Climate sensitivity

That sad attempt at a debunk has already been tried. He uses vetted climate scientists as reference so I can see why you denialists have a problem with him.

Just a note - I edited my previous post since you copied mine.

 

Interesting to catch these global warming projections from an even earlier time when it had been cool for quite a while. Not bad. They had the basics down.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/

 

No he is an extremist amateur misrepresenting vetted scientific work to suit his personal political agenda. Learn the difference

And this is yet another alarmist blog

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/07/truth-about-realclimateorg.html

If these are your sources for your opinions its no wonder you think as you do

 

Give me a break! One more pseudoscientific denialist site. What we need is some sort of analysis of why you religionists are so desperately at odds with basic science. Is your secret source Rush Limbaugh or maybe Fox News? I guess its just the hand of God making those icebergs melt and the ocean rise and the earth temperature rise decade by decade. All those climate scientists are in the employ of the Devil, no doubt, who of course is trying to foist a worldwide socialist conspiracy. There is always a conspiracy with denialists.

 

Dingo, you seem to have a problem with irrefutable facts, such as what Cook actually was employed as and the registrar organization for RealClimate, these have nothing to do with religious beliefs. I am personally agnostic and only get my climate science information from highly credentialed scientists such as Dr. Lindzen. No need to show your ideological bias with ridiculous strawman arguments.

 

I'm an athiest Briton so why would you think I even know who Rush Limbaugh is much less watch Fox news ? Is smearing and baiting all you've got here ? How many other strawmen can you cram into a few lines and why does anyone asking questions of this shaky hypothesis anger you so much ?

Just because you have polarized this issue around your own myopic US centric political worldview dont automatically assume that anyone who disagrees with you has done the same

 

The Greeks knowing the earth was round was something you didn't know until I told you a few weeks ago.

Now you have shifted your argument to the idea that Columbus contemporaries thought it was flat despite the Greeks knowing it was round.

Again an utterly false made up story. You are repeating lies put forward in a work of fiction by Washington Irving. Washington Irving was an atheist who was trying to paint he church in a bad light so he invented a false narrative. One that exists to this day.

The church scholars and general scholars who disagreed with Columbus didn't' disagree that the earth was round. Everyone with any education knew the earth was round. Aristotle proved, and as far as the church was concerned Aristotle was beyond contestation. The question was how big the earth was in circumference. The scholars of the day believed that the correct estimate of the earth's circumference was set by Eratosthenes in the late 3rd century BC at between 40K km and 46K km depending on how a stade(old unit of measurement) is defined. Scholars believed this to be correct and the distance between Europe and India was too great to travel west by sea. No one knew there was an entire continent between Europe and Asia.

Columbus didn't necessary disagree with Eratosthenes however he disagreed with others interpenetration of Eratosthenes estimate. He believed that scholars where using an incorrect interpretation of a stade as used by Eratosthenes. He believed that Eratosthenes true estimate was far shorter and the journey was possible. Of course Columbus could have traveled to Alexandria and repeated Eratosthenes original experiment using known units of measurement and saved him self a lot of hassle but I digress.

When Columbus discovered America it proved that Columbus was wrong. The earth was actually as large as the scholars said it was. Had the Americas not been there he and his crew would have died will before they reached Asia.

Now that you have been educated I expect you to stop using that ridiculous flat earth analogy.

 

Sorry, I was focusing on American denialists. For British denialists how about Lord Monckton and The Telegraph as their mentors? I do want to be politically correct.

 

Not really true. CO2 sensitivity is critically dependent on feedbacks, which in turn may depend on things such as the concentrations of other LLGGs, the location of the continents latitudinally, the amount and type of anthropogenic aerosols, the amount of anthropogenic deforestation, the size and location of global ice sheets, and so on. In other words, it's entirely possible that the temperature rise we get from the first CO2 doubling may be different than the temperature rise we get from the second CO2 doubling.

No it's not. The uncertainty in the speed of light was large and unchanged for centuries. That uncertainty had zero effect on whether the wave theory or the particle theory was correct.

 

Lindzen is a God in the denialist world because he is one of the few left of the climate scientists who tends to discounts the dangers of AGW. But even he accepts AGW in principle, just doesn't think it is that big a deal. The guy's work has been debunked so many times by vetted climate scientists that I've lost count.

 

Its also entirely possible the pigs will fly out of my ass.

I get you point however you are wrong because the sensitivity has one true answer. After a doubling of CO2 we will see what change in temperature.

You are trying t argue that it is a differential. So what? It still only has one answer.

Talking out of you ass again.

Light is a perfect example because as we zeroed in on its nature with electromagnetic theory we got closer and closer to the actual answer.

Neither were correct on their own. Thanks for proving my point.

 

Feel free to illustrate where I have ever referenced either ?

 

I don't do extensive reviews of other folks posts but you are welcome to give us the source of your denialism.

 

Many skeptics accept that climate change can have an anthropogenic component without supporting alarmist conclusions. Dr. Lindzen has rebutted all criticisms of his work by the usual alarmist scientists.

 

That's beyond a joke. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Richard_Lindzen_link.htm

 

Yes Skeptical Science is a joke. Notice you posted a list of blogs and not peer-reviewed papers, try again.

 

If you were a serious searcher for truth you would read the links and then report back that they neither referenced or linked to peer reviewed papers. But that's not how denialists operate. You have to protect your Genesis like faith by avoiding such inquiry. However to make it easier for you why not take an assertion in one of the links and demonstrate with good science where it is wrong. That shouldn't be too hard.

 

If you were a serious researcher you would not get your science from blogs run by cartoonists. You seem confused on who you are talking to or failed to read that I was agnostic so your religious ad hominems are embarrassingly ridiculous.

Why don't you go find a peer-reviewed criticism (you know real science) of Dr. Lindzen that he has not rebutted. It shouldn't be too hard, you have enough useless links (even one by a guitar hero). Then I can educate you on how to do proper research.

 

That is such a pathetic response. If you or I present a link our lack of expertise doesn't effect the link. I mean how many blogs on the issue of AGW whether science based or denialist are run by climate scientists? It's the content derived from the links inside that counts. Why even waste your time here if all you can do is duck and dodge?

 

So you cant refute the fact that

Your source is a cartoonist.

P.S. He and his friends at SS also like to photoshop themselves as Nazis. Immature little (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)bags with a world domination complex.

 

Whos the one ducking and dodging here ?

Ok then lets hear what John Cook has to say about himself on his own Skeptical Science blog

http://web.archive.org/web/20071213172906/www.skepticalscience.com/page.php?p=3

. I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist and web programmer by trade. I did a Physics degree at the University of Queensland and while I achieved First Class Honours and could've continued onto a PhD, I instead quit academia and became a professional scrawler

 

So asking you to find peer-reviewed criticism is pathetic? I don't know of any blogs by "denialists". If you expect Dr. Lindzen to waste his time rebutting Internet blogs all day long he would not have time to do actual scientific research. Nor am I going to waste my time going through a cartoonist's gish gallop of blog links. Why are you arguing like a creationist?

 

Sorry guys, you were given the links and you ran away. All the huffing and puffing won't change the fact that you reverted to the standard tactic of true believer anti-science denialists, avoid and attack.

 

And those were not 'science' but rabidly alarmist blogs as has been highlighted for you on a number of occasions on just this one thread. Post some real 'undoctored' science in support of your position then we'll talk

 

More duck and dodge. How would you know if you haven't read them? Really this is getting boring. Choose a link and dispute it. Your avoidance is obvious and frankly shameless. If substance is of no interest to you and unsupported ad hominems are all you are capable of, again why waste your time here?