Climate Science Doubts: Not Because of Payment, but Because the Science Is Bad

[Crick]

What "insane claims" has Al Gore made?

 

[Crick]

"Although there are parallels between computing projectile trajectories and computing global warming, there are also differences. In the case of trajectories, one can repeat an experiment many times and measure the uncertainty. In the case of global warming, there is only one Earth’s atmosphere with which to “experiment.” One arrives at formal uncertainties in the models by varying the input parameters (for example, the rate of CO2 input into the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning) and computing many such models."

So there are too many variables for anyone to say they have "Consensus" or that the science is "Settled"

God are you stupid.

There are no parallels - none - between computing projectile trajectories and global warming.

Your jump from arriving at uncertainties in models by varying input parameters to there are too many variables is completely nonsequitur. The former does not support the latter in any way, shape or form. But you don't stop there. Then you claim that the number of variables in climate models preclude the existence of a consensus of opinion among climate experts.

Jesus.... stupid, stupid, stupid.

 

[jc456]

What "insane claims" has Al Gore made?

He opened his mouth and words came out!

 

[Crick]

Ahh... of course. I bet Vice President Gore is just crushed by undeniable, hard-hitting criticism like that.

 

[jc456]

Ahh... of course. I bet Vice President Gore is just crushed by undeniable, hard-hitting criticism like that.

I care!

 

[ralfy]

Has Guam tipped over yet?

Since you are not interested in discussing this issue seriously, then I'll have to add you to my ignore list.

We see many of the implausible predictions of doom coming out climate science media releases as ridiculous as Johnson's concern over Guam capsizing. Gore, for one, has made many insane claims. Not everyone has the background to simply dismiss them. There are many people out there who believe him. And more than a few on this message board as well.

That's why one should focus on science reports:

America s Climate Choices Final Report Climate Change at the National Academies

Including those funded by skeptics:

Berkeley Earth

 

[IanC]

What "insane claims" has Al Gore made?

some of us just laugh when we hear stuff like that. but others dont. remember when Gore got a Nobel prize and an Oscar for telling the world about his views on global warming? didnt that make him an 'authority' in many people's eyes?

 

[IanC]

somewhere on one of these threads Crick accused me of saying that everything in the IPCC reports are false. obviously I have never said that.

there are several levels of evidence and hypotheses and the conclusions that are drawn from them. the same data (evidence) can be used in different contexts depending on a person's beliefs (hypotheses). skeptics and warmists look at the same pile of data and come to different conclusions. they may both agree with the general principles but depending on which pieces of evidence are chosen, what context that evidence is put into, and what overarcing theory is being used, the conclusions may differ wildly.

the lead authors of the IPCC choose evidence that supports their pet theories and the rest is left unattended. what happens when only agreeable evidence is used and contrary evidence is ignored? you get an answer that is at least partially wrong.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What "insane claims" has Al Gore made?

'The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff. It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.' Al Gore 2007

Crick, liar and moron

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Although there are parallels between computing projectile trajectories and computing global warming, there are also differences. In the case of trajectories, one can repeat an experiment many times and measure the uncertainty. In the case of global warming, there is only one Earth’s atmosphere with which to “experiment.” One arrives at formal uncertainties in the models by varying the input parameters (for example, the rate of CO2 input into the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning) and computing many such models."

So there are too many variables for anyone to say they have "Consensus" or that the science is "Settled"

God are you stupid.

There are no parallels - none - between computing projectile trajectories and global warming.

Your jump from arriving at uncertainties in models by varying input parameters to there are too many variables is completely nonsequitur. The former does not support the latter in any way, shape or form. But you don't stop there. Then you claim that the number of variables in climate models preclude the existence of a consensus of opinion among climate experts.

Jesus.... stupid, stupid, stupid.

That's from the unread article you fucking liar and moron

That's a direct quote FROM THE UNREAD ARTICLE!

GSA Today - Groundwork - An Astrophysicist Looks at Global Warming

Crick, lying scumbag

Crick, you see how you made a moron of yourself again, right?

 

[IanC]

Denier and consensus are cult terms and never used by real scientists

I'm a real scientist. I use the word.

Like I said, no real scientists uses those terms. Thanks for underscoring it

Are you suggesting astrophysics isn't a 'real science' ?

Astrophysics is a real science, but people who use the terms "Consensus" or "Denier" are not scientists

Related:

GSA Today - Groundwork - An Astrophysicist Looks at Global Warming

thanks for the link. although I disagree with his analogy that CO2 warming can be calculated in a simple fashion similar to an artillery shell's trajectory, I was pleased to see his description of how infrared is thermalized in the atmosphere.

When a greenhouse molecule absorbs an infrared photon, the molecule rotates or vibrates faster and is said to be in an “excited” state. At low gas densities, an excited greenhouse gas molecule will spontaneously (by the rules of quantum mechanics) reradiate an infrared photon, which may escape the atmosphere into space and produce no net warming.

At the higher densities of Earth’s atmosphere, the excited molecule will bump into (collide with) another molecule (any molecule in the atmosphere). In the collision, the energized greenhouse gas molecule loses its rotational energy, which is transferred to the kinetic energy of the molecule it collides with (this is called collisional de-excitation). The increased kinetic energies of the colliding molecules means that the molecules are moving faster than they were prior to the collision, and the increased velocities of such molecules represents a direct measure of increased atmospheric temperature.

this ends the nonsense about how CO2 supposedly absorbs 15 micron IR and reradiates ~ 50% back to the surface. it is all absorbed and converted to heat within about 10 metres from the surface. this also happened at 280 ppm CO2 although the extinction distance was slightly longer, perhaps something like 10.5 metres.


perhaps you would like to discuss some other part of the article?

 

[Billy_Bob]

I'm a real scientist. I use the word.

Like I said, no real scientists uses those terms. Thanks for underscoring it

Are you suggesting astrophysics isn't a 'real science' ?

Astrophysics is a real science, but people who use the terms "Consensus" or "Denier" are not scientists

Related:

GSA Today - Groundwork - An Astrophysicist Looks at Global Warming

thanks for the link. although I disagree with his analogy that CO2 warming can be calculated in a simple fashion similar to an artillery shell's trajectory, I was pleased to see his description of how infrared is thermalized in the atmosphere.

When a greenhouse molecule absorbs an infrared photon, the molecule rotates or vibrates faster and is said to be in an “excited” state. At low gas densities, an excited greenhouse gas molecule will spontaneously (by the rules of quantum mechanics) reradiate an infrared photon, which may escape the atmosphere into space and produce no net warming.

At the higher densities of Earth’s atmosphere, the excited molecule will bump into (collide with) another molecule (any molecule in the atmosphere). In the collision, the energized greenhouse gas molecule loses its rotational energy, which is transferred to the kinetic energy of the molecule it collides with (this is called collisional de-excitation). The increased kinetic energies of the colliding molecules means that the molecules are moving faster than they were prior to the collision, and the increased velocities of such molecules represents a direct measure of increased atmospheric temperature.

this ends the nonsense about how CO2 supposedly absorbs 15 micron IR and reradiates ~ 50% back to the surface. it is all absorbed and converted to heat within about 10 metres from the surface. this also happened at 280 ppm CO2 although the extinction distance was slightly longer, perhaps something like 10.5 metres.


perhaps you would like to discuss some other part of the article?

Even at 10 meters the amount of thermalization directed towards the earths surface is less than 30% and depending on humidity levels. The amount of convected heat lowers that amount by 15-35%. Water vapor can neutralize the thermalization affect to near 100% at just 40% humidity in our atmosphere with only minor prevailing winds(3-7 knots).

The article only deals with part of the equation while it does address some of the more pronounced logical fallacies the left uses.

 

[skookerasbil]

Nobody takes Gore seriously except the hard line religion. When he actually goes and debates somebody...........for 15 years, has avoided it like a vampire avoids sunlight. Ghey.

 

[ralfy]

I'm a real scientist. I use the word.

Like I said, no real scientists uses those terms. Thanks for underscoring it

Are you suggesting astrophysics isn't a 'real science' ?

Astrophysics is a real science, but people who use the terms "Consensus" or "Denier" are not scientists

Related:

GSA Today - Groundwork - An Astrophysicist Looks at Global Warming

thanks for the link. although I disagree with his analogy that CO2 warming can be calculated in a simple fashion similar to an artillery shell's trajectory, I was pleased to see his description of how infrared is thermalized in the atmosphere.

When a greenhouse molecule absorbs an infrared photon, the molecule rotates or vibrates faster and is said to be in an “excited” state. At low gas densities, an excited greenhouse gas molecule will spontaneously (by the rules of quantum mechanics) reradiate an infrared photon, which may escape the atmosphere into space and produce no net warming.

At the higher densities of Earth’s atmosphere, the excited molecule will bump into (collide with) another molecule (any molecule in the atmosphere). In the collision, the energized greenhouse gas molecule loses its rotational energy, which is transferred to the kinetic energy of the molecule it collides with (this is called collisional de-excitation). The increased kinetic energies of the colliding molecules means that the molecules are moving faster than they were prior to the collision, and the increased velocities of such molecules represents a direct measure of increased atmospheric temperature.

this ends the nonsense about how CO2 supposedly absorbs 15 micron IR and reradiates ~ 50% back to the surface. it is all absorbed and converted to heat within about 10 metres from the surface. this also happened at 280 ppm CO2 although the extinction distance was slightly longer, perhaps something like 10.5 metres.


perhaps you would like to discuss some other part of the article?

Except that the issue involves more than just CO2.

And there's no need to discuss any other part of the article because the conclusion is clear.

 

[ralfy]

somewhere on one of these threads Crick accused me of saying that everything in the IPCC reports are false. obviously I have never said that.

there are several levels of evidence and hypotheses and the conclusions that are drawn from them. the same data (evidence) can be used in different contexts depending on a person's beliefs (hypotheses). skeptics and warmists look at the same pile of data and come to different conclusions. they may both agree with the general principles but depending on which pieces of evidence are chosen, what context that evidence is put into, and what overarcing theory is being used, the conclusions may differ wildly.

the lead authors of the IPCC choose evidence that supports their pet theories and the rest is left unattended. what happens when only agreeable evidence is used and contrary evidence is ignored? you get an answer that is at least partially wrong.

Except that these "pet theories" were reviewed by the NAS:

America s Climate Choices Final Report Climate Change at the National Academies

And when skeptics funded an independent study on the matter, they ended up with similar conclusions:

America s Climate Choices Final Report Climate Change at the National Academies

 

[IanC]

Like I said, no real scientists uses those terms. Thanks for underscoring it

Are you suggesting astrophysics isn't a 'real science' ?

Astrophysics is a real science, but people who use the terms "Consensus" or "Denier" are not scientists

Related:

GSA Today - Groundwork - An Astrophysicist Looks at Global Warming

thanks for the link. although I disagree with his analogy that CO2 warming can be calculated in a simple fashion similar to an artillery shell's trajectory, I was pleased to see his description of how infrared is thermalized in the atmosphere.

When a greenhouse molecule absorbs an infrared photon, the molecule rotates or vibrates faster and is said to be in an “excited” state. At low gas densities, an excited greenhouse gas molecule will spontaneously (by the rules of quantum mechanics) reradiate an infrared photon, which may escape the atmosphere into space and produce no net warming.

At the higher densities of Earth’s atmosphere, the excited molecule will bump into (collide with) another molecule (any molecule in the atmosphere). In the collision, the energized greenhouse gas molecule loses its rotational energy, which is transferred to the kinetic energy of the molecule it collides with (this is called collisional de-excitation). The increased kinetic energies of the colliding molecules means that the molecules are moving faster than they were prior to the collision, and the increased velocities of such molecules represents a direct measure of increased atmospheric temperature.

this ends the nonsense about how CO2 supposedly absorbs 15 micron IR and reradiates ~ 50% back to the surface. it is all absorbed and converted to heat within about 10 metres from the surface. this also happened at 280 ppm CO2 although the extinction distance was slightly longer, perhaps something like 10.5 metres.


perhaps you would like to discuss some other part of the article?

Except that the issue involves more than just CO2.

And there's no need to discuss any other part of the article because the conclusion is clear.

CO2 is no longer the main issue in AGW? when did this change?

I am sorry that you feel discussion is not needed.

 

[IanC]

somewhere on one of these threads Crick accused me of saying that everything in the IPCC reports are false. obviously I have never said that.

there are several levels of evidence and hypotheses and the conclusions that are drawn from them. the same data (evidence) can be used in different contexts depending on a person's beliefs (hypotheses). skeptics and warmists look at the same pile of data and come to different conclusions. they may both agree with the general principles but depending on which pieces of evidence are chosen, what context that evidence is put into, and what overarcing theory is being used, the conclusions may differ wildly.

the lead authors of the IPCC choose evidence that supports their pet theories and the rest is left unattended. what happens when only agreeable evidence is used and contrary evidence is ignored? you get an answer that is at least partially wrong.

Except that these "pet theories" were reviewed by the NAS:

America s Climate Choices Final Report Climate Change at the National Academies

And when skeptics funded an independent study on the matter, they ended up with similar conclusions:

America s Climate Choices Final Report Climate Change at the National Academies

I think you must be new to the climate wars. I have read lots of stories, articles and papers from both sides. you bring up the NAS.

are you familiar with the congressional hearing into Mann's hockeystick? the NAS was tasked to write a report, headed up by North I believe. it said that McIntyre's criticisms were valid, that stripbark proxies should not be used for climatology, yet from the otherside of their mouth they said the hockeystick was valid because it was replicated by other papers even though those studies also used the tainted stripbark proxies!

there is no clear yes/no, right/wrong dichotomy in climate science. it is a muddy uncertain thing where mistakes are corrected very slowly and in a grudging manner.

 

[Crick]

I do not recall ever charging you with rejecting all the IPCC's assessment reports. However, you'd have to identify those points or position with which you agree because I'd have a hard time identifying them myself.

The actual disagreement with Mann's hockey stick is not whether or not it shows the unprecedentedly rapid warming of the latter half of the 20th century, but whether or not it shows the medieval warm period (MWP). The idea that the presence of the MWP falsifies AGW is utter nonsense.

Unfortunately, a number of the inadequately educated members of the denier side believe that when their denier icons say the hockey stick has been refuted, that they are saying that the Earth has not experienced unprecedentedly rapid warming in the latter half of the 20th century.

 

[ralfy]

Are you suggesting astrophysics isn't a 'real science' ?

Astrophysics is a real science, but people who use the terms "Consensus" or "Denier" are not scientists

Related:

GSA Today - Groundwork - An Astrophysicist Looks at Global Warming

thanks for the link. although I disagree with his analogy that CO2 warming can be calculated in a simple fashion similar to an artillery shell's trajectory, I was pleased to see his description of how infrared is thermalized in the atmosphere.

When a greenhouse molecule absorbs an infrared photon, the molecule rotates or vibrates faster and is said to be in an “excited” state. At low gas densities, an excited greenhouse gas molecule will spontaneously (by the rules of quantum mechanics) reradiate an infrared photon, which may escape the atmosphere into space and produce no net warming.

At the higher densities of Earth’s atmosphere, the excited molecule will bump into (collide with) another molecule (any molecule in the atmosphere). In the collision, the energized greenhouse gas molecule loses its rotational energy, which is transferred to the kinetic energy of the molecule it collides with (this is called collisional de-excitation). The increased kinetic energies of the colliding molecules means that the molecules are moving faster than they were prior to the collision, and the increased velocities of such molecules represents a direct measure of increased atmospheric temperature.

this ends the nonsense about how CO2 supposedly absorbs 15 micron IR and reradiates ~ 50% back to the surface. it is all absorbed and converted to heat within about 10 metres from the surface. this also happened at 280 ppm CO2 although the extinction distance was slightly longer, perhaps something like 10.5 metres.


perhaps you would like to discuss some other part of the article?

Except that the issue involves more than just CO2.

And there's no need to discuss any other part of the article because the conclusion is clear.

CO2 is no longer the main issue in AGW? when did this change?

I am sorry that you feel discussion is not needed.

I didn't argue that it's not the main issue. I said that AGW involves more than just CO2. More details are found in the NAS final report and others.

Further discussion is not needed for reasons given here:

Climate Science Doubts Not Because of Payment but Because the Science Is Bad Page 6 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[ralfy]

somewhere on one of these threads Crick accused me of saying that everything in the IPCC reports are false. obviously I have never said that.

there are several levels of evidence and hypotheses and the conclusions that are drawn from them. the same data (evidence) can be used in different contexts depending on a person's beliefs (hypotheses). skeptics and warmists look at the same pile of data and come to different conclusions. they may both agree with the general principles but depending on which pieces of evidence are chosen, what context that evidence is put into, and what overarcing theory is being used, the conclusions may differ wildly.

the lead authors of the IPCC choose evidence that supports their pet theories and the rest is left unattended. what happens when only agreeable evidence is used and contrary evidence is ignored? you get an answer that is at least partially wrong.

Except that these "pet theories" were reviewed by the NAS:

America s Climate Choices Final Report Climate Change at the National Academies

And when skeptics funded an independent study on the matter, they ended up with similar conclusions:

America s Climate Choices Final Report Climate Change at the National Academies

I think you must be new to the climate wars. I have read lots of stories, articles and papers from both sides. you bring up the NAS.

are you familiar with the congressional hearing into Mann's hockeystick? the NAS was tasked to write a report, headed up by North I believe. it said that McIntyre's criticisms were valid, that stripbark proxies should not be used for climatology, yet from the otherside of their mouth they said the hockeystick was valid because it was replicated by other papers even though those studies also used the tainted stripbark proxies!

there is no clear yes/no, right/wrong dichotomy in climate science. it is a muddy uncertain thing where mistakes are corrected very slowly and in a grudging manner.

The NAS studied multiple reports and data sets.

The next point is old news:

Much-vindicated Michael Mann and Hockey Stick get final exoneration from Penn State -- time for some major media apologies and retractions ThinkProgress

The last point is questioned by the fact that skeptics funded an independent study of the matter and ended up confirming AGW:

Bombshell Koch-Funded Study Finds Global Warming Is Real On The High End And Essentially All Due To Carbon Pollution ThinkProgress

Finally, another study that questions the consensus confirms it:

Climate contrarians accidentally confirm the 97 global warming consensus Dana Nuccitelli Environment The Guardian