Solving a problem that doesn't exist

[EternalOptimist]

think I am rapidly becoming a fan of EO theory on that basis then.

will the coming ice age keep the beer cold if the fridge fails though?

In the EO paradigm, there will be no ice age and no GW. We will invent a new term, 'Climate change' and all research grants will be fixed to a negative index.

For example, if you publish a hockey stick, and a scare story, you will get a massive grant, just like now. But then when you go out and 'find' supporting evidence, your grants will be reduced, after all, you have proved your point.

This will lead to a massive reduction in fiddling of data, peer review journals etc and will expose the charlatans for what they are. snake oil salesmen.

The only people who will now support the theory are the few ramaining who dont have a vested interest. i.e. noone

 

[pjclarke]

It Don't Work.

It Don't Work.

The sequestration of carbon by ocean fertilisation is based on a blooming of algal and plankton life, which absorbs loadsa CO2 from the air. These organisms then die and drop to the ocean floor, much as yeast drops out of beer once fermentation is complete, locking away the carbon.

In practice, what happens is that all the other zooplankton organisms from the surrounding area that feed off the tinies, detect the sudden existence of a free lunch, swarm in and hoover up nearly all the excess.

Other geo-engineering solutions suffer similarly from the Law of Unintended Consquences, e.g. generating artificial clouds by throwing seaspray into the atmosphere causes droughts downstream.

Nope, sorry but the best chance we have of addressing this imminent global emergency is reducing the rate at which we throw greenhouse gases into the atmosphere of our home planet.

 

[TheBigYinJames]

I don't think your IQ is up to debating this issue.
Stick to crappy web dev at £500 per week.

Did you actually read the list of fallacious logical arguments you glibly posted yesterday?

 

[pjclarke]

The only people who will now support the theory are the few ramaining who dont have a vested interest. i.e. noone

Ah, the old 'vested interests, create a scare and get a grant' logical fallacy, huh?

Here's why it fails:

- There's a good living to be had spreading barely credible scientific dis- and misinformation. According to an open letter to Exxonmobil from Bob Ward of the Royal Society, that organisation distributed over $2.9 million in 2006 to organisations in the US 'providing inaccurate and misleading information to the public.', even after it had promnised to stop so doing.

- Uncertainty is required to cultiviate research grants. In fact the scientists say that planetary warming is 'unequivocal', and manmade greenhouse gasses very likely the main reason. They would garner more research money by exaggerating the uncertainties.

- Anyone who could produce evidence that stands up to scrutiny and which disproves AGW would in fact be in line for a Nobel, Fellowship of the Royal Society, lifelong scientific recognition and the eternal gratitude of the fossil fuel industry. QUite an incentive.


What we actually get, from Mr Bates for example, is fuzzy scans of 30 year old magazines lifted from the blog of a Children's TV presenter. Ho hum.

 

[BlasterBates]

The magazine is indeed 30 years old, but also there is a discrepency between the land temps and the satellite temps.

Which is correct?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/18/weather-balloon-data-backs-up-missing-decline-found-in-old-magazine/

Looks like the satellite temps fit with the balloon temps, and err also supports the 30 year old magazine.

 

[TheBigYinJames]

- Anyone who could produce evidence that stands up to scrutiny and which disproves AGW would in fact be in line for a Nobel, Fellowship of the Royal Society, lifelong scientific recognition and the eternal gratitude of the fossil fuel industry. QUite an incentive.

Now if only we had access to the raw data......

Oh dear, it's all owned and controlled by the vested interests.

 

[BlasterBates]

yup note the raw data from the balloon and the satellite is available.

 

[pjclarke]

Now if only we had access to the raw data......

Oh dear, it's all owned and controlled by the vested interests.

Balony. A tiny percentage has some commercial value and is restricted by the producers, excluding it from the analysis has negligible effect on the results. The vast majority, including all the Global Historical Climate Network station data, the source code that generates the GISTEMP global index, the source code and data from many global climate models are all freely downloadable, if one takes the time to go and look. Start here

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

there is a discrepency between the land temps and the satellite temps.

Yeah - HUGE divergence...

The RAOBCORE radiosonde data (Weather Balloons) is available here , but unfortunately does not actually support the claims made by Anthony Watts, Jo Nova et al. for it. Why one would expect data from a balloon to exactly match that from a surface station requires some explanation....

I am always amused by those describing themselves as 'sceptical', who demand every line of computer code and scrap of raw and intermediate data, who reject peer-reviewed science, and who then (say), present a hand-drawn graph, using data from goodness knows where, fuzzy scanned from a magazine from the seventies as 'evidence'. Surely there is something more than this....?

 

[BlasterBates]

Glad we agree

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

So you're in agreement that we haven't had 0.18 warming per decade.

UAH v5.3 finds a trend of +0.132°C/decade.[4]

It's the UAH satellite record which the balloon agrees with

...and of course that's only 0.2 degrees higher than 1940 which is borne out by the balloon record, because the decline was hidden.

 

[TheBigYinJames]

I am always amused by those describing themselves as 'sceptical', who demand every line of computer code and scrap of raw and intermediate data, who reject peer-reviewed science....?

I'm equally amused by those who appear to have a real spiritual need for AGW to be real, so much so that it becomes a righteous battle for them, a crusade for the new millenium. What is it about AGW advocacy that makes its followers missionaries, out to convert the unbelievers by the word or the sword? It's no longer OK to disagree or doubt.

I'm a big fan of science, all my degrees are in science. I have a horror of ignorance. I hate big business and misinformation as much as the next guy. I have kids, if AGW is real, then it's not just me I'm hurting by doubting it.

This is not a knee-jerk reaction for me, I have been interested and supportive of ecological movements for years and years, and I'm supportive of renewable energy, recycling, getting rid of fossil fuels, all that good stuff. I'm a fan of taxing polluters, and forcing them by law to clean up their wastefulness.

What I resent is because I don't believe the "science is settled" then I'm lumped in with lunatics and right-wingers. There doesn't seem to be a camp for "ok, let's do this stuff anyway, because it's a good idea regardless, but can we please get back to good science, reasoned debate, without namecalling, deceit, and leave out the politicisation of science"