A Few Things Ill Considered

I think I will start to close down comments on some of the guide articles as the comment threads get too long and meandering, and instead direct people from there to dedicated “open threads”.

So consider this the first implementation of that idea for the article “CO2 Lags, not leads“. Comments there are now closed.

The main reason I want to do this article first, aside from the recent explosion of unproductive comments, is because I would like to make a correction and a couple of clarifications based on what came out there. The majority of the comments fall squarely in the “completely missing the point” category, in that they simply restate the addressed objection with not even a cursory nod to the refutation. We can ignore those.

But I think that if I wrote the article today there is in fact one thing I would change. I wrote:

So, it is correct that CO2 did not trigger the warmings, but it definitely did contribute to them, and according to climate theory and model experiments, greenhouse gas forcing was the dominant factor in the magnitude of the ultimate change.

It is this last phrase that I would alter. There is research that purports to show up to 90% of the warming/cooling of the glacial-interglacial cycles was due to GHG’s, but there is also research that pegs this factor at much less, around 30%. Given that, I would like to change “greenhouse gas forcing was the dominant factor” to “greenhouse gas forcing was a dominant factor”. This is more conservative but therefore much easier to justify and it in no way detracts from the argument. As mentioned in the original article, albedo changes from melting/growing ice sheets and orbital forcing are the other major factors.

The clarification I would like to make is in two parts: part one is that the evidence gleaned from the polar ice core records is not “proof” of GHG driven warming. I do not make that claim and no one should, but this is the straw man frequently erected around the ice core records. It is however entirely consistent with the current theories. This is all that is required of good theories and available data. As well, modeling experiments (is there another way?) confirm that GHG forcing is absolutely required to explain the magnitude of the temperature swings. Part two is that the evidence gleaned from the polar ice core records, specifically that orbital forcings come first, is categorically not proof that CO2 does not cause any warming or even not much warming. This is the biggest and most obvious mistake that denialists make, assuming that because orbital forcing happens first therefore GHG forcing does not exist.

Otherwise, I think the article is fine. This thread is where any further discussion should take place.

Comments

#1 Peter E
June 11, 2009

Nitpick alert – and this may be a UK/US English thing, but should not ‘dominate’ be ‘dominant’? Never heard ‘dominate’ used as an adjective before…
#2 coby
June 11, 2009

No, that’s just a typo, I will correct it, thanks!
#3 Global warming denier
June 11, 2009

How many of you liberals are terrorists and call us conservatives terrorists? How many of you want to execute or imprion a “global warming denier”?

Website says “execute global warming deniers”
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1096/Shock-Call-To-Action-At-what-point-do-we-jail-or-execute-global-warming-deniers%E2%80%94Shouldnt-we-start-punishing-them-now
#4 pough
June 11, 2009

How do you tell if someone has found a great satire site and wants to share it while in character or they’re a nut and found a satire site and aren’t aware it’s satire?
#5 crakar14
June 11, 2009

Coby,

You go to all this trouble in an attempt to get the debate back on topic and it only took 3 posts to go off the rails again, maybe you should delete the post.

I will attempt to get it back on track Ok.

Shall we set some ground rules?

I beleive we should only go as far back as the last ice age as beyond this our ability to replicate the past is not so good, also geological differences of the ancient past may/will affect climate slightly different to the recent (100,000 years)past. Does this sound fair?

Now what do we agree on?

Well we know that as the Earth emerged out of the last IA the CO2 levels lagged temp by at least 800 years, agreed?

Therefore basically as the temps rose so would WV and possibly methane and maybe trace GHG’s which would have contributed to the warming, then 800 years later CO2 began to rise in response to said warming, this CO2 rise would then add to the warming. Initially it would have a big impact but as the CO2 levels increased its effects on the temps would diminish. Agreed?

Your position is that around this time CO2 then began to drive the temps so to speak. This is where we differ since the ice core data clearly shows (feel free to object on this point) that the CO2 levels lag the temp leading up to, during and following the IA.

Am i incorrect to say this? I have not seen anything to the contrary. Therefore if CO2 lags temp as above then how do you know with any certainty that CO2 drove the temps after the 800 year lag?

I encourage everyone to provide evidence to prove my thoughts wrong, all off topic posts addresed to me will be ignored.

Cheers

Crakar
#6 barry
June 12, 2009

I think that’s a fair amendment.

A viable candidate for first place in the forcing stakes would be ice sheet change, contributing about 30% according to some studies. Far as I’ve gleaned, you’d be on fairly solid ground if you said greenhouse gases are the dominant forcing during interglacial warming.

Which is actually what you said in your original post, Coby.
#7 Adam
June 12, 2009

Pough -

This has long been a defining problem of the internet.

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe%27s_law
#8 Nils Ross
June 12, 2009

I always wonder at the ‘CO2 lags, not leads, in the record’ argument denialists make. If CO2 is leading this time, whereas it normally builds up with a ‘lag’ during a natural warming cycle, doesn’t that–without any further reasoning or evidence–set of alarm bells that what we’re seeing now is NOT part of a natural cycle?

But, of course, they never follow that thought to its conclusion. They just want to fuzzy up the discussion.
#9 Vernon
June 13, 2009

Nils,

Why not try facts. Prior to 1958 there were lots of CO2 measurements, but those have to be thrown out because they do not support the theory. So lets look at the “approved” data collected at MLO. Where is the evidence that current CO2 build up is not lag from warming? We know that globally the climate warmed up about 1-1.5C from the LIA. We know that CO2 lags by 250-2400 years depending on which study you look at. Where is the evidence that the current CO2 levels are not due to warming?

The rate of CO2 increase is steady, while the amount of CO2 produced by man has been accellerating.
#10 Adam
June 13, 2009

Vernon -

The rate of CO2 increase is steady, while the amount of CO2 produced by man has been accellerating.

We’ve been over this poppycock before, so we’ll revisit it for the slow.

1960 -> 1970: CO2 increased ~8.75 ppm in 10 years
1970 -> 1980: CO2 increased ~13.00 ppm in 10 years
1980 -> 1990: CO2 increased ~15.48 ppm in 10 years
1990 -> 2000: CO2 increased ~15.24 ppm in 10 years
2000 -> 2008: CO2 increased ~16.17 ppm in 8 years
data from here: ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt

These are just back of the envelope calculations, and I’m just ‘cherry-picking’ the first year of each decade, for no reason other than consistency (and using 2008 because its the last year data is available). Looking at the graph of the data, I don’t see anything weird at those years that would make me uncomfortable using the data for this quick-and-dirty stuff.

Now, you’ll see that the rate of increase is, well, increasing. I don’t think even you can deny that an increasing rate shows and increasing rate.

That being said, I eagerly await your convoluted, tortured explanation of how those numbers show the rate of CO2 concentrations is actually steady.
#11 dhogaza
June 13, 2009

Where is the evidence that current CO2 build up is not lag from warming?

Because the ocean is a sink for CO2 rather than a net source at today’s temperature and atmospheric concentration of CO2.

But you’ve been taught that about 42^42 times in the past, and ignored the lesson, as you will this one and the 42^42 times it will be repeated to you in the future.

That’s because you’re a denialist who has no interest in the science.
#12 Robert Grumbine
June 13, 2009

Where is the evidence that current CO2 build up is not lag from warming? (Vernon, #9)

If your concern were the science, your question would be “What evidence establishes the cause of CO2 increase?” or something in that vein. i.e., it would be asking for information.

Instead, you presume a cause and present no evidence that what you presume is even a plausible cause. Given your presumption, my question is: what evidence would it take for you to believe that the CO2 increase is not from your pet explanation?
#13 Jim Eager
June 13, 2009

Vernon wrote: “Where is the evidence that current CO2 build up is not lag from warming?”

Well, let’s see. Besides the acceleration in the accumulation of CO2 that Adam pointed out, there is:
1) the correlation of the annual increase in the atmosphere with the annual amount of fossil carbon fuels burned;
2) the correlated fall in atmospheric oxygen from producing that CO2 by burning fossil carbon fuels;
4) the fall in atmospheric CO2 containing 13C, consistent with depressed levels of 13C in fossil carbon fuels;
5) the fall in 14C, consistent with the near total lack of 14C in fossil fuels;
6) the fact that the “little ice age” was not an actual ice age and therefore did not depress **global** temperature any where near enough.

Now, what evidence do you have, Vernon, that suggests that the increase in CO2 could be due to emerging form the LIA?
#14 Vernon
June 13, 2009

Please provide a reference that shows that CO2 has accelerated since MLO started taking measurements. Is that not part of the problem for your side, that the use of fossil fuels has accelerated but the increase of CO2 has increased but at a steady rate, not an accellerating one.
#15 Robert Grumbine
June 13, 2009

14: One question at a time. Again: What evidence would it take for you to believe that the CO2 increase of the last 150 years is not from your pet explanation?

Given that in 14 you make no reference to the evidence (supported by a scientific source) presented regarding the acceleration in CO2 increase presented in 10, I won’t be holding my breath that you’ll answer my question either. If you are an honest discussant, such responses are needed.

See also A Code of Conduct for Effective Discussion, and my own Discussion vs. debate.
#16 Ian Forrester
June 13, 2009

Vernon shows is stupidity and lack of reading skills once again.

Vernon, look at Adam’s post #10. He gives the data which show that the rate of CO2 accumulation is accelerating. He also provides a cite to where he found the data.

Why are you so stupid Vernon? Are you just playing games? Or are you really that stupid and clueless?

By the way you still have not responded to my two reports showing that there is Arctic amplification.
#17 barry
June 13, 2009

The task before anyone claiming the CO2 rise is natural is daunting. They have to explain why anthro CO2 has been completely absorbed before explaining why naturally formed CO2 has been increasing. Then they have to argue away observed changes in isotopic ratios consistent with fossil fuel CO2 increase.

One argument is that the current CO2 rise is the lag effects of the MWP, which occured about 800 – 1000 years ago. However, this does not explain the rate of increase or the amplitude. An increase of about 100ppm accompanied global temperature changes of about 5C in transitions to interglacials, and this happened over a few thousand years. For the MWP, the temperature rose by about a degree (or lets say 1.5C to keep skeptics happy). 800 years later, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has already shot up by the same amount as during deglaciations, but it has happened nearly 50 times faster. It don’t add up.

Having read yet more on the matter, I withdraw my comments above, except the first – that Coby’s amendment is fair.
#18 barry
June 13, 2009

Of course, the proposition that the CO2 rise is an effect of the recovery from the LIA has even less persuasion than than the MWP proposition, for the same reasons.
#19 Jim Eager
June 14, 2009

Vernon is shooting blanks. It’s the only reason he still has all his toes.
#20 Vernon
June 14, 2009

No, actually that was a bad argument that Adam put forward, but I do not have access on the weekends to the machine I stored the calculations on. Redid the caculations for the dt of atmospheric CO2 and man made CO2. I got the man made CO2 figures from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.html and use Adam’s source for atmospheric CO2.

Do a regression test on the two rates of change shows the following:

Multiple R 0.213
R Square 0.045

I could give the rest of the stats but if the R Square is that bad, then the rest is meaningless. Which means that the rate of change in Man made CO2 and the rate of change in Atmospheric CO2 have almost no relationship.

If man was the source of the increases atmospheric CO2, then the rate of increased atmospheric CO2 would correlate with the rate of increased man made CO2. They don’t, so while correlation does not prove causation, lack of correlation can disprove causation.
#21 dhogaza
June 14, 2009

If man was the source of the increases atmospheric CO2, then the rate of increased atmospheric CO2 would correlate with the rate of increased man made CO2. They don’t, so while correlation does not prove causation, lack of correlation can disprove causation.

No, the rate of increase of take-up by all available sinks would correlate, not just the atmosphere alone.

I made a social science prediction above:

Because the ocean is a sink for CO2 rather than a net source at today’s temperature and atmospheric concentration of CO2.

But you’ve been taught that about 42^42 times in the past, and ignored the lesson, as you will this one and the 42^42 times it will be repeated to you in the future.

That’s because you’re a denialist who has no interest in the science.

And it came true!

Robert Grumbine: Vernon’s an old hand at this. He’s been around all the usual blogs. He’s not interested in the science.
#22 Robert Grumbine
June 14, 2009

dhogaza: You’re not really providing me news. ‘old hand’ in blogs means only a few years. I’ve been around these discussions online for 20 years now. (Also means that I should maybe have learned better than to hang around, but …)

That’s part of the reason for the difference in our responses. Evidence did not lead the Vernons of the net to their conclusions. Evidence will not drag them away. Sometimes it’s a good idea to provide the evidence anyhow (‘think of the lurkers’). And sometimes it helps to illustrate (to those same lurkers) that evidence is irrelevant to some people.

I do also seriously recommend the two articles I linked to earlier. Too much of online … verbiage … is not aimed at the intellectually honest discussion that either article is talking about. Makes it too easy to forget that there is such a thing as intellectually honest discussion rather than ‘debate’ where nobody will ever change their minds, and probably not learn anything.
#23 Adam
June 14, 2009

Vernon -

No, actually that was a bad argument that Adam put forward, but … snip … and use Adam’s source for atmospheric CO2.

I countered your specific claim that the rate of CO2 increase is steady (comment #9). Regardless of what mankind is or is not putting into the atmosphere, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, and the rate of increasing is increasing as well, as I posted in comment #10.

I could give the rest of the stats but if the R Square is that bad, then the rest is meaningless. Which means that the rate of change in Man made CO2 and the rate of change in Atmospheric CO2 have almost no relationship.

If man was the source of the increases atmospheric CO2, then the rate of increased atmospheric CO2 would correlate with the rate of increased man made CO2.

What you did here, is you changed your argument. You’re committing a fallacy of the moving goalposts (yet another denialist trademark for those keeping score). I showed that your argument regarding CO2 concentration increase being steady to be fallacious, so you changed your argument to there being poor correlation between atmospheric concentrations and anthropogenic emissions rate.

I don’t know enough about the carbon cycle to counter this, but the fact that your argument shifts to whatever is convenient for you is enough to convince me that YOU don’t know enough about the carbon cycle either to comment intelligently about it.
#24 crakar14
June 14, 2009

I dont Vern, i think you maybe flogging a dead horse here. I would say that if we dig up CO2, burn it and pump it out to the atmosphere then we must be adding to the total CO2 levels. Of course plants and cooling oceans will reduce CO2 levels and warming oceans and maybe volcanos will incease it (i probably missed a few). Also the lag of 800 years or whatever it is today will have an effect one way or the other.

Anyway the point is it is not so easy to establish what CO2 came from where but common sense says we must be adding CO2 that was once looked up deep under ground.

The point up for debate is of course is will this cause AGW.

Crakar
#25 barry
June 15, 2009

crakar, the empirical basis for CO2 increases to cause warming is well-established in countless laboratory experiments, as well as the theoretical underpinnings, and as observed by satellite spectroscopy. There’s not much doubt there.

Where you might have wiggle room is whether or not this empirical observation plays out regarding temperature in the actual atmos. What’s your case?
#26 barry
June 15, 2009

Small amendment – satellites have observed increased impedance of infrared radiation over time, in the spectra associated with CO2. Why this should not mean more warming of the atmosphere is crakar’s task to explain.

I consider the cooling of the stratosphere to be the starkest piece of evidence that more heat is being retained in the atmos. That needs to be explained, too.

Apologies for enabling the digression.
#27 crakar14
June 16, 2009

I sort of answered your question in the Little ice age thread, we can discuss further if you wish

Crakar
#28 Eric Anderson
June 18, 2009

So let’s see, no response to crakar14′s very legitimate questions?
#29 pough
June 18, 2009

Which ones?
#30 dhogaza
June 18, 2009

So let’s see, no response to crakar14′s very legitimate questions?

If CO2 is increasing primarily because the ocean, essentially saturated with CO2, is warming and outgassing, then it’s always going to be lagging even though some of that warming is being caused by CO2 in the atmosphere.

So such a lag does not prove the basic physics of CO2 warming to be false.

The difference today is, of course, the source of the CO2 increase – we’re burning huge quantities of fossil fuels. It’s coming from us, not from warming, therefore can quite logically lead warming.
#31 crakar14
June 18, 2009

Dhogaza,

What you say sounds good in theory, however the geological record shows temperature changes then after a lag of X years CO2 changes. Therefore logically the temperature level controls the CO2 level.

If CO2 changes then X years later the temperature changes then one could say that CO2 controls the temps, as this is not the case then logically CO2 does not control temps.

The increase of CO2 does not change this logic, here is what Spencer has to say

climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3602
#32 pough
June 18, 2009

As much as I enjoy reading the comments of someone whose confidence is based entirely upon his confidence, I find the writings of people who actually know what they’re talking about even more interesting. (And no, I’m not talking about Spencer.)

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/

CO2 might well be expected to lag temperature by about 1000 years, which is the timescale we expect from changes in ocean circulation and the strength of the “carbon pump” (i.e. marine biological photosynthesis) that transfers carbon from the atmosphere to the deep ocean.

Importantly, it takes more than 5000 years for this change to occur, of which the lag is only a small fraction (indeed, one recently submitted paper I’m aware of suggests that the lag is even less than 200 years). So it is not as if the temperature increase has already ended when CO2 starts to rise. Rather, they go very much hand in hand, with the temperature continuing to rise as the the CO2 goes up. In other words, CO2 acts as an amplifier, just as Lorius, Hansen and colleagues suggested.

A few key things I took away from that page (apart from what I quoted above). One is that CO2 was never thought to be the primary driver of the ice age changes, but only a part of it. I think it mentions one third or so.

So once again you strangely expect one of many climate-affecting things to be in lock-step with all temperature changes and then declare them completely irrelevant when they’re only found to be pretty much exactly what the folks who actually study climate expected them to be. Scientists are somehow wrong by not matching the expectations of people who misunderstand.

Another thing I enjoyed was how in correcting what they claim was Gore’s mistake, they end up showing how “global climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 becomes 2-3 degrees C, perfectly in line with the climate sensitivity given by IPCC (and known from Arrhenius’s calculations more than 100 years ago).”

Finally, they mention times when CO2 was much higher than now, and how when denialists mention this point they neglect to mention that it was also much warmer then.

I enjoyed reading that post. Thanks for inspiring me to read more real science, Crakar!
#33 dhogaza
June 20, 2009

What you say sounds good in theory, however the geological record shows temperature changes then after a lag of X years CO2 changes. Therefore logically the temperature level controls the CO2 level.

Simple physics tells us that if the atmosphere and ocean are in equilibrium (or, to forestall any nitpicking over whether they can ever be PRECISELY in equilibrium, “close enough for government work”), and if the oceans warm, there will be outgassing into the atmosphere, not just of CO2 but of all dissolved gasses in equilibrium.

Simple physics tells us that if the atmosphere and ocean are NOT in equilibrium, i.e. if the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere is higher than that point, then increasing the temperature, while keeping it below that point, will NOT increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Rather, the ocean will continue to absorb more CO2 than it outgasses until equilibrium is reached.

So your statement is not true. Physics tells us that it is only true under certain circumstances, and is utterly false under another set of circumstances.

Observation of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and ocean, combined with the observed temps of both, tell us that we’re in the second set of circumstances, and that the ocean is currently a sink, not source, for CO2.

Observed acidification (lowering of PH) supports what basic physics tells us to be true.

If CO2 changes then X years later the temperature changes then one could say that CO2 controls the temps, as this is not the case then logically CO2 does not control temps.

Physics tells us that CO2 will warm the atmosphere, It’s that simple.

If it didn’t the ocean would be solid ice in the first place.
#34 dhogaza
June 20, 2009

Therefore logically the temperature level controls the CO2 level.

Actually, a better word would be “intuitively”, since it doesn’t follow from logic (in the mathematical sense).

And one of the very first lessons of science is that many things that seem intuitively true are false. Hell, you don’t need science to tell you this, probability theory (and the existence of casinos) is sufficient.
#35 dhogaza
June 20, 2009

In a very simple sense, your belief can be stated this way:

A hot pan is observed to heat water that’s at a lower temperature than the pan.

Therefore, putting hot water into a cold pan can not heat the pan.

That’s the argument. It’s trivially wrong.
#36 crakar14
June 21, 2009

Re post #32,

Glad to be of help Pough and after all its all about discussion and learning, i am glad my posts have inspired you to obtain a greater understanding.

Post #33,

Yes thats right, the oceans are cooling (-ve PDO, quiet sun etc)which is why the temps are dropping. So they are absorbing more CO2. Dont forget there are many things that effect CO2 levels, the temps X number of years ago (lag), vegetation, man etc etc, all this variance is in the geological record.

What where the other set of circumstances which defies the geological record? I did not quite understand that bit.

CO2 does not stave off ocean freezing (but it does sound good even if not true).

Your pan analogy is ridiculous.
#37 dhogaza
June 22, 2009

CO2 does not stave off ocean freezing (but it does sound good even if not true).

The earth’s average temperature would be about 33C less (60F) than it is today if there was no CO2 in the atmosphere.

Methinks there’d be a hell of a lot more frozen ocean if that came to pass.

Yes thats right, the oceans are cooling

Say it as much as you want, no one cares.
#38 dhogaza
June 22, 2009

Yes thats right, the oceans are cooling (-ve PDO, quiet sun etc)which is why the temps are dropping. So they are absorbing more CO2

Even if your statement’s true, which is a matter of debate among oceanographers, the oceans are still warmer than they were in the 90s.

So by your reasoning, the oceans should be outgassing rather than absorbing CO2 (net, obviously it always does both, it’s the net figure we speak of).

However, it’s not.

We know why, it’s because our dumping of CO2 into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels has put the system out of equilibrium.

I thought Roy Spencer gave up on this crackpot idea when it was so widely shown to be laughable?
#39 crakar14
June 22, 2009

dhogaza,

I suggest you retract or re word this statement;

“The earth’s average temperature would be about 33C less (60F) than it is today if there was no CO2 in the atmosphere”.

The oceans have a much higher impact on climate than the atmosphere. The ocean temps are controlled mainly by the sun which in turn drives/controls the climate. Part of this is the control of CO2, yes CO2 comes from many sources but mainly via the oceans. The oceans also play a large role in controlling the atmospheric temps. Which is probably why there is a lag between CO2 and temps.

There was a big Kerfuffle awhile ago with ocean temps, Willis using the ARGO bouys found in 2003 the oceans were cooling rapidly (models predicted an increase) it was then found that the previous means of measuring were measuring to high a temp and the ARGO were accurate. Once the old data was “corrected” there was no cooling anymore and the models integrity was reestablished. However since then the ARGO bouys are saying the ocean temps are still dropping.

Here is the link;

earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page1.php

This quote is from page 5

“the problems that Josh Willis found as well as other problems we have identified—haven’t been totally solved. For the most recent years [2003-2007], the sea level budget once again does not close. Our team is still working on that problem.”

What are the implications of this? Well one of the crutches that Hansen, Gore et al lean on is ocean temps rising, this will cause sea level rises and store (pipe line) all the AGW heat and if left unchecked will cause catastrophic climate change.

Currently the atmosphere is cooling, surface temps are cooling and ocean temps are cooling whilst CO2 is rising, so where is all the AGW heat? That is the question.
#40 pough
June 23, 2009

The oceans have a much higher impact on climate than the atmosphere. The ocean temps are controlled mainly by the sun which in turn drives/controls the climate.

Now you’ve got me wanting to read up on more things. I’d appreciate a source for this (as long as the source isn’t your ass).
#41 dhogaza
June 23, 2009

Crakar, you can repeat your misunderstandings or lies or ignorance or whatever the hell it is that drives you as often as you want.

It’s not going to change the mind of those who understand the science one little bit.
#42 coby
June 23, 2009

pough,

I believe his source is indeed what you fear it may be.

crakar, dhogza’s statement is quite correct, without CO2 the earth would be -18oC on average, oceans notwithstanding.
#43 Adam
June 23, 2009

For those interested, here’s a source that shows calculations for what the Earth’s temperature should be ignoring the effects of the atmosphere. Take-away (and it’s a real shocker): Crakar is wrong, and dhogaza/Coby are right.

http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation/

Next, Crakar will say “Well, math is fine and such, but prove it indisputably” and I will die a little bit more inside.
#44 crakar14
June 23, 2009

So we are back to insults are we? Thats OK i do not mind the important thing is that you get your point across.

I read your link Adam, the author did say that if you remove the atmosphere the Earths temps would be -18C, fortunately we have one so the temp is about +15C. So the atmosphere adds about +33C.

According to dhogaza without CO2 the temp would drop by 33C
and i quote

“The earth’s average temperature would be about 33C less (60F) than it is today if there was no CO2 in the atmosphere”

Applying logical reasoning and common sense, according to dhogaza the atmosphere of the Earth is 100% CO2.

This is obviously incorrect, unfortunately both Adam, Pough and Coby responded to the rattling of sabres without much thought and have clearly shown their lack of knowledge on this subject and more importantly have shown that the science is secondry to the faith.

I hope you are listening the next time i use the toilet.
#45 coby
June 23, 2009

crakar, from the supplied link:
“this would be the temperature at the surface of the planet if it had no atmosphere. It is referred to as the effective temperature of the planet….The effective temperature of Earth is much lower than what we experience. Averaged over all seasons and the entire Earth, the surface temperature of our planet is about 288 K (or 15°C). This difference is in the effect of the heat absorbing components of our atmosphere. This effect is known as the greenhouse effect”

CO2 does not have to be 100% of the atmosphere.

The next thing to understand is that water on planet earth can exist as both vapor and liquid and the amount of vapour in the air is a function of the temperature. If you removed the CO2, the temperature would drop, H2O concentrations would drop as vapor turned into liquid and fell to the oceans. This feedback would continue until there was no H2O i the atmosphere at all and the earth would be a frozen ball and -18oC.
#46 pough
June 23, 2009

I hope you are listening the next time i use the toilet.

Well, that answers my question.
#47 crakar14
June 24, 2009

Ah the magic of life giving CO2 is there anything it cannot do?, best we not label it a pollutant then hey.

I like the way you quote from the article and then branch out into postulation. Did you come up with this theory all by yourself?

Just so i am clear on this, currently CO2 accounts for how much? 3, 4, 5C of the 33C. Whatever the amount it does not matter because what you say is if you take CO2 away the temp will drop by that amount, but then we go into runaway cooling and the Earth will be just like Pluto.

I have never ever heard anything more stupid in my entire life.

[coby here: This is what's known as argument by ridicule. I explained what goes on and why and you have nothing intelligent to say]

On the other hand with AGW you say if CO2 goes up the WV goes up increasing the temps which causes the oceans to warm which causes more CO2 which causes more WV which causes the temps to go up and before you know it (tipping point)we have runaway warming.

Unfortunately for you the geological record proves you wrong on both accounts unless of course it was aw gee shucks its only weather that proved you wrong then in that case i guess you are right.

[coby: Not all feedbacks are runaway. The GHE per ppm of both CO2 and H2O decreases as concentration goes up, so the effect is self limiting (at least in the current configuration of factors). RC has an informative article on this, comparing Earth to Venus]

Whilst you are hammering away at the keyboard in response why dont you take the time to explain the missing hot spot or maybe why as CO2 is rising atmospheric and ocean temps are not. Thinking ahead if this is because its only weather please feel free to expand on its only weather.

Here are some pointers

What constitutes weather?

[short term changes in temperature and percipitation on the scale of days to months and variations in climatic expectations on the scale of months to years]

How long does weather cooling trends last?

[cooling and warming can last up to 15 to 20 years before you can call it a change in climate]

If weather can stop GW in its tracks then is weather a bigger driver of climate?

[Weather is the biggest driver of weather. Climate is averaged weather]

Why did the models fail to predict this weather?

[If you are referring to GCM's, then they did not predict it because they are not designed to]

When do the models predict this weather to go away?

[They do not predict weather. They do however predict that the climate is and will continue to warm. These effects will swamp any weather driven short term trends within the next ten years, though I think we will have a new record high in less than a handful more years.]
#48 pough
June 24, 2009

I have never ever heard anything more stupid in my entire life.

Ah, so you don’t proofread. That answers another of my questions.

You mention the missing hot spot. In your mind does it invalidate AGW? Do you think of it as the fingerprint for warming caused by increased CO2?
#49 Adam
June 24, 2009

Crakar -

Ah the magic of life giving CO2 is there anything it cannot do?, best we not label it a pollutant then hey.

Just like many things in this world, a good thing can become a bad thing very quickly, like, oh, oxygen!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity

Just so i am clear on this, currently CO2 accounts for how much? 3, 4, 5C of the 33C. Whatever the amount it does not matter because what you say is if you take CO2 away the temp will drop by that amount, but then we go into runaway cooling and the Earth will be just like Pluto.

Considering the surface temperature of Pluto is about -230 degrees C, that is not a correct assertion. As stated earlier, the Earth would be about 30 degrees C cooler. I’m probably just being pedantic, but accuracy is important.

I have never ever heard anything more stupid in my entire life.

Serious question here, Crakar. Do you reject all science, or only earth science?
Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausius-Clapeyron_relation
This is why it rains when its humid and a cold front comes in. As temperatures decrease, the saturation point for water vapor decreases, resulting in less water vapor in the atmosphere.
#50 coby
June 24, 2009

Crakar, re comment 47, please see replies inline, I hope that helps.
#51 dhogaza
June 24, 2009

Applying logical reasoning and common sense, according to dhogaza the atmosphere of the Earth is 100% CO2.

The incorrectness of this statement is mind-boggling coming from someone who fantasizes that they’re proving the work of thousands of scientists to be incorrect.
#52 crakar14
June 24, 2009

Thanks to all the comments, insults and naming calling included. Unfortunately as always you all have sucessfully avoided debating the essential issues.

Here is a little history lesson, the first ice core data appeared around 1985 and in this old ice core data the time resolution was very low, or about 2000 years between data points. So this old data did not show what changed first CO2 or Temp, the alarmists expected it was CO2 because this fitted in nicely with thier theory.

From 1998 we had a better time resolution of only hundreds of years between data points. By 2003 it had been firmly established that changes in CO2, both up and down LAGGED the corresponding temp changes by an average of 800 years.

But here we are with people like yourselves still clinging to the notion that CO2 drives the temps, in light of the history lesson above please explain how your theory of no CO2 will cause the temp to drop to -18C.

By the way you lot are not the first persons to perpetuate this lie, Al Gore’s movie was made in 2005, 2 years after the CO2 800 year lag was established and in the ONLY evidence he presents he uses the old ice core data so he lied aswell, either that or he is an incompetent fool, you decide.

I will ignore your mumbo jumbo about weather not being climate unless the weather lasts 15 to 20 years (so far the weather has lasted near on 8 years).

I will ignore your futile attempts at keeping the models integrity intact except to say all the models predicted the temps to continue to rise after 2000 and yet the temps have not risen so the models are wrong. No verbal gymnastics can change that fact, get over it and move on.

I will now press on with the second issue that you constantly fail to address and that is the missing hotspot. An increase in CO2 warming can be calculated using a hand held calculator this warming is called the “no feedback warming”

IPCC climate theory assumes that any no feedback warming will heat the oceans, which causes more water vapour to be put in the air. This causes extra warming, there being no data to the contrary in 1980 this seemed like a good assumption at the time.

This means that extra water vapour (WV) is added to the top of the lower troposphere (the part of the asphere under the WV greenhouse blanket), thus pushing the top of the lower troposhpere higher particularly in the tropics.

This heats the volume of air therefore if the IPCC theory is correct this will show up as a very prominent hotspot. So if WV is a +ve feedback warming due to increased CO2, this should cause a hotspot about 10 Kilometers (16 miles) up over the tropics.

However radio sonde data from 1979 to 1999 which covers the bulk of the last GW period show no hotspot whatsoever. Not even a small one. This show pretty conclusively that the WV +ve feedback assumed in the IPCC climate models does not exist.

Now it would be nice if these issues were addressed without the name calling and insults, but i wont hold my breath. Not that it matters this post was written for other people to read.
#53 pough
June 24, 2009

I will now press on with the second issue that you constantly fail to address and that is the missing hotspot.

I asked you about it. Now you’re answering, sort of, but still ignoring my question. Oh well.

So if WV is a +ve feedback warming due to increased CO2, this should cause a hotspot about 10 Kilometers (16 miles) up over the tropics.

Only CO2?

This show pretty conclusively that the WV +ve feedback assumed in the IPCC climate models does not exist.

Or that the tools used to measure it are suspect, since it’s well known that there has been warming and pretty much any warming should cause that hot spot. Are you saying there has been no warming since 1980?

BTW, what do you think about the cooling stratosphere? From what I’ve been led to believe, it actually is a fingerprint of warming due to CO2 (or is it any GHG?) and it’s been happening. Do you have an explanation for that?

Oh, I found some interesting info on the hot spot:

Chris Colose talks about misunderstanding the significance of the hot spot:
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/12/20/skepticsdenialists-part-2-hotspots-and-repetition/

Arthur Smith analyzes the data:
http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/hot_spot_redux_analysis_of_tropical_tropospheric_amplification

“Anyway, anyone claiming that the satellite data shows “no tropical troposphere amplification” has just not looked at the data closely enough – it seems very clearly to be there, according to the amplification metric presented here.”

I’m not sure how to do links properly on ScienceBlogs. Are there any instructions anywhere?
#54 crakar14
June 25, 2009

Pough,

In response to this

“Or that the tools used to measure it are suspect, since it’s well known that there has been warming and pretty much any warming should cause that hot spot. Are you saying there has been no warming since 1980?”

The tools to measure it are highly accurate thermometers so yes we have the tools.

That hot spot of which you speak is a warming signiture of increased WV so without that hotspot WV has not increased. A warming induced by another molecule say CO2 will produce a warming signiture of a different kind, do you understand that?

There is NO atmospheric warming caused by WV.
You do realise that the IPCC predicted this hot spot to appear based on the AGW theory. So therefore no hotspot no theory.

There is no explanation for this apart from the fact that the models are wrong. If for example the IPCC reduced the +ve feedback via WV in their computer models down to about zero then the models would be a lot closer to reality, of course this would mean that their projected/predicted temp rises would reduce significantly as well.
#55 crakar14
June 25, 2009

Before i go, here is something to think about over the weekend.

Karl Popper was a philosopher, below is a link to his Bio.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/

This link below describes his views on falsifiability

experiment-resources.com/falsifiability.html

Now if we apply this to the AGW theory, and ask ourselves the question “is the AGW theory falsifiable?”

Or in other words what test can we apply to the theory to test whether CO2 can/will cause catastrophic climate change?

For example the planet has warmed, in fact it has been warming for more than a century so does the fact that temps have increased provide evidence that AGW is causing it? No of course not.

Other examples of this are Arctic sea ice melt shows the Earth has warmed but does not prove AGW.

Some glaciers are increasing and some are decreasing does the decreasing of glaciers prove AGW, no of course not.

The examples above suggest the Earth has warmed over an extended period of time but they do not suggest AGW is to blame. Do you understand what i am saying?

I provided a testable way (hot spot)of proving or disproving AGW, observational data suggests the AGW theory incorrect, the same as the ice core data which shows quite clearly co2 lagging temps.

Both these test can prove falsifiability of the theory but alas both these tests are brushed aside and explained away by a web bloggers personnal opinion (poughs post and others).

So i invite anyone to produce another test which can falsify the AGW theory.
#56 dhogaza
June 25, 2009

The tools to measure it are highly accurate thermometers so yes we have the tools.

The radiosonde data is known to be of relatively poor data. Like the ground station network, they’ve been designed to help weather forecasters, not look for small climate trends. I won’t go into the problems here, pough provided you a link, GO READ IT.

That hot spot of which you speak is a warming signiture of increased WV so without that hotspot WV has not increased. A warming induced by another molecule say CO2 will produce a warming signiture of a different kind, do you understand that?

Wrong.

Just flat out wrong.

As I said on the open thread, your attempts to “disprove” climate science are all based on strawman techniques, you lie about what climate science says, then disprove the lie.
#57 pough
June 25, 2009

Do you understand what i am saying?

Yes. You’re saying very confused things. You bring up falsifiability even though you clearly don’t unserstand it. You talk about moist adiabatic lapse rate as though it’s a lynchpin of AGW theory even though it’s been explained to you that it’s not.You harp on about the lag between temperature and CO2 during natural warming events as though they’re unexpected after being told that it’s expected. Then when presented with an actual falsifiable aspect of warming due to increased CO2 you brush it aside.

And you have the gall to say we brush things aside?

Know I know why your posts are so poorly constructed. Hard to type with a plank in your eye?

You know, you have an incredibly arrogant and demeaning tone in all your posts, yet you whine about being treated poorly. I don’t mind being insulted, and I’ve told you so. So keep it up. But just remember that I won’t ever take you seriously until you say something smart. You have yet to do that, in all your many posts.

Here’s a clue: for falsifiability of actual AGW theory, figure out what we should expect to see if CO2 were doing some warming. First, we’d see an increase of CO2. Check. Second, we’d see some warming at a certain rate, averaged over time to remove noise. Check. Third, we’d see the stratosphere cooling. Check.

Now go ahead: say something smart. I dare you.
#58 dhogaza
June 25, 2009

Now go ahead: say something smart. I dare you.

Al Gore is fat?
#59 pough
June 25, 2009

I just noticed a typo in my last comment. Where I wrote “Know I know” it should read “Now I know”.
#60 crakar14
June 29, 2009

Dhogaza,

Reading through your post i notice you did not have any rebuttle in regards to the ice core data. I am sure this is just an oversight on your behalf and you will respond with an explanation about this in due course.

In regards to what you did post the hot spot i talk about is from the IPCC AR4 chap 9, i suggest you read that before you go calling me a liar.

By the way the RS thermometers have an accuracy of 0.1C so if there was any warming up there i am sure we would see it by now.

To Pough,

Good to see you read my post and responded to it unlike dhogaza, in regards to the ice core data as far back as we can look there is not one moment in time that shows CO2 controlling/driving the temperature.

Of course for the theory to work this needs to be the other way around, and yes i/we have been told that this is the case and as CO2 goes up it will cause the temps to go up.

Having said that i dont recall an explanation of how this has occurred, for example;

Why did CO2 suddenly control the temps?
What caused this to happen?
And when did CO2 start to drive the temps (year XXXX)
How/when did the IPCC discover this? In a computer model?

You see the beauty of a theory is you can say whatever you want but to prove the theory you need to use real world observational data. Do you know of any real world observational data that shows CO2 now drives the temps?

IPCC say CO2 lagged temp for millions of years and up until year XXXX CO2 took control. This needs to be explained, not through computer models our opinions.

This is what falsifiability is Pough, to simply dismiss this aspect of the theory by saying “You harp on about the lag between temperature and CO2 during natural warming events as though they’re unexpected after being told that it’s expected.”

This makes the AGW unfalsifiable.

Is it any wonder i have an arrogant and demeaning tone, is it? Have a look at the quality of the posts that you see here. Most posts here are simply verbal attacks, it is amazing how poeple talk under the veil of anonymity.
#61 Snowman
June 29, 2009

Crakar -

If you wait for a rational (not to say courteous) response to your posts about the CO2 lag you will wait in vain, because no adequate explanation exists.

It is completely astounding that such a fundamental flaw in the warming lobby’s argument is so casually brushed aside. You might think that this discrepancy holes the AGW argument below the water line, yet they wave it away as if it were a mere pedantic detail.
#62 dhogaza
June 30, 2009

It is completely astounding that such a fundamental flaw in the warming lobby’s argument is so casually brushed aside. You might think that this discrepancy holes the AGW argument below the water line, yet they wave it away as if it were a mere pedantic detail.

You’d think that people would get tired of showing their scientific illiteracy in public, but you don’t, do you?

This one’s been answered innumerable times. There’s no point in answering again. You and crakar are uneducatable, scientific illiterates who take pride in your ignorance.
#63 Snowman
June 30, 2009

Answered to your satisfaction perhaps, Dhogaza, but not to those who believe that some arguments carry more weight than others. On the one hand we have clear, historical evidence; on the other we have mere sophistry and obfuscation.

No hypothesis so fatally undermined by hard fact would survive for a moment in any other field. But in the case of AGW, so mired in political correctness and charged with emotion, the normal standards of evidence are simply abandoned. The emperor has no clothes, as time will conclusively demonstrate.
#64 pough
June 30, 2009

Here’s a clue: for falsifiability of actual AGW theory, figure out what we should expect to see if CO2 were doing some warming. First, we’d see an increase of CO2. Check. Second, we’d see some warming at a certain rate, averaged over time to remove noise. Check. Third, we’d see the stratosphere cooling. Check.

Now go ahead: say something smart. I dare you. Again.
#65 Snowman
June 30, 2009

Pough -

Let me relate a joke that is told in Thailand. I’m afraid it loses something in translation, but I believe the point is still clear:

Two men are arguing over the result of a horse race. The photo finish clearly shows that one horse crossed the line first, but which horse? One man claims it is the horse he bet on, pointing to the particular shape of the animal’s ears, the length of its nose, the angle of its forelegs, and so on, and so on. The other insists that it is his horse, mentioning the bulk of its shoulder muscles, the reach of its neck, and so on, and so on.

The argument rages and it seems no resolution is possible, until they remember something that clinches it: one horse is white and one is black.

Well, as I implied, it’s pretty unfunny in English; but I think the moral is evident. It is very easy to become embroiled in detail, while ignoring the obvious.
#66 Steve
June 30, 2009

Okay, I’ll confess right off that I haven’t read the whole thread. Maybe I should have, but a peek tells me there’s a whole lotta verbage in there that doesn’t add much to the discussion. So I’d like to paraphrase it, and perhaps a kind soul will tell me if I got it or not.

Many say that the ice cores show warming first, and then an increase in CO2. The lag may be as much as a few hundred years.

Some say that since we’re experiencing both warming and increased CO2 levels, then obviously CO2 is not what’s causing the increased temperature now. They say instead that it’s now getting warmer and that is what causes the rise in CO2, not man.

Most people agree that once the CO2 levels increase it will get warmer still, whether the CO2 caused the original increase or not.

In summary, the AGW deniers say ‘a few hundreds of thousands of years ago, the earth got warmer because of (insert your favorite theory here) and later the CO2 levels went up, too. Since we’re experiencing increases of both temperature and CO2, CO2 can’t be the cause of the warming.’ Did I get it about right? Oh, yeah–they add that since CO2 didn’t start the trend, there’s nothing we could or should do about it.

But doesn’t that idea ignore something really, really big? Namely that man has in fact dug deep, and artifically added huge quantities of CO2 into the mix? CO2 that wouldn’t even be a part of our atmosphere if we hadn’t put it there? Carbon that took eons to lay down as coal and oil, reintroduced in a few decades?

To my simple mind, it matters not a whit whether CO2 led temperatures or temperatures led CO2 during the last ice age, because we changed the rules by adding too much CO2 this time around.

Let the bashing begin…
#67 Snowman
June 30, 2009

It doesn’t matter, Steve, as long as you believe there is no difference between cause and effect.
#68 Richard
June 30, 2009

Steve

“Did I get it about right?” No I’m afraid you haven’t got it about right. Lets go over it point by point.

“Many say that the ice cores show warming first, and then an increase in CO2. The lag may be as much as a few hundred years.” The “many” include the AGW proponents. See Coby’s article “CO2 Lags, not leads”. This is not a matter of dispute.

The opposite is also true. Temperatures fell while the CO2 levels continued to rise. Rising CO2 levels failed to stop the repeated fall of temperatures and descent into an “ice-age” or glaciation period if you insist, which occured regularly every 100,000 years.

This alone would show that CO2 is not a driver of the climate.

(In the last 800,000 years we have had 8 ice ages with brief periods of “inter-glacials” in between. Our Earth has been gradually cooling for about 40 million years and the CO2 levels have also been falling as the oceans and the land absorb more and more of it as time goes on. The defining climatic feature of the Earth for the last 3 million years have been the ice ages. The inter-glacials have been brief periods in between of about 10,000 years. We are currently in an inter-glacial period which has lasted 10,000 years. Bear this in mind when we focus on the climate of the past 30 years.)

“Some say that since we’re experiencing both warming and increased CO2 levels, then obviously CO2 is not what’s causing the increased temperature now.” Some may say that but that’s not “obvious”. And that’s not what serious scientists say who are sceptical of the AGW Hypothesis. CO2 could very well be enhancing the natural warming that’s been taking place since the little ice-age. However if we examine the temperature records of the last 130 years if there is any unusual warming taking place it does not show itself in the records. (See my post in “What is the evidence that CO2 is causing global warming?”). So we cannot say just by looking at this that CO2 is causing any warming.

“They say instead that it’s now getting warmer and that is what causes the rise in CO2, not man.” No “they” do not say that. CO2 rise has been caused by man – not in dispute. Just no evidence it has caused any warming.

“Most people agree that once the CO2 levels increase it will get warmer still, whether the CO2 caused the original increase or not.” maybe most people agree, but how much warmer is the crucial question. AGW – if CO2 doubles from 280 to 560 ppm then 3 C. Sceptics – by a very small amount, probably at most a few tenths of a degree, PROVIDED all else remains the same.

AGW hypothesis – all else will remain the same. Sceptics – probably not. If natural cooling takes place in the meantime temperatures will fall as they always have in history and not go up.

AGW hypothesis – warming is bad. Sceptics – warming is good. Cooling is bad.

“In summary.. Since we’re experiencing increases of both temperature and CO2, CO2 can’t be the cause of the warming.”

Stop paraphrasing and getting it wrong. CO2 cant be the cause of the warming not because “we’re experiencing increases of both temperature and CO2″ but because the warming started after the little ice age long before CO2 rose. The CO2 maybe contributing to the natural warming but it is so small that we cannot see it in the records.

Have you got it right now?
#69 crakar14
June 30, 2009

Hi Steve,

As i have posted a heap about this i feel i should reply.

I have asked the following questions (post #60) and as yet have not had a reply, maybe you could answer them for me.

Why did CO2 suddenly control the temps?
What caused this to happen?
And when did CO2 start to drive the temps (year XXXX)
How/when did the IPCC discover this? In a computer model?

Let me break the questions down

Why did CO2 suddenly control the temps?

In other words CO2 has lagged temps by 800 years as far back as we can look (ice core data) so what has changed? You say an increase in CO2 levels, however the ice core data shows CO2 levels have been many times higher in the past and even then they did not control the temps, so what has changed?

What caused this to happen?

If CO2 now suddenly leads/controls the temps, what has happened to reverse what the geological record shows us?

When did CO2 start to drive the temps (year XXXX) This is self explanitary.

How/when did the IPCC discover this? In a computer model?

In other words how does the IPCC explain this sudden reversal from CO2 lags temp to temp lags CO2? I have not seen an explanation from the IPCC in any of thier reports, but surely they have one as this is fundemental to the theory.

I have one more question i would like to add, CO2 used to lag temps by 800 years now that this relationship has reversed can you tell me the new lag time between CO2 changes and temp changes (months, years etc)?

Before anyone answers this post remember we are trying to test a theory so any response that requires the reader to believe is not credible and cannot be considered as evidence and as such leaves us with only one conclusion and that is the IPCC AGW theory is false. So we need to be able to show via observational data (as opposed to models) that this change has happened.
#70 Ian Forrester
July 1, 2009

Snowman, Richard and Crakar, you obviously don’t understand the difference between a “forcing” and a “feedback”. You have all shown in a number of different threads on this blog that you either don’t understand this difference or are unwilling to do so. Depending on conditions and what factors are changing CO2 behaves in two different ways.

Please read up on this and you will see how stupid and wrong your posts are.

Coby, I like it when Tamino tells posters that they have “crossed the stupid threshold” and warns them if they continue in such stupid posts they will be deleted. The posts from these three deniers are going on for ever and ever even when they are told every time that they are wrong and are shown where they can find the facts. Please think about Tamino’s remedy.
#71 coby
July 1, 2009

crakar:

“Why did CO2 suddenly control the temps?
What caused this to happen?
And when did CO2 start to drive the temps (year XXXX)
How/when did the IPCC discover this? In a computer model?”

These questions have been answered repeatedly over the many threads you have been posting on, but for you reference and future readers, here we go again:

1. If you mean why does CO2 initiate the temperature changes now whereas earlier it was a feedback of orbital initiated warming, this is because humans have created a large CO2 pulse through industrialization, something that has never happened before. If you mean why do GHG’s warm the climate now when they did not before, you are simply incorrect that they did not before.

2. The cause is fossil fuel burning, agricultural practices, other land use changes and other pollution.

3. CO2 starts to drive warming as soon as it increases. Small amounts have small effects. The best estimates are all converging on around 3oC per doubling of CO2, a figure which includes “fast” feedback effects such as H2O and sea ice but does not include “long term” effects such as carbon cycle feedbacks and ice sheet changes.

4. Global warming from anthropogenic CO2 has been predicted for over 100 years. Please see Spencer Weart`s excellent History of Global Warming web site:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

HTH.
#72 Richard
July 1, 2009

Coby,

I can see you and the rest must be delighted with Craker. Why should you ever ban him, you can pounce on him and make yourselves feel good. So let me point out the fundamental flaw in your statement above and the AGW hypothesis.

“CO2 starts to drive warming as soon as it increases.” This can only be true in the case of a positive feedback to the CO2 greenhouse forcing. If there is a negative feedback, and there is plenty of evidence for this, then CO2 would never be a driver and only a minor contributor, whose effect would be totally lost the natural fluctuations of Global Temperatures. If CO2 were to be the main driver of warming as soon as it increased then temperatures would continue rising with rising CO2, (as predicted by the IPCC). However in the ice records temperatures have invariably fallen time and again while CO2 continued rising.
#73 dhogaza
July 2, 2009

If there is a negative feedback, and there is plenty of evidence for this

Then quite likely the ice ages would never end.

This is one of the reasons we have high confidence in positive net feedbacks – no one’s been able to model the end of ice ages without them.

You’re free to build your own model incorporating negative net feedbacks for increasing CO2 and submitting it for scientific scrutiny if you truly have faith in your beliefs.
#74 dhogaza
July 2, 2009

If CO2 were to be the main driver of warming as soon as it increased then temperatures would continue rising with rising CO2, (as predicted by the IPCC). However in the ice records temperatures have invariably fallen time and again while CO2 continued rising.

Actually, your subtle strawman is quite well built, but still built of straw.

No one argues that CO2 is the only driver of climate or even the main driver at all time scales. The claim is simply that it’s the main driver over the last 50 years, based on measurements that show that solar output has not varied sufficiently OVER THE LAST 50 YEARS to be the dominant source of climate change.

The same scientists know full well that changes in CO2 are not the “main driver” behind the starting and ending of ice ages.
#75 coby
July 2, 2009

dhogza is correct above except that Richard can fairly claim it was no strawman, he was in fact correctly criticizing my poorly worded one liner to crakar.

More precisely, all I meant to say was that CO2 will contribute a warming influence as soon as it rises. As climate is complicated and controlled by a myriad of factors the actual direction the temperature will move is a balance of these factors.

CO2 has been contributing an increasing warming influence on the climate since it began rising in the late 19th century. Its influence has been dominate since the 1970′s. This influence is observable on decadal timescales as the roughly .2oC/decade it is causing (together with water vapour feedbacks) is easily overwhelmed by short term variability which can be more than .1oC up or down in a single year.

Richard, where is your evidence of negative feedbacks to CO2? And I forget, are we going to allow modeling as evidence or not?
#76 dhogaza
July 2, 2009

Coby, thanks for the clarification …
#77 crakar14
July 2, 2009

Coby re post #71,

You are right the questions have been answered, based purely on peoples personal opinions not by physical observational data, your post is an example of this.

In fact i knew no one could answer these questions using observational data and the reason is as follows;

Two events took place in the 1980′s, one was our first look at ice core data with a poor time resolution of 2000 years between data points. This poor resolution meant it appeared as though CO2 and temps marched in lock step with each other, some even postulated that CO2 lead the temps.

The second event was the announcement of the IPCC’s latest version of the AGW theory, this theory required CO2 levels to control or lead the temps, the ice core data confirmed what the theory claimed and the PR campaign begun in earnest.

However in the late 1990′s our ability to resolve ice core time improved, so much so that we could now resolve time down to 100 years between data points. This then showed that the temps led CO2 by 800 years. By 2002 this was universally accepted as fact (re Coby’s preamble).

In 2005 Al Gore (who is not a scientist and relies heavily on the IPCC for guidance) made a movie called “An inconvenient truth”. In this movie the one and only piece of evidence he offers is the old ice core data (1980′s)and remarkably keeps a straight face when explaining how CO2 and temps are in lock step with each other. The only inconvenient truth here was the one about the new ice core data (2002) that was not mentioned (maybe that’s where the movie title came from).

So in summary i never truly expected anyone here to be able to answer my questions because as you can see Al Gore and the IPCC cannot answer them, so instead they lied.

To Snowman re post #61, Yes you are right the HMS AGW has been breached below the water line but like its sister ship the HMS Titanic its occupants believe her to be unsinkable.
#78 dhogaza
July 2, 2009

Crakar, you can lie and lie until God strikes you dead, and it won’t change the facts.
#79 crakar14
July 2, 2009

Where is the lie dhogaza, please be more specific with your accusations.
#80 Snowman
July 2, 2009

You might think, Crakar, that Dhogaza would tire of calling you a liar and realize that, sooner or later, he must offer some evidence. It is ironic that on the one occasion he attempts to be more specific, he is promptly shot down by Coby (of all people). After all, Coby cannot be called, when one looks at it from every angle, an enthusiastic denier.

[coby here: I hardly "shot him down", in fact I said he is correct. I only charitably defended Richard's argument as being merely wrong, rather than a strawman attack. You have a terribly dishonest habit of turning things 180o around even though the original text is in the immediate vicinity.]
#81 Richard
July 2, 2009

Craker – “be more specific”? You must be joking. Coby in one of his replies to me directed me to Hadley and their 21-point binomial filter. Their temperature smoothed time series graph takes a decided downward trend from 2003, but they say this is “misleading”. I had a look at their “Key Facts” on Global Warming here http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/keyfacts/google.html and found they instead were quite misleading.

I wrote to them about all their 5 Key Facts and their 1 (now 2) “Myths”. Here is what I wrote:

In Fact 1 of your climate change toolkit you have stated “Climate change is happening and humans are contributing to it.” Perhaps so but then you go on to say “Because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the increased concentrations have contributed to the recent warming and probably most of the warming over the last 50 years.” Where is the evidence of this? Looking at the temperature curve using your own data there seem to be two sustained rises one from 1911 to 1944 and the other from 1976 to 2008. The warming trend from 1911 to 1944 comes to 0.161 per decade and that from 1976 to 2008 comes to 0.168 per decade, almost the same. How then can you categorical state that the second trend is anthropogenic? How is it materially different from the earlier trend due to natural causes? Should not this trend be much greater considering the amount of CO2 that has increased in the atmosphere and the fact that the oceans should have warmed up by now?

Climate change – Fact 3 – You state “The current climate change is not just part of a natural cycle” – see above. You further state “The bottom line is that temperature and CO2 concentrations are linked.” That is NOT the “BOTTOM LINE”! The bottom line is what you have stated earlier – “Over this period, (the several hundred thousand years covered by the ice core record – the only definitive record we have), changes in temperature did drive changes in carbon dioxide (CO2)”! So of course they are linked – temperature makes the CO2 go up and down! Never in these records have CO2 levels either caused temperatures to go up or have rising CO2 levels ever stopped temperatures from falling! Why don’t you present this fact? You say “Now the link between temperature and CO2 is working in the opposite direction. Human-induced increases in CO2 are driving the greenhouse effect and amplifying the recent warming.” Where is your proof of this statement in the global temperature records since 1880 or for that matter in the GISP2 ice core data previously?

Climate change – Fact 2 – You say “A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade.” Using your own data the trend for 1998-2007 comes to 0.063 C per decade. But this is not all. Why have you not used the 1998-2008 data? That after all is the “latest decade”. The trend from 1998 to 2008 now becomes -0.01 per decade, a slight cooling, or at best no change, for the last decade. Why dont you present this as your “FACT”? It’s from your latest data for your “latest decade” after all.
#82 dhogaza
July 3, 2009

It is ironic that on the one occasion he attempts to be more specific, he is promptly shot down by Coby (of all people)

Uh, actually, all Coby said was that the target I’d nailed was his mistake, not Robert’s.
#83 Richard
July 3, 2009

Coby – “Richard, where is your evidence of negative feedbacks to CO2? And I forget, are we going to allow modeling as evidence or not?”

Well I could quote something like D(τ ) =< [X(t + τ ) − X(t)]2 >∝ τ 2H, or D(τ ) = 1T/τTX− i$i-1(Xi+ − Xi)^2, (the symbols didnt quite come right here), but I do confess I do not understand the intricate workings of the IPCC climate models. However I do understand a bit of maths, statistics, science and logic, thanks to my brilliant teacher in secondary school and subsequent degree in engineering.

That the climate system is fundamentally homeostatic can be seen from our climatic records. (long range ofcourse not over the last 50 years that the IPCC focuses upon). The temperatures go up but then they come down. They go down but then they come up. This could only happen if there are negative feedbacks to various forcings, for example CO2. If there were only a positive feedback to CO2 then when CO2 increased everytime in the past due to increasing temperatures then they would continue going up. The solar variation due to the Milankovitch forcing of every 100,000 years is far too weak to explain the regular descent into the ice ages on its own. Far less in fact than the variation of the 11 year solar spot cycle. The IPCC uses the arguement that total solar irradiance varies very little to argue that the major forcing for temperatures must be CO2. Well this arguement would be double true for the 100,000 year drop in temperatures. But the climate of the Earth is not very mindful of the opinions of the IPCC working committee, which is a political body and goes about its own merry way.

This remains true today as the temperatures are not following those of the models. They are not increasing and seeing to accelerate as claimed by the IPCC. Quite the opposite in fact. There is growing evidence that the Earth is starting to cool.
#84 Richard
July 3, 2009

Coby – “Richard, where is your evidence of negative feedbacks to CO2? And I forget, are we going to allow modeling as evidence or not?”

Well I could quote something like D(τ ) =< [X(t + τ ) − X(t)]2 >∝ τ 2H, or D(τ ) = 1T/τTX− i$i-1(Xi+ − Xi)^2, (the symbols didnt quite come right here), but I do confess I do not understand the intricate workings of the IPCC climate models. However I do understand a bit of maths, statistics, science and logic, thanks to my brilliant teacher in secondary school and subsequent degree in engineering.

That the climate system is fundamentally homeostatic can be seen from our climatic records. (long range ofcourse not over the last 50 years that the IPCC focuses upon). The temperatures go up but then they come down. They go down but then they come up. This could only happen if there are negative feedbacks to various forcings, for example CO2. If there were only a positive feedback to CO2 then when CO2 increased everytime in the past due to increasing temperatures then they would continue going up. The solar variation due to the Milankovitch forcing of every 100,000 years is far too weak to explain the regular descent into the ice ages on its own. Far less in fact than the variation of the 11 year solar spot cycle. The IPCC uses the arguement that total solar irradiance varies very little to argue that the major forcing for temperatures must be CO2. Well this arguement would be double true for the 100,000 year drop in temperatures. But the climate of the Earth is not very mindful of the opinions of the IPCC working committee, which is a political body and goes about its own merry way.

This remains true today as the temperatures are not following those of the models. They are not increasing and seeing to accelerate as claimed by the IPCC. Quite the opposite in fact. There is growing evidence that the Earth is starting to cool.
#85 Snowman
July 3, 2009

Richard – I wondered if you ever got a reply to your letter to the UK Met Office. (My guess is no, either that or they just sent you some standard guff that ignored your specific points.)
#86 Richard
July 3, 2009

This was the reply I received:
Dear Mr … Thank you for your recent e-mail regarding climate change, CO2 and global temperature increases. None of the information in our climate change pages is false and misleading, it has been carefully checked and is based on the latest peer reviewed scientific research. The issues you raise and many others have been comprehensively addressed in the scientific literature and so I do not propose to respond to all of them when the information is already available in the public domain. Instead , I would refer you to the web site of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) who have produced a detailed list of FAQs at http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html and the Met Office Hadley Centre publication “Climate Change and the greenhouse effect: a briefing from the Hadley Centre” which is available to download free of charge at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/publications/brochures/. Yours sincerely Martin Kidds Customer Feedback Manager Met Office

PS I never said it was false or misleading in my email to them.
#87 Richard
July 3, 2009

PS I did reply to that:
Dear Mr Kidds,

Let us go one step at a time.

You have stated on your page that “A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 C per decade.”

Using your temperature data the trend for 1998-2007 comes to 0.063 C per decade. You could be forgiven for rounding this to one decimal place, but why have you not used the 1998-2008 data? The IPCC has nothing to do with this. 1998 to 2008 is the latest decade.

This is a simple question and does not involve the IPCC.

Can you please get your people to do this “simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2008)” and put the latest figures there, whatever they may be. 2007 is long past. The last complete year for which you have the data is 2008.

Sincerely
(I do not expect a reply)
#88 crakar14
July 5, 2009

Here’s a special post to dhogaza (post #78)

Below is a link to a story about a company that produces children books. They produced a book to educate or should i say indoctrinate children about AGW. The main premise of the book is to show that CO2 does indeed drive the temps (AGW), the cornerstone of which this claim is built is the ice core data. In this book they show a graph of the new ice core data (unlike Al Gore) but for reasons known only to them they have mislabled it, ie CO2 is labled as temps and vice versa. This “error” gives the young mind the impression that CO2 leads not lags.

The authors even go to the trouble of providing a link to a scientific study to support thier claims even though the study says the complete opposite.

So my question is, dhogaza who will God strike down first, myself, Al Gore or the authors of this childrens book?

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/other/david_book_SPPI_paper2_9-11-07.pdf
#89 pough
July 6, 2009

Richard, a decade is ten years, not eleven. Using 1998 to 2008 as a decade would be, um, misleading.

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1999/to:2008/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1999/to:2008/trend
#90 crakar14
July 6, 2009

I asked some questions (post #60 and 69) in regards to the AGW theory’s claim that CO2 drives the temps.

In summary to my questions posed, i have so far recieved accusations of “liar, liar pants on fire”, there was a personnal opinion and a lecture about forcings and feedbacks.

Unfortunately none of this amounts to observational data that can be used to support the AGW theory, therefore it would appear the AGW theory has a major if not terminal flaw. Until this issue is resolved i would consider this debate to be over.

Of course belief knows no bounds and this will be ignored by the faithful.
#91 Adam
July 6, 2009

Crakar -

Coby answered you in post #71.

Typical denialist troll, completely ignoring the answers to your question. And then you wonder why people consider you dishonest and uninterested in the actual science.
#92 crakar14
July 6, 2009

Adam,

Whilst i enjoy reading Coby’s personnal opinions on the geoligical record it does not constitute empirical observational data much like your sarcasm.

Would you like to have another try?
#93 Adam
July 6, 2009

Crakar -

Considering your questions were based on faulty assumptions (e.g. that CO2 suddenly started controlling temperatures), Coby’s responses were perfectly adequate. What specifically do you not like about the answers to your questions?
#94 crakar14
July 6, 2009

Adam,

For IPCC theory to be correct CO2 must control the temps (+ve feed back) therefore it is not my assumption, this is the IPCC’s and ergo anyone else that believes in the theory. I for one do not believe in the theory hence why i asked the questions so as to get clarification.

Coby’s response was based purely on his personnal opinion and therefore do not adequately answer my questions, can you answer these questions more adequately? And by that i mean back up your answers by virtue of scientific findings?
#95 Ian Forrester
July 6, 2009

Crakar, what makes you think “this is the IPCC’s (theory)”? The science behind AGW was established long before the IPCC was set up. The Theory (and it is an accepted scientific theory) is based on well understood physical and chemical principles which were experimentally proven about 100 years ago.

If you really want to understand AGW theory and practice then check out Spencer Weart’s web site “The Discovery of Global Warming” at:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
#96 crakar14
July 7, 2009

We just keep going around in circles with you Ian.

Is this a distractionary tactic by you? Or do you not understand what is posted by others?

Lets start again shall we?

The IPCC theory states that as CO2 increases this will lead to an increase in evaporation primarily from the oceans, which leads to an increase in water vapor. This increase in water vapor will lead to what we all know to be global warming.

Hence the IPCC theory dictates that an increase in CO2 will cause the temps to rise, or to put it another way CO2 increases or decreases cause Temp increases or decreases, or to put it another way CO2 leads temp. This was explained eloquently by Al Gore in his movie “An inconvinient truth”.

I have raised several points supported by observed data that suggest the relationship between CO2 and temps as purported by the IPCC to be wrong.

The more attempts you and others make to drag the debate away from the questions i pose the more ridiculous you look.

Just answer the questions i pose, thats all i ask, am i asking too much?

And no personnal opinions, theories or spiritual recitals from some AGW demigod DO NOT count as observational data.
#97 Ian Forrester
July 7, 2009

Crakar, I think it is time you stopped posting. You refuse to accept anything anyone says that shows you are blowing smoke out of your rear-end.

I give you a very good site where you can read up on the science and you just respond with more rubbish.

You are as much of a denier troll as Richard and snowman. You accept lies and misinformation from denier sites without question but refuse to accept what honest scientists are telling you.

Get a life.
#98 pough
July 7, 2009

The more attempts you and others make to drag the debate away from the questions i pose the more ridiculous you look.

I disagree. The more we let you pose ridiculous questions and make ridiculous statements of apparent fact, the more ridiculous you look. For example:

The IPCC theory states that as CO2 increases this will lead to an increase in evaporation primarily from the oceans, which leads to an increase in water vapor. This increase in water vapor will lead to what we all know to be global warming.

Wha? Where did you get that from? And why do you keep referring to it as the “IPCC Theory”? (We just keep going around in circles with you, crakar.) Does CO2 evaporate water? Is it only water vapour that warms the atmosphere? If you have as little clue as you seem to do, why all the confidence?

It’s not terribly hard to erect simple strawmen and knock them down, but you do it with a certain flair. I must admit a certain bemused admiration.
#99 Adam
July 7, 2009

Crakar –

I have raised several points supported by observed data that suggest the relationship between CO2 and temps as purported by the IPCC to be wrong.

The questions you asked were based on faulty assumptions, or (intentional?) misreadings of the data. What specifically do you object to about Coby’s answers?
#100 coby
July 7, 2009

crakar:
“Hence the IPCC theory dictates that an increase in CO2 will cause the temps to rise, or to put it another way CO2 increases or decreases cause Temp increases or decreases, or to put it another way CO2 leads temp.”

Subtle, but another falsehood. I won`t repeat the same explanation you have been given over and over again. Rather I will try asking a simple question: why do you think it is impossible that a temperature change can lead to a CO2 change and at the same time a CO2 change can lead to a temperature change? What makes those things mutually exclusive?
#101 crakar14
July 7, 2009

As i have 4 posts to respond to i will keep each reply brief,

To Ian,

I asked questions for you to answer your reply is to give me a dodgy link.

I think Richard’s summation of you was excellent (what is the evidence post 101) lets leave it there shall we.

To Pough,

The AGW theory is very old we all know that, i call it the IPCC theory due to the fact that it has been refined somewhat, through GCM’s etc. So yes it is the IPCC theory.

Do you not believe the IPCC predictions (GCM’s) is based around a strong +ve feedback from water vapour? I suggest you re read the many IPCC reports again just as a refresher.

Here is a good start

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf

To Adam,

Read my response to Coby

To Coby,

A subtle falsehood?

What makes those things mutually exclusive? The geological record shows that they are not mutually exclusive Coby.

Can you imagine a world where they were? Lets give it a go, temp goes up, then CO2 goes up, now that CO2 has gone up the temp now goes up, now the temp has gone up then so must CO2, CO2 has gone up so now the temp goes up and the planet boils dry.

Hang on a second……we dont need to imagine do we, the geological record shows us that CO2 temps rose up above 2000 ppm in the past but the temps went down!!!! Hmmm maybe they are not mutually exclusive after all.

So i have answered your question how about you answer mine. And here is another one if CO2 drives the temps and CO2 is still increasing then why have the temps continued to shall we say not rise and dont start that rubbish about “its only weather” we have had 10 years of “its only weather” why dont we start calling it what it really is which is a -ve feedback. Of course you will struggle to comprehend this and therefore respond as the IPCC’s version of the AGW theory (is that better Pough)does not allow for such things.
#102 Snowman
July 8, 2009

I don’t know about mutual exclusion, but there is a danger of mutual incomprehension breaking out here.

Coby is challenging the notion that temperature rise followed by CO2 increase must excude the possibility of the reverse also being true, namely that temperature increase can be followed by CO2 rise.

Crakar seems to be agreeing that a linear sequence and its reciprocal can both be true.

Where they seem to part company, however, is in their analysis of the consequence of such a thing.

Crakar argues that if both patterns are true, a rise in CO2 must inevitably lead to uncontrolled temperature increase as CO2 and temperature form a cycle of mutual reinforcement.

As it is clear that temperatures have not in the past soared out of control, then it follows that the mutual reinforcement pattern must be wrong, he argues.

Does that help, or have I added a further layer of incomprehensibility?
#103 Adam
July 8, 2009

Crakar -

And here is another one if CO2 drives the temps and CO2 is still increasing then why have the temps continued to shall we say not rise and dont start that rubbish about “its only weather” we have had 10 years of “its only weather” why dont we start calling it what it really is which is a -ve feedback.

To paraphrase Crakar: “Tell me why A is happening, but don’t give me the actual explanation for A.”

Crakar, you’re hopeless. It’s been explained to you over and over again why this line of thinking is erroneous.

Snowman -

We understand what Crakar is trying to say. The problem arises in that he is completely incorrect.

As it is clear that temperatures have not in the past soared out of control, then it follows that the mutual reinforcement pattern must be wrong, he argues.

Temperatures can be influenced by more than one source. There can be a positive feedback effect between CO2 and temperature and there can STILL be other effects that will, overall, cause temperatures to decrease.
#104 coby
July 8, 2009

Not all feedbacks are runaway. Many are self-limiting because the strength of one or more of the interacting factors diminishes as the feedback progresses. It is the case with CO2 as each additional ppm has a smaller effect than the last. That is why climate sensitivity to CO2 is discussed in terms of doubling, not in terms of x ppm.

As well, resevoirs of CO2 available on the short term can run out and thus stop rising, or at least slow. As near as we know, in the glacial cycles CO2 and CH4 came out of warming deep oceans and melting permafrost. Once the amount of permafrost available for melting is reduced, so is the CO2 rise, reducing the feedback.

The above is mostly speculation but we are addressing the abstract question of whether the existence of a positive feedback necessarily requires a runaway effect, and this is simply untrue, full stop.

Snowman, I don`t think crakar is agreeing that both effects (CO2->temp and temp->CO2) can be true, he has misunderstood the term “mutually exclusive” which means if one exists then the other can not. This is his (incorrect) position.

Crakar, the answer to your question of how the evidence of the ice cores fits with AGW is here.
#105 crakar14
July 8, 2009

Crakar here, Yeah what snowman is saying is what i was trying to say.

So while you lot try to rewrite the AGW theory (and history)once again i simply point to the geological record which shows conclusively that CO2 DOES NOT drive the temps, it never has so please explain how it suddenly can now.

So now that this distraction has been completed how about answering my questions, lets start with (what should be the easiest) the year in which CO2 defied the geological record and began driving the temps? Was it 1970?, or maybe 1980 or how about 1990? Take your pick and then provide a scientific study to support your claim.

Good luck with that.

PS i did notice that you conviniently avoided the question of why CO2 is failing to continue to drive the temps over the last 10 years.
#106 snowman
July 8, 2009

Actually, Coby, though it pains me to admit it, I do believe you are right about crakar’s interpretation of the phrase ‘mutually exclusive’.

However, to address your other point about the diminishing impact of incremental CO2 concentrations, it is not immediately clear to me why this matters. A diminishing impact may indeed slow the consequence of increased concentrations, but I do not see why it should place a limit upon it – unless, of course, you are invoking something like the classical paradox showing why an arrow can never reach its target.

As they say (or used to say) in Scotland ‘many a mickle makes a muckle’. (Translation for non Caledonians – given enough little bits you end up with something big.)
#107 pough
July 9, 2009

PS i did notice that you conviniently avoided the question of why CO2 is failing to continue to drive the temps over the last 10 years.

You have a bizarre, Highlander-esque* view of the physics of climate that doesn’t exist in the real world. Until you escape your little fantasyland where you are correct and thousands of actually smart people who actually study climate are wrong, nobody can properly address the physics of the Bizarroverse to you.

So why not simply prance about in your own little world, certainty based on certainty, smug in your knowing that the hottest decade on record is a sure sign of cooling.

* There can only be one.
#108 crakar14
July 9, 2009

Another high quality post from pough, thanks for your contribution to the debate.

Once again you have shown your reluctance in answering what i would assume to be simple questions. Given that there are thousands of smart people out there, I can only assume that you are not one of them, perhaps i am wasting my time entertaining you by responding.

To Adam, if i were to paraphrase myself “tell me why CO2 leads temps in defiance of the geological record”.

You are correct in that you have told me CO2 does drive the temps many times, however the difference is i have supplied scientific evidence that shows you to be wrong and you simply supply your personnal opinions as a rebuttle.

I dont mean to sound rude but your personnal opinions do not amount to very much on this subject. The fact that not one of you can supply scientific evidence to the contrary stongly suggests that there is none. Getting you to admit that is the hard part.

I now sit here patiently awaiting your next course of distraction.
#109 Adam
July 9, 2009

Crakar -

You are correct in that you have told me CO2 does drive the temps many times, however the difference is i have supplied scientific evidence that shows you to be wrong and you simply supply your personnal opinions as a rebuttle.

The only evidence you have supplied is that CO2 lags temperature in the geological record. This is well known, and understood. What you have also supplied, though, is a heavy dose of misunderstanding (intentional?) and a particular dogmatism regarding this Highlander-esque view of climate science*.

Besides, they aren’t my personal opinions. It is the opinion/judgment of climate scientists in their actual research of this (unlike certain unnamed commentors here who base their opinion on whatever supports their preconception).
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/

*thanks pough, I’m going to steal that from you
#110 crakar14
July 9, 2009

No prizes for second Adam, suggest you come up with a witty saying of your own.

The real climate link you provided simply tries to dispute the geological record not suggest ways in which CO2 suddenly took control of the temp. I suggest you try again.

Here is an interesting thought, the CO2 levels have increased from 300 to 370ppm from 1900 to 2000, a very small rise from 1900 to 1950 (say 20 ppm) and a 50 ppm rise from 1950 to 2000.

Whilst the temp rose about 0.5C over the same period, strangely most of this temp rise occurred between 1900 and 1950. You would have thought it would be the other way around wouldn’t you?
#111 Phineas Sprague
October 18, 2009

I am a trainable skeptic, because I was trained as a scientist and am more interested in understanding what is going on. So show me the errors in my ways! I have been following this discussion for a while. I buy into CO2 lags and therefore can not be the cause…. Because (God bless and keep Steven Gould)I believe that by definition showing a lag brings us according to scientific method I was taught to a QED. Then with the same breath as the concession…. I hear the BUT that is supposed to trump scientific method. Somehow CO2 for which man’s contribution does exist is on its own ride and accelerating the normal climate change process. I am willing to be firm but open minded because it allows me to be shown and improve my understanding.

I absolutely agree that CO2 is a gas that absorbs infra red frequencies, however there are enough arguments on the effect of our contribution both positive and negative to climate change that I with hold immediate judgment and would not be inclined to self mutilation at this time.

No one has been discussing what I think is the practical physics, the three extremely small and discrete frequencies from which CO2 actually absorbs infra red. The discussions are on some macro hand waving level that are pretty much unquantifiable.. So I am unmoved on the last bit either way. I have been searching for another way at a resolution of this discussion. It seems to me that I have heard that CO2 at 100 PPM fully absorbs the three infra red frequencies at something like 10 meters. It is possible that because the concept involves radiation there is an inverse square relationship on additional absorption as the concentration of C02 increases. I would appreciate moving this thought a bit farther because it suggests to me that there is a quantifiable analysis that might be sufficient proof that anthropogenicly derived CO2 may choke us but does or does not not significantly contribute to global warming.

I wonder if this helps.
#112 Dappledwater
October 19, 2009

“Somehow CO2 for which man’s contribution does exist is on its own ride and accelerating the normal climate change process. I am willing to be firm but open minded because it allows me to be shown and improve my understanding.” – Phineas

Okie dokie, something to pour into that open mind of yours……….

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/
#113 dhogaza
October 19, 2009

It seems to me that I have heard that CO2 at 100 PPM fully absorbs the three infra red frequencies at something like 10 meters…

Then a sensor placed on a building 11 meters above the ground would show this, right?

Do it! A nobel prize awaits you …

(do people, especially those claiming to be “scientifically trained”, really think all of science is so blepeing stupid that no one would think of taking observations to see if the real physics behind global warming rather than this “I’ve heard” crap is true or false?)
#114 Snowman
October 19, 2009

Careful dhogz – in this and other recent posts you are in danger of revealing a sense of humour. It won’t do your reputation as the scourge of the deniers any good at all.
#115 crakar14
October 20, 2009

Hi Eric,

Came across this document in which the author describes CO2 in equilibrium with Temp not as a forcing. Have a read if you like and let me know what you think.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/feedback_or_equilibrium.pdf

Regards

Crakar
#116 crakar14
October 20, 2009

Marco, i meant to address post 115 to you, sorry for getting your name wrong.

Where is Eric by the way, i know i said either produce alternative log numbers or F&*^K off but i he did not have to take me literally
#117 Marco
October 20, 2009

Crakar, I think you are not addressing that paper to me, since it is in a thread where I have not posted a single message.

But I can give you my opinion: Nonsense. It makes a mockery out of climate science by essentially claiming that ‘we’ use CO2 as the only forcing.
#118 Scottar
January 4, 2010

CO2 driving GW, not beyond 250ppm.

Present warming started 90 years before human CO2 emissions began to surge about 1940. When human CO2 emissions did surge after 1940, global temperatures went down for 35 years! The Greenhouse Theory says the polar regions will warm first, but it’s not happening. The Antarctic has been cooling since the 1960s, except for the tiny Antarctic western peninsula. And the satellites and balloons don’t show the tropospheric hot spot that the IPCC’s GCMs predicted, zip- nada!

The Arctic was warmer in the 1930s than it is today. In fact, Richard Keen at the University of Colorado, published a report comparing his own research into the climate of Alaska with the official version of the UN Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC). He found no evidence of warming in Alaska over the past 3 decades, and no substantial difference in average temperature between 1935-1944 and the present time. This is part of the clear evidence being exposed by independent researchers of the alteration of historical data at weather stations around the world … to support the claim of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Yet this is being ignored by politicians the world over.

The CRU emails pretty much exposed the temperature cooking going on with not only the East Anglia Climate Research Center but NASA and the IPCC.

Instead of CO2 forcing we have CO2 minor influence with water vapor being the primary climate moderator. And since water is a primary heat absorber the greatest effect on climate would be the Oceans since they comprise 70% of the Earth.

When the sun is at a strong radiance mode as reflected in sunspot activity the oceans sop it up and store it in it depths. So if the Sun wanes in it output the oceans will buffer that decrease in energy input. The also prevent tipping like has happened in Venus which has no water to speak of.

So the CO2 forcing and feedbacks that the IPCC claims are happening are not really, they just based their climate models on flawed and contrived data. Even their GCM guru Trenberth admitted that the Earth was not reflecting what the models predicted in several of the Emails.

So there you have it, from a dedicated skeptic. As Mark Twain once said- “Lies Damn Lies and Statistics” which you can now end with lying politicos of various shades and backgrounds. And take note, plants don’t do well when CO2 levels drop below 250ppmv being an important fertilizer component. Savey mate!

Learn some physics!
#119 Dappledwater
January 5, 2010

Wow, a whole lot of zombie denier arguments here. Is that you Crakar?.
#120 skip
January 5, 2010

ha.

I think you might be right, DW!

Ha ha!

I mean, look at the diction and the tenor. Oh yeah . . . this is our boy (if I had to guess).

Skip
#121 skip
January 5, 2010

So there you have it, from a dedicated skeptic.

Dear “Scottar”.

Two questions:

(1) Have you ever posted here before–perhaps under a different identity?

(2) Is all the material you posted above your *own*–nothing plagiarized?

Let us just say its idle curiosity.

Skip
#122 Scott Brooks
January 5, 2010

Skip

If you don’t want to believe the evidence or counter it with something vaguely intelligent, then why even bothering to respond?

You guy have zero-zip nada against the truth!

So what do you mean by plagiarized?
#123 Dappledwater
January 6, 2010

“So what do you mean by plagiarized?” – Scott Brooks

This:

“CO2 may be adding to the Modern Warming Period, but its impact is apparently not large. Remember that our warming started 90 years before the year 1940, when human CO2 emissions began to surge. When human CO2 emissions did surge after 1940, global temperatures went down for 35 years! The Greenhouse Theory says the Polar Regions will warm first, but they aren’t doing it. The Antarctic has been cooling since the 1960s, except for the tiny Antarctic Peninsula. The Arctic was warmer in the 1930s than it is today.”

Taken from this website:

http://www.proconservative.net/PCVol8Is114AveryGlobalWarming.shtml

Or are you that numbskull Dennis T Avery?.

Then we have this:

“Richard Keen at the University of Colorado was the first to notice the changes. On December 5, he published this report comparing his own research into the climate of Alaska with the official version of the UN Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC). He found no evidence of warming in Alaska over the past three decades”

Lifted from here:

http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m12d11-Global-weather-dataset-being-systematically-corrupted

I’m pretty sure that’s what Skip is getting at. Scott, seeing as Coby’s not around at the moment to confirm or deny……….. are you a sock puppet?.
#124 skip
January 6, 2010

Scottar wrote:

The CRU emails pretty much exposed the temperature cooking going on with not only the East Anglia Climate Research Center but NASA and the IPCC.

Question: How many of those emails have you actually read yourself? Which ones prove “data cooking”? Let me guess . . . “hide the decline”?

Even their GCM guru Trenberth admitted that the Earth was not reflecting what the models predicted in several of the Emails.

Nothing he hadn’t already “admitted” in his own publicly available research. These non-issues have been explained ad nauseum on this site and by many other sources. Let me know if you are interested but I will not rewrite it all here.

So there you have it, from a dedicated skeptic.

Scottar, I am sorry, but you are clearly neither “dedicated” not “skeptical”. You eagerly believed (and then shamelessly copied and pasted) this amateurish material and then huffed in triumph, thinking that you’d scored “points” that have been addressed for months.

Learn some physics!

I’m not a physicist; are you? On which particular principles of physics do you think I/we need enlightenment and of which you believe yourself to have command? And please don’t cut and paste the back jacket of a physics text.

And no, DW I didn’t note which cites I found Scottar’s plagiarized verbiage but I will take *your* word for it that these were the sources (or among the ones where they can be found) because you have never lied to me. I would, however, point out this possible evidence of identity:

And take note, plants don’t do well when CO2 levels drop below 250ppmv being an important fertilizer component. Savey mate!

Note the similarity between this and the earlier Crakarian post:

C02 is the gas of life below 250ppm plants stop growing, at 150ppm plants die so just how low do you want C02 to go?
Posted by: Crakar14 | February 10, 2009 10:34 PM

(Incidentally, the answer to this straw man rhetorical question is that we don’t want CO2 to become dangerously *high*. Savey mate!)

I don’t know for sure its Crakar but all the indicators are there—repetition of talking points that have been addressed again and again, use of straw men, patronizing admonitions, rank plagiarism, even the colloquialisms (Savey mate!). Maybe our boy has come home but just hasn’t made it official yet.

Another great line from Mark Twain: “A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can even get it’s boots on…” And in your case, Scott, I am afraid the lie was believed before the truth had time to even introduce itself.
#125 GFW
January 6, 2010

“Learn some physics”

Scott (and whoever else wants to throw that line out). I’d say I learned plenty of physics during my path to a PhD in it. It’s not like I could just sit down and write a climate simulation, but I can evaluate the statements made about how radiative transfer in the atmosphere is modified by CO2, H2O, CH4, SO2, etc. I understand the magnitude of solar and orbital effects and how tiny long term processes like the orbital changes can be amplified by CO2 feedbacks. It’s blatantly obvious that water vapor is always a feedback, and it’s essentially immediate. Confusing the ocean’s moderating role (big heat content) with its role in providing immediate positive feedback (water vapor) is a sign of really not understanding physics.

I could go on, but my point is that to someone who has a decent understanding of how the physical world works, the statements made the climate specialists make sense – they fit logically into the physical framework. Claims made by the deniers don’t fit. They appear to be a mish-mash of misunderstandings and deliberate distortions.
#126 Scottar
January 6, 2010

Skip; Dappledwater, GFW

So I lifted some facts, does that make it plagiarized?”
T Avery has good peer reviewed references. And I’m not doing it for a book or money, I’m just bringing out the “facts”. CO2 does not drive climate change like you AGWers bandy about. And I can understand physics and science enough to know when numbers/data are being fudged. Your excusive arguments are a joke!

The East Anglia CRU emails show quite blatantly they were trying to hide the temperature decline and even tried to erase the medieval global warming period along with the little ice age. The MGW has been shown to be warmer then any time in the past century and it was world wide with historical evidence. Guess it must have been those SUV carts hauled by donkeys and horses.

{(Incidentally, the answer to this straw man rhetorical question is that we don’t want CO2 to become dangerously *high*. Savey mate!)}

At less then 2ppm a year and dropping it won’t. CO2 is not lethal until it reaches 5%. And empiracle data shows it’s forcing virtually stops past 350ppm. Savey Skippy?

I’m not Crakar, we probably just have reached the same conclusions from the evidence the MSM and grant chasing science journals don’t want exposed.

The IPCC’s contracted climate models, all of some 22 or so, have different results and failed to predict the present cooling. They predicted a hot spot over the tropics in the troposphere that failed to materialize. what further prove do you want? Trenberth stated in two emails that he was concerned that the predicted warming for 2000 was not appearing nor near reflected in what the GCMs predicted

If CO2 was the climate driver is was bandied to be then the climate would not be experiencing the record cold weather, the oceans would not be cooling like they have for the past decade, the Arctic would be piratically gone. this past summer instead of up by 25%.

Water vapor’s feed back properties have been overstated, you forget is also a moderator. When it forms clouds, as it has in past cooling periods, it moderates the temperatures. The IPCC’s forcing parameters are greatly exaggerating the feed back by more then 5 times. Trenberth even admits the CGMs can’t handle water vapor or clouds realistically.

Besides the better climate news site- icecap.us, you hot- heads should read: SPPI Monthly CO2 Report for November 2009. I suggest you also visit a real climate research site- co2science.org instead of that NASA lackey Gavin Schmidt and his pseudo science site realclimate.org.

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/:
A Total Bluff

But after reading all the ad homium responses with little facts to dispel mine, responding to you denialists crackers is a waste of time. Especially when you blow off report from Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado. http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?ref=rss&a=212

Your marginalizing is quite trivial. You quackers still haven’t learned on how to talk to a AGW skeptic.
#127 Dappledwater
January 7, 2010

“So I lifted some facts, does that make it plagiarized?” – Scottar

When you pass them off as your own?, no attribution?. Yup!.

“The East Anglia CRU emails show quite blatantly they were trying to hide the temperature decline and even tried to erase the medieval global warming period along with the little ice age.” – Scottar

So, you don’t even understand the reference is to the divergence problem, and that the “hiding” was done in plain sight, in a peer-reviewed paper?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY&feature=channel

“The MGW has been shown to be warmer then any time in the past century and it was world wide with historical evidence. Guess it must have been those SUV carts hauled by donkeys and horses.” – Scottar

Wishful thinking Scottar, the only study to claim that, Soon & Baliunas (2003) was a dog of a paper that was quickly debunked by the climate science community. They incorrectly used moisture proxies instead of temperature, used proxies unable of resolving decadal trends and the metadata did not establish a globally synchronous warm period. In fact an independent reconstruction of the metadata affirmed the 20th century was “globally” the warmest in the last 1000 years:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/302/5644/404
#128 Dappledwater
January 7, 2010

{(Incidentally, the answer to this straw man rhetorical question is that we don’t want CO2 to become dangerously *high*. Savey mate!)}At less then 2ppm a year and dropping it won’t. -Scottar

Dropping?, is that denialist lingo for increasing, or are you simply confused by the yearly variation due to the biological carbon cycle?.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

“Trenberth stated in two emails that he was concerned that the predicted warming for 2000 was not appearing nor near reflected in what the GCMs predicted” – Scottar.

See previously linked to youtube clip, for what Trenberth was actually talking about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY&feature=channel

“I’m not Crakar” – Scottar

Is that because the sock is on the other hand?.
#129 skip
January 7, 2010

I’ll ask again, Crattar:

Quote a single CRU email that you think proves *any* of your claims.

Just one.

Quote just *one*.

I’ll repeat:

Please quote a *single* email that you think proves *any* of your claims.

This should not be hard, for you. And the result is going to be *hilarious*.
#130 Scottar
January 7, 2010

Dappledwater

{Wishful thinking Scottar, the only study to claim that, Soon & Baliunas (2003) was a dog of a paper that was quickly debunked by the climate science community.}

No o great omypio, I got it from here:
http://co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
Your living in past AGW glory.

And I wasn’t trying to pass the info as my own, you just accuse me of it.

{Dropping?, is that denialist lingo for increasing, or are you simply confused by the yearly variation due to the biological carbon cycle?.}

From 2000 to 2009 it averages out to be 1.95- tada!

And notice the last 2 years. That’s what I meant moron! Bong-LOL

And lets use something other then youtube videos, I like sites with test and graphs with maybe some pictures.

Skip:
{Please quote a *single* email that you think proves *any* of your claims.}

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1052&filename=1255523796.txt

“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”

And you can search the rest.

Fact is you buttholes can’t comeup with anything scientifically relevant without getting trivial and out of context. look at the opinion poles, AGW is becoming a joke, because GW can’t create cold weather.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/01/global-cooling-in-2009.html

And sea ice has been increasing;
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

Like I said, you guys are about as quacky as the Copenhagen Climate Conference. I guess your determined to go down with the captain Algore- Skippie. Ha- ha- ha
#131 skip
January 8, 2010

Scrakar:

I will give you *one* chance to back down from this. After that, I will never show you mercy again on this forum.

Direct question:

Repeat: Direct question:

Let me say it one more time: Direct question.

What, *exactly* do you think this email proves?

Speak from the heart and speak with wisdom because this is your moment of truth.
#132 Dappledwater
January 8, 2010

“No o great omypio, I got it from here:http://co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.ph” – Scrakar.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Scakar you haven’t even bothered to read many of the studies that the Idso’s reference. They’ve lied to you, not that you would know the difference. Many of the studies don’t even say what the Idso’s claim they do. For instance:

Antarctica – Khim et al. 2002. Unstable climate oscillations during the Late Holocene in the Eastern Bransfield Basin, Antarctic Peninsula.

The study shows a medieval warm period from 1000 to 500 years ago. Huh?. The MWP keeps moving all the time?. Very convenient. Note the very cold temperatures inferred from the proxies for the period 1100 to 1000 years ago – part of the time period others use to describe the MWP.

South America -Goni et al, (2004). Generation, transport, and preservation of the alkenone-based U37K’ sea surface temperature index in the water column and sediments of the Cariaco Basin (Venezuela).

Proxies show a warm period 1100 to 800 years ago, right when Khim et al show cooling in the Antarctic. So much for the deniers “synchronous” MWP.
#133 Dappledwater
January 8, 2010

“And I wasn’t trying to pass the info as my own, you just accuse me of it.” – Scrakar.

Splutter, splutter, of course you were.

“Dropping?, is that denialist lingo for increasing, or are you simply confused by the yearly variation due to the biological carbon cycle?.} From 2000 to 2009 it averages out to be 1.95- tada!And notice the last 2 years. That’s what I meant moron! Bong-LOL” – Scrakar.

Oh, so you’re playing one of those denier games “it’s not 2 ppm per year, it’s 1.953ppm since 2000″. And for the last 2 years?. Scrakar have you not heard of the worldwide financial crisis?. Even allowing for that, the yearly growth in CO2 has barely been affected.
Sorry, but Australian denier logic fails yet again.

“And lets use something other then youtube videos, I like sites with test and graphs with maybe some pictures.” – Scrakar

Oh, I’m sure you do, but ones devoid of science to back up your claims. No thanks, Pete Sinclair does an excellent job of job of rebutting the denier crocks, with references to the scientific literature. And as you know the clips are not for your benefit.
#134 Dappledwater
January 8, 2010

“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.” – Scrakar

Yes, glad you included that last sentence because that gets to the whole point of Trenberth’s comment. In essence he trying to account for where all the heat in the Earth’s climate system goes. It’s not enough to say we know El Nino causes warming episodes, or La Nina causes cooling, or that increased CO2 warms the atmosphere. All that is known. Trenberth is wanting a better system to monitor Earth’s climate in more detail. It’s discussed here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Kevin-Trenberth-travesty-cant-account-for-the-lack-of-warming.htm

Yup, another Scrakar dead duck.

“Fact is you buttholes can’t comeup with anything scientifically relevant without getting trivial and out of context. look at the opinion poles, AGW is becoming a joke, because GW can’t create cold weather” – Scrakar.

Wrong. AGW does not mean the end of cold winter for higher latitudes. But the increased water vapor in the atmosphere due to AGW, does suggest heavier snowfalls.

“And sea ice has been increasing;http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/” – Scrakar.

Wow, sea ice increases in winter!. Whoa!. But what is interesting is that currently the Arctic sea ice is tracking at record minimum levels:

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100105_Figure2.png

Looking at the bigger picture, it’s clear many Arctic regions are very warm at the moment and some lower latitudes are very cold
#135 Scottar
January 8, 2010

skip

Trenberth was indicating that the GCMs did not predict the current cooldown and therefore the temperature predictions by the IPCC are very flawed. That is backed up by previous public statements he made, as in June-2007:

In a recent article posted on “Climate Feedback,” a blog hosted by Nature Reports: Climate Change, Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) —

there are no (climate) predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been”. Instead, there are only “what if” projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios. According to Trenberth, GCMs “. . . do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents. None of the models used by IPCC is initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models corresponds even remotely to the current observed climate.”

Dr. Trenberth’s claim that people have mistakenly believed that the IPCC makes predictions: “In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all.

Trenberth also claims that the IPCC does not make predictions, only proposes scenarios. This point is lost on the American popular press, which has not reported the above discussion, as the unproved fear of “global warming” among Americans becomes ever stronger.

End

So when you look over the real historical evidence, CO2 increases are due mostly to ocean outgassing and have little to do with global warming but much to do with hyped fear mongering to the gullible…..From the heart.

And here’s what it leads too:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/gas/6934636/Britain-facing-gas-shortages-as-freezing-weather-continues.html

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/807821-pensioners-burn-books-for-warmth

Mercy?!, you’ll be lucky if the readers show you mercy after checking this all out from the contrived hype you guys spew on this site. Either you will allow the truth or try and censure it. You guys are showing a lack of wisdom with your half ass, flat brained, arrogant responses of which I am tired of. Get Real.

And to others, a good place to start is icecap.us, the climate newsmax center. The IPCC has been shown to be very politicized with virtually no real peer review. It’s part of the new world socialist takeover for world government. The consensus is coming apart with cold climate change.
Go beyond the hype!
#136 Scottar
January 8, 2010

Dappledwater:

{Oh, so you’re playing one of those denier games “it’s not 2 ppm per year, it’s 1.953ppm since 2000″. And for the last 2 years?. Scrakar have you not heard of the worldwide financial crisis?. Even allowing for that, the yearly growth in CO2 has barely been affected.}

You talk out of stupidity. People who study it for a living know that CO2 rates are effected by ocean outgassing. Since the Oceans are cooling due to solar radiance decreasing the CO2 emission rates are dropping. And when the Arctic melts due to a PDO cycle melting, the cold, free polar waters suck the CO2 down like a thirsty camel.

{Proxies show a warm period 1100 to 800 years ago, right when Khim et al show cooling in the Antarctic. So much for the deniers “synchronous” MWP.}

Proxies can be affected by environmental related factors linked not only to temperatures but humidity, drought, they are not all spot on exact. The fact that they all relate to a warming around 1000AD is significant. Remember that IPCC 4thAR spaghetti proxie climate graph, were all the proxies in sync? and then they tack on the ground instrumental temp data that was exaggerated by urban effects to simulate the hockey stick. “What a trick!” Why do you continue to distort the science dribblewater. You must be a lawyer.

Learn some science dribblewater, quite spewing the koolaide hype:

Correct Timing is Everything – Also for CO2 in the Air

Guest Editorial by Tom V. Segalstad on CO2 Science
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N31/EDIT.php

Pete Sinclair, he must be buddies with Al. Look over Bob Carter’s youtube videos.

So the IPCC predicted the polar bears would be sweating in their shorts by now, where is all the cold coming from? Al Gores refrigerator?

Read here why the youngbloods got it so wrong.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118954539363624201.html
#137 Dappledwater
January 9, 2010

“You talk out of stupidity. People who study it for a living know that CO2 rates are effected by ocean outgassing. – Crakar.

Now that you mention stupid, it might one giant surprise to you Crakar, but the oceans are currently a sink for CO2 emissions. There are even studies on the topic of natural sinks:

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n12/full/ngeo689.html

“Trends in the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide”

Corinne Le Quéré, Michael R. Raupach, Josep G. Canadell, Gregg Marland et al. (2009)

“Combined evidence from atmosphere and ocean observations constrains the mean uptake rates of land and ocean CO2 sinks to 2.60.7 and 2.20.4 Pg C yr-1 for 1990–2000, respectively”

http://www1.whoi.edu/mzweb/smpdatadocs/gruber_anthro_co2.pdf

“The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2″

Sabine et al (2004)

So, bzzzzzzzt wrong!, Crackar.
#138 Dappledwater
January 9, 2010

“Since the Oceans are cooling” – Crackar.

Not that one again!. The oceanic mean temp for 2009 was the 6th warmest on record according to preliminary NOAA data, above 2008 (10th warmest) and 2007 (9th warmest).

Rational people would not call that cooling, especially when the June-August period was the warmest mean ocean temperature ever recorded.

“And when the Arctic melts due to a PDO cycle melting” – Crackar

Ha, I was just having a discussion with a denier on another forum, and he was claiming that the PDO was in a negative phase and would be for 20 years. You deniers sure make up a whole lot of garbage and continually contradict yourselves and each other.

“Proxies can be affected by environmental related factors linked not only to temperatures but humidity, drought, they are not all spot on exact. The fact that they all relate to a warming around 1000AD is significant.” – Crackar.

No, what is significant is that Khim et al show cooling when studies of other regions show warming. They are not synchronous, the warming was regional not global. Coral data in the pacific show a cool period when Europe & Greenland were warm.

CO2 science is a pathetic joke. You need to accept it and move on.

“Why do you continue to distort the science dribblewater. You must be a lawyer.” – Crackar

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing about you. Why do you find it necessary to spread your special brand of stupid about the internet?.

“So the IPCC predicted the polar bears would be sweating in their shorts by now, where is all the cold coming from? Al Gores refrigerator?” – Crackar.

You may not have noticed, but Polar Bears don’t wear shorts, they’re not like your teddy bear Crackar. And the cold in the UK and Europe?:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2010/pr20100106b.html

“In most winters, and certainly those in the last 20 years or so, our winds normally come from the south-west. This means air travels over the relatively warm Atlantic and we get mild conditions in the UK. However, over the past three weeks the Atlantic air has been ‘blocked’ and cold air has been flowing down from the Arctic or the cold winter landmass of Europe.”

“The low temperatures in the UK have also been accompanied by snow. This is because areas of low pressure have been running in from the north-east, tracking across the North Sea and picking up moisture along the way, which falls as snow.”

“However, it is not cold everywhere in the world. North-east America, Canada, North Africa, the Mediterranean, and south-west Asia have all seen temperatures above normal – in many places by more than 5 °C, and in parts of northern Canada, by more than 10 °C.”
#139 skip
January 9, 2010

“In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all.”

–Skrakar quoting Trenberth

Trenberth also claims that the IPCC does not make predictions, only proposes scenarios. This point is lost on the American popular press . . .

It was *never* lost on me; and the point of the article that you quote mined was clearly lost on you.

To wit, this public statement was nothing more than an affirmation of what every educated student of this issue already knew: Climate modeling is *an imperfect science*, with the exact role of numerous confounding factors, regional variation, and uncertainties yet to be understood. But if you had actually *read* this instead of quote minding, Trenberth’s spokesman continued on:

“[T]he commitment [to addressing climate change] is even greater given that the best we can realistically hope for in the near term is to perhaps stabilize emissions, which means increases in concentrations of long-lived greenhouse gases indefinitely into the future. *Thus future climate change is guaranteed.* [my emphasis]

A consensus has emerged that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” to quote the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Working Group I Summary for Policy Makers (pdf) and the science is convincing that humans are the cause. Hence mitigation of the problem: stopping or slowing greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere is essential. *The science is clear in this respect.* [my emphasis]”

But Skrakar, you misquoted this public statement and Trenberth’s related email as a desperate effort to not back down from your earlier rhetoric:

The East Anglia CRU emails show quite blatantly they were trying to hide the temperature decline and even tried to erase the medieval global warming period along with the little ice age.

You were just wrong, Skrakar. You were wrong like Rush Limbaugh. You were wrong like Chris Horner. You were wrong like Glenn Beck. You were wrong like Crakar.
#140 Scottar
January 10, 2010

dapplewater:

{Now that you mention stupid, it might one giant surprise to you Crakar, but the oceans are currently a sink for CO2 emissions. There are even studies on the topic of natural sinks:}

Oceans also emit CO2 when warmed, like when soda defizzes when warmed. Haven’t you ever heard of solubility tables dribblewater:

http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid.htm

Can you say duh! But you just try to cover that up just like the CRU jokers tried to hide the warming

The whole myth with you AGWers is that you claim the oceans can’t compensate for the wee, little amounts from humans. And I showed why with Tom V. Segalstad’s paper.

Nature is the rag that Greenpeace wipes it’s butt with.

{The oceanic mean temp for 2009 was the 6th warmest on record according to preliminary NOAA data, above 2008 (10th warmest) and 2007 (9th warmest).}

This is meaningless when it’s long term climate changes in the present climate optimum. Look up sunspot and climate temps. And from my sources that measurement was contrived through faulty misrepresentation:

Record Sea Surface Temperatures Are Only In NOAA ERSST.v3b Dataset

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/17/noaas-august-global-record-is-the-result-of-one-data-set/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/21/borensteins-ap-sea-surface-temperature-article-is-misleading/

http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/09/record-sea-surface-temperatures-are.html

“It appears the the methods used by NOAA to calculate global SST in their ERSST.v3b dataset and the removal of the satellite data from those calculations created an upward bias.”

Another climate monger trick!

And the same thing was done with surface temps:

http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?ref=rss&a=212

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/alarmists_abandon_air_temps_but_oceans_also_show_cooling/

{“However, it is not cold everywhere in the world. North-east America, Canada, North Africa, the Mediterranean, and south-west Asia have all seen temperatures above normal – in many places by more than 5 °C, and in parts of northern Canada, by more than 10 °C.”}

Taking out of context should be a crime, as I linked to before there has been record, world wide cold, snowy weather.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/01/global-cooling-in-2009.html

Skip:
{A consensus has emerged that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” to quote the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Working Group I Summary for Policy Makers (pdf) and the science is convincing that humans are the cause.}

The IPCC is not a science organization, it’s a political- UN scam.

Assumed Authority- IPCC
http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2009/06/27/the-assumed-authority/

Both of you guys are just trying to spin your way out of the obvious with contrived responses and assumptions as to where I get my info from, it’s not from commentators like Rush or Beck, it’s from careful research and comparisons to science sources I run across.

You guys come across like enviro lawyers and politicals with weak evidence and sources. You try to dispel legitimate science research sites like icecap.us and co2science supported by many other legitimate researchers. You ignore and demonize the evidence I provide or try to spin it away. I’ve been putdown by AGWers before with silly arguments you guys spout again and again.

Many people who have read the CRU emails have come to the same conclusion, they were trying to hide the natural climate data for government grant monies which have been billions compared to millions from the fossil fuel industry for research funding. It’s caused the energy companies to giveup on the fight and join in on the climate money scam.

Heres some thing to consider concerning the future climate change likely to occur:

http://tinyurl.com/y8a7euk

Solar geomagnetic index reaches unprecedented low – only “zero” could be lower

So this is why the planet is probably experiencing record cold and it could very well be the first warning of a coming long decent into the next glacial. Current public opinion shows that they are more concerned about economics then allegations of AGW fear mongering. You guys would drive this country into a depression over unsubstantiated claims by politico gravy trainers. Shame on all you crockers!
#141 crakar24
January 10, 2010

Just finished catching up and after reading the posts i only have one thing to say, Skip and DW i think its time you got professional help.

Skip the infatuation you have with me is starting to get a little freaky, so just to make it easier for you any post that is from crakar24 is from me any post that is not from crakar24 is not from me.

I have no idea who Scottar is although i wish i did so i could shout him a couple of beers down the pub because his posts have shown Skip and DW’s true purpose here on this site. He has also given me the best laugh i have had in years.

So to Scottar (however you are) i say thankyou from the bottom of my heart.

Cheers

Crakar
#142 Dappledwater
January 11, 2010

“I have no idea who Scottar is although i wish i did so i could shout him a couple of beers down the pub because his posts have shown Skip and DW’s true purpose here on this site. He has also given me the best laugh i have had in years.” – Crakar.

Why am I not surprised you laugh at your own jokes.
#143 Dappledwater
January 11, 2010

“Oceans also emit CO2 when warmed, like when soda defizzes when warmed. Haven’t you ever heard of solubility tables dribblewater:” – Crakar

Crakar, like all things related to climate, it’s a bit more complicated than your bottle of carbonated lolly water. Your analogy is wrong too. Never had a sodastream machine when you were a kid?. Well if you did you’d understand that the CO2 added to the water is pressurized. The soda loses it’s fizz after being opened because the CO2 in it equalizes with the atmosphere, not because of warming.

Thanks for the link to the lunatic fringe, but I’ll stick with the mainstream stuff:

http://www.epoca-project.eu/

Projections of future changes

“Modeling demonstrates that if CO2 continues to be released on current trends, ocean average pH will reach 7.8 by the end of this century, corresponding to 0.5 units below the pre-industrial level, a pH level that has not been experienced for several millions of years (1). A change of 0.5 units might not sound as a very big change, but the pH scale is logaritmic meaning that such a change is equivalent to a three fold increase in H+ concentration. All this is happening at a speed 100 times greater than has ever been observed during the geological past. Several marine species, communities and ecosystems might not have the time to acclimate or adapt to these fast changes in ocean chemistry”

“Can you say duh! But you just try to cover that up just like the CRU jokers tried to hide the warming” – Crackar.

I’ll just put that comment down to typical denialobot confusion.

“The whole myth with you AGWers is that you claim the oceans can’t compensate for the wee, little amounts from humans.” – Crackar

Whrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Strawman alert!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

“This is meaningless when it’s long term climate changes in the present climate optimum. Look up sunspot and climate temps. And from my sources that measurement was contrived through faulty misrepresentation” – Crackar.

And what source would they be pasta sources?, tomato sources?.

“Record Sea Surface Temperatures Are Only In NOAA ERSST.v3b Dataset” – Crackar.

Yup, been over that in detail before remember???????. The reasons for the updated version are explained at NOAA:

“The update from v2 to v3 processing is described in Smith et al., 2008. The v3 improvements are justified by testing with simulated data. ERSST v3 has improved low-frequency (LF) tuning that reduces the SST anomaly damping before 1930 using the optimized parameters. Both in situ and satellite (AVHRR) SST data were used as inputs in the Smith et al., 2008. However, the addition of satellite SSTs introduced a small residual cold bias (in the order of .01 deg C). AVHRR is an infrared (IR)-based instrument. IR measurements can only be obtained in clear-sky conditions, and cloud contaminated data are often difficult to identify. This contamination leads to a cold SST bias in the retrievals. An attempt was made to correct for these biases as mentioned in Reynolds et al., 2007, but the adjustment did not fully compensate for the cold bias. While this small difference did not strongly impact the long term trend, it was sufficient to change rankings of warmest month in the time series, etc. Therefore, the use of satellite SST data was discontinued. Except for the removal of the satellite aspect, ERSST v3b processing is identical to version 3. More details can be found in the papers listed in the references.”
#144 Dappledwater
January 11, 2010

“Taking out of context should be a crime” – Crackar.

Indeed, so why do you continually do so?.

“as I linked to before there has been record, world wide cold, snowy weather.” – Crackar.

Rubbish. Check out the Northern Hemisphere temperature anomalies for December 2009 in the following link at the NSIDC:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Parts of the Northern Hemisphere are much warmer than the average, and some are much colder. Little consolation for those freezing their butts off, but the heat they normally receive has been displaced elsewhere.

“So this is why the planet is probably experiencing record cold” – Crackar.

http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20100105.shtml

“Second warmest year for Australia”

“Data collected by the Bureau of Meteorology indicate that Australia’s annual mean temperature for 2009 was 0.90°C above the 1961-90 average, making it the nation’s second warmest year since high-quality records began in 1910. High temperatures were especially notable in the southeast during the second half of the year, with Australia, Victoria, South Australia and NSW all recording their warmest July-December periods on record”.
#145 Crakar24
January 11, 2010

DW,

I take it all back you are way beyond needing help. I have absolutely no idea what you are gibbering on about.

I suspect you are responding to Scottar and thinking it was really me, please keep going i am enjoying watching you and Skip embarass yourselves…..no humiliate yourselves with this idiotic, childish behaviour.

Coby if you are watching can you inform these imbeciles that Scottar and myself are two entirely different people i think the humility has gone on long enough dont you?
#146 skip
January 11, 2010

Welcome “back”, Crak.

Skrakar:

For the record, you again failed the challenge. You made an unsubstantiated claim about CRU emails. I called you on it. You replied with the inane “IPCC doesn’t make predictions” quote, which you had tortured out of context and which does not support you earlier claim that they were “hiding the decline”, another statement which you still do not even understand.

So I will repeat my question and ask again,

Name a *single* email–other than the one you already used and my explanation of which you have blatantly dodged–that you think proves *anything* of value in the AGW debate.

Repeat, Skrakar: Name a *single* email–other than the one you already used and my explanation of which you have blatantly dodged–that you think proves *anything* of value in the AGW debate.

As for “you” Crakar. It makes no difference if you and Skrakar are the same person or not. Whether you’re identical twins is irrelevant. You’re treatment here will be.

PS, Crakar:

Would like to compare our records of “idiotic, childish behaviour”? I didn’t think so. Once its on record it will haunt you the rest of your days. Like I said, Crak: You will try to forget, but I’ll never let you.

Skip
#147 crakar24
January 11, 2010

Skip,

Once again your buffoonery gives your game away, i have not posted on this thread since October 20, 2009 (post 116) as you say it is on the record. As with DW i have no idea what you are gibbering on about.

You said

“As for “you” Crakar. It makes no difference if you and Skrakar are the same person or not. Whether you’re identical twins is irrelevant. You’re treatment here will be.”

This shows how childish and immature you really are, you have this infatuation with me, i am not sure what it is but you seem to get your rocks off when you write malicious and vindictive posts at me, do you have both hands on the key board at all times Skip?

Suddenly you realise that you were getting off on the wrong guy, once you realised that you (and DW) have made complete fools of yourselves you decide to try and back pedal out of the mess you have made.

Sorry Skip you have gone too far to attempt a back pedal now, i dont think we need to go to too much trouble to compare records, yours is on display here for all to see.

The only decent thing for you both to do now would be to offer an apology to both Scottar and myself, are you man enough to apologies Skip? I doubt it quite frankly.
#148 skip
January 11, 2010

As with DW i have no idea what you are gibbering on about

when you write malicious and vindictive posts at me, do you have both hands on the key board at all times Skip?

All: Does this not say it all–I mean, just all of it? Its all there: avoidance, hypocrisy, vulgarity, the reduction to insults when confronted by devastating arguments.

Post away, Crakar. My hope is that people on the bubble will see you and realize how you are an extreme personification of the denier mindset.
#149 Don
January 11, 2010

Well, Tim.

Are you enjoying the weather? Coldest winter in a long time, isn’t it? Why don’t you join us back on the Amazon site and defend AGW among those of us who have a shred of credibility.

I’d like to chat longer, but I have to throw another log on the fire.
#150 skip
January 11, 2010

Don:

Why don’t you post all your material on this site–unless you’re ashamed of it.

Let me guess: You endorse our mate Crakar here? Speak freely. I really want to see your answer.

No please. The Amazon site serves a different purpose. If you have anything to say, you may say it here. Ad you can see from dear Crakar’s exercise of the freest of speech above, you will *never* be censored.
#151 crakar24
January 11, 2010

Skip,

In your delusional mind you believe i posted here as “Scottar” and nothing i can say or do is going to convince you otherwise. Just for the record i was on holidays for 3 weeks and did not even turn on my computer.

Even if i could prove to your feeble mind that it was not me nothing would change, you would continue to spew forth verbal slander at me. You would not be man enough to admit that you screwed up you would just continue down your same old worn out path of gibberish.

Looks like Don knows you well Skip, could it be that Don is an old infatuation of yours? What caused the falling out? He seems like such a nice chap, did you accuse him of bullshitting? Did you accuse him of lying? Did you accuse him of posting as a sock puppet? All the while not offering an opinion on anything yourself?
#152 Dappledwater
January 12, 2010

“Are you enjoying the weather? Coldest winter in a long time, isn’t it?” – Don.

Well that depends where you live:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2010/pr20100106b.html
#153 Scottar
January 12, 2010

dapplewater:

{Crakar, like all things related to climate, it’s a bit more complicated than your bottle of carbonated lolly water. Your analogy is wrong too. Never had a sodastream machine when you were a kid?. Well if you did you’d understand that the CO2 added to the water is pressurized. The soda loses it’s fizz after being opened because the CO2 in it equalizes with the atmosphere, not because of warming.}

Tisk, Tisk Dipplewater. I have my experience with soda’s too and chemistry/physics education. You completely ignored the gas laws and solubility curves I reference to in:

http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid.htm

Yes the CO2 in soda is forced by pressure but when I open a cold soda can it does not erupt in my face like a hot one in the sun. Another one for the Cracker from the Scottar, you moron!

{Projections of future changes

“Modeling demonstrates that if CO2 continues to be released on current trends, ocean average pH will reach 7.8 by the end of this century}

Again more distortions by you AGWer’s From the previous mentioned site:

“H. Jesse paper published in the science journal, ‘Nature’ (London, United Kingdom) (1993), 363(6425), 149-51 CODEN: NATUAS; ISSN: 0028-0836. English. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993Natur.363..149S In this study the experts found that the pH of the surface ocean is a sensitive function of its alkalinity……

What the report tells us is that seawater isotopic composition has been constant during the past 21 million years. For most of that period surface ocean pH was only 7.4 ± 0.2, but it then increased to 8.2 ± 0.2 (approx. the present value) at 7.5 million years ago. The newly found numbers are telling us that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide today is extremely low in broader historical terms. Or to put it another way, oceanographers are proving that the man made global warming theory just doesn’t hold water!”

So the ocean is sufficiently buffered by carbinate rocks for the alleged minuscule amounts of human Carbon emissions. In fact the site shows that many shelled organism need the CO2 to build their shells. It’s normal and will not kill the ocean as you AGWer’s monger out your butts.

It’s depressing to see someone as educated as you DW distorting the science into a contorted facade of what is really is…. for apparent personal concerns, exactly what I’m not sure of, but both Cracker and I smell the green slime.

{“Record Sea Surface Temperatures Are Only In NOAA ERSST.v3b Dataset” – Crackar.}

Since NASA and NOAA have been shown to repeatably cooked and distort the data, I have little faith in their observations:

http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?ref=rss&a=212

Temperature Adjustments by National and Global Data Centers

“The answer is, these graphs all use the raw GHCN data. But the IPCC uses the “adjusted” data. GHCN adjusts the data to remove what it calls “inhomogeneities”.

Then I went to look at what happens when the GHCN removes the “in-homogeneities” to “adjust” the data. Of the 5 raw datasets, the GHCN discards 2, likely because they are short and duplicate existing longer records. The 3 remaining records are first “homogenized” and then averaged to give the “GHCN Adjusted” temperature record for Darwin.

Before getting homogenized, temperatures in Darwin were falling at 0.7 Celcius per century…but after the homogenization, they were warming at 1.2 Celcius per century. And the adjustment that they made was over 2 degrees per century…when those guys “adjust”, they don’t mess around.”

So I question, who is biasing who!

And there is this little inconvenient truth also:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/18/global-sea-level-updated-at-uc-still-flattening/

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

So the sealevel rise is flattening since 2006…. then something is wrong in IPCC wonderland. Could be that green wizard behind the curtain in hockey woz land.

Skip:

{For the record, you again failed the challenge. You made an unsubstantiated claim about CRU emails. I called you on it. You replied with the inane “IPCC doesn’t make predictions” quote, which you had tortured out of context and which does not support you earlier claim that they were “hiding the decline”, another statement which you still do not even understand.}

Skippy, what part of computer programs are not predictors do you not understand?

“As Dr. Trenberth recently acknowledged to Nature journal’s Climate Feedback blog, IPCC models cannot predict future climate because they don’t reflect reality: “None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate,” he stated. “Moreover, the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors. I postulate that regional climate change is impossible to deal with properly unless the models are initialized.”

As for more incriminating eastangliaemails.com:

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=154&filename=.txt

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. ”

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=47&filename=.txt

“Of course, it is possible to get column 6 results by adding
columns 2, 3, 4 and 5 as they now stand (and as they are in the version
that you have). However, one cannot do this with the correct *raw*
column 3, 4, and 5 output because of the nonlinear direct forcing effect.
It just happens that, in your version, I ‘faked up’ column 5 as the
difference between column 6 and the sum of columns 2, 3 and 4.”

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=154&filename=942777075.txt

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. ”

And you can read further about it on these two sites:

http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/11/the-trick.html

It should be obvious to all- both you and DW are a bunch of climate quacks spinning and lying about the truth, that global warming is mostly natural.

Dappledwater:

{Rubbish. Check out the Northern Hemisphere temperature anomalies for December 2009 in the following link at the NSIDC:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/}

Yes things do not appear as you claim:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html

“The work of Prof Latif and the other scientists refutes that view. On the one hand, it is true that the current freeze is the product of the ‘Arctic oscillation’ – a weather pattern that sees the development of huge ‘blocking’ areas of high pressure in northern latitudes, driving polar winds far to the south.

However, according to Prof Latif and his colleagues, this in turn relates to much longer-term shifts – what are known as the Pacific and Atlantic ‘multi-decadal oscillations’ (MDOs). For Europe, the crucial factor here is the temperature of the water in the middle of the North Atlantic, now several degrees below its average when the world was still warming.

But the effects are not confined to the Northern Hemisphere. Prof Anastasios Tsonis, head of the University of Wisconsin Atmospheric Sciences Group, has recently shown that these MDOs move together in a synchronised way across the globe, abruptly flipping the world’s climate from a ‘warm mode’ to a ‘cold mode’ and back again in 20 to 30-year cycles.

‘They amount to massive rearrangements in the dominant patterns of the weather,’ he said yesterday, ‘and their shifts explain all the major changes in world temperatures during the 20th and 21st Centuries. We have such a change now and can therefore expect 20 or 30 years of cooler temperatures.’ Prof Tsonis said that the period from 1915 to 1940 saw a strong warm mode, reflected in rising temperatures. ”

Sea Ice:

“Arctic sea ice extent averaged over December 2009 was 4.82 million square miles. This was 350,000 square miles below the 1979 to 2000 average for December, but 81,000 square miles above the record low for the month, which occurred in December 2006.”

So the melt has been minor for the anomaly but the freeze season is not over. And it appears to me that the ice sea ice melt has stagnated while land ice has been increasing.

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

So the sea ice levels are at the 2005~2009 levels but the freeze season ain’t over and they all diverge from there. We’ll see in March. And it was still well above the min levels!
#154 Scottar
January 12, 2010

Cracker:

Yah dude, I’d like to have a brewski with ya just to get to know you. Haven’t had a chance to read your posts. This tangling with DW and Skip is like when Galileo went against the Catholic Spanish Inquisition.

Rescind your skepticism or face the wrath of the court of the IPCC where you may likely be expelled from the Church of Algore. Repent…repent your evil skeptic ways! And may Saint Copenhagen have mercy on your soul. What a crock!

You have a facebook account? Sent me a contact email at Scott , good for 1 week.
#155 tgriffin
January 12, 2010

Scottar!

Welcome home.

Now, for the record: You stand by *everything* in your last post, correct? No mistakes?

Repeat: You stand by *everything* in your last post, correct? No mistakes?

One more time: Do you wish to modify or retract *anything* in what you just wrote, for the record?

Now is the time, if you wish.

Just want to clarify for future debate.
#156 skip
January 12, 2010

sorry . . .

“tgriffin” is my email (in part), not my post name
#157 mandas
January 12, 2010

“Cardinal Fang – bring out the comfy chair…..”

LOL
#158 crakar24
January 12, 2010

You almost gave the game away there Skip you need to be more careful next time or did you have too much wine with your dinner….or was it too much of the other thing?

To Scottar,

Re post 155, get out while you can now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Or be prepared for a right royal bun fight. LOL

See you all later

Crakar
#159 skip
January 13, 2010

Gin, actually.

It does go to my head at times.
#160 skip
January 13, 2010

Scottar:

And what part of, “Your quote proves nothing you want it to,” do you not understand? Dude: Trenberth does *not* dispute the principle hypothesis of AGW!

What part of *that* do *you* not understand?

It would be like me saying that *you* can’t future predict climate perfectly, therefore *you’re* wrong.

In fact, guess what: I think I’ll just say that now. You are wrong about AGW because you cannot predict climate.So there. How you like them apples?

Repeat, you cited Trenberth in response to my request to prove the following:

The East Anglia CRU emails show quite blatantly they were trying to hide the temperature decline and even tried to erase the medieval global warming period along with the little ice age.

And of course again you have dodged me. You *never* read those emails, did you?

Repeat, you never read those emails, did you?

You just *read somewhere* that they were proof of conspiracy, and just *believed* that without question, didn’t you?

Just like I will never let Crakar forget about his *plagiarized* CO2 residence time blunder, I will never let you forget this one.
#161 crakar24
January 13, 2010

Well it looks like the olive branch has been rejected.

Oh well we can only try cant we.

Skip do you realise that you offer no opinions here? It seems your soul purpose is to run around and pick fights.

You lambast Scottar over his beliefs so let me ask you why do you believe in AGW? Because you “read it somewhere”, because “someone” told you it was true?

Do you lambast religious people because they “read” about religion somewhere?

Do you believe drinking copious amounts of gin makes things better?

Do you believe in life on other planets?

Do you believe in life after death?

Do you really believe your contributions here serve a purpose?

Do you believe the more posts you make that lack opinion but are chocablock full of sarcasm relates directly to how clever, smart and important you are?

Why dont you list all of your beliefs so we can lambast you over them.

And no i will never let you forget that you sit here and denigrate people with opinions whilst you yourself have never and most likely do not have the ability to have one yourself.
#162 skip
January 13, 2010

Well it looks like the olive branch has been rejected.

Which one?

Skip do you realise that you offer no opinions here?

I never hesitate to offer my opinion of your reasoning.

It seems your soul[sic] purpose is to run around and pick fights.

How many times have I called you a name? How many times have you called me one?

You lambast Scottar over his beliefs

Nope. I asked him a question and called him when he dodged it.

so let me ask you why do you believe in AGW? Because you “read it somewhere”, because “someone” told you it was true?

Yes. Ninety seven percent of the world’s climate experts, to be precise.

Do you lambast[sic] religious people because they “read” about religion somewhere?

I try to not lambaste religious people. If I am critical at all its when they do *not* read.

Do you believe drinking copious amounts of gin makes things better?

I don’t but must confess that at times my behavior suggests otherwise. Its a character flaw; I don’t deny it.

Do you believe in life on other planets?

No basis for an opinion. Not sure where we’re going with this.

Do you believe in life after death?

I’m a doubter, but I guess I’ll eventually learn one way or the other.

Do you really believe your contributions here serve a purpose?

I cannot say. I do try. I’ve received more than one compliment from both sides of the fence, although I would not count my contributions as significant as a number of others’. In a very important way my contributions are less significant than yours, because the latter are a powerful illustration of what I see as so key in this debate–narratives.

Do you believe the more posts you make that lack opinion but are chocablock full of sarcasm relates directly to how clever, smart and important you are?

Not sure I follow the question, but however smart and important I am is what it is regardless of my posts.

Why dont you list all of your beliefs so we can lambast you over them.

My favorite color is blue. I prefer Bach to Vivaldi; Notorious B.I.G. to Tupac. I would rather watch women’s soccer than men’s volleyball. I think Modigliani was a hack and a clown. I am agnostic. My favorite tennis player of all time was John McEnroe. I am a political independent. I like my pad thai extra spicy.

Shall I continue? You are free to lambaste these or any of my other views, although I must insist your critique not be plagiarized.

And no i will never let you forget that you sit here and denigrate people with opinions whilst you yourself have never and most likely do not have the ability to have one yourself.

Fair enough. You may express this perception as frequently as you wish, and I will forever be there to reciprocate by reminding the forum that you plagiarized an incorrect document regarding the residence time of CO2, among other mischief.

Unless–and this is a *real* olive branch–you simply come clean on that and your other transgressions, and then we can all go back to square one. Just go back to my post on Narratives, admit the abuses I document, promise to at least try not to replicate them in the future, and perhaps as a bonus provide some explanation as to how they happened in the first place.

Most people on this forum have given up on you, Crakar. You find me insulting, but you should be flattered that I even respond.
#163 mandas
January 13, 2010

Women’s soccer!!!!! You’re kidding!!!!???
#164 KAJA
January 13, 2010

I tried reading all the above and gave up about 1/3 thru. My general opinion is ‘Don’t Bother!’. It rapidly turned into an ‘Insult Shouting Match’. . . and I saw no mention from any of those “experts” of why the Earth is not at near 0 deg. K, i. e. that big bright thermonuclear reaction in the sky called the Sun. To assume its output radiation has not varied 1 iota since the Earth’s formation, is flat out ludicrous. Have you never heard of ‘sunspots’?
#165 mandas
January 13, 2010

KAJA
Are you serious with your question about why the Earth isn’t at or near 0 K?? I will just assume that was a mistype and not the silliest question in the history of the universe.

And I don’t know anyone who thinks the sun’s ‘output radiation’ hasn’t varied in the last 4 billion years. Of course it does. Everyone knows that. In fact, it used to be a LOT dimmer than it is now (sunspots not withstanding). Funnily enough, climatologists know it too. They call it ‘insolation’ and it figures in all the calculations of climate.
Anything else?
#166 crakar24
January 13, 2010

Skip Post 162,

Thats a good start Skip, now if you could just provide a reference for the 97% that would be good.

Why dont we continue playing this game, i will ask for your opinion on a subject and if i find it acceptable then i will address one of your complaints about me, how does that sound? When i say acceptable i mean you give me YOUR opinion not an appeal to authority OK.
Let me know if this is acceptable.

By the way you said “Most people on this forum have given up on you, Crakar. You find me insulting, but you should be flattered that I even respond”.

This is old news Skip, mind you if i converted to the church of AGW i would be showered in rose petals as i waltzed down the aisle and upon reaching the altar my name would be inscribe in the holy scripture in the blood of a sacrificed chicken. I would them be shown the secret handshake and given copies of Al Gores books and movies (collectors edition of course) and the ceremony would be concluded by chanting verses from the IPCC AR4, in addition to this i would be given a one off double pass to visit the 3 holy lands, Kyoto, Bali and Copenhagen.

This is all very tempting of course but i think i will stick with being an athiest for now, oh and by the way i do realise just how lucky i am to have you and you alone to talk to.

Mandas,

Are climatologists aware that the magnetic field around the sun is at its lowest ever recorded? Cosmic rays penetrating the Earth are increasing. Does this figure in all their calculations of climate? If not, why not? And if they do what do these climatologists figure the effects are?
#167 Scottar
January 13, 2010

Cracker 24.

Well it look like I got Skip befuddled, he’s drawing lines in the climate sands again. No telling what nonsense he’s cooking up.

I am going to have to takeup your advice and hold off till March as then the Sea ice and Arctic condition will tell whats going on. I fully expect the sea ice to increase and cooler temps to prevail for the next 20 years. It was cooler last summer. By this summer there will be a better forecast for solar cycle 24.

From this point on it’s looks to be a mud slinging contest and I just don’t have time for that. Just stay tuned to icecap.us and the fellow compatriots for what’s up with Gaia. If you want to converse then drop me a line at my listed email before Monday as it’s temp.

SB@shadowz.com
#168 Dappledwater
January 14, 2010

“I fully expect the sea ice to increase and cooler temps to prevail for the next 20 years” – Scrakar

You must be greatly disappointed, as your expectations are continually dashed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100105_Figure3.png
#169 Dappledwater
January 14, 2010

“You completely ignored the gas laws and solubility curves I reference to in: Seafriends?” – Scrakar.

Yes, completely. That site uses the words “hoax” and “fraud” on the home page. Doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in rational thinking.

“What the report tells us is that seawater isotopic composition has been constant during the past 21 million years” – Scrakar.

No what it tells us is that -

1. Denialobots have no problem accepting a theoretical model, if they think it agrees with their beliefs, no matter how novel the technique may be.

2. 15 years can sometimes be a long time in science:

http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~mp364/data/Pagani.GCA.2005.pdf

“Compilation of available inorganic and culture experiments suggest that either the value of 4–3 is not constant with pH or that the supposition that carbonate 11 B systematically
reﬂects borate is faulty”

“If the fundamentals of the boron isotope-pH proxy are assumed correct and the empirical value of 0.974 for 4–3 is applied to foraminiferal 11 B values for the Cenozoic, pH reconstructions indicate little change in ocean pH over the Cenozoic. However,
surface water pH values are unrealistically high for the Quaternary, and thus unlikely that these pH results are accurate.”

In other words, more work needed.

“So the ocean is sufficiently buffered by carbinate rocks for the alleged minuscule amounts of human Carbon emissions.” – Scrakar.

Errrrrr, No, and that’s the crux problem, the other major issue is the rate of change occurring in the ocean ph – can organisms adapt quickly enough?. Given research to date it doesn’t look too flash. The most worrying are experiments on the effects of increased ph on ehux phytoplankton.

A relevant study on the topic:

http://ic.ucsc.edu/~acr/eart254/Doneyetal2009.pdf

Of course to some idiot, such things are of an abstract nature, but being an avid diver for many decades, I get to see first hand the effects humans are having on the undersea environment and it’s not comforting. Many fisheries and species look headed for extinction, without the additional threat of ocean acidification.
#170 crakar24
January 14, 2010

Who you talking to DW?
#171 skip
January 14, 2010

Crak ‘n Skrak:

Good morning, Gents.

Hm.

Well, Scottar I suspect we never will see an answer to my request that you substantiate your claim about the CRU emails. This is to be expected given the success others have had. All you had to say was, “Ok fine. I shot my keyboard off without thinking and I retract.” God knows I’ve had to say that plenty of times in my life. I suspect its like getting your shoulder dislocated and repositioned: After the first couple of times it doesn’t hurt as much and you learn to deal.

That, too, is all you would have to say, Crakar, regarding your plagiarized CO2 residence time post from HSOT. Just fess up, promise to at least try to reform, and suddenly your cred here would triple.

But alas . . .

Anyway, watch me wallabies feed mates, and have a Fosters for me.
#172 skip
January 14, 2010

Sorry–one last piece of unfinished business. (And yes Crakar, it is absolutely an appeal to authority. The only difference between us is that the authorities to which I appeal actually say what I claim.)

Skip, now if you could just provide a reference for the 97% that would be good.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

To wit, the authors state:

‘Results show that overall, 90% of participants [from *all* subject fields examined]answered “risen” to question 1 [When compared with pre-1800s levels,do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?] and 82% answered yes to question 2.[Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?]

In general, as the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement with the two primary questions . . . In our survey,the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents(with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.”

Now of course this does not prove that all these respondents believe there is imminent catastrophe, only the fundamental premise of AGW. The question is how public policy should respond in the face of such an overwhelming consensus on the basic issue of climate change and its causes.

I am sensitive to these issues because even as a mediocre academic I am disturbed at the public policy debacles resulting when the best research in my field is ignored in favor of viscerally appealing, ham-handed inanity. As a non-expert in climate science, I perceive the same disturbing trend here. I guess you could say this is *my* narrative: Anti-intellectualism and shortsighted impulsiveness is trumping scientific inquiry and its implications for rational public policy. It is appalling to me and as long as I see it thus I feel compelled to resist it.
#173 mandas
January 14, 2010

crakar
Do you deliberately act like a complete idiot by never actually researching any of your ludicrous claims? Or is it just blind trust? You just trust everything every denialist says because they agree with your prejudiced view of the world. This following statement (post #166), is, not to put to fine a point on it, is moronic.

“….Mandas, Are climatologists aware that the magnetic field around the sun is at its lowest ever recorded? Cosmic rays penetrating the Earth are increasing. Does this figure in all their calculations of climate? If not, why not? And if they do what do these climatologists figure the effects are?…”

This sounded a little fishy to me, so I spent 10 minutes doing some research. Yeah, I know, 10 minutes is a long time to spend trying to understand what you are talking about isn’t it? Anyway, in my 10 minutes (probably more like 5), I discovered this paper:
http://www.wdc.rl.ac.uk/wdcc1/papers/nature.html

It’s entitled:
“A Doubling of the Sun’s Coronal Magnetic Field during the Last 100 Years.”

Note that – a doubling in the last 100 years (its actually 230% according to the paper).

So I’ll say it again, even though my advice appears wasted on you. DO YOUR RESEARCH!!!!!!!!!!!
#174 mandas
January 14, 2010

Skip
Just to let you know that no-one in Australia drinks Fosters. I don’t even know if it is sold in Australia – I haven’t seen it in a pub for years.
#175 skip
January 14, 2010

Oh yeah, right.

Crakar gets annoyed when I say that; he’s chastised me before.

Crakar: nix the Fosters comment.
#176 дизайн каталога
January 14, 2010

I am a trainable skeptic, because I was trained as a scientist and am more interested in understanding what is going on. So show me the errors in my ways! I have been following this discussion for a while. I buy into CO2 lags and therefore can not be the cause…. Because (God bless and keep Steven Gould)I believe that by definition showing a lag brings us according to scientific method I was taught to a QED. Then with the same breath as the concession…. I hear the BUT that is supposed to trump scientific method. Somehow CO2 for which man’s contribution does exist is on its own ride and accelerating the normal climate change process. I am willing to be firm but open minded because it allows me to be shown and improve my understanding.

I absolutely agree that CO2 is a gas that absorbs infra red frequencies, however there are enough arguments on the effect of our contribution both positive and negative to climate change that I with hold immediate judgment and would not be inclined to self mutilation at this time.

No one has been discussing what I think is the practical physics, the three extremely small and discrete frequencies from which CO2 actually absorbs infra red. The discussions are on some macro hand waving level that are pretty much unquantifiable.. So I am unmoved on the last bit either way. I have been searching for another way at a resolution of this discussion. It seems to me that I have heard that CO2 at 100 PPM fully absorbs the three infra red frequencies at something like 10 meters. It is possible that because the concept involves radiation there is an inverse square relationship on additional absorption as the concentration of C02 increases. I would appreciate moving this thought a bit farther because it suggests to me that there is a quantifiable analysis that might be sufficient proof that anthropogenicly derived CO2 may choke us but does or does not not significantly contribute to global warming.

I wonder if this helps.
#177 dhogaza
January 14, 2010

Just to let you know that no-one in Australia drinks Fosters. I don’t even know if it is sold in Australia – I haven’t seen it in a pub for years.

My faith in Oz is partially restored (it won’t be fully restored until no-one in Oz listens to Ian Plimer, not even in pubs).
#178 dhogaza
January 14, 2010

It seems to me that I have heard that CO2 at 100 PPM fully absorbs the three infra red frequencies at something like 10 meters.

This argument was debunked by physicists about 60 years ago.

You really need to catch up.
#179 mandas
January 14, 2010

дизайн каталога
Nope, doesn’t help, because its not correct.

CO2 does NOT absorb infra-red radiation at only three discrete frequencies. Whilst it is true that most absorbtion takes place in three relatively narrow bands – note they are bands of frequencies, not discrete frequencies, there is an important difference – these bands are important in the terms of the atmospheric absorbtion of long wave radiation.

I will accept that what you are saying may be just a language difficulty, so here is a link with some info if you wish to read more about it:
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v41/i3/p291_1

As far as your information in CO2 lags go, it is just plain wrong. The studies you are probably referring to re CO2 lag are from the Antarctic Vostok Station ice cores. Is this correct? If so, you need to go back and read them, rather than just accepting other people’s interpretation of them(and I apologise if you have read them – but that’s unlikely as the conclusions they draw are pretty clear). Here’s a couple of conclusions from the paper.

“…These results suggest that the same sequence of climate forcing operated during each termination: orbital forcing (with a possible contribution of local insolation changes) followed by two strong amplifiers, greenhouse gases acting first, then deglaciation and ice-albedo feedback….”

“…Finally, CO2 and CH4 concentrations are strongly
correlated with Antarctic temperatures; this is because, overall, our results support the idea that greenhouse gases have contributed significantly to the glacial–interglacial change. This correlation, together with the uniquely elevated concentrations of these gases today, is of relevance with respect to the continuing debate on the
future of Earth’s climate….”

Here’s the link to the paper if you want to read the whole thing:
http://www.daycreek.com/dc/images/1999.pdf

I am glad you said you are open-minded. This is your chance to prove it.
#180 crakar24
January 14, 2010

Skip,

Re post 172,

I suspected as much, this link puts your 97% into perspective

http://w.w.w.theclimateconspiracy.com/?p=291

and i raise your 97% with this

http://w.w.w.petitionproject.org/

I am sure many people here can relate to “your” narrative. I see this type of thing here (Australia) all the time, this is nothing new the once mighty Murray which is now all but a creek is one of many examples.

re post 171, thats a tempting offer Skip, one simple apology for plagarisation and i get my triple A rating back. Hmm……what to do…..OK its a deal as long as you publicly acknowledge that Scottar and i are not the same person (for DW’s sake).

Ready? I, crakar24 would like to sincerely apologise to Skip for plagarising certain aspects of my comments in regards to CO2 residency time (HSOT). My actions, though not intentional have hurt Skip very deeply. Furthermore i will with all my endeavour try not to commit said plagarisation ever again.

Acceptable?

Now your turn.
#181 crakar24
January 14, 2010

Mandas,

Thanks for the polite rebuttal and for pointing out the errors of my ways. What i meant to say was solar wind not magnetic field (my mistake entirely).

So please feel free to respond to this post as politely as you did before:

Are climatologists aware that the solar wind around the sun is at its lowest ever recorded? Cosmic rays penetrating the Earth are increasing. Does this figure in all their calculations of climate? If not, why not? And if they do what do these climatologists figure the effects are?

This time pay attention to the words “cosmic rays”.

Best regards

Crakar24
#182 skip
January 14, 2010

I don’t think I was really “hurt”–deeply or otherwise–I would say I was getting exasperated. But thank you for that, and yes I acknowledge you are not Scottar and apologize for suggesting as much and for any damage this might have caused to either.

Now, Crakar:

You know, and I know, that this petition project is a cruel *joke*. Why try to slip this past us again? Crakar, this list contains people who have publicly *disavowed* it.

Why do this? I’m not saying you’re being a bad person right now. I’m not saying you’re plagiarizing. I’m not saying you are convict who drinks Fosters and shags sheep. I’m saying at some point you’ve got to give up when a particular horse has been kicked to death.

But I’ll check the other link since I don’t recognize it.
#183 crakar24
January 14, 2010

I used to like drinking Fosters and then one day Greg Norman started trying to sell the stuff to America. At that point the taste of the beer changed (coincedence?) Anyway from that point on it tasted like cat piss and nobody drank it anymore.

The original Fosters used to taste like what we now call a crown lager.
#184 skip
January 14, 2010

It doesn’t hurt my feelings, but why, Crakar, when you send me a link, does it have those bloody periods between the “ws” in “www”?

Is this some southern hemisphere thing?
#185 crakar24
January 14, 2010

I was not aware of any claims it was a cruel joke can you show me how it is a cruel joke?

The list was re complied in 2007 since then it is possible some scientists have disavowed it or maybe they did this before 2007, can you show me who and how many have disavowed it.

Before we start asking for apologies again, you produced a fact that 75 climatologists completed an online survey that asked 9 questions. The most important one (the one you have used to prove your case) being so vague that it gives the respondent only one logical response (although amazingly a small number chose the other WTF). There is nothing mind blowing here when you present 75 people who all answered the same vague question the same way.

I responded with an alternative, now you claim this is a cruel joke and ergo i must be a bad person. Not sure i follow you here.
#186 crakar24
January 14, 2010

If you stick dots in between the WWW then it does not recognise it as a link and you can put as many links as you like and your post appears straight away.

If anyone knows a better way to do it then please let me know, if you dont like talking them out Skip then try putting them in there and see how painful it is.

Surely there must be a better way.
#187 mandas
January 14, 2010

Crakar
Please tell me you are joking? You’re not on about this cosmic ray nonsense again are you? Isn’t it good enough for you that the very people behind the hypothesis (Kristjánsson and Svensmark) have withdrawn their own support for the idea?

Yes, that’s right. If you kept up to date and actually read science papers instead of flat earth society websites – just like I keep advising you over and over again ad nauseum – then you might realise some of these things.

Here’s the paper:
“Solar activity, cosmic rays, clouds and climate – an update, J. E. Kristjánsson, , J. Kristiansena and E. Kaas, 2004.” (so really, it isn’t all that new – just newer than the stuff from the 90s to which the denialists like to keep referring.

I know how much you hate doing research and actually reading scientific papers, so here is the conclusions from the paper to save you the effort.

“When globally averaged low cloud cover is considered, consistently higher correlations (but with opposite sign) are found between low cloud variations and solar irradiance variations than between variations in cosmic ray flux and low cloud cover……. In conclusion, the updated analysis is not inconsistent with a modulation of marine low cloud cover due to variations in solar irradiance causing changes in lower tropospheric static stability, but many details are still missing. A cosmic ray modulation seems less likely, but can not be ruled out on the basis of the present analysis.”

In other words, the low clouds are correlated with sunlight and temperature, not cosmic rays. He has discovered that the correlation he thought he saw before isn’t there, but he is still fond of his hypothesis and won’t give up without a fight.

And with regard to your correction – typing magnetic field when you meant solar wind (I can see how you could easily mistype like that) – that the solar wind is at its lowest ever recorded. How about, once again, you do a little research. Once again, to help you out, here is a link which shows you the current (yes, today!) solar wind readings. Lowest ever huh?
http://space.rice.edu/ISTP/wind.html

Now you can see why I (and everyone else here) get frustrated with you. It’s not that you can’t see, it’s that you WON’T see because you have blinkers on. And that’s a far worse crime than just being stupid.
#188 crakar24
January 14, 2010

Mandas,

Just a reminder of the questions i asked:

“Cosmic rays penetrating the Earth are increasing. Does this figure in all their calculations of climate?”

I suspect your answer is NO but the question asked did these climatologist factor in CR effects?

“If not, why not?”

You are saying that cosmic rays have absolutely no effect on climate so therefore if this level changes then it has absolutely no effect on climate, is this a correct assumption? Is this the same assumption made by these climatologists?

In regards to your comments you brought up about Svenmark, you first say he admits the theory is junk, you then quote him as saying it is still robust and you complete your character assasination by saying he knows it is junk but wont admit it. Now this could be typing errors on your part but it does cause confusion to the reader.

Mandas the sun has been at its most quiet for many many years this includes the 10.7 cm flux, solar wind, sunspots and CMEs etc. The less solar wind the more CR’s we see here on Earth, CR’s have been increasing so stop playing games OK.

In reference to your last statement, we are at opposite ends of the spectrum debating AGW on a very, very, very pro AGW site the fact that you and everyone else here treats me with utter disdain comes as no suprise in fact i would expect nothing less, why should you think any different.

As an experiment go to solarcycle24.com and air your views, not that this site is pro denier however it does have a denier leaning. There i would be the welcomed with open arms and you would quickly find yourself as the outcast (role reversal from here). Just open up your first post by calling them all flat earth society members that should get the ball rolling.

Have a good weekend Mandas
#189 mandas
January 14, 2010

crakar

Is it true that you don’t read anything before you post? Otherwise, why did you ask me about cosmic rays again after I had just explained it in detail, including a link to the applicable paper?

And could you please point out where in that quote from Kristjánsson – NOT from Svensmark (do you read ANYTHING that is posted before responding) – that he thinks his hypothesis (not a theory, it hasn’t been tested) is robust?

Let me read it again just to be sure:
“…consistently higher correlations are found between low cloud variations and solar irradiance variations than between variations in cosmic ray flux and low cloud cover….”
Nope, nothing there!!! In fact, he says quite clearly that there is no strong correlation between cosmic rays and clouds and that the correlation is stronger with solar irradiation (ie temperature and sunlight).

He concludes by saying:

“A cosmic ray modulation seems less likely, but can not be ruled out on the basis of the present analysis.”
You are obviously not a scientist, because you would understand that is code for – I can’t find sufficient evidence for my hypothesis and what evidence I do have doesn’t seem to support it. It doesn’t rule it out either, so I refuse to rule it out until I have done further work and the evidence is categorical.

And I will look at the website which has ACTUAL DAILY solar wind readings to see if it “is at its lowest ever recorded,” as you claim.
Nope, once again, it is higher now (ie today) than at other times in the past.

Finally, I have posted on flat earth websites. One I have been on recently is climategate.com. But it grows boring after a while. I like it here because most posters are reasonably well educated and generally argue their points rationally, using (gasp!) evidence. But the flat earth websites is a bit like being surrounded by dozens of you – all they do is cut and paste opinions from like minded people that they obtained from other flat earth websites. They make absolutely no attempts to research their opinions, or to read the sources of the data they like to reference, or to establish the credibility of their sources.
If you show them actual science and evidence, they just say it is all a lie and that scientists are evil blah blah blah. They are particularly fond of claiming that Al Gore is a fraud and they are going to sue him and put him in gaol. Nothing like a bit of self-deluded aggrandisement to get them through the day huh?

And I plan to have a GREAT weekend. Going fishing at Wallaroo. What about you?
#190 mandas
January 14, 2010

And if you really, truly, claiming that solar activity is at its lowest level ever recorded (let’s just accept that for a moment, even if it isn’t true), could you please explain what is causing temperature to increase?
#191 skip
January 15, 2010

So I checked out your site Crakar–after extracting the periods from the address . . . grrrrrr. They quote the *Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine* for their 30k “scientists and experts” who dispute AGW.

Crakar, have you actually visited that site? Do you actually know who those people are and what they do? They list dead people on their list of “faculty” even though they don’t even teach classes or have a campus. Their “survey” attempted to masquerade itself as coming from the National Academy of Sciences, which had nothing to do with it and has since vigorously disavowed and debunked it.

Any fool can fill out their sheet, claim to have a credential, and mail it in. Zero quality control. Many of the names are obvious duplicates (check the list), and before OISM figured it out and put an end to it people were able to add names like “Donald Duck” to the list. Many of the “experts” listed don’t even *claim* to have advanced degrees–let alone one related to climate science.

This “survey” only proves what I could have told you: There are thousands of people–many of whom with some technical training–who don’t want to believe in AGW. But I already knew that, Crakar.

Roughly half the US population doesn’t believe in AGW; among that 150+ million it is easy enough to find 30k superficially “informed” people with an opinion and a postage stamp.

AGW believers could start their own, equally asinine petition project and accumulate comparably impressive numbers in days if they wished, but we don’t.

Why? Because (1) it would be intellectually dishonest; (2) the people who actually *study* the issue have given us their overwhelming opinion as to where the science currently stands.

Your conspiracy link argued that the Doran survey does not prove “alarmism”, but I already knew that, too. And if you’d read my post, you would have noticed that *I* had acknowledged that. Your link goes on to berate AGW believers for being “religious” (the same, dumb, tired narrative you get from everyone who tries to dodge reality on this issue.) But the point of acting on climate change is to hedge against *risk*. The future, by *definition* is uncertain and lends itself to no certainties, religious or otherwise.

But back to narratives. This, Crakar, is again where you exhibit the denier mentality in a manner at once fascinating and horrifying. When reality does not suit you, you simply invert it. If a consensus of real scientists, carefully selected based on their credentials and publication records on the topic of interest, render a conclusion you don’t like, you simply cite a willy nilly list of non-experts whose selection was subject to so little rigor that Mickey Mouse was once counted among them. If you don’t like the science; fight it with non-science. Its the denier way. Its the result of a potent and well entrenched *narrative*.
#192 skip
January 15, 2010

Mandas:

Before I help my wife make lasagna for the dinner event . . .

I tried to keep up with your exchange with Crakar, but I might have missed a detail. Did Svensmark at one point come out and aggressively *predict* long term cooling as a result of his theoretical cosmic radiation mechanism?

In my hazy memory he’s been cited that way by some deniers.
#193 Scottar
January 17, 2010

Skippy:

{Well, Scottar I suspect we never will see an answer to my request that you substantiate your claim about the CRU emails. }

Well Skippy it’s you who can’t acknowledge the significance of the climategate emails on how they tried to coverup the temperature declines, instead you try to spin it away. I sourced 4 incriminating emails and still you deny the obvious. But this website really brings out the significance; you will recognize it’s by one of the guys who exposed the hockey stick for what it was, a contrived presentation to sell AGW by the IPCC and associates in crime.

http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/
http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/20/mike%E2%80%99s-nature-trick/
http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/26/the-trick/

You didn’t think you could tread BS forever on this?

And a smoking gun revelation of climategate in the U.S.:

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/01/climategate-arrives-in-the-us/

ClimateGate arrives in the US

BREAKING NEWS: Manipulated Datasets at NASA and NCDC

Just goes to show you how bogus your authority sites are. Their games are being exposed right and left. What a conniving bone head you are.

Dipplewater:

Since the news outbreak above shows that NASA and NCDC have been manipulating data sets no telling what the NSIDC does. The graph I referenced was world sea ice and it is recovering over 2005~2007 level mins. And this graph from- http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png- shows Arctic ice recovering. Looks to me it’s how the graphs are processed from the data.

From- http://ic.ucsc.edu/~acr/eart254/Doneyetal2009.pdf

“Since preindustrial times, the average ocean surface water pH has fallen by approximately 0.1 units, from approximately 8.21 to 8.10 (Royal Society 2005), and is expected to decrease a further 0.3–0.4 pH units (Orr et al. 2005) if atmospheric CO2 concentrations reach 800 ppmv [the projected end-of-century concentration according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) business-as-usual emission scenario].”

This is well within buffered norms for PH levels of the Oceans and the marine inhabitants can adapt to that. In fact the PH levels will vary with location and can be lower near river discharges contaminated with chemical runoffs.

“On a global scale, these anthropogenic inputs (0.8 Tmol/yr reactive sulfur and 2.7 Tmol/yr reactive nitrogen) contribute only a small fraction of the acidification caused by anthropogenic CO2, but they are more concentrated in coastal waters where the ecosystem responses to ocean
acidification could be more serious for humankind.”

http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid2.htm
How acidic are the oceans? shows:

The referenced graph from Scintific America shows PH varying from 7.95 to 8.2 over the global ocean areas and with seasonal changes.

I read where coastal acidification is probably more due to runoff in another publication somewhere as the seafriends site also observed.

Finally, there is this summary from your referenced publication:

“4. Our present understanding of potential ocean acidification impacts on marine organisms stems largely from short-term laboratory and mesocosm experiments; consequently, the response of individual organisms, populations, and communities to more realistic gradual
changes is largely unknown (Boyd et al. 2008).”

And the other referenced research paper conveys the same uncertainties in their research so your attempt to ‘snow me’ remains unsuccessful.

69. Revelle, R. and Suess, H. E. (1957) Tellus 9, 18-27.

Yamashita, E., Fujiwara, F., Liu, X., and Ohtaki, E. (1993) J. Oceanography 49, 559-569.

72. Schneider, D. P. et. al. (2006) Geophysical Research Letters 33, 2006GL027057. shows:

Observes that the outgassing from the past interglacial warmings far exceeds the minute CO2 levels from anthropogenic sources. So how is it shell fish creatures survived previous periods along with corals? Such bone head fear mongering on your part dipplewater.

I would reference this science supported research paper that gives a more realistic overview concerning climate change:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

And their are others.

So does anyone else care to comment besides the site inquisitors?
#194 crakar24
January 17, 2010

Mandas,

Lets step back and take a breath,

You said in post 165

“And I don’t know anyone who thinks the sun’s ‘output radiation’ hasn’t varied in the last 4 billion years. Of course it does. Everyone knows that. In fact, it used to be a LOT dimmer than it is now (sunspots not withstanding). Funnily enough, climatologists know it too. They call it ‘insolation’ and it figures in all the calculations of climate.
Anything else?”

I asked two SIMPLE questions and they were

“Are climatologists aware that the magnetic field (corrected to read solar wind) around the sun is at its lowest ever recorded? Cosmic rays penetrating the Earth are increasing. Does this figure in all their calculations of climate? If not, why not? And if they do what do these climatologists figure the effects are?”

To expand on this the questions are

1, Do the climatologists you refer to take into account the effects of galactic cosmic rays whether (stable, increasing or decreasing) on the climate?

2, If not, why not? To word this another way, if the climatologists you refer to do not beleive GCR’s have any effect on climate thus they do not figure in all their calculations then why do they think this?

Since i posed these two very simple questions you have talked about svenmarks theory, questioned the suns activity but have not yet actually answered the very simple questions. Now if you dont know the answers then simply say so, i will think no less of you if you do not know the answers in fact if you dont know then maybe we could work TOGETHER in finding out the answer. As of now we have achieved nothing.

I suggest we either try and answer the questions or we drop this trivial argument all together.

This link shows that GCR’s are increasing hence the question

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33076128

How did you go fishing at Wallaroo catch anything?
#195 mandas
January 17, 2010

crakar
Pleasant things first.
Fishing was not bad. Whiting etc aren’t biting at the moment, but got quite a few garfish. The crabs are almost jumping into the boat though. Pulled the net in once and there were 4 blue swimmers in it, so pretty happy all in all.
As far as your questions are concerned:
Are scientists aware of changes to the solar wind, cosmic rays etc? Of course they are – that’s how we become aware of it as well. In fact, it’s the scientists who tell us, not vice versa.
So do I know exactly what factors are in all the climate models and what each climatologist accounts for in their calculations? Answer, no of course I don’t – I’m not a climatologist.
But, regarding cosmic rays being included in the calculations you also asked, ‘if not, why not?’ I think I answered that question for you, by showing that the hypothesis of cosmic rays causing cloud formation has not been proven (did you read the papers I referred you to?). In other words, unless it can be shown that cosmic rays influence climate (and it hasn’t been), and if they do, then by how much, then how or why would you include in any calculations?
So in one respect you are absolutely correct – it’s a trivial argument and we should drop it, because it has no bearing on anything. Unless you have more information than the rest of the scientific community?
#196 mandas
January 17, 2010

skip
In all my reading of Svensmark, I can’t find anything where he has made bold predictions about the future. He does state that he believes there is a correlation between cosmic rays and cloud cover, but he did change his approach relatively recently to include galactic factors (the earth passing through a spiral arm of the galaxy) in this paper:
“Imprint of Galactic dynamics on Earth’s climate”.

However, in all his papers he is relatively cautious about making predictions (as any good scientist would be), because he cannot show strong correlations, and the boldest I have read in his papers is that there would be a pause in climate change. This is from a 2004 paper entitled:
“Solar Influence on Earth’s Climate”

“…If the GCR-Cloud link is confirmed variations in galactic cosmic ray flux, caused by changes in solar activity and the space environment, could influence Earth’s radiation budget…”

Note the “If” and the “could”. Not exactly definitive. However, in his media life, he seems to be more forthcoming, and I am sure this would be seized on by the flat earthers.

The problem for Svensmark is that, while he may still be wedded to his hypothesis, people are queuing up to prove him wrong. There are lots of papers out there which show any correlation breaks down after about 1993, and any supposed causative mechanism just doesn’t exist. Here are a couple for interest:

http://folk.uio.no/jegill/papers/2002GL015646.pdf

http://homepages.eawag.ch/~living/downloads/2001/Wagner%20et%20al%202001.pdf
#197 crakar24
January 17, 2010

How are you Skip,

I see Arizona is out and i have no one left to barrack for now. Oh well there is always next year.

I read your post and will try to respond in a way that does not suggest any inproprietry on my behalf.

In response to the claim that dead people are on the list in the FAQ section 7 it reads

” Are any of the listed signers dead?

In a group of more than 30,000 people, deaths are a frequent occurrence. The Petition Project has no comprehensive method by which it is notified about deaths of signatories. When we do learn of a death, an “*” is placed beside the name of the signatory. For examples, Edward Teller, Arnold Beckman, Philip Abelson, William Nierenberg, and Martin Kamen are American scientists who signed the Petition and are now deceased.”

Section 6

“6. Does the petition project list contain duplicate names?

Thousands of scientists have signed the petition more than once. These duplicates have been carefully removed from the petition list. The list contains many instances of scientists with closely similar and sometimes identical names, as is statistically expected in a list of this size, but these signers are different people, who live at different addresses, and usually have different fields of specialization. Primarily as a result of name and address variants, occasional duplicate names are found in the list. These are immediately removed.”

Section 9 reads

“9. Why was the review article published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons?

The authors chose to submit this article for peer-review and publication by the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons because that journal was willing to waive its copyright and permit extensive reproduction and distribution of the article by the Petition Project.”

Section 5 reads

“5. Does the petition list contain names other than those of scientist signers?

Opponents of the petition project sometimes submit forged signatures in efforts to discredit the project. Usually, these efforts are eliminated by our verification procedures. On one occasion, a forged signature appeared briefly on the signatory list. It was removed as soon as discovered.

In a group of more than 30,000 people, there are many individuals with names similar or identical to other signatories, or to non-signatories – real or fictional. Opponents of the petition project sometimes use this statistical fact in efforts to discredit the project. For examples, Perry Mason and Michael Fox are scientists who have signed the petition – who happen also to have names identical to fictional or real non-scientists.”

There are Earl W Duck, Kenneth L. Duck but no Donald as far as i can tell.

From the section titled “How the petition is circulated”

“How Petition is Circulated

This petition is primarily circulated by U. S. Postal Service mailing to scientists. Included in this mailing are the petition card, the letter from Frederick Seitz, the review article, and a return envelope. If a scientist wishes to sign, he fills out the petition and mails it to the project by first class mail.

Additionally, many petition signers obtain petition cards from their colleagues, who request these cards from the project.

A scientist can also obtain a copy of the petition from this Internet website, sign, and mail it. Fewer than 5% of the current signatories obtained their petition in this way.

Petition project volunteers evaluate each signers’s credentials, verify signer identities, and, if appropriate, add the signer’s name to the petition list.”

Now lets assume that your assumptions are correct and all 31,486 signers are all bogus in some way, does this make sense to you?

Narratives:

What all this shows us is that your 76 v my (insert prefered amount here) add up to diddly squat. You point to a show of hands as proof and all that refuse to put their hand up are nutjobs/crazies/big oil etc. You claim that you do not understand the science so you are at the mercy of the consensus, thats fair enough i accept your position.

But this is where your narrative explanation of everyone who disagrees with your “the end of the world is nigh” POV falls down.

Cheers

Crakar24
#198 mandas
January 17, 2010

Crakar
Why oh why won’t you do any basic research?

As far as this petition nonsense goes, how about you look a little more deeply than the FAQ on their website. It’s ok, I will do it for you as usual.

The “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine” is dedicated to a proposal called “Revolutionising Diagnostic Medicine” that “makes possible the transfer of diagnostic medicine away from the medical monopoly and into the hands of medical consumers.” In other words, people diagnosing their own illnesses over the internet. (what a GREAT idea!!!!!!)

The climate paper, supposedly circulated with the petition, is entitled:
“Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide”.
It has not been peer reviewed and has not appeared in any publication. It included gems like this:

“Atmospheric temperature is regulated by the sun, which fluctuates in activity as shown in Figure 3; by the greenhouse effect, largely caused by atmospheric water vapor (H2O); and by other phenomena that are more poorly understood.” (OH REALLY??)

“First, it would be necessary to determine what temperature humans feel is optimum. It is unlikely that the chosen temperature would be exactly that which we have to day. Second, we would be fortunate if natural forces were to make the Earth too warm rather than too cold be cause we can cool the Earth with relative ease.” (THEY MUST BE JOKING!!)

It was written be these three people:

“Professor Arthur Robinson carries out laboratory research on the deamidation of peptides and proteins and on the development of new analytical methods for the clinical laboratory. He also works on the development of home schooling techniques and on the public dissemination of information on civil defense.” (civil defence huh?)

“Professor Noah Robinson carries out laboratory research on the deamidation of peptides and proteins and on the development of new analytical methods for the clinical laboratory. He also works on the development of Robinson home schooling techniques, which are used by more than 60,000 American students, and on the public dissemination of information on civil defense.” (I can see a pattern emerging)

Willie Wei-Hock Soon (born 1966) is an astrophysicist at the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. In 2003 Willie Soon was first author on a review paper in the journal Climate Research, with Sallie Baliunas as co-author. This paper concluded that “the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium. Shortly thereafter, 13 authors of papers cited by Soon and Baliunas disputed that interpretation of their work. Half of the editorial board of Climate Research, the journal that published the paper, resigned in protest against what they felt was a failure of the peer review process on the part of the journal. The study by Soon and Baliunas was funded in part by the American Petroleum Institute, receiving a total of $53,000 from them. At the time Soon and Baliunas were also paid consultants of the Marshall Institute.” (good job there Willie)

If this is the quality of the people you rely on for your opinions, I can see why you are part of the flat earth society. This is, to be frank, moronic!!!
#199 mandas
January 17, 2010

God this is fun.
I thought I would do some more research on the so-called petition, and decided to check up on some of the names to find out their field of research etc.

I initially planned to do quite a few, but I was laughing so much after the first one that I couldn’t go on. To be fair, I started in alphabetical order with the first name in the list: Earl M Aargaard PhD

This is from his website:
“Dr. Earl Aagaard, of Pacific Union Colleges biology department, wrote The Importance of the Intelligent Design Theory for Seventh-day Adventists. He invites us to vaccinate ourselves against all seductive materialistic influences and to make it abundantly clear that we accept the Bible account of Creation as true.”

I think that’s enough said.
ROFLMFAO
#200 crakar24
January 17, 2010

Thanks for the response Mandas, i dont suppose you can supply me with a list of the 76 people (wow that many) that skip was referring to? Or are we to assume that they are all leaders in their field of science and are therefore above scrutiny?

I see how you have picked two people that are educated but not directly related to climatology, good work only 31,479 to go get back to me when you have another update.

Oh by the way here is a list of people not directly related to the field of climatology that run around telling everyone that AGW is gunna gitcha.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Climate-Change—Celebrities-Weigh-In-On-Global-Warming&id=1041536

We also have someone that has absolutely no links to climatology telling us AGW is here to stay and he is a scientologist (Crazy religious freak just like Aagaard only except Travolta would know shit from clay about anything, oh thats right he can fly a plane)

http://w.w.w.thisislondon.co.uk/showbiz/article-23390848-with-five-private-jets-travolta-still-lectures-on-global-warming.do

I like the way that you lecture people about who we should and should not believe so here is one for you.

http://insciences.org/article.php?article_id=8012

This link tells us that galactic cosmic rays deplete Ozone and as Ozone is a greenhouse gas then by definition GCR’s do infact affect the climate the author goes onto say that CFC’s and GCR’s are the main players in causing the planet to warm and not CO2.

Now i am trying to figure out what is wrong with this study for example:

The study is peer reviewed, maybe the Uni of Waterloo is crap and no one listens to them, maybe QBL is a dithering idiot. I know the demigods over on RC have debunked it but was the debunking peer reviewed? No it was not so that cant count. Please Mandas tell me why YOU are right and QBL is wrong.

Oh just had a thought maybe he or the Uni is funded by big oil? speaking of which you claim Soon got 53 grand for his paper gee whiz thats a lot of money i wonder how much the boys over at CRU get every year to produce their results, i wonder how much money has been poured into the pig trough of AGW over the years to scientists whose soul job is to prove CO2 did it.

You are a joke Mandas.
#201 Marco
January 17, 2010

@Crakar24:
QBL is a rambling idiot, but unfortunately some journals are incapable of finding the right reviewers. And with “right” I mean people who can see the many flaws. The rabett has written some stuff:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/01/commander-coincidence.html
and I especially point your attention to some of the criticism QBL has already received. Read those, if you don’t like the Rabett’s snark.

Of course, QBL’s paper is quite a problematic issue for the deniosphere. While it can be heralded as ‘proof’ there will be no further warmer, it:
a) does claim humans are responsible
b) actually links CFC and ozone breakdown, which, according to a fair share of AGW deniers (Fred Singer to name but one), is a hoax, too…

But I am more than likely talking to a tree, considering you do mention ozone as a greenhouse gas, but fail to see that CFCs are too. Moreover, the breakdown of ozone takes place in the stratosphere, which is irrelevant for the greenhouse effect…
#202 skip
January 18, 2010

Scottar: Come on, man. Did you really read your own links? (I only read the first, to be fair.)

I admit I’ve never read anything by McIntyre at length; this was my first venture. Crakar’s been giving me a lot of shit about that over the last few months but I can’t be everywhere at once.

Anyway, he uses the word “decline” 18 times in that link before he ever gets to the real issue of the “divergence problem”, which he never even defines for his readers. The latter, if you read their gleeful comments posted below the link, show that they, too, do not understand the issue.

McIntyre was either

(a) deliberately spinning the issue and choosing his wordings very carefully to maximize the effect of his deception.
(b) doesn’t get it himself because he’s just dumb.
(c) is just kind of a crazy old guy who has fallen into this self-assigned role of “Climate Auditor”–cape flowing, capital “A” on chest, rescuing the innocent from AGW marauders, and it clouds his judgment.

I lean toward (c).

The expression I use for this process is “dogma propping”. Someone told you this link proves data fraud and you linked it to me without vetting it.

Scottar: The “decline” refers to the “divergence” of the correlation between tree ring data and temperatures. It does not refer to temperature.

Did you follow?

One more time: The “decline” refers to the “divergence” of the correlation between tree ring data and temperatures. It does not refer to temperature.

Anyone with a passing familiarity with this issue knew this, and yet, what did *you* think it proved?

Well Skippy it’s you who can’t acknowledge the significance of the climategate emails on how they tried to coverup the temperature declines,

After which you linked McIntyre.

Scottar: Even so-called *skeptics* acknowledge that temps have gone up since the period of the “decline” that was “hidden”. Bjorn Lomborg admits it (but says its cheaper to adapt than reduce carbon); Freeman Dyson concedes it (but proposes alternative methods of biologic sequestration), Richard Lindzen concedes it (but claims the effect is so minor and so within natural variation cycles that it poses no threat). Fred Singer concedes it (but claims its part of a natural variation cycle.)

You’ve stuck this clumsy foot in your mouth without carefully considering what the “conspiracy” claimers were really saying and how inane it is in context. Its all because you were dogma propping; you were linking a source you didn’t even understand.

Of the other “four” emails you cited (and yes the second time you cited “three” and I missed it; you were right on that), one was a duplicate “nature trick . . . . hide the decline”, and the other I know you have idea what it means: (‘fake it’ . . . columns 2,3, 5, etc.) I know I don’t.

I repeat the assertions I made before: You read *none* of these emails but blithely believed the sources who screamed fraud. Now you’re linking them without vetting them. Your cavalier acceptance of the Trenberth quote and your complete misunderstanding of the “hide the decline” statement betray this. You just flat out don’t know what you’re talking about, Scottar.

Crakar:

Donald Duck is no longer listed as a signatory because OISM figured out that names like that were making them look stupid. That’s the whole point, Crakar. The fact that you claim your “30 thousand” trumps my 79 experts in climatology shows that this fundamental point is lost on you.

Let me rephrase my earlier comment on this as a rhetorical question. If AGW believers were so inclined, do you think we would have *any* problem producing a survey just like OISMs? Any *fool* can join OISM’s petition, Crakar. Anyone.

The Doran survey was of scientists. The OISM “survey” was a recruitment pitch for anyone opposed to AGW. They are not in the same league. They are not even in the same sport.
#203 mandas
January 18, 2010

crakar
Once again, this (post #200) is why I keep telling you to do your research rather than just relying on newspaper reports and cut-and-paste from denialist websites for your opinions.

The people I referred to in my post(#198) are the authors of the supposed study circulated with the petition. Surely you knew that? If not, why not? I mean, I did say it quite clearly in my post. The idiot I referred to in post #199 was the first name on the list of signatories of the petition. You know, the one where:
“…Petition project volunteers evaluate each signers’s credentials, verify signer identities, and, if appropriate, add the signer’s name to the petition list…” according to your post #197.

I know it’s important for you to keep grasping at straws every time we shoot down your latest version of why climate change is all a myth, but could you please, please, please actually read some of the things you refer to as ‘proof’ before attempting to post them here.

To be fair, I am a scientist and have access to all the papers referred to in some of these articles (such as the link the bottom of the newspaper report on cosmic rays and CFCs), rather than just the abstract that most people can access. You might want to subscribe to some of these publications yourself; it might give you an education beyond high school. But on to the article itself.

If you had read the paper by Lu, rather than just the newspaper article you might have discovered a few interesting things. Far from ‘proving’ a link between cosmic rays, CFCs and climate change as asserted in the newspaper article, the paper raises a couple of points which may warrant further investigation, and also dismisses some others. Have a read of these gems:

“…Most recently, simulations by Pierce and Adams showed that changes in cloud condensation nuclei concentrations from changes in CRs during a CR cycle are two orders of magnitude too small to account for the observed changes in cloud properties. They hence concluded that the CR–cloud effect is too small to play a significant role in current climate change…” (in other words, Lu believes Svensmark is wrong)

“…It is therefore important to have more careful studies of the effects of CFCs and CRE-driven ozone depletion on global climate. For this purpose, the southern hemisphere (SH), northern hemisphere (NH) and global surface temperatures are plotted together with the EESC from 1850 to 2009 in Fig. 21. The EESC data prior to 1970 were not measured and were hence calculated by extrapolating the observed data of 1970–1980, assuming an identical growth rate….” (he has made a HUGE assumption here, that needs to be validated for his hypothesis can even be considered further)

“…The CRE-driven ozone depletion is expected to decrease after 2010 due to the CR cycles, but the EESC will keep decreasing, as shown in Fig. 22(b). If the above observation is confirmed, then we expect to observe a continued decrease in global surface temperature—“global cooling”. That is, global warming observed in the late 20th century may be reversed with the coming decades….” (this is his prediction based on an assumption – it is NOT proof of anything).

So you want to know what’s wrong with the study? Why don’t you read it for yourself? I did, and apart from the lack of ‘definitive proof’, the study just makes a suggestion that further research is required before any conclusions can be drawn. And I have looked at the data and the supposed correlations between CRs and global temperature, and they are VERY weak indeed.

So, as you suggest, I may be a joke, but at least I base my opinions on informed analysis and first reading the things that I refer to. If that makes me a joke, then I’m happy to live with that. You, on the other hand… well, someone who’s opinions are based on a complete lack of evidence or rationality…. you must be a priest, right??
#204 crakar24
January 18, 2010

Mandas,

A priest? Ok i apologise for the “joke” comment it was unwarranted i did read the abstract not the newspaper article if that helps.

But now we come to the crux of the problem, we are told that the IPCC are the worlds leading authority on climate or climate change this is because their conclusions are based on peer reviewed research and if its peer reviewed then it must be a valid study etc. Ok i can accept that train of thought.

Now QBL has produced a peer reviewed study that claims GCR’s can have an influence on Ozone and this combined with CFC’s can or may account for the warming since the 70′s?

But suddenly QBL is an idiot and the peer review process is flawed (Marco 201) now you are telling me that the study is flawed reinforcing Marco’s statement. So the question is are all peer reviewed studies flawed? Or just the ones that you fellas dont agree with?

What about all peer reviewed studies the IPCC use to come to their conclusions are they all flawed, or just a handful? We know of at least one dont we, you know the one about glaciers gone by 2035, that one was based on pure speculation but never fear we are told the science is still solid.

I dont know how robust QBL’s work is Mandas but if you tell me it is full of assumptions then i will accept that, if as you say you have access to this type of thing then maybe you can cut and paste selected comments from the paper that shows empirical evidence of water vapour acting as a very strong +ve feed back to CO2 increase that will cause the if unchecked runaway global warming. While you are at it maybe you could show the research in defining and measuring (empirical) the mysterious tipping points that we hear so much of.

If not then thats OK just say i cant find any.

regards

Crakar24
#205 mandas
January 18, 2010

crakar
By your comments it appears that misunderstand what the peer review process actually is.

Papers go through the peer review process prior to publication. It is a ‘gross error’ check to ensure the paper is properly constructed (there is a format for all scientific papers), is not obviously plagiarised or does not contain other ethical or legal problems, is relevant (ie not a medical paper in a physics journal), and appears to be robust in its analysis. Note I said ‘appears to be’. It is not the job of the peer review process to conduct a detailed analysis of the paper. That comes after publication. The peer review process is not ‘flawed’, any more than anything else is flawed. Sometimes things slip through the cracks. But that is normal in any process.

Once a paper is published, that’s when the fun begins, and why all this nonsense about ‘global conspiracy’ is so laughable. The greatest sport that scientists like to play is to prove each other wrong – it is impossible for any conspiracy or fraud to stand up for very long. Every claim in a paper is analysed and dissected by other scientists; the data is checked and experiments are repeated to see if they can be verified. If they cannot, the paper will be criticised in letters or other papers, and the process continues until the ideas are either accepted or rejected.

Just because Lu has made some claims in a peer reviewed paper does not make them fact. The paper passed all the tests for peer review, but is not surviving post-publication because other scientists are discovering flaws in the analysis because of things Lu did not take into account, or could not reasonably be expected to have known. That’s why we publish things, and it is how science progresses.

The IPCC reports are not science papers in the strictest sense. They are – essentially – what we would call a literature review. These are – or should be – the first process conducted by any scientist proposing to research a subject to determine what has been done before, and what the current thinking on the subject is. The problem with any literature review is that they are at the mercy of any errors or ommissions in the original research. That’s why I keep saying over and over again to check the source material. If you want to read the IPCC report, you should also read the references to ensure that they are being correctly interpreted. In some cases, it would appear they have not been. Also, science moves on. The IPCC has been around for nearly 20 years. Things have changed in that time.

I don’t believe Lu (QBL) is an idiot. But I do believe he developed an interesting hypothesis and has done a lot of work on a particular topic, and has therefore got a lot invested in his idea. It is human nature to protect your work, even in the face of evidence it is flawed. Unfortunately for him, it now appears that some of his ideas aren’t not stacking up under scutiny. He will move on eventually or will just make himself irrelevant.

As far as doing all your research for you and pasting the information here, I would recommend you do some wider reading. There is plenty of data on the topic out there, and a lot of papers are freely available in their entirety. Just use Google Scholar.
#206 crakar24
January 18, 2010

Skip,

The fundamental point is that a show of hands proves absolutely nothing as a show of hands cannot be considered as empirical evidence just think about that next time before you throw a list of 76 people at me.

To answer your question yes anyone could throw a list of names together similar to OISM just as they could ask a vague question vague enough to get the answer desired and then claim the poll actually is meaningful.

Regards

Crakar24

PS..Skip can you tell me how they work out which four teams are in each division, Seattle, SF, Arizona and St Louis are nowhere near each other so how did they work all this out?
#207 mandas
January 18, 2010

crakar
Good question on the NFL – but research gives the answer:
http://www.rauzulusstreet.com/football/profootball/nflhistory.htm
#208 skip
January 19, 2010

All I know is they were trying to find a division shitty enough for the ‘Hawks to compete and it still didn’t work.
#209 skip
January 19, 2010

show of hands cannot be considered as empirical evidence

As written I agree. But this is a dodge. The question is, to *whom* should we consult when formulating public policy regarding a potential threat like AGW? Neither of us has any way of gaining direct “empirical evidence” on the issue.

A majority of medical researchers say chronic alcohol abuse is associated with liver, pancreas, and even brain disease. But this is just a “show of hands”, so can I safely assume I can immerse myself in a fifth of Beefeaters a night, confident that no one has threatened me with “empirical evidence”?

And don’t come back with, “Those researchers have published their empirical evidence through peer review,” because that’s the bloody point. That’s why I trust them. And I guarantee I could find 30 thousand signatories swearing all those researchers are wrong just by soliciting a petition through ModernDrunkard.com or similar suitable site.

Whom do you trust and why? I’ve told you my answer to that: Specialists in climate science, a majority of whom affirm the fundamentals of AGW.

There was nothing vague about the questions pursuant to the conclusions reached. Nothing. You’re just parroting what your conspiracy site said: that the questions answers do not demonstrate “alarmist” scenarios or that there are not potentially other factors affecting climate change. But I already knew that. This is another straw man.
#210 crakar24
January 20, 2010

Mandas,

Re apology, do you want to give me a hand here?

Luckily i am here as i have left Skip hanging in the lurch, although your analogies are a little simplistic i do get your drift and yes you do pose a good question.

I suppose i could start by saying that if you/we have a very good understanding of something then we can predict/diagnose the problem. For example the link between liver disease and alchoholism is well understood so it would not matter how many people at ModernDrunkard.com (LOL) beg to differ. In this case the consensus that says drinking excessively will lead to liver disease would be quite strong.

On the other hand many, many years ago a doctor suggested if all doctors washed their hands before delivering a baby the infant mortality rate would decrease, the consensus of the day handed him his hat and laughed him out of the room. One hundred years later doctors started to wash their hands and infant mortality decreased. In this case the experts who form the consensus had no or very little understanding of diseases so therefore they could not predict/diagnose the problem.

And so now we turn to climate science, would you consider the science to be well understood? I have mentioned many times where the science is a little fuzzy, i can list them again if you want.

The point is do we know enough to make an accurate prediction or diagnosis? You may feel we do but i do not, this maybe the fundemental difference between us. Many studies which claim global warming is here or just around the corner make assumptions the “2035″ gaffe and climate sensitivity are good examples, these assumptions are made because the science is not fully understood.

Crakar24
#211 skip
January 21, 2010

The point is do we know enough to make an accurate prediction or diagnosis?

Vague and evasive.

It depends what you mean by “prediction” and “diagnosis”. If you mean the temperature on October 4th, 2019, in Eugene, Oregon, at 3:45 PM, then no, we we can’t predict that. But will global mean temps, *on average* be higher from now until . . . .oh lets pick a year . . . 2050 . . then yes, the science absolutely *does* give us an answer.

Many studies which claim global warming is here or just around the corner make assumptions the “2035″ gaffe and and climate sensitivity are good examples,

Wrong, Crakar.

I will not let you walk with that one. The whole point was that the IPCC made a mistake because that was *not*–repeat, *not* based on a study. Thats exactly why they apologized and acknowledged the error–something you’ll never see from Lord Monckton or Chris Horner, shameless liars though they be.
#212 skip
January 21, 2010

PS

What happened to Scottar?

Crakar, you naughty boy!

Did you take him out drinking and leave him a wreck? I’m sure in y’alls home town in OZ there’s a bar that has Denier Happy Hour.
#213 crakar24
January 21, 2010

Skip,

I may have mislead you here slightly, i accept that the 2035 gaffe may be a one off, my greater concern is with the understanding or lack thereof of how the climate works. I do not accept that we know enough to make a prediction out to 2050.

It is OK to make these predictions as a scientific exercise but not when you have morons like KRudd formulating great green taxation policy based on it.

By the way the rail road engineer may have aplolgised, albeit begrudgingly after he accused the Indian Gov of “Voodoo Science” among other things and only once he had finalised is “grant money” which by the way some of it came from KRudd himself, ie my tax dollars.

The last time i saw Scottar was out the front of Jupiters casino at 2:00 am last Saturday morning after the annual flat Earth society ball, he had a blonde under each arm, a bottle of Dom Pereion in one hand and motel keys in the other.
#214 Scottar
January 24, 2010

Cracker24

Can you believe Skippy’s response to my rebuttal? LOL is that guy demented or what.

Skip:
McIntyre was either:

(a) deliberately spinning the issue and choosing his wordings very carefully to maximize the effect of his deception.

(b) doesn’t get it himself because he’s just dumb.

(c) is just kind of a crazy old guy who has fallen into this self-assigned role of “Climate Auditor”–cape flowing, capital “A” on chest, rescuing the innocent from AGW marauders, and it clouds his judgment.

Well I guess the Wegman council must be crazy too when they validated McKitrick and McIntyre’s criticisms of the hockey stick back in 2005. What hubris on skip’s part. He sounds like BO when he blames Bush from everything from a to z when things don’t go right. And notice how he talks to me like I’m a 7th grader. What a jerk! I don’t think he even reads what I link to.

Hey and now I read where the US has its own climategate:

Manipulated Datasets at NASA and NCDC-

“There were around 6,000 thermometers 20 or 30 years ago in the global data set, but in 1989-1990, the number of thermometers were reduced to around 1,500. A new study shows a dramatic pattern of artificial adjustments in the way these thermometers were included or deleted. Jonathon Coleman announced the study results tonight on his blog and also in his broadcast.”

But skip will resurrect the flawed and cooked GISS/NDCD temp charts and point, thee-thee, it’s da temps! If anyone had any sense they would realize temps don’t indicate the actual heat, it’s where they get the temps from. If you want a real indicator of warming then the oceans SST would be the best indicator. Next to that would be total sea ice and troposphere measurements.

I’ve just given up on any intelligent discussion on this site with Skip and DW spinning it and misrepresenting the real science by degrading anything that doesn’t support their views. It’s like trying to argue with the old Catholic Inquisition where they would put you to some drawn out lingering death for disagreeing with the OFFICIALS! “Only a priest or the Pope can talk to GOD!” It’s a bunch of fear mongering denial for some deeper reason hidden.

But if you want something to really bash over their heads cracker ask them to explain the findings of this Chemist. I’ve done the research and he’s basically right:

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/12/diy-ocean-heating

It’s an eye opener.

Good luck with this site of quacks Cracker, sooner or later the coming events will strip them of their claim and they will end up as part of the big dung heep of history, unless the climate Inquisition can invoke the fairness doctrine censuring. Some Politicians and ENRON wannabes have much to lose.
#215 Marco
January 24, 2010

Scottar: your industrial chemist would be fired if his bosses see how he fails to understand the basics of the greenhouse effect. Hint: it is not the atmosphere that heats the ocean, it is the atmosphere that reduces the heat loss of the ocean. Failing to understand this simple fact shows your industrial chemist to either be a hoaxer, or suffering from a major case of Dunning-Kruger. In neither case his work is to be trusted.
#216 skip
January 24, 2010

Can you believe Skippy’s response to my rebuttal? LOL is that guy demented or what.

All:

Please observe, when Scottar was refuted regarding the meaning of “hide the decline” and his own source’s misrepresentation of it–a link which he did not read, he resorted to an insult, diverted the subject to the decade old non-issue of Wegman and the hockey stick, GISS data, etc.)

(Anyone lurking chime in if you wish to see these discussions elsewhere.)

What a jerk! I don’t think he even reads what I link to.

No. I actually did; it was clearly Scottar who does not even read his own links.

I’ve just given up on any intelligent discussion on this site with Skip

Then Scottar should take on someone else and try for it with them. Its clear from the strategy–insults, diversions, rhetoric–that Scottar knows he’s been torched.

(Anyone interested please read the previous exchange if you doubt this.)

But that’s the purpose of this forum.
#217 Dappledwater
January 24, 2010

“Jonathon Coleman announced the study results tonight on his blog and also in his broadcast” – Scrottar.

And that would be the guy that says AGW is a giant hoax right?.

http://www.uscentrist.org/about/issues/environment/john_coleman

“But if you want something to really bash over their heads cracker ask them to explain the findings of this Chemist. I’ve done the research and he’s basically right” – Scrottar

And yet the oceans have warmed. Well, so much for industrial chemistry as a basis for understanding climate science:

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
#218 mandas
January 24, 2010

Scottar
Wow, that industrial chemist either has an agenda or is a complete moron. I am leaning towards both. Firstly, he wrote his article for Quadrant, which is a bunch of far right wing nutjobs. Second, he makes statements like this in his article:

“….If you ran a cold bath and then tried to heat it by putting a dozen heaters in the room, does anyone believe that the water would ever get hot?….”

Well yeah, well I for one believe that. I tend to think that, even if it took a long time, eventually the air in the room and the water would reach thermal equilibrium. Or didn’t he learn that at high school?

He also says completely moronic things like this:

“… When the clouds clear and bathe us in sunlight, we don’t take off our jumper because of greenhouse heating of the atmosphere, but because of the direct heat caused by the sunlight on our body. The sun’s influence is direct, obvious, and instantaneous….”

So, I am guessing from this that polar explorers should take off their clothes every time the sun shines. Or alternatively (and more likely) he doesn’t appear to understand the basic difference between light and heat. And this is the guy you are basing your opinions on? How about you go away and learn a little science as well.
#219 skip
January 24, 2010

Mandas:

No way.

No way this guy said anything that dumb. I give even Scottar more credit than that. Any chance you’re quoting the wrong thing?

Scottar: Is this what your link really said? My wife’s PC is loading with excruciating slowness now and I cannot check. But please tell me no.

Skip
#220 GFW
January 25, 2010

Oh man, where to begin with that Quadrant article.

First, the author implicitly (and nearly explicitly) assumes that the direction of energy flow is sun->air->ocean. This is mostly not true. The air is transparent to most of the sun’s energy, so the energy flow is mostly sun->ocean&land->air.

Then he does the direct heating “trick” in which the energy output of human power sources is compared to the amount of energy necessary to heat the ocean. The point of this trick is to ignore the greenhouse gasses emitted by those power sources – which will have thousands of times the heating effect as the original power output. (Remember that was the same trick as used in “solar panels are black”.)

Then, completely unnecessarily, the author says something so unscientific it’s like he’s trying to see what he can get away with. He says that because the heat capacity of the ocean is 4000 times that of the atmosphere, one would have to heat the atmosphere 4000 degrees to heat the ocean 1 degree.

Most of us are just laughing by now, but let me spell it out for anyone who read that and nodded agreement. What it really means is that in order to heat both the atmosphere and the ocean by 1 degree, 4000 times as much energy would have to pass through the atmosphere on its way to the ocean as would wind up in the atmosphere. We know that. It’s what is happening. (Although there’s the technical issue that 4000 would be the long term equilibrium number. On decadal scales it’s lower because the oceans take a long time to fully equilibrate.)

I hope any other industrial chemists reading that article are embarrassed by the narrowness of their colleague’s education, and lack of physical reasoning.
#221 skip
January 25, 2010

Hold on now, boys. Scottar tells us

I’ve done the research and he’s basically right . . . It’s an eye opener.

Our discussant stakes his own reputation on this article so lets give him a chance to rebut.

Oh, thats right . . . this is the same contributor who told us that the “hide the decline” email referred to temperature and that Trenberth’s “travesty” comment disproved AGW.
#222 mandas
January 25, 2010

skip
I’m afraid so, the article provided by scottar was written by someone who appears to have zero grasp of science. But then again, I guess the guy is a denialist and science has never figured largely in any of their opinions.
#223 Scottar
March 14, 2010

Skippy

All:

Please observe, when Scottar was refuted regarding the meaning of “hide the decline” and his own source’s misrepresentation of it–a link which he did not read, he resorted to an insult, diverted the subject to the decade old non-issue of Wegman and the hockey stick, GISS data, etc.)

Then Scottar should take on someone else and try for it with them. Its clear from the strategy–insults, diversions, rhetoric–that Scottar knows he’s been torched.

Scottar:

Well no Skippy, I got tired talking to a AGW fundie thumping believer and denier, and I had better things to do then continuously go round in circles with a jerk like you who tries to spin the facts into something else….. hoping to fool the lazy and gullible casual readers. But you don’t fool me as I have too much experience with the crap Congress tries to fool us with.

Here’s one site that put all the emails and events together:

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/climategate/history/climategate_timeline_banner_2000.gif

and they have a pdf of it too.

Just what part of hide the decline a temp trick do you not understand?. They misrepresented the tree ring proxies to try and scam a contrived hockey temp graph on the public. Not going to work Skippy boy.

And Phil Jones now basically admits there has been no warming in the last 15 years and yes Virginia, there was a Medieval Warm period. You can look it up on icecap.us as you need to be exposed to the right stuff.

Dippledwater:
And yet the oceans have warmed. Well, so much for industrial chemistry as a basis for understanding climate science:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

Scottar:
Isn’t that amazing how the graph follow the Suns present lack of activity. And look, the ice is coming back:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

Mandas:
Well yeah, well I for one believe that. I tend to think that, even if it took a long time, eventually the air in the room and the water would reach thermal equilibrium. Or didn’t he learn that at high school?

Scottar:
So if one waited till cobwebs formed off their nose the water would eventually get to room temp. But the extras GHG effect is suppose to have accelerated the global warming process. By your measures it would take centuries, not decades.

Mandas:
Or alternatively (and more likely) he doesn’t appear to understand the basic difference between light and heat. And this is the guy you are basing your opinions on? How about you go away and learn a little science as well.

Scottar:
Well Mandas, you the one who needs to learn some science on solar physics. Ever hear of a hot body and black body spectral emission graph? Look it up on wikipedia. Most of the Suns energy is concentrated in the light spectrum. It’s that portion the various objects and Earth absorb and reradiate as IR or heat energy, including the skin. Where did you get educated anyway?

Hey Cracker, those blonds kept me so busy I didn’t have time to get back directly. Sorry bout that. But I didn’t miss tangling with these buffoons at all. But you know I just can’t let a drinken buddy down.

National Geographic SocietyIn partnership with

Advertisement

Science Blogs

Search National Geographic

A Few Things Ill Considered

Revisiting CO2 Lags, not Leads

Comments

Post a comment

Search This Blog

My Best Work (yes, it is old)

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

The Bottleneck Years by H. E. Taylor – Chapter 41

Another Week of Anthropocene Antics – May 19, 2013

The Bottleneck Years by H. E. Taylor – Chapter 40

Another Week of Anthropocene Antics, May 12, 2013

The Bottleneck Years by H. E. Taylor – Chapter 39

Sitemeter

Archives

Categories

Meta

National Geographic SocietyIn partnership with

Advertisement

Science Blogs

Search National Geographic

A Few Things Ill Considered

Revisiting CO2 Lags, not Leads

Comments

Post a comment

Search This Blog

Subscribe

My Best Work (yes, it is old)

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

The Bottleneck Years by H. E. Taylor – Chapter 41

Another Week of Anthropocene Antics – May 19, 2013

The Bottleneck Years by H. E. Taylor – Chapter 40

Another Week of Anthropocene Antics, May 12, 2013

The Bottleneck Years by H. E. Taylor – Chapter 39

Sitemeter

Archives

Categories

Meta