Comments on: Day3 of the International Climate Change Conference

By: Not Bluffing

Not Bluffing — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 15:10:30 +0000

ok , i know my last post wont be seen , thats how this site works , no complains , but please dont use the XXXX” final solution” words any more , it can bring lost memories up

REPLY: This site uses a moderation que, and sometime posts don’t show for a few hours overnight. See the policy page.

By: Stan Needham

Stan Needham — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 18:08:02 +0000

Dave,

If Miskolczi is correct, that would be one of the most inconvenient truths of all. It would also confirm something that a large number of skeptics have suspected for a long time.

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 22:35:34 +0000

Anthony,

Thought you might be interested in this article from the Daily Tech

“Runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations,” Miskolczi states. Just as the theory of relativity sets an upper limit on velocity, his theory sets an upper limit on the greenhouse effect, a limit which prevents it from warming the Earth more than a certain amount.

How did modern researchers make such a mistake? They relied upon equations derived over 80 years ago, equations which left off one term from the final solution.

Miskolczi was just at the same conference. Looks like interesting info.

REPLY: yes I was aware of this, but I wanted to read through it before doing any writeup on it.

By: aaron

aaron — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:52:36 +0000

Anthony, has anyone uploaded the television interviews that you and other conference goers did?

REPLY: Not that I am aware of

By: PA

PA — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 17:01:55 +0000

Philip & An Inq., Thank you. I myself do not put a lot of faith in the models yet. But the comparison of empirical data between surface stations and satellite data is what is bothering me. I doubt satellite corrections are made in such a way that it will duplicate the trends from surface stations. If they do that, then those measurements are not going to be independent.

My own feeling is that we have lots of problems with surface stations, but on average they give results with reasonable accuracy, that matches with satellite data. Having said that I fully endorse Anthony\’s mission on making our surface stations even better. I was hoping Anthony could comment about it, but I suspect he is busy with his travel, etc.

By: Evan Jones

Evan Jones — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 06:53:46 +0000

An Inq:

That is exactly what I have been thinking. And it fits with my thumbnail prejudice that GW since 1979 is overstated by about a factor of two.

By: An Inquirer

An Inquirer — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 05:33:18 +0000

PA,
I wonder about another theory which I have not heard expressed. Perhaps the climate models have something right — that AGW induces the troposphere to warm faster than the surface. The satellites (e.g., UAH) do show a warming that is a bit less than surface temperatures; however, if the surface temperature trend is overstated, and if accurate surface trends were less than the trophosperic trend, the models could be confirmed in this fingerprint of global warming. Nevertheless, even if this theory had legitimacy, it would mean that the models are vastly overstating the magnitude of AGW even if fingerprint is there.

By: Stan Needham

Stan Needham — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 03:04:58 +0000

Anthony, I was looking through the list of scheduled speakers, and there appeared to be a number of notable absences : Steve McIntyre, Pielke Jr. or Sr., Scarfetta, Lindzen, Svensmark, Friis-Christensen just to name a few. Were they there and just didn’t speak, and did anyone from the Warmer side of the aisle attend?

REPLY: They were not there, but I believe were invited. Pielke and McIntyre had other commitments AFAIK. Not sure about the others. There was so many people that I could not meet them all. I was particularly impressed that Jennifer Marohasy and Bob Carter made the trip from down under.

Also absent were protesters, although we heard rumblings that there might be some. NYC doesn’t tolerate that stuff well, since it disrupts the city.

By: Philip_B

Philip_B — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 22:04:12 +0000

PA, what you are missing is the satellite data is also adjusted. The adjustments are doubtless for legitimate reasons, however we have no way of determining their accuracy (some unknown error in adjustments is inherent and unavoidable). And it’s simply human nature to err in the direction of what you think is the right answer. So agreement with what are believed to be good station data is unsurprising.

There is more disagreement in the balloon temperature data. Arguably the least the result of adjustments of the three.

By: Evan Jones

Evan Jones — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 22:00:10 +0000

I’d say your weather station auditing has become a part of almost every climate presentation given by skeptics. That in itself tells you something about the importance of Anthony’s work.

That’s because it is not theoretical. It is empirical and irrefutable. There may be dispute as to the full extent of the effects, but it is solid as a rock. I could see that from day 1.