Discussion > Are Geological Paleo-Climate Records Relevant to The Climate Debate?
ATTP sure has been posting a lot on this site recently.
He must be back at "work".
jolly farmer
EM
Ah the conventional view of water vapour processes as a feedback. That's an assertion. The IPCC itself has always stated it has a problem with clouds. Satellites have a problem with water vapour in the IR apparently but are getting better. So in reality we don't actually know what clouds do or what water vapour does in the upper atmosphere to the level to discount its effects in favour of CO2.
Hand waving though? What do you think climate sensitivity and CO2 forcing are?
The Earth's surface temperature is a function of a long and short term variability processes, the atmosphere contains processes we don't fully understand but are fundamental to how heat and radiation is transfered through. AGW is a partial derivative of sorts; it fixes other things and looks at how temperature varies based on changes in IR radiation.
The problem is the temperature reference that it uses itself varies in ways that are uncharacterised. So there are more unknowns in the equation that knowns and less equations than unknowns. So it can't be solved only partially.
But there's something more fundamental. AGW is a partial idea because it does not have the information about other processes in the atmosphere and in the oceans to discount them from being factors. So those that follow AGW and become advocates for it are asking another person to have faith in the idea. Which is a little troubling.
What's more troubling is using this faith to then try and change how people live in the real world. All from a partial hypothesis. It's like saying we need to increase manufacture of milk and cookees because Santa Claus is on a bulking diet.
EM, you really need to brush up on the logical constructs underpinning AGW and how a hypothesis is created. You seem to be stuck in this idea that numbers are the only thing to refute other numbers, even though those numbers are based off conjecture. Whereas if a hypothesis has a logical flaw or a large assertion, one only needs refer to the flaw or assertion, not what comes next.
Micky H Corbett
Golf Charlie
You are embarassng yourself in front of three professional scientists.
You should be discussing why you think the change in he frequency distriution does not reflect changes in real world conditions.
You should not be rejecting evidence just because you dslike one of the authors.
How would you feel if I announced this to the world?
You can ignore that comment, because It was written by golf charlie.
Entropic man
Mcky H Corbett
You describe a very fundamentalist approach to hypotheses.
Do you apply this in your work? Do you refuse to use relativity and quantum mechanics because they are incomplete hypotheses?
You know as well as I do that in practice you use the hypothesis which best fits reality, while continuing research to iron out its flaws.
Entropic man
So do you mean that we should make a claim as it's the best we've got and stick with this until proven otherwise?
Apr 13, 2016 at 11:58 AM Micky H Corbett
EM has frequently stated that that is exactly what he thinks. Saying "we don't know" or "it's anybody's guess" does not seem to be in his vocabulary. Am I right there, EM?
____________________________________________________________________________
Just saw EM's 9:15AM comment. EM also likes to suggest that, because well established theories (which have essentially acquired the status of scientific law) have known limits, this means that, in a completely different area of science, we should accept any old bollocks in the absence of something less crappy. Compiling a list of the fallacies that EM comes up with would be almost a full time job.
Martin A
EM: with your conversations with Mr Corbett, I suspect you are well outside your league. A close analogy would be that you are like a newbie am-dram trying to tell Laurence Olivier how to act. To mix my metaphors most horribly, I would advise you to get out of that as soon as possible, or you will soon be very badly burned.
Radical Rodent
Just an ad hominem thought - outside of the BH/WUWT reverberation chamber, I wonder how many other people would find James Hansen, winner of the highest award the American Meteorologists can bestow, amongst other honours, and of course NASA, less credible that a semi retired TV weatherman, sockpuppetmaster with no degree who found the idea of a baselined anomaly difficult?
Like I said, just a thought.
Phil Clarke
with your conversations with Mr Corbett, I suspect you are well outside your league.
Hard to see why. Micky's views come across as someone with some kind of background in science (maybe a degree, or a course in the philosophy of science) who has this idealistic view of how things should work, but no real understanding of how they actually work. It also appears as though Micky is quite happy to extend his own ignorance onto everyone else. Just because Micky doesn't understand something, doesn't mean that noone understands it. Just because we don't "know" something (which in a sense is always true in science) doens't mean that we don't have a pretty good idea. I'm kind of surprised Micky evens gets up in the morning, because it must be a continuous worry as to whether or not the Sun has come up again.
...and Then There's Physics
You know as well as I do that in practice you use the hypothesis which best fits reality, while continuing research to iron out its flaws.
Quite. Worth remembering that the IPCC states its conclusion that most of the modern warming is anthropogenic with 95% confidence, in other word they estimate there's a one in twenty chance that it may be something else.
Significant policy decisions are of course routinely based on far less certain conclusions.
If there's a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al-Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response. It's not about our analysis ... It's about our response.
Dick Chaney on the Bush Administration's policy on antiterrorism.
Phil Clarke
You can ignore that comment, because It was written by golf charlie.
Sounds like a timesaver.
Phil Clarke
What do you think guys? Do I need to repeat who I am again on the site?
I'm Dr Michael Corbett. My PhD is in Condensed Matter Physics, namely nanolayer ferroelectrics.
I also worked for 9 years as an ion thruster specialist developing plasma engines for space missions. I helped develop the ion thruster and control for the GOCE gravity mission. I also helped invent a twin ended thruster and worked on larger engines for a mission to Mercury.
Now I'm also a software and systems engineer and have worked in safety critical systems for a good number of years.
I've had to measure flow rates and thrust changes at the limit of technology and seemingly often had to bend a few laws of physics like Scotty. Such is the nature of space missions. At the same time my work has had to be accountable to multimillion pound missions and to people's lives.
So I'd guess I might know a thing or too about science, measurement and accountability.
As for AGW it's hypothesis with interesting elements. But it shouldn't be a tool to wield some New World Order.
Micky H Corbett
It also appears as though Micky is quite happy to extend his own ignorance onto everyone else. Just because Micky doesn't understand something, doesn't mean that noone understands it.
Apr 14, 2016 at 10:22 AM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics
Tee hee
splitpin
What do you think guys? Do I need to repeat who I am again on the site?
Sure, but I can't see why. Should I tell you mine? Should James Hansen tell you his? Gavin Schmidt? Richard Betts? James Annan? William Connolley? I could go on. Why do you think your credentials mean anything? Also, despite your apparent expertise, you appear not to understand what a radiative forcing is.
As for AGW it's hypothesis with interesting elements. But it shouldn't be a tool to wield some New World Order.
Oh, so an appeal to your supposed authority and the suggestion of some kind of global conspiracy. You couldn't make this stuff up. Keep it though; it's what keeps this site interesting.
...and Then There's Physics
aTTP,
Why? Because you suggested that Micky was someone who came across as having some kind of background in science and then furtther speculated a degree or a course in the Philosophy of Science. It seems you can't stop making snarky comments from a position of ignorance.
Paul Dennis
Ah Ken
You took a swipe at me and then when you find out I actually do science and engineering for a living and to a high level in various fields you switch track and say I'm arguing from authority. Then you make a quip about not understanding radiative forcing.
Ha ha good stuff. I've a few deck chairs left on the Titanic (built in my home town). Do you fancy rearranging them?
I don't need to know the exact details of radiative forcing since I've read the various Hansen and Manabe papers. It's the concept that requires the assumptions about fixed lapse rate. Did you not learn pure logic yourself when you did Physics?
Micky H Corbett
EM and Phil Clarke, you put it so nicely. Given your track records, and those that you revere, you have just proved why you should not be trusted.
Please remember that when posting links.
golf charlie
Paul,
Because you suggested that Micky was someone who came across as having some kind of background in science and then furtther speculated a degree or a course in the Philosophy of Science. It seems you can't stop making snarky comments from a position of ignorance.
Really? I said it because it is exactly what it seems like. And the reason I said it was because of the claim that EM is out of his depth talking to Micky. Based on what EM says, he clearly understands this topic better than Micky does.
Defend Micky if you like, though, but - IMO - his basic argument is more anti-science, than science. It's incredibly silly. Someone who has some kind of background in science pontificating about our understanding of something on a blog and pretending he somehow knows more that others who've spent decades working in this field. It's just bizarre. At least you should understand something of how science actually works, or is the possibility that we understand AGW much better than you (or Micky) would like to accept just too much to consider? Let's play the uncertainty monster game?
Also, do you really think that there was some point in making a more thoughtful comment. I had tried, only to be met with Micky pontificating about how little we understood this; he may well not understand this, but that doesn't mean that noone understands it. If he really has some scientific expertise he would at least understand that the main way in which you gain understanding of a complex topic is to go and spend some time talking to actual experts, not pretending to be the most scientifically credible person on a site that mostly spouts nonsense. It's may well be that Micky is one of the most scientifically credible people here, but ......
Micky,
You took a swipe at me and then when you find out I actually do science and engineering for a living and to a high level in various fields you switch track and say I'm arguing from authority. Then you make a quip about not understanding radiative forcing.
You are making an argument from authority. You're on a blog that mostly promotes nonsense. You're claiming that somehow we just don't know something that many (who've spent years working in this field) regard as pretty solid. And when challenged you then suggest that somehow your supposed expertise means that your views on this carry some weight, despite the fact that many who would disagree with what you've said have expertise that far outweighs yours. Why would you think this?
And then to make it even more bizarre, you throw in some comment about a global conspiracy. And, yes, it seems pretty clear that you don't understand what a radiative forcing is. Your comments about water vapour and clouds show a remarkable level of ignorance of the topic. As I said, though, carry on. Keep pretending that your background allows you to pontificate about a scientific area in which you clearly have no actual expertise.
Okay, apologies if this seems harsh. I have the habit of assuming that someone who can speak with such certainty can take it when challenged; I'm often wrong about this. If you simply want to be the biggest fish in this pond, then carry on. If you really want to understand this topic better, then get out there, talk to some actual experts, and use your background to try and understand what they're really saying. If you mainly spend time here, it's maybe not a surprise that you have the views that you do.
...and Then There's Physics
Micky,
If you want to read something about the theory of global warming from someone who can explain it much better than I can, you can try this.
I apologise for the tone of my comments.
...and Then There's Physics
Hmmm… I suspect that Entropic man is not the only one outside his league with Mr Corbett, though I am not sure what the lead singer of Herman’s Hermits has to do with it – perhaps because something is happening and they do not know why-y-y-y.
You're on a blog that mostly promotes nonsense.Yes, but should your many, many comments get snipped you would be the first to complain.
Mr C: do note that most of us can identify when someone is projecting – “Keep pretending that your background allows you to pontificate about a scientific area in which you clearly have no actual expertise." Says a “computational astrophysicist”.
Radical Rodent
How fortunate we fools are that we have aTTP to show us how to construct a fully-reasoned argument. :))
diogenes
The truly odd thing is that I have just perused the Pierrehumbert article to which aTTP linked and it appears to say nothing out of line with what Dr Corbett wrote. Maybe aTTP does not quite understand this subject he is such a considerable expert in.
diogenes
I'll simply quote from the article
The basic physical principles upon which the Theory of Global Warming is based include the notion of interconvertibility amongst forms of energy (introduced by Fourier in his formulation of planetary energy balance), thermodynamics (air cools when it rises), thermodynamics of phase change (cold air holds less water), quantum theory (absorption and emission of infrared by CO2 and other greenhouse gases), blackbody radiation, and Newton’s laws of motion. Each of these components has passed literally thousands of tests in the laboratory. There is essentially zero uncertainty in the validity of such things, which form the basic physical underpinning of the Theory of Global Warming.
and
The scientific community is still searching for a really good way to evaluate the nature of cloud effects, though comparisons with past and recent climates provide some reassurance that we are not too far off base with cloud effects.
The only similarity that I can see is that Ray Pierrehumbert is not claiming that our understanding is perfect. Micky appears to be interpreting this lack of perfection as an indication that it is extremely uncertain. That our understanding is not perfect, is not the same as our understanding being very uncertain.
...and Then There's Physics
Ken
If you ever read my comments about various aspects of climate science and temperature measurement etc you'll see I have no problem with people studying climate. Why would I as a scientist have issue with others doing science?
The problem with climate science is not the details. It's premise is based on a number of assumptions that don't require one to have expertise in. It follows from common sense. Now my common sense had been tweaked and improved through years of working in heavily sceptical fields so when I see an obvious flaw in a hypothesis I point it out.
If someone questions my credentials to do that then explaining that I work in science and engineering goes a long way to show I'm not making stuff up and that I may have seen this kind of thing before.
The main issue though with climate science, the elephant in the room, is not the infancy of the field. It's that any result is used as fact and that this is in turn used to drive policy. Energy policies, food policies, tax policies have all been subject to the ideas coming from climate science all predicated on it being correct. We also have a whole subculture of memes like 97% and 2 degrees of warming. We teach kids in school about the greenhouse effect and Fossil fuel burning.
As the saying goes, nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come.
Doesn't really matter if the idea has flaws.
Micky H Corbett
Also
With reference to Pierre he's saying that because all the elements have been tested in a lab than when you put them together we can predict what's happening. Yet they have trouble getting a complete understanding of clouds? How complete? You only need to be 4 to 6 W / m2 out and it negates any CO2 effect. Not to mention changes in albedo.
The man in projecting if he thinks multi body systems are a sum of their parts.
Micky H Corbett
EM, forgot to add that you can check out WattsUpWithThat for up-to-date info on Hansen, plus more background on his unreliability. Fortunately for him, he has obviously provided information to keep the current US President happy.