Temps Stable til 2050, Plenty of Time to Fix

[alexjrgreen]

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/ ... alsu_1.php

Even the courts seem to disfavour the principle nowadays: U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

Uh. I think you are misreading the case. It is not the doctrine that is being argued. It is a failure to state that doctrine as agreed on. In fact the court stated that the defense implicitly made that argument and it is a fair argument.

The dictum falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything) is a longstanding but overstated precept, Black's Law Dictionary 1636 (7th ed. 1999). Obviously there are some lies that, because of their circumstances and limited relationship to the main issue, do relatively little to discredit other statements. A lie by a fleeing victim to a tyrant's border guard is not the same as a lie under oath in an INS proceeding about the circumstances of persecution. See Akinmade v. INS, 196 F.3d 951, 956 (9th Cir. 1999). The case law recognizes this to be so.

http://www.usimmigrationcenter.us/Fed_0 ... 3-1036.htm

You know Alex. It is looking more and more like you can't be trusted to be honest about your claims.

It has been my experience in life that honest progressives do not remain progressives.

Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else...

[MSimon]

But Josh,

I think Spencer is honest. And I have read his point on that topic. I'm not sure I agree with his criticism. I do agree with this:

So, while I tend to agree with the Lindzen and Choi position that the real climate system is much less sensitive than the IPCC climate models suggest, it is not clear to me that their results actually demonstrate this.

[MSimon]

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/ ... alsu_1.php

Even the courts seem to disfavour the principle nowadays: U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

Uh. I think you are misreading the case. It is not the doctrine that is being argued. It is a failure to state that doctrine as agreed on. In fact the court stated that the defense implicitly made that argument and it is a fair argument.

The dictum falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything) is a longstanding but overstated precept, Black's Law Dictionary 1636 (7th ed. 1999). Obviously there are some lies that, because of their circumstances and limited relationship to the main issue, do relatively little to discredit other statements. A lie by a fleeing victim to a tyrant's border guard is not the same as a lie under oath in an INS proceeding about the circumstances of persecution. See Akinmade v. INS, 196 F.3d 951, 956 (9th Cir. 1999). The case law recognizes this to be so.

http://www.usimmigrationcenter.us/Fed_0 ... 3-1036.htm

You know Alex. It is looking more and more like you can't be trusted to be honest about your claims.

It has been my experience in life that honest progressives do not remain progressives.

Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else...

Maybe.

[MSimon]

I also think Spencer is correct on this point:

As mentioned above, the corresponding climate model computations they made had the opposite sign, but as I have pointed out, the CMIP models do not, and the real climate system cannot have a net negative feedback parameter and still be stable.

[MSimon]

Josh,

You are mistaking error for lies and the cover up of lies.

Hide The Decline

[Josh Cryer]

MSimon, Spencer cannot demonstrate why he believes climate sensitivity is lower, either. He just says so. If he felt it really was lower than what the best models and the best data can come up with, then he should write a paper.

[MSimon]

MSimon, Spencer cannot demonstrate why he believes climate sensitivity is lower, either. He just says so. If he felt it really was lower than what the best models and the best data can come up with, then he should write a paper.

I can state it: the climate (at least in the short term geologically) is not unstable. That in itself implies a feedback of less than one.

Can we prove that yet? No. Could we if we had enough of the right kind of data? Probably.

IF WV (water vapor) feedback is positive why doesn't more WV in the atmosphere cause a temperature runaway?

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... n-sky.html

And you know well that WV is probably the most important and least understood part of the models. It is not just the heat pipe problem. As Spencer mentions it is clouds too.

I'd love to see the models subjected to a full up verification. From the data to the code to model match with future climate. It has to be done with aircraft and medical device software. Why not climate?

All that is required is to bring up the Climate Models to FAA or FDA standards. About a 10 to 20 year project I recon. We need to start now. No time to waste.

Once that is done we need to get the Euros, India, China, Brazil, and a few other countries on board. That could take a while longer.

I figure that by the time the project is completed technology will have advanced enough so that the end of carbon fuel is at least in sight if not already accomplished.

[Josh Cryer]

IF WV (water vapor) feedback is positive why doesn't more WV in the atmosphere cause a temperature runaway?

Because it has a very short lifetime.

All that is required is to bring up the Climate Models to FAA or FDA standards. About a 10 to 20 year project I recon. We need to start now. No time to waste.

They're well under way. The models will be very stringent and accurate when CLARREO starts putting out data.

Once that is done we need to get the Euros, India, China, Brazil, and a few other countries on board. That could take a while longer.

I don't think anything can be done about it politically or economically.

I figure that by the time the project is completed technology will have advanced enough so that the end of carbon fuel is at least in sight if not already accomplished.

I hope that humanity can do something about it before then, while subverting politics and economics. I know, pipe dream, etc, I'm stupid, etc.

I'm also young and optimistic. I hope that isn't seen as too much of a failing.

[MSimon]

MSimon wrote:
IF WV (water vapor) feedback is positive why doesn't more WV in the atmosphere cause a temperature runaway?

Because it has a very short lifetime.

Uh. I don't buy it.

Perhaps you would care to elaborate.

[Josh Cryer]

Uh. I don't buy it.

Perhaps you would care to elaborate.

It does have a feedback but that feedback response goes away quickly if you don't have a forcing upholding it.

When the sun gets hotter it will increase radiative forcing on the planet until which point water vapor does result in full atmospheric saturation, similar to Venus.

[MSimon]

I'm also young and optimistic.

You will get over it in time. It worked for me.

As to subverting politics and economics. The drug war proves that is impossible. The collapse of the Soviet Union is another indicator. The move of China to a quasi capitalist economy another.

So why not figure how to get economics to work for what you want? i.e. make the alternatives economically viable without government intervention (that puts what you want at the mercy of politics). Then economics works for you.

Politics always favors the entrenched interests. The only answer I can see to that is smaller government. Tea Party!

[Josh Cryer]

This website forum software is subverting the economics of forum software, is it not?

[MSimon]

It does have a feedback but that feedback response goes away quickly if you don't have a forcing upholding it.

That is unphysical.

If the WV lasts for 24 hours the next period of sunlight should enhance it. Leading to runaway.

Unless the WV creates clouds that increase albedo.

Or cools through convection and condensation. You know. The big heat pipe in the sky. Funny thing is convection cells look a LOT like heat pipes. And they are considered quasi adiabatic until the WV reaches a top and condenses out. Say that sounds just like a heat pipe.

MM CO2 is supposed to produce a heating of 1.6 w/m^2. Clouds 30 w/m^2. An error of just 5% in the cloud term could completely negate CO2 "forcing". And WV/clouds are not well understood. There is dispute over the sign. Let alone getting the magnitude right.

[Josh Cryer]

That is unphysical.

If the WV lasts for 24 hours the next period of sunlight should enhance it. Leading to runaway.

The planet experiences "night time" and the distribution of heat is not instant. It radiates a lot of heat at night and much water vapor condenses out of the atmosphere at night.

[MSimon]

That is unphysical.

If the WV lasts for 24 hours the next period of sunlight should enhance it. Leading to runaway.

The planet experiences "night time" and the distribution of heat is not instant. It radiates a lot of heat at night and much water vapor condenses out of the atmosphere at night.

More rain at night than during the day? Do you have a reputable (peer reviewed or not) cite for that?

I would especially give weight to an article by a sceptic (argument against interest).