Notes on Comments – Important

UPDATE #2: BLOGSPOT SAYS THERE IS NO LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF COMMENTS AND REPLIES. I THINK THAT IS ONLY PARTIALLY TRUE. I MOVED A NUMBER OF COMMENTS TO AN ARCHIVE PAGE AND SUDDENLY A BUNCH OF NEW COMMENTS THAT I HAD PUBLISHED SHOWED UP AT THE BOTTOM. SO, YES, THEY WERE ALLOWED. THEY JUST WOULD NOT SHOW UP ON THE PAGE. SO, I AM TAKING ALL COMMENTS AND REPLIES AND MOVING THEM TO A NEW PAGE: THE $10,000 CHALLENGE COMMENTS ARCHIVE PAGE. ALL COMMENTS AND REPLIES ARE COPIED VERBATIM AND NOTHING IS BEING EDITED. I AM DOING THIS FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING ADDITIONAL COMMENTS AND PAGES ON THE CHALLENGE PAGE.

CURRENTLY, ALL ORIGINAL COMMENTS BEGINNING BEFORE JUNE 23, 2014 HAVE BEEN MOVED TO THE ARCHIVE.

UPDATE: I CAN MAKE REPLIES ON OTHER PAGES, JUST NOT ON THE $10,000 CHALLENGE PAGE. IF I THOUGHT LIKE A DENIER I WOULD THINK THIS WAS A CONSPIRACY TO SHUT ME DOWN BECAUSE I WAS EMBARRASSING THE DENIERS (THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE?). BLOGSPOT SAYS AN UNLIMITED NUMBER OF COMMENTS AND REPLIES IS PERMITTED, BUT I AM BEGINNING TO THINK THAT MIGHT NOT BE THE CASE.

I am having some kind of severe problem with blogspot.com where it will not allow me to reply to comments, or to even post a comment of my own. I can (currently) make new postings, I just can’t reply to comments.

If you have made a comment I don’t want you to think I am ignoring you. I am working hard on this issue and trying to find a solution. Until then, please be patient and I will reply to your comments as soon as I can.

Chris Keating

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “Notes on Comments – Important

  1. Global Warming cannot be proven because it is IMPOSSIBLE to know what the average surface temp of the entire planet was 1 million years ago, or 10,000 years ago, or 700 years ago, OR 5 YEARS AGO!!

    Like

  2. None of the climate models account for heat transfered to the ocean from the Earth's hot interior. Innumerable thermal vents are known to exist on the ocean floor and the ocean floor is known to be the thinest crust.
    Please make my $1000 check payable to Vance McElmurry.

    Like

  3. “Global Warming” cannot be proven because it is IMPOSSIBLE to know what the average surface temp of the entire planet is from day to day 1 million years ago, 10,000 years ago, 400 years ago, OR 5 YEARS AGO.

    Like

  4. To date, every single comment has been posted. There have been a few that came pretty close to the family-friendly standard I insist on, but even those got posted. Funny how you make such an insulting accusation without bothering the get the facts, but that is what deniers do.

    Like

  5. Mr Keating continues to say skeptics “deny climate change”. We don't, as I have repeatedly and explicitly stated in earlier comments. But we do question the supposed – and unproven – magnitude of our influence.

    However, he has now reformulated his challenge. Alas, though, his knowledge of the scientific method and of the objectivity that it enjoins upon men of science seems lacking. He now requires us to “disprove” the IPCC's equilibrium climate-sensitivity interval delta-T(2x) on [1.5, 4.5] K, and to “disprove” its assertion that most of the global warming since 1950 was manmade.

    In the current state of climate science, it is not possible to “prove” or “disprove” any particular interval, which is why grown-ups approach the question probabilistically. It is very unlikely that Charney sensitivity is as high as 1.5 K, and near-impossible that it is as high as 4.5 K, Yet Mr Keating asks for absolute “proof” that has long been demonstrated to be unattainable, just as “proof” of IPCC’s sensitivity interval is also unattainable. Absolute proof is seldom available in the physical sciences.

    He should read Lorenz (1963), IPCC (2001, para. 14.2.2.2), Giorgi (2005), Lindzen and Choi (2011), Spencer & Braswell (2011), or Monckton of Brenchley (2008, 2010) to understand some of the complexities which render climate sensitivity inherently unconstrainable.

    Given that in the quarter-century since IPCC's first assessment report the world has warmed at half the rate then predicted on the basis of the [1.5, 4.5] K equilibrium-sensitivity interval, so far the outturn seems to favor the skeptical low-sensitivity position in the journals.

    Likewise, one cannot prove or disprove IPCC's assertion that most of the global warming since 1950 was manmade. True, only 0.5% of 11,944 papers published in the scientific literature between 1991 and 2011 expressly say that (Legates et al., 2013): however, even if feedbacks were net-negative the forcings from CO2 and other greenhouse gases would, all other things being equal, account for more than half of the 0.65 K global warming since 1950.

    So what? Elementary considerations would lead us to expect a further 0.8 K warming this century (of which none has occurred so far), all other things being equal, and that sensitivity to a CO2 doubling is ~1 K. Paleoclimate data confirm the extreme unlikelihood of climate sensitivities >>1 K: e.g., Jouzel et al. (2007) show surface temperature (corrected for polar amplification) as varying by only 1% either side of the long-run mean over the past 810,000 years.

    Paleoclimate reconstructions nearly all show the climate object is formidably thermostatic, consistent with feedback loop gains <0.1, implying sensitivity <1.3 K. The world may warm, but not by much.

    Mr Keating asks for evidence that the warming since 1950 was mostly natural. Pinker et al. (2005) found that a reduction in cloud cover caused 2.9 Watts per square meter of radiative forcing from 1983-2001. The reduction was chiefly natural, and probably associated with the then-positive PDO.

    Though CO2 concentrations continue to rise, probably through our emissions, cloud cover has recovered since 2001, suggesting that our influence on it is small. Contrast this largely natural 2.9 Watts per square meter of forcing in just 18 years with the 2.3 Watts per square meter of forcing attributable to Man from 1750-2011 (IPCC, 2013). There is a statable case that most of the warming since 1950 was natural.

    Given the chaoticity of the climate object, absolute proof is not attainable by any method (Lorenz, 1963). It would be more scientific if Mr Keating were to yell “Deniers!” rather less, and were to try to understand the probabilistic, rather than absolutist, tone of adult scientists in the climate debate.

    His “challenge” remains ill-formulated and unscientifically based. His continuing use of hate-speech terms such as “deniers” is childish.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s