Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming

[Old Rocks]

5. Why would scientists exclude the 'skeptics' from particpating in policy summaries and deny them a reasonable forum to make their case unless there were motives unrelated to climate involved?

Why wouldn't you let a dentist perform neurosurgery on your child? Lindzen, Spencer, and others have been published in peer reviewed journals. And their hypothesis have been soundly trounced, falsified.

If a skeptic with credentials could make a sound case concerning the lack of warming, or present physical evidence that CO2 and other GHGs do not retain heat in the atmosphere, then they could get a time at the lectern. Thus far, this has not happened.

GHGs retain heat in the atmosphere. That has been proven over and over again. The atmosphere and ocean are warming. The ocean is acidifying. These are observational facts. No one has presented any evidence that it is otherwise.

 

[Old Rocks]

Foxfire, you have the best research instrument invented by man sitting right there in front of you. Use it.

 

[IanC]

5. Why would scientists exclude the 'skeptics' from particpating in policy summaries and deny them a reasonable forum to make their case unless there were motives unrelated to climate involved?

Why wouldn't you let a dentist perform neurosurgery on your child? Lindzen, Spencer, and others have been published in peer reviewed journals. And their hypothesis have been soundly trounced, falsified.

If a skeptic with credentials could make a sound case concerning the lack of warming, or present physical evidence that CO2 and other GHGs do not retain heat in the atmosphere, then they could get a time at the lectern. Thus far, this has not happened.

GHGs retain heat in the atmosphere. That has been proven over and over again. The atmosphere and ocean are warming. The ocean is acidifying. These are observational facts. No one has presented any evidence that it is otherwise.

Whoa now! there you go changing the subject again.

Steve McIntyre was invited to be on the IPCC team for AR4. it was assumed that they would be able to control his input, and they did but they had to pull out some pretty dirty tricks to do it. why do you think there is so much resistance to releasing the AR4 emails that Jones wanted deleted? they would embarrass more than just the authors involved. hell, the IPCC wouldnt even let McIntyre see the preliminary write ups that were supposed to be available to members. under threat of FOI they told him he could make an appointment to see them in a paper form at Harvard but he couldnt make copies. there is a huge back story to climategate that really doesnt get out to the public because it is complicated and cant be put into a sound bite.

 

[Foxfyre]

Foxfire, you have the best research instrument invented by man sitting right there in front of you. Use it.

I have. Which is why I have questions. Your passion is compelling and your argument is forceful. And both follow the politically correct 'company line' but don't really address my questions.

 

[Foxfyre]

1. Is there ANY qualified and credentialed scientist whose funding is not wholly or in part dependent on AGW who agrees that anthropogenic global warming is irrefutable?

Just what the hell do you mean by that statement? Virtually every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world has policy statements out that state that they deem AGW the correct explanation for the warming that we are seeing, and that they regard it as a danger to all of us.

Furthermore, you really seem ignorant concerning the way in which scientific reasearch is done. You get a grant to study a phenomona, not to achieve desired results. When you publish the results of the study, it is critiqued for proper methodology and whether it is presenting any new data or insights into the phenomona being studied. Then other scientists check your article, and resultant hypothesis, and see if they think that you correctly interpreted the data. That is where the scientific fistfight begins.

However, there is not a predetermined result that goes with the grant.

I know how grants work. I've been writing them most of my adult life. I also know the government or corporations like G.E. who NEED a global warming crisis will not be funneling hundreds of thousands or millions into studies of global warming once the scientific consensus is that there is no crisis and no action needed.

I can't find a single scientific group or authority involved in AGW studies who is leaning toward an AGW theory UNLESS their funding is dependent wholly or in part on grants given to study the phenomenon. Once they come up with a conclusion that there is nothing to worry about or nothing that humankind can reasonably do to alter the climate, their gravy train is over.

And I can't find a single scientific group or authority commenting on AGW studies who is NOT getting much in government or corporate money to study the phenomenon who is convinced that AGW is a reality or that there is anything humankind can reasonably do to alter the climate. But many who have studied the phenomenon, even those who started out leaning toward the AGW theory, have concluded that there is insufficient evidence to support it at this time.

Why would anybody be so gung ho to push what may very well be skewed or flawed science if there was not personal money, power, or prestige involved?

 

[Foxfyre]

2. Has there been any consideration for instrumentation that was installed many years ago in remote, sparsely populated areas and is now closed in by buildings, people, concrete, and asphalt?

Experts Heat Up Over Berkeley Lab Scientist's Quest to 'Calm' Climate Change Debate - NYTimes.com

BEST's preliminary results show a warming trend of 0.7 degrees Celsius since 1957. That result, which Muller called "unexpected," is similar to the findings of independent analyses by NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.K. Hadley Centre.

"The world temperature data has sufficient integrity to be used to determine temperature trends," Muller told the House Science, Space and Technology Committee.

That contradicts arguments made by climate skeptics -- including blogger Anthony Watts of "Watts Up With That?" -- who allege that many of the weather stations are located in areas that would bias their observations. A station might be placed in a rural area that is eventually enveloped by development, creating a situation where the urban heat island effect could influence the observations it collects, for example.

A study published last year by researchers at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center found evidence that some weather station temperature data are of poor quality -- but it concluded the problematic data would add a slight bias toward cooling in climate analyses.

Watts -- who Muller called "a hero" for his weather station work -- isn't convinced. And he's not happy about the preliminary analysis by Muller's BEST team, judging by comments he posted on his blog. They include a letter rebutting Muller's testimony, which Watts submitted yesterday to the House Science panel before its hearing had concluded

The Wunderground network is great for us ultra amateur meteorologists who want to track incoming thunderstorms or check the temperature where we are and/or where our loved ones are across the country or across the world.

A couple of years ago, those of us monitoring the various stations across our city noted wide discrepancies in conditions reported with variations of as much as 10 degrees recorded by instruments less than five miles apart. So one of our local television weather guys set out to find out why. He found weather stations placed under large trees, between buildings, near air conditioner compressors and dryer vents, etc.

Now fast forward to the RTD's (Resistance Temperature Devices) that climatologists use to record climate conditions around the world. Unfortunately they are placed on only about 2% of the world, fairly concentrated in some places and non existent for tens of thousands of square miles in others. Changing conditions around some of these (extra population, paving, building etc.) is not taken into consideration in what some stations report. Repairs and maintenance is a problem for long periods for some.

AND they have been in place only since mid 20th Century and were pretty sparse back then. We have had satellite imaging for only about 30 years.

Prior to the mid 20th Century, we have depended on human measurements with all the fallability included in that.

There is a lot of ammunition here to fuel the skeptics concerns that the scientists may be really stretching to make a case for any consistent AGW.

 

[code1211]

2. Has there been any consideration for instrumentation that was installed many years ago in remote, sparsely populated areas and is now closed in by buildings, people, concrete, and asphalt?

Experts Heat Up Over Berkeley Lab Scientist's Quest to 'Calm' Climate Change Debate - NYTimes.com

BEST's preliminary results show a warming trend of 0.7 degrees Celsius since 1957. That result, which Muller called "unexpected," is similar to the findings of independent analyses by NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.K. Hadley Centre.

"The world temperature data has sufficient integrity to be used to determine temperature trends," Muller told the House Science, Space and Technology Committee.

That contradicts arguments made by climate skeptics -- including blogger Anthony Watts of "Watts Up With That?" -- who allege that many of the weather stations are located in areas that would bias their observations. A station might be placed in a rural area that is eventually enveloped by development, creating a situation where the urban heat island effect could influence the observations it collects, for example.

A study published last year by researchers at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center found evidence that some weather station temperature data are of poor quality -- but it concluded the problematic data would add a slight bias toward cooling in climate analyses.

Watts -- who Muller called "a hero" for his weather station work -- isn't convinced. And he's not happy about the preliminary analysis by Muller's BEST team, judging by comments he posted on his blog. They include a letter rebutting Muller's testimony, which Watts submitted yesterday to the House Science panel before its hearing had concluded

Due to the expansion of the urbanized areas of the country, increased paving and growth of the population, one might expect that there would be an increase of the heat island effect and that this would have caused a skewing of readings toward the warmer even in the exact spots that readings had been taken for decades.

In spite of this, the "official adjusted for accuracy" temperature readings have been adjusted in a pretty consistant manner:

Almost all of the readings before 1970 have been adjusted down while almost all of the readings after 1970 were adjust up.

Given the heat island effect, one might have expected the reverse. One would have been in error if they expected that of those who promote AGW.

Questions on the evolution of the GISS temperature product | Watts Up With That?

 

[code1211]

3. How do we explain that the models used by 'climate scientists' to show climate change over thousands and millions of years cannot produce the climate we have NOW using conditions for which we do have records? How much faith should we place in their long range forecasts?

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

This statement, with no evidence that this is the case, whatsoever, is not valid without links to show that this is the case. Do you just repeat whatever the skeptics state, without any research at all?

I'm not familiar with the studies cited, but I have seen the scenarios presented by Dr. Hansen and the erroneous predictions he made based on the assumptions he made on the effects of CO2.

There is also that CERN thingy that is reproducable in Laboratory conditions (unlike the effects attributed to CO2) that satisfactorily explains the warming of the last 150 years assuming that CO2 has had very minimal effect.

 

[ScienceRocks]

WE will see what happens...I will post data as it comes in and let people make up there own minds...

*sea ice data
*ice sheet data
*All the temperature data for the globe(uah, giss, noaa, rss)

I will let you people make up your own mind and we will all see what happens.

 

[ScienceRocks]

2. Has there been any consideration for instrumentation that was installed many years ago in remote, sparsely populated areas and is now closed in by buildings, people, concrete, and asphalt?

Experts Heat Up Over Berkeley Lab Scientist's Quest to 'Calm' Climate Change Debate - NYTimes.com

BEST's preliminary results show a warming trend of 0.7 degrees Celsius since 1957. That result, which Muller called "unexpected," is similar to the findings of independent analyses by NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.K. Hadley Centre.

"The world temperature data has sufficient integrity to be used to determine temperature trends," Muller told the House Science, Space and Technology Committee.

That contradicts arguments made by climate skeptics -- including blogger Anthony Watts of "Watts Up With That?" -- who allege that many of the weather stations are located in areas that would bias their observations. A station might be placed in a rural area that is eventually enveloped by development, creating a situation where the urban heat island effect could influence the observations it collects, for example.

A study published last year by researchers at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center found evidence that some weather station temperature data are of poor quality -- but it concluded the problematic data would add a slight bias toward cooling in climate analyses.

Watts -- who Muller called "a hero" for his weather station work -- isn't convinced. And he's not happy about the preliminary analysis by Muller's BEST team, judging by comments he posted on his blog. They include a letter rebutting Muller's testimony, which Watts submitted yesterday to the House Science panel before its hearing had concluded

Due to the expansion of the urbanized areas of the country, increased paving and growth of the population, one might expect that there would be an increase of the heat island effect and that this would have caused a skewing of readings toward the warmer even in the exact spots that readings had been taken for decades.

In spite of this, the "official adjusted for accuracy" temperature readings have been adjusted in a pretty consistant manner:

Almost all of the readings before 1970 have been adjusted down while almost all of the readings after 1970 were adjust up.

Given the heat island effect, one might have expected the reverse. One would have been in error if they expected that of those who promote AGW.

Questions on the evolution of the GISS temperature product | Watts Up With That?

1880, up .2c
1908 down .05c
1934, down .1c
1953, up .1c
1998 up .4c


I'd say this is mostly because of
1# More research into the heat island effect
-finer detail,
Read the giss paper on the corrections and why they did it. It is extremely hard to get a accurate global temperature and gets harder the further in the past you get. There is a error bar.

The error bar is the green vertical lines...In 1891 the first one has .25c of error, but by 1945 it was down to .15c...Who's to say that when you do more research and look through the data that you can't make it more accurate with a more detailed study? Hell in 2000 it was still near .1c.

---There has also been a updated global sst's study that will greatly increase the accuracy of the temperature over the oceans for our historic record. So things are getting finer details and with better accuracy.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) -- Updates to Analysis

 

[Old Rocks]

Foxfire, you have the best research instrument invented by man sitting right there in front of you. Use it.

I have. Which is why I have questions. Your passion is compelling and your argument is forceful. And both follow the politically correct 'company line' but don't really address my questions.

What is poltically correct about acknowledging that there is major warming going on? What is political about the absorption lines of the GHGs? About the melting of the glaciers, sea ice, and continental ice caps?

When almost all the scientists from all the differant cultures, nations, and political systems are stating the same thing, and it is a scientific subject, perhaps you should check what their data is.

 

[Trakar]

...I'm not familiar with the studies cited, but I have seen the scenarios presented by Dr. Hansen and the erroneous predictions he made based on the assumptions he made on the effects of CO2...

Projection
noun /prəˈjekSHən/ 
projections, plural

1.An estimate or forecast of a future situation or trend based on a study of present ones
- plans based on projections of slow but positive growth
- population projection is essential for planning

Prediction
noun /priˈdikSHən/ 
predictions, plural
Prediction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A prediction or forecast is a statement about the way things will happen in the future, often but not always based on experience or knowledge. While there is much overlap between prediction and forecast, a prediction may be a statement that some outcome is expected, while a forecast may cover a range of possible outcomes....

presumably you are referring to these (Global climate model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) as Hansen's "predictions?"

Can you demonstrate the errors you assert?

...There is also that CERN thingy that is reproducable in Laboratory conditions (unlike the effects attributed to CO2) that satisfactorily explains the warming of the last 150 years assuming that CO2 has had very minimal effect.

This study?
Cloud formation may be linked to cosmic rays : Nature News

...The high-energy protons seemed to enhance the production of nanometre-sized particles from the gaseous atmosphere by more than a factor of ten. But, Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds. "At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step," he says...

Now exactly what does it explain? and how?

 

[rdean]

Hilarious. They guy is 82 and his specialty has nothing to do with weather. Republicans think all scientists are "experts" on everything.

They also think science is a faith, evolution a lie and climate change a scam.

 

[Trakar]

Hilarious. They guy is 82 and his specialty has nothing to do with weather. Republicans think all scientists are "experts" on everything.

They also think science is a faith, evolution a lie and climate change a scam.

I'm a Republican, and I'd disagree with your assessment, but I understand the sentiment, and can see how you might get that impression.

 

[westwall]

Hilarious. They guy is 82 and his specialty has nothing to do with weather. Republicans think all scientists are "experts" on everything.

They also think science is a faith, evolution a lie and climate change a scam.

I agree hilarious, you believe computer models and their predictive ability yet they can't recreate what happened three days ago! And you call that science!

 

[wirebender]

What is poltically correct about acknowledging that there is major warming going on? What is political about the absorption lines of the GHGs? About the melting of the glaciers, sea ice, and continental ice caps?

Well the first thing rocks is that there is not any "major" warming going on.

Second is that along with those absorption lines of the so called GHG's, there are also emission lines that are precisely the opposite of the absorption lines. That tells any educated person that there is no retention of anything going on within the molecules of said so called greenhouse gasses.

The third thing is that glaciers and ice caps have been melting back for about 14,000 years now and there is nothing surprising, or upsetting about the fact that the 14,000 year old trend continues. Antarctica continues to grow and numerous peer reviewed studies have shown that the ice loss in the arctic is a factor of wind, not temperature.

When almost all the scientists from all the differant cultures, nations, and political systems are stating the same thing, and it is a scientific subject, .

The thing is rocks, it isn't almost all the scientists from all the different cultures. It is only the scientists who depend on grant money to research CAGW who are on board and those only represent a small portion of scientists. The consensus is as big a hoax as CAGW itself.

perhaps you should check what their data is

I have rocks, and that is why I am not a believer. Unlike you, I am educated and one of the things educated people learn is that just because you can put some letters behind your name doesn't mean that you are gifted, or even particularly smart and those letters in no way guarantee honesty and scruples.

You believe rocks. Simple as that; and you believe based on your political leanings, not any particular knowledge of the climate. You have acknowledged numerous times that the science is over your head so you fall into lockstep with those who support your political position. Nothing more.

After all this time rocks, you still can't name a single physical law that supports and predicts a greenhouse effect, much less CAGW. That in and of itself should clue you in to the hoax, but faith like yours is a hard thing to crack.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I just got to say that if you're right wirebender that you deserve the Nobel prize for physics. Hell, you should be made a PHD in Physics two seconds after getting your nobel prize. That is how serious disproving the green house effect would be.

 

[zonly1]

Hilarious. They guy is 82 and his specialty has nothing to do with weather. Republicans think all scientists are "experts" on everything.

They also think science is a faith, evolution a lie and climate change a scam.

Libnutters think global whining is a religion because al gore sez so.

 

[wirebender]

I just got to say that if you're right wirebender that you deserve the Nobel prize for physics. Hell, you should be made a PHD in Physics two seconds after getting your nobel prize. That is how serious disproving the green house effect would be.

None of this is my work Matthew; and none of it is new or cutting edge. It is basic physics readily available in dozens if not hundreds of physics textbooks and guides; and if a hypothesis is not supported by the basics, at its foundational level, it is not to be believed. If it isn't supported by basic physics, and it gains traction, then you can bet it is built entirely on fallacious appeals to complexity.

The greenhouse effect has already been disproven. It was disproven very shortly after it was first hypothesized.

And you need not be anywhere near a PhD to do the math necessary to disprove the greenhouse effect. A very basic understanding of the nature and interaction of EM fields is all that is necessary to disprove a greenhouse effect as promoted by warmists.

 

[rdean]

Hilarious. They guy is 82 and his specialty has nothing to do with weather. Republicans think all scientists are "experts" on everything.

They also think science is a faith, evolution a lie and climate change a scam.

I agree hilarious, you believe computer models and their predictive ability yet they can't recreate what happened three days ago! And you call that science!

Uh, they don't need to predict what happened three days ago. Because what happened three days ago isn't a "prediction".

Funny, the right wing describes what they imagine science to be and then accuse others that their science is dumb. It's like a blind man describing the moon. Hilarious.