Discussion > Zombie blog - what's the point?
Second page, not bad for a zombie blog.
SandyS
golfCharlie. Would suggest using other meats - an easier method of producing salt beef?
ACK
SandyS. Not a zombie blog perhaps but, compared with others like Climate Etc, it is in desperate straights. I believe Stewgreen in particular repeatedly offers us climate and political topics currently in the news, some of which Bish might have posted upon. Unfortunately very few of these are taken up by us regulars. Perhaps resuscitation of this blog lies in our own hands for a while.
ACK
Curious to note that my little question seems to have stopped PC in his tracks. I suspect his team are beavering away, trying to get something – anything! – as a riposte, and facts be damned, allowing him to apply his particular skill of distortion to almost (but not quite) believability.
Radical Rodent
Cruel RR, playing with your prey, claws fully exposed.
ACK
Hansen, Mann, Trenberth, these are all powerful and obsessed men, and infamously wrong. They, and others, are the pillars of the pantheon of error. Phil Clarke only rates a dishonorable mention.
==============
kim
Mr K: I do prefer it when they fall on their own traps. Sometimes, though, they do need the occasional nudge.
Radical Rodent
As I have pointed out to others, I have no desire to “win” the argument; I merely want facts. If the facts are contrary to theory or governmental policy then it is important to raise this – or, indeed, to shout it from the rooftops!
So, let’s list a few facts:
There has been an observed warming over the last 200 hundred years;
There has been an observed increase in the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 200 hundred years;
There has been an increase in human consumption of “fossil” fuels over the last 200 hundred years;
It has been shown in laboratories that CO2 (and other gases) can absorb energy.
All facts that could lead to a conclusion, a conclusion that could be biased to one’s particular prejudices. However, these are not the only facts – there are others:
There has been no significant warming for nearly 2 decades;
There is no definitive link between rising temperatures and rising CO2;
There is no definitive link between human consumption of “fossil” fuels and rising CO2;
There has been no evidence to suggest that the energy-absorbing properties of certain gases have any effect on global temperatures;
None of the conclusions based upon first set of facts matches any of the observations since made;
There has been no evidence to support the “greenhouse effect” theory.
The only conclusion that can really be drawn from this is that more facts are required, to determine what, or if any, individual action or government policy might be required.
Radical Rodent
RR. Do believe there is ample evidence that the energy-absorbing properties of certain gases have substantial effects on global temperatures, especially dihydrogen mono-oxide, and probably ozone.
As you know negative results can always be explained away or "adjusted". If this isn't done, the the climate-energy-environment complex fails, but cannot be allowed to. This is why the administration and legal forces are increasingly being deployed against "deniers". Gosh, I'm turning Dorkish!
What's this MrK business?
ACK
The most obvious effect from dihydrogen monoxide is not when it is in gaseous form – clear skies lead to chilly nights; cloudy skies, less so. Thus, it is the “blanket” of cloud that traps the heat.
As for the “Satellites show that there is less heat being emitted than received” argument, I would counter that of course this is so; while there is life on this planet, it will ever be thus, as life continually absorbs energy. Where did the energy sequestered in fossil fuels come from? Did that process stop, or does it still continue, today?
“Mr K”? It was from a little pun I made (and everyone else missed completely – or completely ignored: whatever…) shortly after you and your friend, Mr D, made your presence known on this site. Perhaps I should drop it, if it attracts your flak.
Radical Rodent
RR. Don't agree. Main effect is to facilitate weather that cools the lower atmosphere and warms the stratosphere.
No flak but got used to minty.
ACK
Minty it is, then (and you have ignored my other little pun… that’s not fair!). Please read what I wrote: an observation, not a theory, nor even any attempt at an explanation, other than the visible presence of water has an observably different impact than its invisible (i.e. gaseous) presence. Clear skies tend to give chilly nights; cloudy skies do not. Other factors may be involved, but that is the next stage; after observation should follow measurement – a trickier stage, as you will need to determine quite what needs to be measured. Failure to recognise that is a serious flaw in climastrology.
Radical Rodent
RR. Sorry to disagree again, but the next stage is to make MORE observations, preferably with a infrared sensor, but you can use your hand. On cloudless nights you can sense that the side of your hand facing the ground feels warmer than the side facing the sky. On cloudy nights this difference is not perceptible. From this you can theorize that the ground emits heat (or infrared) and this is being lost to the sky. Clouds seemingly interfere with this transfer, or themselves are emitting heat. Now, with these observations and a plausible theory (or alternative explanations) we can start measuring. We know what we want to measure (heat flux) and can seek appropriate devices to make the measurements. Our theory makes predictions, the measurements offer support but not confirmation, but also supply quantitative information.
I don't understand what point you are getting at.
Puns should be ignored but sometimes when they are it might be for other reasons.
ACK
I may be wrong (as if that could be true – or even possible!) but isn’t a measurement just a closer observation, most usually made with the use of at least one instrument? Anyhoo…we seem to be agreeing with each other, so what are we arguing about?
A joke is ruined when it has to be explained: the pun was the use of flak in reference to your newly-adopted label. It would have been more obvious had there been two of you, a partnership with the same initials. Had I just used “fl” or “ak” (a half-pun, as it were), even I might have wondered what I was on about, on future reading.
Radical Rodent
RR. How insulting to think I didn't focus in on "flak" The correct pun on my initials, however, and which formed my nickname at school, is gunner.
You miss my point. You really do need to explore the system being examined and formulate a hypothesis that can be tested first. Otherwise how do you know what to measure, or how?
ACK
Perhaps we should go to GC to work out how to make a pun involving gunner in this… I certainly can’t.
Anyhooo… you appear to have missed my point, as that was precisely what I was saying. Just sayin’.
Radical Rodent
Anti aircraft guns were known as ack-ack artillery by the British. Perhaps it was that we were closer to the war back then.
ACK
stewgreen
In my experience the only people who cannot ever raise a smile at cartoons poking fun at them are religious fundamentalists.
Aug 26, 2016 at 2:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS
So that's why Josh won't link to this one :
http://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2016/07/death-in-ex-cathedra.html
Russell
So, let’s list a few facts:
There has been an observed warming over the last 200 hundred years;
Assuming you actually mean 200 years, we have reasonable observations since about 1880 AD. In that time the mean temperature at the surface has risen around 0.8C (HADCRUT4)
There has been an observed increase in the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 200 hundred (sic) years;
Well, yes. The ice core record indicates that CO2 is now 40% higher than the range it has been constrained in for the last 400K years, at least.
There has been an increase in human consumption of “fossil” fuels over the last 200 hundred years;
Undeniable.
It has been shown in laboratories that CO2 (and other gases) can absorb energy.
That is the simplest of simplifications, however the greenhouse effect is real.
All facts that could lead to a conclusion, a conclusion that could be biased to one’s particular prejudices. However, these are not the only facts – there are others:
There has been no significant warming for nearly 2 decades;
Sorry, but 'the pause' is dead, killed by El Nino. Global warming marches on.
There is no definitive link between rising temperatures and rising CO2;
Hmmm. A lot of work has been done on attribution, however nobody credible doubts that the enhanced greenhouse effect has produced a radiative imbalance. Objects that are accumulating energy tend to get warmer, unless the laws of thermodynamics have been suspended.
There is no definitive link between human consumption of “fossil” fuels and rising CO2;
There are two lines of evidence: we know within reasonable constraints how much coal, oil and gas has been burnt and how much CO2 that will liberate, again, unless you intend rewriting the textbooks, burning hydrocarbons must liberate CO2. In fact the increase in the atmosphere is less than the total emitted: the excess has gone into the oceans and biosphere. Secondly, the isotopic signature of 'fossil' CO2 differs from 'natural' CO2 so we know that the increase is anthropogenic.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0160412079900059
There has been no evidence to suggest that the energy-absorbing properties of certain gases have any effect on global temperatures;
Well, you could read the IPCC reports. Freely available online. Plenty of evidence there.
None of the conclusions based upon first set of facts matches any of the observations since made;
There has been no evidence to support the “greenhouse effect” theory.
Every academy of science on the planet and scientific organisation of standing disagrees with that assertion. Example: the US American Geophysical Union
Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat‐trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These observations show large‐scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers, snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with long‐ understood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.
Similar statements have been issued by the Royal Society, the US NAS, etc, etc, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Concurring
Who is a boy to believe? Is there really a global conspiracy involving all the National Academies?
http://sites.agu.org/sciencepolicy/files/2013/07/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-Statement_August-2013.pdf
Phil Clarke
“200 hundred years…” Yikes! That takes stupidly wrong into completely different regions! Thanks for pointing that out.
Sorry, but 'the pause' is dead, killed by El Nino.You do understand that el Niño usually gives a spike in temperatures, sometimes quite a significant one (see 1998), don’t you? If the warming is carrying on, good; let us get closer to the conditions of Holocene Optimum (there is probably a clue in that name…)
… enhanced greenhouse effect has produced a radiative imbalance.“enhanced greenhouse effect”? You are aware that greenhouse effect is not a proven theory, let alone its enhancement, I hope? While there is life on Earth, I would moot that the will always be “radiative imbalance” – where did the energy locked up in “fossil” fuels come from? Has that process stopped? Could it not be considered that life is constantly absorbing energy?
… unless you intend rewriting the textbooks, burning hydrocarbons must liberate CO2.Can you point us to where I said that does not happen? Please do not rewrite what I said into what you like to think I said. However, I should point out that the rise in CO2 has been more or less linear since it started to rise, about 200 years ago. The rise in fossil-fuel consumption has been exponential, with about 30% of it since the turn of this century; however, CO2 concentration continues to rise at about 2ppm/year. Murry Salby might argue with your final sentence in that paragraph, so I’ll let you take that up with him. There is also the point that this rise is proving to be a boon for life, and the planet is greening – absorbing energy in the process, thus increasing the “energy imbalance”. But don’t let such trivia put you off your beliefs…
Every academy of science on the planet and scientific organisation of standing disagrees with that assertion.Oooh! The appeal to authority. Every academy of science on the planet disagreed with Einstein, too. Guess who we now know was right. I shall make my own appeal to authority: “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” — Richard Feynman.
Is there really a global conspiracy involving all the National Academies?Probably not. But there is such a concept as Group Think, where a collective can all agree on completely false premises; it is especially probable when the funding of that collective depends upon the falsehood being perpetuated, after all, a wiser mind than mine has pointed out that no-one is less likely to see a truth than one who is paid not to see it (paraphrased – he did say it far more eloquently).
For further quotes, I am sure you would agree with this one: “We are burdensome to the world; the resources are scarcely adequate for us.” But, does the evidence back that statement, made by Tertullian in AD200?
Do you ever think for yourself, or do as you are told, all the time? “In every walk of life, independence of mind is punished by failure, more and more as economic organisations grow larger and more rigid. Is it surprising that many become increasingly docile, increasingly ready to submit to dictation and forgo the right to think for themselves?” ― Bertrand Russell
Never mind… take heart: “The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off.” — Gloria Steinem
Radical Rodent
Phil Clarke
>>burning hydrocarbons must liberate CO2.
>>>Can you point us to where I said that (burning hydrocarbons liberating CO2) does not happen?
Um, here:
There is no definitive link between human consumption of “fossil” fuels and rising CO2;
I think the money quote you have in mind is from Upton Sinclair, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it", also quoted by Nobel prize winner Al Gore in his Oscar-winning documentary, referring to paid pseudosceptics.
What do you think would be the reward for a researcher who comes up with the definitive falsification of AGW? Nobel, minimum and the eternal and no doubt lucrative gratitude of the fossil fuel industry (Exxon researched the issue in depth decades ago. Then they stopped).
And still we wait, and still it warms.
Phil Clarke
Radical Rodent
For observational evidence of the greenhouse effect visit sceptic Dr Roy Spencer's website.
Entropic man
They don't seem to learn. AGW is good, mild warming in net beneficial. We cannot warm the earth enough for our warming to become net detrimental. The Anthropogenic Global Greening is miraculous and presently feeding a billion extra people every day, and tomorrow.
It is the catastrophism that is detrimental, damaging us now and unto untold future generations. So stop.
===========
kim
Phil Clarke's response from Skeptical Skience written by Dana 1981 aka Nuccitelli....
With all the additional heat since 2009, also now hiding on the sea bed, who needs a pressure cooker? An oven ready turkey could be lowered to the ocean depths, and cooked in a trice. The skin won't be crispy, and the stuffing a bit soggy, but the meat shouldn't be too dry