tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692282252844489453.post6980672713139992376..comments2024-03-01T18:58:48.605-08:00Comments on What'sUpWithThatWatts, et al.: WSJ claims there’s “No Need to Panic About Global Warming” (part one)citizenschallengehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692282252844489453.post-26317706171220520132012-01-30T06:25:26.006-08:002012-01-30T06:25:26.006-08:00Interesting and impressive looking opinion.
Thoug...Interesting and impressive looking opinion.<br /><br />Though I can’t refer to it as a paper since I can’t find where it has<br />undergone any serious review by any actual climatologists. Though I<br />have noticed it’s wallpapered over seven pages worth of Google Search<br />results, which gives it the smell of astroturf.<br /><br />Anything can be argued convincingly when done in a vacuum.<br />Also as Femack pointed out to Pangburn back in 2008: “ The field is<br />exquisitely complex, and to suppose that any one of us can pull data<br />off of the internet, crunch the numbers and come up with a valid<br />hypothesis that negates all of the original research and peer-reviewed<br />analysis carried out by real climate scientists is staggeringly<br />arrogant.”<br /><br />Red flags:<br />Right out the gate he begins: “if CO2 is assumed to have no influence...”<br />~ But that ignores known physics! - here’s a short primer by an expert<br /><br /><br />Richard Alley explaining the physics of CO2<br /><br /><br />Global Warming: it’s not about the Hockey Stick<br />http://icsusa.org/node/120<br /><br />~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~<br />Another red flag, his treatment of the ocean is beyond over-simplified<br />and ignores current understanding.<br /><br />He ignores other forcing upon climate and focuses purely on sunspots,<br />where he makes big assumptions that aren’t supported.<br /><br />When he does examine the physics of CO2 it ignores much of the physics<br />that is know to a high degree of certainty<br /><br />He wastes time with the diversion of nit-picking the term “greenhouse”<br />which in an actual greenhouse is about convection, a physically<br />inaccurate term of atmospheric CO2 dynamics. But something all<br />science students are well aware of.<br /><br />He brings up and seems to rely on Svensmark’s work even thought that<br />work has been reviewed by scientists and throughly discredited.<br /><br />He then points out the CO2 temp lag, but makes no mention of what is<br />known about the mechanics of that time lag. For an introduction to<br />those complexities listen to a real expert explain it:<br />Professor Richard B. Alley<br /> ~ Bjerknes Lecture AmericanGeophysicalUnion ~ December 2009<br />The Biggest Control Knob:<br />Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s Climate History<br />http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml<br />~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~<br /><br />In his closing he a nonsense claim:<br />“All those organizations that agree with the Climate Science Community<br />‘Consensus’ had<br />accepted what the Consensus claimed because they assumed that these<br />Climate Scientists<br />were the experts and had figured it out.”<br />again ignoring the depth of data collection, study and debate within<br />the climatological community, instead tossing out a red herring that<br />scientists are like lemmings obediently following what is dictated to<br />them.<br /><br />Mr. Pangburn may be telling you what you want to hear, but it ignores<br />too much that is known to be of much value.<br />~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~<br />Anonymous, can you show us where serious climatologists have reviewed<br />this conjecture of Pagburn’s? If not why not?<br /><br />cheers,<br />CCcitizenschallengehttp://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692282252844489453.post-57133042962847944642012-01-29T13:23:23.892-08:002012-01-29T13:23:23.892-08:00An engineer’s assessment of what has been and is g...An engineer’s assessment of what has been and is going on is available. A wider lower solar cycle can have the same influence on climate as a narrow high one. The sunspot time-integral exploits this to, with ocean cycles, calculate average global temperatures since 1895 with 88% accuracy as demonstrated in detail in the pdf made public 11/24/11 at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true . CO2 had no significant influence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com