The empirical evidence for man-made global warming

> Your reply brilliantly captures the whole problem skeptics have with current climate science...

No, ppk, **your comments** brilliantly capture the whole problem most self-identified "skeptics" have with the current climate science. **They don't understand the scientific case and/or they attack a horribly incorrect misrepresentation of it**. You need to learn what the science actually says before you can be properly skeptical of it. Otherwise your "skepticism" is accurately labeled **denialism** because it's predicated on (explicitly or implicitly) pretending that the scientific case does not exist.

Your questions (some of which embody deeply - and even laughably - false assumptions) and false assertions - to which Lee [threw up his hands in exasperation](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…) - have been answered over and over again by both the scientists and those explaining the science to the public.

If you want to **actually** be a skeptic, you have some learning to do first. Try starting with the IPCC AR4 summary report, or [The Discovery Of Global Warming](http://www.aip.org/history/climate/).

> ...apparently Nature issued an erratum in 'Nature 410, 355; 2001' that undermined that study's results.

Would that be [this erratum](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6832/full/4101124a0.html), for which the full text appears to be short enough to appear outside of Nature's paywall - and I quote:

> In Fig. 1a of this paper, the labels for the two curves were inadvertently switched.

...which at first glance (and without access to the full paper) does not appear likely to undermine the conclusions of the paper?

If so, were you hoping that by not providing your references that "most viewers wouldn't bother looking up something like that"?

> We've mulled over sensitivity and feedback here, haven't we, boys, using little more than an intuitive feel for thermodynamics and a little common sense.

Well, you've demonstrated serious lack of understanding of thermodynamics and systems comprising multiple feedback loops - I guess you can call that "mulling" if you want.

> Roy Spencer over on WUWT is explaining how climate sensitivity to CO2 has been overestimated by the IPCC, and that we're at last getting a handle on negative feedback.

Spencer lately has been fairly reliably wrong - especially when he opines on his blog prior to journal publication. Last time around it was a "demonstration" that the warming trend "might be" due to not fully-compensated-for UHI. Trouble is he screwed up his first attempt at the statistical analysis, and on the second one he compared apples and oranges (temperature measurements taken every 6 hours vs daily min & max) without any consideration of the validity of the comparison for the purpose at hand.

And Spencer is apparently pointing to the sensitivity and feedback characteristics of the models - presumably in the hope that his not-terribly-skeptical readership will focus on those and ignore a number of independent lines of evidence that ALSO lead the IPCC to its current estimate of the most likely sensitivity range.

As I [said earlier](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…) "it would be instructive to compare the weight of evidence for a proposition that Brent finds to "have promise" with a proposition that he finds to be obviously wrong". This is yet another example.

Given his track record, wake me up when Spencer comes up with something that withstands a few months of post-publication scrutiny and *then* we'll talk about it.

Still [no answers to questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…) from you, Brent - surprise, surprise.

And still no concessions from you, Brent, even on [flat-out lies](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…).

It's almost like you're surreptitiously telling us you're not a [reasonable person by your own standards](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…).

Again, 1.5" of sea level rise per year is a crisis? And how much of that oh-so-scary condition is actually human induced?

How much has CO2 really trapped heat per Harries et al plot?

Where in the vid is the evidence for AGW?

Evasion and diversionary personal attacks seem to sum up climate science today. Sad. It's giving real scientists a bad rap.

Well, I've asked these questions three times now and have gotten no response to them. So you've managed to reinforce my opinion that climate science today has no credibility with anyone who has an even modestly high IQ... Integrity Quotient that is.

I'm moving on, so happy fear-mongering!

ppk, you wrote:

I guess no one here is going to respond to my questions regarding the vid that's the topic of this thread. It claims evidence of AGW and I didn't see any.

The evidence was plain to see. It's not that you don't see it -- you deny it.

Regarding rising sea level (one of the poster children of doom), the graph presented shows 1.5" per year rise. And presumably only a percentage of that is human induced. How much? Seems like a pretty reasonable question.

That percentage is likely to be close to 100%. There are no other hypotheses that explain the sea level rise anywhere near as well as increases in temperature. And remember, a 1.5" rise per year adds up to 150 inches -- 12 feet -- over a hundred years. That would put some of our coastal cities, such as Miami, completely underwater, and inundate large portions of every other coastal city all over the world.

What about the Harries et al plot in the vid? Why is CO2 shown in two different places and what is the context of the result? I see only a 0.8% difference in the one CO2 result and no change in the other and methane appears to be the bigger problem anyway (which apparently has been going down in concentration). Please explain.

This paragraph is difficult to understand. The questions you ask are too vague to answer. I suggest that you reword them to more precisely state the nature of your question.

I'd like to offer a hypothesis for your consideration, ppk. That hypothesis is as follows: you have no training in any of the hard sciences. You might have taken a few courses in basic physics and chemistry long ago, but they were introductory level at best. You really don't know anything about the science of climate change. The starting point of your thinking is loyalty to conservative political groups. Since those groups reject climate change, you join in and reject climate change, even though you really have no idea what this is all about. In other words, you are politically motivated to deny climate change and have no interest in or concern for the scientific issues. You have not read the IPCC reports or the NAS statements on climate change. You have read some denialist sites and have picked up bullet points that you repeat here. But you don't respond to any of the challenges offered here because a response is beyond your knowledge of the material.

This hypothesis does a good job of explaining your behavior here. Could you perhaps offer us an alternative hypothesis that explains your behavior more convincingly?

Erasmussimo, many thanks for a textbook example of how to blow gaping holes in Spencer's latest effort.

If Brent is interested in living up to his self-professed "scepticism", perhaps in future he'd extend that "scepticism" to Dr. Spencer. Several of Spencer's peers have driven a bus through his efforts before including:

Ray Pierrehumbert at RC;

Tamino once, twice and thrice; and

lastly an entire category devoted to Spencer at Deltoid.

Brent, you have homework...

Brent's right, it has been cold in England and Texas recently.

Ppk starts:

>*The title at the top is 'The empirical evidence for man-made global warming' but no evidence for AGW was presented in the video - only that temperatures appear to be going up which could and probably is Nature just doing its thing.*

ppk, first question, if your opening statement was truthful, why would you need to then say this:

>*The Harries et al plot looks far from conclusive to me that there is any real increase in trapped heat.*

Then can you explain why I should spend my time debating with you? And can you assure me that your untruthful claims would cease if I did debate you?

My reply to Brent was held up in moderation. But it [contains evidence of warming](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…) that Brent will ignore regardless. I have no delusions that anything at all will sway Brent from his faith.

> Evasion and diversionary personal attacks seem to sum up climate science today. ... I'm moving on, so happy fear-mongering!

Shorter ppk: I can't defend my assertions so I'm taking diversionary potshots and evasive action.

I imagine ppk would not want to look at this post on [the empirical evidence for global warming](http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.h…).

If he did, he might have to go beyond trivial concerns about a graph label mixup in Harries 2001 and consider that there are at least a couple of other more recent papers with similar results. And that there are direct measurements of downwards-directed longwave radiation which - absent any dramatic new discoveries in atmospheric science - can only be happening if greenhouse gases are emitting longwave radiation from the atmosphere.

SteveC (1506): I'm grateful for your links to criticisms of Roy Spencer. I have begun the 'homework' you set me!

An article on RealClimate by Ray Pierrehumbert seems to demolish an all-singing-all-dancing 1902/2008 model by Spencer which matches the GISST anomaly record, and the line âSo why does Royâs graph look so much better than mine? As Julia Child said, âItâs so beautifully arranged on the plate â you know someoneâs fingers have been all over it.â " is the wittiest thing I have read from warmists!

Laymen like me are plagued by the neccessity of what I might call 'pick-a-hero'. That is, lacking the education to, say, check out the computer code and equations ourselves, we latch onto some authority figure we declare knowledgeable and truthful. We all do it, not just laymen. Because even an expert is a layman out of his field. You doubtless play pick-a-hero when you needs to have your airbag or your arthritis checked out. But a wise layman picks his hero judiciously; not at random.

The 2008 graph chimes nicely with a warning given by Erasmussimo yesterday on PIPPO, and so Spencer drops a point on my Herometer. (Prejudice in, pretty picture out.)

You linked to a piece on OpenMind critical of Spencerâs alleged misunderstanding of the word âfeedbackâ and a discussion on exponential smoothing and the âtime coefficientâ different depths of ocean provide â 1.6 yr to 32 yr. Now this begins to look familiar: This is Control Engineering, as used in vehicle suspension. Resonant frequencies: yes. Step change: yes. Damping: yes. Hookeâs law (or in this case, Boyle's). Yes.

This is food for thought, Steve, and I retain my pet theory that the key battlegrounds are Feedback and Sensitivity.

>*I retain my pet theory that the key battlegrounds are Feedback and Sensitivity.*

Careful Brent, your drifting into alignment with current scientific opinion and genuine skepticism.

Keep it up and I might begin to believe the threat is not a waste of time.

;)

John (1507):
(ironic mode switched to normal)

Thank you for the link to a colourful graph showing England and Texas cool oases in this roasting world of ours. I hope that you personally don't live in one of the blood-red or (gulp) congealed-blood-red areas.

Eight-point-flippin'-five degrees hotter than it should be! Holy mackerel!

The graphic confirms what they trumpet in the media: "Not too bad in the inhabited latitudes, major warming at the poles." Now, may I recommend some reading for you? In a posting called "Dial 'M' for Mangled", Anthony Watts has unearthed some dodgy temperature records in the Arctic.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/22/dial-m-for-mangled-wikipedia-and-…

Here's the essence: Chappies at Ice Station Zebra put on their furs and pop out to read the thermometer hourly. A hot day goes: 8.0, 8.0, 8.1, 8.2; a cold day goes 20.2M, 20.2M, 20.3M, 20.3M. Brass monkey weather is 40M.

Watts has found records which go 20.2M, 20.2M, 20.3, 20.3M, or something like.

And on the evening of July 13th 2009, temperature at a certain Canadian outpost went 5.9, 19.6, 4.1. Would you agree that the 15-degree spike at beer-time -22:00- might skew the big picture? Would you agree that errors in barely-populated areas have a greater skewing effect than where data is abundant? Would you agree that remoteness between data gathering and interpretation might reduce the detection of honest blunders?

Jeff Harvey was recently telling us about a 10C heat wave in his native Canada. (I bet he was writing from his air-conditioned office in Belgium.)

In indusrty there's an acronym: MBWA - Management by Walking Around. Maybe there's an argument for CBSGO, or Climatology by Sometimes Going Outdoors.

(ironic mode suspended)

The IPCC's WG1 AR4 document talks convincingly about Quality Assurance. I question whether this noble and professional intent is acted upon, and whether the Quality Auditing specified in the Automotive Industry's TS16949 has any equivalent in the Climate Industry.

First off, I think that all the nasty things that have been written about Brent have been falsified by his two most recent posts. That doesn't excuse any past behavior (of which I am unaware), but I believe that these two posts were written in good faith and offer arguments that deserve serious responses. Here's my attempt at providing such responses:

First, in regard to the "pick-a-hero" problem, I agree that the world is far too complex for any individual to figure out everything by himself. So yes, "pick-a-hero" is a prudent strategy. Indeed, for low-risk situations, it's an ideal strategy. If I take my Toyota to the Toyota dealership and the mechanic tells me that I need to replace the fragilatizationator, I take his word for it. But the weightier an issue is, the more heros we consult. If my doctor tells me that I'll die unless I let him cut off my genitals, I'll get a second opinion. Before I cast my vote in an election, I sound out my friends to see what they think. I don't let any single hero decide the issue for me.

So it should be with scientific issues such as climate change. This is such a complicated subject that I would never, ever rely on the word of any individual before making a judgement. I would much prefer to hear the results of a thorough deliberation by a large group of top experts.

Fortunately, in this I have been anticipated by the US Congress -- by nearly 150 years. Just after the Civil War, the Congress realized that it needed reliable advice on scientific issues, so it created the National Academy of Sciences, whose primary function has always been to provide Congress with the most reliable scientific advice possible. The NAS consists of the elite of American science. Membership is by invitation only, and an invitation to join is the crowning achievement in many a scientist's career. The NAS does not withhold invitations from controversial or dissident scientists -- Mr. Lindzen, a major critic of climate change theory, is a member and sits on all the committees relevant to climate change.

The NAS's deliberative process relies heavily on supermajority approval of any formal report. It does not require consensus, just a big supermajority. The effectiveness of its deliberative process is demonstrated by the astounding fact that, in nearly 150 years of work, the NAS has never made a mistake in its formal reports to Congress. Not once has any claim made in any formal report been later found to be incorrect. Can you name ANY institution that has a perfect track record? Certainly not the Supreme Court, and, despite claims to the contrary, not the Pope, either.

The trick, of course, is that the NAS is extremely conservative in its reports; it doesn't put anything into a report unless the scientists are very confident of it. Much of the time, it simply says that "more research is needed". That's what they reported back in the 1970s when there was some brouhaha over global warming and global cooling. (Interestingly enough, more scientists were worried about global warming than global cooling. MANY more scientists.) The NAS looked into it and issued a report saying "We don't know. More research is needed."

Thus, when the NAS says something more than "more research is needed", you can be damn sure that their claim is solid. And if you read the NAS statement on climate change:

http://americasclimatechoices.org/basics.shtml

Here's a quote from it:

The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to begin taking steps to prepare for climate change and to slow it. Human actions over the next few decades will have a major influence on the magnitude and rate of future warming. Large, disruptive changes are much more likely if greenhouse gases are allowed to continue building up in the atmosphere at their present rate. However, reducing greenhouse gas emissions will require strong national and international commitments, technological innovation, and human willpower.

It's a well-written, carefully balanced document that acknowledges all the uncertainties but nevertheless comes down strongly in favor of the basic AGW hypothesis.

I strongly urge you to read it. It's a pamphlet for general public consumption and it's only 24 pages long, with lots of pictures and a few graphs.

Hi Brent,

A skeptical person might look at the graph and think "Hmm. 8.5 degrees above average doesn't sound right. Maybe NASA is wrong. Maybe I am wrong. Let me check."

A quick check would reveal the shocking truth that nowhere on the chart (or indeed, the NASA website) does it say that the numbers correspond to direct temperatures. This is your assumption and you are wrong and not worthy of the term skeptic, only the term "stupid".

That is all.

John.
xx

C'mon, John, back off with the personal insults here. All you're doing is confirming the beliefs of deniers that we're a bunch of dogmatists. If somebody is verbally brutish, you're welcome to be brutish back (I prefer to just ignore brutish behavior), but when they make an attempt to discuss the matter seriously, it's best for everybody to respond to the issues, not the personalities.

Erasmussimo, Brent is a liar and a troll who within his last dozen posts has accused every scientist in the IPCC of being frauds. Nothing he says can be taken at face value because he's taken every position on the subject it's possible to have. He has no interest in learning anything that doesn't fit his political beliefs.

Brent is only here to play wordgames in some kind of weird obsession to trick us all into conceeding we're lying. The more this fails the more obsessive he becomes.

If you have any doubt in his motives consider this quote from another site:

To destroy one's enemy, one must first understand him.

If Brent wants to be taken seriously he can start by responding to this.

[Cue Brent post to ignore everything and remind us global warming is a hoax because it's cold on the north tip of Greenland and parts Novia Scotia.]

John, I don't care if Brent is an orphan-raping litterbug. I don't care at all about Brent, or about you. I care about climate change. This topic is about climate change, not Brent, not you, and not me. It's usually counterproductive to talk personalities, although we all make that mistake at times. It's always better to talk issues, not personalities.

> It's always better to talk issues, not personalities.

And dishonest debaters *love* to take advantage of that laudable instinct. For example, by "talking about personalities" themselves, including (e.g.) [accusations of outright lies](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…):

> Jeff Harvey was recently telling us about a 10C heat wave in his native Canada. (I bet he was writing from his air-conditioned office in Belgium.)

...or accusing the IPCC scientists of falsifying research in order to get rich off some sort of imagined gusher of public money...

...at the very same time as [they themselves engage in outright lies](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…).

And they call on others' instincts to [be "reasonable people" and "make concessions"](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…) where the other party appears to have a point - yet time and time again their arguments fall to pieces and [still no concessions are forthcoming](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…).

That said, your comment on "pick-a-hero" was well worth making, especially as Brent gave the appearance of realising for perhaps the first time that - like nearly all of us - he hasn't the personal skills to determine the scientific truth in this complex field, and that some of his previously picked heroes don't have an impressive record for their positions either. Hopefully his tendency to revert to his previous state of knowledge and opinion will be broken this time around.

> Would you agree that the 15-degree spike at beer-time -22:00- might skew the big picture?

Brent, I assume Watts, being the rigourous scientist that he so clearly must be for so many to have picked-him-as-hero, has:

0) Determined that the records he is looking at are the versions that are actually used by the various global mean temperature calculation codebases?

1) Determined that those codebases include these values in their calculations without triggering any outlier detection and removal? (Feel free to consider Watts' efforts in a similar area in the past - he made a meal of raw data sets where some value like 9999 in a field was used to represent "no data" - and IIRC *he treated it literally and crowed about a huge error - when the codebases treated those instances correctly as "no data".)

2) Calculated the effect of a single representative error of the type quoted on (say) the global (annual or even monthly) mean temperature and reported the magnitude?

3) Performed a well-chosen random sample to estimate how prevalent these types of (presumed) errors are and their numerical distribution, and therefore produced a reasonable estimate and uncertainty range for the impact of these types of errors on global mean temperature (over a month or a year)?

4) Compared his results with published uncertainty ranges in global mean temperature records?

5) Drawn a measured and sober conclusion from this analysis?

Brent, I forgot the following in my previous comment, prior to point (5):

4a) Compared the land and satellite records in the affected regions to determine that there was significant variance - given that the type of (presumably) human error he alludes to doesn't occur in the satellites?

4b) Determined how the incidence and magnitude of the errors affect the **trend** calculations?

Lotharsson, every one of your comments on the scale of the QA problem makes sense. And quite aside from obvious blunders (ah, but do please read on....) like this, there is as you know a controversy over the siting of instrumentation in some places.

Now, here's a surprise:

Trawling through the WUWT thread looking for a deeper insight, I have found a mail from Mr. LeCotey the manager at the Eureka station in Canada.

He wrote (23 April 2010): "I am the station manager of Eureka and was on site when we broke a new all time high on July 14, 2009 of 20.9°C and have the picture to prove it! The reason there was such a big fluctuation in temerature from the METARS before and after the record breaking temperature was all due the direction of the wind. [...] There was no malfunction of equipment nor data entry errors."

And then: "REPLY: Thanks, what about the day before, with 19.6? Iâll drop you a note for the pix."

Mr. LeCotey then replied, "Unfortunately, our âofficialâ temperature recording site has not moved for over 50 years and thus is greatly influenced by the cold Arctic water from Slidre Fjord when the winds are from the East, South or West during the summer months.

This has probably given a big misrepresentation of how warm the Arctic is actually getting.

I would not be surprised to see temperatures up to the mid twenties or even near 30°C far inland where there are no winds. The Arctic is heating up! Wildlife come to the shoreline to cool off, Muskoxen are taking dips in the Fjord, permafrost is melting down in some areas to 10-12 ft, there is more and more open water over the Arctic ocean every year and the Ayles Ice Shelf has broken away.

How much more does one need to see before you believe the Arctic is dramatically warming up.

Weâve had a warmer than usual winter this year with a number of daily maxiums broke and I would expect another record breaking summer.

Hot in Eureka Rai"

I am hoist with my own petard! My earlier comment about the remoteness of edge-of-the-world stations from our comfy homes works both ways. I would never have believed that a 5.9C, 19.6C, 4.1C data series was possible! I'd have given odds of 100:1 against it being an accurate tepmerature measurement.

I shall now retire to a darkened room and curse the real world for failing to conform to my prejudices...

Erasmussimo, as recommended I had a look at the US's National Academy of Sciences' 2008 document on climate change. Similarly, a month or two ago I looked at what Britain's Royal Society's take was on AGW.

In both cases, they back the AGW hypothesis with gravitas and conviction. In both cases, I am tempted to say, "well, if THEY say so it must be so", rather like a young man will sometimes defer to his 'elders and betters'.

I'm afraid that I can't cease thinking for myself, and I still don't see the physics nor the observational evidence to back up the AGW claims. The pick-a-hero notion was never intended to result in a suspension of one's own critical faculties. And I only confer hero status on my heros after the strictest vetting. Had 'F' not equalled 'ma', had 'E' not equalled 'mc2' I would have squeaked like an impertinent mouse at Newton and Einstein regardless of their stature.

It was in reading a biography of Newton that it occurred to me that the Royal Society's website was worth a visit. I was shocked to see how they toe the doctrinaire AGW line, and indulge in the same futurological, numerological dumb extrapolation of trends as the IPCC.

Armed with Newton's laws, the British Admiralty organized a 1769 voyage to Polynesia to observe Venus's transit. Had Newton been wrong, Cook and co would have looked rather foolish. Ditto for FDR and Oppenheimer and the Manhattan Project. THAT'S putting yer money where yer mouth is.

Today in Britain we heard a senior academic protesting that species loss was "at least as high a priority as climate change". To many AGW sceptics the diversion of vast public resource to combat a the nonexistent threat of global warming is a travesty and a tragedy. The greening of public opinion in the West has been a great opportunity. I find it distressing that precious resource is to be frittered away on oughttabe projects instead of targeted at useful ones such as habitat preservation. ("Oughttabe" as in "Windmills ought to be environmentally friendly" and "green jobs ought to be a viable substitute for the wealth-creation now ceded to Asia").

Despite the new evidence from Eureka (above), I will still spend much of my spare time pondering sunspots, feedback and sensitivity in the hope of exposing the key flaws in the AGW hypothesis.

First off, I think that all the nasty things that have been written about Brent have been falsified by his two most recent posts.

What a dense ass you are.

It's usually counterproductive to talk personalities

And a raging hypocrite.

All you're doing is confirming the beliefs of deniers that we're a bunch of dogmatists.

This is the stupidest sentence in this whole thread, even dumber than anything sunspot wrote.

@ Brent:
"indulge in the same futurological, numerological dumb extrapolation of trends as the IPCC."

Brent, one more (of dozens?!) fracking time. THIS IS NOT BASED ON EXTRAPOLATING ANY FUCKING TRENDS!!!!!!!!

Christ, man get a clue!!!

In 1919, after receiving letters from Gorky pleading for imprisoned intellectuals, Lenin intervened on behalf of some and got them released. This totally falsified reports of the Red Terror.

> And I only confer hero status on my heros after the strictest vetting.

Given your earlier reverence for Spencer, and posting of myriad claims by Watts et al, your claim is self-evidently false. Once you internalise this you may make some progress...

> I was shocked to see how they toe the doctrinaire AGW line, and indulge in the same futurological, numerological dumb extrapolation of trends as the IPCC.

This statement is also self-evidently false - just not to you. You also need to internalise that your assessment of the science is inaccurate - and that you may not be competent to do your own analysis - before you can make progress...

Erasmussimo, I don't think you understand that every post Brent makes is an insult. You have to be aware that what motivates him is not reason, or the quest for knowledge, but rather the tribalist impulse to defeat the enemy.

Earth to Brent - using flowery pretentious language doesn't make you clever. It makes you look like an ass who's trying to pretend he knows more than he does.

Hi guys!

Just a couple of examples from the NAS Climate Change brochure:

"How do we know that human activities are
changing the Earthâs climate? The concurrent
increase in surface temperature with carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gases during
the past century is one of the main indications."

Repeat after me: "Correlation is not causation." I have a graph comparing US oil production and the quality of rock music from 1949 to 2007. There's a very good match. Now THERE's a lead/lag dilemma for you: which caused which?

The NAS brochure features the IPCC forcing graph, showing big bad greenhouse gases in red bands to the right with a high LOSU, and a tiny red band for solar irradiance with a low LOSU (level of scientific understanding). Solar astronomy is in its infancy, unable to explain (yet) the Maunder Minimum, and resorting to dumb numerology to forecast sunspot counts in the coming months. Stand by for great leaps forward by the astrophysicists.

Just like Bill Clinton had a sign on his desk saying "It's the economy, stupid", if there are any climatologists left after the bubble bursts they should have a similar one about the sun.

You wonder: How do I peer into the future? And is it not as vacuous to predict the outcome of our scientific controversy as it is to predict the submerging of the Everglades as you disciples of Gore do? Well, gentlemen, one key difference between us is that you assume that current knowledge is sufficient for forecasting a chaotic system, and I observe that the science is not settled. The following link illustrates this:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/current_state_climat…

Despite the new evidence from Eureka (above), I will still spend much of my spare time pondering sunspots, feedback and sensitivity in the hope of exposing the key flaws in the AGW hypothesis.failing to understand basic science because I don't agree with the outcome.

Fixed.

>The concurrent increase in surface temperature with carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases during the past century is **one of the main indications.**"

Which Brent misrepresent with his denialist shoe horn to portray as:
>The concurrent increase in surface temperature with carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases during the past century is **the only indicator**.

Neat trick Brent, goes well with the claim that the radiative physics (causal mechanism) is acceptable but you still want to see warming of the globe as confirmation.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/current_state_climat…

Apologies. The link should end:

current_state_climate_knowledge.jpg

Hey Brent, care to conceed that you were wrong about labels on NASA's temperature chart, and that nowhere does NASA claim the temps are 8.5 degrees above average?

After all, you are such a reasonable person...

Hi, John, I assume you're talking about the link you provided in your #1507:

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/7/9/1251526//moron.gif

(Hah! I just spotted the file name. Your work? Nice one!)

It shows coloured banding up to +8.5C, especially in polar regions. In the light of the witness statement by the manager at Ice Station Eureka (#1523), yes, I am much chastened, and less ready to pooh-pooh data showing drastic warming in remote areas. If your point is that the dark-red bands show +4C to +8.5C, then yes, you have a point: the dark-red band is not +8.5C or >8.5C. The notion of 'anomalies' is a bit 'sus'. It entails a choice of datum, a declaration of 'normal'. Actual temps would be clearer.

If the tundra is indeed experiencing significant warming, whilst elsewhere it's business as usual, well, yes this strengthens the AGW case.

By all accounts the Catlin Ice Expedition is freezing its nuts off. Let's hope they'll fall through some molten slush and never be heard of again, the faux-heroic prats. Shackleton they ain't.

[Brent](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…):

>Repeat after me: "Correlation is not causation."

Straw man. The correlation was predicted a century before it was observed, based on the physics of the greenhouse effect.

>lead/lag dilemma

[Back around the goldfish bowl](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…).

>Solar astronomy is in its infancy

Hogwash.

>unable to explain (yet) the Maunder Minimum

Red Herring. The cause may be uncertain, but the effect is [known well enough](http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/09/14/what-if-the-sun-got-stuck/).

>if there are any climatologists left after the bubble bursts they should have a similar one about the sun.

[Back around the goldfish bowl](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…).

>you disciples of Gore

Straw man.

>forecasting a chaotic system

[Back around the goldfish bowl](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…).

>the science is not settled.

Straw man.

>The following link illustrates this:

It shows coloured banding up to +8.5C...

Wrong.

> Repeat after me: "Correlation is not causation."

Repeat after me: *the map is not the territory*.

Or to be more verbose: the most simplified explanation for those who currently have no knowledge of the science is not the whole scientific case, no matter how hard you close your eyes, stamp your feet and wish it to be so.

Or to be more metaphoric: the vastly simplified explanations for many things that we give to children who know nothing about a subject are often false, in the sense that they leave out large and crucial pieces of the case that is necessary when talking to someone with more knowledge and cognitive ability. Anyone who pretends that the fuller explanation does not exist or is false *because* there are shortcomings of the simplification is either woefully uninformed, not that smart or not that honest - or a combination thereof.

The application to climate science should be obvious.

> ...and a tiny red band for solar irradiance with a low LOSU (level of scientific understanding).

Repeat after me: a low LOSU does NOT necessarily imply we have no grasp of uncertainty bounds for the effect in question. For example the AR4 [says](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-9-1.html)

> The concept of LOSU has been slightly modified based on the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) uncertainty guidelines. Error bars now represent the 5 to 95% (90%) confidence range (see Box TS.1). Only âwell-establishedâ RFs are quantified. âWell establishedâ implies that there is qualitatively both sufficient evidence and sufficient consensus from published results to estimate a central RF estimate and a range.

And as I noted before, you'll take as plausible - or stronger - a claim with a LOSU that doesn't even rate as "low" provided it supports your beliefs about the world, even against a whole bunch of evidence with higher LOSU that goes against your beliefs.

Richard Tol's Draft Submission

'The IPCC is a victim of its own success. Policy makers trust the IPCC reports as neutral and authoritative assessments of climate research. Therefore, people with a political agenda have tried to influence the IPCC. Such attempts were largely in vain in AR2 and AR3, but this is not true for AR4. Working Group 2 systematically portrays climate change as a bigger problem than is scientifically acceptable. Working Group 3 systematically portrays climate policy as easier and cheaper than can be responsibly concluded based on academic research. These biases can be found in the chapters, the technical summaries, the summaries for policy makers, and the synthesis report.

The most important problem of the IPCC is the nomination and selection of authors and Bureau Members. Experts are included or excluded because of their political allegiance rather than their academic quality. The ârightâ authors are put in key positions with generous grants to support their IPCC work, while the âwrongâ authors are sidelined to draft irrelevant chapters and sections without any support.'
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/7h0
and for twooffy http://www.tinyurl.com.au/7gv

Shorter sunspot:

_It's a conspiracy, but you'll have to take my word for it since I don't have a shred of evidence._

John (1540): We seem to be at cross-purposes here.

I see (on the graph you posted) a legend "Tsurf (C) anomaly 1951-1980, and at the bottom a colour-code key showing a hottest anomaly of 4C to 7.5C anomaly in dark red.

Is this not saying that N. Canada is, in Mar 2010, warmer than the reference period? Sorry if I'm being thick here; it seems straightforward.

it seems straightforward.

Does it? I wish I had your skills of glancing at something at instantly getting it wrong.

So, Sunspot, apart from Tol and Spencer and Soon and Baliunas and Abdussamatov and Solanki and Gray and dâAleo and Plimer and Zagoni and Briggs and Zurayk and Dyson and Svensmark and Pielkeâ¦.. the SCIENCE IS SETTLED!

[Brent](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…):
>apart from Tol and Spencer and Soon and Baliunas and Abdussamatov and Solanki and Gray and dâAleo and Plimer and Zagoni and Briggs and Zurayk and Dyson and Svensmark and Pielke

[Back around the goldfish bowl](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…)

Dave, if you have some more scientists who challenge the Thermageddon Hoax, feel free to put their names forward.

I'm sure you're a man of principle, and do your bit to save the planet. What's your carbon footprint?

[Brent](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…):
>What's your carbon footprint?

[Back around the goldfish bowl](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…).

@1539:

> Back around the goldfish bowl

@1547:

> Back around the goldfish bowl

@1549:

> Back around the goldfish bowl

Brent's clearly accelerating. I'm wondering whether he'll reach escape velocity or pass out from the G forces first ;-)

But Lotharsson, if [Brent says](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…) that your carbon footprint determines whether you speak the truth on global warming, you know what the answer is, thanks to Andrew Bolt: your opinion is only impartial and meritorious [if you are a hypocrite and you don't ride a bicycle](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/oxburgh_refuted.php).

if Brent says that your carbon footprint determines whether you speak the truth on global warming

Well no, the only thing that indicates to Brent that you speak the truth on global warming is to deny it - thereby passing his strict vetting process and being eligible to be a hero (perhaps Brent's blithe dismissal in #1524 and #1532 of the NAS report will get through Erasmussimo's remarkably thick skull). If you do not deny it, then your carbon footprint marks you as either a hypocrite* or a chicken little.

[* This is a common misunderstanding of what hypocrisy is. A smoker who says that cigarettes are bad for you is not a hypocrite; one who claims they are harmless while chewing Nicorette is.]

â They eliminated virtually all the Canadian stations as DW note. âJust one thermometer remains for everything north of the 65th parallel.â Figure 3 shows the changes and as DW observe, âIn Canada, the number of stations dropped from 600 to less than 50. The percentage of stations in the lower elevations (below 300 feet) tripled and those at higher elevations above 3000 feet were reduced by half. Canadaâs semi-permanent depicted warmth comes from interpolating from more southerly locations to fill northerly vacant grid boxes, even as a simple average of the available stations shows an apparent cooling.â The warming was artificial and created by reducing the number and then selecting specific stations.

This was especially true for the single Arctic station. DW wrote, âThat station is Eureka, which has been described as âThe Garden Spot of the Arcticâ thanks to the flora and fauna abundant around the Eureka area, more so than anywhere else in the High Arctic. Winters are frigid but summers are slightly warmer than at other places in the Canadian Arctic.â These refugia have distinctly different climate conditions and are well-documented areas in the Arctic."
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/7kk

MFS (1551): In asking the brethren here about their actions (as opposed to their cheap words) I am not weighing the value of their opinions. I am weighing the strength of their conviction.

If you, or Lotharsson, or Dave R, or John believe that people's carbon footprints are endangering the ecosystem, and yet carry on regardless then it calls into question whether you truly believe the dangers you trumpet.

It was zero Celsius in Manchester this morning,, and -5C in Scotland. My wife said, "I keep on asking you to order some more heating oil. Come on, man, we'll soon run out." Mid May!!!

> The percentage of stations in the lower elevations (below 300 feet) tripled and those at higher elevations above 3000 feet were reduced by half.

Goldfish orbits, repeating egregiously incorrect claims without any apparent embarrassment...

Watts [assumes without bothering to check](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/shame/) that these changes will *exaggerate* the warming trend, but if anything they **reduce** the calculated warming trend. (For one thing, stations at higher elevations generally warm faster, so dropping *them* can't make it look like it's warming faster.) Watts makes [a whole load of other errors](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/dropouts/) too. Practically everything of significance he says about the "dropouts" is wrong - but highly convincing if you're very (statistically and scientifically) un-savvy.

To state the obvious, Watts has helpfully identified evidence that [leads to the conclusion](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/false-claims-proven-false/) that the reported rate of warming is (if anything) **underestimated** due to these (largely funding-cut related) changes, even as his gullible followers crow that he has found the opposite.

> If you, or Lotharsson, or Dave R, or John believe that people's carbon footprints are endangering the ecosystem, and yet carry on regardless then it calls into question whether you truly believe the dangers you trumpet.

You've asked before and appear to have forgotten that despite your "skepticism" about the science several of us have answered. And given your attitude to the science, to the posters here and to evidence in general, it's not surprising that many would feel your question was not asked in good faith.

You also forget that your question fails to take into account that personal voluntary action can not provide anywhere near enough emissions reduction to avoid likely and significant consequences.

slothy you can use your hairdryer and curling wand as much as you like.

'There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.'
'This petition has been signed by over 31,000 American scientists.'
http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Oh, it must be...Groundhog day!

sunspot, are you seriously trying on the infamous "Oregon Petition"? ROFLMAO! Especially when there's an active Deltoid [thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/oregon_petition_and_the_right.p…) about it at the very same time, complete with a link to a much older Deltoid [post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/05/oregonpetition.php) about the initial problems found with it - which is by no means the full story on how bogus it is. (Google for more...)

Did you really think I or anyone else would fall for that?

hahaha, slothy it is just as credible as the IPCC and their clowns !!!!!!!

I guess it's interesting to note that to both Brent and sunspot, the **science** is considered not settled because they point out that some **scientists** disagree...even though they can't point to any robust **science** from those dissenters - especially not any that comes anywhere near the strength of the scientific case for AGW.

In other words, they're arguing that the science can only be settled when there's a **complete** consensus. This is firstly a fallacy based on binary thinking which ignores an overwhelming consensus because it's not *complete*. In other words, it fails to assess the weight of the consensus and pretends that a very strong one has essentially no weight at all.

And it's secondly a separate and much more serious fallacy because it fails to assess **what matters in science** - the strength of the **evidence** itself.

But at the same time, their fellow travellers are fond of arguing that "consensus doesn't mean anything" or even "consensus is often groupthink which is likely to be wrong". Consistency in "skepticism" really isn't a strong point.

Brent said: "It was zero Celsius in Manchester this morning,, and -5C in Scotland. My wife said, "I keep on asking you to order some more heating oil. Come on, man, we'll soon run out." Mid May!!!"

There's an olde Englishe saying - 'Ne'er cast a clout till May be out' - which is a warning not to put away or discard warm clothing until the end of May.

Like a slowly boiling frog getting accustomed to many previous years' local early spring manifestations of our globally warming world, a slight if statistically likely spot of weather variation leaves you indignant about heating oil.

It might lead some to begin to get a clue, but not I suspect any of WATTS (Witless Army of Tub-Thumpers) tribe.

Brent [said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…):

The notion of 'anomalies' is a bit 'sus'. It entails a choice of datum, a declaration of 'normal'. Actual temps would be clearer.

Mythic deity perserve me! Another one who doesn't understand the utility of 'anomalies', and why they are completely appropriate for monitoring changes in temperature.

Brent, this has been covered numerous times on Deltoid and elsewhere. Your inability to understand the simple significance of a concept such as an 'anomaly' only indicates your lack of qualification to comment on the science, and not the validity of the science itself.

Do you really require instruction in this high school-level material?!

Wow. This thread still has entertainment mileage after nearly 1600 posts!

Brent must be sitting in front of his computer with his fingers in his ears, going "La la la la I can't hear you!", in order to be able to ignore all the corrections to his false assertions. It's the only way he could trot them out again and again in each round of posting.

And Sunspot is simply illucid.

Lotharsson @ 1555, good work linking to Tamino's takedowns of Watts. I love those posts, they show Watts to be unbelievably unscientific.

Over at WUWT they really like joking about Tamino, putting him down, boasting that they know his real name (was it supposed to be a secret!?). I can only assume this is because they feel threatened, since Tamino is demonstrably, provably right on this issue (his results have been independently replicated).

So Watts is not only demonstrably, provably wrong, but with D'Aleo, has the gall to outright accuse scientists of being frauds based on, well, nothing at all. A lie.

Brent writes:

Solar astronomy is in its infancy, unable to explain (yet) the Maunder Minimum, and resorting to dumb numerology to forecast sunspot counts in the coming months. Stand by for great leaps forward by the astrophysicists.

This is not true. The basic laws of stellar structure were worked out in the 1930s, and there has been steady progress in the modeling of the sun since then. The toughest part has been the magnetohydrodynamics, especially at the surface. But even that problem has been handled fairly well with monster computer simulations. The biggest advances have come from satellites giving us better measures of fluxes of different classes of emissions from the sun, giving us better insight into the state of the interior of the sun. Furthermore, estimates of sunspot counts are not based on numerology; they are determined by calculations of the pinching of the solar magnetic field. As I mentioned earlier, the magnetohydrodynamic issues are still problematic, which is why sunspot predictions are still not reliable. You must realize, however, the sunspots themselves sit at the very end of a long causal chain, and themselves are not of great importance to climate. The sun is actually brighter when there are more sunspots -- but only by about 0.06%, not enough to explain the temperature increases we're seeing. It's more useful to understand what causes the sunspots (because that's likely to be what causes the brightening of the sun) than to be able to predict sunspot counts themselves. Besides, how does one actually measure sunspot activity? By counting sunspots? Some are much bigger than others; do we count big ones the same way as little ones? Do we measure the net area of solar surface covered by sunspots? Some are hotter and some are cooler; how do we take that into account? For these reasons, astronomers aren't putting a lot of effort into predicting numbers of sunspots; they're more interested in getting at the underlying causes. Here's an analogy: why don't meteorologists predict the number of clouds you'll see today? Because that's not as important as the underlying factors of temperature, humidity, air motion, and so forth.

Anyway, we have excellent measures of solar output for the last 30 years and those measures definitively show that the increases in temperature since then have not been caused by any changes in solar output.

sunspot @ 1553

DW wrote, âThat station is Eureka, which has been described as âThe Garden Spot of the Arcticâ thanks to the flora and fauna abundant around the Eureka area, more so than anywhere else in the High Arctic. Winters are frigid but summers are slightly warmer than at other places in the Canadian Arctic.â

No. Eureka was called 'The Garden Spot of the Arctic' as a joke after my brother-in-law made a small lean-to greenhouse there out of plastic sheeting, in which he grew a few tomato plants (some time around 1970).

> ...it is just as **credible** as the IPCC...

We already know you are highly credulous. No need to keep proving it.

Oh, I see - too late:

> Eureka was called 'The Garden Spot of the Arctic' as a joke after my brother-in-law made a small lean-to greenhouse there out of plastic sheeting, in which he grew a few tomato plants (some time around 1970).

Sunspot, the Oregon Petition is so reputable I am on it. I tried to get on the IPCC .... but failed.

'Over the next 30 months, global temperatures are expected to make another dramatic drop even greater than that seen during the 2007-2008 period. As the Earthâs current El Nino dissipates, the planet will return to the long term temperature decline brought on by the Sunâs historic reduction in output, the on-going solar hibernation.'

'In this case as we cool down from El Nino, we are dealing with the combined effects of this planetary thermodynamic normalization and the influence of the more powerful underlying global temperature downturn brought on by the solar hibernation. Both forces will present the first opportunity since the period of Sun-caused global warming period ended to witness obvious harmful agricultural impacts of the new cold climate. Analysis shows that food and crop derived fuel will for the first time, become threatened in the next two and a half years.'

'The SSRC has been the only US independent research organization to correctly predict in advance three of the most important events in all of climate science history. We accurately announced beforehand, the end of global warming, a long term drop in the Earthâs temperatures and most importantly the advent of a historic drop in the Sunâs output, a solar hibernation. The US governmentâs leading science organizations, NASA and NOAA have completely missed all three, as of course have United Nations climate change experts. It is only because of the amount of expected criticism we received because of our strong opposition to the Obama administrationâs climate change policies and our declaration of the end of global warming, that the SSRC is not more fully accepted for its leadership role in climate change forecasting.'

http://www.tinyurl.com.au/7o6

> We accurately announced beforehand, the end of global warming, a long term drop in the Earthâs temperatures...

Given that warming has not ended and there's no long term drop in the Earth's temperatures, he (it's a one man "research center") is blatantly bullsh!tting and sunspot is quite happy to be bullsh!tted.

And he throws in a little conspiracy theory hoping that their readers won't notice that bullsh!tting might explain why they aren't "more fully accepted for its leadership role in climate change forecasting".

> A formal announcement of the end of global warming and the start of the next climate change was made at a news conference by the SSRC on July 1, 2008.

Hmmmm, that announcement really hasn't stood the test of time very well, given that even Roy Spencer is acknowledging that it continues to stubbornly get hotter and hotter...

There's a report on the [theory page](http://www.spaceandscience.net/id64.html). The theory says there's an approximately 100 year cycle in the sunspot numbers which apparently means that the sun is about to cool down again for a while. Inconveniently the "analysis" fails to note that the claimed cycle doesn't appear as well supported by the data (e.g. Figure 2 and also Table 2) as the summary and press release imply - especially in the beryllium proxy curve which seems to miss out on some cyclic dips, and some of the other supporting data sets (which are local and not global). The bi-centennial cycle doesn't appear much better supported either. It looks like another case of someone seeing pseudo-cycles because they want to see them, without bothering to test whether their perception is justified by the data (let alone any sort of physical basis).

And unlike the actual scientists there's no attempt to assess what impact the sun's variation has on climate, and what climate impact is due to other factors.

Interestingly, the whole thrust of the report is something that Brent keeps (rightly) pooh-poohing (even though he is mistaken when he thinks the IPCC forecasts are based on it) - merely extrapolating the past into the future. So cue Brent dismissing this report in 3...2...1...right?

But hey, at least it will keep el Gordo entertained (assuming el Gordo and sunspot are actually different commenters).

Sunspot, just wondering - have you *ever* posted anything that stood up to scrutiny, or would that undermine your goals here? Are you just seeking attention? Do you have zero fact-checking ability and you're simply outsourcing it? Do you believe *anything* you post?

[sunspot](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…):

>Over the next 30 months, global temperatures are expected to make another dramatic drop even greater than that seen during the 2007-2008 period.

Is your prediction for a temporary blip like ['that seen during the 2007-2008 period'](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2006)?

Or is it for a long term change? If so, state how much you are willing to bet.

'The five scientists report that "between 1962 and 2006, Alaskan glaciers lost 41.9 ± 8.6 km3 per year of water, and contributed 0.12 ± 0.02 mm per year to sea-level rise," which they note was 34% less than estimated by Arendt et al. (20002) and Meier and Dyurgerov (2002). And in discussing this large difference, they say the reasons for their lower values include "the higher spatial resolution of [their] glacier inventory as well as the reduction of ice thinning underneath debris and at the glacier margins, which were not resolved in earlier work."

What it means
In addition to significantly revising what was previously believed about the magnitude of ice wastage in Alaska and northwest Canada in recent decades, Berthier et al. say their results suggest that "estimates of mass loss from glaciers and ice caps in other mountain regions could be subject to similar revisions," all of which would tend to mitigate against the rapidity with which the world's climate alarmists have long contended earth's mountain glaciers and ice caps were wasting away and thereby contributing to global sea level rise.'
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/7oh

Shorter [sunspot](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…):

_No, I'm not willing to bet anything on my prediction, because I know full well that it was a lie._

'Luckily for the world's inhabitants, the CO2-crazed "scientists," alarmists and gore-profiteers have been spectacularly wrong. The historical Antarctica temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels provide proof that temperatures change significantly without a direct relationship to CO2 levels.

Per the Vostok ice cores, southern polar temperatures have made swings of 3 degrees Celsius during historical times while related CO2 levels have barely budged. And when 20th century human CO2 emissions increased dramatically? Vostok polar ice sheet temperatures have stayed flat.'
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/7ok

Thread re-name: not so empirical_evidence_for_man

Commic releaf from spotty:

>*As the Earthâs current El Nino dissipates, the planet will return to the long term temperature decline*

That would be this "*[long term temperature decline](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/plot/gistemp/mean:240/plot/gis…)*".

'If the MWP were to be proven to be global, then the basis of present science stating that industrial-era carbon emissions are the dominant cause of today's warming would be significantly undermined.'
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/7ol

and

'Way back in 1997, researchers published a paper that was based on data from 6,000 plus borehole sites from all the continents. The reconstructed temperatures clearly showed a Medieval Period warming that was, and is, unprecedented. The data also makes clear that subsequent warming began well before the growth of human CO2 emissions and this natural rebound would obviously lead to temperatures similar to the Medieval Period.'
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/7om

Why is the deniosphere still so obsessed with solar-driven climate change when the [correlation is so poor](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1950/normalise/plot/sidc-…)? You would expect that cyclomaniacs would at least be able to show cycles, even if they can't demonstrate causation.

TS, tis a PDF

http://www.tinyurl.com.au/7ot

sunspot desperately Gish-Galloping again? Whodathunkit?

hmmm..... 10 yrs ago,

'However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event. The effects of snow-free winter in Britain are already becoming apparent' http://www.tinyurl.com.au/7on

er, don't forget snowmaggedon

and now

http://www.tinyurl.com.au/7oo

http://ihatealgore.com/?p=388

hahaha, I it's just WETHER

> The historical Antarctica temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels provide proof that temperatures change significantly without a direct relationship to CO2 levels.

[Back around the goldfish bowl](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…).

Oh, and the "disproof of AGW" claimed on the basis that Antarctica hasn't warmed much lately? The globe is not expected to warm uniformly under current climate science.

> If the MWP were to be proven to be global, then the basis of present science stating that industrial-era carbon emissions are the dominant cause of today's warming would be significantly undermined.

[Back around the goldfish bowl](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…).

And be careful what you wish for. A warmer MWP might strengthen the case that **climate sensitivity is higher than we thought**, because the climate varied more widely than we thought - but we have no corresponding evidence that forcings were stronger than we thought. And that would make AGW even more serious than is currently thought.

But it's hard to see how a warmer MWP would undermine anything significant about AGW, not even if someone writes that on a web page.

Boreholes.

1579 sunspot,

Was that supposed to be a reply to 1578? How?

Don't bother replying to sunspot until he replies to you. He doesn't actually understands the details of anything he posts, only that it fits his pre-conceived ideology. Why bother? He has no intention of engaging you.

If sunspot could post some nutter shouting on a street corner that global warming is a scam, he would. That he does so for any mongrel webpage proclaiming the same that crosses his transom is proof enough of that.

The one thing he isn't is the least bit sceptical.
Credulous, yes.
Sceptical?
Not in the least.

>He has no intention of engaging you.

Unless you're Brent. He likes Brent; they're of one mind.

Well, maybe half a mind. Between them.

So Mr. Sunspot is now inundating us with links to tidbits of information. He starts with a long quote from the "Space and Science Research Center", which bills itself as "the leading independent research organization in the United States on the subject of the next climate change". A few years ago I researched this organization. It consists of a PO Box and nothing more. The address they provided was nonexistent. Mr. Sunspot expects us to accept a claim made by a charlatan who misrepresents himself. Right.

After claiming that global temperatures will "continue to cool", he speaks out of the other side of his mouth, declaring that glacial ice loss is less than earlier thought. If the world is cooling, why are glaciers losing mass? Mr. Sunspot doesn't say.

Lastly, Mr. Sunspot regales us with a scatter of random falsehoods.

I'm all for civil response to civil and reasoned (however incorrect) claims, but in Mr. Sunspot's case, there is neither civility nor reason.

Lotharsson (1571): You wondered if I would pooh-pooh the SSRC forecast that solar activity in the next few years will be a repeat of 1793-1830. I do indeed. We all do Pattern Recognition, as do birds and bees. Science is supposed to go a bit further: to explain why, and make falsifiable predictions.

The SSRC guy, and Al Gore, should say "If my predictions are wrong I will eat my hat at CNN's studios on 1 April 2015, and state publicly that I was wrong." On second thoughts, confessing should come first and eating second.

Fat jokes about Gore. Original.

John, have you seen Watt's Up With That? It's been a very snowy winter in the NH. Do you believe that this tallies with the warmmongers' dire predictions? Given that CO2's steady rise is supposed to be raising temperatures dangerously, does this information give you pause for thought?

[Brent](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…)
>Given that CO2's steady rise is supposed to be raising temperatures dangerously, does this information give you pause for thought?

As has been explained to you numerous times on this thread, [the temperature is increasing as expected](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/riddle-me-this/).

Do you continually try to insinuate otherwise because you are an idiot, or because you are a liar?

> It's been a very snowy winter in the NH. Do you believe that this tallies with the warmmongers' dire predictions? Given that CO2's steady rise is supposed to be raising temperatures dangerously, does this information give you pause for thought?

[Back around the goldfish bowl](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…) in [two different ways](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…).

Are you actually this clueless about weather basics - and yet projecting high confidence that you can see through the misleading pronouncements of the climate scientists - or are you just playing clueless on TV?

Rising temperatures generally lead to more *evaporation* at the locations where evaporation occurs. This translates to more precipitation overall, which often translates to more precipitation at specific locations. And as they teach in school, precipitation is a class of phenomena of which *snow is a member*.

If temperatures remain *low enough* despite any rises at the location and season where precipitation normally occurs as snow, the precipitation will continue to be experienced in "snow" form, otherwise it may change form.

Brent,

No.

John.
xx

PS. Would you mind sharing your weight with the rest of us? It would be hypocritical of one fat person to make fun of another fat person.

Seems I hit some raw nerves...

Lotharsson (1556): You say that "several of us here" have mentioned their actions. In fact, it's a short list. Bernard J. had a major lifestyle shift, and Stu (1040)wrote about his current difficulties and future intentions. The rest of you are conspicuously reticent. You consume energy like the rest of us, don't you? Come on, fess up, or at least have the decency to lie to us (tell us that you haven't flown for ten years - we'd never know you are a bunch of do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do hypocritical Jeremiahs).

Dave R (1592): Your contribution to the discussion on the the current Big Freeze (yeah, all right, that's too strong... Little Freeze, then)) is to link to a graph showing us that the 1998 peak is sinking into history. What's it like where you live? Does you wife say, "Dave, you'll catch pneumonia! Please don't sit out there with only a graph to keep you warm!"

Lotharsson (1593): The final paragraph of your posting is intriguing. No, correction: I've read it twelve times and still don't understand it. Such language skills are useful: expect a job offer from the army's press office.

John (1594): I weigh 88kg. What car do you drive? The size of Al Gore's homes is more relevant than his waistline. And the size of his Carbon Trading interests are perhaps the most relevant. Gullible suckers like you are smoothing his path. Inconvenient Truth my arse. Brilliant con, I do concede. Much smarter than Madoff's.

> (tell us that you haven't flown for ten years - we'd never know you are a bunch of do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do hypocritical Jeremiahs).

You seem to think flying is problematic *per se* - witness the claims about the carbon footprint of Copenhagen and your repeated digs at anyone who you suspect of flying, but one can buy carbon offsets - usually at the same point as buying one's ticket.

And you hope to redirect discussion away from the science where you haven't got a leg to stand on by conducting a little inquisition into people's lifestyles complete with unfounded allegations of hypocrisy. Keep doing it - it shows your "argument" up very nicely.

> What's it like where you live?

Round and round the goldfish bowl - weather vs climate, local vs global. That's what you do when you haven't got a substantive point.

> The size of Al Gore's homes is more relevant than his waistline.

Because in Brent's world size and size alone defines emissions. (Hmmm, that could explain *a lot*.)

And mentioning Al Gore means not having to acknowledge the link that explained why his previous implication was ungrounded.

> I've read it twelve times and still don't understand it.

Ah, we're making progress. Brent says he doesn't understand something! In another year or so he may have *learnt* something and retained it for more than five minutes.

Lotharsson, you mention carbon offsets. Please give us your view of their effectiveness.

GLOBAL TEMPERATURES vs GEOMAGNETIC FIELD
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/7sh

The end of EL NENO, The end of warming ?
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/7si

Brent,

Although you have deployed more diversionary tactics and changed the subject more times than I care to count, you still have not shown us a single [error in the IPCC](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…), as you promised.

When you were shown that [concepts you disagree with](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…) are [not by extension errors of logic](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…) on behalf of the IPCC ([also here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…) and [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…)), you simply exposed more reasons why you [disagreed](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…) with said statements (also [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…), though you appeared to stall by #5), rather than provide evidence of error. After that of course, you deployed your usual [deflector shield](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…) and moved the discussion to other equally vacuous [denier talking points](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…), not even being able to show that you know what a trend is [when challenged on it](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…).

At this juncture I think it's pertinent to remind you of [your commitment](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…) to declare defeat and shut up if we could show that what you list in #1326 are not, in fact, errors of logic in IPCC AR4.

You have already been challenged on this and ignored it. Once more will prove your dishonesty.

Brent, as you are a known liar I want a signed letter from your doctor.

> Please give us your view of their effectiveness.

Brent, please give us your view of [the set of concessions you owe this thread under the definition of reasonable person you want others to adhere to](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…). Be sure to specifically address the [points referenced by MFS](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…).

Blimey, they're ganging up on me!

OK, guys, give me some time and I'll address the points you raise.

Poor baby.

Brent, I have been reticent regarding my carbon footprint because I did not want to seem boastful. The fact is, I have a negative carbon footprint. I own 40 acres of forestland that was partially logged and I have been reforesting it. I drive very little, the thermostat is set at 60ºF, and I never burp after drinking soda (well, OK, that last one is a joke). We do have a fireplace with an insert that we use in winter. I souped up its insert fans with some booster fans to increase its efficiency. I don't burn the slash from dead trees, I throw it into the deepest parts of the ravine made by the creek so as to reduce erosion. I leave much of the large deadwood (especially the oak) on the ground to rot, and I spend a lot of time on fire abatement work so as to decrease the chance that all my sequestered carbon doesn't go up in smoke in a forest fire. My calculations indicate that I am sequestering a LOT more carbon than I am emitting.

None of this has anything to do with the truth or falsehood of the statements I make here. Those statements should be evaluated without any regard to their source; they stand or fail on their own.

By the way, your statements regarding Mr. Gore's investments reflect a failure to understand the moral significance of those investments. If investing in green technologies were a highly profitable use of capital, then there would be many more investors crowding into that field. The fact that there aren't a zillion other investors in green technology demonstrates that the ROI for such investments is not as good as the ROI on conventional investments. In other words, Mr. Gore is accepting a lower ROI that he could otherwise get. He is accepting a monetary loss in accordance with his personal commitment to reducing carbon. In other words, he's putting his money where his mouth is -- and you're calling him a hypocrite for it!

Lastly, you really should respond to earlier requests that you specify what's wrong with the NAS and IPCC reports on climate change. They're the highest authorities, and you've written nothing to undermine them.

Hi guys! MFS and Lotharsson provided 13 hyperlinks to postings above. Since MFS particularly had clearly spent a lot of time writing his post I thought it fair to also take time.

aa. In #1328 a poster calling himself âShorter Brentâ wrote lots of silly stuff in capital letters. Wrote: âToken attack on funding for no reasonâ

I would argue that, rather like Dwight Eisenhowerâs farewell address warning of a self-escalating military-industrial complex making war more likely than security, the vast resources being poured into AGW research are corrupting it. The tribal nature of our Great Debate makes a âbusiness as usualâ conclusion subject to ridicule by sceptics.

bb. In 1437, MFS asks me where the cosmic ray/albedo correlation is proven. I cannot because it is unproven. Points out that Svensmark first removed a warming trend before finding a correlation. Finds this illegitimate, but I do not see why. Questions why the Herschel idea and the Parana findings are relevant, asking for references.

I figured MFS was being disingenuous here, but maybe wrongly. Herschel, arguably the most instinctive astronomer in history, had a profound intuitive grasp of his field, and wondered whether then-unknown solar activity might influence simultaneously sunspot cycles and agricultural yields. He was âPattern Spottingâ, which is sometimes dumb, but sometimes is the impetus for discovery. His conjecture appears in p204 of 'The Age of Wonder' by Richard Holmes. Holmes refers to Herschelâs 1801 paper âObservations tending to investigate the Nature of the Sunâ.

As for the Parana River, correlation is not causality, but where a hypothesis exists (i.e. that cosmic ray penetration of the atmosphere seeds clouds and promotes rainfall with consequent effect on rivers) correlation adds encouragement and makes the further pursuit (to being confirmed or refuted) sensible. There is a link to the paper by an Argentine, Maunas, in #382.

On the subject of scietistsâ pay scales, you are right to chastise me for confusing pay scales with budgets. I accept that living standards of scientists are modest.

cc. In #1438, MFS refers to âin a warming worldâ. To that assumption I reply: âBrrrr!â

dd. In his #1441, MFS questions my use of the term âerroneous logicâ, in the IPCC report. My point is that the âknown knownsâ in climate have led the IPCC to forecast Thermageddon, and whilst the âknown unknownsâ are referred to, they make no contribution to the analysis of Earthâs stable equilibrium which has operated throughout evolutionary time. This race of ours has only recently had some profound surprises - continents which drift; lifeforms at the mid-ocean rifts etc. The assumption that the âknown knownsâ are sufficient to forecast the next century is hubristic. The implicit statement âwe now know enoughâ is an error of logic.

ee. In your link (in #1599) appearing as âdisagreedâ, you link to my #1446, saying that I donât provide evidence of error. I think the above point (re. #1441) puts it succinctly. The IPCCâs two profound errors are in Feedback and Sensitivity.

ff. You supply a link to my #1450, and say that I 'appear to stall'. All these links are tying me in knots. Youâre probably right, I stalled.

gg. You link to my #1463, and call it a âdeflector shieldâ. No, itâs a brief discussion on the AGW lobbyâs heightened sensitivity to end-of-the-world tales, and the philosophical divide between warmists and sceptics. Well, I disagree that this is Off Topic.

hh. You dismiss my #1474 as âdenier talking pointsâ. It briefly discusses hypothesis validation/refutation, or âPopperian falsifiabilityâ. This seems a worthy topic to me. Any scientist of integrity should welcome the opportunity to validate a theory. Slippery customers who prefer to blur the pass/fail criteria are normal in theology and politics, but in science (oh, sod it, you complete the sentence; you know this full well, and to contest it is churlish)

ii. You write âwhen challenged on itâ, and link to a series of numbers you presented, asking me to interpret their trend. At the time I chose not to reply because I found your challenge rude, and would have responded rudely. You say that you work as a scientist, as if this makes you wise and worthy of peopleâs ear. The number-series you present, devoid of any context, and especially devoid of any mechanism causing these numbers to be presented, is

(thinks: do I really want to be scathing?)

⦠is a good illustration of how unwise it is to extrapolate effects without understanding of cause. Dumb numerology.

Time for a cuppa tea.

John (1600): My doctor won't oblige me with a letter stating I am a liar. I asked him what was in my beer-belly, and he snarled, "Well, if you think you can prick it with a pin and enjoy a Guinness fountain, you're crazy, man. It's FAT!!!"

[Brent](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…):

>As for the Parana River

[Back around the goldfish bowl](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…).

Conclusion to #1605.

jj. MFS linked to #1333, in which I said that Iâd shut my mouth if my criticisms of the IPCC report are unfounded. Will somebody please support the IPCC claim of âlong-lived C02â, its Hockey Stick, its claims of disappearing polecaps, its choice of 1840-2000 as reference period, its conclusion that CO2 forcing dwarfs all others? Will somebody compare Actual and Observed since they published, and admit that Scenario A2 (lots more CO2; runaway warming) is failing to be borne out by events?

kk. Lotharsson asked me for a âset of concessionsâ. Well, I concede that as a layman my ability to weigh the Gore Hypothesis is limited. I concede that some of the âheroesâ I have picked are less than fully reliable. That some of the participants in this thread match their personal actions to their belief in the CO2 threat, and that such actions are dwarfed by collective action. I concede that the case against AGW is not conclusive; depends on the eventual re-hashing of the Relative Forcing Table which may not in fact have to be re-hashed. I concede that the notion that the Royal Society and the US NAS are making a historic error in buying the AGW theory is barely thinkable and would run counter to a long and proud tradition. I concede that among scientists, sceptics are in the minority. I concede a rising temperature trend since 1860, and even since the 1998 peak. I concede that anecdotal evidence from Station Eureka lends some credence to the claim that escalation is more in evidence at high latitudes than temperate. I concede that my rants about the financial rewards to journeyman scientists were unfair. I concede that a âtipping pointâ caused by polar albedo passing a threshold is feasible.

My apologies for writing at such length; valid claims of 'unfinished business' obliged me to do so.

Brent, I find this statement of yours to be stunningly... well, I'll be kind... stunningly misinformed and devoid of scientific acumen:

"This race of ours has only recently had some profound surprises - continents which drift; lifeforms at the mid-ocean rifts etc. The assumption that the âknown knownsâ are sufficient to forecast the next century is hubristic. The implicit statement âwe now know enoughâ is an error of logic."

There are multiple independent lines of analysis and reasoning, all leading to the similar conclusion that climate sensitivity is ~ 3C / 2xCO2.

A key one is this: analysis of glacial/interglacial transitions, where we plug in the known primary forcing - changes in insolation - and we get back out a sensitivity to forcing equivalent to ~ 3C/2xCO2. Note that this analysis integrates both known and unknown forcings and feedbacks, because we are observing primary input and final output.

There are multiple additional lies of evidence - read Annan, for example.

In the face of all this evidence, of multiple lines of data and analysis all arriving at consilient conclusions, you retreat to, 'well, maybe there's something we don't know, so lets ignore the lessons and conclusions of all the things we do know.."

Dude.

We are measuring the increased downwelling IR, and we know it is due to increased CO2 and water vapor. We are measuring the increasing heat content and increasing surface temperature of the planet. We are observing rapid changes in multiple surface features, all consistent with rapidly increasing surface temperature. We are measuring the cooling stratosphere and the reduced TOA radiation - the primary mechanisms for ratcheting up the equilibrium temperature of the planet. All of these values are consistent with the models, all consistent with what we know from historical analyses of previous climate transitions, all consistent with a sentitivity of ~ 3C / 2xCO2.

And in addition to all that, we are observing a separate, nonclimatic, but also potentially devastating alteration in ocean chemistry due to increasing CO2.

We see that this broad consilience of evidence has convinced all but a handful of scientist in the field that we understand at least the essential elements of what is happening - and that of those who aren't convinced, a large percentage are simply.. well, I'll be kind again... unconvincable.

And in the face of all this, your argument becomes, "hey, maybe there's something no one thought of, that will overturn all this broad consilient body of work, so lets not do anything."

Really, dude? Really?

Brent, as far as I'm concerned, your concessions bring you into the ken of "reasonable disagreement". The phrasing of your concessions leaves much room for disagreement between us, but those disagreements concern finer points. Were I an argumentative person, I would concentrate my attentions on the disagreements, but I prefer to take pleasure in our agreements.

Brent your refusal to provide with with documents proving your weight has meant that I have won hands down. Now to retire to Bishop Hill where I will boast to the assembled retirees about my victory.

I mean, fancy not telling me your weight.

This must mean global warming is real.

> I would argue that...the vast resources being poured into AGW research are corrupting it.

Argue away, but to date on this line of argument you're merely asserting claims about the science *without evidence*. In other words, either making sh!t up or speculating.

And the quoted claim above seems at first glance at odds with:

> I accept that living standards of scientists are modest.

How exactly does the "vast resources" being poured into AGW research corrupt it, when any scientist worth his salt could earn twice as much doing something else?

And how does this square with your penchant for testing "the strength of your convictions", when individual scientists accept relatively poor remuneration in order to keep doing this work, rather than go onto the open market and do whatever's paying the best?

> Points out that Svensmark first removed a warming trend before finding a correlation. Finds this illegitimate, but I do not see why.

I haven't looked back up the thread - but perhaps because the posited albedo change effect is supposed to be *causal* for a warming trend? If so, wouldn't you expect the correlation to be detectable without removing the observed warming trend?

> Well, I concede that as a layman my ability to weigh the Gore Hypothesis is limited.

Gore has no hypothesis. Perhaps you could spell out which particular scientific hypothesis (or set of them) you have in mind?

> To that assumption I reply: âBrrrr!â

Goldfish.

> The assumption that the âknown knownsâ are sufficient to forecast the next century is hubristic.

No, your assumption that the 'known knowns' are **assumed** to be sufficient to forecast with a reasonably level of uncertainty is hubristic, especially for one who admits his own limited ability to assess the AGW hypotheses. You assessment ability presumably includes ignorance or dismissal of any analysis of the strength of the explanatory power of the 'known knowns' and any analysis of the likely uncertainty bounds of the rest.

> The IPCCâs two profound errors are in Feedback and Sensitivity.

Hubristic, given the lack of evidence for this assertion and the countervailing evidence surveyed by the IPCC - and given your tendency to argue in black-and-white terms without accounting for uncertainty ranges in the scientific case.

> It briefly discusses hypothesis validation/refutation, or âPopperian falsifiabilityâ. This seems a worthy topic to me.

Except that the way you want to discuss it is a set of denier talking points that misrepresent the hypothesis and how to falsify it, and for which you've had ample instruction on this thread already. Oh, and you flat-out lied about my position for good measure - still no concession on that.

> Slippery customers who prefer to blur the pass/fail criteria are normal in theology and politics, but in science...

Brent, you are a slippery customer who **blurs the hypothesis** so that you can provide a biased pass/fail criteria. That was the point of responses to your initial attempt **way** up-thread to set up dodgy criteria - and to ignore that setting up reasonable criteria 20-30 years ago would have seen them passed by now with ease.

> The number-series you present is ... a good illustration of how unwise it is to extrapolate effects without understanding of cause.

And your answer to it is a good illustration of how to avoid learning when someone points out you are operating on mistaken assumptions. (Which might lead you to posit incorrect "pass/fail criteria", as one example.)

> Lotharsson asked me for a âset of concessionsâ.

Thanks - that was a good start. It might be good to think how those change the arguments you've made in the past...

Brent, as far as I'm concerned, your concessions bring you into the ken of "reasonable disagreement".

Idiot. At least you got sunspot right.

John @ #1611: Good posting! Documents proving my weight are in the post to you.

This proves that global warming's a crock.

Lotharsson (1612): you're right to ask for a more precise statement of the Gore Hypothesis. (Actually, it has now progressed to Gore's Law.) Remember when that poor old polar bear tried to climb up on the ice floe, and it (gulp) crumbled and he (glub) paddled off disconsolately towards the flat wet horizon (glug)? Remember how your heart-strings gave a little tug? Gore's Law states: "The rate of return on Generation Investment Management's stake in the Chicago Carbon Exchange is directly proportional to the investment in Inconvenient Truth's CGI."

Lee (1609): On a point of etiquette, your word "Dude" encourages me to look closely at the arguments you make in your posting. Thank you for your patience. Maybe I am a 'lost cause', incapable of believing in AGW until either (a)it gets warmer in Shropshire (Britain's equivalent of Missouri, if you follow me) or (b)the Annual Average GISS Temperature Anomaly twice exceeds 0.75C in the next Lotharsseon.

Your word 'dude' - with its subtext of weary disappointment - is much more persuasive than Kincaidspeak.

p.s. a Lotharsseon (L) is a number of years where L = 20 + N, and N = a number such that if global warming hasn't yet happened we'll add some more. L must not be confused with J, the equivalent number employed by Jehovah's Witnesses to predict the second coming: same principle, different faith.

Erasmussimo (1604): respect, dude. That's three brethren with the courage of your convictions. If Dave R (#1047) has sold the Hummer that'll make four.

Lee (1609): You wrote:

"A key one is this: analysis of glacial/interglacial transitions, where we plug in the known primary forcing - changes in insolation - and we get back out a sensitivity to forcing equivalent to ~ 3C/2xCO2. Note that this analysis integrates both known and unknown forcings and feedbacks, because we are observing primary input and final output."

I think I follow, but could you please expand on this?

You also wrote: "There are multiple additional lies of evidence - read Annan, for example.".

Typo or Freudian slip? ;-)

1610 Erasmussimo,

Brent has tried just about every denialist claim here. He's just trying another ploy: pretending to be a reasonable, genuine sceptic. Why do you trust him?

That response, Brent dude, is an example of why I'm weary of you. Stop being a dishonest prick.

Why do you trust him?

I don't. I'm not here for social reasons; I'm here for intellectual reasons. I don't interpret an intellectual disagreement as a personal conflict. I stick to the facts and the logic, and leave the personality stuff out. Yes, I'm human and I occasionally get emotionally involved, but I try very much to stick to intellectual side.

But Erasmussimo, Brent has shown over and over that he is **intellectually** dishonest and not to be trusted. That is not a social or emotional issue, it is precisely an issue with the intellectual approach he uses.

1619 Lee,

Thanks. I'm baffled that Erasmussimo would assume that I was bringing in personalities when I was clearly referring to Brent's behaviour when discussing science.

Obviously there's some serious misunderstanding going on here when we have statements such as #1619 and #1620. When Lee states that "he [Brent] is intellectually dishonest", Lee is talking about Brent, not the issues. I don't care about Brent! I care about the issues! I don't care if Brent is a terrorist, mother-enslaving, orphan-raping litterbug. If Brent writes something I disagree with, then I might go to the trouble of explaining my disagreement. If Brent writes something I agree with, then I might go to the trouble of stating my agreement. Or, as in the case of my #1610, I can state that, while I still disagree with his statements, I find them to be within the ken of reasonable disagreement. In each case, the concern is with the statement, not the person.

TrueSkeptic, your argument was precisely an ad hominem argument. You asserted that Brent has lied in the past. Then you asked me why I should trust him -- an irrelevant question, to my mind, because I don't care about trusting Brent, I care about the statements he makes.

I truly believe that discussions such as this one would be better if they were unsigned, so that people couldn't associate an idea with a person. This would force people to assess each statement solely on its own merits. What a concept! The obsession that people have for identifying ideas with people, and then attacking the people rather than the ideas, is so irrational that I have difficulty perceiving the mental processes at work as anything more than simian dominance displays.

1621 Erasmussimo,

This is bizarre. Do you not understand what's happening? Do you really think you can disregard all previous evidence of dishonesty because the perpetrator has switched tactics to appear "reasonable"?

If you really believe what you say, you would not have made comments like

First off, I think that all the nasty things that have been written about Brent have been falsified by his two most recent posts.

and

Brent, as far as I'm concerned, your concessions bring you into the ken of "reasonable disagreement".

You should refer only to the arguments and make no reference at all to the "personality" that made them or to (our description of) his record here.

I think you are being naïve.

I don't think you understand what "ad hominem" means either.

Sorry, failed again to use Preview when I should. The quoted bits should look like

First off, I think that all the nasty things that have been written about Brent have been falsified by his two most recent posts.

and

Brent, as far as I'm concerned, your concessions bring you into the ken of "reasonable disagreement".

Then

You should refer only to the arguments and make no reference at all to the "personality" that made them or to (our description of) his record here.

I think you are being naïve.

I don't think you understand what "ad hominem" means either.

The Brent's is exploiting the asymmetrical nature of what has been turned into a conflict. The Brents of the world can say what they like then use other strategies to deal with several years of hard won science communicated by half a dozen PhDs in their volunteer time. Is responding to the Brents of the world the best use of highly educated people's volunteer time?

Erasmussimo's approach is valuable but becomes very costly if the Brents exploit their asymmetrical advantage (cheap lies versus expensive facts).

When is it time to turn off the tap that energizes this dishonest individual? Brent has consumed perhaps several hundred hours our combined lives, and there is important things we could be doing, such as in mixing with people who are not dishonest.

You will remember that that is the type of person Brent misreprented himself as when he lied out who he was at the start. Even Brent knows that spending time on the Brent's of the world is a waste of scarce resources.

That's a fair point, jakerman. Why are we expending time on this effort? Everybody has their own reasons. I have two objectives in this effort. First, I seek to demonstrate to lurkers that support for AGW is rational and reasonable. In seeking this goal, the last thing I want to do is appear to be involved in some sort of personal confrontation. My second objective is to learn how to teach more effectively. By observing the myriad ways that people misunderstand any logical issue, I get a better grip on the crooked ways of the human mind.

A lot of people approach these discussions as some sort of intellectual joust, with points scored and victories tallied. I suppose that there will always be plenty of young males who seek to prove their manhood in one way or another. When I was young, I did some of the same things. But such things no longer interest me.

>*My second objective is to learn how to teach more effectively. By observing the myriad ways that people misunderstand any logical issue, I get a better grip on the crooked ways of the human mind.*

Yes I didn't include that in my calculations. Good point.

It appears that Brent isn't as witty as he thinks he is. I'd conceed that you've done some good posting but...you know. You haven't.

> Gore's Law states: ...

The old Brent returns, revealing that what was previously positioned as a [concession regarding Brent's level of ability to assess the **science**](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…)...was not about the science. That took ... what, all of 18 hours? How many other "concessions" will turn out to be dissembling after the fact?

> Remember when that poor old polar bear tried to climb up on the ice floe...

Nope. Never seen the movie.

> Lotharsseon (L) is a number of years where L = 20 + N, and N = a number such that if global warming hasn't yet happened we'll add some more.

Just can't stop lying about what I said, now with a little dash of satire? Seems like you can't make your case against the science without misrepresenting it. Ever stopped to wonder why?

> That's three brethren with the courage of your convictions.

Brent still can't count, never mind the presumptions he makes when he has no evidence.

"*Seems like you can't make your case against the science without misrepresenting it. Ever stopped to wonder why?*"

Worth reemphasizing this point that Brent and his ilk continually demonstrate.

> ...the IPCC claim of âlong-lived C02â...

[Back around](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…) the [goldfish bowl](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…) and [round again](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…) and [round once more](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…) and [once more for luck](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…) ... and heck, [once more to make sure](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…), although [that probably wasn't enough](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…).

You (a) haven't shown where the IPCC is in error - merely asserted it, (b) haven't understood the defense of the IPCC that you falsely claim *has not been made*, and (c) haven't made any attempt to see if your interpretation of the atmospheric physics is known to be wrong. And you call yourself a skeptic?

> ...its Hockey Stick...

So what was your objection again?

> A 1300-year graph, shaped like a âhockey stickâ claims to show temperatures in the NH, but shows no Medieval Warm Period (dismissed on p.469) or Little Ice Age, when British ports had to contend with sea ice, fer chrissakes.

Fer chrissakes, you confuse the local for the hemispherical - which is a favourite orbiting goldfish tactic - and then extrapolate from your speculation to implying you have "proof" (ditto).

Your evidence is *consistent* with the hypothesis that there was a synchronous Northern Hemisphere-wide "MWP" and "LIA" - but it's also *consistent* with the converse argument (which might include non-synchronous regional warming & cooling across the hemisphere). Your "argument" fails to *prove* either case, so despite your claims to the contrary does not demonstrate an error of logic in the IPCC.

Never mind almost a dozen other "hockey-stick" reconstructions in the AR4.

> its claims of disappearing polecaps

What was your claim that the IPCC's error in logic was again?

> Chapter 4, p339: ââ¦decline in annual mean arctic sea ice extent since 1978â¦â has now been halted and reversed...

Goldfish [orbits](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…) and [orbits](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…) and [orbits](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…) and [maybe once more in his own comment](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…).

For starters. Never mind that Arctic sea ice mass changes due to global warming are not expected to decrease in a nice regular monotonic fashion, because weather patterns have a significant influence too.

> ...its choice of 1840-2000 as reference period...

Which is why different IPCC graphs have different historical coverage? As you yourself point out, and others have pointed out on this thread?

What was your specific claim that the "IPCC error of logic" was again?

> Chapter 1, p101, shows a terrifying graph with a 1840-2000 timescale. This is cherrypicking.

...and...

> Chapter 3: page after page of cherrypicked graphs 1900-2000 and 1840-2000. A glance at the Aletsch Glacier graph (1500BC-2000AD) shows an unexceptional retreat since 1860. It comes and goes. Big deal. Without the underlying physics, extraoploting such graphs are vacuous numerology.

So...it seems your "error in logic" is the fallacious argument that the IPCC merely **extrapolates** future climate trends and does so from "cherrypicked graphs", and ONLY by extrapolation from "cherrypicked graphs".

That's either really idiotic or severely ignorant. As has been explained to you a number of times.

> Will somebody compare Actual and Observed since they published, and admit that Scenario A2 (lots more CO2; runaway warming) is failing to be borne out by events?

Do you know what "runaway warming" means? Hint: it doesn't mean "getting warmer quite quickly by some standard of 'quickly'". From memory I don't think scenario A2 is forecast to demonstrate actual "runaway warming" any time soon.

And how about you provide a reference to support your argument, rather than asserting it without evidence? When doing so, please take into account uncertainty intervals in published forecasts, variations between emissions scenarios and actual emissions, and the relative magnitude of climate vs weather impacts over the time interval you are considering.

> ...its conclusion that CO2 forcing dwarfs all others?

As you said:

> I concede that the case against AGW is not conclusive; depends on the eventual re-hashing of the Relative Forcing Table which may not in fact have to be re-hashed.

Note that that quote was in the [very same comment](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…) where you argued that no-one had yet addressed the allegedly erroneous "conclusion that CO2 forcing dwarfs all others", so I'll take it as a concession by you that your claim of a demonstrable IPCC error in this matter was wrong.

Apart from one comment held up in moderation, that seems to address all of your concerns from [#1608](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…)...

Lotharsson,

I have stuff to do in the real world, so will take some time to digest and respond to your recent posts.

Youâll hate me for this, butâ¦

I have a laymanâs interest in volcanos (I slept on the rim of Vesuvius in 2005, and spent a bitter Christmas night on Etna at 2800m). Iâm watching Icelandâs Eyafjallalokul volcano (idly, from my armchair, like a rubbernecker at a car crash) and this site is brilliant:

http://en.vedur.is/earthquakes-and-volcanism/earthquakes/myrdalsjokull/

It shows earth tremors around E15, with Katla and Hekla on the map. At time of writing thereâs an orange blob at the mighty-but-quiescent Hekla â the first Iâve seen: Hekla rumbled during the night of 15/16 May! As youâll know, an eruption from Hekla may have dire consequences.

I do wonder whether your cherished global warming might be no more than low-volcanic-activity (just as peace is absence of war!). The IPCC report has a half-hearted attempt to address aerosols. Could it be that the post-1850 âwarmingâ is merely a recovery from the 1815 Tambora eruption which caused famine in Europe and the US?

The IPCCâs forcing graph shows CO2âs forcing in red and volcanic ash (rightly) as a cooling influence, in blue. But might it be fruitful to consider an âash anomalyâ â declare a ânormalâ amount of ash in the atmosphere, and during periods of low vulcanism consider aerosol-absence a forcing factor to rival CO2?

Do we truly know how long volcanic ash stays airborne? The experts who close Europeâs airspace admit that their measurement capability is tiny, relying onâ¦. Oh no!.... Met Office modelling. (Just as an aside, I wonder if modelling is the last refuge of scoundrels: when the sums are too hard, crank up the Cray.)

Lotharsson, I know that your reluctance to accept an âNâ year period (as falsifiability period for AGW) was because other stuff might happen, that Thermageddon might be postponed by an unpredictable cooling event, and leave the doommongers disappointed. Did you fear that a pesky major eruption might get in the way?

Lotharsson, I am grateful that you've shown me the error of my.....

LOOK OVER THERE!!!

VOLCANO!!!

PREVIOUSLY REFUTED POINTS!!!

DISTRACTION!!!

> Could it be that the post-1850 âwarmingâ is merely a recovery from the 1815 Tambora eruption which caused famine in Europe and the US?

No.

Volcanic eruptions have been studied, and the climate impact from most is relatively short lived - months running into a year or two, not decades running into a century or longer.

The Mt Pinatubo eruption was one examples for which the climate responded in line with the models' expectations. You can look up the temperature impact for yourself and see how long it lasted.

[Brent @ 1637](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…),

Could it be that the post-1850 âwarmingâ is merely a recovery from the 1815 Tambora eruption which caused famine in Europe and the US?

That's it, I can't justify wasting more of my time on this. Apparently ice core, tree ring, peat core analysis and every other long-term temperature reconstruction ever published did not in fact exist and were a figment of our imaginations all along.

Brent: I hope you open your mind to true skepticism one day, and spend some time on the primary sources of information. Don't pay attention to the likes of Al Gore ([Lotharsson](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…) is not the only one who hasn't seen 'An Inconvenient Truth', just about every scientist worth his salt knows better than to listen to a politician), or the sh!t you read on denier websites that have as much of a political agenda.

MFS, thank you for your time.

Lotharsson, you say: "You can look up the temperature impact for yourself and see how long [the effect of the 1991 Pinatubo eruption] lasted".

I surely can't be alone in pondering a time-series graph, and seeing a change following some event, and asking myself: "Can I be sure that THAT event caused THAT change?" The key phrase here is: "... than would otherwise have been the case."

On p600 of the IPCC report they show a temperature spike following Pinatubo of either 0.2C or 0.7C, depending on one's prejudice. Would these spikes have occurred had Pinatubo not erupted? How can we know what "would otherwise have been the case"?

Alsi in 1991 were other "events": eruptions in Japan and the Phillipines, French nuclear test at Muruoa, and Inter Milan won the UEFA Cup.

I can only "look up the effect" of Pinatubo by making an unreasonable assumption: that the GISS Temperature Anomaly would otherwise have been flat.

IPCC Ch.2 p194 suggests that Pinatubo's effect lasted some years, and maybe 6 years for Krakatoa in 1883. Let's assume they're right. They spewed out respectively 10 and 20km3 of tephra. Childs play compared to the 1815 Tambora eruption estimated at 100km3! Imagine a hundred Mount St. Helens! Bang! How long might Tambora's effects persist? Difficult to say, but multiples of Krakatoa's persistence is not crazy.

You guys claim that CO2 is the only forcing agent worthy of examination, that the influence of the sun and volcanos are trivial. (Particle size and latitude and other factors make this game difficult, but the 1816 famines are fact, and nobody doubts their cause the previous year on the other side of the world: Tambora.)

(By the way, Hekla's eruption in 1021 produced an estimated 8km3 (huh!), and Katla's 1918 was even smaller than the Mt. St. Helens firecracker. I conclude that Iceland's catastrophe-track-record is modest.)

Red dots are volcanic eruptions. Still being worked on, and a lot more forcings and feedbacks to be addded:
http://i44.tinypic.com/akxy0i.jpg

Brent:

You guys claim that CO2 is the only forcing agent worthy of examination

Brent is full of bullsh!t.

that the influence of the sun and volcanos are trivial

We just defer to scientists. You just believe what you want to believe.

Brent:

Thermageddon might be postponed by an unpredictable cooling event, and leave the doommongers disappointed.

Oh yes, postponing solves all the problems.

Moron.

Guy over on WUWT says: "An inconvenient fact, not to be confused with âAn Inconvenient Truth,â which was also a spewing of hot, noxious gases from an ash hole."

Another guy replies: "Just so you know, that resulted in the spewing of cold Root Beer all over my monitor.. :)"

(Sorry, Lothy, the above refers to a film you haven't seen.)

SB (1636): Your "Hey, look over there: a volcano!" wins five witpoints.

Chris O'Neill: Minus five for your "moron".

Brent, you can now keep us updated with all the hilarious hijinks of WUWT commenters in the Brent Thread where you posts are now quarrintined.

> I surely can't be alone in pondering a time-series graph, and seeing a change following some event, and asking myself: "Can I be sure that THAT event caused THAT change?" The key phrase here is: "... than would otherwise have been the case."

That's a reasonable skeptical starting point, although you appear to have not bothered to investigate WHY scientists draw that link - which then lapses into unreasonable "skepticism". And you also say:

> ...but the 1816 famines are fact, and nobody doubts their cause the previous year on the other side of the world: Tambora.

And an 1816 "skeptic" might equally well have said "I surely can't be alone in pondering a time-series graph and seeing a change in agricultural productivity following the volcanic eruption and asking myself: "Can I be sure THAT eruption caused THAT famine?""

And yet, you are. Why? Through what process did you establish belief in a causal link? How did that process differ from your assessment of potential causal links between global temperature and Pinatubo? Or any other climate-science question?

> How can we know what "would otherwise have been the case"?

That's a very good general question. Some people have started long and useful careers in science due to posing exactly that type of question to themselves. They and their colleagues even publish papers in the literature. Some of them quite likely address your specific question about Pinatubo. What do they say?

> You guys claim that CO2 is the only forcing agent worthy of examination...

Lying about other people's positions seems to be **necessary to your argument**, which a true skeptic would suggest indicates that your argument is most likely fallacious.

> ...that the influence of the sun and volcanos **on climate timescales, especially over the last couple of hundred years or so, are generally** trivial.

There, fixed a lie of omission for you.

You haven't even *come close to showing even a vague chance of plausibility* for your idea that perhaps it was just that volcanic eruptions were sufficiently large and common for centuries (if not longer) that they cooled the climate until they started waning just about the same time as humans started pumping significant quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. And I'm pretty sure you haven't attempted to find any academic literature that could address this question either.

Lol ,what a dumbass video. It opens with logical fallacies and does not stop. Gettin past the sandpit logic that characterizes this video we can dig out the actual facts presented that relate to the claim that burning fossil fuels has caused the globe to warm.
Here they are: CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Man has added some to the atmosphere.
There is less radiation getting out.
The world is getting warmer.
The world has been getting warmer all by itself since the little ice age. Man has added some CO2 but not a high percentage compared to what was already there. There are now serious questions over the fidelity of the ground temperature records.
To sum up it seems there is nothing here to get alarmed about.

Mr. Lambert, thank you for providing a platform for the fiery debate on this thread. Before debating with warmists - the smart and the dumb, the professionally cool and the abusive, the qualified and the layman - I had little idea of how cogent the AGW theory was, and rather frustrated that the partisan nature of the Great Debate prevented the creation of common ground.

As a layman (on a layman's site, albeit enriched by some qualified people), my intention was always to prod the soggy mass of AGW opinion in order to reveal (purely for my own satisfaction) the core ideas and core facts. People soon pointed out that the IPCC reports are required reading; the AGW theory is indeed spelled out in AR4, but digesting it is greatly assisted by discussion, and I am grateful to my fellow posters on that thread.

Iâm afraid that I cannot participate in a âBrent Threadâ, which suggests that I personally am the issue, or that my opinions are important.

I take away from this experience the following conclusion:

Two key issues will decide the debate: sensitivity and feedback.

If CO2âs greenhouse effect dwarfs the forcing due to solar and volcanic changes, and if Earthâs climate is subject to unstable equilibrium (both of which are plausible) then the AGW theory stands.

I thank my fellow posters for their contributions.

more on NZ

'These over-the-top outcomes reek of bias and data manipulation, robbing the series of any vestige of scientific plausibility.'
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/7ze

> Man has added some CO2 but not a high percentage compared to what was already there.

Man has added about 40% more than was already there a couple of hundred years ago. Given that the greenhouse effect is responsible for about 33 degrees Celsius increased temperature, and CO2 for anywhere between 9 and 26% of that, a 40% increase is non-trivial produces a warming effect of the same order of magnitude as *observed* warming.

> There are now serious questions over the fidelity of the ground temperature records.

I don't see that "serious" is justified. Time after time "skeptics" have posed these sorts of questions on various bases, and time after time their concerns have turned out to be unfounded. Call me when they have something that stands up to scrutiny, and that's significant enough to put a dent in the current climate science understanding.

This video is pure propaganda of the worst kind. The first line about the science behind AGW in this video says it all. There is no proof. They admit it. I can give you the reasons why they will not be able to proof AGW:

- CO2 follows temperature changes;
- 5% of annual CO2-emissions come from man;
- 0,0384% of the air is CO2;
- the oceans hold about 50 times more CO2 than the air;
- the warming effect of more CO2 is logarithmic (the more you add, the less effect it has);
- doubling of CO2 will cause 1 degree temp increase;
- feedback from clouds and watervapor is negative.

The IPCC and the AGW-promotors have it the other way around:
- CO2 causes temperature changes (wrong)
- positive feedback form clouds and watervapor (wrong)

That is the problem. And that is why they will never be able to proof AGW because their theory is wrong.

Climate change is a natural thing.
Man has no significant effect on climate.

Case closed.

Scar, do you think this is empirical evidence for man made SS warming ?
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/802

Scarface, Jon, Care to address the actual content of the video instead of your bogus talking points?

Do you concede that the [Harries paper](http://skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=4&t=154&&n=73) provided empirical evidence? And do you concede that it detects a drop in OLR at the wavelengths absorbed by CO2?

First there is no "complete consensus" There are enough scientists who do not agree with the hypothesis "Mankind's CO2 is causing major warming" to at least put a question mark next to the hypothesis.

Second the upper ocean heat just dropped 1C â the largest since 1979

Third Katla has always erupted after Eyjafjallajokull. When Katla erupts it will cause a major disruption in the climate and agriculture. (the year without summer igniting the French Revolution)

Fourth the Sun is in a funk and is not ramping-up for the next solar cycle peak

NOW for the MAJOR worry you will not see in the headlines:

The "Global Warming Crisis" maybe a red herring to distract us while country after country is stripped of its ability to feed themselves and farmland is transferred into the hands of the ultra wealthy. Already 1/5 of the world's land belongs to one family. Mexico has already lost 75% of its privately held farmland to the likes of Smithfield Foods Inc. 80% of the world grain supply is controlled by less than ten corporations, most privately owned.

In 1996 Dan Amstutz, VP of Cargill (grain traders) wrote a 1996 farm bill that shut down the US grain storage system. In 2008 the USDA announced "the cupboard is bare" all of the US stores had been depleted.

The IMF/World Bank âStructured Adjustment programsâ removed nation support systems for third world farmers and drove them into bankruptcy. Countries were blackmailed into producing agricultural goods for export instead of food for local consumption. Transnational corporations dumping subsidized US/EU grain, drove farmers into bankruptcy, then bought the land cheap to produce high price exports. The following quotes show the grain traders greed and the level of concern for other humans.

âIn summary, we have record low grain inventories globally as we move into a new crop year. We have demand growing strongly. Which means that going forward even small crop failures are going to drive grain prices to record levels. As an investor, we continue to find these long term trends...very attractive.â [Food shortfalls predicted: 2008](http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/dancy/2008/0104.html)

âRecently there have been increased calls for the development of a U.S. or international grain reserve to provide priority access to food supplies for Humanitarian needs. The National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA) and the North American Export Grain Association (NAEGA) strongly advise against this concept..Stock reserves have a documented depressing effect on prices... and resulted in less aggressive market bidding for the grains.â July 22, 2008 letter to President Bush [Bush letter on grain reserves](http://www.naega.org/images/pdf/grain_reserves_for_food_aid.pdf)

We have been setup for starvation and high profits when the weather causes a major disruption in agriculture.

The American farmer has been fighting the corporate takeover but we are slowly loosing [NAIS is Back!](http://nonais.org/2010/04/01/nais-is-back/)

There is a place to leave comments on the Federal Register about the new Animal Disease Traceability Plan (ADTP). The main thing everyone needs to know is that since the farmers killed NAIS on the federal level now the states will be the ones making the regulations. We need to get involved or theyâll only hear from the people who want NAIS.(The large corporations)

http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#docketDetail?R=APHIS-2…

Here are the REFERENCES you need to get up to speed:

[MUST READ - 1](http://www.opednews.com/articles/History-HACCP-and-the-Foo-by-Nicole-Jo…)

[MUST READ - 2](http://www.foodsafetynews.com/contributors/nicole-johnson/)

[Extermination of family farms is planned](http://www.i-sis.org.uk/savePolishCountryside.php)

[Bill Clinton Admits Global Free Trade Policy has Forced Millions Of People into Poverty](http://www.agmates.com/blog/bill-clinton-admits-global-free-trade-polic…)

[World Bank/IMF Structural Adjustment Policies](http://www.whirledbank.org/development/sap.html)

[Farm Wars](http://farmwars.info/?p=1145)

Scarface, how nice of you to pop by.

Please read:

* CO2 follows temperature changes;
* 5% of annual CO2-emissions come from man;

* 0,0384% of the air is CO2;

So many errors in only six words.

* the oceans hold about 50 times more CO2 than the air;

* the warming effect of more CO2 is logarithmic (the more you add, the less effect it has);

Yet we've hardly added any according to you.

* doubling of CO2 will cause 1 degree temp increase;

* feedback from clouds and watervapor is negative.

Have a nice day.

Gack!

Brent is given his own cave in which to wave his club of disingenuity around, which didn't seem to suit the blushing fellow, and suddenly others of his ilk materialise here and begin pounding the ground with their rocks?!

Who called the reinforcements? And why did they recruit particularly dim trolls...? Any half-educated lay person who has followed for any length of time the debunking of "sceptical" arguments, would know just how spurious and nonsensical are the points at [#1646](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…), [#1650](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…) and [#1653](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…). Seriously, how many times must the denialist fairytales be revealed as nothing more than beer-room fishing yarns?

Someone obviously didn't appreciate having quarantined Brent's antics in rail-roading this thread.

"Why do you trust him?"
I don't.

You're as dishonest as you are stupid:

Brent, as far as I'm concerned, your concessions bring you into the ken of "reasonable disagreement".

Trusting moron.

I stick to the facts and the logic, and leave the personality stuff out.

You're such a fucking liar, Erasmussimo. Your posts, such as #34 with

I'd like to defend James against the avalanche of angry responses to his comments. Not that I agree with his claims. I'd like to point out that James represents a different class of commentator here.

are full of comments about personalities. You have persistently blathered about tone and defended the trolls as being well-meaning and "reasonable". What a pathetic fool you are.

Yes I didn't include that in my calculations. Good point.

Erasmussimo is suckering you just as Brent is suckering him; E.'s actual history in this thread is nothing like his characterization of himself.

@John:

The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-…

Looking forward to your comments!

The science is settled: CO2 is a harmless tracegas.
Oh, btw, it's plantfood.

AGW: the mother of all hoaxes.

>The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide:

>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-…

>Looking forward to your comments!

Haha, good comedy. How is something that forms an integral part of our understanding of atmospheric radiative processes (the logarithmic effect of CO2) supposed to disprove our understanding of atmospheric radiative processes?

Looking forward to your comments!

There are already comments on that thread; perhaps you could try refuting the criticisms. Only, you don't understand a word of them or the original article, you just like Archibald's conclusion.

The science is settled: CO2 is a harmless tracegas.

What is settled is that you are an ignorant idiot.

Hi Scarface, any rebuttals to the argument crushing information I provided you would be appreciated.

BTW - how can Co2 be plant food when it's just a trace gas? You're contradicting yourself.

Scareface, you are dodging the topic and now [dodging questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…).

I find that is an early marker of denialism, failure to engage in real science and a preference for propaganda.

Corrinne, do you care to address [the topic of the thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…)? Conspiracy theories are a dime a dozen, as are opinions without well founded evidence.

Why do you need AGW to be fake for rich people to take the property of the poor? That has been happening for millennium regardless. The reason it is happening is inequity in power and, improper checks on power, and corruption via handing over too much to the profit motive.

I suggest if you are deeply concerned about the food issue you mention you cease blocking the efforts of others to address climate change, and start focusing on reform of the pillars that are suppose to hold a functioning democracy together, such and preventing media consolidation, and the improper power of money in the electoral system.

Now back to the topic of this thread.

1657 TM,

See 1622-3. Should we call Eras "Judy"? Now, that *is* getting personal. ;)

Space station to refine predictions

'In his capacity of the head of the Russian-Ukrainian project "Astrometria" on the Russian segment of the International Space Station, Abdussamatov is conducting additional research to refine his prediction that a new Little Ice Age will begin in 2014.
Abdussamatov explained to the climate conference that the Russian segment of the ISS is scheduled to collect more precise data on sun activity over the next sixyears.'

"If the Astrometria project is developed in time," Abdussamatov said, "we will be able to develop a more precise forecast of the duration and the depth of the approaching new Little Ice Age and to understand the reasons of cyclical changes taking place in the interior of the sun and the ways they affect the Earth and various scopes of human activity."

Abdussamatov's theory is that "long-term variations in the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth are the main and principal reasons driving and defining the whole mechanism of climatic changes from the global warmings to the Little Ice Ages to the big glacial periods."

In his speech's conclusion, Abdussamatov took on advocates of the theory of man-caused warming who want to diminish human use of hydrocarbon fuels. He contended, instead, that a reasonable way to combat coming cooling trends would be "to maintain economic growth in order to adapt to the upcoming new Little Ice Age in the middle of the 21st century."

http://www.tinyurl.com.au/86i

> Abdussamatov's theory is that "long-term variations in the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth are the main and principal reasons driving and defining the whole mechanism of climatic changes from the global warmings to the Little Ice Ages to the big glacial periods."

Part of his claim appears to simply reiterate current climate science - e.g. Milankovitch cycles drive changes in solar energy reaching the earth which in turn drives or triggers significant long term climate changes (amplified by feedbacks including atmospheric CO2 and water vapour and albedo changes).

However as far as his claim addresses *recent* global warming, it's [back around the goldfish bowl](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…).

Oh, and it's highly amusing that sunspot cuts-and-pastes an argument that "incoming solar energy caused global warming" but at the same time claim that "the sun's going to get cooler and will soon cause a little ice age" - when [the sun has ALREADY been getting cooler for several decades, and the earth has only been getting warmer](http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming…).

I wish they'd at try to make arguments that are least **internally** consistent, let alone congruent with the empirical evidence...

sunspot @ 1666,

*Begin dramatic Discovery Channel voiceover*...

...that a new Little Ice Age will begin in 2014...

...taa, daa, daaaaaa!!!...

Is anybody else reminded here of Nostradamus or other crackpot conspiracies, or of the year 2,000, end-of-the-world scenarios? And how appropriate is it that the post number is 1666, huh?

Abdussamatov also said in National Geographic,

'Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

Solar Cycles

Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets'

http://www.tinyurl.com.au/880

> The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars...

[Really? Maybe not](http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm).

(Is that a long-term solar irradiance increase that only "skeptics" can see? Or do "skeptics" argue that other solar scientists are falsifying their results?)

And what is meant by "long term" here, because solar irradiance has been declining for several decades, and over the really loooooonnnnnnngggggg term IIRC solar output has *declined* much much more than we've seen over the last few decades.

1669 MFS,

I'm only surprised it's not 2012*, you know, the year that the Mayan calendar "ends", which seems to obsess some people who know as little about the Mayan calendar as they do about science.

*There will be some huge change on 21.12.2012 apparently. Of course, no one will say exactly what it will be.

1671 Lotharsson,

Why is it that the "It's the sun wot dunnit" meme simply keeps being refreshed when anyone can get the data and graph it, or just let WFT do the work? Choose whatever averaging you like (or none), the correlation is [obviously lacking](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1900/normalise/mean:60/plot/…) in recent decades.

BTW, you know what else Abdussamatov believes?

>"Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."

This is so full of stupid I wasn't sure where to start with it. But how about I start with the fact that a molecule's mean free path near the surface is on the order of nanometres, and in the stratosphere it's on the order of micrometres.

Climate Change:

Animal deaths !

http://www.tinyurl.com.au/8b1

Sunspot @ 1674,

Will you please stop spamming OT stuff? What on earth does the death of four gorillas from cold weather have to do with Peter's video on the empirical evidence for global warming?

It's almost like Sunspot is trolling.

Huh ? M fess, I posted a link about apes that live on the f.cking equator that froze to death ! Is that piece of shit video at the top not telling us that it's supposed to be getting hotter ?
THE EVIDENCE IS NOT EMPIRICAL and the fact that apes are freezing to death on the EQUATOR certainly throws a shade of grey over the aGW hypothesis.

About being OT, have a look at your dopey post @ 1669, what world are you in, hahaha believing in that crap.

> It's almost like Sunspot is trolling.

John wins the internetz for a day!

> ...the fact that apes are freezing to death on the EQUATOR certainly throws a shade of grey over the aGW hypothesis.

...or would, if "the aGW hypothesis" predicted that even [4500m high snow-covered volcanoes](http://www.travelpod.com/travel-blog-entries/hilde/rwanda-2007/11868756…) would no longer *ever* get cold.

Sunspot I can't access your link, but your one-dimensional understanding of the world about you is common enough knowledge, so in this case I'm going to take a stab at it as also being quite literal.

Apart from latitude, what other factor might mitigate against what are characterised as hot equatorial temperatures?
(Hint: they're also called "mountain gorillas")

we all knew this, you cannot trust NOAA !

"NOAA... systematically eliminated 75% of the world's stations with a clear bias towards removing higher latitude, high altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler," the authors say. "The thermometers in a sense, marched towards the tropics, the sea, and to airport tarmacs."http://www.tinyurl.com.au/8bj

now they are at it again !

Ian MacDonald, an oceanographer with Florida State University, who more than two weeks ago said the oil spill was likely five times as large as the 5,000 barrel-a-day estimate from the National Oceanic Atmospheric and Administration, said the agency is attacking scientists who challenged government estimates, while itself doing little to glean new information about the spill size.

âThe scientific community in the Gulf of Mexico is fairly small ... and we've been very dedicated for a long time and not only is nobody listening to us in this, but it seems like they really want us to shut up,â MacDonald said. âIt's very, very punitive and anybody who is doing this is getting attacked by NOAA.â http://www.tinyurl.com.au/8bk

Fancy that, attacking scientists for not lying, sounds familiar don't it.

> "NOAA... systematically eliminated 75% of the world's stations with a clear bias towards removing higher latitude, high altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler," the authors say.

Fail. Your argument about the NOAA starts out with [false claims](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/dropouts/) and [false implications that have proven false](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/false-claims-proven-false/).

> Itâs impressive how many things they can get wrong in so few words. ...

> But they just made up the claim that âNOAA began weeding out ⦠systematically and purposefully ...â The fact is that **NOAA â a U.S. government agency â has no control whatever over which station data various nations contribute to the GHCN**. If they have a complaint about a reduction in stations from, say, Canada, itâs blatantly dishonest to blame it on NOAA, they should take it up with Canada. ...

> You could argue all day over what part of their claim is most dishonest. But it seems to me that **the clear winner for âmost stupidâ is the very idea that removing locations âwhich had a tendency to be coolerâ will somehow introduce a false warming into the global temperature anomaly calculation**.

Why, it's almost like you WANT to be shown to be disingenuous and completely credulous.

>"NOAA... systematically eliminated 75% of the world's stations with a clear bias towards removing higher latitude, high altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler," the authors say. "The thermometers in a sense, marched towards the tropics, the sea, and to airport tarmacs."http://www.tinyurl.com.au/8bj

Ahhh the old Watts/D'Aleo SPPI paper. Tell me Sunspot, are you ever sceptical of anything that vaguely supports your position? Because I can tell you with certainty that both the premise and conclusions of that SPPI "paper" are false.

The evidence is here:

This result is not in dispute as it has been independently reproduced.

Since you actually responded to MFS, I'm gonna assume you're in a respondin' mood today. So here's the deal: if you address my post, do so logically and have the guts to admit that this contrarian talking point is simply dead wrong.

However, if you do not address my post and simply pop up with a new talking point to deflect attention, it will be taken by me (and surely the vast majority of the readers here, since I'm putting this out in the open) as a tacit admission that you're wrong anyway.

Of course, you could try and defend Watts and D'Aleo, which would be brave of you because even Watts and D'Aleo haven't been able to defend Watts and D'Aleo.

Damn it Lotharsson. You win this time.

Thankyou for attempting to correct me slothy & stu ,
however as you both only addressed 50% of the post, and as I still have my doubt's about the temperature data I can only award you both 25 points each, as it was a combined effort I will be generous and combine your points, 25 + 25 = 50, hmmm, 50 out of 100, that's a fail, sorry.

After my perusal of your links I came across this,

http://www.tinyurl.com.au/8f7

and this

http://www.tinyurl.com.au/8fa

Your evidence is not empirical !

This http://www.tinyurl.com.au/8f8 will most likely be a game changer, along with the continuing solar minimum, I'm wondering what will be the new "cooked" up alarmist falsehood's that speculate about where the missing heat will be ?
Opps ! hold on, they can't even find it now.

Huh ? M fess, I posted a link about apes that live on the f.cking equator that froze to death ! Is that piece of shit video at the top not telling us that it's supposed to be getting hotter ? THE EVIDENCE IS NOT EMPIRICAL and the fact that apes are freezing to death on the EQUATOR certainly throws a shade of grey over the aGW hypothesis.

I can see how someone with an IQ as low as yours could think so.

However, if you do not address my post and simply pop up with a new talking point to deflect attention, it will be taken by me (and surely the vast majority of the readers here, since I'm putting this out in the open) as a tacit admission that you're wrong anyway.

What does it matter whether he admits, tacitly or explicitly, that's he's wrong? He's already demonstrated a hundred times over that he's an idiot without a shred of intellectual integrity.

>This http://www.tinyurl.com.au/8f8 will most likely be a game changer, along with the continuing solar minimum, I'm wondering what will be the new "cooked" up alarmist falsehood's that speculate about where the missing heat will be ? Opps ! hold on, they can't even find it now.

Why? Spencer is talking about weather here. El Nino and La Nina, yeah it's all very interesting but it has little to no relevance for the long term trend.

As for the missing heat, either the satellite measurements are wrong or our observations are inadequate. Have you looked into which of these is most likely?

Stu, here's an explanation for the missing heat, it is also an interesting look into the Stern review.

'The essence of my report was that after three years of study of a comprehensive hydrometeorological database, I could find no evidence of unexplained variations in the data. It became increasingly obvious that the anomalies were the consequence of variations in the receipt and poleward redistribution of solar energy.

Subsequently my reports and papers were targeted at South African readers. I had lost all faith in material published by Western authors in the light of my experience with the Stern Review. It was impossible to determine the nature of material that was deliberately omitted from their analyses, as well as the deliberately manipulated data such as that produced by the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in the UK.'

http://www.tinyurl.com.au/8hg

Will Alexander is telling you that you are being fooled, he is one of many honest and respectable scientist's that speak honest climate science, not politicized climate science.

> ...as well as the deliberately manipulated data such as that produced by the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in the UK.' ...

There's no evidence of deliberately manipulated data from the CRU or any other major source of climate records.

> Climate change is presently in a position of total disarray.

That's the first sentence in his article, and it's a lie.

> Will Alexander is telling you that you are being fooled, ...

By lying? He sure fooled you.

Statement of William Happer

'I have
spent my professional life studying the interactions of visible and infrared radiation with
gases â one of the main physical phenomena behind the greenhouse effect. I have
published over 200 papers in peer reviewed scientific journals. I am a member of a
number of professional organizations, including the American Physical Society and the
National Academy of Sciences.'

'Most of the greenhouse effect for the earth is due to water vapor and clouds,. To
get the frightening global warming scenarios that are bandied about, the added CO2
must substantially increase waterâs contribution warming. The jargon is âpositive
feedbackâ from water vapor and clouds. With each passing year, experimental
observations further undermine the claim of a large positive feedback from water. In
fact, observations suggest that the feedback is close to zero and may even be negative.
That is, water vapor and clouds may actually diminish the relatively small direct warming
expected from CO2, not amplify it. The evidence here comes from satellite
measurements of infrared radiation escaping from the earth into outer space, from
measurements of sunlight reflected from clouds and from measurements of the
temperature the earthâs surface or of the troposphere,'

download pdf here
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/8ke

Dr. William Happer, fair and impartial.

Oh wait.

Itâs the Sun, stupid

'Solar scientists are finally overcoming their fears and going public about the Sun-climate connection.'

Scientists, and especially solar scientists, are becoming assertive. Maybe their newfound confidence stems from the Climategate emails, which cast doomsayer-scientists as frauds and diminished their standing within academia. Maybe their confidence stems from the avalanche of errors recently found in the reports of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, destroying its reputation as a gold standard in climate science. Maybe the solar scientists are becoming assertive because the public no longer buys the doomsayer thesis, as seen in public opinion polls throughout the developed world. Whatever it was, solar scientists are increasingly conveying a clear message on the chief cause of climate change: Itâs the Sun, Stupid.

Jeff Kuhn, a rising star at the University of Hawaiiâs Institute for Astronomy, is one of the most recent scientists to go public, revealing in press releases this month that solar scientists worldwide are on a mission to show that the Sun drives Earthâs climate. âAs a scientist who knows the data, I simply canât accept [the claim that man plays a dominant role in Earthâs climate],â he states.

Read more: from this quality publication, http://www.tinyurl.com.au/8kg

> Whatever it was, solar scientists are increasingly conveying a clear message on the chief cause of climate change: Itâs the Sun, Stupid.

[Once more around the goldfish bowl](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…).

The same article also draws a possible link between low sunspot numbers and colder climate such as the Little Ice Age - but fails to point out that we've been having low sunspot numbers lately and it's STILL been about as hot as it's been for maybe one or two millennia.

> Among solar scientists, there are a great many theories about how the Sun influences climate. Some will especially point to sunspots, others to the Sunâs magnetic field, others still to the Sunâs influence on cosmic rays which, in turn, affect cloud cover. There is as yet no answer to how the Sun affects Earthâs climate.

So...we don't know how, and we have potentially incompatible theories about it but no theory's proponents can convince the proponents of the others - [let alone other climate scientists](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…) - but we're SURE the sun did it?

Also from the article:

> ...revealing in press releases this month that solar scientists worldwide are on a mission to show that the Sun drives Earthâs climate...

...and I'm on a mission to win Lotto without buying a ticket, but I haven't succeeded yet. Call me when they have more than aspirations.

On Lawrence Solomon, the writer of sunspot's latest link, regarding [his book "The Deniers"](http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=12d547f…) about "dissident" scientists who are oft-name-checked or quoted by sunspot et al, Richard Littlemore writes:

> [Solomon] says that while reflecting on his own research, "I ... noticed something striking about my growing cast of deniers. None of them were deniers." (My emphasis.)

> It's hard to imagine how someone could make that concession on page 45 and then string a book out to page 213 (not counting footnotes.) It's harder still to think that he could then continue to pursue his desperate argument that a legitimate debate still exists about the central question of anthropogenic global warming.

Corrected [link](http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=12d547f…) to the article on Solomon's book.

Looks like Solomon verballed Kuhn. Actual quotes from Kuhn:

>[âthis understanding may ultimately help us predict how and when a changing sun affects Earthâs climate.â](http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/info/press-releases/Kuhn-Humboldt/)

>[âWe canât predict the climate on Earth until we understand these changes on the sun,â](http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/info/press-releases/SunSize-May2010/)

> Looks like Solomon verballed Kuhn.

Maybe not the first time. At least three of the scientists profiled in Solomon's book "The Deniers" complained that he misrepresented their position.

'This paper (and all of the other papers based on empirical data) finds increased CO2 leads to a negative feedback upon water vapor, rather than positive as assumed by the IPCC. The 0.5°C sensitivity is in very close agreement with all of the other papers based on empirical data rather than virtual computer models. Meanwhile, Gavin Schmidt et al at NASA/GISS continue to fiddle with their computer models rather than test them against inconvenient satellite data, and lo and behold come to the conclusion that the IPCC models underestimate sensitivity 30-50%. '

http://www.tinyurl.com.au/8x2

1700 sunspot

Where was that paper published? What peer review did it go through? It only comes up as a direct PDF in Google Scholar, and a link to it on climaterealists.

http://typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray…

or

http://www.tinyurl.com.au/91d

JB - i don't know whether it's been peed on, but i would say it's open slather since the IPCC use's gray lit
wille nilly

REFERENCES
chiffer, R.A., and Rossow, W.B., 1985: ISCCP
(International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project)
Global Radiance Data Set
A New Resource for Climate Research. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 66, 1498-1505.

Trenberth, K., J.T. Fasullo and J. Kiehl. 2009:
Earth's Global Energy Budget. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 90, 311-324, doi:10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1

When a post reporting on a paper presents quotes from Trenberth and Jones in apparent support of its argument - when it's clear from context that neither quote does - you expect the conclusions to be (most likely) dodgy.

> The 0.5°C sensitivity is in very close agreement with all of the other papers based on empirical data rather than virtual computer models.

When a website quotes an easily-checked fallacious assumption to support its conclusion, it generally means the conclusion itself is not supported by the evidence. In this case it is well known that multiple lines of evidence **based on empirical data** lead to estimates of climate sensitivity of about 3 degrees C.

When the website continues on with false claims such as:

> Gavin makes this proclamation on the basis of computer modeling of the climate 3 million years ago, which **given the unproven assumption that CO2 controls all** [my emphasis],...

...you give up reading because the writer is lying to you and hoping you and hoping you don't know any better. It's doubly egregious when the website links to [an article](http://www.physorg.com/news192300789.html) about the matter that directly disproves the (bolded) central claim:

> The reason for the underestimation, they say, may be due to **long-term changes in ice sheets and vegetation** that are not well represented in todayâs global climate models.

Apparently the climate scientists don't assume that "CO2 controls all". (And this has implications for the "lack of correlation with CO2" that the website claims disproves climate sensitivity calculations - ironically not understanding that the article they linked to helps to explain that other factors have a significant influence, thereby undercutting their argument.)

> JB - i don't know whether it's been peed on, but i would say it's open slather since the IPCC use's gray lit wille nilly

So firstly you misrepresent the IPCC's policy on gray literature, which anyone can check for themselves, and from there you apparently argue that ALL gray literature is robust because the IPCC has a process for assessing and validating gray literature? That's also fallacious.

I haven't had a chance to look at the paper itself, but it wouldn't surprise me if it used Spencer's favourite trick of looking *only at short term response* in order to calculate something he calls "sensitivity", thereby fooling people who don't understand that the definition of sensitivity most commonly referred to (especially by the IPCC) **includes the long term response**.

The paper appears to have been presented [here](http://ams.confex.com/ams/29Hurricanes/techprogram/paper_168567.htm).

Given that it references "the UN" and "environmentalist alarmist groups" in its abstract, and draws conclusions (overall climate sensitivity is only about 0.5C) that are strongly rebutted by multiple lines of evidence, one suspects it is the usual pseudo-science seeking a pre-determined result...

1702 sunspot; "JB - i don't know whether it's been peed on, but i would say it's open slather since the IPCC use's gray lit wille nilly"

It wouldn't be the first time a paper by Gray was rejected, though. There's a difference between grey lit after review (which is pointed out as being grey lit), and a paper rejected by peer review or the journal.

try this one slothy,

'We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zero-feedback fluxes thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric GCMs [global climate models] forced by the observed SST are less than the zero-feedback fluxes consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. The observational analysis implies that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity.â

http://www.tinyurl.com.au/91x

> try this one slothy,

Strange how you feel the childish need to rudely distort my name (and that of others).

And then you reference Lindzen and Choi? Their 2009 effort was widely criticised - we shall see what pre- and post-publication peer review have to say about this 2010 update. But once again they would need a strong case for their claim that total feedback is negative in order to overturn much **non-model** evidence that climate sensitivity is about 3 degrees C.

slothy, said - 'Strange how you feel the childish need to rudely distort my name (and that of others).'

toughen up buttercup ! your starting to sound like sooky john

[This comment](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Working-out-climate-sensitivity-from-sa…) may be relevant to Lindzen & Choi's latest effort - but peer review will be far more useful.

a repost for JB

@1273

Contrary to statements by the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the celebrated 2007 report does not rely solely on research published in reputable scientific journals. It also cites press releases, newspaper and magazine clippings, working papers, student theses, discussion papers, and literature published by green advocacy groups. Such material is often called "grey literature."

We've been told this report is the gold standard. We've been told it's 100 percent peer-reviewed science. But thousands of sources cited by this report have not come within a mile of a scientific journal. http://www.tinyurl.com.au/5mv

and a huge trail of these http://www.tinyurl.com.au/5mw http://www.tinyurl.com.au/5mx

admit it, the evidence is not empirical

> toughen up buttercup ! your starting to sound like sooky john

What makes you think I need to "toughen up"? I wasn't complaining; I was commenting because I think it makes you look like a petulant child, but if that's the stance you're aiming for, more power to you.

> a repost for JB

Just can't resist [orbiting](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…) that [goldfish bowl](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…), can you?

Admit it, you wouldn't know empirical evidence if it dropped on your head.

empirical evidence for slothy

http://www.tinyurl.com.au/98a

[Foulspot](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…).

What's your point?

@ 1713 Bernard J.
Looking at the graph he posted, he must have finally accepted that daily global sea ice area is on a downward trend.

@ 1710 sunspot
"We've been told it's 100 percent peer-reviewed science. But thousands of sources cited by this report have not come within a mile of a scientific journal."

Awww bless you, you little chucky egg. IPCC self-cites were thrown into the non-reviewed (wrong) and those self-cites account for about 50% of the Citizen Audit unreviewed category. What a bunch of idiots. And while books may not be peer-reviewed papers per se, the original peer-reviewed paper the book chapter is a reprint of is. What a bunch of dummies.

I rather think that sunspot has eyeballed the graph, not noticed the trend and been told that that's all there is to know about sea ice as an indicator of the bigger picture.

In other words, as gullible as any Monckton fanboy.

whats your point ? said burny. As you can see, http://www.tinyurl.com.au/98a
the global sea ice is exactly on the line representing the 1979-2008 average. So over the last ten years, the loss has been ⦠somewhere around zero. How about that, and with SH winter just around the corner it might just be a bumper crop.

[Bonehead](http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolum…)

Gaz @1717, evidently some people still can't get their heads round 3-dimensional space.

sunblot @1716 - good, very good. Now, I know this will hurt, but try to imagine that the planet and its attendant processes operate in more than 2 dimensions...

Maybe this will help illustrate the difference between area and volume. I'm not counting on it sinking in with some individuals, but one can live in hope...

Not only a bonehead, but a [goldfish troll](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…) swimming [around](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…) and [around](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…) the [goldfish bowl](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…).

(There are probably more. And that last link is to sunspot posting a comment about **ice mass**, so it's hard for sunspot to argue lack of awareness of the difference between area and mass or volume.)

It's like they think some people are dumb enough to be fooled the eighth or ninth time they post the same bogus argument.

>It's like they think some people are dumb enough to be fooled the eighth or ninth time they post the same bogus argument.

Fool me eighth, [shame on you!](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A&feature=related)

Arctic Ice Volume Has Increased 25% Since May, 2008
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/9cu

'The blink map above shows the change in ice thickness from May 27, 2008 to May 27, 2010. As you can see, there has been a large increase in the area of ice more than two metres thick â yes, nearly as thick as the warmers skulls in this thread,turquoise, green, yellow and red. Much of the thin (blue and purple) ice has been replaced by thicker ice. In 2008, less than half of the ice (47%) was greater than two metres thick. Now, more than 75% of the ice is greater than two metres thick. In 2008, 18% of the ice was more than three metres thick. This year that number has increased to 28%. There has been nearly across the board ice thickening since '2008.http://www.tinyurl.com.au/9cv

and

Allegations about global warming processes in the Antarctic have nothing to do with real facts, a Russian polar explorer has said.

âThey are of opportunistic and time-serving character, and have nothing to do with the real weather and climate on the southern continent,â Head of Russiaâs 54th Antarctic expedition Viktor Venderovich told Itar-Tass.

âThe past summer on the south pole was cold and windy, and ice floes in the offshore water failed to melt over the entire season.

âThe atmospheric air temperature near the Vostok station deep on the continent reached the customary minus 70 degrees Centigrade in the summer, and near the Novolazarevskaya station it never exceeded minus 6-8 degrees,â he said after staying at the Novolazarevskaya station for a year.

The previous winter in the Antarctic, he said, âwas remarkable for its unusual severity, with blizzards and snowstorms.â

The average air temperature was 0.5 degrees lower than usual, and there were too much snow, he said, adding that a âslight warming was registered only on the Antarctic peninsula, while the rest of the continent has not been affected by the global warning and is not going to be.â
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/9cx

> The blink map above shows the change in ice thickness from May 27, 2008 to May 27, 2010.

You do realise that Goddard and Watts are touting those graphs which (they indicate) show **forecasts** produced by **a model**?

So, since you clearly accept the use of models, how about this one that incorporates near real-time measurements from IceSat, showing plots over [a more appropriate climate-timescale](http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/IceVolume.php) than two years. (Oh, wait, you've [orbited that particular goldfish bowl in record time already](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…).)

Once you've digested that we can move on to GCMs...

[Foulspot](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…).

Lotharsson's already wiped your arse for you, but just in case the message isn't sinking in, perhaps you might consider giving a detailed explanation as to why the Polar Science Centre [shows a distinct dowmward trend](http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolum…) in Arctic ice volume, where you seem to be attempting to claim that such is not the case.

I am sure that you will not be able to put together a clear and well-argued case.

Now I'm off to look at the latest tragic offering from that crazy former Third World economic 'advisor'...

Volume from one day with Steven [the fool](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/james_m_taylor_hides_the_decli…) Goddard, or volume over 30 years with the [Polar Ice Centre]().

no burny, he wasn't wiping my bum you dill, he was checking my temperature

[Empirical evidence](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjaVp6AS5XU) for scorchmark.

hmmm... more empirical doubts.

'NASA has been slapped with a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit alleging that the agency has tried to cover up mistakes in data that have been widely used to support claims of global warming.

In an 18-page complaint filed this morning in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the Competitive Enterprise Institute says that, in 2007 and 2008, it submitted, but not yet received adequate responses to, FOIA requests seeking NASA documents and information related to changes made to NASAâs temperature data in response to que....'

http://www.tinyurl.com.au/9io

why didn't any of you respond about the bumper crop of ice emerging in the antarctic ? it is the LARGEST mass of ice in the world and is virtually unaffected by GW, if at all ! could it be that el nino doesn't go there, like it does in the arctic ? umm...what about enso ? i wonder what that is ?

ps slothy leave my bottom alone !

Sunspot,

Are you referring to sea ice or glacial ice in Antarctica?

The Antarctic Peninsula has been [steadily deglaciating](http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040222.shtml) in the recent past, though east Antarctic ice mass appears to be steady. The rate of ice loss appears to be [accelerating](http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n12/full/ngeo694.html).

Sea ice extent around Antarctica has been steadily growing since satellite records began in 1979, [in spite of the warming Southern Ocean](http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/Pubs/Zhang_Antarctic_20-11-2515.pdf). The trend is gradual and could hardly be called a 'bumper crop'.

What exactly did you want us to comment about Viktor Venderovich's observations? He is welcome to his opinion and if he has anything worthwhile publishing in the scientific literature, please link us to it. Otherwise he reminds me a little of Captain Col commenting in one of The Drum's pieces saying that sea level wasn't rising because the beach near his house looks the same as it ever did.

> more empirical doubts.

I don't see any.

I see a lawsuit that seems likely to turn out to be yet another "scandal" PR-manufacturing attempt. It's especially strange, given the allegation in the press release is that there may be something wrong with the NASA data - and yet the GISS data and code is freely published for all and sundry to investigate.

What do you reckon the chances are that once again the press release does not accurately describe the underlying documents (whether lawsuit or journal papers) - but the denialists will eagerly lap it up and cross their fingers and their toes that *this time* the promised demolition of AGW science will **not** cruelly fade away before their eyes just like it has all the other times? You'd think they'd wise up after being cheated time and time again...

And how do you reckon the complainants will explain that all the other temperature records - including "skeptic" Spencer's - show basically the same warming? What, NASA forced them **all** to join the big conspiracy? Yeah, right - pull the other one!

> it is the LARGEST mass of ice in the world and is virtually unaffected by GW, if at all !

And IIRC the GCMs - you know, the ones you implied were useful by approvingly linking to Goddard's post about an ice model - predict something much like what we're seeing.

Never mind that increasing ice in the Antarctic doesn't change the thermometer readings, even if you cross your heart and hope like hell that it does.

[More](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Accelerating-ice-loss-from-Antarctica-a…) empirical evidence for scorchmark.

loomy, don't believe anything on that trashy site,

http://www.tinyurl.com.au/9j0

http://www.tinyurl.com.au/9j2

oh...um... this too

http://www.tinyurl.com.au/9j4

tiz actually hard to get good info on Antarctica, skeleton in the closet so to speak

scorchmark cannot distinguish between fluctuating seasonal sea ice area and grounded antarctic ice mass. [The stupid, it burns!](http://www.plognark.com/?q=node/1129)

> oh...um... this too

Wow, you've got to be quite desperate to post a link to a story about the Himalayan glaciers and the 2035 mistake as if it proves there's something badly wrong with the climate science.

CANADA ???????? Was the recent temperature spike hotter than in past ? PROBABLY NOT !!

Read on about the mangled temperature data.

http://www.tinyurl.com.au/9v6 http://www.tinyurl.com.au/9v7 http://www.tinyurl.com.au/9v9

'A cross examination of global warming science conducted by the University of Pennsylvaniaâs Institute for Law and Economics has concluded that virtually every claim advanced by global warming proponents fails to stand up to scrutiny.'

'He found that the climate establishment does not follow the scientific method. Instead, it âseems overall to comprise an effort to marshal evidence in favor of a predetermined policy preference.â'

http://www.tinyurl.com.au/arz

aaand

'Graham replied that he now doesn't think pricing carbon is that important. "The science about global warming has changed," he noted, offhandedly. "I think they've oversold this stuff, quite frankly. I think they've been alarmist and the science is in question," Graham told reporters. "The whole movement has taken a giant step backward." '

http://www.tinyurl.com.au/as0

> ...conducted by the University of Pennsylvaniaâs Institute for Law and Economics...

Really? You think that should not be met with raised eyebrows, if not gales of laughter?

I guess if you can't get a scientist to form a robust *scientific* critique you might be desperate or stupid enough to pretend that economists (check out [the Tim Curtin thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) for ample evidence) and lawyers ([like cohenite perhaps?](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…) - and various other cohenite contributions to that thread) will be able to do so instead.

ermmm..... slothy, you missed 1736, if ya wannabee an internet shinny arse vigilante warmer bogger blogger do it properly please !

> ...you missed 1736, if ya wannabee an internet shinny arse vigilante warmer bogger blogger do it properly please !

No, I **ignored** it as it was (a) rampant speculation with little in the way of support for its hypothesis, and (b) just like a whole bunch of other well-debunked posts about "the nefarious scientists cleverly biased the temperature readings", and (c) over-provisioned with capital letters, question marks and exclamation points - which is almost always a huge giveaway that the comment is bullshit.

Oh, and (d) I thought it was fairly clear it didn't actually help the argument you were trying to support by referencing it.

And at the time I had better things to do than type "once more around the goldfish bowl" once more. And I figured that in general, anyone who's read any significant portion of this thread already knows you almost invariably post rubbish - and after a while you start recycling it.

So consider "once more around the goldfish bowl" as my default response to everything you post on this thread in future, unless notified otherwise :-)

Touchy bunch in here.

Empirical Evidence for Global Warming:

SOLAR VARIABILITY: climatic change resulting from changes in the amount of solar energy reaching the upper atmosphere.
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/bgz

Two thousand Years Of Global Temperatures: http://www.tinyurl.com.au/bh1

Five Million Years Of Climate Change:
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/bh4

and some weather (or climate?) for the warmers: http://www.tinyurl.com.au/bh5

Can any alarmist here present exactly one piece of evidence for man caused warming ?

Give it your best shot. The big one. That one big piece of evidence that will convince the skeptics. I mean, it's not just blind faith is it ?

You might also give a page reference to the latest IPCC report where EVIDENCE that MAN is causing global warming is given.

>*Can any alarmist [sic] here present exactly one piece of evidence for man caused warming?*

Start with [the beginning](http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Tyndall/) Mr Burns, seems the proper place for you.

Oh, the ignorance, it's so huge it hurts!

Why the inane insistence on one single piece of evidence when there are thousands?

You might also give a page reference to the latest IPCC report where EVIDENCE that MAN is causing global warming is given.

Well there's this. "this" being the relevant section of the IPCC summary report written for policy makers and interested non-scientists.
Then there's this from Working Group 1 which goes into the physical science basis in more detail.

Call me suspicious, but when I read the clunky "man [sic] caused" warming with fluid English colloquialisms following, I suspect a sock puppet attempting to disguise his linguistic mannerisms again.

The academic affectation rings a bell too, as does the overall cluelessness of the subject matter.

Perhaps I am just suspicious...

> I suspect a sock puppet attempting to disguise his linguistic mannerisms again.

I suspect a different sock puppet to the other thread - "blind faith" is Brent's schtick, although touchingly he can't see that his own position is profoundly reliant on blind faith.

What a damn waste of time this is. Can't we all just enjoy life while we have it? Iran gets the bomb in a couple of years and then it's lights out. 2 degrees, 4 degrees, 50cm, 1m, doesn't matter. Oh, the priceless look on the warmists' faces when they hear the blast and realise they were combating the wrong threat.

What a damn waste of time this is. Can't we all just enjoy life while we have it? Iran gets the bomb in a couple of years and then it's lights out. 2 degrees, 4 degrees, 50cm, 1m, doesn't matter. Oh, the priceless look on the warmists' faces when they hear the blast and realise they were combating the wrong threat.

juggernaut:

Wha?!? I know that, besides global warming, the US has a whole ton of other problems it really should be addressing real soon now. But none of them are as important as Iran because they don't involve blowing up stuff, no?

-- frank

Small minds can only handle one concern at a time, frank. Point out two at once and they freak out and then simply ignore one and hope for the best.

Can't walk and chew gum at the same time, as they say in the US...

Oh Juggernaut. Don't be such an alarmist.

Iran gets the bomb in a couple of years

Just like Iraq did.

So, everything hinges on whether Iran gets the bomb? That's nothing. Let's worry about climate change after we've cured cancer. And AIDS. And stopped the spread of every other infectious disease. And prevented every earthquake, tornado, hurricane, and so on, from killing anybody or causing any damage to property anywhere. Let's wait until there are absolutely no wars going on anywhere. Let's wait until crime has been reduced to nothing. Until everybody on Earth has a job they love and enough food to never be hungry again. Let's do nothing about climate change until every other bad thing that can happen is under control. Let's wait until the Pirates and the Royals meet in the World Series. Sounds like a plan!

For disaster.

> Iran gets the bomb in a couple of years and then it's lights out

Someone set us up the bomb?

Make your time!

Of course, if you keep your head up your arse, you'll suffocate and won't be burned to a crisp in the nuclear firestorm.

Feel free to beat the rush.

"tinyurl" links broken; these work:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/List_of_temperature_related_images