moblog uk

Euphro's moblog

by Euphro

user profile | dashboard | imagewall

« older newer »

HArd ROck

"Experience, a comb life gives you after you lose your hair" Judith Stern

Random Image:

Technorati Profile

Euphro's Overall Artists Chart
You are visitor number since Valentine's Day 2006 (free counter from

My video blog

My Flickr Click to get your own widget RealClimate" alt="brought to you by" />

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License

Search this moblog

Recent visitors

New desktop

(viewed 1606 times)
Bookmark and Share

Hema(olafvonlieres-at-t-online-dot-de) says:

Regurgitated talking potnis from Snorbert Zangox on 2012/02/29 at 11:25 am:Point 1.I have not gone back to review the Wall Street Journal editorial, but as I remember it the persons who wrote it pointed out that the climate has not warmed significantly in the past 10 to 15 years. The graphic that Mr. Nordhaus included in his response demonstrates that to be true. Insofar as I know, no responsible skeptic has claimed that the climate has not warmed since 1880; agreement on that point is universal.Finding these warming trends is a robust finding of meteorological measurements; the ability to explain them would be a robust result of climate science.Point 2.The issue is that the warming has stopped (paused perhaps) and the IPCC models are helpless to tell us why. If the models are good enough to provide evidence that we should undertake massive changes in our economies, they ought to be good enough to explain the pause.However, it is not just this pause in the warming that is puzzling, other problems include the absence of the tropospheric hot spot, the inability to describe the previous periods, e.g. the Medieval, the Roman, and the Minoan warm periods. Also, when I look at the graphic that Mr. Nordhaus provided I see that the rate of warming during the 40 year period between 1910 and 1940 is approximately equal to the rate of warming between 1960 and 1990. The total concentration of carbon dioxide was much lower then and the rate of increase was apparently less. Is this not another failure of the models?The match between the temperature data and the model predictions is not as good as Mr. Nordhaus would have us believe. It apparently is getting better however, as it appears that James Hansen is using the models to post calculate the temperatures in the 30s and 40s and change the GISS temperature data base. Why is this necessary if the models are so good?Mr. Nordhaus also omits any mention of the fact that the modelers had to insert fudge factors for atmospheric particle concentrations to induce the models to predict the observed falling temperatures between 1940 and 1960. There are no data that show what the concentrations, particle size distributions and chemical content of the atmospheric particles were during this period. Furthermore, there are no data that show what the reflectivity of those particles might have been.Mr. Nordhaus then claims that to e2809ccompare the actual temperature increases of the model predictions for all sources (case 1) with the predictions for natural sources alone (case 2).e2809d and find that the models fail to demonstrate warming using natural sources alone somehow proves that carbon dioxide caused the warming. IPCC has not investigated other sources of warming thoroughly; IPCC does not know what other natural sources exist. Richard Lindzen has described this technique as e2809cproof by lassitudee2809d.Point 3.Here Mr. Nordhaus has lapsed into begging the question. His claim is that if the models are correct, then carbon dioxide is a pollutant because it will cause dangerous climate changes. In other words, if he assumes that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, then he can prove that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. Big deal.Point 4.Mr. Nordhaus says, e2809cWhile we must always be attentive to a herd instinct, this lurid tale is misleading in the extreme.e2809d He at least acknowledges that some version of prejudice exists in the scientific community. I agree that the Soviet example was extreme, but to deny that it is happening now in this field is nac3afve. In fact Mr. Nordhaus acknowledges its existence in e2809cWhile some claim that skeptics cannot get their papers published, working papers and the Internet are open to all.e2809d So, the ClimateGate emails show that the stars of the show, Mann, Jones, et al. conspired to prevent skeptics from having access to peer reviewed journals, thate28099 OK because they are free to publish in the gray literature and on line and then have their arguments dismissed because their work did not appear in peer reviewed literature. Does this sound like science to you?Point 5.Arrhenius may have made precise calculations but they were not very accurate. He demonstrated a technique, but lacked even a rudimentary calculator, much less a computer. He would have been constrained by the availability of accurate tables of logarithms, which also were not precise and often contained errors known to their author so that he could enforce his copyright. To point out th

14th Apr 2013, 21:45

Add a comment

(P) what's this?

Track updates to this post with rssthis rss feed