JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



What’s the harm in acting anyway?

Saving energy or stopping pollution is a good thing. What’s the danger in acting now?

Bishop Pachuri of the IPCC and his wind powered staff
We can save energy and stop real pollution without setting up a whole financial bureaucratic system based on “thin air”. The wholly unnecessary trading system feeds the sharks of finance with more money and power. We waste blood, sweat and tears and encourage cheats. We reward fraud and foster corruption.

When we trade real things, people who cheat get caught easily. They can’t get away with it for long. But in the quasi world of meaningless permits-for-air, the only limit to cheating is “what they can get away with”.

For example: Carbon credits paid to China to build hydro dams end up helping bankers buy yachts, and feed the mafiosi in China. They evict homeowners, don’t pay them enough compensation, flood their valleys and commit these people to homelessness or more slavery to bankers through mortgages.

Sure, some useful outcomes might occur. But hoping we get lucky is not “planning”. It’s policy-by-accident. If solar energy, say, is a good idea all on its own, we don’t need to invent fake reasons to force people to use more of it.

We could for example tax fuel or gas and subsidize the less efficient energy sources to encourage the switch… oh, that’s right, we already do.

The real price is often invisible. It’s all the things we won’t do that we could have: $3.4 billion dollars spent on carbon sequestration is not just “money”, it’s 46 million people who didn’t get cured of blindness and another 100 million who won’t get clean water — some of whom will die from cholera or dysentery.

If we employ thousands of accountants, lawyers and auditors to monitor a scheme that’s pointless, it means all these honest hardworking people are wasting everyone’s time and resources. They could be finding a cure for cancer, or feeding kids in Haiti. They could be teaching children here to use logic and reason, and help stop the next generation from wasting billions on manufactured scares.

Taking action to save us from “climate change” will result in deaths among the poorest poor who depend on cheap energy.

How many people would you kill in order to save us from a theoretical “modeled” threat?

Page 15


TURN THE PAGES (Links in red will become active as pages are published). You are on the page in the Red Square.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 + 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

This is page 15 of The Skeptics Handbook II. A 20 page PDF

Post script

I meant to put both entire Handbooks up as pages (and yes, you can see I got distracted!). This page further exposes the idea of the infamous (and bogus) precautionary principle, which got a brief mention in Skeptics Handbook I (point 4). It’s a critical point because it’s the invisible opportunity costs, like the Broken Window Fallacy, that many people never notice.

Henry Hazlitt’s “One Lesson”? It is this:

“The whole of economics can be reduced to a single lesson, and that lesson can be reduced to a single sentence. The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.”

“Economics is haunted by more fallacies than any other science known to man.”
– Henry Hazlitt in Economics in One Lesson

Tiny URL for this page: http://tiny.cc/kji4a

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 6.7/10 (3 votes cast)
What’s the harm in acting anyway?, 6.7 out of 10 based on 3 ratings

Tiny Url for this post:

332 comments to What’s the harm in acting anyway?

  • #
    Tony Windsor

    Dear Jo
    I write from the UK as a very regular visitor to your site; you and Anthony Watts are inspirational with your determination to expose the fraud of the Great CAGW scam. Please keep up the good work.
    I am writing this evening simply to advise you that the money we might save by not subscribing to the pernicious garbage we are fed every day might not necessarily go to the good causes you mention which could benefit. You know this, of course, but to my shame at my naivitie I have only just realised that the Christian Aid charity to which I have contributed time, money and effort for a number of years actually has a political wing which actively supports the whole notion of AGW. I confess to a feeling of betrayal that my money has been used to the reverse effect of that which I thought I was contributing. I have known about WWF and Greenpeace but to find that one of my favourite charities is in bed with these charlatans leaves me very despondent. I wonder how many other well meaning folk like me are similarly giving their hard earned cash to these organisations? It might be instructive to establish a list of so-called charities which are squandering our money on very dubious causes! I have written to Christian Aid and informed them that my money now goes elsewhere; I do not expect a reply.
    Please keep up the good work; you people are a beacon in a dark night but one day, hopefully not too long, your efforts will be rewarded.
    Regards
    Tony Windsor


    Report this

    00

  • #
    grayman

    JO; YOU really think god forbid, that a rational thought might come from these boneheads. What you say should be done is all well and good and i for one agree but the poloticions and acedamia think otherwise, THAT is the problem. THINKING! Not enough of it.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    What is the harm in acting anyway? Well, if it isn’t broke broken don’t destroy fix it!

    1. CO2 is plant food and we need more, not less in the atmosphere.
    2. Even if the CAGW theory is correct, we would only limit the increase in temps by a minute fraction of a degree.
    3. The economies of the world would be destroyed and the poor would suffer the most.
    4. Over the last few decades the biosphere has gotten much cleaner and continues to do so.
    5. The only way to ensure the safety of the ecosystem is through the largesse made possible by wealth generation because:
    A. Hungry people will kill and eat the animals of the forest.
    B. Naked people will use the hides of the aforementioned animals of the forest to cloth themselves.
    C. Shelterless people will cut down the forest to build dwellings and burn what is left to cook and stay warm.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Eddy,

    Even if it is broken the fix is worse than the ailment.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    What’s the harm in acting? Nothing – if people who can afford it aren’t harmed or even inconvenienced.

    A lot of the advocates will be “inconvenienced,” however, and they will have their own selves to blame.

    Such “environment-minded” are NOTORIOUS for their “you can pull up the ladder now I’m on board!” attitude and in makes me SICK

    If any of the “spatches” come around here trashing this post from Jo Anne I’m going to go ballistic


    Report this

    01

  • #
    Adolf Balik

    There are even more important goals that they try to achieve. This means artificial limits of grow. That means limits of competition and protection of privileges and monopolistic perogatives for the corporations which are more equal. When in the 70th limits of grow occurred temporary by chance due to energetic crisis that was Golden Age for monopolist cartels. Their power and political influence rocket-skied and their competitors were on knees. Since then they have been fighting for various artificial limits of grow like Oil Peaks and like Green Limits.

    The best artificial limit of grow that they invited are fabricated limits on energy consumption. The word as a whole produces exactly the amount of GDP which is consumed on form of primary energy. 1$ US of the planet production is produced from 9.7 mW x year in prices adjusted to the year 1990. Limits on carbon thus means general limits of grow and corporativistic power uptake. End of market economy, new feudalism, in which feudal tenant for serf is not a soil but energy.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    It’ll be paid by the individual using a carbon “credit” card so the policy makers can control every aspect of our lives and make $$$ from it. Oh, and let me introduce the Carbon Credit project – a world first apparently, using our tax dollars: Carbon trading project

    A WORLD-FIRST trial of a personal carbon trading scheme that will also target obesity, is to be conducted by Southern Cross University on Norfolk Island.

    The three-year project will involve giving everyone on the island a card loaded with carbon units, according to the man leading it, Garry Egger.

    “Then every time they go and pay for their petrol or their power – and from the second year their food – it will not only be paid for in money but it will also come off the carbon units they are given for free at the start of the program,” Professor Egger said.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Do you insure your house, car, whatever, if the premium is more than the value of said item. If so, hey, I’ve got this great bridge I can sell to you.

    I read some time ago that a Canadian socialist MP stated that it didn’t matter if AGW theory was right or wrong; it was an excellent pretext for wealth redistribution.

    Enough said.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Adolf Balik

    To Eddy Aruda 3:

    Yes, carbon is an essential substance of life, thus, control over carbon means control over life. It is the same control like former control over water in an inundation civilization which was base for despotic power of pharaohs etc.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    James Delingpole has a good article http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100060540/happy-climate-fools-day/
    quoting selectively
    I know what you’re thinking and I’ve heard about the “consensus” too. But when you can actually prove something you don’t need a consensus. That’s why you never hear about the consensus on gravity, or the consensus on evolution. Saying that 97% of climate scientists believe in global warming is an awful lot like saying that 97% of priests believe in God. If they didn’t at least pretend to believe in global warming climate change climate disruption they wouldn’t be climate scientists – not of the sort that get public funding, anyway. And when those “scientists” have to delete their own source data to prevent it from being released under freedom of information laws they deserve the scare quotes because at that point they have stopped being a credible science and have become just another bunch of religious extremists.

    Simply put, the shoddy and disreputable field of climate “science” still has an awfully long way yet to go to actually prove that our six and a half pints of co2 are a problem of sufficient magnitude to justify such an obscene amount of public cash. Not when we are the only nation currently prepared to eviscerate our economy in such a way, making the entire exercise a futile gesture from the outset.

    and what does he say about the precautionary principle?

    Maybe it’s just me, but doesn’t the “cure” sound worse than the problem? A bit like amputating your leg to “cure” your in-growing toe nail? A bit Nongqawuse? But surprisingly few of the politicians, bankers, civil servants, trans-national bureaucrats, academics, activists and energy companies who stand to receive a slice of this funding bonanza seem to see it that way. And who can blame them? Remarkably few of those pallets would be enough to turn most of us into true believers.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    TWinkler

    Accountants, lawyers and auditors are now going to focus on curing cancer. What a Laugh!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bingi

    Joanne Nova said:

    CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and it warms the planet.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/the-one-flaw-that-wipes-out-the-crisis/

    Climate sensitivity is 3.0 °C for a doubling of CO2. There’s your reason for acting NOW in reducing our output of CO2.

    Read more here.

    Papers on climate sensitivity estimates


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Bingi, it is a pity that most of those estimates are plucked from the nether regions of those who supply them.

    Now get back in the classroom, this place is for adults.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Twinkler:

    I think your post at #10 indicates you need to bend down and pick your brain from off the floor where you have dropped it.

    Employment of “accountants, lawyers and auditors” has cost. The the AGW scare is diverting the resources needed to meet that cost from productive things (such as cancer research).

    Your several posts on this blog each demonstrate that thinking is difficult for you, but your comment this time is both stupid and despicable. Such silly and inhumane comments are appropriate at the web sites you and your fellows cite, but entirely inappropriate here.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Bingi:

    No, you are wrong.

    Climate sensitivity is 0.1 deg.C as determined by 8 different empirical methods.
    See
    http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/Idso_CO2_induced_Global_Warming.htm

    So, there is no reason to restrict CO2 emissions now or ever.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    [snip]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Saving energy and thereby reducing pollution happens automatically every day. Energy has a cost and only a fool doesn’t pay attention to costs and reduce them at every moment.

    I can’t drive a micro car because work requires that I have a truck. The work I do for my customers is necessary for them to operate. There is no part of that simple example that would benefit from forced carbon taxes to reduce my consumption. Any attempt to force me to reduce carbon consumption would increase costs which I would promptly pass along to my customers and they in turn to theirs. Still no reduction in carbon. This is the fallacy in carbon consumption tax actually having much effect at all.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Bilge:
    October 29th, 2010 at 8:04 am

    You wrote:

    Climate sensitivity is 3.0 °C for a doubling of CO2. There’s your reason for acting NOW in reducing our output of CO2.

    To which Richard Courtney Responded:

    Bingi:
    No, you are wrong.
    Climate sensitivity is 0.1 deg.C as determined by 8 different empirical methods.

    The IPCC agrees with you, Bilge, but they base their opinion upon a positive feed back from water vapor, not ust CO2 doubling in atmospheric content.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-understanding-and.html
    “Water vapour changes represent the largest feedback affecting climate sensitivity…”

    Well, Bilge, can you cite empirical evidence that proves that water vapor has a positive feedback?

    Maybe you can explain why the IPCC is correct?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    TWinky:
    October 29th, 2010 at 7:53 am

    Accountants, lawyers and auditors are now going to focus on curing cancer. What a Laugh!

    You are such a dim witted troll! What are you going to post next? Perhaps “Lions and Tigers and Bears, oh my”! Maybe you should see the wizard about getting a brain?

    Actually, accountants and lawyers are making a fortune off this scam. It would be nice if there were some auditors examining the work of the criminals at the core of this climate cabal. I know, why don’t you write the IPCC a letter asking them to hire an independent auditor to audit them? After all, if the IPCC is such a paragon of scientific integrity it will go far in restoring the public’s confidence in their work, won’t it? Get back to us when you hear from them, okay TWinky?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    TWinkler

    Bingi posts a link to dozens of peer-reviewed climate sensitivity papers published in various scientific journals.

    Richard S Courtney, in response, posts a personal website listing a paper written by Idso (who is Exxon sponsored). Following the link to the paper “CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change” – not really off to a scientifically unbiased objective start are we?

    So reading the paper, at the end it says:

    Submitted: August 5, 1997; Accepted: January 22, 1998
    Proofs received from author(s): February 24, 1998

    Where’s it published? The only places I found are on Idso’s own site co2science.org, or on another obsure site, http://www.mitosyfraudes.org which seems to harbour all sort of strange ideas. Neither are scientific journals for publishing climate research.

    So Richard, why is it you wish to ignore the body of scientific work published by numerous individuals that show climate senstivity to be most likely be around 3 degrees, and instead promote an individual of dubious background who’s unpublished (or perhaps we should self-published on the internet) work contradicts the leading experts in their field?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    TWinkler

    [original snipped. Fair call Twinkler]


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    [snip]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    TWinkler

    Such silly and inhumane comments are appropriate at the web sites you and your fellows cite, but entirely inappropriate here.blockquote>

    So sue me baby.

    Now back to the climate sensitivity study?

    I hesitate to use the D word, but why is it you ignore all of them and instead think some other nut, that only seems capable of publishing on blogger sites, is right?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    How big does Steve Schwartz think it is?

    Why don’t you use your real name: Richard Head


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Twinkler:

    At at #19 you yet again demonstrate the degree of your intelectual capacity when you ask:

    Where’s it published? The only places I found are on Idso’s own site co2science.org, or on another obsure site,

    I gave you the link to the abstract at
    http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/Idso_CO2_induced_Global_Warming.htm

    At that URL the bottom says

    The paper is here.

    And if you click on the word “here” it takes you to the paper published in ‘Climate Research’.

    That seems to have been too difficult for you. Sorry, I challenged you in this manner, but the phrase “The paper is here” contains only words of one syllable so I mistakenly thought it would be within your reading ability.

    Anyway, in case clicking that link is beyond your abilities, I provide the direct URL here. It is
    http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf

    I hope you can manage this.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #

    TWinkler:
    October 29th, 2010 at 9:33 am

    “…Idso (who is Exxon sponsored)”

    Argumentum Ad Hominem. Sourcewatch lists a total of $90,000 dollars over several years, so what? http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change How about the billions contributed to the WWF, Greenpeace and the like? Does contributions from oil companies in the billions make anything they say untrue? Try using a little deductive reasoning and logic or is that beyond you?

    Where’s it published?

    Sherwood B. Idso, “CO2-Induced Global Warming: A Skeptic’s View of Potential Climate Change,” Climate Research 10 (1998): 69-82.

    Bingi posts a link to dozens of peer-reviewed climate sensitivity papers published in various scientific journals.

    You seem to think that because your fellow troll lists a website that has numerous papers that their sheer number means that he is right. That is another fallacy you have used, Argumentum ad numerum, an appeal to numbers. Why don’t you fire up that 1200 cc. brain of your and discuss what in some of those papers you believe makes your point correct or your argument valid?

    BTW, most of the papers Bilge linked to were based on models. Would you care to tell us the model that ever predicted the future of climate and was correct?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Eddy:

    I hope your personal difficulties are being resolved.

    I now write to say, with respect, that I think your comment at #26 is far too erudite for Twinkler to understand it. Her posts clearly show she is about 8 years old, and it is asking far too much of her to expect any understanding of logical fallacies. Indeed, it is unkind to expect her to understand adult ways of thinking.

    So, I suggest that you address her in the manner you would any other petulant little girl. This may help her to understand what you are saying.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bingi

    @TWinkler

    You can tell when we get under the skin of the deniers when they start calling us names.

    In the end all the huffing and puffing and mis-information from the sceptics will amount to naught.

    The establishment will go with what the peer reviewed science tells them.

    The sceptics unpublished blog science will be ignored, as it should be.

    [Binghi, "deniers" is just name calling. You need to name and explain that paper we deny or apologize (grovel) for your mistaken use of the term. No more comments published from you until you resolve this. JN]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    [snip]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    [snip - sorry that was entertaining, but I don't want the discussion so diluted]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    [snip]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    The Qld Govt has tabled this report today:
    http://www.climatechange.qld.gov.au/pdf/climate-change-in-queensland-2010.pdf
    It’s 100 pages but for scientists like Warwick and some of his readers it would make interesting reading
    this from page 8:
    Climate Change 2009 (Steffen 2009) reviewed the
    science of climate change since the publication of
    the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s
    (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, Climate Change
    2007 (AR4) (IPCC 2007a–c). Steffen suggests that
    the AR4 was conservative in its range of projections
    and that many aspects of the climate system are
    changing at the upper level of the IPCC range
    of projections—towards more rapid and severe
    climate change with dangerous impacts.
    The Science of Climate Change: Questions
    and Answers published in August 2010 by the
    Australian Academy of Sciences outlines changes
    in Australian climate including:
    • an increase of about 0.7 °C in average surface
    temperature since 1960, with some areas having
    warmed faster and others showing little evidence
    of warming
    • an increase in the frequency of extremely
    hot days
    • a decrease in the frequency of cold days
    • significant increase in rainfall over
    north-western Australia
    • decrease in rainfall over south-eastern Australia
    • sea level rise of about 1.2 millimetres per year
    since 1920.
    Figure 7 (a) at page 17 looks very much like the hockey stick and this is what the report says about it:

    Figure 7(a) shows the strong warming trend in the
    global temperature record since the early 20th
    century. Figure 7(b) shows the individual years
    in the record ranked according to their average
    temperature, the year ranked as number one
    (1998) being the warmest year on record. This
    figure highlights the increasing trend in global
    temperatures, with recent decades dominating
    as the warmest years.

    Sea level of course is rising and rainfall is diminishing (no mention of glaciers in this report) but lots to say about tipping points and future challenges and plenty of attribution to the IPCC


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    val majkus,

    Sure enough, it always gets worse, never better.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bingi

    @Richard S Courtney

    That paper by Idso is dated 1998.

    The science has moved on from then. Do try and keep up.

    @Eddy Arudeass

    Here’s a paper that is based on data, I recommend you read it.

    Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is ~3°C for doubled CO2

    BTW, your post @3 is ignorance personified. Does your dad know you’re using his pic? I estimate your age to be around 15 going by your recent posts.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Better cut it out – Twinkler is getting “aroused”


    Report this

    00

  • #

    The whole problem I have with this ‘fiddling’ with the consumer market is that the money gets directed on buying the current generation of technology or solutions. I’d much rather have that money directed right at real research to make the future tech available sooner – i.e. if 40% efficient solar cells became a reality at affordable prices – no need to use grants or feed-in tariffs to get people to buy them, they would be economically viable in their own right.

    Basically stop spending vast sums of our collective monies on buying today’s technology and instead invest in the future. This is what proper governments should do and we should ask them to do it. Just look at all the benefits that came out of the old ‘space race’ for instance.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Jo,

    40 years ago we were given a warning with the start of salinity changes in the oceans. Blamed on Global Warming but never looked at through the eyes of science. Just took the word that Global Warming was the cause. Salinity changes by heat would have taken massive evaporation to achieve. But that did not happen! The actual cause is the pressure increase of the atmosphere that showed with growth up on mountains, pushing the colder gases higher.

    How much warning time is left before a massive climate shift is unknown. Are we ready? Of course not! As far as scientists and politicians are concerned, it will be warmer.
    Water has a magnificient survival strategy that is directly linked with pressure. So any type of disaster can set off this survival mechanism. Quite a brilliant link water has with salt and pressure as the natural state of water totally relaxed is gases. Water would soon as freeze than evaporate and disipate for it’s survival.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Jo

    You ask “What’s the harm in acting anyway?”

    I ask “What’s the point in acting, anyway?” Reasons:

    1. There is no emperical evidence that the warming of the last 150 years is “unprecedented” or unnatural or harmful.
    2. The IPCC’s logic is heavily based on computer models – garbage in = garbage out.
    3. The fundamental science of infra red absorption by CO2 (refer Beer-Lambert, a LAW of physics) shows that further CO2 concentrations will not significantly increase heat retention.
    4. The temperature rises quoted by the alarmists presume some significant positive feedbacks – feedbacks that have not been observed in actuality in 4.5 billion years.

    You could easily point to examples where “action” has been taken – e.g. Spain, California, Germany. The results have been pathetic and the costs exhorbitant. They have demonstrated, at considerable cost, the futility of the AGW argument. And are a moral lesson for us not to be so stupid as to follow them down that same path.

    Cheers,

    Speedy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    FijiDave

    Twinky

    “….a paper written by Idso (who is Exxon sponsored).”

    Maybe I’m just thick. Maybe it’s because I’m isolated on a little island in the South Pacific. But I cannot understand this harping on about who funds what. Would it make Einstein’s Theory of Relativity irrelevant in your eyes if you didn’t approve who paid his wages when he came up with the idea?

    I was told, as a child, that a “fact” was something that swam around the oceans looking for fish farts for use in spirit levels. I eventually grew out of this simplistic understanding, by the time I was about 4 1/2 years old, but it appears that there are still many who have this fish fart mentality and just can’t let it go.

    Does money (or the lack of it) dictate discoveries? Does ethnicity? Age? What difference does it make who funds research? A fact doesn’t give a flying **** who finds it, or who funded the finding. A fact is a fact – something that appears to be lacking in your arsenal of AGW ideas.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    TWinkler

    And if you click on the word “here” it takes you to the paper published in ‘Climate Research’.

    … repeated rubbish removed …

    Anyway, in case clicking that link is beyond your abilities, I provide the direct URL here. It is http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf

    I did follow the link .. I even said so … “Following the link to the paper ”

    Are you really claiming that the website http://www.warwickhughes.com is where peer-reviewed journal climate papers are published?

    Jeez man you’re going from bad to worse. And still you ignore the body of work from the experts – you just pretend it’s not there.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    TWinkler

    Would it make Einstein’s Theory of Relativity …

    Einstein’s theories got published. :P


    Report this

    00

  • #
    TWinkler

    @Bingi, yes it always seems to boil down to “our theories are right, and we only publish on blogger sites because the peer-review process is biased” … funny how later on they use a published Linzden/Carter etc paper to try and argue another point.

    Where is George “I am the next Einstein” anyway? I miss his sincere attempts to convince us he knows better than everyone.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    scott

    I agree climate sensitivity is very high at 3.0, and we are actually not here blogging because we are all actually dead from the globe reaching boiling point Millennia ago.

    /sarc off


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Twinkie,

    I have better things to do than talk to a black hole. Data does in, but seems to disappear, never to be comprehended. I guess information isn’t conserved at the event horizon …

    Besides, the World Series is on.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Eddy

    Typical “action” – as per the Californian/Spanish model – is to use wind farms and solar panels. Nice toys, very visible. Trouble is that they only exist because of massive subsidies. And they don’t do much.

    It grinds my gears to hear these guys trying to sell sustainability, when they can’t even manage VIABILITY!

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tim

    These are interesting times, and decisions being made will affect the future of civilisation as we have known it. There’s a war raging: unbiased science & commonsense vs massive fraud and power-domination. I have hopes that the informed minority are growing exponentially, thanks to principled sites like this one.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Bingi, “deniers” is just name calling. You need to name and explain that paper we deny or apologize (grovel) for your mistaken use of the term. No more comments published from you until you resolve this. JN

    People, insults are ok if they are substantiated. Mindless insults are unhelpful.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    TWinkler

    Jo, What do you call someone that denies the existence of climate sensitivity studies that give a most likely value of 3 degrees?

    Perhaps we need to call them “Richards” instead of using the D word.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    TWinkler

    I agree climate sensitivity is very high at 3.0, and we are actually not here blogging because we are all actually dead from the globe reaching boiling point Millennia ago.

    A millennia ago CO2 levels were around 280 ppm, not 390 ppm as they are today.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    AGW has exactly one “empirical” corollary – all the rest that remains is force-fit and speculation.

    The corollary of an enhanced Greenhouse effect is a “hot spot” near the tropopause between the Tropics of Capricorn and Cancer.

    Einstein’s theories had empirical consequences that were actually observed.

    Comments?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    The precautionary principle. Policies right around the world are now being made and implemented based on this wrong-headed and dangerous ideology.

    In today’s society, because we have become so efficient at producing food, fibre and building supplies, spoilt yuppies have the luxury of spending time making up reasons why we cannot progress, as opposed to being forced to do things better in order to survive.

    The bitter irony of our amazing success is that it is the very vehicle for precautionary principle advocates to stop us producing.

    It would be funny, were it not so serious.

    Cheers,
    Janet


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Scott @ 45

    If you dive into the paleoclimate history, the atmospheric CO2 levels have been up to 7000 ppm – that’s about 25 times more than the 280 ppm quoted above. A 16x level is equal to 4.6 doublings of the CO2 level. If climate sensitivity is 3 Celsius per doubling, then the earth’s temperature would have been 3 * 4.6 = 13.8 Celsius warmer then than it was in 1850 AD. Obvious.

    Unfortunately, the earth had an ice age at that period. So much for climate sensitivity to CO2 level!

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Bilge:
    October 29th, 2010 at 11:08 am

    @Richard S Courtney

    That paper by Idso is dated 1998.
    The science has moved on from then. Do try and keep up.

    Another fallacy, the complex question. Also, your reasoning is circular. Your statement is based on a false assumption. You assume because the paper was published in 1998 and other papers have been published since then that the paper is no longer relevant or valid. Perhaps you can explain to us why the paper is not valid and also explain why newer papers are valid? If you cannot then the paper stands and you have revealed yourself for being nothing more than an ignoramus and a cretan to boot!

    @Eddy Arudeass

    Here’s a paper that is based on data, I recommend you read it.
    Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is ~3°C for doubled CO2
    BTW, your post @3 is ignorance personified. Does your dad know you’re using his pic? I estimate your age to be around 15 going by your recent posts

    .

    Okay, I read the paper, again, so lets discuss it. Why do you feel the paper is relevant? What makes this paper right and other papers that disagree with it wrong. Oh, while you are at it, answer my question at 27, ” Would you care to tell us the model that ever predicted the future of climate and was correct?”

    Could you explain why you believe my post at #3 was “ignorance personified”? Otherwise, you have only engaged in another ad hominem (at the man) attack. A typical troll will not be able to respond with a lucid argument because he lacks the intelligence to do so. My father passed away in 1992 and I retired as a regional light heavyweight champion for the World Tae Kwon Do Federation in 1985. That is my picture and I am 51 years old. I have probably whipped more ass than you have seen naked and you should thank your lucky stars that you can hide behind your anonymity. ;)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    TWinkler

    Brian G Valentine:

    Comments?

    You’re avoiding the question already posed @20. Are you being a “Richard”?

    As for the hotspot, the data so far doesn’t disprove the theory.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Mindless insults are unhelpful.

    Apologies, Jo Anne, but I can’t help but think there is some psycho-sexual appeal to these “climate disaster” speculations.

    It’s like the “true confessions” type of pulp – Surely it’s nonsense, yet it continues to have widespread and popular appeal

    (Brian you are too smart to be using mindless insults.Try dealing with it better in some other way) CTS


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Twinkler, you can’t even match nouns and verbs correctly


    Report this

    00

  • #
    TWinkler

    Eddy with anger problems says:

    You assume because the paper was published in 1998 and other papers have been published since then that the paper is no longer relevant or valid.

    You’re right. His paper’s probably crap to begin with since it never got published in a peer-reviewed science journal (at least no one here can point to that happening – all we get are personal websites).

    His attempt at studying the MWP period is seriously flawed because he moves the dates of the MWP for each study in order to pick out the higher temps. Shoddy and easily exposed rubbish work!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    TWinky:
    October 29th, 2010 at 11:50 am

    I did follow the link .. I even said so … “Following the link to the paper ”
    Are you really claiming that the website http://www.warwickhughes.com is where peer-reviewed journal climate papers are published?
    Jeez man you’re going from bad to worse. And still you ignore the body of work from the experts – you just pretend it’s not there.

    Are you brain dead? At 27 I posted Sherwood B. Idso, “CO2-Induced Global Warming: A Skeptic’s View of Potential Climate Change,” Climate Research 10 (1998): 69-82. Are you too lame to cut and paste the info into a search engine? Here it is, you can click on to, can’t you? http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr/10/c010p069.pdf Oh, and regrding the “body of work from experts” click on this link and you will find 800 peer reviewed papers that support skepticism of CAGW. Pick one, read it and lets discuss it. Or are you just a troll who is here to waste everybody’s time?


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    TWinkler

    Brian G Valentine:

    Apologies, Jo Anne, but I can’t help but think there is some psycho-sexual appeal to these “climate disaster” speculations.

    That’s a reflection of your own thoughts, than of other people in this forum – with the exception of Richard, he went into a dark area and got rightly snipped for it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Me @ 54

    Mea culpa. It should read 25 times CO2 level = 4.6 doublings, equivalent to 13.8 Celsius.

    The reality – an ice age when the CO2 was 7000 – is a real embarrassment to the climate alarmists.

    And maybe they can remind us why it is absolutely critical to control atmospheric CO2??? Even if we can’t. Hmmm?

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ChrisC

    Richard @ 15

    Thanks for the link. But i think you need to correct ‘climate sensitivity is 0.1 degC’ to ‘climate sensitivity is 0.1 degC/W/m2′. Dr Sherwood states that 0.1 degC/W/m2 corresponds to a temperature increase of 0.4 degC for a doubling of CO2 which is, i believe, the normal meaning for the term ‘climate sensitivity’. Do you agree?

    Also, while i’m at it, i would like to comment that the residence time of CO2, being a key issue in terms of future warming concerns, is not discussed enough. With much research showing that CO2 residence time is only in the order of 10 years so, why the long-term concerns? If we humans suddenly stopped emitting CO2 we only have wait 10 years for that CO2 to dissipate/be consumed. We can be sure that there is not going to be any serious change in the environment in a 10 year period due to our emissions so why the panic? Why do anything other than keep researching, on a true scientific basis, until the fear of CAGW goes away?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    T Wanker:
    October 29th, 2010 at 12:59 pm

    You’re right. His paper’s probably crap to begin with since it never got published in a peer-reviewed science journal (at least no one here can point to that happening – all we get are personal websites).

    Good God you are obtuse! Wikipedia, no friend to climate skeptics says of Climate Research Journal “Climate Research is a peer-reviewed scientific journal published by the Inter-Research Science Center[1] that was first published in 1990. Its founder was Otto Kinne.[2] Three volumes are published each year. Climate Research covers all aspects of the interactions of climate with organisms, ecosystems and human societies.”

    Even a complete fool such as you who basis his belief in CAGW on an appeal to authority will have enough humility to admit that you were wrong and that the paper Richard Courtney referred to was indeed published in a respected climate journal? Or, are you going to continue to embarrass yourself by revealing the depth of your ignorance?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Twinky at 59

    His attempt at studying the MWP period is seriously flawed because he moves the dates of the MWP for each study in order to pick out the higher temps. Shoddy and easily exposed rubbish work!

    You idiot, he didn’t move anything! If so, show us where? You are really in a bind now. Oh, are you going to answer my questions or are you going to continue to dodge and evade like the dim witted troll that you are? (When is it good to be losing your cool and veer into being snotty?) CTS

    (Twinky,TWanker,Bilge and other mangled user names.Please stop doing that! Use their real user names from now on) CTS


    Report this

    00

  • #

    (Snipped the entire comment,because you are getting personal with TWinkler,also because again you are changing his user name to be snotty about it) CTS


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Try dealing with it better in some other way) CTS

    The point of the posting is consideration of humanity on behalf of humanity.

    Show me a gram of humanity in somebody like Twinkler and I’ll stop the mindless insults at him.

    (The rule of THIS blog is not to post “mindless insults”.That is what Moderators are trying to support.It is the rule we ALL should strive to follow.) CTS

    (Quoting JO, “People, insults are ok if they are substantiated. Mindless insults are unhelpful”) CTS


    Report this

    00

  • #
    scott

    Hmm Millennia the plural of mil·len·ni·a meaning 1000′s of years

    So Twinkler your saying that CO2 concentration has been a constant 280 ppm for 1000′s of years.

    Now thats interesting research


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Eddy

    I have to admire your persistence but at the end of the day, the onus of proof is on the alarmists to demonstrate the veracity of their “theory”. This physical evidence is conspicuous by its absence in every one of the posts from our resident trolls.

    By the way, I’m still waiting for John Brookes to decide whether the Gorester’s “Inconvenient Truth” needs to be sold in the fiction aisle. And if not, why so.

    Cheers,

    Speedy.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ CTS

    The guy is nothing but a troll. Use their real names? They don’t have a real name!
    Joanne Nova:
    October 29th, 2010 at 12:18 pm

    People, insults are ok if they are substantiated. Mindless insults are unhelpful.

    In my humble opinion I believed that the insults I leveled were substantiated. Considering the cheap shots they have taken at Richard Courtney, a scientist that I hold in the highest regard and that they brought my father into this and the fact they have been insincere and disingenuous from the very beginning, could you please be so kind as to explain to me why they deserve to be treated better?

    (I understand your feelings on the matter.However it is also beneficial to maintain a higher standard of conduct as well,when confronting those who fail to maintain that standard.Name calling in ANY form can only reduce your credibility,since you are then becoming more like them in the process.I have seen this happen in a couple of blogs,that degenerated to such a low level.That a few People stopped coming,including me) CTS


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Now that’s interesting research

    I daresay that’s interesting research, and could not be ascertained by ice core analysis either because the temperatures and barometric pressures at which these might be associated with are unknown.

    The only partial extrapolation that could be made is the rate of carbonate deposition in geologic strata – and that is certainly not constant over “millennia”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    TWinkler

    Eddy Aruda says:

    Twinky, here is the link http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

    800? Well there goes George’s theory that the peer-review system wont allow his “genius” to be published.

    But as for your challenge, this is all too easy. The people who made this list rely on the hope that no one really critically looks at it.

    To take your challenge, sure I’ll pick one.

    Phenomenological solar signature in 400 years of reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperature record

    Here’s what they say.

    During the 20th one continues to observe a significant correlation between the solar and temperature patterns: both records show an increase from 1900 to 1950, a decrease from 1950 to 1970, and again an increase from 1970 to 2000. However, a divergence in the upward trend of the two records is also evident. A comparison between the curves indicates that the sun might have contributed approximately 50% of the total global surface warming since 1900 [Scafetta and West, 2006]. Since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could reasonably be expected from the sun alone.

    They say that whilst the sun has been responsible for most of the changes in the temps of the past, it can only account for around 50% of the recent decades.

    It supports AGW. Not really what you wanted to hear now was it?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Twinkler that conclusion was contradicted by analyses of the Royal Danish Observatory of 2004, which did in fact implicate solar activity to 10% [the error] of the increase, and besides, the data of the analysis were not adjusted for UHI effects as well as consistency of temperature measurement


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    Has anyone considered the risk of letting the carbon dioxide levels fall too low? It seems to me that the flow of carbon is from sporadic but frequent meteor donations toward permanent natural sequestration. What happens if we get a meteor drought?
    Now if the above seems too silly, ask yourself where all the fossil fuel came from.

    “Annually, we collide with several different debris streams that originate from different parent bodies, all comets of one sort or another. These occur at predictable times of the year. Infrequently, the Earth plows into a fresh stream of debris and people see a meteor storm for a few hours with tens to hundreds of meteors per minute.”

    …”meteoroids are samples of the material that rained down on the Earth the carbon needed for life.”
    http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_perseids_060810.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Has anyone considered the risk of letting the carbon dioxide levels fall too low?

    It’s not going to happen, insofar as there are no reasonable differences between average ocean and atmosphere temperatures for which it can happen


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Siliggy, surely the Australian Parliament has passed legislation to stop meteors or meteoroids from raining down on Earth. ;-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    TWinkler

    Eddy Aruda says:

    You idiot, he didn’t move anything! If so, show us where? You are really in a bind now. Oh, are you going to answer my questions or are you going to continue to dodge and evade like the dim witted troll that you are? (When is it good to be losing your cool and veer into being snotty?) CTS

    MWP defined as between 950–1250 AD.

    So what do CO2Science do:

    1000-1300 AD to avoids the lower 950-1000 temps.

    MWP centered around 1300 AD – although this one still shows it being cooler than today.

    Question answered [].


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    Brian G Valentine:
    October 29th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
    It’s not going to happen, insofar as there are no reasonable differences between average ocean and atmosphere temperatures for which it can happen.

    Natural sequestration would happen in simultaneously in the sea on the land and BELOW THE SEA floor!
    If it did not these meteors would have filled us up to overflow already.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    davidc

    “That paper by Idso is dated 1998.

    The science has moved on from then.”

    Indeed it has. The “temperature” has flatlined since then, implying a climate sensitivity of zero.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Siliggy, re 75

    The only danger is to plants and the rest of the biosphere. Experiments certainly show that plants thrive under increased CO2 levels and are equally stunted at reduced levels. For example, it’s well known that greenhouses must be well ventilated, otherwise, the CO2 levels will drop too low and the plants will die. Plants, and the rest of life, sequester natural sources of CO2 by recirculating it in the biosphere for it’s own benefit. This is largely responsible for the lagging CO2 in the ice core records since it takes a while for the biosphere to accumulate carbon. The oceans respond to change relatively quickly, when compared to the ice core lags, so changes in solubility will not be subject to large delays and will be reflected concurrently with temperature changes. The delayed component is far more likely to be the signature of evolutionary biology.

    CO2 is certainly good for the biosphere, so since we are part of the biosphere, reducing CO2 levels can only be harmful to man.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    I dream of a world without AGW. Not the physical thing, because it doesn’t exist, but people’s consideration of it at all

    Buona sera.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    davidc

    CO2: “it’s well known that greenhouses must be well ventilated, otherwise, the CO2 levels will drop too low and the plants will die.”

    Actually, some growers add CO2, up to about 1000 ppm.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bingi

    joanne@49

    I apologise for using denier. I will stick to sceptic from now on.

    [ Thanks -- JN]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Twinkler, you truly are an []! Your first link was to wikipedia which gives a general timeframe for thr MWP. You then show the same link, again! “So what do CO2Science do”? What is that you moron! Did you look at the graph? I clicked on it. It had Briffa, Jones, Bradly and Mann, et al, listed under references. These bristlecone pine tree ring data reconstructions are worthless! Certainly a scholar such as you read the Wegman report where the “Hockey Stick” was demolished? If you did, you wouldn’t have posted something so ridiculous and discredited!

    Your last two links show two different reconstruction using two completely different proxies from two geographically distinct areas. The two data sets did not agree with each other. In fact, with the exception of the bristlecone conspirators and a possible freak coincidence, none of the temperature reconstructions agree completely with each other. There is almost always variance. Again, the author of the paper didn’t “move” anything. Why don’t you look at the first temp reconstruction that the IPCC used as It too is different. Read and learn []! http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/06/ipcc_1990_fig_71c_again.php

    Are you going to apologize to Richard Courtney for saying that the paper he cited was unpublished by a reputable journal or are you going to continue in true trolling form?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    TWinkler

    Eddy, I said CO2Science relabelled when the MWP was.

    You said they didn’t.

    Then I showed two graphs from CO2Science’s list, that label the MWP differently, regardless of the worth of the original paper.

    [snip ]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    TWinkler

    Actually, some growers add CO2, up to about 1000 ppm.

    Do they add drier soils too?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    co2isnotevil:
    October 29th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
    Thanks George
    While you did mention the biosphere accumulation of carbon wich could includ very old and very tall trees etc. I was thinking more along the lines of carbon being carried under tectonic plates, land slips, lava flows, volcanic ash or ice and being locked away for a very long time. Not to mention all the human sequestration like landfill, food storage, grain storage, construcion from organic materials, sewerage treatment etc. How much carbon is locked away just by buried car tyres? How much is buried under roads?
    Under the right conditions thick forest can be a carbon source not a carbon sink but agriculture would only sequester. We will all be six foot under one day!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Do they add drier soils too?

    No – Actually, they simulate an environment of hurricanes, two-meter sea level rises, and volcanoes


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tim

    It’s looking like some ‘useful idiots’ have spilled over from other blogs and are starting to invade. You must have them worried, Jo. Perhaps delete the ‘dislike’ icon and they may go back to pestering Andrew Bolt.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Spatch

    Scott@69

    Ice core records show that CO2 has been below 300ppmv for at least the past 400 Thousand years.

    http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr_Rev_png

    The geological history of atmospheric CO2 shows that the current CO2 level of 390ppmv is the highest it has been for the past 20 Million years.

    http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/107.htm#331

    Speedy@54

    CO2 levels have been as high as 7000ppm around 500 Million years ago. What was the earth like then? How hot was the sun? Was it as hot as it is today?

    Read up on the Cambrian period and the Palaeozoic Era, all fascinating stuff.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #

    TWinkler:
    October 29th, 2010 at 2:50 pm

    Eddy, I said CO2Science relabelled when the MWP was.
    You said they didn’t.

    Are you that brain dead? You are an inveterate liar! Here is what you wrote:

    TWinkler:
    October 29th, 2010 at 12:59 pm

    His attempt at studying the MWP period is seriously flawed because he moves the dates of the MWP for each study in order to pick out the higher temps

    Once again, you were wrong about Idso’s paper not being published in a prestigious journal. Do you have the decency to apologize to Mr. Courtney?

    You made an interesting comment at 51. “A millennia ago CO2 levels were around 280 ppm, not 390 ppm as they are today.” If that is the case and there were no other forcings effecting temperatures, why were the temperatures warmer globally during the MWP than they are today?

    You never answered my question at 27 “Would you care to tell us the model that ever predicted the future of climate and was correct?”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Siliggy,

    Yes, biology does sequester significant carbon in the form of fossil fuels. The idea that these are not renewable just depends on your time frame. The sequestration into fossil fuels is predominately responsible for scrubbing CO2 from the atmosphere. It’s kind of ironic, that as biology is responsible for the gradual loss of atmospheric CO2, it recirculates what’s not sequestered increasing ambient CO2 and the more it can recirculate, the more it can sequester. The basic recirculation and sequestration path is through decomposition. It’s an either/or proposition. Biomass decomposes into CH4 in a low O2 environment (i.e. the bottom of the ocean) and decomposes into CO2 when there’s sufficient O2 (forest floors).

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Eddy @ 91

    You made an interesting comment at 51. “A millennia ago CO2 levels were around 280 ppm, not 390 ppm as they are today.” If that is the case and there were no other forcings effecting temperatures, why were the temperatures warmer globally during the MWP than they are today?

    You never answered my question at 27 “Would you care to tell us the model that ever predicted the future of climate and was correct?”

    Attaboy Eddy! Keep the mongrels honest! They don’t know the answer, or, if they did, won’t admit it. The next questions (and which puts us back on thread is -

    1. Quantify the benefits of reduced man-made CO2 emissions by 20% over a 10 year time frame and
    2. Provide the logical reasoning and physical evidence to support these assertions.

    In the business world, we call it due diligence. It is what professionals do before they make a serious decision. It relies on transparency and logical reasoning – something the AGW mob aren’t very good at.

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #

    TWinkler:
    October 29th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
    You never tire of making a fool of yourself, do you Troll?

    Since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could reasonably be expected from the sun alone.

    From the previous question you deduce fallaciously that:

    They say that whilst the sun has been responsible for most of the changes in the temps of the past, it can only account for around 50% of the recent decades.
    It supports AGW. Not really what you wanted to hear now was it?

    It does not support AGW. Just because the sun accounted for 50% does not mean that other forcings were absent. Did you ever stop to consider the AMO or the PDO? You lame reasoning that if only 50 percent was caused by the sun then CO2 must account for the rest is ridiculous! Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance).

    I hope you have a shoe horn to get your foot out of your mouth!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ Twinkler

    You can’t answer my questions and you lack class which is why you will not apologize to Richard Courtney. You have been exposed as a liar and a troll and a miscreant void of dignity or self worth. Until you can act like a decent human being instead of a mentally ill troll you will continue to spiral down into a circle of hell that would make even Dante wince!

    Because I have a life I am going to spend some time with my family. I will sleep soundly knowing that my fellow regular posters have my back. I bet you wish you had friends like that, don’t you?

    Good night everyone!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Twinkie,

    I will address one point that illustrates the contradiction in your statements and then I’m done. If it were warming, it would get wetter, not drier. With less ice and permafrost, tundra will give way to alpine forests and rain forests will expand. Ice cores show this because there are more layers per inch during glacial periods than during interglacials, tree rings show this and satellite data shows this.

    The blue line is 200K years of DomeC data and the gray line is the number of years per fixed width slice. While there’s a predictable linear trend where there are more years per slice as it gets deeper, there’s a clear inverse relationship to temperature in it’s dynamic behavior. With 2000 year averaging, every single wiggle in the temperature record show a corresponding inverse wiggle in the amount of snow that falls per year.

    http://www.palisad.com/co2/ic/d_width.gif

    One of the biggest problems for the biosphere during ice ages is that it’s very dry.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    I can’t believe Twinkler and others are still rabbiting on about climate sensitivity. The IPCC assumes that the equilibrium climate sensitivity [ECS] for 2XCO2 to be in the range of 3.26-3.8C +-0.69-0.92C.

    The IPCC bases its assumptions about ECS on CO2 retention and delayed responses to increases in CO2. This is patently preposterous. CO2 does not have a long atmospheric residency nor is there a delay in climate response to increases in CO2. Beenstock et al have shown that CO2 only has a warming affect as long as it is increasing; once CO2 stabilises there is no further affect. This is well grounded in physical phenomena namely that LW radiation, the method by which CO2 warms, cannot penetrate and therefore warm the oceans, only TSI can. Since the oceans are the Earth’s energy reservoirs if they cannot be warmed by LW and CO2 there is no delayed effect.

    On this basis the warming effect of CO2 has occurred since CO2 started increasing in 1900; during this time temperatures have increased ~ 0.6C. TSI has been responsible for ~ 0.16C of this and natural variability for about 0.3C; that leaves about 0.14C for warming due to the increase in CO2, which has increased about 40% since 1900. This disproves CO2 based AGW since 40% of 3.26 is 1.3C which is what temperatures should have increased if AGW is correct. AGW is wrong because its assumptions about ECS are wrong; demonstrably and empirically so.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    davidc

    “Do they add drier soils too?”

    That would depend on what they are growing. Some plants use less water with higher CO2.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Jo

    Getting back on thread for a moment :) Do you remember the hoo-ha that we had ahead of Copenhagen? The dire consequences if we didn’t sign up now? The greatest moral challenge of our time? No time to lose? We must take urgent action now?

    Guess what? That was 12 months ago. Nobody signed up for anything. The world didn’t end and Mother Nature doesn’t seem to be reading the IPCC reports. (Can’t say I blame her :) )

    Do you think we need to take “urgent action” (whatever that may be) now? Me either.

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    I don’t have scientific expertise and can only learn from those of you who do; and what has saddened me today is that Jo’s usual commentators whom I respect have paid so much attention to the musings and digs of trolls; why has that happened rather than keeping your collective minds on the topic; in my experience (and I do have professional training but not in science) if you can’t bring someone round to your point of view then it’s no good and serves no purpose in calling them names and continuing to change their mind to your point of view, it just brings you down to their level if they have called you names; I call upon Jo’s admirers and commentators to treat other commentators with courtesy and don’t try to change the opinion of those who are brainwashed; keep to the topic and educate those of us like me who need to learn from scientists and others with more knowledge than she has rather than throw insults at people who don’t agree with you


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Val

    Also, straying onto topic again…

    Those of us in Australia will remember an environmental-economic stimulus package hastily thrown together by the previous Labor government. The logic was to both stimulate the economy and improve the energy efficiency of homes by installing insulation into homes – all funded by the taxpayer of course.

    Initially, it was a roaring success – lots of new players in the business, photo opportunities galore, green “feel good” moments etc. And the technology was about as simple as it gets. But the planning was poor, the regulation and implementation was worse, and the scheme was stopped about half way through because people were being killed and the houses with this insulation were potential fire traps – about 100 house fires were associated with the “free” insulation. The ones that didn’t burn are being inspected to make sure they’re safe – a cost of several hundred million dollars on top of the 1.5 billion already spent. What went wrong?

    Hasty decision making
    Poor planning and organisation
    Low “care factor” for how taxpayers money is spent
    Political drivers interested in the next poll result.

    Do you think we’d have something similar if the alarmists had their way for “Urgent Action” ? Yes, but more so. A lot more so.

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    If we employ thousands of accountants, lawyers and auditors to monitor a scheme that’s pointless, it means all these honest hardworking people are wasting everyone’s time and resources. They could be finding a cure for cancer, or feeding kids in Haiti.

    Somehow I just can’t visualise accountants, lawyers and auditors finding a cure for cancer. But then again, I am old enough, and have been there and done that enough, to not be surprised at anything.

    The problem we are facing is truly generational. We had a generation of Boomers who polarised themselves into three groups: those that continued to worry about the legacy from their parents generation, in terms of the cold war; those who had the drive and the cunning to make good, in the cut and thrust of commerce; and those who couldn’t make it in the hurly-burly of science or finance, so took liberal arts degrees and became teachers and bureaucrats (I generalise, but you get the idea).

    It is said that the meek shall inherit the Earth, and so it is with the Boomer tranche of teachers and bureaucrats. They have striven to remake the world in their own image, and the “soft’ Gen-X’ers; those who turn up at demonstrations, at 5 degrees below, complaining about Global Warming, are the result. Their activities also feeds into the agenda of their brothers and sisters who are the beneficiaries of their more commercial Gen-X parents, and thus see a way of making a fortune out of the feel-good efforts of their siblings.

    What is interesting for me is the response of the Gen-Y generation. On the surface, this generation is more inclined to party than anything else, but when you look under that veneer, you find that they are connected to each other in what I can only describe as a “hive mind” – it is a consciousness that appears to be greater than the sum of its parts. And the common consciousness appears to be that “Climate Whatever” is something that their parents and grandparents thought up, but isn’t real.

    There is yet hope for the world: a world that may well realise a new age of rationality and wisdom (punctuated by lots of partying).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    Speedy, I totally agree


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Smith

    Well here’s a microcosm of the harm that could come from taking action on a non-problem
    UN and their NWO masters want to institute global tyranny via the environment.
    http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/
    Georgia Guidestones exposes the eugenics agenda global elites have in store for us.
    http://www.thegeorgiaguidestones.com/message.htm
    The green movement are the Nazis of today.
    http://www.infowars.com/the-green-nazis-environmentalism-in-the-third-reich/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    G’day Val,

    You are, of course 100% correct.

    I’m as guilty as anyone of the actions you described but I won’t be apologizing to any member of the current troll infestation.

    ‘Coz me mum always told me it was rude to go to someone else’s house and “mouth off”.

    As protagonists of AGW-ACC the onus is on them to state what evidence would change their minds. To date, not one of them has managed this simple task.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    Speedy @ 102

    Did you clock Kevvy in the UN about a month ago? It was a replay of his effort @ CopCon( almost).

    Funny how a couple of days after Kev went to NY the IMF blurted out that Australia needed a stronger Resource Tax & an increased GST. ( can’t join the dots there…..)

    He was heading off to Brussels ( or has just been there). What is the bet he stands up in Canberra holding his newly minted global currency coin .


    Report this

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    Rereke maybe it comes down to hmmm … maturity
    Charles Krauthammer [op-ed, May 25] quotes Winston Churchill as
    saying, “If you’re not a liberal when you’re 20, you have no heart. If
    you’re not a conservative when you’re 40, you have no head.”

    That phrase is supposed to have originated with Francois Guisot (1787-1874): “Not to be a
    republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is
    proof of want of head.” It was revived by French Premier Georges
    Clemenceau (1841-1929): “Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of
    want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head.”

    But I press my point; it does no good to persist in trying to change other people’s minds;


    Report this

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    Yes Mark; all I’m saying is don’t get diverted; there are more important things to say to people like me and a far better use of your time than to get diverted replying to people who are total AGW believers


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Bingi

    cohenite@99

    You said:

    CO2 does not have a long atmospheric residency nor is there a delay in climate response to increases in CO2.

    What you need to keep in mind is how long the extra CO2 remains in the atmosphere. The transfer of all that extra CO2 from the atmosphere into the ocean can take as long as 500 -1000 years. Therefore all that extra CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere can keep on warming the planet for at least 500 years.

    There is a delay in climate response to increases in CO2. This is due to the thermal inertia of the oceans. It is estimated that there is a 40 year lag between when we put CO2 into the atmosphere and when the effect is felt. We are currently feeling the effects of the extra CO2 pumped into the atmosphere during the 1970′s.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    manalive

    Bingi (112):

    there is a 40 year lag between when we put CO2 into the atmosphere and when the effect is felt

    If there is a 40 year lag, that would mean that we are currently feeling the effects of the CO2 “pumped” into the atmosphere during the 60s not the “1970′s [sic]“, never mind……

    That would mean that the CO2 “pumped” into the atmosphere during the 60s has had no effect on the global mean temperature whatsoever.

    What Bingi, do you make of this?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    112; you are wrong about the residency period of CO2; unless, of course you believe the IPCC:

    http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5e507c9970c-pi


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Martin Judd, Martin Judd. Martin Judd said: What's the harm in acting anyway? (JoNova) http://bit.ly/bZ1ehK l#climategate #agw #tcot #climatechange [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    co2isnotevil:
    One of the biggest problems for the biosphere during ice ages is that it


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Dang…lost the rest of my post!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Bingi:

    At #35 you say:

    That paper by Idso is dated 1998.

    The science has moved on from then. Do try and keep up.

    Yes, Idso’s paper is from 1998. But, no, it remains unchallenged so the science has NOT moved on since then. Simply, Idso’s determination of the climate sensitivity is correct (I know that because I have kept up).

    The papers you cite are theoretical derivations. If they indicate climate sensitivity greater than the empirical results obtained by Idso then that proves the theories they use are wrong.

    It is is a basic principle of science that indications of a theory which fail to match empirical data disprove the theory.
    And this disproof remains true unless and until an error in the empirical data is determined.
    Nobody has found any fault in the paper by Idso snr.

    And it is pure pseudoscience to accept indications of a theory as having any validity when those indications disagree with empirical data.

    You seem to think information degrades with age. No, it does not! Its validity is determined by its ability to withstand challenge. Idso’s work has withstood all challenge and, therefore, is as valid as the much older work of Galileo on orbital machanics (and for the same reason).

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    This squabbling is entertaining. But you are not using your heads!
    But this scientist says or this study says….

    A great majority of our science IS incorrect.
    WHY?
    Do they factor in everything or study one specific area?
    Do I have confidence in the Ice Core readings?
    No, that is someone interpretation of them.
    What they miss is a constantly changing planet.
    Ice cores go back what up to 4 million years out of 4.5 billion years?
    Water has a very facinating relationship with salt concentrations and the constantly changing factors that keep changing the water as well. Our planets rotation has slowed in that time which means that the centrifugal force was grater as well. Our planet was also closer to the sun. So, the salt concentrations had to be much greater or we would NOT have water.

    Why does Mars not have water today? Lack of salt concentrations.

    Ice Ages are never the same each to the same factors


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    I’ve lost count of the times that this canard of CO2 residency has been raised.

    It might pay dividends Bingi, if you didn’t post scientifically dubious information as fact. If you want to engage in discussion just ask a question in a civil tone, OK?

    Might pay to explore the blog and its links; could save you a lot of time.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Twinkler:

    At #42 you again demonstrate that you cannot read.

    At #26 I explained that the link in the URL I had cited took you to the actual paper in ‘Climate Research’ and I also gave you a direct link to it from my post at #42.

    I tried as hard as I could to write my post at #42 in a manner suited to your reading age. I apologise that I failed, but I honestly cannot put it simpler than I did. I can only console you with the hope that with practice your reading ability will improve by the time you reach your teens.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    OOps. My post at #120 should have said:

    Twinkler:

    At #42 you again demonstrate that you cannot read.

    At #26 I explained that the link in the URL I had cited took you to the actual paper in ‘Climate Research’ and I also gave you a direct link to it from my post at #26.

    I tried as hard as I could to write my post at #26 in a manner suited to your reading age. I apologise that I failed, but I honestly cannot put it simpler than I did. I can only console you with the hope that with practice your reading ability will improve by the time you reach your teens.

    Richard

    Twinkler, I truly apologise for this error. Given the abilities you have demonstrated here my error must have caused you terrible confusion.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Then I showed two graphs from CO2Science’s list, that label the MWP differently, regardless of the worth of the original paper.

    Some guy in Iceland drills a core and reconstructs a historic temperature. The graph you see is the results he got. That’s the measurement. He puts the label “Medieval Warm Period” near the warm bit in the graph, because the MWP is a climate optimum. You do know what “optimum” means?

    Then this Twinkler guy comes along and starts telling the drill core that it got warm in the wrong place. Should have got warm 50 years earlier says Twinkler, cos that’s what’s in Wikipedia. Take that marine sediments, Twinkler and Wikipedia think they are smarter than mud.

    So then CO2Science actually links to the scientific paper and shows a graph of the results… and it becomes CO2Science to blame for the warm patch being in the wrong place. They should move the numbers around before they link to it. How dare they link to the paper as it stands?

    What does this all prove? Nothing. Proxies are only so-so good at the best of times, dating techniques have their limitations and the research paper presents their measurements to the best of their ability. Who knows whether the MWP happened at exactly the same time right round the Earth anyhow? What difference would it make? This serves no other purpose than serving as a baseline for natural variability…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    ChrisC @ 64 you ask me:

    Thanks for the link. But i think you need to correct ‘climate sensitivity is 0.1 degC’ to ‘climate sensitivity is 0.1 degC/W/m2′. Dr Sherwood states that 0.1 degC/W/m2 corresponds to a temperature increase of 0.4 degC for a doubling of CO2 which is, i believe, the normal meaning for the term ‘climate sensitivity’. Do you agree?

    Yes, I do agree. Thank you.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Tel @ 122

    People who make things up to conform with a predetermined agenda or outcome can achieve remarkable precision. Those of us who try and actually measure stuff that’s there don’t have the same precision – but a lot more accuracy.

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    What prompted evolution from water mammals into land mammals?
    The evaporation process. THERE WAS NO WATER ON LAND BUT HEAVILY TRAPPED SALTED WATER! The geology shows much sand and rock and little else. Much later plants and animals came when the evaporation process was changing the salt process.

    Quite a patnership with atmospheric pressure as a cooling mechanism.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    David, UK

    Did you know that the collective noun for a group of bankers, is a wunch (or a right wunch).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    well

    anti-troll says:

    Yes, Idso’s paper is from 1998. But, no, it remains unchallenged so the science has NOT moved on since then. Simply, Idso’s determination of the climate sensitivity is correct (I know that because I have kept up).

    is that why ChrisC had to correct you? you couldn’t get the number right or the type of measurement.

    you cant blame twinkler for not taking the paper seriously richard, first you gave two links to crackpot websites.
    http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/Idso_CO2_induced_Global_Warming.htm
    http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf

    only after repeated requests eddy finally posts a proper link @60

    too bad it’s a bit of wasted effort.

    idso flunked on the concept of climate sensitivity – see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/learning-from-a-simple-model/ – scroll down to “Climate Sensitivity”

    for all the waffling you do you go eerily quiet when it comes to the other climate sensitivity studies bingi linked to @ 12.

    well – what you say?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    well

    cohenite:

    112; you are wrong about the residency period of CO2; unless, of course you believe the IPCC:

    http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5e507c9970c-pi

    thanks for the blogger science pic. shame they don’t realise that just because one molecule of CO2 may, on average, take only 5 years to get into the ocean, it will continue to be re-emmitted in and out of that ocean for many many years afterwards.

    the American Physical Society says in its latest news •The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.

    this might help you understand http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm


    Report this

    00

  • #
    well

    Brian G Valentine:

    Twinkler that conclusion was contradicted by analyses of the Royal Danish Observatory of 2004, which did in fact implicate solar activity to 10% [the error] of the increase, and besides, the data of the analysis were not adjusted for UHI effects as well as consistency of temperature measurement

    whether the report was accurate or not is not the point.

    eddy provided this list as evidence that 800 papers were listed in order to debunk AGW.

    the paper didn’t debunk AGW at all and if anything, could be interpreted as supporting AGW.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    well

    TWinkler, Spatch, Bingi – well done for exposing the weakness of the “Richards” arguments!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike Davis

    Well:
    That is very funny!
    The average time for a CO2 molecule to go from atmosphere to ocean is 5 years but it continues to be re-emitted and bounce from ocean to atmosphere. That would be a dwell time of 5 years on average and evidence that the sites you refer to are self contradictory.
    Carbon Dioxide is one of the Volatile elements that is constantly changing states. As plant food it leaves behind the carbon and is emitted as O2. It mixes with H2O to become carbonic acid and with calcium to become calcium carbonate.
    I am glad you provided some humor to begin my day by being self contradictory.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Well @ 128

    It is ironic that you should accuse Richard of quoting “crackpot websites” – then you yourself reference Real Climate! That was an attempt at humour, wasn’t it? By the way, apart from name calling, do you have any issues with the arguments presented in regards the climate senstivities? Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never refute a sound scientific observation.

    Speaking of which. The “climate sensitivity studies” linked by bingi. A brief scan over the links indicates they are nothing more than a bunch computer models. Which are nothing more than the ignorance and prejudice of the programmer wrapped up in a pretty package. Or, to put it crudely, a polished turd. Have the models been blind tested and verified against real life data? Do they work backwards? (i.e.backcast) without coaching by the programmer?

    It is frustrating and deeply disturbing that the climate establishment avoid real data and transparent logic. And clear writing, for that matter.

    If you’d like to go back to Richard’s comments above, he also cites about half a dozen cases where the EMPIRICAL evidence indicates a climate sensitivity around the 0.1 C/w/m2 area. Also, to the EMPIRICAL evidence of CO2 residence time in the atmosphere – in the range 5-10 years, not the hundreds or more asserted by the IPCC et al. It seems the local alarmists don’t want to discuss that one, either…

    Empirical evidence can destroy a theory, but a theory can’t destroy a piece of empirical evidence. Your theory was like a ballon – it only took one prick to bust it!

    I’ll leave you with a little brain teaser. Consider the following assumptions:

    1. Any increase in the existing atmospheric CO2 concentration would significantly increase global temperatures.
    2. The oceans contain 50 times more tonnage of CO2 than does the atmosphere.
    3. CO2 is less soluble in warm water than it is in cold water.

    You probably believe in #1. Assumption #2 is a fact. So is #3. Which gives us a problem.

    Because, once we get a little bit of warming, it is a fact that the oceans will start to release more CO2. And this, you believe, will cause more global warming. (We’ve got plenty of CO2 in the oceans). The global warming releases yet more CO2, more warming, more CO2 etc etc.

    In short, if all three assumptions were correct, the earth’s atmosphere would have gone into runaway greenhouse long ago. Remember that the earth has been around for 4,500,000,000 years. One of the assumptions is wrong – please come back to me when you’ve worked out which one.

    Good night.

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Did you know that the collective noun for a group of bankers, is a wunch

    Did you know that a collection of climate alamists is a bordello?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tony Windsor

    Well, this has been an interesting debate to be sure! I have followed some of the arguments and posts as closely as I am able but have nowhere yet come across the name of William Connelly in connection with Wikipedia entries concerning ‘Climate change’, ‘Global warming’ etc
    Mr Connelly is a known AGW supporter/ Activist and until quite recently was a Moderator for Wikipedia. He is now known to have altered entries which just might propose an alternative view some 5000 times. He has been known to have taken out articles with which he disagrees so that only those comments which appear to support AGW are published. It has been going on for so long that even Wiki have noticed and suspended him as a Moderator. I would strongly suggest that anyone who relies and quotes Wiki references would do very well to look elsewhere for more accurate and less biased opinions
    Tony


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Well RE @ 129 you have a hole in your foot (shot by you) The link to APS and re; dwell time is most convincing when right below that they say:

    However, APS continues to recognize that climate models are far from adequate, and the extent of global warming and climatic disruptions produced by sustained increases in atmospheric carbon loading remain uncertain.

    So how do you have such confidence in your “model induced calamity”? “Far from adequate” is how far from “terribly inadequate”?

    TWinkler, Spatch, Bingi – well done for exposing the weakness in the AGW theory

    Sounds like the three musketeers……


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    well @ 128:

    Your link to RealClimate was to a simple radiative model of the Earth. It does not falsify Idso, even by their own words:

    As an aside, there have been a few claims (notably from Steve Milloy or Sherwood Idso) that you can estimate climate sensitivity by dividing the change in temperature due to the greenhouse effect by the downwelling longwave radiation. This is not even close, as you can see by working it through here.

    As usual, Gavin makes half a point. Most of Idso’s paper deals with changes in surface temperature due to changes in radiative forcing, not “downwelling longwave radiation”, which couldn’t even be measured in most of Isdo’s “natural experiments”.

    Here’s what Gavin says about radiative forcing:

    Point 2: Radiative forcing – whether from the sun or from greenhouse gases – has pretty much the same effect regardless of how it comes about.

    So, according to Gavin (and this simplistic model), measuring the temperature change per change in radiative forcing does give one the climate sensitivity, as well as the time constant involved (about 90 days, in Idso’s paper I believe). Interestingly, making the right sensitivity measurement (Delta-T/Delta-S, according to Gavin) gives nearly the same answer as the wrong measurement (Delta-T/Delta-Lambda*A, with S constant), even though Gavin claims that they should give results significantly different. So much for Gavin’s model.

    In addition, Idso’s results are consistent with the temperature effects of changes in radiative forcing (~7W/m^2; 3x CO2 forcing change over the last century) due to albedo over the last 25 years, whereas the high sensitivity you would like to believe in would have resulted in wild temperature swings.

    The idea that a toy model like Gavin’s could falsify actual measurements (even measurements Gavin agrees would be relevant, ironically enough) is absurd. Even slight changes in average convection strength with temperature can completely swamp anything CO2 can accomplish, even were it to quadruple. Currently, no models can account for convection changes in any way more fundamental than just putting in a guess.

    BTY, CO2 is on track to double in 140 years, and has been for the last 50 — predictions of eminent disaster depend on the rate of atmospheric CO2 accumulation accelerating, which it shows no sign of doing, despite the best efforts of industrial civilization.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Well:

    At #131 you say:

    TWinkler, Spatch, Bingi – well done for exposing the weakness of the “Richards” arguments!!

    Pleae explain.

    I have again read all the contributions by those three and have failed to find a single example of them stating any “weakness” of my arguments.

    And I would greatly appreciate it if such a “weakness” were presented because I like to be proved wrong as that is when I learn.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #

    well:
    October 30th, 2010 at 12:19 am

    eddy provided this list as evidence that 800 papers were listed in order to debunk AGW.
    the paper didn’t debunk AGW at all and if anything, could be interpreted as supporting AGW.

    Your statement regarding the 800 papers is a lie. TWinkler accused Richard Courtney of providing a paper by Idso that was not published in a reputable journal. Despite the link that I provided to him he either is functioning at a bare minimum or he didn’t click on the link.

    He then posted this:

    TWinkler:
    October 29th, 2010 at 11:54 am

    @Bingi, yes it always seems to boil down to “our theories are right, and we only publish on blogger sites because the peer-review process is biased” … funny how later on they use a published Linzden/Carter etc paper to try and argue an.other point.

    Since Twinkler seems to be oblivious to the fact that there are peer reviewed papers, other than ones posted on “blogger sites’”, that dispute CAGW I kindly provided a list for him. So much for “settled science”! Here is a tidbit of information for you, it only takes one fact to falsify a hypothesis. The CAGW hypothesis has more holes than a brick of swiss cheese. BTW, if you can show me the empirical evidence to prove the hypothesis I will switch sides. I am looking at the evidence as objectively as I possibly can. You, on the other hand, adhere to dogma and refuse to acknowledge anything that disproves or falsifies you hypothesis. For you, CAGW is a religion. If it wasn’t, you would have refrained from posting your nonsense at 131!

    Regarding TWinkler’s response at 73, see my response at 96. You reason as illogically as your fellow troll, TWinkler!

    You then proved to the world beyond a shadow of a doubt that you wouldn’t know the truth even if somebody hit you over the head with it when you posted:

    well:
    October 30th, 2010 at 12:23 am

    TWinkler, Spatch, Bingi – well done for exposing the weakness of the “Richards” arguments!

    Although lemmings like you invariably go down with the ship anybody with a brainstem that reads this thread will see that Richard Courtney made several points that were sound, logical and based on empirical evidence. Your heroes couldn’t refute anything he wrote. Although fools like you are probably beyond hope, anyone who has an open mind and reads the thread will almost certainly be compelled by the logic and evidence that Mr. Courtney presented to move into the skeptics camp. Keep up the good work, it is priceless!

    Mark D.:
    October 30th, 2010 at 1:48 am

    Sounds like the three musketeers……

    Based upon their feeble and illogical unsubstantiated arguments, don’t you think that perhaps the “Three Stooges” would be a better appellation? :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Well:

    Your comment at #128 is a lie.

    ChrisC made a clarification that I agreed. I had used abreviated language on the asumption that people would understand it was the datum which I had fully stated in an earlier post and which was fully stated and explained in the paper I linked. ChrisC did not think the abreviation was adequately clear and suggested a clarification which I gratefully acknowledged.

    If blatant lies are the best you can do then I suggest that you refrain from posting.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    well:
    thanks for the blogger science pic. shame they don’t realise that just because one molecule of CO2 may, on average, take only 5 years to get into the ocean, it will continue to be re-emmitted in and out of that ocean for many many years afterwards.

    well, you seem to think you have said something profound here — you probably shouldn’t have slept through Chemistry when they were talking about “equilibrium reactions”. Brush up with a Chem 101 text.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Speedy @70,

    By the way, I’m still waiting for John Brookes to decide whether the Gorester’s “Inconvenient Truth” needs to be sold in the fiction aisle. And if not, why so.

    The inconvenient truth about Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth is that there is no truth in it. Definitely put it in the fiction aisle.

    John Brookes operates on fiction like it was solid gold so I don’t think he’ll be of any help deciding.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    thanks for the blogger science pic. shame they don’t realise that just because one molecule of CO2 may, on average, take only 5 years to get into the ocean, it will continue to be re-emmitted in and out of that ocean for many many years afterwards.

    I guess you don’t have faith that plankton find CO2 as food to convert to carbonate exoskeleton.

    I’m telling you, the climate alarmism literature and the IPCC reports are just “True Confessions” magazines, people read them for, ahem, “stimulation”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    scott

    An interesting article about “The inconvenient truths about Al Gore’s hot-air footprint”

    Enjoy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Al Gore obviously doesn’t believe in AGW, his behaviour if not his words prove it conclusively.

    Nor should he – no one in their right mind should

    People need to find another, ahem, “outlet” as a diversion of their, ahem, “loneliness” [Sorry Jo Anne that's my Freudian analysis of it.]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Scott,

    Don’t let it bother you. Gore will own even more ocean front property next year. HypoGore! Or is it Goreocrite? I can never remember.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    scott

    i just think its funny that people hold this guy up as their AGW poster boy and they are so blind as to not even see what he is doing and not question his motives.

    The article had him down pretty well dont you think?

    I think we can substitute the definition of dumb from “doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result” to “Believing what Al says is true”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    here’s a good anticle on the role of computer models in climate forecasting
    http://ihatealgore.com/?p=1800
    conclusion:
    The practical experience of numerical modeling in allied fields such as semiconductor process modeling should cause us to question the claimed accuracy for Global Climate Models. The UN’s distortion of historical climate data should further undermine our faith in climate models because such models can only be “tested” against accurate historical data.

    In my view, we should adopt the private sector’s practice of placing extremely limited reliance on numerical models for major investment decisions in the absence of confirming test data, that is, climate data which can be easily collected just by waiting.
    Jerome Schmitt is president of NanoEngineering Corporation, and has worked in the process equipment and instrument engineering industries for nearly 25 years.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross

    TWinkler , Spatch , Bingi & co. The following is taken from another site but is a clear illustration of the lunacy that is developing from your “religion” in the UK( and elsewhere)

    Mike McKenna, director of Kronospan’s Chirk factory, said the subsidies for electricity generators which use biomass encouraged them to take “the easy option” of burning freshly felled timber.

    He told BBC Radio Wales: “The easy option for them is cutting down trees and burning them for electricity generation.

    “That’s because the subsidies are worth more than twice the value of the wood.

    As for your statement of CO2 supposedly going in and out of the ocean for hundreds of years — well if you cannot see how illogical that statement is you should ask for a new mentor at RC. Even I can see if it were true the CO2 levels should many magnitudes higher today than they are and should be increasing exponentially.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    From out of his own mouth…

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/29/trenberth-on-fixing-the-ipcc/#more-27126

    “Scientists almost always have to massage their data, exercising judgment about what might be defective and best disregarded. When they talk about error bars, referring to uncertainty limits, it sounds to the general public like they’re just talking about errors”.

    He goes on about the “stolen” emails, of course. As if by doing that they will just disappear. He wishes.

    What a fraudster!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bingi

    manalive@113

    I can play with graphs too.

    Look at what happens when I change the year from 2001 to 2000 – the trend line goes up!

    As for the latest SST, it’s clear that the current La Nina is cooling the surface of the ocean, as is expected. What does the long term trend of ocean temps look like? Check out this graph. As you can see, the trend is up up and away!

    Here’s another excellent graph – Earth’s total heat content since 1950.
    The ocean heat content in that graph was measured down to a depth of 3000 metres!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    scott @147,

    i just think its funny that people hold this guy up as their AGW poster boy and they are so blind as to not even see what he is doing and not question his motives.

    It’s a case of birds of a feather I think. And yes, that article nailed him to the wall.

    Some of the public is beginning to get it but when he appears before Congress they can’t afford to call attention to his nakedness lest their own be discovered. Same elsewhere in the world for the most part I suspect.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Bingi, apparently emergence from the LIA has no meaning for you, how long does it take for heat to diffuse to and from the depths of the ocean?

    My theory of Global Warming Alarmism stands. I should receive the Nobel Prize in physiology and medicine.

    Polar bear stories + hurricanes + sea level rises + drought + floods + species extinction + ocean acidification

    = [snip] gratification


    Report this

    00

  • #
    manalive

    Bingi (151):

    The ocean heat content derives from solar radiation and has nothing to do with greenhouse gases.

    The re-radiation from greenhouse gases cannot penetrate further than the ocean surface.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bingi

    @Brian

    I’ve answered that sceptic argument too many times now. I’m going to let sceptical science answer it from now on:

    The skeptic argument…

    We’re coming out of the Little Ice Age

    “The global temperature has been rising at a steady trend rate of 0.5°C per century since the end of the little ice age in the 1700s (when the Thames River would freeze over every winter; the last time it froze over was 1804). The IPCC blames human emissions of carbon dioxide for the last warming. But by general consensus human emissions of carbon dioxide have only been large enough to be significant since 1940—yet the warming trend was in place for well over a century before that.”

    What [some] science says… [you don't get a free ride with argument form authority]ED

    The main drivers of the Little Ice Age cooling were decreased solar activity and increased volcanic activity. These factors cannot account for the global warming observed over the past 50-100 years. Furthermore, it is physically incorrect to state that the planet is simply “recovering” from the Little Ice Age.

    The argument that we’re simply “coming out of the Little Ice Age (LIA)” makes one of two assumptions:

    The planet oscillates around some natural equilibrium temperature such that after it cools, it must warm to return to this temperature, and vice-versa.

    Whatever caused the LIA cooling has reversed phase and is now causing global warming.

    The first assumption demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding what causes planetary temperature changes. The second does not hold up under scrutiny of the empirical data.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-little-ice-age-advanced.html

    [can you do better than linking promoting "skeptical science"?]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Bingi says:

    The argument that we’re simply “coming out of the Little Ice Age (LIA)” makes one of two assumptions:

    The planet oscillates around some natural equilibrium temperature such that after it cools, it must warm to return to this temperature, and vice-versa.

    Whatever caused the LIA cooling has reversed phase and is now causing global warming.

    The first assumption demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding what causes planetary temperature changes. The second does not hold up under scrutiny of the empirical data.

    Do you mean empirical evidence of natural (your word equilibrium) cycles (oscillations) like these?:
    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/domec/epica2d.jpg
    http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/vostok.png


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Spatch @ 91.

    Looks like you’ve been reading skeptical science as well. A warning – you only get a half truth there. You excuse the concurrent ice ages and high CO2 levels about 350 million years ago based on solar dimming. It is true that solar output was about 95% of current emission – so earth was cooler. But how much? I’ll tell you.

    If earth was receiving 95% of the current energy flux from the sun, and it was in equilibrium condition, then it would emit 95% of its current flux out to space. It would do this by black-body radiation, which is covered by Boltzman’s Equation. This states that the energy emitted by a radiating body is proportional to the absolute temperature (i.e. Kelvin) of the radiating body raised to the power of four. So if we divide the old emissions by the new emissions, we get:

    (

    old flux/current flux) = (Old temperature^4)/(Current temperture^4) = 0.95

    0.95 being the solar dimming factor assumed earlier. This leaves us with one unknown, since Current Temperature is 16 Celsius or 289 Kelvin. Quite simply:

    Old temperature = 289 * (0.95 ^ 0.25) = 285.3

    You can check this by plugging the numbers into your calculator/computer if you like.

    So the solar dimming caused a 3.7 celcius drop in temperature. And we had an ICE AGE and CO2 levels of about 7000 ppm. What does that say about climate sensitivity? About 8 doublings of CO2 level and it’s freezing! Whereas the IPCC claims about 3 degrees per doubling – that’s 12 C of warming from the CO2, less the 4 from the dimming, means a net warming of 8 Celsius. Perhaps Ice Ages happened at higher temperatures in the old days? Or the IPCC is just wrong.

    Like I said, go to skeptical science for all your HALF truth needs.

    And now, for another Skeptical Science customer.

    Bingi @ 155.

    The assumptions you make are yours, not mine. Simply, we don’t know what makes the climate oscillate – but we know that it does. We know it hasn’t gone into runaway greenhouse in its long history, despite significant variations in temperature, CO2 level and solar irradiance. (see above.) What we do know is that CO2 has a diminishing absorption effect at increasing concentrations due to the saturation of the absorption bands. (i.e. Once it soaks up 99.99% of the relevant wavelength radiation, it’s not going to do much more than that!)

    So – coming back to topic again. If increased CO2 concentration doesn’t cause a significant or harmful effect on climate – why would you tax industrialised civilisation out of existence to control it? The harm is certain – the benefits are extremely dubious. Unless you would care to provide some PHYSICAL evidence to the contrary please? Didn’t think so.

    Spatch and Bingi. I would encourage you to think for yourselves in the future. You’re not sheep, are you?

    Cheers,

    Speedy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Binki@112 and Well@129 keep hammering the IPCC line about CO2 residency being for centuries and embellish their ‘evidence’ by linking to Mr Cook. A couple of things:

    1 Even if CO2 keeps hanging around, popping in and out of the oceans for centuries the Beenstock analysis ahows that unless CO2 is INCREASING it has no measureable affect on temperature; this is because LW radiation which is what CO2 emits, cannot penetrate the ocean and therefore does not contribute to ocean heat content [OHC].

    2 However CO2 does not keep popping in and out of the ocean; Michael Cejnar explains why at comment 349 here:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/04/no-dr-glikson/

    3 Given that the ocean doesn’t contribute to the CO2 residency period, calculating the approximate residency time of a molecule of CO2 is pretty straightforward and can be done using ‘official’ IPCC data [sic]. On page 515 of AR4, at Fig 7.3, the annual fluxes of CO2 are listed; the total of these fluxes is 218.2 Gt; of this 8 Gt is from human activity, or 3.67% of the total. The other relevant data is from the US Department of Energy at Table 3, page 26 from here:

    http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/environment/057304

    This shows the total emissions and absorptions; of that 218.2 CO2 flux from fig 7.3 98.5% is reabsorbed leaving about 1.5% of emitted CO2 from all sources to remain at the end of the year. How much of that 1.5% is from human sources can be simply calculated by:

    1.5/100×3.67/100=0.000552.

    Put another way, after 1 year 1 ACO2 molecule has a 1 in 1811.594203 chance of still being in the atmosphere; in the second year a 1 in 120772.9469 and so on. Like every other aspect of AGW the notion of long residency periods for CO2 is nonsense.

    4 Finally, contrary to Well’s typical and totally unjustified snark that my link to a list of residency studies, all of which contradict the IPCC view, is just a “blogger science pic”, the list is of peer reviewed studies, the overwhelming consensus of which is that the IPCC’s views are wrong.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    @ 157
    Speedy…Speedy …….Oh Speedy! ………..Whew Like Brian V. says; wow this stuff is [snip] gratifying!

    Great rebuttal thank you!

    I eagerly await the gratifying reply from Spatch. No, I eagerly await the reply from any of the stooges.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Mr. Cohenite slipped in-between with even more gratification! damn!
    you stooges: Well

    TWinkler, Spatch, Bingi – well done for exposing

    have got some very gratifying work to do!

    Thank you Cohenite


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Mark D

    Thanks – but if we’ve got the truth on our side, why not use it? This week I bumped into a lovely lady collecting petitions to ban coal mines – the poor girl had no idea of how limited CO2′s absorption band is and how the unit absorption declines with CO2 concentration. (refer Beer-Lambert Law.) Lovely lady, obviously very sincere – just didn’t know what she was talking about.

    I’ve been far too serious for far too long – must take the [snip] out of some warmie pretty soon…

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    bingi @ 151

    Here’s another excellent graph – Earth’s total heat content since 1950.
    The ocean heat content in that graph was measured down to a depth of 3000 metres!

    WOW 3000 M and how many samples?

    Next time post the reference.

    Oh yes I feel the heat content: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/AMSRE-SST-Global-thru-27-Oct-2010.gif


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Scott @ 144

    A lovely article about John Brookes’ mate, Al Gore. The hypocracy of the man (Albert, at least) is breathtaking.

    BTW – Me @ 157 – it should be 4 doublings, not 8. The warming (according to the IPCC) should still be 4 x 3 = 12 degrees, as per the post. No word back from Spatch or Binti. John Brookes – he’s quiet too…

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Speedy, I think they all go home on Friday after pulling their pay check. We’ll hear from them Monday after the morning coffee break. (unless they get overtime and weekend pay….)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Mark D

    Binti obviously goes into a lot of detail when he mentions the sea water temperature at 3000 metres. I’m not sure it’s as relevant as the sea surface temperature, which has taken a dive recently – see

    Ever wonder why the alarmist guys always make it complicated? Perhaps so they don’t have to answer the simple questions:

    1. How do you know the warming 1850 – 2000 was man made?
    2. What caused the cooling 1400 – 1800?
    3. What caused the Medieval Warming ~900 – 1150 AD?
    4. Why does the ice core data show CO2 increasing AFTER temperature rises? Doesn’t this imply that CO2 is a minor player in climate determination? If it was significant, increased CO2 levels would automatically generate a runaway greenhouse.
    5. Why can’t we measure the tropospheric hot-spot (claimed by the IPCC as a necessary precursor to global warming?) At least not with THERMOMETERS.
    6. Why has temperature fallen for some decades in the 20th century, when CO2 has steadily risen?
    7. We know very little about the effects of cloud on climate. Why doesn’t the IPCC do more study on them, instead of re-hashing their old computer model work on CO2? (ditto work on sunspot activity.)
    8. Why can’t we see the data?
    9. Why does every “correction” or “homogenisation” of climate data seem to make it drier or hotter?
    10.Why does Al Gore warn us about the risks of sea level rise, then buy his mansions on the beach?

    I’m sure there’s lots of other simple questions you have, but I’ll bet they won’t give you a clear answer on any of them.

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Speedy

    Mark D

    Maybe – but they could be just useful idiots. I’m guessing they’re either unemployed (or in a government job) or else just uni students with some time on their hands.

    Like your post at 156 – yep, that sort of variation in temperature. Binti will no doubt thank you for the info (sarc tab off). The average troll is pretty impervious to logic so I just like to get it on record that they’re wrong and move on from there.

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Spatch

    @Speedy

    You claim an increased CO2 concentration doesn’t cause a significant or harmful effect on climate.

    The “runaway greenhouse” causing the largest mass extinction event of the past 600 million years is all the evidence you need that CO2 can indeed have a catastrophic effect on climate.

    How to kill (almost) all life: the end-Permian extinction event.

    (How about quoting or tell us what page is the relevant information readers needs to see? We are tired of your cut and paste arguments.It will be watched from now on) CTS


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Spatch @ 168

    Thanks for the link. I couldn’t help but notice (it was in the summary) the lines:

    Evidence for a causation is equivocal, with support for either an asteroid impact or mass vulcanism.

    So they don’t know what caused it, but they’re blaming global warming. Right. By vulcanos. And yet, you refuse to listen when Professor Ian Plimer (Heaven and Earth, 2009) considers the role of volcanos in CO2 emissions. Right.

    Have you wondered why, if the global warming (which may or may not have happened) was a

    runaway

    event, what stopped it? We wouldn’t be here otherwise.

    Now. Back to the earlier question. Do you agree that solar dimming could account for only 4 degrees drop in temperature during the period we discussed earlier? The IPCC claim that 4 doublings of CO2 (apparently) would cause a 12 degree rise in temperature – yet we get an ice age. Net increase 8 Celsius on present day temperature, if the IPCC had their ducks in a row.

    Have you got an explanation for that one please?

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    168; It is misleading to suggest the PT extinction, or indeed any past extinction, was due to CAGW. It is true the vast Siberian traps volcanic eruptions, unique in extent and form, occurred then but the modelled extra CO2 caused by the eruption would have risen CO2 levels sufficient to raise temps by only 1.5C-4.5C which could not have caused the extinctions. In addition the changes in the 13C/12C ratio expected to result from a massive release of methane from the eruptions do not match the patterns seen throughout the early Triassic; and the types of oceanic thermohaline circulation which may have existed at the end of the Permian are not likely to have supported deep-sea anoxia.

    What is striking however, is while anoxia was not present by today’s level of atmospheric O2, relative to the levels of O2 before the PT event there was a drastic reduction in atmospheric O2 which had reached a peak of 30% of the atmosphere in the middle of the Permian; this is why the age featured such gigantic insects. The sudden drop in O2 would explain why the PT featured extinctions of most insects, also unique. Rather than being evidence of CAGW the PT is most likely evidence of the end of the era of high levels of O2.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Spatch @168,

    October 30th, 2010 at 3:05 pm

    @Speedy

    You claim an increased CO2 concentration doesn’t cause a significant or harmful effect on climate.

    The “runaway greenhouse” causing the largest mass extinction event of the past 600 million years is all the evidence you need that CO2 can indeed have a catastrophic effect on climate.

    How to kill (almost) all life: the end-Permian extinction event.

    Right! And I’m the King of England!

    Scientists have been making huge leaps of faith from very little actual knowledge for a long time. It’s all very interesting but proves nothing.

    Give us all a break and go home!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Joanne Nova, Robert J. Robert J said: Jo Nova href=http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/what’s-the-harm-in-acting-anyway/ This girl is great on Global warming facts [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Mark D.:
    October 30th, 2010 at 2:30 pm

    Speedy, I think they all go home on Friday after pulling their pay check. We’ll hear from them Monday after the morning coffee break. (unless they get overtime and weekend pay….)

    You could be right mark, but I’m more inclined to believe it’s part of a class assignment, and if they don’t post a preset quoter they get an [F] at the end of the year


    Report this

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    Ken Stewart’s latest post (about sea rises) since the BOM/CSIRO report
    http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2010/10/30/checking-the-logic-queensland-sea-level-rise/
    By the way, in today’s Weekend Australian, there are quotes from the official briefing from the Department of Climate Change and Energy. One of the quotes is: “The rate of global warming over the past 50 years of approximately 0.13 degrees Celsius per decade is about 100 times faster than the warming after an ice age.” Have a look at the graph above and compare the rates of warming. 1960 -2010: 0.13 C per decade or 0.65 C over 50 years (as you can see it’s actually less- 0.6 C over 60 years!); 1860-1875: about 0.2 C over 15 years- much faster! Again, 1910 – 1940: about 0.4 C over 30 years is the same as the rate claimed for the last 50 years. There have been two additional phases of global warming equal or greater than the recent phase. It seems you can’t trust anyone these days.

    Then on page 18 the Queensland report links this to sea level rise: “Sea level rise is caused by increases in ocean thermal expansion and ocean mass due to increasing global temperatures. Water expands when it heats up, increasing the level of the ocean.”

    So let’s compare the “official” temperature record with some Australian sea level data.

    First, Townsville. This is the official chart of sea level rise from NOAA.

    So, if my grandchildren are going to see this 0.8m rise in sea level along the Queensland coast, there will have to be a very rapid increase very soon. If there isn’t, the Australian Academy of Sciences, CSIRO, and the Queensland Climate Change Centre of Excellence will have considerable explaining to do for their scare mongering.

    But they’ll be long forgotten.

    Please visit Ken’s site and leave a comment


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    manalive

    val majkus quotes the Department of Climate Change and Energy (173):

    “Sea level rise is caused by increases in ocean thermal expansion and ocean mass due to increasing global temperatures. Water expands when it heats up, increasing the level of the ocean.”

    Thanks val.

    I would like to ask the responsible minister (Combet?) how 50% + of a trivial 0.7°C rise in 60 years which, according to the IPCC and his department, has “most likely” been caused by human CO2 emissions, can in that time conceivably result in any thermal expansion of 1.3 billion cubic kilometres of seawater with a maximum depth of 10,923 metres, let alone 0.8m.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    Speedy:
    October 30th, 2010 at 12:42 am
    @Well
    …”I’ll leave you with a little brain teaser. Consider the following assumptions:

    1. Any increase in the existing atmospheric CO2 concentration would significantly increase global temperatures.
    2. The oceans contain 50 times more tonnage of CO2 than does the atmosphere.
    3. CO2 is less soluble in warm water than it is in cold water.

    You probably believe in #1. Assumption #2 is a fact. So is #3. Which gives us a problem.

    Because, once we get a little bit of warming, it is a fact that the oceans will start to release more CO2. And this, you believe, will cause more global warming. (We’ve got plenty of CO2 in the oceans). The global warming releases yet more CO2, more warming, more CO2 etc etc.

    Beautiful simple logic.
    Also if all three assumptions were correct then the current rapid fall of sea surface temperatures would lead to CO2 moving from the atmosphere to the oceans, then more cooling, then less CO2 in the air, then more cooling etc etc. All of nature on land would die off at some point because photosynthesis requires CO2. Only resourceful humans and what we look after would survive. Burning fossil fuels would be a good way to save the planet.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Siliggy

    I hadn’t thought of it the other way, but you’re right. If the alarmists are correct, then unless temperatures stay exactly where they are now, then we’re doomed. If it gets hotter, we’ve got a runaway greenhouse. If it gets colder, we get a runaway icehouse. Doomed either way. Brilliant!

    They have a very difficult time explaining why this hasn’t happened already, perhaps we should ask them. Spatch is pondering this one as we speak.

    First good reason for our continued survival is that CO2 has a diminishing impact on infra-red absorption as it’s concentrations in the atmosphere rise. (Refer Beer-Lambert or Lambert’s Law, or David Archibald – fig 17 on – http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/pastandfuture2.pdf).

    The other reason is that other negative feedbacks (conveniently ignored by the IPCC) have a stabilising influence on our climate. Unfortunately, the IPCC trust their climate models implicitly, and the GIGO principle applies. Garbage in, Garbage out.

    In either case, taxing carbon is like legislating the tides. But at least King Canute was wise enough to realise the futility of the latter.

    Cheers,

    Speedy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Folks, the comments about sea level rise caused me to look back to a thread earlier this year: http://joannenova.com.au/2010/04/no-dr-glikson/ Which is quite long but has several good exchanges.

    At post 338 Glenn Tamblyn made this comment:

    On sea level rise you might like to look at Chao et al 2008 on how empoundment – building of dams – has artificially reduced sea level rise by 3 cm from what it otherwise would have been. Also the satellite data for the last 16 years showing measured rise of around 5 cm – http://sealevel.colorado.edu/. Look also at Church et al 2008, Donnelly et al 2004, Gehrels et al 2006.

    He was suggesting that sea level rise has been suppressed by empoundments. That got me thinking so I replied with this “back of a napkin” theory:

    May I take issue with impoundments causing -3 cm of ocean level? If you accept the effects of impoundments then you must also allow ocean rise because of vast irrigation. The US Ogallala aquifer has lost 312 km³ since 1950*. Without knowing, I’ll speculate that the rest of the agricultural world has been doing about the same thing; pumping H2o out of underground, to make food for the world. Where does that water go?

    Then there is the horrible loss of US wetlands (so touted by environmentalists) an estimated 115 million acres (465388488576 sq/m) were lost from 1600 to present in the US alone* and significant amounts between 1950′s to 1970′s. Would you like to comment on where that water went? That, according to my math is over 10% of B. F. Chao et al 2008* if those wetlands were just 2m deep. Just the US mind you, and with only 30 minutes of thinking about it!. Now I looked for a study to cite for my observation and found none. So how about would you like to wager upon whether the impoundments world wide contain more or less than these lost wetlands and undergroung aquifers world wide?

    This is exactly the kind of sloppy (or intentional biased) thought that is pervasive in the “settled science” camp (maybe science everywhere) that makes denial so easy. I suggest that all need to measure with less bias (or at least report other than always negative) Likewise, (and a side note) I find it slightly aggravating that loss of wetlands is environmentally bad and impounding water is also environmentally bad. Double dipping at the propaganda trough.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer
    http://www.epa.gov/wetlands/vital/status.html
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1154580

    So today I ask; has anyone read a paper that looks into the possibility that sea level rise is possibly fully (or significantly) accounted for by agricultural activity?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    171Roy Hogue:
    October 30th, 2010 at 3:41 pm Spatch @168,

    Scientists have been making huge leaps of faith from very little actual knowledge for a long time. It’s all very interesting but proves nothing.

    American humourist Mark Twain once said, “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.”

    And, he wasn’t even talking about AGW!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    Mark D.:
    October 30th, 2010 at 11:08 pm
    Re sea level rise. What about natural erosion?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Siliggy @180 Another good one! I’d considered tectonic plate movements but not erosion deposits causing displacement. Now I have to go off and research cubic volume estimates for that……


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Addendum to my post at 142:

    The inconvenient truth about Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth is that there is no truth in it. Definitely put it in the fiction aisle.

    Now that I’ve had some time to go looking I went back to the Canadian Wildlife Service web site to check on the status of the Polar Bear. They used to have an actually useful site with listings of endangered and threatened species, all broken down by mammals, birds, reptiles, insects and plants; and all very detailed. The polar bear was never ever listed as endangered or threatened, Al Gore notwithstanding.

    What I found now was a completely changed site with all PC type content and no useful information at all. If I wanted to wade through dozens of references to Polar Bears I might have found one that would tell me something…maybe. But it didn’t look good at all.

    I gave up. A once sound organization is now dedicated to selling the reduction of CO2 output as a means of saving wildlife and the planet. You can’t take away any other understanding.

    So much for our neighbors to the north!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    BobC @179,

    I just wish they would leave it all in academia. Public policy in 2010 should not be made based on theory about conditions millions of years ago.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Bob Malloy @ 173

    Your idea is also a good possibility. Either way, there seems to be an unusually strong motive to challenge us here and to me that means money. I suppose passing a class is comparable.

    It could also be a misguided (poorly aimed) attack on what they find “evil” like you know; BIG OIL. I know I’m over due to pick up my big fat check from Exxon……….


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Mark D @ 185

    Tragically, my cheque from BP is running late as well. If this keeps up, I’ll lose my deposit on that beachside place next to Big Al ;)

    I’m an optimist – I think there are lots of good people in the world but some of them are pretty gullible. I mentioned that lady this week passing out stuff to ban coal mining – she had this idea that the global climate was somehow in some form of stasus or steady-state equilibrium before the Industrial Revolution. (God only knows how she fits in LIA, MWP, volcanic eruptions, sunspot variability, major bushfires/wildfires etc into this mental concept – but she does.)

    She’ll be out there next week pushing the same old line until somebody tells her different and she gets to know better. Remember – Jo used to be a card-carrying alarmist until the penny dropped.

    I’ll talk to the lady next week as well. She might change my mind – I’ll certainly learn something from her – but truth will win out in the end. It must win out in the end, for the sake of the future.

    Cheers,

    Speedy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Well, I must apologize for my poor research at 183. I went back to the Canadian Wildlife site — actually it all seems to be rolled into the Environment Canada web site now — and I noticed something that didn’t register before or wasn’t posted before and it led me to a completely different listing of special concern, threatened and endangered species (easily searchable).

    So look up the Polar Bear and find out that it’s still not listed as threatened or endangered. They show it as a species of special concern. So I looked there. The last status update was in 2008. That’s when I got an email response from Virginia Poter, Director General, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, saying essentially the same thing. They are watching to see what happens (two years later and no change). Yup! They are really in fear of the future of the Polar Bear!

    If you go there search for SARA (Species At Risk Act) to get to what you want.

    Again, my apology for missing it.

    Fie on Al Gore!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Spatch:
    October 30th, 2010 at 3:05 pm

    @Speedy
    You claim an increased CO2 concentration doesn’t cause a significant or harmful effect on climate.
    The “runaway greenhouse” causing the largest mass extinction event of the past 600 million years is all the evidence you need that CO2 can indeed have a catastrophic effect on climate.
    How to kill (almost) all life: the end-Permian extinction event.

    Still the king of cut and paste, I see? Hmm.. well, since you are either reticent or incompetent in regards to being able to post a coherent, lucid thought IN YOUR OWN WORDS I will accommodate you by responding with a cut and paste from your favorite source, Wikipedia.

    Combination of causes
    Possible causes supported by strong evidence (see above) appear to describe a sequence of catastrophes, each one worse than the previous: the Siberian Traps eruptions were bad enough in their own right, but because they occurred near coal beds and the continental shelf, they also triggered very large releases of carbon dioxide and methane.[54] The resultant global warming may have caused perhaps the most severe anoxic event in the oceans’ history: according to this theory, the oceans became so anoxic that anaerobic sulfur-reducing organisms dominated the chemistry of the oceans and caused massive emissions of toxic hydrogen sulfide.[54]
    However, there may be some weak links in this chain of events: the changes in the 13C/12C ratio expected to result from a massive release of methane do not match the patterns seen throughout the early Triassic;[12] and the types of oceanic thermohaline circulation, which may have existed at the end of the Permian are not likely to have supported deep-sea anoxia.[107]

    Wow, Spatch, that is a lot of weasel words(highlighted in bold by me) even for Wikipedia which has a history of promoting the CAGW hypothesis! The truth is, there is a great deal of uncertainty as to what actually caused the extinction. As usual, you do your cut and paste routine without any articulated, nuanced intelligent commentary or argument. When you fail to post something other than a link and a byline such as, “The runaway greenhouse causing the largest mass extinction event of the past 600 million years is all the evidence you need that CO2 can indeed have a catastrophic effect on climate”, all you do is to cut and paste yourself into a corner. Your statement infers that if “all the evidence” you need is not empirical proof than your argument for CAGW is also untrue. Try pondering what you say before you hit the “submit comment” key. You could save yourself some embarrassment by doing so!

    Also, you may want to read Jo’s “Guide For Commenting” http://joannenova.com.au/2009/02/guide-for-commenting/#comments

    You may want to focus on the following:

    3. Punctuation matters.
    4. Quotes: please quote commentors directly and exactly (Spatch, this may help you to avoid the “appearance” of plagiarism.)
    6. Good links come with a summary.
    7. Substantiate your claims.
    9. Argument by authority is usually a waste of space.

    If you do, perhaps you may earn some respect on this site (other than from other trolls). As it now stands, you come across as the usual cut and paste troll who suffers from herd mentality and basis his belief on an appeal to authority. You could start by answering the questions that have been put to you without your usual link, cut and paste routine. I know, why don’t you start with Roy’s question? If you need me to I would be more than happy to cut and paste it in for you! ;)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Bingi:
    October 30th, 2010 at 10:04 am
    manalive@113

    I can play with graphs too.

    Yes, it is called an endpoint fallacy. Why don’t you engage in a sincere search for the truth instead of being an unrepentant troll?

    The rest of your post has been thoroughly demolished and destroyed by other posters so no further comment is necessary.

    I notice when you get your intellectual ass handed to you, you stop posting and then later reappear as if nothing ever happened! You then repeat the process over and over. One definition of insanity is to keep repeating the same course of action over and over and expecting different results. Do you ever get tired of being exposed as a fool and a troll? Is there no embarrassment you will not suffer?

    [Eddy, you have so nailed the way the anonymous trolls work. They have to remain anonymous because no real person could handle the shame of being repeatedly exposed as a fool. (Hence, the bolding is mine). -- JN]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bingi

    @Eddy Aruda

    Your invective filled diatribes display all the classic signs of a sociopath. I have no desire to engage with you as I find your mental condition distressing.

    You are on permanent ignore. Don’t bother communicating with me in future as you will get no reply.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    Eddy Aruda:
    October 31st, 2010 at 5:06 am
    This graph is easier to manipulate. All you need to do to get rid of the annoying
    GREAT SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE DIVE OF 2010 is untick the 2010 box(after you select “sea surface”).
    http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Bingi:

    At #190 you say to Eddy Aruba:

    You are on permanent ignore. Don’t bother communicating with me in future as you will get no reply.

    This is useful but incomplete information. So, please explain what the rest of us need to do to get “permanent ignore” from you.

    With that information we can get you to stop bothering this blog with your nonsense.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ Bingi 190

    The truth hurts, doesn’t it? If you want to keep postiing here and being pummeled as an intellectual punching bag be my guest! You have yet to attempt to engage in any sort of meaningful exchange of thoughts or ideas. You have been rude and obnoxious since your first post. Ignore me? Actually, you lack the acumen and intelligence to articulate a reasoned response to any questions put to you by any of the regular posters. Since you cannot or will not why don’t you make like a tree and leave! Oh, and don’t forget to take the other two stooges, TWinkler and Spatch, with you!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    173Bob Malloy:
    October 30th, 2010 at 5:06 pm Mark D.:
    October 30th, 2010 at 2:30 pm

    You could be right mark, but I’m more inclined to believe it’s part of a class assignment, and if they don’t post a preset quoter they get an [F] at the end of the year

    I’m teaching a university class this semester, and if I gave my students a political assignment like that, I would deserve to be fired (and my students would be within their rights to demand their money back).

    Of course, I’m teaching an engineering class, where you have to actually deal with reality. I suppose, in the right department, having students engage in anomonous political haranguing might be considered “state of the art”.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    But as for your challenge, this is all too easy. The people who made this list rely on the hope that no one really critically looks at it.

    Lie, as all papers support skepticism of AGW Alarm. You seem confused as you believe the list to only include papers that refute or reject AGW theory, this is not the case as all the papers “support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW.”

    To take your challenge, sure I’ll pick one.

    Phenomenological solar signature in 400 years of reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperature record

    Here’s what they say.

    During the 20th one continues to observe a significant correlation between the solar and temperature patterns: both records show an increase from 1900 to 1950, a decrease from 1950 to 1970, and again an increase from 1970 to 2000. However, a divergence in the upward trend of the two records is also evident. A comparison between the curves indicates that the sun might have contributed approximately 50% of the total global surface warming since 1900 [Scafetta and West, 2006]. Since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could reasonably be expected from the sun alone.

    They say that whilst the sun has been responsible for most of the changes in the temps of the past, it can only account for around 50% of the recent decades.

    And they go on to explain this,

    The difference since 1975 might also decrease if part of the observed NH warming comes from spurious non-climatic contamination of the surface observations such as heat-island and land-use effects [Pielke et al., 2002; Kalnay and Cai, 2003]. Some authors [Christy and Norris, 2006; Douglass et al., 2004] suggest that the recent surface warming is overestimated because temperature reconstructions for the lower troposphere obtained with MSU satellites since 1978 present a significant lower warming than the surface record,

    It supports AGW. Not really what you wanted to hear now was it?

    Their conclusions do not support AGW Alarm,

    During the 20th century one continues to observe a significant correlation between the solar and temperature patterns: both records show an increase from 1900 to 1950, a decrease from 1950 to 1970, and again an increase from 1970 to 2000. [...]

    In any case, as some authors have already noted [...], solar change effects are greater than what can be explained by several climate models [...]. For example, Douglass and Clader [2002] and Scafetta and West [2005] found that the amplitude of the 11-year solar signature on the temperature record seems to be 3 times larger than the theoretical predictions, and similar or larger factors are likely to persist at lower frequencies as well.

    In conclusion, a solar change might significantly alter climate. It might trigger several climate feedbacks and alter the GHG (H2O, CO2, CH4, etc.) concentration, as 420,000 years of Antarctic ice core data would also suggest [Petit et al., 1999]. Most of the sun-climate coupling mechanisms are probably still unknown. However, they should be incorporated into the climate models to better understand the real impact of the sun on climate because they might strongly amplify the effects of small solar activity increases.

    Their paper supports a more significant influence on the climate by solar forcing than what is accepted by the IPCC.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    TWinkler: October 29th, 2010 at 9:33 am

    Where’s it published?

    CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change (PDF)
    (Climate Research, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 69–82, April 1998)
    - Sherwood B. Idso

    Climate Research is a peer-reviewed academic journal (ISSN: 0936-577X)
    - EBSCO lists Climate Research as a peer-reviewed academic journal (PDF)
    - “Manuscripts are critically evaluated by at least 3 reviewers


    Report this

    00

  • #

    well:
    October 30th, 2010 at 12:19 am

    eddy provided this list as evidence that 800 papers were listed in order to debunk AGW.

    the paper didn’t debunk AGW at all and if anything, could be interpreted as supporting AGW.

    This is a lie as Eddie explicitly said,

    “…you will find 800 peer reviewed papers that support skepticism of CAGW.” and the page says,

    “800 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming (AGW) Alarm


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ Poptech 195, 196 and 197

    Excellent comments, all fo them1

    BTW, I clicked on the link to your website, very nice!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    GAME 1

    Bingi @ 12

    Climate sensitivity is 3.0 °C for a doubling of CO2. There’s your reason for acting NOW in reducing our output of CO2.
    Read more here.
    Papers on climate sensitivity estimates

    Richard Courtney @ 15 replies:

    Bingi:
    No, you are wrong.
    Climate sensitivity is 0.1 deg.C as determined by 8 different empirical methods.
    See
    http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/Idso_CO2_induced_Global_Warming.htm

    Bingi’s response @ 35

    @Richard S Courtney
    That paper by Idso is dated 1998.
    The science has moved on from then. Do try and keep up.

    Richard Courtney responded @ 118

    Yes, Idso’s paper is from 1998. But, no, it remains unchallenged so the science has NOT moved on since then. Simply, Idso’s determination of the climate sensitivity is correct (I know that because I have kept up).
    The papers you cite are theoretical derivations. If they indicate climate sensitivity greater than the empirical results obtained by Idso then that proves the theories they use are wrong.
    It is is a basic principle of science that indications of a theory which fail to match empirical data disprove the theory.
    And this disproof remains true unless and until an error in the empirical data is determined.
    Nobody has found any fault in the paper by Idso snr.
    And it is pure pseudoscience to accept indications of a theory as having any validity when those indications disagree with empirical data.
    You seem to think information degrades with age. No, it does not! Its validity is determined by its ability to withstand challenge. Idso’s work has withstood all challenge and, therefore, is as valid as the much older work of Galileo on orbital machanics (and for the same reason).

    Bingi’s response: none, zip, zilch, nothing but deafening silence! Why? As usual you, you make a ridiculous statement and get soundly trounced.

    GAME OVER! WINNER: RICHARD S. COURTNEY, LOSER BINGI


    Report this

    00

  • #

    GAME 2

    cohenite:
    October 29th, 2010 at 4:39 pm
    I can’t believe Twinkler and others are still rabbiting on about climate sensitivity. The IPCC assumes that the equilibrium climate sensitivity [ECS] for 2XCO2 to be in the range of 3.26-3.8C +-0.69-0.92C.
    The IPCC bases its assumptions about ECS on CO2 retention and delayed responses to increases in CO2. This is patently preposterous. CO2 does not have a long atmospheric residency nor is there a delay in climate response to increases in CO2. Beenstock et al have shown that CO2 only has a warming affect as long as it is increasing; once CO2 stabilises there is no further affect. This is well grounded in physical phenomena namely that LW radiation, the method by which CO2 warms, cannot penetrate and therefore warm the oceans, only TSI can. Since the oceans are the Earth’s energy reservoirs if they cannot be warmed by LW and CO2 there is no delayed effect.
    On this basis the warming effect of CO2 has occurred since CO2 started increasing in 1900; during this time temperatures have increased ~ 0.6C. TSI has been responsible for ~ 0.16C of this and natural variability for about 0.3C; that leaves about 0.14C for warming due to the increase in CO2, which has increased about 40% since 1900. This disproves CO2 based AGW since 40% of 3.26 is 1.3C which is what temperatures should have increased if AGW is correct. AGW is wrong because its assumptions about ECS are wrong; demonstrably and empirically so.

    Bingi:
    October 29th, 2010 at 7:25 pm
    What you need to keep in mind is how long the extra CO2 remains in the atmosphere. The transfer of all that extra CO2 from the atmosphere into the ocean can take as long as 500 -1000 years. Therefore all that extra CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere can keep on warming the planet for at least 500 years.
    There is a delay in climate response to increases in CO2. This is due to the thermal inertia of the oceans. It is estimated that there is a 40 year lag between when we put CO2 into the atmosphere and when the effect is felt. We are currently feeling the effects of the extra CO2 pumped into the atmosphere during the 1970′s.

    Cohenite replies

    cohenite:
    October 29th, 2010 at 8:10 pm

    112; you are wrong about the residency period of CO2; unless, of course you believe the IPCC:
    http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5e507c9970c-pi

    Well attempts to come to Bingi recue

    well:
    October 30th, 2010 at 12:12 am

    cohenite:
    112; you are wrong about the residency period of CO2; unless, of course you believe the IPCC:
    http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5e507c9970c-pi
    thanks for the blogger science pic. shame they don’t realise that just because one molecule of CO2 may, on average, take only 5 years to get into the ocean, it will continue to be re-emmitted in and out of that ocean for many many years afterwards.
    the American Physical Society says in its latest news •The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.
    this might help you understand http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm

    Cohenite responds

    cohenite:
    October 30th, 2010 at 1:03 pm

    Binki@112 and Well@129 keep hammering the IPCC line about CO2 residency being for centuries and embellish their ‘evidence’ by linking to Mr Cook. A couple of things:
    1 Even if CO2 keeps hanging around, popping in and out of the oceans for centuries the Beenstock analysis ahows that unless CO2 is INCREASING it has no measureable affect on temperature; this is because LW radiation which is what CO2 emits, cannot penetrate the ocean and therefore does not contribute to ocean heat content [OHC].
    2 However CO2 does not keep popping in and out of the ocean; Michael Cejnar explains why at comment 349 here:
    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/04/no-dr-glikson/
    3 Given that the ocean doesn’t contribute to the CO2 residency period, calculating the approximate residency time of a molecule of CO2 is pretty straightforward and can be done using ‘official’ IPCC data [sic]. On page 515 of AR4, at Fig 7.3, the annual fluxes of CO2 are listed; the total of these fluxes is 218.2 Gt; of this 8 Gt is from human activity, or 3.67% of the total. The other relevant data is from the US Department of Energy at Table 3, page 26 from here:
    http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/environment/057304
    This shows the total emissions and absorptions; of that 218.2 CO2 flux from fig 7.3 98.5% is reabsorbed leaving about 1.5% of emitted CO2 from all sources to remain at the end of the year. How much of that 1.5% is from human sources can be simply calculated by:
    1.5/100×3.67/100=0.000552.
    Put another way, after 1 year 1 ACO2 molecule has a 1 in 1811.594203 chance of still being in the atmosphere; in the second year a 1 in 120772.9469 and so on. Like every other aspect of AGW the notion of long residency periods for CO2 is nonsense.
    4 Finally, contrary to Well’s typical and totally unjustified snark that my link to a list of residency studies, all of which contradict the IPCC view, is just a “blogger science pic”, the list is of peer reviewed studies, the overwhelming consensus of which is that the IPCC’s views are wrong.

    And Bingi’s response: again: none, zip, zilch, nothing but deafening silence

    GAME OVER! WINNER: COHENITE, LOSER, BINGI!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    GAME 3

    Bingi:
    October 30th, 2010 at 10:04 am

    manalive@113
    I can play with graphs too.
    Look at what happens when I change the year from 2001 to 2000 – the trend line goes up!
    As for the latest SST, it’s clear that the current La Nina is cooling the surface of the ocean, as is expected. What does the long term trend of ocean temps look like? Check out this graph. As you can see, the trend is up up and away!
    Here’s another excellent graph – Earth’s total heat content since 1950.
    The ocean heat content in that graph was measured down to a depth of 3000 metres!

    Manalive replies

    manalive:
    October 30th, 2010 at 11:02 am

    Bingi (151):
    The ocean heat content derives from solar radiation and has nothing to do with greenhouse gases.
    The re-radiation from greenhouse gases cannot penetrate further than the ocean surface.

    And Bingi’s response? Yep! None, zip, zilch, nothing but deafening silence.

    GAME OVER! WINNER: MANALIVE, LOSER: BINGI!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    davidc

    The atmospheric atomic testing had the consequence of providing a tracer experiment for the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere (the atomic test produces CO2 containing C14 instead of C12; measurement of C14 over time tracks its disappearance from the atmosphere). The half-time for CO2 turnover is about 5 years. Impossible to reconcile the observations with the claims of hundereds or thousands of years.

    To check the data see Wiki (unless they have managed to remove it).


    Report this

    00

  • #

    The Gang of Four (Bingi, TWinkler, Spatch and Well) all met the same fate. I could construct a chronology all of their “games” but it isn’t necessary as the point has been made. None of you came to this site looking for the truth. In typical troll fashion, you came here to disrupt the site and sow chaos. Unfortunately, you mental midgets all got hammered into humiliation.

    The “Game” played by each member of the gang was identical: make a ridiculous statement, make an embarrassing response and then remain silent when that gang member realized that he or she could not overcome the skeptic’s argument because the skeptic’s argument was grounded in science, logic and fact. When push came to shove and more than a “link, cut and paste” appeal to authority would be necessary to take the initiative and surge ahead the Gang of Four didn’t have what it takes to do so. How could they? There is no empirical evidence to substantiate the already falsified hypothesis of CAGW.

    Sure, the gang members can continue to buy into their own BS and remain legends in their own minds but every open minded person who reads this thread will almost certainly move closer to joining the skeptic’s camp.

    Keep it up, we are counting on you! Oh, Gang of Four (Trolls), you are a PR bonanza!

    BTW, it does not bother me if you choose to “ignore” me because I have backed you crying like little girls, backed into a corner and you have no wiggle room left. What I take great umbrage at is the FACT that YOU NEVER ANSWER ANY CHALLENGING QUESTIONS POSED TO YOU BY ANY OF THE MANY INTELLIGENT REGULAR POSTERS ON THIS SITE! It is bad enough that you waste our time but what is really pathetic is the fact that you suffer from such low self esteem and self worth as to be totally oblivious as to how precious your time is and how much of it you squander! I mean, really, don’t you have something better to do with your time? I hope you four get a life before you are six feet under and looking up at the grass!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Jeez, let’s put this pig to bed:

    thanks for the blogger science pic. shame they don’t realise that just because one molecule of CO2 may, on average, take only 5 years to get into the ocean, it will continue to be re-emmitted in and out of that ocean for many many years afterwards.

    The oceans store ~ 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere — this ‘bloger science pic’ is admitted by the IPCC. The oceans and atmosphere are roughly in equilibrium (small variations due to sources, sinks changing). Atmospheric dwell time for a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is ~5 years (shown by numerious measurements: one that even you can probably appreciate is the C14 bomb tracer experiment — see here.

    This can also be calculated by just adding up the rates that the IPCC gives for various CO2 flows in and out of the oceans, so it wouldn’t be very logical for them to deny it.

    So the Anthropogenic CO2 moves to the oceans (and other places) at about 1/2 every 5 years. Yes, CO2 comes back out of the oceans (remember “equilibrium reactions”?) until equilibrium is approximately re-established in 3-4 half lives — as much CO2 is entering the oceans as is leaving. At that time, ~2% of the Anthropogenic CO2 remains in the atmosphere for an indefinite time (until something else changes in the system) and the other 98% likewise remains in the oceans. (Of course, this is an ongoing process, but the 1:50 ratio still holds, with a delay of ~ 15-20 years.)

    2% of all the CO2 from burning all the oil that the “Peak Oil” alarmists think is left isn’t enough to make any difference.

    Don’t believe me — look up a Freshman chemistry text. If you still think you’re right, kindly exhibit the equation for equilibrium between two reservoirs and show us how the smaller one ends up with everything.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    davidc

    #203 Eddy

    I think they’re useful. When people know just a bit about something they often find it hard to ask questions for fear of appearing stupid. Your friends are useful because they do that for them (the stupid bit).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    It stands to reason, David C, noting that CO2 with a higher molecular weight than O2 or N2 must be stratified in the atmosphere, and is soluble to a higher degree in water (rain) than air is.

    I modeled that some years ago, using kinetic theory of gases, barometric formula, and zoned approximations of temp and rainfall, I came up with half-life of something like 3.9 years, and order of magnitude larger than that would be right off the reservation.

    Some days i feel like I’m in the Twilight Zone and none of this is really happening. This AGW stuff has lower scientific value than alchemy, honestly.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Bob C

    Spot on! You really put things in perspective:

    At that time, ~2% of the Anthropogenic CO2 remains in the atmosphere for an indefinite time (until something else changes in the system) and the other 98% likewise remains in the oceans.

    Of course, that fraction of fossil-sourced CO2 that goes into the oceans is (almost literally) a drop in the ocean – it’s impact on ocean pH is negligible. Annual transfer to the oceans is a fraction of a fraction of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Just getting ahead of our regular “critics”.

    The major driver of the CO2 partition between air and water is temperature – not any carbonaceous fuels we burn.

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    davidc

    Brian,

    Yes, I think atmospheric testing would overestmate the half-life of anthropogenic CO2 (ie slower) since anthropogenic CO2 is produced close to the surface where most of the sinks are, rather than high in the atmosphere.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    well

    eddy@200, that I have things to do on the weekend whilst you guys sit here and claim victory thought a non-response. how funny. perhaps it is i that should claim victory for having better things to do.

    none the less i regret i’m back for a little more fun.

    Speedy@130

    it’s been very easy to show the flaws in the “skeptic” thinking. you cherish the one flawed Exxon-backed paper on climate sensitivity and ignore all others that show a higher sensitivity figure. that’s the “richarialist” way of doing science and i guess the only way you can console each other. you cherry pick one paper, i link to realclimate and showed the section that talks about where Idso goes wrong, and it’s easy to replicate, yet you still wish to believe his figures over all others. there’s a good word for that behaviour.

    Richard flails about calling everyone a liar rather than addressing the high climate sensitivity papers.

    [So go ahead Well, name one paper which support higher climate sensitivity and does it with empirical evidence instead of models -- JN]

    eddy just rants on about how no-one can respond, not realising he’s perhaps showing off his own personal lack of social life.

    Speedy again raises the old, “we would have had runaway warming” argument again, not realising is readily countered by the usual “skeptic” CO2′s logarithmic argument.

    Mark D @136, strawman argument, I never said the models couldn’t be better.

    BobC@ 137, fails to read fully Gavins article – or perhaps just fails to comprehend it.

    Richard @ 138 claims he’s not weak and again fails to acknowledge the existence of any climate sensitivity study other than the Exxon guy’s one.

    eddy @ 139 again shows us he has no life but wants to tell us again that we’re all trolls.

    Richard @ 140 still fails to acknowledge the existence of any climate sensitivity study other than the Exxon guy’s one.

    BobC @140 adds nothing meaningful to the discussion.

    i hardly have the time or patience tonight to wade through the rest of the comments. i would try, but honestly guys, you repeat the same rubbish and ignore the rest of science in order to find the result you guys need. it’s difficult to keep coming back although seeing Richard flail about calling everyone a liar is some reward.

    [Anonymous "well" - this is very repetitive. You can't keep insulting people saying that they cherry pick or ignore data without naming some. --JN]

    i will plant last one on you, since cohenites theory on the residency of CO2 is easily proven wrong.

    now if cohenite is right, then only the last 10 years worth of CO2 should remain in the atmosphere. if cohenite is right the 110ppm increase (from a pre-industrial figure of 280 to 390) is just from the last 10 years of emmisions because all other emmissions have been swallowed up.

    so lets look at the very basic numbers.

    the increase of 110 ppm = 8.91×10^11 tonnes of CO2
    the last 10 yrs emissions = 2.70*10^11 tonnes of CO2

    the last 10 years of emissions can only account for less than one third of the increase.

    (figures calculated from here)

    … that’s it for me tonight, so till next week; eddy, get a life man!! ;)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    well: BobC@ 137, fails to read fully Gavins article – or perhaps just fails to comprehend it.

    Of course, I actually discussed Gavin’s article and described where and why it was wrong (incomplete to the point of making wrong predictions) — both as a model, and Gavin’s misrepresentation (lie) about Sherwood Idso’s paper.

    You could have responded to either of these points, but instead you just make another blatant assertion without any logical or data backup.

    Scratch could in the above statement — I think you’re a dope who doesn’t understand what you’re talking about. Prove me wrong, if you can — let’s have a real discussion about Gavin’s model and claims. Give us the benefit of your superior “comprehension”.

    perhaps it is i that should claim victory for having better things to do.

    Might as well — that’s the only bullet in your gun.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    … that’s it for me tonight, so till next week;

    It must get pretty lonely, [snip]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Well! It was not a strawman I asked you two questions based on a direct excerpt from what you posted. How could that be a strawman unless it was a strawman when you posted it?

    AGAIN Be polite and actually answer:

    So how do you have such confidence in your “model induced calamity”?

    “Far from adequate” is how far from “terribly inadequate”?

    This is language that your esteemed body of scientists used. Interpret it for me


    Report this

    00

  • #

    GAME 4 BOB C. VERSUS WELL

    @ Well 209

    I am not going to debunk your entire statement at 209 as it is unnecessary. First, I am going to prove you a liar and second a coward.

    eddy@200, that I have things to do on the weekend whilst you guys sit here and claim victory thought a non-response.

    A blatant lie. When asked tough questions you couldn’t answer them but did find time to blather on about something else.

    it’s been very easy to show the flaws in the “skeptic” thinking. you cherish the one flawed Exxon-backed paper on climate sensitivity and ignore all others that show a higher sensitivity figure.

    You are a liar. The paper was not “Exxon backed”. The amount of funding received by “big oil” was a paltry small amount compared to the millions received by the greens including the CRU. Shall we ignore everything the CRU promulgates because they take oil money? Moreover, another ad hominem attack because you couldn’t respond to Richards argument with other than a”link, cut, paste and ad hominem. Simply because you state that papers disagree with Idso does not make Idso wrong or right.

    Being a typical drone incapable of independent thought you commented

    idso flunked on the concept of climate sensitivity – see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/learning-from-a-simple-model/ – scroll down to “Climate Sensitivity”
    for all the waffling you do you go eerily quiet when it comes to the other climate sensitivity studies bingi linked to @ 12.

    To which @ 137 Bob C. responded

    BobC:
    October 30th, 2010 at 1:48 am

    Your link to RealClimate was to a simple radiative model of the Earth. It does not falsify Idso, even by their own words:
    As an aside, there have been a few claims (notably from Steve Milloy or Sherwood Idso) that you can estimate climate sensitivity by dividing the change in temperature due to the greenhouse effect by the downwelling longwave radiation. This is not even close, as you can see by working it through here.
    As usual, Gavin makes half a point. Most of Idso’s paper deals with changes in surface temperature due to changes in radiative forcing, not “downwelling longwave radiation”, which couldn’t even be measured in most of Isdo’s “natural experiments”.
    Here’s what Gavin says about radiative forcing:
    Point 2: Radiative forcing – whether from the sun or from greenhouse gases – has pretty much the same effect regardless of how it comes about.
    So, according to Gavin (and this simplistic model), measuring the temperature change per change in radiative forcing does give one the climate sensitivity, as well as the time constant involved (about 90 days, in Idso’s paper I believe). Interestingly, making the right sensitivity measurement (Delta-T/Delta-S, according to Gavin) gives nearly the same answer as the wrong measurement (Delta-T/Delta-Lambda*A, with S constant), even though Gavin claims that they should give results significantly different. So much for Gavin’s model.
    In addition, Idso’s results are consistent with the temperature effects of changes in radiative forcing (~7W/m^2; 3x CO2 forcing change over the last century) due to albedo over the last 25 years, whereas the high sensitivity you would like to believe in would have resulted in wild temperature swings.
    The idea that a toy model like Gavin’s could falsify actual measurements (even measurements Gavin agrees would be relevant, ironically enough) is absurd. Even slight changes in average convection strength with temperature can completely swamp anything CO2 can accomplish, even were it to quadruple. Currently, no models can account for convection changes in any way more fundamental than just putting in a guess.

    And Well’s response?

    BobC@ 137, fails to read fully Gavins article – or perhaps just fails to comprehend it.

    Well, you are the sorriest excuse for a debater I have ever seen! You couldn’t respond with an answer besides noting that you had posted a link and Bob C. didn’t fully read or comprehend it? Since your statement was a sweeping generalization and an unsubstantiated claim. Also, even if he had not read Gavin’s paper or comprehended it in no way invalidates his argument at 137. Wow, your statement is a “fielder’s choice” of fallacious reasoning’ a sweeping generalization, Dicto Simpliciter and Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (Bob C. didn’t read the paper or understand it, therefore his argument is wrong)!

    … that’s it for me tonight…

    WELL THROWS IN THE TOWELL!

    GAME OVER!!! WINNER: BOB C., LOSER: WELL (COWARD)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    well @209,

    You betray yourself with

    you cherish the one flawed Exxon-backed paper on climate sensitivity and ignore all others that show a higher sensitivity figure.

    So Exxon is your devil, not whether the content of the paper is right or wrong. Otherwise, why mention Exxon?

    You then launch off into personal attacks with

    Richard flails about calling everyone a liar rather than addressing the high climate sensitivity papers.

    eddy just rants on about how no-one can respond, not realising he’s perhaps showing off his own personal lack of social life.

    The personal attacks are not only useless; they show your own maturity level (low). And no one cares whether you have the time for this, that or the other thing. If you don’t have the time, don’t post until you do.

    Richard points out the flaws in your position and the material you use to support it. You then misrepresent his response to you so he quite justly calls you a liar. You are not Richard’s intellectual equal by a long way and you should be embarrassed to cross swords with him.

    And all of the science arguments are dealt with over and over on this blog. Before you come running roughshod over everyone do some homework. Be prepared for some actual respectful discussion. But I think that was never your intent, was it?

    Then learn to do adult writing. Proofread your work and eliminate your typos. In particular, failing to capitalize someone’s name is just plain disrespect. “None the less” is a single word, “nonetheless”.

    Am I being picky? Yes! You have dragged the level of discourse down to the point where people just mock you. No one expects perfection. But you make a career out of being imperfect.

    You offend me. And without a doubt you offend others. It’s time to clean up your act.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    eddy just rants on about how no-one can respond, not realising he’s perhaps showing off his own personal lack of social life.

    Well just rants on and can’t respond to any tough questions but he worries about the social life of others!

    i hardly have the time or patience tonight to wade through the rest of the comments.

    That is because you are too lazy and have yet to make a valid argument besides your usual. “sweeping generalization, link, cut, paste and ad hominem” routine! Do you ever tire of looking like the site idiot?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    GAME 4 BOB C. VERSUS WELL

    Good job, Eddy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    “Snip, snip, snip.”

    I guess you can censor me all you like, but this AGW alarmism stuff is just True Confessions magazines, and there is no other imaginable reason why people who can otherwise think rationally would promote something so detrimental to humanity.

    Let’s face it. You couldn’t do much more to harm people than cutting off their fuel just to please a few who have nothing else to carry out their fantasies of controlling others.

    Freud was right, you might as well censor him too (people have done that)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ Roy Hogue 216

    Thanks, Roy for your kind words.

    It amazes me how the “Four Hosers of The Green Apocalypse” (Well, TWinkler, Spatch and Bingi) actually think they are impressing anyone with their pedantic drivel! Anyone who follows this thread will see how all four of them came off looking like the incompetent, self deluded morons they are. Amazingly, they are probably walking around telling themselves (because they have no friends) that they scored a great victory!

    Fortunately, anyone who reads the thread and has a triple digit IQ will see them for the trolls that they are! You can’t buy PR like this! ;)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ Brian G. 217

    I guess you can censor me all you like

    I suppose we are all here at the sufferance of Jo. Fortunately for all of us, she is very tolerant.

    Years ago I worked as a bouncer. When someone started to cause trouble they usually received a warning. A repetition of unacceptable behavior normally resulted in a quick departure of the miscreant. What I do not understand is why these fools are still here? If left unchecked they will just keep wasting space on the site. I have learned, through trial and error, that the best way to make them (trolls) leave is to hammer them until they get tired of the pummeling and leave. Note: hammering is not the same as feeding. I would be polite and respectful but that will not work. I am not trying to incur the wrath of the moderator but when will the moderator realize that the “Gandhi approach” won’t work with degenerates such as these?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    I guess you’re right, Eddy, and I admire you for taking a job as bouncer – that is very difficult work.

    Pointing out that some people are “gettin’ off” with their troll behavior isn’t discussed much in “polite” society, I think that is exactly what they are doing and their motivation behind it.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    well: October 31st, 2010 at 10:42 pm

    …you cherish the one … paper on climate sensitivity and ignore all others that show a higher sensitivity figure.

    Wrong there are many papers on low climate sensitivity,

    Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth’s climate system (PDF)
    (Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 112, Issue D24, November 2007)
    - Stephen E. Schwartz

    Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth (PDF)
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 177-189, January 2009)
    - David H. Douglass, John R. Christy

    On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data (PDF)
    (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 36, Issue 16, August 2009)
    - Richard S. Lindzen, Yong-Sang Choi

    [Thanks Poptech, I'll have to look at the Schwartz paper... JN]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Eddy, liars like Well when confronted with science they find inconvenient immediately attempt to smear the scientists. Well is a typical propagandist as he uses one of their smears of the trade “oil money”. Anyone who has actually contacts these scientists (I have) will find the lies Well peddles to be baseless. Dr. Idso is a credentialed climatologist who has published hundreds of peer-reviewed papers. Scientists like this are dangerous to alarmists as they have no defense other than the smear. The reality is Dr. Idso’s credentials are impeccable,

    Sherwood B. Idso, B.S. Physics Cum Laude, University of Minnesota (1964), M.S. Soil Science, University of Minnesota (1966), Ph.D. Soil Science, University of Minnesota (1967), Research Assistant in Physics, University of Minnesota (1962), National Defense Education Act Fellowship (1964-1967), Research Soil Scientist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1967-1974), Editorial Board Member, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology Journal (1972-1993), Secretary, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1973-1974), Vice-Chair, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1974-1975), Research Physicist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1974-2001), Chair, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1975-1976), Arthur S. Flemming Award (1977), Secretary, Sigma Xi – The Research Society, Arizona State University Chapter (1979-1980), President, Sigma Xi – The Research Society, Arizona State University Chapter (1980-1982), Member, Task Force on “Alternative Crops”, Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (1983), Adjunct Professor of Geography and Plant Biology, Arizona State University (1984-2007), Editorial Board Member, Environmental and Experimental Botany Journal (1993-Present), Member, Botanical Society of America, Member, American Geophysical Union, Member, American Society of Agronomy, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (2001-Present)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Poptech:
    November 1st, 2010 at 4:10 am

    The reality is Dr. Idso’s credentials are impeccable

    You raise a valid point! However, what about the “impeccable credentials” of Well?

    B.S. in BS graduated Whines Loudly, University of Mental Illness (1964), M.S. in Soiling Science and Reputable Scientists, University of Mental Illness (1966), Ph.D. in Soiling Science and Reputable Scientists, University of Mental Illness (1967), Research Assistant in Physco babble, University of Mental Illness (1962), National Offensive Propoganda Act Fellowship (1964-1967), Research Soil and Dirt on reputable Scientist, U.N. Glogal Warming Conservation Laboratory, Misanthropic Research Disservice, U.N. Department of Misanthropy (1967-1974), Founder of the International Wingnut Society, Recipient of the Troll of the Year Award, with Clusters, for 10 years in a row (2000-2010) Prefect, Center for the Propagation of Propaganda of CAGW (2001-Present) and, above all, a legend in his own mind!

    ;)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Our “four stooges” collectively hold a BA (Hons).

    That’s as in Bull@&$? Artistry.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    I notice that “well” linked (again) to Wiki for his CO2 figures. Has to be asked; how much did the now banned, green activist William Connolley have to do with that?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ Mark 225

    William Connolley “revised” over 5,400 articles at Wikipedia. I am willing to bet that not one of the revisions was done in a manner that favored the skeptical point of view. I had hoped when the internet first became prominent that it would enable the truth to at least keep pace with the lie. Instead, for the most part, it has merely enabled the lie to be spread quicker and with less cost!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Yes indeed, Eddy.

    You just have to wonder at how egregious his behavior must have been for Wiki to have taken the action against him that they did. I understand that it’s only for six months though, after which he can appeal against the “blacklisting”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    well @ 209:

    now if cohenite is right, then only the last 10 years worth of CO2 should remain in the atmosphere. if cohenite is right the 110ppm increase (from a pre-industrial figure of 280 to 390) is just from the last 10 years of emmisions because all other emmissions have been swallowed up.

    so lets look at the very basic numbers.

    the increase of 110 ppm = 8.91×10^11 tonnes of CO2
    the last 10 yrs emissions = 2.70*10^11 tonnes of CO2

    the last 10 years of emissions can only account for less than one third of the increase.

    well, you couldn’t see a logical conclusion if it poked you in the face. As numerious people on this blog and elsewhere have noted, it is extremely well-known (except, perhaps, among the CAGW acolytes) that the solubility of CO2 in water is a function of temperature — the higher the temperature, the less CO2 can be disolved, and the higher the partial pressure it maintains with the environment.

    (Perhaps a simple experiment would help you understand — heat up a coke before opening it and see what happens.)

    Therefore, CO2 atmospheric concentrations are expected to increase with increases in ocean surface temperature, all else being equal. As the oceans heat up, more CO2 is released as the partial pressure increases. This is clearly shown in the ice core data of the last 400K years — CO2 increases every time after the temperature increases.

    So, lets look at the facts and see what can be deduced.

    1) CO2 residence half life in the atmosphere is ~5 years. This is shown by dozens of empirical studies, not one of which can be disproved by a model. It is also easily deduced from the IPCC’s own figures for estimated CO2 fluxes.

    2) Hence, only the last few decades of Anthropogenic CO2 can contribute significantly to atmospheric concentrations.

    3) There has not been enough Anthropogenic CO2 produced to explain the observed increase in atmospheric CO2.

    {And, here is where your mental disabilities put you at a disadvantage}

    Therefore, most of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is from other sources (other than Anthropogenic). The warming of the oceans over the last century is an obvious source.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Friends:

    Thank you for the posts from 195 onwards. They prove that ridicule backed up with solid evidence is the most effective response to trolls who clearly want to disrupt and not contribute.

    I really enjoyed these posts. Laugh? I almost fell off my chair.

    And, importantly, (as Eddy points out) anybody with a genuine interest in seeking ‘truth’ can see the sillyness of the assertions and behaviour of the ‘Gang Of Four’.

    Richard

    PS I really wish I had Eddy’s way with words: I am in awe and envious.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Eddy @226,

    It’s true that the Internet gave every pipsqueak with a complaint or a cause a cheap forum from which to push their nonsense. But it also gives Joanne a worldwide forum from which to fight back at the most pernicious scam in the history of the human race.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ Richard S. Courtney

    I am glad you enjoyed the comments and thank you for the compliment at 229. Coming from you that is indeed high praise!

    As far as I am concerned, if it walks like a troll, looks like a troll and posts like a troll then it is a troll. So far, two members of the gang of four, Spatch and Well, have both sworn to ignore me. Next time I will get all four! I wear the distinction as a badge of honor. I have no problem with those who politely disagree but these characters are on a junk science jihad! They must be hunted down, targeted and destroyed!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Well @ 209

    Speedy again raises the old, “we would have had runaway warming” argument again, not realising is readily countered by the usual “skeptic” CO2′s logarithmic argument.

    So you now agree that every further increment of additional CO2 absorbs a diminishing amount of infra-red radiation; this is one of the reasons why the earth’s climate is stable. You must be wondering, then, why would anyone want to tax or control CO2 emissions if they are having an insignificant effect on climate?

    Well, I couldn’t have expressed it better myself. Congratulations, brother sceptic!

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Richard C. earlier today I typed but did not post that @ 192 for the first time in almost 12 months you made humor (GREAT HUMOR!) I didn’t post it because I though perhaps I had missed some unseen “British” “dry” humor. (and likely I did)

    Then at post 229 you say:

    I really enjoyed these posts. Laugh? I almost fell off my chair.

    To which I heartily say GOOD!

    And further, I too was nearly off my chair reading 192. Thank you

    Life is too short to be serious all the time.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Eddy, I know you have had some difficult life events recently. With that in mind, you are still able to compose serious and humorous posts. I hope you have some joy too.

    If you care to talk privately about the non Co2 stuff, I am at your service. (commiseration has it’s pluses)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    TWinkler

    Poptech@195

    Lie, as all papers support skepticism of AGW Alarm.

    This paper in no way discredits AGW, nor does it support skepticism of AGW. At best it highlights areas of debate, such as the UHI.

    And they go on to explain this,

    You forgot a couple of important parts from your cherry picked quote. The paragraph starts with “Minor disagreements between the patterns can be due to possible imprecision in the proxy reconstructions of temperature and/or solar irradiance records “. So the section of UHI is only about the minor differences. Secondly your quoted section finished with “… but other authors would disagree [Vinnikov et al., 2006].”.

    So this paper is saying that at best the UHI might account for some of the “Minor disagreement”.

    Their conclusions do not support AGW Alarm

    They say: “A comparison between the curves indicates that the sun might have contributed approximately 50% of the total global surface warming since 1900 [Scafetta and West, 2006]. Since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone.

    They are saying that most of the warming has been because of the sun, except since 1975 when the temp cannot be explained by solar effects alone.

    In any case, as some authors have already noted [...], solar change effects are greater than what can be explained by several climate models … In conclusion, a solar change might significantly alter climate. It might trigger several climate feedbacks and alter the GHG (H2O, CO2, CH4, etc.) concentration, as 420,000 years of Antarctic ice core data would also suggest [Petit et al., 1999].

    This is saying the solar effect can trigger positive feedbacks. This is an argument for higher sensitivity; that a small change in solar output can unlock GHG’s and cause greater warming than would otherwise occur.

    That you think this is an argument against AGW demonstrates how poor your climate change knowledge is.

    Your 800 paper list is a fabrication designed to fool the unwary.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    TWinkler

    Sounds like the three musketeers……

    Except there were four of us, but as usual “skeptics” are underestimating the problem. ;)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Your 800 paper list is a fabrication designed to fool the unwary.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, you’ll never guess who is back.

    You don’t have the insight or knowledge to evaluate the accuracy of anything.

    Go charge up your solar powered vibrator and leave us alone, will ya?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    TWinkler

    PopTech says:

    Eddy, liars like Well when confronted with science they find inconvenient immediately attempt to smear the scientists. Well is a typical propagandist as he uses one of their smears of the trade “oil money”.

    We use the tobacco companies too. The simlarity between the “merchant of doubt” campaigns are striking.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    TWinkler says:

    Your 800 paper list is a fabrication designed to fool the unwary.

    Really? you do math badly. Even if I disregard the paper under debate, I count 799 to go.

    The “unwary” will be wary after looking at those 799.

    Why don’t you help Well out and answer my questions posed to the mute him?

    See @ 212

    PS, You need to read more. The story of the three Musketeers involves a fourth character named d’Artagnan. The detail of just which of you is which character has yet to unfold…….


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Bob Malloy, is it coffee time in AU?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    History is full of people like you, Twinkler, in the witch hunts, in the Spanish inquisition, in the Stalinist regime, other unmentionables.

    You’re just an impotent anonymous little blogger taking out your inability to think for yourself on other people, face it!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Scr-e-e-e-ch….squ-a-a-a-a-w-k….

    Hey, must be summer… The galahs are back.

    Either that or they’ve spent all their dole money on booze and drugs over the weekend and are in mourning till the next payment arrives. That’s why they support AGW religion. Means more money for welfare bludgers like them.

    Apologies to perfectly respectable, real galahs who make much more sense when they vocalize.
    .


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    They aren’t ALL welfare queens, Mark.

    Some of them work for organisations that take money from patsies to browbeat the Government into making life miserable for the patsies who gave them money in he first place.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Twinkler @ 235

    Wow! So, the author of the list of 800 papers is a warmist double agent who clandestinely seeded the list of 800 papers with papers that could be used by operatives such as you to discredit the evil skeptics? Got it!

    UHI? HMMM.. I thought the paper, from the abstract, was about TSI. Where does the paper says that the sun is the only forcing effecting temperature? Care to explain what percent of the total is due to anthropogenic CO2 contributions? I will give you a hint, it is not 50%! Also, if their are forcings at work other than CO2 that are not acknowledged, recognized or understood by the IPCC, why would anyone buy into their CAGW fairy tale?

    This is saying the solar effect can trigger positive feedbacks. This is an argument for higher sensitivity; that a small change in solar output can unlock GHG’s and cause greater warming than would otherwise occur.

    Wrong again, oh deductively challenged one! As the oceans warm they outgas more “greenhouse gasses”. The temperatures in the oceans, as ALL of the ice core records show, lag air temps by 800 years, approximately. Greenhouse gas increases are due to temperature increases. Perhaps you should try the warm soda experiment that Bob C. commented earlier on? I am sure you would wear it well.

    That you think this is an argument against AGW demonstrates how poor your climate change knowledge is.

    That you could post something so asinine only confirms what a pedantic troll we all know you to be! I hope your handlers don’t see this. If they do, I hope that you are not punished too severely for disappointing them with your spectacular failure. You’re an embarrassment to all trolls. Don’t they have continuing education requirements for the likes of you?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Well, unlike TWinkler I have a life so I am going to get some sleep. When I get up tomorrow I am going to have a cup of coffee and enjoy reading the intellectual ass whipping my fellow regulars will administer to TWinkler and any of the other members of the Gang of Four that continue to humiliate themselves by posting more mind numbing inane BS!

    Goodnight All!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Twinkler

    In science, the advocate of a given theory is expected to lay the facts on the table and then use the observations to validate the theory. If the theory fails to validate a single element of physical evidence, it is invalidated and must be either modified or scrapped in favour of another theory which explains the physical reality. To paraphrase Albert Einstein “One thousand experiments cannot prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong.” That’s how science works.

    Theories are like balloons – one prick and they’re busted. Speaking of which:

    This new paper in the journal Quaternary Science Reviews throws a formidable monkey wrench into the the theory that CO2 induced warming is the cause of current Arctic ice loss. Because if we had ice free summers ten thousand years ago at ~ 260 ppm CO2, and we had warmer temperatures than today, we can’t then conclude that an additional 100 ppm of CO2 since then would be the cause of an ice free summer in the Arctic today.

    From http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/30/new-peer-reviewed-paper-says-there-appear-to-have-been-periods-of-ice-free-summers-in-the-central-arctic-ocean/

    Global Warming is a great theory, but Mother Nature doesn’t believe it.

    Cheers,

    Speedy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Brian,

    I’m having trouble differentiating the two. Is there really a difference?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Orange

    Just for YOU “TWinkler”……

    DIY Solar VIbrator…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYgahkfKvP8

    Watermellons have their own car now!….

    http://www.neatorama.com/2010/09/12/watermelon-car/

    Green Screen: A Living, Carbon-Capturing Face Mask That Filters Bacteria | Inhabitat – Green Design Will Save the World…..

    http://inhabitat.com/2010/04/25/green-screen-a-living-carbon-capturing-face-mask-that-filters-bacteria/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    scott

    Hi Speedy

    As I have always said, when reality catches up with the theory you get the true picture.

    I really enjoy reading the scientific explainations back and forth.

    But you know its hard to beat nature, this year I have been going out to catch Snapper in Port Phillip Bay, last year the Snapper were on the bite weeks earlier, this year they have only just come on to the bite.

    Why??

    Bay temperature, its cold, snapper dont bite when its cold.

    So no matter what they say about global temps my thermometer tells me its colder, the fish not biting despite being on the sonar in numbers, tells me its colder.

    But you know its the warmest year ever, why because the warmists tell us so.

    This is where their arguments fall over, reality catches up with them in the long run and the longer this scam plays out the more they get exposed.

    Science from the clever people like, Jo, George, Eddy, Roy, Richard, poptech, Bobc, Markd, speedy, cohenite etc (appologies to those left out) really show the holes in the AGW crowds arguments because you really can’t argue opinion (or cut and paste) against science and in the end reality.

    So thanks for your input I really enjoy the rebuttals based on solid science.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Mark D.:
    November 1st, 2010 at 3:25 pm

    Bob Malloy, is it coffee time in AU?

    Don’t know Mark, If their in coastal NSW, “on time stamps in {well’s} postings”, high schools are just closing for the day, those working (9 to 5) could more than likely be having a coffee break. If their on the west coast with Jo, they would just be going to lunch.

    Either way lets see if the rest of the gang reappear.

    P.S. well’s comment about them being four, so likening them to the three musketeers is amply counted by you at 239, he also can’t say the three stooges is not appropriate wont stand either as in total they also number more than three.

    Lets call this their audition to replace the following. Moe Howard, Shemp Howard, Larry fine, Curly Howard, Joe Besser, Joe DeRita aka curly joe. And an actor by the name of Joe Palmer was drafted in to double for Shemp Howard to complete some shorts after Shemp suffered a heart attack.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    My bad, in above I refer to “well”, when I should have referred to Twinkler


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Scott

    Thanks for your kind comments. I think we’re all learning at this site because “climate science” (in the true sense) really is a blend of a lot of disciplines – meteorology, oceanography, statistics, geology, history, physics, chemisty, archeology and so on. I don’t think there’s anyone who can claim they cover all the bases to the depth required.

    The best advise I heard was from Chris Monckton – he told people that they should think for themselves, not take someone’s word for it. You don’t have to be a genius to ask questions about climate science, and if the “authorities” on the subject are on top of the game – as they claim to be – then they should be able to give us mere mortals the explanations. When they can’t or won’t explain, then a good scientist should start to get very suspicious of the theory and the people who are pushing it.

    I don’t know whether your story about the snapper would hold up in a scientific journal; I go fishing and don’t get a bite, possibly because I’m crap at it :) . But there was a note at Watts Up mentioning a recent drop in ocean surface temperatures – plus there’s likely to be a La Nina effect if you’re on the east coast of Australia. My bet is La Nina is in there somewhere – but you never know!

    WUWT also had a piece on the arrogance of the alarmists – see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/31/the-simple-mans-math/

    I like Jo’s site because it is technically pretty switched on and people generally use their manners (some frustrations notwithstanding). Welcome aboard!

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    Speedy:
    November 1st, 2010 at 6:55 pm
    Can we add electical theory and radio theory to that list?
    http://www.evolutionaryleaps.com/Magnetic_Portals_Connect_Earth_to_Sun.htm


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Siliggy

    Absolutely – we don’t know everything there is to know so how do we know what we don’t need to know? Know what I mean? Plus the work being done on sunspot activity and climate – which appears to show a pretty good correlation – could use some electrical and radio theory.

    But we can still be pretty sure that CO2 is not the issue – based on the paleoclimate, the ice cores, the lack of a hot spot in the troposphere, the declining marginal “returns” of increased CO2 concentrations, the stability of the earth’s climate, the notch in the earth’s emission spectrum etc. The global warming theory has been falsified.

    It is amazing that the IPCC return, time and time again, to CO2 as the issue for “research” (read computer models) while ignoring solid physical studies such as clouds. I suspect that they have found the answer they wanted and have stopped asking questions a long time ago.

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    william gray

    A negative IOD, meaning warm waters of Africas west coast, results in above average precipatation across Australia.
    When combinned with a La~nina, its worst then we thought.
    see here.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/IOD/negative/#La%20Niña


    Report this

    00

  • #

    TWinkler: This paper in no way discredits AGW, nor does it support skepticism of AGW. At best it highlights areas of debate, such as the UHI.

    Why do you keep repeating this lie? Where is it stated on the list that all the papers “discredit AGW”? It explicitly states that all the papers “support skepticism of AGW Alarm“. The paper explicitly says “The sun might have contributed approximately 50% of the observed global warming since 1900“. This is not the position of the IPCC which says it is 90% man-made. The paper is arguing that when you take into account the total effects of solar changes on the climate the effect is much large than current climate models or the IPCC recognize,

    we adopt an alternative approach that attempts to evaluate the total direct plus indirect effect of solar changes on climate [...]

    In conclusion, a solar change might significantly alter climate. [...]

    Most of the sun-climate coupling mechanisms are probably still unknown. However, they should be incorporated into the climate models to better understand the real impact of the sun on climate because they might strongly amplify the effects of small solar activity increases.

    It is argued that solar effects might be much larger than is recognized.

    You forgot a couple of important parts from your cherry picked quote. The paragraph starts with “Minor disagreements between the patterns can be due to possible imprecision in the proxy reconstructions of temperature and/or solar irradiance records “. So the section of UHI is only about the minor differences.

    No my quote is exactly where it is supposed to be. What you are quoting is not discussing UHI as an explanation for the difference between the solar and temperature record since 1975. The first part of the paragraph is discussing various anomalies in the patterns and possible causes for them. My quote that mentions UHI explicitly begins with,

    The difference since 1975 might also decrease if part of the observed NH warming comes from spurious non-climatic contamination of the surface observations such as heat-island and land-use effects [Pielke et al., 2002; Kalnay and Cai, 2003]. Some authors [Christy and Norris, 2006; Douglass et al., 2004] suggest that the recent surface warming is overestimated because temperature reconstructions for the lower troposphere obtained with MSU satellites since 1978 present a significant lower warming than the surface record,

    They are not arguing for 100% elimination of the anthropogenic effect but rather a significant reduction in it and a larger contribution of solar forcing. This is opposed to the position of the IPCC.

    Secondly your quoted section finished with “… but other authors would disagree [Vinnikov et al., 2006].”.

    Yes for the sake of balance the author cites someone who disagrees with this, these sort of statements are common in papers they have nothing to do with the conclusion or intent of the author of the paper.

    So this paper is saying that at best the UHI might account for some of the “Minor disagreement”.

    Lie, you are not even reading the paragraph correctly.

    They are saying that most of the warming has been because of the sun, except since 1975 when the temp cannot be explained by solar effects alone.

    No they are saying the warming up to 1975 can be explained by solar forcing and since then 50% can still be. They went on to explain that the solar forcing of the climate might be much larger then is currently understood and the climate models do not properly incorporate a correct solar forcing.

    This is saying the solar effect can trigger positive feedbacks. This is an argument for higher sensitivity; that a small change in solar output can unlock GHG’s and cause greater warming than would otherwise occur.

    Yes solar not anthropogenic. They are saying that solar forcings might cause positive feedbacks not man.

    That you think this is an argument against AGW demonstrates how poor your climate change knowledge is.

    Lie, it is not stated anywhere that this is an argument against AGW, as the list includes papers that support skepticism of AGW Alarm.

    Your 800 paper list is a fabrication designed to fool the unwary.

    The only fabrication is the ones you stated. Now answer these questions,

    1. Is Nicola Scafetta’s position on Solar Forcing in agreement with the IPCC?

    2. Do his papers support an alarmist position on the climate in relation to anthropogenic forcings?

    You are so clueless you do not even know what Nicola Scafetta’s position is on AGW, hint is not alarmist.

    Here I will help your ignorance out with another paper from the list,

    Climate Change and Its Causes, A Discussion About Some Key Issues (PDF)
    (La Chimica e l’Industria, Volume 1, pp. 70-75, 2010)
    - Nicola Scafetta


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Mark D.:

    Really? you do math badly. Even if I disregard the paper under debate, I count 799 to go.

    The “unwary” will be wary after looking at those 799.

    The paper is sound and supports skepticism of AGW alarm as it is arguing for a larger solar effect on the climate than what the IPCC presents. But regarding the number of papers on the list, it is currently 833 (more are added weekly).

    So even if he could find 33 papers on the list that were listed incorrectly (he failed to do this), the list would still be 800 papers.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    TWinkler:

    We use the tobacco companies too. The simlarity between the “merchant of doubt” campaigns are striking.

    Hillarious, you admit to using smear tactics. Your “merchant of doubt” smears have all been discredited too,

    Clouding the Truth: A Critique of Merchants of Doubt (PDF) (The Marshall Institute)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Eddy Aruda:
    November 1st, 2010 at 4:08 pm

    When I get up tomorrow I am going to have a cup of coffee and enjoy reading the intellectual ass whipping my fellow regulars will administer to TWinkler and any of the other members of the Gang of Four that continue to humiliate themselves by posting more mind numbing inane BS!

    @ Speedy 246, Orange 248, Bob Malloy 250 and Poptech 256, 257 and 258.

    Excellent posts, guys!

    Yep, there is nothing better in the morning than a hot cup of coffee and a side of TWinkler’s intellectual ass on a platter! ;)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Eddy Aruda:@259
    November 1st, 2010 at 4:08 pm

    You flatter me Eddy, I lack your biting wit and was really only carrying on an earlier thread between Mark D and myself, pondering the motivation behind the trolls from a land where the inhabitants are blessed by the ability to live in a vacuum and their circular arguments always finishing where they start, all have been posed and debunked by your good self, Richard C, Bob C and others many times on other threads.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    TWinkler

    Poptech@256

    Why do you keep repeating this lie? Where is it stated on the list that all the papers “discredit AGW”? It explicitly states that all the papers “support skepticism of AGW Alarm“.

    All science should be performed from a “skeptical” point of view. To argue that a paper qualifies for your 800 list because it is “skeptical” means you might as well add the rest of the papers on climate science.

    By your own argument, can we assume that none of the papers in the 800 list discredit AGW?

    The paper explicitly says “The sun might have contributed approximately 50% of the observed global warming since 1900“. This is not the position of the IPCC which says it is 90% man-made.

    So the paper says:
    - the warming can only be partly the sun – agrees with AGW.
    - that a smaller solar forcing can cause large amounts of temp changes though GHG feedbacks – agrees with AGW.
    - solar might account for 50% of the observed global warming since 1900 – agrees with AGW but might not agree with the numbers presented by the IPCC.

    The paper is arguing that when you take into account the total effects of solar changes on the climate the effect is much large than current climate models or the IPCC recognize,

    Feedbacks are an important part of AGW. Without these feedbacks, AGW would be nearly so important.

    They are not arguing for 100% elimination of the anthropogenic effect but rather a significant reduction in it and a larger contribution of solar forcing. This is opposed to the position of the IPCC.

    They say maybe and assign no probability or error bars. Saying there is a possibility is not the same as arguing for it.

    No they are saying the warming up to 1975 can be explained by solar forcing and since then 50% can still be.

    No, in both cases they specifically say the 50% applies to the “since 1900″ amount. They don’t give a percentage for post 1975.

    Yes solar not anthropogenic. They are saying that solar forcings might cause positive feedbacks not man.

    I didn’t say the feedback was initiated by a anthropogenic forcing. In fact they specifically say the forcing is prior to the industrial era.

    They say “Any secular change of the albedo and of greenhouse gases (GHGs) (H2O, CO2, CH4, etc.) occurring during this pre-industrial era should be considered natural climate feedback to solar change, and therefore, counted as an indirect solar effect on climate”.

    They do point out that the feedback is an indirect effect so it doesn’t matter what the source of forcing, the feedback occurs because warming occurs.

    I love the way a “skeptic” blames other forcings for past climate changes without realising the implications regarding climate sensitivity.

    1. Is Nicola Scafetta’s position on Solar Forcing in agreement with the IPCC?

    I’m not familiar with Nicola Scafetta’s position, the paper indicates it might be different.

    2. Do his papers support an alarmist position on the climate in relation to anthropogenic forcings?

    THIS paper highlights how GHG’s act as positive feedbacks and how the sun cannot account for the all warming from 1900, and especially from 1975.

    You are so clueless you do not even know what Nicola Scafetta’s position is on AGW, hint is not alarmist.

    Great, but we’re talking about THIS paper now aren’t we.

    So even if he could find 33 papers on the list that were listed incorrectly (he failed to do this), the list would still be 800 papers.

    I failed? How can I fail if I haven’t even tried. Weird logic you have!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Twinkler @ 256

    Agree – all science SHOULD be sceptical – that’s precisely what’s wrong with Climate “Science”. Read the Climategate emails if you don’t believe me.

    But to put your post in perspective. What specific part of your argument involves physical evidence that demonstrates that global warming is significant, harmful and man-made?

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Poptech@221 the Schwartz paper on climate sensitivity has been updated following criticism from Foster [Tamino]; here is the revised version:

    http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapCommentResponse.pdf

    Well@209 says this:

    “i will plant last one on you, since cohenites theory on the residency of CO2 is easily proven wrong.

    now if cohenite is right, then only the last 10 years worth of CO2 should remain in the atmosphere. if cohenite is right the 110ppm increase (from a pre-industrial figure of 280 to 390) is just from the last 10 years of emmisions because all other emmissions have been swallowed up.

    so lets look at the very basic numbers.

    the increase of 110 ppm = 8.91×10^11 tonnes of CO2
    the last 10 yrs emissions = 2.70*10^11 tonnes of CO2

    the last 10 years of emissions can only account for less than one third of the increase.”

    Well’s point is that human CO2 emissions, ACO2, are entirely responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 increase. Well’s point is based on the idea that if ACO2 exceeds the increase in CO2 then all of the increase must be due to ACO2. This has happened with ACO2 about 8GT PA and CO2 increase about 4GTPA.

    For this to happen CO2 sinks must be expanding to absorb 1/2 the ACO2. But this ignores 2 things:

    1 Sinks may be expanding at a greater rate than ACO2 in which case natural CO2 will be contributing.
    2 The above is confirmed by this paper:

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/knorr2009_co2_sequestration.pdf

    This paper shows that the % of ACO2 in the atmosphere has stayed the same despite increases in ACO2 and CO2 so ACO2 cannot be responsible for the entire increase in CO2 levels.

    This can be demonstrated quite easily, the principle is a constant in an increasing total: say ACO2 is 20% of CO2 which is 100, so ACO2 is 20; when CO2 is 200 ACO2′s 20% will be 40 so other CO2 has contributed 60; at 300, ACO2 is 60, other is 140 and so on; natural CO2 must be contributing to the increase in total CO2 and sinks must be expanding more than the 4GTPA.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Poptech@221 the Schwartz paper on climate sensitivity has been updated following criticism from Foster [Tamino]; here is the revised version:

    This is already on the list,

    - Reply to comments by G. Foster et al., R. Knutti et al., and N. Scafetta on “Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth’s climate system” (PDF)
    (Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 113, Issue D15, August 2008)
    - Stephen E. Schwartz


    Report this

    00

  • #

    TWinkler

    All science should be performed from a “skeptical” point of view. To argue that a paper qualifies for your 800 list because it is “skeptical” means you might as well add the rest of the papers on climate science.

    Strawman I never said a paper qualifies because it was “skeptical”, I said it qualifies because it “supports skepticism of AGW Alarm” (CAGW).

    By your own argument, can we assume that none of the papers in the 800 list discredit AGW?

    The all help discredit AGW Alarm (CAGW). Various ones directly attack AGW theory,

    Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics (PDF)
    (International Journal of Modern Physics B, Volume 23, Issue 03, pp. 275-364, January 2009)
    - Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner

    So the paper says:
    - the warming can only be partly the sun – agrees with AGW.

    Lie, AGW Theory does not support 50% of the current warming being caused by the sun and does not suggest the remainder could be due to UHI.

    - that a smaller solar forcing can cause large amounts of temp changes though GHG feedbacks – agrees with AGW.

    Lie, the paper explicitly says “In conclusion, a solar change might significantly alter climate. It might trigger several climate feedbacks and alter the GHG (H2O, CO2, CH4, etc.) concentration” It says nothing about GHG feedbacks but rather several (unstated) climate feedbacks that could alter the GHG concentrates. It is these (unstated) climate feedbacks that are changing the GHG concentrations not the other way around.

    - solar might account for 50% of the observed global warming since 1900 – agrees with AGW but might not agree with the numbers presented by the IPCC.

    Show me where it is accepted in AGW theory that 50% of the warming since 1900 is solar caused and the remainder due to UHI.

    Feedbacks are an important part of AGW. Without these feedbacks, AGW would be nearly so important.

    Yes but they are not arguing for GHG feedbacks.

    They say maybe and assign no probability or error bars. Saying there is a possibility is not the same as arguing for it.

    Using correct language with uncertainty is scientifically responsibly, something AGW proponents and the IPCC know nothing about. None of which changes where their position actually stands. The fact that you don’t even know the position Dr. Scafetta only makes you comments even more embarrassing when you state them.

    No, in both cases they specifically say the 50% applies to the “since 1900″ amount. They don’t give a percentage for post 1975.

    Correct but the only percentage they give is the only one that can be applied and they go out of their way to suggest UHI as the reason for the difference.

    I didn’t say the feedback was initiated by a anthropogenic forcing. In fact they specifically say the forcing is prior to the industrial era.

    They say “Any secular change of the albedo and of greenhouse gases (GHGs) (H2O, CO2, CH4, etc.) occurring during this pre-industrial era should be considered natural climate feedback to solar change, and therefore, counted as an indirect solar effect on climate”.

    They do point out that the feedback is an indirect effect so it doesn’t matter what the source of forcing, the feedback occurs because warming occurs.

    I love the way a “skeptic” blames other forcings for past climate changes without realising the implications regarding climate sensitivity.

    But his has nothing to do with AGW GHG feedbacks which are claimed to be caused simply by the increase in GHG concentrations. A Solar feedback is one that only occurs due to a change in the solar forcing. It has nothing to do with independent GHG feedbacks.

    If you actually understood the paper you were reading you would realize that he is arguing for increased current climate sensitivity due to solar forcings based on past climate changes. He is not arguing for increased AGW GHG climate sensitivity. But you cannot even comprehend the contents of the paper.

    1. Is Nicola Scafetta’s position on Solar Forcing in agreement with the IPCC?

    I’m not familiar with Nicola Scafetta’s position, the paper indicates it might be different.

    This is obvious as what you have stated is from a position of ignorance. Not only do you not know the IPCC’s position you cannot even correctly interpret a paper by a widely cited AGW skeptic.

    2. Do his papers support an alarmist position on the climate in relation to anthropogenic forcings?

    THIS paper highlights how GHG’s act as positive feedbacks and how the sun cannot account for the all warming from 1900, and especially from 1975.

    Lie, as discredited above. He explicitly suggests UHI as a reason for the difference.

    I failed? How can I fail if I haven’t even tried. Weird logic you have!

    Your incompetence in correctly analyzing an AGW skeptic’s paper is all the evidence needed to support what I stated.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Science

    2 The above is confirmed by this paper:

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/knorr2009_co2_sequestration.pdf

    This paper shows that the % of ACO2 in the atmosphere has stayed the same despite increases in ACO2 and CO2 so ACO2 cannot be responsible for the entire increase in CO2 levels.

    This can be demonstrated quite easily, the principle is a constant in an increasing total: say ACO2 is 20% of CO2 which is 100, so ACO2 is 20; when CO2 is 200 ACO2′s 20% will be 40 so other CO2 has contributed 60; at 300, ACO2 is 60, other is 140 and so on; natural CO2 must be contributing to the increase in total CO2 and sinks must be expanding more than the 4GTPA.

    That paper says nothing of the sort. If you look at the graph (figure 1) you can see that the total anthropogenic emissions are at about 10 GtC/year and that the atmosphere CO2 has increased by about 4 GtC/year and that the anthropogenic contribution to that increase is at about 4 GtC/year. That leaves 0 GtC/year for natural emissions. The increase is therefore 100% due to anthropogenic emissions.

    Yes, about 60% of man made emissions are being absorbed back into the environment, mostly the oceans. It is only that 60% figure that has stayed the same, which is basically all that this paper is saying.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Yep! Another morning cup of coffee with another side order of TWinkler’s intellectual ass on a platter and is it ever well done!

    Kudos to Poptech, Speedy and Cohenite! :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    TWinkler

    Speedy@262

    Have another read of what it is we are arguing about.

    cohenite@263

    This is Well’s argument, but you might want to have a closer look at Knorr 2009. They are saying that a percentage of our emmissions stay in the atmosphere, not that natural “other CO2″ emissions increase to match ours (how funny a thought!).

    Funny to find Knorr’s paper on the 800 list too.

    Poptech@264

    So they calculate sensitivity … “equilibrium temperature increase for doubled CO2 of 1.9 ± 1.0 K” … which doesn’t come anywhere near Idso so exacting figure of 0.4 (or 0.1 degree if you take Richard S Courtney’s math).

    Is Idso wrong or is Schwartz wrong?

    Poptech@264

    Strawman I never said a paper qualifies because it was “skeptical”, I said it qualifies because it “supports skepticism of AGW Alarm” (CAGW).

    Skepticism is good. Having evidence is another thing.

    This paper, which is only skeptical about some aspects of AGW, without actually producing evidence that is contrary to AGW, is enough to make your 800 list?

    The all help discredit AGW Alarm (CAGW).

    This one doesn’t. At best is says the value for solar influence might be larger. “The sun might have contributed approximately 50% of the observed global warming since 1900″

    Various ones directly attack AGW theory,

    I’ll leave the discussion of another paper for another time but I will point out that its attempt to suggest there is no greenhouse effect contradicts the paper we are currently discussing.

    Such is the world of “800-paper skeptics”.

    Lie, AGW Theory does not support 50% of the current warming being caused by the sun and does not suggest the remainder could be due to UHI.

    And neither does this paper. It says the sun “might” and the UHI may not be.

    Lie, the paper explicitly says “In conclusion, a solar change might significantly alter climate. It might trigger several climate feedbacks and alter the GHG (H2O, CO2, CH4, etc.) concentration” It says nothing about GHG feedbacks but rather several (unstated) climate feedbacks that could alter the GHG concentrates. It is these (unstated) climate feedbacks that are changing the GHG concentrations not the other way around.

    Show me where it is accepted in AGW theory that 50% of the warming since 1900 is solar caused and the remainder due to UHI.

    Show me where the paper says this. Not conjecture, not “might” / “might not”, but an actual definitive statement.

    Yes but they are not arguing for GHG feedbacks.

    Are you blind? They say “the existence of CO2 natural feedbacks are indeed known”.

    In “Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the Northern Hemisphere surface temperature records since 1600″ Scafetta says … “In fact, 420,000 a of Antarctic ice core data [Petit et al., 1999] have unmistakably established the existence of natural GHG (CO2, CH4, etc.) feedback mechanisms.”

    Using correct language with uncertainty is scientifically responsibly, something AGW proponents and the IPCC know nothing about. None of which changes where their position actually stands. The fact that you don’t even know the position Dr. Scafetta only makes you comments even more embarrassing when you state them.

    If Scafetta did intend to “help discredit AGW Alarm” then he did a very poor job. Along the way he confirms GHG feedback, a higher sensitivity to solar forcing of the past and confirms that the sun alone cannot account for the warming in the past few decades even though it matched the earlier part of the 1900′s.

    Correct but the only percentage they give is the only one that can be applied …

    Remember your words “Using correct language with uncertainty is scientifically responsibly …”. And what uncertainty does the word “might” represent?

    … and they go out of their way to suggest UHI as the reason for the difference.

    Scafetta doesn’t make a case for UHI either way. He shows that other scientists disagree.

    But his has nothing to do with AGW GHG feedbacks which are claimed to be caused simply by the increase in GHG concentrations. A Solar feedback is one that only occurs due to a change in the solar forcing. It has nothing to do with independent GHG feedbacks.

    If you actually understood the paper you were reading you would realize that he is arguing for increased current climate sensitivity due to solar forcings based on past climate changes. He is not arguing for increased AGW GHG climate sensitivity.

    See above … “Are you blind? …”.

    … a paper by a widely cited AGW skeptic.

    I am well aware “skeptics” try to claim other papers as evidence to discredit AGW. See cohenite’s misuse of Knorr 2009 above.

    Lie, as discredited above. He explicitly suggests UHI as a reason for the difference.

    “might might might”, “other authors would disagree”.

    Your incompetence in correctly analyzing an AGW skeptic’s paper is all the evidence needed to support what I stated.

    Your competence at claiming papers that contradict each other is quite astounding.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Doesn’t matter about the apparent contradictions or ambiguity one bit, Twinkler, because in the plus column of unequivocal evidence for AGW, you have a handful of exactly nothing!

    Nothing at all!

    Seems pretty strange to me, that if this effect was supposed to be so “disruptive,” there would be pretty clear cut evidence for it.

    Seems pretty clear to me, as well, that something like this would have been apparent a long time ago. Namely in the geologic record, and it never has been.

    The effect is the product of the mind, Twinkler, and is every bit as real as ESP is. The evidence for AGW is exactly as solid as the evidence for ESP, and for whatever reasons, people will go on believing in ESP from here to Eternity because it is the way they want the world to be


    Report this

    00

  • #

    So they calculate sensitivity … “equilibrium temperature increase for doubled CO2 of 1.9 ± 1.0 K” … which doesn’t come anywhere near Idso so exacting figure of 0.4 (or 0.1 degree if you take Richard S Courtney’s math).

    I believe Idso to more likely be correct. The point was other papers exist that suggest low climate sensitivity, at least lower than alarmist positions. It was falsely claimed that there was only one paper that claimed low climate sensitivity. I provided evidence to the contrary.

    Skepticism is good. Having evidence is another thing.

    Having evidence to support AGW is another thing indeed.

    This paper, which is only skeptical about some aspects of AGW, without actually producing evidence that is contrary to AGW, is enough to make your 800 list?

    It does contradict AGW Alarm by suggesting higher solar variability. Why are you perpetually confused that papers on the list can support the existence of AGW theory but reject Alarmism (CAGW)?

    This one doesn’t. At best is says the value for solar influence might be larger. “The sun might have contributed approximately 50% of the observed global warming since 1900″

    Not “at best”, that is exactly what it says. This is contrary to the IPCC’s position and contrary to AGW Alarm.

    I’ll leave the discussion of another paper for another time but I will point out that its attempt to suggest there is no greenhouse effect contradicts the paper we are currently discussing.

    Such is the world of “800-paper skeptics”.

    Strawman, no where is it stated that all the papers must agree with each other, it is not a list of some unified theory. The purpose of the list is to provide a resource for the skeptical arguments being made in peer-reviewed journals and to demonstrate the existence of these papers. It is not supposed to be a single argument but rather a resource for all of them.

    Your desperation is noted. Once confronted with the reality that these papers exist you desperately need to try anything to discredit them. Sad but true and you continue to fail.

    And neither does this paper. It says the sun “might” and the UHI may not be.

    Yes the author responsibly (unlike the IPCC and other alarmists) states uncertainty and provides a counter view to his preferred one.

    Show me where the paper says this. Not conjecture, not “might” / “might not”, but an actual definitive statement.

    It doesn’t have to it is implied.

    Show me where the IPCC or alarmists cited this paper in support of AGW theory.

    Are you blind? They say “the existence of CO2 natural feedbacks are indeed known”.

    In “Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the Northern Hemisphere surface temperature records since 1600″ Scafetta says … “In fact, 420,000 a of Antarctic ice core data [Petit et al., 1999] have unmistakably established the existence of natural GHG (CO2, CH4, etc.) feedback mechanisms.”

    Those are natural feedbacks unrelated to anthropogenic emissions. This does not support AGW theory.

    Lets see what the whole paragraph says,

    “Any secular change of the albedo and of greenhouse gases (GHGs) (H2O, CO2, CH4, etc.) occurring during this pre-industrial era should be considered natural climate feedback to solar change, and therefore, counted as an indirect solar effect on climate. In fact, for example, it may be misleading to assume that all changes of CO2 concentration must have an anthropogenic origin because the existence of CO2 natural feedbacks are indeed known and involve ocean-atmosphere gas exchange interaction [Cox et al., 2000] and respiration rates of bacteria in the soil [Brandefelt and Holme´n, 2001].”

    If Scafetta did intend to “help discredit AGW Alarm” then he did a very poor job. Along the way he confirms GHG feedback, a higher sensitivity to solar forcing of the past and confirms that the sun alone cannot account for the warming in the past few decades even though it matched the earlier part of the 1900′s.

    His intention of this paper was to provide evidence supporting a much higher solar forcing than is accepted by the IPCC. He only acknowledges natural feedbacks. He explicitly supports UHI for the the divergence in recent decades.

    Remember your words “Using correct language with uncertainty is scientifically responsibly …”. And what uncertainty does the word “might” represent?

    It could be true.

    Scafetta doesn’t make a case for UHI either way. He shows that other scientists disagree.

    He cites 4 papers to 1. It is clear where is position lies. You have to remember various changes are made to papers during review so they will be accepted. Having to add in uncertainty is a common one even if the author does not support it.

    I am well aware “skeptics” try to claim other papers as evidence to discredit AGW. See cohenite’s misuse of Knorr 2009 above.

    Here we go again with the perpetual strawman arguments. This paper was NOT listed to discredit AGW, it was listed because it supports skeptics arguments against AGW Alarm.

    “might might might”, “other authors would disagree”.

    4 to 1, deal with it.

    Your competence at claiming papers that contradict each other is quite astounding

    The list is not some unified theory, get over it. The purpose of the list is to provide a resource for the skeptical arguments being made in peer-reviewed journals and to demonstrate the existence of these papers. It is not supposed to be a single argument but rather a resource for all of them.

    I understand you are surprised to learn that skeptics have independent minds and come to contradictory positions on certain issues. This is obviously confusing to someone who only understand group think. None of this changes the fact that these papers exist and are peer-reviewed.

    What are you going to do now? You have already failed at discrediting the list and it is widely and extensively being used by skeptics to support their arguments with references to the peer-reviewed literature.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Funny to find Knorr’s paper on the 800 list too.

    Why is this funny? This paper directly supports skepticism of AGW Alarm by supporting skeptic’s arguments that the natural ecosystem has the ability to continue to absorb the increase in C02 emissions.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    PopTech:

    The alarmist tools are so used to group-think that they think that having no internal disagreement means you must be right. Anybody who claims that they understand all about the World’s climate system is a charlatan. We are still discovering how it works — the process of science the cultists think is a weakness is actually its strength.

    Just one more way you can tell they don’t understand science.

    BTY, as an engineer, I’m aware of engineering practice that must be followed to build working systems that is completely at variance with the “settled science” (as understood by most non-engineer scientists) — design of aluminum refineries is just one.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Such a long discussion. So many insults. A new player to challenge Eddy for rudeness. Welldone Poptech!

    Without my morning coffee, I just don’t have the energy to argue.

    I recall an argument I had once, about whether you could make a bicycle turn without your hands on the handlebars. Having failed to convince with argument, we went outside where I proceeded to do it. What was funny was that the guy I was arguing with had a go, and fell off and cracked a rib.

    So no argument – just wait and see what happens.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    John, I hope I did not upset your “feelings”. I would not want you to suffer from emotional trauma due to my “rudeness” when dealing with liars and propagandists.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Poptech @ 269

    Excellent reply and I score you as “holding the platter” in the Eddy A. scoring fashion.

    TWinkler, you have posted lamely. Surly you have better than that?

    Why don’t you try to help “Well” out with my question to him @ 136:

    The link to APS and re; dwell time is most convincing when right below that they say:

    However, APS continues to recognize that climate models are far from adequate, and the extent of global warming and climatic disruptions produced by sustained increases in atmospheric carbon loading remain uncertain.

    1.So how do you have such confidence in your “model induced calamity”?

    2.“Far from adequate” is how far from “terribly inadequate”?

    So not only do you have “Might Might Might”, you also have models that are “far from adequate and Carbon loading that remains uncertain”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Ahh Poptech, my old mate, you won’t upset me, evil genius that I am. I’ll keep up my “lying and propogandising” just the same, and you keep flying the flag for truth, beauty and the American way…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    John Brookes Please point out all the rudeness in both TWinklers post(s) and in PopTechs Posts. Really! Show me.

    Don’t just use slanderous terms, show me ALL the rude so we can decide.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Sheesh! Brookesy describing himself as a “genius” (evil or otherwise). Is it rude to pop the balloons of your warmist mates John? Is that what upsets you?

    By the way, the anecdote…???.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ John Brooks 272 and 276
    Bad news and good news! The bad news is that TWinkler has edged you out for the position of site idiot. The good news is the Gang of Four is looking for a towel boy! ;)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Then we’ll have the Three Stooges along with Laurel & Hardy!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Back here in the USA, it looks like AGW won’t be a very important issue at the Federal level anyway, because Repubs have taken control of the House of Representatives, Democrats (mostly Dumbocrats) retain control of the Senate but not by much.

    After nearly incinerating the US economy, the President said last month that he plans to continue a push for “climate” legislation next year.

    Of course responsible adults will prevent him from doing any such thing, although his tendency to turn failure into disaster is, as the teens say, like awesome


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Brian V., Isn’t it Great? no I mean GREAT! To look at the map of House precincts you’d have rosy (red) glasses
    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2010_Elections/page?id=10476449

    I am giddy and might just dance a jig in my living room.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Mark D

    Please point out all the rudeness in both TWinklers post(s) and in PopTechs Posts. Really! Show me.

    Don’t just use slanderous terms, show me ALL the rude so we can decide.

    You can’t say I don’t learn from youse guys – Do the work yourself Mark D!

    BTW, by rudeness, I mean impoliteness. Calling someone a liar is rude. A quick search shows that the word “liar” (as original text, not a quote) occurs 7 times before my post, and guess which side of the argument used it? Yes, oh nutty ones, it was you. (Now I’m being rude, calling you “nutty”, me bad)

    (Please complain through the e-mail provided below,and stop complaining on the boards about alleged Rudeness and other pereived slights) CTS

    To report “lost” comments or defamatory and offensive remarks, email the moderators at: support AT joannenova.com.au


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Tough luck for Hansen, Mann, Tamino, Trenberth, and the like, – they won’t be able to turn their wet dreams over having the USA become Stalingrad into reality anytime soon

    The public had more sense than to let it happen, thank Heaven


    Report this

    00

  • #
    TWinkler

    I believe Idso to more likely be correct.

    Why? When so many other papers suggest otherwise, why do you choose his, especially when his methods have already been shown to be flawed?

    The point was other papers exist that suggest low climate sensitivity, at least lower than alarmist positions. It was falsely claimed that there was only one paper that claimed low climate sensitivity. I provided evidence to the contrary.

    And it contradicts the one you “believe” in. Must be great to just “ignore” all others.

    It does contradict AGW Alarm by suggesting higher solar variability.

    Sure, I won’t be a d@#&$%!, I accept that some sensitivity studies shows different results.

    I don’t discard offhand those with values too high for my “belief” system. I would give exclude those that don’t cover the whole planet, or who think by looking at Mar and Venus you can tell how our climate will respond, but who would be THAT stupid now? Or who would THAT stupid as to believe someone that did think that? Please click the “thumbs down” button if you do.

    Strawman, no where is it stated that all the papers must agree with each other, it is not a list of some unified theory.

    I agree with that. “Skeptics” are all over the place when it comes to explaining the climate.

    Once confronted with the reality that these papers exist you desperately need to try anything to discredit them.

    I showed how the paper mostly confirms several AGW points – I’m in no way desperate to disprove them. The paper highlights some uncertainty – so what? Most studies show uncertainty.

    Yes the author responsibly (unlike the IPCC and other alarmists) states uncertainty

    There are so many examples within the IPCC report, you must be an idiot to think and state otherwise. For example:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-5.html#box-10-2

    Contrast that to Scafetta’s uncertainty of “maybe”. By your definition “It could be true.”, means it has a greater than zero chance. Wow.

    It doesn’t have to it is implied.

    So if you decide a paper “implies” a skeptical viewpoint, and it contains “uncertainties” (like most scientific papers), then it can go on your list.

    How funny!

    By the same virtue, most if not all of the IPCC cited papers could be included because they also highlight uncertainty.

    Such “judgemental” criteria for making the list renders the list completely useless.

    Those are natural feedbacks unrelated to anthropogenic emissions. This does not support AGW theory.

    Lets see what the whole paragraph says,

    That there are natural feedbacks is EXACTLY what AGW says. A warming climate will respond and CO2 & methane will be released that then further increase the warming.

    He only acknowledges natural feedbacks.

    A CO2 molecule released from natural feedbacks exerts the same forcing as a CO2 molecule emitted by man.

    He explicitly supports UHI for the the divergence in recent decades.

    “might decrease, maybe, maybe, but other authors would disagree.” Oh, I’m shattered by the overwhelming uncertainty of things that might be possible.

    He cites 4 papers to 1. It is clear where is position lies. You have to remember various changes are made to papers during review so they will be accepted. Having to add in uncertainty is a common one even if the author does not support it.

    4 to 1, deal with it.

    Scafetta ends the paragraph by listing one paper to counter multiple papers. Why would more be required?

    Dealt with! ;)

    The list is not some unified theory, get over it.

    No kidding. It’s a blend of would-be climate scientists, engineers, political writers and Monckton (lol) disagreeing with each other about whether the recent warming is caused by ENSO, cosmic rays, UHI, not happening at all, not happening because the greenhouse effect is not real, it’s real but it’s just natural cycles, but we can’t agree on the length of them.

    The list is like a circus tent full of clowns whacking each other with balloon animals. Fun to giggle at but no one takes it seriously.

    If your criteria is to add any paper that agree with the majority of AGW but lists some uncertainty (where “maybe” means it has a chance > 0) in some parts, then you might as well list all IPCC-cited reports.

    What are you going to do now?

    Repeat the things I said before to which you have not answered satisfactorily and highlight why “skeptics” get themselves all twisted in knots.

    THIS paper presents numerous pieces of evidence that support AGW; the sun alone cannot be responsible; that GHG feedbacks are present and proven and contribute to further warming.

    It at best highlights that there is a “greater than zero chance” that the sun might be responsible for 50% of the post 1900 warming, but that it can’t account for the warming since 1975, though UHI has a “greater than zero chance” part to play, or it may not.

    You have already failed at discrediting the list.

    The numerous contradictions between the papers themselves are already doing a good enough job of discrediting the list.

    Why is this funny? This paper directly supports skepticism of AGW Alarm by supporting skeptic’s arguments that the natural ecosystem has the ability to continue to absorb the increase in C02 emissions.

    Credit to SS for this. The 2007 IPCC verdict on the airborne fraction was “There is yet no statistically significant trend in the CO2 growth rate since 1958 …. This ‘airborne fraction’ has shown little variation over this period.”.

    Knorr’s finding pretty much the same as what the IPCC’s view already was. That’s funny that you claim it for your list.

    Clowns are so entertaining.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Brookes quit taunting people, you have the opportunity to post at all on a sceptic web site, quit using it as your theatre to show off

    it’s nausiating


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Science@266 SAYS:

    “That paper says nothing of the sort. If you look at the graph (figure 1) you can see that the total anthropogenic emissions are at about 10 GtC/year and that the atmosphere CO2 has increased by about 4 GtC/year and that the anthropogenic contribution to that increase is at about 4 GtC/year. That leaves 0 GtC/year for natural emissions. The increase is therefore 100% due to anthropogenic emissions.

    Yes, about 60% of man made emissions are being absorbed back into the environment, mostly the oceans. It is only that 60% figure that has stayed the same, which is basically all that this paper is saying.”

    As usual I am bemused by AGW logic; the Knorr paper says this:

    “Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend
    in the airborne fraction can be found.”

    The % [fraction] of anthropogenic airborne CO2 is constant; that is plain from the paper’s findings; also plain is that while ACO2 from emissions are at an increasing rate, the rate of CO2 increase is constant; in fact looking at Figure 1 from the paper ACO2, apart from a respite in the late 90′s when the recession bit, ACO2 is increasing exponentially; this means that the gap between the constant CO2 increase and ACO2 increase is widening. A number of certainties flow from this: firstly, sinks must be expanding also at exponential rate; secondly, as I explained at 263, with ACO2 constant as a % of CO2 it can only mean that natural CO2 emissions are increasing as well; the Knorr paper does not say that, I agree, but science should explain how there can be any other conclusion.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    TWinkler @ 268:
    You have some basic misunderstandings of science, logic, and the world in general:

    So they calculate sensitivity … “equilibrium temperature increase for doubled CO2 of 1.9 ± 1.0 K” … which doesn’t come anywhere near Idso so exacting figure of 0.4 (or 0.1 degree if you take Richard S Courtney’s math).

    Is Idso wrong or is Schwartz wrong?

    Schwartz calculated sensitivity from a model — Idso made measurements on his “natural experiments”. When you look at a map that does not show the road you are standing on, do you conclude that the road doesn’t exist? Same relationship between models and measurements. Schwartz’s model is likely incomplete — for example, it doesn’t include (because unknown before 1985) the effects of albedo changes, now known to cause large (> 7 W/m^2) forcing changes in short (< 20 y) time periods.

    Schwartz's accuracy is critically dependent on his identifying and including all climate forcings — Idso, simply measured the response of the Earth to changes in energy input. Which do you think is correct?

    This appears to be a general problem with the CAGW community — inability to distinguish the map from the territory.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Nice work Twinkler@285. You deserve a rest.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    BobC @ 288

    Another great post – thanks! The problem with the CAGW community is that their perspective is a matter of faith, not science.

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Why? When so many other papers suggest otherwise, why do you choose his, especially when his methods have already been shown to be flawed?

    It fits better with empirical data. You haven’t shown anything to be flawed.

    And it contradicts the one you “believe” in. Must be great to just “ignore” all others.

    I am not ignoring it, I cited it and it is on the list. You asked which one I support and I gave you an answer. Now that you have been shown to be wrong about no other low climate sensitivity papers existing you have to move to an extremist argument that had nothing to do with your original one. Keep flailing about it just makes you look ridiculous. You have been proven wrong over and over and over and you just keep creating new arguments, it is fun to watch.

    Sure, I won’t be a d@#&$%!, I accept that some sensitivity studies shows different results.

    I don’t discard offhand those with values too high for my “belief” system. I would give exclude those that don’t cover the whole planet, or who think by looking at Mar and Venus you can tell how our climate will respond, but who would be THAT stupid now? Or who would THAT stupid as to believe someone that did think that? Please click the “thumbs down” button if you do.

    You clearly did discard them as you were only forced into this new position once proven wrong.

    I agree with that. “Skeptics” are all over the place when it comes to explaining the climate.

    No they are quite consistent on what is known and can be empirically demonstrated, they all reject AGW Alarm. They do however think independently and present various theories to explain the unknown.

    I showed how the paper mostly confirms several AGW points – I’m in no way desperate to disprove them. The paper highlights some uncertainty – so what? Most studies show uncertainty.

    So 50% of the warming since 1900 being explained by solar forcing and the remainder by UHI is the IPCC position? This is the game alarmists play, you redefine AGW at will.

    Does the IPCC represent your position on AGW Theory?

    There are so many examples within the IPCC report, you must be an idiot to think and state otherwise. For example:

    Oh yes the IPCC represents “uncertainty” with arbitrarily defined “certainty”,

    very likely = more than 90%
    likely = more than 60%

    Contrast that to Scafetta’s uncertainty of “maybe”. By your definition “It could be true.”, means it has a greater than zero chance. Wow.

    I know you are surprised by honesty, instead of the faux “uncertainty” of the IPCC that allows you to pretend “certainty”.

    So if you decide a paper “implies” a skeptical viewpoint, and it contains “uncertainties” (like most scientific papers), then it can go on your list.

    If a paper supports a skeptics argument against AGW Alarm and is written by a known AGW skeptic it is by default on the list. Many skeptic’s papers include uncertainties. I take it you are too used to the alarmist papers which pretend to be definitive.

    By the same virtue, most if not all of the IPCC cited papers could be included because they also highlight uncertainty.

    No paper is listed because it “highlights uncertainty”. Why are you lying? Many of the papers cited by the IPCC in support of AGW and used by proponents in support of AGW Alarm would not be used to support skeptics arguments against AGW Alarm. So your statement is illogical.

    Such “judgemental” criteria for making the list renders the list completely useless.

    Yes using your made-up criteria would render it useless but this was never used. Instead you have demonstrated your comments to be absolutely useless.

    That there are natural feedbacks is EXACTLY what AGW says. A warming climate will respond and CO2 & methane will be released that then further increase the warming.

    A CO2 molecule released from natural feedbacks exerts the same forcing as a CO2 molecule emitted by man.

    His position on solar forcing in relation to natural feedbacks is NOT what the IPCC supports.

    “might decrease, maybe, maybe, but other authors would disagree.” Oh, I’m shattered by the overwhelming uncertainty of things that might be possible.

    Scafetta ends the paragraph by listing one paper to counter multiple papers. Why would more be required?

    Show me where the IPCC or alarmists cited this paper in support of AGW theory.

    No kidding. It’s a blend of would-be climate scientists, engineers, political writers and Monckton (lol) disagreeing with each other about whether the recent warming is caused by ENSO, cosmic rays, UHI, not happening at all, not happening because the greenhouse effect is not real, it’s real but it’s just natural cycles, but we can’t agree on the length of them.

    No it is full of real climate scientists and yes various economists in the socio-economic sections as appropriate.

    Here is a couple of those “would-be” climate scientists on the list,

    John R. Christy, B.A. Mathematics, California State University (1973), M.S. Atmospheric Science, University of Illinois (1984), Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, University of Illinois (1987), NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991), American Meteorological Society’s Special Award (1996), Member, Committee on Earth Studies, Space Studies Board (1998-2001), Alabama State Climatologist (2000-Present), Fellow, American Meteorological Society (2002), Panel Member, Official Statement on Climate Change, American Geophysical Union (2003), Member, Committee on Environmental Satellite Data Utilization, Space Studies Board (2003-2004), Member, Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the last 2,000 years, National Research Council (2006), Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville (1991-Present), Director of the Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville (2000-Present), Contributor, IPCC (1992, 1994, 1996, 2007), Lead Author, IPCC (2001)

    Patrick J. Michaels, A.B. Biological Sciences, University of Chicago (1971), S.M. Biology, University of Chicago (1975), Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, University of Wisconsin-Madison (1979), Research and Project Assistant, Center for Climatic Research, University of Wisconsin (1976-1979), Assistant Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1980-1986), Virginia State Climatologist (1980-2007), President, Central Virginia Chapter, American Meteorological Society (1986-1987), Executive Board, American Association of State Climatologists (1986-1989), Associate Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1986-1995), President, American Association of State Climatologists (1987-1988), Chair, Committee on Applied Climatology, American Meteorological Society (1988-1999), Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies, Cato Institute (1992-Present), Visiting Scientist, Marshall Institute (1996-Present), Member, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Member, Association of American Geographers, Member, Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society, Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1996-Present), Contributor and Expert Reviewer, IPCC (1990, 1992, 1995, 2001, 2007)

    Richard S. Lindzen, A.B. Physics Magna Cum Laude, Harvard University (1960), S.M. Applied Mathematics, Harvard University (1961), Ph.D. Applied Mathematics, Harvard University (1964), Research Associate in Meteorology, University of Washington (1964-1965), NATO Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Institute for Theoretical Meteorology, University of Oslo (1965-1966), Research Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research (1966-1967), Visiting Lecturer in Meteorology, UCLA (1967), NCAR Outstanding Publication Award (1967), AMS Meisinger Award (1968), Associate Professor and Professor of Meteorology, University of Chicago (1968-1972), Summer Lecturer, NCAR Colloquium (1968, 1972, 1978), AGU Macelwane Award (1969), Visiting Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, Tel Aviv University (1969), Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship (1970-1976), Gordon McKay Professor of Dynamic Meteorology, Harvard University (1972-1983), Visiting Professor of Dynamic Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1975), Lady Davis Visiting Professor, Department of Meteorology, The Hebrew University (1979), Director, Center for Earth and Planetary Physics, Harvard University (1980-1983), Robert P. Burden Professor of Dynamical Meteorology, Harvard University (1982-1983), AMS Charney Award (1985), Vikram Amblal Sarabhai Professor, Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmedabad, India (1985), Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science Fellowship (1986-1987), Distinguished Visiting Scientist, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA (1988-Present), Sackler Visiting Professor, Tel Aviv University (1992), Landsdowne Lecturer, University of Victoria (1993), Bernhard Haurwitz Memorial Lecturer, American Meteorological Society (1997), Fellow, American Academy of Arts & Sciences, Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Fellow, American Geophysical Union, Fellow, American Meteorological Society, Member, Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters, Member, Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society, Member, National Academy of Sciences, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1983-Present), Lead Author, IPCC (2001)

    Robert C. Balling Jr., A.B. Geography, Wittenberg University (1974), M.A. Geography, Bowling Green State University (1975), Ph.D. Geography, University of Oklahoma (1979), Research Fellow, Center for Agricultural Meteorology and Climatology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln (1979-1981), Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, University of Nebraska-Lincoln (1979-1984), Visiting Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, Arizona State University (1985-1986), Research Associate, Laboratory of Climatology and Department of Geography, Arizona State University (1985-1987), Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, and Assistant Director, Laboratory of Climatology, Arizona State University (1987-1988), Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, and Director, Laboratory of Climatology, Arizona State University (1988-1989), Associate Professor, Department of Geography, and Director, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University (1989-1998), Professor, Department of Geography, and Director, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University (1998-2004), Contributer, IPCC (1991-Present), Professor, School of Geographical Sciences, and Director and/or Associate Director, Masters of Advanced Study, Geographic Information Systems Program, Arizona State University (2004-Present)

    Robert M. Carter, B.Sc. (Hons) Geology, University of Otago (1963), Ph.D. Palaeontology, University of Cambridge (1968), Assistant Lecturer, Department of Geology, University of Otago (1963), Senior Lecturer, Department of Geology, University of Otago (1968-1980), Hochstetter Lecturer, Geological Society of New Zealand (1975), Professor and Head, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, James Cook University (1981-1999), Bennison Distinguished Overseas Lecturer, American Association of Petroleum Geologists (1992), Visiting Experts Program, Carrington Polytechnic Institute (1994), Honorary Fellow, Royal Society of New Zealand (1997), Special Investigator Research Award, Australian Research Council (1998-2002), Outstanding Research Career Award, Geological Society of New Zealand (2005), Adjunct Research Professor, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, James Cook University (1998-Present), Visiting Research Professor, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide (2001-Present)

    Roy W. Spencer, B.S. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Michigan (1978), M.S. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin (1980), Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin (1982), Research Scientist, Space Science and Engineering Center, University of Wisconsin (1982-1984), Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA (1984-2001), MSFC Center Director’s Commendation (1989), U.S. Team Leader, Multichannel Imaging Microwave Radiometer (MIMR) Team (1992-Present), Team Leader, AMSR-E Science Team, NASA (1994-Present), NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991), American Meteorological Society’s Special Award (1996), Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville (2001-Present)

    S. Fred Singer, BEE, Ohio State University (1943), A.M. Physics, Princeton University (1944), Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University (1948), Research Physicist, Upper Atmosphere Rocket Program, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University (1946-1950), Scientific Liaison Officer, U.S. Office of Naval Research (1950-1953), White House Commendation for Early Design of Space Satellites (1954), Director, Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, and Professor of Physics, University of Maryland (1953-1962), Visiting Scientist, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Cal Tech (1961-1962), First Director, National Weather Satellite Center (1962-1964), First Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami (1964-1967), Deputy Assistant Secretary (Water Quality and Research), U.S. Department of the Interior (1967-1970), Deputy Assistant Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970-1971), Federal Executive Fellow, The Brookings Institution (1971), Professor of Environmental Science, University of Virginia (1971-1994), U.S. National Academy of Sciences Exchange Scholar, Soviet Academy of Sciences Institute for Physics of the Earth (1972), Member, Governor of Virginia Task Force on Transportation (1975), First Sid Richardson Professor, Lyndon Baines Johnson School for Public Affairs, University of Texas (1978), Vice Chairman and Member, National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmospheres (1981-1986), Senior Fellow, The Heritage Foundation (1982-1983), Member, U.S. Department of State Science Advisory Board (Oceans, Environment, Science) (1982-1987), Member, Acid Rain Panel, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (1982-1987), Member, NASA Space Applications Advisory Committee (1983-1985), Member, U.S. Department of Energy Nuclear Waste Panel (1984), Visiting Eminent Scholar, George Mason University (1984-1987), Chief Scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation (1987-1989), Member, White House Panel on U.S.-Brazil Science and Technology Exchange (1987), Distinguished Research Professor, Institute for Space Science and Technology (1989-1994), Guest Scholar, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Smithsonian Institute (1991), Guest Scholar, National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institute (1991), Distinguished Visiting Fellow, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University (1992-1993), Distinguished Research Professor, Institute for Humane Studies, George Mason University (1994-2000), Commendation for Research on Particle Clouds, NASA (1997), Research Fellow, Independent Institute (1997), Director and President, The Science and Environmental Policy Project (1989-Present)

    Sherwood B. Idso, B.S. Physics Cum Laude, University of Minnesota (1964), M.S. Soil Science, University of Minnesota (1966), Ph.D. Soil Science, University of Minnesota (1967), Research Assistant in Physics, University of Minnesota (1962), National Defense Education Act Fellowship (1964-1967), Research Soil Scientist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1967-1974), Editorial Board Member, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology Journal (1972-1993), Secretary, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1973-1974), Vice-Chair, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1974-1975), Research Physicist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1974-2001), Chair, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1975-1976), Arthur S. Flemming Award (1977), Secretary, Sigma Xi – The Research Society, Arizona State University Chapter (1979-1980), President, Sigma Xi – The Research Society, Arizona State University Chapter (1980-1982), Member, Task Force on “Alternative Crops”, Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (1983), Adjunct Professor of Geography and Plant Biology, Arizona State University (1984-2007), Editorial Board Member, Environmental and Experimental Botany Journal (1993-Present), Member, Botanical Society of America, Member, American Geophysical Union, Member, American Society of Agronomy, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (2001-Present)

    If your criteria is to add any paper that agree with the majority of AGW but lists some uncertainty (where “maybe” means it has a chance > 0) in some parts, then you might as well list all IPCC-cited reports.

    All the papers are listed because they support various skeptics arguments. In Dr. Scafetta’s case, solar forcing. Listing the IPCC report would be illogical as the bulk of it does not support skeptics arguments against AGW Alarm. Now they do cite a few skeptic papers and as you can see those are already included in the list.

    Repeat the things I said before to which you have not answered satisfactorily and highlight why “skeptics” get themselves all twisted in knots.

    I have answered everything so far, it is you who once proven wrong changes the subject.

    THIS paper presents numerous pieces of evidence that support AGW; the sun alone cannot be responsible; that GHG feedbacks are present and proven and contribute to further warming.

    The paper acknowledges AGW (in some form) but does not support AGW Alarm (CAGW). I have no idea why you are so hung up on your perpetual strawman arguments. The list includes papers arguing against both AGW in general AND AGW Alarm (CAGW).

    It at best highlights that there is a “greater than zero chance” that the sun might be responsible for 50% of the post 1900 warming, but that it can’t account for the warming since 1975, though UHI has a “greater than zero chance” part to play, or it may not.

    And this is not an alarmist position.

    The numerous contradictions between the papers themselves are already doing a good enough job of discrediting the list.

    How would that discredit the list? Oh thats right your other strawman argument that the list is a unified theory and not simply a resource of all the peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic’s various arguments against AGW Alarm (CAGW).

    Credit to SS for this. The 2007 IPCC verdict on the airborne fraction was “There is yet no statistically significant trend in the CO2 growth rate since 1958 …. This ‘airborne fraction’ has shown little variation over this period.”.

    Knorr’s finding pretty much the same as what the IPCC’s view already was. That’s funny that you claim it for your list.

    Where is it stated that the list is only arguing against the IPCC? Oh that is right another strawman argument – you are good at these. I take it you really think you can just define everything yourself and then argue against your own fantasy argument. So are you telling me that alarmists are arguing that the eco-system has the ability to continue to absorb the increasing concentrations of CO2?

    Clowns are so entertaining.

    If you would like I can recap all of your idiocy in this post as you were proven wrong one after the other?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Brian #286:

    John is just doing what all “toadies” do best.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Science

    The % [fraction] of anthropogenic airborne CO2 is constant; that is plain from the paper’s findings; also plain is that while ACO2 from emissions are at an increasing rate, the rate of CO2 increase is constant; in fact looking at Figure 1 from the paper ACO2, apart from a respite in the late 90′s when the recession bit, ACO2 is increasing exponentially; this means that the gap between the constant CO2 increase and ACO2 increase is widening. A number of certainties flow from this: firstly, sinks must be expanding also at exponential rate; secondly, as I explained at 263, with ACO2 constant as a % of CO2 it can only mean that natural CO2 emissions are increasing as well; the Knorr paper does not say that, I agree, but science should explain how there can be any other conclusion.

    As I already pointed out in my previous post, figure 1 shows that anthropogenic contribution to CO2 is increasing at the same rate as the overall CO2 increase in the atmosphere and I don’t see how you can interpret that graph in any other way. That still leaves the natural contribution at zero and the link you yourself provided debunks you.

    Perhaps if the percentage of increasing anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere was in relation to the total CO2 in the atmosphere what you say might be true, but it isn’t, it’s in relation to total increase in anthropogenic emissions so what you say is false.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    All this noise about CO2 residency is just a diversion. It hardly matters since the forward affect on the climate from CO2 levels is somewhere between unmeasurable and insignificant.

    Regarding sensitivity, the veracity of measured values certainly outweighs the results of models.

    http://www.palisad.com/co2/eb/eb.html

    We can calculate the exact sensitivity by measurements. We know that approximately 239 W/m^2 of solar power arrives to heat the surface (post albedo incident solar power) and that in return, the surface radiates 384.7 W/m^2 at 287K. Neither of these values is even the least bit controversial.

    It’s also non controversial to state that the Sun is the source of almost all of the power driving the climate, so the power gain, relative to input power, is 384.7/239 = 1.6. This means that each 1 W/m^2 of incident solar power results in 1.6 W/m^2 of radiated surface power. Measurements verify this as both the absolute and incremental sensitivity to variable solar power. This can be converted into a IPCC style sensitivity using Stefan-Boltzmann.

    The Stefan-Boltzmann Law (with the emphasize on Law) tells us that the power radiated by the surface is e*o*T^4, where o is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant and e is the emissivity of the surface, which can be approximated as 1. While the combination of surface + atmosphere has an emissivity less than 1, the surface itself is unaffected by atmospheric absorption and it’s emissivity is very close to 1.

    The current surface power @ 287K is 384.7 W/m^2. An increase of 1.6 W/m^2 is 386.3 W/m^2 which corresponds to a surface temperature of 287.3K. This produces a sensitivity of 0.3C per W/m^2. The incremental power absorbed by the atmosphere by doubling CO2 is about 3.7 W/m^2. Of this, only half is returned to the surface, while the remainder escapes out into space. Half of 3.7 W/m^2 is 1.85 W/m^2. The net sensitivity can be calculated by multiplying 0.3C times 1.85 of incremental surface power, which is equal to 0.56C.

    This is the foundation for the skeptical calculations of the climate sensitivity based on measurements. Considering uncertainties, the net sensitivity to doubling CO2 is about 0.6C +/- 0.2C. This assumes that feedbacks don’t compensate for increased CO2 absorption by reducing H2O absorption or cloud cover. The IPCC considers that compensating feedback amplifies this to 3C, but of course, there’s absolutely no measured data that supports this speculative assertion, moreover; the amount of amplification required to justify IPCC claims is so inconceivably large, that the resulting system would be exceptionally unstable and which of course, is unambiguously contradicted by the data.

    Any estimates of climate sensitivity that exceeds 0.6C must be accompanied with a clear explanation for why the measured sensitivity is wrong. Such an explanation simply doesn’t exist, but feel free to try and find one.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    John Brookes:

    At #283 you say:

    BTW, by rudeness, I mean impoliteness. Calling someone a liar is rude.

    No! Absolutely not!

    Either the person lied (i.e. deliberately stated a falsehood) or not.

    If he/she lied then it is not rude to say so. It is merely descriptive.

    If he/she did not lie then the accusation of a lie is much more offensive than mere rudeness: it is defamatory.

    In the case you seem to dislike, Twinkler repeatedly lied. Poptech pointed out that Twinkler had lied and demonstrated that the falsehoods presented by Twinkler could only be deliberate.

    It seems that lies are such normal behaviour for AGW-promoters that you need the defence of saying it is “rude” to call out liars. That defence does not wash.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    From Merriam Webster Online Dictionary:

    Liar, noun

    : one who tells lies

    Now either someone has told the truth, a lie or is simply mistaken. Only those 3 possibilities exist.

    I can allow that sometimes someone is mistaken. But when the lie is exposed right from the same material that someone claims proves or supports a given point because the clear text of the reference reads otherwise, then I think the termi liar is appropriate.

    I will not go over individual cases. But certain individuals frequently misrepresent what someone posts in rebuttal to their position. You know who you are.

    I would urge everyone to be restrained enough to consider whether the benefit of the doubt should be given before resorting to calling anyone a liar.

    If we go on like this the quality of debate simply sinks lower and lower. The present trend is not good for any of us or for Joannova.com.au.

    Thank you all for your consideration.

    Roy


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ Brian 269, Poptech 270, 271, 274 and 292, Bob C. 272 and 288, Mark D. 275 and 277, Mark 278, 280 and 292, Cohenite 287, Speedy 290, CO2isnotevil 294 and Richard Courtney at 295! Thanks for sponsoring this mornings brunch. TWinklers intellectual ass on a golden platter was delightful. I really thought the sprinkling of John Brooks rounded things out nicely! What a great way to start the day! :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Leave some for the dogs Eddie!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Sorry, misspelt your name.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    TWinkler

    Poptech @ 291

    It fits better with empirical data. You haven’t shown anything to be flawed.

    LIAR. Ha, just wanted to try it once. ;) I see what you mean, I feel better about myself already without even having to argue the point – ahhh who am I kidding, I’m simply not that good at self-d@#%$!.

    I earlier linked to a discussion of climate sensitivity and why he is wrong.

    You believe Idso can look at a desert and calculate the planet’s sensitivity from the local response. Weird! The sensitivity must contain all short term feedbacks – how is the ocean going to respond over the desert? How does he cater for the ice-albedo feedback in this observation?

    And so you do believe he can look at Mars and Venus and deduce how our planet will respond, given that it has an entirely different atmospheric composition, plant life, an ocean?

    But hey, let’s not stop the Idso ridicule there.

    The temperature anom right is around 0.8C now (although there’s a “>0% chance” that the sun might have 50% of an effect. ;) ), and at 390 ppm we’ve not even come close to doubling the CO2 (from 280 to 560), nor are we at thermal equilibrium for this level of CO2.

    Yet this anomaly is already twice Idso’s expected amount. Perhaps there’s a “maybe” I missed somewhere in his paper.

    Idso = [snip]

    I am not ignoring it, I cited it and it is on the list. You asked which one I support and I gave you an answer.

    But you do ignore it, and all others of a high sensitivity value, whether they be from models or empirical observations.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-intermediate.htm

    Now that you have been shown to be wrong about no other low climate sensitivity papers existing you have to move to an extremist argument that had nothing to do with your original one. Keep flailing about it just makes you look ridiculous. You have been proven wrong over and over and over and you just keep creating new arguments, it is fun to watch.

    [snip] A bit ahead of yourself. ;)

    I am hardly flailing, but I do grow tired of you wanting to ignore all other studies of sensitivity.

    You clearly did discard them as you were only forced into this new position once proven wrong.

    No, as mentioned before, I will discard those that are shown to be flawed, such as Linzden/Idso and their inability to consider the whole planet.

    On the SS link above it lists Schwartz’s study, along with Schwartz’s own caveat … “as the duration of volcanic forcing is short, the response time may not be reflective of that which would characterize a sustained forcing such as that from increased greenhouse gases because of lack of penetration of the thermal signal into the deep ocean.”.

    No they are quite consistent on what is known and can be empirically demonstrated …

    A yet they offer contradictory theories of why CO2 isn’t a problem. [snip]

    So 50% of the warming since 1900 being explained by solar forcing and the remainder by UHI is the IPCC position? This is the game alarmists play, you redefine AGW at will.

    Does the IPCC represent your position on AGW Theory?

    Nope, nor does the paper.

    Oh yes the IPCC represents “uncertainty” with arbitrarily defined “certainty”,

    very likely = more than 90%
    likely = more than 60%

    There’s that too, but I see you didn’t examine my previous link very closely.

    I know you are surprised by honesty, instead of the faux “uncertainty” of the IPCC that allows you to pretend “certainty”.

    By reducing the uncertainty, you also increase certainty. So what?

    If a paper supports a skeptics argument against AGW Alarm and is written by a known AGW skeptic it is by default on the list.

    But that doesn’t apply in this case. Nor does it apply in the case of Knorr.

    No paper is listed because it “highlights uncertainty”. Why are you lying? Many of the papers cited by the IPCC in support of AGW and used by proponents in support of AGW Alarm would not be used to support skeptics arguments against AGW Alarm. So your statement is illogical.

    The paper highlights uncertainty about the sun that has “a greater than zero chance” and about UHI which has “a greater than zero chance” of affecting the disparity between the temp and the solar influence. That’s it man. Based on that you include it. Bravo!

    Yes using your made-up criteria would render it useless but this was never used. Instead you have demonstrated your comments to be absolutely useless.

    Did you wish to add a “maybe” in there just so you can add it to the list too?

    His position on solar forcing in relation to natural feedbacks is NOT what the IPCC supports.

    Eh? The IPCC recognises that there are natural feedbacks too. GHG wouldn’t be such a problem without them.

    Show me where the IPCC or alarmists cited this paper in support of AGW theory.

    Why would they need to list every paper that shows some support for AGW?

    No it is full of real climate scientists and yes various economists in the socio-economic sections as appropriate.

    Ha. Yeah, those would be the names of some of the clowns that seem to find science too difficult. And why can’t they hold down a job for Pete’s sake!

    Carter’s another favourite [snip] of mine. I like the way he announce that polar bears would be extinct, before they even evolved.

    All the papers are listed because they support various skeptics arguments. In Dr. Scafetta’s case, solar forcing. Listing the IPCC report would be illogical as the bulk of it does not support skeptics arguments against AGW Alarm. Now they do cite a few skeptic papers and as you can see those are already included in the list.

    The paper acknowledges AGW (in some form) but does not support AGW Alarm (CAGW). I have no idea why you are so hung up on your perpetual strawman arguments. The list includes papers arguing against both AGW in general AND AGW Alarm (CAGW).

    What an arbitrary decision you make.

    And this is not an alarmist position.

    The IPCC states climate sensitivity “likely to be in the range of 1.5 to 4.5°C”. Now just because almost every paper on climate sensitivity used by the IPCC allows the possibility for higher and lower figures doesn’t automatically make it a contrarian paper suitable for your list.

    Likewise, just because this paper allows for a greater contribution from the sun, “a greater than zero chance” doesn’t automatically make it a contrarian paper.

    How would that discredit the list?

    Simple. When different “skeptic” arguments contradict each other, then it’s obvious that at least one of them is wrong.

    “Skeptics” on your list are tripping over each other in the rush to tell us “IT’S NOT CO2″.

    Where is it stated that the list is only arguing against the IPCC?

    You inferred that when you said “This is contrary to the IPCC’s position”. Are you opening that definition to include anything AGW related, because if so, then that completely destroys your basis for including this paper. This paper says that the past climate suggests that it is even more sensitive to forcing and that natural GHG are positive feedbacks – by your classification it is a CAWG paper.

    Checkmate [snip]!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Twinky,

    You said,

    Simple. When different “skeptic” arguments contradict each other, then it’s obvious that at least one of them is wrong.
    “Skeptics” on your list are tripping over each other in the rush to tell us “IT’S NOT CO2″.

    You seem to have noticed that there are many ways to invalidate CAGW. Don’t confuse a preponderance of evidence, some of which may be partially in conflict with each other, with a lack of evidence. An example would be the lack of any evidence that supports the idea that large positive feedback amplifies tiny effects into catastrophic effects.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Odd my recent comment is not showing up.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I’ll get into a discussion of climate sensitivity another time. I just have no interest in discussing this with you right now.

    Idso = Clown with big squeaky red nose.

    Twinkler = Mentally deranged.

    But you do ignore it, and all others of a high sensitivity value, whether they be from models or empirical observations.

    I don’t ignore them, I simply don’t support them. There is a big difference between the two. Linking to the cartoonist’s website does not help your case.

    A yet they offer contradictory theories of why CO2 isn’t a problem. What’s the word for a collection of clowns again?

    Some offer competing theories for various unexplained aspects of climate science.

    Nope, nor does the paper.

    Do you support the IPCC? If not then please list where we can read your position on AGW theory or is it just one that you change at random to desperately try and save yourself each time you are proven wrong?

    By reducing the uncertainty, you also increase certainty. So what?

    By falsely implying certainty where uncertainty would be scientifically prudent, you mislead.

    But that doesn’t apply in this case. Nor does it apply in the case of Knorr.

    It certainly applies in this case. Knorr’s paper simply supports skeptics arguments that the eco-system is capable of absorbing the increased amount of CO2.

    The paper highlights uncertainty about the sun that has “a greater than zero chance” and about UHI which has “a greater than zero chance” of affecting the disparity between the temp and the solar influence. That’s it man. Based on that you include it. Bravo!

    Wrong, it makes no mention of “greater than zero” anywhere in the paper, that is your bogus interpretation. It is included because it supports a larger role for solar forcing than alarmists accept.

    Do alarmists support the conclusions of this paper? If so please cite the source.

    Did you wish to add a “maybe” in there just so you can add it to the list too?

    This statement does not make any sense.

    Eh? The IPCC recognises that there are natural feedbacks too. GHG wouldn’t be such a problem without them.

    Again his position on solar forcing in relation to natural feed-backs is NOT what the IPCC supports. Otherwise show me where they cite his paper in support of their position.

    Why would they need to list every paper that shows some support for AGW?

    You are lying and claiming his paper supports your position yet failed to provide evidence of this.

    Show me where the IPCC or alarmists cited this paper in support of AGW theory. Put up or shut up.

    Ha. Yeah, those would be the names of some of the clowns that seem to find science too difficult. And why can’t they hold down a job for Pete’s sake!

    They have forgotten more about climate science than you know. You are aware people change jobs to improve their career and professors change titles as they gain experience? Oh wait you didn’t actually read the dates,

    John R. Christy, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville (1991-Present) 19 Years, University of Alabama in Huntsville.

    Patrick J. Michaels, Assistant Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1980-1986), Associate Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1986-1995), Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1996-Present) 30 Years, University of Virginia.

    Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1983-Present) 27 Years, MIT.

    Robert C. Balling Jr., Research Associate, Laboratory of Climatology and Department of Geography, Arizona State University (1985-1987), Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, and Assistant Director, Laboratory of Climatology, Arizona State University (1987-1988), Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, and Director, Laboratory of Climatology, Arizona State University (1988-1989), Associate Professor, Department of Geography, and Director, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University (1989-1998), Professor, Department of Geography, and Director, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University (1998-2004), Professor, School of Geographical Sciences, and Director and/or Associate Director, Masters of Advanced Study, Geographic Information Systems Program, Arizona State University (2004-Present) 25 Years, Arizona State University.

    Robert M. Carter, Professor and Head, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, James Cook University (1981-1999), Adjunct Research Professor, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, James Cook University (1998-Present) 29 Years, James Cook University.

    Roy W. Spencer, Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA (1984-2001), U.S. Team Leader, Multichannel Imaging Microwave Radiometer (MIMR) Team (1992-Present), Team Leader, AMSR-E Science Team, NASA (1994-Present) 26 Years, NASA.

    S. Fred Singer, Professor of Environmental Science, University of Virginia (1971-1994) 23 Years, University of Virginia.

    Sherwood B. Idso, Research Soil Scientist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1967-1974), Research Physicist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1974-2001) 34 Years, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

    What an arbitrary decision you make.

    Maybe alarmists should not try and blame everything on AGW.

    The IPCC states climate sensitivity “likely to be in the range of 1.5 to 4.5°C”. Now just because almost every paper on climate sensitivity used by the IPCC allows the possibility for higher and lower figures doesn’t automatically make it a contrarian paper suitable for your list.

    It does if it supports only the lower end or below as this is not what alarmists are arguing for.

    Likewise, just because this paper allows for a greater contribution from the sun, “a greater than zero chance” doesn’t automatically make it a contrarian paper.

    Lie, it is not arguing for just a “greater than zero chance”. That is your bogus interpretation not supported by any of Dr. Scafetta’s other work.

    Simple. When different “skeptic” arguments contradict each other, then it’s obvious that at least one of them is wrong.

    That doesn’t discredit the list only the paper that would be wrong. None of which changes that these papers exist and are peer-reviewed.

    “Skeptics” on your list are tripping over each other in the rush to tell us “IT’S NOT CO2″.

    No they are independently offering competing hypothesis for unexplained aspects of climate science.

    You inferred that when you said “This is contrary to the IPCC’s position”. Are you opening that definition to include anything AGW related, because if so, then that completely destroys your basis for including this paper. This paper says that the past climate suggests that it is even more sensitive to forcing and that natural GHG are positive feedbacks – by your classification it is a CAWG paper.

    My statement had nothing to do with the any such single criteria for inclusion on the list. Some of the papers are listed because arguments against positions of the IPCC, others because they support skeptics arguments against an alarmist position. The criteria for inclusion has been stated to you repeatedly and has never changed, all the papers support skeptics arguments against AGW Alarm.

    I have never classified that the existence of a GHG positive feedback is CAGW. What makes it CAGW is the size and magnitude of that feedback and it’s origin.

    Checkmate clowns!!

    You have clearly never played chess.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    This is maddening, it will not accept my reply. I hope it is not due to some poorly programmed moderator filter.

    [SORRY Poptech, I don't know why but the spam filter caught them. I set them free. ]ED


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Moderator, You can delete the first two as they are duplicate. Thank you.

    [done and you are welcome]ED


    Report this

    00

  • #
    TWinkler

    @Poptech

    [snip]

    I’ll get into a discussion of climate sensitivity another time. I just have no interest in discussing this with you right now.

    Twinkler = Mentally deranged.

    Mentally deranged and yet still I ask questions too difficult for you to answer. Ha. Says a lot about your state of mind.

    I don’t ignore them, I simply don’t support them.

    But for what reason? You don’t answer my earlier questions about why you favour Idso’s flawed sensitivity studies over those of which you have not found fault, those that also use empirical observations.

    You ignore them.

    Some offer competing theories for various unexplained aspects of climate science.

    Yes, they compete with each other as much as with AGW.

    Do you support the IPCC? If not then please list where we can read your position on AGW theory or is it just one that you change at random to desperately try and save yourself each time you are proven wrong?

    I’m no climate scientist. I’ll go with what the climate scientists say.

    Where there’s conflicting views, such as with climate sensitivity, I’ll look at the arguments for/against each study. When an extremely low one like Idso’s disagrees with everyone else’s and there’s good reason for why his theory is flawed, then it’s seems better to assume that everyone else is more likely to be right.

    By falsely implying certainty where uncertainty would be scientifically prudent, you mislead.

    Certainty and uncertainty are the flips sides of the same coin. I don’t get hung upon on it.

    It certainly applies in this case. Knorr’s paper simply supports skeptics arguments that the eco-system is capable of absorbing the increased amount of CO2.

    You wouldn’t escape AGW even if it did. The various emission scenarios of the IPCC don’t require that the ecosystem absorb a decreasing percentage.

    Of course you might argue that you don’t care about what the IPCC says hence you can add this paper can go on your list because somewhere someone might have said the ecosystem would reduce its absorption capacity. Again on that basis you might as well add all papers, which renders your list pretty much useless.

    Wrong, it makes no mention of “greater than zero” anywhere in the paper, that is your bogus interpretation. It is included because it supports a larger role for solar forcing than alarmists accept.

    Your interpretation of “maybe” is “a greater than zero chance”.

    Do alarmists support the conclusions of this paper? If so please cite the source.

    Why would they need to when there are better papers about?

    This statement does not make any sense.

    It paralleled yours.

    Again his position on solar forcing in relation to natural feed-backs is NOT what the IPCC supports. Otherwise show me where they cite his paper in support of their position.

    Of course the IPCC recognise solar forcing.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-4.html

    The GHG feedback mechanism is an integral part of AGW.

    You are lying and claiming his paper supports your position yet failed to provide evidence of this.

    No, I asked a question as to why you’d expect all papers that have some support for AGW to be included in the IPCC.

    They have forgotten more about climate science than you know.

    I think you may have hit the nail on the head there. Perhaps the younger generation will have more success.

    Richard S Courtney demonstrated so well why an old mind can fumble over simple math.

    Maybe alarmists should not try and blame everything on AGW.

    Maybe you shouldn’t make generalisations or assume that the comments of some alarmists speak for the consensus of all climate scientists.

    It does if it supports only the lower end or below as this is not what alarmists are arguing for.

    The Knorr paper makes zero difference to forecasts, yet you include that.

    Your Idso paper on climate sensitivity is well below Schwartz’s calcs, and Schwartz’s calcs are within the IPCC, yet you include Schwartz’s paper on your list.

    Lie, it is not arguing for just a “greater than zero chance”.

    Argue with yourself about it. You’re the one who defined “maybe”. The paper doesn’t.

    That doesn’t discredit the list only the paper that would be wrong. None of which changes that these papers exist and are peer-reviewed.

    No they are independently offering competing hypothesis for unexplained aspects of climate science.

    Yeah. It’s a mess no matter what way you look at it.

    My statement had nothing to do with the any such single criteria for inclusion on the list.

    That obvious from the few examples we’ve looked at here.

    The paper doesn’t have to be credible – Idso.

    The paper doesn’t have to disagree with the IPCC – Knorr.

    The paper doesn’t have to be intelligent – Carter.

    The paper can confirm many fundamental properties of AGW – Scafetta’s.

    The papers can hold completely opposing views with each other and that’s ok.

    I have never classified that the existence of a GHG positive feedback is CAGW.

    Shhh … don’t tell Nova that. Her handbook tells us the the greenhouse effect is saturated, CO2 is logarithmic, and that CO2 lags warming so therefore can’t have any effect.

    What makes it CAGW is the size and magnitude of that feedback and it’s origin.

    You arbitrarily decide what “magnitude” qualifies, and even then fail as shown with Knorr.

    Your fickle criteria renders the list useless – except for those that wish to “believe”.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    hint: hit the “Submit Comment” once. ;)

    hint: LEARN HOW TO READ -> “SORRY Poptech, I don’t know why but the spam filter caught them.”

    Mentally deranged and yet still I ask questions too difficult for you to answer. Ha. Says a lot about your state of mind.

    Not too difficult, rather I have no interest in further extending discussing something with you that you are incapable of properly understanding.

    But for what reason? You don’t answer my earlier questions about why you favour Idso’s flawed sensitivity studies over those of which you have not found fault, those that also use empirical observations. You ignore them.

    Ignoring them implies I pretend they do not exist, I have done no such thing. I really have no interest in getting into this discussion with you. I am sure there are others here who are willing to entertain you.

    Yes, they compete with each other as much as with AGW.

    No, they offer competing theories for various unexplained aspects of climate science.

    I’m no climate scientist. I’ll go with what the climate scientists say.

    I didn’t ask you that.

    1. Do you support the IPCC?

    2. Which Climate Scientists?

    Where there’s conflicting views, such as with climate sensitivity, I’ll look at the arguments for/against each study. When an extremely low one like Idso’s disagrees with everyone else’s and there’s good reason for why his theory is flawed, then it’s seems better to assume that everyone else is more likely to be right.

    But you don’t look at everyone’s arguments because you initially claimed they did not exist. So far your track record on assumptions is poor.

    Certainty and uncertainty are the flips sides of the same coin. I don’t get hung upon on it.

    No they are diametrically opposed positions. You are the one arguing about uncertainty!

    You wouldn’t escape AGW even if it did. The various emission scenarios of the IPCC don’t require that the ecosystem absorb a decreasing percentage.

    It certainly rejects alarmist predictions that the eco-system is unable to do this.

    Of course you might argue that you don’t care about what the IPCC says hence you can add this paper can go on your list because somewhere someone might have said the ecosystem would reduce its absorption capacity. Again on that basis you might as well add all papers, which renders your list pretty much useless.

    Yes alarmists say non-IPCC related things all the time. Why would I add papers that do not support skeptic’s arguments? This is illogical.

    Your interpretation of “maybe” is “a greater than zero chance”.

    Lie, I never stated this.

    Why would they need to when there are better papers about?

    Your dishonesty is now evident as your whole argument revolves around this paper supporting AGW proponent’s arguments, yet you are unable to find it cited by a proponent? This is laughable. I on the other hand can demonstrate it is extensively cited by skeptics.

    3. Do alarmists support the conclusions of this paper? If so please cite the source.

    Of course the IPCC recognise solar forcing.

    Recognizing it and accepting the same level of influence is two different things.

    No, I asked a question as to why you’d expect all papers that have some support for AGW to be included in the IPCC.

    Why not? Would that not make their case even stronger but this is irrelevant as you cannot even cite a single AGW proponent using this paper in support of AGW.

    I think you may have hit the nail on the head there. Perhaps the younger generation will have more success.

    You are in denial.

    Richard S Courtney demonstrated so well why an old mind can fumble over simple math.

    He has yet to fumble and unlike you has actual scientific credentials. You are an embarrassment, a sad nobody who could not argue his way out of a paper bag and just foolishly keeps standing up to get knocked back down.

    Maybe you shouldn’t make generalisations or assume that the comments of some alarmists speak for the consensus of all climate scientists.

    Lie, I never said they did and never claimed there was a consensus of climate scientists.

    The Knorr paper makes zero difference to forecasts, yet you include that.

    WTF? I never included the Knorr paper in a discussion on climate sensitivity.

    Your Idso paper on climate sensitivity is well below Schwartz’s calcs, and Schwartz’s calcs are within the IPCC, yet you include Schwartz’s paper on your list.

    Because Schwartz’s calculations are on the low end of the IPCC and are not alarmist.

    Argue with yourself about it. You’re the one who defined “maybe”. The paper doesn’t.

    I made a logical interpretation based on reading Dr. Scafetta’s other papers and knowing his position on AGW.

    Yeah. It’s a mess no matter what way you look at it.

    Only if you believe the list to be a unified theory, which it is not. It is a resource for skeptics which overwhelmingly proves these papers exist contrary to propagandists like yourself.

    That obvious from the few examples we’ve looked at here.

    The paper doesn’t have to be credible – Idso.

    The paper doesn’t have to be intelligent – Carter.

    The paper can confirm many fundamental properties of AGW – Scafetta’s.

    These are all lies.

    The papers can hold completely opposing views with each other and that’s ok.

    I understand that having a list that features independent competing theories for unexplained aspects of climate science makes your head explode but it is not my problem you have been brainwashed by group think. Skeptics on the other hand actually find independent thought encouraging.

    Shhh … don’t tell Nova that. Her handbook tells us the the greenhouse effect is saturated, CO2 is logarithmic, and that CO2 lags warming so therefore can’t have any effect.

    J. Nova’s excellent handbook makes one of the more popular skeptic arguments (which I support) and she does not say it can’t have any effect rather no meaningful effect. There are also skeptics who support a more meaningful effect but do not believe it is catastrophic.

    You arbitrarily decide what “magnitude” qualifies,

    This is not that shocking a revelation to skeptics but group thinkers want a yes/no answer so they spread propaganda about anyone who supports AGW being plausible but not catastrophic as support for their alarmist position.

    and even then fail as shown with Knorr.

    Knorr’s paper is not used for this argument, it is used for the argument that the eco-system has the ability to absorb the increase in CO2 emissions.

    Your fickle criteria renders the list useless – except for those that wish to “believe”.

    Boy you desperately want to wish it was useless. Somehow skeptics have absolutely no problem understanding it. All I receive is positive responses and thanks for compiling it yet every alarmist wastes excessive amounts of energy trying to discredit a “useless” list.

    The reality is you tried to argue strawman arguments and have been knocked down again.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    TWinkler

    hint: LEARN HOW TO READ -> “SORRY Poptech, I don’t know why but the spam filter caught them.”

    I did read, I read your comment, then another duplicate post, your comment, then another duplicate post. You kept posting even though the spam filter had captured it.

    Not too difficult, rather I have no interest in further extending discussing something with you that you are incapable of properly understanding.

    Ignoring them implies I pretend they do not exist, I have done no such thing. I really have no interest in getting into this discussion with you. I am sure there are others here who are willing to entertain you.

    And so you bow out of explaining why you support Idso’s flawed climate sensitivity paper and ignore all other papers.

    Are you about to squirt water from your lapel flower? Honk honk!!

    No, they offer competing theories for various unexplained aspects of climate science.

    Unexplained, so long as you wish to ignore the forcing of CO2.

    I didn’t ask you that.

    1. Do you support the IPCC?

    2. Which Climate Scientists?

    I did answer that. I said I agreed with the climate scientists. I agree with the consensus of the climate scientists and yes that mean the hundreds who’s papers are cited within the IPCC reports.

    That said, I don’t believe the “science is settled”, as some politicians rattle out, and I acknowledge, as does the IPCC that there is much uncertainty.

    What I do despise is the “rubbish” psuedo science promoted by many “skeptics” that wish to be know as climate scientists. They only serve to cloud the real uncertainty that does need to be dealt with.

    But you don’t look at everyone’s arguments because you initially claimed they did not exist.

    Rubbish. I said no such thing.

    No they are diametrically opposed positions. You are the one arguing about uncertainty!

    I have no problem understanding a probability curve. I’m sorry if you do.

    It certainly rejects alarmist predictions that the eco-system is unable to do this.

    What alarmist prediction? And please do tie it to the same timeframe that Knorr examines. Knorr tells us nothing about what will happen in the future.

    Yes alarmists say non-IPCC related things all the time. Why would I add papers that do not support skeptic’s arguments? This is illogical.

    Your list is anti-alarmist rather than anti-IPCC.

    On that basis you can list a paper that disputes claims like “Children will never see snow again”, great, but what relevance is that when the scientific consensus also disagrees with it.

    The reason why any given paper is on your list could be trivial and not related to the consensus view at all.

    That’s why your list is useless.

    Lie, I never stated this.

    3. Do alarmists support the conclusions of this paper? If so please cite the source.

    Why would they need to when there are better papers about?

    Recognizing it and accepting the same level of influence is two different things.

    So what, many scientists included in the consensus of the IPCC will not agree 100% with the figures it contains. That’s no surprise.

    Why not? Would that not make their case even stronger …

    Superfluous.

    You are in denial.

    I get snipped if I use the d word. Heck I got snipped for using the “clown” word. Giddy up ED.

    He has yet to fumble …

    Posts 122 and 124.

    Lie, I never said they did and never claimed there was a consensus of climate scientists.

    Your list is useless then. If you wish to target individuals rather than the consensus you should make that clear in your list.

    WTF? I never included the Knorr paper in a discussion on climate sensitivity.

    I never said you did.

    Because Schwartz’s calculations are on the low end of the IPCC and are not alarmist.

    Schwartz’s also said “as the duration of volcanic forcing is short, the response time may not be reflective of that which would characterize a sustained forcing such as that from increased greenhouse gases because of lack of penetration of the thermal signal into the deep ocean.” but you don’t seem capable of interpreting what that means. Or perhaps you just like to ignore it.

    Knorr findings are exactly in line with the IPCC’s yet you added that paper. T’is funny who you target when deciding if you can add a paper.

    I made a logical interpretation based on reading Dr. Scafetta’s other papers and knowing his position on AGW.

    Sure, I know, so don’t blame me for using it exactly as you defined it.

    Only if you believe the list to be a unified theory, which it is not. It is a resource for skeptics which overwhelmingly proves these papers exist contrary to propagandists like yourself.

    Yes. So long as you don’t mind citing some papers which are obviously wrong, don’t disagree with AGW or the IPCC, or disagree with each other then you’ll be fine.

    These are all lies.

    So I see by your empty response on Idso’s climate study.

    Skeptics on the other hand actually find independent thought encouraging.

    Independent thought is great. Backed up by evidence, even better!

    J. Nova’s excellent handbook makes one of the more popular skeptic arguments (which I support) and she does not say it can’t have any effect rather no meaningful effect.

    So big changes like 280->560 won’t have any effect, but smaller changes from 180->280 during the interglacials have a large impact.

    How interesting your flip-flopping of logic can be.

    Knorr’s paper is not used for this argument, it is used for the argument that the eco-system has the ability to absorb the increase in CO2 emissions.

    The magnitude of Knorr’s findings was the same as the IPCC’s.

    Boy you desperately want to wish it was useless.

    I’d be happy if it were based against the scientific consensus rather than just against anyone who might make a “alarmist” remark.

    Be good if you had firmer grounding for the criteria on which you would add a report.

    Somehow skeptics have absolutely no problem understanding it. All I receive is positive responses and thanks for compiling it yet every alarmist wastes excessive amounts of energy trying to discredit a “useless” list.

    Yes, as I said, you “hope that no one really critically looks at it”. “Skeptics” obviously don’t since they don’t seem to realise how one paper contradicts another. So long as they blame anything but CO2 they’re happy.

    The reality is you tried to argue strawman arguments and have been knocked down again.

    Knocked down again? Ha. Yes, please stop telling me why Idso is king of climate sensitivity, even though his theory is flawed and numerous other climate scientists arrive at a higher figure. Please stop telling me, please stop … oh … that’s right. You haven’t.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Science@293 says:

    “As I already pointed out in my previous post, figure 1 shows that anthropogenic contribution to CO2 is increasing at the same rate as the overall CO2 increase in the atmosphere and I don’t see how you can interpret that graph in any other way. That still leaves the natural contribution at zero and the link you yourself provided debunks you.”

    Perhaps if the percentage of increasing anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere was in relation to the total CO2 in the atmosphere what you say might be true, but it isn’t, it’s in relation to total increase in anthropogenic emissions so what you say is false:”

    Figure 1 is here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/knorr_figure1.jpg

    Science has said that the airborne fraction [AF] is based on the anthropogenic CO2, ACO2, and not the total CO2; so on that basis the AF would be 40% of the ACO2 and be the same as the increase in CO2. But from figure 1 we can see that the divergence between the ACO2 increase and the CO2 increase is increasing in absolute terms even though the 60/40 split is being maintained. That is, the gap between the CO2 increase curve and 0 on the Y axis is ~ 40% of the quantity between 0 and the ACO2 increase curve. Where Science is fooled is that he confuses the maintainence of the 60/40 ratio with real amounts. Even the AF is constant in % terms sinks must be increasing to accommodate the 60% of ACO2 which is not part of the AF; that is the amount between the CO2 curve and the ACO2 curve.

    As to whether the Knorr constant AF ~ = the increase in CO2 can allow for any increase in natural CO2; that would depend on whether the sinks were in excess of the non-AF portion of the ACO2; if they are then CO2 is contributing to the increase; if they aren’t [and they can only be greater than or equal to the non-AF] then Miskolczi’s homeostatic theory is vindicated.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I did read, I read your comment, then another duplicate post, your comment, then another duplicate post. You kept posting even though the spam filter had captured it.

    First of all I had no idea the spam filter had captured it until I was informed by the moderator. Those three duplicate posts were made prior to me finding out that information. I made one post, it did not show up, I tried a second time, same problem. So I posted another comment about them not showing up that went through and tried a third time after reviewing my post for common hangups that might get caught by a filter, made some small changes and it still did not show up. At that point I assumed it was the some type of filter but had no idea why it was being held and apparently the moderator did not either. You seem to know very little about how these things work. At some point the moderator allowed all my posts to go through at the same time but since their date stamps were prior to my last comment they showed up before it. This is general knowledge about comment moderation on WordPress that you are also clearly ignorant of.

    And so you bow out of explaining why you support Idso’s flawed climate sensitivity paper and ignore all other papers.

    I see no point in it as unnecessarily extending this conversation further with you is a pointless exercise. I’ve corrected your lies on the paper as it is peer-reviewed in a science journal and other peer-reviewed papers exist showing low climate sensitivity.

    Unexplained, so long as you wish to ignore the forcing of CO2.

    Rejecting a flawed theory is not ignoring it, it is rejecting it.

    I did answer that. I said I agreed with the climate scientists. I agree with the consensus of the climate scientists and yes that mean the hundreds who’s papers are cited within the IPCC reports.

    I ask again,

    1. Do you support the IPCC? Yes or NO?

    2. Which Climate Scientists? (Be specific)

    That said, I don’t believe the “science is settled”, as some politicians rattle out, and I acknowledge, as does the IPCC that there is much uncertainty.

    What I do despise is the “rubbish” psuedo science promoted by many “skeptics” that wish to be know as climate scientists. They only serve to cloud the real uncertainty that does need to be dealt with.

    The problem is I have presented credentialed climate scientists published in peer-reviewed journals.

    “But you don’t look at everyone’s arguments because you initially claimed they did not exist.”

    Rubbish. I said no such thing.

    Correct that was Well.

    I have no problem understanding a probability curve. I’m sorry if you do.

    So you only argue uncertainty when you are attacking skeptic’s papers?

    What alarmist prediction? And please do tie it to the same timeframe that Knorr examines. Knorr tells us nothing about what will happen in the future.

    You have never heard of these before?

    Your list is anti-alarmist rather than anti-IPCC.

    Of course and I add all relevant papers to the list.

    On that basis you can list a paper that disputes claims like “Children will never see snow again”, great, but what relevance is that when the scientific consensus also disagrees with it.

    If it becomes an alarmist talking point and a paper exists that is relevant to a skeptics argument I will add it. I do not support your notion of the existence of a “scientific consensus” on climate change. This line of argumentation is not going to get you anywhere as it has been unsuccessfully tried before.

    The reason why any given paper is on your list could be trivial and not related to the consensus view at all.

    Strawman as I do not support your notion of the existence of a “scientific consensus” on climate change. Certain papers may only apply to specific arguments but these are a necessary part of the debate. The list is a resource after all and I am helping arm skeptics with peer-reviewed arguments against alarmists.

    That’s why your list is useless.

    No dear child it is far from useless. Notice the effort you have gone to and you are not alone in desperately attempting to attack the list. The reason for your effort is you are confronted with the reality that if skeptics take the list seriously (and they do) they can successfully scientifically argue against many of your positions you hold so dear.

    Why would they need to when there are better papers about?

    Because this is the final nail in your argument. If the paper says what you claim then it would be cited by proponents of AGW and not overwhelmingly by skeptics (as it is).

    3. Are you able to provide evidence of proponents of AGW ever citing the paper in support of their position?

    So what, many scientists included in the consensus of the IPCC will not agree 100% with the figures it contains. That’s no surprise.

    There is your answer.

    Your list is useless then. If you wish to target individuals rather than the consensus you should make that clear in your list.

    The list is crystal clear,

    800 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming (AGW) Alarm

    You are the one desperately trying to apply strawman arguments to it.

    Schwartz’s also said “as the duration of volcanic forcing is short, the response time may not be reflective of that which would characterize a sustained forcing such as that from increased greenhouse gases because of lack of penetration of the thermal signal into the deep ocean.” but you don’t seem capable of interpreting what that means. Or perhaps you just like to ignore it.

    This is what you get for reading the cartoonists website, an incorrect quote – unbelievable. Here is the correct quote properly referring to a third party,

    A concern noted by several investigators with inferences of system time constant from GMST following volcanic eruptions is that as the duration of the forcing is short, the response time of the system may not be reflective of that which would characterize a sustained forcing such as that from increased greenhouse gases because of lack of penetration of the thermal signal into the deep ocean.”

    Knorr findings are exactly in line with the IPCC’s yet you added that paper. T’is funny who you target when deciding if you can add a paper.

    Can you cite other papers from the IPCC that are identical? FYI, certain skeptic’s positions agree with the IPCC but not the alarmists.

    Sure, I know, so don’t blame me for using it exactly as you defined it.

    I never defined it as you did.

    Yes. So long as you don’t mind citing some papers which are obviously wrong, don’t disagree with AGW or the IPCC, or disagree with each other then you’ll be fine.

    Any paper that is obviously wrong would be either retracted from the journal or a correction issued. You are perpetually confused that arguing against Alarm (CAGW) can mean supporting AGW in some form and yes in certain areas (gasp) the IPCC too.

    Independent thought is great. Backed up by evidence, even better!

    That is what I provided.

    So big changes like 280->560 won’t have any effect, but smaller changes from 180->280 during the interglacials have a large impact.

    Where did this new argument come from? Who made this? Oh never mind it is another strawman.

    I’d be happy if it were based against the scientific consensus rather than just against anyone who might make a “alarmist” remark.

    Be good if you had firmer grounding for the criteria on which you would add a report.

    I will make sure to ask your permission on how to compile my list next time.

    Yes, as I said, you “hope that no one really critically looks at it”. “Skeptics” obviously don’t since they don’t seem to realise how one paper contradicts another. So long as they blame anything but CO2 they’re happy.

    Right, I hope no one reads it, which is why I fully cite all the papers on the list and post it for free on the Internet. This way I can fake people out, sounds like a plan.

    The reality is you continue to argue strawman arguments and have been knocked down again.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Well, it looks as if the TWinkler fest is drawing to a close. Then again, TWinkler does seem to relish every opportunity to embarrass and humiliate himself.

    I want to thank Poptech for providing this morning’s feast. The coffee was great and the serving size of TWinkler’s intellectual ass was truly generous! Thanks again, Poptech! I thought it was amazingly resourceful of you to use what was left by mopping the floor with TWinkler! ;)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Science

    Where Science is fooled is that he confuses the maintainence of the 60/40 ratio with real amounts. Even the AF is constant in % terms sinks must be increasing to accommodate the 60% of ACO2 which is not part of the AF; that is the amount between the CO2 curve and the ACO2 curve.

    No, it’s not me that’s fooled, I have simply reiterated what this paper is saying and AF is only ever referred to in terms of it being 100% anthropogenic. It is you who has fooled yourself when you have tried to misrepresent this paper and claim that any of the CO2 increase is natural, which this paper quite clearly shows to be impossible.

    As to whether the Knorr constant AF ~ = the increase in CO2 can allow for any increase in natural CO2; that would depend on whether the sinks were in excess of the non-AF portion of the ACO2; if they are then CO2 is contributing to the increase; if they aren’t [and they can only be greater than or equal to the non-AF] then Miskolczi’s homeostatic theory is vindicated.

    So let me get this straight, you think that if there was increasing natural CO2 it would cancel out some of the increase of anthropogenic CO2? When we talk about the natural CO2 being in equilibrium it means that there are enough natural sinks to cancel out all the natural emissions. In fact even if there was increasing natural CO2 it would still be cancelled out by the natural sinks as they are greater than the natural CO2 emissions and so natural CO2 would still be in equilibrium and still be contributing 0% to the rise and anthropogenic would still be responsible for 100% of the increase. Going back to figure 1, the only way natural emissions could possibly contribute to the rise is if the increase of CO2 was greater than all the anthropogenic emissions (thick black line), which is what would be required to cancel out all the natural sinks.

    To suggest that we can just swap some of the naturally absorbed CO2, even if it was increasing, for some of the anthropogenic increase requires a level of intellectual bankruptsy that beggars belief! This has got to be one of the most pathetic, absurd, self-defeating, self-humiliating and funniest arguments I’ve ever heard!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Science: You would think that such an intellectually superior person as yourself would be capable of understanding that the Knorr paper proves that sinks are expanding but that does not preclude natural CO2 being capable of increasing CO2 levels; if natural CO2 was not capable of exceeding natural sinks how could CO2 levels ever increase, as they did between 15000 and 12000 years ago when they went from below 200 ppm to 270 ppm and enabled modern agriculture to begin. Being such a superior person perhaps you could explain that; or maybe you are just a supercilious twit of the type who dominate the pro-AGW ranks who can’t and cannot be bothered to explain such glaring inconsistencies with AGW theory.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    TWinkler

    Poptech @ 310

    First of all I had no idea the spam filter had captured it until I … [rest of sob story snipped]

    Hence why I gave you the hint: hit the “Submit Comment” once. ;)

    Make sense now does it?

    I see no point in it as unnecessarily extending this conversation further with you is a pointless exercise. I’ve corrected your lies on the paper as it is peer-reviewed in a science journal and other peer-reviewed papers exist showing low climate sensitivity.

    You’re incapable of defending Idso’s paper from even the simplest of critical observations, yet you vehemently deny there is a problem with it whilst refusing to accept, nor refute, climate sensitivity studies that arrive at higher figures.

    Rejecting a flawed theory is not ignoring it, it is rejecting it.

    You claim it is flawed, then accept it when used as a natural feedback. You are inconsistent with the laws of physics.

    You can’t on the one hand argue that Scafetta is right about CO2 being a natural feedback, then say that the forcing of CO2 isn’t there in modern times.

    I ask again,

    1. Do you support the IPCC? Yes or NO?

    2. Which Climate Scientists? (Be specific)

    I answered this question already.

    The problem is I have presented credentialed climate scientists published in peer-reviewed journals.

    That would be a problem, assuming the papers they have submitted can stand the test of time. With Idso, that has obviously failed and you can’t defend it.

    Likewise there are many other flawed papers on your list. Carter for instance shows us how to remove a long term trend, in order to show that there is no long term trend. Care to comment? Lindzen think the tropics is the world. Care to comment?

    So you only argue uncertainty when you are attacking skeptic’s papers?

    Uncertainty should be discussed with all science, like I pointed how the IPCC deals with climate sensitivity.

    I also point out how dumb some scientists like Carter are to suggest that polar bears would have gone extinct in a prior warming period that occurred before the polar bears even evolved. Not to mention that the periods of warming he mentions are cooler than what we are forecast to enter.

    You have never heard of these before?

    I had heard that some people feared it might. After all there has to be a physical limit at some point. But follow the link, is it that “alarmist”.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7053903.stm

    “The researchers don’t know if the change is due to climate change or to natural variations.”

    The timeframe for this, 2000->2005, is not the same as Knorr either, so the Knorr paper isn’t disproving their findings.

    Of course and I add all relevant papers to the list.

    But that’s the point I am making. If you’re going after any “alarmist” that makes the list rather a waste of time. I’m quite certain there’ll be nutters out there over-exaggerating the problem. That’s why I think it’s important to constrain your list to the mainstream consensus, the IPCC.

    How can we tell if a paper on your list is just a response to some far out nutter point of view, or whether it really represents a view opposing the consensus.

    This lack of distinction is what makes your list useless.

    This line of argumentation is not going to get you anywhere as it has been unsuccessfully tried before.

    Yes, like Idso’s climate sensitivity, there appear to be numerous issues you won’t address.

    As for consensus … your fake collection of papers pales into insignificance.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

    No dear child it is far from useless. Notice the effort you have gone to and you are not alone in desperately attempting to attack the list. The reason for your effort is you are confronted with the reality that if skeptics take the list seriously (and they do) they can successfully scientifically argue against many of your positions you hold so dear.

    Having got you to admit your reasons for keeping the list, despite the flimsy criteria I will now direct people from other forums to this thread in order to see what a fallacy it is.

    That will be useful. ;)

    Because this is the final nail in your argument. If the paper says what you claim then it would be cited by proponents of AGW and not overwhelmingly by skeptics (as it is).

    3. Are you able to provide evidence of proponents of AGW ever citing the paper in support of their position?

    Already answered this multiple times.

    A google scholar of “climate feedback co2″ produces 72,700 results (makes your 800 number look pathetic especially when you consider this is just a small subset).

    http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=climate+feedback+co2&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

    Why would you expect each individual paper to be included in the IPCC report?

    There is your answer.

    What, that you’ll never get 1,000 people to agree 100% on something. wow.

    That simply means to qualify for your list, a paper simply needs to slightly disagree with one aspect of the IPCC report, even if it confirms many other areas of AGW.

    That’s what makes your list irrelevant.

    The list is crystal clear

    And as I said before, your criteria for adding a paper renders it useless.

    This is what you get for reading the cartoonists website, an incorrect quote – unbelievable. Here is the correct quote properly referring to a third party,

    You’re being pedantic. It says practically the same thing and it’s still Schwartz’s words about how others spotted his mistake.

    Can you cite other papers from the IPCC that are identical?

    Here’s where IPCC states pretty much the same thing as Knorr …

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7s7-es.html

    “There is yet no statistically significant trend in the CO2 growth rate as a fraction of fossil fuel plus cement emissions since routine atmospheric CO2 measurements began in 1958. This ‘airborne fraction’ has shown little variation over this period.”

    I never defined it as you did.

    Post 270 you say “maybe” means “It could be true.”.

    In probability “It could be true.” means “a chance > 0%”. Unless Scafetta is more specific, we cannot be more specific.

    That is what I provided.

    You haven’t provided any such thing. You made a list of papers based on fickle criteria.

    Where did this new argument come from?

    Is your memory going? Scafetta talks about 420,000 years of Antarctic ice core data which shows the existence of natural GHG (CO2, CH4, etc.) feedback mechanisms.

    Or do you disagree with him now? Or only selected parts of his paper?

    “Flip-flop” – go the big shoes of the clowns.

    I will make sure to ask your permission on how to compile my list next time.

    No need. But you should probably make it clear to people that in order to qualify for this list a paper can slightly disagree with one aspect of AGW whilst confirming many others; and that it needn’t rebut mainstream consensus, but simply needs to rebut any fringe alarmist theory.

    Right, I hope no one reads it, which is why I fully cite all the papers on the list and post it for free on the Internet. This way I can fake people out, sounds like a plan.

    Ah … but I did read, and I’m not fooled.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Twinkie,

    Lindzen think the tropics is the world. Care to comment?

    OK. So let me get this straight. You think it’s OK to extrapolate with Hansen style ultra homogenization, which for all intents and purposes is covering less than 1% of the surface, but it’s not OK to interpolate from gridded data covering more than 50% of the planet? In fact, extrapolating full coverage measurements from the tropics to the poles is a far more accurate than extrapolating individual samples out to 100′s to 1000 km because the RMS error between the prediction and reality will be far smaller.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Cohenite, co2isnotevil:, Richard S. Courtney, Poptech, Joanne (and Tel if you are following this)

    Please visit this thread:

    http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2010/10/open-threads-as-promised/#comment-28449

    And this thread:

    http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2010/11/radiative-heat-transfer-simple-overview/comment-page-1/#comment-583

    Re Radiative Transfer Models, Radiative Heat Transfer and Cloud Feedbacks in Models. Comments at both threads would be appreciated but at least at the Climate Conversations thread please.

    Cheers

    Richard Cumming


    Report this

    00

  • #

    TWinkler:
    November 5th, 2010 at 9:31 am

    I also point out how dumb some scientists like Carter are to suggest that polar bears would have gone extinct in a prior warming period that occurred before the polar bears even evolved. Not to mention that the periods of warming he mentions are cooler than what we are forecast to enter.

    The latest research shows that the polar bear evolved before the last interglacial (The Emian).

    http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/56825/title/Ancient_DNA_suggests_polar_bears_evolved_recently
    Rare fossil shows creatures are most closely related to modern-day brown bears in Alaska By Sid Perkins March 27th, 2010; Vol.177 #7 (p. 14)

    The quotes from Bob Carter were made when there was a greater divergence on the appearance of polar bears on the planet.

    Several previous studies agreed that polar bears are closely related to brown bears but provided widely divergent answers about when polar bears first evolved, with estimates ranging between 70,000 and 1 million years ago

    The latest research also shows that polar bears evoved approximately 150,000 years ago.

    The analyses also suggest that polar bears first appeared about 150,000 years ago, not too long before the Svalbard polar bear patrolled the Arctic.

    The eemian interglacial appeared AFTER polar bears evolved.

    http://www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx?ItemId=69533&CultureCode=en

    The Eemian Interglacial was the last interglacial epoch before the current one, the Holocene. It began around 126,000 years ago, ended around 115,000 years ago and is named after the river Eem in the Netherlands.

    Professor Carter was correct, Polar Bears evolved BEFORE the last interglacial!

    Moreover, the Eemian was warmer than the current interglacial, the Holocene.

    http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc130k.html Oakridge National Laboratory

    around 130,000 y.a. – rapid warming initiates the Eemian interglacial (Stage 5e)

    130,000-110,000 y.a. – global climates generally warmer and moister than present, but with progressive cooling to temperatures more similar to present

    .

    So, Polar Bears were around during the last interglacia. The last interglacial was warmer than the current interglacial. Professor Carter was right and TWinkler is wrong!

    You do realize TWinkler that Poptech is going to probably post again and expose you, again, for being nothing more than a troll who is incapable of reasoning logically?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    TWinkler:
    November 5th, 2010 at 9:31 am

    As for consensus … your fake collection of papers pales into insignificance.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

    Argumentum ad numerum!

    In addition to the various straw man arguments you have used, your last several posts are laced with non sequiturs and founded on circular reasoning as you posit that what you are trying to prove is correct, Petitio principii.

    You are an embarrassment to the CAGW syndicate!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    TWinkler:
    November 5th, 2010 at 9:31 am

    “Flip-flop” – go the big shoes of the clowns.

    Does this mean you are leaving?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Hence why I gave you the hint: hit the “Submit Comment” once. ;)

    Make sense now does it?

    Are you computer illiterate too? With no confirmation that it was accepted, no notification it was held for moderator approval and it not showing up after refreshing the page, there could have been any number reasons for this, including a problem on my end. The multiple submissions were necessary on my end to diagnose the reason for the comment not appearing. Now I understand you do not troubleshoot computer related problems for a living and thus do not comprehend why I submitted the comment multiple times, even after I explained why. Your computer illiteracy is not my problem.

    You’re incapable of defending Idso’s paper from even the simplest of critical observations, yet you vehemently deny there is a problem with it whilst refusing to accept, nor refute, climate sensitivity studies that arrive at higher figures.

    You have an obsessive personality as demonstrated by your responses, I have no interest in extending this anymore than is necessary as you will perpetually add new tangents to argue about. Feel free to entertain others on this issue.

    You claim it is flawed, then accept it when used as a natural feedback. You are inconsistent with the laws of physics.

    GHG Feedbacks are not a “law of physics”, AGW is not a “law of physics”. They are unproven theories.

    You can’t on the one hand argue that Scafetta is right about CO2 being a natural feedback, then say that the forcing of CO2 isn’t there in modern times.

    I am not saying that Scafetta is right or wrong, only what he is and is not arguing.

    I answered this question already.

    No you have not, you have dodged the questions,

    1. Do you support the IPCC? Yes or NO?

    2. Which Climate Scientists? (Be specific)

    That would be a problem, assuming the papers they have submitted can stand the test of time. With Idso, that has obviously failed and you can’t defend it.

    It failed? Can you show me the published rebuttal to his paper?

    Likewise there are many other flawed papers on your list. Carter for instance shows us how to remove a long term trend, in order to show that there is no long term trend. Care to comment? Lindzen think the tropics is the world. Care to comment?

    They are not flawed and all criticism of them in the peer-reviewed literature have been addressed. The authors have commented on these themselves and I have no need to personally comment on them.

    I also point out how dumb some scientists like Carter are to suggest that polar bears would have gone extinct in a prior warming period that occurred before the polar bears even evolved. Not to mention that the periods of warming he mentions are cooler than what we are forecast to enter.

    Fact = Polar Bears are not going extinct. Dr. Carter is correct that they have not gone extinct in previous warm periods. I do not support that the current or future warming is or will be greater than at prior warming periods.

    I had heard that some people feared it might. After all there has to be a physical limit at some point. But follow the link, is it that “alarmist”.

    “The researchers don’t know if the change is due to climate change or to natural variations.”

    Yes this is alarmist,
    “Scientists believe global warming might get worse if the oceans soak up less of the greenhouse gas.”

    The timeframe for this, 2000->2005, is not the same as Knorr either, so the Knorr paper isn’t disproving their findings.

    Yes it is, Knorr covers those papers time periods and directly addresses them,

    “Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions.”

    But that’s the point I am making. If you’re going after any “alarmist” that makes the list rather a waste of time. I’m quite certain there’ll be nutters out there over-exaggerating the problem. That’s why I think it’s important to constrain your list to the mainstream consensus, the IPCC.

    What part of you do not get to decide this do you not understand? This silly line of argumentation has been tried before. How come the list which is a resource for skeptics is found to be incredibly usefull for them when debating the science. Yet every alarmist attempts to classify it is “useless” when they are not even the ones using it? Could it be you want to portray it as useless in the hopes that skeptics will not reference it? If so you have overwhelmingly failed.

    How can we tell if a paper on your list is just a response to some far out nutter point of view, or whether it really represents a view opposing the consensus.

    This lack of distinction is what makes your list useless.

    Strawman as the list makes no mention of opposing any consensus. I already stated multiple times that I do not support your notion of the existence of a consensus.

    As for consensus … your fake collection of papers pales into insignificance.

    http://www.skepticalscience...

    ROFLMAO! Now the list is fake? Really? All those papers do not exist? You are a denier.

    Please stop citing the cartoonist’s website, it is embarrassing.

    Having got you to admit your reasons for keeping the list, despite the flimsy criteria I will now direct people from other forums to this thread in order to see what a fallacy it is.

    Got me to admit? I’ve always stated the same thing. So now you are going to bring in backup? ROFLMAO!! Man my list sure is a threat to your propaganda. I’ve never seen anything like this before. So much effort to attack a “useless” list. Your obsession with the list sort of discredits your argument against it.

    Already answered this multiple times.

    No you have dodged this question,

    3. Are you able to provide evidence of proponents of AGW ever citing the paper in support of their position?

    A google scholar of “climate feedback co2″ produces 72,700 results (makes your 800 number look pathetic especially when you consider this is just a small subset).

    Another computer illiterate! Thank you for confirming!!!

    Those results include sources such as books, magazines, newspapers, patents, citations, duplicate listings and all sorts of other erroneous results. Such as 20,000 from the Guardian, 79,000 from Newsweek and 140,000 from the New York Times.

    Why would you expect each individual paper to be included in the IPCC report?

    No the real question is why the majority of these papers are NOT included in the IPCC report.

    What, that you’ll never get 1,000 people to agree 100% on something. wow.

    The paper is not even cited by the IPCC and no where do they support it’s conclusions.

    That simply means to qualify for your list, a paper simply needs to slightly disagree with one aspect of the IPCC report, even if it confirms many other areas of AGW.

    Yes to qualify for the list a paper can disagree with the IPCC report, this is one way a paper can get on the list. You are correct on this point. Referencing certain aspects of climate science that may be supported by the IPCC is not “confirming many other areas of AGW”.

    That’s what makes your list irrelevant.

    Only using your strawman argument. Do you ever get tired of using these?

    And as I said before, your criteria for adding a paper renders it useless.

    Your belligerence on this point doesn’t make it anymore correct.

    You’re being pedantic. It says practically the same thing and it’s still Schwartz’s words about how others spotted his mistake.

    Please try reading the actual papers and stop using the cartoonist’s website. That quote is from his original paper not the reply. Are you really this incompetent?

    Here’s where IPCC states pretty much the same thing as Knorr …

    If they were stating the same thing as Knorr, then there would be no need for Knorr to write their paper AFTER the IPCC report in response to concerns about,

    “Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions.”

    Post 270 you say “maybe” means “It could be true.”.

    In probability “It could be true.” means “a chance > 0%”. Unless Scafetta is more specific, we cannot be more specific.

    That is your interpretation of my words.

    You haven’t provided any such thing. You made a list of papers based on fickle criteria.

    It has been established you despise the list and wish it did not exist. Your obsessions with trying to discredit says it all. The criteria is explicit,

    “The following papers support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW.”

    Scafetta talks about 420,000 years of Antarctic ice core data which shows the existence of natural GHG (CO2, CH4, etc.) feedback mechanisms.

    Scafetta references this but this has nothing to do with your strawman argument.

    No need. But you should probably make it clear to people that in order to qualify for this list a paper can slightly disagree with one aspect of AGW whilst confirming many others; and that it needn’t rebut mainstream consensus, but simply needs to rebut any fringe alarmist theory.

    Strawman no where is it stated that papers confirm many aspects of AGW or you nonsense about consensus. What I stated is that some papers may accept AGW (in some form) but not Alarm (CAGW). None of the papers “confirm” AGW.

    Ah … but I did read, and I’m not fooled.

    No you are just a fool.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Richardc@316; are the you the guy who has been posting the info on the NZ law case? Your threads seems well informed; I’m not sure I could add anything to them.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Cohenite @ 321

    Richardc@316; are the you the guy who has been posting the info on the NZ law case? Your threads seems well informed; I’m not sure I could add anything to them.

    Yes I am, but not so hot on the intricacies of feedback/gain etc. Think back to this thread:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/08/head-of-australian-science-academy-issues-decree-from-pagan-chieftans-of-science/#comments

    Which is what got me going on the “Clouds in Models” issue.

    Particularly your comments 131 and 142, also Tel-George 149, 159, 171.

    So yes, I think you could add something.

    I’ve received a comment from George in that vein:

    http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2010/10/open-threads-as-promised/#comment-28460

    and it’s very helpful (thanks George), and maybe that comment is a better gauge as to whether you can add anything or not.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Yahoo Science, are you there?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Eddy Aruda:
    November 5th, 2010 at 11:14 am

    You do realize TWinkler that Poptech is going to probably post again and expose you, again, for being nothing more than a troll who is incapable of reasoning logically?

    I warned you, didn’t I TWinkler! You are a trolls troll! You remind me of a Bozo the Clown punching bag I had when I was a kid. It was weighted on the bottom and would come right back up after being punched. After a while, it ran out of air, just like you!

    “Flip-Flop” go the big lips of the site idiot TWinkler!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    John Brookes: (@273)
    November 3rd, 2010 at 11:49 am

    So no argument – just wait and see what happens.

    Is that a promise John? Can we count on you not “contributing” any more to the discussion? Will you quite pushing for massive changes to civilization’s energy sources while we “wait and see”?

    Suits me fine!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    TWinkler

    Poptech @ 320,

    This time around I’ll leave out the questions you have already asked before.

    Are you computer illiterate too?

    No I am quite well acquainted with computers and how web pages work, hence why I click the Submit button only once. Even when the response page is not returned as expected, the post quite often will have been accepted.

    And certainly most people after two attempts would have realised the same thing occurred … yet you tried it a third time. That’s pretty dumb.

    You have an obsessive personality as demonstrated by your responses.

    Another personal attack – you do this instead of defending my comment about how Idso’s method of calculating climate sensitivity is both limited by locality and time.

    GHG Feedbacks are not a “law of physics”, AGW is not a “law of physics”. They are unproven theories.

    They both rely of CO2 having a radiative effect. That you choose to think it does in some periods, and not in other period of time is silly.

    I am not saying that Scafetta is right or wrong, only what he is and is not arguing.

    That seems a common theme with your list. You don’t care if it’s right or not, just so long as it’s causing doubt in the mindless reader.

    After all, how could you say they are all correct when you know they contradict each other.

    It failed? Can you show me the published rebuttal to his paper?

    I don’t know of any published rebuttal. It fails on such a basic level I doubt anyone bothered. Does anyone bother if someone thinks they can measure the planet’s temp by sticking their finger in the air?

    As I pointed out, Idso methods are absurd – and you fail to refute that. Most of Idso’s observations are local and short term. Some are of other planets. His method of calculating sensitivity by dividing the change in temperature due to the greenhouse effect by the downwelling longwave radiation is shown by RealClimate to be flawed. You can replicate the simple calculation for yourself, if you have the ability.

    They are not flawed and all criticism of them in the peer-reviewed literature have been addressed. The authors have commented on these themselves and I have no need to personally comment on them.

    So you’re happy Lindzen tries to measure sensitivity using just the tropics? And that Carter tries to remove the long term trend, in order to prove there is no long term trend.

    Fact = Polar Bears are not going extinct. Dr. Carter is correct that they have not gone extinct in previous warm periods. I do not support that the current or future warming is or will be greater than at prior warming periods.

    Whether they are going extinct is debateable, but also beside the point.

    My point is that Carter suggests that polar bears would have gone extinct in a prior warming period that occurred before the polar bears even evolved. Not to mention that the periods of warming he mentions are cooler than what we are forecast to enter.

    That’s how an example of how dumb Carter is, or perhaps he’s just being purposefully deceptive?

    Yes this is alarmist, “Scientists believe global warming might get worse if the oceans soak up less of the greenhouse gas.”

    How is that alarmist when it’s the truth. The article stated that they we’re not sure if this was due to climate change or not.

    Yes it is, Knorr covers those papers time periods and directly addresses them,

    “Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions.”

    Mentioning them is not the same as “addressing them” for the purpose of disproving them.

    How come the list which is a resource for skeptics is found to be incredibly usefull for them when debating the science. Yet every alarmist attempts to classify it is “useless” when they are not even the ones using it?

    Perhaps it’s because the average “skeptic” I’ve spoken to on forums doesn’t realise the implications of what they’re saying when they reference this list. For instance if they were to cite Scafetta and tell me how he thinks it’s the sun, they don’t realise that Scafetta is also supporting a higher sensitivity values and the GHG feedbacksm, things they wish to pretend don’t exist.

    If, on the other hand you’re saying that your list is “not useless” because “skpetics” can broadly say “hey there’s science here that disagrees with AGW” then sure, it’s useful for them because they, nor most of the people they argue with bother with the details.

    I, on the other hand love the details, hence I can point out with ease why your list, for the purpose of disputing AGW, is useless.

    Strawman as the list makes no mention of opposing any consensus. I already stated multiple times that I do not support your notion of the existence of a consensus.

    Of course you don’t like it, because the consensus disagrees with you.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full

    ROFLMAO! Now the list is fake? Really? All those papers do not exist? You are a denier.

    Please stop citing the cartoonist’s website, it is embarrassing.

    The list is a fake because of the reasons I have already listed and I will recap again below.

    I can see why citing skeptical science is frustrating for you as it clearly lays out why the papers you list are either flawed or how they conflict with each other.

    Those results include sources such as books, magazines, newspapers, patents, citations, duplicate listings and all sorts of other erroneous results. Such as 20,000 from the Guardian, 79,000 from Newsweek and 140,000 from the New York Times.

    HAHAHAHA .. so of the 72,700 results, you think 140,000 are from the New York Times!! HAHAHAHA .. are you sure about the 800?

    Yes to qualify for the list a paper can disagree with the IPCC report, this is one way a paper can get on the list. You are correct on this point. Referencing certain aspects of climate science that may be supported by the IPCC is not “confirming many other areas of AGW”.

    In Scafetta’s case he says the natural GHG feedback does exist. Are you having trouble accepting that, even though you now say you don’t agree with him, on some things?

    Please try reading the actual papers and stop using the cartoonist’s website. That quote is from his original paper not the reply. Are you really this incompetent?

    I read the relevant section of the paper. My comment still stands. Schwartz’s climate sensitivity value was less because “of lack of penetration of the thermal signal into the deep ocean”. He does not dispute this, it is his words in his paper.

    If they were stating the same thing as Knorr, then there would be no need for Knorr to write their paper AFTER the IPCC report in response to concerns about,

    “Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions.”

    Where is the IPCC report using those studies that Knorr is referring to?

    That is your interpretation of my words.

    The only other way to mathematically represent it would be “>= 0%”. Take your pick.

    It has been established you despise the list and wish it did not exist.

    I’m quite glad it exists. Through our discussion I now have several examples of papers that, whilst meeting your criteria, also support AGW and some that disagree with each other.

    This is in addition to the “poor science” ones you can’t defend.

    Scafetta references this but this has nothing to do with your strawman argument.

    Ha. It directly talks about GHG feedbacks, the thing that Nova can’t get her head around in her handbook.

    No you are just a fool.

    All the name calling in the world doesn’t deter me.

    Your list is useless and here’s why. To make your list, a paper must qualify as follows:

    1. It must disagree, even if only slightly, in part with some aspect of CAGW as defined by anyone, even a newspaper rather than disagreeing with the IPCC or mainstream scientific opinion (Knorr).
    2. The paper can confirm many fundamental properties of AGW (Scafetta & natural GHG feedbacks).
    3. The papers can hold completely opposing views with each other and that’s ok (Gerlich, says no greenhouse effect, Scafetta says there is).
    4. The paper can be flawed (Idso).
    5. The paper doesn’t have to be from a climate scientist .
    6. Poptech (fortunately) doesn’t have to agree with the findings of the paper they list, in this way they can avoid the conflict of point 3 and dispute point 2).

    But you don’t care because those that are shallow enough won’t realise this and simply take you list on face value. I don’t.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Poptech wrote

    It failed? Can you show me the published rebuttal to his paper?

    TWinklers response?

    I don’t know of any published rebuttal.

    Followed by his usual non sequitur BS.

    So, this is how the Romans felt when prisoners were executed by gladiators! Come on, TWinkler, pick up your sword and at least try and defend yourself!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    This time around I’ll leave out the questions you have already asked before.

    That is because you cannot answer them,

    1. Do you support the IPCC? Yes or NO?

    2. Which Climate Scientists [from the IPCC] do you support? (Be specific)

    3. Are you able to provide evidence of proponents of AGW ever citing the paper [Scafetta 2006] in support of their position?

    No I am quite well acquainted with computers and how web pages work, hence why I click the Submit button only once. Even when the response page is not returned as expected, the post quite often will have been accepted.

    And certainly most people after two attempts would have realised the same thing occurred … yet you tried it a third time. That’s pretty dumb.

    No you have demonstrated yourself to be computer illiterate. Yes I hit the submit button once too and then refreshed the page to see the post. Nothing showed up and there was no mention of the post being held for moderator approval or by a filter as is standard practice on most websites. All my posts up until that one have went through the first time and I have never had a post held here, ever. I also had no knowledge that this website had any filters. Standard reasons for a post being held by a filter is the post includes links (my previous ones that went through fine did) or use of objectionable language (my post contained no such language). Thus the possibility existed that it could be an issue on my end or with my Internet service provider. As you failed to notice the moderator had no idea why it was held either. I also explicitly commented after standard trial and error (since I do not have access to this website’s administrative features) that it must be some type of filter. If a moderator had not let the posts through, I would have likely submitted the post many more times in parts until I located the line or link that was being filtered. Please stop confirming your computer illiteracy.

    They both rely of CO2 having a radiative effect. That you choose to think it does in some periods, and not in other period of time is silly.

    CO2 having a radiative effect and the magnitude of it is not a “law of physics”.

    That seems a common theme with your list. You don’t care if it’s right or not, just so long as it’s causing doubt in the mindless reader.

    The list is not a unified theory, why are you unable to understand this? It is clearly your fear that the educated reader may take the list seriously (as they should). Unlike you I let readers make up their own minds and do not censor independent theories.

    After all, how could you say they are all correct when you know they contradict each other.

    Strawman and lie as I never made this claim and only some of the papers offer independent competing theories. My purpose is to make these available to a public that has been lied that these do not exist in the peer-reviewed literature.

    I don’t know of any published rebuttal. It fails on such a basic level I doubt anyone bothered. Does anyone bother if someone thinks they can measure the planet’s temp by sticking their finger in the air?

    So Idso’s paper has never been challenged in the peer-reviewed literature?

    So you’re happy Lindzen tries to measure sensitivity using just the tropics? And that Carter tries to remove the long term trend, in order to prove there is no long term trend.

    Lets see what the peer-reviewed literature says from the list as Lindzen responded to FU,

    - Reply to: “Tropical cirrus and water vapor: an effective Earth infrared iris feedback?” (PDF)
    (Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Volume 2, Issue 2, pp. 99-101, May 2002)
    - Ming-Dah Chou, Richard S. Lindzen, Arthur Y. Hou

    “In assessing the iris effect suggested by Lindzen et al. (2001), Fu et al. (2002) found that the response of highlevel clouds to the sea surface temperature had an effect of reducing the climate sensitivity to external radiative forcing, but the effect was not as strong as LCH found. The approach of FBH to specifying longwave emission and cloud albedos appears to be inappropriate, and the derived cloud optical properties may not have real physical meaning. The cloud albedo calculated by FBH is too large for cirrus clouds and too small for boundary layer clouds, which underestimates the iris effect.”

    Whether they are going extinct is debateable, but also beside the point.

    My point is that Carter suggests that polar bears would have gone extinct in a prior warming period that occurred before the polar bears even evolved. Not to mention that the periods of warming he mentions are cooler than what we are forecast to enter.

    That’s how an example of how dumb Carter is, or perhaps he’s just being purposefully deceptive?

    Really? When a species numbers increase from a sustainable level that is not a sign of “extinction”. Polar Bears have been around a long time,

    Ancient 110,000-130,000 Year Old Polar Bear Jawbone Found (BBC)

    How is that alarmist when it’s the truth. The article stated that they we’re not sure if this was due to climate change or not.

    I am aware some reputable scientists properly qualify their arguments but that is not what alarmists repeat.

    Mentioning them is not the same as “addressing them” for the purpose of disproving them.

    First of all they directly address the claims you said they were not. Second the paper’s conclusions clearly support skeptic’s arguments against the alarmist position on this issue.

    Perhaps it’s because the average “skeptic” I’ve spoken to on forums doesn’t realise the implications of what they’re saying when they reference this list. For instance if they were to cite Scafetta and tell me how he thinks it’s the sun, they don’t realise that Scafetta is also supporting a higher sensitivity values and the GHG feedbacksm, things they wish to pretend don’t exist.

    Skeptics are better informed than you think and I am contributing to that. “If they were” but they are not you are. Scafetta is only supporting a higher value for solar forcing not anthropogenic. It still stands that his position is not cited or supported by alarmists let alone the IPCC.

    If, on the other hand you’re saying that your list is “not useless” because “skpetics” can broadly say “hey there’s science here that disagrees with AGW” then sure, it’s useful for them because they, nor most of the people they argue with bother with the details.

    I, on the other hand love the details, hence I can point out with ease why your list, for the purpose of disputing AGW, is useless.

    Everytime you post you just confirm how dangerous you consider the list to be. Thank you for the confirmation.

    As for the usefulness of the list, you have no idea and no magic powers to decide this. The list is incredibly useful to them especially when arguing the details against AGW alarm.

    You haven’t pointed out anything except that you believe being belligerent makes you right.

    Of course you don’t like it, because the consensus disagrees with you.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full

    That is not evidence of a consensus, just your computer illiteracy.

    Google Scholar illiteracy in the PNAS

    The list is a fake because of the reasons I have already listed and I will recap again below.

    Your fantasy world is not reality.

    I can see why citing skeptical science is frustrating for you as it clearly lays out why the papers you list are either flawed or how they conflict with each other.

    The caroonist’s, website doesn’t lay anythng out and the whole webpage has been refuted,

    John Cook: Skeptical Science (PDF) (Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physics)

    HAHAHAHA .. so of the 72,700 results, you think 140,000 are from the New York Times!! HAHAHAHA .. are you sure about the 800?

    No computer illiterate one, Google Scholar’s results in general include 140,000 from the NYT and there is no way to filter those out from your 72,700.

    In Scafetta’s case he says the natural GHG feedback does exist. Are you having trouble accepting that, even though you now say you don’t agree with him, on some things?

    He says papers exist stating this, I have not stated otherwise. Are you having trouble finding a single alarmist that cites his paper?

    3. Are you able to provide evidence of proponents of AGW ever citing the paper in support of their position?

    I read the relevant section of the paper. My comment still stands. Schwartz’s climate sensitivity value was less because “of lack of penetration of the thermal signal into the deep ocean”. He does not dispute this, it is his words in his paper.

    No it doesn’t. You stated that was his response to how others “spotted his mistake”, he was not addressing any mistake because that comment was in the original paper not in a reply to a comment on the original.

    Where is the IPCC report using those studies that Knorr is referring to?

    That only makes your original comment about the IPPC even more worthless.

    The only other way to mathematically represent it would be “>= 0%”. Take your pick.

    You have no power to define my words least of all in an arbitrarily mathematical way. Your delusions of magical powers appears to be a reoccurring theme.

    I’m quite glad it exists. Through our discussion I now have several examples of papers that, whilst meeting your criteria, also support AGW and some that disagree with each other.

    Yes some papers support AGW existing in some form but still support skeptic’s arguments against AGW Alarm. Your perpetual ability to have a hard time understanding this is shocking. Especially as you imply you are more knowledgeable than the average skeptics who does not have this problem. It is a lie that some of the papers disagree with each other as they are not referencing each other. Some of the papers are however mutually exclusive based on independent theories. That is how science is supposed to work, not your accepted group think.

    This is in addition to the “poor science” ones you can’t defend.

    It is not up to me to defend any paper, that is what the author(s) is for. The one’s you are claiming to be “poor science” are either not commented on in the peer-reviewed literature or the comments are refuted. I have provided for the skeptic any published defense of a paper on the list.

    Ha. It directly talks about GHG feedbacks, the thing that Nova can’t get her head around in her handbook.

    Yes Scafetta references this and….? His position is, even while referencing this, not in support of AGW Alarm and he is not cited by any alarmists or the IPCC.

    Your list is useless and here’s why. To make your list, a paper must qualify as follows:

    Repeating this lie does not make it any more true.

    1. It must disagree, even if only slightly, in part with some aspect of CAGW as defined by anyone, even a newspaper rather than disagreeing with the IPCC or mainstream scientific opinion
    (Knorr).

    Wrong, it must support a skeptic’s argument against AGW Alarm.

    2. The paper can confirm many fundamental properties of AGW (Scafetta & natural GHG feedbacks).

    Lie, his paper does not “confirm” this, it references this as nothing in his paper deals with confirmation of GHG feedbacks.

    3. The papers can hold completely opposing views with each other and that’s ok (Gerlich, says no greenhouse effect, Scafetta says there is).

    Again,

    The list is not some unified theory, get over it. The purpose of the list is to provide a resource for the skeptical arguments being made in peer-reviewed journals and to demonstrate the existence of these papers. It is not supposed to be a single argument but rather a resource for all of them.

    I understand you are surprised to learn that skeptics have independent minds and come to contradictory positions on certain issues. This is obviously confusing to someone who only understands group think. None of this changes the fact that these papers exist and are peer-reviewed.

    4. The paper can be flawed (Idso).

    You have failed to provide a single published criticism of his paper to support your claim.

    5. The paper doesn’t have to be from a climate scientist .

    Yes as socio-economic issues are often addressed by social scientists (such as economists). As for your notion of a “climate scientist”.

    4. Please provide the non-subjective criteria for determining who is a “climate scientist”.

    6. Poptech (fortunately) doesn’t have to agree with the findings of the paper they list, in this way they can avoid the conflict of point 3 and dispute point 2).

    Unlike you I am not biased to positions that I might not agree with.

    But you don’t care because those that are shallow enough won’t realise this and simply take you list on face value. I don’t.

    All your nonsense has been repeatedly addressed and no skeptic has had a hard time understanding this. However alarmists such as yourself see the list as a danger to their ideology and have desperately failed to discredit this list.

    For any skeptic reading this, I have been involved in the debate for quite some time and without question the amount of energy that AGW proponents spend on attacking my list is astronomical (Twinkle is a perfect example). I have been banned and my comments deleted from various sites for simply defending it as they realized they would never get me to shut up when they stated outright lies. If this conversation was taking place on some other site my comments would have long ago been stopped in some form.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    TWinkler

    That is because you cannot answer them

    TWinkler
    AKA TWinkler2
    AKA Brendon
    AKA funtart 2-2011

    A serial troll from as far back as March 1 2010
    Using at least 3 different IP addresses has been moderated several times.

    The rest of this post is [snipped] as will be any other posts from this person. ED


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    TWinkler == Brendon? I was wondering what happened to him. Sooner or later you would think that he would realize his “agruing” style doesn’t cut it on sites that emphasize logic and facts.

    Of course, it is likely his real goal is just to perform a “denial of service” type attack on this site by posting reams of nonsense and driving sensible people away. In that case, banning him is the right move.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Re TWinkler:

    Macbeth comes to mind.

    “…a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    well

    I have been banned and my comments deleted from various sites for simply defending it as they realized they would never get me to shut up when they stated outright lies. If this conversation was taking place on some other site my comments would have long ago been stopped in some form.

    that’s irony for you.


    Report this

    00