Re: The case for AGW
- From: abelard <abelard3@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 16:43:33 +0200
On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 15:22:18 +0100, "Dr Quite" <quite@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"abelard" <abelard3@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5mfo94l35uqismrq9qtpi7599icuernkp6@xxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 11:37:50 +0100, "Dr Quite" <quite@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"I retired four years ago, and at the time of my retirement I was well
convinced, as were most technically trained people, that the IPCC's case
for
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is very tight. However, upon taking the
time to get into the details of the science, I was appalled at how flimsy
the case really is. I was also appalled at the behavior of many of those
who
helped produce the IPCC reports and by many of those who promote it. In
particular I am referring to the arrogance; the activities aimed at
shutting
down debate; the outright fabrications; the mindless defense of bogus
science, and the politicization of the IPCC process and the science
process
itself.
At this point there is little doubt that the IPCC position is seriously
flawed in its central position that humanity is responsible for most of
the
observed warming of the last third of the 20th century, and in its
projections for effects in the 21st century."
And gives 5 reasons I'm not equipped to evaluate...
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/08/06/aps-fellow-supports-moncktons-position/
"Having said all this, it does not mean that there is no threat or
that we should not debate some kind of action to control atmospheric
CO2."
monkton i've no time for..i won't waste time on his babble
now to the meat...>
"1. The recorded temperature rise is neither exceptional nor
persistent. "
those are not numbers
Not important. Is the assertion correct or not?
by what judgement of criterion?
"For example, the earth has not warmed since around 1997 and may in
fact be in a cooling trend."
no numbers...
Not important. Is the assertion correct or not?
i've seen no useful evidence for such claims....
that's only a ten year stretch....most of the claimed hottest years
are in that window...which series?
it's just pap
"Also, in particular, the Arctic "
arctic lowest ice cover known last year
Busy mending itself now with 6 million square kilometres of ice.
it's thinner by every report is see....
you seem to be confusing a particular year with trends
...only trends are usefully relevant....
single years are next to meaningless....
"and contiguous 48 states are at about the same temperature as they
were in the 1930s."
1)figures unreliable...
2)the usa does appear not to be changing as fast as other areas...
the usa is about 1/50th of the world surface....it is between two
mighty oceans
http://www.abelard.org/briefings/gathering_data_to_test_global_warming.php#sectionthree
"Also in particular the rate of global warming in the early 20th
century was as great as the last third of the century, and no one
seriously ascribes the early century increase to greenhouse gas
emissions."
these are dogmatic statements for data that is not highly secure...
And yet the forecasts are based on data that is not highly secure.
just the point...
from the above, he seems to be making the fundamental error
of confusing local with global
" 2. Predictions of climate models are demonstrably too high"
another bland stt....
Is it correct?
a prediction can neither be said to be 'too high' or too low' or 'just
right'
a prediction is a prediction...it is not a fact or data....
"indicating a significant overestimate of the climate sensitivity (the
response of the earth to increases in the incident radiation caused by
atmospheric greenhouse gases). This is because the models, upon which
the IPCC relies for their future projections, err in their
calculations of key feedback and driving forces in the climate
system."
the models are (naturally) getting better through time....
modelling is not simple....
Evidently not! Seems a bit daft to rely on it...
only fools 'rely' on it.....
it is fully known that the models leave plenty to be wished for...
otherwise people would stop working on them because they'd be
fine and accepted
" 3. Natural effects have been and continue to be important
contributors to variations in the earth's climate, especially solar
variability and decanal and multidecadal ocean cycles."
almost all such claims are being tossed out as having no
serious evidence to back them...at most 10% is the consensus
Depends on your timescale. Think of mini ice-ages, ice ages and previous
long term warming.
the time scales are mostly 20,000 years upwards...therefore not
much relevance to the current concerns...
are sun spot related and thus mostly about a ten years cycle....
and thus again not very relevant....
are ice age cycles which is not yet well understood....imv it is
highly likely that the ice age cycles is related to tectonic
movements...land and ice heights etc....
imv it is quite likely we are inhibiting the next ice age...which
could be very fortunate.....as long as it doesn't go out of
comfortable control
to hear some of these prat articles anyone would suppose the problem
and its forecasting was simple....
" 4. The recorded land-based temperature increase data are
significantly exaggerated due to widespread errors in data gathering
and inadequately corrected contamination by human activity."
so, why is he so keen to use them above re the usa??
" 5. The multitude of environmental and ecological effects blamed on
climate change to date is either exaggerated or nonexistent. Examples
are claims of more frequent and ferocious storms, accelerated melting
of terrestrial icecaps, Mount Kilimanjaro's glacier, polar bear
populations, and expansive mosquito-borne diseases. All of these and
many others have been claimed and ascribed to global warming and by
extension to human activity, and all are bogus or highly exaggerated."
again, no numbers...
Are the assertions correct?
very unlikely from my background reading...the signs of change/
disturbance appear widespread...
there are of course many other human disturbances also....
eg forest depletion...organophosphates, mass travel....
and much else....
obviously speculative forecasts are not observed data....
this is just more of the same old same old crap....
there is otoh a lot of evidence of moving ranges for flora and fauna
heavy on adjectives and flimsy on argument....
i read an interesting, but sloppy document posted by mel....which
does a much better job....
http://brneurosci.org/co2.html
a major concern is feedbacks....not the way 'mel's' document attempts
to skirt around that problem...
it also makes another common error of not realising ~40% of the agw
is not co2...
"It" doesn't make the error you claim it does.
which error?
it remains sloppy and systematically slanted....
but it is much better written and more interested that the stuff
you posted...
his 'psychology' is the usual psychobabble presently so favoured by
those who cannot make a cogent or coherent argument
PKB. It seems about equal to the psychobabble peddled by the AGW adherents -
chief of which is that deniers are "insane".
i'm not responsible for idiots...
you posted that light-weight blather thus appending your
imperator!
the deniers are insane....
questioning the degree....discussing the details and degrees
is not denying....
i requote from your item
"Having said all this, it does not mean that there is no threat or
that we should not debate some kind of action to control atmospheric
CO2."
"proponents of strong AGW"
what is 'strong agw'....again, no numbers....
give me the ipcc and all the major scientific organisations against
these would be gifted amateurs and secret would be hidden
geniuses
If it reassures you. I'll give you the church against Galileo too, if you
want.
more psychobabble....
you're welcome to the church against galileo....
i'll stick with galileo, the ipcc and all major scientific orgs....
regards
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The case for AGW
- From: Dr Quite
- Re: The case for AGW
- References:
- The case for AGW
- From: Dr Quite
- Re: The case for AGW
- From: abelard
- Re: The case for AGW
- From: Dr Quite
- The case for AGW
- Prev by Date: Re: The case for AGW
- Next by Date: 'Pub Doormen given power to handcuff thugs'
- Previous by thread: Re: The case for AGW
- Next by thread: Re: The case for AGW
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
