Sunday, September 14, 2008

re: a challenge to climate change denialists


Right then, I have finished reading Soon et al (2001) and I can happily confess that I didn't understand much of it as its a fairly comprehensive critique of General Climate Models [GCM]. I can, however, happily conclude that it does not deny the anthropogenic influence on climate change. In fact, the closing sentence states it unequivocally:

Our review points out the enormous scientific difficulties facing the calculation of climatic effects of added CO2 in a GCM, but it does not claim to disprove a significant anthropogenic influence on climate change.

In more depth, although the paper cites many examples of the failure of GCMs to accurately model temperatures by including as much empirical data and systematics as was currently available back then they do not condemn the models themselves. They actually call for greater effort to 'fill in the blanks' so to speak and to expand the models to encompass more variables. This is what climate science has been doing for the seven years since this paper was published (despite the determined efforts of certain politicians to hamstring such research by strangling its funding).

For a glimpse of the state-of-the-art in climate modelling today, see here:

So, as usual Duff, you're wrong. If you'd taken the time to actually read the paper before citing it as evidence in support of your insanity , you would have realised this. But you didn't. Which is so laughably stupid that I'm actually wondering why I bothered to waste my time proving you wrong. Lets just hope you've learnt something from this little episode, ummm-kay?

Could I just point out, once again, with relish, that David Duff is wrong.

I feel vindicated. I feel enriched! No, elated! No! I feel like I'm floating on a glistening sea of Buckfast! WHOOP WHOOP ! ! !


  1. You are a scientist, 'PS', so let us try a little experiment. Let us attempt to converse reasonably with each other without the jibes and insults which are, admittedly, an entertainment but which do not further what is, potentially, an interesting discussion.

    1. FOR THE RECORD: I do not deny that global temperatures fluctuate - the whole history of our planet proves it. Nor do I deny that some heating effect is likely caused from Man's activities - Urban Heat Centres (UHCs), the higher temperatures around cities, for example, prove that this is the case. What I do say is that the case for Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) of any significance has not yet been made with anywhere near the degree of certainty required to justify huge distortions to our societies.

    2. MY BACKGROUND: I have no scientific training and I had no pre-conceived ideas as to the rights and wrongs of this contentious issue when it first arose. I am simply an averagely (very average, perhaps!) intelligent observer of what is a hugely important but complex matter. I do confess that remembering how scientists in the 1970s warned us all of an imminent ice-age did lead me to view global warming alarms in the 1980s with some sceptism, but given that precurser, who would not have been sceptical?

    3. OUR DISPUTE: I never claimed to be able to *disprove* the theory of AGW. It is a theory and if you (and others) wish to make it more than just a theory you have to make it predict something and you must make clear in public the observations you made that led to the theory, and describe the instruments you used in those observations. This is the time-honoured, scientific method by which others can replicate your experiments and test your theory.

    All that I did earlier in this exhange was to dispute *your* claim that AGW was settled, consensus science. As I was able, within a very few minutes, to produce lists and lists and lists of peer-reviewed papers critical of your theory, then my case is proved - AGW is definitely not settled science.

    4. QUOTATIONS: If I may say, with respect, it does your case no good when you offer up a quotation from the paper in question, describing it as 'unequivocal' when in fact you have not only altered the words but, without informing you readers in the normal way, excised one sentence altogether:

    "The purpose of such a limited review of the deficiencies of climate model physics and the use of GCMs is to illuminate areas for improvement."

    Also, the triumphalist tone with which you produced your doctored quotation is somewhat reduced by the fact that *I* had already quoted it several days before (9/9/08 12.21 pm) drawing particular attention to the last sentence:

    "Our review does not disprove a significant anthropogenic influence on global climate."

    5. CLIMATE MODELLING: You acknowledge that the paper, published in 2001, is critical of the General Climate Models (GCMs) then available and state that greater efforts are needed to fill in the blanks which, you insist, for the last seven years since this paper was published is exactly "what science has been doing."

    May I suggest, gently, that your assumption that the additional data now available to climate scientists *confirms* your theory is not exactly a scientific attitude, it would be better if you waited for the data to be produced. In any event, let us see whether or not things have improved, such that we can now accept GCMs as reasonable reflections of the current climate around the globe.

    In a paper(1) published last year by 4 scientists, they compared observed tropospheric temperature trends with "22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model
    simulations". For the uninitiated, tropospheric temperatures are taken by satellites high up in the atmosphere and although the record is barely 30 years old it is considered to be very much more accurate than the earth or sea temperature records.

    So, comparing the measurements with the 22 different GCMs, what was the result? In their own words:

    "Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than
    observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with
    those of recent publications based on essentially the same data."

    Oh dear, what a pity, never mind! Of course, they add, quite properly, that their paper does not *disprove* AGW. But I would ask you to consider whether you would place a very high probability on a theory supported by mathematical models which differ from actual measurements by 100% to 300% at certain heights, and which are absolutely contradicted at other heights in the atmsophere.

    When, 7 years ago, Soon 'et al' wrote this:

    "Our current lack of understanding of the Earth’s climate
    system does not allow us to determine reliably
    the magnitude of climate change that will be caused by
    anthropogenic CO2 emissions, let alone whether this
    change will be for better or for worse."

    they were dead right!


  2. Duff, you are an offensive, racist little gobshite. No amount of false contrition on your part will stop me from pointing this out because people need to recognise you for what you are. I can quite happily hold an evidence-based debate whilst simultaneously pointing out to anyone who happens to browse here what an insufferable, sociopathic little cunt you are. You made this deeply, deeply personal, remember? You. Your fault. I won't ever forget that you blind, arrogant, bigoted twat-bucket.

    Now, on to your lengthy drivel.

    1. For the record we have already been through your climate change denial.
    Its perfectly clear to everyone but you that I am not implying that you deny that the climate changes. Only a pedantic twat like you would try and suggest that.

    You say the case for anthropogenic global warming is far from certain and does not justify the "huge distortions to society". I say you don't know what you're talking. If we had started addressing the problem a decade ago there wouldn't be any need for such changes. The arguments for limiting emissions are self justifying even if anthropogenic climate change was not yet a significant factor. Sustainability applies to all aspects of our civilisation. You cannot expand infinitely within a finite space. Oh- and any mention of space travel and "seeding other planets" gets deleted immediately. If the precautionary principle applies at all it applies to global challneges such as climate change, especially because those who will suffer most are those who have contributed least to the damage.

    2. Lack of scientific training does not preclude people from analysing scientific material. It does generally prevent them doing so with insight and understanding. You clearly have pre-conceived ideas because you reject the scientific consensus on climate change without actually researching material yourself. I trust you rely upon modern medicine for your healthcare and physics to ensure your computer processor functions? Do you trust the water industry to ensure you a supply of toxin and pathogen free drinking water? Do you fly away on holiday on machines constructed from light weight alloys and powered by fuels separated from the other constituents of crude oil by industrial chemistry? I expect you do. I also suspect you believe the earth travels around the sun in about 365 days and that the sun is mostly a ball of superhot hydrogen nuclei. Why, then, do you specifically single out climate science as the target of your scepticism unless you have made a decision a priori that its conclusions offend your sensibilities and fundamental convictions?

    As you have explicitly cited a 2001 paper stating that accurately predicting climate is incredibly challenging it is utterly hypocritical to condemn the erroneous predictions made thirty years before this date, you twat.

    3. I have established that you are a climate change denialist. I challenged you to "to post a peer-reviewed reference supporting your position of denial". You wilfully accepted this challenge and, therefore, the role of climate change denialist.

    Please don't try and pretend that you understand the scientific method, Duff. You don't. I can summarise it as:

    Step 1 - hypothesise based on available information
    Step 2 - test
    Step 3 - go to Step 1

    How can you continue to deny that there is a consensus that climate change is a real and imminent threat when virtually every scientific body in the world acknowledges it to be? I specifically want you to note and respond to this point, Duff. Every scientific body in the fucking world! Here is a list of them for you to read through.
    If you can explain how their endorsement of real and imminent anthropogenic climate change is somehow not a consensus I will apologise for calling you a cunt, you cunt.

    4. My quotation was, as I stated, the last sentence in the paper. Your English comprehension- which I have already demonstrated to be appalling- is clearly getting worse.

    Pointing out that you had already referenced a paper that explicitly contradicts the argument you were trying to make doesn't do your argument many favours, Duff. Might I point out that you first referenced the paper (without having read it) at 10:00 on 09-09-08. At 12:21 on 09-09-08 you then quoted the entire abstract, containing the statement re: "Our review does not disprove a significant anthropogenic influence on global climate.". I am going to embolden this next bit Duff, because your English Comprehension needs something to kick it out of its gin-stewed revery: You cited a paper, and even quoted its authors commenting that their paper in no way disproved the effects of anthropogenic climate change in SUPPORT of your position that anthropogenic climate change is not happening ! ! !

    As you have recently confessed that you accept that anthropogenic emissions are an effect upon the climate this becomes less of a sickly gross faux pas than it otherwise would. It still makes you out to be a complete fucking idiot.

    5. The paper you reference refers only to the tropics. Temperatures in this region are predicted to change least on the planet- less than one and a half degrees from 1980-1999 means by 2029 (Figure 3.2 here: Bearing in mind the challenges outlined by Soon et al (2001) it does not surprise me in the slightest that current models cannot accurately discern any change in this region as any reasonably savvy individual will quickly surmise that it is likely to be less than interannual fluctuations.

  3. "I challenged you to "to post a peer-reviewed reference supporting your position of denial"."

    Oh, alright then, but it's physics so you may not understand it!:

    In other words: Already the natural greenhouse effect is a myth albeit any physical reality.
    The CO2-greenhouse effect, however is a "mirage" [204]. The horror visions of a risen sea
    level, melting pole caps and developing deserts in North America and in Europe are fictitious consequences of fictitious physical mechanisms as they cannot be seen even in the climate model computations. The emergence of hurricanes and tornados cannot be predicted by
    climate models, because all of these deviations are ruled out. The main strategy of modern
    CO2-greenhouse gas defenders seems to hide themselves behind more and more pseudoexplanations,
    which are not part of the academic education or even of the physics training.

    A good example are the radiation transport calculations, which are probably not known by many. Another example are the so-called feedback mechanisms, which are introduced to amplify
    an effect which is not marginal but does not exist at all. Evidently, the defenders of the
    CO2-greenhouse thesis refuse to accept any reproducible calculation as an explanation and
    have resorted to unreproducible ones. A theoretical physicist must complain about a lack of
    transparency here, and he also has to complain about the style of the scientific discussion, where advocators of the greenhouse thesis claim that the discussion is closed, and others are
    discrediting justified arguments as a discussion of "questions of yesterday and the day before
    yesterday"[25]. In exact sciences, in particular in theoretical physics, the discussion is never
    closed and is to be continued ad infinitum, even if there are proofs of theorems available.
    Regardless of the specific field of studies a minimal basic rule should be fulfilled in natural
    science, though, even if the scientific fields are methodically as far apart as physics and meteorology: At least among experts, the results and conclusions should be understandable or reproducible. And it should be strictly distinguished between a theory and a model on the one hand, and between a model and a scenario on the other hand, as clarified in the philosophy of science.

    That means that if conclusions out of computer simulations are to be more than simple speculations, then in addition to the examination of the numerical stability and the estimation
    of the effects of the many vague input parameters, at least the simplifications of the physical
    original equations should be critically exposed. Not the critics have to estimate the effects of the approximation, but the scientists who do the computer simulation.

    "Global warming is good : : : The net effect of a modest global warming is positive."
    (Singer).[26] In any case, it is extremely interesting to understand the dynamics and causes of the long-term fluctuations of the climates. However, it was not the purpose of this paper to get into all aspects of the climate variability debate.
    The point discussed here was to answer the question, whether the supposed atmospheric
    effect has a physical basis. This is not the case.

    In summary, there is no atmospheric
    greenhouse effect, in particular CO2-greenhouse effect, in theoretical physics and engineering
    thermodynamics. Thus it is illegitimate to deduce predictions which provide a consulting
    solution for economics and intergovernmental policy.

    Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
    Version 3.0 (September 9, 2007)

    Gerhard Gerlich & Ralf D. Tscheuschner

  4. If this is a peer-reviewed paper, why can't I find it in Web of Science? What journal was it published in?

    Is there something about "peer-reviewed science" that you don't quite grasp, Duff? It certainly looks like science but you seem to have real problems with the "peer-reviewed bit" that proves the work is even reasonably scientifically robust. I have drafted a paper that looks like science and certainly would convince another scientist if I showed them it but it got rejected by peer review and consequently I am re-writing it to plug the gaping gaps in it that I hadn't noticed.

    Without passing peer review all that reference is is someone's opinion.

  5. I apologise that the link I provided did not work - that was to the pdf version. The paper was published in this e-journal under the auspices of Cornell University:

    and the particular paper under this:

    The rules governing publications are:

    "arXiv is an e-print service in the fields of physics, mathematics, non-linear science, computer science, quantitative biology and statistics. The contents of arXiv conform to Cornell University academic standards. arXiv is owned, operated and funded by Cornell University, a private not-for-profit educational institution. arXiv is also partially funded by the National Science Foundation.

    I trust that is sufficently rigorous enough for you!

  6. I should have added that that is the third version so presumably it has been subject to criticism under the "open access" policy of this Cornell University site.

  7. No peer-review = no credibility.


    How do you not get this, Duff? If it is sound science then there should be no obstacles in getting it published in peer-reviewed journals. I- your arch-nemesis- have been published so if you really believe me to be as idiotic as your blog suggests, and I can get published, then surely there is no barrier to the authors you cite getting their work published?

    Except that in the thirteen years and three versions since the first version was released onto the interweb they have failed in this simple task. Therefore their science- and your position- is unevidenced bullshit.

  8. arXiv != journal

    Epic, epic fail, 0/10

  9. (heavy sigh)

    No Duff. Its not. It is an "E-archive", whatever one of those is.

    "The arXiv was originally developed by Paul Ginsparg and started in 1991 as an archive for preprints [sic] in physics . . ."

    "the arXiv is not peer-reviewed, a collection of moderators for each area review the submissions and may recategorize any that are deemed off-topic"

    I have warned you before about doing your own research and not relying on me to google stuff for you information and I'm bored of demolishing your pathetic offerings. I really expected more. Honestly, I did.

    If you post any more disappointing, irrelevant crap it will be deleted. I gave you a very simple and specific task: Present a single peer reviewed reference that evidences that anthropogenic climate forcings are negligible.

  10. Who cares? Peer review is teh fascist.


  11. More funny shit: One of duff's bitching posts about you starts with the line "There is no need to read the scientific papers concerned".

    So many punchlines, so little time...

  12. Jeeeezus! That guy is unbelievable. It almost takes the fun out of ripping him. I might pop over later and have a giggle. Cheers for the heads-up.

  13. Don't wind him up too much or he'll be telling you all about his fantasies.

  14. Yeah, I've been privileged enough to have glimpsed that aspect of his persona a few times now. I might go and poke him some more.


Feel free to share your opinions of my opinions. Oh- and cocking fuckmouse.