Jonas Thread

Sorry, I forgot you name chek. Please forgive me.

And chek, please feel free to assist me in any way you can. So far, Jonas N is the one seeking the truth.

References to Jonas' answer have been posted several times - which you should have noticed if you'd read the thread as you claim.

Jonas - and now you - say that's not the answer he wants, but unfortunately, his 'special needs' don't allow him to elaborate further, or indeed make the case as to why the provided references don't answer his question despite mucho prompting.

Perhaps when the afterglow of your admiration dies down a little you could help poor Jonas. I suspect not though, troll infestations being what they are.

> Jonas N calmly walks into the camp meeting asking a simple honest question

Can YOU then please post the question he asked?

Cheers.

*So far, Jonas N is the one seeking the truth*

Really? The why doesn't he get off his ar** and read some of the primary literature? Problem is, Olaus, that whatever literature is put right in front of him he will turn away from it, or else put his hands over his eyes whilst shouting, "It's not true! It's not true! There is no frikking evidence". What Jonas wants is for us to go painstakingly through the studies ourselves and to read it out to him like a bedtime story. But then he will turn up the volume of the music to drown us out or else shove cotton wool in his ears. No, Jonas isn't seeking the truth, as elusive as that is in science. What he is doing is trying to ensure that the truth remains buried because that will support his - and GSW's - and yours, apparently - pre-determined worldview that AGW is a myth.

But heck, I have met enough people who deny climate change, high extinction rates, the deleterious effects of clear cutting tropical forests et al. over the years to know that their anti-environmental views are driven by a political agenda that has nix to do with a desire to find out the truth.

Check, as said, I have read the thread and my conclusion is that Jonas' simple question hasn't been answered. What he gets tough, in large amounts, is endless phrases (off topic) that has no scientific bearing whatsoever. And you keep it up.

Olaus, or whoever the hell you are,

Why is Jonas asking people here on Deltoid, a general science blog this question? Why hasn't he asked any number of real climate scientists, and especially those who contributed to the final IPCC draft for AR4? They are the ones who wrote the damned thing! Or why does he apparently refuse to read the literature? He seems incapabale of answering these simple questions. Why is that do you think? It should be bloody obvious why.

Your posts are getting to be as tiresome as those from the twin-trolls.

Jonas question (as far as anyone can interpret his gibberish) has been answered and the relevant references linked.

He and now you say not so.
But of course, neither you nor Jonas can say why the suggestions offered are incorrect. Such is the nature of pretence in clueless trolls.

# 310, Language Jeffie, language...Why all this heat? There is no need to use profanities.

What sticks (sic) out here is that you guys can't give a proper/solid ref to the "science" behind this so called "poster child". Jonas' main point is that it is only an opinion. And so far none of you have contradicted this.

Its very simple and yet you start chanting i tongues about how stupid, ignorant etc he and digress on topics of no significants what so ever.

Since Olaus Petri is a Wattsian, he may need some help: This thread actually comes midway in the 'discussion' with Jonas N. So, allow me to give a very short summary: On a previous thread, discussing the ad hominem attacks on John Mashey by Peter Wood, Jonas N came in and immediately started to shift the goalposts. One of his claims was that AR4 does not show the calculation a claim it makes. Others pointed him to the appropriate figures and references, but that was not to Jonas' liking. He needed to see the calculation. So far I have been so kind not to point out that the likelihood statements in the IPCC are not "statistical" calculations, but expert assessments. Anyone seeing the attribution studies in chapter 9 of WG1 cannot come to any other conclusion than that the rise in T since mid-20th century must be anthropogenic. As in 100% anthropogenic. This is deliberately toned down, explicitely mentioned in chapter 9 (to allow for some 'unknowns') to "most" and the likelihood as "very likely".

I challenged Jonas N to do the calculation which he so liked to see, but he wouldn't. Or more likely, couldn't. In short, his "honest" question was an attempt to shift the goalposts, his ability to understand the relevant literature and methodology insufficient (otherwise he could do the calculation himself), and his continuous unwillingness to answer any questions himself direct evidence that he is not interested in learning, but only in trolling.

So, now he has his own thread where he can troll all he like, and where others can troll with him.

P.S., Olaus, any reason you would use realclimate.com as 'your' URL? Shouldn't it be a link to your favorite hideouts like WUWT or theclimatescam (where you were informed about this thread)

Dear Marco,

thank you for your kind words on my behalf. Nevertheless you stick (sic) your head in the sand ignoring the core of the problem. Despite your headline lingo of how "boring", "stupid", "trollish" and so forth Jonas is, you keep posting on anything that Jonas wants to be enlightened about.

How come?

> I have read the thread and my conclusion is that Jonas' simple question hasn't been answered.

What simple question?

> Problem is, Olaus, that whatever literature is put right in front of him he will turn away from it,

Or get a sockpuppet.

Olaus Petri sounds like a Jonas N sock puppet.

Certainly, neither can actually make a case that supports any of Jonas N's claims. And I note that both repeatedly accuse others of doing exactly what Jonas N (and now Olaus Petri) have been doing.

Olaus Petri says:

>Jonas N (and GSW), I admire you stamina as much I'm baffled by the reluctance to answer (or grasp) a simple question.

Two points:

- "Stamina"? Hardly. Jonas N simply repeats the same unsupported claim again and again. A first generation Turing test could do as well, or better.

- I too am "baffled by the reluctance [of Jonas N and GSW] to answer (or grasp) a simple question" - almost. Parsimony suggests ignorance, ideology, financial incentive, or a combination of these, as a viable explanation.

Bugger.

Wow pipped me with the sock puppet suspicion.

Olaus Petri,

Have you tried reading 9.4.1.4 The Influence of Greenhouse Gas and Total Anthropogenic Forcing on Global Surface Temperature?

It's telling, isn't it, if Jonas N is indeed recruiting a sock...

Backing up his non-argument with another non-argument, whether his own or one of a conspirator, does not serve his cause at all well.

Dear Bernard,

The conspiracy sock (or is it suck?) puppet seem to be down some throats here, blocking any coherent answer there might be regarding Jonas' humble question.

Have another go, please.

Jonas Petri.

What is the question, and what is the evidence that supports it?

And calling one's-self "humble", isn't.

Dear Olas/Jonas/GSW or whoever you are,

Can you please let us know what simple question you have read here from Jonas that hasn't been answered.

After all, you may have missed it and someone here can point out where the answer had already been made, or answer it so your complaint has been solved.

You DO want the answer, don't you? You weren't just complaining for the sake of it, were you?

Bernard J #298

You are wrong again. It is easy to prove me wrong (if that is what I am). I make a falsifiable statement, a proposition, I pose a hypothesis. And yes, it is a 'negative' ..

You may continue to keep on looking for references, and if you find some science establishing (or attempting to) that AR4 claim, please let me know.

But I very much doubt that you will. And listing references *en masse* which you haven't read is (almost) pointless, as is listing references you *actually have read* but which don't contain that particular information.

I see that Andy S once more tries with the same Figure and its captionfor the fourth or fifth time. And that Bernard J asks 'what question' although haveing proclaimed previously that:

>In spite of your incoherence, I understand perfectly well what you are claiming

Well, just a few comments before, you weren't even doing that. But I am glad you are progressing.

But does anybody even have an idea of what you are hoping to accomplish by rambling ons as you do? Are you still hoping it is in there somewhere, only not found by anyone, and still completely unknown to the scientific community, 4½ years after its release?

Is this what you are hoping for? Really?

(I see that some here say that I indeed have been shown the proper reference .. why not ask them, quickly check for yourselves, and then beat me over the head with it? Because, that is waht you would like, more than anything! So why aren't you? Why do you so urgently want to discuss other things?)

> I make a falsifiable statement

Go ahead then.

Hell, any statement that isn't personal opinion would do.

*And listing references en masse which you haven't read is (almost) pointless, as is listing references you actually have read but which don't contain that particular information*

How do you know which of the articles Bernard cited contain pertinent information, Jonas/Olaus? How many of these articles have you actually read? If, as expected, the answer is 'none', then how on Earth can you say anything?

No Jonas,

It is now for you to explain (with references) why you consider the information already offered does not meet your standard. It's simple enough, but can you do it?

I think not, because your sole reference so far (to the SPM) leads me to conclude that's all you've read.

Jeff, you alread declared that these mass-references *should keep me away for a week* which is what you so dearly want ...

And Jeff, it doesn't work that way in science:

A major UN-body makes a specific claim, releases it in its SPM 2007, makes shure it is echoed in all news outlets in the world, and adds *'but we've hidden the most spectacular part so well that nobody can find it, not even in the four years to come.. but yes, all the scientific community agrees and stands solidly by it anyway.. '*

It just doesn't work that way!

You are the one boasting that you are allowed to 'mingle with the big boys' sometimes, and you were the one (if I remember correctly) bringing up that AR4 statement ..

You may still doubt my proffered assessment, but you can hardly claim anything else but that you all have been taking it on pure faith so far.

(reasonably justified faith, from your corner of the stands, I concede, but still only faith, and quite less justified by now)

> A major UN-body makes a specific claim, releases it in its SPM 2007 and adds 'but we've hidden the most spectacular part so well that nobody can find it, not even in the four years to come.. but yes, all the scientific community agrees and stands solidly by it anyway.. '

Ah, well, now we have a falsifiable claim from Jonas.

Jonas, they didn't add that.

Therefore: false.

Wow

You are so immensely boring and unskilled, I lost interest in trying to help you a long time ago (maybe you noticed that). But I'll make an exception:

>Jonas, they didn't add that.

Which is correct, and that's why I said:

>It just doesn't work that way!

Because, that is not how it works. Get it?

But that is the underlying implication offered by almost everybody here, still trying to rescue its mythological existence, hoping it is in there, somewhere ... and trying nonsense like: 'But have you really looked in every paper? Prove that!'

Get it?

> > Jonas, they didn't add that.

> Which is correct

So you ADMIT now that you've made a falsifiable statement and that it was false and KNOWINGLY false.

This is the problem with you, see, you make a flurry of incoherent rants and accusations and then assert that SOMEWHERE in all that horseflesh that there's some actual beef.

I will quote you YET AGAIN on your falsifiable statement:

> A major UN-body makes a specific claim, releases it in its SPM 2007, makes shure it is echoed in all news outlets in the world, and adds 'but we've hidden the most spectacular part so well that nobody can find it, not even in the four years to come.. but yes, all the scientific community agrees and stands solidly by it anyway.. '

And saying "But it doesn't work that way" doesn't mean "but that's not what happened".

And even if it DID, then what you're complaining about is:

> A major UN-body makes a specific claim, releases it in its SPM 2007, makes shure it is echoed in all news outlets in the world

Which results in a "Yes? And?" since all you've done is state that a UN body has said something and the news around the world echoed it. Nothing there about what's wrong with that. Unless you don't like news being reported.

Olaus, I know Wattsians have reading comprehension problems, so allow me first to try by repeating myself:

"So, now he has his own thread where he can troll all he like, and where others can troll with him."

Wow
You are so immensely boring and unskilled

Jonas, that was precious. Keep 'em coming, cupcake!

Jonas,

>Are you still hoping it is in there somewhere, only not found by anyone, and still completely unknown to the scientific community, 4½ years after its release?

Major logic fail. WGI is the product of the scientific community. Particularly that part of the scientific community that has expertise in the subject. It's publication makes it widely available to the broader scientific community, who by their comprehension and acceptance of of the conclusions therein, not to mention the corroborating documentation by such

Why would it be that you pretend to speak for the scientific community, though you haven't demonstrated any standing nor shown competence in science, but rather a sophomoric and malformed understanding of science even as a general topic?

We've found where 'it' is supported in WGI, in particular Chap. 9 where it is carefully explained and graphically shown, using the combined data, complete with carefully calculated uncertainty bounds using a number of robust statistical methods, directly from the referenced sources, how it is very unlikely that _any_ of the warming since the mid 20th Century is due to non-anthropogenic causes. A conclusion that is statistically significant even accounting for the most implausible unknown and scientifically unexplainable serial correlation of natural variability, yet you blindly refuse to accept and understand.

You are, without any doubt, suffering from full blown pathological denial, supported by indications of narcissism, projection of feelings, passive aggressive hostility, self delusion and cognitive dissonance.

You need help but you aren't getting it here.

Dear Marco,

you and your fellow climate Jerimiahas are totally consumed not to say obsessed by Jonas, me being wattsian or not. And that becomes crystal clear to anyone reading here, in this "jonas-thread" or any other thread for that matter. So Watts your point?

You guys just can't take that somebody isn't in line with your dogma/belief system, and your hostile reactions/wordings are very much on par with what is described in sociological literature dealing with sectarian behavior. Its conspiracies and evil agendas everywhere and besides sola scriptura there is nothing to back it up with except laud mouthing and foul language.

Why not try a another approach, e.g. answer Jonas question or admit that he has a valid point and stop crying like stung pigs? Please also ask yourself why you become so extremely agitated?

So after 300+ posts, the lying troll finally defines what the "it" was that he was talking about this whole time and "it" turns out to be total nonsense.

Someone should euthanize this thread.

@Luminous

"it is very unlikely that any of the warming since the mid 20th Century is due to non-anthropogenic causes"

Luminous, do you have a reference for this?

Thanks.

@Olaus

Glad you could join us!

;)

*Luminous, do you have a reference for this?*

Yes, its found in >1,000 papers in the empirical literature as well as in the IPCC reports. Now be a good boy and look them up for yourself.

*And Jeff, it doesn't work that way in science*

So says Jonas, our resident D-K poster boy who has no scientific qualifications whatsoever, has never attended a conference or published a paper in the empirical literature. Yup, he can tell us all here how science works. Yawn.

@GSW

Happy to sit by your feet. :-)

@elspi

So after 300+ post of total disinterest of Jonas person and his mental status someone (you?) is going to euthanize this thread and remove the (collective) sock/suck puppet out of his/her mouth and answer Jonas' Q?

Can't wait...

OK Jonas, here's the physical science basis for the anthropogenic fingerprint on the current warming:

www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-references.html

I intend to go through these references in the coming weeks. How about you? Ditto for the other two anti-science right wingers, GSW and Olaus. Care to sift through the science, chaps?

Do any of you deniers actually read the IPCC reports, are are you just knee-jerk 'against' them?

[SkS](http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-gre…) answers your entry-level questions very clearly. But then I do tend to forget that blogscientists are beyond educating.

@GSW

You stated earlier that Jonas was quite the philosopher.
Have you got a reference for that?
Extraordinary claims and all that...

Happy to sit by your feet.

Seriously girls, just dispense with the pleasantries and get a room.

So after 300+ post of total disinterest of Jonas person and his mental status

Are you saying we were not interested in his person and mental state? Should we be? Do you know something we do not?

someone (you?) is going to euthanize this thread and remove the (collective) sock/suck puppet out of his/her mouth and answer Jonas' Q?

It's been answered seven times now. I'm sorry you don't like the answer.

By the way, you have no idea what sock puppet means in this context, do you?

Jeff # 340

Sounds good to me, but why didn't you do that from the beginning, ergo canvassing the refs? A simple "I have to admit that I don't know the answer to you Q Jonas, but in the two weeks to come, I will try to find it" would have been both sufficient and honest?

Just think how constructive such an answer is. Maybe you could have euthanized the thread at 10+ as well, honors to elspi!

c'mon stu! :-) On the contrary, you guys are obsessed by Jonas mental status and his person instead of Watt really matters.

And yes, I know what sockpuppet is in this context. Want to elaborate on the sucker punch you just delivered? Or, why not join me and Jeffie on our new quest, that is to actually read the refs so that we â at least â can try to answer Jonas' Q? ;-)

@chek

"You stated earlier that Jonas was quite the philosopher. Have you got a reference for that? Extraordinary claims and all that..."

It's a subjective statement of opinion chek, some view that as evidence enough.

Jonas does have a certain quality though, 'compelling' is the word that some have used on this thread.

@Jeff
Excellent news Jeff!, your 'quest' to understand the science behind it all will be good for you.

Oh, If you find the answer to Jonas question before we do, you will let us know won't you?

;)

Olaus, if you could delete previous comments, your blustering buffoonery would be your little secret.

But like Jonas and GSW you can't, so I'll let you cogitate on that little gem awhile, before you amplify your (collective - or should that be Collective?) stupidity any further.

GSW said: "It's a subjective statement of opinion chek, some view that as evidence enough".

Ah, I see now - you're not quite openly, indeed slyly, daring to claim some kind of equivalence between your own opinion - that of an anonymous, unqualified, Jonas-praising, under-educated, internet blogscientist troll, and the most credentialled, peer-reviewed, respected, conferenced-up-to-their-bollocks, scrutinised and published (not that that's even relevant) working scientists on the planet and the most ambitious international scientific project our world has ever achieved? And calm down - I'm not referring to the Communist/Nazi/Socialist plot for world domination you two-bit konspiracy trolls fervently believe in at bottom).

Luminous B., you're the expert here - what was that bit about under-achieving narcissists again?

Olaus, GSW, Jonas' question has been answered seven times. What remains to be seen is if he (and you) can actually understand the literature. Not holding my breath on that one.

GSW,

>Luminous, do you have a reference for this?

Can you read for comprehension? [Apparently not.](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5268024)

@chek

Thank you for your kind words. Why don't you join me and Jeff on our new quest? I'm sure you are as keen as anyone to know what the truth is.

@chek

;)

And stu, you are of course also welcome to join me and Jeff. Instead of riding into the sunset, we can read, read. read. Deal?

GSW,

>It's a subjective statement of opinion chek, some view that as evidence enough.

Yes, it is evidence. Evidence you are just as psychologically damaged as Jonas.

I understand that you guys feel threatened when your holy words are questioned. But is it necessary to use a vocabulary like luminous bounty's in # 353? Its really out of line, me thinks. You behave like privileged white middle-aged heterosexual men being cornered. But hey, maybe you are privileged white middle-aged heterosexual men being cornered? ;-)

The thing is Olaus, this the one site you do not wanna troll when it comes to your own half-witted projections.

Correct chek, I'm really more interested in the the answer to Jonas' Q. Jeff is on to it â finally. May the force be with him. I'll be working at my end.

What about you?

@Olaus 354

lol!

luminous b

No, you've got it wrong. Completely. Consider the following (fully correct) comparison:

I say that I am a (documented) expert on the probabilities of certain random processes **A** (with known underlying statistical descriptions), and you ask me:

What is the probability for **A** falling within bounds **B**, given that restrictions **C** apply.

And I answer that this will be the case (true) in 82.67% of all instances (and false in the remaining 17.33%)

That is my 'expert' statement. And if you have confidence and trust in me and my 'expertise' you might act or make descions upon it.

But my statement is not science (even if it might be based on a proper calculation), me presenting a poster or a figure, doesn't make it science. Neihter does circling the number 82.67& with a red marker pen or 29 cheering scientist make it that.

I need to present the basis for, the underlying assumptions, the used statistical descriptions, and the rational for using these etc. And i need to do it in a manner so another expert, like myself, can se what has been done. Usually this is done in a publication, a reference if you will. And that is what is missing here.

Further, you make another gross error:

I **am not** speakcing for 'the scientific community', actually I think the term, especially when presented as a unanimous voice is a total misnomer, sheer nonsense, because nobody represents and speaks for 'the scientific community' and such a community does not (cannot!) make statements of a singular stance in any (but the most banal) questions. Definitely not about what makes the climate move, and how much.

Your paragraph about Wg1 ch9, about how those numbers are calculated, where you say *"using the combined data, complete with carefully calculated uncertainty bounds using a number of robust statistical methods"* shows that you do not grasp the issues. It is true that the SPM claim is repeated, and some figures are presented with numbers and phrases resembling those in the claim. But the AR4 itself does explicitly not present any solid support. Instead it says 'based on current methodologies/understanding of uncertainties', which is exactly what I've said: Self appointed 'experts' opining.

Further, you ar **dead wrong** about the *"very unlikely that any of the warming since the mid 20th Century is due to non-anthropogenic causes"*

Wg 1 ch 9 says explicitly: *"Warming during the past half century is **not solely** due to known natural causes"* and gives that statement a 'very likely' rating.

So luminous b, you are still in the same limbo, because no reference has been found where that claim is established based on solid science. The wordings in the AR4 are just that: Words saying various things, but purportedly, based on science, which none of us has ever seen.

Please stick to that simple topic.

I have no clue why you, who has difficulties understanding even that simple observation, adresseing it properly, or only reading the AR4 correctly, believe that you can make diagnoses as in your last paragraph. And I don't know why (you or many more here) seem to have such compulsive urges.

I am very certian, you you are even less competent at understanding individuals you don't understand. So please, stick to trying to understand the simple topic here:

If there is real science establishing that AR4 claim, it can be read somewhere.

@Luminous bounty

Sorry missed your 349 post. Jonas has answered for me (brilliantly).

;)

"The thing is Olaus, this the one site you do not wanna troll when it comes to your own half-witted projections.

[Olaus said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5269843) "Correct chek"

Yeah, thanks I already knew that.

[Olaus then said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5269843) "I'm really more interested in the the answer to Jonas' Q. Jeff is on to it â finally."

I hate to break this to you, but Jeff is a world class scientist who no more cares about Jonas' ill-informed ignorance than I care what colour socks he wears.

Tomorrow is Thursday - I expect Jeff is wondering something along the lines of "should I finish that journal peer review this weekend (the sort of thing you 'blogscience experts' dream about as your drool drips off your well-scraped knuckles and onto your well-hammered,semen-stained keyboards) or should I go shopping with the family (the family everytime, IMHO, Jeff).

Bur take my uninformed word for it, educating yet another anonymous Jonas isn't high up on his radar.

Jeff Harvey, so now there are 1000s of references in empirical sciences showing that luminous b's nonsens claim is true!?

Seriously: How frikking stupid can you make yourself? I mean, even if you tried your hardest, and wanted to be seen like a total moron!

I'll repeat the luminous' claim for you to make it chrystal clear:

>"it is very unlikely that any of the warming since the mid 20th Century is due to non-anthropogenic causes"

While the AR4 says:

>"Warming during the past half century is [very likely] **not solely** due to known natural causes"

Are you now lying about 1000s of papers you haven't read, and fantasizing about their contents?

Have you still, after ~three weeks, not gathered enough self preservation not to make up the most stupid claims about things you have absolutely no frikking clue about?

You've been caught out so many times, hoplessly embarrassing yourself, and still you do? Has the cheering on from even more stupid contributers here completely deafened you remaining judgement, or capacity for logical thought?

Look, seriously, I don't mind. I thought you were pretty stupid from the beginning. But please, can you at least let me make that statement before you prove that I was erring way far on the side of caution?

Yes, Jonas, do go on! You've got us on the run now!

(Thumbs through the DSM to "pathological projection")

@chek

"Bur take my uninformed word for it, educating yet another anonymous Jonas isn't high up on his radar."

No I think his main concern, IMHO, is how to go about educating himself. He has a lot to think about.

He may also be a little concerned about your last post 360, fantasizing, longingly about how he spends his time. It's, well, creepy.

And, true to trollish form, Jonas at #361 is reduced to quote-mining 14 words - from a table column he most likely can't read properly and hasn't followed the references for.

[IPCC AR4 WG1 Table 9.4](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-7.html) if anyone wants in on the hilarity.

GSW said: "He may also be a little concerned about your last post 360, fantasizing, longingly about how he spends his time. It's, well, creepy".

Fabulous, coming as it does from a voyeuristic devotee of Montford's internet stalker site.

Kudos to Jonas. Great answer, as usual.

@ GSW

Dr. Freud would have had a field day with Cheek and his worshiping of the demi-god Jeff. Its a bit scary that someone can be that anal/religious towards another human being. "Don't touch my Jeff! He thinks very much and I am in bad need of a father figure to function properly."

Way to go Chek.

To gather the thread(s): Watt becomes crystal clear is that the blood pressure rises to pathological levels in the CAGW-community when someone challenges the buzz-words of its church's gospel. Jonas did, and all he got in return was smearing, foul language and ad homs. Pity.

There seem to be many such buzz-words (lacking scientific muscles whatsoever) contaminating the science of climate and hence the debate. I especially remember one buzz-word concerning the effects of the melting glaciers of Himalaya. The scientific figure/number roaming in the CAGW-community was that 500 million people would be out of freshwater during the dry season if the glaciers melted away. When asked, surprisingly by Jonas N, HOW this apparently absurd number came about, the answers (from the paragons of truth) were even more empty with facts than in this case. I even did some leg work myself trying to follow the endless drama of "links" to refs in a hunt for the true answer. And yes, in the refs the figure/number existed, but there was no sign of any calculation/methodology. ZERO. It took me a while, but the closest I got to the original source was a GONGO-report that also lacked info on HOW this number came about.

Any comments friends?

Olaus, I think you should stop projecting your own feelings on me. We HAVE answered Jonas' question. Many times.

Sadly, Jonas has not answered any of OUR questions. Those questions started with discussing the Wegman plagiarism and its importance, something that apparently was too difficult a topic to maintain for Jonas. And so he grasped the one straw: proclaim uncertainty.

Oh, and it is funny to see you state we are having some kind of preoccupation with Jonas because he rocks our boat. How's your preoccupation (and that of many others) with Thomas going?

So you accept the glaciers are melting, Olaus?

Craig, given that we have had what seems to be a temp raise of 0,7 C globally during the last 150 years, it should have had some effect on the glaciers (but in your case its your affect that I find interesting).

Why would I not agree Craig? Ask yourself WHY you need to ask me that silly Q and you might reach some kind of insight: It is all about anti-science dressed up as science, taboos, fear mongering, and exaggerations that undermines science as such.

And Marco, I like to read Thomas' stuff. You got a problem with that? I think he keeps the debate running even though I'm not a dogmatic believer (like he is) and sometimes reacts on blindness in certain respects.

@Olaus

Olaus, Olaus, you're knocking the CAGW's down too quickly! You need to give them time to recharge, they'll go flat otherwise.

Their musings on "how papers should be published" and "how science works" may reformulate over time.

They may never get to "It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty" (apologies Feynman again), but their small steps may eventually get us to a point where we can all agree what is, and what is not 'Science'.

;)

Olaus,

The problem is that Jonas won't be 'joining us on our quest' If you had bothered to read any of his long-winded rants earlier, he will admit to either not reading any of the primary literature or forgetting what he had read. This doesn't sound to me like someone who is either well-informed or who *wants* to become better informed. It seems to me that Jonas read snippets from the IPCC summary document, focused on the 90% figure that was made in the summary, then ran off with it screaming foul. He has given not a single indication of having read a primary peer-reviewed article in his life. Not a good start for someone who claims to "know what they are talking about".

So you and GSW - the latter who has't said anything of substance on this or other threads either except to defend his pet monkey - also defend this kind of behavior? Hmmm. That is kind of odd in my book. I would also like to know if you think that, given the thrust of the question posed by Jonas, that the bulk of the world's climate scientists are at worst paid liars or at best cunning deceivers. You see, the 90% figure was based upon a reading of the broad base of empirical literature in the field by real bonafide climate scientists, who pieced together the bits and pieces of evidence that constitutes a scientific jigsaw and concluded that humans are the primary forcing agent behind the recent warming. Recall that Jonas has read very little if any of it, and claims to have forgotten the rest. Not a good platform to challenge the scientists, don't you think?

Jonas writes as if we are all starting from a knowledge base of nil, as if the climate scientists who wrote the final draft of IPCC 2007 had not read a single paper and as if they just suddenly scratched their collective heads and said, "Gee, I have better things to do with my time. Are well all agreed on 90%?". Where else can he think the figure was generated? And whenever we have called him out on it, he has responded with insults, innuendo, various other evasive maneuvers, all the while being baited and supported by his puppet-master (you are added to that now; as you seem to be, as Bela Lugosi famously said in one of Ed Wood's films, "pulling the strings!".

You see, unlike you, Jonas and GSW, I am a scientist and I also investigate various theories and hypotheses in the field of ecology. One of the most important areas now relates to the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, in which two hypotheses now prevail: the rivet popper hypothesis and the redundancy hypothesis. Both have generated intense, and sometimes acrimonious debate in recent years, with scientists dividing into both camps. But the debates have been always based around the empirical data, which shows that there may be merit to both hypotheses, showing some degree os associational specificity. But what I see here with Jonas has little to do with empiricism but with ideology. The same is true for GSW and, in all likelihood, you as well. In areas of science that overlap strongly with public policy, such as climate change and other aspects of environmental science where anthropogenic activities may compromise the health of local ecosystems, there has been a strong backlash against environmentalism. This backlash began in earnest in the 1980s, driven in large part by corporations who saw regulations imposed to curtail some industrial activities as a threat to the way they do business. The backlash - or brownlash as Paul Ehrlich calls it - has grown ever since into a huge multi-billion dollar industry from its cottage-industry level roots. Huge amounts of money are flowing into think tanks, public relations firms, in setting up astroturf lobbying groups (often with environmentally friendly names, a form of greenwash known as 'aggressive mimicry' that aims to confuse the public) in order to ensure that any measures to deal with looming environmental problems are killed before they get off the ground.

Climate change has evoked, for obvious reasons, one of the strongest responses from the broad anti-environmental lobby. This is hardly surprising, given the huge amounts of short- and medium term profits that are at stake. What is more surprising is how easily many members of the general public have been duped into believing that it is all part of some vast left-wing conspiracy, in which scientists (like myself) are co-conspirators. When I wrote critical reviews of Bjorn Lomborg's (IMO) monumentally incompetent book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist" for Nature and other periodicals in 2001, I was greeted with hoots of derision from some right wing think tanks and others on the political right. My email account was bombarded with virus-laden emails for a time, and some other colleagues who had been publicly critical of the book actually received death threats. You will notice on this thread that one of the tactics used over and over again by both Jonas and GSW is to claim that I am either incompetent, that I do not understand science (although I got my PhD in 1995 and have 108 peer-reviewed publications) or that I am not really a qualified scientist at all. This all comes because I have repeatedly asked Jonas to provide links to the actual articles that were used as the basis for the summary of AR4/2007 and to show where they authors got it wrong. This means reading a lot of material, because, as I said earlier, and a point that has been made repeatedly by Bernard, lb, wow, Stu, Chek and others, it is up to you, GSW and Jonas to prove that the scientists got it wrong, and not the other way around. But any mention of this salient fact results in the usual cries of anger, derision and bitter denunciation that have characterized most of what Jonas has written. All GSW has done is to cheer Jonas on without even a shred of science.

Therefore, to come back to thrust of what I am saying is that the 90% figure so derided by Jonas was not 'plucked out of thin air' by the large number of scientists who contributed to the final chapter. It was certainly based on many discussions at fora, conferences, workshops and through widely circulated e-mail exchanges, university visits and other institutional meetings. In other words, it was based on a stupendous amount of work and co-operation. If Jonas, GSW or you for that matter had any even basic knowledge of how major scientific issues like this are processed, you would realize how silly that your postings read to someone like me.

To be honest, I have far better things to do with my time that are based on the real science that I do than to engage in to-ing and fro-ing with people like Jonas, who have brought this discussion to such a low common denominator that its become a debate that it has little to do with science - which he does not understand anyway - and more to do with posturing. I have admitted several times since wading into this thread and other where Jonas suddenly popped up, that my expertise lies outside of climate science. I was not formally trained in that discipline, and therefore I trust the opinions of the people who have actually been trained as climate researchers and who contributed to the final draft of AR4-2007, either directly or indirectly. Of course I have much more confidence in a field in which I have spent over 20 years of my life - population and evolutionary ecology of plant-insect interactions (which is a massive field in its own right). I have been singled out for the heaviest criticism from Jonas and GSW because I am a scientist. Clearly, scientists who defend the integrity of their colleagues in other disciplines are fair game, as far as people like Jonas and GSW are concerned. I have learned this fact over the years.

For their part, people like Jonas (and GSW) hold no such reservations as to what they know and what they don't in the field of climate science of any science for that matter. This is precisely what the now famous Dunning-Kruger (1998) study showed: that the less someone is trained in a specific field, the more they *think* they know about that field. Or, as Charles Darwin famously said, "Ignorance begets confidence more often than knowledge". In the past, I challenged the arguments of some people on anti-environmental blogs who made such flippant remarks as, "The Earth can easily support one trillion people" (this is just one example of many). When I responded that our global ecological life support systems are fraying and unraveling with <1% of this number of human inhabitants, I was torn apart and derided as an idiot by many posters on these blogs who claimed that I did not know what I was talking about. So the behavior of Jonas and GSW is hardly surprising. I am used to it.

The bottom line is that scientists are trained to be cautious and skeptical. The very fact that there was broad consensus amongst the scientists who co-authored the summarizing chapter of AR4 should say tell us that it was based on an immense amount of discussion, and that this figure was not reached superficially. To me, Jonas and his ilk are like trains without brakes. They huff and puff and try to tell the world that they are experts without any kind of formal training. I will always defer to those trained in a specific endeavor over 'pretenders' whose views conflict with the prevailing wisdom. On that note, I will leave this thread to Jonas, you and GSW to ponder over. I have had enough of it. I profoundly support the efforts of those who have 'hung in there' against the vacuous rants of Jonas. But to me its a waste of time. Its clear to me that Jonas is not interested in science but in bolstering his own personal political views, and that science has become a tool in doing so. As I explained earlier, he is not alone.

@Jeff

Your last missive, to you personally, is this what passes for "a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty" ?

Good Luck!

Olaus drivelled: "Dr. Freud would have had a field day with Cheek (sic) and his worshiping of the demi-god Jeff.

Its a bit scary that someone can be that anal/religious towards another human being. "Don't touch my Jeff! He thinks very much and I am in bad (sic) need of a father figure to function properly."

Amazing display of projection, particularly of his religious and parental issues, from Olaus.

Confirmation yet again that there is nothing guaranteed to inflame the ire of fake blogscientists than common or garden respect for professional scientists with a proven track record that support action on AGW.

> given that we have had what seems to be a temp raise of 0,7 C globally during the last 150 years, it should have had some effect on the glacier

This could have been done with a much shorter:

> yes

But you seem constitutionally unable to give straight answers.

Now ask yourself why you feel it necessary to avoid simple straightforward answers and instead demand lots of words to hide behind.

Then ask yourself "So it's warming by 0.7C, what's changed by enough in that time to cause 0.7C warming?".

Then realist that CO2 explains 78-86% of the change.

It's about the science, you see, not the dogmatic insistence that AGW is false that is the religiously-held belief of all deniers.

Jeff H

The AR4 posterchild claim about attribution and certainty **is not** a 'snippet' and you know that.

And you seem to acknowledge what I have pointed out the entire time: that it is a reasoned of opinion. By 'experts' you say, but generally not experts in the necessary disciplines.

And no, expert opinions **do not miraculously mutate** into science or extablished facts through:

1. Broad agreement in 'the community'

2. Reading much in empirical literature

3. Other jiggsaw puzzle pieces by 'climate scientists'

4. Many of those discussing it often among themselves

5. In widely circulated email exhanges

6. At universities, institutions and visists to such

7. At meetings and workschops, or

8. Repeating this belief at conferences etc.

Nono of this makes it science, it is and remains an opinion, possibly heartfelt by the many 'bonifide climate scientists' (which generally are quite poor at statistics).

Generally, I have no problem with people opining, but it bothers me that it is missleadlingly presented and relayed (and swollowed by the believers) as being science or even 'truth' ...

No Jeff, before you can wave that 90% certainty figure, and claim it has any value beyond opinion, you (meaning: somebody skilled) need to go back to your lab and do your homework, do it properly, meticulously, check every detail, state every caveat, make sure that all underlying assumptions are met, and if not, incorporate those in that homework, and then you still have to do the tedious work of putting it all togethere.

If, after such a process (it's called 'science' and the 'scientific method'), you can show the resulting number, if indeed it is 90%!

And **you still need to hand in that homework**! and have it checked, not only once, but aopenly vailable for all for the remainder of eterinty ...

But if you are aware of those IPCC likelyhood statements mostly are results of discussions (which I knew all the tima), the question arises why you have to challenge that so bitterly and fervently?

> The AR4 posterchild claim about attribution and certainty

Ah, so it's TWO things, not just "attribution" as you kept condescendingly saying earlier.

> And no, expert opinions do not miraculously mutate into science or extablished facts through:

> Broad agreement in 'the community'

If it's the science community, then it definitely DOES become science then.

> Reading much in empirical literature

You mean facts don't come from where the facts of measurements are written down???

> Other jiggsaw puzzle pieces by 'climate scientists'

So science isn't support by multiple lines of evidence now?

> Many of those discussing it often among themselves

You mean science is no longer scientists trying to work out what all that empirical evidence means?

> In widely circulated email exhanges

So science cannot be done by asking other scientists what they think is going on?

> At universities, institutions and visists to such

So science can't go on in universities and science research institutes now?

> At meetings and workschops

Again, a scientist can't actually ever ask another scientist what is going on, else it isn't science?

> Repeating this belief at conferences

So as soon as some science is repeated, it stops being science???

> Nono of this makes it science, it is and remains an opinion

So when a scientist measures, say, the melting point of Lead and writes it down and tells other people about it, and they test the melting point of Lead and find an answer indistinguishable from the earlier measurement, this is suddenly no longer a measurement but now only opinion?

> No Jeff, before you can wave that 90% certainty figure

Before you can throw it away, you need to show that there's something else that could be doing it.

> need to go back to your lab and do your homework, do it properly, meticulously, check every detail, state every caveat, make sure that all underlying assumptions are met, and if not, incorporate those in that homework, and then you still have to do the tedious work of putting it all togethere.

At which point, it becomes empirical literature, exchanged in emails or discussed amongst "the community" and at which point Jonas will claim it's now opinion...

> If, after such a process (it's called 'science' and the 'scientific method'), you can show the resulting number, if indeed it is 90%!

The 90% for what? And it WAS "over 95%" when the scientists had done it, but the politicians wanted it watered down to "Over 90%". Neither case is it actually 90%.

And, yes, the IPCC AR4 report and earlier DO show how they work out that ">95%" in whether the human activities are the cause of the majority of the temperature change seen in the last 150 years.

And this is because all other known options DO NOT explain the majority of the warming trend seen in the last 150 years.

Wow #375

The interesting part was/is why Craig think/thought that the topic was/is melting glaciers or not.

And No, science isn't settled regarding climate sensitivity and CO2 and Yes I do think that the CO2-hypothesis is worth scientific inquiries.

I just can't stand that a scientific hypothesis being kidnapped from the laboratory to be manhandled and sodomized by political and ideological forces.

Olaus said: "I just can't stand that a scientific hypothesis being kidnapped from the laboratory to be manhandled and sodomized by political and ideological forces".

Oh, the irony.

Out of the mouths of babes (and lately pig-ignorant Wattbots) it seems ...

"The interesting part was/is why Craig think/thought that the topic was/is melting glaciers or not."

Except that Craig made no such statement.

It's interesting why you think/thought he had.

It rather looked like he was asking you if you believed in some scientific evidence of warming.

It rather looked like you were trying to avoid agreement.

"And No, science isn't settled regarding climate sensitivity"

It's agreed that it's above 1C and that it is untenable below 2C and that the upper limit may extend beyond 6C.

You could conclude that this isn't "settled" because there's a range of values.

It doesn't however make the IPCC statements incorrect, unscientific, wrong or even unsettled, since they already include that range in their statement.

If you wish to contend the IPCC wrong or AGW not a problem, you'd have to go to science that is settled: wrong science.

Jonas N.

You claim that the IPCC and the global body of professional climatologists have not actually calculated the uncertainties that are stated in AR4, and that they instead simply fabricated their figures.

What papers in the scientific literature, and referenced by AR4, have you read in order to arrive at a point where you can make your claim?

Why do you persistently avoid stating your claim in scientific, substantiated, testable form?

The reason for that Bernard is seen by post 329 where he makes a claim that is concrete and falsifiable and is found to be wrong and not only wrong, but he KNEW he was wrong.

In order to avoid being shown to be wrong again, he has to avoid giving statements that are concrete and falsifiable.

Jaff H contd.

You keep on trying with the nonsensical:

>"I have repeatedly asked Jonas to provide links to the actual articles that were used as the basis for the summary of AR4/2007 and to show where they authors got it wrong"

Seriously, how totally wrong can you get things? **I** have been the one asking for exactly those articles? For some ~three weeks now (here, and much longer at other sites also pretending to discuss climate science)

But still, you pretend the exact opposite. Why is it so immensly difficult for you to stick to the truth, to reality, to discuss what actually is the topic, and refrain from inventing your 'facts'?

You (and Bernard J) have tried to counter the appearant non-existence of proper science by demanding:

*'Show us what you think is wrong, in that/those paper(s) which cannot be found, write to the authors/scientists who arr unidentified, or point ot the flaws in papers which **do not** make that claim'*

The amounts of twisted logic and pure nonses are allmost surreal. As is of course all that other ranting which you fill your comments with, between all the factual nonsense about the topic.

So far you have not contributed one jota to anything of substance. Instead tyou have tried various version of:

1. Trust me, **I am** a scientist
2. Trust me to trust others, they are scientists
3. I don't understand, but I *do** trust them
4. Stop asking to see what is done. They **are** the scientists
5. Trust me, I speak for **The scientific community**
6. No, I don't understand the matter, but **we all agree**
7. Yes, I sometimes get to mingle with 'the big guys'
8. Look at my CV, **you simply must be wrong**. Look again!
9. If you don't trust the scientists, accept their words, you must have evil motives
10. If you argue the facts, you must be incompetent
11. If I say Dunning Kruger, I have **scientifically** 'proved' that my beliefs are the truth
12. ... and so it goes on ... utter drivel for weeks

Sorry Jeff, I don't know what passes as intelligence or logic in your knick of the woods ... but you have to do a lot better in the real world if you want to do some convincing (and stop making up your own 'facts', definitively)

Bernard J

My observation (claim, hypohesis, statment) is perfectly testable and falsifiable. I have been begging to be falsified here for three weeks.

Only the truly ignorant here still believe that this has actually happened.

Why don't you read Jeff's post #372, where he seems to be aware that the claim, and the accomanying number, are the result of reasoning, of educated guesses or expert opinions, if you will. Nota bene, 'experts' mostly in completely different disciplines ..

Hazarding an estimation based on perceived data Bernard, I'd say Jonas hasn't even read all 18 pages of AR4 WG1 SPM.
Forget about the references.

Of course, even the few sentences he possibly has read (but not understood - see his table chart quote gaffe at comment #361) - makes him a regular postdoc compared to most of his ilk.

In the end, as Stein memorably put it, there was no there there. Which came as no surprise whatsoever, I'm sure.

> So far you have not contributed one jota to anything of substance. Instead tyou have tried various version of:

Given your past performance on lists that make no sense, Jonas, I'm not optimistic about the accuracy of this newest one.

And as expected, still nothing falsifiable, just statements of your own diseased mind.

> My observation (claim, hypohesis, statment) is perfectly testable and falsifiable.

What observation?

You've made several statements that are not testable (see, for example, the list in the earlier post) and your last perfectly testable and falsifiable claim was proven false.

And are you stating with the reference to Jeff's post 372 that your proposition IS that this:

> as if the climate scientists who wrote the final draft of IPCC 2007 had not read a single paper and as if they just suddenly scratched their collective heads and said, "Gee, I have better things to do with my time. Are well all agreed on 90%?

is actually what happened?

Because again you've not stated anything falsifiable because you're using generic pronouns and overloading "it" so nobody can read what you're saying.

There is something that is a bit odd happening with this thread in relation to Olaus and Jonas. This is the sequence of posts between the two of them (format = post number, poster):
278,Jonas;
283,Jonas;
284,Jonas;
289,Jonas;
291,Jonas;
302,Olaus;
304,Olaus;
305,Olaus;
309,Olaus;
312,Olaus;
314,Olaus;
321,Olaus;
324,Jonas;
328,Jonas;
330,Jonas;
335,Olaus;
339,Olaus;
343,Olaus;
344,Olaus;
350,Olaus;
352,Olaus;
354,Olaus;
356,Olaus;
358,Jonas;
361,Jonas;
376,Jonas;
384,Jonas;
385,Jonas;

Their comments cluster and alternate. I wonder why?

I hate to be baited but I am sick to death of this thread. Sick of it! And sick of the ignorance paraded by Jonas. Fed up to the teeth with it. The guy is an a**h**. And an ignorant one to boot. Why I even waste my time with this person is beyond me. He's doing what most deniers I have encountered do. If a process is complex, then he says we cannot ever hope to ever understand it. So why study it at all? Why make estimations? Why try and project what will happen in the future? This moron must hate economics with a similar passion, as models used to make economic projections are even worse that those used to predict future climate patterns. He's also implying, by the sheer audacity of his arguments, that all of the climate scientists who contributed to the summary chapter of the last IPCC document are liars. Deceivers. Paid cheats. What else is there to say? In all of my years of experience with science-hating deniers I have never come across such a self-righteous, smug, confident and arrogant prick as Jonas. Well done boy! You head the a long list of people that even exceeds most of the dorks who contribute to Junk Science. That is quite an achievement.

Of course I trust the opinions of trained climate scientists over a scientifically twat like you, Jonas. And why the hell shouldn't I? You claimed that I disparaged cardboard box factory workers when I said you were probably one. In no way do I do this. I disparage the views of cardboard box factory workers, accountants, business directors, corporate heads, politicians or anyone who tries to say that they know more about a specific field of research than people who have dedicated their lives to it. Get that through your head, dammit.

This entire debate is ridiculous. The climate science community should have realized that the idiot-factor out there (including Jonas) would seize on an arbitrary figure and use it as a stick to undermine what we do know about the human impact on warming. They should have said the influence of human actions was highly significant and left it at that. But I am sure that this would have similarly been abused by the Jonas-crowd, who would have screamed, " But HOW significant!? WE WANT FIGURES!!!!". So scientists come up with a ballpark figure of 90%. It could be 88%... or 85%...or 92% or 95%. But, whatever one concludes, humans are the main factors. End of story.

Or is it?! (cue horror music....) Duh! Duh! Duh! Duhhhhh!

The Jonas factor steps forward and says...but how do you know its 90%!? I need proof of this absolute figure! Because if you CANNOT prove this is correct, then it may be 80%... or 60%.. or less! It might even be NIL!!!!! (Cue dramatic drum roll...). Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...

This is the denier mindset. Its pure insanity in my view but there is a method to the madness. It is to say, that without 100% unequivocal proof, then the problem does not exist. If we cannot nail the empirical support for an exact figure of 90%, then we can dismiss the entire concept of anthropogenic global warming. Forget the fact that the 90% figure - or should I say, the conclusion that the human combustion of fossil fuels along with changes in land usage patterns - are agreed upon by the vast majority of climate scientists. Jonas has dug his teeth into 90% and won't let go.

And, to reiterate, I am sick of him and his wilful ignorance of science. Sick, sick, sick and sick again. Fed up. Tired, Drained. Mentally exhausted. Well done Mr. JN illiteracy. Let me tell you this. You couldn't stand in a room with any scientist I know personally. Not a one. We have lunchroom chats at my institution that are deeper than anything you could muster. IMO you are a disgrace.

This is why I will try and refrain from responding here again. I wish that Tim would ban this troll. He does not deserve to be read, as far as I am concerned.

Jeff, don't put so much effort into it and the waste of time won't be so frustrating.

Jonas still hasn't actually been able to say what he is asking.

"Attribution" is different from "Confidence levels", but he's used one, either or both to complain.

And his sock posted how Jonas' simple question hasn't been answered, but seemed unable to work out what that one simple question was.

Even if he's not a sockpuppet or coworker, even those most friendly to the troll can't work out what he's asking for.

Jonas,

>Your paragraph about Wg1 ch9, about how those numbers are calculated, where you say "using the combined data, complete with carefully calculated uncertainty bounds using a number of robust statistical methods" shows that you do not grasp the issues. It is true that the SPM claim is repeated, and some figures are presented with numbers and phrases resembling those in the claim. But the AR4 itself does explicitly not present any solid support. Instead it says 'based on current methodologies/understanding of uncertainties', which is exactly what I've said: Self appointed 'experts' opining.

The methods are in the referenced papers, but you won't necessarily find them so thoroughly explicated as you might desire. Here's a clue: References have references. For example: [Here](http://www.atmos.berkeley.edu/~jchiang/Class/Fall08/Geog249/Week12/eb97…) is a methods paper not explicitly cited (as far as I am aware) in AR4/WGI. It is, however cited by many papers that are.

Further, you ar dead wrong about the "very unlikely that any of the warming since the mid 20th Century is due to non-anthropogenic causes"

>Wg 1 ch 9 says explicitly: "Warming during the past half century is not solely due to known natural causes" and gives that statement a 'very likely' rating.

What do they say about the likely effect of known natural causes? Hint: [(c) estimated contribution to temperature trends over 1950 to 1999](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-9-9.html)

>So luminous b, you are still in the same limbo, because no reference has been found where that claim is established based on solid science. The wordings in the AR4 are just that: Words saying various things, but purportedly, based on science, which none of us has ever seen.

Since you seen to have the nous of a puppy that needs to have his nose rubbed in it to stop shitting on the carpet, I am going to indulge you by explicitly citing some few relevant [references](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-4-1-4.html) you should be able to find on your own, but in which capacity are apparently too cognitively challenged:

Huntingford et al., 2006

Gillett et al. (2002c)

Nozawa et al., 2005

Stott et al., 2006c

Stone et al., 2007a,b

Smith et al., 2003

Schnur and Hasselmann, 2005

Min and Hense, 2006a,b

Lee et al., 2005

Berliner et al., 2000

McAvaney et al., 2001

Lee et al., 2006

Kaufmann and Stern, 2002

Triacca, 2001

Pasini et al., 2006

Rybski et al., 2006

Fomby and Vogelsang, 2002

I hope you are satisfied, but I doubt it. You are seemingly wedded to the bizarre and erroneous notion that there must be some single silver bullet paper that completely and conclusively answers all and every salient detail of complex scientific issues. It has never been so and your inability to grasp this simple understanding of scientific progress is probative evidence of your D-K impairment.

Here we go again friends, and please make a mental note that numerology now is a part of the analytic framework, thanks to GWB's nemesis. And isn't it ironic? Jonas, GSW and I are asking for some basic scientific principles behind a certain figure, and nobody wants take the climate conspiracy eschatology sock puppet out of the pie-hole. (Jeff seem to be on his way out of the closet though. Good for him). But me think I can start to connect the dots. Maybe the reluctance to present something scientific regarding the origin behind "90%" has more to do with climate numerology than climate science?

Want to help us out GWB's nemesis? ;-)

But seriously, I'm sure we soon all can agree that the 90% is more of an educated guess than anything else, but why is it then dressed up as top notch science when its apparently not? I believe it is because the IPCC has to come up with numbers. It is, after all, an organization with a responsibility to write "summary for policymakers". Some numbers/figures have to be materialized. Of course "science" then has to take a step back in favor of "politics".

Shall we call it a draw?

Ah, shift change!

> Shall we call it a draw?

Nope, I don't think so.

> I'm sure we soon all can agree that the 90% is more of an educated guess than anything else

Nope. It's not even 90%. It's >95% but watered down to 90-95%.

> but why is it then dressed up as top notch science when its apparently not?

Because that "apparently not" is not the truth.

Jeff

You can repat your rants all you want, your wishful thinking, your made up 'facts' your beliefs don't come true that way.

Your problem is that you have now real grasp of statistics, what they are, what they mean, what the can be used for, how to use them properly etc.

Sure, you can feed observational data into a stats-package, and repeat the numbers you get. But unless you have any real knowledge of the topic, you are helpless beyond that point.

So yes, 'climate scientistis' reinforcing each others opinions about how really certain they are and putting numbers to their grade of personal conviction and faith is not science.

And as you say, you may "trust the **opinions** of trained climate scientists" but thats all they are, expressions of faith.

And yes, Jeff, if a puported scientific body claims that a certain statement (or hypothesis) is confirmed with 90% confidence, it means something different that a handwaiving ballpark figure, and it should not be understood like how certain the fans are late at the Pub, about their home team winning the upcoming football game.

All I have said, and said from the start is that the AR4 posterchild claim is not established by proper science. (And you seem to grudginly agree to that. Maybe that's why you are losing it now)

And again you bring up your complete nonsense fantasies, things which nowhere have been claimed nor even implied:

1. He's also implying .. that all of the climate scientists who contributed to the summary chapter of the last IPCC document are liars

2. .. who tries to say that they know more about a specific field of research than people who have dedicated their lives to it

3. It is to say, that without 100% unequivocal proof, then the problem does not exist

4. we can dismiss the entire concept of anthropogenic global warming

I have said nothing of the kind: 1) Particularly since not one claimate scientists makes the claim, presents it as science in a paper and puts his name behind it. 2) see answer to 1), 3) & 4) this is total BS, things you cannot resist to make up as you go (you've made up so much more nonsense, its absolutely breathtaking)

And your implication that I know nothing about science, which you have reiterated in every single comment, is as ludicrous as everything else you try.

I'll tell you what Jeff, nobody inventing his own 'facts' is a scientist, he might masquerade as one, even have Phd and a academic position. But the moment he needs to fudge reality, to bolster his narrative, he ceases to deal with science. He becomes an activist, a shenanigan, a cheater, or worse ...

Now, I can be in any room with any scientist and discuss my both opinions and scientific arguments. And I for certain do not need to invent 'facts' at every turn to justify (or arrive) at my desired conclusion.

I don't know about you, is this behaviour you displaya here, is it condoned in the rooms with 'scientists' where you hang? Do they all sound like you? Do the also completely lose it if someone points out that 'this particular argument/logic/evidence does not support the offered conclusion'!?

Do they too, abgrily start shouting back: 'No maybe not in the strict sense, but heck, we all agree that its the truth anyway. And who are you to question us, we've been convinced far longer than you've been here'?

You ar boasting about your deep lunchroom chats, but here all you can muster is the sort of endless drivel and insults everybody can read in your comments. early on you even proclaimedselfrighteously, that you are entitled to insult others, because of your moral superiority ..

And now you start whining because I dont adore your infinite wisdom, your briljant logic and deep understanding (which you've all been hiding very carefully) about things you do not master, not even have a clue of?

Well, you are indeed one pitiful character, Jeff Harvey ...

luminous b

I'll make an exception for you. If you say that 90% certainty, together with the 'most/at least half of the warming the last 50 years' is to be found in any among that list, I'll check it out.

But is there? Because I seriously doubt that.

If you only copy paste things you haven't read, you are on the same level as the others here. Merely whishfully hoping ..

And are you aware of that you now are at odds with Jeff Harvey, who finally seemed to have realized that it is more of an 'opoined ballpark figure'!?

Pardon me for the formatting error. The following should have been indented.

>Further, you ar dead wrong about the "very unlikely that any of the warming since the mid 20th Century is due to non-anthropogenic causes"

>>Wg 1 ch 9 says explicitly: "Warming during the past half century is not solely due to known natural causes" and gives that statement a 'very likely' rating.

Jeff, I'm sure you know that Jonas and his hangers on aren't interested in real science or what real scientists have to say. As Wow says, they're not worth the effort and eventually they pay out enough rope to hang themselves anyway.

What they really want is conspiracy and pseudoscience as served up by hucksters such as Watts, McIntyre, Monckton, Montford and that whole sorry fossil-fuelled crew and their echo chambers.

As this thread shows, there really is no talking to them because they're conditioned to think that their blind ignorance serves them better (and is certainly far, far easier) than applying the effort to understand real work about the real world.

Be assured there is nothing more amusing than a Jonas or a GSW or whatever pontificating on how they think science should work when they have no quantifiable experience whatsoever. All they're armed with is a keyboard and unfortunately for whatever group they latch onto, an internet connection. There's always one.

For the record Wow, (its really 'wow' when reading your echolalia) given the circumstances â you losing in every aspect of the word â and somebody offer "a draw", it is because s/he makes fun of you. But you are so hysterical that you can't see it, cry-baby. ;-)

[Jonas](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5270139),

>Jeff Harvey, so now there are 1000s of references in empirical sciences showing that luminous b's nonsens claim is true!?

[Seriously.](http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=attribution+climate+change&as…)

How fucking stupid can _you_ make yourself? I mean, even if you tried your hardest, and wanted to be seen like a total moron?

The disinterest in Jonas N is now pushing 400 posts...:-)

Guys, stop feeding the trolls. The "recent comments" list is almost always filled with posts from this worthless thread. If nobody posts to them, they will eventually go away. Tim would be far better off to just banish posters like Jonas or sunspot than have these useless threads distracting intelligent posters from the serious content of the site. Keeping them around only makes the site look bad.

[Jonas,](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5277719)

[Huntingford et al., 2006](http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GL024831.shtml): "We find that greenhouse gas forcing would very likely have resulted in greater warming than observed during the past half century if there had not been an offsetting cooling from aerosols and other forcings."

Be my guest.

I doubt at this point that Olaus is a sock puppet. This one is even more delusional than Jonas. "You losing in every aspect of the word"? How precious.

The juvenile compulsion to add smileys to everything does seem very GSW-esque, added nose or not though. Or is that just a symptom?

This is the current loop:

"Where does very likely come from?"
"Here."
"No, you can't show me. Where does it come from?"
"Here."
"It doesn't say that literally!"
"It's a conclusion based on this, this and this."
"Yes, but those do not say 'very likely'!"

I recall having conversations like that with my kid. When she was 5 years old.

And Olaus, this is not "disinterest in Jonas". This is a very lengthy demonstration of how he and you have no arguments. You're down to infantile, pathetic whining now. A handy reference, nothing more. You have no argument. Jonas' question has been repeatedly answered. That you have no compunction about stamping your precious little feet screaming "nuh-uh!" tells the world everything it needs to know about who has evidence, and who does not. Even more telling is that you actually seem to think you're scoring points here. It's funny, sad and something I think a psych major is going to graduate on.

But do carry on. You're very entertaining, sweetheart.

[Jonas](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5270139),

>Jeff Harvey, so now there are 1000s of references in empirical sciences showing that luminous b's nonsens claim is true!?

[Seriously.](http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=attribution+climate+change&as…)

How effing stupid can _you_ make yourself? I mean, even if you tried your hardest, and wanted to be seen like a total moron?

@CAGW's

Do any of you intellects want to correct LB 391,396 in his assertion that the two statements are equivalent;

LB:
"very unlikely that any of the warming since the mid 20th Century is due to non-anthropogenic causes"

IPCC:
"Warming during the past half century is not solely due to known natural causes" and gives that statement a 'very likely' rating.

He wouldn't accept it if I told him.

Dear stu #402

I can assure you that a psych major wont be sufficient when it comes to explain the rise and the fall of CAGW in the first decade of this millie. Its material for many PhD-programs and conferences to come, in the sociology of religions, psychology, anthropo(geno)logy and similar disciplines. I'm rather convinced that the next big break through in CAGW will be in the field of sociology or perhaps religion. Blogs like this one will for sure be good material.

I'm also convinced that your hostility and incapability to deliver straight answers to simple Qs, is a result from CAGW getting out of fashion. Maybe the end is near?

[GSW,](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5278136)

[ibid.](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5278001)

Do you seriously doubt that the IPCC's assessments are often extremely and unnecessarily conservative? After all, in the consensus process, every word in the SPM had to be signed off by policy representatives from every national government, including those most reluctant to accept any kind of 'alarmist' conclusions such as the U.S.(Bush Administration), Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, etc.

Really?

Olaus, that loud whooshing sound is the point flying straight over your head. You do not disappoint!

By the way, the answer has been delivered eight times now, but do keep on flailing precious.

No wooshing heard by anyone Stu, but the sound of your cryings is quite impressive, I must admit. And the smell of goregonzola...cheezus. You are the gift that keeps on giving.

Why don't you just admit that the 90-95% is an educated guess? I'm sure you will be relieved letting it out. Se further in Jonas' excellent #394.

I can't resist, its like picking at a scab you know you shouldn't but you do anyway.

Olaus/Jonas (for they are the same) please look up the word disinterest...it is not a synonym for uninterest. If you learn nothing else from this thread you may at least learn that and thus this thread will not have been completely useless.

Marco, you sure know how to blow nothing away. What a knocker!

But to be fair and balanced, you Marco, at least, seem to understand that the magic number discussed, is an educated guess and nothing else.

[O Louse,](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5278715)

You aren't paying attention. I have introduced probative [evidence](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5278001), fulfilling with exactitude, Jonas demands for provenance that the 'magic number' and its associated conclusion are both underestimated and understated.

I have also [introduced](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5278276) an hypothesis for why this is so.

Feel free to attempt a carefully reasoned and rational rebuttal, if you can. I'm betting you can't.

He can't go reading that LB, or he won't be able to claim that he never sawed the science.

Olaus: You do know that CAGW is a term invented by denialists when they realised that they could no longer deny the global warming nor the anthropogenic part of AGW?

Where, exactly, do you think that climate scientists have got it wrong and how do you justify your beliefs?

luminous b

That was a funny reference. It speculates about what a 'perfect model' would say, and "introducing inter-model variance as an extra uncertainty"

And based on these models, they claim that if there hadn't been cooling forcings, they very likely would have given more warming.

I don't really have any problem with such statements although they don't contain that much substance. But at least from the title and the abstract, the study does not purport to establish how certain the models can incorporate and reproduce every relevant mechanism.

Rather it notes the opposite, that the models are rudimentary, and vary amongst each other. Unfortuntely, those differences then seems to be interpreted as 'remaining uncrtainty' and (if that is true) that is nonsense ..

Sorry, I can't read the full article from here, but it describes once more model runs, compared to each other, and to historic temperature records. If so, it describes curve fitting procedures ... that's all fine, but such do not constitute validation of a model, only how well the fit the fitted data.

And I have looked at some more papers, they all use this technique, fitting, and then saying the fitting is good. Showing (after that if you exclude GHGs from the models, the fit is much worse). That's all correct, but not what is needed to verify the propsed hypothesis.

And I already stated that in the Perry-thread

Richard Simons:

Olaus: You do know that CAGW is a term invented by denialists when they realised that they could no longer deny the global warming nor the anthropogenic part of AGW?

Also known as the third stage of denial.

such do not constitute validation of a model, only how well the fit the fitted data.

You really, really, really have no idea how model validation works, do you? When did you have your embarrassmentectomy?

Jonas,

>If so, it describes curve fitting procedures ... that's all fine, but such do not constitute validation of a model, only how well the[sic] fit the fitted data.

No, GCMs are not curve fitting procedures.

Here's a little quiz to test your scientific acumen:

At the core of most every General Circulation Model lies a simple set of differential equations. For ten points;

!. Who first formulated those equations?

2. When was it done?

For extra credit.

3. What are those equations?

4. What are the basic physical principles from which those equations are formulated?

When you can answer those questions correctly, maybe you will begin to understand why everyone here knows you're an idiot. Hint: Knowing this should be a matter of national pride for you.

If you want to read the whole paper, it will only cost you $25.00, but I warn you, you won't understand it.

Effin' markdown!

luminous

Navier Stokes has absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing ... I am surprised that you think so.

And no, 'idiot' is still not an argument, but you do not seem alone here in the belief that it is ...

Quite depressing.

luminous

I didn't expect that much after your previous attempts, but your thinking that N-S is the explanation for and confirming the hypothesis and confidence is just too much ... you pretty much gave it all away there. Sorry.

I'll give you a reference where you can read about it (without paying), it is quite similar, also with Peter Stott as (here main) author. And it describes the 'optimal detection analysis':

Observational Constraints on Past Attributable Warming and Predictions of FutureGlobal Warming>/a>

Look under 3. Methodology, and start learning something. Or rather, as you say, "you won't understand it" ..

Seriously, are you in the same department as Jeff Harvey, having deep discussions over lunch? That would explain some of it ...

400 Robert,

I said much the same in another thread a long time ago. Ignore the brain-eating zombie and it will eventually go away looking for brains elsewhere.

Feed it and not only will it stay but new zombies will be attracted.

Some very good people have wasted a lot of time in this thread arguing with the zombies. It was always pointless: they cannot reason and honesty is a concept beyond them.

My my, what a strangely fluent 'Jonas' there suddenly is.
Be sure to inform us in which journal your claim of the inadequacy of Huntingford et al is published.

Unfortunately for your 'case' such as it is, you have no explanation for the ongoing warming, whereas back at square one - [here](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-4-1-4.html) - there is. Without one, your whole empty pantomime routine has been for nothing.

Seriously, is this still going? So much time has been wasted on this idiot that could have been put to more productive use. I am reminded of this brilliant story I heard earlier this year:

Growing up in the South Australian industrial city of Whyalla, Gary Gray
was old school Labor before he even left high school. Now a minister in
the Gillard government, Gray joined Labor's national secretariat in
1986 and became national secretary in 1993, at the fag end of Labor's
last period in government.

At his resignation speech at the National Press Club in 2000, Gray
recounted his horror when, as a 16-year-old in Whyalla, his steelworker
and Laborite father, Gordon, invited the local Liberal candidate into
the house during the 1974 federal election campaign. ''I went into a
complete tailspin. I was appalled. What would Gough think?'' Gray said.

Gray snr ''sat the Lib down'' and talked to him for 20 minutes before
dragging Gray jnr from his bedroom where he had sought refuge and forced
him to shake the hand of the candidate.

''It got worse. Dad actually offered him a drink. My father is a
Yorkshireman. Yorkshiremen do not give away alcohol,'' Gray said.
''But that day, there was a Liberal Party candidate in the front room
of our home sharing a scotch with dad.''

Just as Gray jnr was contemplating running away from home, the Liberal
excused himself and left to continue doorknocking. Standing on the
porch, the candidate told Gray snr, rhetorically, to let him know if
there was anything he could do for him.

''Well, there is,'' said Gray snr, who pointed to the blocked gutter
on the verandah and then his own crook back which prevented it being
cleared.

The Liberal, a tall man, said ''no worries'' and promptly reached up.
''In no time, he'd cleaned the gutter out completely,'' Gray said.
''That done, he shook dad's hand and headed up the street. I turned
to my father and asked him, with all the self-control I could muster,
how he could do that, invite this Liberal into our home and make friends
with him.''

Gray snr calmed his son: ''He's just wasted an hour with us, he's got
alcohol on his breath and muck running down his sleeve. How many votes
do you think he'll win today?''

Don't feed the troll. Even on his own thread. He's wasting our time and we're not achieving anything here, and we are getting muck all up our arms (and probably hitting the bottle in the evening too).

So we seem to have agreement from Olaus Petri that:
- "Glaciers ARE melting"
- "The planet IS warming"

I wonder if he can agree with us that:
- "CO2 levels have increased by about 100ppm since the pre-industrial era."

How about it Olaus? Agreed?

Dear Craig,

The CO2-level in the atmosphere is higher. I'm not sure you are aware of this, but we humans are using fossil fuels, which very likely can explain most of the increased level of CO2. That's why its called anthropogenic CO2. Now you know a little more Craig, on the socratic house.

And yes, at the moment, the last 10 years or so not so much though, Gaia has become warmer. In fact, it has become warmer the last 10 k/y or so, with ups and downs on the way.

Anything else?

Dear Richard

The CAGW-acronym might be invented by infidels, but is nonetheless spot on.The goregons of armageddon are ruining climate science.

Dear Chris,

since the CAGW-prophets now are less in political and scientific fashion, their reactions become more agitated and frustrated. That is a natural process.

Olaus Petri is the next in line who should consider that there may be more than one poster using the screenname "Marco" (in reality, there is a "Marco" and a "marco").

Olaus Petri may also need to consider some basic scientific philosophy: everything we do and say is "an educated guess". Every calculation is "an educated guess", because we will never know 100% certain that it is exactly the right calculation. The typical problem with people like yourself and Jonas N is that you believe to have the same ability in making an "educated" guess, but in reality, don't. An "educated" guess actually requires relevant education and the ability to process relevant information.

But perhaps you can prove me wrong. I will give you the same challenge as I gave Jonas N:
Using the data provided in chapter 9 of AR4, WG1, calculate what YOU believe to be the likelihood that anthropogenic forcings explain most of the warming since 1950. No shifting of goalposts by complaining about the provided numbers themselves, use these numbers and calculate. If you cannot do the calculation, come with an argumented exposition as to why you believe the statement is wrong.

Marco, "No shifting of goalposts" you require, in an attempt to seriouslyt shift the goalposts.

If I remember correctly, you first claimed that the AR4 claim was properly established Wg1 ch9. Now that it isn't you try two new approaches:

1. Everything is an 'educated guess', and
2. Present your best (alternative) guess

And you are missing the central point here:

3. It is indeed just a 'guess' (which has been the point the entire time, and what has been upsetting people to the point where some finally lose it all together).
4. And since no proper quantitative analysis is presented how that AR4 laim ('educated guess') is arrived at, there is not really any way to say it must be wrong (or any reason for that).

But it is of course possible to present arguments for why an educated guess should arrive at a lower certainty. And the support provided be the references themselves are a considerable part of that. Just by noting how they go about their 'attribution methods'

First, I apologize if I have mixed up the m/Marcos. My bad.

Second, @428, I know my limits. If you guys can't come up with anything in that region, I can't see myself being successful either. Hopefully science will progress and hand out a scientific answer when its ready.

Until then it should refrain from being used in a context that is unnatural to it, that is hypothesis should be dealt with in a scientific environment and not being used as a battering ram in politics and ideological struggles. Such a milieu ruins the scientific process, educated guesses or not. Nota bene, its perfectly OK to stretch conclusions in science but when the same stretched conclusions are abducted from the lab, science takes a nosedive ending up in blogs like this one reeking of sectarian body fluids.

Excellent!
So we are agreed:
> glaciers are melting
> planet is warming
> CO2 levels are increasing
> increased CO2 is anthropogenic in origin

So...do we agree with this proposition:

- CO2's physical properties enable it to act as a "greenhouse gas", allowing higher-energy radiation from the Sun to pass down, but trapping the lower-energy radiation from the Earth from passing up, thus warming the planet.

?

And what about *you*, Jonas, are *you* having any trouble with this stuff so far?

I was hoping for something like excessive unicorn funeral pyres or something gloriously whacky, at least. But at the end of this particular shaggy dog thread, we get offered ... natural variability as the punchline.

As the more sensible brethren and sisteren warned, troll feeding is never productive.

Craig # 431

I have already stated that I find the CO2-hypothesis worthy scientific inquiries. What more do you want?

@chek #433

Yes, it makes perfect sense explaining your hard words and very unfriendly attitudes with "natural causes". Its in fact text book sociology.

Craig - The climate is a bit more complicated than that scalar Gore:esque description you present. And the term 'trapping heat' is more appropriate for propaganda nonsense by failed ex VP politicians, directed at scaring kids ...

Sorry trying to catch up on the posts. Things seem to be moving into other more detailed disputes.

Can I just ask, are we all agreed now that the IPCC 'likelihood' statements are subjective 'opinion'?

and there is a strong 'political' (LB 406) influence over what is, or is not expressed, in those opinions?

@GSW

Yes, I think we can. We are making progress.

@LB, chek etc

We probably disagree on the direction of the 'political' influence, but we all recognize that it is a factor?

Olaus Petri wrote: "I have already stated that I find the CO2-hypothesis worthy scientific inquiries. What more do you want?"

Why are people still wasting time on these scientific illiterate trolls?

GSW

You have a very pertinent point (which is a major part of the explanation), and lb touched upon it:

The AR4 SPM is a politically endorsed summary, and its final form is the result of many governmet bureaucrats fianlly 'agreeing' what it shoud say. And of course also the named IPCC authors.

lb seems to imply that the politically appointed IPCC bureaucrats, the ones ensuring "every word .. to be signed off", that they should be expected to understate the findings, downplay the certainties, diminish any gravity or possible threats, and ensure restraint when stating IPCC authority ..

Well, one may of course speculate that this is how it happened. But I would say that is a very romantic understanding of how such bureaucracies function and what kind of people are appointed.

Andy S - You are the one who time and time agian reposts fig 9.9, aren't you? Does that make you a scientifically illiterate troll? Because, you too gave up arguing the facts pretty quickly (after hoping that since 90% is not 100% the different 'reconstructions' still might all be correct)!?

*Why are people still wasting time on these scientific illiterate trolls?*

Exactly. These trolls are writing as if we are starting from a clean slate with respect to the field. IPCC concluded, on the basis of going through thousands of studies, that the human fingerprint on the current warming is highly significant. In other words, we are responsible for most of it. Certainly there are some of the finer points to be ironed out, but by now it is known what is responsible for most, if nolt all of the recent warming.

We are.

Case closed. This conclusion is beyond debate or discussion. Now we have to move on a better understand what the consequences of AGW are likely to be on natural and managed ecosytstems. This is what I'd be happy to discuss. But the triplet trolls here are trying to drag the discussion down to the lowest common demominator. To argue that humans are not primarily responsible for the rapid warming currently occurring. That is why AndyS, Duckster and TrueSkeptic are spot on with their posts. The trolls are time wasters and I implore others here to leave them stewing in their onw s@#$.

Science moved on 5-10 years ago. The deniers are trying to muddy the waters and slow down mitigation efforts. To do this they focus on the uncertain outcomes of warming and apply this uncertainty to the factors underlying the warming itself. The 90% figure was provided because the media and the public demand 'handles'. What the writers of AR4 meant was 'very highly significant'. That is enough evidence right there.

Tim's web site is a brilliant forum for discussion, but all-too-often some of its threads are hijacked by time-wasting anti-environmental idiots who would not believe the evidence for AGW if it was put right in front of them. We have all wasted too much effort here to debate people who are not interested in scientific discussion but in futile efforts to downplay the human contribution to the current warming, which is agreed upon by the vast majority of the climate science community.

Jonas N immediately confirms both the "wasting time" and the "scientific illiterate trolls" part of my previous comment. It is all just empy posturing, a mindless game of throwing garbage around in the air.

Jonas, yes, the AR4 claim is very well established. The "educated guess" that lies behind this claim is as educated a guess as the theory of evolution. But I guess you'll attack that theory, too, if that were to have implications that rock your ideology a bit too much.

As AR4 establishes quite well, we KNOW in which direction the most important forcings have been since 1950: down for volcanic, down for solar, up for GHGs.
We KNOW that most of the GHG increase is due to anthropogenic contributions (allow me to add carbon black, too).
We KNOW that the temperature has gone up. We can discuss by how much, but not that it has gone up, that is established beyond reasonable doubt.
We KNOW that there are some other forcings that may contribute in either direction, but there is no evidence they contribute much on the long term (short term, yes, long term no).

Anyone looking at the basic facts would have to conclude that it is virtually certain that anthropogenic GHG emissions are the primary cause of the complete temperature increase since the 1950s. Compare that to the statement in AR4. It's watered down!

It is telling you claim there are arguments, and then come with "Just by noting how they go about their 'attribution methods' ". That's plain old handwaving, also known as an "uneducated guess".

Dear Andy #442

You are correct, Jonas is throwing "garbage around the air", your garbage, and that hurts â mucho.

Finally Jeff admits that 90-95 its a political number and noting else, which was declared from the beginning by Jonas.

I don't believe climat science is just a clean white board, but so far we have seen nothing yet of a "tipping point", escalating sea levels, rapid increase of heat in the oceans etc. I also believe that a mix of activism and science not only is fatal for science as such, but also dangerous to mankind and mother earth. Some of you guys are down right (left?) scary.

Dear Olaus Petri,

If you think it is garbage, why don't you demonstrate to us all that you have thoroughly understood what's at the link I gave before. And don't just give us some "they run a couple of simulations" mumble. Show that you understand the methods they are using and demonstrate why they are inadequate. Also show that you understand the results they come to, and in particular the implications of Fig 9.9.

> The typical problem with people like yourself and Jonas N is that you believe to have the same ability in making an "educated" guess, but in reality, don't.

Yup, Jonas, Git and Olaf/Jonas are lacking one of the primary ingredients to make an educated guess: education.

*Finally Jeff admits that 90-95 its a political number and noting else*

I never said it was political. I said that the public and media demand 'handles', so we provided one based on the best estimates. And Marco is correct that it was 'watered down'. This is because so many people contributed to the various drafts - on both sides of the so-called debate. A large proportion of the climate science community think its a lot worse than 90% - more closer to 100%.

But, as expected, Olaus digresses. The main point was that the human fingerprint is very highly significant. Those clinging vainly to the 90% figure are doing so in order to try and create doubt as to the human fingerprint. The science is 'in' as far as that is concerned. Too bad that the right wing anti-regulatory denialists missed the boat.

As for 'tipping points', they have already been demonstrated in other fields - for instance lost ecosystem services and processes, such as pollination, seed dispersal, water purification, maintenance of soil fertility and forest re-generation, due to a suite of anthropogenic stresses. But since Olaus apparently isn't a scientist and clearly is not up on the empirical literature, they do not exist as far as he is concerned. And tipping points are exactly that - systems can be pushed and stretched to a certain point and still function effectively enough to sustain life in a manner that we take for granted. But suddenly systems collapse and critical services are lost. Humans are lucky that considerable redundancy is present in most systems, and thus the human assault has only resulted in a few regional effects thus far, and not a systemic collapse. But nature is not forgiving and as long as we maintain the current path there will be serious consequences down the road. The trouble is, that our species is so uttely contemptuous of the natural world that we have fooled ourselves into believing that we, and we alone, have the ability to survive and prosper irrespective of the damage we inflict on nature and the lost services that result from that.

And, since climate control is a largely deterministic process that is characterized by temporal lags in cause-and-effect relationships, Olaus is just another troll expecting instantaneous effects of human actions. We know that the extinction debt occurs, and that the loss of mammals at the terminal end of the food chain is still rippling through ecosystems in North America (Tilman and May, 1994). Some of these effects took decades and even centuries to be realized. The effects of climate warming will also be realized way down the road, long after the forests are cut and the fossil fuels are burned.

Dear Andy

Its your garbage if you think that 90-95 is a scientific number and not a political and opinionated one.

Why shouldn't I "mumble" about simulations and their prognostic atrophied muscles? The are biafran and hence they need a lot more protein than you guys can deliver at the moment. I do not mind though, that climate scientist are using model simulations. If find it great. But still, view them for what they are: incomplete attempts which results are not suited to call out the cloaked doomsayers for.

So Olaus Petri has no clue of the thing he is calling "garbage". Quel suprise! As I said before: waste of time, scientific illiterate trolls.

*Its your garbage if you think that 90-95 is a scientific number and not a political and opinionated one*

And Olaus it is your garbage to say that you and Jonas are attacking the 90% figure (or, indeed the very highly significant conclusion reached by the IPCC) for anything other than even much more brazenly political purposes. To sow doubt. To give the impression that there is huge uncertainty over the human contribution to warming when there isn't. And, ultimately, to reflect your own idealogical and political views which, as I said above, are anti-government, anti-regulation, pure libertarianism. The kind of nonsense than Ayn Rand preached.

Funny thing is that the scientific community has moved on, leaving you right wing dead-enders way, way behind.

Jonas/Olaus are playing a smoke and mirrors game with figures here, or at least using a stick which on closer inspection proves to be made of smoke which serves to beat and impress credulous dolts at places like WTFUWT or Montford's stalker HQ.

To use an analogy, since the first Model T rolled off Henry Ford's production line, engines and their systems have been designed, redesigned, augmented and improved a thousandfold to the limits of human genius using scientific and engineering best practice in use today. And yet even after all that, it cannot be guaranteed with 100% certainty that when the key is turned, an engine will fire. There is only a very high probability that it will.

It's the word 'uncertainty' being puffed up and played to the rubes as a colloquial rather than scientific term. That's what the so-called lukewarmers always have done and what Jonas et all have been wasting their time to eventually tell us.

More fool us.

> Its your garbage if you think that 90-95 is a scientific number

90-95 is a mathematical range.

Maths is core to science, if you think that maths isn't used in science, then you're sadly mistaken.

But at least you're improving, you're now actually saying what the range is.

Now, Greater than 95% is the actual figure from the scientists.

The politicians wanted some more wiggle room so wanted it downrated to the next lower category.

And that "Greater than 95%" is a scientific result of the fact that nothing known to affect the climate can explain the climate of the past 150 years without the inclusion of anthropogenic causes and that there is no way to get the climate explained without that anthropogenic change being dominated over the last 50 years.

Now, a SCIENTIFIC number you want to argue for would be what?

Olaus Petri: "The are biafran..."

I note (without much surprise) that Olaus Petri finds children starving to death during civil war suitable material for witticisms.

Look Andy

I can't speak for the others here, but the problem I see is that the very same instant we actually start looking at the science, if we read what is actually done, and how it is done there ..

.. the moment we go beyond just airing our convictions and beliefs, repeating words we've heard/seen, the very same moment you and many many others throw in the towel and start your name calling instaed.

As Olaus pointed out, I have been hinting (OK, little stronger than just suggesting) that this 90% certainty claim is not based on real science from the start. And many here went of the deep end because of that. But now it seems we all pretty much can agree on that (except for some few in real denial).

And the various 'attribution studies' have been trying to confirm that the models actually can cover observations in hindcasting, but that all the relevant physical mechanisms for the climate already were contained in them, and to correct signs and magnitudes. (Meaning, all is based on that the underlying assumption that the models got it right to start with)

Marco - you need to make up your mind! Are we talking about science, or are we talking about a reasoned guess, somebody opining on the basis of his/their perceived experties. We both seem to agree on the latter, so there is no discrepancy. You might put higher faith in that guess than I do, but that is not even discussed or challenged.

But I can tell you (and the rest) that making attributions, to such high levels of confidence, in a system with so much fluctuation (internal variability it's called here), and exhibiting chaotic and non linear behavior, and with so many mechanisms involved is extremely difficult. Usually one needs to have a huge number of experiments to determine, quantify (and rule out) the statistics of such phenomena, especially if they all act and interfere simultaneously. Here, we have one experiment, run over a limited time.

Quantifying the tails of a pdf where you can't even isolate the factor you want to study attribute, is really really hard. Nothing you can extablish from just 'looking' at the facts.

And you are right, me saying 'just looking at how they try to attribute .. ' is armwaiving, before i specify further. But I can do that, and judt did (some more). It is, as I told Andy S above, when I do that, things go downwards ..

Can I ask you if you want to discuss the issues further, because there are of course many more. (I don't remember you as beeing among the many name callers)

Jonas N,

Judging from Fig 9.9, one could add a helluva lot of more uncertainty and still have at least 90%.

"this 90% certainty claim is not based on real science from the start

That's your mistake right there. You choose to discount multiple simulations run on multiple models built on empirical data that show high correlation as "not based on real science". It's already been pointed out that the certainty claim is actually higher than 90% but was downgraded for the purposes of global political agreement, which is the opposite of your belief.

Andy, if this is how you interpret fig 9.9, you indeed show that you do not understand what the different error bars and confidence levels represent. (But on the other hand, it explains why you so persistently have pointed at a figure instead of addressing the topic)

But that's agian and again the impression I get here. Lots of agtitated conviction, but much fewer being able and even fewer actually doing the homework.

As I've said many times. Usually, the people referring one to some reference haven't even read it (only maybe opened it in their browser, and found some phrases), and that's not good enough. Further, most of them couldn't interpret what is actually done in the papers, and just spout ot that whatever they think there is, also must be science and the truth.

This happens essentially every time, you check to actual science. It is grossly overstated, every caveat, premiss, precondition, restriction, limitiation of applicability, often is completely missing ... but are usually quite well presented in the paper (if one reads them).

That's why I've gotten tired of following references from people who can't conduct a civil discussion.

I mean, just look at Jeff Harvey. He sounds like he is close to a stroke from high blood pressure in almost every comment. And still he never adresses the issues, only demands that everybody shared his faith, and for the same reason ...

You forgot to morph back to your Olaus sock that time.
How seriously do you expect to be taken using socks?

Here's the proper analogy to the Jonas et al. crowd and I will leave it at that.

A dump truck dumps a large pile of sand on an ashphalt surface. Over the course of the coming months, on weekly basis several workman shovel some of it into wheel barrows and take it to naother site, while a smaller amount is blown away in the wind, or else is eroded by rainfall. Over a year or two, the pile is entirely removed.

Researchers are left to estimate which agent took away most of the sand: the guys with shovels who took some every week, or natural agents such as wind and rain. Eventually, studying the evidence, as well as with the use of model estimations of the three factors, they conclude that workers took away the vast majority of the sand. When pressed they say "at least 90%, but probably more like >95%".

The sceptics scream foul. They want to know (1) exactly how many grains of sand there were in the pile to begin with, (2) exactly how many were taken by each agent, and (3) how many there are left. They demand this information even though the evidence that most of it was removed by the workers is abundantly clear. They claim that the 90-95% figure is purely political, yet without it they argue that the total amount taken away by the workers is unknown and might just as well be nil.

This is what Jonas and his chums are doing here. Well done, guys. No wonder most of those posting on this thread are exasperated. Its like trying to knock down a brick wall of illogic.

*I mean, just look at Jeff Harvey. He sounds like he is close to a stroke from high blood pressure in almost every comment*

Really? Actually Jonas, I am quite calm. I am going to a fitness center twice a week and feel great. Never better. And my blood pressure and heart are fine; I had them checked last year.

You see, your problem is that you think you are an expert. That you are on top of the subject. And that, through attrition, you are winning an argument that your side lost years ago. Must be hard eh? Screaming ino the wind, and nobody in science listening to you. I am sure that every climate scientist who contributed to the final draft of AR4-2007 has not read a thing you have ever written. They have never heard of you, and even if they have, they ignore you completely. This is because you are an amateur in every sense of the word. In truth, Jonas, you should be flattered that so many of us here have paid any attention to your pure and utter gibberish. Its just a shame that nobody involved in the actual research will ever hear it. Why? Because they know your arguments are a complete joke, driven by your hatred of science.

I rest my case. Case closed.

Jeff, are you now comparing probabilities and confidence levels for stated magnitudes in the tails of non established but estimated pdf ..

.. with fractions of a predefined weight which is easily measured, as is the average removed weight in one weelbarrow, and the numbers of those?

You go on to say:

>They want to know (1) exactly how many grains of sand there were in the pile to begin with, (2) exactly how many were taken by each agent, and (3) how many there are left. They demand this information even though the evidence that most of it was removed by the workers is abundantly clear

No, Jeff, none of this is demanded. And the analogy is very poor. But your attempt is still indicative of your understanding of the issue.

More empty trollish posturing from Jonas N. Quel surprise! Waste of time.

Jeff, I am glad you are physically fine. That's why i specified:

> He **sounds like** he is close to a stroke from high blood pressure in almost every comment. And still he never adresses the issues, only demands that everybody shared his faith, and for the same reason

and it was a metaphorical comparison, I dont think it is the blood pressure that causes anger, emotions runing amok, un uncontrolable urges to spout all that you do ..

.. and I don't think it works in the opposite way either. That those emotions cause strokes.

Relax, will you please (as you say you are). And if possible also in your language and content here ...

OK?

[Jonas N said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5277719):

>luminous b

>I'll make an exception for you. If you say that 90% certainty, together with the 'most/at least half of the warming the last 50 years' is to be found in any among that list, I'll check it out.

>But is there? Because I seriously doubt that.

>[My emboldened emphasis]

Ah, finally...

You didn't admit to not having previously read any of my references, but you now expressly admit that you haven't read any of the ones posted by LB.

So, tell us this - how can you possibly claim that the IPCC and the professional body of climatologists are lying, and have not performed the analyses of uncertainty, if you haven't read the bloody references?!

You accuse me of not reading the ones that I have in my files, but you have explicitly revealed that you have not done any reading yourself.

You are full of shit.

[Then](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5280104):

>That was a funny reference.

I was going to pull the wings from this blowfly of a post, but I see that others have beat me to it.

This troll dungeon, as odious as it is, has actually been useful for me. Specifically I'd like to thank Luminous Beauty for the Ebisuzaki paper. That's one I haven't previously found, and it's handy to have.

Olaus Sockpetri [says](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5283463):

>I'm not sure you are aware of this, but we humans are using fossil fuels, which very likely can explain most of the increased level of CO2.

By "most", I'm sure that you mean "greater than 90% certainty"...

>In fact, it has become warmer the last 10 k/y or so, with ups and downs on the way.

>Anything else?

Yes.

You're wrong. [The Holocene trend is not one of warming](http://i52.tinypic.com/vpkh03.jpg).

But then, you've never been one to let a little thing like truth stand in the way of a story.

And [the fool in the corner asks](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5284509):

>Can I just ask, are we all agreed now that the IPCC 'likelihood' statements are subjective 'opinion'?

He may ask the question, but the answer is a very definite "no". If he doesn't understand why, then there is no hope for him.

Ever.

Just as there is no hope for any of the trolls here. I will join the chorus of sensible folk including Duckster and Robert Murphy, and also recall my own previous advice, and leave these ideologues and shills to wink at and fellate themselves as they so desire.

Still, it's been interesting. Push Jonas hard enough and he eventually demostrated that he had nothing to offer. At least that job was done.

Andy S

It is very obvious that you, and many more here start name calling and labelling when you run out of substance.

Your 'substance' here has been one fig 9.9 (which you cannot interpret properly) and that 90% < 100% (which it is)

Have you noticed how many of you (on your side) have managed to argue with out name calling, and empty ad homs etc?

Buh-bye Jonas.

Game, set and match. Debate closed. Science has moved on. Next step is to better understand the effects of AGW - with an emphasis on anthropogenic - on natural and managed ecosystems. This is where the discussion must now go.

Repeat 100 times before you go to bed...

HUMANS ARE REPSONSIBLE FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF CLIMATE CHANGE...

Then you'll finally accept what most scientists already know.

Buh-bye Jonas.

>Have you noticed how many of you (on your side) have managed to argue with out name calling, and empty ad homs etc?

Diddums, if you demonstrate yourself to be an idiot and a troll, you have to expect to be called for it at some point.

Lose the glass jaw.

Jeff H - man of the incessant misrepresentations (contd.)

Maybe you remember how this discussion came about. I noted that the IPCC claim of what can be attributed to manmade GHGs is not very alarming. That what they say is 'at least half of what is seen last 50 years, at 90% likelyhood'

Which is not a whole lot. In the order of ~0.2 °C, ie nothing to get all worked up about in the light of what fluctuations we have had both short term and long term.

And this was what then started the brouhaha. Because immedeately folks started to take those numbers very literately, and interpreting them i alarmist and layman fashion: 'Oh, but it could be **much more** and the likelyhood could be **even larger**

Which is even more hysteric armwaiving than the actual claim (which at least may be in the realm of the possible, wrt to the warming at least, maybe not the true confidence)

But pointing out minor details, like that really made the whol flock (almost) go off the deep end ..

And they are still there howling ..

> And that, through attrition, you are winning an argument that your side lost years ago.

To be specific, over 50 years ago.

Jeff

Yes, I know you would like to 'close' the debate. Declare it closed, proclaim 'game set and match'. Rubberstamp it as complete victory and settled science. Ban people who point out even the simplest disturbuing facts. That is what a bureaucrat or an activist would like to accomplish.

And your statement:

>HUMANS ARE REPSONSIBLE FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF CLIMATE CHANGE...

is completely false, even if you restrict yourself to only this interglacial. See eg figure 3 here.

I think what you meant to say is that the hypothesis syas humans might be resonsible for (possibly > half) the warming since the 1950:s.

But then you are talkning about the weather, there is barely enough data to observe one *climate* properly during 40 years, even less to observe it changing.

Temperatures are not climate, Jeff, I tought you know that.

> man of the incessant misrepresentations (contd.)

Yup, that's you all right!

> I noted that the IPCC claim of what can be attributed to manmade GHGs is not very alarming.

This is an opinion.

Indeed an opinion that Niel Craig vehemently disagrees with, but there you go, I don't expect him or anyone complaining of the "alarmists" or "CAGW crowd" to disagree with you.

> That what they say is 'at least half of what is seen last 50 years, at 90% likelyhood'

OK, if that's your paraphrasing. Still not seeing where the "IT'S NOT SCIENCE!" comes in.

> Which is not a whole lot. In the order of ~0.2 °C, ie nothing to get all worked up about

Another opinion. And an uninformed one too.

> in the light of what fluctuations we have had both short term and long term.

Except that after 100 years of fluctuations, you're still around the same temperature. After 100 years of trend, you're 100 times further away from the same temperature as you were 99 years before.

It seems that your "nothing to get worried about" is purely because YOU won't be harmed by it.

If you care so little for the future, you're going to get lambasted by Olaf who cares passionately about the poor little kiddies.

Bah, who am I kidding? Even if he wasn't you, he's a denier like you and they NEVER disagree with each other.

> Because immedeately folks started to take those numbers very literately

Indeed you did, you kept screaming about how it wasn't scientific, and ranted and raved about 90% as if that was a very literal number and so extremely important that unless it was arrived at under your definition of scientifically, the whole edifice of AGW falls down.

> 'Oh, but it could be much more and the likelyhood could be even larger

Well, yes, a trend upwards WILL be a larger difference in temperature after more time has passed. This is the very definition of "an upward trend".

> Which is even more hysteric armwaiving than the actual claim

What's hysteric is your splashing about and pretending that you're not drowning, even after you've had to claim that you said "swimming" not "drowning".

> But pointing out minor details

What? like your complete revision of your insane ravings after nearly 500 posts?

> And your statement:

> > HUMANS ARE REPSONSIBLE FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF CLIMATE CHANGE...

> is completely false

Nope, it's completely true.

> See eg figure 3 here.

You mean the paper with the title:

> Past Temperatures Directly from the Greenland Ice Sheet

? Yah, sorry, greenland is big, the biggest island on the planet, but it's not the size of the globe.

[How about a more complete dataset](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif), where we use thermometers to measure temperature, as opposed to proxies?

> But then you are talkning about the weather,

Nope.

Bernard

As I said early on, I dont mind the name calling, but I do think it reveals how secure you are in your position (I wouldn't call it 'arguments', because they are almost non existent and if OT very superficial, most often only appeals to perceived authority)

Jeff - typo correction:

You need 30 years to observ 'a climate', you can hardly say much about that chaninging over 50 years ...

> but I do think it reveals how secure you are in your position

Why do you do it, then?

> You need 30 years to observ 'a climate', you can hardly say much about that chaninging over 50 years

Yes, you can say that the climate has changed.

What you can also do is take a 30 year period from 1850 and compare to the last 30 years and see a climate change.

You can do this for a rolling 30-year period from 1850 (technically, 1865) until today (technically, 1998) and then look at the temperature change over that period and see that the warming is accelerating.

Which means that you're agreeing that "alarmism" is incorrect when you ascribe it to the IPCC claims for future climate.

And so to conclude and leave Jonas mulling away on his own legendary status in his own mind, the troll(s) only mentioned Al Gore six times. Always a giveaway.

Now that was some reading! And its quite fascinating to see that so few people make so many people extremely upset. Makes you wonder. All that name calling! And all that ad hominen.

Jonas and Olaus! you sre doing a great job!

Ah, another denialist loving the trolling!

You note that this denialist isn't saying that they're *right*, just that it's great that they're upsetting so many people (which would be how many? Three? Two? One?).

No, all that's wanted from the denialists is delay.

Wow.
Couldnt resist name calling could you?
Lets say that I agree more to what they say than what their opponents do.

Notice how all of the sock puppets have the same usage styles, focus on certain subjects, and problems with spelling?

Ah, couldn't resist playing the martyr.

Say, do you tell your momma off for calling you your name? That's name-calling too.

Still, it's so fascinating to see how calling someone a denier when they deny facts by one person makes so many people extremely upset! Makes you wonder.

I guess I'm doing a great job!

Well,
You really make me laugh out loudly.

More name calling
Martyr, sock puppets.

Problems with spelling. Well pardon me, English is not my first language.

Well I made my little contribution and I am out of here. This is like a sect.

By by!

Yup, accccording to you, how upset someone gets proves the point of the one saying the upsetting thing.

Since you got so upset over being called denier, then it proves there's something to the accusation, doesn't it.

And, yes, we can tell your first language is not English. So why did you write your drivel blog in English? So you could pretend that any errors were "poor english"? Or maybe to pull the PC card: "you can't accuse me of incoherent arguments! I'm foreign!!!".

And, yes, your site DOES show that you're a denier.

Olaus Petri:

Dear Chris,

since the CAGW-prophets now are less in scientific fashion

Which scientific journal would this be?

Chris, since the only ones spouting CAGW are the denialists, the only ones persuing their faith with blind devotion and fervour are the denialists and that their papers are more and more being found out to be arrant rubbish and repudiated in the science world, Olaus/Jonas PetriN is talking about how he and his bishops are falling out of favour.

He's lamenting the end of his church.

Wow - Which position is it that you want to take:

1. That the climate has changed since 1850 and during this intergalcial? Or

2. That humans are responsible for the vast majority of claimate change?

At the risk of getting the thread away away from abuse and back on track.

I think we've agreed that IPCC assessments are subjective 'opinion'.

Does anyone actually disagree with this? I think we did agree, but a lot of name calling has gone on since.

"So why did you write your drivel blog in English? So you could pretend that any errors were "poor english"?

Oh, I think the blogroll on the right panel of his homepage emphatically negates that possible excuse, Wow.

"I think we've agreed that IPCC assessments are subjective 'opinion'".

...whereas rather more interestingly, I think that's a pretty good illustration of your delusion and denial.

Congratulations to Jonas N to your own thread here!

Jonas, although writing using a pseudonym, is no troll but a well known, lively and outspoken member of the public opinion about global warming in Sweden.

As this picture may illustrate our Nordic country is also affected by the dramatic narrative of the Arctic sea ice meltdown:
http://www.theclimatescam.se/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/image001117.jpg

Jonas, your perturbation of the climate debate here has revealed some interesting but not unexpected response in the form of tweaked superficial arguments and ad hominem.

> Wow - Which position is it that you want to take:

Neither.

They aren't mutually exclusive either.

If you want to know what the science says, have a look [here](http://www.ipcc.ch).

The climate has changed since 1850. The climate changed in the past. Humans have caused it this time.

Ah, great. Another denialist under the illusion that they speak for Sweden this time.

(see also the ad hom in the name "climate scam" for the blogroll for extra denialist cashpoints!)

And I guess that Pehr will also agree it's great how calling people denialists when they deny the science and evidence behind AGW perturbs these people so greatly.

@chek, wow

Listen to yourselves 486,481.

You've just suggested that someone, who appears to be Swedish(?), has chosen to blog in english and is doing so purely to pass off errors as a problem with language!

I think you both need to step away from the computer for a bit and come back when you're rational again and regained your composure.

See, only me calling them denialists and ALL these self-proclaimed "skeptics" are REALLY upset.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it.

Seems like there's something to the charge, doesn't it.

> and is doing so purely to pass off errors as a problem with language!

Yes. And it seems like this is what he's doing:

> Well pardon me, English is not my first language.

You see, we look at evidence, unlike deniers like you.

> 485
> I think we've agreed that IPCC assessments are subjective 'opinion'.

I don't know if this one has been answered, by the way, but you're wrong there.

YOU have agreed with Jonas/Olaus/OtherSocks that it's subjective opinion.

Apparently because you either haven't read the science underpinning, don't understand the science, or just do not wish to admit error.

I would suggest you go away from the internet and get a good bit of work done at your library.

@wow

I'll come back later when you've calmed down a bit. You have some anger issues wow - I think you've lost it.

;)

Ah, again we have projection.

Tell me, how do you know I'm not calm? Your psychic abilities ought to be used to good effect on "The Jeremy Kyle Show".

But I guess you're all frizzed up with being called a denier.

Heh? Four Swedish denialist trolls, the last three of which are all effusive with their praise for the first?! Oh, and all fixated with their off-the-mark perception of ad hominem...

Excuse me if I up my sock puppet count to four.

GSW.

You're [repeating](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5287774) [yourself](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5284509).

The answer to your fatuous question is still no, but I am morbidly curious to see you provide a detailed explanation of the process of 'logic' (I use the term reservedly) by which you formulated your proposition.

As someone for whom English is his second language, please allow me to say that if you can't properly use a language, DON'T.

I'm so, so tired of that lame excuse. Stilted idiom, fine -- I'm guilty of that myself... but at least put some effort in and run your whining through a spell-checker.

And to all of Jonas's Scandinavian buddies he felt the need to call in: here's a quick refresher course.

You're a moron, therefore you are wrong: ad hominem.

You're wrong, here's why, therefore you are a moron: NOT ad hominem.

Could you spread that around, please? It gets really old seeing clown after clown come in abusing a term they do not understand.

Anyway,

I think we've agreed that IPCC assessments are subjective 'opinion'. Does anyone actually disagree with this? I think we did agree, but a lot of name calling has gone on since.

Sure, if you disregard this entire thread and the IPCC AR4 itself, you can call it "opinion". Anyone who has actually read the report would call it "conservative assessment".

But do go on GSW, you seem to be on a roll.

Pehr

"Jonas, although writing using a pseudonym, is no troll but a well known, lively and outspoken member of the public opinion about global warming in Sweden."

Worth mentioning perhaps that he was more or less banned from your own "skeptic" blog because he kept insulting everybody and ruined the discussion ?

(or whatever the reason was, but he don´t post there anymore since the new moderation policy was adopted, probably the reason why he moved here though :-) )

Judging from what is argued, what is claimed, what is actually understood, I don't think there was anything to lose in the first place. And it is quite remarkable that other regulars here (if there are more capable ones) can watch this kind of intellectual self mutilation and let it continue without helping the poor thing ...

Either there are none around, or they are to embarressed to help a friend in need of some gentle guidance, or maybe they aren't even noticing.

Magnus.

Jonas has never been banned from The Climate Scam:

http://www.theclimatescam.se/2011/09/19/orkanerna-okar-inte/#comment-25…

> Judging from what is argued, what is claimed, what is actually understood

You have shown yourself unable to so judge.

Because you refuse to even attempt to understand what is argued or claimed.

Jonas, although writing using a pseudonym, is no troll but a well known, lively and outspoken member of the public opinion about global warming in Sweden.

...who has nothing better to do than go on a US blog and obsessively whine over a single phrase in a 4 year old report, a phrase which is backed up by the rest of the report, which is backed up by the references in it?

...who is so tedious, vapid, in pathological denial and stupid that not even Exxon will sponsor his idiocy?

And it is quite remarkable that other regulars here (if there are more capable ones) can watch this kind of intellectual self mutilation and let it continue without helping the poor thing ...

Jonas, why would any of the regulars here help you?

luminous b

As I said, the Huntington paper you tried yesterday, contained essentially the same description of the methodology as the Stott paper I linked.

I am still amazed that you thought Navier Stokes equations gave you the antropogenic forcings. Utterly flabbergasted at the sheer amount of ignorance you tried. It matches that of some of the others, if that is any consolation.

But at least you tried with a reference. That is more than almost any other has dared. (Bernard doesn't count, because he hasn't even read them, and the ones he has read, not even he thinks are the 'missing science')

But you linked to [this paper by Huntingford et al](http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl0605/2005GL024831/2005GL024831.pdf) hoping that it would contain what so many have been (and some still are) taking on pure faith.

Well, now I have read it, and it is only a quite small variation from the one i mentioned yesterday. You can read under 2. Methodology and see the same method of regression, the three mechanisms taken into account, which on top of that are assuemd to be additive (so that the regression can make sense)

The three mechanisms are denoted GHG, SUL and NAT, meaning what you'd expect them to mean. The models give each of them their own spatial and temporal pattern, and the so called 'optimal detection method' then tries to fit those three different (assumed additive) model-results to observed historic data.

This I had adressed before, in more general terms (at the Perry-thread), it is exactly what i described there, but I might have lost you already (if you still hope NS is what it's hinged on)

I'd say that anyone understanding only a little of what modelling is about, already in the introduction (where the general method of the study is described) must see that this is not about affirming attribution confidence. It is trying to do its best to fit the three different models available, and the three chosen mechanisms and identifying those coefficients.

The result is presented in Fig 1, and the coefficients don't even necessarily overlap among the models ...

Sorry, but that won't do ...

#501

"Jonas has never been banned from The Climate Scam:"

He would have been banned if he had kept up his style, but he stopped posting instead, and apparently surfaced here to the joy of our fellow americans.

Point is, you don´t want these kind of endless tedious rantings on your own blog.

Magnus, what are you talking about? Right there, in #505, Jonas pierces through the IPCC armor and lays waste to all its arguments!

I'm sure he has sent this thorough analysis to all IPCC members and will be up for a Nobel real soon.

I will just comment on Jonas posting.
----
.. see the same method of regression, the three mechanisms taken into account, which on top of that are assuemd to be additive (so that the regression can make sense)

I have done extensive work with modelling. Before you just assume that mechanisms are additive you have to be sure that they are reasonably orthogonal (independent).Is that done here?

Magnus 506,

No, you are merely speculating. Being an insider at The Climate Scam I know who has been and who has not been discussed in terms of being banned.

Jonas,

>that's all fine, but such do not constitute validation of a model, only how well the[sic] fit the fitted data.

This statement, vague and awkward as it is, only makes sense if one believes the model data are themselves the result of regression analysis, i.e., 'fitted data'.

Apparently you do know that climate models are the results of ab initio calculations based on well constrained scientific principles and not statistical regressions, so yes, Navier-Stokes is pertinent here, but it is hardly the sole basis on which GCMs are built. So, do we not agree in principle GCMs are __scientific__ models, complying with your demand that scientific support be shown for the SPM claim you question? It is not surprising you would try to weasel out of admitting it.

You repeat the common denialist trope that since models don't include nor replicate every known and unknown detail of climate, they lack validity. This is absurd, and yes, it is precisely such what makes you a willful idiot. As George Box said, "Remember that all models are wrong; the practical question is how wrong do they have to be to not be useful." Climate models have proven their utility, even Syukuru Manabe's earliest models from the 1960s have proven valid for many features of the Earth's climate. Neither Hunterford nor Stott are model validation papers. For that, if we are keeping to the AR4-WGI, we would have to go to Chap. 8 and the references therein. I assure you, you would lose that argument, too.

Regression analysis is used in those papers to compare multiple model runs of a number of models (which I emphasize again, are not the results of regression analysis) using different forcing inputs, i.e., __attributions__, and comparing them to one real word realization. You have not shown that those calculations and their distributions of confidence levels are in any way done incorrectly. If you know of better methods than the various known tools of regression analysis for making such comparisons, then the world is waiting for your genius. That is not a single experiment, it is the cumulative result of many. Of course, there are other papers in that list that do similar multiple experiments using somewhat different methodologies, others that check the methods of those papers against other methodologies and they all basically come to the same conclusion as Hunterford; "We find that greenhouse gas forcing would very likely have resulted in greater warming than observed during the past half century if there had not been an offsetting cooling from aerosols and other forcings."

__Again, your request was for a single, peer-reviewed scientific paper that supported the claim in the SPM. I have done so, even to the point of proving the SPM claim was an understatement of much of the supporting science. Indeed the paper you cite, Stott, et al. does also. Your argument against methods, as we have seen, is unsupported and spurious.__

Regarding your understanding of regression analysis and its usefulness, some while ago you made a statement about the unpredictability of rolling dice, ignoring the fact it is predictable that as the number of random rolls of a fair die increase the average value of their outcome will converge on 3.5, a predictability gambling casinos rely on in their business plans. This is known as the Law of Large Numbers and is but one elementary principle of statistics from which regression analysis is developed. I'm sure you know this, yet would pretend not to in order make some ignorant and foolish point.

Yes, you are a willful idiot. It isn't an argument (more evidence of your idiocy. You feign not to know what a formal argument is and ignore or dissemble against a well supported one when it suits you, and think that makes you clever), it's a conclusion based on the kind of non-argument (hand-waving, unsupported assertions of fact) that you make.

Jonas N, you still are failing the PhD test. All science is "educated guess"/"informed opinion". There are some additional aspects, but "im Bund und Grund" it is "guesswork". Guesswork that fits the observed reality best.

Your complaints about the attribution studies are noted, but unfortunately you oversimplify what the attribution studies have done with the models. It's not just about hindcasting the global temperatures, but also regional patterns. Two different things. And regional patterns, such as faster warming the more Northern you go, is not something that is programmed into the models. It's a logical outcome of the physics.

#509

Of ourse I'm speculating. But anyone smart enough are free to draw their own conclusions. My opinion is worth as much as yours, insider or not.
That's the internet for you :-)

Ingvar,

>Before you just assume that mechanisms are additive you have to be sure that they are reasonably orthogonal (independent).Is that done here?

Short answer, yes, it has been done.

Rather than engaging in idle speculation, one might actually follow the cited references.

Jonas,

>The result is presented in Fig 1, and the coefficients don't even necessarily overlap among the models ...

For the period in question, 1950-1999, they most certainly do.

luminous beauty 510,

You wrote: â...since models don't include nor replicate every known and unknown detail of climate, they lack validity. This is absurd ...â.

What is your opinion on the following paper addressing discussing that issue:

âVerification, Validation, and Confirmation of Numerical Models in the Earth Sciencesâ by Naomi Oreskes, Kristin Shrader-Frechette and Kenneth Belitz.
http://courses.washington.edu/ess408/OreskesetalModels.pdf

From the abstract:

âVerification and validation of numerical models of natural systems is impossible.
â¦..
Models can only be evaluated in relative terms, and their predictive value is always open to question. The primary value of models is heuristicâ.

Do you also think that the primary value of climate models is heuristic and what does this mean for the proper usage of those models?

@514, rather than getting someone distracted by Oreskes 17 year old 1994 paper you may prefer to deal with, you might first like to check [this](http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/?p=2032) from Steve Easterbrook.

Pertinently and following on from your abstract quote: "At this point many commentators stop, and argue that if validation of a model isnât possible, then the models canât be used to support the science (or more usually, they mean they canât be used for IPCC projections). But this is a strawman argument, based on a fundamental misconception of what validation is all about. Validation isnât about checking that a given instance of a model satisfies some given criteria. Validation is about about fitness for purpose, which means itâs not about the model at all, but about the relationship between a model and the purposes to which it is put. Or more precisely, its about the relationship between particular ways of building and configuring models and the ways in which runs produced by those models are used.

"The key questions for validation then, are to do with how well the current generation of models (plural) support the discovery of new theoretical knowledge, and whether the ongoing process of improving those models continues to enhance their utility as scientific tools".

Sorry for being absent guys. Reading through the latest comments, I notice that the level of frustration has reached epic proportions, most evident in Jeffie, wowie, stuie, Bernie, luminous bounty, und so weiter. For god's sake calm down. We are only interested in science, not your CO2-affected opinions. So please start talking science and avoid profanities.

Someone said that Jonas N, if he was right (not left?), he would be worthy a Noble prize. Sorry to say, but the only Noble prize that is in reach for CAGWists, is the Noble peace price. On the other hand, Jonas N is not a CAGWist, so there might be an opening here. ;-)

Like GWS said in #X, I though we finally had an understanding here, all of us agreeing that the 90-something figure was an educated guess.

luminous

Now you are making the argument, that because the models them selves can be regarded as scienctific models, their outcome should be regarded as science too, and therefore accepted as scientific confirmation of the models' veracity. In the colloquial sense, the first part is correct, the simulations are the result of 'science', the argument that they reasonably reproduce historic temp data and therefore 'scientifically' affirm them is wrong however.

Let me be clear here: The practice to fit them to observations (yes, that is what is done wrt to the various forcings) is not wrong in it self, but it does not constitute a confirmation of the model assumptions. That would be a circular argument. And unfortunately, many of the attribution studies (at least the ones I've seen) are circular in this nature. Circular here, does not imply wrong, but they do not add additional knowledge. And no, you can not build confidence on circular confirmation.

Now, if you look carefully, those references do not purport to do that either. Usually, they phrase their results so that what they say is correct, and it applies only for the assumptions and premisses made. Which are the ones called in question by me here, and others.

But you are wrong on (at least) one more account:
Science as we today view it means that a scientist (and here I exclude everybody who needs to make up their own facts here, leaving only the real scientists) approaches a question, a phenomenon with true curiosity and tries to find an explanation for it, building on 1:st principles as much as at all possible. And offering a hypothetical quantified explaination for the remainder. Which may be fitted to observations. And with that hypothesis formulated, we claim that, if indeed correct, it should explain even more observations, and/or predict future outcomes.

So far, there is nothing wrong with this approach and climate science tries the same. You know, the CO2-hypothesis, the feedback assumptions, the cloud's function, the water vapor, as a dependant variable etc.

But, and this is important, such a proffered hypothesis, claiming to explain observations, is falsified the moment it cannot do that any more. Yes, you can delay that realisation behind 'noise levels' and error bars inferred by your hypothesis. But once it fails, it is falsified. Period! It is established that your hypothesis is **not** the explanation for the observations any more.

Yes, it still might contain relevant parts of the explaination (it usually does) but as a proposed explanatory hypothesis it is falsified, and that's the end of it.

Which means that you have missed one (or many) important factors which also are a part of the explaination.

You might be aware of that the aerosol cooling is such a post hoc hypothesis needed to modify the original CO2-hypothesis and its lare positive feedbacks. Note: This is still not wrong, it onlye weakens the originally offered hypothesis.

But, when, the now (combined) hypothesis once more fails, it is again falsified. And I mean falsified: It cannot any more be the explaination! The fact that the fit is very good for onetime interval, has no value, if it doesnt have it for all.

And this is where many of the GCM models fail. They are tuned to fit the indutrial era, and a little time before. And the 'attribution studies' we've seen manage that reasonably well. But unless those models work equally well for any chosen time interval, you should view them as falsified.

Now, what I say here is pretty basic understanding of what models can do. But probably mor controversial in this surrounding.

You have provided a reference which shows, that if the models are correct, if those three implemented forcings included are the relevant ones, if they are included to reasonably correct magnitude (and if all other excluded ones are minor, or favorably cancelling each other out) then the models can hindcast the temperatures. So far I'm with you. Then the different parts of those model simulations (GHG; SUL, NAT) are spearated and the fit to actual observations is identified, including a 'uncertainty factor' because there were only few models(!), and a quite standard package statistical fit was made for those separated (assumed additive) contributions to the observational data. And how well the different models could reproduce regionl/temporal different 'fingerprints' (of the three included mechanisms.

The reported certainty however is about that fitting procedure, and not the original attribution. And those are two different things. And the former still suffers from the fact that the models only can reproduce history in quite a narrow interval. And even more so since the forcasting has been poor (which is not an argument wrt to what was known 2007, ie the AR4 statement)

One final point:

People resorting to labels such as 'idiot', 'moron', 'stupid', 'denier/denialist' or temrs such as 'Exxon' 'right wing' 'think tank' 'fossil fuel' 'tobacco lobby' 'creationist' 'flat earth' etc rarely ever have any relevant points of their own. It has been the same here. If you think you have better arguments than them, you need to refrain from such use. Just a friendly reminder ...

And you are quite right, I "have not shown that those calculations and their distributions of confidence levels are in any way done incorrectly".. exactly because they do not, and don't even purport to do what I say is wrong with that AR4 SPM statement. (I know, you have claimed it is done properly, but what you have presented here points to the opposite.

And I hope you are (or at least become aware) of that ..

GSW drivelled @ #492
@chek, wow Listen to yourselves 486,481. You've just suggested that someone, who appears to be Swedish(?), has chosen to blog in english and is doing so purely to pass off errors as a problem with language!.

Ingvar's bloglist (which I was referring to but ain't gonna link to) is a paen to pseudoscience and quackery.
It's like a wall of dirty protest against the rational, the scientific, and the progressive.

That you find such trash defensible is completely unsurprising given your observed total lack of discrimination as long as you can classify such as an anti-AGW fellow traveller.

Pehr,

What is meant by validation and verification in that paper relates those terms to qualitative absolute truth statements. The word they prefer is confirmation, inferring relative validation, as in much better than a Wild Assed Guess. That is, they are not ever complete and perfect, but they nearly always have some usefulness, limits of which can be quantified.

None of this should be news to anyone who works with stochastic and non-linear dynamical processes in open systems. This paper is really a semantic argument, calling for a more rigorous use of terminology in __explaining__ what is known and what is unknown in science. It doesn't have any actual impact on what is known and what is not.

Much the same can be said of all Science. For example, many people believe Galileo proved, i.e., validated and verified Kepler's heliocentric model of the solar system. He didn't. His strongest piece of evidence, the phases of Venus, only suggested that the other planets circled the Sun. It could still be argued that the whole Universe, with the Planets following their Kepler orbits, might be wheeling around the Earth every 24 hours. It was only when Newton combined Kepler's orbits and Galileo's studies of falling terrestrial bodies in a unified theory of motion and gravity that a credible explanatory mechanism for the heliocentric theory was established. Empirical confirmation of which was only established by launching satellites.

And we all knew by then the Newtonian Model was also inherently flawed, incomplete and imperfect, don't we?

Cheek, to anyone reading your crap, it becomes obvious that you think and act with the lower hemispheres. You need to shape up and get some scientific posture.

Dear me, I'm hardly crushed that you think so, Olaus.

Still, I expect that's at least marginally better than emitting from the lower orifices, like the visiting Jonas' massive.

@chek 518

You may very well be right about the blog site, I don't know, I haven't looked, he can be an avid smurf fan for all I care.

But suggesting someone is sly using english on the internet, rather than their native tongue, in some fiendish plan to cover up errors , is, is .... stark raving bonkers.

When you get to start thinking conspiratorial things like that I would suggest going and standing outside in the fresh air for 10 minutes. You'll be in a (hopefully) better mental state when you return.

GSW #522

:-)

When you are loosing an argument!

This is the first time I`m taking part of a on going debate about global warming on the internet. And I have to say that Im very surpised to see the level of emotions attacks and ad hominems as well as guilt by associations.
I was under the impression that this was supposed to be a scientific discussion but obviously it`s not.

What especially surprises me is that the representatives of the established climate science who Ive expected to stand up and defend climate science with scientific arguments isn`t.

I hold an Phd in rhetoric but I would never use that as an argument to be right r the best on my subject, but obviously there are participants here who think that should be enough to earn trust and gain authority, but clearly its not enough.

Jonas seems to have gone through details on the subject and has found nothing to support the claims by the established climate science to make him comfortable. I`ve tried to catch up o the controvercy concerning M Manns hockeystick and my impression is that the critics have very valid arguments. The best explanation I found for a layman as my self was this presentation of a R Muller.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk

So now I wonder why spokes persons of climate science defends instead of rejects M Manns behavior and why didnt the climate science takes this oportunity to clean up the mistrust that followed- How can that build trust and gain confidence ?

I simply dont understand what the logic or strategy is supposed to be here! Denial of the hockeystick circumstances can not possbly be a winning strategy.

I think the best arguments is coming from the sceptics here and Jonas N has earned a lot af points (to my dissapointment) in his way to argue and present his case.
Maby Im turning to be more of a sceptic myself.

Anyone interested to give me a reasonable answer?

2 polite posting rejected. Smiley got in. ?

Someone who claims to have a PhD in rhetoric should be able to recognize how dishonest Jonas' writing is. So is Anders S one of Jonas' buddies or a sock puppet?

Guys, you need to step it up. It's getting really embarrassing.

We are only interested in science

Lie.

So please start talking science and avoid profanities.

Ah yes, tone trolling. A sure sign you have no argument. You'd totally show us if only we weren't such meanies, right?

Someone said that Jonas N [...] would be worthy a [sic] Noble prize. Sorry to say, but the only Noble prize that is in reach for CAGWists, is the Noble peace price. On the other hand, Jonas N is not a CAGWist, so there might be an opening here. ;-)

Incoherent, and a lie. If you could disprove AGW, you'd be the first in line.

Also, it's the Nobel prize. For crying out loud idiot, you even manage to get the name of one of your most famous compatriots wrong three times in a row? Do you really expect to be taken seriously?

I though we finally had an understanding here, all of us agreeing that the 90-something figure was an educated guess.

If by "educated" you mean "the only projection that fits the evidence", sure. You sure harp on semantics for someone with such a feeble grasp of the English language and science, though. You might want to watch that, it's becoming a bit too obvious that such harping is all you have.

Anyway, back to Jonas.

Jonas, thank you for that wall of text that demonstrates AGAIN that you have no idea how model validation works. No need to address that further, it's an excellent reference.

People resorting to labels such as 'idiot', 'moron', 'stupid', 'denier/denialist' or temrs such as 'Exxon' 'right wing' 'think tank' 'fossil fuel' 'tobacco lobby' 'creationist' 'flat earth' etc rarely ever have any relevant points of their own.

How we talk to you has nothing to do with the validity of our arguments. You can take your tone trolling and put it where the sun does not shine, thank you very much.

If you think you have better arguments than them, you need to refrain from such use. Just a friendly reminder ...

So you come on this blog with your vapid whining and then deem to tell us we're not being nice enough to you? Jonas, if grown-ups calling you on your bovine excrement is too much for you to handle, I suggest you take your ball and go home in order to protect your fragile little soul.

For that matter, someone who claims to have a PhD in rhetoric should be a better writer.

GSW @522
I think you'll find that your 'point' is 99% fantasy.
But go ahead and show I'm wrong ... if you can.

stu wrote:

How we talk to you has nothing to do with the validity of our arguments. You can take your tone trolling and put it where the sun does not shine, thank you very much.

Jeeesus! what is wrong with people here?

luminous beauty

Thank you for your view on Oreskes' et al paper.

I am somewhat sceptical to that paper considering essential differences compared to what Easterbrook is writing (see the link in chek's comment above).

Easterbrook also provided this summary:

âSummary: It is a mistake to think that validation is a post-hoc process to be applied to an individual âfinishedâ model to ensure it meets some criteria for fidelity to the real world. In reality, there is no such thing as a finished model, just many different snapshots of a large set of model configurations, steadily evolving as the science progresses. And fidelity of a model to the real world is impossible to establish, because the models are approximations. In reality, climate models are tools to probe our current theories about how climate processes work. Validity is the extent to which climate models match our current theories, and the extent to which the process of improving the models keeps up with theoretical advancesâ.

So the climate models are tools that probe our theories how clouds influence climate change. But so far the theoretical understanding of cloud processes is poor. The same could be said about natural variability. This suggests that climate models now should be used to probe various theories for cloud processes and natural variability in order to develop a better understanding of those climate processes.

But how can the climate models be valid for a complete theory of the climate when such essential parts as cloud processes and natural variability are not yet sufficiently understood?

Isn't it premature to rely on projections of models where essential parts of the climate processes are not based on an acceptable level of theoretical understanding?

Oh what a shocker, another heavily spelling-challenged Swede rolls in. Anders, if you're still at

I`ve tried to catch up o the controvercy concerning M Manns hockeystick

you really have a lot more catching up to do. Try searching this blog for "Mann" and/or "hockey stick" and get back to us.

Isn't it premature to rely on projections of models where essential parts of the climate processes are not based on an acceptable level of theoretical understanding?

Not if they work, no. Besides: got something better?

luminous 513

Trying this entry again, previous did not get in

Thanks for a civil answer. I have mostly got non civil answers or comments

Jeeesus! what is wrong with people here?

Whining about people not being nice enough is a very old and tired tactic to distract from the actual discussion. It's called tone trolling, and is heavily frowned upon.

@chek

Sorry chek, it was wow 481. You were merely stating that he couldn't get away with it as his english was quite good(?) chek 486

Can some people here refrain from making an issue of how people spell in the English language?

IT IS COMPLETELY BESIDE THE POINT!!

I bet the foreign speaking people posting on this blog are better at English than their critics here are at any foreign language.

Its just stupid stupid stupid ad hominem

503 Stu,

What, Jonas is doing this somewhere else as well? Which blog is it?

BTW I never guessed that English is not your first language.

stu

Isn't it the theoretical understanding that the model is based on that makes it reliable?

For a model based on less theoretical understanding and more of empirical knowledge based on curve fitting it is essential to get continuous feedback from observations and experiments in each stage in the model development process.

How much of such continuous feedback is feasible in climate model development considering that the necessary climate observations have time scales of hundred years and should be spatially distributed all around the globe from the bottom of the ocean to the top of the atmosphere?

stu!
-----
How we talk to you has nothing to do with the validity of our arguments. You can take your tone trolling and put it where the sun does not shine, thank you very much.
-----
-------
Whining about people not being nice enough is a very old and tired tactic to distract from the actual discussion. It's called tone trolling, and is heavily frowned upon.
-------

Quite funny!

@Ingvar

"Whining about people not being nice enough is a very old and tired tactic to distract from the actual discussion."

I know it looks like a joke, with all the abuse being thrown about, but I think stu was actually being serious.

;)

Can some people here refrain from making an issue of how people spell in the English language?

No, I can not. Please read #498. It's rude. I bothered to learn the language so I can make myself understood; it's not rocket science. Again, I'm not asking for perfect prose here -- it's just that having to read things like "Im" over and over grates and slows down reading.

Its just stupid stupid stupid ad hominem

No, it is not. At no point did I dismiss an argument because of poor spelling, I noted it because it was blatant and repetitive. Again, please read #498.

By the way #1: it's rude to jump in a thread without reading it.

By the way #2: It's not "Its", it's "It's", as in the contraction of "It" and "is". You're welcome.

Ingvar, GSW: do yourself a favor and look up tone trolling. You're completely missing the point, and it's getting a bit painful to witness.

Pehr:

Firstly, the current climate models do have quite a bit of theoretical understanding in them (this is not Wall Street curve fitting). They are not perfect, and never will be: it is impossible to write a fully theoretically underpinned model of an inherently chaotic system.

However, with the best of our current understanding, very sophisticated models have been created -- based on measured data, projected data and mathematical models of interactions between many, many factors. To see if they work, for starters, you can "roll back" and see if their projections match observed data.

They do.

So what would convince you? A mathematical model that predicts the movement of every molecule on the planet?

Pehr, here is a good place to start.

@stu

"So what would convince you? A mathematical model that predicts the movement of every molecule on the planet?"

Of course not, I'd settle for a model that did a half way decent job of 'predicting' future climate before it happened, as opposed the absolutely fabulous job they do years after. ;)

Jonas,

>The practice to fit them to observations (yes, that is what is done wrt to the various forcings)

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. They are not fits. This is a term implying the time series of observed forcings are statistically regressed against the observed temperature time series. This would be a statistical model. Yes, that would be a circular argument, but GCMs are not statistical models. They are physical models. Instead observed forcings are inputs used to iteratively calculate finite solutions to multiple sets of non-linear differential equations of well understood and empirically established scientific principles and observations (First principles is a philosophical term hung-over from Neo-Platonism and Scholasticism, a time when it was believed the Truth of Natural Philosophy could be deduced from Perfected Ideal Concepts, or, otherwise, prove the existence of God. A mind-set that persists among certain kinds of political theorists. Any one who uses that term concerning modern science, should be instantly recognized as poorly informed). These simulations are completely independent of the temperature record. __They are not statistical fits__, no way, no how. If you cannot understand the difference, there is no hope for you.

>...is not wrong in it self[sic], but it does not constitute a confirmation of the model assumptions.

Of course not. That is done in other studies which are cited in support of these studies. See Chap 8.

>Then the different parts of those model simulations (GHG; SUL, NAT) are spearated[sic] and the fit to actual observations is identified...

Again, you fail to understand what is being done. These are not parts of simulations, these are multiple separate individual realizations in which the various forcings are combined or withheld, as __inputs__.

>You might be aware of that the aerosol cooling is such a post hoc hypothesis needed to modify the original CO2-hypothesis and its lare[sic] positive feedbacks.

No, I'm not aware of such. You have references? Or is this just more exercise for your wrists? I do know the radiative physics of NOx in aerial suspension is well understood. Likewise, the stratospheric effects from explosive volcanoes. I know theoretical studies were done as far back as the 1970's and included in the Charney and JASON reports and empirical studies under the rubric of global dimming have proceeded apace. I know there are large uncertainties in the size of secondary effects (formation of water droplets) but little uncertainty in their sign. Particulates is another matter. What do you know?

>And this is where many of the GCM models fail. They are tuned to fit the indutrial[sic] era, and a little time before. And the 'attribution studies' we've seen manage that reasonably well. But unless those models work equally well for any chosen time interval, you should view them as falsified.

Some very, very few empirically derived parameters are 'adjustable', but not tuned to fit anything. The nature of the adjustment made has to be based on some physical reasoning. Their impact on the overall outputs of GCMs is not as great as one might think.

[Amazingly](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6.html), they work pretty damn well over the last [1000 years.](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/fig614.html) Need we go into studies that show climate models' utility in constraining temperature changes to known attributed forcings during the inter-glacial and glacial periods of the Pleistocene, the PETM, snowball earth, or other climatic variations in Earth's deep past?

Not falsified.

And even more so since the forcasting[sic] has been poor (which is not an argument wrt to what was known [in] 2007, ie[sic] the AR4 statement)

Horsecrap. Even Hansen's 1988 scenario B model predictions haven't been falsified to date. And the flux adjustments in that relatively primitive model are known to overstate sensitivity.

>One final point:

>People resorting to labels such as 'idiot', 'moron', 'stupid', 'denier/denialist' or temrs[sic] such as 'Exxon' 'right wing' 'think tank' 'fossil fuel' 'tobacco lobby' 'creationist' 'flat earth' etc rarely ever have any relevant points of their own. It has been the same here. If you think you have better arguments than them, you need to refrain from such use. Just a friendly reminder ...[sic]

Thomas Jefferson said, "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them." I, and I am certain, others here, find your propositions and ideas to consist in the main of vague and unsupported assertions combined with ignorant opinion, little more than gibberish. In other words, you really have no arguments. You should be thankful I have the time and patience to address the specifics of your witless maunderings. So the ridicule you must bear. The misspellings, typos and distorted syntax don't help much either. Use preview and edit yourself. Just a friendly suggestion.

So as not to insult actual idiots, who can't help their ignorance, I've tried to restrict my personal use for you to the term 'willful idiot', which for many reasons I have explained thoroughly, the shoe fits you well. As for your sycophantic chorus, sock-puppets or whatever they may be, the term 'useful idiots' comes to mind. You don't particularly like the terms 'denialist' and 'denier'? Well if someone is so obviously in denial, and you are (yes, you are!), what terms would you prefer? In my part of the world, we have a saying, "You can call me anything, just don't call me late for supper!" I suggest you grow a pair. Just a friendly suggestion.

luminous, don't you just FEEL Freeman Dyson quotes coming? I'm sure there'll be some uninformed banter about flux adjustments and pre-emptive pooh-poohing of Hansen 1988 thrown in. If there's a link to ClimateAudit in there I call bingo right now.

Look, there's absolutely no point discussing confidence levels with Jonas - he's in denial as to the physical properties of CO2:

>the term 'trapping heat' is more appropriate for propaganda nonsense by failed ex VP politicians, directed at scaring kids

Clearly, by arguing confidence levels with him, you're putting the cart before the horse.

As for Olaus, he seems strangely reticent to giving a straight answer - *CO2 has certain well-established physical properties which act to trap outgoing heat*.
Why can't Olaus just say, "Yes, that's true"?

@LB

>>The practice to fit them to observations (yes, that is what is done >>wrt to the various forcings)

>Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. They are not fits.

Jonas is correct but he perhaps didn't use the right word. Models are 'calibrated' to give the best 'fit' to past observations. There is a difference, but the end result is the effectively the same.

But you knew that LB, didn't you?

;)

Uninformed banter about flux adjustments: check.

GSW: care to address Hansen's 1988 numbers?

stu

I am convinced that climate models are useful for the purpose of developing theory of climate processes as emphasized by Easterbrook. However, I am skeptical to the usage of climate models for projections, not in principle but in the way those projections currently are used. The empirical components in the models together with the associated tuning of parameters is a weakness which has not even been sufficiently emphasized in the reports of IPCC. This has led to an overconfidence in climate model simulations of a future climate (this view is based on a lecture by a professor who is a specialist in climate modelling).

I think that the view that has been propagated for some years on climate is a simplistic one. This might lead to bad decisions. There is a danger that drastic climate changes in the near future are assumed without any support from robust science resulting in an unacceptable waste of resources. We could for example end up in a transition to insufficient energy systems unable to cope with natural extremes such as unusually cold winters (in case of Sweden).

On the other hand I think that a long term slowly progressing climate warming is supported by theory, observations and model results. This must be closely monitored although it is difficult to see significant harmful effects during the next 50 â 100 years in Sweden. Hence, in our case in Sweden, coping with possible harmful effects abroad is a matter of international solidarity.

@Stu 549

Ok, they're crap.

You see Stu, GSW doesn't know about Hansen's scenario B because such things are overlooked at denial central. But then back at GSW HQ, Montford doesn't even know the Earth orbits the sun, giving rise to the long polar night. Perhaps a 'Galileo' moment might in this case actually do the pair of them some good.

@#539 "from the bottom of the ocean to the top of the atmosphere"?

You're a bit out of your depth. The top 700m of ocean is where the action is. Any deeper and you're merely fishing to impress.

@chek

You're back! that was a lot longer than 10 minutes though, feeling 'normal'?

@553

Ok, perhaps not.

;)

This must be closely monitored although it is difficult to see significant harmful effects during the next 50 â 100 years in Sweden.

You do see that the next 50-100 years would have significant harmful effects elsewhere, right? Places where a lot of people live right now? What do you think these people are going to eat? Where do you think these people are going to go?

GSW: thank you for showing us the depth of your insight.

@stu

Thanks stu. Remember, you only have to ask.

;)

Stu 557,

It is necessary to know where and when the problems will occur. It is very important to do the right things in the form of adaption and mitigation. Both too much and too little may cause serious damage and result in serious loss of resources. Solving the problems is a matter of international solidarity, as I already mentioned.

Olaus Petri:

So please start talking science

Obviously you're not really interested in the science otherwise you would point out the scientific journal that supports your assertion.

chek 554,

Check the new paper from NCAR in Nature Climate Change.

It seems to me that Jonas N has gone from arguing that climatologists did not actually do the work to calculate ranges of human-caused warming, and therefore are liars and f-r-a-u-d-s, to now claiming that the methods they used are wrong, or otherwise inappropriate.

By his own moving of the goal-posts, he disproves his own original premise.

Jonas N loses.

[Anders S](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5291120).

You seem to be all excited and sweaty about Richard Muller. Do you mean [this Richard Muller](http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Muller.htm)?

Or [this one](http://www.skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=richard+muller+misinf…)?

You must mean [the Richard Muller whom Peter Sinclair showcases from 9:15 onward in this video](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Us&feature=youtu.be). Watch the whole video, because the second half is all about Muller, and the first half sets the stage for the second...

["Ingvar Engelbrecht" said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5291500):

>Can some people here refrain from making an issue of how people spell in the English language?

>IT IS COMPLETELY BESIDE THE POINT!!

>I bet the foreign speaking people posting on this blog are better at English than their critics here are at any foreign language.

>Its [sic] just stupid stupid stupid ad hominem

The spelling issue is not actually beside the point, because there is a peculiar consistency of mis-spelling amongst some of the Swedish trolls who have manifested on this thread. Just as there is with their shared preoccupation about what they perceive (incorrectly, as it happens) as ad hominem attacks, and just as there is with their similarly-peculiar fawning over the original troll Jonas N. As was noted above, there is a weird timing issue occurring also, and even the nature of the styles of their posts seems to roll over in the same pattern.

Everyone makes spelling mistakes. It's when different people keep making the same sort of spelling mistakes that it looks suspicious, and that it merits comment. Either most of the Swedes here are socks, or they all attended the same school for learning English and Bastardising Science.

[Stu](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5288208).

I'd always assumed that you were a native Australian!

Bernard J #564

What an interesting piece of logic! If that is representative for your way of thinking/reasoning it sure explain many other things.

stu

Demanding perfect spelling and complaining when it is not done must be a sure way of keeping people that does not have English as their native language out of this blog. I am sure there are many scientists in the world that is cabable of good, not perfect English.

And for the record. Me, Jonas, Olaus and Pehr are 4 distinctive persons. I do not know them personally, I assume they are Swedish or at least Scandinavian.

So the numerology about postings is just an indication of a a higly conspirative way of thinking.

Or maybe this is a club only for likeminded warmists?

Pehr #551
I don't think anybody would claim that climate models are as good as they need to be, but that does not mean they have no value. Scientists aren't the only users of models - every aspect of mass society is now dependent on them and they generally do a good job within their limitations.

Besides, what is the alternative - seaweed, chicken entrails or crystal balls? I'm sure every climate modeller wants to improve how their model performs. The current global pressure to reduce public spending probably means little chance of that, particularly with entities such as the Koch brothers using their ill-gotten petroleum speculation profits to bankroll numbers of goons such as Rick Perry to subvert government into not recognising there is a problem.

Arctic amplification of global warming is well known, and with changing dynamics within the system, meteorological disturbances are to be expected. However I'm not aware that anyone predicted the jet stream shift that gave those of us in northern Europe our last two cold winters. There were periods when it was 10-15 degrees warmer in Greenland than here in the UK last December, for instance.

What does seem plain is that whether AGW produces local effects such as more intense and more widespread droughts, heavier and more frequent floods, longer heatwaves or even colder winters, the best policy would be to tackle the root cause. Mitigation would likely be a hyra-headed, piecemeal firefight and geo-engineering a potential disaster waiting to happen.

Even if this generation does not experience the intended benefits of such policies (and there may be unintended benefits such as better air quality) we know from the models that worse effects will come from a melting arctic observed to be releasing sublimated methane with worse GHG properties than CO2 in ever increasing amounts.

luminous #545

The models have lots of parameters describing various physical phenomena, ad hoc assumed assumptions and relationships etc. These are fitted to match various observations. I already described that, I didn't mean, I never said that GCMs were by themselves where statistical regressions and used for 'predictions (clippo made such 'arguments'), I stated the contrary, and you know it. (clippo made such 'arguments').

If you misunderstand what I said, it's OK to ask, but if you must distort things to make (rather 'save') your point, you've already lost the argument.

>These are not parts of simulations, these are multiple separate individual realizations in which the various forcings are combined or withheld, as inputs

That's what I said, and that what it says in the paper. But since you now seem to agree with me (you are mostly picking at wordings) that the model simulation runs by them selves don't (and cannot) confirm the validity of the underlying physical assumptions, and what is more important: that they cannot acertain that all relevant mechanisms are properly captured and included, and you now claim this is done in ch8, it seems as if you are abandoning your first position and the paper you linked.

Regarding aerosols, you seem to confuse 'known of' or' addressed' with 'well understood', a quite common misconception wrt climate understandning. It suffices to see how the models all overstated the [Mt Pinatubo eruption cooling](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.143.4131&rep=r…) Fig 1a.

And yes, Thomas Jefferson was a great individual, I don't presume you are trying to compare yourself with him. Your 'riduculing' has mostly been about typos, syntac, and an feeble posturing about Navier Stokes. And looking back, you must feel that various ad homs indeed somehow bolster your stance. Although I cannot see how.

Many here are quite cabable of ridiculing themselves, and I reckon you draw your 'support' here among those. Please, be my guest! Might I just remind you of the following statement in #334:

>it is very unlikely that any of the warming since the mid 20th Century is due to non-anthropogenic causes

And that Jeff H found thousands of supporting references (he didn't even need to read) and you proved it with a Google serach? Wow, just wow ...

;-)

Anders S #525

I am sorry to have disappointed you, but how did I manage that?

@chek 568

I don't think anyone has a problem with models being an effective 'academic tool'; investigating near-term climatic interactions, performing 'thought' experiments etc.

The difficulty is, and this returns to one of Olaus' points earlier, the field is primarily driven (the high profile bit we choose to fund) to predict the climate 50-100yrs from now, which is in all likelihood impossible to do with any degree of 'useful' certainty.

Returning even closer to Jonas original point; the IPCC has a vested interest in a) maintaining CAGW theory as at least plausable b) selling reliability of climate model forecasts c) plugging gaps with 'expert' opinion.

So climate models are useful tools, yes, but there is no 'absolute truth' revealed in them, they are just an expression of our current understanding of how the planet works. Claiming we know enough to say what the climate will be 100yrs from now is pure hubris.

@Jonas

And I thought you were Anders S#525!

;)

Marco #512

I am fully aware of what science is, and even more so how it is conducted properly (the problem is rather that many here, are not, probably coming from 'soft science' backgrounds). But I would not call every attempt to assess reality as "guesswork" of similar or compareable value.

As I said, you follow proper methodology and you may possibly progress (but slowly) and sort out errors, misconceptions, failed hypotheses etc, as you go.

Thanks for noting (acknowledging?) my pointers re attribution and certainty. And of course: every comment I make is a 'simplification' of what we are talking about. And I might both spell and phrase it poorly at times (which however cannot be usedd as proof that others are right, although this is frequently attempted).

I am fully aware of the spatial patterns, I have commented upon it twice now, and I'd think it is a viable method to improve the refine the hypothesis and models. But it does not, repeat not, an affirmation of the underlying hypothesis.

You are correct that the polar regions should heat more than the tropics. But that is actually true for many sources of warming, eg if it were due to changes in cloud cover, and humidity.

As you (might?) remember, I don't have a problem with the AGW-hypothseis per se (but the CAGW-versions of it). And CO2 should have a warming effect, most clearly observable when it is dry, and cold, that is at night, clear skies, and as you say, more visoble in northern regions. And that is actually observed. But to go from there, to that

1. CO2 controls the climate, to a substantial degree, and
2. CO2, through its marginal heating, causes large positive feedbacks through (mainly) water vapor ...

.. that requires many and huge steps to be identified and taken, and on the way proven correct and properly captured wrt magnitude. And I am saying that we are nowhere close to that. Even if others are convinced that these hypotheses indeed are the final and correct ones, that only minor detlais remain.

But what is missing, is not minor. And it is not the phrasing of the AR4 attribution claim. This just happend to be what has caused three weeks of kerfuffle here, when I pointed it out ... Once that dust settles, there are more problematic parts of the hypothesis worht discussing

(The sad thing though, is that this seems to be the absolute least interest among many, my persona seems much more fascinating. Have youy noticed how many others started to imagine me behind a number of other signatures too? Incidentally, the same people who claim cairvoyant capabilities in other fields as well, and with comparable success ;-)

@Jonas

"The sad thing though, is that this seems to be the absolute least interest among many, my persona seems much more fascinating."

Well, you are an interesting character Jonas (as I've said before). All the abuse thats been hurled around you, the patronizing comments and pejorative remarks from the usual ideological bullies, you kept to the point were making, and you made it!

Just under 600 comments on your own thread, you're still standing, no-one knocked you down! Thats something just on its own!

Also something I thought would never happen - Jeff H has gone off to find out about science!

Jonas @ 569:

The models have lots of parameters describing various physical phenomena, ad hoc assumed assumptions and relationships etc. These are fitted to match various observations.

I am not aware of these ad hoc assumed assumptions and relationships. Please could you elaborate?
@573:

I don't have a problem with the AGW-hypothseis per se (but the CAGW-versions of it).

Again, please could you give an example of a CAGW version, with a citation?

GSW @571. Very lame.
The fake sceptic collectives have only one realistic option - produce better models.
Which we all know ain't gonna happen.

Well, well,Stu, wow etc. Have you yet again abondon our common ground? I though we could agree on the fact that the 90(-95)% was an opiniated geusswork in an effort to please politicians and ideologist?

Apparently the figure has the same scientific foundation as the magic CGAW buzz-words stating that 500 millions will lack freshwater during dry season if the galciers melts away.

The sience that backs it up is as hard to find as the Yeti. The footprints that are claimed to be the proof of its existance are often enough of anthropogenic origin though. ;-)

(Omnibus reply)

Demanding perfect spelling and complaining when it is not done must be a sure way of keeping people that does not have English as their native language out of this blog. I am sure there are many scientists in the world that is cabable of good, not perfect English.

Did you actually not #499, or just fail to comprehend it?

That's not just a lie, but a very, very dumb one on several fronts. First, we're talking about whoppers such as repeated use of "Im" that an evening with Rosetta Stone Level I would fix; second, near-perfect spelling is easily achieved by using free spell-checking tools and paying attention to the red squiggly lines, hardly an intellectual challenge; and third, even I was able to master the language for crying out loud. So you're talking about the subset of scientists that are A) smart enough to contribute to climate science yet B) too dense to use a spell-checker.

Most of you fall into category B only. Would you like some help in getting a spell-checker up and running?

And looking back, you must feel that various ad homs indeed somehow bolster your stance.

Sweetheart, I will say this one more time: you do not know what the ad hominem fallacy is. Please stop using the term.

It suffices to see how the models all overstated the Mt Pinatubo eruption cooling Fig 1a.

You look at those graphs and choose to whine about Pinatubo? That's a new low, Jonas.

So climate models are useful tools, yes, but there is no 'absolute truth' revealed in them, they are just an expression of our current understanding of how the planet works.

Umm yes. That's how science works. If science had 'absolute truth', it would stop (@1:50). Meanwhile, you are saying that you're more than happy to let the climate change unfettered because even though the models are right about mean temperature rise, there are error bars.

Have youy noticed how many others started to imagine me behind a number of other signatures too?

Yes, how could we think such a thing. A sudden influx of like-minded people from the same country with the same language deficiencies. This could have been prevented if you had only warned us that you were calling in your sycophant club.

And it is not the phrasing of the AR4 attribution claim. This just happend to be what has caused three weeks of kerfuffle here, when I pointed it out ... Once that dust settles, there are more problematic parts of the hypothesis worht discussing

Yes it was Jonas, that was your entire original point. You're moving the goalposts AGAIN. You might want to tell GSW:

you kept to the point were making, and you made it!

Which one, GSW? He's on at least his third "main" point now, after the vapidity of the first few became too embarrassing.

So, Jonas, still no discussion of flux adjustments? Or is that a little too specific and falsifiable for you? So far, you seem to be the only one smart enough to stay firmly in the realm of vague hand-waving.

I though we could agree on the fact that the 90(-95)% was an opiniated geusswork in an effort to please politicians and ideologist?

Asked and answered at #528, the 90-95% is the result of toning down by politicians and ideologists. Stop trolling. And for crying out loud, download a browser with spell-checking and pay attention to the squiggly lines.

I do hope Tim has some time to do an IP check on the collective here, because we're either dealing with a frantically sock-puppeting sociopath who is starting to slip up, or there's a national mandate in Sweden to add smileys to everything, tween LJ-style.

@stu

Ah stu, the chewbacca defense (look it up sweetheart x x x).

I don't know which redefinition of "ad hominem" you subscribe to, but our Swedish friends seem to have a better grasp of the meaning of it than you do.

I can only surmise that education in Sweden is demonstrably better than where you originate from.

;)

GSW, for all your fawning support, Jonas' ongoing D-K syndrome is a failure of understanding, not some triumph of the will agaiunst all adversity to be praised as you seem to think.
Nor is adding your own misunderstanding of the term argumentum ad hominem a voting mechanism to make the incorrect right.

Chek:
"Nor is adding your own misunderstanding of the term argumentum ad hominem a voting mechanism to make the incorrect right."

A voting mechanism!!? Is THAT your definition?

How about the more common? (from Wikipedia) "An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man", "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it."

My non-scientific quess is that 99,87% of all users of the term will go for the wiki-definition.

Poor stu little. What a drama-queen. Him barking like a rabid Paris Hilton dog doesn't improve his case either. Anyone reading this thread, which probably is one of the most read in Deltoid's history, can now see how poorly stu and his CAGW-brats are doing. Naked to the skin and more and more aware of it.

@Jonas,Olaus,

jag ser att du också har skoj!

;)

@GSW

Naturlement! :-)

The sectarian mentality among the CAGW-brats is titanic. Soon it will hit the bottom, honors to a greenlandic iceberg from the scientific Times Atlas. ;-)

GFreeman: Will you please pay attention? No, it is not his definition, please notice the word "Nor" that starts the sentence. Also, notice the word "by" in the Wikipedia definition. We've pointed out that the denialists are wrong, and that they are morons who cannot spell -- not that they are wrong because they are morons who cannot spell.

(To the point where they cannot even be counted on to consistently get their own name right -- see 583 and 585, for instance).

Det dunkelt sagda är det dunkelt tänkta, Olaus.

Time to let the smiley-brigade crawl back under their bridge.

Jonas,

>The models have lots of parameters describing various physical phenomena, ad hoc assumed assumptions and relationships etc. These are fitted to match various observations.

The models have a small number of adjustable parameters; >10 out of hundreds. If you think that is best quantified as 'lots of parameters' you are welcome to your opinion, but in my opinion that makes you a willful idiot.

One example; Falling raindrops don't fall at an accelerating rate of 9.8 m/s2, so much of the energy from g forces is transferred to the atmosphere. Until very recently there were no useful theoretical models of raindrops that could give a realistic result of how much of that absorbed energy was translated into heat from friction and how much into downward wind sheer. Experiments and in situ observations were conducted to derive an empirical formula. As in all empirical observations, there are instrumental errors and errors in measurement that make these formulas 'adjustable' within realistic bounds.

Could you explain, in this context, what you mean by 'ad hoc assumed assumptions? It seems you're saying the use of reasonably approximated and empirically confirmed adjustable parameters is something modelers just pull out of their butts, lacking any careful physical reasoning, making GCMs for all extents and purposes useless. Have I got that right? I'm saying they add realistic information that makes them more complete and more useful. Am I being clear enough?

>If you misunderstand what I said, it's OK to ask, but if you must distort things to make (rather 'save') your point, you've already lost the argument.

It's not my place to apologize for your use of vague and ambiguous language.

>>These are not parts of simulations, these are multiple separate individual realizations in which the various forcings are combined or withheld, as inputs

>That's what I said, and that what it says in the paper.

No, you said, "__Then__ the __different parts__ of those model simulations (GHG; SUL, NAT) __are spearated[sic]__...
' which reads as if there were only simulations done with all forcings and the various distinct forcings were somehow magically extracted from from those simulations.

It's not my place to apologize for your use of vague and ambiguous language

>But since you now seem to agree with me (you are mostly picking at wordings) that the model simulation runs by them selves don't (and cannot) confirm the validity of the underlying physical assumptions...

Of course not. The validity of conservation of momentum and energy have been well established since Newton. The validity of empirical observations is confirmed by empirical measurements. It is not the purpose of models to confirm the underlying science. You _are_ a willful idiot.

>...and what is more important: that they cannot acertain that all relevant mechanisms are properly captured and included, and you now claim this is done in ch8, it seems as if you are abandoning your first position and the paper you linked.

I make no such claim, though they certainly capture enough of the relevant mechanisms to make them useful. No model will ever perfectly and completely capture every microscopic detail of the real world, nor to replicate it with a one to one correspondence. Such a model would require computing power exceeding the total information content of the universe. How useful they are, however, can be confirmed and quantified. This is the subject of Chap. 8. To think this is a necessary condition for any paper that uses GCMs is incredibly stupid. You are a willful idiot.

>Regarding aerosols, you seem to confuse 'known of' or' addressed' with 'well understood', a quite common misconception wrt climate understandning.[sic] It suffices to see how the models all overstated the Mt Pinatubo eruption cooling Fig 1a.

I admit to being more of a technician than a research scientist, so I'm more interested in what works than being able to explain every damn detail perfectly and precisely on a purely theoretical basis. GCMs work pretty damn well, even if they under- or over-estimate certain phenomena. The important thing is that they realistically simulate those phenomena. I have no problem with compensating those under- or over-estimations with scaling factors to make them more realistic. Is that your problem? Why? It turns out that whether one uses those scaling factors or not has virtually no effect on the trend analysis.

>And yes, Thomas Jefferson was a great individual, I don't presume you are trying to compare yourself with him.

I'm glad you refrain from making presumptions about that. Now if only you could refrain from making ridiculous presumptions about climate science. As if you couldn't tell, I am comparing you to those he was criticizing.

>Your 'riduculing'[sic] has mostly been about typos, syntac,[sic] and an feeble posturing about Navier Stokes.

You're projecting again.

> And looking back, you must feel that various ad homs indeed somehow bolster your stance. Although I cannot see how.

Yes. Because when you make ridiculous, erroneous and poorly supported propositions couched in vague and ambiguous language, believing by doing so you are actually making a coherent argument, then it adds clarity and focus to emphasize that makes you a willful idiot. Note that is not an ad hom fallacy, which would be to say that because you are a willful idiot, what you say is wrong. Stu and others have pointed out this simple rule of logic repeatedly on this thread, yet it doesn't seem to sink in. Could this be because you are a willful idiot?

>Many here are quite cabable[sic] of ridiculing themselves, and I reckon you draw your 'support' here among those. Please, be my guest! Might I just remind you of the following statement in #334:

>>it is very unlikely that any of the warming since the mid 20th Century is due to non-anthropogenic causes

>And that Jeff H found thousands of supporting references (he didn't even need to read) and you proved it with a Google serach[sic]? Wow, just wow ...

The point being made wasn't that all those papers are supporting references for my statement, but that there are thousands of papers in the literature that deal with or touch upon the subject of climate attribution.

Jeff Harvey's original statement was "Yes, its found in >1,000 papers in the empirical literature as well as in the IPCC reports. Now be a good boy and look them up for yourself." The operative words being 'found in'.

I was merely confirming that there are, indeed, thousands of related papers in the empirical literature.

You are the one that leapt to the presumption that __all__ those papers supported my proposition. I only made the claim my proposition was well supported by at least one paper referenced in WGI Chap. 9, which you may recall was the challenge you brought. A challenge, which I might add, has been not just met, but exceeded. QED, despite your ignorant quibbling and dissembling about the efficacy of models; a subject of which you obviously have only the most superficial knowledge and apparently cribbed from denialist blather.

You aren't the first Internet Galileo to come galloping in here with your precious blog-science thinking he would lay waste to the barbarians with his superior intellect, and ending up screaming bloody murder about how he doesn't get the respect he deserves.

Au contraire. You are getting precisely the respect you deserve. Idiot.

Correct stu, indeed your ability to express the science underpinning 90-95% are very lightweight, hence your scientific mind are on the same end of the scale. According to you, that is. ;-)

As long as you are nothing more than a feeble minded IPCC-groupie, you will never be able to remove the blindfolds of dogma (to see beyond the unscientific doctrins surrounding the CAGW-church). You talk and act like a religious nut. Keep on with the heavy hitting grammar and spelling charges though. They only enforce how little you have to say on the matter at hand.

Hello Vikings!

There is a saying. I will rephrase it a bit.
Never argue with xxxx people. They drag you down on their level and win on sheer experience.

Never mind that. I will get down to their level. I know I cant win there but its just for the record

I have never been on a forum where so many have been so outright rude. There must be a reason for that. Maybe they can't (look I made a "'"!) take opposition, especially not from some ugly vikings from the other side of the planet.

Standing back it looks like Jonas really scared them in their private little club where they seemed to enjoy perpetual backscratching.

Maybe we shall leave them at that.

As expected: tone troll, declare moral victory, slink off.

How predictable, pathetic and tedious.

589 Ingvar,

I've been thinking this for a while but now that you say "ugly vikings" (actually I'd say "Vikings"), I can no longer resist. Can you put names to these faces?

Comrades! Brothers and ... especally sisters! Workers!

There may only be moments left before the Jonas Footwear Brigade bring us and the whole carefully constructed chimera of AGW (or latterly CAGW, or more latterly WTFGW) to our knees. I have of course contacted Comrade Commissar Lambert and Comrade Lord Gore to keep them abreast of events, but bear in mind that it is Saturday and rescue may be some time coming.

Obviously the first line of attack will always be the McinTyre Ploy. As is well known, this is named after the (apparent) Canadian citizen of no discernible background who picked a 0.000008 micron hole in our IPCC masterplan - though bear in mind that normally the system will normally only wake up from LAN at a 20% threat level. This has not prevented that infernal McT dining out on the story for nigh on ten years and founding a cult.

While it was anticipated that that the McTProt would serve to distract the usual quantities of EMOs and borderline paranoid schizophrenics, it in fact proved much more successfull amongst low-level corporate management who had realised too soon that everyone was out to f*ck them over, and would overcompensate mightily. What nobody anticipated was their regression to paranoid states that they had suppressed since they were 15 years old when spots, zits and masturbation were their primary driving concerns.

Of course these will invariably be of the least dangerous, hysterical kind who fully believe that extracting a two inch thread from a garment they are wearing will render them involuntarily, publicly and shamefully naked in milliseconds. Strangely, in a way projected as applying to other people's peer-reviewed work.

This class of individual (although they may sometimes operate in packs like the dogs they are) may safely be dismissed with brutal ad hominem remarks. None of them have had a classical education and therefore won't know what thefuck you are talking about, although some of the smarter ones may complain of 'unfairness'. Basically most just want their drivel ideas to be acknowledged in an uncaring world. Witness GSW and Shub. Deny, shun and rubbish them at every opportunity, if only for their own good.

The really dangerous ones of course don't bother with blogs but get on with collecting and publishing their own data, but of course our esteemed comrades at the IPCC will already be expecting them, the comfy chair primed and ready. However the likelihood of any of those turning up here this evening is miniscule.

So let fly with all the ad hom attacks we can mister brothers and sisters. The infidel need never know that's all we've got.

And also, please be assured, as I know in my heart with complete confidence, Comrade Lord Gore will already be writing the papers we need to crush this outbreak of unconscienable insolence and have them with us by Monday morning. And always remember, even now in our darkest hour:
"The Revoltion Will Not Be Televised. It Will Be Published By The IPCC".

Stand firm!

Ingvar,

Are you telling me that when people in a debate call you an idiot, it is evidence for your intellectual superiority?

Does the same principle apply when you are talking to women in bars? If they call me an idiot, does that really mean that they find me irresistibly charming and sexy?

Let the good times roll!

The tit for tat name-calling and sarcasm is wearing thin with me, but I think the conclusion @ 296 'Oh by the way ...' is just heading 593 for Joke of the Thread.

#591 I'll have a go.

I believe the altarboy on the left hand side is called stu. The big paternal fella in the middle answers to the name Jeff. The other two luminous beauties are wow and bernhard.

The sparkling and innocent looking thing in the front centre must for sure be Jonas N. ;-)

Yes, that's right Olaus. The big hairy hippies must be Stu, Jeff, Wow and Bernard. The little girly girl must be Jonas.

@595 I suspect we're philosophically opposed but a cool joke friend.

@Andrew 594

Agree about the name calling.

@Jonas

Have you ever thought about doing your own Blog? I think a few here on both sides would enjoy venturing over there every now and then. You said in 573,

"Once that dust settles, there are more problematic parts of the hypothesis worht discussing"

It's your thread, fire away!

@Tim

Still no chance of Jonas contributing to other threads?

;)

GSW, your new theme.

Stu,

Perhaps more [à propos](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQlehVpcAes&feature=related)

Or perhaps this one?

*Jeff H has gone off to find out about science!*

Wrong again, pal. I left because I found Jonas, Olaus and you so predictable and boring. As I said, science left you all behind 10-15 years ago. We've moved on.

Hehe...Sweatyhands, knew you would bring that one back. "Hippies" is a bullseye, or maybe "heapies"?

Jeff, science is leaving you behind, right now. You know it, I know it. And most of all, anyone getting a sip of the atmosphere in this thread will know it too. CAGW will never rise again until you guys stop blame-gaming and come up with real facts instead of fairytales and ad homs.

@stu,jeff,LB,chek

Ah, the 4 bores of 90% confidence level apocalypse returneth! Anything specific you'd like to 'debate'?

[O Louse,](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5308482)

How very droll. For a troll.

The best definition of projection I've ever heard is, 'When one looks into a mirror and sees his critics'.

Prediction: O Louse will respond with a retort with the form, 'I know you are, but what am I?'

Or ignore me.

>Oh my goodness! The [projection](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5310759) has surfaced even before I could post this comment.

"Wow, just wow..."

While we are waiting, I came across [this](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGh1R_aJlmE) on youtube, made me laugh anyway, may give you lot a much needed perspective of how you are viewed.

;)

[GSW](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5310804)

The specifics of the debate have turned to whether your relationship to Jonas is one of objectified adulation or sadomasochistic codependency, or whether there is an RCH of difference.

You could help by telling us how you really feel about Jonas. Please, don't neglect feelings of [adequacy and sexuality](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLi7av7lg9c).

[GSW](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5311042),

Still waiting to hear from an [Honest Man](http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2011/09/25/) on your side.

90% confidence level apocalypse

Right, right. Why bother following the discussion when you can be completely delusional? I'm grateful for your insightful contributions, GSW.

"Anything specific you'd like to 'debate'"?

Yes please - I'd like to know just how many final nails in the coffin/ we're winning, oh yus/ CAGW is dead - type delusional statements deniers can make before realising at some point that their own delusions must be confronted and communication with the real world re-established, if it will have them.

Contemlpating if Ishuold get in on dis cmpletly unscientific debate. it looks like a intresting debate. Funny name calling and lots of ad hoo?? and strnge links

Ingvar: Jonas and Olaus (not to mention their fanclub) are in denial as to the basic physical characteristics of CO2.

There is therefore no possibility of intelligent debate.

The only purpose of this unintelligent thread is therefore to give the informed the opportunity to vent their spleen at ignorant trolls like Jonas and Olaus.

Ingvar, I understand there is a language barrier in play here, so allow me to express it in the international language of music. I shall be using as my vehicle one of the most famous songs of one of the most famous songwriters - Mr. Bob Dylan's 'Blowin' in the Wind'.

"How many times can a denier say 'final nail',

before he understands the meaning of words?

Tha answer my friend is in 4-AR,

ignorin' which shows just how dumb they are".

I think we can all see and agree where Bob was coming from with that all time great.

#612

Vince, the only thing we don't understand is how a number (90-95%) can be scientific when it is apparently not. And you are correct, the deltoids compensate their lack of intelligent answers with various bible citations, profanities and so forth.

Chek even seeks strength and comfort with Bob Dylan.

Olaus Petri.

>Vince, the only thing we don't understand is how a number (90-95%) can be scientific when it is apparently not.

Assuming that you are not Jonas N, and as said personage is unable to explain how he arrived at his lack of understanding, perhaps you'd like to take up the reins and explain how he could determine that "(90-95%) can be scientific when it is apparently not".

[All you need to do is to show that the IPCC references do not contain this determination](http://live3.goear.com/listen/91a3c55cc6e9ed1e253050c3873aa92c/4e801615…).

Olaus, your quibbling over language is an obvious troll when we see that you refuse to accept the physical realities of the properties of CO2.

If you can't explain why science is wrong to observe that CO2 traps heat, then any discussion about confidence levels is clearly not worth having with you.

Vince, how many times do I have to repeat myself? I find the CO2-hypothetis worthy scientific studies. That means that I do not argue against the "physical realities" of CO2. Otherwise I would have declared the hypothesis as delusional crap. Well I don't. It is the off spring, e.g. goregonian doomsday deltoids, that I find unscientific and even scary.

Move on.

*Jeff, science is leaving you behind, right now*

Olaus, what science are you referring to? The science coughed out by a few right wing think tanks or web sites like WTFUWT and Climate Fraudit? Because the science presented in peer-reviewed journals is almost 100% in support of evidence showing a profound human fingerprint over the recent warming.

Moreover, how do you explain that at just about every international conference on climate change - with the exception of the Heartland bashes where most of those attending are either not scientists or else do little primary research themselves - the scientists attending and presenting seminars are in agreement that AGW is very real?

A: You can't. Let me guess: like your buddies here you've never been to a scientific conference in your life, not have you written any kind of scientific article in a peer-reviewed journal. Let's get to the crux of it: you hate science, especially the science underpinning AGW. Don't fret, most of the deniers also hate science, and like creationists they've developed a passion for twisting, mangling, and distorting science to promote their own deregulatory libertarian agenda. Because that's what the whole shebang is about - to eviscerate public constraints in the pursuit of private profit.

I can wholly understand, in a sad way, why the corporate establishment would promote denial (at least in the short term, although in the longer term they it is impossible to defend). What I don't understand is why average schmucks like you, Jonas, GSW and the other recent arrivals on this thread so slavishly tow the corporate line. Talk about being useful idiots.

And to the new arrivals, if indeed you are from Sweden: I was invited to Uppsala University last year where I presented a seminar on my research. None of the scientists I met there (and who I have known for several years) thinks that the current warming in not human-mediated. You poor guys have been hanging around with the wrong company.

@Vince

If you think that mainstream deniers dispute the "physical realities of the properties of CO2", to the extent that C02 is a greenhouse gas, then you haven't been following the debate.

The big 'unknown' is it's subsequent interaction with the rest of the 'climate system', somebody (one of the other threads) posted a video of Dessler recently saying there was tremendous uncertainty in this area, and there is.

For all you guys go on about Lindzen being 'debunked' so many times, NASA's official position on the 'Iris effect' is that it has been neither proved or disproved, we just don't know.

There are recent papers (Trenberth, Spencer etc), from both sides, trying to account for the models inability to replicate recent climate history (lack of warming). The two problems we have are; a scarcity of data (trenberth postulates heat disappearing into the ocean depths, no observational data for this), also how much confidence do we have in our understanding of the physics of the planet and is this 'complete' enough to have faith in what the models produce ~100yrs in the future.

So please, don't go around saying we are physics 'deniers', we're just a little bit more cautious when it comes to what can, and cannot, be claimed.

Like [this "lack of warming"](http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/pics/0211_zh7.jpg) you mean?
"Combining both land and ocean temperatures shows that global temperatures over the past decade have been warming slightly faster than would otherwise have been expected given the prior temperature trend. This analysis should help put to rest spurious arguments that global warming somehow âstoppedâ over the past decade".

GSW said: "For all you guys go on about Lindzen being 'debunked' so many times, NASA's official position on the 'Iris effect' is that it has been neither proved or disproved, we just don't know".

Do NASA take 'official positions' on hypotheses? Your following statement seems to be a polite way of saying it's in the same league as unicorn theory - i.e. desperate wishful thinking based on zero.

You do realise now why you will never be taken seriously, right?

@chek

"Do NASA take 'official positions' on hypotheses?"

As others have suggested here many times, if you think they're wrong chek I'd let them know, I'm sure they would take your views under advisement.

;)

> What I don't understand is why average schmucks like you, Jonas, GSW and the other recent arrivals on this thread so slavishly tow the corporate line.

There are foreign companies who sell services to astroturf, Jeff. There's no reason why Jonas/Olaus can't be paid.

> That means that I do not argue against the "physical realities" of CO2.

It does, though, doesn't it. That's why you keep harping on about it.

The physical realities of CO2 mean that it traps heat.

The physical realities of CO2 means that a doubling of CO2 will cause 1.2C of warming.

The physical realities of a warming world means that there are large positive feedbacks on this figure.

The physical reality is that we've already seen a non-steady-state warming that would be expected of 2C per doubling, and the ocean heat content means that that figure will be increased for the steady-state.

There is no need to investigate the physical properties of CO2. It is no longer a hypothesis any more than "Apples fall down, not float in the air" is a hypothesis.

I doubt NASA need me to add to [Lin's paper](http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/22992.pdf):
"Our results are based upon actual observations that are used to drive global climate models, and when we use actual observations from CERES we find that the Iris Hypothesis wonât work."

But now can you explain the primary difference between Lindzen's hypotheis and the unicorn hypotheis?
I think not - my hypothesis being that deniers merely indiscriminately attach themselves to anything not-IPCC.

@chek

I don't have the reference to hand, will find it for you later on. And yes, Lin is an employee of NASA, so I am sure they are aware of his work.

NASA's 'position' is more in keeping with what I would consider to be the scientific norm. A cautious assessment of evidence, as opposed to knee jerk reaction one way or the other.

It is not unusual for 'Hypotheses' to be presented, and decades to pass before proved one way or the other based on the evidence. In fact, that is where most of the fun is. ;)

Also, I haven't bothered to follow your unicorn hypothesis train of thought. I suspect it doesn't amount to much, so I ignored it.

luminous #587

Please remember that you were the one claiming everything was fine and peachy with that AR4 take home message (see #334):

> it is carefully explained and graphically shown, using the combined data, complete with carefully calculated uncertainty bounds using a number of robust statistical methods, directly from the referenced sources, how it is very unlikely that any of the warming since the mid 20th Century is due to non-anthropogenic causes. A conclusion that is statistically significant even accounting for the most implausible unknown and scientifically unexplainable serial correlation of natural variability

Although attempting to sound 'sciency' in your wording, the second claim is utter nonsense, and the first is unproven, and the 'description' you give is wrong. The references we have since discussed contain nothing of the kind. (You now even seem vaguely aware of that, since you are backpedaling on the issues and details). Regarding your latest #587, it is weird indeed, what you now being up:

Are you now arguing that there is a 'conservation of momentum' when it comes to temperature**increases**!? (*)

Or are you merely rehashing Navier Stokes one more time, hoping to impress some of the gullable? (It was a bad call already the first time, even worse the 4th)

Are you now arguing that at most ~10 phenomena beyond established laws of physics (as conservation of mass, energy and momentum, etc) are what determine how the cliamte works?

Are you now seriously contending that raindrop velocity and friction are climate forcings just 'recently established', in spite of you only a sentences later mentioned 'conservation of energy'!?

Does the term '**downward** windshear' even have a physical meaning?

Are you seriously trying to build and 'argument' of the difference between *'various forcings are combined or withheld'* and *'different parts .. are spearated'*!? Is that what you can muster? Seriously!?

Or that Jeff H's *"Yes, its found in >1,000 papers in the empirical literature"* should be (again!) read as *' possibly **one**, hidden in'* because they only *'touch upon or related'*?. Gimme a break!

Let me be clear here: Your claim says that you (and 1000s)are (almost) **certain** that the total combined natural contribution to the climate since mid 50:s must have been a cooling? Seriously?

And furthermore, that this has been addressed in thousands of papers? The **natural** variations!? Those that took us out of the little ice age, those that are so poorly understood!? And not only addressed, but with acertained probabilities too? A claim that is much much much stronger than the AR4's being discussed? You must be kidding!

Now please drop that nonsense argument. Jeff is mouthing off, as usual, and has no clue. I expected such drivel from him. The claim is so ludicrous I don't even need to ridicule it, or those who defend it .. The claim itself manages that just fine.

Further, you say:

>It is not the purpose of models to confirm the underlying science

WTF????

Are you not aware of 'climate science' (and **you**) using those very model simulations to confirm **how certain** the conclusions of those models should be? Have you entirely missed what it is you are arguing? (And once more try with the laws of Newton? Now for the 5th or 6th time? As if you believed that was the crux of the matter!?)

Are you even remotely aware of how complex, dynamical, extremly non-linear, chaotic etc the climate system is, and all those many phenomena which determine its function? Do you think that some 'empirical observations' settle every one of those? Seriously?

Then you (seem to?) acknowledge the possibility that not "all relevant mechanisms are properly captured and included" you "ma[k]e no such claim" to the contrary, only that models are 'useful'. May I remind you: Their usfulness is not questioned here. It is their veracity and the very high (claimed) confidence in them that is. Remember that, please!

The same goes for you being *"more interested in what works than being able to explain every damn detail perfectly and precisely on a purely theoretical basis"*.

Because curfitting (even if you call it 'calibration') and hindcasting does work. Esp if you limit yourself to those decades where it does work reasonably well. But this is still not the topic!

Now you even endorse arbitrary 'scaling factors' to deal with 'over- or undercompensation' if they make the outcome 'more realisic', whereafter you even resort to 'trend analysis' again, see below (*).

Puh!

Well my dear luninosity, I think you both made my point very clearly again, and at the same time gave away at which level your 'understanding' of the topic halted, like:

*~'we can reasonably fit the last few decades to the models, and that's good enough for me'*

Well, if it is, then it is. But we are not talking any science here, and all you sciency words (first quote above) where just empty blustering. Which I assumed from quite early on, based both on what you actually said, and all the (completely unrealted) things you brought up, and believed to be necessary to make your 'points' ..

Well, as I noted early on: People who feel that bringing up terms like Dunning Kruger, denialist, anti-science, Exxon, fossil fuel, tobacco lobby, right wing, think tanks etc .. or just can't resist to shit, idiot, moron etc ... when trying to formulate their stance ..

.. almost never have anything of substance to bring to the table. It's only loud and uninformed cheering for the home team from the stands.

And it seems very much like you, my dear b-luminosity, have confirmed my ad hoc assumption once more.

(*) I really hope not, because that would be unphysical, although an idea maintained by many who cling to 'the trend is still upwards meme'

> And yes, Lin is an employee of NASA, so I am sure they are aware of his work.

They're probably aware of his house, too. It doesn't mean NASA owns the house or even approves of it.

> A cautious assessment of evidence, as opposed to knee jerk reaction one way or the other.

NASA hasn't done any assessment of the evidence that does anything other than ignore his "work".

A cautious assessment of evidence would indicate that the Iris proposal won't help, since it never applied in the past to any degree that would contra-indicate the IPCC conclusions.

> Also, I haven't bothered to follow your unicorn hypothesis train of thought. I suspect it doesn't amount to much, so I ignored it.

Which is an indication of just that level of "support" NASA has given to the Iris hypothesis. They've ignored it.

Vince W and Craig Thomas, several here have already pointed it out for you, but you should seriously consider learning to read before you start attempting to write ..

Bernard once more tries Jeff's reverse gambit: Prove that it isn't in there somewhere ...

It is also notable, that Jeff, in spite of many, quite long and wordy long postings has avoided to adress anything about any actual topic related to the climate. Mostly he just rehashes his irrational anger, and fantasies. And inbetween he shouts at people they better start believing. If you ask me, he doesn't even understand what the topic is.

Accidentally he got one thing right: One can say that the science departed about 10 years ago, when the IPCC TAR was presented, when hockeysticks were elevated to 'the finest science there is'. When the scientific method was abandoned and centuries of historical records were replaced by treerings.

Notable is also that among the sources of reference here are cartoonists like John Cook and graphic artist Peter Sinclair, and even cartoon strips.

It certainly explains some of what pops up here, but I am still amazed that no reasonably informed persons on the side of the AGW-hypothesis, who do actually understand what science is and what the climate science atually says ..

.. that none of them helps to straighten out the worst misconceptions here often repeated by its supporters (in lack of a better word)

Jonas said: "sources of reference here are cartoonists like John Cook and graphic artist Peter Sinclair

You really are a dope, aren't you Jonas. The operative word that applies to John Cook and Peter Sinclair is "sources", which is quite different to implying that they themselves, whatever their professions, are the references. They're a handy go-to source for finding references, despite what the Wattbots might be making of Pielke Snr.'s remarkably ineffective recent attack that brave Sir Roger ran away from

As an observation, your own unreferenced rambling is getting ever more tedious, diosconnected and boring in this particular sock incarnation. next time a short "tl:dr" will suffice.

historical records were replaced by treerings

Let me guess. Anecdotes involving grapes, roman wine and a frozen thames.

And the cheeks keep on fudging the thread with his fantasies about Jonas. Anything but the topic. :-) What a surprise. Apparently he reacts that way when Jonas feeds him with balanced food for thoughts.

It is also notable, that Jeff, in spite of many, quite long and wordy long postings has avoided to adress anything about any actual topic related to the climate.

Matthew 7:3, Jonas.

Isn't it strange here how much longer Jonas's rants are getting, and yet he is the one claiming me and others are getting more emotional. Quite odd.

Its also instructive that Jonas is trying to give the impression that science is on 'his side' wherever the hell that might be, when the vast majority of the scientific community, represented in the views of every National Academy of Science in every country on Earth, sees AGW as an issue of profound concern. Please explain that little contradiction Jonas, darling, if you can. And please refrain from more histrionics. Just explain to everyone here why the leading scientific bodies in every country agree that AGW is a serious threat and one that we ought to be doing everything in our power to mitigate.

What I expect is more evasive behavior, and more sly innuendo suggesting that the commies are out to get us or hints that the scientific community is primarily made up of liars and lefties who are out to kill capitalism. Of course, JonasN is a veritable Superman or Captain America (Cpt. Sweden?) fighting for truth, justice and the American way. No doubt he's a legend in his own mind. Otherwise, who are we to believe - most of the scientific community including those who are doing the research or a few schmucks like Jonas, who are demanding answers to questions that were answered by the scientists themselves years ago? And demanding it on a weblog for heaven's sake! That alone is worth a hearty belly laugh or two or three.

Finally, and I have made this point over and over and yet JonasN refuses (e.g is unable) to answer it, and his slavish fan club (GSW, Olaus, and a few other trolls) perpetually try and provide cover for him on this point. And that is:

If he is so convinced as to the relevance of his arguments, why does he not submit them to peer-reviewed journals where scientists themselves would evaluate their merit (or, shall I say, inane stupidity and bounce them higher than an Indian rubber ball). And pray, Jonas, please tell us which international scientific conferences dealing with AGW you have signed on to provide a seminar of your Earth-shattering views. Many are held every year in universities all over the world, so it should be easy for you attend at least one. Why is it that blow-hards like you end up on blogs but, when push comes to shove, your 'revolutionary ideas' rarely are found more relevant fora where they would be exposed to real experts in the field? You think you're such a big man coming in here, when I have already admitted, thanks to my training in another field, that I am not a climate scientist, and that, like anyone in a field in which they are not trained defer to the prevailing wisdom in that field. And that wisdom, and the views of the vast majority of climate scientists, is that the planet is warming rapidly and humans are primarily responsible. I am not out on a limb here pal: you are.

With respect to >1000 peer-reviewed articles, of course if your science education went beyond primary school you'd realize that I meant a wide array of studies focusing on specific areas that, when combined, led to the conclusions of AR4. Similarly, the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (2006) argued that humans are degrading 60% or more of critical ecosystem services that sustain human civilization. This conclusion was based on many thousands of studies that each focused on specific areas with respect to the human alteration of natural and managed ecosystems. The conclusions were based on a summary of all of this combined research. I am sure that, if you were at all interested in population and systems biology (or knew anything about the field, which you clearly don't), you'd also lash out at the 60% figure.

In summary, Jonas, you are a grade-A dork. I find your posts amusing, however; they are very instructive in learning more about the D-K phenomenon and the mindset of the denialist. Given that I give lectures and seminars on the topic at universities, I applaud you for giving me more grist for the mill. You are a textbook case.

@stu

Genesis 9:7, "Go Forth and Multiply!"

No malice behind this stu, just made me laugh when I considered it, in the hope that you have a sense of humour also ;) - Anyway, it appears to be a 'urban' misquote.

Says something about the debate though, when we start quoting the Bible at each other!

Not at all GSW - creationists/unintelligent designers and AGW deniers enjoy a similar pristine mindset, unsullied by science that disagrees with their beliefs.

>Bernard once more tries Jeff's reverse gambit: Prove that it isn't in there somewhere ...

Yes, and [I specifically aimed it](http://live3.goear.com/listen/91a3c55cc6e9ed1e253050c3873aa92c/4e801615…) at the character who styles himself "Olaus", in order to see if he behaved differently to the one signing as "Jonas N". As "Olaus", the challenge was [ignored](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5317693), which is curious... why should two denialists, both who claim that the IPCC makes up the numbers it puts forward, also both steadfastly refuse to indicate the nature of the analysis that originally produced the claim?

More curious is that [Jonas N emerges to take up the conversation between myself and "Olaus"](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5319687). When two supposedly different people both start using the same repeated avoidance tactic, in addition to having the same peculiarities of mis-spelling, I'm guessing that the puppeteer can't keep a track of up which sock he has his arm.

If "Olaus" is truly a different person to "Jonas N", he should attempt to support Jonas N's claims with strategies other than those identical to Jonas N's own.

GSW - Genesis 9:7 indeed...

No malice behind this stu

Nope, just raging non sequitur. Not even a Luke 13:27?

Sigh.

Several here have attempted to use the **number** of publications favouring or at least mentioning, or relyin on (but not necessarily investigating) the AGW hypothesis, and the number of such 'experts' as an argument for its validity. This is of course not a valid argument (in the same way that consensus among priests in christian church isn't). But it is nevertheless an interesting observation.

However, I would surmise that in general the number of publications more scales with the number of funded research men/years, than with the validity of its central and underlying hypothesis.

And given that many of these papers have so long lists of authors that it is difficult even to *imagine* what the contribution from one specific individual might have been. (I would expect that the re-use of a previous result in many cases suffices for qualification as a c-author).

I suggest that a better (but still very coarse, and only indicatiuve) metric would be to compare the number of publications, per author and per topic-specifically funded man year.

I think the numbers then would come out quite reasonably, and the whole meme of 'so many publications behind, so many agree with the consensus' etc will prove to be quite hollow. Everybody is aware of that the vast amount of money directed at various climate-releated issues is largely deceded politically. Through various chanels of course, but in the end research money is laregly political money.

What I'm saying is that number of articles/author should strongly correlate with number of funded hours/years. Simply if 'you' pay for something, you'd expect to get more, if you pay more.

Now, everybody is also aware of that political spending is neither ruled by cost efficiency or quality of what is 'purchased'. And 'buying' more 'climate research' will certainly yield more delivery, but not necessarily of better, or of even the same quality.

Although not pressing that point, I think this is one reason for why many of these papers are so similar to each other, only a small variation of the previous version, or an update with some more data (for the last years).

I am of course generalizing quite a bit here. Science progresses slowly also in other fields, and not every step is that great or so big a novelty. But still, reading these papers, I often get the impression they are often just churned out as one more of them, because it's possible.

For example:
The spectacular finding of large increase of drowning polar bears, turned out to be built on what what some 'scientiests' (Charles Monnet et al) saw during a whale rsurveillance flight, vastly extraploated to the entire Beaufort sea, and the generously compared with what they *remembered* from flights of earlier years.

Bernard is now truly chin high into exegetics in search for the truth. Hilarious. :-)

> and the number of such 'experts' as an argument for its validity. This is of course not a valid argument

Yes it is.

That mathematicians agree that pi is not 3 is how you can know, without being a mathematician, that pi is not 3.

That there is vastly more evidence for IPCC than your freak sideshow's preferred answer is why there are more papers on the evidence of the IPCC's validity than for your freakshow.

> Now, everybody is also aware of that political spending is neither ruled by cost efficiency or quality of what is 'purchased'.

Which is just as well, because you're not giving value for money for the Kochs.

> Science progresses slowly also in other fields, and not every step is that great or so big a novelty.

So why is the 150 year old science for AGW overturned by your 15 year old one of the Iris?

> The spectacular finding of large increase of drowning polar bears, turned out to be built on what what some 'scientiests' (Charles Monnet et al)

Ah, you're being alarmist here.

And isn't this one case where your earlier assertions about how evidence (the bears were drowned) is of prime import in science, as opposed to speculation (that these observations are incorrect)?

> vastly extraploated to the entire Beaufort sea

Just like your invisible Iris effect has been "seen" in some experiments that don't exclude but don't support the hypothesis is being vastly extrapolated into being a reason why AGW won't be a problem for the entire globe...

@stu

;)

The responses to Jonas points are somewhat biblical also.
"Acts 7:54"

Jeff ...

If you would actually engage in a debate about what we are discussing, and refrain from trying to reframe it to your beliefs in numbers, consensus, and authorities (and of course all your emotions, fantasies, projections, and personal attacks, and political rants) ..

.. then all your comments to/about be would shrink to ... well .. I might of course have missed some grains ... but essetially zip!

Do you even know what this 'earth shattering view' or 'revulutionary ideas' of mine is supposed to be? All you ever bark at are your own strawmen, Jeff. There usually isn't anything to respond to at all. I do remind you that real scientists don't make up their own facts, but that hasn't gon through yet. And it is now almost a month ...

You have not challenged one single detail of what I have actually said about the topic. Mouthing off, yes! But substance, no!

But I'm glad you retract your claim that b-luninosity's claim can be found in 1000+ papers. It is indeed a very outlandish and extremly wishful hope that the warming that has been going on since ~1600 suddenly halted, and if anything reversed, right around ~1950, and that everything thereafter is due to humans.

But mind you, it was not the AR4 claim you 'defended', it was something very specific, and specifically different.

And when you *"give lectures and seminars on the topic at universities"* do your really accurately describe your own behaviour, your 'arguments', your ranting, shouting, name calling, and utter complete absence of anything resembling substance wrt to the topic? Or is such conventiently left out, as you seem to be able to block out everything else that doesn't fit your narrative?

Jonas

I havenât been paying much attention to your thread but have read just 638 and have to say Iâm absolutely awestruck at the monumental ignorance and stupidity represented by that comment - the rambling illogicality of it, the weasel words... everything about it is so perfectly stupid in every conceivable way. Awesome.

> If you would actually engage in a debate about what we are discussing

What is it you discern as "what we are discussing", Jonas?

You've already given at least three definitions.

> Do you even know what this 'earth shattering view' or 'revulutionary ideas' of mine is supposed to be?

We keep asking.

You keep ignoring.

You don't know what you're thinking is the obvious answer.

Rather like first line support from your ISP in India, reading from the script is all you have.

@sidcup

I understand it, in fact it is quite blunt and to the point. Your comment is very vague however, can you be specific?

It's his opinion of post 638. It's as specific as it needs to be.

It's also rather ironic having you request for more specificity.

Jonas N, I believe you are correct. The amount of articles on drowning polars alone should be enough to make the wowing tents stop shaking. But no, its science, camp meeting science. :-)

sidecup ... it is true that you have not payed a lot of attention, no problem there, but I cannot remember that you have raised any objections of substance before either.

that people here disagree is obvious, although even stating what we disagree about seems too high a hurdle for the most.

Let me repond to your comment:

I think that funding and churned out papers per author correlate ..

If you claim the opposite, I would disagree with you, but since you don't specify why, there is not much to respond to.

Your creepy, silly scare quotes around the word "scientiests" (sic) when referring to internationally respected arctic biologist Charles Monnett who has worked in that field for over 20 years says all that we need to know about your agenda Jonas.

Take a tip and either stick to your fuckwitwebsites or start to take at least some basic science on board.

As I said: vastly extrapolated drowning polar bears, not seen years before, are now science based on "work[] in that field for over 20 years", and Oscar and Nobel winning material by "internationally respected arctic biologist Charles Monnett" ...

That was precisely my point!

;-)

@chek 650

Your continued bleating about irrelevant trivialities, coupled with abuse, does not count as a meaningful contribution chek.

although even stating what we disagree about seems too high a hurdle for the most.

Quite, Jonas, quite. Which one of your three points are you on right now, or did you shift again?

> As I said: vastly extrapolated drowning polar bears, not seen years before

Well, no. Dead polar bears aren't seen dead years before if only because the dead bodies get eaten.

But then again, you don't even seem to know what the report said.

Your point seems to be to splash about and hope that nobody notices you can't swim.

I have to agree with lord_sidcup regarding the perfection of Jonas's 638. Finally I understand why there are so few papers about the Genesis flood published in geology journals: the politicians simply don't want to buy that kind of research. For political reasons, they prefer to buy Earth-is-4.5-billion-years 'research' instead. Reading the papers from these politically funded 'scientists', I often get the impression they are often just churned out as one more of them, because it's possible.

Jonas shouldn't waste his talents on the denizens of this poor blog - he should really start his own blog instead. Maybe it could be called "Climate Skeptic Superhero".

chek, you are indeed a very emotional guy. So your opinion regarding the "science" behind the drowning polar bears, is that it isn't Times-Atlasian?

On topic I would like to add that the number of "climate scientist" have rapidly increased the last two decades or so, and most of them are not dealing with how the climate system works. Instead many of the newbies are harvesting their laurels by doing "assessments" based on "what ifs" in the name of CAGW.

That's why I firmly believe, in a decade or so, that we will have a rerun on the 70s ice-age prophesy. When we actually start looking into what the actual science really said (on CAGW), there will not be much confirming the "settled" CAGW-claims.

Which, naturally, has been one of Jonas N's major point all along.

Andy S (and others) I see that you still are using the best arguments you have (left). Keep at it ...

Andy S (and others) I presume you are using the best arguments you have (left). Quite right! Keep at it ...

My opinion about the dead polar bears is that Dr. Monnett is best equipped to know what he saw and what he's talking about, and that everything else you've picked up from your stupiditysites is just dogpacks barking in the night.

At this stage even now you have no credible references, just pure, whining noise.

chek, I'm sure we can agree on what Dr. Monnett did see. But its what he didn't see that we are a bit sceptic about, to put it mildly. ;-)

And chek, "science" and "saw" starts with the some letter. Most mean something important, don't you think. :-)

> When we actually start looking into what the actual science really said (on CAGW)

The only ones going on about CAGW are people like you, Jonas.

Tell me, is there any temperature of the earth that would be catastrophic?

*When we actually start looking into what the actual science really said (on CAGW), there will not be much confirming the "settled" CAGW-claims*

"WE!?!?" By we I presume you mean climate researchers and not scientifically illiterate pundits like Jonas? But of course, "we", meaning actual bonafide scientists, have already shown that the evidence for AGW is strong and growing.

You guys are getting funnier all the time! Stop it! My sides are splitting!

Ok Jeff #662, NOT you then. :-)

@Olaus 663

lol!

Ah, note how Olaus' ad hom goes unremarked by those who complained bitterly of it. Including Olaus itself.

Wow: it's fine, if you think "ad hominem" == "meanie words". Which still seems to be what this contingent of morons is working off of.

Oh, and Jonas,

Andy S (and others) I presume you are using the best arguments you have (left). Quite right! Keep at it ...

Is that it? You only moved the goalposts three times! No wonder you can't get funded.

It's more than that, Stu. It's an ad hom by his own definition, and which definition would apply if not your own?

That his definition is wrong doesn't mean he can avoid having his words ascribed the import of his own incorrect definition.

>Several here have attempted to use the number of publications favouring or at least mentioning, or relyin on (but not necessarily investigating) the AGW hypothesis, and the number of such 'experts' as an argument for its validity.

Not at all. The argument is that you lack expert grounding in the empirical literature to be making broad sweeping judgements. To think that selectively reading of a few papers, emphasizing their individual caveats, and ignoring the substance of their conclusions with the hand waving assertion that those conclusions are unscientific, is grounds for disproving an expert synthesis of an entire field is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

You continue to demonstrate conclusively you are an idiot, Jonas.

Jeff, have you yet started reading the two papers whose content actually was discussed here? Have you any objections to what they do, how they do it, and what conclusions can be drawn? And do you (as luminous b did) believe that it contains anything coming close to that AR4 claim (which has been on topic here)?

You can even read above how others have viewed it. Care to comment? Or do you nowadays plead 'no contest' to what I pointed out to start with?

And if yes, what the heck have you been going on about?

luminous b

What I **don't** lack is to capability to read the science and understand what actually is done. This, and the fact that I actually **do** read (not only rely on cartoonists etc) gives me the advantage.

So now you think it is the caveats in one or a few papers that is my angle? You want to have another go? Do you really think that the main shortcomings and real difficulties of the confidence-attributions are overcome in another paper? Because I don't, and the AR4 wg1 does not say that much either wrt other methods. Actually, most other papers I've read on the topic have been worse, because they resorted to Bayesian 'expert guesses' to bolster their (own) confidence. Sorry if I don't remember them now, but they are addressed as such in the AR4 and in the appendices.

But my impasse about 'number of publications' had absolutely nothing to do with me, or my expert standing in anything. I merely surmised that there are better was to make the comparisions attempted by many ..

I hope that at least some of you understood.

So now you think it is the caveats in one or a few papers that is my angle?

Why don't you TELL us what your angle is Jonas? Be careful though, you'll have to stick to it.

Sorry if I don't remember them now

I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell you.

Jonas,

You keep ranting about my reliance on Navier-Stokes, yet you are the one that introduced N-S into the conversation, apparently as an answer to my little four part quiz.

Given that N-S is only a half correct and partial answer to one question, I would have to grade your understanding of GCMs, at the most basic level, at 4%, and I'm being very generous. Major fail.

I should add, the Huntingford et al and the Stott et al paper, did not formally attempt to affirm the model's veracity. They studied how well they could identify and reproduce the (modelled) regional patterns of the three mechanisms studied. They explicitly restrict themselves to only three 'forcings' which they assume are additive (linear combinations)

@stu 666 (the number of the beast, how Biblically appropriate)

"what this contingent of morons is working off"

So that's just good old fashioned, honest to goodness, abuse, which which is Ok in your book?

You don't think leaving this out would improve the scanning of what you say, or even presenting something other than abuse occasionally might make it worth reading.

You went to so much trouble to learn the language, one would hope that this is because you actually had something worthwhile to say, or at least a non abusive point of view of some description, No?

Jonas, you're obviously quite the scientific superstar legend in your own mind. No paper can withstand your crushing criticism - and no references are ever necessary when sweeping assertions will do.

It's just that nobody else can see it, with the possible drivelling exception of GSW whose penchant for fictions devalues his opinion somewhat fatally, and to the rest you're a jusy another gibbering Watts fed fool. Goddard on meth, perhaps.

Even Cassandra didn't have it so rough.

Jonas,

What you fail to understand about Bayesian statistics would and does fill a stack of textbooks.

luminous b - after your quite disasterous attempt #587 (with NS and Newton and everything else), you are the last one to lectre me about almost anything relevant really. Especially not statistics, which is the topic, and was what you attempted with Huntington et al.

Have you now also given up completely and resorted to only mouthing off?

How original of you ... :-)

@chek

"GSW whose penchant for fictions devalues his opinion somewhat fatally"

Go on then chek, which fictions are these? If you think I've made something up, what is it?

So I guess you have also given up completely and resorted to only mouthing off?

How original of you ... :-)

>They explicitly restrict themselves to only three 'forcings' which they assume are additive (linear combinations)

They used three sets of multiple forcings and their assumptions where not pulled out of their butts, but were supported by references in the empirical literature, which, also, were supported by references in the empirical literature. [And so on.](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5322809)

GSW - I'd refer you to my comment #620, but for speed that busted your 'lack of warming' claim and Lindzen's non-existent 'iris'. And that's just today.

luminous b

You've already written that. Several times. And you are quite correct, that they all reference others who do the same thing ... and say that others confirm their methods in a quite circular fashion ...

Do you want me to tell you what is missing? Because I've already written that too, many times ...

@chek

Oh yes, I said I'd find you that reference.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Iris/iris3.php

"Currently, both Lindzen and Lin stand by their findings and there is ongoing debate between the two teams. At present, the Iris Hypothesis remains an intriguing hypothesisâneither proven nor disproven. The challenge facing scientists is to more closely examine the assumptions that both teams made about tropical clouds in conducting their research because therein lies the uncertainty."

I'll just repeat that middle bit.

"At present, the Iris Hypothesis remains an intriguing hypothesisâneither proven nor disproven."

I'm sure you read that as 'debunked', but NASA are a little more gracious than you.

and "Lack of Warming" - they're Travesty Trenberth's words as you well know.

Keep looking, maybe you can find some more 'fiction'!

;)

[Jonas,](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5322809)

So now you are saying that conservation of momentum and conservation of energy are not well established scientific principles? Because that is all I can infer from this and your lame attempt at dissembling gibberish in #626.

@stu 666 (the number of the beast, how Biblically appropriate)

Sure, if the number were 666, which it isn't.

"what this contingent of morons is working off" So that's just good old fashioned, honest to goodness, abuse

Initially, perhaps. By now it is a sad statement of fact.

@stu

What number do you think it is then?

I'm sure you read that as 'debunked', but NASA are a little more gracious than you.

Christ, you are a stupid liar. Why are you pretending you did not read #620?

It's almost certainly 616 -- although the orthodoxy has held 666 for long enough now that it's probably moot. Even more moot.

I do apologize for being flippant and combatative on an unrelated point though.

TL,DR: Sorry for derailing, back on topic.

GSW @ 682 -
1) Can you point to Lindzen's iris? No you can't. It's a unproven hypothesis, which is a fiction like unicorns which have also neither been proven nor disproven.

2)Your Montfordian bastardisation of Trenberth's private email correspondence for conspiracy morons brings todays fiction total from you up to [three.](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Kevin-Trenberth-travesty-cant-account-f….)

@stu

Are you back on the Chewbacca defense? You do not make sense! of course I read #620.

Apology graciously accepted stu, I'm unaware of 616, you've got me curious though I'll have a look.

;)

@chek

Sorry chek you've lost me - are you saying the "Lack of Warming" words are not attributed to Trenberth?

[GSW](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5323279)

The article you cite is dated June, 2002. We're nine years along and the Iris Effect still hasn't shown up. How long are we supposed to wait?

Do you still believe in Santa Claus?

luminous b

>So now you are saying that conservation of momentum and conservation of energy are not well established scientific principles

Is this what you have left? Is this 'all you can infer'? Is this what I'm up against here? Is this the level you are/were debating on? Grow up kiddo!

I'm fully serious, grow up kid. Or play with the other kids here ... there are plenty of them

@stu

Tried wikipedia and you are right!

616
Fragment from Papyrus 115 with number 616

In May 2005, it was reported that scholars at Oxford University using advanced imaging techniques had been able to read previously illegible portions of a manuscript which stated 616 instead of the majority of texts which state 666.[11] The existence of manuscripts attesting to 616 had also been noted before this finding. Another early witness Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C) (a palimpsest) has it written in full: á¼Î¾Î±ÎºÏÏιοι δÎκα á¼Î¾, hexakosioi deka hex (lit. "six hundred and sixteen").[12] This, along with the translation of P115, has led some scholars to conclude that 616 is the original number of the beast.[13]

The NRSV translation for Rev 13:18 includes this translation note: "Other ancient authorities read six hundred and sixteen"."

I didn't know that! Well you learn something everyday!

Cheers

;)

@LB 691

"How long are we supposed to wait?"

Well, I'd suggest we wait until we have proof, one way or the other. Maybe you'd like to decide now, absent proof?

[GSW],

Let me help you get [up to date.](http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1229…)

FSW @ 690 - No GSW, that is called 'quote mining for morons', which is at least apt.
Try reading the link provided - unless you prefer your fictions and Montfordian moronisations.

@LB

Thanks I've read that. That's the paper we were talking about at the time.

Thanks for repeating it though, it's a big help.

@690

It's not a fiction if it was actually said. Which alternative reality are you from chek?

LB, chek, stu etc...how long do we have to wait before Trenberth's "lack of warming" means anything at all? Is it an invention of GSW, or god forbid: Jonas N?

Jonas @692. Am I the only one who finds it beyond hilarious when you have to stamp your foot and demand your intellectual superiority be recognised, goddammit!

@chek 700 (yeah!)

Ok, I'll hazard a guess. Are you from Narnia?

;)

Olaus: I am sure he also said "I", "kill" and "puppies" at some time during his life. That does not mean he kills puppies.

Or are you unaware of what quotemining is?

Now GSW et al have to pretend they don't understand the meaning of context. Oh, the personal degradation that being in hardcore denial demands these days.

chek, any comments on Dr Monnett's polar bear guess/quiz? Impressive science or an opinion very much in the neighborhood of the magic 90-95% figure on debate here?

Maybe its a solid proof of CAGW?

chek: One does wonder why he even lowers himself to come talk to all the kiddos here.

>You've already written that. Several times. And you are quite correct, that they all reference others who do the same thing ... and say that others confirm their methods in a quite circular fashion ...

Not at all. They reference empirical studies based on real world observations. There are no model studies that don't also use real world observations in the meat of their papers, just like these do. You're accusations of circularity are absurd.

>Do you want me to tell you what is missing? Because I've already written that too, many times ...

Yes model confirmation studies. See Chap. 8.

How many times must I write it before you get it, idiot?

CGW # 701

I almost wrote that cheek must be Asslan, but then I changed my mind.

Sorry guys, it was a low blow.

Jonas,

>Is this 'all you can infer'?

Given the amount of hand waving, distortions, straw men and red herrings, all couched in vague and ambiguous language, yes.

@stu 702

Sorry stu, you're a genuine guy and everything ;) but,

That's not relevant. The "Lack of Warming" was a generic reference to a number of papers to 'explain' the somewhat lower surface temperature observations to what the models (mid range) predicted.

We mentioned Spencer and Trenberths contributions, but there have been others (some Danish guys a few years ago, ocean circulation?).

The "Lack of Warming" in this context is NOT a significant part of what is being discussed. Only an attempt to group together certain "types" of papers. You could also call them, "where is all the heat going papers", it doesn't matter. OK?

Oluas/Olaus @704 - why don't you explain, as precisely as possible, what you understand about the Monnett case. In your best English and as clearly as you can.

Olaus, knock it off with the flailing attempts at JAQing off. Do you have a point?

GSW,

I'm glad to know you have read, so thoroughly and comprehensively, obviously the Meehl, et al. paper in Nature.

Can you tell us poor inferior intellects how it doesn't explain the 'missing heat'?

@LB

"Inferior intellects" are your words. I'm more worried about some of you guys Time And Relative Dimensions In Space.

Also, I am not a walking, talking reference library. Meehl is quite prolific. I liked his 2003 paper (ref AR4), I remember that. Maybe the one you mean does account for all the missing heat and Trenberth was wasting his time, so what?

[Jonas],

I forgot to add, 'scathing invective'. Something you decry others for, yet seem to have no reluctance to engage in yourself. See: mimophancy

Red herrings, luminous b?

Afther your attempts with Navier Stokes?
After conservation of energy and momentum (and mass)
After Newtons laws,
After:

>it is carefully explained and graphically shown, using the combined data, complete with carefully calculated uncertainty bounds using a number of robust statistical methods, directly from the referenced sources, how it is very unlikely that any of the warming since the mid 20th Century is due to non-anthropogenic causes. A conclusion that is statistically significant even accounting for the most implausible unknown and scientifically unexplainable serial correlation of natural variability

After Bayesian statistics?
After:

>The important thing is that they realistically simulate those phenomena. I have no problem with compensating those under- or over-estimations with scaling factors to make them more realistic.

After ambiguous language, and handwaiving?

So: Have you seen any science that actually is the basis for that AR4 take-home message? Or are the above red herrings all you have to offer?

Note that I don't need to make one derogatory or ridiculing remarks, only to remind you of what you've actually argued.
Only, I wouldn't call any of that an 'argument'

All as weasely as we've come to expect GSW, but we're not experiencing a 'lack of warming' (ref #620) and neither was Trenberth feeding the global cooling myth as deniers try to imply (ref #688).

@LB

Apologies LB, I've just realised Meehl is the 'named' (Not et al) author on what I refer to as being the Trenberth paper. You right, me wrong.

GSW,

I referenced a [paper](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5323500), you said you'd read [it](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5323522), like 40 minutes ago. Now you don't know what I'm talking about.

Such strong intellectual powers you have.

@LB 718

See #717.

;)

Chek, this is Dr. Monnett's summary/words regarding his polar bear obeservations, not mine, but If you read the whole transcript the word "sloppy" seems to be an understatement:

"CHARLES MONNETT: Well, thatâs not scientific misconduct anyway. If anything, itâs sloppy. I mean, thatâs not â I mean, I mean, the level of criticism that they seem to have leveled here, scientific misconduct, uh, suggests that we did something deliberately to deceive or to, to change it. Um, I sure donât see any indication of that in what youâre asking me about."

>After your attempts with Navier Stokes?

What attempts?

You don't know what a red herring is, do you?

GSW,

It's good to know you don't suffer from full blown Alzheimer.

Just a little slow on the uptake, eh?

@LB

"Just a little slow on the uptake, eh?"

Sometimes LB, sometimes...

;)

[O Louse](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5324086)

It would only be sloppy if he was guilty of doing what Eric May's nameless accusers had accused him of doing. What was beyond sloppy was May's understanding of calculating percentages.

@LB 718,712

"Can you tell us poor inferior intellects how it doesn't explain the 'missing heat'? "

This all relates to my post 619 in response to Vince. The point was actually about the 'scarcity' of data not the Meehl(!) paper per se.

At this stage I would say the Meehl paper is 'plausible', however we do not have temperature/heat data for the ocean depths, therefore we cannot check that the assertion that that is where all the 'heat' has gone.

Similarly, ERBES/CERES data is for a relative short climatic period.

We don't have the data, that was the original point, nothing more.

Luminious bounty, so you are contradicting Dr Monnett and say that he wasn't "sloppy"? You know better than him in the same way you no the science behind 90-95% . :-)

Olaus, you shouldn't read what Monnett actually wrote, nor what he said. Animations of his projections of drowning polar bears subsequently won both Oscars and the Nobel Peace Prize!

Got that!?

Who are you to question the judgement of Thorbjörn Jagland and others, when it comes to drowning polar bears, solely on the basis of what Monnett actually did, said and wrote!?

Have you no deference at all?

/sarac off

Jonas, with a 90-95% probability the buzzwordology of CAGW is science.

Prove me wrong!!!!

[Jonas,]

I repeat again, the conclusions of Huntingford are:

"We find that greenhouse gas forcing would very likely have resulted in greater warming than observed during the past half century if there had not been an offsetting cooling from aerosols and other forcings."

A conclusion that supports Stott, et al., using additional and more comprehensive methodology, not just the same methodology. This all direct corroboration of my statement that according to these studies:

>...it is very unlikely that any of the warming since the mid 20th Century is due to non-anthropogenic causes.

QED

And all you have is some vague circular hand waving and ignorant opinionating about Bayseian analysis and GCMs not being verified by these particular studies, but are in denial about Chap. 8, where GCMs are __empirically__ and internally verified eight ways from Sunday.

You pointed out that models under-estimate the Pinatubo eruption. How would we even know that if models weren't validated against empirical data?

God, you are such a stubbornly willful idiot. You are only fooling yourself and your mimophantic sycophantic fellow travelers in your group think cargo cult fictional universe of religiously adhered to ideologically misinterpreted science.

Olaus, May asked Monnett a scientifically-illiterate question (lots of them, actually) and Monnett told him his nonsense couldn't be interpreted as "misconduct" but as "sloppiness".

Of course, those interested in science would refute Monnett's work by publishing their own studies about polar bears. Monnett's work is 5 years old and no such refutations have appeared. Wonder why?

Meanwhile, GSW seeks to amuse us with:

> If you think that mainstream deniers dispute
> the "physical realities of the properties
> of CO2", to the extent that C02 is a
> greenhouse gas, then you haven't been following
> the debate.

So....Olaus, Jonas, GSW, and any other "debaters" will have no trouble giving a clear and unequivocal answer to the original question:

- Does CO2 gas act to trap heat in the atmosphere?

I don't need to make one derogatory or ridiculing remarks

@5: "kiddo" & "Sorry kid"
@9: "And if I just might vent my opionions [sic] too about som [sic] particluarly [sic] stupid remark or commenter"
@24: "you are so immensely boring" & "if you had to earn your money honestly [...] you would not be as well off."
@42: "Paranoia among the chicken" (I think)
@56: "You need to show me that you are not an idiot"
@104: "Or just stop your brainless rambling here .. everybody already knows you're upset and angry .. an [sic] incapable of controlling it."
@123: "go and play with your sticky-sticks" (WTH?)
@149: "you have here repeatedly displayed that your own faith isn't all that good"
@182: "many here need help with the simplest things"
@205: "now scurry away, and play with the others"
@211: "anti-market emotions [...] lefty leening [sic] emotions [...] younger lefty loons and ativists [sic]" (why were we not surprised!)
@232: "I reckon most of you don't have a clue"
@256: "he has zip to say in this matter"
@259: "all (grown ups) here are aware of the fact"
@263: "none of you have any clue" (also contains the hilarious "Among the two of us (and many more firing their ad homs) I am not the troll." and "nor do I constantly need to throw insults and profanities at others (although, some deserve replies in kind)"
@266: "completely without the 'normal' behaviour of insults and rants about 'sticky stuff' you seem so obsessed with" (included for one of the many creepy "sticky stuff" references)
@268: "commenters who like using terms like 'denialist' almost never have anything of substance to say"
(also notice flounce "Sorry, I'll leave you to your self ..." that he unsurprisingly completely fails to stick)

(Hey, as long as I'm going through these, who does @284 remind us of? Anyway, after this, most of the low-brow action comes from puppets)

@330: "You are so immensely boring and unskilled"
@358: "I am very certian [sic], you you [sic] are even less competent at understanding individuals you don't understand."
@361: "How frikking stupid can you make yourself? I mean, even if you tried your hardest, and wanted to be seen like a total moron!", well, pretty much all of it, including "I thought you were pretty stupid from the beginning."
@384: "I don't know what passes as intelligence or logic in your knick [sic] of the woods"
@394: "you have now [I presume this was meant to be 'no'] real grasp of statistics, what they are, what they mean, what the can be used for, how to use them properly etc." and "you are indeed one pitiful character" (also includes the hilarious "I can be in any room with any scientist and discuss my both [sic sic] opinions and scientific arguments.")
@435: "scalar Gore:esque description"

...still deferring to "Olaus", whining about name-calling @454 amongst others...

@463: "I am glad you are physically fine." (Oh, how subtle! Zing!) "I dont [sic] think it is the blood pressure that causes anger, emotions runing [sic] amok, un [sic] uncontrolable [sic] urges [sic] to spout all that you do .." (was someone a wittle angwy wangwy when they wrote that?)

...more whining @465 and @468 and @473, new puppet enters (another flounce @481, which -- shocker, fails to stick, see @509)...

@501: "watch this kind of intellectual self mutilation and let it continue without helping the poor thing..."
@506: "the sheer amount of ignorance you tried [sic]. It matches that of some of the others, if that is any consolation." and "I might have lost you already"

...epic whining @518...

@569: "Many here are quite cabable of ridiculing themselves" (running out of steam here)
@573: "the same people who claim cairvoyant [sic] capabilities in other fields as well, and with comparable success" (yeah, weaker and weaker)

..."Olaus" time...

@626: "It's only loud and uninformed cheering for the home team from the stands." (myeh)
@628: "you should seriously consider learning to read" and "his irrational anger, and fantasies" and "he doesn't even understand what the topic is."

...wait, is @638 a really lame attempt at alluding conspiracy?

@642: "your ranting, shouting, name calling, and utter complete absence of anything resembling substance" (and pretty much the rest of it)
@649: "stating what we disagree about seems too high a hurdle for the most [sic]" (and yes, I was right about @638)
@670: all of it (in glaring condescending irony)
@677: "you are the last one to lectre [sic] me about almost anything relevant really"
@692: "Grow up kiddo!", "I'm fully serious, grow up kid" and in case you missed it, "Or play with the other kids here"

For something you don't need to do, you seem to do it an awful lot, Jonas. Still not quite comfortable with that "scrolling up" concept, are you?

GSW,

Whatever are you going on about?

>Similarly, ERBES/CERES data is for a relative short climatic period.

All the 'missing heat' is from the ERBES/Ceres data.

@LB

CERES/ERBES was in relation to the Spencer/Dessler spat, not Meehl&Trenberth.

Maybe you'd like to decide now, absent proof?

Science, and empirical conclusions generally, aren't based on proof. If we decided nothing until there was proof, we would remain frozen in one spot and would die of starvation.

In other words, you're an ignorant git and troll.

O louse,

Please try to read for comprehension:

JEFF RUCH: This is Jeff Ruch. Weâve been at this for an hour and 45 minutes, and Iâm curious, are we going to get to the allegations of scientific misconduct or, uh, have â is that what weâve been doing?

>LYNN GIBSON: Actually, a lot of the questions that weâve been discussing relate to the allegations.

>ERIC MAY: Right.

>JEFF RUCH: Um, but, uh, Agent May indicated to, um, Paul that he was going to lay out what the allegations are, and we havenât heard them yet, or perhaps we donât understand them from this line of questioning.

>ERIC MAY: __Well, the scientif- â well, scientific misconduct, basically, uh, wrong numbers, uh, miscalculations, uh â__

>JEFF RUCH: Wrong numbers and calculations?

>ERIC MAY: Well, what weâve been discussing for the last hour.

>JEFF RUCH: So this is it?

Very sloppy of you, O Louse.

#677 from Jonas N:

Have you now also given up completely and resorted to only mouthing off?

How original of you ... :-)

#678 from GSW:

So I guess you have also given up completely and resorted to only mouthing off?

How original of you ... :-)

Very interesting.

@ianam

"we would remain frozen in one spot and would die of starvation"

I'm happy to accept you probably would.

chek, I agree that climate models have a value, and I discussed how in previous postings where I emphasized Easterbrook's view that they are valuable tools for developing theory of climate processes. I am more skeptical to the current use of climate models for projections. I think there is an overconfidence in climate models. More about my view on models, see my comment to stu September 23, 8:00.

I want to add that I have my own several decades long experience in using computer models. One of the psychological risks affecting modelers is that they may develop an overconfidence in their own models. In the worst cases the computer model becomes more of a crystal ball than a scientific tool.

Regarding Arctic I am not more worried than Andrew Revkin.

Read his blog posting âOn Arctic Ice and Warmth, Past and Futureâ and you will understand why.
Andrew Revkin, Dot Earth
August 8, 2011, 3:04 pm

I'm happy to accept you probably would.

Quite the rebuttal.

ianam: I think the smiley styles are a bit of a giveaway as well.

Oh well, not a lot we can conclude one way or the other unless Tim pulls their IPs, and I think he's got better things to do.

GSW,

Since you didn't make that clear in your comment, and your comment was all about 'missing heat' and mentioned nothing about the Spenser-Dressler spat (which really isn't about 'missing heat', but is about whether clouds are magical beasts that somehow act all by themselves independently of any known meteorological theory) and since #619 mentions both it certainly wasn't clear it was the Spenser-Dressler part to which you were refering, perhaps you can understand my problem making sense of your statements. Might I suggest you would possibly profit by being a little less vague and ambiguous than your sweetheart, Jonas.

In case you weren't aware, Trenbleth also relied on CERES ERBE data for the TOA part of the energy budget.

Also, you are wrong about there being no deep ocean [data](http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010JC006601.shtml).

670 Jonas,

What I don't lack is to capability to read the science and understand what actually is done. This, and the fact that I actually do read (not only rely on cartoonists etc) gives me the advantage.

I'm sorry if someone's already quoted this but I have to highlight it.

@LB

It's all about the 619 post, scarcity of data for Meehl/Trenberth, Dessler/Spencer arguing/interpreting CERES. It does make sense if you read it the context of 619.

I'm not familiar with the paper you posted, in the abstract it says something about "Observational surveys have shown significant oceanic bottom water warming, but they are too spatially and temporally sporadic", is the data adequate to reliably verify Meehl?

I don't know.

GSW,

- Does CO2 trap heat?

Why so much trouble answering such a simple question?

@Vince

Google it.

[Pehr],

If computer models were the only way of getting realistic estimates of climate sensitivity, which is all one really needs to make projections, you might have a point. You say you have decades of experience with computer models, but don't say whether or not that is with physical models or statistical models. I'm going to go out on a limb and offer a WAG that you work with economic models, which are based almost entirely entirely on statistical regressions. Nothing wrong with that, as Jonas is fond of saying, but let me show you a statistical regression model that doesn't really require great computing power, but gives [results](http://web.archive.org/web/20100104073232/http://tamino.wordpress.com/2…) much in line with GCMs.

What do you think?

'Does CO2 trap heat?' Yahoo Answers, near the top of a Google search, includes this which suits my level of scientific comprehension http://preview.tinyurl.com/3lukbc6 Sorry I'm not across the entire conversation but who on the thread is disagreeing?

{GSW],

The data is indeed too sparse, and non-homogenous to give much of an accurate or precise estimate, but the point is it is in situ data from anchored deep water bouys and supports, i.e., is consilient with Meehl. There are other studies measuring cold water turnover in the arctic and antarctic that match spacial patterns of the model simulations used in Meehl, and referenced there. This is further orthogonal independent consilient evidence for Meehl.

In modern science that is all we've got. The finite limits of inductive reasoning. Complete and perfect validation or deductive proof is a 19th Century pipe-dream that died in the 1950s with the demise of Logical Positivism and the rise of limited Popperian falsifiability and the growth of complexity analysis.

GSW, reading down this thread I note that you've failed to answer if you believe Co2 traps heat, just like in the past you failed to prove that ice ages exist (the "climate has always changed" - who knew?!)

Olaus Petri:

the 70s ice-age prophesy

What 70s ice-age prophesy?

luminous b

>After your attempts with Navier Stokes? >What attempts?

Have you no clue at all what you are talking about? This is what you tried just minutes before! Don't you even know what the words mean?

>So now you are saying that conservation of momentum and conservation of energy are not well established scientific principles?

Are you so totally disconnected from the debate as your comments imply?

re: &46 LB: Models
You might want to look at my analysis of the misapprehensions about models, by type of technical background.

Usually, when somebody says, "I have a lot of experience with models and climate models can't work," it means that their modeling experience hasn't included the right sorts of physics models, which have powerful constraints like conservation of energy, laws of thermodynamics, etc.

A few of those examples led me to add TEC8 to this list.

Of course, Gavin's discussion of models, part 1 and part 2 are really useful.

BTW, if people ever happen to be in Boulder, CO, visit the computing museum @ NCAR (up on the hill).

Lets repeat this:

Monnet fly in a pattern of the Beaufort sea, on whale surveillance. They happen to see three (or four) appareantly dead polar bears. The extrapolate that (multiply by nine), since they only flew over 11% of the area, and arrive att 27-35 dead bears. They 'remember' that they have not seen dead bears before, after a storm, many years before, put the numbers and the storm together with the usual alludations to 'climate change' and get this printed.

Well fellows, this is what passes as world class 'science' among some of you. Somebody even said, this hasn't been rebutted since ...

Sorry kids, but multiplying by nine is not science ...

luminous b #729

>I repeat again, the conclusions of Huntingford are: >"We find that greenhouse gas forcing would very likely have resulted in greater warming than observed during the past half century if there had not been an offsetting cooling from aerosols and other forcings."

Yes, I read that, and these are the words written in the conclusion, and it is what the models model. Because that is what models do, the model what you told them to model!

Did you knoe that!?

It is what they hope and hope to have supported further with that study. And if you read what actual science they carried out, you also see that what they did is play around with the three different (assumed additive) forcings for three models. It does still not cover all that is missing for proper attribution, and confidence of such.

The work still is only a statement of how reasonably well the models hindcast some decades.

You still seem completely unaware of what is missing. And you have given away your ignorance a number of times by now. You are in absolutely no position to tell me what I understand, you are having a hard time just reading what you you linked, even harder ton understand and interpret what is done, and still harder to decide what it is worth abnd what it does not do.

Sorry, but you give the same impression as so many others. Opening a paper in your browser, searching for some key words, or phrases, an proclaiming: Look, there it is, now it is science and true!

Sorry kid, it doesn't work that way. You need to look at what is actually done. And you need to understand it too ..

PS I see that even Mashey tries to give the models more credibility, by pointing out that they do not **violate** conservation of energy, mass and momentum. As you **tried** numerous times before. What a farce ...

All, I see a number of attempts at clining to the
'CO2 traps heat' phrase. Even som posturing about it ...

Well, it doesn't. Or technichally it does, but only for extremly short times, ~nanoseconds.

For all practical purposes in this discussion, CO2 absorbs and imeedeately re-emitts IR-radiation in random directions. Its function is to scatter IR-radiation in two (quite narrow) bands, which might have the effect of lowering the cooling rate of the earth surface, that is the AGW-hypothesis (or the enhancment of this greenhouse effect, by additionally added CO2)

As I said, the 'trapping heat' is a misnomer at best, and is more suitable for propaganda to scare kids, or to mislead politicians and other ignorants.

Amazing that some think that this has to be discussed here.

Given Monnett's testimony, I'm really baffled by some of the guys confidence in his polar bear methodology. Yes, Monnett SAW a couple of dead bears while looking for whales. I'm sure he did, in some way. The rest seem to be a bit...well...hasty...

I'm also sure that some glaciers are melting in the Himalayas. What I don't understand is how such an insight add up to a scientific conclusion that 500 million (in that region alone) will suffer from a lack of freshwater during the dry-season.

CAGW-science is something extra.

The science behind the headlines of the 70s prophesy (of a coming Ice-age) falls into the same category. It (the science) was rather non-existant, or more correct: it was a hypothesis kidnapped from the lab and became manhandled in a milieu alien to it

Somehow the brevity is lacking, so I think we'll keep it at "trapping heat". Somehow the "CO2 absorbing and imeedeately (sic) re-emitting IR-radiation in random directions" scare isn't as catchy for conspiracy theorists like you and GSW.

Thanks for playing Jonas N.

Olaus, I'm disappointed you didn't mention Al Gore or "hide the decline" in your badly-worded, illiterate claptrap.

So far I have ascertained that Jonas and you agree that:

1. Co2 traps heat (or whichever pedantic way you want to word it)
2. We are emitting 29 billions tonnes of Co2
3. Co2 added to the atmosphere can cause warming
4. It is warming.

So I see we are in complete agreement that the AGW theory is correct. In the midst of all your postulating and right-wing meme spamming you haven't challenged the science at all. "Something something polar bears" and "something something Trenberth" does not an argument make.

Let us agree that a doubling of Co2 will cause 3 degrees of warming. What effects would you expect this warming to have?

When does something go from being merely "unpleasant" to "catastrophic"?

(Hey, by the way, how many other fools are you going to rally from The Climate Scam to come and argue for you?)

John, you sure know how to throw a punch, not. All I see are CAGW-towels landing in front of me.

And John, its not my fault that you call "something something" climate science, polar bears, 90-95%, three degrees warming, and whatnot. Agreed?

There is no need to talk about the Gore in specific ways as long as you impersonates him so well.

I think Jonas and Olaus demonstrate their psychological condition very clearly in response to the simple question:

- Does CO2 trap heat

The fact is, obviously, that it does.
The simple answer is, simply, "yes".

Jonas and Olaus can't bring themselves to articulate the simple truth of the matter, instead trying to hide their discomfort at being confronted with reality behind big blubbers of verbiage and random nonsense about polar bears, etc...

Dear Vince, all of you guys immediately fall into fetus position whenever you are being confronted by additional questions going beyond the CAGW gospel, e.g. the science behind the 90-95%, the drowning polar bears, the effects of melting glaciers, und so weiter.

The truth of the matter is that science isn't settled regarding climate sensitivity and CO2. And I do credit the CO2-hypthesis with a scientific content. I think that's is a straight forward answer

In addition I strongly believe that the CO2-hypothesis needs to brought back to the scientific community. If science once again embraces it, the scaremongers pretending to be climate scientists will be out of jobs.

Olaus Petri:

The science behind the headlines of the 70s prophesy (of a coming Ice-age)

Hasn't anyone told you not to believe everything you read in the papers (The Australian especially).

Vince ...

Read my comment again. What I say is correct, what your repeated attempts say about your psycological condition, I leav as an open question ...

To all: Is this really the level here? People hoping that:

1. Is CO2 a GHG?
2) Do you know of consvervation of energy and momentum?
3) Are you aware of 11% being 1/9 of the total?
4) Have you not seen the words in 'Conclusions'?

should pose trick-questions, to fool those evil denialists?

Is this what you think is debated? Really?

"In addition I strongly believe that the CO2-hypothesis needs to brought back to the scientific community".

Oh dear, looks like Oluas/Olaus doesn't believe every National Academy of Science in the world supports AGW theory (not hypothesis).

I guess that's what inhabiting the more trashy blogs does for your comprehension of the world.

> Given Monnett's testimony, I'm really baffled by some of the guys confidence in his polar bear methodology.

Hmm. Methodology: Saw dead polar bears. Counted said polar bears. Saw non-dead polar bears. Counted non-dead polar bears. Wrote a letter about what he saw.

Of course, since this was using reality, this explains why The Sock is baffled.

Chris, again, the Ice-age prophesy of the 70s wasn't science, it was a scientific hypothesis abducted from the scientific community that became headline stories in the 70s.

And in som years to come, when we, not Jeff, look back, we will find that the CAGW-prophesy also was a scientific hypothesis hijacked from the scientific community. We will find that the headlines, the anxiety, the scares, the need for scapegoats, the self-proclaimed messiahs', and so on, was based on a solid sociological and psychological foundation.

Like in the 70s.

>1) Is CO2 a GHG?

Yes.

> 2) Do you know of consvervation of energy and momentum?

Yes.

> 3) Are you aware of 11% being 1/9 of the total?

Approximately? Yes.

> 4) Have you not seen the words in 'Conclusions'?

I've seen some of them.

1) why don't you know about CO2 being a greenhouse gas? That's Fourier, from around 1856. Basic science.

2) What does that have to do with a greenhouse gas?

3) What does that have to do with a greenhouse gas?

4) What does that have to do with anything?

Oluas/Olaus said "And in som (sic) years to come,

Forgive me for thinking that your uninformed blatherings so far give your stupid predictions all the weight of helium impregnated feathers.

The truth of the matter is that science

is settled that existing human-caused GHGs and tropospheric ozone, on their own and without any feedbacks, are easily enough to have caused the current level of global warming, 0.8 deg C. The CO2 on its own produces 0.6 deg C from half a doubling and the other GHGs and tropospheric ozone generate about two-thirds of the forcing of CO2 (AR4 WG1 chapter 2).

John #758

Small little problem with your fine list of four points:

I has been warming too for some ~300 years before CO2-emissions started to rise. It is still warming. There very well might be a human contribution to that. Question is still: How much, and how to determine that, and how .

In spite of four weeks back and forth (well mostly about people's beliefs and fantasies about completely unrelated things), there still seem to be misconceptions about what and why different aspects are discussed wrt the climate ...

I forgive you chek. No worries. The tide has already changed. The CAGW crystal-ball-tsunami is losing its scientific colors. Your fetus position will be aggravated and permanent, I'm afraid. You have my sympathies though.

Spot on, Olaus.

We who were there in the 1970's haven't forgotten the several 'comprehensive assessment reports' of the ICE-P (International ICe Age Panel), the Al Gore movie "An Inconveniently Cold Truth", the international meetings in Svalbard and Alaska with thousands of 'scientists' and politicians, and all the scientific academies writing statements supporting global cooling 'science'.

Well, I'm pretty sure that I remember it. The 1970s were a bit dizzy.

Jonas @ #770 - when you know nothing, the first thing to admit is that you know nothing. Knowing nothing and thinking you know it all leads to the displays of unbridled ignorance expressed by you and your excitable cronies that we see here.

As a first step, you might like to examine how many assumptions you've made in that comment and where they came from.

There is zero purpose to discussing the precise input of human activity when you refuse point-blank to accept the physical reality of the observed fact that CO2 traps heat.

To a simple question, you are pathologically unable to give the (correct) simple answer.

(Your assertion about 300 years of temperature record is yet more garbage. Prior to the industrial age, temperature was steady or falling. Mostly falling.)

Dear Andy, the mechanisms at play are the same even though the magnitude isn't.

> I has been warming too for some ~300 years before CO2-emissions started to rise.

Really? [Lets have a look](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperatur…)

Hmmm. Not clear, is it. It's been more cooling than warming if you chop off the last 100 years. [Lets look at a longer period](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature…).

Well, that's clear enough: Cooling.

> Question is still: How much, and how to determine that, and how

[Answered.](http://www.ipcc.ch)

Just because YOU don't know the answer, doesn't mean it hasn't been asked and answered.

Vince

Yes, in the kindergarten version (and the Gore ditto) CO2 'traps' heat.

In reality it cannot trap any heat, by the very definition of temperature. On average it heats as much as the other molecules in the atmosphere. And at 390 ppm there is essentially no heat available to be 'trapped' by that tiny part and the modest temperature rises we are discussing.

Get this into your head!

The greenhouse effect instead works so that this (extra) CO2, because of its radiative properties, slightly lowers the cooling rate of the earth's surface because it redirects (scatters) IR radiation in two narrow bands.

How this affects the climate system is yet a completely different question, which haasn't even been adressed/Discussed during the last four weeks.

Chris O'Neill

This is not true at all, temperatures have not risen by 0.8 °C since notable human CO2 emissions started, the CO2-level has not reached half a doubling, and the ozone and methan are not solely due to humans (meaning they were there before too). Sorry, chap, but your point just came apart.

And the crux still is that 'you' 'need' the large positive feedbacks to create some sort of anthropogenic climate problem.

Oluas/Olaus said: "The tide has already changed. The CAGW crystal-ball-tsunami is losing its scientific colors".

That's the problem with getting your information from one trash blog after another. It's easy for those like you to begin to imagine that they represent the real world. Which is just one of the reason they're derided as 'echo chambers'. That many of you prefer to imagine they represent the real world is a textbook definition of delusion.

How many times today alone have you been exposed as talking nonsense so far? I'm starting to lose count (and you aren't worth the scroll up).

> In reality it cannot trap any heat, by the very definition of temperature.

Since heat isn't temperature, quite how CO2 can't trap heat "by the very definition of temperature" needs rather urgent explanation.

> On average it heats as much as the other molecules in the atmosphere.

Nope, absolutely and 100% false. [Rovibrational states retain energy](http://www.chem.arizona.edu/~salzmanr/480b/statt02/statt02.html)

It's at the SAME TEMPERATURE, but it contains MORE HEAT.

> The greenhouse effect instead works ... slightly lowers the cooling rate of the earth's surface because it redirects (scatters) IR radiation in two narrow bands.

Yup. That's how it traps heat.

If you're caught in a trap, you can get out with difficulty, but you're trapped while in it. If there's a slowdown on the highway, you'll see cars build up before the obstruction. That is "trapped cars".

But I guess you're not driving cars, yet.

> How this affects the climate system is yet a completely different question, which haasn't even been adressed/Discussed during the last four weeks.

That's because you haven't ever asked this to happen in the last four weeks. We're much, MUCH smarter than you, but none of us can actually predict your future.

But here's how it happens: the rate of heat loss is reduced by increasing the number of GHG molecules in the atmosphere. The sun is unaffected by these earthen attributes and still radiates as much energy as it ever did.

And when heat in is greater than heat out of a body, that body heats up.

When that body is the earth, that's called "Global Warming".

Now...what was the name of that politician character in the original Danish version of 'The Killing'?

Oh yes, I remember, it was ... Troels [Hartmann]!

Whereas of course what we are dealing with here are Scandinavian... Trolls!

chek, the answer to your Q in # 778 is zero.

The fact is that "science wasn't settled". Live with. Life will be much easier that way.

Hasis, good point there. Who can argue against such high carat climate scare science methodology? :-)

Any more stories you want to share?

Nope

I've got better things to do with my time thanks!

So, Jonas, do you see your errors?

Can you now admit that "CO2 traps heat"?

Once you accept this basic fact of physics, we can move onto the next question.

Eventually, you will arrive at a decent state of understanding of the science of climate change. Thanks to us.

How about you, Olaus and GSW, are you catching on?

Hi Jonas, popped back to see how you were doing. This made me laugh out loud:

âIn reality it (CO2) cannot trap any heatâ

4 sentences later:

âthis (extra) CO2... slightly lowers the cooling rate of the earth's surfaceâ (i.e. it traps heat)

Comedy gold.

sidecup .. as I said, in the kindergarten version(*) it does ... and here that's good enough it seems.

Vince, so far it has been me helping those people who can actually read and do so (not that many) to understand the details we've been discussing beyond the kindergarten version (*)(admitteldly very few). All the 'moving along' has been in the opposite, reluctance to graps even the simpler details. For instance that there has been a warming trend for ~350 years, and that humans at most can have contributed to the last six seven decades via CO2.

This still seems too much to take in for quite a few.

(*) John has a good summary for the rest of it in #758

sidecup

If anything 'traps' heat, it is the atmosphere, but I'd rather say that retains heat, by a number of different mechanisms is far mor accurate description. The CO2-molecule in it self does not 'trap' any amount of heat by any measurable standard or comparison.

And still, how the climate system works is once more a completely different question.

> as I said, in the kindergarten version(*) it does

So be a grown up and tell us what it does in the grown-up science world.

> All the 'moving along' has been in the opposite, reluctance to graps even the simpler details.

Yup, you've been completely unable to grasp even the simpler details.

> For instance that there has been a warming trend for ~350 years

And there goes a cherry. Why did you pick 350 years?

Now, for instance, that warming trend is accelerating.

AGW caused that.

And you'll note that it is far higher now than in the MWP. Even though the long-term trend is down (as it has been every time before when in an interglacial).

That's AGW.

I would ask what you thought was causing these temperature changes, except I know that you'll just go "we don't know", when the actual fact of it is that YOU don't know.

> If anything 'traps' heat, it is the atmosphere

And how does "the atmosphere" manage that?

> The CO2-molecule in it self does not 'trap' any amount of heat by any measurable standard or comparison.

It traps heat in the same way as the waste trap on your outflow traps waste.

It stops it leaving.

By any measurable standard or meaning, it traps heat.

As in heat that left easily before no longer leaves with such alacrity.

Kudos on your patience and persistence, Wow.
Your post at #789 led me to wonder if the Python's had overheard a conversation with a similarly dense participant when they wrote the Dead Parrot sketch.

and that humans at most can have contributed to the last six seven decades via CO2

Yes, because before that, there were no humans! Right?

OK Oluas/Olaus at #781, let's pretend that the syntactical similarities are mere coincidence, that you are sometimes incapable of spelling your own name and that you aren't Jonas today.

That still leaves you foolishly claiming that the [National Science Academies of every major country on the planet](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#U.S._…) are in some strange fashion known only to you outside the scientific community when you claimed at #761:
The truth of the matter is that science isn't settled regarding climate sensitivity and CO2 ... In addition I strongly believe that the CO2-hypothesis needs to brought back to the scientific community. If science once again embraces it, the scaremongers pretending to be climate scientists will be out of jobs.

Which makes you both dishonest and delusional.
Your mother must be worried sick what is to become of you when you have to cope out in the real world on your own with those character flaws.

My clothes do not warm me up. They just insulate a thin layer of air, which my body warms up. Therefore, I walk around naked.

(This bad analogy brought to you by "I Can't Believe He Just Said That" Enterprises, Inc.)

Chek, keep it up Sherlock. Your interest in persons is a bit stalker-like though.

Correct, I sure don't believe CAGW-science can settles with vague political statements made out by organizations. Look at yourself chek, you can't even provide a simple ref that explains where the 90-95% figure came from (I know, IPCC had to come up with number).

Jonas N:

temperatures have not risen by 0.8 °C since notable human CO2 emissions started,

Wrong, as usual.

the CO2-level has not reached half a doubling,

Wrong as usual, again (log2(390/280)=0.5)

and the ozone and methan are not solely due to humans (meaning they were there before too).

Wrong as usual, yet again. AR4 WG1 chapter 2 talks about "Radiative forcing of climate between 1750 and 2005" from "Human activities" and "Radiative Forcing of Tropospheric Ozone Increases". Get it: INCREASES. Your arrogance is no substitute for reading what they actually say.

I'll spell it out. The settled science says the human caused GHG and Tropospheric ozone increases have been enough to produce 1.0 °C of surface temperature rise on their own WITHOUT ANY FEEDBACK.

you can't even provide a simple ref that explains where the 90-95% figure came from

Sweetheart, even your mancrush has abandoned that one. You don't get to pretend the last 500 posts never happened.

Why don't you stick to the theme of the hour, like how CO2 does not trap heat?

Hey Stu, I haven't. If you look carefully, more than CAGW-carefully, I was helping chek back on track.

Oluas/Olaus said: "Correct, I sure don't prefer not to believe CAGW-science can settles (sic) with vague political scientific statements made out by (sic) organizations organisations made up of scientists agreeing a consensus. Look at yourself me chek I'm handwaving now, you can't even provide a simple ref you can't even provide yet again a simple ref that explains where the 90-95% figure came from (I know, IPCC had to come up with number)".

I corrected your diatribe for you. The IPCC don't conduct any science, genius. They provide an overview of the best science available and I'm not rehashing Jonas' previous attribution errors for you yet again. Even the best jokes become tedious with repetition.

> Correct, I sure don't believe CAGW-science can settles with vague political statements made out by organizations

And this is fine. There's no CAGW science, so it can't do anything, being nonexistent. And the only vague political statements are made by organisations like the Heartland Institute and NIPCC.

Paid for by the tobacco and fossil fuel industries.

Nobody thinks they can settle things with their rhetoric. However, all they need to do is delay until their stock options kick in.

Trollinavia.

So, the models are wrong, huh? They'd be from the same stable of IPCC models that [forecast Arctic ice loss](http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/2009/stroeve.png)? The ones that unfortunately [seem to be wrong](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRc_9nNTZg0&feature=player_embedded) - in the wrong direction...

I note that Luminous Beauty links to [a memorable post by Tamino](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5325957). I wonder why Trollinavia hasn't wandered over to Open Mind to educate the folk there about their poor capacity with time series analyses?

[Wow](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5330458).

It's not the first time that this incarnation of the troll has made the claim of warming, and been refuted.

I kicked him off the bridge [back here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5286782), and for his convenience [included on the Holocene graph a linear regression for the last 10 thousand years](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5286782) - a period which he had claimed was one of warming over time.

He complains that others here are unable to learn. It seems that he himself is an expert in not being able to learn...

GSW @ everywhere:

;)

[You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk).

Olaus Petri:

Chris, again, the Ice-age prophesy of the 70s wasn't science, it was a scientific hypothesis abducted from the scientific community that became headline stories in the 70s.

So it was abducted into newspapers. OK.

And in som years to come, when we, not Jeff, look back, we will find that the CAGW-prophesy also was a scientific hypothesis hijacked from the scientific community.

So you think GRL with its papers such as this is actually a newspaper. I now understand the delusion you're suffering from. You think scientific journals are newspapers. You should get help to overcome your delusion.

Cris O'Neill

Wrong!

In your link, you need to look at the temperatures (not the green line) and compare the ~1940s with ñow, difference is ~0.4 °C

The logarithmic effect of CO2 is close to a 50% increase, but this effect is not 0.6 °C as you claimed.

And you interpret the figure the wrong way: All those contributions of Methane, and ozon etc essentially happened during the same period we are discussing. Since early-mid last century. I can see that they write 'industrial era from 1750' but you can be pretty darn certain that the didn'e measure and distinuish between tropospheric and stratopheric ozone back then.

All these forcings (if they are correct) occured essentially starting arond WW II.

You cannot attribute temperature changes to emissions before the latter have actually occured.

Now, I don't know the timeline of CH4, NOx or O3, but I am pretty certain that they started rising about the same time.

And that, if we take your word/understanding at face value, means that even less has happende due to the CO2-rise. I mean if you in thos ~0.4 °C want to incorporate also the other GHGs!

You simply **cannot** decide that those forcings should have 'occured' timewise when when it suits your 0.8 °C observations, in the meaning that the other GHGS could be used to account for what happened from the 18th century.

Further, you need to apprehend that your argument is **without** the positive feedbacks. And actually reinforces my stance, that there alarmism is not warranted.

Because the actual temperatures since ~1940 can be (using your argument) be mapped to simultaneous increase in GHGs, and the effect is far from what an amplificationfactor of ~3 (or more) would give.

I hope you realize what you are actualaly arguing. Because it is the same as I do:

GHGs are likely to have a net warming effect. The question is how large that effect is. If we assume the forcings that the radiative forcings are reasonably OK, and additive, **then** what we actually **do observe** (until now) is notably less than what would be expected (from a pure radiative consideration).

I know that the IPCC says that there is masking by aerosols, and **if so** it would be some more.

But **nowhere near** what is needed for a positive feedback of a factor 3.

And that is what I have noted too. You say you can (we can argue the finer details, but in essence) arrive at what we see today without positive feedbacks.

And I say the same! And I've said that from the start, that it is those amplifications are the ones that I find questionable.

So Chris O'Neill. Let me restate that:

You and I do not need to agree on what exactly is the best estimate of how much of the recent warming can be mapped onto simultaneous GHG-emissions and their increase.

But if we go with your figures (but dont cheat) and start measuring temperature differences from well before GHG emissions), we both arrive at the conclusion that any large feedbacks simply cannot be observed. I repeat: You want to attribute those ~0.8 °C to GHGs, I'd say it should be less. But we booth note, that there are no large positive amplifications to be observed. If they existed, they must be well hidden somwhere. In the deep oceans, or behind aerosols ...

Rather the actual observations imply feedbacks are close to zero (your 0.8 °C), or on the negative side (with my closer to 0.4 C)

Now, you may find this very disturbing, to be arguing from my side of debate. But that is what you've actually done. (Admittedly in a question we have adressed less here)

Please note, that what has been mostly discussed (by me) is that the 90% certainty of attribution is not a scientific one. I stand by that, since no one has seen anything to the contrary (apart from flailing arms)

A completely different question is, what can be deduced from observations if the underlying hypothesis indeed is correct. Which I addressed in this post. And that is that (if it is correct) those large positive feedbacks are seriously missing, and possibly even negative ...