Monday, February 22, 2010

...Denies And Then Flees The Internet

Jimi Bostock has Xed his blog.

12 comments:

Jimi Bostock said...

Gosh, you are really flogging away on this. IS this avoidance of the real debate that you need to be engaged in.

double nickel said...

So explain yourself, Jimi.

bigcitylib said...

The real debate is who hacked the emails? Who did the crime?

Jimi Bostock said...

R u serious. Accordin to your team the world is frying and yet you say this is the real debate. I think not mate. I think we need to all concentrate on getting through the next few years of open and transparent science.

But if it is your big debate, I would suggest is going to be a dry one bud. Who knows who did it. Actually, who knows if it was a hack or a leak.

So, while we are here, tell me, what do you make of Phil Jones BBC interview. Let's start at his first answer and work down.

I am up for that but not that interested in the hacking thing but, hey, why not, double nickel, what have I not explained in the reply to the main post on the matter.

If you can guide me I will try to help but only if you promise to tell me what you make of what Jones said about the three warming periods in the 20th century

is that a deal? :)

Lenny said...

The fact that this guy can hardly put together a coherent sentence should put to rest any thought that he did any hacking.

Jimi Bostock said...

Hey Lenny, you have the perfect name for a comedian :)

justanothermarxistscam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Cross said...

Jimi: OK, I will take you up on that. I am pretty much OK with Dr. Jones interview. In regards to the first question, I can accept that there have been warming rates as great as the current rate in the past. However keep in mind that the current one is the longest time with such a rate and that this rate even includes the last few years which, according to the denialists, show cooling.

Now, let me ask you a question. Do you accept that a doubling of CO2 will cause an increase of about 1.2 C without any feedbacks?

Regards,
John

Jimi Bostock said...

John, I do have to be up front. I am not a scientists and try my best to keep abreast of things from both sides. Not that I really think it is about sides.

I am not sure about the recent warming being longer than previous. Taking Jones on face value, he said not significantly different so he should have probs pointed out a longer length. So, if you have any further info on the length, would like to see it. That would make some difference to my thinking

On the temp / c02 rise, it seems that the models show the relationship as you have suggested. SO, we could expect that sort of rise, without an feedbacks. Of course, the qualification is a pretty big one.

What we can say is that the possibilities of no other feedbacks does not stack up, based on alamost every observation.

But, you know, I am not a scientist and if you are also not then our discussions are probs not that important

What I was concerned about was the science is settled line. The more I looked at that I became a denier of it. Like most, I was not denying the AGW, I was denying that it was all worked out.

Events since, CRY emails included, have suggested that my thinking was right.

So, we are now in a post-climateGate world and I am looking forward to hearing more diverese science.

But the good news, your post is on the monet for what we should be talking about, and in a nice polite way, and not some crap about who hacked what.

John Cross said...

Jimi: The interview is found here.

He gives the periods as 1860 - 1880 (21 years), 1910 - 1940 (31), 1975 - 1998 (24 years), 1975 - 2009 (35 years).

You are correct when you say that the possibilities of no other feedbacks does not stack up. However it appears that most of the feedbacks act to increase warming. In fact the only person who seems to propose negative feedbacks is Lindzen and his ideas have not stood up well to observations.

To me the science is based on the physical properties and interactions of the atmosphere and radiation. Looking at things from this approach most (all?) of the skeptic climatologists agree that adding CO2 will cause an increase of about 1.2C (again without feedbacks).

Regards,
John

Jimi Bostock said...

Hey, I have blogged on the whole episode. I think it's a funny story. A bit rambling but funny - as in if it was not serious.

http://jimidundee.blogspot.com/

John Cross said...

Jimi: any response to my comment?

Regards,
John