Scientific error versus scientific fraud
Because noone has any quantifiable mechanism to explain any other effect of the SunThe relationship which fell away in the past 30 years indicating that the last 30 years of warming is mostly caused by something elseThat's nonsense, the mechanism is "the electromagnetic spectrum" which even Ball has admitted above is included. Sunspot count is strongly correlated with solar irradiance which is in the modelsThe mechanism is still a hypothesis not a quantified mechanism! Now Ball wants scientists to add a mechanism that might not even be true to climate models, and even worse the mechanism he wants in doesn't even have any physical numbers to be based uponAgain, the IPCC don't write the climate models, scientific groups worldwide do. The reason they haven't included the "Cosmic Theory" (Ball's title) is because *they* don't see why or how it should be included. Nothing to do with the IPCC which only reports on the models. Note one important thing here: denialists in the media constantly blast climate models as not containing the right physics yada-yada. But noone is stopping these denialists from writing a climate model with the physics they think should be in there and then comparing the output of their model with other models to see which performs best. Any guesses why denialists and *so many* skeptical scientists haven't written such a modelSolar activity has been virtually flat since the 50s. http://www.logical science.com/skepti c_arguments/solar/ 600px-Temp-sunspot -co2.svg.pngOr someone with access to solar record data.. I found nothing in what Ball said that persuaded me the question of manmade global warming is less certain. (Tuesday | post #3649)
Scientific error versus scientific fraud
Well lets see whether his arguments hold any waterThe majority of interglacial warming has co2 rise and temperature rise in tandem, so the ice core records are not incompatible with co2 causing warming. They neither confirm it or disprove itThe computer models are written by climate groups around the world. Climatologists try to model the climate like Meteorologists try to model the weather. Ball tries to imply the IPCC wrote all the models which is wrong. The IPCC reports on the results of the models, it doesn't write the models or the resultsThe climate models are based on physics. The reason climate models show co2 causes warming is because that is what calculations show when the physics is run through. If Ball wants to call this "programming the computer" so what? If I program the physics of gravity into a computer I can simulate planets orbiting the Sun. But I guess Ball would claim I had just "programmed the computer" to do thatThat's wrong, perhaps even a lie if he did it intentionally and I cannot imagine he is not aware natural variation can counter a warming trend temporarilyWrong again. Many scientists don't expect that at all, a very small number do. It's a fringe predictionEl Ninos cause warming NOT cooling. Is Ball supposed to be an expert? I'll assume that was just a typo by him but you have to wonderThe trends don't get programmed "in the computer". The physics do, the trends are a result of models which are a result of the physics they are built upon. Ball either knows very little about how climate models work or he's being deliberately misleading. Climate models are not accurate on short timescales because climate noise overwhelms climate trends on short timescales. (Tuesday | post #3648)
Scientific error versus scientific fraud
Can you not conceive of how repugnant it is to call a denialist a skeptic? Denialism of science exists. Think back to tobacco companies, think of creationists, think of new age medicine, etc. To call these groups "skeptics " is a disservice to the word. Skepticism is a noble thing. Science denialism on the otherhand is notA bit of a let down. I thought your Essay on the Horrors of the Internet Forum might continue a bit longerThese are statements he made: "Since 1988 the average temperature has started to fall." "2007 was particularly cold" "If the past trend continues it should continue to go down." Doesn't read anything like he doesn't believe what he said. He made clear statements about temperature and the direction of temperature. He claims that a drop in average Earth temperature is *impossible* to determine AND THEN makes all the claims you see aboveHe claimed determining the average temperature of Earth was *impossible*. Not only that but he claimed determining if Earth's temperature was falling or rising was *even harder* than impossible. And then he goes into how temperature has been falling since 1988. This contradiction is bought about by his staunch language trying to cast as much doubt on AGW as possible and he tripped up on his own denial..oopsSo if I point out Vincent Gray makes clearly contradicting statements about climate, one after the other, then I am clearly hating the idea of "freedom of thoughtWhen I used to defend evolution against a different brand of science deniers sometimes they would make similar remarks. They would ask me if I had another agenda? Do I want to destroy religion? God? They would ask what exactly I wanted. The answer is nothing. I am here because I enjoy pounding stupid arguments against science into dust. If Vincent Gray stopped denying I wouldn't be having so much fun laughing at his stupid contradictions one right after the otherThe warming due to co2 rise is in the long term, not every 8 years is guaranteed to show a rising trend. (Tuesday | post #3647)
Scientific error versus scientific fraud
So you think half the radiation emitted by the surface is radiated downwards through the solid Earthno need to sign your work please180wm-2 backradiation PLUS 240wm-2 solar radiation = 420wm-2 total absorbed radiationNo. If on average each square meter of surface absorbs 240 joules per second from the Sun and 180 joules per second from backradiation, how many total joules per second are absorbed by each square meter of surface? It's obviously 240+180 = 420. So the surface is emitting 240wm-2 and absorbing 420wm-2. So it warms. In this model the backradiation is always half the surface emission. Additionally surface absorption is always equal to backradition + solar emission (in this case 240). So there are just 2 equations here: backradiation = 0.5 * surface emission surface absorption = backradiation + 240 This can be arranged to give the surface emission and absorption in terms of backradiation: surface emission = backradiation * 2 surface absorption = backradiation + 240 For equilibrium temperature surface emission must equal surface absorption. So at equilibrium: backradiation * 2 = backradiation + 240 Which gives backradiation at equilibrium as 240wm-2. The fact that there IS an equilibrium shows that temperature doesn't runaway. At equilibrium: surface absorption = 480wm-2 (240 solar, 240 br) surface emission = 480wm-2 That's stable. No runaway. Go back to these two equations: backradiation = 0.5 * surface emission surface absorption = backradiation + 240 Notice that the 0.5 figure is key to the eventual stabilization temperature. If this figure was actually over 1 then you *would* get runaway warming. But as long as it is below 1 you get no runaway warming. (Tuesday | post #3646)
Warming Effects Already Starting To Snowball
And what is *this* crap? What does that even mean? "reductions are more than the supposed total impact"? The correction had such a small impact on the global temperature record that you need to zoom in to see the difference. (Monday Aug 18 | post #150)
Warming Effects Already Starting To Snowball
What are you talking about? Did you even read the whole article? Your silly conspiracy theories are debunked in the last few paragraphs of the article. Read what you post next time! (Monday Aug 18 | post #149)
Scientific error versus scientific fraud
Anyone can "review" the IPCC report and therefore refer to themselves as an "IPCC reviewer". But only skeptics are deceiving enough to mislead people into thinking it's some sort of earned or granted authority title. I could debunk Vincent Gray's arguments in that article as you suggest, or ignore them, but instead I will do a third option you haven't thought of. I will let Vincent Gray debunk Vincent Gray's arguments. Vincent Gray argues: "It is impossible to measure the average temperature of the Earth and even more difficult to find out whether it is increasing or decreasing" I'll ignore for a second that he's just suggested something is more difficult than impossible... Now here comes Vincent Gray to debunk both of these arguments made by Vincent Gray: "My studies, from all the data, indicate that the average temperature is passing through a cycle of about 65 years, and has reached the peak last seen in 1950. Since 1988 the average temperature has started to fall." I thought he just claimed measuring the average temperature of the Earth was *impossible* and that finding out whether it is increasing or decreasing is *even more difficult than impossible*? Didn't he just say that? Well now he's claiming not only does he know the average temperature is *falling* (that's supposed to be harder than impossible to determine!) but what specifically what it has been doing over the past 100 years! You can't make this stuff up! You sure Vincent Gray isn't an AGW undercover to make you denialists look silly? (Monday Aug 18 | post #3622)
Scientific error versus scientific fraud
The other half is being emitted into spaceNope in this example the atmosphere is absorbing all energy emitted by the surface, the atmosphere radiates in all directions so about half goes up and half goes downNope Earth must emit the same amount it absorbs to stay at a stable temperature. Initially it is absorbing just 240wm-2. When that changes later the amount it emits has to change tooYes 360wm-2 = 240wm-2 solar + 120wm-2 backradiationNo no no. It's now 240wm-2 solar + 180wm-2 backradiation = 420wm-2. Not 540wm-2. Backradiation increased to 180wm-2 from 120wm-2. It didn't increase *by* 180wm-2 from 120wm-2 . (Sunday Aug 17 | post #3612)
You know that prediction you kept making last year and the year before that about the Earth going into a sudden ice age. You and all the other "coldies " (Saturday Aug 16 | post #4)
http://en.wikipedi a.org/wiki/Average (Saturday Aug 16 | post #4)
Global co2 emission trends from human activity over the past 250 years can be found here: http://cdiac.ornl. gov/trends/emis/gl o.htm It does match up well with the co2 rise: http://iter.rma.ac .be/en/img/CO2-con cenNEW_EN.jpg (Saturday Aug 16 | post #3)
I am glad you asked me and not some lesser authority. I see your question and have the answer at hand. Here it is: Even in a warm climate you'll get cold and wet weather events. It's the average that defines the climate as warm or cold, not single events. (Saturday Aug 16 | post #2)
Where is the ice age you forcasted Mr Giblets? It's been over a year now and London is not under feet of ice. There's always next year, but im suspecting your predictions are awry. (Saturday Aug 16 | post #2)
Like what you see?
Create your own Topix Profile
Olympics