Tuesday, June 19, 2012

A Better Word Than Denier

More people are upset about word "denier" appearing in a paper in Nature, like Keith Kloor and Judith Curry.... Not me, too much -- I think it's a fitting word for the phenomenon, and it's not a word I automatically associate with those who deny the Holocaust, and I don't think you can remove a perfectly good word from the English language just because in one area it applies to some odious people -- but I recognize it doesn't apply to everyone who disagrees with the "consensus" view on AGW -- though there isn't really one of those either, because all thinking people have things they think are known to certain degrees, and other things they think aren't known as well, all to differing degrees, and the set of all these things differs with each individual, but when writing about climate change you can't exactly refer to groups of people by their integrated probability distributions.

{Aside: But like Judith Curry, I'm not a fan of these efforts to find something wrong with people who think other than the "consensus," especially perverse efforts to blame it on their brain or their genes or because their daddy once gave them a spanking. I mean, come on, there are very few real sciences that end in "ology," and mining them for political support is, well, odious.}

So what's a better word than "denier?" The problem is, of course, that "skeptic" isn't accurate, since all scientists are skeptics, as anyone who's ever attended a hot science seminar knows. In fact, skepticism is the best thing about science, and the reason it's gotten us so far. So maybe

cynic

would work, because Merriam-Webster says it means "one who believes that human conduct is motivated wholly by self-interest," which seems to be a better fit to the position that most "skeptics" take. Or

dissenter

MW: One who withholds assent; one who differs in opinion. Not bad. Sounds clunky, though, and doesn't have any edge to it, that sense that "skeptics" aren't skeptics based solely on the science.

nihilist

Eh, no. We could make up a word:

anthony

as in, 'the climate anthonys oppose all CO2 regulations, period' or even better

motl

as in, 'the motls would have called the first sewage system a Marxist plot,' but it would seem mysterious to the general public, until it caught on.

scoffer

isn't bad: "to show contempt by derisive acts or language; to treat or address with derision."

Climate scoffers think the role of clouds has been grossly underestimated.

It doesn't quite capture honest skepticism -- that of the few who really do have objections primarily to the science (though are there any "skeptics" who don't coming from an ideologically conservative position? [And, since some commenter will surely ask, vice-versa?] Though to be honest I feel like I have a much better idea of the political ideologies of prominent "skeptics" than I do of prominent "nonskeptics," at least for the big-names.)

I kind of like "scoffers." It seems to suit the times, too, what with the decline in civility and manners coming from the motls. But it has something for the scoffers, too, doesn't it, a certain ring to it, a attitude deep within it that one might remember when the chips are down and the sea ice is almost gone. "You're damn right I'm a climate scoffer! Why the hell aren't you??"

I might try it for awhile.

33 comments:

Anonymous said...

How about "heretic"?

nhn said...

Their attempt to link the term to the holocaust is a transparent ploy to create faux outrage and bully people out of using a legitimate and effective term.

The real reason they don't like the term is that it shines light on their behaviour. Everyone knows what denial entails. It's a good description. If you could find an equally good word they would attack that too.

As for reasonable skeptics, they shouldn't have much problem with calling out deniers if you think about it. They should have more of a problem WITH the deniers.

Also I find you have to beware of deniers posing as "reasonable skeptics". There are quite a few of them on judiths blog. It's hard to spot them at face value, you have to read them for a while to tell the real skeptics from the fake ones. One characteristic is that actual skeptics try to distance themselves from the deniers and critisize the deniers. The fake skeptics don't and indeed sometimes use their fake reputation as "reasonable skeptics" to defend denialism. And that includes trying to get the term "denier" delegitimized.

appell is an IDIOT said...

How about moron, for stupid sons of bitches like davey appell.

Dano said...

'Denial' is a psychological condition. Case closed.

Best,

D

crf said...

I'd call them Yam Eaters; meaning people who will deny a scientific consensus for cultural reasons.

It's a reference to the unfortunate AIDS denialism phenomenon in South Africa. Where the scientific consensus that AIDS was caused by a retrovirus, and should be treated by anti-retroviral drugs was questioned to various degrees and for various reasons by many influencial South African leaders.

Alec Rawls said...

It shows quite a bit of ignorance not to list the word that had been standard until very recently. Those who rejected the "consensus" that late 20th century warming was mostly caused by people were for many years called "contrarians." See, for instance, Stephen Schneider's "Contrarians" page.

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/Contrarians.html

Actually, it takes something worse than ignorance, given that "anthony" listed this traditional option in the letter he sent to Nature about the intentionally nasty "denier" usage.

Personally I'm not offended by the "denier" label. I do deny, in the strongest possible terms, every idiotic "consensus" claim about the evidence pointing to CO2 as the cause of late 20th century warming, when anyone who bothers to look for themselves will see immediately that it points overwhelmingly to the sun. (You consensoids ARE aware, aren't you, that that there was an 80 year "grand maximum" of solar activity from 1920-2000 and that dozens of studies going back many thousands of years have found very high degrees of correlation, from .4 to .7, between solar activity and temperature? Yes, please do tell me how you explain away that mountain of evidence. I'd like to have you on the record on that one.)

But some people have a personal sensitivity to the Holocaust issue and out of respect for their feelings I agree that denial of anti-Semitic genocide should not be trivialized by likening it to current disagreements over scientific claims, especially when drawing this exact parallel is the obvious intent. That IS pretty scummy, don't you think?

Dano said...

that it points overwhelmingly to the sun.

I'll take the easy 10 points for that howler.

Thx fer teh laff, son!

Best,

D

Alec Rawls said...

Dano:

The question was whether you could "explain away" the mountain of evidence that the primary driver of climate solar variation, not pretend you can laugh it away. Are you really that ignorant? All you can do is point to someone who ASSUMES that solar effects are small.

But where is Appell? HE is the one I want on record. Dano doesn't even use his real name. Remember, this is for the grandchildren. How are they going to know to give you credit for unplugging the modern world is you don't use your real name Dano?

Appell does use his real name, so he's worth talking to. Spill it Appell: how do you dismiss the dozens of studies that find a high degree of correlation between solar activity and climate going back many thousands of years?

Dano said...

Alec, the reason for scoring your parroting of the talking point is that it has been refuted and parroted and refuted and parroted and refuted and parroted and refuted and parroted and refuted and parroted and refuted and parroted and refuted and parroted and refuted and parroted and refuted and parroted and refuted and parroted and refuted and parroted and refuted and parroted and refuted and parroted and refuted and parroted and refuted and parroted and refuted and parroted and refuted and parroted and refuted and parroted and refuted and parroted and refuted and parroted a billllllllllllllllllllllllyunnnnnnnnnnnn-ih times.

Look at the scoring as a scoring of the dive.

Best,

D

Alec Rawls said...

Dano: Repeating words to block your thought process is what cults do. There is a great book on the Moonies called Crazy for God. You should read it. They actually are trained to beat their heads on the ground when confronted with contrary information. You are 1/2 step behind.

But again, you are not worth talking to. You don't even use your real name. You aren't staking your reputation. That's why you are willing to say such absurd things: "la, la, la, la, I can't hear you."

Where is your sage Appell? I'm sure he agrees that it is so easy to dismiss the mountain range of evidence for a solar driver of climate. I want to hear him say how. Dano obviously has no idea. Come on David, help him out.

Dano said...

Alec Rawls' typing is exactly like the Romney buses circling the Obama campaign rally, honking their horns to disrupt the assembly.

Honk, honk!

Best,

D

guthrie said...

Alex Rawls erroneous assumption can easily be shown to be wrong by comparind the graphs of solar activity over his claimed grand maximum and global temperature. They don't match, with temperature increasing more rapidly from about the 1970's onwards, despite solar activity staying the same or dropping. Indeed, despite teh current period of relatively low activity, global temperatures are stubbornly refusing to decrease.

If you think the idea has some validity, you have to explain away the gaps in time, and especially the physics which demonstrates that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, physics, I have to add, which is written into the very fabric of the universe.
That's a pretty tough job.

Alec Rawls said...

Yes, there we go. Good job Guthrie:

"They don't match, with temperature increasing more rapidly from about the 1970's onwards, despite solar activity staying the same or dropping."

So who agrees with this? David? Dano? Do you all agree that maximum levels of a hypothesized warming agent would not be sufficient to cause warming? That to cause warming, a hypothesized driver of temperature would have to KEEP going up? You know, like to heat a pot of water it is not sufficient to turn the flame to maximum and leave it there? You have to SLOOOOOLY turn up the burner if you want your water to boil? A show of hands please.

And what's with you people going incognito? Guthrie too? Come on, your grandchildren should know the grounds on which you fecklessly earnest dupes thought it was necessary to unplug the modern world. Don't hide your role from them! It is THEIR lives you are destroying. Well, ALL of our lives really, but don't forget the grandchildren!

guthrie said...

I'm afraid I don't understand your reply, Alec. Are you trying to make some abstruse point about heating rate?

This is my name you know, it's on my birth certificate, driving licence and lots of other official pieces of paper. If you are reasonably good at using google you can track me down, but I'd rather not leave my full name everywhere online. Demanding that people do so rather overlooks the numerous reasons why people would not.

Besides, any fool can see that who makes the arguments is mostly separate from the quality of argument.

Dano said...

Either gibberish or Gish galloping on being called out about silly sun assertions (or bus horn honking):

...Do you all agree that maximum levels of a hypothesized warming agent would not be sufficient to cause warming? That to cause warming, a hypothesized driver of temperature would have to KEEP going up? ...turn up the burner ...

all in response to being called on this bulls--- assertion:

that it points overwhelmingly to the sun.


Demonstrable bulsh--.

Which is why we score the tiresome talking points, as the bullsh-- has been refuted sooooo many times it is tiresome.

Your bulls-- doesn't play here, son.

Best,

D

Alec Rawls said...

Guthrie says: "I'm afraid I don't understand your reply, Alec. Are you trying to make some abstruse point about heating rate?"

Guthrie earlier said that the sun couldn't have caused recent warming because, while solar activity was "grand maximum" levels over the second half of the 20th century, it was not going up over this period, and actually went down a bit.

So he is claiming that a hypothesized warming agent left on maximum cannot cause warming. He apparently thinks that to heat a pot of water, you have to turn the flame up slooooly.

Guthrie: you are the one who said this, that solar activity can't have cause warming because it was not increasing. So what are you not understanding? It's your OWN claim. I'm just repeating it back to you. What are you finding abstruse?

I'm just asking if you want to hold to the position you stated. Dano will hold to it. He has no problem accepting that it you can't heat a pot of water by turning the burner to maximum and leaving it there. But what about YOU Mr. Guthrie. Are you another Dano? And most importantly, what about David Appell?

Because the claim that solar activity would have had to keep going up in order to have caused late 20th century warming is not just Guthrie's position, it is the position of the IPCC and the entire CO2-warming "consensus." The whole edifice of global warming alarmism is all standing on this one utterly unscientific claim: that you can't heat a pot of water by turning the burner to maximum and leaving it there.

What I am wondering is where you well-meaning dupes come down. Can you figure out that this so-called "science" behind global warming alarmism is actually known to be wrong? That you actually CAN heat a pot of water by leaving it on a flame turned to maximum. And will realizing that anti-CO2 alarmism is based on an obvious fraud make any difference to you?

Just curiosity on my part. What kind of people are you? Do you have any intelligence? Do you have any morality or integrity? I don't assume the worst. Hope springs eternal. And when that fails, I think it is good that exposed for what they are.

Alec Rawls said...

Amusing that Dano posts a link to a graph and has absolutely no clue what he is looking at. Hey Dano: you are looking at GRAND MAXIMUM levels of solar activity, until the fall off of the last solar cycle. You are looking at the solar flame (or more to the point, the solar wind) roaring full blast. And lo and behold, temperatures were rising. Now how could that POSSIBLY be? It just makes NO sense, right Dano?

On the other hand, I know that this stupidity is not the fault of Dano and Guthrie. Guthrie would never have said on his own that a flame set on maximum can't possibly heat a pot of water. You could take every imbecile in the world and not a one of them would ever come up with anything that stupid. It takes Ph.D. scientists to come up with something that stupid, and that is where Guthrie got it from. He's actually a somewhat knowledgeable guy. He saw Benestad or Solanki or Forster or Lockwood or any of a dozen other top anti-CO2 alarmists issuing this talking point. But use your brains people.

These frauds are telling you that you have to turn up the flame slooooowly if you want to heat a pot of water. If you would never say anything that stupid yourself, then don't believe it when they say it.

Dano said...

Amusing that Dano posts a link to a graph and has absolutely no clue what he is looking at. Hey Dano: you are looking at GRAND MAXIMUM levels of solar activity,

You are either lying or incompetent. Either way, you are either lying or incompetent.

Which is why we score denialist talking points: their DKE prevents us from doing anything else.

And shame on me for giving this liar or incompetent an opening when searching for a clear graph!

Best,

D

guthrie said...

Och, I know that feeding the Alex is a waste of time, but you'd think he would notice the general lack of significant warming during the first few decades of his claimed solar grand maximum. Where was all the heat going?

Oh wait, it did warm up, but reached a new equilibrium 70 or more years ago...

If there are any more neutral minded people out there, they can see Alec is full of it from his lack of explanation for CO2. A known, proven greenhouse gas responsible for 3 or 4 degrees worth of the higher temperatures that we feel on this planet compared to one with an atmosphere that doesn't retain heat, or indeed a planet with no atmosphere at all.
By adding more CO2, we increase the size of the blanket on the planet. Again, this is proven physics, which Alec doesn't want to know about and cannot disprove.

Alec Rawls said...

Guthrie writes:

"It did warm up, but reached a new equilibrium 70 or more years ago."

Here he is showing that he is actually quite knowledgeable about the fraudulent excuses that the leading alarmists put forward to dismiss solar warming, but he relates these excuses without any kind of truth check. He doesn't care how blatantly absurd they are, claiming that by 1940 the planet's vast oceans would have equilibrated to the 80 year grand maximum levels of solar activity that began in the 1920s and were still climbing in the 1940s.

How about a little history. Over the 400 years of on-average lowish solar activity spanning the Wolf, Sporer and Maunder minima, temperatures on-average dropped for 400+ years (from the Medieval Warm Period into the Little Ice Age). Other periods show similar features, with temperature trends continuing (with substantial jaggedness but continuing) for hundreds of years, usually in correspondence with the level of solar activity.

Given the planet's history of multi-century trends in temperature it is LUDICROUS to claim that the oceans would have equilibrated to a historically extraordinary level of solar forcing in 20 years. Yes, some of the leading alarmists have made this argument (Schmidt in particular), but it is absolutely unscientific and flies in the face of the empirical evidence.

Guthrie has less excuse than most people. He actually knows what the last resorts of the leading dirtbags are and spouts these last resorts in spite of their obvious absurdity. First he says that you can't heat a pot of water by turning the burner to maximum and leaving it there, then he insists that by 1940 the oceans would have equilibrated to the 80 year grand maximum of solar activity that began in the 1920s. That is some serious fraud to be parroting from the lead frauds.

But congratulations for getting to the nub of the issue. These really are the very last resorts of the anti-scientific war on CO2. If anyone here is moral they will recognize that, far from providing proof that 20th century warming was not caused by the sun (and hence had to be caused by CO2), these desperate arguments have no credibility at all.

Yet this is the grounds on which you people want to unplug the modern world, and are well along in actually doing so. The proximate cause of economic collapse in the U.S. and Europe is high energy prices from the war on CO2. Of all the great moral perversions of history, eco-religion is on a par with the very worst.

No surprise there. The greatest evils are always perpetrated by people who have convinced themselves that they are going good and hence do not need to adhere to basic moral restrictions, like having to make sense.

David Appell said...

Alec: There's absolutely no way changes in solar irradiance could provide enough energy to account for recent warming.

To first-order the change in temperature due to a change in solar irradiance is

dT/T = (1/4)(dS/S)

Solar irradiance is pretty well measured:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/tsi_data/TSI_TIM_Reconstruction.txt

Go ahead and run the numbers. You'll find that dS < 1 W/m2 since 1900, which gives dT < 0.1 C.

The usual B.S. won't wash on this blog.

Alec Rawls said...

David: You would obviously know that no one who hypothesizes a solar driver of climate is suggesting that TSI plays anything but a very minor role. The leading theories are 1) modulation of cloud-seeding GCR by the solar wind and 2) the UV shift altering Ozone distribution in the atmosphere, in-turn alters altering where heat gets trapped which alters weather patterns.

While the mechanism is uncertain, the dozens of studies that have found a high degree of correlation between solar activity and global temperature going back many thousands of years provide overwhelming evidence that there is SOME mechanism by which solar-magnetic variation affects climate far more powerfully than the very slight change in "the solar constant" can account for.

Note in contrast that the geologic record contains no discernable indication that CO2 plays any significant role in climate variation at all. The two roughly correlate, but with temperature consistently leading CO2 by about 800 years, indicating that temperature is driving the CO2 change. It is possible that CO2 also drives temperature, but there is no evidence for it in the empirical record.

From basic physics we know that it has to have some small forcing effect (about 1 degree for a doubling of CO2) but we don't know whether the water vapor feedback effects from that forcing are even positive, so there is no grounds on the physics alone to think that CO2 has much effect. That make it very significant that there is no sign in the geologic record of changes in CO2 doing anything important, when solar effects jump out like a neon sign.

The CO2-warming theory is just speculation while the solar-warming theory is backed by overwhelming empirical evidence. And of course, they point in opposite directions. If the solar theory is correct then the real danger has global cooling. Then 20th century grand maximum of solar activity had to end sometime. Then the main cause of recent warming would be replaced with a cooling influence. Now that the maximum HAS ended, and has been replaced with what looks to be a profound solar minimum, that cooling threat is imminent.

This is what the empirical evidence says. THIS is what we should be worried about. So why are you trying to unplug the modern world? Not only are you trying to do the exact wrong thing, but you a claiming an outrageous certainty about your thoroughly unscientific convictions.

I don't think your intention is to be malignant, so why not just work it through? Examine the various excuses that have been used to dismiss the overwhelming evidence for a solar-magnetic driver of climate and question whether any of them stands up to scrutiny. Does David think that Guthrie's excuses hold water? Does he have any other excuses to offer? If not, then start giving proper weight to the empirical evidence and follow its implications.

David Appell said...

Then you should know that the Svensmark hypothesis is far from proven. In fact, here are what the CERN CLOUD scientists wrote in their August 2011 press briefing: 

"This result leaves open the possibility that cosmic rays could also influence climate. However, it is premature to conclude that cosmic rays have a significant influence on climate until the additional nucleating vapours have been identified, their ion enhancement measured, and the ultimate effects on clouds have been confirmed."

Plus there is the fact that there has been no overall trend in cosmic rays in the last 60 years.

And even if the Svensmark hypothesis applied it would not disprove the warming properties of CO2, which are well established -- it would only mean we could face even *more* warming in the future.

Alec Rawls said...

David:

It is not necessary to confirm any theory of the particular mechanism by which solar activity is driving climate in order to know that there is SOME mechanism by which solar activity is driving climate, which is by the dozens of studies that have found a high degree of correlation between solar activity and climate going back many thousands of years. Svensmark's theory is looking pretty good, but that is beside the point. We already know that the primary driver of global temperature is solar magnetic activity, without having to know the mechanism.

The IPCC takes your approach. They say that since none of the particular theories of HOW solar-magnetic activity drives climate have been confirmed, they aren't going to include ANY such mechanism in their models. Pure anti-science. They are using theory (their discontent with present theories of how solar magnetic activity drives climate) as an excuse to ignore the overwhelming evidence that there is some mechanism by which the main climate driver is solar variation.

The scientific method is defined very simply: data trumps theory. The IPCC is doing the opposite: theory as an excuse to ignore data. By DEFINITION, this is anti-science. Not all religions are anti-scientific, but your eco-religion is pure definitional anti-science. Profoundly stupid. Deeply immoral. Monstrously destructive. This is what you are so certain about?

I see you are also on board with the idea that you a pot of water can't be heated by setting it on a flame turned to maximum:

"Plus there is the fact that there has been no overall trend in cosmic rays in the last 60 years."

Yes, we all know that to heat a pot of water, the flame must be turned up sloooooly. Thanks for checking that box. Plus you've got one I've never heard before:

"And even if the Svensmark hypothesis applied it would not disprove the warming properties of CO2, which are well established -- it would only mean we could face even *more* warming in the future."

Dude.... Whatever 20th century warming is attributable to solar activity is warming that is NOT attributable to CO2. Surely you are aware that the warming effect of CO2 as estimated by the IPCC is not derived from physical principles. It is IMPUTED based on the assumption that all late 20th century warming was caused by CO2. That warming effect then gets projected forward to scary scenarios if CO2 keeps going up.

If late 20th century warming was caused primarily by a hyperactive sun then the warming that can be imputed to CO2 mostly disappears and projections of future CO2 driven warming become not just a lot smaller, but they become entirely beneficial in the face of a solar effect that is now strongly in the cooling direction.

If you really think that Svensmark's theory would increase projected warming, it shows that you really haven't thought the issue through at all. Nothing wrong with that. You don't have to be an expert to express an opinion. But why the crazy certainty? If you don't understand the subject, how can you think that it justifies dismantling our current energy infrastructure?

Dano said...

Its like the Romney bus:

Honk! honk!

Dat's all dey got.

Best,

D

guthrie said...

Yes, that's right Alec, you can't heat a pan of water by turning on the gas and lighting it.

Oh wait, that's only in your bizzaro idea of what I was saying.
In reality, it is clear that pots boil, and the earths temperature goes up when you add more greenhouse gases causing a higher equilibrium to be reached.
I note you are carefully avoiding the issue of CO2 (and others) as greenhouse gases, because that is one of the holes in your theory, the other being that we are measuring the radiation in and out of the earth system well enough to see that it isn't the sun making the warming happen just now.

In your latest post at 10:05am you are flat out lying - firstly the IPCC does not estimate anything it takes the results from scientific papers and puts them all together. Secondly the models are in fact run from the basic physics of radiation, including the established fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
At this point one has to assume you are either really stupid or totally insane.

Alec Rawls said...

Guthrie: You did indeed say that solar activity could not be the cause of late 20th century warming because it was not rising over this period. Go back and look. Dano said the same thing, referring us to a graph of the last three solar cycles, the end of an 80 year grand maximum of solar activity, roughly steady on average at these maximum levels, and yet temperatures were rising, so obviously it was not the sun! Incredible. David also said the same thing:

"Plus there is the fact that there has been no overall trend in [solar modulated] cosmic rays in the last 60 years."

So you're going to have to own that one, but don't worry, you are in good company. Dozens of top IPCC scientists say the same thing: only an increasing flame can cause warming. Biggest and most blatant scientific fraud in history, and look, even Guthrie can see to question it. Progress. But he still thinks I have been "carefully avoiding the issue of CO2."

Really? Then who wrote this:

"From basic physics we know that it has to have some small forcing effect (about 1 degree for a doubling of CO2) but we don't know whether the water vapor feedback effects from that forcing are even positive, so there is no grounds on the physics alone to think that CO2 has much effect. That make it very significant that there is no sign in the geologic record of changes in CO2 doing anything important, when solar effects jump out like a neon sign."

Guthrie apparently thinks that the climate models relied upon by the IPCC (I am "flat out lying" if I say "the IPCC models") are only showing the warming effects of CO2 that can be calculated from the physics of greenhouse heat trapping:

"the models are in fact run from the basic physics of radiation, including the established fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. At this point one has to assume you are either really stupid or totally insane."

Dear child, do we have to start with the very basics? Physics is used to calculate the "forcing." That forcing is SMALL: about 1 degree for a doubling of CO2 (or maybe we need to go all the way back to learning how to read). To turn that forcing into a scary amount of warming the models relied upon by the IPCC estimate that this forcing gets multiplied up by a factor of about 3 (with super-scary multiples of 6 or more also supposedly in play). As I noted above, these estimated are derived by imputing virtually all late 20th century warming to CO2: How big would the water vapor feedback multiplier have to be in order for the small forcing effect from CO2 to have caused all the observed warming?

If the warming was actually due to the then-ongoing grand maximum of solar activity then the warming left to be imputed to CO2, and the implied feedback multiplier, fall drastically, and could easily be negative (a climate "sensitivity" of less than one).

This is all simple stuff. Why don't you all stop BELIEVING for a while and just start THINKING? That should come first, before conviction, right? There's no hope for Dano (Mr. "la la la la," "honk honk," "I can't hear you"), but Guthrie and David, if you guys weren't fixated on coming up with evasions it seems that you COULD think straight.

Dano said...

Honk honk!

The clown is making a hash of his word salad.

Boy, if you had some actual scientific evidence, you'd show it. You don't, so you act like a clown to sow doubt.

You act just like all the others who don't have sh--. Which is why we use the scoring system on your empty words. And the empty words of all the other clowns.



Best,

D

guthrie said...

Reading comprehension isn't your strong point. The IPCC doesn't do the models, the researchers do.
Plus nice to see you mention CO2, finally, only you forgot the feedbacks, which are also physical things that happen in the system.

Actually, I'm afraid I have been really stupid in this thread.



You see, I forgot for a moment - if the warming was due to the sun, we'd see a fairly uniform increase in temperature throughout the atmosphere. Unfortunately for Alec, we don't, we see a lowering of the height of the stratosphere, which is predicted to occur due to increased CO2 levels, but wouldn't if the warming was coming from the sun.
That it all ties together in the models Alec doesn't like, and keeps insisting they are wrong and useless without any evidence for that matter.

Alec Rawls said...

I lecture Guthrie on the distinction between forcing and feedbacks and his response is to say, "yeah, but you are still forgetting about feedbacks." It's like trying to talk to "la la la la" Dano. Still, many thanks to Guthrie for raising the subject of stratospheric cooling. I do believe I am going to have to write a post about it.

Masters, Schmidt and Uherek claim that GHG-warming of the troposphere should cool the stratosphere while an increase in solar radiation should warm the entire atmosphere, but the hypothesized mechanism by which solar magnetic activity would be driving temperature do not act through TSI. In Svensmark's theory solar activity drives temperature by reducing cloud cover (ditto ultimately for the UV-ozone theory). A reduction in cloud cover would, like heat-trapping from CO2, also result in tropospheric warming, and hence by the same reasoning of Masters, Schmidt and Uherek would also cause stratospheric cooling.

But then if you look closely at Uherek's reasoning, he's only talking about the initial phase of the disequilibrium process. Once equilibrium is reached it looks to me as if GHG warming should actually induce a small amount of stratospheric warming, while the stratospheric effects of solar warming should depend on the relative rates at which stratospheric ozone absorbs shortwave vs. longwave. Those relative absorption rates are something I'll have to look into.

Overall, what a great find: an important area that appears to be much neglected, with as far as I can tell nobody having yet looked into the different stratospheric implications of TSI-driven solar warming and GCR-driven solar warming. Yowza. It's a testament to what a new and complicated subject climate science is, that such a significant nuance, a potential "fingerprint" for testing different theories, apparently remains basically unexplored.

gallopingcamel said...

Alec Rawls,
I commend your patience but you are wasting your time with Dano.

David Appell is right to challenge Svensmark. I have my doubts about Svensmark too but I am not ready to dismiss his ideas.

However, David is wrong when he says:
"And even if the Svensmark hypothesis applied it would not disprove the warming properties of CO2, which are well established -- it would only mean we could face even *more* warming in the future."

Svensmark's theory explains what drives long term phenomena such as Ice Ages as well as short term climate variations.

David Appell may be excused for failing to understand Svensmark's huge and highly technical paper discussed here:
http://calderup.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/a-stellar-revision-of-the-story-of-life/

Such a breath taking idea takes time to sink in. Disagree if you like but at least take the time to think about it.

David Appell said...

Peter: I'm aware of Svensmark's latest paper. His paper addressed geologic time scales, and does not explain the relatively rapid rise in temperatures we're now experiencing on decadal scales.

And it's well proven that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that more of it will cause more warming. So, yes, it on its own means more warming, independent of any Svensmark mechanism.

gallopingcamel said...

David,
I have not read Svensmark's latest paper yet so I am still relying on Nigel Calder. Here is one of his comments that piqued my interest:

"Some geoscientists want to blame the drastic alternations of hot and icy conditions during the past 500 million years on increases and decreases in carbon dioxide, which they explain in intricate ways. For Svensmark, the changes driven by the stars govern the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. Climate and life control CO2, not the other way around."

Svensmark's hypothesis is testable as anything that purports to be science should be. We are already seeing studies exploring the effect of energetic particles on our atmosphere. For example Kikby's work at CERN (CLOUD experiment) and Scafetta's work using ACRIM satellite measurements.

Correlation does not imply causation. You need a plausible mechanism to explain the correlation and that is what Svensmark and others are trying to do.

Svensmark may be the next Wegener.........or not.