0
mikkey

Handbook for AGW sceptics

By mikkey, in Speakers Corner

Recommended Posts

mikkey    0

mikkey
This is a comprehensive summary for those who feel skeptical about Al Gore & Co. For those who are not - it might trigger some food for thought.

http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/the_skeptics_handbook_2-22_lq.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gawain    0

Gawain

To hell with that shit...

Hey man!! Long time, no debate! What's up?

B|

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

mikkey    0

mikkey
Quote

To hell with that shit...

Hey man!! Long time, no debate! What's up?

B|



Been busy.. like I have a live.. :P Still having a look when I have time, just not time telling Mr. Rich to leave the rest of us alone... :D
---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

quade    4

quade
Quote

This is a comprehensive summary for those who feel skeptical about Al Gore & Co.



And for those skeptical about that "Skeptic's Handbook";
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en-us&q=%22Joanne+Nova%22+debunk&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

She's been debunked fairly thoroughly.
http://www.desmogblog.com/skeptics-handbook-carbon-dioxide-climate-change
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

mnealtx    0

mnealtx
Maybe Mr. Jacquot can explain the lag between temp and CO2 levels, then.

I'm also waiting on billvon to come into the thread and castigate Mr. Jacquot for being an expert on Venusian weather.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

kallend    2,027

kallend
Quote

Maybe Mr. Jacquot can explain the lag between temp and CO2 levels, then.

.



It's been explained to you over and over again. It's RELEVANCE in the present situation is limited to providing positive feedback.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

mnealtx    0

mnealtx
Quote

Quote

Maybe Mr. Jacquot can explain the lag between temp and CO2 levels, then.

.



It's been explained to you over and over again. It's RELEVANCE in the present situation is limited to providing positive feedback.



Sounds like you need to tell the IPCC that CO2 isn't causing the temperature rise, then.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

kallend    2,027

kallend
Quote

Quote

Quote

Maybe Mr. Jacquot can explain the lag between temp and CO2 levels, then.

.



It's been explained to you over and over again. It's RELEVANCE in the present situation is limited to providing positive feedback.



Sounds like you need to tell the IPCC that CO2 isn't causing the temperature rise, then.



Since you are not stupid, I can only assume that you are being deliberately obtuse. It HAS been explained to you many times before, most often by Billvon.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

mnealtx    0

mnealtx
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Maybe Mr. Jacquot can explain the lag between temp and CO2 levels, then.

.



It's been explained to you over and over again. It's RELEVANCE in the present situation is limited to providing positive feedback.



Sounds like you need to tell the IPCC that CO2 isn't causing the temperature rise, then.



Since you are not stupid, I can only assume that you are being deliberately obtuse. It HAS been explained to you many times before, most often by Billvon.



Billvon isn't the IPCC. The IPCC *has* published reports claiming CO2 as the main cause of AGW.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

kallend    2,027

kallend
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Maybe Mr. Jacquot can explain the lag between temp and CO2 levels, then.

.



It's been explained to you over and over again. It's RELEVANCE in the present situation is limited to providing positive feedback.



Sounds like you need to tell the IPCC that CO2 isn't causing the temperature rise, then.



Since you are not stupid, I can only assume that you are being deliberately obtuse. It HAS been explained to you many times before, most often by Billvon.



Billvon isn't the IPCC. The IPCC *has* published reports claiming CO2 as the main cause of AGW.




The only inconsistency is in your poor understanding or deliberate misunderstanding of what has been explained to you over and over. Kind of like your "Mars" blind spot.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

mnealtx    0

mnealtx
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Maybe Mr. Jacquot can explain the lag between temp and CO2 levels, then.

.



It's been explained to you over and over again. It's RELEVANCE in the present situation is limited to providing positive feedback.



Sounds like you need to tell the IPCC that CO2 isn't causing the temperature rise, then.



Since you are not stupid, I can only assume that you are being deliberately obtuse. It HAS been explained to you many times before, most often by Billvon.



Billvon isn't the IPCC. The IPCC *has* published reports claiming CO2 as the main cause of AGW.




The only inconsistency is in your poor understanding or deliberate misunderstanding of what has been explained to you over and over. Kind of like your "Mars" blind spot.



Comprehension of satire isn't your strong point, is it?

Regardless, let me know when the IPCC can actually PROVE that this "positive feedback" is taking place.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

mikkey    0

mikkey
Funny, I looked at the so called "debunks" and can see its all about new ways of trying to show the earth is still warming (even so it hasn't for a few years now) as well as more theories to plug the holes in the old theories that have been punched by empiric data.

The problem is that showing that warming has occurred does not proof its Co2 and there is still no explanation why the observed temperatures lately are not following the models and why there is no hot spot.

There is also still no satisfactory explanation why we had strong warming periods in the middle ages when there was no industrial activity followed by a little ice age.

The whole issue is that we do not yet fully understand how the climate works and that the AGW people do not want to accept that other forces then human activity have influence on it.

The earth has cooled and warmed continuously. The arrogance of those who still do not admit that there are huge holes in the AGW theory "you have been told" - "the debate is over" "there is consensus" - is mind boggling.
---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

billvon    2,991

billvon
>and there is still no explanation why the observed temperatures lately
>are not following the models

?? Models predict temperatures over decades, not every year.

>and why there is no hot spot.

What hot spot would that be?

>There is also still no satisfactory explanation why we had strong warming
>periods in the middle ages when there was no industrial activity followed
>by a little ice age.

Because things besides CO2 influence the climate.

>The whole issue is that we do not yet fully understand how the climate works . . .

True, not 100%. If someone predicts a bad hurricane season, it may not come to pass. But if someone sees a hurricane on a satellite photo, and flies a plane into it to measure the windspeeds, and predicts it will hit your area in two days - the smart money is on preparing for a hurricane. Even if "the science isn't settled" when it comes to weather prediction.

>The arrogance of those who still do not admit that there are huge holes
>in the AGW theory "you have been told" - "the debate is over" "there is
>consensus" - is mind boggling.

There are no "huge holes" in AGW theory. The theory is based on experiments you yourself can do. Denying fundamental physics make deniers look pretty silly.

OTOH, there is still a lot of research to be done on how climate change will affect the planet - what sort of positive/negative feedback we will see, what we can do to change it, and scientists are working on that now. It's pretty interesting work, and worth following. Screaming "THERE'S NO CONSENSUS I'M NOT LISTENING MARS HOCKEY STICK LIE LAAAA LAAA LAAA" while sticking their fingers in their ears makes the more political deniers both more ignorant and easier to ignore.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

mikkey    0

mikkey
Well if you care to check with the main site of http://joannenova.com.au - you will see a lot of empirical data that debunks the so-called debunk.

One of the new popular new "evidence" against the measured halt in warming are claims that the oceans are warming. Well, funny they actually stopped a few years ago.

Have a look here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/01/ocean-temperatures-the-new-bluff-in-alarmism/

I find this paragraph a good summary:
Quote

Many alarmists like to ignore everything but the last warming, because the last warming is accompanied by large human emissions of CO2. But history matters because the climate model predictions are very much based on history. Briefly, here’s how.

The little ice age in the 1600s and 1700s was obviously not caused by humans. Since 1750 the global temperature has been recovering, with alternating warming and cooling periods of about 30 years each around a steady underlying warming trend. Human emissions of CO2 were negligible before 1850, and before 1945 they were insignificant compared to today’s emissions.

The climate models were trained by assuming that nearly all the warming since 1750 was due to rising CO2 levels. This assumption underpins all of AGW. Therefore if there were other causes of warming coming out of the little ice age, then (1) the models overestimate the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 and (2) their predictions of future warming are exaggerated.

We have just had 26 years of warming (1975 - 2001). If the pattern holds, we are now due for at least two decades of slight cooling.
And where did the extra CO2 come from before 1950? High school chemistry: a warmer ocean releases more of its dissolved CO2 into the atmosphere.


---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

mikkey    0

mikkey
Quote

There are no "huge holes" in AGW theory. The theory is based on experiments you yourself can do. Denying fundamental physics make deniers look pretty silly.




Now thats funny. There are huge holes - the models are not correct and the empirical data does not fit the theory. AGW proponents have used 27 years of stronger warming (which is a very short period) when it suits them. Now the data for the last 10 years does not suit them and its too short. Funny. Like when new ice core data showed the opposite cause and effect between warming and CO2 then what Al Gore claimed (by 800 years in average).

The whole problem is that that you think some lab tests can underpin the climate change issue.

I repeat - there is NO empirical evidence that CO2 is causing the climate variations we see through history.
There is only theory and more and more real data is creating bigger and bigger holes in this theory.
---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

mikkey    0

mikkey
Quote

Quote

This is a comprehensive summary for those who feel skeptical about Al Gore & Co.



And for those skeptical about that "Skeptic's Handbook";
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en-us&q=%22Joanne+Nova%22+debunk&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

She's been debunked fairly thoroughly.
http://www.desmogblog.com/skeptics-handbook-carbon-dioxide-climate-change



If you had cared to actually look at this web site you would have seen the debunking of the very amateurish articles above:
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/03/22/desmog-accidentally-vindicates-the-skeptics-handbook/

Have a look. Here is a summary:
Quote

Yet Jeremy Jacquot’s sole attempt at evidence only shows he doesn’t know what evidence is. Even a bright junior high spark could prove him wrong with a 20 year old encyclopedia. Jacquot uses 3000 words to NOT answer that question, he confuses himself, resorts to cut-n-pasting from the site that does his thinking for him, and makes at least 9 errors of logic and reason. Jacquot complains that I’ve rehashed and repeated old arguments, which only makes it all the more embarrassing that he still hasn’t got any good answers.
But the part I like best was the way he jumps through the hoops just as I predicted. The Skeptics Handbook says when you poke a believer they will bark ‘Santer’, ‘Sherwood’, and ‘amplification’ and he does, right on cue.


---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

lawrocket    3

lawrocket
Quote

>and there is still no explanation why the observed temperatures lately
>are not following the models

?? Models predict temperatures over decades, not every year.



So, does this mean that we can continue to pump CO2 in the atmosphere but global warming will take a few years off?

Sure, I'm no climate scientist, but I have not seen it explained how CO2 can be the main driver behind warming, yet take a few years or decades off. Unless CO2 is independently intelligent and decides not to heat stuff up for a while.

[Reply]Things besides CO2 influence the climate.



From what I've seen put out by many, we cannot pin global warming on anything else. Those other things are not involved with this.

[Reply] if someone sees a hurricane on a satellite photo, and flies a plane into it to measure the windspeeds, and predicts it will hit your area in two days - the smart money is on preparing for a hurricane.



Sure. When Hurricane Gloria got going, news coverage went all Gloria, predicting landfall on Galveston. D'oh.

I specifically remember being in high school when Gilbert (a BMF of a storm) looked to do what Gloria did not - destroy Houston. The media blitz didn't pan out.

And now, we've got wrong prediction after wrong prediction. If I pick 100 stocks and one pans out, trumpeting my genius would be laughable. The smart money wouldn't be with me.

The smart money would be to reduce my life savings to 10s and 20s, throw it into the ocean at a crowded beach, and try to get it back. I'd see a return on my investment that way.

Of course, when global warming doesn't pan out, "thank goodness the world listened to us. We were able to avoid it."

[Reply]There are no "huge holes" in AGW theory.



Agreed. The holes are more in the evidence supporting it.

[Reply] The theory is based on experiments you yourself can do.



Indeed. Times Beach, Mizzou was evacuated on the basis of experiments anyone could do. But there was something else at work showing the experiments didn't paint the whole picture.

[Reply]Denying fundamental physics make deniers look pretty silly.



Yes. But even weather forecasters and their general circulation models are constantly updated and changed. The math and the physics are the same. But the inputs change by simply looking out the damned window and seeing what the instruments are reading - and not what they were predicted to read yesterday.

I understand that GCMs are different from climate models (internal v external changing conditions) but the climate models have a problem - they aggregate uncertainty into daisy chains. If I want to model the expected foliage in the Gulf Coast in 2060, I've gotta model temperature. From that I model precipitation. And humidity. Etc. From these models I get my foliage model.

This explaims the downward estimates. A model predicting a 1.5 C temperature increase by 2010, done in 1998, should be updated with observations.
The climate models appear to generally assume greenhouse gas changes to be exponential. If that assumption is wrong, the models are kaput. Instead we may observe the past generally linear functions (assuming forcing remains the same) and get a about a 1C increase by 2100.

And other factors may be at work. The physics at work can be entirely correct. The underlying assumptions may be wrong.

A lab experiment can show me that as I add heat to my pot of water, it has increased from 45 degrees to 130 degrees (F) in 5 minutes. I check 5 minutes later and it is only 135. After 10 minutes it is 135 even though I have done nothing different and the flame is the same intensity.

So I add a lid to it. It jumps to 170 in 5 minutes and it stays 170. Hmm. I take the lid off. It's 160 after 5 minutes. (The lidded pot is how I picture the greenhouse effect).

At some point, the temperature maxes and doesn't rise. A thicker lid has little additional effect - but if I adjust the flame it sure does!

The models seems to make assumptions that the lid will lead to constant growth in water temperature. This is counterintuitive to me.


[Reply]OTOH, there is still a lot of research to be done on how climate change will affect the planet - what sort of positive/negative feedback we will see, what we can do to change it, and scientists are working on that now. It's pretty interesting work, and worth following. Screaming "THERE'S NO CONSENSUS I'M NOT LISTENING MARS HOCKEY STICK LIE LAAAA LAAA LAAA" while sticking their fingers in their ears makes the more political deniers both more ignorant and easier to ignore.



Absolutely. And stating there is consensus. I'm not listening. You're input is unhelpful (or uninteresting/boring is what I read on realclimate) makes the alarmists both more ignorant and easier to take shots at.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites