1. deltoid
  2. sunspot thread

sunspot thread

By tlambert on December 11, 2010.

By popular request sunspot has his/her own thread. This is the only thread that sunspot can post to, and all replies to any comment to sunspot should go here.

Tags
Open Thread

More like this

"The reason they don't mention AGW is because, like most scientists, they take the cause pretty much for granted."

granted - adjective, Acknowledged as a supposition

supposition - noun, 1/ A message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence

2/ A hypothesis that is taken for granted

3/ The cognitive process of supposing

so for once we are in agreement

oh dear, the Salby thing has got you all in a tiz.

More evidence of global warming and extreme temperatures in New Zealand

Biggest snow falls for 50 years.

The latest situation at 4.54pm: Much of the country is blanketed in snow, with flurries recorded as far north as Auckland, causing widespread disruption to business and ruining the travel plans of thousands.

In Christchurch, roads are closed, motorists have been stranded and community facilities like libraries and recreation centres are closed. Wind gusts of up to 65km/h downed powerlines. Hundreds of passengers are stranded at Christchurch airport and no planes have made it out of Queenstown . People have been skiing at the seaside in Sumner.

Snow has been falling in downtown Wellington for the first time in decades, while blizzard conditions descended on the central North Island. The Desert Road will remain closed for the day. SH4 through Taumaranui reopened this afternoon. Another afternoon front has brought the rare sight of snow flurries to suburbs around Auckland.

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/live-updates-winter-storm-hits-nz-43515…

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-15/nz-cold-snap/2839654

The warmers are getting soooooo desperate !

"Watching from afar, extraterrestrial beings might view changes in Earth's atmosphere as symptomatic of a civilisation growing out of control â and take drastic action to keep us from becoming a more serious threat, the researchers explain.

This highly speculative scenario is one of several described by scientists at Nasa and Pennsylvania State University that, while considered unlikely, they say could play out were humans and alien life to make contact at some point in the future.

Shawn Domagal-Goldman of Nasa's Planetary Science Division and his colleagues compiled a list of plausible outcomes that could unfold in the aftermath of a close encounter, to help humanity "prepare for actual contact"."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/aug/18/aliens-destroy-humanity-p…

Spotty continues to think that some small cold spell in a very localized part of the world somehow 'disproves' the overwhelming empirical evidence for AGW.

Its silly, but two can play the 'weather game':

http://www.grist.org/climate-change/2011-08-16-record-heat-causes-natio…

If we were to compare warm versus cold weather events over the past thirty years, as several have done, we'd see that record warm events far exceed record cold events.

But I digress. The very reason Spotty has been banned from other Deltoid threads is precisely because of his hypocrisy that is exemplified in his last post - pasting news clips showing short-term cold events in various places on the one hand whilst on the other hand berating others doing the same thing with many more examples of warm events. I know that 99% of posters here just ignore spotty's vacuous musings, but I just can never resist his consistent 'baiting and switching' tactics. I must work on it...

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 18 Aug 2011 #permalink

hahaha, you really are a space cadet pinocchio.

Maybe the aliens are busting the pipe's to teach us a lesson ? You should contact NASA & Penn State with this info Jeff.

"Kemp Mayor Donald Kile says the old infrastructure has a lot to do with the problem. The local water treatment plant was last replaced 40 years ago, and a lot of the town's 30 miles of pipelines were installed in the 1930s and haven't been updated in years.

"It's sad to say, but it's poor planning," said Kile, who was elected mayor recently. "When they put that water treatment plant in, they should have implemented something then ... It just wasn't ever done."

With virtually no updates to its water infrastructure in 40 years, Kemp is facing a serious water-reliability crisis. And the town is representative of the rest of the country: The EPA says that about 700 water main ruptures take place in the U.S. daily because of aging pipelines."

http://www.grist.org/climate-change/2011-08-16-record-heat-causes-natio…

"Durban is situated in the province of KwaZulu-Natal, on the east coast of the South Africa. The city is set on Natal Bay and benefits from year-round warm waters making it one of South Africa's top vacation spots. Durban is also one of Africa's busiest and most important ports. http://goafrica.about.com/od/southafrica/ss/bestsa_7.htm

interesting..............

"However SA Weather Services forecaster, Jan Vermeulen, said that KZN should brace itself for a few more chilly days, with the cold weather only lifting at the weekend.

Yesterday morning, hundreds of motorists travelling between Durban and Gauteng were affected by road closures at Van Reenenâs Pass, caused by heavy rains and snowfall. Graders were used to clear the roads between the Tugela Plaza and Van Reenen."

http://www.iol.co.za/dailynews/news/cold-weather-to-stay-until-weekend-…

yup, east coast of Africa.

Global Warming just aint Global. We had a very cold winter in the entire Southern Hemisphere, as a matter of fact most of Europe and America had cold summers, where was it hot pinocchio ? Texas ? its always hot there.

So maybe Global Cooling just aint Global - Yet.

Do you think the sea levels are going down now due to water contraction ?

I stumbled back into this thread, which I eschewed many many months ago, only because I clicked the wrong link on the left panel. Having landed here though, and having skimmed briefly through the fÅtid content left behind by snotpus, it is apparent that he is still up to his usual cherry-picking antics, so clumsy in their scientific misrepresentation that said troll is surely either a paid shill with a very specific brief, and/or he is simply one of the more stupid denialists polluting the interweb.

Specifically, the pustulent mucoid thinks that reporting every cold weather event that he can locate constitutes some sort of statistically valid rebuttal of basic physics. How sad. How very ignorant...

Snotpus, have a gander at [this video by Peter Sinclair](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVh7z-0oo6o&feature=player_embedded), and most especially at his mapping of extreme hot weather records. And then consider this challenge - can you construct an equivalent (or better) representational map of the contiguous US using extreme cold records for the same period, and for the same diurnal parameters, as displayed by Sinclair?

To make it easier for you, I will make the challenge more general - for how many country in the world can you conduct this exercise, and come up with a 'map' that is more detailed by using extreme cold weather records records than by using extreme hot weather records? References to data sources must be included.

Any further posting by you on this thread will constitute an explicit acceptance of a contact accepting my challenge.

Further, any failure by you to complete the challenge by the end of the month will be an explicit acknowledgement that you recognise, understand, and freely admit that your postings are nothing but rubbish, and that the Denialist propaganda is bunkum, and that your claimed "global cooling" is a nothing more than a figment of your sweaty imagining, and that you are complicit in an attempt to gravely endanger the future of the biosphere and of human societies simply for your own short-term ideological purposes.

I await your version of such an analysis with some curiosity.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 19 Aug 2011 #permalink

Too many difficult words, Bernard, too many. One is already too many.

Spotty:

1) how likely do you think it is that a 5 degree polynomial is a useful predictor of global temperature?

2) Why not 6 or 4? What is the justification for 5?

3) What happens if you project climate4you.com's 5 degree polynomials forward 10 or 20 years? And what does this tell you about a 5 degree fit at a useful tool for projecting temperature into the future?

@193

I'm with John on this.

If none but snotpus posts here, his exposure will plummet and his indignity will be emphasised. Leave credible material for other threads, where snotpus can't smoke-bomb it with his garbage.

I for one will not be visiting this thread again.

Posted by: Bernard J. | December 29, 2010 9:21 PM
194

bye bye burnie :)

@634 snowfall records were set in the USA this past week.

Posted by: sunspot | December 30, 2010 2:35 AM

try this burnie, http://tinyurl.com/5vvvkya

ackerz, why do you bother with the model predictions ? By now even dimwits like burnie would have to admit that none of them are worth a pinch of nanny goat shit, bastardi, ackerman and the climate have been killing them.

Michael Beenstock and Yaniv Reingewertz â Department of Economics, The Hebrew University, Mount Scopus, Israel.

Abstract:

We use statistical methods designed for nonstationary time series to test the anthropogenic theory of global warming (AGW). This theory predicts that an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations increases global temperature permanently. Specifically, the methodology of polynomial cointegration is used to test AGW when global temperature and solar irradiance are stationary in 1st differences, whereas greenhouse gas forcings (CO2, CH4 and N2O) are stationary in 2nd differences.

We show that although greenhouse gas forcings share a common stochastic trend, this trend is empirically independent of the stochastic trend in temperature and solar irradiance. Therefore, greenhouse gas forcings, global temperature and solar irradiance are not polynomially cointegrated, and AGW is refuted. Although we reject AGW, we find that greenhouse gas forcings have a temporary effect on global temperature. Because the greenhouse effect is temporary rather than permanent, predictions of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the data.

http://economics.huji.ac.il/facultye/beenstock/Nature_Paper091209.pdf

Climate model fail

Climate models, which are based on the assumption that carbon dioxide has a positive feedback, i.e., that carbon dioxide causes significant warming, make predictions on the behavior of ENSO. An analysis of those predictions versus what actually happened shows that the climate models predicted almost the exact opposite of what really happened.

Citation: McPhaden, M. J., T. Lee, and D. McClurg (2011), El Niño and its relationship to changing background conditions in the tropical Pacific Ocean, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L15709, doi:10.1029/2011GL048275

The abstract reads:

This paper addresses the question of whether the increased occurrence of central Pacific (CP) versus Eastern Pacific (EP) El Niños is consistent with greenhouse gas forced changes in the background state of the tropical Pacific as inferred from global climate change models. Our analysis uses high-quality satellite and in situ ocean data combined with wind data from atmospheric reanalyses for the past 31 years (1980â2010). We find changes in background conditions that are opposite to those expected from greenhouse gas forcing in climate models and opposite to what is expected if changes in the background state are mediating more frequent occurrences of CP El Niños. A plausible interpretation of these results is that the character of El Niño over the past 31 years has varied naturally and that these variations projected onto changes in the background state because of the asymmetric spatial structures of CP and EP El Niños.

In another paper:

Wolter, K. and Timlin, M.S. 2011. El Niño/Southern Oscillation behavior since 1871 as diagnosed in an extended multivariate ENSO index (MEI.ext). International Journal of Climatology 31: 1074-1087.

The researchers were able to extend analysis of ENSO events back to 1871 and found: ânone of the behavior of recent ENSO events appears unprecedented, including duration, onset timing, and spacing in the last few decades compared to a full century before then.â Climate models predict that ENSO events should become more frequent and intense with global warming.

In other words, the climate model assumption of a positive feedback for carbon dioxide is wrong. And once again there is evidence that our carbon dioxide emissions have little actual effect on global temperature, and, there is still no physical evidence that carbon dioxide does have a significant effect. We, therefore, should not be basing policy decisions on flawed model scenarios.

ENSO is just one of several recognized oscillations driven by the sun and the earthâs position relative to the sun.

================

Here is one for burnie, I remember when the poor little dear was out of his wits and waving his little arms around, trembling with fear that he was going to yield his last gurgling breath to the fast accelerating rising ocean's.

Another sea level rise fallacy falls short

Heat-driven expansion not a major source of sea level rise

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/19/anoter-sea-level-rise-fallacy-fal…

Spotty get back to me when you can can answer my question.

"Our work leaves open the possibility that cosmic rays could influence the climate. However, at this stage, there is absolutely no way we can say that they do," said Kirkby. That's [Jasper Kirkby, head of the CLOUD experiment at Cern](http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/aug/24/cloud-formation-study-cli…) yesterday.

Another wishful thinking wheel comes off the denialist bus, but Calder's got a book to sell. Off you go, spotty.

chekie, sooner or later the penny will drop, you all have been had, day by day the CO2 fairytale is falling apart, more and more of the people of the world are looking at the defenders of aGw as laughingstocks. Harvey's reputation is totally shot.

CERNâs CLOUD experiment provides unprecedented insight into cloud formation

Geneva, 25 August 2011. In a paper published in the journal Nature today, the CLOUD1 experiment at CERN2 has reported its first results. The CLOUD experiment has been designed to study the effect of cosmic rays on the formation of atmospheric aerosols - tiny liquid or solid particles suspended in the atmosphere - under controlled laboratory conditions. Atmospheric aerosols are thought to be responsible for a large fraction of the seeds that form cloud droplets. Understanding the process of aerosol formation is therefore important for understanding the climate.

The CLOUD results show that trace vapours assumed until now to account for aerosol formation in the lower atmosphere can explain only a tiny fraction of the observed atmospheric aerosol production. The results also show that ionisation from cosmic rays significantly enhances aerosol formation. Precise measurements such as these are important in achieving a quantitative understanding of cloud formation, and will contribute to a better assessment of the effects of clouds in climate models.

âThese new results from CLOUD are important because weâve made a number of first observations of some very important atmospheric processes,â said the experimentâs spokesperson, Jasper Kirkby. âWeâve found that cosmic rays significantly enhance the formation of aerosol particles in the mid troposphere and above. These aerosols can eventually grow into the seeds for clouds. However, weâve found that the vapours previously thought to account for all aerosol formation in the lower atmosphere can only account for a small fraction of the observations - even with the enhancement of cosmic rays."

Atmospheric aerosols play an important role in the climate. Aerosols reflect sunlight and produce cloud droplets. Additional aerosols would therefore brighten clouds and extend their lifetime. By current estimates, about half of all cloud droplets begin with the clustering of molecules that are present in the atmosphere only in minute amounts. Some of these embryonic clusters eventually grow large enough to become the seeds for cloud droplets. Trace sulphuric acid and ammonia vapours are thought to be important, and are used in all atmospheric models, but the mechanism and rate by which they form clusters together with water molecules have remained poorly understood until now.

The CLOUD results show that a few kilometres up in the atmosphere sulphuric acid and water vapour can rapidly form clusters, and that cosmic rays enhance the formation rate by up to ten-fold or more. However, in the lowest layer of the atmosphere, within about a kilometre of Earth's surface, the CLOUD results show that additional vapours such as ammonia are required. Crucially, however, the CLOUD results show that sulphuric acid, water and ammonia alone â even with the enhancement of cosmic rays - are not sufficient to explain atmospheric observations of aerosol formation. Additional vapours must therefore be involved, and finding out their identity will be the next step for CLOUD.

âIt was a big surprise to find that aerosol formation in the lower atmosphere isnât due to sulphuric acid, water and ammonia alone,â said Kirkby. âNow itâs vitally important to discover which additional vapours are involved, whether they are largely natural or of human origin, and how they influence clouds. This will be our next job.â

The CLOUD experiment consists of a state-of-the-art chamber in which atmospheric conditions can be simulated with high control and precision, including the concentrations of trace vapours that drive aerosol formation. A beam of particles from CERNâs Proton Synchrotron accelerator provides an artificial and adjustable source of cosmic radiation.
Supporting information

Download supporting information [PDF]: CLOUD_SI_press-briefing_29JUL11.pdf

http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/PR15.11E.html

You can copy'n'paste whatever promising sounding, wishful-thinking, quote-mined spin that you like spotty, but Kirkby's own conclusion is back in comment #513 for any interested passers by.

> Does this mean that cosmic rays can produce cloud? - No?

>   Professor Mike Lockwood Reading University

for any interested passers by.

"The hypothesis that cosmic rays and the sun hold the key to the global warming debate has been Enemy No. 1 to the global warming establishment ever since it was first proposed by two scientists from the Danish Space Research Institute, at a 1996 scientific conference in the U.K. Within one day, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Bert Bolin, denounced the theory, saying, âI find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible.â He then set about discrediting the theory, any journalist that gave the theory cre dence, and most of all the Danes presenting the theory â they soon found themselves vilified, marginalized and starved of funding, despite their impeccable scientific credentials.

The mobilization to rally the press against the Danes worked brilliantly, with one notable exception. Nigel Calder, a former editor of The New Scientist who attended that 1996 conference, would not be cowed. Himself a physicist, Mr. Calder became convinced of the merits of the argument and a year later, following a lecture he gave at a CERN conference, so too did Jasper Kirkby, a CERN scientist in attendance. Mr. Kirkby then convinced the CERN bureaucracy of the theoryâs importance and developed a plan to create a cloud chamber â he called it CLOUD, for âCosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets.â

But Mr. Kirkby made the same tactical error that the Danes had â not realizing how politicized the global warming issue was, he candidly shared his views with the scientific community.

âThe theory will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earthâs temperature that we have seen in the last century,â Mr. Kirkby told the scientific press in 1998, explaining that global warming may be part of a natural cycle in the Earthâs temperature.

The global warming establishment sprang into action, pressured the Western governments that control CERN, and almost immediately succeeded in suspending CLOUD. It took Mr. Kirkby almost a decade of negotiation with his superiors, and who knows how many compromises and unspoken commitments, to convince the CERN bureaucracy to allow the project to proceed. And years more to create the cloud chamber and convincingly validate the Danesâ groundbreaking theory."

( http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100102296/sun-causes-… )

cont...

The mobilization to rally the press against the Danes worked brilliantly, with one notable exception. Nigel Calder, a former editor of The New Scientist who attended that 1996 conference, would not be cowed. Himself a physicist, Mr. Calder became convinced of the merits of the argument and a year later, following a lecture he gave at a CERN conference, so too did Jasper Kirkby, a CERN scientist in attendance. Mr. Kirkby then convinced the CERN bureaucracy of the theoryâs importance and developed a plan to create a cloud chamber â he called it CLOUD, for âCosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets.â

But Mr. Kirkby made the same tactical error that the Danes had â not realizing how politicized the global warming issue was, he candidly shared his views with the scientific community.

âThe theory will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earthâs temperature that we have seen in the last century,â Mr. Kirkby told the scientific press in 1998, explaining that global warming may be part of a natural cycle in the Earthâs temperature.

The global warming establishment sprang into action, pressured the Western governments that control CERN, and almost immediately succeeded in suspending CLOUD. It took Mr. Kirkby almost a decade of negotiation with his superiors, and who knows how many compromises and unspoken commitments, to convince the CERN bureaucracy to allow the project to proceed. And years more to create the cloud chamber and convincingly validate the Danesâ groundbreaking theory.

So Delingmoron is still suffering from his intellectualraping at the hands of Paul Nurse, and remains in hiding in fairyland imagining he know's better than the lead author of a paper (see #513 above) of the kind which he self-confessedly doesn't read anyway. And you lap it up.

Hilarious spotty, even for you.

"Early results seem to indicate that cosmic rays do cause a change. The high-energy protons seemed to enhance the production of nanometre-sized particles from the gaseous atmosphere by more than a factor of ten. But, Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds. âAt the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but itâs a very important first step,â he says."
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110824/full/news.2011.504.html

But what does Kirkby know; he's just the lead author of the new paper. Better to go by what he said in 1998, before any of the experiments were done. lol

By Robert Murphy (not verified) on 28 Aug 2011 #permalink

Chris Landsea Leaves IPCC

"It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberthâs role as the IPCCâs Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.

My concerns go beyond the actions of Dr. Trenberth and his colleagues to how he and other IPCC officials responded to my concerns. I did caution Dr. Trenberth before the media event and provided him a summary of the current understanding within the hurricane research community. I was disappointed when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC. Specifically, the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking as an individual even though he was introduced in the press conference as an IPCC lead author; I was told that that the media was exaggerating or misrepresenting his words, even though the audio from the press conference and interview tells a different story (available on the web directly); and that Dr. Trenberth was accurately reflecting conclusions from the TAR, even though it is quite clear that the TAR stated that there was no connection between global warming and hurricane activity. The IPCC leadership saw nothing to be concerned with in Dr. Trenberthâs unfounded pronouncements to the media, despite his supposedly impartial important role that he must undertake as a Lead Author on the upcoming AR4.

full article here

( http://www.real-science.com/uncategorized/kevin-trenberth-master-ipcc-j… )

Even the Giltard government doesn't believe the CO2 lie's.

"Maybe one of my sources did too when he told me of another Conroy conversation which I reported recently as despair sinking to depression in Labor ranks."

"A senior cabinet minister had confessed political life had become intolerable, acknowledging the carbon tax was destroying the government, yet they could not walk away from it; he admitted his grave doubts about climate change science, revealing himself as one more sceptic in the government, and effectively admitting the campaign on media bias was a diversion."

( http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/curtain-closin… )

I've voted for Labour many times, not again, not too keen on any of the lying mugs actually !

To much sucking to the UN, and that other mob, you know, the one that you get called an anti-semite holocaust denier just talking about them, we need honest politicians that work for Australians.

Poor old sunspot.

CERN didn't work out as expected, Wegman didn't actually do any work and churned out afrawdulent report, Spencer's an incompetent, and yet any day now ...

There was once an episode of Star Trek TNG in which one of the characters was trapped in what they called a 'subspace bubble' which resulted in their perception that the universe was shrinking smaller and smaller until it would disappear altogether.

Must be rather like the denier universe lately.

chekie your desperation is showing, is that the best you have ?

The boggosphere is cranking up, dirty dessler is being trampled into mud,

Luboš Motl says:
September 6, 2011 at 12:10 pm

Funny. Aside from the unjustifiable authoritarian tone, he says that he didnât reproduce the Spencer Braswell result. But he actually did.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-dQUSnoIO8Ok/TmYiSg8ad9I/AAAAAAAAEzQ/…

His image shows, despite all attempts to reduce the discrepancy, the very same brutal discrepancy between the models and the observations and Spencerâs and Braswellâs paper. So indeed, Dessler paper, while not original at all, is also proving that decades of mindless model building without any comparison to the observations have been wrong.

Dessler has disproved the IPCC climate models just like Spencer and Braswell did. He just chooses not to show his own graph in the video, and when his face is facing his own graph, he obviously hides his head in the sand.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/06/desslers-grl-paper-video/

chekie I know you read WUWT, it's one of your favourite info sites. Did you see that guru Mann is himself trying now to stop his "publicly owned emails" from spilling the bean's on the false prophets of climate doom.

Why chekie ?

What do you think he's trying to hide ?

Maybe it's a secret love triangle with gore and jonesie ?

Maybe it's the whole climate daisy chain thingo, not who's up who, more like, they are all up each other !

Anyway chekie time will tell, matter of fact the climate science stench is continuing to fill the air.

"The connection on the other side? Trenberth and Wagner? Well, Wagner is apparently the director of a group that wants to start a Soil Moisture Network. For this, they have asked the help of the Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment (GEWEX).

GEWEX in 2010 announced the appointment, by acclamation, of Kevin Trenberth, as its new Chairperson. (page 3 of this newsletter). On Page 4, is the announcement that the Soil Moisture Network (which is the department Wagner runs) is looking for help. Not, coincidentally, on Page 5 is an article on how cloud albedo is overestimated in models, thus itâs worse than we thought.

In the conclusion of this cloud albedo discussion, is some boot licking directed at the new Chairperson.

Thus, the circle of climate is complete.

Cue the banjoâs, and squeal like a pigâ¦."

( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/05/journal-deliverance-the-true-stor… )

yep... what a laugh

Too bad spotty. Spencer's paper had to be published in a non climate journal to cheat an informed peer review. Hence the editor of said journal's resignation when he found out what a pile of poo he'd published.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, I'm certain all the denier superstars (Anthony, Steve, Roger, Lube, Willis and Uncle Tom Cobbley have their crazy little fingers hammering away at those keyboards about how right good ol' Spencer is and how mean ol' Dessler is. None of which froth that so impresses you will ever make it into a peer reviewed rebuttal of Dessler, and so can all be safely ignored.

Meanwhile the only other thing you've got is what you fantasise MIGHT be in some Mann emails, and Trenberth's plot to take over the world?
Ooooh, scarey! ...if you're a cretin.

As I said in my previous comment, lean times for you deniers in a steadily shrinking universe.

"and Trenberth's plot to take over the world? "

tell me more about that chekie ?

when did you start to have these visions ?

in your visualizations of this did he have a halo ?

do you pray to this god of yours ?

Hansen Says Clouds Are A âSubstantial Forcingâ

"Dessler should have read Hansenâs paper before rushing to press. So should JGRâs editor. He should do the honorable thing and resign like Wagner."

Earthâs Energy Imbalance and Implications
James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Pushker Kharecha

Aerosol climate forcing today is inferred to be â1.6 ± 0.3 W/m^2, implying substantial aerosol indirect climate forcing via cloud changes.

http://www.columbia.edu/

( http://www.real-science.com/uncategorized/hansen-clouds-substantial-for… )

the missing bit

Aerosol climate forcing today is inferred to be â1.6 ± 0.3 W/m^2,

implying substantial aerosol indirect climate forcing via cloud changes.

by the way, I've been getting great laugh from the other threads, jonas is smashing you all to bits !

harvey is trying to look smart again, hahahaha, and speilin like a child again.

hahahha, he must of lost his speelcheka

oh deary me, timmy has egg on his face.

( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/australian_climate_scientists.p… )

Death Threats? Respect the science? Start with some evidence.
The truth about âdeath threatsâ

The death threats scare that was widely publicized in June 2011 turned out to be opportunistic hyperbole based on a five year old letter, one unverified remark at an event a year ago, and recycled old boorish emails. Yet the shameless propaganda machine continues to repeat the baseless claim without admitting that it was a transparent attempt to score sympathy points.

Why can they get away with it? Because media outlets like The Canberra Times wonât apologize for printing such vacuous unsubstantiated claims, and they wonât correct the record. And Catalyst (which soaked in the one-sided hyperbole with Science Under Seige last night) wonât do enough âinvestigationâ to get the story straight.

The facts on the âdeath-threatsâ: ( http://joannenova.com.au/2011/09/death-threats-respect-the-science/?utm… )

tch tch tch...........was more arm waving woosey girly bullshit, the lies that the warmers spew forth are disgusting.

Now they are on another funding drive for the United Nations, by still using the old worn out CO2 lie

Proposal: Every nation on Earth to pay a global carbon tax on shipping to the United Nations

( http://wakeup2thelies.com/2011/09/09/proposal-every-nation-on-earth-to-… )

Do you guys really believe sunspot will show up here?

If he doesn't, good riddance, eh?

Sea Levels Much Less Stable Than Earlier Believed, New Coral Dating Method Suggests

ScienceDaily (Sep. 11, 2011) â New evidence of sea-level oscillations during a warm period that started about 125,000 years ago raises the possibility of a similar scenario if the planet continues its more recent warming trend, says a research team led by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI).

In a paper published online in the Sept. 11 Nature Geoscience, the researchers report data from an improved method of dating fossil coral reef skeletons in the Bahamas. By calculating more accurate ages for the coral samples than previously possible, they found that sea levels were considerably less stable than earlier believed--oscillating up and down by 4 to 6 meters (13-20 feet) over a few thousand years about 120,000 years ago during a period known as the Last Interglacial.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110911145228.htm

Straight from the horse's mouth: Hansen says global warming of late 20th century was NOT due CO2 or fossil fuel burning

James Hansen*â ,
Makiko Sato*â¡,
Reto Ruedy*,
Andrew Lacis*, and
Valdar Oinas*§

*National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies, â¡Center for Climate Systems Research, Columbia University Earth Institute, and §Center for Environmental Prediction, Rutgers University, 2880 Broadway, New York, NY 10025

Contributed by James Hansen

Next Section
Abstract
A common view is that the current global warming rate will continue or accelerate. But we argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting. The growth rate of non-CO2 GHGs has declined in the past decade. If sources of CH4 and O3 precursors were reduced in the future, the change in climate forcing by non-CO2 GHGs in the next 50 years could be near zero. Combined with a reduction of black carbon emissions and plausible success in slowing CO2 emissions, this reduction of non-CO2 GHGs could lead to a decline in the rate of global warming, reducing the danger of dramatic climate change. Such a focus on air pollution has practical benefits that unite the interests of developed and developing countries. However, assessment of ongoing and future climate change requires composition-specific long-term global monitoring of aerosol properties.

http://www.pnas.org/content/97/18/9875.long

Do you guys really believe sunspot will show up here?

If he doesn't, good riddance, eh?

Do you guys really believe sunspot will show up here?

If he doesn't, good riddance, eh?

Do you guys really believe sunspot will show up here?

If he doesn't, good riddance, eh?

More and more warmers are becoming sceptic daily, in fact they are somewhat similar to rat's deserting a sinking ship !

You guy's and gal's are looking more foolish, it's about time you all changed the direction of your "cause" to scientific integrity.

Yeah, look, no question; why doesn't the thing just get put back in its box?