Blogspot, you suck.

27 11 2007

hi all, sorry for lagging behind in the responses to comments.
i had a much-needed reflective Thanksgiving break. And tried to do some actual work, instead of just yacking.
And then when i opened the Pandora box again, there were plenty of comments from my good friend Anonymous, from that guy Anonymous, and also from that really obnoxious goon called Anonymous.

So i started composing a structured reply to be posted as comment, and then blogspot complained that i was using too much HTML code, so that’s it : blogspot, you officially suck. I can’t reply to comments inline, it’s a nightmare to moderate them, they look like crap compared to any WordPress blog, i can’t require guests to leave an email address so that snipers stay home, and we can’t even geek out in LaTeX.

So blogspot, you can kiss my French ass goodbye. In just a few days this blog will move to a new address, because enough is enough.

In the meanwhile here are a few answers…

Cheers !
Julien

Francois O :

i am sorry you took those words personally… if you re-read my response to your comment, you will see a “their”, not a “your” : a reflection of my limited experience in reading/talking to certain obscurantists. I never implied you were one.
I did make the mistake of imparting you some political motives. It is an error, because i don’t know them, as you point out. I was just a little annoyed that we climate scientists are always accused of political bias by virtue of being academics, (which in my experience is largely liberal). Can we stop this, everyone ?

Call me naive, but I do believe than my political opinion do not obscure and distort my scientific judgement, or at least much less than MIT’s Richard Lindzen’s when he states “AGW can’t be a real threat because that would require us to live like cavemen” (video interview for an exhibit at La Cité des Sciences et de l’Industrie). Yet, oddly enough, i haven’t seen a good skeptic get on his back. But perhaps there is one – does anyone know ?

Yes, i am ready to face the consequences of a world economy based mostly on non-fossil resources . Does it mean i will suspend my scientific training to blindly accept any alarmism ? No, and i am offended when such collusion is made.

But you’re right, François, i shouldn’t be guilty of the same sin of collusion.



Anonymous said…

Oh please, have you read realclimate lately? The sneer factor over there is off the charts, and they religiously excise nearly all dissenting comments.

As for cheap shots, those same “prominent climate scientists” routinely use the term septic or denialist (with its deliberate holocaust denialist association) to describe anyone who questions their authority. Some of us doing the questioning are very well-qualified indeed. Needless to say, such an attitude from supposedly professional scientists has very much hardened opinions against them.

As i said before, i believe the denialist term is fully justified when applied to people who bury their head in the ground against an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence. That said, RC may well censor too harshly.

Incidentally, I tend to censor posts by “anonymous” , because it’s too darn easy to be a sniper. But yours were interesting comments, so i left them in.

In particular, it reminds me of watching my own sneer factor. The problem is that blogs in general are also meant to be somewhat entertaining to keep the audience on their toes, so there is a tendency to joke about “the other side” in ways unimaginable in a science paper. As another ‘anonymous’ said, “how many people read blogs that aren’t amusing?”

More accessible and less dry than science prose, but also not as professional. You can’t have everything….


non-anon said…

you should be fighting hardest against the realclimate scientists. These guys are (almost to a man/woman) pushing a negative growth, nature over humanity political agenda, and they are using AGW alarmism to do so. They truck no criticism, nor any questioning of their authority, just like the catholic church of yore.

I think the most useful fight consists in showing a “third way” where a most balanced view is advocated and practiced. I never pretended to be the epitome of objectivity, but i can only hope that after a long enough observational period, you and other readers will place me somewhere in between extremes.


Anonymous said…

Steve McIntyre is pretty tedious. He’s been picked apart numerous times and he keeps coming.

Like a zombie.

It’s pretty amazing that he has been able to take a single peer-reviewed study and parlay it into so much attention.

How McIntyre Got Famous

Skeptics Get a Journal

But that’s what you get from the internets…..

Hey now ! This is not a blog to vent cheap shots at either side.

I deeply respect Steve McIntyre’s talent for digging through datasets, his mutinous perseverance, his incredible diligence at addressing topical climate issues (one wonders when he sleeps !), and as a dude who likes writing (can you tell ?), i respect his writing style very much. Also, he really impressed me by going to collect some date out of his own free-time and funds – that is light-years beyond what the armchair skeptic would do, and shows a genuine thirst for answering the questions, which is very commendable.

A quick browse through his posts will convince you that he’s contributed much more to climatology than a GRL article (which, as Huybers showed, has its own problems).

So while it is no measure of scientific quality than to be highly held by the editorial board of the WSJ (talk about bias !!!!) and Sen Joe Barton, i suspect the situation would be very different if “mainstream climatology” (to which i now belong…) had given him the attention he deserves, instead of constantly dismissing his comments.

Of course, it would help if he chose the “normal” avenues of science, with a slightly less offensive tone, but that’s a style i personally enjoy. It’s not for the weak at heart… neither is this blog, obviously 😉


Anonymous said…

What is going to happen if the earth cools as CO2 continues to rise? Science needs a champion, now.

Oh, brave Anonymous, i see a role for a luminary like you in our fast warming world !



Wow, TCO, what prolific commenting !

I really appreciate your comments as you seem to know the issues quite well, but again, this is not a McIntyre-bashing blog. I think the best test of whether he’s right and wrong, and on which topics, will come from the harsh light of confrontation (with gloves on). But this requires paleoclimatologists to engage in a fair debate with him – one whose rules are not dictacted by ClimateAudit , RealClimate, or yours truly of course.

I really want to invite him to speak at Georgia Tech and see if he has anything of substance to say, and can convey it in a clear manner. This might pave the way for a more fruitful discussion. I’ll keep you posted…


Gianni, as i have said, data availability is absolutely fundamental to the progress of this field. I never asked for a “pass”, just a little more understanding, because i think few fields feature datasets that require so much personal time, effort and contact with the elements. I may be wrong. Anyone has examples ?

Now this :

Nobody would care about the antics of paleoclimatologist if it were not for the fact that many of them want to change society back into some sort of hunter gather community. Sorry, forget about the hunter bit, we probably would not be allowed to eat the animals anyway!

I am sorry to say, this is plain and aggressive ignorance. First, most paleoclimatologists stay quite clear of advocating policy choices. Please show me a study that would demonstrate the opposite. Second, i do believe there is a middle ground between industrialism gone wrong and pre-history. It’s called progress. It’s not a middle-ground, actually, it’s a different dimension altogether. You could try reading this for a more informed perspective.

Thirdly, as far a vegetarianism is concerned, you should probably read what an obscure physicist called Albert E. had to say about it…


Anonymous said.

El Niño

I apologise for setting such a bad example to ‘the youth’ by posting anonymously, but of course this does not in any way effect what I said, which was that the integrity of an argument can be evaluated by the way in which it is formulated and expressed. Only sound, fallacy free, arguments are likely to persuade AGW sceptics to join the ranks of the orthodox. And sceptics do have to be persuaded, they are unlikely to be coerced by name calling, abuse, or peer pressure.

True. Yet, if i am risking by public persona in the arena, i think you should show the same elementary courage.

In your response, you have impugned my courage, suggested that I am a corrupter of the young and managed to work in the ‘flat earther’ insult too. Then, as if one fallacy (ad hominem attack) was not enough, you cite ‘the expertise of ~450 authors’ of the IPCC, a blatant appeal to authority. Unfortunately you have not addressed the substance of my comment, which is a pity because I would have been interested to hear your views.

Well, yeah, i was poking a little hard because i do despise snipers. I have re-read your comment and still do not find matter there to address – except that i am arrogant. Are you asking for explanations ? Do you want to see a copy of my French passport 😉 No, seriously, if you want me to address something in particular, please rephrase it and i will do my best to address it. As it stands I have not gotten your point.

You say :
In the real world, outside academia, it is frequently necessary to act on matters of importance without having expert knowledge. And knowledge does not confer infallibility on anyone; not even climate scientists.

In my opinion, an “expert” is only as good as their ability to convey their knowledge. So let me re-try again to convey my view : while climate orthodoxy does sometimes does a poor job of recognizing holes in their own arguments, it is a VERY different thing from the pure disinformation campaign run by some skeptics.

No, we don’t know everything about the Earth’s climate. And we should certainly be more humble about it. But we know enough to say that physical and biological systems on Earth are undergoing enormous changes , that these changes are mostly caused by human activities ; at current per-capita emission rates, future anthropogenic global warming is thus a real and serious threat, and a wide spectrum of climate and economical models concur to show if we do nothing the consequences will likely be disastrous for our way of life and our children’s. That’s my appeal to ‘authority’.

One cannot always act with ‘expert’ and complete knowledge, but wouldn’t you agree that good decision-makers do refer to experts before taking action ? Because the issue is so huge, there are many experts worldwide – and the fact that they can reach a consensus is pretty powerful thing, methinks.

One can search for balance on political issues all their life – that is all fine. But this is science, and their comes point where the frenetic quest for ‘an informed opinion’ turns from healthy skepticism to blind denial. We may not agree on the location of that boundary, so i would be curious to hear where you place it.

What we, as a global community, choose to do as a response to AGW is (or should be !) a matter of debate : and that’s where economics and politics enter. But the basic tenets of the science are hard to dispute unless one wants to step pretty far out of the realm of logic. Is this a point you want to discuss ?

Perhaps i was excessive in saying that ‘most’ of the Opposition is made of obscurantists. I would be thrilled to see proof that they are made of rational, healthy skeptics who simply have not been put in presence of the overwhelming mound of evidence. But i am reminded every day of how many obscurantists there are in the media, and i don’t think i could ever fight them hard enough – there is indeed too much at stake.
Perhaps i should change strategy, though, and your comment will encourage me to think about it.

What would it take to convince YOU, dear Anonymous ?

PS : i did not get the Eli Rabbett joke . Call me silly.

Advertisements

Actions

Information

35 responses

28 11 2007
Technetium

readers of thatstrangeweather++

=)

28 11 2007
Anonymous

There are luminaries enough about our rapidly warming globe. Where are the luminaries about the slowing rate of rise, and how is that explained by CO2.

I’m not anonymous, you just don’t recognize my signature. And why do you delete?
===========================

28 11 2007
El Niño

Anonymous : please explain the signature problem. Is this a Blogger glitch ?

I do reserve the right to delete unpleasant comments when people don’t have the elementary courage of being accountable by a name, or even initials.
It is the bare minimum i accept to enter a discussion.

I’m not sure i understand the “slowing rate of rise”. Surely you are too educated to confuse internal, year-to-year fluctuations and the radiative response to a century-long forcing.

28 11 2007
Anonymous

My name is Kim and I double underline. Blogger tries to call me by another name.

Tropospheric temperatures measured by satellite are stable or dropping. Surface temperatures records are suspect. Antarctica’s iceboxed and it’s cooling in the Pacific.
=================================

29 11 2007
Roldan F. Smith

Very interesting reading and debate here, El Nino! Some a bit over my head with some big fancy, scientific words, but I think I get the gist of it. (lol) I’m not sure where I stand on the issue of the cause of global warming, per se. BUT I certainly feel we are at least partly (even greatly) responsible for the rapid climate changes, due to the wasteful emmissions of our modern, industrial age of the last 150 years.

Just as we have killed of species after species of animal and insect (http://on-common-ground.com/2007/11/07/what-bee-the-problem/). Just as we have polluted the vast majority of our rivers, lakes and oceans. There is no denying our AFFECT on the world and the EFFECTS all living beings are suffering because of them.

The question I have is… is it too late for us to reverse the situation when countries like (but not limited to) India and China are now growing industrially at an exponential rate. So much so as to match and even surpass the U.S. on its historic levels of mass consumption, resource depletion and waste production.

Will the leaders of these nations be able to learn from our poor leadership in these arenas and help quell the undeniably horrific impact they will have on the earth, her resources and the non-human life that also depends on them?

These are the questions that must be addressed as well. For as we deal with the current effect of our poor behavior (in combination with the planet’s own natural climatic cycles), we must also realize that the cause is not as simple as one person, one culture, one race or even one continent. We as a human race, as a whole, are acting in poor stewardship of the planet we’ve been given.

Not until the vast majority (currently a vocal minority) is able to accept the necessary personal/social/communal responsibility of every moment of our consumerist action from driving inefficient cars to consuming vast amounts of package goods without action to recycle/reclaim to consuming vast amounts of natural resources for meaningless toys/trinkets/wares/junk/material goods, we will see no change, no growth, no effort to resolve and reverse our neglible habits.

I admire you for your courage and conviction, like few others, to raise the bar and raise the question. The work begins within and with each conscious effort spreads to the next like a lighted candle. Keep lighting away. The path is getting brighter day by day.

Roldan F. Smith
http://www.on-common-ground.com

29 11 2007
Steve Bloom

Julien, make sure not to miss the current CA post on Scafetta+West 2007, in particular Leif Svalgaard’s remarks starting around comment 65. That the science of solar-climate connections seems to be undergoing a sea-change is interesting in itself, but also fascinating are the increasingly desperate responses from the regulars.

I honestly don’t know what Judy sees in those people.

29 11 2007
El Niño

Kim, i am sorry that Blogger is erasing your identity. Thanks for sticking around regardless.

As the (eerily poetic) title of this posts suggests, Blogger sucks, and it won’t be long till i move over to better shores.

You say : Tropospheric temperatures measured by satellite are stable or dropping. Surface temperatures records are suspect. Antarctica’s iceboxed and it’s cooling in the Pacific.

Surface temperature records have their problems (esp with so many stations being enclosed in ‘urban heat islands’), but they are are most direct measure… Be aware that satellite measurements, while supremely important, have caveats of their own. It takes very complex algorithms to retrieve temperature profiles from radiometric measurements in the few spectral gaps from which the atmosphere allows photons to escape.
As usual, it is the convergence of various types of measurements that gives us confidence in a result.

There was a discrepancy between the two types of measurement (top & bottom) , but i believe this has been largely resolved. I asked a colleague for a reference but she hasn’t gotten back to me yet. I’ll let you know when i comes through if you want.

Antartica is ‘iceboxed’, yes, but that box is cracking rather worryingly sometimes : http://nsidc.org/iceshelves/larsenb2002/

The fact that it now experiences a net snow accumulation is an expected consequence of the greenhouse warming, actually.

As for cooling in the Pacific… where did you get that from ? Overall it’s pretty darn clear it’s taking up heat, like most other ocean basins :
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidpdf/1112418?ijkey=f2EKdMsfwbVoA&keytype=ref&siteid=sci

I’d be interested in seeing the data you speak of.
cheers
J

29 11 2007
El Niño

Steve, thanks for the reading advice… I wish i had the leisure to check CA everyday, but i can’t keep up.
Rasmus’s critique on RC (which i haven’t read thoroughly) was pretty smacking in its tone and it sounds oddly like the type of self-fulfilling prophecy type of paper i don’t have time to read (if you start with the assumption that CO2 is a response to solar forcing, then of course you’ll find it’s not the driver). But the argument is probably more subtle …

Interestingly, people like Mann and G.Schmidt have worked a lot on the role of solar forcing on climate, as yours truly :
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/%7Ejulieneg/docs/Holocene_ENSO_2007.pdf

Overall, i think the rest of the community would believe those beans a lot LESS than us, so if you read Gavin’s comments on RealClimate about solar driving of recent warming , bear in mind that if there’s anyone who would be favorable to it, that would be him…

The fact that Svensmark or Scafetta’s paper regularly get trashed as RC is a testimony to how dodgy their reasonings are, because the jury, if anything, is more on their side than not.

30 11 2007
Steve Bloom

Thanks for the paper link, Julien. It and your remarks are more or less consistent with what I thought to be the case. But just to be clear, since I think my first comment wasn’t entirely so, I was referring to solar physicist Leif Svalgaard (not Svensmark). Svalgaard (who has a pristine reputation) argues (and will be presenting at AGU on this) that solar influence on climate trends is essentially zero. He seems to have support from some key colleagues. He posted a good summary of his arguments here. See also the abstracts of both of his forthcoming AGU talks and this revealing response from McIntyre.

Svalgaard speculated elsewhere that knocking out the early 20th century solar warming might be a serious problem for the models. I responded that I didn’t think so, but I have no expertise. Your view?

30 11 2007
Steve Bloom

And in this comment he insults them a little before explaining a bit more. Oh this is fun!

30 11 2007
Anonymous

Ice is net accumulating some places on earth and net melting at others. I’m pretty sure neither you nor anyone else know why. “Net snow accumulation(in Antarctica) is an expected consequence of the green house warming, actually”. Why am I doubtful about that last statement? Actually, you don’t know.

The problem remains; temperature rise appears to be ameliorating or reversing. That isn’t explained well if Carbon Dioxide is the main culprit in warming. If it is, warming should be accelerating.

Leif Svalgaard has some very interesting data and conclusions, but he is blind to magnifications of the sun’s direct warming effect by any coupled mechanisms here on earth.
======================

30 11 2007
Hippikos

Maybe the current global warming is caused by all them bright scientists fuming their brains how to explain the global climate?

Me old mom used to say: “The more we know, the less we understand”…

30 11 2007
El Niño

Steve Bloom :
Svalgaard speculated elsewhere that knocking out the early 20th century solar warming might be a serious problem for the models. I responded that I didn’t think so, but I have no expertise. Your view?

Please point me directly to the latter argument (for some reason all the links you sent me end up on top of the post, not to the comments you mention). Email me (you can find the address through my webpage).

I see that Steve McIntyre made a digest of these posts, which helps a lot to follow Svalgaard’s arguments.

I am no heliophysicist so i won’t beclown myself by making wild extrapolations i can’t back up (as Francois O seems fond of doing, using ‘a physicist’s hunch’ as a substitute for deeper knowledge, e.g. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2470#comment-167708)

All i can say is this : i’ve heard some seriously respected heliophysicists (Foukal being a prime example) explain , on physical grounds (but with actual knowledge of the Sun), why total solar irradiance can’t vary by that much (it has to do with thermal inertia of the photosphere, if i’m not mistaken).

On the other hand, correlations between various solar and climatic cycles have been known of a very long time , as early as 1875 (see, for instance, http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/pub/emile-geay_et_al_PA07.pdf)

So you have geophysicists using the Earth as a radiometer for past irradiance changes and
solar physicists saying ” TSI can’t vary that much”.

As far as i can see, there is no consensus on this in the heliophysics community, and neither is there in the climate one.

I would argue that given well-known climate feedbacks, and plausible amplitude of TSI changes, the Sun is a pretty good candidate for some Holocene climate variations. Longer timescales are more blurry.
Of course, Foukal would say these TSI changes are 1 order of magnitude too big, in which case my argument can’t work unless you invoke feedbacks which we don’t really see at work yet – but that doesn’t mean they can’t exist… it’s just pretty darn unlikely **given current knowledge**.
(and please note that this is conditioned on current, and obviously imperfect, knowledge)

In any case, it is fair to say that most reasonable physicists, on Earth or the Sun, would tell you that recent TSI changes are a very unlikely cause of the recent warming : which our current physical understanding of climate says is much better explained by greenhouse gases.

Of course we could all be wrong and Scafetta and West are the new revolutionaries of our science… or they could just be wacky scientists stroking the ego of the “all-solar” folks who would go to considerable lengths of faulty logic to convince themselves that they shouldn’t stop driving an SUV…

But it is a debate, and that’s what makes science exciting.

30 11 2007
El Niño

Kim,

“Net snow accumulation(in Antarctica) is an expected consequence of the green house warming, actually”.

Let me re-explain :

Hotter oceans —> higher tropospheric water vapor (via Clausius0-Clapeyron) —> intensification of the hydrological cycle —> it rains more where it already reains, and when T is cold enough it falls as snow (as in Antarctica).

The problem remains; temperature rise appears to be ameliorating or reversing. That isn’t explained well if Carbon Dioxide is the main culprit in warming. If it is, warming should be accelerating.

please back these arguments with references, because i’m not sure we’re looking at the same data here…


Leif Svalgaard has some very interesting data and conclusions, but he is blind to magnifications of the sun’s direct warming effect by any coupled mechanisms here on earth.

What are said coupled mechanisms and where have they been showed to be work ?
I’m not closed to learning, i just need to have the arguments spelled out…

30 11 2007
El Niño

Hippikos said…

Maybe the current global warming is caused by all them bright scientists fuming their brains how to explain the global climate?

Me old mom used to say: “The more we know, the less we understand”…

Ha-ha. Earth-shattering humor.
Personally, i humbly believe that knowledge is not an obstruction to insight , but i’m sure your old Mum was much wiser.

The statement brings interesting light to your former comments, though… and justifies me in ignoring them…

30 11 2007
Anonymous

Ice is froth on chaos, appearing here, disappearing there. The next bluff will be that anthropogenic release of carbon dioxide will cause temporary cooling. You can speculate about anything.

Cosmic rays, clouds, water vapor, many elements of the biosphere, and of course, the atmospheres and oceans and the circulations therein can all magnify solar changes. There are many more solar effects than irradiance, too.

I believe the satellites about temperature more than any other sensors. You do agree carbon dioxide concentration is rising, and may be accelerating?
==================================

1 12 2007
Anonymous

Oh, you wanted a pointer. See ‘Influence of Solar Activity Cycles on Earth’s Climate’, the ISAC Final Report, by Christiansen, Haigh, and Lundstedt. More questions than answers, but still, inconvenient questions.
=====================================

3 12 2007
El Niño

Kim, there is no “bluff” there other than you mistaking the forest of the trees. Sorry. There is interannual variability in the climate system, and a cold winter somewhere in your neighborhood isn’t proof of anything other than the shortness of your considerations.
Same for a warm winter, by the way…

Thanks for the link to the presentation. I see a lot of correlations, and some mechanisms proposed to account for causation, though i could not find anywhere that they add up to the required magnitude to make up for an amplification factor around 3-4…

It is interesting research , but right now GHG look a lot more efficient at explaining the observed temperature changes… Maybe that will change – and i will change my position then. But now Occam’s razor leads me (for one) to go for the less esoteric explanation. You are free to go for it on your own.

4 12 2007
Anonymous

You take your misunderstanding of my position as proof of the shortness of my considerations? Bah.
================================

4 12 2007
Anonymous

Effeciency is the standard of knowledge?

Have a go? Here goes. Cosmic rays affect low level cloud formation and the GCM’s are in error about water vapor. The earth’s magnetic field effects cosmic rays, as does the magnetic field of the sun with associated solar winds complete with diffusive barriers. The sun’s, and the planets, movement around the barycenter of the solar system effect the tides within the sun to cause variations in the solar wind and magnetic field. The changing solar winds and magnetic fluxes effect the ionosphere and modify convection in the atmosphere, which is poorly modeled at present. There are enough ways to magnify a difficult to find signal in the solar influences.

Simpler is not necessarily correct. William of Ockham knew that, too.

And what about the temperatures?
=================

4 12 2007
El Niño

The question I have is… is it too late for us to reverse the situation when countries like (but not limited to) India and China are now growing industrially at an exponential rate. So much so as to match and even surpass the U.S. on its historic levels of mass consumption, resource depletion and waste production.

The rise of India and China is often taken as an excuse for inaction in developed nations.
My view on it has always been : if the big brother doesn’t give the example, why would the young bucks make any effort ?
There are interesting issues of “Carbon Justice” there…

On the bright side, i think America still holds the key to many a cultural model that have broader impacts in places like India and China than we can fathom.

As those places develop, they consume more and more of the dominant western culture – which is undoubtedly American and English.
I like to believe that if all major western cultural icons advocated action on climate mitigation, it would raise awareness much closer to the base than to the ‘top’ in developing nations. But that could be a utopia…

Will the leaders of these nations be able to learn from our poor leadership in these arenas and help quell the undeniably horrific impact they will have on the earth, her resources and the non-human life that also depends on them?
You might be interested in this article :

http://seedmagazine.com/news/2007/05/the_china_experiment.php

China’s energy production is so coal-intensive that the skies are black at noon in some places… And the Chinese are no dumber than anyone (quite possibly the opposite;-) and some begin to notice that this is killing them on massive scale (it’s notoriously hard to get figures from China, but quite clear that respiratory diseases are through the roof).

So no matter how fucked up their leaders are, quite a few Chinese people seem to know that this model of development is completely unsustainable, even in the very short term, and if you couple that with their ability to implement low-cast technological solutions, we could see a radical energy shift coming from there.

In a sense, this black carbon quagmire and its immediate health effects might be the best warning sign of possibly more damaging , but more remote, climate impacts. Hopefully it will spur more immediate and effective action in the direction required to solve short- and long-term problems.
(i.e. go renewable).

4 12 2007
El Niño

“Anonymous said…

You take your misunderstanding of my position as proof of the shortness of my considerations? Bah.
================================ “

Well, if you don’t want to be misunderstood, please elaborate on your position, and back it with peer-reviewed references, or at least a coherent reasoning.

Up to know it feels like you’re just throwing the usual non-substantial dirt at AGW (as is all too often the case). So if your arguments have any substance, let’s see hear them.

You know where to find my email if you want to keep this behind the scenes.

Cheers,
Julien

5 12 2007
Anonymous

No go? Free carbon is important to mitigate the physical enslavement of half the world’s population, those who labor hard from dawn to dusk for a living. The other half presently use fossil energy.

Look to pebble bed nuclear technology; the Chinese are years ahead of the rest of the world. The plants are scalable, can’t fail, and the old fuel can be reprocessed.

And why so coy? Post my arguments or nothing. You are dodging solar influences and the way they may be magnified to explain apparent climate sensitivities.
=======================

5 12 2007
Anonymous

Renewable energy resources? Amazing. Without trying to, we may have interfered with climate regulating mechanisms, and I’m not talking about just carbon dioxide, and you propose tapping the sun, the wind, and the water, for significant amounts of energy? These are the earth’s natural climate regulatory mechanisms and the more energy diverted from them for human use, the more deranged these climate regulators will get, in unpredictable fashion. This idea of ‘renewable resources’ is so much belief in something from nothing. There is always a trade-off. Didn’t your Daddy ever tell you there is no such thing as a free lunch?

Google Boedele Depression and see what wind farms in Africa would do to the Amazon Basin. Hadn’t counted on its impoverishment, had you?
============================

5 12 2007
Anonymous

Steve Bloom’s (mis)representation of Svalgaard’s theory

“Svalgaard (who has a pristine reputation) argues (and will be presenting at AGU on this) that solar influence on climate trends is essentially zero.”

is merely wishful thinking on Bloom’s part. Svalgaard is at pains to point out at CA (and Steve Bloom has just shown he’s as slow to get this point as those he mocks) that he makes no such claim. Rather, he states that if his theory is correct (ie that there is little change in TSI over at least the last 150 years) then EITHER solar irradiance has little effect on climate OR models and theories regarding climate’s sensitivity to changes in TSI are wrong.

5 12 2007
El Niño

Kim====,
thanks for our take on pebble bed nuclear technology. I learnt something from your comment this time.

Precisely,nuclear power is carbon free, so i’m not sure i get your point about free carbon.

You will notice I have been posting your comments since you have identified yourself (if somewhat coyly as well . How is ==== for a signature ?). I am not always sure it is a good idea, though, as you keep casting a scattered cloud of amorphous and tired contrarian arguments – but i do it anyway in the name of free speech.

Dodging is not my style. I think i’ve been pretty direct about expressing my views on solar influence on climate. To summarize : given current knowledge, it is plausibly important to explain Holocene climate change ; insufficient to account for the late XXth century warming alone.

I am sorry this does not lead me to eradicate the idea of anthropogenic global warming, because that is a very real thing with a lot less might’s and maybe’s.

If you do identify some valid physical mechanisms, and can show in a climate model that they do matter quantitatively, then i’ll take you seriously. For now you are just playing the usual game of AGW-denying for denying’s sake – and i have better things to do with my day.

But i’ll respond if you employ physically-sound arguments and valid references.

Regards,
El Niño

5 12 2007
El Niño

Have a go? Here goes. Cosmic rays affect low level cloud formation and the GCM’s are in error about water vapor. The earth’s magnetic field effects cosmic rays, as does the magnetic field of the sun with associated solar winds complete with diffusive barriers. The sun’s, and the planets, movement around the barycenter of the solar system effect the tides within the sun to cause variations in the solar wind and magnetic field. The changing solar winds and magnetic fluxes effect the ionosphere and modify convection in the atmosphere, which is poorly modeled at present. There are enough ways to magnify a difficult to find signal in the solar influences.

Very nice ! Great creative writing, but i’m afraid my science neurones are left cold. There are some true things in what you wrote (i said, some… there is also a whole lot of nonsense).
Now, when they suspect a process is important, what evil climate scientists (and other physicists) do is usually along the lines of :
– estimate the order of magnitude at stake with a back-of-envelope calculation
– if it is big enough, they try to find reliable data to back it up.
– to see of it affects climate at large, they put it into into a model along with relevant physical processes, and see if it significantly affects the result.

Of course, our models are not perfect. Yes, tropical convection is poorly represented, but it is the first time i hear an ionospheric explanation of that. Reference ?

As it stands, your argument is like saying : the Sun has a magnetic field, magnetic fields can move metal, cars are made of metal, therefore all cars are moved by the Sun.

Now, there could be some true physical relationships in what you wrote, but it is not of much help unless you can establish their quantitative importance.

Until you have done so, the argument is void.

Good luck !

5 12 2007
Henry

From your comments:

“Perhaps i was excessive in saying that ‘most’ of the Opposition is made of obscurantists. I would be thrilled to see proof that they are made of rational, healthy skeptics who simply have not been put in presence of the overwhelming mound of evidence. But i am reminded every day of how many obscurantists there are in the media, and i don’t think i could ever fight them hard enough – there is indeed too much at stake.”

I guess you could label me a skeptic.

To place myself:

1. CO2 is rising.

2. Too much CO2 is bad

3. Global temps are rising.

And that’s where the “skeptic” comes in. The scientists say the temps are correct, yet there are still questions about the surface temps, such as:

1. It is being studied how the paint on the stevenson screens can cause a warming bias.

2. Microsite details could cause a problem with the accuracy of temps (and they’re using the Meteo France ratings, here).

3. They say that the satellites are more accurate, but even then, they admit it’s an ESTIMATE of temps. Not to mention there are TWO places studying that data, with a third independent study going on.

3a. They still have to get independant data from the poles, not covered by satellites.

4. Your “overwhelming mound” of data has a question too: There is a website that lists over 600 stories from the press, in which there’s but one thread: AGW causes X. Some show both sides of the same story.

5. The current global anomaly temp chart is referenced to a 30 year period, ening in the 80’s or 90’s. If they were to follow protocol and use the end of the century (2000), the TREND wouldn’t change, but the “zero” would rise, possibly putting some of their “warmest” years at zero or having negative anomalie.

Perception is everything, and I realize that the temps have risen .6 degrees above the anomaly, but I’m getting kind of tired of hearing a daily drum-beat of “unprecented” events.

So yes, I’m a skeptic, requiring more info: particularly about the accuracy of that “.6 degree” we keep hearing about.

Sorry about the long post.
– Not anon.

6 12 2007
Anonymous

Thank you, other anonymous. It’s the ‘or’ part of Svalgaards’s argument that is important. The climate’s sensitivity to the sun is large and not understood. Occam’s rule itself suggests that the sun is more likely the cause of late 20th Century warming than CO2. Certainly anthropogenic carbon has never varied the climate in the past, while certainly something has, most likely the sun.

Yes, JEG, our conversation lags. I don’t have the certainty you desire; you don’t have the uncertainty I desire.

A bientot.
=======

6 12 2007
EliRabett

Eli Rabett is a joke, and don’t feel bad there are a lot of people who don’t get it.

6 12 2007
anonymous27

Hey JEG. I was impressed by your courageous challenge to the Lion, but disappointed that you seem to have retreated back to your cage.

We skeptics NEED you do challenge, dissect, present the truth explaining why we are wrong.

Where did you go??

6 12 2007
Anonymous

Trop tot. Mais, just one minute. Does the name Earl Hap mean anything to you? He’s been watching grapevines grow and he’s got some cogitations over on the Svalgaard thread at climateaudit.org
==================

8 12 2007
TCO

Nino:

A. My evaluative comments on CA overall were meant as a thoughtful response to the title of your post which was “Auditing Climate Audit”. Given that as the subject, versus some specific technical issue, the comments were on topic.

B. I agree that points of McIntyre will be proven/disproven by examination of the specifics and that such is best done in a neutral forum. My point was that by choosing to publish in the forum that he has (CA) vice writing real papers (even discussion papers), he has obfuscated an ability to drill down and examine points. At times when I or Gerd has pushed Steve, he has been evasive. This is not the act of a truth-seeker. It is a result of profoundly confounding lawyerly argument and public promotion with scientific issue analysis. Mike Mann and Gavin Schmidt have similar tendancies. It’s a form of intellectual laziness and non-forthrightness.

3. Please pursue truth where-ever it takes you. If it supports your liberal leanings or the reverse. It should be no matter. You should feel the joy of learning and of conveying understanding. Of reducing the mystery in the universe.

P.s. Check out the summer movies on the grass at Peidmont Park. (bring bug spray).

10 12 2007
El Niño

TCO wrote :
You should feel the joy of learning and of conveying understanding. Of reducing the mystery in the universe.

Amen !

I really appreciate your input, TCO. I was just trying to set a boundary for the content of this blog. Science: yes. Sustainability, yes. Politics , maybe. Epistemology, economics, sociology, hell yes.
Personal attacks : no.

CA and RC have their downsides… I wonder how long it takes for a blog ger to get “intellectually lazy”, if regular output is expected… I don’t know that i would fare much better in their shoes. That’s why there needs to be more than 1 source…

16 12 2007
El Niño

anonymous27 :
thanks for your interest, but contrary to the lion, i have a day job, and realized that swimming CA waters all day wasn’t the best way to fulfill my duties…

Plus, i’m SF now.

But watch these pages…i’m never ver far.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: