Peter Franks wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
On Jul 11, 7:06 am, Peter Franks wrote:

Roger Coppock wrote:

The rise in the global mean surface temperature since 1985 was not
due to sunspots, solar cycle length, solar magnetic field, cosmic
rays,
or solar irradiance. These factors were all causing cooling during
the
period, if they were doing anything at all.

Please read this article and look carefully at the 6-part chart:
http://environment.newscientist.com/...s-activity-rul...


What is your view of this report?

http://www.umweltluege.de/pdf/Gamma_...nd_Climate.pdf


Classic cherry picking in this report. Instead of using
global means as a scientist would, the authors talk about:
-- streamflow in the Mississippi River at St. Louis, Missouri.
-- elevations of Lake Victoria in Africa,
-- and a dozen other variables from as many places.
(For examples, see Fig. 1 of the report.)

It looks like even the cosmic ray record is
cherry picked here. Huancayo, Peru is not the
longest record, the World Data Center for
Cosmic Rays hasn't seen any data from there
since 1992. Please see:
http://www.env.sci.ibaraki.ac.jp/ftp...ca/cardformat/

If the authors were doing science and not cherry
picking, they would use the longest data record,
Climax, Colorado. Please see the chart near the end of:
http://www.env.sci.ibaraki.ac.jp/ftp/pub/WDCCR/READ.ME

What a complete and total mess.

How is an average citizen supposed to sort any of this out for themselves?

There is also no indication of which energies are detected.

Seems to me that there are two known means for cloud formation,
one is nucleation around aerosols and the other is ionizing
events such as cosmic rays.

Now ionizing events also help bridge the gap between cloud
and ground for lightening. There is an observatory of sorts
somewhere that can detect lightening strikes anywhere in the
world (although I don't think cloud-cloud). I wonder if they
have any statistics on the number of strikes available?

We have two mechanisms for cloud formation, and aerosols are
clearly increasing, but I don't know of any relationship
between aerosols and lightening, so maybe it would be possible
to see something in that data that would disentangle the two
effects?

Cheers,

Rich

On Jul 12, 8:30 am, Rich wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
On Jul 11, 9:38 am, Talk-n-
Dog
wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
The rise in the global mean surface temperature since 1985
Is there a *Standard* used in measuring the Global mean temp and has it
been the same fro the past 150 years?

I don't know when the first edition was published,
but the Weather "Observer's Handbook" is a standard
at least a century old. Please see:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Observers-Hand...e-1982_W0QQite...

This book was referenced in my grade and junior high
school classes as a standard for both scientific
measurement and prose.

So does it define "global mean temperature"?
If not, why bring it up?

Not only that, but what is the source of data? Has the data
source been corrected over the years changing sensors? has the siting
of the sensors been routinely checked and bad stations (for example
those in front of air conditioner exhausts or jet engines) resited and
excluded? NO! it is absolutely guaranteed that NONE of those
essential steps have been done, so anything it says is bunk.

Rich wrote:

William Asher wrote:
Peter Muehlbauer wrote:

snip
Looking at Lockwood's own researches, you will find a lot of data
significantly showing the CRF in fluctuation.
The statement of "no change over the last 50 years" is clearly not
tenable.

http://www.umweltluege.de/pdf/213_Lo...02JA009431.pdf

Look at pages 4-10 for example.


I wasn't clear and you misunderstand. The point is that unless you
want to invoke the existence of something like a 50-year lag between
solar output and global mean temperature (which would require a
complete reinterpretation of the physics governing the link between
solar output and global temperature),

Why would you need a "complete reinterpretation of the physics"?

AGW advocates explain the fact that Pluto's atmosphere has been
expanding for 30 years after it's distance from the sun has been
increasing with "thermal lag" or "thermal inertia".

there is no way to explain the observed rise in global
temperature over the last 25 years with cosmic rays or solar output.

You may be right, but I'm still thinking that there's lots more work
to be done before we know what's going on. And the pollution of
surface data remains, and it remains unanswered and unaccounted for as
well.

Solar
output goes up, solar output goes down, but temperature over the last
25 years has only gone up.

NASA's satellite data says that it has not.

Are you a climate physicist?

Are you?

If you are not, why do you think you
understand climate physics better than the climate physicists who
wrote the IPCC report?

Name one scientist who has a complete understanding of the climate.
The models and their behavior are governed by a multitude of
parameters, few of which have any basis in physics.

Because there is no way to explain a 50-yr lag between the increase in
solar output in the beginning of the 20th century with the temperature
increase in the latter half using what is known to be true about the link
between solar output and global mean temperature.

What are you saying has not gone up? Temperature? Even John Christy
doesn't dispute that global mean tropospheric temperature has increased.
Read the NAS report, of which Christy signed the executive summary. There
is no dispute that global mean temperature is increasing, even the most
hardened of the "scientific" skeptics (i.e., people who aren't complete
wingnuts like Chrichton, V. Gray, and Alexander Cockburn) no longer try and
contradict that point. If you are making that point, that there is still
some dispute as to whether temperature is increasing, there is simply no
reason to keep discussing anything with you because you are technically
incompetent to understand the science.

It is irrelevant whether I am a climate physicist or not since I am not
challenging the conclusions of the IPCC. I think the scientists on the
IPCC have it pretty much dead bang on. The issue is the competency of
those here challenging the scientific competence of the IPCC. My suspicion
is that we have a lot of people suffering from a severe case of the Lake
Woebegon effect (also known as the Dunning-Kruger syndrome). If you want
to say that a large body of recognized experts in a field are wrong or that
their methodology is flawed, you had better be able to back that up with
some heavy credentials and specific examples of where it breaks down and
why. If you want to invoke new physics, you had better be prepared to
explain what those are, and how people in the field missed the effect.

For example, if you think the IPCC review process is unsound, you need to
demonstrate to me how it fails and where it differs from excepted norms in
scientific review and community report authorship. I will not accept
"Well, in college I had a professor who said that it sucked and was totally
political." You have to have some professional experience with these types
of processes to understand them, in my opinion. People here haven't
displayed the background to assess the methodology. There was the guy who
was a neurologist who thought somehow climate was like neurology so he
understood it "real well." Getting what you know about climate from
junkscience.org is goofy.

The bottom line in terms of understanding climate: Who was right about
global mean temperature trends in 1988, Jim Hansen or Richard Lindzen? Jim
Hansen or Sherwood Idso? Jim Hansen or Sally Baliunis? I think guys like
Hansen have a much deeper understanding of climate than any of the
skeptics, and the proof of that is in their research record and in the
accuracy of their predictions.

--
Bill Asher

William Asher wrote:
Rich wrote:

[...]

Why are you talking to yourself in bottom posting rather than responding
to my words?

If you are not, why do you think you
understand climate physics better than the climate physicists who
wrote the IPCC report?

Name one scientist who has a complete understanding of the climate.
The models and their behavior are governed by a multitude of
parameters, few of which have any basis in physics.

Because there is no way to explain a 50-yr lag between the increase in
solar output in the beginning of the 20th century with the temperature
increase in the latter half using what is known to be true about the link
between solar output and global mean temperature.

Let me ask again.

Name one scientist who has a complete understanding of climate.

This is not a rhetorical question. And since you seem to think this
is an important metric, you'd better meet your own standards of
acceptability.

Since we both know you cannot, one pillar of your argument seems to
be an appeal to authority, but you don't have an authority up to the
task.

What are you saying has not gone up? Temperature? Even John Christy
doesn't dispute that global mean tropospheric temperature has increased.
Read the NAS report, of which Christy signed the executive summary. There
is no dispute that global mean temperature is increasing, even the most
hardened of the "scientific" skeptics (i.e., people who aren't complete
wingnuts like Chrichton, V. Gray, and Alexander Cockburn) no longer try and
contradict that point. If you are making that point, that there is still
some dispute as to whether temperature is increasing, there is simply no
reason to keep discussing anything with you because you are technically
incompetent to understand the science.

So this is an argument from authority.

It is irrelevant whether I am a climate physicist or not since I am not
challenging the conclusions of the IPCC.

Since you ask others if they are climate physicists, you have assigned it
relevance. Apparently you have no competence to discuss climate, by your
own metric.

I think the scientists on the IPCC have it pretty much dead bang on.

You've already shown that you are not qualified to make that assessment.
You confuse what you don't know for what you do know.

The issue is the competency of
those here challenging the scientific competence of the IPCC.

You mean the modeling competency of the IPCC?

My suspicion
is that we have a lot of people suffering from a severe case of the Lake
Woebegon effect (also known as the Dunning-Kruger syndrome).

And you are at the forefront of said group.

FYI, the competency of the US government and the UN in any given task
over the years has varied from low to nonexistent. Now they do have
authority, that is, guns to back their decisions. But that ain't
science and when they do use it you won't like it.

If you want
to say that a large body of recognized experts in a field are wrong or that
their methodology is flawed, you had better be able to back that up with
some heavy credentials and specific examples of where it breaks down and
why.

Funny you should mention that, a recognized authority on modeling has
looked at the IPCC reports and found they failed in almost every
category of analysis.

If you want to invoke new physics, you had better be prepared to
explain what those are, and how people in the field missed the effect.

I personally doubt we need any new physics, but if you expect that none are
possible please tell me what dark matter and dark energy are. FYI, they are
hypothesis for explaining observations that they can't explain with standard
techniques. Unlike climate modeling they can't just tweak a few parameters
to get the desired answer.

For example, if you think the IPCC review process is unsound, you need to
demonstrate to me how it fails and where it differs from excepted norms in
scientific review and community report authorship.

Likewise you need to demonstrate that it is sound. Oh yes, you argue from
authority. Funny thing, often that's not worked out. For example, ulcers
(I recall peptic ulcers but I could be wrong). An MD noticed a correspondence
between said ulcers and a bacteria called Hector Priori and hypothesized
a causal relationship. He took his findings to the medical community and
they laughed at him, consensus said no. So he started treating the
ulcers with antibiotics. They killed the bacteria and cured the ulcers.
Funny thing, some things can actually be tested. To bad climate models
cannot.

I will not accept
"Well, in college I had a professor who said that it sucked and was totally
political." You have to have some professional experience with these types
of processes to understand them, in my opinion.

But you have none and yet profess absolute certainty. By what magic are
you so special?

People here haven't displayed the background to assess the methodology.

And you have?

There was the guy who
was a neurologist who thought somehow climate was like neurology so he
understood it "real well." Getting what you know about climate from
junkscience.org is goofy.

So is getting it from realclimate.org. You need to look at many sources
and at least work some of the numbers.

The bottom line in terms of understanding climate: Who was right about
global mean temperature trends in 1988, Jim Hansen or Richard Lindzen? Jim
Hansen or Sherwood Idso? Jim Hansen or Sally Baliunis? I think guys like
Hansen have a much deeper understanding of climate than any of the
skeptics, and the proof of that is in their research record and in the
accuracy of their predictions.

So when they shut down your power to cut CO2 emissions and you can't
get gas for your car for the same reason, you can starve in peace
believing you are right.

Even assuming they are right, they are opposed to any actual solution
because they feel safe ignoring that 800 lb gorilla in the corner, China.
It's already exceeded the US in greenhouse gas emissions and there is
no sign of growth slowing. India and the rest of the so-called undeveloped
world are doing everything possible to follow. Guess what, there is no
way to cut global emissions when most of the globe is exempt.

Cheers,

Rich

God I hate fisking.

Rich wrote:

William Asher wrote:
Rich wrote:

[...]

Why are you talking to yourself in bottom posting rather than
responding to my words?

If you are not, why do you think you
understand climate physics better than the climate physicists who
wrote the IPCC report?

Name one scientist who has a complete understanding of the climate.
The models and their behavior are governed by a multitude of
parameters, few of which have any basis in physics.

Because there is no way to explain a 50-yr lag between the increase
in solar output in the beginning of the 20th century with the
temperature increase in the latter half using what is known to be
true about the link between solar output and global mean temperature.


Let me ask again.

Name one scientist who has a complete understanding of climate.

This is not a rhetorical question. And since you seem to think this
is an important metric, you'd better meet your own standards of
acceptability.

Since we both know you cannot, one pillar of your argument seems to
be an appeal to authority, but you don't have an authority up to the
task.

I think Jim Hansen has a pretty good handle on climate. Michael
Schlesinger also springs to mind. There are a bunch of others though.
Look through the citations in the IPCC SPM.

What are you saying has not gone up? Temperature? Even John Christy
doesn't dispute that global mean tropospheric temperature has
increased. Read the NAS report, of which Christy signed the
executive summary. There is no dispute that global mean temperature
is increasing, even the most hardened of the "scientific" skeptics
(i.e., people who aren't complete wingnuts like Chrichton, V. Gray,
and Alexander Cockburn) no longer try and contradict that point. If
you are making that point, that there is still some dispute as to
whether temperature is increasing, there is simply no reason to keep
discussing anything with you because you are technically incompetent
to understand the science.

So this is an argument from authority.

Do you think temperature is increasing or not? Try to stay focused here.


It is irrelevant whether I am a climate physicist or not since I am
not challenging the conclusions of the IPCC.

Since you ask others if they are climate physicists, you have assigned
it relevance. Apparently you have no competence to discuss climate, by
your own metric.

I'm not disputing the experts, I would assume that since they have years of
training in the subject they have a better understanding of it than a
layman. If you are disputing the experts, you need to explain why they are
wrong.

You've already shown that you are not qualified to make that
assessment. You confuse what you don't know for what you do know.

You're just not getting this line of argument are you? Look, the question
is not my competency, the question is why you think you know more than
people that spend their lives studying the topic?

The issue is the competency of
those here challenging the scientific competence of the IPCC.

You mean the modeling competency of the IPCC?

The IPCC doesn't do modeling, they don't do research. The IPCC does
scientific synthesis of the peer-reviewed research. Try to keep this
straight. It's subtle but important distinction and critical for
understanding what their conclusions represent.

My suspicion
is that we have a lot of people suffering from a severe case of the
Lake Woebegon effect (also known as the Dunning-Kruger syndrome).

And you are at the forefront of said group.

FYI, the competency of the US government and the UN in any given task
over the years has varied from low to nonexistent. Now they do have
authority, that is, guns to back their decisions. But that ain't
science and when they do use it you won't like it.

Who won WW2? You're not one of those that claim it was the Russians,
willing to sacrifice 20,000,000 people to stop the Wehrmacht, are you? Are
you a communist? Ok, kidding aside, now you are starting to sound like a
wingnut getting down to insults instead of debate.


If you want
to say that a large body of recognized experts in a field are wrong
or that their methodology is flawed, you had better be able to back
that up with some heavy credentials and specific examples of where it
breaks down and why.

Funny you should mention that, a recognized authority on modeling has
looked at the IPCC reports and found they failed in almost every
category of analysis.

And that person would be? What did you tell me at the start of your post,
something about not citing people. Let me go look, hang on a sec ...

oh yeah, you said:

Since we both know you cannot, one pillar of your argument seems to
be an appeal to authority, but you don't have an authority up to the
task.

PKB. dude.


If you want to invoke new physics, you had better be prepared to
explain what those are, and how people in the field missed the
effect.

I personally doubt we need any new physics, but if you expect that
none are possible please tell me what dark matter and dark energy are.
FYI, they are hypothesis for explaining observations that they can't
explain with standard techniques. Unlike climate modeling they can't
just tweak a few parameters to get the desired answer.

What are you going on about here? I am not saying we need to rewrite
conservation of energy or postulate the existence of new fundamental
particles, only that there needs to be a complete rethinking about how
solar radiant energy gets stored for 50 years so that an increase in solar
output in 1930 leads to a warming atmosphere in 1980. If you don't
understand what I am talking about, ask. I'm here to help.


For example, if you think the IPCC review process is unsound, you
need to demonstrate to me how it fails and where it differs from
excepted norms in scientific review and community report authorship.

Likewise you need to demonstrate that it is sound. Oh yes, you argue
from authority. Funny thing, often that's not worked out. For example,
ulcers (I recall peptic ulcers but I could be wrong). An MD noticed a
correspondence between said ulcers and a bacteria called Hector Priori
and hypothesized a causal relationship. He took his findings to the
medical community and they laughed at him, consensus said no. So he
started treating the ulcers with antibiotics. They killed the bacteria
and cured the ulcers. Funny thing, some things can actually be tested.
To bad climate models cannot.

There are lots of examples where the conventional wisdom was wrong (Wegner
and continental drift is a better example of this than helicobacter pylori,
by the way). But in most cases, what you find is that over the time, most
scientists came around to the new paradigm, leaving the old guard mired.
Climate science has been the exactly like that, where at first there were
only a few who believed anthropogenic CO2 could affect climate. Gradually,
more and more scientists realized the evidence was rock-solid until now
what we have in the "man can't be affecting climate" camp are the
equivalent of Wegner's final critics, cranky old men who can't admit they
were wrong.


I will not accept
"Well, in college I had a professor who said that it sucked and was
totally political." You have to have some professional experience
with these types of processes to understand them, in my opinion.

But you have none and yet profess absolute certainty. By what magic
are you so special?

Good breeding. Thanks for asking.


People here haven't displayed the background to assess the
methodology.

And you have?

I'm not disputing the experts. I accept that these people know more than
me and are probably right if most of them agree. You are the one who
believes they don't know what they are talking about. You need to show why
you know more than they do. I don't. Try to understand that difference.

There was the guy who
was a neurologist who thought somehow climate was like neurology so
he understood it "real well." Getting what you know about climate
from junkscience.org is goofy.

So is getting it from realclimate.org. You need to look at many
sources and at least work some of the numbers.

Well, if you compare the professional credentials (peer-reviewed papers in
major journals, professional appointments, community work in science)
between the people running the two sites, it's no contest, realclimate in a
landslide. But then, I think experts are experts for a reason, not just in
the know because of good breeding.


The bottom line in terms of understanding climate: Who was right
about global mean temperature trends in 1988, Jim Hansen or Richard
Lindzen? Jim Hansen or Sherwood Idso? Jim Hansen or Sally Baliunis?
I think guys like Hansen have a much deeper understanding of climate
than any of the skeptics, and the proof of that is in their research
record and in the accuracy of their predictions.

So when they shut down your power to cut CO2 emissions and you can't
get gas for your car for the same reason, you can starve in peace
believing you are right.

Ok, but who was right, Hansen or the other guys?

Even assuming they are right, they are opposed to any actual solution
because they feel safe ignoring that 800 lb gorilla in the corner,
China. It's already exceeded the US in greenhouse gas emissions and
there is no sign of growth slowing. India and the rest of the
so-called undeveloped world are doing everything possible to follow.
Guess what, there is no way to cut global emissions when most of the
globe is exempt.

Now finally, after making me write all that other stuff, you come out with
the truth. You're scared. Tough ****. Just because you are scared of the
consequences or angry that somehow you feel you might get screwed out of a
happy carefree existence of consuming doesn't change the science.

Here's my opinion: what we will find is that we are changing climate, the
changes will be severe and extremely unpleasant, and the biosphere will
adjust, as the biosphere has always done. We will have the debate,
eventually, whether effective remediation of the problem is too costly
economically or politically to undertake realistically. But when we have
that debate, we need to do so with the understanding that there is no
dispute scientifically, and that there hasn't been for about 20 years. The
guys running realclimate.org, like Wegner at the turn of the century, are
right. Vincent Gray is exactly what he appears to be, a nasty old bag of
fart who got out on the wrong side of an issue and can't admit it.

--
Bill Asher

On Jul 11, 5:02 pm, "Peter Muehlbauer"
wrote:
"Roger Coppock" wrote

The rise in the global mean surface temperature since 1985 was not
due to sunspots, solar cycle length, solar magnetic field, cosmic
rays,
or solar irradiance. These factors were all causing cooling during
the
period, if they were doing anything at all.

Please read this article and look carefully at the 6-part chart:
http://environment.newscientist.com/...s-activity-rul...

If you look at the diagram table on the right side, you see, that temperature
stopped in 2002 (diagram f)
Why that? This article is from July 2007.

Simple answer. Because since then there is a clear evidence for
global cooling and that may debunk their statement!

Here we have the global temperature until now:
(polynomic, 6th order trendline)http://www.umweltluege.de/images/LT52GT.jpg

And here, for better visualizing of cooling, the same data set for the
southern hemisphehttp://www.umweltluege.de/images/LT52GTSH.jpg

That's mischievous suppressing of data and disguising the truth (again!).

What else is curious?
The fact, that Lockwood didn't note ONE SINGLE WORD about the
break in about 1985 in his documentation, released in *2002*!

http://www.umweltluege.de/pdf/213_Lo...02JA009431.pdf

This documentation shows totally other values, as he stated here!
If there was no change of CRF, why didn't he mention it there in 2002?
He shows clearly CRF fluctuation in his paper, no stagnation!

The original article published by the Royal Society,
if you're a member or want to pay for it, is he
http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/c...4264320314105/

This puts the fossil fool's attempts at astrology to bed.

No, there is a good evidence, that either Lockwood or the Royal Society,
or both ARE LYING!


Maybe those black helicopters are doing it. Or maybe it's the chips
implanted in our brains!

Poor AGWs... yet another debunking of AGW priests ****ty lies.
Again they shoot themselves in the foot....

"A dwindling group ... a small minority which is seeking to
deliberately confuse the public on the causes of climate change. They
are often misrepresenting the science, when the reality is that the
evidence is getting stronger every day" -- Royal Society

On Jul 11, 5:08 pm, "Peter Muehlbauer"
wrote:
"William Asher" wrote



Peter Muehlbauer wrote:

snip

Looking at Lockwood's own researches, you will find a lot of data
significantly showing the CRF in fluctuation.
The statement of "no change over the last 50 years" is clearly not
tenable.

http://www.umweltluege.de/pdf/213_Lo...02JA009431.pdf

Look at pages 4-10 for example.

I wasn't clear and you misunderstand. The point is that unless you want to
invoke the existence of something like a 50-year lag between solar output
and global mean temperature (which would require a complete
reinterpretation of the physics governing the link between solar output and
global temperature), there is no way to explain the observed rise in global
temperature over the last 25 years with cosmic rays or solar output. Solar
output goes up, solar output goes down, but temperature over the last 25
years has only gone up.

No, it didn't. Just look at my actual posting in this thread about debunking.

Are you a climate physicist? If you are not, why do you think you
understand climate physics better than the climate physicists who wrote the
IPCC report?

No, I'm no climate scientist at all, but I learnt a lot of climate science over the
years from well known real climate scientists.

Now that's Onion-worthy humor!

It's not the climate scientists from IPCC in a whole, it's about
censoring the "bad" scientists and prefering the "good" scientists, as you can
read i.e. in the comments of peer-reviewerhttp://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Comments/wg1-commentFrameset.html
That has nothing to do with science, that are political decisions in pure form!

Read them. Most are positive, some wanting even stronger language.

"A dwindling group ... a small minority which is seeking to
deliberately confuse the public on the causes of climate change. They
are often misrepresenting the science, when the reality is that the
evidence is getting stronger every day" -- Royal Society

On Jul 11, 5:17 pm, bill wrote:
On Jul 11, 4:50 pm, William Asher wrote:



Peter Muehlbauer wrote:

snip

Looking at Lockwood's own researches, you will find a lot of data
significantly showing the CRF in fluctuation.
The statement of "no change over the last 50 years" is clearly not
tenable.

http://www.umweltluege.de/pdf/213_Lo...02JA009431.pdf

Look at pages 4-10 for example.

I wasn't clear and you misunderstand. The point is that unless you want to
invoke the existence of something like a 50-year lag between solar output
and global mean temperature (which would require a complete
reinterpretation of the physics governing the link between solar output and
global temperature), there is no way to explain the observed rise in global
temperature over the last 25 years with cosmic rays or solar output. Solar
output goes up, solar output goes down, but temperature over the last 25
years has only gone up.

Are you a climate physicist? If you are not, why do you think you
understand climate physics better than the climate physicists who wrote the
IPCC report?

Because the IPCC is a political tool with a specified agenda,
that of allowing the UN to gain greater economic control of the world.
Yep, those black helicopters all right!

On Jul 12, 1:53 pm, Rich wrote:
William Asher wrote:
Rich wrote:

[...]

Why are you talking to yourself in bottom posting rather than responding
to my words?

If you are not, why do you think you
understand climate physics better than the climate physicists who
wrote the IPCC report?
Name one scientist who has a complete understanding of the climate.
The models and their behavior are governed by a multitude of
parameters, few of which have any basis in physics.

Because there is no way to explain a 50-yr lag between the increase in
solar output in the beginning of the 20th century with the temperature
increase in the latter half using what is known to be true about the link
between solar output and global mean temperature.

Let me ask again.

Name one scientist who has a complete understanding of climate.


Name one who has a complete understanding of quantum theory. There
are none. So you would claim it is not true, I suppose. Your
computer is just a fantasy then.

This is not a rhetorical question. And since you seem to think this
is an important metric, you'd better meet your own standards of
acceptability.

Since we both know you cannot, one pillar of your argument seems to
be an appeal to authority, but you don't have an authority up to the
task.

What are you saying has not gone up? Temperature? Even John Christy
doesn't dispute that global mean tropospheric temperature has increased.
Read the NAS report, of which Christy signed the executive summary. There
is no dispute that global mean temperature is increasing, even the most
hardened of the "scientific" skeptics (i.e., people who aren't complete
wingnuts like Chrichton, V. Gray, and Alexander Cockburn) no longer try and
contradict that point. If you are making that point, that there is still
some dispute as to whether temperature is increasing, there is simply no
reason to keep discussing anything with you because you are technically
incompetent to understand the science.

So this is an argument from authority.

It is irrelevant whether I am a climate physicist or not since I am not
challenging the conclusions of the IPCC.

Since you ask others if they are climate physicists, you have assigned it
relevance. Apparently you have no competence to discuss climate, by your
own metric.

I think the scientists on the IPCC have it pretty much dead bang on.

You've already shown that you are not qualified to make that assessment.

And you are? You, the scientifically illiterate?

You confuse what you don't know for what you do know.

The issue is the competency of
those here challenging the scientific competence of the IPCC.

You mean the modeling competency of the IPCC?

My suspicion
is that we have a lot of people suffering from a severe case of the Lake
Woebegon effect (also known as the Dunning-Kruger syndrome).

And you are at the forefront of said group.

FYI, the competency of the US government and the UN in any given task
over the years has varied from low to nonexistent. Now they do have
authority, that is, guns to back their decisions. But that ain't
science and when they do use it you won't like it.


OLh jeez, the John Birch society is so 1950s!

If you want
to say that a large body of recognized experts in a field are wrong or that
their methodology is flawed, you had better be able to back that up with
some heavy credentials and specific examples of where it breaks down and
why.

Funny you should mention that, a recognized authority on modeling has
looked at the IPCC reports and found they failed in almost every
category of analysis.


You are lying.

If you want to invoke new physics, you had better be prepared to
explain what those are, and how people in the field missed the effect.

I personally doubt we need any new physics, but if you expect that none are
possible please tell me what dark matter and dark energy are. FYI, they are
hypothesis for explaining observations that they can't explain with standard
techniques. Unlike climate modeling they can't just tweak a few parameters
to get the desired answer.

For example, if you think the IPCC review process is unsound, you need to
demonstrate to me how it fails and where it differs from excepted norms in
scientific review and community report authorship.

Likewise you need to demonstrate that it is sound. Oh yes, you argue from
authority. Funny thing, often that's not worked out. For example, ulcers
(I recall peptic ulcers but I could be wrong). An MD noticed a correspondence
between said ulcers and a bacteria called Hector Priori and hypothesized
a causal relationship. He took his findings to the medical community and
they laughed at him, consensus said no. So he started treating the
ulcers with antibiotics. They killed the bacteria and cured the ulcers.
Funny thing, some things can actually be tested. To bad climate models
cannot.

I will not accept
"Well, in college I had a professor who said that it sucked and was totally
political." You have to have some professional experience with these types
of processes to understand them, in my opinion.

But you have none and yet profess absolute certainty. By what magic are
you so special?

People here haven't displayed the background to assess the methodology.

And you have?

There was the guy who
was a neurologist who thought somehow climate was like neurology so he
understood it "real well." Getting what you know about climate from
junkscience.org is goofy.

So is getting it from realclimate.org. You need to look at many sources
and at least work some of the numbers.

Yes, look at ones the fossil fuel industry supports. Or look at
Hannity and Limbaugh. You do that; we'll continue to look at the
scientific sources.


The bottom line in terms of understanding climate: Who was right about
global mean temperature trends in 1988, Jim Hansen or Richard Lindzen? Jim
Hansen or Sherwood Idso? Jim Hansen or Sally Baliunis? I think guys like
Hansen have a much deeper understanding of climate than any of the
skeptics, and the proof of that is in their research record and in the
accuracy of their predictions.

So when they shut down your power to cut CO2 emissions and you can't
get gas for your car for the same reason, you can starve in peace
believing you are right.


You right-wing doofuses said the same thing about banning CFCs.
Banning asbestos. Banning PCBs. Banning lead in gasoline.

Even assuming they are right, they are opposed to any actual solution
because they feel safe ignoring that 800 lb gorilla in the corner, China.
It's already exceeded the US in greenhouse gas emissions and there is
no sign of growth slowing. India and the rest of the so-called undeveloped
world are doing everything possible to follow. Guess what, there is no
way to cut global emissions when most of the globe is exempt.

Cheers,

Rich

William Asher wrote:
God I hate fisking.

Rich wrote:

William Asher wrote:
Rich wrote:
[...]

Why are you talking to yourself in bottom posting rather than
responding to my words?

If you are not, why do you think you
understand climate physics better than the climate physicists who
wrote the IPCC report?
Name one scientist who has a complete understanding of the climate.
The models and their behavior are governed by a multitude of
parameters, few of which have any basis in physics.
Because there is no way to explain a 50-yr lag between the increase
in solar output in the beginning of the 20th century with the
temperature increase in the latter half using what is known to be
true about the link between solar output and global mean temperature.

Let me ask again.

Name one scientist who has a complete understanding of climate.

This is not a rhetorical question. And since you seem to think this
is an important metric, you'd better meet your own standards of
acceptability.

Since we both know you cannot, one pillar of your argument seems to
be an appeal to authority, but you don't have an authority up to the
task.

I think Jim Hansen has a pretty good handle on climate.

"A pretty good handle" seems far displaced from 'a complete understanding'.

Michael Schlesinger also springs to mind.

As someone with a complete understanding?

There are a bunch of others though.
Look through the citations in the IPCC SPM.

What are you saying has not gone up? Temperature? Even John Christy
doesn't dispute that global mean tropospheric temperature has
increased. Read the NAS report, of which Christy signed the
executive summary. There is no dispute that global mean temperature
is increasing, even the most hardened of the "scientific" skeptics
(i.e., people who aren't complete wingnuts like Chrichton, V. Gray,
and Alexander Cockburn) no longer try and contradict that point. If
you are making that point, that there is still some dispute as to
whether temperature is increasing, there is simply no reason to keep
discussing anything with you because you are technically incompetent
to understand the science.
So this is an argument from authority.

Do you think temperature is increasing or not? Try to stay focused here.

I can discuss any aspect I see fit, you are not the moderator of this
conversation.

And it is getting warmer some places and colder other places. There
are new hot and cold records set everyday across the US and they are
having record cold many places south of the equator.

It is irrelevant whether I am a climate physicist or not since I am
not challenging the conclusions of the IPCC.
Since you ask others if they are climate physicists, you have assigned
it relevance. Apparently you have no competence to discuss climate, by
your own metric.

I'm not disputing the experts,

You're not addressing climate at all.

I would assume that since they have years of
training in the subject they have a better understanding of it than a
layman. If you are disputing the experts, you need to explain why
they are wrong.

It's interesting that WRT big oil you guys are quick to raise the
specter of vested interests. I think that everyone has a vested
interest in this issue.

You've already shown that you are not qualified to make that
assessment. You confuse what you don't know for what you do know.

You're just not getting this line of argument are you? Look, the question
is not my competency, the question is why you think you know more than
people that spend their lives studying the topic?

Either you make your case, or you do not. You don't actually seem
to have a case WRT AGW.

[...]

My suspicion
is that we have a lot of people suffering from a severe case of the
Lake Woebegon effect (also known as the Dunning-Kruger syndrome).
And you are at the forefront of said group.

FYI, the competency of the US government and the UN in any given task
over the years has varied from low to nonexistent. Now they do have
authority, that is, guns to back their decisions. But that ain't
science and when they do use it you won't like it.

Who won WW2?

At the time, the Axis powers. Lately we seems to have lost to Japan
on economic grounds.

You're not one of those that claim it was the Russians,
willing to sacrifice 20,000,000 people to stop the Wehrmacht, are you?

Hey, they killed far more 20,000,000 of their own people after the war.
Hitler was a piker compared to the bloody purges.

Are
you a communist? Ok, kidding aside, now you are starting to sound like a
wingnut getting down to insults instead of debate.

It's me sounding like that?

If you want
to say that a large body of recognized experts in a field are wrong
or that their methodology is flawed, you had better be able to back
that up with some heavy credentials and specific examples of where it
breaks down and why.
Funny you should mention that, a recognized authority on modeling has
looked at the IPCC reports and found they failed in almost every
category of analysis.

And that person would be? What did you tell me at the start of your post,
something about not citing people. Let me go look, hang on a sec ...

oh yeah, you said:

Since we both know you cannot, one pillar of your argument seems to
be an appeal to authority, but you don't have an authority up to the
task.

PKB. dude.

Sorry, I was interrupted.

Here ya go.

===========

Hey, you can cut and paste from Acrobat 8.01 easily. Glad I upgraded.

This paper is worth a read.

Cheers,

Rich

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

http://www.forecastingprinciples.com...armAudit31.pdf

Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts*
J. Scott Armstrongâ€*, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
Kesten C. Green, Business and Economic Forecasting Unit, Monash University
Paper prepared for ISF 2007 in New York
June 21, 2007

Abstract
In 2007, a panel of experts established by the World Meteorological Organization and the United
Nations Environment Programme issued its updated, Fourth Assessment Report, forecasts. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Working Group One Report predicts dramatic and harmful
increases in average world temperatures over the next 92 years. We asked, are these forecasts a good
basis for developing public policy? Our answer is “no�.
Much research on forecasting has shown that experts’ predictions are not useful. Rather, policies
should be based on forecasts from scientific forecasting methods. We assessed the extent to which
long-term forecasts of global average temperatures have been derived using evidence-based
forecasting methods. We asked scientists and others involved in forecasting climate change to tell
us which scientific articles presented the most credible forecasts. Most of the responses we
received (30 out of 51) listed the IPCC Report as the best source. Given that the Report was
commissioned at an enormous cost in order to provide policy recommendations to governments, the
response should be reassuring. It is not. The forecasts in the Report were not the outcome of
scientific procedures. In effect, they present the opinions of scientists transformed by mathematics
and obscured by complex writing. We found no references to the primary sources of information on
forecasting despite the fact these are easily available in books, articles, and websites. We
conducted an audit of Chapter 8 of the IPCC’s WG1 Report. We found enough information to make
judgments on 89 out of the total of 140 principles. We found that the forecasting procedures that
were used violated 72 principles. Many of the violations were, by themselves, critical. We have been
unable to identify any scientific forecasts to support global warming. Claims that the Earth will
get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder.

*Neither of the authors received funding for this paper.
â€* Information about J. Scott Armstrong can be found on Wikipedia.

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

If you want to invoke new physics, you had better be prepared to
explain what those are, and how people in the field missed the
effect.
I personally doubt we need any new physics, but if you expect that
none are possible please tell me what dark matter and dark energy are.
FYI, they are hypothesis for explaining observations that they can't
explain with standard techniques. Unlike climate modeling they can't
just tweak a few parameters to get the desired answer.

What are you going on about here? I am not saying we need to rewrite
conservation of energy or postulate the existence of new fundamental
particles, only that there needs to be a complete rethinking about how
solar radiant energy gets stored for 50 years so that an increase in solar
output in 1930 leads to a warming atmosphere in 1980. If you don't
understand what I am talking about, ask. I'm here to help.

Your text to this point has nothing to do with climate directly and
you certainly were not talking about any specific aspect of weather.

But I still don't see the need for new physics.

I notice that there is a difference between the Royal Academy's analysis
and the more typical analysis used for climate. They looked at the data
directly. For AGW climate analysis I've never seen this, rather they
tend to use a 30-year rolling slope to smooth out noise and transient
events. One might wonder what they would see for their normal climate
analysis were they to use the same methodology as they did for solar
effects, and vice versa.

[...]

I will not accept
"Well, in college I had a professor who said that it sucked and was
totally political." You have to have some professional experience
with these types of processes to understand them, in my opinion.
But you have none and yet profess absolute certainty. By what magic
are you so special?

Good breeding. Thanks for asking.

I see.

People here haven't displayed the background to assess the
methodology.
And you have?

I'm not disputing the experts.

You're not discussing climate at all.

I accept that these people know more than
me and are probably right if most of them agree. You are the one who
believes they don't know what they are talking about. You need to show why
you know more than they do. I don't. Try to understand that difference.

I don't have to know more than them or even have the right answer to
see bias and have reservations about the climate claims, especially
when they are presented as an imperative and every attempt is made to
close the subject to discussion and silence any critics. Something
is seriously wrong.

[...]

The bottom line in terms of understanding climate: Who was right
about global mean temperature trends in 1988, Jim Hansen or Richard
Lindzen? Jim Hansen or Sherwood Idso? Jim Hansen or Sally Baliunis?
I think guys like Hansen have a much deeper understanding of climate
than any of the skeptics, and the proof of that is in their research
record and in the accuracy of their predictions.
So when they shut down your power to cut CO2 emissions and you can't
get gas for your car for the same reason, you can starve in peace
believing you are right.

Ok, but who was right, Hansen or the other guys?

Too soon to tell. Ask me in 2050 if I'm still alive.

Even assuming they are right, they are opposed to any actual solution
because they feel safe ignoring that 800 lb gorilla in the corner,
China. It's already exceeded the US in greenhouse gas emissions and
there is no sign of growth slowing. India and the rest of the
so-called undeveloped world are doing everything possible to follow.
Guess what, there is no way to cut global emissions when most of the
globe is exempt.

Now finally, after making me write all that other stuff, you come out with
the truth. You're scared.

No, I'm just not an idiot who thinks that American CO2 is destroying the
world and Chinese CO2, even when it exceeds Americas, is not.

Tough ****.

Try a stool softener for that.

Just because you are scared of the
consequences or angry that somehow you feel you might get screwed out of a
happy carefree existence of consuming doesn't change the science.

There's so much baggage attached to this diatribe that you'd have to ship
it by freight.

Here's my opinion: what we will find is that we are changing climate,

Yeah, it was fixed and immutable before.

the
changes will be severe and extremely unpleasant, and the biosphere will
adjust, as the biosphere has always done. We will have the debate,
eventually, whether effective remediation of the problem is too costly
economically or politically to undertake realistically.

So what are you doing, other than trying logical fallacies and practicing
psychology without a license?

Cheers,

Rich