Kyoto and Spin 35

[zdas04]

Recently I was talking to a group of engineers in Indonesia and someone said "we can't do that because, unlike the U.S., we have obligations to protect the environment".

That rocked me, and I asked what the heck he was talking about (we were in Jakarta and the air is so nasty that you can't see the next sky scraper). His response was that since the U.S. didn't sign the Kyoto protocols we must just be raping and pillaging the environment.

A Canadian collegue pointed out that the U.S. has been a leader in controlling air emissions for decades and that our air-quality restrictions are far more stringent than the Indonesian restrictions. This shocked the Indonesians.

What I'm wondering is how the international media has gotten to the point where its agenda is just taken on faith with no regard to facts?

David

 

[LCruiser]

The bottom line in all this is that climate scientists don't have a clue about the feedbacks of convection and clouds (how many people, especially climate alarmists, even know what convection is???), and the response of flora to an increase in the base of the food chain.

To give a range of numbers of global warming over future decades is absolutely ludicrous - particularly in terms of "global temperature" for which we have a half dozen different historical numbers. Which one is right, or is any one of them right???

 

[josephv]

"climate scientists don't have a clue about the feedbacks of convection" .. this is simply not true, climate models account for convection.

Simply go to the American Physics Institute web page:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/GCM.htm

 

[zdas04]

josephv,
That was a very good reference. I especially like the quote

As the 21st century began, experts continued to think of new subtleties in the physics of clouds which might significantly affect the models' predictions.(103) Struggling with the swarm of technical controversies, experts could not even say whether cloud feedbacks would tend to hold back global warming, or hasten it. ... There were also undeniable problems in the basic physical data that the models relied on, and uncertainties in the way the data were manipulated to fit things together. The models still needed special adjustments to get plausible ice ages. And when modelers tried to simulate the climate of the Cretaceous epoch — a super-greenhouse period a hundred millions years ago that had been far warmer than the present and with a CO2 level several times higher — the results were far from the climate pattern geologists reported.

This discussion reminds me of a Newsweek (I think) article I say in the 1970's. Some legitimate scientist deterimed that the friction between the atmosphere and the edge of space (whatever that really means) was actually slowing the rotational velocity of the earth by a measurable amount (pico seconds per century or some such). He presented his findings as a triumph of improvements in instrumentation to be able to detect the slowing.

The popular media got ahold of that and wrote articles that included artist renderings of the earth stopping and everyone flying off.

This discussion never got the leverage that Global Warming has gotten, but there was a lot of real fear that the earth would stop spinning and somehow that would throw everyone off (there was never a clarification about why removing a force that was trying to throw us off the earth would throw us off, but oh well).

This article was very specific that the author feels that computer models "prove" that man's actions are the primary cause of a global temperature increase, melting glaciers, sea level rising, huricanes, tsunamis, and tornados. At the end of the day computer models can't prove anything. Ever. If you start with accurate measurements of all relevant parameters, then models can be helpful in understanding a range of possible outcomes.

We are at a point where the scientific discussion is centering around what is the list of appropriate parameters to measure and what is the technique that researchers should use to conduct these measurements.

The discussion in the popular media is focused on solutions to a problem that we do not have a clear understanding of the relevant parameters, let alone conclusive measuremnts of those parameters.

I don't know if the global temperature is on an increasing or decreasing pattern (right now, at my house I'd say definately decreasing), I'll tell you in a hundred years what the trend was in 2006. I do know that global temperature is a concept that is determined by a very large number of local variables, and local climates. What I'm unwilling to take on faith is that mankind's puny introduction of certain gases is having a driving effect on the global system.

David

 

[jmw]

I think Orson Welles would be highly amused by the "Global Warming" scare and how it is playing out..... he would be having a nice feeling of Deja Vu.

Incidentally, didn't the UN just scale back its emphasis on the antrhopogenic contribution to climate change? Now how can they do that if they were right in the first place.


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[josephv]

Peer-review is a necessary but not sufficient condition:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...iew-a-necessary-but-not-sufficient-condition/

 

[LCruiser]

The thing to remember about Realclimate is that without an apparent looming crisis, most of them would not have a job. Also, it was created to defend the IPCC "Hockey Stick" that Michael Mann "created".

Although there is some indication they are admitting to a level of uncertainty, the site is moderated but seems to always post ad hominem attacks on views that don't "toe the party line"...

 

[josephv]

Myth vs. Fact regarding the Hockey Stick

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stickquot/

What if the Hockey Stick was wrong?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/what-if-the-hockey-stick-were-wrong/

 

[LCruiser]

The Realclimate links are trying to derail the conversation. As I said, the website was developed to defend the false science behind the hockeystick. The information on the site is prejudiced (generally).

The problem is not with the closeness of the data to reality. The problem is that it was not a valid study.

It's called, in the question of does the end justify the means, the ultimate truth that the end includes the means.

http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf

http://www.climateaudit.org

 

[josephv]

"The Wegman report has itself been criticized for a number of things:

... The result of fixing the alleged errors in the overall reconstruction does not change the general shape of the reconstruction. Similarly, studies that use completely different methodologies also yield very similar reconstructions ..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years

 

[LCruiser]

The climate pages of Wikipedia are run by William Connolley, whose job depends on alarmism of global warming.

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/

Wikipedia is not without it's faults.

 

[SomptingGuy]

Back to "the feedwagon" then?

 

[josephv]

LCruiser

Do you have any scientific arguments yourself? Or are you going to keep up with the Ignoratio Elenchi?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-missing-piece-at-the-wegman-hearing/

 

[LCruiser]

josephv-

Something for you to do this weekend:

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=139594&page=2

 

[jmw]

josephv,
I believe LCruiser deserves some aknowledgement [star] for his restraint in response to your last post.

We are none of us here climatolgists and thus can not offer you any new science.
But that is not to say that we are any of us in ignorance of the issues. Indeed, I think there are some here whose concern for information has lead them to research the issue in some detail and thus a charge of keeping up with the Ignoratio Elenchi is unwarranted. It may be that they are less credulous or, if you prefer, they have simply reached a different conclusion or found there is insufficient reliable data or science to reach a conclusion.

The argument, and it is an argument between climatologists as much as between any others, turns on how good or bad the data is and how it is being interpreted and used.

Perhaps you could direct your own comment at yourself if you feel it valid; do you have any new science to offer? and are you critical enough of the sources you quote?

For myself I must confess that I am sometimes too gullible, especially when I discover some "credible" source that supports my own views. Fortunately, here, others will quickly put me right and I hope I benefit from correction.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[josephv]

Hi JMW,

Ignoratio Elenchi does not mean "ignorance of the issues"...

Ignoratio elenchi (also known as irrelevant conclusion) is the logical fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but which proves or supports a different proposition than the one it is purporting to prove or support.

I think that everyone of this site knows the issues quite well, but I noticed that a few have deliberately ignored my questions. Only they know why.

take care,

Joseph

 

[jmw]

Ah, but according to Wikpedia, whom you have quoted as a source elsewhere:

"Ignoratio elenchi" can be roughly translated by ignorance of the issue

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

But I do otherwise take your point.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[josephv]

Hi JMW,

As you know, ignorance is not necessarily a lack of knowledge. It can be deliberately ignoring/avoiding certain facts.

At any rate, I did not mean to offend, but wanted to point out that certain key facts have been avoided in this discussion.

regards,

Joseph

 

[LCruiser]

josephv -

Perhaps you would point out the facts that have been avoided, remembering that in quoting Realclimate you are quoting people who (most of them) required alarmism for their next check, and the self proclaimed dungeonmaster of Wikipedia's climate pages is one of those at that feedwagon (and at Realclimate as well).

So, what was it you wanted to say?

 

[josephv]

LCruiser,

I do respect your opinion, but wanted to point out that...

So far you (and to be fair, a few others) have made several unfounded allegations about the intentions of the scientific community. Instead of objecting to the scientific/technical points that they have made, you have chosen other routes.

Perhaps you could back up some of these allegations? And also, if there are any of the scientific/technical points in RealClimate that you disagree with, please do let me know.


regards,

Joseph

 

[LCruiser]

I made no allegations against "the scientific community" in general. My position is that while the hockey stick of MBH98 was possibly just wrong, the coverup thereof is not "just wrong" and the Realclimate site was born to cover up that error.

As far as scientific facts, the dogma is that "changes in CO2 concentration cause changes in temperature, and the temperature record proves it". If you look at the record closely, you will see that the change in CO2 lags behind the change in temperature. The cause cannot lag the effect. The fallback position is that "well, the change in CO2 causes further changes in temperature". That is not observed in nature with feedbacks in place.