"...as a scientist I was trained you always have to show the negative data, the data that disagrees with you, and then make the case that your case is stronger." -Richard Muller
Global temperatures have been on the rise not just for decades, but for as long as we've been measuring temperatures around the globe: for more than a century. Recently, however, the temperature has spiked to an unprecedented high, similar to what we saw in 1998.
Image credit: Japan Meteorological Association (JMA), of the monthly average temperatures in February, going back as far as temperature records do. Via the Sydney Morning Herald at http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/true-shocker-spike-in-….
It isn't due to global warming, on its own, that temperatures are so high this past year. Instead, it's a combination of long-term climate change and also short-term weather patterns, like El Niño. When the short-term variations change again, we can expect to see a "pause" in the warming again for another 13-15 years, but this will not mean that global warming has stopped!
Average of NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature anomalies from January 1970 through November 2012 (green) with linear trends applied to the time frames Jan ’70 – Oct ’77, Apr ’77 – Dec ’86, Sep ’87 – Nov ’96, Jun ’97 – Dec ’02, and Nov ’02 – Nov ’12. Image credit: Skeptical Science at http://www.skepticalscience.com/does-global-warming-pause-mean-what-you….
Be prepared for what the science is going to see, and don't let yourself be taken in by unscrupulous arguments ever again! (This one is for you, Denier!)
- Log in to post comments
If you are interested in reading about what skeptical scientists, climatologists, and staticians have to say about AGW (anthropogenic global warming), try the Watts Up With That? (WUWT) website.
WUWT that is by no means a "skeptical" site - it is a home for hard-core denialists. They are good at cherry-picking data and applying incorrect analyses, but scientific validity or statistical accuracy: not at all.
As dean points out, WtfUWT is not a skeptic site, it's a denier site and getting dumber and dumber as time passes.
Realclimate, skepticalscience and the IPCC reports are all from skeptical scientists. Read those first instead.
I'll get right on that after I've checked out what the skeptical scientists at the Discovery Institute have to say about evolutionary biology.
We are fighting the whole denialist tribe these days, but one group that we really need to watch out for are Tribe Trump, a tribe that depends on intimidation as its main defense mechanism, kind of like a hog nose snake.. We need to be much more aggressive in claiming our science turf now and in defending it tooth and nail from these tossers. As you point out , any inevitable step down from the current high temps will be characterized as global cooling or a hiatus by the hog nosed serpents. We need creative strategies to deal with this. We need to create a meme that allows less sophisticated minds to grasp global warming and not be fooled by the yearly jitterbug dance of the thermometers. We need to provide a way for the wayward to save face and join or re-join the science tribe.We need to peal off those that we can from the denialist religio-political-tribal monolith and get their buy in while there still might be time to alter our supremely effed up path. And we need to vote Trump off the island ...with great prejudice. We need to be aggressive and active.
Just don't let the idea of "being polite" get in the way of being clear and simple.
And ignore the idea of acknowledging uncertainty until the deniers get on board with uncertainty in their own backyard. It just gives them a lever to move the window their way.
Remember, from their POV, WE are the bad guys, and anything to remove us is 100% justified by the ends of our removal. We don't have to do the same shit, but we shouldn't let the idea of us being the good guys stop us from getting the message across as clearly and concisely as necessary to stick.
Simple lies stick better than the complicated full truth. So stick with simple truths.
The problem with arguments about global warming is that there are really 3 separate arguments and people arguing of them and think they are proving another. But they aren't. The three arguments are 1) basic climate change. The earth is warming. There's little doubt this is happening. 2) Man-made global warming (AGW). The earth is warming and man is at least partly responsible for it. There's solid evidence for this. 3) The earth is warming, man is largely responsible and it will have dire consequences (CAGW). But as far as I can tell there is absolutely no evidence for this. Let me explain.
The idea that man made global warming will be catastrophic rests on the premise that the climate models show the climate sensitivity of the earth is about 3C. (change in temp for a doubling of CO2). But the problem is, that they have been running those models since the early 80s and the IPCC has been running them since the early 90s. The actual change in temps has been far less than the predicted change and in many years well outside the predicted confidence zone. The models have failed. The theory is disproved.
Until they can come up with a model that makes accurate predictions, why does anyone think the increase in temps will be a problem?
See page 39 of this link for a graph from the IPCC draft report that shows their model predictions versus actual temps.
How can anyone say the models work?
Sorry, forgot the link. Here it is:
https://climatefailfiles.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ch1-introduction_w…
"Instead, it’s a combination of long-term climate change and also short-term weather patterns"
Actually the last couple of months have been so far above trend plus any reasonable guess as to the ElNino effect, that there is cause for concern that something else may be showing up as well. We will probably just have to wait until more data accumulates though.
I don't often find myself in agreement with Wow, but this time I am. Of course how to peel off those segments of the public that aren't beyond reach is a key question. Full frontal attack mode might backfire.
It is good to see that we agree. We agree that this year is warm and those record temperatures are being driven by an El Nino event. We agree that the climate has continued to warm dating all the way back to the start of the most recent Interglacial Period. We agree that there is a natural variability to Earth’s climate in both short and long time scales.
It is really too bad that we didn’t have satellites in orbit during the Medieval Warm Period for better context as to where we are. Our reliable data really only goes back about 40 years and it strains believability to state with such certainty that what is being seen is unprecedented in the 4 billion years before we got satellites in orbit. Note that in the Carboniferous Era, Earth’s atmosphere was over 3000 ppm CO2. The current 370 is not all that special.
My issue with those who point to a thermometer and proclaim certainty in their belief is the laziness of it. So you say the temperature goes up, then pauses, then goes up again in a stair step pattern. Why does it do that? Why don’t the long term climate models predict it? What are the mechanisms at play?
Here is my problem with the scientific argument:
It is a given that CO2 is a greenhouse gas along with water vapor, methane, ozone, and a bunch of other trace gases. Shorter wavelength light comes in to the atmosphere but can’t reradiate back out in to space as the longer wavelength infrared through the greenhouse gasses. We’re all good there.
Where is all goes off the rails is that effect is not linear. It is logarithmic. Experiments show that virtually all warming happens before you get to 200ppm of CO2. Carbon dioxide is only a greenhouse gas to certain frequencies of light, and those same frequencies are trapped by water vapor. 100% of the radiation in those frequency ranges is already being trapped. All that happens when you further increase the concentration of CO2 is that the heat gets trapped ever closer to the ground, which is exactly what the satellites are seeing.
Some climate scientists have tried to tap dance around giant hole in the theory by suggesting that CO2 recruits water vapor, and the water vapor has a broader range of absorption. The problem here is that prediction has failed to materialize. This is summed up as the feedback controversy. Climate Scientists recognize that C02 cannot account for all the warming they are predicting, and they can’t agree even among themselves about the feedback multiplier. This is why in the supposedly settled science of climate change, that none of the climate models precisely agree with each other. Each model has its slightly different take on the feedback multiplier, and all of them appear to be wrong.
It may come as a shock, but I actually believe the climate is getting warmer, and I even believe that some of it is being caused by humans. While I think the CO2 argument is fatally flawed, I very much believe in Urban Heat Island (hereafter UHI) warming. This is the idea that asphalt and concrete radiate more heat than does an empty field of natural vegetation. Development of open spaces has continued unabated, and the temperatures have continued to rise. It is also noteworthy that the datasets that oversample land areas prone to UHI warming, and extrapolate out to derive temperatures over oceans consistently show higher temperatures than do the satellite data sets.
The kicker is that old temperature datasets are routinely altered while the climate scientists free admit the purpose of doing so is to clear out the UHI influence. UHI warming isn’t in any way controversial, and even when playing with the input data on such a level climate scientists still can’t identify a CO2 correlation.
To sum it up; CO2 being the primary cause of modern warming fails on the theoretical aspect, fails on the historical aspect, fails on the observations aspect, fails all efforts to use it in accurate computer climate models, and it isn’t even the easiest answer to the puzzle.
Perhaps there will be another long pause after this most recent spike. If there is you can take pride in making a prediction that was more accurate than 100% of climate models. That would be quite a feather in your cap.
"Our reliable data really only goes back about 40 years"
Your problem with the science is that, as your name states, you deny it.
You know, it;s only deniers who harp on and on about "CAGW". And that's because it's always defined as "what catastrophe is happening NOW to ME????".
Tell me, when the ice sheets melt and the sea levels are 20-40m higher and 90% of people have their homes flooded because that's where people live, and most of the interiors of continents are too hot and dry to support human habitation, would that be a catastrophe?
Because the only difference between what we have now and that scenario is just more temperature increase. Which if we do bugger all about because whiners go "There's no proof of CAGW, you alarmists!!!!" is inevitable.
BULL
SHIT.
Nope, absolutely 100% wrong. Utterly, fatally and wilfully ignorantly wrong.
All that makes it catastrophic is how much the temperature goes up to, and whether it's 3C, 6C or 1C per doubling makes no goddamned difference if you continue to do fuck all to stop it before it happens,.
More ignorant lies. Complete fabrication.
We've had less than half a doubling so far and between 1.3 and 1.7C warming. Meaning the median is pretty damn close to a doubling based on results so far.
Tell me, does truth or honesty EVER reach your brain? Or is it just not welcome there if it comes to uncomfortable conclusions?
Lie
Lie.
Lie.
Since they have,but you're sitting there lying your ass off over it, why do you claim it's not a problem?
After all, why lie about it if reality proves the theory wrong?
Because only lies can claim to say the theory is wrong.
Why not, when linking, go to the IPCC instead?
http://www.ipcc.ch
Why did you need to go to a denier blogroll not worth wiping your ass on because you don't want that shit on your behind?
"It is really too bad that we didn’t have satellites in orbit during the Medieval Warm Period"
Satellite data is far worse than the land record and must be calibrated to it to have any validity at all. Indeed they require the output of those same climate models to be able to interpret their readings into a likely (note NOT measured) temperature profile.
Moreover, UAH has STILL *never* released the source code, calculations,, calibration data and raw information for their satellite series.
If the MWP existed as deep as today, the climate sensitivitiy is FAR HIGHER than the IPCC think. NOT less.
But you're in deep denial, because you dare not think here. It's ruinous to your self percieved value.
To sum it all up:
"To sum it up; CO2 being the primary cause of modern warming fails on the theoretical aspect,"
Lie
" fails on the historical aspect,"
Lie
" fails on the observations aspect,"
Lie
" fails all efforts to use it in accurate computer climate models,"
Lie
" and it isn’t even the easiest answer to the puzzle. "
Lie.
"The kicker is that old temperature datasets are routinely altered while the climate scientists free admit the purpose of doing so is to clear out the UHI influence"
The kicker is that you insist they must adjust or it's all just UHI. And clearing out the UHI influence means that the trend is LOWER in the adjusted data than in the raw.
Meanwhile, your satellite data is the result of a huge number of adjustments. The most ridiculously heinous one being UAH's v6.0 which increases past temperatures and lowers recent ones solely to pretend that there's less of a trend.
Go look at UAH themselves. That they're currently on 6.0 and they do point releases proves they are massively massaging their numbers. Far more than climate datasets, and to a larger difference.
"Experiments show that virtually all warming happens before you get to 200ppm of CO2."
Lie.
"Full frontal attack mode might backfire."
Fannying about being nice hasn't worked. And it's no good shooting the morons dead, since what we're trying to do is save human lives. Denial just pretends there's no problem so that they don't have to care about other lives, only their personal costs.
Even when those costs are purely fictitious FUD.
Bullshit and here is why, data recording has been compromised PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
EXCLUSIVE: NOAA Relies On ‘Compromised’ Thermometers That Inflate US Warming Trend
http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/17/exclusive-noaa-relies-on-compromised-…
Historical recording stations have been moved OR have had more thermal mass built up around them I.E multiple tarmac runways at airports or urban construction as a thermal mass that distorts the years previous static recordings.
I laugh my ass off in confusion as to why you save the earth nut jobs get so freaked out about a Climate Ghost when there is so much more locally to worry about.
All this climate scare shit is about is benefiting big business who have skin in the climate scare game.
Do you HONESTLY think they are worried?
Wake up folks, It's a scam and "Climate Change" which was formally "Global warming" after it was "Global Cooling".. Blah..Blah..Blah.
"And it’s no good shooting the morons dead, since what we’re trying to do is save human lives."
Hmm spoken like a true good libtard that supports ABORTION.
Case F'n Closed.
Dear Climate Change "Denier":
Please do the following homework and report back to us with your results, otherwise , go take a flying lunge at a rolling doughnut.
1) What is the concentration of water vapor in the colder parts of the atmosphere, i.e., those parts below the freezing point of water?
2) How much of the atmosphere is cold, i.e., below the freezing point of water?
3) What is the concentration of carbon dioxide in the cold parts of the atmosphere?
If you do your homework you should be able to immediately see the absurdity of your current position. If you cannot do the homework and see the problem with your erroneous position, then please consider the option of not bothering to post here, as this lush meadow is way above your pay grade. Have a nice day.
Dear Ragtag Media:
Please remember to flush yourself as nobody else wants to. Thanks.
On CAGW, apparently there’s a big difference between “Skeptics” web sites and “Denier” websites.
Apparently, being a skeptic isn’t too bad, but being a denier is.
What might be the best “Skeptics” website?
P.S.
Ethan, are you an expert on CAGW also?
An odd comment coming from someone who has effectively (perhaps flatly; I don't care to play sewer worker at the moment) asserted that human extinction-level events are physically impossible because they would interfere with the Second Coming.
Why would you ask? You only have enough functioning neurons to play golf, comment at Breitbump, and cultivate a deep hostility toward women because of decades of rejection.
You do the "shruggies" one better: you deny that global warming would cause any problems in the first place. (The everything-will-be-fine comment is something else I'm not going to arse myself to dig up at the moment; probably RI.)
Hey, SteveP, have you met up with Cronus yet?
"What might be the best “Skeptics” website?"
http://www.skepticalscience.com
"See Noevo
March 16, 2016
On CAGW, "
See what I mean about deniers being the only ones believing in CAGW? Never mentioned in the actual science, and never defined by its acolyles, the deniers.
"Bullshit and here is why,"
What will follow will be lies and distortion based solely on a need to pretend that their denial of reality is "rational":
"data recording has been compromised PLAIN AND SIMPLE."
LIE.
"EXCLUSIVE: NOAA Relies On ‘Compromised’ Thermometers That Inflate US Warming Trend"
Lie. Links to denier website because only lying deniers who don't care for the truth because their audience are people who WANT TO BELIEVE it true. The truth and lies will be ignored for faith in the mantra.
"Historical recording stations have been moved OR have had more thermal mass built up "
And hence adjustments. Which deniers whine about being done. And whine about not being done. Because they don't care what happens, it must be claimed to be wrong.
"Wake up folks, It’s a scam "
Lie. Someone who has been willingly scammed is merely claiming a scam so they don' tknow themselves how deep they've been lied to.
Ironically enough, by big businesses who have trillions of dollars of skin in the game continuing for decades whilst there's profit to be made in oil coal and gas.
"It’s a scam"
Lie.
" and “Climate Change” which was formally “Global warming” after it was “Global Cooling”.. Blah..Blah..Blah."
Lies.
Climate change was always climate change. Callendar's 1958 paper was titled climate change. IPCC was named with a CC for climate change. Frank Luntz, spin doctor of the fossil industry owned Republican party insisted that it be changed by Republicans to Climate Change because it was less scary. And it was never global cooling.
"Hmm spoken like a true good libtard that supports ABORTION."
Yeah, use "libtards" don't want to shoot people, whereas gun nut religious freaks like yourself preen yourselves over your guns and threaten at the drop of a hat to shoot people.
How thick is a denier?
"And hence adjustments"
BINGO. I will give you the fact that humans are responsible for globull warming because it's the DATA TAMPERING humans at places like NASA and NOAA that are responsible for it:
https://i0.wp.com/realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/GIS…
Read it and weep..
"“And hence adjustments”
BINGO."
YES, BINGO.
So what?
"it’s the DATA TAMPERING"
Lie.
"Read it and weep.."
At your stupidity?
Don't bother reading it, deniers, it will just make you angry. Anybody who wants to look at reality, feel free:
http://variable-variability.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/homogenization-adjus…
If you want to see glowbull cooling from humans making shit up about their data, read about UAH's farcical manipulations of data to minimise (even they can't remove a positive trend) here:
http://davidappell.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/some-big-adjustments-to-uahs-…
Wow,
sweetie, calling someone a denier (or an unbeliever, why not Kafir or infidel while you are at it)...Is not exactly the side of the argument Galileo was on. It is apparent that history is not one of your passions. I was polite, I provided a site where there is discussion about the climate. If you don't agree with it, that's good, and fine, as science is not supposed to be a political consensus where non-believers are punished. I can't but help notice your position on almost anything is almost always one of intolerance followed by ridicule, be it political, scientific, logical, or philosophical in nature.
If you wish to actually add to the conversation about APGW , Please provide an argument which can falsify it. This is one of the complaints about 'man made global warming' as it has been framed. No matter the climate, it is blamed on 'man made climate change', which begs the question: what do you think the climate would be doing if there wasn't APGW? There is a reason for this of course, if you or anyone else could provide an example or outlook of what the climate would look like without APGW, we could easily compare this against historic record and test it.
Computer models of the climate which are carbon dioxide driven do not demonstrate anything useful, as they were designed to show that carbon dioxide drives the climate, not test the assertions validity. This is why computer simulations are not evidence of anything, they show what you want, not what is. To state the obvious: Of course the climate has been changing, it always has, that is not the question at all. We know there have been long ice ages and warming periods that lasted many thousands of years. Historically, humanity did poorly during cooling periods and prospered mainly during warming periods, so we have some data about humanity and climate change in the past. The question is IF humans are what is driving that change as of late, AND provided that this could be determined, what could, or should be done about it. So far the solutions have been variations on 'give the government lots of more money and control because...', living pre-industrially under the auspices of an elite that does not, and not so subtle suggestions of involuntary planetary population controls. All the above are basically calls for a global technocracy, which kind of explains why certain personalities and political stances favor it, while others abhor it.
Anthropogenic Global Warming is an assertion that humans are driving the climate changes far more than natural variability can account for. The primary mechanism of this argument is based upon the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which is measured in parts per million. Past historic record does not indicate the earth's climate being determined or driven by carbon dioxide concentrations. It has been both higher and lower in terms of ppm in the past than now, and temperatures have been both considerably higher and lower during these periods of higher ppm. Ice core samples indicate that the connection between the two (temperature and carbon dioxide) appears to be that the ppm of carbon dioxide follows the temperature changes eventually, sometimes by centuries, with little to no evidence that the ppm of carbon dioxide lead temperature change.
If the world is going into a further warming phase, humanity will have to adapt.
If the world is going into a cooling phase (there is some evidence there is a connection between sun spot activity and climatic change which would indicate this is happening), humanity will have to adapt.
In both situations, insults and attitudes are meaningless, so why bother?
CFT, calling someone sweetie really doesn't do anything other than showcase your petty spite.
"why not Kafir or infidel while you are at it"
Because neither apply. Dumbass. Note: "Dumbass" also applies to you).
"I was polite,"
Lie.
"provided a site where there is discussion about the climate"
And that discussion was a load of crap dressed up as fake skepticism but was denial of reality.
"as science is not supposed to be a political consensus where non-believers are punished"
But where you're supposed to accept reality and change your mind when evidence is supplied it should be changed. And when you refuse to do that, you're demanding a political "opinion" discussion, not a scientific one, and therefore the scientific discourse rules no longer apply, since you're no longer discoursing scientifically.
"Computer models of the climate which are carbon dioxide driven do not demonstrate anything useful.."
..to you. However, the do demonstrate reality rather well. Hansen's 1988 paper whose model was a early-mid 80's non coupled GCM would have been right on the money if you type in the actual emissions, because the feedback value is a result, not an input, of GCMs.
"No matter the climate, it is blamed on ‘man made climate change’"
When the climate change is man made, then it has to be blamed on man made climate change.
You blame murders on murderers, theft on thieves, rape on rapists, lies on liars. Why not blame the cause of climate change on that which is causing the climate change?
Your personal egos comfort is not sufficient reason.
"Anthropogenic Global Warming is an assertion that humans are driving the climate changes far more than natural variability can account for. "
Lie.
"Past historic record does not indicate the earth’s climate being determined or driven by carbon dioxide concentrations."
Lie.
"Ice core samples indicate that the connection between the two (temperature and carbon dioxide) appears to be that the ppm of carbon dioxide follows the temperature changes eventually"
Lie.
"with little to no evidence that the ppm of carbon dioxide lead temperature change. "
Lie.
"If the world is going into a further warming phase, humanity will have to adapt."
By not changing it. Duh. Why do you insist we must not adapt to it by changing our actions?
"there is some evidence there is a connection between sun spot activity and climatic change which would indicate this is happening"
Lie.
"In both situations, insults and attitudes are meaningless, so why bother?"
In both situations lies and conspiracy ideation is meaningless, so why do you bother?
CFT, your tired old screed is so old and tired it can be given a number. 308:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=308
This, however, is why there's so much harping on about how it can't be science if it isn't falsifiable. Of course, by "isn't falsifiable", deniers want their own yardstick of what it means to be applied.
To CFT: Your screed has multiple arguments made along various angles of attack. None of your arguments are convincing to this scientist, or, I suspect, to anyone who has delved deeper into the climate change waters than merely moistening the bottoms of their shoes. And it is clearly evident that you don't know much about climate change, as you haven't correctly addressed a number of well known, undisputed central scientific principles. You have given yourself away as someone without basic grounding in basic science. Basically, you haven't done your homework, and it shows. Your are apparently relying on unreliable sources for your information, using bad crib notes to write your book report on a book you didn't read, and people who read the book are calling you out on it. In your defense, I can see how someone who feels compelled to weigh in on this topic without sufficient education can be be misled by the, here it comes, tidal wave of misinformation readily available to sweep away the unsuspecting, the untutored, the uneducated, the unscientific, the politically ripe, and the tribal loyalist. As to why there is a tidal wave of wrong information out there is, I think, likely to be because of money, a huuuge amount of money.
So what is your elevator speech to convince someone to your point of view? What one argument can you make that would pique the interest of a scientist on a science blog? Thus far your scatter shot, or I should say, pea shooter attack on the bastions of climate science is only revealing your unpreparedness to address this issue.
@SteveP #38
I find it interesting that as a self identified scientist you don't seem to have the depth to counter ideas with contrary evidence. Your counterarguments seem to be confined to personal attack and spouting of conspiracy theory.
denier, you've demonstrated in a wide variety of settings that you have no ability to understand science than rt or, even worse, sn, and probably no desire to since the results contradict your world view. There are many studies around that show your comments (and those of your fellow science haters) to be false: why don't you try to read them? (Rhetorical question: people who have followed you folks know the answer.)
@dean #40
My reading list is a moot point. Although I do what I can, it is not my profession to forward science, but it is @SteveP's profession. Even @Wow, who is a well known as a board agitator, is taking the time to refute claims with links to skepticalscience.com. The professional scientist @StephenP can't be bothered to explain his ideas and is telling people to go flush themselves while insisting that he is beyond question because he is a scientist.
@StephenP is not alone. Other scientists have suggested that those who question the leading theory should be blackballed from grants or even imprisoned. There was an advocacy group who made a commercial where they were killing those expressed skepticism.
It is a level of behavior that I find disappointing.
Denier, your first paragraph in #41 is 100% irrelevant and contains only self glorification and spite to others. The second one is a pack of lies. The third one is yet more irrelevancy.
You have failed to do anything other than make yourself appear "reasoned" when you're not and failed entirely to say anything accurate about the scientists or relevant to the science.
We find this behaviour unsurprising.
"you don’t seem to have the depth to counter ideas with contrary evidence"
The ideas have nothing supporting them other than conspiracy ideation, therefore there is no need to find evidence to refute it, being as it is unsupported by any evidence itself.
Goodness. I guess that deniers don't get sarcasm. At least not when it's directed at them.
Unlike for example, when they proclaim that there aren't enough knives for the "criminal scientists" to kill themselves by ritual suicide:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/02/11/205489/glenn-beck-sarah-pal…
I mean, it's actually possible to die by knife, but as far as any actual non-fiction evidence goes, there's no way to make someone's head literally explode.
For those with working brainstems, this would have been sufficient indication as to whether it was a threat or not.
But not for the delicate flowers on the rightwingnutjob conspiracy crusade...
Reference for post #10
http://static.ijreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/sy-weathercc4d582…
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
http://www.randombio.com/temperatures6.png
https://acespace.org/sites/default/files/blog/2012/08/Atmospheric_Absor…
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hot-spot/hot-spot-model-predicted…
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/SH400vsCO2…
@Wow #44
Do you see the difference between the two following statements?
Of course the commercial was tongue in check, but the threats of blackballing and imprisonment are not. When people in the scientific community like @SteveP stop acting like scientists and resort to being authoritarian thugs who believe themselves above questioning, there is something wrong.
"Do you see the difference between the two following statements?
1 – You should go kill yourself.
2 – I’m going to kill you."
Yes.
Do you see the difference between
1. You should eat ratpoison
2. I will kill you with my MIIINNNDDD!!!!!
Which one is a believable thread,you frigging moron?
"but the threats of blackballing and imprisonment are not."
Blackballing?
http://www.academicmatters.ca/2013/05/harpers-attack-on-science-no-scie…
And how many fucking times have SENATORS IN THE HOUSE demanded investigation of climate scientists like Mike Mann for doing his fucking job???
Meanwhile, denier scientists lie to congress WHICH IS A SERIOUS ARRESTABLE OFFENCE and get nothing.
Because the scientist is a denier and the republicans won't condone any action against frauds they want to support.
"When people in the scientific community like @SteveP stop acting like scientists"
WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU WHINING ABOUT????
This isn't a fucking science discussion. IS it. Because you brought NO FUCKING SCIENCE TO THE TABLE YOU FUCKING MORONIC RETARDED FUCKWIT.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/22/3625629/willie-soon-fossil-…
Hmm?
http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/fight-misinformation/climate-decep…
But not allowed to investigate because crimes caused in the name of protecting business are only ever evidence of leftists trying to send everyone to communisim or some other fucking idiotic conspiracy shit.
And where is your "concern" over scientists being "got" by politicians here, hmm???
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/12/bully-pulpit-ted-cruz-offers-his…
"Perhaps there will be another long pause after this most recent spike. "
There is no pause and there never was a pause and there will be no pause. All because of THE SPIKE being cherry picked and therefore making your assertions biased and entirely fictitious.
And the inaccuracy in the models only exist in the minds of the deluded or venal liars. Which are you, denier? Deluded or paid off?
The models have been accurate. All YOU are relying on is that lying sack of crap who lied to congress about Hansen's work and continues the lying to date.
"It is really too bad that we didn’t have satellites in orbit during the Medieval Warm Period "
Irrelevant. Satellites aren't ground truth.
"The current 370 is not all that special."
It's 400. And your conclusion is NOT supported by your claim.
"Experiments show that virtually all warming happens before you get to 200ppm of CO2. "
Lie.
"Carbon dioxide is only a greenhouse gas to certain frequencies of light, and those same frequencies are trapped by water vapor."
Lie.
"100% of the radiation in those frequency ranges is already being trapped."
Lie.
"All that happens when you further increase the concentration of CO2 is that the heat gets trapped ever closer to the ground"
LIE.
The optical depth of the atmosphere gets deeper, therefore the top of atmosphere, the only place the earth can lose it's heat from, gets higher up and due to the lapse rate, that higher location is colder. And if it's colder, the rate of energy loss though radiation drops off to the fourth power:
http://www.britannica.com/science/Stefan-Boltzmann-law
"Some climate scientists have tried to tap dance around giant hole in the theory by suggesting that CO2 recruits water vapor"
As does every denier, see your point about how H2O is a greenhouse gas. Thing is, H2O does amplify CO2's effect as does many other feedback properties of Earth. See Clausius-Clapeyron relation
60% of the current greenhouse effect is from H2O, 25% from CO2, therefore the effect of CO2 (1.2C per doubling) is matched by 60/25=2.6x as much from H2O.
FACT of maths.
"The problem here is that prediction has failed to materialize. "
Lie.
What was ALSO a lie was this:
Reference for post #10
Since none of them were references for post #10.
The hot spot, never a fingerprint of AGW, but a fingerprint of almost all warming mechanisms, has been found, Jo doesn't have the least clue what the hell she's wittering on about, she's just desperate for the attention outside her sphere where she has had almost no effect on her discipline and is smarting big time over it.
In your geologic link, all you're proving is that it's been massively warmer in the past where we've had much higher CO2 levels.
How was that meant to disprove CO2's effect again????
PS Carboniferous era was how long ago? And how has the sun evolved along the main sequence during that time, affecting its output? Hmmm?
YOU brought it up, so YOU should know what the hell you're blabbing on about.
Except you don't. You had to go get some tips from other deniers who are equally as clueless as you as to what rubbish to spout.
Doesn't work, sunshine.
Your cartoon of temperature for 2500 years BC puts "Today" as the 1950 average.
We're much warmer than that today.
It's also completely lacking in any physical mechanism, and lies about the current rate of solar output, where it's been diverging for the last 40 years or more.
And we've only had reliable measures of solar output since we put satellites up....
Hey, didn't you whine about how we only had reliable measurements of ground temps when we put satellites up? Seems like your head was upside-down. Anal insertion problem?
But, in short, that cartoon is nothing more than the ravings of an idiot.
Kind of expected you'd resort to that.
At least it's not the tired old Tony Watts raving idiot deniers point to normally....
Randombio is just completely made up shit.
Oh, and that friends of shit science link shows nothing that you claim.
Who knows what the hell it IS showing, though...
@Wow
You can deny, deny, deny as you cling desperately to the last twigs of belief in this nonsense, but in the end the cold hard facts of science are going to getcha. ;)
Having a discussion about atmospheric physics with someone who cannot figure out that the temperature of the vast majority the molecules of the Earth's atmosphere is below the freezing point of water is basically pointless. So once the denialist enters the room, the discussion devolves into a time consuming refutation of nonsense. While scientists continually test their hypotheses, and look for weaknesses in them, the denialist apparently cannot for even an instant conduct a thought experiment that supposes that anthropogenic global warming is real. They come into the interaction with the presupposition that they are irrefutably right, because they have it from sanctioned authority that they are right. Those sanctioned authorities typically include people with very impeachable credentials, like JoNova (biologist) , WUWT's Anthony Watts (no degree), The Heartworm Institute (fossil owned), Willie Soon (fossil owned), Creationists Spencer and Christy (the fudge jokes of the satellite information academy) , Non-scientist senators Cruz and Inhofe, and non-scientist congressman Lamar Smith. They do not come to the discussion having examined evidence from thousands of sources, from their own education and experience, or from mathematical analysis. They come to the discussion looking for a fight with a bag full of powerful sounding but basically misleading factoids that they don't even know are bogus. And then they wonder why they are not warmly received!
"At your stupidity?"
Nope for your own ignorance. And to think Sir Author Conan Dole was British..
Wowzer, you are a flippin disgrace to your once great heritage of critical thinkers.
Sad... really Sad..
So Wow, you're obviously not interested in having a debate. You're just interested in spouting your opinions. And they're just opinions. You've made no arguments to support your accusations. You've only tirelessly repeated your opinion and called people names like a spoiled brat. Grow up.
From now on, just assume that anymore of my posts are not directed at you. So please don't reply to them.
Why would anyone post a link to a made up, data-free and clearly crude graph purportedly showing global temperatures from Cliff Harris. A man who is
- a self-proclaimed climatologist
- lacks any education in anything science related
- has never worked for any climate related institution of any name
- has never published anything relating to climate in any journal of any name
- is a fundamentalist creationist who claims the bible predicts the weather
- and is involved in chemtrail conspiracy theories.
All when the PAGES2k reconstruction exists.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/T_comp_61-90…
@surething #66
The PAGES2k reconstruction proves my point exactly. In that reconstruction there is no Medieval Warm Period (hereafter MWP). In the IPCC 1990 reconstruction there is a MWP that dwarfs the modern era. In the 'hide-the-decline / nature trick' Michael Mann reconstructions there is no MWP. In McShane 2011 there is again a large MWP.
Seemingly for ever reconstruction where there is no MWP, there is another reconstruction where the MWP dwarfs current temperatures. It is that way because they are all reconstructions. Our good global data only extends back about 40 years. I am lamenting the fact that we don't have better historical data. If we don't see eye to eye on that and you are happy that we don't have better data then we're probably not going to agree on much.
The reconstruction in IPCC FAR 1990 is Lamb 1965. The MWP in that graph is actually dwarfed by the current global temperature not the other way around, this despite it being a local reconstruction. The only reason it seems like it doesn't is simply because the modern era isn't on that graph.
McShane and Wyner didn't do a reconstruction in the first place. They just did their own statistical analysis on available data. A rather agenda driven and poorly executed paper was the result.
Even then, their graph is quite linear and has no obvious MWP in it. While it does start at a high temperature, modern temperatures are higher yet again.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/wp-content/blogs.dir/443/files/2012/04/…
So no, reconstructions aren't all over the place. Yes, there is uncertainty, but that's the nature of science. If you want better reconstructions then look at more data, more proxy types, more global coverage etc. Exactly what has happened in the decades between Lamb 1965 and PAGES 2k 2013. This will gradually improve further into the future too.
After dozens of reconstructions it's getting pretty clear the big picture won't change a lot more though. We know enough even taking uncertainties into account to draw confident conclusions on certain things.
And if you claim the reconstructions are all over the place, you can't use reconstructions of the past to proclaim today is unremarkable. Whatever the hell you intend by that.
"So Wow, you’re obviously not interested in having a debate. "
So david you think a debate is where someone makes up their opinion and that opinion can't be rubbished when it is???
I'm ABSOLUTELY interested in a debate.
However, there needs to be one first. Not merely denial.
Try it yourself one day. Instead of not engaging your brain and going with your "gut feeling", try actually working that intelligence your genetics gave you and think.
"but in the end the cold hard facts of science are going to getcha."
Backatcha, denier.
http://skepticalscience.com/comparing-global-temperature-predictions.ht…
Denier predictions have failed every time.
Climate scientists, on the other hand, have been within the stated limits and proven accurate enough to make policy decisions.
"“At your stupidity?”
Nope for your own ignorance."
Oh, right, so I should weep at your own ignorance. Fair enough. Thanks for correcting me.
I see that the remainder of your post was also absent any reality or relevance.
As usual for a denier teabagger.
"The PAGES2k reconstruction proves my point exactly. In that reconstruction there is no Medieval Warm Period (hereafter MWP). "
Yes there is. It's just very small. ALL the evidence points to it being, globally, miniscule, if at all extant.
You see, denier, when evidence comes in that something doesn't exist, WE DON'T INSIST IT MUST EXIST. We stop insisting it exists.
You know, comport our claims to reality, not deny reality so we can continue to proclaim our correctness.
Deniers, however, are egotistically incapable of doing so.
"In the IPCC 1990 reconstruction there is a MWP that dwarfs the modern era. "
Because
a) it wasn't a labelled graph, you have no idea how big that MWP was.
b) It wasn't based on global data, only very small region of what you claim is "fraudulent" data.
c) It only went up to 1950, as is common at that time for paleo reconstruction data. 1950 was much colder than today. See (a) above for why that is a big problem for you
The fact that you don't even know what that graph IS indicates you don't know, nor care what you say on the subject.
"Seemingly for ever reconstruction where there is no MWP, there is another reconstruction where the MWP dwarfs current temperatures"
LIE.
Seemingly these don't exist.
"Our good global data only extends back about 40 years."
LIE.
"I am lamenting the fact that we don’t have better historical data."
LIE.
"In your geologic link, all you’re proving is that it’s been massively warmer in the past where we’ve had much higher CO2 levels.
How was that meant to disprove CO2’s effect again????"
Additionally, since it WAS much warmer then and CO2 was higher than 200ppm, when it comes to your claim that almost all the effect is below 200ppm, doesn't that graph prove your claim there wrong?
Deniers: unable to connect the dots of evidence since 4004BC.
On the McShane/Wyner paper:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/12/responses-to-mcsh…
And it's warmed since 2006...
@surething & @Wow
There is controversy over McShane 2011?!? Shocking. There is also controversy over Kaufman et al (2013) otherwise known as PAGES2K as it has been discovered they used multiple datasets inverted to make it appear colder when in fact it was warmer.
So far the authors have admitted to problems with 16 different datasets used in their reconstruction and there are several more under evaluation. No need to take my word for it, here is their change log:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/pages2k/Revisions_v1.1.1.xlsx
Beyond mistakes that can happen, and I genuinely believe that all of the above is, there is also unscrupulous manipulation that can go on as was uncovered in Briffa 2000 and Briffa 2008. At least CRU (not exactly a denialist group) backed away from those crap Briffa paleo-climate reconstruction in their 2013 product.
When you are talking about paleo-climate reconstructions there is going to be controversy. Trees do not make good thermometers which is why we use satellite data today. The satellite data is better and it is a shame we only have 40 years worth of data.
"There is controversy over McShane 2011?!? Shocking."
You didn't know ?!!??!? Unsurprising. You never bother informing yourself before having an opinion, you just retcon your evidence to fit your opinion beforehand.
"as it has been discovered they used multiple datasets inverted to make it appear colder when in fact it was warmer. "
LIE.
"No need to take my word for it, here is their change log"
Does not support your claim.
"there is also unscrupulous manipulation that can go on as was uncovered in Briffa 2000 "
Lie.
"and Briffa 2008."
Lie.
"backed away from those crap Briffa paleo-climate reconstruction in their 2013 product. "
Lie. Completely different reason for their product.
"When you are talking about paleo-climate reconstructions there is going to be controversy. "
Meaningless pablum. And odd you have proclaimed so strongly that the MWP MUST BE THERE!!!! Yet you now are saying that the reconstructions are unreliable.
Get your fiction straight dearest. You're slip is showing.
"Trees do not make good thermometers which is why we use satellite data today. "
Lie.
"The satellite data is better"
Lie.
http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures
Do you not accept Carl Mears, scientist with RSS, knows about how satellite data quality compares with ground station data quality?
And if satellite were so damn good, why are UAH on 6.0, a score of updates to their data, all of it done behind closed doors with models and code that is unavailable to anyone to vet or check?
@Wow #78
Carl Mears isn't talking about trees from 1000 or so years ago.
However one juicy tidbit from the page you linked to is this one:
Now where did I read that before? Hmmmm. Oh, I know. I wrote it back in post #10, and shortly thereafter you declared it a lie.
"Carl Mears isn’t talking about trees from 1000 or so years ago. "
Goodness, he wasn't? Then why did I think he was?!?!? Oh, that's right, I DIDN'T.
"Now where did I read that before?"
Not in post #10.
"Oh, I know. I wrote it back in post #10"
LIE.
You DID however claim that satellite data was the best data. Where we see that someone whose fucking JOB is satellite data says you're fucking WRONG.
"and shortly thereafter you declared it a lie."
Yes, what you wrote WAS AND IS A LIE.
And, yes, it IS interesting. Because it's saying that satellite data which samples a volume in height rather than a surface measure, will see less warming trend because it samples some of the upper atmosphere which will cool.
So the temperature trends that the IPCC talk of and where we live and breathe are expected to be higher than satellite trends of the atmospheric volume.
And therefore the slightly lower satellite trends are
a) showing they are less accurate
b) are NOT showing the stations trend is fixed to show a higher trend than reality.
It ALSO tells you why a tropospheric hotspot will be hard to spot in a trend, because the lower stratosphere will cool and make it harder to determine where the upper troposphere's trend is going.
Both claims of yours, both proved by the very quote you found "interesting", because you failed utterly to comprehend them.
...both proved wrong...
I don't see anything resembling that in #10.
I do see claims about co2 and water vapor absorption that are way off the mark.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/images/CO2_H2O_…
@surething #83
Here is the quote from post #10
As far as the CO2 and water vapor absorption, I'll give you that what I said about the overlap wasn't correct. However it doesn't change the overall point much because even in your chart the wavelengths were CO2 is outside the range of water vapor, it is still maxed out at 100%. Adding more adds almost nothing. The logarithmic nature of the effect is well documented in laboratory testing.
"Here is the quote from post #10"
And absorption has fuck all to do with the quote you pretended had been mentioned, to whit;
"The amount of water vapor in the stratosphere has also decreased..."
Indeed nowhere does the word absorption occur in the entire quote you gave.
So, yet again:
"Here is the quote from post #10"
LIE
"However it doesn’t change the overall point much "
Lie.
"it is still maxed out at 100%. Adding more adds almost nothing. "
Lie
"The logarithmic nature of the effect is well documented in laboratory testing."
Which proves the lie to your claim, making the use of this in DEFENCE of that lying claim, a LIE.
FFS, 9 years old, and even then it was an old and long debunked (basically 19th Century argument, refuted by theoretical argument in the 1920s and refuted by experimental observation in the 1950s) load of crap.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy…
Denier, what, according to your "maths" is the asymptote of log(n) and at what n does this reach, say, 95% of that asymptote's value, presuming that the remaining 5% to go is "almost nothing" added?
Adding more CO2 certainly does increase the forcing significantly.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/ModtranRadiativeFor…
The radiative forcing of CO2 in 1980 was about 1 W/m^2. At the moment it is at about 2 W/m^2. All greenhouse gases combined comes to about 3 W/m^2.
As you can see above going from 300ppm CO2 to 600ppm CO2 will increase the CO2 forcing alone by 3.4 W/m^2. An increase that is greater than all current long-lived greenhouse gases in total. A huge amount of added energy to the planet.
Oh, dear G-d, how many comments have been spilled over the CO₂ saturation canard?
The irony is that the joint is nominally supposed to be about physics. There's almost a competition here between D. and S.N.: the latter at least comes up with his own idiocy, whereas in this context, D. is simply barfing up others'.
Denier - I have up reasoning with denialists years ago. But even so, I recognize every single one of your points from all that time ago. Denialists were told again and again why each point and more were wrong. But denialists cannot change their mind (and won't change the subject).
How about you pick ONE of your points and I'll tell you why it's wrong or misrepresented. Pick the strongest point. What is the knock down, killer point, denier?
HELLO GLOBULL WARMER's:
Over half a million (627, 000) people die from malaria each year, mostly children younger than five years old.
There are an estimated 207million cases of malaria each year.
Although the vast majority of malaria cases occur in sub-Saharan Africa, the disease is a public-health problem in more than 109 countries in the world, 45 of which are in Africa.
90% of all malaria deaths occur in sub-Saharan Africa.
Malaria costs an estimated $12 billion in lost productivity in Africa.
When insecticide-treated nets are used properly by three-quarters of the people in a community, malaria transmission is cut by 50%, child deaths are cut by 20%, and the mosquito population drops by as much as 90%.
It is estimated that less than 5% of children in sub-Saharan Africa currently sleep under any type of insecticide-treated net.
- See more at: http://www.netsforlifeafrica.org/malaria/malaria-statistics#sthash.qV3v…
Can you Retards say STUPID?
Perhaps I should say Globull Warming STUPID. Your Priorities are in the wrong place!!
And what about all those STUPID people putting on seat belts anyway? Don't they know malaria exists? Why do all that effort putting on seat belts when it does nothing to prevent malaria cases?
Priorities Seat Bullters!!
What annoys some of us is that the question has become political as well as scientific. Politicians do not understand that in Science what matters is the evidence. They seem to think that reaching a consensus defines the truth. Then, in collusion with the media, they try to browbeat everyone into "believing" the approved story. It gets turned into something more like a religion than science.
They also treat the general public with contempt, assuming that we are all morons, incapable of understanding the complexities of what is happening to the atmosphere, the seas and the climate, so they feed us a watered down story and label anyone that does not swallow it whole a "denier".
They also seem to think that nothing will happen unless we are persuaded of imminent catastrophe. Fact is, the climate is changing, and we do not know what the effects will be, but we are pretty sure they will be bad.
We ought to be preparing for a whole range of disaster scenarios. But what are the powers that be doing? Building giant windmills that take more energy to build and deploy than they generate and forcing us all to use "energy saving light bulbs " in our homes. Meanwhile wasteful consumerism continues unchanged. Our cities shine through the night with millions of neon lights. Advertising focuses on making us want a new car, a bigger TV, and a "better" smartphone. The big corporations create ever more devastation as they extract coal and oil from shale. Builders, presumably with government approval, continue to expand our towns and cities in exactly those places where huge rises in sea level are predicted!!
We have known for decades how to stop polluting, how to live comfortably without ripping through the earth's resources a million times faster than they can be renewed, how to live in harmony with nature, rather than replacing natural systems with technological fixes that will, inevitably, fail some day.
What we need to do as a global species is as obvious as a very obvious thing. It has been obvious since before I went to college to study Ecology in 1973! It remains the same even if the skeptics and deniers are right, and the planet is not warming and headed for unpredictable climate change. We do not need to be bullied into believing a story that few fully understand, or to be convinced of a precise and particular impending catastrophe to know what needs to be done.
Is there any hope when half the world's population seems to care more about which particular version you believe of the story that there is an omnipotent being that created everything and takes a special interest in us. And a nasty minority seems to think it okay to kill people that do not agree 100% with their own?
"Over half a million (627, 000) people die from malaria "
And more will die when the temperate lands reach temperatures climatically that favour the merging of the malaria parasite in the mosquitos that can carry it but are protected by the cold winters killing the vector.
Not to mention malaria doesn't have anything to do with the causes of climate change.
Funny how you morons really don't know what the fuck you're talking about, innit?
"Your Priorities are in the wrong place!!"
Back at ya, Teabaggie moron. See previous post.
Hey, teabaggie, if you're so all fired up for the problems of these people, why not invite them round to stay where you are where malaria isn't anywhere near a problem?
Or do you just not care if they die, you're just happy they can be used as an excuse?
I mean, if we killed off the vector, what would you be able to use those third world poor for if not for a human shield for your destructive and toxic ideology?
WHY WORRY ABOUT ISIS??? *There's Malaria in the world*!!!!
"Hey, teabaggie, if you’re so all fired up for the problems of these people, why not invite them round to stay where you are where malaria isn’t anywhere near a problem?"
No need when they could live fine in their own lands but thanks to RETARDS LIKE YOU WHO BAN DDT!!!. they DIE.
I suppose "Silent Spring" by Rachel Carson is some of your favorite literature.
Enviro Wacko!!!
"WHO BAN DDT!!!"
Oooh, what;s that, teabaggie? DDT banned?
Nope.
Not banned AT ALL. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/DDT
But what about a decision by rational people like me, if we HAD banned DDT means you can't take them in????
Not a lot of christian charity. JC didn't say to the lame and lepers "Well, because retards like the Romans banned the use of artesian wells, you can go fuck yourselves and die, not my fault, blame the Romans!" did he.
So
a) "RETARDS LIKE YOU WHO BAN DDT!!!."
LIE
b) Has nothing to do with you being unwilling to actually give them a home
Ergo: LIE
c) "Yeah, but DDT, therefore global warming a lie"
MORONIC
Wooo hooo! You fucking retard! Suck on THAT, dick!
Hey, don't worry about Islam, THERE'S MALARIA OUT THERE!
ROFL!
"Hey, don’t worry about Islam, THERE’S MALARIA OUT THERE!"
FAIL..FAIL..FAIL..
You're dementia has got the better of you. Remember your scared were all going to die because of "Globull Warming".
Gonad..........
"“Hey, don’t worry about Islam, THERE’S MALARIA OUT THERE!”
FAIL..FAIL..FAIL.."
Yes, that's what I've been telling you, moron.
"Ignore problem, THERE'S MALARIA!" is fucking idiotic.
“Globull Warming”.
????
Lie.
Glowbull COOLING from deniers, remember:
http://skepticalscience.com/comparing-global-temperature-predictions.ht…
And there's a texas herd of bullshit in the Glowbull cooling myths from the deniers like yourself, teabaggie.
And yes, you are a nutsack. You are what you eat, after all. You have all those preachers' example to follow, and Gawd wouldn't let them show you wrong, would he?
And look how the denier, having had a devastating pantsing in public then rushes about screaming "LOOK OVER THERE!!!!!".
No longer about the lies they've spouted and the facts they've denied, they're going "Malaria!" "LIBERALS!" "BANNING DDT!" "COOLING!". While their pitiful tackle is blowing in the wind, all limp and unimportant.
Facts are against them, and they don't have anything to say, but can't let the truth stand unopposed.
Actually, the repeated dishonesty, demonstrated lack of education, and willful desire to avoid self-betterment shown by you, denier, and others of your ilk, should scare everyone.
Blah..Blah..Blah. Just go join a Chinese Green SWAT team. LOL
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/china-deploys-green-swat-teams-to-mee…
Ah, more irrelevant. Has bugger all to do with temperature.
Pathetic.
And, of course, you're going to expect a USA outlet to be accurate about China, right? Especially one owned by Rupert Murdoch...
hah, i thought it might have been at least a *reputable* source (in that it has a reputation). Nah. Washington "examiner". A political rag.
Nuff siad.
So, to sum up.
Teabagger calls out a score of lies, gets shown up about it, then goes "MAlaria, fix that!" and when that doesn't work "You banned DDT!". Still doesn't work, tries repeating the "globull warming" line again, but it still doesn't work and tries "China has a 'SWAT' team!" and pretends not to know what SWAT means or what it means when quote marks are put around it.
Anything actually on the topic fails utterly to pass muster as fact. And everything else is irrelevant, but it;s the "best" teabagger has.
Ethan Siegel:
Kudos on an excellent article. I have posted a link to it on the Facebook page of Skeptical Science. It will appear at 6:00 PM, EDT.
https://www.facebook.com/SkepticalScience/
All of the pseudo-science poppycock being spread on this comment thread by climate science deniers is throroughly debunked on SkepticalScience.com.
@Wow #87
@surething #89
@Narad #90
That is an oldie. This was the thinking back when they predicted a hot spot 10km up in the atmosphere that would be the “fingerprint” of CO2 warming. That altitude is colder than the freezing point of water so the warming at that level could only be from CO2. As everyone knows, the hotspot never appeared and the backtracking was swift. There was blubber about lapse rates and the hot spot not really being a so-called “fingerprint” unique to CO2 warming. In short the argument sounds good but has long since been punched in the face by reality.
The most credible theory I’ve read as to what was really going on was first proposed in Miskolczi (2007), has been expanded upon by many including Ferenc Mark Miskolczi himself in 2014. Beyond just modeling an atmosphere with a saturated greenhouse effect, it made a very specific and testable prediction. It predicted that as CO2 rose specific humidity would fall. As mentioned previously in the link provided by @Wow, that is EXACTLY what has been seen.
Not all science is as counter-intuitive as quantum mechanics. Temperature over the past billion years has been remarkably constant despite massive volcanic events, being struck by huge space rocks, CO2 over 7000ppm, etc. It would be so if Earth’s climate were not inherently stable. The mathematical models of climate scientists model a world that is not stable. If you can get them to run their simulations for a hundred million year or so the models will spit out nonsensical predictions of the Earth’s surface rivalling the surface of the sun. Miskolczi’s theory is the mechanism of stability that reflects our reality, and point to a saturated greenhouse effect. Adding more CO2 adds almost nothing.
@Narad #90
Congratulations on that comment. Most of this thread is typical.
Being labeled with a term that suggests I am a Nazi sympathizer: Normal
Having scientists add nothing of value but refer to other posters as excrement: Normal
To have nearly decade old blog posts that were known to be misleading even when they were originally written thrown my way only to have me counter with peer reviewed and published research: Normal
To be told that my argument lacks credibility because I used peer reviewed published research instead of making it up myself: Completely New and Original
Talking about oldies, it seems you are still confused about the hot spot. It was never a fingerprint of warming by CO2, stratospheric cooling was. It's about the area above the hot spot. Funnily enough, the image you linked to earlier actually agrees with that model remarkably well.
http://skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot-advanced.htm
Oh, so we have to have a climate model before we can observe the obvious? How stupid. That reminds me of idiots with business degrees touting flow charts and Power Point diagrams on how things will happen. It's all a bunch of b.s. Just look at the numbers on January and February temperature increases and you get a pretty good idea we're headed for catastrophic consequences of global warming.
What about what Miskolczi claims do you think is credible? It seems to go against everything we know.
For some issues with it check "Incomplete account of the physics" on page 42 of this document. http://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00704-015-1597-…
I wouldn't call the range between a snowball earth and the global average temperature being 13+ degrees Celsius warmer than today constant.
When CO2 levels were at 7000ppm the temperature was that 13 degrees above today. 7000ppm is 4.2 doublings of CO2 relative to today. Divide 13 by 4.2 and you get a sensitivity of 3.1. IPCC's best estimate is a sensitivity of 3.
If you trust the temperature and CO2 of the past as you claim to do, then you necessarily trust the models and a sensitivity around what most climate scientists think is accurate. You can still call the climate constant if you want, but people that think the exact same thing will happen might not agree with that assessment.
"All of the pseudo-science poppycock being spread on this comment thread by climate science deniers is throroughly debunked on SkepticalScience.com."
Which is why deniers call it a partisan biased political hack site.
Reality isn't ALLOWED to disagree with their political leanings.
"That is an oldie. "
Indeed. 70+ years old, but still deniers trot out the "Saturated gas" argument. Because there's one thing deniers don't do is learn.
"This was the thinking back when they predicted a hot spot 10km up in the atmosphere"
Which they found.
"That altitude is colder than the freezing point of water so the warming at that level could only be from CO2."
Lie.
"As everyone knows, the hotspot never appeared"
Lie.
"and the backtracking was swift. "
Lie.
"There was blubber about lapse rates and the hot spot not really being a so-called “fingerprint” unique to CO2 warming. "
Lie. It isn't.
"The most credible theory I’ve read"
Lie. Both "credible" and "read".
"Beyond just modeling an atmosphere with a saturated greenhouse effect, it made a very specific and testable prediction. It predicted that as CO2 rose specific humidity would fall. "
And failed.
"As mentioned previously in the link provided by @Wow, that is EXACTLY what has been seen."
Lie.
Troposphere !=Stratosphere.
"Temperature over the past billion years has been remarkably constant "
Lie.
"despite massive volcanic events, being struck by huge space rocks"
Lie.
"It would be so if Earth’s climate were not inherently stable."
Whut?
"If you can get them to run their simulations for a hundred million year or so the models will spit out nonsensical predictions of the Earth’s surface rivalling the surface of the sun."
Lie.
Unless you mean denier models...
"Miskolczi’s theory is the mechanism of stability that reflects our reality"
Lie.
"Adding more CO2 adds almost nothing."
Lie.
"Being labeled with a term that suggests I am a Nazi sympathizer"
Lie.
"Having scientists add nothing of value but refer to other posters as excrement: Normal"
Lie. Unless you mean Spencer, Lindzen, et al.
"To have nearly decade old blog posts that were known to be misleading even when they were originally written thrown my way only to have me counter with peer reviewed and published research:"
Not merely a lie, but 180 degrees reversed.
"because I used peer reviewed published research"
Lie.
" instead of making it up myself:"
Lie.
Just to point this out firmly.
Simple maths like this demonstrate why deniers are called deniers and why they are entirely wrong and WANT it that way.
NONE of them will find argument against this simple maths, yet they will STILL proclaim "adding CO2 changes almost nothing".
Note, for example, how denier here, despite claiming that before, and that it goes logarithmically, has refused to even acknowledge the very simple mathematical query I gave earlier:
Because no answer is possible without overturning the claim "adding more CO2 adds almost nothing" or the admission "its effect is logarithmic". It's impossible to keep both.
If you weren't a dishonest prick like denier.
tom:"What annoys some of us is that the question has become political as well as scientific. "
That's because deniers can't argue the science therefore they play the political area. And have "won" for 30 years. Don't you DARE blame the scientists for that, you prick.
"They seem to think that reaching a consensus defines the truth."
What an asshat statement, tom. Do you agree that the sun is in the sky and yellow? Does a consensus on that exist? Then does this mean THAT IS WRONG?????
Fuckwitted moron.
"Then, in collusion with the media, they try to browbeat everyone into “believing” the approved story. "
Talking about deniers again, are we tom?
"It gets turned into something more like a religion than science. "
Still deniers, right?
"They also treat the general public with contempt, assuming that we are all morons,"
Only morons who not merely don't understand, but REFUSE to. You know, morons like you. See your earlier statements as to proof of your moronicity.
"so they feed us a watered down story and label anyone that does not swallow it whole a “denier”."
Yes, you're fed a watered down story of the actual problem, because science is inherently conservative in its clams, and you STILL deny all and every evidence your politically motivated desires of what the truth "must" be are incorrect.
Which is why you're called deniers. Meaning "those who deny".
"They also seem to think that nothing will happen unless we are persuaded of imminent catastrophe. "
Lie. Both the inference and the claim of "imminent catastrophe" being proffered.
"Fact is, the climate is changing, and we do not know what the effects will be"
Lie. We do. AGW. Anthropogenic CO2.
"Building giant windmills that take more energy to build and deploy than they generate"
Lie. ROEI 7 years. Tops. Financial ROI shorter, 3-5 years.
"forcing us all to use “energy saving light bulbs ” in our homes"
Just like they "force!" you to have a TV... Lie.
"Advertising focuses on making us want a new car, a bigger TV, and a “better” smartphone. "
But not "forcing" you???? WHAT THE HELL DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH IT????
"It has been obvious since before I went to college to study Ecology in 1973!"
Lie. If you had, you would have known about AGW even then. Yet you're still in denial.
". We do not need to be bullied into believing a story "
Lie. You're not bullied, it's not a "story" and you really can understand it. See surething's post above showing 3.1C per doubling of CO2.
Was there something in that that was too complicated for you?
"Is there any hope when half the world’s population seems to care more about which particular version you believe of the story"
Here's an illustration of your pathology, tom:
https://xkcd.com/774/
And you still deny what we DO know, merely so you can feel superior to everyone else.
"And a nasty minority seems to think it okay to kill people that do not agree 100% with their own?"
What the fuck does Trump have to do with this??
Or was this yet another lie? The only ones calling for deaths on others are deniers, moron. You want to feel superior to both,but you can't find anything REAL to feel superior to about the realists' side,so you have to deny the facts and then make shit up about them.
"of the story that there is an omnipotent being that created everything and takes a special interest in us"
WHAT THE FUUUUUCK????? What the frigging hell was THAT about?
Shit man, stop pretending to be a New God Of Justice and shut the fuck up until you learn a clue.
Also, tom, please square the circle between these two contradictory statements you made:
and
Which is it? Overhyped alarmism or watered down pablum???
Denier, how come you make this claim:
“That altitude is colder than the freezing point of water so the warming at that level could only be from CO2.”
Yet didn't know what SteveP was asking in post #20,four days and several of your posts earlier?
Are you learning on-the-fly here, then having to retcon how what you've been told by people who know what the facts are actually means you've been right all along?
Nobody is suggesting you are a Nazi sympathizer. Referring to you as a denier of science doesn't do that: it simply states, clearly, what you are doing.
As long as you continue to do that, while spouting "arguments" that have been shown repeatedly to be false, you'll continued to be called on what you're doing.
Although having leapt to that conclusion, one has to ask: is that the result of a guilty conscience?
After all, the use of the term denier predates the National Socialists of Germany by a good many decades.
Not to mention he uses that pseudonym himself.
"Referring to you as a denier of science doesn’t do that: it simply states, clearly, what you are doing."
No it doesn't. It simply means that a simpleton such as yourself making a claim does not in fact make that claim true.
Ergo, you're a Liar..
Rag, you're the person who posted things demonstrated to be false about the climate. You've posted false stories about malaria and ddt. You have a history of posting other items that are contrary to established fact.
It is abundantly clear that you neither understand science nor like what it says. It is clear from your posts that you have no interest in learning. You prefer your convenient political lie over historical fact. You have those traits in common with denier and sn. Yet you wonder why you aren't taken seriously. Your life of privilege and intellectual isolation have apparently conditioned you to ignore views that contradict the reality of the world.
If you weren't so annoying you'd be pitied rather than treated with disdain.
"No it doesn’t"
Lie.
"a simpleton such as yourself"
Lie.
"making a claim does not in fact make that claim true."
But making the claim doesn't make it false either. You need more than mere assertion to do that, something you have never managed to pull off before.
"Ergo, you’re a Liar."
Lie. Also not supported, hence the "ergo" a lie too.
"You’ve posted false stories about malaria and ddt"
Deano, I tell false stories? Surely you jest..
I am going to save you from your own ignorance ONCE AGAIN.
Just do a search on:
"The Lies of Rachel Carson
by Dr. J. Gordon Edwards"
And Your Welcome
”Deano, I tell false stories? Surely you jest.."
Of course not. You DO post false stories.
"Just do a search on:
“The Lies of Rachel Carson""
Don't you mean "the lie about Rachel Carson"?
Just do a search on what ACTUALLY happened.
Not banned AT ALL. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/DDT
From the wiki page on him:
Lie. No ban on DDT.
"And Your Welcome"
What about his welcome?
Thanks for proving my point rag. I have no doubt that you believe what you were able to understand in that book, despite the fact that his 'arguments' have been shown bogus - they were known to be bogus when the book was written. Edwards was as dishonest in his day as you are today. Two quick examples: Edwards was famous for saying that Audubon's counts showed the eagle, falcon, and hawk populations grew during the heaviest DDT use years. Reviews of Audubon's records from 1935 through 1975 showed the opposite. He (Edwards) also claimed in one of his articles he referenced an Audubon paper citing an increase in eagle population. No such paper from Audubon existed.
His famous stunt of claiming DDT was not dangerous by eating it was just that, since he ate miniscule doses, well below any dangerous amount. There were no problems with offspring either, since he never produced an egg.
Most importantly, his claims that she made up the story about egg shell damage from DDT
* is bogus because that link wasn't made until after she published her book
* is bogus because the link was demonstrated by numerous studies
But again, thanks for demonstrating your dishonesty.
If I thought you were intellectually capable of writing that as an intended jest I'd grin, but I doubt that you realize the grammatical error that would make its intentional use almost amusing.
I see Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber are tag teaming on rations of ignorance again.
"Lie. No ban on DDT"
LIE, Yes there is/was:
Do you even know the definition of ban?
Full Definition of ban
bannedban·ning
transitive verb
1
archaic : curse
2
: to prohibit especially by legal means ; also : to prohibit the use, performance, or distribution of
3
: bar 3c
intransitive verb
https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/ddt-ban-takes-effect
"Since 1996, EPA has been participating in international negotiations to control the use of DDT and other persistent organic pollutants used around the world. Under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme, countries joined together and negotiated a treaty to enact global bans or restrictions on persistent organic pollutants (POPs), a group that includes DDT. This treaty is known as the Stockholm Convention on POPs. The Convention includes a limited exemption for the use of DDT to control mosquitoes that transmit the microbe that causes malaria - a disease that still kills millions of people worldwide.
In September 2006, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared its support for the indoor use of DDT in African countries where malaria remains a major health problem, citing that benefits of the pesticide outweigh the health and environmental risks. The WHO position is consistent with the Stockholm Convention on POPs, which bans DDT for all uses except for malaria control.
DDT is one of 12 pesticides recommended by the WHO for indoor residual spray programs. It is up to individual countries to decide whether or not to use DDT. EPA works with other agencies and countries to advise them on how DDT programs are developed and monitored, with the goal that DDT be used only within the context of programs referred to as Integrated Vector Management. Exit IVM is a decison-making process for use of resources to yield the best possible results in vector control, and that it be kept out of agricultural sectors."
I guess rt did not read his own link. Too many big words?
Who gives a flying furball about DDT; ie., what has that got to do with climate problems ? ? ?
:(
y"“Lie. No ban on DDT”
LIE, Yes there is/was:"
Lie.
"Do you even know the definition of ban?"
Yes
“Since 1996, EPA has been participating in international negotiations to control the use of DDT
Not ban.
"DDT is one of 12 pesticides recommended by the WHO for indoor residual spray programs. "
Not ban.
"what has that got to do with climate problems ? ? ?"
Nothing, but teabagger here hasn't had any luck spreading bullshit about the climate, so he's shitting in the pool out of spite.
The Convention includes a limited exemption for the use of DDT to control mosquitoes
Not ban.
which bans DDT for all uses except for malaria control.
NOT.
BAN.
@surething #115
Nope. You are either forgetting how the 'fingerprint' term came into the debate or started learning about this after climate scientists were backtracking in response to no tropospheric hotspot ever forming. If memory serves it was Ben Santer who coined the phrase, but it was definitely made prominant by the IPCC. Check 7.6.1 in the original report.
Stratospheric cooling was mentioned as well, but the claim that it was only stratospheric cooling came after the warmist community developed collective hot spot amnesia. The Skeptical Science page contains the original argument for why they believed there would be a hot spot. That argument has a reality problem.
@surething #117
Odd. Your paper from 2015 seems to pretend that Miskolczi(2014) never existed. That paper does address conduction, convection, advection, turbulent mixing,
etc. It also has 43 citations to work other than Miskolczi's own.
It is an interesting theory that make a falsifiable prediction that has proven true, and I have yet to read a credible alternate theory for the falling specific humidity. The link in post #78 has Carl Mears acknowledges reality but is at a complete loss as to why it is happening. If you've got a better idea then lets hear it.
@surething #118
Reference please.
"Who gives a flying furball about DDT; ie., what has that got to do with climate problems"
BECAUSE THERE IS NOOOOOOOOO CLIAMTE Problems.. OR DDT OR
FLIPPIN....RADON!!!!!
Go on now Science Scare Whores, Scares Us On How the Radon Boogeyman is Coming Next.
OMG!!!! If The Climate Don't Kill Me The DDT OR Radon Will..
LOL, What Ever Shall I do?
Lack of wisdom has killed you mentally, libtards.
Regarding the DDT dustup; nobody mentioned DDE. It seems that the real culprit in the use of DDT was the contaminant and metabolite DDE. Proponents of unregulated unfettered chemical wealth creation don't like to mention that DDT inevitably has a toxic manufacturing byproduct AND a toxic metabolic product that justifies severe restriction on its use.
To the Denier: Nice attempt to appear knowledgeable, but not credible. Using the discredited work of Miskolczi is indefensible.
To Ragtag Media: Your emo rant is not very becoming on an adult science blog. Apparently you believe that you are privy to some higher wisdom which the subjects known as “libtards” lack. Would you care to make a great step forward for mankind and share some of your higher wisdom? This is a science blog so presumably it would have something to do with science, but there is no reason that you couldn't present some other interesting system for interpreting reality.
"To Ragtag Media: Would you care to make a great step forward for mankind and share some of your higher wisdom?"
Why YES I would.
"Sit On it"...SteveP
Hey ladies and jerks, when is the big push for BILLION's in support dollars$$$$ for "End Of Earth By Asteroid Impact" ...............snicker...hehehehe
Wowzer, have you got your propaganda ready to GO?
Doucheface..
Wozer is that you in yer tin foil hat?
http://www.curezone.org/upload/Art/The_one_and_only_tinfoil_hat.jpg
haha
I'm not sure how you could open FAR, read the chapter, copy and paste it here and still be confused as to what it says.
I will reproduce the entire relevant section here.
"Tropospheric and stratospheric temperatures are central to the problem of greenhouse warming because general circulation models (Section 5) predict that temperature change with enhanced concentrations of greenhouse gases will have a characteristic profile in these layers, with more warming in the mid-troposphere than at the surface over many parts of the globe, and cooling in much of the stratosphere. One of the "fingerprint" techniques (Section 8) for detecting anthropogenic climate change depends in part on an ability to discriminate between tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling."
Tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling. Exactly what is observed and was observed at the time. The only thing that wasn't observed yet at the time was warming of the upper troposphere. Since then it has been observed. This is not a problem for AGW anyway, because according to the models it necessarily had to warm no matter what cause. The cooling of the stratosphere is what is unique to warming from an increased greenhouse effect as opposed to other types of warming.
Either the paper is pretending it never existed or the authors were unaware of it as it was published in an entirely unknown chinese journal (after 4 years of trying it everywhere else), which just like the 2 previous journals he published in is not peer reviewed.
Looking at it in more detail it's not weird he went with that route.
http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/miskolczi/
As far as making a prediction, there was a small drop in water vapor that stabilized, it doesn't cancel out the warming as evidenced by several global average temperature records since that drop in the early 2000s. Variability explains it much better than his "theory".
http://skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-stratosphere-global-warming.htm
"Nope. You are either forgetting how the ‘fingerprint’ term came into the debate"
Lie.
"climate scientists were backtracking in response to no tropospheric hotspot ever forming"
Lie
"If memory serves"
IOW "I'm making this up''
"Check 7.6.1 in the original report."
Which doesn't support your claim
"Stratospheric cooling was mentioned as well"
Which is a fingerprint of AGW. Unlike the hotspot. Deniers didn't read properly,though.
"came after the warmist community developed collective hot spot amnesia."
Lie.
" That argument has a reality problem."
Lie, you have a problem with the reality.
"Odd. Your paper from 2015 seems to pretend that Miskolczi(2014) never existed. "
Goodness,you mean that a paper being written before another was published didn't have the latest iteration of bullshit from a moron denier pretending science???
I guess it's a problem that actual scientists aren't prescient.
"That paper does address conduction, convection, advection, turbulent mixing,"
Lie.
"It also has 43 citations to work other than Miskolczi’s own."
Lie.
"It is an interesting theory"
Lie.
" that make a falsifiable prediction that has proven true,"
Lie.
It's mathturbation. Start with an unproven a priori, then fit what you can until you match parameters of the past.
"I have yet to read a credible alternate theory for the falling specific humidity."
It isn't.
"Carl Mears acknowledges reality"
You don't. He doesn't claim humidity is falling.
"Reference please."
You gave one when you "showed" how CO2 can't have an effect and posted the paleo reconstruction. Another link you didn't read before you posted it for "proof"?
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
From YOUR #45, remember?
"OMG!!!! If The Climate Don’t Kill Me The DDT OR Radon Will.."
Don't worry, Malaria will kill you.
"LOL, What Ever Shall I do?"
Keep going all Betty Hayworth on the internet like the wilting lilly you are?
Teabag, fuck off you cowardly shithead and let ADULTS use the internet.
So, teabagged here, having failed to convince anyone here that there is a hominid on its side of the keyboard, goes double plus retard.
One of the references in that horrific paper is this:
[4] Chandrasekhar, S. " An Introduction to the Study of Stellar Structure " 51-53, Dover Publications, 2010
???
[8] Cox, J., P., and Giuli, R., T."Principles of Stellar Structures" 408, Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, 1968
?!?!
and this one
[37] Real Climate (2008). http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ archives/2008/04/egu-2008/comment-page-2/
AreANY of them referred to in the paper?
Are any of the others???
It's easy to plop a reference, but if it isn't used or disproves your thesis and you don't acknowledge it, or you propose to refute it, but fail to do so, then the reference count is just being padded.
Read the paper. Now...
Nope. Only radiative fluxes.
Nope. Only radiative fluxes.
Time and again we see the pro-fossil fuel, pro-carbon camp raise as a defense for their position the accusation that scientists and their supporters are trying to scare them. We note that they take umbrage at the thought that someone is trying to manipulate their behavior or beliefs by tampering with their emotions through the use of scary scenarios. This type of reaction tells us a lot about their mindset. It seems that, at least at some level, they realize that their minds are susceptible to manipulation by others through the vulnerability of their own emotions. They recognize that at some level that their emotions are important and that they are malleable or able to be influenced by others.
Now, if they can just take the next step and say, hey, wait a minute. If my beliefs can be influenced by outside factors that play on my emotions, why do I embrace the beliefs that I currently embrace? What outside factors lead me to believe without question that a source of information is valid? What outside factors lead me to trust one source of information and attack another? How do I know that a source of information is reliable?
Wow,
Calling you 'sweetie' is mildly condescending. Considering what normally comes out of your mouth (so to speak) it is almost somewhat friendly. I see you are a true believer (Eric Hoffer style), and that's ok, I just find it sad you your desire to believe in something overrides all other considerations.
For someone that has contempt for so many other's beliefs, you are quite sensitive when your own cherished dogmas are challenged.
"They take umbrage at the thought that someone is trying to manipulate their behavior or beliefs by tampering with their emotions through the use of scary scenarios."
Yet lap up the scary scenarios of "New World Order" and "The Destruction of Capitalism" like it's bread and gravy to them.
Odd,eh?
"I see you are a true believe"
What the fuck is that supposed to mean, CFT?
Empty sounds coming from your mouth, as full of intent as your empty brain.
"I just find it sad you your desire to believe in something overrides all other considerations. "
Just as you believe fervently in your legs, overcoming all other considerations.
Again, what the fuck is your claim supposed to be saying? Empty as your brainpan.
"For someone that has contempt for so many other’s beliefs"
What belief?
"you are quite sensitive when your own cherished dogmas are challenged."
What dogma????
CFT. You started out this discussion long ago by plugging WUWT, a blog started by an un-credentialed or poorly credentialed climate "expert". Anthony Watts is a skeptic of the concept of carbon dioxide induced climate forcing. He is constantly attacking the science of climatology and he does so with a tone that I have often considered mocking and derisive of people such as me. He is an annoying thorn in the side of people trying to move the climate discussion forward. Worse, he is associated with the Heartland Institute,something that I call an Exxon Mobil supported disinformation group. Even worse, he did not honor his promise to accept the results of the the Berkeley Earth project, a Koch funded investigation into climate science which in fact showed that the main premise about the correlation of current global warming with the carbon dioxide imbalance is correct. Citing Watts and encouraging people to go to his blog at the ScienceBlogs can easily be interpreted as a very unfriendly gesture, or one profoundly ignorant of the lay of the land.
IMO, it would be a great exercise for you to scrap whatever your beliefs are about climate change and start fresh, with very open eyes about what data you chose to accept or reject.
At some point, the discussion about influence of fossil carbon on climate change will be resolved for the vast majority of thinking humans, just like the concept of a spheroid vs flat Earth is today. We are at a point where one can believe in the wrong side of the argument and still claim certainty that one is correct by citing believable falsehoods, but that is not always going to be the case.
@StephenP #148
When a work is discredited the publishing journal issues a retraction. Not only is it not discredited, but even calling it widely criticized is a stretch. It appears you are making things up to fit your preconceived notions, but I am open to having my mind changed. Please support your statement.
Hi Wow. Yeah, they accept one scary scenario but reject another. I think that they have a great dependency on their source of fearful beliefs, on the “authority” that they have been conditioned to follow. I think that they cling to their belief system like a deaf sailor to a floating piece of detritus, and we haven't yet found a way to tell them that the water is not very deep and they can just let go and walk to shore on their own. And that, I suspect, is because there are some real shit heads out there who have a vested interest in the status quo, in keeping as many people as possible stuck on floating bits of stupidity.
"When a work is discredited the publishing journal issues a retraction"
Lie.
"Not only is it not discredited, but even calling it widely criticized is a stretch. "
Lie.
"It appears you are making things up to fit your preconceived notions,"
Only if you're living inside your own head for your amusement. External reality doesn't support your claim.
"but I am open to having my mind changed. "
Lie.
"Please support your statement."
It's been discredited. SteveP gave you the info and you claim to be open minded, but you won't let contrary facts in (or don't stop them and let them pass right through your mind and out the other ear).
http://www.realclimate.org/docs/Rebuttal_Miskolczi_20100927.pdf
Andif you cry off "Oh, it's a biased site!" despite it being a discussion from experts in the goddamned field, will you accept Roy Spencer?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/comments-on-miskolczi%E2%80%99s-201…
Maybe, like other denier retards, you will not, just as when Roy admitted and tried to tell them that there really IS a greenhouse effect.
Boy did HE learn what he's allowed and not allowed to say then!
Rebuttal of Miskolczi’s alternative greenhouse theory
Rob van Dorland1 and Piers M. Forster2
1 Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, De Bilt, The Netherlands
2 School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
https://denierlist.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/ferenc-miskolczi/
In short denier, you favorite kook is not really taken seriously by anyone other than more kooks.
@Wow #165 & #166
This is the kind of thing that drives me insane with climate scientists. We have real data from NOAA(NCEP/NCAR). We have real data from NASA(NVAP & NVAP-M). We have real data from GEWEX/ESA. But lets throw all of that in the trashcan and instead use a back-of-the-napkin guess made in 2007 to be the "observations" that falsify a theory. Ridiculous.
@Wow #166
Of course there is a greenhouse effect, and in a lab C02 is a greenhouse gas with a logarithmic curve of effect. The problem is that we don't live in a lab and the conditions that make up Earth's climate are complex beyond our current understanding. This falling humidity is a perfect example. No one other than Miskolczi is able to explain it, and climate scientists who don't like his theory don't have a better one of their own, but still shout at the top of their lungs that the science is settled.
...also from your realclimate PDF
I made the mistake of putting two links in my previous comment so it was stuck in moderation for a bit.
You can see it at #152 now.
Keep referencing a debunked scientist denier, and people will keep laughing at you.
@surething #115
@surething #152
Heh. Yes, it was originally tropospheric warming AND stratospheric cooling that was the fingerprint. When no trospheric hotspot appeared, the argument was changed to stratospheric cooling alone being the signature. That is pretty much exactly what I wrote in #145. Good to see we're on the same page now. By the end of the thread you'll be insisting that you knew global warming was a sham all along. :)
With your Miskolczi link, I don't really get involved in attacks (either making or defending) on the source of information. With your realclimate stratospheric vapor pieces I do have to give them props for being right up front:
That is so refreshing considering the usual claims of 'the science is settled'.
"This is the kind of thing that drives me insane with climate scientists"
Yeah, they all come back and tell you where you went wrong, and that drives you INSANE!
"But lets throw all of that in the trashcan and instead use a back-of-the-napkin guess made in 2007 to be the “observations” that falsify a theory. "
Well, nobody knows where THAT load of shite came from. Is it what you say about Miskolczi and his paper? Or what?
"Of course there is a greenhouse effect, "
Not according to Miskolczi.
"and in a lab C02 is a greenhouse gas with a logarithmic curve of effect. "
You haven't a goddamned clue what that means, do you? First, no the lab isn't what tells you it has a "logarithmic curve of effect". Secondly, do you even know what a log curve is?
After all, you think it has an asymptote but have still failed to tell us where you believe it to be and what value of n does log(n) get near enough that asymptote to make the remainder "not anything much".
"No one other than Miskolczi is able to explain it"
Lie. Double, actually,
a) he can't, and fails
b) climate scientists can
"The problem is that we don’t live in a lab and the conditions that make up Earth’s climate are complex beyond our current understanding"
Lie.
It's merely beyond yours. Like a log curve.
"and climate scientists who don’t like his theory don’t have a better one of their own,"
Lie. They have a great one that actually works.
"but still shout at the top of their lungs that the science is settled. "
Lie.
"If you have an alternative theory to explain the falling humidity seen in all datasets, then lets hear it."
It isn't falling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausius%E2%80%93Clapeyron_relation
The humidity is rising.
@dean #171
Oh noes. Whatever will I do?!?
With your link in #168, I don’t really get involved in personal attacks (either making or defending) on the source.
"Heh. Yes, it was originally tropospheric warming AND stratospheric cooling that was the fingerprint. "
Lie.
Tropospheric is due to all warmings, so it can't be a fingerprint for AGW.
"When no trospheric hotspot appeared"
It has. the records were sparse and no conclusion could be drawn from the poor quality data. Deniers never learn from history. Hence the zombie arguments.
"That is pretty much exactly what I wrote in #145"
Which was a lie then, and a lie now.
"I don’t really get involved in attacks"
Lie. You've done nothing but.
"the usual claims of ‘the science is settled’."
Lie.
"Oh noes. Whatever will I do?!? "
Stay an irrelevant dumbass and get laughed at by your betters? It's all you've got, really.
"I don’t really get involved in personal attacks"
Lie.
@Wow #173
Of course he does, but he believes the aggregate effect is saturated and stable.
"Of course he does,"
But he also says it doesn't. Which is one of the many reasons his work is bull.
"but he believes the aggregate effect is saturated and stable."
And David Ike believes he's the Son of God. They're both wrong.
And still nothing on the log curve?
"With your link in #168, I don’t really get involved in personal attacks (either making or defending) on the source."
You don't get involved with the science at any level, that's the problem. If you avoid reading items that show your source is crap you can claim your hands are clean - typical science denying tactic.
Again, Tropospheric warming. That's all it says.
In that same IPCC document it shows you a graph of tropospheric warming that was measured at the time.
The argument was never changed to stratospheric cooling alone, no one did, ever. There can't be no warming of the troposhere in any scenario.
Exactly what I wrote and the opposite of what you wrote.
We might be able to get on the same page, but you do actually have to open the pages you claim to get information from.
Still, since then even the hotspot has been detected.
http://i0.wp.com/scienceblogs.com/gregladen/files/2015/05/Upper_Troposp…
What the cause is for the changes in stratospheric water vapor is not known, but there are several plausible candidates. The important thing is that we do know its effect as you can also see on that page. The forcing dipped short term, but has since caught up and continues the same trend. This is very clearly not a negative feedback to keep the temperature stable.
The amount of heat being trapped still increases and the temperature is still going up.
Oh, look, somebody doesn't understand academic publishing (or what "zeroth-tier journal" means), either.
Denier #164
Miskolczi's ‘radiative exchange equilibrium law’ is a bunch of crap. You go ahead and defend it if you like. While you are at it, please explain how the Earth’s atmosphere, with continually growing levels of carbon dioxide, methane, and other green house gases, and the naturally highly variable levels of water vapor from point to point should have a constant infrared optical thickness as Miskolczi proclaims. Do you like to defend stupid things? Then go for it, because that is one really stupid thing.
Sea level has been falling on the Atlantic seaboard for the past six years:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2016/03/23/falling-sea-level/
Read It Kool Aid Consumers of the "Scientific Community" :
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Screenshot-201…
See That, Oh, Those That Lack Wisdom?
That there was a "Team Of Gubment Scientist"
See the last paragraph in the article?
"Sea level has been falling on the Atlantic"
Oh, look cherries are out early this year. Must be the warm weather.
"See That, Oh, Those That Lack Wisdom?"
Stop talking to yourself. And learn to read what you post links to.
"That there was a “Team Of Gubment Scientist”"
See how the moron doesn't spell? And, yes, a team of government scientists got you to the moon. Ergo they're all evil????
What a fucking moron.Even without his sockpuppet.
Steve Goddard is a hack, liar and a fraud.
Some folks have a hard time with real information. They need to have it pre-digested for them. You know, like how mother animals chew up food and spit it out for their babies. And in the case of animal babies, that is probably a really good thing. But letting Steve Goddard select and pre-digest your information for you, on the other hand, is a good way to get hoof [IN] mouth disease. If you look at the entire century of data on the Atlantic City NJ chart that he cited, , instead of the last few years, you will see numerous similar dips over the course of a few years, all over-ridden by a strong upward trend of +4.08 +/- 0.16 mm/year. Due to things like storm surges, rain runoff, temperature variations, evaporation, variations in the thermohaline conveyor, massive swirls and eddies, and wind effects, you don't base your sea level trends on a short period of time like the disreputable Goddard has done. But some folks buy into this pre-digested fantasy crap like it was something meaningful. They seem to prefer the comforting virtual reality of a known deceiver over actual reality. It is pitiable, actually. They buy a little more time hiding from reality by choosing sites that give them the pre-digested crap that comforts them instead of bravely confronting reality and looking at the actual information.
Or Take his example of The Battery NY tide gage. That one shows a trend over the last century of 2.84 +/- 0.09 mm per year.
Or look at these.
8531680 Sandy Hook NJ
The mean sea level trend is 4.08 mm/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.22 mm/year based on monthly mean sea level data from 1932 to 2014 which is equivalent to a change of 1.34 feet in 100 years.
8516945 Kings Point NY
The mean sea level trend is 2.52 mm/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.21 mm/year based on monthly mean sea level data from 1931 to 2014 which is equivalent to a change of 0.83 feet in 100 years.
8519483 Bergen Point NY
The mean sea level trend is 4.65 mm/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.92 mm/year based on monthly mean sea level data from 1981 to 2014 which is equivalent to a change of 1.53 feet in 100 years.
8514560 Point Jefferson, NY
The mean sea level trend is 2.44 mm/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.76 mm/year based on monthly mean sea level data from 1957 to 1992 which is equivalent to a change of 0.80 feet in 100 years.
Goddard is either purposefully or stupidly misinterpreting noise for data. In any event, he is a catch fly for fools.
"Some folks have a hard time with real information."
Well Steve, here is some "Real" published statements from the great fear monger charlatan DR. James Hanson:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2016/03/23/hansen-repeating-his-ide…
"Steve Goddard is a hack, liar and a fraud."
Really Wowzer? Look what Hanson said nearly 30 years ago and is continuing to spew the same LIE TODAY.
your abject denial of a rational thought process is quite apparent here.
If you can simply READ what Hanson said then and now and compare/contrast, you will see his schtick for garnering attention and MONEY for what it is.
"the great fear monger charlatan"
Lie.
"stevengoddard.wordpress.com/"
Yeah, we already know he's a moron without a clue.
"“Steve Goddard is a hack, liar and a fraud.”
Really"
Yes, really.
"Look what Hanson said nearly 30 years ago and is continuing to spew the same LIE TODAY."
It's not a lie, fuckwit.
"his schtick for garnering attention and MONEY for what it is."
A lie you have swallowed like Goddard's flaccid and pus ridden cock?
goddard does not have the science on his side. He has chosen to ignore it, as you have.
It's worse for him, of course, because he should be educated enough to know from the start that he's deliberately distorting the data. You're simply devoted to repeating lies because they fit your political agenda - there's no chance you could understand the theory or the statistics even if you tried rt, you've demonstrated that lack of ability several times.
It's not as if deniers desire to see "alarmism" wherever they want to scream about it is a new thing:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Examining-Hansens-prediction-about-the-…
Ethan, I am disappointed to see you entering this fray. We are lucky the climate changes. Are humans responsible for it to the point that self-imposed Malthusian cycles are indicated? Probably not.
David, we're not lucky the climate changes. We've been lucky it's been so steady for 800,000 years or so.
"Are humans responsible for it "
Yes.
See http://www.ipcc.ch
But you know that, you're just in denial.
"Probably not."
Uneducated and uninformed opinion not worth wiping the arse on. Completely valueless.
And, as it happens, utterly wrong.
@SteveP #183
Despite tectonic changes in the landmass configuration, orbital wobbles, atmosphere effected volcanism, etc., the climate has stayed remarkably stable in a narrow range. Stability doesn’t happen without negative feedback. Multiple datasets all show the humidity is falling and it has been acknowledged by those on both sides of the debate. Ignoring the intricacies of Miskolczi’s theory for a moment, are the falling rates part of a negative feedback?
Dr. Roy Spencer does not know.
his idea that nature might keep the Earth’s total greenhouse effect relatively constant is a valid hypothesis…one which I have advanced before. The observational evidence he finds to support it is certainly tantalizing
John Cook of Skeptical Science does not know.
If even very smart people whose profession it is to be knowledgeable about such things do not know then it is a safe bet that I don’t know, and if you’re really honest about it neither do you.
“Are humans responsible for it ”
Yes.
See www.ipcc.."
ROTFLMFAO!!!!
Wowzer what a canard.
The IPCC has been duping dolts like you for years.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=ipcc
“Are humans responsible for it ”
Yes.
See IPCC..”
ROTFLMFAO!!!!
Wowzer what a canard.
The IPCC has been duping dolts like you for years.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=ipcc
(Ethan, please delete same post in moderate que I thought I removed enough of Wowzers link to disable it as a hot link.)
I would point out that scientists do not post at wattsup. People like him do. No expertise in want they discuss.
"The IPCC has been duping dolts like you for years."
Lie.
Poop. Time to type on a real keyboard. "Want" should be "what" in the final sentence above.
Conspiracy site has claims of conspiracy on it. Shocking news brought to you at 10.
Teabagger, what exactly do you think you prove posting a link to a site that was created to rubbish the scientists and deny reality and claim that the site says what it was supposed to say?
"Teabagger, what exactly do you think you prove posting a link to a site that was created to rubbish the scientists and deny reality and claim that the site says what it was supposed to say?"
OK, how about we meet in the middle?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/03/14/shock-poll-meteorolo…
I can say sure, I add heat to the environment, but IT's NOT A FUCKING CRISIS.
When I FART it adds methane to the green house BUT IT IS NOT A CRISIS.
Unless I give you a dutch oven i suppose..
Dear Ragtag Media #189,
Regarding the ozone layer- Humans decided to curb the use of ozone depleting forms of Freon, and the rapid progression of the destruction of the ozone layer was stopped. The scientific research departments of the world's major nations viewed the data and said holy shit, we had better stop using the worst forms of Freon, and they did.
Regarding James Hansen- My awareness of global warming predates my awareness of an individual known as James Hansen by about 30 years. I really don't give a fuck what you or asshat Steven Goddard think about James Hansen. In fact, I don't really care too much what James Hansen thinks because I am not an authority worshiper like you. I rely on my own knowledge of science and math to make decisions, not on some pseudo authority that I pick to satisfy my own fantasy needs. Isn't that what you do? The knowledge of the heat retaining properties of the atmosphere and of carbon dioxide predates your ridiculous existence by a century and a half. If you knew something beside how to maximize your thrills at video games, you might be aware of that.
When I asked you to share your wisdom on this subject you told me to "Sit on it." So basically,it looks like you are just searching for evidence to confirm that your adolescent level view of the universe is correct. Yet you can't even tell basic noise from signal so it is doubtful that you are going to come to any useful sort of view.
Maybe you should wait to blog here until you have at least taken a few entry level college science and math classes. Just saying. Otherwise, you are just making noise.
Ragtag Media. Forbes is not middle ground, it is basically a mouthpiece of the fossil fuel loving establishment. Meteorologists are not climatologists. And the year is 2016, not 2012.
A more recent article would say something like this:"
By Jason Samenow April 14, 2015
Analysis
TV weathercasters are more convinced than ever climate change is happening and that human activities are a major contributor suggest the results of a new report.
More than 90 percent of 464 broadcast meteorologists who responded to a 2015 survey agree climate change is happening and, of those, 74 percent believe human activity is at least half responsible, states “A National Survey of Broadcast Meteorologists About Climate Change: Initial Findings”, from the George Mason University (GMU) Center for Climate Change Communication.
> the middle?
> jamestaylor/2012/
Chuckle. you link to an outdated claim from a longtime denier, and you claim to believe he represents "the middle" -- you didn't even bother to check for newer information, did you?
"I really don’t give a fuck what you or asshat Steven Goddard think about James Hansen."
What you DO need to know is that Goddard is lying his ass off, and deniers don't care, they love the message he sends.
When deniers make a claim about a prediction of others, you have to check to see if that was what was actually predicted.
"OK, how about we meet in the middle?"
Not in the middle you defined, teabagger.
The middle of the debate of whether 1+1 equals 2 or 4 isn't to start with it being 3, retard.
@203 Steve P
"Dear Ragtag Media #189,
Regarding the ozone layer- Humans decided to curb the use of ozone depleting forms of Freon, and the rapid progression of the destruction of the ozone layer was stopped. The scientific research departments of the world’s major nations viewed the data and said holy shit, we had better stop using the worst forms of Freon, and they did."
ROTFLMAO!!!!!
Boy that's a knee slapper.., I should have know you believed the cock-n-bull of the "Montreal Protocol"..
Wash Rinse Repeat with the new climate issue to defraud people out of Billions of dollars. it's the same now with Climate Scare warming as it was with refrigerant's eating a hole in the ozone.
I hold an EPA 608/609 card and have worked in this industry for many many years.
The Montreal Protocol was scam that big business used on lefttards to scare them into buying new product that don't work as well.
Just like now with Globull warming scare to make people buy product like solar that cost more and are not as good as carbon product.
"ROTFLMAO!!!!!"
I realise that this was news to you, teabagger, but why is that so funny???
"I should have know you believed the cock-n-bull of the “Montreal Protocol”.."
Well, yes, it's part of reality. You can go read and prove the existence of the montreal protocol yourself. You're always believing things because they've been written down, so this should be easy for you.
It really did happen.
"Wash Rinse Repeat with the new climate issue to defraud people out of Billions of dollars."
Yes. However, I suspect you really do not have a clue who it is who is bilking the public out of billions (nay, trillions a year). You have been told (and wish to believe) it is the climate scientists who warn of AGW when in actual fact it is the donors of the monies to the sites where you get your "information" from.
"I hold an EPA 608/609 card and have worked in this industry for many many years."
Well, not only does nobody believe you, but nobody thinks that this is in any way proof of any validity in your assertions or position, even if it were by some weird fluke of random nature to be true.
"The Montreal Protocol was scam that big business used on lefttards to scare them into buying new product that don’t work as well."
Rethuglican politicians have insisted that this is so, and you were hoodwinked into accepting this as gospel.
"Just like now with Globull warming scare "
You mean like the scare that this is all a scam to bilk people out of billions, right? You know, where someone who is a total retard (to be clear, YOU) said: "make people buy product like solar that cost more and are not as good as carbon product."
If your comprehension of the EPA certificates were as poor as your grasp of your putative native tongue, this would be enough to render your assertion moot.
so the teabagger denies the science about this? no shock there.
yeah, there is no more reason to believe that than there is to believe any of your other claims.
Oh My..
Weather Channel Founder Slams Global Warming: "The Theory Has Failed"
As a skeptic of man-made global warming, I love our environment as much as anyone. I share the deepest commitment to protecting our planet for our children and grandchildren. However, I desperately want to get politics out of the climate debate. The Paris climate agreement is all about empowering the U.N. and has nothing to do with the climate.
Weather Channel founder John Coleman has spent more than 60 years as a meteorologist, including seven years as the original weathercaster on ABC’s Good Morning America.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/04/21/earth-day-paris-united…
Bwah_ha_ha_ha.......ha
"Weather Channel Founder Slams Global Warming: “The Theory Has Failed”"
Aaand this means what?
Fuck all.
Since the weather channel founder has a degree in jounalism but not science, and has made statements about ocean rise and glaciers that are directly contradicted by modern observations not even tied to the subect he doesn't understand, on this issue he is simply as much of an ignoramus as ragtag and all his teabagger friends
Uh..oh..
ClimateGate 2 - NOAA Whistleblower Claims World Leaders Fooled By Fake Global Warming Data
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-du…
The author talks about gradual long-term change and larger short-term change. However, this overlooks that a short term spike in temp can engage one or more factors called tipping points, that then accelerate long term change. We can see that happening right now with the melting Arctic ice - leading to greater absorption of heat, and Siberian melting of permafrost - leading to release of methane. So a short term change can permanently alter the long-term gradient. Sad and dangerous.