What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Boston]

people are "popping" up right and left saying he has committed blatant errors G
that exactly the what Im trying to get you to acknowledge
its just that FM refuses to withdraw or make any corrections

unlike out beloved Naomi Oreskes who immediately acknowledged her error, printed a retraction and resubmitted her paper
like any reasonable adult would do

thing is I think FM is afraid the paper would not be accepted once real numbers were used in place of this poor use of Kerchhoff and formulas that do not add up

the point is that he has misquoted Kerchhoff's law

emission in this instance is measured in Wm^2 and is a value of ~1368 for earth depends on if we are in equilibrium or not
a rather large number

emissivity on the other hand is a ratio and in this case does not exceed 1
a relatively small number

so if FM wants to build a formula using parameters based on Kiehl and Trenberth’s 1997 atmospheric energy balance paper ( which he has ) and there work is based on Kerchhoff's law being measured as a ratio not exceeding a value of 1 then he is going to have to justify those conversions from there original and note them within the formula

which I am not seeing in this paper

which leads me to believe he has not made the adjustments and why eq 4 does not add up

FM states that eq 4 does not add up because Kiehl-Trenberth did not use a real atmosphere ( whatever that is ) although my next letter to him will ask if he is modeling a semi gray model or a black body model how it is he is using any more of a real atmosphere than they were and how is it possible not to justify the values of the equation and still get accurate results

yes you can assign whatever measurement system you want to Kerchoff's law but that measurement system must be consistent throughout the any equation built using the new definition of Kerchhoff and that does not appear to have been done

at least there is no note of it within the body of the work

thus eq 4 does not add up as FM himself admits in his last letter to me

are you seriously still going to deny this simple fact

I think the readers can all see who is struggling to avoid acknowledging what is clearly a poorly written paper and one that failed in its review process repeatedly

cone on G
its not so hard to admit when one is wrong
its part of life

even FM is saying eq 4 does not add up and he wrote the dam thing




and no worries on the Spanish
you would be surprised how much Spanish I am able to grok
not bad with french either

cheers
B

pps

seems if I wanted to learn about Miskolczi I might talk to Miskolczi which is exactly what Im doing
even he admits that equation 4 does not add up

if you read my previous you will see that I acknowledge that you can measure Kerchhoff how you want but if you alter that parameter you must also alter all other parameters to match
Im not seeing that in this paper

[Guillermo]

Your insisting in debating if FM has misquoted or not the KL is a total and useless stupidity. I quit

[Boston]

we are not debating
a debate would imply there was some question
there isn't
its plain as day for any reasonable person who wants to read Kerchhoff's law and then page 5 paragraph 5 were FM misquotes it

another interesting point about this area of the paper is represented in the following correspondence I have most recently fired off to Ferenc (FM)

thanks again for your response Ferenc
I understand the process no problem its just that Im wondering if you used Wm^2 that the term emission implies in your definition of Kerchhoff's law or if you used the correct value of a ratio less than, or not exceeding 1 in this instance
if you used Wm^2 implied by your use of the term emission rather than the correct term emissivity then you would have had to convert all other parameters to the new measurement system in order to obtain even remotely accurate results

Im also curious about your last answer in that it states that eq 4 does not add up because Kiehl-Trenberth were not using a "real" atmosphere, because it looks like you are modeling either a semi gray atmosphere or a black body but neither are any more "real" and so it seems that eq 4 was never intended to add up which begs the question why use it as an example of Kerchhoff's law which you state must add up and then present an equation that does not add up but which you say represents an atmosphere in thermal equilibrium

doesnt seem to make much sence to use an equation that does not add up to represent a system that is in equilibrium according to Kerchhoff's law which by definition must be equal ( add up )

I am looking forward to his response
he has graciously admitted that eq 4 does not add up and that Kerchhoff's is not quoted verbatim

I have admitted that it is not necessary to measure Kerchhoff's in any particular measurement system as long as the system is consistent throughout the calculations ( obviously ) and so have asked to see the conversions of the other parameters of the equations throughout the paper
which I do not see noted within the paper
an important omission and potential of more errors in conversion, which is why it would be vital to include these conversions in the notes

[Guillermo]

A otra cosa, mariposa

An interesting work about the accuracy of IPCC's climate climate scenarios, presented to the European Geosciences Union General Assembly 2008, Vienna, Austria, 13‐18 April 2008

Assessment of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time series
http://www.itia.ntua.gr/getfile/850/...dictionPr_.pdf

Conclusions
• All examined long records demonstrate large overyear variability (long‐term
fluctuations) with no systematic signatures across the different locations/climates.
• GCMs generally reproduce the broad climatic behaviours at different geographical
locations and the sequence of wet/dry or warm/cold periods on a mean monthly scale.
• However, model outputs at annual and climatic (30‐year) scales are irrelevant with
reality; also, they do not reproduce the natural overyear fluctuation and, generally,
underestimate the variance and the Hurst coefficient of the observed series; none of the
models proves to be systematically better than the others.
• The huge negative values of coefficients of efficiency at those scales show that model
predictions are much poorer that an elementary prediction based on the time average.
• This makes future climate projections not credible.
• The GCM outputs of AR4, as compared to those of TAR, are a regression in terms of
the elements of falsifiability they provide, because most of the AR4 scenarios refer only
to the future, whereas TAR scenarios also included historical periods.

[Brent Swain]

It's as clear as day if we look at the amount of open ocean in the arctic and antarctic, the much higher than normal temperatures in the prairies, the disappearance of glaciers, the droughts and wildfires, the collapse of the Larsen ice shelf, etc etc. Makes your numbers game a bit irrelevant.

[Boston]

exactly
the real world evidence is overwhelming

and for our many readers further edification
my latest correspondence with F Miskolczi did not successfully elicit a response to my specific questions so I have reworded them and sent it to FM again

I understand that you are referring to Wm^2 which is why I asked if you had converted all other associated parameters within the equations to represent the same Wm^2

also I'm still a little concerned about eq4 not adding up
if you have altered the values of the parameters could you show your work in regards to why

it seems page 5 paragraph 4 is regarding global five year average planetary equilibrium temperature and presenting the value of 235.2 Wm^2
again on page 5 paragraph 5 you mention Kerchhoff's law in regards to equilibrium and specifically

and then you present a formula that does not represent equilibrium unless there are some other values being applied to the formula
my question is in regards to those values

I am looking forward to seeing how he justifies using terms differing from the long established norms presented by Kiehl-Trenberth.
Although rather than answer that directly he merely stated that his model is different than there's, I just had to ask, how? how is a semi transparent clear sky model any different than the classic gray or semi gray body model of Kiehl-Trenberth?
neither question elicited a direct answer and so I have rephrased the questions and resubmitted them to FM hoping I will get a more substantial answer.

[Guillermo]

IN RESPONSE TO THE ENVIROMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S ....ETC
(and also to Brent and Boston, this last still believing in the Reyes Magos )

http://www.naturalclimatechange.com/...ntcomments.pdf

Cheers.

[Guillermo]

OVERWHELMING REALITY:

- Sea level has been and still is rising at the same steady pace of around 1.5 mm/year since around 300 years, as a consequence of the planet coming out of the LIA.
- Artic sea ice extension has been increasing and diminishing in multidecal periods. It was in a diminishing trend till 2007 and seems to be again growing.
- Antarctic sea ice has been growing at the pace of 100.000 km2 per decade since around 30 years. It roughly switches mode with Arctic.
- Polar bears populations are rapidly increasing since their hunting was regulated some 40 years ago.
- Hurricane’s activity index has been declining and it is in its lowest of the last 30 years.
- Bleached coral reefs have been recovering in the last years at a pace that surprises scientists.
- Glaciers are generally retreating after their huge advance during the LIA, to their previous state at the MWP.
- Global surface temperatures have been slowly growing at a steady state since the coming out of the LIA. Its exact amount is uncertain due to the varying conditions and diminishing number of land measuring stations, but is at its most of 0,6ºC per century.
- Tropical high troposphere is not warming but cooling with the increase of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmsphere.
- IPCC computer models’ projections totally fail to match climate reality at global scale, not to mention at regional scale for which they are totally inadequate.
- Planet is globally greening with the increasing athmosperic CO2 concentration and the mild global temperatures. This has been contrarresting inadequate man-made land use changes and permitting to produce increasing food quantities for the growing humankind.
- Malary and other mosquitoes transmitted maladies are retreating again thanks to the rising in 2006 of the the wrong banning of DDT in the seventies. Such maladies’ control have nothing to do with the control of anthropogenic CO2.
- Methane athmospheric concentration does not follow a similar pattern to the one of CO2 and has been esentially flat since around a decade now.
- Contribution of submarine volcanic activity to athmospheric CO2 and acidity of the oceans still is poorly known


Etc, etc.

Now I'm going out for a nice Galician meal with wife.
Enjoy your day.

Cheers.

[fasteddy106]

The evidence that is overwhelming is the evidence of fraud, lies, deception, intimidation, and distortion by the scientists involved with the IPCC and the various govermental groups that supply it with doctored data. Never mind the obvious errors in mathematics in most of the data bases or the poorly designed computer models. Speaking of models, an acquaintance in manufacturing was telling me just how worthless the models really are. He designs models for industry where are the parameters are pretty tightly controlled. Even in those models where all the inputs are pretty much a constant, the results do not reflect a simple mathematical equation and adjustments have to be made. He laughed at Hansens attempts to predict climate using models as delusional, just too many variables and no amount of pre-programming can account for them. As we have all seen here in posts by Jimbo, unless you make up stuff, like atmospheric C02 having a lifetime of 50-200 years, as Hansen did, his models don't work at all. Back to fraud and deception though. Bostons oft claimed 97% number jumps right out there. There are more caveats attached to reaching that number than in the Health Care Reform Bill. The Hockey Stick next comes to mind, not even God is attributed the power to wipe out history as Mann did the Roman and Medieval Warming period and the Little Ice Age. Then there is the problem with the ice cores. Originally they claimed the cores showed C02 increasing before warming, thus a cause of warming. Of course they lied or were amazingly stupid as the inverse is true and accepted by all now, except Boston. Then there is the Antartic ice shelf that broke off. First of course attributed to warming, then correctly attributed to volcanic activity. The temperature game with the ground stations comes to mind. When they got caught putting measuring devices in highway meridians, they said ground temp didn't matter, it was atmospheric temp that counted. Then the weather balloons showed no warming and the satelites showed no warming and actually a cooling since 2000 or so. So the oceans became the agent of warming next but then those pesky measuring devices showed it wasn't happening there either for the last 4 years. Ah but, never fear, we have proof, the Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035. Oops, they meant to say 2350 based on a magazine article about a phone call to an Indian scientist who says he was just speculating and doesn't have any proof and didn't really do any research, just sounded good at the time. But, but, but, the polar bears are dying!!!!! Oh me, oh my, except they are not of course. They made it throught the last time the Northwest Passage was clear, they will the next time if it ever happens soon. The increase in number and intensity of storms has not happened either, damn. The Sahara is actually shrinking in size, the Sahel is becoming more verdant every year. Sea levels when actually measured instead of relying on the word of a cousin who says there is less beach area, have not risen beyond normal variation. Maybe I'll start to worry when they start to market Scottish wines again, haven't done that since a long long time ago, hmmm, what caused that warming spell, ah, I know, alien C02 generators, yea that's it! Oh ****, I almost forgot to mention the emails. Now those guys, "The Team" as they named themselves got pretty creative. Machiavelli rose from the grave to slap them on the back for their deviousness. Boston of course claimed they were forged, he was wrong again. The context is hard to misunderstand. They were quite clear in their deception and tactics. Now we know why the peer review process only spits out AGW KoolAid Club members work papers, they rigged the process, go figure. So all we have left is a bunch of babble left about the precautionary principle and good gosh golly gee, we ought to change our ways anyhow, cause, cause, .......... well just because! I mean after all it's like Al Gore said, "It's complicated"..

What often goes unmentioned however is the social agenda that all these nutcases march lockstep in pursuit of. These facists simply want to impose their social agenda of zero growth and worldwide socialism and are using AGW as a scare tactic. Boston is truly one of the dangerous ones. He favors a ban on plastics. That would kill tens of millions of people. Maybe that's his goal. Many of the alarmists favor a devolution of human society as they see the human race as a malignancy.

So what do we really have. A lot of manipulated science to exaggerate natural climate changes that are within historical patterns in order to impose a radical social agenda. If all the science was so certain, the consensus so sure, the data so perfect, why the need for all the ******** deception and fraud, lying, intimidation, and fabrication from those who claim a desire to save the planet?????

The answer is pretty obvious.

[fasteddy106]

Oh, I forgot to mention ad hominem attacks. If you want to see some examples of that, just pick any 6 or so of Bostons posts when he is not spouting irrelevent drivel.They could be a textbook definition.

[troy2000]

Eddy, anyone who calls the same people fascists in one breath and socialists in the next is mudslinging and name calling.

I'm not wading into the scientific debate here, but you're obviously trying to politicize the debate and take it out of the realm of science.

There are obviously political ramifications to the debate, but the science of it doesn't stand or fall on the names you sling at the scientists involved.

[fasteddy106]

Well Troy, I guess my whole point is that the issue is not about science, it is about a social agenda that cannot be won at the ballot box. If you look at the remarks of some of the folks who are pushing the AGW hoax down our throats you will see that calling them socialists and facists is a compliment.

[Boston]

G what did you guys have
Im all about food and although I've many Roman dish's
Im not all that familiar with Galacian food
Spanish style food around here has little to do with sea food
unfortunately

Troy
the political aspect of the discussion ( a debate would imply there were some other viable competing theory and there simply isn't ) is the main driving force.
That is one reason the importance of the consensus and the value of Oreskes "Beyond the Ivory Tower" is so staunchly denied by the deniers. To recognize these simple facts would be to admit that the science is in and the amount of anomalous data trivial. The only thing left to do is address the industry sponsored political campaign designed to delay change that might effect the bottom line. Money; short term profit is the game and the public arena is the audience agnotologists are trying to win, the scientific community is largely settled on the issue and have moved on to mitigation. Politics is the only arena where industry has the upper hand and so thats where the fight exists. Its called choosing your own ground for a fight in which you are outnumbered. The scientific arena is hardly the best place to win a battle in which your best weapon is BS

hope that makes the reasons why the deniers seek to politicize the conversation a little clearer; the science simply does not support there view

cheers
B

[fasteddy106]

There is no industry sponsored campaign. There is only the campaign by the zero growth nuts to inspire class warfare. Please Boston, post the check numbers from the corporate records if you want to make such a claim. If you know anything about business you know those records are public. The attempt to deflect the skeptics by claiming a connection to the oil companies is just smoke and mirrors. What Boston doesn't tell anyone is that the oil companies he seeks to demonize won't have their profits affected in any way. If the supply of oil is artificially diminished, the price goes up and so do the profits per gallon. Boy, that sure is sending them a message! The logic pool there is about as deep as a thimble.

What is called anomolous actually goes to the heart of the AGW hoax. The so called warming is well within natural and historical variations. There is no cause for alarm. Anthropogenic C02 will not cause a runaway greenhouse effect, nor does it cause warming and there is no empirical evidence to show it does.

All we have is group of radical idealogues who have scientific degrees who have created their own specialty subgroup of science, hijacked the normal peer review process, and now are proclaiming that mankind is a cancer on the earth and must devolve in order to save the planet from themselves.

The devotion to the cause of AGW by these High Priest of the AGW dogma makes the discipline of the Roman Catholic Opus Dei pale by comparison.

Again the question, if the science is so certain, why the need for all the subterfuge and deception and lies and slander and intimidation? Notice that Boston doesn't address this.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by fasteddy106

Well Troy, I guess my whole point is that the issue is not about science, it is about a social agenda that cannot be won at the ballot box. If you look at the remarks of some of the folks who are pushing the AGW hoax down our throats you will see that calling them socialists and facists is a compliment.

You're wrong. The issue is about science. You're trying to hijack it, and turn it into a political issue instead. You can't impugn the entire subject of climate change simply by pointing out that some of the people who believe it are nuts, or also pushing other agendas. I've seen some of the nonsense by people on your side: you know, stuff about scientists being Fascists and Socialists, all at the same time...

That's on about the same level as claiming that people who tabulate drunk-driving statistics or investigate the effects of intoxication on driving skills are simply fascists and socialists, who really want to take our cars away from us and make us walk.

You guys can drag out graphs and papers for or against climate change on this thread until the cows come home, but it won't change common sense. And common sense says the majority of scientists worldwide are not engaged in some sort of sinister conspiracy. They aren't trying to use climate change as an excuse to take over the world. It's sad that I should even have to say something so self-evident.

Like most conspiracy buffs your conspiracy theory doesn't work, unless we postulate there are damn near more people conspiring than there are people being conspired against...