WSJ publishes a collective letter disagreeing with Lindzen et al.

[Sunsettommy]

The Reference Frame

February 1,2012

EXCERPT:

Comparison of dentists, climate scientists, astrologers

The Wall Street Journal just published a letter to the editor

Check With Climate Scientists for Views on Climate

which was signed by a few dozens of climate alarmists. It is meant as a reply to an op-ed by 16 scientists that WSJ previously published.

Let's look at the letter in some detail:

A LOT MORE HERE

[Sunsettommy]

From the above link

Quote:Research shows that more than 97% of scientists actively publishing in the field agree that climate change is real and human caused.

This old and long refuted crap alone effectively exposes their stupid mindset.It is full of lies and distortions.They are exposed as being full of shit.

I am tired of people who overtly lie in their effort to continue a paradigm that is long exposed and dead.

Here is why I say this.From Energy Tribune:

Ninety Seven Percent Is Not What You Think

January 31,2012

Art Horn

EXCERPT:

I have given many lectures about the myths, misconceptions and outright lies in the global warming arena. After an hour of graphs, charts and pictures detailing how a tiny trace gas, carbon dioxide, has no relationship to whatever warming and cooling has occurred I get the inevitable statement from someone in the audience. “How can you deny that man made global warming is real when 97 percent of climate scientists agree that it is true?” At this point I have to explain that the 97 percent figure is not what it appears to be.

Let’s start with where this number comes from. One of the most quoted sources is the result of an online survey that was published in 2009 by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman from the University of Illinois. The survey was sent to 10,257 scientists. It was intended to be very easy to respond to and was supposed to take only two minutes to complete. As a result 3,146 scientists responded to the survey.

LINK

[Goose52]

If you want to see some old die hards follow me over to theenvironmentsite.org to the climate change section. Those nutjobs will drive you crazy. I have two running threads on that site. "Mann's deleted Emails." And, "Remember. This is happening." I don't even read the responses anymore.

[Sunsettommy]

From your second thread:

Quote:Richard Muller seems to be a well-known 'skeptic' or at least advocate against radical action on climate change,

bwahahahahaha!!!

The ignorance is palpable.The thread replies are lacking critical thinking skills.

[Sunsettommy]

From this THREAD post # 52 is this breathtaking stupidity:

Quote:Look at the dates of all those papers, 1957 with only a few since the 1980s

**** me where do you find such cutting edge research.

And many of the papers are from the same authors

What's the wagering that that list on papers on the residence time of CO2 is not an exhaustive list by any means and in fact the makers of that graph have CHERRY PICKED mostly old papers to make a shocking looking graph to fool fuckwits.

Because the makers of that graph are deceptive bastards with no ethics or interest in the truth.

The moron fails to notice that they are peer reviewed science papers from famous climate scientists of the 1950's 60's 70's and 80's.

He was reacting to this chart.



From HERE is the original source.

Then at post #54 is this ignorant gem:

Quote:So no papers were published between 1989 and 2007 but between 1957 and 1989 there were 36 published!

That brings up a new question; why did research into CO2 residence time stop? Is Siegenthaler's work really the last word on this issue? and I thought that the IPCC reports are not original research, In fact I know it to be true. So the IPCC report must be based on papers not on the graph! The graph is not exhaustive. Ergo the graph is deliberately constructed to deceive a naive person into thinking something that is not true.

You a far too charitable to these people some people don't have a good nature.

He fails to understand why the number of papers in this areas dropped off.The CO2 residence times was now well established by the 1990's to require a lot more research in this area.There are a few today but they are not able to overturn 5 decades of valid research.

The BOMB spike research covering the atomic bomb tests is HERE. This shows the rapid decay rate consistent with short atmospheric residence times as well established by decades of published science research.

This is what you get when you have to deal with environmentalist close minded thinkers.They continually prove themselves to be a reliable font of irrationality.

But it goes on at post #56 where he shows how piss poor a reader he is over his own link.Where it makes it clear the IPCC's stated long resident time are based on MODELS!

Here I lift a section:

Quote:Prediction of the future persistence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is based on mathematical models that simulate future additions and removals. The greenhouse gas concentrations predicted by these models are subject to large uncertainties in the effects of both natural processes and human activities.

For some greenhouse gases persistence can be estimated from “mean residence times,” which are obtained with simple linear models and represent the time that would be required for removal of 63% of the anthropogenic excess of the material in the atmosphere, if anthropogenic sources were abruptly diminished to zero [Lasaga and Berner,1998]. This approach yields a rough measure of the persistence in the atmosphere of anthropogenic additions of CH4 with an estimated mean residence time of 10 years [Prather, 1996, 1998]; N2O, 100 years, [Prather, 1996,1998]; and CFC-11 and CFC-12, 50 and 102 years, respectively [Prather et al., 1995].

The persistence of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere cannot be estimated with such a simple model because exchange with the ocean and sediments leads to a more complex behavior. Model simulations of oceanic CO2 uptake provide response times associated with CO2 gas exchange at the ocean surface of approximately 10 years [Liss and Merlivat, 1986; Toggweiler et al., 1989] and downward mixing of surface waters on the order of decades to centuries [Maier-Reimer and Hasselmann, 1987; Sarmiento et al., 1992]. But even when these oceanic CO2 removal processes are allowed sufficient time in the models to reach their maximum capacity, they can remove only about 70 to 85% of the anthropogenic CO2 added to the atmosphere [Archer et al., 1998; Broecker and Peng, 1982;Sarmiento et al., 1992].

Additional CO2 might be removed by burial in soils or deep sea sediments through mechanisms that, although poorly understood, are generally believed to require times extending to thousands of years [Harden et al., 1992;Schlesinger, 1990; Stallard, 1998]. Removing some of the anthropogenic CO2 by this mechanism may require Eos Electronic Supplement (2 of 21) [4/13/2002 4:37:09 PM]

bolding mine

See how many times it is based on models?

The chart Goose showed are based on EMPIRICAL data.They used a C14 tracer as the base for the residence time research.It really pays to do a little critical thinking.Something that appears to be foreign at that forum.

This POST is worth reading.It is at JoNova blog.

They need to learn what Experimentum crucis is.

Empirical based research carries a lot more weight than a model based research.

[Sunsettommy]

One more time.From post #61 is feeble attempt at a refutation.Never mind that it does not address the existence of 5 decades of published peer reviewed science papers attesting to short CO2 residence times.

It is a reaction to post #52.

The papers as shown on the chart Goose posted are REAL and based on EMPIRICAL research.

Attacking Lawrence Solomon as the basis for refutation of the real science papers exposes their low IQ thinking.They never discussed the papers themselves.Just attack the author who had the gall to publicize dozens of published peer reviewed science papers.Many of them were published in Nature and Science publications.

When you discover that is the best they can come up with against published science papers.You know they are running on environmentalist/Political bullshit.

You know they are first class morons.When they think they are successful in doing it but not realizing they have made it clear that they are brainless idiots.

Here is the stunning "debunking" of real science papers that have never been vitiated by newer research.From post 61:

Quote:He gets these things from front group blogs - in this case the quoted source is 'The Deniers' by Lawrence Solomon.
You can read his Sourcewatch page here: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...wrence_Solomon

and,

Quote:You can read a 'review' of his book on DeSmogBlob here: http://www.desmogblog.com/the-denier...global-warming

and,

Quote:Where else would this junk come from than from the usual suspects? Why would anyone post a piece of junk like this and believe it overruled the IPCC reports if they weren't working for a frontgroup (or completely deluded)?

Sarcasm alert> Wow I am really convinced now! < end of alert.

Not a dam thing about the dozens of peer reviewed published science papers themselves that are found mostly in NATURE and SCIENCE publications.

Attack a journalist for making them known.

Incredibly breathtaking gob smacking stupidity!

This is why I long ago stopped visiting these places.

These people know about my forum.It is one the best known Skeptic forum in the world.But notice that they never come here and debate anything.

[Goose52]

That is Tanguerra. I usually don't interact with that person. Except when an obvious insult can be employed. Completely irrational and I have described as an ankle biter. And as usual there are a few that claim to be scientists. Robert Northup, Thaumatergury, and Spot123. They are very intellegent. I have landed a few on them but generally I have difficulty with them. I keep my two running threads going to be an annoying really. I just don't have the time or energy to engage on a regular basis.

[Sunsettommy]

The website no longer works.It says DATABASE ERROR.