TalkClimateChange

“Mann et. al. are already on the record saying that without man, global temperatures are unbelievably stable and move in extremely narrow ranges.”

Er, neither Mann nor any other climate scientist I’m aware of has ever said such a thing.

Also, it’s very odd that you don’t think the water vapor feedback is proven. That’s a matter of basic radiation physics.

Why have a blog like this if you don’t know the basics? Or is the whole point just to keep the “talk” going?

Thanks for your comments.

“Er, neither Mann nor any other climate scientist I’m aware of has ever said such a thing.”

We are quoting from the source post here. You might want to raise this point there.

“Also, it’s very odd that you don’t think the water vapor feedback is proven. That’s a matter of basic radiation physics.”

The argument doesn’t deny the existence of feedback loops alltogether, only those which are “substantial” (60-70%)

“Why have a blog like this if you don’t know the basics? Or is the whole point just to keep the “talk” going?”

Admitedly, the focus of this blog is not on the details of climate science, but on the social, political and economic aspects of climate change. However, the science is obviously tangent to this, which is why we frequently comment on it. We are always happy to be corrected when wrong, and keeping the discussion / talk going is exactly the purpose of most blogs.

“Why have a blog like this if you don’t know the basics?”

Please leave useful feedback instead of having a pop (see e.g. http://talkclimatechange.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=342 for an example of useful feedback). (pardon the pun)

This blog entry was quite clearly written by the “Red Team”; by definition, it will be provocative and put forward skeptic arguments.

Having a pop at the site and its host, rather than debating the issues and providing people with useful information is pretty sad IMHO.

“Mann et. al. are already on the record saying that without man, global temperatures are unbelievably stable and move in extremely narrow ranges.”
I concur with Steve.
Where does Climate Skeptic say that? Maybe you imply the “extremely narrow ranges” from Mann’s hockey stick, but Mann did not simplify and generalize it the way you do it. I am sure Mann doesn’t deny the occurrence of ice ages and inter-glacials or even the Holocene Optimum.

“Today’s climate models contain many unproven assumptions; among the biggest being the existence of positive feedback loops.”

You have to phrase your points more carefully. Feedback loops are not unproven assumptions, the point is how substantial they are and whether negative feedbacks are being underestimated in the GCM’s.

“Where does Climate Skeptic say that?”

Try paragraph 9:

“Update: Commenters are correct that positive feedback dominated systems can be stable as long as the feedback percentage is less than 100%. By trying to get too compact in my arguments, I combined a couple of things. First, there are many catastrophists that argue that climate IS in fact dominated by feedback over 100% — anyone who talks of “tipping points” is effectively saying this. The argument about instability making stable processes impossible certainly applies to these folks’ logic. Further, even positive feedback <100% makes a system highly subject to dramatic variations. But Mann et. al. are already on the record saying that without man, global temperatures are unbelievably stable and move in extremely narrow ranges. It is hard to imagine this to be true in a climate system dominated by positive feedback, particularly when it is beset all the time with dramatic perturbations, from volcanoes to the Maunder Minimum.”

*sigh* That paragraph (in comment 5) is nonsense from stem to stern. You have to take some responsibility if you’re going to quote things like that, especially since you indicated approval of the author (”one of the more sensible”).

And I see looking at the prior Red post that some similarly misleading things were said there. First, I don’t think it’s correct to say that imputing the ice shelf collapse to AGW is wrong. Remember that it managed to survive the enhanced high-latitude warming of the Holocene Thermal Maximum. Per the study, would it have collapsed in the absence of AGW? Um, no. And while the other two factors that contributed to the collapse (warming currents and reduced snowfall) haven’t been formally attributed to AGW, it is very likely that AGW was at a minimum a factor in them.

This illustrates why scientists dislike “debates” on clinate science: The skeptic/denialist side feels no obligaton to stick to the facts, but of course the scientists must.

If the idea of this site is that the Red team at least can distort the facts in order to be provocative, it’s just a formula for endless (and pointless) debate consistent with the common denialist refrain that “more study is needed” (before we do anything about AGW). Were it otherwise, at a minimum the incorrect information would get corrected. But how will that happen if none of the authors know what the science even says?

Oh, and re the water vapor feedback: It raises the temperature of the planet approximately 30C.

“First, I don’t think it’s correct to say that imputing the ice shelf collapse to AGW is wrong. Remember that it managed to survive the enhanced high-latitude warming of the Holocene Thermal Maximum. Per the study, would it have collapsed in the absence of AGW? Um, no. And while the other two factors that contributed to the collapse (warming currents and reduced snowfall) haven’t been formally attributed to AGW, it is very likely that AGW was at a minimum a factor in them. ”

There is no way that you can definitively state this as proven empirical evidence, who is spinning now? This is unknowable and only fits your acceptance of AGW as proven.

Scientists do not deal in facts, they deal in theories that best fit the empirical evidence, as understanding changes so do the theories. When theories become accepted and proven in replicatible experiments they become laws, such as the laws of thermodynamics and the law of gravity. Facts are for lawyers and reporters.

“Oh, and re the water vapor feedback: It raises the temperature of the planet approximately 30C.”

Wrong Again.

The entire AGE raises the temperature of the earth approx 33C +/- 2C, with water vapour contributing 36-66% of that number.

So before you get critical about “the truth” of other’s statements make sure you have your own statements correct.

You my friend are why the debate still continues, your narrow views and blind faith in unproven science is why others still debate this issue.

Steve,

I am happy to accept that the science is real, that feedbacks are real and that the temp may rise by 30oC.

(although I should point out that the UK government is currently predicting future scenarios using some of our best academics and experts. None of the scenarios consider this temperature increase. Considering that the UK is one of the major proponents of AGW, I wonder why not).

My questions to you:

How exactly can we mitigate emissions in time to prevent this disasterous event?

Can we do this without the enforcement of socialist-style limits on personal emissions?

Will you please state for the record that unless we mitigate to 450ppm, or whatever the current best science says is good for us, that we are going to experience this 30oC temperature increase. And please give the date at which you expect this to have occurred.

Will you also please state for the record the other disasterous things that *will* occur.

And I might point out that the “scientists” you are quoting - James Hansen for example - do not always stick to the facts like you claim, particularly when pushing for policy changes.

E.g. “it seems that to the extent that Jim Hansen’s Scenario B has accurately anticipated global temperature increases since 1988, it has done so based on inaccurate assumptions”

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000836evaluating_jim_hanse.html