Comments on: Climate Presentation

By: Tristan

Tristan — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 01:15:27 +0000

Hi, got a question:

On page 64 and 65 you make the claim that Hansen’t climate model is significantly over predcicting and you have to select senario A. I started to look onto this, to see if your claim was right… because it certainly was a zinger if it is.

Anyway, over at your enemys blog (Real Climate) they have selected Senario B because they say this was the closest senario to what occured in terms of emissions… IF (a big IF) senario B is actually the one you should select then your presentation would need to be updated and Hansen’s models would look bad… but not AS bad.

Blog post:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/
Data file here:
http://www.realclimate.org/data/H88_scenarios_eff.dat
Image here:
http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen88_forc.jpg

Anyway, I am not saying you are wrong, but at the moment they have a justification for selecting senario B that it greater than yours for selecting senario a.

What’s you evidence for selection of senario A?
Can you poke holes in their reasons for selecting senario B?

By: Tristan

Tristan — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 00:51:56 +0000

ADiff – You say:

“By the way, Corn Yields aren’t a “proxy” for “food availability”; it’s a direct measurement of exactly that.

Corn Production in Iowa is not the same as global food avaiablility, unless you can show me a fancy correlation (with at least logical causation) I will not believe you when you say corn in Iowa is a proxy for food availabilty globally. It’s picking a convenient data point.

By: Andy

Andy — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 04:24:10 +0000

Interesting slide on the timing of glacier melt, and chris edwards’ comment about it all happening long before cars were invented. Have you guys ever heard of the Industrial Revolution? You know, when the internal combustion engine was 1st invented? Around mid-1700s…..

By: ADiff

ADiff — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 10:40:00 +0000

Tristan,

On the subject of “food availability”, You might enjoy this: http://www.youtube.com/v/oefeqCmuZRk

(copied from Coyote Blog)

By: ADiff

ADiff — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 10:20:59 +0000

While as you note it’s not clear to what degree production increases can be attributed to temperature increases (such as they might be), I don’t believe that’s the intention of the Corn Yield slides. The intention is, as I understand it, to point out that predictions of negative impacts based on catastrophic AGW have been completely wrong. One need not demonstrate causality to make that point. If advocates of a theory (in this case of catastrophic material impacts from purported ‘Climate Change’) make predictions based on their theory that are wrong, they are wrong regardless of the specific reasons. In this regard it’s up to those having made such erroneous predictions to explain why their predictions were inconsistent with actual outcomes, not the other way around.

By the way, Corn Yields aren’t a “proxy” for “food availability”; it’s a direct measurement of exactly that. Distributive (and local structural problems) are not attributable to basic ‘global’ productive factors like Climate. This merely points out failures in the predictive quality of parts of Catastrophic AGW theory, it can’t be expected to account for why structural socioeconomic misadventures like the various forms of collectivism and socialism so consistently result in shortages (and actual starvation in many cases)!

By: Tristan

Tristan — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 02:11:14 +0000

You need to change the slide on Corn yeilds.

You say that someone else said that that corn yeilds should be going down because of the increase in temperature, but they are going up.

Yes, it does show that the people who though corn yeilds would decrease were wrong. But it doesn’t show that the increase in temperature didn’t had a negative effect . Infact you don’t actually mention the change in temperature around the corn fields in Iowa and your map you show when looking at Tucson shows that from the measurements from the weather statinos the increase in temperature has been minimal.

You’ve got a coll/cause problem here. In the past half century there has beeen huge technologiy advances aimed at increasing the corn yeild per acre. However, this does not mean that the temperature isn’t having a negative effect that is basically dwarfed by the effect of, for example, genetically modifying corn sees allowing bushels to be grown closer together.

You’re probably going to argue that this slide was just to show that the starvation alarmists were wrong… but corn in iowa is again, a terrible proxy for food availability. America has enought food to feed itslef many times over. The problems would be in places were there are shortages.

Basically, I think this slide is terrible.

By: Bill Larsen

Bill Larsen — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 22:47:05 +0000

I have been working on a climate paper for over three years. It seems that when I think it is completed, more data becomes available. Recently I was given a report written or published by Leon Ashby. I would like to use some of his diagrams, but I can’t authenticate the data. Bad data destroys credibility. The paper touches on so many of the sciences, that I changed the title of my paper to “Compendium On Global Warming.” My attempts at a PowerPoint presentation are not progressing very well. Perhaps too much data. Anthropogenic carbon dioxide is an extremely small part of the climate equation. Convincing the public of that premise is the hard part.

By: Tom B

Tom B — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 06:18:19 +0000

Your presentation is as clear and persuasive as anything I’ve read. Thanks for the excellent work.

By: chris edwards

chris edwards — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 04:30:42 +0000

Ironically the glacier claim was what first alerted me to the CO2 scam, reading old national geographic on disk, and I found an article in an early edition about a lagoon that had 5 glaciers meeting and calving icebergs from the mouth of the lagoon into the sea, some 20 years later another explorer found the glaciers had retreated on to land and were calving into the lagoon. This was all before the car was invented, being old enough to have learnt about the Romans growing grapes by Hadrian’s wall and the Vikings being frozen out of Greenland I figured out that it was all just normal cycles, also CO2 is the basis of life so vilifying it is foolish (if there was any chance it was a danger then the catalytic converters on our cars would be gone) Why not look at O2 levels? surely if we are burning enough fossil fuel to pose a threat the oxygen use to facilitate this combustion should show up. As for Gore, he is a treasonous fraudster and deserves all that is coming his way.

By: Dr.T,G.Watkins

Dr.T,G.Watkins — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 02:14:00 +0000

Thank you Warren for a masterful exposition, nearly avoiding all the unpleasant implications of the debate. I would love to take you for dinner if you are ever in the UK, family too. Sadly, I would not be my usual extrovert self but realise I would be with someone cleverer! Making a comeback, my golf is pretty good and my wife very attractive.