EM. But you don't know (and the experiments could be done).

Ravishing Rattie. What a compliment (surely not intended?). But Feynman and I have probably both studied how science should be done, so it's not surprising we would argue similarly. However, Feynman has added considerably with original work and essays on the subject, whereas my only accomplishment is irritating you.

Radical Rodent & ACK the search for the North West Passage by Franklin et al, was carried out because they knew/believed it existed. Columbus "found America" on the sames basis, even if his basic maths was out by a big factor, having thought he had found a Westerley route to the Indies.

Alchemists believed they could find a way to convert base metals to gold. It sounds logical to presume it could be done, but now we know it can't be done with our current understanding of science.

Climate Science represents the biggest set of presumptions ever made, based on circumstantial evidence, without ever having tested the theory.

ACK

Right enough. If there are other unknown factors the experiment wouldn't work.. Here is an excellent opportunity for the sceptics to prove their case.

Perhaps the Koch brothers could finance the balloons and Donald Trump finance NASA to do the launch.

Golf Charlie

Franklin knew that a sea passage existed. Most of it had already been explored by 1845. Franklin had even visited King William Island (where HMS Terror has recently been found) with an overland expedition twenty years before he tried to sail there.

The problem was to sail through it without getting stuck.

EM.
But if other climate alarmists think like you, the experiments would not be sponsored because "we already know the answers (the science is settled)" and why risk it if there's "the slightest chance we might be proven wrong"?.
Trumpistas, on the other hand, would not waste money proving its all a Chinese hoax.

I think the climate change Catch 22 is now in full operation.

EM 4:41 interesting. Thank you for acknowledging that the NWP may have been open before.

Presumably Climate Scientists thought the evidence would soon be found, so that Global Warming Theory would "sail through" into widespread acceptance, except it has "got stuck".

Golf Charlie

EM 4:41 interesting. Thank you for acknowledging that the NWP may have been open before.

Where did you get that from?

A sea passage is a route which can be traversed without having to cross land. If conditions are warm enough, it is open water and you traverse it by ship. If it is cold enough to freeze, you traverse it by sledge.

Whether you do it by boat or sledge does not change its existance. You must do something about your tendency to read what you want to hear, rather than what I say.

In 1845 there was not enough open water to make the passage by ship. In 1904 Amundsen found enough intermittent open water to make the trip in three years.

Nowadays cruise liners and yachts make the passage in a few weeks through open water. Nobody has done that before in recorded history.

ACK

Perhaps you are afraid to do the experiment because you, the Koch brothers and Donald Trump know, deep down, that it would disprove your hypothesis?

The Koch brothers have been bitten once already. The sponsored the BEST group, expecting to find that the warming seen in the temperature data was false. BEST came out just like the other datasets. It even falsified the sceptics'beloved pause.

I would understand if they were unwilling to be shown wrong a second time.

EM 6:14 You still can't accept the North West Passage was open before, but you are prepared to acknowledge that it's route was sufficiently obvious to be traced on foot.

EM 6:22 How many of those who contributed to BEST, also contributed to, or were referenced by either of Gergis' papers?

Golf charlie

Easily proved. A link to the log of a voyage from Atlantic to Pacific(or vica versa) before 1904 would suffice if you can show adequate provenance.

Since you are the one claiming that the NWP was navigable before Amundsen the onus of proof is on you. Surely you would not expect me to prove a negative?

EM: "BEST came out just like the other datasets. It even falsified the sceptics'beloved pause."

This is on NASA's website today: "A new multi-institutional study of the temporary slowdown in the global average surface temperature warming trend observed between 1998 and 2013 concludes the phenomenon represented a redistribution of energy within the Earth system, with Earth’s ocean absorbing the extra heat. The phenomenon was referred to by some as the “global warming hiatus.” Global average surface temperature, measured by satellites and direct observations, is considered a key indicator of climate change.

In a paper published today in Earth’s Future, a journal of the American Geophysical Union, lead author Xiao-Hai Yan of the University of Delaware, Newark, along with scientists from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California, and several other institutions, discuss new understanding of the phenomenon. The paper grew out of a special U.S. Climate Variability and Predictability Program (CLIVAR) panel session at the 2015 American Geophysical Union fall meeting.

“The hiatus period gives scientists an opportunity to understand uncertainties in how climate systems are measured, as well as to fill in the gap in what scientists know,” said Yan."

Is a hiatus period a pause? Sounds like it to me.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/study-sheds-new-insights-into-global-warming-trends

EM. What rubbish is this?
"ACK. Perhaps you are afraid to do the experiment".
Even if I was in a position to conduct the experiments in space (unlikely now - age and heart condition), why do you assume (wrongly) that I would avoid the truth? Rather insulting actually.

Nov 28, 2016 at 7:29 PM | Entropic man

I have as much evidence of the NWP being navigated prior to 1904, as you have of scientific evidence and documented debate concluding that man made CO2 was proved and agreed to be the cause of global warming.

Prior to 1904, there is circumstantial evidence that points at manned crossings of the NWP, which may have been totally afloat, not necessarily in one season.

What is the extent of the proven evidence that led to the UN creating the IPCC?

How long do you think the experiments need to run for? Could you achieve meaningful results in minutes? If so then the "Vomit Comet" awaits the intrepid experimenter?

ACK

How long?

Probably depends on the scale. In the laboratory my version of the two jar experiment (black painted rods in demijohns)
took about three hours to reach a steady state.

Balloons in orbit have provenance. The Echo satellite was a balloon 30 M across. If my balloons were the same size, perhaps 24 hours in a polar orbit to give continuous sunlight would be enough.

Golf Charlie

Plenty of evidence for the CO2 greenhouse effect. The USAF did a LOT of lab work on the behaviour of CO2 radiative physics while developing IR homing anti-aircraft missiles.

The same physics predicts the energy imbalance, the outgoing longwave radiation(OLR) spectrum and the downwelling radiation spectrum. It also predicts the expected relationship between increasing CO2 and increasing temperature.

Those predictions match the observations. If this is not sufficient, perhaps you can suggest further experimental tests.

Are you not a Trumpets?

EM, what experiments did USAF or anyone else do that proved man made CO2 causes global warming?

I think your response confirms that there never was any evidence, or proof, or open discussion, or debate.

What is or is not a Trumpets? Is it some new slang invented by global wamists with nothing better to do?

Mark Hodgson

Depends on how you define the term.

Having read the papers you will know that the scientists though in terms of a temporary slowdown in the rate of warming due mainly to an increase in albedo. That has now returned to the long term trend.

Incidentally, the graph showsGISTEMP, the long term trend from 1970 with confidence limits and the trend since 1998 with confidence limits. The two trend lines are almost identical. If there was a pause, it has blended back into the longer term trend.

I hope you are not one of those for whom "pause" is semantically equivalent to "global warming has stopped". The evidence does not support that interpretation.

Brace yourselves, the Pause returns, accompanied by furious Denial by Climate Scientists.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/28/steepest-drop-in-global-temperature-on-record/

Obviously there are a few months left for excuses from NASA.

Golf Charlie

That was supposed to be Trumpista , and addressed to ACK.

An IR homing anti-aircraft missiles homes on the hot exhaust of a jet engine. The brightest emission is the 15 micrometre emission from hot CO2, so the USAF redid the studies on the absorption and emission spectra of CO2 from the 1800s and conducted extensive work on how 15 micrometre radiation propagated through the atmosphere.

They were also interested in tracking the hot exhaust plumes of Russian ballistic missiles using satellites, so they studied how that radiation left the atmosphere.

The data is now declassified and available on the HITRAN database if you would care to register.

You spend a lot of time decrying the evidence for the CO2 greenhouse effect. In practice a lot of work has been done in the laboratory and in the field. If you feel that the evidence is still not up to your high standards, perhaps you could suggest suitable experimental tests.

Just read your 1231 post. Do you still take that silly man seriously? Of course we are seeing a rapid short term drop in temperature. We are just coming out of the warmest El Nino on record.

Since you thought it worth mentioning, may I also assume that noone has explained to you the difference between short-term variation and long term trend. By cherrypicking the right start and end points you can pretend that the temperature is falling (or rising) rapidly, but it has no longer term significance. Did he actually say "Temperatures fell rapidly that day, therefore global warming has stopped"?. Perhaps he let you infer it?

Goodnight.

EM, so there was no evidence to have a meeting about prior to determining that man made CO2 caused Global Warming.

Why is it up to me to prove CO2 (man made) causes Global Warming? I have never claimed to be a climate scientist. I have admitted to being a country bumpkin, and I haven't noticed it getting any warmer.

I have admitted to noticing it not getting as cold, however BBC News Monday night is forecasting temps down to -8C, over the next few nights in the South. I expect that might be on the South Downs, and/or possibly RAF Benson in Oxfordshire, or RAF Brize Norton.

I do understand the difference between short, medium and longer term trends. That is why I ask about Climate Science and the understanding of history, archaeology, religion, geology etc. Obviously Mann knew nothing, when he fabricated his Hockey Stick, otherwise he would not have flattened out past temperatures, including the LIA and MWP, plus weird inconsistencies like the warming that led to the Franklin Expedition, or the early 1970s scare about Global Cooling.

Who is the "silly little man" that you don't take seriously? If not pointing out that we are coming out of the "warmest el Nino on record" is silly, then is it not blatant abuse of scientific honesty and trust not to have pointed out before that record temperatures were due to a record el Nino, rather than claim it was due to Global Warming?

It is no longer good enough for Climate Science to demand proof that it is wrong. But Climate Science can argue that with Myron Ebell, who may want proof of what Climate Science got right.

EM: "I hope you are not one of those for whom "pause" is semantically equivalent to "global warming has stopped". "

No, I'm not. You may recall I've never denied that the climate is changing or that the earth is warming - as one would expect on moving out of the Little Ice Age. Rather, I point out that in a period of increasing CO2 emissions, if the AGW scare theory was correct, one would not have expected there to be such a long pause or hiatus. That's all. Oh yes, that and disliking the attempt by some people to pretend that the pause didn't happen. I hope you're not one of those. ;-)