Revisiting CO2 Lags, not Leads

I think I will start to close down comments on some of the guide articles as the comment threads get too long and meandering, and instead direct people from there to dedicated “open threads”.

So consider this the first implementation of that idea for the article “CO2 Lags, not leads“. Comments there are now closed.

The main reason I want to do this article first, aside from the recent explosion of unproductive comments, is because I would like to make a correction and a couple of clarifications based on what came out there. The majority of the comments fall squarely in the “completely missing the point” category, in that they simply restate the addressed objection with not even a cursory nod to the refutation. We can ignore those.

But I think that if I wrote the article today there is in fact one thing I would change. I wrote:

So, it is correct that CO2 did not trigger the warmings, but it definitely did contribute to them, and according to climate theory and model experiments, greenhouse gas forcing was the dominant factor in the magnitude of the ultimate change.

It is this last phrase that I would alter. There is research that purports to show up to 90% of the warming/cooling of the glacial-interglacial cycles was due to GHG’s, but there is also research that pegs this factor at much less, around 30%. Given that, I would like to change “greenhouse gas forcing was the dominant factor” to “greenhouse gas forcing was a dominant factor”. This is more conservative but therefore much easier to justify and it in no way detracts from the argument. As mentioned in the original article, albedo changes from melting/growing ice sheets and orbital forcing are the other major factors.

The clarification I would like to make is in two parts: part one is that the evidence gleaned from the polar ice core records is not “proof” of GHG driven warming. I do not make that claim and no one should, but this is the straw man frequently erected around the ice core records. It is however entirely consistent with the current theories. This is all that is required of good theories and available data. As well, modeling experiments (is there another way?) confirm that GHG forcing is absolutely required to explain the magnitude of the temperature swings. Part two is that the evidence gleaned from the polar ice core records, specifically that orbital forcings come first, is categorically not proof that CO2 does not cause any warming or even not much warming. This is the biggest and most obvious mistake that denialists make, assuming that because orbital forcing happens first therefore GHG forcing does not exist.

Otherwise, I think the article is fine. This thread is where any further discussion should take place.

223 thoughts on “Revisiting CO2 Lags, not Leads

  1. @Crakar24:
    QBL is a rambling idiot, but unfortunately some journals are incapable of finding the right reviewers. And with “right” I mean people who can see the many flaws. The rabett has written some stuff:
    http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/01/commander-coincidence.html
    and I especially point your attention to some of the criticism QBL has already received. Read those, if you don’t like the Rabett’s snark.

    Of course, QBL’s paper is quite a problematic issue for the deniosphere. While it can be heralded as ‘proof’ there will be no further warmer, it:
    a) does claim humans are responsible
    b) actually links CFC and ozone breakdown, which, according to a fair share of AGW deniers (Fred Singer to name but one), is a hoax, too…

    But I am more than likely talking to a tree, considering you do mention ozone as a greenhouse gas, but fail to see that CFCs are too. Moreover, the breakdown of ozone takes place in the stratosphere, which is irrelevant for the greenhouse effect…

    Like

  2. Scottar: Come on, man. Did you really read your own links? (I only read the first, to be fair.)

    I admit I’ve never read anything by McIntyre at length; this was my first venture. Crakar’s been giving me a lot of shit about that over the last few months but I can’t be everywhere at once.

    Anyway, he uses the word “decline” 18 times in that link before he ever gets to the real issue of the “divergence problem”, which he never even defines for his readers. The latter, if you read their gleeful comments posted below the link, show that they, too, do not understand the issue.

    McIntyre was either

    (a) deliberately spinning the issue and choosing his wordings very carefully to maximize the effect of his deception.
    (b) doesn’t get it himself because he’s just dumb.
    (c) is just kind of a crazy old guy who has fallen into this self-assigned role of “Climate Auditor”–cape flowing, capital “A” on chest, rescuing the innocent from AGW marauders, and it clouds his judgment.

    I lean toward (c).

    The expression I use for this process is “dogma propping”. Someone told you this link proves data fraud and you linked it to me without vetting it.

    Scottar: The “decline” refers to the “divergence” of the correlation between tree ring data and temperatures. It does not refer to temperature.

    Did you follow?

    One more time: The “decline” refers to the “divergence” of the correlation between tree ring data and temperatures. It does not refer to temperature.

    Anyone with a passing familiarity with this issue knew this, and yet, what did *you* think it proved?

    Well Skippy it’s you who can’t acknowledge the significance of the climategate emails on how they tried to coverup the temperature declines,

    After which you linked McIntyre.

    Scottar: Even so-called *skeptics* acknowledge that temps have gone up since the period of the “decline” that was “hidden”. Bjorn Lomborg admits it (but says its cheaper to adapt than reduce carbon); Freeman Dyson concedes it (but proposes alternative methods of biologic sequestration), Richard Lindzen concedes it (but claims the effect is so minor and so within natural variation cycles that it poses no threat). Fred Singer concedes it (but claims its part of a natural variation cycle.)

    You’ve stuck this clumsy foot in your mouth without carefully considering what the “conspiracy” claimers were really saying and how inane it is in context. Its all because you were dogma propping; you were linking a source you didn’t even understand.

    Of the other “four” emails you cited (and yes the second time you cited “three” and I missed it; you were right on that), one was a duplicate “nature trick . . . . hide the decline”, and the other I know you have idea what it means: (‘fake it’ . . . columns 2,3, 5, etc.) I know I don’t.

    I repeat the assertions I made before: You read *none* of these emails but blithely believed the sources who screamed fraud. Now you’re linking them without vetting them. Your cavalier acceptance of the Trenberth quote and your complete misunderstanding of the “hide the decline” statement betray this. You just flat out don’t know what you’re talking about, Scottar.

    Crakar:

    Donald Duck is no longer listed as a signatory because OISM figured out that names like that were making them look stupid. That’s the whole point, Crakar. The fact that you claim your “30 thousand” trumps my 79 experts in climatology shows that this fundamental point is lost on you.

    Let me rephrase my earlier comment on this as a rhetorical question. If AGW believers were so inclined, do you think we would have *any* problem producing a survey just like OISMs? Any *fool* can join OISM’s petition, Crakar. Anyone.

    The Doran survey was of scientists. The OISM “survey” was a recruitment pitch for anyone opposed to AGW. They are not in the same league. They are not even in the same sport.

    Like

  3. crakar
    Once again, this (post #200) is why I keep telling you to do your research rather than just relying on newspaper reports and cut-and-paste from denialist websites for your opinions.

    The people I referred to in my post(#198) are the authors of the supposed study circulated with the petition. Surely you knew that? If not, why not? I mean, I did say it quite clearly in my post. The idiot I referred to in post #199 was the first name on the list of signatories of the petition. You know, the one where:
    “…Petition project volunteers evaluate each signers’s credentials, verify signer identities, and, if appropriate, add the signer’s name to the petition list…” according to your post #197.

    I know it’s important for you to keep grasping at straws every time we shoot down your latest version of why climate change is all a myth, but could you please, please, please actually read some of the things you refer to as ‘proof’ before attempting to post them here.

    To be fair, I am a scientist and have access to all the papers referred to in some of these articles (such as the link the bottom of the newspaper report on cosmic rays and CFCs), rather than just the abstract that most people can access. You might want to subscribe to some of these publications yourself; it might give you an education beyond high school. But on to the article itself.

    If you had read the paper by Lu, rather than just the newspaper article you might have discovered a few interesting things. Far from ‘proving’ a link between cosmic rays, CFCs and climate change as asserted in the newspaper article, the paper raises a couple of points which may warrant further investigation, and also dismisses some others. Have a read of these gems:

    “…Most recently, simulations by Pierce and Adams showed that changes in cloud condensation nuclei concentrations from changes in CRs during a CR cycle are two orders of magnitude too small to account for the observed changes in cloud properties. They hence concluded that the CR–cloud effect is too small to play a significant role in current climate change…” (in other words, Lu believes Svensmark is wrong)

    “…It is therefore important to have more careful studies of the effects of CFCs and CRE-driven ozone depletion on global climate. For this purpose, the southern hemisphere (SH), northern hemisphere (NH) and global surface temperatures are plotted together with the EESC from 1850 to 2009 in Fig. 21. The EESC data prior to 1970 were not measured and were hence calculated by extrapolating the observed data of 1970–1980, assuming an identical growth rate….” (he has made a HUGE assumption here, that needs to be validated for his hypothesis can even be considered further)

    “…The CRE-driven ozone depletion is expected to decrease after 2010 due to the CR cycles, but the EESC will keep decreasing, as shown in Fig. 22(b). If the above observation is confirmed, then we expect to observe a continued decrease in global surface temperature—“global cooling”. That is, global warming observed in the late 20th century may be reversed with the coming decades….” (this is his prediction based on an assumption – it is NOT proof of anything).

    So you want to know what’s wrong with the study? Why don’t you read it for yourself? I did, and apart from the lack of ‘definitive proof’, the study just makes a suggestion that further research is required before any conclusions can be drawn. And I have looked at the data and the supposed correlations between CRs and global temperature, and they are VERY weak indeed.

    So, as you suggest, I may be a joke, but at least I base my opinions on informed analysis and first reading the things that I refer to. If that makes me a joke, then I’m happy to live with that. You, on the other hand… well, someone who’s opinions are based on a complete lack of evidence or rationality…. you must be a priest, right??

    Like

  4. Mandas,

    A priest? Ok i apologise for the “joke” comment it was unwarranted i did read the abstract not the newspaper article if that helps.

    But now we come to the crux of the problem, we are told that the IPCC are the worlds leading authority on climate or climate change this is because their conclusions are based on peer reviewed research and if its peer reviewed then it must be a valid study etc. Ok i can accept that train of thought.

    Now QBL has produced a peer reviewed study that claims GCR’s can have an influence on Ozone and this combined with CFC’s can or may account for the warming since the 70’s?

    But suddenly QBL is an idiot and the peer review process is flawed (Marco 201) now you are telling me that the study is flawed reinforcing Marco’s statement. So the question is are all peer reviewed studies flawed? Or just the ones that you fellas dont agree with?

    What about all peer reviewed studies the IPCC use to come to their conclusions are they all flawed, or just a handful? We know of at least one dont we, you know the one about glaciers gone by 2035, that one was based on pure speculation but never fear we are told the science is still solid.

    I dont know how robust QBL’s work is Mandas but if you tell me it is full of assumptions then i will accept that, if as you say you have access to this type of thing then maybe you can cut and paste selected comments from the paper that shows empirical evidence of water vapour acting as a very strong +ve feed back to CO2 increase that will cause the if unchecked runaway global warming. While you are at it maybe you could show the research in defining and measuring (empirical) the mysterious tipping points that we hear so much of.

    If not then thats OK just say i cant find any.

    regards

    Crakar24

    Like

  5. crakar
    By your comments it appears that misunderstand what the peer review process actually is.

    Papers go through the peer review process prior to publication. It is a ‘gross error’ check to ensure the paper is properly constructed (there is a format for all scientific papers), is not obviously plagiarised or does not contain other ethical or legal problems, is relevant (ie not a medical paper in a physics journal), and appears to be robust in its analysis. Note I said ‘appears to be’. It is not the job of the peer review process to conduct a detailed analysis of the paper. That comes after publication. The peer review process is not ‘flawed’, any more than anything else is flawed. Sometimes things slip through the cracks. But that is normal in any process.

    Once a paper is published, that’s when the fun begins, and why all this nonsense about ‘global conspiracy’ is so laughable. The greatest sport that scientists like to play is to prove each other wrong – it is impossible for any conspiracy or fraud to stand up for very long. Every claim in a paper is analysed and dissected by other scientists; the data is checked and experiments are repeated to see if they can be verified. If they cannot, the paper will be criticised in letters or other papers, and the process continues until the ideas are either accepted or rejected.

    Just because Lu has made some claims in a peer reviewed paper does not make them fact. The paper passed all the tests for peer review, but is not surviving post-publication because other scientists are discovering flaws in the analysis because of things Lu did not take into account, or could not reasonably be expected to have known. That’s why we publish things, and it is how science progresses.

    The IPCC reports are not science papers in the strictest sense. They are – essentially – what we would call a literature review. These are – or should be – the first process conducted by any scientist proposing to research a subject to determine what has been done before, and what the current thinking on the subject is. The problem with any literature review is that they are at the mercy of any errors or ommissions in the original research. That’s why I keep saying over and over again to check the source material. If you want to read the IPCC report, you should also read the references to ensure that they are being correctly interpreted. In some cases, it would appear they have not been. Also, science moves on. The IPCC has been around for nearly 20 years. Things have changed in that time.

    I don’t believe Lu (QBL) is an idiot. But I do believe he developed an interesting hypothesis and has done a lot of work on a particular topic, and has therefore got a lot invested in his idea. It is human nature to protect your work, even in the face of evidence it is flawed. Unfortunately for him, it now appears that some of his ideas aren’t not stacking up under scutiny. He will move on eventually or will just make himself irrelevant.

    As far as doing all your research for you and pasting the information here, I would recommend you do some wider reading. There is plenty of data on the topic out there, and a lot of papers are freely available in their entirety. Just use Google Scholar.

    Like

  6. Skip,

    The fundamental point is that a show of hands proves absolutely nothing as a show of hands cannot be considered as empirical evidence just think about that next time before you throw a list of 76 people at me.

    To answer your question yes anyone could throw a list of names together similar to OISM just as they could ask a vague question vague enough to get the answer desired and then claim the poll actually is meaningful.

    Regards

    Crakar24

    PS..Skip can you tell me how they work out which four teams are in each division, Seattle, SF, Arizona and St Louis are nowhere near each other so how did they work all this out?

    Like

  7. show of hands cannot be considered as empirical evidence

    As written I agree. But this is a dodge. The question is, to *whom* should we consult when formulating public policy regarding a potential threat like AGW? Neither of us has any way of gaining direct “empirical evidence” on the issue.

    A majority of medical researchers say chronic alcohol abuse is associated with liver, pancreas, and even brain disease. But this is just a “show of hands”, so can I safely assume I can immerse myself in a fifth of Beefeaters a night, confident that no one has threatened me with “empirical evidence”?

    And don’t come back with, “Those researchers have published their empirical evidence through peer review,” because that’s the bloody point. That’s why I trust them. And I guarantee I could find 30 thousand signatories swearing all those researchers are wrong just by soliciting a petition through ModernDrunkard.com or similar suitable site.

    Whom do you trust and why? I’ve told you my answer to that: Specialists in climate science, a majority of whom affirm the fundamentals of AGW.

    There was nothing vague about the questions pursuant to the conclusions reached. Nothing. You’re just parroting what your conspiracy site said: that the questions answers do not demonstrate “alarmist” scenarios or that there are not potentially other factors affecting climate change. But I already knew that. This is another straw man.

    Like

  8. Mandas,

    Re apology, do you want to give me a hand here?

    Luckily i am here as i have left Skip hanging in the lurch, although your analogies are a little simplistic i do get your drift and yes you do pose a good question.

    I suppose i could start by saying that if you/we have a very good understanding of something then we can predict/diagnose the problem. For example the link between liver disease and alchoholism is well understood so it would not matter how many people at ModernDrunkard.com (LOL) beg to differ. In this case the consensus that says drinking excessively will lead to liver disease would be quite strong.

    On the other hand many, many years ago a doctor suggested if all doctors washed their hands before delivering a baby the infant mortality rate would decrease, the consensus of the day handed him his hat and laughed him out of the room. One hundred years later doctors started to wash their hands and infant mortality decreased. In this case the experts who form the consensus had no or very little understanding of diseases so therefore they could not predict/diagnose the problem.

    And so now we turn to climate science, would you consider the science to be well understood? I have mentioned many times where the science is a little fuzzy, i can list them again if you want.

    The point is do we know enough to make an accurate prediction or diagnosis? You may feel we do but i do not, this maybe the fundemental difference between us. Many studies which claim global warming is here or just around the corner make assumptions the “2035” gaffe and climate sensitivity are good examples, these assumptions are made because the science is not fully understood.

    Crakar24

    Like

  9. The point is do we know enough to make an accurate prediction or diagnosis?

    Vague and evasive.

    It depends what you mean by “prediction” and “diagnosis”. If you mean the temperature on October 4th, 2019, in Eugene, Oregon, at 3:45 PM, then no, we we can’t predict that. But will global mean temps, *on average* be higher from now until . . . .oh lets pick a year . . . 2050 . . then yes, the science absolutely *does* give us an answer.

    Many studies which claim global warming is here or just around the corner make assumptions the “2035” gaffe and and climate sensitivity are good examples,

    Wrong, Crakar.

    I will not let you walk with that one. The whole point was that the IPCC made a mistake because that was *not*–repeat, *not* based on a study. Thats exactly why they apologized and acknowledged the error–something you’ll never see from Lord Monckton or Chris Horner, shameless liars though they be.

    Like

  10. PS

    What happened to Scottar?

    Crakar, you naughty boy!

    Did you take him out drinking and leave him a wreck? I’m sure in y’alls home town in OZ there’s a bar that has Denier Happy Hour.

    Like

  11. Skip,

    I may have mislead you here slightly, i accept that the 2035 gaffe may be a one off, my greater concern is with the understanding or lack thereof of how the climate works. I do not accept that we know enough to make a prediction out to 2050.

    It is OK to make these predictions as a scientific exercise but not when you have morons like KRudd formulating great green taxation policy based on it.

    By the way the rail road engineer may have aplolgised, albeit begrudgingly after he accused the Indian Gov of “Voodoo Science” among other things and only once he had finalised is “grant money” which by the way some of it came from KRudd himself, ie my tax dollars.

    The last time i saw Scottar was out the front of Jupiters casino at 2:00 am last Saturday morning after the annual flat Earth society ball, he had a blonde under each arm, a bottle of Dom Pereion in one hand and motel keys in the other.

    Like

  12. Cracker24

    Can you believe Skippy’s response to my rebuttal? LOL is that guy demented or what.

    Skip:
    McIntyre was either:

    (a) deliberately spinning the issue and choosing his wordings very carefully to maximize the effect of his deception.

    (b) doesn’t get it himself because he’s just dumb.

    (c) is just kind of a crazy old guy who has fallen into this self-assigned role of “Climate Auditor”–cape flowing, capital “A” on chest, rescuing the innocent from AGW marauders, and it clouds his judgment.

    Well I guess the Wegman council must be crazy too when they validated McKitrick and McIntyre’s criticisms of the hockey stick back in 2005. What hubris on skip’s part. He sounds like BO when he blames Bush from everything from a to z when things don’t go right. And notice how he talks to me like I’m a 7th grader. What a jerk! I don’t think he even reads what I link to.

    Hey and now I read where the US has its own climategate:

    Manipulated Datasets at NASA and NCDC-

    “There were around 6,000 thermometers 20 or 30 years ago in the global data set, but in 1989-1990, the number of thermometers were reduced to around 1,500. A new study shows a dramatic pattern of artificial adjustments in the way these thermometers were included or deleted. Jonathon Coleman announced the study results tonight on his blog and also in his broadcast.”

    But skip will resurrect the flawed and cooked GISS/NDCD temp charts and point, thee-thee, it’s da temps! If anyone had any sense they would realize temps don’t indicate the actual heat, it’s where they get the temps from. If you want a real indicator of warming then the oceans SST would be the best indicator. Next to that would be total sea ice and troposphere measurements.

    I’ve just given up on any intelligent discussion on this site with Skip and DW spinning it and misrepresenting the real science by degrading anything that doesn’t support their views. It’s like trying to argue with the old Catholic Inquisition where they would put you to some drawn out lingering death for disagreeing with the OFFICIALS! “Only a priest or the Pope can talk to GOD!” It’s a bunch of fear mongering denial for some deeper reason hidden.

    But if you want something to really bash over their heads cracker ask them to explain the findings of this Chemist. I’ve done the research and he’s basically right:

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/12/diy-ocean-heating

    It’s an eye opener.

    Good luck with this site of quacks Cracker, sooner or later the coming events will strip them of their claim and they will end up as part of the big dung heep of history, unless the climate Inquisition can invoke the fairness doctrine censuring. Some Politicians and ENRON wannabes have much to lose.

    Like

  13. Scottar: your industrial chemist would be fired if his bosses see how he fails to understand the basics of the greenhouse effect. Hint: it is not the atmosphere that heats the ocean, it is the atmosphere that reduces the heat loss of the ocean. Failing to understand this simple fact shows your industrial chemist to either be a hoaxer, or suffering from a major case of Dunning-Kruger. In neither case his work is to be trusted.

    Like

  14. Can you believe Skippy’s response to my rebuttal? LOL is that guy demented or what.

    All:

    Please observe, when Scottar was refuted regarding the meaning of “hide the decline” and his own source’s misrepresentation of it–a link which he did not read, he resorted to an insult, diverted the subject to the decade old non-issue of Wegman and the hockey stick, GISS data, etc.)

    (Anyone lurking chime in if you wish to see these discussions elsewhere.)

    What a jerk! I don’t think he even reads what I link to.

    No. I actually did; it was clearly Scottar who does not even read his own links.

    I’ve just given up on any intelligent discussion on this site with Skip

    Then Scottar should take on someone else and try for it with them. Its clear from the strategy–insults, diversions, rhetoric–that Scottar knows he’s been torched.

    (Anyone interested please read the previous exchange if you doubt this.)

    But that’s the purpose of this forum.

    Like

  15. “Jonathon Coleman announced the study results tonight on his blog and also in his broadcast” – Scrottar.

    And that would be the guy that says AGW is a giant hoax right?.

    http://www.uscentrist.org/about/issues/environment/john_coleman

    “But if you want something to really bash over their heads cracker ask them to explain the findings of this Chemist. I’ve done the research and he’s basically right” – Scrottar

    And yet the oceans have warmed. Well, so much for industrial chemistry as a basis for understanding climate science:

    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

    Like

  16. Scottar
    Wow, that industrial chemist either has an agenda or is a complete moron. I am leaning towards both. Firstly, he wrote his article for Quadrant, which is a bunch of far right wing nutjobs. Second, he makes statements like this in his article:

    “….If you ran a cold bath and then tried to heat it by putting a dozen heaters in the room, does anyone believe that the water would ever get hot?….”

    Well yeah, well I for one believe that. I tend to think that, even if it took a long time, eventually the air in the room and the water would reach thermal equilibrium. Or didn’t he learn that at high school?

    He also says completely moronic things like this:

    “… When the clouds clear and bathe us in sunlight, we don’t take off our jumper because of greenhouse heating of the atmosphere, but because of the direct heat caused by the sunlight on our body. The sun’s influence is direct, obvious, and instantaneous….”

    So, I am guessing from this that polar explorers should take off their clothes every time the sun shines. Or alternatively (and more likely) he doesn’t appear to understand the basic difference between light and heat. And this is the guy you are basing your opinions on? How about you go away and learn a little science as well.

    Like

  17. Mandas:

    No way.

    No way this guy said anything that dumb. I give even Scottar more credit than that. Any chance you’re quoting the wrong thing?

    Scottar: Is this what your link really said? My wife’s PC is loading with excruciating slowness now and I cannot check. But please tell me no.

    Skip

    Like

  18. Oh man, where to begin with that Quadrant article.

    First, the author implicitly (and nearly explicitly) assumes that the direction of energy flow is sun->air->ocean. This is mostly not true. The air is transparent to most of the sun’s energy, so the energy flow is mostly sun->ocean&land->air.

    Then he does the direct heating “trick” in which the energy output of human power sources is compared to the amount of energy necessary to heat the ocean. The point of this trick is to ignore the greenhouse gasses emitted by those power sources – which will have thousands of times the heating effect as the original power output. (Remember that was the same trick as used in “solar panels are black”.)

    Then, completely unnecessarily, the author says something so unscientific it’s like he’s trying to see what he can get away with. He says that because the heat capacity of the ocean is 4000 times that of the atmosphere, one would have to heat the atmosphere 4000 degrees to heat the ocean 1 degree.

    Most of us are just laughing by now, but let me spell it out for anyone who read that and nodded agreement. What it really means is that in order to heat both the atmosphere and the ocean by 1 degree, 4000 times as much energy would have to pass through the atmosphere on its way to the ocean as would wind up in the atmosphere. We know that. It’s what is happening. (Although there’s the technical issue that 4000 would be the long term equilibrium number. On decadal scales it’s lower because the oceans take a long time to fully equilibrate.)

    I hope any other industrial chemists reading that article are embarrassed by the narrowness of their colleague’s education, and lack of physical reasoning.

    Like

  19. Hold on now, boys. Scottar tells us

    I’ve done the research and he’s basically right . . . It’s an eye opener.

    Our discussant stakes his own reputation on this article so lets give him a chance to rebut.

    Oh, thats right . . . this is the same contributor who told us that the “hide the decline” email referred to temperature and that Trenberth’s “travesty” comment disproved AGW.

    Like

  20. skip
    I’m afraid so, the article provided by scottar was written by someone who appears to have zero grasp of science. But then again, I guess the guy is a denialist and science has never figured largely in any of their opinions.

    Like

  21. Skippy

    All:

    Please observe, when Scottar was refuted regarding the meaning of “hide the decline” and his own source’s misrepresentation of it–a link which he did not read, he resorted to an insult, diverted the subject to the decade old non-issue of Wegman and the hockey stick, GISS data, etc.)

    Then Scottar should take on someone else and try for it with them. Its clear from the strategy–insults, diversions, rhetoric–that Scottar knows he’s been torched.

    Scottar:

    Well no Skippy, I got tired talking to a AGW fundie thumping believer and denier, and I had better things to do then continuously go round in circles with a jerk like you who tries to spin the facts into something else….. hoping to fool the lazy and gullible casual readers. But you don’t fool me as I have too much experience with the crap Congress tries to fool us with.

    Here’s one site that put all the emails and events together:

    and they have a pdf of it too.

    Just what part of hide the decline a temp trick do you not understand?. They misrepresented the tree ring proxies to try and scam a contrived hockey temp graph on the public. Not going to work Skippy boy.

    And Phil Jones now basically admits there has been no warming in the last 15 years and yes Virginia, there was a Medieval Warm period. You can look it up on icecap.us as you need to be exposed to the right stuff.

    Dippledwater:
    And yet the oceans have warmed. Well, so much for industrial chemistry as a basis for understanding climate science:
    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

    Scottar:
    Isn’t that amazing how the graph follow the Suns present lack of activity. And look, the ice is coming back:
    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

    Mandas:
    Well yeah, well I for one believe that. I tend to think that, even if it took a long time, eventually the air in the room and the water would reach thermal equilibrium. Or didn’t he learn that at high school?

    Scottar:
    So if one waited till cobwebs formed off their nose the water would eventually get to room temp. But the extras GHG effect is suppose to have accelerated the global warming process. By your measures it would take centuries, not decades.

    Mandas:
    Or alternatively (and more likely) he doesn’t appear to understand the basic difference between light and heat. And this is the guy you are basing your opinions on? How about you go away and learn a little science as well.

    Scottar:
    Well Mandas, you the one who needs to learn some science on solar physics. Ever hear of a hot body and black body spectral emission graph? Look it up on wikipedia. Most of the Suns energy is concentrated in the light spectrum. It’s that portion the various objects and Earth absorb and reradiate as IR or heat energy, including the skin. Where did you get educated anyway?

    Hey Cracker, those blonds kept me so busy I didn’t have time to get back directly. Sorry bout that. But I didn’t miss tangling with these buffoons at all. But you know I just can’t let a drinken buddy down.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s