An exact science? Like climatology?
An exact science? Like climatology?[/quote]
No. Like Rhabdomancy.
Its all divination, to one extent or another… 
Its all divination, to one extent or another… [/quote]
Laws of Thermodynamics is not divination. While real systems like the earth are much more complicated, they cannot ignore such laws like Fred like to. It works same as math. You put a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere instead of locking it up in a solid state, there is going to be a change in equilibrium, there will be a chemical reaction, and then there will be a move back to equilibrium. Except I don’t have time to write a thesis about it.
Agreed. But, trying to make predictions based on incomplete data is a form of divination. 
non-conformism is itself a state of conformity. Climate change skeptics, what a joke.
Not necessarily. But, even if necessarily so, so what?
Who is skeptical of climate change?
Strawmen… what a joke!
and
There appears to be an error either on the author’s side or on the criticism here. I am not sure what is going on and am attempting to verify. I believe that the way the sentences are worded that the critic here may be deliberately misunderstanding Milloy’s intended albeit not entirely clear meaning hence the two 3.3 degrees C and how he refers to them.
[quote]Page 10: “…the IPCC have decided that 2xCO2 = 3.2 .C, apparently arbitrarily.”
Learn how to read. The IPCC, AR4 WG1 (PDF), p. 630: “The current generation of GCMs covers a range of equilibrium climate sensitivity from 2.1°C to 4.4°C (with a mean value of 3.2°C)”. Computing a simple average…how arbitrary can you get![/quote]
BULLSHIT. Whether a simple average or a range of 2.1C and 4.4C, it is more than clear to me what the author intended and I believe that whether a range or an average, the point is that the IPCC cannot and does not know what the current generation of GCMs will equal.
[quote]Page 10: “Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, adding more of which should in turn heat the atmosphere and cause more evaporation while enabling more water vapor to be held in the atmosphere … (rinse and repeat … ).
We have no evidence this does in fact occur.”[/quote]
We have no evidence that water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas? What?! And if water vapor is the most common greenhouse gas, then what the hell is the greenhouse effect all about?
[quote]To find out about lots of evidence that this does in fact occur, learn how to read Science of Doom, especially the entries on water vapor trends, Part 1 and Part 2. (Repeat if necessary…) The balance of evidence from a variety of sources points toward increasing amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere.
Page 10: “In Weather and climate analyses using improved global water vapor observations, Vonder Haar et al19 found no global trend in global precipitable water over more than 20 years despite atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rising from 350 to 390 parts per million over the period.”
Learn how to read. Here’s what Vonder Haar et al. really said: “Therefore, at this time, we can neither prove nor disprove a robust trend in the global water vapor data.”[/quote]
Really? So, if water vapor increases in the atmosphere and therefore presumably leads to a stronger greenhouse gas effect, the critic thinks that pointing to a study where water vapor leads to precipitable water is the same thing? I don’t think so.
[quote]Page 11: “Nor is there evidence that any available “spare” outbound infrared radiation from the Earth exists waiting to be absorbed by additional greenhouse gas.”
Learn how to remember. Back on Page 6 you said “What greenhouse effect does is to raise the effective emission altitude but not raise its effective emission temperature.” Adding additional greenhouse gas raises the effective emission altitude. The concept of “spare” radiation doesn’t bear on the effective emission altitude at all.[/quote]
I simply cannot understand how or why the rebuttal is relevant to the point being made and certainly not how it refutes it. The critic seems to be deliberately extending definitions and misunderstanding the intent of the author. Disagree with this point entirely.
[quote]Page 11: “Failure to declare the additional wattage of alleged additional feedbacks as the extreme case does completely invalidates the extreme case sensitivity calculation.”
Learn how to read. As noted earlier, this is the average of the models. The extreme case was 4.4 K. In any event, the same page (IPCC AR4 WG1 p. 630) declares the additional wattage of alleged additional feedbacks, as follows: “In AOGCMs, the water vapour feedback constitutes by far the strongest feedback, with a multi-model mean and standard deviation for the MMD at PCMDI of 1.80 ± 0.18 W m–2 °C–1, followed by the (negative) lapse rate feedback (–0.84 ± 0.26 W m–2 °C–1) and the surface albedo feedback (0.26 ± 0.08 W m–2 °C–1). The cloud feedback mean is 0.69 W m–2 °C–1 with a very large inter-model spread of ±0.38 W m–2 °C–1 (Soden and Held, 2006).” All declared, and with error bars as a bonus.[/quote]
Sorry but you cannot have it both ways either. He does not want to use extremes but keeps going back to averages while totally disregarding the range in which these given averages exist. Are there not also bands JUST LIKE CF IMAGES posted showing the effects of higher CO2 and lower CO2 input on predicted global temperature increases? I don’t that looking only at the extremes as is being done here in any way invalidates what the author is saying. He is merely choosing to examine here what the IPCC predicts will happen at the upper end of its “arbitrarily chosen” averages. Not convinced.
[quote]Page 11: “How should we put this? DON’T DO IT!”
How should I put this? THEY DIDN’T DO IT! LEARN HOW TO READ BEFORE YOU LEARN HOW TO USE “ALL CAPS”![/quote]
Apples and oranges and your critic likes to set up strawmen. He is discussing the extreme upper range AS DOES the IPCC in various scenarios. The effort to refer this back to IPCC determined averages when it suits its purpose is disingenuous.
[quote]Page 11: “This makes our new-equilibrium calculation actually the difference between down radiation of 239 + 150 + 3.7 W/m2 resolved to 289 K minus our original 389 W/m2 or resolved 288 K, so 1/3.721.”
Learn how to remember. As recently as page 10 you knew that this was “top of the atmosphere” (TOA) radiative forcing, not surface radiative forcing, because you said, “To begin with we can simply ask how sensitive is the Earth to total solar irradiation at top of atmosphere, less albedo…”[/quote]
No comment. I will have to read up on this more. Temporarily no comment.
[quote]Page 12: “This is explicitly stated to be transitional sensitivity rather than calculation for an equilibrated state as we typically do for deriving Earth’s expected mean temperature and its natural greenhouse effect.”
Learn how to read. The text referred to says: “Equation (6.1) is defined for the transition of the surface-troposphere system from one equilibrium state to another…” It’s defined from the difference between two equilibrated states. This is the same thing!!! You can’t measure the sensitivity from one equilibrated state to the same equilibrated state…there’s nothing to be sensitive to![/quote]
I understood the author and I think that the critic does as well. That is why he appears to be taking him out of context here. Given the previous paragraph, I think that the sentence is clear.
[quote]Page 12: “As we see in the above, the IPCC is using model-established values, typically 0.5 K/(W/m2)”
No , it’s not! It’s quoting the value of sensitivity from one-dimensional energy balance radiative-convective climate models. Are you surprised that full 3-d simulations of the atmosphere might give a different, possibly more accurate value? Don’t be.[/quote]
Fine. I am sure that the author would be happy to change values to the value of sensitivity. Satisfied?
No, merely less than impressed. What is it about this critic that reminds me of Big John?
To be continued…
I guess that proves it then. Fred Smith’s 5 minute analysis of a rebuttal by John Neilson-Gammon leaves us with no doubt that Fred knows best. I mean, Neilson-Gammon has only been a professor at Texas A&M Uni for the past 12 years and state climatologist for Texas for the same amount of time. Clearly, he’s one of those communist environmentalists we hear so much about. After all, Texas has long been known as a bastion of communist / socialist / liberal thought.
:roflmao: :roflmao:
Everyone else on this planet must be wrong except you Fred, I bet you sure do feel speshal doncha?
I’m surprised people continue to debate this issue with creationists and their lot. Would you argue with a five year old on the existence of Santa? No, you would pat him on the head and say “run along.” Best to ignore lunacy.
[quote=“fred smith”]
No, merely less than impressed. What is it about this critic that reminds me of Big John?
To be continued…[/quote]
Nothing, actually. I have made no detailed criticisms of your points, and have in fact agreed with some of your posts and conclusions.
My contribution to these threads, such as it is, is to point out to you when you are being completely immature and annoying.
I ask you simple questions, and you fail to answer. How does that have anything to do with the critic you mentioned? Can you find even a single logical fallacy or inconsistency in any of my posts on GW in the last 6 months?
Water is indeed the most abundant green house gas, but it is not the most efficient (that’s probably either methane which is both strong and reasonably common, or some of the CFCs, which are very strong but rare in comparison and less and less abundant all the time). Carbon dioxide is the most common of the strong greenhouse gasses.
The rebuttal does not deny the greenhouse contribution made by water, but calls into question the specious criticism that the concentration of water vapour must rise in an inexorable fashion, in some kind of feedback loop, so therefore why are we worrying about other gasses?
This is blatantly wrong. Water, unlike all the other gasses mentioned, has a very good and well-proven mechanism for getting back out of atmosphere. It’s called RAIN. As water concentration rises, rain is more frequent. The added heat energy in the atmosphere can raise the level of water vapour at saturation, but not by ch, and the key point here is that word saturation. Once water reaches it’s saturation point, it falls out of the sky. That’s the point that the original rejection is missing. Water vapour concentration is self limiting. Carbon dioxide and methane and other greenhouse gasses like N2O, SO2, etc, do not have any such limit.
So, is there evidence of increased rainfall anywhere? We know that storms in tropical areas are increasing in strength and duration, and that would seem to say so, but can someone dig up those figures?
Disclaimer: I’m not a climate expert, but I have a strong background in physical chemistry and thermodynamics, so that’s closer than many out there.
The denialists expend much effort in trying to divert our attention from CO2 emissions by pointing to the water vapor “problem.” The thing is that we don’t have increasing water vapor emissions changing the composition of the atmosphere. Burning fossil fuels does not put more water vapor into the atmosphere, it puts CO2 into the atmosphere. Even when steam is emitted as a by-product of generating electricity, the water vapor rises and condenses as rain and falls to Earth. CO2, on the other hand, does not fall as rain, it stays in the atmosphere for centuries.
Unlike water, CO2 does get scrubbed VERY SLOWLY from the atmosphere by a combination of things - ie absorption into biological matter. By burning fossil fuels and deforestation, we are reversing this process. A very large amount of CO2 also gets removed from the atmosphere by combining with calcium to form calcium carbonate (that white stuff that sticks to the inside of your teapot), but it’s an extremely slow process that requires millions of years rather than mere centuries - the rise of the Himalayas over the past 50 million years (which exposed lots of calcium to the atmosphere) is the major reason why CO2 dropped down to 250 parts-per-million at the beginning of the industrial revolution 300 years ago. It is now around 390 ppm as a result of recent human influence. Of course, we could just do nothing about that, and kick back for 50 million years and wait for geology to solve the problem for us, which is what I suspect we will do.
[quote=“urodacus”]
So, is there evidence of increased rainfall anywhere? We know that storms in tropical areas are increasing in strength and duration, and that would seem to say so, but can someone dig up those figures?[/quote]
I don’t have any handy studies to pull out of my pocket and offer, but we are seeing some record rainfalls right here in Taiwan. Most famously was Typhoon Morakot in 2009, where in just a few hours as much rain fell as normally falls in a full year, with disastrous results. And just last month, Typhoon Tembin set a record rainfall for Pingtung County. As always, one should not take one-off events as proof of a trend, but it will be interesting to see if more such records get broken in the years ahead.
A word about typhoons, since I’m on that topic right now. A lot of people mistakenly believe that “category” refers to the intensity of the rainfall of a typhoon. That isn’t the case - a category 1 typhoon might cause more rain to fall than a category 5. The category refers to wind speed. There is plenty of speculation on the Internet rumor mill that global warming might cause “category 6” typhoons in the future - that is far from certain, and climatologists aren’t making that claim. It’s even possible that warming will cause typhoons to be less windy, but drop more rain.
There is, in fact, considerable evidence that a warmer world will be less windy (rather bad news for wind power), because the driving force behind the world’s wind is the temperature differential between the polar regions and the topics. Global warming will have its greatest effect at the poles, reducing that difference, leading to less wind and considerable changes in rainfall patterns. Some areas will get more rain, other places will get less, and that is a problem for established agriculture which will be forced to move where the rain is. In our increasingly overpopulated world, this can indeed be a problem. Sea level rise is the other “biggie” that humans are going to have to contend with.
I note that you never post anything that has not been cut and paste from an expert. I don’t think that I have to be an “expert” in “climate science” to disagree with conclusions being drawn from statements. It is called, and you will love this: “KNOWING HOW TO READ.” Your expert is doing a lot of playing with words and deliberately attempting to confuse matters by deliberately misunderstanding intent when I don’t think that it is that unclear.
I could, for example, do the same with your paragraph.
Does it? I mean you are using “guess” in this sentence so that would indicate to me that you are unclear as to whether it does so how could it prove anything if you are guessing?
I spent approximately 35 minutes comparing the original statement against that written by your critic and so you have underfactored my effort by a factor of seven. Therefore, you are absolutely ridiculous and you clearly do not know what you are saying.
Is there ever really such a thing as NO DOUBT? I mean, in any given universe, one would assume that an infinite range of possibilities exists so can you say NO DOUBT here? Clearly, your inability to understand the larger forces at work in the universe coupled with your bombastic one-size-fits-all statements leave you no room for even the slightest (redundant) nuance. Your EXTREME views are ridiculous.
But what is his record on writing? I am a professional writer; is he? If he is not, then he will have to cede the question of grammar and syntax and vocabulary and such to me. Also, did anyone help him edit his statement? Then, he did NOT write it and thus his statement is open to question as to whether he, himself, understands it!
Aha!!! You said you never believed that communists moved into environmentalism and YET HERE AND NOW you cite them… You cannot have it both ways!!! Here you point to what you have sniffed at before as not existing!!! Aha!!! Aha!!! Aha!!!
Actually, Texas votes Republican and it does so reliably. Your inability to understand the political environment in a key state in the U.S. clearly reveals your knowledge of politics and U.S. government to be negligible. Imbecile! Learn how to read!!! Let me repeat very slowly: LEARN HOW TO READ…
Now, if those are the games that you want to play then, by all means, have fun with your climate expert. If not, and you want to discuss this further, why don’t you read both treatises and then tell me where my interpretation of the remarks of your “climate expert” are inappropriate when taken in the context of the two writers and their actual and intended meanings. Can you? Bit hard to find a cut and paste ready job to do so. You might actually have to prove capable of BOTH reading AND the climate that you claim to have studied so thoroughly with your own climate expert. In fact, challenging my remarks should be a piece of cake for such a smart guy like you… Get to it… 
I note that you never post anything that has not been cut and paste from an expert. I don’t think that I have to be an “expert” in “climate science” to disagree with conclusions being drawn from statements. It is called, and you will love this: “KNOWING HOW TO READ.” Your expert is doing a lot of playing with words and deliberately attempting to confuse matters by deliberately misunderstanding intent when I don’t think that it is that unclear.
[/quote]
In this thread, yes, I’ve cut / pasted. Because, as I explained a couple of posts ago, I’m no longer interested in trying to have a discussion with you. So cut / paste is all you’ll get unless you show some willingness to learn a few of the basics. However if you go into the other threads on climate change you’ll see, as finley points out above, numerous times where I’ve tried to give you simple explanations of the science. And you have ignored each and every one. So I’m not going to waste any more time doing that again. If / when I respond to your points now, I’ll do as you do and cut/paste.
I used to enjoy debating the issues with you because you did put thought into things before you posted. But the last few months especially, you keep posting the same talking points despite numerous people on here showing you why they’re incomplete or wrongful analyses. If the fred of old, who puts thought into things comes back, then I’m happy to make more effort. But as long as the current fred is here who just posts whatever the latest denialist propaganda is, then I have no time or interest in engaging in any meaningful way.
[quote]In this thread, yes, I’ve cut / pasted. Because, as I explained a couple of posts ago, I’m no longer interested in trying to have a discussion with you. So cut / paste is all you’ll get unless you show some willingness to learn a few of the basics. However if you go into the other threads on climate change you’ll see, as finley points out above, numerous times where I’ve tried to give you simple explanations of the science. And you have ignored each and every one. So I’m not going to waste any more time doing that again. If / when I respond to your points now, I’ll do as you do and cut/paste.
I used to enjoy debating the issues with you because you did put thought into things before you posted. But the last few months especially, you keep posting the same talking points despite numerous people on here showing you why they’re incomplete or wrongful analyses. If the fred of old, who puts thought into things comes back, then I’m happy to make more effort. But as long as the current fred is here who just posts whatever the latest denialist propaganda is, then I have no time or interest in engaging in any meaningful way.[/quote]
Understood but disagree.
I think that I have successfully argued that the sealevels are not rising as much as predicted and that figures showing temperature increases particularly with regard to Arctic ice melt depend overly much on a very cold baseline. Also, what about those polar bears? and now contrasting views of how IPCC figures are calculated. Again, your climate scientist’s views are welcome but he is playing games… and I think that you know it. Just like I can continually play with any response you give me so he has with regard to the criticisms printed in the American Thinker.
And as always, no one NO ONE has given me any credible method for solving the global warming problem. All is about raising awareness and at great cost with absolutely NO deliverable. Now, how does that make sense to you even if you assume that it is this all serious problem? I note that the IPCC forecasted affects of global warming have been substantially reined in since 1995 to a point where even I can agree with them. Does that make the IPCC wrong or me? I have consistently posted about the exaggerations and alarmism and then we go from 1995 to 2001 to 2007 and the latest IPCC report? Gosh… considerably in line with my views… who would have thought but… the brigade, the all-believing brigade? they remain at the extremes of earlier IPCC reports and ironically it is they who are now “out of touch.”
[quote=“fred smith”]
I think that I have successfully argued that the sealevels are not rising as much as predicted and that figures showing temperature increases particularly with regard to Arctic ice melt depend overly much on a very cold baseline. Also, what about those polar bears? and now contrasting views of how IPCC figures are calculated. [/quote]
It certainly seems that way. If anyone can refute your arguments on the above they have not done so in this forum.
This is actually to their credit, no? They are adapting their viewpoints based on the facts. Do they not deserve credit for this?
Well … they have. There are lots of people out there proposing solutions, and mostly getting laughed at (there are a lot of fred smiths out there too) rather than funded.
I see two basic problems:
-
People equate “credible” with “easy” rather than “likely to work”. Look, it took fifty years of the entire global industrial machine, driven by a couple of billion people, pumping out (at the last count) 50GtCO2(e) per year to create the mess we’re in now. Does anyone seriously think it can all be made to go away just by spraying some iron into the sea or putting up a few wind turbines? Any solution is going to be both radical and huge. There is no quick fix, and it’s mostly because politicans have been chasing a quick fix that nothing has been done. They’ve assumed that someone would invent some whiz-bang clever machine to suck up all the carbon, but nobody did. Surprise!
-
I don’t believe any policymaker is seriously interested in changing the status quo. They’ll stand on the stage wringing their hands about how “something must be done”, and they’ll cut the ribbon on a new solar plant, but they’ll then turn around and sign off a multibillion-dollar loan so that some shithole in Central Africa can build a coal-fired power station or a road network.
I’ve said this before: it’s going to be the countries starting from zero who actually implement the solutions. “The West” physically can’t do it. They’ve got too much sunk capital; all they can do is wait for the oil to run out - or at least to the point where all that obsolete kit is too expensive to operate - and then they’ll have some economic justification for throwing it away and replacing it with better stuff.
Before that happens, there are a few countries which look like they could (if they wanted to) start building high-efficiency societies centred around renewable power sources, right now. If those countries made a serious commitment to a low-carbon built environment, electric vehicles, solar/wind/tidal power, and responsible environmental management, they could be as prosperous as anywhere in Europe within a decade. Billions of poor people want to stop being poor and could do so by adopting these ideas. That possibility is being thwarted by the west, which keeps pushing outdated technology on them, and by their own people, who are mostly stupid and corrupt.
Has there ever been such a serious problem that no one has even tried to change before? Just curious… either this is a very strange state of affairs or maybe the problem was never as great as it was painted out to be?