how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[PMZ]

Nah what ya did was gloss over your getting caught in your BS..

You tried to fuss at someone over their non-peer reviewed source, and do it using an even less reliable source.. You didn't even know skeptical science was a warmer blog... And ignoring the post that points this crap you pulled out doesn't make it go away. it just makes you look dishonest..

If someone had told that you could get dumber I would have said ''no way''. You've proven me wrong.

 

[gslack]

Nah what ya did was gloss over your getting caught in your BS..

You tried to fuss at someone over their non-peer reviewed source, and do it using an even less reliable source.. You didn't even know skeptical science was a warmer blog... And ignoring the post that points this crap you pulled out doesn't make it go away. it just makes you look dishonest..

If someone had told that you could get dumber I would have said ''no way''. You've proven me wrong.

LOL, if you can't keep up with the conversation,please shut up...

 

[PMZ]

I've never read you engaged in a conversation. When was it?

 

[westwall]

That is not a legitimate peer-reviewed and published science paper, and Wattssupdoc is not a legitimate science publication (and Anthony Watt is a denier, not a skeptic). And who is Ed Hoskins, and what are his qualifications, I might ask? Seems no one knows other than that he appears to be British. But hey, if the righters can use illegitimate forums and cite unknown authors of non-peer reviewed material to argue their case, it seems only fitting to offer a rebuttal from a similar forum.

Cheers:

HotWhopper: More denier weirdness: Ed Hoskins Magic Numbers

Your "peer reviewed papers" got destroyed in ten hours by a statistician. I know who I will place more credibility with...and it ain't your clowns...

No, sir, they actually didn't. And your "statistician" is McIntyre, who lost any credibility he might have had long ago. Of course, that has nothing whatsoever to do with this nonsense Ed Hoskins is promoting. But you knew that.

Uhhhhh, yes they did....Gergis et al was removed from the website. Here's what you get when you click on the original link. So yes, you are either grossly uninformed or lying....

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Here's the backup of the original....

http://static.stuff.co.nz/files/melbourne.pdf

And here is the letter to McIntyre informing him that the issues HE FOUND were being reviewed. So, yet again, you and your ilk are WRONG.

"Dear Stephen,

I am contacting you on behalf of all the authors of the Gergis et al (2012) study ‘Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium’

An issue has been identified in the processing of the data used in the study, which may affect the results. While the paper states that “both proxy climate and instrumental data were linearly detrended over the 1921–1990 period”, we discovered on Tuesday 5 June that the records used in the final analysis were not detrended for proxy selection, making this statement incorrect. Although this is an unfortunate data processing issue, it is likely to have implications for the results reported in the study. The journal has been contacted and the publication of the study has been put on hold.

This is a normal part of science. The testing of scientific studies through independent analysis of data and methods strengthens the conclusions. In this study, an issue has been identified and the results are being re-checked.

We would be grateful if you would post the notice below on your ClimateAudit web site.

We would like to thank you and the participants at the ClimateAudit blog for your scrutiny of our study, which also identified this data processing issue.

Thanks, David Karoly

Print publication of scientific study put on hold

An issue has been identified in the processing of the data used in the study, “Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium” by Joelle Gergis, Raphael Neukom, Stephen Phipps, Ailie Gallant and David Karoly, accepted for publication in the Journal of Climate.

We are currently reviewing the data and results."


Gergis et al ?Put on Hold? « Climate Audit


Your credibility is plummeting fast when you ignore reality on such a consistent basis. You might as well come back as Saigon or whoever you were the last time....

 

[westwall]

I never said it was peer reviewed.
Believe who and what you want.
All I see are the defensive attacks on someone's hard work.

O-M-G. EPIC FAIL!

I notice you didn't provide any opinion about the Sun's effects on the climate.

Of course. Because any suggestion that the sun's output has not been accounted for, and that it explains global warming (which you people alternately agree and disagree is occurring) is nonsense.

July 2013 was 9 degrees below normal this year.

Since June's global climate data just came out, and showed it being the fifth warmest June on record, you can't know what July did globally. I know you guys depend utterly on the crap Bob Tinsdale and Roy Spencer spew on a regular basis, but do wait for the official tally to be published before you start drooling.

May and June were also colder than normal by many degrees.

You really should have your Kool-Aid checked because, damn.

June 2013 Global Climate Update | NOAA Climate.gov

State of the Climate | Global Analysis - June 2013

The failure is all yours. For THIRTY years your predictions have been all doom and gloom, and for thirty years you have failed. Now you guys are so sure that what you are pushing is crap that you will no longer make credible, measurable predictions. That's not science buckwheat, that's charlatanism.

Congrats, you guys are actually less accurate than Sylvia fucking Brown one of the worst "psychics" ever.

Laughable, simply laughable.

 

[orogenicman]

I never said it was peer reviewed.
Believe who and what you want.
All I see are the defensive attacks on someone's hard work.

O-M-G. EPIC FAIL!



Of course. Because any suggestion that the sun's output has not been accounted for, and that it explains global warming (which you people alternately agree and disagree is occurring) is nonsense.



Since June's global climate data just came out, and showed it being the fifth warmest June on record, you can't know what July did globally. I know you guys depend utterly on the crap Bob Tinsdale and Roy Spencer spew on a regular basis, but do wait for the official tally to be published before you start drooling.

May and June were also colder than normal by many degrees.

You really should have your Kool-Aid checked because, damn.

June 2013 Global Climate Update | NOAA Climate.gov

State of the Climate | Global Analysis - June 2013

The failure is all yours.

How do you figure, seeing as how I showed that he was wrong, above?

For THIRTY years your predictions have been all doom and gloom, and for thirty years you have failed.

You haven't known me for thirty years, and you certainly cannot point to any predictions I have made, much less any predications that I got wrong. Making shit up is the same as lying, dude. Does it make you proud to be known as a liar?

 

[PMZ]

I never said it was peer reviewed.
Believe who and what you want.
All I see are the defensive attacks on someone's hard work.

O-M-G. EPIC FAIL!



Of course. Because any suggestion that the sun's output has not been accounted for, and that it explains global warming (which you people alternately agree and disagree is occurring) is nonsense.



Since June's global climate data just came out, and showed it being the fifth warmest June on record, you can't know what July did globally. I know you guys depend utterly on the crap Bob Tinsdale and Roy Spencer spew on a regular basis, but do wait for the official tally to be published before you start drooling.

May and June were also colder than normal by many degrees.

You really should have your Kool-Aid checked because, damn.

June 2013 Global Climate Update | NOAA Climate.gov

State of the Climate | Global Analysis - June 2013

The failure is all yours. For THIRTY years your predictions have been all doom and gloom, and for thirty years you have failed. Now you guys are so sure that what you are pushing is crap that you will no longer make credible, measurable predictions. That's not science buckwheat, that's charlatanism.

Congrats, you guys are actually less accurate than Sylvia fucking Brown one of the worst "psychics" ever.

Laughable, simply laughable.

For 30 years you've been out of touch with reality. Most notably science. That’s nowhere near a record. There are still those who deny a spheroidal earth 1600 years later.

 

[westwall]

O-M-G. EPIC FAIL!



Of course. Because any suggestion that the sun's output has not been accounted for, and that it explains global warming (which you people alternately agree and disagree is occurring) is nonsense.



Since June's global climate data just came out, and showed it being the fifth warmest June on record, you can't know what July did globally. I know you guys depend utterly on the crap Bob Tinsdale and Roy Spencer spew on a regular basis, but do wait for the official tally to be published before you start drooling.




You really should have your Kool-Aid checked because, damn.

June 2013 Global Climate Update | NOAA Climate.gov

State of the Climate | Global Analysis - June 2013

The failure is all yours.

How do you figure, seeing as how I showed that he was wrong, above?

For THIRTY years your predictions have been all doom and gloom, and for thirty years you have failed.

You haven't known me for thirty years, and you certainly cannot point to any predictions I have made, much less any predications that I got wrong. Making shit up is the same as lying, dude. Does it make you proud to be known as a liar?

I use "you" as a descriptor for all of the failed AGW scientists and their claims which to date have not occurred and now, with the drop off in solar activity, it is looking ever more like Svensmark's theory is the accurate one.

Once upon a time there was a nice correlation between CO2 rise and global temp rise. That stopped at least 15 years ago. Now.........you've got nuthin, nuthin at all but ad homs and attacking the "credentials" of the sceptics that regularly skewer your (once again a generic) claims.

 

[PMZ]

The failure is all yours.

How do you figure, seeing as how I showed that he was wrong, above?

For THIRTY years your predictions have been all doom and gloom, and for thirty years you have failed.

You haven't known me for thirty years, and you certainly cannot point to any predictions I have made, much less any predications that I got wrong. Making shit up is the same as lying, dude. Does it make you proud to be known as a liar?

I use "you" as a descriptor for all of the failed AGW scientists and their claims which to date have not occurred and now, with the drop off in solar activity, it is looking ever more like Svensmark's theory is the accurate one.

Once upon a time there was a nice correlation between CO2 rise and global temp rise. That stopped at least 15 years ago. Now.........you've got nuthin, nuthin at all but ad homs and attacking the "credentials" of the sceptics that regularly skewer your (once again a generic) claims.

Wrong again, us usual. It's almost like science doesn't like you and refuses to behave as you'd prefer.

What has global warming done since 1998?

 

[mamooth]

I use "you" as a descriptor for all of the failed AGW scientists and their claims which to date have not occurred and now,

Who only exist in your head, given how successful AGW science has been in its predictions. That would be why it has such credibility. Let us know when denialism has the same decades of success behind it.

And yeah, we know, anyone outside of your fantasy world is a liar by definition. So go on, do your usual screaming of "liar!" at everyone. Get it out of your system.

with the drop off in solar activity, it is looking ever more like Svensmark's theory is the accurate one.

Warming went the opposite way Svensmark's cosmic ray theory said it would, hence Svensmark is conclusively proven wrong. No matter. With denialism, you can shift your theories every week, and even simultaneously embrace contradictory theories. With that cult, it's not about making sense, it's about throwing everything at the wall in the hopes something sticks, about simply spouting the maximum number of attacks on the dirty warmers

 

[gslack]

I've never read you engaged in a conversation. When was it?

The next time someone cries about me being mean, I can point to crap posts like this from ignorant trolls as why...

Want to know why I am so intolerant of you and your clones socko? Take a good look at what you post daily.. Either you are rambling your half-baked nonsense full of crap you pull out of your butt, or you are trolling for effect... Not a genuine bone in you..

Oh look I see the admiral grew a pair and came back to save you.. How nice... What's wrong admiral? New clone falling so quickly?

 

[westwall]

How do you figure, seeing as how I showed that he was wrong, above?



You haven't known me for thirty years, and you certainly cannot point to any predictions I have made, much less any predications that I got wrong. Making shit up is the same as lying, dude. Does it make you proud to be known as a liar?

I use "you" as a descriptor for all of the failed AGW scientists and their claims which to date have not occurred and now, with the drop off in solar activity, it is looking ever more like Svensmark's theory is the accurate one.

Once upon a time there was a nice correlation between CO2 rise and global temp rise. That stopped at least 15 years ago. Now.........you've got nuthin, nuthin at all but ad homs and attacking the "credentials" of the sceptics that regularly skewer your (once again a generic) claims.

Wrong again, us usual. It's almost like science doesn't like you and refuses to behave as you'd prefer.

What has global warming done since 1998?

You must be Gavin. I think that is the only site you ever post links to. Of course they are wrong.....

 

[westwall]

I use "you" as a descriptor for all of the failed AGW scientists and their claims which to date have not occurred and now,

Who only exist in your head, given how successful AGW science has been in its predictions. That would be why it has such credibility. Let us know when denialism has the same decades of success behind it.

And yeah, we know, anyone outside of your fantasy world is a liar by definition. So go on, do your usual screaming of "liar!" at everyone. Get it out of your system.

with the drop off in solar activity, it is looking ever more like Svensmark's theory is the accurate one.

Warming went the opposite way Svensmark's cosmic ray theory said it would, hence Svensmark is conclusively proven wrong. No matter. With denialism, you can shift your theories every week, and even simultaneously embrace contradictory theories. With that cult, it's not about making sense, it's about throwing everything at the wall in the hopes something sticks, about simply spouting the maximum number of attacks on the dirty warmers

What have you guys ever predicted accurately? Do tell!

 

[SSDD]

So 64 pages in and none of the warmers can answer the OP. How much warming is our contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere causing?

Answer = zero and even if the magic existed to some small degree,(which it doesn't) the amount would be so small as to be hopelessly lost within natural variation.

 

[orogenicman]

So 64 pages in and none of the warmers can answer the OP. How much warming is our contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere causing?

Answer = zero and even if the magic existed to some small degree,(which it doesn't) the amount would be so small as to be hopelessly lost within natural variation.

Actually, it has been addressed a number of times. That the answer wasn't what you wanted or expected is no one else's problem but yours. But let's look at the OP for a moment, shall we?

The question of how much warming will result from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we skeptics are skeptical of. The climate system is amazingly complex, and the IPCC position that elements within the climate system (especially clouds) will change in ways which amplify the resulting small warming tendency is highly questionable, to say the least. If the climate system instead acts to reduce the warming, then anthropogenic global warming (AGW) becomes for all practical purposes a non-issue.

Problems with his thesis are:

1) He makes an unsupported assumption that the IPCC position is incorrect. Unsupported because it is simply a statement of opposition to the IPCC position, not a valid argument presented with evidence backing up the statement. If the IPCC had made their statements in the same way, they'd be the laughing stock on the planet. But for some reason, he gets a pass when he does it.

2) He makes another (qualified) assumption that if the IPCC position is incorrect, then somehow the climate will shrug off its heat build up with out even bothering to suggest how that is even physically possible. The heat has to go somewhere. It doesn't get magically transported to Vulcan and solve our problem. If it is not being radiated back into space, then it stays in the atmosphere or is absorbed into the land, the biosphere, the sea, and/or all of the above.

Either way, without presenting supporting evidence, his thesis is untenable, to say the least.

 

[PMZ]

I've never read you engaged in a conversation. When was it?

The next time someone cries about me being mean, I can point to crap posts like this from ignorant trolls as why...

Want to know why I am so intolerant of you and your clones socko? Take a good look at what you post daily.. Either you are rambling your half-baked nonsense full of crap you pull out of your butt, or you are trolling for effect... Not a genuine bone in you..

Oh look I see the admiral grew a pair and came back to save you.. How nice... What's wrong admiral? New clone falling so quickly?

Is this an example of you in conversation?

 

[PMZ]

So 64 pages in and none of the warmers can answer the OP. How much warming is our contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere causing?

Answer = zero and even if the magic existed to some small degree,(which it doesn't) the amount would be so small as to be hopelessly lost within natural variation.

Let's see. You have no theories that explain how AGW does not exist, no data, no peer reviewed science. All you can claim is that you don't want it to exist because then the media entertainers that you've mistaken for news reporters would be right and you would not look like the cultist that you are.

Not much to believe in. Science vs Fox News.

 

[IanC]

So 64 pages in and none of the warmers can answer the OP. How much warming is our contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere causing?

Answer = zero and even if the magic existed to some small degree,(which it doesn't) the amount would be so small as to be hopelessly lost within natural variation.

Actually, it has been addressed a number of times. That the answer wasn't what you wanted or expected is no one else's problem but yours. But let's look at the OP for a moment, shall we?

The question of how much warming will result from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we skeptics are skeptical of. The climate system is amazingly complex, and the IPCC position that elements within the climate system (especially clouds) will change in ways which amplify the resulting small warming tendency is highly questionable, to say the least. If the climate system instead acts to reduce the warming, then anthropogenic global warming (AGW) becomes for all practical purposes a non-issue.

Problems with his thesis are:

1) He makes an unsupported assumption that the IPCC position is incorrect. Unsupported because it is simply a statement of opposition to the IPCC position, not a valid argument presented with evidence backing up the statement. If the IPCC had made their statements in the same way, they'd be the laughing stock on the planet. But for some reason, he gets a pass when he does it.

2) He makes another (qualified) assumption that if the IPCC position is incorrect, then somehow the climate will shrug off its heat build up with out even bothering to suggest how that is even physically possible. The heat has to go somewhere. It doesn't get magically transported to Vulcan and solve our problem. If it is not being radiated back into space, then it stays in the atmosphere or is absorbed into the land, the biosphere, the sea, and/or all of the above.

Either way, without presenting supporting evidence, his thesis is untenable, to say the least.

Spencer wrote that article not long after he published a paper that demonstrated how clouds react to excess available heat by pumping it above the cloud tops in a manner that is finer grained and more localized than climate models handle clouds.

Why do you get to claim everything ever mentioned by the IPCC while denying Spencer even his own work?


Climate sensitivities is going to be a big issue with AR5. The science based working groups are going to scale back the presumed positive feedbacks while the politically based third working group that predicts consequences of global warming will continue to use old estimates and carry on with projections of doom. Just wait and see. The report is already in its final stages and I don't see it being changed significantly. The political side is going to ignore the science side.

 

[IanC]

So 64 pages in and none of the warmers can answer the OP. How much warming is our contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere causing?

Answer = zero and even if the magic existed to some small degree,(which it doesn't) the amount would be so small as to be hopelessly lost within natural variation.

Let's see. You have no theories that explain how AGW does not exist, no data, no peer reviewed science. All you can claim is that you don't want it to exist because then the media entertainers that you've mistaken for news reporters would be right and you would not look like the cultist that you are.

Not much to believe in. Science vs Fox News.

None of the major skeptics deny that CO2 has an influence. They argue that the climate system has homeostatic mechanisms that compensate rather than exacerbate the predicted impact. The cranks that claim no change are just as incorrect as those who claim 6 degrees of warming.

 

[SSDD]

[.......The cranks that claim no change are just as incorrect as those who claim 6 degrees of warming.

And you base that clam on exactly what observed, empirical, repeatable evidence?