Discussion > The Moral and Intellectual Poverty of Climate Alarm
I can only provide the substantive arguments you apparently crave. I can't make you read them.
Phil Clarke
Your “substantive arguments” being, “Him bad guy. Him make heap big mistakes. Him wrong…”
His preferred option (by process of elimination) appears to be intrinsic variability, but he provides no support for this contention.Could this be that it is usually not possible to prove a negative? If there is no evidence to prove a “driving force”, then, surely, it must be down to intrinsic variability, of which there is plenty of historical evidence (like, about 4.5 billion years of it…)?
Throughout his testimony, Lindzen refers to the global warming ‘alarmists’. In my dictionary an ‘alarmist’ is defined as ‘a person who alarms others needlessly’.So…. Where does extinction rebellion get their cause from, then?
Anyhoo…. All of your “substantive arguments” are based on the RealClimate site, with which I have managed to pick holes in, many, many times in the past – and I use a simple metric: if I can pick holes in it, then it cannot be real science. So, you are right – I cannot be bothered to carefully read then shred the discussions within that site. I suspect that it will not be too long before the claims of “another hottest year evah!” reverts to: “the coldest year evah! We are heading into an ice age, and it’s all our fault!” and I do wonder how you will take the discussion, when that happens. Oddly enough, I hope I am wrong, but fear I am right.
Radical Rodent
Given that this year's record temperatures came in the absence of an El Nino, predicting cooling is counterfactual, to put it mildly.
Phil Clarke
This "discussion" which started out well, has degraded into a tit for tat with Phil in which no one convinces anyone with evidence, argument, quotation or insult. It seems a total waste of time and effort. Is it really worth while? Leave Phil (Borg?) to twiddle his thumbs, leaving him free to go extinct rebelling.
AK
Like I said, Mr Clarke, I hope I am wrong, but fear I might be right. However, here you are, another organisation and author for you to rip to shreds without once addressing the argument.
Sadly, Minty, Mr Clarke, for all his bluster, seems unable to present any concrete evidence to back his arguments up, just references to others whose evidence is dodgy at best; my own take is that if little old I can see the flaws, then it must be seriously faulty.
Radical Rodent
Have another attempt to shoot the messenger while ignoring the message: https://youtu.be/bbwdRrlGHhI?fbclid=IwAR3B7_BSteMH-22uYjtSE8mogDAPk-Ebz6K6C66MXpTUbAFXAbl1Xx2yFhU
Radical Rodent
" ... leaving him free to go extinct rebelling."
Oct 19, 2019 at 6:33 PM | AK
It is worse than that.
If the US Funding is cut, Climate Scientists may go extinct, and no one will notice. Or care.
golf charlie
You're late to the party. Thomas has been disproving the greenhouse effect since 2017.
Using logic of this calibre:-
Based on this assumption, and verified by measurements at two distinct locations differing in their altitudes and thus in their respective atmospheric pressures, a direct dependence of the atmospheric counter-radiation intensity on the pressure and on the square root of the absolute temperature could be found. This physical law explains the paradox that the temperatures on mountains are generally lower than those in lowlands, in spite of the higher solar radiation intensity on mountains. Moreover, it clearly proves that atmospheric trace gases such as carbon-dioxide do not have any influence on the climate.
No Thomas, it gets cooler at altitude because of the adiabatic lapse rate, which is actually a consequence of the greenhouse effect.This is basic stuff.
Phil Clarke
…it gets cooler at altitude because of the adiabatic lapse rate, which is actually a consequence of theThere. Fixed it for you.greenhouse effectgas laws. This is basic stuff.
HTH
Radical Rodent
I trust Phil will be grateful for your timely, considerate, and correct correction, Radical Rodent.
John Shade
An example of the work required to refute tawdry comments and accusations made in a local newspaper by a climate alarmer about a well-qualified meteorologist's highly defensible position on climate:
'I have been doing battle in the local newspaper here in NH with a warmist Shawn Freeman, who claimed I was a charlatan, a well known denier who is bought and paid for by big oil and the Koch Brothers and not a scientist or climatologist because real scientists and climatologists must follow the accepted climate theories and models and publish any challenging work in journals like Nature. I rebutted in detail here and also had a letter posted defending me and my career work by a former student who went on to get a PhD in meteorology and had a great career in the AIr Force including as meteorological support for the space shutle program. But the politically driven attack continued.
Shawn came back at me saying I was denying the long standing work of Arrhenius and cherry picking data. The paper would not let me rebut that attack on my credentials. We will do a cable show on this issue showing how the warmists work to silence dissenting voices while just riding the natural cycles in weather using the cooling in the 1970s and then the warming into the 1990s while riding the media coverage of every extreme event to push their agenda that hopes to control energy (and health) and in that way control all aspects of our lives.'
Shawn may be a zealot, or he may be a victim of the scaremongering cajoled into expressing harsh and condemnatory judgement of others whom he would do better to listen to and learn from. See D'Aleo's full post for links and details of his responses: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/battling_radical_alarmists_in_the_local_media1/
John Shade
Arrhenius postulated the possibility that GHG emissions could warm the planet at the start of the 20th century. And more than 97% of scientists decided that such an effect would be dwarfed by other effects.
Convection, latent heat of evaporation and albedo changes (clouds) are larger effects by several orders of magnitude. That's just basic physics.
Yet two years after the miners' strike and one year after Chernobyl the UK Government threw lots of funding at the idea that 97% of scientists are wrong.
And suddenly they were so wrong that this new alternative hypothesis doesn't even need to debate with the mainstream.
What evidence overwhelmed the consensus just before the Rio Conference?
M Courtney
"What evidence overwhelmed the consensus just before the Rio Conference?
Oct 22, 2019 at 9:47 PM | M Courtney"
Climate Science has always been a means to an end. Political subterfuge requires no evidence, and is at its best if no trail of evidence can be traced.
golf charlie
Albedo has not increased by 40%. CO2 has.
Phil Clarke
Dr. Richard Feynman, the famous Cornell physicist said in support of the scientific method “If a theory or proposed law disagrees with experiment (data), it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what your name is… If it disagrees with data, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
Joe D'Aleo, quoting Feynmann.
It is now not warming. Warming (global mean and northern hemisphere) stopped in the 1990s
Joe D'Aleo, WUWT 2013.
The reality. 0.5C of warming since 1990.
Self-falsified. See also.
Phil Clarke
Curious, Mr Clarke, when you say with such certainty that CO has risen by 40%; but, since when, exactly? The rise in CO2 seems to be agreed, based solely upon readings from ONE location on the Earth’s surface – Mauna Loa. Never mind that it is a site close to several volcanic sites that issue forth carbon dioxide in varying amounts at varying times (which, it has to be admitted, should make the steady rise a tad suspicious), there is rich irony that similar readings for temperature are laughed at – “Look at the steady readings of the Central England Temperature records…” is generally met with: “Don’t be stupid – one site does not speak for the world!” Yet, it would appear, for CO2, it does.
"It strikes me as strange to monitor CO2 at Mauna Loa. Mauna Loa is approximately 20 miles WNW of Kilauea, which erupted 33 times between 1954 and 1983, and has been erupting continuously since 1983. The prevailing winds are from the east."(The source of both those conjoined statements have already been given, so I won’t repeat.)I might add that Mauna Loa is itself a volcano which, although it isn't as active as Kilauea, did erupt in 1984. Both volcanos probably produce CO2 between eruptions.
Anyhoo… There are some who dare suggest that CO2 has not been constantly low, with records of measurements up to 570ppm in the past 180 years to support that idea.
Oh, and read what is written: D’Aleo did not say 1990, he said the 1990s, of which 1998 is a part of. So, even your ad homs fail.
Radical Rodent
D'Aleo made that claim about warming in the year 2013 (see his WUWT post).
In the same year, 2013, some high priests of global warming alarm at the UK's Met Office also made the claim warming had stopped (or, as they out it, 'paused', or in D'Aleo's words 'it is not now warming'):
'The Met Office Hadley Centre has written three reports that address the recent pause in global warming and seek to answer the following questions:
What have been the recent trends in other indicators of climate over this period?
What are the potential drivers of the current pause?
How does the recent pause affect our projections of future climate?'
There has been warming reported since 2013, and I have no doubt that this will be recognised both by D'Aleo and the Met Office, just as they agreed about the pause back in 2013.
John Shade
It is indeed important to site CO2 detectors appropriately. Cities are no good for obvious reasons, large areas of dense vegetation should also be avoided. So 3000m up on a remote island is pretty ideal. Amazingly, the scientists who collate the Mauna data are aware that the site is near a volcano, and remove any data collected when the volcano is active and the wind in the wrong direction.
Equally amazingly there is more than one CO2 detector in the world. The US NOAA, for example use a global network of over 200 sites. They publish the numbers here.
Direct measurements of CO2 concentration began in 1958, when it was 316ppm (409 today). Prior to that, gas concentrations can be retrieved from bubbles trapped in ice cores, which show CO2 followed a cyclical pattern matching the glaciation/deglaciation pattern and remaining in a range around 180-290ppm.
1998 included the most powerful El Nino of the century, so is a massive cherry-pick, nonetheless, whether you look at the annual or 5 year mean, 2013, when D'Aleo made his cooling (not paused) claim, was warmer.
Although there has been scientific debate about the exact framing of the so-called ‘slowdown’, by looking at rolling 15-year trends, the Met Office confirmed that while the globe remained at near record warmth, the rate of global warming did slow between 1999 and 2014, but now this rate has picked up once more.
Phil Clarke
There has been warming reported since 2013, and I have no doubt that this will be recognised both by D'Aleo and the Met Office,
Um, no.
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf
Discussed here
Phil Clarke
There has been a warming reported since 2013, and part of it is shown at the righthand end of Plot VI-1 of the D'Aleo et al paper. The rise is similar in the satellite data favoured by the paper, and the HADCRUT4 data.
The paper itself is well worth reading for its trenchant criticisms of the adjustments that have been made in the data sets favoured by the establishment, apparently to produce the kinds of trends required. Overall conclusion: 'The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. '
[GAST = global average surface temperature]
John Shade
Nope. Far from acknowledging warming, D'Aleo (et al) seek to discredit the datasets that show it.
I'm with Dana - I think the 'paper' is a crock
The white paper authors admit that some adjustments to the raw data are necessary (for example, to correct for changes in instrumentation technology, time of observation, moving station locations, and so on), and they don’t dispute the accuracy or necessity of any of the adjustments that climate scientists have made. Basically, because they don’t like the end result of global warming, the authors assert that the adjustments must somehow be wrong, but fail to support that assertion with any real evidence. It’s not worth the paper it’s printed on.
Phil Clarke
Stormfront Phil misunderstands the point again.
"Albedo has not increased by 40%. CO2 has."
Assuming that is true - it misses the point. Let us use an analogy to hammer it home.
• King Kong (albedo) roars and beats his chest
• Tom Thumb (the radiative effect of CO2) brandishes his hawthorn sword and yells defiance.
• King Kong doesn't notice.
• Tom Thumb magically grows by 40% to One and Two Fifths of an inch. (This may be due to man's industrial emissions but traceability is hard; magic or trace gas emissions makes no real difference).
• King Kong doesn't notice and keeps swatting at biplanes.
That's just basic physics.
M Courtney
https://dilbert.fandom.com/wiki/Analogy_Police?file=ANALOGY.jpg
Phil Clarke
An amusing cartoon. The false analogy of the greenhouse for the 'greenhouse effect' comes to mind. A very poor analogy for understanding, but no doubt treasured by CO2 alarm agitators and their agitated victims for being both melodramatic and readily comprehensible. And wrong. But this little example of intellectual poverty has quite possibly led to countless examples of moral poverty. So sad, as the great Donald would say.
John Shade
Have a chuckle with this.