Letters to the Editor
-
waterworld@!!!!
i never saw it, but don't you think that's seriously going to happen!!!?????
**Editor's Choice***
-
Edit previous post
Sorry, the original Word hyperlink doesn't come through once you paste it here: that strange sentence "For example, the refusals to make public the algorithms used to calculate the hottest summers Bug in the Software?" should end with this: (...) which were later admitted to be skewed http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/08/official-us-cli.html
-
Akasofu redux
Solarpower wrote:
So what do you think Akasofu was referring to when he claims they “have not examined the natural component?” I have a feeling he is a respectable scientist, although not specialising in this field, as you pointed out. I don’t think he would make wild claims, or do you think otherwise?
Here's what I DO know about Syun, having worked with him. He enjoys being the "devil's advocate" and the neighborhood iconoclast. He enjoys popping what he regards as bubbles for any and every "consensus" - and asking whether a highly unusual, exotic and contrarian model can't be used in it place. This is his nature. It doesn't mean he is making "wild claims" only that he likes to play the margins and be the "rebel".
An illustration helps. At the time I was at the GI in 1985-86 I was advancing earlier published research on how solar flares originate, which based on the well-established magnetic shearing model - with force-free fields undergoing shearing and storing magnetic free energy.
The underlying governing equation is: curl B = alpha (B)
where B is the magnetic induction and "alpha" is what we call the force free parameter.
To make a long story short, I gave a seminar on my work and further reearch indicators. Syun, sitting in the front row, nitpicked apart all sorts of aspects - and insisted the "driven" type flare model can't work (this, despite a 99% consensus amongst solar physicists) and should be replaced with an "unloading" type model of the type he'd earlier applied to magnetic substorms on Earth.
Of couse, I smiled and tried to tolerate his interruptions as best I could, but he got on my nerves and made the seminar a "one man show" of iconoclasm - his. It was nearly impossible to get a word in edge wise, and to show him in detail why he was precipitous, and that vast droves of data and imagery supported the magnetic storage model - not his "dynamo" a la aurorae on Earth. (After all, there is no "neutral wind" observed on the Sun, nor any BV-, S-potentials of the type that can be invoked for substorms)
Yes, there are field-aligned currents, but that is about wheere the similarities end.
Anyway, the gist of it is that Syun got to be the audacious "star" of the seminar simply by disrupting it and using it as a basis to advertise for his own pet views, based on external double layers and such.
That experience betrayed more about the nature of the man than his Oriental, sphinx-like demeanor may otherwise have wanted.
Now, so I am not misunderstood, I do not claim or insist Akasofu has no "right" to talk about whatever he so desires, but unless one understands his nature, and where he is coming from, one will tend to assign way too much gravitas to what he claims. I don't. You could say the reason is that I "been there, done that".
The following year I left the GI, as I could well see the support for my work didn't exist, not so long as Syun (then GI Director) was in command.
I will get back to you later on your other issues and questions, assuming the thread is still open.
-
@Solarpower
This will address a number of your concerns:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/hot-off-the-projector-3-atmospheric-co2-to-800-kyr-ago/
Excerpt:
"Just a few minutes ago Chappellaz et al presented the deepest dregs of greenhouse gas concentration data from the EPICA ice core in Antarctica, extending the data back to 800,000 years ago. In Al Gore’s movie you saw what was at that time the longest record of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, back to 650 kyr, and their astonishing correlation with Antarctic temperature. This iconic superstar record has probably consumed as many eyeball-hours as any in climate science, alongside other classics such as the Jones et al. global temperature trends, the Moana Loa recent CO2 record, and the hockey stick. The Antarctic CO2 record has spawned countless internet rants about the CO2 lag behind temperature, and the circle of cause and effect between CO2 and climate. And the new data say …
The first point to write home about is that the correlation between Antarctic temperatures and CO2 continues unabated. One could imagine a world in which CO2 had no impact on climate, although if you buy that Dick Lindzen has a bridge he wants to sell you. In such a world, it could be that the correlation between CO2 and temperature since 650 kyr was just a coincidence, Mother Nature playing a cruel joke, and maybe in that case a little more data would cause the spurious correlation to start to unravel. That didn’t happen. CO2 continues to be high in warm times and low in cold times. There were no gasps of astonishment from the audience at the continued striking correlation. Ho-hum, of course it still works."
Bottom line: There IS definitely a CO2-temperature connection, and it isn't "absolutism" to say so.
I could see the data as long ago as 1986 when Gunther Weller, at the GI, showed his ice core data to me and explained their significance. He also warned that there might one day be those who tried to show an inverse, or NO correlation in order to escape the consequences. How prophetic he was.
Humans, especially the sub-species Homo Economicus, will consume and waste any amount of time to avoid taking the hard action we need, preferring to castigate those of us not willing to gamble with our future as "desperate people" or "Cassandras".
-
Extraordinary Rendition for AGW Dissenters
droogoy I really do appreciate your responses. Personality is always important, and as your experience shows, can be more of an obstacle than any scientific dogma. I just read the same piece you copied here at the site you mention, and I am not disputing Co2 plays a major role in global warming. I am disputing the sound scientific basis for the IPCC reports, which are not subject to scrutiny, and which roundly declare human produced Co2 is causing such an alarming rate of warming. I look forward to your additions, as you say, if the thread is still open, basically my concerns are with the bottom line in US scientific research: i.e FUNDING. If you are challenging the mainstream accepted dogma, then you are less likely to receive funding, and thus important challenges to scientific study are simply brushed aside. This means that today’s endeavours in science are controlled by finance and not by human ingenuity. The realclimate site is an example of what I’m talking about: plenty of funding, and not a step out of place which may jeapordise the continued flow of dollars.
I would love for you to take a look at the thunderbolts.info theories, as this seems to be within your realm, and as you seem young enough to wish to challenge your own precepts. You see, every official and REAL climate scientist is still subject to the old scientific traditions which I see are being eroded. i.e: remain skeptical of everything until proven otherwise. The rather quickly accepted view of AGW is to my mind an example of bad science. We all suffer from a basic kind of fundamentalism which means we automatically stop ourselves from delving deeper into unknown territory if we perceive it to challenge our established world-view. Even if we believe ourselves to be open minded, when pursuing such a challenge we have all repellent systems highly active, meaning we are SO convinced of our world view that even open minded research is hampered. This is where the scientific mind MUST make leaps of faith, especially if it goes against the tide. Where would we be today had Galilleo been subject to extraordinary rendition and held in the 15th Century equivalent of Guantanamo, because his wild theories which upset the established flat-earth view?