So we have a greenhouse hypothesis, we have the math and then the good old scientific method testing the hypothesis.

That was done here:

http://smsc.cnes.fr/documentation/IA...ons/LBL_EX.pdf

But there was a problem:

More problems were found here by Douglass et al
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf

Models did not match reality in the tropical troposphere. It may be well known that this paper was subject to a sickening blog war and I'm really looking forward to exposing the mud throwing, should anybody challenge it.

So yet another paper emerged, telling the same story for Antarctica:

http://polarmet.mps.ohio-state.edu/P...07GL032630.pdf

What's wrong with the greenhouse? That's what Ferenc Miskolsczi must have thought after publisihing that first study and he came up with this:

http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf

Some quotes:

Anyway a lot of people have sunk their teeth in the tough stuff of Miskolsczi, for instance, David Stockwell:

http://landshape.org/enm/modeling-global-warming/

So the global warming frenzy has to go on with completely refuted science, but no doubt that it will survive that too after the bogus explanation of the cold spell since December last year.

Good to see that even when the science was supposedly settled, science continues working to find the truth, even when (pardon the irony) the truth might turn out to be inconvenient. This kind of thing just goes to show how robust the scientific method is.

Whether these three papers manage to overturn the overwhelming body of peer reviewed work that preceedes and contradicts it remains to be seen, and I for one look forward to and welcome the exercise, but we do need to remember that the climate IS changing, and regardless of what's causing that change, our reliance on fossil fuels is a cause of great social, political, and economic strife right now - indeed many nations (mine included) are committing mass murder to secure those resources.
Setting ourselves on a the kind of course that we would have to take if atomspheric CO2 WAS the cause of climate change would only be beneficial to us.

Assuming whoever wrote that meant waht they were saying, and that the context doesn't seriously modify it somehow, that piece of stupidity (or irrelevancy) is enough to make it unnecessary to read the link, IMHO.

of course not, good science is chanceless against groupthink.

There is the mix up. The idea was that climate is very sensitive to increasing greenhouse gasses, 0.3 degrees per decade at the present rate of increase. but proven wrong with actual data for the last decade, models predicting global temperatures proven wrong, hypothesis wrong, end of story. Nowhere in that equation is denied that "climate is changing, and regardless of what's causing that change, our reliance on fossil fuels is a cause of great social, political, and economic strife right now -" etc etc

That's not the point. The point is the academical scientific method, not to be confused with politics, ideology, dogma, etc. Changing the world should be done by tackling the problems directly, not by by a ghost hunt on a hype.

And not to be confused with the type of analysis visible in those quotes you chose to represent the article's arguments.

The net feedbacks are eventually negative, the climate for any CO2 level equilibrates, therefore there can be no global warming from the CO2 boost.

You find that persuasive ?

Never said it was old son - merely pointing out that even if it does turn out that the CO2 theory is wrong, behaving if it is right wouldn't be such a bad thing


I think you are lacking in a bit of perspective to be honest - no offense intended.

Remember that while plenty of people jumped on the bandwagon some considerable time ago, as a generally accepted scientific theory, anthropogenic climate change is very much in its infancy - at best it's 5 years old - frankly I'd be astonished if a theory as nascent as this WASNT hotly debated, highly hyped, and even eventually abandoned or heavily modified to fit the data.
I can imagine the same would be happening now if Relativity or Natural Selection were recently hypothesised

- its simply how the world works old son

I understand the position but I could not disagree more. In Dutch there is a saying: "Terror is the worst counselor". On the background there is that energy depletion/ security issue which will catch up with us sooner or later. However the current catastrophic lunacy of biofuels and highly back firing -near zero yield- renewable stuff is not nearly going to solve the first 10% of the energy demand. There is really only one semi permanent solution, nuclear, to maintain current energy supplies. But how to get there?

People who you get scared and get fooled with the climate scam are just as scared and fooled with the nuclear scare scam. You just can't steer those things. Thatcher was wrong.

Apart from some other fringe lunacy like carbon sequestration and putting reflective mirrors in the lagrange point to shield the sun, the real problem is when the truth finally has its boots on. The current prolonged cold spell, may be the most effective debunking the myth. But peopled don't like being fooled. How to repair the damage of science being exposed as mendacious? They knew that the cardinal evidence for global warming (hockeystick) was faked. "So now they are telling that we should go nuclear, go fool some-one else". Trust crisis

There is really only one way to get ahead, to have a crisp clear terror-free, politics-free picture of reality. That's unreal, I know. But trying that is a lot better than scare manipulation as because fear is irrational so cannot be overcome by rational argument (sic).

IPCC has identified CO2 as the singlemost dominant cause of warming. This idea is 112 years old. The math was done 86 years ago.

No it's how we want the world to work for us, unfortunately the world isn't listening. Incidentely, my dad is 81 years old.

It's astonishing beyond belief how accurately Irving Janis identified the mechanisms (symptoms) of groupthink:

Mindguards

Agreed on the nuclear point - as are most serious environmentalists - no controversy there.
Mostly in agreement on the "Terror is the worst counselor" apart from one ironic point - here in the UK Tony Blair pushed through legislation to allow the building of more nuclear power stations - he managed to use the excuse of the threat of international terrorism to avoid too much inconvenient debate in Parliament - the irony of using the fear of a non-existent threat (international terrorism) to push through legislation for a real threat (dependence upon and scarcity of fossil fuels) wasn't lost on me.

I don't buy the Thatcher connection - the web page seems to quote pretty much verbatim the "Global Warming Swindle" documentary - which has been thoroughly discredited in terms of content and contributors - even the genuine scientists on the same side of the debate as the doc were dissapointed by the fact that it relies on outdated and already discredited theories and science, and the "global scientific consipracy" it tried to present is patent garbage - I'm working on my Phd at a university in a department that includes Geographic (human and physical) subjects, environmental science, and biology - you can't even get the biologists to collaborate with the geographers here - so the idea that you could orchestrate a global conspiracy is laughable.

While an anthropogenic connection to climate change may be wrong, its not a scam - its simply what the majority of data has pointed to so far - I have no doubts that over time we'll get closer to the truth - in the meantime - pardon the pun - expect more hot air.

Indeed there are plenty of crazy schemes - my favourite is iron enrichment - but that's how we get to the workable ones - science is one of the few areas that provides a genuine example of the survival of the fittest.
I have yet to see anything that debunks the "hockey stick" that hasn't been shown to be either a selective version of the facts or a complete fabrication - happy to stand corrected though.
What prologed cold spell are you talking about? The one that's making my alaskan friends house sink into the ground due to retreating permafrost?


Indeed a pipe-dream in todays political climate

The science was started some time ago but in terms of a widely accepted theory, it is still very young - younger than tectonic plate theory for example and no-one complains (except perhaps creationists - but who gives a fuck about what they say) is going nuts that we don't have all the answers to that yet - but then of course TP theory doesn't tell us to use our cars less

Bear in mind it took something like 30 years from the time that DNA was proved to be the macromolecule responsible for carrying genetic information for that fact to be accepted by science, so getting hysterical that science doesn't yet have the answers, and lags behind the most current research lacks - as I said previously - a bit of perspective on your part.

That it's going to take a lot of words to reply to all of that.

You know the Kalkar tragedy?

You can think that you can push anything through the troat of the population by scare management like a nuclear program. But one nuclear Al Gore type demagogue out of thousands of potential candidates, exposing the scare scam and Tony Blair's program follows Kalkar, down the drain. You got to have the thrust of the population based on honest and accurate decision making to make them resilient against this kind of fear mongering.

Much more later.

This one:



Remember that the IPCC happily predicted a warming trend of 0.3 degrees per decade. This is the last decade, three top ones the groundstations and the lower ones the satellite lower troposphere. Currently investigating if the trend of the upper one is indeed pure based on data or on Orwellian party line of the ministry of truth:

Still a lot to come.

That's this cold, BTW:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt...080509?sp=true

So what else is left. Is the movie the-great-global-warming-scam debunked? I could show that the extend of the scam is likely even greater than that. Take Niels Axel Mörner for instance:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt...080509?sp=true

Anyway Niels is in the book "Deniers" of former alarmist Lawrence Solomon.

The hockeystick is a long story told numerous time but it has to wait. For the moment I'm in the process of trying to understand and simplify the work of Miskolsczi.

The IPCC did not predict a steady .3 degree rise every decade consecutively.

Those satellite readings you conveniently start at '98 and end in the winter of '08 conflict with a great deal of biological and geographical phenomena other than temperature readings, btw. If you care.
I'm not in a group, andre. I' m just one guy, responding to obvious bullshit that is printed right here in front of me on this forum, a great deal of it linked by you.

I have no personal expertise, no background in the relevant sciences. All I am responding to is the logic and arguments right here. And this beauty is one of your best finds yet: Without reading the article, I can't tell whether that is merely irrelevant to the warming of your obsession, or fraudulently stupid like that conference of "400 scientists" with the "petition" you dredged up and linked here - while complaining about the influence of politics and hype on the matter.

You seem to find it persuasive enough to quote out of context, as making sense all by itself. How do you explain that ?

1: I stand corrected for the .3 it was .2. Good catch.

2: Yes you are in a group, the group of the world savers. Since the world is full of greedy selfish hoodlums like me, who don't hesitate to destroy it for their own profit. So you have no choice to line up, one of the headquarters here and fight. Two lines of strategy: discredit anybody who is not in the group of world savers and destroy or conceal any information that may cast doubt on the correctness of the line of groupthink, see symptons.

Rather convincing that you first concede not to have any scientific knowledge, and dismissing immediately after that one of the basic principle laws of physics.

That wasn't the the catch. The catch is that the IPCC did not predict a steady, consecutive decade warming for arbitrary decade intervals.

I cannot tell whether your misrepresentation of IPCC predictions is incomprehension or dishonesty - either are possible, given your past links and arguments here.
I destroy or conceal no information - cannot and have not. You seem to be mistaking denigration of lousy argument for dismissal of information.

I do not know what your motives are for linking to that political hupe convention of "400 scientists", or claiming that recent Arctic sea ice extensions wiped out the withdrawals of 2007, or claiming that because CO2 reradiated its absorbed infrared it was not trapping heat in the atmosphere, or this latest: appearing to claim here that findings of homeostasis and equilibrating feedbacks in the earth's climate system imply that the CO2 cannot warm the lower atmosphere by trapping heat energy.

But whatever they are, the arguments are silly. Whether or not the CO2 boost is warming the atmosphere, whether or not the more dire predictions of the alarmists bear out, these arguments against it do not add up.

Let facts never obstruct a good AGW story.

Koutsoyiannis et al (itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/850) re the IPCC crystal ball:

This hardly qualifies you to call Andre's arguments bullshit, in fact bullshit is not a scientific qualification, more a sign of frustration from a true believer.

Well, concerning predictions lets go back here:



The scenario A-C is from the 1988 prediction of Hansen, showing a >0.33 degrees warming trend per decade, iceaura, between 1980 and 2010 for scenario A (business as usual). So my *dishonesty* was not that big. It's only that the 4AR predicted 0.2 degrees per decade.

Now we see that the reality cought up with the Hansen '88 prediction, refuting the whole thing.

What "reality" caught up with what prediction?

Building an argument out of straw and setting it alight doesn't achieve all that much. What's this "refuted the whole thing"? What exactly is the "whole thing"? What are you drawing conclusions from, because I can't see where you're making the connections?

Is it ok to predict that if you increase the heat content of a mixed gas, it will get warmer (if you warm it) because it can hold more heat - since its heat content, or ability to store heat before re-radiating it has increased?
Is adding a gas like CO2 to the mix going to increase or decrease this heat-storage? Or no change at all even if the mixture is saturated with CO2?

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/pr...ing_consi.html

April 30, 2008
Global Cooling Consistent With Global Warming

Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Climate Change | Prediction and Forecasting