For some reason Mark Hertsgaard has decided he must confront climate change denialists, on camera. Do you find these as uncomfortable to watch as I do?
What does Hertsgaard think he is going to accomplish by such guerrilla journalism? I know he's trying to sell a new book, and has decided his daughter should help him do that....But these kind of tactics won't convince anyone who isn't already in the choir.
Most people, I suspect, find it a real turn-off. I do.
Look, crazy people like Inhofe aren't going to be discouraged by being ambushed by someone with a little video camera. He moved beyond that point many, many years ago. Now, he just considers it proof of his "cause," as do climate bullies like Marc Morano, who has been gleefully sending out emails in the last few days with every detail of Hertsgaard's actions.
Journalists and writers should make their point via the facts, not by ambushing those who will never, ever be convinced and will only decline from relevance when they retire or die.
As Planck said, science advances one funeral at a time. So does politics.
The biggest advantage skeptics have over Alarmists is the complete unlikeability of AGW zealots. Combine that with a complete lack of talent using various media and the battle has been one sided despite the all the advantages the warmists have. Heck, Inhoffe posted the pathetic "ambush" on his Senate video feed as fast as he could. He knew who would score points off of this debacle.
ReplyDeletePlease, please, David, find one peer reviewed paper that eliminates natural variabilty as the cause of recent climate changes. You cannot, because in over twenty years of trying, the alarmists have failed to prove anything except that they have an agenda.
ReplyDeleteGator, scientists have examined the natural factors of solar variability and volcanic forcings in detail. They do not account for the vast upward swing in global temperatures since about 1976. This is shown in detail in the IPCC 4AR WG1 Ch 9 FAQ 9.2 Fig 1, p. 703 (bottom three graphs).
ReplyDeleteDavid, you want to be careful when publish the word 'Morano', as the bots will see it and deploy (but the 'lack of talent with media' is a fair point).
ReplyDeleteBest,
D
Are these conclusions reached through modeling?
ReplyDeleteThis is shown in detail in the IPCC 4AR WG1 Ch 9 FAQ 9.2 Fig 1, p. 703 (bottom three graphs).
49skywalker wrote:
ReplyDelete> Are these conclusions
> reached through modeling?
Yes.
Do you have another suggestion for how future climate should be calculated, if not via modeling?
@Dano
ReplyDeleteI know you may not like what Mark Morano is doing, but Morano's website is read by many people, not all of whom are fans of Morano. These people welcome the balance Morano and Morano's allies provide to the mainstream opinion.
@David Appell
OK, so sun and volcano don't explain the upswing, so it has to be CO2, right? Well actually, not necessarily, so the answer is - at best - a tepid maybe, but probably not. As Morano would be quick to point out.
Are these conclusions reached through modeling?
ReplyDeleteThis is shown in detail in the IPCC 4AR WG1 Ch 9 FAQ 9.2 Fig 1, p. 703 (bottom three graphs).
4:53 PM
Blogger David Appell said...
49skywalker wrote:
> Are these conclusions
> reached through modeling?
Yes.
Do you have another suggestion for how future climate should be calculated, if not via modeling?
How about real world observations and empirical evidence.
> How about real world observations
ReplyDelete> and empirical evidence.
I asked about *future* climate.
I see no way to predict future climate. Climate modelers are all trying to prove the same thing, disaster if we don't revert to pre columbian times, with inputs at the whim of the modelers. Somehow doesn't ring right. Here's some info that fits just what I am saying.
ReplyDeletePlease don't appeal to past authority or condemn the messenger.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/02/dr-noor-van-andel-data-does-not-agree.html
Some problems with computer modelers. Here's an example:
ReplyDeletehttp://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/02/dr-noor-van-andel-data-does-not-agree.html
> OK, so sun and volcano
ReplyDelete> don't explain the upswing, so
> it has to be CO2, right?
No. And it isn't only CO2.
Scientists (including climate scientists) take into account all known influences on a system and calculate the results, almost always simplifying the mathematics to make it tractable.
Climate scientists consider many factors: the sun, volcanoes, water vapor, CO2, other GHGs, land use changes, vegetation and other land cover, ocean dynamics, aerosols, emissions scenarios, clouds, and more, and run their models (which are PDEs solved numerically).
The list of forcings and their strengths are given in every IPCC AR.
Yes, CO2 is a significant factor, especially in the long-term, and numerically it has the largest forcing. But other GHGs matter to a lesser extent, esp methane, and so do land use changes, and so do feedbacks from albedo changes, water vapor, etc. And, yes, solar variability has a small role, and, for a year or two, so does a major volcano (but it cools, not warms). And air pollution (also cools).
When they do this, they can only explain recent warming by including the manmade factors of CO2, methane, etc. If they don't include them, their models can't explain recent climate.
This is a very strong, robust result.
Here is the IPCC 4AR list of forcings:
ReplyDeleteIPCC 4AR WGI Ch2.2 FAQ2.1 Fig2
http://is.gd/FnMSSb
David said,
ReplyDeleteScientists (including climate scientists) take into account all known influences on a system and calculate the results, almost always simplifying the mathematics to make it tractable.
What does almost always mean?
David said:
Climate scientists consider many factors: the sun, volcanoes, water vapor, CO2, other GHGs, land use changes, vegetation and other land cover, ocean dynamics, aerosols, emissions scenarios, clouds, and more, and run their models (which are PDEs solved numerically).
Show me where climate scientists know anything about the effect of clouds and please no answer with modeling in it.
David said:
The list of forcings and their strengths are given in every IPCC AR.
This is an appeal to an authority whose credeibility has some serious problems with their peer review statements. You know what they are.
David said:
Yes, CO2 is a significant factor, especially in the long-term, and numerically it has the largest forcing. But other GHGs matter to a lesser extent, esp methane, and so do land use changes, and so do feedbacks from albedo changes, water vapor, etc. And, yes, solar variability has a small role, and, for a year or two, so does a major volcano (but it cools, not warms). And air pollution (also cools).
What evidence other than computer modeling shows CO2 to have the largest forcing. The models are one sided on forcing in that, they say the effect is always positive and never negative when referring to CO2. How do they know that?
David said:
When they do this, they can only explain recent warming by including the manmade factors of CO2, methane, etc. If they don't include them, their models can't explain recent climate.
This is a very strong, robust result.
In light of Climategate in Nov 2009 there is plenty of disagreement about whether there has been any warming at all. Even Phil Jones, one of the central figures in Climategate, said, "There hasn't been any significant warming since 1995. So how do you say that the results are robust? Seems they are questionable and far from robust.
@Dano
ReplyDeleteI know you may not like what Mark Morano is doing, but Morano's website is read by many people, not all of whom are fans of Morano. These people welcome the balance Morano and Morano's allies provide to the mainstream opinion.
*chuckle*
Ah. They call industry-funded agitprop "balance" these days.
That's how they do it folks: make s--- up. My, the sky is a lovely shade of green today! Up is down! Black is white!
Best,
D
D said:
ReplyDeleteAh. They call industry-funded agitprop "balance" these days.
That's how they do it folks: make s--- up. My, the sky is a lovely shade of green today! Up is down! Black is white!
Sounds just like what alarmists do. Make s__t up. AGW causes extreme weather.
D1893 : Heat And Drought In Europe – With CO2 Below 300 ppm
What caused this?
Http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=MEX18930819.2.14
Dave,
ReplyDeleteAre you really posting as a defense of your position IPCC modeling? Models whose original data has been "lost" (see E Anglia U). Are you serious? The models are all bogus and when real data/observations are introduced the results don't match the predictions. I am not even going to get into all the BS in the IPCC about glaciers melting and African droughts. It ia a political documnet written by corrupt people w/ an agenda. P-lease.
> D1893 : Heat And Drought In
ReplyDelete> Europe – With CO2 Below 300 ppm
I don't know. Most likely several factors caused it, as is true for all climate. CO2 alone isn't responsible for every event, and every event isn't caused by CO2. The ACC problem is *long-term*, and on average, over decades and centuries, the additional forcings on our climate are expected to cause an increase in temperatures, precipitation, and weather extremes. It's not one-to-one and it's not black-and-white.
jhaley99 wrote:
ReplyDelete> It ia a political documnet
> written by corrupt people
> w/ an agenda.
What is your proof of their "corruption?"
> Models whose original data has
ReplyDelete> been "lost" (see E Anglia U).
No model has lost data, and you are confusing different situation. The lost E Anglia U data was about weather stations lost long ago. Science has lost a lot of data over the years (does Mendel's original data still exist? Rutherford's? Eddington's?). That doesn't invalidate their conclusions.
As far as I know, models use today's initial conditions, not those of long-ago.
jhaley99 wrote:
ReplyDelete> The models are all bogus and
> when real data/observations
> are introduced the results
> don't match the predictions
That is false. Most of all, the models hindcast the past. That's the acid test for models.
Even models from 20 yrs ago do a decent job of forecasting the past 20 yrs (see Hansen's B scenario presented in 1988). But then, a model of 20 yrs ago is now a primitive thing.
But most of all, the theory that over the long-term additional CO2 warms a planet is very, very well established, whether models account for every little wiggle in the climate records. THAT's the problem, the long-term warming, not whether models account for every season.
There has never been a model constructed -- never -- that shows anything other than long-term warming for long-term CO2 increases; all show an S of 2-4 deg.
jhaley99 wrote:
ReplyDelete> I am not even going to get
> into all the BS in the IPCC
> about glaciers melting and
> African droughts.
Again you utterly miss the point and fail to understand why so many knowledgable experts are so concerned about this problem.
It isn't the models didn't calculate the exact 3 pm temperature for last June 28th at the corner of 5th and Main in Portland, OR, it's that very gross features of the climate system imply putting lots more CO2 into our atmosphere is bound to warm the planet by a significant amount. The details are nice to know, sure, but the real problem is the long-term.
And by the way, models have been "wrong" in both directions -- in particular, they have generally underestimated the rapidity of Arctic sea ice melt.
Wait for models to be exactly right and you will have waited too long.
Gordon Andelin wrote:
ReplyDelete> What does almost always mean?
Gordon, this is simple, basic science. EVERY scientific calculation makes assumptions for the point of simplification and tractability.
Weren't you some big citizen peer-reviewer for the IPCC AR? If you are asking this question, I can't see how you are even remotely qualified to do so.
Gordon Andelin wrote:
ReplyDelete> http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/02/dr-noor-van-andel-data-does-not-agree.html
Gordon, this is such an extreme example of unscientific cherry-picking that it is simply not worth a response.
David Appell said...
ReplyDeletejhaley99 wrote:
> It ia a political documnet
> written by corrupt people
> w/ an agenda.
What is your proof of their "corruption?"
12:53 PM
The following addresses that issue:
http://landshape.org/enm/peer-censorship-and-scientific-fraud/
Gordon Andelin wrote:
ReplyDelete> http://landshape.org/enm/peer-censorship-and-scientific-fraud/
Gordon, I'm wondering: did you ever hear of Frank Tipler before you found this link?
I certainly had -- 20 yrs ago when I was in graduate school.
Do you know what kind of books he h as written? Do you know anything about him?
Why do you find his arguments strong? Or weak? Why do you agree with them? Is there anything you disagree with?
Why do you think hundreds of climate scientists -- the real scientists, the ones pouring over data and building models and publishing in the big journals -- disagree with him?
Does it bother you that Tipler doesn't participate in the nitty gritty of scientific debates on climate, or attend the important conferences, or publish in the active journals?
If not, why not?
Gordon Andelin wrote:
ReplyDelete> Show me where climate scientists
> know anything about the effect of
> clouds
Many scientists are (of course) deeply involved in the study of clouds and climate. I suggest you register for the upcoming Chapman conference this summer, and you can listen to them talk about clouds for 6 days:
Clouds, Aerosols, Precipitation and their Role in Climate and Climate Change
July 10-15, 2011
Colby College
Waterville, ME
http://www.grc.org/programs.aspx?year=2011&program=radclimate
Why don't you do that, Gordon, and then report back to us?
Gordon Andelin (49skywalker) wrote:
ReplyDelete> Climate modelers are all trying
> to prove the same thing,
> disaster if we don't revert to
> pre columbian times
Right there you show your bias, and, frankly, your stupidity.
Have you ever talked with a climate modeler, Gordon?
I have. Several of them. Amazingly, not one every said anything -- not a thing -- about living like a hunter/gatherer. There were too busy talking small climate variables and about numerical integration techniques.
I guess they fooled me, huh?
David Appell said...
ReplyDeleteGordon Andelin wrote:
> What does almost always mean?
Gordon, this is simple, basic science. EVERY scientific calculation makes assumptions for the point of simplification and tractability.
Weren't you some big citizen peer-reviewer for the IPCC AR? If you are asking this question, I can't see how you are even remotely qualified to do so.
Gordon says:
The problem is this and we'll apply it to GCMs. Modelers use basic assumptions which we have no way of knowing whether they are valid. It is assumed that they are valid. If modelers start with the same assumption,then individually tweak their models, it stands to reason they may all wind up with a similar result. More CO2 more warming.There is no empirical evidence on earth can prove this is the case. Please don't blather on about greenhouse gas theory. So, until more is discovered about a possible multitude of variables we might not even be aware of, the American public don't have to accept a small cabal of modelers and climate scientists word as the gospel truth.
In case you hadn't noticed, AGW is at a low point on the interest scale in this country. We'll all burn in hell together.
You might consider adjusting your tactic of always shooting the messenger and not addressing the issue. Your credibility is slipping as noted by jhaley.
Where to begin...The IPCC is run by a railroad engineer basically posing as a climate expert while he also has numerous ties to business that will profit from what he is selling. We have data that the report is based on that cant be found (E. ANGLIA U, destroyed, please give me one scientist that agrees it is ok to dispose of data that his work is based on) so the results also cant be replicated. Climate gate proved that they were playing w/ the numbers (yes, I am sure you will say they were "exonerated" when the whole review was a sham conducted by fellow colleagues that stood to loose by a negative report, w/ no real outside independent panel members. That is a fact) No member of the climate change cabal will debate any serious skeptic on the topic (please dont provide me proof some unknown scientist did a debate at an elementary school). We have Michael Mann's hockey stick. Enough said, unless you think it is OK to completely ignore a warm period of several hundred years to prove a point that supposedly is a "consensus". Every major prediction wrong or changes to fit the new weather. Models dont match up when real data is input into them. I could go on and on. All these people are being paid w/ tax money so...they are corrupt. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteDavid said:
ReplyDeleteDavid Appell said...
Gordon Andelin wrote:
> Show me where climate scientists
> know anything about the effect of
> clouds
Many scientists are (of course) deeply involved in the study of clouds and climate. I suggest you register for the upcoming Chapman conference this summer, and you can listen to them talk about clouds for 6 days:
Clouds, Aerosols, Precipitation and their Role in Climate and Climate Change
July 10-15, 2011
Colby College
Waterville, ME
http://www.grc.org/programs.aspx?year=2011&program=radclimate
Why don't you do that, Gordon, and then report back to us?
Gordon answers:
Oh David, can't make it. Already have plans for that week. You go instead.
The fact is, modelers don't know the effect of clouds, one of the most common components of our atmosphere. They make assumptions and that again is the issue which you don't address.
Speaking of convention, last year in Copenhagen they talked for two weeks. What did they decide? Nothing.This year they got smarter and partied on the beach in Cancun. What did they come up with? Nothing.
David Appell said...
ReplyDeletejhaley99 wrote:
> It ia a political documnet
> written by corrupt people
> w/ an agenda.
What is your proof of their "corruption?"
12:53 PM
The following addresses that issue:
http://landshape.org/enm/peer-censorship-and-scientific-fraud/
3:27 PM
Delete
Blogger David Appell said...
Gordon Andelin wrote:
> http://landshape.org/enm/peer-censorship-and-scientific-fraud/
Gordon, I'm wondering: did you ever hear of Frank Tipler before you found this link?
I certainly had -- 20 yrs ago when I was in graduate school.
Do you know what kind of books he h as written? Do you know anything about him?
Why do you find his arguments strong? Or weak? Why do you agree with them? Is there anything you disagree with?
Why do you think hundreds of climate scientists -- the real scientists, the ones pouring over data and building models and publishing in the big journals -- disagree with him?
Does it bother you that Tipler doesn't participate in the nitty gritty of scientific debates on climate, or attend the important conferences, or publish in the active journals?
If not, why not?
4:01 PM
Gordon answers:
David, your best quality is to always shoot the messenger and never address the issue. I can see it coming with your replies. You live in the wrong era. You could have been the Kings hatchet man.
David always condemns the messenger and never address the issue.
ReplyDeletehey jhaley:
ReplyDeleteHave you noticed that David had a double hit of the kool aid today?
We entertain ourselves commenting on this blog and he is actually serious about shooting the messenger, making personal insults, ad hominem attacks, etc. You get the idea I am sure.
Gordon: I present a lot of facts and studies here.
ReplyDeleteUntil you do the same, I am not going to publish your comments here anymore.
Oh David you can dish it out but not take it. So Typical.
ReplyDeletejhaley99 wrote:
ReplyDelete> The IPCC is run by a railroad
> engineer basically posing as a
> climate expert
I don't know who you mean, since you don't say. But the IPCC is a large organization. (And, by the way, they don't do original research -- they review existing science.) Thus, I can well accept that the head of such an organization should be a smart, well-spoken, communicative big-picture guy, just as I expect Steve Jobs to do great presentations but not necessarily be able to code in Ruby-on-Rails.
Interesting. You cut out my major examples of fraud and 1/2 respond to the mildest of remaining. You don't know that Patchuri is not a climate scientist? Why would you not respond to my questions about the destroyed data, fudged graphs, no one will debate, asking others to delete damaging emails and ignore FOIA requests (as required by law). Nevermind.
ReplyDeleteThe main problem, it seems to me, is that the advocates of man-made global warming like Mark Haartsgard is that they don't really have any qualifications other than that of being reporters or liberal activists. The tactics used by this group consist primarily of personal attacks on those with whom they disagree. Haarsgard and the fellow activist from Michigan State simply try to embarrass Sen. Inhofe by saying things like "are you going to apologize to the children that will be harmed to due to global warming?" etc. Let's face it - the whole man-made global warming movement has been thoroughly discredited, and is in the final stages of its lifecycle.
ReplyDeleteThe bots were deployed. They destroyed the thread. Mission Accomplished!
ReplyDeleteBest,
D
> Interesting.... You cut out my major examples of fraud and 1/2 respond to the mildest of remaining. You don't know that Patchuri is not a climate scientist? Why would you not respond to my questions about the destroyed data, fudged graphs, no one will debate, asking others to delete damaging emails and ignore FOIA requests (as required by law).
ReplyDelete--
Because none of this has to do with atmospheric chemistry, which is the real question
and because I have said many times that I think ignoring FOIA requests was an unacceptable mistake
and because Patchuri's job is to be a leader and manager, not a climate scientist
and because there were no "destroyed data" or "fudged graphs."
49skywalker wrote:
ReplyDelete> The problem is this and we'll
> apply it to GCMs. Modelers
> use basic assumptions which we
> have no way of knowing whether
> they are valid. It is assumed
> that they are valid.
Absolute, pure baloney.
These modelers write papers and publish them and write detailed documents describing their models. You are free to read them and to respond to them and publish your objections in the peer-reviewed literature (if you have the requisite skills) or in science magazines or on a blog or anywhere else you want. You are free to question these modelers all you want.
Your objections are utterly without merit.
Gordon: and you are, of course, free to build your own model, and submit your own methods and results for peer-reviewed publication. Or non-peer reviewed publication, or even publication on your own blog.
ReplyDeleteWhere are the skeptic models? Even one of them?
Gordon Andelin wrote:
ReplyDelete> More CO2 more warming.There is
> no empirical evidence on earth
> can prove this is the case.
You're wrong. As I've told you for weeks now, Gordon, you need to read more and do more research. In particular you should read the books on ice core research by Paul Majewski (U Maine) and the book by Richard Alley (PSU).
> I suggest you register for
ReplyDelete> the upcoming Chapman conference
> this summer,
If you can't make the conference, why don't you write to the individual presenters at the Chapman conference and ask them for a copy for of their presentation(s), or for a list of papers on which their presentations will be based.
Then read those papers, and then get back to us. OK?
Gordon Andelin wrote:
ReplyDelete> aSpeaking of convention, last
> year in Copenhagen they talked
> for two weeks. What did they
> decide?
That was a meeting on policy, not science. Obviously policy is more difficult to enact, thanks to denialists like you.
David, one man cannot defeat the bot swarm unleashed by the lickspittles of industry like Morano and Watts.
ReplyDeleteBest,
D