JoNova
A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).
Jo appreciates your support to help her keep doing what she does. This blog is funded by donations. Thanks!
Follow Jo's Tweets To report "lost" comments or defamatory and offensive remarks, email the moderators at: support AT joannenova.com.au
Statistics
I see the climate has changed. A beautiful sunny day in Brisbane, sitting on the back deck with a Chang…or three.
60
Re the missing heat. Checkout overall OLWIR trends from data at NOAA.
After downloading a bunch of NetCDF files, converting them to read them in Excel, and integrating over the globe, you can see it has been doing much the same as it always has, even sneaking upward a bit, indicating the atmosphere’s transparency is pretty much the same, or a little clearer.
So while co2 has gone up, h2o has come down. Check out h20 trends at Forrest Mimms site. This all points to the missing heat going back out to space as it always has.
What else could possibly go wrong for the ipcc. The hotspot is missing. We are cooling. The extra warming caused by the extra h2o feedback presumed by the models is not there. Perhaps the worst thing might be more people understanding and making a complaint about having their pockets picked to pay for this huge investment into junk science.
160
A recent study shows that cloud cover has indeed been falling at a rate of 0.4%/decade over 39 years.
This is quite contrary to both the effect of CO2 (more evaporation) and the required “forcing” for the alarmist warming.
70
Does this then mean that AGW’s effect on clouds is a net positive feedback? Considering that due to all the natural forcings over the period temps should have fallen but instead they have risen substantially.
As to water vapor in the atmosphere the science I have read shows that it has indeed risen at the rate of 0.41 kg/m2 per decade since 1988.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.full.pdf
224
Reduced cloud cover means warmer oceans resulting in increased partial pressure of water… i.e. more water vapour in the atmosphere.
That not only a plausible case-effect chain. It’s directly observable.
Santer, et al did not correct their model for insolation.
Quoting a figure of 0.41 kg/m²/decade out of context shows that you haven’t bothered trying to understand the mechanisms of the physical processes. Nor read deeply into the paper to see that the figure is with a 95% confidence interval of ±0.21 kg/m² per decade. No small wonder that the authors wrote: «The observed increase in W over the global ocean, as inferred since late 1987 from microwave radiometry measurements made with the satellite-borne Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I), is broadly consistent with theory.»
To me, the 95% confidence interval may be interpreted as “keep your wallet in your pocket and maintain vigilance for pick-pockets”.
It’s a rubbish figure by itself; completely meaningless out of the context which is the additional moisture in the column of air above the oceans. A column of air which contains all that evil anthroprogenic CO2; so that water vapour stops more CO2 from grabbing more infra-red photons on their way back into the cold, darkness of space.
To get an idea of the scale, one must ask: How tall is that column?
This has to be asked because the units of kg/m² don’t make much sense at all without knowing the column height to determine the volume and therefore the total vapour mass change.
Investigations show that SSM/I data are in different units and dimension. Vapour is reported in mm; a figure derived from measurements plugged into a model or ten.
Santer’s paper doesn’t say what column height they used. It’d be such an easy thing to include. Do we guess the height? Is it 1km, 10km or 100km? Why make readers dig through multiple layers of papers to work it out?
Moreover, it really doesn’t help to determine the significance of the results as the authors also omit any mention of the total water vapour content in that column. The reader can’t tell if it’s 10 ppb or 10%.
130
Don’t bother Bernd. Michael does not comprehend that reduced cloud cover means more glorious sunshine upon the earth and warming. He has never stepped out of his yurt to realise something so basic and simple. Instead he will demand peer reviewed science for you to prove it.
100
What do you mean with this statement? Is 95% not good enough for you? Backslider is also correct, there is an awful lot of certainty opinion here while all peer reviewed science is denigrated. Backslider will regularly make claims without reference and with certainty claiming that his basic thought experiments trump the scientific method. Well here is a common-sense approach that makes perfect sense in logic and is even backed up by the science, data, experiments and observations. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, greenhouse gases cause warming. We have increased the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by 40%. Therefore the warming we are experiencing in light of all the natural cooling factors, especially the directly measurable ones in the last 60 years, shows that the warming over the last 60 years is due mainly to increasing greenhouse gases. Makes sense and is backed up by the science.
Surely if Santers paper has any real fundamental errors in it that would affect his conclusions then there must be a peer reviewed rebuttal paper out there somewhere, can you provide the reference please. Science is not opinion it proceeds by making a hypothesis, developing it into a theory and investigating and proving that theory through data, experiment, investigation etc and putting that out to the scientific community. That community then examines it and improves or disproves it through similar efforts and in that way science is improved and self correcting. Instant experts that think there opinion trumps science and should be automatically accepted as correct and fact is a large problem of our internet age, and is hampering progress.
218
” and is hampering progress”
Yes the AGW meme IS hampering progress.
The utter WASTE of funds that could have been spent on something worthwhile is a real shame.
81
Oh dear, Michael is back, polluting a blog thread with his dogmatic and unfounded opinions.
The problem is not the 95% but the size of the figure it refers two namely ±0.21 kg/m². That means Santer is only 95% that his 0.41 kg/m² figure is some where between 0.20 and 0.62. In engineering trying finding a nut to connect to a bolt of 0.41mm with that sort of tolerance and you will have a problem.
The issue is even worse. This will be a bayesian estimate. It relies mostly on the opinion of the author. The spread is 100% of the value. Such nice uncertainty spreads are a common feature in climatology, but not in the analysis of actual chaotic data. Another example is uncertainty bands on the radiative forcing components in AR4.
80
Refreshingly clear Mr Bean counter.
40
‘Only 95%’ Are you serious?
The global planet with its massive interconnected natural and anthropogenic forces and variations is not an engineering project. Equally ridiculous and shows just how out of touch with reality your arguments are.
012
SOMEONE here is definitely out of touch with reality, Michael.
You will have to guess. It isn’t manicbeancounter, and it isn’t memory vault, and it isn’t me. Or Roy either, or Backslider, or Kinky Keith.
HINT:
Try the initials MTR!
50
So you seriously think a comment like ‘only 95%’ is valid and realistic and not trying to minimise the reality of a figure like that? Also you think that comparing the natural world with its interconnected and unpredictable forsces such as ocean cycles, volcanos, orbital variations, solar etc etc to a nut and bolt engineering problem is realistic?
Seriously take an honest look at yourselves.
09
Michael,
It might be acceptable to your low standards to have a 95% confidence interval of a magnitude equivalent to 100% of the figure quoted. It is not for me. But what you ignore is the way the 95% confidence interval was derived. You are correct in that climate is incredibly complex. A consequence of that is that figures do not fall out well. It is the same in accountancy. Figures that fall together neatly are the ones most suspect. This is most true of the size of the error bars. 95% confidence in a truly random and large sample drawn from a population is a credible benchmark. But this 95% confidence is based on subjective estimates. This is shown by the magnitude of the confidence interval being the same as the figure quoted to 2 significant figures.
On the same basis the 95% confidence that global warming is mostly down to humans that the IPCC is proclaiming is a subjective estimate.
30
As I said Bernd. Michael wants peer reviewed science to prove that when the sun is able to shine directly upon the earth’s surface due to the absence of cloud it will get warmer.
Don’t you just love how warmists like to throw false numbers around, huh?
Michael. We have NOT “increased the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by 40%”. That is totally and utterly false! CO2 has risen in the atmosphere by 40%, some of that due to human emissions of CO2, however nobody has been able to put a firm number on exactly how much of that is due to human emissions.
I know that you believe that ALL of it is due to human emissions, but will will just ignore that falsehood (it doesn’t matter):
Considering that water vapor, a GHG, is at around 40,000ppm, that would mean that the rise in GHGs from CO2 is around 0.4%, not your outrageous 40%.
Water vapor, the primary greenhouse gas has fallen. This article also explains the 90’s warming as due to a rise in water vapor, not CO2.
40
Thats a fact, I have shown you the calculations and provided sources. Humans emit CO2, the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is half of what we emit with most of the other half going into the oceans lowering its ph. This is not in dispute, you have been proven wrong before, do not compound your errors. Yes greenhouse gases was a mistake, I do mean CO2. Obviously natures sinks have actually been soaking up some of our emissions. This means that the net effect must be from man 100%.
Scientists are aware of water vapor. CO2 is the control knob that increases or decreases near surface water vapor. This article was suggesting that the drop in stratosphere water vapor contributed to the slowdown in warming but are not sure why yet.
02
Yeah, right, (SNIPPED).CTS
.
I’m beginning to understand your parallel universe, (SNIPPED).
Nitrogen is the accelerator pedal, Oxygen is the brake, Methane is the windscreen wiper control, and Argon is the little light on the dashboard that blinks when you are low on gas.
.
There’s only one “knob” around here, (SNIPPED), and you seem to be firmly in “control” of it.
Perhaps if you could bring yourself to let go of it for a while, you might actually learn something.
21
.
I am at a total loss to understand all the (SNIPP)ing, Mod.
Michael continuously bombs old threads with his self-proclaimed “superior” knowledge.
This can only be described as an ongoing attempt to “bait” us into one-sided arguments.
Michael considers himself a veritable expert at this “baiting” process (count his posts).
That is, he considers himself The Master Baiter of this site.
I have only been paying due respect to his own self-aggrandisement.
.
Honestly, Mod, I am at a loss to understand what other possible connotation you could put on my title for Michael.
Is there are hidden meaning, known to you youngies, but lost on us oldies?
Some guidance please?
20
You completely ignore Henry’s law. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is entirely dependent upon ocean temperatures, not on how much humans emit. Learn some real science sonny.
Right Taco Boy, so you will admit then that GHGs have risen at most by a WHOPPING 0.4%, but that’s only if we don’t take into account the known fall in water vapor. We can also consider the fall in cloud cover…..
What “net effect”? Warming? You have not provided any scientific evidence which shows that a small change in GHGs has caused global warming. You have not shown that CO2 has caused global warming. At best you have assumed this (you have already admitted to making assumptions).
One would hop so Taco Boy, however the ones in that alarmist camp appear very happy to ignore it as much as possible.
That is the most outrageous and idiotic statement I have seen you make to date (and that is saying something!). I demand some very solid peer reviewed science from you on that one (I know you won’t find any).
Are you not even a little embarrassed?
10
No I haven’t and no it is not. That is a ridiculous statement to make, ‘entirely dependent’?, seriously? There are many ways for CO2 to get into the oceans as well as come out and the law of partial pressures will show you that as the CO2 increases in the atmosphere it increases the amount pushing down into the oceans. There are many lines of evidence to show that you are talking scientific nonsense…
1. Mans emissions are about 30 billion tons py
2. The atmospheres concentration in CO2 is increasing by about 15 billion tons py
Therefore net affect of mans emissions is to increase CO2 in the atmosphere with the oceans and other elements of the biosphere taking up about half of it. Fact sonny, simple undeniable logic.
Also…
3. The oceans ph is falling due to CO2 dissolving into the ocean
4. The oceans surface temps vary widely, sometimes cooling, sometimes warming but CO2’s increase in the atmosphere has been constant, in fact even you query that the oceans are evn currently warming at the moment.
So under many lines of basic evidence and accountability (and many more) it is ludicrous and misleading to not accept that Mans emissions are the cause for most if not all of the increase in CO2. Can I get a ruling from Jo here to stop another round of seriously pathetic argument? Do you Jo, accept that mans emissions are the cause for the CO2 increase? and if not, where did it go and where is the evidence, science and data?
[I do believe Jo has other business to deal with. Sorry that she can’t answer to your pathetic bleating for mod intervention.] ED
02
Actually it’s real easy to prevent more pathetic argument. Bugger off. Done. Easy.
But you won’t, because you have some sort of obsessive disorder which keeps you coming back, again and again.
Amusing really.
10
That CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that greenhouse gases cause warming is scientifically accepted on this site, have you read Jo’s book? The argument is how much.
My evidence has been elucidated many times and you have been unable to show another source for the majority scientifically accepted view. For the period we have the most reliable and accurate information and data, the last 60 years, the planet has warmed 0.6 deg c. Over this time frame measurements of ENSO have evened out, solar has been flat to falling and major volcanos have exhibited major cooling pressures (about 0.6 according to you, and over a significant time frame), so how do YOU explain all the warming that has overwhelmed these natural cooling factors by such a large amount?
Have been given before. Considering you failure to rpovide any corroborating peer reviewed science for your claims and that even when you do you misrepresent it and it does not support you , your demands are a bit insincere
[Since you have given this before, it should be very easy for you to provide it now. Please do the courteous thing and cut and paste the requested information. Blogs get very boring when the comments become tennis balls with no substance and much insults] ED
05
And do you know what the partitioning ratio is according to Henry’s law? It’s 50:1 Taco boy. I can see that math is not your strong point, so let me help:
1. Mans emissions are about 30 billion tons py. This means that 98% of anthropogenic CO2 will be absorbed by the oceans, leaving only 2% in the atmosphere. That’s 0.6 gigatonnes or around 0.076ppmv. Thus human emissions only account for about 3.8% of the overall increase in CO2 each year.
So under many lines of basic evidence and accountability (and many more) it is ludicrous and misleading say that Mans emissions are the cause for most if not all of the increase in CO2.
10
This is rubbish, I am not interested in your back of the envelope calculations not based in reality. Provide a scientific source of the calculations and some actual measured data. Reality does not match what you have put here. last time we went through CO2 calculations you showed you did not have a clue. I provided the calculations, where I got any conversion factors from and corroborating scientific source and data.
Your calcs are simplistic and missing the whole picture
04
I can assure you Taco boy that Henry’s Law is an established law of science and firmly entrenched in reality. If you wish to dispute it then you are pushing shit up hill.
Would you like to have a debate about the mythical “Revelle Effect”? That would be interesting………….
20
Do tell us all Michael “AGW’s effect on clouds” including your peer reviewed science to back it up.
Please list ALL the natural forcings Michael, along with the peer reviewed science to back it up.
The NASA Water Vapor Project (NVAP) unfortunately disagrees with you and your warmist scientists who only looked at SSM/I (oceans only).
80
You are the one that keeps telling me that the increase in warming is due to clouds. I have continuously asked you for your science and the cause for the decrease in cloud cover. Something you surely must have to make such claims (or are they mere opinion). In the absence of your answers to my questions I am making the assumption that it must be due to AGW, otherwise you would tell me.
I have given proof of most of the major forcings. Asking for ALL in the context of the natural environment is meaningless and unattainable as nothing is ever fully known. But in the context of the climate any other major forcing to make that big a difference is unlikely to be unmeasurable and is therefore unlikely. Unless you have more than vague excuses and opinions the comment stands.
No it doesn’t. Did you read it?
213
No Michael. I have only stated that as ONE factor which you ignore.
Now, you claim that AGW has caused a fall in cloud cover – where is your science?
I have provided you with the science. Why don’t you ask the scientists for the science if they don’t tell you enough?
No, you have not. You have given only what you think supports your meme.
No Michael. You both do not know them and refuse to look at them.
According to you, everything is due to AGW. I am glad that finally you admit that you make assumptions. I know that you make a lot of them.
The NASA Water Vapor Project (NVAP) does indeed disagree with you. You should spend some more time with it.
40
.
Just skimming through all the back and forth banter I think a big part of the problem is that the Master Baiter thinks “water vapour” and “clouds” are much the same thing, and that the terms – and the attributes of each – are more or less interchangeable.
60
No you haven’t. The only few cases where you have provided links to peer reviewed science, on closer examination it is discovered that they do not support anything you have said and are only put in as filler. You are anti science personified with reasoning and judegement set in the 1200’s way before the time of the scientific method where science was considered a thought experiment. You demonstrate how lacking in actual science this site is when you are allowed to put forward your kitchen science views without scientific references to back them up unchallenged. Such bias is obvious.
06
Yes I have Michael. The Eastman and Warren paper discusses cloud formation extensively. Shame that you will only read the abstract.
Why thank you Michael. I provide you with the science, you only read the abstracts and this is that thanks I get…..
Come now Michael…. I am sure that everybody can see your demands for peer reviewed science to prove to you things that are common knowledge, ie. That you get warm when you step out into the sun!
You should be so embarrassed as to want to crawl into a hole……
80
Backslider,
If ever I am in danger of getting off-side with you, please remind me that it is not a good idea.
40
You are a [Snip – Do not use that phrase again – this is a formal warning -Fly] as I have pointed out that I have and that it is you misrepresenting the paper [Snip – that was an unnecessary aside -Fly] and saying it says something that it does not. It is a travesty that the mods here let you get away with your anti science lies and thought bubble science. [We are not here to stifle debate, but we are here to keep things on a civil footing -Fly]
Proof from the paper itself.
So since you accept this paper can I now assume that you think the decrease in cloud cover and subsequent warming a positive feedback of AGW? Now, don’t back away from your repetitive quoting of this paper of your views over multiple threads. Either that is what you think, or you only read the heading (and not even the abstract) and tried to pass it off as something it was not. Which one is it [Snip], how about a rare moment of truth from a serial climate misinformer.
08
Nice to see you so beside yourself Michael, it give me a chuckle. So out of control now, which leaves you even more wide open. Here we go…….
What exactly have I said about the paper Michael that misrepresents it and that I have said it says but it does not?
I have said essentially two things about the paper:
1. It indicates a decline in cloud cover of 0.4% / decade.
2. That it does indeed contain the science that you have been begging for.
So, please indicate, including links to the posts, where I am guilty of what you accuse me of.
You on the other hand have marched around accusing me of not providing you with the science, including pathetic ad moms, to the point now that the moderators will no longer tolerate it.
Yes, proof indeed that it does in fact contain the science you had been demanding and shows that all of your accusations have been patently false.
No, you can assume no such thing. While the paper does discuss anthropogenic aerosols, these are not GHGs and most certainly not CO2. The paper does not discuss AGW.
You Michael are the serial misinformer. It is you who is trying to make this paper say something that it does not.
60
Actually Backslider you have continuously and over several threads put this paper forward as proof that reduced clouds are the cause of the warming. Nowhere in the paper does it say that it causes warming, also the paper in several places DOES SAY that the results are consistent with climate models and greenhouse warming.
So the question I have asked previously is still unanswered.
1. What has caused the decrease in cloud cover?
2. How does it help your argument?
Also relevent is why do you keep putting this paper forward? What are you trying to prove or show with this paper and where in the paper does it show that. Stop asking other people to do your science for you, you put it forward so use it properly.
Again my contention remains, most known natural forcings in the last 60 years have been flat or cooling, including ENSO, Solar and a MASSIVE cooling volcano, but global temps have increased by 0.6 degrees c. So considering that your pet response has now been shot down in flames do you have an alternative, provable theory with proper references and data to account for the warming. Otherwise you must admit that AGW is a very likely (90 – 95%) scenario that explains the warming and ignoring it is dangerous and wrong.
03
Actually, the granddaddy natural forcing of them all in that time, has been the Modern Maximum Grand Solar Maximum, which started around 1900 (coincidentally about when your claimed AGW warming started), and finished circa 2000 (coincidentally when your claimed AGW warming apparently ran out of steam).
1) – Globally, ENSO is neither warming nor cooling. It just decides where it will be warmer, and where it will be cooler.
2) – Solar – see above
3) – Volcanoes – the effect of which is easily discerned and removed from the overall record. The last 60 years have been relatively quiet, and besides, even the effects of the very largest volcanoes only persist for a couple of years.
See – Modern Maximum – Grand Solar Maximum, 1900 – 2000 above.
Unfortunately no. Only the observable, measured FACT of the Modern Maximum, Grand Solar Maximum, from 1900 until 2000.
No, we openly admit the earth warmed during the period of the Modern Maximum Grand Solar Maximum – as one would expect, and find there is no evidence to suggest anthropoids had anything to do with it.
40
Shhh! The Taco Boy might actually learn something if you are not careful!
Don’t you know that CO2 is The Control Knob and that’s why our pizzas are burning??? LMAO!!!!!
20
No, I have done no such thing. The only thing I have done is to point out to you just ONE thing that you have missed when you claim that all the warming since the LIA is caused by human CO2 emissions (a position for which you do not have a scrap of scientific support).
Well gee Taco Boy, how about you tell us what happens when more of the Earth’s surface is exposed to direct sunlight? This is kindergarten stuff, you should be embarrassed.
What does the paper say Michael? What do other papers which address this say?
DO you even know what my argument is? I don’t think you do.
I have used it properly. You are just so thick that you don’t get it.
These are just your own opinions and they are false. You have no science to back it up. You also keep quoting this false number of 0.6 degrees. I have asked you where you get that from, but its not forthcoming.
You make me laugh Michael. You have not shot down anything.
The only thing that I have done is to point out a couple of things that you have missed entirely, yet you think I have been arguing your silly notion that AGW has caused all the warming since The Little Ice Age (I have only gone so far as to point out what a silly notion that is). You will not find ONE scientist, let alone paper that will back you up on that assertion.
Provide that paper and then I WILL argue it with you. The NULL hypothesis is on my side Michael. I do not need to prove anything. It is YOU who must provide the proof, which you have not done. All we have seen are your own back yard opinions.
20
Proof please. Corroborating evidence, data and science. Nothing to learn while it is only presented as opinion. While solar issues can be shown to have had significant affects in prior temp trends the correlation has broken down with greenhouse forcing.
You said about ENSO the same as me, except that over the 60 year period it zeros out. Solar has been flat to falling and according to Backslider Mt Pinatubo is still having an effect and dropped temps around 0.7 over a long period, (even though that decade showed huge warming). So you have not put anything of substance above that changes anything I have said.
Backslider your science fails again. YOU HAVE PUT THIS PAPER FORWARD, NOT ME. You are running away from it because we now know you did not read it (or understand it). But rather than admit your mistake you are still asking me to fix it for you. Very poor form. I provide science, data and observable facts and you are still providing opinions and running away from your mistakes.
I ask again for you to answer my simple questions
1. What has caused the decrease in cloud cover?
2. How does it help your argument?
Also relevent is why do you keep putting this paper forward? What are you trying to prove or show with this paper and where in the paper does it show that. Stop asking other people to do your science for you, you put it forward so use it properly.
If you don’t know then you should just be honest and say so and admit it was a mistake to use it.
02
This is patently false. I have never said any such thing.
Just as I have pointed out all along. It’s your own opinion Taco Boy and you have not provided any science to back up your assertions. Where is your proof that ENSO “zeros out”? That does not mean your own interpretations of the graphs, but rather the science which shows that it zeros.
No Taco Boy, it is you who has not read and comprehended it. The paper does indeed discuss the causes.
You claim to have taken into account all natural forcing while arriving at your own conclusion that CO2 has caused all warming since The Little Ice Age. I have merely shown you just one thing that you have not taken into account. Others have shown you other things.
You have not provided the science which backs up this assertion.
10
You provided the paper, you discuss what you are trying to prove with it and where it is found. That is how it is done. Your guesswork and excuses are obvious. You do not know. I ask again.
1. What has caused the decrease in cloud cover?
2. How does it help your argument?
Also relevent is why do you keep putting this paper forward? What are you trying to prove or show with this paper and where in the paper does it show that. Stop asking other people to do your science for you, you put it forward so use it properly.
If you don’t know then you should just be honest and say so and admit it was a mistake to use it.
03
RE: The Modern Maximum Grand Solar Maximum
Here is a nice little article by a qualified, published, cited physicist, citing and quoting the peer-reviewed, published works of several other highly qualified scientists on the correlation between sunspot and other solar activity, and global temps.
Written for the layman, with lots of pretty graphs.
So, even you might be able to understand it.
Enjoy.
30
is not an acceptable scientific source, its a blog.
Similarly I will counter it with a blog site. If you come up with a better argument I will make a better argument, though I will point out that you have proven my point. As I have said, and the graph concurs, temps have shown a good correlation with solar accept in the last 60 years when AGW is overwhelming natural factors. The sun has been flat and falling during the period of greatest warming in the last 60 years. 0.6 deg c increase cannot be explained by the sun, by ENSO and has also overwhelmed a strong cooling volcano. Natural factors cannot explain the warming, it is clear that AGW is a strong influence on temps. During the current low solar period, with the current cycle being the lowest for 100 years but temps are still in record territory.
So massive fail…
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm
01
Skeptical Science is a blog as well dic$@ead!
Stop being a f#@king hypocrite.
10
Thanks for reconfirming all my insults of you – again – [snip].
I post a link to a post by a peer-reviewed, published, eminent physicist, quoting published papers by other, peer-reviewed, published, eminent scientists, about Grand Solar Maximums, and you dismiss it as – “it’s a blog”.
You then respond with a link to an article – on a blog, no less – written by a failed cartoonist, which is dressed up to be an article about magnetic solar activity, but is, nonetheless, only an article about Total Solar Irradiance (TSI).
I’ve got news for you, [snip]d – and for the cartoonist too – TSI and Solar Activity, as measured for Grand Solar Maximums, aren’t nearly the same thing – in fact, don’t appear to even be related to each other.
TSI is the total measure of the amount of “light” (for wont of a better term) – both visible and invisible – given off by the sun at any given time. As far as we can tell, it doesn’t vary enough to make much difference to anything. Hence there is little correlation between TSI and changing climate.
Conversely, total solar magnetic activity, as measured as solar maximums and minimums, and proxied by solar sunspot counts, bear a DIRECT correlation to changing climate – although we still aren’t sure why.
And not only here on earth, but on other planets in the solar system as well. And not just for the 23 years from 1975 to 1998 on which you base your farcical CO2 CAGW “theory” on, but for well over 300 years, ever since we built reliable telescopes.
John
Crook’sCook’s claim at Septic Science that “the sun has shown a slight cooling trend since 1960” and on which you base the same assertion, is utter BS. The sun shows neither “heating”, nor “cooling” trends.What happened is that the sun has displayed less TSI since 1960, which is not nearly the same thing, and besides, as stated above, TSI doesn’t vary enough to account for much anyway.
Conversely, the sun displayed a measurable, constant increase in magnetic activity from around 1900 (when your CO2 CAGW allegedly started in earnest), up to around 1995, culminating in a Grand Solar Maximum, which then immediately collapsed into virtually a magnetically dormant sun,around the turn of the century. Which, coincidentally, is when your CO2 CAGW died on its feet.
Residual atmospheric warming since then is the result of the oceans shedding heat built up and stored during the Solar Maximum, which I repeat,has absolutely NOTHING to do with TSI.
Magnetically, the sun is still asleep, and the residual heat in the oceans is now largely dissipated. That means, from here on in, it starts to get colder, until the sun decides to wake up again.
Currently there is no way of knowing if that will be in 30 or 300 year’s time. About the ONLY thing that can be said with any certainty, is that for the time being, the warming is well and truly over.
.
Them’s the facts, [snip]. Learn to live with it.
[MV, Jo has added many of the colorful words [now snipped here] to the moderation filter weeks ago in an attempt to keep the blog cleaner. I know how frustrating the MTR’s of the world can be, and how satisfying it might be, in the short term, to hurl these verbal spears BUT these words just slow down your replies. Not one of us Mods wants to slow you down in countering MTR so please honor Jo’s request? and it is only Jo that can add filter words so don’t shoot us
messengersmods] ED20
Reread what I wrote. I know skeptical science is a blog, I purposely responded with a blog. If that is as good as your argument is going to get I should hardly be expected to put in my normal effort.
From my first sentence
So did you even read it? or just not comprehend it? I see you also suffer from the inability to have a rational discussion without insult and personal attack.
01
Yes I did. Just because you ‘purposely’ state that it is a blog it doesn’t make it any less hypocritical.
20
We can take it then Taco Boy that henceforth you will stop posting to this blog, since according to you it’s not an acceptable scientific source, so why would you be so hypocritical and post to it?
We await with bated breath for you next paper in Nature……. feel free to drop in and let us all know its been published.
21
No offence to Jo, Backdoor but I am not here as a scientific source, many posters may post links to scientific sources in their arguments, and I try to do the same, but I come here for the debate.
03
No point parading on about him being a peer reviewed blah blah blah when your link is to his blog and an opinion. He also did not help his credibility by the veiled reference to the global conspiracy must have removed his pet video remark. Not very professional.
So you see I did read it, but there was not that much there, the typical incorrect reference to the CERN experiment which even Kirby said did not say anything about climate and where the aerosol nucleation results were to small to form clouds. Also not many references to peer reviewed science.
This proves that you are no skeptic. You have decided that “CO2 CAGW died on its feet. ” and that only you know everything with certainty about climate, and the book (and learning) is closed.
So if you want to see how it should be done, with lots of references and links to ACTUAL peer reviewed science you should check the science award winning SKS.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-advanced.htm
As I understand it, and as I said, while the fit between solar and temps was previously strong it has broken down recently, since AGW has started overwhelming natural factors. Cosmic rays themselves have not varied substantially even when sunspots were strong and actually increased over the time of the most warming. This should have increased cloud formation and induced cooling, but instead (according to backdoors article), clouds have been falling and temps have stayed in record territory.
Then instead of the warming continuing due to the release of heat from the oceans, that to is the opposite of what you say. We have had a decade where the oceans have been predominantly la nina and cooling, not warming the atmosphere and heat has been driven into the deeper oceans. Despite all of this the 2001 to 2010 decade has been the hottest on the instrumental record and 2011 and 2012 have been the hottest la nina affected years on record. So maybe future experiments from CERN and others will confirm a link between cosmic rays and clouds but we are nowhere near that yet, and nowhere near saying with certainty that we are about to go into a cooling trend.
In fact this now adds more to my normal argument. Cosmic rays are up, so despite cooling cloud formation ability, flat ENSO, flat to falling solar and a massive cooling volcano, the temps over a 60 year period have increased by 0.6 deg c and are still in record territory.
03
Talking to yourself there Taco Boy.
Right. So now you will accept that falling cloud cover will induce warming:
So there, from you yourself – something you totally ignore in regard to temperatures. Falling cloud cover induces warming, you have inadvertently admitted it yourself.
You only mention falling cloud cover because it suits your argument against the influence of cosmic rays. The cloud cover observations you were shown were only up until the time that sunspot activity stopped. Ask yourself “What is happening NOW?”
This is the thing with you Taco Boy. You will jump up and down and deny something and demand peer reviewed science, but when it suits you you will use exactly the same thing if it you think it fits your argument, neglecting to note that it contradicts your previous position.
You are simply here to oppose anything and everything that does not suit your meme.
20
And this is exactly what you will find in what you reject out of hand – a post with links and references to relevant peer reviewed science…. which you reject as “opinion”.
No, you do not come here for that reason at all.
20
I never said it didn’t. What I did was ask you to explain the mechanism, show the science, data and SAY WHY THE CLOUD COVER HAS REDUCED. Questions you still haven’t answered. You merely link bombed an article without explanation and the told me to find the science for you. So you need to prove your argument, and as of yet you haven’t even properly enunciated what your argument is, let alone proved it.
So feel free to answer the questions I have repeatedly asked you, if you can ever work out what it is you are trying to say.
02
Wrong again, I read it and investigated it and found it was full of wholes and veiled conspiracy theories. I also read the science you posted, agreed with it and found that none of it supports your arguments (the little you have actually put forward).
How about you now show the courtesy of what you ask for, and got, and read the sks article and give a considered, logical and scientific opinion or rebuttal.
02
As I have told you, the paper discusses possible reasons for cloud cover reducing.
A more important question is: What are the implications of this for your CAGW theories?
The fact is (SNIP) that alarmist GHG theory relies upon the supposition that increased CO2 in the atmosphere has a corresponding increase in water vapor. This speculated increase in water vapor then supposedly supplies the required “forcing” to increase temperatures.
You have been shown that both cloud cover and water vapor are in fact falling.
All of this speculation, as we can see, falls down in a big pile of shit and alarmist GHG theory is falsified just by simple observations of what is actually happening.
For your own education (SNIP), please take the time to view and listen to this address by Dr. Don Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus of Geology Western WA University – a man with over 50 years experience as a climate scientist – addressing the US Senate Energy Environment and Communications Committee.
The good Professor presents just the pure, unadulterated data and science.
You will notice the curly haired (SNIP) who I’m sure you will connect with, however do listen carefully to what the Professor has to say and consider the facts.
Then come back and tell us that you still believe in CAGW.
(Stop calling him names) CTS
00
I know you are impatient (SNIP) – the Professor’s address begins around the 10:30 mark.
00
That is outrageous!!! “Taco Boy” is an affectionate nick name.
If this site is going to become like SkS, with no sense of humour, then I will not be hanging around much longer.
01
….and WHERE is your snip of Taco Boy calling me “Backdoor”…????? (no, I am not asking for you to snip, just pointing out CTS that you are a hypocrite.)
(Mods can not spot everything and calling me a hypocrite is not helping you) CTS
01
Backslider, I’ve been snipped before, probably will be again. (dumbasses are everywhere).
It’s a badge of recognition IMHO. Just stay below the radar (Wink wink nudge nudge) I don’t think this place will ever become the padded cell known as SKS.
🙂
10
Yes, you are right. I’ll leave it at that…..
10
FYI, after thousands of cases of name calling and my name being twisted to denigrate with no action, I thought I might start reciprocating. Hardly of the same order of magnitude as what I have been subjected to.
00
No, we are not.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
” The decade was the warmest for both hemispheres and for both land and ocean surface temperatures. The record warmth was accompanied by a rapid decline in Arctic sea ice, and accelerating loss of net mass from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and from the world’s glaciers. As a result of this widespread melting and the thermal expansion of sea water, global mean sea levels rose about 3 millimetres (mm) per year, about double the observed 20th century trend of 1.6 mm per year. Global sea level averaged over the decade was about 20 cm higher than that of 1880, according to the report.”
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_976_en.html
“The 2012 global land and ocean surface temperature during January–December 2012 is estimated to be 0.45°C (±0.11°C) above the 1961–1990 average of 14.0°C. This is the ninth warmest year since records began in 1850 and the 27th consecutive year that the global land and ocean temperatures were above the 1961–1990 average, according to the statement. The years 2001–2012 were all among the top 13 warmest years on record.”
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_972_en.html
218
“The years 2001–2012 were all among the top 13 warmest years on record”
AFTER GISS adjustments.
131
Oh, the old conspiracy theory argument. Can you justify that with any data?
013
Michael, I know you’d really like to call this a conspiracy, but it’s looking pathetic. Your ignorance again shows how far you are behind. GISS adjustments have been discussed many times in the skeptic community. Why not try acting like a polite commenter and asking for info before you call people names based on a topic you clearly don’t know much about?
110
I am not the one calling it a conspiracy. Look at the comment above, I get comments similar (even more direct) than that whenever I mention GISS. They are clearly trying to say that the adjustments made were not scientific and valid to take into account more information and the varying methods of measurement and timing. Otherwise why make the comment?
So then if the prevailing belief here is that they were tampered with to purposefully increase the warming then you are claiming conspiracy. No point trying to hide that fact, and I am pintedly trying to point out that I find that line of argument pathetic. I also did not call anyone names, I merely called the argument pathetic.
Again said below to a temp query? The response from me was to ask for a different temp record that said something different, and the response was…
Do you JO consider this a valid argument? Did he answer my question? Are the one liners against GISS and Hansen complimentary? What is the poster trying to say?
C’mon be honest with us here and even handed.
08
Michael the Nephew,
These rules are inherently subjective, and subject to change without notice. People who don’t like that, get their own blog. 🙂
See ya. Maybe you can revive your Mr Fab blog. I am sure you will get a HUGE following… Bwaahahahahahaha
60
With pleasure.
40
.
Some more.
By the way, Michael the Master Baiter,
Hansen was caught out at the end of last year, altering the GISS global record SIX times in just SIX weeks. And that was AFTER years of adjustments and readjustments.
That’s not called “scientific” and “valid” adjustment, Michael.
That’s called “cooking the books”.
.
You obviously didn’t read the Parable of the Pizza Parlor and the Taco Stand, did you, Michael.
70
Thats not a temperature record but a climate misleaders blog site. Do you have a competing data source?
For a blog defense of the temp adjustments see here
“Now that that is off my chest, lets look at the evidence surrounding NCDC’s approach to homogenizing temperature data. Temperature data in the United States is imperfect. It is measured at weather stations that were not intended to create long-term climate records, and over the past century these stations have moved (e.g. from building rooftops to airports and wastewater treatment plants in the 1940s), the instruments have changed (e.g. from liquid-in-glass thermometers to electronic sensors in the 1980s), the time of day at which the temperatures were measured has changed (from evening pre-1970 to morning), and the environment around sensors has changed as cities have grown and more land has been developed.”
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/a-defense-of-the-ncdc-and-of-basic-civility/
05
I see. We’ll skip right over the fact that the blogger in question, Steve Goddard, has degrees in both Science and Engineering, making him more qualified to speak on matters involving physics, chemistry and maths, than you and flim-flammery combined, and cut straight to the chase.
“Somebody” – let’s say Mickey Mouse, takes two official graphs of two GISS official records, seven years apart, overlays them and turns them into an animated gif which clearly shows how, and where, those GISS records have been altered, and suddenly they are “not temperature records” anymore.
.
You really are priceless Michael, and truly worthy of your title, “Master Baiter”.
70
Michael (with hands over ears): “La-La-La-La, I can’t hear you. And I shan’t accept any so-called evidence, that questions my opinion”.
60
Again, adjustments are made constantly in science, they are basically explained in the link I gave above. New information comes in, better processes are developed, adjust ments are made for changing equipment, locations time of day measurements etc. That is science, constantly improving, learn it.
03
Once a week for six weeks? On a record nearly 200 years old and already adjusted over a hundred times in the past already? With the adjusters refusing to divulge the reasons for, or the methodology of, the adjustments.
.
And to you this is “science”.
You are truly worthy of your title, Master Baiter.
20
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/hansen-was-a-naughty-y2k-boy/
Is this enough evidence Micheal ?
40
Steven goddard has no credibility, he continuously misrepresents the science. I have answered all above.
04
My my Taco Boy…. and you complain when anybody mentions Hansen in a way you don’t like?
This is in fact a very apt description for you. Look in the mirror sonny.
10
Another example of Taco Boy’s arrogance and hypocrisy.
The fact is that it is YOU who has no credibility here.
10
Michael the SurRealist wrote:
Oh yes we are! Greenland Temperature Plummets To 40 Degrees Below Zero!
Put down that PlayStation™ and look out of the window.
91
Serious, this is a valid argument on this scientific site to the statement that the globe is not cooling? A regional moment in time at an extreme corner of the planet? Far out? and I am supposed to stay calm against these kinds of arguments, which are unchallenged by mods?
Yes I look out the window, and sorry to tell you sonny jim but that is the weather, not global climate and definitely not science.
You guys will get your wish soon, I am about to give up, I cannot get a valid argument or response here, only nonsense.
09
Michael the Nephew,
Thank God!
You, umm, could start right now!
Tony.
60
Did you read the parable Taco boy?
Perhaps that will answer your question ” I am supposed to stay calm against these kinds of arguments, which are unchallenged by mods?”
30
So tell us Michael, why do YOU go on about the Arctic (or Antarctic or anywhere else for that matter)?
*Taco Boy removes foot from mouth, places other there instead.*
10
Don’t laugh! It looks serious to me.
After reading John Kehr’s book, “The Inconvenient skeptic”, I am 95% sure that the earth is entering a cooling phase, interrupted by a brief Indian Summer. Greenland looks like the bellwether of the onset of the New Ice Age.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Inconvenient-Skeptic-Comprehensive-Climate/dp/0984782915/
00
Michael are you sure you know what the SAT is?
Have you any idea how it is measured?
Do you really think that it can be measured with greater accuracy that about +/- 3 degrees?
40
No, we are not
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
You are really, really fond of that graph, aren’t you?
But look at the time frame, 1880-2012. Scary line, going upwards, for twelve decades … and then it levels off. And we have a whole decade (actually more than a decade with no appreciable warming at all, and probably some cooling – look at the error bar. Even the IPCC officially said that no appreciable warming for more than a decade would be a significant event, and now Pachuri is so embarrassed, that he has changed his mind, and said that seventeen years would be required (which conveniently lets them justify and plan for yet another international shindig).
Now if you can find a peer-reviewed graph of CO2 emissions for the same twelve decades (sorry, I don’t have one), I would bet that there would be little or no statistical correlation between the two. There – a challenge for you.
120
You are incorrect. Look again.
1880 to about 1990/91 down trend.
Then flat for about 25 years from about 1900.
Then from about 1940 for about 40 years flat or falling.
Plus many other little ups and downs…
So you are misleading with your comments about the graph. What is amazing is that for the last 60 years, despite many cooling natural influences such as ENSO, solar, huge volcanos, we have a strong upward trend, the current period being at the top of the trend and no sign of it going down, despite cooling forcings. If you looked at this graph objectively it would be plain to see that we have a long upward trend with dips and puses due to natural fluctuations but with a strong and increasing upward tressure on the temps meaning that even with cooling factors temps refuse to fall now. With a scientific view what would that tell you?
06
Oh, help, help, help! The world is melting. Or maybe not.
Michael, the WMO is a UN mouthpiece beholden to its masters for its daily bread. Who do you expect to believe all this? No one will take seriously anything even remotely to do with the UN because they have given us so much evidence of deceitful intent that even a rock could see it. You need a better source than that.
60
Jo, you keep chastising me for suggesting conspiracy arguments from your posters. What is this? The WMO is a legitimate scientific organisation, just like most of the worlds internationally recognised scientific organisations that accept AGW due to the strength of the science. If you do not accept what they ARE ALL SAYING then what is it you are saying about these organisations?
06
Michael,
The WMO is a specialised agency of the United Nations, as such, it is organisation staffed by bureaucrats. It is not, “a legitimate scientific organisation” in its own right. What it does, is provide an organisational framework for international cooperation between the 191 member states and territories, in relation to weather and climate. It is answerable to the United Nations Secretariat which, in turn, is staffed by career politicians and bureaucrats.
The WMO will, from time to time, commission reports on particular aspects of weather or the climate, on a pay for delivery basis. In their project brief, they will state that they want the report to focus on the impacts of x on Y, in the area of z. In such a brief, x and y and z are predetermined. The report writer has therefore, to find the evidence that supports the intent of the brief, and which leads to the expected conclusion.
Most, if not all, UN organisations work this way. What they get is propaganda. It is generally propaganda based in some aspects of the science. But propaganda, none the less.
90
So Rereke, basically it is all a conspiracy. Do you have any actual science?
04
30
Michael the Realist,
I decided to give you a good clue as to why you aren’t believed here.
You and I sit on opposite sides of a fence. You claim there’s a disaster coming and I ask you to show me real empirical evidence to back up your claim. I think that’s a fair summary of the situation, don’t you?
From your side of the fence we always get the same story no matter who tells it. There’s no difference in interpretation between “scientists”, no nuance of understanding from one person to the next, no evident debate or doubt from your side. The only debate seems to be about why they can’t make the data show the scripted result. And largely the whole AGW world has refused to debate with any skeptic. Instead we get the consensus. It looks every bit like you’re all following a script. And all that script ever says is, “You have to believe us. You have to do as we say or this Earth is doomed.”
I’ve been reading this blog for 5 years as well as studying all the material I can find that doesn’t completely swamp my math and physics background and I don’t find credible support for your cause (I do read both sides).
Many of the contributors here are highly qualified physicists, engineers, mathematicians and others with a lot of relevant training and experience. A lot of debate goes on among them about the meaning of this, that or the other thing to do with climate science and the effects of CO2. There is a considerable amount of uncertainty in the conclusions people state. But when someone states an opinion they can back it up with an argument and some facts in their own words and they don’t complain if challenged about it but instead, will try to clarify, welcome debate about it or whatever is required. I’ve seen some strong head butting over details but never someone who says it’s a done deal and you better believe me.
But from your side of the fence it’s always the same old script, a script that literally kills your credibility. And anyone familiar with honest science has no trouble reaching that conclusion. And there’s worse yet. You tend to dismiss anyone you can claim is not a climate scientist as being irrelevant. Unfortunately, on your side of the fence is the same set of diverse expertise and there is no such thing as a “climate scientist”.
Now science doesn’t look like the same script being read by everyone. It looks a lot more like the days of live television — which I suspect you’re not old enough to remember — when you couldn’t record programs and then edit out all the gaffs. The flubs went right on out to the audience (and were sometimes funnier than the jokes and skits). That’s science, Michael. It’s a bit chaotic and people debate their differences, go back to the drawing board, improve their experiments and they learn from each other. And useful knowledge increases a lot more slowly than you think.
The very first time I heard someone say (Al Gore) with respect to global warming that it was a done deal, no more debate was possible, I knew it was BS. Nothing I have found in the intervening years has changed my mind.
A second point against you is your questionable science. For example, the infamous hockey stick graph was debunked by someone using only his math skill. He’s no research scientist; he’s an amateur in this field just like me.
A third point against you is all the blatant dishonesty and conflict of interest. Take a good look at Climate Gate 1 and 2. If I had anything to do with something that bad I’d put a paper bag over my head before going out in public so I wouldn’t be recognized. When someone is caught lying to me I never trust them again. Neither should you.
Michael, how do you expect to be received here among people actually interested in getting to the truth of the matter, when you can’t do more than spout off your script and insist that it’s correct?
HINT:
If I was insisting the last decade had been the hottest on record I’d come armed with data I could state right off the top of my head: where, when and how those record temperatures were measured and how much they exceed the previous record, place by place, region by region, whatever applies. The delta between the old and new record(s) is of particular interest. That’s what’s required to make you a credible witness for your cause. We would then have a basis for evaluating what you say. We might also have a lot more trouble disagreeing with you because you have the data to back up your story.
I’m sorry this is so long but it takes detail to nail down the point.
60
No. I do not, and most of the rest of your post is nonsense as well. I would basically say the truth is the opposite. I see much debate on the realist side over what is happening and what is causing what, the certainty I see on the skeptic side. You guys know FOR SURE that AGW is not real, is a conspiracy among the scientists and peak scientific bodies and we don’t need to be doing anything about it.
Instead I am saying that the evidence and the science is strong, and in the absence of an alternative theory for the warming we need to take action for the sake of future generations rather than take the risk, that in the timeframes of several human generations will not be reversable.
GISS, RSS, UAH etc, no matter what data set you use you get the 2001 to 2010 decade to be roughly the hottest decade on record. When you look at the last 60 years of ENSO data you get an overall flat effect. What you do see is that 1998 was affected by the equal strongest El Nino on the record, the other being at the beginning of the 1990 decade. That the 2001 to 2010 decade was affected by more la ninas and fairly weak el ninos (2010 being an el nino which is equal hottest year by GISS). Solar has been flat to falling and the period had a huge cooling volcano. So how DO YOU EXPLAIN that 0.6 deg c of warming over the 60 years? This is a crucial point, this is using empirical data (no models), this is reality. To me this tells me that AGW is a fairly correct theory which is very likely to be the reason for the warming. It fits the science of the greenhouse effect (over 100 years unchallenged) for why the planet is about 30 deg hotter than without it and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that we have increased by 40%.
Everything fits in the basic theory. Other fingerprints are seen, such as the stratospheric cooling, the energy imbalance of more energy coming into the planet than leaving (measured by satelites), and that the imbalance has been measured as the fall in radiation in the bands affected by CO2. Other consequences predicted are occurring such as the falling ph of the oceans, sea level rising, Arctic melting, glaciers melting, increases in heat waves, droughts and floods (extreme precipitation events up by 7%) etc etc. REally unless you have a consistent, scientifically valid theory to explain the above then lets hear it. Otherwise how can we ignore all the data and observations that fit the science? I don’t know for sure, which is what worries me, it is a huge unknown geoengineering experiment, and we all know how often these kind of experiments have unintended side effects.
So I don’t see that much debate here, just a lot of back patting and ad hom attacks, insults name calling of me, with very little answers to my questions. You guys agree on most of your arguments, most of which I have answers for or have been debunked in the basic literature. I see many comments saying such and such scientific org admits this, such and such scientist now believes that, when it is public knowledge that those comments are misprepresented. You also prove the point with your climategate comments. At least 6 inquirees that I know of have concluded there was nothing to see, it was all misrepresentations and comments taken out of context. Also your hockey stick comments, it has been proven correct time and time again with different data and by different scientists and also applies to many other areas of data in relation to climate. So just who is singing from the one playbook?
I have provided the data for my claims above before, but if you need some links just let me know. Feel free to answer my questions, genuine debate would be a nice change, but leave at home all the scientist and science attacks and base your argument on provable data from genuine sources.
02
Roy,
I reckon that was about as honest and straightforward a reply as could ever be made to somebody like Michael, and in the first sentence of his reply are the words:
I think that about sums it up.
I won’t be wasting any more time on him.
Not even to discredit him, now that the Mods are getting choosy about how I address him.
Apparently, according to the political correctness holding sway, Michael can go round and round in circles spouting crap and insulting the intelligence of all and sundry as he goes, but the rest of us have to be nice to him.
.
Not worth the effort.
Jo and the Mods can start running their own protection efforts against thread bombing.
10
Michael asks,
And I explain it this way: The sun alone is enough to account for that difference, which by the way is not extreme considering the evident past climate history of the planet.
10
And MV, I too have made my last effort to deal with our realist.
As with everyone before him he’ll get tired of hanging around and leave. That’s a pretty sure bet with the only doubt being when it will happen.
10
This just demonstrates that Roy’s assessment of you is 100% correct. Please show just ONE post from one of the regulars here or from Jo or any of her guests who write here that denies AGW. Just one.
Ok, I take it that you are actually paid to post here by either the IPCC or the UN.
We await with bated breath for your evidence. It has not been forthcoming.
You maintain that all the warming since The Little Ice Age is due to human CO2 emissions. You do not have any science to back that up sonny, none. It is far more likely in fact that the warming is due to the sun. We can see the cycles for millenia.
This is the thing Taco Boy. You have provided a little bit of data which you feel supports your own opinion. You have not provided ONE peer reviewed paper which supports your position as I outlined above. Not one.
10
And then add one insult to another with an estimated temperature.
30
How do you convert NETcdf files to Excel?? Is there an easy way?
Bill
00
AGW is dead.
“Catastrophic Ocean Acidification Levels”
aka COAL.
Long live COAL!
81
You can be sure that none of them took into account the massive sulfur cloud from Pinatubo and what happens with that….
41
The oceans, Arctic, species, temperature, extreme weather, sea levels etc etc are not listening to you.
“This yielded a meta-database of 1,735 marine biological responses for which either regional or global climate change was considered as a driver. Included were instances of marine taxa responding as expected, in a manner inconsistent with expectations, and taxa demonstrating no response. From this database, 81–83% of all observations for distribution, phenology, community composition, abundance, demography and calcification across taxa and ocean basins were consistent with the expected impacts of climate change. Of the species responding to climate change, rates of distribution shifts were, on average, consistent with those required to track ocean surface temperature changes. “
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1958.html
221
Michael,
Dr. Curry wrote an op-ed in today’s Australian. It included this statement –
“Almost all climate scientists agree on the physics of infra-red emission of the CO2 molecule and understand that if all other things remain equal, more CO2 in the atmosphere will have a warming effect on the planet.”
Therein lays the critical flaw in the radiative green house hypothesis. All other things do not remain equal with increasing concentrations of radiative gases. Radiative gases play a critical role in continued strong vertical convective circulation below the tropopause. Increasing the concentration of radiative gases in the atmosphere increases the speed of circulation in the Hadley, Ferrel and Polar convective cells, thereby increasing the strength of mechanical energy transport away from the surface and lower atmosphere.
The answer to what Dr. Curry refers to as the “messy wickedness of the climate change problem” is actually very simple. Adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will not reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability. The net effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere is cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm.
No amount of IPCC propaganda can change the physics of the atmosphere. AGW is dead, it is just that all the fellow travellers in the hoax are playing a macabre game, propping up the rotting corpse of the failed hypothesis in a doomed attempt to engineer a “soft landing” for the hoax. This is the age of the Internet. It’s not going to work, in fact quite the reverse. The longer they delay burying the corpse of AGW, the worse the stench of corruption will get.
171
…and that is a critical flaw? The basic science and data and observations disagree with you. How can you say with absolute certainty that AGW is dead, that the theory is a hoax and that the net effect is cooling against all the evidence to the contrary? Your post is an amazing piece of George Orwell data rewriting.
Over the last century temperatures have risen by roughly 0.8 degrees. Over the last 60 years it has been 0.6 degrees. During that time ENSO has been roughly neutral, solar has been flat to falling, a huge volcano exerted a tremendous cooling influence, yet TEMPS ROSE 0.6 DEGREES. Far out, I just get blown away by such hubrous and ignorance of basic facts. Yes basic physics are proving you wrong. Without any major apparent natural warming factors, temps have risen faster than is normal, the Arctic is melting further than it has in 1450 years (according to research), sea levels are rising twice as fast than they did in the previous 60, glaciers are now virtually all receding, the PH of the oceans are falling faster than they have been in hundreds of millions of years, extreme weather (floods, heatwaves, droughts) are on the increase and last year the US had its second most extreme year on record, Britain had its wettest year on record, globally 2010 was the wettest year on record etc, and much more. But you sit there and say straight faced that there is nothing to see here and it is all a hoax, even after quoting a scientist agreeing to the basic facts. Phenomenal 🙁
114
Michael the Realist,
Probably my reading is incomplete, but so far I have not seen a paper in which the energy (heat) output is measured when IR radiation of various wavelengths is passed through a column of gases containing CO2. This is a real request, not a devious plot. Can you please provide a reference to a recent paper?
130
Yes, Geoff et al. Now were getting to the heart of the matter. I don’t intend a put-down of Judith Curry or anyone else who says the theory is correct. But agreement that a theory is correct does not equate to evidence that it is. Where is the evidence?
Our realist probably doesn’t have it any more than anyone else has had it.
40
Dear Geoff,
That is an interesting request. I have been having a conversation at Principia Scientific International on a similar topic.
The two best known demonstrations of CO2 heating by Infrared Radiation are: Greenhouse effect in a bottle by Dr Maggie Aderin-Pocock, coutesey of the BBC
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8394168.stm
and Climate 101 by Bill Nye the Science Guy
http://climaterealityproject.org/video/climate-101/
Neither of these demonstrations can be called experiments because they lack basic controls, among other method problems.
Even worse I have been unable to replicate Dr Aderin-Pococks demonstration. That is a very bad thing and it has led me to conclude that both demonstrations were manipulated to show an intended effect that the author may believe to be true. That would amount to a fraud, however well meaning the intention. Also the target audience is idealistic young people, some of whom want to become scientists.
If you do find any evidence of direct warming of CO2 gas by IR would you post it here?
60
Hi Peter
Horticulturists and greenhouse growers have used CO generators to enhance growth rates on plants for many years with good results. Plants growing in a sealed greenhouse or indoor grow room will often deplete the available CO2 and stop growing. thus,the limiting factor on plant growth rate, quality, size and time to maturity of the crops grown becomes the amount of carbon dioxide available to the plants.
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm
Maybe contact the above, or researchers within the horticulturists and greenhouse growers industry.
40
Michael,
You are disingenuously quoting Konrad’s quote from Judith Currie.
Because Konrad then went on to explain why Judith Currie was … being economical with the truth in her statement.
Had you read what he wrote, instead of jumping directly onto the keyboard, you might have learnt something useful about radiative transfer in mixed gasses.
I suggest that you go back and read Konrad’s comment again, but this time do it with respect for the person sharing the information, who knows considerably more about the subject than you ever will.
100
Try this Micheal and note where the data comes from
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hadley/Hadley-global-temps-1850-2010-web.jpg
40
Then why not link to the original data or graph.
Also, if this is hadcrut 3 then that is not a global data set as it leaves out the poles the fastest warming parts on the planet and the ones most predicted to rise fastest under AGW. Also despite all of that (source, data set), I can see an undeniable upward trend in the temperatures overall culminanting in the current period being hotter than at any time in the temp record. So, your point was?
08
The simple point is Micheal, it has warmed and cooled before over the past 100 odd years. So it is more than possible it will cool again, like many are saying –we are heading into a cooling period despite the C02 increase.
The graph is one Jo has created from Prof Jones’s data.I’d have thought that is obvious.
10
.
The World According to The Master Baiter:
The World, According to errh, well, The World:
* – Greenland MINUS 40 deg C – a record for this time of the year, and not even winter yet.
* – Earliest abandonment of ice breaking by the Canadian Coast Guard EVER, due to too much, and too thick sea ice.
* – NW Passage never even opened completely at all this year, first time in years.
* – Arctic sea ice up 60%.
* – Record COLD temps recorded all through winter down in the Antarctic.
* – All time record south polar sea ice.
* – All time record total global sea ice.
.
You really do live in an alternate, parallel universe, don’t you, Master Baiter.
60
The other bit you miss is that, yes, it has warmed and cooled but with an unmistakable overall long term warming trend. So yes it is completely possible and likely that it will cool and warm but the warming trend will continue. In fact what I see in the trends is that despite overall natural cooling factors the temps are not falling, the CO2 forcing is now fully overriding natural factors. This is what scientists have been saying but skeptics ignore natural factors and focus on a cherry picked period to show that temps are flat while ignoring that temps are flat at the highest point in history and during overwhelming natural cooling factors.
03
MemoryVault a masterful piece of cherry picking. Lets for instance just look at the claim of Arctic Sea Ice up 60%.
The reality is that August was the sixth lowest in the 79 – 2013 record and that the monthly trend is -10.6% per decade relative to the 81 to 2010 average.
The rest is similarly ridiculous. Have a look at the August trend
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2000/09/Figure31.png
03
Konrad quoted Judith Curry:
“messy wickedness of the climate change problem”
It concerns me that a misleading (strictly inconsistent with observational data) “uncertainty” narrative is being so aggressively pushed by a climate consultant who sells clients diverse climate scenarios (for profit).
Out of a sense of collegiality, I generally have kept quiet about this concern, but Judy crossed a line yesterday with one of her claims (see below).
This has reached a point where sensible people can no longer afford to turn a blind eye.
51
This is not talking about AGW.
20
Bwahahaha.
AAD is so hell bent on fighting the fight, he treats an obviously tongue-in-cheek joke as a serious statement.
I mean seriously, did anyone else not think that Incoherent Rambler’s “COAL” joke was anything but?
Pathetic really.
22
Ahh Heywood, it’s an excuse for Michael to post comments higher in the thread, rather than add his to the bottom like other more polite people would.
81
I thought it would be ruder to just post at the bottom my thoughts as the last comment. But unfortunately anything I do will be interpreted in a nasty way. I would think a comment on the state of the oceans would be on topic for the comment given, joke or not.
110
“anything I do will be interpreted in a nasty way”
We call it as we see it. !
51
Michael the Master Baiter
Yes, Michael, and you don’t understand why.
This is because you have never read the Parable of the Pizza Parlor and the Taco Stand.
You need to scroll down past the adverts Michael.
.
Read the parable, Michael, and learn to see yourself as others (us) see you.
Then you will understand.
240
MemoryVault,
is there some way I can give you 100 green thumbs.
Tony.
30
*Applause*
Great analogy MV. Sums Michael the Activist up perfectly.
30
I guess henceforth Michael the Realist will be referred to as Michael the Nephew
40
Great analogy. Unfortunately it will be wasted on Michael. He will completely ignore the issue, carrying on regardless. He has a track record on this, for instance here.
30
Michael the limp taco … ?
Jus’ sayin’ …
20
MV,
I’ve never heard of that parable before. But it’s the perfect example of how we let things go wrong.
I’m a pizza lover myself. But the tacos are good too. 🙂
10
You were just sitting here waiting for a trigger to spread your activist rhetoric weren’t you…
Poor AAD. No matter what he says, nobody cares.
On a brighter note, the Libs are back in government and Flim Flam Flannery and the rest of the rent seeking tossers in the Climate Commission are goooooooooonnnneee!
Feel the burn AAD! Kleenex??
51
or Ocean Inundation Levels, OIL
30
Greenpeace picked a fight with a bear and lost.
Also being reported by the ABC as there are “Australians” being held:
The Alarmist Bullsh!t Cooperative can’t help itself, concluding the article with:
… the writer may have swooned in adulation of the prophet Suzuki before completing their verse from the hymn book.
111
It is a fact, the Arctic is becoming more accessible due to its melting. Your whole post points to this fact and then denies it?
123
But not due to global warming.
It’s due to Engineering.
Driven by ingenuity and persistence in the pursuit of personal (selfish) goals. Two factors which Malthus and his apostles don’t accept as being substantial factors in the change of the patterns of consumption.
91
Partly yes, mans ingenuity in taking advantage of its own damage is overwhelming. But facts also show massive warming.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent_dthumb.png
111
Micheal
The sea ice extent has varied with this year looks like a massive increase on last year.
Roger Piekle(snr) makes an interesting comment on another site re Arctic Ice. He says “It is worth noting that the date of the end of the seasons melt, and beginning of the cold season expansion continues to change very little if at all.”
He goes on to say : “The reason this is important is that the added CO2 and other greenhouse gases does not yet (if it ever does) alter the dominance of the seasonal solar cooling with respect to when the sea ice recommences to freeze.”
He is really getting to the nub of the issue isn’t he ?
40
No, he is not. The nub of the issue is the falling trend in Arctic sea ice, not when it starts freezing again. This is like saying that because winter starts at the same time every year it is not getting warmer. Really what type of climate misinformer thinks of this stuff?
1. August extent was sixth lowest since 1979.
2. August trend is –10.6% per decade relative to the 1981 to 2010 average.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2000/09/Figure31.png
04
That’s really funny Taco Boy. If you care to look, you will find record cold all over the World.
40
Is that why Australia had its hottest summer on record, that it just passed its hottest 12 months on record, that the US last year had its hottest summer on record, that the 2001 to 2010 decade was the globally hottest on record on every continent. Take of your blinkers.
03
Even were it all true, it means what Taco Boy?
Oh, that’s right, you think that we are all “climate deniers”.
Sorry sonny, but we are all well aware that the earth has warmed. It is to be expected that as it warms that meaningless records are broken. So what? What does it prove for you?
Right now it looks like we are headed for major cooling. There is lots of science to back this up. What do you say about that?
10
I say there is no evidence for it, in fact quite the opposite. Despite numerous natural cooling factors, such as solar and ENSO temperatures have not fallen. This shows that AGW is overwhelming natural factors and that underlying anthropogenic warming is still continuing. In fact, as posted on another thread, even skeptic scientists expected temps to drop to 56 levels in 2011 due to natural trends. They did not fall. Only a non skeptic does not take into account ALL the evidence when making conclusions about the hottest temperatures on the instrumental record. Try looking at a temp record before sprouting such nonsense.
01
That is because all you know is Tacos. That does not however mean that pizzas don’t exist and are yummy, quite the opposite in fact.
10
And that is as far back as you will dare to go Michael. How about showing us a trend with statistical significance?
40
Considering the amount of posters and yourself making the claim that the uptick since last year in Arctic Sea Ice is significant I would assume that anything over a month is significant to a climate skeptic, certainly 30 years is huge.
03
As I said: that is as far back as you will dare to go Michael.
You march around here like King Farouk demanding science and data, but when asked for it yourself all you have is smart ass comments.
Admit it Taco Boy, you simply do not have the science to back up your alarmism.
10
Bernd:
Tasmanians are classified as Australians. It’s true that all those greenies there have given them a bad name, but there is no need to disown them.
I notice Mickey the Gullible a.k.a. Michael the Out of Date is still commenting. Apparently he prefers to ignore all those green activists who had to be rescued in Canada when the arctic ice returned early and trapped them. They believed that the Arctic would be ice free by 2013 and planned to follow the NW passage.
Also from his comment, Mickey the Gullible prefers not to see that Greenpeace were using an icebreaker even though “the Arctic is becoming more accessible due to its melting”.
111
If you cannot present an argument without name calling then you do not have an argument. This indeed is the case.
Please provide proof that the brave people trying to follow the NW passage to bring attention to the melting Arctic assumed it would be ice free. It is a dangerous area at the best of times and will be for a long time yet.
Irrelevant to the fact that the Arctic is becoming more accessible.
It appears that you are treating your supporters as gullible and out of date.
119
Michael of Realist (really!)
I agree they were brave trying to navigate the NW passage on kayaks, jet skis or in yachts. The last time that a yacht went through without meeting ice was in 1938.
By the way there is an old joke;
A comes up to B and says; I believe your brother won $100,000 at the races in Perth last week.
B says;
It wasn’t last week, it was last month.
It wasn’t Perth it was Sydney.
It wasn’t $100,000 it was $30,000.
It wasn’t my brother, it was me.
It wasn’t the races, it was the Stock Exchange.
And I didn’t win, I lost it, but apart from that you got it right.
For some reason, whenever I see one of your comments this joke comes back to me.
170
“The last time that a yacht went through without meeting ice was in 1938”
No, no, no.. it was MUCH colder then, just look at the GISS temperature record.. 😉
101
Do you have a temperature record from ANY temperature series that shows globally the Earth was warmer in 1938? Continuous attempts to cast doubt on GISS by implying conspiracy and tampering are really pathetic and unscientific. How about you prove your case with another temp record.
115
Hansen. nuff said. !
71
Michael – you ask: ‘Do you have a temperature record from ANY temperature series that shows globally the Earth was warmer in 1938? Continuous attempts to cast doubt on GISS by implying conspiracy and tampering are really pathetic and unscientific. How about you prove your case with another temp record?’
I can’t tell you what the global temperature was in 1938.
However, the Central England Temperature record (CET) shows that in 1938 the average temperature for the year was 10.18 degrees C, and in 2012 it was 9.70 degrees.
interestingly, at no time does this record show an average annual temperature equal to or above eleven degrees, and the record goes back to 1659 as you doubtless know.
100
I don’t bother keeping links any more. (I’m not paid to do so)
All you have to do is look at the changes in temp graphs from papers by Hansen himself, and changes in the Giss temp over time.
Earlier papers showed a significant (REAL) peak in the late 1930’s but once he got into the global warming activist crap, the peak disappeared.
Adjustments of up to -0.6C have now all but squashed that 1930’s peak..
It was VERY INCONVENIENT for the warmist fairytale.
60
So you cherry pick a regional data source that confirms your bias, why am I not surprised.
07
Micheal – you say ‘so you cherry pick a regional data source that confirms your bias, why am I not surprised.’
You asked for global data temperature data relating to 1938. I clearly stated that I do not have such figures.
As an indication of conditions at that time I referred you to the CET set, clearly stating its origins as well as making a comment based on observation of these facts.
How does this qualify as ‘cherry picking’ and ‘confirming my bias’?
30
Because the data you mention doesn’t help Taco Boy’s argument, that’s why. Unless the data is rolled gold, peer reviewed and published by scientists that all eat at the Taco Stand, he deflects with claims of cherry picking and conformation bias. It has been his tactic since he started posting here.
40
Yet Taco Boy himself feels free to quote such reliable sources as The Guardian, The ABC and whatever press releases he likes……. when you ask HIM for the science, he doesn’t cough up.
30
Then you should leave it at that, rather than producing a regional data set and expecting that to have any substance. It is clearly a cherry pick and meaningless in the context of global trends.
03
Right Taco Boy. Thus also any of your alarmism regarding the Arctic is meaningless as that also is clearly regional.
30
No it isn’t Michael, or certainly not more accessible than it has been in the past. As Graeme No.3 points out it was more accessible in 1938.
The Vikings who settled Greenland would most certainly argue with you Michael.
The fact is Michael that you only look at sea ice extent in recent times, not historically, because to do so would be most inconvenient for you and show your assumptions to be completely false.
131
No I don’t. Science disagrees with you, the data and the facts disagrees with you. Whether you look at Arctic temps, sea ice volume or extent, over the last century or longer, everything disagrees with you. Some anecdotal reports do not change the facts, seasonally or over individual years some parts may have been traversed or whatever but they do not change the facts and do not trump the science.
“both the duration and magnitude of the current decline in sea ice seem to be unprecedented for the past 1,450 years. ”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/full/nature10581.html
114
Nature mag is renowned for GETTING IT WRONG.
Live with it.. Your cites are meaningless.
81
Whenever peer reviewed science does not agree with your bias it is always the science that is wrong. Newsflash, that is not science, what you are demonstrating is biased opinion that is cherry picking whatever confirms your bias and devaluing anything that opposes your opinion.
07
You get less and less credible the more you go on. You really sould get a real life, Michael.
30
“Arctic is becoming more accessible”
Yep, helicopters are coping better with the cold and
Ice breakers are getting more and more powerful
.. its called TECHNOLOGY.
Get with it, dude !!
81
Learn to read a graph, dude!!
114
Yes, arctic sea ice has in creased MASSIVELY over last years storm affect area.
71
Wow, a trend of one year is now significant to a climate misinformer, who’d have expected that. Genius newsflash, the year after a record melt is probably going to look better, it took 5 years to beat the last record melt in 2007 (smashed it actually).
How about looking at the actual trend.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2000/09/Figure31.png
06
Access to the Artic is great this year.. for polar bears.
61
Polar bears coped fine with the Eemian period which was at least 4 deg warmer than now. Of course if the arctic became ice free then all those cute baby seals would have to be born on land instead of in the middle of an icy nowhere. Therefor the Polar bears would be endangered do to heart disease and obesity since they they would have so many easy lunches!
10
Wow, I am amazed at your knowledge, and I always thought that it was very difficult even now to know polar bear numbers and health in different regions due to the inaccessability of the locations and other difficulties. I should not have worried, just seek out a climate misinformer with their perfect information and I can be assured that we know everything about the polar bears 100,000 years ago.
By the way my understanding was that globally the Eemian was about the same temperature globally but with vast regional differences and that sea levels were 4-6 m higher than today. So I am glad that the polar bears were good but I worry about the 7 billion humans and their penchant for the coast. Oh thats right they weren’t around then. No worries then 🙂
15
Humans were not around 100,000 years ago? Back to school for you buddy.
41
Not 7 billion of them with their penchant for the coast, as I said.
05
Quote MtR: “Please provide proof that the brave people trying to follow the NW passage to bring attention to the melting Arctic assumed it would be ice free. ”
Too easy!
.
Your favourite search engine is your friend before asking stupid “gotcha” questions:
Gullible Green sailors trapped in the Arctic
Should they sue Sierra Club Canada for predicting an ice-free Arctiic in 2013?
Churchville, VA—The naïve advice of ardent activists can kill.
Last spring, Paul Beckwith of Sierra Club Canada predicted that the Arctic seas would be ice-free ice this summer.
(So did Britain’s BBC network.) (So did NASA)
This exciting adventure opportunity attracted a variety of yachts, sailboats, rowboats, and kayaks owners to try sailing the fabled Northwest Passage.
“As a former sailboat owner I can understand their excitement, but my heart aches for the agonies they now face.
The Arctic sea ice suddenly expanded 60% this fall, after the coldest summer in the modern Alaska temperature record.
The passage is now impassable.
More than a dozen of the boats are trapped, apparently even including a group of tiny American jet-ski “personal watercraft” that were attempting to cross from the east coast of Russia to the North Atlantic.
Arctic observers are now warning that even Canadian icebreakers might not be able to rescue them.”
.
That, Michael, is the reality you deny.
Have you considered walking around wearing a sandwich board with “The end of the world is 95% nigh. We have consensus.”
(Ask me about the certainty rating pamphlet which is supported by 97% scientists)
121
Lets see, last time I checked CFACT is a fossil fuel sponsored climate misinformer blog site. The NASA video said that it could be ice free back in 2008 going on the trends displayed in the record melt in 2007. I did not see any evidence of the majority science saying any such thing or that the brave people that tried to cross the passage assumed it was going to be ice free. So question still unanswered.
The fall in ice is still occurring and going on current trends the IPCC were widely optimistic in their AR4 forecasts and it will be ice free long before then.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2000/09/Figure31.png
26
So, once again the truth or otherwise of a statement is entirely reliant on the source announcing it. Truth is, reports of Canadian Coast Guard ice breakers towing yachts out of the NW Passage, and having to abandon 20 boats to an icy fate because the ice is now too thick, are all over the net. There’s even You Tube videos, if you care to look.
But no, an organisation claimed by you to be sponsored by “fossil fuel” reported it – in this instance, therefore it MUST be untrue.
.
Master Baiter, you continually and repeatedly claim to have an “open mind”.
Truth is, it’s more like an open drain.
41
“Some of its larger donors have been ExxonMobil (which donated $542,000 from 1998-2006) and the Scaife Foundations — specifically the Carthage Foundation and Sarah Scaife Foundation — (which donated $1,280,000 from 1991-2006).[14]”
From wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_a_Constructive_Tomorrow#Funding
04
.
As stated previously and repeatedly, the source of a news item does not in any way decide its veracity.
Link to story on yacht being towed out of NW Passage by ice breaker.
Grow up, Master Baiter.
Or will you now post a link to a web page showing that the Canadian Coast Guard gets a subsidy on its diesel fuel, thereby “proving” that it is in the pay of “Big Oil”?
Twit.
40
Your insults demonstrate how weak your argument is. I post a graph from the NSIDC showing the long term decline in sea ice and you post as evidence a boat in a dangerous area being towed out. That is supposed to prove something? Seriously? I will keep demonstrating actual reasonable science and data and you can keep insulting and proving the vacuousness or your arguments.
03
No Master Baiter.
You rubbish every and anything posted by anybody that doesn’t fit your little IPCC-inspired worldview, by attacking the source of the information, rather than the content. This included a previous post advising you what was happening in the NW Passage NOW.
Then you hold up graphs relating to a short, recent period in which nobody questions there was some warming – naturally, it was the tail end of the Modern Maximum Grand Solar Maximum.
You promote this unchallenged historical material as “proof” of what is going to happen in the future – without a shred of evidence – in fact directly in the face of observation of change in the opposite direction – that it is likely to get cooler.
You then compound your folly by attempting to claim it is all caused by man-made CO2 – again without a shred of evidence, only some very inaccurate computer models and increasingly hysterical and wild-eyed claims by the so-called “scientists” responsible for them.
I, on the other hand, posted a video clip from a neutral source (ie NOT funded by “Big Oil” or a “Right Wing Think Tank”), DEMONSTRATING what is happening in the here and now.
At which point you resort back to your normal form – name-calling.
40
It seems you are unable to argue civilly and with science, only opinion.
I never use computer models as an argument, only the actual data and science.
A video of an event that has nothing to do with climate change. A boat gets in trouble in a dangerous area of the world, so what? That passes for science and proof in your world? Really? I never questioned the source so your claims of big oil funding is a fake argument.
02
Actually, Master Baiter, I have debated civilly and with science, with most of the heavy-hitters on this blogsite. However, it’s a privilege reserved for intelligent people, not moronic cretins who argue round and round in ever-decreasing circles, while constantly moving the goal-posts.
Without going back and counting them, I would conservatively estimate you have pasted at least 200 links to graphs of computer-generated crap, to “support” your so-called “arguments”.
Oh, really????
Handjive posted a link to a story that challenges all the previously made claims that the NW Passage would be ice-free by 2013. Your reply:
I posted, pointing out that you shouldn’t judge the veracity of a story simply by who posted it. I also pointed out that there were plenty of other sources of the same story, to which you replied:
Earlier in the thread you asked for proof of Hansen adjusting the GISS record downwards historically, and upwards more recently. I posted a link, comprised entirely of two overlayed GISS records. Your reply:
THAT is but a small sampling from this one thread. And after all that you have the unmitigated gall to bare-faced, out and out LIE and claim you never question the source, and (your) claims of “big oil funding” are a “fake” argument.
.
Michael, you are not “debating” with anyone. You are an out and out low-intelligence LIAR who will happily say one thing, and within a few posts, just as happily contradict yourself, and then convince yourself that none of the rest have noticed.
.
You need professional help.
30
Master Baiter,
Just to drive home the point that you are a lying, goal-post shifting, low, treacherous piece of crap, the entire string of posts about the NW Passage started with a demand for proof – to whit:
That’s where it started. And who posted that demand?
Why, YOU, of course, at 5.2.1.
You then got 20 responses, all in one way or another related to your VERY OWN DEMAND. Many with links directly explaining why those people had been misled into thinking the NW Passage would be passable (ice free).
And your latest response?
And so once again you launch off in an entirely new direction, claiming yachts stuck in ice never had anything to do with anything anyway, even though the entire conversation was initiated by your demand for “proof”.
.
You are a disgusting douchebag, Master Baiter, not fit to lick under the toenails of most commenters here, including the majority of our trolls.
20
So lets see, I get snipped when I call someone a liar, when they have and given a final warning, but this is ok? Very balanced and fair site wanting to project and discuss both sides, right?
Umm nasty person, your video of the poor people needing resuing does not provide any proof whatsoever that assumed the Arctic would be ice free. It was there intention to bring attention to the melting Arctic and AGW and were most likely fully aware it would be a dangerous undertaking. But unlike internet warriors thinking they know better than the global scientists they were willing to risk their lives for humanity and their children and grandchildren. So YOU brought up the brave warriors in the first place as proof that scientists have said the ice would be ice free, I merely was pointing out the ridiculousness of your argument.
03
Also this from the same distasteful poster, with little actual scientific argument. Hence the necessity for such disgusting personal attacks.
03
Should we call the Waaaaaaaaambulance for you? Why don’t you go and have a sook on another blog? I have heard the cartoonist welcomes arrogant arseh0le warmest over at SkS. You could join in on his mutual circle jerk.
10
Should we call the Waaaaaaaaambulance for you? Why don’t you go and have a sook on another blog? I have heard the cartoonist welcomes arrogant arseh0le warmists over at SkS. You could join in on his mutual circle jerk.
00
Yep, very consistent behaviour from the so called skeptics who have difficulty stringing an argument together without resorting to the above type of behaviour. Says it all really. At least with the science award winning actual skeptical science blog you mainly get actual scientific argument. I don’t think I have ever seen the kind of vitriole I am subjected to here. But then again, I suppose when you have correct logic and reason you don’t need to.
02
Have you ever considered that we are just sick and tired of you constantly lecturing us on a subject that we obviously have a slightly different point of view on? You constantly rant and rave and foam at the mouth trying to convince everyone here that the world has warmed (it has) and that man has been the cause (yes, we have contributed to the warming). You have been told this many times but that isn’t good enough for Michael the Activist. Our general position has been explained to you, but you don’t care. Many people have provided good evidence in support of their argument but with an arrogant wave of your hand you dismiss the source of the information or just shift the goalposts to avoid the inconvenient information you have been provided. You whinge about being referred to opinion blogs, but supply such sources as Greenpeace owned websites, the far left leaning activist mouthpiece newspaper The Guardian and our very own Leftard megaphone ABC. You are a hypocrite.
It is also interesting looking back through some of the threads you have so effectively carpet bombed with your activist rhetoric to note that whenever you have been proven wrong, or the facts are just too hard to wave away, you conveniently ignore it and move on to another argument elsewhere. It’s like you have some sort of mental imbalance that compels you to argue on this blog ad nauseum. Perhaps you should consult a health professional.
You will only get scientific argument from the idiots at your precious “award winning” circle jerk if your argument conforms to the status quo. Any dissent or disagreement with the holier than though moderators will see your comments deleted and your posting privleges revoked. I am so glad that you consider instant banning of those who don’t comply with the rigid dogma as worthy of award. “Says it all really”.
That’s because at SkS, even the slightest sniff of not praying at the cartoonist’s altar to the Gods of Catastrophism will result in a fairly rapid ban. Jo has given you infinitely more voice on this ‘award winning’ blog that ANY of us would ever get over at the inbred circle jerk you love so much.
Stop the whinging and suck it up princess. If you don’t like it, as I said, there are other blogs more sympathetic to your position.
10
That was specifically in relation to CFACT, which I do not consider a source for anything and not worth reading in regards to science or information. As pointed out, they have specific funding and mandate to climate misinform. That is not a secret. I prefer people to actually quote from the actual sources when possible, I have found constant misrepresentation and quotes out of context from blog sites with specific biases.
Virtually all graphs are computer generated, your point? They are virtually all though based on actual data. Shall I now discount every computer generated graph you and others have posted? I can see why you focus on vitriole as argument, it gets a bit silly when you try to be logical.
The vast majority of my links are to peer reveiwed science and data from actual scientific organisations, feel free to go back and compile a list of the different types of sources from me and other posters, off which 99% of the links came from publically admitted biased opinion blogs (check their about pages). So my sources are focussed on science and your sources have as their express purpose to all sing from the same hymn book and confirm for you what you want to hear.
Inconvenient is that I can point to the data and the science that shows the last 60 years as having warmed considerably (0.6 deg c) despite ENSO cancelling out over that time, solar being flat and then falling and with a huge cooling volcano during that period. That none of you can actually provide a solid source, science and data for that warming is why you resort to insults instead. You really have very little of substance, you just bang out about it repeatedly as if it is important and think the repetition will sink in. SKS has very vigorous scientific debates, but they are very strict about off topic and insulting behaviour.
02
Micheal the Activist, Taco lover.
You can remain in your little bubble of percieved superiority as much as you like, the real world is moving on without you.
The new adult governemt will be spending Billions a year less to attempt to reduce the temperature by 4/1000 of 1 degree, despite all of your ramblings on this blog.
Taxpayer’s money is no longer being wasted on Flim Flam Flannery’s Climate Comission. His new little organisation will fade into insignificance as the money dries up. I heard he was cheering that he had managed to raise $1000 for his cause. Only 1/180th of the salary that we paid for was wasted as he can’t keep his mouth shut on the issue regardless.
Activists like David Suzuki are being found out as not having a clue.
Yet, you will still be here, typing post after post after post ad nauseum, whinging about bias and moderation, cutting and pasting from your pre-prepared script of links and quotes. No longer because you want to convince us of anything, but because you are now so obsessed that you can’t help it. You feel compelled to be here.
Your whole life is now centered around checking and posting on this blog.
Sad and pathetic really.
30
I provided you with a link to a “solid source” – an article by a renowned, peer-reviewed, published physicist, quoting other renowned, peer-reviewed, published physicists, including links to their relevant papers, and/or links to other articles with links to their papers.
Your only response?
If you had bothered to even momentarily prise open the hermetically sealed, vacuum filled, echo chamber that passes for your brain and actually read any of the material, you would have found a perfectly reasonable response to your oft-repeated, unsupported by evidence, crap claim that:
However, even that proved too much to ask of an obviously cretinous religious fanatic, so I reduced the hypothesis down into simple, easy to read, layman’s terms for you here.
And your response to that? Well, obviously you didn’t have one, so you did what you always do. You ignored it, moved the goal posts, and slithered off elsewhere in the thread to continue to spread your vacuous drivel while pretending – to yourself – that your unscientific, unsupported by evidence, total crap quasi-religious ravings remained unchallenged.
.
You really are a pathetic, miserable excuse for a human being.
30
This is totally false and you have done no such thing.
1. You have not posted ONE peer reviewed paper which supports your figure of 0.6 degrees warming over that past 60 years.
2. You have not posted ONE peer reviewed paper which supports your position of “ENSO cancelling out over that time (60 years)”.
3. You have not posted ONE peer reviewed paper in support of your argument of “solar being flat and then falling” over 60 years.
4. You only know about the volcano because I made you aware of it…. ha ha ha ha
Yes, anything that doesn’t agree with their meme is regarded as “off topic” and “insulting” and the poster is summarily banned.
30
This is so true. One only needs to look at this thread to see that whenever a difficult question arises for the Taco Boy he simply ignores it and moves onto something else……
The paucity of science from somebody who continually jumps up and down demanding it is remarkable. This thread has been dominated by his own ENSO – 2001 to 2010 thought bubble, but no science whatsoever to back up his ridiculous assumptions.
20
i will agree that I sometimes miss stuff. I do work for a living and cannot be on here 24/7 as a lot of you guys seem to be and I have thousands of emails coming in from this blog.
if there is something I have missed please let me know.
I would point out that nobody has been able to prove my ENSO data wrong and you have been unable to answer the majority of my questions.
For instance, what was it you were trying to prove with your cloud reducing peer reviewed article?
Why has the clouds reduced?
Where is the science and data that confirms your argument?
02
Nobody is here to dispute ENSO data. The problem is Taco Boy that you only present your own interpretation of that data, with not a scrap of science to back it up.
Not just cloud reducing, but also water vapor – both of which I backed up with peer reviewed science. The papers themselves address your question as to why. They contain the science and data.
The most important thing we see from these is that they falsify alarmist GHG theory, which relies upon increasing CO2 to have a corresponding increase in water vapor and cloud cover to supply the required “forcing” for increasing temperatures. You cannot escape this.
00
Umm, Michael the Nephew, you say here,
I hope you actually have some proof of this, because if not, then you have just become what you so rail against.
Tony.
60
Michael the Activist (Aka Michael the Nephew or AAD) has claimed the fossil fuel sponsorship conspiracy before here.
The ‘evidence’ he puts forward are opinion blogs that post heavily about Julian Assange and one that is actually owned by Greenpeace. Very light on any actual evidence though.
50
I kinda like “Taco Boy” 🙂
40
Taco Boy it is!
30
See above, As far as I am aware this is public info.
The majority of my evidence is the actual data from the genuine data sites from NOAA, NASA, NSIDC etc. You should make a proper argument without insults and making stuff up.
04
Still having comprehension issues Taco Boy? Read what I wrote again.
I was talking about the evidence you provide with respect to fossil fuel funding of certain groups. You provided four “references” here.
– One was an opinion blog called “Dr. Jeff Masters’ WunderBlog”. Is that the NOAA, NASA, NSIDC? No. It’s just some di^%heads opinion.
– The next was SourceWatch. org. This is a site operated by the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), an American progressive organisation who specialises in far left conspiracy theories and is basically an attack site against the Koch brothers.
– Then we have Exxon Secrets. When you open the site, it says “Greenpeace Presents…” ’nuff said.
– Last but not least, a website that basically just cuts and pastes from the previous three links.
So Taco Boy, which of the above sites is NOAA, NASA, NSIDC?? Perhaps you can quote from the Guardian again. It is just as credible.
Now you link to Wikipedia as ‘evidence’ of fossil fuel conspiracy. I wonder if William Connolley has edited that one too. On a brighter note, as the grown ups have taken charge of our government, we are starting to see just how much money has been wasted in the name of climate, and the flow of money to your ilk is starting to wind up. Happy days.
You should actually understand what you are replying to. I know it means going off script but it really shouldn’t be that hard.
40
What tosh, (SNIP).CTS
Pretty-much EVERY reply here to you is a valid rebuttal, and we can all STILL call you names quite successfully.
30
Point proven.
[Not proven – some words or phrases are just not allowed irrespective of who uses them] -Fly
05
What point?
Pretty much EVERY reply to you here remains a valid rebuttal, and I (and others) have STILL called you names quite successfully.
The fact that some of the Mods have now gone all “nanny-state” and you relish being able to hide behind their skirts, is neither here nor there.
[I am calling time out here. Nobody is hiding behind skirts, but enough is enough. I think both of you should think about sending Jo an apology] -Fly
60
Ah, pirates. Does the oil rig have a yardarm? Problem solved.
61
Jest not. The Russians still have the death penalty and a piracy charge at a show-trial could be fatal to those charged. I expect that Greenpeace would make maximum capital out of the martyrdom of their activists . I hope they do, as it will expose their twisted and cynical world-view for all to see.
51
I was wondering about that. Does it still apply in the UK? That was why I had to attempt to steal one of Her Majesty’s warships before I got to 10. And yes, this particular 9 year old (with his mates at Fareham) knew exactly how to do it. Moorings? Snap shackles only needed an 8lb hammer. Access to the helm? Tick. Engines? There would have been fuel on board as the vessel wasn’t mothballed, so just a case of priming the fuel line and swinging the flywheel on the auxiliary. Thwarted by the unexpected – a guard dog at the engine room access. we could have gone down the cowls, but the dog’s chain broke and we had to run for it …
60
Unfortunately, the ECHR prevents an appropriately robust treatment of Piracy. A favourite penalty in bygone times was to chain the offender to the dock at low water and allow the incoming tide to apply retribution.
30
Wow. In our escape above, we nearly suffered the same fate. The foot of the last kid to jump in went through the bottom of the boat. He was desperate to pull it out and the rest of us were desperate to keep it in place while we rowed and bailed as fast as we could.
20
The Spetsnaz must have been in a very good mood, or under direct orders to prevent martyrs. Of course they will have used “reasonable force” to subdue the “terrorists”, because that is in their nature. I am sure the greenies will heal, over time.
I think you are right Kevin. There is a show trial in the offing
50
The Beeb carried a short clip of a greenie attempting to climb on board an oil rig while the occupants played a fire-hose carrying arctic-temperature water on him. I think that comes under the heading of,”reasonable force”, don’t you?
60
Yes, that certainly sounds reasonable.
Of course the real issue for Greenpeace is coming to terms with with the reality that although they needed to milk the publicity (otherwise, what was the point), having the publicity meant that they lost all advantage of surprise and found themselves facing some of the most highly trained (and lethal) troops in the world. Not good Khama.
Now that a precedence has been established, can we now expect to see an uptick in the use of guards from Blackwater, et el, on other installations? Quite possibly.
20
So, hasn’t this been kept quiet.
Australia could have been really lucky at the recent election, and in fact we still might have been lucky.
It concerns the Senate Result in South Australia.
Now, there was a large swing to the Coalition, and their Number 3 candidate got up in three States.
Even with such a swing, you would still expect 2 Labor Senators from all States. That didn’t happen in South Australia and Western Australia where only the Number One candidate on the Party ticket was elected.
Now, originally in S.A. Don Farrell was Number One on the ticket, and he won that at the pre-selection by a vote of 112-83, a comprehensive win.
However, this brought on a challenge from Wong supporters with claims of sexism, and all that, and keep in mind that Don Farrell was the chief headkicker faceless man in S.A. There were talks of a stoush even, and if that got out into the public, it may have actually damaged Labor.
So, after some, er, consultation, Don Farrell decided to magnanimously swap places with Penny Wong, so she could be Number One on the ticket, and here, the naturally quite obvious thinking was that even in the current political climate with a decided swing to the Coalition, the Number 2 on the ticket would still be easily elected.
Not so. The fatal error here was miscalculating the support for Nick Xenophon, and the preference deals done by the Micro parties.
As it was, Labor only received enough votes for 1.5 quotas, and now Don Farrell does not return to The Senate.
How might it have turned out if he had stood his ground, instead of acceeding for, umm, the good of the Party ….. he says, thinking, I’ll still be OK at Number 2.
If he had done that, then Penny Wong would have lost her Senate seat, and just imagine the ruckus that would have created.
Australia got a lucky break, but it could have been even luckier.
And hey, it seems only the Coalition has problems with women. Yeah, right!
See this article: PM thanks ‘faceless man’ Don Farrell for Wong senate ticket gift and read especially the last five words of the article.
Tony.
150
5 new climatology attractor (average annual cycle) map animations to share:
1. sun, temperature, & wind
visualizing & understanding terrestrial 200hPa semiannual midlatitude westerly winds = westerlies = mean terrestrial jet streams
2. sun, temperature, wind, & ozone
equator-pole insolation & temperatue gradients, semiannual midlatitude westerly winds = westerlies = mean jet streams, & ozone
3. pressure, wind, waves, & gyres
visualizing & understanding coherence of terrestrial surface pressure, wind, waves, & currents (ocean gyres)
4. water = hydrology
multivariate hydrology in the context of sunlight, temperature, pressure, wind, & welling
5. cloud cover
low, mid level, high, & total cloud cover
_____
Credits:
A. The wave height animation was assembled using Australian Department of Defence images developed from GlobWave Project data.
B. All other animations were assembled using JRA-25 Atlas images.
30
How about this article in the lefty blog The Australian Independent Media Network run by a John Lord whose claim to fame is he has a diploma in fine art, paints portraits and composes music and before retirement ran a marketing firm.
‘’Has Australia ever elected a Prime Minister so ignorant of technology, so ill informed of science, so oblivious of the needs and aspirations of women and so out of touch with a modern pluralist society?’’
http://theaimn.com/2013/09/20/two-weeks-with-tony-abbott/
The left has become bitter and twisted!
60
you mean The left are still bitter and twisted!
30
Is not the climate consensus, and the denigration of any critics, against the pluralistic society. The left support democracy, and skepticism, so long as you acknowledge and believe in their fundamental truths whether scientific or moral.
10
Yes, I would consider the constant attacks on the worlds top climate scientists such as Hansen, Trenberth and Jones, against democracy and skeptisism. The constant attacks and denigration of the science, scientific organisations, data and others like myself that do not agree with you to be a danger to freedom and fair debate.
04
You keep on repeating the same old rubbish. When you use the word skepticism try using a dictionary, and not what John Cook has made up. (See point 7)
I do not denigrate true scientists. It do denigrate people who make false or misleading statements, like Rajendra Pachauri made to the BBC on the pause on global warming.
10
Just how bloody stupid is this?
The U.S. could not get legislation passed for Cap and Trade, and there were two or three different pieces of legislation that actually tried, and failed to get up.
However, the current Administration, ever wanting to support President Obama’s war on coal has been attempting to do the same via Regulation, instead of legislation, and its biggest weapon to actually do this is their EPA.
They have just regulated that companies can open a new coal fired power plant, as long as its CO2 emissions are lower than 1100 Pounds of CO2 per MegaWatt.
Current existing 70’s technology coal fired plants emit around 2200 Pounds of CO2 per MWH, and having legal contracts to supply, they will obviously just be run into the ground, considering the average age of the whole coal fired power fleet is close on 45+ years, when the average lifetime of a coal fired plant is 50 years.
So then, let’s look at the new technology UltraSuperCritical (USC) coal fired plants being developed, and built in a rush in China, and also in Germany, and a number of other Countries.
These newer plants provide a CO2 emissions reduction of, in some cases, up to and better than 17%.
So, these new regulations enacted by the U.S. totally count out these USC coal fired plants, because their CO2 emissions are around 1750 Pounds per MWH.
What this effectively does is ensure that what is actually happening now will continue long into the future, older, and in fact mostly ancient coal fired power plants will be converting to gas fired power plants.
They know totally and utterly that wind power and solar power cannot replace them, so they just convert to, in the main, straight through gas fired plants, OCGT, because they are the fastest to have up and running from scratch, and not particularly best designed (with respect to longevity) for 24/7/365 power supply.
So, while China powers ahead, literally, with one new large scale new tech USC plant coming on line each week, India doing the same at a lesser rate, Germany now doing the same, having perfected the USC for brown coal, and new USC plants opening up in numerous other places, the U.S. puts its head in the sand.
Tony.
100
They’re enacting Maurice Strong’s statement of many years ago – words to the effect that ‘isn’t it their duty to bring down the industrialised society’.
60
Tony,
Is it true that as coal-fired power stations get older, their efficiency decreases? Is this significant?
20
Answer: Not really. The average 1000 MW coal operation built 20 years ago had a nominal efficiency of about 35-38% operating between 85-93% capacity. The thermal efficiency drops over the years because of heat exchanger aging etc, nevertheless, recouperation and other things are added that improve efficiency so he overall efficiency drops only a couple of percent.
Total efficiency has fallen mostly because of retrofit pollution control.
The only hope in the US is that Obama measures will not remain in place when Obama leaves, and he can only start things 3-5 years out
60
Have a look at this chart showing the age of units at coal fired power plants in the U.S.
Age Comparison Of Coal Fired Power Plants
This year is 2013, so 50 years ago was 1963. Look at how may units are older than that 50 years, and that comes in at 702 generators.
The Nameplate Capacity of units older than 50 years in the US comes in at 75,000MW.
That’s 22% of all coal fired power plants in the U.S. by Nameplate Capacity, and they are currently still in operation beyond the average 50 year lifespan for coal fired power, and ten of those units still in operation are either at or beyond 90 years old ….. still in operation.
Wind turbines have an upper lifespan of 25, and what they are finding now is that they are virtually useless at the 15 year mark.
Tony.
40
just for the record.
i’ve contended for months that the GST has been set up as the “carbon tax” of the LNP Govt. everyone i know was flabbergasted & disgusted that one of the LNP’s own, with a little help from ABC, would dominate the MSM narrative just as the Govt was sworn in & have the nerve to say the public would cop it. did Barnett really appear on Lateline twice in two days, both times calling for a rise in the GST?
19 Sept: ABC Lateline: WA went too hard and too fast: Colin Barnett
Mr Barnett says that while Mr Abbott made a political promise not to lift the GST, he thinks the Prime Minister will have little choice but to address the issue.
“I understand the political point obviously, but I think I’d pose the question: ‘Do Australians really mind that much if the GST was 10 per cent or 12.5 per cent, if it means maintaining high-quality health and education and disability services?'” he said.
“I suspect the Australian people are mature enough to say: ‘We’ll cop that’.”…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-20/colin-barnett-calls-on-tony-abbott-to-increase-gst/4970024
20 Sept: ABC Lateline: Tony Abbott rules out changes to the G.S.T.
JAMES GLENDAY: But with the ink barely dry on the papers at Government House, a powerful political ally is already asking Tony Abbott to break an election promise and increase a tax…
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2013/s3853667.htm
21 Sept: Age: WA Premier will keep up fight for GST increase despite PM’s rebuff
http://www.theage.com.au/national/wa-premier-will-keep-up-fight-for-gst-increase-despite-pms-rebuff-20130920-2u5aw.html
so glad i vote informally.
00
no doubt barnett didn’t give a thought to Abbott’s PROMISE not to raise the GST in his first term of office. i really do wonder about the character of our politicians:
21 Sept: West Australian: Premier’s GST call ‘a diversion’
Political opponents and even accountants say the Premier raised the GST issue because of the decision this week by Standard and Poor’s to cut WA’s AAA credit rating…
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/business/a/-/national/19034722/premiers-gst-call-a-diversion/
10
I am planning to research the issue of whether or not greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere are cointegrated with global average temperatures. Thought I would post here to see if Joanne and the rest of you guys and gals who frequent this site had any words of advice as I get going.
First, a bit about me. I am an economist by trade (PhD: Ohio State University, 1997). I have a good knowledge of time series statistics, which I believe qualifies me to write on the issues of unit roots and cointegration in the GHG and temperature time series, but not so much knowledge in the natural sciences.
I have read two recent papers in this topic (there’s a least three more I need to read):
Liu, H. and G. Rodriguez (2006), Human activities and global warming:
a cointegration analysis. Environmental Modelling & Software 20: 761 – 773. (I’ll call this LR)
M. Beenstock, Y. Reingewertz, N. Paldor (2012). Polynomial cointegration tests of anthropogenic impact on global warming. Earth Syst. Dynam., 3, 173–188. (Call this BRP)
LR test for cointegration between temperature, radiative forcing of CO2, CH4, and N2O, and solar irradiance. They find those variables are cointegrated. BRP test for cointegration of those five plus the radiative forcing of water vapor. They find they are not cointegrated.
I have some big questions about the statistical methodology and findings of each of these papers. I will raise these in a future post.
But for now, here’s what concerns me. Even though these 2 papers get different results, they both raise the same question in my mind. Instead of using the concentrations of the GHGs, they are using the radiative forcing in watts per square meter. I’m not sure how they are going about the transformations. But I wonder if they are taking into account that much of the absorption by the GHGs are redundant and that the CO2 absorption spectrum is largely masked by the H2O spectrum? This is the part of the research I will need the most help with.
I think one thing I’ll do is write the authors and ask if they will share their data. We’ll see if they pull a Michael Mann on me.
30
You might try http://www.rossmckitrick.com and http://climateaudit.org/
Both Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre are statisticians and knowledgeable on global warming theory.
In possible answer to “using the radiative forcing in watts per square meter. I’m not sure how they are going about the transformations” – radiative forcing is used by those who believe in man made global warming caused by carbon dioxide. X amount of radiative forcing causes Y amount of temperature rise, therefore Y amount of temperature rise is due to X amount of radiative forcing.
Kevin E. Trenberth was the originator of that, and has been looking for the “missing heat” for years. Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth is in the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, University of Arizona. He is not a statistician but is a big noise in (man made) global warming theory.
As for the absorption spectrum try http://www.vho.org/tr/2003/2/Nettesheim131-135.html
10
Hi Graeme:
Thanks for your replies. I think you have hit the nail on the head concerning the radiative forcing. I fear that both these papers I cite may have used a methodology that merely assumes that CO2 causes X Watts per square meter radiative forcing, and then it unsurprisingly results in a higher temperature. Thats why I need to figure out exactly how they’re arriving at their radiative forcing time series data, before I spend any more time looking at their statistical methods.
Both sets of researchers appear to be deliberately vague about how they do the transformations. LR (2006) merely say “The formulae are tabulated in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2001)”.
It is interesting that BPR (2012) find no cointegration between the GHGs and temperature when water vapor is included. LR (2006) omit water vapor!
I have big questions about the statistical methodology used in both these papers. Both find the time series of annual radiative forcings from each of the GHG’s to be I(2) processes. I(2) is an explosive process. Any variable that followed such a process for 157 years would explode to some ridiculously high or low level.
But I need to verify their data first. If the data are garbage, it doesn’t matter what statistical methods are used.
00
Sorry, I canot help you find a reliable set of data.
Firstly, the temperature scale they use is based on the temperature of a cell. i.e. the world is divided up into variable areas and the temperature of that area is calculated from station readings. Then the anomaly i.e. the difference in temperature between each cell and an 30 year average is assigned. The whole process is riddled with inaccuracies. The choice of surface station for one; Andrew Watt (wattsupwiththat.com) and team examined those in the USA and found 80% did not meet the appropriate standard. See also http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/ Errors in IPCC Science. Warwick Hughes has been a long time critic of the process.
Secondly, there is the dropping of many stations in the early 1990’s and the immediate jump in temperature.
Thirdly, the accuracy claimed for the measurements is questionable, in that the supposed error is less than that for the individual reading (on the basis that repeated readings at one site narrows the scatter, therefore reading a number of sites reduces the scatter at each).
Fourthly is the changing of historical figures. Older temperature readings (before 1950) are reduced so the rise is concentrated in the more recent period.
Fifthly, the various ground station series are based largely or completely based on land sites, unlike the satellite series but even they don’t give enough coverage of the polar readings (something which they readily admit). They seem to be the most reliable but they don’t show anywhere near the rise that the land based ones do.
The use of oxygen isotope ratios (O18 to O16) has also to be approached with caution, as subject to local variations.
There are the Central England and European thermometer series stretching back over hundreds of years but they show far less variation in the maximum temperatures than you would expect, and you have to look at the minimums. They also suffer from being taken at only a few sites, and obviously cannot be said to represent the entire world. I believe that there was a daily record from most of the eighteen century kept at Yale, but I haven’t been able to locate it. Pat Franks in the USA has done work on historical thermometers. Also the English series is doubtful in the first decades of the eighteenth century due to too few readings recorded and the gaps being filled from European sites.
Then you will run into the problem of greenhouse gas concentrations. CO2 looks assured since 1957 with the Manua Loa series but the southern hemisphere is generally lower. The seasonal variation means that they coincide twice a year. The CO2 concentration before 1957 raises all sorts of problems see Astounding discovery: World War II had low carbon footprint September 3rd, 2013 this site showing a fall in CO2 level around 1945. There is the problem that the figures from ice cores have been treated as “holy writ” and their accuracy never to be questioned. Getting figures for other gases will be difficult, even the water level is debatable; there is a general decline in humidity in the last few decades indicating possible cooling, but if you can be bothered reading Michael the Realist’s many comments above, he disputes this because he (and his source because he only quotes fellow believers) thinks the world MUST be warming.
All in all I cannot see you having any accurate figures for world temperatures nor gas concentrations to work on. On the other hand the literature is scattered with papers by people who see no such difficulty. So good luck if you want to go ahead, but I do suggest contacting either McKitrick or McIntyre first.
00
I don’t know if this Q&A helps.
“Notice that CO2 has a relatively small absorbance in two regions of the spectra (4.2 um and ~14 – 16 um). Whereas, water absorbs across a broad portion of the IR spectrum with a particularly large spike at about 3.1 um.
Wouldn’t this dictate that most IR would be absorbed by H2O, except that at 4.2 um? Especially given the fact that the atmosphere has far more H2O than CO2.
Based on this simple data, it looks like CO2 should not be much of a concern given its relative scarcity and its relatively weak absorption profile in comparison to H2O.”
“But to answer your question, yes you are noticing what many stubbornly refuse to acknowledge – that water vapor has a MUCH greater potential for absorbing infrared than does CO2. Not only does it have a broader absorption spectra and exist in tremendously higher concentrations as you pointed out, it has a higher specific heat than does CO2. Combine this with the scientific principle that the IR emissions are more or less at the same wavelengths as absorption AND 75% of the Earth’s surface is thus emitting at the optimal absorption spectrum of water, then you may become even more suspicious of some of the claims pointing to CO2 as THE culprit.
The range of Earth’s IR emissions are put at 5um – 60um, relegating CO2’s effective absorption band at 14-16 um, well within the absorption range of water.
“Fully interactive” clouds is as scientifically meaningful as the “new and improved” claims of household cleanser manufacturers. For one, atmospheric physicists and meteorologists have been working on understanding clouds for far longer than climatologists. But we are to believe that the knowledge of cloud dynamics has mysteriously been imparted on climatologists like some Promethean gift? Why have they not shared their algorithms with meteorologists? And why has there been no significant shift in global warming predictions from the time when models DID NOT incorporate clouds? Are we to believe that they made a lucky guess and got it right the first time.
As long as there is a net global increase in temperatures, then precipitation has no effect on the overall water vapor content of the atmosphere. For every amount of water that precipitates, cooling the Earth, you would have have an equal or greater increase of evaporation elsewhere…otherwise you would have net cooling. You can’t have it both ways. If anything, increased rates of precipitation when the overall concentration in the atmosphere is increasing, results in decreased atmospheric CO2, since the gas readily dissolves in the rain (that’s why rainwater is acidic relative to boiled water).
Water vapor will act as a feedback to ANY temperature increase regardless of cause – including any forcing it creates independent of all other forcings except the Sun.
20
This is a critical point, the other large AGW problem is the falling ph of the oceans due to the increasing CO2. What the figures show is that nearly half of our emissions end up in the oceans, but the other half stays in the atmosphere and all of our emissions are added to the global carbon cycle. This cycle is dynamic and makes sure that the increase stays for a long time, processes that permanently removes the CO2 are small and slow. So when you are doing your research make sure you take into account the following.
* CO2 effectively stays in the atmosphere forcing the climate for hundreds to thousands of years due to the carbon cycle.
* Water vapor reacts nearly immediately to forcing and its effects last on the order of weeks.
* Water vapor absorption bands do not completely cover CO2
* The effect is different depending on height, with a lot of the effects from CO2 happening much further up where there is little water vapor.
* Changes in the absorption profile over time has been measured by satelite and show falls in the bands covered by CO2, suggesting that CO2 is slowing down the loss of radiation from Earth.
All I can think of for now, good luck on your efforts, keep an open mind and follow the science wherever it leads.
05
Stop pretending you are anything but an ignoramus.
10
Graeme,
Please don’t denigrate merely ignorant people by comparing them to Michael.
The Master Baiter is not merely ignorant, he’s a cretin.
20
Poppycock! Peer reviewed science puhleeze…….
10
Yesterday I looked into the third example of “More media pressure finally forcing the IPCC to cut the spin” noting that the press release disguised a more major finding – that two-thirds of the British public disagrees that all, or most, of climate change is caused by humans. That is, they disagree with the IPCC.
I have looked at the questionnaire, commissioned by the UK Energy Research Centre and conducted by the School of Psychology at the University of Cardiff. The most important finding is that the questions avoid the real situations that people are likely to face under a renewable future. In particular much higher energy costs, and wind turbines blighting the landscape.
I can think of another, more ludicrous, example of academic psychologists conducting a biased opinion poll and then manipulating the results to get the conclusions they want. Regulars to this blog will not need to follow the link to find the answer.
30
Look at some of the comments to Bill McKibbens latest:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/21/the-next-step-in-the-divestment-fight-bill-mckibben.html
02
It gives me no pleasure to have to say this about Judith Curry’s recent hypocritical and patently false claim:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/19/uh-oh-its-models-all-the-way-down/#comment-1422942
15
Jo, I know you spend most of your time lying on your silken sofa, drinking champagne and eating Belgian chocolates (all paid for by Exxon, of course), but, if you feel like taking a moment off from this stern and forbidding regimen, I think there are a couple of useful things you could prod your minions into doing for us.
First: A sea temperatures page. This could cover surface and deep temperatures (so that we can see Global Warming being sequestered in the abyss) an also methods of ascertaining the temperatures.
Second: A “cost of the scam” page. This would be a list of all types of cost, so it could include items as diverse as “increased global food prices from the ethanol scheme”, “corruption of science”, “distraction from real environmental problems”, “deaths of British pensioners who can’t afford to pay for heating in winter”, “creation of real environmental problems” (such as the lakes of toxic waste in China, where they process the rare-earth metals for the magnets in wind turbines), as well as the huge sums of money that flow to the bankers, the Mafia, and practically everyone but me.
It could be crowd sourced, and set up in a way that allows new items to be added.
61
2.30PM Monday – Every so often I go and have a look at the election result to see how counting is progressing in the Senate.
In the last hour or so counting in WA has progressed almost to the 90% mark.
Now that counting is progressing, that count is becoming firmer.
Earlier on Scott Ludlum from The Greens was holding onto that vital sixth position.
Now he has been replaced by Louise Pratt of the Labor Party.
Things could still change in the other States as counting progresses even further, but it looks like The Greens may have lost one and gained one in Victoria.
Tony.
00
Greens support collapsed in Germany’s election yesterday.
Resignations from the top. Some tip that the party may dissolve completely as most of those likely to be part of a management structure are tainted by scandals. The German Greens movement got taken over by socialists and other loud, special interest groups in the late 1980’s to 1990’s. Their base is fragmented without a common basic objective and it was only the cement of the figureheads that kept them as a party; under a Green banner that was more like a cloak of worthy promises. Their collapse was inevitable and very quick after that cloak was parted during the election campaign when, entranced by their own righteousness, they began announcing things like “meat-free days”. The press, given the sniff of scandal, started reading the Greens’ policy documents and drew public attention to some of the details which do not sit well, even in modern, liberal Germany.
The German Greens will still have some seats in the Bundestag but they’ll be zombies just like the Democrats became in Australia.
Merkel and her “Union” of Christian Democrats and their CSU cousins in Bavaria doesn’t need the Greens for a coalition. Although they’re nominally a conservative, centrist party; pragmatically they’re spend-thrift and populist, kowtowing to what they perceive as their masters; the EU.
That Union doesn’t have a great choice of other partners. The SPD which got a fair whack of votes is of the left; further left than in the days of Helmut Schmidt and Willy Brandt when the core of party support came from the workers in the factories. Now; just like our ALP, it’s the “professionals” who are voting for their own benefits that are driving the policies and politics.
Such a coalition doesn’t give much hope for German business and working people in Germany. Merkel was, before the election, ready to sign over supervision of Germany’s banks to the EU, a blank cheque for bailouts of banks in other countries paid for by taxpayers and the ability for the ECB to demand “haircuts” on bank and investment savings in Germany; including personal retirement savings.
Newcomer AFD was tantalisingly close to reaching the 5% threshold for votes to get into the Bundestag. That threshold has been before Germany’s constitutional court before (2011) and was ruled unconstitutional in elections for the EU parliament because it denied the Germans their right for equal representation. The court ruled confusingly, that such didn’t apply for German elections because it saw the elimination of the threshold as possibly compromising stable government.
Elections for the EUropean
KindergartenParliament are just around the corner. The Anti-Euro AFD cannot afford to miss the opportunity of rising support and, not having to meet a threshold to gain a seat, can concentrate on focusing their policies and campaign.00
For a slipshod, lazy and biased piece of journalism have a look at the UK’s ‘Observer’ http://www.observer.co.uk article from Sunday 22nd. September ‘Scientists give their starkest warning yet on climate change’.
Still, what else can be expected from an organ of the ‘Guardian’?
20
Isn’t it time to end this discussion?
00
I know this thread is getting old but it is the most recent “unthreaded” so:
Sorry to all my New Zealand friends that we just won the America’s cup and returned that shiny trophy to it’s rightful place.
🙂
10
Eh!…. and I wasted a click in the hope that you were here to bag the Taco Boy…….
10
I’ve got some things to bag him with but I took the advice of MemoryVault and quit wasting my time. Little did I know that MV just wanted to take the baton.
10
It does get a bit tiresome…. and we end up with late night responses like this and this 🙂
10
.
My sincerest apologies, Mark – and BS too, if I have offended you as well.
When I wrote I had finished with the prick, I really meant it – no attempt to dupe anybody. Then he posted yet another reply – to BS I think, where public knowledge information was rejected out of hand, simply because the linked source didn’t meet the Master Baiter’s own, impossible to please “standards”.
I saw red – the rest is history.
I am now genuinely finished with the strange, pathetic little creep. In 60 plus years, I have only encountered such a fixated mindset once before, and that was in my early twenties, doing volunteer work with severely intellectually challenged teenagers.
10
MV, no offense felt and no apology needed at all! I’m not done with the men yet I was just happy that someone else was holding the
batonsword (well I might add).To the careful reader of this thread you and Backslider have him in knots. The less careful might be confused enough to have worries about warmth.
I find that interesting. You might have missed the post where the MTR suggested that he does something similar.
I took this out of order because I want to emphasise that your assumption that “creep” is singular, I find very hard to believe. My opinion of Michael is that he is more than one person. Three perhaps more. His early posts have a distinctly different flavor and in between inane amateur (repetitive) posts is remarkably adept with an unbelievable depth of SKS type knowledge. More than the average single intellect could keep track of. At the risk of him(s) accusing me of yet another conspiracy, I’d say he’s using voice to text software, (unusual for a rookie acolyte) with a significant resource in ready made text. The repetition in several themes is clearly computer assisted (also unusual for a rookie). Then, beyond that, I believe he’s being fed (rather rapidly) rebuttal information from sources much more intelligent than himself. If you look back he almost never linked to SKS. It is impossible that a strong warmist troll DOESN’T link to SKS; Thereby indicating that he (they) were purposely camouflaging a connection. (only recently do you see them linking to SKS. Topping that off is a very consistent repeating of several psychological propaganda themes; Conspiracy, Confirmation Bias, and the very restrained and subtle but almost 100% veiled insult. The final icing is the many many examples of ignoring the inconvenient challenge whereby they could continue the cycle till the thread goes cold.
He’s, by design, (and a carefully so) intending to get angry replies. He’s, by design, (and a carefully so) repeating a small number of themes and never straying from that. He’s, by design, (and a carefully so) using propaganda.
In short, it is by design, (and a carefully so) that you haven’t seen this in 60 years. I think I can say I know (and admire) the things you have observed and dealt with over many years. I’d like to hear what you think of these words of mine.
30
Hi Mark,
First, thanks. I was concerned I had put your nose out of joint, or something.
Regarding fixation, I in no way meant our creep was in any way intellectually challenged. In the case I referred to, I was working with a group of severely retarded 16 to 18 year olds. Our star pupil was Frank. Frank could actually catch (two handed), and throw back (two handed) a basketball, which put him streets ahead of the rest.
We decided to try and take Frank to the next level and teach him how to play a very simplified form of basketball. It turned out this meant giving Frank some concept of “in front of”, and “behind”. If we put the ball on the ground at Frank’s toes, he had no problem with “in front of”. If we picked it up and put it touching Franks heels, he had no problems with “behind”. For as long as the ball was moved in relation to Frank, he could deal with it.
However, trouble started if it was Frank who moved, and not the ball. Putting the ball in front of Frank, and then turning him around so it was now “behind” him, reduced him to utter confusion and tears. Ditto with putting it “behind” him, and then turning him around so he faced it, and insisting it was now “in front” of him.
The supervising psych explained that Frank’s reduced intellectual capacity limited his ability to track ideas, concepts, and even physical objects. So Frank reduced everything down to a single, fixed focal point – himself. For as long as things moved in relation to himself, Frank was fine. But if you tried to change Frank’s own fixed, focal point, there was trouble.
.
I believe with the creep we are dealing with the same concept of a rigid, fixed viewpoint, which encompasses the creep’s own understanding, and acceptance of himself. I think Heywood put it best at comment 5.2.1.4.15 when he wrote:
Emphasis added.
My Managing Director is signalling it is time to eat, so I will post this now and write on your other comments after dinner.
40
Awww. Thanks MV.
The more he posts the same crap over and over an over again, I am more convinced that he just can’t help himself.
30
SO now we are being snipped for carrying on with the very AUSTRALIAN tradition of giving people nick names. Apparently now we are no longer permitted to use Taco Boy when referring to the (feel free to use your imagination).
00
Mark, carrying on.
Your reasons and examples for suspecting a multiple creep are entirely plausible, but horribly and unnecessarily complex. May I offer a far simpler explanation for the undisputed observations you have made.
.
The creep is a lonely, unloved, and very much alone individual. I would imagine a fairly bright kid growing up as an only child to upper middle class parents too occupied with their own lives to have much time for the creep. The creep probably had a wonderful collection of expensive toys, and nobody to enjoy them with.
So, the creep grew up craving attention. At school he was perceived as a know-it-all little nerd who talked too much, and at best was ignored, and at worst, bullied. So he continued alone. Nobody to talk to, nobody to relate to, always craving acceptance, and never getting it.
At some point he discovered the Climate Wars, and having grown up in the modern education system, where he craved attention and realised conformity was the only entrance ticket, he readily sided with the collective “climate change” viewpoint. Sometime after that, he discovered SKS.
I suspect the creep commented often, at length, and for an extended period of time, on SKS, as an expression of his fixated need to be the centre of attention. I imagine his posts there were largely ignored, since even when preaching to the converted, his ramblings would have appeared as boring, repetitive and simplistic as they do to us.
This would have been extremely and increasingly frustrating to the creep, although he would have seen it as acceptance of his wisdom, and not rejection of his boring, empty persona. He STILL was not getting the attention he craved. Nonetheless, that is when he learned his way around SKS, and picked up on the standard memes to use against all the current scientific arguments.
At some point the creep decided he was destined for bigger and better things. And so he started surfing around the net looking for a challenge. About six weeks ago he arrived here.
If one goes back and looks at his earliest posts, there is no formatting (block quotes, bolding, italics etc). None of these embellishments are available at SKS, so they are skills he has had to learn since coming here. It is only relatively recently that he has learned to post a link, and he is yet to master embedding a link into text – again a reflection of the limited availability of these things at SKS.
Nonetheless, during his time at SKS he became a full bottle on his deciphering of what he thought they were talking about at SKS, on all the recent subjects of note: the pause, where the missing heat went, natural variation, and so on.
And so he started commenting on these things, and got instant feedback – argument, ridicule and insult from our point of view, but RECOGNITION from the creep’s point of view. And so it went on, week after week, going around in circles. His knowledge of the SKS viewpoint on these subjects is solid, which accounts for his almost instant replies, which gives rise to your idea of a “Team Michael”. But in truth 90% of it is just cut and paste from SKS, either from articles, or the comments sections.
.
But then somebody posted on water vapour/cloud cover, and the creep was suddenly in uncharted waters. He attempted to bluster his way around it, and got stomped on from all directions. So it was back to SKS where he learned they didn’t really have an adequate explanation either. But he learned they dealt with such situations by ignoring the information, and discrediting the source instead.
So he tried that, and got stomped on. That forced him off the air for several hours while he searched the web for plausible, even if incorrect, replies. That is about when I started to realise the true nature of the creep: NOT a Major General in the SKS Fifth Column of Disinformation, but a frightened, lonely little boy, craving attention.
That’s when I introduced the sun magnetic field hypothesis, just to see if he would follow form. He did. First, the rejection based on the source. When that didn’t wash with anyone, he disappeared for over 24 hours. I believe in that time he read the article, and all the links, NOT with a view to learning anything, but rather to source back to available repudiations at SKS and elsewhere. I would not be surprised to learn he took a day off work. Eventually he replied.
.
I think the most telling thing is that I haven’t bothered replying to his latest posting, and, as a result, he has subsequently posted three more times. Each is a variant of what the creep would consider a challenge.
The reality is, they are simply a reflection of a lonely little boy standing in the middle of the playground with his bat and ball, plaintively crying out, “Please come back and play with me”.
.
On that basis, I believe if we simply ignore him from here on in, and deprive him of the attention he so desperately craves, he will soon go away.
30
Holy Shite MV.
You’ve nailed him!
Michael the Activist to a tee.
Well done.
20
MV, obviously the simple explanation is more plausible. On the other hand, Michael has posted other things that tend to suggest he shouldn’t be lonely. He claims to have children (therefore a significant other past and presumably present), he suggests grandchildren are on the way or here already. He claims to be well traveled and have seen much of the world (the people I know that travel extensively are the gregarious sort). He claims to deal with children in his occupation. None of these things seem to indicate he’s an introvert, a sociopath or some other anti-social personality.
He is trying to save the world. He actually is convinced that he HAS to do this, and his conviction has blinded his ability see alternative AGW science over what he has been indoctrinated with.
Back to complexity; To justify why I believe he’s using speech to text is the high number of his posts with spelling errors specific to words with pronunciations that confuse such programs: To Too Two, There Their, etc. He’s in enough of a hurry that he doesn’t bother to correct them.
The notion that he is more than one person is the variation in writing styles. Take a look at his very first posts and compare to the recent ones for a rather stark example. The speed at which he is able to respond to multiple replies is rather superhuman and when you add in the linking to multiple papers suggests strongly that he has help. Now having help might seem “horribly” complex but it would take only as much effort as required to gather buddies for a poker game (or Bridge if you’re that sort) and too me the typical SKS banshee is more than motivated to work the details out. We already have evidence of bot posts programs, behind the scenes schemes and the connection with Lew. What more would you need as evidence of their willingness to distract, disrupt and fill this blog with propaganda and doubt complex or not?
Then too, look at specific words: “conspiracy”, Cherry Picking, Confirmation Bias, etc. all repeated over and over and over almost as though he’s paid $1 each time they get posted. I think the use of these specific words and phrases has been study group tested to provide the biggest propaganda value. Early on I challenged MTR for his use of propaganda. Most normal people when challenged to refrain from propaganda will either conform and stop or they will get very defensive (or go away entirely). He did neither and keeps right on going. He’s on a mission to save the world.
There are some interesting notable variations when he lapsed into the “real” Michael. Specifically when Jo reprimanded him and most telling during and after your elections. He was obviously very upset with the results and showed an extremely partisan political side. You are possibly right that he is lonely enough to feel comfort here even if suffering abuse. (much could be said about that but……)
Anyway, I appreciate your thoughts, and I appreciate that you took the baton (same goes to Backslider and the others). I think we need to keep after Michael till he repents or goes away.
20
I have come to the conclusion that reincarnation is the only explanation for Michael the Realist(?)
Obviously his previous life was as a mosquito – the same incessant, irritating drone esp. late at night. The brief (blessed) times of silence and the refusal to stop even when waved away.
And the same brain size.
30
Well done, Mr. Vault. I think you came to the same conclusion as I some time ago, but you have most eloquently and precisely identified the neurosis.
There is a scary aspect to this story. On a post at the beancounter’s site, our creep CLAIMS to be a science teacher in some classroom somewhere.
Just imagine the situation in which your child or children are subjected to that malarckey! IF he actually is, which I doubt, he is spawning dozens if not hundreds of new creeps.
from the third last comment on this post.
30
Love watching the way your minds work, it is so instructive. Upon failing to argue on your (lack off) science, you fall back on the good old character assassination/ad hom attack/credibility attack to dull the attackers message and then the final fall back of a professional climate misleader the conspiracy theory, with full analysis and explanation. I suppose I should be honored to be subjected to the full weight of a climate misleaders anti science arsenal of weapons.
Facts and data still speak for themselves
Temps increased by 0.6 deg over the last 60 years
ENSO comes out to neutral even though the 2001 to 2010 decade was more la nina affected but hotter than the 1991 to 2000 decade, especially the strongly el nino affected year of 1998 (one of the strongest el ninos of the 60 years.
Hugely cooling volcano
Cosmic rays rising destroying the cosmic ray argument
Ocean heat content still increasing destroying MV (heat coming from oceans argument)
Latest figures: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
Ocean ph falling destroying BS CO2 from oceans argument
Solar flat and falling
Arctic and glacier melting
extreme precip events up
Floods and heat waves up
sea levels rising
etc etc
No wonder the IPCC have increased their certainty to 95%
sorry guys, you are on the wrong side of the data and the science. But ramp up your credibility and conspiracy arguments, oh wait…
04
You must be talking about Cook and Lewandowsky Michael!
20
Just answer straight up Michael:
Do you use speech to text software?
Do you have other people feeding you information to post here?
Are you receive remuneration to post here?
What is your affiliation with Skeptical Science?
Take your time….
10
There it is again… yet another “typo”….
Ok…. yeh, I like the one that speculates that you are in Fact Tim Flannery. You are certainly stupid enough to be him. (back off mod, he explicitly asked for it!)
10
10
Nope, not sure what information you are implying but I have not rejected out of hand any referred science posted. The solar papers and the cloud reduction paper were interesting, read and I pointed out what BS must have missed, that they did not support his case and that they were consistent with the models. I also read your physicists opinion blog and found the argument a bit weak and most of the links were to other blog posts, not science. I showed you an sks article on cosmic rays that was more complete and covered from head to toe with references and explanations from actual peer reviewed science. As is typical of this science award winning blog.
so basically the cloud, solar and cosmic ray arguments are in tatters and the AGW theory and my explanation and data from ENSO seems confirmed by the science.
Another conspiracy theory?
04
Consistent with what models exactly? There is a vague reference in the paper to a model, however it does not elaborate on exactly what model it is talking about, so it can be taken as simply a biased warmist comment, not science.
The fact is that the reduction in both water vapor and cloud cover falsifies the warmist GHG theory which relies upon a RISE in these for the requisite “forcing” for rising temperatures. Temperatures have risen due to reasons other than CO2, try the sun.
20
No it doesn’t. What climate misleading blog do you get this stuff from, you prove that you still don’t read the science you present. Clouds increasing or decreasing is not a fingerprint of lack of or increasing AGW. Water vapor is complex and I do not agree your paper proves any such thing. You commonly misrepresent and read into papers conclusion opposite to what they say.
For instance the cloud paper talks about all aerosols in the atmosphere, not just clouds. Also you cannot say what causes the reduction.
Are you actually EVER going to answer my questions? Temps do not ‘rise’ due to clouds or water vapor, they ‘rise’ (really it is energy content in the whole system that is rising of which atmosphere is a small part) due to less energy leaving (due to CO2) than entering the planetary system. You really don’t get how it works.
Have you seen the latest ocean heat measurements, blows away all the recent arguments.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
03
Aw Michael, Levitus again? Tell me how many samples are used to fabricate the “heat content”?
Then tell me why the steric sea level graph does not correlate with the “heat content” graph?
But let’s not yet go to the hidden heat quite yet. I want you to explain how ENSO causes warming or cooling in the global sense.
I have more for you after you give a detailed answer to the above. Take your time.
60
Let me see now…. which “climate misleading blog” did I get that from?…… Oh yes, that’s right, I got it from SkS. 🙂
50
Michael I’m curious:
Have I got it right, you are saying temps not “rise” (or fall) due to clouds or water vapor?
Is it that clouds and water vapor are: a/ stable in the long run. b/ transitory (so irrelevant) or c/ have no effect on incoming or outgoing energy?
To other commenters, please let Michael answer this before you speak your mind on these questions. Thanks.
60
Not quite, I have probably explained that poorly in my haste. I don’t get much time during the day and I have a quick check in the morning when I first get to work and some hasty replies and then I am busy all day. Obviously a parent would not be pleased if I created blog posts while I was teaching their child 🙂
Ok so I do understand that clouds have many effects on temperature, they can trap heat and so maintain heat rather than with a clear sky and they can reflect the incoming radiation so that the suns radiation never even gets a chance at heating up the planet. So they can warm and cool at the same time and is also dependent on how high they are and things like that. So my frustrated response is easily misinterpreted.
What I meant is that science that says that clouds have increased or decreased on their own does not give the full story on WHY they have increased or decreased and WHAT that net effect will be. Now BS has put forward that article repeatedly, mostly just posting it on its own, with little explanation on why he put it forward, what he thinks it says and what has caused the change. All relevant to whether it supports his argument that it in some way prove AGW incorrect. I am sure you would agree since there have been times you have been annoyed at me when I link bomb without explanation or do not answer questions, both of which have occurred here.
So I was focussing on trying to get those questions. I suppose where I was coming from with the suns energy part was that the planet gains or loses energy virtually wholly by radiation, and that when the planet loses energy at a slower rate than it is gaining it then you have an energy imbalance that will cause an increase in net energy to the planet. Now that energy can be transformed and felt in many different ways, heating the oceans, melting glaciers or the arctic, warming the atmosphere etc. The focus on temp graph of a specific period of atmosphere is ignoring the rest of the natural system and the trends and cycles.
So will YOU instruct BS to answer the questions and explain his argument and provide the references to the data and the science, whether it is in the article HE presented or elsewhere, or not?
Also do you agree or disagree with what I have said above.
Thanks
01
No that was not what I said. What I am saying is that the reasons are important. You have not demonstrated that the effects occurring are not due to AGW and proving a positive feedback. Just posting a paper on clouds decreasing and saying ‘look peer reviewed science, I have proved my point’ without actually enunciating what that point is and what you think it has proven and pointing out where the science and the data is to actually prove it is not science. It is a thought bubble, one of your many.
My reading of most of the peer reviewed science that you have linked to is that they do not disprove AGW, in fact a lot of times they specifically say so and sometimes fully support that it supports AGW or the models. You seem to just drop links without explanation and say ‘the science that proves me right is in there, go and find it’. This is a very weak way of arguing scientifically. Due to previous criticisms of me quoting straight from science, I have toned that down and tried to stick to actual data and explanations, which I think has been working quite well, it certainly has proved to me that there is ample proof in just the data itself and the basic physics of the greenhouse effect and the carbon cycle to prove the likelihood of significant AGW, all of which is science this blog agrees to. Now in the absence of any other provable, accepted theory or natural variation that explains the warming we have to take what the science is telling us seriously and take action. The already occurring and possible consequences are to large to risk and leave to our kids and future generations. This is not a game, this is peoples lives and considering that natural processes to remove CO2 take a very long time it could be many future generations, which is a damn lot of lives, hundred to thousands of years. The other option is geoengineering (of which uncontrolled CO2 is already a part off) and I don’t like that option as it can have to many unintended consequences.
So can you answer my questions?
01
Why? Do you disagree that ENSO causes global warming and cooling in cycles that transfer heat into and out of the ocean?
It is to complicated and I would probably muck it up in this short a space anyway. Better that you look at some of the many scientific websites that explain this with animations and pictures and such. Some starters for you…
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensocycle/enso_cycle.shtml
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=el-nino-la-nina-and-global-warming&WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20130322
http://cpo.noaa.gov/Home/AllNews/TabId/315/ArtMID/668/ArticleID/181/Equatorial-cooling-in-Pacific-offset-regional-rises-in-temperature-finds-CPO-funded-research.aspx
Should be plenty for you in there.
01
Oops didn’t specifically mention water vapor. Yes I agree it is by far the biggest greenhouse gas and hence slows down the loss of radiation from the planet. But I also realise it is short lived and condenses quickly and in that affect is at the mercy of temps and is affected almost immediately. CO2 on the other hand has a long lived affect on the planetary system and the atmosphere of the order of hundreds of years +, and so its continuous and increasing forcing will increase water vapor over time and enhance the overall greenhouse effect. Hope I said that right, bit of a hurry now, partner home and dinner to make 🙂
02
That’s just classic!!! You just made it up, didn’t you? I am rolling on the floor, truly I am!
The fact is that all the climate models rely on a positive feedback from clouds and water vapor NOW, not some time in the future. Please show us the science which purports that “its [CO2] continuous and increasing forcing will increase water vapor over time”. That’s just laughable!
When exactly will it happen? When?
30
Interesting to note here that it appears that Michael and then Michael answered the question. Perhaps Mark D’s theory may well indeed be correct.
20
That only proves how scientific illiterate you are about the carbon cycle, even though I have posted educational links for you on the cycle previously. I have also posted peer reviewed science before that confirms the same thing, so rolling on the floor is a sad indictment of our ed system, maybe you hit your head during one of your many rolling on floor periods.
Also already happened as to your other questions, despite net cooling natural factors the planet has warmed 0.6 deg c in 60 years plus strong warming of the oceans still occurring throughout the supposed pause. Luckily real scientists look at the whole system and not just 5% of where the energy is going, while ignoring the other 95%.
01
Your desperation is a wonder to behold…..
Out with the science buddy.
Sorry mate, but data and observations show that despite massive rises in CO2 emissions both clouds and water vapor have declined. The alarmist theory is bunk.
You lose.
00
And I suppose that the dog ate your homework also?
The fact is that you were very specific. Let’s just take a look at that again:
Let’s just break that down:
1. “Temps do not ‘rise’ due to clouds or water vapor” – You could not be more explicit.
2. “(really it is energy content in the whole system that is rising of which atmosphere is a small part) due to less energy leaving (due to CO2) than entering the planetary system.” – Here you claim that the energy content of the whole system is rising (that’s also explicit) due to less energy leaving (explicit) and it’s “due to CO2” (very explicit).
I think its pretty clear to anybody exactly what you were saying. In your efforts to debunk my point that clouds and water vapor play a major role in what is happening you explicitly state that the whole thing is in fact “due to CO2”. No clouds, water vapor or anything else in there. Just CO2.
The fact is that warmist GHG theory relies upon a positive feedback due to an increase in clouds and water vapor. The science shows that this is not happening and in fact they are falling. That’s my point.
I’ll say it again: Without the “positive feedback” of increasing water vapor and clouds the warmist GHG theory falls flat on its face. Sorry boys, but you need another explanation for warming – try the sun. Please note that right now we are cooling, perfectly in line with previous cooling, but with a strong possibility of a major cooling.
CO2 is an evil gas, isn’t it Michael? I do hope you take the time to view and consider the video I posted for you and will learn that is not so (starts at 10:30).
Yes, you did.
It was in fact you who started this whole thing when you jumped into a discussion with:
It is you who must give the explanation for this, not me. I posted the cloud paper, not for you, but for Robin Pittwood who correctly observed:
I have also posted more than one paper. I have also explained they show that in your rants you are clearly missing some very important things. I even went so far as to point out Mount Pinatubo so you could see that your assertions re. the 1991 to 2000 decade were incorrect and you now gleefully talk about “massive cooling volcanoes” without any comprehension as to what anything in fact means.
Yes, I know, we will just go around in the same old circle yet again, no doubt.
30
Why am I not surprised you would misrepresent me, even when I have specifically clarified it. Unfortunately while conveniently ignoring my questions you are confirming what I have said, the clouds ARE a positive feedback. YOU cannot answer why there are less clouds, you think the climate system is magic. My thrust was that the energy building in the system is due to less energy leaving than arriving. WHY is less energy leaving? Temps rising is confirmed in the 0.6 deg c increase in temps. The major natural forcings on climate have all been discounted. Not solar, not cosmic rays, not ENSO, not volcanos. The part that you don’t get is that clouds are not an external force they are reacting to changes in the climate, they have a cause, a reason. If you are saying that the clouds are why temps have risen then you need to come up with a reason as to why the clouds have changed. Considering that clouds are one of the most confusing parts of the climate system as they both produce negative and positive feedbacks then in essense you are saying the net affect is a positive feedback to CO2, they are enhancing the warming.
You have misrepresented most of your papers and have been unable to show in the papers where they support you. You have been unable to answer basic questions about the paper. It is very apparent that you have either not read or are running away from the fact that the papers do not support you and did not expect to be called on their contents. Again just posting a paper and say ‘look I have posted a peer reviewed paper so that means I am scientific and right’ does not make you scientific or right. You have been caught out and are now twisting and turning trying to wiggle out of your actions. How about admitting you have no intention of answering the questions because you don’t know.
You gleefully parade Mt Pinatubo without realising it did not make me incorrect, it showed even more natural cooling influences and strengthens my argument. The reason volcanos cool is because the aerosols released reflect the sunlight back into space before it can heat the earth. This means the effect is permanent, that is radiation that HAS NEVER HEATED the earth, it is not a cycle, it does not even out and come back later. Yet even through that, ENSO, and solar the planet still heated by 0.6 deg c in 60 years. No wonder the IPCC say they are now 95 – 100% certain, there is no other explanation left.
You posted the cloud paper, it is you that needs to prove it supports your argument, stop making excuses.
03
No Michael, you misrepresent yourself. You have not clarified anything whatsoever. Instead now you resort to lying through your own ass… “I meant to say, I meant to say”…. We know exactly what you meant and it was crap.
I am not confirming anything. Please allow me to show you the insignificance of your own ignorance:
Warmist GHG theory and the models that go with it specify that increased CO2 creates MORE water vapor and clouds, thus more warming.
Got it now? Run back to SkS and look it up if you don’t believe me, its plastered all over the place.
I am saying no such thing. You in fact are now trying to say this, but its false and you do not have a scrap of science to back it up.
It most certainly did. Your line was that the decade in question was primarily influenced by El Niño. I showed you that was incorrect.
The cloud paper indicates a fall in cloud cover of 0.4% per decade over 39 years. That fact, along with the studies I posted showing a decrease in water vapor, supports my argument. Warmist GHG theory and models require an INCREASE in water vapor and clouds as a “positive feedback”. End of story.
10
You have not proved that water vapor has decreased and it is not my understanding that the GHG theory predicts more clouds, please provide proof. Clouds and aerosols are not the same thing as water vapor.
Your science on this point is all over the place. It was a strongly warming decade, despite a large cooling volcano. So what caused all the warming? If you are saying that it was not El Nino, then are you admitting that AGW was super strong during this decade? The next problem you have is that the decade following that (2001 to 2010) was even hotter! This decade was predominantly influenced by cooling la ninas, so where do you go with that? Really try to put together a coherent theory about all this, you do not make sense.
Where is your water vapor science? Also you are still misrepresenting the cloud paper that includes aerosols and says several times that it is consistent with the models and the science. You are again only displaying ignorant opinion which the science does not support.
Can you answer my questions yet?
03
_____________________________________________________________________________________
00
Oh I see why you won…. you had an Aussie at the helm 🙂
30
Yes and a Brit was the tactician. Both want to be US citizens I suppose….. 🙂
30
.
I’ve said all this already, so I’m only going to repeat it once, then leave the subject entirely.
The ONLY reason the Master Baiter is here, is because of the recognition we give him, even if that recognition is only in the form of dissent, argument, and outright ridicule. The Baiter doesn’t care: – as long as people are responding he has an audience, and that is all he craves.
For as long as you all keep responding to him, he will be here, arguing round in circles, contradicting himself, shifting goalposts, and simply ignoring that which he cannot deal with, and moving on to another comment. The ONLY way way to get rid of him, is to start ignoring him. Without the recognition he craves, in the form of feedback, he will soon move on. For as long as he gets recognition, he will be here, disrupting threads.
.
For the record, I have spent the day going back over the Master Baiter’s many comments on several threads. Let me clear up some misconceptions of his own making:
The Master Baiter is one person, and we have observed his development in using web resources.
The Master Baiter is not old enough to have near-teenage kids, let alone grandkids. He is not married, in fact, he doesn’t even have a girlfriend. He is 17 to 20, or a socially-stunted 21 to 24 year old. He lives alone, doesn’t watch TV, doesn’t drink, smoke, or go out. He doesn’t have any hobbies or outside interests, apart from commenting here via his PC or laptop.
He is not a teacher, or employed in any such field. At best he might work at a primary school where his job is to date stamp and file the doctor’s certificates supplied when children are away, or some similar menial position.
.
Think of him as a brain tumour or a cancer, that must be excised.
Excision is simply the act of ignoring him.
20
Why do you do this?
You ARE the visitor.
20
Thanks for the smarmy language justifying your links. I do already know something about ENSO. You’ll find that most people here at Jo’s blog know more than you think.
Michael, has it occurred to you that all the energy MUST be here on the earth with or without ENSO? The ENSO is essentially a weather event. If you use ENSO to argue for or against AGW then you have nullified the data produced by sensing systems the “science” is producing?
30
Reread my main argument Mark, this is exactly what I am saying. ENSO over 60 years have evened out, as it is a cycle, despite this temps have risen 0.6 deg c. One of the reasons for the recent so called pause in the atmosphere is due to the movement of heat into the oceans helped by significant cooling la nina cycles in recent times. As you have pointed out, they are temporary and does not change the system in the end. This means the pause is a natural cycle and the energy in the system is still building.
So yes, you are right. Without AGW we would have been in a strong cooling phase right now, it is actually what is holding temps up.
03
How did Nazi Germany survive as long as it did without you?
I don’t see how Nova or anybody else puts up with you, consider yourself as lucky as you will ever get, you little jerk
*GODWIN WINS THE DISCUSSION* for the 10**10**10 = 1 Google times
40
Michael, you did not latch on to my point. I don’t need to re-read you. you’ve been saying the same thing for weeks. “over 60 years” has evened out what exactly?
Were there satellites 60 years ago? Were there Argo buoys 60 years ago?
20
Mark, the main point is that ENSO is a cycle, thus it does not add to or take away energy from the system. It is currently part of a system that is in a cooling phase. You guys use that cooling phase to say that AGW has stopped while ignoring that the natural cycle is cooling but it has not cooled. Essentially you guys use ENSO to disprove AGW but like you said it is a weather event. Temps have held up into record territory and has not fallen, ocean heat content is rising, sea levels are rising, ocean ph is falling etc etc. Consistent with AGW but inconsistent with the current state of natural events (ENSO, solar, volcanos etc).
If you are so educatated then why can you not see that? Why can you not see that cherry picking a piece of a graph out of context, ignoring natural factors and ignoring the long term trend is not science. Why can you not see that there is no such thing as perfect information and science attempts to quantify and measure a whole range of things that are difficult to measure or have used different measuring instruments or proxy information etc. That is science, it is what they do. Your point is to create doubt, but it is not working.
04
____________________________________________________________________________________
20
Good so far,
Erm, not so good,
Wheels have now fallen off.
Cooling phase of the ocean (ENSO) but ocean heat content is rising………..Michael, do you see a problem here?
10
He is talking about the mysterious warming of “the deep oceans”…. you know, the warming that hasn’t been measured…… but some “smart” prick thought of it and they all said “brilliant!!!” and ran with it……
We must remember. They needed something to offset the failed “tropospheric hot spot”, so putting it down somewhere where nobody can find it will give them a good run. They just need to couch it all within enough “scientific” hocus pocus to fool the sad majority.
I am waiting to see what they come up with for the “positive feedback” that “increased water vapor and clouds” was supposed to give for CO2 now that we can see that both are in fact falling…………
10
No. There is the surface of the ocean pulling heat deeper, or do you think the ocean is only the surface? Open your eyes dude, it is you that cannot see the problems here.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
BS you still can’t answer my questions or prove why I am wrong with the 60 years of warming when most natural factors over the period have shown a net cooling or flat at best. Your attempts to make excuses or find alternatives have failed and your link bombing of science that you do not understand and does not support you have failed. So you keep rabbiting on about stuff irrelevant or made up without any proof. Go on, prove your a skeptic, and do the climate literacy course, or are you afraid you might actually learn something (very likely).
00
What AGW exactly? You have been shown that the mythical cloud and water vapor “positive feedback” required for alarmist GHG theory is non-existent. Are you saying that human emissions of CO2 alone have caused the warming? Please show to us the peer reviewed science to back up that bunk.
All the data is pointing to the beginning of a strong cooling phase…. didn’t you know?
30
BS, you keep repeating the same thing without knowing what you are saying. You have been unable to prove anything you say, you misuse peer reveiwed science and say it says things it does not say. You say that AGW is falsified by using things not part of AGW. You really do not know how to present research or science.
I will make a suggestion. I have just enrolled for an online course in Climate Literacy from the University of British Columbia. Join it as well. Have an open mind and there is always something more to learn. Are you game?
https://www.coursera.org/course/climateliteracy
04
Backslider I wouldn’t waste your time on this course, run by a couple of Climate & Sustainability activists.
If it doesn’t turn you into raving Eco-loon I don’t know what will.
Good for a laugh perhaps, if you have the time to waste, (I tried a few modules of their last one as a social experiment) but you’ll get no marks for arguing with teacher.
It is most disingenuous of MtR to suggest you indoctrinate yourself in the language of Sustainability & Climate luvvies.
Where does this course get its material from.
SkS no less
20
Just the type of comment I expected. Minds are closed and you only listen to climae misleading opinion blog sites that say what you want to hear. Very sad really. But I am willing to learn, that is the difference between people who are listening to the science and those avoiding it due to an inability to accept the consequences of their actions, political ideology or greedy.
Run by the University of British Columbia
Instructors
Sarah Burch is an Assistant Professor at the University of Waterloo in the Department of Geography and Environmental Management. She was formerly a Banting Postdoctoral Scholar in the Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, and a Visiting Research Associate at the University of Oxford. Sarah holds a PhD in Resource Management and Environmental Studies from UBC, and holds degrees in Environmental Science and International Relations
Sara Harris teaches global climate change, environmental science, and oceanography in the department of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences at the University of British Columbia. She has a PhD in Oceanography from Oregon State University and a research background in paleoceanography and paleoclimate. During seven years as a chief scientist at Sea Education Association in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, she studied modern oceans and sailed thousands of miles with undergraduate students.
Both still actively researching, unlike most opinion bloggers. So science from qualified experts is to difficult for you?
00
———————————————————————————–
00
___________________________________________________________________________________________
20