The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The Great Global Warming Blunder - Review > Comments

The Great Global Warming Blunder - Review : Comments

By William Briggs, published 3/12/2010

Feedback is where the real climate science debate occurs, and this book is a must-read contribution.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. Page 13
  10. 14
  11. 15
  12. All
PeterA,
I respect your post here, and apologise for my tone in the other thread. I hadn't had my usual dose of coffee when I read this morning's post in the Nuclear thread. Apologies.
Posted by Eclipse Now, Friday, 10 December 2010 10:06:22 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, where were we? Ahh, that's right ... Roy Spencer's negative feedback (pun not intended).

Peter, here's a direct link to Dessler's Science paper:

http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/dessler10b.pdf

Note that "Previous work (Spencer, Lindzen and Co) has generally focused on just part of the problem (for example, the tropics or low clouds), and these analyses differ EVEN (my emphasis) on the sign of the cloud feedback."

Anti-green: you might observe the error bars.

You might also note:
"... owing to the apparent time-scale dependence of the cloud feedback and the uncertainty in the observed short-term cloud feedback, we cannot use this analysis to reduce the present range of equilibrium climate sensitivity of 2.0 to 4.5 K".

Will this help take off the blinkers? Probably not.
Don't get me wrong, I admire your tenacity in asking probing questions, really. But, like most so called 'sceptics', you refuse to accept the answers when explained to you (what I think about that attitude has no bearing). Anyway, also like most so called 'sceptics', you change the goal posts, if not the entire playing field, if it appears you don't like the answers.

Raycom, don't bother reading Dessler's paper - you have demonstrated you wouldn't understand anyway.
Posted by bonmot, Friday, 10 December 2010 10:23:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
anti-green I think the book I referenced to may answer your questions/doubts if not I am sure that emailing the author he will or the web site will provide information.

Eclipse Now accepted.
Posted by PeterA, Friday, 10 December 2010 10:35:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Skeptical Science is a warmist site, which would be as much help in assessing the true picture as would Real Climate, run by Michael Mann of “hockey stick” infamy.

It states:

“The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism looks at both the evidence that human activity is causing global warming and the ways that climate ‘skeptic’ arguments can mislead by presenting only small pieces of the puzzle rather than the full picture.”

This means that they pick out realist positions and put up arguments as to why they are misleading. For instance they will take the valid statement that there is no scientific basis for the assertion that human emissions have any measurable effect on global climate.

They will then point out that the CO2 output of human activities has been measured. Of course that is not the question to be answered.

They will point out that warming has been shown locally in the well known “heat island” effect.
Again, this avoids the question, which is the effect on global, not local, climate.

Once it is accepted, from careful observation, that the warmist arguments are never honest, and that, upon analysis, their arguments do not stand up, your mind will be a lot clearer, and the truth of the position is more easily perceived.

Their weasel worded efforts are quite cleverly designed, as they are prepared by experts in confusion and misdirection.

Read Robert Carter’s clearly and openly set out “Climate: The Counter Consensus”.

If you have any doubts, as to Robert Carter's status, read some of the baseless sliming, of him, done by the warmists, who have no valid counter arguments to his clarification of the position, and are reduced to invective, in their impotence, when faced with the truth.
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday, 10 December 2010 11:55:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo

Have you got anything substantive to say about the Science paper?

http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/dessler10b.pdf

Oh yeah, that's right ... it's not science. Your rants are boring.
Posted by bonmot, Friday, 10 December 2010 12:04:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter A
Thank you very much for your reference to the Dessler Paper. I regret that I am not sufficiently knowledgeable in the discipline to provide a proper critic.
It is of course an example of computer modelling. I quote from the paper.

“For the problem of long term climate change what we really want to determine is the cloud feedback in response to long term climate change. Unfortunately, it may be decades before a direct measurement is possible.”

Talk of changing goal posts is a little unfair as this is a vast subject covering numerous disciplines; so to compress all thoughts into 350 words is impossible. I will refrain, with the greatest of difficulty, in noting a tendency among the “warming fraternity” to play the man rather than the ball.

This is the philosophical problem should we wait until all evidence is in before taking action. Especially as that action will have serious and unforseen financial and economic consequence, that maybe orders of magnitude worse than any reasonable expectation of an adverse climate change. No prize for guessing I am all for wait and see.
Posted by anti-green, Friday, 10 December 2010 1:05:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. Page 13
  10. 14
  11. 15
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy