Posted by: graemebird | January 3, 2007

Gristmill Bubbleworld: Coby Beck / Pure Speculation As Evidence

Here’s Beck pretending he’s laying out evidence. He’s got a mindless thing going for Peer-Review. Here is what he says. Now note: He and his stupid coterie on the Gristmill Bubbleworld count this as evidence:

“another standard

GMB,
Peer reviewed research (you are free to not care about the quality of your information, but you made a claim about this) says that climate sensitiity to 2x CO2 is 2.9+/-1oC. This does not include feedbacks from melting ice caps or carbon cycle feedbacks adding to anthropogenic emissions.

Your claim that the observed warming shows there is not much sensitivity to CO2 is covered here:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/9/223615/983…”

Its pretty easy to see that there is no evidence here. And believe me. When you click the link there is no evidence there either.

“Another standard” says Coby. And what he means is this compiling of the lamest excuses imageineable for the total lack of evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic warming.

Realclimate has these sorts of moronic excuses. And they call them “Highlights”. Here’s what you get when you track down that link.

Notice that quite a few things he is saying resembles a twisted version of many of the speculations I’ve made on this blog. The difference being that he equates his speculations with certain knowledge and evidence.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/9/223615/983

Here it is and you will notice that this is a shitrain of unreason, patched up by a single sound speculation that is unfortunately just speculation. Reasonable speculation but speculation nonetheless.

But first the shitrain of unreason..

“Objection: Taking into account the logarithmic effect of CO2 on temperature, the 35 percent increase we have already seen in CO2 concentrations represents about three-quarters of the total forcing to be expected from a CO2 doubling. Since we have warmed about 0.7 degrees Celsius so far, we should only expect about 0.3 degrees more for a doubling from pre-industrial levels, so about 1 degree total, not 3 degrees as the scientists predict. Clearly the climate model sensitivity to CO2 is much too high.”

This objection is not only valid. It understates the case. Since most of that increase in temperature is accounted for by the fact that the sun picked up in its activity of its average solar cycles.

So not only is a doubling of CO2 (in the time periods we are talking about) not likely to produce 3 degrees all-other-things-being-equal-warming….. The data tells us instead that we have to consider the sensitivity to be FAR LESS THEN 1 DEGREES CELSIUS FOR A DOUBLING.

Make no mistake about it. Neither Annan nor any of the others have the evidence to gainsay that.

Now that was the valid and perfectly reasoned objection that nonetheless vastly understates the situation.

Here comes yet another excuse from Coby. Another in a long line of excuses from Coby that the dumb bastard has mistaken for evidence:

“Answer: Even without addressing the numbers in this argument, there is a fundamental flaw in its reasoning.

We don’t yet know exactly how much the climate will warm from the CO2 already in the air. There is a delay of several decades between forcing and final response. Until an equilibrium temperature is reached, present day observations will not tell us the exact value of the climate’s sensitivity to CO2….”

But Coby you dope. The data that the 1 degrees assumption for a doubling comes from information going back to the beginning of the industrial revolution. You don’t have the evidence champ”

“….The reason for this is primarily the large heat capacity of the oceans. The enhanced greenhouse effect from higher CO2 levels is indeed trapping energy in the climate system according to expectations, but the enormous quantity of water on earth is absorbing most of the resulting heat. Due to water’s high heat capacity, this absorbed energy shows up as only a modest ocean warming, which in turn dampens the temperature change on land and lowers the global average trend.

This is commonly referred to as the climate system’s thermal inertia. According to model experiments and consistent with data from past climate changes, this inertia results in a lag of several decades between the imposition of a radiative forcing and a final equilibrium temperature.”

Fine. But its only speculation. We still don’t know how it will pan out over many thousands of years. In that case a doubling might well lead to a 3 degrees increase or even a 6 degrees increase. But this is speculation on my part and on yours. You don’t have the data. Speculation is not evidence. Such a warming in any case would not be catastrophic. It would be greatly beneficial because it would stave off a glaciation.

Its only if it happened over a decade or two that it would give us trouble.

You don’t have the data bud. So you have no evidence. So we have to make the assumption that doubling CO2 warms things next to nothing over a period of (lets say) a century.

He then goes onto make another couple of plausible speculative excuses. But they are ONLY excuses because he doesn’t have the positive evidence.

Nowhere is there positive evidence. So we have to go with what we’ve got.

And what we’ve got so far is that a doubling of CO2 results in an all-things-being-equal temperature increase of way less then 1 degrees Celsius if the time period is decades or only 1 or 2 centuries.

You will not find evidence to the contrary in any of these peer-(whoop-dee-fucking-do)reviewed studies.

I shit you not.

Don’t be fooled by Annans low-end-of-the-alarmists-act.

He would likely have to die and be born again before he came up with evidence for a 3 degrees doubling sensitivity.

From here on in people must specify what time period they are talking about when they make these rash speculations.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: