Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #94 –
Third Assessment Report of 2001? I was first introduced into the topic of ozone depletion in mid-80's. You have no way to catch up with my far longer memory.
And, as I suspected, you are really only interested in the politics, not the science. Case closed.
I'm quite aware of what happened in the '80s regarding the Montreal Protocol… The acceptance of the Precautionary Principle was a milestone of … stupidity. (If one applied it to itself it would have to be rejected… Is your antiquated logic able to derive that? Of course, it is; yet you don't… Hm!)
But the effects of banning CFCs and such was minor. (Both the environmental effects and the economic costs.)
You close the case, because you are ignorant of it. But the regime of attaining a less than 400 ppm concentration of atmospheric CO2 is just plain silly. And precluding a 2º C increase in the earth's temperature is a feat that modern technology cannot perform.
Not to worry, though: The measurement of the earth's temperature is so poorly handled by incompetent (…or worse!) statisticians that their "trendiness" is soon to come crashing down. (At least the satellite record uses statistics correctly.) How else would you explain the "adjustment" of buoy measurements -designed for the purpose- being changed, to accommodate canvas and wooden bucket sea surface temperatures that are (ahem!) hotter, and hence to be preferred?
Indeed, the politics interests me — in much the way that cancer might interest a pathologist. (I see some few prominent scientists attempting to be general physicians… You'd probably call them witches.)
The science fascinates me. The various fields and their interaction are rich lodes of information and inspiration — and challenge. I'd like to see climatology become a real science — if it's possible.
I would not like to see it continue to be a fantasy-game of supercomputer models whose predictions are never checked… Simulations are an important tool in such a field; but -if the field is to progress- it needs to hypothesize causes. By all means, model those. But the models must make predictions that can be falsified… Else, they'll just be computer games.
Is there even one climate scientist's paper you'd mention (so that I can read it, or comment if I already have…) to me?
Jim Hanson, Michael Mann, Phil Jones; Hans von Storch, James Annan, Ken Briffa; any of their co-authors… Indeed, anyone who's published in the last 20 years or so — I can find their papers.
So, are there any that you've read that should convince me? (Yes, the phrasing of that question was deliberate. Alternately, I could have asked "What paper(s) convinced you?" You can only dodge this question by quitting the field…)
—————————————————————
But the politics says nothing about the science and you really haven't said anything about the science yet. And neither has your statistician.
You have a very odd definition of science…
The models make predictions. The predictions fail.
The data don't confirm the models. The data are "adjusted".
The governments of the world don't abide by the prescriptions of those who believe in the models; these are evil people!
Is there anything else to your argument?
BTW:You missed the question I asked: Would you say ozone depletion was unreal? This gives you an idea about the evidence.
I don't want an "idea" about the evidence… I want the evidence!
(I'm sure you'll think that quibbling. )
—————————————————————————————————
Put another way, I see no way you can support your trope of trends, unless you develop causal theories. (Everything Christy said about the HockeyStick graph applies…) But look at the pretty straight line! Ooh! It must mean something…!
P.S.,
Read some of Judith Curry's papers…