The public might not understand the science, but they do understand cheating
Dr. David Evans
6 October 2010
[A series of articles reviewing the western climate establishment and the media. The first and second discussed air temperatures, the third was on ocean temperatures, and fourth discussed past temperatures, the fifth compared the alleged cause (human CO2 emissions) with the alleged effect (temperatures) and the sixth canvassed the infamous attempt to “fix” that disconnect, the hockey stick.]
Click to download a pdf file containing the whole series
The western climate establishment consists of the climate science research bodies in the western world, and their climate scientists. The leading organizations are the IPCC of the United Nations, the CRU in Britain, and GISS and NOAA in the United States. Personnel move around within the establishment, getting funding from the same sources, collaborating on projects, and publishing in the same journals.
There are other climate establishments in this world, and they haven’t come to the same conclusions about what causes global warming.
The Chinese torpedoed the Copenhagen negotiations in 2009, refuse to commit to any quantified emissions reduction targets, and say more research is needed to establish whether warming is man-made.
Low Carbon Plot, Gou Hongyang
In February, one of China’s largest Power Companies ordered $60B US dollars worth of Australian coal — the largest export contract ever for Australia.
In August 2010 a book appeared in state-sanctioned bookstores in China that strongly suggests the Chinese government completely rejects the theory of man-made global warming (Low Carbon Plot, by Gou Hongyang):
“Will the increase in Carbon Dioxide definitely lead to the planet warming? Although there have been many many reports published by research institutes that verify this, but from the viewpoint of the history of man, and scientific method, the theories have not yet achieved scientific proof.
But, after many years of repeated indoctrination from every kind of propaganda machine, and the mixing together of environmental pollution and the exhaustion of natural resources, people have already formed a conditioned reflex, when the wind blows, the grass bends with it, and quickly hang these things on the hook of “carbon”, and attempted to get rid of carbon at a faster rate.”
The book argues that the theory of man-made global warming is “a conspiracy between Western governments and business to protect their own way of life, at the expense of the entire developing world —in other words, 80% of the world’s population.”
Russian climate scientists have long spoken out against the theory of man-made global warming, saying the climate is heavily influenced by solar cycles. Many “reject the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming.”
India issued a National Action Plan on Climate Change in 2008 that says “No firm link between the documented [climate] changes described below and warming due to anthropogenic climate change has yet been established.” In February 2010, the Indian government established its own body to monitor the effects of global warming because it “cannot rely” on the IPCC, which is headed by its own leading scientist Dr R.K Pachauri.
The four biggest emitters of CO2 are China, the USA, Russia, then India. Their climate establishments are more or less independent, but three of the four don’t agree that humans are causing global warming.
Our media often remind us that almost all climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming. No, only most western climate scientists.
Even in the West, support is receding. In September 2010 the French Academy debated climate science—and could only agree that while the direct effects of extra CO2 were well known, the effects of the all important feedbacks were “still controversial”.
In September 2010, Britain’s Royal Society moved its position on climate change away from total support of the climate establishment toward expressing much more uncertainty. While still claiming “strong evidence” (simulations of climate models, which are merely calculations and thus not really evidence) that the global warming since 1960 “has been caused largely by human activity”, it notes that “the size of future temperature increases … are still subject to uncertainty.” The Report makes no mention of what happened before 1850. Nor did it offer explanation for why global warming did not occur from 1940 to 1975. It concludes that “It is not possible to determine exactly how much the Earth will warm or exactly how the climate will change in the future”.
————————————————-
Summary | PART I | PART 2 | PART 3 | PART 4 | PART 5 | PART 6 | PART 7 | PART 8 | PART 9 | PART 10 | PART 11
Full PDF versions for printing and emailing are available from the summary page.
Thank you for this, and for the whole series so far. It seems increasingly clear that the core arguments at the heart of CO2 alarmism stand on the speculative computer models of a handful of programmers in the UK and the USA. Their results were received with unalloyed delight by those who had other agendas, and who have managed to achieve an astonishing political impact in the UK and the USA – so much so that it seems plausible that the political revolt against them could well come from elsewhere – China, India, Germany, New Zealand, and maybe even Australia? If only China wasn’t making so much money from solar panels and windmills – good income for them, weakens the competitiveness of whoever buys them.
10
We can see the same pattern in Art history… Is the Western Art Establishment Corrupt?
In my opinion YES.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Van_Gogh_self_portrait_as_an_artist.jpg
Do Vincent van Gogh present himself as a left-handed or right-handed artist on his most famous self-portrait at the easel, 1888, (VGM Amsterdam)?
In my opinion as a lefthanded artist…and why?
The buttons are always fixed (sewed) to the right side on mens clothing and he hold his palette and brushes in his rigt hand, so I assume he painted with his left hand.
We have the same problems with the climate science, nobody knows what is right(right) and wrong (left)…
Kindest regards
Greenland Art Review
Svend Hendriksen
10
Thanks for this David,
I had not been aware of the position of the other big emitters and this post has clarified it for me.
10
A quick question for any legal eagles who visit: –
Now that Mr Rudd has done the deed & signed Australia up for the Kyoto Protocol, does it automatically mean that we are by default captives of any subsequent global agreements?
If the general consensus in the climate debate swings around to perhaps dominant( natural ) solar forcing, will the UN or any international agreements be in a position to impose their restrictions or taxes?
Perhaps the shell of the big scare campaign will be recycled & re-badged for “biodiversity” or water or maintaining a functioning global economic system in a world of un-scrupulous international financial entities.
10
Svend, I don’t really ‘get’ your point, but it was an interesting diversion. My conclusion is that he painted the portrait looking at himself in the mirror and so paints right handed. His jacket could easily have been a woman’s cloak, he was poor and may have simply been wearing it because it was handy. Alternatively, the fastening is a stud or hook and eye, with the button on the outside purely for fashion, not fastening. I can’t actually make out a button hole!
10
I love your clear and straight to the point posts, but I cannot help feeling that this one sways too much towards the “argument of authority”. After all to base an argument on the fact that China, Russia and India have a broadly common consensus is no different to the mainstream EU/American/Australian alarmist organisations pushing their own version of a “consensus” down our throats.
10
Jo,
You missed that we do NOT know ALL of how this planet works. Only a small fraction of INDIVIDUAL areas.
I’m in an area with no peers or experts in the field and that is rotation. Without this, we have a dead planet.
Physics never understood centrifugal force and put it as a psuedo-science. They missed were the center of balance in a simple circle is and ASSUMED it is at the axis. On paper yes it would for a stationary circle but in motion, it is not there.
10
A great series of articles .
Amr
10
pattoh:
October 18th, 2010 at 4:00 am
“A quick question for any legal eagles who visit: –
Now that Mr Rudd has done the deed & signed Australia up for the Kyoto Protocol, does it automatically mean that we are by default captives of any subsequent global agreements?”
Not at all. Kyoto expires in 2012, a follow-up agreement is not automatic. I just read that the Russians – they have signed Kyoto – have a surplus of 6 GT carbon credits. It was a play by the Russians; they knew they would end up with a surplus because all the obsolete and wasteful Soviet era factories would close down anyway. Under the kyoto agreement, these credits expire in 2012. The Russians now demand that they are allowed to carry them over into the next agreement. So, they wouldn’t be able to make such a demand if the follow-up agreement were automatic. They wouldn’t be able to bargain.
10
Joe Lalonde…
We do indeed know most of the physical, chemical and biological aspects of planet Earth. However, I would put it to you that when one attempts to combine all the various scientific data in order to arrive at say, a weather forecast for a particular day in the near future, things become a little difficult, especially in e.g., UK. When that attempt turns into a global climate prediction, then the various anomalies of solar activity, volcanic eruption on land and sub-sea, oceanic currents, tropospheric jet stream and so on, to name but a few of the variables, that forecast becomes nigh on impossible to predict.
I am not sure where centripetal acceleration enters the equation, but, sure, without a tilt to the Earth’s axis there would be no seasons as we know them, and without rotation on that axis life would certainly be different.
10
You can squabble over the precise details of the science for ever. But anyone who seriously believes that the whole world will put aside their competing political self-interests, and reduce their energy consumption to preindustrial levels…. really is off with the fairies.
Of course if the West wants to go down this path, then China is more than happy to help them along!
10
The other fundamental difference between the east and west, is that the east doesn’t suffer from wealth guilt.
10
Where CO2 Goes
“In Conclusion
To me, this map makes it very clear that the consumption of Oil does nothing to promote CO2 sourcing, but the presence of Politicians dominates the source.
There is only one clear solution. We must plug up all the Politicians Post Haste. Superglue them shut, use a cork bung, whatever. If possible, sequester them in a gas tight landfill. Yes, it will be a terrible thing to do to them, but if it saves just one child from the horrible destruction brought by CO2 pollution, it will be “worth it”. The Climate Catastrophe is upon us, and there is no time to wait. We must act now! Do it “For The Planet” and “For the Children”!”
Read more (before commenting!) at
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/10/17/where-co2-goes/
While you are there have a look at
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/10/17/pacific-cold-heart/
10
Another Ian…
A delightful thought, but misconceived I fear, for you will never rid the world of so-called politicians.
Further, where and how have you been deluded by “the horrible destruction brought by CO2 pollution”? What, in particular are you concerned about? Without carbon dioxide you would surely die. The present approximate concentration of that awful gas is approximately 390 parts per million, far less than is required to sustain our ever-growing need to sustain an ever-growing human population, and its requisite demand for food. By burning fossil fuels, we are assisting the ecosphere (if you like) in producing more CO2 to augment plant life, on land and in the sea.
10
‘The [Chinese]book argues that the theory of man-made global warming is “a conspiracy between Western governments and business to protect their own way of life, at the expense of the entire developing world —in other words, 80% of the world’s population.”’
I don’t think “conspiracy” is quite the word. I think it is the outcome of various groups pursuing their individual self interest. I think the main groups can be summarised under the following.
1. Really big money. If you think of oil+coal+gas there is big money in just a small slice of this.
2. Small to medium money. Researchers getting salaries, grants, promotion; people such as park rangers who expect improved job security; small businesses attempting to sell such products as solar cells; landowners with a windy paddock that someone will rent to install a windmill; bureaucrats.
3. The Green Religion: complete with prophets, priests, original sin and indulgences.
4. The politics of control. Control CO2 and you control everything, without exception.
I don’t think there is any special interest in poor countries not developing; rather, that would be an unintended consequence.
10
If you want to have a look at real info showing charts and graphs for the next 20 years for all the major countries have a look at this site.
http://rainforests.mongabay.com/09-carbon_emissions.htm
For every individual country click on top left for co2 emissions since 1851.
As you’ll see the future is all about China and the developing world, what we do to reduce co2 will be replaced at a much faster rate by them, so all our efforts are a complete waste of billions/ trillions on which we will collect a zero return.
Of course we will also double electricity prices in the next 5 years plus all the flow on costs to every industry and service sector will ensure we export more of our jobs overseas.
Brilliant strategy flush billions/strategy down the toilet and swipe a knife across our collective throats all in one action and not change the climate in the slightest.
10
A BOOK!!! WOW!!! Such a credible source of information cannot be wrong!!
And yet the planet keeps getting warmer despite what the book says. Stupid planet!
10
The interesting thing about the map is that Europe is not considered to be an “emitter”.
And yet the European Union is the only region to take the politics behind Anthropogenic Global Climate [add adjective of the day] seriously. It has had its own ETS, for the EU member states, since before ink on the Kyoto Protocol was dry.
New Zealand doesn’t really count – we are only playing – our scheme was designed, in the spirit of Closer Economic Relations, to dovetail into the Australian ETS – which is now what, exactly?
It is only the EU – government by Bureaucracy – that has taken this seriously.
Even the Russians are more circumspect than the EU (although they will want a replacement for Kyoto so they can use all of those lovely credits).
And the Chinese (vying with Japan for the title of the World’s Second Largest Economic Power) are still claiming to be an emerging nation, so they will want a replacement as well, but on their own terms.
The fun is not over yet!
Asian curse: “May you live through interesting times”.
10
And yet the planet keeps getting cooler despite the manipulations of the temperature data.
10
stupid real life
10
davidc #15
There is never a conspiracy, at least not on in terms of deliberately organising something like the AG[whatever] scam.
It is just people acting in their own best interests, and taking the opportunities offered by the actions of others.
Even the loathsome bureaucrats work to maintain their positions and increase their personal influence.
In a way it is a laissez faire capitalistic notion – see “The Virtue of Selfishness”, Ayn Rand.
10
TWinkler # 17. If you do not see the significance of the Chinese book David has referred us to you should get your mates at Skeptical Science and RC to enlighten you. This whole issue is now ( and has been for a long time ) as much, if not more, about politics than science. The fact that the Chinese Govt. have effectively endorsed this book tells us all much about the Chinese Govt. thinking — that’s what is important.
10
Rereke – Aussies don’t know about the CER, it’s a New Zealand phenomenon. 😉
10
People keep saying that China is into renewables. 30% of their power comes from renewables they say.
That’s because China has 196 GW of hydro electric power. (Canada and the US combined) It’s Solar and wind generation is minimal, the sales of wind generators and solar panels to the west is massive.
10
Keep sticking your fingers in your ears scott. Me I find it difficult to believe the scientists have somehow fooled the ice, glaciers into melting faster than before, the satellites into thinking the SST are getting warmer, the ecology from thinking spring starts earlier.
Just how do they “adjust” those flowers scott?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/advancing-spring-global-warming.htm
10
Twinkler, I may have fingers in my ears but you have blinkers and patches on your eyes and are seeing things that just are not there.
PS my flowers and plants are growing just fine how are yours?
10
Like yours, blooming earlier than usual.
10
Mine are later than normal so we average out at normal then
10
(SNIP) CTS
10
TWinkler writes at post # 17:
From the posted article is what you dishonestly leave out:
They are not stating that there is no warming going on.They are saying that the AGW hypothesis should be rejected because it has not been verified to be a good hypothesis.
Twinkler you are deliberately trying to sow confusion,with your drivel.
10
Exclusive Interview: Lord Monckton, Former Advisor to Margaret Thatcher,
Talks About NWO Master Plan
Special Lord Monckton Interview:
Scientific Misconduct Needed to Push NWO Objective
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHyMYEzRyf8&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUUcb36a_4I&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rA0xEM1KwG4&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7o1S4m5mCw&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieC7HYC5cto&feature=player_embedded
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/
Science is increasingly being manipulated by those who try to use it to justify political choices based on their ethical preferences and who are willing to suppress evidence of conflict between those preferences and the underlying reality. This problem is clearly seen in two policy domains, health care and climate policy.
Executive Summary
Science is increasingly being manipulated by those who try to use it to justify political choices based on their ethical preferences and who are willing to suppress evidence of conflict between those preferences and the underlying
reality. This problem is clearly seen in two policy domains, health care and climate policy.
In the area of climate policy, recent revelations of e-mails from the government-sponsored Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia reveal a pattern of data suppression, manipulation of results, and efforts to intimidate journal editors to suppress contradictory studies that indicate that scientific misconduct has been used intentionally to manipulate a social consensus to support the researchers’ advocacy of addressing a problem that may or may not exist.
In health care policy, critics have long worried about the inordinate influence of pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers on research to show the safety and viability of new products. Recent information, however, shows that government agencies may cause more problems in this area—a worrisome development considering that health care legislation recently passed by the United States Senate would allow federal agencies to punish organizations whose researchers publish results that conflict with what the agency feels is appropriate.
That bill allows the withholding of funding to an institution where a researcher publishes findings not “within the bounds of and entirely consistent with the evidence,” a vague authorization that creates a tremendous tool that can be used to ensure self-censorship and conformity with bureaucratic preferences. As AcademyHealth notes, “Such language to restrict scientific freedom is unprecedented and likely unconstitutional.”
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/scientific_misconduct.pdf
10
TWinkler
This and all your anecdotal “evidence” do not support that CO2 emissions by mankind are at all responsible.
How do you know that the planet is getting warmer? If you have been following along you will see that there are serious doubts about the veracity of the temperature records. We only have thermometer records going back to a hundred and fifty odd years. And there have been some mysterious adjustments made to these records that prima facie suggest that older records have been adjusted down and later records adjusted up. Some might conclude that we cannot tell whether temperatures are rising or falling because of the problem with these records.
Even if we take a view that temperatures have risen, no one has established a causal link between increasing anthropogenic CO2 and that temperature rise or any of the other results you seem to attribute to it. “One swallow does not a spring make.” “Correlation is not necessarily causation.”
10
ON THE SAME SUBJECT, FOLLOW THE MONEY
http://www.financialpost.com/cash+sands/3675309/story.html
excerpt
Since 2000, Tides Canada has been paid at least US$56-million by American charitable foundations. In 2007 and 2008, Tides Canada received US$34-million and ranked 14th in the world in terms of funding from U.S. foundations. Obviously, something about Tides Canada is very important to its American funders.
Tides, and the U.S. foundations that fund it, have incredibly deep pockets. A large part of Tides’ funding comes from the Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation, the William & Flora Hewlett Foundation, the David & Lucile Packard Foundation, the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. These are The Big Five. They give away about US$1.2-billion every year. If these foundations decide to undermine a foreign industry, they probably can.
These Big Five have poured at least US$190-million into Canada’s environmental movement over the last decade, but their American logos are nowhere to be seen. Instead, we see a pageant of Canadian icons: dogwood, herds of caribou, wild salmon, First Nations and loons. U.S. tax returns show that the David Suzuki Foundation has been paid at least US$10-million from American foundations. This hasn’t exactly been out in the open.
10
P.S.
“The best way to win the argument is to control both sides.”
Pew was also founded by the Rockefeller interests.
10
The field for the next environmental battle in Australia has been set. This is slightly O/T but here’s The Australian on the bauxite mine project that was just canned because of an arbitrary boundary set by a minister in relation to the Wild Rivers legislation:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/wild-rivers-laws-blamed-for-axing-of-cape-york-bauxite-project/story-fn59niix-1225940102473
10
TWinkler, anecdotal evidence can be very much a two-edged sword. An oldie but a goodie here;
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
10
Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth’s Temperature
Water vapor and clouds are the major contributors to Earth’s greenhouse effect, but a new atmosphere-ocean climate modeling study shows that the planet’s temperature ultimately depends on the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide.
The study, conducted by Andrew Lacis and colleagues at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, examined the nature of Earth’s greenhouse effect and clarified the role that greenhouse gases and clouds play in absorbing outgoing infrared radiation. Notably, the team identified non-condensing greenhouse gases — such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons — as providing the core support for the terrestrial greenhouse effect.
Without non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapor and clouds would be unable to provide the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect. The study’s results will be published Friday, Oct. 15 in Science.
A companion study led by GISS co-author Gavin Schmidt that has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that carbon dioxide accounts for about 20 percent of the greenhouse effect, water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent, and minor gases and aerosols make up the remaining five percent.
However, it is the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon dioxide, that is the key factor in sustaining Earth’s greenhouse effect. By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth’s greenhouse effect.
CO2: The Thermostat that Controls Earth’s Temperature
Taking the Measure of the Greenhouse Effect
10
Not certain where else to put this comment. It may be very relevant to this thread, but I’m not implying anything yet. The discrepancy I’m about to mention may have been due to a simple misread by me or by someone at the other end.
The last two mornings here in the hills south of Kempsey have been freezing. I know that there was frost in some places on Sunday morning.
When I checked the data yesterday, the minimum for Sunday was 3.0. I’m almost certain that’s what I saw on the Elders website. The coldest minimum on record, 2.8, occurred on the first day of October in 1992, so 3.0 on the 17th is freakish. I sat up and noticed, so it’s unlikely I misread.
This morning, yesterday’s minimum had been amended on the Elders website to 3.5.
It’s been in my mind for some time that we should all be making copies of published weather records of our respective localities. I know in my locality there is some very interesting data, particularly the monthly mean temp records, which show all the highest maxima occurring between 1910 and 1920, except for august, which had it’s hottest average maximum in 1946.
I’d hate it if that data were to be mysteriously amended. That’s all I’m saying for now. Like I said, it may have been a simple error. The problem is, twenty years ago it could only have been a simple error. Now we wonder.
10
@Spatch:
Yeah more modeling passed off as science.
Do they count ‘Call of Duty’ as science now too?
from the Nasa site:
“Our climate modeling simulation should be viewed as an experiment in atmospheric physics”
They hope that people cant tell the difference between a computer model where the results are built into the assumptions and an actual experiment in atmospheric physics. How stupid are these people and will ‘Science’ survive their abandonment of editorial rigour?
10
@spatch 37.
You seem not to have read Dr Roy Spencer PHD, very widely????!!
He covered this aspect in some detail – and debunked it.
hmmm
10
Spatch @37
Wow, Gavin’s got a model. The skeptics are shaking in their boots.
My conclusion is that their paper does not present new scientific insight but is actually an op-ed presented in the guise of a research paper by Science magazine.
And then there is this:
After assuming clouds and water vapor are no more than feedbacks upon temperature, the Lacis et al. paper then uses a climate model experiment to ‘prove’ their paradigm that CO2 drives climate — by forcing the model with a CO2 change, resulting in a large temperature response!
Well, DUH. If they had forced the model with a water vapor change, it would have done the same thing. Or a cloud change. But they had already assumed water vapor and clouds cannot be climate drivers.
One day after publication and the laugh brigade has already begun. This paper is going to rank right up there with Schneider’s ‘black list’ garbage. It’s just plain silly. It isn’t even wrong.
10
Spatch and others have jumped on the new NASA paper supposedly proving CO2 is the dominant greenhouse gas; the PR for the paper says this:
“Without the sustaining support by the non-condensing greenhouse gases, Earth’s greenhouse effect collapsed as water vapor quickly precipitated from the atmosphere, plunging the model Earth into an icebound state — a clear demonstration that water vapor, although contributing 50 percent of the total greenhouse warming, acts as a feedback process, and as such, cannot by itself uphold the Earth’s greenhouse effect.”
This is really dumb. The main form of atmospheric vapor are clouds; if vapor precipitates from the sky and isn’t replaced because CO2 forcing is low, what happens is less cloud and a HOTTER world as these paper shows:
http://www.scienceonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/320/5873/195
http://thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/observational-and-model-evidence-for-positive-low-level-cloud-feedback.pdf
In fact the NASA paper contradicts the Clements paper; the Clements paper says this:
“The only model that passed this test simulated a reduction in cloud cover over
much of the Pacific when greenhouse gases were increased, providing modeling evidence for a
positive low-level cloud feedback.”
That is an increase in CO2 caused a decrease in clouds which caused warming; the NASA paper says that a decrease in CO2 will decrease, in effect, clouds, but will lead to a cooling.
The paper is also wrong about the relative greenhouse contributions of H2O and CO2 as this shows:
http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/ramanathan-coakley-1978-role-of-co2.png
As can be seen the ratio of greenhouse effect between CO2:H2O is 9:25; H2O has 2.5 times the greenhouse effect of CO2. In addition the CO2 cycle is a subsiduary of the H2O cycle which is a solar proxy:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007JD008431.shtml
10
I read Roy’s opinion of the Lacis paper. Did you read Lacis’s reply to Roy?
Roy – As you say, we most certainly were not attempting to be deceptive in any way. We were in fact trying to be as clear and transparent as possible in our illustration of the “radiative forcing” by non-condensing GHGs versus “feedback response” by water vapor and clouds.
In regard to Mars, we actually did have an explanation for Mars’ feeble greenhouse effect (due to much smaller pressure broadening of absorption lines) despite larger CO2 amount than Earth. We are lucky to have kept the planetary table since “the paper was already far too long, and that was something that everybody knew already anyway”, according to the science editor.
I am also in basic agreement with your assessment that “there is not much new here … that the model produces about what is expected”.
The attribution that CO2 accounts for about 25% of the (33 K) total greenhouse effect is contained in the GHG radiative forcing formulas tabulated in the Hansen et al (1988) paper. We also knew then from 1-D model calculations that water vapor accounted for about 50%, and clouds 25% of the total greenhouse strength. At about that time, we tried running a GCM experiment similar to the current Science experiment, but it blew up because the GCM physics couldn’t handle it.
All along, the objective in climate modeling has been to improve the physical realism of the GCM formulations. This has been easy enough to do for radiation, but evaporation, condensation, and boundary layers processes require the use of empirical relationships. (Nothing wrong with using empirical relationships as long as long as their range of validity is not exceeded.)
So, ModelE physics is sufficiently robust (compared to the earlier GCM) to handle the effects of the large forcing due to zeroing out the non-condensing GHGs, and thus making the Science experiment possible. I want to stress that water vapor and clouds are not somehow being relegated to being “feedbacks” – they are what they are as determined by the evaporation and condensation relationships – not exactly first principles physics, but tested and validated against field measurements nevertheless. However, their radiative effects are always being rendered accurately, whatever their distribution may be.
Thus, in regard to interpretation of the climate experiment results, it may depend on what the word ‘model’ means to the reader as to what he thinks is being assumed and what is based strictly on “physics”. So, we know that water vapor and clouds are feedbacks, but it is not because we assume it.
The comment on what would happen if we had zeroed out (or doubled) water vapor and clouds is right on target. We do in fact intend to perform these water vapor and cloud forcing experiments just as soon as some IPCC required runs are completed.
We know just what to expect. When run to equilibrium both the zeroed and doubled experiments should revert to the control run conditions, since water vapor and clouds are feedbacks, and as such, should not incur any kind of “forced” departure from the control run equilibrium level. Of interest to climatologists is the timescale with which the model runs will converge to their equilibrium point.
Since the initial radiative forcing for these runs will be about a factor of 3 larger than that of Science paper run, there is no guarantee that the boundary layer, cloud scheme, or some energy conversion might blow up because their range of validity might have been exceeded. The radiation model will easily handle the corresponding heating and cooling rates since we have run such cases before.
But that is the whole point of climate model development, to construct models with robust enough physics to handle all cases that might have occurred in the geological record. Running extreme climate experiments helps to identify model weak points.
One further comment on climate feedbacks. As noted by Aires and Rossow (2003), feedback sensitivity is state dependent, so there is no such thing as a climate feedback factor that is in any sense a “constant” of the climate system. Defined over the entire atmosphere, clouds contribute 25% of the total greenhouse effect. But for small perturbations relative to current climate, there is question whether cloud feedback is positive or negative depending on whether it is a function of latitude, height, season, or is expressed as a global average of some sort.
Similarly water vapor is an overall positive feedback on global average, but there may be isolated circumstances or localities where it may act as a negative feedback, as Lindzen envisions.
In reply Roy said:
Andy:
Thanks for taking the time to offer input here.
I agree with all you have said.
(BTW, I very much enjoyed visiting with you after my feedback talk at the Fall AGU meeting last year. I do respect your work.)
10
So if I get this right, Gavin and friends are now moving completely out of reality, which involves observing nature and measuring data to test hypotheses to simply basing papers on computer models? and the model predicts what the model was programmed to demonstrate?
That’s astounding news…
10
Spatch:
October 18th, 2010 at 11:06 am
*it is the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon dioxide, that is the key factor*
What this statement omits is that CO2 is a water soluble gas. Water vapour contains no CO2, when it condenses it still contains no CO2*. As a water droplet falls through air containing CO2 it dissolves said CO2. When the dilute solution of carbonic acid strikes the Earth some of it reacts with any alkaline soil/rocks forming carbonates, which are solids. It can thus be said that CO2 is indirectly condensible. A paper that leaves out such elementary chemistry when making blanket statements leaves one to wonder what else they have omitted.
*I realise that water droplets in clouds will absorb CO2 from the local atmosphere. This will continue until the pCO2 in the droplets equals the pCO2 in the air. The concentration of CO2 gas in the air will be reduced. At the altitude of clouds atmospheric pressure is reduced below surface pressure. A falling raindrop will encounter CO2 at both higher concentration and pressure compared to what is in the cloud. To maintain the pressure balance more CO2 will dissolve in the droplet. This removes CO2 from the atmosphere.
Additionally, when some of the dissolved CO2 in surface water has been removed by chemical processes it will absorb more from the atmosphere to maintain the pressure balance. This will again be available for chemical reaction, removing yet more CO2 from the atmosphere.
10
Hey all you ten ten ten-ers? How is that eugenics deadline thingy working out for you? Ever thought of volunteering instead of waiting for them to cull someone else? Wink wink§;~)
As for gases which have now been proven to be inconveniently benign, meaning so called “greenhouse” gases such as water vapour or Co2, rumour has it that the tired old hypothesis that the earth’s atmosphere is a “sealed system which is getting too full” is winding down. Turns out that the globe has its own “self regulating global thermostat” which puts the lie to the entire greenhouse gas premise of a building THREAT. They forgot to study things like clouds!
Lie after lie is crumbling as we speak. Here are links to what is many months old news on that front:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5850
NASA added the ‘x-factor’ into their man-made global warming equations and wrongly doubled the greenhouse gas effect. It’s due to vectors, says new research. Independent analysts who recently examined NASA’s Earth’s energy budget numbers have found climatologists working for the U.S. space agency have not been applying the mathematical rules applicable to vectors in their greenhouse gas equations, at least since 1997.
The monumentally embarrassing oversight multiplied the heating properties of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) by an extra factor of two: the so-called hidden ‘x-factor.’
Whether the error was intentional or accidental may never be proved. One NASA climate expert quit over the global warming controversy.
Retired scientist, Alan Siddons uncovered the hidden error from an admission made by NASA’s Gavin Schmidt on his ‘Real Climate’ website in John Sullivan’s article, ‘Charged in New Climate Data Fakery: Greenhouse Gas Data Bogus.’
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5810
Shock new evidence of a NASA scientist faking a fundamental greenhouse gas equation shames beleaguered space administration in new global warming fraud scandal.
Caught in the heat are NASA’s Dr. Judith Curry and a junk science equation by the space agency’s Dr. Gavin Schmidt creating disarray over a contentious Earth energy graph.
The internal row was ignited by the release of a sensational new research paper discrediting calculations crucial to the greenhouse gas theory.
NASA in Internal Spat over Data
Hot on the heels of my recent scoop that the U.S. space agency may have suppressed evidence from the Apollo Moon landings that invalidated the greenhouse gas (GHG) theory, an internecine fury among NASA employees over fudged equations is set to further embarrass the current U.S. Administration’s stand on global warming.
Word is getting round that junk equations were threaded into the GHG theory to artificially inflate the heating effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by a factor of two.
The spark to this cataclysmic revelation was lit in April 2007 after a public gaffe (see below) by the space administration’s Dr. Gavin Schmidt, who fronts popular pro-global warming website, ‘Real Climate.’
Click PDF file to read FULL report from John O’Sullivan
http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/GreenhouseGasTheoryDiscredited.pdf
10
Mia Nony@46
There’s not enough time to debunk all of the nonsense in your post
This should be corrected though…
Judith Curry is not employed by NASA
http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/
Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. She is a member of the National Research Council’s Climate Research Committee.
Check out her blog here
10
Hi Jo Nova (RE your censoring of my post #36 at http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/shock-climate-models-cant-even-predict-linear-rise/comment-page-3/#comment-107444):
This is slightly off topic.
You say:
Your censorship of my comment (#36) suggests that I struck a nerve. If it was just a moronic comment I’m sure you would have left it there for your audience to laugh at and to attack as sport.
It seems that you don’t like people criticising what is emerging to be the global warming theory of choice for climate “sceptics” – that AGW (and possibly unattributed global warming in general) is nothing but a conspiracy. For a group who are so extraordinarily rigorous about science that they don’t accept most of the reasoning or evidence of climate scientists, isn’t it astonishing that their theory, which seems to hold almost consensus support, is a conspiracy theory without a shred of supporting evidence?
It seems, Jo, that you got really touchy when I suggested that the “climate sceptic” movement could just be a bunch of “big gummint” oppositionists who have a tendency to believe a broad range of conspiracy theories that directly involve government (for example theories involving a New World Order, Illuminati, Bilderberg Group, Trilateral commission, Obama, 9/11, or fluoride or vaccine denial). I also think that the correlation between someone believing that AGW is fraudulent and believing unrelated pseudoscience nonsense (such as creationism, cold fusion, free energy, or nutty theories about Nicola Tesla) is significantly higher than the correlation between people who accept the AGW theory and believe in some pseudoscientific theory (which is unrelated to AGW, for those who claim that AGW is pseudoscientific).
Jo, whenever one of your darlings runs out of answers, they can always be guaranteed to revert to “but it’s all a fraud I tells ya” or “it’s a whitewash”, with no compelling evidence. It’s mightily hard to be an “informed” climate “sceptic” if you don’t believe that the AGW theory is fraudulent.
10
Binny @11 and 12.
You have identified a truth that few of our erstwhile journalists have. At the risk of being a boor I remind all to take a look at Climate Spectator and one Giles Parkinson. Hardly a day goes by when Giles does not point to the fact that China is leaving us for dead in addressing climate change. He is an advocate of wind turbines too so that may tell you about his state of mind. Unfortunately he is not the only journalist who is a rabid AGW adherent.
These folks see the Chinese as shining lights when we know the Chinese are very good at looking after their own interests just as we should. The Chinese know that idiots like Combet and Gillard are deluded enough to wreck Australia’s economy with a carbon tax just as they are willing to wreck our mining industry with a mining tax. They also know that they will be the beneficiary of both taxes. As for the claim the Chinese lead the world in production of wind turbines and solar panels journalists like Giles should note that the Chinese are using very few themselves but exporting to the dillusional such as ourselves.
10
Hi Jo,
Your little signature is:
The troposphere hot spot is theoretically observable if any warming occurs, regardless of whether the warming is caused by greenhouse gases (please provide evidence for your assertion that the tropic hotspot is uniquely attributable to greenhouse gases).
In the article that you endorse, David says:
Then David says:
Perhaps there is a conflict of interest? I mean, if these nations admit that AGW is happening and something must be done, then they have to replace their fossil-fuel based technology. No government relishes the thought of implementing mitigation measures.
And doesn’t this contradict the “sceptics'” theory that AGW is a “big gummint” propagated fraud?
10
Oh dear@48, nicely said. Jo and other organisers of the anti-AGW movement are not too fussy about the people they have as supporters. Indeed, as long as you don’t believe in AGW, you are in. Be careful though, if you believe in some of AGW (for example, that our burning fossil fuels is causing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere to increase), then you may be classified as a “luke-warmer”, and not be admitted into the inner sanctum.
The stresses and strains between within the loose coalition of anti-AGW supporters come to the surface every now and then. On this blog, Richard S. Courtney had to chastise people for giving him too many “thumbs down”, because he’d quoted from the IPCC (shudder, make sign of cross). That what he was saying seemed reasonable, and that it supported the anti-AGW side, didn’t matter. No, he quoted from the IPCC. Bad.
So yes, the anti-AGW crowd are full of conspiracy nuts, and just plain nuts, and cheer leaders, and also sensible people. Holding them all together is quite an achievement. Well done Jo!
10
oh dear@48
You hit the nail on the head mate.
The hard core sceptics/deniers are pretty much all conspiracy theory nutters. In their deluded minds AGW is just another conspiracy to add to their ever expanding list.
10
Mr Moran is making some sensible arguments on Unleashed at the ABC:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/40158.html
Much like the NBN, the Rainbow Coalition that is the current Federal Government , expects us to sign up for a price on CO2 (and other GHG) emissions without looking at the full benefit:cost of such a policy. Mr Moran is sensibly asking the question that is yet to be examined.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Generalise much Spatch? Does everyone in the world fall into neat little boxes in your mind? As a skeptic I must be a right-wing, baby-eating, conspiracy nutter, yes?
If you expect to be taken seriously, at least attempt to make sensible, non-inflammatory arguments. Oh and BTW, unlike Real Climate and SkepticalScience this web site and WUWT actually allow contrary views… what a concept eh? If only your AGW web sites weren’t echo chambers they might have some credibility.
10
Well done Jo . Based on posts 48 ,50 ,51 % 52
you are getting “under a few people’s skin !!”
10
First point:
Year-to-Date Global Temperature Ties for Warmest on Record
Second point:
You claim the temperature data has been manipulated and that the planet keeps getting cooler. Who’s temperature data are you using to back up your claim that the planet keeps getting cooler?
—————-
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Sept_10.gif
—————-
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
—————-
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.lrg.gif
.
10
Oh great… now Spatch has gone to that other bastion of climate gibberish… the GISS. This has to be the most unreliable temperature set in existence. Don’t get me started on missing thermometers, UHI, filling in arctic regions in red where no data exists etc…
You’ll notice that apart from two major El Nino’s the UAH set shows the temperatures travelling sideways (i.e. no significant increasing nor decreasing trend).
10
@ Spatch
Thats easy its called a jumper and the heater still on. Reality beats a set of corrupt numbers every time
10
Feel better now John?
You don’t have to post or even visit here, you know. You don’t get under anyone’s skin as your ramblings have less impact than a gnat’s flatus in a cyclone.
Do yourself a favor and google “Lysenko”. By doing so you might begin to undertand what happens when politics trumps science.
10
Bulldust@56
You’ll notice that the UAH set shows a 0.6 deg.C increase in temps since 1979. That is not “temperatures travelling sideways” as you claim, it is temperature travelling upwards.
10
LOL. Sideways temperature. That’s a new one!!
10
Bulldust @ 56
Come on guys, you can do better than to still think the planet is cooling.
Try hadcrut3 – same story, temps go up
10
Could play a little game here with the “Contiguous 48” annual mean temps;
Try the last 30 years.
Then the last 20.
Then the last 10.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
I hear this mob are a reputable source…?
10
Tell us more about the brave new totalitarian regime we can expect here in Australia, as you mentioned in your post I quoted.
10
I think it is important to distinguish between a “sKeptic” and a “sCeptic” when referring to AGW doubters.
SKEPTIC = Essential to the scientific process — an experienced or trained individual within the field that they are contributing to. A Skeptic has SPECIFIC questions over SPECIFIC issues contained within the research or literature and who USUALLY provides their own research in counterpoint thereby adding to the knowledge base. All part of the process which propels science along to an ever more refined point.
SCEPTIC = “So Called Experts Perpetually Talking In Circles”. These individuals make broad sweeping pronouncements and often believe in Machiavellian conspiracies involving climate scientists, the UN, Al Gore and university investigation panels. They have a propensity to elevate non-scientists (Monkton, Horner, Inhofe, et. all) to the level of climate expert based solely on whether this “expert” has opinions that the Sceptic can mentally accept and they RARELY cite proper evidence in support of their arguments.
10
‘ “there were periods in the history of the Earth when CO2 levels were a million times higher than today, and life continued to evolve quite successfully,” agrees Vladimir Arutyunov of the Russian Academy of Sciences Institute of Chemical Physics ‘
That’s a quote (or maybe misquote) from The Hindu opinion piece by Vladimir Radyuhin, linked to by Dr Evans.
I agree that, over time, CO2 is appearing to be much less of a problem than initially feared, but surely that “million times higher” is not correct and only hands ammunition to the alarmists.
10
Hi Drewski #64
“sceptic” is pronounced with a silent “c”.
10
Bulldust@53
I frequent all the sites you list and you are wrong. Real Climate and SkepticalScience do allow contrary views on climate science.
You may have a problem getting posts accepted though if you just go there spouting out views along the lines of AGW is a fraud and a UN scam in order to implement a One World Government etc, etc.
10
spatch@43; nice cherry-picking mate. The link to Spencer’s comments with Lacis are here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/10/does-co2-drive-the-earths-climate-system-comments-on-the-latest-nasa-giss-paper/#comments
spatch’s selective editing makes it seem as though Spencer is agreeing with Lacis’s paper. He is not as the following comments clearly indicate:
“I am merely pointing out that, before people infer that your paper has “proved” that CO2 is the main climate driver and other components are more “responders”, this is still an assumption for long term climate change. In my mind, you are putting some long-needed computational details behind your (and others’) particular view of what forces climate change, which is indeed useful.
In my alternative view, the warming over the last 30 years (or even any centennial time scale temperature change) can be the result of low-frequency oceanic circulation changes that affect either planetary albedo, or average precipitation efficiency (and thus free-tropospheric humidity).
The fact that coupled climate models like those from GISS actually produce such non-feedback variations on shorter time scales shows up in those phase space plots of temperature versus radiative flux I am always talking about. The big question is whether such things can be forced by oceanic circulation changes, which then necessitates that ocean AND atmospheric processes have to be well understood.
Unfortunately, our long-term global datasets are not accurate enough to document whether such changes have happened. So, the science establishment has implicated what we know HAS changed: carbon dioxide.
I just try to make people aware that CO2 has not yet been *proved* to be the main culprit in climate change. They are misled into believing it has through the simplifications added by people like Al Gore, and through the media.”
And also through cherry-picking varmits like spatch.
The fact is that Spencer’s work shows that clouds in particular exhibit stochastic properties which makes them a forcing of temperature not a feedback to CO2’s forcing of temperature.
Anyway spatch has not addressed my links at 42; and until he does he can wander around here with oh dear, who I suspect is that donut-eating bushwacker luke, wearing the brand of troll.
10
Hmmm…The same “drewski” who got pounded at tAV recently, I wonder?
Just what is it with warmist trolls who can’t stand to think that others might not share their belief system. If it’s pointed out to them that they have a similar mindset to Stalin or Hitler they become apoplectic.
If the cap fits…
10
Spatch @ 67:
BBZZZZTTT! Thanks for playing though. I posted a couple of polite question on RC regarding the Briffa trees (i.e. asking about the number of the sample) at the time of the second major hockey stick controversy. Despite being on topic and being polite they were deemed worthy of the bit bucket.
RC does not like answering the informed sceptical questions… what you see them letting through is the material that is easy to debate because the questioner is not particularly well informed and therefore easy to rebutt.
RC did start letting more material through after ClimateGate because they realised their credibility would be shot if they did not, but they are back up to their old tricks now… rest assured of that.
10
Apopleptic.
10
drewski @ 64:
You do realise that sceptic and skeptic are simply the UK and USA spellings of the same word (respectively), right? I use the two spellings interchangeably depending on my mood because I have lived for some years in both countries (and a number of others).
10
Spatch @ 63:
Clearly you are not too quick on the sarcasm pickup… I suggest a few regular doses of Yes Minister and your condition should clear up in no time. I have a tendancy to make sarcastic quips as a way of getting a point across… that you think it is meant as a literal interpretation in that particular remark shows something about how desperate you are to troll this site.
10
Spatch @ 59:
My Gods you have posted a lot of drivel in the last couple hours. Try a statistics course 101 at any institution. Even Phil Jones recognised that there was no statistically significant trend in the last decade or so… if you have trouble recognising the difference between signal and noise in statistics then I guess you will have to resort to cherry-picking as you just did, but don’t expect anyone with a smattering of statistics in their CV to take you seriously.
But please, be my guest, keep picking end points of your chosing and draw whatever line you please… it’s entertaining.
10
Man these Catastrafarians do waffle on don’t they.
No pressure you guys, no pressure.
10
scott@57
I asked you this question:
And you answered with:
From your answer we can assume then that just because the weather is cold where you live then the entire globe is also colder, and it is in fact getting cooler right?
You supply no evidence that the globe is cooling other than having to wear a jumper and the heater still on.
…
10
Hi MadJak #75
You say:
Sounds like you’ve run out of answers.
10
@ Spatch
You supply no evidence that the globe is warming due to man
10
Bulldust@73
Sarcasm you reckon….yer right, whatever.
Were you being sarcastic when you claimed here that you were the one responsible for the phrase “climategate”?
Bulldust@59
Nice cherry-pick…
10
Gee its a bummer when the reality gets in the way of a good warmist story
10
Hi Cohenite #68
You say:
If you’re so confident in your belief, please refute the assertions in http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf
The challenge is to do it without using the word “fraud”.
10
Hi Bulldust #74
You say
That’s because a decade is too short to make definitive claims about global warming trends. He didn’t say that there was no warming.
10
One of the lessons I’ve learnt while following this topic, is that it is best to check anything claimed by CAGW
lunaticsfanatics.The UAH trend since 1979 is 0.45°C (1.5°C/ century), according to IPCC science, at least 50% (0.75°C/ century) of which is over 90% due to human CO2 emissions.
Over the period 1950 – 2010 for which the IPCC claims that human emissions were the overwhelming climate driver, the trend has been ~1.2°C / century, 50% of which is 0.6°C/ century.
Now assuming the IPCC is correct in its assumptions (which I don’t) and bearing in mind the logarithmic decreasing GHG effect of added atmospheric CO2, if Spatch or any of the other
lunaticsfanatics haunting this and other similar sites think that potential temperature trend is enough, picking one example, to close down Australia’s coal mines, they are truly nuts.10
@scott
You supply no evidence that the globe is cooling, other than having to wear a jumper and the heater still on.
lololol
10
manalive@83
You dispute the figures. Fine. You’ll have to take it up with Dr.Roy Spencer, not me.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Sept_10.gif
10
Spatch
The photograph on your posts – is it the same one you use
in the personal adverts to meet new ‘friends’ ?
10
oh dear@ 81; you are obviously not luke; for your information I did not say that; Roy Spencer did.
10
I am currently writing from an area that is known as the Hawaii of Canada, a most desirable spot within our vast nation, generally thought to be the most moderate and benign climate in Canada. Here it has been uncharacteristically near or at freezing at night for well over a week, the earliest ever, be it in anyone’s farmer’s almanac or living memory or even in the non rigged real weather records. Of course all the northern based Canadian temperature stations located in all the more representative northerly cold spots in most locations in our rather large country of Canada were long ago closed down, presumably in order to skew toward a warmer global faux reading. That aside, it is really very cold here again tonight in southern coastal British Columbia as in “keep the woodstove going” cold. Healthy active people’s feet feel cold, even indoors in a well insulated house while wearing Merino socks. It hasn’t been this prematurely frosty this early in autumn since the late great 1970s. Come to think of it that was around the time of the last doomsday forecast of an imminent man made ice age, as portrayed in Toime magazine and elsewhere, and as touted by the late not so great flip flop “scientist, that chameleon Stephen Schneider.
All this entertainment and lusting after negative certainty on the part of the average appocaholic troll kind of reminds me of that great 1960s Beyond The Fringe skit about forecasting the End of the World, the bit where the Jim Jones/Al Gore cult leader preacher pronounces… “and the valleys shall rise, and the mountains shall sink, and great shall be the tumult thereof, I should think” Really a very deja vu skit worth checking out on Youtube.
To Spatch @ 76:
To paraphrase:
From your comment can we assume then that just because the weather may be warmer where you live then the entire globe is also warmer, and it is in fact getting warmer, right?
You supply no fact based evidence that the globe is currently warming.
10
It’s cold here too Mia.
Last year I’d purchased an aircon unit because it was up and down around 43C outside.
there you go.
10
Mia Nony,
Must be nice in your 0.001% of the world — in your “Hawaii”.
In the 1960s the average record setting high temperature days in a year (GLOBALLY) was almost exactly the same number of record setting cold days — nature in balance, I suppose. It has been getting further out of balance every decade since and this past decade saw that ratio change from 50:50 to 2.7:1 in favor of warm record days.
MY QUESTION TO YOU IS: (a) Did Michael Mann make up these numbers himself? or (b) Was it Al Gore’s idea?
10
Hi Mia #88
You say:
Congratulations, you’ve just shown that AGW doesn’t exist. Well done!!!! That’s a Nobel prizewinning achievement.
I can rest easy now.
10
Jo
It amazes me that the IPCC is so confident of the AGW hypothesis, despite what the “peer” bodies in other countries are saying. If the IPCC evidence is so strong, why don’t they simply point out the logical errors made by the others, and move on.
Or could it be that the IPCC “evidence” is missing?
Cheers,
Speedy.
10
If they’d loved it, they would have gone with it.
they didn’t go with it.
10
The CCC monotonous mantra is predictable. The claim never varies. ALL climate is now bad. The real position has become that no matter WHAT the weather or the temperature, it matters not if it is glorious, sunny, ideal, moderate, or if it is cloudy, rainy, or snow. All signs point to only one outcome, disaster. It can be windy, windless, there can be a seasonal heat wave, warm, cool, just right, or freezing cold, drought or flooding where there has always been both, or the climate may be just mildly dry, a pause between rains, or an occasional drizzle,but there is one constant. And that is that the recurring theme of imminent catastrophe never varies. It is always the same skewed perspective, that in every single kind of weather, be it wonderfully benign or an adverse weather event, no matter what kind of weather it is, this has now become absolute proof of just two things:
1) warming
2) all warming is bad.
IF one thought that an appeal to reason was possible or that any actual rationality was involved in this seemingly desperate cultish need to be very very afraid and to demonize all cyclical manifestations of nature’s ever changing climate, I suppose one might then pose one question: Where does life most thrive on this planet? And which climate is most conducive to sustainable life,
a) a growing ice field or
b) a lush Co2 enhanced garden?
But we won’t go there.
10
wow – did I write that – please ignore it.
10
Speedy is SCEPTIC (So Called Expert Perpetually Talking In Circles).
Note the broad sweeping statement “despite what the “peer” bodies are saying” without actually spelling out who these peer bodies are or what they said and he offers absolutely no supporting evidence. The innuendo of course is that the IPCC is in a conspiracy otherwise why wouldn’t they “respond’ to these ghostlike peer bodies and their amazingly brutal evidence against the IPCC?
Obviously Speedy has received his yellow belt (or higher) from the Lord Monkton Academy of Mental Martial Arts. Congratulations and keep at it — maybe one day soon they will let you spar with a real scientist.
10
Mia – I suggest you get a veranda, or a porch as you call it. Sit on it and ponder.
there is no disaster.
cheers
john
10
Spatch @ 79:
No need for me to be sarcastic when I say I was the one on WUWT that coined ClimateGate… because that is simple fact (I use the same name on every blog in Australia and on climate sites – I only use a different name on gaming sites). Was I being sarcastic when I threw out the line? Absolutely. It was a cynical quip because it seemed like the kind of expose that was reminiscent of Watergate. Little did I know the media would take it and run with it, let alone all the -gates that came afterwards (GoogleGate springs to mind). So the joke was mostly on me because I was being sarcastic at the time… about the media.
As for the Phil Jones’ quote… cherry-pick*? Not so much… simple eye-balling of the UAH temperature (or RSS for that matter) shows a heck of a lot more noise than signal, so any trend line is going to be weak at best (low t-stat low R^2 because the sigma is high). Besides, sticking a straight line trend through temperature data is meaningless in the first place. As anyone that has done a bit of statistics knows, you have to have the correct functional form before attempting to run a regression-style analysis. It’s like looking at a segment of a sine curve and fitting a straight-line or exponential approximation to it… pointless.
Climate is obviously cyclical in nature and there is ample evidence showing this to be the case. All the alarmist graphs fit upward sloping trends only… the GCM models are as complex and useless as the CGE models economists are so found of. Complexity does not equate to accuracy. The main problem with climate models is that they are trying to warp the models around CO2 as the predominant exogenous variable so that they can generate alarmist forecasts… problem is that they can’t explain the past with those models without introducing severe fudge factors.
* Remember also that it was a “travesty” that the hockey team could not explain the lack of warming… no cherry-pick… just mother nature flipping the team the proverbial finger.
10
Oh Dear@77
Wow, did I provide on this post? No, I just can’t be bothered debating the catastrafarian belief system. I see it as being pointless unless you can produce some evidence to support it.
No pressure.
10
Particularly when that decade fails to support the agw hypotheses, however a hot month or so and is enough for apocalyptic utterances.
Neither answer is correct:
(a) Mann only manipulates past temps. for recent temps. Hansen is the master.
(b) Gore has never had an original idea but he knows how to take advantage of fools.
Regarding these records unless you can you provide evidence of the percentages due to natural causes, the UHI effect and AGW your comments are meaningless.
In respect of substitute Hansen
10
Drewski:
You haven’t improved have you since you posted at tAV. One day you and the other trolls posting here might learn that “peer reviewed” does not mean that God reviewed (and approved) a paper.
It simply means.
1. That the paper could be of interest to those in the field.
2. There are no obvious errors.
(But that is contentious).
3. There is no obvious plagiarism
(That also could be contentious).
Do you recall the email where Phil Jones said he would prevent a paper from being published even if it entailed re-defining what the peer reviewed literature meant? No, of course you don’t. To you It’s an illegal, stolen email and therefore doesn’t exist. Well, it’s out there in the public domain whether you like it or not. That Jones did his damndest to thwart FOIA requests is not likely to endear him historically either. Apparently you approve of fellow warmists who state they would rather destroy data than submit to legitimate FOIA requests to provide the results of taxpayer funded research.
Still, sophistry knows no bounds when it comes to the “warmers” need to justify their fraud, does it?
I do know that people of your ilk (Ehrlich, Schneider etc.) were telling me in the seventies that I was gonna freeze to death by now. They were wrong then and you are wrong now. They had a heap of dubious “science” then and you have a similar heap of stinking manure now.
Did you read my earlier post to Brookesy re Lysenko, No? Thought not. You lot never learn from historical science fraud, do you.
10
HAHAHAHA. Jennifer can’t even get her quotes right!!
10
For Janama 97
Exactly! There is no disaster. Try telling that to the kool aid-ers who equate climate with human terrorism.
BTW, thanks, we actually do sit out on large open decks, any chance we get, (sorry, no porch, but we love the Australian quintessential veranda design). We are fortunate to be able to watch fawns grazing, or light pollution free stars, or to bask in the sun, hear the wind and surf, etc.
The mind of those born to follow tends to be hard wired for fear, designed to be easily led, specifically skewed toward fear of the vast unknown.
Many warmistas- as Watts calls them – appear to be whistling apocalyptic tunes in the dark.
After all, what kind of person seeks out with unfailing evangelistic fervour any and all invariably ominous omens, feeds on climate predictions from metaphorical animal entrails, sacrificing children to make the sun rise, dedicated seekers in need of assured bleak signs and ever more frightening news of fresh man made climate disasters? What sort thrives on the underlying assumption that insignificant human beings are actually all powerful due to their own imagined impact on the universe? When did such persons get willingly conned into “believing”that their actions have the power to alter all systems for an entire planet? And why should anyone who is not fear based even listen to anyone so ill informed as to support a flimsy, failing hypothesis that the average human being has the capacity to create or to avoid creating catastrophic climate changes, just by exhaling 14,000 ppm Co2 every few seconds?
Why try to reason with or disappoint catastro-sophists? Anyone non urban who lives close to nature learns to recognize and work with myriad seasonal manifestations of climate, to plan ahead, to observe long term cycles, to accept what is often unpredictable and ever changing, a natural, if not always friendly, climate.
10
Allen Mcmahon if the answer wasn’t (a) or (b), then it must be (c) Actual unbiased and accurate record keeping.
Dan Lashof, Climate Center director at NRDC noted, 37 states in the US set record high nighttime temperatures this summer.
Summer 2010 was the hottest on record in many locations in the United States. Not only was it hot during the day, but it didn’t cool off at night. While one hot summer does not prove that global warming is happening, the long-term global trend does, according to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, among others. The long, hot summer of 2010 follows the hottest decade on record and more record high temperatures can be expected in the future as heat-trapping pollution continues to build up in our atmosphere.
Half of US Weather Stations Saw Top-Five Record Nighttime Highs
Highlights of The Worst Summer Ever? report show that about 25% of weather stations in the contiguous United States the average low temperature at night for June through August 2010 was hotter than at at time since 1895 (in other words, for many of these, since records began being kept).
East of the Mississippi River, 40% of stations recorded a new record high nighttime temperature and 80% reported high temperatures among the five hottest ever recorded. Across the entire nation, more than half of weather stations fell into this latter category.
In total record high nighttime temperatures occurred in: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
10
1) Good to see differing opinion here. TWinkler,- be not deterred by egos.
However,
2 )At #25 you mention shortening glaciers but not ones staying the same or lengthening. Rivers of ice depend upon snow supply. Short glaciers with a 10 year cycle from accumulation zone to snout are shortening and down-wasting due to a reduction in snow and a slight warming of their snouts. Long glaciers like the Baltoro have not yet seen significant change. Even if snowfall tripled and the world cooled slightly this decade (quite likely in my opinion), we’d not see the effects of that for 25 years or more. These deep and long glaciers down-waste vertically and therefore slow down and snout position depends upon both glacier speed and rate of snout melt.
It’s not as simple as hotter => shorter. Cooling => longer.
3) Bagging each other out about personal points of view is something of a waste of a valuable forum provided by (in this case) JoNova et al.
10
Mark, or ‘peer reviewed’ could mean that someone with some knowledge of the subject — say a Skeptic for example — actually reads the research.
But, as you say, peer review isn’t actually “God reviewed” and as it didn’t appear before Lord Monkton in a dream, it is probably worthless — corrupted, most likely, by the Bolivian Mafia (glaciologists and drug barons).
10
Hey Jo, could you chuck some of these other trolls off? I’m used to being “the only gay in the village” 😉
10
drewski et al.
I note that you didn’t address the point of Phil Jones’ behaviour, I’ll assume you approve of it in the same way that you would approve of the previous bunch of academic charlatans who tried to flog global freezing in the ’70s. What happened there, huh? You lot don’t like having to confront that, do you? A similar crowd of rent-seekers are at it again now and with your abysmal ignorance of even recent history, you tumble for it. Just how young and stupid are you?
Who mentioned Monckton? I didn’t. What he did say however, is that people should not take any one’s word as gospel, not even his. But hey, if you want to follow “Patchy” with his endless saga of grey science and TERI scandals, good for you.
Just don’t expect us to follow you over the cliff.
10
Mark, of course I shouldn’t take Monckton’s word on Climate Science (pssst — he doesn’t have any qualifications), but if I ever get cancer, I will be sure to use his miracle cure.
Why should I address Phil Jone’s behavior? What has that got to ocean acidification, glaciers melting or an increasing preponderance of hot days over cold? In fact, I seem to remember that there was an investigation or 3 into the stolen private emails — now what was the outcome of that? I can’t remember — perhaps you can remind me.
10
For January–September 2010, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature was 0.65°C (1.17°F) above the 20th century average of 14.1°C (57.5°F) and tied with 1998 as the warmest January–September period on record.
Meteorologist Jeff Masters, the source of the figure above, reports on the national records set this year:
Zambia recorded its hottest temperature in history Wednesday, October 13, when the mercury hit 42.4°C (108.3°F) in Mfuwe. The previous record was 42.3°C (108.1°F) set on November 17, 2005 in Mfuwe. Zambia is in the Southern Hemisphere, and we are still three months from the peak heat of summer, but the nation is sufficiently close to the Equator that record highs and lows can be set at any time during the year. Zambia is the 18th nation to record a hottest all-time temperature this year, which is a new record. The year 2007 is in second place, with 15 such records.
Amazingly, NO nations have recorded an all-time coldest temperature so far this year.
But this can’t be right — this doesn’t make sense. What about Phil Jone’s emails? Mark told me those emails PROVE that global climate disruption is all a hoax — it can’t be getting hotter.
10
Just watched quanda (Australian panel TV show). Tim Flannery is a secular saint, for managing to keep quiet while Jennifer Maharosy spoke – a favour she consistently failed to return.
It is funny to watch, Tim, the AGW alarmist, biting his tongue so as not to be accused of being an AGW bully, while Jennifer constantly interrupted. If Jo had been on, I hope she would have behaved better.
Apart from global warming, the other topic to draw Jennifer’s ire was the plan to cut irrigation allocations from the Murray-Darling river system. Ultimately, the water issue and global warming are the same – they are about the need to limit the exploitation of resources for our long term good, at the expense of our short term good. The sort of thing which conservatives usually applaud.
Put simply, the anti-AGW brigade don’t want their activities restricted for environmental goals. It is short term thinking which puts ones own interests first and says, “Blow you Jack” to everyone else.
10
You mean this Jeff Masters? http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2010/09/wundergroundcom-cofounder-jeff-masters/
You the driveled:
Hmmm…
Maybe you should check with your handlers and get some revised talking points?
10
John Brookes:
October 19th, 2010 at 12:51 am
Put simply, the CAGW brigade wages a campaign of disinformation and propaganda and the environmentalists are misanthropes who use the pretext of “saving the environment” to force us all to live in their green utopia (hell). It is a lack of critical thinking by “useful idiots” that endangers us all.
You are not one of those useful idiots, are you, John? Well, are you, John?
10
Wassamatter G/Machine, you’re not pulling the ladies with your own pic and now you want to use mine? No way buddy!
10
Mark@69
I think it’s worth expanding on this point so all the readers at JN know exactly what you’re talking about. Now, I must apologize in advance as I usually don’t comment without some scientific content but I keep hearing drivel from this guy/gal and I think it’s only fair that all readers know exactly with what/who they’re dealing with in this latest troll.
drewski made a comment at the Air Vent that was so mind-boggling ignorant, arrogant and incoherent/bizarre that Jeff Id decided to make a whole new thread strictly on this comment.
——
(*Content warning*- What you are about to read is not a script from a Hollyweird movie but a real life documented account of what a real living person actually said. Before clicking on the link viewers are encouraged to fasten seat belts, consume reallity pills and remove all beverages from within 3 feet of keyboard area).
——
As you can see, what followed was comedy gold. (Reading all 40 comments will increase the level of laughter). Notice how drewski doesn’t even bother to comment on a thread entirely dedicated to his/her schtick despite the fact that some posters are asking for more info from him/her.
So just a heads up. If you get a “Kind of blows all your arguments out of the water doesn’t it?” or a “Do us all a favor and get educated” just remember the level of troll you’re dealing with.
10
Drewski posted a howler at post # 110:
“Amazingly, NO nations have recorded an all-time coldest temperature so far this year.”
You are so wrong,as the link below convincingly shows.Gosh he even post links to EACH record lows that are reported.It laso reports unusual snow and cold weather in that link.It is a compilation that runs back to year 2003.
Other Parts of the World – 2010
Making sweeping statements like that often blows up in your face.
10
To the trolls: Do not bring up models as your evidence as we all know GIGO; Garbage In Garbage Out. Has the world been getting warmer, .6 of a degree. Wow thats some major warming we have to do something right know before we fry!!!! You have got to be kidding me!! And this talking point; UNPRECEDENTED, what is unprecedented about glaciers melting much less all the ones that are growing, Or temps in one country being alltime records while others are all time lows. Records only go back so far , 100 to 150 yrs. WE do know that we have been comiong out of the little ice age since the early to middle 1800s, so yes, we have warmed thankfully, is it out of control GOD NO!!!!!! CO2has sttill not been proven to be the problem and do not cite any papers to me unless they say and can prove with replicable evidence for sure! And they cannot have the words MOST LIKELY,PROBLBLY,SHOWS TO BE or any others of the sort. WE here at JO blog and WUWT will await your report until then goodbye.
10
Drewski at post # 109:
His behavior is symptomatic in all that is wrong about people who lack skepticism in what they read and write.When scientists behave like politicians in smoky rooms behind thick doors.You know they are not being honest with their science presentations.
His past actions are corrupting science research.To the point that he was refusing data requests for his and other PUBLISHED science papers.To the point that he was DESTROYING some of the requested data,rather than comply in releasing the data.
10
Paraprosdokian
Definition: A figure of speech that uses an unexpected ending to a series or phrase.
Examples:
If I agreed with you we’d both be wrong.
Change is inevitable, in fact unavoidable, except from a vending machine.
Do not argue with any dogmatic idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
Climate arguments do not determine who is right – only who is left.
Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a
fruit salad.
That troll didn’t say warming was your fault, he just said he is blaming you.
Why is it that warmists believes politicians when they state unequivocally that the seas are rising dangerously, and assure taxpayers that henceforth politicians will command the globe’s oceans to cease and desist, but that they really must do so by carbon taxing the people, or believes a scientists who states without hesitation that there are four billion stars, but the same person checks to see if you are right when you say that paint is still wet?
You do not need a parachute to follow the leader and skydive off a cliff. You only need a parachute to skydive twice off a cliff.
Always borrow your comedy material from a climate pessimist. He won’t expect it back.
You’re never too old to learn something stupid.
I asked Gored for some direct sustainable donations, maybe just some cash overflow from his own Occidental oil corporations, which I need to fund the climate NGO from which I get my personal sustainable income. He never gave me anything that I asked him for. But I know that in his wisdom Gored doesn’t work that way. So instead I stole funding from the unwitting taxpayer and then asked Gored for divine forgiveness.
10
In reply to Grayman at post # 117:
Yeah it is funny they worry about small over all warming trend since around the 1850’s.Right along with melting glaciers and rising sea level.
Why the 1850’s?
We are in a rebound from the Little Ice Age.That lasted around 450 years or so.Thus it is NOT surprising to see warming trend s and melting glaciers (most that had grown in the LIA years) since the 1850’s when the LIA had clearly ended.
The warming trend from 1977 to 2000 is almost identical to the other two main warming trends since the 1850’s.Meaning that there is nothing unusual about newest main warming trend at all.
10
Drewski @ various:
Before you get your nickers all bundled (cause it’s so damn hot) what do you make of this:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/06/30/china%E2%80%99s-2000-year-temperature-history/#more-436
or this:
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo4.png
Which is one of many interesting things found here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/
A couple of warm years here and there won’t work for “evidence”. Keep trying though.
10
Spatch, you have successfully brought this conversation down to the level of childish gibberish. I knew you had no credibility, now you have demonstrated it clearly for all to see.
As an agent of disinformation, distracting people from their purpose, preventing any serious discussion, you have done well.
10
Ah, now, see, your problem is that you actually think that there is serious discussion here.
A case in point is this reply to my post:
Ha, serious discussion?? not! You’re like totally pwned dude!
10
Spatch: I am still waiting for an anwser, and Drewski too; From my questions on # 117, And yes most every one is trying to have serious discussion and would like one from the trolls! So please show your anwsers to these and other questions posted to you . I am not trying to argue ad homen just discuss the issuses at hand.
10
Tel is right; spatch is an (SNIP,Unwarranted namecalling) CTS
10
@ Spatch
Reality beats propaganda every time
10
@ Spatch
I am surprised that you would use a pic of Einstein for your avatar. When an outraged Hitler produced a paper entitled “100 Scientists Against Einstein” he simply replied, “If I were wrong, one would have been enough.”
When the climate “scientists” start adhering to the scientific method I will begin to have some respect for them. They will not make their raw data available to see if it can be falsified. They conspire to squelch dissenting opinion and the possibility of their tax funded gravy train grinding to a halt has them mortified.
How can you defend GISS data based Alice In Wonderland pontifications? We are well through the looking glass. Do you ever wonder why temp data is almost always adjusted to show past temps as cooler and recent temps as warmer? Are you familiar with the Bolivia Effect? Do you always blindly believe and fearlessly follow? And lastly, when you were a child were you always the last one picked for any kind of sporting game or social event?
10
http://joannenova.com.au/rules-legal/
Comments may be deleted or edited if they are: Unnecessarily repetitive, rude, lazy or mindless.
cohenite – congratulations, your post qualifies for:
rude
lazy
mindless
10
drewski:
If you want to believe and follow the likes of Jones, Pachauri, Mann Schmidt et al, that is your right.
As usual for a troll, you avoid the point and raise straw men.
We’re not here to do your groundwork for you. Your problem is that you are too damn lazy to research a blog before you plunge in with your mantras and shibboleths. Otherwise you would have found the reasons why your much vaunted “inquiries” were actually whitewashes that would be laughed out of any pub discussion let alone survive any forensic scrutiny.
10
Hi Eddy, “Amazingly, NO nations have recorded an all-time coldest temperature so far this year.”
Notice the word “nations” — starts with an ‘n’ and ends with an ‘s’. I heartily agree that individual locations may get record low temps, in fact, I have already mentioned that in previous posts. It is just that we are getting far more high records than low records and the trend is increasing. And as far as “nations’ go, we have 18 national high record days so far this year and NO national record days.
And its alright — I asked my handlers and they said that it was ok to post on this site
10
Sorry — previous post should have said we have had NO national record COLD days yet in 2010.
10
Mark is up to his green belt at the Monckton Mental Martial Arts Academy. Notice how he uses his ‘one two’ combination with this stinging rebuke: “Otherwise you would have found the reasons why your much vaunted “inquiries” were actually whitewashes that would be laughed out of any pub discussion let alone survive any forensic scrutiny.”
Sadly, however, this statement didn’t come with any supporting information — or as we like to call it in Science Land EVIDENCE — so instead of it being a “smoking gun” meant to slay a nasty “warmista”, it turns out to be yet another Sceptic squirt gun that wasn’t loaded.
But don’t give up — with a bit more practice, you will get your blue belt soon.
10
Is this temperature graph from Dr.Roy Spencer propaganda?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Sept_10.gif
There’s your evidence that the Globe is warming.
Now show us your evidence that it is cooling.
10
spatch; answer the question I posed @ 68 otherwise my comment stands.
10
Moderator is a bit touchy this morning.
Spatch, thanks for quoting that @ 128 so that I was able to read the “offending” post. I have never found Cohenite to be wrong and I agree with his assessment.
(I considered it inappropriate because he made a post for the single purpose of calling him a rude name) CTS
10
Here’s a suggestion: Instead of just the “like/dislike” buttons maybe there should be some other tags available so that readers can tag posts e.g. “Ad hom”, “Argument from Authority”, “Pure speculation”, “Unsubstantiated”. That way when we get warministas on here we can shorthand our replies.
10
Oh and “Where’s the evidence?”
10
Spatch; now all you need is to provide empirical evidence that differentiates between natural causes and AGW/CAGW/GCD or your posts can be characterized as unnecessarily repetitive, lazy and mindless.
10
Well spatch it seems you really do not want to have a serious discussion you just seem to want to call people names and unfortunatly a couple on this thread. But i will await you replies.
Anyone can send a complaint based on the following below.It is also found at the right side of the blogs front page just below the links column: CTS
(To report “lost” comments or defamatory and offensive remarks, email the moderators at: support AT joannenova.com.au)
10
Cohenite; As language evolves new words are added to enrich our vocabulary, my current favorite is Ignoranus, as it indicates that the person referred to is both an idiot and an arsehole.
10
Strawman drewski:
So you do prefer to follow data hiders, fudgers and forgers.
That’s fine, just log on to your financial institution and transfer whatever funds are there to “Patchi’s” TERI fund.
Just don’t assume that everyone is as dumb as you and your fellow zombies.
10
cohenite –
First point:
You didn’t apologise for insulting me.
Second point:
You didn’t say please, when asking me to answer your question.
Third point:
The NASA paper is not invalidated by your links.
By zeroing out all of the non-condensing greenhouse gases this is what the models show will happen after 50 years.
The global temperature stands at -21 °C, a decrease by 34.8 °C. Atmospheric water vapor is at ~10% of the control climate value (22.6 to 2.2 mm). Global cloud cover increases from its 58% control value to more than 75%; the global sea ice fraction goes from 4.6% to 46.7%, causing the planetary albedo of Earth to increase from ~29% to 41.8%. This has the effect to reduce the absorbed solar energy to further exacerbate the global cooling.
Is that clear?
Here it is again in simpler terms:
What happens when the trace greenhouse gases are removed? Because of the non-linear impacts of CO2 on absorption, the impact of removing the CO2 is approximately seven times as large as doubling it.
If such an event were possible, it would lead to dramatic cooling, both directly and indirectly, as the water vapor and clouds would react. In model experiments where all the trace greenhouse gases are removed the planet cools to a near-Snowball Earth, some 35°C cooler than today, as water vapor levels decrease to 10% of current values, and planetary reflectivity increases (because of snow and clouds) to further cool the planet.
There you go.
Less water vapor = cooler planet
Basically your argument failed on that one simple point.
10
No Mark, I follow the evidence — you know from glaciologists. astro-physisics, marine biologists, geologists, etc etc and so on. These are people who are very different from Sceptics — scientists spend many years of their life doing research (pronounced: ree-surch). Then, sometimes after many years, they write about the subject that they have been working on. They let other “ists” in their field read it and make comments, then if lots and lots of wise colleagues read it and if they can’t find errors, they are allowed to publish in neat sounding magazines like “Nature” and “Science”.
This procedural type of thing is called the “Scientific Method” and has been in operation for hundreds of years. The scientific method has been an incredible boon to mankind — you know, travel, disease, hygiene, communications — that sort of thing. Now it is used in studying climate by literally thousands of people all over the world. These people often speak another language and live in places a lot different to ours. But, nonetheless, they like to study climate also and that is a very good thing because in climate science, it is really important to find out what is happening in lots of different places. Now, every few years these scientists have a huge ole git together where they talk about what they have been doing since last time. How do they understand each other? You asked. Well Mark, these scientists use a language called science. It is a little hard to learn, but when you get to be a brown belt from Monckton’s Mental Martial Arts Academy they will allow you allowed read science papers. Brown belts are allowed to move on from “baseless pronouncements” into actually citing scientific evidence when sparing with an “ist”.
I hope that helps you in understanding a little about climate science. Good luck and remember — practice, practice, practice.
10
The scientists I trust are those who aren’t prone to fudging and forging the raw data. Follow who you want, see if I care. You will be the poorer for it though and they will be the richer along with all the merchant banksters.
10
Your question was directed to “the trolls”
Next time ask me a question with at least some resemblance of civility and I may answer it if I deem it worthy of my time.
10
@ spatch
Dont you hate it when reality of cooler temps beats corrupt temperature data.
By the by still waiting on your proof man is responsible for the globe heating.
10
scott@146
Is this temperature graph from Dr.Roy Spencer corrupt?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Sept_10.gif
There’s your evidence that the Globe is warming.
Now show us your evidence that it is cooling.
10
Ah Spatch you see what you are missing with my very simple statement is that as so called experts run around sprouting that it’s the warmest year on record
People around the globe are digging themselves out of snow falls and skiing resorts are reporting the best season in years and people are cold, running heaters later and later in the year.
Hysterical claims of running out of water while the rains bucket down and dams fill up.
Claims of temperature data that supports 6 degree per century rises (Darwin) while the locals laugh their heads off because it’s the same ol same ol temp they grew up with.
So you see you can point at all the temperature sets you like but the reason you are losing the war is because the reality is not matching your numbers and this is what is catching you out and why you are losing your arguments.
So point away at corrupt temperature sets, scream until your hoarse, the reality will always catch you out in the end. So I don’t need proof, nature is doing it for me.
10
Regulars to Jo’s site would be aware of the brouhaha in the US where a Mann co-author (Bradley) is attacking Edward Wegman. The basis of the complaint being that Bradley alleges that Wegman plagiarised his (Bradley’s) work.
Oh, the irony. Steve McIntyre with his usual forensic skill has found that Bradley himself plagiarised others work without citation.
http://climateaudit.org/2010/10/18/bradley-copies-fritts/
10
Well Mark, I would also like to read studies that aren’t fudged either — have any in mind? But wait a minute, who is going to know if the numbers are all made up? I know! We will find another expert in the same field and have them look it over for us. How about the following name for that process: “peer-review” — like it?
Now it should be original research — you know, not anything based on that warmista garbage. And it shouldn’t be done by any of those guys who used to try and sell us with that “smoking is good for us” slogan — talk about untrustworthy, sheesh. Also it should prove that carbon dioxide does not actually absorb heat and make the atmosphere warmer or maybe a study that proves conclusively that it is humanly impossible to measure temperature with any accuracy and, thereby, eliminating the need for any more climate studies EVER. Think of the money taxpayers will save! Brilliant.
I am ready to read Mark, educate me with all of your great ‘unfudged’ research papers.
10
Spatch:
Your comment at #142 is complete nonsense. Please learn the basics of the subject before ponificating on it.
I will help you to start the learning process by pointing out some of the errors in your post.
You say:
That is a statement about the models.
It says NOTHING about what is likely to happen to the real climate in the real world.
Climate models are – and can only be – formulations of existing understandings. So, climate models permit testing of our understandings of climate behaviour(s), and they can be used
1.
to test those understandings against empirical data,
2.
to explore the limitations of those understandings against empirical data, and
3.
to assess the possible behaviours of the climate system according to those understandings.
But that is very different from indicating what is likely to happen in the real world (in “50 years” or at any other time).
The models are not the real world.
They are merely simplified descriptions of part of the real world, and the climate system is the part of the real world they attempt to emulate.
You say:
That is because the models are specifically constructed to do that!
And each model is different.
I explained this at #60 in the thread of this blog at
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/shock-climate-models-cant-even-predict-linear-rise/
The models’ results are not reality: they are merely the outcome of understandings of reality that are built into the models.
Studies of the models’ results show the behaviour of the models, and studies of the real climate system show the behaviour of the real climate system.
Differences between findings of these studies inform about the models and NOT the climate system, because the climate system is reality and the results of the model emulations are merely virtual realities.
Also, the failure of a virtual reality to match reality without inclusion of an effect in the virtual reality indicates nothing concerning the existence of any particular postulated effect.
So, the difference between a model’s results and observed reality informs about the model, and this difference is not “evidence” for the existence or otherwise of any postulated effect – for example, anthropogenic global warming – in the real climate system.
(If you cannot grasp this simple point then consider the following. Computer models based on fundamental physical laws can very accurately emulate the behaviours of battling spaceships, but this cannot provide any “evidence” for the existence of alien monsters in real space.)
And you make self-defeating assertion when you assert:
Yes!
And that logarithmic effect continues, so any increases to the now existing atmospheric CO2 concentration have a vanishingly small effect.
Please note that this logarithmic effect is an empirical result obtained from the real world and is not a model artefact.
And you conclude with a pure fancy by asserting:
No!
It would induce a planet with
(i) a warmer average temperature,
(ii) a lower coolest temperature, and
(iii) a higher maximum temperature.
The Moon has no water and slower rotation. It has maximum surface temperature of 123°C and minimum surface temperature of -233°C. The slower rotation plays little part in this wide range because its surface temperature rises by almost all this difference within 2 hours of dawn.
The lower maximum temperature of the Earth is caused by two effects.
Firstly, water transports heat from the tropics on the day side (where the Sun provides large heating) so cooling the hottest regions.
Secondly, and most importantly, evapouration prevents sea surface temperature (SST) from rising above 305K
(ref. Ramanathan & Collins, Nature, v351, 27-32 (1991) ).
This is the observed maximum (SST) in the tropics, and any additional heat input to ocean at that temperature causes cooling (yes, more heat input causes cooling) because the increased evapouration increases low-level clouds. These clouds reflect solar heat and so act to cool the surface (as every sunbather has noticed when a cloud passed in front of the Sun).
The transport of heat from the tropics to the poles raises the minimum temperature of the Earth.
The Earth receives heat from the Sun and has to radiate all that heat back to space or its temperature would rise.
But heat radiation flux is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature of the radiating surface (T^4).
The effect of water is to keep the maximum surface temperature from rising above 305K (i.e 32 deg.C). And this reduction in temperature provides a very large reduction to heat loss by radiation (never forget the power of a fourth power law).
So, the only way the Earth can lose all its heat is to increase the radiation from regions other than the tropics. Hence, the average temperature is warmer everywhere except in the tropics than would be the case in the absence of water.
And the average temperature of the Earth has to be warmer than would be the case in the absence of water because maximum temperature is lowered and heat loss at each place is proportional to T^4.
I hope the above will help you to start learning something about these matters. And I strongly suggest that you stop demonstrating your ignorance of them until you do.
Richard
10
Spatch:
In retrospect, I think I should have added an explanation of why reducing atmospheric water vapour from its present concentration would warm the planet.
In #151 I only mentioned effects of liquid water, and I said reduced water vapour would result in
Clearly, I should have explained this because I was trying to help you see the degree of your ignorance and, therefore, I should not have assumed you have any knowledge of the matter. I apologise for the omission which I now correct.
Water vapour is a greenhouse gas (GHG): it can absorb and radiate large amounts of thermal radiation. It is the most powerful GHG in the Earth’s atmosphere and it is estimated to be responsible for ~90% of the Earth’s radiative greenhouse effect.
The presence of liquid water creates water vapour in the atmosphere. Hence, water vapour can absorb thermal radiation from the surface and radiate it in all directions. This spreads the heat from the warmest surface regions to other regions of the atmosphere over the entire surface.
But about half of the radiation from GHG goes upwards and thus strongly assists heat loss from the atmosphere to space.
Reduce the water vapour and you alter the lapse rate (i.e. the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere) and the temperature profile of the troposphere around the Earth’s surface.
This change to temperature profiles results in reduced heat loss with reduced water vapour so increases the average temperature of the Earth to maintain its thermal equilibrium.
The effect is not linear, and complete removal of water vapour would lower the average temperature of the Earth.
Furthermore, complexity is added by other factors (e.g. the Hadley Circulation).
Richard
10
To “drewski” (109),
Your GOD al gore doesn’t hold ANY science qualifications.
He is but a FAILED POLITICIAN.
10
The pic this troll “Spatch” uses resembles a lunatic patient in a mental home….
How could any thinking adult take such an individual seriously…
10
drewki:
At #150 you say to Mark:
I do not know what is in Mark’s mind but I think I can help you to fulfil your desire of reading papers on climate change “that aren’t fudged”.
Please see
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
It provides a list of more than 800 such peer-reviewed papers and you can spend many an hour reading them.
Richard
10
Climate Modelling Nonsense – CARBON DIOXIDE VAPOUR TRICK…..
http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2009/10/climate-modelling-nonsense
10
Actually mandarine, my GOD is Celsius — he who gives warmth. Al Gore is just another acolyte — regular guy really. We have our yearly sacrifices in Monument Valley each June 21st and bingo is on Tuesdays. We are looking for new blood (so to speak)– so join us be warm with GOD.
10
Hi Richard, Why don’t you select a few for me and I will read them.
10
drewski:
In response to my writing at #155:
You have replied at #158:
Say what!?
That is a pathetic excuse for choosing not to read that which you said you wanted to read.
How the devil am I supposed to know what interests you.?
Read the titles and choose a few for yourself.
Of course, I could cite some of my own papers that are on the list and are pertinent to current threads on this blog. They are:
An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK’s Hadley Centre
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999)
Global Warming and the Accumulation of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 101-126, January 2005)
– Arthur Rorsch, Richard S. Courtney, Dick Thoenes
The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 2, pp. 217-238, March 2005)
– Arthur Rorsch, Richard S. Courtney, Dick Thoenes
Crystal balls, virtual realities and ‘storylines’ (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 343-349, July 2001)
– Richard S. Courtney
I look forward to your next troll excuse for not reading those or any others of the papers on the list.
Richard
10
Thank you Richard; spatch is both insistent, arrogant and a distraction. The Lacis paper is typical, virtual-reality, modelled nonsense which is contradicted at every turn by reality and empirical measurements, as well as basic greenhouse theory. Basically the new Lacis paper is a thought experiment badly configured and inferior to the examples that Science of Doom occasionally does at his blog. I presume spatch is quoting verbatim from the paper when he says @142:
“By zeroing out all of the non-condensing greenhouse gases this is what the models show will happen after 50 years.
The global temperature stands at -21 °C, a decrease by 34.8 °C. Atmospheric water vapor is at ~10% of the control climate value (22.6 to 2.2 mm). Global cloud cover increases from its 58% control value to more than 75%; the global sea ice fraction goes from 4.6% to 46.7%, causing the planetary albedo of Earth to increase from ~29% to 41.8%. This has the effect to reduce the absorbed solar energy to further exacerbate the global cooling.”
And then spatch has the temerity to ask whether that is clear. I mean this scenario is preposterous. A -34.8C GMST is less than the operative greenhouse temperature, Tave, of 33C; 255C is the Teff with an atmosphere free globe. How is it possible that by removing CO2 and leaving only water that a GMST less than the atmospheric induced temperature would occur? This is junk. The Lacis paper does not even consider whether pressure of an equivalently dense, but otherwise CO2 free, atmosphere would contribute to the temperature profile; in this respect this thought experiment and commentary has far more to offer than the lacis paper which spatch adores in the typically infantile manner of AGW acolytes:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/06/22/venusian-mysteries-part-two/#comment-3957
10
hi Richard S Courtney, another t-roll here. 😉
as for your anti-troll list, many of them don’t even argue against AGW.
take for instance http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL039186.shtml
or http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0033589499921233
sheesh and I’m just randomly clicking.
has anyone done an audit to validate your claim Richard S Courtney? [SNIP]
[Well, you need to stop the antagonism and rudeness or risk moderation.]
10
Well:
You “make things up” but I do not.
You yet again demonstrate this in post #161 when you ask:
What are you suggesting that I “made up”?
I made no “claim”.
I merely linked to a list of over 800 peer reviewed papers which cast doubt on claims of AGW proponents.
Anybody can check the list to see that what I said is true.
I again suggest that you seek medical aid. Your delusional condition is increasing.
Richard
10
Hi Richard and thanks.
But Richard, if we really want to be scrupulous, shouldn’t we avoid anything that even has the hint of being “fudged”? And from I understand (read below), this E&E trade journal (Energy & Environment) is more like a chocolate factory.
Is it possible you could supply me some peer reviewed climate studies that are published in a REAL science journal next time? Maybe something from NATURE or SCIENCE or even the LANCET — not to much to ask is it?
ABOUT E&E
Did you know that The ISI WEB OF KNOWLEDGE, the unifying search tool for the sciences, has more than 23,000 academic and science journals in its database, but it DOES NOT LIST E&E?
Or that SCOPUS, a database for scholarly journal articles, lists nearly 18,000 titles from more than 5,000 international publishers, INCLUDING coverage of 16,500 peer-reviewed journals in the scientific, technical, medical and social sciences (including arts and humanities)lists E&E AS A TRADE JOURNAL.
SCOPUS defines trade journals as “A serial publication covering and intended to reach a specific industry, trade or type of business. Trade Journals are SELDOM REFEREED and do not always have an editorial board. Abstracts are usually short or non-existent, and FEW OR NO REFERENCES are given”.
Writing in The Australian, Michael Ashley of the University of New South Wales described the E&E as “the climate sceptic’s journal of choice, THE BOTTOM-TIER Energy and Environment”, adding that it was used “to advance all manner of absurd theories: for example, that CO2 concentrations actually have fallen since 1942”.
Many contributors to E&E that are considered climate skeptics or contrarians. They have included Sallie Baliunas, Robert M. Carter, Ian Castles, Bjorn Lomborg, Patrick Michaels, Ross McKitrick, Stephen McIntyre, Garth Paltridge, Roger Pielke Jr., Fred Singer, Willie Soon and Richard Lindzen.
When asked about the publication of these papers, E&Es editor, Boehmer-Christiansen, replied, “I’M FOLLOWING MY POLITICAL AGENDA — a bit, anyway. But isn’t that the right of the editor?”
So you can see Richard, if our mission is to find the holy grail of error free and non “fudged” climate research papers, we shouldn’t start at the bottom of the barrel.
Still happily waiting.
10
Drewski writes his evasive drivel.From post # 163:
Typical ignorance in the contents of the POPTECH link.Here is the entire list of publications that accepted these 8oo+ science papers:
From THIS POST at a forum Andrew (Poptech) make this reply that is relevant for here.He was replying a similar ignorant statement that Drewski makes here.:
EXCERPTED FROM THE LINK.A partial list,
Please do…
Journal Citation List:
AAPG Bulletin
Advances in Space Research
Annals of Glaciology
Annual Review of Energy and the Environment
Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics
Astronomical Notes
Astronomy & Geophysics
Astrophysics and Space Science
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics
Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology
Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics
Central European Journal of Physics
See the rest of a LONG list in the link.
ROFLMAO!
10
drewski (usual troll talking points at 163),
LMAO.
But don’t just listen to me. Maybe you should listen to Michael Mann:
——
The GRL leak may have been
plugged up now w/ new editorial leadership there, but these guys always have “Climate
Research” and “Energy and Environment”, and will go there if necessary.
——
Or better yet, maybe you should stick to your expertise (hockey stick comments at the Air Vent). But don’t let me distract you. You have 800+ papers to read.
——-
——-
Hi Richard, Why don’t you select a few for me and I will read them.-drewski
Priceless!
10
Forgot,
btw, I notice the trolls never have anything to say about the objectivity of Phillip Campbell (Nature) or Donald Kennedy (Science).
10
Well:
You continue – to use your words – “making things up” in your post at #163.
I will not flatter your overly large ego by addressing all your lies because (at #164) Sunsettommy demonstrates the wrongness of your post.
However, you have repeated a scurrilous lie about a friend of mine, Sonja Boehmer Christiansen, that I have already recently refuted on this blog.
When your partner in trolling, Oh Dear, posted the same lie in the thread at
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/shock-climate-models-cant-even-predict-linear-rise/
I replied at #143 saying:
You trolls have adopted a new tactic in that you cross post on different threads in hope that people will fail to notice.
Well, lies are not converted into truth by repetition no matter how many places you post them.
Also, you repeatedly demonstrate that you think a lie is converted into fact when it is posted on some ‘warmist’ blog. It is not.
And you seem to think that evidence, fact and argument are refuted by personal attacks on those who present them. Such behaviour tells much about you and nothing about anything else.
I know that all cults call for destruction of an unbeliever who points out any argument, fact or evidence that refutes the cult’s beliefs. And I know that members of such cults will rush to join a mob to attack the unbeliever.
The cult of AGW is no different from any other, so I suppose your behaviour is to be expected. But it only tells non-members of your cult about you and about nothing else.
Richard
10
Drewski @ 163
You and others have repeatedly claimed to quote
Either prove she said this with a reference or stop claiming she did. You certainly must know what slander and libel are?
10
Also @ 163:
I am at a loss as to your point here? First you say E&E is a “trade journal” then you turn around and list a number of climate experts that have published through E&E. Are you suggesting that the list above are all in some “trade conspiracy”?
Or is it really that you are just ticked that you can’t shut these people up?
10
Spatch; You still are going on about climate models, WHY? The models can not begin to factor in all the VARIABLES that are the climate and they are not any better than 10, 15, or 20 years ago. So the question from my post at #117 still stands I still await your awnsers to these and other questions.
10
Ok all you warmists, it’s time to put up or shut up. Take a good look at this and see if you can shoot it down without ad hom attacks, reference to other sites, etc. See if you can cope with it on your own.
John Brooks, Spatch, well, TWinkler, drewsky, oh dear if you’re watching, and any I’ve missed, have a go at the physics.
This essentially shows that there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas therefore no such thing as a greenhouse effect; all based only on well accepted physics.
It’s time to show us what you’re made of! You’ll find it here:
http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/
The rest of you, please, no fair helping them.
10
The models are wrong by William Kininmonth: Meteorologist and former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre. He was also Australian delegate to the World Meteorological Organization’s Commission for Climatology (1982-98)
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3855
Global Warming Science vs. Computer Model Speculation: Just Ask the Experts by Sallie Baliunas & Willie Soon
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1816
Lindzen on climate science advocacy and modeling – “at this point, the models seem to be failing”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/19/lindzen-on-climate-science-advocacy-and-modeling-at-this-point-the-models-seem-to-be-failing/
10
Roy Hogue@171
Richard S Courtney and cohenite both say that there is such a thing as a GHG.
Are you saying that they are both wrong?
Roy Spencer says that there is such a thing as a GHG too. Is he also wrong?
And so does Science of Doom, which, btw, is where you should be spending your time learning about climate science.
10
10
Don’t worry about Roy spatch just try and defend your Lacis paper/comic book/computer game.
10
Spatch:
You are using an image of a friend of mine, Christopher Monckton, as your icon.
Change it!
Your use of his image is a gross insult to the Viscount Monckton of Blenchley because you are not worthy to clean his shoes let alone to pretend to be him.
Richard
10
Spatch capitulates.
10
@Roy Hogue
Nah mate, I just have better things to do with my time.
10
@Richard S Courtney
I’ll use whomsoever as I like as an avatar.
If you don’t like it…tough.
(Sure you can use it,but it only indicates that you do it to irritate people.That is one of the indicator’s of a TROLL.I strongly suggest that you reconsider your choice) CTS
10
Spatch talks big but flunks a real test.
1 down. End of story.
10
No worries, it’s just poking a bit fun at the silly post by mandarine:
I’ll change the avatar when I’m good and ready, but certainly not on the orders by one Richard S Courtney.
10
I think the film Avatar was a typical hollywoodising of nature; the Bambi view of nature which informs much of the support for AGW; maybe spatch should use a photo of Bambi as his avatar or Cameron.
10
*yawn*
Without the greenhouse effect, we would not even be here to argue about it.
10
Now we see this OFFENSIVE TROLL “Spatch” trying to ridicule Lord Monckton’s medical affliction by using a photograph of him emphasing his eyes.
Of course the insinuation is that he is crazy.
Lord Monckton’s eye condition is a result of him having Grave’s disease.
What is it with leftist trolls that they consistently demonstrate that they possess no shred of human decency and respect????
Obviously resorting to such low levels shows that they are losing the argument on intellectual grounds…..
10
Avatar a Mass Mind Manipulation Project?
http://www.infowars.com/avatar-a-mass-mind-manipulation-project/
Vatican Slams ‘Avatar’: Promotes Nature Worship Over Religion
http://www.infowars.com/vatican-slams-avatar-promotes-nature-worship-over-religion/
Audiences experience ‘Avatar’ blues
http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/11/avatar.movie.blues/index.html
Avatar, the answer to a Copenhager’s dream
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_avatar_the_answer_to_a_copenhagens_dream/
Is Avatar director James Cameron the new Al Gore?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Is-Avatars-James-Cameron-the-new-Al-Gore–90950454.html
10
Spatch yawns while his last chance at credibility sinks like a rock.
Spatch, you’re missing a golden opportunity here. Just go over Casey’s position and find one, just one small flaw that invalidates what he claims and clearly explain it so the rest of us can understand it and you’ll have shot Roy Hogue down in flames. Or if you can’t find anything wrong then admit that you can’t.
Otherwise you have thrown in the towel. And your failure is spectacular considering how big and how much you talk.
So far: 1 down. End of story.
10
@mandarine
See what you started with your inane and insulting comment about my original avatar.
Maybe you’ll think twice next time hey buddy!
10
Spatch is Ben Stein not Einstein!!! ????
10
Spatch
Your new choice of avatar, Christopher Monckton, is an interesting one and shows there still is promise for you. But are you prepared for the
arduous cerebral journey to get as high as his coattails ?
I do prefer your original one where you can be clearly seen taking
official temperatures for the BOM
10
Jeez, the situation here is worse than I expected.
Nearly a year on from Climategate, which was meant to be the nail in the coffin for AGW, and the skeptics are obsessing with what kind of avatar a user has.
Pathetic really.
10
Roy Hogue:
October 20th, 2010 at 7:13 am
Spatch:
October 20th, 2010 at 9:44 am
Well, Spatch, the gauntlet Roy has slapped you in the face with is mailed steel. Are you going to pick it up or just lay there and bleed? Maybe you should change your screen name to dispatched because you have been by Roy! 🙂
10
@ Roy Hogue
Thanks for the link at 171! Do you think DiSpatch will respond?
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=weasel
10
The conclusion of the blog post @ http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/ is totally laughable.
By Timothy Casey – who works for the Petroleum Industry!!
…snakeoil…or just plain oil…whatever.
10
Spastic, @193
Oh I see, so drawing wages (who one works for) gives a motive for lies and fraud?
And AGW research grant funding is not a motive for the same thing?
Be careful or you will be called a skeptic……or a denier.
10
G’day Eddy
Haven’t heard from you in awhile, hope you are well.
10
Yup, the same Big Oil that helps fund the Climatic Research Unit and good ol’ boy Phil Jones. Not to mention sundry other environazi causes.
10
Is that this guy?
10
Eddy,
You’re welcome to the link.
Spatch couldn’t hack it. What can I say?
10
And how could he hack it?
He’s not a “climate scientist” and won’t state his publishing record in the “peer reviewed” literature.
He is shown to be without standing by his own criteria!
10
Mark,
You’re right. Yet he talks such a big fight you’d think he knows it all. So I got tired of the nonsense and put him and the others to a test.
By the way, I had no idea it would set off so much activity.
10
[…] Perhaps, unsurprisingly none of these newspapers UK environment journalists picked up on this ‘revelation’ on Chinese thinking, I wonder why, after all Xie was only China’s lead negotiator (he was also at Durban). For further thoughts on this topic, Jo Nova has a very interesting article on Chinese, Russian and Indian thinking on climate change. (here) […]
10