gdp's Comments

Commentary Magazine : Conservatives and Climate Change-Part I

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 22:48:20 +0000

Missed the "From a REAL Climatologist". Another worrying comment reinforcing what Wehner is saying. Fred Singer (better known as scientist-for-hire promoting smoking doesnt cause cancer) is only "real" climatologist if your definition is "says what I want to hear". In the world of science, a real climatologist is one actively researching climate and publishing regularly on climate in peer-reviewed journals. Singer's "tobacco science" journal (E&E) doesnt count.

Commentary Magazine : Conservatives and Climate Change-Part I

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 19:57:21 +0000

Wehner is saying "dont deny reality" and yet this is posted. The first is false. Michael Mann never said that (because the earth hasnt cooled), (possibly a confusion with Phil Jones whose comment that warming was not significant (only 93%) was instantly claimed as a "earth is cooling" - showing just the problem discussed here. The second is misrepresentation - dont get your science from WSJ opinion pieces. CERN CLOUD experiment is indeed interesting - but doesnt show cosmic rays can affect climate. To do this need to (quote) … that increased nucleation gives rise to increased numbers of (much larger) cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) … and that even in the presence of other CCN, ionisation changes can make a noticeable difference to total CCN … and even if there were more CCN, you would need to show that this actually changed cloud properties significantly, … and that given that change in cloud properties, you would need to show that it had a significant effect on radiative forcing. CLOUD does none. Furthermore, cosmic rays cannot be causes current warming since there is no trend (eg see here. Finally, that interpretation of emails relies quote-mining with no respect for context. In short, this is the problem that Wehner discuss. Conservatives uncritically accept convenient lies from ideological grounds. It surely behoves conservatives to accept reality and then find acceptable solutions. Take the challenge here and make a constructive contribution.

Hot Topic : People talkin' (open thread #1)

Thu, 17 Jun 2010 03:47:00 +0000

And for something completely different... who thinks the "intense debate" system is a backward step? To me its slow to load, and infuriating in way the "jump to" often just doesnt work - takes you page but not comment and then have hunt through the threads.

Hot Topic : People talkin' (open thread #1)

Wed, 16 Jun 2010 03:49:09 +0000

Oh, but that is what the models predict and what hadCrutv3 measure so surely that is what you compare. Climate models predict FAR more than just global mean temperature so you evaluate one model ("its a natural cycle") with another ("its mostly our emissions") by comparing ALL the predictions of both. Now you show me how any postulated cause for a natural cycle is going to cool the upper stratosphere whereas the observations on stratosphere so fit well with predictions from AGW.

Hot Topic : People talkin' (open thread #1)

Wed, 16 Jun 2010 02:17:57 +0000

Girma, since you seem to ignore every correction, I dont whether posting this will help. However, a proper comparison would be the graph at Model data comparisons - you know with error bars and such like. The models do not predict short term trends as has been stated to ad nausuem. And yes, data counts. Lets your "natural cycle" account for upper stratospheric cooling, TOA energy imbalance, observed IR radiation spectrum, contraction of upper atmosphere etc.

Hot Topic : People talkin' (open thread #1)

Wed, 16 Jun 2010 01:25:18 +0000

Thank you Bill, I had missed DenialDepot insightful appreciation of Girma's work. Faced with such glowing tributes from the emeritus skeptics there, I feel I must withdraw my criticism of Girma's posts here.

Hot Topic : People talkin' (open thread #1)

Wed, 16 Jun 2010 00:55:44 +0000

My favourite sites on the web.

Hot Topic : All guns blazing

Thu, 3 Jun 2010 22:00:08 +0000

How about $1000 (or perhaps more. We are only talking future of the world after all). Goes to escrow (say Royal society). However, I would struggle ethically to take a bet unless I had some confidence that you had read and understood WG1. You might like to note what other well informed skeptics are prepared to bet on before you throw money away. http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2005/06/betting...

Hot Topic : All guns blazing

Wed, 2 Jun 2010 21:06:07 +0000

Thanks Bill, I will stop wasting my time.

Hot Topic : Whose lie is it anyway? Easterbrook caught red-handed

Wed, 2 Jun 2010 03:38:48 +0000

So look at the purpose that Easterbrook used the graph for. Does that strike you as an honest use of the dataset? Does it show what he claims it does?

Hot Topic : All guns blazing

Wed, 2 Jun 2010 01:15:09 +0000

Girma - do youself a favour by reading WG1. This was state of science in 2007 and far more relevant than the long-debunked stuff you keep bringing up.

Hot Topic : Cooling-gate: Easterbrook defends the indefensible

Fri, 28 May 2010 00:46:20 +0000

How can you use a proxy to "prove or disprove" the instrument record?? How do think a proxy is calibrated? Every proxy has problems - the ice cores would be least of all but no shortage of literature on them. The problem to be is way proxy data is used. Ideally you want to take you current model of climate, feed in past forcing and see whether it reproduces past temperature. A no. of hassles with this - proxies are measures of temperatures at points at best (except for past sealevel). Most models used for this really output global temperature only (though there are higher resolution runs). More major, is estimating past forcings for the input and then there are the problems with the error bounds inherent in the proxy temperature record you are comparing with. Net result is large error bounds but the models do remarking well (ch6, IPCC WG1 for example but also more recent work). Proxies dont invalidate the models - thats about as far as you can say. If you want to know whether AGW ( or more accurately the current theory of climate) is valid, then look to the direct evidence instead - its a lot more informative. Obsessing about proxies is because the uncertainties allow a lot doubt-spreading not because there is much science to be gained.

Hot Topic : Cooling-gate: Easterbrook defends the indefensible

Thu, 27 May 2010 04:10:12 +0000

Well this is the strawman the denialist try to push. The science position is that warming may or may not be extraordinary for holocene (certainly not before that) (IPCC AR4, Chpt 6). Possibly it was warmer 3000BC. However the cause is different and rate is high. Furthermore models predict we will get worse and models are accurate so far. The graph kerfuffle is that Easterbrook hides both magnitude and rate by failing to show where 2004 temperature is on that graph. The temperature at "zero" on that graph is NOT current temperature. Join the dots to get an idea of magnitude of the warming rate.

Hot Topic : Cooling-gate: Easterbrook defends the indefensible

Thu, 27 May 2010 03:04:42 +0000

Huh? modern warming is extraordinary because it is being caused by increased GHG in the atmosphere rather than other natural causes and because the rate of warming is so fast. Unlike say a change in insolation, we can do something about it and prudence tells us we should because rapid change stretches our capacity to adapt.

Hot Topic : Cooling-gate! Easterbrook fakes his figures, hides the incline

Sun, 23 May 2010 21:19:01 +0000

You can from the ice core record.

Hot Topic : No Rain in the Amazon

Tue, 18 May 2010 03:35:21 +0000

Except that it isn't cheap when you look at the full cost.

Hot Topic : Doug digs denial

Mon, 17 May 2010 04:40:23 +0000

C3Po - well it depends on whether this is an "alternate scientific point of view", disinformation, or crank (MisKolczi, G&T,etc.). The point of science is that unlike say political opinion, you can tell the difference (at least scientist to scientist). Without knowing what is being taught, who can tell? Rumours of long-debunked disinformation dont bode well, but what are the facts?

Hot Topic : Offshore wind beats oil

Fri, 14 May 2010 00:58:17 +0000

Hey, details please. What's your EVs? I'm curious.

Hot Topic : Offshore wind beats oil

Thu, 13 May 2010 05:10:50 +0000

Hmm. I think this is being harsh (and disclosure - I am in the business). I dont think there is any reasonable way to go cold turkey on petroleum for auto and air. I would be ecstatic if we had a wind down over 20 years. Improved public transport and electrification is going to take that long at least. Given that, it is very much in NZ corps interest for us to find our own petroleum. Even in a post-burn-it-cars era, petroleum is going to remain extremely useful fluid. That isnt necessarily incompatible with building wind onshore in thousands rather than current hundreds, which we will need.

Hot Topic : Eaarth

Thu, 13 May 2010 01:16:20 +0000

Correct - this is not how science works and isnt in fact how it is done - you are raising another straw man. The arguments for AGW is from a very successful theory of climate which derives the theory from basic physics. This theory make a large no. of predictions which can be compared to observation. The most powerful of those predictions is stratospheric cooling and direct measurement of atmospheric greenhouse effect either by OLR or ground incoming. Proxy reconstruction don't prove or provide any basis for the theory. The could however invalid the theory if you found past temperatures were outside the error bounds for estimates from past forcings. Suggesting otherwise is another strawman. See the IPCC statement on this. If GHG arent doing it, then how do you explain. Evan 2006 Harries 2001 and papers that have reproduced these results. Your explanation for upper stratospheric cooling would be? These are quantified prediction from theory confirmed by observation which IS how science works.