distortion of science

[Old Rocks]

Hansen's prior predictions have been pretty accurate, much more so than his critics, many of whom were predicting a cooling for right now. Now those same critics lie about what they said only a year ago. I guess the 'coming ice age' came and went.

Who are the experts that you are talking about?

Hansen is the guy who is held up as the Lord High Guru of Climate Science. He is wrong and has been wrong for years. Every time he revises his prediction of warming, the extent of the wrming is lessened.

He missed by 300% in his 1988 prediction. How is that "pretty accurate"?

Hansen missed by 10%, and that is pretty damned accurate considering that the science was in it's infancy at that time.

RealClimate: Hansen’s 1988 projections

So which forcing scenario came closest to the real world? Given that we’re mainly looking at the global mean surface temperature anomaly, the most appropriate comparison is for the net forcings for each scenario. This can be compared with the net forcings that we currently use in our 20th Century simulations based on the best estimates and observations of what actually happened (through to 2003). There is a minor technical detail which has to do with the ‘efficacies’ of various forcings – our current forcing estimates are weighted by the efficacies calculated in the GCM and reported here. These weight CH4, N2O and CFCs a little higher (factors of 1.1, 1.04 and 1.32, respectively) than the raw IPCC (2001) estimate would give.

The results are shown in the figure. I have deliberately not included the volcanic forcing in either the observed or projected values since that is a random element – scenarios B and C didn’t do badly since Pinatubo went off in 1991, rather than the assumed 1995 – but getting volcanic eruptions right is not the main point here. I show three variations of the ‘observed’ forcings – the first which includes all the forcings (except volcanic) i.e. including solar, aerosol effects, ozone and the like, many aspects of which were not as clearly understood in 1984. For comparison, I also show the forcings without solar effects (to demonstrate the relatively unimportant role solar plays on these timescales), and one which just includes the forcing from the well-mixed greenhouse gases. The last is probably the best one to compare to the scenarios, since they only consisted of projections of the WM-GHGs. All of the forcing data has been offset to have a 1984 start point.

Regardless of which variation one chooses, the scenario closest to the observations is clearly Scenario B. The difference in scenario B compared to any of the variations is around 0.1 W/m2 – around a 10% overestimate (compared to > 50% overestimate for scenario A, and a > 25% underestimate for scenario C). The overestimate in B compared to the best estimate of the total forcings is more like 5%. Given the uncertainties in the observed forcings, this is about as good as can be reasonably expected. As an aside, the match without including the efficacy factors is even better.

 

[Old Rocks]

Concerning lies and liars.

Distorting science while invoking science Climate Progress

Distorting science while invoking science
Debating science shouldn’t enable antiscience disinformation
August 10, 2010
Guest authors Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway share some research from their recent must-read book “Merchants of Doubt,” which is reviewed here. The book documents how the cast of characters peddling pseudo-science had been stunningly consistent over the years, from secondhand smoke skeptics to “Star Wars” missile defense proponents to modern climate science deniers. Naomi Oreskes is a professor of history of science and provost of Sixth College at UC San Diego, and Erik Conway is a historian of science and technology, living in Pasadena, California. This is cross-posted at Science Progress.

Despite a two decades old consensus among climate scientists that the globe is warming, many people believe that there is still an active debate. This is due in large part to a direct and strategic public relations campaign being waged behind the scenes by free market-fundamentalists and funded by big polluters. Big industries such as tobacco, oil, and coal, aided by conservative foundations and the free-market ideologues who inhabit them, have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to undermine science and scientists. In doing so, they make it difficult, if not close to impossible, for ordinary people to get the information upon which reasoned public policy should be based.

This coalition, promoting disinformation while claiming to be dedicated to science, is nothing new. In fact, today’s climate deniers are using the same playbook used by supporters of Ronald Reagan’s failed “Star Wars” program in the 1980s, and by the tobacco industry to avoid regulation of secondhand smoke in the 1990s. Indeed, science denial, free-market fundamentalists, and big industries have a long and sorry past together.

Check the high-lighted sentence. See anything missing? How about the referance to CO2? Warming alone does nothing for the AGW crowd's case. It must be linked to CO2 to prove their point.

No link? No relevence.

Second hand smoke? I grew up in a house in which the father smoked 2 packs/day. I competed in the State Cross Country meet in High School. Maybe I would have won without all that 2nd hand smoke. However, there were about 2500 kids in my school that did not compete in that meet.

Do you suppose that their fathers all smoked 3 packs/day?

CO2 absorption bands provide all the link that is needed for anyone with any intelligence. Once again I will post the American Institute of Physics site that provides information on the scientific history of the study of GHGs.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Odd you should come up with that ltttle peice about the harmlessness of tobacco smoke. Seems that the 'scientists' that tell us that global warming has nothing to do with GHGs are also the same ones that assured us about the harmlessness of tobacco.

In both cases they are prostituting their degrees to corperations.

 

[code1211]

Hansen's prior predictions have been pretty accurate, much more so than his critics, many of whom were predicting a cooling for right now. Now those same critics lie about what they said only a year ago. I guess the 'coming ice age' came and went.

Who are the experts that you are talking about?

Hansen is the guy who is held up as the Lord High Guru of Climate Science. He is wrong and has been wrong for years. Every time he revises his prediction of warming, the extent of the wrming is lessened.

He missed by 300% in his 1988 prediction. How is that "pretty accurate"?

Hansen missed by 10%, and that is pretty damned accurate considering that the science was in it's infancy at that time.

RealClimate: Hansen’s 1988 projections

So which forcing scenario came closest to the real world? Given that we’re mainly looking at the global mean surface temperature anomaly, the most appropriate comparison is for the net forcings for each scenario. This can be compared with the net forcings that we currently use in our 20th Century simulations based on the best estimates and observations of what actually happened (through to 2003). There is a minor technical detail which has to do with the ‘efficacies’ of various forcings – our current forcing estimates are weighted by the efficacies calculated in the GCM and reported here. These weight CH4, N2O and CFCs a little higher (factors of 1.1, 1.04 and 1.32, respectively) than the raw IPCC (2001) estimate would give.

The results are shown in the figure. I have deliberately not included the volcanic forcing in either the observed or projected values since that is a random element – scenarios B and C didn’t do badly since Pinatubo went off in 1991, rather than the assumed 1995 – but getting volcanic eruptions right is not the main point here. I show three variations of the ‘observed’ forcings – the first which includes all the forcings (except volcanic) i.e. including solar, aerosol effects, ozone and the like, many aspects of which were not as clearly understood in 1984. For comparison, I also show the forcings without solar effects (to demonstrate the relatively unimportant role solar plays on these timescales), and one which just includes the forcing from the well-mixed greenhouse gases. The last is probably the best one to compare to the scenarios, since they only consisted of projections of the WM-GHGs. All of the forcing data has been offset to have a 1984 start point.

Regardless of which variation one chooses, the scenario closest to the observations is clearly Scenario B. The difference in scenario B compared to any of the variations is around 0.1 W/m2 – around a 10% overestimate (compared to > 50% overestimate for scenario A, and a > 25% underestimate for scenario C). The overestimate in B compared to the best estimate of the total forcings is more like 5%. Given the uncertainties in the observed forcings, this is about as good as can be reasonably expected. As an aside, the match without including the efficacy factors is even better.

The rise in CO2 has outpaced the rise used by Hansen to base the temperature increase for scenario A. Why use Scenario B when it is clearly under the actual rise of CO2?

Hansen predicted a rise of .6 degrees if the rise in CO2 was constant. It has been. It would have been higher, but, luckily, there has been a world wide economic slow down which is stubbornly defying the efforts of the central planners to correct it.

These are the same planners that want to use more money that they don't have to correct the dire consequence of Global Warming which doesn't seem to be following their predictions either.

The actual rise is about .2 degrees. He predicted a rise of .6 degrees. He missed the increase by a factor of three. 300%.

 

[konradv]

You will notice that in every posting of grants there are names listed. The first person listed is called the FIRST AUTHOR and is considered the most important author of that particular paper. They get paid the most. The subsequent authors get paid less based on the amount of input they had. You will then please look at all the of the grants listed and you will see that Phil Jones is listed on every one of those grants. That means he was paid for every one of those papers listed.

You have some details wrong. The first author is the one that did most of the work and most of the writing. The most important author is the last author, usually the lab chief or department head. Also, one doesn't normally get paid by the paper. Academic scientists usually work on salary, NOT by-the-paper piece work! When you apply for a grant, you're usually also looking for salary supprt, so there's some truth to that, but NOT the paper angle.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hmmm...... And where in my post is any mention of 1970? Perhaps your reading skills need a bit of rust remover?

Wow, just wow.

Where in my post did I say that your post mentioned 1970? I am calling you out on your insistence that the global warming consensus existed in the 70s and that only the popular media spread the global cooling and on coming ice age meme. Are you going to attempt to deny that every time anyone mentions the fact that in the 70s the consensus was that we had to worry about cooling you try to prove that the scientific consensus said the opposite? Should I go look up all the times you point out that 42 articles back then warmed about global warming, and that proves the consensus on global warming existed? Or will you just admit that you misrepresent science when it is convenient?

OK, Quantum, so you wish to prove yourself a complete dumb ass.

The consensus among scientists in the '70s was that we needed much more information before we made any definitive statements concerning warming or cooling. However, for the decade, there were 42 papers that predicted warming on the basis of CO2 increase, and 7 that predicted cooling because of the Milankovic Cycles.

If, for you, scientific consensus is about what Time and Newsweek publish, then I guess you have your "scientific consensus". For most of us, scientific consensus concerns what is published in peer reviewed scientific journals.

So go back to your National Enquirer and Weekly Globe. It is obviously your peer level reading material.

There you go, that is what I was talking about.

You are now insisting that a consensus existed in the 70s, despite the fact that you just cited an article that stated the consensus is only 2 decades old, which means 20 years in case you have trouble with math. The very point you are trying to make is refuted from your own source material, yet you sit there and insist that your distortion of science is more accurate than the very article you post about how people distort science.



Exactly how am I proving myself a complete dumb ass again?

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes.

 

[Old Rocks]

Who are the experts that you are talking about?

Hansen is the guy who is held up as the Lord High Guru of Climate Science. He is wrong and has been wrong for years. Every time he revises his prediction of warming, the extent of the wrming is lessened.

He missed by 300% in his 1988 prediction. How is that "pretty accurate"?

Hansen missed by 10%, and that is pretty damned accurate considering that the science was in it's infancy at that time.

RealClimate: Hansen’s 1988 projections

So which forcing scenario came closest to the real world? Given that we’re mainly looking at the global mean surface temperature anomaly, the most appropriate comparison is for the net forcings for each scenario. This can be compared with the net forcings that we currently use in our 20th Century simulations based on the best estimates and observations of what actually happened (through to 2003). There is a minor technical detail which has to do with the ‘efficacies’ of various forcings – our current forcing estimates are weighted by the efficacies calculated in the GCM and reported here. These weight CH4, N2O and CFCs a little higher (factors of 1.1, 1.04 and 1.32, respectively) than the raw IPCC (2001) estimate would give.

The results are shown in the figure. I have deliberately not included the volcanic forcing in either the observed or projected values since that is a random element – scenarios B and C didn’t do badly since Pinatubo went off in 1991, rather than the assumed 1995 – but getting volcanic eruptions right is not the main point here. I show three variations of the ‘observed’ forcings – the first which includes all the forcings (except volcanic) i.e. including solar, aerosol effects, ozone and the like, many aspects of which were not as clearly understood in 1984. For comparison, I also show the forcings without solar effects (to demonstrate the relatively unimportant role solar plays on these timescales), and one which just includes the forcing from the well-mixed greenhouse gases. The last is probably the best one to compare to the scenarios, since they only consisted of projections of the WM-GHGs. All of the forcing data has been offset to have a 1984 start point.

Regardless of which variation one chooses, the scenario closest to the observations is clearly Scenario B. The difference in scenario B compared to any of the variations is around 0.1 W/m2 – around a 10% overestimate (compared to > 50% overestimate for scenario A, and a > 25% underestimate for scenario C). The overestimate in B compared to the best estimate of the total forcings is more like 5%. Given the uncertainties in the observed forcings, this is about as good as can be reasonably expected. As an aside, the match without including the efficacy factors is even better.

The rise in CO2 has outpaced the rise used by Hansen to base the temperature increase for scenario A. Why use Scenario B when it is clearly under the actual rise of CO2?

Hansen predicted a rise of .6 degrees if the rise in CO2 was constant. It has been. It would have been higher, but, luckily, there has been a world wide economic slow down which is stubbornly defying the efforts of the central planners to correct it.

These are the same planners that want to use more money that they don't have to correct the dire consequence of Global Warming which doesn't seem to be following their predictions either.

The actual rise is about .2 degrees. He predicted a rise of .6 degrees. He missed the increase by a factor of three. 300%.

Source? Or just more yap-yap.

 

[westwall]

Hansen missed by 10%, and that is pretty damned accurate considering that the science was in it's infancy at that time.

RealClimate: Hansen’s 1988 projections

So which forcing scenario came closest to the real world? Given that we’re mainly looking at the global mean surface temperature anomaly, the most appropriate comparison is for the net forcings for each scenario. This can be compared with the net forcings that we currently use in our 20th Century simulations based on the best estimates and observations of what actually happened (through to 2003). There is a minor technical detail which has to do with the ‘efficacies’ of various forcings – our current forcing estimates are weighted by the efficacies calculated in the GCM and reported here. These weight CH4, N2O and CFCs a little higher (factors of 1.1, 1.04 and 1.32, respectively) than the raw IPCC (2001) estimate would give.

The results are shown in the figure. I have deliberately not included the volcanic forcing in either the observed or projected values since that is a random element – scenarios B and C didn’t do badly since Pinatubo went off in 1991, rather than the assumed 1995 – but getting volcanic eruptions right is not the main point here. I show three variations of the ‘observed’ forcings – the first which includes all the forcings (except volcanic) i.e. including solar, aerosol effects, ozone and the like, many aspects of which were not as clearly understood in 1984. For comparison, I also show the forcings without solar effects (to demonstrate the relatively unimportant role solar plays on these timescales), and one which just includes the forcing from the well-mixed greenhouse gases. The last is probably the best one to compare to the scenarios, since they only consisted of projections of the WM-GHGs. All of the forcing data has been offset to have a 1984 start point.

Regardless of which variation one chooses, the scenario closest to the observations is clearly Scenario B. The difference in scenario B compared to any of the variations is around 0.1 W/m2 – around a 10% overestimate (compared to > 50% overestimate for scenario A, and a > 25% underestimate for scenario C). The overestimate in B compared to the best estimate of the total forcings is more like 5%. Given the uncertainties in the observed forcings, this is about as good as can be reasonably expected. As an aside, the match without including the efficacy factors is even better.

The rise in CO2 has outpaced the rise used by Hansen to base the temperature increase for scenario A. Why use Scenario B when it is clearly under the actual rise of CO2?

Hansen predicted a rise of .6 degrees if the rise in CO2 was constant. It has been. It would have been higher, but, luckily, there has been a world wide economic slow down which is stubbornly defying the efforts of the central planners to correct it.

These are the same planners that want to use more money that they don't have to correct the dire consequence of Global Warming which doesn't seem to be following their predictions either.

The actual rise is about .2 degrees. He predicted a rise of .6 degrees. He missed the increase by a factor of three. 300%.

Source? Or just more yap-yap.

The source is Hansen and the method is called simple mathematics. You should study math some day.

 

[konradv]

The rise in CO2 has outpaced the rise used by Hansen to base the temperature increase for scenario A. Why use Scenario B when it is clearly under the actual rise of CO2?

Hansen predicted a rise of .6 degrees if the rise in CO2 was constant. It has been. It would have been higher, but, luckily, there has been a world wide economic slow down which is stubbornly defying the efforts of the central planners to correct it.

These are the same planners that want to use more money that they don't have to correct the dire consequence of Global Warming which doesn't seem to be following their predictions either.

The actual rise is about .2 degrees. He predicted a rise of .6 degrees. He missed the increase by a factor of three. 300%.

Source? Or just more yap-yap.

The source is Hansen and the method is called simple mathematics. You should study math some day.

And you should study logic. The deniers run away from it every oppotunity!

 

[konradv]

BTW, westy, no reply to the trashing of your paid-by-the-paper fairy tale?!?! Are we to call you "Young Fraud"?

 

[Si modo]

I find it hysterical that the first line of the second paragraph invokes the 'consensus'.



But more hysterical is a blog proclaiming the importance of a science argument yet uses rhetoric to argue against the Logic of Scientific Discovery.

Rocks does it again. What an idiot.

 

[westwall]

Source? Or just more yap-yap.

The source is Hansen and the method is called simple mathematics. You should study math some day.

And you should study logic. The deniers run away from it every oppotunity!

My 4 year old daughter knows more about logic now then you ever will konrad old chum.

 

[westwall]

BTW, westy, no reply to the trashing of your paid-by-the-paper fairy tale?!?! Are we to call you "Young Fraud"?

"The "First Author" is the person who is recognised as having the greatest contribution to the paper (whether true or not) intended to be submitted to a journal. Most scientific journals designate the first author as having special rights and controls over the editing of an article."

Papers are written with the use of Grant Money. The First Author is in control of the grant in most cases. Multiple papers are usually written from a single grant so yes academicians are paid "by the paper" for the most part. Just like back in the day publishers paid novelists by the word. In the academic world it has stayed pretty stagnant as far as grants and payment go.

My wife is still being published and that is how she gets paid.

 

[Old Rocks]

I find it hysterical that the first line of the second paragraph invokes the 'consensus'.



But more hysterical is a blog proclaiming the importance of a science argument yet uses rhetoric to argue against the Logic of Scientific Discovery.

Rocks does it again. What an idiot.

Here we have the other self proclaimed 'scientist' yapping about 'logic', yet not presenting a single peice of evidence to show the why the the warming we are experiancing is a chimera.

I think that you are Walleye are quite a pair to draw to. Self proclaimed scientists that eschew any presentation of real science.

APS -APS March Meeting 2010 - Event - Global Response to Global Warming: Geoengineering with Stratospheric Aerosols

Session B8: Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse Redux: The Physics of Global Catastrophes and Global Countermeasures
11:15 AM–2:15 PM, Monday, March 15, 2010
Room: Portland Ballroom 255

Sponsoring Unit: FIP
Chair: John W. Clark, Washington University in St. Louis

Abstract ID: BAPS.2010.MAR.B8.4


Abstract: B8.00004 : Global Response to Global Warming: Geoengineering with Stratospheric Aerosols
1:03 PM–1:39 PM


Preview Abstract

Author:
Jonathan Katz
(Washington University)


Despite efforts to stabilize the atmospheric CO$_2$ concentration, it is possible that the climate system could respond abruptly with unanticipated catastrophic consequences. Intentional intervention (``geoengineering'') has been proposed to avoid or ameliorate such consequences has been proposed. One contemplated intervention would be the injection of artificial aerosols into the stratosphere to reduce the amount of shortwave (visible and near-IR) Solar radiation reaching the surface of the Earth. Natural volcanic injections of sulfate aerosols are known to produce short-lived (about a year) cooling, providing a ``proof of principle''. Artificial production and injection of aerosols involves a number of poorly understood physical and chemical processes, as well as a choice of aerosol material and injection method. I will outline some of these technical issues and unanswered questions.

 

[Old Rocks]

Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 048501 (2007): Global Warming Is Driven by Anthropogenic Emissions: A Time Series Analysis Approach

Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 048501 (2007) [4 pages]
Global Warming Is Driven by Anthropogenic Emissions: A Time Series Analysis Approach
AbstractReferences No Citing Articles
Download: PDF (203 kB) Buy this article Export: BibTeX or EndNote (RIS)

Pablo F. Verdes
Heidelberg Academy of Sciences, c/o Institute of Environmental Physics, Im Neuenheimer Feld 229, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany

Received 12 May 2006; published 24 July 2007

The solar influence on global climate is nonstationary. Processes such as the Schwabe and Gleissberg cycles of the Sun, or the many intrinsic atmospheric oscillation modes, yield a complex pattern of interaction with multiple time scales. In addition, emissions of greenhouse gases, aerosols, or volcanic dust perturb the dynamics of this coupled system to different and still uncertain extents. Here we show, using two independent driving force reconstruction techniques, that the combined effect of greenhouse gases and aerosol emissions has been the main external driver of global climate during the past decades.

© 2007 The American Physical Society

 

[rdean]

I can never understand why so many on the right want to talk about something they have no interest in learning anything about?

 

[Old Rocks]

Physics Society Quietly Reaffirms Climate Change Policy Stance Fresh Air. The Scent of Pine.

With little fanfare, the American Physical Society reaffirmed its stance that human activities are affecting Earth’s climate.
There is a substantial body of peer reviewed scientific research to support the technical aspects of the 2007 APS statement….Greenhouse gas emissions are changing the Earth’s energy balance on a planetary scale in ways that affect the climate over long periods of time (~100 years)….While there are factors driving the natural variability of climate (e.g., volcanoes, solar variability, oceanic oscillations), no known natural mechanisms have been proposed that explain all of the observed warming in the past century.

- American Physical Society, Climate Change
Policy Addendum, April 2010

 

[Old Rocks]

I can never understand why so many on the right want to talk about something they have no interest in learning anything about?

If the wingnut Conservatives on this board discussed only the things that they had adaquete knowledge on, this board would not exist. Walleyes and Si are prime examples

 

[westwall]

I can never understand why so many on the right want to talk about something they have no interest in learning anything about?

If the wingnut Conservatives on this board discussed only the things that they had adaquete knowledge on, this board would not exist. Walleyes and Si are prime examples

Yep we're the losers for sure. Seems we are perverting ever more of the lefty scientists away from the theology of GW however. So sad for you.

Activist Teacher: Some Big Lies of Science

 

[Si modo]

I find it hysterical that the first line of the second paragraph invokes the 'consensus'.



But more hysterical is a blog proclaiming the importance of a science argument yet uses rhetoric to argue against the Logic of Scientific Discovery.

Rocks does it again. What an idiot.

Here we have the other self proclaimed 'scientist' yapping about 'logic', yet not presenting a single peice of evidence to show the why the the warming we are experiancing is a chimera.

I think that you are Walleye are quite a pair to draw to. Self proclaimed scientists that eschew any presentation of real science.

APS -APS March Meeting 2010 - Event - Global Response to Global Warming: Geoengineering with Stratospheric Aerosols

Session B8: Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse Redux: The Physics of Global Catastrophes and Global Countermeasures
11:15 AM–2:15 PM, Monday, March 15, 2010
Room: Portland Ballroom 255

Sponsoring Unit: FIP
Chair: John W. Clark, Washington University in St. Louis

Abstract ID: BAPS.2010.MAR.B8.4


Abstract: B8.00004 : Global Response to Global Warming: Geoengineering with Stratospheric Aerosols
1:03 PM–1:39 PM


Preview Abstract

Author:
Jonathan Katz
(Washington University)


Despite efforts to stabilize the atmospheric CO$_2$ concentration, it is possible that the climate system could respond abruptly with unanticipated catastrophic consequences. Intentional intervention (``geoengineering'') has been proposed to avoid or ameliorate such consequences has been proposed. One contemplated intervention would be the injection of artificial aerosols into the stratosphere to reduce the amount of shortwave (visible and near-IR) Solar radiation reaching the surface of the Earth. Natural volcanic injections of sulfate aerosols are known to produce short-lived (about a year) cooling, providing a ``proof of principle''. Artificial production and injection of aerosols involves a number of poorly understood physical and chemical processes, as well as a choice of aerosol material and injection method. I will outline some of these technical issues and unanswered questions.

Funny, at least the blog knew enough that this abstract was close to worthless. Here, Rocks. I've highlighted the value of your 'proof' (bold).

Yet, what you posted does nothing to refute what I said about your blog. They invoke 'consensus' (a logical fallacy, by the way) in the first line of the second paragraph and invoke rhetoric to argue AGAINST the Logic of Scientific Discovery. (I love the fact that I repeat myself, especially when it's in writing. )

Maybe you could attempt to refute what I actually posted, if you comprehend it at all, that is. Or, just keep making shit up for me. At least that's amusing.

And, I have to wonder who the hell reviewed this abstract, if anyone, with the presence of what is underlined.

Have a great day, dude. Those outside of reality usually do.