22 posts • joined Thursday 8th March 2012 10:50 GMT
Line 4 of the original paper's summary demonstrates Lewis is a climate denying fool
"We assume no human presence or anthropic effects, so the calculation is speculative."
Lewis is 180 degrees out. His only saving grace is that his reporting can only improve from here.
Re: 30 billion tons vs 3.7 giga tons?
An -additional- 4%. That's why it's forcing change.
Re: Graph proves article accuracy
Temperatures have been flat or declining only if you treat the Daily Mail as science.
Re: @Ooloons @ Posted Tuesday 10th July 2012 13:26 GMT
Only deniers (yes, you) deploy the C, for catastrophic, in CAGW. You went for the balanced view and came out unbalanced. Well done.
Re: Did Lewis read the same paper?
It's odd how he took the same line as the Faily Wail. The Register must be at least as good as the worst science reporting in the UK. Congratulations, Lewsi. And they said it couldn't be done - you keep proving them wrong.
Re: Then lets take the financial incentive away
You mean don't pay scientists? Do you include doctors in that? How about geologists looking for oil? Are you paid to do anything constructive?
Re: So which is it?
The most interesting facet of climategate was there was no gate. Multiple reviews all found the science was sound. The deniers deny even these findings. That's when you know you've hit upon a real denier - when multiple lines of evidence don't stick.
Re: I love satire truthiness
Me too. You're wrong. http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm.
You meant to say how good the models have been, didn't you? Eg something like http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction-advanced.htm.
Hansen's model has proven remarkably accurate, contrary to your assertion. See http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction.htm. Good science practiced by a good Republican scientist.
Re: I've never understood...
Nonsense. Too much water is a flood. Too much manure is a pile of...poo. Too much CO2 is a blanket on a fevering patient.
Re: Stating the frickin' obvious
Chaotic systems are determinstic and are modeled all the time. Chaos is not a synonym for randomness. The basic population growth equation is chaotic: trivial to program and tracks well to many populations. Newton's law of gravitation is chaotic; it can't be solved for the general N-body problem, but it can and is modeled all the time. Here's yet another case of a model yielding useful results. Time to accept the evidence of the problem and start creating solutions - high time.
"For sure" is too high a hurdle. Most everything in physical science is a theory waiting to be disproved, not proved. Newtonian gravitation is still a theory - adn Einstein upset it. AGW has been remarkably accurate for over 30 years. Time to deal with it.
Re: Looking at other things like Physics
There are stronger greenhouse gases: methane and water vapour to name but too. The one that is increasing is CO2. It will lead to the other two increasing. Methane will increase as the permfrost melts. Water vapour will increase due to a warming atmosphere. Positive feedback is not a positive development.
As for consensus, you don know that AGW wasn't accepted 30 years ago. Revell's 1955 paper was about the first to join up the greenhouse effect of CO" with calculating the order of magnitude change. So, when the consensus is even deeper in ten years, will you still be the contrarian, raling against your nurse, banging your stick on the floor and telling us how the horseless carriage is still a mistake despite its popularity?
Re: El Reg Scepticism
You're jesting, right. Pull up Hansen's 1998 predictions, add the error bars and stand back and admire his prescience - damn good. Sadly. The models work exceptionally well.
CFCs were indeed the prime cause. F Sherwood Roland received a Nobel for his work. He only died a couple of weeks back. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1995/press.html
Assertions without citations, particularly those citing "cosmic rays" aren't serious.
No citation to substantiate your assertion? Oh dear.
What sealed system would that be?
Sealed system? I've not been out in days, but has the sun stopped shining altogether? Oh dear.
Re: the greenhouse effect is bogus
Ah, the greenhouse effect is basic physics, known for over a hundred years. AGW's been known for over 50. Mythbusters have a good video on CO2 causing warming; any secondary school can show it. The penny dropping moment was from the 1950s - scientists had long known CO2's effects - it was the magnitude that shocked them. See http://aip.org/history/climate/Revelle.htm.
Re: Lindzen is Heartland PR
As for his most recent lecture, he may have been a bit confused, http://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzens-junk-science.html. If his science is that good he really should try publishing. Peer review weans out such poor analysis before he embarasses himself (and his fervent followers).
Lindzen is Heartland PR
Citing one scientist - and one of the diminishingly small set of climate scientists who don't work with the concensus - just isn't good enough. You need to be more skeptical about your sources, http://www.skepticalscience.com/Lindzen_Illusions.htm.
Who funds the writing of this nonsense?
The Global Warming Protection Fund is Lord Lawson's secretive denier front. Any foreword that contains the conspiracy theory phrasing of "the facts have been hidden from the consumer who will have to pay the bill for this folly" deserves very careful scrutiny. Who knows, Gordon Hughes may yet be proven correct. But it needs to shake off the heavy history of GWPF's failure first.
- Geek's Guide to Britain INSIDE GCHQ: Welcome to Cheltenham's cottage industry
- 'Catastrophic failure' of 3D-printed gun in Oz Police test
- Game Theory Is the next-gen console war already One?
- BBC suspends CTO after it wastes £100m on doomed IT system
- Peak Facebook: British users lose their Liking for Zuck's ad empire