Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Lukewarming

"TBY,
I still haven't understood what the lukewarmers' (alternative) hypothesis, if one, is. The warmists staked their ground blaming all warming of past 50 yrs on CO2. We've all seen the AR5 - they still do the same. What do you guys propose?

Feb 7, 2013 at 1:20 PM | shub"

That would be interesting to see.

So far the lukewarmist philosophy on this thread seems to be all over the place and differing by the post. I gave an opinion on how I regard the lukewarmist position and was accused by one of them of "crashing the thread," as though it was a private back scratching party. I even had my views compared to the 'slayers' even though I do not agree with what they wrote or proposed it on the thread.

It seems if you disagree with any form of AGW you are the 'enemy' and a 'denier'.

Feb 7, 2013 at 2:05 PM | Registered CommenterRKS

Ah, hallelujah for NoTroll, best piece of javascript I ever wrote. RKS is now on the list. I'll reply to shub's email in a bit.

Feb 7, 2013 at 2:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

Yes, I accept the main argument of the original AR4, if you mean the small (~1 degree) rise due to direct heating from extra greenhouse gases.

I still have problems with the actual measured rises, too many activist hands have been on the record, I'm not convinced they've removed UHI, etc.

Please don't use the insane one's name in any reply if you want me to read it, the script doesn't care.

Feb 7, 2013 at 2:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

"Please don't use the insane one's name in any reply if you want me to read it, the script doesn't care.

Feb 7, 2013 at 2:19 PM | TheBigYinJames"

Nor do I sunshine!

A coward who cannot allow an opposing viewpoint - shut your eyes and it'll all go away - you hope!

Come to think of it I'm a bit fed up with using my RKS acronym anyway - time for a change I think.

Feb 7, 2013 at 2:29 PM | Registered CommenterRKS

"Please don't use the insane one's name in any reply if you want me to read it, the script doesn't care.

Feb 7, 2013 at 2:19 PM | TheBigYinJames"

Nor do I sunshine!

A coward who cannot allow an opposing viewpoint - shut your eyes and it'll all go away - you hope!

Come to think of it I'm a bit fed up with using my RKS acronym anyway - time for a change I think.

Feb 7, 2013 at 2:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterABC

When the great Lukewarmist Lindzen actually states that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 causes a rise of i deg C or more, has anyone here decided what the Lukewarmist philosophy actually is?.

Feb 7, 2013 at 2:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterFred Flintstone

I note you wait until you think I can't read your comments to call me a coward (NoTroll comes with a toggle, I can have it on or off at will)

It's exasperation, not cowardice. I've spent a long long time trying to bring you up to the knowledge level of say, a bright mid-teenager, in order to let you see the numerous places you go wrong in you thinking. I'm not sure why I take this time, I think it's perhaps pity for you on one level, but also the desire to strengthen the skeptic camp by eradicating the excesses of stupidity.

In the course of these numerous exchanges, I will say something, demonstrate it to you, cite references. It's never enough for you. You come up with what you think are killer ripostes, and I cater for all of them. You have never once been able to refute anything factual that I have told you. Never ever.

This is partly because of a certain intellectual deficiency on your part, which I think is obvious to all, even if they are too polite to mention it, but it is also because you are plain wrong. You may as well try to prove that gravity doesn't exist. It's easy for me to counter your claims because they are patently incorrect and not internally consistent. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

The sad thing is - you know this. Part of your anger at the moment, and the reason you always run away from the radiative physics threads is because you know when you're beaten. You always end up shouting and stropping off like a big girl.

Instead you've adopted the Zedders strategy of just making the place as messy and inconvenient as you can. This thread is a prime example - you don't like Lukewarmers, more power to your elbow. So why are you here? Because you want to make a big splat, like a spoiled kid. You want to spoil it for everyone else.

If you can't have it your way, then it's to be messed up. It's a very childish and destructive behaviour. I'm sure you'll have a good swagger and shout about this. That's all you're good for these days.

Unless you want a new radiative physics thread? Thought not.

Feb 7, 2013 at 2:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

You want to spoil it for everyone else.

If you can't have it your way, then it's to be messed up. It's a very childish and destructive behaviour. I'm sure you'll have a good swagger and shout about this. That's all you're good for these days.

Unless you want a new radiative physics thread? Thought not.

Feb 7, 2013 at 2:52 PM | TheBigYinJames"

Funny but that's exactly how I feel about your abusive posts whenever you get an awkward question regarding your ingrained beliefs..

What exactly is your description of a lukewarmer and does it differ from Lindzen?

And I'm amazed with all the science degrees you claim to have you can't figure out the correct null hypothesis for AGW - whether warmist or lukewarmist the answer is in the term - warmist - NOT STATUS QUO.

As for hiding my post from you - did you not see the ABC post?

Pratt!

Feb 7, 2013 at 3:58 PM | Registered CommenterRKS

shub

I've finished trading insults with the abusive scot - lets get back to the thread.

You've given us your description of the warmist and lukewarmist positions and I'm broadly in agreement with you.

You have also requested the lukewarmists here to compare their positions with the warmists and to provide a null hypothesis covering their position.

I believe, if I read you correctly, that with respect to CO2 driven AGW your null hypothesis is that increased CO2 does NOT increase global warming, an opinion I agree with. Please let me know if I misunderstand you.

To me a lukewarmist, as with Lindzen, is simply a pinker shade of AGW.

So far you have not received a clear answer to your request which I believe is the point of the thread.

Feb 7, 2013 at 4:26 PM | Registered CommenterRKS

RKS, the thread was mine and shub's, not yours. You're welcome to chime in if you have something substantive to say, but ranting and now borderline racism is not welcome. I didn't believe you could be any more obnoxious than you'd already been, but I see you have new depths to plumb. If shub wants to continue the conversation with you, he's welcome to it, but I credit him with more nous.

So do you actually have anything substantive to say? No, didn't think so.

Feb 7, 2013 at 4:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

If you do want to continue, shub, might I suggest email?

Feb 7, 2013 at 5:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

"I didn't believe you could be any more obnoxious than you'd already been, but I see you have new depths to plumb....

Feb 7, 2013 at 4:45 PM | TheBigYinJames"

You're referring to the previous post I made to shub, I believe, in which I made a very measured statement on how I understood his position and how I regard Lindzen's position.

Would you care to explain the details of that your above statement in plain English please as it appears to have an Alice in Wonderland flavour when compared to what I actually wrote.

I'm sorry if being referred to as a scot upsets you, with your bigyin nym I assumed you were proud of the fact. Borderline racist - grow up!

Feb 7, 2013 at 5:09 PM | Registered CommenterRKS

sigh

Feb 7, 2013 at 5:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

"If you do want to continue, shub, might I suggest email?

Feb 7, 2013 at 5:03 PM | TheBigYinJames"

What about Dung, doesn't he have a say as this thread was about a conversation including him.

Not everything in life is all about self obsessed little you.

Feb 7, 2013 at 5:14 PM | Registered CommenterRKS

sigh

Feb 7, 2013 at 5:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

Sorry shub, I did say I'd stop trading insults with the bigyin character but the self obsessed idiot simply won't let go and insults me yet more regarding my inoffensive post to you. I suppose his offensive post to Dung should have been warning enough of the stance he was going to take.

Feb 7, 2013 at 5:20 PM | Registered CommenterRKS

sigh

Feb 7, 2013 at 5:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

apologies for possibly intruding into some kind of weirdly polarised argument.

There is no lukewarmer position. Steve Mosher, Lucia Liljegren and Tom Fuller probably all hold different views.http://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/

My view is that the CAGW stuff is overdone. And the "natural variability" stuff is unscientific - what exactly is varying? The lukewarmers align with "warmers" but say that they do not believe that temps will increase as much as the hardcore crowd, for whatever reasons.

I suggest that a lukewarmer null hypothesis would be: temperatures on Earth will vary according to natural cycles of the planet's motion around the sun.

Feb 7, 2013 at 10:10 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

And the "natural variability" stuff is unscientific - what exactly is varying?

Whatever it is that has always been varying?

Feb 7, 2013 at 10:47 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

and if you wanted to model that, Martin A, how would you do that?

Feb 8, 2013 at 12:01 AM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

Civil war on the hill! Not surprised. Always seems an odd alliance between some thinking people and a mixture of the credulous, cranks and extremists. Trouble with RKS? No surprise there either. Seems to have a license to insult not granted to others. Sometimes wonder if he is the Bishop's alter ego...

Feb 8, 2013 at 3:05 AM | Unregistered CommenterSnitful

Trouble with RKS? No surprise there either. Seems to have a license to insult not granted to others. Sometimes wonder if he is the Bishop's alter ego...

Feb 8, 2013 at 3:05 AM | Snitful

To be honest I think he just responds to one or two other people who insult him because of his views on climate. It's a shame the tit for tat went on for so long as it got a bit boring after a while and skewed the thread.

Feb 8, 2013 at 4:02 AM | Unregistered CommenterJosh D

Civil war on the hill! Not surprised. Always seems an odd alliance between some thinking people and a mixture of the credulous, cranks and extremists...

Feb 8, 2013 at 3:05 AM | Snitful

That's what makes for interesting reading. It's not meant to be taken seriously like some of the dedicated science blogs. More of a general purpose skeptics gossip page with the usual sprinkling of prima donna types and regular contributors of the latest scandals.

Feb 8, 2013 at 4:24 AM | Unregistered CommenterJosh D

Just forget all the insult-trading and get on with the show!

RKS
"increased CO2 does NOT increase global warming" - is the null hypothesis. This has been, and should be, the default position. So we are on the same page.

TBY
The way I see it, climate science is a science just like geology, astrophysics. It has its findings, hypotheses and facts. One such fact could be that greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere. Since the early 1980s, a number of more specific claims have been made in the field. These have originated in the IPCC. IPCC-science is different from climate science.

Saying CO2 will cause 1 degree of warming, is not IPCC science (as you write above) (let me not get into whether that figure is valid or not here).Blaming the avg temp increase in the second half of 20th century on CO2 is. It is a very specific statement and claim.

What is the lukewarmers stance toward this IPCC statement?

Feb 8, 2013 at 5:39 AM | Registered Commentershub

shub,

as I've pointed out earlier in the thread and others since, Lukewarmerism as a term covers just the temperature rise and not the attribution. So I can only give you what my take on it is (and since you already differentiate me from 'other' Lukewarmers, does it matter?)

For the record, no I don't think ALL of the temperature rise in the 20th century was caused by CO2. We don't understand interglacial warming in the first place, so it's possible to be a combination of nautural (fluctuation plus interglacial) and a small CO2 signal. The relative strengths of both explanations is is unknown. The CO2 effect could be insignificant.

Either explanation is supported by the actual measurements at the moment.

For those who insist that 'status quo' or 'natural interglacial' can be the only natural possible null hypothesis on its own have a serious problem. We don't understand the status quo, or the interglacial temperature rise. For a hypothesis to qualify as a null hypothesis, it has to actually BE a hypothesis, i.e. a model, mathematical or otherwise, that explains the observed data and has some predictive power so it can be invalidated.

I'd like to see that model, because as far as I know it doesn't exist.

Feb 8, 2013 at 8:09 AM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames