Don,
With all due respect, the "religious" - "believers" canard is becoming a little hackneyed in the climate debate. It's not about "belief", it's about empirical evidence. That a majority of scientists in the varied fields associated with climate work from the basis of evidence is clear...it's not a matter of faith.

The other tack that skeptics have adopted of late is accusing climate scientists and those who glean guidance from them as some sort of elite, while skeptics represent the common man. Both the "believers" and the "elitist" titles are merely strategies that skeptics have employed to diminish the veracity of the science.

Here's a snapshot of the warmest year in the US....these events are impacting lives in that country, and they are bearing out projections from "scientists".

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/12/26/1375081/top-ten-us-weather-events-of-2012

Just released by Vail Resorts Public Relations Office

Since the ski season began, Beaver Creek has received 146 inches of snow, and 103 inches this month alone making it the snowiest December on record. Vail follows close behind with 137 total inches of snow or nearly 12 feet. Breckenridge and Keystone are enjoying the third and fourth snowiest December in the past eight years, respectively, as up to five feet of snow has bestowed those two resorts.

Last year was the worst ski season on record at Vail, this shaping up to be the best. But you don't know weather like that just described by Poirot is variable.

What is known is that since 1995 1/3 of all the man made CO2 ever made has been released into the atmosphere but global "warming" over that period has effectively flat lined when according to all the AGW models the temperature should have continued to rise significantly.

That is the critical point. The AGW models hypothesise CO2 triples the AGW effect of water vapour but on the last 17 years results CO2 would appear to be acting as dampener and reducing the AGW effect of water vapour by 50%.

Choosing random weather events to prove your point reminds me of the Catholic Church using the random miracles of the Saints to prove its faith.

"With all due respect, the "religious" - "believers" canard is becoming a little hackneyed in the climate debate. It's not about "belief", it's about empirical evidence. That a majority of scientists in the varied fields associated with climate work from the basis of evidence is clear...it's not a matter of faith."

So speaks the inner city leftie who wouldn't recognise evidence if it bit her.

AGW is a faith and has been legally recognised as one:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/dismissed-employee-agrees-settlement-in-green-case-1949594.html

Anyone with half a brain can see AGW is merely the Eden myth repackaged with a dominant misanthropic taint:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/our-abc-green-narrative.html

I continually attempt to engage the smarties who post here on the basis of the science and everytime when their house of cards falls down and all that is left is their reflection they go the ad hom.

For instance, I bet Poirot will link to SkS, or RC and make some Bolshie nitwit comment.

EQ,

I wasn't attempting to "prove a point" by listing extreme weather events per se - yet an increase in the frequency of "unusual and extreme events" are what we can expect in a warmer world.

Just for you....(check out the "long-term trend")

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

Poirot, show us a 'projection' made before 1998 that predicts sixteen years of no global warming, and you may have a case. As it is, you can see the ever-increasing gap between IPCC predictions and actual temperatures here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/18/dr-david-whitehouse-on-the-ar5-figure-1-4/

We are now well outside the predictions made as late as 2007.

Hey, hey, cohenite, you were right about the link!

Re: your comment..."...and all that is left is their reflection and they go ad hom."

ad hom?

You mean like this?

"I bet Poirot will.... make some Bolshie nitwit comment."

One of your most employed tactics on this forum is to call people names.

Hypocrite much.

Don, I spent the better part of 40 years teaching science, and doing my best to convince my students of the virtues of scepticism, and the relationship of scepticism and science.

I do not think you will find a bigger collection of sceptics than the worldwide cohort of scientists who have added to the vast, interlocked and cross-checked sets of data that make up the models that support the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming.

Anyone who gets a proper science education, at high school or university, knows that hypotheses can be shown to be false, but cannot be shown to be true. In that sense, every scientific theory rests on faith.

In assessing where best to put my faith, I have to examine the balance between the considerable and accumulating evidence offered by the peer-reviewed scientific journals, nearly all of which unequivocally support the idea of global warming, against the evidence offered by thoughtful individuals such as yourself.

I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to the best evidence available: evidence confirming that anthropogenic global warming is happening, and is likely to wreak ecological and economic havoc.

Oh well, now I hope no one accuses me of being a denier next year after
Julia and Nicol's new speach laws come into affect as I will be
offended and take some of you, and Graham to court.
So there !

Hi Don, the test of true intelligence is to be able to hold open in your mind, two completely different possibilities; and give equal weight to both.
I for one cannot say with any degree of certainty, that Co2, a greenhouse gas, is implicated in climate change or warming!
Nor am I able, to say with any surety, it is not!
There is some data or evidence, or a trend line?
Can anyone say with any degree of certainty, it is a product of green house emissions, creating more atmospheric moisture!
Which in turn may be trapping radiant heat?
Or just the sun in yet another waxing phase?
An intelligent man would hold open both possibilities, and likely hope like hell it is the former; given, we can actually mitigate against the former?
When will we have enough evidence, that the former explanation is the correct one, Don?
Probably when we have transitioned through 2C of global warming or an entirely irreversible tipping point, that starts to melt the frozen tundra, releasing as much as three times more greenhouse gas!
Which in turn, will once again raise global temperatures to around 5C.
The last time this scenario played out around 90 million years ago, very nearly all life on planet earth was wiped out!
The world as we know it might well disappear, with as many as two thirds of humanity wiped off the map?
A wise man would likely hold open in his mind, as a real possibility, the latter scenario; given, it would only be history repeating itself!
And indeed, prepare for such an eventuality?
It's is all to easy to follow the tenets of the conformation bias, which both rabid climate change believers and deniers, seem to manifest in spades?
I simply don't know if either camp is right, or way off the mark?
Albeit, the nightly vision in the nightly news of melting tundra, is a bit of a worry.
And ought to mean, we at the very least adopt the precautionary principle, and take out some adequate insurance, surely?
Rhrosty.

Professor Aitkin,

When you get seriously ill (physically), or, maybe more to the point, when you are told you are urgently need medical treatment although you feel fine, do you disregard medical advice as to what you should do about it, either on the grounds that the true best medical advice (not yet known) would be slightly different (which is almost certainly true), or on the grounds that the recommended treatment is in fact worse than doing nothing (which is very unlikely)?

It's one particular variety of religious nuts who answer yes to this question, whether or not you agree with Prof Lewandowsky's description of them as mentally sick.

So why is it any different with the science of climate change? You seem to be turning reality on its head by suggesting those who accept current scientific knowledge about climate change are like the religious nuts.

If you're not prepared to explain this, why shouldn't I accept Prof Lewandowsky's description?

Evidence Poirot.

Jeremy, you are obviously beyond intellectual redemption, relying on Lewandowsky who has been revealed for what he is by a succession of damning posts by Jo Nova:

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/09/steve-mcintyre-finds-lewandowskys-paper-is-a-landmark-of-junk-science/

I mean Lewandowsky is a man so bereft of intellectual validity that he derives his own poll alleging climate 'deniers' also don't believe in the moon landing when the surviving members of the moon landings are all sceptics.

You couldn't make that stuff up, and we don't have to when he have arrogant fools like Lewandowsky.

AGW is a faith; there is no evidence, in fact the evidence is against it:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14179

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/has-man-made-global-warming-been.html

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/has-global-warming-been-disproved-part-2.html

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/man-made-global-warming-disproved/

Every bit of evidence put up to support the AGW religion has either been disproved by scientific principles or by observation. Anyone who says otherwise is an arrogant fool or a religious crank.

cohenite,

Regarding the employment of ad homs: I seemed to recall one climate scientist who used to visit this forum listing all the names you called him - so I looked it up.

(He doesn't frequent OLO anymore, as he has better things to do than be insulted by lay science people)

I consider it's worth wasting my last post on this thread today to highlight your hypocrisy.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14089&page=0#243978

cohenite: so that explains it, you only have half a brain.

the defenders of the simple tennets of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ have never had to change its beliefs (ie sinful man, the need of a Saviour and judgement to come). These simple facts are obvious to anyone seeking any sort of truth. The defenders of the gw faith and the money trail keeps changing. To claim science to back their belief is as dumbs claiming that the 'big bang' explains beginnings. The arrogance of the believers of gw are equalivalent to the Catholic church's claims to be the true church. Both live in fantasy.

For a recent balanced discussion on climate change it is useful to listen to Professor Kevin Anderson's Cabot lecture at Bristol University on 6 November 2012. It can be accessed at www.indymedia.org.uk/media/2012/11/502497.mp3.

He cites the International Energy Agency as saying in a very recent report that the earth is on track for a 4C increase in temperature by the middle of the century. Another well-known leftwing organisation, Price Waterhouse Coopers put out as report in November 2012 saying we are on track for a 6C by the end of the century.

The thrust of Professor Anderson's paper is that level of temperature increase is the overwhelming consensus of the scientific world. That rate of change is unprecedented in the geological record. A major contributing factor is human behaviour and more specifically the pattern of energy consumption of a small percentage of people in the mostly developed world.

Realistically we as a species are unlikely to change our behaviour to a sufficient degree in a sufficiently short space of time to actually modify or ameliorate that predicted degree of climate change. As Unger says, "at every level the greatest obstacle to transforming the world is that we lack the clarity and the imagination to conceive that it could be different."

It is not really a question of "belief" because the science should provide us with a sufficient degree of certainty to enable the rejection of clearly untenable hypotheses. That is not to reject the possibility of an alternative result. But unless and until we base our "belief" system on that which is scientifically coherent the climate change debate is as futile as talking to flat earthers, believers in angels, or proponents of the magic bullet.

“Now while it is true, as one of my sons likes to point out to me, that we all believe in lots of things that we don't examine at all closely, like the arrival of dawn early tomorrow, ……….”

The limits to inductive knowledge have been examined by Philosophers from David Hume onwards. OK it is not certain in an absolute sense that dawn will arrive tomorrow, but I bet it will- unless cloud obscures the sunrise. Absolute certainty is not given to mankind, yet I challenge any reader to found an exception to the second law of thermodynamics.

But what do people mean by climate change? Will Perth become subtropical or temperate instead of Mediterranean? I think not. Does it mean changing weather patterns? This could undoubtedly be subject to empirical analysis. Although I fear both start and end dates as well as which weather phenomena are subject to study would be arbitrary.

I understood global warming as a prediction of x rise in temperature by some arbitrarily fixed date. This in theory is open to empirical verification, always assuming that there is agreement on methodology of measurement.

"Hypocrisy"; you're hopeless Poirot; Agronomist misintepreted the relative purpose of Chow and Wald tests as I explained to him in the last post on your thread; you seem to think that because a pro-AGW 'scientist' declares something then it is true; that is why you are a believer and have nothing to add to this 'debate' other then your ego and sensibilities.

LePage: pathetic.

James O'Neil; PWH are just another corp lining up at the trough to get their share of government largess; you say this:

"That rate of change is unprecedented in the geological record"

The Holocene clearly shows temperatures greater than today and increases greater than today:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/hologisp2.png

The modern era has been spliced on.

That graph is from the GISP2 ice cores and is as reliable as geological records can be.

The criticism of using the MOST relibale no-instrumental record for past temperatures is that it is localised in the Northern ice areas of Greenland [see SkS] and is not a fair global representation.

This is grossly misleading because GISP and other ice cores, along with tree rings, are the MAIN evidence used by pro-AGW scientists to prove AGW; here we have evidence from the same source which contradicts AGW and then the excuse is Greenland was local. No it is not; if Greenland is warmer than the rest of the world was warmer too.

There is another complaint about GISP2 from NOAA but I'll let the Madding Crowd of alarmists present that

I don't have to “believe” I'm going to have an accident in order to see the wisdom of having some form of insurance.
When I see someone deliberately inhaling noxious fumes, I don't really need to read reams of papers on lung cancer to think it probably isn't a good idea.
When I drive towards the 'Big Smoke' and see that lovely purple haze hanging over the city, I don't need to be a “Climate doomsayer” to think I'd be better off staying out of there.
What's so wonderful about atmospheric pollution that it's worth fighting to keep?
The Human Race (or the affluent parts, at least) is currently indulging in a planet wide experiment.
We're taking fossil fuels that have been buried for millions of years (or maybe 5 thousand, if Runner's right) and turning it into 23 billion tonnes of CO2 -as well as particulates, more noxious- every year, while at the same time we are cutting down trees at the rate of 32 hundred acres every single hour, 24 hours a day.

This would be a fascinating experiment, if it could be contained in a single building -which we didn't need to live in.
To conduct such an experiment on the only biosphere we have is sheer bloody madness.
“Hey, here's a plan! Let's shut all the doors and windows, and start a fire and see what happens?”
You'd have to be stoned, wouldn't you?

It is amazing how that anyone wants to link to such discredited sites as WeUseWishfulThinking as cohenite does, they do not provide any credible evidence as neither does he. That site heavily censures people and self posts using other names to support their cause, it is not a free and open site, it also blocks everything it does not like, and is run by a non scientists. Then perhaps to some that is all they can understand and are easily taken in.

cohenite is anti-science all he can manage is calling people names as nothing he has linked to can be relied on or trusted.

The world is warming and no scientist are denying that, it is time for the deniers, they are not skeptics, to start reading and understanding.

PeterA says this:

"cohenite is anti-science all he can manage is calling people names as nothing he has linked to can be relied on or trusted."

One of the links was to OLO where a number of peer reviewed papers disproving AGW were discussed!

The Watts link is to a graph based on GISP2 data; any moron could draw the graph from the data, but PeterA says it is wrong because it is at Watts.

I present evidence from any source which comes from primary sources, such as climate data or peer reviewed papers; I even go to SkS or RC if they are discussing primary data.

But at the end of the day NO evidence is going to change the 'minds' of people like PeterA or the other believers; they are mesmerised by the UN and other 'official' science sources which have been proven to be wrong and to lie.

I am bemused by this mental truncation; the only explanation as Aitkin's article suggests, and has been shown before, is that AGW believers are not following the science, which is BS, but an ideology.

Anyway, I don't mind conversing with idiots; even with half a mind I am in front.

So climate change is, in the word attributed to Tony Abbott, crap?
I accept that there are those who have a quasi-religious belief in anthropogenic climate change.
This does not apply to the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed climate science papers. Like you, Don, I'm not an expert in climate science and, like you, I don't have a quasi-religious belief in anthropogenic climate change. I just think that the evidence for it is very strong.

Oh dear! The Professor Don has demonstrated that he is too intellectually lazy to bother to distinguish between probability-based decision making and belief in spirit friends.

Cohenite wrote:

"But at the end of the day NO evidence is going to change the 'minds' of people like PeterA or the other believers"

That's true to a point. Since they've arrived at their view not via the evidence but by sheepishly following what they've been told is a consensus, evidence won't disabuse them of their errors.
But as more and more scientists are emboldened to fight back against the so-called consensus we see a growing stampede of those trying to get off the AGW cart while they can still honourably do so. More and more science is fighting through the peer-review censors and the whole edifice is collapsing.
As it does so, the PeterA's of the world will follow the herd. Sure, in 10 years time we'll still have some die-hards telling us that 25years of no warming isn't enough to disprove the models, but most will have moved on to the next apocalyptic scare or (think Gore/Pachauri) to enjoy the millions they made from the scare.

And then the PeterA's of this world will be telling anyone who'll listen how they never really bought the myth. But they will of course totally believe whatever the next scare is. Its happened so often that it takes no real intuition to see the pattern.
We are told these days that no-one really bought the global cooling scare of the 70s or the Murray salinity scare of the 90s or the 'Population Bomb' scare of the eights or the resource depletion scares of the 80's etc etc and this will follow the same pattern.

So I'm afraid we just have to wait for the dullards to catch up and hope that they don't do too much damage in the meantime.

Excellent article Don. This makes the point well:

>“the doomsayers accuse old-fashioned empiricists like me of being 'deniers' or 'denialists' because we do not accept their faith, and the use of those terms has a strongly religious overtone. Even sillier is the notion that people like me are 'denying climate science', as though science too was a body of religious doctrine.”

This extract from a comment on Judith Curry’s recent thread about climate sensitivity makes a similar point a different way.

>“While many estimates have been made, the consensus value often used is ~3°C. Like the porridge in “The Three Bears”, this value is just right – not so great as to lack credibility, and not so small as to seem benign. Huybers (2010) showed that the treatment of clouds was the “principal source of uncertainty in models”. Indeed, his Table I shows that whereas the response of the climate system to clouds by various models varied from 0.04 to 0.37 (a wide spread), the variation of net feedback from clouds varied only from 0.49 to 0.73 (a much narrower relative range). He then examined several possible sources of compensation between climate sensitivity and radiative forcing. He concluded:
>“Model conditioning need not be restricted to calibration of parameters against observations, but could also include more nebulous adjustment of parameters, for example, to fit expectations, maintain accepted conventions, or increase accord with other model results. These more nebulous adjustments are referred to as ‘tuning’.”
He suggested that one example of possible tuning is that “reported values of climate sensitivity are anchored near the 3±1.5°C range initially suggested by the ad hoc study group on carbon dioxide and climate (1979) and that these were not changed because of a lack of compelling reason to do so”.
Huybers (2010) went on to say:
>“More recently reported values of climate sensitivity have not deviated substantially. The implication is that the reported values of climate sensitivity are, in a sense, tuned to maintain accepted convention.”

Cont …

Cont …

Translated into simple terms, the implication is that climate modelers have been heavily influenced by the early (1979) estimate that doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels would raise global temperatures 3±1.5°C. Modelers have chosen to compensate their widely varying estimates of climate sensitivity by adopting cloud feedback values countering the effect of climate sensitivity, thus keeping the final estimate of temperature rise due to doubling within limits preset in their minds. Had they not done this, the spread in estimates of temperature rise would be much greater. Thus, they have imposed their preconceived notions of the expected temperature rise on the models to make them come out “right”. As we stated previously, this is like the Three Bears children’s story where the porridge was not too hot or too cold; the canonical 3°C temperature rise is large enough to be alarming, but small enough to be credible.

The whole precautionary principle argument is so inappropriate as regards AGw...indeed its probably inapplicable in any field. Basically it just invites pissing contests over who can come up with the most disastrous scenario followed by claims that we should do all possible to avoid the postulated disaster. So if we let A happen then maybe B will happen then maybe C will happen and then x-billion people will die. Therefore we should do as we are told by the catastrophists.

So lets play the silly game from a different angle. If we spend mega-bucks to reduce CO2 levels then the economy will tank. If the economy tanks then we'll get a depression. Last time we had a depression we had the rise of various fascist regimes. That led to aggressive war and untold deaths. With modern warfare x-billions will die. So if we spend money to reduce CO2 output, x-billions will die. So the precautionary principle dictates that we shouldn't spend such monies.

Just as logical as the 'thought' processes of those who use the precautionary principle to push for change that they can't otherwise justify.

mhaze,

Excellent point, clearly put.

Global GDP increased 89.0% from 1990 to 2010.

Isn’t this a wonderful result, nearly 100% increase in wealth in 2 decades. A real cause for celebration in terms of what it can translate to in terms of food & shelter, education, medical care, justice delivery, entertainment, and quality of life generally, especially since population has only increased by 30% in the same time.

And isn’t it wonderful what 18 climate summits have achieved – a 44.5% increase in emissions. That is just -0.8% change in carbon intensity of energy over that 20 year period (this is not 0.8% per year, its just 0.8% change in 20 years). What do they call it when you keep doing the same thing while expecting a different result?.

Imaging how much better off we could be if the ‘Progressives’ and doomsayers had not been blocking progress for the past 50 years (e.g. blocking development of nuclear power).

“In climate research and modelling, we are dealing with a coupled, non-linear, chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible". Statement by one of the IPCC Third Assessment Report’s Working Group.
I guess the IPCC has it wrong then.

Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere during the twentieth century are estimated to have risen from 280ppmv to about 390ppmv today, an increase of forty per cent.

Current total CO2 concentration represents less than one-twenty-fifth of one per cent.
Approximately five per cent of present atmospheric carbon dioxide is derived from burning fossil-fuels; that is, just 19 parts of CO2 per million parts of atmosphere.

It is my current opinion that only a religious zealot would see this as a situation for panic. Relax guys, enjoy the summer, it will be winter again soon.

A good article Don.

Quote Don
They suggest warming and cooling and stasis over the past century or so. These shifts don't suggest any strong connection with human activity, though the likely increase in temperature over that time is consistent with the increase in carbon dioxide additions to the atmosphere.
End Quote
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Warmair says
The choice you have made here is to disbelieve the scientists who clearly state that there is a link between rising CO2 levels and temperature since about the mid 1970s. The evidence is about as clear as it is possible to get. Co2 absorbs some of the outgoing radiation that would otherwise cool the planet, as do other greenhouse gases such as methane CH4. This has been measured by the American IRIS satellite and the Japanese IMG satellite. This is analyzed here
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
So do we simply ignore this information and try and blame the problem on something else or are we open to evidence ?
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Quote Don

It is also consistent with a recovery from the Little Ice Age, the causes of which we still do not know, any more than we know the causes of the Mediaeval Warm Period, or the earlier warm period when Rome was at its most powerful.
End Quote
_____________________________________________________________________________________
There is no evidence for the above statement as you yourself admit in the text.

The problem I see here is a failure to accept the evidence. This is by no means unusual as most people start with preconceived ideas, and are very reluctant to change their view regardless of the evidence.

Good luck to those of you who are in personal denial about the strength of scientists' consensus on the compelling likelihood that the planet is warming due to human production of carbon Dioxide.

I remember, one year, patiently trying to convince several year seven boys that plovers do not have poison glands in their wings. It was plain that they knew far more than I ever would on the subject, even though I had checked my facts against my assumptions.

It seems as though the same mentality prevails in many of the comments here. I will offer one citation:

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/10/bleak-prospects-for-avoiding-dangerous.html

Some may find entertaining, what the lads will have to say about this short summary. As for myself, I am retired, and am no longer paid to counter poor thinking habits.

Quote Prompete
Current total CO2 concentration represents less than one-twenty-fifth of one per cent.
Approximately five per cent of present atmospheric carbon dioxide is derived from burning fossil-fuels; that is, just 19 parts of CO2 per million parts of atmosphere.
End Quote
_____________________________________________________________________________________

I would like you to consider this simple thought experiment, paint all your windows with thick black paint.

1 What percentage of your house by volume would be black paint ?

2 What percentage of the radiation (light) do you think you would block.

Every object that has a temperature emits radiation which is dependant on its temperature. In the case of the earth it cools by emitting infra-red radiation. CO2 is opaque to certain wavelengths of the infra-red radiation thus reducing the rate at which the earth is able to cool.

Followed your advice Wamair. Took one hair from a black paintbrush, lightly dabbed it onto the top left corner of the loung window and......yep.... Nothing happened. That's 19 parts per million...... Not worried about the grand kids yet.

Perhaps you would prefer to talk with Cohenite again, he is far more paitient and polite than I, I generally ask the 7th Day Adventist knocking at my door to not bother, you know? Refer to Don's article above. Cheers.

Sir Vivor: "I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to the best evidence available: evidence confirming that anthropogenic global warming is happening, and is likely to wreak ecological and economic havoc."

It appears that you regard scientific consensus to be scientific evidence. If so, this is shameful for a science teacher with your experience.

On the other hand, if you are in the unique position of having found empirical scientific evidence that supports AGW, then don't be shy -- please table it for all to see.

With all these references to "the evidence" and "the precautionary principle" and "taking insurance"...

What IS the evidence? I don't mean ice core and tree ring data etc. which map changes over many years and are subject to much dispute over statistical treatment, but evidence that warming is taking place right now? And I don’t mean which grant-dependent researchers or journal gatekeepers are proclaiming what. Are there data that will translate into a graph for, say, mean global temperature for the past 15 years, no ifs or buts? Has such a graph been published, and if so what is a link to it?

What "insurance", precisely, is suggested and to what extent would that for example require a wind-back to, say, the way of life depicted by Pieter Brueghel? Answer in terms of required social measures, not ppmv CO2 since the relationship between ppmv CO2 and temperature is subject to dispute.

In citing the “precautionary principle” how about referring not only to the risk involved in doing nothing to “tackle climate change” but also to the risk of needlessly trashing the scientific and industrial revolution? If a little boy cries “Wolf” what precautions against any wolf are prudent, and at what level of wolf danger would that include burning the forest down?

If nuclear power is suggested, what is the carbon footprint of the process from minesite to delivered power, is it uranium-based or thorium-based (there's a huge social difference), and who would pick up the insurance premiums so that events like Fukushima are completely covered - and not by the taxpayer? On the way to an answer, how about an excursion into explaining just why many household insurance policies are currently subject to a nuclear exclusion?

The deniers are increasingly desperate in their attempt to discredit AGW and failing.

They link to debunked web sites or to ones that have cherry picked data like WeUseWishfulThinking, or graphs that do not tell the hole story and forget that the majority of anti AGW web sites are funded by the fossil fuel industry, as probably they are. Or they take a sentence out of context and hope that it stands as per the recent one from the leaked IPCC draft report.

They then start calling people names.

And they make up things like ‘increasing number of scientists are disputing AGW’ when the exact opposite is occurring or the scientists they mention have no expertise in the climate change that is happening.

They repeat myths that have been put down so many times it is funny.

In the mean time the world is warming and the deniers never put up credible evidence that it is not due to man.

There is not one peer reviewed anti AGW paper that has stood up to scrutiny, out of near 14000 papers on climate change only 24 do not support and they have been debunked.

Have you noticed how cohenite (and others) rambling are getting worse and desperate as he/she/they realises their little world is crumbling under the weight of evidence that the world is warming and it is due to man, and therefore nothing they say can be trusted.

Peter A

What planet are you from? How long have you been visiting Earth?

The doomsayers, of which you are clearly one, want to talk about irrelevancies like temperature trends. They cannot provide a persuasive argument about the costs and benefits of AGW, nor of the solutions they advocate (actually, they demand).

The doomsayers have been advocating completely irrational policies to combat AGW for 20 years. They have no hope of working and never did have.

The problem to date has been the incessant, strident, determined advocacy to impose ‘big brother knows best’, centrally implemented and controlled policies (big government, big regulation, enormous compliance costs, international agreements to targets, timetables, carbon pricing, global taxes, etc). That is what the climate scientists, IPCC, environmental NGOs and Left leaning ideologues have been advocating since before the 1992 Rio Earth Summit.

This approach has clearly failed, as rational people have been arguing it would all along. It is the wrong approach. The evidence that approach won’t work in the real world is overwhelming. The longer we keep pushing this approach the longer we will delay cutting global GHG emissions.

The AGW doomsayers are the same people, (mostly) who are anti-markets and advocate the big brother knows best policies. They are the people who are responsible for us being well behind where we would be if they hadn’t continually blocked progress.

Peter. A. Hmmmm where to start? Peter Lang made a good start questioning which particular planet you are residing on.

"In the mean time the world is warming and the deniers never put up credible evidence that it is not due to man"

You are the one proposing this hypothesis, where is the 'credible evidence' that it is due to man? Human activity is purported to have added 19ppm co2. Are you proposing that this infintesimal amount is changing the climat?

Isn't there evidence that the global average temperature has 'flatlined' for the past 16 years?

"They then start calling people names"

I have been called a 'denier', I have been likened to a supporter of pedophelia, I have been 'researched' and found to deny a link between tobacco smoking and cancer, believe the moon landing was faked etc.etc. It has recently been recommended by your lot that I be executed as a mass murderer! phuleeeeez.......
.
" the majority of anti AGW web sites are funded by the fossil fuel industry"

Evidence please.

Honestly, I am embarrassed on your behalf.

In answer to EmperorJulian, it is pointless again producing "evidence" to convince him and other deniers of AGW when the ignore any evidence produced and continue to deny.
They only have to look at the evidence of arctic ice rapidly diminishing and also glaciers worldwide.
Also the link below shows what has happened, though I know that a denier will dispute this so why argue with them?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
As for "insurance" or "precaution principle," well why worry?
It is obvious that the bulk of the population is ignoring AGW and will continue to do so.
The inevitable result will be catastrophic overpopulation, which is the root cause of AGW and will bring it's own solution, a cull due to lack of resources.
So if you cannot face the consequences of your inaction, well then continue to take refuge in your denial and then you will be able to cope with life as it really is.
There are some who argue here and only do so to be augmentative i.e. trolls. there are some who are paid to cause confusion by the big companies but I do not think they would be active here but rather spread their doubts on blogs and articles.
There are also those who argue here and are of a lower IQ and so unable to comprehend the science and so discredit it.
I am sorry for you all.

Warmair, you link to Harries 2001 which says there is:

“direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect”

In Harries 2003; the statement is qualified to there is:

“evidence of a change in the clear-sky greenhouse radiative forcing due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations between those years.”

Then, in 2004, Harries further qualified his position:

“the IMG sampling is too sparse and yields results that differ from the true case by up to 6.0 K. Under cloud-free conditions the agreement with the true field for both instruments improves to within a few tenths of a kelvin. Comparisons with the observed IMG IRIS difference spectra show that these uncertainties due to sampling presently limit the conclusions that can be drawn about climatically significant feedback processes.”

Harries in fact demonstrates the inability of AGW ‘science’ to properly model clouds.

Harries has been rebutted by Lindzen and Choi and Spencer and Braswell, whose papers are described here:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/has-man-made-global-warming-been.html

And by Knox and Douglass, whose paper is described here:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/has-global-warming-been-disproved-part-2.html

This is so tedious; AGW is junk; and the best it can produce is the evidence free drivel of the likes of PeterA who says:

“There is not one peer reviewed anti AGW paper that has stood up to scrutiny, out of near 14000 papers on climate change only 24 do not support and they have been debunked.”

I have given many peer-reviewed papers in the above links which have not been debunked; PeterA should give us all a laugh and show how they have been debunked.

And finally Lepage with his link to, wait for it, wiki, and the amalgam of Holocene temperatures; even then he hasn’t the wit to see that the average of this ensemble shows a Holocene peak well above today’s temperatures. In any event I discussed the Holocene in the context of the GISP2 ice core data above which was obviously too hard for LePage since he hasn’t referred to it at all just gone off on a typical troll frolic of disconnected rambling.

As I say, tedious.

Raycom, you have missed my point entirely.

As I stated in my first post, there is no proof that AGW is a certainty, but the vast bulk of evidence, and evidence still being gathered, forms an increasingly coherent picture. It is not mistaken to label the general acceptance of this evidence, by the vast majority of climate scientists, worldwide, as a consensus. The political force of the word is well-founded, on careful science.

Unlike the law, science does not declare a verdict as beyond a reaonable doubt, but plainly the AGW denialists are becoming more and more isolated, into an intellectual backwater where they inform each other of facts which are unconvincing and arguments which are spent.

Earlier, I posted a link to an easily accessed article, in one of the world's most prestigious English-language general science journals. Read it and criticise it, if you like.

Additionally, I suggest you go to work and provide experimental evidence, historical evidence, computer modelling, that convincingly supports the idea that AGW is not taking place.

The idea that AGW is not happening is rampant among posts like yours, in response to articles like Don's, but these posts are more and more rarely taken seriously as science. Knowledgeable, skeptical experts, trained to criticise and apply the methods of experimental science, accept the weight of evidence supporting AGW.

What I see in the posts above are arguments from some people who confuse climate with weather, some people who demean scientists as careerists or conspirators, some who cherrypick arguments from ongoing resolutions of evidence, some (like yourself) who demand yet another quantum of evidence to dispute.

I recommend that you and other anti-AGW posters here take your disputes to a site that currently lists 173 arguments against AGW, and also rebuts them:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Enjoy your day.

Quote Prompete
You are the one proposing this hypothesis, where is the 'credible evidence' that it is due to man? Human activity is purported to have added 19ppm co2. Are you proposing that this infintesimal amount is changing the climat?
End Quote
_____________________________________________________________________________________
How do you arrive at the figure of 19ppm ?
The data as far as I am aware is that the CO2 levels were about 280 ppm in 1880
today they are 393 an increase of 113 ppm even if we assume that fossil fuel burning only accounts for 1/3 of the emissions ie 38ppm, we are still confident that all the 113ppm can be attributed to human activities. While we are on the subject don't forget that methane levels have also doubled in the same time frame.

http://co2now.org/

It's interesting that those who resent being called denialists are comfortable with calling AGW supporters "believers" or "alarmists".

Scientists are trained be skeptics. We have the example of Muller who employed the science to find empirical evidence. He was known and supported as a "skeptic", and he found that his studies concurred with the majority of climate scientists.

The "skeptics" then dumped him in no uncertain terms, calling him a fake skeptic.

Denialist seems a more accurate term for those who reject the majority findings of climate scientists, especially when the arguments in favour of rejecting AGW emanate in the main from people who are not climate scientists.

You've just got to shake your head at what's been postulated here.

Quite a few posts have mentioned the unassailable fact that there has been no warming in the past decade and a half. That seems rather important...its hard to have AGW without the "W". But those who want AGW to be true, just ignore that point on the basis, it seems, that any data that doesn't comply with cherished beliefs must be wrong.

The halt in rises, apart from giving cause to doubt the theory, should also cause people to evaluate the predictive abilities of the combatants. Who among the so-called consensus predicted the halt in the temperature increases? Which model predicted it? None? Well why think they'll be any better predicting what will happen in the next 10, 20 50 years?

On the other hand, there were people who predicted it. Primarily they are solar scientists and/or those who put greater weight in the effect of the sun as against a trace gas. Who'd have thunk it...that big yellow ball in the sky has an effect on the climate.

So do we follow those who have been monumentally wrong about the past 15years? What do those who were right say about the nfuture?Well they predict a slow decline in temps over the next 20-30 years followed by another jump similar to the 1975-1995 jump followed by a further decline with 2100AD having a similar climate to now. How can they be simply dismissed as tools of Big Oil or whatever?

We also seem to have a large group who simply accept the AGW story because, they opine, there is a consensus of scientists who accept it. And how do they know there is a consensus? Well people who claim to be in the consensus told 'em! A bit like being told by a priest that there is a consensus that God exists...and believing it.

There is no consensus. Its a political confection. The various petitions disputing the consensus are next to useless but they do indicate that their thousands of scientists prepared to stand up for the truth.

mhaze,

Cherry-picking short-term trends while ignoring the long-term trend is standard "skeptic" practice.

http://skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008.htm

http://skepticalscience.com/ipcc-draft-leak-global-warming-not-solar.html

yada,yada, yada..."believers", yada, yada.....

It's a hollow analogy...a desperate hollow analogy from those who reject the conclusions of people who are trained in the various disciplines.

Sad really.

Poirot,

It may be beyond your calculation skills but when we talk of no warming for the past 16yrs our starting point is 1997 not 1998. But off you go and find a polemic site that says its invalid to use 1998 as a starting point and then pronounce yourself vindicated.

I guess this is as far as your understanding goes, but I would point out that warimist organisation like the MET and high-priests of the consensus like Phil Jones have also conceded that there has been no warming since since the mid-1990s. But if you don't want that to be true, then just go on pretending it isn't.

As to the solar scientists, I pointed out that they were among those who predicted the lack of warming. So off you go and find some article that says that the IPCC has pronounced that one solar scientists theories are wrong. And again you pronounce yourself suitably convinced. Might I point out that Svensmark hasn't completed his experiments ( and unlike climate scientists his is doing lab experiments) so how they can know he's wrong is a puzzle. And this is the same IPCC who declared that those who said there would still be glaciers in the Himalayas after 2035 were wrong. And you know how that turned out, or do you?
Besides, even if Svensmark turns out to wrong, that hardly invalidates ALL solar science.

Poirot, if you want to remain convinced in your ignorance and to continue to run off to activist sites to find out how to ignore unwanted data, so be it. But don't pretend that this gives you any insight into the issue.

Quote mhaze
"Quite a few posts have mentioned the unassailable fact that there has been no warming in the past decade and a half. That seems rather important...its hard to have AGW without the "W". But those who want AGW to be true, just ignore that point on the basis, it seems, that any data that doesn't comply with cherished beliefs must be wrong."
End quote

______________________________________________________________________________________
The above claim in no way gels with the evidence, at this point you are entering the realm of irrational beliefs which is ironic considering the point of the original article.

Would you care to explain why 2/3 of the recent summer ice loss in the Arctic has occurred over the last 12 years?

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/1800tsuws5obkjpg/original.jpg

http://io9.com/5945658/what-the-hell-is-happening-to-the-arctic-sea-ice

mhaze,

"...our starting point is 1997 not 1998..."

Well, that makes all the difference!

There's nothing like a formally defined cherry pick to debunk AGW.

(smile)

I have two questions for the believers in the new religion of denial;

1. do you agree that the Arctic sea ice is at the lowest recorded level in the last 1400 years? http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/1800ttweie6p5jpg/original.jpg

2. If you agree with the above, what is your explanation for this, apart from sun spots and any other extra terrestrial phenomena?

In answer to Robert Le Page (further back):
You have responded to me but don’t seem to have read my questions - merely tried to guess what I’ll say next.

Question: Where does one find a graph of global mean temperature for the past 15 years? Simple enough - it can be year by year or month by month. Just to confirm that GW IS taking place as claimed.

As for the “A” part of AGW, there can be no evidence one way or the other, only correlations. To have any evidentiary significance at all it would have to be shown that temperature change followed CO2 concentration change, not the other way round. Without proof AGW is a political statement, not a scientific one.

Question: Re “precautionary principle” - what social measures (bottom line - not interim with more waiting for disclosure) are proposed on the assumption of AGW? (An addendum – who is supposed to be first cab off the rank for sacrifices? The military? The fuel for shifting goods to countries that can produce them at home? Joe public?).

Question: Re nuclear “solution”: Who pays for insurance premiums to cover Fukushimas? The nuclear energy industry? Subsidiary question: Why do home and contents insurers impose nuclear exclusions?

None of these questions should be difficult for those who call for “action on climate change”.

(Afraid I don’t know of any proof that CO2 isn’t causing observed climate variation. Neither, I fear, do I know of any proof that a teapot orbiting Mars isn’t the cause. Demanding evidence of a negative is fatuous).

Emperor Julian,

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2011-temps.html

"...the finding continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000..The only year from the 20th century in the top 10 warmest years is 1998."

(Just to confirm that GW IS taking place as claimed)

Is it really so hard to digest?

(apologies to cohenite for linking to NASA - I know it sets his twitch off)

Robert Le Page's latest questions:

Q1: Arctic sea ice has not been recorded these last 1400 years.
Q2: Extraterrestrial factors CAN and DO govern climate. Google for example Henrik Svensmark (it's safe - he's in the club). Or just think about what warms the earth.

warmair: "The above claim in no way gels with the evidence, at this point you are entering the realm of irrational beliefs"

Irrational beliefs? Are you serious? Its verifiable fact. Its based on the data set from Hadcrut 4 but you could use the data from any of the five major temperature sets. Just because you don't want it to be true doesn't make it so. Check it out. But you might have to avoid the usual alarmist websites who are trying hard to suppress the fact.

Poirot: you asserted that we were cherry-picking by using the very warm year of 1998 as our starting point. I pointed out that we were using the not very warm year of 1997 as our starting point. You now say that it makes no difference. Clearly logic isn't one of your strong suits.

Robert LePage: since recording of sea ice levels only started in 1979 I can't agree that it lowest recorded in 1400yrs. I will agree that its the lowest recorded since 1979. But there is plenty of historical evidence that ice levels were similar to now in the recent pre-1979 past. the reasons are varied but a recent paper says the recent decline was caused by a particularly strong storm/wind pattern.

Do you agree that the recent sea ice levels in Antarctica are the highest recorded since 1979?

Just a note on the obvious obsession some here have with Artic sea ice.When the temperatures were increasing in late 1990s the warmists only wanted to take about air temps. Then the temps started to misbehave and not do asthe consensus decreed. So then all the warmists wanted to talk about was sea temps. but then Argo showed that sea temps weren't increasing either. Next it was polar bears. Oh no, bear numbers are increasing. So now the poor old warmists are reduced to talking about sea ice levels in one place while ignoring them elsewhere. Rather pathetic really and a demonstration of the depths the myth has plumbed.
By the way, so what if all the sea ice in the Arctic melts?

Poirot, please, you embarrass yourself; everyone [except you] knows the world has warmed since 1850, the end of the LIA. As for your claim that:

"the finding continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000..The only year from the 20th century in the top 10 warmest years is 1998."

Please read McShane and Wyner in the link I provide above; and define the "modern meteorological record".

LePage thinks he is on a winner with the Arctic; the paper he takes the graph from is:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/full/nature10581.html?mid=5374

There is no doubt there has been a decline in the Arctic [summer] ice since the satellites in 1979. There is however, considerable doubt that the current summer ice melt exceeds what occurred in the 1930's let alone the past 1450 years:

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/52305165?searchTerm=iceland%20%20warming&searchLimits=exactPhrase|||anyWords|||notWords|||l-textSearchScope=*ignore*%7C*ignore*|||fromdd|||frommm|||fromyyyy=1921|||todd|||tomm|||toyyyy=1940|||l-word=*ignore*%7C*ignore*|||sortby

There is also no doubt that the Antarctic sheet and sea ice levels are at record highs. That fact is consistent with previous Arctic low ice levels and similtaneous high Antarctic levels in the short term:

http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/screenhunter_214-sep-15-06-40.jpg

And the reverse correlation between the Arctic and Antarctic occurs over millenia:

http://www.princeton.edu/~cmngroup/13_Science_Editors_Choice.pdf

Even NASA has noticed this 'bi-polar behaviour between the poles:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/24/nasa-on-earths-bipolar-sea-ice-behavior/

The authors of the article LePage links to do not consider this well established climatic phenomenon and therefore their conclusion about AGW being responsible is irresponsible.

What does this article contribute to the climate discussion?

It seems very odd that a self-confessed 'empiricist' would argue from such obviously false analogy.
Then again, it wasn't really written for a general audience, was it? More a preaching to the choir. And the choir sings back...

As and aside, I love how Don waxes lyrical on his history in 'political science' and then calls himself an 'empiricist' to then proclaim to know how science works and proceed to trash actual physical scientists' synthesised interpretations of real-world data as if it was a sort of religion. How many actual science papers have you written Don?

You're a real piece of work.

Bugsy wades in with:

"actual physical scientists' synthesised interpretations of real-world data"

Which really means:

Computer jockeys making up stuff.

Incidentally, what do you do Bugs, apart from dishing out 2nd rate snark?

Sir Vivor: "Additionally, I suggest you go to work and provide experimental evidence, historical evidence, computer modelling, that convincingly supports the idea that AGW is not taking place."

It is unscientific to argue that the AGW hypothesis is true until such time as it is proven wrong. The onus of proof rests firmly upon the proposer of the hypothesis, not with its refutation.

The warmists have failed to produce that proof , after searching for over 20 years.

Your suggestion that the scepticalscience website provides solid rebuttals to questions about AGW, is tongue in cheek. The rebuttals to the questions are typical of what to expect on twitter.

2nd rate? Compared to what? The little ad homs from you that brighten my day?

I'm somewhat flattered, you're the first person that actually asked what 'I do'. I don't really talk about it, but I 'do' science matey. Actual science. It's in my job description and job title and everything.

And I'm infinitely more published in science journals than you, literally, as the comparison of any real number versus zero is an infinite ratio.

The only reason I comment here is that I get a bit upset when people who are obviously massively deficient in their science training pretend that they know everything that scientists do, how they think and also want to rewrite history for their political prejudices.

Compared to what actual scientists are doing, you guys are playing Lego.

Warmair. Apologies for not getting back sooner (had run out of response allowance on OLO)

"How do you arrive at the figure of 19ppm ?"

"anthropogenic sources account for less than 5% of the present atmosphere, compared to the major input/output from natural sources (~95%). Hence, anthropogenic CO2 is too small to be a significant or relevant factor in the global warming process, particularly when comparing with the far more potent greenhouse gas water vapor."

Compete peer reviewed reference source at

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N31/EDIT.php

Regards.

"I'm somewhat flattered, you're the first person that actually asked what 'I do'. I don't really talk about it, but I 'do' science matey. Actual science. It's in my job description and job title and everything."

And you're modest too.

What sort of science?

Drawing on your superior level of 'science' would you care to pick an aspect of AGW which you think is proved and say why so us plebs can tick the box on that and move on?

What sort of science?

Does it really matter to you?

"Drawing on your superior level of 'science' would you care to pick an aspect of AGW which you think is proved and say why so us plebs can tick the box on that and move on?"

Actually, no I wouldn't because I've seen this game before. Whatever I pick would be either not agreed to, or only temporarily agreed to and in either case not matter to you 'plebs'. This is because it would then be completely ignored by the next idiot who thinks he knows everything in a different thread and the whole dance starts up again...

It's frustrating, time consuming, pointless and doesn't resolve anything. The only actual resolutions can come from groups scientists discussing the data and conclusions and coming to some sort of synthesis of what's actually happening. This has already happened, but you lot won't agree to any of it.

I know getting bogged down in detail is a favourite of yours, but I am only here to point out the fraud that Don Aitken is, calling himself an 'empiricist' and pretending he's a scientist (political 'scientist' LOL) and trading on his background as a university administrator. Oh yes, he's read plenty of grant applications and so he 'knows' science, dontchaknow?

Hello Mr Bugsy,

You being a scientist and all, I was wondering if you might be able to point me in the right direction, by way of a link, to a graph of global mean sea level pressure anomalies over time - like the ones they do for surface air temp - from the olden days till now?

I've been searching for a while and I can't seem to find one. At least, I did find a sort of a one once at NOAA, but it was of such poor resolution that it was useless.

I'd be much obliged to you, because I'm fascinated to know what's been going on with it and curious to know why no one ever seems to discuss global mean sea level pressure in the great hot air debate.

Many thanks in anticipation.

Sir Vivor: "It seems as though the same mentality prevails in many of the comments here. I will offer one citation:
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/10/bleak-prospects-for-avoiding-dangerous.html "

The author of the above reference, like you and your fellow AGW believers, relies heavily on the alarmist projections of climate models. The trust in these models is unwarranted, as they remain unvalidated. They are relatively simplistic and fail to represent the complexity and uncertainty inherent in the climate system, the understanding of which is far from adequate.

Given all the uncertainty about the causes of climate change, it is misleading and deceptive and unethical for science teachers to influence students into believing that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause dangerous global warming.

To paraphrase Mr Darcy, Bugsy is in no mood to tolerate the incomprehension of the masses.

And that of course has been the essence of the AGW 'science'; palpably wrong, a concoction [synthesis, ho, ho] of consensus by gravy train specialists and assorted loons [ie Flannery] assuming authority and wanting to dictate massive life-style changes for the hoi poloi on the basis of their informed superiority.

I don't get bogged down in detail; quite the opposite; it is the prolix crap from the AGW 'science' which seeks to deter understanding.

AGW is fundamentally un-egalitarian; its advocates universally want democracy and individual rights to be 'suspended' or curtailed to deal with the apocalypse of AGW. The average citizen is browbeaten and condescended to and dismissed.

It is this which is losing the public debate for AGW; and it is that public support which was all they had; with that gone and the 'science' in tatters all that is left is the likes and views of the Parncutts of the world:

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/parncutt-death-threat-uni-of-graz-shocked-monckton-gets-it-withdrawn-with-apology-john-cook-says-nothing/

You had your chance Bugs and you squibbed it.

The problem is, cohenite, that you're all technique and no substance.

As I recall, Agronomist (who obviously has some formal science training), bounced you around like a rubber ball in that discussion - at every turn he had your measure.

And you're at it again with your:

"...and say why us plebs can tick that box and move on?"

and

"...Bugsy is in no mood to tolerate the comprehension of the masses."

and

"...gravy train specialists and assorted loons...assuming authority and wanting to dictate massive life-style changes for the hoi poloi on the basis of their informed superiority."

(Yep - cue device of "elitism". Refer to the first post on this thread)

The denialist camp abounds with conspiracy theories, cherry picking and fake experts (in fact, almost everything except the science)..and when they're called out on their dearth of understanding, they resort to other devices such as calling scientists "believers" and attempting to make it a "class" issue by referring to themselves as "plebs" etc.

When all you've got are devices - you've really got nothing.
It's not so perplexing for me because my main interest is in analysing denialist operating procedure. But why would a scientist wish to engage in any depth with your swaggering discourtesy or your willful ignorance?

cohenite:"You had your chance Bugs and you squibbed it."

Oh noes! Weally and twooly? I had a chance? To do what exactly? Educate a pig-ignorant lawyer on the complexities of climate science? Wow, can I have another chance pweeeeese?

Yeah, better leave your hand off it Cox.

voxUnius:

If NOAA keep those sorts of records, then have you tried contacting them to find out where you can find those records or who works on them? If the graphs were published, then NOAA will have a reference. If they were not, then they may direct you to the person who is most relevant.
Either way, I cannot help you. I am not a library, nor a research service.

Raycom,

You have missed my point entirely.

Enjoy your day.

Bugsy says "Either way, I cannot help you. I am not a library, nor a research service."

Translation... who needs data when you have faith.

To voxUnius looking for SLP anomaly data. I wouldn't hold out too much hope in finding it at NOAA. My experience of NOAA is that if the data supports the true faith then its dead easy to find. Otherwise you need the skills of Sherlock Holmes to uncover it.

I'd suggest you go here - "http://iridl.ldeo.columbia.edu/SOURCES/.KAPLAN/.RSA_COADS_SLP1.cuf/.OI/.slpa/html+viewer?"

As a general observation it seems that this little group is occupied by those who have abdicated all independent thought in favour of mere unquestioning faith in what their chosen expert(s) say. They each have their own method of rejecting any data which challenges their faith.
Some will instinctively reject data as cherry-picked even when they don't know what the period allegedly cherry-picked is (Poirot).
Quite a few have bought the whole consensus tale and will believe whatever the consensus tells them. I wonder how such people reconcile disputes within the consensus. Or do they pretend no such dispute exists?

Of coarse most are guided by the current meme...whatever it may be. Since most of the dire predictions of the high priests of the faith have failed to materialise, they are currently reduced to fretting about the arctic ice. And their loyal followers concur. But when asked what the effect of a total arctic melt would be, silence came the stern reply.

In my experience of this and prior scares, these views are pretty standard. Many people draw comfort and moral righteousness from being part of the herd. But once the herd starts to move on, they will go with it and somehow forget they ever were misled by their previously beloved gurus.

mhaze, (appropriate moniker:)

It doesn't matter which short-term trend you cherry pick. If you concentrate on a short-term trend while ignoring the full body of evidence - that's cherry picking.

I note you're sticking to the denialist script.... "faith", "high priests", "gurus".

Still employing the "believers" device - and you're not even being creative with it.

Next....

Poirot, you live in an alternate universe; you say:

"As I recall, Agronomist (who obviously has some formal science training), bounced you around like a rubber ball in that discussion - at every turn he had your measure."

Read my last comment on the thread; Agronomist misunderstood the way the Chow test was used in the paper; as simple as that; and he was a condescending jerk about it as well, just like all the climate scientists.

I readily admit my statistical knowledge is undergraduate; but I spend my valuable time learning the statistics when I have to, and I am amazed by the bluff and bluster of your precious climate scentists when they are pushed.

Your naivety is typical; the climate scientists are doing nothing more than attempting to establish a closed shop with priesthood status; it would be pathetic if it were not costing billions and giving science generally a black eye.

But you are a true acolyte and can't see past your prejudices; maybe when the lights go out you'll start to think.

Bugsy, you're white noise. At least Agronomist had a go.

Poirot,

1. mhaze is my name not a moniker. Unlike most I don't to need to hid behind a nickname. My guess is that others find comfort in their anonymity knowing that if/when their fondly held beliefs are found to be wrong, they can just change their nickname and pretend they were never so gullible as to believe the myth. In a few years time we'll struggle to find a Poirot anywhere near an AGW discussion.

2. 16 years isn't a "short-term trend". Both NOAA and Phil Jones have previously admitted that a 15yr trend with no warming would call into question all the models and their conclusions. So I guess you'll just have to come up with some other excuse as to why you can ignore the only real evidence that counts in this whole silly saga.

3. Just gotta laugh. You, who'll happily denigrate anyone as a "denier" are upset about me refer to believers as believers. As I noted earlier, logic isn't one of your strong suits is it?

mhaze,

I supposed that mhaze was your name...it's just that it so happens that it's appropriate.

"16 years isn't a "short-term trend""...Well yes it is, but even then - according to Phil Jones: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

I used to regularly use the term "skeptic" until it occurred to me that "skeptics" didn't particularly give a toss about how they addressed scientists.

And then there was Richard Muller, who "was" a skeptic, and we know what happened when his conclusions landed on the side of AGW.

The term "believers" is diametrically opposed to the reality of scientists reaching their conclusions through empirical evidence.

It's a rhetorical device - and nothing but a rhetorical device.

cohenite:"you're white noise. At least Agronomist had a go."

And look how much progress he made. As I said, it's pointless arguing against such ardent ignorance. I won't bother.

This whole blog and many of the ones you like to inhabit are all white noise.

Most of what you guys chuck out is like the bull-baiting that Scientologists like to use to provoke their opponents. The cult here is your 'movement' and you just can't see it. None of you are the 'agnostics' that Don likes to believe he himself is, you passionately argue against what is the plain truth.

The universe doesn't lie, but it's sometimes difficult to see. Scientists know this. Conspiracies of 'groupthink' or tampering with data can never last against the reality of the evidence. The truth is tough and will always be there when you have run out of bluster and insults.

And the 'agnostics' can wait until they get the evidence they desperately want for all I care, although I can see that Don aint waiting, he's actively pushing a political line.

We of the "understanding what is really going to happen faith", have one advantage over the church of denial, we only have to wait and it will all come true.
I wonder how far into cataclysmic events we will have to go before denialists admit they were wrong?
It is already too late in my view to repair the damage done to the environment, with positive feed back forcing the change so all these arguments are of little value now.
I think that some of the people that are posting to this type of thread are getting increasingly shriller as they realise how untenable their position is.

"And look how much progress he made."

Agronomist made no progress because he was wrong; read the link and the last 2 comments:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14089&page=0

Read what Agronomist says and how I respond.

He was wrong.

Again, I concede I'm no statistician but I learn enough to make meaningful contributions to the papers; my main forte is research and finishing off the prose.

I always read and consider what the pro-AGW believers say if it has to do with the science; I ignore the patronising, the appeals to authority and the ridiculous 'consensus' argument.

I practice law where there are endless qualifications, checks and balances and appeal processes; it amazes me that a section of science, climate science, should wish to remove itself from scientific checks and balances and establish a citadel whereby the people, the public, who pay the wages of the scientists and who will have to bear the brunt of the policies based on the climate science, are told they are not good enough to be replied to because they would not understand.

What insufferable arrogance!

Are you on the public purse Bugs?

If so, tell me how I got it wrong in discussion with Agronomist.

cohenite,

Let's hear from Agronomist how you got it wrong:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14089&page=0#244043

His summary at the end of the post is telling in itself:

"In summary, it was an inappropriate method used in and inappropriate way with inappropriate conclusions drawn. I can't really say fairer than that. Do you understand now why I referred to the paper as bilge? Those flaws might go a fair way to explaining why the paper was rejected for publication."

I'm fascinated by your constant complaint of condescension, etc...have you ever studied you own rhetoric, which would have to some of the rudest, most discourteous and insulting in debates. You show no respect - and then complain when you treated with disdain.

Btw, here's Lord Monckton on his "triumph" in Doha.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/07/monckton-on-his-smashing-u-n-wall-of-silence-on-lack-of-warming-and-censure

(apparently employing the services of Microsoft Excel is that latest cutting-edge technology for non-scientists to debunk AGW)

This guy is lauded figure amongst "skeptics"...why do we not take you seriously?

Poirot I have shown you where Agronomist got it wrong and you still persist; for the benefit of anyone who is looking and marvelling at your inability to undestand here's what I said to Agronomist:

"You don't understand the paper. You say this:

"The Chow test would normally be used in a situation where a known change had occurred and there was a desire to see whether this had an impact."

What would you describe the 1976 climate shift and the 1998 super El Nino? You don't call those known changes? And they are a priori not post hoc!

And this:

"As an aside, the Chow test shouldn’t be used at all and the Wald test used, because it is exact rather than an estimate of the statistic."

That is just crap; the Chow is used iteratively in Stockwell along a stream of data where the breaks are known to test whether the known breaks were optimal; they were to a 95% CL.

And I quite frankly am mystified by your focus on type 1 errors or rejecting the null hypothesis of no effect when it should be accepted. Stockwell didn't do that; the breaks were accepted."

So, that's it; Agronomist made 3 substantive criticisms of the use of the Chow statistical test in the paper; they were where the break is known, it was; the time of the break, which was also known, and 3rdly misunderstanding the nature of type 1 errors.

So, that's it Poirot; you either understand that and are lying about it, or you are stupid.

Poirot,

Still struggling with that logic thingy I see. To show me that 16yrs is a short-term trend, you provide links to a page that doesn't talk about trends (short or long) and doesn't even use the word trend! Huh?

Here is what other warmists have said about periods of 15yrs or so:

Phil Jones (head of the CRU and member of the 'Hockey Team'):
"‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’"
NOAA: "The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

Of course both have now decanted and say we need longer trends, thus proving a climate law of my own design being "the length of a non-warming trend required to disprove the models is equal to the length of the current trend PLUS 1 year".

Actually, in the hands of the warmists, nothing disproves the hypothesis. To their mind, drought proves AGW. But so do floods. Snow storms prove AGW. But so does lack of snow. A warming trend proves it but a lack of warming trend still proves it. In the same way as no evidence will ever disprove the existence of God to a Southern Baptist, no evidence will ever disprove AGW to a devout warmist.

I've asked this question in many fora over the years without ever getting a reasonable answer.....what evidence or series of events would you require to see that would cause you to reject the CAGW theory? People used to say, back in the 90s, that they'd need to see a decade-long halt to the warming but that milestone came and went. I'd be interested in hearing from the warmists here what they'd need to see to shake their faith.

In anticipation of a reciprocal question, I'd became a card-carrying member of warmism, a spruiker of CO2 taxes if:
* we had rapid warming of approx 1c over the next decade or two
* we saw evidence that the postulated positive feedbacks are indeed positive and exist outside the models and that they overwhelm negative feedbacks
* we saw evidence that models are able to simulate cloud movement/formation and still predict a warming
* we saw evidence that models were able to replicate past climate changes

Dear cohenite,

I’m not a scientist and can’t support your depth of knowledge and incisiveness in matters scientific but I can admire it and enjoy the breath of fresh air you bring to the debate.

You have single handedly created a re-enactment Rowan Atkinson’s character “Black Adder”. Your warmertariat proponents on this blog are collectively the Black Adder character, as you lop off their limbs, their torso’s writhe forward for more as they mouth those infamous words, “It’s only a flesh wound”.

I think I’ll call this the “cohenite syndrome”. I’m so impressed that I might write something non-scientific to explain to the warmers what’s happening to them.

Awesome stamina, patience and science. Congratulations.

cohenite: Science does not "establish a citadel", it has established a 'noise filter'. I'd say it's working reasonably well in your case. The noise isn't always filtered out, but if it wasn't there then even TIMECUBE would probably be published. I know it hurts, but it's there for a reason.

The public have had things explained to them quite patiently by many scientists over many years. But some are like zombies, they just keep coming at you, no matter what you do to them. And there's always another one that gets infected and you have to start all over again.

I looked at you paper. Yeah, it is simplistic trash, especially your "projections", as there is clearly no insight into the underlying processes producing the data series. This was most clearly evident in Figure 1b, where the long term trend doesn't seem to be much different to the first trend before the 'break'. Looking at the graph, this 'break' is obviously caused by a only couple of years data and doesn't affect the longer term trend. The Chow test is clearly inappropriate for this type of data, as agronomist said.

I can see why it wasn't published.

spindoc: You may not be a scientist, but at least you should be able to get your pop culture references right. Yeah, I think 'cohenite syndrome' is highly appropriate.

spindoc,

Talking of Blackadder (as opposed to Monty Python's overconfident Black Knight) - would "cohenite syndrome" be likened to Balrick's world view?

Baldrick always had a "cunning plan" (although I'm not sure whether he ever employed a the Chow test).....

Or maybe he's Captain Rum, who didn't know the way to the Cape of Good Hope. What he usually did was sail round and round the Isle of Wight until everyone got dizzy, then headed for home.

...not unlike what "skeptics" do on blogs like this.

Ok, let's look at this.

Figure 3, the projection is based on a PDO based break occuring at that time due to the approximate 60 year PDO cycle combined with the assumption of underlying AGW.

You think that is "simplistic trash" do you Bugs? Which part, the 60 year PDO cycle where phase changes are shown to occur with a break pattern, or the AGW part? Do you deny the observed breaks in 1976 and the other at around 1998? If so how do you explain the extensive literature on the 1976 "climate shift" and the reversal sometime after 1998.

Stockwell's paper lists a comprehensive number of papers dealing with the "climate shift" of 1976 and possible causes such as the contemperaneous variations in ocean upwelling.

The reverse break in 1998 also has contemperaneous variations in ocean upwelling, or more precisely a resumption of the decline in upwelling which occurred in 1976. I might add that when the paper was written in 2009 the data stream post 1998 was only short so the Chow lacked the same vigour in isolating the 198 break as it did in confirming the 1976 break; but with the passing of another 3 years and the extra data showing declining GAT that 1998 break has been verified.

If you are going to criticise the paper's verification of the 1976 break you must also counter the extensive literature on that subject which supports Stockwell; so do it.

In regard to the 1998 break; I have had this discussion with the clueless Poirot; that is, all temperature indices, except GISS, show declining temperature since 1998, which confirms the Chow isolation of 1998 as the reverse break. Do you dispute that as well?

In regard to the projection, tell me one AGW prediction which has been verified.

Dear cohenite,

There are two issues here that beg debate. The first is Don Aitkin’s issue with the “Product Branding” of the non believers as deniers. The second issue is the “Market”.

Firstly, the branding issue is vital to the warmers because without the tag of “denier”, there is little left to defend the warmers, if they cannot produce the killer blow on “scientific fact” (sic), they must rely on vilification of the opposition.

This branding is tired, old, ineffective and gaining less and less traction. The market has spoken and only the remnants of a once fine ideology remain. Two issues telegraph the decline of this phenomenon, the market and distillation.

The market: Once upon a time the market comprised a well funded and very well respected core of advisers. Governments responded to the warnings of this body by invoking legislation that protected their voter base. There was a broad church in support of this market that comprised opportunist industries, vested academia, grant dependent scientists, NGO’s, a brand new investment market (green credits), a global agreement between industrialized nations (Kyoto), a broad range of “accredited” government funded media, a blog inspired ideological pseudo-science movement and a large support base of voters that demanded action against the perceived threats.

So what is left of this market and its “support base”.

Firstly, the well respected “advisory body” lost all credibility in 1999. Having established itself as the premier body for analyzing scientific contributions, the world was exposed to the sordid hypocrisy of politically motivated pseudo-science. The Governments that had responded to the threats of this advisory body lead them to question such legislative decisions, opportunist industries pressed for more public as the financial austerity hits the ideological reality, academia squealed, the funding for green initiatives has collapsed, after 18 years of trying, the industrialized nations have walked away from any further binding agreements to replace Kyoto and public opinion has abandoned the politicians.

There is absolutely NO recovery in prospect as the math defeats recovery. No amount of energy can possibly put back what has been lost.

Cont’d

Cont’d

So what is left? The only remnants of this once fine market are the Dominicans. The sect created to deal with the loss of credibility of the Jesuits, the bunnies, the vulnerable, the lazy, the ideologues and pseudo-scientists; the bloggers!

So to “condensation”: The “cohenite syndrome”, which exposes the remnants of AGW to distillation, the process of fewer promoting less. As the “carrier” through challenge boils away the essence of the warmers case it is exposed to public scrutiny and found wanting. The residual “cause” cannot stand scrutiny. The fewer the points of the cause, the more we see the “less” as tired, outdated, obsolete and prejudicial excuses, the more the public sees the flawed causes and the frailty.

The “green investment” market has collapsed, political support has collapsed, international developed nations support has collapsed, public support has collapsed, the Un IPCC case has again been diluted, opportunist industries are threatening to remove themselves from the market, academia offers more of the same unfulfilled predictions, legislative decisions are facing repeal, governments are returning to economically and politically sustainable coal, gas and nuclear energy production.

What does this leave us with? It leaves us with the bloggers, some of the media, some politicians and some of academia. All these are characterized by the need to sustain personal credibility. Nothing to do with science, just “Please God, let me be right”

The “cohenite syndrome” is all about exposing the warmers to credibility, to exposing their ever diminishing list of justification for their views.

That is why the criteria set by Don Aitkin and cohenite are so pertinent, they expose the need for and manifestation of bile, abuse, vilification, tagging and “Brand Imaging” to what they really are, a futile, adolescent response to reality. Their repeated mantra of “my link to someone else’s opinion is better then yours”.

This market once depended upon critical mass to sustain itself. Now it follows the Law of the Inverse Square. For every unit of energy the warmers input, the results are reduced by a factor of four.

Bugsy/Poirot, I love you.

I love you because you are so predictable. I love you because you are the best support the skeptics have. I love you because you cannot understand what is happening. I love you because you are bereft of anything new. I love you because you are ones of the abandoned. I love you because you are so vulnerable, malleable and so determined to defend the indefensible. I love you because you refuse to confront that which hurts you. I love you because you feel the pain of being wrong. I love you because every time someone says you are a *&^%$, you respond by being one.

I doubt anyone fails to understand the significance of Black Adder. It’s folklore. You on the other hand cannot deal with the analogy, you try to distort it and shoot the messenger whilst failing to address the meaning.

Just how YOU is that?

How utterly appropriate that your response to the Black Adder analogy is exactly the same as your response to anything that confronts your perspective? No debate, no response, no intellectual foil, just good old fashioned down the side, outside the issues, can’t be bothered triviality.

You are not victims of the “cohenite syndrome”, you are the best examples we have of it.

Just thought I‘d mention real science. According to Professor Nicholas Mee of physics research at CERN. He states that of the 86 Feynman diagrams tested so far, there are NO anomalies, NO inconsistencies, NO variables and NO contradictions. All physics hypotheses have been tested to an extraordinary level of proof of between 10 to the power of 24 and 10 to the power of 34.

Now that my friend is real science.

Just wondering how your scientific (sic) “predictions” are going?

Please keep up the good work and thanks.

LorraLuv.

spindoc,

The point is, Mr Analogy, that you got it wrong.

It wasn't Blackadder - it was the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

He guarded a "bridge" which was a short plank of wood (I wonder whose cranium he procured that from?)

If you're going to present earth-shattering analogies, as Bugsy pointed out, at least get your pop culture straight.

As for your "cohenite syndrome" - I'd be wary of your "cleverness" backfiring big time.

"Cohenite Syndrome" may well become a byword for denialism.

(PS - I love you too :)

Spindoc.
I too have read with increasing respect the determination, accuracy and relevance of Cohenite. Following and comparing the respective links, Cohenites' grasp of the breadth of the science is truly worthy. Such pleasure I have had in following each ripost, worthy of a fencing master.

Your description of the 'Cohenite syndrome' is both insightful and replete with wicked wit. With your permission I will be using it in the future. I just know I can work it into a conversation as required. along with 'jumping the shark', the 'Cohenite Syndrome' will now be an essential part of my lexicon. :)).

Your post was an absolute pleasure to read! Thank you.

This is the paper Bugs is commenting on:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.1650v3.pdf

Now, looking at Figure 1B; this deals with the Australian rainfall record from 1910.

Typically this rainfall is shown by a regression trend as the green line in the graph indicates. However climate data is rarely linear [CO2 diffusion from ocean to atmosphere and vice-versa via Henry’s Law would be one exception] and the point of using the Chow test to show non-linear breaks was to interpret the rainfall data in a way correlated to what was happening in the climate and to the highest statistical significance.

The finding of a break in the rainfall data at 1982 had a higher statistical significance than the regression trend; as noted in the Results section of the paper:

“Regarding the precipitation series, a single break-date at 1982 (Figure
1b) significantly improves the fit (p = 0:02) as indicated by the increase
in R2 from 0.041 to 0.164 (Table 1). The trend in the segment before the
break is not significant (p = 0:88), but a decline in precipitation after the
break is significant (p = 0:03), most probably due to the anomalously high
rainfall in the years after 1978.”

Bugs says this about Figure 1B:

“This was most clearly evident in Figure 1b, where the long term trend doesn't seem to be much different to the first trend before the 'break'. Looking at the graph, this 'break' is obviously caused by a only couple of years data and doesn't affect the longer term trend. The Chow test is clearly inappropriate for this type of data, as agronomist said.”

Seriously Bugs, you're a scientist? If by the “long-term trend” you mean the regression, its significance is far inferior to the Chow, R2 0.041 compared to 0.164; in addition, the comparison is not between the blue and green lines before the break but between the 2 blue lines before and after the break.

Spindoc says:

“For every unit of energy the warmers input, the results are reduced by a factor of four.’

Very true, the alarmists detract from the world.

Out of the frying pan and into the fire?

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/step-3/

Mr Cox's incursion: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/step-3/#comment-58730

Seems he's found a loving home at OLO, no surprise.

Which part? You ask, cohenite. I think it starts about halfway through the author list and doesn’t get much better from there.

Figure 1b is a great example of how your Chow test can throw up false positives, and is inappropriate. Yes, I mean regression. The regression along the entirely of the series does not appear significantly different from the regression before your ‘break’, and you yourself admit that the different regression after the break is likely due to ‘anomalously high rainfall’ in a small number of years. So, basically it will definitely find ‘breaks’ (with a high significance! Or low R2, whatever), however you have not done a test for how many data points are affecting that particular change. This could be achieved by a Monte Carlo type test where datapoints are randomly removed from the analysis and the whole analysis repeated in iterations, probably about 10,000 or more, which should give you an estimate of which years are giving you skewed results and how many.

But we could wax lyricical for hours about the finer points of a rejected manuscript that was never published, but that would get us exactly nowhere. It’s just white noise and that’s all you are. And you can say “You’re wrong!” all you like, but the fact is you had a chance for this piece to have some sort of credibility 3 years ago and you squibbed it.

Apart from the fact that Graham Chapman’s King Arthur cut off the Black Knight’s limbs in a movie, I rather like spindocs simile (not analogy) of picturing the ‘skeptics’ as Rowan Atkinson s character, Blackadder. Anyone who actually watched the TV show knows what happened to him at the end of each series...
This is what I will forever picture as ‘cohenite syndrome’, being somewhat clueless and not having any idea about why. And then you make it about personalities, because that’s all you can do. If your being convinced of a scientific point of view rests on someone elses personality and your reaction to it, then you truly are the eunuch at the banquet.

Ah, I’m being stalked by, I suppose, another snout on the public purse, qanda, who links to Tamino. Regular at Tamino, Bernard J says:

“If you want to blame an oscillating, heat-shifting phenomenon wholely and solely for increased planetary warming, and simultaneously exonerate carbon dioxide and its known ‘greenhouse’ properties, you need to explain both how ENSO and other such phenomena cause a net increase in global temperature, and why the physics of infrared absorption by ‘greenhouse’ gases don’t result in any planetary warming.”

I presume this is what qanda is referring to but who knows since these trolls merely link and link.

Bernard is wrong; upwelling and consequent ENSO oscillation is quite capable of explaining temperature trend:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/20/el-nino-southern-oscillation-myth-3-enso-has-no-trend-and-cannot-contribute-to-long-term-warming/

The reason why ENSO can produce trend is because it has been asymmetrical:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010JCLI3592.1

What this means is that the El Nino phase of ENSO which produces warm global conditions is warmer and lasts longer than the cool La Nina phase cools.

This asymmetry was a feature of the 20thC where in addition there were 2 El Nino phases and only one La Nina phase.

That is sufficient to explain the temperature trend over the 20thC.

ENSO asymmetry is a proxy for increased solar activity which increased from 1850; solar is the only way the oceans can be warmed since IR, which CO2 affects, cannot penetrate the ocean surface.

Really, there is no need for AGW at all to explain the climate of the 20thC; it can be explained by reference to natural processes.

Bugsy; your arrogance is only exceeded by the nonsense you write; Monte Carlo sampling is used where the data cannot give an exact result; the temperature data used with the Chow was exact in that it was known there was a temperature break; the Chow was used to compare the significance of the break[s] with regression. In addition, something you ignore is the strong correlation with the breaks and actual physical climatic events; these breaks contradict AGW. That is what the Chow confirmed and why the paper was not published.

cohenite,

"Ah, I'm being stalked by, I suppose, another snout on the public purse..."

The "stalking" chestnut is fast becoming a handy shield from criticism - someone points out a few home truths, and the person criticised yells "I'm being stalked!"

Back to reality.

I have to admire you, cohenite. In the face of much criticism from people actually trained in the disciplines you manage to dismiss them all with so much confidence. (Very black Knight indeed)

But then we have posts like this from Prompete:

"I too have read with increasing respect the determination, accuracy and relevance of Cohenite. Following and comparing the respective links, Cohenite's grasp of the breadth of science is truly worthy. Such pleasure I have in following each post, worthy of a fencing master."

Adulation like that is liable to turn someone's head. That cohenite is repeatedly relieved of the delusion that he knows what he's talking about by those who do know what they're talking about, cannot compete with his popularity amongst "skeptics"...he's probably nearing pop-star status on the blogs which he frequents.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/el-nino-southern-oscillation.htm

cohenite writes - "...solar is the only way the oceans can be warmed..."

Well that's not quite true mate. Geothermal heat (heat extra to solar) is a significant driver of ocean temps, hence ENSO events, climate variation, weather, and it seriously needs greater consideration in the GW debate.

For what it's worth, Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient#Heat_flow

"Heat flows constantly from its sources within the Earth to the surface. Total heat loss from the earth is 44.2 TW (4.42 × 1013 watts).[12] Mean heat flow is 65 mW/m2 over continental crust and 101 mW/m2 over oceanic crust.[12] This is approximately 1/10 watt/square meter on average, (about 1/10,000 of solar irradiation,) but is much more concentrated in areas where thermal energy is transported toward the crust by convection such as along mid-ocean ridges and mantle plumes.[13] The Earth's crust effectively acts as a thick insulating blanket which must be pierced by fluid conduits (of magma, water or other) in order to release the heat underneath. More of the heat in the Earth is lost through plate tectonics, by mantle upwelling associated with mid-ocean ridges. The final major mode of heat loss is by conduction through the lithosphere, the majority of which occurs in the oceans due to the crust there being much thinner and younger than under the continents.[12][14]"

And,

"The heat of the Earth is replenished by radioactive decay at a rate of 30 TW.[15] The global geothermal flow rates are more than twice the rate of human energy consumption from all primary sources."

And,

http://marinebio.org/oceans/temperature.asp#.UODqUFsRWmw
"...the state of this thermohaline circulation, sometimes called the global conveyor belt, can have an enormous impact on the climate of our planet."

Go think about those facts folks.

If anyone's going to solve global temperature anomaly puzzles, it's not going to be by way of people sticking their heads in the clouds and calling CO2 a polutant, but by geologists, oceanologists and astro physicists, with feet firmly planted on the ground in established sciences.

And in my opinion cohenite gets closer to the truth than most of them.

My insurance premiums doubled and then doubled again in just the last five years, courtesy of one in one hundred record flood events that occurred in three consecutive years.
And I live on a mountain.
Noah would need to build another ark, if flood events were ever to threaten my house.
Average wind speeds have risen, [global convection,] and as such, contributed to the unprecedented fire storm that that wiped out Victorian friends and relatives; and or, rendered them homeless.
Ditto the recent record and historically huge cyclone, that decimated so much of northern Queensland!
Now, I can't say with irrefutable science backing me, that AGW is implicated/responsible, or even real!
But something is causing the increasing savagery/frequency of these "natural" disasters and the unprecedented ice melts!
What can or should we do? Just so we can say to the Grandkids, I played a positive part in ensuring your future, rather than trying to mortgage it out of existence.
We should replace our aging coal-fired power stations with relatively safe carbon free, thorium nuclear ones.
They might cost less, than what we currently shell out for traditional coal fired ones.
So, the cost of producing power could be as low as, 2 cents per Kilowatt hour!
Insurance? I'm already paying in spades for climate change caused outcomes!?
Done extremely locally to avoid transmission losses of around 50%; and thereby removing the cost of maintaining a huge white elephant like the national grid; retail energy costs could come way down!
Especially if you factor in the price of carbon, and its absence in the above proposal.
And as advocated elsewhere, we should be converting all our waste into household or transport energy, instead of sending it skywards as extremely harmful methane.
None of the above suggestions would harm our economy; but rather, quite massively improve it and the veritable plethora of unprecedented wealth and job creation opportunities, that we could create; if we but stopped fervently mouthing, that the govt has no business in business, and or, shouldn't be in the business of picking/investing in winners!
Rhrosty.

Bugsy and Co,

It is a great compliment to be mimicked, please feel free to use someone else’s original thoughts; at some stage it would be nice to see you create some original thoughts of your own? But that takes intellect not education.

By the way, it was “Eunuch at the Orgy” by Raymond Tallis, not Eunuch at the banquet. You would enjoy his work as it’s all about the “socialization of science”. You would feel right at home.

Tallis observes “that for many trained in the humanities; the standards of discussion routine in science are alien. To them, science seems so remote that ignorance hardly seems ignorance at all”.

“Humanities academia is naturally unhappy to recognize the centrality of mathematicisation of nature to our culture, to be reminded of the importance of the unattainably different level of rigor and sophistication prevailing in subjects they don’t understand”.

Whoo hooo, he’s got your number.

“Like the eunuch at the orgy who was always first with the gossip, but being forced to realize that he doesn’t really know what’s going on, his knowledge is not real and that far from being the centre of things, he is forever on the margin”. So how is it out there on the margin?

Sooner or later you will need to realize that skeptics are not your enemies; we are your foils, opponents or challengers to your views. We don’t HAVE to agree with you to stimulate your argument. If your argument fails to convince, that is no excuse for abuse or vilification but it does present a case for you to revise your case in accordance with either its success or its failure.

The obsession with winning the unwinnable is the key weakness in your case, because we see the obsessiveness and intuitively sense it is just that, an obsession not science

Poirot, I too amazed by you; which 'home truths' are you talking about?

You link, again [!] to Sks without a clue what you are connecting to, in this case the critique of the McLean paper about natural variability, ENSO, and its trend creation potential.

McLean has been vindicated:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00148.1?journalCode=clim

Whereas Foster [ie Tamino] has been proven wrong; Foster, as well as criticising McLean et al directly, attempted to prove AGW caused trend by doing the opposite of what McLean had done; that is, detrend variability, whereas McLean had detrended AGW: see:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022

Foster and his mate, Rahmstorf [F&R] attempt to isolate the AGW temperature signature by removing the natural factors; so they remove MEI [ENSO], volcanoes [AOD] and the sun [PMOD]. According to their 2nd equation;

GISS = -91.43 + 1.024Trend + 0.0761MEI(4m lag) + 0.06694TSI.PMOD(1m lag)- 2.334AOD (7m lag)

(1) GISS = 1.024Trend + bx + c

(2) GISS = 1.0Trend + 0.024Trend + bx + c

(3) GISS = (GISS + d) + 0.024Trend + bx + c

(because y = mx + d, where m=slope=trend, d=y intercept)

(4) 0 = 0.024Trend + bx + e

(5) Trend = -(bx + e)/0.024

F&R have not solved for GISS. By including Trend(GISS) as an independent variable they have eliminated GISS. What they have shown is that the Trend in GISS can be fully explained as a linear result of MEI, TSI, and AOD, without any reference to CO2.

In other words, F&R have proven that Climate Change is fully explained by the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI), the Total Solar Irradiance (PMOD), and the Volcanic Aerosol Optical Depth data (AOD).

In other words, F&R have proven that CO2 has no role in climate change.

Do you understand that Poirot; until you do you will not appreciate that your heros, the climate scientists, have feet of clay

Hi voxUnius, I looked at the heating potential of the molten core sometime ago and came across work by Craig O'Neill from MacQuarie Uni. O'Neill, while a warmer, has looked at how plate tectonics recycles the oceans and in this fashion continually removes molecules like CO2. This explains why over geologic time, when CO2 levels were much higher than today, the oceans have never been acidic in the way AGW predict.

This tectonic process also removes heat as well; this combined with the fact that over 90% of the variable heat content of the ocean resides in the top 700 meters [see Knox and Douglass 2010] has led me to conclude that geothermal process does not contribute greatly to atmospheric temperature.

O'Neill's work also gives support to the idea of abiotic oil with hydrocarbons being continually raised by the tectonic process.

I might add, though, that O'Neill's work does not consider non-subaerial volcanoes and their potential effects on both CO2 and heat levels.

Spindoc, yes I know it was originally 'orgy', but I thought in your case, it should be a banquet, as nothing is actually happening, and I thought you would react as predictably as you did. Well done.

You still can't see what is going on is the mirror image of you little narrative? Oh well.

Cohenite, I think I am beginning to see. Your failed manuscript is probably far more valuable to you unpublished as 'evidence' that a conspiracy exists. It contradicts AGW, that's why it's not published!

Cohenite formula:
1)Tell opponent they are wrong
2)Insert BS explanation that is either irrelevant or almost unintelligible (that way it makes it very difficult to argue back intelligibly), but sounds sciency, so that observers might actually believe know what you are saying.
3)Wait for applause from the cheersquad: "I don't know anything, but I reckon he knows more that all the astrophysicists and geologists put together!" yeehah.

BTW, just for the record, R2 is not a measure of significance, it's a measure of how well a regression fits a given set of data. In just about any time series, any shorter subset of data is far more likely to give you a greater R2 that a longer complete series. This is a statistical truism. It means nothing.

Perhaps you can post the journal editors decision letter, with the reviewers comments? That we can discuss, as I am sure their comments are better than mine.

Mr Cox, what you said in response. You've convinced me: you haven't a clue.

A day or so ago, I asked Piorot et al if they could give us some idea what data, discovery or set of circumstances would cause them to disavow or doubt the AGW theory.

I didn't expect any response and indeed didn't get one from any of the true believers. The reason for that are, to my mind, clear. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that they can conceive of that would cause them to rethink their devotion to the theory.

That's not science, its religion

Amazing, mhaze!

You seem to regard the fact that no-one has replied as some sort of trump card....I wonder why?

By your non-critique of cohenite's work, I take it you're satisfied that he knows exactly what he's on about - no worries there.

From the reaction of the couple of scientists (ie, people who are trained in science - as opposed to law) who have visited this thread, it seems that cohenite's science more resembles "Clayton's science" - that is "the science you have when you don't have science".

And what difference would it make if they set it all out on OLO's pages? The "skeptics" wouldn't understand it any more than than they understand cohenite's faux version - and they wouldn't be motivated to investigate anything "that would cause them to rethink their devotion to the theory" that AGW is a fraud. They would side with cohenite as a matter of course, all the while calling the scientists "believers."

My Internet has been down for a day or so sorry about jumping back to older posts.
______________________________________________________________________
Posted by mhaze
I'd became a card-carrying member of warmism, a spruiker of CO2 taxes if:
* we had rapid warming of approx 1c over the next decade or two
__________________________________________________________________________
reply
The current rate of warming is around 0.2 deg C per decade a rate of warming of 1 deg C per decade would be truly catastrophic. The hope is that we can keep global warming down to just 2 deg C by the end of this century but this will require us to reduce our GHG emissions dramatically in the future.
__________________________________________________________________________
by mhaze
* we saw evidence that the postulated positive feedbacks are indeed positive and exist outside the models and that they overwhelm negative feedbacks
__________________________________________________________________________
reply
The Arctic is melting at a rapid rate which has increased dramatically since the 1990s
10,000 plus glaciers are melting and in rapid retreat.
The high latitudes are warming much faster than elsewhere
Overnight temperatures have risen faster than than daily maximums.
The sea level is rising and shows signs of accelerating.
The top 700 meters of the ocean is accumulating heat and surface sea surface temperatures are rising.

__________________________________________________________________________
by mhaze
* we saw evidence that models are able to simulate cloud movement/formation and still predict a warming
______________________________________________________________________
reply
Next time we have a cloudy night tell me did the temperature drop quicker or slower than on clear night and explain why.
______________________________________________________________________
By mhaze
* we saw evidence that models were able to replicate past climate changes
______________________________________________________________________
Reply
There is a good match between the models and the real climate only if we include the effects of GHGs.

http://www.realclimate.org/images/model10.jpg

Bugs says:

“BTW, just for the record, R2 is not a measure of significance, it's a measure of how well a regression fits a given set of data. In just about any time series, any shorter subset of data is far more likely to give you a greater R2 that a longer complete series.”

The data in the paper was from 1910; hardly a “shorter subset of data”.

“R2 is not a measure of significance”; crap; unless there is a strong correlation, as established by R2, then no subsequent causal connection can then be made; this is the basis of AGW; that is, a strong or significant R2 between CO2 and temperature [allegedly] exists and then the theory that CO2 causes the temperature is made.

As regards comments by reviewers on the paper; the main complaint was that the paper assumed that CO2 could not create a break pattern in the temperature trend; there was no dispute that there was a break but that CO2 was not part of the possible attribution; this is astounding for a number of reasons;

1 The paper does not assume CO2 is not the cause of the breaks; the primary purpose was to show the breaks in 1976 and 1998 were statistically significant and were correlated with physical events.

2 CO2 cannot cause a break; to do so would mean CO2 can store heat; CO2 distributes heat through collision and isotropy, both instantaneous processes. CO2 heat cannot be stored in the ocean because IR cannot penetrate beyond the surface. In any event SST has been declining since 2003, as has OHC to 700 meters; abyssmal warming is problematic with Hansen blaming aerosols for its lack.

3 Even if CO2 can store heat by some hitherto undiscovered mechanism and be attributed to the 197 break UP in temperature, how can it cause the 1998 break DOWN?

OMG, you are so full of it!

The entire series of data was from 1910. After you introduce a 'break, you have two shorter series of data giving you a R2 that would show a better fit than the entire series. This would be true no matter where you introduced the 'break'. It you put the break just before a large anomaly, then that would certainly give you a better R2, regardless of any underlying trends.

So one reviewer had ONE complaint?

Don't believe you, sorry.

You know warmair, you almost had me convinced you actually believed this bulldust.

But no, I can see in your desperate posts, you are just another gravy train rider, worried the gravy is going to run out, as all the wheels fall of, one by one.

The challenge for warmers is not your science, it is the fact that your science is no longer trusted or good enough, its impact is in decline globally. Hence you have to work so much harder, like here.

Your intensified pseudo-science rhetoric, abuse, vilification and name calling are the only evidence needed to confirm your frustration at failing to “sell” your mantra.

Skeptics are not buying your product, we are clearly not alone and really don’t care if you get frustrated or not but remember this, the instant you try to blame your customer for not buying your product, you’re done.

The entire global support infrastructure behind the warmers is in state of collapse so it’s not just skeptics refusing to buy it.

Your science is not good enough to produce a Kyoto replacement, or new global CO2 trading system to fund it, or to convince governments to stop repealing their CO2 legislation, or to stop the industrialized and developing nations from increasing their use of fossil fuels.

Whilst it’s very entertaining to read your wailing appeals for skeptics to share your views, we are not the ones you need to convince. You need sell to those you have lost from your own ranks; the ones who used to do things for you, support you and have now abandoned you.

Agreeing with everything you propose will make absolutely no difference because your bovine excrement has ripped the guts out of your cause globally.

Why on earth are you all so upset with us? Those who can help you the least.

You are indeed the last rag tag remnants and still cannot understand that you are fighting the wrong battles against the wrong enemy.

So why don’t you copy us in when you write your complaints to the UN FCCC, the IPCC, the EU, UN and Copenhagen CO2 trading markets, Deutche Bank, NGO’s, Canada, Japan, Germany, USA, Russia, Eastern Europe, France, UK, China, India, the entire EU, the US EPA, Phil Jones CRU, Michael Mann Philadelphia State Uni., the ABC, Fairfax and the BBC?

Wasn’t this YOUR “A Team”?

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 X X X

spindoc,

The 1's above represent scientists who agree with AGW - the X's represent those who don't.

....and all you've got is the likes of the Black Knight, cohenite, who isn't a scientist, to blather away on blogs.

Cutting-edge stuff!

That's not science, its religion mhaze,

Well I walk about on the surface of the earth without flying off into space by reason of a force called gravity.

The Sun comes up each day in the east and sets in the west.

The tide comes in every day at slightly less than 12 hour intervals.

Is that religion?

If the Arctic ice is getting less each year till it eventually disappears, is that religion?

Warmair, +ve feedbacks ie:

“The top 700 meters of the ocean is accumulating heat and surface sea surface temperatures are rising.”

SST since 2003 when the ARGO floats and accurate measurement was introduced:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2003/trend

OHC to 700 meters:

http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/10/13/wheres-the-anthropogenic-global-warming-signal-in-the-nodc-ocean-heat-content-data-0-700meters/

“The sea level is rising and shows signs of accelerating.”

http://oi56.tinypic.com/9u5jis.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_nOY5jaKJXHM/S3xTTpWSGjI/AAAAAAAAAyk/lWAqvOnb72Q/s1600/Fullscreen%2Bcapture%2B2172010%2B122234%2BPM.jpg

http://www.ocean-sci-discuss.net/6/31/2009/osd-6-31-2009.html

“Overnight temperatures have risen faster than than daily maximums”

DTR did not change between 1979 and 2004; even the IPCC in AR4 shows that:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-3-2.html

The significance of that is that 1979 was the beginning of the satellite temperature data which is the most accurate, and the most accurate temperature does not support DTR.

“The Arctic is melting at a rapid rate which has increased dramatically since the 1990s
10,000 plus glaciers are melting and in rapid retreat.
The high latitudes are warming much faster than elsewhere”

Alarmist hogwash.

More hogwash from Bugs; a break was not introduced; do you even know how a Chow works? The model is not forced to fit or introduce a break anywhere; if there were not statistically significant breaks the R2 of the slopes before and after the break would not be ‘significant’! This does not make sense:

“It you put the break just before a large anomaly, then that would certainly give you a better R2, regardless of any underlying trends.”

The anomaly is the point! The break is the anomaly and shows the error of the typical AGW upward temperature trend.

Believe what you want; that is what the thread is about: the belief of AGW supporters.

And poor old Poirot goes to all the trouble of putting up her noughts and crosses, supposedly showing how many ‘good’ scientist there are compared to the ‘bad’ scientists who aren’t part of the AGW consensus; this 97% figure of course, is based on one of the worse papers ever written [excluding Lewandowsky] by Doran and Zimmerman which is critiqued here:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/consensus-myth-97-of-nothing.html

"The Consensus Myth: 97% of Nothing" by Anthony Cox

....brought to you by the NO CARBON TAX Climate Skeptics Party.

(highly entertaining watching the lawyer lecturing the scientist on the science)

Thanks cohenKnight

97% of 79 'scientists' sucking on the public teat agree that global warming is happening..... Well, blow me down!

"The challenge for warmers is not your science,". Sorry Spindoc, beg to differ, it IS their science, it has ALWAYS been their science. All the rest of the rhetoric is because the science does not stand up.

Their 'A' team is the greatest argument supporting those that question. Do we put Doran and Zimmerman in the A team, what about the towering genius that recons I must also believe the moon landing was fake, or the charming character opining that we who question should suffer the death penalty.

Common guys, give us a full thoated defence of these characters.

Poirot,

Ah, the old 97%. A master stoke of retreat. When all your science has failed to get any traction you offer this?

“This number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers (just 3146, or 30.7%, answered the two questions on the survey) – in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout”.

And you wonder why your bovine excrement cheating no longer works? Even if it were true, these 97% of scientists have still failed you, all these scientists and all their science cannot recover what has been lost.

If all of your science has failed to sustain momentum with the institutions, bodies, organisations and governments that once drove the movement. Why are they all retreating or abandoning your science? The sheer might of these bodies, as listed below, cannot get your dead cat to bounce.

UN FCCC, the IPCC, the EU, UN and Copenhagen CO2 trading markets, Deutche Bank, NGO’s, Canada, Japan, Germany, USA, Russia, Eastern Europe, France, UK, China, India, the entire EU, the US EPA, Phil Jones CRU, Michael Mann Philadelphia State Uni., the ABC, Fairfax and the BBC?

Not only has momentum been lost, the entire movement is approaching inertia globally.

The only people left with anything to say are those clinging to the last vestiges of very science that has failed you. If it is not good enough or credible enough for your own global movement, what good is it to YOU let alone us?

What is it Poirot that you just don’t get?

It does not surprise me that you quote the 97%, it telegraph’s to every reader that this is all you have left. It does surprise me however, that you failed to ask questions about some of the inclusions on my list?

Tells us about 28Gate or why I might mention Deutche Bank

Not all that long ago the medical world believed almost to a man, that stomach ulcers were caused by excessive stomach acids. Two WA medical researchers, thought something else could be implicated, and set out to prove their hypotheses; that bacteria caused stomach ulcers, and won a Noble prize in the process.
Albeit they were heckled and attacked from dawn to dusk by all manner of adversaries, many of who were allegedly "doctors/scientists"; or by others who possibly had a vested interest in the condition being caused by excess stomach acid, which probably had until then, earned them quintillions?
Many of our posters here seem to have a vested interest in the status quo? And like all deniers, can seem to get extremely personal or incredibly dismissive!
Why?
Well, history repeating itself; and or, nobody likes to have their belief system challenged, but particularly, if that challenge also includes some personal hip pocket pain?
For decades, the tobacco industry employed cooperative "specialists", to support a view that tobacco was relatively benign or harmless!
And asbestos miners continued to sell their pernicious products, even years after the science was in and they knew that it was a veritable death sentence for almost all who were exposed to it.
The four trillion dollars plus per, fossil fuel industry is exploring ways to sequester "HARMLESS" carbon, as are many governments, and hundreds of millions are being poured into this research!
This, in spite of the fact that every boy and his dog knows that algae absorb 2.5 times their bodyweight in Co2, and under optimised conditions, double that bodyweight/absorption capacity every 24 hours! And some algae is up to 60% oil!
Now we are supposed to be the smart species?
So why don't we agree to disagree, and crack on with what ought to be done, as if climate change were real and needs mitigation, that by the way, is chock full of wealth and job creation opportunities; and much cheaper energy products!
Rhrosty.

Spindoc, you are so caught up in your own rhetoric, that you fail to understand why people like me are here.

I am not here to convince you. Far from it, I realised a long time ago that NOTHING will do that. The ‘skeptic’ movement is not a scientific one. That is clear, as you have lawyers and political commenters etc. arguing against the science. The story isn’t coherent even within the ‘movement’, there are many viewpoints that have yet to be settled before you guys will make any sort of headway:
-Global warming doesn’t exist
-Global warming clearly exists, but AGW doesn’t exist
-The scientists are in some sort of conspiracy to maintain the illusion that AGW exists, whether it be by maintaining funding from the bureaucrats that stand to make money, or by some sort of unskeptical ‘groupthink’ within their ranks.
-Maybe AGW does exist, but there’s nothing we can do about it (I personally think this is the closest, but only because the political will necessary is unlikely to be mustered because even the ignorant get to vote and even become party leaders).

No, I am not here to disabuse you of your conspiratorial illusions. I am here for entertainment. Without us, what would you guys do? Sit around in a big circle jerk congratulating each other for how good you can understand science and say things like “why don’t the scientists realise that the Sun warms the Earth”?
There’s already plenty of other websites for that.

Please just don't get depressed when things don't turn out the way you think they are. I know how you guys ramp up the rhetoric when stuff doesn't go your way.

Oh and cohenite, no. You put in the breaks, and the ones you found are just the ones that gave you the biggest difference. I’ll say it again, R2 is NOT a measure of ‘significance’. I can see I will get nowhere with this, so I’ll stop.
Only one last comment: in science communication there is a general rule that for every formula or equation you present, you will lose half your audience. What is the purpose of using so many equations in a post? It’s not to communicate, that much I can see. I reckon it’s to shut down opposition and convince your cheersquad that you know your stuff. “What, you can’t understand the formulae I present? You clearly don’t know as much as me. Show me where I'm wrong, otherwise I'm cleverer”. The true mark of a BBB artist.

Bugsy, you say you are not here to convince us.

Yes, of course we already knew that silly.

Isn’t that the whole thrust of my case? It is not us that need convincing it is YOU. Your science has already failed to convince those who once supported you, now you are all left holding can!

Since your support base crumbled your insecurity and self doubt is devouring you. Panic has set in, your frustration and vexation has gone through the roof, you trawl through the old, tired pseudo-science that has already been rejected by YOUR OWN SIDE and yet, you still keep hammering us with it. You now know you’ve been “had” on AGW and are investing enormous emotional capital on convincing yourself of that final lie, “I am RIGHT, aren’t I? Aren’t I? Aren’t I?

Thus you exhaust all that has led you to where you are and you finally succumb to the “cohenite syndrome”.

That syndrome entirely predicts your current demeanor; you should have read it properly.

“The “cohenite syndrome” is all about exposing the warmers to credibility, to exposing their ever diminishing list of justification for their views”

Posted by spindoc, Sunday, 30 December 2012 3:30:28 PM

As the syndrome predicts, you will be forced to defend the indefensible by regurgitating that which has already failed, your justifications will be challenged, found wanting and your list will rapidly shrink along with your credibility.

The “hissy fits” in your last two posts tell us everything we need to know. You now get don’t you? You don’t like it, you don’t know how you got here, you thought you were smart enough to avoid this, you feel duped and you are getting very, very angry.

An interesting aspect of the cohenite syndrome I forgot to mention is the tendency for afflicted warmers to go into denial. Thus we see you still keep angrily flogging your failed science? Fascinating, so who is the denier?

Mmmmm look! Another bowl of pseudo- science. “More please sir!”

Sorry spindoc,

Not only did you get your pop culture wrong, you also attributed it exactly to the wrong side.

As it happens (and we should extend our gratitude your way for coming up with the analogy) the Black Knight perfectly describes each "skeptic" argument individually and the whole denialist movement collectively.

The Black Knight staunchly refused to acknowledge the physical (empirical) evidence that he was fast being reduced to a torso and a head. I'm sure if he'd had a lawyer on hand to reinforce his misconceptions with a few unintelligible equations, his swagger would have been even greater.

(I don't think your "cohenite syndrome" is gonna be a goer - at least not in the way you intended for it...oh, well back to the drawing board on that one)

Bugsy, you make it sound as though the paper created the breaks; here is some of the literature which deals with the breaks:

http://cbe.anu.edu.au/research/papers/pdf/wp495.pdf

http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2002/2002GL015191.shtml

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/Douglass_Knox_pla373aug31.pdf

https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/kswanson/www/publications/2008GL037022_all.pdf

http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/regimes/Regime_shift_algorithm.pdf

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/foci/publications/2008/overN667.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079661100000331

And so on; there are literally dozens of papers which deal with the climate shifts around 1976 and from 1998 onwards; the breaks had been well and truly noted before the paper. I repeat the purpose of the paper was uncontroversial: to statistically verify those breaks against the regression which is the basis of AGW and to make a prediction about future temperature on the basis of the statistical result. The paper did not put the breaks in.

By saying R2 does not measure the “significance” you are playing with semantics; R2 measures how well one variable can predict another in 2 sets of data; if the R2 is high, or significant, then the predictive value of the determining variable, CO2 in this instance is also high; the Chow proves the breaks are statistically more significant in predicting temperature over the period from 1910 then CO2 as expressed in a linear regression; read Table 1 from the paper; address that instead of garbling on about R2 characteristics.

Anyway, by rejecting the paper you are rejecting this large body of established science; but that’s the heart of AGW as a religion; reject the unfaithful, the contrary and stick to the orthodox and the creed.

You’re a not a scientist bugs, you’re a disciple.

And Bugs, great critique of the critique of Foster I put up; it’s wrong because it’s too complicated and people are too stupid to understand it!? Really, that’s your best? You and the rest of the ‘scientists’ are going to be lonely chaps when this AGW farce ends.

Spindoc; I expect a cheque every month from the royalties which will flood in from your marketing of the “cohenite syndrome”!

BINGO! There's the "I'm cleverer than you" knockout punch from cohenite, with a "you think people are stupid" uppercut flourish.

That was the purpose of putting up so many equations wasn't it? You didn't honestly expect a bunch of climate scientists flocking to this site to have a look at them did you? Seriously?

And so your paper is not only 'uncontroversial', it's also trivial and makes no substantial contribution to the field because it's just a statistical confirmation of what we already know? But it contradicts AGW (uncontroversialy), so it isn't published. That's some narrative. Be good for book I reckon, you working on one? It seemed to work for Plimer, not so much for Lawson.

Spindoc's lost in a world of his own making. Must be warm and comfy in there...

See yas.

cohenite,

I was just musing on commission cheques from warmers trying to sell a new car.

Here is the latest European model madam. It is equipped with a proton-driven gluon binder, it produces 6.5 Tera e/V of power, enough to run your car for 7 million years, it has twin snaffle ejectors and although the external dimensions measure only 700 Ltrs, this car actually holds a “predicted” cargo capacity of two football stadiums and it sells for just $8.50 including on road costs.

Really says the prospect, so does it really have a “proton-driven gluon binder”? Well yes says the salesperson. We have computer models produced by the manufacturer themselves and peer reviewed by the tea lady, that predict our predictions are very close to being predictions.

So what about those 7 million years of power? Ah, yes, I’m glad you asked about that.

The 7 million years is actually based on a non linear differential algorithm that predicts your life span of 90 years, this means that your children and grandchildren will benefit from your purchase of this fine vehicle for 6.99999 million years.

It seems too good to be true says the purchaser, but can I really purchase this for $8.50?

Absolutely, we calculate that your gross savings over 7 million years will result in a net saving on the real cost of, you know, something. This is calculated to be in the region a trillion dollars. If we discount the savings and deduct these from the amortized cost of something, we get to a net cost of $8.50.

I’m sorry says the customer, I’m a little skeptical.

Skeptical! says the salesperson, you filthy denier, skeptic, flat earther, you are no better than a pedophile; you are mentally ill and should be put down.

I think I might just pop next door and have a chat with the Holden people if you don’t mind says the customer.

Mind? Mind? Are you mad? You just don’t understand the complexities of a vehicle like this you ignorant non-automotive person. Let me explain a thing or two you idiot

LOL. Poirot will buy one, I'm sure!

Poirot wrote: "You seem to regard the fact that no-one has replied as some sort of trump card....I wonder why?"

Not a trump card...just instructive. As with most who have bought the AGW story without thinking about it too much, the resident warmers in this group haven't given any thought to what occurrences would bring the theory into doubt. For such people, although they demand that others follow the science, AGW is no longer a scientific theory since a scientific theory should be falsifiable. But for the Poirot's and Bugsy's of this world AGW is always proven, never disproven, always correct never wrong. They have faith that no matter what, the story is true.

Hilariously, Poirot then goes on to prove I'm wrong by the convoluted notion that since I haven't disagreed with Cohenite I must agree with him/her and that shows that I'm wrong with my revelation that Poirot treats AGW as a religion not a science. I'm sure that in one of the many other dimensions that string theory postulates, that makes sense.
But in this dimension you just have to chuckle.

Then Robert LePage weighs in and completely misses the point. To help I'll make it plainer. All scientific theory should be falsifiable. That is there should be some way to disprove the theory. But if the theory is constructed in such a way that it can't be falsified, then its not science, its faith. There is no evidence, only assertion. If both a period of warming and a period of cooling prove the theory, then a warm (or cool) period isn't evidence, just confirmation of the faith. So I asked what the beleivers here thought would disprove the theory and they instead demonstrated that they treat it like a faith.

Maze. Touché. Cohenite. 10% of my cheque to Spindoc for the use of his particularly excellent expression will be on it's way.

A thoroughly enjoyable week of entertainment, many thanks to all!

I was about to respond to warmair's post but then realised that cohenite had already demolished most of warmair's points.

Just to add one or two more:

Warmair says: "The current rate of warming is around 0.2 deg C per decade"
Actually in the past 16 years the rate of warming is effectively 0.0c. Since 1870 the total warming is between 0.7 and 1c or less than 0.1c per decade with a fair portion occurring before 1940.

It is clear warmair doesn't understand the significance of feedbacks and I'd suspect most of those who've bought the theory without too much checking don't get it either. So a quick lesson.

The warming efficiency of CO2 is logarithmic. That is, each new tonne of CO2 put in the atmosphere is a little less efficient at warming the planet than the previous tonne. The reasons are complex but are to do with the fact that CO2 only absorbs certain wavelengths. A doubling of CO2 levels from pre-industrial levels would yield a warming of around 1c.

To get to the predicted dire scenarios of 2, 3 4 or more degrees c increases, models postulate positive feedbacks. For example, they assume that, as CO2 warms the earth it will change the level of water vapor which is a much more effective GHG. Thus, according to the models, a small CO2 effect becomes a large overall effect.

The only problem is that the evidence for positive feedbacks(ie ones that increase temps) is, at best, equivocal and at worst, all but non-existent. Although the evidence for negative feedbacks is not much better, the models all but ignore them as a possibility.

Apparently the upcoming IPCC report will admit that they aren't at all sure about feedbacks either to their extent or even sign.

The whole CAGW theory relies on the feedbacks being real and significantly positive. Hence my comment that I'd need to see evidence for that before I start to believe the theory.

It seems spindoc has succumbed to the late stages of Black CohenKnight Syndrome. Symptoms include a penchant to blog-publish grossly over-imaginative prose - and is often accompanied by a diminution in the urge to utter the phrase "bovine excrement" (the constant repetition of which is a first stage symptom of the syndrome).

mhaze obviously fancies himself as another cohenite and his doing his gosh-darndest impression of someone pretending he knows what he's talking about.

Prompete is sitting in the first row, positively starstruck.

It's quite a touching scene, really.

As Bugsy said, it is entertaining and it's great fun having a bit of a joust with you guys, but lets not pretend you guys really know what you're talking about - eh?

Posted by mhaze
It is clear warmair doesn't understand the significance of feedbacks and I'd suspect most of those who've bought the theory without too much checking don't get it either. So a quick lesson.

The warming efficiency of CO2 is logarithmic. That is, each new tonne of CO2 put in the atmosphere is a little less efficient at warming the planet than the previous tonne. The reasons are complex but are to do with the fact that CO2 only absorbs certain wavelengths. A doubling of CO2 levels from pre-industrial levels would yield a warming of around 1c.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Reply
Ok so you have reached the point I got to 40 years ago
Now let me take you to the next step for every 1 deg C increase in temperature we get a 7% increase in evaporation. Water vapour absorbs part of the the infra-red spectrum that the lower atmosphere emits in an attempt to cool down.
This is a clear and obvious positive feedback.

The next step is that as temperatures increase we lose Arctic sea ice. Open water leads to higher rates of evaporation. Unfortunately sea water absorbs 90% of the incoming radiation as opposed to ice which reflects 90% of that radiation. So that gives us a couple more obvious feedbacks.

As regards Cohenite supposedly devastating response to one of my previous posts. I would note that being bashed around the head by a feather, rather than causing bruising usually, tends to make me laugh.

This essay and its responses have taken on a life of their own. Perhaps it was the absence of anything much to chew on other than Xmas food. Setting aside the ad homs, there are a few queries or comments that I feel the need to respond to.

Poirot and others think that too much is made of the belief/denial stuff, and Poirot calls for evidence. So do I, but plainly we point to different evidence. Given the conflicting evidence I have two responses: (1) we don't really know; and (2) some of the evidence seems more soundly based than other bits. Again, we are likely to disagree.

Warming and attribution. I agree that the planet seems to have been warming, but we can't measure the extent very well (despite all the numbers thrown around). But warming is not the issue, really. It is attribution of the warming. There is abundant conjecture about that, but no real hard evidence of the extent to which it is due to human activity.

To Sir Vivor and others: models are not evidence.

To Jeremy and others, the analogy between hearing about AGW from climate scientists and hearing medical advice from physicians is a weak one, and quite unpersuasive, as is the analogy with insurance.

And a Happy New Year to all.

warmair, another self-appointed expert says:

"Now let me take you to the next step for every 1 deg C increase in temperature we get a 7% increase in evaporation. Water vapour absorbs part of the the infra-red spectrum that the lower atmosphere emits in an attempt to cool down.
This is a clear and obvious positive feedback."

This is wrong; Clausius-Clapeyron is a description of the potential humidity capacity of warming air. One of the great myths and wrong assumptions of AGW is that with increasing temperatures evaporation will increase because relative humidity will not decrease and since water vapor is a much more effective GHG than CO2, a powerful +ve feedback is created.

In fact evaporation is not increasing as Roderick et al's latest paper shows:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022169411007487

Some time ago Stewart Franks explained why extra heat will not neceassarily lead to increased evaporation:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040598.shtml

Franks explains the effect:

"During drought, when soil moisture is low, less of the sun's radiant energy goes into evaporation and more goes into the heating of the atmosphere which causes higher temperatures.

"Most importantly, the elevated air temperatures do not increase evaporation but are actually due to the lack of evaporation and this is a natural consequence of drought."

Franks is supported by Taylor et al:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7416/full/nature11377.html

The great Miskolzi has also noted that due to Maximum Entropy Production, when one greenhouse gas increases, CO2, another gas will decrease so outgoing radiation increases:

http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/16193427/157753127/name/miskolczi.PDF

Miskolzi notes water vapor levels have decreased over the last 60 years and this has been confirmed:

http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/presentation2.jpg

In short, warmair, you don't know what you are talking about.

cohenite

The worlds surface is 70% water so what happens on the land while interesting and important does not impact on the simple fact that higher temperatures mean that you will get more evaporation.
Trying to confuse the issue with pan evaporation rates for inland Australia is not helpful.

warmair

The figures for atmospheric relative and specific hunmidity are global not just land based:

http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/presentation2.jpg

http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndClouds.htm#Clouds%20and%20atmospheric%20water%20vapour

If humidity is falling where is the water being evaporated over the ocean going?

Don Aitkin,

Regarding "evidence"...

My question to you and others is, when you check the weather report, do you immediately dismiss it as a whole lot of scientists scamming you? I presume you take it for granted that meteorologists are employing their training, expertise, doing the science and delivering their predictions and projections as to the shorter-term trending weather events that will be in effect.

To the best of their ability, they are providing the service for which they have been trained.

Why is it when we are discussing long-term trends (climate) as opposed to short-term trends (weather) that the whole scenario apparently changes and "skeptics" accuse scientists of concocting a scam?

Poirot. The reason I and others like me become sceptical when long term climate (lots and lots of little 'weather' predictions) forecast are made by highly trained and professional meteorologists, is that those same meteorologists freely admit that predictions/projections further than 3 or 4 days become the equivalent of reading tea leaves.

I do not confuse weather with climate, merely consider that scientists that do make these projections are dealing with a chaotic system about which many theories/hypothesise are employed and, as Don says, models are not evidence.

Show me just one professional meteorologist who will make a prediction beyond 4 days, other than predicting the coming of spring/summer etc.

Don. Stirred up a fascinating hornets nest here. Without the ad hominims it is a worthy level of debate and passion that reflects the importance of the subject.

cohenite
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/presentation2.jpg
You refer to a diagram here which basically shows that relative humidity has remained nearly constant at the surface. This in fact confirms my point. The warmest part of the atmosphere is at the surface and therefore holds the most water vapour. The amount of water vapour in the air at 33,000ft (300Mb) is miniscule, due to the extremely low temperatures at that height, so even if there has been a small drop in relative humidity at that height, it proves nothing.

Relative humidity is defined as the ratio of the partial pressure of water vapour in an air-water mixture to the saturated vapour pressure of water at a prescribed temperature.

Put simply it compares the proportion water vapour in parcel of air against the maximum amount possible at that temperature and pressure. So if relative humidity remains constant as temperature increases then atmospheric water vapour levels have increased in line with the Clausius-Clapeyron formula. This result is I understand confirmed by satelite data.

FYI
Central West Antarctica among the most rapidly warming regions on Earth

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1671.html

Poirot,

You start off by asking all of us about “evidence”. Then you jump to “delivering predictions and projections” which are not evidence.

You are absolutely correct to suggest that our meteorologists use their very best skills, training and science to “predict” the weather but as we all know, not very successfully.

This has absolutely nothing to do with extending these predictions to include a huge range of alarmist assertions, which now extend to 2100. Because it’s the SAME science,these long term projections cannot possibly be more accurate than short term predictions can they?

It doesn’t matter if these projections are right or wrong because we ALL know that they are just projections. So unless the long term predictions eventuate and they have not, then the science is discredited.

If science cannot project the local weather with much degree of certainty, why do we expect them to project beyond seasonable variations? The UN has opened a money pit to re-distribute our hard earned dollars, that’s what makes it politics and not science.

I don’t think anyone is accusing the scientists themselves of perpetrating a scam. What many are saying is, that the UN FCCC and their IPCC are a political entity and not scientific. The IPCC does not do scientific research and it has no scientists, (unless you count a railway engineer as a scientist). What it does do, is assess the research that suits its own political (Agenda 21) goals to the exclusion of those that do not. That is why many see it as a political scam.

Poirot, the projections thrust upon politicians have failed to eventuate. Therefore the politicians have bailed out.

The science you offer is that which the IPCC used in their reports up to and including their AR4. The AR5 now tells us that whilst their previous alarmism is still “possible”, it now has “very low probability”. Therefore all your science prior to the AR5 is now invalid, so sayeth the IPCC. If they cannot produce the evidence, you can’t.

Get over it and move on, you’ve been had.

Poirot, as Prompete notes meteorologists will not guarantee their predictions/forecasts more than 3-4 days into the future.

Climate scientists are not meteorologists; Anthony Watts is a meteorologist.

Most meteorologists share Watt’s opinion bout AGW:

http://heartland.org/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/26408.pdf

Nearly 75% of AMS members agree AGW is the “greatest scam in history”; and only 24% agree with the IPCC.

Even with the 3-4 day qualification short-term weather predictions are notorious for their failures:

http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=931

As well the Bureau of Meteorology did not predict the 09 heatwave associated with the Black Saturday bushfires or the storm associated with the Wivenhoe disaster.

The MET is infamous for its predictions in the short-term: basically the MET has been predicting warm winters right through the 1990’s and they have all been colder than usual except for 2005 which was warmer, but for 2005 the MET had predicted a cold winter:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/20/warm-bias-how-the-met-office-mislead-the-british-public/

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/01/05/the-met-office-did-warn-of-a-bitter-cold-winter-in-2005/

You couldn’t make this stuff up and I could go on for pages about the short term predictive failures of the major climate institutions, but the point is if the meteorologists, the real weather men, can’t get it right over a few days, weeks and months then how can the clowns who call themselves climate scientists expect us to believe them when they say what the climate is going to like in a century.

You seem like a smart girl Poirot; it is disturbing that you believe this tripe.

warmair; RH may be flat at the surface [but declining at all other atmospheric levels] BUT SH is also flat and not increasing either:

http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndClouds.htm#Clouds%20and%20atmospheric%20water%20vapour

More particularly SH is declining at the upper levels of the atmosphere; this decline is much more significant than a flat surface RH and SH, because upper level water vapor condenses into high cloud which blocks OLR and allows shortwave raditaion in [ISR]; low humidity condesnse into low cloud which may block OLR but blocks more ISR from reaching the surface; read Soloman:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5970/1219.abstract

Robert LePage: "FYI. Central West Antarctica among the most rapidly warming regions on Earth ...".

What point are you trying to make?

Are you suggesting that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have a causal link?

You’re a busy little alarmist, aren’t you Mr LePage; a cherry-picker too; no one denies the West Antarctic Peninsula [WAP] is warming:

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/6062/antarcticatemps19572006.jpg

However, the historical perspective shows this isn’t unusual:

http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/38/7/635.abstract

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120822131212.htm

And despite this warming snow-cover on the WAP is greater than it was 150 years ago:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007GL032529.shtml

Clearly what is happening in the WAP is NOT AGW.

Thanks guys (although have had busy day and only glossed over your replies, but will read in more depth later...)

My "point" was (and yes cohenite I understand the difference between a meteorologist and a climate scientist) that in principle I assume that you believe that the average meteorologist is doing his job faithfully with the knowledge and skills that he has....keeping in mind that the expertise in question is just that "expertise". I imagine you'd respect that.

Why then do you not extend that respect to climate scientists on the question of conclusions regarding climate? Judging from the flack they get on these types of forums, that isn't the case. Instead you and others dismiss their conclusions, overrule their expertise and often insult them.

What's the difference that makes it okay to respect the expertise of a meteorologist or climate scientist on "weather" but bag him on "climate"?

spindoc,

Previous conclusions appear to be upheld by AR5...I assume you're referring to the spectacular cherry-pick on solar warming by the leaker - sorry, doesn't hold up.

cohenite,

"Most meteorologists share Watt's opinion about AGW:"

Well I found this on Heartland....a survey limited to "television weather forecasters who are also meteorologists..."

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2010/02/01/meteorologists-reject-uns-global-warming-claims

But then I found this by the American Meteorological Society (2012)...seems quite unequivocal in favour of AGW....I suppose the official AMS line doesn't count (or some such anomaly)?

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html

spindoc,

"The science you offer is that which the IPCC used in their reports up to and including the AR4. The AR5 now tells us that whilst their previous alarmism is still "possible", it now has "very low probability". Therefore all your science prior to the AR5 is now invalid, so sayeth the IPCC..."

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/fake-skeptic-draws-fake-picture-of-global-temperature/

"It turns out that observed global temperature has gone "right down the middle" of the IPCC projections..."

Spindoc, is this the link that you are referring to?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/13/ipcc-ar5-draft-leaked-contains-game-changing-admission-of-enhanced-solar-forcing/

A leaked draft of the IPCC's latest report AR5 admits that the case for man-made global warming is looking weaker by the day and that the sun plays a much more significant role in "climate change" than the scientific "consensus" has previously been prepared to concede.

As the leaker explains, this is a game-changer:

The admission of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing changes everything. The climate alarmists can’t continue to claim that warming was almost entirely due to human activity over a period when solar warming effects, now acknowledged to be important, were at a maximum. The final draft of AR5 WG1 is not scheduled to be released for another year but the public needs to know now how the main premises and conclusions of the IPCC story line have been undercut by the IPCC itself.

Poirot, the dichotomy between what the AMS bosses say and what the AMS members say is rather striking, isn’t it?

I’d say it’s typical with the people running the large scientific organisations in favour of AGW while those at the coal-face keep their mouths shut, unless they can express their opinion confidentially.

It’s the same reason Finkelstein wants to censor general community access to contrary views about AGW, and the reason people like Hamilton want to suspend democracy.

AGW is an elitist ideology, a plaything of the chattering classes and other general parasites and loons.

You asked why climate scientists are not given their due respect and are insulted; as usual, you miss the point; being insulted is the respect they are due; have you not read the emails which reveal the climate scientists or what they are

And what do you do, you link to Tamino, Grant Foster, who has a reputation for manipulating data to suit his slant. Tamino is wrong about the IPCC projections; even AR5 shows that:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ipcc-ar5draft-fig-1-4.gif

But we have had this argument Poirot; if, as you do, you accept GISS temperature which is hotter than either HadCrut, or UAH, or RSS, then the IPCC predictions become correct; but then GISS is the temperature indice used by the IPCC; and this time even the IPCC in AR5 shows their own predictions have not come true.

So Poirot, even the IPCC shows it has been wrong, but the faithful, you and Tamino, still believe.

Poirot,

You asked me, 'when you check the weather report, do you immediately dismiss it as a whole lot of scientists scamming you?'

No, I don't. I have a long-term interest in weather, recognise the limitations under which the forecasters operate, and feel that they do a good job. The fine print tells us that all these forecasts have probabilities assigned to them.

'Why is it,' you go on, 'when we are discussing long-term trends (climate) as opposed to short-term trends (weather) that the whole scenario apparently changes and "skeptics" accuse scientists of concocting a scam?'

I don't know who these people are, and I'm not one of those who talks of a scam. Climate scientists do their job like other researchers. The problem is that the funding rules (and to a degree, the publication rules) have been set to emphasise AGW to the exclusion of all else. If there are no funds to explore natural variability in climate, then people won't work on it. If you need to say something positive about the reality of AGW to get your paper published, then you will say it, even if it does not seem to support the drift of your paper.

If current trends in temperature continue, then these rules will be relaxed.

Robert LePage: "FYI. Central West Antarctica among the most rapidly warming regions on Earth ...".What point are you trying to make?
More ice loss through snowfall on Antarctica
12/12/2012 - Stronger snowfall increases future ice discharge from Antarctica. Global warming leads to more precipitation as warmer air holds more moisture
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/more-ice-loss-through-snowfall-on-antarctica

Mr LePage doesn't disappoint and links to a 'science' comment which says the extra snow in the Antarctic is due to AGW; that is, AGW makes it colder as well as warmer; we've heard the same rubbish about a warming Arctic making Europe colder.

You couldn't make this stuff up.

In discussion above I've already shown that there is not extra water in the atmosphere so there is not an atmospheric water source to produce the extra snow; in addition there is more sea ice around the Antarctic; in fact the Antarctic sea ice levels are at a record high:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png

So, we have records ice around Antarctica while at the same time record evaporation to provide water for the record snow falls on the Antarctic?

It is a miracle!

LePage's link says:

"Since snowfall on the ice masses of Antarctica takes water out of the global water cycle, the continent’s net contribution to sea-level rise could be negative during the next 100 years – this is what a number of global and regional models suggest."

But it's still bad because the extra ice will cause more ice to break off and add to sea level rise.

However GIA studies [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1873965208000261] show that the ice compresses and does not necessarily flow to the ocean. Again we have models at loggerheads with both empirical evidence and commonsense.

My word I wish I had your scientific credentials Mr Cohenite. You are obviously wasted in the legal profession and should be used to advise the scientific community world wide.
Now I have a new proposition for you.
Black is black..... except when it is cohenited.

Don Aitkin,

I appreciate that you maintain that you are not personally crying "scam".

However, much skeptic rhetoric talks of a scam.

cohenite,

You said Anthony Watts is a meteorologist. By that you intimate that he some formal qualification in meteorology or atmospheric physics - which doesn't appear to be the case:

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts

"Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist...He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer...."

(btw I haven't linked to sourcewatch to get up your nose - merely that they have information of Watt's credentials)

Raycom,

My understanding is that the "leaker" did a triple backward somersault with a forward cherry-pick - lifting a sentence without consulting the entirety of the paragraph:

http://skepticalscience.com/ipcc-draft-leak-global-warming-not-solar.html

Can't agree with you there LePage old chap.

You see if Cohenite did have scientific credentials, he would probably be caught in the same trap you, & so many others are in, & perhaps talking the same garbage you talk, to protect his income.

No we need the Cohenites of this world, with the savvy to understand the science presented by honest scientists, & the ability to argue the case, with that data.

That is what upsets the warmists so much, knowing the stuff, & putting the argument together so well makes him very hard to shoot down, doesn't it?

It’s a scam Poirot; it’s a scam because it is chock full of ulterior motives: ideology, money, power; and the science is sacrificed for those motives; that’s why it’s a scam.

Anthony hasn’t got a degree even though the AMS recognised his experience and right to call himself a meteorologist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_(blogger)

Despite this he has done real well, hasn’t he? Better than most of those hifalutin climate scientists!

Poirot says:

“My understanding is that the "leaker" did a triple backward somersault with a forward cherry-pick - lifting a sentence without consulting the entirety of the paragraph:”

Well, that’s a rubbish conclusion to be expected when you read rubbish sources. The full detail of the solar garfuffle is here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/16/a-rebuttal-to-steven-sherwood-and-the-solar-forcing-pundits-of-the-ipcc-ar5-draft-leak/

I’ve spoken before about Sherwood and I’ll repeat in the context of Poirot’s question about why such climate scientists are held in such scorn. Sherwood is responsible, IMO, for a number of the worst papers ever published; for instance:

http://web.science.unsw.edu.au/~stevensherwood/PNAS-2010-Sherwood-0913352107.pdf

Now this paper is wrong in scientific principle.

The scientific principles which are incorrect are enthalpy and condensation. In respect of enthalpy if heat evaporated water had its latent energy combined with the heat used to evaporate that water then the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics would be contradicted, but this is what Sherwood does; evaporated water at high levels already exists on Earth at the equator in the wet tropics where temperature is lower than at equivalent latitudes in dry areas because in the wet areas the extra energy is carried as enthalpy and not reflected in temperature.

In addition at high temperatures evaporated water condenses and falls as rain, removing the latent energy from the atmosphere. As much of the latest research is showing water acts to moderate temperature not increase it as Sherwood asserts.

Sherwood, who figures prominently in the climate emails, must know this but has still written a highly alarming paper which he predicts a global temperature increase of 12C, equal to what occurred during the PETM.

This is why the ‘climate scientists’ deserve, IMO, scorn.

cohenite
RH may be flat at the surface [but declining at all other atmospheric levels] BUT SH is also flat and not increasing either:
________________________________________________________________________

Climate4you is a bit keen on the cherries, but if you go back to the same source (NOAA) he uses and instead of looking at the humidity only for Jnauary try the figures for the whole year.

If you do the maths you will see that specific humidity has in fact on average increased by about 350 ml of water per cubic meter of air from the surface up to 33,000 feet.

Not sure if this link will work
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/tmp/climindex.138.217.75.131.1.22.52.48.png

If not go to here
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl

input
Variable specific humidity up 300 Mb leave non variable on 1000Mb
Latitude 90N to 90S
months Jan to Dec
check plot data

warmair, on 31/12, demonstrated that he hadn't the faintest idea what positive feedbacks were. By 2/1 he's telling me that he's known about them for 40yrs. I suspect a 30 minute wikipedia investigation of the issue. warmair or hot air? Of coarse, 40 yrs ago no one was talking about positive feedbacks because all the talk was about the coming ice age.

On the scam issue...I haven't and don't use the term as regards warmist scientists. I do think there are a few shysters who are playing it for all its worth..eg the wind industry. But not many scientists.

Its more about human nature. Imagine you're a struggling climate scientists stuck looking at an undistinguished career crunching numbers and publishingpapers that maybe 100 people will read. Then you stumble on a statistical device that generates a hockey stick curve and removes the MWP from the record. You know that has been an aim of the top people in the warming fraternity. So you publish and suddenly you're the toast of the town. Its made your career. Its made your fortune. Then people start looking a bit closer and find that the devices you used are invalid and that the graph that made your career is false. If you seek to defend your work to the 'n'th degree, are you a scammer or just being human.

Equally, if you're a marine biologist and you see colleagues getting grants by just inserting the words "global warming" in the applications, does it make you a scammer when you do likewise?

There was a film made a little while back called "Not Evil, Just Wrong". Pretty close to the mark.

warmair;

NOAA data for 300mb Pressure Level [30,000ft]:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries.pl?ntype=1&var=Specific+Humidity+(up+to+300mb+only)&level=300&lat1=90&lat2=-90&lon1=180&lon2=-180&iseas=1&mon1=0&mon2=11&iarea=1&typeout=1&Submit=Create+Timeseries

That is not declining and I did link to the Soloman paper about declining SH at high atmosphere; there are plenty of other such papers:

http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~pierce/papers/Pierce_et_al_AIRS_vs_models_2006GL027060.pdf

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00003.1

Even the AR5 notes indicate that all SH is non trending:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/mims_ipcc_ar5_sod_review.pdf

Give it up, you're flogging a dead horse.

cohenite,

"AGW is an elitist ideology, a plaything of the chattering classes and other general parasites and loons..."

(Yep - cue device of "elitism" [again!]. Refer to first post on this thread)

"You asked why climate scientists are not given their due respect and are insulted; as usual, you miss the point; being insulted is the respect they are due..."

You attempt to fill the vacuum (where the science should be) with general derision and insult...what a brilliant strategy!

As for Anthony Watts having "..done real well..." I suppose if running a site renowned for junk science is doing "real well", then yes.

So it all comes down to you performing on a bunch of blogs (run by non-scientists) where your adoring audience consists of non-scientists - and when all is said and done the entirety of your argument is reduced to your labeling those with the relevant scientific qualifications and knowledge as "parasites and loons".

Is that really all there is?

How embarrassing....

Poirot

I trust you have corrected your misunderstanding about the leaker's "triple backward somersault with a forward cherry-pick", after reading Cohenite's reference.

The leaker, Alec Rawls , explained why he leaked :
"In the sea of IPCC dishonesty there is a glimmer of honesty, but it doesn’t go very far. TSI (Total Solar Irradiance) is still the only solar effect that is included in the “consensus” computer models and the IPCC still uses this garbage-in claim to arrive at their garbage-out conclusion that observed warming must be almost entirely due to the human release of CO2.

One of the reasons I decided to release the SOD (Second Order Draft of AR5) was because I knew that once the Steven Sherwoods at the IPCC realized how the added sentence undercut the whole report they would yank it back out, and my submitted comments insured that they would indeed realize how the added sentence undercut the whole report. Now sure enough, as soon as I make the added sentence public Steven Sherwood publicly reverts to the FOD (First Order Draft of AR5) position, trying to pretend that his argument against one proposed mechanism of solar amplification means that we can safely ignore the overwhelming evidence that some such mechanism is at work.

We’ll find out in a year or so whether his co-authors are willing to go along with this definitional anti-science. Evidently there is at least some division. With Sherwood speaking up for the FOD position, any co-authors who prefer the new position should feel free to speak up as well. Come on real scientists, throw this blowhard under the bus!"

Given your very selective reading on the subject, you may not be aware that the IPCC is renown for dishonesty in its reports, e.g. the 'discernible human influence' claim that struck out the approved draft Second Assessment Report key statement "none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases" , and the 'hockey stick' scandal introduced in the Third Assessment Report.

Raycom,

"The leaker...explained why he leaked."

(Doesn't sound particularly dignified to me)

Who cares?

His triple backward somersault with forward "cherry-pick" ended with a belly-flop.

Big splash.......

Zero points.

Poitot. Tremendous forensic dismemberment of Raycom post! Your argument, in detail, has turned me the full 360 degrees.

Poirot;

hear hear

LePage and Poirot can now be classified as trolls on the subject of AGW. At best they link to a certified pro-AGW site without any clue about what they are linking to and when someone goes to the trouble of pointing out to them the easy to follow defects of their link they resport to name-calling about such worthy people as Anthony Watts.

Poirot has ignored the information about Sherwood who made the complaint about the AR5 leak and the proven comments in AR5 about the solar impact. As Rawls plainly shows Sherwood not only misrepresents what Rawls said but also what AR5 says about the solar impact; this is what AR5 says:

"The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link."

AR5 says an "amplifying mechanism" like GCR; not an "amplifying mechanism" which is GCR.

Yet Sherwood criticises the leak by saying he has disproved GCR!

You are hopeless Poirot.

In my earlier comment to warmair I said:

"That is not declining and I did link to the Soloman paper about declining SH at high atmosphere; there are plenty of other such papers:"

That of course should be:

"That is declining and I did link to the Soloman paper about declining SH at high atmosphere; there are plenty of other such papers:"

cohenite, and you of course could not be described as an Astroturfer"?
Luckily I have not a lot on that I have to do at the moment so I can sit and knock your comments back over the net for past time.
Your long harangues of gobbledegook are really quite amusing and it just goes to show what lengths some will go to either":
Be paid for strewing mis- information around.
Mis- inform for the hell of it.
Mis-inform from inability to face up to facts.
Mis-inform due to ignorance but I am sure that you are not in this category after all you come across as reasonably intelligent but just have this mental block.
Denial is not just a big river in Egypt.

That an emotive response is the best that AGW believers Poirot and LePage can come up with, is not surprising.

That UNSW professor of science Steven Sherwood is doing his unethical best to misrepresent the significance of the solar impact so as to maintain anthropogenic CO2 as the driver of global warming in IPCC reports, is particularly galling as he is being funded by we taxpayers through government research grants. Thanks to misrepresentations by Sherwood and like-minded AGW believers, Australia's socalled climate policies have been adopted without any cost-benefit analysis whatsoever, and will impact the economy adversely but have no impact whatsoever on climate change.

The earth receives from the sun an average of about 240 watts per sq meter, for the earth to maintain a constant temperature it has also emit 240 watts per sq meter. Now we know form basic physics that the temperature of an object emitting this amount of power will be -19 deg C. This temperature is found around a level of 17,000 feet (527Mb). The average temperature at the earth's surface is about 14 deg C the difference of 33 Deg C is due to the natural greenhouse effect.

How this works it is necessary to understand that majority of the heating that the atmosphere receives comes from the direct contact with surface, which in turn has been heated by the sun. On the other hand the atmosphere directly cools by emitting infra-red radiation. It is the way that greenhouse gases interfere with this cooling process that determines what the surface temperature will be.

The height at which incoming radiation and outgoing radiation are in balance is important because below this height greenhouse gases reduce the the rate of cooling above this height green house gases have the opposite effect.

The point of this preamble is that the observed increase in specific humidity below 17,000ft will cause heating of the lower atmosphere. Above this height if specific humidity falls then the direct effect if anything is to contribute to warming. It is important to understand that here we are only talking about water vapour and not clouds.
The point here is that telling us that that specific humidity levels at 30,000 feet have marginally decreased proves nothing

OK warmair at least you agree that high SH is falling in the high atmosphere, and that has been verified by the Soloman and Pierce papers which I have already linked to as wel as Randel et al:

http://acd.ucar.edu/~randel/JAS_H2O.pdf

You're not going to dispute those peer reviewed papers are you; and note Soloman specifically attrbutes the decline in high water with a decline in global temperatures.

And overall, SH has been falling except below 5000 ft or 850mb:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/21/a-window-on-water-vapor-and-planetary-temperature-part-2/

Even AR5 notes this:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/mims_ipcc_ar5_sod_review.pdf

So, overall there is less water vapor in the atmosphere to acentuate heating.

Your statement about high water not being important is simply wrong and your 2nd paragraph is junk for a number of reasons.

Firstly high water traps incoming solar at the relevant wavelengths; high cloud also reflects incoming solar and traps OLR; if there is less upper water neither of these 2 responses occurs.

Secondly the effect of a forcing is directly related to the depth of the forcing in a system; incoming solar has the greatest range heating the levels of the atmosphere as well as the ocean which GHG forcing does not do.

Finally, in respect of that 33C which is attributed to the Greenhouse effect, a number of qualified people have queried it including Jinan Cao:

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/09/do-greenhouse-gases-warm-the-planet-by-33c-jinan-cao-checks-the-numbers/

Cohenite, still babbling on with a lot of pseudo scientific jargon.

What the denialists are getting all hot under the collar about is:

Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system.
What this is actually talking about, is a fringe theory that cosmic rays have an important influence on the climate. What neither Mr Rawls, Watts Up With That or the climate sceptic blogger James Delingpole did, was to point out that the paragraphs on the chapter which follow the one which Rawls quotes, go on to explain why these theories were not robust. Professor Steve Sherwood, is a lead author on Chapter 7. says;
The single sentence that this guy pulls out is simply paraphrasing an argument that has been put forward by a few controversial papers. The rest of the paragraph from which he has lifted this sentence, goes on to show that subsequent peer-reviewed literature has discredited the assumptions and/or methodology of those papers, and failed to find any effect. This guy’s spin is truly bizarre. Anyone who would buy the idea that this is a “game changer” is obviously not really looking at what is there.
http://www.readfearn.com/

This:

"high cloud also reflects incoming solar and traps OLR; if there is less upper water neither of these 2 responses occurs."

Should read:

high cloud does not reflect incoming solar and traps OLR; if there is less upper water neither of these 2 responses occurs.

High cloud therefore warms in 2 ways whereas low cloud does reflect incoming solar.

The high cloud effect is described by Lindzen and NASA as the Iris effect;

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Iris/iris.ph

LePage, you say stupid things, or rather, you repeat stupid things when, I assume, you quote from Sherwood:

"The single sentence that this guy pulls out is simply paraphrasing an argument that has been put forward by a few controversial papers. The rest of the paragraph from which he has lifted this sentence, goes on to show that subsequent peer-reviewed literature has discredited the assumptions and/or methodology of those papers, and failed to find any effect."

The international effort at CERN currently studying the effect of CRs will be disappointed to be so abruptly dismissed as the authors of a few "controversial papers":

http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/research/CLOUD-en.html

CERN's latest papers will be in AR5 but have not been leaked yet. We'll just have to wait and see what the CERN team come up with.

And really, you link to Readfearn; talk about the blind leading the witless.

"CERN's latest papers will be in AR5 but have not been leaked yet..."

Gawd! - you lot are slipping. Get Rawls onto that straight away. He can pretend he's an expert reviewer - and when he leaks, everyone can get all excited over at WUWT (8 updates on the AR5 leak when it first came out, if you don't mind - flashing lights, party poppers - Awooogaa!)

138 comments about Global Warming and associated issues.

What a shame that the looming nuclear war couldn't get such interest.

Perhaps as we are being vaporized we might yell out, "Damn. Why didn't someone tell us?"

I tried to!

Denier Predictions vs IPCC Projections

http://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=72

Poirot,

Great graph...an excellent example of why you should never take an activist warmist at his word.

For those of you who can't be bothered checking the data behind the graph (and I don't blame you because its a load of old cobblers) what they do is cherry-pick out of the myriad projections in each AR the scenario that most closely fits the actual temps and then pretend that that is indeed the IPCC projection. Even then they have to manipulate the data eg for FAR they change the projection to correct for errors in the guesses about emission levels. So effectively they are saying that if you ignore all the errors in our guesses then they're pretty accurate!!

Then for the sceptics they take some random comment and assert that that is the sum total of that persons predictions. For example for Richard Lindzen they take a comment he made in 1989 (!) that he thought the earth wouldn't warm much in the next century, and then dishonestly assume that he meant it would remain unchanged throughout that time.

All pretty funny/sad really but at least it does its job, which is to fool the likes of Poirot.

Just for you, mhaze,

http://planet3.org/2013/01/06/the-2012-golden-horseshoe-award-david-rose-of-the-daily-mail/

Poirot takes a holiday from linking to Sks which she doesn't understand and links to a site which features Gleik, the hacker, eli the pompous bully and Schmidt who features so prominently in the emails:

http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=gavin+schmidt

You've got nothing to contribute to this debate Poirot and that makes you a big part of the problem.

There's really no "debate" concerning the science, cohenite. There are climate scientists who reach conclusions based on empirical evidence...and then there are people (usually non-scientists like yourself) who twist, cherry pick, ad hom and just plain deny - all the while pretending they understand the science.

Good luck with that....

No debate says Poirot; there can never be a debate with a closed mind, which is the AGW collective. As for the science Jo Nova lists the papers which disprove AGW:

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/man-made-global-warming-disproved/

Some of those papers were analysed here:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14179

And in slightly more detail here:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/has-man-made-global-warming-been.html

And here:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/has-global-warming-been-disproved-part-2.html

Poirot, you don't understand any of this, you make no effort to understand it and berate anyone who does try to understand it.

You are a zealot.

cohenite,

I have to admit that the difference between you and I is that I don't pretend to be a climate scientist. You, on the other hand, pretend you understand the science, You link to blogs run by non-climate scientists to disprove global warming"...and time and time again you are shot down in flames. It's all so very Daffy Duck...and I'm apparently dis-dis-dis-despicable!

I don't have to be climate scientist to analyse your tactics, or to read a graph - or to pick holes in your commentary.

"You're a zealot".....why thank you, cohenite.

It's duck season.

cohenite,

Here's a good example of the "expertise" that emanates from places like WUWT:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/12/10/oh-pleeze/

I DON'T pretend I'm a climate scientist Poirot; my expertise lies elsewhere; and it is an expertise which provides contemperaneous skills for interpreting the worth of the climate science.

I mean it is just pitiful that anyone who hasn't been given the imprimatur of climate scientist is scorned for doing research into the validity of the climate science.

Anyway, the hypocrisy of this position is demonstrated by the fact that real climate scientists like Christy, Spencer, Lindzen , Fu, Franks, Curry etc are treated with equivalent scorn for not believing the official AGW belief. So, it doesn't matter that I'm not a climate scientist because climate scientists are trewated the same way as me; we're all heretics.

You link to tamino again Poirot after I have pointed out how Foster makes profound errors in his papers, yet you still accept him as an authority.

The problem Poirot is because you accept people like tamino unquestioningly it makes you stupid [I'm assuming you are not stupid] and you can't see the tricks and flaws of what tamino is doing.

For instance tamino criticises WUWT for saying sunspot activity has been rising for 110 years and then he presents a moving average graph, NOT a trend graph to defeat that point; a trend graph shows this:

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:12/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1880/mean:12/normalise/scale:5/trend

Look at that Poirot; sunspot activity is increasing over the 110 year period and correlates perfectly with tamino's preferred temperature record.

Can you understand tamino's sleight of hand Poirot? Of course not, and you don't care.

Poirot, you can be a fool but don't expect others to be.

There's really no "debate" concerning the science, cohenite. There are climate scientists who reach conclusions based on empirical evidence...and then there are people (usually non-scientists like yourself) who twist, cherry pick, ad hom and just plain deny - all the while pretending they understand the science.

HEAR HEAR

No debate says Poirot; there can never be a debate with a closed mind

You have to have a mind to close?

I have to admit that the difference between you and I is that I don't pretend to be a climate scientist. You, on the other hand, pretend you understand the science, You link to blogs run by non-climate scientists to disprove global warming"...and time and time again you are shot down in flames. It's all so very Daffy Duck...and I'm apparently dis-dis-dis-despicable!

HEAR HEAR AGAIN

cohenite, the only proof that will satisfy you about AGW is when the Arctic ice has disappeared completely in the summer and ships are sailing over the site of the North Pole (probably within a few years) and then you will still come up with a lot of scientific gibberish to prove it really isn't happening.

Cohenite. After 30 odd pages of debate, the conclusion is 'the debate is over' sigh.....

The 'anti science' group you are dealing with, the science 'deniers' you attempt co 'convert' from their religion, as proposed in the original post by Don Aitken, is a lost cause. These are people who admire and respect the actions, beliefs and scientific process of Gleick, Parncutt, Gore, Mann etc etc.

I am not an economist, but I do understand economics enough to question the skill of Minister Wayne Swann, I am not a banker, but I do recognise the operation of fixed and variable interest rates, I am not a scientist, but I do understand the scientific process.

I am however, a degreed (amongst other disciplins), environmental manager. I do understand the enormous complexities of the biosphere. Recognising these complexities I would never assert that the 'science is settled' in any discipline. On four separate occasions I have personally experienced species, declared extinct by the 'settled science', have had the temerity to 're appear' In places that they just shouldn't be!

Guys, gravity is the only scientific conclusion I would consider 'settled'. I have tested the hypothesis, personally, on numerous occasions.

Guys, gravity is the only scientific conclusion I would consider 'settled'. I have tested the hypothesis, personally, on numerous occasions.
Posted by Prompete
_________________________________________________________________

Gravity is a simple observation. As for what causes it if you know the answer, you know something the rest of the science world doesn't.

Comparing gravity to our knowledge of climate change we have the observation that temperatures have steadily increased since the the 1970s. We also have observed an increase the level of heat absorbing gases in the atmosphere. We have been able to determine that these gases have originated from human activity. We have numerous observations about the way heat is radiated from objects and how it is absorbed. We have a good theoretical understand of how this works ranging across many disciplines from thermodynamics, quantum physics, and optics.

The scientific debate about whether CO2 would cause an increase in global temperatures was lost some time around the late 1930s, judging by the fact it took the catholic church over 400 years to accept the earth was rotating around the sun. I am not hopeful that some people will ever be able to understand the basic science

Prompete, you are sadly correct; people like LePage, Poirot and warmair, whatever their base intelligence, do not use any of their intelligence in a critical way when it comes to AGW.

They believe; and like all believers, when their belief is shown to be based on rubbish, as I have done immediately above with my last post on tamino, and there are countless other examples where the climate scientists are wrong, or have lied, they become defensive and angry.

The capacity to believe is a quality in humanity which can fortify us when times are tough and have positive outcomes.

However on other occasions the act of believing can corrupt and taint core values and processes. AGW is an example of this where its believers are perverting science and even the democratic process.

For this reason people who believe in AGW are the enemies of enlightened, reason based and open and transparent society.

Temp anomaly 1998 to 2013/increased Co2%. Correlation/causation? Hmmm.

Did I read that some ice core data indicated a Co2/temp correlation in reverse?

This has all been argued here in depth.

I think we can expect another 'extinct' species to appear somewhere it shouldn't.

Ah, warmair, I'm very pleased you raised this issue about gravity, because M. LePage, discussed this earlier in the "debate".

Posted by Robert LePage, Tuesday, 1 January 2013 8:44:12 AM - "Well I walk about on the surface of the earth without flying off into space by reason of a force called gravity".

I was going to mention it back then, but thought better of it as it seemed petty. But now you've brought the subject up, I'm keen to clarify matters of the error by LePage.

Firstly, I'm pleased to see that you know your stuff about gravity - about it being something no one on Earth knows what it is. In fact there is a 100% consensus amongst scientists about that, I believe.

The error by LePage is that he calls it a force. Unfortunately, he is not alone in this error. That error is taught willy-nilly all over the place, by scientists, with degrees, with maybe even doctorates, to unwitting children and students, and all over the Internet, and in common conversation, yet the expression is wrong. It just goes to show that not all scientists, including "climate" scientists (whatever that means) always get everything correct all of the time. Even when there is consensus and authority. Common and colloquial knowledge doesn't mean it's correct.

To be correct about gravity, it's an acceleration and not a force.

It fits with the formula Force = Mass x Acceleration (f=ma). Without mass, gravity doesn't exist. It's a unidentified and not understood peculiar attribute of anything with mass. No one knows what it is. But for sure, gravity is not a force. There is a force created by gravity inherent in a mass, but it's called weight. Weight is the force of gravity.

The point here is that LePage goes around sounding off about science like he knows stuff but can't even get that correct. As you say, that's "something the rest of the science world doesn't" know. If they don't understand gravity. How can anyone be confident that they're correct about CO2? The science is definitely not settled.

cohenite,

Perhaps I am thick...but Jim Goodridge wrote:

"Taking the sunspot numbers since 1900 and plotting an 11-year running average
Results in a graph showing an increasing trend for 110 years."

That's a "running average".

Tamino said:

"Is that really so? Let's take a look."

So the moving average failed to show Goodridge's increasing sunspot trend...and the trends in sea surface temperature and sunspot trends are not similar - (citing Goodridge's running average comparison)

End of episode.

Poirot, says:

“End of episode.”

No.

Goodridge made a mistake; he thought an 11 year smoothing of an 11 year phenomenon would show its trend; it doesn’t; it accentuates the cycle to cycle variations while disguising the trend.

Tamino is a time series expert; he knew Goodridge had made a mistake; not about the trend but the method of showing it. If you use a proper 1 month smoothing of the sun-spot cycle you get this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Sunspot_Numbers.png

And I have showed you the trend:

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:12/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1880/mean:12/normalise/scale:5/trend

If tamino were an honest broker, interested in only the science, he would have said to Goodridge that he had made a mistake and shown him the proper way to show the real sun-spot trend.

But he is not an honest broker; he is more interested in ridiculing non-believers.

IMO he is not a scientist.

The fact is that it is becoming more and more apparent that solar is the climate mechanism.

I don’t think you are thick poirot but you have allowed your need to believe in this rot to circumvent your capacity to understand the chicanery which AGW science is.

Go away, take warmair and the buffoon, LePage, with you and try and think about it.

cohenite,

Well that was pretty wet.

WUWT is wall to wall with non-peer reviewed "stuff", and you're criticising Tamino because he didn't take Goodridge by the hand and explain his mistake - that's what peer-review is for.

I mean to say - Anthony Watts, Jo Nova and yourself, amongst many others, make it a daily ritual to abuse and blow raspberries at climate scientists - and you have the gall to criticise one of them because he didn't pull any punches in exposing WUWT's standard of "science".

...and then, having slung yourself neatly amidst the fairy-lights of "outraged skepticism", you turn on your best faux school ma'am routine and tell us to go home and think about it.

That's funny!

>>Guys, gravity is the only scientific conclusion I would consider 'settled'. I have tested the hypothesis, personally, on numerous occasions.<<

ROFLMAO.

I think it's a very safe bet that you have tested Einstein's general theory of relativity precisely nil times. I think your personal 'testing' of the 'hypothesis' of gravity amounts to not much more than getting pissed and measuring how often you fall over. This doesn't test anything: falling over is classical physics and it has already been well quantified.

You're decoherent so quantum mechanics doesn't apply and you aren't quite fat enough for general relativity to apply. You just get boring old classical mechanics. And I doubt you've even tested that rigourously - just fallen over a lot and hoped that counts for something.

Cheers,

Tony

“On Monday, the average maximum temperature across the country was 40.33 °C, surpassing the old record of 40.17 °C set in 1976. "Previously, the only time we ever had a sequence above 39 °C was four days in 1973," says Karl Braganza of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. "Today will make it seven days."”

“Heatwaves like this are becoming more common as the planet warms, Markus Donat of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales told New Scientist. "If we take the 5 per cent warmest events from 1951 to 1980, and look at the next 30 year period, then these warmest events have become 40 per cent more frequent," he said. His analysis will appear in the Journal of Geophysical Research.”

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

“Last year was the hottest on record for the contiguous United States, shattering the previous mark set in 1998 by a wide margin, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced Tuesday.
The average temperature was 55.3 degrees, 1 degree above the previous record and 3.2 degrees more than the 20th-century average. Temperatures were above normal in every month between June 2011 and September 2012, a 16-month stretch that hasn’t occurred since the government began keeping such records in 1895.”

>>On Monday, the average maximum temperature across the country was 40.33 °C, surpassing the old record of 40.17 °C set in 1976. "Previously, the only time we ever had a sequence above 39 °C was four days in 1973," says Karl Braganza of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.<<

Isn't that interesting? Long periods of unseasonably cold weather don't weaken the global warming hypothesis but as soon as the mercury hits 310K it's soundly confirmed.

I thought climate was not the same thing as weather.

Which way do you want it guys? You can't eat your cake and have it too. If hot weather is meaningful then so is cold weather... or else no weather is meaningful.

Cheers,

Tony

“While temperatures vary on a local and regional scale, globally it has been 27 years since the world experienced a month that was colder than average.”

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/records-will-keep-tumbling-with-blistering-heatwaves-here-to-stay-20130108-2cetq.html#ixzz2HQFJrCSh

Note that is not a record colder month; just colder than average.

Posted by Tony Lavis
Isn't that interesting? Long periods of unseasonably cold weather don't weaken the global warming hypothesis but as soon as the mercury hits 310K it's soundly confirmed.
__________________________________________________________________________________
You are on the right track the fact is we are breaking many more temperatures on the hot side than the cold which is another clear indication of global warming.

The ratio of record high temperatures to record lows in a stable climate would be 1 to 1 but since the 1970s this figure has been steadily increasing.
1980s 1.14 to 1
1990s 1.36 to 1
2000s 2.04 to 1

2010 2.3 to 1
2011 2.8 to 1

Yes, that’s right Poirot; Goodridge was correct about solar and temperature but made a mistake in showing why; tamino picked up on the mistake and ignored the substantive point; that was his deceit and yours; you’re not wet kiddo, you’re under ice.

Grimm by name and misinformation.

Grimm gets his info straight from the horse’s mouth:

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/statements/scs43a.pdf

BOM is pushing this for all it can. It must be an election year. It ignores the issue of adjustments to previous temperature in the beginning of Australia’s temperature record; see:

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/australian-warming-trend-adjusted-up-by-40/#more-9646

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/37716308

And generally:

http://www.waclimate.net/extreme-temperatures.html

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/11/extreme-heat-in-1896-panic-stricken-people-fled-the-outback-on-special-trains-as-hundreds-die/#comment-1168310

As for CONUS, the US, having its hottest year; no;

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/06/does-noaas-national-climatic-data-center-ncdc-keep-two-separate-sets-of-climate-books-for-the-usa/

And no mention of the much colder winters now being experienced in China, India and Siberia. That is, it is now hot in Australia and colder in the Northern hemisphere; which will mean global average temperatures are still falling.

This heatwave has given Alarmism another opportunity to waste taxpayers’ money, distort the science and prevent research into the real climate drivers.

AGW is a scandal.

And what odds for a cold snap soon:

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/sub_surf_mon.gif

The cold water is pooling and the sun is cooling. It will almost be worth it to see and hear the inner city greenies scream when the power is off and the sleet and snow is falling.

Make sure you get a woollen burqa Poirot!

"the buffoon, LePage,"

Would that be an ad hominem cohenite? Really I thought that was the last resort of the desperate?

A letter printed in the Sunshine Coast Daily says it all.

Reflections (SCS Jan 6) on the nativity and baby Jesus story fails to realize that his Jesus Christ will be our savior message is probably the overriding impediment to action on climate change.
Those politicians most outspoken against the science of global warming have a common link to childhood religious fundamentalist indoctrination. The belief that it is God and not man who now controls our climate may now prove to be the biggest single factor which prevents the timely action needed to address the most serious problem ever to confront humanity for the past 250,000 years.
In denying the science of climate change you are denying the findings of physics, chemistry, glaciology, oceanography, microbiology, statistics, ethnology, ornithology, meteorology, paleontology, climatology, zoology, botany, earth science and logic. God may have his place for many, but it will be our acceptance of science that will decide the future of humanity

Here comes Lord Monckton.

http://climatecrocks.com/2013/01/09/lord-monckton-heads-down-under-to-remind-australians-there-is-no-global-warming/

(and isn't it great that BOM has been given the opportunity to extend its decor by adding a new shade of purple to its heat index - another upside to warming perhaps?)

AGW Believers

Despite all your huffing and puffing, AGW remains just an hypothesis.

If you are aware of any scientific paper that has been able to measure the human influence on global warming, please let us know.

For starters:

1. IDAG (International ad hoc Detection and Attribution Group). Detecting and attributing external influences on the climate system: A review of recent advances. J. Clim. 18, 1291–1314

2. Hegerl, G. C. et al. Multi-fingerprint detection and attribution of greenhouse-gas and aerosol-forced climate change. Clim. Dyn. 13, 613–634

3. Tett, S. F. B., Stott, P. A., Allen, M. R., Ingram, W. & Mitchell, J. Causes of twentieth-century temperature change near the Earth’s surface. Nature 339, 569–572

4. Zhang, X., Zwiers, F. W. & Stott, P. A. Multi-model multi-signal climate change detection at regional scale. J. Clim. 19, 4294–4307

5. Stott, P. A. Attribution of regional-scale temperature changes to anthropogenic and natural causes. Geophys. Res. Lett. 30, 1724, doi:10.1029/2003GL017324

6. Gillett, N. P., Zwiers, F. W., Weaver, A. J. & Stott, P. A. Detection of human influence on sea level pressure. Nature 422, 292–294

7. Jones, G. S., Tett, S. F. B. & Stott, P. A. Causes of atmospheric temperature change 1960–2000: A combined attribution analysis. Geophys. Res. Lett. 30, 1228, doi:10.1029/2002GL016377

Obviously, one need only look at the many, many more research findings in attribution studies.

Obviously, many many here wouldn't know how, or stick their head in the sand, or have some ideological reason to 'deny' it.

Tony Lavis. Most elegantly argued. Won me right over to your side of the issue.

Raycom.

Send me a copy when you have it will you? I have been looking everywhere. Also, that paper that details the 2 degree rise with a doubling of co2..... Or was that a stab in the dark that was plucked from the sky? Or was it a scientific fact discussed in the climetgate emails?

Qanda lists his 7.

Here is an alternative 7 disproving AGW, all discussed and explained:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14179&page=0

Here are another 7:

Sun et al 2012

Laken & Pallé 2012

Allan 2011

Miller et al 2012

Cho et al 2012

Caldwell et al 2012

Lauer & Hamilton 2012

Pick one of your list qanda, explain why you think it proves AGW and we'll take it from there; otherwise get lost; I'm sick of arrogant trolls dropping links and names without doing any leg work to explain their position.

Cox the pretender wants to show me his?

I do my leg work in the real world (been a tad busy lately).

Cox does his leg work accompanying the 'Lord', on his own blog, Jo Nova's or WUWT - and of course on OLO

He is a troll.

cohenite,

Sorry, mate, I think you've forgotten that although you can ply your ignorance here, it's not as if you're over at WUWT, climate skeptics or Jo Nova's, where you can boot off or delete anything that doesn't represent denialist mantra...you can't just tell other posters to get lost around here (as in who do you think you are?).

Who cares what you're sick of. Ad hom is your only recourse when it all boils down - especially when you come up against anyone possessing "real" climate credentials.

Cheers qanda : )

qanda whines:

"I do my leg work in the real world (been a tad busy lately)."

Yeah, I expect queuing at centrelink can be real time consuming; that is, I guess, the real world for Gillard's minions these days.

Poirot; I suspect you and the other true believers are Hobbits:

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/369075/Why-we-ll-become-Hobbits-because-of-climate-change

Cox again shows he's a political ideologue:

"Gillard's minions"? Yeah, right.

Again, Cox demonstrates he hasn't a clue.

The Cox link to Hobbits?

For him, a 2 hour trolling session.

Anthony, get a real life ... seriously.

cohenite, Raycom, prompete et al,

Never mind about the Hobbit. I recommend the following for your viewing pleasure (you might learn something too) I've provided the popcorn and cool drinks - so sit back and enjoy.

http://skepticalscience.com/16_more_years_of_global_warming.html

qanda

From there being no such papers, suddenly there are seven.

You could have claimed magician status had Cohenite not butted in to spoil your act.

Seriously though, as we would be wasting our time chasing up your references, would you be so kind as to inform us of the specific measure(s) of human influence on global warming that have been quantified therein, should you still consider that they contain the goods.

There you have it, folks...

Raycom is provided with references to that which he seeks - and he "chooses" not to pursue them. Apparently his repeated requests for such information (all this time) have been nothing but empty blather.

Says it all really.

The denialistas keep on coming up with sites that "prove" this or that, please just look out of the window. You will see that the arctic ice is disappearing, glaciers are shortening, temperatures are trending up, the Antarctic is losing sea ice, the Greenland icecap is rapidly melting.
Please just look out, away from all the so called experts and have a look at the real world.

That’s right Poirot.

On a related note, scroll down to Vaillant’s categorisation of defence mechanisms:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_mechanisms

Levels 1, 2 and 3 – take your pick.

Ciao

Posted by Don Aitkin
Warming and attribution. I agree that the planet seems to have been warming, but we can't measure the extent very well (despite all the numbers thrown around). But warming is not the issue, really. It is attribution of the warming. There is abundant conjecture about that, but no real hard evidence of the extent to which it is due to human activity.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
With all due respect we have plenty of evidence that greenhouse gases are the cause of the obseved warming.

We can make a pretty good estimate of the likely effects of any particular type of warming trigger. Global warming as a result of GHGs leaves a very clear fingerprint, which is quite different to other types of potential warming trigger. For example if the warming was caused by an increase in solar radiation we would get more frequent higher maximum temperatures, and summer temperatures would increase faster than winter temperatures. In reality we see the exact opposite with night time temperatures increasing faster than daytime temperatures and winter temperatures rising faster than summer temperatures.

Here is a short list of effects which are point to GHGs as the most likely cause of the warming.

1 The surface is warming on the other hand the stratosphere is cooling.
2 Night time minimum temperatures are increasing faster than daytime maximums
3 winter time temperatures increasing faster than summer temperatures.
4 Poles are warming faster than the equator.
5 The atmospheric boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere has risen several hundred meters over the past 3 decades.
6 Increased ocean heat is not consistent with other potential heat triggers such as solar.
7 Observed changes in air pressure at sea level are consistent with warming due to GHGs.
8 Precipitation predictions are more consistent when the effects of GHGs are included.
9 Increased levels of infra-red radiation have been observed at the surface at a number sites in the European Alps.
10 The climate models are able to reproduce past climate only if GHG effects are included.

References

http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/science-1.jpg
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/04/18/stratospheric-cooling/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us-advanced.htm

quanda. Thanks for the references, it took a bit to follow through, some need registration etc. I have considerable difficulty, as I guess does Raycom, in relying very heavily on all the 'models' cited. Whilst they are fascinating and quite complex, the 1. "IDAG (International ad hoc Detection and Attribution Group" model has been superseded from the 'likely' IPCC probability level to the now 'low' probability category.

Again, the reliance on models, as above, leaves me neutral. I have read extensively and at length the troubles they have. (Freely acknowledged by many of the modellers) My scepticism of the 'models' is further reinforced by many FOI requests for access to the algorithms running the models being actively rejected/ignored/hidden.

Poirot, will watch and consider the link to 'Skeptical Science' that you suggest. I do, however, probably consider this site with much the same attitude as you and others display towards WUWT. However, you never know...

Eh, qanda.

Vaillant’s categorisation of defence mechanisms. I think you're on to something there. Yep. Definitely found something the AGW camp are into. The poor deluded fools.

Still, maybe they can get help for it. Professional help. There's always hope. The only major problem is that they'll be in denial about it and won't even suspect they're suffering from a psychosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis) of this sort.

How shocking is that?

You don't suppose you might have this affliction too, do you qanda?

After all, think about it, it is interesting to note that you went to a lot of trouble to look all that stuff up. And especially seeing as it's got absolutely nothing to do with the thread whatsoever. That's a worry. You'd better have a chat with your GP as soon as possible. That is a symptom. Just to be safe.

All the very best qanda.

Troposphere not warming:

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/models-get-the-core-assumptions-wrong-the-hot-spot-is-missing/

No stratsophere cooling:

http://notrickszone.com/2012/10/05/german-meteorologist-on-temperature-models-so-far-they-are-wrong-for-all-atmospheric-layers/

http://processtrends.com/images/RClimate_eye_ball_vs_regression.png

DTR not changing:

http://landshape.org/enm/david-karoly/#more-1759

The Antarctic is cooling.

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/antarctic-concensus-flips-warmer-water-means-more-sea-ice/

OHC can only be raised by solar short-wave as CO2 IR backradiation cannot penetrate surface.

Precipitation predictions; you must be joking:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/09/uk-rainfall-2012-the-report-the-met-office-should-have-produced/

http://landshape.org/enm/page-proofs-of-the-decr-paper/

Number 9 seems to be a reference to the old Philipona work which I critique here at number 4:

http://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/04/more-worst-agw-papers/#comments

No 10 is the dumbest and comprehensively repudiated by Koutsoyiannis:

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/we-cant-predict-the-climate-on-a-local-regional-or-continental-scale/

Keep trying warmair; your commitment is only exceeded by qanda's arrogance and Poirot's tinker-bell impersonations.

On the subject of "belief" and "denial":

Seems to be an disturbing confluence between evangelical Christian views and climate change, Noting Lord Monckton's upcoming visit and his connection with Daniel Nallaih who trumpets Monckton's launching of Rise Up Australia here:

http://catchthefire.com.au/2012/12/rise-up-australia-party-national-launch-on-11th-feb-2013-at-national-press-club-in-canberra/

Here's the "Evangelical Declaration Declaration on Global Warming":

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/

And here's a contribution by Monckton to the Cornwall alliance:

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/blog/item/the-ipccs-cardinal-error-in-co2-warming-calculation/

It's quite interesting that the question of climate science is one area of science where anyone and everyone feels they have the necessaries to second guess the scientists....big business and religion weigh in heavily on the side of "skeptics" in order to maintain the status quo it seems.

I should amend that to Christian "evangelical" religion... the Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Sciences is supporting AGW (probably because it employs the services of climate scientists)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110506093116.htm

For those genuinely interested in the science of climate, as opposed to those who only like pushing political wheelbarrows (or playing troll), here's an interesting article of worth to help evaluate your belief or denial.

NASA Science News
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/
Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate

Cheers all.

cohenite
Troposphere not warming:
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/models-get-the-core-assumptions-wrong-the-hot-spot-is-missing/
___________________________________________________________________
The link above refers to the issue of the tropical hot spot at an altitude of some 10km .
http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot.htm

It has very little to do with the fact that globally the troposphere has warmed. That is from the surface to a maximum of about 20 Km.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troposphere
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-sfc-radiosonde-temp/201001-201012.gif
The evidence is beyond any doubt, the troposphere is warming.
________________________________________________________________
No stratsophere cooling:

http://notrickszone.com/2012/10/05/german-meteorologist-on-temperature-models-so-far-they-are-wrong-for-all-atmospheric-layers/

http://processtrends.com/images/RClimate_eye_ball_vs_regression.png
________________________________________________________________

The evidence does not support this claim
http://processtrends.com/images/RClimate_TLS_SATO_latest.png
___________________________________________________________________
DTR not changing:

http://landshape.org/enm/david-karoly/#more-1759
____________________________________________________________________
Above an irrelevant link basically about bush fires.
Below clear evidence of a reduction in DTR.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-2-2.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure3-2.jpeg

To be continued

VoxUnius. A particularly interesting article. Within the article I was also looking for material relating to the magnetic effect of varying sunspot cycles to the formation of cloud cover from cosmic rays. It appears to be a matter of 'watch this space'.

I have a great discomfort when the activities of the sun are reduced to a single number in order to make it possible to fit into a super computer model.

However, all these things improve over time, observation and experimentation. The complexity of this one (solar) variable on the climate system is mind numbing. I wonder how many other variables there are that we haven't even thought of yet.

My 'take away' message from this article and numerous others is that the science is definitely NOT settled at this point in time.

Not the time, I would suggest, for making precipitous decisions and jumping to conclusions that attribute just one single element to explain variations in climate.

A good read

Said it before and will say it again: 'alarmists' and so called 'deniers' (extremists if you like) on both sides should pull their collective heads in.

The vast majority of scientists involved in 'climate science’ think there's very likely a significant problem and that the world should do something about it.

There will always be debate within the scientific community about the details. However, it's just ludicrous to think these nuances can be 'debated' in mainstream media and the blogosphere by arm-chair pseudo-scientists and wannabes/pretenders who do not understand the science, nor its complexities.

Science is never settled and those that trot out that misunderstanding contribute to the distortion and derision of science in general, and ‘climate science’ in particular.

Some people are disaffected with the IPCC. However, that does not make its processes, rigor or conclusions any less robust, particularly given the scale and wide-ranging complexity of their reports. Similarly for the numerous science academies, organisations and institutions around the world - they are not as stupid as some here would have us believe.

Moreover, if anyone can suggest a better way of collating and disseminating the science of 'climate change' any better than the IPCC, let them come forward and do it better - they haven't. I have to say ideological think-tanks and ‘denialosphere’ blogs don't rank, but that is only my opinion.

The 'debate' (at least in the public domain) is not about the science - it's about a socio-politico agenda and a respective socio-cultural and econometric response. Indeed, these are the very issues that the UNFCCC debate, not the science – real scientists do that well enough, in appropriate fora.

It is these 'issues' I have no answer (not my expertise) except to say that given there is a significant (not 100% absolute) risk associated with AGW, then it's in humanity's interest to work together to lessen its impact. Clearly, there are vested interests against such action. Sadly, there are others who are stuck in some form of ‘denial’ – a defence mechanism to justify their actions (or lack thereof).

Science is not a religion.

The Antarctic is cooling.

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/antarctic-concensus-flips-warmer-water-means-more-sea-ice/
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Antarctic sea ice for the most part retreats to the shore line in summer and then refreezes in winter the. The sea ice area has increased by about 0.9% per decade compared to the Arctic which has declined by about 4.1% per decade. On the other hand the data from the grace satellite indicates that the total ice mass for the Antarctic is declining.
http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/characteristics/difference.html

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/242

The evidence suggests that the Antarctic is warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Antarctica#Climate_change
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
OHC can only be raised by solar short-wave as CO2 IR backradiation cannot penetrate surface.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Back radiation does not cause warming it reduces the rate of cooling. The ocean gains heat from the sun and loses heat by evaporation and infra-red emissions . Adding water vapour to the air reduces the ability of the ocean surface to lose heat via IR to the atmosphere. Once the relative humidity reaches 100% no more evaporation occurs also blocking off that method for ocean heat to of escape. The net result is that as water vapour levels rise in the atmosphere the rate at which the ocean can lose heat is reduced.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-3-4.htm

qanda,

"The debate (at least in the pubic domain) is not about the science - it's about the socio-politico agenda and a respective socio-cultural and econometric response..."

Yep, agreed.

I'm interested in the sway "skeptics" have on the media, the public at large - and in consequence, the politicians. They're the ones who are going to be elected on platforms which may or may not include a response to warming.

There are few (if any) other areas of science where rank amateurs have the gall to step up and talk out-of-their-hat pretendies science, and are taken seriously by sections of the public and the media.

It's all very well to have a huge cohort of scientists agreeing and talking about climate, but if they can't find some way to override the ignorant, negative (and often abusive) commentary from amateurs and denialists and their impact on public perception, there's likely to be a weak response from government and nothing "of any consequence" will be instituted to mitigate warming.

Not wishing to be "alarmist" - but I can't resist this cartoon.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/the-hoax-we-had-to-have-20130110-2cix8.html#ixzz2HdXEEywz

Quanda.
"Some people are disaffected with the IPCC. However, that does not make its processes, rigor or conclusions any less robust".

"Disaffection" would have to be a catastrophic understatement surely.

I do believe you may have just nailed exactly and precisely the answer to Poirots' "interested in the sway "skeptics" have on the media, the public at large - and in consequence, the politicians.

Would 'The Delinquent Teenager' ring any bells here? And Ms Laframboise is just the tiny tip of an ever increasing iceberg.

Posted by voxUnius
NASA Science News
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/
Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate
___________________________________________________________________________
Interesting article
It suggests to me that based on a reduction of sunspot numbers one would expect a small decline in global temperatures since the 1980s. This is clearly not what has happened. So either this idea is wrong or AGW is overwhelming the potential reduction in temperatures

Prompete,

"...And Ms Laframboise is just just the tiny tip of an ever increasing iceberg."

http://desmogblog.com/donna-laframboise

Yes, I admit it's difficult to argue against the climate expertise of someone who holds a degree in women's studies.

Then, again, that's par for the course...I'm supposing that the predominant qualification for the "loudest" "skeptics" is that they shouldn't hold an actual qualification in regard to climate science.

Poirot. I don't think it is necessary to be a climate scientist to have the research skills to look up references do you? And to use Peter Gleik as a reliable referee of her book is a bit of a stretch really, isn't he the bloke that admitted to misrepresenting himself, told untruths etc?

The IPCC itself said, following a review of the glaciagate accident/misprint that it would 'fix' its "processes, rigor or conclusions". I have found no evidence that it has done so.

My point is that the I am one of those "disaffected with the IPCC" for the very reason that IPCC conclusions are based, to an unacceptable extent, on material submitted and accepted by contributors as Identified by Ms Laframboise.. Woodward and Bernstien wer not politicians either.

You wonder how those that question the 'consensus' have such sway in the argument and or media? Perhaps way back then, when A Gores film was found to contain exaggerations and inaccuracies, and a series of 'mistakes', failed predictions, hidden algorithms that only produce hockey sticks etc etc all compound.

Your link to Desmogblog contains a raft of comments about Lafomboise background etc etc. try as I might, I could not find anywhere where her actual results/conclusions were refuted. The link is just a long ad hom smear.

How could I be anything but disaffected with the IPCC when it has demonstrated itself to be so very 'anti-science'?

Prompete,

You're right - how could you be anything but disaffected by the IPCC?

Why in the world would you believe the scientists on the matter of climate science?

That would be downright silly when it's so much easier, entertaining and self-confirming to give credence to those without the qualifications who assert that the IPCC and its contributing scientists are fraudulent.

Glib generalisations claiming climate scientists maintain that "the science is settled" or notions that they are not continuously reassessing the data - your comment that the IPCC is "anti-science" are stock-in-trade for "skeptics".

For me, "skeptic rant" is most interesting - as is the utilisation of a whole raft of devices, and just plain ignorant pig-headedness to oppose the science.

Que sera sera

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-12/climate-commission-predicts-more-heatwaves-bushfires/4461960

Prompete:

"The IPCC itself said, following a review of the glaciagate accident/misprint that it would 'fix' its "processes, rigor or conclusions.

I have found no evidence that it has done so."

You obviously haven't been following, or looking. Rather, you just shoot from the hip. Start here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_review.shtml#.UPC3hGckKSo

Do yourself a favour and read the embedded links, then see the final AR5 ... when it's officially released.

"How could I be anything but disaffected with the IPCC when it has demonstrated itself to be so very 'anti-science'?"

Sorry Prompete, your statement demonstrates that you don't understand the scientific method, and reveals your own "anti-science" bias.

Let me give you the benefit of the doubt, you are conflating (unintentionally) the problems of the UNFCCC with the IPCC. It's not unusual, many 'non-scientists' do exactly just that.

I've been following this whole silly, silly CAGW debate since 1993 when I first read John Daly's book. Throughout this whole period I've seen the same stupid assertion made by the warmists to try to close down debate....only climate scientists can criticise the so-called science. We see it here with Poirot et al...oh s/he tell us, this person's not a climate scientist and therefore can be ignored. Now it creates a problem when a bono fide climate scientist is a skeptic but then they fall back on the claim that that person is in the pay of big oil. Its all about finding a way to avoid having to think or check the data.

So we see Poirot post a graph which s/he clearly accepts without question because it comes from a climate scientist. But the merest checking reveals it to be a piece of propaganda devoid of any real value. And we saw warmair show that s/he hasn't or hadn't the faintest understanding of positive feedbacks even though they are critical to the whole story. Again, climate scientists said there would be warming that that's just fine for these people...no need to check further.

But what they don't realise is that climate science is only a part of the story. The Hockey Stick graph wasn't climate science, it was a statistical exercise. No new research was done. Previously gathered data was just reassembled in a way that provided the answer that was required. But when the two Macs and others started tearing it apart, the same mantra came out....oh they're not climate scientists so they don't get a say. But when the Hockey Stick graph was finally destroyed it was the statisticians who did it. So much of climate science is about statistics but the high priests of the religion try to exclude the statistician from the discussion.

/cont

/cont
There is every chance that the sun plays some role in the warming and cooling of the planet but again solar scientists are told they have no part to play in climate science. The (in)famous 97% figure specifically excluded solar and cosmic scientists from the calculation.

In a similar vein, economists play a part in the process, or should. When the models run their projection they have to be told the level of CO2 emissions projected down the years and that is determined by projections of economic activity. Economists make those calculations and pass them to the modelers. Yet when other economists like Henderson seek to critique the calculations they are told that they aren't climate scientists and therefore don't get a say.

I'm not a climate scientists but I'm perfectly capable of following an argument, following the data and checking the conclusions. I'm not able to calculate the projected change in projected warming in 2100 due to Australia's CO2 tax, but I'm quite capable of doing back of the envelope calculation that tell me that its vanishingly small. I'm not a climate scientist but I know that when someone says we can't have more than a 15yr stalling in the warming without calling the whole theory into question, its significant when we get such a period. I'm not a climate scientist but I know that when the IPCC tells us the Himalayas will be ice-free by 2035 and we find out that was just a made up number, that's significant. I'm not a climate scientist but I know that when someone tells us we'll never have dam filling rains again, and then the dams fill, its significant.


Sitting on your hands and saying you accept whatever the climate scientists tell you, including believing them when they tell you to not listen to anyone else, isn't following the science. Its an abdication of thinking

You're absolutely right, mhaze.

You should ignore all the climate scientists. It's much more plausible for you and other "skeptics" to stick to the blogosphere and imbibe your information and affirmation from non-climate scientists who challenge the qualified scientists on the science.

After all, what would an atmospheric physicist, an oceanographer or a paleo-climatologist be able to tell you that any amateur blogger couldn't rustle up to the applause of their "skeptical" entourage with Microsoft Excel and a flask of coffee.

And phooey to peer-review. What an over-blown device. Any review should be conducted on any of the "skeptic" sites by the author's "skeptic" mates.....and if a scientific journal happens to reject a paper that has been "pal-reviewed" the author is hereby officially allowed to stamp his feet and scream - "It's an elitist conspiracy designed to exclude the plebs!"

Go to it, "skeptics" - your public awaits

ummmm, Poirot, I think you rather missed the point of my post. But then I have observed that your reading skills are not what one would hope for.

Still you are consistent. Don't analysis anything told to you by your favoured scientists and don't think about anything anyone else tells you. Just regurgitate the same old sarcastic drivel.

mhaze,

Why should I "analyse" your most recent posts? I read them and they are merely a regurgitation of the type of "skeptical" cherry-picked comments I've read a hundred times before.

I got the point of your post.

Next time you're feeling poorly, I imagine you'll bypass the docs and pop down to your local CWA Hall for advice.

Good luck with that.

Then again, mhaze, it looks like you're in the minority - could be an uphill battle....

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climatechange-denial-feels-the-heat-20130112-2cmhu.html

And this:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A3TS8TZ8UMBB04/ref=cm_pdp_rev_all?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview

"Then again, mhaze, it looks like you're in the minority - could be an uphill battle...."

Yes, its terribly important for you to not be in the minority, isn't it Poirot. The herd is the safest place for the ignorant. Of course, if things change around Poirot will be right there as the herd abandons the AGW story. Not in the forefront, mid you, because that would require thinking for yourself and ...well we all know Poirot.

I'm old enough to remember the days when the majority thought we were headed to a new ice age. The minority in those days were also told they were anti-science and that we should just believe what 'the science' told us. Now you'd struggle to find anyone who owns up to adhering to the then consensus view. The same will happen this time also and the myriad Poirots of this world will be right there telling anyone who'll listen that they never really believed the myth.

I think this nonsense has gone on long enough now. There is NO argument about AGW, it is a fact. All these people that keep coming up with new "proofs" that it is not happening are really just obstructing the course we have to take if we are to have any chance of surviving. A world with 4,5, 6, or as I have recently read 10C warming is just too high and we will not be able to survive with anything above 3C, so the rest is just to high to consider .
This will freak a lot of people out and is one of the main causes of denial.
Get over it and learn to live with the idea.

So, mhaze has been following the “debate” since 1993 and comes out with: “the Hockey Stick graph was finally destroyed”.

Which hockey stick is he referring to?

• Briffa – 2000

• Briffa – 2001

• D’Arrigo – 2006

• Esper et al – 2002

• Hegerl et al – 2006

• Huang et al – 2008

• Jones et al – 1998

• Juckes et al – 2007

• Kaufman et al – 2009

• Lee et al – 2008

• Ljungqvist – 2010

• Mann et al – 2008

• Mann & Jones – 2003

• Mann et al – 1998

• Moberg et al – 2005

• Oerlemans – 2005

• Pollack & Smerdon – 2004

• Rutherford et al – 2005

• Smith et al – 2006

• Tingley & Huybers – 2010

Or does he mean only one of them? If so, was it really “destroyed”?

Point is, while mhaze thinks McIntyre and McKitrick are the ant-pants in destruction – they really are not. In fact, their effort contributed very little to the temperature record of the contiguous USA (less so when you include Alaska) and had negligible effect on the global temperature record.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-missing-piece-at-the-wegman-hearing/

There is a veritable team of hockey sticks - from corals, trees, stalagmites, ice cores, sediments, micro-flora, soil bore-logs, isotopes, etc., etc. Have they been destroyed? Absolutely not, but you wouldn’t think this by ‘following' mhaze.

Yes, there’s a whole lot of statisticians involved in ‘climate science’, more so than ever, and the stats are becoming even more robust: that the human contribution to global warming is real and contributes a significant portion to it (but not all).

If one has really been “following the debate”, one would know the human component is borne out in the literature – overwhelmingly.

If anyone (including Mr/Mrs/Mshaze) wants to opine about a policy response to AGW, fine - that's where the real problems lie, not the science.

Mhaze. On the way to work this morning I was listening to ABC talkback (adelaide) and listened to the presenter and several listeners earnestly discussing how the distribution of the 'yellow pages' each year was also contributing to climate change...... Ya gotta laugh!

Not being a climate scientist, like you, I just didn't know what to think.

All over the ABC and SBS this week is a 'push' for the warmista. Cringeworthy.

It gets more rediculous by the day.

qanda wonders which hockey stick I was referring to and then proceeds to show s/he knows exactly which one by linking to an article about Wegman.

When one is limited to 350 words, you tend to abbreviate on the basis that the reader has a passing knowledge of the issue and isn't going to try to deliberately find ambiguity so that they can demonstrate their smart-alec-ness.

Yes, indeed I was talking about MBH98 and its variants. This graph and the accompanying story it told was accepted with open arms by the warmist community in general and the IPCC in particular. That is until the two Macs started looking into it. Mann et al spent many many years trying to hide the data and their methods behind the graph so as to avoid scrutiny but eventually the truth was extracted, kicking and screaming. And the truth was that Mann's methods were designed to achieve the warmists desired goal of eliminating the MWP and the LIA. Subsequent examinations by other expert statisticians proved that the Mann methods, rather than adding anything to climate knowledge, produced a hockey stick style graph irrespective of what data was used. Several subsequent hockey stick style graphs made the same error.

qanda is utterly convinced that the literature proves CAGW. That's fine. I'm unconvinced. A decade ago people were also utterly convinced that the literature proved the temps would inexorably continue to rise. That's fine. I was unconvinced. I was right. Over the next decade we'll find out a lot more about whether those so easily convinced were right. I doubt it.

qanda says Moberg et al – 2005 was a hockey stick graph which may be justified if you look at through coloured glasses. It also confirmed that the MWP existed and that the temps around 1000ad were similar to those around 2000ad. I like that type of hockey stick.

mhaze,

Talking of "hockey sticks"....

http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2013/01/14

"Mann et al spent many many years trying to hide the data and their methods behind the graph so as to avoid scrutiny".

That is a lie.

"Several subsequent hockey stick style graphs made the same error."

Oh yeah, which ones?

• Briffa – 2000

• Briffa – 2001

• D’Arrigo – 2006

• Esper et al – 2002

• Hegerl et al – 2006

• Huang et al – 2008

• Jones et al – 1998

• Juckes et al – 2007

• Kaufman et al – 2009

• Lee et al – 2008

• Ljungqvist – 2010

• Mann et al – 2008

• Mann & Jones – 2003

• Moberg et al – 2005

• Oerlemans – 2005

• Pollack & Smerdon – 2004

• Rutherford et al – 2005

• Smith et al – 2006

• Tingley & Huybers – 2010

Listen up closely Mr/Mrs/MsHaze - SHOW ME where have I concurred with your assertion of CATASTROPHIC AGW (CAGW)?

----

Poirot, ROFLMHO

Look at qanda go; like a clown on a pogo stick; the Briffa hockeystick, reduced to ONE tree, YAD061:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/briffa_single_tree_yad061.png

Mann's hockeystick; does anyone with more than a vacuum between their ears still believe in this rot; anyway McShane and Wyner have done the number on all the wretched HS's:

http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/aoas1001-014r2a0.pdf

I note qanda hasn't included Gergis and Karoly's hockeystick paper; this would explain why:

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/06/300000-dollars-and-three-years-to-produce-a-paper-that-lasted-three-weeks-gergis/

I understand why fakers would link to McShane and Wyner (2011) but not to the rebuttal:

Their "absence of both proper data quality control and appropriate “pseudoproxy” tests to assess the performance of
their methods invalidate their main conclusions."

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/SMR_AOASDiscussion11.pdf

The fact remains: there is more than a team of 'hockey sticks' from differing paleoclimate reconstructions that together give further weight to a warmer and wetter world.

Tell you what Mr Cox, trot out and around with 'the Lord' (LOL) Monckton like you did last time, then we can all have a laugh.

You're such a pipsqueak qanda. McShane and Wyner deal with Mann and his buddies here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/13/mcshane-wyner-hockey-stick-smackdown-redux/#more-29354

M&S say about Mann:

"Before embarking on our discussion of their work, we must mention that, of the five discussants who performed analyses (DL, Kaplan, SMR, Smerdon, and Tingley), SMR was the only one who provided an incomplete and generally unusable repository of data and code."

Isn't that typical; Mann still can't manage to be transparent; or useful.

Anyway, Christopher Monckton is a good man; perhaps you can arrange for one of your cronies to debate him; they have such success when they do that; what about Flannery, or Karoly, or yourself since you are so erudite. Bring Poirot as your cheer squad.

Nah,

Flannery and the the 'Lord' are extremists, opposite sides of the fence of course.

99.9% of real scientists are down the middle, not that a 'denier' or 'fake sceptic' like yourself would admit anyhoo.

Btw, not surprised you frequent Evans/Nova and WUWT so much - dark matter at work.

Drop down to Tassie, you're missing stuff - again.

And the bottom line from your, rebuttal of the rebuttal of the rebuttal ...

"now is the time for individuals and governments to act to limit the consequences of greenhouse gas emissions on the Earth's climate over the next century and well beyond."

http://www.e-publications.org/ims/submission/index.php/AOAS/user/submissionFile/8887?confirm=6adde642

Couldn't agree more!

cohenite,

You're the one who appears to be bouncing around on a pogo stick...but it's usually only between two sites....BOING! - off he goes to Watts...BOING! - off he goes to Jo Nova.....BOING! - Watts.....BOING! - Nova.

It's especially stunning when both those sites laud the lovely/nice/good "Lord" Monckton - he of similar non-qualification (but with a whole lotta confidence and a denialist fan club)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/sep/21/climate-scientists-christopher-monckton

I've just spent a lovely morning with my son knee-deep in aqua waters, clear skies and sun shining while some dolphins came in to shore and swam around several of us...happens every day where we live.

It made this sort of story all the more sobering:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/01/the-latest-chinese-pollution-crisis/267123/