NC State Global Warming Professor accused of "recklessly falsified work"

[Lucrum]

It's pretty simple. Even a righty can understand it. CO2 is a GHG. We have raised it's levels by 40%....

And yet it's still only 0.04% of the atmosphere. Christ, argon represents 0.93%

Argon is the third most common gas in the Earth's atmosphere, at 0.93% (9,300 ppm), making it approximately 23.8 times as abundant as the next most common atmospheric gas, carbon dioxide...

 

[jem]

sorry we disagree on this... but... for me it is a truth issue. I was an environmentalist and volunteered my time to clean water causes. ... but I had to stop. The left hijacked a movement that could have been a natural conservative cause .. intelligent conservation.

I hate seeing truth perverted for a cause... and make no mistake...
when the UN and democrats stop trying to create cap and trade, carbon taxes and wealth transfers based on speculation that man made co2 is causing warming, it will cease being a left issue.

I simply gave you my understanding.

Here, I just found this http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/berne-first-order-co2-absorbtion/ for you. It will save me a great deal of time and frustration if you will just study the article at the link which explains the Bern Model in a manner consistent with my own interpretation of the formula; thus saving me endless frustration and a great deal of time if I were to attempt to explain it in more detail, and as I mentioned I have no scientific software here that would allow me to properly input the Model's equations. I have access to such, but am not inclined to bother. If you have a different interpretation then mine, I'd be happy to consider it.

The basic problem is that the model provides results that differ from experimental observation. Therefore the model is at best only very approximately right. But my opinion is that it is so flawed as to be no longer useful at all other than as a means of comparing what would occur were the assumptions and the values of the parameters underlying the Bern Model correct.

I am in no way putting down those who developed the model, it was a best effort at the time, 1992 I think. Now it is time to move on.

There are no scientists whose work I have respect for saying that anthro CO2 contributions are unimportant, what they are saying is we don't know how important they are, but it looks more and more like they are less important to climate change then we had previously thought. Those who are jumping to conclusions that this is a settled matter, and the layman can not be faulted for that, are making what for trained scientists is a classic mistake.

I heard Mayor Bloomberg expounding on climate change in an interview of the bloomberg website. He is a very smart guy, but he is a businessman, not a scientist, and he can't evaluate the state of the our understanding directly. He has to rely on the conclusions of various panels as filtered through the news media. When you look at the unfiltered results you get different picture. One in which our understanding is very much in flux. It's unfortunate that this issue has been so politicized because it should have nothing to do with left/right politics (and I wish Jem and FC, for all their good contributions to the discussion here, would stop characterizing it that way).

 

[Magna]

I remind all that if you don't like what someone posts then simply quote it and put your comments and "corrections" below it. But please do not alter someone elses' post as that is, as mentioned in the thread below, childish and pathetic. And it will be removed.

For those who forgot this was discussed and explained in a 2011 thread: Altering Members' Posts And Names

 

[futurecurrents]

Jem was saying how he believes AGW is true, but since addressing it involves the govt he pretends that he doesn't.

Then he started crying when I pointed it out.

 

[stu]

The basic problem is that the model provides results that differ from experimental observation. Therefore the model is at best only very approximately right. But my opinion is that it is so flawed as to be no longer useful at all other than as a means of comparing what would occur were the assumptions and the values of the parameters underlying the Bern Model correct.

Criticizing the use of the Bern Model by methods assumptions and interpretations that beg numerous questions of their own, does not make the IPCC use of the Bern Model flawed. Neither does merely accepting that there are perceived flaws, invalidate overall scientific consensus though you seem to think it does. .

I am saying piezo, you should be doubting the doubters at least as much as you doubt the science. Apparently you're not interested in that approach, which makes the idea that you're being reasonable hard to accept.

 

[jem]

believing that man made co2 is currently warming the planet (when you net out its cooling properties) is like believing in alternate universes. There is no scientific proof... but it is possible.

Jem was saying how he believes AGW is true, but since addressing it involves the govt he pretends that he doesn't.

Then he started crying when I pointed it out.

 

[jem]

What more can piezoe do to satisfy you leftist drone clowns.
He says the science is not settled. Its not.
If you had science showing man made co2 is currently warming the planet rather than cooling it or doing nothing... you would produce the science.

Criticizing the use of the Bern Model by methods assumptions and interpretations that beg numerous questions of their own, does not make the IPCC use of the Bern Model flawed. Neither does merely accepting that there are perceived flaws, invalidate overall scientific consensus though you seem to think it does. .

I am saying piezo, you should be doubting the doubters at least as much as you doubt the science. Apparently you're not interested in that approach, which makes the idea that you're being reasonable hard to accept.

 

[futurecurrents]

What more can piezoe do to satisfy you leftist drone clowns.
He says the science is not settled. Its not.
If you had science showing man made co2 is currently warming the planet rather than cooling it or doing nothing... you would produce the science.

Yes, the same degree of confidence that we are not sure that cigarettes cause health problems. We can't really 100% prove that they do. Why don't you take up smoking if you don't already.

I keep asking you to show the science disproving the centuries old principles of CO2 behavior and the current 97% consensus that AGW is a fact and you can't produce anything even close. If you did you would be instantly famous and the Koch bros would fawn all over you.

 

[Ricter]

Yes, the same degree of confidence that we are not sure that cigarettes cause health problems. We can't really 100% prove that they do. Why don't you take up smoking if you don't already.

I keep asking you to show the science disproving the centuries old principles of CO2 behavior and the current 97% consensus that AGW is a fact and you can't produce anything even close. If you did you would be instantly famous and the Koch bros would fawn all over you.

I read somewhere that while we can't say cigarette smoking causes lung cancer (only one in six smokers will get lung cancer), of all the people who do get lung cancer, more than 90% are smokers.

 

[piezoe]

Stu, your criticism of me is valid, and it is well that you pointed out that I have mostly ignored what are fairly obvious errors of the "doubters". (I think, "doubter" is a much better word then "denier" to describe those not sure if anthropomorphic CO2 is causing a significant problem with climate, so thank you for using "doubter" rather than "denier".

This wouldn't be nearly so serious a problem if there were not so much at stake. We must understand the science better before the law making phase. It is very difficult to undo mistakes codified in statutory law.