You have to love the title of this piece. "England is whistling in the wind".
Indeed it is. England is definitely whistling in the wind as winds from the Atlantic push rain clouds and storm surges onto land flooding large parts of southern England.
Climate change deniers have their heads in the clouds, and the winds roaring up there have quite obviously driven them all a bit barmy.
Poor t'ings.

Haudell take that thermometer out from where you keep it and test the temperatures in those winds and rains. You'll find it cool for an English summer. Like warming is now causing cooling...?

halduell your comment contributes nothing. The floods in England are not exceptional:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/07/is-englands-bad-weather-a-sign-of-climate-change/

And the rains were exceeded in many past years:

http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/so-what-about-1929-julia/

The rains were not predicted by the MET:

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/02/uk-met-office-predicts-15-chance-of-heavy-rain-britian-gets-biblical-floods/

And green policies exacerbated their effect:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2555667/Environment-Agency-bosses-spent-2-4million-PR-refused-1-7million-dredging-key-Somerset-rivers-stopped-flooding.html

Nothing to do with AGW but everything to do with the usual alarmist hysteria.

We have to expect more and more outrageous claims from AGW alarmists as everything they have claimed is proven wrong by the climate itself. With their years of preaching waffle and gouging money from us to continue the waffle; the huge price rises caused by ‘alternative’ energy rent seeking, they are not going to give up easily.

These confidence tricksters should prosecuted.

Might be warmer.
Might be cooler.
Windy, but.
And wet.
reference
reference
reference
Fires in Victoria.
Heat wave in Adelaide.
reference
reference
reference

Another day and yet another anti-science global warning denier post on OLO.
nnotable for a new low the lawyer writing this junk could have wen with
Matthew England is a physical oceanographer and climate scientist.
but went with
Matthew England is an academic.

I have this wonderful weather device in our backyard. It predicts weather perfectly with 100% accuracy every time.

A short length of string hangs under its tripod base. When it is wet it is raining, when it moves about it is windy, when it is dry it is sunny.

No need for climate modelling, or even batteries or computer input - certainly not affected by politics either. It just works !

cobber, you old mutt, he's an academic, alarmist and an activist. He's been caught out again saying something which makes no sense and again at the public's expense.

I can't remember you ever making a sensible comment, or even an interesting one; as trolls go you're a dead loss.

Dear Cohenite,

My dear fellow you are in quite an envious position. Despite some of the Global Warming scientists asserting the 17 years is a climatically significant period you have stated quite categorically that this is not so and the figure is 60 years.

Therefore you are able to soothe their concerns by stating that the global temperature trend over the most recent climatically significant period is resolutely upward in trajectory.

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1964/mean:13/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1960/mean:13/trend

Expanding ice caps.
Stalled surface temperatures.
Increasing DTR.
Oceans stable.

Repeat after me

Warming tells us:
Ice caps must disappear.
Surface temperatures must rise.
DTR must reduce.
Oceans must rise.

Damn the opposite is occurring

Turney gets stuck fast in summer Antarctic ice he said wouldn't be there.
Surface temperatures stalled for 17 years.
DTR increasing dramatically.
And Flannery lives on the shore of a tidal estuary and his toes are not yet as wet as behind his ears...

What a joke.

Steele the stalker continues to verbal.

What I said as opposed to what you say I said, is that the 60 year PDO cycle is a good indicator of what the climate is up to.

But since you are intent on trolling you also ignored what I added to that; which is the phases of the PDO are not neutral. AGW says they are and therefore natural variability does not add to temperature.

But as I showed the PDO phases during the 20thC were asymmetrical in both duration and intensity which means the +ve phases were warmer and lasted longer than the -ve or cooler phase.

I provided peer reviewed links to support this point.

Your little 'gotcha' graphs ignore this crucial point and are incorrect because of it. This graph illustrates my point and shows yours to be bereft of logic and meaning:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2702/4503452885_79b5c09c4f_o.jpg

I also said another major cycle, the AMO, should be added to the mix; in addition to the AMO, the SOI should also be included and when they are, hey presto as Roy Spencer shows the late 20thC temperature rise has a natural explanation:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01/evidence-for-natural-climate-cycles-in-the-ipcc-climate-models-20th-century-temperature-reconstructions/

Then there is Stewart Franks' work on the IPO which modulates ENSO and also has an impact on climate patterns:

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/weather/Franks2007.pdf

Graph 7 is particularly relevant. Not that'll bother you steele since you're here to be a nuisance.

Cobber. Read your post twice now and, for the life of me, could not find ANY reference, disputation, argument or anything in any way refuting the information presented by Mr Cox?

"another anti-science global warning denier post". My reading of the article was that it was pretty much all 'science'. It does make me wonder who is the 'anti-science" writer here.

Hey witless

Here I was thinking this is a topic you would know all about. Wind. You are full of it but no you don't contribute.

Dear Cohenite;;

You wrote;

“Steele the stalker continues to verbal.”

What the hell? Mate you invited me here remember;

“come over here and give it your best shot: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=16021&page=0 “
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15983#277651

Anyway true stalkers tend to be nutters.

You then claimed;

“What I said as opposed to what you say I said, is that the 60 year PDO cycle is a good indicator of what the climate is up to”

No you didn't.

You were asked directly and specifically what you deemed to be a climatically significant period.

I initially asked “What pray tell do you deem to be a “climatically significant period”?”.

I then repeated the question “what period do you personally deem to be “climatically significant”?”

Your answer was an unequivocal; “In answer to your question steele, 60 years”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15983#277521

There were no ifs buts or maybes but a straight out 60 years.

Do you understand sir you have so little credibility that to blow whatever remains on reneging your affirmation of 60 years would possibly be something you might want to reconsider.

Or are you happy adding a bit more fat to that 'Butcher's Dick'?

No, you're trolling steele; everything else I said about the 60 year period you've ignored; you can't pick and choose mate; it's my period and you either take the lot or none at all.

Anyway, the important point is it is not me who decides what the climatically significant period is, it is the experts. The article gives you Santer's PEER REVIEWED paper. Santer is an expert, and Santer says 17 years.

And what do the facts say; for 17 years NO WARMING!

So the choice for you porno man is to either accept what your experts say and then explain why they are wrong.

Or, accept that I am the expert and accept what I say is right.

Now I don't like writing like this, as though I were talking to a 12 year old brat running around saying "Yes it is" at the top of their lungs but that's how you've been acting steele, so either grow up and deal with the feet of clay of your precious AGW and its conman spruikers or continue to carry on and be treated like a pork chop.

A disgusting, vile and abusive ad hom by the so called solicitor Anthony Cox/Cohenite again - typical.

Ozdoc in his usual condescending style has stated I have been “disgusting, vile and abusive” in my description, I presume, of steele’s persistent ‘gotchas about my previous statement of 60 years for a climatic period.

I’m going to spend some time on this ‘complaint’ because I think this typifies the AGW believers’ approach.

AGW has been described as the “great moral issue” of our time.

Yet AGW has cost the world $trillions and Australia $billions.

AGW has arguably corrupted 2 fine scientific bodies, the BOM and CSIRO and determined a succession of government’s approaches to the environment.

AGW has exacerbated natural disasters. The 210 QLD floods were made worse because Wivenhoe dam was being used as a drought mitigator in contradiction of its built purpose as a flood mitigator. In 2009 the Black Saturday fires were exacerbated by the huge build-up of undergrowth caused by green resistance to back-burning which saw land-owners prosecuted for doing so.

Now in England we see natural floods made worse due to a lack of preparation, because of green policies which stopped preventative dredging because of a mollusc and other green regulations.

Due to green and AGW based policies people have died and enormous destruction has occurred.

Yet here we have an alarmist, a believer in AGW, who presumably supports these policies and therefore endorses the results or at least accepts them as collateral damage calling me “disgusting vile and abusive” because I suggested a troll was acting like a “pork chop” and a 12 year old brat.

I can only say that is a weird and distorted perspective. What does ozdoc say about the consequences of AGW and green policies and ideology? Does he think they are “disgusting, vile and abusive”? Does he have anything to say about the proven corruption of science by AGW as evidenced by the emails and the problematic evidence for AGW presented in the England paper as described in this article?

No, nothing, instead he’s [sic] upset because I ‘insulted’ steele

Dear Cohenite,

You wrote;

“you can't pick and choose mate”

Never a truer word has passed from your pen/keyboard.

Anthony Cox/cohenite

You called an OLO commenter a "porno man".

As far as I am concerned, an author of an article loses all credibility by resorting to such vile and abusive tactics.

This is typical of your responses to anybody who differs in their opinion to your opinions.

If Graham Young (after receiving a complaint about you calling a commenter a "porno man") permits that type of abuse from one of his contributing authors then that is his (poor) choice.

Unfortunately, this total lack of respect typifies what is happening in our society - of which you are an example.

Quite frankly, your belittling of anyone who dares challenge your opinions (and that is all that they are) then accusing others of exactly what you engage in yourself typifies one who is losing the argument.

I would suggest not at all good if you adopt those same strategies in your legal arguments, but there you go.

Seriously Anthony, I don’t know why you continue to bother. Time and time again you have shown yourself to have no understanding of statistical methods. Time and time again you go cherry-picking to select the result you want. The RSS data set is not the most reliable of temperature indices. It is in fact the odd one out. The only reason there is no significant difference in RSS is because it has an anomalously large value for 1998. Starting the trend at some other period gives a different result. The other three indices all show significant warming over the period (UAH + 0.084oC/decade p=0.0008; HadCRUT4 + 0.048oC/decade p=0.0043; GISS + 0.008oC/decade p<0.0001).

To cap it off you fail to understand what a trade wind is and how they work.

If ignorance of science was an Olympic Sport, Australia would have to consider nominating you to its team.

Welcome agro; the article is NOT about RSS but England's fantasy piece. Given the calibre of this paper and the preceding ones by Trenberth and Vecchi I don't know why you bother.

In any event England now CONCEDES the pause and has tried to vitiate its consequence for AGW by blowing wind around the place. How the Trade winds work, along with the Jetstreams is beside the point [and I can assure you I do understand how they work: http://landshape.org/enm/files/2011/01/walkerarticle.pdf.]

The point is we have 2 prominent AGW scientists saying completely contradictory things about them; and another 2 claiming the winds are sinking the energy in contradiction to OLR and wind data.

You too good to be a troll so how about addressing those issues instead of blathering on about how temperature is [not] rising.

Ozdoc, the 'insult' of "porno man" was a joke early on in the exchange between me and steel about his retro sobriquet SteeleRedux which I'm fairly sure was the nickname of a character in Boogie Nights. If it wasn't it should have been.

In any event I find your faux outrage ridiculous when you haven't a thing to say about the destructiveness, waste and loss of human life which can be sheeted home to AGW and the rotten policies flowing from this rotten ideology.

In other words, you're a hypocrite; and personally I think all the insults under the Sun are not enough to describe the actions of the alarmists.

ozdoc

you are selective in your critisims.

The only coarseness in here was that thrown about by witless.

Where were you when witless disparaged me as having attitudes in common with Hitler. Now that is truely vile. Don't you agree?
Now since we agree 'an author of an article loses all credibility by resorting to such vile and abusive tactics' I think we can safely dismiss the attitudes and arguments of witless.

Witless admitted he had made an inaccurate statement but that it was because he didn't need to be accurate in his analogies. No withdrawal no apology. The moderator has allowed this witlessness to stand.

I say that he was witless. He's never objected nor denied his witlessness.

cheers doc

Ozdoc, you've wasted all our time in an attempt to shut down a debating rival on a false accusation. Perhaps next time you might ask for clarification from the rival before running to the umpire. Steele Redux does appear to relate to a porn star, so the choice of that nom de plume doesn't, at first blush, reflect well on Steele. One wonders what was going through his head. I'd assumed that it was a play on Steele Rudd, but apparently I was naive.

With all due respect GrahamY (and I know it is your site, so you can run it however you like), it looks to me much more like Anthony Cox who has been trying to shut down debate – probably because he is once again exposed for what he is. This pattern of calling other posters names (idiot is a favourite of Anthony’s) is a common tactic in the responses from Anthony when other posters start to pick holes in his arguments.

Anthony, it is hardly worth attempting to explain the science to you. Perhaps I should just take one example of how you got it so wrong. The McVicar et al. 2012 paper assessed the roles of several factors, including wind speed, on evaporation in terrestrial environments across the globe. The trade winds occur predominately at sea in the tropics. So that paper does not provide any information about trade wind speeds. Anyone taking the simplest bit of trouble to check your work could identify this as soon as they looked at McVicar et al.

Even your argument about Vecchi’s work is spurious. Vecchi used data up to 2000. England’s argument about increased trade winds was from data post 2000. The reason they came to different conclusions was because they were looking at different time periods.

You talking to me Agro?

I don't try to shut down debate; I encourage it. So far I haven't got any but apart from your censorious attempt which seems to define the pro-AGW crowd, at least you provide some semblance of a counter-argument. So curtail your inclination to close me down and focus on the issues.

It is true that both the Roderick [McVicar] papers linked to in the article deal with terrestrial winds and not winds over water such as the Trade Winds. But they are still relevant because they point to a slow down in energy transfer generally which the earlier Vecchi paper supposedly found.

The Vecchi paper of course dealt specifically with the Trade Winds and as you say data up to 2000 but made firm predictions about that decline in wind speed further declining by a further 20% up to the year 2100.

More importantly Vecchi reported a decline of 3.5% over the preceding 140 years.

England uses data up to 2011. So, we are led to believe that in the 11 years since Vecchi did his study the situation has turned on its head?!

In any event Vecchi has written subsequent papers confirming his 2006 findings:

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/oce/markus/ENSOCLIV.pdf

In this 2010 paper Vecchi uses data up to 2009 and still concludes [page 4]:

"Because of the reduction in the vertical circulation expected as global temperatures rise, we also expect a reduction in the surface trade winds associated with a weaker Walker circulation
(figure 1d). Refs 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 find a consistent picture of weakening trades in both observations and models as measured by the reduction in the east-west mean sea level pressure gradient across the tropical Pacific (figure 1c)."

As for England he doesn’t use NEW data, his paper is a reanalysis which is just NEW computer model interpretation of the data. Even England concedes:

“although estimates of observed winds are not well constrained by measurements previous to the satellite era”

So there you have it, England is just another modelling expedition.

Now say something sensible about the OLR.

I see the standard hasn't improved around here.

Shame.

(Couldn't agree more, Ozdoc)

The IPCC was supposed to find evidence to substantiate the hypothesis that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (especially of carbon dioxide) are causing dangerous global warming. However, try as they might, the IPCC and its hangers-on ( including Matthew England) have failed to come up with the desired empirical scientific evidence.

The climate models that have been developed to reflect the hypothesis, have been proved to be invalid for projection purposes. Despite the continuing increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, there has been no statistically significant global temperature rise in the last 16 or so years.

England et al argue that intensification of the wind-driven circulation in the Pacific is an explanation for what is described as a warming hiatus.

Until now, climate scientists promoting the AGW hypothesis have assiduously defended it by strongly asserting that natural variations in climate have only a very minor effect, and that the dominant determinant of climate change is anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Ironically, England et al unwittingly demolish this key AGW theory , by effectively acknowledging that climate change caused by natural variation is now very significant.

Oi! Enough of that! Us adult entertainers care about the environment too!

Oh what an absolute blast.

Firstly to ozdoc. Thanks mate for pulling up Cohenite. I have develop an unhealthy propensity to throw back what has been chucked my way or chucked at others. It isn't the most edifying response though, and you attempting to force some action through more appropriate channels was the right thing to do. Sorry if the name stymied the effort.

But I must confess finding the name Steele Redux linked to a porno star, or at least a handsome womaniser, has made my bloody night. Some decent food and lagers at the local, a pretty silly (but in a quirky way enjoyable) play at the local amateur theatre, chased down with some excellent desert and beverages then capped off with this. Tremendous!

Graham asks what I was thinking. Would love to have said it was my intention from the start, unfortunately no. The Redux came from my copy of Apocalypse Now, one of my all time favourite movies and my edition is the Redux one with nearly an hour of extra footage and released in 2001.

Redux in general use means 'brought back' or 'resurgent' which I thought was appropriate for my return to the forum. Not sure how long I will be around this time but I have no intention of changing it now. What a ripper!

My guess is Cohenite went looking me up on Google and found this at the top of the list;
http://steeleinlove.com/grapplingredux.html Pretty tame for a porn star though. It actually appears to be a character used in writing challenges of some sort. Note the different authors;
http://krebsfiles.com/challenge2.html

Not going to let Cohenite's little inaccuracy spoil the fun though.

Dear Poirot,

I'm sorry you felt the need to leave this place and was feeling kind of like I had abandoned you and Foxy to the usual suspects. I'm not sure how long I'm back for but jump in if you feel that way inclined. The sharks may look scary but on the whole they are pretty toothless.

That's the spirit steele, better to be a porn wannabe then not to try at all.

I hate to disabuse you though; I didn't google, your name just rang a bell and I remembered that great movie set in a time when porn was something more innocent and was at worst a tool for the left to oppose the staidness of the conservative deniers. So I spent about as much time on your name as you guys do on the AGW science, which is to say zilch.

Speaking of the science there is some really meaty stuff in England's paper. Raycom has raised another very valid point, which is England's paper is evidence that natural factors can dominate AGW.

The notion of the heat penetrating the ocean skin and being thrust down to the bottom by the winds though is just grade z schlock.

I'm also disappointed with agro; he comes across as all dominant and scientifically virile yet runs away at the first sign of a bit of resistance. He has his way and promises much but rarely delivers and can dish it out but not take it. I mean I still carry the psychological welts from his descriptions of me as a chump and as dumb. I'm tearing up even as I write this just thinking about his hurtful comments and his preference for silly little poirot. But I still forgive him and even now find comfort in the good times we had.

Turning back to the article I'd really like someone to have a crack at the OLR surging up from the surface and erupting into the black void of space. After all if that heat is OLR it can't also be warming the ocean bottom.

Looks like its all up to you steele; let's see if you can get on top of the OLR heat.

Graham Young,

You know full well how abusive Anthony Cox through his nom de plume is - a history of vitriol and invective.

So yes, I can agree with you (to some extent) - you are naive.

Either that or it's one rule for them and one rule for cohenite and his acolytes.

Ok, it's a way to make a 'buck' - pitting one opinion against another - you do it well.

However, I would also agree that this "opinion" site is a waste of time.

Cohenite/Anthony
Your article does not appear to coincide with reality.

Are you serious when you quote Lord Monckton of all people on climate change ? The guy may have an excellent classical education but a climate scientist he ain´t.

OK then you show a graphic from the Skeptical science global trend calculator. You claim that 17 years is an adequate time frame to identify a warming trend. So that means we start in 1996, which does not produce the graph you produced at the start of your article. I don´t care which data set you use. Only by using 1997 can you get a result close to yours. Which is one year short and then only by using the RSS data set, but if you use any of the other 7 sets and you get a positive trend. I recommend sticking to the legal profession, fruit picking is not as nearly as well paid.

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

Then we go onto a wonderful graphic attributed to Roy Spencer, showing that global sea wind variability had actually declined, which is all very interesting, but totally irrelevant to what has happened over a a relatively small part of the equatorial pacific since 2000. There is no doubt the data supports Matthew English analysis (and the other 9 climate scientists).

To finish off the pretty pictures you provide another graphic which proves beyond reasonable doubt that when the surface gets hotter, the earth radiates more energy which is hardly surprising, but what we really need to know is whether increasing levels of Co2 and GHGs are absorbing a bigger chunk of the earth´s outgoing long wave spectrum over time, and this indeed has been found to be the case. This has been measured by various satellites such as the NASA IRIS, NASA AIRS satellite, AURA satellite, and the Japanese IMG satellite.

This site gives a neat explanation of the greenhouse effect. It is not necessary to understand the maths to get the point.
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/greenhouse-effect-revisited/

The graphic below demonstrates the close match between theoretical and practicable measurements of the short-wave radiation of the atmosphere.

http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/olr-toa-goody-1989-499px.png?w=500

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=35

Dear Cohenite,

Well sir, if you had not looked my name up and made an honest mistake, and from my side I certainly had no intention of referencing a porn star, then Ozdoc's charge strands. You used the term 'porno man' entirely without justification in order to denigrate someone who was challenging your views.

Should that be an acceptable standard for and author on OLO? I think Ozdoc had every justification for raising the matter especially as he had no inkling when he did it of the offence its use may or may not have occasioned.

I certainly feel authors should be held to a higher standard and for you to have attacked Lyn Bender's piece in the manner you did was indeed a sad reflection on yourself and certainly not in keeping with the afore mentioned standard.

For the record you called her piece 'repugnant', 'garbage', accused her of writing “papers that are based on lies and deceit” off using “alleged 'facts'”, “complete misrepresentation, in short a lie”, and “This is not just delusional it is fanatical”. All in the space of a single post.

Fine, let's make it personal.

Just for you Ozdoc:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7580

Hamilton left because this site just dared to give sceptics a venue. Now you disdain this site because this sceptic is rude. Hamilton supports Finkelstein, breaking the law and suspending democracy yet you find my rudeness less palatable then that [I presume you support Hamilton]. If so that's warped.

Steele I didn't have to look up your name, I recollected it; your name and your views deserve no more attention then that. With Bender's article, I don't resile at all; the inner city greenies and their indulgences have a lot to answer for.

Warmair, England is wrong, or Vecchi is wrong; take your pick.

Your stuff about OLR is merely a potted lesson about spectrums and the Greenhouse effect; I've read them. They still doesn't address the point that OLR is increasing. Your point that increased OLR reflects a raised temperature may be true as this graph of OLR and temperature shows:

http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20CPC%20EquatorOutgoingLWradiationAnomalyMonthly%20and%20HadCRUT3%20since1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif

But the crucial issue is what is heating the surface; it can't be AGW because the relevant wavelengths are leaving as the increased OLR shows!

Nor can that radiation be heating the ocean.

As for temperature. I think this is amazing; the purpose of the exercise was to find the length of any negative or flat trend. How else could you do that except finding the furthest negative trend from the present and then seeing if that trend is maintained?

I prefer Brozek's analysis along with Nick Stokes to that of that dubious site SKS; Brozek uses the data and methods of NOAA, UEACRU and SKS to ascertain the negative trends in all the indices, with RSS the longest, and he's still wrong!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/03/statistical-significances-how-long-is-the-pause-now-includes-september-data/

Personally I'm glad I upset and offend you people. I started this debate nearly 10 years ago, sticking to the science and asking for answers; I've been abused continually, outrageously and unfairly; so too bad if you don't like my lack of manners. I'll always put the science first but I'm sure not tolerating any more garbage from alarmists.

It doesn't take much study of the Global warming scam to see that a quite large number of academics are pretty despicable people. Some are even using the current Victorian bush fires, & the UK floods to prop up their fraud.

That anyone can do this & ignore the freezing of most of the US shows how disgusting they are. Disgusting is really too weak an adjective for these people.

It is going to take at least 30 years for their reputation to be rehabilitated, & that is only if another group of them don't use another scam to line their pockets & those of our universities.

As the climate continues to cool, & the realization of the rip off sinks in, there is going to be a howling for blood by the general public. If there is any justice they will get it in spades.

cohenite:

"Personally I'm glad I upset and offend you people..."

There you have it, folks.

........

Graham,

"Ozdoc, you've wasted all our time in an attempt to shut down a debating rival on a false accusation. Perhaps next time you might ask for clarification from the rival before running to the umpire..."

What sort of impartial moderation is that?

Truth be known, it's your bias that usually gives incentive for "progressives" (as you call them) to finally exit OLO. I know a few who have left OLO ultimately because of personal run-ins with you (Squeers, bonmot and myself - to name but a few of the more recent)

We "progressives" don't mind being pinged if we break the code - but recent being pinged if we haven't.

On top of that, the likes of cohenite abuses and insults daily with seeming impunity - and you not only ignore it, but often stump up to defend it.

Poor show....

OZDOC

'utternutter, Hey utternutter, Nutter, Jester on the Sideline, I told him he was nutty, 'Slippery as a Butcher's dick', an upstart climate wannabe, Who in the hell do you think you are?’, ‘Some trumped up legal type..., the Munich Mob. A bunch of any excuse to do nothing' miscreants, a bunch of climate sceptics, You really are a piece of work. Time to grow up, You have just out nutted imajulianutter , You had my derision but now you have my sympathy. You really do need a Bex and a good lie down, your piffle, you old reprobate, the other kid in class has been so rude trying to butt in all the time, to make your case must almost be considered a form of mental illness. No need to return my pill bottle any time soon, What a clown, you create a cloud of virtually incomprehensible crap,from the doubters.'

All this disrespect and derision from someone who pompously pronounces to the world;

‘Disagree strongly with their arguments if you will but treat them with some respect.’
SteeleRedux, Friday, 17 January 2014 7:38:42 PM

The same bloke who when confronted with his own witlessness pronounces, on two occasions
'I did not set out to be completely historically accurate...'

and witlessly raves on in raptures with the following:

'Us adult entertainers care about the environment too!'
Oh what an absolute blast'

'But I must confess finding the name Steele Redux linked to a porno star, or at least a handsome womaniser, has made my bloody night'

'I have no intention of changing it now. What a ripper!'

then suddenly is affronted:

...from my side I certainly had no intention of referencing a porn star,' You used the term 'porno man' entirely without justification in order to denigrate someone who was challenging your views'

Jeez seriously Ozdoc you went in to bat for this person. No wonder Graham reacted the way he did. I bet he's having a grand wry laugh.

I can’t believe this confected distraction by the chicken-little brigade. How terrible for you Poirot, you must be traumatised. Do they have grief counsellors for alarmists?

Graham doesn’t defend me, nor should he.

I get accused of abuse when I ridicule the arguments put forward to justify AGW. People take that personally because AGW is a belief.

I have never complained about anyone nor sought to censor. I find these complaints by you and the others to be tried and tested means used by lefties to get their way. Everywhere we look we see people bullied and bludgeoned into submission about AGW.

Why don’t you criticise the science I put forward instead of linking to SKS and making languid, superior retorts? And,just to be precise which are you objecting to: my antagonism towards AGW or the manner in which I express that antagonism?

Anyway in regard to me calling Steele porno man as I said I recollected that was a character’s name in the Movie Boogie Nights. I have just checked and no main character was called that so whether it was mentioned in passing in the movie or I have confused SteeleRedux with other sources such as these I can’t say without siting down and watching the movie again; why don’t you watch it and report back Poirot:

http://steeleinlove.com/grapplingredux.html

http://steeleinlove.com/sensitivesteeleredux.html

And incidentally just once I would like from you precious types one compelling bit of evidence by way of rebuttal. Despite Agro promising much I haven’t had one since Bugsy took up cudgels when I was commenting on the article about the Knoor paper and the AF:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14581&page=0

Where did Bugsy go; he really pushed me on that subject?

As a matter of interest Poirot do you think porno man, in the context above, is a more serious insult then denier with its Nazi and Holocaust connotations?

Warmair, I agree England’s wind analysis is for a very small area. But his is modelled accelerated wind; what assumptions has he used to justify the modelled acceleration in this small area?

And of course the scarlet Poriot finds she has to continue to read olo and returns to infect us with a little more of her venom.

Oh gosh, everyone's off sooking. Poor dears.

Here's an idea. Just one of the alarmists, agro, steel, ozdoc, Poirot etc, write their article about how AGW is right, put up some evidence and put themselves out there. How about that, instead of whinging about how rude I am, put out some evidence, a couple of graphs, some pictures, put me in my place.

So, let's see if they want to do that.

Have already - published in real science journals.

Not wasting any more time with you on an opinion site.

Ozdoc

Given your judgements in relation to witless and cohenite I'd love to critique those article you have published.

Can you please reference them or link them?

Yes Ozdoc, you've been such a stern critic of my comments; I think we deserve to see what you've published. Has it been on climate and if not, what area of science?

Seems they've all sooked off.

cohenite,

I'm presuming ozdoc is trained in one or several disciplines related to climate and has published papers in scientific journals. Obviously he would lose his anonymity if he was to link to them - and real scientists protect themselves for good reason in the current "climate".

Can't do much about that.

There is a world of difference between peer-reviewed publication and getting an article up on an opinion site.

(imajulianutter - I avoided OLO completely for a good number of weeks, but had a peek recently and got lured back for a bit...time to toddle off once more:)

Now that's unreasonable Poirot. Ozdoc has been a fierce critic of my work. If he is a trained scientist in the field of climate he should at least say so; after all both bonmot and Q&A made their claims about their scientific credentials and of course I gave them much more respect thereafter.

Ozdoc should be proud of his qualifications and allow us plebs a chance to read something an expert has written.

I'm still wondering about agro and bugsy; maybe they've got none but are just really, really smart.

Incidentally what are your qualifications Poirot?

cohenite,

".... after all both bonmot and Q&A made their claims about their scientific credentials and of course I gave them much more respect thereafter."

You jest, surely?

If anything, you gave them less respect.

You may have respected them more internally, but that didn't translate to courteous behaviour on your part - and gave rise to a similar reaction from them.

It's the reason why real scientists don't frequent sites like this.

I can't fool you Poirot, you're too perceptive, you see right through me. Are you sure you're not a scientist too?

What's your latest tip about AGW, any good papers, articles we should be aware of? I find all your links and references interesting.

For mine Max's latest article on wind turbines hits the spot; and it dovetails very nicely with this article about England, another AGW scientist deserving of respect, and his bad wind.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=16027&page=0

I bet you support wind power Poirot.

Poirot

'Obviously he would lose his anonymity if he was to link to them - and real scientists protect themselves for good reason in the current "climate".'

Then instead of you should assuming so, why doesn't he come out and say so.

In the past climate very courageous Anti AGW scientists came out and expressed their views.

Boy you'd have to agree they copped heaps and we who supported were labelled with that disgraceful name 'Denialists'

Yes now the climate has changed and warming is being seen for what it is and incredibly many of it's science supporters now crave anonimity because ... they are scared of being called few names? ... or because their reputations and future grants will be utterly trashed?... or simply because they are wrong?

You suffer the fools, I won't. And I won't spare them either until they admit and retract their wrongheaded views.

As for the likes of witless well let's see, he enters a debate with the following:

'Ah ha. This is where all the fun it to be had! Bonza!

Then when faced with his own witlessness he throws about silly excuses and sneaks quietly out the back door.

Cohenite
Quote
¨They still doesn't address the point that OLR is increasing.

Your point that increased OLR reflects a raised temperature may be true as this graph of OLR and temperature shows:¨

http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20CPC%20EquatorOutgoingLWradiationAnomalyMonthly%20and%20HadCRUT3%20since1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif

Actually it does not and I was wrong.
Now to address the reason that OLR has indeed increased since 2001. I made the rash assumption that because a higher surface temperature radiates more OLR than a cooler one, then it was a perfectly logical that this would also be true at the top of the atmosphere. Surprisingly this is almost the exact opposite of what happens. The reason is that convection alters the whole picture, when the surface is warmer convection causes both the clouds and the thermals to reach a higher altitude. Now a thermal when it rises expands and cools but this process is adiabatic, which simply means that no heat is being lost from the system. Because the clouds and thermals have now reached a higher altitude they are colder and therefore emit less radiation. So when we look at the graph in the link above we find that the higher surface temperatures equate to less OLR being and emitted and conversely lower surface temperatures lead to more OLR being emitted. This process amplifies the direction of the the temperature change. Now it is generally acknowledged that a doubling of CO2 will directly raise temperatures by about 1 Deg C but unfortunately raising the temperature appears to reduce outgoing OLR thus further amplifying the temperature increase.

warmair, I won't go through your answer about adiabatic effects caused by convection because broadly it is correct; but in that answer you ignore the FACT that satellite measurements for 30 years show INCREASED OLR.

That's a fact.

All the theory about atmospheric processes is secondary to that fact.

If you are interested look at Mike Hammer's analysis of this OLR data. Mike is a professional engineer with considerable experience in spectroscopy.

http://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/AGW_Falsified_Michael_Hammer.pdf

Mike notes:

"This strongly suggests that OLR is modulated both by temperature and emissivity, the latter probably due to season changes in water vapour levels."

Emissivity is determined by the type of surface, land, water, ice etc. which explains the variation in latitudinal emissivity and therefore OLR.

So the issue is not so much a product of vertical mixing factors but horizontal differences.

Regardless, the OLR is not DECREASING but INCREASING; as Mike says that is incompatible with AGW.

cohenite

I don't understand the importance of outgoing long-range radiation to warming. Simply I understand it means heat is going out of the atmosphere.
I understand the importance of surface temps, ice caps, Durinal Temp range and sea levels in climate change where does OLR, heat loss, sit in relation.

OLR is the key to AGW because the AGW hypothesis states that human CO2 will block radiation from leaving the Earth; according to AGW the effect of that blockage would see increased energy in the atmosphere [ie the Earth Energy Balance {EEB} will increase due to the blocked radiation] and that extra energy would be available to be not only converted into increased temperature but be an energy source for further extreme weather, storms, heatwaves, cyclones, droughts, dogs sleeping with cats, hell on Earth etc.

Faced with the fact that none of these 'effects' of radiation blockage are occurring the AGW think-tank came up with the solution to the 'missing heat', the ocean bottom.

There is direct evidence that the mechanisms [ie winds] for getting that radiation/heat to the ocean bottom are wrong and that the Ocean Heat Content [OHC] is not increasing [certainly at the surface and to 700 meters] but the real killer to OHC not increasing is OLR increasing and if OLR is increasing the EEB must be decreasing.

If the EEB is decreasing there is no energy to power AGW.

The OLR is a direct measurement, real data which is why it is such a contradiction to AGW.

Cohenite
I had a look at your link broadly he is on the right track but does not makes a couple of serious errors.
Quote
¨This strongly suggests that OLR is modulated both by temperature and emissivity,¨
Agreed but
Quote
¨the latter probably due to season changes in water vapour levels.¨

This is wrong the difference is not directly due to water vapour levels but is a consequence of convection.

Quote
¨The AGW theory claims the earth is warming because rising CO2 is like a blanket, reducing Earth’s energy loss to space¨

No that is a failure to understand the so called greenhouse effect. CO2 does not block or necessarily reduce OLR it simply absorbs and emits long wave radiation and transfers some of it as heat to the rest of the atmosphere and a portion of it back to the surface as radiation.

¨the NOAA data shows that at least for the last 30 years Earth’s energy loss to space has been rising.¨
Appears to be true.

¨The last 30 years of NOAA data is not compatible with the theory of AGW. It would appear that either 30 years of NOAA data is wrong or the theory of AGW is very severely flawed.¨

Rising or falling OLR is not tightly related to surface Temperatures as your link proved previously.
The important point is that GHGs and CFCs alter the temperature profile of the atmosphere. Temperatures in the stratospheric and above have fallen with dramatic falls at extremely high altitudes, whereas at the surface temperatures have risen. Therefore it is just as reasonable to argue that OLR should have increased to account for the temperature fall at altitude, especially as the temperature drop at altitude is greater than the rise at the surface.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/images/msu_1978-2010.png

http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/strato_cooling.asp

warmair, water plays a large part in convection, a wet lapse rate is different from a dry one, but I don't get the connection with emissivity. The spectrum clearly shows that water vapour absorption is more widespread than CO2 and when the 2 overlap WV will dominate; see Modtran:

http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Caryl_11.png

The graph shows that backradiation from CO2 is only present when WV is less than 1% humidity.

In respect of OLR Ramanathan has shown that the emissivity of WV is nearly 3 times greater than CO2 so the effect on OLR means that if WV is not absorbing OLR there is a 25% increase compared to a 9% increase if CO2 is not absorbing:

http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/ramanathan-coakley-1978-role-of-co2.png

What I take from this is that the presence or not of WV is the main factor in determining what level of OLR there is.

Generally WV levels have been falling:

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

So with less WV more OLR is occurring. This of course confirms what MIskolczi said in his 2010 paper [see page 243]:

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/EE_21-4_paradigm_shift_output_limited_3_Mb.pdf

Quote
Cohenite
¨warmair, water plays a large part in convection, a wet lapse rate is different from a dry one, but I don't get the connection with emissivity.¨

Convection and water vapour via latent heat deliver most of the heat from the surface to the upper levels of the troposphere where the inversion layer stops convection. If for some reason the cloud tops or the thermals reach a higher level then they will be colder and as the amount of radiation that is emitted is proportional to temperature OLR will decrease.

This does not conflict with standard greenhouse theory, it is just part of the dynamics of the atmosphere. The important level in the atmosphere is the altitude where OLR and ISR are equal and this occurs where the atmosphere is -18 Deg C, typically some 5 to 6Km or around 550 Mb above the surface. You can estimate water vapour content for a wide variety of places, at height using the aerological diagrams.
Just click a location on the map here:-
http://www.bom.gov.au/aviation/observations/aerological-diagrams/
or
Here
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/Dewpoint.jpg

Quote
Cohenite
¨The graph shows that backradiation from CO2 is only present when WV is less than 1% humidity.¨

For any particular place you will find that at 5 to 6 Km above the surface the water vapour content is somewhere around 0.5 and 3 grams/Kg or between 0.05% and 0.2% which is well below the 1% figure you quoted above and therefore CO2 becomes important.

http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/06/02/water-vapor-trends
http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/06/05/water-vapor-trends-part-two/

I would doubt that Miskolczi is right he appears to confuse emission with emissivity in relation to Kirchhoff law. He also argues that water vapour will fall as GHGs increase which seems unlikely given Clausius-Clapeyron law which governs the relationship between rising temperatures and evaporation. The data does not appear to support him either, total precipitable water vapour TPW is estimated to be increasing at a rate of about 0.9 +or- 0.06 mm/decade .

http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/soden-et-al-2005-water-vapor-ssmi.png

Miskolczi was and still is a leading atmospheric physicist; I don't think he confuses emission with emissivity; consider his 2004 paper written under the auspices of NASA about the Optical Depth, OD, of the atmosphere which goes to the point:

http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/envirophilo/Clear.pdf

The issue is has Water vapour declined. Pierece et al in 2006 thought not:

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

Paltridge et al in 2009 thought so:

http://www.klimatupplysningen.se/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/paltridgearkingpook.pdf

Dessler, who is AGW's 'water' man contradicted Paltridge who replied here:

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/11/dessler-2010-how-to-call-vast-amounts-of-data-spurious/#comment-125086

Soloman, who is definitely AGW mainstream thought SH, particularly high SH was declining with a cooling effect:

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

And then there is the reanalysis results of SH considered here by van Andell:

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/02/the-oceans-clouds-and-cosmic-rays-drive-the-climate-not-co2/

The point is, there is considerable evidence, the constant OD, a declining SH and an increasing OLR, to explain flat temperatures. Either the CO2 effect is real and is being countered by natural factors or the CO2 is insignificant to begin with.

Damn, that first paper by Pierce et al, showed SH declining!