# Climate Science Doubts: Not Because of Payment, but Because the Science Is Bad



## Vigilante (Mar 25, 2015)

AlGore on suicide watch....no one cares!

Breitbart ^ | 03/25/2015 | Dr. Christopher Essex
Members of the Scientific Council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) recently criticized the Royal Society’s positions on climate. Their clear, authoritative scientific objections to the Royal Society’s positions reveal the weak scientific foundation on which the great climate fervor has been based. The public must either become conversant enough to grasp this or step back and get out of the way of those who have. Scientists don’t need to be paid to oppose the ideas of climate orthodoxy, because those ideas are just so damn bad....


----------



## Mr. H. (Mar 25, 2015)

Climate orthodoxy. 

Oppose the battle plan, prepare to be opposed. 

This shit is rich.


----------



## Vigilante (Mar 26, 2015)




----------



## IanC (Mar 26, 2015)

from the OP's article -

"
*The Followers of Eris*

What the dogmatists understand well is eristic argument, after Eris the Greek goddess of discord and chaos. Eristic tactics come to us from the ancient Greek sophists. Eristic methods manifest themselves today in the works of Saul Alinsky. As the goddess’s qualities suggest, they are inherently divisive. The objective is victory, not truth. This is foreign to the training and personalities of most scientists. I, like other scientists, go into debates with a collegial attitude, tolerant of contrary thinking, no matter how wrong it may seem. Freely doubt the ideas; respect the people. When confronted with eristic tactics though, which are often absurd, aggressive, and deeply irrational, we are left gobsmacked. Like any other humans, scientists can speak the language of political nonsense, but they speak it badly. Their famous political naivety makes them easy prey for any political operative. And so we loose against eristic tactics, even when we know they are coming.

The followers of Eris see opposition in terms of a struggle for power, while scientists see opposition as a means for testing thinking. For scientists, opposition is a feature not a bug. Authorities can proudly convince themselves to be absurdly wrong, until some brave souls stand up to them. Sometimes there is a heavy price.

An easily comprehensible example would be the case of the physician Ignaz Semmelweis. He proposed that patients would be helped if you thoroughly washed your hands between patients. The consensus among experts of his day was that he was wrong. He was driven out and ended his days in a psychiatric hospital. This phenomenon is not the exception, but the rule. In countless cases ranging from obscure technical issues, known only by experts, to grand insights like continental drift, this story, or something like it, has been played out again and again in history.

It does not mean that experts are always even mostly wrong. It only means that when humanity does take a step ahead, that step naturally concerns something that prideful experts didn’t know before. Over the generations, this lesson has been gradually absorbed into the scientific world. The heretics and crackpots might just be right, and so there is an awareness (even if grudging) that tolerance of what seems wrong is essential—the scientific version of free speech. It is probably no accident that scientific advances tend to be made in the freest environments. _Scientists must ask critical questions of each other about their works to move us all ahead. It’s their job. Opposition is necessary, but only opposition with a presumption of good will, where all agree that the objective is truth, not crushing your enemies_.
"

eristic....I like that word. victory foremost, truth be damned.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 26, 2015)

So much denier cryng. So little science. They only care now about scoring attaboys with their fellow cultists.

So, deniers, did this thread give you a dose of that precious emotional affirmation that you crave so insatiably?

Deniers, you should know your anti-science cult isn't the only option for emotional affirmation. Might I suggest cheering for a sports team instead? I suggest that option for you because it would kill far less people, and steal much less money from our pockets.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 26, 2015)

mamooth said:


> So much denier cryng. So little science. They only care now about scoring attaboys with their fellow cultists.
> 
> So, deniers, did this thread give you a dose of that precious emotional affirmation that you crave so insatiably?
> 
> Deniers, you should know your anti-science cult isn't the only option for emotional affirmation. Might I suggest cheering for a sports team instead? I suggest that option for you because it would kill far less people, and steal much less money from our pockets.


are you referring to the pay pals of the peer groups?


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 26, 2015)

Vigilante said:


> AlGore on suicide watch....no one cares!
> 
> Breitbart ^ | 03/25/2015 | Dr. Christopher Essex
> Members of the Scientific Council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) recently criticized the Royal Society’s positions on climate. Their clear, authoritative scientific objections to the Royal Society’s positions reveal the weak scientific foundation on which the great climate fervor has been based. The public must either become conversant enough to grasp this or step back and get out of the way of those who have. Scientists don’t need to be paid to oppose the ideas of climate orthodoxy, because those ideas are just so damn bad....


So, you get your science from Briebart. Might as well be the Weekly Globe. Idiots are as idiots do.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 26, 2015)

Vigilante said:


>


ever consider going back to the third grade? You might pass it this time.

You get science for scientific journals, not yellow political rags.


----------



## IanC (Mar 27, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > AlGore on suicide watch....no one cares!
> ...



as usual Old Rocks refuses to debate the content, and focusses on dismissing the opinion piece because he hates one of the sources! what an _eristic_ thing to do. he doesnt understand that he is proving the point of the article.

Judith Curry has put it up at her website. Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry Climate Etc.

Essex is a PhD mathematician with a lot of experience with the climate wars, btw.

her bolded points from the essay-



> _*Accusing scientists of venal motives when they raise questions about climate has come to be what passes for scientific debate*_





> _ (Eristic tactics come to us from the ancient Greek sophists.As the goddess’s qualities suggest, they are inherently divisive.) *The objective is victory, not truth.*_





> _*The followers of Eris see opposition in terms of a struggle for power, while scientists see opposition as a means for testing thinking.* *For scientists, opposition is a feature not a bug*_





> _*when humanity does take a step ahead, that step naturally concerns something that prideful experts didn’t know before*_





> _*tolerance of what seems wrong is essential—the scientific version of free speech.* *It is probably no accident that scientific advances tend to be made in the freest environments. Scientists must ask critical questions of each other about their works to move us all ahead. It’s their job. Opposition is necessary, but only opposition with a presumption of good will, where all agree that the objective is truth, not crushing your enemies.*_





> _*climate science remains frozen and deeply flawed with no way to grow up, despite avalanches of funding thrown at it*_





> _*If they want to employ the credibility of science to support their agendas, they must learn to treat scientists holding contrary views in a credible manner. Such scientists have an important and respected role to play in advancing science*_





to those who havent read the Essex piece, I suggest that you do. it does a good job of defining one of the major problems of post-normal science.



.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 27, 2015)

IanC said:


> to those who havent read the Essex piece, I suggest that you do. it does a good job of defining one of the major problems of post-normal science.



You might apply the Essex piece broadly across all science rather than just your opposition on this board...you are quick to rail against anyone who questions your dearly held beliefs regarding QM which is a highly contested and conflicted field of study.  Your believe vigorously in the unobserved and untested conclusions of mathematical models and don't seem to be able to tolerate anyone who doesn't hold your belief....  You also are a poster child for the major problems of post normal science.


----------



## IanC (Mar 27, 2015)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > to those who havent read the Essex piece, I suggest that you do. it does a good job of defining one of the major problems of post-normal science.
> ...




honestly, I am sad that you feel that way. more so than most here, I have been ready to discuss your ideas. I have often encouraged you to  explain your thoughts and put them into context with reality. but you very seldom even made a meagre attempt. your style is to repeat the same thing over and over again, ever more stridently. 

Im sorry that you feel QM is over-rated. I feel that its successful predictions for many situations gives it a high standing in science, the flip side to climate science's poor success in predictions that give it a bad reputation.



anyways, good to see you back. I hope everything is OK.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 27, 2015)

IanC said:


> honestly, I am sad that you feel that way. more so than most here, I have been ready to discuss your ideas. I have often encouraged you to  explain your thoughts and put them into context with reality. but you very seldom even made a meagre attempt. your style is to repeat the same thing over and over again, ever more stridently.
> 
> Im sorry that you feel QM is over-rated. I feel that its successful predictions for many situations gives it a high standing in science, the flip side to climate science's poor success in predictions that give it a bad reputation.
> 
> ...


----------



## IanC (Mar 28, 2015)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > honestly, I am sad that you feel that way. more so than most here, I have been ready to discuss your ideas. I have often encouraged you to  explain your thoughts and put them into context with reality. but you very seldom even made a meagre attempt. your style is to repeat the same thing over and over again, ever more stridently.
> ...





really??? a variation in phase change to Bose-Einstein condensate done at 0.001K is your reason for chucking QM? Newtonian physics is wrong but useful, QM fixed many of the problems in Newtonian physics and led the way to surge in technology that is truly amazing. perhaps something else will come along and supplant QM but the new system will incorporate much of QM. experiments at the fringes do not relegate the whole thing to the dustbin. 

I find it confusing that you have religious faith in the generalized statements of scientists from 150 years ago but you are unwilling to even accept the idea that photons exist. 

good luck with that band thingy. it sounds like fun.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Mar 28, 2015)

Doubt's good. It's the very step towards wisdom. But when 98% of the scientific community has no doubt, but you continue to, then you're not wise so much as an idiot.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 28, 2015)

IanC said:


> really??? a variation in phase change to Bose-Einstein condensate done at 0.001K is your reason for chucking QM?



Not at all and it is good to see that you can still disregard everything someone has said and mischaracterize a whole position based on a single statement.  The key statement there was that the *failures and contradictions of QM far outnumber the successes and any honest physicists will admit that the successes are as likely to be mere coincidence as any actual knowledge.  *And I haven't chucked QM...I simply don't place anywhere near as much faith in the results of mathematical models....when the models themselves are based largely on best guesses as you.  Observation still rules in my book.  



IanC said:


> I find it confusing that you have religious faith in the generalized statements of scientists from 150 years ago but you are unwilling to even accept the idea that photons exist.



Interesting that you call trust in statements that have been supported by every observation ever made "religious faith"...when QM can't produce any observable result that can overturn those crusty old statements from 150 years ago.  

Which really requires faith Ian?  Believing the one which is supported by every observation ever made or the one that can't be observed  because the claim is that the very act of observing changes the result?  Try to manage an honest answer to that one if you can.



IanC said:


> Good luck with that band thingy. it sounds like fun.



Great fun...and the best thing is that at long last my wife off my back over the $6K I spent on my guitar.  Women just have no understanding, or sense of humor when it comes to mens' toys.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 28, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Doubt's good. It's the very step towards wisdom. But when 98% of the scientific community has no doubt, but you continue to, then you're not wise so much as an idiot.



When a claimed 98% of the scientific community has no doubt of the veracity of a hypothesis,  and that same claimed 98% will freely admit that the uncertainty across the board is very high, and that they are really only beginning to scratch the surface of what there is to be known in the field,  only an idiot, or a brain washed minion is not skeptical.  

Which are you?


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Mar 28, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Doubt's good. It's the very step towards wisdom. But when 98% of the scientific community has no doubt, but you continue to, then you're not wise so much as an idiot.
> ...



I'm the one that doesn't need other scientists to tell me a thing trusting the evidence of my own senses. It's getting hotter. Sea levels are rising. Ice caps are melting. I know because I've seen the documentaries and the satellite imagery.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 28, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...



You just called skeptics idiots because they don't believe the claimed 98% scientific consensus (a claim that has been debunked repeatedly) then in the next statement you disregard your appeal to authority...why make it if you know it was meaningless..

As to what your own senses are telling you...sorry but you are misinformed.  It has been getting warmer for the past 14,000 years....but for the past 2 decades, while man's CO2 output has increased, it has not been getting warmer....and more and more outrageous manipulation of the temperature record is required to even maintain the appearance of no warming....the most advanced temperature gathering network on the face of the earth...one so pristinely placed, and redundant that no adjustment of its data is required is finding a cooling trend of about 2 degrees per decade....logic suggests that if the network were extended across the whole globe, similar results would probably be the result.

And I am afraid that your ice cap statement is also the product of misinformation.  Clearly you are not actually looking, but are just repeating what you have been told...rendering the claim that your position is based on your own senses is a lie.  Antarctic sea ice is above normal and has been for over 1,200k consecutive days now...





You clearly have not been really looking at Antarctica either..the melting in western Antarctica  which is the only place it is melting has been going on for a very long time...perhaps for centuries.  Observations of that shrinking have been going on since the 1800's, as indicated by this news clipping from July 1932






And the Arctic?  Again, you haven't been looking.  Arctic ice is on the increase.  This measurement taken yesterday, March 27, 2015 shows the ice well above the 2005 level.  If you were relying on your senses, and actual observation tells you that ice is on the increase at both poles, your senses should tell you that perhaps the earth is cooling...certainly not warming.

You rely on documentaries?  Who funds them?  What is their agenda?  And satellite images?  They tell us that the ice is increasing from previous lows.  Here is an image of the arctic flashing between 2006 and 2015...the circled areas show some slight decrease...your senses tell you that is the dreaded Arctic melt down?  Note the areas of increase as well as the indicated areas of decrease.






One final question for you and your senses.  The worldwide anthropogenic (man made) CO2 output has increased a whopping 350% since 2002 and no warming that is statistically different from zero has happened in that time...but that isn't the kicker.  Even though man made CO2 has increased 350% since 2002, the measured atmospheric CO2 continues to increase at a steady 2.1ppm per year much the same as it has since measurements started in the 1960's.  What do your senses tell you about that fact?






And rates of sea level increase have actually decreased steadily since the mid 20th century.

Slowing sea level rise Climate Etc.

The fact is, delta, if you were relying on your senses, and actual observations you would be as skeptical of the AGW claims as I am.  Clearly, it is not your senses you are relying on....perhaps those documentaries funded by green organizations with political agendas are playing the greater part in forming your position.

Ao I ask again, which are you, an idiot or a brain washed minion?


----------



## Crick (Mar 28, 2015)

I see I've regained highlighted billing.  And that you're as stupid and dishonest as ever.

Global heat content continues to increase.  The radiative imbalance at ToA continues to grow.  The earth's temperature has not warmed, nor has the CO2 level risen, as it has the last 100 years, at any point in the prior 65 million,


----------



## SSDD (Mar 28, 2015)

Crick said:


> I see I've regained highlighted billing.  And that you're as stupid and dishonest as ever.



You must be speaking of yourself.  You are and always were a liar.  Proven over and over.



Crick said:


> Global heat content continues to increase.  The radiative imbalance at ToA continues to grow.



Radiation escaping at the TOA is on the increase as it has been for some time....indicating that the earth is losing heat.  






In addition a paper recently published in the Geophysical Research Letters finds that annual incident solar radiation at the top of atmosphere should be independent of longitudes. However, in many Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) models, we find that the incident radiation exhibited zonal oscillations, with up to 30 W/m2 of spurious variations.

On the incident solar radiation in CMIP5 models - Zhou - 2015 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

Thats THREE ZERO W/m2 of spurious variations.  You know what spurious means?    Look it up.  The entire claimed forcing of manmade CO2 since the 1700s is claimed by the IPCC to be....what...1.68 W/m2...and the error in your models is 18 times larger than the total forcing claimed since the 1700's.  I am still laughing in your stupid face.



Crick said:


> The earth's temperature has not warmed, nor has the CO2 level risen, as it has the last 100 years, at any point in the prior 65 million,



Which proxy are you claiming can tell how fast the temperature during the Holocene maximum?  The Minoan warm period?  The Roman warm period?  The Medieval warm period?  

We both know that there is no proxy that can provide such resolution so, as usual, you are just making it up as you go and spouting bullshit that you just pulled from your ass....and since CO2 doesn't cause warming, how quickly it rose is irrelevant.  I will reiterate that CO2 has been increasing steadily at a rate of about 2.1ppm per year since measurements started in spite of the fact that our own CO2 output has increased 350% since 2002...reality just doesn't jibe with your claims on any point.  

So tell me, are you an idiot or a brainwashed mindless minion?


----------



## mamooth (Mar 28, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Radiation escaping at the TOA is on the increase as it has been for some time....indicating that the earth is losing heat.



Check it out! SSDD is back with his mystery graph!

He's like Billy in that regard. The use of unsourced mystery graphs composed of faked data is a tactic common to all Sky Dragon Slayers. I suppose we might be able to find the origin of the faked graphic if we delved deeply enough into the bowels of PSI or Hockey Schtick, but I doubt anyone cares that much.



> In addition a paper recently published in the Geophysical Research Letters



As far as the Zhou 2015 paper goes, if fails to mention that most models, including all of the mainstream ones, don't use that old solar approximation. Only a handful of minor models use the old solar approximation, with only a single old dodgy Russian model being bad enough to vary by 30 W/m^2. And even for that kind of models that did vary like that, the errors varied equally in both directions over the day.

That is, much ado about nothing. And such nothings are always the best the deniers have.

And even though SSDD now knows his claims here are bullshit, he'll keep trying to pass them off, since he believes he has a special dispensation to lie, handed to him by God and his cult.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 28, 2015)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Radiation escaping at the TOA is on the increase as it has been for some time....indicating that the earth is losing heat.
> ...



And the hairball is still here offering up logical fallacies in lieu of any actual argument.....complaining over the source of the graph rather than proving what the graph says is false.  If you have a graph of actual observation, in lieu of model output that says something other than what my graph says, by all means, lets see it.

In addition a paper recently published in the Geophysical Research Letters



mamooth said:


> As far as the Zhou 2015 paper goes, if fails to mention that most models, including all of the mainstream ones, don't use that old solar approximation. Only a handful of minor models use the old solar approximation, with only a single old dodgy Russian model being bad enough to vary by 30 W/m^2. And even for that kind of models that did vary like that, the errors varied equally in both directions over the day.



CIMP5 are the mainstream models you f'ing idiot and the paper finds the error in the CIMP5 models.  Can't you read?...oh...that's right.  You can't.  Here, let me reiterate what the paper says:

However, in many Coupled Model Intercomparison *Project phase 5 (CMIP5) models*, we find that the incident radiation exhibited zonal oscillations, with up to 30 W/m2 of spurious variations. This feature can affect the interpretation of regional climate and diurnal variation of CMIP5 results. *This oscillation is also found in the Community Earth System Model.
*
And clearly, a model that is off by a factor of 18 is fine with you so long as it says what you want it to say.



mamooth said:


> That is, much ado about nothing. And such nothings are always the best the deniers have.



Typical alarmist response to studies that find your models failing miserably....move along...nothing to see here...except hairball, there is something to see there and no matter how much you whine and wet your panties, the models are failing miserably and will till they incorporate accurate physics at their foundation.

By the way hairball, here are a couple more graphs that say the same thing as the graph I provided.










I won't ask if you are an idiot or a brainwashed minion...we all know that you are an idiot who aspires to be a brainwashed minion.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 28, 2015)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



CIMP5 are the mainstream models you f'ing idiot and the paper finds the error in the CIMP5 models.  Can't you read?...oh...that's right.  You can't.  Here, let me reiterate what the paper says:

However, in many Coupled Model Intercomparison *Project phase 5 (CMIP5) models*, we find that the incident radiation exhibited zonal oscillations, with up to 30 W/m2 of spurious variations. This feature can affect the interpretation of regional climate and diurnal variation of CMIP5 results. *This oscillation is also found in the Community Earth System Model.
*
And clearly, a model that is off by a factor of 18 is fine with you so long as it says what you want it to say.



mamooth said:


> That is, much ado about nothing. And such nothings are always the best the deniers have.



Typical alarmist response to studies that find your models failing miserably....move along...nothing to see here...except hairball, there is something to see there and no matter how much you whine and wet your panties, the models are failing miserably and will till they incorporate accurate physics at their foundation.

I won't ask if you are an idiot or a brainwashed minion...we all know that you are an idiot who aspires to be a brainwashed minion.[/QUOTE]
 He/she posts  looking for attention.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 28, 2015)

jc456 said:


> He/she posts  looking for attention.



Certainly not to make any sort of rational argument.  The hairball's posts mostly remind me of a monkey hurling feces...it's her knee-jerk reaction to anything that is outside of her comfort zone...comfort zone being that bubble of denial of the observable universe that she lives in.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 28, 2015)

Yes! SSDD decided to play. Fresh meat, how sweet. I was getting bored with the other kooks, as they just cried at me.



SSDD said:


> [And the hairball is still here offering up logical fallacies in lieu of any actual argument.....complaining over the source of the graph rather than proving what the graph says is false.  If you have a graph of actual observation, in lieu of model output that says something other than what my graph says, by all means, lets see it.



No, pissdrinker, that's not how it works. While it's no problem to post the real science, and I will, you don't get to post a mystery graph and then declare everyone else is responsible for refuting it. You have to back up your bullshit. Nor does posting two more mystery graphs help your case. Instead, that just confirms your status as a proud data fudger.

I'm guessing the basic nature of your fudge is that someone searched through many different sets of raw -- meaning incomplete -- data until they found the bit they liked. Lying by cherrypicking, that is. In contrast, the real studies look at all the data, and correct for known errors.

If you're not posting such faked data, it's easy enough to prove. Just show us the exact source of the data. We keep asking, you keep refusing. To normal people, that indicates you know you're faking your data.

Oh, as far as the backradiation goes, we have this exhaustive 10-year study showing the global increase in backradiation. Smoking gun. Your kook theory certainly can't explain it, which is why you'll have to run from it.

First direct observation of carbon dioxide s increasing greenhouse effect at Earth s surface -- ScienceDaily

For the OLR,
Gastineau et al 2014
https://skyros.locean-ipsl.upmc.fr/~ggalod/papers/GSDO2013_R2_v6.pdf
---
While the tropical ocean surface temperature has risen by roughly 0.2 K from 1982 to 2004, the reconstructed OLR remains stable over the ocean. Consequently, there is an increase in the clear-sky greenhouse effect (GHE) of 0.80 W m−2 decade−1.
---

Chapman et al 2013
SPIE Proceeding A decade of measured greenhouse forcings from AIRS
---
Decadal trends for AIRS spectra from 2002-2012 indicate continued decrease of -0.06 K/yr in the trend of CO2 BT (700cm-1 and 2250cm-1), a decrease of -0.04 K/yr of O3 BT (1050 cm-1), and a decrease of -0.03 K/yr of the CH4 BT (1300cm-1).
---



> CIMP5 are the mainstream models you f'ing idiot and the paper finds the error in the CIMP5 models.



No. Some are mainstream. Some are minor, kept around for legacy purposes. The paper found an error in a few minor CMIP5 models. Namely: _bcc-csm1-1, BNUESM, CanAM4, CCSM4, CESM1-CAM5, EC-EARTH, inmcm4, NorESM1-M_.

The better models were _ACCESS1-0, ACCESS1-3, CMCC-CM, CNRM-CM5, CSIRO-Mk3-6-0, FGOALS-g2, FGOALS-s2, GFDL-CM3, GFDL-HIRAM-C180, GISS-E2-R, HadGEM2-A, IPSL-CM5A-LR, IPSLCM5A-MR, IPSL-CM5B-LR, MIROC5, MPI-ESM-LR, MPI-ESM-MR, MRI-AGCM3-2H, MRI-AGCM3-2S, MRI-CGCM3._

So, 20 "good", 7 "bad". That "good" list includes all the major models., which are the Hadley, MPI and GFDL models. And you had absolutely no idea of that, given how you're so hilariously ignorant of every aspect of the science.

The only model off by 30W/m^2 was inmcm4, an old Russian model that nobody had every heard of. Yet you chose to lie and declare every model was off by a factor of 18. You're not the most dishonest poster on these boards, but you're in the running.

So, why did the older models do this? Because it's much computationally easier. And it all evens out. That is, the errors are balanced. More energy in one little spot meant less energy in another nearby little spot. If it's fine-grained enough, it's all a wash. Not being idiots, that's why the model makers allowed it. It was a tradeoff. With newer models, more computation power was available, so the approximations didn't have to be made.

What's more, it's a consistent error. Therefore, it can't explain any trends in a model. Therefore, even for an affected model, it doesn't change anything.

Damn, you just fail in so many ways, it's hard to keep track.

By the way, good luck with getting jc's lips removed from your rectum. Being he lacks higher brain function and operates purely on reflex action, he'll latch on, like some anus-seeking remora, to any passing fraudster who can lie well. You're going to lose skin in the process of getting him detached.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 28, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Yes! SSDD decided to play. Fresh meat, how sweet. I was getting bored with the other kooks, as they just whined at me.



You would be laughable if you weren't so pathetic.




mamooth said:


> No, pissdrinker, that's not how it works. You don't get to post mystery data and then declare it's everyone else's responsibility to refute it. You have to back up your bullshit. Nor does posting two more mystery graphs help your case. Instead, that just confirms your status as a proud data fudger.



If you weren't so woefully uninformed, you would have recognized the well known observations showing an increase in outgoing LW at the TOA...contrary to the alarmist claims of decreasing outgoing LW.  The graph from NOAA  corroborates the other two....sorry you are too f'ing stupid to grasp that....of course you are to stupid to grasp much of anything, aren't you?



mamooth said:


> Oh, as far as the backradiation goes, we have this exhaustive 10-year study showing the global increase in backradiation. Smoking gun. Your kook theory certainly can't explain it, which is why you'll have to run from it.



Actually, we don't.  Again you are terribly misinformed....ignorant one might say.  If you look at the equipment used to measure this so called back radiation, you will see that each and every piece is cooled to a temperature far below that of the atmosphere.  There is no back radiation at ambient temperature and the atmosphere radiating to an instrument that is colder than the atmosphere can hardly be characterized as back radiation...it is a warm radiator radiating to a cooler object just as the second law predicts.



mamooth said:


> First direct observation of carbon dioxide s increasing greenhouse effect at Earth s surface -- ScienceDaily



Right...and the instruments are cooled to a temperature cooler than the atmosphere so that they can collect radiation from the atmosphere.  If there were actual back radiation at ambient temperature, supercooling of the instruments would not be required....certainly no cooling of airborne instrumentation is required to measure outgoing radiation from the warmer surface of the planet.



mamooth said:


> No. Some are mainstream. Some are minor. The paper found an error in a few minor CMIP5 models. Namely: _bcc-csm1-1, BNUESM, CanAM4, CCSM4, CESM1-CAM5, EC-EARTH, inmcm4, NorESM1-M_.



Again, your ignorance is showing.  Enough said.



mamooth said:


> By the way, good luck with getting jc's lips removed from your rectum. Being he lacks higher brain function and operates purely on reflex action, he'll latch on, like some anus-seeking remora, to any passing fraudster who can lie well. You're going to lose skin in the process of getting him detached.



My but you do project, don't you.  You should change your screen name to Barco....they make one of the best projectors that can be had today.  Clearly JC has you shaken or you wouldn't take the time to hurl a gratuitous insult his way for no apparent reason.  You are as transparent as you are stupid.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 28, 2015)

SSDD said:


> If you weren't so woefully uninformed, you would have recognized the well known observations showing an increase in outgoing LW at the TOA...



Which you can't show, except with your fudged graphs, which you _still_ won't tell us the source of.

That would be because the source is "Some denier cultist yanked them out of his ass".

You're a fraud, and you're not even good at it.



> Actually, we don't.  Again you are terribly misinformed....ignorant one might say.  If you look at the equipment used to measure this so called back radiation,



Like I said, all the actual data says you're cuckooforcocoapuffs, so you invent these excuses to handwave away all the actual data. In this case, you resort to your "There's no such thing as backradiation!" insanity, which can be instantly disproved by anyone who points an infrared spectrometer at the sky.



> Again, your ignorance is showing.  Enough said.



You didn't even try to counter the rest of my points. You're just whimpering now. I _own_ you, everyone knows it, and I'm laughing my ass off.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 28, 2015)

*Well, let's see what the past has given us concerning the prognostificative abilities of the denialists versus the scientists. In 1981, the denialists were stating flat out that there was no warming of the Earth, period. In spite of evidence then being presented, they flat out denied anything at all was happening, and that nothing was going to happen. And what were the scientists stating?*

Pubs.GISS Hansen et al. 1981 Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide




*National Aeronautics and Space Administration*
*Goddard Institute for Space Studies*

*Goddard Space Flight Center
Sciences and Exploration Directorate
Earth Sciences Division*
*Publication Abstracts*
*Hansen et al. 1981*
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, *213*, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.


Download PDF (2.6 MB; scanned, no OCR)
Go to journal webpage


----------



## jc456 (Mar 29, 2015)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > If you weren't so woefully uninformed, you would have recognized the well known observations showing an increase in outgoing LW at the TOA...
> ...


Your ass fell off long ago when you first looked in the mirror


----------



## ralfy (Mar 29, 2015)

Related:

US Navy predicts summer ice free Arctic by 2016 Nafeez Ahmed Environment The Guardian

How Accurate are Future Projections of Climate Change A Look at Past IPCC Reports Provides Some Answers - The Equation

Bombshell Koch-Funded Study Finds Global Warming Is Real On The High End And Essentially All Due To Carbon Pollution ThinkProgress

Climate contrarians accidentally confirm the 97 global warming consensus Dana Nuccitelli Environment The Guardian


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 29, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> *Well, let's see what the past has given us concerning the prognostificative abilities of the denialists versus the scientists. In 1981, the denialists were stating flat out that there was no warming of the Earth, period. In spite of evidence then being presented, they flat out denied anything at all was happening, and that nothing was going to happen. And what were the scientists stating?*
> 
> Pubs.GISS Hansen et al. 1981 Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide
> 
> ...



HANSEN ET AL...1981.... and its been debunked as a farce and fabrication..  many times over.. keep posting this crap.. we will keep telling you how stupid you look..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 29, 2015)

ralfy said:


> Related:
> 
> US Navy predicts summer ice free Arctic by 2016 Nafeez Ahmed Environment The Guardian
> 
> ...




OH COOL! more alarmist predictions that wont come true...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 29, 2015)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Love the confirmation of TOA thermal release.. Just proof that our Convection cycle is working properly..


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Mar 29, 2015)

Vigilante said:


> AlGore on suicide watch....no one cares!
> 
> Breitbart ^ | 03/25/2015 | Dr. Christopher Essex
> Members of the Scientific Council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) recently criticized the Royal Society’s positions on climate. Their clear, authoritative scientific objections to the Royal Society’s positions reveal the weak scientific foundation on which the great climate fervor has been based. The public must either become conversant enough to grasp this or step back and get out of the way of those who have. Scientists don’t need to be paid to oppose the ideas of climate orthodoxy, because those ideas are just so damn bad....




Jesus Christ you are a sucker

Global Warming Policy Foundation - SourceWatch


----------



## Vigilante (Mar 29, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > AlGore on suicide watch....no one cares!
> ...



And you're an ass.... why did we have an ICE AGE? Pollution?...CO2 levels, ... Mastodon farts?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Mar 29, 2015)

Vigilante said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


it got colder. Did you read the link I posted? No one even knows who funds these asshats.


----------



## Vigilante (Mar 29, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



But WE KNOW the Socialist gov'ts around the world GRANT the Coalition of liars to say it's true! Climate change the new Socialism!


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Mar 29, 2015)

Vigilante said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


Did you read the link?


----------



## Vigilante (Mar 29, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



Yes, now read this

Report 95 percent of global warming models are wrong The Daily Caller


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Mar 29, 2015)

Vigilante said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


“have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979,"

So you and Roy Spencer agree there has been a warming trend since 1979?


----------



## Vigilante (Mar 29, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



Since 1979 the EARTH CHANGES, not attributed to man are increased volcanic actions under the sea, Solar flares, the drifting of Magnetic north, and the possibility of polar shifts, The UNKNOWN earth sounds heard all over the world in the last 2-3 years possibly signifying deep internal movements of the core, producing increased heat from that friction, the position of the Earth within the space we now inhabit, and other unrelated issues which science hasn't researched yet. Now how much has the temperature changed in that period of time... source please.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Mar 29, 2015)

Vigilante said:


> Now how much has the temperature changed in that period of time... source please.


Did you not just claim that the Earth has warmed since 1979? Why do you need me to tell you how much?


----------



## Vigilante (Mar 29, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Now how much has the temperature changed in that period of time... source please.
> ...



I don't have that information at hand... YOU should or why make a claim?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Mar 29, 2015)

Vigilante said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...



OK.  Let us know when you have it.

You are the one who posted a link claiming the Earth has warmed since 1979, not me.


----------



## Vigilante (Mar 29, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



Go back a few posts, I said Earth Changes, NOTHING about Earth warming.... you read something I haven't said, and why I have no info on it!


----------



## jc456 (Mar 30, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...


no, you posted the earth was warming, and fairly, he asked by how much.  So how much? Please we're all interested.  Don't we all have a stake in this? Your genius is beginning to spew here, so let's have the data.


----------



## ralfy (Mar 30, 2015)

Vigilante said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...



Read the studies given in the article I shared plus reports by skeptics that confirm AGW and the consensus.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 30, 2015)

ralfy said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...


do you believe the arctic will be ice free next summer?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Mar 30, 2015)

jc456 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


Not true. Go back and read.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Mar 30, 2015)

Vigilante said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...



The link you posted referring to Roy Spencer and climate models made the claim there has been a warming trend since 1979. Do you disagree with your own link?


Report 95 percent of global warming models are wrong The Daily Caller


"Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95 percent of the models “have over-forecast* the warming trend since 1979*, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH).”


Clearly, Spencer thinks there has been a warming trend since 1979. Do you disagree?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 30, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Now how much has the temperature changed in that period of time... source please.
> ...


Actually... the warming stopped about 1996-1997.  It has now been 18 years 4 months with no warming... A Zero trend..  Unless you count the unwarranted adjustments made by alarmist shills at NASA ans NOAA.

Since 2002 the trend is now cooling..


----------



## mamooth (Mar 30, 2015)

Billly, cut it out with the fraud. Faking data is not cool. Unless you're a denier, in which case it's mandatory.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Mar 30, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...



Your plot is out of date.


Billy_Bob said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...





Billy_Bob said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


Your plot is out of date. It also doesn't start until 2002 for some stupid reason.


----------



## ralfy (Mar 30, 2015)

jc456 said:


> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...



Decreasing sea ice volume is more important.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 31, 2015)

ralfy said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ralfy said:
> ...



Global sea ice is at near record levels..





arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.global.anom.1979-2008


----------



## ralfy (Mar 31, 2015)

SSDD said:


> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



There's a global sea ice area graph here:

Polar Sea Ice Cap and Snow - Cryosphere Today

Also, global sea ice extent anomaly from 1981 to 2010 is -1.68 pct:

Global Snow Ice - February 2015 State of the Climate National Climatic Data Center NCDC 

It was at near record levels as well during the late '80s, but the trend line is downward.

More important is sea ice volume:

Polar Science Center PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume Reanalysis

Finally, there are more feedback loops to consider, including the ones enumerated here:

Climate-Change Summary and Update


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Mar 31, 2015)

ralfy said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ralfy said:
> ...


Its not. Sea ice volume does not affect sea level.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 31, 2015)

Vigilante is banned?? This site is a fucking joke and the Mods suck fucking hairy Alaskan moosecock!!!

Omfg what was his problem, not enough support of Obama, Hillary or anal sex with 5th graders?!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 31, 2015)

Denier and consensus are cult terms and never used by real scientists


----------



## jc456 (Mar 31, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...


the link title --US Navy predicts summer ice free Arctic by 2016 Nafeez Ahmed Environment The Guardian

now, do you think the arctic will be ice free next summer?  It's a simple yes or no repsonse.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 31, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...


because he highlighted dude.  OMG how stupid can someone be.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 31, 2015)

ralfy said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ralfy said:
> ...


that wasn't an answer to my question, why did you not answer the question.  it's a yes or no response.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Mar 31, 2015)

jc456 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


I don't know, but you sure are pushing the edge of the envelope on that one


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Mar 31, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Denier and consensus are cult terms and never used by real scientists


I'm a real scientist. I use the word.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 31, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Denier and consensus are cult terms and never used by real scientists
> ...



Like I said, no real scientists uses those terms.  Thanks for underscoring it


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Mar 31, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Are you suggesting astrophysics isn't a 'real science' ?


----------



## mamooth (Mar 31, 2015)

jc, why do you think the arctic will be ice free in 2016? 

You're the only one making that claim, so you ought to justify it. The Navy certainly didn't make that prediction. A denier lying about what the Navy supposedly said only makes deniers look bad.

So, why do all the deniers keep making these kook predictions about an ice-free arctic?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 31, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...


huh, you acting goofy again?  Look at the line above the graph it says, since 2002 the trend is cooling.  Now goof, what do you supposed that means?  Don't need to look it up on line either.  Please what does it mean?

Edit, you probably think it means it's been cooling since 1992, right, because it isn't mentioned anywhere in the line.  But you, showing all your goofy, point out something that wasn't ever included missing.  yep strong goofiness right there.  Thanks for the chuckles today .


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 31, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



Astrophysics is a real science, but people who use the terms "Consensus" or "Denier" are not scientists


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 31, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...


Too Funny.. You say that you are a scientist but cant read a very simple graph....


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 31, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



No they are not, they are cult driven propagandists that dont have a lick of any empirical evidence to support their position.  But you knew that...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 31, 2015)

jc456 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Its like explaining life to a rock.... The rock will never figure it out....


----------



## ralfy (Mar 31, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



It should for obvious reasons.


----------



## ralfy (Mar 31, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Denier and consensus are cult terms and never used by real scientists



Not likely for reasons given earlier. Also, scientists are by default skeptics, which is why they study the matter continuously.

The problem is that governments, households, businesses, and other groups want to know what to do about the problem. Since we also face pollution and peak oil, then the only logical thing to do is to decrease fossil fuel consumption.

The IEA, various multinational banks, and other groups have been suggesting that in their reports. Even several  oil companies have been investing in other energy sources.


----------



## ralfy (Mar 31, 2015)

jc456 said:


> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



As I said, it is very difficult to predict such occurrences, as climate models have not been able to account for around 50 feedback loops. Keep in mind that sea ice is only one of multiple factors involved. For example, I recall that it was estimated that methane would be escaping from sea floors and the tundra decades from now. That phenomenon started around a decade ago.

In the end, what should matter is not predictions of ice-free caps but trend lines, and both show a downward trend for sea ice extent and volume. Similar issues are taking place for 49 other feedback loops.

Finally, what should be noted is the accuracy of the models. Recent studies show that they have been so.


----------



## ralfy (Mar 31, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



But skeptics have used the term and argue that there is none, while their own study confirms it:

Climate contrarians accidentally confirm the 97 global warming consensus Dana Nuccitelli Environment The Guardian


----------



## ralfy (Mar 31, 2015)

jc456 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Surface temperature anomaly goes up and down every few years, but the trend line is upward:

The Escalator


----------



## ralfy (Mar 31, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Related:

GSA Today - Groundwork - An Astrophysicist Looks at Global Warming


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 31, 2015)

ralfy said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ralfy said:
> ...



Methane release has been going on for hundreds of millions of years. IT did not just magically start 10 years ago, we only noticed it ten years ago. This is the logical fallacy of AGW and all its tenets.. If we didn't notice it it must be man caused...  idiots..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 31, 2015)

ralfy said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...


Wrong again... but I have come to expect no less from a left wing shill.




The average is almost flat over 200 years. The solar cycles plotted above and the temperature deviations in deg C are plotted as well. This also (pardon my mouse writing as  i am using substandard programs) with my additions show warming, cooling, inactive storm periods and active storm periods since 1800. We have just entered the phase of cooling and very low storm energy globally.

Your "every few years" is to small a time frame to show what is actually happening globally and over sufficient  term lengths  to matter.

Original Graph by Bob Tisdale


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 1, 2015)

ralfy said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



"Although there are parallels between computing projectile trajectories and computing global warming, there are also differences. In the case of trajectories, one can repeat an experiment many times and measure the uncertainty. In the case of global warming, there is only one Earth’s atmosphere with which to “experiment.” One arrives at formal uncertainties in the models by varying the input parameters (for example, the rate of CO2 input into the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning) and computing many such models."

So there are too many variables for anyone to say they have "Consensus" or that the science is "Settled"


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 1, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



Are you familiar with "General Relativity"?

Google it and we'll talk later


----------



## jc456 (Apr 1, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


he must be from the same breed that can't do experiments.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 1, 2015)

ralfy said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > ralfy said:
> ...


oh s0n.. you're really not writing that oh no, the ralfy has ralfed.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 1, 2015)

ralfy said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Denier and consensus are cult terms and never used by real scientists
> ...


first prove you have a problem, and to date that hasn't happened.  So to move forward provide some fnnn evidence. Then let's talk.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 1, 2015)

ralfy said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ralfy said:
> ...


oh gawd, come now, don't you have anything to do?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 1, 2015)

ralfy said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...


ah.....no!


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 2, 2015)

ralfy said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > ralfy said:
> ...



No. Sea ice volume floats in the ocean. It does not affect sea level. Melting ground ice affects it directly, and melting ice shelves affect it indirectly by allowing glaciers to flow to the sea quicker - but free floating ice does not change sea level one way or another. For obvious reasons.


----------



## ralfy (Apr 2, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



This might help:

Sea level rise due to floating ice 

In reference to this study:

The melting of floating ice raises the ocean level ingentaconnect

Details on sea ice volume:

Polar Science Center PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume Reanalysis

And other impacts listed here:

Climate Change Impact on Sea Ice Decline Weather Underground


----------



## ralfy (Apr 2, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



You missed the rest of the article, especially the ending.


----------



## ralfy (Apr 2, 2015)

jc456 said:


> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



Welcome to my ignore list.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 2, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



Tell 'em how CO2 is spawning all those undersea volcanoes!


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 2, 2015)

ralfy said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > ralfy said:
> ...


Thanks ralfy. I didn't know that. You said it was "obvious" though...seems like a less obvious affect to me.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 2, 2015)

Has Guam tipped over yet?


----------



## ralfy (Apr 2, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Has Guam tipped over yet?



Since you are not interested in discussing this issue seriously, then I'll have to add you to my ignore list.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 2, 2015)

Ser


ralfy said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Has Guam tipped over yet?
> ...


Seriously? Really, you rant on here about bullshit and then make a claim of serious ...well, bullshit!


----------



## jc456 (Apr 2, 2015)

Gre


ralfy said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ralfy said:
> ...


Great that's an honor! Thanks for proving my points!


----------



## jc456 (Apr 2, 2015)

ralfy said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Has Guam tipped over yet?
> ...


Hey rally just put all those who disagree with your side and you on ignore and you my as well leave here, all else is pointless!


----------



## IanC (Apr 2, 2015)

ralfy said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Has Guam tipped over yet?
> ...



We see many of the implausible predictions of doom coming out climate science media releases as ridiculous as Johnson's concern over Guam capsizing. Gore, for one, has made many insane claims. Not everyone has the background to simply dismiss them. There are many people out there who believe him. And more than a few on this message board as well.


----------



## IanC (Apr 2, 2015)

ralfy said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Has Guam tipped over yet?
> ...



We see many of the implausible predictions of doom coming out climate science media releases as ridiculous as Johnson's concern over Guam capsizing. Gore, for one, has made many insane claims. Not everyone has the background to simply dismiss them. There are many people out there who believe him. And more than a few on this message board as well.


----------



## Crick (Apr 2, 2015)

What "insane claims" has Al Gore made?


----------



## Crick (Apr 2, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> "Although there are parallels between computing projectile trajectories and computing global warming, there are also differences. In the case of trajectories, one can repeat an experiment many times and measure the uncertainty. In the case of global warming, there is only one Earth’s atmosphere with which to “experiment.” One arrives at formal uncertainties in the models by varying the input parameters (for example, the rate of CO2 input into the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning) and computing many such models."
> 
> So there are too many variables for anyone to say they have "Consensus" or that the science is "Settled"



God are you stupid.

There are no parallels - none - between computing projectile trajectories and global warming.

Your jump from arriving at uncertainties in models by varying input parameters to there are too many variables is completely nonsequitur.  The former does not support the latter in any way, shape or form.  But you don't stop there.  Then you claim that the number of variables in climate models preclude the existence of a consensus of opinion among climate experts.

Jesus.... stupid, stupid, stupid.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 2, 2015)

Crick said:


> What "insane claims" has Al Gore made?


He opened his mouth and words came out!


----------



## Crick (Apr 2, 2015)

Ahh... of course.  I bet Vice President Gore is just crushed by undeniable, hard-hitting criticism like that.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 2, 2015)

Crick said:


> Ahh... of course.  I bet Vice President Gore is just crushed by undeniable, hard-hitting criticism like that.


I care!


----------



## ralfy (Apr 2, 2015)

IanC said:


> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



That's why one should focus on science reports:

America s Climate Choices Final Report Climate Change at the National Academies

Including those funded by skeptics:

Berkeley Earth


----------



## IanC (Apr 2, 2015)

Crick said:


> What "insane claims" has Al Gore made?








some of us just laugh when we hear stuff like that. but others dont. remember when Gore got a Nobel prize and an Oscar for telling the world about his views on global warming? didnt that make him an 'authority' in many people's eyes?


----------



## IanC (Apr 3, 2015)

somewhere on one of these threads Crick accused me of saying that everything in the IPCC reports are false. obviously I have never said that.

there are several levels of evidence and hypotheses and the conclusions that are drawn from them. the same data (evidence) can be used in different contexts depending on a person's beliefs (hypotheses). skeptics and warmists look at the same pile of data and come to different conclusions. they may both agree with the general principles but depending on which pieces of evidence are chosen, what context that evidence is put into, and what overarcing theory is being used, the conclusions may differ wildly.

the lead authors of the IPCC choose evidence that supports their pet theories and the rest is left unattended. what happens when only agreeable evidence is used and contrary evidence is ignored? you get an answer that is at least partially wrong.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 3, 2015)

Crick said:


> What "insane claims" has Al Gore made?



 'The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff. It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.' Al Gore 2007

Crick, liar and moron


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 3, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > "Although there are parallels between computing projectile trajectories and computing global warming, there are also differences. In the case of trajectories, one can repeat an experiment many times and measure the uncertainty. In the case of global warming, there is only one Earth’s atmosphere with which to “experiment.” One arrives at formal uncertainties in the models by varying the input parameters (for example, the rate of CO2 input into the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning) and computing many such models."
> ...



That's from the unread article you fucking liar and moron

That's a direct quote FROM THE UNREAD ARTICLE!

GSA Today - Groundwork - An Astrophysicist Looks at Global Warming

Crick, lying scumbag

Crick, you see how you made a moron of yourself again, right?


----------



## IanC (Apr 4, 2015)

ralfy said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...




thanks for the link. although I disagree with his analogy that CO2 warming can be calculated in a simple fashion similar to an artillery shell's trajectory, I was pleased to see his description of how infrared is thermalized in the atmosphere.



> When a greenhouse molecule absorbs an infrared photon, the molecule rotates or vibrates faster and is said to be in an “excited” state. At low gas densities, an excited greenhouse gas molecule will spontaneously (by the rules of quantum mechanics) reradiate an infrared photon, which may escape the atmosphere into space and produce no net warming.
> 
> At the higher densities of Earth’s atmosphere, the excited molecule will bump into (collide with) another molecule (any molecule in the atmosphere). In the collision, the energized greenhouse gas molecule loses its rotational energy, which is transferred to the kinetic energy of the molecule it collides with (this is called collisional de-excitation). The increased kinetic energies of the colliding molecules means that the molecules are moving faster than they were prior to the collision, and the increased velocities of such molecules represents a direct measure of increased atmospheric temperature.



this ends the nonsense about how CO2 supposedly absorbs 15 micron IR and reradiates ~ 50% back to the surface. it is all absorbed and converted to heat within about 10 metres from the surface. this also happened at 280 ppm CO2 although the extinction distance was slightly longer, perhaps something like 10.5 metres. 


perhaps you would like to discuss some other part of the article?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 5, 2015)

IanC said:


> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Even at 10 meters the amount of thermalization directed towards the earths surface is less than 30% and depending on humidity levels. The amount of convected heat lowers that amount by 15-35%. Water vapor can neutralize the thermalization affect to near 100% at just 40% humidity in our atmosphere with only minor prevailing winds(3-7 knots).

The article only deals with part of the equation while it does address some of the more pronounced logical fallacies the left uses.


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 5, 2015)

Nobody takes Gore seriously except the hard line religion. When he actually goes and debates somebody...........for 15 years, has avoided it like a vampire avoids sunlight. Ghey.


----------



## ralfy (Apr 5, 2015)

IanC said:


> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Except that the issue involves more than just CO2.

And there's no need to discuss any other part of the article because the conclusion is clear.


----------



## ralfy (Apr 5, 2015)

IanC said:


> somewhere on one of these threads Crick accused me of saying that everything in the IPCC reports are false. obviously I have never said that.
> 
> there are several levels of evidence and hypotheses and the conclusions that are drawn from them. the same data (evidence) can be used in different contexts depending on a person's beliefs (hypotheses). skeptics and warmists look at the same pile of data and come to different conclusions. they may both agree with the general principles but depending on which pieces of evidence are chosen, what context that evidence is put into, and what overarcing theory is being used, the conclusions may differ wildly.
> 
> the lead authors of the IPCC choose evidence that supports their pet theories and the rest is left unattended. what happens when only agreeable evidence is used and contrary evidence is ignored? you get an answer that is at least partially wrong.



Except that these "pet theories" were reviewed by the NAS:

America s Climate Choices Final Report Climate Change at the National Academies

And when skeptics funded an independent study on the matter, they ended up with similar conclusions:

America s Climate Choices Final Report Climate Change at the National Academies


----------



## IanC (Apr 6, 2015)

ralfy said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > ralfy said:
> ...




CO2 is no longer the main issue in AGW? when did this change?

I am sorry that you feel discussion is not needed.


----------



## IanC (Apr 6, 2015)

ralfy said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > somewhere on one of these threads Crick accused me of saying that everything in the IPCC reports are false. obviously I have never said that.
> ...





I think you must be new to the climate wars. I have read lots of stories, articles and papers from both sides. you bring up the NAS.

are you familiar with the congressional hearing into Mann's hockeystick? the NAS was tasked to write a report, headed up by North I believe. it said that McIntyre's criticisms were valid, that stripbark proxies should not be used for climatology, yet from the otherside of their mouth they said the hockeystick was valid because it was replicated by other papers even though those studies also used the tainted stripbark proxies! 

there is no clear yes/no, right/wrong dichotomy in climate science. it is a muddy uncertain thing where mistakes are corrected very slowly and in a grudging manner.


----------



## Crick (Apr 6, 2015)

I do not recall ever charging you with rejecting all the IPCC's assessment reports.  However, you'd have to identify those points or position with which you agree because I'd have a hard time identifying them myself.

The actual disagreement with Mann's hockey stick is not whether or not it shows the unprecedentedly rapid warming of the latter half of the 20th century, but whether or not it shows the medieval warm period (MWP).  The idea that the presence of the MWP falsifies AGW is utter nonsense.

Unfortunately, a number of the inadequately educated members of the denier side believe that when their denier icons say the hockey stick has been refuted, that they are saying that the Earth has not experienced unprecedentedly rapid warming in the latter half of the 20th century.


----------



## ralfy (Apr 8, 2015)

IanC said:


> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



I didn't argue that it's not the main issue. I said that AGW involves more than just CO2. More details are found in the NAS final report and others.

Further discussion is not needed for reasons given here:

Climate Science Doubts Not Because of Payment but Because the Science Is Bad Page 6 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## ralfy (Apr 8, 2015)

IanC said:


> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



The NAS studied multiple reports and data sets.

The next point is old news:

Much-vindicated Michael Mann and Hockey Stick get final exoneration from Penn State -- time for some major media apologies and retractions ThinkProgress

The last point is questioned by the fact that skeptics funded an independent study of the matter and ended up confirming AGW:

Bombshell Koch-Funded Study Finds Global Warming Is Real On The High End And Essentially All Due To Carbon Pollution ThinkProgress

Finally, another study that questions the consensus confirms it:

Climate contrarians accidentally confirm the 97 global warming consensus Dana Nuccitelli Environment The Guardian


----------



## rdean (Apr 8, 2015)

Republican scientist is an oxymoron


----------



## IanC (Apr 8, 2015)

rdean said:


> Republican scientist is an oxymoron




how can you be so stupid?


----------



## Crick (Apr 9, 2015)

Ian, do you believe Mann's 'hockey stick' has been refuted, and if so, please explain whether you are referring to the MWP or the warming of the 20th century.


----------



## IanC (Apr 9, 2015)

Crick said:


> Ian, do you believe Mann's 'hockey stick' has been refuted, and if so, please explain whether you are referring to the MWP or the warming of the 20th century.




Mann's hockey sticks, in all version have been shown to be incorrect. In both methodology and data. His claims of error and certainty are also wrong. He is also guilty of lying. And not just in papers, books and blogs but in court and to congressional hearings.


----------



## Crick (Apr 9, 2015)

Evidence? Shown to be incorrect how?  By who? What lies has he told?





From AR5


----------



## Crick (Apr 9, 2015)




----------



## Crick (Apr 9, 2015)




----------



## ralfy (Apr 9, 2015)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Ian, do you believe Mann's 'hockey stick' has been refuted, and if so, please explain whether you are referring to the MWP or the warming of the 20th century.
> ...



Large-scale reconstructions validate it:

List of large-scale temperature reconstructions of the last 2 000 years - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 9, 2015)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Ian, do you believe Mann's 'hockey stick' has been refuted, and if so, please explain whether you are referring to the MWP or the warming of the 20th century.
> ...


Proof of which is? Ian, how about some real science, and not the lies of McIntyre.


----------



## IanC (Apr 11, 2015)

ralfy said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



ralfy- you're new here. I have gone through all of this stuff before, especially Old Rocks. There are lots of interesting threads in the archives. 

I told you before that people have to make up their own minds. So I clicked your link to see what you are being influenced by. An obscure name popped up that is actually familiar to me. Huang and Pollack boreholes. In 1997 they used 6000 boreholes and their graph showed a strong MWP and LIA. In 2000 they chopped it down to 600 boreholes and that is the graphic that was added to the Spaghetti graph. In 2008 they bumped up the number of boreholes to a few thousand and the MWP and LIA were back again. I am not going to guess what their intentions were in deriving the 2000 'odd man out' chart. Or why they have returned to a more realistic reconstruction. But you have to wonder why one of the studies got publicity and the other, more thorough, studies did not.


----------



## IanC (Apr 11, 2015)

IanC said:


> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...








here are the three studies plotted out for the last thousand years. you can easily google the actual studies, and there are many other borehole studies available to give context to the Huang papers


----------



## Crick (Apr 11, 2015)

Here is the abstract to their 2000 paper
Temperature trends over the past five centuries reconstructed from boreholetemperatures Abstract Nature

*Temperature trends over the past five centuries reconstructed from borehole temperatures*
Shaopeng Huang1, Henry N. Pollack1 & Po-Yu Shen2


Department of Geological Sciences, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1063, USA
Department of Earth Sciences, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, N6A 5B7, Canada
Correspondence to: Henry N. Pollack1 Correspondence and request for materials should be addressed to H.N.P. (e-mail: Email: hpollack@umich.edu).

For an accurate assessment of the relative roles of natural variability and anthropogenic influence in the Earth's climate, reconstructions of past temperatures from the pre-industrial as well as the industrial period are essential. But instrumental records are typically available for no more than the past 150 years. Therefore reconstructions of pre-industrial climate rely principally on traditional climate proxy records1, 2, 3, 4, 5, each with particular strengths and limitations in representing climatic variability. Subsurface temperatures comprise an independent archive of past surface temperature changes that is complementary to both the instrumental record and the climate proxies. Here we use present-day temperatures in 616 boreholes from all continents except Antarctica to reconstruct century-long trends in temperatures over the past 500 years at global, hemispheric and continental scales.* The results confirm the unusual warming of the twentieth century revealed by the instrumental record6, but suggest that the cumulative change over the past five centuries amounts to about 1 K, exceeding recent estimates from conventional climate proxies*2, 3, 4, 5. The strength of temperature reconstructions from boreholes lies in the detection of long-term trends, complementary to conventional climate proxies, but to obtain a complete picture of past warming, the differences between the approaches need to be investigated in detail.
*******************************************************************************************


----------



## Crick (Apr 11, 2015)

Here is the 2008 Abstract.  In this case, the entire article is available.

*A late Quaternary climate reconstruction based on borehole heat flux data, borehole temperature data, and the instrumental record*

*Abstract*
[1] We present a suite of new 20,000 year reconstructions that integrate three types of geothermal information: a global database of terrestrial heat flux measurements, another database of temperature versus depth observations, and the 20th century instrumental record of temperature, all referenced to the 1961–1990 mean of the instrumental record. These reconstructions show the warming from the last glacial maximum, the occurrence of a mid-Holocene warm episode, a Medieval Warm Period (MWP), a Little Ice Age (LIA), and the rapid warming of the 20th century. The reconstructions show the temperatures of the mid-Holocene warm episode some 1–2 K above the reference level, the maximum of the MWP at or slightly below the reference level, the minimum of the LIA about 1 K below the reference level, and end-of-20th century temperatures about 0.5 K above the reference level.

A late Quaternary climate reconstruction based on borehole heat flux data borehole temperature data and the instrumental record - Huang - 2008 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

I note that these data put current temps above the MWP's.


----------



## ralfy (Apr 12, 2015)

IanC said:


> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Why not investigate the matter further? For example, you can find out why the number of boreholes used were decreased. There's also a list of borehole data available online. You can also look at the manner by which other scientists used that and other data sets, how the IPCC looked at multiple assessments, how the NAS analyzed the same data sets for its final report, and how it assessed surface temperature reconstructions. That way, you'll be able to answer your own questions instead of relying on forum members to do that for you.

In any event, you will realize that the science is not "bad" at all.


----------



## ralfy (Apr 12, 2015)

IanC said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > ralfy said:
> ...



That's why the list I shared contains multiple reconstructions and not just one. That's also why the NAS published a report analyzing the same.


----------



## ralfy (Apr 12, 2015)

Crick said:


> Here is the 2008 Abstract.  In this case, the entire article is available.
> 
> *A late Quaternary climate reconstruction based on borehole heat flux data, borehole temperature data, and the instrumental record*
> 
> ...



There's also

6.6.1.2 What Do Large-Scale Temperature Histories from Subsurface Temperature Measurements Show - AR4 WGI Chapter 6 Palaeoclimate

This plus many other studies plus the NAS analysis of reconstructions and the NAS final report and the BEST report show that the situation is far removed from the claim that "the science is bad."


----------



## SSDD (Apr 12, 2015)

Crick said:


> Here is the 2008 Abstract.  In this case, the entire article is available.
> 
> *A late Quaternary climate reconstruction based on borehole heat flux data, borehole temperature data, and the instrumental record*
> 
> ...



How many peer reviewed studies from all over the globe would you like to see that find that the MWP was both warmer than the present and global in nature?


----------



## Crick (Apr 12, 2015)

I haven't the slightest care about either.  You folks are the one grasping at MWP straws.  From my point of view, the MWP is completely irrelevant.


----------



## Crick (Apr 12, 2015)

There are a few points about the MWP in which you might be interested.  Sea level increased from the warming and so did North Atlantic cyclone activity.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 12, 2015)

Crick said:


> There are a few points about the MWP in which you might be interested.  Sea level increased from the warming and so did North Atlantic cyclone activity.



The point is that it puts the present well within the limits of natural variation and the destruction of industry, jobs, and ways of life are not necessary....not to even mention the literally millions of brown lives in the third world that environmentalist policy and activism cost.


----------



## IanC (Apr 12, 2015)

ralfy said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




You seem to have missed the point I was trying to make. Huang97 had the most data and supported the predominant meme at the time, warmer MWP. Huang00 used a truncated dataset that supported the new meme of the flat blade of the hockeystick. Huang08 used an abbreviated dataset that brought back the MWP and LIA but at a lower baseline. It's odd how the same pile of data can say anything you want, depending on which pieces you use.

As far as the NAS report; it said McIntyre was right that Mann's methodology was wrong and bristlecone pines shouldn't be used. From the other side of its mouth it said that others had replicated the same general results, even though the same tainted proxies were used.

If you guys don't want to even acknowledge that there are serious problems in most of the areas of climate science then that is you prerogative. Truth always comes out, enen if it takes a while.


----------



## Crick (Apr 12, 2015)

When you said "flat blade", you mispoke.

Serious problems?  You know of problems that would result in no warming from the added CO2?  Let's see 'em

McIntrye's correction to MBH 98 resulted in NO change to their conclusion.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 12, 2015)

Crick said:


> McIntrye's correction to MBH 98 resulted in NO change to their conclusion.



If you call killing the hockey stick no change, then I guess you are right.  Here is the published paper.

https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf


----------



## Crick (Apr 12, 2015)

Why don't you compare the corrected paper to the original?  Afraid what it'll show?


----------



## ralfy (Apr 12, 2015)

IanC said:


> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



The report validates Mann and argues that the bias in the methodology had little influence on the results.

As for McIntyre, peer-reviewed studies published as early as 2005 questioned his points.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 13, 2015)

Crick said:


> Why don't you compare the corrected paper to the original?  Afraid what it'll show?



Clearly you didn't.  Afraid?


----------



## Crick (Apr 13, 2015)

The 'blade' of the corrected version is not only exactly as vertical, it continues higher in temperature than did the original.

Thanks.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 13, 2015)

Crick said:


> The 'blade' of the corrected version is not only exactly as vertical, it continues higher in temperature than did the original.
> 
> Thanks.



And it clearly shows that the temperature increase today is in no way unusual and not outside the boundaries of natural variation...The temperature spike at 1450 is just as large and abrupt as the modern spike.  Natural variation is a bitch if you are a warmer....go further back with other proxy data and one sees that the holocene optimum, the minoan warm period, the roman warm period and the medieval warm period all experienced temperature changes as large and as, if not more abrupt than the modern warming which has been going on for some time now.


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 13, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Why don't you compare the corrected paper to the original?  Afraid what it'll show?
> ...


 


SSDD man.......where ya been???

The level of k00k in here lately has gone from the profound to the completely absurd!! I dont think even one of these nutters has their feet firmly planted on the ground.............but we've been embarrassing the shit out of them as usual. Welcome back abaord s0n!!!!


----------



## IanC (Apr 13, 2015)

Offset centering, PC overweighting of preferred proxies, and use of gray versions, tainted, or duplicates of proxies were just a few of the problems with Mann's work.

It is important to remember that McIntyre was NOT making his own reconstruction! He was only showing what Mann should have found if some of the mistakes were corrected.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 13, 2015)

Crick said:


> I do not recall ever charging you with rejecting all the IPCC's assessment reports.  However, you'd have to identify those points or position with which you agree because I'd have a hard time identifying them myself.
> 
> The actual disagreement with Mann's hockey stick is not whether or not it shows the unprecedentedly rapid warming of the latter half of the 20th century, but whether or not it shows the medieval warm period (MWP).  The idea that the presence of the MWP falsifies AGW is utter nonsense.
> 
> Unfortunately, a number of the inadequately educated members of the denier side believe that when their denier icons say the hockey stick has been refuted, that they are saying that the Earth has not experienced unprecedentedly rapid warming in the latter half of the 20th century.


all anyone on the skeptic side wanted was the raw data Mann used.  he refused to supply the data.  Am I wrong?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 13, 2015)

skookerasbil said:


> SSDD man.......where ya been???



Been just to busy since Christmas.  I sat in as lead guitar for a local blues / jazz group who lost their previous lead back around Christmas.  They offered me a spot in the band as long as I cared to play.  I have always enjoyed playing the blues, but jazz has never really been my thing so I have been spending a lot of time practicing.  Something had to give because there are only so many hours in a day so my computer time was where I made the cut.   Been at it for almost 5 months now and don't feel the need to practice as much as I did.....still have to work on it but not as much.  Making pretty good money at it also which serves to convince my wife that I didn't waste all those thousands I spent on my guitar some years ago.  Women just have no sense of humor with regard to our toys.

[QUOTE="skookerasbil, post: 11180657, member: 20360]"The level of k00k in here lately has gone from the profound to the completely absurd!! I dont think even one of these nutters has their feet firmly planted on the ground.............but we've been embarrassing the shit out of them as usual. Welcome back abaord s0n!!!![/QUOTE]

Death throes of a cult.  Never pretty to watch.  Seems that rather than get past the denial phase, they have dug in like a bunch of blood sucking ticks.


----------



## Crick (Apr 13, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I do not recall ever charging you with rejecting all the IPCC's assessment reports.  However, you'd have to identify those points or position with which you agree because I'd have a hard time identifying them myself.
> ...



As far as I have been able to tell, you are always wrong.

And are you under the impression that Michael Mann owns all the climate data ever recorded?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 13, 2015)

H


Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


He had the data that made his graph. Your point?


----------



## ralfy (Apr 13, 2015)

IanC said:


> Offset centering, PC overweighting of preferred proxies, and use of gray versions, tainted, or duplicates of proxies were just a few of the problems with Mann's work.
> 
> It is important to remember that McIntyre was NOT making his own reconstruction! He was only showing what Mann should have found if some of the mistakes were corrected.



More details here:

RealClimate National Academies Synthesis Report

Thus, there are uncertainties for earlier periods, but the key findings are substantiated.

Finally, the third and fourth points are notable, as they involve looking at multiple studies and not just one. And yet you keep insisting on focusing on only one study.

Given that, and the fact that I am explaining to you an issue that took place almost a decade ago, shows that I am wasting my time discussing this point with you. And that's why I am now adding you to my ignore list.


----------



## IanC (Apr 14, 2015)

ralfy said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Offset centering, PC overweighting of preferred proxies, and use of gray versions, tainted, or duplicates of proxies were just a few of the problems with Mann's work.
> ...




hahahahahaha. by all means put me on ignore! you have ignored everything I have said anyways.

I only bring up Mann because you warmist fanatics cannot bring yourselves to admit he screwed up in 1998, and every paper since. I have yet to hear one of you guys admit that the upsidedown Tiljander cores were a mistake! let alone join in the call for them to be corrected. I have posted threads on other incorrect paleoreconstructions, like PAGES2K, where obvious mistakes were made, and the results were changed considerably when at least some of the mistakes were corrected. if the skeptics were wrong why was Gergis12 withdrawn? I could go on, and on, and on. but what is the point? someone like you who only reads one side of the issue cannot fathom that there really are many facets to the climate science problems. I tell you I am a liberal and came to the skeptical side of the issue because of the weakness in the science and you turn around and accuse me of being funded by big oil! hahahahahahaha. please, please put me on ignore. at least until you get some big boy pants and are actually willing to debate the issues.


----------



## Crick (Apr 14, 2015)

Do you deny the observed warming of the 20th century?

You keep saying that you believe CO2 causes warming but not as much as mainstream science believes.  What, then, caused the rest of it?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 14, 2015)

Crick said:


> Do you deny the observed warming of the 20th century?
> 
> You keep saying that you believe CO2 causes warming but not as much as mainstream science believes.  What, then, caused the rest of it?




How much of that warming is real and how much is the product of adjustments to the data?...and is it in any way unprecedented?


----------



## IanC (Apr 14, 2015)

Crick said:


> Do you deny the observed warming of the 20th century?
> 
> You keep saying that you believe CO2 causes warming but not as much as mainstream science believes.  What, then, caused the rest of it?




0.7C ? now apparently adjusted up to 0.8C ? I think natural variation can easily account for it all, but I am willing to portion some of it out to CO2.


----------



## Crick (Apr 14, 2015)

WHAT natural variation are you talking about?  Events require causes.


----------



## IanC (Apr 14, 2015)

Crick said:


> WHAT natural variation are you talking about?  Events require causes.




the same natural causes that formed the MWP, Roman warm period, etc. or the 'Pause' for that matter.


----------



## Crick (Apr 14, 2015)

Crick said:


> WHAT natural variation are you talking about?  Events require causes.





IanC said:


> the same natural causes that formed the MWP, Roman warm period, etc. or the 'Pause' for that matter.



And what would those be?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 14, 2015)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > WHAT natural variation are you talking about?  Events require causes.
> ...



If the science were actually settled, the answer to that question would be readily available.


----------



## Crick (Apr 14, 2015)

So you don't know.  Ian?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 14, 2015)

Crick said:


> So you don't know.  Ian?


Sure he does because you have nothing to dispute it


----------



## SSDD (Apr 15, 2015)

Crick said:


> So you don't know.  Ian?



And neither do you nor all the king's climate scientists....they actually know very little at this point in the grand scheme.


----------



## Crick (Apr 15, 2015)

But the two of you are just so certain SOMETHING else is the cause.  Now THAT'S good science.

God are you stupid.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 15, 2015)

Crick said:


> But the two of you are just so certain SOMETHING else is the cause.  Now THAT'S good science.
> 
> God are you stupid.



Since the climate sensitivity to CO2 is zero, of course it must be something else as it has always been something else....for you to suspect that this time it is CO2 when every other time it was something else is just stupid.  Good science makes sure it understands all previous causes for an event before inventing an entirely new cause for an event.  Science doesn't really have a clue what caused past warm periods...it is all guesswork.


----------



## Crick (Apr 15, 2015)

You just finished telling us all, twice or more, that it was negative.  Now you say it's zero.  Those are not the same.  You're a fucking idiot.

You seem to be saying that good science wouldn't waste time trying to understand what's going on with the current climate (the one from which we can take direct measurements) till we find out what caused warm periods dating back to the paleolithic (the ones where we cannot).

Just a fucking idiot.


----------



## IanC (Apr 15, 2015)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > WHAT natural variation are you talking about?  Events require causes.
> ...




the Null Hypothesis is that natural factors controlled the climate in the past, and continue to do so. if you cannot explain why the recent warming excursions like the MWP and RWP happened, how can you claim to know that this warming event is unnatural?


----------



## Crick (Apr 15, 2015)

Doesn't it make you uneasy to use as vague a term in as vague a manner as you just did with "natural factors"? 

There are numerous theories as to what caused the MWP.  There are numerous theories as to what has caused the last 150 years' warming, but one is far more widely accepted than any other.

I think the null hypothesis applied to the MWP would say that it was idiopathic.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 15, 2015)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


this!!!!


----------



## SSDD (Apr 15, 2015)

Crick said:


> You just finished telling us all, twice or more, that it was negative.  Now you say it's zero.  Those are not the same.  You're a fucking idiot.
> 
> You seem to be saying that good science wouldn't waste time trying to understand what's going on with the current climate (the one from which we can take direct measurements) till we find out what caused warm periods dating back to the paleolithic (the ones where we cannot).
> 
> Just a fucking idiot.



Zero or less is what I have always said....and you can't provide a single bit of observed evidence to the contrary.

And as I said, good science first, endeavors to understand what caused previous warm periods and assures itself that the cause of none of those warm periods are the cause of the present warm period (which in historical terms isn't really even a warm period) before it assigns a totally new and unique reason for events that have happened with regularity in the past.  Religion assigns a cause for events with no real idea what caused them.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 15, 2015)

Crick said:


> Doesn't it make you uneasy to use as vague a term in as vague a manner as you just did with "natural factors"?



Not nearly as uncomfortable as assigning a completely new cause when clearly there are numerous natural causes which have resulted in even more and more rapid warming than we have experienced.



Crick said:


> There are numerous theories as to what caused the MWP.  There are numerous theories as to what has caused the last 150 years' warming, but one is far more widely accepted than any other.



Which is most likely to open the grant money spigot?


----------



## Crick (Apr 15, 2015)

If someone were chasing money, they wouldn't be pushing an environmental agenda.  They'd be doing something to cheer up the people with the money: the fucking fossil fuel industry you goddamn ignoramus.


----------



## IanC (Apr 16, 2015)

the govt(s) fund the multiple layers of bureaucracy to study and regulate all things 'CO2".

the problem with the fossil fuel industry is that they actually expect something for their money.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 16, 2015)

Crick said:


> If someone were chasing money, they wouldn't be pushing an environmental agenda.  They'd be doing something to cheer up the people with the money: the fucking fossil fuel industry you goddamn ignoramus.



The fossil fuel industry is pursuing the AGW hoax as well...more money to be made.  Sorry you don't grasp economics.


----------



## Crick (Apr 16, 2015)

I think the most astounding error you deniers make is to assume that ten thousand degreed climate scientists, whose work all gets mutually reviewed are all simultaneously and unanimously willing to falsify data and lie to the public in order to keep their jobs while the fossil fuel industry, whose very existence you believe threatened by this line of inquiry, who pull in tens of billions of dollars in net profits each year, are as pure as the driven snow and wouldn't consider spending one thin dime in what boils down to an unethical PR campaign to save their own hides.  

God are you stupid.


----------



## IanC (Apr 16, 2015)

I certainly dont believe "Big Oil" is trustworthy or on my side.

My skepticism stems directly from the weakness of published peer reviewed climate science papers and press releases.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 16, 2015)

*All major global temperature-tracking agencies have ranked January, February, and March 2015 as among the warmest three months on record, respectively.*
2015 is hot A weirdly warm Pacific Ocean is set to make this year the warmest on record.
Right wing reaction shot :


----------



## Crick (Apr 16, 2015)

IanC said:


> I certainly dont believe "Big Oil" is trustworthy or on my side.
> 
> My skepticism stems directly from the weakness of published peer reviewed climate science papers and press releases.



Is that why you go after John Cook in your sig?  How much input did John Cook have on AR1, 2, 3, 4 or 5?


----------



## IanC (Apr 17, 2015)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I certainly dont believe "Big Oil" is trustworthy or on my side.
> ...




really? you consider me posting Cook's own words as 'going after' him? I should be so lucky when you are 'going after' me! much as I ask you to quote my statements, you always seem to find it more convenient just to make up shit that you imply I said.

John Cook is a perfect example of why I said, "My skepticism stems directly from the weakness of published peer reviewed climate science papers and press releases."

his peer reviewed paper, Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience , was slipshod and undeniably flawed. I dont care to rehash the criticisms yet again. besides the ordinary media outlets fawning over yet another bogus 97% article, this one even had a presidential seal of approval as Obama tweeted it to his 30+ million followers.







the day after the paper was published no less. no sense in waiting to see if any problems appear because it is always better to get your side of the story out first. everyone reads the headlines, no one reads the correction buried on page 24 in small print.


----------



## Crick (Apr 17, 2015)

You don't care to "rehash the criticisms" because you know as well as I do that the criticisms are complete crap.  Would you care to stand up for Legates work here?  Is that less "slipshod"?

And, in case you failed to realize this minor point, Cook et al's paper is not research about global warming.  It is a goddamn survey on the opinions of climate scientists.


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> You don't care to "rehash the criticisms" because you know as well as I do that the criticisms are complete crap.  Would you care to stand up for Legates work here?  Is that less "slipshod"?
> 
> And, in case you failed to realize this minor point, Cook et al's paper is not research about global warming.  It is a goddamn survey on the opinions of climate scientists.




I think one of the harshest criticisms of the paper was when the timestamps of the volunteer adjudicators was forced out and they found that one of them rated many hundreds of papers in less than one day. Not exactly diligent.


----------



## Crick (Apr 18, 2015)

Then why has no one gone back and looked at them again?  Surely that would have been a more sensible response than Legates insanity.  You didn't answer my question. Would you care to stand up for Legates work here?


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> Then why has no one gone back and looked at them again?  Surely that would have been a more sensible response than Legates insanity.  You didn't answer my question. Would you care to stand up for Legates work here?




I am not particularly knowledgeable on Legates criticisms. is he the one who looked at a representative sample and found that only a small percentage actually promoted the idea of CO2 theory?


----------



## Crick (Apr 18, 2015)

I think he looked at a very large sample, perhaps the same papers that Cook looked at.  He simply counted as supporting the IPCC position ONLY those papers that explicity stated "We support the IPCC's position".  Not surprisingly, he came out with a very small level of support.


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2015)

The majority of skeptics and lukewarmers agree with the low level mechanisms and general data. Warmers don't get to occupy that ground for themselves at our exclusion. Most polls with basic questions like 'has it warmed' or 'has mankind contributed to climate change' are nearly universally agreed upon. It is only when you get deeper into projection, predictions and catastrophe that the differences in the groups become pronounced.


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2015)

There is a funny article over at WUWT that talks about the dearth of talented students going into the climate science field.

It ends with something like 'why would talented energetic and enthusiastic people choose a field where new ideas are met with ostracism and punishment'?


----------



## Crick (Apr 18, 2015)

Gosh, I can't think of a more objective or better informed source for such opinions than WUWT.


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2015)

It's a newspaper article quoting climate scientists. With a reference to a Nature article also saying the best and brightest are bypassing climate science.


----------



## Crick (Apr 18, 2015)

And is this: "why would talented energetic and enthusiastic people choose a field where new ideas are met with ostracism and punishment'?" quoted from Nature?


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2015)

Have you read the piece? Quote away, all I have is my phone and I couldn't be bothered.


----------



## Crick (Apr 18, 2015)

All I have is an interest in climate science.  This isn't it.


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> All I have is an interest in climate science.  This isn't it.




All you are interest in is evidence that supports your personal view of climate science, is closer to the truth.

If you choose not to acknowledge that leaders in climate science are concerned that few of the most talented students are picking climate science, that is your right. I pointed to the news but you certainly don't have to read it.


----------



## Crick (Apr 19, 2015)

I certainly don't have to think it has any bearing whatsoever on the validity of AGW because it does not.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> I certainly don't have to think it has any bearing whatsoever on the validity of AGW because it does not.




The fact that the existing crop of climate scientists aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer does however....and the frequency to which their papers get withdrawn as the result of critique by what you call amaeteurs attests to the fact.


----------



## Crick (Apr 19, 2015)

If the fossil fuel industry were to put hundreds of millions of dollars behind people, promising them more if they can only shake our confidence in theoretical physics, we'd see the same thing there.

There's nothing wrong with climate science.  There IS something wrong with being the useful idiots of the fossil fuel disinformation campaign.  Have you noted how the average intelligence of deniers like you is significantly lower than the that of the general population?  There's a very good reason for that.

PS, you're a troll.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2015)

Crick said:


> If the fossil fuel industry were to put hundreds of millions of dollars behind people, promising them more if they can only shake our confidence in theoretical physics, we'd see the same thing there.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with climate science.  There IS something wrong with being the useful idiots of the fossil fuel disinformation campaign.  Have you noted how the average intelligence of deniers like you is significantly lower than the that of the general population?  There's a very good reason for that.
> 
> PS, you're a troll.



You might have an argument if climate science weren't funded at a rate of about 10 to 1 where skeptics are concerned...you talk about a hundred million as if it were a significant amount in the face of tens of billions being doled out to climate science from both government and environmentalist sources.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 20, 2015)

The best and brightest doctors bypass doing abortions because of the threats, and now climate scientists are on the hit list. And the deniers here are proudly bragging about their success at being Stalinist thugs.

That's yet another reason why we oppose deniers. It's why anyone who cares about liberty is mandated to oppose deniers.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 20, 2015)

mamooth said:


> The best and brightest doctors bypass doing abortions because of the threats, and now climate scientists are on the hit list. And the deniers here are proudly bragging about their success at being Stalinist thugs.
> 
> That's yet another reason why we oppose deniers. It's why anyone who cares about liberty is mandated to oppose deniers.


do you wake up with yourself.  You shouldn't any longer.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 20, 2015)

jc, do you reject or embrace the denier cult's thuggery?

Are you willing to renounce your cult's Stalinist tactics? Will you be the first denier here to do so, or are you another proud party apparatchik, ready to arrest those bourgeois scientists for their CrimesAgainstTheState?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 20, 2015)

mamooth said:


> jc, do you reject or embrace the denier cult's thuggery?
> 
> Are you willing to renounce your cult's Stalinist tactics? Will you be the first denier here to do so, or are you another proud party apparatchik, ready to arrest those bourgeois scientists for their CrimesAgainstTheState?


do you wake up with yourself. You shouldn't any longer.  twice now!


----------



## Crick (Apr 20, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > If the fossil fuel industry were to put hundreds of millions of dollars behind people, promising them more if they can only shake our confidence in theoretical physics, we'd see the same thing there.
> ...



Tens of billions of dollars might be getting spent on dealing with global warming, and a significant, but lesser amount is likely being spent on climate research, but it is most definitely NOT getting spent attempting to convince the public to believe a lie.


----------



## IanC (Apr 20, 2015)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...




There plenty of half truths, misdirections and outright mistakes being being broadcast to the public by climate science.


----------



## Crick (Apr 20, 2015)

You would have a hard time finding a climate scientist who is putting out information he knows to be false.  The same cannot be said for the actors of the fossil fuel industry's disinformation campaign.


----------



## IanC (Apr 20, 2015)

Crick said:


> You would have a hard time finding a climate scientist who is putting out information he knows to be false.  The same cannot be said for the actors of the fossil fuel industry's disinformation campaign.




Mann, Tiljander. The worst part is that he passes his tainted work around and contaminates other papers.


----------



## Crick (Apr 21, 2015)

What data do you believe Mann and Tiljander knew to be false but still used?

I've made several comments about the fossil fuel industry's disinformation campaign recently.  No one has made the slightest attempt to reject or refute the contention.  Good,  We're making progress.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2015)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


who and what are dealing with global warming?  explain that comment please.


----------



## Crick (Apr 21, 2015)

Restrictions on coal, tighter CAFE standards on automobiles, new requirements for power generation facilities, subsidization of alternative/renewable energy, research into fuel cells, fusion, improved PV... you know, all the stuff you hate.


----------



## IanC (Apr 23, 2015)

I have often mentioned Mann's misuse of Mia Tiljander's Korttajarvi sediments. so I searched for information on how Real Climate and SkepticalScience explained this travesty to their true believers.

most of it is just rehashing Mann's "Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors" nonsense. really, what proxy is worth using if you dont think it makes a difference whether it is upsidedown or not?

but a different Finnish paleo scientist had an interesting take on the whole thing. he said Mann used the same orientation that Tiljander used! and it is! of course Tiljander didnt make her graph values coincide with higher temps but instead with lower temps.



> Data is then read from the data-matrix to perform the reconstruction (there are several steps involved in this but it is not important here). There’s nothing special done on TEA data at this point either compared to other proxies, so the data seems to stay the same way throughout the reconstruction. So, the Tiljander data clearly is not flipped upside-down there. That doesn’t mean the Tiljander data is handled correctly there. Tiljander data is actually handled upside-down there. It is because the data is given in TEA so that higher values of relative X-ray density correspond to lower temperature values, so _MEA should have turned the data upside-down before using it in their analysis_.



so, is Mann off the hook?



> Seeing the real situation with this issue, it seems that MEA did an honest mistake, which of course should be corrected.



there you go. an easy face-saving explanation. just admit there was a mistake and fix it. seven years later Mann is still not admitting the mistake, still not fixing it, and so far quite a few other papers have used his tainted results presumably because they didnt know of the flaw. why does climate science let this continue?

others, like Kaufman's arctic portion of the PAGES2K, knew enough about the controversy to discard the 20th century portion because of land use contamination but still used the cold MWP warm LIA orientation. could it be that convenient data which gives a prefered outcome is more valued than correct data? everytime Mann gets away with brazening out his mistakes with no consequences that just encourages others to produce sloppy work that is aimed at a predetermined outcome rather than a scientific discovery.


----------



## Crick (Apr 23, 2015)

Could it be that you give all of this the worst interpretation you can create and that still, it does nothing to refute AGW.


----------



## IanC (Apr 23, 2015)

Crick said:


> Could it be that you give all of this the worst interpretation you can create and that still, it does nothing to refute AGW.




actually, the fixing of upsidedown proxies, truncated proxies,and misweighted proxies always lead to re-emergence of the MWP and LIA, usually to the point where modern temps are generally equivilent to MWP temps. present warming is no longer 'unprecedented' as claimed by climate science.


I have asked you many times in the past and I will ask you again. Should Mann fix his use of the Tiljander proxies in an inverted fashion?


----------



## Crick (Apr 23, 2015)

Now why would you be interested in the opinion of someone you believe to be a liar?


----------



## IanC (Apr 23, 2015)

Crick said:


> Now why would you be interested in the opinion of someone you believe to be a liar?




you lied, you got called on it, get over yourself.


and answer the question. should Mann fix his obvious mistake from seven years ago? or is there a time limit by which if you ignore or refuse to admit a mistake then it just doesnt matter anymore?


----------



## Crick (Apr 24, 2015)

I told no lie.


----------



## IanC (Apr 28, 2015)

Any other warmer here want to defend Mann's incorrect use of the Tiljander proxies?


----------

