Mad Scientist’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  model validity

  Whenever you speak to a modeller (or at least whenever I do) about predicting even the next 5 years given the ~30 years of satellite data to tweak the model to date, they hedge. There is no end of excuses.

  Despite the incredible complexity of the models I cannot see any improvement on Arrhenius' postulations over 100 years ago.  I still see no justification for this violation of the principle 'entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem'.

  I see the models as little more than a distraction - regardless of how wrong the models are (and I view them as all being wrong unless proven otherwise), the fact remains that the earth is warming at a great rate, solar output and geometry alone cannot account for the rate, results from various experiments on "CO2 fertilization" and "greenhouse response" of various plants do not suggest that natural CO2 production is increasing at a rate which comes anywhere near anthropogenic increases in production (so nature isn't competing with humans for #1 producer of CO2), the anthropogenic production of CO2 is far larger than would account for the entire observed global increase (which means there is a large sink operating, but that sink is just not good enough).  Add to all that the fact that CO2 will cause increased warming.  Personally I think the IPCC statement that there is a 90% probability that humans are contributing to the warming is both misleading and nonsensical.  Since the increase in global CO2 is, for all practical purposes, entirely due to human activity, I would turn the matter around and say that humans are ultimately responsible for 100% of the warming which cannot be accounted for by solar output and geometry.On 'Climate models are unproven'--Actually, GCM's have many confirmed successes under their belts posted 2 years, 5 months ago 13 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  [OT] biggest volcano

  Fair enough... my mistake. But is certainly isn't clear from the original post why it was claimed that Mauna Loa was the biggest.  Normal joes think of the altitude of the summit or, in the case of a volcano, the size of a bang.

  I'd prefer the HVO site to 'wikipedia' though:

  http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/maunaloa/
  On 'Mauna Loa is a volcano' -- CO2 rise is measured on top of a volcano! posted 2 years, 5 months ago 8 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  very well put ...

  There are few people out there who can explain the situation in a concise, simple, accurate, and understandable form.  Many people working in the field are so focussed on one thing or other or do in fact take many assumptions as fact and work with blind faith and this certainly doesn't help the situation. When I've asked "why do you say the earth is warming" of people, rather than an intelligent response I usually get a dumb look and then an ad hominem attack because I'm not a believer. Or so the zealots think (or not).  The situation is something like this:

  1. The globe is warming up (there is no evidence to the contrary and skeptics who claim otherwise are true bastions of ignorance)

  2. CO2 does cause a warming. Using fairly straightforward calculations we can arrive at a minimal warming. However, it has long been supposed that the effect may be amplified by a feedback mechanism. So it is generally agreed that the warming must be greater than this minimum. How much greater? No one knows. What about the models? HAHAHA! Personally I think the modellers are the voodoo priests of climate change and do more harm than good. How about a negative feedback - could more CO2 = cooler temperatures? Well, no one has come up with a credible mechanism for that and there is absolutely no evidence to support such an idea.

  3. How do we humans fit into this?  Over the years people have estimated CO2 emission (actually as grams or kg of carbon rather than CO2) from direct human consumption of coal, oil, natural gas. The true numbers may be somewhat higher or somewhat lower, but even if you halved them (which will definitely be too low an estimate) we make a significant contribution to global atmospheric CO2. (need some references on that) In fact the calculations (available in any good textbook) show that something is soaking up a lot of the CO2 we humans are putting out. We are fortunate that there is a large natural sink somewhere - but that sink is simply not good enough because CO2 levels continue to rise at an incredible rate.

  4. How about the contribution from changes in the sun and our geometry (orbit, tilt, etc)? Geometry has been determined to an unbelievable degree for quite a few decades and scientists and modellers can compensate for geometry. Over the past 15 years or so we've also had excellent space based measurements of the sun, and for the past 80 years or so we've had pretty good measurements of the sun from the earth's surface. Some measurement techniques go back to over 120 years but it is truly a challenge to equate many of those measurements to any modern measurements we make. Anyway, we know the sun well enough to compensate for its effects on the warming. Now for the shocking bit: regardless of what the sun does and how the earth's motion and attitude changes, CO2 will still be warming the air. Blaming all warming on astrophysics serves no purpose whatsoever. Now, even after scientists do their best to account for the sun etc, we find that the globe is still warming. Oh, what a shock. Damn CO2 just won't go away.

  In short, yes the globe is warming and yes humans are having a significant effect. I cannot understand why the IPCC makes such inane statements as "90% probability humans are having an effect" - I really can't make any sense of that statement. Do they mean there's a 10% chance we have no effect at all? I say bollocks to that - there is a 100% probability that humans are having an effect. How big an effect? Who really knows - but we can estimate a minimum (anyone know of a recent calculation of this?). It would be irresponsible to say 'poo-poo' and 'we can't change this' because ultimately there is a genuine threat to species on the planet. It makes no sense to say "we can't do anything" until we've put in an honest effort and analysed the result of that effort. So can we ameliorate this warming? Well, that remains to be seen. I'm betting a case of beer that the wishy-washy fools win and nothing is done and some generation in the future will find that it genuinely can do nothing.
  On 'The satellites show cooling'--No, they don't posted 2 years, 5 months ago 15 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  satellites show cooling

  1. Measurement of surface temperature (over land) and Sea Surface Temperature (SST) is not a trivial exercise because the atmosphere interferes so much with all measurements.  But this is surface temperature; when people talk of global warming it is the air temperature being discussed. Although influenced by surface temperature, you can't adequately predict air temperature from surface temperature using available remote measurement data.

  2. Forget about estimating air temperature near the surface when you analyze for surface temperatures. Contemporary satellite instruments simply cannot measure temperature near the ground.

  3. Numerous air temperature measurements are made by a number of satellite instruments - but these are primarily at altitudes way above the ground so they are not directly relevant.  If you measure a cooler stratosphere that doesn't mean temperatures near the ground have also gone down - the physics just isn't that simple.

  Mostly this 'satellites show cooling' argument is based on ignorance of exactly what is being measured and how. Speaking of ignorance, Zharkov demonstrates a truly profound ignorance on all topics on which he comments.  Does anyone know if he is a manager?  He certainly cannot be a scientist. I always have a good laugh at Zharkov's expense - he clearly knows everything and nothing.
  On 'The satellites show cooling'--No, they don't posted 2 years, 5 months ago 15 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Mauna Loa is the biggest volcano?

  Why do you say it is the biggest volcano?
  It is certainly not the highest (for example, look at Popocatepetl). Nor has it provided the largest explosive eruptions in written history (Tambora, Krakatoa, and more recently Pinatubo).  It may seem off topic, but you can't expect people to believe all the climate stuff when you throw in incorrect statements such as this one on Mauna Loa.On 'Mauna Loa is a volcano' -- CO2 rise is measured on top of a volcano! posted 2 years, 5 months ago 8 Responses