Comments for Clive Best

Comment on Day of reckoning draws nearer for IPCC by Gerald m Lerner

Gerald m Lerner — Thu, 10 May 2012 00:30:50 +0000

Not true. Several “theories” have already been proven wrong and others are on life support. The 1991 paper in Science by Friis-Christensen and Lassen was falsified within 15 years, dramatically so, the notion that the shorter solar cycles are (somehow) correlated with warming.

Comment on Day of reckoning draws nearer for IPCC by Gerald m Lerner

Gerald m Lerner — Thu, 10 May 2012 00:24:59 +0000

There’s far more to climate science than 30+ year land-sea temperature predictions. But that’s not my point. Falsification isn’t over some time frame, so the entire discussion is beside the point.

The ” theory” is that anthropogenic increases of greenhouse gases is substantively altering the climate. How much over a time frame isn’t a test of the theory, but of model fidelity and assumptions.

Comment on Day of reckoning draws nearer for IPCC by Barry Dwyer

Barry Dwyer — Wed, 09 May 2012 21:58:01 +0000

How do I unsubscribe from this comment thread. The link below leads to a message
“You may not access this page without a valid key”

Please Help

Comment on Day of reckoning draws nearer for IPCC by Clive Best

Clive Best — Wed, 09 May 2012 09:02:52 +0000

Yes you are correct . The probability assumes 6 independent measurements all being 1 – 3 sigma below the model prediction. This is too naive and A better statistical Analysis is driven in the comments. However the point is that all AR 4 predictions made in 2007 are statistically too high . So then they argue that trends are only meaningful over 20 years or so, and if we wait long enough the models will be vindicated. Hence the remark about CAGW only being falsifiable after the originators have retired.

Comment on Day of reckoning draws nearer for IPCC by gerald m lerner

gerald m lerner — Tue, 08 May 2012 19:46:38 +0000

I have to say that that “probability” calculation is the most naive and silly thing I’ve seen from someone with an advanced degree in science. It wouldn’t pass the laugh test in a Probability 1 course. You do understand that the six “yearly” measurements aren’t statistically independent samples? And the model bias for a six year period is huge for a phenomemon that increases, on average by about 0.01 degrees/year.
Finally, I’ve never heard of the “falsification” condition for a scientific theory being expressed in years, some fraction of a scientists career.

Comment on Doubling CO2 and basic physics by Clive Best

Clive Best — Mon, 07 May 2012 02:46:22 +0000

I agree that what really matters is whether the effective height in the atmosphere where IR radiation escapes into space is the crucial factor. It is always assumed that extra CO2 diffuses rapidly isotropically throughout the atmosphere. I also find this difficult to believe have not seen any data showing the actual increase of CO2 levels at different heights. Note also that this applies to H2O as well which is 70-90% of the Earth’s greenhouse effect. How water reacts to forcing from CO2 is crucial to the whole debate. Does extra evaporation lead to more clouds thereby increasing albedo ? Do more clouds produce more rain leading to lower H2O levels in the upper atmosphere ? If so then H2O feedback is negative and there will be just 0.2 to maximum 1 degree rise in temperature from a doubling of seasonal and CO2.

One other interesting observation about CO2 is the almost instant response of seasonal and “anthropogenic” changes to CO2 globally. How can emissions from China be immediately observed at the South Pole. I think that the real reason for seasonal changes is the assymetry of water coverage between SH and NH. SH has 80% ocean and NH has <60%. SH summers also have 6% more solar radiation. This is more likely the cause of seasonal changes and long term CO2 levels are driven by Ocean dynamics.

Comment on Doubling CO2 and basic physics by Dave Yost

Dave Yost — Mon, 07 May 2012 01:36:08 +0000

I’m still having trouble understanding this thing. I have read everything on the subject including Dr. Weart’s article.

If we merely double CO2 concentrations, then the added CO2 will mix within the existing atmosphere. It does not seem like this added amount can make much of a difference in the point in the upper atmosphere where newly radiated infrared energy can escape? If this band did grow in height, then the argument stated would make sense? Does the air pressure at sea level change?

What does make sense is that the added CO2 leads to additional thermal energy at the lower altitudes and this eventually mixes throughout the atmosphere. This energy is absorbed within lower altitude band. The fact that the entire atmosphere is opaque in these bands is not relevant to the process. The lower denser air gets warmer first.

Comment on 1990 IPCC predictions confront the data by Is There Really A Need To Panic Over a .29C Rise In World Temperatures? : Stop The ACLU

Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:36:02 +0000

[...] using their vaunted computer models, was for around .46C over the period of 1990-2012 (via Clive Best). Furthermore, from 1961-1980, the Earth was in a cooling period (the overall cooling period [...]

Comment on 1990 IPCC predictions confront the data by Is There Really A Need To Panic Over a .29C Rise In World Temperatures? | Right Wing News

Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:35:47 +0000

Comment on Miskolczi’s theory of a saturated greenhouse effect by james j kennedy

james j kennedy — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 04:30:09 +0000

Likewise. Nice to hear from you!

Taking your 0.2-0.6 deg c, and multiplying it
by .04, the proportion of atmospheric CO2
that is anthropogenic, we get

0.008-0.024 deg c.

Surprisingly close to my “paper napkin” calc. of 0.03 deg c

Can we finally consider Hansen’s work, with its
absurdly high numbers for sens2xaCO2, to be in the
rear view mirror?