OT: Australia gets it right...

I don't understand how we can be expected to have any confidence whatever in the iterated extrapolations of a field whose most basic

It seems comical. Or tragic, depending.

(Thanks for the update.)

Cheers, James Arthur

Lindzen did float that hypothesis, and his version of it got shot down by real data about real real clouds.

Run that past your tame expert. If he can't find the relevant papers, he's no expert.

The IPCC's comments are not anonymous and are backed up by a web of citations to real authors with real identities.

Science is all about critical examination fo everybody else's work, which you want to write off with some daft conspiracy theory about "made up data" and large scale scientific fraud.

the US government's actual climate models.

But doesn't have name or an affiliation that you could possibly post here.

How terribly convenient.

Almost certainly is - the story sounds exactly what you'd expect to hear from an embittered incompetent.

the O-ring into the glass of ice water?

Climate science is a little more complicate than that.

Possibly true, back in 2007. Things have come on a bit since then, though we have yet to get to the "cloud computer" that featured in a tolerably recent IEEE Spectrum.

spaghetti code, typical of deranged neophytes. Cryptic, uncommented, useless, irrelevant comments, etc.

Good GCM's are valuable property. You wouldn't get open access to anything good. A similar quote that came out vis-a-vis Climategate turned out to have been based on a graduate student sandpit, rather than serious code.

If you could get at it, it wasn't serious code ...

They said it was not representative of the long term trend in the first place. Any physical measurement, examined at short enough time scales, will show noise. It is the "skeptics" like yourself that were seizing on it as significant.

With something like this I don't think I could get anywhere as a dillettante.

The arguments for AGW all seem reasonable (inevitable) to me, the data as presented convincing. I see so much clearly fallacious (and politically motivated) rubbish here from the naysayers. The actual scientist "skeptics" seem to be either financed by the fossil fuel industry, or themselves "mavericks" (cranks) or dillettantes well outside their field of expertise.

Yes it remains a hard problem AIUI.

I don't think 6 years measurements is enough for any change in trends and conditions to be visible, let alone predicted.

Not sure what you mean, the plot shows exactly that behaviour.

The 5000ppm is due to processes occurring over geological time, gradual rock weathering and so forth. These have acted to eventually correct any past thermal runaways but only over many millions of years, not the ~centuries we are worrying about today.

I don't know - a small amount of warming as observed?

There is no lack of predicted warming.

We should stop doing that.

Well nobody is suggesting that. AIUI the best consensus is that we should limit the rise to 2 degrees C, and that can be done by reducing our fossil fuel use over the next decades.

If we burn all the accessible carbon in the ground, I think it is more like 6 degrees.

It doesn't really in itself.

Not that I think there is much chance of it - but the only way would be a global agreement to limit emissions. Otherwise there is too much incentive to cheat, the "tragedy of the commons". And not many are going to sign up to one when the worlds largest per-head emitter is not even a part of it.

There is wind, solar, tidal, thermal etc. I know these are ridiculed here but they are net energy producers now AIUI when used in suitable places.

That has been pretty much my position too actually. Also the dependence on "foreign oil" and the toxic effect of oil in the geopolitical sense.

John, Interesting response.

One problem is your "It all sounds reasonable to me' point.

It all sounds reasonable, because it is. The basic premise is:

1. Man is burning large amounts of fossil fuels.
2. This produces large amounts of CO2.
3. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
4. Increasing greenhouse gases will increase global temperatures
5. Increasing global temperatures is bad.

Lets look at this premise rationally. Point 1 is a provable point, and is pretty much accepted as true.

Point 2 is where we start to get 'interesting!' How much is a 'Large' amount of CO2? How much is contributed by natural sources? How is this contribution distributed?

Point 3 is again a given, and verifiable in the lab, but again begs a lot of questions, specifically in real world quantification.

Point 4 is the kicker. Does increasing CO2 increase global temperatures? And, if it does, how much? This is the real source of the BS. Most of the controversy comes from the fact that these results almost entirely are from computer models, most of which are total manure. They are simple wish fulfillment contraptions - if you want global warming to be the result of increased CO2, then that is what they will indicate. The fact that billions of dollars and huge government entities are built on these results insures that they will produce the desired result. James and I have told you why this is so, but you prefer to believe the 'authorities' whose exist is dependent on the desired result being produced.

And finally, we come to point 5. How do we know that increased temperature will be bad? There may be many beneficial results from an increase in temperature, but you don't get funding for that!

Charlie

I don't think this is really that controversial

Surely totally dwarfed into insignificance by the fossil fuel industry and associated lobbiests. But those industry-funded "skeptics" still can't put together a convincing case.

Well this is true, I do tend rely on scientific consensus in these matters - most matters in fact. I am unable (or unwilling to dedicate my life) to personally verify a lot of things that I accept on scientific "authority".

No the benefits have been looked at too, and I have seen a few articles about it in popular science magazines if not the general media. The benefits are there, but outweighed by the costs.

Hi John, There is a reason for this. How can you prove a negative? In other words, I have a computer model that proves that unicorns only come out at night, during the new moon, in remote areas that nobody is in. You say that is ridiculous, and I say Prove It! I have a paid staff of twenty unicorn experts, and they all agree with me!

So, what can you do? If you can get a picture of a unicorn NOT at night, during the new moon, they you can disprove my theory, but since there are not actually any unicorns to photograph, you are stuck!

And, so it is with AGW. There is no actual physical proof, either way, for the assertions. Global temperatures still fluctuate wildly, both up and down. The models are nicely inexact, so they can't be expected to predict anything in the near term, either up or down. All you have are a bunch of highly paid experts standing with a bunch of politicians and activists shouting doom and despair at the top of their lungs.

I have a functioning brain cell or two, and saw how it all got started. I know the emporer has no clothes, but you prefer to listen to the courtiers that are all agog at the beauty of the outfit. When there is actual proof, either way, then I will get excited and maybe do something!

s pretty much accepted as true.

amount of CO2? How much is contributed by natural sources? How is this c ontribution distributed?

Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from about 315ppm when we first start ed measuring them at Mauna Loa in 1958 to about 400 ppm now. That's corresp onds to roughly half the fossil carbon we've burnt over that period - the r est is presumed to have been absorbed by the oceans.

we know the extra CO2 is ours, rather than natural because of the Suess Eff ect

which records that the C12 to C13 and C14 isotope ratios of atmospheric CO2 are changing because the fossil carbon we've been burning has different is otope ratios to those originally seen in the atmosphere.

of questions, specifically in real world quantification.

Not really. We've been able to measure air column temperatures for quite a while now, and spectral distributions for almost as long

It seems to be doing just that at the moment, and it's impossible to explai n the switch between ice ages and interglacials with out taking into accoun t the switch between the ice age atmospheric CO2 level - about 180ppm - and the interglacial CO2 levels -about 280ppm

And, if it does, how much? This is the real source of the BS. Most of the controversy comes from the fact that these results almost entirely are fro m computer models, most of which are total manure. They are simple wish fu lfillment contraptions - if you want global warming to be the result of inc reased CO2, then that is what they will indicate. The fact that billions o f dollars and huge government entities are built on these results insures t hat they will produce the desired result. James and I have told you why th is is so, but you prefer to believe the 'authorities' whose existrnce is de pendent on the desired result being produced.

The same models have to explain the ice age to interglacial swings, and the y do.

Your and James Arthur's claim that all the models are manure is based on t he same kind of appeal to authority that you decry, with this significant d ifference.

You don't identify your "authority" or tell us where he or she actually wor ked. The members of teh IPCC are all perfectly identifiable, and their conc lusions are backed up by identifiable scientific papers published by identi fiable authors in teh open scientific literature.

You want to claim that the whole of the literature is some kind of massive fraud, sustained by a global conspiracy of academic climatologists.

The PNAS study of concensus amongst climatologist looked at some 1000 clima tologists - and identified a top 300 (by citation rates) who were 97% persu aded by the scientific case for global warming. That's a huge group to be c onspiring together to deceive the world, particularly when you note how gen erously the denialist propaganda machine rewards teh 3% for their limited a nd nuanced scepticism.

re will be bad? There may be many beneficial results from an increase in t emperature, but you don't get funding for that!

There certainly will be some benefits from global warming in some areas. No body denies that. The problem is that disadvantages are rather more wide-sp read.

The one that is showing most strongly at the moment is that global warming means more water vapour in the atmosphere, making more energy available to drive extreme weather events - which have become more frequent (and more ex treme) to a statically significant extent in recent years. No single event can be directly blamed on global warming - typhoon Haiyan could just be an unfortunate coincidence - but when even the Daily Telegraph is willing to b lame it on global warming you can see that it would be a bit of a stretch.

In the longer term our agriculture is based on a slection of plants that ha ve been selected over thousands of years to do well in paticular local clim ates.

Climate change is going to alter those local climates - our plants are goin g to be less well adapted to the new climate, and some local weeds will pro ve to be better adapted. China and India already have trouble keeping their populations fed - give them more trouble, and you get a local population c rash and some unseemly squabbling about taking over bordering areas that ar en't in quite as much trouble.

Sea level rise will take longer - unelss the Greenland ice cap decides to s lide off into the ocean as a lump, as the Laurentian ice cap seems to have done at the end of the last ice age (which may have been what turend off th e Gulf Stream for 1200 years, causing the Younger Dryas.

nd associated lobbiests. But those industry-funded "skeptics" still can't p ut together a convincing case.

s, I have a computer model that proves that unicorns only come out at night , during the new moon, in remote areas that nobody is in. You say that is ridiculous, and I say Prove It! I have a paid staff of twenty unicorn exp erts, and they all agree with me!

Sadly, the computer models you object to have to fit historical data, and t he Greenland and Antarctic ice core data covers a number of ice age to inte rglacial transitions (going both ways), when the atmospheric CO2 levels swi tched from 180ppm to 280ppm. This provided something like half the global w arming/cooling required to explain the transitions - albedo change as the n orth hemisphere ice and snow cover changed explains the rest (and the lost of ice cover over the Arctic Ocean explains why it is currently warming up faster than anywhere else). The models have to fit that - they do, and no o ther explanation seems to work.

This isn't unicorn country.

or the assertions. Global temperatures still fluctuate wildly, both up and down.

But not wildly enough to swamp the clear trend over the past century or so.

ng in the near term, either up or down. All you have are a bunch of highly paid experts standing with a bunch of politicians and activists shouting d oom and despair at the top of their lungs.

The IPCC is actually worryingly conservative. Because the risk of the Green land ice cap slipping off into the ocean in more or less one piece is hard to quantify, they've chosen to ignore it, neglecting the evidence that the Laurentian ice cap did exactly that at the end of the last ice age.

There are "accidental" boulders on the floor of the Atlantic dropped where the chunsk of ice sheet finally melted.

Just enough to run the conspiracy theory routine.

iers that are all agog at the beauty of the outfit. When there is actual p roof, either way, then I will get excited and maybe do something!

But since you are happy to ignore the considerable evidence available, and write it off as the product of a totally implausible conspiracy, I'm afraid that - intellectually speaking - it's you who is parading your bare behind in a costume which is intellectually diaphanous.

It's just that you are "out of touch with reality" like me... because you dare to question Slowman's turd-level suppositions >:-} ...Jim Thompson

te:

e:

ond a scale of months. After that, they're uncorrelated.

s - who resent the fact that they were - correctly - labelled as incompeten t and shown the door.

dare to question Slowman's turd-level suppositions >:-}

Entertaining. Both Jim and James Arthur subscribe to the grand conspiracy o n anthropological global warming - which is to say that all the scientific literature on the subject enshrines a bunch of numbers invented to make the world feel nervous and pay money to the conspiring scientists to invent a few more numbers.

The 97% of the top 300 climatologists who accept the evidence for anthropog enic global warming would have to be in on the conspiracyy, and the nine sc eptics would have to be paid window dressing, who'd been bribed not to blow the whistle either.

James Arthur's insights are based private communications from an anonymous spear carrier(who could actually exist, and be dim enough to believe his ow n nonsense), and Jim's on what he remembers from his undergraduate work in electronics at MIT. Neither is exactly impressive. Human waste matter at le ast makes plants grow. James and Jim's suppostions aren't even that useful.

How about that Pine Island Glacier? ROFL

It's dumping more ice into the ocean than any other glacier on the planet, and has accelerated in recent years.

Maybe Greegor thinks that it was on Pine Island, Florida. That would be funny, but the joke's on him.

Slowman, your hot air melts ice bergs.

It sure isn't his intellectual power.

Greegor seems to think that the Pine Island Glacier is on Pine Island, Florida, rather than feeding into Pine Island Bay, in Antarctica.

His intellectual power won't melt icebergs (or even a light frost), but he's still cleverer than krw.

So the Pine Island Glacier isn't as funny as you thought it was?

You're a regular social butterfly, Slowman.