philscadden

philscadden

37p

43 comments posted · 0 followers · following 0

374 weeks ago @ Commentary Magazine - Conservatives and Clim... · 0 replies · +8 points

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.

374 weeks ago @ Commentary Magazine - Conservatives and Clim... · 2 replies · +9 points

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.

453 weeks ago @ Hot Topic - People talkin' (open t... · 6 replies · +2 points

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.

453 weeks ago @ Hot Topic - People talkin' (open t... · 0 replies · +2 points

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.

453 weeks ago @ Hot Topic - People talkin' (open t... · 3 replies · +2 points

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.

453 weeks ago @ Hot Topic - People talkin' (open t... · 1 reply · +2 points

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.

453 weeks ago @ Hot Topic - People talkin' (open t... · 0 replies · 0 points

My favourite sites on the web.

454 weeks ago @ Hot Topic - All guns blazing · 2 replies · +2 points

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...

455 weeks ago @ Hot Topic - All guns blazing · 0 replies · +2 points

Thanks Bill, I will stop wasting my time.

455 weeks ago @ Hot Topic - Whose lie is it anyway... · 0 replies · +4 points

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?