The Climate Change Debate Thread

[owedtojoy]

I mentioned Einstein above, and I did not mention him lightly.

Einstein was not a climate scientist, but he made a major contribution to our understanding of radiation. His paper of the Photoelectric Effect (emission of electrons from a metal under ultra-violet light) won him the Nobel Prize because he used the idea of a "quantum" of radiation for only the second time in history.

Later Einstein proposed that if a "population inversion" of electrons could be achieved in a material, that is a large population of electons at a high energy level, the electrons could be stimlulated to release their photons of energy all at once in a blast of radiation.

Such a device was not invented for forty years after Einstein's idea, but we know such a gadget as a laser. And what is one of the most useful substances used to cause population inversions and stimulated emission of radiation? Well, CO2 because it is IR active i.e. it absorbs and re-emits photons of infra-red light.

So if CO2 is not IR active, then CO2 lasers should not work. If CO2 lasers work, then CO2 is also IR active in the atmosphere. You can see how a "falsification" of the greenhouse effect would win you the Nobel Prize, and a massive fortune besides.

http://laserstars.org/history/einstein.html

http://www.lightmachinery.com/GSI-Lu...O2-lasers.html

[Agnotologist]

Actually, Judith Curry fails in har analysis because, though she tries to elevat it to a scientific disagreement between two camps, there is no science research in the camp she decalres victory for.

It is clear that Curry has gone over entirely without any rationale for her change.

[Agnotologist]

Rather han join in the "science" debate that is well in hand, here is a commentary on the Pielke paper that might shed a different light.

Roger Pielke Jr. crying wolf. Again. | The Way Things Break
There are more where that came from. Poor Roger don't get no respect.

[Agnotologist]

Rather than join in the "science" debate that is well in hand, here is a commentary on the Pielke paper that might shed a different light.

Roger Pielke Jr. crying wolf. Again. | The Way Things Break

There are more where that came from. Poor Roger don't get no respect.

[sharper]

Are you finished spinning, I am finished with this rubbish for the time being it is near impossible to converse with you, the twisting of words of positions is near biblical.

Goodness yes! How awful for someone to outline the flaws in your argument in a level headed and thorough manner! It's a shame the people screaming "DENIER!!" at anyone proposing C02 isn't the only factor affecting climate don't exist because it's clearly the only kind of opposition you're prepared for.

[owedtojoy]

Yes yes

For anyone interested please read the Judith curry article, to see how different these two positions are , one does not need to reject the greenhouse effect to reject cAGW it has already numerous holes. Some people want this argument it detracts from the real weaknesses, it is something they can argue, why it is constantly brought up.

So, after casting doubt on the greenhouse effect yesterday, and requesting we write a treatise on the carbon cycle, you now accept CO2 as a heat-trapping gas?

Well, that's progress.

Of course you do not need to reject the greenhouse effect to reject AGW - but how come you have been posting here for months, but somehow never bothered to take issue with Destiny's Soldier about it? If you want to be taken seriously for a scientific approach, you cannot be neutral on pseudo-science. But deniers want it both ways - turn a blind eye to the pseudo-science on your own side, while lambasting climate science if it appears on their side.

Now that we are agreed on the greenhouse effect, are we then to deduce that you want to take issue with values of climate sensitivity, like Dr Spencer, Lord Monckton et al ?

[owedtojoy]

This is what we are up against ... on the basis of one sliver of data from this graphic, Harrision Schmitt, Energy Secretary of New Mexico, right-wing activist and ex-astronaut, asserted that sea icecoverage in 2009 was the same as in 1989



Peter H. Gleick: Misrepresenting Climate Science: Cherry-Picking Data to Hide the Disappearance of Arctic Ice

Schmitt said:

"How long this cooling trend will persist remains to be seen; however, Greenland glaciers have been advancing since 2006, Artic [sic] sea ice has returned to 1989 levels of coverage, and snowy, cold winters and cool summers have dominated northern North America and Europe."

All four of these statements are wrong:
1.The Earth is not in a cooling trend, but a warming trend,
2.Greenland is losing ice, not gaining it (more evidence of warming),
3.Arctic (the correct spelling) sea ice in 2009 had not "returned to 1989 levels of coverage," and
4.Snowy, cold winters and cool summers do not dominate North America or Europe, nor would they refute the fact that the planet as a whole is warming.

Incredibly, Schmitt was backed by the Heartland Institute, source of so many climate denial lies. Will Schmitt set the record straight? Doubt it.

[Iarmuid]

Goodness yes! How awful for someone to outline the flaws in your argument in a level headed and thorough manner! It's a shame the people screaming "DENIER!!" at anyone proposing C02 isn't the only factor affecting climate don't exist because it's clearly the only kind of opposition you're prepared for.

So I take it you are in agreement with Pielke then - CO2 is not the major climatic forcing agent and the impact of CO2 on climate has been exagerated.

See how that works I attribute a position to you based on a falacious induction, I do this another 10 or 11 times, depend on hopefully, ignorance of others and the likely assumption they will not read the referenced material, leaving the attacked in a position to write a 5 page rebutal to address each point. Following said rebutal the attacker follows with non sequiturs and false attributions ad infinitum, until any semblance of rationality has left the conversation and ends in spitting fights.


I suppose to counter one could descend to action in kind and name calling, but I would rather not sully myself so, to wit, I will no longer converse with you Sharper or OwedtoJoy, who, I note is lying again in another comment attributing a position to me which was never made. I will however post material here with regard to the science. hopefully in the hope that I can counter some of the incredulous amount of disinformation posted here. The decisions and policies on the basis of AGW that are being made have far reaching societial effects and in my view people should be made aware where possible of the vast gap between what is actually understood and known and in what is protrayed in parts of the media and by some posters in blogs like this.

[sharper]

See how that works I attribute a position to you based on a falacious induction,

You've done nothing but shadowbox things nobody has said.

leaving the attacked in a position to write a 5 page rebutal to address each point.

My criticisms of your argument have been on point and brief. You're clearly extremely upset you didn't get the reaction you wanted - you want people to attack you personally, to attack Pielke or attack someone so you don't have to deal with the argument.

You want to be free to attribute any argument you like to others and then invoke any evidence you like interpreted any way you like to dismiss them. When you actually get arguments in response your reaction is to immediately turn tail and run, crying foul all the way because you have nothing to support yourself with.

I will however post material here with regard to the science.

This would be a nice change for you, a positive one.

The decisions and policies on the basis of AGW that are being made have far reaching societial effects and in my veiw people should be made aware where possible of the vast gap between what is actually understood and known and in what is protrayed in parts of the media and by some posters in blogs like this.

Oh good so when the media presents Arctic ice has having recovered you'll be there to show that's not true? When the media falsely equivocates moderate positions agreed upon by nearly every expert in the field with some randomner that believes the opposite you'll be there?

Of course not. Like "GreenIsGood" who's happy to see any kind of anti-science clap-trap posted and approved here while claiming those who dispute it are zealots and ignorant you'll be doing the same. Constantly complaining the people doing the science and defending the science are the ones holding it back.

[The Field Marshal]

This sums up the entire matter.
It is both well informed and very funny.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjmtSkl53h4]YouTube - George Carlin on The Environment (HQ)[/ame]