[LINK] Weekend Magazine - Remote Siberian Lake Holds Clues to Arctic--and Antarctic--Climate Change

[Richard Chirgwin]

Alternatively, Tom, there's the 1981 paper that predicted current 
conditions with remarkable accuracy:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/04/1981_climate_paper/

FFS. We're happy to USE the far-less-certain tenets of quantum physics 
in everyday life, because when it's stacked up with lots of results, the 
statistics work out the way we want them to. The "modeling 
uncertainties" of quantum physics are at least as great, in big complex 
systems, as those in climate science. But one of them is okay because 
actually we can't live without it; the other is dismissed because a 
bunch of vested interests don't like it that way.

A laser, to pick an example, is at bottom probabilistic. At any given 
moment, with an instrument of sufficient resolution, you might see a 
particle failing to release a suitably-coherent photon. Just like in 
thermodynamics, really: it's feasible that an individual particle might 
move from the less-hot region >to< the more-hot region, just because 
that's the direction it happened to be moving. But we trust quantum 
physics because the statistics can easily be tested on short time-scales.

So okay, argue against climate science. But first, prove you're up to 
the task by proving why my DVD player doesn't actually work. Otherwise, 
quit this "I'm not a scientist but I know why all scientists are wrong" 
drivel.

RC

On 25/06/12 5:27 PM, TKoltai wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au
>> [mailto:link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Jim Birch
>> Sent: Monday, 25 June 2012 4:36 PM
>> Cc: link at mailman.anu.edu.au
>> Subject: Re: [LINK] Weekend Magazine - Remote Siberian Lake
>> Holds Clues to Arctic--and Antarctic--Climate Change
>>
>>
>> I once got a conspiracy of two going for a while.  We fooled
>> a few of the other school kids for a couple of days IIRC.
>>
>> Achieving the same kind of thing with with tens of thousands
>> of scientists would be a lot harder.
>>
>> Do you know any scientists?  Do you think you could have got
>> them to lie in scientific publications for small amounts of
>> money?  It wouldn't be easy. How much time, money and
>> organisational skill do you think you would need to get a
>> watertight conspiracy of ten thousand scientists in place?
>> The global climate conspiracy is a truly amazing piece of work.
>>
> Actually Jim,
>
> The global climate change "conspiracy" as you call it consists of only
> 79 publicly pro GW scientists.
> The "anti" lobby consists of a considerably smaller number (prepared to
> be public - with most public "anti GW" scientists choosing to live
> outside the USA - including the former GISS NASA scientists).
>
> But let us ignore the concept of conspiracy, let us trade real numbers
> instead of name calling and snide insinuations...
>
> I'll advance a GW scenario and its results below.
> As one of the only persons in Link that I believe is qualified to
> comment on these matters, I would be appreciative if you could confirm
> or refute the GW scenario outlined:
>
> Quote/
> One of the most important papers in the history of the climate alarm is
> published by J. Hansen and collaborators in Journal of Geophysical
> Research (1988). The title is "Global Climate Changes as Forecast by
> Goddard Institute for Space Studies".
>
> In this paper they present the GISS model II to simulate the global
> climate effects of time-dependent  variations of atmospheric trace gases
> and aerosols.  They demonstrate the effect of 3 scenarios:
>
> -          A : Increase of 1.5% CO2 emissions per year
>
> -          B: Approximate constant increase of CO2 emissions after 2000
>
> -          C: No increase in CO2 emissions after the year 2000
>
> http://kaltesonne.de/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/hansen.gif
>
> The CO2 emissions have since 2000 increased with 2.5%, which means that
> we should expect a more drastic temperature increase than in model A.
> In the figure three scenarios are shown together with the observed
> global temperature curve - all shown as 5 year running mean.
>
> The arrow above scenario A is what they may have predicted with a 2.5 %
> CO2 increase which is observed, instead of the 1.5% in scenario A.
> However, the observed temperature increase is about 0.6C, while the
> predicted increase is about 1.5C. /Quote
>
> Continues: ... http://www.kaltesonne.de/?p=4006
>
> TomK
>
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>