The other Beck

Doesn't the weasely "local effective concentration" language mean that observers could have measured, with the highlighted 1-3% accuracy, near some intermittent incinerator and then Beck could count on the viewers to extrapolate that local result to the entire atmosphere?

Care to explain how CO2 before this glacial period was several times today's and the planet didn't cook? In fact, the planet 55myo when CO2 was 4 times today flourished.

"Care to explain how CO2 before this glacial period was several times today's and the planet didn't cook?"

Part of the answer can actually be found within your very question! "before this glacial period" means that for much of the period when CO2 was higher, there were no permanent ice sheets on the planet. No Greenland, no Antarctica. That's not "cooking" but it would be a very very different world... with much, much higher sea levels. Sure, life could flourish just as well at 5 degrees warmer as it does today, but the transition would be REALLY REALLY PAINFUL for all the poor humans and many of the current ecosystems...

-M

but the transition would be REALLY REALLY PAINFUL for all the poor humans and many of the current ecosystems...

That's just your opinion, what evidence do you have that is would be "really bad" for us? If anything, more CO2 means more food production. No cold winters means no need to heat our society, reducing our energy requirements. Winter tropical retreats would suffer since no one would need to excape the cold for there wouldn't be any.

As for rising sea levels, niether of those ice sheets have melted away during interglacial periods warmer than today. It would take 1000's of years to melt all that ice.

As for eco systems, they are in constant flux, that's why there's evolution.

"more CO2 means more food production": not necessarily if it requires massive relocation of growing areas (& populations), increased weeds & pests, erratic weather wrecking the growing seasons, loss of fertile soil & centuries needed to create new soils. We're seeing all of those starting to happen now, 2011.
"As for eco systems, they are in constant flux, that's why there's evolution":
Evolution takes many, many millennia, and the damage we're inflicting on the biosphere is happening in decades. Geologically that's nearly as fast as being hit by a comet. Dinosaurs disappeared and mammals & a whole new ecology evolved out of the Cretaceous/Tertiary event, but you wouldn't have wanted to try to live during the million or so years it took to recover. Unless you were a rat.

"there really is no respectable argument in Beck's favour. Anyone on this blog, or anywhere, that credulously cites this material instantly loses all credibility as a skeptic"

And anyone on this blog, or anywhere, that credulously cites the UN IPCCs material instantly loses all credibility as an alarmist. So now what?

Now we ignore you and you go away.

not necessarily if it requires massive relocation of growing areas (& populations),

And we are not smart enough to develop counter measures to this, right. And what evidence do you have that relocation would be required? Pure speculation.

"As for eco systems, they are in constant flux, that's why there's evolution":
Evolution takes many, many millennia, and the damage we're inflicting on the biosphere is happening in decades.

And what is the "damage" because of our CO2 emissions?

but you wouldn't have wanted to try to live during the million or so years it took to recover. Unless you were a rat.

Pure BS. It was a great time for new populations to emerge. Are you claiming that our "damage" is on par to that event?

Klem, stick around we can have fun with these True Believers and their fantacy world where speculation is reality.

"Now we ignore you and you go away."

I suggest we follow this course of action more broadly...

I suggest we follow this course of action more broadly...

So much for this blog being about the science, more like an "us only" religious cult forum.

Yesterday Ian and myself had a very cordial discussion on the HoCO2 thread, Ian was responding to my question about the quality of CO2 measurements pre 1958.

Normally i would just refer you all to that thread but it appears going by Coby's preamble and subsequent posts that would be a waste of time. So let me re state my position and hopefully this time countless people will not dodge the central question again.

I began by stating that if we are to assume Keelings work is accurate how do we know the CO2 levels dating back to 1000AD (pre 1958) are accurate (as per Coby's graph).

In other words how accurate is the ice core data, if we assume the entire data set of thousands of measurements made by scientists using calibrated equipment is to be rejected how can we be confident that the ice core data is any better.

So in summary ignore Coby's cheap shot at me and just tell me why the ice core data is considered a higher quality than direct measurements.

".... and the planet didn't cook"??

Well the planet didn't cook, but any life systems similar to today's would have disappeared.

http://climateprogress.org/2011/01/13/science-kiehl-ncar-paleoclimate-l…

This is not a pretty picture.

Analytical measurements do not just rely on calibration, but on sample preparation. In the case of Mauna Loa, the air does not contain air which has had local sources of CO2 influence it. The very same reason makes ice cores suitable. The very same reason makes the noisy measurements, even if done accurately, worthless.

Crakar,
Two questions for you:
1) Do you agree that Keeling's data is accurate.
2) When you say "thousands of measurements" are you referring to any data not in the above paper?

Blue shift,

1) I believe the CO2 levels measured by Keeling and his son are accurate.

2)By the above paper i assume you mean Beck (Ernst) linked to by Beck (Coby)? If so then let me say Ernst has simply gathered other peoples work and made a graph of it (correct me if i am wrong) i am not sure of its validity in accuratly depicting recent or past co2 levels.

What i am saying is that Coby presented a graph showing ice core/keeling data and claimed this is accurate without informing his readers that the ice core data (much to TP's protests) is subject to scrutiny and yet mocks any other alternative data. But what i find worse is the sheep mentality (cue sheep joke from Skip) response by his followers.

In fact i should not be too harsh on t_p_hamilton because he/she did actually use the words "ice core" in their post which up until now has been taboo. In fact Coby does not even make this as a disclaimer in his original thread!!!!

Any more questions?

"As for ecosystems, they are in constant flux, that's why there's evolution." -- Richard Wakefield.

Actually, there's evolution because there's variation in populations and that variation is largely heritable. You don't need abiotic changes to the environment to have evolution.

Evolution doesn't take millenia (Kiwiiano's error), but there are limits on the rate of evolution (Kiwiiano's point). A strong environmental change will be good for the descendants of survivors and bad for those who can't cope. People who know a lot more about it than Richard Wakefield know we're in the middle of the next mass extinction. How many species' extinctions would an action have to cause for that action to be worth avoiding? What amount of coral bleaching and destruction from carbonate undersaturation (and loss of the fisheries that depend on them) is acceptable?

And what does any of this have to do with the topic of Coby's post? Richard Wakefield, your first comment was off-topic. Why so rude? Can't admit that the IPCC is a better source for relevant information on CO2 concentration than Ernst Beck's E&E article?

crakar said:"the ice core data (much to TP's protests) is subject to scrutiny" is true as far as it goes. It has also passed said scrutiny, as defined by using multiple locations, multiple labs, and multiple extraction techniques, all giving robust results, in addition to matching temperatures from isotope measurements, and matching Milankovitch cycles. One can expect no more from science than that.

i can't find the 2009 version either, but here's a PDF of the 2006 publication in AIG where the graph also appears (in black+white):

http://www.biomind.de/nogreenhouse/daten/AIGnewsNov06.pdf

here's two E&E articles by Beck, but i couldn't find the graph in it:

* 2007: 180 Years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods
http://www.biomind.de/nogreenhouse/daten/EE%2018-2_Beck.pdf

* 2008: 50 YEARS OF CONTINUOUS MEASUREMENT OF CO2 ON MAUNA LOA
http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2/08_Beck-2.pdf

btw, i have this graph hanging on my wall :) i don't remember where i got it from, but i do remember it was a pain to find it. no idea why i didn't bookmark it.

p.

A commenter above (Wakefield) waves his hands and dismisses "alarmist" fears of our current self-created situation whereby humanity might need to indulge in serious evolution, numbers reduction and/or relocation to different areas of the planet to survive as humans.

No doubt, like Annie, he is prepared to bet his bottom dollar that the sun'll come out tomorra... Clearly he believes that altering the atmospheric constituents has zero risk to it. I think he needs to prove that beyond all reasonable doubt before anyone listens to him otherwise he is exposing the other 7 billion of us to enormous risk with his convictions.

It looks like his position on the consequences of likely environmental degradation to our current ecosystems are such that he is happy to risk most of us dying and being replaced by sturdier life forms because that's how evolution works and that we shouldn't use our brains to try and head off the unnecessary evolutionary pressures we are creating but instead we should spread Polyanna'ism.

Of course we might get lucky but there's a lot of people in Vegas who go broke by relying on that stupid mentality.

I, for one, think that Richard Wakefield should be engaged in this conversation. He is discussing the topic we all should be discussing: What will the impacts of climate change be, and what course of action (or inaction) is logical in light of those impacts?

Sadly, this post still has to argue what is a painfully obvious fact: human activity is raising atmospheric levels of CO2. Also an obvious fact is that changing CO2 levels will affect climate.

So, to Richard Wakefield, I will assume since your comments do not address the topic of this post that you at least accept that CO2 is rising and that affects climate. So, now we can discuss rationally what if anything should be done about it.

Your arguments do not really bear on this subject. The world may survive, humanity may survive, there may even be some benefits of climate change. However, the question is whether the cost of efforts to alter CO2 emissions are lower than the long-term costs of doing nothing.

From the past, we see that even small changes in climate play a role in destabilizing civilization. You argue that technology will address any problems, which may be true for wealthy nations. But, do you trust that emerging nations, such as China with its 3 million troops and nuclear weapons will remain stable if water supplies drop below the level needed to sustain its population?

You argue that melting of ice sheets will take thousands of years. However, even if Greenland's takes 10,000 years, that adds 1 meter of sea level rise per century. How much will that cost given the massive population along the coasts. Do we want to keep moving our cities inland?

It comes down to a strategy of risk mitigation. I find that burying one's head in the sand is a poor way to do this.

It seems to me that Beck's graph above actually does a nice job of corroborating the ice core data. We know that local fluctuations can temporarily increase measured CO2, but they cannot radically decrease it. Thus, the true CO2 curve should be a smooth curve lying somewhere below any local readings. The ice core readings nicely track along the minimum readings of Beck. If anythijng, Beck's data suggests the ice core data are on the high side.

Richard Wakefield: You keep saying "pure speculation", and "fantasy world". Yet your own opinions seem to be based only on refusing to look at any evidence.

The opinions of those concerned by global warming is based on detailed and comprehensive research into the effects of climate change, research into mitigation strategies, and research into the effects of on plant life of changing CO2, temperature and water availability.

Yes, it's complicated.

But despite the complexity, we have answers. And they say that we should be very concerned.

Don't believe me? Of course you don't! So go away and do a little research yourself. Please stick to real research, not the blog science fantasy stuff.

BKsea: Remember that CO2 has an annual cycle, and there is some variation with latitude also. Beck's diagram hides the annual cycle (obvious why - it makes his claims even less credible).

Ice core measurements are integrated over time, so the annual cycle is not present. The latitude variation can easily account for 10-20 ppmv. Even without measurement error, that is enough to explain any spot measurements below the true (globally averaged, seasonally corrected) curve.

Thanks for the clarification, Didactylos. I think it is still safe to say the two graphs agree more than they disagree.

"We know that local fluctuations can temporarily increase measured CO2, but they cannot radically decrease it."

A CO2 measurement taken at the right time (say, downwind of a forest during maximum growth season, or downwind of a patch of ocean with upwelling old - and therefore, CO2-deprived - water) could have lower than global average CO2 levels...

-M

Well the planet didn't cook, but any life systems similar to today's would have disappeared.

Pure speculative nonsense. Want to know WHERE it was 16C "warmer" back then? Not the tropics, it was as hot then as now. So where was that increase? Easy, temporate and polar. No winters rises the temp by that much. Example, take Alberta in Canada. It can get to over 30C in the summer now, and down to minus 40C in the winter nights. Increasing that to above zero in the winter and that's 40C increase! Just because it was 16C "warmer" back then does not mean the planet was "hotter", far from it. It was just LESS COLD. Big difference. Also back then the planet was teaming with tropical life. Tropics has far more biodiversity that the temporate and polar zones.

"dissapearence" of organisms is a relative term, meaningingless unless one knows how that change happened. Was is taxonomic extinction or phylogenetic extinction.

Actually, there's evolution because there's variation in populations and that variation is largely heritable. You don't need abiotic changes to the environment to have evolution.

False. One of the major key components of evolution is natural selection which is the driving directional force in evolution. Natural selection comes entirely external to the individual, the environment. You cannot have evolution without natural selection.

People who know a lot more about it than Richard Wakefield know we're in the middle of the next mass extinction. How many species' extinctions would an action have to cause for that action to be worth avoiding?

Two things. Check the on line extinction database. Most of he extinctions happened before 1950.

Second, the loss of biodiversity was not because of our emissions of CO2. Not one species has been lost in thepast 30 years because of CO2 emissions and changes in the climate.

What amount of coral bleaching and destruction from carbonate undersaturation (and loss of the fisheries that depend on them) is acceptable?

Coral bleaching isnt from CO2. www.co2science.org has a database of papers on this subject.

And what does any of this have to do with the topic of Coby's post? Richard Wakefield, your first comment was off-topic. Why so rude? Can't admit that the IPCC is a better source for relevant information on CO2 concentration than Ernst Beck's E&E article?

Not off topic. Copy's entire premise is that the levels of CO2 is increasing to dangerous levels. Can't be true if CO2 was higher in the geological past with no ill effects.

I think he needs to prove that beyond all reasonable doubt before anyone listens to him otherwise he is exposing the other 7 billion of us to enormous risk with his convictions.

False. The onus is on your side to provide the evidence beyond reasonable doubt, which your side has NOT done. If you are so concerned for human welfare why don't you advocate to move all people from active tectonic zones? 250,000 died in a flash in Haiti.

It looks like his position on the consequences of likely environmental degradation to our current ecosystems are such that he is happy to risk most of us dying and being replaced by sturdier life forms because that's how evolution works and that we shouldn't use our brains to try and head off the unnecessary evolutionary pressures we are creating but instead we should spread Polyanna'ism.

What is the probability of these risks? Numbers please, not just your opinion.

Of course we might get lucky but there's a lot of people in Vegas who go broke by relying on that stupid mentality.

Even the odds of playing at Vegas are known. What are your numbers to back up your claim?

Also an obvious fact is that changing CO2 levels will affect climate.

It's not now, so what evidence is there it will in the future and that change *WILL* be bad and not over all good.

So, to Richard Wakefield, I will assume since your comments do not address the topic of this post that you at least accept that CO2 is rising and that affects climate. So, now we can discuss rationally what if anything should be done about it.

Yes, it is rising, and no it wont have a measureable affect beyond normal variation. And no, moreCO2 won't be bad. All weare doing is returning CO2 back into the atmosphere that has been sequestered by the biota to dangerously low levels.

However, the question is whether the cost of efforts to alter CO2 emissions are lower than the long-term costs of doing nothing.

That requires your side to confirm what the negative affects will cost over what time frame.

But, do you trust that emerging nations, such as China with its 3 million troops and nuclear weapons will remain stable if water supplies drop below the level needed to sustain its population?

That's an over population issue not a CO2 emissions issue. There is *no* evidence that rainfall has changed beyond normal variation. BTW, if China intends to make some kind of military move it will be because of two reasons: Oil and no one to counter them.

You argue that melting of ice sheets will take thousands of years. However, even if Greenland's takes 10,000 years, that adds 1 meter of sea level rise per century. How much will that cost given the massive population along the coasts. Do we want to keep moving our cities inland?

You are assuming that there will be habitable cities on the coasts in 1000 years. Most city buildings won't last 100 years let alone 1000. You are also assuming those ice sheets will all melt, they havn't in 200,000 years, even during times of interglacials warmer than today.

It comes down to a strategy of risk mitigation. I find that burying one's head in the sand is a poor way to do this.

No it comes down to what one can prove with evidence.

The opinions of those concerned by global warming is based on detailed and comprehensive research into the effects of climate change, research into mitigation strategies, and research into the effects of on plant life of changing CO2, temperature and water availability.

You mean based on those climate models that can't predict anything. What changes happening now are from AGW? What physical evidence happening now confirm the models' predictions. And, yes I have read LOTS on the subject, so don't for one minute think I'm not up to speed.

This is directly to the topic:

http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/

Also, understand that the ice core data in the post's graph was cleaned. It's the average of the raw data. Averaging, by definition, hides the extremes. Just because a specific "year" in the ice core shows a CO2 of 280, does not mean during that period it was ONLY 280. Each "year" in the ice data is a compilation of sections from different locations, and different readings. Tagging the ice core data in front of the Mona Loa data is linking apples and oranges. What the ice core data needs, and is mysteriously missing, are the error of measurments. If those were include you would see error bars rising as much as up to 350 or more. I'm trying to find the reference for this, seems I didn't keep it.

The idea that negative climate change impacts have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is a load of crap. Even if we conclude that there is only a 1% chance of overall severe negative impacts, it might still be in our interest to do something if we can eliminate that 1% risk at a cost that is considerably lower than the alternative.

The idea that negative climate change impacts have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is a load of crap. Even if we conclude that there is only a 1% chance of overall severe negative impacts, it might still be in our interest to do something if we can eliminate that 1% risk at a cost that is considerably lower than the alternative.

No it's not crap, it's playing the odds, which you do every time you get on the highway, or walk down the street. It is impossible to protect against every risk, so we play the odds. Everyone does. And to decide how to play those odds you must have the numbers.

If you think this is unreasonable, then why don't we move everyone, all cities, from active tectonic zones? What are the odds of the next "big one" in California? How many people will be killed when that happens? Why is that less of a risk than AGW?

"You can't have evolution without natural selection" -- Richard Wakefield.
You know, Richard, being correct matters. Or it should (if you disagree about that, then let's not talk). First, since evolution is the change in allelic frequencies in a population over time, you can have evolution without natural selection. Random processes count -- look up genetic drift, for example. Second, you can have natural selection in a stable abiotic environment. Mutation is the ultimate source of genetic variation. Variants can be selected based on how well they perform in a given environment, even if that environment is fixed.

That's about 100 words just to correct a couple of misunderstandings you felt the need to propagate. I imagine it would be a long day to try and go through and correct all of your errors. I don't have that kind of time, especially since you don't have the decency to answer questions or stay on topic (yes, it is off-topic as evidenced by your reference to "entire premise" rather than something Coby wrote on this page). If you want to argue about data, then I suggest you provide a link so at least we can argue about the same thing. If you want to respond to my questions about *future* environmental degradation and extinctions (the "entire premise" of the value of these discussions is that these things can be avoided), then don't try to distract with discussion of extinctions 30 or 50 years ago. Finally, if you want to argue about evolution, I recommend you learn something about it first.

Finally, if you want to argue about evolution, I recommend you learn something about it first.

Nice attempt to put me down. Not only have I taken university courses on evolution, I spent 20 years fighting creationism needing to understand evolution in every detail. There are three components to evolution, and natural selection is the KEY component. There is no direction in evolution without it. I suggest you go talk to an evolutionary biologist.

What was it that Wallice and Darwin discovered? NATURAL SELECTION.

If you think that genetic drift is the primary mode of evolution, please post references of those cases.

Otherwise, I suggest you at the least "Natural Selection in the Wild" by Endler, for a start. Books by Mayr will also help.

While you are at it, show me at least one species that has gone extinct because of our CO2 missions.

bottom of a coal mine

Richard Wakefield wrote:

"If you think this is unreasonable, then why don't we move everyone, all cities, from active tectonic zones? What are the odds of the next "big one" in California?"

Very silly point. Personally I would not live in a danger zone. If I did I would choose to move, or mitigate the danger if possible. What Wakefield's irresponsible position fails to recognise is that his views risk making the whole planet a danger zone - imposing a planetary risk for thousands of years - endangering everyone - whether they choose to risk it or whether they fight against it.

If only Wakefield confined his risk taking to his own life very few would be bothered.

We are forcing the climate. Climate change that otherwise wouldn't have happened is certain. The exact odds of what will happen are less than certain but people who demand certainty before action are just irrational.

Wakefield is like the punk in Dirty Harry who chose to risk it and died. His views mean that, instead of a bullet in the Magnum, there is something like a vial of deadly virus that would spread to all the world and yet he is so arrogant in his certainty and irresponsible about the outcomes, that he advocates putting everybody else in danger.

What sort of a person does that?

What Wakefield's irresponsible position fails to recognise is that his views risk making the whole planet a danger zone - imposing a planetary risk for thousands of years - endangering everyone - whether they choose to risk it or whether they fight against it.

This is supposed to be a science blog, so present your evidence that the entire planet is at risk because of our CO2 emissions.

We are forcing the climate. Climate change that otherwise wouldn't have happened is certain.

Really? Like what is changing, and changing for the worse, because of our CO2 emissions. Back up this claim with evidence.

What sort of a person does that?

One who demands that you provide the evidence to back up your claim. This is *supposed* to be a science blog, not an apocalyptic, end of the world, prophesy faith only, opinion is fact, blog.

Extra ordinary claims requires extra ordinary evidence. Don't bother with claiming the IPCC is the authority, it's not. The IPCC is just the Faith's Vatican, their reports the Bible. Provide physical evidence of changes happening now because of AGW.

I suggest readers google "richard wakefield komoka" to get a feel for Richard's very special brand of crackpottery.

Wakefield, #36. You're wrong. As I pointed out, you were wrong in two ways. I didn't say natural selection isn't important. I said it's not the only mode of evolution. It's not. You made a blanket statement that it was. You were wrong. Besides, you don't need abiotic environmental change to have natural selection. You said it was required for evolution. You were wrong. Is it worth arguing with someone who can't admit he was wrong? (You won't even admit Ernst Beck's CO2 construction is wrong!)

Since you appeal to authority, I also took undergraduate courses in evolution, then I TA'd them whilst I completed my MSc on a population genetics thesis, and now I work as a biologist keeping abreast of the literature and applying evolutionary findings. I'd put my credentials up against yours any day, especially as you still don't recognize either of your two errors. (PS you spelled Wallace's name wrongly.)

You end by challenging me to name a single species that has gone extinct due to CO2 emissions. I indicated before that my motivation is to prevent extinctions. And given the difficulty in even ascribing weather events to CO2, again I have to ask at what number of attributed extinctions would suffice to motivate you. With the speed at which you are able to admit you are wrong, no species would have a chance of persistence. Maybe extirpations (local extinctions) will suffice for examples? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/13/AR20100… (note that lead author Barry Sinervo is an evolutionary biologist).

No, they won't suffice because your mind isn't open. Would evidence that not everything flourished 55 mya (now following your original off-topic comment) influence you in any way? http://sp.lyellcollection.org/cgi/content/abstract/101/1/401 . I doubt it. I suspect you are impervious.

How about current warming that is biologically and economically harmful at a sub-extinction level? Example: the Fraser River is so warm now that even when sockeye return in large numbers, fishing opportunities are forgone due to fears that the fish will be killed by hot water before reaching the spawning grounds.

Shall I waste my weekend trying to find more examples for you? I'd probably have better luck convincing creationists that evolutionary principles are sound. Prove me wrong -- admit that your blanket statements about evolution were incorrect, and admit that Ernst Beck's CO2 reconstruction (stupidly published by E&E) doesn't reflect globally relevant atmospheric concentrations.

How about current warming that is biologically and economically harmful at a sub-extinction level? Example: the Fraser River is so warm now that even when sockeye return in large numbers, fishing opportunities are forgone due to fears that the fish will be killed by hot water before reaching the spawning grounds.

I didn't say there isnt warming, I'm challenge you to provide the evidence that this warming is unnatural and due to our emissions of CO2.

Your desire to stop extinctions, on your percieved notion that CO2 emissions will cause future extinctions, requires evidence that increased CO2 *will* cause extinctions, not opinion.

And why stop there? Our human numbers are pushing out species to extinction, are you willing to call for a cull of human numbers to stop those extinctions? Or is your desire to cut CO2 emissions a back door to culling human numbers?

Oh, and those fish survived the MWP, the RWP and interglacial periods which were warmer than today. Your use of the term "hot water" is loaded. How "hot" is hot?

as for that article about the lizards in Mexico, how did these animals survive the MWP, the RWP and interglacial periods warmer than today? Selection stresses are part of evolution. So what if their numbers drop, those that survive will have the selective advantage and continue the species. Talk of extinctions in the future is speculation only. These guys do not have a crystal ball and see what the future will bring.

BTW, daily temp data exists on line for Mexico, I will download a few stations and we will see what is actually going on and see if there is any "warming".

Richard Wakefield:

You keep demanding "evidence".

There is bucketloads of evidence.

Heaps and heaps of evidence about the effects, too.

I know it's easier to keep demanding evidence and making stuff up than it is to actually read what we know already. But it makes you look like an idiot.

Richard Wakefield -- still can't admit to being wrong? Still can't admit that Ernst Beck's CO2 reconstruction has little bearing on climate change theory? I'm disappointed but I can't say I'm surprised.
(FYI hot water for Fraser sockeye migration is generally considered to be greater than 18 C; if such temperatures persist for very long there are considerable migration failures.)
Oh, another response ... this one about lizards. Again you show you don't understand evolution. The low elevation habitats that have warmed are empty. There are no individuals of certain species there passing their warmth-adapted genes on to future generations.
"Talk of extinctions in the future is speculation only." Ha! Should one give weight to the predictions of experts who actually study this stuff or to the speculations of people like Richard Wakefield who won't admit to a mistake? Hmmm.

Hey Richard Wakefield, I was so blinded by your hypocrisy ('those scientists are just speculating about extinctions; the lizards are going to evolve and be fine!') that I missed this:
"Or is your desire to cut CO2 emissions a back door to culling human numbers?" Nice. I'm so thankful that you would refuse to speculate nefarious motivations on my part that are contradictory to what I already stated. I'm so glad that you would never stoop to that level!

"Why stop there?" Ooh, snap. How intelligent! I think you should admit to being wrong about evolution. "Why stop there?" Next thing you know I'll demand that you commit suicide. I think a meaningful price should be put on carbon emissions so that the market can act to reduce them in favour of sustainable energy technologies that will have a lower impact on the environment. "Why stop there?" Yes, it's just a slippery slope, and next thing you know I'll be eating human babies!
Well reasoned! And I thought I was doing good by reducing my meat intake. Thanks for showing me the light, Richard!

You keep demanding "evidence".

So you provide the ipcc, sigh. I asked to show me a specific case of changes in the climate that are caused by our emissions of CO2. But you didn't because you cant. It's not in the IPCC reports, only predictions of possible future events.

The fact is, there is no change in temps beyond normal variation. No increase in summer TMax. No increase in rain, no increase in storms, tornados, hurricanes, droughts. Nothing happening now is beyond normal variation. This CO2 has no affect on the climate.

And yes, I have peer reviewed papers to back up any one of those.

FYI hot water for Fraser sockeye migration is generally considered to be greater than 18 C; if such temperatures persist for very long there are considerable migration failures

What specific temperature changes have been taking place in that area?

The low elevation habitats that have warmed are empty.

And you are absolutely certain that any temperature changes are from our CO2? I'm checking that data BTW, but the data is bad, lots of gaps, looking for a clean recordset. Second question. How did these lizards make it through the MWP, RWP and interglacial periods? Third question, temp changes from 1850 to 1945 was from our CO2?

I think a meaningful price should be put on carbon emissions so that the market can act to reduce them in favour of sustainable energy technologies that will have a lower impact on the environment.

There isn't any with the same energy density and ERoEI as oil. Increasing the costs of energy by invoking carbon taxes will kill the economy. That will kill people.

Here in Ontario we have the Green Energy Act which has doubled electrical costs on everyone here to build wind and solar (which doesn't produce much power). It's projected to increase an additonal 50-60% in the next few years. We have people who can't pay their bills and losing their homes because of this. This government will fall in Oct over these high costs of power, and the next government will kill the act and stop wind and solar programs (see what is happening in Spain).

So your plan to invoke a carbon tax will bankrupt people and business, killing jobs. Guess they are just collateral damage to satisfy your desire to "save the planet."

The problems with the late E. Beck's papers are at least two-fold

1. The increases and decreases in CO2 are so rapid that they, in the words of Ralph Keeling:

âIt should be added that Beckâs analysis also runs afoul of a basic accounting problem. Beckâs 11âyear averages show large swings, including an increase from 310 to 420 ppm between 1920 and 1945 (Beckâs Figure 11). To drive an increase of this magnitude globally requires the release of 233 billion metric tons of C to the atmosphere. The amount is equivalent to more than a third of all the carbon contained in land plants globally. Other CO2 swings noted by Beck require similarly large releases or uptakes. To make a credible case, Beck would have needed to offer evidence for losses or gains of carbon of this magnitude from somewhere. He offered none.â

This is what is technically known as a BS test. E. Beck's paper fails badly. As measures of global CO2 concentrations they are nonsense.

2. Beck does not critically evaluate the measurements he shows, in fact, having followed this from the beginning, it is most likely that he was not capable of doing so. Since these date back to the 1800s, use measurement methods which are not calibrated against proper standard, and were made in places where there is/was known to be rapid and large swings in CO2 concentration (swings of up to 100ppm have been recorded, for example, in planted fields over an hour). Most of them should not be considered, or if considered to be only measures of local concentrations.

Guy Callendar did a critical evaluation and reached essentially the modern conclusion, that the level of CO2 pre-1900 was ~ 280 ppm. Keeling also critically evaluated pre 1900 measurements coming to the same conclusion.

Some of the local measurements MAY be accurate, BUT even there there is good evidence that the methods used were fraught with operator error.

It gets worse, but that is enough for now

In an era when anyone reading this utterly depends on the results of science and the engineering that follows, it is sad that so many people desperately prefer to reject basic physics in favor of magic.

Ontario's feed-in tariff for solar and wind is a contract with the producers that have invested in and installed the equipment and physical plant. Should any future Ontario government "kill the act and stop wind and solar programs" then either Ontario ratepayers will still be on the hook for existing contracts or Ontario taxpayers will face some pretty hefty cancellation penalties and years of expensive litigation.

Don't bother with Richard Wakefield. There are hundreds of thousands of papers on climate change and associated topics, and a great many on the specific topics of which he is ignorant. When someone is entirely combative and mostly incurious, discussion is pointless. He needs to open his mind and educate himself from the scientific literature or other reputable sources. Then discussion might be worthwhile.

Richard Wakefield: "plan to invoke a carbon tax will bankrupt people and business..."

This is likely the starting point for his 'skepticism', and all else is bent towards reinforcing that view.

Richard Wakefield:

You obviously haven't read anything the IPCC has published, because they go into great detail about observed changes. One example? There are far too many to fit into a little comment like this! But what the heck - here are ELEVEN climate indicators for you. Again, if you want the science behind these little graphs, you are going to have to actually read and think beyond what you find in blogs.

You won't ever read anything the IPCC published, or crack open a journal - because your complaints are ideological, and have nothing to do with science.

And your ego won't allow you to consider the possibility you are wrong. That's not a scientific attitude or a sceptical attitude. It's the denier mindset.

One more lie, and I think we will ignore you forever.

Hey Coby,

First off kudos to you for the web site. This one combined with some others out there has helped to educate me significantly on AGW.

Secondly evidently even Ernst Beck no longer believes the results from his first paper.
Go here and look down to Ernst Beck's comment. It is about the 26th comment down.

'One example? There are far too many to fit into a little comment like this!' (Didactylos)

Translation: I haven't read them either. So here's a link offering a fatuous summary.

Thomas Gregory: pitty Ernst-Georg Beck died a few months ago. If you go to his website, you will find it filled with references to that graph he no longer believed. It's used as "evidence", repeatedly, that CO2 concentrations are merely linked to temperature. I.e., warmer temperatures result in more CO2 in the atmosphere.

Ontario ratepayers will still be on the hook for existing contracts or Ontario taxpayers will face some pretty hefty cancellation penalties and years of expensive litigation.

Nope, there is a way to kill them all off and have no finacial consequences for the next government. The Czech Repubic had the same problem. They solved it by introducing a green energy surtax of 25% on the gross revenue of all solar producers. Made them all unprofitable, and governments can't get sued for tax measures.

There are hundreds of thousands of papers on climate change and associated topics,

Climate change, yes, which has happened on this planet for 4.5 billions years. All natural normal events. Not one of those papers has linked CO2 emissions to any changes in climate. Not one.

This is the crux of the whole issue. How much of the current changes in the climate are empirically shown to be from our CO2 emissions. Just because the climate changes does not mean we caused it. Provide evidencewe are causing the changes because of our CO2.

But what the heck - here are ELEVEN climate indicators for you.

I have seen all those before. In fact, they bolster my claim that this change is all normal. It is admitted in the IPCC that the changes in the climate from 1850 to 1945 is natural (coming out of the LIA), if anything the BEST CO2 can influence is a small percent of that change. Then we had a DROP in surface temps 1945 to 1975, yet CO2 emissions soared. Only in the past 30-40 years can any of our CO2 emissions have a *potential* of any effects, yet those very graphs show the changes recently are the same as those 1850-1945.

Yes, the climate changes. That is unequivocal. Did we cause that change because our CO2? There is no evidence of that.

Stop equating all climate change to our CO2 emissions. The null hypothesis is NOT CO2 causes all climate change. The null hypothesis is all climate change is normal, your side has to provide the evidence to show otherwise.

So in those 11 points where is the evidence that CO2 is causing these changes?

This goes to the heart of what the default position is in climate science. Is the null hypothesis that all change is from our O2 emissions, or is it that all changes are natural events?

Hint: In no other science is the default position we cause the observed events. Only in climate science is the null hypothesis that all events have natural mechanisms rejected.

Warning: This is hazardous to those who are True Believers of the AGW Faith. Only those who are interested in the science should read.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/willis_trenberth_wuw…

This goes to the heart of what the default position is in climate science. Is the null hypothesis that all change is from our O2 emissions, or is it that all changes are natural events?

I am certain that in most papers the null hypothesis is that there has been no change in the climate. I do wish you would stop using statistical terminology when you obviously have no clue as to what it means.

"Is the null hypothesis that all change is from our O2 emissions"

And Richard Wakefield hits the stupid threshold. Bye!

All of you should also read this:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/16/dueling-hypotheses/

I am certain that in most papers the null hypothesis is that there has been no change in the climate.

That is absolutely false. Geological papers are all about change, climate change included. So you are saying there are no papers on the LIA, no papers on MWP. Are you claiming the changes in temp from 1850-1945 is from our CO2?

It is clear you are advocating that ALL changes in the climate are from our CO2.

And you claim that I don't understand statistics, what a laugh.

Richard, it is a lost cause on this thread because I have been traveling for several days and will be for a couple more, but your off topic gattling-gun approach will no longer be tolerated. From now on any posting of yours that is introducing a topic not directly relevant to the main post will be purged on sight. If I am late and replies to you are already up, they will remain.

I can't tell you how annoying your link-spam spaghetti on the wall approach is, but I can tell you that more than any other it is a clear sign of a denialist. You move from one totally unrelated topic to the next with unsubstantiated and wildly wrong claims and you simply create work for people who care about evidence and reason.

It will no longer be tolerated.

Hello and goodbye from Prague!

"Not one of those papers has linked CO2 emissions to any changes in climate. Not one."

Here's one, Richard:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI4011.1

Here's another 10,000:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=anthropogenic+attribution+glo…

Enjoy!

Coby, may I suggest you start a thread on what the null hypothesis is in AGW.

Richard Wakefield, regarding 48 (your last comment to me) -- you can read the lizard paper and you can look up sockeye and Fraser River temperatures. Not every temperature change that gets studied will show up in station records on the web; read the papers. How did the lizards make it through previous warm spells? I doubt that anyone has good temperature records in the areas for earlier periods, I doubt that the MWP was as warm as now, but if there were similarly hot periods in the past, given the observed trend today, one would predict that the low elevation populations went extinct and were recolonized when temperatures declined. This is not a conclusion and is not central to the argument. (Irrelevant is your question about warming to 1945; indications are that CO2 had a role in that warming, but solar forcing played an important role also.)

Economists don't think a meaningful price on carbon will necessarily cause human misery. For example, here are economists in the Wall Street Journal arguing about how a price on carbon would help to smooth the transition as easily accessed oil declines.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117086898234001121-search.html

You seem to be parroting powerful business lobbyists with your speculation on global economic effects. Do you have proof that CO2 restrictions caused economic harm? Where's the relevant science? How were all of the other factors ruled out? Economic concerns were used against the CFC ban and the Clean Water Act, etc, etc, and yet we're better off for implementing them. Your comments are "pure speculation" -- something you disdain in others. (Maybe you took an economics class at university, but given how your understanding of evolution is no credit to your instructors, I think I'll stick with the experts.)

Finally, Richard Wakefield, this is my last response to you ever (unless you demonstrate that you can admit an error, and unless you can admit that something your 'side' or 'tribe' uses as an argument is wrong). You like to call everyone else a True Believer. Your refusal to admit an error marks you as a True Believer. You're a hypocrite and probably a jerk. I hope you live long enough to realize it.

Sorry Coby, I'll be better next time.

'Finally, Richard Wakefield, this is my last response to you ever....' (Steve L)

Is that a promise?

For those that care (or even know what I am talking about), my mother-in-law looks like staying for a while because of the recent and ongoing floods in Queensland, so there is no more running around the house naked and having sex with the wife on the kitchen bench!

But I will say a very heartfelt thanks to crakar for offering to lend me his caravan. He and I may not see eye-to-eye on some issues, but he did make a very welcome gesture in this difficult time. Thanks mate!

Fortunately, I do have a caravan of my own and M-I-L will be utilising it for a while - but hopefully not too long!

Two Wakefield'isms:

1)"Stop equating all climate change to our CO2 emissions."

Nobody, but nobody, who knows what they are talking about (particularly climate scientists) says this. One sees this strawman claim made by the ignoramuses who comment on Wattsupwiththat. That Wakefield makes it here shows exactly how much he knows!

and

2)"How much of the current changes in the climate are empirically shown to be from our CO2 emissions"

One thing is beyond doubt, and agreed with unequivocally by darlings of the deniers/Wattsupwiththat scientists like Lindzen, Christy, Spencer et al (who would also laugh at the crazy Beck paper which is the topic of this post) is that CO2 is STEADILY increasing; that we're mostly responsible for it; that the planet has been subject to an increased radiative forcing because of the basic physics of more CO2. This increase in radiative forcing has been empirically measured. This has already increased the energy retention of the planet which has caused an increase in temperature which has been measured. If we stopped increasing the CO2 levels tomorrow, we would not reach a new equilibrium temperature for several decades during which time we might suffer positive feedbacks beyond that from water vapour - if we have not already set off the methane release feedback.

I suspect that the only "test tube science" empirical evidence that CO2 can cause climate change that would satisfy the Wakefield's of this world, would require the use of a time machine to repeatedly return to the past and try out different greenhouse gas emissions scenarios to see what would result when one went "back to the future".

Seeing as we are actually in the planetary test tube, and we only get one go at running the experiment, and will have to live with the results, I think it perfectly clear how responsible - even rational - Wakefield's demands are. He seems to believe that is impossible for us to do anything to alter the dynamics of the climate and his "reasoning" appears to be just an apparent blind faith that whatever wacky statement or maverick paper he can find on the internet to support him is true and that the great mass of cross referenced scientific knowledge can be waved aside with a rhetorical flourish. Clearly he doesn't understand the "Dirty Harry" metaphor.

My opinion is that those who hold views like him are the biggest single danger to humanity that has ever existed.

Mandas in 71,

Next time can you please put up a warning like "explicit sex scene descriptions below", thanks.

To Eli in 49,

I for one am not advocating Becks work is accurate to the point that it should be used by the IPCC, what i am saying is that the ice core may not be any better.

Here is a link to an article which discusses Dr. Jaworowski's thoughts.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/ice_core_man-canada_20…

Now if what he is saying is true then do we really know what the recent or over historical CO2 levels really were?

I have another question for anyone and i seriously dont know the answer so please be polite if you respond but how do we know the rise in CO2 is not in response to a rise in temp and not the other way around?

crakar

That was just the overview - if you want the explicit details I can provide them. If you want video I can also make it available!

Steve L

You are wasting your time if you think Dick will ever admit to an error. All he does is cut and paste denialist opinions from other websites without having the slightest clue to what he is talking about, and without ever having read the papers which are being discussed.

He has previously produced such gems as 'polar bears are threatened, their numbers have quadrupled since the 1950s'. When he was called on it, he just moved on to the next piece of crap.

Despite this, and as we all knoww, at post #47 he repeats his main idiotic claims about Tmax. Although why he keeps calling it 'summer Tmax' is beyond me. I guess he must think that the maximum annual daily temperature can only occur in summer - but everyone else in the universe knows differently. He also places a ridiculous amount of reliance on this single datapoint, and completely ignores all the other indicators such as those discussed above.

What's worse, to claim that there is 'no increase in (summer) Tmax' across the globe is just plain moronic nonsense unsupported by any evidence. I wonder where he got the evidence for that claim? Or is it just hopeful extrapolation of his limited observations from his own tiny corner of the world? Which just adds lie to his claim about only caring about evidence.

I have previously suggested I have evidence from Australia that shows unequivocably that Tmax and the number of hot days IS increasing in many locations, and that I would provide the data to him if he had sufficient integrity to make a statement that he would admit he was wrong if and when the data showed as such. Of course, he never provided such a statement. Why is that Dick? Why aren't you prepared to admit you are wrong?

I have been criticised by others for NOT producing the evidence - even though the statement from Dick has never been forthcoming - and even accused of lying and that I never had the evidence in the first place. Now I do not feel the need to defend myself against unwarranted ad-hominen attacks based on a complete misreading of the situation and which are totally unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. But I will say this. I HAVE provided portions of that evidence to some other posters - one of whom is coby - so they are well aware of the truth. But I will reiterate - bullying and ad hominem attacks will NOT force me to change my mind. The evidence will ONLY be produced if Dick has sufficient integrity to issue a statement demonstrating that he is willing to public admit his errors. Of course, I realise this is probably a forlorn hope, because Dick will NEVER admit he is wrong and more likely, will just reject the evidence anyway.

re: #66 Coby

real Climate has The Bore Hole, and Eli has started the Rabett Hole, to good effect in both places.

luminous beauty, ask yourself why there has been no increase in the summer TMax (I've now expanded to India, Africa, South America as well as Canada and Australia). There's been no increase in storms, rainfall, snowfall, tornados, Hurricanes, droughts. Papers in your links are computer models.

Exlain how less than 1% of today' CO2 emissions back in the late 1800's caused 1/3 of the forcing of that temperature increase. Our emissions have doubled every 25 years. That means prior to WWII our emissions was less than 5% of today. There is no way that tiny about of CO2 emissions changed the climate to come out of the LIA.

BTW, I will check to se if those papers, many of them now old, have been refuted since.

Crakar -- are you serious? Sorry, but it's hard to be polite when you ask a question that could so easily be looked up. I'll give you three quick hints and hope you will do more comprehensive research:
1. If increasing temperatures were resulting in the increase in CO2, the ocean would be losing CO2, but both the atmosphere and ocean are gaining (thus ocean acidification).
2. We know that we're burning more than enough carbon to account for the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. In addition, the oxygen content of the atmosphere is declining.
3. Plants preferentially take up one isotope of carbon over another and, therefore, fossil fuels are marked by higher content of that isotope than occurs in the atmosphere. That isotope is increasing in concentration in the atmosphere as we liberate it from fossil fuels.

Mandas -- thanks. It's a shame that even grown people can't admit mistakes.

Mandas,

Just give me the name of the movie and i will go down to the local porn shop and buy a copy.

Steve it is a serious question of all the co2 cycled each year i think 98.3 % or something like that is natural therefore it is hard to believe 1.7% could produce the catastrophic events yet to unfold.

So here is the scenario, is the small amount of CO2 we produce causing the temp rise since 1700 or there abouts (end of LIA) or did the temps begin to rise due to another factor and now CO2 is following along with a small addition from us.

1, Most CO2 is stored in the earth could it be a warming world is releasing it from there and the oceans are absorbing it along with the little bit from us?

2, Yes we are adding a bit of CO2 but why is O2 declining? To make room for CO2?

3, Once again we are adding CO2 to air.

Not sure if any of your points adequately respond to my question.

You certainly are an odd fish, Mandas.

EVERYBODY following this debate (even those on your side) thinks you are either a liar or a lunatic. You have the evidence to shut us up a stroke, you say. But you are not going to produce it. You would rather everyone viewed you with utter contempt than produce your data without some sort of advance undertaking from Richard.

"2, Yes we are adding a bit of CO2 but why is O2 declining? To make room for CO2?"

This one's easy if you think about it. Clue: We burn carbon (C) and turn it to Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

And a little thought experiment for you. Fill a bath to the brim, equalise the flow of the tap so that it matches the amount draining through a plughole. Now increase the flow by about 2%, what happens? What happens if you also block the plughole slightly?

EVERYBODY following this debate (even those on your side) thinks you [Mandas] are either a liar or a lunatic. --Snowman

As usual, Snowman, you have absolutely no idea what is going on, what the nature of the dispute is, or what under heaven or above hell you are talking about.

Go back to GAS continued and answer my question that I've asked four times now.

In the mean time I'll continue reading this as a tourist, watching as your Mike Tyson continues to bludgeon himself to the canvas.

Pity you don't actually read; you might share in my mirth.

Incidentally, my wife (recovering from pain meds) and I just finished a conversation about about sub-par linguistic skills in the under-educated (she's an English teacher).

Richard writes at approximately the 8th grade level, which is appropriate considering this matches the caliber of his arguments. She says this does not necessarily indicate low intelligence (I don't think anyone commenting here would doubt Richard is quite bright in his own manner.) In her experience this is associated with someone who is unpracticed in the mutually reinforcing skills of reading and writing--sort of like a boxer without fitness or training.

*It is* really interesting, wouldn't you say?

wakefield @68:

Coby, may I suggest you start a thread on what the null hypothesis is in AGW.

The null hypothesis is almost invariably that there has been no effect, hence the word 'null'.

crakar -- c'mon, you don't think my answers address your question? Did you read up on it? In your scenario we emit a little CO2. Estimates of our emissions indicate we burn more than enough to account for the increased carbon in both the atmosphere and the oceans. Isotope ratios support these estimates. That's pretty convincing that you don't need another source of CO2.

But let's entertain your scenario briefly...
There are hidden sources of CO2 deep in the Earth. For some reason the Earth has started emitting these at a faster rate than volcanism has done in the past. And for some reason these emissions are occurring at the same time and steady increase in rate as humans are emitting fossil fuel CO2. The isotope ratio of CO2 released by the Earth is similar to that released by the burning of fossil fuels. Nobody has detected these natural emissions. Somehow despite deep release, the upper layers of the open ocean are showing increased acidification compared to the deep layers.

Is this what you believe? Is it skeptical to believe such a thing? If this is the case, what's happening to all the CO2 emitted by the burning of fossil fuels?

I have previously suggested I have evidence from Australia that shows unequivocably that Tmax and the number of hot days IS increasing in many locations, and that I would provide the data to him if he had sufficient integrity to make a statement that he would admit he was wrong if and when the data showed as such. Of course, he never provided such a statement. Why is that Dick? Why aren't you prepared to admit you are wrong?

Mandas, which stations did you look at for your premise. I looked at 4 and not one of them shows any kind of increase. Melbourne in particular is flat. I also looked at Darwin and Alice Springs (only goes back to the 1950s') Too short to use as any indicator of long term.

http://cdnsurfacetemps.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/more-heat-waves-expecte…

And for your information TMax is highest in summer (july-aug) in Canada.

Now I also have access to other locations around the world, but the data is full of holes, but the general trends from Mexico, South America, Africa, India, shows no over all increase in TMax in the last 40 years.

The null hypothesis is almost invariably that there has been no effect, hence the word 'null'.

You're kidding right, RS? That's what you think the null hypothesis means in science? Wow, and you accuse me of not knowing how to use statistics. You don't even know this basic premise of science.

http://www.answers.com/topic/null-hypothesis

See also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

"The null hypothesis typically proposes a general or default position, such as that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena. "

In the case of climate science, the null hypothesis is that the current behaviour in the climate is no different than in the past when humans were not around. That is, it CHANGES due to natural mechanisms.

Coby, this shows that you really should to a thread on this subject, it is obvious your readers do not understand some basic science.

'Richard writes at approximately the 8th grade level.....' (Skip)

Doubtless, Skip, you are familiar with the maxim that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I suggest you make it your guiding principle.

Until now I have, with my usual exquisite delicacy, avoided pointing out your countless assaults upon English grammar and syntax. A fews days ago, for example, you hilariously told me how much you 'loath' my attitude, when, as any ten year old knows, you meant 'loathe'. It is a common mistake among the uneducated, but it was a little startling to see it emanating from a 'professor', as you grandly term yourself.

I will leave it at that for the moment. But if you continue with your gratuitous attacks on Richard, I may be less considerate in future.

Typos are just that typos. I'm on a new laptop still getting used to the smaller keyboard and the frequent not setting letters when hit. Often posts are made on the quick and not checked before posting. I will always assume that sps are typos and have nothing to do with the person's abilities or inabilities with the english language. And when copied, I won't use (sic) on any sps. This is a blog, not a test expecting perfection in writing.

Wow snowman, you are even a stranger fellow. Are you a parent? Have you ever said to your kids that they couldn't play until they tidied their room, or couldn't have ice-cream until they ate their dinner? But I guess, by your standards, you would allow them anyway, even if they didn't do what you had asked them first.

Unlike others around here, I am a man of principles, and I won't compromise those principles just because you or anyone else has lower standards.

Well Dick, then you just aren't looking hard enough. And I don't care what is happening in Canada - its an unrepresentative sample. But then, everyone has been telling you that for months.

Have a look at the data for Perth Airport. In 2005, it was 42.6 on 23 March (highest annual maximum). 2003 - 43.8 - 10 March. 2001 - 40.1 - 3rd March. 1990 - 41.9 - 5 March. 1988 -42.1 - 21 March.

However, I am making absolutely no claims about these figures, other than the obvious one that annual Tmax does not always occur in summer. As I said to coby when I sent him a number of graphs which showed Tmax IS increasing and the number of hot days IS increasing at a number of locations in Australia, it would be wrong of me to draw conclusions based on what is - after all - a very small and unrepresentative dataset. And I am too much of a scientist to make wild claims based on inadequate information, or to draw conclusions which are completely unsupported by my data. Especially as my ability with statistics is limited to using basic tools like Excel, and I haven't had someone with real training in that field look them over.

I'm struggling to think of an analogy to illustrate the depth of your folly, Mandas. Let's try this:

You are in court charged with a serious offence; the evidence seems compelling; the jury clearly thinks you are guilty; but you smile quietly to yourself, knowing you have the facts that will hole the prosecution's case below the waterline. So, you produce them, right? No, if you are Mandas, you say to the court 'I am not going to reveal the truth unless you agree in advance that you will find me not guilty, if you accept that my evidence, when I produce it, does indeed provide me with an alibi.' The learned judge frowns and tells you to stop playing games.

A bit of a laboured analogy, I know, but perhaps it makes the point.

Extremely laboured. I like mine much better.

Mandas, I got the data and posted a reply here
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2010/12/global_and_seasonal_threa…

So much for your claim that Perth's TMax is increasing. It hasn't since 1980.

Ummmmm, did I say Perth Airport's Tmax is increasing?

I think you better go back and read what I said again (for the first time?).

This is off topic, I'm taking my comments to that other thread.

You're kidding right, RS? That's what you think the null hypothesis means in science? Wow, and you accuse me of not knowing how to use statistics. You don't even know this basic premise of science.

http://www.answers.com/topic/null-hypothesis

From your link:

The null hypothesis attempts to show that no variation exists between variables, or that a single variable is no different than zero.

How does this differ in any meaningful way from what I wrote (The null hypothesis is almost invariably that there has been no effect, hence the word 'null'.)?

Steve,

Let me re phrase the question.

We know the Earth has been warming since the end of the LIA (about 300 years) and essentially man has had nothing to do with this warming for about 250 years. Now is not the time nor the place to speculate on what caused the warming but around 50 odd years ago we started producing CO2 in enough quantities to be measured (re Keeling curve).

Now as i understand it this warming from the LIA SHOULD have meant an increase in global CO2 levels but according to Coby's graph the CO2 levels during this time have been as flat as a billiard table, but why?

Is there a lag or is the ice core data incorrect?

To Skip,

I doubt very much your wife would be having a conversation with you about Richard after what she has been through, it was a good try though.

Chris,

So CO2 has increased by 0.01% and O2 has reduced by 0.01%? Dont panic we will never run out as the plants will take in this 0.01% increase in CO2 turn it into O2 and all will be right again.

crakar -- I disagree with your characterization. First, *amounts* of anthropogenic CO2 emissions were large enough to be measurable prior to Keeling's measurements at Mauna Loa, but the *technology* was insufficient. Second, I don't see it as being flat as a billiard table prior to 1950 (and I only see back to 1800). But as to whether much CO2 was released by the ocean due to post LIA warming, I imagine that it does take time (consider ocean volume compared to surface area), especially if the forcing is small. There's also the question of how much CO2 was taken up by soils and even whether the ocean's heat content was lower during LIA (which I presume is a phenomenon noticed in terrestrial data but at depth in the ocean).

Thanks for changing your argument. The other one was silly. But for the better question of how much non-fossil fuel CO2 should have been or was released into the atmosphere between 1700 and 1900 you'll have to do some research. I don't know.

(The null hypothesis is almost invariably that there has been no effect, hence the word 'null'.)?

Nice try. That's NOT what you said: #62:

I am certain that in most papers the null hypothesis is that there has been no change in the climate.

You are now exchanging the word "effect" for what you first said, "no change" in the climate.

I'm willing to let that slide as a mis-speak on your part, and that's a generous offer.

So the question becomes for AGW, what is the Null Hypothesis?

Taken from the definition no relation between two phenomena.

Phenomenon 1: Climate changes.

Phenomenon 2: CO2 is increasing because of our CO2

The Null Hypothesis says THERE IS NO RELATION BY DEFAULT. Hence the onus is on your side to provide the link between the two.

And that requires discriminatory evidence. That is, evidence that CANNOT be explained by any other mechanism than CO2.

There is no such evidence because there is nothing happening in the climate that is beyond normal variation. Not even temperatures.

Is there a lag or is the ice core data incorrect?

What is missing from Coby's plot of ice core data are the error bars. They are HUGE! Ice core data has huge reading errors, irresponsibly missing on that graph.

More Wakefield rubbish:

What is missing from Coby's plot of ice core data are the error bars. They are HUGE! Ice core data has huge reading errors, irresponsibly missing on that graph.

Where do you find the rubbish you post on this site? You certainly do not check the scientific literature before you post.

The one sigma uncertainty for ice core CO2 measurement (EPICA Dome C Antarctic ice core) is approximately 1 ppmv. Thus the one sigma on Coby's graph would be about the width of the line.

See here:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/d…

Your ice core knowledge is just like everything else you have posted on this site, completely wrong and worthless.

(The null hypothesis is almost invariably that there has been no effect, hence the word 'null'.)?

Nice try. That's NOT what you said: #62:

I am certain that in most papers the null hypothesis is that there has been no change in the climate.

You are now exchanging the word "effect" for what you first said, "no change" in the climate.

I cut and pasted directly from your comment #85, but I did misspeak in the earlier comment. To clarify, the null hypothesis is almost invariably that the factor of interest, e.g. CO2, aerosols, solar radiation, etc has no effect on temperature, sea level, ice area or whatever is being measured.

The Null Hypothesis says THERE IS NO RELATION BY DEFAULT. Hence the onus is on your side to provide the link between the two.

And that requires discriminatory evidence. That is, evidence that CANNOT be explained by any other mechanism than CO2.

That is correct (except that I would use 'adequately explained' and 'plausible mechanism').

There is no such evidence because there is nothing happening in the climate that is beyond normal variation. Not even temperatures.

This is not correct.

In your view, why is the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere not increasing Earth's temperature? The basic physics says it should be, which is why in this case a justification could be made for the null hypothesis to be that Tmax is increasing.

".....The Null Hypothesis says THERE IS NO RELATION BY DEFAULT. Hence the onus is on your side to provide the link between the two....."

Well then, how about you prove that your thesis about natural variability and fractal cycles is true as well?

In your view, why is the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere not increasing Earth's temperature?

No idea. It would have to be investigated. Not having a link does not dismiss the evidence.

The basic physics says it should be,

Physics says nothing of the sort. Human interpretation says that, hence the hypothesis.

which is why in this case a justification could be made for the null hypothesis to be that Tmax is increasing

But it's not increasing. Not in the tropics, not in summers. It's "increasing" in the winters because it's not getting as cold now as it did in the early 1900's, which would be expected coming out of the LIA.

Besides, the null hypothesis isn't about a single phenomenon, like increasing temp. The null hypothesis is you cannot link TWO events together one causing the other without evidence. The "other" in your case is CO2. So now you have to explain how increasing CO2 is NOT increasing TMax except in winter months.

As noted in my blog post, the hypothesis is that increasing CO2 would cause more heat waves, That hypothesis is false. Which weakens the theory of AGW.

Well then, how about you prove that your thesis about natural variability and fractal cycles is true as well?

4.5 bllion years shows that the hypothesis that all climate change is from natural mechanisms is true. The previous hypothesis that a supreme being(s) cause climate change has been shown false. The hypothesis that man is now causing the current changes from our CO2 emissions, or some part of those changes, has NOT been established because all events in the climate happening so far are not beyond normal variation.

Fractal patterns, I have no idea. It would have to be investigated more.

".....Fractal patterns, I have no idea. It would have to be investigated more...."

Which begs the obvious question - why did you claim the changes were exhibiting a fractal pattern?

Richard Wakefield, what were the driving forces that made us go INTO the LIA? And what is driving the "coming out of the LIA"?

You know, established climate science has an explanation for both. Richard Wakefield...not so much.

On another note, Richard Wakefield, forest fires are within the bounds of natural variability, and hence humans are not causing forest fires. That is your line of argumentation in #104 when you claim that current temperature changes are not beyond natural variation. The RIGHT questions to ask are what the natural variation is, how it causes temperature changes, and whether this may explain some or all of the observations. The right answer is NOT "it is not beyond natural variation". That's a *claim*.

Established climate science has looked at the questions I put down, and have answered it with actual evidence. So, who to believe: Richard Wakefield, who just throws out a claim, or established climate science, which has provided evidence. I know where my money is!

Marco

You are 100% correct.

Cue predictable response from Dick..................

Incorrigible Richard Wakefield wrote

"Phenomenon 1: Climate changes.

Phenomenon 2: CO2 is increasing because of our CO2

The Null Hypothesis says THERE IS NO RELATION BY DEFAULT. Hence the onus is on your side to provide the link between the two."

Basic physics says that if you increase the radiant energy incident on an object, or reduce the outgoings, then it will warm up to a new equilibrium temperature. Basic physics says that increasing CO2 levels closes off the "outgoings". Therefore the planet will(is) warm(ing)up. Directly deny that, Richard, I dare you.

Imagine the two scenarios where the world takes action or not to reduce CO2 emissions based upon whether the views of the "sceptics" triumph or not. As the consequences of Wakefield and his ilk being wrong are massively worse than the consequences of mainstream climate science being wrong, if there is any onus on one side or other to prove anything beyond all reasonable (and unreasonable!) doubt, it is Wakefield and co who must prove that there is no danger.

Before gambling with an outcome for the whole world, punks have to prove that there's no bullet in the Magnum before charging Dirty Harry. Wakefield's incomprehensible world view is that we have to prove with 100% certainty that the bullet is still in the gun before we decide what to do.

From a "vaccination is the devil's work" type website:

Whenever you read or go searching for information about vaccinations you will find many pediatricians saying that vaccination is absolutely a great thing. Doctor after doctor will tell you that vaccinations have reduced the incidence of many infectious diseases but they have no real proof. Just a lot of cackling but no substantiated evidence except them saying itâs so.

Remind you of anyone?

Couldn't resist posting this even though it may appear to be off-topic (or is it?). Fanatical beliefs which seem incorrigible by facts, logic and reason seem to be everywhere.

Therefore the planet will(is) warm(ing)up. Directly deny that, Richard, I dare you.

Daring has nothing to do with it. You must have missed the post where I said, the physics says nothing of the sort. Human INTERPRETATION INFERS that from our understanding of the physics. What we do not know is what as yet dscovered elements of the climate have buffering effects that counter CO2. How do you explain that TMax in the tropics and summers of temporate zones is NOT increasing? Your "physics" says it should, but it's not.

it is Wakefield and co who must prove that there is no danger.

That is such a lame cop-out. In science you cannot prove a negative. Your hypothesis is increasing CO2 emissions is bad, somehow. Hence the onus is on *YOU* to provide the evidence of such.

Before gambling with an outcome for the whole world,

What dangers? Certainly not hotter summers, not happening. Not storms, no change. Not hurricanes, no change, not foods, no different than in the past. So what exactly is thi "danger"? Unless somehow milder winters are "dangerous". Explain.

BTW, you gamble every day you get on the road.

what were the driving forces that made us go INTO the LIA? And what is driving the "coming out of the LIA"?

Certanly not because of the levels of CO2. The sun plays the primary energy game in our climate.

You know, established climate science has an explanation for both

You sound as if there is no uncertainty, nothing yet to discover. Typical dogma position, not a position in science.

, forest fires are within the bounds of natural variability, and hence humans are not causing forest fires

That is actually false. Forest fires today are far below normal. Two factors. We suppress fires before they get too large. Second, when they do get outo control it's because we have attempted to keep them in check, hence a lot of dead wood piles up in forests. 100 years ago who put out forst fires? No one, they burned "out of control" for weeks, maybe even months, until rains up them out. So yes, humans have affected forest fire by reducing their frequency (less forests to burn) and intensity (by putting them out).

The RIGHT questions to ask are what the natural variation is, how it causes temperature changes, and whether this may explain some or all of the observations. The right answer is NOT "it is not beyond natural variation".

Then how do you parse out a normal climate event from one caued from AGW?

Which begs the obvious question - why did you claim the changes were exhibiting a fractal pattern?

Part of science is the ability to throw out a hypothesis and see if it "sticks".

http://climate.gsfc.nasa.gov/static/cahalan/FractalClouds/

and
http://www.emayzine.com/infoage/math/math4.htm

"Climate and other apparently chaotic phenomena can be modeled and even predicted with fractal methods. Studies of topics as diverse as fluid turbulence and bone structure have benefited from the use of fractal structures. "

from googling: fractals climate

4.5 bllion years shows that the hypothesis that all climate change is from natural mechanisms is true. -- Richard

Beyond all belief. CO2 radiative forcing is also a *natural* mechanism--one artificially altered by human behavior.

What we do not know is what as yet dscovered elements of the climate have buffering effects that counter CO2. -- Richard

Richard's own "God of the (supposed) gaps: It *cannot* be CO2 (or other GHGs?), despite all known physical science and evidence.

What dangers? Certainly not hotter summers, not happening. -- Richard

Because Tmax is not increasing in Southern Canada, right, right . . . heard this. Ever get around to completing your exchange with Judith Curry on your full set of views, Richard?

The sun plays the primary energy game in our climate. --Richard.

Hilarious. Yes it does, Richard, and CO2 traps its heat. Its a known physical fact. Ask Judith what she thinks about that.

Part of science is the ability to throw out a hypothesis and see if it "sticks".

http://climate.gsfc.nasa.gov/static/cahalan/FractalClouds/

And the major part of your version of science is to throw out a link and hope it proves something. Did you note the source of your link, Richard?

[I]f you continue with your gratuitous attacks on Richard, I may be less considerate in future. --Snowman

Well Jesus, Snowman, I would hate to see you be less considerate.

How many times have you chastised Richard's 8th grade diction? Exactly. You're a hypocrite (among many other things), but no surprise there.

That being said I actually appreciate the correction. I am *loath* to admit I had completely forgotten the distinction; there aren't that many things I truly *loathe* in this world. Interacting on this forum has taxed my rusty use of the word, so well done on two counts . . . I guess.

Because Tmax is not increasing in Southern Canada, right, right.

Australia, Russia, Mexico, South America, Africa. I have access to data all over the planet now.

Hilarious. Yes it does, Richard, and CO2 traps its heat. Its a known physical fact. Ask Judith what she thinks about that.

Not "traps" that's a loaded statement. CO2 is one component of the system that keeps heat from escaping into space. There are mechanisms that keep the temperature "just right". As has been the case in the geological past when CO2 was several times today, and the planet was just fine. In fact, better than today, no winters.

What does that source have to do with anything? You are fixated on the argument from authority. I was linking to a request about fratals in climate, that was one such application.

CO2 is one component of the system that keeps heat from escaping into space.

Oh really? Been talking with Judith/slowly coming around to reality? Tell me about the whole conversation.

There are mechanisms that keep the temperature "just right".

What are those, Richard?

What does that source have to do with anything?

That you even ask tells everything.

Richard, where's your evidence that forest fires are much fewer than they were in the past? Ah, that's right, you go after me for supposedly making an absolute statement (which I most assuredly did not), and you counter a comment of mine...by making an absolute statement, and notably without providing any evidence whatsoever! Funniest thing, though, is that you actually claim humans are changing forest fires beyond natural variability. You're an odd one...

And then there's the "There are mechanisms that keep the temperature "just right". As has been the case in the geological past when CO2 was several times today, and the planet was just fine. In fact, better than today, no winters."

"Just fine" for what, Richard? And do you really think "no winter" is better? It sure is not for those plants that REQUIRE frost to get their seeds to spring. Or all those animals that have adapted to cold. They will die in the warm weather. Maybe just fine to you, until you see the plants and animals depending on THOSE species dying out also. In the meantime, other species will take over. You're putting all your faith in that those other species will be just as good, or better, for us as those that died.

You also just assume that warm is better. Ask yourself why the most productive, safe and stable societies in the world are ALL in moderate temperature zones. Hint: they have little problems with their food production.

Finally, you asked: "Then how do you parse out a normal climate event from one caued from AGW?".
This attempt at shifting goalposts won't work with me. You parse out AGW from natural variability by studying the factors that govern climate. There will always be the possibility there is something that is overlooked, but that counts for ALL theories. This is what climate science has been doing for the last century+. The best science so far shows there is NO other explanation than the human-caused increase in atmospheric CO2 causing the observed warming over the last 50 years. The rise in temperature in the early 20th century is likely mostly caused by an increase in solar radiation, but in the last 30-40 years, that solar radiation is on a DOWNWARD trend. Thus, if you are so certain "it's the sun", you must explain why an increase explains the increase in the early 20th century, while a decrease explains the increase in the latter part of the 20th century. Heck, we've been in one of the lowest solar minima in centuries for several years already, and yet 2010 was one of the warmest/the warmest year on record!

Of course, "it's the sun" also does not explain why Tmin shows an increasing trend, whereas increasing GHG does...

And do you really think "no winter" is better? It sure is not for those plants that REQUIRE frost to get their seeds to spring. Or all those animals that have adapted to cold

It is a well known fact that tropical habatats have more biodivrsity than temporate. Explain how all those plants and animals that you claim require cold to survive made it through interglacial periods warmer than today.

Ask yourself why the most productive, safe and stable societies in the world are ALL in moderate temperature zones. Hint: they have little problems with their food production.

That is a very interesting acheological question. It has been argued that we advanced as a society becuase of the extreme weather. The cold forced us to figure out how to keep warm. You do realize humans evolved in the hottest place on the planet -- Central East Africa. Oh, and tropical peoples have no problem feeding themselves either, they didn't have to invent methods to deal with cold climates. In fact, one can hence argue, that if it were not for cold periods, modern humans would not have invented industrialization, and not have emitted so such CO2!

The best science so far shows there is NO other explanation than the human-caused increase in atmospheric CO2 causing the observed warming over the last 50 years.

That's funny. Not even close to the truth, I know you wish that to be the case, but it's not. How do you explain CO2 not increasing summer TMax. I've been checking historical records all over the planet, and not one shows any increase in summer temps. So the *BEST* you can do is show that winter TMin is increasing because of CO2, but that's it.

And what ther effects has this increase in the average temp done to the climate? There's no change in storms, rain fall, droughts, etc beyond normal variation. If anything, this returning to a warmer state is where we should be. Warmer is normal, cold is not. So says the geological record.

And the jury's still out on 2010. I don't trust anything from the CRU or Hansen on this stuff.

Oh, and solar scientists are saying we are heading into 30 years of cooling. That will sure put big dent in AGW, but we will have to wait.

You all should read this:

https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/aatsonis/www/2007GL030288.pdf

Especially the conclusion. So much for AGW's "strong" influence. Minor a best.

So much for AGW's "strong" influence. Minor a best. #Richard

How much of the current changes in the climate are empirically shown to be from our CO2 emissions[?] -- Richard earlier

As Mandas asked in November:

So you agree that it is CO2 causing a slight warming now? What happened to the earlier statements about CO having: a) no effect , and b) a cooling effect? What happened to the sun? Oceans? Mandas, Old GAS thread #327

(Yap yap)

I don't expect an answer, Richard. You never answer hard questions. I just wanted to keep the tourists chuckling.

Ian in 100 (so many posts ago)

Let us assume for a moment that the ice core data is just if not more acurate than Keelings data this tells us the warming from the LIA is yet to produce a rise in CO2 levels.

So there must be a delay between the warming of the planet and the out gasing of CO2, can you tell me how long the delay is? Or to word it another way when will we see a rise in CO2 from this warming?

crakar,

If you are thinking of the rising CO2 driven by rising temperatures of the glacial-inter glacial cycles, then the lag seems to be on the order of centuries and is believed to come primarily from CO2 in deep ocean waters. The overturning of these waters happens at about the right timescale.

Pre-1900 warming was on a very small scale, I don't think one should expect to see a significant (10-30ppm) CO2 increase much less a jaw droppingly dramatic one like what we are now observing.

As globally and seasonally averaged temperatures continue to climb, there are other carbon cycle feedbacks that we are likely to experience much sooner, perhaps already begun, but as we have never directly observed this kind of climate change before, all we have are modeling studies. These feedbacks can come from thawing permafrost, underwater methane hydrates and biological processes.

On your general questioning of ice core data, it is fine to be sceptical, but ice core analysis from all over the world agrees, and it agrees with other analyses of other proxies and the data fits with what is known about the physical processes that add and remove carbon to and from the atmosphere. Eventually one must move on to more interesting questions.

Richard wrote:
"What we do not know is what as yet dscovered elements of the climate have buffering effects that counter CO2."

I presume you meant undiscovered here. BTW, I really think "8th grade diction" jibes are below the belt. It's people's ideas which need criticising, not the way they might have phrased them.

Richard - you appear to be relying on the US cavalry metaphorically coming over the hill with a negative feedback to stabilise the positive forcing we are applying.

Earth can (and has) been stable, average temperature-wise, for long periods of time. Clearly there are negative feedbacks to "forcing" influences. Many are known. There are probably ones that are unknown or poorly known. The same holds for positive feedbacks too.

From palaeo-climatology we know that sometimes the reducing forcing wins out and Earth goes into an ice age, sometimes the increasing forcings win out and Earth emerges from one. Milankovitch cycles are a much weaker forcing than the excess CO2 one we are applying right now.

Every now and again overwhelming positive feedbacks, such as methane release, has kicked the planet out of a stable period and caused the rapid extinction of vast numbers of species. Clearly any "buffers" have their limits. Relying on them coming through to save us is foolish. It didn't always happen in the past when the only forcings were natural. The degree of these natural forcings were quite a lot less than the excess CO2 forcing, which we are currently increasing at a (pre)historically unprecedented level.

For the sake of argument I'll take your "Tmax" ideas on board - one might presume that one way a climate "flip" happens is that, as the planet absorbs more energy, most of it goes into warming the oceans whose "buffering" action may currently be limiting the TMax figures you are so obsessed with. Meanwhile the critical, but much lower, temperature for setting off the methane gun is steadily being approached in the Northern oceans and Siberian permafrost. Perhaps, Richard, you ought to spend more time researching the TMin increases. It may be those that set off the sudden mass extinctions you are so blase about exposing the rest of us to...

Hi Coby are you still in Prague or have you moved on? Speaking of which i thought i was moving on to more interesting questions.

So if you claim the temp rise from the LIA to 1950's of about 1C is too small to register a CO2 increase at any time in the past, present or future then we have nothing more to discuss.

Cheers

Hi Coby are you still in Prague or have you moved on? Speaking of which i thought i was moving on to more interesting questions.

So if you claim the temp rise from the LIA to 1950's of about 1C is too small to register a CO2 increase at any time in the past, present or future then we have nothing more to discuss.

Cheers

Every now and again overwhelming positive feedbacks, such as methane release, has kicked the planet out of a stable period and caused the rapid extinction of vast numbers of species.

Care to provide a reference to these extinctions, which ones.

Also, you need to read that paper, it provides the mechanisms for what I was refering to. They disagree that the current "warming" is from AGW, they have different cycles interacting which when they come together triggers a new climate direction. Nothing to do with CO2. This paper refutes that the only possible reason for the current climate is AGW. It's a serious blow to the theory.

crakar,

"the temp rise from the LIA to 1950's of about 1C is too small to register a CO2 increase at any time in the past, present or future"

"Pre-1900 warming was on a very small scale, I don't think one should expect to see a significant (10-30ppm) CO2 increase"

Can you spot the difference? Add a correction for what I meant to say - "(more than 10-30ppm)" and maybe you will see two differences.

Add on top of that that the lag you are tangentially referring to is some number of centuries and your point is becoming very difficult to perceive.

Cheers from Vancouver.

crakar, I'm not sure if you were referencing what I said in your comment @125. If so, please be more careful. I said you had moved on to a better (less silly) question. Not necessarily more interesting.

Welcome home to the declining Tmax band, Coby.

It's amazing how Wakefield keeps doing the Gish Gallop, and thinks he can get away with it...

He first tried the "it's the sun" argument, and now he throws Tsonis on the wall and sees if that will stick..

I'm done. There's no use arguing with someone who changes his 'explanation' for the observation without even acknowledging his prior attempt was wrong.

I do have something he can think about: declining TSI over the last few decades, what would that do with Tmax? Think about it: what is the single most defining factor for Tmax?

The point has been made before, Marco, but thanks.

I don't think Richard understands on this point.

This is the key pattern with Richard: If he doesn't understand a criticism or question, but thinks he does, he responds with a link he has not read or one of his default safety valve arguments ("Your side says only CO2 affects climate . . . show me what is wrong with my Tmax analysis . . . you are the AGW faithful . . .).

When he actually recognizes he is wrong/has made a fool of himself, he just ignores you.

He first tried the "it's the sun" argument, and now he throws Tsonis on the wall and sees if that will stick..

It *IS* the sun. It provides the energy for the climate. Tsonis' affects of cycles is AFTER the sun's energy. Hence BOTH play a major role in the climate. You don't seem to graps that.

Everyone should read Lindzen's latest: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/17/richard-lindzen-a-case-against-pr…

Well Wakefield, I got through the first paragraph of that piece of dishonest rubbish by Lindzen.

In an effort to show that you are not the dishonest denier I portray you as why not prove that you do know some thing about climate and climate science. If you are being honest then you will be able to identify a number of dishonest statements in the first paragraph of Lindzen's article.

Please, show me how honest and knowledgeable you think you are by outlining them.

Somehow I think that you will remain silent on this and will continue to worship at the feet of despicable and dishonest deniers like Lindzen. Go on show me I am wrong, be honest for once.

. . . he responds with a link he has not read . . . skip #132

Everyone should read Lindzen's latest . . . / Richard #134

On a possibly related note, I finally started the *Evolution of God*, by Wright. I already have a few doubts, although I'm not done yet. Yet it seems highly appropriate in the case of Richard Wakefield.

I'm in the middle of the discussion of shamanism (probably anthropology 202 but a worthy review); how the shaman emerges as the spiritual intermediary between the fearful hunter-gatherer tribesman and a complex cosmos in which the distinction between the supernatural and the ordinary is blurred. The shaman, either through guile or in sincere conviction, persuades his fellow tribesman that he has special powers that qualify him as this spiritual conduit (or acquires the status by happenstance, such as getting struck by lightening and surviving or having a prescient dream.)

Now of course Richard will try to be clever and come back with how the "AGW faithful" are "worshiping the IPCC" and on and on and on and yawn.

But the point is that Anthony Watts seems very much to occupy the role of shaman in Richard's cosmology. Richard thinks this witch doctor's Big Magic can be invoked to cast down enemies and serve as a messenger-guide in a chaotic environment which he lacks the skill to navigate (i.e., the world of legitimate scientific inquiry.)

Hence he cuts and pastes repeatedly from Watts (usually having read none of it, of course), invoking the Spirit of Wattsup to bring him relief from his torments and triumph over his foes.

It also shows the resiliency of religious conviction: Richard continues this blind faith in Watts even after doing so has cost him so dearly in the past (e.g., the embarrassment over Benjamin Laken.) I could go on about how the sociobiologists have argued that religious thinking is hardwired by evolution but the point is made.

Please, show me how honest and knowledgeable you think you are by outlining them.

Of course Ian you cannot take being challenged by Lindzen. It is no surpize at all that you True Believers won't read it all, that's what dogma is all about.

Others who are a little more openned minded may indeed get something meaninful from it.

I see NOTHING wrong with his first paragraph. Enlighten us with your facts, and make sure they are facts with references, where he is wrong.

I also EXPECT you to send them to Lindzen for his reaction.

But the point is that Anthony Watts seems very much to occupy the role of shaman in Richard's cosmology.

Is Hansen yours? Is Gore yours? Are all climate scientists yours?

What a bunch of crap. His site is popular not because he has bamboozled readers he is some "authority". He is read for the FACTS and EVIDENCE his writers present.

All evidence and arguments have to have a source, which is a person. Your side practices "shoot the messenger" all the time. It's a classic tactic to deflect the challenge against their views. Deal with what he presents, not him.

Thank you Wakefield for confirming both your dishonesty and ignorance:

I see NOTHING wrong with his first paragraph.

Firstly, recent warming is more than a "few tenths of a degree", secondly there is no documented evidence or reliable reports that "alpine glaciers advanced to the chagrin of overrun villages". That is either made up (more likely) or a distortion of events where villages were buried under mud and ice after a burst of a glacier fed lake. Of course these usually occur only during warming not as Lindzen hinted during cooling. Great to see that you side with one of the all time most dishonest climate "scientist". However, I would have expected nothing less from you since I am well aware of all the dishonest rubbish you quote and post all over the internet.

You are a despicable person. Why do you want misery and misfortune on the next generations?

I've read some tosh from you, Skip, but your latest gibberish about Watts as some sort of shaman hits a new low.

Your inability to understand his pivotal role illustrates perfectly why your side is losing this argument. You spend countless hours on your long-winded and trivial posts, preening and admiring yourself over your petty triumphs, somehow unable to grasp the fact that WUWT is setting the agenda worldwide. It is a mystery to me why you can't see it.

Perhaps, deep down, you do understand, but some sort of defence mechanism prevents you from admitting it, even to yourself. Perhaps you are envious of the vast audience he commands. Perhaps you secretly fear his didactic powers. Perhaps you simply feel inadequate in his presence, knowing that he has emerged as one of the most important and influential figures of our age. Is that the explanation?

Wow snowman, even for you that latest post hit a new low in irrationality.

Anthony Watts setting the agenda worldwide huh? Didactic powers? Most important and influential figures of our age?

It may be a 'mystery to you why we can't see it', but to the rest of us there is no mystery at all.

You talk about 'tosh', but that is just unmitigated drivel.

Is Hansen yours? Is Gore yours? Are all climate scientists yours?

How many times have I linked *any* of the three, Richard? How many times have *you* linked Watts?

Exactly.

Perhaps you simply feel inadequate in [Anthony Watts's] presence . . . Snowman

He he.

What are you saying, Snowman--that I *should*? Hmm.

I see the Watts worship extends beyond Richard.

LOL. Looks like I got a real rise out of both you this time. Haha. ("Disparage me if you must, but speak no ill against the Watts-God.")

Hey, Snowman: I hereby *profane* the name of Anthony Watts. Your god is powerless in against my Great Magic! He brings no rain for crops or bison meat. I defile his graven image with my urine and feces! Haha.

Snowman: Watts is buffoon and a quack. He only sets the agenda for the illiterati such as yourself and Richard.

I would debate you on this but you don't debate. Because you're illiterate. Because you're ignorant. Because you rely, like Richard, on the likes of Anthony Fucking Watts. Hahaha.

However, I would have expected nothing less from you since I am well aware of all the dishonest rubbish you quote and post all over the internet.

No references to back up your claim. Going to email Lindzen? Get a retraction from him, then I'll agree you were right, until then...

Who would I tend to believe more, let me think... Not you.

Steve in 129,

Sorry i was refering to the last sentence of Coby's post 123.

Cheers

Anthony Watts setting the agenda worldwide huh? Didactic powers? Most important and influential figures of our age?

Much more influence that RC, Watts readers outnumber RC almost 10 to 1.

Skip where do you get your AGW information from? Which sites? Just this one?

Have you been drinking, Skip? I can't think of any other explanation for that extraordinary and incoherent outburst. I suggest you sleep it off and return tomorrow, when we will say no more about it.

Wakefield wrote:

RW "Care to provide a reference to these extinctions, which ones".

Why should I? You should already be aware of them if you have the slightest pretensions to a balanced understanding of climate science. If you are not aware of them then your whole position has little credibility.

There's a lot of clever knowledgeable people here trying to correct your farrago of errors and skaky assertions. When you are shown evidence you just brush it aside because it doesn't suit your prejudices. If you want to educate yourself it should take you less than thirty seconds Internet research to find articles mentioning the methane gun evidence and linking to the relevant papers. Mind you, even if you find the evidence for yourself you will no doubt reject it as inconvenient.

Here is some smoking gun evidence that Wakefield doesn't absorb anybody else's writing. That is why I called him incorrigible.

In comment 60 Wakefield put forward a well known "sceptic" strawman argument:

RW "Stop equating all climate change to our CO2 emissions. The null hypothesis is NOT CO2 causes all climate change."

to which I replied, in comment 72

NP "Nobody, but nobody, who knows what they are talking about (particularly climate scientists) says this. One sees this strawman claim made by the ignoramuses who comment on Wattsupwiththat. That Wakefield makes it here shows exactly how much he knows!"

In comment 127 Wakefield resurrects the very same strawman yet again:

RW "This paper refutes that the only possible reason for the current climate is AGW. It's a serious blow to the theory."

If Wakefield thinks it true let him find one credentialled climate scientist who has opined his strawman. Just one...

It should help to try and remember when you have been shot down Richard... just because you ignore it doesn't mean it didn't happen - it happened an awful lot above but you still implausibly resurface as if you were unscathed.

Do you really want me to post the hundreds of dishonest posts you have spread all over the internet? As for e-mailing Lindzen, I will most likely get the same rude and dishonest replies I get from you so why waste my time?

I post about your dishonesty not to try and make you honest (that would be a fruitless task) but to let others know how dishonest you are. I think most intelligent and honest posters know all about you and your dishonesty by now. But I will keep on exposing it any opportunity I get.

And I know you wont believe me because you only believe dishonest deniers like Watts, Lindzen, Monckton et al. You see, dishonest people like you only believe other dishonest people.

Nick Palmer,

Interesting paper on recent climate-driven extinctions here:

http://se-server.ethz.ch/Staff/af/Fi159/F/Fr061.pdf

Another one here:

http://www.law.arizona.edu/AdaptationConference/PDFs/ParmesanAREES_Impa…

There are others, but 3 links puts a post into moderation so I will leave them for later.

Cheers

So Wakefield, you link to Lindzen's latest piece of highly convoluted smoke and mirrors. His writings are so twisted these days that it is almost impossible to divine a consistent meaning in them.

Lindzen does not agree with a lot of what you have written. He does not merely state that there is evidence that human caused CO2 is warming us but also backs up that there is a scientific consensus which he does not disagree with. Let's rewind a little to when he hadn't refined his propaganda so much.

From a presentation (click for PDF) he made to the "Facts or Faith" conference in Stockholm - May 5, 2006.

"Nevertheless, for the most part I do not personally
disagree with the Consensus (though the absence of any
quantitative considerations should be disturbing). Indeed, I
know of no serious split, and suspect that the claim that
there is opposition to this consensus amounts to no more
than setting up a straw man to scoff at."

He also states:

"What is truly agreed (albeit with some controversy)
1. The global mean surface temperature is always changing. Over the past 60
years, it has both decreased and increased. For the past century, it has
probably increased by about 0.6 ±0.15 degrees Centigrade (C). That is to say,
we have had some global mean warming.
2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and its increase should contribute to warming. It is,
in fact, increasing, and a doubling would increase the greenhouse effect
(mainly due to water vapor and clouds) by about 2%.
3. There is good evidence that man has been responsible for the recent increase
in CO2, though climate itself (as well as other natural phenomena) can also
cause changes in CO2.
Let us refer to the above as the basic agreement.
Consensus generally refers to these three relatively trivial
points."

So Wakefield, stop endlessly demanding evidence that CO2 can cause warming and that we are responsible for increasing it and thereby causing man-made global warming. If you want the evidence ask your hero Lindzen.

The only significant way that Lindzen differs from the IPCC position is that he thinks climate sensitivity is a lot lower than just about everybody else. A lot of the evidence about the magnitude of the sensitivity comes from palaeoclimatology. Lindzen is not a paleo-climatologist so his specialist knowledge is inadequate.

And here.......

"......We establish that global climate change is already causing the extinction of species. Taking our results and recent findings that tie the same losses to disease, we conclude that climate-driven epidemics are an immediate threat to biodiversity. Our study sheds light on the
amphibian-decline mystery by showing that large-scale warming is a key factor. It also points to a chain of events whereby this warming may accelerate disease development by translating into local or microscale temperature shiftsâincreases and decreasesâfavourable to Batrachochytrium....."

http://www.bren.ucsb.edu/academics/courses/219/Readings/Pounds%20et%20a…

Skip where do you get your AGW information from? Which sites?

Observe how you even ask the question, Richard--"which sites". It doesn't work that way, Richard. I *investigate* many sources, many journals, many articles. I even read *your* site.

You cut and paste Watts.

Read (oh, right . . . that dirty word) my rip of some of your dippy links. I document everything, Richard, whether it was Ollier or some of the other fools you fell for. And you're trying to figure out my "sites". What a dead giveaway.

Have you been drinking, Skip? Snowman

Thanks for wishing me the best, but no! What would happen if I did--would I be sent on a vision quest by the Watts Shaman? Is alcohol your passage to the sacred?

Next time my wife lets me gets sloshed (oh . . . the day), I'll report back any Wattsian visions.

In the meant time I'll let *you* suffer any "feelings of inadequacy" you deem appropriate toward him.

Don't worry, Snowman, this is another one I'll *never* let you forget.

Why should I? You should already be aware of them if you have the slightest pretensions to a balanced understanding of climate science. If you are not aware of them then your whole position has little credibility.

In other words you have none. For if you did you would have provided one.

Not one extinction event because of CO2. Do you even know how many mass extinctions there has been and when they were? Provide a paper to one of these extinctions to CO2 or admit you are wrong.

Mandas. First this is a study of a only 4 species, and if you read the paper carefully, the species do not become extinct at all:

"Coenonympha tullia had become extinct at 52% of study sites and all losses were associated with habitat degradation. Aricia artaxerxes was extinct from 50%
of sites,"

50% population loss is not an extinction, it's selection pressures in part of their range. All normal.

The species continue to survive. http://www.cbif.gc.ca/spp_pages/butterflies/species/CommonRinglet_e.php

http://www.butterfly-guide.co.uk/species/blues/blue1.htm

There is no phylogentic extinction here because of CO2 at all.

Lindzen is not a paleo-climatologist so his specialist knowledge is inadequate.

Hansen is an astronomer, so his specialist knowledge of climate is inadiquate.

Making such statements is ridiculous, Lindzen is more than qualified.

And now we have this paper...https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/aatsonis/www/2007GL030288.pdf Which explains the current warming with out CO2.

Wow Dick

You are extremely selective in your reading aren't you? Why no comment on the third paper on extinctions?

And I have to ask - do you accept and agree with the findings of the paper you just linked to?

mandas, it's a good job Wakefield wasn't in charge of coal mine safety 100 years ago. I can just hear him now, "What, a canary died, that's just one bird, just one species send the men down they will be OK".

What a pathetic person he is.

I was going to leave this until I received Dick's response to my last query, but it is just too tempting to post it.

Apparently, according to Dick, the paper by Tsonis, Swanson and Kravstov has provided the mechanism he has been craving for - the climate is changing because of natural variability and CO2 has nothing to do with it. That's right, isn't it Dick? I mean, you linked to Tsonis before, and now you are linking to him again, with the triumphant comment that it apparently explains warming without CO2.

Well, as you are fond of point out, if we wish to criticise someone's work we should write to the author concerned. But I am lazy, and rather than writing to Tsonis, I thought I would actually READ his papers, and find out what he REALLY thinks about the subject. I bet you didn't do that, did you Dick?

So - what does Tsonis et al think about Dick's ideas? Well, how about this:

â....This paper provides an update to an earlier work that showed specific changes in the aggregate time evolution of major Northern Hemispheric atmospheric and oceanic modes of variability serve as a harbinger of climate shifts ....... While in the observations such breaks in temperature trend are clearly superimposed upon a century time-scale warming presumably due to anthropogenic forcing....â

Source: Swanson, K. L., and A. A. Tsonis (2009), Has the climate recently shifted?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L06711, doi:10.1029/2008GL037022.

Available here: https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/kswanson/www/publications/2008GL037022_all…

And then there is this:

â.....Here we present a technique that objectively identifies the component of inter-decadal global mean surface temperature attributable to natural long-term climate variability. Removal of that hidden variability from the actual observed global mean surface temperature record delineates the externally forced climate signal, which is monotonic, accelerating warming during the 20th century....â

Source: Swanson, K. L.,Suglhara, G., and A. A. Tsonis (2009), Long-term natural variability and 20th century climate change, PNAS., 106(38), doi: 10.1073/pnas.0908699106.

Available here: http://deepeco.ucsd.edu/~george/publications/09_long-term_variability.p…

Please read that again.

SUCH BREAKS IN TEMPERATURE TREND ARE CLEARLY SUPERIMPOSED UPON A CENTURY TIME-SCALE WARMING PRESUMABLY DUE TO ANTHROPOGENIC FORCING

REMOVAL OF THAT HIDDEN VARIABILITY FROM THE ACTUAL OBSERVED GLOBAL MEAN SURFACE TEMPERATURE RECORD DELINEATES THE EXTERNALLY FORCED CLIMATE SIGNAL, WHICH IS MONOTONIC, ACCELERATING WARMING DURING THE 20TH CENTURY

So, Tsonis is CLEARLY saying that there IS natural variability, and that if you remove the natural variability, there is a clear warming signal evident, and that the signal is presumable due to anthropogenic forcing.

Wow Dick, you have really fucked up this time haven't you? Not only have you failed to read and understand the work and the authors you are linkig to, you have used a source that clearly tells you that you are wrong.

I laugh in your face motherfucker!

I laugh in your face motherfucker!

Although I admit I've been no angel myself in these matters there is no need for that.

Nice try mandas. I will respond without the added cursing. Yes, I read the whole thing, have it open right now.

"While in the observations such breaks in temperature trend are clearly superimposed upon a century time-scale warming presumably due to anthropogenic forcing....â

That quote does not appear anywhere in the paper.

In the Conclusion this *IS* what they say:

"The standard explanation for the post
1970s warming is that the radiative effect of greenhouse
gases overcame shortwave reflection effects due to aerosols
[Mann and Emanuel, 2006]. However, comparison of the
2035 event in the 21st century simulation and the 1910s event in the observations with this event, suggests an alternative hypothesis, namely that the climate shifted after the 1970s
event to a different state of a warmer climate, which may be
superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend."

So they are clearly stating their proposal is "superimposed" on AGW.

Compleletly consistent with what I have stated all along. CO2's influence on the climate is from zero to MINOR at best. Other natural factors are swamping any AGW effect.

So who F'ed up here?

"While in the observations such breaks in temperature trend are clearly superimposed upon a century time-scale warming presumably due to anthropogenic forcing....â

That quote does not appear anywhere in the paper. --Richard

Actually, Richard, it does. Pgs 4-5.

So who F'ed up here? Richard

You did. Again.

I can't completely rub in the fact that this shows you didn't read it, because neither did I, entirely. (Despite what Snowman thinks I do have a day job I have to drink my way through.)

Here's what burned you: When you used the search function in Adobe you plugged in Mandas's text, right? (I am assuming this because that is what I did.)

The problem is that Adobe's search function saw all the editing marks that occurred at the page break between pgs 4 and 5 and "saw" those marks and assumed it was part of the "text". (This is a galley proof and not a final published article proper, in which, I believe, the more advanced formatting would usually account for this.)

The point is that Mandas read it. As usual, you did not.

So they are clearly stating their proposal is "superimposed" on AGW . . . CO2's influence on the climate is from zero to MINOR at best. -- Richard

su·per·im·pose

1.
to impose, place, or set over, above, or on something else.
2.
to put or join as an addition (usually fol. by on or upon ).

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/superimpose

The definition of superimpose does not require that the superimposed thing overwhelms the thing upon which it is superimposed. Now, I am not claiming to know whether the authors meant it that way or not, Richard.

Are you? Because if so it is yet another audacious claim by someone who clearly did not read the article.

Wakefield's comment 154

RW "Hansen is an astronomer, so his specialist knowledge of climate is inadiquate.
Making such statements is ridiculous, Lindzen is more than qualified."

Ridiculous right back at you. You miss so much with your blanket inability to understand what other people are trying to tell you. Specifically you miss that people like Hansen are quoting respected credentialled scientists knowledgable in their specialist fields. Lindzen does not quote, in general, credentialled paleo-climatologists to support his position on sensitivity because he can't. The only person he quotes usually is Lindzen!

When he talks about "the evidence for climate sensitivity being low" he is referring to his own narrow work only. In the Wattsupwithat link you posted to an essay by him he actually says that his work was wrong, although he refers to it in the third person! He has a very strange "oracular" way of speaking. In the interests of fairness, I have included the defence of his own work that he tags on to the end...

Richard Lindzen "Unfortuanately, Lindzen and Choi (2009) contained a number of errors; however, as shown in a paper currently under review, these errors were not relevant to the main conclusion."

His 2009 paper with Choi was actually blasted to bits and his statement that the errors weren't relevant is just a blustering assertion. As this recent work is effectively what he relies on when he refers to "evidence", his whole position is untenable whereas, by the same criteria, Hansen's is legit.

Also from comment 154

RW"And now we have this paper...https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/aatsonis/www/2007GL030288.pdf Which explains the current warming with out CO2."

No it doesn't. Why don't you actually read what you link to? Maybe you skim them (aka cherry picking), maybe you read and cut and paste what the "Watts" idiots read into them, but that does not cut the mustard if you're divining the real meaning.

Leaving aside that the basic mechanisms examined by Tsonis et al - ENSO, PDO, NAO, NPO etc are interpreted rather like that "biorhythms" fad of the 70s - they see correlation in cycles where I see possible coincidence, Wakefield has missed that the paper is ONLY looking at climate variation due to these semi-cyclical oscillations. Tsonis et al cannot be used, like Wakefield claims to "explain(s) the current warming with out CO2."

What they are doing is analogous to someone who studies waves breaking on a shore and discerns patterns in the relative cyclical strength of the waves. Meanwhile, as an additional effect that they are not looking at, the tide is coming in because it is being forced by the moon's gravity. Tsonis et al are not examining this effect - they exclude it to simplify their analysis. The tidal forces are analogous to climate change forced by excess CO2. The tide coming in is slow but steady. Big cyclical waves, as examined in the Tsonis paper, might wet your feet or rock your boat but the tide coming in in is what will drown you if you don't stop it (King Canute) or adapt (go further up the beach).

Here is proof (directly from their paper) that they are excluding the greenhouse radiative forcing signal so they can better examine their target oscillatory cycles.

Tsonis et al"[11] Figure 4 is analogous to Figure 1 but for the 21st
century simulation, with the exception that the greenhouse
gases radiative trend of 2 C/century in global temperature
(Figure 4c) is removed to better isolate internal shifts in
behavior. In this simulation we observe two synchronization
events, one in years 2027â2032 and another in years 2065â
2072 (with an interruption in the middle). During both
events the coupling strength increases until the synchronous
states are destroyed."

Wakefield also severely misreads the conclusion of Tsonis et al in comment 120:

He writes:

RW"Especially the conclusion. So much for AGW's "strong" influence. Minor a best."

Whereas the "conclusion of the conclusion" is actually this:

Tsonis et al "The standard explanation for the post 1970s warming is that the radiative effect of greenhouse
gases overcame shortwave reflection effects due to aerosols [Mann and Emanuel, 2006]. However, comparison of the 2035 event in the 21st century simulation and the 1910s event in the observations with this event, suggests an alternative hypothesis, namely that the climate shifted after the 1970s
event to a different state of a warmer climate, which may be superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend."

which in no way suggests that they have explained "the current warming with out CO2". If anything, their work suggests that the dangers from total climate change (AGW plus natural cycles)are even greater inasmuch as the gradual tide-coming-in forcing will, when Tsonis et al's cycles all synchronise, we will get a rapid increase in warming which will undoubtedly set off the methane gun. Sayonara civilisation. What planet are you on Richard?

Big cyclical waves, as examined in the Tsonis paper, might wet your feet or rock your boat but the tide coming in in is what will drown you if you don't stop it (King Canute) or adapt (go further up the beach)

That's actually a very good analogy, Nick. Kudos.

We are looking at the same document right?

https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/aatsonis/www/2007GL030288.pdf

I did several searches for different words, including anthropogenic, which appears ONCE in the last sentence I quoted.

And Skip, they say in the last sentence:

"...which may be
superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend."

Note the operative words MAY BE.

The tidal forces are analogous to climate change forced by excess CO2. The tide coming in is slow but steady.

Except there is no indication of that "tide" anywhere on the planet. I've downloaded about a dozen different location round the planet, most only have records from the 70's. But according to Ian that's all that is needed. None of them show any increase in TMax.

http://cdnsurfacetemps.wordpress.com/table-of-contents/

" dangers from total climate change "

They say nothing about any "dangers" that's YOUR interpretation. Nice to see you got the end quote correct as I posted it, not Mandas. Where did he get it from?

This paper puts a mechanism which you all claimed I didn't have.

So now we are talking DEGREES of influence from these two. Which has the bigger influence? What evidence supports AGW influnce can be seen in the data?

Ah!

Richard, by the Shaman Watts it is you are right on this technical citation matter, and I appropriately retract.

I and Mandas had apparently both reversed the two separate cites. He when he linked it, and I when I checked them both.

However, this is not much consolation for you, because the quote *is* real--just in the *other* of the paired articles. Mandas is correct on the fundamental issue when he says, "you have used a source that clearly tells you that you are wrong."

Furthermore, your final statement is frankly an orgy of hilarity:

"...which may be superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend." . . . Note the operative words MAY BE. -- Richard

Indeed I *have*, Richard. Too bad *you* hadn't noted it before hastily announcing

So they are clearly stating their proposal is "superimposed" on AGW . . . CO2's influence on the climate is from zero to MINOR at best. --Richard

Is it not embarrassing enough that you don't understand your sources' positions? Must you compound it by failing to grasp even your *own* in relation to them?

None of them show any increase in TMax.

Beyond belief.

Even your *own* data show an increase in *temperature*. The tide is rising, Richard. It doesn't matter if the ocean is red or green.

In your view, why is the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere not increasing Earth's temperature?

Richard Wakefield: No idea. It would have to be investigated. Not having a link does not dismiss the evidence.

A more clear exhibition of the foolishness of the AGW denialist mindset I have never seen.

"No idea" - blithely dismissing the fact that his 'hypothesis' is contrary to the laws of physics, and ignorant of the epistemic consequences.

"It would have to be investigated" Oblivious to the fact that the enormous accumulation of data generated by AGW studies already demonstrates that his 'hypothesis' is false.

"Not having a link does not dismiss the evidence" Unaware of the unreliability, irrelevancy, and scale of insufficiency of his so-called "evidence".

When you have an extreme outlier position, that depends upon the suspension of the normal physical laws of the universe to justify, most rational people get a clue. Fanatics, however, just dig their heels in deeper.

Richard, you're in mighty deep. Over your head, in fact.

RW "None of them show any increase in TMax."

Leaving that aside because "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest" (copyright Simon and Garfunkel), perhaps you might like to inform us about TMin's in aggregate, particularly in the polar and sub polar areas. Warming polar waters are what will probably set off the methane super-positive feedback and make the tide come in a helluva lot faster.

RW "So now we are talking DEGREES of influence from these two. Which has the bigger influence? What evidence supports AGW influnce can be seen in the data?"

Over the short term, the decadal natural cycles are bigger but the biggest influence long term is the additive AGW. Consider that the difference between cyclical summer and winter is greater than the seasonal temperature increase needed to make extreme summer temperatures fatal to many. Just because the cyclical changes are greater in spread over a short period does not mean that the smaller but inexorable accumulation of heat energy is not far worse for us in the long term.

The movement of heat from the oceans to the atmosphere and back, such as El Nino/La Nina, are powerful cycles. They are, one must remember, CYCLES. They certainly confuse the Wattsupwiththat crowd, who are the types who will get us all "drowned" if they have their way.

AGW forcing is not a cycle but a "push" that slowly increases the average temperature of the planet until we reach a new equilibrium - or set off feedbacks which will "buffer" the increased level of greenhouse effect (if we're very lucky) or greatly enhance it (if we're not).

Feeling lucky, punk?

More lies from Wakefield (actually it is the one he has been repeating over and over again despite being shown how dishonest it is):

None of them show any increase in TMax

As I have told you numerous times Wakefield, that is complete nonsense. I have looked at 6 Canadian Stations and all show an increasing annual Tmax. These sites are:

Sachs Harbour
Coral Harbour
Kuujjuarapik
Penticton
Kamloops
Terrace

You will see I have included Kamloops which Wakefield claims to be decreasing or flat (post #689 in the second long thread):

Hey, Ian, have a look at Kamloops, just up from your station. Include 2010 in the data and the trend is completely flat since 1951. So looks like AGW is happing (sic) only in Penticton!

This is just not true, anyone who cares to check for themselves can download the data for these sites from:

http://scraperwiki.com/views/environment-canada-station-map/full/

Wakefield is continually lying when he claims "Tmax in Canada and therefore the world is decreasing, therefore AGW is falsified".

His statements about Australian stations is shown to be wrong here:

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/~/media/publications/science/weather-ex…

Check out Figure 2 and the following quote from that report:

The 2004 east Australian heatwave occurred against a background of a long-term increase in the frequency of hot days and nights and a decrease in the number of cold days and nights in Australia (Figure 2; Collins et al. 2000; Nicholls and Collins, 2006) and more generally across the western Pacificâeastern Asia region (Manton et al., 2001). Griffith et al., (2005) reported almost universal increases in maximum and minimum mean temperature across the AsiaâPacific region, along with decreases in the frequency of cold nights and cool days. Most stations showed an increase in the frequency of hot days and warm nights, with only a few significant decreases.

Why is this person allowed to continue to post lies when his dishonesty has been revealed over and over again?

Beats me Ian.

It doesn't matter how much evidence is stacked up against Dick. Its doesn't matter how many times he links to things he hasn't read and wouldn't understand even if he did. It doesn't matter that he continually changes his claims, ignores points that are made against him, and flat out lies about things that he has done. He supposedly gets upset about personal attacks - but it perfectly happy to do the same himself. Yet he is still posting drivel, and completely dominating all the discussion with his bullshit.

Dick is a lying disengenuous arsehole who is beneath contempt. When it comes to science and ethics, he is a creationist.

I never thought I would say this, but please come back crakar. You are far more intellectual and open to evidence and argument that this clown.

skip / Dick

And mandas did NOT mix up the quotes. The quotes I provided are from the papers and sources I listed.

On page 2 (opening paragraph) of this paper:

"....https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/kswanson/www/publications/2008GL037022_all…

It says:

".....This paper provides an update to an earlier work that showed specific changes in the aggregate time evolution of major Northern Hemispheric atmospheric and oceanic modes of variability serve as a harbinger of climate shifts...."

And on the bottom of page 4 / top of page 5 it says:

"....While in the observations such breaks in temperature trend are clearly superimposed upon a century time-scale warming presumably due to anthropogenic forcing....."

Then there is the abstract of this paper:

http://deepeco.ucsd.edu/~george/publications/09_long-term_variability.p…

Which says:

"....Here we present a technique that objectively identifies the component of inter-decadal global mean surface temperature attributable to natural long-term climate variability. Removal of that hidden variability from the actual observed global mean surface temperature record delineates the externally forced climate signal, which is monotonic, accelerating warming during the 20th century...."

I know Dick can't read, because he has shown a remarkable inability to read ANYTHING that he links to, but do you need your eyes checked skip? Those are EXACTLY what I provided before, and I simply cut and pasted them again from the original sources.

Tsonis et al is perfectly clear in what they are saying. There is a range of complex variabilities and cycles which occur in climate such as the solar cycle, ENSO and PDO, and these can reinforce and cancel each other - just like waves. BUT - and here is the big BUT - these cycles overlay the underlying trend, which is clearly shows warming. And of course, they say it is 'presumably due to anthropogenic forcing', because it was not part of their study to analyse what was causing the trend they observed. They didn't have the data, so they didn't draw any conclusions. You know - just like real scientists are supposed to do.

Pity there isn't more of that going on around here.

Even your *own* data show an increase in *temperature*. The tide is rising, Richard. It doesn't matter if the ocean is red or green.

Which ones?

"No idea" - blithely dismissing the fact that his 'hypothesis' is contrary to the laws of physics, and ignorant of the epistemic consequences.

Which laws. Does the Tsonis paper violate the law of physics? They provide the mechanim I said needed to be investigated.

Oblivious to the fact that the enormous accumulation of data generated by AGW studies already demonstrates that his 'hypothesis' is false.

Tell that to Tsonis.

Tell that to Tsonis.

LOL.

Again we see one of Wakefield's classic dodges: When he it has been proven beyond all doubt that he completely blew another citation he did not read (anyone remember Laken or Curry?), he pretends the refutation never occurred and that the critic is challenging the source, not him.

Speaking of which . . . So, Richard, how's your threatened conversation with Judith progressed?

What does she think of your global inferences from your cherry picked stations? What does she say about your view on AGW theory saying "only CO2" affects climate? How does she evaluate your previous citation claiming CO2 has the opposite effect of AGW theory?

I know you won't answer but that's at least half the fun for me.

If you ever read you would already know the answers to all of these, but since you don't you better ask her directly.

At least, Richard, you have the amusing charm of apparently really believing your own absurdities. Snowman is just cavalierly dishonest. He either thinks its cute or is a sociopath proper; I can't know for sure which.

Mandas I totally agree with your characterization of the two cites and the authors' intent. But at least in the order presented it looked to me like you reversed the two.

It doesn't matter. Your point is utterly correct as it was the same author team on the same general subject.

".....Which laws. Does the Tsonis paper violate the law of physics? They provide the mechanim I said needed to be investigated....."

And guess what? They DID investigate the mechanism. And Dick - its YOU who is disagreeing with Tsonis, not me. Tsonis et al is saying quite clearly that there is underlying warming to the natural variability. Remove the variability signal - which is the exact point of their research - and what you have left is a clear warming trend. You're the one who is trying to say there is no underlying trend - even though Tsonis' data shows it and your data shows it (Yes - you are showing an increase in mean temperature. Get over it).

So, maybe you should be the one 'telling it to Tsonis'. Or better still, just shut the hell up and stop making yourself look stupid.

Again the fascinating puzzle of it:

Richard, do you *really* not understand how utterly wrong you are on these cites? Do you really not get it?

Have you run your interpretation of them by Judith?

And of course, they say it is 'presumably due to anthropogenic forcing', because it was not part of their study to analyse what was causing the trend they observed. They didn't have the data, so they didn't draw any conclusions. You know - just like real scientists are supposed to do.

What is more likely they were either forced to include that at the end by the gate keepers in the review process, or added so it would not be rejected. The climategate emails are clear that happens.

Re Kamloops: Ian post your graph, let's see it.

Mandas #157

"....While in the observations such breaks in temperature trend are clearly superimposed upon a century time-scale warming presumably due to anthropogenic forcing....."

Mandas #157

While in the observations such breaks in temperature trend are clearly superimposed upon a century time-scale warming presumably due to anthropogenic forcing....â

End of actual paper:

"However, comparison of the 2035 event in the 21st century simulation and the 1910s event in the observations with this event, suggests an alternative hypothesis, namely that the climate shifted after the 1970s event to a different state of a warmer climate, which may be
superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend."

Mandas has "clearly superimposed", where as the paper says "which may be superimposed".

Mandas replaced "superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend." with "superimposed upon a century time-scale warming presumably due to anthropogenic forcing". Century time-scale appears no where in the document. You "clearly" misquoted the paper.

If anyone has a reading problem it's you. Even Skip has admitted the mistake.

Wakefield whines again:

Re Kamloops: Ian post your graph, let's see it.

Wakefield stop being so stupid, you can't post (as far as I know) graphs on this site.

However, if you are as smart as you claim to be you should be able to download the data from the web site I referred you to. That is assuming you can do it correctly, not like your dishonest graphing and discussion of the Cartwright precipitation data which you completely mangled, denying that you had and calling me a liar for bringing it to your attention (quoted from post #224 on the second long thread):

Wakefield, have you even looked at the graph you have on your site for Cartwright? Do you honestly believe that it gets 40,000 mms of rain per year?

Fuck, Ian. Do you think I make these numbers up? That's what comes from EC data!! That's TOTAL precip. If you think I'm lying GO DOWN LOAD THE FUCKING DATA YOURSELF!

Of course Wakefield is way out since the actual precipitation in Cartwright is approximately 1000 mms per year as I found when I looked at the actual data. Wakefield then changed his data and refused to admit his dishonesty.

You are a despicable and pathetic person who lives in a world that is full of lies and your own fantasies.

Fuck you are a moron Dick. Mandas 'superimposed' nothing. He cut and paste from the document.

I told you exactly where I got the quotes from, and still you couldn't find them. Did I say the end of the paper? NOOOOOO!!!! I said the first part of the quote was the opening paragraph to the paper, and the second part of the quote was on the bottom of page 4 / top of page 5. You know - just like skip told you.

Now open the paper like a good little boy and try reading it for the first time. The earlier criticisms about your level of literacy where generous. Grade 8 is far beyond the level that you have achieved.

When you are finished admitting your error about 2010 being the hottest year on record you can admit your error here. But I won't be holding my breath for you to have any integrity.

Wakefield is so stupid he doesn't realize that mandas is referring to more than one paper by Tsonis. It appears that he is referring to two papers, one of which Wakefield does not appear to have read. Such sloppy work would not be allowed in a junior high school project.

bottom of page 4 / top of page 5. You know - just like skip told you.

Jesus and I even tried to be half-ass *nice* about it!

Oh for fucksake Richard! The point is that the author team of *both* articles say--pay very close attention now--*exactly*, word for word, what Mandas said. The only confusion was in *which article*.

Are you really going to fall on your sword on *this*? This?

Jesus H. Watts what goes on inside that mind of yours??!

It is entertaining to watch Skip's spluttering indignation over this when, self evidently, he was wrong about the paper's content. Once again, Richard has been shown to be triumphantly correct.

One might imagine that The Preening One and the other intellectual midgets who oppose Richard would now consider a period of frank self-examination to be appropriate. Not so, apparently.

plz tell me a paragraph on global warming of about 2000 words

Ian, I have the graph right in front of me. What do you see the plot doing?

Once again, Richard has been shown to be triumphantly correct.

I wondered when the one-man Mike Tyson fan club would attempt a rescue. Was it not immediately part of Anthony Watt's agenda for you?

Snowman, did you read *either* article?

Of course you didn't; you don't read.

This is another one that goes on your permanent record, Snowman.

Skip's irritation is understandable. He knows that he has been caught committing the sin of which he endlessly accuses others, namely, referring to a source without troubling to read it. It is perfectly obvious that he gave the papers the most cursory glance (if indeed he looked at them at all).

Note his feeble attempt at 165 to explain away the fact that he made precisely the same mistake as Mandas, when of course the explanation is clear. He sounds like a schoolchild who has been caught copying homework, desperately trying to justify the fact that his version repeats the error of a classmate.

Ok, went back, have read the other two papers Mandas was refering to. Sorry, I thought you were on the one I posted. I retract my alligation.

Now, about this paper:

https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/kswanson/www/publications/2008GL037022_all…

Notice this:

While in the observations such breaks in temperature trend are clearly superimposed upon a century time-scale warming presumably due to anthropogenic forcing, those breaks result in significant departures from that warming over time periods spanning multiple decades. p.4-5

Notice Mandas added ... after "forcing", leaving out the important rest of the sentence. Then there is this gem right after:

This suggests that the climate system may well have shifted again, with a consequent break in the global mean temperature trend from the post 1976/77 warming to a new period (indeterminate length) of roughly constant global mean temperature.

Moreover, we caution that the shifts described here are presumably superimposed upon a long term warming trend due to anthropogenic forcing. However, the nature of these past shifts in climate state suggests the possibility of near constant temperature lasting a decade or more into the future must at least be entertained. The apparent lack of a proximate cause behind the halt in warming post 2001/02 challenges our understanding of the climate system, specifically the physical reasoning and causal links between longer time-scale modes of internal climate variability and the impact of such modes upon global temperature. p. 10

This on the years since 2001:
This cooling, which appears unprecedented over the instrumental period, is suggestive of an internal shift of climate dynamical processes that as yet remain poorly understood.

Specifically they note about CO2 in since 2001:
That such warming has not occurred suggests an internal reorganization of the climate system has offset this presumptive radiative imbalance, either via an anomalously large uptake of heat by the deep ocean or a direct offset of the greenhouse gas forcing by a shift in cloud forcing.

It is clear reading this paper that these random chaotic cyles coming together "superimposed" (ie swamps) anything CO2 is doing to the atmosphere. This is exactly what I was refering to, which you all claimed I had no mechanism, hence was t be dismissed a priori. These guys provide EXEACTLY that mechanism.

How this paper supports AGW seems a stretch, big stretch. They are claiming these cycles aver ride, swamp, anything CO2 is doing.

We are back to th DEGREE of influence of CO2, which the IPCC claims the last 50 year was 90% because of CO2. These guys clearly disagree, CO2 would be a minor contributor at best.

Is anyone else deeply amused by RW now relying on (misunderstood) *modeling*.

I'll admit I haven't read the papers either. Were the results based on a *single* model run?

"superimposed" (ie swamps) anything CO2 is doing to the atmosphere.

False. Superimposed does not necessarily mean "swamps". You're adding something that isn't there. Nick explained this to you, but you don't read.

Skip . . . has been caught committing the sin of which he endlessly accuses others, namely, referring to a source without troubling to read it.

Another lie. *Mandas* "referred" to the article. What *I* said was:

I can't completely rub in the fact that this shows you didn't read it, because neither did I, entirely.

and that the verbiage of the *other* Tsonis article contains exactly what Mandas claimed.

If you had read the discussion, Snowman, you would know that Mike Tyson already punched himself in the face by claiming Mandas "superimposed" words that weren't there. And this does indeed prove my accusation: he didn't read it.

He didn't even realize there were two articles, as Ian finally deduced. It was such a blunder on Richard's part I didn't even initially realize it was possible--even for him.

But keep lying and rooting for Iron Mike. You're the best advertisement for the foolishness of AGW denial I have ever encountered.

Wakefield, did you have your glasses on when you looked at your graph? If you plotted the data correctly you would have seen that the annual Tmax for Kamloops is increasing at a rate of 0.17 deg C per decade for 1959 to 2010.

If you did not get that then you have probably made another error in your data selection and/or in your squiggly little programme. I'm not surprised that you have made mistakes since you had an enormous error in your Cartwright precipitation data (which you refused to acknowledge and dishonestly changed without indicating on your web site that you had done so).

Coby has copies of my graphs and he may be able to post them here to show how wrong you are. Maybe if you can actually see what the real data look like you may accept that you are very, vary wrong in your blanket statement that "Tmax in Canada is decreasing, summers are getting cooler".

The data I used can be found here:

http://scraperwiki.com/views/environment-canada-station-map/full/

(Note that Wakefield never links to the actual data, he only shows data that he has "mysteriously" modified).

Is anyone else deeply amused by RW now relying on (misunderstood) *modeling*. -- blueshift

No, blue. I hadn't thought of that, but well spotted.

Were the results based on a *single* model run?

No, read the papers. This is a serious blow to the 90% from CO2 claimed by the IPCC.

Wakefield, did you have your glasses on when you looked at your graph? If you plotted the data correctly you would have seen that the annual Tmax for Kamloops is increasing at a rate of 0.17 deg C per decade for 1959 to 2010.

Ian, this is why your timeframe is too short to make such proclimations:

http://cdnsurfacetemps.wordpress.com/2011/01/21/time-frame-perils/

That's garbage Wakefield and if you knew any statistics and climate science you would know that you can not draw trends over differing periods of time where different forcings are in play.

Tamino has a good post on this but I don't have a link.

You need to read up on climate science and find out what forcings (what you call "natural variables" and which is a complete misnomer) are prominent at different time periods. I repeat, you cannot draw a trend line through three or four different physical phases. That is utter nonsense.

We know that AGW is the dominant factor during the last 40 to 50 years. Therefore that is the period we should be looking at to determine if AGW is happening and what its effect is.

There has to be a physical reason for every change in climate. Understanding what these changes are and when they happen is what climate science is all about, something you do not seem to understand.

I repeat, you cannot draw a trend line through three or four different physical phases.

Then why did you? Kamloops has three phases in it, the 1945-1975 cooling phase, the 1975 to 2001 warming phase, and the 2002-present flat phase. And what phases are yet to come? Cooler? So much for YOUR "increasing" linear trend line through phases.

We know that AGW is the dominant factor during the last 40 to 50 years.

Not according to these scientists:
https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/kswanson/www/publications/2008GL037022_all…

There has to be a physical reason for every change in climate. Understanding what these changes are and when they happen is what climate science is all about, something you do not seem to understand.

Which those scientists have figured out.

Also, drawing a line through the data aside, the FACT is Vernon was hotter in the summers in the early 1900's than now. So too MUST Kamloops and Pinticton. That means we are not hotter today than in the early 1900's

Not according to these scientists:
https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/kswanson/www/publications/2008GL037022_all…

Why should I read it? I know you didn't.

So, Richard, are you still claiming Mandas . . . what's the word . . . "superimposed"?

How's the conversation with Judith going? Get a chance to clarify her position on the questions I asked you?

Exactly.

I thought so.

Wakefield continues to show that he has no idea what global means. We are not talking about individual spots on the earth, we are talking global. The global average shows that we have been warming because of increased CO2 content since about 1970 or there by. Your continued nonsense that AGW is not happening is just that, nonsense.

Take a few courses in logic, statistic and basic physics and you might just start to understand what is meant by climate science.

You are driven by ideology and not a very pleasant ideology. Your right wing selfish rhetoric is very grating on the nerves for people with a social conscience.

Just look at what is happening in Australia and other places where climate has dealt the people an enormous social and economic blow. And don't even suggest that AGW did not make these events worse.

How's the conversation with Judith going? Get a chance to clarify her position on the questions I asked you?

I already retracked my alligation, did not see it was from another link, my mistake. And no not yet, I'm not done adding stations. Once I have more from around the world, I will be contacting her, not until I'm done.

Oh, and you know that France 2003 heat wave? Wasn't the hottest summer on record, 1947 is.
http://cdnsurfacetemps.wordpress.com/2011/01/22/2003-paris-heat-wave/

Wakefield, I hope you are not eating all these cherries you are picking, they will not be good for you.

Just look at what is happening in Australia and other places where climate has dealt the people an enormous social and economic blow. And don't even suggest that AGW did not make these events worse.

It's not. It's already been shown that the Au flooding happened just as bad may times in the past. Economically these are bad now because, since the last big flood they had in 1974, the population was less than half what it is today. So increasing economic damage caused by climate events is because of increasing population.

I thought you people keep saying no single event is evidence of anything? Oh, right, that's only when it does not support AGW.

I already retracked my alligation, did not see it was from another link, my mistake.

Yes, I went back and noticed it this time. I thus *retract* the question. It would help, Richard, if you would compose your posts in Word an let spell check do the dirty work for you.

The larger issue is how far you pushed this point, falsely characterizing *my* minor technical concession (mixing up *which* article contained the verbiage in question) as a concession on the larger issue (what the author team *said*) and fighting us to the death to the point of accusing *Mandas* of distorting the wording.

Finally, there is an even bigger point here you are still not grasping. The Tsonis author team(s) do *not* dispute AGW. Their mechanism is *not* swamping any AGW effect any more than nightfall or winter do. You will only understand this when you finally relinquish your absurd straw man that AGW theory says "only CO2 affects climate".

So I ask again, how *has* the discussion with Judith Curry gone?

Don't tell me she thinks your analysis is "well done." Tell me what she says about your view of AGW saying only CO2 affects climate, or your citation claiming that CO2 *cools* the earth, or that you can extrapolate from your current station sample to the entire planet.

I am *really* interested in your ongoing exchanges with her so do keep me posted.

Many species heading for extinction because of warming. From yesterday's New York Times: click link for article.

For Many Species, No Escape as Temperature Rises

Finally, there is an even bigger point here you are still not grasping. The Tsonis author team(s) do *not* dispute AGW. Their mechanism is *not* swamping any AGW effect any more than nightfall or winter do.

Yes it does, they state so when describing the 1945-1975 cooling, and the current from 2003 flat trend, REGARDLESS, of CO2 increasing. Hence their mechanisms MUST be swamping any CO2 trend.

You will only understand this when you finally relinquish your absurd straw man that AGW theory says "only CO2 affects climate".

Nothing to reliquish, the IPCC is clear, 90% of the last 40 year's of increase in average temperature is because of CO2. That's pretty damn close to "only", or are you claiming the IPCC is wrong?

So I ask again, how *has* the discussion with Judith Curry gone?

As I said, when I'm done.

Re Kenya species extinction:

Soon as I read this:

"Polar bears have become the icons of this climate threat. "

I knew the article was garbage.

Is the highest temperature in Kenya rising? Nope:

http://cdnsurfacetemps.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/nirobi-1973-2010/

That makes the rest of the speculions in that article also garbage.

Except on little point they take no further than a passing note:

"Over the past two decades, an increasing number of settlers who have moved here to farm have impinged on bird habitats and reduced bird populations by cutting down forests and turning grasslands into fields."

I have a friend here who's been to Kenya just this summer. He said the place is a shit-hole of desparate humanity. Illegal immigants fleeing Somolia and Sudan are destroying the country, killing and eating everything they can. The problems there are over population.

REGARDLESS, of CO2 increasing. Hence their mechanisms MUST be swamping any CO2 trend.

Nothing to reliquish, the IPCC is clear, 90% of the last 40 year's of increase in average temperature is because of CO2.

That's not exactly how the word it but its a trivial point.

That's pretty damn close to "only"

The key thing you still do not understand. You are using "superimpose" as "swamping" and finally implicitly morphing it to "negation". You're indeed "superimposing" a meaning that isn't there.

By your logic, Richard, the "superimposition" of *sunrise* and/or a one-week *weather* system in early December "swamps" *winter* in Reno. And over a short enough time frame I could use your logic to claim that "winter does not exist", that only the "Winter believers" with their "high priests of Winter" believe in the idea. If I, like the premature aerial breeding insects that bloom in these times and die within days, also lived so short a life, I could happily die never knowing how wrong I was.

In the same sense, overall average temperature increases on a multi-decadal time scale from GHGs such as CO2 is *real*, even if it is *temporarily* overridden on a shorter time scale by other climate phenomena such as those described the Tsonis author team. Just like it is temporarily overridden by seasons. Just like it is temporarily overridden weather systems. Just like it is temporarily overridden by sunrise and sunset.

On the appropriate time scale *all* these phenomena are "superimposed" on AGW. All of them. But average temperatures rise, (as your own data show!) because AGW is *real*.

Don't believe me? Read another crucial passage from the 2009 article the Tsonis team:

Finally, the presence of vigorous climate variability presents significant challenges to near-term climate prediction (25, 26), leaving open the possibility of steady or even declining global mean surface temperatures over the next several decades that could present a significant empirical obstacle to the implementation of policies directed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions (27).

In other words, people like yourself could be *fooled* into thinking there is nothing to worry about.

They continue on:

However, global warming could likewise suddenly and without any ostensive cause accelerate due to internal variability.

This is the point Nick was trying to make to you, Richard. These "superimposed" dynamics could affect time-scale-specific periods of climate *either way*. They do *not* negate the understood and agreed upon physics of atmospheric CO2, which is what you're attempting to claim in your complete misuse of these papers.

On a final note, the authors wrote:

To paraphrase C. S. Lewis, the climate system appears wild, andmay continue to hold many surprises if pressed.

This, for those who are not CS Lewis fans (I'm not religious but still enjoy some of his works) is a reference to the idea that "Aslan is not a tame lion."

Now before you respond make sure you *understand the analogy* and *understand the point.*.

As I said, when I'm done [discussing with Curry].

Really? How long will that take? When you convince her that you're right?

Something is rotten in Ontario, Richard. My guess is you have already heard back from Judith on several of these issues and didn't like what you heard. If not, why not share it?

After all, you're going to be the man that "took down AGW", right? No shame in exposing the stonewalling one of the yet-to-be-converted.

That's not exactly how the word it but its a trivial point.

Not trivial. It CANT be 90% right now since CO2 emissions are still rising, but the average temp is not. Which means averged over the decades, it CANT be 90% either as it gets diluted.

In the same sense, overall average temperature increases on a multi-decadal time scale from GHGs such as CO2 is *real*,

there is no evidence it is "real", there is theory that needs to verified or falsified.

In other words, people like yourself could be *fooled* into thinking there is nothing to worry about.

I don't get that from the quote at all. I get the impression that we HAVE BEEN fooled into thinking CO2 is a significant player in the climate.

However, global warming could likewise suddenly and without any ostensive cause accelerate due to internal variability.

I think you have misinterpreted that quote. They are saying "warming", what ever that physcially means, could change WITHOUT ABILITY TO DETERMINE. What does internal variability" mean? Not AGW.

How long will that take?

As long as it takes to get the data, run the queries, post the results, which I do at my own time, not yours. Once my ducks are in order, then I will present it. If you think I'm hiding a reply from Curry I don't like, why don't you email her and ask what she has said to me. Otherwise, you are just speculating. And I can see by that last comment that what you feel is what is real, which is why you accept AGW hook, line and sinker. You WANT AGW to be real for some ulterior motive.

You WANT AGW to be real for some ulterior motive.

Groan. You got this from the Watts Shaman or similar ilk, of course.

Its a blatant projection. You want it to be false because then you're vindicating the unjustified conclusions of your "analysis" and can keep believing that your spreadsheet hobby has not been a waste of time.

there is no evidence it is "real", there is theory that needs to verified or falsified.

Blatant subject switch. The dispute is whether *the article* "refutes" AGW. It doesn't.

I don't get that from the quote at all.

I have learned, Richard, that you can get essentially anything you wish from any verbiage you see.

It CANT be 90% right now since CO2 emissions are still rising, but the average temp is not.

Despite my best efforts, you do *not* understand the analogy or the point. To wit:

What does internal variability" mean? Not AGW.

Exactly! "Internal variability" refers to *all the other things* that impact climate--the other things which you claim AGW denies existing. It doesn't, Richard.

Richard, tonight the temperature in Reno will drop about 25 degrees F. AGW will explain none of that drop, but that has no bearing on the truth or falsity of AGW. I wonder if you really understand that.

RW wrote (quoting the NYT article):

"Soon as I read this:
'Polar bears have become the icons of this climate threat'.
I knew the article was garbage."

Now I know what RW's problem is. It is comprehension of the meaning of English writing. Richard - the meaning you took from that phrase is entirely wrong. You did not comprehend what it meant in the context in which it was made. There is no chance that you could get a proper English literature qualification if your understanding of meaning is so radically wonky.

Temperatures still going down in Reno at this hour and AGW explains none of it.

The theory must be falsified. You win, Richard.

tonight the temperature in Reno will drop about 25 degrees F. AGW will explain none of that drop, but that has no bearing on the truth or falsity of AGW. I wonder if you really understand that.

Record low temperatures around the world are not from AGW, yet one hot summer year in France is, one summer high in Moscow is. One flood in Australia is, One flood in Pakistan is. I wonder if you really understand THAT.

Going to email Judith? Or is your fantacy about that "true" in your mind?

Nick, no interpretation required. Polar bears are the icon of AGW. The claim is they are threatened with exinction because of a "warming world", yet if threatened one has to ask why the Canadian Government is allowing aboriginal hunting.

The number of record highs far outpaces the number of record lows in the US over the last decade and the same is true world wide.

Colder still in Reno and its not even 8 pm yet. AGW must be "dead in the water."

Richard, tonight the temperature in Reno will drop about 25 degrees F. AGW will explain none of that drop, but that has no bearing on the truth or falsity of AGW. I wonder if you really understand that. --skip

I wonder no more:

Record low temperatures around the world are not from AGW, yet one hot summer year in France is, one summer high in Moscow is.

Nope. You don't understand the analogy or the point. Sigh.

RW:

"Not trivial. It CANT be 90% right now since CO2 emissions are still rising, but the average temp is not. Which means averged over the decades, it CANT be 90% either as it gets diluted."

You need an intervention.

You really don't get it that atmospheric CO2 increases heat, and that eventually that means temperature goes up in a graphically noisy way. No, for you, any non 100% linear correlation disproves the entire Greenhouse Effect.

Where does the heat go, Richard? Where does the heat go? Have you discovered a new Law of thermodynamics?

You're not a stupid fellow, but you have a persistent and pernicious blind spot that doesn't allow you to see your own cognitive dissonance.

It actually dropped *more* than 25 degrees F last night in Reno (my models are obviously useless; maybe I need to incorporate a spreadsheet analysis).

And hard as I try, I cannot conceive or find any explanation for this that involves carbon dioxide. AGW is "dead in the water", as its effects were clearly "swamped" by some mechanism it did not account for.

The number of record highs far outpaces the number of record lows in the US over the last decade and the same is true world wide.

Means nothing. That's an accouting issue, nothing to do with AGW. I've also shown that both in Australia and Canada with records back to 1900, that more than 60% of the recordsetting highest days for that period are before 1950. Some never broken since.

Where does the heat go, Richard? Where does the heat go? Have you discovered a new Law of thermodynamics?

You obviously have not been following that issue, the heat balance of the planet has NOT, repeat * N O T * been solved, even the Hockey-Stick Team admits that. So we have no idea where that so called extra heat is going, has gone, or if it is even accumulating.

Recall the planet was naturally heating up from 1800-1945. Naturally heated during the MWP, RWP and other interglacial periods.

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0128766b0364970c-pi

Today is not unusual, nor unpresidented, and definitely not bad.

Skip, we could sure use some of your global warming up here in Southern Ontario. -18C this morning, windchills in mid -20's. Authorities are telling people to stay inside.

Winter's getting less cold is such a bad thing...

"This posting is about how natural processes and cycles have dominated the global warming experienced since 1880. The base chart for the above graphic is the NASA GISS Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index that indicates the official climate Team estimate of about 0.8ºC net warming, the majority of which they allocate to human activities. In contrast, according to my annotations, the actual net warming is closer to 0.5ºC (0.8ºC â 0.3ºC Data Bias), and most of that, 0.4ºC, is due to natural cycles and processes over which humans have no control or effect."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/23/normal-seasons-of-the-sun-gw-tige…

Now I know you are going to want to shoot the messenger, but be a bit scientific for a change and show what is wrong with this, not with opinions, but with evidence.

RW:

"Recall the planet was naturally heating up from 1800-1945. Naturally heated during the MWP, RWP and other interglacial periods."

1) Of course, this is the time period when the Industrial Revolution started,and mankind started burning carbon in earnest, to the extent that CO2 started building up. But that has no influence on the data, no doubt.

2) You actually here admit that there are other factors which warmed the Earth. Do you not see how increasing atmospheric CO2 will only make things worse?

"Today is not unusual, nor unpresidented, and definitely not bad."

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Of course today is unprecedented! We have unprecedented levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that level is increasing exponentially. We have unprecedented temperatures.

Again - where do you think the extra heat radiating the Earth from the Greenhouse Effect is going to go, Richard?

The 1st Law of Thermodynamics tells us that that energy can not be destroyed. It can't just disappear. You can't just say that

"...we have no idea where that so called extra heat is going, has gone, or if it is even accumulating. " as if it goes NOWHERE and dismiss it. Nonsense!

It. Must. Heat. Up. The. Earth.

All of your bull about MaxT's, etc ignore this basic problem as you scramble from one academically interesting but ultimately irrelevant sticking point to another. That is intellectually unforgivable.

Wakefield boasts:

but be a bit scientific for a change and show what is wrong with this, not with opinions, but with evidence.

Why would any intelligent person lower themselves to the likes of you or that Ira Glickstein and waste their time responding to such denier nonsense?

If you really want to see how "natural processes" influence (or do not influence) global warming then I suggest you read this post by Tamino:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/how-fast-is-earth-warming/

Now that is a post by someone who understands both the science of climate change and statistics, two areas of which you continue to show that your level of expertise is exactly zero.

As I have told you many times before, go and educate yourself (oops I should reword that since you already claim to have "educated yourself" which, of course, is why you know nothing). Go to your local college or high school and enroll in some basic science and maths courses.

The theory is saved.

The temperature has risen over 10 degrees in the last six hours in Reno. Since I believe only CO2 affects climate, I will attribute this to GHG emissions.

Game back on, Richard.

Re: Watts. The only person who should shoot that messenger is you, Richard. He's already caused you epic embarrassment on more than one occasion--in some ways I know you don't even understand.

More discussion of the shaman from Wright's *The Evolution of God*:

In chiefdom-level societies the witch doctor/shaman/priest always struggles with the problem of defeat. In Richard's case this means continuing to believe that, despite his ongoing bungling

[Watts] is read for the FACTS and EVIDENCE his writers present.

and not the real reason he is read, which is of course that he tells scientifically illiterate AGW deniers what they want to believe.

Even though Watts (and as a result, his faithful adherents such as Richard) has been shown to be an incompetent dogmatist, the deposing of a discredited shaman is never easy or immediate. There is an element of inertia by which he can continue to, as Snowman so ineptly but revealingly put it, "set the agenda" for the faithful.

The trick for the shaman is to explain away these defeats in terms his fellow tribesmen can understand.

I wonder, Richard, how does Watts explain himself regarding the blunder over, for one example, Benjamin Laken? How many more such failures before you trade him in for a new shaman?

You could always try sun worship, I suppose. For a while you were claiming that variation in solar radiation explains temperature trends.

1) Of course, this is the time period when the Industrial Revolution started,and mankind started burning carbon in earnest, to the extent that CO2 started building up. But that has no influence on the data, no doubt.

You do realize that by 1945 we were emitting just 5% of what we are today, right? That in the 1850's burning wood world wide was more than buring coal, less than 1% of todays emissions. Our emissions double every 25 years, that means in the last 25 years we emitted as much CO2 as in ALL the previous 150 years combined, and yet 10-12 of those years, half the doube period, temps have been flat.

2) You actually here admit that there are other factors which warmed the Earth. Do you not see how increasing atmospheric CO2 will only make things worse?

"worse" is a human only view. How is it "worse" to return to temperatures that we have had before, even in recent human history (MWP, RWP). Explain how this is worse today.

Of course today is unprecedented! We have unprecedented levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that level is increasing exponentially. We have unprecedented temperatures.

Well, this is a nice example of geting all worked up based on FALSE information. We have been warmer in the MWP, the RWP, and interglacial periods, and contrary to it being "worse" was in fact boom times for humans. There is NO EVIDENCE of increasing heat waves anywhere on the planet. Plus CO2 has been as much as THREE TIMES today as recently as 3 millon years ago. Planet wasn't "worse" then.

It. Must. Heat. Up. The. Earth.

The planet doesn't have do anything we think it "must". Are you saying we understand EVERYTHING about how the climate works? Not even close. Just because you THINK it "must" heat up does NOT mean it MUST do so. If you think it must heat up, and it's not, it means your understanding of how the system works is flawed. Such is the case of climate science. It's flawed because we do not understand how the climate system works. "gut feelings" is not evidence in science.

Ask yourself this basic fundimental question. If humans were not here, what would climate be doing today? How would you test that? Climate models? Right, incomplete, flawed simulations, something they can't come close to predicting reality.

Ian, read his comment: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/23/normal-seasons-of-the-sun-gw-tige…

Such is the case of climate science. It's flawed because we do not understand how the climate system works. "gut feelings" is not evidence in science. --Richard above

The continent is a single climate regime . . . .All I can say . . . is to watch the weather channel and observe how systems move across the US and Canada. I do that every morning. It's really quite interesting to see how systems move around. --Richard GAS open thread #161

Oh dear, who should I trust, a self educated know nothing like Wakefield, an uneducated failed weather forecaster like Watts, a pseudo scientist-come-electrical engineer like Ira Glickstein, all of whom are basing their interpretation of science on right wing political ideology, or real scientists who have studied in the area for many years and have published many papers in the peer reviewed scientific literature?

Wakefield, anyone who reads and regurgitates anything found on wattsuphisbutt and similar cesspools of scientific idiocy deserve all the scorn and insults they receive. Why not do as I suggest and get an education if you want to discuss something which is obviously away over your head?

".....Ask yourself this basic fundimental question. If humans were not here, what would climate be doing today? How would you test that?....."

Remove all humans from the Earth. Dick, you go first.

Shit.

Temperatures are plummeting again in Reno as of 7:30 pm. I wish AGW had an explanation other than CO2.

Worse still, the second and third most despicable teams in the NFL, respectively, are in the Super Bowl. (Dallas takes the premiership.)

Now I not only have to concoct a way to "hide the decline" but figure out whom I hate the least when the Big Game comes.

".....Polar bears are the icon of AGW. The claim is they are threatened with exinction because of a "warming world", yet if threatened one has to ask why the Canadian Government is allowing aboriginal hunting......"

Dick shows his complete ignorance.....once again. You might want to read up on legislation regarding species protection and native cultural practices Dick. You are as woefully misinformed about that as you are about just about everything else you express an opinion on.

Fuck you are an idiot. You only ever open your mouth to change feet.

You only ever open your mouth to change feet.

I'm struggling with the metaphor.

Work with me, people. I'm just a lowly, preening faux-intellectual (and lapdog to boot . . . again, appropriate apologies, Crakar.)

To put your foot in your mouth = to say something stupid.

Open your mouth to change feet = every time you speak you put your foot in your mouth (ie say something stupid every time you speak.

Geez skip, that's an oldie!

Were you truly struggling to understand the metaphor, Skip, or was that some sort of arcane Nevada-academic joke? Surely even a preening faux-intellectual could understand something so obvious.

I figured it had something to do with that but the whole "change" component threw me. Most of us tend to learn a lesson from sticking a foot in our mouth.

How appropriate, Snowman, that you *instantly* understood. Did Mandas catch you mid-change?

By the way, how'd you like the culmination of Mike Tyson's triumphant claim that we'd mis-cited the Tsonis articles?

You may regard that as a direct question.

But don't bother answering; I know you always avoid direct interaction when you come out looking and smelling like a horse's ass. Just so you know: that along with all your other inanities is indelibly recorded for your future humiliation.

'Just so you know: that along with all your other inanities is indelibly recorded for your future humiliation....' (Skip)

I actually think that Skip is slowly becoming unhinged. I guess it happens to all of them in the end - and by 'them' I mean the obsessives who spend half their waking hours here. Little by little, step by step they get drawn into this twilight zone until they lose all contact with reality. It's so very sad, tragic, really. If only there was something we could do to help.

, all of whom are basing their interpretation of science on right wing political ideology,

I expected you would go there and call him a liar like you do to me here. Don't have the guts to do so, eh?

Re Polar Bears:

http://alaska.fws.gov/law/pdf/polarbear.pdf
"IS THERE A HARVEST LIMIT FOR POLAR BEARS?
No. Alaska Natives are not limited by Federal Law in the number that can be harvested, providing the harvest is not wasteful.

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/news/group-rules-favor-aborigina…

"Canada is the only country that currently allows commercial exports of Polar Bear parts and productsâall of which result from aboriginal subsistence hunting. Since the 1990s, approximately 300 Canadian Polar Bears (about 2% of the population) have entered international trade annually."

Stupidity like that is your answer to everything, isn't it Snowman?

Its a recurring and predictable pattern with you: Get burned, know you got burned, and then try to switch the subject to the burner.

Even if I thought your "concern" for me was sincere I'd tell you not to worry. I enjoy myself thoroughly when responding to you.

So, Richard:

Did you catch the Weather Channel this morning? Get any gut feelings about climate?

Did you catch the Weather Channel this morning? Get any gut feelings about climate?

Every morning. Deep cold high pressure system from Manitoba, down to Florida, to the east coast.

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/storm_watch_stories3&stormfile=ch…

When are you going to back up your claim about things getting "worse"? Explain what "worse" means exactly.

And this proves North America is "one *climate* regime"?

Make sure you run that one by Judith, too, would you?

People have been posting link after link to you on the subject of the deleterious potential and real effects of climate change, Richard.

You don't read, so what's the point?

People have been posting link after link to you on the subject of the deleterious potential and real effects of climate change, Richard.

And I have refuted each and every one of them with what is actually going on, nothing beyond what has happened before. And when I asked, for example, how various "theatened" organisms because of "warmer" yet to come managed to survive the MWP, RMP and interglacial periods, I got no reply.

More Wakefield make-believe:

And I have refuted each and every one of them with what is actually going on

Wakefield's refutations are of two kinds. Firstly, they are completely made up by Wakefield himself with no links to actual science (see his rubbish about all of Canada showing decreasing annual Tmax). Or secondly, regurgitation of junk science from well known denier web sites.

Wakfield, only in your distorted mind are you actually doing science, to everyone else you are just spouting nonsense.

And I have refuted each and every one of them with what is actually going on

Wrong, Richard. You've refuted nothing.

You have mindless cut and pasted links you don't read.

This is in fact the inescapable truth about yourself that will always haunt you. You don't read and so you don't understand. Not only have you *admitted* to citing you things you don't read, but it has been shown to be the case on repeated occasions that you choose not to discuss (e.g., Wakefield, Curry) because this is how you keep yourself deluded--that and getting a daily dose of Agenda from Mad Anthony.

The only hope for you is when you are finally able to look in the mirror and recognize the face there as one of scientific illiteracy and delusions of grandeur. I could gratuitously add, like Snowman, that I'm "concerned about", or that "I fear for" you, but I'm not and I don't.

I'm a bit of a malicious prick that way. I really don't mind you making a colossal clown of yourself day in and day out, because you embody and advertise all the common qualities of AGW denial that deserve censure and contempt:

1. scientific and general illiteracy
2. dogmatism and obfuscation as tactics both of debate and self-indoctrination
3. religious reliance on fools like Anthony Watts

In that regard your work does have some meaning and importance--just not the ones you think.

Skip, when you get a chance, this is an example of a system that routinely affects Canada and the upper US states. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta_clipper

Richard, when you get a chance, tell me what Judith Curry thinks of your views.

And no I don't need to email her. I *read* her. That's another thing you might think about doing--that is, when you get a chance.

As usual you link with no point. You don't even understand the fallacy of your thinking, and I'm not going to try to educate you any more. I'll just let you flounder.

Again, I have mean streak that speaks ill of me, but at least I'm literate.

Well skip, you might be a malicious prick, but I am a very nice guy.

I guess that's why I am still waiting on Dick to demonstrate a modicum of intergrity and admit his error about 2010 not being the warmest on record.

How about it Dick? Are you man enough to admit you are wrong?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

Dick can't provide halfway decent links to support his own arguments, and even makes blantant misrepresentations about his own idiotic claims now.

We may all remember this:

"....If this is happening in Canada, then it must be happening in the US since the effects of AGW would not be altered by political boarders (sic)......"

When we queried on this nonsensical statement, he responded with this gem:

"....The continent is a single climate regime......"

Now, maybe he is starting to realise just how moronic his claims are, because his starting to backtrack. It seems its just the 'upper US states' huh Dick, as you stated above?

And of course, he provides the obligatory evidence to support his claim, by way of a wikipedia link. Now, everyone with any science education at all knows that wikipedia is NOT valid evidence for ANYTHING - because of obvious reasons - but just for amusement I followed his link to see what it said. And here it is:

".....An Alberta clipper (also known as a Canadian Clipper) is a fast moving low pressure area which generally affects the central provinces of Canada and parts of the Upper Midwest and Great Lakes regions of the United States...."

And that has to be the most hilarious thing I have read for some time. Talk about shooting himself in the foot - while it was firmly planted in his mouth.

His evidence for: "the continent is a single climate regime", is a weather pattern that affects a small part of central Canada and parts of the upper mid-west and Great Lakes.

Good job there Dick! But I guess it is up there with your usual standards.

Mandas, I can understand being from Australia you would not understand how our weather systems work here, but before you go off laughing at what an Alberta Clipper is, you should at least google it and read about it first. They are what was quoted. And are ONE example of weather systems that affect most of North America. It's not just the path of these clippers (one due here tomorrow), but the side effects they have around them. After your Au temp debacle I would have thought you would lean to read up before making comments.

How about it Dick? Are you man enough to admit you are wrong?

Sure, soon as you do show me wrong. Show with evidence, not opinion.

Are you going to admit you were wrong with th AU temp data?

Oh, it turns out that the "2010" being the "warmist" was because December was left out (the "year" runs from Dec to Dec, not Jan to Jan), and is within the error factors with 1998. Record cold temperatures in Southern Ontario this week, coldest in Ottawa in 120 years. That's going to pull the average for 2011 down.

My prediction is 2011 will be a cool year, maybe even one of the coolest in the last 40 years. You want take a stab at a prediction? Think 2011 will be even warmer than 2010?

After your Au temp debacle I would have thought you would lean to read up before making comments.

Hilarious.

Wow Dick - ethics and integrity FAIL!

NASA and NOAA both stating that 2010 is the hottest on record, with published datasets, is obviously not good enough for you. But then, I guess evidence and data is never good enough for creationists with political agenda is it?

Its really, really, really simple Dick. You are wrong, but you are too lacking in integrity to admit it. The whole world knows you are wrong, and you just keep adding to the disdain in which you are held by your failure to admit it.

".....Record cold temperatures in Southern Ontario this week, coldest in Ottawa in 120 years. That's going to pull the average for 2011 down...."

Pull the average down for what? When will it ever get through your insular, thick skull that there is more of the world outside your tiny little, unimportant corner?

"....but before you go off laughing at what an Alberta Clipper is, you should at least google it and read about it first. They are what was quoted. And are ONE example of weather systems that affect most of North America....."

I read your link Dick - I even cut and pasted part of it above. And interestingly, "The central provinces of Canada and parts of the Upper Midwest and Great Lakes regions of the United States..." is NOT the whole continent. Its not even "most of North America".

"....the "year" runs from Dec to Dec, not Jan to Jan...."

Which year would that be? For a start, the CALENDAR year runs from January to December, not December to December as you seem to think (nor January to January). The fiscal year (in Australia), runs from July - June. In Canada it is from April to March. The astrological (zodiac) year runs from March - March. And interestingly enough, the meteorological year runs from December - November.

I will add geography and timekeeping to the list of subjects on which you are woefully ignorant.

Wakefield outdoes himself with the number of errors, distortions or lies in one post.

1. His Australian temperature hypothesis is falsified as I have pointed out a number of times now:
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/~/media/publications/science/weather-ex…

Check out Figure 2.

2. Meteorologically speaking the year runs from the beginning of December to the end of November.

3. Coldest in Ottawa in 120 years is nonsense. There have been numerous years where temperatures have been much lower, in fact the lowest temperature recorded in Ottawa is near enough -40. Ottawa low temperature for January 24th 2011 was -28.6 deg C which was the lowest Jan 24th temp since 1970 (not quite 120 years is it Wakefield?). If you look at historical temperature data (http://scraperwiki.com/views/environment-canada-station-map/full/) you will find that the following years had much lower temperatures:

2009 -30.3
2004 -30.7
1999 -29.5
1997 -29.6
1996 -33.1

As for your prediction of 2011 being the coolest year in the past 40 years, whose junk web site did you get that prediction from? You are one of the biggest fools and clowns on the internet. Why do you act so stupid when it is obvious that you are only embarrassing yourself?

Ian

Dick making a prediction about 2011 being 'one of the coolest in the last 40 years' is VERY revealing. I wonder what he is basing that on? How about you reveal your sources Dick?

Because not even the experts are willing or able to make predictions like that. The Australian BOM makes seasonal predictions, with percentage probabilities, as per:

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ahead/temps_ahead.shtml

NOAA talks about the reliability of predicting cycles, and concludes that some such as NAO and PNA are not predictable beyond a week or so, as per:

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/90day/fxus05.html

I guess that highlights the difference - once again - between real scientists and politically motivated deniers like Dick. REAL scientists make predictions based on data and evidence, and explain their reasoning and what the limitations and assumptions are. Whereas deniers like Dick make predictions based on a twisted worldview where evidence is immaterial to any conclusion drawn.

Amount of forcing by CO2 over rated:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2009JCLI3461.1?journalCode=…

Abstract

The observed increase in global mean surface temperature (GMST) over the industrial era is less than 40% of that expected from observed increases in long-lived greenhouse gases together with the best-estimate equilibrium climate sensitivity given by the 2007 Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Possible reasons for this warming discrepancy are systematically examined here. The warming discrepancy is found to be due mainly to some combination of two factors: the IPCC best estimate of climate sensitivity being too high and/or the greenhouse gas forcing being partially offset by forcing by increased concentrations of atmospheric aerosols; the increase in global heat content due to thermal disequilibrium accounts for less than 25% of the discrepancy, and cooling by natural temperature variation can account for only about 15%. Current uncertainty in climate sensitivity is shown to preclude determining the amount of future fossil fuel CO2 emissions that would be compatible with any chosen maximum allowable increase in GMST; even the sign of such allowable future emissions is unconstrained. Resolving this situation, by empirical determination of the earthâs climate sensitivity from the historical record over the industrial period or through use of climate models whose accuracy is evaluated by their performance over this period, is shown to require substantial reduction in the uncertainty of aerosol forcing over this period.

See Curry's thread on the uncertainty problems:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/24/probabilistic-estimates-of-climate-se…

Once again, Dick makes a complete fool of himself by trawling opinion articles from wattsupmybutt, while completely failing to read the paper in question. This latest (post#258) just underscores how lacking in credibility both Dick and Mr Watts really are.

If either of them had even bothered to read the relevant paper â rather than just the abstract â they would have found these quotes:

â....Here we examine the discrepancy between the observed increase in GMST over the industrial period and that expected from the increased GHG concentrations and four major factors that might contribute to this discrepancy: (i) natural variation in global temperature over the industrial period, (ii) lack of attainment of equilibrium of the climate system to applied forcings over the industrial period, (iii) current estimates of climate sensitivity being too high, and (iv) countervailing forcings over the industrial period offsetting the warming forcings by incremental greenhouse gases. We show that relatively little of this warming discrepancy can be attributed to a countervailing natural cooling over this time period or to thermal lag of the climate system response to forcing. We argue that this discrepancy is therefore due mainly to offsetting forcing by increased concentrations of atmospheric aerosols and/or to climate sensitivity being lower than current estimates; the discrepancy cannot be apportioned between these two causes primarily because of present uncertainty in aerosol forcing....â

â....The preceding analysis establishes that the warming discrepancy is due to some combination of low climate sensitivity and/or offset of the expected increase in GMST due to incremental GHG concentrations by other forcing influences, of which the most likely candidate is anthropogenic aerosols....â

â....In principle, a greater amount of incremental CO2 might be allowed if the cooling influence by aerosols were accounted for in the calculation. However, reliance on continued aerosol offset of warming by GHGs would ultimately fail, as the short residence time of these aerosols would entail a sustained commitment to replenish aerosol concentrations, even as CO2 emissions were reduced. Climate model calculations (e.g., Brasseur and Roeckner 2005; Matthews and Caldeira 2007) find that abruptly decreasing aerosol forcing would result in a rapid jump in temperature as the climate system reacts to the increased net forcing....â

â.....Because of the great difference in atmospheric residence times of greenhouse gases and aerosols, the effect of the greenhouse gases will dominate long-term forcing and climate response. Even if the earthâs climate sensitivity is at the low end of the IPCC estimated ââlikelyââ range, continued emission ofCO2 at the present rate would exhaust in just a few decades the shared global resource of the incremental amount of CO2 that can be added to the atmosphere without exceeding proposed maximum increases in GMST. If the sensitivity is greater, the allowable incremental emission decreases sharply, essentially to zero at the present best estimate of climate sensitivity, and is actually negative for greater values of this sensitivity.....â

So - assuming the paper is correct â it makes a number of claims.
1 â Natural variation is overwhelmed by the GHG forcing
2 â The discrepancy between observed and predicted increases in temperature may be driven by a combination of aerosol cooling and lower than predicted sensitivity â with aerosol cooling being the most likely candidate.

Further, they state that more work needs to be conducted to confirm their findings and refine their models, and they add the caution that if we have underestimated aerosol cooling â their most likely cause â then the climate might undergo a rapid increase if and when we reduce aerosols in the atmosphere. Especially because there is a possibility that we have underestimated climate sensitivity to GHG, but it is being offset by a larger underestimation of aerosol cooling.

Not what you thought huh Dick? Especially the bit where it said you were wrong about natural variability, and that CO2 forcing may actually be UNDER-RATED.

How many times do you have to make a fool of yourself before you do some reading before offering an opinion?

Likely predicted responses:

"If you have a problem with the article email the authors."

"It disproves your claim that only CO2 affects climate."

"It shows there is no consensus."

"We will be able to grow more vegetables in Canada."

Or, the time honored method of simply ignoring it.

Have at, Richard.

I hadn't checked here for about a week because it's become boring, but I'll have one last try.

RW: Your basic claim is that the maximum temperature attained each year has not increased or is even decreasing. Most other people find this very unlikely because they consider global temperatures to be increasing. You have not been able to persuade them to take your claims seriously.

Why is that?

Your view is obviously that everyone else is a liar in the thrall of The Great Global Warming Conspiracy, but consider for a moment that perhaps you have not been doing a good job of presenting your case. How could you present it better?

What you need to do is to show that, if everyone else is correct, then your results are very unlikely to have happened by chance, thus indicating that the assumption of global warming is probably wrong. (I've pointed this out several times, but you still don't get the message.)

To progress further you MUST talk to a statistician as your knowledge of statistics is inadequate (I still get a chuckle every time I recall your indignation when I suggested you examined the distribution of the errors in your data). What I suggest is to take as many sites as you can, for the last 40-50 years, then to extract a linear contrast for the year effect. Then compare the results with the expectation if global warming had indeed being taking place.

That would be a reasonable first step towards being taken seriously.

BTW: you also need to rule out the possibility that, in the past 100 years, there have been no improvements in the design of the housing for met equipment that could have resulted in lower daytime maximum temperatures. I asked about this when you first came here, but you ignored my point, so I assume you have no information on the subject, but suspect it would weaken your case.

skip / snowman

I know you two are such great mates, and on that basis I hate to get between the two of you when you seem to have such lively discussion, but I can't help myself in this instance.

Recall a few days ago the discussion about the Tsonis papers and the issue about the quotes I provided? Well, I will say this in Dick's favour, he did finally realise what we were discussion and at post #190 admitted he made an error and apologised. And for that I commend him (see - I can be magnanimous and even-handed!)

However I can't say the same for snowman. At #185, you said this:

"....One might imagine that The Preening One and the other intellectual midgets who oppose Richard would now consider a period of frank self-examination to be appropriate. Not so, apparently...."

And at #189 said this:

"....Note his feeble attempt at 165 to explain away the fact that he made precisely the same mistake as Mandas, when of course the explanation is clear....."

I have to say, I agree with snowman on one point. A period of frank self-examination does seem appropriate at this point. So how about it?

Is your integrity up to Dick's level? Will you admit your mistake now and apologise, or you just hoping it will all be forgotten?

or you just hoping it will all be forgotten?

There will be no apology, but I can assure it will not be forgotten.

RS: First on the equipment. If the measurements are bad because of the design of the equipment, would that also not apply to all the data used by the CRU etc who get their increasing mean trend from that data? Data problems are everyone's problems.

As for TMax not increasing. The data is the data. You can download it yourself and see the same thing. The lack of acceptance from this group is not because of my presentation, nor the data, it's their inability to see that data for what it is. Tmax not increasing, which flies in the face of what AGW claims.

I have been downloading stations from around the world, I'm seeing the same thing in all of them. No increase, some decreasing TMax. You can see the one's I've done so far at: http://cdnsurfacetemps.wordpress.com/table-of-contents/R

Wakefield, stop your lying. You are the most dishonest person I have ever come across.

Check Australia, I have told you a number of times that your Australian conclusions have been shown to be wrong.

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/~/media/publications/science/weather-ex…

Why do you keep on repeating lies?

As for the Canadian data, I have shown at least 6 stations which have increasing annual Tmax. Why do you keep on lying?

Why are your dishonest posts allowed on a science blog? It takes Wakefield 10 seconds to post a lie, it takes an honest poster a long time to show that it is a lie. He should not be allowed to continually post the same lies over and over again.

Mandas. The point of the paper is the forcing on the temperature by CO2 is only 40% of what is expected. Yet, we have people here claiming the laws of physics demands the planet warm up because increased CO2. Seems it's not as much as claimed.

My position is that, all things being equal, that should be the case. But all things in the climate are not equal. The climate has other factors that counter, or dissipate, or alter that ASSUMED warming that should be happening.

These guys are showing that the actual forcing by CO2 is at best 40% of what it's thought it should be.

Notice, they are SPECULATING about aerosols countering CO2:

"to climate sensitivity being
lower than current estimates; the discrepancy cannot be
apportioned between these two causes primarily because
of present uncertainty in aerosol forcing."

Notice they are admitting that the ASSUMED sensitivity to CO2 is lower than expected. This will have to be the case if aerosols turn out to be lower than what can counter CO2.

The point of all of this, the papers I have posted, TMax not increasing, is that the climate is not as cut and dried as you all think it should. CO2 increase DOES NOT mean that the temperature of the planet must increase.

Should we go through 20-30 years of cooling, which is now being predicted, how will that be explained with increasing CO2 (which would double in rates of emissions by then)?

So have you found out what an Alberta Clipper is?

"....The point of the paper is the forcing on the temperature by CO2 is only 40% of what is expected...."

No it isn't. How about you actually READ the paper, rather than relying on wattsupmybutt to give you an opinion.

"....These guys are showing that the actual forcing by CO2 is at best 40% of what it's thought it should be...."

No they aren't. READ THE FUCKING PAPER!!!!!!!!!!

I told you what the point of the paper was, by providing quotes from the paper in the authors's own words. The POINT of the paper was to investigate possible caused of the difference between what some models predict and observation. The intent was to try and refine the figures in the models. They are NOT showing that CO2 forcing is only 40% of what is predicted, and there is absolutely nothing in the paper which could lead anyone to that conclusion. Your disagreement means nothing unless you write to the authors with your criticisms.

"....Notice, they are SPECULATING about aerosols countering CO2...."

They are investigating - not 'speculating' - the difference between prediction and observation, and they 'suggest' that it could be either climate sensitivity being lower than prediction OR that aerosols are producing a cooling effect. They do not have sufficient data to draw a definitive conclusion, but they 'lean' towards aerosols being the culprit. WHY DON'T YOU READ THE FUCKING PAPER!!!???? It is very damn obvious to anyone who does that.

"...Notice they are admitting that the ASSUMED sensitivity to CO2 is lower than expected. ..."

NO THEY DON'T!!!!!!!!! READ THE FUCKING PAPER!!!!!

"....Should we go through 20-30 years of cooling, which is now being predicted..."

By who? Evidence please.

"....So have you found out what an Alberta Clipper is?...."

Go back and read #251 again (for the first time??). You will see - as I have said on more than one occasion - that I followed the link you provided at #248, AND provided quotes from the link. The question is, do YOU know what an Alberta Clipper is and what it means for your claim about North America being a single climate regime? (It actually means nothing - but that is the very reason why it was a pointless link. But it certainly does NOT support your assertion.)

Based on those comments, I have to ask, do you EVER read ANYTHING other than wattsupmybutt and other idiotic denialist opinions which serve no purpose other than to reinforce your delusions?

Now, I know it doesn't matter what I say about the paper, you have already decided that it suggest CO2 forcing is less than 40% of prediction, and you certainly won't go the effort of writing to the authors for their opinions (despite your grandiose claims of doing likewise to Judith Curry etc). So I am going to save you the trouble. Here is what the Steven Schwartz (the lead author) has to say about it:

â....We and others have presented a body of work over the past decade that indicates that anthropogenic aerosols are exerting an influence on climate change that is comparable (but of opposite sign) to the anthropogenic greenhouse effect. However the magnitude of these aerosol influences is quite uncertain in comparison to that of longwave (thermal infrared) radiative forcing by incremental concentrations of greenhouse gases (mainly carbon dioxide and to lesser extent methane, nitrous oxide, and others) resulting from industrial activity....â

â....In several studies we have tried to provide estimates of the uncertainty budget associated with the aerosol forcing. Much of the uncertainty arises from the fact that unlike the long-lived greenhouse gases, whose concentrations are rather uniformly distributed in the atmosphere, the loadings of aerosols are highly variable in space and time, as a consequence of highly localized sources and of sporadic removal, mainly by precipitation. Additionally aerosol microphysical properties are not a universal constant, but depend on sources and composition and evolve as a consequence of chemical and physical processes occurring in the atmosphere. The mass loading, composition, and the microphysical properties of aerosols such as number concentration and size distribution directly affect their direct and indirect radiative forcing of climate...â

"...if the cooling influence of aerosols is in fact offsetting much of the warming influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, then when society is unable to maintain this exponential growth, the climate could be in for a real and long-lasting shockâ¦."

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/schwartz.html

Will you admit your mistake now??

RW: "My prediction is 2011 will be a cool year, maybe even one of the coolest in the last 40 years."

Care to specify that prediction a bit more rigorously and put your money where your mouth is?

From the F'n paper:

"However,the observed increase of GMST over the industrial period is less than 40% of what would be expected from
present best estimates of the earthâs climate sensitivity
and the forcing"

That is, the forcings from GHG is lower than claimed by the IPCC.

Notice Fig 2 where the X-Axis is CO2 forcing, the real world is LESS than predicted under a IPCC doubling of CO2. In other words, CO2 is NOT producing as much heat in the atmosphere as predicted.

In Section C, should you care to read it they get into this and end with:

"The expected increase in GMST that would result from forcing by only the long-lived GHGs is well above the observed increase (Fig. 2) for the entire likely range in climate sensitivity given by the IPCC. Consequently the actual sensitivity must be even lower than the IPCC very unlikely limit if other causes are negligible; "

They then get into these other possible causes countering CO2 forcing. They are left with either the forcings are too high, or aerosols are countering. They cannot deturmine which it is without more research. This means AGW is NOT definative. Is NOT 90% from CO2 as claimd by the IPCC. Is NOT the main driver in recent warming trends. Why not? Because of too much uncertainty!

So all the bullshit that things will get "worse" with more CO2 is pure nonsense. We don't even know the extent CO2 is contributing to any warming trend.

Now, should research show that aerosols are NOT contributing to the lack of warming, sensitivity is all that is left. which means the argument that the "laws of physics" dictates CO2 warms the planet X amount would be false.

Who says 20-30 years of cooling? You need to read more. Just google it. It was also in the Tsonis papers you claim to have read.

Care to specify that prediction a bit more rigorously and put your money where your mouth is?

I never bet money on uncertainty.

The cycles I'm seeing around the world suggests 2011 will be a cool summer. Some places that showed a normal 2010 may have a higher 2011, may be lower. How cool, will have to wait.

Do you think 2011 will be "hotter" than 2010?

RW @264:

First on the equipment. If the measurements are bad because of the design of the equipment, would that also not apply to all the data used by the CRU etc who get their increasing mean trend from that data? Data problems are everyone's problems.

Err - no. It is my understanding (based on something I read many years ago) that the improved design has reduced the effect of incident radiation on the screens, in turn reducing the maximum temperature. In other words, with older-style screens the measured temperatures would be even higher than they are now. But why are you arguing with me? Find out for sure from someone who actually knows something about the equipment.

The rest of your comment merely reinforces the view that, in all the time you have been commenting here, you have failed to learn why people do not take you seriously.

@270:

"However,the observed increase of GMST over the industrial period is less than 40% of what would be expected from present best estimates of the earthâs climate sensitivity and the forcing"

That is, the forcings from GHG is lower than claimed by the IPCC.

These two statements are not equivalent. To use an analogy, suppose I said that the acceleration of my car was not as great as I expected, one possibility is that the engine is less powerful than I thought. However, other possibilities are that the brakes are on, or that the car is pulling a large trailer.

These two statements are not equivalent. To use an analogy, suppose I said that the acceleration of my car was not as great as I expected, one possibility is that the engine is less powerful than I thought. However, other possibilities are that the brakes are on, or that the car is pulling a large trailer.

And that is EXACTLY what Schwartz is grapling to understand. Should the "breaks not be on", ie aerosol forcings not a strong as predicted, then the sensitivity, the IPCC's claims, MUST be wrong, too high. The engine indeed is not as strong as it should be. So before driving the car (spending trilions on CO2 mitigations) we should check the machinery out first. Which is also what Schwartz is saying.

I plan on emailing him.

They cannot deturmine which it is without more research. This means AGW is NOT definative.

In what sense not *definitive*? In the sense the authors mean it--that there is an element of uncertainty in the scope of its impact *in light of other factors* (which no one disputes), or in the silly sense you have always tried to mean it--that AGW is "dead in the water"?

You're hiding behind the vagaries of verbiage, Richard. You fool no one but yourself.

So before driving the car (spending trilions on CO2 mitigations) we should check the machinery out first. Which is also what Schwartz is saying.

That's pure speculation on your part.

I plan on emailing him.

After you're done not getting the answers you want from Judith Curry, ask Schwartz if he he thinks his conclusions demonstrate that "AGW is dead in the water".

I do not claim to have any idea what temperatures in 2011 will be, but I will make this prediction with a confidence interval that puts the IPCCs projected 21st century warming to shame:

If you ever really do email Judith Curry and/or Schwartz, you will *never* truthfully report the results on this or any other public forum, Richard. Even you have some distaste for naked humiliation.

You need to read more. Just google it.

Sloth, indifference, ignorance, dismissiveness, presumptuousness and ironic illiteracy . . . how many pathetic character traits can eight words betray?

The density of this self-indictment is perversely admirable.

Next time a peer reviewer challenges my literature review or conclusions I'll try your line, Richard.

It is interesting to note, Skip, that no matter how much vulgar and ill-bred abuse you hurl at Richard, he always replies courteously.

It is at least as interesting to note, that no matter how many times you are invited to engage in a proper and civil discussion, you revert to obfuscation and pomposity.

Courteous is a relative term, Snowman.

I'm sure you're all charm when curtseying the queen. You're also a proven liar.

It's depressing, Skip, to see such a display of coarse incivility. Why can't you see that it diminishes you?

Oh, for Godsakes . . .

Snowman: Get this through your pompous, dandy, candy-Limey head: I am indeed "ill-bred" and loathsome--the kind of foul-mouthed lout that iced Red Coats at Yorktown and stoked the victory fires with my flatulence. There is nothing to diminish.

This is just another of your dippy distractions.

Good morning snowman.

How is it going admitting your mistake about the quotes from the Tsonis papers? Ready to demonstrate some integrity yet?

Good morning Dick

How is it going admitting your mistake about 2010 not being the warmest year on record? Ready to demonstrate some integrity yet?

"......However,the observed increase of GMST over the industrial period is less than 40% of what would be expected from present best estimates of the earthâs climate sensitivity and the forcing....That is, the forcings from GHG is lower than claimed by the IPCC...."

How can anyone read something so obvious and clear, and yet still draw the complete wrong conclusion?

The authors are NOT saying that CO2 forcing is lower than claimed by the IPCC. They are saying - very, very clearly - that there is some cooling influence that is offsetting the CO2 forcing, and that cooling is the result of anthropogenic aerosols.

I think I worked out why you never read papers there Dick. You can't understand basic English.

Hmmm...a lecture from Mandas on integrity. Would this be the same Mandas who claimed to have carried out an analysis of Australian temperature records - an analysis that would show once and for all that Richard was wrong? The same Mandas who, when asked to produce his figures, said he wasn't going to let us see them? The same Mandas whom even Skip admitted was an embarrassment? The same Mandas who was caught out in one of the most hilarious and feeble attempts at deception ever seen in these parts?

Surely not. It must be someone else.

Wow snowman. What are you - five years old?

I can just see you stamping your foot and complaining to your mummy. "What about Johnny? He did it too! Why are you picking on me?"

So, how about this. Instead of attempting to divert the criticism onto someone else, you act like an adult and answer the question. Or is that beyond you?

The same Mandas whom even Skip admitted was an embarrassment?

A lie.

But then again lying is the agenda the shaman Anthony Watts sets for you.

that there is some cooling influence that is offsetting the CO2 forcing, and that cooling is the result of anthropogenic aerosols.

[sigh] Their words:

"Consequently the actual sensitivity must be even
lower than the IPCC very unlikely limit if other causes
are negligible;"

"However, the large uncertainty associated
with present estimates of aerosol forcing and the
resultant uncertainty in the total effective forcing over the
industrial period (Fig. 1) imply a range of expected increase
inGMST that is compatible with, and extends well
beyond, the entire range of the 2007 IPCC estimated
climate sensitivity."

"introduces a very large uncertainty into the calculated
sensitivity and CO2 doubling temperature,"

"Importantly, the present
large uncertainty in climate sensitivity results in an
even greater uncertainty in the amount of additional
carbon dioxide that can be added to the atmosphere for
a given allowable increase in global mean temperature."

They end with:

"This situation calls for
greatly enhanced efforts to reduce this uncertainty."

In other words, they DO NOT know the levels of aerosol forcing, it could be large, it could be small. THEY DON'T KNOW, hence the amount of forcing from CO2 is also NOT KNOWN.

Since today is Robbie Burns Day I though it would be fitting to see what he would have say about the writings of several posters on this blog. I think this quote from the first verse of "Death and Doctor Hornbook" pretty well sums up what he would say if he read Wakefield et al's posts on this blog:

Some books are lies frae end to end,
And some great lies were never penn'd:
Ev'n ministers, they have been kend,
In holy rapture,
A rousing whid at times to vend,
And nail't wi' Scripture.

Ian - it's also Australia Day.

Dick - once again - demonstrates he is completely confused and inconsistent in everything he says.

For post after post, he has been stating categorically that Schwartz et have been claiming that CO2 forcing is less than 40% of that predicted. It didn't matter that we showed him evidence and quotes from the paper, he was adamant and argued vociferously that that was the authors' position.

Now - with a huge sigh as if to suggest he is talking to people who just don't get it, he produced some more quotes from the paper and finishes with this conclusion:

"....In other words, they DO NOT know the levels of aerosol forcing, it could be large, it could be small. THEY DON'T KNOW, hence the amount of forcing from CO2 is also NOT KNOWN....."

Well golly gee Dick. Is CO2 forcing less that 40% of prediction, or is it just not known?

IF - as YOUR statement suggests - aerosol forcing "could be large", does that not mean that CO2 forcing could also be large - larger in fact than predictions (which is one of the things that Schwartz et al also suggest)? You do know what "not known" means, right?

I know you don't read papers Dick, but surely you should read what you write yourself? It might just prevent you from contradicting yourself (which you do with monotonous regularity) and making you look foolish. I mean, what part of this DON'T you understand:

"....However, the large uncertainty associated with present estimates of aerosol forcing and the resultant uncertainty in the total effective forcing over the industrial period (Fig. 1) imply a range of expected increase in GMST that is compatible with, and extends well beyond, the entire range of the 2007 IPCC estimated climate sensitivity...."

It's your quote. How come you don't understand that 'uncertainty' works in both directions, and that the authors are suggesting that CO2 forcing may be larger than predicted, not just smaller; which is only the case in your politically motivated, ideologically drive, pseudo-science?

And in any event, if it turns out that future research determines AGW forcing to be substantially less than the estimates on which current IPCC projections are based, then:

(1) Awesome. That's great news, but
(2) What would even that have to do with AGW being "dead in the water"?

My guess, Richard, is that you've made your peace with the fact that Judith Curry (and everyone else of any scientific standing) does *not* accept your absurd claims about CO2 impacts, and this is why you're trying to quietly slither into a new, far more plausible position and hope no one notices the difference.

But I do. So does Mandas and anyone else bothering to read your posts. Even Snowman has probably also faced this grim truth, but he allows himself the option of simply lying (a privilege afforded adherents of the Watts Shaman) so of course he'll never admit it.

I repeat my own impact model: If you ever do have a genuine and thorough email discussion with Curry, the Tsonis author group(s), or Schwartz (and really put your *own* claims about their research in particular and the science of AGW in general, to the test, you will *never* honestly post their response(s) on this or any other public forum.

Never.

RW:

"Well, this is a nice example of geting all worked up based on FALSE information. We have been warmer in the MWP, the RWP, and interglacial periods, and contrary to it being "worse" was in fact boom times for humans. There is NO EVIDENCE of increasing heat waves anywhere on the planet. Plus CO2 has been as much as THREE TIMES today as recently as 3 millon years ago. Planet wasn't "worse" then."

No, it was 15 million years ago that CO2 levels were as high as today. And it was MUCH warmer then. Sea level was about 100 feet higher.If you don't think that would be "worse" for humanity, you have completely lost your mind.

We are actually lucky to have as little warming as we have at the moment.

It. Must. Heat. Up. The. Earth.

The planet doesn't have do anything we think it "must". Are you saying we understand EVERYTHING about how the climate works? Not even close. Just because you THINK it "must" heat up does NOT mean it MUST do so. "

Let me explain to you, once again, that you are not stupid, but you are an incredible fool.

Greenhouse warming occurs because of the laws of thermodynamics, which are immutable. Increased atmospheric CO2 means more heat reflected back to Earth. This is non negotiable! It. MUST. Be. The. Case.!!!!!

Do you realize that HEAT and TEMPERATURE are different things? I really don't think you do!

That extra heat DOES go somewhere - it puts energy into the Earth. But how that gets translated into temperature changes is complicated, chaotic, and often takes significant time. The Earth has a lot of ways of buffering that heat so that temperatures can remain relatively unchanged. But eventually, that heat DOES get translated into increased temperature. Unfortunately, that also means rising sea levels, sea acidification, ecological adversity, etc.

BTW, re sea acidification - phytoplankton levels are down 40% from where they were 60 years ago. Phytoplankton produce half of the planet's oxygen, and fix most of its CO2, sustain all fisheries.

You are all worked up about temperature changes on various scales of time and location. You have completely forgotten about the HEAT. That heat is there, constantly being applied to a closed system. It is physically IMPOSSIBLE that over time surface temperatures will not go up. Eventually, the buffering capacities will fail, and then temperature rise will be spectacular.

You can not disprove AGW by citing small-scale temperature anomalies. Of course there will be anomalies. And you most assuredly can not disprove AGW by arguing that the Greenhouse Effect is not real. Your assertions that higher temperatures won't be bad for humanity are so misguided as to be pathological.

But you:

1) Claim you are right and tens of thousands of scientific experts are wrong about facts

2) Dismiss laws of thermodynamics with a wave of the hand

That is the signature of a first-class fool.

#290 "BTW, re sea acidification - phytoplankton levels are down 40% from where they were 60 years ago."

Have you a reference for that?

the fact that Judith Curry (and everyone else of any scientific standing) does *not* accept your absurd claims about CO2 impacts,

Your fantasy, not fact. Curry is in Lisbon for a conference with several other skeptics and AGW supports. I have not contacted her yet about the data I have from around the world. As I said, I do this on my time, NOT YOURS. So you will just have to wait.

No, it was 15 million years ago that CO2 levels were as high as today. And it was MUCH warmer then.

By "much warmer" you mean no winters, tropics the same as today. You have a reference to back up your claim of 360ppm 15myo?

Greenhouse warming occurs because of the laws of thermodynamics, which are immutable. Increased atmospheric CO2 means more heat reflected back to Earth. This is non negotiable! It. MUST. Be. The. Case.!!!!!

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-08-18/dioxide_files/…

Do you realize that HEAT and TEMPERATURE are different things? I really don't think you do!

And you do realize that a hot gas rising expands and cools. You do realize that heat wants to get from hot places to cold places. You do realize the sun only heats a small portion of the atmosphere at any one time.

That extra heat DOES go somewhere - it puts energy into the Earth.

Which frontal and wind systems move to colder places.

Unfortunately, that also means rising sea levels, sea acidification, ecological adversity, etc.

Sea level is rising 1.74mm/year, has done since records began, and has not accelerated. That's 6 inches in 100 years. As for "acidification" of the oceans, how did organisms survive CO2 levels in the geological past that was as muchas TWENTY TIMES today. See http://www.co2science.org/data/acidification/acidification.php

BTW, re sea acidification - phytoplankton levels are down 40% from where they were 60 years ago. Phytoplankton produce half of the planet's oxygen, and fix most of its CO2, sustain all fisheries.

The world' fisheries are being wiped out due to over fishing. World stocks are down some 90%. We have eaten them all. Which is why I don't eat any sea food.

You are all worked up about temperature changes on various scales of time and location. You have completely forgotten about the HEAT. That heat is there, constantly being applied to a closed system. It is physically IMPOSSIBLE that over time surface temperatures will not go up. Eventually, the buffering capacities will fail, and then temperature rise will be spectacular.

Pure alarmist speculation with no evidence. And when this doesn't happen over the next 30 years, what then? When will this "spectacular" temperatue increase start? It's not happening now.

Your assertions that higher temperatures won't be bad for humanity are so misguided as to be pathological.

It was great for humans during the MWP, the RWP, including other warm periods in human history:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png

But you:

1) Claim you are right and tens of thousands of scientific experts are wrong about facts

2) Dismiss laws of thermodynamics with a wave of the hand

And I'm not alone. There are LOTS of us who dispute and question this "science", that's what the Lisbon conference is about. Oh, it's not "tens of thousands", it's a small handfull of alarmist "scienists" of the Mann ilk.

Chris, you can get a copy of the Nature paper here:

http://www.fmap.ca/ramweb/media/phytoplankton_decline/content/Boyce_eta…

As I said, I do this on my time, NOT YOURS.

You might do it, but you will *never* tell us the outcome.

When Judith gets back from Andalusia, and if she ever does deign to respond to some of your various claims/citations, you are in for a very rude surprise. And don't forget your threat to correspond with Tsonis and team and Schwartz.

God, I'd hate to be you if you ever really try to back up your bluster.

More ridiculous drivel from Wakefield:

Sea level is rising 1.74mm/year, has done since records began, and has not accelerated.

This is very easy to show as a downright lie:

Multi-century sea-level records and climate models indicate an acceleration of sea-level rise, but no 20th century acceleration has previously been detected. A reconstruction of global sea level using tide-gauge data from 1950 to 2000 indicates a larger rate of rise after 1993 and other periods of rapid sea-level rise but no significant acceleration over this period. Here, we extend the reconstruction of global mean sea level back to 1870 and find a sea-level rise from January 1870 to December 2004 of 195 mm, a 20th century rate of sea-level rise of 1.7 ± 0.3 mm yrâ1 and a significant acceleration of sea-level rise of 0.013 ± 0.006 mm yrâ2. This acceleration is an important confirmation of climate change simulations which show an acceleration not previously observed. If this acceleration remained constant then the 1990 to 2100 rise would range from 280 to 340 mm, consistent with projections in the IPCC TAR.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GL024826.shtml

and

Tide gauge data are used to estimate trends in global sea level for the period from 1955 to 2007. Linear trends over 15-yr segments are computed for each tide gauge record, averaged over latitude bands, and combined to form an area-weighted global mean trend. The uncertainty of the global trend is specified as a sampling error plus a random vertical land motion component, but land motion corrections do not change the results. The average global sea level trend for the time segments centered on 1962â90 is 1.5 ± 0.5 mm yrâ1 (standard error), in agreement with previous estimates of late twentieth-century sea level rise. After 1990, the global trend increases to the most recent rate of 3.2 ± 0.4 mm yrâ1, matching estimates obtained from satellite altimetry.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2009JCLI2985.1

Has he ever got anything right yet? So far it seems that he has been wrong on everything he has posted.

I think the most telling perspective on this whole debate is the quality of the links being provided by the participants when they want to support their arguments.

In the blue corner, we have Dick. His most recent sources of information include Anthony Watts (numerous times), Joanne Nova, himself, CO2Science, Frontiers of Freedom, Judith Curry, Wikipedia, the Weather Network, C3 Headlines. On the few occasions he has linked to science papers, he has woefully misinterpreted the information, and when challenged, indicated he was going to 'email' the authors - which he has NEVER done.

In the red corner, we have IPF, skip, myself, Chris, gingerbaker, et al. Of the last dozen or so links, virtually every single one has been to either a peer reviewed journal article, a government organisation such as NOAA, BOM CSIRO or NASA, with virtually NONE to opinion websites.

The credibility gap is pretty damn wide.

Ian, I figured you would would jump all over this.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028492.shtml

http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2009/2009GL038720.shtml

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.shtml…

Now before you go off on another rant, pick any location you want around the world. No acceleration.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008GL036010.shtml

"An analysis of the steric and ocean mass components of sea level shows that the sea level rise budget for the period January 2004 to December 2007 can be closed. Using corrected and verified Jason-1 and Envisat altimetry observations of total sea level, upper ocean steric sea level from the Argo array, and ocean mass variations inferred from GRACE gravity mission observations, we find that the sum of steric sea level and the ocean mass component has a trend of 1.5 ± 1.0 mm/a over the period, in agreement with the total sea level rise observed by either Jason-1 (2.4 ± 1.1 mm/a) or Envisat (2.7 ± 1.5 mm/a) within a 95% confidence interval. "

You may not have noticed, but your quote had this:

"a significant acceleration of sea-level rise of 0.013 ± 0.006 mm yrâ2. " How is 0.013mm/yr2 SIGNIFICANT? That's PUNY! And not beyond the variation noted in Holgate.

Dick

Back at #290, you posted a statement from skip from #288, as per:

"....the fact that Judith Curry (and everyone else of any scientific standing) does *not* accept your absurd claims about CO2 impacts........."

And you gave this response:

"....Your fantasy, not fact. Curry is in Lisbon for a conference with several other skeptics and AGW supports. I have not contacted her yet about the data I have from around the world. As I said, I do this on my time, NOT YOURS. So you will just have to wait....."

Well sorry Dick, we just don't have time to sit around and wait for the non-existent response to your non-existent e-mail to Judith Curry. You have claimed over and over again that you are going to e-mail someone, but you NEVER have. It's just another one of the lies that Ian keeps calling you on. And because I - and no-one else here - has time to wait for the non-existent response from Judith Curry, I went to Judith Curry's website and found out what she REALLY thinks on the subject. And guess what - skip is right and you are wrong (as per usual). Here are just a few quotes from Dr Curry:

"....The skeptics thread has shown that it is plausible to be skeptical of a number of issues regarding the findings of IPCC WG1. However, whether atmospheric gases such as CO2 (and H20, CH4, and others) warm the planet is not an issue where skepticism is plausible...."

"....The problem of infrared atmospheric radiative transfer (clear sky, no clouds or aerosols) is regarded as a solved problem (with minimal uncertainties), in terms of the benchmark line-by-line calculations....."

"....While there is much uncertainty about the magnitude of the climate sensitivity to doubling CO2 and the magnitude and nature of the various feedback processes, the fundamental underlying physics of the atmospheric greenhouse effect (radiative plus convective heat transfer) is well understood...."

"....Well, burning fossil fuels and other anthropogenic activities have undoubtedly changed the climate and even weather patterns...."

"....Measuring the Earthâs radiation balance (and changes thereof) is very difficult. Nevertheless, there is the expectation that if we keep dumping more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, we should see surface temperatures warm, with some allowances for this warming to be masked for short periods of time by natural climate variability...."

I think that's pretty clear. Even your heroes think you're a Dick.

But there is even more to this story, Mandas, and it is even more pathetic.

Richard *himself* cited this very link back in the old GAS thread. He told us it was "really interesting" and that we ought to read it.

I suspect it was, for Richard, "interesting" in a I-think-Curry-is-in-my-corner-and-I-hope-this-somehow-supports-my-position kind of way rather than being "interesting" in the watching-the-North-American-climate-regime-on-the-weather-Channel kind of way.

I say this because I pointed out much of the same verbiage by Curry you posted (as well as some other things that directly repudiated "authorities" he has cited.)

Richard's clever response?

He just ignored me, as he will ignore you, and this same material, yet again.

Yes skip

And it gets even worse for Dick and his mates.

The conference in Lisbon that Judith Curry and othes are attending is called "Reconciliation in the Climate Change Debate, Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, Lisbon and Joint Research Centre, EC, 26-28 January 2011."

The organisers have issued what they call the "Rationale Statement". It is posted on Judith Curry's blog, and interestingly enough, at Wattsupmybutt, here:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/reconciliation-ratio…

It's actually pretty good reading, and proposes a toning down of the rhetoric and the adoption of a more concilitory and rational approach the climate change debate (all good!). One of the important points they make is this:

".....We believe that the possibility of harmful climate change is real, and that the resolution of the science (even recognition of its inherent uncertainties) is urgent...."

It's not the real scientists who have a problem with climate change - its the amateur denialist with no science training, politicians with ideological viewpoints and vested interests that want to keep making huge profits from burning fossil fuels.

Genuine skeptics accept that CO2 is a problem and that climate change is real. They may dispute the magnitude and extent of the problem - and I do and I know you do as well - but every one of them says the same as Judith Curry says in her blog:

"....However, whether atmospheric gases such as CO2 (and H20, CH4, and others) warm the planet is not an issue where skepticism is plausible...."

I would say "your move Dick", but I am pretty confident that is "Checkmate" (although you will - as usual - refuse to concede that you could possibly be wrong)

Thanks for pointing out the Watts link, Mandas.

The man is as irreparably ignorant as his audience. The posts in the comment thread are all priceless but this one gem struck me:

It[the Lisbon conference] is a trap by the thermists. Judith Curry is not to be trusted. No good will come of this as thereâs no point in any âreconciliationâ.

I hereby propose the Backtrack Pool: Who can most accurately forecast when words to the above effect become Richard's position when he finally faces the unsettling reality that Judith Curry, to the extent she thinks of him at all, regards him as a quack.

I'll throw out 35 days as my guess.

I figure 15-25 days to keep trying to convince himself and us that Judith Curry really believes "AGW is dead in the water", or that flat Tmax in southern Canada "falsifies" AGW (and several other absurdities Richard has posted that fly directly in the face of Curry's stated positions.)

There will be another 1-5 day Dark Night of the Soul when the truth sets in.

Another 5-10 days to reinvent his own history a la *1984*'s doublethink technique: "We have always been at war with Judith Curry."

Then one day to announce that he will no longer accept any statements by the "socialist", "AGW high priest", [and so forth] Judith Curry, who will end up going alongside Hansen and Gore in Richard's lexicon of perfunctory dismissal.

You heard it here first--35 days.

Thanks Ian. I wonder how it fits in with this? http://www.ecn.ac.uk/Conf2010/Conf2010_ppt20.htm

Skip and Mandas. You will just have to wait...

Yes. 34 days in fact, if my guess is correct.

Ian I also replied to you, but had several links in it, so it's in the cue waiting for Coby.

but had several links in it

Undoubtedly. I wonder how many you read.

Yes. 34 days in fact, if my guess is correct.

I'll make you wait another 34 if you keep badgering me about it.

Before you say that please understand what the 34 references. (Post 301)

Morning skip.

Looks like you were spot on with your prediction at #299

My models are accurate within an acceptable range of uncertainty.

Previous Warming in Alaska, today still not as "hot"

Clegg, B.F., Clarke, G.H., Chipman, M.L., Chou, M., Walker, I.R., Tinner, W. and Hu, F.S. 2010. Six millennia of summer temperature variation based on midge analysis of lake sediments from Alaska. Quaternary Science Reviews 29: 3308-3316.

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/HoloceneClimate+Optimum10-d/CleggHuF…

Did you read it?

skip

He either didn't read it at all, read only those parts that conformed with what he wanted to see, or if he has read the whole thing he has completely misunderstood it - but no surprises there in anything.

It would appear that he has got it and his opinion from C3Headlines - one of thos bastions of bullshit and pseudo-science. Possible CO2science - but as a denialist website that is a little beyond Dick.

But - just to see how much Dick does know about the paper, let's ask him a couple of questions shall we? Don't worry Dick - I will make them easy, non-science questions.

Q1 â what were the authors measuring (for a bonus point â is this representative of the year as a whole?)

Q2 - when were the samples taken?

Q3 - what is the baseline date for comparative purposes (the '0' date used for BP)?

Q4 - what are the error envelopes for the results?

Q5 â what potential sources of error have the authors identified which may compromise the results?

Q6 â why do the authors believe the results have limited value in assessing anthropogenic warming?

Q7 â do the records indicate any warming in the past 150 years?

Q8 - based on your answers to Q1-7, do you think it is reasonable to draw the conclusion you did at #311?

He either didn't read it at all . . .

You could have stopped right there.

Of course I read it. All of it. The point is Alaska has been warmer than today, during the MWP and the RWP. The location survived. And no not from C3. What does it matter where I got it from? The paper is not scienctific because it was referenced in a "denier" wesite?

Do you or do you not agree with the paper that today isn't warmer up there than in the past?

It's hard to tell where Wakefield's ignorance about climate science ends and his dishonesty starts. Anyway, it is obvious that he is either trying to distort the findings in the paper or he doesn't understand one word of the paper.

No, I do not agree that "today isn't warmer up there than in the past" and neither do the authors of the paper.

I doubt that he will try and answer the questions since by doing so he might actually learn something which goes against his right wing ideology.

According to my calender and models we have 33 days until Richard denounces Judith Curry as a socialist . . . .

No, I do not agree that "today isn't warmer up there than in the past" and neither do the authors of the paper.

Then explain the Greenland ice core data:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png

Now before you go off ranting this is a "denialist" website the data was published.

Skip, why on earth would I label Curry as a socialist? I reserve that label for those who complain about capitalism, who wish to impose a one world government, and those who want to rape everyone's bank accounts in the name of "redistribution of wealth."

Oh, and I emailed Schwartz today, emailed back was busy, but will get back to me answering my questions.

I reserve that label [socialist] for those . . . who wish to impose a one world government.

This is how you pegged Hansen as one? Brilliant.

Oh, and I emailed Schwartz today, emailed back was busy, but will get back to me answering my questions.

Excellent.

Don't forget to ask him if:

Declining/flat summer Tmax in Southern Canada proves "AGW is dead in the water."

Also ask him if AGW theory posits that "only CO2 affects climate."

You might also bounce off him the idea that we can discern the unity of the North American climate "regime" by watching the Weather Channel.

There are couple of others you could ask him, but this is a solid addendum to what I am sure was a constructive start on your part.

Wakefield should have answered the questions because if he had he would not have made the exact same mistake in his (or other denier's) interpretation of both the Alaska and Greenland data.

I'm sure he is so ignorant of climate science and data interpretation that he has no idea what his glaring error is. He would be much better spending his time in the classroom rather than wasting everyone's time here.

No, I do not agree that "today isn't warmer up there than in the past" and neither do the authors of the paper.

Then explain the Greenland ice core data:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png

Now before you go off ranting this is a "denialist" website the data was published.

Skip, why on earth would I label Curry as a socialist? I reserve that label for those who complain about capitalism, who wish to impose a one world government, and those who want to rape everyone's bank accounts in the name of "redistribution of wealth."

Oh, and I emailed Schwartz today, emailed back was busy, but will get back to me answering my questions.

This is how you pegged Hansen as one? Brilliant.

That and other reasons. Weird the post happened twice.

Then explain the Greenland ice core data:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png

Did you notice that the graph actually stops 95 years ago? Why do you think more recent data have boon omitted?

BTW: I recall reading somewhere that amongst paleoclimatologists by convention 'present day' means 1950 or thereabouts, which would make that most recent data on the graph represents conditions about 150 years ago.

Did you notice that the graph actually stops 95 years ago? Why do you think more recent data have boon omitted?

Because that ice core data doesn't go any sooner. The last 95 years won't bring it above any of the previous spikes up. The Alaska paper shows that too. MWP was "warmer" than today with no ill effects.

Wakefield boasts:

MWP was "warmer" than today with no ill effects.

Yes I am sure there were a number of cherry orchards that may have been warmer than today. However, spending all of his life in a "cherry orchard" is not being scientific. Cherry picking is considered to be one of the more egregious forms of scientific misconduct.

Wakefield should get a life and look at the whole globe, that is what the "G" in "AGW" stands for.

Where are his answers to the questions mandas posed to him? Too hard for him or do the right answers make him look stupid?

What do Schwartz and Curry say about it?

And don't forget to throw your *whole* array of ideas at them, Richard.

No way I'm letting you snivel out of this by asking them softballs like, "Is there an element of uncertainty in climate science?", etc.

No way, pal. When you *really* talk with Curry, Schwartz, and Tsonis, you give them *full disclosure* on who you are and what you think.

Because if you don't, I will know, and I will never let you forget it.

Ever.

"....BTW: I recall reading somewhere that amongst paleoclimatologists by convention 'present day' means 1950 or thereabouts...."

Interestingly enough Richard (no, not you Dick), that is the answer to Q3 above. 1950 was the date used as 'today' for comparative purposes to determine whether Alaska was warmer in the past.

Turning from Richard to Dick, let's see you can answer the other questions. How you going with that Dick? Read and understood the paper yet?

And how are you going with admitting your error about 2010 not being the warmest year on record? Ready to demonstrate some integrity yet?

Also, what do you think about Judith Curry's statement as follows:

"...whether atmospheric gases such as CO2 (and H20, CH4, and others) warm the planet is not an issue where skepticism is plausible...."

Do you agree or not?

If you don't agree, are you going to let her know when you get around to sending her that e-mail? Because any criticism you might hold is worthless unless you write to her and tell her (isn't that what you have said repeatedly in the past?)

Mandas, care to include the link to her quote, want to make sure it's not out of context.

Why? Will you accept it as true and apologise for all your previous comments if I do?

Or will you just ignore it like you usually do, and like you are doing with the '2010' question?

Or - alternatively - since you are sitting in front of a computer you could cut and paste the quote into google.

Mandas, care to include the link to her quote, want to make sure it's not out of context.

An interesting request from the guy that *already linked it himself*.

From the old GAS thread #531:

BTW, this is an excellent discussion on the greenhouse effect: http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/02/best-of-the-greenhouse/#comment-17908

Posted by: Richard Wakefield | December 3, 2010 10:10 AM

You were only one link away from this on the blog you claim you read every day.

To wit: Richard on GAS extended thread #647:

Her [Judith Curry's] blog is on my daily must read list, and I have posted there several times, and why I'm here in the first place, Coby ready my post there!

So be specific, what has she said that contradicts what I have posted? From her posts she seems quite the AGW skeptic to me.

Posted by: Richard Wakefield | January 8, 2011 5:28 PM

Its almost unfair trying to have an argument with someone who posts the source of his own refutation and then forgets he did so.

Jesus H. Monckton, Richard. When will you just face the ugly truth and give up?

skip

Well done tracking down that information re Dick's earlier claims.

Of course, the quote from Judith Curry is from this thread:

http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/30/physics-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse…

It is, in fact, the opening paragraph of the thread, where she criticises many of the deniers (skeptics - ha!) claims. The phrase 'skeptics thread', which are the second and third words of the paragraph are also a hyperlink, here:

http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/26/skeptics-make-your-best-case/

In it, she specifically asked 'skeptics' to make their best case. And didn't our mate Dick try. He jumped in first and tried REALLY hard to make his case, and he got taken apart with EXACTLY the same arguments as we used at the start. His dataset was too small. You can't extrapolate Canadian observations to the rest of the world. Excel analysis is not sufficient. He doesn't understand basic concepts. In what way do the observations invalidate the theory. etc. etc.

I particularly love some of these relies to Dick:

"....I think your questions show you dont understand the theory and its clear you dont understand how to test model predictions. As for your results, as they stand they are not reproducible. the analysis of ontario, for example, was visual and not quantitative. It was limited and unsurprising. If you want to assess a prediction of the theory you first have to quantify the theoryâs prediction. Then you have to do complete quantitative analysis...." (28 November 2010)

".....Now why would you use WUWT to learn something about a real science paper? Dig up the real paper, read it, then see how you can square it with your claims. Donât take WUWTâs hearsay as fact....." (28 November 2010)

"....One station in Ottawa is representative of Canada as a whole? Wow....." (28 November 2010)

"....Youâre far â very far â from making your argument. Thereâs not enough meat to bother discrediting it....." (28 November 2010)

I guess Dick just has a very poor memory. Can anyone say "Groundhog Day"?

LOL.

Yeah, Mandas I checked JC's link and found the comments you pasted. Thanks.

In fairness to Richard, none of them were by Judith herself--but were by the random posters such as ourselves.

Richard's Big Moment will come when Judith gets back from Lisbon--assuming she deigns to answer him.

LOL.

Still counting down the days until Richard determines she's a "socialist" angling for "one world government."

I went to one of the sites linked to by Mandas and found this gem:

By âquantatative statistical methodsâ you mean âcleaningâ the date, and throwing out the data. Inventing data to fill holes, right?

If that truly reflects his attitude towards statistics it's no wonder that we've only been presented with toy 'analyses'.

Notice the recurring theme: "anyone doing anything I don't understand or who disagrees with me is lying".

"anyone doing anything I don't understand or who disagrees with me is lying".

To which could be added, "Anyone I initially thought to be a proponent of my position and who is later shown not to be is lying--*especially* if they do/believe things I don't understand."

Who knows--should we not knock it till we try it?

There is an elegance and efficiency to this sort of insular worldview that none of us with a proclivity for honest inquiry will ever enjoy.

Hello Skip how are the children and your wife doing? and Mandas how is your M-I-L going, all good i hope.

I have just come back to work from a little holiday and whilst away i had a choice to either blow shit up on COD4 or post comments here. After reading the last 20 or so posts i think i made the right choice.

Anyway as a distraction to the boring crap i have just read i would like to draw your attention to the following papers.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010JPO4410.1?journalCode=p…

(abstract only) and

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/KD_InPress_final.pdf

Now both these papers show the upper oceans have been cooling these past few years and my reason for directing peoples attentions to these papers is because our ex climate change minister Ms Penny Wong (Australian Labor party) claimed AGW could not be measured by air temp in response to a question as to why the temps have not continued to climb for quite a few years now. Instead she claimed we must look at the ocean temps for a true measure of AGW progression.

So the two papers above tend to show that even the oceans are not warming as predicted in fact they seem to be cooling.

So i have two questions to ask anyone who cares to respond.

1) Do the two papers above suggest the upper oceans are cooling? If they do not then please explain why they do not.

2) If the upper oceans are in fact cooling then how does this support/enhance/confirm the robustness of the AGW theory?

TIA

Crakar

Hmm. Thanks for the thoughts on my brood, Crakar. Now to the matter at hand.

"The boring crap [you] have just read" is not nearly as fun as when you thought Richard Wakefield had fought his way to a "draw", and "done [him]self proud" (Crakar GAS extended thread #633), is it there, Crakar?

Now that he's been caught forgetting that he already cited the very source that refutes him its "boring"? Too late, Crakar. I'm interested as *hell*.

Regarding Knox and Douglas.

Richard Wakefield originally cut and pasted the abstract to this "article" (spoon fed to him from the Shaman Watts, which is possibly where you found it), such as it is, in the GAS open thread #595. The absurdity is epic. From the opening paragraph:

. . . Using only 2003-2008 data, we find cooling, not warming." --Knox and Douglas

And when I use only air temperature data from 6 PM to 8 AM in Reno, I also "find cooling, not warming."

I also love how their error range actually shows the six-year data trend is *insignificant*, not cooling; they didn't even respect their target audience enough to try to hide this misuse of the numbers.

As Ian pointed out, Knox and Douglas were forced to publish this silliness in a goofball "journal". (See GAS extended thread #599)

Regarding the Hernández-Guerra, article: Even though I have institutional access to the journal it does not have Volume 11 from 2010 available online yet, but a couple of points in addressing your questions:

So i have two questions to ask anyone who cares to respond. --Crakar

1) Do the two papers above suggest the upper oceans are cooling?

As a unity, no.

If they do not then please explain why they do not.

One shows a non-significant trend in a deliberately contrived and truncated data range. The other explicitly examines a limited region and depth of the ocean.

2) If the upper oceans are in fact cooling then how does this support/enhance/confirm the robustness of the AGW theory?

No doubt some parts of the upper ocean are cooling for whatever reason--just as some parts of the atmosphere in different regions are cooling on whatever time scales for whatever reasons despite a backdrop of AGW.

And this exchange is an illustration of the sinister advantage that AGW deniers have. All you guys have to do is copy and paste from Watts. Those of us who want to know what the evidence says actually have to investigate, and that takes much more time. This is the tragic advantage that hip-shot ignorance always has over science.

And as for what the consensus of scientific literature says about ocean temperatures? I could dig up some of Ian's cites, but since since Richard "did himself proud" with lines like the following, I'll go ahead and apply it to you, Crakar:

"You need to read more. Just google it."

Skip,

Firstly it looks like this subject has been discussed before with Richard, thats what you get when you arrive late at the party i suppose (i still think blowing shit up on COD4 is more fun).

Response to first paragragh:

I was giving Richard moral support, i do not necessarily agree with everything he says but to take on the entire AGW cabal all at one time and continue for as long as he had deserves recognition.

Douglas and Knox:

1) Do the two papers above suggest the upper oceans are cooling?

You claim no based on what? Oh of course it was publish in a journal that does not meet *your* standards and in *your* opinion the data was manipulated to show cooling unlike Hansen who claims the Arctic is warming by degrees (not tenths) even though he has no thermometers up there taking readings.

Now dont get me wrong Skip i am not suggesting the Douglas and Knox paper is bullet proof but i must admit i do laugh my guts out at your feeble attempts to convince yourself it has more holes in it than swiss cheese. You see if you were to admit it has some merit would leave you open to answer some very probing questions.

The second paper whilst showing a cooling trend which cannot be torn down via the publishing route or character assassination is dismissed by saying "explicitly examines a limited region and depth of the ocean". We can take out out the depth here Skip because Trenberth et al claim over 90% of heat is stored in the upper ocean so all you have left is the region.

Which is why we got this little gem "No doubt some parts of the upper ocean are cooling for whatever reason".........for whatever reason? This implies you do not know why but yet still claim "just as some parts of the atmosphere in different regions are cooling on whatever time scales for whatever reasons despite a backdrop of AGW".

So just so we are clear AGW WILL cause the atmosphere and upper oceans to warm BUT and its a big BUT sometimes the atmosphere and upper oceans will cool for "whatever reason" and any study that looks at the things you claim to be caused by "whatever reason" and try to suggest AGW is a flawed theory you ignore it by what appears to be nothing but a wave of the hand.

But wait there is more:

"And this exchange is an illustration of the sinister advantage that AGW deniers have. All you guys have to do is copy and paste from Watts. Those of us who want to know what the evidence says actually have to investigate, and that takes much more time. This is the tragic advantage that hip-shot ignorance always has over science."

I nearly spilled my cup of tea all over the keyboard when i read this, i have just posted two published papers which show the upper oceans are not warming or at least they are not warming in lock step with the computer model predictions and you have the hide, the audacity to sit there and claim to be the victim!!!!!!!!!!!

You have just shot down two scientific papers by using ignorance the very crime you accuse me of, what a fucking joke.

I will finish off with a comment on this:

"And as for what the consensus of scientific literature says about ocean temperatures? I could dig up some of Ian's cites, but since since Richard "did himself proud" with lines like the following, I'll go ahead and apply it to you, Crakar:

"You need to read more. Just google it."

So what you are saying is that if more papers claim the oceans are warming than papers that say the oceans are cooling then the oceans must be warming and any paper that says different is crap.

You have no idea what science is do you.

Enjoy your holiday crakar?

Now, with regard to those papers, can I say up front exactly the same thing that I have been saying to you for over a year now. How about - instead of relying on other denilaists to give you your opinion - you actually read the relevant paper and try to understand what it REALLY says.

Here are just a couple of quotes from the first paper (I haven't got to the second one yet):

"....In terms of century-scale tendencies, the subtropical North Atlantic along 24.58N warmed until 2004 at a rate of 0.258C/century. This tendency differs, significantly, from the 0.578C/century observed with the data until 1992. Parrilla et al. (1994) also used data ending in 1992 to obtain a tendency of 0.658C/century, the small difference resulting from the use of slightly different layers and zonal limits. Our analysis of the temperature data from the most recent transatlantic section at 24.58N (2004) reveals a mean cooling of the upper ocean of 20.158C since between 1998 and 2004. Data from the Argo network, an independent dataset, also reveal a mean cooling of the upper ocean of 20.138C for the same period. This observed cooling significantly reduces the post-IGY warming in the subtropical Atlantic. Between 1957 and 1998, the upper ocean warmed 0.278C, whereas by 2004 this value decreased to 0.128C (0.148C as obtained using the Argo data)...."

"....These results clearly show, from the available hydrographic sections, that the upper ocean in 1998 was significantly warmer and saltier than in any transoceanic measurements at 24.58N since 1957....."

"....The interdecadal shifts from warming to cooling likely reflect intrinsic oceanâatmosphere variability that complicates the understanding of ocean climate change (Kerr 2008; Keenlyside et al. 2008)...."

So, rather than proving the oceans have been cooling, the paper adds more to the science and confirms that the oceans have been undergoing variability, but that there is an underlying warming trend. But that wouldn't surprise any scientist.

It is also interesting to note that this paper is about a single transect in a single ocean. I don't know anyone with any intelligence or scientific credibility who would observe a trend at a single small region and claim you could extrapolate that to the rest of the world. Do you know anyone like that? On that very subject............

"....I was giving Richard moral support, i do not necessarily agree with everything he says but to take on the entire AGW cabal all at one time and continue for as long as he had deserves recognition....â

Repeating the same discredited nonsense over and over again, and failing to take notice of valid criticisms, does not deserve recognition except for stubbornness and stupidity â and does NOT deserve moral support. Are you supporting him because you are kindred spirits and follow the same modus operandi?

You have no idea what science is do you?

I still can't get the paper but thanks Mandas.

Copy already had a link on the Nature piece that came out last year:

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2010/06/oceans_warmed_in_recent_d…

Ultimately, Crakar, its a choice of

(1) accepting the conclusions of authors who look at *more* data and publish in *Nature*

(2) investing credibility in alternative authors who look at *less* data and publish in the *Online Journal of Embarrassingly Little Importance.*

Mandas,

Yes i did enjoy my holiday, in between going to the beach and Innes national park the zoo and all the other usual stuff i went from level 1 to level 45 on Call of duty 4. I prefer to use the RPD (machine gun) rather than the M16 (accurate 3 shot burst rifle) a bit like Richards debating techniques i suppose so maybe we are kindred spirits afterall.

Back to Douglas et al, this is what you said in 340.

"Now, with regard to those papers, can I say up front exactly the same thing that I have been saying to you for over a year now. How about - instead of relying on other denilaists to give you your opinion - you actually read the relevant paper and try to understand what it REALLY says."

Now i read the paper and the other abstract so i dont understand what the hell you are talking about. You even cut and paste statements from the paper for all to read and you seem to acknowledge that, with the caveat the paper does not include measurements from every square foot ocean that the oceans warmed from 1957 to 1998 therefore you must also accept that since this period 98 to 2004 there has been a mean cooling as this is stated explicitly in your cut and paste. I am certain you would also agree that since 2004 the oceans have continued to not warm.

So with that in mind i ask you to re evaluate my two questions i asked in 337.

But before you do let me ask another question, you say the paper is not robust due to the lack of data (not enough ocean coverage) and you may have a point here so can you show me a paper which supports your point of view that *the oceans* are still warming?

Remember this paper has to include data taken from all corners of the globe with a very large covered all at the same time so as the results are not biased by seasonal variability of course. Also the data must have been taken periodically over many, many years to enable us to calculate a trend.

When you find the data that conclusively proves your point please make it available for all to see.

Skip,

I understand now how you can still obstinately swollow the whole AGW story, you have a closed mind.

crakar

"....When you find the data that conclusively proves your point please make it available for all to see...."

Proves what point? I haven't attempted to make a point. All I have done is to read a paper that you linked to, and provided some data from that paper.

".....Now i read the paper and the other abstract so i dont understand what the hell you are talking about....."

Huh? I am not talking about anything. I answered your question from above. You know, this one:

"....Do the two papers above suggest the upper oceans are cooling? If they do not then please explain why they do not..."

No - the paper does NOT suggest the upper oceans are cooling. In fact, the authors are VERY specific, as per my quotes from the papers. The oceans undergo variation - sometimes cooling sometimes warming. You know, just like the global mean temperature. You may also wish to read up on atmosphere/ocean coupling. However, underlying those variations is an underlying warming trend (you know, where the oceans are warmer than they were 50 years ago). Moreover - as both skip and I have pointed out and you have acknowledged - the sample transect was VERY small, and only an idiot with a political agenda and no knowledge of science would attempt to extrapolate that to all the world's oceans.

And think on this for a minute. I am absolutely certain if you took a transect through the western Pacific in 2006 then another today (2011) it would show a cooling trend. That's because 2006 was an el Nino year, and today we are in a La Nina. I have no idea if similar events occur at the transect location studied - and neither do you by the way. Do you think that some form of local event could have been the cause the changes observed - particularly over such a short monitoring time? If so, why would you draw the conclusions that you did? If not, why not?

"....that the oceans warmed from 1957 to 1998 therefore you must also accept that since this period 98 to 2004 there has been a mean cooling as this is stated explicitly in your cut and paste...."

I never said I denied it. If the paper is correct, then yes - I accept that there was cooling at the locations indicated in the period indicated. So what? Do you specifically exclude the possibility of local effects that I have described above?

"....I am certain you would also agree that since 2004 the oceans have continued to not warm...."

Then you would be wrong. I agree on nothing unless there is data or evidence to show it. And what does "continued to not warm" mean? I know we can make grammar and spelling errors when we post, but that sentence is just gibberish.

Come on crakar, do some science and try some reasoned analysis of what you read. Stop relying on idiots like wattsupmybutt to give you your opinion. I am sure you can do better.

You see where your problem lies Mandas? You make assumptions about people that are normally incorrect. Your sarcastic reference to me reading Watts is a classic example of someone who is dithering around the keyboard searching for some sort of ad hom attack.

As always the goal posts shift half way through a debate with you for example:

you said "Now, with regard to those papers, can I say up front exactly the same thing that I have been saying to you for over a year now. How about - instead of relying on other denilaists to give you your opinion - you actually read the relevant paper and try to understand what it REALLY says."

I replied:

"Now i read the paper and the other abstract so i dont understand what the hell you are talking about."

and you replied:

"Huh? I am not talking about anything. I answered your question from above. You know, this one:

"....Do the two papers above suggest the upper oceans are cooling? If they do not then please explain why they do not..."

Now do you see how it is very hard to have a conversation with you Mandas you just type shit with a condescending tone as if you know all and me the little shit wit the skeaky voice from far below should just shut the fuck up.

Sorry Mandas but you are a pompous fool.

Now onto the papers again.

Can you tell me what caused the warming trend of the oceans from 1957 to 1998? Lets stop here, answer this simple question first and then i will continue.

"....Can you tell me what caused the warming trend of the oceans from 1957 to 1998? Lets stop here, answer this simple question first and then i will continue...."

No.

".....You see where your problem lies Mandas? You make assumptions about people that are normally incorrect. Your sarcastic reference to me reading Watts is a classic example of someone who is dithering around the keyboard searching for some sort of ad hom attack...."

So - are you saying you DON'T read Watts?

I answered your question honestly, now its your turn to answer the questions I asked above:

"....Do you think that some form of local event could have been the cause the changes observed - particularly over such a short monitoring time? If so, why would you draw the conclusions that you did? If not, why not?..."

Give it your best shot.

Q1) So - are you saying you DON'T read Watts?

A, No, i might look there once a month if i am bored. Let me just say for the record if someone has a personal opinion (watts,nova etc) and i bother to read it i will take it with a pinch of salt. If they link to a paper of interest then i will read the paper, granted i may not understand the paper fully but i know i will get more from it than what i get from the opinions of a blog host. This of course cuts both ways Mandas pro AGW sites are treated with the same level sceptism.

Q2) Do you think that some form of local event could have been the cause the changes observed - particularly over such a short monitoring time? If so, why would you draw the conclusions that you did? If not, why not?..."

A, Of course.

By my conclusions i assume you mean the relevance of my two intial questions in post 337? If so then it should be obvious. I was told by Wong that rising temps are a clear indication of AGW because she was told this by the IPCC & other experts (Trenberth, Hansen, CRU team, Flanery et al).

Because the temps have stopped rising (well lets not get into that debate but i think we can agree they are not rising in accordance with predictions etc)Wong was asked why?

She then turned around and said air temps are not the best metric for measuring AGW but ocean temps are, once again she said this because that was what she was told by the IPCC & other experts.

So here we are with a couple of studies that show ocean temps are not rising, now i realise that the only way to accurately measure the temp is to measure every square foot of water which is impossible.

The conundrum we have here Mandas is that from 1957 to 1998 the oceans indeed may have warmed but as you yourself have said the sampling of data is very sparse and yet even in the studies i presented the scientists claim a temp figure down to the third decimal place with XBT's which are very inaccurate.

Now along comes the ARGO data set, though not perfect it is the best we have ever had and it shows a cooling and this data whilst only ten years or so long covers all the oceans.

Now to be honest i dont quite understand your answer of NO in post 346 and i must admit it did cause me to pause, i did assume you would respond with "well its AGW my good man, what else could it be?"

So rather than ask you to explain how a sparse inaccurate data set can lead you to accept AGW as the culprit but then ignore another data set based on its sparseness i will ask you another question.

If you dont know what has caused this warming trend (1957-1998)in the oceans then why do you accept AGW has caused the warming trend up to around 1998 in the atmosphere. Now dont respond with the physical properties of CO2 but more along the lines of, if you believe CO2 to be warming the atmosphere does it not stand to reason that this heat would also warm the oceans? Why do you not accept the IPCC version in this respect?

The reason that the Douglass and Knox paper is rubbish is that they used the usual denier tactic (think of Wakefield here) and cherry-picked data which supported their errant conclusions and omitted data which did not support their erroneous and wrong conclusions. That is scientific malpractice at its worst.

Take a look at Table 1 of D&N, see that five studies are reported. They only discuss 4, the four which they claim show oceans are "cooling". The paper by von Schuckmann et al. shows that ocean heat content is increasing. The reason for the discrepancy in the data is that the four showing "cooling" only looked at the top 700 meters whereas the vS paper has data from the top 2000 meters. This shows that the increased heat content of the oceans is mixing with the deeper layers at a pretty fast pace.

So the paper does not show what you think and want it to show. It shows (even though the authors don't want it to) that there is increasing heat content in the oceans. This is a very good example of cherry picking data to show what you want and not what they are telling you.

D&N would get an "F" in any senior level class. It is hardly surprising that the only place they could get it published is in a junk journal.

The

Agreed the VS study does indeed get a mention and differs as you say but how can a top 700m cooling and a 700m to 2000m warming tell you overall the oceans are warming?

Crakar

Letâs just say I find much to doubt about your statements re watts and nova â and the SPPI. You cut and paste information from these sites with monotonous regularity, and you are NEVER critical of anything you read there. I am yet to see a single example of you applying the same degree of scepticism to the so-called arguments against AGW that you do for the arguments in favour of it. When you do so, then I will accept what you say. If you want to call yourself a sceptic, how about you be sceptical of your side as well? Until then..........

But on to the more important issue.

Firstly, I would have thought that you would know by now NEVER to reference a politician on scientific matters. I donât do it (no, not even your mate Gore) â so donât you do it either. I donât care what Penny Wong has said, and if you want to discuss science, reference scientists.

â.....So here we are with a couple of studies that show ocean temps are not risingâ¦.â

No we donât. Neither study shows that. The first link is to a study of temperatures along a single transect in the Atlantic Ocean, and over a period of 6 years. The second is to an even shorter time period. There are two issues there â and we have had this discussion before ad nauseum, so you either have a short memory or are being deliberately provocative. Which is it?

You well know that small sample sizes from small locations can NOT be extrapolated to draw conclusions about other locations (or do you agree with Dick that his Canadian observations MUST be representative of Australia as well). And you know that short time periods are not sufficient to understand long term trends. And the authors of the first study know that as well â which is why the whole point of their study is to try and understand how short term variations can overlay long term trends. They say that specifically. But since you claim to have read the paper you know that as well.

I could raise other questions about the studies â such as is there a difference between the XBT and ARGO data which means you have to make adjustments up or down to make one correlate with the other â but whatâs the point? You appear to have made up your mind about them, WITHOUT applying the same skepticism that you do to âpro-AGWâ studies. Why is that?

I answered âNoâ to your question because it was an honest response. âIâ donât know what is causing the warming. On the other hand, thousands of reputable scientists have been studying the issue for decades, and they suggest that increased CO2 in the atmosphere is the culprit. It is not my field of expertise, and I have absolutely no basis on which to doubt them. I am going to suggest that it is not your field of expertise either, so I am going to ask on what basis do YOU doubt them?

I think that cuts to the heart of the discussion here crakar. You have been posting here for years â not in order to try and understand climate change â but in an effort to discredit it and to provide the âgotchaâ moment to all us elitist scientists. You do not have an education in any field of science, and rarely read a science paper â you have admitted as such because they are behind paywalls and you canât access them. Consequently, you rely almost exclusively on what you read at other sites for your opinions on the issue, and what the authors of those blogs have said.

Unfortunately, despite cutting and pasting hundreds of blog posts and links to hundreds of papers that you think proves your case, you have NEVER been able to provide a single piece of evidence or proof which invalidates AGW. If you want to be skeptical, I would have thought it would be wise to be skeptical about the opinions of people who have been wrong over and over and over and over again, rather than the scientists who actually know what they are talking about.

This despite the fact that you work in an area where science is pre-eminent and the work of scientists and engineers is highly respected. For some reason you think that scientists in another field are either liars, incompetent, or engaged in some sort of conspiracy to hide the truth and make money.

You wonder why I swear at you or call you names. Itâs because I get very frustrated with people who â while being supposedly intelligent rational individuals â continue to make idiotic and irrational statements and who put their faith in people who are never right and who let them down time and time again.

Crakar,

Translating the above -
Ian and Mandas have found Trenberth's missing heat.

I have been looking for references to the lower ocean heating, thanks guys.

Although Pielke asks -
". . . if the heating has increased below 700m, why was the transfer of this heat through the 0-700m depths not seen in the Argo data?"

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/01/25/comment-on-gavin-schmi…

This doesn't cover your 1957-1998 period (why those particular 40 years?) but it *does* cover ocean depths way beyond what the Argo system can do. And it's for 30 years, 1980-2010.

And I just love the "Billions of blowdryers" title. Unfortunately my link to the full text of the Purkey & Johnson paper seems to have died.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=1&t=77&&n=384

". . . if the heating has increased below 700m, why was the transfer of this heat through the 0-700m depths not seen in the Argo data?"

Is there any reason it should?

adelady,

good read. I suspected the SST fall of recent was not due to loss above but to a turnover event, which this seems to show.

For those who have an open mind:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/idso-co2-and-earths-…

Those who don't, who are True Believers in the AGW Faith, will just cower and claim the authors don't know what they are talking about, and/or claim it's all lies. But they won't provide any evidence to counter the report.

Yes, yes, from the same AGW skeptic powerhouse that brought us the debacles over Benjamin Laken and the Link That Never Was is the latest from Anthony Watts. I'll get to it Richard, as you might say, "In my own time."

But really, Richard, while its good to see you alive and kicking, who really has been "cowering" lately?

Because you know what I'm going to ask:

How'd the conversation with Judith Curry come out? How about Schwartz and Tonis?

Hilarious.

I know you will use this as pretext to avoid answering my question about your correspondences with Curry et al, Richard, but the *first* paragraph of the *Executive Summary* of your Idso link is pure idiocy:

As presently constituted, earthâs atmosphere contains just slightly less than 400 ppm of the colorless and odorless gas we call carbon dioxide or CO2. Thatâs only four-hundredths of one percent . . . .

It is telling Richard, that you cannot not instantly see the absurdity of this argument within the overall AGW debate.

I'm not even going to bother explaining it to you. I'll just let you look silly.

". . . if the heating has increased below 700m, why was the transfer of this heat through the 0-700m depths not seen in the Argo data?"

Is there any reason it should?

Chris,
First, explain how the heat arrived at the sub 700m depth.
I think that will answer your question.

Paul, go ahead & explain it to me.

Make sure you include what the Argo buoys measure & how they do it in the explanation.

To the potty mouthed self proclaimed scientist post 352,

To be honest i think this is the best post you have ever written, i say the best because this is the true Mandas stripped of all its bluff, buffoonary and bluster.

The opening paragragh states "Letâs just say I find much to doubt about your statements re watts and nova â and the SPPI. You cut and paste information from these sites with monotonous regularity, and you are NEVER critical of anything you read there. I am yet to see a single example of you applying the same degree of scepticism to the so-called arguments against AGW that you do for the arguments in favour of it. When you do so, then I will accept what you say. If you want to call yourself a sceptic, how about you be sceptical of your side as well? Until then.........."

So to cut a long story short you have created an impression of me in your mind, you ask a direct and i answer it as this answer does not fit with your preconcieved impression of me then I MUST BE LYING. What a fucked up individual you are Mandas.

second paragragh states "No we donât. Neither study shows that. The first link is to a study of temperatures along a single transect in the Atlantic Ocean, and over a period of 6 years. The second is to an even shorter time period. There are two issues there â and we have had this discussion before ad nauseum, so you either have a short memory or are being deliberately provocative. Which is it?"

Which is it? Neither Mandas but your stupidity does not allow you to see that. I have agreed more than once that such a sparse gathering of data does not give us the whole picture, however there is always two sides to a coin. You claim the oceans have warmed from 1957 to 1998 and "hundreds" of independent scientists confirm it so it must be AGW, OK lets pretend this is true, show me the study or studies that use a data that gives us the global coverage to make such a claim.

You have so far avoided supplying this study, i hope for sake this does not turn into another Richard Wakefield bluff and run incident as your credibility could handle another shocking blow.

Third paragragh "I answered âNoâ to your question because it was an honest response. âIâ donât know what is causing the warming. On the other hand, thousands of reputable scientists have been studying the issue for decades, and they suggest that increased CO2 in the atmosphere is the culprit. It is not my field of expertise, and I have absolutely no basis on which to doubt them. I am going to suggest that it is not your field of expertise either, so I am going to ask on what basis do YOU doubt them?"

Mainly "as above" but let me ask again Mandas of these "hundreds" of studies how many of them used a data set which covered the entire oceans of the world? Or are you applying a double standard here? (i can feel a bluff and run event coming on).

Part 1 over part 1 to follow

Obviously that should read part 2 to follow (fat fingers)

next paragragh states "I think that cuts to the heart of the discussion here crakar. You have been posting here for years â not in order to try and understand climate change â but in an effort to discredit it and to provide the âgotchaâ moment to all us elitist scientists. You do not have an education in any field of science, and rarely read a science paper â you have admitted as such because they are behind paywalls and you canât access them. Consequently, you rely almost exclusively on what you read at other sites for your opinions on the issue, and what the authors of those blogs have said."

Another "i am smarter than you pleb so shut the fuck up" moment from the Oh so great one.

By the way i dont post here to discredit climate science you buffoon i post here to try and remove the blinkers from your eyes but AGW is like all other religions and faith is a very powerful force to a weak and feeble mind.

next paragragh "Unfortunately, despite cutting and pasting hundreds of blog posts and links to hundreds of papers that you think proves your case, you have NEVER been able to provide a single piece of evidence or proof which invalidates AGW. If you want to be skeptical, I would have thought it would be wise to be skeptical about the opinions of people who have been wrong over and over and over and over again, rather than the scientists who actually know what they are talking about."

There is so much i could say about this statement that i dont know where to start.

Firstly AGW is a hypothesis so i dont have to prove anything.

secondly you have done a bit of cut and pasting in your time as well and guess what Mandas after all this time you have failed to produce one shred of evidence that supports AGW.

Thirdly i like this bit the most "I would have thought it would be wise to be skeptical about the opinions of people who have been wrong over and over and over and over again, rather than the scientists who actually know what they are talking about."

Can you name these scientists that know what they are talking about? Is it Hansen whos prediction in the 1980's about temp increases that is so wrong that he is an embarrassment?

Is it Trenberth who claimed over 90% of OHC is stored in the 700 m only to now claim it is all stored at depths beyond our ability to measure or detect?

Maybe it is Mann who overturned scientific wisdom of historical temps based on one tree in Russia or the IPCC that adopted his work without question.

Or maybe it is Santer, the man who rejected thousands of thermometer and satellite measurements of the upper atmosphere and preferred to calculate the temps by using GPS data from radio sondes? And lest not forget Santers rejection of decreasing humidity readings because they were "spurious".

Maybe it was the dyslexic scientist that wrote 2035 instead of 2350?

Maybe it was the scientists from the CSIRO that claimed the drought in Australia was being caused by AGW and Australia will never see good rains again only to cover there arse by now claiming the floods in Queensland are caused by La Nina and have nothing to do with AGW.

Maybe it is Tim Flannery who claimed not 1 year ago that Brisbane and Perth will be on water restrictions due to the drought effects of AGW at this time?

The list goes on and on my simple and feeble minded friend.

Part 3 to follow

Crakar once again demonstrates his complete inability (unwillingness?) to read anything that others write.

"....You claim the oceans have warmed from 1957 to 1998 and "hundreds" of independent scientists confirm it so it must be AGW,...."

Oh really? Where did I claim that? Could you provide the answer in the same response where you admit your error regarding your assertion that I claimed the journal which published the SST study was crap.

".....So to cut a long story short you have created an impression of me in your mind, you ask a direct and i answer it as this answer does not fit with your preconcieved impression of me then I MUST BE LYING. What a fucked up individual you are Mandas....."

I haven't created an impression of you in my mind. You have created an impression of yourself in the minds of everyone here. Your statement about only checking wattsupmybutt etc once a month or so is plainly and simply a lie. And its not even a good one, as it is so transparently obvious that its a lie. You know it. We know it. And bluff and bluster and attempted to divert the attention on to me won't work.

You are a fool.

"...By the way i dont post here to discredit climate science you buffoon i post here to try and remove the blinkers from your eyes but AGW is like all other religions and faith is a very powerful force to a weak and feeble mind...."

Take a very long hard look in the mirror crakar. It isn't me who has blinkers on my eyes, but you.

"...Firstly AGW is a hypothesis so i dont have to prove anything...."

Do you know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory? No? I guess that is a pretty telling example of your ignorance of science.

"....secondly you have done a bit of cut and pasting in your time as well and guess what Mandas after all this time you have failed to produce one shred of evidence that supports AGW...."

Half right. I have cut-and-pasted a LOT - virtually always from peer reviewed papers published in journals. And ALL of that evidence supports AGW. You cut and paste bloggers opinions and link to opinion papers from the SPPI and other cesspits of right-wing theology.

When it comes to credibility on the subject of science, I will pit mine against yours anytime crakar. Even for an ex-LAC airframe fitter, you are pretty damn stupid.

Part 3

The last two paragraghs state "This despite the fact that you work in an area where science is pre-eminent and the work of scientists and engineers is highly respected. For some reason you think that scientists in another field are either liars, incompetent, or engaged in some sort of conspiracy to hide the truth and make money.

You wonder why I swear at you or call you names. Itâs because I get very frustrated with people who â while being supposedly intelligent rational individuals â continue to make idiotic and irrational statements and who put their faith in people who are never right and who let them down time and time again."

Well you are right about one thing Mandas i have worked with many many scientists from many different fields.

I have worked with pioneers of the HF radar systems one of these guys while conducting his thesis discovered the brightest spot on the moon. I have worked with rocket scientists whilst conducting experimental trials on self positioning re entry systems.

I have worked with aeronautical scientists with aircraft experiments, i have even worked with scientists from JAXA with long range flight and the list goes on.

Now these guys were all very nice, very polite and obviously very clever but they all had one thing in common Mandas that you as a self proclaimed scientist lack and that is humility.

Now lets look at you Mandas, you have told me in the past that you have poisoned rabbits, goats and foxes and slit the throats of native wildlife so a farmers live stock can sleep safe at night.

This is not the work of a scientist, you are at worst a pest controller and at best a glorified park ranger so dont you dare call your self a science, you are a fake Mandas a little shit that thinks he is something important now piss off.

Well crakar, it looks like you have nailed me on this one.

Youâre right. I am nothing more than a glorified park ranger who controls pests in protected areas and on agricultural land. Now, I might disagree with your assessment that there is no science involved in what I do, but you obviously know better because you have actually met some rocket scientists. Therefore, you must be an expert on science. After all, I just count animals, cut them open and look at their stomach contents and pick up shit and study it. Whereâs the science in that?

â.....Now these guys were all very nice, very polite and obviously very clever but they all had one thing in common Mandas that you as a self proclaimed scientist lack and that is humility.

Humility huh? I guess I must have done a different degree to your rocket scientists because I never took the course. Is it a requirement for a rocket scientist? Tweed jacket? No. How about a pocket protector and patches on the jacket elbows? I donât have those either. Thick glasses? No. Lack of suntan from being in a lab all day? God no (far too much sun!). Pipe? Already answered that one (no). Shock of dishevelled hair? Itâs still short from being in the RAAF. I donât even have a white lab coat. I obviously am NOT a scientist.

â......you are a fake Mandas a little shit that thinks he is something important now piss off.....â

You are so right once again. My work is not important. While most farmers would probably disagree â as would most people who eat what those farmers produce â they obviously donât know what they are talking about.

Thanks for straightening me out crakar. I will return my degrees and â as you so succinctly suggested â piss off.

By the way, you do what...........?

Once all the bluff and bluster has settled you still have not produced a study or studies that use data that encompasses the entire ocean to support this statement made by you.

"On the other hand, thousands of reputable scientists have been studying the issue for decades, and they suggest that increased CO2 in the atmosphere is the culprit."

Now Mandas we both know that the data used by these "thousands" of reputable scientists is as sparse as the data used in the studies in question so you are applying a double standard.

We also both know that you are full of shit so having been caught out in self pontification with Richard it looks like you have just stood on your dick once again.

Let me ask you a question, how does it feel to know that your wife is a real scientist whilst you are nothing more than a self promoting pompous prick?

It is telling Richard, that you cannot not instantly see the absurdity of this argument within the overall AGW debate.

Then what is the concentration of CO2? If not odourless and not colourless then what is it?

I've been away because of a death in the family.

you know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory? No? I guess that is a pretty telling example of your ignorance of science.

Why don't you enlighten us and explain the difference. At least when I make a statement someone is wrong, I explain why. You didn't, you generally don't.

".....Let me ask you a question, how does it feel to know that your wife is a real scientist whilst you are nothing more than a self promoting pompous prick?....."

Pretty damn good really.

How does it feel being an inconsequential nobody?

"....Why don't you enlighten us and explain the difference. At least when I make a statement someone is wrong, I explain why......"

So you don't know either huh? You're sitting in front of a computer, why don't you take your own advice and 'google it'?

And no - you NEVER explain why someone is wrong, because the 'someone' who is wrong and who has always been wrong in this debate is you, and you have never explained why or even been prepared to admit you are wrong.

On that subject, how are you going admitting your error about 2010 not being the hottest on record? Prepared to man up yet?

I am truly sorry for your family's loss, Richard. Please believe that.

However, I will still press you on your threat to communicate with Curry et al.

And no, I'm not going to explain to you why the Dipsos (or whatever their names are) are so silly in their atmospheric concentration point. Its beneath even my wretched dignity to respond to it.

it looks like you have just stood on your dick once again. Crakar to Mandas

I would actually be flattered that someone would regard this as a possibility for me.

Indeed, I would routinely boast of ambulating on my own hardware if were ever true.

skip

I don't like to brag..............but I do have to purchase my socks in sets of three.

Mandas in 371,

So poisoning little fury animals and killing native wildlife makes you important? I thought the "God complex" was limited to surgeons?

374,

Mandas you dont have a big dick you have short legs and big feet.

"....So poisoning little fury animals and killing native wildlife makes you important?...."

I think you watch too much Disneyland and Bambi there crakar. Yes - killing cute and cuddly animals does make me important. Someone has to do it, and you would probably be too squeamish to do what is required. But that wouldn't stop you from wanting the benefits of what I do (you know - food). Guess that makes you a bit of a hypocrite. Your problems with killing also seem a little hypocritical for someone who spent time in the military and who now works in the defence industry. I guess killing humans is ok but killing other animals is bad huh?

"....Mandas you dont have a big dick you have short legs and big feet..."

Half right (which is half more than you usually get right). I do have short legs and big feet.

"I think you watch too much Disneyland and Bambi there crakar. Yes - killing cute and cuddly animals does make me important. Someone has to do it, and you would probably be too squeamish to do what is required. But that wouldn't stop you from wanting the benefits of what I do (you know - food). Guess that makes you a bit of a hypocrite. Your problems with killing also seem a little hypocritical for someone who spent time in the military and who now works in the defence industry. I guess killing humans is ok but killing other animals is bad huh?"

I shot a duck once, you dont realise how beautiful they are until you see them up close, shot a fox and a pig once but that did not seem to bother me much probably because they are feral.

When it comes to killing humans i personally have no experience in this area, military killing is a little different i suppose as long as the reasons are justified. The current middle eastern crusades are not of course and i suppose i am in some way a part of it as you imply.

The bottom line Mandas is you need to put food on the table for your family i guess this is how you get through those endless sleepless nights caused by your confliction between a champion of the environment and also its destroyer.

"....I shot a duck once, you dont realise how beautiful they are until you see them up close, shot a fox and a pig once but that did not seem to bother me much probably because they are feral...."

I guess that's the difference between you and me crakar. I don't kill animals for sport. And you criticise me. Your hypocracy knows no bounds does it?

".....The bottom line Mandas is you need to put food on the table for your family i guess this is how you get through those endless sleepless nights caused by your confliction between a champion of the environment and also its destroyer...."

Yes I am putting food on my table - and yours I might add; but the need to manage pests seems to be just one more inconvenient thing that you choose to ignore.

And I sleep very well thanks for asking. Must be all the sex I am having with my unusually large penis (did you want a copy of the video so you can check it out for yourself?)

Mandas,

Can we cut the Messiah complex about if it wasnt for you i would starve to death its getting a little lame.

Its like me saying if it wasnt for me there would be commies under your bed.

Yes very funny but total bullshit so cut the crap, just try and remember (i know your brain is like swiss cheese from drug use) the names and studies of the "thousand" scientists you claim can show AGW is causing OHC to rise or sdo what you failed to do with Richard wakefield and admit you were bull shitting.

By the way the last thing i want see is your hairy arse bouncing up and down so thanks for the offer but i will respectfully decline your video offer.

"....Its like me saying if it wasnt for me there would be commies under your bed...."

Commies? How very 80s of you. But then, I was in the RAAF in the 80s so if you have anyone to thank it would be me.

"...By the way the last thing i want see is your hairy arse bouncing up and down..."

I wax.

Chris,
from 360 post,

I don't know how it arrived there, I am waiting for you to tell me. If you don't know, please advise.

Paul,

Chris has gone very quiet since his appeal to authority was shot down in flames, i suspect he will lie low for a while. Skip is busy with fatherly duties so all we have left is Mandas to entertain us with stories about waxing his private bits and snippets of info mixed up with drug induced psychosis.

I am still patiently waiting for him to supply the names and studies of a "thousand" independant scientists that show AGW is causing OHC to rise. I know this is just another dodge like when he gobbed off to Richard purporting to hold the key to his execution only to turn and run like the coward he is.

A question for all, is it possible to turn and run like a coward twice in one month?

Jesus H. Nova, Paul.

Will you quit the hogging the thread?

Give someone else a chance to get a word in, motormouth.

Crakar:

The thousands-of-scientists comment is surely an exaggeration (I suspect there are fewer than 50 specialists on this particular climactic issue; thats of course guesstimation) and the otherwise stolid Mandas needs to admit that, but its a pretty hollow victory, Crakar.

The fact is the preeminent scientists who study this issue--i.e. the type of people who get accepted to *Nature*, say that the best evidence available--with all its limits, which *they admit*--is that sea temperatures have risen--exactly as AGW predicts.

This is something you don't grasp, and of course you never will: You don't get to count the *unavailable* evidence as supporting you.

You don't get that and you never will and thats ok.

And you're constant reference to "AGW religion" and "blind belief" is hollow and hypocritical, as we both know. We have seen the ultimate evidence of who the blindest believing contributor to this forum has historically been, and it is without a doubt yourself.

We've been over this before and you've admitted as much so just stick to your hollow arguments, not Wattsian rhetoric.

skip (and crakar)

I am not going to admit any such thing, because my statement about 'thousands of scientists' was NOT related to warming of the oceans, but to warming of the atmosphere. And if crakar could actually read his own posts he would realise that.

At post #349, he said this:

".....If you dont know what has caused this warming trend (1957-1998)in the oceans then why do you accept AGW has caused the warming trend up to around 1998 in the atmosphere...."

Note - warming of the ATMOSPHERE!!!!!!!!

To which, I replied at post #352:

".... âIâ donât know what is causing the warming. On the other hand, thousands of reputable scientists have been studying the issue for decades, and they suggest that increased CO2 in the atmosphere is the culprit. It is not my field of expertise, and I have absolutely no basis on which to doubt them. I am going to suggest that it is not your field of expertise either, so I am going to ask on what basis do YOU doubt them?...."

So, I will freely admit that I cannot name thousands of scientists who have been involved in studying the atmospheric effects of increased CO2 over the past 50 or so years. But I am willing to bet all my income over the next year or so that there have been thousands.

Does anyone other than crakar want to dispute that number?

(apology accepted skip)

Paul, let's remember how this discussion started: You said "Although Pielke asks -
". . . if the heating has increased below 700m, why was the transfer of this heat through the 0-700m depths not seen in the Argo data?""

This statement has two implicit assumptions 1) that the heat transferred through the 0-700m depth and 2) that this should be seen in the Argo data.

Surely if you are positing this as a genuine question then you have in mind some mechanisms to back up assuptions 1) and 2) and, if you have then surely you wouldn't mind letting us know. That was why I asked my question at #355. (Is there any reason it should?)

Now it turns out (#381) you don't know why either assumption 1) or assumption 2) should be true and for some reason that appears to be my fault for not telling you. Even though your first response (#361: "...explain how the heat arrived at the sub 700m depth. I think that will answer your question.") Made it seem that you did have some evidence to back up assumptions 1) and 2).

Odd.

More oddness from crakar - I respond to his question "....So once again i ask can you provide a study that shows the oceans have warmed from 1957 to 1998 which covers the vast oceans of the world?...." By providing some studies and that is met with an accusation (#382) of "appeal to authority". (Note that he also "shot [it] down in flames" without actually reading any of them.)

Odd.

Chris,
>>This statement has two implicit assumptions 1) that the heat transferred through the 0-700m depth and 2) that this should be seen in the Argo data.<<

yes, that is most likely Pielke's assumption.

And, it's a question because, ta da, the answer is not known!
He is asking how the heat got there without passing through the 0-700m range and not beeing seen by ARGO.(which, yes, he implies, should be seen)

So, if you know, let it go.

Paul, you still haven't demonstrated why you think the heat should show up in the Argo data.

There are many better & brighter minds than mine working on the question of how the heat gets where, but it's not the question I asked of you.

Is there an explicit reason (other than 'coz Pielke said so) that you think the assumptions he made are correct?

Schwarzt has replied, in its entirety:

a bit more time to respond to your queries.

At 11:17 AM -0500 1/28/11, jrwakefield wrote:
>Hi Dr. Schwartz
>
>Your paper on aerosol forcings has produced a bit of an argument on
>at least one blog. I have some questions if you can take the time
>to answer them please.
>
>1) If aerosol forcing turns out to be very small, then CO2 forcing
>must also be smaller than predicted. How does this reconcile with
>the claim that CO2 forcing must be substantial, the "laws of
>physics" demand it?

we have a pretty good handle on CO2 forcing (though in my judgment not as good as ipcc says we do); ditto other llghgs. and a pretty good handle on rate of heating of planet. so the big trade off is aerosol forcing vs climate sensy.

>
>2) The premise seems to be that forcings are what is causing the
>climate to change temperature.

you are right; that is the premise

>Is there no room for random chaos?

thought to be small relative to long term trend, as shown in multiple runs same model different init conds; variability would also encompass el nino, volcanos;

>This paper seems to put more emphasis on that, overriding forcings:
>https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/kswanson/www/publications/2008GL037022_all….
>Take France's 2003 heat wave for example. A very localized one off
>event (Berlin was completely normal at the same time). How would
>forcings cause that in such a small place over such a small
>timeframe? (Actually, 1947 was hotter than 2003, had more days
>above 30C)

the finer you look spatially or temporally the more local variations can overwhelm trend. 10 second hottest yr in instrum record, but record lows in certain (highly populated) areas in certain seasons exert large influence on thinking. but still small rel to trend.

>
>3) How does CO2 forcing not increase summer and tropical TMax? For
>example, in Canada, summer TMax as well as the number of days above
>30C have been steadily dropping since the mid 1920's.

I am surprised by that.

>The vast majority of record breaking days here was before 1950.
>Record highs now don't even come close to those record temps. The
>Tropics show no change in TMax since 1975.

ditto. I dont want to get into a debate w you. you may be right. but there is a very good noaa web page that makes the point that _many_ indices are showing consistent increase in global temp.

>
>That should do it for now, I may have more questions depending on
>your answers.
>
>Richard Wakefield
>Komoka, Ont. Canada

hope that helps and that you can figure out my shorthand. -steve s

Does anyone other than crakar want to dispute that number?

I do. You have to disinguish between scientists who ASSUME that those who do the science are correct, vs those who are tasked to do the measurements. If you stick to those scientists who actually do the study of temperture, then you are talking about a VERY small number of people. It's already been shown that the number of scientist involved in the "gate keeping" is less than 75. Far fewer are involved directly in setting the direction of the IPCC.

NASA Data Confirms Solar Hibernation and Climate Change to Cold Era

Tuesday, January 25, 2011, 3:00 PM
The Space and Science Research Center (SSRC) announces today that the most recent data from NASA describing the unusual behavior of the Sun validates a nearly four year long quest by SSRC Director John L. Casey to convince the US government, the media, and the public that we are heading into a new cold climate era with 20 to 30 years of record setting cold weather.

According to Director Casey, âIâm quite pleased that NASA has finally agreed with my predictions which were passed on to them in early 2007. There is no remaining doubt that the hibernation of the Sun, what solar physicists call a âgrand minimumâ has begun and with it, the next climate change to a prolonged cold era.

http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html

Richard, I don't know whether to credit your forthrightness or bemoan your lack of comprehension.

You probably *do* understand, as do I, the way your position(s) morphed in the way you presented them to Schwartz. It suggests an intentionality and cunning I might have not credited you before, but you're not getting away with it. (Your sample data for your claims about summer Tmax and hot days, for example; you provided those as assumptions, not claims; the wording choice of "random chaos" instead of "factors that counter, or dissipate, or alter that ASSUMED warming that should be happening".)

You're semi-sly, Richard, but not sly enough.

Even so he directly repudiates you in at least one key manner, which you might *not* very well understand. If you did--and this is the question--you might not have posted the email.

Chris,
that's what I'm curious about.
(Truthfully your posts are starting to border on kook.)

If you have a different take, offer it up.
Like I said, it will probably answer your question and provide new information to me.

Skip, I was straight forward, no "sly" at all. I have replied to him with links to my analysis.

His reply is clear, he is surprised that TMax has not been increasing. That means he agrees AGW predicts summers should be getting hotter.

Well, who would have guessed it but Wakefield is wrong again:

NASA Data Confirms Solar Hibernation and Climate Change to Cold Era

That is not what NASA is saying at all. Here is what NASA scientist David Hathaway has to say about the sun and its cycles and climate:

Dr. HATHAWAY: Yeah. It comes at the end of what is called the Little Ice Age for climate. And both that minimum and the minimum at the beginning of the 19th century correspond to cool times in Earth's climate. It has led us to believe that the sun does - the solar variability, I should say, this, you know, coming and going of sunspot cycles - does influence climate to some extent. And the big question is to how big an extent. And there's a wide range of feelings on what that is.

The best analyses I've seen suggest that the sun's still a minor player, that it's really the anthropogenic forcing that's overwhelming things now, and that even if the sun did go into one of these long, extended periods of no activity, it wouldn't save us from global warming.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128268488

Has Wakefield ever got anything right in all the posts, on all the blogs where he spreads his nonsense? I'm not surprised that Steve Schwartz replied:

I am surprised by that.

to Wakefield's comments about annual Tmax in Canada since it is just a pack of lies since it has been shown to be wrong on numerous occasions on this blog. Why do you keep on repeating lies?

That means he agrees AGW predicts summers should be getting hotter.

But does not rule out that Tmax could be flat in 17 southern Canadian stations from 1920s to now within a backdrop of an overall AGW signal.

You did *not* tell him the limits of your analysis--and rightly so. He would *laugh* at your sample (and this does not even include the subject of the statistical insignificance of your findings, for which you've provided nothing but jokes of answers: "my daughter-in-law says . . .")

And look at all the other questions you avoided asking him (slyly or otherwise):

Does AGW posit that only CO2 affects climate (your claim)?

Does he realize that if he wants to understand the substantive statistical relevance of a finding he need only consult your daughter-in-law?

Can the unity of the North American climate regime be determined why a morning ritual of watching the Weather Channel?

There are plenty of things you could ask his opinion on that you've avoided.

If its because you realize they're stupid statements on your part then just retract them and move on. But don't claim any vindication in this email. He fundamentally repudiates you, Richard. To wit:

These guys are showing that the actual forcing by CO2 is at best 40% of what it's thought it should be. Richard # 266, regarding the Schwartz article.

we have a pretty good handle on CO2 forcing (though in my judgment not as good as ipcc says we do); ditto other llghgs. and a pretty good handle on rate of heating of planet. so the big trade off is aerosol forcing vs climate sensy. Schwartz in his email.

He does *not* agree with your claim about what he and his co-authors "are showing" in the article.

He does *not*.

Its simple, Richard. You are *wrong* about what this article, and its author, are saying. They argued for an extend *range* for the forcing effect of CO2, *not* its necessary reduction.

You were *wrong*.

Skip, et al, have you read that CO2Science report I linked to, the one you claimed they were wrong about CO2 constration? If not, you really should.

Page 13:

"Looking first at three coastal stations in southern and central Greenland that possess almost uninterrupted temperature records between 1950 and 2000, for example, Chylek et al. (2004) discovered that âsummer temperatures, which are most relevant to Greenland ice sheet melting rates, do not show any persistent increase during the last fifty years.â In fact, working with the two stations with the longest records (both over a century in length), they determined that coastal Greenlandâs peak temperatures occurred between 1930 and 1940, and that the subsequent decrease in temperature was so substantial and sustained that then-current coastal temperatures were âabout 1°C below their 1940 values.â Furthermore, they noted that at the summit of the Greenland ice sheet the summer average temperature had âdecreased at the rate of 2.2°C per decade since the beginning of the measurements in 1987.â Thus, as with the Arctic as a whole, Greenland did not experience any net warming over the most dramatic period of atmospheric CO2 increase on record. In fact, it cooled during this period ... and cooled significantly."

Skip, major storm came through here yesterday, born in Texas from warm air from the Gulf mixing with a high pressure system of cold air from the Arctic, the low pressure system it created following the jet stream from BC, which is swinging down into Texas, and back up through here. It's making its way to the Maritimes. But I guess because I watched this unfold on the Weather Channel, who gets their data from Environment Canada, it never happened.

The best analyses I've seen suggest that the sun's still a minor player, that it's really the anthropogenic forcing that's overwhelming things now, and that even if the sun did go into one of these long, extended periods of no activity, it wouldn't save us from global warming.

That's so laughable. The sun plays a minor role. Right.

The sun plays the PRIMARY role otherwise we would be a ball of dead ice.

Of course the revealing part of that quote: "save us" Exposes the real motive behind this faith, and it's not science based.

Wakefield, stop being so stupid. He is saying that changes in sunspot numbers have very little to do with the current global warming.

It is almost impossible to believe that someone can be so ignorant of science as you til I remember that you taught your self. What a joke.

Well, I have to congratulate you there Dick. I - and many others - were wrong about you and I am going to say well done on your integrity.

We thought you would never publish your emails with climate scientists, but you provided - I assume - the majority of the contents of your discussion with Schwartz. Well done!

And that despite the fact that Schwartz came right out and told you that you are wrong about just about absolutely everything you have claimed.

I congratulate your integrity! Now you just have to admit you are wrong and we will be good.

Well, I thought I had seen stupidity before in my time, but I have now seen the stupidist reply / comment EVER!!!

At #396, skip said this:

"....Can the unity of the North American climate regime be determined why a morning ritual of watching the Weather Channel?..."

To which Dick replied (at #398):

"....Skip, major storm came through here yesterday, born in Texas from warm air from the Gulf mixing with a high pressure system of cold air from the Arctic, the low pressure system it created following the jet stream from BC, which is swinging down into Texas, and back up through here. It's making its way to the Maritimes. But I guess because I watched this unfold on the Weather Channel, who gets their data from Environment Canada, it never happened...."

I mean, WOW!!!!! That has to be the most meaningless drivel and stupidist comment in the history of EVER!!!!!!

Tell me Dick, do you know the difference between weather and climate? Are you really so stupid that you would claim that an entire continent is a single climate regime based on a large weather pattern? I know you have said many, many stupid ill-informed things over the past few months, but - WOW!!!!!!!!

The best analyses I've seen suggest that the sun's still a minor player, that it's really the anthropogenic forcing that's overwhelming things now, and that even if the sun did go into one of these long, extended periods of no activity, it wouldn't save us from global warming.--NASA

That's so laughable. The sun plays a minor role. Right . . . the sun plays the PRIMARY role otherwise we would be a ball of dead ice.--Richard repudiating NASA

I appreciate the Weather Channel comment, but I insist on voting this No. 1 in The Lexiconus Absurdus Wakefieldus.

(He's said as much in different form before but this is the best rendition.)

Richard, would you mind if I sent this exchange off to Schwartz, Curry and Tsonis myself?

Oh my god. Where's Snowman when you need him? I wish he was lurking to see Mike Tyson throw that hay-maker.

Maybe coby could start a new thread:

"The stupidist comment by a denier" or something similar. Everyone could nominate, and we could vote on it. The winner would be given an award of some description (sort of like the Golden Crocoduck) and you could have monthly an annual winners!

Ok but even though Ian beat me to it for the specifics I claim credit for the ranking of Richard's in #399.

Number One, baby.

A Challenge to the Climate Research Community
February 2nd, 2011 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
Iâve been picking up a lot of chatter in the last few days about the âsettled scienceâ of global warming. What most people donât realize is that the vast majority of published research on the topic simply assumes that warming is manmade. It in no way âprovesâ it.

If the science really is that settled, then this challenge should be easy:

Show me one peer-reviewed paper that has ruled out natural, internal climate cycles as the cause of most of the recent warming in the thermometer record.

Studies that have suggested that an increase in the total output of the sun cannot be blamed, do not countâ¦the sun is an external driver. Iâm talking about natural, internal variability.

The fact is that the ânull hypothesisâ of global warming has never been rejected: That natural climate variability can explain everything we see in the climate system.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/02/a-challenge-to-the-climate-research…

He is saying that changes in sunspot numbers have very little to do with the current global warming

He never said such, you're guessing. His issue is either aerosols or sensitivity to CO2 are keeping warming down, ASSUMING CO2 should be warming. (he wasn't even aware that TMax around the world is not inceasing, nor that there are FEWER heat waves) If it's not aerosols, then the climate does not heat up as much as EXPECTED due to increase in CO2. The Law of Parsonomy dictates one use the simplest explanation, which in this case is the sensitivity of the climate to increases in CO2 is MUCH LESS than expeced since we know for a FACT that other temp changes in the climate had nothing to do with CO2 levels (interglacial periods).

And that despite the fact that Schwartz came right out and told you that you are wrong about just about absolutely everything you have claimed.

He never said I was wrong about anything, he even said I may very well be right about TMax.

Are you really so stupid that you would claim that an entire continent is a single climate regime based on a large weather pattern?

Since you are in a different continent on the opposite side of the world from us I would not expect you to understand how the climate and weather sytems work here. What I explained happened, does happen, is how the system works up here.

Do you know what causes tornados in North America?

In 1954, just after I was born, Ontario got hit with Hurricane Hazel. What made it severe was a hurricane born in the east Atlantic, coming up the east coast of the US merged with a severe low pressure system that came in from Alberta.

Skip, email whom ever you wish. Unlike you, I won't attempt to dictate what others must do, when.

Wakefield you just make stuff up. He never said:

he even said I may very well be right about TMax.

What he actually said was:

I am surprised by that.

That is the same response to someone who had just told me that the earth was flat or the moon was made of cheese. Utter astonishment that anyone could be so ignorant of scientific facts.

Of course, the reason he was surprised by your lies is that he is well aware that no-one else has ever shown such a load of rubbish. Perhaps he read the Australian report I have cited cite many times to show that you are telling lies about Australia, as well as cherry picking (aka lies) about Canada and who else but you have found that nonsense in Ireland and Africa.

You are a pathetic little man who refuses to accept what real scientists are saying. That makes you a full blown denier, denier of facts, denier of evidence denier of sensibilities.

Its quite appropriate that you've finally come full circle and embraced Spencer, Richard.

It is contrary to the standards of science to "rule out" anything. Scientists by training and inclination develop confidence intervals, best estimates, and conclusions based on the best and most recent evidence.

But not your man Roy. He has it *all* figured out.Here, in Roy's own words, is a huge clue as to his approach to science, in his description of how came to his "scientific" conclusions about the veracity of the Bible and Intelligent Design:

The possibility then presented itself that, despite all I had previously thought, Genesis, the first book of the Bible, might actually be true . . . The Bible was the only 'holy book' in which I could find a record of God's creating the material universe from nothing! Next, the work of many historians revealed to me that the Bible is by far the most accurate and best-substantiated ancient book known to man. It truthfully portrays actual historical events and has been faithfully copied by scribes over the centuries . . . When I turned to the gospels I learned that the contemporary enemies of Jesus, who wanted to disprove His divinity, could not deny His many miracles, there being too many eye witnesses. Not being able to dispute the fact of His amazing deeds . . .Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer . . .

And on and on. Its telling that Roy seeks an Ultimate Proof in the literature. He obviously requires one in his own existential struggle.

Schwartz said you "may be right" about summer Tmax in Canada because he knows it *doesn't make any difference* to AGW even if its true. This is why he directed you to NOAA.

And yes, Richard, his responses indicate that your previous claims about his paper were wrong. He did not use the *exact* words, "Richard Marmaduke Wakefield, you are wrong," because you asked him vague softball questions without letting him know what you had previously said about him. However, his responses *directly* repudiated your previous claims about his paper.

Let me utter my own challenge, Richard: Do you think Schwartz would agree with every characterization--and I mean word-for-word now--that you have made about his paper?

Who's "cowering" now?

And don't play the martyr, Richard. I've *never* tried to tell you what to do. *You're* the one who threatened to contact Curry, Tsonis, and Schwartz. You have every right to renege if you wish--just as I have every right to remind you on a daily basis that you have--like I am right now:

So, Richard, how's the correspondence with Judith going?

I'm afraid the idea of Richard's silliest quote is a bit of a fools errand. There are just too many excellent choices.

Look at #407 where he thinks that the authors point that climate sensitivity may be lower than expected is presented as CO2 possibly having a lower forcing than expected. This despite the email from the author clearly stating otherwise.

The issue with RW that comes up over and over again is that he simply does not understand the basic meaning of the terms used. Just off the top of my head, he has demonstrated a misunderstanding of standard deviation, normal distribution, statistical error, confidence intervals, climate forcing and climate sensitivity. Every one of the posts demonstrating his confusion on these topics would be in the running for the award.

Perhaps, blue.

On the other hand, watching the NFL hoping I will live to see the Seahawks win a Super Bowl has proven to be the silliest errand by the Biggest Fool.

But its still enjoyable.

Well Dick, we can now add reading comprehension to the list of things that you are incompentent at. Let's look at this idiocy shall we?

".....And that despite the fact that Schwartz came right out and told you that you are wrong about just about absolutely everything you have claimed......He never said I was wrong about anything, he even said I may very well be right about TMax....."

He said - very clearly and succinctly - that you were wrong about EVERYTHING. Let's just check shall we:

Dick's position is that CO2 forcing is unknown.
Schwartz said:
"...we have a pretty good handle on CO2 forcing (though in my judgment not as good as ipcc says we do); ditto other llghgs. and a pretty good handle on rate of heating of planet...."

That's one down!

Dick's position is that random natural variations are dominant.
Schwartz said:
".....thought to be small relative to long term trend, as shown in multiple runs same model different init conds; variability would also encompass el nino, volcanos..."

Two down.

Dick's position is that his observations from Canada can somehow be extrapolated to other areas.
Schwartz said:
"....the finer you look spatially or temporally the more local variations can overwhelm trend...."

Strike three, you're out! But let's continue:

Dick's position is that 2010 was not the hottest on record, 'not even close'.
Schwartz said:
"....10 second hottest yr in instrum record, but record lows in certain (highly populated) areas in certain seasons exert large influence on thinking. but still small rel to trend...."

Strike four!

Dick's position is that his observations from Canada invalidate AGW.
Schwartz said:
"....I dont want to get into a debate w you. you may be right. but there is a very good noaa web page that makes the point that _many_ indices are showing consistent increase in global temp...."

Strike five. You are well and truly out of there Dick!

What he actually said was:

"ditto. I dont want to get into a debate w you. you may be right".

Schwartz said you "may be right" about summer Tmax in Canada because he knows it *doesn't make any difference* to AGW even if its true. This is why he directed you to NOAA.

Then why was he surprised. He obviously didn't expect this. We will have to wait for another reply, if he sends one.

RW @406:

Show me one peer-reviewed paper that has ruled out natural, internal climate cycles as the cause of most of the recent warming in the thermometer record.

What are 'natural internal climate cycles'? I have no idea what is meant by this and I suspect you don't either. What are these cycles, what is the evidence for them and how long are their periods?

Dick, Dick, Dick.

You need to read this next sentence very, very carefully, and take notes. WEATHER IS NOT CLIMATE. I will repeat that in case you missed it. WEATHER IS NOT CLIMATE.

Letâs just look at your latest idiocy shall we.

â....Since you are in a different continent on the opposite side of the world from us I would not expect you to understand how the climate and weather sytems work here....â

By the same logic I will suggest that any analysis you claim to have done outside of Canada is invalid, because you donât live there. But that is a stupid argument and only an idiot would use it. I am perfectly capable of understanding how both weather and climate work in another region of the world.

â....What I explained happened, does happen, is how the system works up here....â

No-one is disputing that those weather systems occur. But once again I will say to you that WEATHER IS NOT CLIMATE.

â....Do you know what causes tornados in North America?...â
Yes. In fact, when I lived in the USA (Alabama) while studying for a Masters Degree I experienced tornadoes first hand.

â....In 1954, just after I was born, Ontario got hit with Hurricane Hazel. What made it severe was a hurricane born in the east Atlantic, coming up the east coast of the US merged with a severe low pressure system that came in from Alberta...â

So what? Just because a large weather pattern covered a significant portion of the North American continent does not mean Ontario and Florida are part of the same climate regime, and only an idiot would argue as such.

Dick, I want you to look at this satellite image:

http://www.bom.gov.au/gms/IDE00035.201102021230.shtml

It shows Cyclone Yasi about to cross the Queensland coast two days ago. You will note that there are bands of cloud streaming into the cyclone from as far north as New Guinea, and as far south as the New South Wales border. Inland from western Queensland eastward beyond Vanuatu.

However, that does NOT mean that Mount Isa is part of the same climate regime as Port Vila, or that Brisbane, Cooktown and Longreach (look them up) are part of the same regime. No-one â not even the greatest illiterate idiot â would make that claim. So why the fuck are you?

Dick

It would appear that you are just like those annoying people who come up to you in public and start talking to you and giving you their opinion, and are completely oblivious to subtle hints that you don't want to talk to them.

How is it that you are completely oblivious to what Schwartz was saying to you? He not only told you that you were wrong. he was saying - as nicely as possible - that you were a boring pest and he had little time for you.

I mean, what part of this, DON'T you understand?

"....I dont want to get into a debate w you. you may be right. but there is a very good noaa web page that makes the point that _many_ indices are showing consistent increase in global temp....."

Since you appear NOT to get it, let me translate for you.

"Listen, I don't really care. I am busy and don't have time to look at your idiotic claims or to argue with you. Go look at some of this real science."

Understand now?

Ian,

Before you lambast RW about how many things he gets right i suggest you look at the amount of FAILED predictions Hathaway has to his name (hello pot this is kettle)

".....Show me one peer-reviewed paper that has ruled out natural, internal climate cycles as the cause of most of the recent warming in the thermometer record......"

Fuck Dick - you linked to several yourself! What do you think Tsonis work was about?

I think "you may be right" referenced Richard's specific data claims--not his conclusions, Richard does not explicate in the email. (To do so would require him to have the balls to tell a real scientist that his Excel spreadsheet data have "falsified" AGW. Richard has shown similar cheek but that would be a step.)

I interpreted it as, "Whatever. I don't give a shit and I'm not sure why you do."

An easy interpretation for me to impose as its pretty much my attitude toward Richard's specific station data.

"How is it that you are completely oblivious to what Schwartz was saying to you? He not only told you that you were wrong. he was saying - as nicely as possible - that you were a boring pest and he had little time for you."

Makes you wonder, if you didn't already, just want his daughter in law said about the trend analysis.

Oh and by the way sunspots are an indicator of the level of solar activity, less SS means less solar wind, less UVA &B lower magnetic fields etc.

The SS's have no direct effect on climate but a lower level of sun activity does. The question is how much as Hathaway says. In his opinion it is very little and as i said above i have never seen a hathaway prediction nor even his theories of solar cycles come even close to reality.

Chris,

Your attempted appeal to authority was shot down in flames because Mandas dismissed a OHC paper with all the bravado of an actual expert on the subject due primarily to the lack of data coverage.

In your IPCC link you provided you failed (shock horror) to make mention of the figure showing the data coverage they use to come to the conclusion the OHC is rising due to CO2 however the data coverage they use is sparse (very little coverage in SH or a majority of the worlds oceans)

So logically Mandas will have to dismiss this IPCC opinion with all the bravado of an OHC expert due to a lack of data coverage.

Of course the ARGO data is the closest thing we have to complete coverage and even though it is only for tens years can you tell me what the trend is?

. . . .look at the amount of FAILED predictions Hathaway has to his name . . .

Not the topic has any relevance, but exactly how many is that, Crakar?

Can you give us an Aussie scouts' honor that you didn't come up with this from trolling Watts?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/06/nasas-hathaway-issues-new-solar-c…

Dick's position is that CO2 forcing is unknown.

I neer said that. I said the climate's response to CO2's forcing is unknown, which is what Schwartz is saying.

Dick's position is that random natural variations are dominant.

Notice Schwartz's operative word "thought" based on computer models, not empiricle evidence. He's not saying I'm (and those who propose this in science papers) wrong, he's saying models disagree. The models could very well be wrong.

Dick's position is that his observations from Canada can somehow be extrapolated to other areas.

I have already shown TMax is not increasing in every place on the planet I have downloaded data for. This is not just in Canada. I also posted that summers in Greenland have not increased. You're one to talk claiming Au showed increasing summer temps. None do.

Dick's position is that 2010 was not the hottest on record, 'not even close'.

Not all world locations haven't reported in yet for 2010, as more have the average for 2010 has been dropping. It also looks so far that 2011 will indeed go negative as the Jan anomally is now negative.

So much for your "strikes".

Well nice to see you back there crakar.

".....So logically Mandas will have to dismiss this IPCC opinion with all the bravado of an OHC expert due to a lack of data coverage....."

Its a pity you didn't read the posts from yesterday before you renewed your totally idiotic and baseless attack. But what else would I expect from someone who demands that I account for something I never said in response to a question that was never asked.

Drunk again are you?

What are 'natural internal climate cycles'? I have no idea what is meant by this and I suspect you don't either. What are these cycles, what is the evidence for them and how long are their periods?

If we knew all that now, we would have no need to study the climate more. Your commment is akin to creationists claiming that since we don't know the mechanisms of th Big Bang that God must have created the universe.

You are also insinuating that the null hypothesis is humans are causing climate change.

We know that prior to 1975 these 'natural internal climate cycles' must have existed, have existed for millions, billions of years, and still exist today.

So far, every single climate or weather event claimed to be because of AGW has been shown to have a purely natural mechanism.

Mandas,

At a guess of would have to say "thousands" of peer reviewed papers exist but there would be no point in presenting them to you because:

1) The author is an idiot....and....and...he believes in creation...and...and he looks funny.

2) The journal the paper is published in is crap

3) My personal expert 5 minute analysis of the 3, 4 or 5 year study shows this paper is crap due to all the assumptions being wrong, the methods used are wrong and the statistical analysis employed is improper in this case. Please not that i decline to offer any plausible alternative.

4) What the!!! He used a thermometer with a one decimal place accuracy to measure the temp LOL, everyone knows the cheap and nasty GPS in radio sondes are far more accurate to measure the temps. Anyway none of the operators were trained properly.

5) This guy had the hide to use the humidity readings from radio sondes to show humidity in the upper atmosphere is dropping, doesn't he know the thousonds upon thousands of readings taken by the RS is spurious? and did you know the operators were not trained properly.

6) This one tree in Russian is enough to convince me the MWP and LIA does not and never did exist.

7)Hansen's GISS data in conjuction with the Teams data is the only valid and reputable temperature record we have. I dont mind if Hansen makes changes to temp readings taken over 100 years ago without explanation because i trust him.

8) The fact that Greenland has cooled since the early 20th century is not evidence that AGW is crap it does in fact enhance the theory just like the bitter cold winters in the NH enhance the theory.

9) Just because it *seems* colder where you live believe me when i say 2010 was hotternhell and unless you wise up real soon AGW is gunna gitcha.

No high as a kite, got some magic mushies from Mt Crawford forest.....by the way they seem to have a pest problem up there, doing anything this weekend?

Skip,

Just look on the NASA website, he first claimed SC24 would be the grandaddy of all cycles based on his unique methods of predicting cycles whilst everyone else around him were predicting a very, very quiet cycle.

Since then he has been steadily dropping the sunspot number slowly but surely until he is now finally predicting what everyone else was saying 5 years ago.

Whilst we are off topic look up the work of the late Theodore Landscheit (sp) this guy predicted all this (sun spot decline) back in the 1980's he based his predictions primarily on the orbital length and duration of Jupiter.

Fascinating stuff, anyway he is dead now unfortunately i believe he and his wife were holidaying in Australia when they drove head first into a water buffalo (like your bison) but of course i may be wrong.

Dick lies again.

"....Dick's position is that CO2 forcing is unknown....I neer said that. I said the climate's response to CO2's forcing is unknown, which is what Schwartz is saying...."

Scroll up Dick (post #285). Where you said this:

"...In other words, they DO NOT know the levels of aerosol forcing, it could be large, it could be small. THEY DON'T KNOW, hence the amount of forcing from CO2 is also NOT KNOWN...."

You may also wish to review countless posts where you said that CO2 forcing was less than 40% of IPCC predictions; that CO2 was not affecting climate; etc, etc, etc.

That's the problem with flip flopping all the time Dick (its the sun, its natural variations) and with writing things down. They come back to haunt you.

crakar

".... they drove head first into a water buffalo (like your bison) but of course i may be wrong...."

A water buffalo is NOTHING like a bison, but nice try.

And WTF was that rant at 430 about? It doesn't even make grammatical sense, let alone relate to anything we are discussing?

Mandas,

Could you clarify a few points?

What is the difference between a solar driven climate change and natural variations, i would have thought they would be the same thing.

Also as your opinion trumps the IPCC's then if *you* dont know what the levels of CO2 forcing is then why do you continue to call all in sundry deniers and the like, by you having the position of CO2 causes AGW then are you in fact the denier here?

Coby, when are you going to start holding Wakefield accountable for his lies? He continually lies on this blog. It is a sacrilege to science to have to go through the scummy lies he posts and try and turn his vile dishonesty into something an intelligent reader can comprehend. He is an insult to scientists everywhere and I am most disappointed that you allow him unlimited scope to spread his lies and scurrilous statements. Please do something about this since he is driving honest and intelligent debate away from your site.

Here is a paper which shows he is lying about the Australian data. The reason it is a lie is that maybe the first time he made the statement it was just from ignorance or mistakes. He continued to make the same lies after being shown he was wrong. He has now made that statement 3 or 4 or more times, each time being shown that he is wrong. That is dishonesty at its worst.

Science has no time for dishonest scoundrels like Wakefield. This is a science blog.

Here is the Australian paper with the data which show Wakefield is lying:

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/~/media/publications/science/weather-ex… (Figure 2 and the following quote from that paper):

The 2004 east Australian heatwave occurred against a background of a long-term increase in the frequency of hot days and nights and a decrease in the number of cold days and nights in Australia (Figure 2; Collins et al. 2000; Nicholls and Collins, 2006) and more generally across the western Pacificâeastern Asia region (Manton et al., 2001). Griffith et al., (2005) reported almost universal increases in maximum and minimum mean temperature across the AsiaâPacific region, along with decreases in the frequency of cold nights and cool days. Most stations showed an increase in the frequency of hot days and warm nights, with only a few significant decreases.

He has also lied about Ottawa temperatures and other Canadian stations.

He is just a pathetic liar who is jerking us around for fun. It is time to stop his fun and banish him to a "cesspool" or "garbage can" thread of his own.

crakar

"....What is the difference between a solar driven climate change and natural variations, i would have thought they would be the same thing...."

Solar driven change is a subset of natural variations, so they are not the same thing.

And I am sorry - I can't even work out what your second point was. Could you try English please?

crakar

Seems I misjudged you:

"....No high as a kite, got some magic mushies from Mt Crawford forest.....by the way they seem to have a pest problem up there, doing anything this weekend?...."

Goodonya. Got any spare? I will trade you a dime bag for a couple of shrooms.

Sorry about the weekend though. I am already involved in a feral species survey for the Conservation Council.

Skip and Mandas, it is amazing how much you put words into other's mouths. Very typical of True Believer in the Faith who will never see anything but what the High Priests tell you.

Why don't you both email Schwartz.

Mandas,

It is really quite simple, you have stated in the past numerous times that CO2 will cause AGW and in turn AGW will devastate the flora and fauna you have also stated AGW will bring about the changing of climate and not for the better.

However in post 433 you clearly state that the climate response to CO2 forcing is unknown. Now without this knowledge how can you justify the claims you have which i detailed in the first paragragh?

By the way how is Trenberth and his plagiarism going or are going to ignore it?

Crakar

Now it makes sense â you ARE high (or a moron).

â.....It is really quite simple, you have stated in the past numerous times that CO2 will cause AGW and in turn AGW will devastate the flora and fauna you have also stated AGW will bring about the changing of climate and not for the better....However in post 433 you clearly state that the climate response to CO2 forcing is unknown. Now without this knowledge how can you justify the claims you have which i detailed in the first paragragh?...â

Firstly, it is not me that is stating that CO2 will cause AGW â it is thousands (yes â thousands) of physicists and atmospheric scientists. I just have any basis on which to doubt them, so I donât.

Second, post #433 was a cut and paste of something that Dick said (Canât you read? Didnât you see the quotation marks? Are you really that stupid?). So how about you have a go at him and ask him the same questions.

Hey Richard let me ask you a question about temps. All these believers here have got their knickers in a knot about a 0.6C rise in temps over the last century but the UAH data seen here:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/02/uah-update-for-january-2011-global-…

This shows us the global temp can vary by this much in 12 months, now i know this is only a 12 month period and is caused by natural variation and is not a long term trend yadda yadda yadda. However if the natural variation can vary by this amount in such a short time frame then how in hell can these guys claim they can detect a "agw signal" amongst all this noise?

If you read nothing else in this paper

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/idso-co2-and-earths-…

At least read the concluding remarks starting page 110.

Mandas in 433

Who said this

"....Dick's position is that CO2 forcing is unknown....I neer said that. I said the climate's response to CO2's forcing is unknown, which is what Schwartz is saying...." ?

Post 430 was in response to your scathing attack on Richard in 422.

Also i would have thought Skip would know what a water buffalo is but just in case i gave him an example of an animal he is familiar with that is of comparable size.

In regards to magic mushies and the like and misjudgment, i have said it a thousand times Mandas you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

By the way do you condone Trenberth for plagiarism or are you going to ignore it? In fact lets not forget the pearls of wisdom from Skip on this subject.

Jesus crakar - are you having a particularly dense day? Or are those shrooms that you are on fried your brain? Let's look at your latest diatribe shall we?

"....Mandas in 433....Who said this..."
"....Dick's position is that CO2 forcing is unknown....I neer said that. I said the climate's response to CO2's forcing is unknown, which is what Schwartz is saying...." ?

It was me who said:
"Dick's position is that CO2 forcing is unknown".
To which Dick replied:
"I neer said that. I said the climate's response to CO2's forcing is unknown, which is what Schwartz is saying."
To which I called Dick on another of his lies, and said:
"...Scroll up Dick (post #285). Where you said this:...In other words, they DO NOT know the levels of aerosol forcing, it could be large, it could be small. THEY DON'T KNOW, hence the amount of forcing from CO2 is also NOT KNOWN...."

Its pretty clear to everyone else here. How come you aren't getting it?

".....In regards to magic mushies and the like and misjudgment, i have said it a thousand times Mandas you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about....."

Well gee crakar, have you forgotten (already) that at post #431 you said this (in response to my question about you being drunk):
"....No high as a kite, got some magic mushies from Mt Crawford forest.....by the way they seem to have a pest problem up there, doing anything this weekend?..."

".....By the way do you condone Trenberth for plagiarism or are you going to ignore it?....."

Already said I condemn anyone who committs plagiarism. What part of that don't you understand? How many times does it take for you to get it when someone provides a direct answer to your questions?

IF Trenberth has committed plagiarism - and we have only the views of the morons at the SPPI to suggest he did - then I will condemn him for it. Can you provide proof he did?

Anything else you would like to ask while you are tripping?

For fuck sake Dick, when are you going to get it?

At 443 you said:

"....If you read nothing else in this paper
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/idso-co2-and-earths-…
At least read the concluding remarks starting page 110...."

I have read it, and you need to be aware of a couple of things:

That is NOT a paper. It is an opinion piece written for a lobby group funded by the fossil fuel industry. It contains NO science, and is not a valid expression of anything.

If you want to discuss science, you need to link to REAL science papers. I - and I suspect everyone else - will simply ignore this sort of crap.

If you don't believe me, why don't you email it to Judith Curry or any of the others who you claim you are going to email and have discussions with. I can 100% categorically guarantee that they will tell you that it is useless crap - just like I am telling you.

RW @429

What are 'natural internal climate cycles'? I have no idea what is meant by this and I suspect you don't either. What are these cycles, what is the evidence for them and how long are their periods?

If we knew all that now, we would have no need to study the climate more. Your commment is akin to creationists claiming that since we don't know the mechanisms of th Big Bang that God must have created the universe.

Are you saying that the current high temperatures are caused by a confluence of several 'internal natural climate cycles', that you have no idea of what these cycles could possibly be but that we have to take your word on trust? You are really flailing here. Oh, I forgot, you think that all the evidence for a warming world is the product of a massive global conspiracy.

You are also insinuating that the null hypothesis is humans are causing climate change.

I wish you would not use 'null hypothesis' in this sense. You probably think it makes you sound all sciency, but I've never heard a scientist use it like that.

We know that prior to 1975 these 'natural internal climate cycles' must have existed, have existed for millions, billions of years, and still exist today.

Who are 'we'? How can you possibly know that these cycles exist if you have not the slightest bit of evidence for them?

So far, every single climate or weather event claimed to be because of AGW has been shown to have a purely natural mechanism.

Complete nonsense.

Oh come on RS, if RW cant use SPPI then surely Wiki is out of the question.

"Are you saying that the current high temperatures are caused by a confluence of several 'internal natural climate cycles', that you have no idea of what these cycles could possibly be but that we have to take your word on trust? ...."

Can i have a go? We have just seen the Earths temp drop by about 0.6C in 12months. I suggest....well Spencer suggests this is a direct result of the La Nina.

What is interesting is that the shifts in temp over the last one hundreds are all in close correlation with the pacific decadal oscillation, bear with me.

When we have a +ve pdo we get strong El Ninos and weak La Ninas and the opposite is true when we have a -ve PDO. So the combination of these two events are the major drivers of our climate. The question is what causes these events?

WHen there is a +ve PDO the temp has risen, this has occured 3 times now and each rise is at the same rate before and after CO2 increased. When we have had -ve PDO's the temp has levelled off with maybe a slight cooling (why the warming is more than the cooling i do not know).

Anyway now we have a -ve pdo so we will get very weak El Ninos and very strong La Nina's and guess what RS since early 2000's when the -ve PDO kicked in the Earths temp has dropped again (slightly).

Now some suggest the temps will Plateau as they have before but you and your ilk ignore these facts and blame aerosols for both cooling and warming over 30 year periods and now you claim CO2 is doing the warming for the past 30 years, well and the cooling aswell in the snow drenched NH.

"I neer said that. I said the climate's response to CO2's forcing is unknown, which is what Schwartz is saying."
To which I called Dick on another of his lies, and said:
"...Scroll up Dick (post #285). Where you said this:...In other words, they DO NOT know the levels of aerosol forcing, it could be large, it could be small. THEY DON'T KNOW, hence the amount of forcing from CO2 is also NOT KNOWN...."

Both those statements are saying the same thing, what's your problem?

That is NOT a paper. It is an opinion piece written for a lobby group funded by the fossil fuel industry. It contains NO science, and is not a valid expression of anything.

Everything in that "opinion piece" is based on peer reviewed papers, or did you not see the list of them at the end? If you have issue with this, refute specifics with counter papers.

No Dick, NOTHING in that opinion piece is based on science. It is junk, pure and simple.

The concluding paragraph - which you asked us to read - is unmitigated right-wing, fundamenalist christian, fossil-industry funded, opinionated drivel that has no place in any scientific debate. Anyone who swallows that or even agrees with a minute element of it - is a fool.

"....We humans, as stewards of the earth, have got to get our priorities straight. We must do all that we possibly can, in order to preserve nature by helping to feed humanity and raise living standards the world over; and to do so successfully, we have got to let the air's CO2 content maintain its natural upward course for many decades to come. This is the prudent path we must pursue....."

But since you agree with it, then I guess you must - by definition - be a fool.

Are you saying that the current high temperatures are caused by a confluence of several 'internal natural climate cycles', that you have no idea of what these cycles could possibly be but that we have to take your word on trust? You are really flailing here. Oh, I forgot, you think that all the evidence for a warming world is the product of a massive global conspiracy.

Very loaded statement. First there is no "current high temperatures". There is an increase in the average of the global mean yearly temperatures, which is caused, not by summers getting hotter, but winters getting less cold.

Second, are you saying that the past 4.5 billion years of earth history there was never any 'internal natural climate cycles'?

Third, are you saying we know EVERTHING about how the climate system works such that we can eliminate any natural causes to this short (30 years) of average increase?

I wish you would not use 'null hypothesis' in this sense. You probably think it makes you sound all sciency, but I've never heard a scientist use it like that.

Oh, that is pure bullshit. Even Trenberth is trying to turn the null hypothesis on its head, using that very term.

Who are 'we'? How can you possibly know that these cycles exist if you have not the slightest bit of evidence for them?

And what the caused the warming from 1850-1945. What countered CO2 from 1945-1975 when that warming wasn't it was cooling.

So far, every single climate or weather event claimed to be because of AGW has been shown to have a purely natural mechanism.
Complete nonsense.

I said climate or weather event. What storm, hurricane, tornado, heat wave, snow storm, drought, flood, was caused by AGW? What trends in those are changing because of AGW?

Dick

Are you bipolar? Or just a moron? WTF is 449?

You said - very clearly for everyone to read, that CO2 forcing is unknown. You said it on numerous occasions.

Then you tried to change you mind. When I called you on it, you said that you NEVER claimed CO2 forcing was unknown, but it was the climate's RESPONSE to CO2 forcing that was unknown.

You are not getting away with your lying bullshit this time. You said it. It is written down. Everyone has read it, and everyone knows you are a liar.

IPF has been saying for months (remember your claim about windmills?). And now I am saying it.

Dick - you are a liar and you have no integrity. Your claims are bullshit with no scientific underpinning. You have made discredited claim after discredited claim. You have been called on errors time and time again, but have never had the balls to man up and admit them. You change your position on a regular basis, without any admission that your previous views were flawed (its 'unknown' natural variation; its the sun; its internal variation; WTF is next?).

The one scientist that you did email told you that you were wrong and that he just wasn't interested in debating with you. But you are so clueless you just didn't get it.

Despicable human being would be a pretty accurate description of you.

Mandas, you disagree with trying to fix th agriculture system to feed more people and protect more natural environments?

NOTHING in that opinion piece is based on science. It is junk, pure and simple.

So this is not based on science:

"Petit et al. (1999) found that peak temperatures experienced during the current interglacial, or Holocene, have been the coldest of the last five interglacials, with the four interglacials that preceded the Holocene being, on average, more than 2°C warmer"

This is not based on science:

"Ljungqvist (2010) developed a 2000-year temperature history of the extra-tropical portion of the Northern Hemisphere (i.e., that part covering the latitudinal range 30-90°N) based on 30 temperature-sensitive proxy records with annual to multi-decadal resolution, including two historical documentary records, three marine sediment records, five lake sediment records, three speleothem δ18O records, two ice-core δ18O records, four varved thickness sediment records, five tree-ring width records, five tree-ring maximum latewood density records, and one δ13C tree-ring record, but not including tree-ring width records from arid and semi-arid regions, since they may have been affected by drought stress, and they may not show a linear response to warming if higher summer temperatures also reduce the availability of water, as suggested by the work of DâArrigo et al. (2006) and Loehle (2009)."

Niether is this:

"Chylek et al. (2006) studied two century-long temperature records from southern coastal Greenland -- Godthab Nuuk on the west and Ammassalik on the east -- both of which are close to 64°N latitude, concentrating on the period 1915-2005. And in doing so, as they describe it, they determined that âtwo periods of intense warming (1995-2005 and 1920-1930) are clearly visible in the Godthab Nuuk and Ammassalik temperature records.â

If this not science in your mind I can see why you have swallowed the AGW coolaid.

You said - very clearly for everyone to read, that CO2 forcing is unknown. You said it on numerous occasions.

The forcing on the system by CO2 and the climate's response to CO2 levels is the same thing. Fact is, we DO NOT know how much influence CO2 has on the climate, Schwartz is clear on that, including stating the IPCC is over stating CO2's forcing.

Dick

"....The forcing on the system by CO2 and the climate's response to CO2 levels is the same thing...."

If you think that then there is nothing more I can say. You are a fool.

So much for 2010 being the hottest on record, using the ACTUAL data, so any attempt to dismiss this because of the source is nothing but shooting the messenger. Refute the data if you disagree, but none of you will, you will just insult the site a usual.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/03/the-temperature-claims-of-2010/

Gee. Who to believe?

NASA and NOAA, or these fuckwits:
http://www.thegwpf.org/

What part of 'link to science' don't you understand Dick? You have no idea do you? Reputable scientific organisations post actual science and Dick won't believe them (he claims he is a skeptic). But a lobby group publishes uneducated opinion pieces on a denialist website, he swallows it without any criticism whatsoever. What happened to your skepticism Dick? Or is that only reserved for the 'other side'?

Your true colours are showing Dick. And you have the gall to accuse us of drinking the coolaid and being religious. Fuck you are a hypocritical idiot.

And do you remember the discussion we had about the meteorological year running from the beginning of December to the end of November? Apparently not, otherwise you would have seen through the idiocy that you just linked to.

".....Refute the data if you disagree, but none of you will, you will just insult the site a usual..."

I just did both. So how about YOU try and refute the NASA and NOAA data? Oh that's right, I remember how you refuted that from before - you said you wouldn't believe anything that 'socialist' (Hansen) said.

So I guess its ok for YOU to base your criticisms solely on an ad hominem attack without any evidence, but you say we are not permitted to attack the credibility of an organisation which - to be frank - doesn't have any to start with.

Good job Dick! Your hypocracy is pretty breathtaking isn't it?

First there is no "current high temperatures". There is an increase in the average of the global mean yearly temperatures, which is caused, not by summers getting hotter, but winters getting less cold.

Study these data.

Second, are you saying that the past 4.5 billion years of earth history there was never any 'internal natural climate cycles'?

As I said earlier, I do not know what you mean by 'internal natural climate cycles' so how could I possibly express an opinion on whether or not they existed?

Third, are you saying we know EVERTHING about how the climate system works such that we can eliminate any natural causes to this short (30 years) of average increase?

I would never say anything so stupid.

And what the caused the warming from 1850-1945. What countered CO2 from 1945-1975 when that warming wasn't it was cooling.

Check out what main-stream climatologists are saying about it. You claim it is mysterious 'internal natural climate cycles', of which you can tell us nothing. Do you not realize how vacuous this is?

I said climate or weather event. What storm, hurricane, tornado, heat wave, snow storm, drought, flood, was caused by AGW? What trends in those are changing because of AGW?

Ah! Moving the goalposts, I see.

This is simply beyond belief.

I have a way of thinking about dogmatism/self-deception that I've been working on in between (and sometimes during) benders: Its an addictive form of pseudo-empowerment. As long as the the tangible costs of self-deception are low (this is crucial) the psychic rewards are relatively high. If there is no tangible consequence to yourself for the lie except being proven wrong, there is no problem, because you can just lie to yourself *again* and reconfigure your defeat as a victory. The process can be infinitely looped and--this is key--*will* be looped because its *rewarding* to the dogmatist.

In other words, dogmatism does not just reflect innate personality traits (stubbornness, lack of basic wit, etc.) but is also an acquired addiction. And in some ways its a great addiction to have: the addict can produce his own narcotic at will; whenever necessary, he just lies to himself.

If I am right, then Richard is a strong case study. No one could possibly commit so many blunders and be caught in so many inanities and keep coming back for more unless he was intoxicated with self-deception.

Get caught citing a source that specifically refutes you?

Just lie: Its not important; if someone mentions it, just ignore it. Tell yourself its nothing and move on to another source. Repeat as necessary.

Get caught contradicting yourself? Just lie: Really your argument makes sense if only the mental midgets about you could see it.

Get caught making a stupid, utterly ridiculous argument? Just lie: Really your argument is quite clever. Who's to say otherwise? Did making the argument cause physical pain or loss of income?

Also, even though the Notorious B.I.G. cautioned in "The 10 Crack Commandments"

four
i know you heard this before
never get high
on your own supply

that rule probably doesn't apply to someone addicted to self-deception. The drug in question is theoretically limitless, and specific doses can be reused as needed.

I mean, I'm more than half serious about this. Richard, in my model, is a self-deceptionholic. Most of us would be shamed to tears with his track record of absurdity, because we *feel the sting* of being overtly wrong. He doesn't, because all he has to do is get a fix of the "lie high".

Thats why this discussion will never end. He's more than stubborn and ignorant. He's getting *off* on this. He's getting high. He's addicted.

> And what the caused the warming from 1850-1945.

Increased temperatures globally.

> What countered CO2 from 1945-1975 when that warming wasn't it was cooling.

soot in the sky blocking out sunlight. You know, just like when clouds are out in the daytime, it's colder than under direct sunlight.

But at least this shows that some progress is being made. At least now it's accepted that CO2 causes warming.

> What storm, hurricane, tornado, heat wave, snow storm, drought, flood, was caused by AGW? What trends in those are changing because of AGW?

Every storm since humans existed.

Pre 1960, a very (very) small contribution, but we contributed. Post 1960, noticeable and increasing with time.

A good example of human causes of drought is the Great Midwest Dustbowl. Some americans have history lessons on it.

> Fact is, we DO NOT know how much influence CO2 has on the climate

Uh, we do.

2-4.5C per doubling of CO2.

2-4.5C per doubling of CO2.

You dont understand the difference between THEORY and reality. That is a hypothesis of the theory, but as Schwartz acknowledges we DO NOT know what actually happens in the system. The fact you note a RANGE shows we do not know what the influences are. Clealy that influence did not increase temps 1945-1975 and has not increased temps since 2000, nor manifests as increaces in summer temps.

A good example of human causes of drought is the Great Midwest Dustbowl. Some americans have history lessons on it.

Wow, you really hold up to your name. You are a nice example of a True Believer. All storms are because of us, unbelievable. Hey, Skip, mandas, do you agree with this? You willing to chastise WOW as much as you do me for these comments?

NASA and NOAA, or these fuckwits:

Have a reading problem mandas? The data the "fuckwits" used came from there. As predicted, you can't see past your hatred.

The non increase in temps since 2000 can be seen here:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2000/to/plot/wti/from:2000/to…

Study these data.

Averages of yearly means cannot tell you what summers did every day for each year. Cannot tell you what Winters did each year. You've been here long enough, you should know by now that the averages means nothing without the context of what is going on with TMax and Tmin which is what is used to calculate those averages.

Study these data from around the world http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/europe.htm (other continents on the left). Download stations and look at what the daily TMax is doing in the summer.

As I said earlier, I do not know what you mean by 'internal natural climate cycles' so how could I possibly express an opinion on whether or not they existed?

I guess you have never heard of El Nino, or PDO, etc?

Check out what main-stream climatologists are saying about it.

Yep, they are saying that increase was natural due to internal cycles. Nothing to do with CO2. It's interesting all you True Believers avoid answering that question.

Ah! Moving the goalposts, I see.

Nope you misread what I said. So you can't answer the question can you, or do you agree with WOW?

The non increase in temps since 2000 can be seen here:

Oh, dear, but this one doesn't it's FLAT

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/to/plot/hadcrut3…

The world couldn't have done both, so ONE of them MUST be wrong.

Poor attempt to cherry pick.

Let's go back to 1998 shall we?

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to/plot/hadcrut3…

or

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1998/to/plot/wti/from:1998/to…

So much for 2010 being the "hottest".

I'm cherry picking by using the date you said, and all available data sets?

I feel like if we were debating whether an object was an apple or an orange you'd object that it didn't have four legs.

High as a kite . . . .

Let's go back to 1998 shall we?

Brilliant, Richard.

You just cited a link that shows a warming trend since 1998 no matter which dataset is used.

AGW theory does not stand or fall on whether 2010 is *the* hottest. The data show that beyond all doubt it is *one* of the hottest.

You will now do a few lines of self-deception and tell yourself otherwise.

Don't forget to blow your nose.

I'm cherry picking by using the date you said, and all available data sets?

No you picked a dataset that fit what you wanted.

How about this set, different again.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1998/to/plot/gistemp/from…

The planet cannot have done all these, it did ONE, so which one is correct?

The trend is "up" only because 1999-2001 was a cool period.

Skip, your silence on Wow's comments mean you agree with it?

blueshift, you were all over me for not showing "proper" statistics, where is the "proper" statistics for this data that makes you think the trend is increasing?

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2000/to/plot/wti/from:2000/to…

Where is the R2 and the 95% confidence value? You accept this trend without it, but not mine. Nice double standard.

As I said earlier, I do not know what you mean by 'internal natural climate cycles' so how could I possibly express an opinion on whether or not they existed?

I guess you have never heard of El Nino, or PDO, etc?

Please could you explain how El Nino causes a 30-year increase in global temperatures.

Yep, they are saying that increase was natural due to internal cycles. Nothing to do with CO2.

Citations, please.

"where is the "proper" statistics for this data that makes you think the trend is increasing?"

There is none. The idea of a trend over such short periods is pure nonsense. Which is why I in fact did not say that temps were increasing over that period.

But of course, it doesn't matter what I say. I tell you the object in my hand is an orange because it is segmented, sweet and had a rind. You reply that it can't perform CPR.

What you said in response to Wow was

All storms are because of us, unbelievable. Hey, Skip, mandas, do you agree with this?

Another Wakefield straw man. Keep snorting self-deceit, Richard. The cause of the dust bowl soil loss *was* by humans. The drought was not, no.

I have answered your question. I suspect Wow meant my rewording, which would simply illustrate the generally valid point that we *can* effect our environment destructively, whether through AGW or *other means*.

If Wow really thinks humans caused the drought that proceeded the dust bowl, then no, he is wrong.

I answered your question, Richard.

Now when will you answer mine?

What have you learned from Judith lately? Still think she agrees with your fundamental views regarding Canadian station data? AGW theory?

Oh, right. You demand an answer to your stupid, minor question regarding Wow, but you only answer questions you can't handle "in your own time".

Sniff.

Please could you explain how El Nino causes a 30-year increase in global temperatures.

You asked what internal cycles were, I gave two. I never said El Nino caused a 30 year increase in averge of the yearly mean temperture (there is no such thing as a "global temperature").

https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/kswanson/www/publications/2008GL037022_all…

Explains the past 30 years, and the 1850-1945 warm trend. Or do you honestly think a less than 1% of today's emissions caused us to move out of the little ice age?

The idea of a trend over such short periods is pure nonsense.

That statement also applies to the last 40 years of supposed "warming" projected to continue for the next 100. How many years does it take to be no longer nonsense?

Skip, I think you are onto something, when you said

"Richard, in my model, is a self-deceptionholic. Most of us would be shamed to tears with his track record of absurdity, because we *feel the sting* of being overtly wrong. He doesn't, because all he has to do is get a fix of the "lie high".

If you look back to the beginning of the GAS thread Richard sounds almost reasonable, at least to a non-scientist reading his material. However, by now his writing has deteriorated to the point that 'spittle-flecked' is among the first adjectives that comes to mind. The number of typographical errors has increased significantly and his ability to explain his position seems to have decreased. The smokescreen of irrelevant, unread and misquoted links is churned out even faster and with less regard for accuracy.

It's almost as if each time he's proven wrong his connection to reality and the norms of rational discussion diminishes and his emotional commitment to his beliefs strengthens.

It's truly been fascinating to watch.

That statement ["the idea of a trend over such short periods"] also applies to the last 40 years of supposed "warming" projected to continue for the next 100. How many years does it take to be no longer nonsense?

Simultaneously incoherent and absurd: "Given my nonsensical premise, what a puzzle we all face."

Blueshift has you truly pegged in your ignorance of statistical and substantive significance, Richard.

Wakefield is a crank. See here for a very good description of crankiness and how to identify one:

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/05/crank_howto.php

Here are a few choice quotes from that article:

Step one: Develop a wacky idea: The thing you deny has to be something that's so obvious to the majority of people that when they hear it, they want to hear an explanation, if only because it's clearly going to be nuts. This is critical to all successive steps. If you don't say something outrageous and contrarian, no one will ever see you as the iconoclastic genius that you are.

The presentation of this idea is also important. Remember that really important people with really important ideas don't have time for grammar or spelling

if you must cite anything, either cite your own name or work, or that of another crank

It's also important during your research of this new idea, never to be worried about preserving the original intent of other authors you quote or cite. If any words they say can be construed to mean something else, that's ok too

Step two: Disseminate your idea: These days, technology has provided us what is known as a blog. Your target audience, despite the improvements in technology, are just as likely not to care as before. Less so, because now they don't even have to experience the inconvenience of opening your crank letter or having to file your crank book. The secret to generating traffic then is exploiting the fact that the internet gives access to all sorts of people who will be irritated by your mere presence. Leave comments in others blogs that describe how you have solved this big problem, where everyone else has failed. Ideally, get a minion to constantly extol your virtues and genius.

Step three: (Not) Responding to Criticism: All you have to do is ignore anything that contradicts your theory, nitpick others' arguments, force them to explain themselves, accuse them of lying, accuse them of conspiring against the truth, exhaust them with dumps of links or citations, repeat yourself

The author must have had Wakefield in mind when he wrote the article.

Holy Shit!

Thats our boy!

Opus, if you are so smart let's see if you can show us all what climate or weather events have changed in the past 50 years because of CO2. Show us that storms have increased, show us there are more heat waves, show us the more hurricanes occurring. You won't. You won't because you can't. You can't because they arenât changing. With all your bluster, all your high and mighty claims about me, you have nothing holding your precious faith. The Emperor has no clothes.

The Emperor has no clothes.

A dangerous metaphor to embrace, Richard. The Emperor isn't the one showing his ass.

I did notice that you took extra care with the editing in your last post, Richard. You might have been stung by Opus's observation of the general deterioration of it from your first posts until now.

If you're sensitive about that, don't be. I don't think anyone here thinks you're dumb--profoundly self-deceived, maybe--but not dumb.

Richard Wakefield said:

"If you read nothing else in this paper

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/idso-co2-and-earths-…

At least read the concluding remarks starting page 110."

That paper comes from an outfit that has accepted over $100,000 from Exxon-Mobil alone. Interesting that you tout it so highly, Richard.

From http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3…:

ExxonMobil funds the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Tempe, Arizona.

This center, which has been closely affiliated with Western Fuels Association, has Craig Idso as president, Keith E. Idso as vice president and Sherwood Idso as its scientific advisor.

Sherwood Idso created a $250,000 video for Western Fuels in 1991 titled "The Greening of Planet Earth" which touts the virtues of global warming. The highly misleading video â which claims that global warming is good for humanity was paid for by the coal industry and was the subject of Congressional Hearings in the early 1990s.

Keith E. Idso has published the results of the center's work, among other places, in the John Birch Society magazine, "The New American."

While The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide has tried to distance itself from the coal industry and Western Fuels Association, a look at the Western Fuels website indicates otherwise.

Documentation for ExxonMobil's funding of the "greenhouse skeptics" was found on the ExxonMobil website.

In early fall, 2001, ExxonMobil removed this page from their website.

From wikipedia:

"The Center has a policy of not disclosing its funding sources because "ideas about the way the world of nature operates should stand or fall on their own merits, irrespective of the source of support for the person or organization that produces them."["

Thanks for the tip, Richard. I will be reading nothing else - from you.

That paper comes from an outfit that has accepted over $100,000 from Exxon-Mobil alone.

get your facts right

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_the_Study_of_Carb…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and…

So fundingby theoil industry makes theorscience references invalid? How about funding from left-wing political lobby organizations, that's OK?

Which "fact" did ginger not get "right" according to your links?

Which research relied upon by AGW theorists is potentially compromised by "left-wing political lobby organizations"?

What does Judith Curry think of your CSCDGC piece--along with all the questions you should be posing her by now ("in your own time", of course)?

Richard:
Note, if you will, my phrase "to a non-scientist." That's referring to me. My comment was based largely on the tone of your responses and the tactics you used in responding. If you re-read my brief post you will note that I did not address the substance of any of your claims; those have been well-handled by commenters with far more knowledge of the specifics than I. However, your response is right in line with what I would have expected, given the trajectory of your deterioration. It looks almost as if yet another link between Richard & reality disappeared when you read my post.

In short: You couldn't have done a better job of proving my point if you'd devoted a few hours to crafting a response.

However, I must say that the material Ian quoted does a far better job than I of capturing the essence of your tactics.

Which research relied upon by AGW theorists is potentially compromised by "left-wing political lobby organizations"?

Would you agree that such a science organization would be compromized by a left-wing organization to the same degree that co2science is by Exxon?

Note, if you will, my phrase "to a non-scientist." That's referring to me.

I guess that makes you a Blind True Believer then since you don't bother to verify AGW claims.

Dick

You have finally said something that I agree with, and which I think it is important that we both follow:

".....So fundingby theoil industry makes theorscience references invalid? How about funding from left-wing political lobby organizations, that's OK?...."

Apart from the difficulty in reading the run together gibberish, you are 100% correct there Dick. No - it's NOT ok to use the work of organisations or individuals which receive funding from left-wing political lobby groups.

None of us should put any credence on any work which has been produced from an organisation where there may be a conflict of interest in the results - right wing, left wing, industry funded, etc.

So, I make this promise - I will not ever link to, or reference, work which has the perceived or actual potential for compromise due to funding or because of politics. In other words, I will only link to work which has been peer reviewed, or which has been produced by reputable, public, scientific organisations. I will not ever reference or claim validity for anything which has been produced by private organisations which receive funding from sources which may compromise the integrity of those producing the work. This includes organisations such as WWF, Greenpeace or private think-tanks which may have a political perspective or which receive funding from lobby groups or an industry which has a vested interest in the outcomes of the research.

Fair enough Dick?

Your turn!

No - it's NOT ok to use the work of organisations or individuals which receive funding from left-wing political lobby groups.

From WhoIs:

Domain ID:D105219760-LROR
Domain Name:REALCLIMATE.ORG
Created On:19-Nov-2004 16:39:03 UTC
Last Updated On:13-Jan-2011 00:25:24 UTC
Expiration Date:19-Nov-2015 16:39:03 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Active Registrar, Inc. (R1709-LROR)
Status:OK
Registrant ID:ACTR1011142017
Registrant Name:Betsy Ensley
Registrant Organization:Environmental Media Services

Look up that organization.

The sloppy typing is because I'm not used to this small keyboard on my new laptop.

RW @480

You asked what internal cycles were, I gave two. I never said El Nino caused a 30 year increase in averge of the yearly mean temperture (there is no such thing as a "global temperature").

Stop being evasive. You know perfectly well that I was asking what the 'internal climate cycles' were in the context of the recent (multi-decadal) global warming trend.

Did you actually read the link you provided?

While in the observations such breaks in temperature trend are clearly superimposed upon a century time-scale warming presumably due to anthropogenic forcing, those breaks result in significant departures from that warming over time periods spanning multiple decades.

Read and understand.

R. Simons:

No, Richard did not.

If you want to see a reliving of this embarrassment for Richard look at his silly post on 180 where he shows:

(a) He didn't read carefully read *either* Tsonis paper.
(b) He was not even *aware* there were two separate ones for dozens of posts (even though he had *posted* both.)
(c) He did all this as part of a backfiring attempt to refute Mandas as misquoting the paper.
(d) He later faced the facts and conceded but the damage was done: When he challenged Mandas's direct quote (the one you just quoted) he thought Mandas was pulling a fast one with the wording.

Why? Because Richard knew damn well the quote fundamentally refuted his position. Otherwise he wouldn't have fought so hard to deny it said that.

Did you actually read the link you provided?

You must have missed this discussion previous. The fact is, they are claiming that there are cycles of variation which overides CO2 forcing, including from 2000 onwards. Again, it's about the DEGREE with which CO2 influences the climate. The IPCC claim is 90% of the last 40 years, this research and that of Schwartz challenges that claim. It's less than 90%, likely MUCH less.

Richard Wakefield said:

"Would you agree that such a science organization would be compromized by a left-wing organization to the same degree that co2science is by Exxon?"

What are you going on about? Of course there is a difference.

Are you seriously trying to conflate a website disseminating peer-reviewed research by independent scientists working for the public interest using vetted public research monies...

versus...

a biased opinion piece by a deceptive group of brothers, who earn their living producing politically-motivated propaganda, and are paid by a consortium of enormous corporations whose sole interest is in protecting their profits by manipulating a disinformation campaign?

Please - if you can find a left-wing organization that has a financial interest to protect from AGW and can be shown to have compromised research results for private profit - as opposed to working for the public interest - please share it with me.

And then, please document any sort of parity in disinformation fundings.

Otherwise - STFU about theoretical left-wing organizations theoretically compromising research.