Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Byway robbery - Josh 374 | Main | More stink - Josh 373 »
Friday
Apr292016

More climatologists for the Royal Society

The Royal Society has announced the latest cohort to be elevated to the fellowship. As always, the climatologists are prominent: with Ted Shepherd and Corinne Le Quere getting the nod. Adair Turner seems to have wheedled an honorary fellowship for himself as well. 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (175)

Why would anyone wanting to be taken seriously in science want to co-author with Lewandowsky and Cook?
May 1, 2016 at 1:42 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Exactly.

May 1, 2016 at 10:06 AM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

There is no valid climate science and no competent climate scientists ("they believe in AGW" proves that).

May 1, 2016 at 11:51 AM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Dale Huffman

I suggest that people check out this latest evidence of government and scientist skullduggery, very relevant to the discussions above:

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/04/30/how-corrupt-is-government-climate-science/

May 1, 2016 at 11:53 AM | Registered Commenterdennisa

Harry Dale Huffman.

Sorry to be so blunt, but what a rubbish statement.

It is inconceivable that human activities have not caused some warming, so almost everybody of sound mind supports the concept of AGW. The important questions are how much warming and will such warming be harmful. There are climate scientists who conduct climate science whose answers to those questions are "not much" and "no". You probably would get on fine with them, but would first have to swallow your inaccurate posting.

May 1, 2016 at 12:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

While the Cli Sci community embraces people like Stephan Lewandowsky I will consider them to be nothing more than Establishment shills, too thick to even know the agenda they are shilling for.

May 1, 2016 at 1:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterGoing Postal

In 2006, Professor Mike Hulme, founding director of the Tyndall Centre, gave a BBC interview in which he castigated politicians and government scientists for catastrophic treatment of climate issues:

VIEWPOINT By Mike Hulme, Director, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6115644.stm 4 November 2006

"First, the discourse of catastrophe is a campaigning device being mobilised in the context of failing UK and Kyoto Protocol targets to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide.

The signatories to this UN protocol will not deliver on their obligations. This bursting of the campaigning bubble requires a determined reaction to raise the stakes - the language of climate catastrophe nicely fits the bill.

Hence we now have the militancy of the Stop Climate Chaos activists and the megaphone journalism of the Independent newspaper, with supporting rhetoric from the prime minister and senior government scientists.

Second, the discourse of catastrophe is a political and rhetorical device to change the frame of reference for the emerging negotiations around what happens when the Kyoto Protocol runs out after 2012.

The Exeter conference of February 2005 on "Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change" served the government's purposes of softening-up the G8 Gleneagles summit through a frenzied week of "climate change is worse than we thought" news reporting and group-think. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4234467.stm

By stage-managing the new language of catastrophe, the conference itself became a tipping point in the way that climate change is discussed in public.

Third, the discourse of catastrophe allows some space for the retrenchment of science budgets. It is a short step from claiming these catastrophic risks have physical reality, saliency and are imminent, to implying that one more "big push" of funding will allow science to quantify them objectively.

The careless (or conspiratorial?) translation of concern about Saddam Hussein's putative military threat into the case for WMD has had major geopolitical repercussions.

We need to make sure the agents and agencies in our society which would seek to amplify climate change risks do not lead us down a similar counter-productive pathway."

He went on sabbatical soon after.

May 1, 2016 at 2:25 PM | Unregistered Commenterdennisa

Alan Kendall - Harry Dale Huffman

Alan, you need to check out HDH's web site to know where he is coming from with his statement. He would not get on fine with the not much's.

If I may say so, the "almost everyone of sound mind believes in AGW" statement is a bit Lewandowsky'ish. I believe I am of sound mind, but I am not almost everyone. It is perfectly conceivable that human activities (presume you mean energy use) have not caused some warming. Is it warmer than in 1880? I very much hope so. Are current temperatures abnormal? Define normal and who is the arbiter of "normal" for the earth. The anomaly approach is very arbitrary over a very short time span in geological terms and depending on your choice of base period, the temperature claims can be very different. CO2 and temperature have not been in "lockstep", so the theory fails.

Harry Huffman's website is here:

http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.co.uk/

Approach with an open mind.

May 1, 2016 at 2:47 PM | Registered Commenterdennisa

It is inconceivable that human activities have not caused some warming… [sic]
Beg to differ with you, there, Mr K.; while human activities might have had some influence on the global climate, that does not necessarily that they have made some contribution to warming. Consider that human activities continue to gather apace, yet global warming has effectively stalled. Should the global temperatures start to drop, will you then declare that it is “inconceivable that human activities have not caused some cooling”, especially when there has been effectively no change in the activities?

Mr Huffman is right when he alludes that for a scientist to declare that they “believe in AGW” has to make one question their scientific competence about the subject in question. They either know or don’t know; belief should not come into it.

May 1, 2016 at 3:16 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

To believe IPCC pseudoscience, a prerequisite for being elected as FRS, you must accept (1) that the surface - GHG molecules in air composite emitter, in contact with the planet's surface, behaves radiatively in the same way as two separated surfaces in vacuum radiative equilibrium, and (2) that the pyrgeometer measures a real IR energy flux, not radiant exitance.

Since neither is true, there is exactly zero surface IR emission in all self-absorbed GHG bands and CO2 CS is kept to near zero by the water cycle, being proved experimentally, the real AGW being from another cause! In Russia, under Stalin, it was a badge of honour not to be an Akademician. To be an FRS also bestows some, but not so much, shame.

May 1, 2016 at 5:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterNCC 1701E

RR and Dennissa. Sorry, I beg to differ. Increasng CO2 must have some warming effect, however small. But primarily I was referring to other human effects like changing the Earth's albedo by wholesale forest clearing, effects of large-scale irrigation, massive releases of methane from poorly maintained gas pipelines (mostly in Soviet Russia), and the like. On a smaller scale these effects are manifested in the heat island effect.

Human effects on the Earth are commonly underestimated. It has been calculated that human interactions are second only to rivers in causing geomorphological changes on the Earth's surface, and that such changes have markedly increased over time. These changes use energy that is eventually released as heat into the environment.

Perhaps I was presumptuous in attributing this view to all. However, I thought it was common knowledge. If someone presents me with evidence to the contrary, I will recant. I somehow doubt you can.

This is why I am always careful to differentiate between AGW and CAGW.

May 1, 2016 at 5:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

@Alan Kendall: to prove CO2 CS is positive you have to prove that the water cycle allows it to be positive. It may well be slightly negative because of biofeedback, which is rampant over all parts of the planet not covered in ice. Forget about the existing radiative theory - it's incredibly childish to make it understandable to people without the very deep physics' knowledge needed to advance beyond Max Planck's work, which does not apply.

May 1, 2016 at 5:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterNCC 1701E

Ahah. I see the problem now.

AGW means to me what it says on the tin.
Anthropogenic = human generated
Global = world wide
Warming = temperature increase

Thus anything humans do that tends to increase temperatures on a world wide basis = AGW. This doesn't preclude humans doing other things that cause cooling (AGC if you like) or natural effects that might offset any temperature changes we might be inducing.

Just by existing we cause some AGW.

AGW is common sense, CAGW is almost certainly tripe.

May 1, 2016 at 5:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Firstly, scientifically there is only AGW. CAGW is - IMO - a construct more commonly promoted by "skeptics" than anyone else. However, what do you mean by this


CAGW is almost certainly tripe.

May 1, 2016 at 5:46 PM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

As an aside....If anyone was wondering why the name LeQuere was vaguely familiar ...

Back in the Golden Age before the end of The Pause, Lord Monckton of Benchley would post, roughly monthly, a piece at We Use Wishful Thinking (WUWT) entitled 'No global warming since (insert period here). Sadly that series seems to have been discontinued, however it used to include a demonstration that the IPCC (1990) model prediction for global temperatures was a massive overestimate. Example.

Now in that report, the IPCC used four scenarios A-D, following 4 different evolutions of climate forcing. Scenario A was the most extreme as it included fast growth, no controls and intense coal use. The IPCC named it 'BAU', however thanks to a variety of factors, including a switch to gas, an overestimate of methane concentrations and lower than expected economic growth, the actual forcings evolved along a trajectory somewhere between Scenarios B&C, and the temperature projections for those scenarios were pretty close to the observations, but Scenario A was of course an overestimate.

You can probably guess what is coming next - yes His Lordship quietly erased Scenarios B, C and D and presented Scenario A as 'the' IPCC prediction. To justify this, he was keen on (mis-)citing Le Quere 2014 which shows carbon emissions for 2013 above the IPCC Scenario A number (he states 10.7 Gigatonnes C/yr, the paper states 9.9), clearly an honest mistake, but thus demonstrating that he does not understand the difference between emissions, total accumulated concentrations and the associated forcings.

So now you know.

May 1, 2016 at 5:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

ATTP - "CAGW is - IMO - a construct more commonly promoted by "skeptics" than anyone else."

I am puzzled at how you come to that conclusion.

I quoted Mike Hulme in an earlier comment, VIEWPOINT By Mike Hulme, Director, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6115644.stm 4 November 2006. This is from the BBC piece.

"The Exeter conference of February 2005 on "Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change" served the government's purposes of softening-up the G8 Gleneagles summit through a frenzied week of "climate change is worse than we thought" news reporting and group-think. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4234467.stm

By stage-managing the new language of catastrophe, the conference itself became a tipping point in the way that climate change is discussed in public."

In general, "skeptics" reject the "catastrophic, worst ever, hottest ever, end of life as we know it" presentation by some organisations and scientists of some new weather event.

May 1, 2016 at 6:05 PM | Registered Commenterdennisa

Has anyone ever proved that at least part of industrial age warming has NOT been natural?

Nope, and we are now entering a thee year La Niña with ocean temperatures already back to normal and deep cooling expected. Add to this the effects of a sunspot-less SC25, starting end 2018, and opinions might well change.

It is not certain that we'll get snow until mid-Mayl as was regularly the case in the 1880s, but the cold N. Atlantic, a dramatic switch in the past year, appears to have been responsible for our cold Spring. But it could be CO2-AGW!

May 1, 2016 at 6:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterNCC 1701E

dennisa,
Why are you puzzled? Just consider who mostly uses the term CAGW.

May 1, 2016 at 6:06 PM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

Alan Kendall mentioned that Le Quere is Canadian. So is Ted Shepherd.

He was formerly at University of Toronto. I met him at a dinner a few months after Climategate. He said that it wasn't affecting their grants, so he didn't see it as a problem.

May 1, 2016 at 6:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterSteve McIntyre

One of the more stupid debating tricks of the “skeptics” is to oscillate between Ha ha, you believe in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming which is obviously not happening so you’re very silly, and when told that CAGW is a strawman that they’ve invented they switch to if it isn’t catastrophic we’ve got nothing to worry about, have we?1

To which the answer is always some variant of if you can’t imagine anything between “catastrophic” and “nothing to worry about” then you’re not thinking. But I’ve got bored of saying it, so I thought I’d write it down and link to it instead.

William Connolley.

May 1, 2016 at 6:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke and ATTP

Hers a real master of catastrophe.....

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/01/james-hansen-gets-grilled-by-attorney-in-omaha-after-spewing-nonsense/

May 1, 2016 at 7:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterBryan

Apparently some in the climate science community are reluctant to engage with Climate Audit.

I cannot for the life of me understand why that would be.

May 1, 2016 at 7:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Bryan,

A 75 year old gave a 2 hour technical talk and lost his train of thought just three times? Very impressive.

May 1, 2016 at 8:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Anyone who has ever used the Precautionary Principle to justify policies on AGW is committed to the Catastrophic.

Otherwise we stick with the Cautionary Principle: Carry on doing the easiest and cheapest things while watching for any problems to react to.

If you aren't worried about 'terrible and irreversible' problems from emitting CO2 you have to support the quickest proven way to defeat poverty - the true crisis of today.

It's CAGW or support for coal fired power plants.

May 1, 2016 at 8:28 PM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

Phil Clarke, is We Use Wishful Thinking the same as and Then There's Pollocks?

I don't think Anthony Watts writes papers with Lewandowsky and Cook.

May 1, 2016 at 8:29 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

May 1, 2016 at 7:56 PM Phil Clarke

Apparently some in the climate science community are reluctant to engage with Climate Audit.

I cannot for the life of me understand why that would be.


Because debate exposes error and falsehood.

Climate Audit engages with all because they seek the truth.
Not everybody wants debate because debate exposes error and falsehood
They fear the truth.

May 1, 2016 at 8:31 PM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

Phil Clarke says: "Apparently some in the climate science community are reluctant to engage with Climate Audit. I cannot for the life of me understand why that would be."

To help you out here, some years ago, as you may recall, I pointed out that Mann's claims about the robustness and statistical significance of his Hockey Stick reconstruction were false, that his reconstruction depended on flawed proxies and that there was a gross error in his algorithm. That resulted in a fatwa from Mann and the larger community. Rob Wilson told me that he was severely criticized by Mann's defenders for any sort of engagement.

May 1, 2016 at 8:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterSteve McIntyre

Phil Clarke, is quoting anything by William Connelley just a celebration of his activities in rewriting Wikipedia? Obviously you share Green credentials and so approve of his tactics in blocking any opinion that does not meet your approval.

If you are regurgitating his doctrine, not just that of Skeptical Skiunce, is this your definition of being open minded?

May 1, 2016 at 9:04 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

To assist Guardian readers with Steve McIntyre's post, a fwaat, is more normally spelt as fatwa.

May 1, 2016 at 9:41 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Mr K.: and what, as some people are claiming, a cooling of the world becomes evident? As there has been no noticeable change in human activity, what will be the excuse for the lack of warming? Remember, CO2 was starting to be blamed for the cooling during the 1970s, until the warming became noticeable; could you, in all honesty, blame human activity for whichever direction the change in temperatures is heading at the time when you want to scare people?

aTTP: so the “tipping point” of temperature that the Paris summit assured us we are fast approaching is not a warning of catastrophe? Similarly, the urge by, for example, the POTUS, that we have to tackle climate change NOW is not implying that some threat is imminent if we do not? If you do not consider that sort of language warnings of catastrophe, you do live in a strange world.

May 1, 2016 at 9:51 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

GC:

I'm not sure many Grauniad readers come to this site, apart from the trolls, and most of them could not differentiate between a fwaat and a twat.

May 1, 2016 at 9:55 PM | Registered CommenterSalopian

“… however thanks to a variety of factors, including a switch to gas, an overestimate of methane concentrations and lower than expected economic growth, the actual forcings evolved along a trajectory somewhere between Scenarios B&C, and the temperature projections for those scenarios were pretty close to the observations, but Scenario A was of course an overestimate …” (Phil Clarke at 5:56 PM).
===========================================
But the forcing factors are so-called greenhouse gases increasing in the atmosphere mostly CO2 and the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration has not abated at all but increases on the same linear trajectory since at least ~1990.
As for Scenario A being “an overestimate”, who besides you says so?

May 1, 2016 at 10:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterChris Hanley

Salopian, there are some respected people who post here, who are Guardian readers, but they are able to differentiate between politics, and climate science.

Sadly, the Guardian believes that modern politics requires climate-science politics, and they are fearful of a climate change in politics. See USA Presidential election coverage for details.

Meanwhile, the climate continues to stick two fingers up, at climate scientists and their politicians.

Further to Alan Kendall's earlier post, and Radical Rodent's response, any validity in climate science was lost, when it was turned political, and the Guardian is playing an important role, though not necessarily to anyone's benefit, least of all, it's own.

May 1, 2016 at 11:10 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Phil Clarke, eyes filled with rosy glowings off the iconic stick
Fears not the dreadful creature, behind but coming quick.
=========================

May 2, 2016 at 1:52 AM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Denies it's a message of doom
Yet affirms Mann's slick hockey stick.
This sad dissonance from whom?
The dead bargain sickly with the quick.
==================

May 2, 2016 at 2:32 AM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Phil Clarke, one of the most boring and repetitive tricks of climate scientists is to spread alarm and dire warnings, about what is going to happen, and when it doesn't happen, deny it.

What is William M Connelley's current status at Wikipedia? Does he still hold the record for amendments/bannings/suppression of information? North Korea would pay handsomely for such skills. Perhaps they do already given their censoring and controlled output.

As a co-founder of surReal Climate with Mann and Schmidt, he must be worrying about future funding, and how climate science will survive if politicians decide to exercise some austerity.

May 2, 2016 at 3:05 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Alan Kendall,
Re belief in AGW
There is a well documented case of a movement like the global warming movement that happened in the USA. A group of activist scientists got together and declared that there would be an epidemic of cancers among people caused by increased use of synthetic chemicals.
One could have tagged them the "pro-Epidemic" group by analogy to the AGW group.
The great similarity to AGW of the cancer scare and the motivation and methods of those who gained from it are clear after you study "The Apocalyptics" by Edith Efron.
We know now that the fundamental dictate that cancers would increase was wrong. An enormous number of $$ was expended via government being conned, then government becoming an advocate, then government seeking to persecute scientists who disagreed.
Cancer scare as a concept was a natural for people to believe. And so is AGW as a concept.
Belief in a concept has no place in science. Science progresses through observation, measurement, etc as by the scientific method.
What did we learn from the false cancer scare? This couple of decades after it was defrocked, the main message I take away is the importance of hushing up mistakes and concentrating only on the con.
You and ATTP should study the book and emerge somewhat less wet behind the ears. Dispose of your evident beliefs and concentrate on data, eh?
Geoff

May 2, 2016 at 4:03 AM | Unregistered CommenterGeoff Sherrington

Dear all. PLEASE, before directing any more posts my way that oppose what you mistakenly perceive to be my views about AGW, kindly read and absorb what I wrote. (May 1 5:40pm). There you will find I said

1) human activities are causing warming and doing that on a global scale
2) human activities are causing cooling [also on a global scale], and
3) natural processes might* offset any changes we might induce.

What many of you have done is focus on (1) and totally ignore (2) and (3).

The concept of AGW has been taken over by the IPCC to mean that the majority of the warming is caused by humans. And that is a misappropriation of the concept. I do not believe we are causing the Earth to warm in anything other than a most minor way.

Earlier I mentioned human's effects in large urban settings, but even here I'm almost certainly incorrect because the urban heat island effect must be largely natural caused by our removal of moist surfaces so allowing direct heating of the area by the sun. Well designed cities have plenty of green spaces and bodies of water.

So please, please read what I write more carefully before you jump the gun.

*on second reading, possibly I should not have written "might"here, however, since no one knows if our activities are fully offset, without that word my sentence reads to strongly the other way.

May 2, 2016 at 6:31 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Geoff Sherrington. Your post is apt but for a different reason.

1) many chemicals are strongly carcinogenic. (Parallel: humans cause warming)
2) false fear that increased use of synthetic chemicals would cause cancers (parallel: false fear that humans are causing the Earth to warm)

In reality natural processes of dilution and dispersal make most uses of synthetic chemicals relatively safe. Parallel natural processes dominate human activities.

There is also a parallel with the urban heat island effect, if we prevent natural processes from being effective we get adverse effects (increased temperatures in one case, cancer clusters in the other).

The similarity eventually breaks down. I am very doubtful that humans can influence the overall temperature of the Earth but we can (and have done repeatedly) caused mass deaths by release of toxic chemicals.

So thank you Geoff for allowing me to use your post to make my points, hopefully more clearly.

May 2, 2016 at 6:56 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Alan,


The concept of AGW has been taken over by the IPCC to mean that the majority of the warming is caused by humans.

This is because it is extremely difficult to explain our observed warming if more than 50% of it was non-anthropogenic. To suggest that there is an underlying assumption that it is mostly us is a misrepresentation of what is done to assess this.


I do not believe we are causing the Earth to warm in anything other than a most minor way.

On what basis do you believe this?

May 2, 2016 at 9:43 AM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

aTTP:

This is because it is extremely difficult to explain our observed warming if more than 50% of it was non-anthropogenic.
Yet you have no qualms about accepting that warming (and cooling) happened in times past, with 100% of it non-anthropogenic. Can you not see the disconnect? Just because something is happening now does NOT necessarily mean that we are its cause.

May 2, 2016 at 10:24 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

ATTP - if it is extremely difficult to explain our observed warming if more than 50% of it is non-anthropogenic, I would suggest looking at it from another perspective - in which case is extremely easy to explain that the 20th Century warming is just the continued long slow thaw from the Little Ice Age:

GISP2/ALLEY Holocene graph with Hadcrut4 appended

May 2, 2016 at 10:26 AM | Registered Commenterlapogus

RR,
Indeed, that's why people have studied this extensively and concluded - based on the evidence - that it is extremely unlikely that more than 50% of our recent warming could be non-anthropogenic. They also study past warming and cooling events to try and understand what could have caused them. There is little about those events that contradicts our understanding of our recent warming.

Iapogus,
The BP date on that graph is - I think - wrong. Maybe try correcting it and posting it again?

May 2, 2016 at 10:34 AM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

Maybe Steve, maybe not.

Was the insinuation of the above comment that Shepherd is only driven by his grant money? Not sure that's a brilliant bridge building exercise, if so.

May 2, 2016 at 10:41 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil,
Indeed, and - given Steve's obvious expertise - it would seem possible to make more positive contributions even if some are refusing to collaborate. In my experience, people respond positively to good work and can easily change their views if someone shows that they're are willing to put some effort in and publish good work.

May 2, 2016 at 10:49 AM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

As for Scenario A being “an overestimate”, who besides you says so?

Well, once I pointed out that the observed forcings in his own paper were more than a decade behind Scenario A, Lord Monckton conceded that

I had not recalled that IPCC had made its 1 k by 2025 prediction under Scenario A. However, Scenario A was its business-as-usual scenario, and it had incorrectly predicted a far greater rate of forcing, and hence of temperature change, than actually occurred.

Naturally, this trifling inaccuracy did not prevent His Lordship from continuing to present Scenario A, and only Scenario A.

From <https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/28/global-warming-is-still-on-the-great-shelf/>

May 2, 2016 at 10:50 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

ATTP - I didn't produce the original graph, just appended the Hadcrut4 data from 1910. I know there is discussion about the exact date of 'present', I took it as 1910 because the cores were drilled in the 1960s, and they, as far I as I understand, have to disregard the first 50-60 years of snow ice as it has not compacted sufficiently. But it doesn't really matter much if the 'present' date is in the late 1800s or 1910 - the recent warming is still on a par with the MWP at the most and is nothing unprecedented (and, given that 80% of the world population live in the relatively cold NH, it is very welcome).

May 2, 2016 at 10:53 AM | Registered Commenterlapogus

Very disturbing to see somebody (ATTP) who is employed as a scientist and worse, teaching science to others, using the argumentum ad ignorantiam as support for AGW.

"We do not know what else it could be, so it has to be A-CO2?"
Really, Mr. Physics?
Have you found your keys already underneath the street light? Because they cannot possiblybe lying on the unlit part of the street right?

May 2, 2016 at 10:55 AM | Unregistered CommenterWijnand

aTTP: an interesting non-answer, almost completely devoid of logic. So, what you are saying is that, yes, warming has happened before, and we cannot determine precisely what caused the warming, but this time, we can categorically say that humans are part of its cause. Now, is that because this time there are humans about to witness warming and thus to blame for it? But, who would you blame for the noticeable lack of warming for much of this century?

May 2, 2016 at 11:06 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

ATTP, Re the GISP2 data, it is commonly misrepresented, notably by Don Easterbrook. The latest data point in the GISP2 series is 95 years BP. It follows the convention that BP is based on 1950AD, so it ends in 1855, and misses all the recent warming.

Also the data series gives absolute temperatures, not anomalies relative to present, the 1855 temperature is -31.5, current average temperatures at the site are warmer than -28C. Lapogus's graph is incorrectly baselined. Did it come from Don Easterbrook perchance ;-)

Richard Alley, who literally wrote the book on reconstructions from ice cores wrote a piece at Dot Earth on the GISP2 series and concluded

…using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible. And, using GISP2 data within the larger picture of climate science demonstrates that our scientific understanding is good, supports our expectation of global warming, but raises the small-chance-of-big-problem issue that in turn influences the discussion of optimal human response.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/richard-alley-on-old-ice-climate-and-co2/

May 2, 2016 at 11:20 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

RR,


So, what you are saying is that, yes, warming has happened before, and we cannot determine precisely what caused the warming, but this time, we can categorically say that humans are part of its cause.

This isn't what I said.

May 2, 2016 at 11:22 AM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>