after our and the planet’s well-being** until we force them to do so **, and that is going to require enormous effort. --Professor James Hansen, Columbia University

emphasis mine.

Granted “until we force them to do so” could be an innocent statement, in another content - BUT he is endorsing such things as the authors beliefs in … “razing cities to the ground, blowing up dams and switching off the greenhouse gas emissions machine. The process of ecological unloading is an accumulation of many of the things I have already explained in this chapter, along with an (almost certainly necessary) element of sabotage.”?

Mr Delingpole didn’t endorse that book , Nor to my knowledge, did he force Mr Hansen to endorse.

Easily disprove this endorsement by Mr. Hansen.

Hint: Ad hominems doesn’t answer claims.

 

[markbrumbaugh]

The earth has been getting warmer since the end of the last ice age. After it gets as warm as it is going to get, it will start to cool again. That is when we are going to have a problem.

The scientific evidence of this is apparent in the many ice age cycles our poor planet has had to endure. There is nothing you or I can (constructively) do about it.

 

[kimmielittle]

I see you still don’t get it.

There are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS being called lambda.

For statisticians maybe they could use some help? A simple proposal lambda - lambda2.

The lambda with all the “different values” is, as I already explained, climate sensitivity. This lambda is unknown, but we know from empirical evidence that it cannot be less than a value that implies 1.5 C of warming for a doubling of CO2, and it’s unlikely to be greater than a value that implies 4.5 C of warming for a doubling of CO2. Multiple different lines of evidence point to a value that implies about 3.0 C of warming for a doubling of CO2. More research allows us to quantify this value more accurately so expect it to change.

So in effect, no one knows - BUT I get it - We can give it any value we wish, for now.

The claim that the figure was “doubled” by the IPCC comes from Christopher Monckton,

Is his claim true?

who is a very entertaining chap but who isn’t even a scientist. He also likes to just make stuff up, call American kids “Hitler youth” if they dare interrupt him, and called a Catholic university “a half-assed Catholic Bible college” for allowing one of its professors to refute his claims.

BUT HE WAS PROVOKED It would your excuse ] work both ways would it not?

What Gavin chooses to call lambda is completely different.

I’m beginning to suspect that much of what Gavin says - is quite different to / open to interpretation.

You could call it anything you want. I went through Gavin’s model step by step, showed you why the number 2 was in there, and yet you still don’t get it. The number 2 arises because half the radiation from the greenhouse gas layer makes it way back down to the ground, while the other half escapes into space. One half is one divided by two. One divided by TWO. Do you see the connection?

But Mr Schmidt is multiplying by two He admits this ]. The 50% that escapes into space is not needed in his equation. - it’s gone!

Actually, according to the AGW hypothesis, the 50% to earth is unproven. And has been challenged, has it not?

It demands that the 50% is only available at a certain earthly location, and if the earth was flat and not 3diminsional and CO2 were flat and not 3dimensional, Directly below the emitter - rifle-sighted from 6-10 miles above, is it not?

Just how much inferred light passes through CO2?

How many frequencies does IR light inhabit?

How many frequencies of IR light is caught and emitted by CO2?

Is this statement true:
If not prove why, please.
The bigger the value of lambda, the bigger the temperature increase the UN could predict?

Is this statement true:
If not prove why, please
UK’s Hadley Center had the same problem, and solved it by dividing its modeled output by three to “predict” 20th-century temperature correctly.

Deal with the claims

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Excerpts:

CO2 lags temperature
“An article in Science magazine illustrated that a rise in carbon dioxide did not precede a rise in temperatures, but actually lagged behind temperature rises by 200 to 1000 years. A rise in carbon dioxide levels could not have caused a rise in temperature if it followed the temperature.” (Joe Barton)

What the science says…
When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth’s orbit. The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.
Over the last half million years, our climate has experienced long ice ages regularly punctuated by brief warm periods called interglacials. Atmospheric carbon dioxide closely matches the cycle, increasing by around 80 to 100 parts per million as Antarctic temperatures warm up to 10°C. However, when you look closer, CO2 actually lags temperature by around 1000 years. While this result was predicted two decades ago (Lorius 1990), it still surprises and confuses many. Does warming cause CO2 rise or the other way around? In actuality, the answer is both.

Figure 1: Vostok ice core records for carbon dioxide concentration (Petit 2000) and temperature change (Barnola 2003).

Interglacials come along approximately every 100,000 years. This is called the Milankovitch cycle, brought on by changes in the Earth’s orbit. There are three main changes to the earth’s orbit. The shape of the Earth’s orbit around the sun (eccentricity) varies between an ellipse to a more circular shape. The earth’s axis is tilted relative to the sun at around 23°. This tilt oscillates between 22.5° and 24.5° (obliquity). As the earth spins around it’s axis, the axis wobbles from pointing towards the North Star to pointing at the star Vega (precession).

.

The combined effect of these orbital cycles cause long term changes in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth at different seasons, particularly at high latitudes. For example, around 18,000 years ago, there was an increase in the amount of sunlight hitting the Southern Hemisphere during the southern spring. This lead to retreating Antarctic sea ice and melting glaciers in the Southern Hemisphere.(Shemesh 2002). The ice loss had a positive feedback effect with less ice reflecting sunlight back into space (decreased albedo). This enhanced the warming.

As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999). The process takes around 800 to 1000 years, so CO2 levels are observed to rise around 1000 years after the initial warming (Monnin 2001, Mudelsee 2001).

The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean has several effects. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. The relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles is insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming.

CO2 from the Southern Ocean also mixes through the atmosphere, spreading the warming north (Cuffey 2001). Tropical marine sediments record warming in the tropics around 1000 years after Antarctic warming, around the same time as the CO2 rise (Stott 2007). Ice cores in Greenland find that warming in the Northern Hemisphere lags the Antarctic CO2 rise (Caillon 2003).

To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things:

Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles
CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone
CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet

 

[JasonSB]

The Claim is Mr Hansen lent his support via his name and affiliation ] to a book and author who supports such things as: “razing cities to the ground, blowing up dams and switching off the greenhouse gas emissions machine. The process of ecological unloading is an accumulation of many of the things I have already explained in this chapter, along with an (almost certainly necessary) element of sabotage.”?

Firstly, a tangential point but one nevertheless worth making; what Hansen said is precisely what you quoted:

Keith Farnish has it right: time has practically run out, and the ‘system’ is the problem. Governments are under the thumb of fossil fuel special interests - they will not look after our and the planet’s well-being until we force them to do so, and that is going to require enormous effort. --Professor James Hansen, Columbia University

The part after the colon is explicitly stating what Hansen thinks Farnish “got right”. It doesn’t logically follow that Hansen is endorsing everything that Farnish says, even in this book, let alone ever. And reading “until we force them to do so” as suggesting the use of anything other than legal means requires proof.

But now on to the broader point, which is whether the author in question actually supports blowing up dams, etc. Here is the quote with a bit more context:

Restoring

The Earth’s natural systems will, over time, do a wonderful job of restoring the planet to a stable condition – providing civilization has gone. In the presence of Industrial Civilization, these systems are struggling to overturn the changes that our culture is heaping upon the planet. The increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases exceeds any previous increase in speed and intensity; the removal of forests and other critical ecosystems is – in any normal sense of the word – irreversible through natural processes; rivers, seas and groundwater are being toxified not only by excessive quantities of basic elements and natural molecules, but also by large amounts of synthetic chemicals for which there are no natural restorative processes. Civilization has placed a burden on the Earth that – if we are to survive beyond the next one hundred years – will have to be peeled back by humans.

There are two ways to do this: the first is a combination of Unloading and Setting Aside; the second is Active Restoration. Within the Culture of Maximum Harm the first option is impossible to achieve.

Unloading essentially means the removal of an existing burden: for instance, removing grazing domesticated animals, razing cities to the ground, blowing up dams and switching off the greenhouse gas emissions machine. The process of ecological unloading is an accumulation of many of the things I have already explained in this chapter, along with an (almost certainly necessary) element of sabotage. If carried out willingly and on a sufficiently large scale, this process would require dismantling many of the key components of civilization; no person would be foolish enough to cut off their own limbs unless they were suffering from some kind of psychotic delusion, and no civilization would be willing to remove many of the pillars of its own existence. Looking from the outside, though, a civilization hacking off its own extremities would seem like exactly the right thing to do. It’s not going to happen, of course. (Emphasis mine.)

He then goes on to define Setting Aside, which is basically choosing not to use resources (and, contrary to his claims, something that is actually being done using heritage listing and national parks), and finally Active Restoration (e.g. rehabilitation).

I haven’t bothered reading the whole book, just looking at enough context to see if he really was advocating the blowing up of dams, and my conclusions are:

1. 
   *]That’s not my interpretation. My reading of it is that he is saying “Unloading” would solve the problem but it would never actually happen precisely because of what it would involve. He also thinks “Setting Aside” would solve the problem but it, too, would never actually happen, and he doesn’t like “Active Restoration” for purely political reasons, as far as I can tell.
   
   *]I disagree with a lot of what he says about what will be required to solve the problem, but since I haven’t read the book perhaps he makes a compelling argument that I’m not aware of. I suspect not, though – he seems like a bit of a loon.
   
   But I have no problem with Hansen choosing to endorse it if he wants to.
   

   Easily disprove this endorsement by Mr. Hansen.

   Why? As far as I can tell he endorsed it, and I see nothing in that to make me question any of his science.
   
   You seem to have difficultly with this concept, so let me provide you with another example: John Christy. He has said many things over the years that I disagree with. He’s a “skeptic” (although compared to the people you quote it’d be hard to distinguish him from the mainstream) and believes that AGW is not as serious as the IPCC makes it out to be. Yet he has published plenty of good papers that I have no objection to whatsoever, and I am more than happy to use his satellite temperature record. As long as his science is sound, I really don’t care what his personal beliefs are, because they really don’t matter.
   

   Hint: Ad hominems doesn’t answer claims.

   No, but if someone has destroyed all credibility in one instance then I’m not going to simply believe what they say in another. You prompted me to dig further, so I did, and I didn’t see anything to make me question AGW or my opinion of Delingpole.

 

[JasonSB]

The earth has been getting warmer since the end of the last ice age.

No, actually it’s been gradually cooling since it hit the maximum about 7-8 thousand years ago until recently when it started rising very rapidly:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/b/bb/Holocene_Temperature_Variations_Rev.png

Note where 2004 is on the graph.

The best evidence available suggests that this interglacial will be quite a long one due to the orbital configuration. Of course it will come to an end eventually – wouldn’t it be nice to still have all that carbon available to arrest a looming ice age at that time?

There is nothing you or I can (constructively) do about it.

How do you know? To make that claim would require a good climate model, and all the climate models disagree with that claim.

 

[JasonSB]

For statisticians maybe they could use some help? A simple proposal lambda - lambda2.

Huh? Lambda is just a letter, like using “x” in an equation. You can use any letter you like.

So in effect, no one knows - BUT I get it - We can give it any value we wish, for now.

NO. You don’t get to just “make up” numbers. The possible value may be uncertain but it is still constrained. Here is a graphical depiction of different ranges for climate sensitivity obtained using different techniques:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Climate_Sensitivity_Summary.gif

The value Monckton claims would be to the left of all the observed possible ranges.

Scientists look at those figures and pick what the most likely value is and the possible range it could have along with the associated probabilities of each value within that range. That’s the yellow one down the bottom. Monckton ignores every single one of those studies and just makes up a value using a tortured line of reasoning that is not supported by any evidence.

Is his claim true?

No. As I said, the flaws in his analysis have been shown many times. Rather than try to explain why, simply look at all those independent results using different techniques by different people and see how they all line up. Monckton’s value would give a result less than 1 on that graph.

BUT HE WAS PROVOKED It would your excuse ] work both ways would it not?

Read what I said: the court would take it into account. It doesn’t mean that it would excuse literally anything, but it does mean that you don’t treat their response in the same way as if it was unprovoked.

In this particular case, Monckton was “provoked” by having his claims thoroughly and thoughtfully debunked in a calm and rational manner, one by one, which infuriated him.

I’m beginning to suspect that much of what Gavin says - is quite different to / open to interpretation.

Why? Nothing that we’ve discussed would support that conclusion.

But Mr Schmidt is multiplying by two He admits this ].

“Admits”?

The radiation at the surface is the radiation from the sun plus the radiation from the greenhouse gas layer.

The radiation from the greenhouse gas layer that hits the ground is half of the radiation absorbed by the greenhouse gas layer. The other half goes into space.

The radiation absorbed by the greenhouse gas layer is a fraction, lambda (or “X” if you prefer) of the radiation emitted by the surface.

The radiation emitted by the planet is the radiation from the surface that makes it through the greenhouse gas layer plus the radation emitted by the greenhouse gas layer into space.

I’ve gone through all of this several times now.

The 50% that escapes into space is not needed in his equation. - it’s gone!

So’s the proportion of the radiation emitted from the ground that managed to pass through the greenhouse gas layer. So?

Actually, according to the AGW hypothesis, the 50% to earth is unproven. And has been challenged, has it not?

Eh? The 50% to earth is simple geometry. I already explained this. From a given greenhouse gas molecules point of view, half of the directions that it could emit radiation in are towards the ground.

It demands that the 50% is only available at a certain earthly location, and if the earth was flat and not 3diminsional and CO2 were flat and not 3dimensional, Directly below the emitter - rifle-sighted from 6-10 miles above, is it not?

No. Please see my previous posts.

Just how much inferred light passes through CO2?

For all greenhouse gasses put together it’s about 20%, I think. CO2 absorbs about 1/4.

How many frequencies does IR light inhabit?

How many frequencies of IR light is caught and emitted by CO2?

It seems like you’re wondering whether the CO2 effect is saturated. It’s not.

realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/

Is this statement true:
If not prove why, please.
The bigger the value of lambda, the bigger the temperature increase the UN could predict?

That’s a funny way of saying it. The higher the climate sensitivity, the greater the temperature increase will be from increased CO2 emissions. Note that lambda isn’t a value you “put into” climate models, it’s something you pull out.

Is this statement true:
If not prove why, please
UK’s Hadley Center had the same problem, and solved it by dividing its modeled output by three to “predict” 20th-century temperature correctly.

I don’t know, can you provide a link?

Deal with the claims

Can you be convinced?

 

[kimmielittle]

You seem to have difficultly with this concept,

Actually, it would be nice if you could provide evidence of this. Care to try?

Can you provide evidence that I have questioned his personal science?
I have questioned the whole of AGW…But you might want to hold off of accusing me of anything other than that - until I do

I think my original statement was talking of - IMHO outlandish views

 

[kimmielittle]

Huh? Lambda is just a letter, like using “x” in an equation. You can use any letter you like.

You, yourself stated;

**There are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS being called lambda. **

**

And

**quote]What Gavin chooses to call lambda is *completely different *

So X in an equation depends on it’s definition. Lambda has a definition how can it be different?

NO. You don’t get to just “make up” numbers. The possible value may be uncertain but it is still constrained. Here is a graphical depiction of different ranges for climate sensitivity obtained using different techniques:

According to you, I have the freedom of issuing a value within the constraints between the values of 1.5 - 4.4.

In this particular case, Monckton was “provoked” by having his claims thoroughly and thoughtfully debunked in a calm and rational manner, one by one, which infuriated him.

As was Jones Jones - Wang 1990 ], As was Briffa, As was Mann, As was Wang - The only difference, these I mentioned, are at the very heart of the AGW hypothesis,

There is a huge chasm between the two…is there not?

Again, the damage is from death by their own hands.

For all greenhouse gasses put together it’s about 20%, I think. CO2 absorbs about 1/4.

It seems like you’re wondering whether the CO2 effect is saturated. It’s not.

No actually, I was trying to see if you’d acknowledge to the parts of the “unknowns” to those questions.

Can you be convinced?

Well, as I’ve said many times before…it will go a long way to increasing the credibility I give to AGW… When the science / scientists shed themselves of the schemes and schemers and outlandish claims tied to the hypothesis of AGW.