Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
THE TOTAL FALACY OF MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING!
66 views
Skip to first unread message
Harry Merrick
May 17, 2012, 12:15:29 PM5/17/12
to
Well, as always, at least I have been consistent in my beliefs that
like it or not, Climate Change and Global Warming are natural
occurrences virtually unaffected by the works of man. Here we have Roy
W. Spencer Ph.D saying precisely that. All beliefs to the contrary are
merely biased assumptions based upon wishful thinking and NO actual
science. I re-print Spencers opinions herewith in the vain hope that
the usual persons may gather at least some intellectual benefit:
Global Warming
“Global warming” refers to the global-average temperature increase
that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to
many politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that
mankind is responsible for that warming. This website describes
evidence from my group’s government-funded research that suggests
global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite
insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol
pollution.
Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search
for natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that
global warming is manmade. This assumption is rather easy for
scientists since we do not have enough accurate global data for a long
enough period of time to see whether there are natural warming
mechanisms at work.
The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
claims that the only way they can get their computerized climate
models to produce the observed warming is with anthropogenic
(human-caused) pollution. But they’re not going to find something if
they don’t search for it. More than one scientist has asked me, “What
else COULD it be?” Well, the answer to that takes a little digging…
and as I show, one doesn’t have to dig very far.
But first let’s examine the basics of why so many scientists think
global warming is manmade. Earth’s atmosphere contains natural
greenhouse gases (mostly water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane)
which act to keep the lower layers of the atmosphere warmer than they
otherwise would be without those gases. Greenhouse gases trap infrared
radiation — the radiant heat energy that the Earth naturally emits to
outer space in response to solar heating. Mankind’s burning of fossil
fuels (mostly coal, petroleum, and natural gas) releases carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere and this is believed to be enhancing the
Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. As of 2008, the concentration of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 40% to 45% higher than it
was before the start of the industrial revolution in the 1800’s.
It is interesting to note that, even though carbon dioxide is
necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it
in Earth’s atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000
molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions 5
more years to increase that number by 1, to 40.
The “Holy Grail”: Climate Sensitivity Figuring out how much past
warming is due to mankind, and how much more we can expect in the
future, depends upon something called “climate sensitivity”. This is
the temperature response of the Earth to a given amount of ‘radiative
forcing’, of which there are two kinds: a change in either the amount
of sunlight absorbed by the Earth, or in the infrared energy the Earth
emits to outer space.
The ‘consensus’ of opinion is that the Earth’s climate sensitivity is
quite high, and so warming of about 0.25 deg. C to 0.5 deg. C (about
0.5 deg. F to 0.9 deg. F) every 10 years can be expected for as long
as mankind continues to use fossil fuels as our primary source of
energy. NASA’s James Hansen claims that climate sensitivity is very
high, and that we have already put too much extra CO2 in the
atmosphere. Presumably this is why he and Al Gore are campaigning for
a moratorium on the construction of any more coal-fired power plants
in the U.S.
You would think that we’d know the Earth’s ‘climate sensitivity’ by
now, but it has been surprisingly difficult to determine. How
atmospheric processes like clouds and precipitation systems respond to
warming is critical, as they are either amplifying the warming, or
reducing it. This website currently concentrates on the response of
clouds to warming, an issue which I am now convinced the scientific
community has totally misinterpreted when they have measured natural,
year-to-year fluctuations in the climate system. As a result of that
confusion, they have the mistaken belief that climate sensitivity is
high, when in fact the satellite evidence suggests climate sensitivity
is low.
The case for natural climate change I also present an analysis of the
Pacific Decadal Oscillation which shows that most climate change might
well be the result of….the climate system itself! Because small,
chaotic fluctuations in atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems
can cause small changes in global average cloudiness, this is all that
is necessary to cause climate change. You don’t need the sun, or any
other ‘external’ influence (although these are also possible…but for
now I’ll let others work on that). It is simply what the climate
system does. This is actually quite easy for meteorologists to
believe, since we understand how complex weather processes are. Your
local TV meteorologist is probably a closet ’skeptic’ regarding
mankind’s influence on climate.
Climate change — it happens, with or without our help.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/
I await comment with interest!
Harry Merrick.
like it or not, Climate Change and Global Warming are natural
occurrences virtually unaffected by the works of man. Here we have Roy
W. Spencer Ph.D saying precisely that. All beliefs to the contrary are
merely biased assumptions based upon wishful thinking and NO actual
science. I re-print Spencers opinions herewith in the vain hope that
the usual persons may gather at least some intellectual benefit:
Global Warming
“Global warming” refers to the global-average temperature increase
that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to
many politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that
mankind is responsible for that warming. This website describes
evidence from my group’s government-funded research that suggests
global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite
insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol
pollution.
Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search
for natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that
global warming is manmade. This assumption is rather easy for
scientists since we do not have enough accurate global data for a long
enough period of time to see whether there are natural warming
mechanisms at work.
The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
claims that the only way they can get their computerized climate
models to produce the observed warming is with anthropogenic
(human-caused) pollution. But they’re not going to find something if
they don’t search for it. More than one scientist has asked me, “What
else COULD it be?” Well, the answer to that takes a little digging…
and as I show, one doesn’t have to dig very far.
But first let’s examine the basics of why so many scientists think
global warming is manmade. Earth’s atmosphere contains natural
greenhouse gases (mostly water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane)
which act to keep the lower layers of the atmosphere warmer than they
otherwise would be without those gases. Greenhouse gases trap infrared
radiation — the radiant heat energy that the Earth naturally emits to
outer space in response to solar heating. Mankind’s burning of fossil
fuels (mostly coal, petroleum, and natural gas) releases carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere and this is believed to be enhancing the
Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. As of 2008, the concentration of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 40% to 45% higher than it
was before the start of the industrial revolution in the 1800’s.
It is interesting to note that, even though carbon dioxide is
necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it
in Earth’s atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000
molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions 5
more years to increase that number by 1, to 40.
The “Holy Grail”: Climate Sensitivity Figuring out how much past
warming is due to mankind, and how much more we can expect in the
future, depends upon something called “climate sensitivity”. This is
the temperature response of the Earth to a given amount of ‘radiative
forcing’, of which there are two kinds: a change in either the amount
of sunlight absorbed by the Earth, or in the infrared energy the Earth
emits to outer space.
The ‘consensus’ of opinion is that the Earth’s climate sensitivity is
quite high, and so warming of about 0.25 deg. C to 0.5 deg. C (about
0.5 deg. F to 0.9 deg. F) every 10 years can be expected for as long
as mankind continues to use fossil fuels as our primary source of
energy. NASA’s James Hansen claims that climate sensitivity is very
high, and that we have already put too much extra CO2 in the
atmosphere. Presumably this is why he and Al Gore are campaigning for
a moratorium on the construction of any more coal-fired power plants
in the U.S.
You would think that we’d know the Earth’s ‘climate sensitivity’ by
now, but it has been surprisingly difficult to determine. How
atmospheric processes like clouds and precipitation systems respond to
warming is critical, as they are either amplifying the warming, or
reducing it. This website currently concentrates on the response of
clouds to warming, an issue which I am now convinced the scientific
community has totally misinterpreted when they have measured natural,
year-to-year fluctuations in the climate system. As a result of that
confusion, they have the mistaken belief that climate sensitivity is
high, when in fact the satellite evidence suggests climate sensitivity
is low.
The case for natural climate change I also present an analysis of the
Pacific Decadal Oscillation which shows that most climate change might
well be the result of….the climate system itself! Because small,
chaotic fluctuations in atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems
can cause small changes in global average cloudiness, this is all that
is necessary to cause climate change. You don’t need the sun, or any
other ‘external’ influence (although these are also possible…but for
now I’ll let others work on that). It is simply what the climate
system does. This is actually quite easy for meteorologists to
believe, since we understand how complex weather processes are. Your
local TV meteorologist is probably a closet ’skeptic’ regarding
mankind’s influence on climate.
Climate change — it happens, with or without our help.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/
I await comment with interest!
Harry Merrick.
Dawlish
May 17, 2012, 12:57:03 PM5/17/12
to
He's tried to publish it and no-one will now bite, so he's reduced to
putting his opinion on his blog instead. Over a million scientists
have a different opinion, as does every scientific institution in the
world, every national science academy and every single government that
attended Cancun.
How come they are all wrong and an old creationist like Spencer is
correct?
SunDancer
May 17, 2012, 2:17:10 PM5/17/12
to
Dawlish wrote :
>
--
The Dawlish : Weather is not climate unless I say it is.
>
--
The Dawlish : Weather is not climate unless I say it is.
$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto
May 17, 2012, 2:39:46 PM5/17/12
to
opinion of the validity of the theory.
Dawlish
May 17, 2012, 2:46:03 PM5/17/12
to
On May 17, 7:39 pm, "$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto"
> opinion of the validity of the theory.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You will be long dead and so will every other human on the planet and
many of their descendents before there is "proof". This is science. I
know that is beyond crazies like you, but this really is science.
There is unlikely to be proof, perhaps ever, but the planet is very
likely to continue warming and the cause is very likely to be CO2.
>
> - Show quoted text -
You will be long dead and so will every other human on the planet and
many of their descendents before there is "proof". This is science. I
know that is beyond crazies like you, but this really is science.
There is unlikely to be proof, perhaps ever, but the planet is very
likely to continue warming and the cause is very likely to be CO2.
erschro...@gmail.com
May 17, 2012, 3:51:06 PM5/17/12
to
On May 17, 12:15 pm, Harry Merrick <Homes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Well, as always, at least I have been consistent in my beliefs that
> like it or not, Climate Change and Global Warming are natural
> occurrences virtually unaffected by the works of man.
And that the earth is 6000 years old, I suspect.
> Well, as always, at least I have been consistent in my beliefs that
> like it or not, Climate Change and Global Warming are natural
> occurrences virtually unaffected by the works of man.
>Here we have Roy
> W. Spencer Ph.D saying precisely that. All beliefs to the contrary are
> merely biased assumptions based upon wishful thinking and NO actual
> science.
imaginary.
>I re-print Spencers opinions herewith in the vain hope that
> the usual persons may gather at least some intellectual benefit:
>
> Global Warming
>
> “Global warming” refers to the global-average temperature increase
> that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to
> many politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that
> mankind is responsible for that warming. This website describes
> evidence from my group’s government-funded research that suggests
> global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite
> insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol
> pollution.
>
> Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search
> for natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that
> global warming is manmade.
>This assumption is rather easy for
> scientists since we do not have enough accurate global data for a long
> enough period of time to see whether there are natural warming
> mechanisms at work.
>
> The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
> claims that the only way they can get their computerized climate
> models to produce the observed warming is with anthropogenic
> (human-caused) pollution. But they’re not going to find something if
> they don’t search for it.
>More than one scientist has asked me, “What
> else COULD it be?” Well, the answer to that takes a little digging…
> and as I show, one doesn’t have to dig very far.
>
> But first let’s examine the basics of why so many scientists think
> global warming is manmade. Earth’s atmosphere contains natural
> greenhouse gases (mostly water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane)
> which act to keep the lower layers of the atmosphere warmer than they
> otherwise would be without those gases. Greenhouse gases trap infrared
> radiation — the radiant heat energy that the Earth naturally emits to
> outer space in response to solar heating. Mankind’s burning of fossil
> fuels (mostly coal, petroleum, and natural gas) releases carbon
> dioxide into the atmosphere and this is believed to be enhancing the
> Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. As of 2008, the concentration of
> carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 40% to 45% higher than it
> was before the start of the industrial revolution in the 1800’s.
>
> It is interesting to note that, even though carbon dioxide is
> necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it
> in Earth’s atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000
> molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions 5
> more years to increase that number by 1, to 40.
body mass.
If 99 physicians told you that you had cancer and needed an operation,
and 1 said there's no such thing as cancer, what would you do?
Dawlish
May 17, 2012, 4:18:47 PM5/17/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well lobster, who is, apparently, eagerly waiting in his lobstery cave
> - Show quoted text -
for comments. <laughing
Tom P
May 17, 2012, 6:43:20 PM5/17/12
to
vapour in the atmosphere- on average about ten times as many H2O
molecules as CO2. Most of the WV is concentrated in the lower
troposphere of the tropics.
Despite this, the WV content is sufficient to warm the planet by 30 degrees.
So X water molecules can maintain 30 degrees, how much can X WV
molecules plus X/10 CO2 maintain? That gives you a ballpark idea, and
although it's more complicated than that, because CO2 is evenly mixed
and is present in the upper atmosphere and polar regions where WV is
much thinner, the effect is additive.
As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000
> molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions 5
> more years to increase that number by 1, to 40.
>
higher than that.
> The case for natural climate change I also present an analysis of the
> Pacific Decadal Oscillation which shows that most climate change might
> well be the result of….the climate system itself! Because small,
> chaotic fluctuations in atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems
> can cause small changes in global average cloudiness, this is all that
> is necessary to cause climate change.
Nobody disputes that the decadal scale fluctuations are most likely
caused by the PDO and other such periodic patterns in the
ocean-atmosphere system. However because they are periodic, they do NOT
explain the long term increase.
gordo
May 17, 2012, 10:37:28 PM5/17/12
to
friend and I enjoyed his wit and how he handled my education of what
was happening in Ireland at that time. I have pictures of his home and
family. Most people we swear at in this newsgroup are total strangers
but it is great from time to time if we could consider that the person
you are attacking is an old friend.
So Harry if I go on the attack in this newsgroup I hope you can see
that it is not personal. Say hello to your wife, she must be great to
put up with the likes of you :-)
kym horsell
May 17, 2012, 10:24:16 PM5/17/12
to
On Friday, May 18, 2012 5:51:06 AM UTC+10, erschro...@gmail.com wrote:
...
The telling feature is that the comment is *self contradictory*.
Viz that a tiny amount of CO2 is vital to life on earth, yet a 40% change in that amount is ignorable.
Classic doublethink aided by seeing everything in "old school" absolute rather than relative terms.
--
Peter Webb wrote:
>Absolute crap.
>You can't even tell me the rate at which the earth is warming. Indeed, given
>that 2011 was cooler than 2010 (the last years for which we have data), the
>earth is cooling.
If you should ever begin to wonder how everyone knows you're a
shit-bot, look back at the paragraph above.
-- Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net>, 18 Mar 2012 10:13 -0500
...
> > It is interesting to note that, even though carbon dioxide is
> > necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it
> > in Earth’s atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000
> > molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions 5
> > more years to increase that number by 1, to 40.
>
> So? A toxic dose of ricin would be an even smaller fraction of your
> body mass.
...
> > necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it
> > in Earth’s atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000
> > molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions 5
> > more years to increase that number by 1, to 40.
>
> So? A toxic dose of ricin would be an even smaller fraction of your
> body mass.
The telling feature is that the comment is *self contradictory*.
Viz that a tiny amount of CO2 is vital to life on earth, yet a 40% change in that amount is ignorable.
Classic doublethink aided by seeing everything in "old school" absolute rather than relative terms.
--
Peter Webb wrote:
>Absolute crap.
>You can't even tell me the rate at which the earth is warming. Indeed, given
>that 2011 was cooler than 2010 (the last years for which we have data), the
>earth is cooling.
If you should ever begin to wonder how everyone knows you're a
shit-bot, look back at the paragraph above.
-- Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net>, 18 Mar 2012 10:13 -0500
AGWFacts
May 19, 2012, 4:33:16 PM5/19/12
to
On Thu, 17 May 2012 17:15:29 +0100, Harry Merrick
<Home...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Well, as always, at least I have been consistent in my beliefs that
> like it or not, Climate Change and Global Warming are natural
> occurrences virtually unaffected by the works of man.
Why do all of the experts in the world say otherwise? How do you
<Home...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Well, as always, at least I have been consistent in my beliefs that
> like it or not, Climate Change and Global Warming are natural
> occurrences virtually unaffected by the works of man.
explain that? Over 660 science institutes and organizations in the
world say you're full of shit; not even one agrees with you.
--
"A 'crank' is defined as a man who cannot be turned." --- _Nature_, 8 Nov 1906
AGWFacts
May 19, 2012, 4:45:21 PM5/19/12
to
*CUTS*
> > Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search
> > for natural mechanisms of warming... it has simply been assumed that
> > global warming is manmade.
I love the cultist's "believe it or not." He knows the assertion
is absurd.
> Totally false. The scientific literature is full of such papers.
Literally thousands of papers on the subject. Hansen _et_al._ 1988
is a fine example:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha02700w.html
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
Climatologists have spend a massive amount of time and money
working to find, study, and quantify all known climate forcings;
if human activities are excluded, there is nothing left to fill
the gap.
> > Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search
> > global warming is manmade.
I love the cultist's "believe it or not." He knows the assertion
is absurd.
> Totally false. The scientific literature is full of such papers.
is a fine example:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha02700w.html
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
Climatologists have spend a massive amount of time and money
working to find, study, and quantify all known climate forcings;
if human activities are excluded, there is nothing left to fill
the gap.
AGWFacts
May 19, 2012, 4:52:32 PM5/19/12
to
opinion, in my opinion, matches the scientific consensus. Note
that Spencer is a "fellow" of two sinister anti-science cults, and
has received money from several petroleum corporations.
> He's tried to publish it and no-one will now bite,
> so he's reduced to
> putting his opinion on his blog instead. Over a million scientists
> have a different opinion, as does every scientific institution in the
> world, every national science academy and every single government that
> attended Cancun.
>
> How come they are all wrong and an old creationist like Spencer is
> correct?
consensus.
AGWFacts
May 19, 2012, 4:53:14 PM5/19/12
to
On Thu, 17 May 2012 11:39:46 -0700 (PDT), "$27 TRILLION to pay for
Kyoto" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Since there is no proof of global warming,
.... nor is there proof of evolution...
Kyoto" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Since there is no proof of global warming,
> it's just as much an opinion of the validity of the theory.
Fredric L. Rice
May 20, 2012, 2:55:48 PM5/20/12
to
Harry Merrick <Home...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Well, as always, at least I have been consistent in my beliefs
Your unevidenced beliefs are not relevant. Science is what matters when
>Well, as always, at least I have been consistent in my beliefs
determining truth, and science says your occult beliefs are wrong.
---
http://www.skeptictank.org/
Uncle Ben
May 20, 2012, 4:09:53 PM5/20/12
to
On May 17, 12:15 pm, Harry Merrick <Homes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Well, as always, at least I have been consistent in my beliefs that
> like it or not, Climate Change and Global Warming are natural
> occurrences virtually unaffected by the works of man. Here we have Roy
> W. Spencer Ph.D saying precisely that. All beliefs to the contrary are
> merely biased assumptions based upon wishful thinking and NO actual
> science. I re-print Spencers opinions herewith in the vain hope that
> the usual persons may gather at least some intellectual benefit:
> ----
> Well, as always, at least I have been consistent in my beliefs that
> like it or not, Climate Change and Global Warming are natural
> occurrences virtually unaffected by the works of man. Here we have Roy
> W. Spencer Ph.D saying precisely that. All beliefs to the contrary are
> merely biased assumptions based upon wishful thinking and NO actual
> science. I re-print Spencers opinions herewith in the vain hope that
> the usual persons may gather at least some intellectual benefit:
Harry Merrick, thanks for asserting the case for Roy Spencer.
Most of the anti-Spencer responses in your thread have been ad
hominen,
not worthy of grownups. And their assertion that all is opinion and
none is science
is quite false. I shall summarize the science that Spencer has
contributed.
The essence of the disagreement between the two main sides in this
dispute
is over sensitivity. Does the atmosphere amplify or diminish the
effect of CO2
in its slight warming effect? Spencer has identified an error that
most of the
warmist community has made in estimating the degree of sensitivity of
the
atmosphere to CO2.
The sensitivity is estimated from a supposed linear relationship
between
(a) the variance in the net energy imbalance of the earth in the
vacuum of space,
(that is, the difference between insolation into the top of the
atmosphere and
(b) the IR radiation back out again because of the temperature of the
earth) and
the variance in the average temperature of the earth. Many have tried
to
calculate this relationship from first principles, But to do this
requires a complete
understanding of the physical processes involved. Even Hansen admits
that we
do not have such a complete understanding.
The better alternative is to measure the sensitivity. Icf there were,
truly, a linear
relationship between (a) average dH/dt and (b) average dT, this would
be easy
because of the work of Spencer and others putting satellites into the
sky to
measure tnese two quantities over time. In the hands of the warmists,
the answer
comes back, sensitivity is at least 1.5 C warming per doubling of CO2
concentration.
Spencer notes however that to discover a relationship between two
variables, one
needs to measure them simultaneously. The ocean covers 70% of the
earth's
surface, and the sun requires a long time to raise the temperature of
the ocean
even in its top layer. So the satellite measurement of dT is not
simultaneous with
the measurement of dH/dt. If you measure a cause on Wednesday and the
effect
on Saturday, you open yourself up to error. if you try to relate the
two. In the case of
the ocean surface, the delay can be months or even years.
It is worse than that. The plots of dH/dt vs dT once a month are far
from
clean straight lines. The noise is great, mainly because the ocean
surface is
lagging in temperature and changing direction chaotically so that the
surface is
never even close to being in equilibrium. It starts to look hopeless
to measure
the wanted sensitivity. Several authors have tried lagging the data in
either
direction to get better statistics, but that is a poor way to solve
the problem, given
the chaotic flow of ocean currents.
Spencer has overcome this problem. Instead of trying to correlate a
mass of
data points that looks very noisy, he connects the points in the order
of their time
of measurement. Suddenly, the mass of points becomes a trajectory.
Much of the
time, the trajectory looks chaotic, but there are periods in which
straight lines show up.
These straight lines can be long, and they can be very straight.
This shouts for the interpretation of two distinct processes going on
in the atmosphere/
ocean system. The chaotic parts of the trajectory show the process of
the sun warming
the ocean -- a very slow, volatile process. The straight parts show a
fast process, such
as the ocean warming the atmosphere. (It happens both ways, both
warming
and cooling.) If you want to understand why these two processes have
different speeds,
ask your local physicist about the specific heats of water and air.)
The mixed character of the polot shows that sometimes one process is
stronger, while
at other times the other is stronger. The other is available from
water in strong currents
such as the gulf strean, el nino, la nina, and other slowly changing
current.
Back to sensitivity: One can separate parts of the trajectory into
the chaotic
and the linear. It can be seen that the linear parts all have very
nearly the same
slope. This slope is the sought-for linear relationship between dH/dt
and dT !
I can't explain everything in a mere post, but the sensitivity
resulting from Spencer's
analysis is no more than 0.5 C, which is well below the 1.5 C that the
IPCC
calls its lowest value with 90% confidence.
None of this involves any higher mathematics; all can be understood
by the
intelligent layman whose brain has not been washed by the "consensus."
Since
the powers that be have forbidden any major journal from publishing
his argument,
you may have to cough up $25 or so to buy his latest book.
You will find online attempted rebuttals to Spencer's argument, but I
have seen
none that show any understanding of it.
Uncle Ben
Dawlish
May 20, 2012, 6:38:55 PM5/20/12
to
that.
Explain what you said about the evoution of bison benny. Start with
that.
kym horsell
May 20, 2012, 8:40:20 PM5/20/12
to
All very amusing.
Spencer says CO2 only will force .7C.
Muller confirms .75C is seen already with only +40% pre-ind CO2.
Put together, we seem to be expecting a little more than .5C if that's Spencer's
latest sensitivity calculation (I didn't check).
If +40% CO2 has given us total +.75C warming of which .4*.7 == .28C is down
to CO2 alone as per Spencer, then seems we expect pro rata .7/.28 == 2.5C
when CO2 gets up to +100% of pre-ind.
The more you low-ball the CO2 forcing, the higher this estimate will get.
Other estimates can be obtained by TS regressing CO2 vs (e.g.) LOTI.
That gets a stat significant (and quite linear-looking) 1 ppmv CO2 giving .01C warming. I.e. sensitivity estimated at +3C.
But the correlation with the highest r2 I've seen to date is population vs
LOTI. As you might expect, just human population show take into account
energy demand as well as agric and land-clearing/city-growing practices.
And with population 10 bn c2100 that predicts a LOTI of 167 -- i.e.
around 2C above 1880 levels.
So Spencer's .5C is expecting some remarkable brakes to go on over the next 90 years.
It is possible, but would seem unlikely.
--
It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other
changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2
concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about
1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement -- it is well understood
by climate scientists. (As of 2008, we were about 40% to 45% of the
way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2.)
-- Dr Roy W. Spencer, "Global Warming 101", 2008
Uncle Ben
May 20, 2012, 9:22:43 PM5/20/12
to
> correct?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Because they assumed there is only one forcing process, when there are
>
> - Show quoted text -
two. That changes the calculation.
Bill Ward
May 20, 2012, 10:05:43 PM5/20/12
to
unfamiliar phenomenon and translate it clearly and accurately into easily
understandable form. Congratulations on your success.
Now prepare for the attack of the anklebiters. They can't stand
clarification, as it exposes their ridiculous strawman arguments for what
they are. Fortunately, no one who matters cares much what they think.
Keep up the good work.
Harry Merrick
May 22, 2012, 8:05:14 AM5/22/12
to
On Thu, 17 May 2012 19:37:28 -0700, gordo <grme...@shaw.ca.remove>
wrote:
Hi Gordo, good to hear you are OK, as indeed am I, and my family.
LOL!¬Attack away! I am sure I am well able to cope! - In any case, it
seems the majority agree with what I posted, and even W. Spencer Ph.D
is being vilified, despite his slightly odd religious beliefs so often
sneered at by the usual culprits. Oh to have a Ph.D in Climate Change
like himself. The arrogance of those without any Ph.D or merely in
Chemistry astounds! Talk about preaching outside one's expertise!!
I recommend you read Uncle Ben, who has got it about right IMO.
Harry Merrick.
wrote:
LOL!¬Attack away! I am sure I am well able to cope! - In any case, it
seems the majority agree with what I posted, and even W. Spencer Ph.D
is being vilified, despite his slightly odd religious beliefs so often
sneered at by the usual culprits. Oh to have a Ph.D in Climate Change
like himself. The arrogance of those without any Ph.D or merely in
Chemistry astounds! Talk about preaching outside one's expertise!!
I recommend you read Uncle Ben, who has got it about right IMO.
Harry Merrick.
Harry Merrick
May 22, 2012, 8:33:49 AM5/22/12
to
>On May 17, 12:15 pm, Harry Merrick <Homes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Well, as always, at least I have been consistent in my beliefs that
>> like it or not, Climate Change and Global Warming are natural
>> occurrences virtually unaffected by the works of man.
>
>And that the earth is 6000 years old, I suspect.
You only "suspect"?? - Tush, with a Chemistry Ph.D you should surely
>> Well, as always, at least I have been consistent in my beliefs that
>> like it or not, Climate Change and Global Warming are natural
>> occurrences virtually unaffected by the works of man.
>
>And that the earth is 6000 years old, I suspect.
be more certain. Where DO you get this 6000 years from anyway? Can it
be the beginning of Christianity perhaps? No, too far back for that.
The first recorded discovery of life on earth? No, not at all. What
ARE you saying here?
>
>
>>Here we have Roy
>> W. Spencer Ph.D saying precisely that. All beliefs to the contrary are
>> merely biased assumptions based upon wishful thinking and NO actual
>> science.
>
>Yeah, all those hundreds of papers in scientific journals are
>imaginary.
to prove a favoured theory. Spencer is far more logical.
>
>
>>I re-print Spencers opinions herewith in the vain hope that
>> the usual persons may gather at least some intellectual benefit:
>>
>> Global Warming
>>
>> “Global warming” refers to the global-average temperature increase
>> that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to
>> many politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that
>> mankind is responsible for that warming. This website describes
>> evidence from my group’s government-funded research that suggests
>> global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite
>> insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol
>> pollution.
>>
>> Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search
>> for natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that
>> global warming is manmade.
>
>Totally false. The scientific literature is full of such papers.
thoroughly shot themselves in the foot by promoting such
uncorroborated rubbish in order to prove their own highly suspect
theories. Spencer is perfectly correct, their opinions are indeed only
assumptions and not science.
>
>
>>This assumption is rather easy for
>> scientists since we do not have enough accurate global data for a long
>> enough period of time to see whether there are natural warming
>> mechanisms at work.
>
>Except we do -- hundreds of thousands of years.
years, and that is probably too long ago. The Dinosaurs would probably
have had more effect.
>
>
>>
>> The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
>> claims that the only way they can get their computerized climate
>> models to produce the observed warming is with anthropogenic
>> (human-caused) pollution. But they’re not going to find something if
>> they don’t search for it.
>
>And Roy is the only scientist in the world to think of this!
Wow!
Indeed Wow. Roy is a "Climate Scientist". The opinions of other so
called"scientists" are a non-sequitur. They are working outside their
expertise.
>
>
>>More than one scientist has asked me, “What
>> else COULD it be?” Well, the answer to that takes a little digging…
>> and as I show, one doesn’t have to dig very far.
>>
>> But first let’s examine the basics of why so many scientists think
>> global warming is manmade. Earth’s atmosphere contains natural
>> greenhouse gases (mostly water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane)
>> which act to keep the lower layers of the atmosphere warmer than they
>> otherwise would be without those gases. Greenhouse gases trap infrared
>> radiation — the radiant heat energy that the Earth naturally emits to
>> outer space in response to solar heating. Mankind’s burning of fossil
>> fuels (mostly coal, petroleum, and natural gas) releases carbon
>> dioxide into the atmosphere and this is believed to be enhancing the
>> Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. As of 2008, the concentration of
>> carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 40% to 45% higher than it
>> was before the start of the industrial revolution in the 1800’s.
>>
>> It is interesting to note that, even though carbon dioxide is
>> necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it
>> in Earth’s atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000
>> molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions 5
>> more years to increase that number by 1, to 40.
>
>So? A toxic dose of ricin would be an even smaller fraction of your
>body mass.
expertise!
yourself, yet again, as the sanctimonious know-it-all that you are. It
is perfectly plain that Bees-In-Bonnets prevail here.
>
>If 99 physicians told you that you had cancer and needed an operation,
>and 1 said there's no such thing as cancer, what would you do?
HEH!! What sort of question is that? Nobody has said that there is no
>If 99 physicians told you that you had cancer and needed an operation,
>and 1 said there's no such thing as cancer, what would you do?
Climate Change. Nobody has claimed that there may, or may not be
Climate Warming. The spurious claims all relate to Climate Warming
being mostly caused by the actions of humanity. Nothing we can do
about Climate Change no matter what the cause. Live with it!
Harry Merrick.
Harry Merrick
May 22, 2012, 10:57:53 AM5/22/12
to
On Sun, 20 May 2012 15:38:55 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Well, hello Mr. Non-scientist Dawshit! You didn't make much of a
handling of the evolution of Bison yourself. I should stick with
"weather" if I was you!
Harry Merrick.
wrote:
handling of the evolution of Bison yourself. I should stick with
"weather" if I was you!
Harry Merrick.
Dawlish
May 22, 2012, 5:28:23 PM5/22/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
benny lobster. that was benny.<laughing>
> - Show quoted text -
He belongs in the same boat as you, after you said that lobsters
couldn't have populated the Antarctic shelf, because the ocean was too
deep for them to have walked across the floor. <shakes head *yet
again* at that one>
How can people like you expect to be taken in the slightest bit
seriously when you reveal your total ignorance by spouting utter
scientific crap like that...........lobster. Nice, apt name. *>))
Claudius Denk
May 24, 2012, 10:47:23 AM5/24/12
to
On May 17, 9:15 am, Harry Merrick <Homes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> “Global warming” refers to the global-average temperature increase
> that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more.
This is a myth. Global warming has not been observed. Humankind does
> “Global warming” refers to the global-average temperature increase
> that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more.
not have the ability to measure the average surface temperature of our
planet. All we have the capability of doing is measuring the
temperature at certain points. The popularistic notion that we can
make an average of these points and arrive at an average temperature
of the planet is blatant idiocy. This is obvious to anybody that has
had a college level understanding of statistics.
> The ‘consensus’ of opinion is that the Earth’s climate sensitivity is
> quite high,
notion.
The goal of global warming advocates is to create the illusion of
science. It's 100% propaganda.
Harry Merrick
May 24, 2012, 1:24:54 PM5/24/12
to
On Tue, 22 May 2012 14:28:23 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com>
Benny lobster? Your off your head again I see!
lobsters or anything else to do with walking across the ocean floor,
merely goes to prove how deluded you are! Forever telling lies to
twist and prove your point, just like your AGW friends!
Harry Merrick.
>
>He belongs in the same boat as you, after you said that lobsters
>couldn't have populated the Antarctic shelf, because the ocean was too
>deep for them to have walked across the floor. <shakes head *yet
>again* at that one>
The fact that "I" personally never, ever, said any such thing about
>He belongs in the same boat as you, after you said that lobsters
>couldn't have populated the Antarctic shelf, because the ocean was too
>deep for them to have walked across the floor. <shakes head *yet
>again* at that one>
lobsters or anything else to do with walking across the ocean floor,
merely goes to prove how deluded you are! Forever telling lies to
twist and prove your point, just like your AGW friends!
>
>How can people like you expect to be taken in the slightest bit
>seriously when you reveal your total ignorance by spouting utter
>scientific crap like that...........lobster. Nice, apt name. *>))
Only in your own deluded and strange mind Dawshit.
>How can people like you expect to be taken in the slightest bit
>seriously when you reveal your total ignorance by spouting utter
>scientific crap like that...........lobster. Nice, apt name. *>))
Harry Merrick.
Uncle Ben
May 24, 2012, 1:37:08 PM5/24/12
to
satellites has changed things. We now can measure average global
temperature and energy fluxes.
And believe it or not, we can now measure climate sensitivity directly
by means discovered by Roy Spencer, but you'll have to buy his book or
read my posts to learn his method.
Uncle Ben
gordo
May 24, 2012, 3:26:58 PM5/24/12
to
AGWFacts
May 25, 2012, 12:45:47 PM5/25/12
to
On Sun, 20 May 2012 18:55:48 GMT, fr...@skeptictank.org (Fredric
L. Rice) wrote:
> Harry Merrick <Home...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Well, as always, at least I have been consistent in my beliefs
> Your unevidenced beliefs are not relevant. Science is what matters when
> determining truth, and science says your occult beliefs are wrong.
In point of fact, denialists like "Harry Merrick" are *NEVER*
L. Rice) wrote:
> Harry Merrick <Home...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Well, as always, at least I have been consistent in my beliefs
> Your unevidenced beliefs are not relevant. Science is what matters when
> determining truth, and science says your occult beliefs are wrong.
consistent in their beliefs; denialism is predicated upon
cognitive dissonance, and cognitive dissonance includes mechanisms
by which denialists believe they have always held their current
beliefs.
Harry Merrick
May 25, 2012, 1:29:38 PM5/25/12
to
climate is indeed changing. Nor have I denied that it may indeed be
warming, or indeed even cooling! I AM denying that the problems are
caused by the activities of humanity and industrial pollution. COME
ON! The world is a pretty large place. We occupy approx one third, if
that. The climate change is far FAR more complex than any increase in
CO2 on it's own. Science, with all it's highly biased models and all,
simply has not come up with a properly defined reason. It merely
blames human activities due to some bees-in-bonnets and the wish to
maintain government payments. I would recommend that instead of
sneering, you should instead investigate scientifically rather than
believe all that you are told to believe! Science has proven nothing
so far, right or wrong.
Harry Merrick.
Fredric L. Rice
May 25, 2012, 4:14:39 PM5/25/12
to
Harry Merrick <Home...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 20 May 2012 18:55:48 GMT, fr...@skeptictank.org (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
>>Harry Merrick <Home...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>Well, as always, at least I have been consistent in my beliefs
>>Your unevidenced beliefs are not relevant. Science is what matters when
>>determining truth, and science says your occult beliefs are wrong.
>On Sun, 20 May 2012 18:55:48 GMT, fr...@skeptictank.org (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
>>Harry Merrick <Home...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>Well, as always, at least I have been consistent in my beliefs
>>Your unevidenced beliefs are not relevant. Science is what matters when
>>determining truth, and science says your occult beliefs are wrong.
>Actually, you are wrong on all counts. I have never denied that
>climate is indeed changing. Nor have I denied that it may indeed be
>warming, or indeed even cooling! I AM denying that the problems are
>caused by the activities of humanity and industrial pollution.
Again, science says you're wrong.
>climate is indeed changing. Nor have I denied that it may indeed be
>warming, or indeed even cooling! I AM denying that the problems are
>caused by the activities of humanity and industrial pollution.
---
http://www.skeptictank.org/
AGWFacts
May 25, 2012, 7:16:49 PM5/25/12
to
> Because they assumed there is only one forcing process, when there are
> two.
There's nearly a dozen, Shit-for-brains. See Hansen's 1988 paper,
> two.
for one example.
Sheeeeish.
> That changes the calculation.
Dawlish
May 26, 2012, 2:25:21 AM5/26/12
to
On May 25, 6:29 pm, Harry Merrick <Homes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 May 2012 18:55:48 GMT, fr...@skeptictank.org (Fredric L.
>
> Rice) wrote:
> On Sun, 20 May 2012 18:55:48 GMT, fr...@skeptictank.org (Fredric L.
>
> Rice) wrote:
at that, who demonstrates a huge degree of ignorance about many
things. Hard luck. *>))
matt_sykes
May 26, 2012, 5:50:01 AM5/26/12
to
Dawlish
May 26, 2012, 7:48:22 AM5/26/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
God, you really are stupid.
> - Show quoted text -
Uncle Ben
May 26, 2012, 11:37:13 AM5/26/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wrong context.
> - Show quoted text -
When you calculate the sensitivity by regression you are allowed only
one forcing at a time. When you pretend to use only one when in fact
there are two, you greatly overestimate the sensitivity.
If you don't understand this, join the crowd.
Uncle Ben
Dawlish
May 26, 2012, 12:11:32 PM5/26/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Would that be the crowd of bison that made it through the Permian-
> - Show quoted text -
triassic extinction, together with humans???
You have no credibility on here after that. Go crawl back under your
rock.
Speedbump
May 26, 2012, 12:14:25 PM5/26/12
to nob...@nowhere.invalid
On Thursday, May 17, 2012 11:17:10 AM UTC-7, SunDancer wrote:
> Dawlish wrote :
> >
>
> --
> The Dawlish : Weather is not climate unless I say it is.
Go fuck yourself sun dancer you conservative prick
> Dawlish wrote :
> >
>
> --
> The Dawlish : Weather is not climate unless I say it is.
Go fuck yourself sun dancer you conservative prick
Harry Merrick
May 26, 2012, 1:52:41 PM5/26/12
to
On Fri, 25 May 2012 23:25:21 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Oh Dawshit!! You certainly are very good at shooting yourself in the
foot! It could be said that it is YOU who is the denier, and a very
ignorant one at that! - You guys just do not get it do you? Your ideas
about climate warming are just so much rubbish! It is simply not
possible for there to be just one cause, it has to be many causes
closely intermingled with each other. Remember, every action has a
re-action. So, production of CO2 on it's own being the main cause of
planetary warming? - Pure nonsense based upon wishful thinking. Just
stay with weather predictions, there's a good chap!
Harry Merrick.
wrote:
foot! It could be said that it is YOU who is the denier, and a very
ignorant one at that! - You guys just do not get it do you? Your ideas
about climate warming are just so much rubbish! It is simply not
possible for there to be just one cause, it has to be many causes
closely intermingled with each other. Remember, every action has a
re-action. So, production of CO2 on it's own being the main cause of
planetary warming? - Pure nonsense based upon wishful thinking. Just
stay with weather predictions, there's a good chap!
Harry Merrick.
kym horsell
May 26, 2012, 2:58:43 PM5/26/12
to
On Sunday, May 27, 2012 1:37:13 AM UTC+10, Uncle Ben wrote:
...
Actually you could also greatly underestimate the sensitivity.
Which is one reason to check that the CO2 forcing is against the actual
"multivariate regression" aka the obsverations.
Spencer at one point said sensitivity was around .7C.
Muller says the observed global warming with 30-40% additional CO2 since
1850 is around .75C.
I.e. the total warming is .75 - .4*.7 == .47C greater than Spencer would
claim CO2 alone should be. I.e. the total forcing is presently
around 2.7x CO2 alone.
Running that by Spencer's .7C CO2 forcing at 2x means the additional
factors as we've seen them 40% of the way to 2x is 2.7*.7 == 1.9C.
Hardly encouraging.
The best single variate for predicting the global avg temp seems to be
human population. The r2 for such regressions -- essentially a multiple
regression given population is responsible for fossil use as well as city growth and agricultural clearing, etc -- is typically 80% compared with 65%
for co2 alone vs e.g. the LOTI. (And r2 of 65% in any case indictes co2 conc is
a major explanatory variable and therefore a good estimate of total forcings
wrt global avg temps).
If you then extrapolate out to a population of 9 bn (2050) and 10 bn (2100)
the LOTI estimates are roughly 2.5+-1.2C and 3.0+-1.5C.
Obviously a wide band, but quite in tune with IPPC surveys of published projections using many different techniques.
I note yet another projection based on other ideas (seems to be mostly patterns in historical observations plus projections of mitigation) published in the past few weeks is 3.5C and other claims that 2.0C is already locked in.
AFP
May 25, 2012
Climate researchers said Thu the planet could warm by more than
3.5 C, boosting the risk of drought, flood and rising seas.
The United Nations' target is a 2 C limit on warming from
pre-industrial levels in the belief that that amount of climate change
would be manageable. But in a report issued here during the latest
round of UN talks, scientists said the Earth's average global
temperature rise could exceed the dangerous 3.5 C warming they had
flagged only 6 m ago.
Marion Vieweg, a policy researcher with German firm Climate Analytics,
said the 3.5 C estimate had been based on the assumption that all
countries will meet their pledges, in themselves inadequate to meet the
2 C limit, to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.
New research has found this is not "a realistic assumption," she said,
adding that right now "we can't quantify yet how much above" 3.5 C
Earth will warm.
The monitoring tool is called Climate Action Tracker (CAT), a joint
project of Climate Analytics, Ecofys and the Potsdam Institute for
Climate Impact Research in Germany.
--
Unlike the conventional infinitely-thick atmospheric model (ITA) that
predicts increasing temperatures with increasing CO2, the STA model
has an almost constant troposphere temperature and constant greenhouse
effect (GE). Miskolczi believes the classical Eddington ITA model of
stars has been erroneously applied to Earth. While most predictions of
the STA model are in excellent agreement with the observed atmosphere,
compared with the IPCC range of +2K to +5K, the STA predicts a very
low sensitivity of +0.24K to CO2 doubling. This insensitivity appears
inconsistent with recent temperature changes and asymmetries.
-- David R B Stockwell, "Stratospheric Compensation Model of Climate
Change", AIG News #92, May 2008.
...
> When you calculate the sensitivity by regression you are allowed only
> one forcing at a time. When you pretend to use only one when in fact
> there are two, you greatly overestimate the sensitivity.
>...
> one forcing at a time. When you pretend to use only one when in fact
> there are two, you greatly overestimate the sensitivity.
Actually you could also greatly underestimate the sensitivity.
Which is one reason to check that the CO2 forcing is against the actual
"multivariate regression" aka the obsverations.
Spencer at one point said sensitivity was around .7C.
Muller says the observed global warming with 30-40% additional CO2 since
1850 is around .75C.
I.e. the total warming is .75 - .4*.7 == .47C greater than Spencer would
claim CO2 alone should be. I.e. the total forcing is presently
around 2.7x CO2 alone.
Running that by Spencer's .7C CO2 forcing at 2x means the additional
factors as we've seen them 40% of the way to 2x is 2.7*.7 == 1.9C.
Hardly encouraging.
The best single variate for predicting the global avg temp seems to be
human population. The r2 for such regressions -- essentially a multiple
regression given population is responsible for fossil use as well as city growth and agricultural clearing, etc -- is typically 80% compared with 65%
for co2 alone vs e.g. the LOTI. (And r2 of 65% in any case indictes co2 conc is
a major explanatory variable and therefore a good estimate of total forcings
wrt global avg temps).
If you then extrapolate out to a population of 9 bn (2050) and 10 bn (2100)
the LOTI estimates are roughly 2.5+-1.2C and 3.0+-1.5C.
Obviously a wide band, but quite in tune with IPPC surveys of published projections using many different techniques.
I note yet another projection based on other ideas (seems to be mostly patterns in historical observations plus projections of mitigation) published in the past few weeks is 3.5C and other claims that 2.0C is already locked in.
AFP
May 25, 2012
Climate researchers said Thu the planet could warm by more than
3.5 C, boosting the risk of drought, flood and rising seas.
The United Nations' target is a 2 C limit on warming from
pre-industrial levels in the belief that that amount of climate change
would be manageable. But in a report issued here during the latest
round of UN talks, scientists said the Earth's average global
temperature rise could exceed the dangerous 3.5 C warming they had
flagged only 6 m ago.
Marion Vieweg, a policy researcher with German firm Climate Analytics,
said the 3.5 C estimate had been based on the assumption that all
countries will meet their pledges, in themselves inadequate to meet the
2 C limit, to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.
New research has found this is not "a realistic assumption," she said,
adding that right now "we can't quantify yet how much above" 3.5 C
Earth will warm.
The monitoring tool is called Climate Action Tracker (CAT), a joint
project of Climate Analytics, Ecofys and the Potsdam Institute for
Climate Impact Research in Germany.
--
Unlike the conventional infinitely-thick atmospheric model (ITA) that
predicts increasing temperatures with increasing CO2, the STA model
has an almost constant troposphere temperature and constant greenhouse
effect (GE). Miskolczi believes the classical Eddington ITA model of
stars has been erroneously applied to Earth. While most predictions of
the STA model are in excellent agreement with the observed atmosphere,
compared with the IPCC range of +2K to +5K, the STA predicts a very
low sensitivity of +0.24K to CO2 doubling. This insensitivity appears
inconsistent with recent temperature changes and asymmetries.
-- David R B Stockwell, "Stratospheric Compensation Model of Climate
Change", AIG News #92, May 2008.
Wally W.
May 26, 2012, 5:01:59 PM5/26/12
to
Oh, that's right: you can read minds.
Always value the opinion of someone who thinks they can read minds.
Dawlish
May 26, 2012, 5:05:21 PM5/26/12
to
On May 26, 10:01 pm, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:
>
> >Would that be the crowd of bison that made it through the Permian-
> >triassic extinction, together with humans???
>
> >You have no credibility on here after that. Go crawl back under your
> >rock.
>
> How would you know who has credibility here?
>
> Oh, that's right: you can read minds.
>
> Always value the opinion of someone who thinks they can read minds.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >Would that be the crowd of bison that made it through the Permian-
> >triassic extinction, together with humans???
>
> >You have no credibility on here after that. Go crawl back under your
> >rock.
>
> How would you know who has credibility here?
>
> Oh, that's right: you can read minds.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's easy. If you are a nutter that believes that bison were alive
> - Show quoted text -
241m years ago you have no credibility. But you appear to think my
judgement about that is flawed. Why? Was he perfectly OK to say this?
Wally W.
May 26, 2012, 5:33:37 PM5/26/12
to
to you before.
You, on the other hand, exhibit less self-correction.
We may be seeing quite the opposite: positive feedback.
A "crank":
Has a fixation.
Is easily wound up.
Is repetitive at every turn.
Why don't you go hammer on another poster who made a mistake?
From: AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com>
Subject: I was wrong again
Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 13:31:20 -0600
Message-ID: <gr20r79g8dltmq0hn...@4ax.com>
gordo
May 26, 2012, 6:00:41 PM5/26/12
to
is the main cause of the present warming .You say you guys but of
course that would mean a small number of people. The people who make
the claims are the worlds leaders in this field of science not some
guys.Their findings are supported by every and that should be
emphasized scientific institute on the planet . You have seen the long
list of academic establishments who support the science and not one
scientific institute that doesn't. You join a small group of people
who are being studied because of their strange beliefs and denials.
One last word about the lobster thing.If you would go back you would
find that I explained to Dawlish that you were not the one who had
made the posting about the lobsters. You have consistently denied that
you did. Dawlish corrects me when I am wrong and I intend to do the
same.
Gordon Merrick. The Merricks kick with both feet.
AGWFacts
May 26, 2012, 9:59:19 PM5/26/12
to
On Sat, 26 May 2012 08:37:13 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Ben
periods has been measured, not "calculated."
> When you pretend to use only one when in fact
> there are two, you greatly overestimate the sensitivity.
>
> If you don't understand this, join the crowd.
>
> Uncle Ben
> Wrong context.
>
> When you calculate the sensitivity by regression you are allowed only
> one forcing at a time.
Climate sensitivity with regard to glacial and interglacial
>
> When you calculate the sensitivity by regression you are allowed only
> one forcing at a time.
periods has been measured, not "calculated."
> When you pretend to use only one when in fact
> there are two, you greatly overestimate the sensitivity.
>
> If you don't understand this, join the crowd.
>
> Uncle Ben
Wally W.
May 26, 2012, 10:46:51 PM5/26/12
to
from numerous measurements.
Yet you claim that sensitivity in that which can be determined only
through calculation has been measured directly.
Not likely.
Uncle Ben
May 26, 2012, 11:12:34 PM5/26/12
to
> "A 'crank' is defined as a man who cannot be turned." --- _Nature_, 8 Nov 1906- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
See reply to Kym.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Uncle Ben
May 26, 2012, 11:14:57 PM5/26/12
to
On May 26, 2:58 pm, kym horsell <kymhors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, May 27, 2012 1:37:13 AM UTC+10, Uncle Ben wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > When you calculate the sensitivity by regression you are allowed only
> > one forcing at a time. When you pretend to use only one when in fact
> > there are two, you greatly overestimate the sensitivity.
> >...
>
> Actually you could also greatly underestimate the sensitivity.
Actually, that is not true. I am speaking of the observation by
> On Sunday, May 27, 2012 1:37:13 AM UTC+10, Uncle Ben wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > When you calculate the sensitivity by regression you are allowed only
> > one forcing at a time. When you pretend to use only one when in fact
> > there are two, you greatly overestimate the sensitivity.
> >...
>
> Actually you could also greatly underestimate the sensitivity.
satellite of the energy imbalance of the earth
versus the temperature anomaly. And the sensitivity I am referring to
is the sensitivity of temperature anomaly vs feedback to GHG's in the
atmosphere. What Spencer found was a way to measure just the
feedback. The regression gives the slope of the linear relation
between the feedback energy and the temperature anomaly.
If another variable unrelated to the feedback energy but affecting the
temperature is mistakenly included in the regression calculation, the
effect is strictly to reduce the slope. This increases the
sensitivity, which is based on the reciprocal of the slope.
I am not assuming that there is no other factor in global warming. So
your further calculations are interesting but not dispositive.
Uncle Ben
kym horsell
May 27, 2012, 12:13:32 AM5/27/12
to
On Sunday, May 27, 2012 1:14:57 PM UTC+10, Uncle Ben wrote:
> On May 26, 2:58 pm, kym horsell <kymhors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 27, 2012 1:37:13 AM UTC+10, Uncle Ben wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > When you calculate the sensitivity by regression you are allowed only
> > > one forcing at a time. When you pretend to use only one when in fact
> > > there are two, you greatly overestimate the sensitivity.
> > >...
> >
> > Actually you could also greatly underestimate the sensitivity.
>
> Actually, that is not true. I am speaking of the observation by
> satellite of the energy imbalance of the earth
...
> On May 26, 2:58 pm, kym horsell <kymhors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 27, 2012 1:37:13 AM UTC+10, Uncle Ben wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > When you calculate the sensitivity by regression you are allowed only
> > > one forcing at a time. When you pretend to use only one when in fact
> > > there are two, you greatly overestimate the sensitivity.
> > >...
> >
> > Actually you could also greatly underestimate the sensitivity.
>
> Actually, that is not true. I am speaking of the observation by
> satellite of the energy imbalance of the earth
See reply to Marvin.
--
[On working from simplified graphs:]
Melvin:
> Now, here's a interesting thing: Note that the 2 micrometer band blocks
> incoming sunlight and it is NOT saturated. Adding more CO2 should thus
> have a bit of a cooling effect upon the earth surface. It probably won't
> because water vapor already blocks in that band.
Two fallacies there - firstly. if the 2 mu band is "blocking" the sun's
radiation, then it's warming the atmosphere. Secondly, what counts is
not whether outgoing radiation is blocked at the surface, what counts is
the altitude and hence temperature at which the radiation is no longer
blocked and escapes into space. Again, the NOAA presentation goes into this.
-- Tom P <werot...@freent.dd>, 25 Mar 2012 00:03 +0100
Dawlish
May 27, 2012, 5:20:33 AM5/27/12
to
to do what other deniers do and claim it is lost in the archive. It's
not. Your clain is above. Address that and retract that one as well
and you may retain a shred of credence. Leave it - because your
retraction of humans, leaving bison clearly still there, is just head-
shakingly stupid.
Dawlish
May 27, 2012, 5:16:57 AM5/27/12
to
On May 26, 10:33 pm, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 14:05:21 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish wrote:
> >On May 26, 10:01 pm, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Would that be the crowd of bison that made it through the Permian-
> >> >triassic extinction, together with humans???
>
> >> >You have no credibility on here after that. Go crawl back under your
> >> >rock.
>
> >> How would you know who has credibility here?
>
> >> Oh, that's right: you can read minds.
>
> >> Always value the opinion of someone who thinks they can read minds.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >It's easy. If you are a nutter that believes that bison were alive
> >241m years ago you have no credibility. But you appear to think my
> >judgement about that is flawed. Why? Was he perfectly OK to say this?
>
> You continue to ignore his self-correction that has been pointed out
> to you before.
>
> You, on the other hand, exhibit less self-correction.
>
> We may be seeing quite the opposite: positive feedback.
>
> A "crank":
> Has a fixation.
> Is easily wound up.
> Is repetitive at every turn.
>
> Why don't you go hammer on another poster who made a mistake?
>
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 14:05:21 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish wrote:
> >On May 26, 10:01 pm, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Would that be the crowd of bison that made it through the Permian-
> >> >triassic extinction, together with humans???
>
> >> >You have no credibility on here after that. Go crawl back under your
> >> >rock.
>
> >> How would you know who has credibility here?
>
> >> Oh, that's right: you can read minds.
>
> >> Always value the opinion of someone who thinks they can read minds.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >It's easy. If you are a nutter that believes that bison were alive
> >241m years ago you have no credibility. But you appear to think my
> >judgement about that is flawed. Why? Was he perfectly OK to say this?
>
> You continue to ignore his self-correction that has been pointed out
> to you before.
>
> You, on the other hand, exhibit less self-correction.
>
> We may be seeing quite the opposite: positive feedback.
>
> A "crank":
> Has a fixation.
> Is easily wound up.
> Is repetitive at every turn.
>
> Why don't you go hammer on another poster who made a mistake?
>
> From: AGWFacts <AGWFa...@1800reality.com>
> Subject: I was wrong again
> Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 13:31:20 -0600
> Message-ID: <gr20r79g8dltmq0hn...@4ax.com>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Was that the self correction that I have copied onto this thread,
> Subject: I was wrong again
> Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 13:31:20 -0600
> Message-ID: <gr20r79g8dltmq0hn...@4ax.com>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
which you haven't actually read? Go back and read it. benny thinks
bison made it through the extinction of 241m years ago, but corrected
his view on humans being there.
Read it - it's there above - educate yourself and then do what half-
brain has done and hide under your rock when you find you are wrong.
That's the usual denier response to having their own idiocy clearly
laid out for them.
PS Has no-one found you yet?
Dawlish
May 27, 2012, 5:24:47 AM5/27/12
to
On May 24, 6:24 pm, Harry Merrick <Homes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2012 14:28:23 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 22, 3:57 pm, Harry Merrick <Homes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 20 May 2012 15:38:55 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On May 20, 9:09 pm, Uncle Ben <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> Harry Merrick, thanks for asserting the case for Roy Spencer.
>
> >> >> Most of the anti-Spencer responses in your thread have been ad
> >> >> hominen,
> >> >> not worthy of grownups. And their assertion that all is opinion and
> >> >> none is science
> >> >> is quite false. I shall summarize the science that Spencer has
> >> >> contributed.
>
> >> >> The essence of the disagreement between the two main sides in this
> >> >> dispute
> >> >> is over sensitivity. Does the atmosphere amplify or diminish the
> >> >> effect of CO2
> >> >> in its slight warming effect? Spencer has identified an error that
> >> >> most of the
> >> >> warmist community has made in estimating the degree of sensitivity of
> >> >> the
> >> >> atmosphere to CO2.
>
> >> >> The sensitivity is estimated from a supposed linear relationship
> >> >> between
> >> >> (a) the variance in the net energy imbalance of the earth in the
> >> >> vacuum of space,
> >> >> (that is, the difference between insolation into the top of the
> >> >> atmosphere and
> >> >> (b) the IR radiation back out again because of the temperature of the
> >> >> earth) and
> >> >> the variance in the average temperature of the earth. Many have tried
> >> >> to
> >> >> calculate this relationship from first principles, But to do this
> >> >> requires a complete
> >> >> understanding of the physical processes involved. Even Hansen admits
> >> >> that we
> >> >> do not have such a complete understanding.
>
> >> >> The better alternative is to measure the sensitivity. Icf there were,
> >> >> truly, a linear
> >> >> relationship between (a) average dH/dt and (b) average dT, this would
> >> >> be easy
> >> >> because of the work of Spencer and others putting satellites into the
> >> >> sky to
> >> >> measure tnese two quantities over time. In the hands of the warmists,
> >> >> the answer
> >> >> comes back, sensitivity is at least 1.5 C warming per doubling of CO2
> >> >> concentration.
>
> >> >> Spencer notes however that to discover a relationship between two
> >> >> variables, one
> >> >> needs to measure them simultaneously. The ocean covers 70% of the
> >> >> earth's
> >> >> surface, and the sun requires a long time to raise the temperature of
> >> >> the ocean
> >> >> even in its top layer. So the satellite measurement of dT is not
> >> >> simultaneous with
> >> >> the measurement of dH/dt. If you measure a cause on Wednesday and the
> >> >> effect
> >> >> on Saturday, you open yourself up to error. if you try to relate the
> >> >> two. In the case of
> >> >> the ocean surface, the delay can be months or even years.
>
> >> >> It is worse than that. The plots of dH/dt vs dT once a month are far
> >> >> from
> >> >> clean straight lines. The noise is great, mainly because the ocean
> >> >> surface is
> >> >> lagging in temperature and changing direction chaotically so that the
> >> >> surface is
> >> >> never even close to being in equilibrium. It starts to look hopeless
> >> >> to measure
> >> >> the wanted sensitivity. Several authors have tried lagging the data in
> >> >> either
> >> >> direction to get better statistics, but that is a poor way to solve
> >> >> the problem, given
> >> >> the chaotic flow of ocean currents.
>
> >> >> Spencer has overcome this problem. Instead of trying to correlate a
> >> >> mass of
> >> >> data points that looks very noisy, he connects the points in the order
> >> >> of their time
> >> >> of measurement. Suddenly, the mass of points becomes a trajectory.
> >> >> Much of the
> >> >> time, the trajectory looks chaotic, but there are periods in which
> >> >> straight lines show up.
> >> >> These straight lines can be long, and they can be very straight.
>
> >> >> This shouts for the interpretation of two distinct processes going on
> >> >> in the atmosphere/
> >> >> ocean system. The chaotic parts of the trajectory show the process of
> >> >> the sun warming
> >> >> the ocean -- a very slow, volatile process. The straight parts show a
> >> >> fast process, such
> >> >> as the ocean warming the atmosphere. (It happens both ways, both
> >> >> warming
> >> >> and cooling.) If you want to understand why these two processes have
> >> >> different speeds,
> >> >> ask your local physicist about the specific heats of water and air.)
>
> >> >> The mixed character of the polot shows that sometimes one process is
> >> >> stronger, while
> >> >> at other times the other is stronger. The other is available from
> >> >> water in strong currents
> >> >> such as the gulf strean, el nino, la nina, and other slowly changing
> >> >> current.
>
> >> >> Back to sensitivity: One can separate parts of the trajectory into
> >> >> the chaotic
> >> >> and the linear. It can be seen that the linear parts all have very
> >> >> nearly the same
> >> >> slope. This slope is the sought-for linear relationship between dH/dt
> >> >> and dT !
>
> >> >> I can't explain everything in a mere post, but the sensitivity
> >> >> resulting from Spencer's
> >> >> analysis is no more than 0.5 C, which is well below the 1.5 C that the
> >> >> IPCC
> >> >> calls its lowest value with 90% confidence.
>
> >> >> None of this involves any higher mathematics; all can be understood
> >> >> by the
> >> >> intelligent layman whose brain has not been washed by the "consensus."
> >> >> Since
> >> >> the powers that be have forbidden any major journal from publishing
> >> >> his argument,
> >> >> you may have to cough up $25 or so to buy his latest book.
>
> >> >> You will find online attempted rebuttals to Spencer's argument, but I
> >> >> have seen
> >> >> none that show any understanding of it.
>
> >> >> Uncle Ben
>
> >> >Nah, You aren't bright enough to explain other people's responses to
> >> >that.
>
> >> >Explain what you said about the evoution of bison benny. Start with
> >> >that.
>
> >> Well, hello Mr. Non-scientist Dawshit! You didn't make much of a
> >> handling of the evolution of Bison yourself. I should stick with
> >> "weather" if I was you!
>
> >> Harry Merrick.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Benny lobster? Your off your head again I see!
>
>
>
> >He belongs in the same boat as you, after you said that lobsters
> >couldn't have populated the Antarctic shelf, because the ocean was too
> >deep for them to have walked across the floor. <shakes head *yet
> >again* at that one>
>
> The fact that "I" personally never, ever, said any such thing about
> lobsters or anything else to do with walking across the ocean floor,
> merely goes to prove how deluded you are! Forever telling lies to
> twist and prove your point, just like your AGW friends!
>
>
>
> >How can people like you expect to be taken in the slightest bit
> >seriously when you reveal your total ignorance by spouting utter
> >scientific crap like that...........lobster. Nice, apt name. *>))
>
> Only in your own deluded and strange mind Dawshit.
>
> Harry Merrick.- Hide quoted text -
for months, only coming back later to try to deny it. As a result, you
will always be lobster to me. I'm very careful about who and what I
include in my list and the perameters are clearly set out at the start
of "Avoid, Dodge, Deny".
I suppose you think benny didn't say what he did about bison either,
even though it is clearly laid out for you in this discussion. You
people are very stupid and it's just so easy to show your idiocy. It's
just that no-one's bothered to do it before. life's not as easy now
someone does, deniers, is it?
> On Tue, 22 May 2012 14:28:23 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 22, 3:57 pm, Harry Merrick <Homes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 20 May 2012 15:38:55 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On May 20, 9:09 pm, Uncle Ben <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >> On May 17, 12:15 pm, Harry Merrick <Homes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > Well, as always, at least I have been consistent in my beliefs that
> >> >> > like it or not, Climate Change and Global Warming are natural
> >> >> > occurrences virtually unaffected by the works of man. Here we have Roy
> >> >> > W. Spencer Ph.D saying precisely that. All beliefs to the contrary are
> >> >> > merely biased assumptions based upon wishful thinking and NO actual
> >> >> > science. I re-print Spencers opinions herewith in the vain hope that
> >> >> > the usual persons may gather at least some intellectual benefit:
> >> >> > ----
>
> >> >> > Well, as always, at least I have been consistent in my beliefs that
> >> >> > like it or not, Climate Change and Global Warming are natural
> >> >> > occurrences virtually unaffected by the works of man. Here we have Roy
> >> >> > W. Spencer Ph.D saying precisely that. All beliefs to the contrary are
> >> >> > merely biased assumptions based upon wishful thinking and NO actual
> >> >> > science. I re-print Spencers opinions herewith in the vain hope that
> >> >> > the usual persons may gather at least some intellectual benefit:
>
> >> >> Harry Merrick, thanks for asserting the case for Roy Spencer.
>
> >> >> Most of the anti-Spencer responses in your thread have been ad
> >> >> hominen,
> >> >> not worthy of grownups. And their assertion that all is opinion and
> >> >> none is science
> >> >> is quite false. I shall summarize the science that Spencer has
> >> >> contributed.
>
> >> >> The essence of the disagreement between the two main sides in this
> >> >> dispute
> >> >> is over sensitivity. Does the atmosphere amplify or diminish the
> >> >> effect of CO2
> >> >> in its slight warming effect? Spencer has identified an error that
> >> >> most of the
> >> >> warmist community has made in estimating the degree of sensitivity of
> >> >> the
> >> >> atmosphere to CO2.
>
> >> >> The sensitivity is estimated from a supposed linear relationship
> >> >> between
> >> >> (a) the variance in the net energy imbalance of the earth in the
> >> >> vacuum of space,
> >> >> (that is, the difference between insolation into the top of the
> >> >> atmosphere and
> >> >> (b) the IR radiation back out again because of the temperature of the
> >> >> earth) and
> >> >> the variance in the average temperature of the earth. Many have tried
> >> >> to
> >> >> calculate this relationship from first principles, But to do this
> >> >> requires a complete
> >> >> understanding of the physical processes involved. Even Hansen admits
> >> >> that we
> >> >> do not have such a complete understanding.
>
> >> >> The better alternative is to measure the sensitivity. Icf there were,
> >> >> truly, a linear
> >> >> relationship between (a) average dH/dt and (b) average dT, this would
> >> >> be easy
> >> >> because of the work of Spencer and others putting satellites into the
> >> >> sky to
> >> >> measure tnese two quantities over time. In the hands of the warmists,
> >> >> the answer
> >> >> comes back, sensitivity is at least 1.5 C warming per doubling of CO2
> >> >> concentration.
>
> >> >> Spencer notes however that to discover a relationship between two
> >> >> variables, one
> >> >> needs to measure them simultaneously. The ocean covers 70% of the
> >> >> earth's
> >> >> surface, and the sun requires a long time to raise the temperature of
> >> >> the ocean
> >> >> even in its top layer. So the satellite measurement of dT is not
> >> >> simultaneous with
> >> >> the measurement of dH/dt. If you measure a cause on Wednesday and the
> >> >> effect
> >> >> on Saturday, you open yourself up to error. if you try to relate the
> >> >> two. In the case of
> >> >> the ocean surface, the delay can be months or even years.
>
> >> >> It is worse than that. The plots of dH/dt vs dT once a month are far
> >> >> from
> >> >> clean straight lines. The noise is great, mainly because the ocean
> >> >> surface is
> >> >> lagging in temperature and changing direction chaotically so that the
> >> >> surface is
> >> >> never even close to being in equilibrium. It starts to look hopeless
> >> >> to measure
> >> >> the wanted sensitivity. Several authors have tried lagging the data in
> >> >> either
> >> >> direction to get better statistics, but that is a poor way to solve
> >> >> the problem, given
> >> >> the chaotic flow of ocean currents.
>
> >> >> Spencer has overcome this problem. Instead of trying to correlate a
> >> >> mass of
> >> >> data points that looks very noisy, he connects the points in the order
> >> >> of their time
> >> >> of measurement. Suddenly, the mass of points becomes a trajectory.
> >> >> Much of the
> >> >> time, the trajectory looks chaotic, but there are periods in which
> >> >> straight lines show up.
> >> >> These straight lines can be long, and they can be very straight.
>
> >> >> This shouts for the interpretation of two distinct processes going on
> >> >> in the atmosphere/
> >> >> ocean system. The chaotic parts of the trajectory show the process of
> >> >> the sun warming
> >> >> the ocean -- a very slow, volatile process. The straight parts show a
> >> >> fast process, such
> >> >> as the ocean warming the atmosphere. (It happens both ways, both
> >> >> warming
> >> >> and cooling.) If you want to understand why these two processes have
> >> >> different speeds,
> >> >> ask your local physicist about the specific heats of water and air.)
>
> >> >> The mixed character of the polot shows that sometimes one process is
> >> >> stronger, while
> >> >> at other times the other is stronger. The other is available from
> >> >> water in strong currents
> >> >> such as the gulf strean, el nino, la nina, and other slowly changing
> >> >> current.
>
> >> >> Back to sensitivity: One can separate parts of the trajectory into
> >> >> the chaotic
> >> >> and the linear. It can be seen that the linear parts all have very
> >> >> nearly the same
> >> >> slope. This slope is the sought-for linear relationship between dH/dt
> >> >> and dT !
>
> >> >> I can't explain everything in a mere post, but the sensitivity
> >> >> resulting from Spencer's
> >> >> analysis is no more than 0.5 C, which is well below the 1.5 C that the
> >> >> IPCC
> >> >> calls its lowest value with 90% confidence.
>
> >> >> None of this involves any higher mathematics; all can be understood
> >> >> by the
> >> >> intelligent layman whose brain has not been washed by the "consensus."
> >> >> Since
> >> >> the powers that be have forbidden any major journal from publishing
> >> >> his argument,
> >> >> you may have to cough up $25 or so to buy his latest book.
>
> >> >> You will find online attempted rebuttals to Spencer's argument, but I
> >> >> have seen
> >> >> none that show any understanding of it.
>
> >> >> Uncle Ben
>
> >> >Nah, You aren't bright enough to explain other people's responses to
> >> >that.
>
> >> >Explain what you said about the evoution of bison benny. Start with
> >> >that.
>
> >> Well, hello Mr. Non-scientist Dawshit! You didn't make much of a
> >> handling of the evolution of Bison yourself. I should stick with
> >> "weather" if I was you!
>
> >> Harry Merrick.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >benny lobster. that was benny.<laughing>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
>
> Benny lobster? Your off your head again I see!
>
>
>
> >He belongs in the same boat as you, after you said that lobsters
> >couldn't have populated the Antarctic shelf, because the ocean was too
> >deep for them to have walked across the floor. <shakes head *yet
> >again* at that one>
>
> The fact that "I" personally never, ever, said any such thing about
> lobsters or anything else to do with walking across the ocean floor,
> merely goes to prove how deluded you are! Forever telling lies to
> twist and prove your point, just like your AGW friends!
>
>
>
> >How can people like you expect to be taken in the slightest bit
> >seriously when you reveal your total ignorance by spouting utter
> >scientific crap like that...........lobster. Nice, apt name. *>))
>
> Only in your own deluded and strange mind Dawshit.
>
> Harry Merrick.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
you had *every* chance to show me I was wrong, but you didn't. You hid
> - Show quoted text -
for months, only coming back later to try to deny it. As a result, you
will always be lobster to me. I'm very careful about who and what I
include in my list and the perameters are clearly set out at the start
of "Avoid, Dodge, Deny".
I suppose you think benny didn't say what he did about bison either,
even though it is clearly laid out for you in this discussion. You
people are very stupid and it's just so easy to show your idiocy. It's
just that no-one's bothered to do it before. life's not as easy now
someone does, deniers, is it?
Dawlish
May 27, 2012, 5:17:51 AM5/27/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Absolutely right to do so. Lobster made the statement. *>))
> - Show quoted text -
Dawlish
May 27, 2012, 6:16:46 AM5/27/12
to
On May 26, 11:00 pm, gordo <grmerr...@shaw.ca.remove> wrote:
> Gordon Merrick. The Merricks kick with both feet.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I've had a re-think and I've changed the perameters of "Avoid, Dodge,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Deny" as a result.
If an intelligent opponent of deniers thinks I've got something wrong
about an entry in "Avoid, Dodge, Deny", then I feel I should accept
that. My personal thoughts are that I'm still corect and I gave this
nutcase denier every chance to retract at the time. He decided wait,
then to play the archive game and I can't find the original post,
though I've tried. As a result, Harryboy gets his old name back and
his entry on "Avoid, Dodge, Deny" has been changed. I'm prepared to do
that for any denier, as I want this list to be accurate - a bit like
GISS do when they remove poor data.
No more lobster for him gordo. if anyone can prove harryboy did not
talk about lobsters (including harryboy, or your good self, gordo), I
would apologise unreservedly, as I always do if I make mistakes.
There's the difference vetween me and deniers - apart from not sitting
in the stupid seats, of course.
Desertphile
Jun 11, 2012, 10:51:58 AM6/11/12
to
On Sat, 26 May 2012 11:58:43 -0700 (PDT), kym horsell
<kymho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, May 27, 2012 1:37:13 AM UTC+10, Uncle Ben wrote:
> ...
> > When you calculate the sensitivity by regression you are allowed only
> > one forcing at a time. When you pretend to use only one when in fact
> > there are two, you greatly overestimate the sensitivity.
> >...
>
> Actually you could also greatly underestimate the sensitivity.
>
> Which is one reason to check that the CO2 forcing is against the actual
> "multivariate regression" aka the obsverations.
>
> Spencer at one point said sensitivity was around .7C.
>
> Muller says the observed global warming with 30-40% additional CO2 since
> 1850 is around .75C.
>
> I.e. the total warming is .75 - .4*.7 == .47C greater than Spencer would
> claim CO2 alone should be. I.e. the total forcing is presently
> around 2.7x CO2 alone.
>
> Running that by Spencer's .7C CO2 forcing at 2x means the additional
> factors as we've seen them 40% of the way to 2x is 2.7*.7 == 1.9C.
>
> Hardly encouraging.
This is good: thank you. It makes me wonder what Spencer's "study"
<kymho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, May 27, 2012 1:37:13 AM UTC+10, Uncle Ben wrote:
> ...
> > When you calculate the sensitivity by regression you are allowed only
> > one forcing at a time. When you pretend to use only one when in fact
> > there are two, you greatly overestimate the sensitivity.
> >...
>
> Actually you could also greatly underestimate the sensitivity.
>
> Which is one reason to check that the CO2 forcing is against the actual
> "multivariate regression" aka the obsverations.
>
> Spencer at one point said sensitivity was around .7C.
>
> Muller says the observed global warming with 30-40% additional CO2 since
> 1850 is around .75C.
>
> I.e. the total warming is .75 - .4*.7 == .47C greater than Spencer would
> claim CO2 alone should be. I.e. the total forcing is presently
> around 2.7x CO2 alone.
>
> Running that by Spencer's .7C CO2 forcing at 2x means the additional
> factors as we've seen them 40% of the way to 2x is 2.7*.7 == 1.9C.
>
> Hardly encouraging.
would have concluded if he had not cherry-picked his data, causing
the editor of Remote Sensing Systems to resign in shame.
"I am not part of the problem. I am a Republican." - Dan Quayle
kym horsell
Jun 11, 2012, 11:10:37 AM6/11/12
to
On Tuesday, June 12, 2012 12:51:58 AM UTC+10, Desertphile wrote:
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 11:58:43 -0700 (PDT), kym horsell
> <kymho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, May 27, 2012 1:37:13 AM UTC+10, Uncle Ben wrote:
> > ...
> > > When you calculate the sensitivity by regression you are allowed only
> > > one forcing at a time. When you pretend to use only one when in fact
> > > there are two, you greatly overestimate the sensitivity.
> > >...
> >
> > Actually you could also greatly underestimate the sensitivity.
> >
> > Which is one reason to check that the CO2 forcing is against the actual
> > "multivariate regression" aka the obsverations.
> >
> > Spencer at one point said sensitivity was around .7C.
> >
> > Muller says the observed global warming with 30-40% additional CO2 since
> > 1850 is around .75C.
> >
> > I.e. the total warming is .75 - .4*.7 == .47C greater than Spencer would
> > claim CO2 alone should be. I.e. the total forcing is presently
> > around 2.7x CO2 alone.
> >
> > Running that by Spencer's .7C CO2 forcing at 2x means the additional
> > factors as we've seen them 40% of the way to 2x is 2.7*.7 == 1.9C.
> >
> > Hardly encouraging.
>
> This is good: thank you. It makes me wonder what Spencer's "study"
> would have concluded if he had not cherry-picked his data, causing
> the editor of Remote Sensing Systems to resign in shame.
...
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 11:58:43 -0700 (PDT), kym horsell
> <kymho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, May 27, 2012 1:37:13 AM UTC+10, Uncle Ben wrote:
> > ...
> > > When you calculate the sensitivity by regression you are allowed only
> > > one forcing at a time. When you pretend to use only one when in fact
> > > there are two, you greatly overestimate the sensitivity.
> > >...
> >
> > Actually you could also greatly underestimate the sensitivity.
> >
> > Which is one reason to check that the CO2 forcing is against the actual
> > "multivariate regression" aka the obsverations.
> >
> > Spencer at one point said sensitivity was around .7C.
> >
> > Muller says the observed global warming with 30-40% additional CO2 since
> > 1850 is around .75C.
> >
> > I.e. the total warming is .75 - .4*.7 == .47C greater than Spencer would
> > claim CO2 alone should be. I.e. the total forcing is presently
> > around 2.7x CO2 alone.
> >
> > Running that by Spencer's .7C CO2 forcing at 2x means the additional
> > factors as we've seen them 40% of the way to 2x is 2.7*.7 == 1.9C.
> >
> > Hardly encouraging.
>
> This is good: thank you. It makes me wonder what Spencer's "study"
> would have concluded if he had not cherry-picked his data, causing
> the editor of Remote Sensing Systems to resign in shame.
If RS knowingly low-balled his no feedback sensitivity then he should have
known there'd be trouble. :)
If let's say he'd said 1C instead of 1F then feedback now would have
added an estimated .75 - 1*.4 == .35C meaning the factor was .35/(1*.4) ==
.88 meaning there was some significant negative feedback in the loop.
But as other data seems to indicate even a 2C sensitivity seems too low
and I'd tend to support estimates of 3C given the apparent direction
the Mauna Loa CO2 vs LOTI data indicates. Just seems to scream around .01C per 1ppmv of additional CO2. Another 300ppmv over 1850 levels and we have around 3C.
Of course there may be some non-linearity kick in in the next 50 years to change that up or down. But the straight line fit so far between 300 and 400
ppmv points to 3C.
<http://kymhorsell.dyndns.org/graphs/co2-ANNUAL-GLB.Ts+dSST.gif>
--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity:
CO2 climate sensitivity has a component directly due to radiative forcing
by CO2, and a further contribution arising from feedbacks, positive and
negative. "Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts
to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1 °C global warming, which
is easy to calculate and is undisputed. The remaining uncertainty is
due entirely to feedbacks in the system, namely, the
water vapor feedback, the ice-albedo feedback, the cloud feedback,
and the lapse rate feedback";(*) addition of these feedbacks leads to
a value of the sensitivity to CO2 doubling of approximately 3 °C ± 1.5 °C,
which corresponds to a value of # of 0.8 K/(W/m2).
(*) Rahmstorf, Stefan (2008). "Anthropogenic Climate Change: Revisiting the Facts". In Zedillo, E. (PDF). Global Warming: Looking Beyond Kyoto. Brookings Institution Press. pp. 34-53. http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Book_chapters/Rahmstorf_Zedillo_2008.pdf.
Uncle Ben
Jun 11, 2012, 1:39:13 PM6/11/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
This is libelous. You should be ashamed of yourself. At best you show
> - Show quoted text -
ignorance of facts.
Dawlish
Jun 11, 2012, 1:55:02 PM6/11/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
At best, d shows an understanding that is completely beyond an idiot
> - Show quoted text -
like you. That's not libellous...........that's the truth. Shall I
remind everyone of your past idiocies yet again?
Desertphile
Jun 13, 2012, 12:50:17 PM6/13/12
to
Libel: A false publication in writing, printing, or typewriting or
in signs or pictures that maliciously damages a person's
reputation.
Nope! No libel there.
--
REALITY NEEDS ALLIES!
"Desertphile isn't dead..... darn." -- Rawbush (YouTube)
Desertphile
Jun 13, 2012, 1:06:42 PM6/13/12
to
> > This is libelous. You should be ashamed of yourself. At best you show
> > ignorance of facts.- Hide quoted text -
Statements of fact are not libelous.
> > ignorance of facts.- Hide quoted text -
> At best, d shows an understanding that is completely beyond an idiot
> like you. That's not libellous...........that's the truth.
data that fit his desired outcome: that is an observed fact.
Spencer left out 54% of the data because that data refuted his
desired conclusion: that is an observed fact. The editor of Remote
Sensing Systems resigned because he let the "paper" slip past peer
review.
> Shall I remind everyone of your past idiocies yet again?
Dawlish
Jun 13, 2012, 2:08:44 PM6/13/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
He'll now hide under his rock for a while again.
> - Show quoted text -
They always do when the going gets difficult.
Uncle Ben
Jun 13, 2012, 4:11:38 PM6/13/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, what you wrote is not true; it is a spin that has been put on
> - Show quoted text -
Spencer.
Since you seem not to know the facts I will review them:
Spencer wropte a paper about climate sensitivitity. He showed how a
simple model run in Excel, not a supercomputer, demonstrated how
people have been screwing up the calculation of sensitivity.
He illustrated the simple model by showing how it performed on the
IPCC models of the climate, in particular, the range of sensitivities
that they predict. How do you show a range without wasting space? You
show the model that produces the greatest sensitivity and the model
that produces the least sensitivity.
Near-sighted climate scientists were inflamed that he did not also
show the models that best fit the temperature record. That is the only
purpose they ever have for using models. That was not Spencer's
purpose
Just to soothe the climate scientists, Spencer published the results
for ALL the IPCC models in his blog.
So you see that "cherry picking" to fit the temperature record was not
at all what Spencer was trying to do.
If he were trying to deceive people, he would not have announced
plainly in his paper that he was showing only the most sensitive and
the least sensitive IPCC models for illustration of the difficulty of
calculating sensitivity correctly.
He has found the proper way to calculate climate sensitivity from
satellite data and has thus shown that GW is not going to be a severe
problem for humankind. For this noble achievement, he will someday be
celebrated as the one who solved the problem that has frightened
govenments and people.
His is a fine example of the saying, "no good deed goes unpunished."
The inexperienced editor who was persuaded by bigwigs in climate
science to resign bowed to pressure and will likely regret that he had
no spine once this sorry episode in "science" is understood by all.
.
Uncle Ben
erschro...@gmail.com
Jun 13, 2012, 5:13:11 PM6/13/12
to
"the paper failed to identify fundamental methodological errors or
false claims, and should therefore not have been published.
In other words, it was crap.
Come on, anybody with a lick of sense can understand what Wagner said.
""The problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell," he writes
in his editorial, "is not that it declared a minority view ... but
that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents.
This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I
perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly
accepted by the journal."
Ben, need I remind you of the maxim "Opinions should be the result of
facts, not a substitute for them."
Dawlish
Jun 13, 2012, 6:14:56 PM6/13/12
to
On Jun 13, 9:11 pm, Uncle Ben <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote: a toal load
of crap, including this bilge below:
> The inexperienced editor who was persuaded by bigwigs in climate
> science to resign bowed to pressure and will likely regret that he had
> no spine once this sorry episode in "science" is understood by all.
> .
> Benny
Oh dear. This is the opinion of someone who has said that that bison
were around at the permian-triassic extinction. Oh joy.
He will deny that he said this one day. Betcha.
of crap, including this bilge below:
> The inexperienced editor who was persuaded by bigwigs in climate
> science to resign bowed to pressure and will likely regret that he had
> no spine once this sorry episode in "science" is understood by all.
> .
Oh dear. This is the opinion of someone who has said that that bison
were around at the permian-triassic extinction. Oh joy.
He will deny that he said this one day. Betcha.
Uncle Ben
Jun 13, 2012, 11:31:47 PM6/13/12
to
On Jun 13, 5:13 pm, "erschroedin...@gmail.com"
> facts, not a substitute for them."- Hide quoted text -
of cherry-picking examples but was that of ignoring differing views.
Uncle Ben
>
> - Show quoted text -
Read your last paragraph again. Note that Spencer's sin was not that
> - Show quoted text -
of cherry-picking examples but was that of ignoring differing views.
Uncle Ben
Dawlish
Jun 14, 2012, 12:13:19 AM6/14/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
The bison benny. Any pretence at trying to get someone to play nicely
> - Show quoted text -
with you and talk sanely about science, died with that post. <laughing>
Desertphile
Jun 14, 2012, 9:10:36 AM6/14/12
to
On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:08:44 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish
denialists engage in, which is one of the defining traits of
denialism. They saw the facts about the Spencer and Christie
paper; the saw the facts about the RSS editor resigning in
shame--- yet they will insist they did not.
--
REALITY NEEDS ALLIES!
"al gore needs to be hung" -- MrPolarismannn
"Certainly I wish I were" -- Desertphile
> He'll now hide under his rock for a while again.
> They always do when the going gets difficult.
There is the freaky behavior of historical revisionism that
> They always do when the going gets difficult.
denialists engage in, which is one of the defining traits of
denialism. They saw the facts about the Spencer and Christie
paper; the saw the facts about the RSS editor resigning in
shame--- yet they will insist they did not.
--
REALITY NEEDS ALLIES!
"al gore needs to be hung" -- MrPolarismannn
"Certainly I wish I were" -- Desertphile
Desertphile
Jun 14, 2012, 9:28:15 AM6/14/12
to
On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 20:31:47 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Ben
<bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> On Jun 13, 5:13嚙緘m, "erschroedin...@gmail.com"
> <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 13, 4:11嚙緘m, Uncle Ben <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> > > that they predict. How do you show a range without wasting space? 嚙磐ou
what it was.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/dessler-2011-rebuttal-revisions.html
Spencer selectively picked what data to use, and left out the data
that refuted his desired conclusion. RSS editor resigned in shame.
> Uncle Ben
<bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> On Jun 13, 5:13嚙緘m, "erschroedin...@gmail.com"
> <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 13, 4:11嚙緘m, Uncle Ben <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 13, 1:06嚙緘m, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 10:55:02 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish
> >
> > > > <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Jun 11, 6:39嚙緘m, Uncle Ben <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 13, 1:06嚙緘m, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 10:55:02 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish
> >
> > > > <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Jun 11, 10:51嚙窮m, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sat, 26 May 2012 11:58:43 -0700 (PDT), kym horsell
> >
> > > > > > > <kymhors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sunday, May 27, 2012 1:37:13 AM UTC+10, Uncle Ben wrote:
> > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > When you calculate the sensitivity by regression you are allowed only
> > > > > > > > > one forcing at a time. 嚙磕hen you pretend to use only one when in fact
> > > > > > > On Sat, 26 May 2012 11:58:43 -0700 (PDT), kym horsell
> >
> > > > > > > <kymhors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sunday, May 27, 2012 1:37:13 AM UTC+10, Uncle Ben wrote:
> > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > When you calculate the sensitivity by regression you are allowed only
> > > > > > > > > there are two, you greatly overestimate the sensitivity.
> > > > > > > > >...
> >
> > > > > > > > Actually you could also greatly underestimate the sensitivity.
> >
> > > > > > > > Which is one reason to check that the CO2 forcing is against the actual
> > > > > > > > "multivariate regression" aka the obsverations.
> >
> > > > > > > > Spencer at one point said sensitivity was around .7C.
> >
> > > > > > > > Muller says the observed global warming with 30-40% additional CO2 since
> > > > > > > > 1850 is around .75C.
> >
> > > > > > > > I.e. the total warming is .75 - .4*.7 == .47C greater than Spencer would
> > > > > > > > claim CO2 alone should be. 嚙瘢.e. the total forcing is presently
> > > > > > > > >...
> >
> > > > > > > > Actually you could also greatly underestimate the sensitivity.
> >
> > > > > > > > Which is one reason to check that the CO2 forcing is against the actual
> > > > > > > > "multivariate regression" aka the obsverations.
> >
> > > > > > > > Spencer at one point said sensitivity was around .7C.
> >
> > > > > > > > Muller says the observed global warming with 30-40% additional CO2 since
> > > > > > > > 1850 is around .75C.
> >
> > > > > > > > I.e. the total warming is .75 - .4*.7 == .47C greater than Spencer would
> > > > > > > > around 2.7x CO2 alone.
> >
> > > > > > > > Running that by Spencer's .7C CO2 forcing at 2x means the additional
> > > > > > > > factors as we've seen them 40% of the way to 2x is 2.7*.7 == 1.9C.
> >
> > > > > > > > Hardly encouraging.
> >
> > > > > > > This is good: thank you. It makes me wonder what Spencer's "study"
> > > > > > > would have concluded if he had not cherry-picked his data, causing
> > > > > > > the editor of Remote Sensing Systems to resign in shame.
> >
> > > > > > > > The best single variate for predicting the global avg temp seems to be
> > > > > > > > human population. The r2 for such regressions -- essentially a multiple
> > > > > > > > regression given population is responsible for fossil use as well as city growth and agricultural clearing, etc -- is typically 80% compared with 65%
> > > > > > > > for co2 alone vs e.g. the LOTI. (And r2 of 65% in any case indictes co2 conc is
> > > > > > > > a major explanatory variable and therefore a good estimate of total forcings
> > > > > > > > wrt global avg temps).
> >
> > > > > > > > If you then extrapolate out to a population of 9 bn (2050) and 10 bn (2100)
> > > > > > > > the LOTI estimates are 嚙緝oughly 2.5+-1.2C and 3.0+-1.5C.
> >
> > > > > > > > Running that by Spencer's .7C CO2 forcing at 2x means the additional
> > > > > > > > factors as we've seen them 40% of the way to 2x is 2.7*.7 == 1.9C.
> >
> > > > > > > > Hardly encouraging.
> >
> > > > > > > This is good: thank you. It makes me wonder what Spencer's "study"
> > > > > > > would have concluded if he had not cherry-picked his data, causing
> > > > > > > the editor of Remote Sensing Systems to resign in shame.
> >
> > > > > > > > The best single variate for predicting the global avg temp seems to be
> > > > > > > > human population. The r2 for such regressions -- essentially a multiple
> > > > > > > > regression given population is responsible for fossil use as well as city growth and agricultural clearing, etc -- is typically 80% compared with 65%
> > > > > > > > for co2 alone vs e.g. the LOTI. (And r2 of 65% in any case indictes co2 conc is
> > > > > > > > a major explanatory variable and therefore a good estimate of total forcings
> > > > > > > > wrt global avg temps).
> >
> > > > > > > > If you then extrapolate out to a population of 9 bn (2050) and 10 bn (2100)
> > > show the model that produces the greatest sensitivity and the model
> > > that produces the least sensitivity.
> >
> > > Near-sighted climate scientists were inflamed that he did not also
> > > show the models that best fit the temperature record. That is the only
> > > purpose they ever have for using models. That was not Spencer's
> > > purpose
> >
> > > Just to soothe the climate scientists, Spencer published the results
> > > for ALL the IPCC models in his blog.
> >
> > > So you see that "cherry picking" to fit the temperature record was not
> > > at all what Spencer was trying to do.
> > > If he were trying to deceive people, he would not have announced
> > > plainly in his paper that he was showing only the most sensitive and
> > > the least sensitive IPCC models for illustration of the difficulty of
> > > calculating sensitivity correctly.
> >
> > > He has found the proper way to calculate climate sensitivity from
> > > satellite data and has thus shown that GW is not going to be a severe
> > > problem for humankind. 嚙瘤or this noble achievement, he will someday be
> > > that produces the least sensitivity.
> >
> > > Near-sighted climate scientists were inflamed that he did not also
> > > show the models that best fit the temperature record. That is the only
> > > purpose they ever have for using models. That was not Spencer's
> > > purpose
> >
> > > Just to soothe the climate scientists, Spencer published the results
> > > for ALL the IPCC models in his blog.
> >
> > > So you see that "cherry picking" to fit the temperature record was not
> > > at all what Spencer was trying to do.
> > > If he were trying to deceive people, he would not have announced
> > > plainly in his paper that he was showing only the most sensitive and
> > > the least sensitive IPCC models for illustration of the difficulty of
> > > calculating sensitivity correctly.
> >
> > > He has found the proper way to calculate climate sensitivity from
> > > satellite data and has thus shown that GW is not going to be a severe
> > > celebrated as the one who solved the problem that has frightened
> > > govenments and people.
> >
> > > His is a fine example of the saying, "no good deed goes unpunished."
> >
> > > The inexperienced editor who was persuaded by bigwigs in climate
> > > science to resign bowed to pressure and will likely regret that he had
> > > no spine once this sorry episode in "science" is understood by all.
> > > .
> > > Uncle Ben
> >
> > No, the editor said the paper should not have been published.
> >
> > "the paper failed to identify fundamental methodological errors or
> > false claims, and should therefore not have been published.
> >
> > In other words, it was crap.
> >
> > Come on, anybody with a lick of sense can understand what Wagner said.
> >
> > ""The problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell," he writes
> > in his editorial, "is not that it declared a minority view ... but
> > that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents.
> > This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I
> > perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly
> > accepted by the journal."
> >
> > Ben, need I remind you of the maxim "Opinions should be the result of
> > facts, not a substitute for them."- Hide quoted text -
> > > govenments and people.
> >
> > > His is a fine example of the saying, "no good deed goes unpunished."
> >
> > > The inexperienced editor who was persuaded by bigwigs in climate
> > > science to resign bowed to pressure and will likely regret that he had
> > > no spine once this sorry episode in "science" is understood by all.
> > > .
> > > Uncle Ben
> >
> > No, the editor said the paper should not have been published.
> >
> > "the paper failed to identify fundamental methodological errors or
> > false claims, and should therefore not have been published.
> >
> > In other words, it was crap.
> >
> > Come on, anybody with a lick of sense can understand what Wagner said.
> >
> > ""The problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell," he writes
> > in his editorial, "is not that it declared a minority view ... but
> > that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents.
> > This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I
> > perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly
> > accepted by the journal."
> >
> > Ben, need I remind you of the maxim "Opinions should be the result of
> > facts, not a substitute for them."- Hide quoted text -
> Read your last paragraph again. Note that Spencer's sin was not that
> of cherry-picking examples but was that of ignoring differing views.
Please actually read the criticism before pretending to explain
> of cherry-picking examples but was that of ignoring differing views.
what it was.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/dessler-2011-rebuttal-revisions.html
Spencer selectively picked what data to use, and left out the data
that refuted his desired conclusion. RSS editor resigned in shame.
> Uncle Ben
Falcon
Jun 14, 2012, 9:33:25 AM6/14/12
to
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 07:28:15 -0600, Desertphile wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 20:31:47 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Ben
> <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 13, 5:13ï¿œpm, "erschroedin...@gmail.com"
>
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 20:31:47 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Ben
> <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 13, 4:11ï¿œpm, Uncle Ben <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Jun 13, 1:06ï¿œpm, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 10:55:02 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish
> > >
> > > > > <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Jun 11, 6:39ï¿œpm, Uncle Ben <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Jun 13, 1:06ï¿œpm, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 10:55:02 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish
> > >
> > > > > <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Jun 11, 10:51ï¿œam, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sat, 26 May 2012 11:58:43 -0700 (PDT), kym horsell
> > >
> > > > > > > > <kymhors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sunday, May 27, 2012 1:37:13 AM UTC+10, Uncle Ben wrote:
> > > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > > When you calculate the sensitivity by regression you are allowed only
> > > > > > > > > > one forcing at a time. ï¿œWhen you pretend to use only one when in fact
> > > > > > > > On Sat, 26 May 2012 11:58:43 -0700 (PDT), kym horsell
> > >
> > > > > > > > <kymhors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sunday, May 27, 2012 1:37:13 AM UTC+10, Uncle Ben wrote:
> > > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > > When you calculate the sensitivity by regression you are allowed only
> > > > > > > > > > there are two, you greatly overestimate the sensitivity.
> > > > > > > > > >...
> > >
> > > > > > > > > Actually you could also greatly underestimate the sensitivity.
> > >
> > > > > > > > > Which is one reason to check that the CO2 forcing is against the actual
> > > > > > > > > "multivariate regression" aka the obsverations.
> > >
> > > > > > > > > Spencer at one point said sensitivity was around .7C.
> > >
> > > > > > > > > Muller says the observed global warming with 30-40% additional CO2 since
> > > > > > > > > 1850 is around .75C.
> > >
> > > > > > > > > I.e. the total warming is .75 - .4*.7 == .47C greater than Spencer would
> > > > > > > > > claim CO2 alone should be. ï¿œI.e. the total forcing is presently
> > > > > > > > > >...
> > >
> > > > > > > > > Actually you could also greatly underestimate the sensitivity.
> > >
> > > > > > > > > Which is one reason to check that the CO2 forcing is against the actual
> > > > > > > > > "multivariate regression" aka the obsverations.
> > >
> > > > > > > > > Spencer at one point said sensitivity was around .7C.
> > >
> > > > > > > > > Muller says the observed global warming with 30-40% additional CO2 since
> > > > > > > > > 1850 is around .75C.
> > >
> > > > > > > > > I.e. the total warming is .75 - .4*.7 == .47C greater than Spencer would
> > > > > > > > > around 2.7x CO2 alone.
> > >
> > > > > > > > > Running that by Spencer's .7C CO2 forcing at 2x means the additional
> > > > > > > > > factors as we've seen them 40% of the way to 2x is 2.7*.7 == 1.9C.
> > >
> > > > > > > > > Hardly encouraging.
> > >
> > > > > > > > This is good: thank you. It makes me wonder what Spencer's "study"
> > > > > > > > would have concluded if he had not cherry-picked his data, causing
> > > > > > > > the editor of Remote Sensing Systems to resign in shame.
> > >
> > > > > > > > > The best single variate for predicting the global avg temp seems to be
> > > > > > > > > human population. The r2 for such regressions -- essentially a multiple
> > > > > > > > > regression given population is responsible for fossil use as well as city growth and agricultural clearing, etc -- is typically 80% compared with 65%
> > > > > > > > > for co2 alone vs e.g. the LOTI. (And r2 of 65% in any case indictes co2 conc is
> > > > > > > > > a major explanatory variable and therefore a good estimate of total forcings
> > > > > > > > > wrt global avg temps).
> > >
> > > > > > > > > If you then extrapolate out to a population of 9 bn (2050) and 10 bn (2100)
> > > > > > > > > the LOTI estimates are ï¿œroughly 2.5+-1.2C and 3.0+-1.5C.
> > >
> > > > > > > > > Running that by Spencer's .7C CO2 forcing at 2x means the additional
> > > > > > > > > factors as we've seen them 40% of the way to 2x is 2.7*.7 == 1.9C.
> > >
> > > > > > > > > Hardly encouraging.
> > >
> > > > > > > > This is good: thank you. It makes me wonder what Spencer's "study"
> > > > > > > > would have concluded if he had not cherry-picked his data, causing
> > > > > > > > the editor of Remote Sensing Systems to resign in shame.
> > >
> > > > > > > > > The best single variate for predicting the global avg temp seems to be
> > > > > > > > > human population. The r2 for such regressions -- essentially a multiple
> > > > > > > > > regression given population is responsible for fossil use as well as city growth and agricultural clearing, etc -- is typically 80% compared with 65%
> > > > > > > > > for co2 alone vs e.g. the LOTI. (And r2 of 65% in any case indictes co2 conc is
> > > > > > > > > a major explanatory variable and therefore a good estimate of total forcings
> > > > > > > > > wrt global avg temps).
> > >
> > > > > > > > > If you then extrapolate out to a population of 9 bn (2050) and 10 bn (2100)
> > > > show the model that produces the greatest sensitivity and the model
> > > > that produces the least sensitivity.
> > >
> > > > Near-sighted climate scientists were inflamed that he did not also
> > > > show the models that best fit the temperature record. That is the only
> > > > purpose they ever have for using models. That was not Spencer's
> > > > purpose
> > >
> > > > Just to soothe the climate scientists, Spencer published the results
> > > > for ALL the IPCC models in his blog.
> > >
> > > > So you see that "cherry picking" to fit the temperature record was not
> > > > at all what Spencer was trying to do.
> > > > If he were trying to deceive people, he would not have announced
> > > > plainly in his paper that he was showing only the most sensitive and
> > > > the least sensitive IPCC models for illustration of the difficulty of
> > > > calculating sensitivity correctly.
> > >
> > > > He has found the proper way to calculate climate sensitivity from
> > > > satellite data and has thus shown that GW is not going to be a severe
> > > > problem for humankind. ï¿œFor this noble achievement, he will someday be
> > > > that produces the least sensitivity.
> > >
> > > > Near-sighted climate scientists were inflamed that he did not also
> > > > show the models that best fit the temperature record. That is the only
> > > > purpose they ever have for using models. That was not Spencer's
> > > > purpose
> > >
> > > > Just to soothe the climate scientists, Spencer published the results
> > > > for ALL the IPCC models in his blog.
> > >
> > > > So you see that "cherry picking" to fit the temperature record was not
> > > > at all what Spencer was trying to do.
> > > > If he were trying to deceive people, he would not have announced
> > > > plainly in his paper that he was showing only the most sensitive and
> > > > the least sensitive IPCC models for illustration of the difficulty of
> > > > calculating sensitivity correctly.
> > >
> > > > He has found the proper way to calculate climate sensitivity from
> > > > satellite data and has thus shown that GW is not going to be a severe
--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
Uncle Ben
Jun 14, 2012, 2:00:27 PM6/14/12
to
On Jun 14, 9:28 am, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 20:31:47 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Ben
>
>
>
>
>
> <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 13, 5:13 pm, "erschroedin...@gmail.com"
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 20:31:47 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Ben
>
>
>
>
>
> <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> > <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 13, 4:11 pm, Uncle Ben <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 13, 1:06 pm, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 10:55:02 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish
>
> > > > > <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Jun 11, 6:39 pm, Uncle Ben <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 13, 1:06 pm, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 10:55:02 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish
>
> > > > > <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Jun 11, 10:51 am, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sat, 26 May 2012 11:58:43 -0700 (PDT), kym horsell
>
> > > > > > > > <kymhors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sunday, May 27, 2012 1:37:13 AM UTC+10, Uncle Ben wrote:
> > > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > > When you calculate the sensitivity by regression you are allowed only
> > > > > > > > > > one forcing at a time. When you pretend to use only one when in fact
> > > > > > > > On Sat, 26 May 2012 11:58:43 -0700 (PDT), kym horsell
>
> > > > > > > > <kymhors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sunday, May 27, 2012 1:37:13 AM UTC+10, Uncle Ben wrote:
> > > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > > When you calculate the sensitivity by regression you are allowed only
> > > > > > > > > > there are two, you greatly overestimate the sensitivity.
> > > > > > > > > >...
>
> > > > > > > > > Actually you could also greatly underestimate the sensitivity.
>
> > > > > > > > > Which is one reason to check that the CO2 forcing is against the actual
> > > > > > > > > "multivariate regression" aka the obsverations.
>
> > > > > > > > > Spencer at one point said sensitivity was around .7C.
>
> > > > > > > > > Muller says the observed global warming with 30-40% additional CO2 since
> > > > > > > > > 1850 is around .75C.
>
> > > > > > > > > I.e. the total warming is .75 - .4*.7 == .47C greater than Spencer would
> > > > > > > > > claim CO2 alone should be. I.e. the total forcing is presently
> > > > > > > > > >...
>
> > > > > > > > > Actually you could also greatly underestimate the sensitivity.
>
> > > > > > > > > Which is one reason to check that the CO2 forcing is against the actual
> > > > > > > > > "multivariate regression" aka the obsverations.
>
> > > > > > > > > Spencer at one point said sensitivity was around .7C.
>
> > > > > > > > > Muller says the observed global warming with 30-40% additional CO2 since
> > > > > > > > > 1850 is around .75C.
>
> > > > > > > > > I.e. the total warming is .75 - .4*.7 == .47C greater than Spencer would
> > > > > > > > > around 2.7x CO2 alone.
>
> > > > > > > > > Running that by Spencer's .7C CO2 forcing at 2x means the additional
> > > > > > > > > factors as we've seen them 40% of the way to 2x is 2.7*.7 == 1.9C.
>
> > > > > > > > > Hardly encouraging.
>
> > > > > > > > This is good: thank you. It makes me wonder what Spencer's "study"
> > > > > > > > would have concluded if he had not cherry-picked his data, causing
> > > > > > > > the editor of Remote Sensing Systems to resign in shame.
>
> > > > > > > > > The best single variate for predicting the global avg temp seems to be
> > > > > > > > > human population. The r2 for such regressions -- essentially a multiple
> > > > > > > > > regression given population is responsible for fossil use as well as city growth and agricultural clearing, etc -- is typically 80% compared with 65%
> > > > > > > > > for co2 alone vs e.g. the LOTI. (And r2 of 65% in any case indictes co2 conc is
> > > > > > > > > a major explanatory variable and therefore a good estimate of total forcings
> > > > > > > > > wrt global avg temps).
>
> > > > > > > > > If you then extrapolate out to a population of 9 bn (2050) and 10 bn (2100)
> > > > > > > > > the LOTI estimates are roughly 2.5+-1.2C and 3.0+-1.5C.
>
> > > > > > > > > Running that by Spencer's .7C CO2 forcing at 2x means the additional
> > > > > > > > > factors as we've seen them 40% of the way to 2x is 2.7*.7 == 1.9C.
>
> > > > > > > > > Hardly encouraging.
>
> > > > > > > > This is good: thank you. It makes me wonder what Spencer's "study"
> > > > > > > > would have concluded if he had not cherry-picked his data, causing
> > > > > > > > the editor of Remote Sensing Systems to resign in shame.
>
> > > > > > > > > The best single variate for predicting the global avg temp seems to be
> > > > > > > > > human population. The r2 for such regressions -- essentially a multiple
> > > > > > > > > regression given population is responsible for fossil use as well as city growth and agricultural clearing, etc -- is typically 80% compared with 65%
> > > > > > > > > for co2 alone vs e.g. the LOTI. (And r2 of 65% in any case indictes co2 conc is
> > > > > > > > > a major explanatory variable and therefore a good estimate of total forcings
> > > > > > > > > wrt global avg temps).
>
> > > > > > > > > If you then extrapolate out to a population of 9 bn (2050) and 10 bn (2100)
> > > > show the model that produces the greatest sensitivity and the model
> > > > that produces the least sensitivity.
>
> > > > Near-sighted climate scientists were inflamed that he did not also
> > > > show the models that best fit the temperature record. That is the only
> > > > purpose they ever have for using models. That was not Spencer's
> > > > purpose
>
> > > > Just to soothe the climate scientists, Spencer published the results
> > > > for ALL the IPCC models in his blog.
>
> > > > So you see that "cherry picking" to fit the temperature record was not
> > > > at all what Spencer was trying to do.
> > > > If he were trying to deceive people, he would not have announced
> > > > plainly in his paper that he was showing only the most sensitive and
> > > > the least sensitive IPCC models for illustration of the difficulty of
> > > > calculating sensitivity correctly.
>
> > > > He has found the proper way to calculate climate sensitivity from
> > > > satellite data and has thus shown that GW is not going to be a severe
> > > > problem for humankind. For this noble achievement, he will someday be
> > > > that produces the least sensitivity.
>
> > > > Near-sighted climate scientists were inflamed that he did not also
> > > > show the models that best fit the temperature record. That is the only
> > > > purpose they ever have for using models. That was not Spencer's
> > > > purpose
>
> > > > Just to soothe the climate scientists, Spencer published the results
> > > > for ALL the IPCC models in his blog.
>
> > > > So you see that "cherry picking" to fit the temperature record was not
> > > > at all what Spencer was trying to do.
> > > > If he were trying to deceive people, he would not have announced
> > > > plainly in his paper that he was showing only the most sensitive and
> > > > the least sensitive IPCC models for illustration of the difficulty of
> > > > calculating sensitivity correctly.
>
> > > > He has found the proper way to calculate climate sensitivity from
> > > > satellite data and has thus shown that GW is not going to be a severe
>
> - Show quoted text -
Surely you see that what you describe as Spencer's "desired
> - Show quoted text -
conclusion" is an inference that is not supported by a fair reading of
his text. How can you explain your inference measured against what he
actually said: that he shows the lowest and the highest sensitivities?
Uncle Ben
Uncle Ben
Jun 14, 2012, 2:02:42 PM6/14/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Of course I reconizwe what the resigning editor said. I also know from
> - Show quoted text -
Climategate how uncomfortable views must be suppressed "in order to
save the planet."
Dawlish
Jun 14, 2012, 2:39:34 PM6/14/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Silly benny. Now what about the bison who were apparently alive 241m
> - Show quoted text -
years ago..........
Last Post
Jun 14, 2012, 5:41:13 PM6/14/12
to
On Thursday, May 17, 2012 12:57:03 PM UTC-4, Dawlish wrote:
> >
> > “Global warming” refers to the global-average temperature increase
> > that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to
> > many politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that
> > mankind is responsible for that warming. This website describes
> > evidence from my group’s government-funded research that suggests
> > global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite
> > insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol
> > pollution.
> >
> > Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search
> > for natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that
> > global warming is manmade. This assumption is rather easy for
> > scientists since we do not have enough accurate global data for a long
> > enough period of time to see whether there are natural warming
> > mechanisms at work.
> >
> > The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
> > claims that the only way they can get their computerized climate
> > models to produce the observed warming is with anthropogenic
> > (human-caused) pollution. But they’re not going to find something if
> > they don’t search for it. More than one scientist has asked me, “What
> > else COULD it be?” Well, the answer to that takes a little digging…
> > and as I show, one doesn’t have to dig very far.
> >
> > But first let’s examine the basics of why so many scientists think
> > global warming is manmade. Earth’s atmosphere contains natural
> > greenhouse gases (mostly water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane)
> > which act to keep the lower layers of the atmosphere warmer than they
> > otherwise would be without those gases. Greenhouse gases trap infrared
> > radiation — the radiant heat energy that the Earth naturally emits to
> > outer space in response to solar heating. Mankind’s burning of fossil
> > fuels (mostly coal, petroleum, and natural gas) releases carbon
> > dioxide into the atmosphere and this is believed to be enhancing the
> > Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. As of 2008, the concentration of
> > carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 40% to 45% higher than it
> > was before the start of the industrial revolution in the 1800’s.
> >
> > It is interesting to note that, even though carbon dioxide is
> > necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it
> > in Earth’s atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000
> > molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions 5
> > more years to increase that number by 1, to 40.
> >
> > The “Holy Grail”: Climate Sensitivity Figuring out how much past
> > warming is due to mankind, and how much more we can expect in the
> > future, depends upon something called “climate sensitivity”. This is
> > the temperature response of the Earth to a given amount of ‘radiative
> > forcing’, of which there are two kinds: a change in either the amount
> > of sunlight absorbed by the Earth, or in the infrared energy the Earth
> > emits to outer space.
> >
> > The ‘consensus’ of opinion is that the Earth’s climate sensitivity is
> > quite high, and so warming of about 0.25 deg. C to 0.5 deg. C (about
> > 0.5 deg. F to 0.9 deg. F) every 10 years can be expected for as long
> > as mankind continues to use fossil fuels as our primary source of
> > energy. NASA’s James Hansen claims that climate sensitivity is very
> > high, and that we have already put too much extra CO2 in the
> > atmosphere. Presumably this is why he and Al Gore are campaigning for
> > a moratorium on the construction of any more coal-fired power plants
> > in the U.S.
> >
> > You would think that we’d know the Earth’s ‘climate sensitivity’ by
> > now, but it has been surprisingly difficult to determine. How
> > atmospheric processes like clouds and precipitation systems respond to
> > warming is critical, as they are either amplifying the warming, or
> > reducing it. This website currently concentrates on the response of
> > clouds to warming, an issue which I am now convinced the scientific
> > community has totally misinterpreted when they have measured natural,
> > year-to-year fluctuations in the climate system. As a result of that
> > confusion, they have the mistaken belief that climate sensitivity is
> > high, when in fact the satellite evidence suggests climate sensitivity
> > is low.
> >
> > The case for natural climate change I also present an analysis of the
> > Pacific Decadal Oscillation which shows that most climate change might
> > well be the result of….the climate system itself! Because small,
> > chaotic fluctuations in atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems
> > can cause small changes in global average cloudiness, this is all that
> > is necessary to cause climate change. You don’t need the sun, or any
> > other ‘external’ influence (although these are also possible…but for
> > now I’ll let others work on that). It is simply what the climate
> > system does. This is actually quite easy for meteorologists to
> > believe, since we understand how complex weather processes are. Your
> > local TV meteorologist is probably a closet ’skeptic’ regarding
> > mankind’s influence on climate.
> >
> > Climate change — it happens, with or without our help.
> >
> > http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/
> >
> > I await comment with interest!
> >
> > Harry Merrick.
>
> That's all it is lobster. It's Spencer's opinion. That's all it is.
> He's tried to publish it and no-one will now bite, so he's reduced to
> putting his opinion on his blog instead. Over a million scientists
> have a different opinion, as does every scientific institution in the
> world, every national science academy and every single government that
> attended Cancun.
>
> How come they are all wrong and an old creationist like Spencer is
> correct?
On Thursday, May 17, 2012 12:57:03 PM UTC-4, Dawlish wrote:
> >
> > “Global warming” refers to the global-average temperature increase
> > that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to
> > many politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that
> > mankind is responsible for that warming. This website describes
> > evidence from my group’s government-funded research that suggests
> > global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite
> > insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol
> > pollution.
> >
> > Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search
> > for natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that
> > global warming is manmade. This assumption is rather easy for
> > scientists since we do not have enough accurate global data for a long
> > enough period of time to see whether there are natural warming
> > mechanisms at work.
> >
> > The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
> > claims that the only way they can get their computerized climate
> > models to produce the observed warming is with anthropogenic
> > (human-caused) pollution. But they’re not going to find something if
> > they don’t search for it. More than one scientist has asked me, “What
> > else COULD it be?” Well, the answer to that takes a little digging…
> > and as I show, one doesn’t have to dig very far.
> >
> > But first let’s examine the basics of why so many scientists think
> > global warming is manmade. Earth’s atmosphere contains natural
> > greenhouse gases (mostly water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane)
> > which act to keep the lower layers of the atmosphere warmer than they
> > otherwise would be without those gases. Greenhouse gases trap infrared
> > radiation — the radiant heat energy that the Earth naturally emits to
> > outer space in response to solar heating. Mankind’s burning of fossil
> > fuels (mostly coal, petroleum, and natural gas) releases carbon
> > dioxide into the atmosphere and this is believed to be enhancing the
> > Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. As of 2008, the concentration of
> > carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 40% to 45% higher than it
> > was before the start of the industrial revolution in the 1800’s.
> >
> > It is interesting to note that, even though carbon dioxide is
> > necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it
> > in Earth’s atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000
> > molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions 5
> > more years to increase that number by 1, to 40.
> >
> > The “Holy Grail”: Climate Sensitivity Figuring out how much past
> > warming is due to mankind, and how much more we can expect in the
> > future, depends upon something called “climate sensitivity”. This is
> > the temperature response of the Earth to a given amount of ‘radiative
> > forcing’, of which there are two kinds: a change in either the amount
> > of sunlight absorbed by the Earth, or in the infrared energy the Earth
> > emits to outer space.
> >
> > The ‘consensus’ of opinion is that the Earth’s climate sensitivity is
> > quite high, and so warming of about 0.25 deg. C to 0.5 deg. C (about
> > 0.5 deg. F to 0.9 deg. F) every 10 years can be expected for as long
> > as mankind continues to use fossil fuels as our primary source of
> > energy. NASA’s James Hansen claims that climate sensitivity is very
> > high, and that we have already put too much extra CO2 in the
> > atmosphere. Presumably this is why he and Al Gore are campaigning for
> > a moratorium on the construction of any more coal-fired power plants
> > in the U.S.
> >
> > You would think that we’d know the Earth’s ‘climate sensitivity’ by
> > now, but it has been surprisingly difficult to determine. How
> > atmospheric processes like clouds and precipitation systems respond to
> > warming is critical, as they are either amplifying the warming, or
> > reducing it. This website currently concentrates on the response of
> > clouds to warming, an issue which I am now convinced the scientific
> > community has totally misinterpreted when they have measured natural,
> > year-to-year fluctuations in the climate system. As a result of that
> > confusion, they have the mistaken belief that climate sensitivity is
> > high, when in fact the satellite evidence suggests climate sensitivity
> > is low.
> >
> > The case for natural climate change I also present an analysis of the
> > Pacific Decadal Oscillation which shows that most climate change might
> > well be the result of….the climate system itself! Because small,
> > chaotic fluctuations in atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems
> > can cause small changes in global average cloudiness, this is all that
> > is necessary to cause climate change. You don’t need the sun, or any
> > other ‘external’ influence (although these are also possible…but for
> > now I’ll let others work on that). It is simply what the climate
> > system does. This is actually quite easy for meteorologists to
> > believe, since we understand how complex weather processes are. Your
> > local TV meteorologist is probably a closet ’skeptic’ regarding
> > mankind’s influence on climate.
> >
> > Climate change — it happens, with or without our help.
> >
> > http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/
> >
> > I await comment with interest!
> >
> > Harry Merrick.
>
> That's all it is lobster. It's Spencer's opinion. That's all it is.
> He's tried to publish it and no-one will now bite, so he's reduced to
> putting his opinion on his blog instead. Over a million scientists
> have a different opinion, as does every scientific institution in the
> world, every national science academy and every single government that
> attended Cancun.
>
> How come they are all wrong and an old creationist like Spencer is
> correct?
ø Indeed Dawgfish you are both idiot and fool.
IPCC is a political construct to create a one-world
government.
They can not allow any scientists to intrude upon
their climate hoax and so they bully the science
journals into limiting their articles into hoky pokey
global warming bullshit.
And you Dawgfish eat that bullshit holus bolus.
1- The last interglacial period ended 1,600+ years
ago (circa AD 400). Since then there have been
4 fluctuating periods with alternating temps but
gernrally cooling.
2- Woillard circa 1950 declared that the
"Greenhouse" has no thermal effect.
3- In the past 60 years various scientists have
tried to claim that CO2 levels in the
atmosphere were rising dramatically from
1900 and were causing warming temps— A
gross falsehood.
4- The 4th Report of the IPCC was replete with
outright falsehoods from cover to cover.
5- 1998 marked the end of the Industrial Age —
a brief period not a whole lot warmer than the
little Ice Age
6= The current period will likely be cooler than
the ice age. Hopefully it will soon meet the
demise of IPCC and its progenitors. ... and
AlGore too.
> On May 17, 5:15 pm, Harry Merrick <Homes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Well, as always, at least I have been consistent in my beliefs that
> > like it or not, Climate Change and Global Warming are natural
> > occurrences virtually unaffected by the works of man. Here we have Roy
> > W. Spencer Ph.D saying precisely that. All beliefs to the contrary are
> > merely biased assumptions based upon wishful thinking and NO actual
> > science. I re-print Spencers opinions herewith in > > the vain hope that the usual persons may gather at > > least some intellectual benefit:
> >
> > Global Warming
> > Well, as always, at least I have been consistent in my beliefs that
> > like it or not, Climate Change and Global Warming are natural
> > occurrences virtually unaffected by the works of man. Here we have Roy
> > W. Spencer Ph.D saying precisely that. All beliefs to the contrary are
> > merely biased assumptions based upon wishful thinking and NO actual
> > science. I re-print Spencers opinions herewith in > > the vain hope that the usual persons may gather at > > least some intellectual benefit:
> >
> >
> > “Global warming” refers to the global-average temperature increase
> > that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to
> > many politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that
> > mankind is responsible for that warming. This website describes
> > evidence from my group’s government-funded research that suggests
> > global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite
> > insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol
> > pollution.
> >
> > Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search
> > for natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that
> > global warming is manmade. This assumption is rather easy for
> > scientists since we do not have enough accurate global data for a long
> > enough period of time to see whether there are natural warming
> > mechanisms at work.
> >
> > The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
> > claims that the only way they can get their computerized climate
> > models to produce the observed warming is with anthropogenic
> > (human-caused) pollution. But they’re not going to find something if
> > they don’t search for it. More than one scientist has asked me, “What
> > else COULD it be?” Well, the answer to that takes a little digging…
> > and as I show, one doesn’t have to dig very far.
> >
> > But first let’s examine the basics of why so many scientists think
> > global warming is manmade. Earth’s atmosphere contains natural
> > greenhouse gases (mostly water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane)
> > which act to keep the lower layers of the atmosphere warmer than they
> > otherwise would be without those gases. Greenhouse gases trap infrared
> > radiation — the radiant heat energy that the Earth naturally emits to
> > outer space in response to solar heating. Mankind’s burning of fossil
> > fuels (mostly coal, petroleum, and natural gas) releases carbon
> > dioxide into the atmosphere and this is believed to be enhancing the
> > Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. As of 2008, the concentration of
> > carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 40% to 45% higher than it
> > was before the start of the industrial revolution in the 1800’s.
> >
> > It is interesting to note that, even though carbon dioxide is
> > necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it
> > in Earth’s atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000
> > molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions 5
> > more years to increase that number by 1, to 40.
> >
> > The “Holy Grail”: Climate Sensitivity Figuring out how much past
> > warming is due to mankind, and how much more we can expect in the
> > future, depends upon something called “climate sensitivity”. This is
> > the temperature response of the Earth to a given amount of ‘radiative
> > forcing’, of which there are two kinds: a change in either the amount
> > of sunlight absorbed by the Earth, or in the infrared energy the Earth
> > emits to outer space.
> >
> > The ‘consensus’ of opinion is that the Earth’s climate sensitivity is
> > quite high, and so warming of about 0.25 deg. C to 0.5 deg. C (about
> > 0.5 deg. F to 0.9 deg. F) every 10 years can be expected for as long
> > as mankind continues to use fossil fuels as our primary source of
> > energy. NASA’s James Hansen claims that climate sensitivity is very
> > high, and that we have already put too much extra CO2 in the
> > atmosphere. Presumably this is why he and Al Gore are campaigning for
> > a moratorium on the construction of any more coal-fired power plants
> > in the U.S.
> >
> > You would think that we’d know the Earth’s ‘climate sensitivity’ by
> > now, but it has been surprisingly difficult to determine. How
> > atmospheric processes like clouds and precipitation systems respond to
> > warming is critical, as they are either amplifying the warming, or
> > reducing it. This website currently concentrates on the response of
> > clouds to warming, an issue which I am now convinced the scientific
> > community has totally misinterpreted when they have measured natural,
> > year-to-year fluctuations in the climate system. As a result of that
> > confusion, they have the mistaken belief that climate sensitivity is
> > high, when in fact the satellite evidence suggests climate sensitivity
> > is low.
> >
> > The case for natural climate change I also present an analysis of the
> > Pacific Decadal Oscillation which shows that most climate change might
> > well be the result of….the climate system itself! Because small,
> > chaotic fluctuations in atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems
> > can cause small changes in global average cloudiness, this is all that
> > is necessary to cause climate change. You don’t need the sun, or any
> > other ‘external’ influence (although these are also possible…but for
> > now I’ll let others work on that). It is simply what the climate
> > system does. This is actually quite easy for meteorologists to
> > believe, since we understand how complex weather processes are. Your
> > local TV meteorologist is probably a closet ’skeptic’ regarding
> > mankind’s influence on climate.
> >
> > Climate change — it happens, with or without our help.
> >
> > http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/
> >
> > I await comment with interest!
> >
> > Harry Merrick.
>
> That's all it is lobster. It's Spencer's opinion. That's all it is.
> He's tried to publish it and no-one will now bite, so he's reduced to
> putting his opinion on his blog instead. Over a million scientists
> have a different opinion, as does every scientific institution in the
> world, every national science academy and every single government that
> attended Cancun.
>
> How come they are all wrong and an old creationist like Spencer is
> correct?
On Thursday, May 17, 2012 12:57:03 PM UTC-4, Dawlish wrote:
> On May 17, 5:15 pm, Harry Merrick <Homes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Well, as always, at least I have been consistent in my beliefs that
> > like it or not, Climate Change and Global Warming are natural
> > occurrences virtually unaffected by the works of man. Here we have Roy
> > W. Spencer Ph.D saying precisely that. All beliefs to the contrary are
> > merely biased assumptions based upon wishful thinking and NO actual
> > science. I re-print Spencers opinions herewith in the vain hope that
> > the usual persons may gather at least some intellectual benefit:
> >
> > Global Warming
> > Well, as always, at least I have been consistent in my beliefs that
> > like it or not, Climate Change and Global Warming are natural
> > occurrences virtually unaffected by the works of man. Here we have Roy
> > W. Spencer Ph.D saying precisely that. All beliefs to the contrary are
> > merely biased assumptions based upon wishful thinking and NO actual
> > science. I re-print Spencers opinions herewith in the vain hope that
> > the usual persons may gather at least some intellectual benefit:
> >
> >
> > “Global warming” refers to the global-average temperature increase
> > that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to
> > many politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that
> > mankind is responsible for that warming. This website describes
> > evidence from my group’s government-funded research that suggests
> > global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite
> > insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol
> > pollution.
> >
> > Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search
> > for natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that
> > global warming is manmade. This assumption is rather easy for
> > scientists since we do not have enough accurate global data for a long
> > enough period of time to see whether there are natural warming
> > mechanisms at work.
> >
> > The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
> > claims that the only way they can get their computerized climate
> > models to produce the observed warming is with anthropogenic
> > (human-caused) pollution. But they’re not going to find something if
> > they don’t search for it. More than one scientist has asked me, “What
> > else COULD it be?” Well, the answer to that takes a little digging…
> > and as I show, one doesn’t have to dig very far.
> >
> > But first let’s examine the basics of why so many scientists think
> > global warming is manmade. Earth’s atmosphere contains natural
> > greenhouse gases (mostly water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane)
> > which act to keep the lower layers of the atmosphere warmer than they
> > otherwise would be without those gases. Greenhouse gases trap infrared
> > radiation — the radiant heat energy that the Earth naturally emits to
> > outer space in response to solar heating. Mankind’s burning of fossil
> > fuels (mostly coal, petroleum, and natural gas) releases carbon
> > dioxide into the atmosphere and this is believed to be enhancing the
> > Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. As of 2008, the concentration of
> > carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 40% to 45% higher than it
> > was before the start of the industrial revolution in the 1800’s.
> >
> > It is interesting to note that, even though carbon dioxide is
> > necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it
> > in Earth’s atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000
> > molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions 5
> > more years to increase that number by 1, to 40.
> >
> > The “Holy Grail”: Climate Sensitivity Figuring out how much past
> > warming is due to mankind, and how much more we can expect in the
> > future, depends upon something called “climate sensitivity”. This is
> > the temperature response of the Earth to a given amount of ‘radiative
> > forcing’, of which there are two kinds: a change in either the amount
> > of sunlight absorbed by the Earth, or in the infrared energy the Earth
> > emits to outer space.
> >
> > The ‘consensus’ of opinion is that the Earth’s climate sensitivity is
> > quite high, and so warming of about 0.25 deg. C to 0.5 deg. C (about
> > 0.5 deg. F to 0.9 deg. F) every 10 years can be expected for as long
> > as mankind continues to use fossil fuels as our primary source of
> > energy. NASA’s James Hansen claims that climate sensitivity is very
> > high, and that we have already put too much extra CO2 in the
> > atmosphere. Presumably this is why he and Al Gore are campaigning for
> > a moratorium on the construction of any more coal-fired power plants
> > in the U.S.
> >
> > You would think that we’d know the Earth’s ‘climate sensitivity’ by
> > now, but it has been surprisingly difficult to determine. How
> > atmospheric processes like clouds and precipitation systems respond to
> > warming is critical, as they are either amplifying the warming, or
> > reducing it. This website currently concentrates on the response of
> > clouds to warming, an issue which I am now convinced the scientific
> > community has totally misinterpreted when they have measured natural,
> > year-to-year fluctuations in the climate system. As a result of that
> > confusion, they have the mistaken belief that climate sensitivity is
> > high, when in fact the satellite evidence suggests climate sensitivity
> > is low.
> >
> > The case for natural climate change I also present an analysis of the
> > Pacific Decadal Oscillation which shows that most climate change might
> > well be the result of….the climate system itself! Because small,
> > chaotic fluctuations in atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems
> > can cause small changes in global average cloudiness, this is all that
> > is necessary to cause climate change. You don’t need the sun, or any
> > other ‘external’ influence (although these are also possible…but for
> > now I’ll let others work on that). It is simply what the climate
> > system does. This is actually quite easy for meteorologists to
> > believe, since we understand how complex weather processes are. Your
> > local TV meteorologist is probably a closet ’skeptic’ regarding
> > mankind’s influence on climate.
> >
> > Climate change — it happens, with or without our help.
> >
> > http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/
> >
> > I await comment with interest!
> >
> > Harry Merrick.
>
> That's all it is lobster. It's Spencer's opinion. That's all it is.
> He's tried to publish it and no-one will now bite, so he's reduced to
> putting his opinion on his blog instead. Over a million scientists
> have a different opinion, as does every scientific institution in the
> world, every national science academy and every single government that
> attended Cancun.
>
> How come they are all wrong and an old creationist like Spencer is
> correct?
ø Indeed Dawgfish you are both idiot and fool.
IPCC is a political construct to create a one-world
government.
They can not allow any scientists to intrude upon
their climate hoax and so they bully the science
journals into limiting their articles into hoky pokey
global warming bullshit.
And you Dawgfish eat that bullshit holus bolus.
1- The last interglacial period ended 1,600+ years
ago (circa AD 400). Since then there have been
4 fluctuating periods with alternating temps but
gernrally cooling.
2- Woillard circa 1950 declared that the
"Greenhouse" has no thermal effect.
3- In the past 60 years various scientists have
tried to claim that CO2 levels in the
atmosphere were rising dramatically from
1900 and were causing warming temps— A
gross falsehood.
4- The 4th Report of the IPCC was replete with
outright falsehoods from cover to cover.
5- 1998 marked the end of the Industrial Age —
a brief period not a whole lot warmer than the
little Ice Age
6= The current period will likely be cooler than
the ice age. Hopefully it will soon meet the
demise of IPCC and its progenitors. ... and
AlGore too.
Desertphile
Jun 14, 2012, 8:47:38 PM6/14/12
to
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:02:42 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Ben
> Of course I reconizwe what the resigning editor said. I also know from
> Climategate how uncomfortable views must be suppressed "in order to
> save the planet."
"Climategate" was a hoax, you silly goose: it never happened.
> Climategate how uncomfortable views must be suppressed "in order to
> save the planet."
Wally W.
Jun 14, 2012, 10:44:41 PM6/14/12
to
Dawlish
Jun 15, 2012, 1:01:34 AM6/15/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
benny retreats under his rock, trying to pretend that he never really
> - Show quoted text -
said this and that, really, he's not ignorant about the most basic of
science.
PS The day is coming when he will actually try to deny that he said
this. He's just biding his time. I mean, he couldn't really have said
that bison were around at the Permian-Triassic
extinction.............could he? Because, if he did, who'd talk to him
on the sensible basis that he'd like them to, without rolling on the
floor in fits of laughter at the idiot?
Desertphile
Jun 15, 2012, 9:41:04 AM6/15/12
to
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 22:44:41 -0400, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com>
I wrote a fact. There is no evidence that "climategate" happened.
If you have any such evidence, step forward and present it: there
are dozens of cults that will pay you handsomely for such
evidence.
If you have any such evidence, step forward and present it: there
are dozens of cults that will pay you handsomely for such
evidence.
Desertphile
Jun 15, 2012, 9:43:14 AM6/15/12
to
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 22:01:34 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish
> > Silly benny. Now what about the bison who were apparently alive 241m
> > years ago..........- Hide quoted text -
would sell it to the denialists machine (FOX, Spencer).
> PS The day is coming when he will actually try to deny that he said
> this. He's just biding his time. I mean, he couldn't really have said
> that bison were around at the Permian-Triassic
> extinction.............could he? Because, if he did, who'd talk to him
> on the sensible basis that he'd like them to, without rolling on the
> floor in fits of laughter at the idiot?
He might be a young-Earth Creationist nutter.
> > > Of course I reconizwe what the resigning editor said. I also know from
> > > Climategate how uncomfortable views must be suppressed "in order to
> > > save the planet."- Hide quoted text -
Still zero evidence "climategate" happened.
> > > Climategate how uncomfortable views must be suppressed "in order to
> > > save the planet."- Hide quoted text -
> > Silly benny. Now what about the bison who were apparently alive 241m
> > years ago..........- Hide quoted text -
> benny retreats under his rock, trying to pretend that he never really
> said this and that, really, he's not ignorant about the most basic of
> science.
Hell, I would love to see evidence that "climategate" happened: I
> said this and that, really, he's not ignorant about the most basic of
> science.
would sell it to the denialists machine (FOX, Spencer).
> PS The day is coming when he will actually try to deny that he said
> this. He's just biding his time. I mean, he couldn't really have said
> that bison were around at the Permian-Triassic
> extinction.............could he? Because, if he did, who'd talk to him
> on the sensible basis that he'd like them to, without rolling on the
> floor in fits of laughter at the idiot?
Dawlish
Jun 15, 2012, 1:57:45 PM6/15/12
to
> "Certainly I wish I were" -- Desertphile- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
maybe so..........he's certanly hiding from this.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wally W.
Jun 15, 2012, 10:18:18 PM6/15/12
to
The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (also known as
"Climategate")[2][3]
Desertphile
Jun 16, 2012, 12:51:38 PM6/16/12
to
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 22:18:18 -0400, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com>
You silly goose. I am well aware that hysterical nutters have
claimed there was a "climategate;" I would love to see evidence
that it happened. Got any?
--
REALITY NEEDS ALLIES!
"al gore needs to be hung" -- MrPolarismannn
"How do you know he isn't?" -- Desertphile
claimed there was a "climategate;" I would love to see evidence
that it happened. Got any?
--
REALITY NEEDS ALLIES!
"al gore needs to be hung" -- MrPolarismannn
Wally W.
Jun 16, 2012, 2:35:04 PM6/16/12
to
email controversy?"
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Jun 19, 2012, 1:01:09 PM6/19/12
to
my feeling is that it essentially was a set-up,
even if the "hackers" were for real.
these GCMs are far too sparse,
even to get a handle on mesoscale systems ... although
amazing improvemnts are always being made!
if you like math, you like this stuff, two.
even if the "hackers" were for real.
these GCMs are far too sparse,
even to get a handle on mesoscale systems ... although
amazing improvemnts are always being made!
if you like math, you like this stuff, two.
Desertphile
Jun 22, 2012, 11:40:28 AM6/22/12
to
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 14:35:04 -0400, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com>
wrote:
What evidence, if any, have you that shows the CRU actually did
anything wrong? As noted, I fully agree that the hoax happened.
--
REALITY NEEDS ALLIES!
"al gore needs to be hung" -- MrPolarismannn
"Like a horse." -- Desertphile
wrote:
anything wrong? As noted, I fully agree that the hoax happened.
--
REALITY NEEDS ALLIES!
"al gore needs to be hung" -- MrPolarismannn
Wally W.
Jun 22, 2012, 10:46:11 PM6/22/12
to
Your weaselish use of language is noted.
Your effort at precision in language was only to make a distinction
where there was no difference.
Getting a concession from you was not worth the effort.
If your future efforts to make a point continue along this line, I
doubt they will be worth reading.
This is one issue you should have let go.
It tainted my already negative assessment of whether I should even
bother to open your posts.
Dawlish
Jun 23, 2012, 3:53:13 AM6/23/12
to
On Jun 23, 3:46 am, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 09:40:28 -0600, Desertphile wrote:
> >On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 14:35:04 -0400, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com>
> >wrote:
>
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 09:40:28 -0600, Desertphile wrote:
> >On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 14:35:04 -0400, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com>
> >wrote:
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
"Climategate" was a word made up by deniers on blogs. 7 extremely
> - Show quoted text -
detailed and expensive enquiries, followed the criminal act of hacking
into the CRUs email system. The enquiries clearly showed that some
scientists had been naive about the things they'd said in emails.
Deniers don't like that fact.
That's tough, isn't it, wally?
PS Where the hell are you anyway?
Desertphile
Jun 28, 2012, 9:05:10 PM6/28/12
to
On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 22:46:11 -0400, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com>
There was no such thing as "climategate:" it never happened. If
you have evidence that shows any scandal happened, share it. Thank
you in advance.
--
REALITY NEEDS ALLIES!
"al gore needs to be hung" -- MrPolarismannn
"Keep your homosexual fantasies to yourself." -- Desertphile
you have evidence that shows any scandal happened, share it. Thank
you in advance.
--
REALITY NEEDS ALLIES!
"al gore needs to be hung" -- MrPolarismannn
Wally W.
Jun 29, 2012, 12:18:33 AM6/29/12
to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate
The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (also known as
"Climategate")[2][3]
controversy." Since said controversy is 'also known as
"Climategate",' there *was* such a thing as Climategate.
And it made the Warmists look like scamming asses.
gordo
Jun 29, 2012, 2:03:19 AM6/29/12
to
was where the term came from . The president fell and that was
watergate. No one fell from the attempts of the people who are being
pursued for criminal activity for hacking private emails. Not one
person. Ergo no climategate , just a bunch of deniers of reality.
Desertphile
Jun 29, 2012, 9:22:09 AM6/29/12
to
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 00:18:33 -0400, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com>
I asked for any evidence that "climategate" happened; have you
any?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate
> The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (also known as
> "Climategate")[2][3]
>
> There *was* such a thing as "The Climatic Research Unit email
> controversy." Since said controversy is 'also known as
> "Climategate",' there *was* such a thing as Climategate.
>
> And it made the Warmists look like scamming asses.
any?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate
> The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (also known as
> "Climategate")[2][3]
>
> There *was* such a thing as "The Climatic Research Unit email
> controversy." Since said controversy is 'also known as
> "Climategate",' there *was* such a thing as Climategate.
>
> And it made the Warmists look like scamming asses.
Desertphile
Jun 29, 2012, 9:22:15 AM6/29/12
to
> The results showed that there was no climategate. Nixon and watergate
> was where the term came from . The president fell and that was
> watergate. No one fell from the attempts of the people who are being
> pursued for criminal activity for hacking private emails. Not one
> person. Ergo no climategate , just a bunch of deniers of reality.
there is evidence, I would love to see it.
Dawlish
Jun 29, 2012, 1:02:58 PM6/29/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
........and the best where's wally can come up with in response to
> - Show quoted text -
this is: "There are synonymns in English. Maybe there are none in your
language. " Nice. That just about sums up denier science.
Desertphile
Jun 30, 2012, 10:33:47 PM6/30/12
to
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 10:02:58 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish
"climategate" happened, and the hysterical paranoid denialist
pointed to a thesaurus. And these clowns still wonder why we laugh
at them?
--
REALITY NEEDS ALLIES!
"al gore needs to be hung" -- MrPolarismannn
"And they wuz right!" -- Desertphile
> ........and the best where's wally can come up with in response to
> this is: "There are synonymns in English. Maybe there are none in your
> language. " Nice. That just about sums up denier science.
Calumny through synonyms. Amazing. I asked for evidence that shows
> this is: "There are synonymns in English. Maybe there are none in your
> language. " Nice. That just about sums up denier science.
"climategate" happened, and the hysterical paranoid denialist
pointed to a thesaurus. And these clowns still wonder why we laugh
at them?
--
REALITY NEEDS ALLIES!
"al gore needs to be hung" -- MrPolarismannn
Wally W.
Jul 1, 2012, 1:18:11 PM7/1/12
to
What evidence do you need that that "The Climatic Research Unit email
controversy" occurred?
You don't like it that others have called it "Climategate."
Too bad. The label stuck.
Warmists *do* know about trying to affix labels, don't they?
Wally W.
Jul 1, 2012, 1:20:15 PM7/1/12
to
That is a "denialist" response.
"The Climatic Research Unit email controversy" occurred.
You don't like it that others have called it "Climategate."
Too bad. The label stuck.
Warmists *do* know about trying to affix labels, don't they?
Then they get weasel-like and morph their fear:
Global warming, climate change, ocean acidification, species
extinction, state shift, sustainability, next morph pending.
Desertphile
Jul 2, 2012, 7:31:41 PM7/2/12
to
On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 13:18:11 -0400, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com>
Yes, you did. Got any evidence "climategate" happened?
> What evidence do you need that that "The Climatic Research Unit email
> controversy" occurred?
>
> You don't like it that others have called it "Climategate."
>
> Too bad. The label stuck.
>
> Warmists *do* know about trying to affix labels, don't they?
> What evidence do you need that that "The Climatic Research Unit email
> controversy" occurred?
>
> You don't like it that others have called it "Climategate."
>
> Too bad. The label stuck.
>
> Warmists *do* know about trying to affix labels, don't they?
Wally W.
Jul 2, 2012, 10:05:29 PM7/2/12
to
happened.
Are you denying "The Climatic Research Unit email controversy"
Desertphile
Jul 3, 2012, 1:09:00 PM7/3/12
to
Wally W.
Jul 3, 2012, 10:03:04 PM7/3/12
to
Desertphile
Jul 4, 2012, 2:10:55 PM7/4/12
to
On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 22:03:04 -0400, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com>
What I am asking for is evidence "climategate" happened. Got any?
--
REALITY NEEDS ALLIES!
"RESPECT ARE - COUNTRY SPEAK ENGLISH" --- sign at a "tea party" rally
--
REALITY NEEDS ALLIES!
"RESPECT ARE - COUNTRY SPEAK ENGLISH" --- sign at a "tea party" rally
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages