tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post1341569454822115144..comments2024-02-12T15:25:44.028+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Kip Hansen's badge of dishonourSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-55029841039778494882018-02-22T00:29:06.619+11:002018-02-22T00:29:06.619+11:00Hey, David Sanger - perhaps we could start over by...Hey, David Sanger - perhaps we could start over by abolishing conservation of energy. That would give Kip a fair chance!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02118098301863610359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-53801004516154382092016-10-24T21:41:46.568+11:002016-10-24T21:41:46.568+11:00The IPCC AR5 science report is badly written scien...<i>The IPCC AR5 science report is badly written science.</i><br /><br />It's not Shakespeare. But what is wrong with it in your estimation. <br /><br /><br /><br /><i> Statements made within the report often do not clearly attribute the source of evidence for each statement.</i><br /><br />For every statement? You have to be kidding.<br /><br /><i>The literature referenced is not clearly cited when appropriate. E.g. Methane radiative forcing.</i><br /><br />Perhaps you would like to cite where your example is not to be found. You would not want to be hypocritical after all. <br /><br /><br /><br /><i>This is important to someone like me ...</i><br /><br />Oh dear. Luckily it is not all about you.<br /><br /><i>because I need to know what is attributed to measurement and what to modelling.</i><br /><br />It is always clear what is being referred to. Well, nearly always.<br /><br /><i>Nor does there seem to be any effort made to contradict refutations of the IPCC evidence.</i><br /><br />Rubbish. The IPCC report is a summary of the state of the science.<br /><br /><i>I find it unlikely that the lifetime for atmospheric CO2 is as give in the report.</i><br /><br />They are unkind and do not give a fig what you find unlikely.<br /><br /><i>Too much time spend demonizing anyone who questions a word you say.</i><br /><br />Huh? The IPCC?<br /><br /><br /><i>Too little time spent explaining and justifying the scientific basis.</i><br /><br />Huh?<br /><br /> <i>I can't take the IPCC too seriously any longer.</i><br /><br />Did you ever take it seriously?<br /><br />Embarrassing. Jammy Dodgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08360437479098314946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-69838102786724961942016-10-24T21:06:24.916+11:002016-10-24T21:06:24.916+11:00You are Senator Malcolm Roberts and I claim my £20...You are Senator Malcolm Roberts and I claim my £200!billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-37008733386608472502016-10-24T01:40:09.257+11:002016-10-24T01:40:09.257+11:00Actually, he could be considered quite 'good&#...Actually, he could be considered quite 'good' at identity politics...Marconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-80807076944961570632016-10-24T00:35:26.106+11:002016-10-24T00:35:26.106+11:00Well mark4asp. You have got some answers to your q...Well mark4asp. You have got some answers to your questions about methane. Do they help you see that the blogsite from which you cut and pasted those questions have been less than transparent in its intent and misleading. If you, as a self decribed non- scientist, forget to think for yourself you will be led by the nose by these people. Just echoing their nonsense will get you nowhere.<br /><br />Yiu say you are good at politics and, with no justification, claim you are better than people here. Remember you need scepticism to be good at politics. You have not shown that ability here so far.Jammy Dodgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08360437479098314946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-44199643781546072342016-10-24T00:04:07.578+11:002016-10-24T00:04:07.578+11:00mark4asp,
if you're Australian you may not b...mark4asp, <br /><br />if you're Australian you may not be familiar with either the Royal Society of the UK or the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. If you google them, though, you'll find they are two of the world's most respected scientific associations. <br /><br />In 2014, the RS and the NAS jointly published a 34-page booklet titled <a href="https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/" rel="nofollow">Climate Change: Evidence and Causes</a>. It's written for educated non-scientists, and can either be read online or downloaded in PDF format. I don't know how you got the idea there are "more scientists denying catastrophic man-made climate change than supporting it" (or what qualifies as catastrophic to you), but the RS and the NAS both take anthropogenic climate change very seriously. The booklet begins with these words (all-caps in the original):<br /><br />"CLIMATE CHANGE IS ONE OF THE DEFINING ISSUES OF OUR TIME. It is now more certain than ever, based on many lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth’s climate."<br /><br />In addition to providing an introduction to the basics of climate change, the booklet addresses 20 common questions, including:<br /><br />"Q: Are disaster scenarios about tipping points like ‘turning off the Gulf Stream’ and release of methane from the Arctic a cause for concern?<br /><br />"A: Results from the best available climate models do not predict abrupt changes in such systems (often referred to as tipping points) in the near future. However, as warming increases, the possibilities of major abrupt change cannot be ruled out."<br /><br />So, mark4asp, if it's science you want, you're better off getting it from authoritative sources like the RS and the NAS, rather than from television "news" and politically-motivated blogs.Mal Adaptedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06123525780458234978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-52097066450816918612016-10-23T23:01:17.634+11:002016-10-23T23:01:17.634+11:00Mitigation sceptics often complain about climate s...Mitigation sceptics often complain about climate station data, but the funny thing about the mitigation scetpics is that nearly none of these so-called expert catastrophists come to my blog to ask questions about the quality of climate data. If they were interested in science you would expect that they want to make sure they understand the scientific position correctly.<br /><br />To be honest, I do not believe typical mitigation sceptics have any interest in science.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-57014933404162970382016-10-23T22:24:58.262+11:002016-10-23T22:24:58.262+11:00Mark, what you find "unlikely" is clearl...Mark, what you find "unlikely" is clearly based on your own faulty understanding. The dissolution of gases into water is an equilibrium, so there is no reason for the CO2 to just dissolve in droplets in clouds. A very, very small percentage may, but the vast majority does not. This is clearly shown by the measurements of CO2 in air. Hard measurements.<br /><br />But your last paragraph shows that you simply don't want to listen. It's easier to dismiss the science, come with some pseudoscientific comments (you clearly do not understand the processes involved sufficiently to make a qualified assessment) to justify your dismissal, and that's it. Mark has lulled himself to sleep and can go around 'safely' ignoring what the scientists are telling him.<br /><br />It would not surprise me if Mark, in a year or ten, blames scientists for the fact that *he* ignored them.Marconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-47741021563796461152016-10-23T22:19:05.904+11:002016-10-23T22:19:05.904+11:00Mark4asp fortunately already admitted not being a ...Mark4asp fortunately already admitted not being a scientist. Otherwise he'd be laughed at not knowing the basics of IR spectroscopy and thus wonders why CH4, being nonpolar, can absorb IR radiation so strongly, and why CH4 is a stronger GHG than CO2.<br /><br />Two hints for Mark: first, CH4 may be nonpolar, but so is CO2. And yet, both strongly absorb in the IR region for the simple reason of the existence of asymmetric vibrations. Second, CH4 is a precursor to stratospheric ozone and water (and is transformed into CO2). The GWP of CH4 takes this into account. Third, the GWP is calculated on a weight basis. CH4 being much lighter than CO2 gives it, even if it were to have a similar molar absorption (which it doesn't), a much higher GWP.<br /><br />All this you could have learned by actually reading the IPCC reports. And if you don't trust those, read the background scientific papers.<br /><br />It's not wise to dismiss stuff you so obviously do not even understand.Marconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-62998600052809622482016-10-23T21:23:32.286+11:002016-10-23T21:23:32.286+11:00Goodness knows what rock Mark lives under. It'...Goodness knows what rock Mark lives under. It's <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/10/12-hottest-months-in-row-just-hottest.html" rel="nofollow">warmed rather a lot</a> since 1998.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-63100099721462798682016-10-23T21:20:42.752+11:002016-10-23T21:20:42.752+11:00Like I said - if you want to ask a question about ...Like I said - if you want to ask a question about methane, do it where it's on topic. I've given you some suggestions and you can search for more if you don't like those. Or go to the Chat forum. (I gather you've not been able to find out the answer by Googling, or you're too lazy to do so.)<br /><br />Your opinion about "badly written science" is worth zilch, given you don't accept science let alone attempt to understand it. (Almost every bit of science in the IPCC reports is linked to a scientific source, and each cite has numerous other cites. I'm guessing you've never read an IPCC report.)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-78188943167140087372016-10-23T21:08:07.940+11:002016-10-23T21:08:07.940+11:00Mark
Good and proper questions about methane bein...Mark<br /><br />Good and proper questions about methane being a greenhouse gas.<br /><br />When you get an answer, (which you surely will), will you reconsider your lack of knowledge on the subject and adopt a more enquiring nature?Jammy Dodgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08360437479098314946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-11555986956898673832016-10-23T21:06:36.037+11:002016-10-23T21:06:36.037+11:00The IPCC AR5 science report is badly written scien...The IPCC AR5 science report is badly written science. Statements made within the report often do not clearly attribute the source of evidence for each statement. The literature referenced is not clearly cited when appropriate. E.g. Methane radiative forcing. This is important to someone like me because I need to know what is attributed to measurement and what to modelling. Nor does there seem to be any effort made to contradict refutations of the IPCC evidence. E.g. In chapter 8 of AR5. The lifetime given for CO2 is excessive. Given how soluble CO2 is in water, 71% of the surface is water, 1% of the atmosphere is water, CO2 should dissolve in water droplets in clouds, which then rain down to earth, I find it unlikely that the lifetime for atmospheric CO2 is as give in the report.<br /><br />Too much time spend demonizing anyone who questions a word you say. Too little time spent explaining and justifying the scientific basis. I can't take the IPCC too seriously any longer. Especially now the warming they spent trumpeting hasn't been happening for the last 18 years. Not since 1998.Jack Eddyfierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00546379110958307956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-14059769039747910532016-10-23T21:00:03.125+11:002016-10-23T21:00:03.125+11:00Mark - you're wrong. The IPCC reports are writ...Mark - you're wrong. The IPCC reports are written by scientists about science. You can take some comfort in the fact that you aren't alone in being incapable of <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/docs/WG1AR5_FactSheet.pdf" rel="nofollow">checking facts</a> for yourself. (What is it that causes people like yourself to regurgitate nonsense they read in the dim conspiracy-laden recesses of cyberspace?) Do you know you are wrong - and a disinformer yourself? Or are you merely a <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/08/marginalised-alienated-and-put-upon.html" rel="nofollow">willing wilful science denier</a>. BTW personal incredulity is a logical fallacy, and is No. 2 of <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/22/opinions/cook-techniques-climate-change-denial/" rel="nofollow">five telltale techniques of climate science denial</a>.<br /><br />What proportion of <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_AnnexV_FINAL.pdf" rel="nofollow">the authors</a> do you think aren't scientists? <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_AnnexV_FINAL.pdf" rel="nofollow">Here is the list</a> of 209 Lead Authors, and 50 Review Editors from 39 countries, and more than 600 Contributing Authors from 32 countries. What statements do you think are political and unscientific? What has caused you to reject science and confuse it with ideology? Facts are facts. You not knowing the difference says everything about you and nothing about science.<br /><br />Since you are unable or unwilling to respect blog etiquette, let me help you. Here are some HotWhopper articles about methane. Take your pick of which one you prefer to ask your question on.<br /><br /><a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/10/bits-and-pieces-from-ipcc-wg1-methane.html" rel="nofollow">Bits and pieces from the IPCC WG1 - methane, AMO and anthropogenic forcing</a><br /><br /><a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/04/no-permafrost-bomb-probably.html" rel="nofollow">No permafrost bomb - probably</a><br /><br /><a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/10/the-insanity-of-denialists-at-wuwt-on.html" rel="nofollow">The insanity of denialists at WUWT: On the impact of natural gas on global warming</a><br /><br />If you use the search bar up top, you'll find more articles.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-49613823599681239302016-10-23T20:38:30.266+11:002016-10-23T20:38:30.266+11:00The IPCC reports are not written by scientists. Or...The IPCC reports are not written by scientists. Or, at least, not edited by them. Way too many activists and politicians involved and setting the criteria. Sensible climate scientists should've produced their own reports free of political interference, but they choose not to do that.<br /><br />I'm quite interested to figure out how methane is supposed to be a 30 times more powerful GHG than CO2 despite methane (1) having an atmospheric lifetime of only 10 years, (2) absorption bands overlapping water so than any radiation methane can absorb will be absorbed by water anyway. (3) being a non-polar molecule. So we're just talking non-polarized C-H sigma bonds.<br /><br />Seems very implausible to me that methane can be a serious GHG threat.Jack Eddyfierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00546379110958307956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-57985116379612035502016-10-23T18:37:31.429+11:002016-10-23T18:37:31.429+11:00Mark, I don't know who you think are "exp...Mark, I don't know who you think are "expert catastrophists". Sounds like denier talk to me. If you think that scientists don't talk about science then you've not read the <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml" rel="nofollow">IPCC reports</a> or <a href="https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=climate+change&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=" rel="nofollow">climate science papers</a>. There are lots of good <a href="https://www.hotwhopper.com/wiki/doku.php?id=climate:climate_change_blogs" rel="nofollow">climate science blogs</a> too.<br /><br />You said something about being "interested in talking about the science". Was that just talk or is there a particular aspect of climate science that <b>you </b>would like to talk about? Perhaps you could type that piece of "science" in the search bar up top and comment on one of the science articles here. Or you could visit <a href="https://chat.hotwhopper.com/categories" rel="nofollow">HotWhopper Chat</a> and start a topic you're interested in. Make sure you read the notes on <a href="https://www.hotwhopper.com/wiki/doku.php?id=hotwhopper:hotwhopper_chat#chat_etiquette" rel="nofollow">etiquette</a> and <a href="https://www.hotwhopper.com/wiki/doku.php?id=hotwhopper:hotwhopper_chat#guidelines_on_content" rel="nofollow">guidelines</a> first.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-63174124374427612162016-10-23T18:16:00.891+11:002016-10-23T18:16:00.891+11:00Funny thing about climate science is that none of ...Funny thing about climate science is that none of so-called expert catastrophists are interested in talking about the science. They only have time for demonizing anyone who disagrees with the latest catastrophe they're proposing. <br /><br />So called mainstream climate science looks a lot more like politics than science to me. I understand politics very well. Better than you.<br /><br />Perhaps if people like you studied politics better you'd know that scaring the public to raise awareness of an issue which is not there. Does not lead to sustainable politics and will give science of bad reputation over the long term.Jack Eddyfierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00546379110958307956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-19033594060574192692016-10-23T15:21:08.659+11:002016-10-23T15:21:08.659+11:00Mark4asp, you need to get out more and read some c...Mark4asp, you need to get out more and read some climate science. Climate science isn't a hoax, contrary to what you seem to think. (Why are people like Mark unable to accept objective reality? They can read and write but have not learnt how to evaluate. It's something more than a failure of education. It's a brain failure.) <br /><br />You can use the search bar up top for articles about Matt Ridley's nonsense.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-51928403226016244662016-10-23T05:07:51.272+11:002016-10-23T05:07:51.272+11:00There seem to be more scientists denying catastrop...There seem to be more scientists denying catastrophic man-made climate change than supporting it. I think you missed out Matt Ridley too. Not an actual climate scientist: true. Only writes occasionally about climate: true. But he disagrees with you so surely gets in your Hall of Shame?Jack Eddyfierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00546379110958307956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-87056959756764043292016-07-08T16:06:13.239+10:002016-07-08T16:06:13.239+10:00I wouldn't call it a classic example - this wa...I wouldn't call it a classic example - this wasn't even a competent attempt. The guy uses so many hate terms in just the first sentence that he is very very obvious.Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-63291436423347279232016-07-07T18:46:53.787+10:002016-07-07T18:46:53.787+10:00Yawn. Next.Yawn. Next.billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-48571019606238237572016-07-07T13:41:51.499+10:002016-07-07T13:41:51.499+10:00This comment is a classic example of tone trolling...This comment is a classic example of tone trolling. Tone trolls do it not because they have nothing of substance to add, but because they want to distract from the substance. <br /><br />This is also an example of a person trading on the confirmation bias of deniers. (Deniers think that slagging off a "warmist" is sport and all in good fun, while criticising deniers is "muck" and an unforgiveable "attack". They often mumble something about being denied free speech in the process, oblivious to the irony.)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-64166988254369721442016-07-07T13:05:57.172+10:002016-07-07T13:05:57.172+10:00There is nothing that discredits the climate chang...There is nothing that discredits the climate change fanatics as much as the inane, bombastic snark with which they rebut any denier who would dare disagree with their sacred truth. Read a "denier" blog and check out the comments -- often you will see some pretty good back and forth argument regarding the positions asserted by the OP; then read the blog of a climate change truth speaker attacking a denier, and wade through at your own risk the muck that passes for comments.fisherstahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07514682321944409056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-40272318255285046822016-02-22T05:07:59.968+11:002016-02-22T05:07:59.968+11:00Wonderful story and response. Thanks!Wonderful story and response. Thanks!Susan Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16935228911713362040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-48676455842804131362016-02-22T05:02:38.638+11:002016-02-22T05:02:38.638+11:00Way after the fair, but that is one of the simples...Way after the fair, but that is one of the simplest and most direct descriptions I've ever seen of the fundamental problem we all face. Trouble is, it's our lives too.<br /><br />Anyway, that's a keeper: <br /><br />"climate science disinformers work to harm people, societies and the natural world. Not just a little bit. They are working to hasten the sixth major extinction, sink coastlines, make large areas uninhabitable, and cause untold harm to this and future generations for centuries to millennia."<br />Susan Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16935228911713362040noreply@blogger.com