Slashdot Mirror

Oh, so nobody told you that the actor on television wasn't really a doctor?

As it happens, there are also 'real scientists' who disagree with those you list (realclimate.org's misinformation)(US Senate Minority Report)(Wikipedia (I know, its wikipedia....)).

I was actually thinking of that guy in Colorado (Peilke?) who has long argued that global atmospheric heat content is what we should be talking about.

Looked around for Pielke's work mentioning heat content and found this. Is that a good reference? I agree that internal energy of the Earth is a more robust and useful variable than temperature, but I'd go one step further. That is, a much more useful variable would be the internal energy of the atmosphere and ocean combined. That would eliminate the spurious temperature swings associated with ENSO events that seem to mislead many people. This heat transfer between the atmosphere and oceans wouldn't distort such a metric.

You are correct that heat is only one form of internal energy, although physicists have a slightly different take on the nature of heat than chemists, so I don't agree with your characterization of heat as strictly a type of energy transfer. ...

Actually, I'm a physicist too. Never was that good at chemistry. I still think heat is a form of energy transfer, not a state variable. But I'll drop this argument because (like your point) it doesn't seem particularly interesting or relevant.

So yes, by all means be pedantic and talk about "atmospheric internal energy". That is a physically meaningful quality, whereas neither you nor anyone else has suggested why taking any kind of average of dry-bulb temperatures is in any way physically interesting. And if it is not physically interesting, it is not climatologically interesting. ... All I can say is that I still don't understand what anyone thinks they are doing with global average temperature, but whatever it is, it isn't physics.

The internal energy of the atmosphere is a weighted mean of temperatures, where the weightings reflect differing heat capacities. A global average temperature cannot be used to determine the internal energy of the atmosphere because it isn't properly weighted (as I believe you're saying.) But as I've said, even an unweighted average improves the signal-to-noise ratio of temperature trends. More measurements improve the statistics in the same way multi-model ensembles improve climate predictions compared to single-model runs. The global temperature isn't intended as a formal variable, it's simply an easy-to-measure diagnostic of the global climate.

I apologise for mixing up ACs (although I can understand you, simply talking about AGW-related subjects using non-religious words causes "troll" and "flamebait" moderations). As to the rest of your post above, it does not contain anything new and you're just repeating your (sorry) lack of knowledge on the subject.

(You might want to go back and see what you've actually linked to btw)

1) GISTEMP source and algorithms are not open. Feel free to contact people tracking this if you still believe otherwise.

2) The CRN123 study you believe you've cited contained factual errors.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/05/pielk-sr-responds-to-ncdcs-talking-points-about-surfacesations-org/

http://climatesci.org/2009/05/12/comments-on-the-new-paper-the-united-states-historical-climatology-network-monthly-temperature-data-%E2%80%93-version-2-by-menne-et-al-2009/

I think we need to wait for the surfacestations.org project's paper, soon to be released, for a conclusion on this subject.

3) Buckets of water. Ice. Hot. Scientist, feet.

4) Umm no. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/14/giss-for-june-way-out-there/

Why is it important for you to disregard facts when it comes to the subject of AGW?

"That completely misrepresents the opinion of climatologists." Really? Like James E. Hansen, Nasa's lead climatologist. Oh, no, I guess not. How about atmospheric scientists from the University of Oxford? Hmm. No. Or maybe you mean Jonathan Overpeck, the director for the University of Arizona's Institute for the Study of Planet Earth who once said of climate change, "The results suggest the threshold is close to the end of this century, and it could come sooner. The Arctic is already warming much faster than we thought it would. To think we're not going to get 4 to 5 degrees warmer in another 50 years is wishful thinking." Oh, no, you don't mean him. How about Damon Matthews, from Concordia University in Canada, or Ken Caldeira, from the Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford ... no, not them. Perhaps you mean Roger Pielke Sr. of ClimateScience.org, who does at least say, "Policies that focus on CO2 by itself are ignoring definitive research results ... that humans have a much broader influence on the climate system."

I've not found a climatologist who has said that raising CO2 levels are a good thing or even a neutral thing.

I can find meteorologists, economists, physicists, and many other very clever people who say such things, but if there are climatologists out there saying "Ah, nevermind the CO2, it's no big thing," then they are outnumbered 100 to 1 at best. Is that "far less" consensus than the rest? No, I don't think so. Maybe a little less. But I'm giving you a hypothetical. I still haven't even seen one of these mythical pro-CO2 climatologists of which you write. Please enlighten.

From your own link, Dr Kiminori Itoh in his own words:

Tadashi and I are basically physical chemists familiar with environmental sciences, and not particularly specialized in climate science.

And in other people's words:

According to Google Scholar and Yokohama National University, Dr. Itoh has not published any work in the area of climate change in peer-reviewed science journals.

Maybe you missed step 2?

Dr. Kiminori Itoh wrote a book (in wapanese sadly) about how Global Warming is a massive lie/scam, just as he is quoted saying on that site I linked. Good enough for you?

You're nothing but a liar.

here's one listing.

an interesting look at the IPCC's fraud "scientists"

More...

Another one... this one a former IPCC member.

Now, you owe me an apology. A-hole.

You're nothing but a liar.

here's one listing.

an interesting look at the IPCC's fraud "scientists"

More...

Another one... this one a former IPCC member.

Now, you owe me an apology. A-hole.

This is a complete myth.

Like the complete myth that all respectable climatologists are on board with man made global warming?
Like Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences (ATOC) at the University of Colorado.
He has created a power point on climate change.

Read this and be enlightened

http://climatesci.org/2008/10/14/dr-richard-keens-global-warming-quiz/