• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5


Climate Change in 12 Minutes - The Skeptic's Case
#1
Those damn skeptics!





Dr. David M.W. Evans consulted full time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia's carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. The area of human endeavor with the most experience and sophistication in dealing with feedbacks and analyzing complex systems is electrical engineering, and the most crucial and disputed aspects of understanding the climate system are the feedbacks. The evidence supporting the idea that CO2 emissions were the main cause of global warming reversed itself from 1998 to 2006, causing Evans to move from being a warmist to a skeptic.
'What is your trouble? Mistaken identity'. '
  - W.W.W.
Reply
#2
Honestly?

He's an engineer pontificating about an area of science he has no expertise in? Colour me surprised.

I'll check WoK later to examine his published research on the issue (lol).
"It is simply this: do not tire, never lose interest, never grow indifferent—lose your invaluable curiosity and you let yourself die. It's as simple as that" Tove Jansson
Reply
#3
You could also look at the points he makes.

If it wasn't for the fact that practically every intellectual and scientist I respect and follow (few-to-none of whom probably have expertise in related areas of science) don't seem to doubt the conventional view for a moment, I'd be far more open to the skeptics' position.

I find his point about the feedback loops quite intriguing.

PS. I'm not a scientist.
'What is your trouble? Mistaken identity'. '
  - W.W.W.
Reply
#4
Yeah, I'm just doing so. Masochism is part of my schtick - thing is, heard it all before!

Errors...

1. Evans: notion of water vapour feedback from 1980s.
Wrong -The idea of feedbacks from water vapour goes back to Arrhenius in the 19th century.

2. The warming effect from CO2 and water vapour feedback is simply an equation plugged into models.
Wrong: it results from both models and real-world data (i.e., climate sensitivity; Knutti & Hegerl, 2008)

2. All skeptics agree with 'government' scientists that CO2 will lead to warming.
Wrong - obviously never heard of Gerlich and Tscheuschner. They tried to publish a paper a few years back denying that the greenhouse effect itself exists (which is at least a laugh a minute).

3. Clouds lead to cooling, reducing warming.
Wrong - they lead to both cooling and warming. For instance, it was bloody freezing today, I assume a frost tonight - no clouds you see. Heat escapes the earth. Data suggests that overall the forcing from clouds will be positive, or at best negligibly negative (e.g., Dessler, 2010).

Shit man - I'm only 2.5 mins in and it's like shooting fish in a barrel. Do I need to carry on, empiricist?

Tell you what - life is short and I'm predicting a Gish-gallop. Perhaps pick what you think is his best argument, then I'll do my best to eviscerate it for you.
"It is simply this: do not tire, never lose interest, never grow indifferent—lose your invaluable curiosity and you let yourself die. It's as simple as that" Tove Jansson
Reply
#5
Yeah, go on buddy, just 9.5 mins. to go :)
I'm interested to hear your thoughts.
'What is your trouble? Mistaken identity'. '
  - W.W.W.
Reply
#6
(21-02-2013, 11:06 PM)empiricist Wrote: Yeah, go on buddy, just 9.5 mins. to go :)
I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

Fair enough - but it's 11pm, I'm up at 7am tomorrow.

As above, pick what you think is his most convincing argument and I'll shit all over it for you.

Then when I have time, I'll bother watching the last 9.5mins and tear it an new asshole.

Deal?
"It is simply this: do not tire, never lose interest, never grow indifferent—lose your invaluable curiosity and you let yourself die. It's as simple as that" Tove Jansson
Reply
#7
(21-02-2013, 11:02 PM)mela Wrote: Yeah, I'm just doing so. Masochism is part of my schtick - thing is, heard it all before!

Errors...

1. Evans: notion of water vapour feedback from 1980s.
Wrong -The idea of feedbacks from water vapour goes back to Arrhenius in the 19th century.

2. The warming effect from CO2 and water vapour feedback is simply an equation plugged into models.
Wrong: it results from both models and real-world data (i.e., climate sensitivity; Knutti & Hegerl, 2008)

2. All skeptics agree with 'government' scientists that CO2 will lead to warming.
Wrong - obviously never heard of Gerlich and Tscheuschner. They tried to publish a paper a few years back denying that the greenhouse effect itself exists (which is at least a laugh a minute).

3. Clouds lead to cooling, reducing warming.
Wrong - they lead to both cooling and warming. For instance, it was bloody freezing today, I assume a frost tonight - no clouds you see. Heat escapes the earth. Data suggests that overall the forcing from clouds will be positive, or at best negligibly negative (e.g., Dessler, 2010).

Shit man - I'm only 2.5 mins in and it's like shooting fish in a barrel. Do I need to carry on, empiricist?

Tell you what - life is short and I'm predicting a Gish-gallop. Perhaps pick what you think is his best argument, then I'll do my best to eviscerate it for you.

(21-02-2013, 11:09 PM)mela Wrote:
(21-02-2013, 11:06 PM)empiricist Wrote: Yeah, go on buddy, just 9.5 mins. to go :)
I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

Fair enough - but it's 11pm, I'm up at 7am tomorrow.

As above, pick what you think is his most convincing argument and I'll shit all over it for you.

Then when I have time, I'll bother watching the last 9.5mins and tear it an new asshole.

Deal?

Sure, but bear in mind I'm not a skeptic - I go with science, always. I just found his 'feedback loop' point intriguing, so perhaps shit all over that? :)
'What is your trouble? Mistaken identity'. '
  - W.W.W.
Reply
#8
Empiricist, you should be a sceptic. I am. However, I don't accept the denier's/contrarian's attempt to hijack the term.

You'd need to expand on it - feedback loop is too vague.

If it's simply the argument he presented early (CO2>warming, warming>water vapour, water vapour>warming), then that's already covered. It's climate sensitivity, and has been studied extensively: likely 2-4'C for a doubling of CO2.
"It is simply this: do not tire, never lose interest, never grow indifferent—lose your invaluable curiosity and you let yourself die. It's as simple as that" Tove Jansson
Reply
#9
mela, I'll post tomorrow, also need to sleep here :)

P.S. Are you a scientist? ...you seem pretty clued in.
'What is your trouble? Mistaken identity'. '
  - W.W.W.
Reply
#10
(21-02-2013, 11:38 PM)empiricist Wrote: mela, I'll post tomorrow, also need to sleep here :)

P.S. Are you a scientist?

Nope, just a mild-mannered janitor ;)

http://youtu.be/aKu-WmkpkIE
"It is simply this: do not tire, never lose interest, never grow indifferent—lose your invaluable curiosity and you let yourself die. It's as simple as that" Tove Jansson
Reply

Reddit   Facebook   Twitter  




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

   
DISCLAIMER
Any views or opinions posted by members are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the UKCR staff team.