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!