Observations suggest a reduction in estimates of climate sensitivity

[Falcon]

Here we go again. A new paper suggests that the temperature rise over the
next half-century will be around half a degree C, much lower than most
recent claims made by environmentalists. This suggests that the cost of
current mitigation policies far outweigh any damage likely to caused by
climate change; a suggestion that is likely to be ignored by hysterics
everywhere.

Otto et al., Energy budget constraints on climate response, Nature
Geoscience (2013) doi:10.1038/ngeo1836 http://bit.ly/19UCnuI

Comment: http://thetim.es/19UCEhw

--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
Annual "new study" finds 97% of climate scientists believe in man-made
climate change; public consensus sure to follow once news gets out.
http://bit.ly/Z2IRsd

[matt_sykes]

On 20 May, 14:17, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
> Here we go again. A new paper suggests that the temperature rise over the
> next half-century will be around half a degree C, much lower than most
> recent claims made by environmentalists. This suggests that the cost of
> current mitigation policies far outweigh any damage likely to caused by
> climate change; a suggestion that is likely to be ignored by hysterics
> everywhere.
>
> Otto et al., Energy budget constraints on climate response, Nature

> Geoscience (2013) doi:10.1038/ngeo1836http://bit.ly/19UCnuI

>
> Comment:http://thetim.es/19UCEhw
>
> --
> Falcon:
> fide, sed cui vide. (L)
> Annual "new study" finds 97% of climate scientists believe in man-made
> climate change; public consensus sure to follow once news gets out.http://bit.ly/Z2IRsd

This is the new concensus, climate sensitivity much lower than
thought. I wonder if Gordo and the other idiots will respect it?

[Dawlish]

Does it spinner? You haven't read the paper, have you, because it is behind a paywall and the shortened abstract does not suggest what you say it does? I do hope you are right, as only 0.5C warming by 2100 would be terrific for the planet and for my grandchildren.

However, at phys.org, they have read the paper and their article just don't seem to suggest what you are trying to:

"Because of the hiatus, warming in the next 50 to 100 years "is likely to lie within the range of current climate models, but not at the high end of this range," said Alexander Otto of Oxford University's Environmental Change Institute, co-author of the new study.

Otto and his team used up-to-date data on temperatures and levels of solar radiation trapped in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases, to make new projections for climate warming.

The United Nations is targeting a global average maximum temperature rise of two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) on pre-industrial levels, for what scientists believe would be manageable climate change.

In 2007, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned in a report of the temperature rising by as much as 6.4 degrees C in the worst emissions scenario.

Study co-author Reto Knutti of ETH Zurich said data ruling out the most extreme scenarios for near-term warming was clearly welcome news.

"But even if the response is at the low end of the current range of uncertainty, we are still looking at warming well over the two-degree goal that countries have agreed upon."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-05-dire-outlook-global.html#jCp

Note especially, the last paragraph, which is a quote from the paper's actual author. I'll repeat it for you:

"But even if the response is at the low end of the current range of uncertainty, we are still looking at warming **well over the two-degree goal that countries have agreed upon.**"

0.5C you said. Hmmmmmmmm.

[SunDancer]

Falcon wrote :

> Here we go again. A new paper suggests that the temperature rise over the
> next half-century will be around half a degree C, much lower than most
> recent claims made by environmentalists. This suggests that the cost of
> current mitigation policies far outweigh any damage likely to caused by
> climate change; a suggestion that is likely to be ignored by hysterics
> everywhere.
>
> Otto et al., Energy budget constraints on climate response, Nature
> Geoscience (2013) doi:10.1038/ngeo1836 http://bit.ly/19UCnuI
>
> Comment: http://thetim.es/19UCEhw

This must be "the new consensus" LOL

--
(No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. However,
a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.)

[Tom P]

On 05/20/2013 02:17 PM, Falcon wrote:
>
> Here we go again. A new paper suggests that the temperature rise over the
> next half-century will be around half a degree C, much lower than most
> recent claims made by environmentalists. This suggests that the cost of
> current mitigation policies far outweigh any damage likely to caused by
> climate change; a suggestion that is likely to be ignored by hysterics
> everywhere.
>
> Otto et al., Energy budget constraints on climate response, Nature
> Geoscience (2013) doi:10.1038/ngeo1836 http://bit.ly/19UCnuI
>
> Comment: http://thetim.es/19UCEhw
>

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22567023

The researchers say the difference between the lower short-term estimate
and the more consistent long-term picture can be explained by the fact
that the heat from the last decade has been absorbed into and is being
stored by the world's oceans.

Not everyone agrees with this perspective.

Prof Steven Sherwood, from the University of New South Wales, says the
conclusion about the oceans needs to be taken with a grain of salt for now.

"There is other research out there pointing out that this storage may be
part of a natural cycle that will eventually reverse, either due to El
Nino or the so-called Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, and therefore
may not imply what the authors are suggesting," he said.

The authors say there are ongoing uncertainties surrounding the role of
aerosols in the atmosphere and around the issue of clouds.

"We would expect a single decade to jump around a bit but the overall
trend is independent of it, and people should be exactly as concerned as
before about what climate change is doing," said Dr Otto.

Is there any succour in these findings for climate sceptics who say the
slowdown over the past 14 years means the global warming is not real?

"None. No comfort whatsoever," he said.

[AM]

On 5/20/2013 9:52 AM, Tom P wrote:
> On 05/20/2013 02:17 PM, Falcon wrote:
>>
>> Here we go again. A new paper suggests that the temperature rise over the
>> next half-century will be around half a degree C, much lower than most
>> recent claims made by environmentalists. This suggests that the cost of
>> current mitigation policies far outweigh any damage likely to caused by
>> climate change; a suggestion that is likely to be ignored by hysterics
>> everywhere.
>>
>> Otto et al., Energy budget constraints on climate response, Nature
>> Geoscience (2013) doi:10.1038/ngeo1836 http://bit.ly/19UCnuI
>>
>> Comment: http://thetim.es/19UCEhw
>>
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22567023
>
> The researchers say the difference between the lower short-term estimate
> and the more consistent long-term picture can be explained by the fact
> that the heat from the last decade has been absorbed into and is being
> stored by the world's oceans.
>

Really ? Do say...

BTW, where is the independent proof that this is happening ?

> Not everyone agrees with this perspective.

No Kidding !

>
> Prof Steven Sherwood, from the University of New South Wales, says the
> conclusion about the oceans needs to be taken with a grain of salt for now.

Ya Think ?

>
> "There is other research out there pointing out that this storage may be
> part of a natural cycle that will eventually reverse, either due to El
> Nino or the so-called Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, and therefore
> may not imply what the authors are suggesting," he said.
>

Good Grief...

> The authors say there are ongoing uncertainties surrounding the role of
> aerosols in the atmosphere and around the issue of clouds.
>
> "We would expect a single decade to jump around a bit but the overall
> trend is independent of it, and people should be exactly as concerned as
> before about what climate change is doing," said Dr Otto.
>

Ahhh, moving the goalposts again. Seems to happen a lot in climate science.

> Is there any succour in these findings for climate sceptics who say the
> slowdown over the past 14 years means the global warming is not real?
>
> "None. No comfort whatsoever," he said.
>

That is only his opinion not fact.


Really Tom, I expected that you could do better than this.

[emoneyjoe]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 13:17:47 +0100, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:

>
>Here we go again. A new paper suggests that the temperature rise over the
>next half-century will be around half a degree C, much lower than most
>recent claims made by environmentalists. This suggests that the cost of
>current mitigation policies far outweigh any damage likely to caused by
>climate change; a suggestion that is likely to be ignored by hysterics
>everywhere.
>
>Otto et al., Energy budget constraints on climate response, Nature
>Geoscience (2013) doi:10.1038/ngeo1836 http://bit.ly/19UCnuI
>
>Comment: http://thetim.es/19UCEhw

If the data rise in the 1980-1997 time frame
was caused by changing the station list and
UHI changes, then there is no reason to think
there will be any substantial rise in 50 years.

[Dawlish]

On Monday, May 20, 2013 1:17:47 PM UTC+1, Falcon wrote:

MOre from the report's author about climate sensitivity.......

This latest research, including the decade of stalled temperature rises, produces a range of 0.9-5.0C.

"It is a bigger range of uncertainty," said Dr Otto.

"But it still includes the old range. We would all like climate sensitivity to be lower but it isn't."

You've lied for effect spinner, haven't you?

[Claudius Denk]

On May 20, 5:17 am, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
> Here we go again. A new paper suggests that the temperature rise over the
> next half-century will be around half a degree C, much lower than most
> recent claims made by environmentalists. This suggests that the cost of
> current mitigation policies far outweigh any damage likely to caused by
> climate change; a suggestion that is likely to be ignored by hysterics
> everywhere.
>
> Otto et al., Energy budget constraints on climate response, Nature

> Geoscience (2013) doi:10.1038/ngeo1836http://bit.ly/19UCnuI

>
> Comment:http://thetim.es/19UCEhw
>
> --
> Falcon:
> fide, sed cui vide. (L)
> Annual "new study" finds 97% of climate scientists believe in man-made
> climate change; public consensus sure to follow once news gets out.http://bit.ly/Z2IRsd

The climate fraudsters realize that the political climate is changing
and so now they are trying to quietly step out of the spotlight and
put some distance between themselves and the ever escalating problems
of the Obama administration.

[Dawlish]

You are deluded, aren't you denky.

[Falcon]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 15:52:34 +0200, Tom P wrote:
[...]

>
> Is there any succour in these findings for climate sceptics who say the
> slowdown over the past 14 years means the global warming is not real?
>
> "None. No comfort whatsoever," he said.

Nice to see you acknowledge 'the hiatus' as Garvey called it, but honestly
Tom, "not real"? That old straw-man again? Show me one sceptic of any
importance anywhere who has claimed that the Earth hasn't warmed.

[Falcon]

The paper (which, I'm told, I haven't read) suggests that the current
'hiatus' in warming could last as long as 40 years. It's worth noting that
it does not suggest the 'hiatus' is due to either station changes or
changes in statistical methods of the kind you described. ;-)

[matt_sykes]

On 20 May, 15:03, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, May 20, 2013 1:17:47 PM UTC+1, Falcon wrote:
> > Here we go again. A new paper suggests that the temperature rise over the
>
> > next half-century will be around half a degree C, much lower than most
>
> > recent claims made by environmentalists. This suggests that the cost of
>
> > current mitigation policies far outweigh any damage likely to caused by
>
> > climate change; a suggestion that is likely to be ignored by hysterics
>
> > everywhere.
>
> > Otto et al., Energy budget constraints on climate response, Nature
>

> > Geoscience (2013) doi:10.1038/ngeo1836http://bit.ly/19UCnuI

>
> > Comment:http://thetim.es/19UCEhw
>
> > --
>
> > Falcon:
>
> > fide, sed cui vide. (L)
>
> > Annual "new study" finds 97% of climate scientists believe in man-made
>
> > climate change; public consensus sure to follow once news gets out.
>
> >http://bit.ly/Z2IRsd
>
> Does it spinner? You haven't read the paper, have you, because it is behind a paywall and the shortened abstract does not suggest what you say it does? I do hope you are right, as only 0.5C warming by 2100 would be terrific for the planet and for my grandchildren.
>
> However, at phys.org, they have read the paper and their article just don't seem to suggest what you are trying to:
>
> "Because of the hiatus, warming in the next 50 to 100 years "is likely to lie within the range of current climate models, but not at the high end of this range," said Alexander Otto of Oxford University's Environmental Change Institute, co-author of the new study.
>
> Otto and his team used up-to-date data on temperatures and levels of solar radiation trapped in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases, to make new projections for climate warming.
>
> The United Nations is targeting a global average maximum temperature rise of two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) on pre-industrial levels, for what scientists believe would be manageable climate change.
>
> In 2007, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned in a report of the temperature rising by as much as 6.4 degrees C in the worst emissions scenario.
>
> Study co-author Reto Knutti of ETH Zurich said data ruling out the most extreme scenarios for near-term warming was clearly welcome news.
>
> "But even if the response is at the low end of the current range of uncertainty, we are still looking at warming well over the two-degree goal that countries have agreed upon."
>
> Read more at:http://phys.org/news/2013-05-dire-outlook-global.html#jCp
>
> Note especially, the last paragraph, which is a quote from the paper's actual author. I'll repeat it for you:
>
> "But even if the response is at the low end of the current range of uncertainty, we are still looking at warming **well over the two-degree goal that countries have agreed upon.**"
>
> 0.5C you said. Hmmmmmmmm.

DO you deny that climate sensitivity to Co2 HAS been and IS being
reduced?

[Dawlish]

On Monday, May 20, 2013 6:26:31 PM UTC+1, matt_sykes wrote:

> > 0.5C you said. Hmmmmmmmm.

> DO you deny that climate sensitivity to Co2 HAS been and IS being reduced?

Always best to read what someone writes before asking repetitive and stupid questions. this was the content of one of my earlier posts on this thread. Don't ask me, ask the report's author - with whom I agree.

"More from the report's author about climate sensitivity.......

This latest research, including the decade of stalled temperature rises, produces a range of 0.9-5.0C.

"It is a bigger range of uncertainty," said Dr Otto.

"But it still includes the old range. **We would all like climate sensitivity to be lower but it isn't.**"

Which part of that last sentence would you like further clarification about, half-brain?

[Dawlish]

On Monday, May 20, 2013 6:16:15 PM UTC+1, Falcon wrote:

>0.5C predicted rise this century.

You lied for effect and you did not read that in this paper, did you?

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On May 20, 8:17 am, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
> Here we go again. A new paper suggests that the temperature rise over the
> next half-century will be around half a degree C, much lower than most
> recent claims made by environmentalists. This suggests that the cost of
> current mitigation policies far outweigh any damage likely to caused by
> climate change; a suggestion that is likely to be ignored by hysterics
> everywhere.
>
> Otto et al., Energy budget constraints on climate response, Nature

> Geoscience (2013) doi:10.1038/ngeo1836http://bit.ly/19UCnuI

>
> Comment:http://thetim.es/19UCEhw
>
> --
> Falcon:
> fide, sed cui vide. (L)
> Annual "new study" finds 97% of climate scientists believe in man-made
> climate change; public consensus sure to follow once news gets out.http://bit.ly/Z2IRsd

Huh? The first thing is, it's not a paper but a "communications."
But it clearly says:

"sing up-to-date data on radiative forcing, global mean surface
temperature and total heat uptake in the Earth system, we find that
the global energy budget6 implies a range of values for the
equilibrium climate sensitivity that is in agreement with earlier
estimates, within the limits of uncertainty."

[emoneyjoe]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 18:11:14 +0100, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 20 May 2013 15:52:34 +0200, Tom P wrote:
>[...]
>>
>> Is there any succour in these findings for climate sceptics who say the
>> slowdown over the past 14 years means the global warming is not real?
>>
>> "None. No comfort whatsoever," he said.
>
>Nice to see you acknowledge 'the hiatus' as Garvey called it, but honestly
>Tom, "not real"? That old straw-man again? Show me one sceptic of any
>importance anywhere who has claimed that the Earth hasn't warmed.

I have zero importance, but I see no hard
evidence the Earth has warmed.

The fraction of a degree claimed in
averaging can result solely from rounding
techniques, do any of the papers describe
the rounding used in detail, there are
many rounding types.

And this is for station lists that never
changed, how they think the station list
changes can be acceptable is a mystery.

The only good news is that they have
reached a point where the data will now
be better, and better data over the last
17 years may be the reason for the
plateau.

[Dawlish]

On Monday, May 20, 2013 10:07:33 PM UTC+1, emoneyjoe wrote:
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 18:11:14 +0100, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Mon, 20 May 2013 15:52:34 +0200, Tom P wrote:
>
> >[...]
>
> >>
>
> >> Is there any succour in these findings for climate sceptics who say the
>
> >> slowdown over the past 14 years means the global warming is not real?
>
> >>
>
> >> "None. No comfort whatsoever," he said.
>
> >
>
> >Nice to see you acknowledge 'the hiatus' as Garvey called it, but honestly
>
> >Tom, "not real"? That old straw-man again? Show me one sceptic of any
>
> >importance anywhere who has claimed that the Earth hasn't warmed.
>
>
>
> I have zero importance, but I see no hard
>
> evidence the Earth has warmed.

GW has not happened. You are a nutbar joey.

[emoneyjoe]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 18:16:15 +0100, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 20 May 2013 11:16:41 -0400, emoneyjoe wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 13:17:47 +0100, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Here we go again. A new paper suggests that the temperature rise over the
>> >next half-century will be around half a degree C, much lower than most
>> >recent claims made by environmentalists. This suggests that the cost of
>> >current mitigation policies far outweigh any damage likely to caused by
>> >climate change; a suggestion that is likely to be ignored by hysterics
>> >everywhere.
>> >
>> >Otto et al., Energy budget constraints on climate response, Nature
>> >Geoscience (2013) doi:10.1038/ngeo1836 http://bit.ly/19UCnuI
>> >
>> >Comment: http://thetim.es/19UCEhw
>>
>> If the data rise in the 1980-1997 time frame
>> was caused by changing the station list and
>> UHI changes, then there is no reason to think
>> there will be any substantial rise in 50 years.
>
>The paper (which, I'm told, I haven't read) suggests that the current
>'hiatus' in warming could last as long as 40 years. It's worth noting that
>it does not suggest the 'hiatus' is due to either station changes or
>changes in statistical methods of the kind you described. ;-)

Yeah, I realize it is the acquisition of a
better quality crystal ball, and they now
know exactly what the next 40 years
will bring.

But at least the data seems better now,
who was it that retired? :-)

[Falcon]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 12:14:18 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish wrote:
>
> On Monday, May 20, 2013 6:16:15 PM UTC+1, Falcon wrote:
>
> >0.5C predicted rise this century.

I didn't write that.

> You lied for effect and you did not read that in this paper, did you?

Why have you deliberately changed what I wrote in the OP?

See: http://bit.ly/117qht1

Those words appear in this thread once, an they were written by you.

Why did you do that, Garvey?

[gordo]

The dumbass calls me an idiot. What a shithead loser.If you want to
address someones biased post on a paper you never read,that is ok. I
can see fault with the person who wrote it.Did the research paper say
this "But given the advance of nuclear and solar technology, there is
now a good chance we will have decarbonised the economy before any net
harm has been done." I don't know,but according to the deniers in this
newsgroup we should be burning all the coal we can. How is that for a
response dumbass.

[Chom Noamsky]

"Ongoing uncertainties"... now ain't that a grand understatement. There
would be no discussion of uncertainty right now if real temperatures did
not deviate from IPCC forecast so much. It's time for the research
community to admit they don't have a handle on climate and that there
are fundamental gaps in the knowledge. Where's the missing heat? Is it
in the oceans? Was it caused by aerosols? Is it natural variability?
Is it under Jim Hansen's bed? The inability to account for the
discrepancy is proof that the uncertainty is much greater than what is
portrayed by the IPCC. When observation doesn't agree with theory,
people want and demand answers. But there are no answers, only
unsubstantiated speculation.

[AM]

And for that unsubstantiated speculation they want trillions of dollars
of OUR money, and control over the rest of us. Will be a great SCAM if
they can get away with it...

Not like they haven't gotten enough of OUR money as it is !

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On May 20, 11:02 pm, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum> wrote:
> On 5/20/2013 6:52 AM, Tom P wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 05/20/2013 02:17 PM, Falcon wrote:
>
> >> Here we go again. A new paper suggests that the temperature rise over the
> >> next half-century will be around half a degree C, much lower than most
> >> recent claims made by environmentalists. This suggests that the cost of
> >> current mitigation policies far outweigh any damage likely to caused by
> >> climate change; a suggestion that is likely to be ignored by hysterics
> >> everywhere.
>
> >> Otto et al., Energy budget constraints on climate response, Nature

> >> Geoscience (2013) doi:10.1038/ngeo1836http://bit.ly/19UCnuI

Different day same bs from the denialists, as you have yet to mention
the lager than expected atmospheric loading of so2 due to the fast
economic growth in india an china. Which means co2 sensitivity is not
an issue at all, but its the same issue of human emissions of so2

[Chom Noamsky]

There are a number of competing theories to account for the discrepancy,
all of them speculative and none of them settled. Where is the
consensus that so2 aerosols are the reason for the discrepancy? Do you
have a clever PR report that says 97% of 33% of all climate studies
attribute the deviation to so2?

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

Fast paced economic growth without pollution controls, produce large
amounts of pollution so2 (sulfate aerosols) included. China grew at a
much larger rate than the economic models predicted, the pollution is
bejing is well documented, which increases so2 atmospheric loading
greater than expected. This is nothing new, the same thing happened
in the mid 20th century when countries in the west grew without
pollution controls.

Global Temperature Update Through 2012, 15 January 2013
J. Hansen, M. Sato, R. Ruedy
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
"The long term warming trend, including continual warming since the
mid-1970s, has been conclusively associated with the predominant
global climate forcing, human-made greenhouse gases which began to
grow substantially early in the 20thcentury. The approximate stand-
still of global temperature during 1940-1975 is generally attributed
to an approximate balance of aerosol cooling and greenhouse gas
warming during a period of rapid growth of fossil fuel use with little
control on particulate air pollution..."

[Dawlish]

Spinner lied for effect. I hope every denier has recognised this, but I'm surprised that none have come out and actually told him this.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On the other hand, one has to wonder why you actually think the
pollution produced by china would not have an effect?

[Chom Noamsky]

I have no doubt that it does have some effect, though quantifying it
seems to be a major gap in the science. My point is that aerosols are
just one line of speculation, there is also the heat-in-the-ocean
hypothesis and the natural variability hypothesis. Where is the 97% of
33% consensus on the cause(s) of the discrepancy?

[Falcon]

I didn't write that.

Why have you deliberately changed what I wrote in the OP?

Does lying excite you in some way?

Those words appear in this thread once, an they were written by you.

Everyone can see that you have altered my words.

Why did you do that, Garvey?

--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)

World's regions vulnerable to Climate Change
http://bit.ly/117jl50

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On May 21, 3:11 pm, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum> wrote: I have no

doubt that it does have some effect, though quantifying it seems to be
a major gap in the science.  My point is that aerosols are just one
line of speculation, there is also the heat-in-the-ocean hypothesis
and the natural variability hypothesis.  Where is the 97% of 33%
consensus on the cause(s) of the discrepancy?"

On May 20, 11:02 pm, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum> wrote:" Is it

under Jim Hansen's bed? "

Your point was to try to focus attention on the uncertainty in another
trolling effort attempting to marginalize the effects of co2. I
posted a link with a historical reference and a statement that history
is likely repeating itself and you repeated your assertion about
uncertainty never advancing the subject on a topic the would reduce
the uncertainty. You ignored the link, snipped it in your reply, and
went back to square one, and no you dont a get a free pass on acting
as if you have an interest in the subject as you failed to try to
advance it beyond the point of ignorance. One has to wonder why jim
hansen's bed would be on your trolling mind in the first place?

[Chom Noamsky]

Your response is a one-paper consensus? I thought the definitive
meaning of consensus is now 97% of 33%? In any case I see you're
finally getting the point, that there are three main camps concerning
the warming discrepancy: natural variability; aerosols, and; ocean heat
content. None of these three possibilities has been explored to the
extent that any kind of agreement has been reached. So don't accuse me
of spreading doubt, the uncertainties and gaps in the science are doing
that all by themselves. The role I play here is critic, all the
contradictions and gaps in the science make it just too easy.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

Na, that would mean you incorrectly thinking the role of critic
encompasses idiocy at its roots, as james hansen's bed had nothing to
do with the topic until your deluded mind went there. You presented
three concepts along with the absurdity of hansens bed, in an effort
to market your talking point of uncertainty. For instance if you want
to play the role of critical reader, i would ask the author (you) why
you think your argument needed the emotional appeal to the absurd, as
you seem to think the three ideas you presented all deserve equal
weight? The contradictions offered by you so called critics can be
easily found in your thinly veiled bs posts pretending to have an
interest in the science, while never really advancing the science of
the subject. This typical boring stonewall from you denialists are
nothing more than a game of dodge ball, where inevitably you will kind
of tip your king by run away essentially conceding defeat but never
admitting to it.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On May 20, 5:17 am, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:" Otto et al.,

Energy budget constraints on climate response, Nature Geoscience
(2013) doi:10.1038/ngeo1836"
http://bit.ly/19UCnuI

On May 21, 6:23 pm, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum> wrote:" Your

response is a one-paper consensus?  I thought the definitive meaning
of consensus is now 97% of 33%? "

https://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/d56a0e812a317b42

Falcon this is chom, chom this is falcon, it appears you two have a
bit of a communication problem here. Falcon you started this thread
with a "one-paper consensus", and according to the post above chom
does not think thats adequate. First off falcon, are you going take
that from him as he appears to be making fun of your thread. And
chom, if you really disagree with his use of a "one-paper consensus",
just speak up, dont be shy say it directly to him.

[Chom Noamsky]

I see you enjoyed the mental image of Hansen looking for the missing
heat under his bed. You're welcome, I usually charge money for mental
images. Is it not fair game to talk about the multiple channels of
investigation going on to solve the mystery of the missing warming? You
seem convinced it's aerosols; others are convinced it's the oceans, or
maybe just natural variability. You don't like what I write because
highlighting the uncertainties in the science makes you insecure about
your beliefs and convictions. What makes you believe it's aerosol
cooling when Trenberth's camp thinks it's ocean heat content? See, I
just illustrated an uncertainty and I bet it's making you sweaty and
nervous. I've never disputed an anthropogenic influence on climate,
just the magnitude and severity of the predictions. Going by the recent
forecast downgrades, I must be on to something.

[Dawlish]

On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:42:50 PM UTC+1, Falcon wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 13:52:42 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish wrote:
>
> >
>
> > On Monday, May 20, 2013 8:14:18 PM UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
>
> > > On Monday, May 20, 2013 6:16:15 PM UTC+1, Falcon wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > > >0.5C predicted rise this century.
>
> > >
>
> > > You lied for effect and you did not read that in this paper, did you?
>
> >
>
> > Spinner lied for effect. I hope every denier has recognised this, but I'm
>
> > surprised that none have come out and actually told him this.
>
>
>
> I didn't write that.
>
>
>
> Why have you deliberately changed what I wrote in the OP?
>
>
>
> Does lying excite you in some way?
>
>
>
> Those words appear in this thread once, an they were written by you.

> Everyone can see that you have altered my words.

> Why did you do that, Garvey?

> Falcon:
>
> fide, sed cui vide. (L)
>
> World's regions vulnerable to Climate Change
>
> http://bit.ly/117jl50

???? Trying to weasel out? These are your unaltered words from your comment, I believe:

" A new paper suggests that the temperature rise over the
next half-century will be around half a degree C, much lower than most
recent claims made by environmentalists."

The paper said nothing of the sort. You lied for effect, didn't you, spinner?

[Dawlish]

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On May 21, 11:10 pm, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum> wrote:
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/bf13d2598768a470

On the other hand i tend to use imagery to help others arrive at a
better depiction of the actual situation. Check out the picture in the
below article with the title "Pollution 'Worst on Record' in Beijing,
Sunday, 13 Jan 2013." Now i understand you dont like study i provided
simply because it made the case for aerosols, as well stating the
strong la nina had an impact. The key is human emissions of sulfate
aerosols, and co2 are controllable, and if hansens point is correct
about uncontrolled pollution effecting the rate of change in surface
temps, but based on the facts such observations of the surface temps
do not invalidate the argument to reduce emissions of green house
gasses. In fact it becomes more obvious that human actions can tip the
climate system out of balance. Now you may not like such a
conclusion, as it challenges the core of your argument. Going by
recent economic numbers that show china was predicted to grow at a
pace of 9.6 % in 2007, and instead it grew at a pace of 14.1%.
History has shown when pollution controls are not in place, such large
spurts of economic growth are more easily fueled by burning cheaper
dirtier energy sources, which increases atmospheric loading of so2.
Now i dont care how your personal body reacts when your brain is in a
state of denial, as you have been shown to be a pathetic troll, but
you just wont publicly admit it.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100375537
"Pollution 'Worst on Record' in Beijing, Sunday, 13 Jan 2013.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21005228
13 January 2013 Last updated at 11:18 ET
In pictures: Beijing pollution

[Falcon]

No, that's precisely what the paper suggests, but it's not what you accused
me of saying. I'll ask you again: why did you change my words: "the

temperature rise over the next half-century will be around half a degree

C" to: "0.5C predicted rise this century"? Why did you do that Garvey?

--

[Chom Noamsky]

Here's an article that suggests another source of sulphur-based
aerosols, it ain't industrial nor volcanic:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/25/new_criegee_cooling_intermediate_probed/

Here's an article that suggests volcanic aerosols dwarf human sources:

"Volcanic aerosols, not pollutants, tamped down recent Earth warming,
says CU study"

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2013/03/01/volcanic-aerosols-not-pollutants-tamped-down-recent-earth-warming-says-cu

Throws a bit of a monkey wrench into your argument, doesn't it? It's
fine to be opposed to pollution of the kind going on in China and
elsewhere in Asia -- I would be just for immediate air quality issues --
but false attribution is false attribution.

If you're trying to convince me that it's all very certain and that
there is absolutely no room for doubt, I can provide all kinds of
evidence to show otherwise.

[Paul Aubrin]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 13:17:47 +0100, Falcon wrote:

> Here we go again. A new paper suggests that the temperature rise over

> the next half-century will be around half a degree C, much lower than

> most recent claims made by environmentalists. This suggests that the
> cost of current mitigation policies far outweigh any damage likely to
> caused by climate change; a suggestion that is likely to be ignored by
> hysterics everywhere.
>

> Otto et al., Energy budget constraints on climate response, Nature
> Geoscience (2013) doi:10.1038/ngeo1836 http://bit.ly/19UCnuI
>

> Comment: http://thetim.es/19UCEhw

I stumbled on this Willis Eischenbach post today.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/14/its-not-about-feedback/

In it, he explains why he thinks that the climate sensitivity is a minor
parameter.

[Dawlish]

Unlike deniers I admit to my mistakes and I apologise for missing the "half-century"; I read it as "century". It would not be a good idea to pursue that, apart from accepting my apology, or I will expect you to re-visit and apologise for the many mistakes, half-truths, appalling spin and pure lies in "Avoid, dodge, deny" which you hate so much and no wonder.

Instead, I will moderate my criticism to "you posted to spin for effect". Show us where Otto has said there will be 0.5C of warming over the next half-century?

[Falcon]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 08:05:52 +0100, Falcon wrote:
>
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 23:18:15 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:42:50 PM UTC+1, Falcon wrote:
> > > On Tue, 21 May 2013 13:52:42 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Monday, May 20, 2013 8:14:18 PM UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
> > >
> > > > > On Monday, May 20, 2013 6:16:15 PM UTC+1, Falcon wrote:
> > >
> > > > > >0.5C predicted rise this century.
> > >
> > > > > You lied for effect and you did not read that in this paper, did
> > > > > you?

> > > > Spinner lied for effect. I hope every denier has recognised this,
> > > > but I'm surprised that none have come out and actually told him
> > > > this.
> > >
> > > I didn't write that.
> > >
> > > Why have you deliberately changed what I wrote in the OP?
> > >
> > > Does lying excite you in some way?
> > >
> > > Those words appear in this thread once, an they were written by you.
> >
> > > Everyone can see that you have altered my words.
> >
> > > Why did you do that, Garvey?
> >
> >

> > ???? Trying to weasel out? These are your unaltered words from your
> > comment, I believe:
> >
> > " A new paper suggests that the temperature rise over the
> > next half-century will be around half a degree C, much lower than most
> > recent claims made by environmentalists."
> >
> > The paper said nothing of the sort. You lied for effect, didn't you, spinner?
>
> No, that's precisely what the paper suggests, but it's not what you accused
> me of saying. I'll ask you again: why did you change my words: "the
> temperature rise over the next half-century will be around half a degree
> C" to: "0.5C predicted rise this century"? Why did you do that Garvey?

In reply to this question you chose to respond to your own post instead of
mine. Why did you do that, Garvey? Were you hoping that no-one would
connect the dots?

In your half-baked response you wrote:

> Unlike deniers I admit to my mistakes and I apologise for missing the
> "half-century"; I read it as "century". It would not be a good idea to
> pursue that, apart from accepting my apology, or I will expect you to
> re-visit and apologise for the many mistakes, half-truths, appalling spin
> and pure lies in "Avoid, dodge, deny" which you hate so much and no
> wonder.

Don't threaten me, you ignorant little worm. You didn't make a 'mistake'.
You didn't misread or miss anything. You deliberately altered my words
before adding your reply and attributed the alteration to me. It's the kind
of despicable, dishonest behaviour that litters your personal attacks on
anyone who doesn't agree with you. It's the mark of a liar and a cheat.

Stuff your so-called 'apology', Garvey.
It is not acceptable.
It is disingenuous and meaningless.

[emoneyjoe]

That is one of the best articles so far,
it emphasizes the self controlling mechanisms
of nature, something that is not mentioned
enough, not elaborated on enough, and
seemingly ignored by the AGW alarmists.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/25/new_criegee_cooling_intermedi...

>
> Here's an article that suggests volcanic aerosols dwarf human sources:
>
> "Volcanic aerosols, not pollutants, tamped down recent Earth warming,
> says CU study"
>

> http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2013/03/01/volcanic-aerosols-no...

The historical record shows volcanic so2 having an effect along with
human emissions of so2. But i must ask are you now claiming a volcano
is the cause of the bejing smog? (because we know urban populations
where there are concentration of burning hydrocarbon based fules
increases atmospheric loading of so2, while also increasing
atmospheric concentrations of co2) The same thing happened in the mid

20th century when countries in the west grew without pollution
controls.

I have always said we are putting the pieces of the climate puzzle
together, on the other hand since you are so focused on uncertainty,
it would be a logical and prudent step for you to focus on getting the
funding to the observatories the will reduce the uncertainty. If your
trying to convince me that you are a true skeptic, the next step would
be to try to reduce that margin of doubt you are so focused on, rather
than just whining and crying throwing your hands up in the air, giving
up in frustration and wanting others to do the same.

[Dawlish]

On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 10:36:52 AM UTC+1, Falcon wrote:


> > Unlike deniers I admit to my mistakes and I apologise for missing the
>
> > "half-century"; I read it as "century". It would not be a good idea to
>
> > pursue that, apart from accepting my apology, or I will expect you to
>
> > re-visit and apologise for the many mistakes, half-truths, appalling spin
>
> > and pure lies in "Avoid, dodge, deny" which you hate so much and no
>
> > wonder.

> Don't threaten me, you ignorant little worm. You didn't make a 'mistake'.
>
> You didn't misread or miss anything. You deliberately altered my words
>
> before adding your reply and attributed the alteration to me. It's the kind
>
> of despicable, dishonest behaviour that litters your personal attacks on
>
> anyone who doesn't agree with you. It's the mark of a liar and a cheat.

It was a mistake, for which I apologised - far more than you ever seserve, but that's me.

> Stuff your so-called 'apology', Garvey.
>
> It is not acceptable.
>
> It is disingenuous and meaningless.

> Falcon:

Ok spinner, I did warn you. Here's the things you need to apologise for. Remember, giving and accepting apologies show good morals. You appear not to possess any as you have let every single one of these go and are entirely unrepentant:

All anonymous little spinner’s…………

Spinner has actually stated that the GHE does not exist as science knows it. Other deniers, like joey and deluded denky have too, so he’s joining a select band. Amazing, but really, he doesn’t understand what it is, so I suppose this one could be forgivable, *>))

spinner and pauly both think that one published sceptical study about AGW is somehow more important than 14000 other studies which are not sceptical. Why do you ignore the 14000 other studies in favour of this one, spinner and pauly?

spinner; “why did you lie about the NCDC Southeast data? What did you believe your lie would accomplish?”.

spinner starts three threads in a week to say that GW stopped in 1998, In all three, he posts a graph starting in the year of the largest El Nino of recent times (1997/8) and ignore the other 148 years of data in the Hadley series. Why did you do that, spinner?

Spinner thinks that an email, sent to Christopher booker by a mum who wasn’t happy about her son’s “A” level grade shows that there has been a “corruption of science and the corruption of education”. Why on earth would you think that, spinner?

spinner thinks that an article about a paper about species diversity covering millions of years is relevant to what is happening to species due to the recent global warming. Why would you think that, spinner?

spinner thinks that his eyeball analysis of a graph showing warming over the last 150+ years show no real warming at all. Why do you think that, spinner, when every single scientific institution and National science academy believes that it shows clear warming, which continues?

Michael Mann is an internationally famous and highly respected scientist, who’s work is cited by hundreds of his peers. Spinner is a nobody who feels that Mann is a "putz" who writes "illogical shit". spinner, Why would anyone believe you above them?

spinner thinks that "The difference between 'a procedure' and judging things by eye, is called manipulation". Does spinner really think that all graphs should be judged by eye and no and statistical testing should be abandoned?

spinner thinks that a 9 - year period, starting in 1998, is enough to create a new baseline mean temperature to which one should compare current global temperatures. No-one else in science, except Ole would think that is a good idea. Why do you, spinner?

spinner thinks that a professor who thinks that we are currently (June 2012) in El Nino conditions should be a credible source for information about climate science. Why would you believe that, spinner? (spinner *believes* in people - see "Avoid, dodge, deny".

When March 2012 was the 16th warmest on record (out of 132 years' data) spinner thinks that this means it was "relatively cool". Why would you think that, spinner?


spinner thinks that a May which is 4th warmest in the UAH series and occurring only 3 months after the end of a La Nina is: “not very warm at all, really”. Why do you think that, spinner?

spinner thinks that “abuse” is being asked questions he can’t answer, then having that failure to answer recorded for posterity on the newsgroup. Spinner and the rest of the deniers reading this think that this list is “abusive”. Why would you think that?

spinner; why do you feel that homophobia is a tactic that can be use legitimately to escape answering the many questions that hang over you, unanswered?

spinner thinks a blogger who doesn’t even go by his own name “Stephen Goddard” should be believed over the NSIDC. Why do you think that, spinner, when “Goddard” was entirely wrong about the NSIDC “tampering with data”? You lied to attempt to denigrate good scientists, didn’t you?

spinner can’t explain why March 2012 was cooler than every other March since 2000, but warmer than 98/100 Marches during the last century. Every scientist knows why, but somehow, spinner can’t find it in him to explain it. If he did, or another denier did, their edifice would crumble.

spinner simply can’t see the “f****** warming”……..well just keep your eyes open during the next El Nino spinner and you are sure to see it.

spinner thinks that Christopher Booker, a “Daily Telegraph” hack with
no scientific qualifications whatsoever, but who has written articles
criticising both climate scientists and evolution, is expert enough to
be believable when he criticises the BBC for its science. Why would
you think that, spinner?

Deniers have posted almost 500 posts saying that local, temporary cold
means that the global climate is changing. Not a single denier has
ever criticised them for doing so. (including you; indeed you wouldn’t when you contribute weather posts of your own, would you?) Why is that?

"The earth has been cooling since 1998" (A. Nutcase, Feb 27th 2012). That’s exactly what every denier in this newsgroup knows is happening. Why do you all know that when Scientists think so differently

spinner tries to cast doubt on the extremely strong relationship
between CO2 increases and temperature increases in the GISS (or NOAA,
or Hadley, or the two satellite) temperature series, but can’t do the
calculations himself. Why can’t you do them spinner? Are you afraid of
the result?

giga, spinner and others deniers think CAGW is a real term, used in
the climate debate. Why then can they not point to a single published
paper that refers to this. You made it up, didn’t you?

spinner-cut-and-paste thinks that papers published in Chinese
journals, that quote Lindzen and Choi 2009 (that Lindzen himself
accepted was a flawed paper) has something to say about climate
science. Why do you think that, spinner?

spinner posts an unsourced graph, showing CO2 increases and
temperature increases on different vertical scales, over a cherry-
picked time period of 40 years, with no accompanying statistical
analysis and says that it shows that GW isn’t happening. Why did you
do that, spinner?

spinner and dancer think the strongest El Nino of modern times should
be used as a baseline from which to judge warming over 13 years. Why
would that be?

spinner and dancer think that 13 years is now considered a long enough
period after which to judge that a new climate trend has been
established, especially when you pick 1998, one of the warmest years
in a 200-year temperature sequence, as the baseline for that trend.
Why do you think that?

spinner, tundy, brucie and most recently, mad petey and a whole load
of others think that there are “real scientists” out there that agree
with them. Brucie thinks some work at the IPCC and agree with him that
deforestation is causing more GW than is CO2.

spinner thinks the Hadley temperature series started in 1979 and uses
that Hadley baseline date to show there is apparently no relationship
between temperatures and CO2 increases. Why, when the Hadley temp
series started in 1860?

spinner and every other denier thinks that climate models are wrong.
Point to a single one that has wrongly predicted a rise in global
temperatures based upon a linear increase in CO2 to date. Just
*one*.

spinner thinks that 7 years of data concerning ocean heat content is
enough to show a trend. No statistician, or scientist would agree. He
also thinks that a 5-years of data in a clear 160-year warming trend
is enough to show a reversal of a trend. Again, no statistician, or
decent scientist would agree. Why do you think these are long
enough, spinner

spinner thought that GW was measured by global SSTs and had to be
dragged kicking and screaming to admit that this was not true. Explain
why you did that and didn’t just accept your obvious mistake straight
away.

spinner, mad petey and others have been trying to tell us that the
oceans have not warmed. Source data from NOAA shows there has been
significant warming from 1955. Why do you continue to believe there
has been no warming?

spinner thinks that ships, temporarily stuck in the Gulf of Finland
last spring, were evidence that ice melt was slow in the Arctic. Why
would you think that the Gulf of Finland is in the Arctic?

spinner thinks that when there are gales in a small area of the UK, southern Scotland means that every windmill in the UK has to shut down. Why would that be so, spinner?

spinner thinks that global heat content has not increased recently and
has desperately tried to say it hasn’t. The data shows otherwise. Why
do you think you are right.

spinner thought that GW was measured by global SSTs and had to be
dragged kicking and screaming to admit that this was not true. Explain
why you did that and didn’t just accept your obvious mistake straight
away.

spinner, mad petey and others have been trying to tell us that the
oceans have not warmed. Source data from NOAA shows there has been
significant warming from 1955. Why do you continue to believe there
has been no warming?

Oh spinner; what have you been saying..........<laughing>

[Dawlish]

On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 8:05:52 AM UTC+1, Falcon wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 23:18:15 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish wrote:

And now back to the paper:

> No, that's precisely what the paper suggests (you contest the paper says 1.0C over the next century, which you have calculated to be 0.5C over the next 50 years. Otto does not say that anywhere in the paper),

I'm afraid it didn't.

> Falcon:

What Otto actually says is this:

"Because of the hiatus, warming in the next 50 to 100 years "is likely to lie within the range of current climate models, but not at the high end of this range," said Alexander Otto of Oxford University's Environmental Change Institute, co-author of the new study.

Otto and his team used up-to-date data on temperatures and levels of solar radiation trapped in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases, to make new projections for climate warming.

The United Nations is targeting a global average maximum temperature rise of two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) on pre-industrial levels, for what scientists believe would be manageable climate change.

In 2007, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned in a report of the temperature rising by as much as 6.4 degrees C in the worst emissions scenario.

Study co-author Reto Knutti of ETH Zurich said data ruling out the most extreme scenarios for near-term warming was clearly welcome news.

"But even if the response is at the low end of the current range of uncertainty, we are still looking at warming well over the two-degree goal that countries have agreed upon."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-05-dire-outlook-global.html#jCp

Note especially, the last paragraph, which is a quote from the paper's actual author. I'll repeat it for you:

"But even if the response is at the low end of the current range of uncertainty, we are still looking at warming **well over the two-degree goal that countries have agreed upon.**"

I'll repeat the last sentence for you: "But even if the response is at the low end of the current range of uncertainty, we are still looking at warming **well over the two-degree goal that countries have agreed upon.**"

*Not* 1C. You've taken the lowest part of Otto's error bars (actually 0.9C - 5.0C) and tried to portray this as his conclusion. It as much his conclusion, as him saying that temperatures will rise by 5.0C over the next century.

You applied appalling spin to twist the facts spinner, didn't you?

[Tom P]

On 05/20/2013 07:11 PM, Falcon wrote:
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 15:52:34 +0200, Tom P wrote:
> [...]

>>
>> Is there any succour in these findings for climate sceptics who say the
>> slowdown over the past 14 years means the global warming is not real?
>>
>> "None. No comfort whatsoever," he said.
>

> Nice to see you acknowledge 'the hiatus' as Garvey called it, but honestly
> Tom, "not real"? That old straw-man again? Show me one sceptic of any
> importance anywhere who has claimed that the Earth hasn't warmed.
>

Falcon, we know for a fact the La Nina is the result of periodic changes
in the upwelling of cold water on the Pacific coast. It follows that
equally there are periodic changes in the subduction of warm surface
water. Do find this hard to understand?

[Falcon]

I assume you meant Do [you] find this hard to understand? Not at all, Tom.
I'm actually quite bright. But are you in the habit of answering requests
for information by making unsolicited and totally irrelevant statements, or
has it only started to happen recently?

[emoneyjoe]

:-) Does he know the eastern Pacific
is a cold SOB, every time I ever went to
the beach in California I had to put on
a jacket even in August.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

That cold ocean water is the main thing that keeps the southern
california coast from being a hot baking desert so you have no point.

[Dawlish]

On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 4:32:10 PM UTC+1, Falcon wrote:

>
> I'm actually quite bright.

> Falcon
>

When an anonymous denier tells you he's bright, or well educated, you just know he isn't, or he wouldn't be a climate denier in the first place. <laughing>

[Dawlish]

On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 4:32:10 PM UTC+1, Falcon wrote:

Did my apology for my mistake stick in your craw, spinner? Are you going to apologise for all your "mistakes"?

PS Do tell where I said there had been a hiatus in global warming. If you can't (and you can't) you will apologise for saying that I said it, won't you?

[Paul Aubrin]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 09:44:59 -0700, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:

> On May 21, 8:35 am, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum> wrote:
>> [...]
>
> Fast paced economic growth without pollution controls, produce large
> amounts of pollution so2 (sulfate aerosols) included. China grew at a
> much larger rate than the economic models predicted, the pollution is
> bejing is well documented, which increases so2 atmospheric loading
> greater than expected. This is nothing new, the same thing happened in

> the mid 20th century when countries in the west grew without pollution
> controls.

So you are quietly telling us that the consensus which stated that CO2
was the most important factor was wrong. 97.1% of those climate
scientists thought once that it could be nothing but CO2 when now they
discover that many other factors could have a greater influence? And if
now they tell you that the most important factor is SO2 you are very
confident that this new consensus is the right one?

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

The common factor is human action, as both so2 and co2 are produce by
our choice of energy sources. Not all sources produce the same ratio
of co2/so2, and during times of fast paced economic growth where there
are no pollution controls, choices are made to burn dirtier sources
that produce greater amounts of pollution, so2. You were just caught
yet again making the same old tired argument trying to marginalize the
effects of co2, by twisting my point of larger than expected amounts,
into an argument over influence. Greater atmospheric loading of so2
does not mean the forcing estimations of green house gasses are wrong,
it means the economic models that underestimated economic growth,
contributed to the underestimation the amounts of so2 human actions
would be contributing to the system.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/25/new_criegee_cooling_intermedi...

Really? A scientific article in a newspaper? You still have learned
what a scientific source is, have you?

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On May 22, 3:50 am, Paul Aubrin <chu8i...@free.fr> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 13:17:47 +0100, Falcon wrote:
> > Here we go again. A new paper suggests that the temperature rise over
> > the next half-century will be around half a degree C, much lower than
> > most recent claims made by environmentalists. This suggests that the
> > cost of current mitigation policies far outweigh any damage likely to
> > caused by climate change; a suggestion that is likely to be ignored by
> > hysterics everywhere.
>
> > Otto et al., Energy budget constraints on climate response, Nature

> > Geoscience (2013) doi:10.1038/ngeo1836http://bit.ly/19UCnuI

>
> > Comment:http://thetim.es/19UCEhw
>
> I stumbled on this Willis Eischenbach post today.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/14/its-not-about-feedback/

Did it make you nauseated? His writings usually have that effect on
intelligent beings.

>
> In it, he explains why he thinks that the climate sensitivity is a minor
> parameter.

He can explain why the moon is made of green cheese; the man is
nuttier than a fruitcake.

[Chom Noamsky]

I was hoping that you were just a bit smarter than gordo, you know, able
to refer to the backing science rather than get hysterical about the
article discussing it. Nope, I was wrong.

[Chom Noamsky]

Nope, you are the one conflating industrial & urban smog with natural
sources of sulphur-based aerosols. The two links above prove that there
is no consensus on the major source of aerosols. You'd like to claim
it's all very certain, but obviously it is not.

> I have always said we are putting the pieces of the climate puzzle
> together, on the other hand since you are so focused on uncertainty,
> it would be a logical and prudent step for you to focus on getting the
> funding to the observatories the will reduce the uncertainty. If your
> trying to convince me that you are a true skeptic, the next step would
> be to try to reduce that margin of doubt you are so focused on, rather
> than just whining and crying throwing your hands up in the air, giving
> up in frustration and wanting others to do the same.

Oh, I very much want accurate science, it gets expensive when radical
policies are based on junk science. I know this first-hand every time I
go to buy fuel and food. In this case I don't believe in the
precautionary principle because the cure really could be worse than the
disease. If extremely costly treatments are prescribed and it turns out
they weren't really necessary, then the "experts" better damn well be
held accountable. I don't see any accountability from the unelected
IPCC, even though the panel has the ear of world governments and wields
substantial political influence. The public won't get good science nor
accountability unless skeptics and critics (people like me) whine and
complain. Produce the required level of certainty first, THEN act, if
necessary

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On May 22, 3:59 pm, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum> wrote:
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/38f33cd978e5ac4b

That would be a false assumption on your part that the link you
provided invalidates the science showing coal burning as a source of
so2. We know that coal has powered much of china's economic engine,
and we know that coal burning produces large amounts of pollution
including so2. We also know that bejing has had its worst pollution
days during times of burning coal. The link you provided no such
assertion, you failed to make your point, and i fail to see you acting
with any accountability for the bs you post, so why are you trying to
make a fake argument holding others to a higher standard?

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=4410
Coal plants without scrubbers account for a majority of U.S. SO2
emissions

> ...
>
> read more »

[gordo]

Is he the guy who can give you a massage at a fish camp and now works
at an oil company? Did you read his crazy peer reviewed paper on
climate? NO? Well maybe that is because he never wrote one. He did
speak at the disgraced Heartland Institute.

[gordo]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 15:59:21 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>

You called yourself a sceptic. That is my laugh of the day.

[Dawlish]

.........able to refer to the backing science.....

Well that would be a first for these people, wouldn't it?

[Dawlish]

> Oh, I very much want accurate science..........

At least 14,000 papers. Did you miss them, nutbar? The 24 that you might like, could be scanned in a morning, but you haven't even done that, have you?

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

The facts have been put on the table, so now its time for chom to run
from reality.

[Desertphile]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 13:17:47 +0100, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:

>
> Here we go again. A new paper suggests that the temperature rise over the
> next half-century will be around half a degree C, much lower than most
> recent claims made by environmentalists.

Nobody givs a bloody anal fuck what environmentalists have to say on
the subject. Fuck those stupid shit.

All of the scientists agree the human-caused increase will be from
1.2c to 4.0c

> This suggests that the cost of
> current mitigation policies far outweigh any damage likely to caused by
> climate change; a suggestion that is likely to be ignored by hysterics
> everywhere.
>
> Otto et al., Energy budget constraints on climate response, Nature

> Geoscience (2013) doi:10.1038/ngeo1836 http://bit.ly/19UCnuI
>
> Comment: http://thetim.es/19UCEhw

--
"God wanted me to be in bed with the maid."

[Desertphile]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 08:27:26 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> On Monday, May 20, 2013 1:17:47 PM UTC+1, Falcon wrote:

> > Here we go again. A new paper suggests that the temperature rise over the
> > next half-century will be around half a degree C, much lower than most

... which it appears the paper did *NOT* conclude.


> MOre from the report's author about climate sensitivity.......
>
> This latest research, including the decade of stalled temperature rises, produces a range of 0.9-5.0C.
>
> "It is a bigger range of uncertainty," said Dr Otto.
>
> "But it still includes the old range. We would all like climate sensitivity to be lower but it isn't."
>
> You've lied for effect spinner, haven't you?

Still exactly where the year 2007 assessment said. That's bad news.

[Paul Aubrin]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 13:19:05 -0600, Desertphile wrote:

> On Mon, 20 May 2013 13:17:47 +0100, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Here we go again. A new paper suggests that the temperature rise over
>> the next half-century will be around half a degree C, much lower than
>> most recent claims made by environmentalists.
>
> Nobody givs a bloody anal fuck what environmentalists have to say on the
> subject. Fuck those stupid shit.
>
> All of the scientists agree the human-caused increase will be from 1.2c
> to 4.0c

Judith Curry in her testimony to the US congress, in April this year,
mentions that a climate sensitivity lower than the AR4 estimates is not a
bloody anal fuck but a possibility seriously taken into account in
several recent scientific publications:
"The IPCC AR4 conclusion on climate sensitivity is stated as:
“The equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely to be in the range 2°C to
4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C and is very unlikely to be less
than 1.5°C. Values higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded.”"
"This estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity is not easily
reconciled with recent forcing estimates and observational data.
There is increasing support for values of climate sensitivity around or
below 2°C [24][25][26]."
The 3 references point to 3 recent publications in peer-reviewed
scientific journals.
I kept the citation short, Judith Curry's testimony documents clearly the
recent inflexion on climate sensitivity. Despite your reluctance to read
from scientists who don't share your points of view, maybe you could read
the whole testimony to get a general idea of the recent evolution of
ideas in climate science. Your arguments would be less outdated.

[Dawlish]

She reflects a minority view which has always been there amongst climate sceptics. You want to believe that and put aside the enormous weight of evidence that contradicts it.

It's called spin.