RR- I posted two demolitions of Jaworowski’s arguments including one from Hans Oeschgler. Why reinvent the wheel when an expert wheelwright is on hand?

J chose to publish in the magazine of the Lyndon Larouche Organisation, you might want to do a bit of background reading and polish up that scepticism.

Radical Rodent, you could also read up on Gergis 2016, see where that was published, and who thought it was good.

More wheelwrights are required in Climate Science, to keep recycling the same broken arguments. They still fall over, having never gone anywhere.

Phil Clarke:

"Of course I am not paid."

Thank you. Good enough for me.

PC. Always willing to learn something new. Do you have links to your "demolitions"? Would also wish to learn how much ice core you have collected and studied. Do you dispute his heavy metal.data as well?

Radical Rodent, the evidence was eaten by a polar bear, that wasn't there, whilst drowning in the ice free arctic ocean, that wasn't there, caused by the heat wave, that wasn't there.

Climate science is still looking for evidence to substantiate the Hockey Stick, apparently it is all there, in Gergis 2016.

Radical Rodent, the late Hans Oeschger, quoted by Phil Clarke, was highly respected in Climate Science. His credibility is enshrined for ever:

Michael Mann awarded the Hans Oeschger Medal of the European Geosciences Union

"Congratulations to Dr. Michael Mann, Professor of Meteorology and Director of the Earth System Science Center, who has been awarded the Hans Oeschger Medal of the European Geosciences Union.  The medal was established in recognition of the scientific achievements of Hans Oeschger to honor outstanding scientists whose work is related to Climate:  Past, Present, & Future. 

Dr. Mann will be awarded the Hans Oeschger Medal at the General Assembly of the Union to be held during April 22-27, 2012 in Vienna, Austria, where he will also present a "Medal Lecture" to the scientific community."

For more information about Hans Oeschger and the medal, including past recipients, please visit:  http://www.egu.eu/awards-medals/awards-and-medals/award/hans-oeschger.html

Press release from Penn State Live:  http://live.psu.edu/story/56383

Does anyone know what Michael Mann did to deserve such an honour, as back then he was widely recognised in Climate Science with a Nobel Prize (it says so in the link)

Always willing to learn something new. Do you have links to your "demolitions"? 

Already provided. But here we go again…

Click 1

Excerpt:

Jaworowski describes the clathrate transformation in a fundamentally misleading way. With increasing depth and pressure, the air bubbles trapped in the ice are steadily compressed. Clathrates appear at depths of several hundred meters (700 - 1300m for GRIP), and coexist with air bubbles over a wide range of depths, until all air bubbles disappear (Shoji and Langway (1983) reported that “air bubbles disappeared completely between 1500 and 1600m”). Upon decompression, the clathrate crystals revert to gas, with the bubbles expanding as the ice relaxes. These physical processes, as well as the fractionation Jaworowski describes, have been extensively studied, and are routinely taken into account (for example, byIndermuhle) in reconstructing atmospheric records from ice cores. The reality is nothing like a mysterious and uncontrollable process of bubbles disappearing only to return as “microscopic grenades.”

And from Professor Hans Oeshgler, by any measure, a scientific collosus, in a letter to ESPR:-


Now to the paper of JAWOROWSKI: For years he emphasizes only the difficulties of these studies, formulates the underlying assumptions which sometimcs are only partly fulfilled and criticizes the work performed hitherto in an unscrupulous manner. He does this without any appreciation for the development of expertise in this field over several decades. Thus he extrapolates from contamination problems in improvised pioneering experiments in the late sixties to more recent (1992) similar experiments on the Greenland ice cap for which special equipment was developed. Some of his statements are drastically wrong from the physical point of view, e.g. the statement that CO2 at 70 m depth in the ice begins to change into solid clathrates. Another example concerns the gas-occlusion process in firn and young ice. This process has been studied in detail theoretically and experimentally. The theory of diffusion of gases in firn and the occlusion at the firn-ice transition has been confirmed impressively by the detection of a gravitational enrichment of the heavier gases and of the heavier isotopes of a gas. This enrichment depends, in the first instance, on the depth of the firn-ice transition. It enables the reconstruction of the history of gas enclosure depth during the last glacial-interglacial cycle. But JAWOROWSKI maintains that the age of the ice and that of the occluded gases are the same and shifts the CO2 increase revealed from studies of the SIPLE core (Fig. 5 a) - which in the uppermost part overlaps convincingly with the atmospheric measurements by ca. 100 years back in time (assuming identical ages for the ice and the gases in the ice).

Click 2

One also wonders why Jaworowski chose to publish his science not in the conventional journals but in the organ of Lyndon Larouche. Just for background, Larouche in 1989 received a 15-year sentence for conspiracy, mail fraud and tax code violations. He has claimed that the British royal family is running an international drugs syndicate, that Henry Kissinger is a communist agent,,that the British government is controlled by Jewish bankers, and that modern science is a conspiracy against human potential. Hey ho.

Maybe Jaworowski's ideas are so correct and threatening to establishment science that nobody else but the brave Larouche is willing to promote them. Or maybe he's just a nutter.

You decide.

Mark Hodgson 7:14

Bill Clinton 1998 “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky.” She was good enough for Bill, and it left Hillary feeling satisfied.

Phil Clarke, one also wonders how Rajendra Pachauri came to lead the IPCC for so long having made so many political errors in the science as well as his personal life.

You like smear tactics when you have run out of science, but that appears to be standard practice in climate science

golf charlie

I do agree that playing the man, not the ball, is not on, but it is a standard tactic in climate alarmism. However, any attacks on their men are always vigorously defended and met with outrage.

Mark Hodgson, I entirely agree! Unfortunately Climate Science has never really played by any normal rules of engagement.

"American Football" does allow playing the man without the ball, whereas Rugby Union does not. Through TV crime dramas, UK residents are learning about Law, and their rights. However what is acceptable or unacceptable in US crime dramas, is not necessarily applicable in the UK.

If Phil Clarke wants to play using smear by association, especially because he has run out of any valid science, he is welcome to carry on behaving in the same way he always has, using scripts prepared by others, as they always have, because they have run out of science.

As Climate Science has now been dragged into the US Presidential race, Phil Clarke can learn some more dodgy tricks from highly paid professional mudslingers.

Was that intentional irony?

Phil Clarke, no it is a credit to your hypocrisy, reinforced with coppery bottomy brassy cheekery.

Do you want to return to failed attempts at rewriting history and climate records, as it seems to be your specialist subject?

http://www.thegwpf.com/climate-exaggeration-is-ruining-science/

The Climate Science Timeline that has ruined science.

Alternatively........

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/29/earths-obliquity-and-temperature-over-the-last-20000-years/

http://www.monbiot.com/2016/09/28/what-lies-beneath/

Phil Clarke, when George Monbiot has to rely on New Maths from Bill McKibben, it is safe to say that the fat lady of the Climate Science Operatic Party is warming up her lungs to sing the Grand Finale, before the Hockey Stick gets flung from the battlements.

Neither Clinton nor Trump are from the top drawer of US Presidential candidates. The advantage of Trump, is that US Taxpayer Climate Science funding will stop immediately, and the rest of the world will follow very shortly. The EU will cling on, but that may trigger the EU's early collapse, with further revolts in Northern Europe from the Taxpayers who pay for it all.

Meanwhile, the climate will continue to change, as it always has, with unemployable Climate Scientists still no closer to working out why, because they never questioned their first politically convenient assumption.

ad hominem, ad infinitum, ad nauseum ....

There's something wonderfully incoherent about climate alarmism. Nothing much is happening, it may, or may not - who knows as the science is infested with activist scientists controlling the temperature records - be warming. But nothing, other than a blooming of plant life on earth, is happening. Confounded by the good news the clisci community immediately go into overload telling us that CO2 will not be beneficial for plant life in the future. Everything is bad, but not quite happening, so they make it up, they produce hockeystick graphs galore to prove it's warming more than ever, for what purpose? We know Mann didn't centre the whole of his series just the bit that would make the PCs with biggest change dominant in his results. But in alarmist world up is down and down is up, or up is up and down is down, or any combination of events prove global warming is here and is dangerous.

I used to try to engage with he cliscis, but they've kinda cut me off, we've run out of things to say I guess as they believed the reason i was sceptical about the problems arising from a warming planet was because I didn't understand what they were telling me and if the could only communicate better I would. While I do understand what they''re saying, they're saying they can foretell the future state of a coupled non-linear chaotic system and I don't believe they can.

Don't get me wrong they're decent enough coves and covesses, firmly in the virtue signalling camp of course, want to save the NHS, remain in Europe, think we should give Jeremy a chance? see concern with immigration as slightly racist, like big government -well big government grants, live comfortable middle class lives traveling the globe to conferences and the like, and mucho concerned that there will be disasters in the future because their models say so - as though the models were in anyway independent of their creators.

Meanwhile there is no evidence that can't justify global warming, and without exception the scientific societies - i don't expect individual scientists to do this - make no comment on this sort of nonsense. (BTW I think Monbiot is right, at least from what I understand, what's surprising is he'd been writing about global warming for ten years before, and the obvious hadn't occurred to him)

The RS recently had a campaign telling us that science was a global activity with all races and creeds taking part - who knew?

Now you see it.

Now you don't.

Phil

I followed your link to the Monbiot article. Oh dear. There's no reasoning with that level of dogma.

By the way, I think it's fair to say that you started the ad homs on this thread, not that I approve of them either way.

You could always ignore the dogma, and point out the flaws in his facts, logic or conclusions.

Or maybe not.

Geronimo, anyone turning to the opinion pages of the Independent for good science journalism was always going to be disappointed. None of the primary sources (IPCC, the literature) ever predicted the imminent demise of winter UK snowfall.

PC. You wrote "You could always ignore the dogma, and point out the flaws in his facts, logic or conclusions".

Perhaps you might care to justify Monbiot's final statement

"Perhaps she [May] meant that she doesn’t intend to do anything except sign a piece of paper. Has she even considered the implications of this choice? I doubt it; after all, it’s only the future of life on Earth at stake".

What evidence exists to substantiate this apocalyptic nonsense?

PC. The primary source for the lack of snow prediction was a certain Dr David Viner who at that time worked within CRU.
Neither he nor CRU have ever retracted the prediction.