I am very worried by the report of a heavy handed police raid on Tallbloke, a blogger in Norfolk. According to this account, he was raided due to a link to leaked documents posted in a comments thread. We have become far too blase about the rapid erosion of civil liberties in this country. Norfolk is not devoid of serious crimes which these six detectives should be better employed in investigating.
I had not heard of Tallbloke and know nothing beyond the report to which I have linked. His blog discusses climate change at scientific levels well above my understanding, but scarcely seems a subject for the police. I do not share Tallboy’s views – in particular, I think man-made climate change is a fact we are not tackling with nearly sufficient seriousness. But whether or not I agree is irrelevant. What is important is the free speech issue. It is astonishing our media are criticising government handling of protest in Russia, when we have police raidng dissident bloggers in Norfolk which goes unnoticed.
Craig, my vegan banana, rum and walnut cake (just gone in the oven) will settle any stomach.
.
Unfortunately I will be driving it down tomorrow morning (with the apple, cinnamon and walnut one) to Margate… 😉
“The problems of determining cause and effect in climate change are extremely complex. The change in the composition of the atmosphere caused by man’s combustion and other activities seems to me an obvious fact, and credible as a factor.”
.
Many sceptics don’t disbelieve man-made climate change, but the strong assertions about the extent to which the climate change is man-made, and about the mechanisms through which climate change happens.
.
Ten years ago, I realised that there is a very significant degree of AGW. Recently, I looked at the issues again, and backed off from my previous belief. The catalyst was the only book about the IPCC not authored by its ex-chairman.
“Now that six policemen from the Norfolk and Metropolitan forces have invaded the home and “borrowed” the computers of “Tallbloke”, the first blogger in the UK to reveal the existence of the 5000 Climategate 2.0 emails, you may ask why the British police seem so much more interested in tracking down and punishing the whistle-blower/“thief” than in dealing with the many crimes by crooked IPCC “scientists” that the emails expose…”
.
“…I have begun drafting a memorandum for the prosecuting authorities, together with all evidence necessary to establish not only the existence of numerous specific instances of scientific or economic fraud in relation to the official “global warming” storyline but also the connections between these instances, and the overall scheme of deception that the individual artifices appear calculated to reinforce. In each instance, the perpetrators of the fraud will be named and their roles described.”
.
“Once the report has been completed, it will be reviewed carefully by experienced criminal lawyers in each of the national jurisdictions in which the perpetrators reside. The report will then be submitted to the prosecuting authorities in each jurisdiction, with a complaint lodged by lawyers acting for citizens of that jurisdiction against perpetrators there. No complaints can be lodged against the IPCC or the UNFCCC, for they are beyond any national jurisdiction. However, individual “scientists” can be brought to book in the countries where they normally reside…”
.
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/14156/Fmr-Thatcher-advisor-Lord-Monckton-to-pursue-fraud-charges-against-Climategate-scientists–Will-present-to-police-the-case-for-numerous-specific-instances-of-scientific-or-economic-fraud
.
I for one will be furnishing information, as requested by Christopher Monckton and his legal team.
.
Unlike Glenn, I do have the wherewithall to understand the physics and the statistical techniques misapplied by the climate scientists and their cohort of activist contributors to the IPCC Assessment Reports. It will be my pleasure to assist in restoring the good name of scientific enquiry.
Scouse Billy
.
I have read enough of your posts to be able to presume that your heart is in the right place but also enough to know that you are scientifically semi-literate at best. One of the definitions of a lie in my dictionary is ‘A statement intended to give a misleading impression’ (this would apply whether the statement was ‘true’ or not) I think that you should know that many of your talking points are, according to the definition, lies. I am not accusing you of manufacturing those lies but of unwittingly repeating them.
.
Example 1. ‘Co2 levels were much higher in the Earths distant past but temperatures were lower’
.
This is ‘true’ but isn’t it strange that it is never mentioned that the output of the Sun was considerably lower in the Earths distant past. All main sequence stars gradually increase in output as they age. The output of the Sun has grown by something like 30% since the earth was formed. The liar and fraud Ian Plimer is fond of using the Ordovician-Silurian glaciation as an example but somehow neglects to mention the basic piece of astrophysics which explains it (ignorance or dishonesty Billy, whats your guess?)
.
Example 2 ‘At the end of the last ice age Co2 levels rose after the world started warming’
.
Also true but still a lie according to the definition. It is presented as a fact which calls into question the whole basis of AGW, in reality it is a simple consequence of very basic science. The solubility of (water soluble) gases in water decreases with increasing temperatures. Since the warmer oceans are less able to contain Co2, then more of it will accumulate in the atmosphere. This is not advanced stuff and could be easily inferred by (say) GCSE students, people who watch wildlife documentaries or just people who keep tropical fish (ever wonder why they need all the extra oxygenation)
.
Please note also the strawman argument to the effect that somehow Co2 must be implicated as the cause of ALL climate change or not at all. In fact, absent a marked change in the total amount of Co2 in the system, it is an unlikely cause of climate change, although it will amplify already occurring climate changes.
.
If you would like to give me some more talking points (lies) to demolish please feel free (not too many, I have a life)
.
It seems to me that an attempt has been made to get the politically aware and the environmentally aware at each others throats (divide and conquer) What a shame that so many people have fallen for it.
“I do not share Tallboy’s views – in particular, I think man-made climate change is a fact we are not tackling with nearly sufficient seriousness. ”
.
.
you’re wrong in your view.fact.
MarkU,
.
So you make an ever so carefully worded ad hominem accusation that I’m a well intentioned dimwit – while you are what, a demolisher of my points though, in my case, illustrated with citations, where appropriate?
.
Dear, oh dear.
.
You only have to follow the relationship of T with CO2 over geological time to see that CO2 follows T with a mean latency of ~800 years – which is explained by the outgassing of the oceans. Pretty basic stuff…
.
You haven’t answered Nic Lewis’ direct accusation of statistical fraud in AR4 – I am well versed in statistics.
.
Over to you, though I fear the learning curve regarding Bayesian priors will eat heavily into your busy and, oh so important life… 😉
Scouse Billy
.
The usual reaction of the pseudo-intellectual when caught out, is to leave a smokescreen of pretentious jargon intended to baffle casual observers, and then change the subject. I used no jargon whatsoever, I gave two specific, very commonly used examples as an illustration and no special knowledge was needed to verify my claims. If you are really in need of a citation for my claim that the solubility of gases decreases with increasing temperature then here you are :-
.
http://www.gcsescience.com/f13.htm
.
Yes, I deliberately chose a GCSE example!
.
I admit that the astronomical example is less likely to be common knowledge so :-
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_sequence (at the beginning of the paragraph headed ‘Luminosity-colour variation’)
.
Please note that I can back up my claims with any common or garden mainstream source, unlike those like yourself who need to use their own little set of ‘special’ literature (rather like the creationists)
.
So are you going to stick to plain English and try to make points honestly so that all can understand or will you keep up a barrage of pretentious jargon/bullshit. You could start by explaining in which way either of my two claims can be challenged.
CM said:
>
“I quite obviously understand that Tallboy [sic]believes man madw climate change is not a fact.”
>
But where’s your evidence. Where did Tallbloke say man made climate change is not a fact?
>
I don’t know of any one knowledgeable about climate science who says that. I am sure TallBloke does not. So who’s the fool?
>
Climategate is about the magnitude and direction of human effects (all of them) on the climate, and in particular whether claims of catastrophic warming have been based on fudged, faked or misrepresented data. We know that’s true of what Al Gore has said. The question is whether the scientists who support Gore’s position on the magnitude of the the threat of climate change are to be trusted.
>
That carbon dioxide absorbs infra-red radiation and can thus affect the climate has been known and accepted at least since Svante Arrhenius published his research on the subject in 1986. But that effect is rather small. The question then is whether there are positive feedbacks that amplify that effect. Positive feedbacks seem unlikely — otherwise we’d have been fried long ago, since both temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations have been higher than they are today. But scientists skeptical of alarmist claims are simply questioning alarmist claims, they’re not making definite assertions about the future.
“This calling your commenters “fools” is becoming rather a habit, Craig. Your comment would have been quite adequate without it.”
>
Actually CM’s comment was quite foolish or disingenuous, as it was based on the false premise that TallBloke denies the scientifically unquestioned premise that atmospheric carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation and thus affects climate.
>
Here’s a quote from TallBloke’s blog:
>
* In theory, additional carbon dioxide causes the temperature of the lower atmosphere to rise.
* As yet we have no strong empirical evidence to show that the observed rise is so caused
* Potentially important factors are not included in climate models because they haven’t been investigated sufficiently to develop algorithms to integrate them.
* Long term cycles are evident in the paleo data, but we don’t know what causes them.
(Source: http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/12/12/climategate-2-follow-the-money-to-see-who-calls-the-shots/)
Scouse Billy
Usually when a pseudo-intellectual has been fingered they tend to retire behind a smokescreen of pretentious jargon and then change the subject. I used no jargon whatsoever and expressed myself in fairly plain English, so that any normally intelligent, educated English speaker could understand. If you really need a citation for the fact that solubility of gases decreases with increasing temperature then you are (as I said) scientifically semi-literate at best.
.
http://www.gcsescience.com/f13.htm
.
Yes, It is GCSE science!
.
The astronomy citation, not likely to be common knowledge I admit:-
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_sequence (under the heading ‘luminosity-colour variation’ Also note that I understated the case)
.
Please note that I am able to back up my claims with any common or garden mainstream source, unlike yourself who needs to use a ‘special’ little set of literature, much like the creationists do.
.
Perhaps you could explain in plain English exactly how you latest posting is in any way a challenge to my two examples.
“A bad tummy today, to tell the truth.”
.
Ok Craig, but I’m watching you. 8)
.
“Actually CM’s comment was quite foolish or disingenuous, as it was based on the false premise that …”
.
I didn’t mean I necessarily agreed with him, Qark.
.
From Medialens:
“Climate Crisis – The Collapse In Corporate Media Coverage”
http://www.medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=657:climate-crisis-the-collapse-in-corporate-media-coverage&catid=24:alerts-2011&Itemid=68
Quark – “That carbon dioxide absorbs infra-red radiation and can thus affect the climate has been known and accepted at least since Svante Arrhenius published his research on the subject in 1986” Think you might mean 1896, never mind.
.
I ask you to imagine incident IR being absorbed then released back to space before reaching the surface. Of course, in reality it is released in all directions.
.
You might like this piece that I saved by apdavidson aka spartacus is free aka mydogsgotnonose:
.
“The treatment of the atmosphere containing greenhouse gases as a heat source is wrong in its basic concept. This is because those who first claimed this clearly do not understand radiative physics.
.
To calculate radiative interchange at equilibrium you need to factor in Kirchhoff’s law of Radiation which is that the absorptivity and emissivity of a body are equal in any IR quantum interval.
.
This is in recognition of the fact that any body which is above absolute zero will emit radiation according to the S-B equation. However, if you apply this to a gas with a temperature gradient driven by IR from a heat source, the ground, more energy is absorbed than is emitted whilst the gas is within the exponentially decaying IR flux from the ground
.
You prove this by measuring IR up and down was a function of height. A Dutch student did this recently [up a radio mast 800 feet high] and showed the difference signal is exponentially-decaying to zero…………..
.
In short, the air will emit radiation but it will also receive radiation. The difference between the two at any position will be a function of the temperature gradient that needs to be maintained. The radiation which is emitted up the temperature gradient is exactly offset by part of that going down the temperature gradient. If there is no temperature gradient the two are equal – this is called Prevost’s Theory of Exchanges.
.
In short to measure DWLWIR and to claim it comes from a heat source is total, physically-illiterate bunkum. If you treat it as a measure of the impedance to the IR flux from the Earth’s surface to space which is virtually instantaneous, then that’s better. However, you must realise that that impedance includes everything in the atmosphere over 360° such as clouds and aerosols because it’s caused by the optical scattering of the IR.
.
This is CO2/H2O absorbing a photon then because you have locally disturbed the density of states, to maintain local Thermodynamic Equilibrium [The Law of Equipartition of Energy] another already excited GHG molecule [c. 5% of the CO2 molecules at room temperature] will emit the same energy photon in a random direction. Thus there is no guaranteed thermalisation of the IR. So, forget about atmospheric hot spots [in reality a disturbance of the lapse rate]. Any heating will be of aerosols including water droplets in clouds which will in turn through evaporation will cause extra stored energy as latent heat.
.
The fact that you pick up the IR bands in the DWLWIR is simply because they are the ones that contribute to emissivity. In clouds it’s the carbonic acid and dissolved CO2 because the water droplets getter CO2.
.
To summarise, I have never been near climate science before but I do know a great deal about heat transfer. DWLWIR does not imply a source of energy from GHGs in air. That radiation is absorbed in empty IR band positions in the paired emitter(s) so as to maintain overall equilibrium and to keep emissivity = absorptivity for both emitter(s) and absorber. You work out the net rate of energy transfer by using two S-B terms and view factors. To use one is a fallacy and has to be stamped out as it’s phony science.”
.
Interesting eh?
“Interesting eh?”
>
I don’t think so.
>
If outgoing IR is absorbed by atmospheric CO2 it will warm the atmosphere. Since none of the heavyweight skeptics doubt this — Lindzen (MIT), Singer (US National Medal of Science winner), McIntyre, etc. why would I?
>
What you are talking about may make sense, but it does not detract from the basic presumed mechanism of climate warming which the so-called skeptics do not deny. The only question that remains hotly debated is whether there are positive (or negative) feedbacks. Since the models are highly unconvincing a major issue is the empirical evidence for warming, which is one of the things the skeptics are skeptical about, and for good reason.
>
Then basic strategy of the alarmists is to paint the skeptics as anti-Semitic Holocaust deniers — like whatsit above with his BS claim that Tallbloke is a Relativity Theory denier. CM is simply offering the lie direct, that Tallbloke denies that, all other things being equal, CO2 will cause (some) warming, which it will, but not necessarily an alarming amount of warming.
illy
Usually when a pseudo-intellectual has been fingered they tend to retire behind a smokescreen of pretentious jargon and then change the subject. I used no jargon whatsoever and expressed myself in fairly plain English, so that any normally intelligent, educated English speaker could understand. If you really need a citation for the fact that solubility of gases decreases with increasing temperature then you are (as I said) scientifically semi-literate at best.
.
http://www.gcsescience.com/f13.htm
.
Yes, It is GCSE science!
.
The astronomy citation, not likely to be common knowledge I admit:-
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_sequence (under the heading ‘luminosity-colour variation’ Also note that I understated the case)
.
Please note that I am able to back up my claims with any common or garden mainstream source, unlike yourself who needs to use a ‘special’ little set of literature, much like the creationists do.
.
Perhaps you could explain in plain English exactly how you latest posting is in any way a challenge to my two examples.
Why are my comments being blocked?
.
I responded to Scouse Billy’s reply to my earlier comment and all I get is a message:-
.
‘Duplicate comment detected; it looks as though you’ve already said that!’
.
This is despite my comments being non-identical, although similar, to my first attempt at the same comment which did not arrive.
.
Anyone?
Quark, you’ve missed out Ferenc Miskolczi ex-NASA physicist:
.
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Ferenc.pdf
.
McIntyre’s a statistician NOT a physicist btw – loved his work on the hockey stick and Mann’s statistical ineptitude 😉
.
In any case CO2 is a minor and all but spent GHG – H2O is far more important. see Jo Nova:
.
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/4-carbon-dioxide-is-already-absorbing-almost-all-it-can/
.
My view is that the role of clouds is far more important and CERN’s CLOUD experiments are looking really interesting.
.
Lindzen himself has always maintained that policy lead the “science”. CO2 as a culprit or worse “pollutant” (sic) to tax us to death was always the Malthusian agenda.
angrysoba – “By the way, I’m not sure if I understand why this guy’s house was raided … If he’s simply putting up leaked documents, then this sounds outrageous”
So far as I can make out, he wasn’t even doing that. The Guardian’s report says “Last month, Tattersall’s blog, as well as at least four other blogs popular with climate sceptics, received a comment from a user called “FOIA” providing a link to a Russian server hosting a compressed folder containing more than 5,000 emails exchanged between climate scientists”.
.
That seems to be the only hint of a reason, that I can make out. He ran a blog that had a comments section where someone posted something that the police were interested in.
.
Which would seem to be something to worry about.
Quark, You missed Ferenc Miskolczi:
.
Greenhouse heat transfer.
.
A market garden greenhouse is not warm because the glass cover is transparent for visible light, but opaque for infrared radiation [IR]. The greenhouse is warm because a closed roof does not let out the warm and humid air. A greenhouse with a roof that is IR transparent is only a little bit lower in temperature.
.
The standard theory, in contrast to this experience, teaches us that the earth surface radiates into space through the IR absorbing atmosphere, and therefore, if IR absorbing gases increase, the surface temperature increases. Cooling through radiation becomes more difficult.
.
FM’s theory, in agreement with this experience, teaches us instead that the heat transfer from the surface is by non-radiation processes: vertical & horizontal convection, water
evaporation, cloud formation, rain and snow. And FM teaches us more: Our atmosphere has, in the global and time-averaged mean value, a constant optical thickness, so, when more CO2 is injected, the atmosphere compensates this by increasing its water vapor content to regain the equilibrium.
.
The atmosphere makes itself just that optimal optical thickness that allows for the maximum heat transfer to space, by adjusting its IR absorbance.
Richard,
>
Tallbloke was one of three people to receive notification by email of where the Climategate 2.0 emails were to be found on the Web. The police are responding to a US Department of Justice request for evidence on who made the emails publicly available. So the implication is that the recipient of that email notification may have information on his computer identifying the source of the leak. But then what they’re really looking for may be something else. Evidence, for example, that Tallbloke is the leaker.
>
Billy,
>
Yes, I meant 1896.
>
I do understand how a greenhouse works and that greenhouse gases work differently.
>
You say the standard theory is that “if IR absorbing gases increase, the surface temperature increases.”
>
Is that so? I would have assumed that it increased the temperature of the atmosphere, which would, by radiative or convective processes, ultimately affect the surface temperature.
>
That’s quite naive, I admit and perhaps one needs to consider whether the absorbed energy is manifest as an increase in sensible or latent heat. Oh, I see one does, according to the process you are describing.
>
So the IR absorbed by the atmosphere is converted to latent heat through increased evaporation at the surface. So now you have more moisture in the air, which will absorb more outgoing IR, then Oh God, we have a runaway greenhouse and it’ll be as muggy in the Thames Valley on a summer’s day as on the surface of Venus.
>
Yeah, well, obviously I don’t quite get it, but it sounds interesting.
>
But, I think what the skeptics are saying is, let us assume no feedbacks or anything at all other than CO2 absorption of outgoing IR and you’ll get a temperature increase of about 1C for a doubling of CO2. Beyond that, they are saying, can be sure of very little, but if there are manifold complications we do not see the evidence for the conclusion that these complications will result in our doom. But of course we may be doomed. I don’t think any sensible skeptic doubts that there is an outside possibility of our imminent doom.
However, I suspect that Freeman Dyson is correct in arguing that if things get difficult we have means to engineer the climate at rather short notice and that littering the countryside with windmills that produce no energy just when you need it is a stupid way of paying David Cameron’s father-in-law a thousand quid a day out of the taxpayers pocket.
Quark, this is Dr. Ir. E. van Andel’s paper on Miskolczi’s theory. It’s a lot easier going than the original:
.
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Ferenc.pdf
Ah, but it’s not in a peer reviewed journal!
.
And it was presented at a meeting sponsored by the Heartland Institute.
.
What are you trying to do? Get me labelled a nutcase “denialist’? LOL.
.
If this fellow has a valid point he’ll have to convince the scientific community, and the support of any number of non-experts will be of no significance whatsoever, which is how it ought to be.
.
Here for what it’s worth — not much perhaps, is what it says at the Real Climate Wiki
.
It (Ferenc Miskolczi’s paper) is based on three fundamental errors: a. Kirchhoff’s Law, which is completely mis-stated. KL says that emissivity equals absorptivity. These are coefficients, which are used with other environment variables (temperature, incident radiation) to determine actual emittances and absorbances (total energy amounts). Dr Miskolczi simply assumes the emittances and absorbances can be equated. b. The Virial Theorem. People who know about this scratch their heads here, because it is a principle which can be important in stars, but applied to Earth just describes the hydrostatic balance of the atmosphere. Dr Miskolczi’s statement is totally mystifying – he says that because of some relation between energies, two fluxes must have a certain relation. No-one can work that out. c. A third equation, (7) in the paper and on this site. Dr Miskolczi has two equations which describe the result of applying conservation of energy to the Earth and the atmosphere, the two entities in his simple model. In the paper he introduced (7) as a third, but never said over what entity or region energy balance was being assessed. In an earlier version of this on-line “proof”, he sought to invoke conservation of momentum instead – a different principle, and very strange in the context. In this latest version, it sounds like it’s back to energy conservation, but eq (7) still makes no sense. (http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ferenc_Miskolczi)
.
I have no competence engage in a debate on those issues.
I do not agree with the ‘Climate Change’ concept, as I think it is being used to cover-up the real damage we are doing to our environment by pollution.
We will break the oceans long before we break the sky.
Is the plead “I’m only following orders, gov” still valid? It did work at one time in European history.
Quark, I was wondering where you got your info from.
.
With respect, realclimate is Michael Mann’s site, as in Mr Hockey Stick – it’s really not a healthy place 😉
.
Miskolczi had to leave NASA which you may be aware is also heavily invested in the radiative models.
.
Don’t get too strung up on peer review which as the climategate e-mails reveal was perverted by the “team” – Miskolczi is an excellent physicist and don’t forgot science usually advances through the “heretics” not the “followers”.
.
In the end, the models are based on the radiative premise with high sensitivity to CO2 – the real world data shows them to be wrong (GIGO) and Nic Lewis demonstrated how they tried to cover this up in AR4 by remodelling Forster and Gregory’s empirical data through the deliberate misapplication of Bayesian priors – adjusting the real world data to fir their models is a smoking gun IMO and a statistical fraud.
.
realclimate and scepticalscience are PR sites run by the team and don’t allow serious debate!
P.S. regarding wikipedia and matters climate – try googling William Connolley and you’ll see how wiki was infiltrated and perverted too!
Quark, I’ll sign off with the Conclusions and Recommendations of Dr van Andel (an expert peer, if you will) wrt to Miskolczi:
.
Conclusions
1 It is clear now, that radio sonde and satellite measurements do not support the standard theory of “Anthropogenic Global Warming”. The new theory of Miskolczi, based on those atmospheric profiles under very different circumstances, does support those empirical results. His theory contains no parameters that are “fitted” to historic climate trends and greenhouse gas concentration trends. The only thing that is different, is that other, more experimentally founded, boundary conditions are taken in solving the differential equations describing radiation equilibrium:
.
i. Infrared Radiation equilibrium between surface and atmosphere
ii. Partly infrared transparent atmosphere. The result indicates that the atmosphere chooses an optical thickness, by water vapor take-up or release, that ensures the maximum Outgoing Long wave Radiation globally for a cloudy atmosphere.
.
2 Measurements of the oscillating weather patterns in the tropical Pacific show indeed that the climate controls itself, by changes in the water content of the air, and so by changing cloud cover and cloud height.
.
3 Measurements of troposphere heating, predicted by the standard theory as a consequence of the greenhouse gas increase, in de period 1979-1999 contradict the standard theory by measuring a global cooling instead.
.
Recommendations
.
Establishing the right relation between greenhouse gas increase and climate change is so important, that we cannot allow ourselves to evade discussion about its physical foundation.
The Netherlands, having a reputation of four centuries of criticizing established opinions, should organize this discussion on an appropriate scientific level.
.
Dr. Ir. E. van Andel,
Fiwihex, Wierdensestraat 74, Almelo, May 2008,
Scouse Billy,
As a mindless follower of faith based climatology, that is in line with my deep hatred of all things human, I find your contentions absolutely useless, who needs sciences Mr Scientist.
,
I know global is warming because cows have been feeling not so well, and my gobiment says so, and they should both know how warm it has gotten.
,
Thank you and take your dogma somewhere else.
“With respect, realclimate is Michael Mann’s site, as in Mr Hockey Stick – it’s really not a healthy place”
>
LOL
>
Yeah, well I could see it wasn’t skeptic friendly.
>
But then the Heartland Institute is surely as biased the other way.
>
In matters technical I try to keep an open mind unless it’s in my own field of expertise.
>
Thus, if the experts agree sufficiently for something to pass peer review, then as Russell put it, “the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain”
>
and that when the experts disagree to such an extent that it will not pass peer-review, as in the case of Miskolczi’s work, then “no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert.”
>
Beyond that I am not prepared to go, although I don’t quite see how there can be additional evaporation at the surface without some warming. But then it gets complicated: where will the extra moisture go? High cloud? low cloud? In the tropics? in the temperate zone? How much radiation will it reflect upwards or downwards?
>
No wonder this climate question generates dispute!
>
But science progresses only through skepticism. So good luck to this fellow. But vindication will only come if he persuades the scientific community as a whole. Ultimately, he has to not only to publish in peer reviewed journals but to persuade the majority of scientists that his peer reviewed science is actually correct. And even then there will be skeptics.
Just out of interest, I passed this through the old author-counter, and here are the results:
.
Apple 18:01:16 # ./auth-count html-doc-source.rtf
Start count on html-doc-source.rtf
.
22 Scouse Billy
7 Qark
5 Mark Golding – Children of Iraq
5 Andy
4 glenn
4 angrysoba
4 Katabasis
3 Mary
2 nuid
2 craig
2 anno
2 MarkU
2 Lucy Skywalker
1 wendy
.
You felt the need to get on top of this one, eh Scouse-Billy? Referring to the questions I put to you in the earlier post, again – I didn’t receive a single response apart from your claim to be an expert who fully understands climate science, and a slur against myself on the same grounds.
.
I had no idea you were an authority on the matter – could you refer to some papers you’ve published? What is your expertise, that you can call the peer reviewed scientists who _have_ publications all liars and frauds?
.
What am I to believe – your bragging, denials and insults, or the vast consensus of qualified, peer-reviewed climate scientists? Hmm. Real dilemma that.
Glenn,
Of course you are quite correct. As George Monbiot put it:
When a non-scientist attempts to dispute the findings of an entire body of science, a good deal of humility and a great deal of research is required. Otherwise he puts himself in the position of the 9/11 truthers. Though they might know nothing about physics, structural engineering, ballistics or explosives, these people still feel qualified to assert that the experts in these fields are wrong, and that the Twin Towers were in fact brought down by controlled explosions.
A prominent progressive writer recently said the following of such amateur detectives.
“[They] proffer what they demurely call “disturbing questions”, though they disdain all answers but their own. They seize on coincidences and force them into sequences they deem to be logical and significant. Like mad Inquisitors, they pounce on imagined clues in documents and photos, torturing the data *- as the old joke goes about economists –till the data confess. Their treatment of eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence is whimsical. Apparent anomalies that seem to nourish their theories are brandished excitedly; testimony that undermines their theories–like witnesses of a large plane hitting the Pentagon — is contemptuously brushed aside.”
To sustain or to refute the arguments about the link between carbon dioxide emissions and global temperatures requires a detailed knowledge of the following issues. They are all complex matters. You have to spend a great deal of time, and you must have some expertise in and understanding of climate science, to be able confidently to comment on them:
1. The measurement record for carbon dioxide emissions.
2. The measurement record for carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere.
3. The possible biases in these records, and whether or not they have been recognised and allowed for by the standard climate models.
4. The possible smoothing effect of the lag between carbon emissions and averaged atmospheric concentrations.
5. Carbon concentrations in the Eocene.
6. Other factors affecting Eocene temperatures.
7. The current state of the Milankovitch cycle and its likely impact on temperatures, with and without the extra radiative forcing caused by the addition of anthropogenic CO2…..”