The Local is not responsible for content posted by users.
This discussion forum closed permanently on 25th February 2021.
2 Pages V  < 1 2   Reply to this topic

Greenpeace activists charged for nuke break-in

Reason and Realism
post 15.Oct.2012, 10:29 PM
Post #16
Joined: 8.Oct.2012

@ Nomark
I did not drop thermal proxies because you 'pointed out' anything - 'pointing out' something is not the equivalent of supplying links to peer reviewed journal articles, based on repeatedly verified and openly available raw data, which is what you ask others to supply, even though you have thus far failed to do this yourself. After my reference to ice core samples, you wrote that
'its important that results are independently verified from raw data. However, much of the data used to make these measurements is not openly archived so independent reproduction is not possible. Please show where the raw data for the measurement you cite is archived. Please also show me where the results have been independently reproduced.
Since the raw data in this case constitutes the measurement of gas bubbles within the ice core samples, you should know that the US geological survey maintains an inventory of ice core samples that researchers can request from Antartica, Greenland, and the US, as stated on its webpage:
I 'laboured' you with global warming basics to remind you that AGW has a plausible basis in easily reproducbible lab measurements that supports the sign in front of one differential term in the nonlinear PDE that governs the earth's atmospheric temperature (which I am perfectly aware must include various other terms and cross terms, reservoirs/memory effects, terms for other gases and water vapour, and where recent increases to some rates of change must be included due to the recent surge in industrial gases - all of which can lead to complex responses over time - in other words I fully appreciate what goes into climate models, contrary to your assertion). My point was simply that on the basis of that term, and others like it for other overproduced industrial emissions, an argument can be made to limit emissions without the need to resort to the Earth's entire thermal history.
Whether you intend it or not, your repeated assertion that you are a 'downright skeptic' promotes inaction, even though the models that you criticize have not been supplanted by a more rigorously verified alternative model (and let's face it - the amtosphere is complicated - even the weather cannot be reliably predicted more than a few days in advance - and yet you appear to be waiting for something that,
to your satisfaction, successfully predicts temperature rise over an entire century). Precautionary decisions must sometimes be taken before 100% proof is there, particularly if the consequences of failing to take those decisions
are likely to be dire. The accepted model for AGM at least has a plausible basis, and the legacy that will be left by those who advocate reduced emissions will at the very least be cleaner air, water, and environement, and possibly vastly more than that. What meritorious legacy will be left to us by the skeptics?
Go to the top of the page
post 17.Oct.2012, 09:15 AM
Post #17
Joined: 25.Sep.2006

Regarding the ice core work, here is a description of the state of archiving by one of the top ice core temperature reconstruction scientists: .
In other words, its simply not enough to do as you've done and give me a webpage. These data are being used by people like you to promote expensive public policy changes. Its unacceptable that they are not archived and available for full replication.
Regarding me pointing out that temperature reconstructions tell different stories, my apologies. I thought you were acquainted with the primary literature (you certainly should have been if you want to lecture people about this). Here is a sample of "hockey stick" studies which have been heavily promoted by AGW-proponents:
A sharp hockey stick except that (a) the hockey stick shape comes out if noise is fed into the algorithm and (b) it relies on one specific proxy for its shape - if that is removed (and people who took the data think it isn't a reliable temp proxy) - the hockey stick vanishes and a strong medieval warming period appears. BTW the authors wrote that the conclusions doesn't depend on one proxy. See pretty much any of the McIntyre and McKitrick papers which all point this out.
Then there is Briffra et al., 2001. This one is a classic. It shows a hockey stick except that temperatures fall in the late 20th century - bad news since the instrumental record shows a rise. Solution ? Remove these data from the IPCC reports to present a "tidy picture". This is appalling - scientists are *not* allowed to delete adverse data. This is cherry picking, end of story.
And you still want to rely on temp reconstructions to promote AGW ? Good luck but don't expect those of us who read the papers and who don't subscribe to any given ideology to follow suit.
Regarding the climate models, can you give me a prediction of temp rise due to your CO2 "term" argument (with uncertainties). Since the feedback production of more water vapour accounts for a huge amount of predicted warming you're fixed onto the smallest possible rise. It must be possible for you to outline why we need to worry about that.
Regarding the sceptics "meritorious legacy" it will be (a) a tradition of not accepting scare tactics, BS and scientific waffle before spending vast sums of money and (b) a tradition of demanding research of the highest quality.
I note that you move from earlier posts of trying to hector me about the implausibility of my position given the strong scientific evidence which apparently refuted my arguments to one where you talk about the science being plausible. There is nothing wrong with not knowing something but there is lots wrong with cherry picking the science to try and prove a point.
Go to the top of the page

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members: