Economist: Climate science -- A sensitive matter [Archive]

DarrinS

03-28-2013, 09:59 AM

Lol @ this from http://climaterealityproject.org/press/

The Climate Reality Project and Arnold Worldwide Introduce Reality Drop

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 28, 2013
CONTACT: Bill Rigler, The Climate Reality Project, +1-917-415-0612, [email protected]
Wendi Smith, Arnold Worldwide, +1-617-587-8131, [email protected]

New Interactive Tool Incorporates Innovative Online Game Mechanics to Rebut Climate Change Denial

Long Beach, CA (February 28, 2013) — The Climate Reality Project and Arnold Worldwide today announced the global launch of Reality Drop (www.realitydrop.org), an innovative social media tool that educates users about the reality of climate change and uses modern gaming techniques to combat professional climate deniers.

Developed through a collaboration with the website Skeptical Science, Reality Drop curates hundreds of online news articles daily for articles that demand a response—whether it’s a misleading quote from a climate denier or a heated debate raging in the comments section. Reality Drop also catalogs more than one hundred of the most pervasive and topical climate myths, and distills complex science into simple and succinct rebuttals that can be shared on social networks or on comment threads beneath news articles. Reality Drop makes it easy for users to find the best science-based response, to apply accessible and easy-to-understand language, add their voice to the conversation—and help cool the argument.

Comment bot, built by bots, for like-minded bots :lmao

DarrinS

03-28-2013, 10:06 AM

If the Kock Bros and BigCarbon are for it (AGW denial), then you know they're lying and it's BAD for humanity.

Are you on the leader board yet? What rank are you?

https://realitydrop.org/#about

Winehole23

03-28-2013, 11:31 AM

interesting article, D.

boutons_deux

03-28-2013, 11:33 AM

"OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat"

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-temps.html

DarrinS

03-28-2013, 11:55 AM

"OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat"

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-temps.html

“the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”

boutons_deux

03-28-2013, 12:32 PM

As Scientists Predicted, Global Warming Continues (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/28/1785461/as-scientists-predicted-global-warming-continues/)
Most of manmade global warming is ending up in the ocean, just as scientists had predicted (see “Global Warming Has Accelerated In Past 15 Years (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/25/1768601/in-hot-water-global-warming-has-accelerated-in-past-15-years-new-study-of-oceans-confirms/)“). And while recent “observations support predictions of extreme warming (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/11/09/1170701/science-stunner-observations-support-predictions-of-extreme-warming-worse-droughts-this-century/)” this century, even sophisticated media outlets, like “The Economist (http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions),” get the story wrong (see “Memo To Media: ‘Climate Sensitivity’ Is NOT The Same As Projected Future Warming, World Faces 10°F Rise (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/02/04/1507261/memo-to-media-climate-sensitivity-is-not-the-same-as-projected-future-warming-world-faces-10f-rise/)“). Former Hurricane Hunter Jeff Masters has a good chart-filled piece reviewing the latest temperature observations.

One often hears the statement in the media that global warming stopped in 1998, or that there has been no global warming for the past 16 years. Why pick 16 years? Why not some nice round number like 20 years? Or better yet, 30 years, since the climate is generally defined as the average weather experienced over a period of 30 years or longer?

Temperatures at Earth’s surface undergo natural, decades-long warming and cooling trends, related to the La Niña/El Niño cycle and the 11-year sunspot cycle. The reason one often hears the year 1998 used as a base year to measure global temperature trends is that this is a cherry-picked year.

An extraordinarily powerful El Niño event that was the strongest on record brought about a temporary increase in surface ocean temperatures over a vast area of the tropical Pacific that year, helping boost global surface temperatures to the highest levels on record (global temperatures were warmer in both 2005 and 2010, but not by much.) But in the years from 2005 – 2012 (http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml), La Niña events have been present for at least a portion of every single year, helping keep Earth’s surface relatively cool.

http://icons.wxug.com/hurricane/2013/escalator.gif

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/temperature-trends-adjusted-1979-20121.png

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/28/1785461/as-scientists-predicted-global-warming-continues/

So Darrin not only denies AGW, but GW? :lol

TeyshaBlue

03-28-2013, 01:30 PM

lol thinkprogress

DarrinS

03-28-2013, 01:36 PM

lol skepticalscience

Wild Cobra

03-28-2013, 01:38 PM

The Climate Reality Project, founded and chaired by former Vice President and Nobel Laureate Al Gore, is dedicated to unleashing a global cultural movement demanding action on the climate crisis. Despite overwhelming international scientific consensus on climate change, the global community still lacks the resolve to implement meaningful solutions. The Climate Reality Project exists to forge an unwavering bedrock of impassioned support necessary for urgent action. With that foundation, together we will ignite the moral courage in our leaders to solve the climate crisis.

Maggie L. Fox, President and CEO, ..... She served as the Deputy Executive Director of the Sierra Club

Board of Directors

The Honorable Al Gore
Chairman of the Board
Vice President of the United States, 1993-2001; Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, 2007

Theodore Roosevelt IV
Secretary of the Board
Managing Director, Barclays Capital

Rosina Bierbaum, Ph.D.
Professor and former dean at University of Michigan School of Natural Resources and Environment

The Honorable Sherwood Boehlert
U.S. House of Representatives, 1983-2006; Former Republican Chairman, House Science & Technology Committee

Don Henry
CEO, Australian Conservation Foundation

Cindy Horn
Co-founder, Environmental Media Association; Philanthropist

Orin S. Kramer
General Partner, Boston Provident L.P.

Larry Schweiger
President and CEO, National Wildlife Federation

James Gustave (Gus) Speth
Professor, Vermont Law School

Kevin Wall
CEO, Control Room; Founder and Producer, Live Earth

DarrinS

03-28-2013, 01:38 PM

lol boutonsbot

FuzzyLumpkins

03-28-2013, 03:35 PM

Darrin, I thought you had given up on the 'it's not warming' take and dissembled to downplaying. You doubling down instead now?

So the low end estimates done by legitimate scientists in Oslo conclude 1.9 degrees. The high end is 3. The author left out ENSO and BEST which is a pretty glaring omission for what is supposed to be a comprehensive discussion in which he made a big issue of the top down modeling approach. It seemed a rehash to me. Then again you think LED's are riveting.

And cherrypicking a quote and making fun of boutox about his other links does little justice to the NASA link that is the study from which it is pulled and goes to great lengths to qualify and add much more to the cherry picked statement.

DarrinS

03-28-2013, 04:24 PM

Darrin, I thought you had given up on the 'it's not warming' take and dissembled to downplaying. You doubling down instead now?

No, just making fun of boutons.

Are you going to "Destroy Denial" using the AGW spambot created by your friends at SkepticalScience? https://realitydrop.org/

FuzzyLumpkins

03-28-2013, 06:17 PM

No, just making fun of boutons.

Are you going to "Destroy Denial" using the AGW spambot created by your friends at SkepticalScience? https://realitydrop.org/

AL GORE!!!

MannyIsGod

03-28-2013, 07:23 PM

What did you find interesting about the article, Darrin?

DarrinS

03-28-2013, 08:11 PM

What did you find interesting about the article, Darrin?

That climate may be less sensitive to CO2 than thought. Isn't that the point of the article?

DarrinS

03-28-2013, 08:12 PM

AL GORE!!!

Bot!!!

MannyIsGod

03-28-2013, 11:09 PM

That climate may be less sensitive to CO2 than thought. Isn't that the point of the article?

So you found the article interesting because it said what you wanted it to? Ok. :tu

For each of those articles they pointed to with a lower climate sensitivity (which most still overlap the IPCC's except at the very lower and unlikely range) how many studies do you think there are that say something different? Your confirmation bias is impressive.

Wild Cobra

03-29-2013, 03:03 AM

So you found the article interesting because it said what you wanted it to? Ok. :tu

For each of those articles they pointed to with a lower climate sensitivity (which most still overlap the IPCC's except at the very lower and unlikely range) how many studies do you think there are that say something different? Your confirmation bias is impressive.
Quantities of wrong don't make it correct in science.

Wild Cobra

03-29-2013, 05:49 AM

boutons_deux

03-29-2013, 08:17 AM

CO2... less climate sensitivity...

Back Carbon... more sensitivity...

What have I been saying people?

Too bad they didn't mention the large increase in solar from ~1900 to ~1950, and it's long lag period.

That was also the period of continued Industrial Revolution output of vastly increasing CO2 production from transport, industry, coal burning. How do you separate the two (as if you cared)?

DarrinS

03-29-2013, 08:37 AM

So you found the article interesting because it said what you wanted it to? Ok. :tu

For each of those articles they pointed to with a lower climate sensitivity (which most still overlap the IPCC's except at the very lower and unlikely range) how many studies do you think there are that say something different? Your confirmation bias is impressive.

Well, I may be guilty of that (as I'm sure most people are), but if the climate is not all that sensitive to CO2, it is great news -- except for those who spent their careers building confirmation bias astroturfing spambots.

Wild Cobra

03-29-2013, 05:11 PM

Yes, the lower sensitivity temperature has with CO2, the less money carbon credits are worth.

MannyIsGod

03-30-2013, 02:18 AM

Well, I may be guilty of that (as I'm sure most people are), but if the climate is not all that sensitive to CO2, it is great news -- except for those who spent their careers building confirmation bias astroturfing spambots.

Obviously its great news if the climate is less sensitive to GHG emissions. Its also great news if I win the lottery tomorrow or if gold starts raining from the sky. You don't seem to get how this conformation bias thing works, Darrin. When a substantive overview of all the research out there is gathered together it does not point to the climate being less sensitive. Are there studies that say it is? Yes. Are there far more studies that point to the opposite being true? Yes.

Furthermore, you're grabbing onto the notion that a 2 degree rise in global temps isn't a bad thing. It is. 2 degrees averaged over the globe means about 4-5 degrees over land. Right now with a 1 degree increase there are some huge changes happening that are going to have expensive and bad consequences. At 5 degrees you're going to see an incredible amount of change that is going to cost us quite a bit of money.

But sure, just go ahead and keep finding things you want to believe "interesting".

Wild Cobra

03-30-2013, 04:31 AM

Manny...

We have had, if I recall correctly, 3 previous times where nature warming was +2C relative to today.

Good or bad, it's natural. The alarmists try to make us think it's going to be +6 or more in the future.

FuzzyLumpkins

03-30-2013, 04:36 AM

:lol

Point to the other point in time that the temperature changed 2 degrees in less than 400 years.

Wild Cobra

03-30-2013, 04:43 AM

:lol

Point to the other point in time that the temperature changed 2 degrees in less than 400 years.
I see you are setting a goalpost. I'm referring to the last 11 kyrs, or so, since we came out of the ice age.

boutons_deux

03-30-2013, 05:49 AM

I see you are setting a goalpost. I'm referring to the last 11 kyrs, or so, since we came out of the ice age.

so tell us when in the last 11K years that the temperature change so fast in so short a time, like in the last 150 years of coal and oil burning, and huge increase in populations that burn wood to heat and cook.

Wild Cobra

03-30-2013, 07:05 AM

so tell us when in the last 11K years that the temperature change so fast in so short a time, like in the last 150 years of coal and oil burning, and huge increase in populations that burn wood to heat and cook.
LOL...

Limiting yourself to fossil fuels as a cause.

I showed this before:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/edited420kchart.jpg

DarrinS

03-30-2013, 09:00 AM

Interesting that there's still so much uncertainty in "settled science" -- and any article that points this out is automatically tagged "denial" by by the confirmation bias spambot, designed the "objective" folks at skepticalscience

Wild Cobra

03-30-2013, 05:14 PM

It's all settled in their head.

FuzzyLumpkins

03-30-2013, 06:31 PM

Who exactly is the confirmation bias spambot? Boutox?

And Darrin that certainly is rich coming from you seeing how often you post links you are given that you clearly have not read.

And WC you should never criticize anyone for having something set in their head. Your refrain the entire time has been the same. You never deviate from your refrain. It's to the point where I have called you out on your line of argument before you even make it because you have nothing else.

That's how you live your life. You have your box and if something doesn't fit into it you just suppose, guess or otherwise wishful think what you want into existence. When something seems to confirm your belief then you grandstand on it like nothing else. That's just how you roll.

Wild Cobra

03-30-2013, 06:41 PM

FuzzyLumpkins

03-30-2013, 09:49 PM

Fuzzy, you don't get it.

I am not making any unsupported numeric claims, backed by closed session peer reviews.

Where are the open peer reviews to convince the skeptics they are right?

You are the one living in a box, believing anything the people with agendas have.

So says the guy that referenced the 'warming drives CO2' 'rocket scientist' site for years.

There is not open peer review for a reason. If you go back to school and become an expert in anything then you can take part in it. Until then you can continue to change parts.

So let's be clear though. You are saying that they are lying. You are saying that the thousands of papers and the thousands of scientists are lying?

Wild Cobra

03-31-2013, 01:10 AM

Warming does change the absorption ratio. I'm sorry you don't understand.

There's nothing like picking who reviews the scientific literature and keeping them secret so you can accept or reject it by agenda. That's why I insist there needs to be the same type of reviewing done like the medical community does. Open instead of anonymous (closed.)

FuzzyLumpkins

03-31-2013, 05:25 AM

So let's be clear though. You are saying that they are lying. You are saying that the thousands of papers and the thousands of scientists are lying?

Wild Cobra

03-31-2013, 05:29 AM

FuzzyLumpkins

03-31-2013, 05:37 AM

:lol

WC understands but the thousands of scientists and the US National Academy are wrong.

You don't even understand the math much less the science as a whole. Just more wishful thinking in place of facts.

Wild Cobra

03-31-2013, 05:39 AM

FuzzyLumpkins

03-31-2013, 05:48 AM

I will let the future be my judge Fuzzy. It hasn't let me down yet. Years ago I was speaking of solar and soot having a larger impact than accounted for, and CO2 not being as strong of a greenhouse gas that the Charlatans claim. So far, I have been batting 1.000.

The solar findings happened in 2003 when the satellite went live. You weren't even around here back then. There was a study that said that soot was undervalued. You get a cookie.

You are conveniently forgetting about all your other attempts. Solar burps, warming denial, warming drives CO2, the heat is coming from the ocean and all of the other nonsense you have spouted over the years.

Wild Cobra

03-31-2013, 05:50 AM

How about looking at everything I said about solar, and put it together.

TIM is just one small aspect.

Wild Cobra

03-31-2013, 06:06 AM

You are conveniently forgetting about all your other attempts. Solar burps,

What do you mean by solar burps?

warming denial,

I don't deny warming. I deny that mankind is responsible for the majority of the warming.

Why can't you get that strait?

warming drives CO2,

You have the mind of a conspiracy theorist. You take the things you can trist out of context, and you run with it. Are you Cosmored?

I have clearly stated that if we added no CO2 to the atmosphere, that the natural global warming would have increased CO2 in the atmosphere anyway. The mechanism to do so is that as the surface of the ocean warms, it holds loss CO2 and other carbon forms. You obviously don't understand the impact of the carbon cycle, when the the temperature changes the CO2 equilibrium between the air and sea.

If you do understand, then you are purposely misrepresenting what is happening, and what I mean.

the heat is coming from the ocean.

Some heat comes from the ocean. This is indirect solar heat for the most part. The ocean does not originate this heat, it is simply a moving storage mechanism.

FuzzyLumpkins

03-31-2013, 06:11 AM

:lol

You used to deny warming.

You said that warming drives CO2 not the other way around ie exclusionary.

You said that the warming was attributable to deep ocean currents.

You are not exactly hard to fathom. You have a difficult time with more intricate analysis so you stay with the low level science. Regale us some more on partial pressures.

Wild Cobra

03-31-2013, 06:47 AM

You used to deny warming.

Liar.

I have never said there was no warming. My position has not changed. I have always maintained that AGW is weaker than the alarmists claim.

You said that warming drives CO2 not the other way around ie exclusionary.

I have said that warming increases CO2 more than CO2 indices warming. Both happen.

You said that the warming was attributable to deep ocean currents.

No, here is another place where you cannot get facts strait, or purposely recall the facts incorrectly.

Again, the ocean is a storage. Absorbing and releasing heat. The deep currents circulate this and there is also an associated lag.

You are not exactly hard to fathom. You have a difficult time with more intricate analysis so you stay with the low level science. Regale us some more on partial pressures.

You probably understand partial pressures as well as those who try to correlate deep navy air mix experiments with NASA using 3 PSI oxygen.

I'm not here to teach you or answer your endless questions. You cannot show us where you say I'm wrong, so you resort to making believe you are a teacher and I am a student.

In your dreams.

FuzzyLumpkins

03-31-2013, 06:16 PM

Again you are not relating any new information. It's not that I don't understand the processes. It's the grandstanding you do on them that I am talking about. RG talked about this grandstanding in his 'Why I Think' thread. You are nothing novel nor creative. You regurgitate and do a poor job of it.

After poo pooing the amount of warming as insignificant you moved to your current strategy of looking for any other cause than CO2. You are clearly sophist for the stance 'it's not CO2.' Solar, soot, volcanoes, the ocean or anything else the Koch/Exxon lobby puts out and you grandstand on it. You choose them all and when one gets some love you have your hands and scream 'look at me, look at me.'

That nad you conspiracy because a small minority opinion is not granted the same voice as the vast majority. You don't even point to unfairly rejected articles. You just claim a conspiracy that is lying to us.

Wild Cobra

04-01-2013, 01:55 AM

Wow...

Once again, you used a lot of words to prove you are an idiot, that you don't understand my points.

You simply prove once again you cannot follow a topic that has multiple causes and effects.

My strategy is not as you assume. I simply bring light to the areas not talked about in the agenda driven pseudoscience climate community.

The movement of the ocean matters.

Soot matters.

Volcanoes? Not my thing. There you go again making shit up, to see what sticks.

Solar... Very big deal. The alarmists only deal with "direct" atmospheric forcing changes, and they don't account for changes that the ocean and earth absorbs, which is radiated back up, as a greater input for the greenhouse effect. They are counting indirect solar changes as greenhouse gas forcing changes. Why can't you true believers see that?

FuzzyLumpkins

04-01-2013, 04:10 AM

:lol

It is amusing how you group thousands of scientists that are part of the consensus and make claims as to what they include in their models and what they do not. They have only known about the issue for a decade but none have them have considered it? Quite the contrary. For example:

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/2009RG000282.pdf

This is just as asinine as your assumption that the scientists do not consider ocean currents when Penn State and Washington had been studying it for over 50 years. You are completely clueless to the science. That particular discussion is what got you all butthurt about linearity because you couldn't understand what the PDE's were trying to say. That you still say it after having your nose rubbed in it is pretty sad. It just goes to how deep your mind is already set.

Nobody buys your bullshit.

:rollin Wild Cobra's posts are almost always full of hilarity; the only time they are not is when he tries to be funny.

You are mocked by virtue of who you are.

DarrinS

04-01-2013, 10:14 AM

Today's top items on "reality" drop:

Under "Spread Truth" (lol at the end of this URL)

"What deniers of climate change must deny" http://blogs.redding.com/dcraig/archives/2013/03/what-deniers-of-1.html?partner=RSS

Under "Destroy Denial"

"Government's climate watchdog launches astonishing attack on the Mail on Sunday... for revealing global warming science is wrong"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2301757/Governments-climate-watchdog-launches-astonishing-attack-Mail-Sunday--revealing-global-warming-science-wrong.html

Wild Cobra

04-01-2013, 01:20 PM

"What deniers of climate change must deny" http://blogs.redding.com/dcraig/archives/2013/03/what-deniers-of-1.html?partner=RSS

LOL...

This part started me laughing:

Real science is open, transparent and honest.
Since when have the alarmist been that? Destroying data comes to mind.

Wild Cobra

04-01-2013, 01:31 PM

For example:

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/2009RG000282.pdf

Actually, you should read what you link. Starting at section 4.1, it agrees with what I have been saying.

Jumping to 6.4:

The change in solar radiative forcing since
1750 was estimated in the IPCC [2007] report to be
0.12 W m−2, corresponding to an increase in TSI of
0.69 W m−2. A value of 0.24 W m−2 solar radiative forcing
difference from Maunder Minimum to the present is currently
considered to be more appropriate.

That's just the direct forcing. The indirect forcing from feedback is greater yet.

Wild Cobra

04-01-2013, 01:43 PM

FuzzyLumpkins

04-01-2013, 03:31 PM

Fuzzy, admittedly, I only scanned that file you linked. I will read is more slowly when I have time. Looks like a good find.

I did not see any place it disagrees with me. Please give me a page and/or section and quote of where I am wrong.

:lol Read section 4 "mechanisms." And mind you that this was just the first link I clicked from a simple google scholar search. You are certainly a willfully ignorant fuckstick.

Wild Cobra

04-01-2013, 03:45 PM

:lol Read section 4 "mechanisms." And mind you that this was just the first link I clicked from a simple google scholar search. You are certainly a willfully ignorant fuckstick.
No, it just proves you don't understand.

It agrees with me. If you think not, then quote the part that disagrees with me.

FuzzyLumpkins

04-01-2013, 04:17 PM

:lol Oh now we are playing mysterious are we?

However, in a series of diagnostic thermal budget studies of SST and ocean heat storage, White et al. [2003] and White [2006] concluded that the observed 11 year SC signals in SSTs could not be explained solely by this bottom‐up direct impact of radiative forcing at the surface (~0.15 W m−2). They showed that the temperature anomalies in the tropical lower troposphere were warmer than the tropical upper ocean anomalies and that these anomalies increased upward, from ∼0.2°C in the tropical lower troposphere to ∼
0.5°C in the tropical middle to upper troposphere and∼1°C in the tropical lower stratosphere. This anomalous lapse rate was matched by a corresponding downward sensible plus latent heat flux anomaly across the air ‐ sea interface of ∼0.5Wm − 2, which was larger than the direct solar radiative forcing by a factor of ∼3 and also explained the correct phase of the response. This therefore represents a different kind of amplification of the 11 year solar cycle and is not associated with changes in trade wind strength or cloud cover since these did not have the correct magnitude or phase. [101] This result implies a role for the top‐down influence of UV irradiance via the stratosphere.

White et al.[2003]also noted that time sequences of tropical tropospheric temperatures lead those in the lower stratosphere, which appears to argue against the top‐down influence. They suggest, however, that this should not be interpreted as a tropospheric signal forcing a stratospheric response because the stratospheric temperature response appears to be in radiative balance and hence is in phase with the 11 year solar cycle, while the troposphere responds to anomalous heating and advection which peaks during the period leading up to solar maximum and not at the maximum itself. This is a good example of the difficulties and dangers of interpreting observed signals from different parts of the atmosphere and especially in using their time response to try to infer cause and effect.

This repudiates your assertions

and

:lol you don't understand what a feedback system implies.

Wild Cobra

04-01-2013, 04:28 PM

This repudiates your assertions

No it doesn't.

I see you don't understand my argument.

That doesn't surprise me one bit from a dimwit like you.

FuzzyLumpkins

04-01-2013, 04:58 PM

Solar... Very big deal. The alarmists only deal with "direct" atmospheric forcing changes, and they don't account for changes that the ocean and earth absorbs, which is radiated back up, as a greater input for the greenhouse effect. They are counting indirect solar changes as greenhouse gas forcing changes. Why can't you true believers see that?

Anyone else read the above and read the bolded portions and come to your own conclusion as to whether or not I know what I am talking about.

FuzzyLumpkins

04-01-2013, 05:03 PM

The alarmists only deal with "direct" atmospheric forcing changes

vs.

However, in a series of diagnostic thermal budget studies of SST and ocean heat storage, White et al. [2003] and White [2006] concluded that the observed 11 year SC signals in SSTs could not be explained solely by this bottom‐up direct impact of radiative forcing at the surface (~0.15 W m−2).

they don't account for changes that the ocean and earth absorbs, which is radiated back up, as a greater input for the greenhouse effect.

vs.

This anomalous lapse rate was matched by a corresponding downward sensible plus latent heat flux anomaly across the air ‐ sea interface of ∼0.5Wm − 2, which was larger than the direct solar radiative forcing by a factor of ∼3 and also explained the correct phase of the response.

That one gave me a chuckle. :lol What do flux mean!

They are counting indirect solar changes as greenhouse gas forcing changes. Why can't you true believers see that?

vs.

time sequences of tropical tropospheric temperatures lead those in the lower stratosphere, which appears to argue against the top‐down influence. They suggest, however, that this should not be interpreted as a tropospheric signal forcing a stratospheric response because the stratospheric temperature response appears to be in radiative balance and hence is in phase with the 11 year solar cycle, while the troposphere responds to anomalous heating and advection which peaks during the period leading up to solar maximum and not at the maximum itself.

Wild Cobra

04-02-2013, 02:41 AM

Anyone else read the above and read the bolded portions and come to your own conclusion as to whether or not I know what I am talking about.
Fuzzy, did you read the very first paragraph before the introduction? They say they show how climate scientists understand it today, then they propose new ideas. They are not saying that is what this paper is about. Their new ideas are in line with mine.

Understanding the influence of solar variability on the
Earth’s climate requires knowledge of solar variability,
solar‐terrestrial interactions, and the mechanisms determining
the response of the Earth’s climate system. We provide
a summary of our current understanding in each of these
three areas. Observations and mechanisms for the Sun’s variability
are described, including solar irradiance variations
on both decadal and centennial time scales and their relation
to galactic cosmic rays. Corresponding observations of variations
of the Earth’s climate on associated time scales are
described, including variations in ozone, temperatures,
winds, clouds, precipitation, and regional modes of variability
such as the monsoons and the North Atlantic Oscillation.
A discussion of the available solar and climate proxies is
provided. Mechanisms proposed to explain these climate
observations are described, including the effects of variations
in solar irradiance and of charged particles. Finally,
the contributions of solar variations to recent observations
of global climate change are discussed.

If you keep going, after what you quotes, they say:

This result implies a role for the top‐down influence
of UV irradiance via the stratosphere.

I'm not going to bother playing this game with an idiot like you. You don't take anything as a whole. You find one item you fail to understand, and think it's a goldmine in your favor. You keep proving how much of an idiot you are.

The stuff in post 58 is what I am saying about most other studies. I posted that before you posted this link, and it does not apply to what they say the current understanding is. As I have said, over time, the old alarmist views are dying.

Wild Cobra

04-02-2013, 03:19 AM

You know Fuzzy. You would appear more intelligent if you asked questions pertaining to why people say certain things, instead of accusing them of being wrong from the start. As it sits, everyone who can follow, sees you as a total fool.

FuzzyLumpkins

04-02-2013, 07:19 AM

So says the one that is universally seen as the local idiot. You have read how everyone calls you that. You are the only one that says that I am an idiot, and you are just parroting what I refer to you as. No one else is. OTOH, you are called a moron on a daily basis around these parts. I could give a flying fuck as to what you think makes one appear intelligent.

I don't ask why you say what you say because I already know. It's not as if you come up with new novel things. You repeat the same drivel over and again. I don't really care to read more bullshit from you as you waffle around as you do with your racist commentary.

You have a reputation of that around here as well. Whether or not you admit the legitimacy of that is besides the point. You know that pretty much everyone around here thinks that of you. Your face is rubbed in it constantly. You have ZERO credibility. Even DMC, CC, and the local conservatives around here make fun of you. When you tried to have a discourse with Darrin above? You notice how he ignored you? You're all alone in this, dimwit.

As for my reputation, I am well regarded as being an argumentative jerk. OTOH, I don't have people responding to every post I make calling me a moron. That would be what you get. And you know this because you get it constantly. The best you seem to get is pity. Remember the awards from last year. Remember the award you got? Yeah that would be the poster with the dumbest takes.

I do find it hilarious that you got as far as the introduction in your reading. The part I quoted was part of said summation, dumbass.

I quoted the portions that stated that the current models considered surface flux. You said that they did not.

I quoted the portion that said that current models are using the new satellite information to consider the UV atmospheric affects and the interaction between the two. You said that they did not.

You don't even understand the phenomenon which is obvious because you have no understanding whatsoever of the issue of phase. You just like saying they don't consider it as if you are some groundbreaker.

You're wrong. Deal with it.

Do they agree with you that there is surface flux? Sure. Scientists agree with you that temperature effects solubility too. Just because you have some dimwitted understanding of the processes does not mean that they don't consider them. That doesn't make you have special insight. It just means you have a poor understanding. It's time to quote Bert again:

A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something that he can understand.

They don't agree with you that current models don't consider the various issues above. That's the entire point I am making. I have been saying that these solar issues have been known for years. Try and keep up.

Further, the article is not 'new,' dumbass. It was submitted 4 years ago. It alludes to studies from before that in the portions I quoted. All of these things that you say the climate scientists don't consider? Well I just showed you that they do. I just showed you that they have been considered for years.

The new IPCC report subsumes all of this. Haigh, Gray and Beer, et al the authors that you say agree with you? Yeah those guys are IPCC contributors. IOW, if you agree with them then you agree with IPCC because the newest iteration will have considered the things you claim they don't. You know this now.

Is that going to stop you from saying that they don't consider these things? No. How do I know this? Because you keep repeating the same shit about them not considering deep ocean currents in their models when I showed you PSU and UW studies where they do. You like playing make believe that you have something figured out that all the climate scientists in the world haven't figured. That's your entire schtick.

Nobody buys it. Nobody.

Wild Cobra

04-02-2013, 01:12 PM

Fuzzy, I saw the date of the article. This is the first I have seen of it. Overall, it's a good article, but still lacking.

It does not disagree with the things I have been saying.

Admit it. I own you.

Wild Cobra

04-02-2013, 02:41 PM

I do find it hilarious that you got as far as the introduction in your reading. The part I quoted was part of said summation, dumbass.

Yet you posted it for a different purpose, thinking it disagrees with what I say, when it supported what I say.

rant, rant. Butthurt rant...

Rant rant rant...

Rant, rant.

Crying also...

They don't agree with you that current models don't consider the various issues above. That's the entire point I am making. I have been saying that these solar issues have been known for years. Try and keep up.

They agree that the current model is flawed. They are attemting to fix it. They still didn't address how the increase in solar forcing increases the greenhouse gas forcing.

Further, the article is not 'new,' dumbass. It was submitted 4 years ago.

No Shit Sherlock.

It alludes to studies from before that in the portions I quoted. All of these things that you say the climate scientists don't consider? Well I just showed you that they do. I just showed you that they have been considered for years.

I didn't say Climate Scientists don't consider, I said the alarmists don't consider . If I miststated that, then so be it. This is why I wasnt real climate scientists (not those with alarmists agendas) in the peer reveir process.

The new IPCC report subsumes all of this. Haigh, Gray and Beer, et al the authors that you say agree with you? Yeah those guys are IPCC contributors. IOW, if you agree with them then you agree with IPCC because the newest iteration will have considered the things you claim they don't. You know this now.

If I agree with thyem, I agree with the IPCC... That's just one more examply of how fucking stupid you are. Someone can agree with part of a publication, and disagree with most of the rest. Agreement to part does not mean the whole.

All three of these contributed to the solar parts of the IPCC which are not only small and incomplete, but rated as a "low level of understanding." I wonder how much of their work the IPCC may have revised or thrown out.

The point of the article is finding ways to understand it better. I don't recall saying anyplace in the IPCC material that this particular work was wrong, just incomplete. They only address "direct" forcing. As you see, these people are working on a more complete understanding.

We should go back to post 48:

It is amusing how you group thousands of scientists that are part of the consensus and make claims as to what they include in their models and what they do not. They have only known about the issue for a decade but none have them have considered it? Quite the contrary. For example:

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun...09RG000282.pdf

I have answered in a previos post. Many scientists don't even know they are wrong, it's what they are taught. Manny's a good example.

This is just as asinine as your assumption that the scientists do not consider ocean currents when Penn State and Washington had been studying it for over 50 years.

They do not consider all the implications, at least in released material related to Climate Change. I don't ever recall saying they don't consider ocean currents at all, which is what your statement implies.

On you the things that proves you are a fucking idiot is that you keep arguing incorrect points. Maybe if you argued against what someone actually said, you would appear a little more intelligent.

You are completely clueless to the science. That particular discussion is what got you all butthurt about linearity because you couldn't understand what the PDE's were trying to say. That you still say it after having your nose rubbed in it is pretty sad. It just goes to how deep your mind is already set.

I do understand linear and non linear. Did you forget I mentioned some of it doesn't matter, that is can be linearized over small changes, because we are only dealing with three significant digits?

Do you know what "significant digit" means?

end post 48 quote...

I ask again, how does any of that link about solar influences show that I am wrong about anything I say? they admit they don't have a complete understanding, and review what they believe. They go on to suggest other possible things to study, many of which are in line with what I say.

FuzzyLumpkins

04-02-2013, 05:00 PM

I do understand linear and non linear. Did you forget I mentioned some of it doesn't matter, that is can be linearized over small changes, because we are only dealing with three significant digits?

:lol significant digits. The precision of an instrument has nothing to do with whether or not a function can be parametrized such that it behave linearly nor if a range of linear behavior can be found. Nothing whatsoever.

No, you don't understand and it's hilarious watching you apply grade school science concepts like sigfigs to understand. "because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something that he can understand."

You have said the the models do not consider surface flux, upper atmosphere heat transfer and the relation between the two claiming that they included that as part of the greenhouse effect. Here is a quote that says that they have recognized it in print (re:peer reviewed) for 12 years and that they have factored models with it for 4 years.

However, recent recognition of the influence of stratospheric processes on climate in general 2001] has prompted the vertical extension of coupled ocean‐atmosphere climate models to include the stratosphere, so that fully coupled ocean‐troposphere‐stratosphere climate and Earth system models are now becoming available and the TSI (bottom‐up) and UV (top‐down) influences can be assessed in the same model [e.g.,Meehl et al., 2009].

This is from IPCC contributors, ie 14 of the 'alarmists,' dimwit. The international conference that advocates swift, decisive and broad-reaching policy change understands this. The National Academy who advocates the same thing understands this. It's what they teach. They've only been discussing it for 12 years. Try and keep up.

RandomGuy

04-02-2013, 06:17 PM

Lol @ this from http://climaterealityproject.org/press/

Comment bot, built by bots, for like-minded bots :lmao

IRONY ALERT!!!!

Let us know when they come to take yer lightbubs.

Wild Cobra

04-03-2013, 02:11 AM

:lol significant digits. The precision of an instrument has nothing to do with whether or not a function can be parametrized such that it behave linearly nor if a range of linear behavior can be found. Nothing whatsoever.

Tisk tisk. Changing the goalpost from the original argument.

You lose.

No, you don't understand and it's hilarious watching you apply grade school science concepts like sigfigs to understand. "because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something that he can understand."

Yawn...

You have said the the models do not consider surface flux, upper atmosphere heat transfer and the relation between the two claiming that they included that as part of the greenhouse effect. Here is a quote that says that they have recognized it in print (re:peer reviewed) for 12 years and that they have factored models with it for 4 years.

I was specifying cvertian types. Any does not constitute what I specified.

This is from IPCC contributors, ie 14 of the 'alarmists,' dimwit. The international conference that advocates swift, decisive and broad-reaching policy change understands this. The National Academy who advocates the same thing understands this. It's what they teach. They've only been discussing it for 12 years. Try and keep up.

And that means they are right?

Throughout history, science has been taught incorrectly many times, and agenda driven.

You have yet to show where I am in error at. You keep throwing shit to see if any sticks.

You are pathetic.

Wild Cobra

04-03-2013, 02:27 AM

For those not knowing what I mean about not considering a complex formula, and using linear instead, there was a factor that was only about 6 units, whereas the end result is about 500 units. A change of only 0.2 percent, unless exceptional sensitive, will have little bearing on the 6 units. 0.2% of 6 is 0.012. Now this same 0.2% changes the linear 500 units by 1. Now when using 3 digits of significance, the absolute total of these two added are 506 before adding 0.2%, and 507.012 with the added 0.2%. Assuming the non-linearity is about a fact of eight, for the smaller number, a change from using linear to complex math will still not be seen until using 4 significant digits.

Fuzzy is a certified loser.

FuzzyLumpkins

04-03-2013, 06:13 AM

:lol certain types. You said they didn't consider indirect forcing.

Complex math? I'm assuming you mean difficult and not imaginary axis because complex functions can be linear.

And wtf are you talking about? Percentage? Now we have regressed to primary school.

.0000000004 has ten significant figures. If you change it by .002, it doesn't change very much. You have no concept of proportion, dimwit.

Your dumb ass actually thinks that using smaller numbers will somehow make the behavior more linear. What about inverses? You should just stop.

Now that you know that:

recent recognition of the influence of stratospheric processes on climate in general [Baldwin and Dunkerton, 2001] has prompted the vertical extension of coupled ocean‐atmosphere climate models to include the stratosphere, so that fully coupled ocean‐troposphere‐stratosphere climate and Earth system models are now becoming available and the TSI (bottom‐up) and UV (top‐down) influences can be assessed in the same model [e.g.,Meehl et al., 2009].

Do you stand by your statements that:

The alarmists only deal with "direct" atmospheric forcing changes.

or

they don't account for changes that the ocean and earth absorbs, which is radiated back up, as a greater input for the greenhouse effect.

or

They are counting indirect solar changes as greenhouse gas forcing changes.

I still am amazed at how you are able to combine stupidity and wishful thinking. Do you really think that scientists do not consider that the earth and sea absorb and emit energy? Really? My guess is that this is you doing what Bert is talking about again.

ffs, punch yourself in the face.

Wild Cobra

04-03-2013, 01:23 PM

OK, my usage of complex was incorrect to use in place of nonlinear math. That';s all you have me on here.

You still have not shown me where I am wrong. Stop with the generalized statements lacking context.

Out up or shut up troll.

boutons_deux

04-03-2013, 01:45 PM

but GOP politicians are in touch with Kock Bros, US CoC, Carbon Industry paymasters

GOP Leaders Out Of Touch With GOP Voters On Clean Energy And Climate Change

Republican and Republican-leaning independents and found the majority of respondents accept climate change is happening — a step some influential Republicans have yet to take — and 62 percent of those think the U.S. should take steps to address the problem.
Republican voters support clean energy: 77 percent of respondents said they want America to use more renewable energy, and a large majority of them want the switch to happen immediately.

They believe the benefits of clean energy outweigh the costs: achieving energy dependence and saving resources for future generations were more important to a majority of respondents than the increased government regulation and free market interference that the survey cited as potential costs of a major change in energy sources. This is at odds with Republican leaders’ recent stances on renewable energy: during the 2012 election, presidential candidate Mitt Romney condemned the Obama Administration’s “war on coal,” and several Republicans in congress have opposed government funding for clean energy.

Only about one-third of the respondents agree with the Republican party’s stance on climate change, a platform that in 2012 made no direct mention of climate change and lauded the economic value of coal and the benefits of the Keystone XL pipeline.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04/02/1812331/poll-gop-leaders-out-of-touch-with-gop-voters-on-clean-energy-and-climate-change/

But will such Repug/independent voters ever vote against Repug politicians on the climate change issue?

FuzzyLumpkins

04-03-2013, 02:18 PM

Wild Cobra

04-03-2013, 02:23 PM

:lol context

so you don't stand behind it. that's nice.
I stand behind my words. If you care to bring up the thread and quote you started accusing me of the nonlinear thing when I said it didn't matter, I will be glad to prove you an idiot once again.

But no...

You only make generalized nonrelevant attacks.

Once again, you should ask questions before accusing. I do use a poor choice of words that can be corrected at times, but most the time, it is your absolute stupidity that keeps you from understanding.

Put up or shut up troll. Be specific on where I am wrong. Show me how I am wrong.

DarrinS

04-03-2013, 03:19 PM

FuzzyLumpkins

04-03-2013, 03:54 PM

I stand behind my words. If you care to bring up the thread and quote you started accusing me of the nonlinear thing when I said it didn't matter, I will be glad to prove you an idiot once again.

But no...

You only make generalized nonrelevant attacks.

Once again, you should ask questions before accusing. I do use a poor choice of words that can be corrected at times, but most the time, it is your absolute stupidity that keeps you from understanding.

Put up or shut up troll. Be specific on where I am wrong. Show me how I am wrong.

:lol Ask questions? So you can try and weasel out with claims of context and being misunderstood. These are not new debates, dumbass. You come with the same shit time and again so I just rub your face in it some more. I have an idea: you find someone that buys your line of you being taken out of context and misunderstood.

I just used the linear example to show how you talk out of your ass. You were the one that ran with it and tried to use 4th grade math to try and demonstrate how you understand. Now you are going onto this tactic. CONTEXT!!!! You shouldn't talk about concepts that you don't understand and you won't be made fun of for being stupid.

I've told you specifically what you are wrong about. I've done it several times. This time, I'll even number them again so your dumb ass can figure it out.

1) Climate models do not consider the effect of the UV spectrum amplitudes differing from TSI (and being out of phase even though your dumbass has yet to recognize this).
2) Climate scientists in their models only consider direct solar forcing mechanisms and disregard surface flux
3) That they ignore these issues and claim that they are due to the greenhouse effect.

You have been shown that the models do consider these things and have been in existence for at least 4 years.

Your dumbass is trying to twist it into me saying that they agree with you. It's tantamount to you accusing someone of being colorblind and patting yourself on the back when they say the sky is blue.

RandomGuy

04-03-2013, 05:43 PM

I thought this was an interesting article.

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions

I'd hardly call it a "denier" article.

So, why is it listed on "reality drop" (https://realitydrop.org/) with a button under it for "Destroy Denial"?

Knee jerk reaction.

Not altogether shocking.

Sad thing is that it will be touted and its importance magnified by the cherry pickers seeking to show that we don't need to bother with even mildly reasonable efforts to curtail GHG emissions.

RandomGuy

04-03-2013, 05:45 PM

(al gore... bad! look at all of these big bad conspiracists getting together to plot against us!!)

Opening with an ad hominem.

About as expected as a knee jerk reaction from climate change warriors to a mildly contra-indicating study.

RandomGuy

04-03-2013, 05:47 PM

LOL...

Limiting yourself to fossil fuels as a cause.

I showed this before:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/edited420kchart.jpg

Funny enough, the highest CO2 value on that graph is 280 PPM for CO2

As of last month we were sitting just shy of 400 PPM

All the spikes in the past were from large volcanic eruptions, not in evidence today.

Just sayin'

RandomGuy

04-03-2013, 05:49 PM

That climate may be less sensitive to CO2 than thought. Isn't that the point of the article?

Yes. Fair restatement.

Although you left out the part where some of the scientists involved posit that the reason that we are seeing a flat, lower spike is due to the oceans soaking up the excess.

That right there, if true, would be somewhat alarming in its implications.

RandomGuy

04-03-2013, 05:58 PM

Yes and no Fuzzy.

There is an agenda that has reached the universities. They are teaching the science wrong.

Consider this. If the science was correct, why are there still so many "skeptics" after all these years?

All I want, is for the skeptics to be part of the review process, in an open format. Then all involved has there reputation on the line. Nobody has anything to lose by lying, or allowing bad science, when it's a closed review process.

They have everything to lose, quite the contrary. If they are wrong about the whole thing it will be a huge disaster PR wise at this point.

You are only complaining about an "agenda" because it is not your agenda. Spare me the crocodile tears.

Good science goes where the evidence leads, no matter who is doing the peer reviews.

Closed review processes allow for frank discussions, and for people to speak their minds, criticise and critique without fear of repercussion, FWIW.

Good and bad in that. You haven't given me a reason to lean one way or another.

As for why are there so many "Skeptics"... I would point out that is an Appeal to Popularity logical fallacy. If you like I can show you people who still claim that 9-11 is an inside job. Why do they persist in their beliefs?

Simply because conspiracy theories can persist, HAS NO BEARING ON THEIR VERACITY.

Wild Cobra

04-04-2013, 02:15 AM

:lol Ask questions? So you can try and weasel out with claims of context and being misunderstood. These are not new debates, dumbass. You come with the same shit time and again so I just rub your face in it some more. I have an idea: you find someone that buys your line of you being taken out of context and misunderstood.

I just used the linear example to show how you talk out of your ass. You were the one that ran with it and tried to use 4th grade math to try and demonstrate how you understand. Now you are going onto this tactic. CONTEXT!!!! You shouldn't talk about concepts that you don't understand and you won't be made fun of for being stupid.

I've told you specifically what you are wrong about. I've done it several times. This time, I'll even number them again so your dumb ass can figure it out.

1) Climate models do not consider the effect of the UV spectrum amplitudes differing from TSI (and being out of phase even though your dumbass has yet to recognize this).
2) Climate scientists in their models only consider direct solar forcing mechanisms and disregard surface flux
3) That they ignore these issues and claim that they are due to the greenhouse effect.

You have been shown that the models do consider these things and have been in existence for at least 4 years.

Your dumbass is trying to twist it into me saying that they agree with you. It's tantamount to you accusing someone of being colorblind and patting yourself on the back when they say the sky is blue.
You are the one weaseling out. You cannot give me a specific example. I contend you have no valid arguments against my claims, that you are simply an expert at talking out your ass.

All three of your examples are too general and wrong at that.

Go to a specific claim and post, else shut the fuck up.

Wild Cobra

04-04-2013, 02:19 AM

Funny enough, the highest CO2 value on that graph is 280 PPM for CO2

As of last month we were sitting just shy of 400 PPM

All the spikes in the past were from large volcanic eruptions, not in evidence today.

Just sayin'
Yes, and that 400 ppm has not increased our temperature above the past temperature peaks. Not the lat one at +2C, and only about 260 ppm.

Wild Cobra

04-04-2013, 02:21 AM

Yes. Fair restatement.

Although you left out the part where some of the scientists involved posit that the reason that we are seeing a flat, lower spike is due to the oceans soaking up the excess.

That right there, if true, would be somewhat alarming in its implications.
What if the oceans have been soaking up much of the extra solar power since the increased solar output between 1900 and 1950, and have been slowly releasing with a lag as long as 50 years?

FuzzyLumpkins

04-04-2013, 02:45 AM

You are the one weaseling out. You cannot give me a specific example. I contend you have no valid arguments against my claims, that you are simply an expert at talking out your ass.

All three of your examples are too general and wrong at that.

Go to a specific claim and post, else shut the fuck up.

1) Climate models do not consider the effect of the UV spectrum amplitudes differing from TSI
2) Climate scientists in their models only consider direct solar forcing mechanisms and disregard surface flux
3) That they ignore these issues and claim that they are due to the greenhouse effect.

The alarmists only deal with "direct" atmospheric forcing changes, and they don't account for changes that the ocean and earth absorbs, which is radiated back up, as a greater input for the greenhouse effect. They are counting indirect solar changes as greenhouse gas forcing changes. Why can't you true believers see that?

It seems pretty precise to me. You have been talking about the UV spectrum effect with your canned charts of what molecules absorbed that bandwidth and where they aresince you've been posting here. I imagine that you have been saying it nonstop since you first found the chart years ago. You seem to have held onto the rocket scientist and ocean as a soda for a long time too. This is just another thing you roll out too.

Seems you don't want to actually discuss what I am saying just like you didn't want to talk about linearity. I don't blame you. I imagine that you are at wit's end trying to figure out some other bullshit you can say have you figured out over 'climate alarmists.'

Wild Cobra

04-04-2013, 02:50 AM

They have everything to lose, quite the contrary. If they are wrong about the whole thing it will be a huge disaster PR wise at this point.

Exactly. They can trump up an agenda, and have nothing to lose.

We have activist scientists advocating we devote large investments to something that many say is a waste of money. They need to be damn certain before anyone involved with the IPCC convinces world politicians to damage our economy. Everyone's reputation needs to be on the line.

Doctors are, when peer reviewed.

You are only complaining about an "agenda" because it is not your agenda. Spare me the crocodile tears.

That's your opinion, which I say is not true, unless you are calling my agenda, being factually accurate.

Good science goes where the evidence leads, no matter who is doing the peer reviews.

It doesn't in the Climate Sciences.

Closed review processes allow for frank discussions, and for people to speak their minds, criticise and critique without fear of repercussion, FWIW.

It also allows like minded people to fly with an agenda.

It needs to be open to keep it honest.

Good and bad in that. You haven't given me a reason to lean one way or another.

How about this simple attempt.

The energy budget can be broken down into percentage of power. In fact, it used to be represented that way before using it in watt/square meter.

The sun effectively is the source of 100% of all the heat energy in the surface, seas, and atmosphere.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/images/global_energy_budget_components.png (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page6.php)

The total energy in the atmosphere by the above chart is 158% of the 340 watts/square meter the earth receives. Now almost all solar scientists will agree that the solar TSI has increased by about 0.15% since the IPCC beginning time frame of 1750. If you notice, the direct solar heating in the troposphere in the above graph is 23%. Now 23% of the 340 is 78.2 watts/square meter. 0.15% of this 78.2 is the 0.12 watts per square meter the IPCC AR4 assigns for solar radiative forcing change. They don't even hide the fact that they are only consider the "direct forcing." That isn't the end of the story, and one of the places Fuzzy mixes up when linear and nonlinear calculations are applied. The 0.15% does not stop here. It applies to all the numbers. Now look at this atmospheric total of 158%. This is a pretty large value. If we assume this NASA graph to be correct, it represents 537.2 watts/square meter. Now 0.15% of that 537.2 watts is 0.806 watts. This represents the total forcing changes from a 0.15% solar change. This is half of the global warming the IPCC claims since 1750.

I submit that these alarmists are conveniently leaving out this indirect solar forcing, and passing it off as extra greenhouse gas forcing. The they have also in recent years, acknowledged that both soot and UV have greater effects than previously thought.

CO2 is losing the battle in science.

As for why are there so many "Skeptics"... I would point out that is an Appeal to Popularity logical fallacy. If you like I can show you people who still claim that 9-11 is an inside job. Why do they persist in their beliefs?

How many of them are respected scientists?

Simply because conspiracy theories can persist, HAS NO BEARING ON THEIR VERACITY.

I claim this is a conspiracy only on the part of a limited few, driven by agenda. I think most who believe are simply applying incorrect teachings from universities.

Wild Cobra

04-04-2013, 03:02 AM

It seems pretty precise to me. You have been talking about the UV spectrum effect with your canned charts of what molecules absorbed that bandwidth and where they aresince you've been posting here. I imagine that you have been saying it nonstop since you first found the chart years ago. You seem to have held onto the rocket scientist and ocean as a soda for a long time too. This is just another thing you roll out too.

Seems you don't want to actually discuss what I am saying just like you didn't want to talk about linearity. I don't blame you. I imagine that you are at wit's end trying to figure out some other bullshit you can say have you figured out over 'climate alarmists.'
Still all bluster, and no specific examples.

You are fucking lame Fuzzy.

FuzzyLumpkins

04-04-2013, 04:25 AM

:lol

I guess numbering them made it too difficult to figure out. Would bullet points have helped? Wait! I have an idea!

:lol Climate models do not consider the effect of the UV spectrum amplitudes differing from TSI
:lol Climate scientists in their models only consider direct solar forcing mechanisms and disregard surface flux
:lol That they ignore these issues and claim that they are due to the greenhouse effect.

Wild Cobra

04-04-2013, 04:37 AM

It doesn't matter. You are still a joke.

RandomGuy

04-04-2013, 01:54 PM

Yes, and that 400 ppm has not increased our temperature above the past temperature peaks. Not the lat one at +2C, and only about 260 ppm.

But wasn't it your theory that temperatures CAUSED Co2?

Wouldn't a flat decade with rising CO2 levels kinda debunk that?

I would also point out that the current spike in CO2 is faster than has ever been recorded in that graph.

Doesn't that rate cause you some concern?

RandomGuy

04-04-2013, 01:55 PM

What if the oceans have been soaking up much of the extra solar power since the increased solar output between 1900 and 1950, and have been slowly releasing with a lag as long as 50 years?

A testable hypothesis. Get testing.

Please. You would not even need peer review to look at your paper.

RandomGuy

04-04-2013, 02:00 PM

[peer review works for every other branch of science, but] doesn't in the Climate Sciences, [because they have an agenda, and are willing to lie through their teeth to support it]

Sure thing Cosmored. Big claim, big burden of proof. The Climate Gate stuff doesn't quite mean what you would like it to, so you will need to get some hard evidence of this vast conspiracy.

How many people are in on this conspiracy of yours? 10? 100? 100,000? Give us some hint as to the order of magnitude.

RandomGuy

04-04-2013, 02:03 PM

I claim this is a conspiracy only on the part of a limited few, driven by agenda. I think most who believe are simply applying incorrect teachings from universities.

So none of these people is as smart as you are, and have put 2 + 2 together to see through this "agenda"?

That is what you are going with?

The PhD candidates are too stupid to figure out they have "conveniently" missed things, and are being led down a false road by some nebulous group of "scientists" with a secret agenda?

That about right?

RandomGuy

04-04-2013, 02:08 PM

It doesn't matter. You are still a joke.

Climate models do not consider the effect of the UV spectrum amplitudes differing from TSI
Climate scientists in their models only consider direct solar forcing mechanisms and disregard surface flux
That they ignore these issues and claim that they are due to the greenhouse effect.

Last one before I log off. Either he is re-stating your position accurately, or his is not.

If not then, say why not.

I would hate to miss something important, and believe something falsely, either about what you are trying to say, or something as important as climate change, and its causes.

Wild Cobra

04-04-2013, 02:17 PM

But wasn't it your theory that temperatures CAUSED Co2?

Specifically, ocean temperature. Not atmospheric temperature.

I have been saying that ocean temperature changes CO2 levels in the atmosphere. I have said long wave radiative forcing does little to ocean temperatures. Ocean temperatures do not necessarily change with atmospheric temperatures. It is comical to think that the greenhouse effect has any substantial impact of ocean temperatures.

If you look at the electromagnetic absorption of liquid water, it absorbs very little at the visible and shorter frequencies, that make it to the surface. It is effectively transparent to them. The IR from the greenhouse effect are readily absorbed in the uppermost surface, where they re-radiate back upward, and have little effect in increasing the water temperature. The visible band and shorter wavelengths are not so readily absorbed, and travels several hundred feed before effectively being absorbed. This causes a warming of deeper waters and stays in the system longer. This is increased heat, not making it back to the surface for a very long time.

Wouldn't a flat decade with rising CO2 levels kinda debunk that?

No, because of ocean currents, and man's input of CO2 to the atmosphere.

I would also point out that the current spike in CO2 is faster than has ever been recorded in that graph.

So?

Doesn't that rate cause you some concern?

Not at all. What concerns me is the soot that is also coming from the Asian industrialization, from the burning of fossil fuels that aren't regulated for solid emissions like ours are.

RandomGuy

04-04-2013, 02:26 PM

I have been saying that ocean temperature changes CO2 levels in the atmosphere. I have said long wave radiative forcing does little to ocean temperatures. Ocean temperatures do not necessarily change with atmospheric temperatures. It is comical to think that the greenhouse effect has any substantial impact of ocean temperatures.

A testable, scientific hypothesis.

I don't care what you *say*.

I care what you can prove.

Design a test for this hypothesis. Tell me how to go about confirming it.

Has this work already been done?

RandomGuy

04-04-2013, 02:31 PM

If you look at the electromagnetic absorption of liquid water, it absorbs very little at the visible and shorter frequencies, that make it to the surface. It is effectively transparent to them.

Liquid water or ocean water?

What about the particles, creatures and ions besides water that are actually in the ocean?

Correct me if I am wrong, but how much energy does plankton absorb globally? Ultimately a lot of the energy they absorb gets released into the environment.

Seems to me that basing your assumptions on clear water would not tell us anything useful, unless we know exactly how much is absorbed.

Further, water may be clear, but what happens when you get a mile or two of it? How much light reaches the last few feet? What implication does this have to your theory?

Wild Cobra

04-04-2013, 02:33 PM

A testable, scientific hypothesis.

I don't care what you *say*.

I care what you can prove.

Design a test for this hypothesis. Tell me how to go about confirming it.

Has this work already been done?
Yes, this type of ocean research has been done to some extent. I don't know how much has been done in relating it to atmospheric temperatures.

As for proving it to you. I don't have the means to do so. If you understand enough about the sciences involved, you will agree that it makes sense at least. Still, it's good to be skeptical. That is proper science.

DarrinS

04-04-2013, 02:40 PM

lmao at this op ed

http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybinswanger/2013/04/03/global-warming-was-it-just-a-beautiful-dream-after-all/

Global Warming: Was It Just A Beautiful Dream After All?

Like most of you, I yearn for shorter winters, more shirt-sleeve weather, less lashing from frigid winds. As a confirmed New Yorker, I’m not willing to do what millions have done: move to the sunbelt. I want warmer weather here in the Big City.

But I’ve grown old waiting for the promised global warming. I was 35 when predictions of a looming ice age were supplanted by warmmongering. Now I’m 68, and there’s still no sign of warmer weather. It’s enough to make one doubt the “settled science” of the government-funded doom-sayers.

Amnesty For Illegal Immigrants Is Not Enough, They Deserve An Apology Harry BinswangerContributor

Anti-Immigration Rhetoric Frighteningly Reveals Education's Failure Harry BinswangerContributor

With Gun Control, Cost Benefit Analysis Is Amoral Harry BinswangerContributor

No President Obama, We Can't "Outcompete" Other Countries Harry BinswangerContributor

Remember 1979? That was the year of “We Are Family” by Sister Sledge, of “The Dukes of Hazard” on TV, and of “ Kramer vs. Kramer” on the silver screen. It was the year the Shah was forced out of Iran. It was before the web, before the personal computer, before the cell phone, before voicemail and answering machines. But not before the global warming campaign.

In January of 1979, a New York Times article was headlined: “Experts Tell How Antarctic Ice Could Cause Widespread Floods.” The abstract in the Times archives says: “If the West Antarctic ice sheet slips into the sea, as some glaciologists believe is possible, boats could be launched from the bottom steps of the Capitol in Washington and a third of Florida would be under water, a climate specialist said today.”

By 1981 (think “Chariots of Fire“), the drum beat had taken effect. Quoting from the American Institute of Physics website: “A 1981 survey found that more than a third of American adults claimed they had heard or read about the greenhouse effect.”

So where’s the warming? Where are the gondolas pulling up to the Capitol? Where are the encroaching seas in Florida? Or anywhere? Where is the climate change which, for 33 years, has been just around the corner?

A generation and a half into climate change, née global warming, you can’t point to a single place on earth where the weather is noticeably different from what it was in 1979. Or 1879, for that matter. I don’t know what subliminal changes would be detected by precise instruments, but in terms of the human experience of climate, Boston is still Boston, Cairo is still Cairo, and Sydney is still Sydney.

After all this time, when the continuation of industrial civilization itself is on the table, shouldn’t there be some palpable, observable effect of the disaster that we are supposed to sacrifice our futures in order to avoid? Shouldn’t the doom-sayers be saying “We told you so!” backed up by a torrent of youtube videos of submerged locales and media stories reminding us about how it used to snow in Massachusetts?

Climate panic, after all, is fear of dramatic, life-altering climate changes, not about tenths of a degree. We are told that we must “take action right now before it’s Too Late!” That doesn’t mean: before it’s too late to avoid a Spring that comes a week earlier or summer heat records of 103 degrees instead of 102. It was to fend off utter disaster that we needed the Kyoto Treaty, carbon taxes, and Priuses.

With nothing panic-worthy–nothing even noticeable–ensuing after 33 years, one has to wonder whether external reality even matters amid the frenzy. (It’s recently been admitted that there has been no global warming for the last 16 years.) For the climate researchers, what matters may be gaining fame and government grants, but what about the climate-anxious trend-followers in the wider public? What explains their indifference to decade after decade of failed predictions? Beyond sheer conformity, dare I suggest a psychological cause: a sense of personal anxiety projected outward? “The planet is endangered by carbon emissions” is far more palatable than “My life is endangered by my personal evasions.” Something is indeed careening out of control, but it isn’t the atmosphere.

Meanwhile, those of us who long for warmer weather will have to give up the dream–or move south.

Wild Cobra

04-04-2013, 02:40 PM

Liquid water or ocean water?

Both. There isn't enough salt or other minerals to have a significant effect.

What about the particles, creatures and ions besides water that are actually in the ocean?

Same thing. They don't "blanket" the waters.

Correct me if I am wrong, but how much energy does plankton absorb globally? Ultimately a lot of the energy they absorb gets released into the environment.

I'm sure it's a tremendous amount. It's not enough to keep light from reaching several hundred feet deep.

Seems to me that basing your assumptions on clear water would not tell us anything useful, unless we know exactly how much is absorbed.

Then as an ocean explorer how deep they can still see without artificial lighting.

Further, water may be clear, but what happens when you get a mile or two of it? How much light reaches the last few feet? What implication does this have to your theory?

If any spectra at all reaches that deep, it probably isn't measurable.

RandomGuy

04-04-2013, 02:41 PM

Not at all. What concerns me is the soot that is also coming from the Asian industrialization, from the burning of fossil fuels that aren't regulated for solid emissions like ours are.

Unfortunately for your hypothesis, Chinese burning of high sulphur fuels like coal, etc., could have a marked cooling effect.

Your "soot" could end up reflecting far more energy than the dark color stuff you imagine is a big deal.

Begin with aerosols, such as those from sulphates. These stop the atmosphere from warming by reflecting sunlight. Some heat it, too. But on balance aerosols offset the warming impact of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Most climate models reckon that aerosols cool the atmosphere by about 0.3-0.5°C. If that underestimated aerosols’ effects, perhaps it might explain the lack of recent warming.

Do some research on the kinds of coal the Chinese are using. It is the dirty dirty dirty sulfuric kind.

If these areosols are cooling the atmosphere, but still causing large amounts of CO2, we would expect that, all other things equal, one might get higher CO2 concentrations and just modest temperature rises.

What happens when the Chinese decide that they need to scrub their coal emissions to keep them from dying in the streets from emphasema?

The areosols go away, and the CO2 sticks around.

RandomGuy

04-04-2013, 02:47 PM

So what does all this amount to? The scientists are cautious about interpreting their findings. As Dr Knutti puts it, “the bottom line is that there are several lines of evidence, where the observed trends are pushing down, whereas the models are pushing up, so my personal view is that the overall assessment hasn’t changed much.”

But given the hiatus in warming and all the new evidence, a small reduction in estimates of climate sensitivity would seem to be justified: a downwards nudge on various best estimates from 3°C to 2.5°C, perhaps; a lower ceiling (around 4.5°C), certainly. If climate scientists were credit-rating agencies, climate sensitivity would be on negative watch. But it would not yet be downgraded.

Equilibrium climate sensitivity is a benchmark in climate science. But it is a very specific measure. It attempts to describe what would happen to the climate once all the feedback mechanisms have worked through; equilibrium in this sense takes centuries—too long for most policymakers. As Gerard Roe of the University of Washington argues, even if climate sensitivity were as high as the IPCC suggests, its effects would be minuscule under any plausible discount rate because it operates over such long periods. So it is one thing to ask how climate sensitivity might be changing; a different question is to ask what the policy consequences might be.

For that, a more useful measure is the transient climate response (TCR), the temperature you reach after doubling CO₂ gradually over 70 years. Unlike the equilibrium response, the transient one can be observed directly; there is much less controversy about it. Most estimates put the TCR at about 1.5°C, with a range of 1-2°C. Isaac Held of America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently calculated his “personal best estimate” for the TCR: 1.4°C, reflecting the new estimates for aerosols and natural variability.

That sounds reassuring: the TCR is below estimates for equilibrium climate sensitivity. But the TCR captures only some of the warming that those 70 years of emissions would eventually generate because carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for much longer.

As a rule of thumb, global temperatures rise by about 1.5°C for each trillion tonnes of carbon put into the atmosphere. The world has pumped out half a trillion tonnes of carbon since 1750, and temperatures have risen by 0.8°C. At current rates, the next half-trillion tonnes will be emitted by 2045; the one after that before 2080.

Since CO₂ accumulates in the atmosphere, this could increase temperatures compared with pre-industrial levels by around 2°C even with a lower sensitivity and perhaps nearer to 4°C at the top end of the estimates. Despite all the work on sensitivity, no one really knows how the climate would react if temperatures rose by as much as 4°C. Hardly reassuring.

Still something we should put some efforts to avoid.

Bottom line the problem still appears pressing, and despite what the economic alarmists claim, would not bankrupt us, or even cost the average person much.

It baffles me why we can't do more.

Wild Cobra

04-04-2013, 02:49 PM

Random, does this image and link from NOAA help:

http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/04deepscope/background/deeplight/media/diagram3_600.jpg (http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/04deepscope/background/deeplight/media/diagram3.html)

And...

Not sure because it was a log graph, but it appears to me that the IR from greenhouse gasses only penetrate 0.01% the depth and less of visible light. I'll find it again and post that if you don't believe me.

Wild Cobra

04-04-2013, 03:14 PM

Unfortunately for your hypothesis, Chinese burning of high sulphur fuels like coal, etc., could have a marked cooling effect.

It depends on the contents of the solids released and particle sizes.

Your "soot" could end up reflecting far more energy than the dark color stuff you imagine is a big deal.

The "soot" itslf absorbs solar energy. It's other components in the pollution that reflect the solar energy.

Do some research on the kinds of coal the Chinese are using. It is the dirty dirty dirty sulfuric kind.

Fine.

It is also ending up over the norther ice cap and accelerating any natural melting. This increases the solar energy absorbed in the ocean and decreases reflected solar energy of the ice. The "sooty" ice now reflects 1/2 or less of the solar energy instead of around 90%. The increasing open water absorbs about 90% of the solar energy `instead of reflecting about 90% that the ice would have.

If these areosols are cooling the atmosphere, but still causing large amounts of CO2, we would expect that, all other things equal, one might get higher CO2 concentrations and just modest temperature rises.

*IF*...

I agree that in the atmosphere, there is likely a small cooling effect from the combined aerosols. In fact, I have in the past posted that I believe the reason solar changes were not apparent from the 1900 to 1950 increase is because at the same time, we were industrializing, and the aerosols we put in the air were having a counter effect to the natural warming. Back then, before the EPA started regulating emissions, there was widely publicized "global cooling" scares. We then, over the years, as we cleaned up our industrial and auto emissions, starting seeing large increases in measured global temperatures.

What happens when the Chinese decide that they need to scrub their coal emissions to keep them from dying in the streets from emphasema?

Then a few decades later, the Arcitic Ice cap will return, I bet.

The areosols go away, and the CO2 sticks around.

So?

Wild Cobra

04-04-2013, 03:35 PM

Still something we should put some efforts to avoid.

Bottom line the problem still appears pressing, and despite what the economic alarmists claim, would not bankrupt us, or even cost the average person much.

It baffles me why we can't do more.
I agree we should reduce CO2 output, and even eliminate it. At the same time, it is difficult to determine how much we need to reduce it by. It is obvious that we have at least 100 years to get a handle on it. I trust that the natural progress of the sciences will provide solutions, and that we don't have to do anything that would harm our economy to reduce CO2 output.

Keep in mind, that over a 800 year period, the ocean will claim about 98% of the CO2 we put in the atmosphere, in terms of (I think) a rolling average. It is currently absorbing (I forget for certain) something like 55% of the anthropogenic CO2. The added CO2 does not stay in the atmosphere, and finds equilibrium as solution solubility formulas dictate.

As for some clarification on the ocean warming causing increased atmospheric CO2, it is my contention, that the atmospheric levels would be higher if we added no CO2. They could be close to the levels we see today, but probably not. The ocean is both a source of CO2 and a sink. The colder regions from the poles, towards the equator are net sinks of CO2. The equatorial regions towards the poles are a net source of atmospheric CO2.

Hypothetical, for illustration purposes:

I'm going to draw an arbitrary at 40 degrees north and south as an annual average zero point. At this point, we have balance. The earth system is stable, at 280 ppm as the cold regions absorb as much CO2 as the warm regions release. Now the solar output changes. The sun is now warming the entire earth more, and the oceans more. As this happens, the latitude at which there is a zero point gets closer to the poles. now that this has happened, we have relatively more surface areas as a source, and relatively less area as a sink. This causes a net sourcing effect of CO2 from the ocean as a whole. it is no longer in balance, and will continue to source CO2 until the partial pressure of CO2 in the ocean equals the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere, for the given temperature changes in the ocean.

FuzzyLumpkins

04-04-2013, 04:41 PM

A testable, scientific hypothesis.

I don't care what you *say*.

I care what you can prove.

Design a test for this hypothesis. Tell me how to go about confirming it.

Has this work already been done?

Thisi s what you get when you take him seriously and ask questions I suppose. I do find it amusing that he is ignoring the UV question from me that you put to him again.

You're just giving him what he wants so he can have fun with it. He is now doubling down on the idea that scientists have ignored surface energy flux. I've just gotten to the point where I find studies where 'alarmists' ie anyone associated with the IPCC, national academy etc that do consider those effects he claims they don't and rub his face in it.

A friend of mine was a GOP senatorial aid and he would give me science briefings on the new findings from the solar satellites that we put up a decade ago. They were chock full of astrophysicists talking about bandwidth amplitudes being out of phase and how current models don't consider this. I remember him sending me the information and telling me "I know where you stand on this politically but tell me that this is not compelling science." It was. 10 YEARS AGO. They had just gotten the data.

It's like you say though. He would rather pretend that they are all lying to us or are all stupid. It's really simple to find studies that quantify and qualify these phenomenon on google scholar.

And sure enough the first link is from TAMU.

http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter05/chapter05_01.htm

The only sad this is that he thinks scientists wouldn't consider surface flux or the pea-brained view he has on the issue.

boutons_deux

04-04-2013, 11:09 PM

Climate change will increase extreme precipitation levels

Rainfall or snowfall dumped by the most intense storms could grow significantly heavier in most of the United States by the final decades of the century, according to a new climate change study.

The paper, written by a research team led by scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, examines the effects of rising greenhouse gas emissions on factors that influence maximum precipitation.

The authors concluded that increasing atmospheric moisture will play the dominant role in ramping up rainfall intensity, which they projected using climate models.

As the Earth warms, sea surface temperatures rise, accelerating evaporation and increasing the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. If greenhouse gas emissions continue at high levels, atmospheric water vapor levels will jump 20% to 30% in the final decades of the century, the researchers found.

That will push up maximum precipitation by a corresponding amount, with increases in the Western U.S. falling in the high end of that range, according to the paper, which has been accepted for publication in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

"We have high confidence that the most extreme rainfalls will become even more intense, as it is virtually certain that the atmosphere will provide more water to fuel these events," said lead author Kenneth Kunkel of the National Climatic Data Center.

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/1780/article/p2p-75211582/

Wild Cobra

04-05-2013, 02:10 AM

Thisi s what you get when you take him seriously and ask questions I suppose. I do find it amusing that he is ignoring the UV question from me that you put to him again.

Thanks. I didn't realize I missed one of Randoms posts.

And sure enough the first link is from TAMU.

http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter05/chapter05_01.htm
Thanks again. Great link! It supports what I have been saying, doesn't disagree with any, and the solar value is pretty close to my arbitrary example in post #84.

Wild Cobra

04-05-2013, 02:20 AM

Climate models do not consider the effect of the UV spectrum amplitudes differing from TSI
Climate scientists in their models only consider direct solar forcing mechanisms and disregard surface flux
That they ignore these issues and claim that they are due to the greenhouse effect.

Last one before I log off. Either he is re-stating your position accurately, or his is not.

If not then, say why not.

He never restates my position correctly. There is always something wrong in the way he rewords things.

After the satellite carrying the TIM equipment was launched, we now have the capability of measuring accuracy better than the error and drift. On top of that, it now measure the shorter UV signals not previously measured. I believe it is those shorter than 200 nm, but I would have to look that up to be certain. The UV is now known to be, I believe a factor of six, greater than previously thought to be.

I would hate to miss something important, and believe something falsely, either about what you are trying to say, or something as important as climate change, and its causes.

Just hold on to an open mind, and not dismiss anything out of hand. Remain skeptical.

FuzzyLumpkins

04-05-2013, 03:14 AM

Stupid says, "They cannot see the color of the sky."
I play a recording of them saying, "the sky is blue."
Stupid says, "See, I said the sky is blue."

Wild Cobra

04-05-2013, 03:55 AM

You should give up Fuzzy. It's all in your imagination. Maybe you should be committed.

FuzzyLumpkins

04-05-2013, 04:44 AM

Wild Cobra

04-05-2013, 07:00 PM

1)Climate models do not consider the effect of the UV spectrum amplitudes differing from TSI
2)Climate scientists in their models only consider direct solar forcing mechanisms and disregard surface flux
3)That they ignore these issues and claim that they are due to the greenhouse effect.

You do not hold the above to be true?
Not in all cases.

Why are you an all or nothing idiot?

Past ones didn't consider many things that have become known of later years.

Now... you paraphrase a generic statement of mine, outside of the specific topic, you just prove to everyone how fucking lame you are.

Context is everything idiot.

Maybe you are so dumb, that you think you have me when I don't respond to your stupid out of context shit. Don't blame me for your stupidity.

boutons_deux

04-05-2013, 07:19 PM

All the spikes in the past were from large volcanic eruptions, not in evidence today.

You mean from 100s of volcanoes long before the human epoch?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm

FuzzyLumpkins

04-05-2013, 07:30 PM

Not in all cases.

Why are you an all or nothing idiot?

Past ones didn't consider many things that have become known of later years.

Now... you paraphrase a generic statement of mine, outside of the specific topic, you just prove to everyone how fucking lame you are.

Context is everything idiot.

Maybe you are so dumb, that you think you have me when I don't respond to your stupid out of context shit. Don't blame me for your stupidity.

:lol

You were the one that said 'alarmists' didn't consider these things. You were the one that brought it up. Those were your words. The lesson that should be taken is you shouldn't say ignorant shit. You can try your normal tactic of leaving the topic for at least two weeks and try sneak in the same take later. Didn't work with ocean as soda pop or deep ocean currents just like it hasn't worked for this stupidity. Ignoring me didn't work. You know better than to try and argue on merit. The solution is to stop.

So you agree that,

1) there are cases where 'climate alarmists' consider the effect of the UV spectrum amplitudes differing from TSI?
2) there are cases where 'climate alarmist 'in their models consider more than direct solar forcing mechanisms and consider surface flux?
3) there are cases where 'alarmists' consider these issues and don't claim that they are due to the greenhouse effect?

Wild Cobra

04-05-2013, 07:47 PM

All the spikes in the past were from large volcanic eruptions, not in evidence today.

No, that's very unlikely true. Boutons' post is actually closer than your remark.

You mean from 100s of volcanoes long before the human epoch?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm
Now this article is also in error, but the end point is true. First of all, the 1 in 10,000 (100 ppm) CO2 it speaks of is easily more than 2 in 10:000. Somewhere around half of mankinds added CO2 was absorbed by the natural carbon sinks.

Even the largest activity of volcanoes monitored claims only a years worth of CO2 output for one eruption, at best for a reasonable assessment.

Your past spikes would not only have to be multiple and intense, but last several hundred years, and the ice core time slices are really far apart. They have something like a 90% chance of missing a 50 year blip.

FuzzyLumpkins

04-06-2013, 02:10 AM

Volcanoes? Not my thing. There you go again making shit up, to see what sticks.

Wild Cobra

04-06-2013, 04:39 AM

Volcanoes? Not my thing. There you go again making shit up, to see what sticks.
By meaning it's not my thing, I don't blame volcanoes for the CO2 or climate change.

You are making shit up again by bringing this quote up.

Go back and look at what I was responding to:

After poo pooing the amount of warming as insignificant you moved to your current strategy of looking for any other cause than CO2. You are clearly sophist for the stance 'it's not CO2.' Solar, soot, volcanoes, the ocean or anything else the Koch/Exxon lobby puts out and you grandstand on it. You choose them all and when one gets some love you have your hands and scream 'look at me, look at me.'

Wild Cobra

04-06-2013, 04:44 AM

Fuzzy...

Can you say "context?"

FuzzyLumpkins

04-06-2013, 08:57 AM

By meaning it's not my thing, I don't blame volcanoes for the CO2.

You are making shit up again by bringing this quote up.

Go back and look at what I was responding to:

So what your point? You said that volcanoes demonstrated how CO2 was not to be held up as cause. Your quotes only reinforce that notion. You might as well just type out "I'm talking out of my ass" if you are going to try and invoke 'context' to go full weasel.

Interesting so you will argue that but you won't even acknowledge:

So you agree that,

1) there are cases where 'climate alarmists' consider the effect of the UV spectrum amplitudes differing from TSI?
2) there are cases where 'climate alarmist 'in their models consider more than direct solar forcing mechanisms and consider surface flux?
3) there are cases where 'alarmists' consider these issues and don't claim that they are due to the greenhouse effect?

Still no bullshit to shine that turd up? Regale us with your insight....

Wild Cobra

04-06-2013, 04:34 PM

All or nothing Fuzzy, who doesn't know the reality of generalized statement.

FuzzyLumpkins

04-06-2013, 08:07 PM

All or nothing Fuzzy, who doesn't know the reality of generalized statement.

:lol

You were the one that said that climate alarmists didn't consider this or did not consider that and that climate believers couldn't see it. Those are statements of absolutes. You are right in making such claims with obvious limited knowledge is a bad idea.

Now review my quote:

So you agree that,

1) there are cases where 'climate alarmists' consider the effect of the UV spectrum amplitudes differing from TSI?
2) there are cases where 'climate alarmist 'in their models consider more than direct solar forcing mechanisms and consider surface flux?
3) there are cases where 'alarmists' consider these issues and don't claim that they are due to the greenhouse effect?

Did I speak in absolutes? No I did not. If you are going to parrot arguments at least try and make sure that they apply. You are already very poor at original thought and this does not help.

Wild Cobra

04-07-2013, 12:36 AM

ElNono

04-07-2013, 02:33 AM

Otherwise, expect to be ignored from now on.

Where does one sign up for that?

Wild Cobra

04-07-2013, 02:41 AM

Where does one sign up for that?
LOL...

What?

Do you have a scientific comment on my GW views, or are you in the peanut gallery?

FuzzyLumpkins

04-07-2013, 02:56 AM

I don't think any of the "alarmist" catagory of climate scientists acknowledge anything that disputes their claims.

Goodbye Gilligan. If you have something actually relevant to what I say, I will respond. Otherwise, expect to be ignored from now on.

Those 14 scientists are some of the leading contributors to IPCC. The way you style the conference is that it is a bunch of agenda driven 'alarmists' that don't consider the UV spectrum absorption by the atmosphere or thermodynamic properties of water or that there are thermal layers and currents in the ocean or that water becomes less soluble at higher temperatures. Yet they do all of these things.

boutons_deux

04-07-2013, 02:00 PM

Denier Delingpole Wishes For ‘Climate Nuremberg’, Says ‘Hanging Is Far Too Good’ For Climate Scientists!

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2013/04/nuremberg-trial-422x288.jpg

read James Delingpole’s latest piece.

It will nauseate you — consider yourself warned. But I think it’s important to dissect this hate speech in detail because Delingpole seems to think that hate speech isn’t hate speech if you just use rhetoric — the figures of speech, like metaphor.

Having spent a quarter century studying rhetoric and having just published a well-received book on this very subject — Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga — I think I can safely say that is bullshit, though most likely only metaphorical bullshit (see below).

You may recall Delingpole’s 2011 meltdown on the BBC, where they got him to admit he is a hand-waving know-nothing: “It is not my job to sit down and read peer-reviewed papers because I simply haven’t got the time…. I am an interpreter of interpretations.” This pieces makes that meltdown look like the height of lucidity.

The piece is worth examining in detail because I think it is indicative of how the deniers and disinformers really feel — and we’ll know if that’s true if none of them denounce it.

The headline is “An English class for trolls, professional offence-takers and climate activists.” Delingpole is going to lecture us plebes on our native tongue.

Under the headline is the photo above, which is one of the popular pictures of the post-WWII Nuremberg trials in which Nazis were tried for “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity.” The Telegraph‘s caption is simply, “Not pictured: Monbiot, Flannery, Mann….” That would be George Monbiot, Tim Flannery, and Michael Mann.

Yes, that’s right, this isn’t hate speech just from Delingpole — senior editors at the paper must have signed off on all this. Oh, but it gets much worse.

The piece opens (emphasis added):

Should Michael Mann be given the electric chair for having concocted arguably the most risibly inept, misleading, cherry-picking, worthless and mendacious graph – the Hockey Stick – in the history of junk science?

Should George Monbiot be hanged by the neck for his decade or so’s hysterical promulgation of the great climate change scam and other idiocies too numerous to mention?

Should Tim Flannery be fed to the crocodiles for the role he has played in the fleecing of the Australian taxpayer and the diversion of scarce resources into pointless projects like all the eye-wateringly expensive desalination plants built as a result of his doomy prognostications about water shortages caused by catastrophic anthropogenic global warming?

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04/07/1831081/denier-delingpole-wishes-for-climate-nuremberg-says-hanging-is-far-too-good-for-climate-scientists/

:lol

boutons_deux

04-07-2013, 02:03 PM

Fox Newspeak: Those Who Accept Science Deemed "Climate Deniers"

Steve Doocy promoted National Review Editor Rich Lowry's attempts to paint "advocates of limits on carbon emissions" as "deniers." Doocy proclaimed that based on our carbon emissions "you would think it would be 900 degrees right now on planet Earth, but instead over the past 15 years or so, we have been flat temperature-wise":
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/04/05/fox-newspeak-those-who-accept-science-deemed-cl/193500

amazing! :lol

and Fox's bubba/tea bagger/gun fellatin base sucks it down as sacred truth :lol

Wild Cobra

04-07-2013, 03:46 PM

Wild Cobra

04-07-2013, 04:10 PM

Recent evidence based on variability of sunspots and faculae (bright spots) shows that the output varied by ± 0.2% over centuries (Lean, Beer, and Bradley, 1995), and that this variability is correlated with changes in global mean temperature of Earth's surface of ± 0.4°C. (Figure 5.14).
That's about half of what the scientists say the earth has increased in temperature. Now I won't claim it to this extent, but if -0.4C was at 1750, and +0.4C was at 2004, then that accounts for all the global warming.

FuzzyLumpkins

04-07-2013, 05:55 PM

You have a talent for dumbing things down. You're a natural.

What do correlate mean?

RandomGuy

04-08-2013, 11:48 AM

Yes, this type of ocean research has been done to some extent. I don't know how much has been done in relating it to atmospheric temperatures.

As for proving it to you. I don't have the means to do so. If you understand enough about the sciences involved, you will agree that it makes sense at least. Still, it's good to be skeptical. That is proper science.

So you don't really have a way to test your hypothesis?

I did not see any method outlined in this response.
I didn't ask you to prove anything. I asked you to take the next step in scientific inquiry and design a test for your hypothesis.

You complain much about people not doing proper science, so I would just like to know what you consider proper sicence to be.

I will ask again, just to make sure that you understand what I am asking.

I have been saying that ocean temperature changes CO2 levels in the atmosphere. I have said long wave radiative forcing does little to ocean temperatures. Ocean temperatures do not necessarily change with atmospheric temperatures. It is comical to think that the greenhouse effect has any substantial impact of ocean temperatures.

Please design a test for this hypothesis. Flesh it out. :)

RandomGuy

04-08-2013, 11:59 AM

Yes, and that 400 ppm has not increased our temperature above the past temperature peaks. Not the lat one at +2C, and only about 260 ppm.

Unfortunately for you, the data in your graph cannot support that statement, due to the way it was compiled.

Can you tell me why that is? I.e. do you understand why your statement is in error?

For a refresher, or, if anyone else would care to point out why that statement cannot be supported by the graph presented:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/edited420kchart.jpg

RandomGuy

04-08-2013, 12:06 PM

What if the oceans have been soaking up much of the extra solar power since the increased solar output between 1900 and 1950, and have been slowly releasing with a lag as long as 50 years?

Ok. We have been down this particular "What if" road before. It is one of your least convincing arguments. Test and confirm it, and then we can move beyond.

..or better yet, make a testable prediction.

RandomGuy

04-08-2013, 12:24 PM

Now almost all solar scientists will agree that the solar TSI has increased by about 0.15% since the IPCC beginning time frame of 1750.

Interesting statement.

Can you give me the satellite data from 1751, so I can compare that to current satellite data?

I would like to be ableto verify your claim.

The timing and magnitude of this increase would be fairly important, to your "solar increase" theory.

(edit)

Comparison of measurements from different satellite observing systems shows that the present day value of total solar irradiance is only known to approximately 0.15% (~2 W m-2).
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/HadleyCentre.pdf

What bothers me about your statement, is that your stated increase is exactly what solar scientists say is the current margin of error for the solar irradiance measurement.

RandomGuy

04-08-2013, 12:34 PM

:lol

You were the one that said 'alarmists' didn't consider these things. You were the one that brought it up. Those were your words. The lesson that should be taken is you shouldn't say ignorant shit. You can try your normal tactic of leaving the topic for at least two weeks and try sneak in the same take later. Didn't work with ocean as soda pop or deep ocean currents just like it hasn't worked for this stupidity. Ignoring me didn't work. You know better than to try and argue on merit. The solution is to stop.

So you agree that,

1) there are cases where 'climate alarmists' consider the effect of the UV spectrum amplitudes differing from TSI?
2) there are cases where 'climate alarmist 'in their models consider more than direct solar forcing mechanisms and consider surface flux?
3) there are cases where 'alarmists' consider these issues and don't claim that they are due to the greenhouse effect?

The actual scientists do consider these things. They just arrive at different values than WC does.

...because they are in on the conspiracy.

Speaking o' which, I never did get my question as to the order of magnitude of people "in on it".

RandomGuy

04-08-2013, 12:48 PM

[peer review works for every other branch of science, but] doesn't in the Climate Sciences, [because they have an agenda, and are willing to lie through their teeth to support it]

Big claim, big burden of proof. The Climate Gate stuff doesn't quite mean what you would like it to, so you will need to get some hard evidence of this vast conspiracy.

How many people are in on this conspiracy of yours? 10? 100? 100,000? Give us some hint as to the order of magnitude.

I guess we can attempt to figure out how many people it would take for the conspiracy by ourselves, if Wild Cobra wants to pull the standard conspiracy theorist schtick of not trying to flesh out his own theory.

DarrinS

04-08-2013, 02:03 PM

Big claim, big burden of proof. The Climate Gate stuff doesn't quite mean what you would like it to, so you will need to get some hard evidence of this vast conspiracy.

How many people are in on this conspiracy of yours? 10? 100? 100,000? Give us some hint as to the order of magnitude.

I guess we can attempt to figure out how many people it would take for the conspiracy by ourselves, if Wild Cobra wants to pull the standard conspiracy theorist schtick of not trying to flesh out his own theory.

Still trying to equate skeptics with twoofers, ey?

DarrinS

04-08-2013, 02:27 PM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/9974397/Global-warming-time-to-rein-back-on-doom-and-gloom.html

DarrinS

04-08-2013, 02:35 PM

Today, on dumbass astroturfing spambot website, "realitydrop.org":

Under "Spread Truth" :angel

Denier Delingpole Wishes For ‘Climate Nuremberg’, Says ‘Hanging Is Far Too Good’ For Climate Scientists!
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04/07/1831081/denier-delingpole-wishes-for-climate-nuremberg-says-hanging-is-far-too-good-for-climate-scientists/?mobile=nc
:lmao that people think he was serious

Under "Destroy Denial" :devil

Doomsday global warming forecasts have been dead wrong
http://www.cdapress.com/columns/cliff_harris/article_c5ff6cf3-7cdc-5fd3-b1ba-8e76c7b774b2.html

Wild Cobra

04-08-2013, 03:47 PM

Wow random, I get up and see six consecutive posts.

In #130, you ask more than I am willing to attempt, and is probably past my ability with the resources at hand. I will remind you that much of what I base my contentions on are the fact that the alarmist community makes points that are absolutely wrong. There is no way that their past claims can hold up to any scientific scrutiny, when the past decade since the AR4 has shown so many changes in understanding.

Wow... In post 133, that file still downloading as I type. Either real large, or that end is slow. I will guess the value they state is min to max average of the 11 year cycle. I am speaking of the long term changes.

As for the 0.15 bothering you. I too the average of many papers that claim the change is 0.12 to 0.18%. Now the more recent works seem to think the long term is closer to 0.24%. Probably because of the increased work in attempting to understand the <200 nm UV range. This article claiming 0.15% was unknown to me. Past assessments were closer to just under 0.1% if I recall correctly.

Yes, that is what the summary says. I will read this in more detail later.

Ooops... skipped a few again, at least looking at the post numbers I realized it.

My error in #131? Not a large enough sample of the past. Also, there is probably more error in conversion of proxies to what they indicate, above the errors I complain about already. Thing is, we have little else to know the past's temperature and environment with accuracy. Now I will contend that the last 11,000 years is more acceptable to the scientific community because of all the other things we can confirm variations have occurred with, like tree rings. Here is the data from NASA/GISS graphed for the more recent years of that:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/TemperatureandCO2overthelast12000ye.jpg

Now you can see that the temperatures over the years fluctuate to large degrees, naturally. This is just the period of time as we came out of the ice age. It is the same data used for the earlier graph. Note that the data points for CO2 are far between. If I recall, they average more than 260 years apart.

#132. Interesting that you demand the "Test and confirm" approach. Have the alarmists done that? No. All they have done is make wild predictions that they keep backtracking from. I have not yet had to back down from any arguments I made against the AR4 contentions.

#134, Notice in your response to Fuzzy, that he is asking about "alarmists." I do not consider all climate scientists alarmists. There are many good ones out there. Science is suppose to be skeptical by nature, and when you have scientists claiming doom and gloom, then ten years later we see that many of their predictions are already wrong, are they to be trusted?

#135... Please notice I specified the types of peer review and I already responded to the why. A review process where the names of those reviewing the material allows for the dismissal of proper research and the acceptance of poor research, without accountability, allows agenda driven material. I want accountability, especially because of what the alarmists are asking for to mitigate CO2.

I had to spend less time than your posts deserve. I'm in a time crunch right now.

Consider the claims made in the AR4, and how their stated values have to be in error. they are in error the same direction I claimed they were wrong years ago. I can't wait to see the AR5. I did find and downloaded an advanced copy of AR5 WG1, but haven't gone through it much yet. Besides, it may change, especially with more recent controversies about it, and it's premature leak.

FuzzyLumpkins

04-08-2013, 04:01 PM

#134, Notice in your response to Fuzzy, that he is asking about "alarmists." I do not consider all climate scientists alarmists. There are many good ones out there. Science is suppose to be skeptical by nature, and when you have scientists claiming doom and gloom, then ten years later we see that many of their predictions are already wrong, are they to be trusted?

What a dissembling turd.

Solar... Very big deal. The alarmists only deal with "direct" atmospheric forcing changes, and they don't account for changes that the ocean and earth absorbs, which is radiated back up, as a greater input for the greenhouse effect. They are counting indirect solar changes as greenhouse gas forcing changes. Why can't you true believers see that?

Acting like your views are congruent with the overwhelming consensus or that said consensus doesn't meet your 'alarmist' standard is fun I guess.

Wild Cobra

04-10-2013, 06:44 AM

Those 14 scientists are some of the leading contributors to IPCC.

Funny how I was only able to find one on the list for the AR5.

tlongII

04-10-2013, 09:03 AM

Climate change skeptics seize on reports showing temperatures leveling

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/09/climate-change-skeptics-seize-on-reports-showing-temperatures-leveling/?test=latestnews#ixzz2Q4La9hrv

Climate change skeptics are doing a bit of gloating following a series of mainstream media reports that acknowledge what those skeptics have long held -- the earth is not warming, at least not in the last 10 years.

"The idea that CO2 is the tail that wags the dog is no longer scientifically tenable," said Marc Morano of ClimateDepot.com, a website devoted to countering the prevailing acceptance of man-made global warming.

In recent weeks, Der Spiegel, the Telegraph and the Economist have reported the unexpected stabilizing of global surface temperatures. Even former NASA scientist and outspoken climate change activist James Hansen has acknowledged the 10-year lull.

Morano said: "In the peer-reviewed literature we're finding hundreds of factors influence global temperature, everything from ocean cycles to the tilt of the earth's axis to water vapor, methane, cloud feedback, volcanic dust, all of these factors are coming together. They're now realizing it wasn't the simple story we've been told of your SUV is creating a dangerously warm planet."

Many climate scientists and environmentalists agree with Morano's description of climate complexity, but reject his denials of global warming as a problem.

"This is a highly complex calculation to make in the first place. The short period of time, only 10 years in which the increasing temperature has leveled, really doesn't tell us very much other than the fact that temperatures may still be rising but just not as fast as they were before," said Elgie Holstein, the senior director for strategic planning at the Environmental Defense Fund and a former assistant secretary at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

"What's compelling about the climate science," Holstein said, "is that we have literally thousands of the world's leading scientists around the country pretty much saying the same thing about where we're headed, and it's not reassuring."

But the surface temperature stabilization suggests that computer models which predict harsh consequences of global warming may need reassessing.

As The Economist put it on March 30, "It may be that the climate is responding to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before. This possibility, if true, could have profound significance both for climate science and for environmental and social policy."

Indeed, no one disputes that levels of carbon dioxide are increasing globally, but CO2's impact has not been as great as many scientists had predicted.

"In the peer-reviewed literature, they've tried to explain away this lull," said Morano. "In the proceedings of the National Academy of Science a year or two ago they had a study blaming Chinese coal use for the lack of global warming. So, in an ironic twist, global warming proponents are now claiming that that coal use is saving us from dangerous global warming."

Holstein believes the temperature lull is not entirely unexpected or unpredicted.

"We're within ranges of these climate models that are saying we're still on track to some pretty troublesome impacts if we don't do something about it," he said.

A Gallup survey conducted March 7-10 found 58 percent of Americans say they worry a great deal or fair amount about global warming.

That was up from 51 percent in 2011 -- but still below the 62-72 percent levels seen between 1999 and 2001.

RandomGuy

04-10-2013, 12:20 PM

Still trying to equate skeptics with twoofers, ey?

Trying?

No.

Succeeding, because the similarities are rather striking, and more solid than you would care to admit to, yes.

RandomGuy

04-10-2013, 12:30 PM

Wow random, I get up and see six consecutive posts.

In #130, you ask more than I am willing to attempt, and is probably past my ability with the resources at hand.

Unfortunately for you, did not ask whether you had the resources to attempt a test, or to perform the test at all.

What I asked was for you to demonstrate enough knowledge of the subject to be able to show us how such a theory might be tested.

You have failed to demonstrate such knowledge, so I can only infer that:
1) you cannot or
2) will not, or
3) you lack the reading ability to comprehend the request.

Leaving us with an untested theory of unknown validity. Not making a strong case so far.

RandomGuy

04-10-2013, 01:08 PM

Wow... In post 133, that file still downloading as I type. Either real large, or that end is slow. I will guess the value they state is min to max average of the 11 year cycle. I am speaking of the long term changes.

5. Conclusions
We have shown that there is an evident causal decoupling between total solar irradiance and global temperature in recent periods. Our work permits us to fix the 1960s as the time of the loss of importance of solar influence on temperature. At the same time greenhouse gases total radiative forcing has shown a strong Granger causal link with temperature since the 1940s up to the present day.

Evidence of recent causal decoupling between solar radiation and global temperature
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/3/034020/article

Care to comment on that study?

It seems to directly contradict your theory.

Further:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GL045777/pdf

[1] The most accurate value of total solar irradiance during the 2008 solar minimum period is 1360.8 ± 0.5 W m−2 according to measurements from the Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) on NASA’s Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) and a series of new radiometric laboratory tests. This value is significantly lower than the canonical value of 1365.4 ± 1.3 W m−2 established in the 1990s

So.... solar input has become decoupled from temperature globally. What one would expect in warming scenarios driven by things other than the sun.

and

Recent examinations of data show that solar output is a bit lower than we thought it was.
1360/1365= .9963..... 1-.9963= .37%

Seems to directly contradict your theory WC.

This is the kind of thing I find when I look into pseudo-scientific bullshit claims. I take a claim at face value, then look at science done on the topic.

In this case the first two papers I found pretty much seem to directly contradict the claim. Leading me to conclude it is not supported by available evidence, just like claims of "molten steel" and "nano-thermite".

Wild Cobra

04-10-2013, 03:00 PM

Trying?

No.

Succeeding, because the similarities are rather striking, and more solid than you would care to admit to, yes.
No, you have no success there. Skepticism is not denying, which is what the twoofers are doing. Skepticism is proper science.

Wild Cobra

04-10-2013, 03:03 PM

Unfortunately for you, did not ask whether you had the resources to attempt a test, or to perform the test at all.

What I asked was for you to demonstrate enough knowledge of the subject to be able to show us how such a theory might be tested.

You have failed to demonstrate such knowledge, so I can only infer that:
1) you cannot or
2) will not, or
3) you lack the reading ability to comprehend the request.

Leaving us with an untested theory of unknown validity. Not making a strong case so far.
If I were to look up and find all the peer reviewed papers that lead me to that conclusion, quote the relevant passages with what I see in them, would that be enough for you?

Wild Cobra

04-10-2013, 03:19 PM

Evidence of recent causal decoupling between solar radiation and global temperature
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/3/034020/article

Care to comment on that study?

Skimmed over it quickly, it appears they didn't consider the lag time of the solar/ocean coupling, or the increase then decrease of aerosol pollutions we were expelling in the 20th century.

It seems to directly contradict your theory.

Such a conclusion is wishful thinking when it's as incomplete as it is.

Further:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GL045777/pdf

---snip---

Recent examinations of data show that solar output is a bit lower than we thought it was.
1360/1365= .9963..... 1-.9963= .37%

Seems to directly contradict your theory WC.

Huh? The amount of measured solar energy the earth receives are simply changed. The baseline is changed. It doesn't change how they base solar, CO2, or other changes from if the value is 1365, or 1360. This is part of the better accuracy of TIM. In fact, I have read material where now the energy budget calculations have less error with this new assessment.

This is the kind of thing I find when I look into pseudo-scientific bullshit claims. I take a claim at face value, then look at science done on the topic.

In this case the first two papers I found pretty much seem to directly contradict the claim. Leading me to conclude it is not supported by available evidence, just like claims of "molten steel" and "nano-thermite".

Sorry, but I see no conflict in what the second paper says, and the first is missing critical components in their calculations.

boutons_deux

04-10-2013, 03:28 PM

needs more study! :lol

Northern hemisphere summers warmest in 600 years

http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/2013/peoplecoolof.jpg

Harvard University researchers analysing evidence from Arctic tree rings, ice cores, lake sediments and thermometer records said recent warm temperature extremes in high northern latitudes "are unprecedented in the past 600 years" both for magnitude and frequency.

"The summers of 2005, 2007, 2010 and 2011 were warmer than those of all prior years back to 1400," they reported.

"The summer of 2010 was the warmest in the previous 600 years in western Russia and probably the warmest in western Greenland and the Canadian Arctic as well," they said."

These and other recent extremes greatly exceed those expected from a stationary climate."

http://phys.org/news/2013-04-northern-hemisphere-summers-warmest-years.html

Wild Cobra

04-10-2013, 03:43 PM

Climate change skeptics are doing a bit of gloating following a series of mainstream media reports that acknowledge what those skeptics have long held -- the earth is not warming, at least not in the last 10 years.

Yes, it's nice to see the media finally acknowledging proper since, instead of the alarmist views only.

"The idea that CO2 is the tail that wags the dog is no longer scientifically tenable," said Marc Morano of ClimateDepot.com, a website devoted to countering the prevailing acceptance of man-made global warming.

I say it was all wishful thinking. Papers by scientists on the radiative forcing of CO2 in our mixed atmosphere even include it as being a coolant rather than a heating gas, at least at the percentages seen. No one knows for certain.

In recent weeks, Der Spiegel, the Telegraph and the Economist have reported the unexpected stabilizing of global surface temperatures. Even former NASA scientist and outspoken climate change activist James Hansen has acknowledged the 10-year lull.

Yes, it's been >50 years since the last increase in average solar activity... The ocean stores changes in solar energy quickly, but release those same increases or decreases over decades. Maybe the significant release of stored energy is complete and in balance again.

Morano said: "In the peer-reviewed literature we're finding hundreds of factors influence global temperature, everything from ocean cycles to the tilt of the earth's axis to water vapor, methane, cloud feedback, volcanic dust, all of these factors are coming together. They're now realizing it wasn't the simple story we've been told of your SUV is creating a dangerously warm planet."

LOL... The experts are finally figuring this out?

Many climate scientists and environmentalists agree with Morano's description of climate complexity, but reject his denials of global warming as a problem.

LOL Denial... They just had to go there, as if they are absolutely correct, and anyone that disagrees is in denial... They have the audacity to claim warming is a problem... What if it isn't?

"This is a highly complex calculation to make in the first place. The short period of time, only 10 years in which the increasing temperature has leveled, really doesn't tell us very much other than the fact that temperatures may still be rising but just not as fast as they were before," said Elgie Holstein, the senior director for strategic planning at the Environmental Defense Fund and a former assistant secretary at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

This is true, but like I said before, I will let history judge me. By that, I mean when my words today, are history, as read in the future. So far, I'm batting 1000.

"What's compelling about the climate science," Holstein said, "is that we have literally thousands of the world's leading scientists around the country pretty much saying the same thing about where we're headed, and it's not reassuring."

They were all pretty much taught by the same text book type material. Most scientists also once thought the world was flat, because that is what they were taught.

But the surface temperature stabilization suggests that computer models which predict harsh consequences of global warming may need reassessing.

They are finally figuring out their models are flawed... How many years have I been saying this?

As The Economist put it on March 30, "It may be that the climate is responding to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before. This possibility, if true, could have profound significance both for climate science and for environmental and social policy."

Again, some scientists claim that increasing CO2 at their low levels of concentration, act as a coolant rather than warming gas.

Indeed, no one disputes that levels of carbon dioxide are increasing globally, but CO2's impact has not been as great as many scientists had predicted.

No Shit Sherlock. Something else I have been saying for years.

"In the peer-reviewed literature, they've tried to explain away this lull," said Morano. "In the proceedings of the National Academy of Science a year or two ago they had a study blaming Chinese coal use for the lack of global warming. So, in an ironic twist, global warming proponents are now claiming that that coal use is saving us from dangerous global warming."

LOL...

Maybe some of the aerosols are cooling the atmosphere, but the profound effect that soot has on the arctic ice cap cannot be dismissed.

Holstein believes the temperature lull is not entirely unexpected or unpredicted.

I disagree. If the alarmist climate scientists would take their blinders off while working, they would see things differently. After all, true skeptical climate scientists have been saying otherwise.

"We're within ranges of these climate models that are saying we're still on track to some pretty troublesome impacts if we don't do something about it," he said.

They say, as they are crossing their fingers.

Wild Cobra

04-10-2013, 03:46 PM

needs more study! :lol

Northern hemisphere summers warmest in 600 years

How does that dispute my claim most our warning is natural. All climate scientists agree that solar energy has increased over the centuries. The dispute is by how much.

FuzzyLumpkins

04-10-2013, 05:52 PM

Funny how I was only able to find one on the list for the AR5.

AR5 has not been released. You should try again.

You entire lag argument fits the Russell quote to a tee. I do like how you skim scientific studies and eat up the Fox news report like stink on shit.

Wild Cobra

04-11-2013, 02:00 AM

I did find and downloaded an advanced copy of AR5 WG1, but haven't gone through it much yet.

Wild Cobra

04-11-2013, 02:36 AM

Of the 14, AR4:

Beer, J. no
Cubasch, U. contributor
Fleitmann, D. contributor
Geller, M. contributor
Gray, L.J. reviewer
Haigh, J.D. reviewer
Harrison, G. no
Hood, L. no
Lockwood, M. no
Luterbacher, J. Contributor and reviewer
Matthes, K. no
Meehl, G. A. contributor
Shindell, D. reviewer
van Geel, B. no
White, W. no

FuzzyLumpkins

04-11-2013, 03:10 AM

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-references.html

Gray Beer Keller Haigh Cubasch Harrison Luterbacher Meehl Shindell White

Wild Cobra

04-11-2013, 03:26 AM

Wild Cobra

04-11-2013, 03:31 AM

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-references.html

Gray Beer Keller Haigh Cubasch Harrison Luterbacher Meehl Shindell White
Hey Village idiot...

Those are references, meaning papers used.

Beer, Harrison, and White were a contributing author of papers used, but not contributors to the AR4. The IPCC used several hundred, if not thousands of reference papers. May as well include every climate scientist that ever had a part in a peer review paper, by your methodology.

Wild Cobra

04-11-2013, 04:37 AM

RandomGuy

04-11-2013, 09:45 AM

If I were to look up and find all the peer reviewed papers that lead me to that conclusion, quote the relevant passages with what I see in them, would that be enough for you?

I'm not asking you to regurgitate.

I am asking you to synthesize.

How would we test your hypothesis if we wanted to? What would a scientist who studies these things do in order to actually test your theory?

RandomGuy

04-11-2013, 09:55 AM

Skimmed over it quickly, it appears they didn't consider the lag time of the solar/ocean coupling, or the increase then decrease of aerosol pollutions we were expelling in the 20th century.

They didn't consider your theoretical lag time? The one you don't know how to test?

"Skimmed... quickly.... appears..."

In the end, they are the experts, you are not.

Additionally, I have had enough debates with you on topics I *am* an expert on to know your critical thinking processes are flawed, and am highly disinclined to take you at your word.

RandomGuy

04-11-2013, 10:11 AM

Sorry, but I see no conflict in what the second paper says, and the first is missing critical components in their calculations.

This is where I call bullshit.

Quite frankly, I am virtually certain that you lack the mathmatical and statistical background to even come close to understanding the calcualations involved.

http://ej.iop.org/images/1748-9326/7/3/034020/Full/erl437791eqn1.gif

http://ej.iop.org/images/1748-9326/7/3/034020/Full/erl437791eqn2.gif

http://ej.iop.org/images/1748-9326/7/3/034020/Full/erl437791ueqn3.gif

http://ej.iop.org/images/1748-9326/7/3/034020/Full/erl437791ueqn4.gif

In order to test the null hypothesis

http://ej.iop.org/images/1748-9326/7/3/034020/Full/erl437791ueqn5.gif

versus

http://ej.iop.org/images/1748-9326/7/3/034020/Full/erl437791ueqn6.gif

Lastly

References
↑ Allan R J, Nicholls N, Jones P D and Butterworth I J 1991 A further extension of the Tahiti-Darwin SOI, early SOI results and Darwin pressure J. Clim. 4 743–9
CrossRef
↑ Attanasio A, Pasini A and Triacca U 2012 A contribution to attribution of recent global warming by out-of-sample Granger causality analysis Atmos. Sci. Lett. 13 67–72
CrossRef
↑ Brohan P, Kennedy J J, Harris I, Tett S F B and Jones P D 2006 Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850 J. Geophys. Res. 111 D12106
CrossRef
↑ DelSole T, Tippett M K and Shukla J 2011 A significant component of unforced multidecadal variability in the recent acceleration of global warming J. Clim. 24 909–26
CrossRef
↑ Diebold F X and Mariano R S 1995 Comparing predictive accuracy J. Bus. Econom. Stat. 13 253–65
↑ Diks C and Mudelsee M 2000 Redundancies in the Earth’s climatological time series Phys. Lett. A 275 407–14
CrossRef
↑ Elsner J B 2006 Evidence in support of the climate change—Atlantic hurricane hypothesis Geophys. Res. Lett. 33 L16705
CrossRef
↑ Elsner J B 2007 Granger causality and Atlantic hurricanes Tellus A 59 476–85
CrossRef
↑ Enfield D B, Mestas-Nunez A M and Trimble P J 2001 The Atlantic multidecadal oscillation and its relationship to rainfall and river flows in the continental US Geophys. Res. Lett. 28 2077–80
CrossRef
↑ Granger C W J 1969 Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods Econometrica 37 424–38
CrossRef
↑ Granger C W J and Newbold P 1977 Forecasting Economic Time Series (New York: Academic) p 333
↑ Hansen J et al 2007 Climate simulations for 1880–2003 with GISS modelE Clim. Dyn. 29 661–96
CrossRef
↑ Jansen E et al 2007 Paleoclimate Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis ed S Solomon (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) pp 433–97
↑ Kaufmann R K and Stern D I 1997 Evidence for human influence on climate from hemispheric temperature relations Nature 388 39–44
CrossRef
↑ Kaufmann R K et al 2003 The effect of vegetation on surface temperature: a statistical analysis of NDVI and climate data Geophys. Res. Lett. 30 2147
CrossRef
↑ Kaufmann R K et al 2007 Climate response to rapid urban growth: evidence of a humaninduced precipitation deficit J. Clim. 20 2299–306
CrossRef
↑ Kodra E, Chatterjee S and Ganguly A R 2011 Exploring Granger causality between global average observed time series of carbon dioxide and temperature Theor. Appl. Climatol. 104 325–35
CrossRef
↑ Können G P, Jones P D, Kaltofen M H and Allan R J 1998 Pre-1866 extensions of the southern oscillation index using early Indonesian and Tahitian meteorological readings J. Clim. 11 2325–39
CrossRef
↑ Lean J L and Rind D H 2008 How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006 Geophys. Res. Lett. 35 L18701
CrossRef
↑ Lockwood M and Fröhlich C 2007 Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature Proc. R. Soc. A 463 2447–60
CrossRef
↑ Lütkepohl H 1982 Non-causality due to omitted variables J. Econometr. 19 367–78
CrossRef
↑ Lütkepohl H 2005 New Introduction to Multiple Time Series Analysis (Berlin: Springer)
↑ McCracken M W 2007 Asymptotics for out-of-sample tests of Granger causality J. Econometr. 140 719–52
CrossRef
↑ Mohkov I I and Smirnov D A 2008 Diagnostics of cause–effect relation between solar activity and the Earth’s global surface temperature Izv. Atmos. Ocean. Phys. 44 263–72
CrossRef
↑ Mohkov I I et al 2011 Alternating mutual influence of El Niño/Southern Oscillation and Indian monsoon Geophys. Res. Lett. 38 L00F04
CrossRef
↑ Mosedale T J, Stephenson D B, Collins M and Mills T C 2006 Granger causality of coupled climate processes: ocean feedback on the North Atlantic oscillation J. Clim. 19 1182–94
CrossRef
↑ Ramaswamy V et al 2001 Radiative forcing of climate change Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis ed J T Houghton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) pp 349–416
↑ Reichel R, Thejll P and Lassen K 2001 The cause-and-effect relationship of solar cycle length and the Northern Hemisphere air surface temperature J. Geophys. Res. 106 15635–41
CrossRef
↑ Ropelewski C F and Jones P D 1987 An extension of the Tahiti-Darwin southern oscillation index Mon. Weather Rev. 115 2161–5
CrossRef
↑ Smith T M and Reynolds R W 2004 Improved extended reconstruction of SST (1854–1997) J. Clim. 17 2466–77
CrossRef
↑ Stauning P 2011 Solar activity-climate relations: a different approach J. Atmos. Sol.-Terr. Phys. 73 1999–2012
CrossRef
↑ Sun L and Wang M 1996 Global warming and global dioxide emission: an empirical study J. Environ. Manag. 46 327–43
CrossRef
↑ Triacca U 2001 On the use of Granger causality to investigate the human influence on climate Theor. Appl. Climatol. 69 137–8
CrossRef
↑ Triacca U 2005 Is Granger causality analysis appropriate to investigate the relationship between atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and global surface air temperature? Theor. Appl. Climatol. 81 133–5
CrossRef
↑ Wang Y-M, Lean J L and Sheeley N R Jr 2005 Modeling the Sun’s magnetic field and irradiance since 1713 Astrophys. J. 625 522–38
IOPscience ↑ West K D 1996 Asymptotic inference about predictive ability Econometrica 64 1067–84
CrossRef
↑ Wiener N 1956 The theory of prediction Modern Mathematics for Engineers vol 1 ed E F Beckenbach (New York: McGraw-Hill) chapter 8
↑ Wu Z, Huang N E, Wallace J W, Smoliak B V and Chen X 2011 On the time-varying trend in global-mean surface temperature Clim. Dyn. 37 759–73
CrossRef
↑ Yuval and Hsieh W W 2002 The impact of time-averaging on the detectability of nonlinear empirical relations Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 128 1609–22

I try to be respectful or your arguments until you do stupid shit like this.

All of these papers used to generate and build on were all done by scientists who were "in on it".

According to your conspiracy theory, the authors wrote this paper, and do papers like this, because they are too stupid to realize the stuff they learned in their DOCTORAL programs were all built on some "biased theory" that you don't like on an emotional level.

That is what your argument ultimate boils down to.

The people who made this paper are either deliberately lying or not as smart as you are, to be able to figure out that the entire conclusion of their test of their null hypothesis is wrong.

boutons_deux

04-11-2013, 10:56 AM

Nike, Starbucks, Intel: “We Cannot Risk Our Kids’ Futures On The False Hope The Vast Majority Of Scientists Are Wrong” (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04/11/1851271/nike-starbucks-intel-we-cannot-risk-our-kids-futures-on-the-false-hope-the-vast-majority-of-scientists-are-wrong/)

The full declaration by nearly 3 dozen brand-new companies is:

What made America great was taking a stand. Doing the things that are hard. And seizing opportunities. The very foundation (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04/11/1851271/nike-starbucks-intel-we-cannot-risk-our-kids-futures-on-the-false-hope-the-vast-majority-of-scientists-are-wrong/#) of our country is based on fighting for our freedoms and ensuring the health and prosperity of our state, our community, and our families. Today those things are threatened by a changing climate that most scientists agree is being caused by air pollution.

We cannot risk our kids’ futures on the false hope that the vast majority of scientists are wrong. But just as America rose to the great challenges of the past and came out stronger than ever, we have to confront this challenge, and we have to win. And in doing this right, by saving money when we use less electricity, by saving money to drive a (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04/11/1851271/nike-starbucks-intel-we-cannot-risk-our-kids-futures-on-the-false-hope-the-vast-majority-of-scientists-are-wrong/#) more efficient car, by choosing clean energy, by inventing new technologies that other countries buy, and creating jobs here at home, we will maintain our way of life and remain a true superpower in a competitive world.

In order to make this happen, however, there must be a coordinated effort to combat climate change–with America taking the lead here at home. Leading is what we’ve always done. And by working together, regardless of politics, we’ll do it again.

The companies who signed on to this declaration “provide approximately 475,000 U.S. jobs and generate a combined annual revenue of approximately $450 billion”:

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BICEP.jpg

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04/11/1851271/nike-starbucks-intel-we-cannot-risk-our-kids-futures-on-the-false-hope-the-vast-majority-of-scientists-are-wrong/

So major corps, outside of world-class polluters BigCarbon, BigAg, BigChem, and the US military knows that climate change is happening and must be addressed.

DarrinS

04-11-2013, 11:36 AM

This is where I call bullshit.

Quite frankly, I am virtually certain that you lack the mathmatical and statistical background to even come close to understanding the calcualations involved.

http://ej.iop.org/images/1748-9326/7/3/034020/Full/erl437791eqn1.gif

http://ej.iop.org/images/1748-9326/7/3/034020/Full/erl437791eqn2.gif

http://ej.iop.org/images/1748-9326/7/3/034020/Full/erl437791ueqn3.gif

http://ej.iop.org/images/1748-9326/7/3/034020/Full/erl437791ueqn4.gif

In order to test the null hypothesis

http://ej.iop.org/images/1748-9326/7/3/034020/Full/erl437791ueqn5.gif

versus

http://ej.iop.org/images/1748-9326/7/3/034020/Full/erl437791ueqn6.gif

Lol, "advanced" linear algebra. Why are you such a condescending douche?

Wild Cobra

04-11-2013, 02:33 PM

I'm not asking you to regurgitate.

I am asking you to synthesize.

How would we test your hypothesis if we wanted to? What would a scientist who studies these things do in order to actually test your theory?
The things I say are already known science. The problem is getting a valid value. In one case, the left hand doesn't seem to talk with the right hand. For example, the 0.12 watts per meter of direct solar forcing. Those who then do the greenhouse gas forcing calculations are not considering the extra upward IR that the actual surface receives, that is not directly absorbed by the atmosphere.

Calculations and tests are not needed in what I say. I am pointing out gaping holes in the alarmist community methodology.

You could likely be right. I don't even know if I could design an adequate test. I am the creative type.

Wild Cobra

04-11-2013, 02:36 PM

They didn't consider your theoretical lag time? The one you don't know how to test?

"Skimmed... quickly.... appears..."

In the end, they are the experts, you are not.

Additionally, I have had enough debates with you on topics I *am* an expert on to know your critical thinking processes are flawed, and am highly disinclined to take you at your word.
It is very simple. The climate community agrees that the ocean is storing energy, as a whole. Take that a step farther. the ocean moves, and is always changing balance. This flux now changes.

Lag is real. I'm not sure how to explain it without several diagrams and words. If you cannot accept that, then OK. I'm not willing to try much harder to make anyone understand.

RandomGuy

04-11-2013, 02:48 PM

Lol, "advanced" linear algebra. Why are you such a condescending douche?

The notion of Granger causality was first introduced by Wiener (1956) and later reformulated by Granger (1969). For our application, we assume that a trivariate time series follows a vector autoregression (VAR) model of finite order k:

where c = (c1,c2,c3) is a vector of constants, il,j are fixed coefficients and (u1t,u2t,u3t) is a trivariate white noise process. The model order k is kept low (k = 1,...,4)—in doing so the models are parsimonious—and the models finally selected are those endowed with the best predictive performance on each test set, choosing for k the following value:

I have only the vaguest notion what this means. WC directly claimed they didn't consider some pet idea in their analysis. This begs a whole lot of credulity when the material gets so esoteric like this does.

I tend to become a condescending douche when people try to lie to my face, or say really obviously stupid shit, and expect ME to buy into it. It rankles.

That is always where conversations about pseudo-scientific feel-good ideas tend to end up.

It always sounds nice and science-y, until you start digging.

Don't you find it a bit dumb that someone can completely, casually, dismiss something out of hand that most people couldn't understand without hundreds of hours of research, by just "skimming" it?

Alternately:

Do you think that WC demonstrated enough knowledge of the implications and methods of the paper before dismissing it?

Go ahead. Give an honest answer. I triple dog dare you.

RandomGuy

04-11-2013, 02:52 PM

The things I say are already known science. The problem is getting a valid value. In one case, the left hand doesn't seem to talk with the right hand. For example, the 0.12 watts per meter of direct solar forcing. Those who then do the greenhouse gas forcing calculations are not considering the extra upward IR that the actual surface receives, that is not directly absorbed by the atmosphere.

Calculations and tests are not needed in what I say. I am pointing out gaping holes in the alarmist community methodology.

You could likely be right. I don't even know if I could design an adequate test. I am the creative type.

You aren't pointing out holes in anything other than your ability to be a good scientist.

Creativity is actually one of the major things one needs to design scientific tests. Don't sell it short. :)

(edit)

The problem is that for your claims of gaping holes to be credible, you have to demonstrate a solid understanding, or a suggested alternate method.

Meh... probably more than enough time on this. I am starting to get grumpy, so I will stop.

Wild Cobra

04-11-2013, 02:55 PM

This is where I call bullshit.

Quite frankly, I am virtually certain that you lack the mathmatical and statistical background to even come close to understanding the calcualations involved.

I understand the calculation enough that I could research the references needed. Thing is, I haven't done math like that for almost 40 years. I never needed it or used it since High School. However, it does not contain... Lag... it doesn't have time variables in it. Even the seasons have lag. Summer solstice is June, yet out hottest temperatures are typically 2 months later.

Again, lag in systems is real.

I try to be respectful or your arguments until you do stupid shit like this.

It isn't stupid to see problems in an argument, and realize that another formula does not need to be used to counter it.

You think what I say is stupid? What about how you tried to apply this:

1360/1365= .9963..... 1-.9963= .37%

All of these papers used to generate and build on were all done by scientists who were "in on it".

Huh? Absolutely not. Why do you disregard my previous words? Very few scientists are predicting any actual deception. Again, the science here is being taught incorrectly.

Can you show me a paper that shows the solar/ocean does not have a long time lag for energy movement?

According to your conspiracy theory, the authors wrote this paper, and do papers like this, because they are too stupid to realize the stuff they learned in their DOCTORAL programs were all built on some "biased theory" that you don't like on an emotional level.

This is one of your problems Fuzzy. You grab on to something you think you can run with, which is more illusion that real. Again, very few scientists are trying to be deceptive, and I don't know that individuals with a like minded agenda, acting independent, can be called a conspiracy. That would be like saying all the people rushing to the banks to take out their money in the early part of the 20th century, was a conspiracy to cause the great depression.

Please... stay real. Stop the bullshit hype and innuendo. Leave that for the trolls like Fuzzy.

That is what your argument ultimate boils down to.

The people who made this paper are either deliberately lying or not as smart as you are, to be able to figure out that the entire conclusion of their test of their null hypothesis is wrong.

Believe as you wish, but also consider that it is easier to publish a paper that the forces in charge want, rather than one that goes against their beliefs.

Wild Cobra

04-11-2013, 03:00 PM

You aren't pointing out holes in anything other than your ability to be a good scientist.

Creativity is actually one of the major things one needs to design scientific tests. Don't sell it short. :)
Sorry, but I do sell myself short here. I have worked with engineers for years. I had a few that came for me on their works for opinions. I was seldom good at offering alternatives, but I could immediately spot the shortcomings in their designs.

The problem is that for your claims of gaping holes to be credible, you have to demonstrate a solid understanding, or a suggested alternate method.

I'm sure that through the six degrees of separation theory, someone will see a point every now than then that I make as valid. I'll let my ideas take that path.

RandomGuy

04-11-2013, 03:02 PM

I understand the calculation enough that I could research the references needed. Thing is, I haven't done math like that for almost 40 years. I never needed it or used it since High School. However, it does not contain... Lag... it doesn't have time variables in it.

The equations do consider time. The fact you think they don't, and that the equations would require a time variable is particularly damning.

Your "lag" claim is meaningless until you can show exactly how that would affect the methodology in the paper. By your own admission, you are incapable of doing that.

Not helping your case.

RandomGuy

04-11-2013, 03:04 PM

Again, the science here is being taught incorrectly.

Bullshit.

What evidence do you have that your claim is correct?

RandomGuy

04-11-2013, 03:09 PM

I understand the calculation enough that I could research the references needed.

Bullshit.

It isn't just one calculation. It is a series of calculations, based on thirty+ different references, that you haven't read.

You completely dismissed it, without fully understanding it for the sole reason that it seemed to contradict your previously held-ideas, and didn't include one of your pet UNPROVEN theories.

Again, not helping me find your claims any more credible than I did before.

I am simply asking good critical thinking questions.

You claim to advocate open review process, but when that kind of process is subjected to your claims, they don't do very well.

Wild Cobra

04-11-2013, 03:20 PM

Random. Look at what the article says. It is only using land and sea temperatures, TSI data, three types of greenhouse gas data, and three ocean oscillations. Where is the data for aerosol increased then decreases in the 20th century? How did the apply the accepted 5 to 6 MPH average of ocean surface movement for their sea temperature movements, which also vary a great amount by location?

It's nice to simplify things, but significant variables cannot be excluded.

Wild Cobra

04-11-2013, 03:22 PM

Bullshit.

I never said how long it would take me. It may take me years, but If I set my mind to it, I could.

Thing is, I simply would not do what I consider a waste of my time.

Wild Cobra

04-11-2013, 03:24 PM

Bullshit.

What evidence do you have that your claim is correct?
How about all the findings that keep being revised.

Wild Cobra

04-11-2013, 03:27 PM

The equations do consider time. The fact you think they don't, and that the equations would require a time variable is particularly damning.

Your "lag" claim is meaningless until you can show exactly how that would affect the methodology in the paper. By your own admission, you are incapable of doing that.

Not helping your case.
They are considering different times. They are not considering how one variable (solar) in timeslot x years is less in timeslot x years than the whole, and has a presence in x+10 years, x+20 years, etc. as well.

RandomGuy

04-11-2013, 03:35 PM

How about all the findings that keep being revised.

That isn't evidence that is innuendo.

What kind of evidence would support your claim?

RandomGuy

04-11-2013, 03:36 PM

They are considering different times. They are not considering how one variable (solar) in timeslot x years is less in timeslot x years than the whole, and has a presence in x+10 years, x+20 years, etc. as well.

(redacted)

I will simply assume your claim is not true until proven otherwise.

FuzzyLumpkins

04-11-2013, 03:42 PM

I was really hoping for Fuzzy to show me wrong on the AR5, but of course, the village idiot just makes accusations as normal with no evidence. We would have seen that he found the leaked AR5.

Nine of the 14 contributed in some form to the AR5.

Coordinating Lead Authors: Cubasch and Shindell.

Lead Authors: Beer, Cubasch, Luterbacher, Meehl, and Shindell.

Contributing Authors: Fleitmann, Gray, Haigh, Lockwood, Meehl, and Shindell.

None were reviewers this time.

:lol

What was the point that I was making?

Oh yeah that the authors IPCC contributors. I think that is pretty well cemented. The guys that are writing the IPCC report wrote a report detailing the things you claimed that the alarmists at the IPCC did not consider. That is literally from a simple google scholar search link on the first page. I didn't have to look the deep rather scratched the surface.

What's your point? I could only show 9 authors instead of 14. You won't even touch the science. I can only guess its from a long tradition at this point of making you look the fool. What is sad is that this most recent line comes 3 days after you told me you were just going to ignore me.

That's the best you can do? Do we need to rejoin the numbered list to rub your face in it some more? Looks like we need to rejoin it indeed.

1) there are cases where 'climate alarmists' consider the effect of the UV spectrum amplitudes differing from TSI?
2) there are cases where 'climate alarmist 'in their models consider more than direct solar forcing mechanisms and consider surface flux?
3) there are cases where 'alarmists' consider these issues and don't claim that they are due to the greenhouse effect?

Wild Cobra

04-11-2013, 04:00 PM

That isn't evidence that is innuendo.

What kind of evidence would support your claim?

I am running low on time, and will pick this up later as I will have to reference things for longer than I have. For now, i will post this.

I have linked articles that state the climate community has found that soot for example has a far greater effect than previously thought. More recently, UV below 200 nm. My claim to the sciences being wrong, isn't as much as what we currently know, but more to the point of them making claims of a science that is still not well known. I have, over the years, been completely correct on my statements regarding forcing changes the scientists now change claims to.

I see the problems in the solar energy budget for example. The launching if the TIM equipment has allowed for better accuracy of the energy the earth receives. The scientist now calculate somewhere in the neighborhood of a 0.6 watt/square meter difference in their budget analysis, and as believe it to be ocean absorption. This is their claim. not mine. Previously, the assumed numbers had greater error.

Now I have a simple claim that is so simple, nobody has yet disputed it. Instead, you try to focus on the complex issues and accuse me to be wrong because I can't possible understand, what these climate scientists do.

I will use the IPCC AR4 numbers. My simple claim deals with the sun's direct radiative forcing of 0.12 watts/square meter. Purhaps you remember this:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/Wikigreenhousemodelmodifiedfor1750.jpg

It's funny how the 0.18% 11 year average using Lean's work, and numbers from 1750 to 2004, calculate so nicely to the IPCC's 0.12 watts/square meter. Note that the difference, 67 - 66.88 = 0.12, direct atmospheric forcing changes. Now there is an increased (168 - 167.7) 0.3 to the ground and ocean, which in turn, becomes part of the greenhouse effect energy. I have stated before, and I will state again, they are claiming part of the solar increase as greenhouse gas increases, else they would claim at least a solar component of 0.42 watts/square meter, or more. If the IPCC is calculating that 0.42 from solar, then the increase would only be about 0.05%. Problem is, I believe all climate scientists agree that the solar energy to the earth has increased my no less than 0.08% since 1750, and many also have far larger numbers. I believe the average of studies is about the 0.15% I stated before.

FuzzyLumpkins

04-11-2013, 04:17 PM

(redacted)

I will simply assume your claim is not true until proven otherwise.

He used to say that scientists did not consider deep ocean current convection, heat transfer etc. This shit is from his old argument about how there was a warmer time some period ago that warmed the deep ocean currents and that the currents came back and were the cause of the warming and not CO2. This is him just twisting that into what you are arguing now. Fluid dynamics as we know it now was developed back around the turning of the twentieth century so he has been shown stuff from back to the 30s where they applied it to ocean dynamics. He's been shown stuff from the American Meteorological Society, Harvard, Penn State, and U of Washington. Look up the max plank institute if you are really interested in seeing how it is modeled

Heat transfer and fluid dynamics require heavy use of partial differential equations and linear algebra to model the phenomenon and link the phenomenon into on mathematical representation. The operations to check them are even more arduous as you have alluded to.

Now it's been well established that he does not understand linearity. Look to his discussion on significant figures in this topic for proof of that. Without that baseline prima facia he does not have the mental capacity to say one way or another the math used is correctly. And just look at the math that he does here. He can plug in numbers to an equation and operate a calculator and that is about it. In his own synthesis, as you put it, he will multiply constants by ratios and that is about as 'advanced' as he gets.

FuzzyLumpkins

04-11-2013, 04:20 PM

You have been shown that the 'alarmists' have been considering the UV effects in published works for at least 4 years now.

You are willfully lying at this point, dumbass.

Wild Cobra

04-11-2013, 04:22 PM

You have been shown that the 'alarmists' have been considering the UV effects in published works for at least 4 years now.

You are willfully lying at this point, dumbass.
I have specified below 200 nm.

Tell you what Fuzzy. You stop lying about me, and I'll stop telling the truth about you!

FuzzyLumpkins

04-11-2013, 04:24 PM

It's funny how the 0.18% 11 year average using Lean's work, and numbers from 1750 to 2004, calculate so nicely to the IPCC's 0.12 watts/square meter. Note that the difference, 67 - 66.88 = 0.12, direct atmospheric forcing changes. Now there is an increased (168 - 167.7) 0.3 to the ground and ocean, which in turn, becomes part of the greenhouse effect energy. I have stated before, and I will state again, they are claiming part of the solar increase as greenhouse gas increases, else they would claim at least a solar component of 0.42 watts/square meter, or more. If the IPCC is calculating that 0.42 from solar, then the increase would only be about 0.05%. Problem is, I believe all climate scientists agree that the solar energy to the earth has increased my no less than 0.08% since 1750, and many also have far larger numbers. I believe the average of studies is about the 0.15% I stated before.

Note what I am saying about his mathematical acumen. We have subtraction and multiplications of ratios. You will see him regurgitate formulas such as with thermodynamic equilibrium that uses exponential operations but he only regurgitates. He doesn't grasp the importance of proportions so he sticks with 7th grade math when he is trying to work through things on his own.

FuzzyLumpkins

04-11-2013, 04:28 PM

I have specified below 200 nm.

Tell you what Fuzzy. You stop lying about me, and I'll stop telling the truth about you!

:lol cosmic rays

You really need to get some new material and read the link that I showed you. They are in there too.

Wild Cobra

04-11-2013, 04:34 PM

:lol cosmic rays

You really need to get some new material and read the link that I showed you. They are in there too.
The village Idiot strikes again. The UV below 200 nm that TIM measures is not cosmic rays.

FuzzyLumpkins

04-11-2013, 04:51 PM

boutons_deux

04-11-2013, 04:58 PM

The Antarctic Half of the Global Thermohaline Circulation Is Faltering (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/10/1200602/-The-Antarctic-Half-of-the-Global-Thermohaline-Circulation-Is-Faltering)

The sudden cooling of Europe, triggered by collapse of the global thermohaline circulation in the north Atlantic and the slowing of the Gulf Stream has been popularized by the movies and the media. The southern half of the global thermohaline circulation is as important to global climate but has not been popularized. The global oceans' coldest water, Antarctic bottom water forms in several key spots around Antarctica. The water is so cold and dense that it spreads out along the bottom all of the major ocean basins except the north Atlantic and Arctic. Multiple recent reports provide strong evidence that the formation of Antarctic bottom water has slowed dramatically in response to massive subsurface melting of ice shelves and glaciers. The meltwater is freshening a layer of water found between depths of 50 and 150 meters. This lightened layer is impeding the formation of Antarctic bottom water, causing the Antarctic half of the global thermohaline circulation to falter.

Update from the comments

I have been asked what's going to happen in response to the faltering of the thermohaline circulation around Antarctica. This post is based on a synthesis of very recent research reports. The key report, that found the layer of fresh water between 50 and 150 meters deep, was just published. Deward Hastings explained, in a comment, how disruptive this lens of freshened water could be to the earth's climate system and our models of it:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/10/1200602/-The-Antarctic-Half-of-the-Global-Thermohaline-Circulation-Is-Faltering

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Thermohaline_Circulation_2.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation

Wild Cobra

04-12-2013, 02:17 AM

Note what I am saying about his mathematical acumen. We have subtraction and multiplications of ratios. You will see him regurgitate formulas such as with thermodynamic equilibrium that uses exponential operations but he only regurgitates. He doesn't grasp the importance of proportions so he sticks with 7th grade math when he is trying to work through things on his own.
Fuzzy, Fuzzy, Fuzzy... What are we going to do with the village idiot?

Your pretentious, childish attitude would be so adorable, if you weren't also such a pathetic ass.

Changes in greenhouse gas concentration lead to a nonlinear response.

When the greenhouse gas concentrations are fixed, and we change the energy directed at them, their response to such changes are linear.

Wild Cobra

04-12-2013, 02:18 AM

:lol

Are you really going to assert that they consider gamma and x-rays from outside the solar system but ignore the ones coming from the sun? You saying that they don't consider the sun as an x-ray source?

Please tell us more about this.
I didn't say that either.

Stop throwing shit to see what sticks if you want a debate. I have explained this before.

FuzzyLumpkins

04-12-2013, 03:55 AM

Fuzzy, Fuzzy, Fuzzy... What are we going to do with the village idiot?

Your pretentious, childish attitude would be so adorable, if you weren't also such a pathetic ass.

Changes in greenhouse gas concentration lead to a nonlinear response.

When the greenhouse gas concentrations are fixed, and we change the energy directed at them, their response to such changes are linear.

I'm surprised with the sigfig stupidity you laid on us before that you would try and bring up linearity again, much less put it in bold font. Shall we revisit that as well?

You're talking about solar output and making claims that they are underestimating it and putting a percentage to it. Percentages are ratios. The linearity is irrelevant to the discussion. If you want to talk about the thermodynamic properties of the things that make up the Earth and what they do and how they interact then that is a completely different discussion. You are keeping it in the real simple-minded 'energy budget' terms instead as you always do.

Wild Cobra

04-12-2013, 03:58 AM

Do you mean the downward energy being absorbed haveing the ^1/4? Remember, the balance of it has that same energy going back upward as ^4.

Guess what... 0.25 x 4 = 1... we are once again linear!

FuzzyLumpkins

04-12-2013, 04:09 AM

I didn't say that either.

Stop throwing shit to see what sticks if you want a debate. I have explained this before.

It's called deduction.

"UV below 200nm" is stupid for "gamma and x-rays." But now it's not the UV band, its not gamma and x-rays from space ie cosmic rays. It's not x-rays from the sun apparently either. Are you proposing that the sun is a source of gamma radiation?

You regurgitate antiquated denial takes from a decade ago. It's obvious how your brain has twisted with it's special brand of stupid what those arguments were into what you present now.

Wild Cobra

04-12-2013, 04:10 AM

LOL...

Can't keep up, so you throw another presumptive shitball...

It's not going to stick.

Wild Cobra

04-12-2013, 04:16 AM

Pssssttt....

Everyone, don't tell Fuzzy this. It's fun watching him self-destruct...

The UV band is from 10 nm to 400 nm.

FuzzyLumpkins

04-12-2013, 04:16 AM

Do you mean the downward energy being absorbed haveing the ^1/4? Remember, the balance of it has that same energy going back upward as ^4.

Guess what... 0.25 x 4 = 1... we are once again linear!

That a function has an inverse does not make it linear. The behavior of radial expansion ie how the black body formula that you are referring to behaves is not a linear behavior.

Wild Cobra

04-12-2013, 04:19 AM

That a function has an inverse does not make it linear. The behavior of radial expansion ie how the black body formula that you are referring to behaves is not a linear behavior.
Close enough. If I'm wrong.... Show me.

Keep in mind what I have said about significant digits. I'll bet your nonlinear part requires at least four significant digits in the final answer to see a change...

FuzzyLumpkins

04-12-2013, 04:28 AM

Pssssttt....

Everyone, don't tell Fuzzy this. It's fun watching him self-destruct...

The UV band is from 10 nm to 400 nm.

You are just dissembling.

As was pointed out to you from the Stanford source:

Although the UV absorption composes only a small
proportion of the total incoming solar energy, it has a relatively
large 11 year SC variation, as shown in Figure 3
(bottom). Variations of up to 6% are present near 200 nm
where oxygen dissociation and ozone production occur and
up to 4% in the region 240–320 nm where absorption by
stratospheric ozone is prevalent. This compares with variations
of only ∼0.07% in TSI (see earlier discussion).
Figure 3 also shows the approximate height in the atmosphere
at which these wavelengths are absorbed. At very
short wavelengths (∼100 nm) the variations are ∼100% and
impact temperatures very high in the atmosphere. For example, the Earth’s exosphere (∼500–1000 km above the
Earth’s surface) has 11 year SC variations of ∼1000 K.
However, we concentrate in this review on describing
observations and mechanisms that involve the atmosphere
below 100 km because at present there is little evidence to
suggest a downward influence on climate from regions
above this. Transfer mechanisms from the overlying thermosphere
have been proposed, such as through wave
propagation feedbacks suggested by Arnold and Robinson
[2000]. However, there is little observational evidence for
any significant influence, although this cannot be ruled out.

Where you going to move the goalpost to now, dimwit?

Wild Cobra

04-12-2013, 04:34 AM

FuzzyLumpkins

04-12-2013, 04:38 AM

Close enough. If I'm wrong.... Show me.

Keep in mind what I have said about significant digits. I'll bet your nonlinear part requires at least four significant digits in the final answer to see a change...

Show you?

you are inverting a formula and claiming that because it's invertible that means its linear. It's ignorant bullshit that demonstrates your math level well. I cannot show you because you don't know how to read the language. It's beyond your scope and if you want me to teach you then you can pay me.

Wild Cobra

04-12-2013, 04:41 AM

Show you?

you are inverting a formula and claiming that because it's invertible that means its linear. It's ignorant bullshit that demonstrates your math level well. I cannot show you because you don't know how to read the language. It's beyond your scope and if you want me to teach you then you can pay me.

Translation: Fuzzy is talking out his ass again.

FuzzyLumpkins

04-12-2013, 04:41 AM

I'm only proving you the idiot since you say below 200 nm is X-ray and cosmic rays. How can you be so presumptive to think that's what I mean? it's these stupid assumption of yours, as to why you are always wrong, and why I own you.

You are reduced to trying to get me on semantics. x-rays and cosmic rays are both below 200 nm. So what energy source are you saying they don't consider?

FuzzyLumpkins

04-12-2013, 04:45 AM

Translation: Fuzzy is talking out his ass again.

You are taking the expression for energy absorption and emission and making the claim that because one is expressed as the square of a square and the other as a sqrt of a sqrt then that means they are linear. It's stupid.

What do relativity mean?

Wild Cobra

04-12-2013, 04:46 AM

You are reduced to trying to get me on semantics. x-rays and cosmic rays are both below 200 nm. So what energy source are you saying they don't consider?
Well, what idiot, when another specifies UV below 200 nm, thinks of cosmic or X-ray?

Are there other village idiots other than you who do?

Wild Cobra

04-12-2013, 04:47 AM

You are taking the expression for energy absorption and emission and making the claim that because one is expressed as the square of a square and the other as a sqrt of a sqrt then that means they are linear. It's stupid.

What do relativity mean?
LOL...

Can you say significance?

FuzzyLumpkins

04-12-2013, 04:50 AM

Well, what idiot, when another specifies UV below 200 nm, thinks of cosmic or X-ray?

Are there other village idiots other than you who do?

Seeing that you were just shown the UV information I figured you wouldn't double down on the intellectually dishonest stupidity so soon. That was the whole point of the link: they do look at the UV band. My bad.

So you retracting the <200nm assertion or you just going to keep rolling with it?

Wild Cobra

04-12-2013, 04:52 AM

Seeing that you were just shown the UV information I figured you wouldn't double down on the intellectually dishonest stupidity so soon. That was the whole point of the link: they do look at the UV band. My bad.

So you retracting the <200nm assertion or you just going to keep rolling with it?
Nice try, but you are still a presumptive dipshit.

Retract it? Hell no. Why should I?

FuzzyLumpkins

04-12-2013, 04:56 AM

LOL...

Can you say significance?

Sure you change the proportions, dimwit. 1000 100 10 1 .1 .01 .001 .0001

That was the point that I was trying to make. You have no sense of proportion or scale.

FuzzyLumpkins

04-12-2013, 04:57 AM

Nice try, but you are still a presumptive dipshit.

Retract it? Hell no. Why should I?

Because you have seen a quote of them talking about the range ~100nm. I bolded it for you.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=211505&p=6472730&viewfull=1#post6472730

Wild Cobra

04-12-2013, 05:04 AM

Because you have seen a quote of them talking about the range ~100nm. I bolded it for you.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=211505&p=6472730&viewfull=1#post6472730
LOL...

Fuzzy, I stand corrected. I don't own you. You own yourself. You don't need any help looking bad. You don't understand what you posted.

maybe you should look at this link:

link: Solar radiation and Climate Experiment (http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/instruments/instr_overview.htm)

Look at the measurement range of 110 to 310 nm.

Was I talking about 100 nm?

FuzzyLumpkins

04-12-2013, 05:13 AM

I wasn't talking about 100nm I was talking about ~100nm. Do you understand the difference?

Wild Cobra

04-12-2013, 05:18 AM

I wasn't talking about 100nm I was talking about ~100nm. Do you understand the difference?
So?

the variations are greater as you approach 200 nm. aren't they? Why do you try to treat is as an "all or nothing" thing.

Oh wait, my bad, that's your MO...

Fuzzy...

I'm getting tired of your nonsense. Let me know when you have something meaningful.

FuzzyLumpkins

04-12-2013, 06:06 AM

So you go from they don't consider UV then you go to they don't consider <200nm. Now it's this. You keep babbling about me trying to get something to stick.....

RandomGuy

04-12-2013, 10:41 AM

I am running low on time, and will pick this up later as I will have to reference things for longer than I have. For now, i will post this.

I have linked articles that state the climate community has found that soot for example has a far greater effect than previously thought. More recently, UV below 200 nm. My claim to the sciences being wrong, isn't as much as what we currently know, but more to the point of them making claims of a science that is still not well known. I have, over the years, been completely correct on my statements regarding forcing changes the scientists now change claims to.

None of which is evidence of your claim:

Again, the science here is being taught incorrectly.

I asked you a very simple follow up:

What would be evidence of this claim?

Your post does not answer that question.

RandomGuy

04-12-2013, 10:55 AM

So you go from they don't consider UV then you go to they don't consider <200nm. Now it's this. You keep babbling about me trying to get something to stick.....

Meh. 200nm, 100nm, 1360wpm2, 1360 wpm2, I don't really care at this point.

In the end, the science is a lot more solid than WC seems to think, even to my eye. The solution to mitigate the risk will not cause any economic catastrophe and quite arguably would bolster our economy.

That is what makes the whole thing somewhat moot to me.

We have pretty good indications that we should probably quit emitting so much CO2, regardless of the minutae that WC seems hyper-focused on. The benefits of acting outweigh the costs.

I can, and have backed up that claim, and have pretty thoroughly debunked the "economic catastrophe" claim that doing somethign to limit Co2 would be that bad.

The course of action seems clear enough, that I am content to let the science run its course.

The science will get better, the more data we collect and the longer time we study it. That much is obvious. If there is some grand conspiracy or big mistake or whatever the slobbering deniers think is going on, that will be found out eventually.

boutons_deux

04-12-2013, 12:25 PM

Sense And Sensitivity: How The Economist Got It Wrong On Warming (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04/12/1858631/sense-and-sensitivity-how-the-economist-got-it-wrong-on-warming/)

The article focused heavily on claims that the slowed warming of Earth’s surface in recent years implies a dramatically lowered estimate of climate sensitivity. The claim was primarily supported by a single as-yet unpublished article (http://skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-cicero.html)by a group in Norway, which attempts to use instrumental temperature evidence available back through the late 19th century to estimate the climate sensitivity. The authors of that article conclude that use of data to the year 2000 yields a climate sensitivity of 3.9°C, which is at the high end of the generally accepted 2 to 4.5°C range. Yet they find that by including just an additional decade of data (i.e. using observations available through 2010), the estimate falls by nearly half, to 1.9°C.

It should be a red flag that an estimate of climate sensitivity would change by a factor of two based only on the addition of a decade of data. In reality, the climate sensitivity now is not half what it was a decade ago. So where did the Norwegian study go wrong?
One likely culprit is that the role of natural climate variability, which is particularly important on timescales of a decade or less, was not properly accounted for in the analysis. One recent article (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50390/abstract) published in the Journal of Geophysical Research found that internal natural variability (for example, natural oscillations in the climate like those associated with the El Niño phenomenon) can result in a sizable discrepancy (errors approaching 1°C) between the true climate sensitivity and the value of climate sensitivity derived from the instrumental record alone.

Yet another recent study (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50263/abstract) published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters has argued that previously unaccounted-for effects of low-level volcanic eruptions may have offset more of the warming than scientists realised over the past decade.

And still another study (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/abstract) published recently in Geophysical Research Letters suggests that any slowing of surface warming during the past decade may have been associated with a recent accelerated penetration of heat into the deeper oceans.

This conclusion is consistent with other recent studies (http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/04/08/3731989.htm) finding unprecedented warming taking place in the deep oceans. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), about 90 per cent (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-2-2-3.html)of overall global warming goes into heating the oceans, while just two per cent heats the atmosphere. So the climate continues to warm, and all we may be seeing is a small change in how that warmth is being distributed between the ocean and atmosphere.

It is further unfortunate that the piece provided so little of the larger scientific context necessary for readers to appreciate the current state of scientific knowledge about climate sensitivity. Most critically, the article didn’t address why it is that the consensus estimate of climate sensitivity remains around 3°C.

When the collective information from all of these independent sources of information is combined, climate scientists indeed find evidence for a climate sensitivity that is very close to the canonical 3°C estimate. That estimate still remains the scientific consensus, and current generation climate models — which tend to cluster in their climate sensitivity values around this estimate — remain our best tools for projecting future climate change and its potential impacts.

Given that it will take a significant effort to avoid doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, from a policy perspective arguments about the precise climate sensitivity are somewhat irrelevant. Even at the lower end of the estimated sensitivity range, the projected impacts of climate change are likely to be devastating to human civilisation and our environment. What it will take to avoid such a scenario is what we – and The Economist – ought to be focusing on.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04/12/1858631/sense-and-sensitivity-how-the-economist-got-it-wrong-on-warming/

DarrinS

04-12-2013, 01:52 PM

Meh. 200nm, 100nm, 1360wpm2, 1360 wpm2, I don't really care at this point.

In the end, the science is a lot more solid than WC seems to think, even to my eye. The solution to mitigate the risk will not cause any economic catastrophe and quite arguably would bolster our economy.

That is what makes the whole thing somewhat moot to me.

We have pretty good indications that we should probably quit emitting so much CO2, regardless of the minutae that WC seems hyper-focused on. The benefits of acting outweigh the costs.

I can, and have backed up that claim, and have pretty thoroughly debunked the "economic catastrophe" claim that doing somethign to limit Co2 would be that bad.

The course of action seems clear enough, that I am content to let the science run its course.

The science will get better, the more data we collect and the longer time we study it. That much is obvious. If there is some grand conspiracy or big mistake or whatever the slobbering deniers think is going on, that will be found out eventually.

You can make the models as complex as you want, but the mercury ain't cooperatin'.

Wild Cobra

04-12-2013, 04:21 PM

Wild Cobra

04-12-2013, 05:30 PM

OK, I found the TSI papers they used for AR4:

0.00 W/m^2 Dziembowski et al. (2001)
0.65 W/m^2 Hoyt and Schatten (1993)
0.38 W/m^2 Lean (2000)
0.45 W/m^2 Lean et al. (1992)
0.45 W/m^2 Lean et al. (1995)
0.00 W/m^2 Schatten and Orosz (1990)
0.68 W/m^2 Solanki and Fligge (1999)
0.10 W/m^2 Y. Wang et al. (2005)

That's a pretty large variation for any scientific consensus. In the end, they used 0.12 W/m^2.

These are minimum to minimum values used above. The accompanying note states that the average values are 0.09 W/m^2 higher.

FuzzyLumpkins

04-13-2013, 02:30 AM

Wild Cobra

04-13-2013, 02:43 AM

It's the margin of error that is significant. I know a single number is hard to figure for you but try and think of a range of numbers.

and :lol you still cannot get past the conservation of energy viewpoint. Tell us some more about heat hiding out in the deep oceans.
You are so deeply wrong. Do you really think I don't understand conservation of energy? You may have a great deal of education, but you are a total idiot. Education does not make intelligence.

FuzzyLumpkins

04-13-2013, 02:51 AM

You are so deeply wrong. Do you really think I don't understand conservation of energy? You may have a great deal of education, but you are a total idiot. Education does not make intelligence.

I never said that you didn't understand it. I am laughing because you cannot grasp a concept more difficult than 'energy budget,' Dr. EZ Bake.

Wild Cobra

04-13-2013, 09:37 AM

It must be sad being you. Being wrong so often.

Bye. I see you still have nothing to discuss.

Wild Cobra

04-13-2013, 02:48 PM

I never said that you didn't understand it. I am laughing because you cannot grasp a concept more difficult than 'energy budget,' Dr. EZ Bake.
No, that's your limited perception that doesn't allow you to realize I am smarter than you.

FuzzyLumpkins

04-13-2013, 05:37 PM

Any time we begin discussing how they model the various thermodynamics, hydrodynamics or any other dynamic you display your incapacity. This has been demonstrated which is obvious because you won't even try and discuss the various differentials they use. No instead you go back to your W/sqm sums. You even have you cute little pictures so you know what to add and subtract. You do this in every climate thread and it's like a kid with coloring books. Any objective observer can see your arguments as they come.

Soot, ocean as a soda, uv, deep ocean currents, energy budget, academics conspiracy.

You will talk about the soda because the math is only ratios of partial pressures: easy multiplication. You can do the energy budget because it's additive. You recall what happened when we got into ocean dynamics?

http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/data/13030/6r/kt167nb66r/pdfs/kt167nb66r_ch13.pdf

Let's discuss it. I enjoy harmonic analysis.

Wild Cobra

04-13-2013, 08:26 PM

FuzzyLumpkins

04-14-2013, 07:05 AM

LOL...

Newest reference in that was 1941.

Harmonic analysis was developed first in the 19th century. By the the 1930s they had moved well beyond that and were developing quantum mechanics. It is what it is.

MannyIsGod

04-14-2013, 02:48 PM

You can make the models as complex as you want, but the mercury ain't cooperatin'.

Are you saying the temp isn't within the model envelope? Because if so - as usual - you're wrong.

DarrinS

04-14-2013, 05:48 PM

Are you saying the temp isn't within the model envelope? Because if so - as usual - you're wrong.

It's hugging the bottom of the error bounds -- a good sign that something is off. Kinda the whole point of the OP.

DarrinS

04-14-2013, 05:49 PM

Maybe the temperature is just in denial.

MannyIsGod

04-14-2013, 11:11 PM

It's hugging the bottom of the error bounds -- a good sign that something is off. Kinda the whole point of the OP.

Lots of things are off. The models are obviously imperfect. However, the current temps are within the envelope of likely outcomes. The models were never meant to be interpreted as some kind of linear forecast and you know that. Or you should. Furthermore they're certainly not meant to provide you with an annual time series as to what the future temps are going to be. There is large variability within the temperature record in the past on interannual and interdecadal time frames. There was no reason to think there wouldn't be going forward.

The boundaries of those estimates were put in place for a reason. They're not there for decoration. While the temps remain within those bounds the only one in denial is you. Per usual.

MannyIsGod

04-14-2013, 11:20 PM

Wild Cobra

04-15-2013, 02:16 AM

I just think its funny that the IPCC provided a range of outcomes and the temp is still within that range yet you somehow think thats evidence that the climate is less sensitive to CO2 than the IPCC indicated.

Logic is hard.
Considering the acknowledgement that other forcing is greater than thought, it should raise some eyebrows.

FuzzyLumpkins

04-15-2013, 05:07 AM

Considering the acknowledgement that other forcing is greater than thought, it should raise some eyebrows.

Considering the acknowledgement that the UV forcing in the upper atmosphere was lesser than you had hoped for should say something. This is not a tug of war where you get momentum and all of a sudden win, dipshit.

There is an objective reality and scientists are finding the appropriate weighting. You are running out of places to hold out hope for trivializing GHGs sold by your corporate sponsors and their proxies. You are the imperfect storm of sophistry and dumb.

RandomGuy

04-15-2013, 11:08 AM

You can make the models as complex as you want, but the mercury ain't cooperatin'.

I see that whole thing went right over your head.

I have already demonstrated your thinking on the subject is more than a little flawed, yet you persist in not examining your beliefs or underlying assumptions, or at least giving any indications that you might be doing so.

My only question is... why do you not do that?

I must admit to more than a little bit of puzzlement about that.

DarrinS

04-15-2013, 11:30 AM

I see that whole thing went right over your head.

I have already demonstrated your thinking on the subject is more than a little flawed, yet you persist in not examining your beliefs or underlying assumptions, or at least giving any indications that you might be doing so.

My only question is... why do you not do that?

I must admit to more than a little bit of puzzlement about that.

IPCC projected temperature increase (1990 to 2012)

1990: 0.51 to 1.04 C
1996: 0.48 to 0.68 C
2001: 0.47 to 0.86 C
2007: 0.52 to 0.8C C

Observed: 0.12 to 0.16 C

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DmKiIW04Asc/UNEQHJhjNOI/AAAAAAAABc0/99rR4p4bduE/s1600/ipcc-ar5draft-fig-1-4.gif

RandomGuy

04-15-2013, 11:46 AM

Well RG, if you have made up your mind, then OK... Don't know what to do. As for me "running out of time" it was less than 1/2 before I needed to leave for work. I was going to find the studies of TSI used by the AR4. They have a range of TSI by study. If that simple modified graphic doesn't cry foul made by the alarmist climate scientists to you, then wow. Just wow...

I have aready pretty much pointed out twice here that you seem to reach a lot of definite conclusions or claim things not supported by evidence. Here and previously.

You want me to assign you credibility, when you are contradicting experts and actual scientists who have tens of thousands of hours of work in their respective fields, and attempting to show your amatuer understanding is deep enough to credibly debunk an entire body of work so thoroughly as to get me to think it is wrong, and YOU, and you alone, are right about this.

In the end, I have to figure out who to believe.

I have made up my mind, yes.

Your claims require a whole lot more evidence that you have ever been able to show. You commit pretty consistant logical fallacies, and other flawed thinking.

In the end, the climate scientists don't have to be 100% right for us to choose a course of action. That ultimately makes your critiques rather pointless.

You DON'T know better than those scientists, whether you want to admit it or not.

Those scientists are going to make mistakes. I can accept that.

You cannot.

I am willing to assign them credibility in their field.

You cannot.

You claim to want to get the science correct, but that is dissembling, as Lumpkins corrctly pointed out.

I think it is safe to say that you hate Democrats and progressives, I think to a degree that makes you somewhat irrational.

Your opinion of yourself is that you are smarter than most and are better at finding the truth than others, it would appear to me.

Since climate change is something that Democrats and progressives think is correct, you therefore MUST find some way to disprove that, not matter how intellectually vacuous your position ultimately is. The problem is that if Democrats and progressives are correct about AGW, that means they are basing their worldviews on data, sound reasoning, and good science. You are convinced they do not, by defintion, do that. This represents a problem for you, and creates cognitive dissonance. YOU are the one who is rational, and evidence driven. You cannot therefore take a stance that is not.

You are attempting to reduce your cognitive dissionance by this kind of ignorant nitpicking. You want to keep believing that your worldview is driven by data, sound reasoning, and good science, so that is why you spend so much time on disproving the work of these experts.

They MUST be wrong, because your worldview CANNOT be wrong.

This is what is going on in your head, and this is why I do not need to get far into what you are saying to show this going on.

You are, in my opinion, smarter than average. That comes with a price though. Smart people are far more capable of rationalizing their mistakes, and of doing this sort of thing to reduce cognitive bias.

That is all I really see in your posts.

If you have this much passion for it, get some education, and get doing actual science. Quit farting around in chatrooms and *do* something. :toast

Prove me wrong. Publish a few papers. Do the science.

RandomGuy

04-15-2013, 11:52 AM

IPCC projected temperature increase (1990 to 2012)

1990: 0.51 to 1.04 C
1996: 0.48 to 0.68 C
2001: 0.47 to 0.86 C
2007: 0.52 to 0.8C C

Observed: 0.12 to 0.16 C

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DmKiIW04Asc/UNEQHJhjNOI/AAAAAAAABc0/99rR4p4bduE/s1600/ipcc-ar5draft-fig-1-4.gif

SO you answer question about why you don't seem to ever evaluate your underlying assumptions even when your flawed reasoning has been clearly demonstrated to you, by regurgitating something that is, essentially, more flawed reasoning. i.e. cherrypicking?

In-fucking-credible.

I guess I should know by know when I am being trolled, so I have only myself to blame for taking you seriously for even a minute. Well-played, you got me on this.

Wild Cobra

04-15-2013, 01:22 PM

Considering the acknowledgement that the UV forcing in the upper atmosphere was lesser than you had hoped for should say something. This is not a tug of war where you get momentum and all of a sudden win, dipshit.

There is an objective reality and scientists are finding the appropriate weighting. You are running out of places to hold out hope for trivializing GHGs sold by your corporate sponsors and their proxies. You are the imperfect storm of sophistry and dumb.
My god, when will your stupidity end?

Where is it that causes you to assume such bullshit?

Link please.

Wild Cobra

04-15-2013, 01:27 PM

I have aready pretty much pointed out twice here that you seem to reach a lot of definite conclusions or claim things not supported by evidence. Here and previously.

As I said before, I will let the future's history be my judge.

You want me to assign you credibility, when you are contradicting experts and actual scientists who have tens of thousands of hours of work in their respective fields, and attempting to show your amatuer understanding is deep enough to credibly debunk an entire body of work so thoroughly as to get me to think it is wrong, and YOU, and you alone, are right about this.

I am not making the wild predictions they are. the climate sciences are still not well understood. Most of what I do is point out the fallacies they come up with. Show that they cannot be correct. I am not capable of of making their presumptuous claims. Nobody can with a strait face.

In the end, I have to figure out who to believe.

I have made up my mind, yes.

Obviously. You are not open to finding the truth.

RandomGuy

04-15-2013, 04:24 PM

Obviously. You are not open to finding the truth.

Of course I am.

I have to balance what you are trying to say with what the science says, especially what large group of scientists say about the science they themselves are actually doing.

Could you be correct about some things? Sure.

That doesn't mean your inexpert opinion outweighs that of bona fide experts.

You argue that it should, because of some nebulous unproven charges of bias, and hidden agendas, on the part of people you don't politically agree with.

Sorry, not buying it.

As I said before, the point, though, is mostly moot.

We should be limiting our CO2 emissions, and not only that it is in our economic best interests to do so.

The problem for your particular viewpoint/theory is that we will improve our understanding as time goes by. It will get harder and harder to claim that there is some coverup or that we just don't understand enough to make some reasonable predictions based on the science that actual scientists have done.

I don't require anything approaching perfection to make reasonable calls for policies that mitigate potential risks, especially when those risks have unknown probabilities and large magnitudes. It boggles my mind that you think that is necessary. It isn't.

We need to do something, and nothing you have said obviates that, because we need a lot more than your amatuer nitpicking to change that particular risk calculation.

Humanity cannot afford for you to be wrong about how bad it might get, and I personally think your "do nothing" bullshit is outright dangerously stupid.

So let's sum up:

One one hand, I have an amateur, unpublished internet guy, who I absolutely KNOW has a rather marked tendency towards logical fallacies, intellectual dishonesty, and a distinct tendency to confirmation bias, who claims:

1. Humanity is not affecting our climate at all, all the changes we see are perfectly natural and out of our control.
and
2. All those climate scientists who think we are affecting things are either lying, or too stupid enough to figure out the real truth that amateur, unpublished internet guy has discovered.
therefore,
3. We should just do nothing about our CO2 emissions, or other pollution.

On the other hand we have tens of thousands of scientists, and scientific organizations who claim:
1. Humanity is affecting our climate, quite possibly negatively, and potentially catastrophically negatively.
and
2. Therefore we should take some action to mitigate the worst potential outcomes, before it is too late to do so.

It wouldn't bother me if I wasn't in the experimental test tube with you. You could be as stupidly incorrect as you want to be, and I wouldn't be affected.

Since I am affected, I resent the hell out of it.

The costs of you being wrong far outweigh the costs of you being right, and the benefits are just as clear for doing something, over doing nothing.

MannyIsGod

04-16-2013, 01:24 AM

IPCC projected temperature increase (1990 to 2012)

1990: 0.51 to 1.04 C
1996: 0.48 to 0.68 C
2001: 0.47 to 0.86 C
2007: 0.52 to 0.8C C

Observed: 0.12 to 0.16 C

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DmKiIW04Asc/UNEQHJhjNOI/AAAAAAAABc0/99rR4p4bduE/s1600/ipcc-ar5draft-fig-1-4.gif

LOL. You're such a hack. There's no reason to believe you have a degree in any type of engineering. None. You've never displayed any type of knowledge that someone with such a degree would have. LOL software patents. Zero cred on anything scientific.

Wild Cobra

04-16-2013, 03:17 AM

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/AR5figure1-4_zpse1a13753.png

Figure 1.4: Estimated changes in the observed globally and annually averaged surface temperature (in C) since 1990 compared with the range of projections from the previous IPCC assessments. Values are aligned to match the average observed value at 1990. Observed global annual temperature change, relative to 1961–1990, is shown as black squares (NASA (updated from Hansen et al., 2010; data available at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/); NOAA (updated from Smith et al., 2008; data available at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.html#grid); and the UK Hadley Centre (Morice et al., 2012; data available at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/) reanalyses). Whiskers indicate the 90% uncertainty range of the Morice et al. (2012) dataset from measurement and sampling, bias and coverage (see Appendix for methods). The coloured shading shows the projected range of global annual mean near surface temperature change from 1990 to 2015 for models used in FAR (Scenario D and business-as-usual), SAR (IS92c/1.5 and IS92e/4.5), TAR (full range of TAR Figure 9.13(b) based on the GFDL_R15_a and DOE PCM parameter settings), and AR4 (A1B and A1T). The 90% uncertainty estimate due to observational uncertainty and internal variability based on the HadCRUT4 temperature data for 1951-1980 is depicted by the grey shading. Moreover, the publication years of the assessment reports and the scenario design are shown.

boutons_deux

04-16-2013, 07:43 AM

Summer Ice Melt On Antarctic Peninsula Is Now Nonlinear, Fastest In Over 1000 Years (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04/15/1864401/summer-ice-melt-on-antarctic-peninsula-is-now-nonlinear-fastest-in-over-1000-years/)
A new study finds “a nearly tenfold increase in melt intensity” on the Antarctic Peninsula in the last few hundred years.

Here’s the most worrisome news from this 1000-year reconstruction of ”ice-melt intensity and mean temperature” published in (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1787.html)Nature Geoscience (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1787.html):

The warming has occurred in progressive phases since about AD 1460, but intensification of melt is nonlinear, and has largely occurred since the mid-twentieth century. Summer melting is now at a level that is unprecedented over the past 1,000 years. We conclude that ice on the Antarctic Peninsula is now particularly susceptible to rapid increases in melting and loss in response to relatively small increases in mean temperature.

In short, while some mistakenly assert the climate is less sensitive than we thought, the fact is that polar ice loss is accelerating far beyond what the models had projected even a few years ago, and the whole region appears even more sensitive than previously thought.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04/15/1864401/summer-ice-melt-on-antarctic-peninsula-is-now-nonlinear-fastest-in-over-1000-years/

DarrinS

04-16-2013, 09:42 AM

LOL. You're such a hack. There's no reason to believe you have a degree in any type of engineering. None. You've never displayed any type of knowledge that someone with such a degree would have. LOL software patents. Zero cred on anything scientific.

lol, ad hominem bs.

boutons_deux

04-16-2013, 09:44 AM

lol, ad hominem bs.

absolutely not. Like most of the right-wing bubbas here, you don't even understand your side's positions, have any facts, to support your emotional/biased "positions"

DarrinS

04-16-2013, 09:47 AM