Bad news for the watermelons, great news for humanity.
54 thoughts on “The Big Climate Push”
…the degree and nature of overall cloud feedback remains uncertain.
Which is why the enterprise as a whole does as well.
Andrew writes:
>I don’t see your point Gregg;
Somehow I’m not surprised. Biases are hard to self-diagnose.
And then you said:
“You mean after claiming that we are unable to measure the average temperature of the various layers in the atmosphere in recent times, you immediately go on to promote a claim by Lindzen that he has data that average equatorial sea surface has remained within plus or minus one degree centigrade of its present temperature for billions of years? Seriously? Given that you don’t believe in global averages, how pray-tell, was this average determined?”
He says that to the degree of certainty that rational people expect, which is to say very uncertain. He knows that. I know that. Good scientists know that.
Only you and AGW priests seem to not know that.
And if you bothered to read it you would have seen this, at the beginning:
“The quality of the data is poor, though, and because the changes are small, it is easy to nudge such data a few tenths of a degree in any direction.”
But it seems you can’t be bothered to read unless it supports your conclusion.
And since your side uses crummy models (not that there are better ones – it’s just a hugely complex issue) and then cherry picks the data and makes choices on unknowns to force the conclusion you want………
…we laugh.
When we stop laughing is when you then want to effect a transfer of trillions as a result of your gamesmanship.
What makes your position silly is that you see the arguments/counter-arguments and yet claim you have the answer, and refuse to acknowledge that the issue is horribly complex and full of unknowns. You will not solve the issue here in this blog thread.
But you feel quite comfortable in accusing people of…. “All of this simply provides you with a self justification for rationalizing …”
Again, you cannot see your biases it seems.
No sensible scientist will do these things. It’s one thing to defend a position for the sake of debate…that’s necessary.
It’s quite another to close your ears to the debate, demand we act on your view, and then accuse people of self-justification and rationalization.
Bart: “Define “older” and “younger”. Otherwise, this is meaningless.”
In this context we’re talking about ice core ages from about 80 years (the time for the firn to be compressed and sealed) to 500,000 years, it’s only in the very oldest cores, the ones near the base of the sampled ice dome that have been smeared due to their proximity to the bedrock that we lose some resolution.
“That is incorrect.” No, you.
“we know that they do not match in the fine detail” Noise.
“A statement of absolute faith in the ice core record,”.
The ice core record matches across numerous samples on numerous sites, it’s usefulness and accuracy as a record of atmospheric gas concentrations is not challenged in the peer reviewed literature. If you want to dismiss it because it doesn’t suite your politics, I can’t stop you.
“The overall water vapor system including clouds is indisputably negative.”
That’s an extraordinary claim, and vividly displays your ignorance about the facts in the debate. The only way the glacial-interglacial cycle record makes any sense is if the overall water vapor system including clouds is positive, even Spencer and Lindzen don’t claim it’s negative.
Rand, I agree.
I’m critical of people who are certain that the science, at a basic level, is wrong, (the ice cores as an example) if you actually look at the literature there’s little hard science supporting CAGW, there’s too much supposition in the science community, AGW deniers (as opposed to skeptics) aren’t happy with that though, they want to go beyond just doubting CAGW and cast aspersions on the whole process, their motivation isn’t to get better, it’s to discredit hard earned scientific understanding because it doesn’t suit their politics.
Having said that, the overall water vapor and cloud feedback is almost certainly positive because a negative cloud feedback large enough to cancel the positive water vapor feedback isn’t realistic.
Gregg.
What are you doing?
Now you’re claiming that Lindzen’s claim about the sea surface temperatures over billions of years is so weak that it’s meaningless. You then move on to an exercise in building and beating up strawmen to keep yourself entertained, it isn’t a good look.
“Noise”
That just shows you have no clue what I am talking about. I can’t understand it for you.
“The ice core record matches across numerous samples on numerous sites…”
Meaningless.
“…even Spencer and Lindzen don’t claim it’s negative.”
And, that just shows you have never read anything these two gentlemen have written.
…the degree and nature of overall cloud feedback remains uncertain.
Which is why the enterprise as a whole does as well.
Andrew writes:
>I don’t see your point Gregg;
Somehow I’m not surprised. Biases are hard to self-diagnose.
And then you said:
“You mean after claiming that we are unable to measure the average temperature of the various layers in the atmosphere in recent times, you immediately go on to promote a claim by Lindzen that he has data that average equatorial sea surface has remained within plus or minus one degree centigrade of its present temperature for billions of years? Seriously? Given that you don’t believe in global averages, how pray-tell, was this average determined?”
He says that to the degree of certainty that rational people expect, which is to say very uncertain. He knows that. I know that. Good scientists know that.
Only you and AGW priests seem to not know that.
And if you bothered to read it you would have seen this, at the beginning:
“The quality of the data is poor, though, and because the changes are small, it is easy to nudge such data a few tenths of a degree in any direction.”
But it seems you can’t be bothered to read unless it supports your conclusion.
And since your side uses crummy models (not that there are better ones – it’s just a hugely complex issue) and then cherry picks the data and makes choices on unknowns to force the conclusion you want………
…we laugh.
When we stop laughing is when you then want to effect a transfer of trillions as a result of your gamesmanship.
What makes your position silly is that you see the arguments/counter-arguments and yet claim you have the answer, and refuse to acknowledge that the issue is horribly complex and full of unknowns. You will not solve the issue here in this blog thread.
But you feel quite comfortable in accusing people of…. “All of this simply provides you with a self justification for rationalizing …”
Again, you cannot see your biases it seems.
No sensible scientist will do these things. It’s one thing to defend a position for the sake of debate…that’s necessary.
It’s quite another to close your ears to the debate, demand we act on your view, and then accuse people of self-justification and rationalization.
Bart: “Define “older” and “younger”. Otherwise, this is meaningless.”
In this context we’re talking about ice core ages from about 80 years (the time for the firn to be compressed and sealed) to 500,000 years, it’s only in the very oldest cores, the ones near the base of the sampled ice dome that have been smeared due to their proximity to the bedrock that we lose some resolution.
“That is incorrect.” No, you.
“we know that they do not match in the fine detail” Noise.
“A statement of absolute faith in the ice core record,”.
The ice core record matches across numerous samples on numerous sites, it’s usefulness and accuracy as a record of atmospheric gas concentrations is not challenged in the peer reviewed literature. If you want to dismiss it because it doesn’t suite your politics, I can’t stop you.
“The overall water vapor system including clouds is indisputably negative.”
That’s an extraordinary claim, and vividly displays your ignorance about the facts in the debate. The only way the glacial-interglacial cycle record makes any sense is if the overall water vapor system including clouds is positive, even Spencer and Lindzen don’t claim it’s negative.
Rand, I agree.
I’m critical of people who are certain that the science, at a basic level, is wrong, (the ice cores as an example) if you actually look at the literature there’s little hard science supporting CAGW, there’s too much supposition in the science community, AGW deniers (as opposed to skeptics) aren’t happy with that though, they want to go beyond just doubting CAGW and cast aspersions on the whole process, their motivation isn’t to get better, it’s to discredit hard earned scientific understanding because it doesn’t suit their politics.
Having said that, the overall water vapor and cloud feedback is almost certainly positive because a negative cloud feedback large enough to cancel the positive water vapor feedback isn’t realistic.
Gregg.
What are you doing?
Now you’re claiming that Lindzen’s claim about the sea surface temperatures over billions of years is so weak that it’s meaningless. You then move on to an exercise in building and beating up strawmen to keep yourself entertained, it isn’t a good look.
“Noise”
That just shows you have no clue what I am talking about. I can’t understand it for you.
“The ice core record matches across numerous samples on numerous sites…”
Meaningless.
“…even Spencer and Lindzen don’t claim it’s negative.”
And, that just shows you have never read anything these two gentlemen have written.