Is CAGW a pseudo-science?

[questioner]

The deniers who scoff at him are not fit to lick his boots.

Is licking people's boots the way you think physics should be conducted? I'm afraid I can't agree with you on that point either. IMO physics should be conducted based upon open discussion and mutual respect.

Hansen has been called a liar and a charlatan by AGW deniers. They clearly are disrespecting his achievements.

If accurate non equilibrium conditions could be established by measurement, the models would work just as well, because they do handle transient conditions.

I remind you that the paper itself states, "Our results could be significantly modified by a different assumption". You originally asserted that Hansen's 1988 paper “says specifically that he starts his simulations with actual climatological conditions for the year 1958". This is quite plainly not the case.

Atmospheric concentrations and temperatures were real. The state of the oceans was not measurable but believed to be in equilibrium with the atmosphere. In fact the simulations looked very much like the real case, which is evidence that the initial conditions were close to reality.

I also note (with some amusement) that even in 1988 this author was already talking of his computer simulations as "experiments". Another joke perhaps?

Hardly a joke. Simulation is the only way we can "experiment" with the future to look at the effects of different courses of action.

The point is that "experiment" means making measurements in the real world in order to test theory. The idea that theory itself can be used to test theory is anti-scientific and corrupt. The idea discredits the pseudo-scientists that support it and damages the credibility of climate science as a whole.

The purpose of the experiments is not to test the models as you claim. That is a straw man. It is to determine what the effects of different actions regrading GHG emissions are going to be. One can't do experiments like that on a real earth and compare results.

On the contrary, my argument is based on well-established and uncontroversial physics, physics that is even mentioned by the IPCC in AR4.

I couldn't find where you made an argument based on well established and non controversial physics. At least provide a pointer to a specific post that and the page in the particular IPCC AR4 where your argument appears.

This is the precise post where I make the argument, viewtopic.php?f=5&t=479#p7740. Reading through that thread again, I see you were unable to provide a reasonable repost to the argument.

I didn't get around to it. You will see a reply shortly.

[Mike Davis]

Q:
Philip is correct. You did not answer the question and you interpretation of what Hansen said in 1988 is what claims Hansen was a liar. But Hansen does not need help from you because he calls himself a liar often enough. At least he makes contradictory claims and claims that do not fit the facts that others remember.

Go ahead and support all of your heroes because you are helping to dig the hole deeper!

Do we need to contact Nintendo and let them know that their consoles are equal to experiments. Maybe the creators of Sim City would get a kick out of your claims of computer models being experiments.
Computer models are what if scenarios that need to be tested to see if they match real world scenarios. The answer is that they do not!
Remember our current history of surface temperatures is the results of a computer model based on assumptions/ estimates / guesses. Attempts to verify or test models against surface temperature records are testing model out puts with model outputs. This might be acceptable in some weird fantasy novel but this is the real world despite what you believe.

[Mike Davis]

I was reading the interview with Dr. Soon about this subject:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5690
I suspect more real scientists will be speaking out or at least more of the MSM outlets will be covering the realist side.

[questioner]

I was reading the interview with Dr. Soon about this subject:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5690
I suspect more real scientists will be speaking out or at least more of the MSM outlets will be covering the realist side.

Dr Soon is not a real climatologist. Dr Soon is wrong about the sun being responsible for recent global warming according to the overwhelming majority of climatologists and solar experts.
The publication of an article co-authored with Baliunas in Climate Research so degraded the reputation of this journal that there was a mass resignation of the editors who didn't want to be associated with the journal any longer.
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Cl ... meset.html

Two of the most visible contrarians, astrophysicists Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon, of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, have challenged both of these notions (warming and anthropogenic causation). They contradicted the conclusions of Mann and others that temperatures rises in the late twentieth century are unusual (discussed in this section, and in It is well-established that the Earth's surface air temperature has warmed significantly), saying that medieval temperatures were greater than those of recent years (see Soon and Baliunas, 2003 and an accompanying press release, as well as Baliunas' opinion article in the Providence Journal). Perhaps unsurprisingly, Soon and Baliunas received about $53,000, or 5% of their 2003 study's cost, from the American Petroleum Institute (API), the oil and gas industry's main trade organization (see "Warming Study Draws Fire"). In addition, they are members of the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington D.C.-based nonprofit that opposes limits on CO2 emissions and supported ths "Star Wars" space-based missile defense proposals. (For a revealing look at the contrarian views of The Marshall Institue, see their May 2004 Policy Outlook.)

Mann responded that Baliunas and Soon simply collected climatic anecdotes and proposed no systematic analysis of hemispheric-wide averages. A series of op-eds, followed by peer-reviewed papers, were produced by Mann and his colleagues and other scientists and reporters in attempts to clarify the debate in the public eye. (See Bradley and Mann, 2003; Mann and Jones, 2003; Mann et al., 2003; and Appell, 2003. Also see "Nonprofits Push Controversial Climate Study" and "Foes of Global Warming Theory Have Energy Ties"). David Legates, an actual climatologist and a colleague of Soon and Baliunas, hit back with an article in The Washington Times entitled "Global Warming Smear Targets". (Notice that Legates does not clarify his relationship with the two in the article — he was actually a co-author of the Soon and Baliunas, 2003 report, cited above).

The intense discord surrounding the publication of the aforementioned Soon and Baliunas article in Climate Research continues to grow, and sadly, it has degraded the journal's reputation in the process. Many hoped that the fledgling journal (whose then editor — Chris de Freitas — ignored several devastating peer reviews and published Baliunas and Soon anyway) would revise its editorial policies and consider changes to its editorial board and process, but none of these occurred. As a result, Hans von Storch, the next appointed Editor-in-Chief of Climate Research, as well as four other editors (Clare Goodess, Mitsuru Ando, Shardul Argawala, and Andrew Comrie) have resigned. See von Storch's note on "The CR Problem" on his website, a Wall Street Journal article on the debacle, and Andrew Comrie's resignation letter). Many in the scientific community are still hoping that the journal can attempt to restore credibility by admitting its mistake in publishing — despite ignoring critical peer reviews — the Soon and Baliunas "science" in the first place. In a critical mood but with tongue-in-cheek, I proposed to Mike Mann that he, Ray Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes write a critique of the astrophysical publications of astrophysicists Soon and Baliunas and publish it in my journal, Climatic Change. "It would be ludicrous", was the reply. "Probably, just like Soon and Baliunas pretending they can do sophisticated climatology," I said, reflecting my skeptical view of the quality of their climatology work. For more information, listen to a summary of the Mann et al. versus Soon and Baliunas debate from January 2004, produced by BBC Radio 4 (see Programme 1).

Here is an account of the situation from one of the editors who resigned in protest.
http://www.sgr.org.uk/climate/StormyTimes_NL28.htm

The MSM and the right wing media like the Canada Free Press, Fox, the Daily Mail etc. will continue to cover the so called "realist" side, but that doesn't make it science.

[Mike Davis]

Q:
Dr. Soon is an astrophysicist and Schneider is a biologist activist and probably a member of Greenpeace. If I wanted to ask about the solar earth relationship who would be my first choice? I believe you would ask the local refuse collector or the waiter at McDonald's but maybe not because they might be more qualified that Schneider.
I followed your link to see the other side of the story.Interesting that everyone has their own opinion of what transpired and most accounts conflict with many others. There is one truth in that situation but that may never be known. Of course the names involved have shown their stripes in later comments made by and about them so I would judge on each persons reputation as it stands now rather than what was written at the time. The UEA e-mails shed a lot of light on that situation.
Your claiming what the climatologists do is science does not make it science either.
Quote:
In the meantime, Hans von Storch (another Climate Research editor) and myself had been receiving numerous unsolicited complaints and critiques of the paper from many leading members of the international palaeo and historical climatology community. At the beginning of May 2003, these had reached such a level that we raised the concerns with the editor who had processed the Soon and Baliunas paper (Chris de Freitas) and the publisher (Otto Kinne of Inter-Research). In response, de Freitas accused us of ‘a mix of a witch-hunt and the Spanish Inquisition’. The publisher eventually asked to see the documentation associated with the review of the paper - which had apparently gone to four reviewers none of whom had recommended rejection. Otto Kinne concluded that the review process had been properly conducted
Quote:
The intense discord surrounding the publication of the aforementioned Soon and Baliunas article in Climate Research continues to grow, and sadly, it has degraded the journal's reputation in the process. Many hoped that the fledgling journal (whose then editor — Chris de Freitas — ignored several devastating peer reviews and published Baliunas and Soon anyway) would revise its editorial policies and consider changes to its editorial board and process, but none of these occurred. As a result, Hans von Storch, the next appointed Editor-in-Chief of Climate Research,

Some one is fabricating an account of the event.

[questioner]

You have hit on a contradiction in the details of how the paper got reviewed. Whichever account is correct, it is true that the editorial board resigned in protest, because such a piece of shit got written by Willie Soon got published, and the editor responsible, De Freitas, and the publisher, refused to fix the procedure that permitted this to happen. I tend to believe that De Freitas sent it out to people who were going to give it a pass, because like himself they opposed emissions curbs on GHG's.

[Philip]

Dr Soon is not a real climatologist. Dr Soon is wrong about the sun being responsible for recent global warming according to the overwhelming majority of climatologists and solar experts.

What is your definition of a "real climatologist"? I'm guessing it is anyone who agrees with you and is therefore not on your blacklist. The sun is likely to be one of many factors involved in recent warming. According to the ACRIM team (who have measured TSI since 1978), TSI continued to increase over the period from 1980 to 2000. The idea that it remained flat is due to later corrections by other authors, corrections strongly contested by the original experimental team. Irrespective of the resolution of this argument, the solar flux was at an 8000 year high over the entire tail of the 20th century, and this was accompanied by significant increases in the magnitude of TSI fluctuations. Furthermore, independent measurements confirm that surface sunlight increased significantly over this period. As normal, you are simply bad mouthing anyone who disagrees with you, filtering the evidence to fit your conclusions, and misleading anyone gullible enough to take what you say at face value.

[Mike Davis]

Philip:
Now you and I both know that that big Ball in the sky could not possibly under any circumstances have anything to do with our climate. The Earth is flat and the sun revolves around our geocentric universe along with the other planets.
Q is just trying to set scientific knowledge back to the good old days before Galileo decided to confuse everyone with his strange ideas.
Butterflies cause Hurricanes and we need to spray DDT in west Africa to control Hurricanes. If we could reduce the population of the North East in this country we could reduce the extreme weather as there would not be as many people inhaling and sucking moisture from the gulf.
Your problem is the people in the southeast of your country are breathing to much in the winter and drawing the cold over the entire country. If every one faced north to breath out and faced south to breath in during the winter you would have milder winters. You would need to reverse the process in summer to have milder summers.
Maybe we could Genetically Engineer the butterflies with a reverse compass so they blow the wind the opposite direction. That would provide more moisture for the Sahara and eliminate the desert!

You are probably aware that recent research showed a relation ship between solar activity and hurricane strength. It seems that everyone (MOST) want to average or filter out so called noise in the weather system to see some trend. Doing so eliminates the necessary signals that provide evidence of natural factors and any chance of accurately predicting weather events.
TSI is one of many solar influences on our weather/climate that is not fully understood. It appears that every group thinks they hold the absolute answer. Hathaway of NASA did until he found he was wrong recently. This current cycle will prove many theories wrong, just as the last one did. They are still shaking their heads over the transition from 23 to 24. It became to public to hide their missed predictions and faulty models.

[Mike Davis]

I just wanted to share Kevin's wisdom:
From: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Myles Allen <allen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, peter stott <peter.stott@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, “Philip D. Jones” <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Benjamin Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

Pay close attention to the date as they are going on 8 months of winter there.

Found at WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/12/s ... r-at-ncar/

[questioner]

I just wanted to share Kevin's wisdom:
From: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Myles Allen <allen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, peter stott <peter.stott@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, “Philip D. Jones” <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Benjamin Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

Pay close attention to the date as they are going on 8 months of winter there.

Found at WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/12/s ... r-at-ncar/

It is of course a satirical email, ragging on the global warming skeptics like Steve Goddard that believe such things.
In fact the cooling in the central US was a regional phenomenon. It was a result of the Arctic Oscillation in a negative phase. If you look at the global average, the period was actually a warm period. October 2009 globally was the 3rd warmest in the temperature record.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/table ... s+dSST.txt
DJF 2010 was the warmest on record and March 2010 was the second warmest on record.
Steve didn't get the joke.