tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post1677640394101640054..comments2024-03-19T07:10:27.303-07:00Comments on Quark Soup by David Appell: Romm's Horrible AdviceDavid Appellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-76524818307198874932010-06-27T20:41:24.545-07:002010-06-27T20:41:24.545-07:00Lucia, what list?Lucia, what list?Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-22786071656053140692010-06-26T20:23:28.721-07:002010-06-26T20:23:28.721-07:00The amazing sums have been spent on satellite laun...The amazing sums have been spent on satellite launching and observation. The sums spent on computer modeling are rather small.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-49936401840884631182010-06-24T22:52:57.294-07:002010-06-24T22:52:57.294-07:00There are various sorts of arguments in detail tha...There are various sorts of arguments in detail that can be made, of course -- from fossil leaf stomata vs ice cores to upper troposphere humidity vs cosmic rays -- but there are two scientifically relevant points that need to be made and are universally fudged, ignored, or evaded in the whole discussion by the IPCC faction:<br /><br />First, the amazing sums spent on computer modelling have produced hideously expensive programs with no more actual skill than Hansen's model based on his studies of Venus twenty years ago. Labelling a curve-matching fudge factor "aerosols" is no more scientific than labelling it "pink bunnies." The models, on which all the IPCC scenarios are based and which are -- incredibly -- treated by many in the scientific community as evidence (which of course they are not), have proven wrong in every concrete prediction they have made. In any other field of science, the hypothesis they express would have been regarded as conclusively rejected a decade ago.<br /><br />Second, although two very vague propositions seem to be true --<br /><br />a) the global average temperature has risen about 1 deg F over the last century, and <br /><br />b) human activity has had some effect on climate, at least locally --<br /><br />there is, after two decades and around $100 billion in research, no actual evidence connecting these two statements. Obviously the climate of, say, Manhattan or Bombay is different now than it was centuries ago, but if CO2 is to blame, its effect is completely lost in the noise of differences in hydrology, heat absorption, and a dozen other factors. <br /><br />When the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis first reached the headlines with Hansen's 1988 testimony, the "evidence" presented for it was "our models can't reproduce the warming without including a strong CO2 influence." This has no evidentiary value at all, of course, but if you say it fast and often enough, ignorant journalists may accept it.<br /><br />Now looking at the IPCC's 2007 AR4, careful reading of WG 1, Ch. 9, "Attribution" -- the only policy-relevant section -- reveals that there is <b>still</b> no actual evidence that CO2 is driving the (modest) warming (which has moreover stopped, or at least paused) aside from "our models can't reproduce the warming without including a strong CO2 influence." Is the cynicism of the general public so hard to understand, given this total lack of results?<br /><br />It is hilarious to listen to CAGW apologists accuse skeptics of being "anti-science", when it is so clearly they themselves who have corrupted the field with evasion and obfuscation.Craig Goodrichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07751837397879574986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-19599819254093986092010-06-24T19:54:50.326-07:002010-06-24T19:54:50.326-07:00Steve Bloom said...
.. Over twenty years of failur...Steve Bloom said...<br /><em>.. Over twenty years of failure, Lindzen's flogging of a cloud-induced tropical pony that will magically cancel out CO2-induced warming has completely avoided the paleoclimate data that falsifies it utterly. </em><br /><br />Citations would help here ...Willis Eschenbachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14276840691598976175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-19472956262652856522010-06-24T10:48:03.731-07:002010-06-24T10:48:03.731-07:00Michael
Why have you jumped to the conclusion that...Michael<br />Why have you jumped to the conclusion that David has not found "list" in question? (And if you think he hasn't found the list, why not provide a link to the list?)luciahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12342621789338198739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-28810520201285602952010-06-23T12:46:46.737-07:002010-06-23T12:46:46.737-07:00David, those four science examples are very inapt....David, those four science examples are very inapt. I'm actually a little shocked that you would choose them. In particular, Spencer's parroting of Lindzen is complete crap. Over twenty years of failure, Lindzen's flogging of a cloud-induced tropical pony that will magically cancel out CO2-induced warming has completely avoided the paleoclimate data that falsifies it utterly. Spencer continues that fine tradition. That he's also a serial screw-up should also be taken into account.<br /><br />Also, please check those references I sent re Emanuel. His current views on AGW-hurricanes are not what you seem to think they are.Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-4631892781134195322010-06-23T12:17:52.616-07:002010-06-23T12:17:52.616-07:00Before you go jumping to conclusions, please find ...Before you go jumping to conclusions, please find the "list" in question.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.com