Comments on: Why Climategate doesn’t matter (V)

By: Steve Stein

Steve Stein — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:31:09 +0000

Leonard – I didn’t say what my beliefs are. You, however, did: “a cooling trend seems to be on the way, probably for the next few decades.”

I’m still waiting for you to give some data to back it up.

By: Leonard Weinstein

Leonard Weinstein — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 04:58:47 +0000

Mike_b1,
You have got to be kidding. The entire AGW case is based on the last 1,000 or so years, with emphasis on the last 150 years. The fact that a MWP 1,000 years age was as warm or warmer that the present, and the LIA, from 1300AD to 1850AD, was unusually cold has now been re-verified (it was previously agreed to, but AGW needed it to not be so to make the case that the recent temperature was unusual). Note that I said re-verified. Even IPCC early versions agreed to it, but the hockey stick from Mann seemed to refute that. That work of Mann has been conclusively shown to be wrong. There is now no basis for AGW except models that claim large positive feedback from water vapor to increases in CO2. Those have not been supported by data, and in fact seem to be wrong. Data prior to those times only show that temperature went up periodically, and CO2 FOLLOWED by about 800 years, not the other way around. The cause is that warmer sea water releases CO2.

By: Leonard Weinstein

Leonard Weinstein — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 04:46:30 +0000

Dan,
Please read my previously enclosed writeup. It lays the case out for being skeptical in non-technical terms. You clearly have not looked at both sides of the issue, so are not familiar with honest disagreement. The recent exposure of climategate makes clear that the skeptics (many whom actually agree that there is an AGW problem, but that the degree and causes are different that the CAGW positions) have been correct in their claims that the extreme positions are bogus. As to your claims on Monckton actions, he was trying to show that most people with strong AGW views, who are even activists, don’t have a clue what the facts are they are supporting. Nothing he said was in error.

Steve Stein,
Even some supporters of AGW now admit there will be a period of possibly 10 to 20 more years of level to cooling (with some up and down variation superimposed). No model predicted the present trend before it happened. You are entitled to believe anything you want, but you have no reasonable basis for your belief.

By: Dunque

Dunque — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 23:18:20 +0000

The next shoe drops. Might this thing be a centipede?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1236513/Met-Office-manipulated-climate-change-figures-say-Russian-think-tank.html

By: Steve Stein

Steve Stein — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 14:49:35 +0000

Leonard, thanks for checking back in. You wrote earlier : “a cooling trend seems to be on the way, probably for the next few decades.”

Again I ask:
What data do you have to support that contention? Yes, it’s true we haven’t had a warmer year than 1998, but every year (except for one) since then has been warmer than every year before then in the past 150 years.

If you have a model that predicts a cooling trend, I’d love to see it!

By: Dan Kennedy

Dan Kennedy — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 16:49:02 +0000

@Leonard Weinstein: Thanks for checking in. I might read what you’ve posted at some point, but I’m not going to make it a priority. Why? As I argued yesterday, it is ridiculous for those of us who lack the expertise to play scientist. If you cannot convince your colleagues in the scientific community, then what does it matter if you can convince someone like me? I can’t even solve a quadratic equation.

I am amused by your statement that “there is some human cause, but … it is small and non-threatening.” Let the caveats begin! As I have noted before, global-warming skepticism seems to have evolved over the past 10 years from: (1) there is no global warming; to (2) there is global warming, but human activity plays no role; to (3) there is human-caused global warming, but we shouldn’t worry about it. I think we know what (4) will be.

Please note I am not saying that you have personally made that journey; I wouldn’t have any idea. But it does sound as though you’re just a step or two away from being labeled by Glen Beck as part of the conspiracy.

By: mike_b1

mike_b1 — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 16:21:08 +0000

Leonard, it is my understanding that the vast majority of scientists who actually study climate and the like agree that the Earth is generally warming. You point to periods of warming and cooling and call that natural variation. But you are looking at a few decades of data, whereas the specialists are looking at millenia. I trust the bigger data pool. With all due respect, I’m going to go with them on this one.

By: Leonard Weinstein

Leonard Weinstein — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 15:17:34 +0000

Dan Kennedy,
I am the skeptic you refer to. To be clear, I initially also accepted the AGW position because it seemed reasonable on the surface. Only after a deep study of the papers was it clear that it was wrong. I think the vast majority of supporters of AGW did not go into the depth needed to see the flaws. However, there are large numbers of scientists that do not agree with the AGW position, despite what you think you know. However, voting is politics, not science. Even one correct position trumps any number of wrong ones. Please seperate GW from AGW. Climate goes down (see ice age scare in the early 70′s) and then it goes up. That is natural variation. The issue is about human causes. I think there is some human cause, but that it is small and non-threatening. Read:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dnc49xz_0fb228shr&hl=en
for my analysis.

By: Rite

Rite — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:49:54 +0000

endquote.

Irony.

Media fabricates the end of US maple syrup as we know it because of global warming, and you are amazed at GOP politicalization of physics.

Pretty sure that neither side has a monopoly on spin.

By: mike_b1

mike_b1 — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:01:23 +0000

rite, more germane to George Will and cherrypicking is that the very researchers who did the study — University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center — have publicly said he cherrypicked their data — not to mention, mischaracterized the results.

This is what the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center had to say about Will:

“We do not know where George Will is getting his information, but our data shows [sic] that on February 15, 1979, global sea ice area was 16.79 million sq. km and on February 15, 2009, global sea ice area was 15.45 million sq. km. Therefore, global sea ice levels are 1.34 million sq. km less in February 2009 than in February 1979. This decrease in sea ice area is roughly equal to the area of Texas, California, and Oklahoma combined.”

Amazing how politics trumps physics among the GOP.