Comments on: BBC Radio: Overselling Climate Change

By: nanny_govt_sucks

nanny_govt_sucks — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 20:35:16 +0000

A Load of Hot Air?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4923504.stm
“Hardly a day goes by without a new dire warning about climate change. But some claims are more extreme than others, giving rise to fears that the problem is being oversold and damaging the issue. ”

Listen to Radio 4′s Overselling Climate Change
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/help/3681938.stm

By: fFreddy

fFreddy — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 18:45:03 +0000

Oooh, which actually has a link to here. Jolly good.

By: fFreddy

fFreddy — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 18:44:02 +0000

And a web site article here

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 12:42:32 +0000

This is on at 8 pm in England, 3 pm in Eastern time zone. http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/thebattleforinfluence/pip/abkim/

By: Jim Erlandson

Jim Erlandson — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 14:47:11 +0000

#41: We don’t need to invoke Schoedinger’s cat.

My own interpretation of your comment is that the earth has temperature fluctuations which we, using existing technology, cannot measure.

Replace “has” with “had” and you’ve got it.

… if the temperature aggregations of the weather stations of the earth show variations less than the instrumental precision of the gadgets deployed to measure those temperatures, then we have no warming, nor cooling, nor stasis of temperature

Neither warming nor cooling therefore you have stasis defined by the ability of the method to measure temperature.

And while we’re on it, the method for reducing the “earth’s temperature” to a single number or time series is as fascinating as historical proxies (A Global Merged Land Air and Sea Surface Temperature Reconstruction Based on Historical Observations (1880-1997)).

By: ET SidViscous

ET SidViscous — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 14:36:14 +0000

Odd seeing an article quoted that’s written by someone I’ve spent many a time getting fall down drunk with.

In one particular instance did fall down when a chair (That I suspect was 100 years old) collapsed.

krghou: I also write for that site under the pen-name McFeelme Johnson. very infrequently though.

By: Louis Hissink

Louis Hissink — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 14:18:10 +0000

# 45

At least your source realises when it first fails, try again.

Otherwise known as the scientific method.

By: krghou

krghou — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 14:08:16 +0000

Here is a link to a climate modeling effort that didn’t give the “right” answer and had to be restarted.

The link isn’t showing in the preview so here it is as text:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=31073

By: Louis Hissink

Louis Hissink — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 13:26:45 +0000

It might be useful here to state some facts:

M1 Mass of earth’s atmosphere is ~ 5.3E18 Kgs
M2 Mass of earth is ~ 6E24 Kgs
M3 Mass of humans (9 billion) is ~ 7E11 Kgs (assuming 75Kg mean mass per human)

Paraphrasing Yoda “The power of M3 is Mighty”

The problem is whether the flea (M3) drives the earth, or something else: the scientific evidence points to “ELSE”

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 13:17:33 +0000

RE #27,28 -

e #19: Sorry, but I think it’s already been widely reported that the AR4 is going to “nearly certain” (i.e., >99%) that GW has anthropogenic causes. This will not be attributed entirely to CO2, as there are other anthropogenic GHGs and forcings (in particular land use changes), but it seems clear enough that CO2 will be tagged as the major factor.

Your quote implies that people are working hard to remove the “uncertainties.” Unfortunately, I don’t think it’ll be less “Mannian” than before. Most AGW won’t acknowledge the very real and relevant work of Steve M.–they’ve “moved on.” Since they haven’t corrected their previous work I don’t trust that their new work is going to be any more robust.

Steve B. you are placing your faith people who I don’t think deserve it (actually, I’m not sure I’ve ever had the faith in them–something always has been suspect about their motivations). All of your posts indicate a strong faith in those who put together the AR4 (and I would think the IPCC as a whole).

I don’t think that the AR4 is going to be any more robust than anything the IPCC has put out before. Why? Because it’s the same people.