There are some very good arguments for being skeptical of global warming predictions. But the proliferation of bad arguments is becoming almost dizzying.

I understand and appreciate that many of the things we think we know in science end up being wrong. I get that. But some of the alternative
explanations I’m seeing border on the ludicrous.

So, here’s my Top 10 list of stupid skeptic arguments. I’m sure there are more, and maybe I missed a couple important ones. Oh well.

My obvious goal here is not to change minds that are already made up, which is impossible (by definition), but to reach 1,000+ (mostly nasty)
comments in response to this post. So, help me out here!

1. THERE IS NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT. Despite the fact that downwelling IR from the sky can be measured, and amounts to a level
(~300 W/m2) that can be scarcely be ignored; the neglect of which would totally screw up weather forecast model runs if it was not included;
and would lead to VERY cold nights if it didn’t exist; and can be easily measured directly with a handheld IR thermometer pointed at the sky
(because an IR thermometer measures the IR-induced temperature change of the surface of a thermopile, QED)… Please stop the “no
greenhouse effect” stuff. It’s making us skeptics look bad. I’ve blogged on this numerous times…maybe start here.

2. THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT VIOLATES THE 2ND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS. The second law can be stated in several ways, but
one way is that the net flow of energy must be from higher temperature to lower temperature. This is not violated by the greenhouse effect. The
apparent violation of the 2nd Law seems to be traced to the fact that all bodies emit IR radiation…including cooler bodies toward warmer
bodies. But the NET flow of thermal radiation is still from the warmer body to the cooler body. Even if you don’t believe there is 2-way flow, and
only 1-way flow…the rate of flow depends upon the temperature of both bodies, and changing the cooler body’s temperature will change the
cooling rate (and thus the temperature) of the warmer body. So, yes, a cooler body can make a warm body even warmer still…as evidenced by
putting your clothes on.

3. CO2 CANT CAUSE WARMING BECAUSE CO2 EMITS IR AS FAST AS IT ABSORBS. No. When a CO2 molecule absorbs an IR photon,
the mean free path within the atmosphere is so short that the molecule gives up its energy to surrounding molecules before it can (on average)
emit an IR photon in its temporarily excited state. See more here. Also important is the fact that the rate at which a CO2 molecule absorbs IR is
mostly independent of temperature, but the rate at which it emits IR increases strongly with temperature. There is no requirement that a layer of
air emits as much IR as it absorbs…in fact, in general, the the rates of IR emission and absorption are pretty far from equal.

4. CO2 COOLS, NOT WARMS, THE ATMOSPHERE. This one is a little more subtle because the net effect of greenhouse gases is to cool
the upper atmosphere, and warm the lower atmosphere, compared to if no greenhouse gases were present. Since any IR absorber is also an
IR emitter, a CO2 molecule can both cool and warm, because it both absorbs and emits IR photons.

5. ADDING CO2 TO THE ATMOSPHERE HAS NO EFFECT BECAUSE THE CO2 ABSORPTION BANDS ARE ALREADY 100% OPAQUE.
First, no they are not, and that’s because of pressure broadening. Second, even if the atmosphere was 100% opaque, it doesn’t matter. Here’s
why.

6. LOWER ATMOSPHERIC WARMTH IS DUE TO THE LAPSE RATE/ADIABATIC COMPRESSION. No, the lapse rate describes how the
temperature of a parcel of air changes from adiabatic compression/expansion of air as it sinks/rises. So, it can explain how the temperature
changes during convective overturning, but not what the absolute temperature is. Explaining absolute air temperature is an energy budget
question. You cannot write a physics-based equation to obtain the average temperature at any altitude without using the energy budget. If
adiabatic compression explains temperature, why is the atmospheric temperature at 100 mb is nearly the same as the temperature at 1 mb,
despite 100x as much atmospheric pressure? More about all this here.

7. WARMING CAUSES CO2 TO RISE, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND The rate of rise in atmospheric CO2 is currently 2 ppm/yr, a rate
which is 100 times as fast as any time in the 300,000 year Vostok ice core record. And we know our consumption of fossil fuels is emitting CO2
200 times as fast! So, where is the 100x as fast rise in today’s temperature causing this CO2 rise? C’mon people, think. But not to worry…CO2
is the elixir of life…let’s embrace more of it!

8. THE IPCC MODELS ARE FOR A FLAT EARTH I have no explanation where this little tidbit of misinformation comes from. Climate models
address a spherical, rotating, Earth with a day-night (diurnal) cycle in solar illumination and atmospheric Coriolis force (due to both Earth
curvature and rotation). Yes, you can do a global average of energy flows and show them in a flat-earth cartoon, like the Kiehl-Trenberth energy
budget diagram which is a useful learning tool, but I hope most thinking people can distinguish between a handful of global-average average
numbers in a conceptual diagram, and a full-blown 3D global climate model.

9. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE Really?! Is there an average temperature of your bathtub full of
water? Or of a room in your house? Now, we might argue over how to do the averaging (Spatial? Mass-weighted?), but you can compute an
average, and you can monitor it over time, and see if it changes. The exercise is only futile if your sampling isn’t good enough to realistically
monitor changes over time. Just because we don’t know the average surface temperature of the Earth to better than, say 1 deg. C, doesn’t
mean we can’t monitor changes in the average over time. We have never known exactly how many people are in the U.S., but we have useful
estimates of how the number has increased in the last 50-100 years. Why is “temperature” so important? Because the thermal IR emission in
response to temperature is what stabilizes the climate system….the hotter things get, the more energy is lost to outer space.

10. THE EARTH ISN’T A BLACK BODY. Well, duh. No one said it was. In the broadband IR, though, it’s close to a blackbody, with an average
emissivity of around 0.95. But whether a climate model uses 0.95 or 1.0 for surface emissivity isn’t going to change the conclusions we make
about the sensitivity of the climate system to increasing carbon dioxide.

I’m sure I could come up with a longer list than this, but these were the main issues that came to mind.

So why am I trying to stir up a hornets nest (again)? Because when skeptics embrace “science” that is worse that the IPCC’s science, we hurt
our credibility.

NOTE: Because of the large number of negative comments this post will generate, please excuse me if I don’t respond to every one. Or even
very many of them. But if I see a new point being made I haven’t addressed before, I’ll be more likely to respond.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/

Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research
Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center,
where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with
satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on
NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.

Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil
company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.

The_observer said:

There are some very good arguments for being skeptical of global warming predictions. But the proliferation of bad arguments is becoming almost dizzying.

I understand and appreciate that many of the things we think we know in science end up being wrong. I get that. But some of the alternative
explanations I’m seeing border on the ludicrous.

So, here’s my Top 10 list of stupid skeptic arguments. I’m sure there are more, and maybe I missed a couple important ones. Oh well.

My obvious goal here is not to change minds that are already made up, which is impossible (by definition), but to reach 1,000+ (mostly nasty)
comments in response to this post. So, help me out here!

1. THERE IS NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT. Despite the fact that downwelling IR from the sky can be measured, and amounts to a level
(~300 W/m2) that can be scarcely be ignored; the neglect of which would totally screw up weather forecast model runs if it was not included;
and would lead to VERY cold nights if it didn’t exist; and can be easily measured directly with a handheld IR thermometer pointed at the sky
(because an IR thermometer measures the IR-induced temperature change of the surface of a thermopile, QED)… Please stop the “no
greenhouse effect” stuff. It’s making us skeptics look bad. I’ve blogged on this numerous times…maybe start here.

2. THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT VIOLATES THE 2ND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS. The second law can be stated in several ways, but
one way is that the net flow of energy must be from higher temperature to lower temperature. This is not violated by the greenhouse effect. The
apparent violation of the 2nd Law seems to be traced to the fact that all bodies emit IR radiation…including cooler bodies toward warmer
bodies. But the NET flow of thermal radiation is still from the warmer body to the cooler body. Even if you don’t believe there is 2-way flow, and
only 1-way flow…the rate of flow depends upon the temperature of both bodies, and changing the cooler body’s temperature will change the
cooling rate (and thus the temperature) of the warmer body. So, yes, a cooler body can make a warm body even warmer still…as evidenced by
putting your clothes on.

3. CO2 CANT CAUSE WARMING BECAUSE CO2 EMITS IR AS FAST AS IT ABSORBS. No. When a CO2 molecule absorbs an IR photon,
the mean free path within the atmosphere is so short that the molecule gives up its energy to surrounding molecules before it can (on average)
emit an IR photon in its temporarily excited state. See more here. Also important is the fact that the rate at which a CO2 molecule absorbs IR is
mostly independent of temperature, but the rate at which it emits IR increases strongly with temperature. There is no requirement that a layer of
air emits as much IR as it absorbs…in fact, in general, the the rates of IR emission and absorption are pretty far from equal.

4. CO2 COOLS, NOT WARMS, THE ATMOSPHERE. This one is a little more subtle because the net effect of greenhouse gases is to cool
the upper atmosphere, and warm the lower atmosphere, compared to if no greenhouse gases were present. Since any IR absorber is also an
IR emitter, a CO2 molecule can both cool and warm, because it both absorbs and emits IR photons.

5. ADDING CO2 TO THE ATMOSPHERE HAS NO EFFECT BECAUSE THE CO2 ABSORPTION BANDS ARE ALREADY 100% OPAQUE.
First, no they are not, and that’s because of pressure broadening. Second, even if the atmosphere was 100% opaque, it doesn’t matter. Here’s
why.

6. LOWER ATMOSPHERIC WARMTH IS DUE TO THE LAPSE RATE/ADIABATIC COMPRESSION. No, the lapse rate describes how the
temperature of a parcel of air changes from adiabatic compression/expansion of air as it sinks/rises. So, it can explain how the temperature
changes during convective overturning, but not what the absolute temperature is. Explaining absolute air temperature is an energy budget
question. You cannot write a physics-based equation to obtain the average temperature at any altitude without using the energy budget. If
adiabatic compression explains temperature, why is the atmospheric temperature at 100 mb is nearly the same as the temperature at 1 mb,
despite 100x as much atmospheric pressure? More about all this here.

7. WARMING CAUSES CO2 TO RISE, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND The rate of rise in atmospheric CO2 is currently 2 ppm/yr, a rate
which is 100 times as fast as any time in the 300,000 year Vostok ice core record. And we know our consumption of fossil fuels is emitting CO2
200 times as fast! So, where is the 100x as fast rise in today’s temperature causing this CO2 rise? C’mon people, think. But not to worry…CO2
is the elixir of life…let’s embrace more of it!

8. THE IPCC MODELS ARE FOR A FLAT EARTH I have no explanation where this little tidbit of misinformation comes from. Climate models
address a spherical, rotating, Earth with a day-night (diurnal) cycle in solar illumination and atmospheric Coriolis force (due to both Earth
curvature and rotation). Yes, you can do a global average of energy flows and show them in a flat-earth cartoon, like the Kiehl-Trenberth energy
budget diagram which is a useful learning tool, but I hope most thinking people can distinguish between a handful of global-average average
numbers in a conceptual diagram, and a full-blown 3D global climate model.

9. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE Really?! Is there an average temperature of your bathtub full of
water? Or of a room in your house? Now, we might argue over how to do the averaging (Spatial? Mass-weighted?), but you can compute an
average, and you can monitor it over time, and see if it changes. The exercise is only futile if your sampling isn’t good enough to realistically
monitor changes over time. Just because we don’t know the average surface temperature of the Earth to better than, say 1 deg. C, doesn’t
mean we can’t monitor changes in the average over time. We have never known exactly how many people are in the U.S., but we have useful
estimates of how the number has increased in the last 50-100 years. Why is “temperature” so important? Because the thermal IR emission in
response to temperature is what stabilizes the climate system….the hotter things get, the more energy is lost to outer space.

10. THE EARTH ISN’T A BLACK BODY. Well, duh. No one said it was. In the broadband IR, though, it’s close to a blackbody, with an average
emissivity of around 0.95. But whether a climate model uses 0.95 or 1.0 for surface emissivity isn’t going to change the conclusions we make
about the sensitivity of the climate system to increasing carbon dioxide.

I’m sure I could come up with a longer list than this, but these were the main issues that came to mind.

So why am I trying to stir up a hornets nest (again)? Because when skeptics embrace “science” that is worse that the IPCC’s science, we hurt
our credibility.

NOTE: Because of the large number of negative comments this post will generate, please excuse me if I don’t respond to every one. Or even
very many of them. But if I see a new point being made I haven’t addressed before, I’ll be more likely to respond.

Fact: co2 is a greenhouse gas.
Fact: greenhouse gases reduce the sun’s energy being reflected back out to space.
Fact: as more of the sun’s energy becomes trapped by greenhouse gasses the earth warms.
Fact: many past mass extinction events have been caused by a rapid increase of co2 and methane, resulting in large temperature increases and mass extinction.
Fact: humans are burning billions of tons of co2 that is adding to the greenhouse effect and temperature increases.

The above are the result of much research and there is absolutely no dispute of them not being factual.

¿ʇႡƃ!uoʇ uo ʇuәɯɯoɔ әʞɐɯ oʇ ƃu ƃu!Ⴁʇʎuɐ ʇoƃ әuoʎuɐ

So you are happy to accept that utter bullshit without actually doing any research yourself?

>But if I see a new point being made I haven’t addressed before, I’ll be more likely to respond

.

>>> Fact: co2 is a greenhouse gas.<<<. . . . . gee, give him a lollipop

>>> Fact: greenhouse gases reduce the sun’s energy being reflected back out to space.<<<
Completely wrong, shows ignorance

>>>> Fact: as more of the sun’s energy becomes trapped by greenhouse gasses the earth warms.<<<<
Greenhouse gasses do not “trap” the suns energy, CO2 molecules absorb & emit IR radiation.

>>>> Fact: many past mass extinction events have been caused by a rapid increase of co2 and methane, resulting in large temperature increases and mass extinction.<<<<
Quote – It’s normal for a species to go extinct, but occasionally many thousands go extinct at the same time in a ‘mass extinction’ – here are ten >>>possible<<<< causes.

On co2
SUPER VOLCANO
are giant eruptions of lava that can last a million years and cover a million km2 of the surface. Supervolcanoes give off trillions of tonnes of
carbon dioxide,>>>> sulphur dioxide, fluorine and chlorine. <<<<
Super volcanoes have been cited as >>>possible<<< cause for mass extinction events at the
end of the Permian, Triassic, and Cretaceous periods.

on methane
PLANETARY BELCH
Huge quantities of the greenhouse gas methane are trapped in solids called clathrates in the oceans and permafrost.
Experts predict that a sudden release, perhaps caused by an >>>undersea landslide or an asteroid<<< strike, >>could<<< cause catastrophic global
warming.

>>> Fact: humans are burning billions of tons of co2 <<<

Atmospheric co2 has risen from 2.8 parts per 10,000 to 3.9 parts per 10,000 as a direct effect of industrialization.

>>> that is adding to the greenhouse effect and temperature increases.<<<

That is like saying ‘how long is a piece of string.’

Facts;
CO2 climate sensitivity has a component directly due to radiative forcing by CO2, and a further contribution arising from *feedbacks, positive
and negative*. “Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (2 x CO2), which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2, would result in 1°C global
warming.”

ΔF = radiative forcing (change in energy balance) W/m2

ΔF = 5.35 × 1n C/CO W/m2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
C = atmospheric CO2 concentration ppmv (2 x CO2 = 560 ppm)
CO = pre-industrial concentration of CO2 (280 ppm)

ΔF = 5.35 × 1n 560/280 = 3.7 W/m2
3.7 W/m2 × 0.3°C = 1°C

With IPCC’s feedbacks (hypothesis is strong net positive feedback)

IPCC reports, equilibrium climate sensitivity refers to the equilibrium change in global mean near-surface air temperature that would result from
a sustained doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration This value is estimated, by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) as likely to
be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C
(the latest report has changed the range to 1.5 to 4.5 and given no best guess)

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-2-3.html
8.6.2.3 What Explains the Current Spread in Models’ Climate Sensitivity Estimates?

In AOGCMs, the water vapour feedback constitutes by far the strongest feedback, with a multi-model mean and standard deviation for the MMD
at PCMDI of 1.80 ± 0.18 W m–2 °C–1, followed by the (negative) lapse rate feedback (–0.84 ± 0.26 W m–2 °C–1) and the surface albedo
feedback (0.26 ± 0.08 W m–2 °C–1). The cloud feedback mean is 0.69 W m–2 °C–1 with a very large inter-model spread of ±0.38 W m–2 °C–1
(Soden and Held, 2006).

Because the water vapour and temperature responses are tightly coupled in the troposphere (see Section 8.6.3.1), *models with a larger
(negative) lapse rate feedback also have a larger (positive) water vapour feedback.* These act to offset each other (see Box 8.1). As a result, it
is more reasonable to consider the sum of water vapour and lapse rate feedbacks as a single quantity when analysing the causes of inter-
model variability in climate sensitivity.

Fact:
Observations
- Lapse rate feedback is not negative, but positive.
-water vapour feedback is not positive, but negative
Fact: Net feedbacks are negative resulting in 2 x CO2 = < 1°C

http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/mmh_asl2010.pdf
Panel and Multivariate Methods for Tests of
Trend Equivalence in Climate Data Series
Ross McKitrick Stephen McIntyre Chad Herman
In press, Atmospheric Science Letters

Abstract
We explain panel and multivariate regressions for comparing trends in climate data sets. They impose minimal restrictions on the covariance
matrix and can embed multiple linear comparisons, which is a convenience in applied work. We present applications comparing post-1979
modeled and observed temperature trends in the tropical lower- and midtroposphere.

Over the interval 1979 to 2009, *model-projected temperature trends are two
to four times larger than observed trends in both the lower and mid-troposphere and the differences are statistically significant at the 99% level.*

Note. The missing tropospheric “hot spot” in satellite temperature trends is potentially related to water vapor feedback. One of the most robust
feedback relationships across the IPCC climate models is that those models with the strongest positive water vapor feedback have the
strongest negative lapse rate feedback (which is what the “hot spot” would represent). So, the lack of this negative lapse rate feedback
signature in the satellite temperature trends is an indirect indication of little (or even negative) water vapor feedback in n

>>>So you are happy to accept that utter bullshit without actually doing any research yourself?<<<

if you were talking to me you obviously didn’t read the thread

Top Ten Good Skeptical Arguments

May 1st, 2014

Dr Roy Spencer
As suggested by a friend, I’m following up my Top Ten bad global warming arguments list with a Top Ten good arguments list. These are in no
particular order, and I might have missed something important.

These ten were just off the top of my head….there’s no telling what might be lingering deeper in my brain.

I have avoided specific alternative causal mechanisms of natural climate change, because I view them individually as speculative. But taken as
a whole, they represent a class of unknowns that can’t be just swept under the rug just because we don’t understand them.

For some reason, all of these ended up being phrased as questions, rather than statements.

1) No Recent Warming. If global warming science is so “settled”, why did global warming stop over 15 years ago (in most temperature
datasets), contrary to all “consensus” predictions?

2) Natural or Manmade? If we don’t know how much of the warming in the longer term (say last 50 years) is natural, then how can we know
how much is manmade?

3) IPCC Politics and Beliefs. Why does it take a political body (the IPCC) to tell us what scientists “believe”? And when did scientists’ “beliefs”
translate into proof? And when was scientific truth determined by a vote…especially when those allowed to vote are from the Global Warming
Believers Party?

4) Climate Models Can’t Even Hindcast How did climate modelers, who already knew the answer, still fail to explain the lack of a significant
temperature rise over the last 30+ years? In other words, how to you botch a hindcast?

5) …But We Should Believe Model Forecasts? Why should we believe model predictions of the future, when they can’t even explain the past?

6) Modelers Lie About Their “Physics”. Why do modelers insist their models are based upon established physics, but then hide the fact that
the strong warming their models produce is actually based upon very uncertain “fudge factor” tuning?

7) Is Warming Even Bad? Who decided that a small amount of warming is necessarily a bad thing?

8) Is CO2 Bad? How did carbon dioxide, necessary for life on Earth and only 4 parts in 10,000 of our atmosphere, get rebranded as some
sort of dangerous gas?

9) Do We Look that Stupid? How do scientists expect to be taken seriously when their “theory” is supported by both floods AND droughts?
Too much snow AND too little snow?

10) Selective Pseudo-Explanations. How can scientists claim that the Medieval Warm Period (which lasted hundreds of years), was just a
regional fluke…yet claim the single-summer (2003) heat wave in Europe had global significance?

11) (Spinal Tap bonus) Just How Warm is it, Really? Why is it that every subsequent modification/adjustment to the global thermometer data
leads to even more warming? What are the chances of that? Either a warmer-still present, or cooling down the past, both of which produce a
greater warming trend over time. And none of the adjustments take out a gradual urban heat island (UHI) warming around thermometer sites,
which likely exists at virtually all of them — because no one yet knows a good way to do that.

NOTE: I’ve been thinking about why my “bad arguments” post involved statements, but my “good arguments” post involves all questions. I think
it’s because the bad arguments (I attempt to debunk) always seem to be posed as facts, which the believers seem to have complete faith in. In
contrast, the “good arguments” are posed as questions because of the inherent uncertainty of the whole global warming issue…the IPCC
states so many things as facts, yet there are usually alternative explanations they don’t discuss.

Kingy said:

So you are happy to accept that utter bullshit without actually doing any research yourself?

What bullshit are you talking about Kingy?

The piece in the OP presents genuinely sceptical discussion of some of the sillier points raised by the pseudo-sceptics. I don’t see anything wrong with it.

The_observer said:

>>> Fact: co2 is a greenhouse gas.<<<. . . . . gee, give him a lollipop

>>> Fact: greenhouse gases reduce the sun’s energy being reflected back out to space.<<<
Completely wrong, shows ignorance

>>>> Fact: as more of the sun’s energy becomes trapped by greenhouse gasses the earth warms.<<<<
Greenhouse gasses do not “trap” the suns energy, CO2 molecules absorb & emit IR radiation.

>>>> Fact: many past mass extinction events have been caused by a rapid increase of co2 and methane, resulting in large temperature increases and mass extinction.<<<<
Quote – It’s normal for a species to go extinct, but occasionally many thousands go extinct at the same time in a ‘mass extinction’ – here are ten >>>possible<<<< causes.

On co2
SUPER VOLCANO
are giant eruptions of lava that can last a million years and cover a million km2 of the surface. Supervolcanoes give off trillions of tonnes of
carbon dioxide,>>>> sulphur dioxide, fluorine and chlorine. <<<<
Super volcanoes have been cited as >>>possible<<< cause for mass extinction events at the
end of the Permian, Triassic, and Cretaceous periods.

on methane
PLANETARY BELCH
Huge quantities of the greenhouse gas methane are trapped in solids called clathrates in the oceans and permafrost.
Experts predict that a sudden release, perhaps caused by an >>>undersea landslide or an asteroid<<< strike, >>could<<< cause catastrophic global
warming.

>>> Fact: humans are burning billions of tons of co2 <<<

Atmospheric co2 has risen from 2.8 parts per 10,000 to 3.9 parts per 10,000 as a direct effect of industrialization.

>>> that is adding to the greenhouse effect and temperature increases.<<<

That is like saying ‘how long is a piece of string.’

Facts;
CO2 climate sensitivity has a component directly due to radiative forcing by CO2, and a further contribution arising from *feedbacks, positive
and negative*. “Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (2 x CO2), which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2, would result in 1°C global
warming.”

ΔF = radiative forcing (change in energy balance) W/m2

ΔF = 5.35 × 1n C/CO W/m2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
C = atmospheric CO2 concentration ppmv (2 x CO2 = 560 ppm)
CO = pre-industrial concentration of CO2 (280 ppm)

ΔF = 5.35 × 1n 560/280 = 3.7 W/m2
3.7 W/m2 × 0.3°C = 1°C

With IPCC’s feedbacks (hypothesis is strong net positive feedback)

IPCC reports, equilibrium climate sensitivity refers to the equilibrium change in global mean near-surface air temperature that would result from
a sustained doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration This value is estimated, by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) as likely to
be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C
(the latest report has changed the range to 1.5 to 4.5 and given no best guess)

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-2-3.html
8.6.2.3 What Explains the Current Spread in Models’ Climate Sensitivity Estimates?

In AOGCMs, the water vapour feedback constitutes by far the strongest feedback, with a multi-model mean and standard deviation for the MMD
at PCMDI of 1.80 ± 0.18 W m–2 °C–1, followed by the (negative) lapse rate feedback (–0.84 ± 0.26 W m–2 °C–1) and the surface albedo
feedback (0.26 ± 0.08 W m–2 °C–1). The cloud feedback mean is 0.69 W m–2 °C–1 with a very large inter-model spread of ±0.38 W m–2 °C–1
(Soden and Held, 2006).

Because the water vapour and temperature responses are tightly coupled in the troposphere (see Section 8.6.3.1), *models with a larger
(negative) lapse rate feedback also have a larger (positive) water vapour feedback.* These act to offset each other (see Box 8.1). As a result, it
is more reasonable to consider the sum of water vapour and lapse rate feedbacks as a single quantity when analysing the causes of inter-
model variability in climate sensitivity.

Fact:
Observations
- Lapse rate feedback is not negative, but positive.
-water vapour feedback is not positive, but negative
Fact: Net feedbacks are negative resulting in 2 x CO2 = < 1°C

http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/mmh_asl2010.pdf
Panel and Multivariate Methods for Tests of
Trend Equivalence in Climate Data Series
Ross McKitrick Stephen McIntyre Chad Herman
In press, Atmospheric Science Letters

Abstract
We explain panel and multivariate regressions for comparing trends in climate data sets. They impose minimal restrictions on the covariance
matrix and can embed multiple linear comparisons, which is a convenience in applied work. We present applications comparing post-1979
modeled and observed temperature trends in the tropical lower- and midtroposphere.

Over the interval 1979 to 2009, *model-projected temperature trends are two
to four times larger than observed trends in both the lower and mid-troposphere and the differences are statistically significant at the 99% level.*

Note. The missing tropospheric “hot spot” in satellite temperature trends is potentially related to water vapor feedback. One of the most robust
feedback relationships across the IPCC climate models is that those models with the strongest positive water vapor feedback have the
strongest negative lapse rate feedback (which is what the “hot spot” would represent). So, the lack of this negative lapse rate feedback
signature in the satellite temperature trends is an indirect indication of little (or even negative) water vapor feedback in n

I wish you a very long life Observer, so you might personally witness the carnage you have helped create.

Here you are Observer, learn something or argue to your hearts content.

http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrnd95/globwarm.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Here you are Observer, learn something or argue to your hearts content.
<<<<<

Lets recap

Facts;
CO2 climate sensitivity has
A. - a component directly due to radiative forcing by CO2
B. - and a further contribution arising from *feedbacks, (positive) and (negative)

“Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (2 x CO2), which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2, would result in 1°C global warming.”

So; Three possible scenarios:
1. – net (positive) feedback would enhance the effect of radiative forcing by CO2 resulting in 2 x CO2 = > 1°C
2. – net (neutral) feedback would result in 2 x CO2 = 1°C
3. – net (negative) feedback would diminish the effect of radiative forcing by CO2 resulting in 2 x CO2 = < 1°C

The IPCC’s hypothesis – strong net positive feedback: 2 x CO2 = 3 °C …. (best guess prior to last assessment).

>>> 3 °C <<< . . .why? . . . Because of (positive) water vapour feedback!

The IPCC states –
“In Models, the water vapour feedback constitutes by far the strongest (positive) feedback.
“models with a larger (positive) water vapour feedback also have a larger (negative) lapse rate feedback

Why?

“Because the water vapour and temperature responses are tightly coupled in the troposphere”.

(negative) lapse rate feedback, simply put in relation to the above, means the rate of warming in the mid troposphere would be faster than the
rate of warming in the atmosphere below it (surface).

Let’s see how that has panned out.

RSS Temperature Middle Troposphere (TMT) Anomalies – 1979 to Present
Trend: 0.077k/decade

.
.
RSS Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT) – 1979 to Present
Trend: 0.124 k/decade

So;

The rate of warming in the mid troposphere has not been faster than in the atmosphere below it.
The rate of warming in the mid troposphere has actually been slower than in the atmosphere below it, suggesting the lapse rate feedback is
positive.
This is opposite to IPCC hypothesis.

Why?

Because there has been NO (positive) water vapour feedback!

Remember what the IPCC model’s say; – “In Models, the water vapour feedback constitutes by far the strongest (positive) feedback.”
&
“the stronger the (positive) water vapour feedback the stronger the (negative) lapse rate feedback.”

Satellite & radiosonde measurements have both shown that atmospheric water vapour content has not increased (positive feedback), & may
have actually, like stratospheric water vapour content, decreased.

This leaves two scenarios
2. – net (neutral) feedback, resulting in 2 x CO2 = 1°C
3. – net (negative) feedback diminishing the effect of radiative forcing by CO2 resulting in 2 x CO2 = < 1°C

The_observer said:

Here you are Observer, learn something or argue to your hearts content.
<<<<<

Lets recap

Facts;
CO2 climate sensitivity has
A. - a component directly due to radiative forcing by CO2
B. - and a further contribution arising from *feedbacks, (positive) and (negative)

“Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (2 x CO2), which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2, would result in 1°C global warming.”

So; Three possible scenarios:
1. – net (positive) feedback would enhance the effect of radiative forcing by CO2 resulting in 2 x CO2 = > 1°C
2. – net (neutral) feedback would result in 2 x CO2 = 1°C
3. – net (negative) feedback would diminish the effect of radiative forcing by CO2 resulting in 2 x CO2 = < 1°C

The IPCC’s hypothesis – strong net positive feedback: 2 x CO2 = 3 °C …. (best guess prior to last assessment).

>>> 3 °C <<< . . .why? . . . Because of (positive) water vapour feedback!

The IPCC states –
“In Models, the water vapour feedback constitutes by far the strongest (positive) feedback.
“models with a larger (positive) water vapour feedback also have a larger (negative) lapse rate feedback

Why?

“Because the water vapour and temperature responses are tightly coupled in the troposphere”.

(negative) lapse rate feedback, simply put in relation to the above, means the rate of warming in the mid troposphere would be faster than the
rate of warming in the atmosphere below it (surface).

Let’s see how that has panned out.

RSS Temperature Middle Troposphere (TMT) Anomalies – 1979 to Present
Trend: 0.077k/decade

.
.
RSS Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT) – 1979 to Present
Trend: 0.124 k/decade

So;

The rate of warming in the mid troposphere has not been faster than in the atmosphere below it.
The rate of warming in the mid troposphere has actually been slower than in the atmosphere below it, suggesting the lapse rate feedback is
positive.
This is opposite to IPCC hypothesis.

Why?

Because there has been NO (positive) water vapour feedback!

Remember what the IPCC model’s say; – “In Models, the water vapour feedback constitutes by far the strongest (positive) feedback.”
&
“the stronger the (positive) water vapour feedback the stronger the (negative) lapse rate feedback.”

Satellite & radiosonde measurements have both shown that atmospheric water vapour content has not increased (positive feedback), & may
have actually, like stratospheric water vapour content, decreased.

This leaves two scenarios
2. – net (neutral) feedback, resulting in 2 x CO2 = 1°C
3. – net (negative) feedback diminishing the effect of radiative forcing by CO2 resulting in 2 x CO2 = < 1°C

Debating with you Observer is like playing chess with a pigeon; it knocks all the pieces over, craps all over the board, then flies off thinking it won the game.

New paper finds transient climate sensitivity to CO2 is ~35% less than IPCC claims
Posted on May 8, 2014 by Anthony Watts
From The Hockey Schtick:

A paper under discussion for Earth System Dynamics finds the transient climate response to CO2 is 1.3°C per doubling of CO2 levels,
about 35% less than claimed by the IPCC mean estimate and the same as determined by another recent paper by Otto et al finding a TCR of 1.3°C.

Impact of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) on deriving anthropogenic warming rates
from the instrumental temperature record

G. R. van der Werf and A. J. Dolman

VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Abstract.

The instrumental surface air temperature record has been used in several statistical studies to assess the relative role of natural and
anthropogenic drivers of climate change. The results of those studies varied considerably, with anthropogenic temperature trends over the past
25–30 years suggested to range from 0.07 to 0.20 °C decade−1. In this short communication we assess the origin of these differences and
highlight the inverse relation between the derived anthropogenic temperature trend of the past 30 years and the weight given to the Atlantic
Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) as an explanatory factor in the multiple linear regression (MLR) tool that is usually employed. We highlight that
robust MLR outcomes require a better understanding of the AMO in general and more specifically its characterization. Our results indicate that
both the high- and low end of the anthropogenic trend over the past 30 years found in previous studies are unlikely and that a transient climate
response with best estimates centred around 1.3 °C per CO2 doubling best captures the historic instrumental temperature record.

Citation: van der Werf, G. R. and Dolman, A. J.: Impact of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) on deriving anthropogenic warming rates
from the instrumental temperature record, Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss., 5, 529-544, doi:10.5194/esdd-5-529-2014, 2014.

The_observer said:

New paper finds transient climate sensitivity to CO2 is ~35% less than IPCC claims
Posted on May 8, 2014 by Anthony Watts
From The Hockey Schtick:

A paper under discussion for Earth System Dynamics finds the transient climate response to CO2 is 1.3°C per doubling of CO2 levels,
about 35% less than claimed by the IPCC mean estimate and the same as determined by another recent paper by Otto et al finding a TCR of 1.3°C.

Impact of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) on deriving anthropogenic warming rates
from the instrumental temperature record

G. R. van der Werf and A. J. Dolman

VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Abstract.

The instrumental surface air temperature record has been used in several statistical studies to assess the relative role of natural and
anthropogenic drivers of climate change. The results of those studies varied considerably, with anthropogenic temperature trends over the past
25–30 years suggested to range from 0.07 to 0.20 °C decade−1. In this short communication we assess the origin of these differences and
highlight the inverse relation between the derived anthropogenic temperature trend of the past 30 years and the weight given to the Atlantic
Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) as an explanatory factor in the multiple linear regression (MLR) tool that is usually employed. We highlight that
robust MLR outcomes require a better understanding of the AMO in general and more specifically its characterization. Our results indicate that
both the high- and low end of the anthropogenic trend over the past 30 years found in previous studies are unlikely and that a transient climate
response with best estimates centred around 1.3 °C per CO2 doubling best captures the historic instrumental temperature record.

Citation: van der Werf, G. R. and Dolman, A. J.: Impact of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) on deriving anthropogenic warming rates
from the instrumental temperature record, Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss., 5, 529-544, doi:10.5194/esdd-5-529-2014, 2014.

What’s that in the sky?
Is it a plane?
Is it a UFO?
No, it’s a pigeon!

:))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

The Global Warming Policy Foundation is pleased to announce that Professor Lennart Bengtsson, one of Sweden’s leading climate scientists,
has joined the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council.

“My interest i climate science and in weather prediction has always been driven by scientific curiosity and I have increasingly been disturbed by
the strong tendencies to politization that has taken place in climate research in recent years. I believe most serious scientists are sceptics and
are particularly frustrated that we are not able to properly validate climate change simulations. I have always tried to follow the philosophy of Karl
Popper that I believe is particularly important when you are dealing with complex systems of which the climate system is a primary example.
For this reason empirical evidence is absolutely essential.

“The warming of the climate system since the end of the 19th century has been very modest by some ¾°C in spite of the simultaneous
increase in greenhouse gas forcing by 2.5-3 W/m2.

“I am concerned that this as well as the lack of ocean surface warming in some 17 years has not been properly recognized by IPCC. Nor have
the cooling and increase in sea ice around Antarctica been properly recognized. Climate science must be focussed to understand such
matters much better and for this reason it is appropriate to have an open mind and not follow the IPCC as believers of a religious faith.”

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Professor Lennart Bengtsson has a long and distinguished international career in meteorology and climate research. He participated actively in
the development of ECMWF (European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasting) where he was Head of Research 1975-1981 and
Director 1982-1990. In 1991-2000 he was Director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. Since 2000 he has been professor at
the University of Reading and from 2008 the Director of the International Space Science Institute in Bern, Switzerland.

Professor Bengtsson has received many awards including the German Environmental Reward, The Descartes Price by the EU and the IMI
price from the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO). He is member of many academies and societies and is honorary member of the
American Meteorological Society, the Royal Meteorological Society and European Geophysical Union. His research work covers some 225
publications in the field of meteorology and climatology. In recent years he has been involved with climate and energy policy issues at the
Swedish Academy of Sciences.

Professor Lennart Bengtsson

“I believe the whole climate consensus debate is silly. There is not a single well educated scientist that question that greenhouse gases do affect
climate. However, this is not the issue but rather how much and how fast. Here there is no consensus as you can see from the IPCC report where
climate sensitivity varies with a factor of three! Based on observational data climate sensitivity is clearly rather small and much smaller that the
majority of models. Here I intend to stick to Karl Popper in highlighting the need for proper validation.”

The_observer said:

The Global Warming Policy Foundation is pleased to announce that Professor Lennart Bengtsson, one of Sweden’s leading climate scientists,
has joined the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council.

“My interest i climate science and in weather prediction has always been driven by scientific curiosity and I have increasingly been disturbed by
the strong tendencies to politization that has taken place in climate research in recent years. I believe most serious scientists are sceptics and
are particularly frustrated that we are not able to properly validate climate change simulations. I have always tried to follow the philosophy of Karl
Popper that I believe is particularly important when you are dealing with complex systems of which the climate system is a primary example.
For this reason empirical evidence is absolutely essential.

“The warming of the climate system since the end of the 19th century has been very modest by some ¾°C in spite of the simultaneous
increase in greenhouse gas forcing by 2.5-3 W/m2.

“I am concerned that this as well as the lack of ocean surface warming in some 17 years has not been properly recognized by IPCC. Nor have
the cooling and increase in sea ice around Antarctica been properly recognized. Climate science must be focussed to understand such
matters much better and for this reason it is appropriate to have an open mind and not follow the IPCC as believers of a religious faith.”

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Professor Lennart Bengtsson has a long and distinguished international career in meteorology and climate research. He participated actively in
the development of ECMWF (European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasting) where he was Head of Research 1975-1981 and
Director 1982-1990. In 1991-2000 he was Director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. Since 2000 he has been professor at
the University of Reading and from 2008 the Director of the International Space Science Institute in Bern, Switzerland.

Professor Bengtsson has received many awards including the German Environmental Reward, The Descartes Price by the EU and the IMI
price from the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO). He is member of many academies and societies and is honorary member of the
American Meteorological Society, the Royal Meteorological Society and European Geophysical Union. His research work covers some 225
publications in the field of meteorology and climatology. In recent years he has been involved with climate and energy policy issues at the
Swedish Academy of Sciences.

I think The_observer is flicking through his Denier’s Handbook to flood the forum with bird seed. But don’t panic, this is what he does when his pigeons wont work.

PermeateFree said:

I think The_observer is flicking through his Denier’s Handbook to flood the forum with bird seed. But don’t panic, this is what he does when his pigeons wont work.

Why don’t you stop feeding him then?

The_observer said:

Professor Lennart Bengtsson

“I believe the whole climate consensus debate is silly. There is not a single well educated scientist that question that greenhouse gases do affect
climate. However, this is not the issue but rather how much and how fast. Here there is no consensus as you can see from the IPCC report where
climate sensitivity varies with a factor of three! Based on observational data climate sensitivity is clearly rather small and much smaller that the
majority of models. Here I intend to stick to Karl Popper in highlighting the need for proper validation.”

How often do you find religions saying we knew the science on that particular point was right once the proof becomes undeniable. Yet they retreat to the next blockade until sciences knocks that one over too.

The Rev Dodgson said:

PermeateFree said:

I think The_observer is flicking through his Denier’s Handbook to flood the forum with bird seed. But don’t panic, this is what he does when his pigeons wont work.

Why don’t you stop feeding him then?

It’s fun!

PermeateFree said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

PermeateFree said:

I think The_observer is flicking through his Denier’s Handbook to flood the forum with bird seed. But don’t panic, this is what he does when his pigeons wont work.

Why don’t you stop feeding him then?

It’s fun!

what’s fun? having no rebuttal to counter the evidence I post
that shows your view of a ‘worse case scenario” is idiotic

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Why don’t you stop feeding him then?

It’s fun!

what’s fun? having no rebuttal to counter the evidence I post
that shows your view of a ‘worse case scenario” is idiotic

You don’t have evidence Observer, how can anyone believe you when they know you are distorting facts to suit your crackpot ideas?

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

It’s fun!

what’s fun? having no rebuttal to counter the evidence I post
that shows your view of a ‘worse case scenario” is idiotic

You don’t have evidence Observer, how can anyone believe you when they know you are distorting facts to suit your crackpot ideas?

evidence, yes, that’s the bits above you have no counter too.

don’t believe me? Lennart Bengtsson agrees with me, I with him

what have I distorted, nothing. The facts are a distortion to you

and I have no ‘crackpot ideas’?

but you are a delusional environmental fascist

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

what’s fun? having no rebuttal to counter the evidence I post
that shows your view of a ‘worse case scenario” is idiotic

You don’t have evidence Observer, how can anyone believe you when they know you are distorting facts to suit your crackpot ideas?

evidence, yes, that’s the bits above you have no counter too.

don’t believe me? Lennart Bengtsson agrees with me, I with him

what have I distorted, nothing. The facts are a distortion to you

and I have no ‘crackpot ideas’?

but you are a delusional environmental fascist

Observer, you are renown for going to extraordinary lengths to push your deniers crap against vast amounts of evidence from 97% of climate scientists, something you have been doing with great zeal for years. Now if you are not being paid to do this, then you know the only other thing it can mean. That’s right, you must be a raving loony.

>>>Observer, you are renown for going to extraordinary lengths to push your deniers crap<<

“Extraordinary lengths”, what a moronic statement!

Ok,simple – tell me what temperature change the earth will experience for the 2 x CO2 scenario, according to YOU?
Just to help you out perm, that all depends on net feedback, climate sensitivity.

then you can respond to the post(s) where I proved that the IPCC’s strongest positive feedback -
(water vapour – negative lapse rate),
that accounts for most of the warming in their models, has been shown by observations (that’s includes the tropospheric temp graphs I provided to back up MY opinion)
to be wrong. That’s why the models have all shown too much warming.

Then you can comment on Lennart Bengtsson comments below -

“Here there is no consensus as you can see from the IPCC report where climate sensitivity varies with a factor of three!

>>> Based on observational data<<< >>> climate sensitivity is clearly rather small <<<* and much smaller that the majority of models.*

“The warming of the climate system since the end of the 19th century has been very modest by some ¾°C in spite of the simultaneous
increase in greenhouse gas forcing by 2.5-3 W/m2.”
- – - – - – - – - – -

Now stop ignoring that, or just keep on with the insults.

The_observer said:

>>>Observer, you are renown for going to extraordinary lengths to push your deniers crap<<

“Extraordinary lengths”, what a moronic statement!

Ok,simple – tell me what temperature change the earth will experience for the 2 x CO2 scenario, according to YOU?
Just to help you out perm, that all depends on net feedback, climate sensitivity.

then you can respond to the post(s) where I proved that the IPCC’s strongest positive feedback -
(water vapour – negative lapse rate),
that accounts for most of the warming in their models, has been shown by observations (that’s includes the tropospheric temp graphs I provided to back up MY opinion)
to be wrong. That’s why the models have all shown too much warming.

Then you can comment on Lennart Bengtsson comments below -

“Here there is no consensus as you can see from the IPCC report where climate sensitivity varies with a factor of three!

>>> Based on observational data<<< >>> climate sensitivity is clearly rather small <<<* and much smaller that the majority of models.*

“The warming of the climate system since the end of the 19th century has been very modest by some ¾°C in spite of the simultaneous
increase in greenhouse gas forcing by 2.5-3 W/m2.”
- – - – - – - – - – -

Now stop ignoring that, or just keep on with the insults.

You never give up do you Observer? I can’t see anyone paying you push the fanatical crap that you do, as in that, you are a total failure and are known by many to be one. So you are just a raving loony and there is no point wasting time on them, as you will never get anywhere.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

>>>Observer, you are renown for going to extraordinary lengths to push your deniers crap<<

“Extraordinary lengths”, what a moronic statement!

Ok,simple – tell me what temperature change the earth will experience for the 2 x CO2 scenario, according to YOU?
Just to help you out perm, that all depends on net feedback, climate sensitivity.

then you can respond to the post(s) where I proved that the IPCC’s strongest positive feedback -
(water vapour – negative lapse rate),
that accounts for most of the warming in their models, has been shown by observations (that’s includes the tropospheric temp graphs I provided to back up MY opinion)
to be wrong. That’s why the models have all shown too much warming.

Then you can comment on Lennart Bengtsson comments below -

“Here there is no consensus as you can see from the IPCC report where climate sensitivity varies with a factor of three!

>>> Based on observational data<<< >>> climate sensitivity is clearly rather small <<<* and much smaller that the majority of models.*

“The warming of the climate system since the end of the 19th century has been very modest by some ¾°C in spite of the simultaneous
increase in greenhouse gas forcing by 2.5-3 W/m2.”
- – - – - – - – - – -

Now stop ignoring that, or just keep on with the insults.

You never give up do you Observer? I can’t see anyone paying you push the fanatical crap that you do, as in that, you are a total failure and are known by many to be one. So you are just a raving loony and there is no point wasting time on them, as you will never get anywhere.

No reply hey.

thought so

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

>>>Observer, you are renown for going to extraordinary lengths to push your deniers crap<<

“Extraordinary lengths”, what a moronic statement!

Ok,simple – tell me what temperature change the earth will experience for the 2 x CO2 scenario, according to YOU?
Just to help you out perm, that all depends on net feedback, climate sensitivity.

then you can respond to the post(s) where I proved that the IPCC’s strongest positive feedback -
(water vapour – negative lapse rate),
that accounts for most of the warming in their models, has been shown by observations (that’s includes the tropospheric temp graphs I provided to back up MY opinion)
to be wrong. That’s why the models have all shown too much warming.

Then you can comment on Lennart Bengtsson comments below -

“Here there is no consensus as you can see from the IPCC report where climate sensitivity varies with a factor of three!

>>> Based on observational data<<< >>> climate sensitivity is clearly rather small <<<* and much smaller that the majority of models.*

“The warming of the climate system since the end of the 19th century has been very modest by some ¾°C in spite of the simultaneous
increase in greenhouse gas forcing by 2.5-3 W/m2.”
- – - – - – - – - – -

Now stop ignoring that, or just keep on with the insults.

You never give up do you Observer? I can’t see anyone paying you push the fanatical crap that you do, as in that, you are a total failure and are known by many to be one. So you are just a raving loony and there is no point wasting time on them, as you will never get anywhere.

No reply hey.

thought so

The_observer said:

Observer, you really ought to start listening to climate scientists, because you really are looking very dumb.

RSS Temperature Middle Troposphere (TMT) Anomalies – 1979 to Present

Trend + 0.077 K / decade

.
.
RSS Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT) – 1979 to Present

Trend = 0.124 K / decade

.
.
Climate Models vs Reality
.

.

The_observer said:

RSS Temperature Middle Troposphere (TMT) Anomalies – 1979 to Present

Trend + 0.077 K / decade

.
.
RSS Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT) – 1979 to Present

Trend = 0.124 K / decade

.
.
Climate Models vs Reality
.

.

You are so tiresome Observer and will never seriously consider reality, so I shall leave you to your self-deception as you float around in your magic bubble.

You are so tiresome Observer and will never seriously consider reality,
so I shall leave you to your self-deception as you float around in your magic bubble.
<<<<<

.

ANTARCTIC SEA ICE SETS NEW RECORD

Antarctic sea ice continues to set new records, with extent in April at the highest since measurements began in 1979.

The_observer said:

ANTARCTIC SEA ICE SETS NEW RECORD

Antarctic sea ice continues to set new records, with extent in April at the highest since measurements began in 1979.

Important role for ocean warming and increased ice-shelf melt in Antarctic sea-ice expansion
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/full/ngeo1767.html?WT.ec_id=NGEO-201305#contrib-auth

>>Changes in sea ice significantly modulate climate change because of its high reflective and strong insulating nature. In contrast to Arctic sea ice, sea ice surrounding Antarctica has expanded1, with record extent2 in 2010. This ice expansion has previously been attributed to dynamical atmospheric changes that induce atmospheric cooling3. Here we show that accelerated basal melting of Antarctic ice shelves is likely to have contributed significantly to sea-ice expansion. Specifically, we present observations indicating that melt water from Antarctica’s ice shelves accumulates in a cool and fresh surface layer that shields the surface ocean from the warmer deeper waters that are melting the ice shelves. Simulating these processes in a coupled climate model we find that cool and fresh surface water from ice-shelf melt indeed leads to expanding sea ice in austral autumn and winter. This powerful negative feedback counteracts Southern Hemispheric atmospheric warming. Although changes in atmospheric dynamics most likely govern regional sea-ice trends4, our analyses indicate that the overall sea-ice trend is dominated by increased ice-shelf melt. We suggest that cool sea surface temperatures around Antarctica could offset projected snowfall increases in Antarctica, with implications for estimates of future sea-level rise.<<

what is the volume/min humanity’s collective CO2 fart presently

The_observer said:

Very scientific

transition said:

what is the volume/min humanity’s collective CO2 fart presently

I thought it was mainly methane and H2S?

A little more of how global warming is affecting floating sea ice in Antarctica, a very interesting area of continuing research.

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/warm-ocean-rapidly-melting-antarctic-ice-shelf-from-below/

This and my previous post, are to show what is really happening in the Antarctica region in order to counter the pseudo-science of GW Denier Industry.

>>>
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/full/ngeo1767.html?WT.ec_id=NGEO-201305#contrib-auth

>>Changes in sea ice significantly modulate climate change because of its high reflective and strong insulating nature. In contrast to Arctic sea ice, sea ice surrounding Antarctica has expanded1, with record extent2 in 2010. This ice expansion has previously been attributed to dynamical atmospheric changes that induce atmospheric cooling3. Here we show that accelerated basal melting of Antarctic ice shelves is likely to have contributed significantly to sea-ice expansion. Specifically, we present observations indicating that melt water from Antarctica’s ice shelves accumulates in a cool and fresh surface layer that shields the surface ocean from the warmer deeper waters that are melting the ice shelves. Simulating these processes in a coupled climate model we find that cool and fresh surface water from ice-shelf melt indeed leads to expanding sea ice in austral autumn and winter. This powerful negative feedback counteracts Southern Hemispheric atmospheric warming. Although changes in atmospheric dynamics most likely govern regional sea-ice trends4, our analyses indicate that the overall sea-ice trend is dominated by increased ice-shelf melt. We suggest that cool sea surface temperatures around Antarctica could offset projected snowfall increases in Antarctica, with implications for estimates of future sea-level rise.
<<<

Lets see now-

I like this bit – “This powerful negative feedback >> counteracts Southern Hemispheric atmospheric warming”

Must be working -

RSS Southern Polar Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT) – 1979 to Present
Trend = minus 0.014 / decade

but, this next bit-

“Specifically, we present observations indicating” <<< >>> “in a coupled climate model we find that “ <<<

wrong! climate models aren’t observations

from Phys.org

This new effort suggests increasing sea ice is more likely due to increased heat in the summer leading to an increase in offshore ocean
temperatures. That warmer water, they theorize, causes melting of the ice sheets from below.

The researchers came to these conclusions by using existing models that simulate conditions in Antarctica to build new models based on
what would likely happen in the sea should the ocean experience warming.
=============================

Expert reaction to Antarctic sea ice paper- R. Bintanja et al

Dr Paul Holland, Polar Oceanographer at British Antarctic Survey

“This paper claims that the observed increase in ice-shelf melting has made a significant contribution to the observed increase in sea-ice cover.
That result makes sense and might well be expected, but I don’t think this paper demonstrates it to be true. The paper uses two strands of
evidence: a Met Office collection of ocean data, and the results of two models run with increased melt water input.

“Regarding the data, I am sceptical that there are enough wintertime Antarctic data to reliably determine changes in the ocean for 1985-2010.
There are now lots of freely-floating sensors in the Southern Ocean (‘Argo floats’), so there will be a relatively large amount of data for recent
years, but there is very little for older years, which makes the reliable calculation of changes very difficult. Also, the paper shows trends for a
‘zonal mean’ – averaging around all longitudes of Antarctica. That is complicated because the different regions of Antarctica have experienced
very different changes.

“Regarding the models, none of the results shown match the observed changes in sea ice (compare figures 2a and 4d, or figures 2a and
Supplementary Figure 5), so I don’t find that at all convincing. The authors are using a completely wrong distribution of freshwater increase
from Antarctica, putting in increased ice-shelf melting where it is not occurring. They are also using a rate that is vastly too high. They are
using 250 Gt/y of extra meltwater for 40 years, whereas the real melting increase has ramped up slowly since 1992, adding only 71 Gt/y on
average in that period (and much less before that). The real distribution and rates can be found in Shepherd et al 2012 .
This lack of quantitative agreement is critical, because the authors are claiming that the freshwater effect is
important.

“The paper also uses trends from a satellite SST dataset. These cannot be trusted, because the SST is simply set to -1.9C, the freezing
temperature of seawater, below sea ice. So in the regions where sea ice has increased the ocean appears to cool simply because the SST is
recently being set to -2C when previously it was not.

“There are plausible alternative explanations for the Antarctic sea ice increase. In a Nature Geoscience paper last year showed that changes in
the wind can explain changes in the ice cover. Changes in the wind change the ice cover by both blowing the ice around directly, and by
carrying colder or warmer air masses over the ocean, leading to more or less freezing. The Bintanja paper claims that this is unlikely to be true
because the observed change in sea ice does not correlate with various climate variables, such as the Southern Annular Mode (SAM).
However, the SAM and other variables describe only a fraction of the variability in the winds around Antarctica, so it is entirely possible that the
winds are linked to the ice change but the SAM is not.

“In summary, the freshwater concept is plausible and its playing a role is not inconsistent with previous work. However, this paper has not
demonstrated that increased ice-shelf melting has made a significant contribution to the observed increase in sea-ice cover. Alternative
explanations remain entirely viable.”

Prof Martin Siegert, Professor of Geosciences at the University of Bristol

“This work indicates that the ice ocean system is sensitive to several forcing factors, and that we’re still uncovering these and determining
which are the most significant.

“Past records show that long periods of warming or cooling are non-steady, and such small scale variability may be due to competing
processes and their feedbacks. The process proposed in Antarctica is unlikely to be significant+however due to a relative +lack of ice shelves around the sea ice growth regions.”

IPCC

Overall, the shortness of the observed record and differences in simulated and observed variability preclude an assessment of whether or
not the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent is inconsistent with internal variability.

An idealized simulation of the response to freshwater input similar to that estimate due to ice shelf melting exhibited an increase in sea ice
extent, but this result has yet to be reproduced with other models. Overall we conclude that there is low confidence in the scientific
understanding of the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent since 1979, due the larger differences between sea-ice simulations from
CMIP5 models and to the incomplete and competing scientific explanations for the causes of change and low confidence in estimates of
natural internal variability.

NSIDC

Part of the answer may be found in changes in atmospheric circulation linked to the Antarctic Oscillation, or Southern Annular Mode, which
influences the large belt of air flows encircling the South Pole, called the circumpolar vortex. This oscillation varies on a decadal basis,
alternating between negative and positive phases. Over the past few decades, it has shifted to more positive phases. “Positive phases are
associated with a strengthening of the circumpolar vortex and intensification of the westerly winds,” said Jinlun Zhang, senior oceanographer at
the University of Washington Polar Science Center. More intense winds have been whipping the Antarctic continent and battering the sea ice.
“Ice floes converge in an area and cause an ice pile up, particularly along coastal areas,” Zhang said. More forceful collisions cause the ice to
pile up along the floe edges, creating pressure ridges and producing thicker ice.

Antarctica’s windier climate may have another surprisingly distant source—in ocean currents half a world away. Researcher Xichen Li and his
colleagues looked at the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, a large-scale pattern in North Atlantic sea surface temperature that shifts between
cool and warm phases. Similar to El Niño and La Niña, this oscillation affects temperature and rainfall worldwide, and now scientists think it is
impacting Antarctic climate.

Models Wrong
With increased loading of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere through the 21st century, the models show an +accelerated warming in the
Southern Ocean+, and indicate that anthropogenic forcing exceeds natural internal variability. The increased heating from below (ocean) and
above (atmosphere) and increased liquid precipitation associated with the enhanced hydrological cycle results in a projected *decline of the
Antarctic sea ice*

Judith Curry

So, from the vantage point of 2014, what is causing the increase in Antarctic sea ice? The mechanism hypothesized by Liu and Curry seems
operative to some extent, although it is not clear this the dominant process. The Liu/Curry mechanism with fresh layer on the surface from
precipitation shares some features with Bintanja’s mechanism with a surface fresh layer from ice shelf melt.

Natural internal variability seems to be a strong factor; while the stadium wave analysis was for the Northern Hemisphere, there are clearly
some connections with the Southern Hemisphere also.

So we have several mechanisms that seem to be operating, but we do not yet have a quantitative, predictive understanding of the increase in
Antarctic sea ice extent. Hence the statement made by the IPCC seems justified:

“There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent since 1979, due to the incomplete
and competing scientific explanations for the causes of change and low confidence in estimates of internal variability.”
.
.

The_observer said:

>>>
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/full/ngeo1767.html?WT.ec_id=NGEO-201305#contrib-auth

>>Changes in sea ice significantly modulate climate change because of its high reflective and strong insulating nature. In contrast to Arctic sea ice, sea ice surrounding Antarctica has expanded1, with record extent2 in 2010. This ice expansion has previously been attributed to dynamical atmospheric changes that induce atmospheric cooling3. Here we show that accelerated basal melting of Antarctic ice shelves is likely to have contributed significantly to sea-ice expansion. Specifically, we present observations indicating that melt water from Antarctica’s ice shelves accumulates in a cool and fresh surface layer that shields the surface ocean from the warmer deeper waters that are melting the ice shelves. Simulating these processes in a coupled climate model we find that cool and fresh surface water from ice-shelf melt indeed leads to expanding sea ice in austral autumn and winter. This powerful negative feedback counteracts Southern Hemispheric atmospheric warming. Although changes in atmospheric dynamics most likely govern regional sea-ice trends4, our analyses indicate that the overall sea-ice trend is dominated by increased ice-shelf melt. We suggest that cool sea surface temperatures around Antarctica could offset projected snowfall increases in Antarctica, with implications for estimates of future sea-level rise.
<<<

Lets see now-

I like this bit – “This powerful negative feedback >> counteracts Southern Hemispheric atmospheric warming”

Must be working -

RSS Southern Polar Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT) – 1979 to Present
Trend = minus 0.014 / decade

but, this next bit-

“Specifically, we present observations indicating” <<< >>> “in a coupled climate model we find that “ <<<

wrong! climate models aren’t observations

from Phys.org

This new effort suggests increasing sea ice is more likely due to increased heat in the summer leading to an increase in offshore ocean
temperatures. That warmer water, they theorize, causes melting of the ice sheets from below.

The researchers came to these conclusions by using existing models that simulate conditions in Antarctica to build new models based on
what would likely happen in the sea should the ocean experience warming.
=============================

Expert reaction to Antarctic sea ice paper- R. Bintanja et al

Dr Paul Holland, Polar Oceanographer at British Antarctic Survey

“This paper claims that the observed increase in ice-shelf melting has made a significant contribution to the observed increase in sea-ice cover.
That result makes sense and might well be expected, but I don’t think this paper demonstrates it to be true. The paper uses two strands of
evidence: a Met Office collection of ocean data, and the results of two models run with increased melt water input.

“Regarding the data, I am sceptical that there are enough wintertime Antarctic data to reliably determine changes in the ocean for 1985-2010.
There are now lots of freely-floating sensors in the Southern Ocean (‘Argo floats’), so there will be a relatively large amount of data for recent
years, but there is very little for older years, which makes the reliable calculation of changes very difficult. Also, the paper shows trends for a
‘zonal mean’ – averaging around all longitudes of Antarctica. That is complicated because the different regions of Antarctica have experienced
very different changes.

“Regarding the models, none of the results shown match the observed changes in sea ice (compare figures 2a and 4d, or figures 2a and
Supplementary Figure 5), so I don’t find that at all convincing. The authors are using a completely wrong distribution of freshwater increase
from Antarctica, putting in increased ice-shelf melting where it is not occurring. They are also using a rate that is vastly too high. They are
using 250 Gt/y of extra meltwater for 40 years, whereas the real melting increase has ramped up slowly since 1992, adding only 71 Gt/y on
average in that period (and much less before that). The real distribution and rates can be found in Shepherd et al 2012 .
This lack of quantitative agreement is critical, because the authors are claiming that the freshwater effect is
important.

“The paper also uses trends from a satellite SST dataset. These cannot be trusted, because the SST is simply set to -1.9C, the freezing
temperature of seawater, below sea ice. So in the regions where sea ice has increased the ocean appears to cool simply because the SST is
recently being set to -2C when previously it was not.

“There are plausible alternative explanations for the Antarctic sea ice increase. In a Nature Geoscience paper last year showed that changes in
the wind can explain changes in the ice cover. Changes in the wind change the ice cover by both blowing the ice around directly, and by
carrying colder or warmer air masses over the ocean, leading to more or less freezing. The Bintanja paper claims that this is unlikely to be true
because the observed change in sea ice does not correlate with various climate variables, such as the Southern Annular Mode (SAM).
However, the SAM and other variables describe only a fraction of the variability in the winds around Antarctica, so it is entirely possible that the
winds are linked to the ice change but the SAM is not.

“In summary, the freshwater concept is plausible and its playing a role is not inconsistent with previous work. However, this paper has not
demonstrated that increased ice-shelf melting has made a significant contribution to the observed increase in sea-ice cover. Alternative
explanations remain entirely viable.”

Prof Martin Siegert, Professor of Geosciences at the University of Bristol

“This work indicates that the ice ocean system is sensitive to several forcing factors, and that we’re still uncovering these and determining
which are the most significant.

“Past records show that long periods of warming or cooling are non-steady, and such small scale variability may be due to competing
processes and their feedbacks. The process proposed in Antarctica is unlikely to be significant+however due to a relative +lack of ice shelves around the sea ice growth regions.”

IPCC

Overall, the shortness of the observed record and differences in simulated and observed variability preclude an assessment of whether or
not the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent is inconsistent with internal variability.

An idealized simulation of the response to freshwater input similar to that estimate due to ice shelf melting exhibited an increase in sea ice
extent, but this result has yet to be reproduced with other models. Overall we conclude that there is low confidence in the scientific
understanding of the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent since 1979, due the larger differences between sea-ice simulations from
CMIP5 models and to the incomplete and competing scientific explanations for the causes of change and low confidence in estimates of
natural internal variability.

NSIDC

Part of the answer may be found in changes in atmospheric circulation linked to the Antarctic Oscillation, or Southern Annular Mode, which
influences the large belt of air flows encircling the South Pole, called the circumpolar vortex. This oscillation varies on a decadal basis,
alternating between negative and positive phases. Over the past few decades, it has shifted to more positive phases. “Positive phases are
associated with a strengthening of the circumpolar vortex and intensification of the westerly winds,” said Jinlun Zhang, senior oceanographer at
the University of Washington Polar Science Center. More intense winds have been whipping the Antarctic continent and battering the sea ice.
“Ice floes converge in an area and cause an ice pile up, particularly along coastal areas,” Zhang said. More forceful collisions cause the ice to
pile up along the floe edges, creating pressure ridges and producing thicker ice.

Antarctica’s windier climate may have another surprisingly distant source—in ocean currents half a world away. Researcher Xichen Li and his
colleagues looked at the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, a large-scale pattern in North Atlantic sea surface temperature that shifts between
cool and warm phases. Similar to El Niño and La Niña, this oscillation affects temperature and rainfall worldwide, and now scientists think it is
impacting Antarctic climate.

Models Wrong
With increased loading of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere through the 21st century, the models show an +accelerated warming in the
Southern Ocean+, and indicate that anthropogenic forcing exceeds natural internal variability. The increased heating from below (ocean) and
above (atmosphere) and increased liquid precipitation associated with the enhanced hydrological cycle results in a projected *decline of the
Antarctic sea ice*

Judith Curry

So, from the vantage point of 2014, what is causing the increase in Antarctic sea ice? The mechanism hypothesized by Liu and Curry seems
operative to some extent, although it is not clear this the dominant process. The Liu/Curry mechanism with fresh layer on the surface from
precipitation shares some features with Bintanja’s mechanism with a surface fresh layer from ice shelf melt.

Natural internal variability seems to be a strong factor; while the stadium wave analysis was for the Northern Hemisphere, there are clearly
some connections with the Southern Hemisphere also.

So we have several mechanisms that seem to be operating, but we do not yet have a quantitative, predictive understanding of the increase in
Antarctic sea ice extent. Hence the statement made by the IPCC seems justified:

“There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent since 1979, due to the incomplete
and competing scientific explanations for the causes of change and low confidence in estimates of internal variability.”
.
.

The_observer said:

>>>
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/full/ngeo1767.html?WT.ec_id=NGEO-201305#contrib-auth

>>Changes in sea ice significantly modulate climate change because of its high reflective and strong insulating nature. In contrast to Arctic sea ice, sea ice surrounding Antarctica has expanded1, with record extent2 in 2010. This ice expansion has previously been attributed to dynamical atmospheric changes that induce atmospheric cooling3. Here we show that accelerated basal melting of Antarctic ice shelves is likely to have contributed significantly to sea-ice expansion. Specifically, we present observations indicating that melt water from Antarctica’s ice shelves accumulates in a cool and fresh surface layer that shields the surface ocean from the warmer deeper waters that are melting the ice shelves. Simulating these processes in a coupled climate model we find that cool and fresh surface water from ice-shelf melt indeed leads to expanding sea ice in austral autumn and winter. This powerful negative feedback counteracts Southern Hemispheric atmospheric warming. Although changes in atmospheric dynamics most likely govern regional sea-ice trends4, our analyses indicate that the overall sea-ice trend is dominated by increased ice-shelf melt. We suggest that cool sea surface temperatures around Antarctica could offset projected snowfall increases in Antarctica, with implications for estimates of future sea-level rise.
<<<

Lets see now-

I like this bit – “This powerful negative feedback >> counteracts Southern Hemispheric atmospheric warming”

Must be working -

RSS Southern Polar Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT) – 1979 to Present
Trend = minus 0.014 / decade

but, this next bit-

“Specifically, we present observations indicating” <<< >>> “in a coupled climate model we find that “ <<<

wrong! climate models aren’t observations

from Phys.org

This new effort suggests increasing sea ice is more likely due to increased heat in the summer leading to an increase in offshore ocean
temperatures. That warmer water, they theorize, causes melting of the ice sheets from below.

The researchers came to these conclusions by using existing models that simulate conditions in Antarctica to build new models based on
what would likely happen in the sea should the ocean experience warming.
=============================

Expert reaction to Antarctic sea ice paper- R. Bintanja et al

Dr Paul Holland, Polar Oceanographer at British Antarctic Survey

“This paper claims that the observed increase in ice-shelf melting has made a significant contribution to the observed increase in sea-ice cover.
That result makes sense and might well be expected, but I don’t think this paper demonstrates it to be true. The paper uses two strands of
evidence: a Met Office collection of ocean data, and the results of two models run with increased melt water input.

“Regarding the data, I am sceptical that there are enough wintertime Antarctic data to reliably determine changes in the ocean for 1985-2010.
There are now lots of freely-floating sensors in the Southern Ocean (‘Argo floats’), so there will be a relatively large amount of data for recent
years, but there is very little for older years, which makes the reliable calculation of changes very difficult. Also, the paper shows trends for a
‘zonal mean’ – averaging around all longitudes of Antarctica. That is complicated because the different regions of Antarctica have experienced
very different changes.

“Regarding the models, none of the results shown match the observed changes in sea ice (compare figures 2a and 4d, or figures 2a and
Supplementary Figure 5), so I don’t find that at all convincing. The authors are using a completely wrong distribution of freshwater increase
from Antarctica, putting in increased ice-shelf melting where it is not occurring. They are also using a rate that is vastly too high. They are
using 250 Gt/y of extra meltwater for 40 years, whereas the real melting increase has ramped up slowly since 1992, adding only 71 Gt/y on
average in that period (and much less before that). The real distribution and rates can be found in Shepherd et al 2012 .
This lack of quantitative agreement is critical, because the authors are claiming that the freshwater effect is
important.

“The paper also uses trends from a satellite SST dataset. These cannot be trusted, because the SST is simply set to -1.9C, the freezing
temperature of seawater, below sea ice. So in the regions where sea ice has increased the ocean appears to cool simply because the SST is
recently being set to -2C when previously it was not.

“There are plausible alternative explanations for the Antarctic sea ice increase. In a Nature Geoscience paper last year showed that changes in
the wind can explain changes in the ice cover. Changes in the wind change the ice cover by both blowing the ice around directly, and by
carrying colder or warmer air masses over the ocean, leading to more or less freezing. The Bintanja paper claims that this is unlikely to be true
because the observed change in sea ice does not correlate with various climate variables, such as the Southern Annular Mode (SAM).
However, the SAM and other variables describe only a fraction of the variability in the winds around Antarctica, so it is entirely possible that the
winds are linked to the ice change but the SAM is not.

“In summary, the freshwater concept is plausible and its playing a role is not inconsistent with previous work. However, this paper has not
demonstrated that increased ice-shelf melting has made a significant contribution to the observed increase in sea-ice cover. Alternative
explanations remain entirely viable.”

Prof Martin Siegert, Professor of Geosciences at the University of Bristol

“This work indicates that the ice ocean system is sensitive to several forcing factors, and that we’re still uncovering these and determining
which are the most significant.

“Past records show that long periods of warming or cooling are non-steady, and such small scale variability may be due to competing
processes and their feedbacks. The process proposed in Antarctica is unlikely to be significant+however due to a relative +lack of ice shelves around the sea ice growth regions.”

IPCC

Overall, the shortness of the observed record and differences in simulated and observed variability preclude an assessment of whether or
not the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent is inconsistent with internal variability.

An idealized simulation of the response to freshwater input similar to that estimate due to ice shelf melting exhibited an increase in sea ice
extent, but this result has yet to be reproduced with other models. Overall we conclude that there is low confidence in the scientific
understanding of the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent since 1979, due the larger differences between sea-ice simulations from
CMIP5 models and to the incomplete and competing scientific explanations for the causes of change and low confidence in estimates of
natural internal variability.

NSIDC

Part of the answer may be found in changes in atmospheric circulation linked to the Antarctic Oscillation, or Southern Annular Mode, which
influences the large belt of air flows encircling the South Pole, called the circumpolar vortex. This oscillation varies on a decadal basis,
alternating between negative and positive phases. Over the past few decades, it has shifted to more positive phases. “Positive phases are
associated with a strengthening of the circumpolar vortex and intensification of the westerly winds,” said Jinlun Zhang, senior oceanographer at
the University of Washington Polar Science Center. More intense winds have been whipping the Antarctic continent and battering the sea ice.
“Ice floes converge in an area and cause an ice pile up, particularly along coastal areas,” Zhang said. More forceful collisions cause the ice to
pile up along the floe edges, creating pressure ridges and producing thicker ice.

Antarctica’s windier climate may have another surprisingly distant source—in ocean currents half a world away. Researcher Xichen Li and his
colleagues looked at the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, a large-scale pattern in North Atlantic sea surface temperature that shifts between
cool and warm phases. Similar to El Niño and La Niña, this oscillation affects temperature and rainfall worldwide, and now scientists think it is
impacting Antarctic climate.

Models Wrong
With increased loading of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere through the 21st century, the models show an +accelerated warming in the
Southern Ocean+, and indicate that anthropogenic forcing exceeds natural internal variability. The increased heating from below (ocean) and
above (atmosphere) and increased liquid precipitation associated with the enhanced hydrological cycle results in a projected *decline of the
Antarctic sea ice*

Judith Curry

So, from the vantage point of 2014, what is causing the increase in Antarctic sea ice? The mechanism hypothesized by Liu and Curry seems
operative to some extent, although it is not clear this the dominant process. The Liu/Curry mechanism with fresh layer on the surface from
precipitation shares some features with Bintanja’s mechanism with a surface fresh layer from ice shelf melt.

Natural internal variability seems to be a strong factor; while the stadium wave analysis was for the Northern Hemisphere, there are clearly
some connections with the Southern Hemisphere also.

So we have several mechanisms that seem to be operating, but we do not yet have a quantitative, predictive understanding of the increase in
Antarctic sea ice extent. Hence the statement made by the IPCC seems justified:

“There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent since 1979, due to the incomplete
and competing scientific explanations for the causes of change and low confidence in estimates of internal variability.”
.
.

Well I guess those papers published in Nature and NASA are wrong then. The_observer with his greater insight has put his own unique slant on other peoples work to totally disprove them. However, he seems to have little appreciation that research in the Antarctic is extremely difficult and there is still much to be done, therefore scientist use non-specific words as they know from the lack of research, other scientists will add to the knowledge base and with rare exception, build it to higher levels.

The_observer sees not scientific research and healthy debate as slowly adding to the complete picture, but a weakness to exploit and a means to sow doubt and undermine the real research effort. Unfortunately you can never win with people like the observer as they care little for the integrity and the cautious methods of science, but purely as an effective way of causing further disruption and slowing progress on a very serious problem.

We are not really disagreeing over much Observer only the spin you are putting on it.

Another possible reason below of why Antarctic sea-ice has been increasing, which is adding to our accumulating knowledge of the subject.

Wind-driven trends in Antarctic sea-ice drift
Paul R. Holland and Ron Kwok

The sea-ice cover around Antarctica has experienced a slight expansion in area over the past decades1, 2. This small overall increase is the sum of much larger opposing trends in different sectors that have been proposed to result from changes in atmospheric temperature or wind stress3, 4, 5, precipitation6, 7, ocean temperature8, and atmosphere or ocean feedbacks9, 10. However, climate models have failed to reproduce the overall increase in sea ice11.

Here we present a data set of satellite-tracked sea-ice motion for the period of 1992–2010 that reveals large and statistically significant trends in Antarctic ice drift, which, in most sectors, can be linked to local winds. We quantify dynamic and thermodynamic processes in the internal ice pack and show that wind-driven changes in ice advection are the dominant driver of ice-concentration trends around much of West Antarctica, whereas wind-driven thermodynamic changes dominate elsewhere. The ice-drift trends also imply large changes in the surface stress that drives the Antarctic ocean gyres, and in the fluxes of heat and salt responsible for the production of Antarctic bottom and intermediate waters.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n12/full/ngeo1627.html

From your last post by Judith Curry

>>So we have several mechanisms that seem to be operating, but we do not yet have a quantitative, predictive understanding of the increase in Antarctic sea ice extent. Hence the statement made by the IPCC seems justified:

“There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent since 1979, due to the incomplete and competing scientific explanations for the causes of change and low confidence in estimates of internal variability.”<<

Nevertheless, what you are implying Observer is because of the increases of sea ice around Antarctica during the colder months that Global Warming is crap. Well sorry, but that is not what any of the scientists you quoted are saying. They are all in firm agreement that GW is occurring and why, but only there are some conflicting theories as to what is happening in Antarctica.

It is quite likely it will turn out to be a mixture of all possibilities, plus others too as environmental matters are seldom the result of one thing, but from a cumulative result as events evolve. However, there is absolutely no doubt that this winter ice accumulation will retreat with increasing global temperatures.

>> The_observer with his greater insight has put his own unique slant on other peoples work to totally disprove them.
<<<

I would normally be astounded at the utter disconnect from reality wilfully demonstrated by such a statement
were it not from a person who shows such enthusiasm for environmental extremism – constantly prophesying utter doom –
& on a mission to destroy all disbelievers of the religious like faith promoting Worst Case Scenarios of Human Caused Climate Catastrophes as Confirmed.

But, as they say – CREATE A CONCEPT & REALITY LEAVES THE ROOM

PhactFree; your reply to the stats I posted showing the increasing Antarctic sea ice trend & record high extent included your suggestion that this paper
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/full/ngeo1767.html?WT.ec_id=NGEO-201305#contrib-auth
proved that the sea ice increase record & up-trend, since 1979 when satellite measurement began, were due to man made global warming, then further stated –

>>> “This and my previous post, are to show what is really happening in the Antarctica region in order to counter the pseudo-science of GW Denier Industry.”<<<

I, then provided several references, including the IPCC that showed your Nature paper was just a very poor climate model (not evidence at all)
using poor quality data, fed with outrageously exaggerated assumptions, & was anything but >>> “what is really happening in the Antarctica region”.<<<

Very pseudo-scientific of you perm. But blindly accepting whatever matches your view is exactly what you do, along with your like minded bed fellows & oppotunists propping
up the catastrophic global warming industry which is a financial gravy train for so many of your type.

What has been suggested as the most likely cause from the references I provided is natural local wind pattern forcing, effects from the Atlantic
Multidecadal Oscillation in the northern hemisphere, & natural internal variability.

These facts are dismissed by your delusions.

Weather the Antarctic sea ice was presently increasing, or decreasing, you would blame human caused global warming.

>>> Nevertheless, what you are implying Observer is because of the increases
of sea ice around Antarctica during the colder months that Global Warming is crap.
<<<

Not exactly. I’m pointing out specifically that the IPCC’s models all give (gave) projections that were completely opposite to reality,
that they were completely WRONG, & the IPCC admit that. and that catastrophic human caused Global Warming is crap!

And don’t forget PhactFree, the increasing sea ice is a strong negative feedback!

And stop your deceitful, deceptive, incorrect, ignorant description of >> “increases of sea ice around Antarctica during the colder months”<<

Antarctic Sea Ice Extent was 26% above average as of Jan 30 2014…SUMMER

Antarctic Sea Ice Extent in February 2014 (summer) finished just below the highest minimum record,
& well above the 1981- 2010 average miniumum in the modern satellite era.

Antarctic Sea Ice Extent as of Jan 30 2014 was 950,000 sq km above the 1981-2010 mean and 220,000 sq km above 2008.

<<< Well sorry, but that is not what any of the scientists you quoted are saying. They are all in firm agreement that GW is occurring and why
<<<

Sorry, none of the scientists provided any human cause factors for the increased sea ice,
& none provided any comment agreeing of AGW, especially Curry. You’re fucking delusional son!

>>> However, there is absolutely no doubt that this winter ice accumulation will retreat with increasing global temperatures.
<<<<

An Absolutely alarmist statement not only baseless, but the opposite of reality
The proof –

And you continue to ignore the fact that there is evidence to show that the hypothesised
amplification of the direct effect from co2 forcing is not occurring.

Reality – Observation – Data – Fact

No net positive feedback.

Low climate sensitivity.

Now, you’ll just have to get use to the fact that no matter what you say or do,
atmospheric CO2 concentration will double from pre-industrial times.

Enjoy the benefits this will bring.

Observer, you really are talking out of your backside. You provided excerpts from scientific data of which I largely agreed and said so, but now you try to twist the evidence to suit yourself. Every new piece of research that is carried out points to the catastrophic outcome of global warming and that is not my opinion, but the opinion of 97% of climate scientists.

And here is yet another piece of research you might find interesting, and although difficult to explain away, I have no doubt you will try.

———————————————————————————————————————————
>>NASA West Antarctic Ice Sheet Findings: Glacier Loss Appears Unstoppable<<

>>It’s a key piece of the climate change puzzle. For years, researchers have been eyeing the stability of the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet as global temperatures rise. Melting of the ice sheet could have dire consequences for sea level rise.<<

>>“This sector will be a major contributor to sea level rise in the decades and centuries to come,” Rignot said in today’s press release. “A conservative estimate is it would take several centuries for all of the ice to flow into the sea.”<<

>>A key concern for years has been the possible collapse of western Antarctica’s glaciers, leading to a drastic acceleration in sea-level rise worldwide. Such a catastrophic glacial retreat would dump millions of tons of ice into the sea over a relatively short span of time. And while it’s true that ice calves off of the Western Antarctic ice sheet every summer, the annual overall rate is increasing.<<

>>NASA’s Operation IceBridge will continue to monitor the ice flow when the next Antarctic deployment cycle resumes in October of this year.

And in the meantime, the true discussion is turning to the challenges of living with a warmer planet. Insurance companies, the Department of Defense and residents of low-lying coastal regions such as Miami’s South Beach already know that the reality of global warming and sea level rise is here. Perhaps the very fact that naysayers have at least backed up their positions a bit in recent years from “global warming isn’t happening” to “Its happening, but there are natural cycles” can at least give us a starting point for true intelligent science-based dialogue to begin.<<

http://www.universetoday.com/111827/nasa-west-antarctic-ice-sheet-findings-glacier-loss-appears-unstoppable/ ———————————————————————————————————

Observer you are a professional global warming denier and will do and say anything that you think might confuse the issues and slow any useful action that might reduce our co2 output. I refer you to the last paragraph above. “Perhaps the very fact that naysayers have at least backed up their positions a bit in recent years from “global warming isn’t happening” to “Its happening, but there are natural cycles” can at least give us a starting point for true intelligent science-based dialogue to begin.” The problem with you Observer is you have not even admitted that Global Warming is happening, or is that the pieces of silver talking?

tell me PhactFree

will a doubling of CO2 that leads to 1C increase in global average warming be catastrophic?

yes or no ?

The_observer said:

tell me PhactFree

will a doubling of CO2 that leads to 1C increase in global average warming be catastrophic?

yes or no ?

Do you mean the doubling of 0.8 degrees? It has been estimated that the increase by the end of this century will be somewhere between 2 and 5 degrees C and that does not take into account the greenhouse gases being released by the melting of Permafrost. So yes within a child’s lifetime, the world will turn into a very different place.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

tell me PhactFree

will a doubling of CO2 that leads to 1C increase in global average warming be catastrophic?

yes or no ?

Do you mean the doubling of 0.8 degrees? It has been estimated that the increase by the end of this century will be somewhere between 2 and 5 degrees C

No; the 2 x CO2 scenario, according to IPCC models. Their range – 1.5C to 4.5C

Now, in your opinion would a doubling of CO2, or more specifically, an increase in radiative forcing of 3.7 w/2m
that lead to a 1C increase in global average temperature be catastrophic?

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

tell me PhactFree

will a doubling of CO2 that leads to 1C increase in global average warming be catastrophic?

yes or no ?

Do you mean the doubling of 0.8 degrees? It has been estimated that the increase by the end of this century will be somewhere between 2 and 5 degrees C

No; the 2 x CO2 scenario, according to IPCC models. Their range – 1.5C to 4.5C

Now, in your opinion would a doubling of CO2, or more specifically, an increase in radiative forcing of 3.7 w/2m
that lead to a 1C increase in global average temperature be catastrophic?

I think you need to rephrase your question Observer because it does not make a great deal of sense, especially when considering the already changing environment as new research is beginning to show.

>>>I think you need to rephrase your question Observer because it does not make a great deal of sense, especially when considering the already changing environment as new research is beginning to show.
<<<

stop avoiding giving an answer with the bullshit “already changing environment” crap !

the temperature change for an increase in radiative forcing of 3.7 w/2m
will be between 1.5C & 4.5C, depending on climate sensitivity, according to the IPCC.

Now, in your opinion would a doubling of CO2, or more specifically, an increase in radiative forcing of 3.7 w/2m that lead to a 1C increase in global average temperature be catastrophic?

The_observer said:

>>>I think you need to rephrase your question Observer because it does not make a great deal of sense, especially when considering the already changing environment as new research is beginning to show.
<<<

stop avoiding giving an answer with the bullshit “already changing environment” crap !

the temperature change for an increase in radiative forcing of 3.7 w/2m
will be between 1.5C & 4.5C, depending on climate sensitivity, according to the IPCC.

Now, in your opinion would a doubling of CO2, or more specifically, an increase in radiative forcing of 3.7 w/2m that lead to a 1C increase in global average temperature be catastrophic?

I would be only too happy to give you an answer if only I could understand the question. You quote IPCC figures, then start quoting a 1C increase. What are you trying to say?

<<What are="" you="" trying="" to="" say?<br=""/><<

geeezzzzz. will an increase of 1C to global ave temp be catastrophic, in your opinion

The_observer said:

<<What are="" you="" trying="" to="" say?<br=""/><<

geeezzzzz. will an increase of 1C to global ave temp be catastrophic, in your opinion

Do you mean to 2 degrees C, if so why the blazes didn’t you say so? But I suppose you just want to cause confusion.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

<<What are="" you="" trying="" to="" say?<br=""/><<

geeezzzzz. will an increase of 1C to global ave temp be catastrophic, in your opinion

Do you mean to 2 degrees C, if so why the blazes didn’t you say so? But I suppose you just want to cause confusion.

Come on Observer, you mean 2 degrees or what?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cjuGCJJUGsg

From: JudgeMental
ID: 530389
Subject: re: Skeptical Arguments that Don’t Hold Water
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cjuGCJJUGsg
<<<

wow Judge supplied a utube to convince me

here then judge, one I watched today, very informative

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0gDErDwXqhc

and this one too

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Zw5Lda06iK0

happy viewing judge

nah, give them a miss thanks.

JudgeMental said:

nah, give them a miss thanks.

yeh, the truth would be wasted on ya

probably.

the reason being is that when you speak of “truth” when talking science i know that your knowledge of what science is is non-existant.

JudgeMental said:

the reason being is that when you speak of “truth” when talking science i know that your knowledge of what science is is non-existant.

oh no, your mistaking what I mean by truth.

I’m talking observations, the data & what it tells us.

Not some climate model projection, or nutty environmentalist

The_observer said:

JudgeMental said:

nah, give them a miss thanks.

yeh, the truth would be wasted on ya

Observer, you asked me a confusing question, of which I asked if you meant a temperature of 2 degrees C. You have yet to respond, so again I ask is that what you meant?

And in regards to the report your utube funny man based his act on judge-

“The NCA report breaks no new ground, goes beyond the hype and exaggeration spouted by the IPCC and its fellow travellers, and is a
superficial attempt to provide cover of the Obama administration’s new round of proposed environmental regulations.”

According to climate scientist Dr. Judith Curry:

“My main conclusion from reading the report is this: the phrase ‘climate change’ is now officially meaningless. The report effectively implies that
there is no climate change other than what is caused by humans, and that extreme weather events are equivalent to climate change. Any
increase in adverse impacts from extreme weather events or sea level rise is caused by humans. Possible scenarios of future climate change
depend only on emissions scenarios that are translated into warming by climate models that produce far more warming than has recently been
observed.”

More of Professor Curry’s commentary on the report can be found on her blog, http://judithcurry.com/2014/05/06/u-s-national-climate-assessment-report/
or in the 134 page critique of a draft of the NCADAC report by Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger. http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/the-missing-science-of-draft-assessment.pdf

Climatologist Dr. Roy Spenser has also provided cometary on the report’s major conclusions. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/05/my-initial-comments-on-the-national-climate-assessment/

“This is so transparently a political document its laughable. It is also frightening, since it is a clear sign that the Obama administration is about to
go on the offensive, spewing nut job, eco-wacko policies for the next two years—call it revenge of the progressive climate nerds.”

>My main conclusion from reading the report is this: the phrase ‘climate change’ is now officially meaningless. The report effectively implies that there is no climate change other than what is caused by humans.

Of this, ‘apportionment’ comes to mind, or lack of, the contradiction of the entire subject becoming pregnant with human induction.

The_observer said:

And in regards to the report your utube funny man based his act on judge-

“The NCA report breaks no new ground, goes beyond the hype and exaggeration spouted by the IPCC and its fellow travellers, and is a
superficial attempt to provide cover of the Obama administration’s new round of proposed environmental regulations.”

According to climate scientist Dr. Judith Curry:

“My main conclusion from reading the report is this: the phrase ‘climate change’ is now officially meaningless. The report effectively implies that
there is no climate change other than what is caused by humans, and that extreme weather events are equivalent to climate change. Any
increase in adverse impacts from extreme weather events or sea level rise is caused by humans. Possible scenarios of future climate change
depend only on emissions scenarios that are translated into warming by climate models that produce far more warming than has recently been
observed.”

More of Professor Curry’s commentary on the report can be found on her blog, http://judithcurry.com/2014/05/06/u-s-national-climate-assessment-report/
or in the 134 page critique of a draft of the NCADAC report by Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger. http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/the-missing-science-of-draft-assessment.pdf

Climatologist Dr. Roy Spenser has also provided cometary on the report’s major conclusions. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/05/my-initial-comments-on-the-national-climate-assessment/

“This is so transparently a political document its laughable. It is also frightening, since it is a clear sign that the Obama administration is about to
go on the offensive, spewing nut job, eco-wacko policies for the next two years—call it revenge of the progressive climate nerds.”

I think you will find Dr. Judith Curry is not a denier like yourself, but is only concerned with the apparent over zealous and unqualified comment from SOME people in support of Global Warming, but she does firmly believe that GW is happening and that we are the main cause. Unfortunately, in order to be fair in the GW debate she has made certain comment easier for you to take out of context.

Anyway I still await an answer to my question in response to yours.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_arg.htm

You guys plant any trees. Lungs of the earth they say.

planted a few. done quite a bit of work in environment stuff in vic, nt and wa.

algae is probably more the “lungs”.

>planted a few. done quite a bit of work in environment stuff in vic, nt and wa.

More powerr to you, maybe some (others) in this thread could get off their arses and plant some trees.

>algae is probably more the “lungs”.

yeah thought of oceans while wrote it, but you’ll get the theme from last post :)

some of the denuded areas in and around countries in the middle east might benefit from growing trees too, put down the AK47s and get some green happening.

JudgeMental said:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_arg.htm

“ My own experience in publicly discussing concerns about how uncertainty is characterized by the IPCC has
resulted in my being labeled as a “climate heretic” that has turned against my colleagues.”

Uncertainty in climate science. Judith Curry

Anthropogenic climate change is a theory in which the basic mechanism is well understood, but in which the magnitude of the climate change
is highly uncertain owing to feedback processes. We know that the climate changes naturally on decadal to century time scales, but we do not
have explanations for a number of observed historical and paleo climate variations, including the warming from 1910-1940 and the mid-20th
century cooling. The conflict regarding the theory of anthropogenic climate change is over the level of our ignorance regarding what is unknown
about natural climate variability.

I have been raising concerns since 2003 about how uncertainty surrounding climate change is evaluated and communicated. The IPCC’s
efforts to consider uncertainty focus primarily on communicating uncertainty, rather than on characterizing and exploring uncertainty in a way
that would be useful for risk managers and resource managers and the institutions that fund science. A number of scientists have argued that
future IPCC efforts need to be more thorough about describing sources and types of uncertainty, making the uncertainty analysis as transparent
as possible. Recommendations along these lines were made by the recent IAC review of the IPCC.

Because the assessment of climate change science by the IPCC is inextricably linked with the UNFCCC polices, a statement about scientific
uncertainty in climate science is often viewed as a political statement. A person making a statement about uncertainty or degree of doubt is
likely to become categorized as a skeptic or denier or a “merchant of doubt,” whose motives are assumed to be ideological or motivated by
funding from the fossil fuel industry.

My own experience in publicly discussing concerns about how uncertainty is characterized by the IPCC has

resulted in my being labeled as a “climate heretic” that has turned against my colleagues.
.
.

*Skepticlescience’s (SKS) strategy is to begin with a popular sceptics argument then counter it with what purports to be a pro-AGW scientific
consensus rebuttal. Of course there is no opportunity for the sceptic to rebut SKS’ rebuttal.*

*Each skeptics argument SKS initiates is couched in lay terms, making the sceptics look ignorant & intentionally leave out references that
support it,. The AGW counter argument is couched in scientifically sophisticated terms, with weighty references, making AGW look scientific.*

*What is not shown are the scientifically sophisticated sceptical responses to these AGW arguments, of which there are a great many, also with
loads of weighty references. In short the site is a one-sided sham.*

>>> I think you will find Dr. Judith Curry is not a denier like yourself,
but is only concerned with the apparent over zealous and unqualified
comment from SOME people in support of Global Warming<<<

just, from alarmist nut jobs like you PhactFree

>>>but she does firmly believe that GW is happening <<<

GW yes, as it always does. That is not AGW as she has stated!

>>>and that we are the main cause<<<

Pigs arse. who the fuck are you trying to fool

In an April 21 posting Curry says the following regarding the so called ‘facts’
cited by climate alarmists to try to make a case for man made climate harm:

“With regards to climate science, the biggest concern that I have is the insistence on ‘the facts.’ This came up during my recent ‘debate’ with
Kevin Trenberth. I argued that there are very few facts in all this, and that most of what passes for facts in the public debate on climate change
is: inference from incomplete, inadequate and ambiguous observations; climate models that have been demonstrated not to be useful for most
of the applications that they are used for; and theories and hypotheses that are competing with alternative theories and hypotheses.

I particularly like Dyson’s clarification on facts vs theories:

Facts and theories are born in different ways and are judged by different standards. Facts are supposed to be true or false. They are discovered
by observers or experimenters. A scientist who claims to have discovered a fact that turns out to be wrong is judged harshly.

Theories have an entirely different status. Since our understanding is incomplete, theories are provisional. Theories are tools of understanding,
and a tool does not need to be precisely true in order to be useful. A scientist who invents a theory that turns out to be wrong is judged leniently.

Mistakes are tolerated, so long as the culprit is willing to correct them when nature proves them wrong.

The loose use of ‘the facts’ in the public discussion of climate change (scientists, the media, politicians) is enormously misleading, damaging to
science, and misleading to policy deliberations.

I would also like to comment on the ‘good loser’ issue. I wholeheartedly agree with Dyson. In the annals of climate science, how would you
characterize Mann’s defence of the hockey stick? Other good or bad losers that you can think of in climate science?
The biggest problem is premature declaration of ‘winners’ by consensus to suit political and policy maker objectives.”

===========================

In an April 19 posting she addresses the increasing trend of climate alarmists and their supporters in the media to try to suffocate and eliminate
free speech by attacking those who offer opposing viewpoints, scientific analysis and alternative theories to unproven claims of man made
global warming theories. She notes the following regarding this attach by alarmists on free speech:

“I am broadly concerned about the slow death of free speech, but particularly in universities and also with regards to the climate change
debate.”

“With regards to climate change, I agree with George Brandis who is shocked by the “authoritarianism” with which some proponents of climate
change exclude alternative viewpoints.

While the skeptical climate blogosphere is alive and well in terms of discussing alternative viewpoints, this caters primarily to an older
population. I am particularly pleased to see the apparent birth of resistance to climate change authoritarianism by younger people, as reflected
by the young Austrian rapper.

Climate change ideology, and attempts to enforce it in the media, by politicians and by the cultural practices of academia, leads us down a
slippery slope:

Because the more topics you rule out of discussion — immigration, Islam, ‘gender fluidity’ — the more you delegitimise the political system. . . A
culture that can’t bear a dissenting word on race or religion or gender fluidity or carbon offsets is a society that will cease to innovate, and then
stagnate, and then decline, very fast. – Mark Steyn”

I have been raising concerns since 2003 about how uncertainty surrounding climate change is evaluated and communicated. The IPCC’s
efforts to consider uncertainty focus primarily on communicating uncertainty, rather than on characterizing and exploring uncertainty in a way
that would be useful for risk managers and resource managers and the institutions that fund science. A number of scientists have argued that
future IPCC efforts need to be more thorough about describing sources and types of uncertainty, making the uncertainty analysis as transparent
as possible. Recommendations along these lines were made by the recent IAC review of the IPCC.

—-

Interesting

tauto said:

Interesting

Curry

The politicization of climate change presents daunting challenges to climate science and scientists. In
my assessment, the single most important actions that are needed with regards to climate science –
particularly in context of assessments for policymakers – is explicit reflection on uncertainties,
ambiguities and areas of ignorance (both known and unknown unknowns) and more openness for
dissent. Natural internal variability is a topic of particular importance over which there is considerable
disagreement. Disagreement and debate is the soul of the scientific frontier, which is where much of
climate science lies. Greater openness about scientific uncertainties and ignorance, and more
transparency about dissent and disagreement, would provide policymakers with a more complete
picture of climate science and its limitations. When working with policy makers and communicators,
scientists should not fall into the trap of acceding to inappropriate demands for certainty; the intrinsic
limitations of the knowledge base need to be properly assessed and presented to decision makers. The
role of scientists should not be to develop political will to act by hiding or simplifying the
uncertainties, either explicitly or implicitly, behind a negotiated consensus.

The_observer said:

tauto said:

Interesting

Curry

The politicization of climate change presents daunting challenges to climate science and scientists. In
my assessment, the single most important actions that are needed with regards to climate science –
particularly in context of assessments for policymakers – is explicit reflection on uncertainties,
ambiguities and areas of ignorance (both known and unknown unknowns) and more openness for
dissent. Natural internal variability is a topic of particular importance over which there is considerable
disagreement. Disagreement and debate is the soul of the scientific frontier, which is where much of
climate science lies. Greater openness about scientific uncertainties and ignorance, and more
transparency about dissent and disagreement, would provide policymakers with a more complete
picture of climate science and its limitations. When working with policy makers and communicators,
scientists should not fall into the trap of acceding to inappropriate demands for certainty; the intrinsic
limitations of the knowledge base need to be properly assessed and presented to decision makers. The
role of scientists should not be to develop political will to act by hiding or simplifying the
uncertainties, either explicitly or implicitly, behind a negotiated consensus.

—

Wow.

>>> I think you will find Dr. Judith Curry is not a denier like yourself,
but is only concerned with the apparent over zealous and unqualified
comment from SOME people in support of Global Warming
<<<

In a January 6 posting Dr. Curry performs an analysis of the UN IPCC AR5 WGI report addressing the hiatus in surface warming and
discrepancies that outcome creates with climate models, the WGI evidence of lowering equilibrium sensitivity of climate to doubling CO2
concentrations, lack of WGI evidence for increasing rates of sea level rise, lack of WGI evidence explaining increasing Antarctic sea ice levels and
reduced WGI confidence in connections between atmospheric CO2 levels and the occurrence of extreme weather events.

She addresses in detail the failure of the climate models to project the global temperature hiatus of the past 15+ years and the need to instead use
“expert judgment” to create an estimate for future temperatures to year 2035 as noted in her essay material below.

Curry also addresses the WGI reports treatment of equilibrium climate sensitivity which clearly trends toward lowering the expected value of
this variable noting as follows:

In these remarkable essay’s Dr. Curry demonstrates and documents the huge limitations and inadequacies of climate alarm science and the
attempts of alarmists, media propagandists and ideologically driven politicians to ignore extensive contrary scientific evidence challenging man
made climate harm claims, falsely condemn and demonize qualified and competent scientists peer reviewed work which exposes the huge
shortcomings of alarmist climate science claims and alarmists ever increasing efforts to eliminate free speech concerning the climate science
debate.

The entire assay addressing the AR5 WGI report analysis can be found here:
( http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/06/ipcc-ar5-weakens-the-case-for-agw/ )

Dr. Curry’s entire essay on climate science significant limitations and inadequacies is here:
( http://judithcurry.com/2014/04/21/the-case-for-blunders/ )

The complete essay dealing with attacks on free speech by climate alarmists is here: ( http://judithcurry.com/2014/04/19/in-defense-of-free-speech/ )

Curry

I am Professor and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology and President (co-owner) of
Climate Forecast Applications Network (CFAN). I received a Ph.D. in Geophysical Sciences from the University of Chicago in 1982. Prior to
joining the faculty at Georgia Tech, I held faculty positions at the University of Colorado, Penn State University and Purdue University. I currently
serve on the NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee and the DOE Biological and Environmental Science Advisory Committee,
and have recently served on the National Academies Climate Research Committee and the Space Studies Board, and the NOAA Climate
Working Group. I am a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the
American Geophysical Union.

The_observer said:

>>> I think you will find Dr. Judith Curry is not a denier like yourself,
but is only concerned with the apparent over zealous and unqualified
comment from SOME people in support of Global Warming<<<

just, from alarmist nut jobs like you PhactFree

>>>but she does firmly believe that GW is happening <<<

GW yes, as it always does. That is not AGW as she has stated!

>>>and that we are the main cause<<<

Pigs arse. who the fuck are you trying to fool

In an April 21 posting Curry says the following regarding the so called ‘facts’
cited by climate alarmists to try to make a case for man made climate harm:

“With regards to climate science, the biggest concern that I have is the insistence on ‘the facts.’ This came up during my recent ‘debate’ with
Kevin Trenberth. I argued that there are very few facts in all this, and that most of what passes for facts in the public debate on climate change
is: inference from incomplete, inadequate and ambiguous observations; climate models that have been demonstrated not to be useful for most
of the applications that they are used for; and theories and hypotheses that are competing with alternative theories and hypotheses.

I particularly like Dyson’s clarification on facts vs theories:

Facts and theories are born in different ways and are judged by different standards. Facts are supposed to be true or false. They are discovered
by observers or experimenters. A scientist who claims to have discovered a fact that turns out to be wrong is judged harshly.

Theories have an entirely different status. Since our understanding is incomplete, theories are provisional. Theories are tools of understanding,
and a tool does not need to be precisely true in order to be useful. A scientist who invents a theory that turns out to be wrong is judged leniently.

Mistakes are tolerated, so long as the culprit is willing to correct them when nature proves them wrong.

The loose use of ‘the facts’ in the public discussion of climate change (scientists, the media, politicians) is enormously misleading, damaging to
science, and misleading to policy deliberations.

I would also like to comment on the ‘good loser’ issue. I wholeheartedly agree with Dyson. In the annals of climate science, how would you
characterize Mann’s defence of the hockey stick? Other good or bad losers that you can think of in climate science?
The biggest problem is premature declaration of ‘winners’ by consensus to suit political and policy maker objectives.”

===========================

In an April 19 posting she addresses the increasing trend of climate alarmists and their supporters in the media to try to suffocate and eliminate
free speech by attacking those who offer opposing viewpoints, scientific analysis and alternative theories to unproven claims of man made
global warming theories. She notes the following regarding this attach by alarmists on free speech:

“I am broadly concerned about the slow death of free speech, but particularly in universities and also with regards to the climate change
debate.”

“With regards to climate change, I agree with George Brandis who is shocked by the “authoritarianism” with which some proponents of climate
change exclude alternative viewpoints.

While the skeptical climate blogosphere is alive and well in terms of discussing alternative viewpoints, this caters primarily to an older
population. I am particularly pleased to see the apparent birth of resistance to climate change authoritarianism by younger people, as reflected
by the young Austrian rapper.

Climate change ideology, and attempts to enforce it in the media, by politicians and by the cultural practices of academia, leads us down a
slippery slope:

Because the more topics you rule out of discussion — immigration, Islam, ‘gender fluidity’ — the more you delegitimise the political system. . . A
culture that can’t bear a dissenting word on race or religion or gender fluidity or carbon offsets is a society that will cease to innovate, and then
stagnate, and then decline, very fast. – Mark Steyn”

—————————————————————————————————————————
>>While Judith Curry supports the scientific opinion on climate change, she has argued that climatologists should be more accommodating of those skeptical of the scientific consensus on climate change. Curry has stated she is troubled by what she calls the “tribal nature” of parts of the climate-science community, and what she sees as stonewalling over the release of data and its analysis for independent review.<<

scientific opinion = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Reference 12 = Revkin, Andrew (November 27, 2009). “A Climate Scientist Who Engages Skeptics”. New York Times. Retrieved 24 April 2010.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/a-climate-scientist-on-climate-skeptics/?_php=true&_type=blogs&pagemode=print&_r=0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry
————————————————————————————————
Seems you should do more reading Observer.

By the way Observer, do you want a reply to your question some posts back, or are you leaving the field with your tail between your legs?

The_observer said:

>>> I think you will find Dr. Judith Curry is not a denier like yourself,
but is only concerned with the apparent over zealous and unqualified
comment from SOME people in support of Global Warming
<<<

In a January 6 posting Dr. Curry performs an analysis of the UN IPCC AR5 WGI report addressing the hiatus in surface warming and
discrepancies that outcome creates with climate models, the WGI evidence of lowering equilibrium sensitivity of climate to doubling CO2
concentrations, lack of WGI evidence for increasing rates of sea level rise, lack of WGI evidence explaining increasing Antarctic sea ice levels and
reduced WGI confidence in connections between atmospheric CO2 levels and the occurrence of extreme weather events.

She addresses in detail the failure of the climate models to project the global temperature hiatus of the past 15+ years and the need to instead use
“expert judgment” to create an estimate for future temperatures to year 2035 as noted in her essay material below.

Curry also addresses the WGI reports treatment of equilibrium climate sensitivity which clearly trends toward lowering the expected value of
this variable noting as follows:

In these remarkable essay’s Dr. Curry demonstrates and documents the huge limitations and inadequacies of climate alarm science and the
attempts of alarmists, media propagandists and ideologically driven politicians to ignore extensive contrary scientific evidence challenging man
made climate harm claims, falsely condemn and demonize qualified and competent scientists peer reviewed work which exposes the huge
shortcomings of alarmist climate science claims and alarmists ever increasing efforts to eliminate free speech concerning the climate science
debate.

The entire assay addressing the AR5 WGI report analysis can be found here:
( http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/06/ipcc-ar5-weakens-the-case-for-agw/ )

Dr. Curry’s entire essay on climate science significant limitations and inadequacies is here:
( http://judithcurry.com/2014/04/21/the-case-for-blunders/ )

The complete essay dealing with attacks on free speech by climate alarmists is here: ( http://judithcurry.com/2014/04/19/in-defense-of-free-speech/ )

Curry

I am Professor and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology and President (co-owner) of
Climate Forecast Applications Network (CFAN). I received a Ph.D. in Geophysical Sciences from the University of Chicago in 1982. Prior to
joining the faculty at Georgia Tech, I held faculty positions at the University of Colorado, Penn State University and Purdue University. I currently
serve on the NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee and the DOE Biological and Environmental Science Advisory Committee,
and have recently served on the National Academies Climate Research Committee and the Space Studies Board, and the NOAA Climate
Working Group. I am a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the
American Geophysical Union.

—

noted

From my posts before last.

>>While Judith Curry supports the scientific opinion on climate change, she has argued that climatologists should be more accommodating of those skeptical of the scientific consensus on climate change. Curry has stated she is troubled by what she calls the “tribal nature” of parts of the climate-science community, and what she sees as stonewalling over the release of data and its analysis for independent review.<<

scientific opinion = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Reference 12 = Revkin, Andrew (November 27, 2009). “A Climate Scientist Who Engages Skeptics”. New York Times. Retrieved 24 April 2010.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/a-climate-scientist-on-climate-skeptics/?_php=true&_type=blogs&pagemode=print&_r=0

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

———————————————————————————————-

The Reference 12 (deleted by this forums process) refers to the first paragraph of my original post above. The link should be read if you think Judith Curry supports Global Warming Deniers, because she certainly does not as detailed in the letter of hers to a student. Well worth the read – you too Observer.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

>>> I think you will find Dr. Judith Curry is not a denier like yourself,
but is only concerned with the apparent over zealous and unqualified
comment from SOME people in support of Global Warming<<<

just, from alarmist nut jobs like you PhactFree

>>>but she does firmly believe that GW is happening <<<

GW yes, as it always does. That is not AGW as she has stated!

>>>and that we are the main cause<<<

Pigs arse. who the fuck are you trying to fool

————————————————————————————————
Seems you should do more reading Observer.

I’d suggest the same to you, but obviously you cannot read or comprehend what you read.
You live in a fantasy world all on your own

“In these remarkable essay’s Dr. Curry demonstrates and documents the huge limitations and inadequacies
of climate alarm science and the attempts of alarmists, media propagandists and ideologically driven politicians
to ignore extensive contrary scientific evidence challenging man made climate harm claims, falsely condemn and
demonize qualified and competent scientists peer reviewed work which exposes the huge shortcomings of alarmist
climate science claims and alarmists ever increasing efforts to eliminate free speech concerning the climate science debate.

Gezzze, Curry would rank you a complete prick PhactFree

Pity you can’t express yourself without resorting to personal abuse Observer

PermeateFree said:

By the way Observer, do you want a reply to your question some posts back,
or are you leaving the field with your tail between your legs?

I never have & never will be left in a position by you, that’s for sure,
where I feel the need to do that.

I’ll repeat the question again for you,as simply as I can, but on well established evidence you’ll avoid
giving an answer & then post another moronic statement like your effort above.
That’s ok, I’m use to dealing with children & idiots alike.

If, as a result of man-made greenhouse gas emissions emitted to the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution,
cause an increase in radiative forcing of 3.7 w/m2, resulting in an increase of 1K to the global average temperature of the earth,
do you believe this would be catastrophic?????

Yes / No ?

If you can’t or wont answer that simple question, fuck off & stop expecting me to continue playing your
childish games
.

PermeateFree said:

From my posts before last.

>>While Judith Curry supports the scientific opinion on climate change, she has argued that climatologists should be more accommodating of those skeptical of the scientific consensus on climate change. Curry has stated she is troubled by what she calls the “tribal nature” of parts of the climate-science community, and what she sees as stonewalling over the release of data and its analysis for independent review.<<

scientific opinion = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Reference 12 = Revkin, Andrew (November 27, 2009). “A Climate Scientist Who Engages Skeptics”. New York Times. Retrieved 24 April 2010.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/a-climate-scientist-on-climate-skeptics/?_php=true&_type=blogs&pagemode=print&_r=0

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

———————————————————————————————-

The Reference 12 (deleted by this forums process) refers to the first paragraph of my original post above. The link should be read if you think Judith Curry supports Global Warming Deniers, because she certainly does not as detailed in the letter of hers to a student. Well worth the read – you too Observer.

fucking wiki, piss off.

try reading what the woman herself says in the many posts I’ve provided.

I really think I’ve wasted more than enough time with you.

rumpole said:

Pity you can’t express yourself without resorting to personal abuse Observer

rumpole;

My discussions with perm started after he called me and another participant “fuckwits”,,, rumpole.

Perm also stated that I should be bullied here to shut me up & make me stop participating here,

and he himself was going to do just that!

Of course you’re coming here with your biased observations because

1, you’re also climate alarmist

and

2. you’re still crying from our exchanges at Q&A, hey chicken little.

what happens at Q&A stays at Q&A,,rumpole

“what happens at Q&A stays at Q&A,,rumpole”
==============
I didn’t comment on Q&A, just on your comments here.

rumpole said:

“what happens at Q&A stays at Q&A,,rumpole”
==============
I didn’t comment on Q&A, just on your comments here.

but that’s why you here having a dig in a thread where taking sides
is your only contribution, trolling

of course, as usual, you completely ignore where I post science, and the perm post insults in reply, because he’s got no come back so he just posts shit.

just but out if that’s the only contribution you can compose rumpole

http://www.thescienceforum.com/

http://www.physicsforums.com/

here you go observer. two science forums where you can argue your science. though i bet you wont post on them.

this forum is not really science, just a bunch of friends gasbagging. lets see you put your money where your mouth is and get real.

if you don’t then i guess we can all assume that your haven’t got it.

prove me wrong.

:-)

JudgeMental said:

http://www.thescienceforum.com/

http://www.physicsforums.com/

here you go observer. two science forums where you can argue your science. though i bet you wont post on them.

this forum is not really science, just a bunch of friends gasbagging. lets see you put your money where your mouth is and get real.

if you don’t then i guess we can all assume that your haven’t got it.

prove me wrong.

:-)

I don’t have to prove anything to you or anyone else

&

straight away I can ask >>> you <<<< why you haven’t suggested the same to Perm, hmmmmmm ?????
and also go there yourself ???

Interesting though, Judge.

many years ago, when I participated at the Q&A forum only, for fun mind you, Rumpole challenged me to come to the SSSF
& debate there, a forum just like the ones you’ve mentioned, not believing I would.

I did, thanks very much

& more to the point, with all of the participants there such as the Rev & Michael B I think his name was.

I could just go to denier forums, as you would call them, & post there with lots of agreeing participants,

but,

instead I went to debate all of the participants at SSSF, where I knew it would be just me against all of you – them -
who would be hostile to me.

So I don’t have to prove anything, thanks very much.

I admit I spend more time here than I want to, because I admit I keep getting sucked into responding to Perm,
& people like you.

You were happy till I posted a response to your utube weren’t you judge.

now that I’ve shown how bogus that report was, you want me to leave
because you can’t match it with me. Well no. :)

go there observer talk to some scientists. or are you too gutless for some real debate.

ps didn’t read your post just replying automatically to it.

JudgeMental said:

ps didn’t read your post just replying automatically to it.

well, no point replying to your goading then simple boy

points at observer….gutless and spineless. go on prove me wrong. go and get into a real debate with some scientists. show us what you’re made of.

:-)

JudgeMental said:

points at observer….gutless and spineless. go on prove me wrong. go and get into a real debate with some scientists. show us what you’re made of.

:-)

now your trolling, not that you’ll read this.

looser

and is there any rules here against bullying?

LOL

loser

hth

though i have been looser in my time i’m not now.

here Judge, just for you

.

My Initial Comments on the National Climate Assessment
May 7th, 2014

There will be many comments from others, I’m sure, but these are my initial thoughts on the 12 major findings from the latest National Climate
Assessment, which proports to tell us how the global climate change anticipated by the IPCC on a global basis will impact us here at home.

The report findings are in bold and italics. My comments follow each finding.

1. Global climate is changing and this is apparent across the United States in a wide range of observations. The global warming of the past 50
years is primarily due to human activities, predominantly the burning of fossil fuels. Many independent lines of evidence confirm that human
activities are affecting climate in unprecedented ways. U.S. average temperature has increased by 1.3°F to 1.9°F since record keeping began in
1895; most of this increase has occurred since about 1970. The most recent decade was the warmest on record. Because human-induced
warming is superimposed on a naturally varying climate, rising temperatures are not evenly distributed across the country or over time.

Yes, it has likely warmed, but by an amount which is unknown due to increasing warm biases in thermometer siting, which cannot be removed
through “homogenization” adjustments. But there is no way to know whether “The global warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human
activities…”, because there is no fingerprint of human-caused versus naturally-caused climate change. To claim the changes are
“unprecedented” cannot be demonstrated with reliable data, and are contradicted by some published paleoclimate data which suggests most
centuries experience substantial warming or cooling.

2. Some extreme weather and climate events have increased in recent decades, and new and stronger evidence confirms that some of these
increases are related to human activities. Changes in extreme weather events are the primary way that most people experience climate
change. Human-induced climate change has already increased the number and strength of some of these extreme events. Over the last 50
years, much of the United States has seen an increase in prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures, more heavy downpours, and in
some regions, more severe droughts.

There is little or no evidence of increases in severe weather events, except possibly in heavy rainfall events, which would be consistent with
modest warming. The statement panders to the publics’ focus on the latest severe weather, and limited memory of even worse events of the
past.

3. Human-induced climate change is projected to continue, and it will accelerate significantly if global emissions of heat-trapping gases continue
to increase. Heat-trapping gases already in the atmosphere have committed us to a hotter future with more climate-related impacts over the
next few decades. The magnitude of climate change beyond the next few decades depends primarily on the amount of heat-trapping gases that
human activities emit globally, now and in the future.

This is a predictive statement based upon climate models which have not even been able to hindcast past global temperatures, let alone
forecast changes with any level of accuracy.

4. Impacts related to climate change are already evident in many sectors and are expected to become increasingly disruptive across the nation
throughout this century and beyond. Climate change is already affecting societies and the natural world. Climate change interacts with other
environmental and societal factors in ways that can either moderate or intensify these impacts. The types and magnitudes of impacts vary
across the nation and through time. Children, the elderly, the sick, and the poor are especially vulnerable. There is mounting evidence that harm
to the nation will increase substantially in the future unless global emissions of heat-trapping gases are greatly reduced.

To the extent climate has changed regionally, there is no way to know how much has been due to human activities. In fact, it might well be
human-induced changes have reduced the negative impact of natural changes – there is simply no way to know. You see, those scientists who
study the natural world cannot bring themselves to consider the possibility than some human impacts are actually positive. Even if the human-
caused impacts are a net negative, they are far outweighed by the benefits to society (especially the poor) of access to abundant, affordable
energy. Besides, for the next few decades, there is nothing substantial we can do about the problem, unless killing off a large portion of
humanity, and making the rest miserable, is on the table.

5. Climate change threatens human health and well-being in many ways, including through more extreme weather events and wildfire,
decreased air quality, and diseases transmitted by insects, food, and water. Climate change is increasing the risks of heat stress, respiratory
stress from poor air quality, and the spread of waterborne diseases. Extreme weather events often lead to fatalities and a variety of health
impacts on vulnerable populations, including impacts on mental health, such as anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. Large-scale
changes in the environment due to climate change and extreme weather events are increasing the risk of the emergence or reemergence of
health threats that are currently uncommon in the United States, such as dengue fever.

Most of this is just simply made up, and ignores the positive benefits of access to affordable energy which far outweigh the negatives. If there
has been an increase in anxiety and PTSD, it isn’t from severe weather events…it’s from the relentless fear mongering by politicians and the
news media.

6. Infrastructure is being damaged by sea level rise, heavy downpours, and extreme heat; damages are projected to increase with continued
climate change. Sea level rise, storm surge, and heavy downpours, in combination with the pattern of continued development in coastal areas,
are increasing damage to U.S. infrastructure including roads, buildings, and industrial facilities, and are also increasing risks to ports and
coastal military installations. Flooding along rivers, lakes, and in cities following heavy downpours, prolonged rains, and rapid melting of
snowpack is exceeding the limits of flood protection infrastructure designed for historical conditions. Extreme heat is damaging transportation
infrastructure such as roads, rail lines, and airport runways.

Sea level rise (which was occurring before we started emitting carbon dioxide in substantial amounts) is a very slow process, which would have
to be accommodated for anyway. And the weaker global warming turns out to be, the slower sea level rise will be. Infrastructure damage occurs
anyway, and is often due to weather events which exceed the design limits. You don’t engineer roads and buildings and seawalls and levees to
handle any possible scenario…it would be too expensive. A large part of our flooding problems are due to the replacement of natural ground
with paved surfaces, which enhances runoff into rivers. This has nothing to do with climate change.

7. Water quality and water supply reliability are jeopardized by climate change in a variety of ways that affect ecosystems and livelihoods.
Surface and groundwater supplies in some regions are already stressed by increasing demand for water as well as declining runoff and
groundwater recharge. In some regions, particularly the southern part of the country and the Caribbean and Pacific Islands, climate change is
increasing the likelihood of water shortages and competition for water among its many uses. Water quality is diminishing in many areas,
particularly due to increasing sediment and contaminant concentrations after heavy downpours.

This is largely a non sequitur. The problems described exist even without human-caused climate change…to the extent that substantial human
influences exist.

8. Climate disruptions to agriculture have been increasing and are projected to become more severe over this century. Some areas are already
experiencing climate-related disruptions, particularly due to extreme weather events. While some U.S. regions and some types of agricultural
production will be relatively resilient to climate change over the next 25 years or so, others will increasingly suffer from stresses due to extreme
heat, drought, disease, and heavy downpours. From mid-century on, climate change is projected to have more negative impacts on crops and
livestock across the country – a trend that could diminish the security of our food supply.

I work with the people involved in tracking and long-term prediction of agricultural yields, both domestically and internationally. They see no sign
of climate change impacts on agricultural yields. There are always natural fluctuations, but if there is any negative human-induced impact, it is
swamped by the increasing yields due to improved agricultural practices, seed varieties, and very likely CO2 fertilization.

9. Climate change poses particular threats to Indigenous Peoples’ health, well-being, and ways of life. Chronic stresses such as extreme
poverty are being exacerbated by climate change impacts such as reduced access to traditional foods, decreased water quality, and increasing
exposure to health and safety hazards. In parts of Alaska, Louisiana, the Pacific Islands, and other coastal locations, climate change impacts
(through erosion and inundation) are so severe that some communities are already relocating from historical homelands to which their traditions
and cultural identities are tied. Particularly in Alaska, the rapid pace of temperature rise, ice and snow melt, and permafrost thaw are
significantly affecting critical infrastructure and traditional livelihoods.

O..M..G. So let’s help poor people by increasing the cost of everything by making the energy on which everything depends even more
expensive? The people who write this drivel are so clueless they should not be allowed to influence the decision making process.

10. Ecosystems and the benefits they provide to society are being affected by climate change. The capacity of ecosystems to buffer the
impacts of extreme events like fires, floods, and severe storms is being overwhelmed. Climate change impacts on biodiversity are already
being observed in alteration of the timing of critical biological events such as spring bud burst and substantial range shifts of many species. In
the longer term, there is an increased risk of species extinction. These changes have social, cultural, and economic effects. Events such as
droughts, floods, wildfires, and pest outbreaks associated with climate change (for example, bark beetles in the West) are already disrupting
ecosystems. These changes limit the capacity of ecosystems, such as forests, barrier beaches, and wetlands, to continue to play important
roles in reducing the impacts of these extreme events on infrastructure, human communities, and other valued resources.

Modest warming and more CO2 available to the biosphere is already having positive impacts, such as the recent greening of the planet. Trying
to turn the most obvious positive outcomes into negatives leads to logical contortions which would be funny if they weren’t so serious. Nature
changes anyway, folks, as evidenced by glaciers in Europe and North America receding and uncovering ancient tree stumps. Ecosystems are
being “overwhelmed”? I don’t think so. Ecosystems are not static.

11. Ocean waters are becoming warmer and more acidic, broadly affecting ocean circulation, chemistry, ecosystems, and marine life. More
acidic waters inhibit the formation of shells, skeletons, and coral reefs. Warmer waters harm coral reefs and alter the distribution, abundance,
and productivity of many marine species. The rising temperature and changing chemistry of ocean water combine with other stresses, such as
overfishing and coastal and marine pollution, to alter marine-based food production and harm fishing communities.

There is increasing evidence that ocean acidification has been greatly overblown. I’m not an expert, but from what I’ve read lately, more realistic
lab experiments with adding CO2 to sea water shows that the natural buffering capacity of sea water limits pH changes, and the increasing
CO2 is actually good for life in the ocean….just as it is on land (because CO2 is also necessary for the start of the food chain in the ocean). I
think the jury is still out on this issue…but, of course, we can’t expect government reports, which are written to facilitate desired policy changes,
to provide balance on such things.

12. Planning for adaptation (to address and prepare for impacts) and mitigation (to reduce future climate change, for example by cutting
emissions) is becoming more widespread, but current implementation efforts are insufficient to avoid increasingly negative social,
environmental, and economic consequences. Actions to reduce emissions, increase carbon uptake, adapt to a changing climate, and increase
resilience to impacts that are unavoidable can improve public health, economic development, ecosystem protection, and quality of life.

Translation: We need more government regulation and taxation.

THE BOTTOM LINE:

Follow the money, folks. This glitzy, 840-page report took a lot of your tax dollars to generate, and involved only those “experts” who are willing
to play the game. It is difficult to answer in its entirety because government has billions of dollars to invest in this, while most of us who try to
bring some sanity to the issue must do it in our spare time, because we aren’t paid to do it. It is nowhere near balanced regarding science,
costs-versus-benefits, or implied policy outcomes. Like the previous two National Assessment reports, it takes global climate models which
cannot even hindcast what has happened before, which over-forecast global average warming, which are known to have essentially zero skill
for regional (e.g. U.S.) predictions, and uses them anyway to instill fear into the masses, so that we might be led to safety by politicians.

Caveat emptor.

(Oh, and if you are tempted to say, “What about all the Big Oil money involved in our need for energy?” Well, that money was willingly given to
Big Oil by all of us for a useful product that makes our lives better. Government money is taken from you (I’m not anti-taxation, just pointing out a
distinction) that they then use to perpetuate the perceived need for more government control. If “Big Oil” could make a profit by becoming “Big
Solar”, or “Big Wind”, they would.)

tldnr.

JudgeMental said:

tldnr.

Here Judge, you like to debate climate, until you loose that is,

then you get desperate, pathetic, bully & troll.

YOU go to these forums & have a go.

And if you don’t, you’re a coward as well

http://joannenova.com.au/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

http://theresilientearth.com/

nah sorry. you’re the one who claims to have the ““truth” you go debate it with scientists. if you have the balls that is.

Here Judge, a complete rebuttal to the rubbish utube report you posted here yesterday.

You can go & debate this article here Judge

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/13/checking-the-nca-report-against-real-data-reveals-major-discrepancies/

Sanity Checking The National Climate Assessment Report Against Real Data Reveals Major Discrepancies
Posted on May 13, 2014 by Don J. Easterbrook
Guest essay by Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Dept. of Geology, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA

How well do claims and assertions in the just-released 800+-page report by the National Climate Assessment (NCA) stack up against unequivocal, real-time data? Let’s apply the scientific method, as outlined by Feynman, to the NCA report. We’ll first state each assertion made in the NCA report, then test it against real-time observation and data. The report begins with dire predictions based on computer models, so let’s start with that. Here is their assertion, based on the graph below.

NCA assertion: “Temperatures are projected to rise another 2°F to 4°F in most areas of the United States over the next few decades.” “By the end of this century, a roughly 3°F to 5°F rise is projected under a lower emissions scenario, and a 5°F to 10°F rise for a higher emissions.”

Figure 1. NCA temperature predictions

Facts: How do we check the validity of this prediction? Well, we can look at comparisons of previous computer model results to recorded satellite temperatures. Figure 2 shows Roy Spencer’s plot of 44 of the latest climate models versus satellite measurements. As his graph shows, the models were not even close to the real measured temperatures. The obvious conclusion here is that the models failed miserably, a fact admitted to by the IPCC in their latest report.

Figure 2. Temperatures from 44 of the latest computer climate models plotted against UAH and RSS satellite temperature measurements. The models weren’t even close! (Spencer, 2014)

Well, maybe the graph from the 16 climate models used in the NCA report weren’t included in the 44 models in the Spencer plot, so let’s check their particular model results by looking at the 18 year period of overlap of the NCA model results and satellite measurements in Figure 1. The graph shows that the computer model predicted an increase of 0.8° F during the past 18 years when satellite measurements record no warming at all! That’s a huge difference over such a time period–the modeled results are nowhere near reality. If the model can’t come any closer than 0.8 ° F in 18 years, why should we believe that it is any more accurate over the next 86 years to the end of the century? The modeled temperature predictions fail verification from measured temperatures and thus fail the Feynman test “If it disagrees with the experiment, it is wrong.” We can therefore confidently conclude that the NCA temperature predictions are not valid.

At this point, we might ask, since virtually everything else in the NCA report is based on these computer models, doesn’t that invalidate all that follows? It certainly invalidates their dire predictions, but the report also contains assertions that are based on claims other than from models. So let’s look at some of those.

The report claims that:

1. NCA assertion: “The burning of coal, oil, and gas, and clearing of forests have increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by more than 40% since the Industrial Revolution.”

Facts: This percentage increase means nothing. Human CO2 emissions didn’t begin to rise significantly until after 1945 at the end of WWII, so no warming prior to that can be attributed to CO2. The CO2 composition of the atmosphere then was about 0.030 . The CO2 composition of the atmosphere recently reached 0.04, a total increase of only 0.010% since ~1950. But the period of ‘global warming didn’t begin until 1978 when CO2 made up 0.034% of the atmospheric, so that’s an increase of only 0.006%. ’ That’s about as close to nothing as you can get, and even if you double or triple it, you still have close to nothing!

2. NCA assertion: “It has been known for almost two centuries that carbon dioxide traps heat.”

Facts: That’s not the question—it’s not if CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it’s how much is there in the atmosphere (Fig. 3) and how much can it affect climate? CO2 makes up only 3.6% of the greenhouse gases (Fig. 4) and coupled with the fact that the atmospheric concentration has changed only 0.0065% since recent warming began in 1978 (Fig. 3), there is no way that this miniscule amount can have any significant effect on climate. Water vapor accounts for ~95% of the greenhouse effect and computer modelers put a large arbitrary water vapor factor in their computer programs, claiming that if CO2 increases, so will water vapor. But that isn’t true—atmospheric water vapor has been declining since 1948 (Fig. 5), not increasing, so modelers who put a water vapor driver in their programs will not have a valid output.

Figure 3. Total change in CO2 content in the atmospheric since global warming began in 1978. (Mauna Loa observatory)

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/clip_image008_thumb.jpg?w=272&h=183! Figure 4. Greenhouse effect of CO2 and water vapor.

Figure 5. Decline in atmospheric water vapor since 1948. Water vapor is clearly NOT increasing as required by computer models in predicting catastrophic atmospheric warming. (NOAA)

Ice cores clearly show that CO2 increases always follow warming (Fig. 6), not precede warming as would occur if CO2 caused the warming.

Figure 6. CO2 lags behind warming in the Vostok ice core.

CO2 also lags short-term warming (Fig. 7), showing that warming causes rise in CO2, not the other way around if CO2 was the cause. (see joannenova.com.au for references)

Figure 7. CO2 also lags short-term warming, again showing that warming causes CO2 to rise, not the other way around.

3. NCA assertion: “Data show that natural factors like the sun and volcanoes cannot have caused the warming observed over the past 50 years.” “Sensors on satellites have measured the sun’s output with great accuracy and found no overall increase during the past half century.”

Fact: This is a very outdated statement—global climate marches in lock step with sun spots, length of the sun spot cycle, and intensity of the solar magnetic field. This excellent correlation has long puzzled scientists because even though total solar insolation (TSI) correlates very well with climate, the variation doesn’t appear to be great enough to have much effect on climate. New research at Cern (Svensmark) has shown that a very likely cause of this is fluctuation of the sun’s magnetic field that affects radiation reaching the atmosphere where ionization leads to cloud formation and changes in albedo. You’d think that with all those scientists who wrote this report, at least someone would know about that. Bottom line here is that this statement is obsolete because of the ‘Svensmark process.’

4. NCA assertion: The pattern of temperature change through the layers of the atmosphere, with warming near the surface and cooling higher up in the stratosphere, further confirms that it is the buildup of heat-trapping gases (also known as “greenhouse gases”) that has caused most of the Earth’s warming over the past half century.

Fact: Comparison of model results and real measurements show that this statement is not true- they are quite different.

5. NCA assertion: “U.S. average temperature has increased by 1.3°F to 1.9°F since 1895, and most of this increase has occurred since 1970.”

Fact: As shown by HadCrut4 data (Fig. 8) this statement is not true. 56% of the warming since 1895 occurred prior to 1945.

Figure 8. HadCRUT4 temperature curve showing that 56% of the warming since 1895 occurred prior to 1945, not “most of this increase has occurred since 1970.”.

The rate of warming from 1910 to 1945 was 0.174°C per decade (prior to increase in CO2 that occurred after 1945). The rate of warming from 1978 to 2014 was 0.176 °C per century, virtually the same as the 1910-1945 warming. What this means is that 56% of the warming over the past century occurred before the rise of human CO2 emissions and the rate of warming from 1910 to 1945 (0.174°C per decade) was identical to the warming from 1978 to 2014 (0.176 °C per decade)

Figure 9. Two periods of global warming occurred during the past century, 1910 to 1945 and 1978 to 2000. The rates of warming were identical for both periods, but the 1910 to 1945 warming occurred before the rise of human CO2 emissions so could not have been caused by rise in CO2.

6. NCA assertion: “The most recent decade was the nation’s and the world’s hottest on record.” “The second line of evidence is from reconstructions of past climates using evidence such as tree rings, ice cores, and corals. These show that global surface temperatures over the last several decades are clearly unusual, with the last decade (2000-2009) warmer than any time in at least the last 1,300 years and perhaps much longer.”

Fact: This contention is totally false. The Greenland ice cores and a vast amount of other paleotemperature data show that temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (900 AD to 1300 AD) were warmer than at present (Fig. 10).

Figure 10. The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than present.

7. NCA assertion: “2012 was the hottest year on record in the continental United States.”

Fact: The 2012 temperatures were essentially the same as 1921, 1931, and 1934 (Fig. 11), using original data not altered by USCHN. The NCA claim is based on tampering of the original data (see data at http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/tracking-us-temperature-fraud/). The authors of the NCA report don’t seem to know the difference between weather and climate. Ini any event, this is weather and tells us nothing about climate–warmer and cooler years can happen anytime in the record, regardless of climate.

Figure11. U.S. annual temperature from original data. (USHCN arbitrarily subtracts temperatures from the early part of the record and adds to the more recent records, severely biasing the data). Temperatures in 2012 were clearly essentially the same as those in 1921, 1931, and 1934.

Globally, 2012 was not unusually warm. Satellite (RSS) measurements show the 2012 was well below 1998, 2010, and slightly below half a dozen other years (Fig. 12)

Figure 12. Satellite temperature measurements. 2012 temperatures were well below 1998, and 2010 temperatures, and were slightly below more than half a dozen other years.

8. NCA assertion: All U.S. regions have experienced warming in recent decades.

Fact: This statement is not true. Although the climate warmed from 1978 to 2000, in general, the eastern half of the U.S. has cooled recently and the western half has warmed or been neutral (Fig 12).

Figure 12. U.S. Temperature stations. Blue dots are station showing recent cooling, tan dots are neutral, and red dots are warmer. Most of the eastern half of the country has cooled, and most of the western U.S. has been neutral with some warming.

Much of the NOAA temperature data has been artificially inflated to show warming. NOAA stations that meet siting requirements show warming of 0.155°C per decade and NOAA stations that do not meet minimum siting requirements show warming of 0.248 °C per decade. However, the warming reported by NOAA is 0.309 °C per decade, twice as much as shown by the good data (Watts, 2010).

Twice as many maximum temperature records were set in the decade of the 1930s as in the past decade and four times as many summer maximum records set in the decade of the 1930s as in the past decade (Fig. 13).

Figure 13. Number of maximum temperature records set per decade.

Globally, there has been no warming over the past 17½ years (Fig. 13

Figure 14. Global satellite (RSS) temperatures show no warming over the past 17½ years (Monckton, 2014).

Winters in all regions of the U.S. have become decidedly colder over the first decade of this century (Fig. 15). Winters in the north-central U.S. are more than -8 °F/decade cooler, the south-central U.S. -3-5 °F/decade cooler, and the west and east coasts -1-2 °F/decade cooler.

Figure 15. Cooling of all regions in the winter for the first decade of this century.

9. NCA assertion: Heat waves have generally become more frequent across the U.S. in recent decades, with western regions setting records for numbers of these events in the 2000s. Tree ring data suggests that the drought over the last decade in the western U.S. represents the driest conditions in 800 years.

Facts: The ‘record-setting droughts in the 2000s’ were not really records at all. The only year of any substantial drought was 2012 and according to the NCDC, it ranked only number 6 in the past century. The others were:

Year % of US in drought

1934 79.9%

1939 62.1

1954 60.4

1956 57.6

1931 54.9

2012 54.6

(NCDC)

The droughts of the 1930s and 1950s were stronger than those of the 2000s according to the Palmer Drought Severity Index.

Figure 16. Drought Severity Indices, 1895-2013 (NOAA)

The number of daily high temperature records clearly shows that the 1930s were significantly warmer than the 2000s (Fig. 17). Almost 4,000 high temperature records were set in 1936 and more than 3,000 in 1934 compared to only 1,300 in 2012.

Figure 17. Number of daily high temperatures for 229 USHCN stations having more than 80 years of record.

Other evidence that the 1930s were warmer than the 2000s includes the number of records of temperatures over 105 °F (Fig. 18). 16,000 days in the 1930s had temperatures at or above 105 °F, but only 2,500 days were above 105 °F in the 2000s.

Figure 18. Number of days warmer than 105 °F.

10. NCA assertion: The intensity, frequency, and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes, as well as the frequency of the strongest hurricanes, have all increased since the early 1980s.

Facts: It has been 9 years since the last Category 3 hurricane (Wilma, 2005). That’s the longest period—by far—in records that extend back to 1900. There have been no hurricanes during the Obama administration (Sandy was not technically a hurricane when it came onshore).

The number of hurricanes in Florida didn’t vary much from 1870 to 1970, dropped to a low in 1980, rose to match the high of the century (1950), and has now fallen to an all-time low (Fig. 19).

Figure 19. Number of Florida hurricanes per year since 1870. We are now at an all-time low.

The Accumulated Cyclone Energy in both the Northern Hemisphere globally has been declining since the early 1990s (Fig.

Figure 20. Accumulated Cyclone Energy in both the Northern Hemisphere globally since 1972.

11. NCA assertion Global sea level has risen by about 8 inches since reliable record keeping began in 1880. The future scenarios range from 0.66 feet to 6.6 feet in 2100. This recent rise is much greater than at any time in at least the past 2000 years.

Facts: During the last Ice Age (~10-20,000 years ago), vast areas of continents were covered with ice sheets up to 10,000 feet thick. There was so much water tied up in these ice sheets that it caused sea level to drop about 120 meters (400 feet). 11,500 years ago, the climate changed abruptly, warming at rates up to 20 °F in a century, bringing the Ice Age to a very sudden end. The ice sheets melted at an astonishing rate, causing sea level to rise sharply. We know the chronology of this sea level rise (Fig. 21), so we can calculate the rate of sea level rise as the ice sheets melted. Sea level rose 50 meters (160 ft) between 12,000 and 8,000 years ago. That’s a rate of sea level rise of 4 feet per century, during a time when gigantic ice sheets were melting from warming of tens of degrees per century.

Figure 21. Sea level over the past 12,000 years.

The authors of the NCA report (and NOAA) want us to believe that sea level may rise as much as 6.6 feet by 2100 (86 years from now), a rate of sea level rise of 7.7 feet per century! That’s about twice the rate at which sea level rose while the huge Ice Age ice sheets melted under warming of tens of degrees per century. So where do the so-called scientists of this report think all this water will come from? Those huge Ice Age ice sheets no longer exist, so the only possible source is melting of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets? How likely is it that a 0.006% rise in CO2 is going to melt a significant portion of the Antarctic ice sheet? Probably zero to none. Why couldn’t the so-called scientists who authored the NCA report do the simple math? If they had even read the literature, this analysis has already been published (Morner, 2020).

The East Antarctic ice sheet (the major Antarctic ice sheet with ice up to 15,000 feet thick) first appeared in the Miocene, 15 million years ago. Throughout most of the Antarctic ice sheet history, global CO2 levels were 1000-2000 ppm (compared to present 400 ppm), so the recent miniscule rise of CO2 is peanuts compared to what it has been. So even doubling, tripling, quadrupling, or quintupling of CO2 would still be well below the levels of most of the ice sheet’s history and the ice sheet survived those quite nicely.

The Antarctic ice sheet is continuing to grow, not melt, and sea ice is presently at an all-time high (Fig. 22). The average daily temperature in Antarctica is –58° F, so to get significant ice to melt would require raising the average daily temperature from -58 to +32 ° F (melting point of ice), plus another ~10 ° F, a total warming of +100° F. Not likely!

Figure 22. Antarctic sea ice is presently at an all-time high, about a million square kilometers above average.

Another way to look at the ridiculousness of the NCA predicted sea level rise is to compare their predictions with history sea level rates. The rate of sea level rise from 1900 to 2000 was 1.7 mm/yr (~7 inches per century) (Fig. 23). Figure 24 shows a comparison of the sea level rise over the past century with the NCA predicted sea level rise. The huge difference is impossible because there is no source of water for the NCA predicted rise.

Figure 23. Sea level since 1700 AD

Figure 24. NCA sea level rise prediction compared to projecton of sea level rise over the past century.
CONCLUSIONS

How well do the NCA assertions compare with real data? As can be seen from the data above, they diverge wildly from real data. The report is filled with wild distortions and outright fabrications. If we apply Feynman’s scientific method (if an assertion disagrees with observations or data, it is wrong) to the NCA report, we can only conclude that the report fails badly. One can only wonder why the so-called scientists who wrote the report could possibly justify making such unsupported assertions contrary to hard data.

A substantial part of the report emphasizes weather events (drought, hurricanes, tornadoes, storms, etc). The authors don’t seem to know the difference between weather and climate. None of the ‘extreme events’ they cite have any meaning whatsoever to climate. Single weather events can happen at any time, regardless of the climate.

The authors also don’t seem to be able to distinguish cause-and-effect relationships from artificial scenarios. They frequently point to ‘global warming’ as if that somehow proves it was caused by CO2,totally ignoring vast amounts of data showing that CO2 always lags warming, even on a short term basis. If CO2 lags warming, it can’t be the cause of the warming!

The most obvious shortcoming of the NCA report is all of the assertions that are contrary to hard data. But the report is also weakened by the wholesale ignoring of relevant data. Rather than discussing data and justifying their assertions, the authors simply disregard any data that doesn’t fit their scenarios.

From these observations, one can only conclude that the report is really not a scientific document at all, but rather a huge political propaganda effort. Anthony Watts (http://wattsupwiththat.com/) said it quite succinctly:

“To me, this looks more like a glossy sales pitch from a company that is pushing a product they know people may not need, but if marketed just right, it would be something they’d buy. It reminds me of some insurance commercials I’ve seen in the past, where the commercial portrays all the bad things that could happen to you if you don’t get covered. Basically, they are trying to make people afraid of the weather, and then they pitch a solution to that fear in a way that’s right up there with the best traditions of salesmanship: Who wouldn’t want better weather? Just buy our product.”

Footnote:

Science is based on the ‘scientific method,’ which has been articulately described by Richard Feynman, a Cal Tech, nobel-prize-winning physicist.

1. Science is a method of finding things out by observation, experimentation, and testing, which is the ultimate judge of the truth of a concept.

2. If any exception to a concept can be proven by observation, the concept is wrong.

3. The number of scientists who believe something is irrelevant to the validity of a concept.

4. No government or other authority can decide the truth of a scientific concept.

5. All scientists are skeptics—it is important to doubt in order to test concepts and look in new directions.

He outlines the necessary steps in using the scientific method as follows:

“In general, we look for a new law by the following process: First we guess it; then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right; then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with the experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is—if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. “ (Richard Feynman).
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/13/checking-the-nca-report-against-real-data-reveals-major-discrepancies/

JudgeMental said:

nah sorry. you’re the one who claims to have the ““truth” you go debate it with scientists. if you have the balls that is.

you fucking coward

lol. sorry tldnr. go fight this with some real scientists.

The_observer said:

JudgeMental said:

nah sorry. you’re the one who claims to have the ““truth” you go debate it with scientists. if you have the balls that is.

you fucking coward

Has somebody upset The_observer? :)))))))))))

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

JudgeMental said:

nah sorry. you’re the one who claims to have the ““truth” you go debate it with scientists. if you have the balls that is.

you fucking coward

Has somebody upset The_observer? :)))))))))))

No, just pointing out how hypocritical the judge is being, amoung other things.
not upset at all perm, judge is just upset that I rebuked his utube comic climate analysis from yesterday
& he had no answer to me spoiling his day.

He recognises that neither he, you or anyone else around here can dismiss what I say,
that climate sensitivity is very low, or even negative, & that challenges everything the alarmists predict.

You, are completely devoid of any argument other than repeating the moronic & desperate 97% fallacy,
insulting me continuously rather than responding with a scientific argument to counter what I say,
as people here have pointed out to you
& ridiculously try to suggest things like Curry agrees with your views, for example.

just the usual stuff

No one here believes you Observer

haven’t you figured that out yet.

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

you fucking coward

Has somebody upset The_observer? :)))))))))))

No, just pointing out how hypocritical the judge is being, amoung other things.
not upset at all perm, judge is just upset that I rebuked his utube comic climate analysis from yesterday
& he had no answer to me spoiling his day.

He recognises that neither he, you or anyone else around here can dismiss what I say,
that climate sensitivity is very low, or even negative, & that challenges everything the alarmists predict.

You, are completely devoid of any argument other than repeating the moronic & desperate 97% fallacy,
insulting me continuously rather than responding with a scientific argument to counter what I say,
as people here have pointed out to you
& ridiculously try to suggest things like Curry agrees with your views, for example.

just the usual stuff

No time now Observer, shall try to get back to you later. In the meantime, be good, :)

CrazyNeutrino said:

No one here believes you Observer

haven’t you figured that out yet.

Speak for yourself please.

There is a lot of data posted that has not been refuted on here.

IS jjjust moi, The_observer?

CrazyNeutrino said:

IS jjjust moi, The_observer?

Are you Riff?

CrazyNeutrino said:

IS jjjust moi, The_observer?

?

jjjust moi said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

No one here believes you Observer

haven’t you figured that out yet.

Speak for yourself please.

There is a lot of data posted that has not been refuted on here.

Is cherry-picked data real data?

jjjust moi said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

No one here believes you Observer

haven’t you figured that out yet.

Speak for yourself please.

There is a lot of data posted that has not been refuted on here.

Yeh, stuff that in ya bong and smoke it crazy ;))))))))))

CrazyNeutrino said:

IS jjjust moi, The_observer?

you’re bent, aren’t you?

or pathetic,

one or the other

PermeateFree said:

jjjust moi said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

No one here believes you Observer

haven’t you figured that out yet.

Speak for yourself please.

There is a lot of data posted that has not been refuted on here.

Is cherry-picked data real data?

there’s your denial in action.

perm, it was toooo easy refuting your nature paper.

that’s why you easy

Your a Troll, Observer
and not a very good observer either

PermeateFree said:

jjjust moi said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

No one here believes you Observer

haven’t you figured that out yet.

Speak for yourself please.

There is a lot of data posted that has not been refuted on here.

Is cherry-picked data real data?

Data is data no matter where it comes from, last time I looked.

Refute the source if you like, that’s the usual way.

CrazyNeutrino said:

Your a Troll, Observer
and not a very good observer either

troll, me

& here’s you suggesting me & jm are the one

get a grip

(on ya bong probably)

jjjust moi = The_observer

The_observer said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Your a Troll, Observer
and not a very good observer either

troll, me

& here’s you suggesting me & jm are the one

get a grip

(on ya bong probably)

Being friendly too much for you?

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

jjjust moi said:

Speak for yourself please.

There is a lot of data posted that has not been refuted on here.

Is cherry-picked data real data?

Data is data no matter where it comes from, last time I looked.

Refute the source if you like, that’s the usual way.

The problem with that, is Observer seldom gives references. I think he is too embarrassed.

CrazyNeutrino said:

jjjust moi = The_observer

Nope.

Just someone who has a good grounding in the method.

Ignoring hard data show willingness to preconceive the result you want.

CrazyNeutrino said:

jjjust moi = The_observer

warning

trolling in progress

CrazyNeutrino said:

The_observer said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Your a Troll, Observer
and not a very good observer either

troll, me

& here’s you suggesting me & jm are the one

get a grip

(on ya bong probably)

Being friendly too much for you?

No, I’ll be happy to be friendly to anyone who doesn’t spend their time here insulting me.

quite sure me & j.m could be friends, if that was what I actually came here for – friendship,

which I don’t.

no offence j.m

jjjust moi said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

jjjust moi = The_observer

Nope.

Just someone who has a good grounding in the method.

Ignoring hard data show willingness to preconceive the result you want.

I have jjjust moi down as Boris.

PermeateFree said:

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

Is cherry-picked data real data?

Data is data no matter where it comes from, last time I looked.

Refute the source if you like, that’s the usual way.

The problem with that, is Observer seldom gives references. I think he is too embarrassed.

see, there goes perm lying. It’s his way of goading because he can’t rebuke what I post.

ps, I post references, j.m knows that, stupid

The_observer said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

The_observer said:

troll, me

& here’s you suggesting me & jm are the one

get a grip

(on ya bong probably)

Being friendly too much for you?

No, I’ll be happy to be friendly to anyone who doesn’t spend their time here insulting me.

quite sure me & j.m could be friends, if that was what I actually came here for – friendship,

which I don’t.

no offence j.m

Your not friendly observer

and no here believes you

PermeateFree said:

jjjust moi said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

jjjust moi = The_observer

Nope.

Just someone who has a good grounding in the method.

Ignoring hard data show willingness to preconceive the result you want.

the trouble with you perm is
you’re totally wilfully fucking ignorant

I have jjjust moi down as Boris.

CrazyNeutrino said:

The_observer said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Being friendly too much for you?

No, I’ll be happy to be friendly to anyone who doesn’t spend their time here insulting me.

quite sure me & j.m could be friends, if that was what I actually came here for – friendship,

which I don’t.

no offence j.m

Your not friendly observer

and no here believes you

if you say so!

The_observer said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

The_observer said:

troll, me

& here’s you suggesting me & jm are the one

get a grip

(on ya bong probably)

Being friendly too much for you?

No, I’ll be happy to be friendly to anyone who doesn’t spend their time here insulting me.

quite sure me & j.m could be friends, if that was what I actually came here for – friendship,

which I don’t.

no offence j.m

None taken, but I think we would get on.

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

jjjust moi said:

Data is data no matter where it comes from, last time I looked.

Refute the source if you like, that’s the usual way.

The problem with that, is Observer seldom gives references. I think he is too embarrassed.

see, there goes perm lying. It’s his way of goading because he can’t rebuke what I post.

ps, I post references, j.m knows that, stupid

I suggest you go back over your posts them, you must be using invisible ink. Anyway must go now. Later Observer.

An article by Dr Roy Spencer adapted for the Holiday Forum.

By T.o

Yes, PhactFree, there are lefty equivalents to climate change denial.
May 9th, 2014

Honestly….these are supposed to be the smartest people in the room?

What lefties do is basically redefined the term “fact” to be anything that lefties believe in.

Of course there are liberal equivalents. For example, here are seven that immediately come to mind:

1) natural climate change denial

2) denial that coal and petroleum work better than unicorn farts as fuels,

3) denial that a small amount of warming is better than killing millions of poor people by restricting access to inexpensive energy,

4) denial that the human-induced component of climate change is anything but catastrophic and an emergency,

5) denial that an increasing number of scientists are becoming skeptics,

6) denial that IPCC scientists were caught red-handed trying to silence the opposition and “hide the decline”,

7) denial of the observations, which show much less warming than any of the climate models can explain over the last 30+ years.

For supposedly being able to understand nuances, these guys can’t admit that most conservatives really do believe that humans have some influence on climate. We just don’t think the scientific and economic evidence supports spreading more misery around the globe than liberal policies have already created.

The_observer said:

An article by Dr Roy Spencer adapted for the Holiday Forum.

By T.o

Yes, PhactFree, there are lefty equivalents to climate change denial.
May 9th, 2014

Honestly….these are supposed to be the smartest people in the room?

What lefties do is basically redefined the term “fact” to be anything that lefties believe in.

Of course there are liberal equivalents. For example, here are seven that immediately come to mind:

1) natural climate change denial

2) denial that coal and petroleum work better than unicorn farts as fuels,

3) denial that a small amount of warming is better than killing millions of poor people by restricting access to inexpensive energy,

4) denial that the human-induced component of climate change is anything but catastrophic and an emergency,

5) denial that an increasing number of scientists are becoming skeptics,

6) denial that IPCC scientists were caught red-handed trying to silence the opposition and “hide the decline”,

7) denial of the observations, which show much less warming than any of the climate models can explain over the last 30+ years.

For supposedly being able to understand nuances, these guys can’t admit that most conservatives really do believe that humans have some influence on climate. We just don’t think the scientific and economic evidence supports spreading more misery around the globe than liberal policies have already created.

A name but no link, see what I mean observer?

>>>I suggest you go back over your posts them, you must be using invisible ink. Anyway must go now. Later Observer.
<<<

fuck off dick head

The_observer said:

>>>I suggest you go back over your posts them, you must be using invisible ink. Anyway must go now. Later Observer.
<<<

fuck off dick head

Dear oh dear.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

An article by Dr Roy Spencer adapted for the Holiday Forum.

By T.o

Yes, PhactFree, there are lefty equivalents to climate change denial.
May 9th, 2014

Honestly….these are supposed to be the smartest people in the room?

What lefties do is basically redefined the term “fact” to be anything that lefties believe in.

Of course there are liberal equivalents. For example, here are seven that immediately come to mind:

1) natural climate change denial

2) denial that coal and petroleum work better than unicorn farts as fuels,

3) denial that a small amount of warming is better than killing millions of poor people by restricting access to inexpensive energy,

4) denial that the human-induced component of climate change is anything but catastrophic and an emergency,

5) denial that an increasing number of scientists are becoming skeptics,

6) denial that IPCC scientists were caught red-handed trying to silence the opposition and “hide the decline”,

7) denial of the observations, which show much less warming than any of the climate models can explain over the last 30+ years.

For supposedly being able to understand nuances, these guys can’t admit that most conservatives really do believe that humans have some influence on climate. We just don’t think the scientific and economic evidence supports spreading more misery around the globe than liberal policies have already created.

A name but no link, see what I mean observer?

LOL, guess what I just did perm?

I cut n paste #2 – denial that coal and petroleum work better than unicorn farts as fuels_

into google search, & wham, up came links to this http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/05/yes-ben-adler-there-are-liberal-equivalents-to-climate-change-denial/

thought I believed you were smart enough to do that?

NO

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

>>>I suggest you go back over your posts them, you must be using invisible ink. Anyway must go now. Later Observer.
<<<

fuck off dick head

Dear oh dear.

don’t trouble yourself, I meant that!

None of you donkeys know a thing about trolling.

party_pants said:

None of you donkeys know a thing about trolling.

I know, just threw a few crumbs into the water

lost interest now

CrazyNeutrino said:

party_pants said:

None of you donkeys know a thing about trolling.

I know, just threw a few crumbs into the water

lost interest now

Yes, it gets hard to keep up appearences

The collapse of large parts of the ice sheet in West Antarctica appears to have begun and is almost certainly unstoppable, with global warming accelerating the pace of the disintegration, two groups of scientists reported Monday.
The finding, which had been feared by some scientists for decades, means that a rise in global sea level of at least 10 feet may now be inevitable. The rise may continue to be relatively slow for at least the next century or so, the scientists said, but sometime after that it will probably speed up so sharply as to become a crisis.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/12/1298846/-NYT-West-Antarctic-Ice-Sheet-Collapse-has-Begun#

PermeateFree said:

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

Is cherry-picked data real data?

Data is data no matter where it comes from, last time I looked.

Refute the source if you like, that’s the usual way.

The problem with that, is Observer seldom gives references. I think he is too embarrassed.

.
this is an excellent example of how much shit permfree speaks-

Some of the links I have posted on this very thread -

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-2-3.html
http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/mmh_asl2010.pdf
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tmt/plots/rss_ts_channel_tmt_global_land_and_sea_v03_3.png
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tlt/plots/rss_ts_channel_tlt_global_land_and_sea_v03_3.png
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/73-climate-models_reality.gif
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/s_plot_thumb.png?w=420&h=248
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/s_extn_thumb.png?w=404&h=479
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/s_stddev_timeseries_thumb_thumb.png?w=420&h=340
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tlt/plots/rss_ts_channel_tlt_southern%20polar_land_and_sea_v03_3.png
http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/51000/51781/antarctica_ice_velocity.jpg
https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/14-southern-ssta.png?w=640&h=413
http://cdn.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Ice_Age_Temperature.png
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0gDErDwXqhc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Zw5Lda06iK0
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/clip_image0028.jpg
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/clip_image007_thumb.jpg?w=575&h=124
http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/06/ipcc-ar5-weakens-the-case-for-agw/
http://judithcurry.com/2014/04/21/the-case-for-blunders/
http://judithcurry.com/2014/04/19/in-defense-of-free-speech/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/13/checking-the-nca-report-against-real-data-reveals-major-discrepancies/

Impact of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) on deriving anthropogenic warming rates
from the instrumental temperature record
G. R. van der Werf and A. J. Dolman
VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

And some scientists I have quoted on this thread-

Dr. Judith Curry
Climatologist Dr. Roy Spenser
Dr Paul Holland, Polar Oceanographer at British Antarctic Survey
Prof Martin Siegert, Professor of Geosciences at the University of Bristol
The IPCC
NSIDC

.

see, this is why I refer to PermeateFree as PhactFree

he’s just full of it!

Postpocelipse said:

The collapse of large parts of the ice sheet in West Antarctica appears to have begun and is almost certainly unstoppable, with global warming accelerating the pace of the disintegration, two groups of scientists reported Monday.
The finding, which had been feared by some scientists for decades, means that a rise in global sea level of at least 10 feet may now be inevitable. The rise may continue to be relatively slow for at least the next century or so, the scientists said, but sometime after that it will probably speed up so sharply as to become a crisis.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/12/1298846/-NYT-West-Antarctic-Ice-Sheet-Collapse-has-Begun#

======================================================

The Media over-hyped the West Antarctica climate propaganda reporting

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/13/the-media-over-hyped-the-west-antarctica-climate-propaganda-reporting/

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

As seems to always be the case the climate fear propaganda news media have completely mislead the public once again regarding climate
related issues this time by alleging claims of 4 meter high future sea level rise increases supposedly addressed in two recent studies which
performed analysis of glacier melt behavior of six large glaciers in West Antarctica.

One study was published in Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) and titled “Sustained increase in ice discharge from the Amundsen Sea
Embayment, West Antarctica, from 1973 to 2013“. This study is available here:

http://www.ess.uci.edu/researchgrp/erignot/files/grl51433.pdf

The second study was published in Science and titled “Marine Ice Sheet Collapse Potentially Under Way for the Thwaites Glacier Basin, West
Antarctica“. This study is available here:

http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/files/glacier-thwaites.pdf

Both studies evaluate the relatively recent melt rate history of these glaciers with one focusing on the use observed satellite data to estimate
melt rate behavior while the other uses computer models to estimate melt rate behavior.

Amazingly enough and considering how the press manufactured headlines about sea level rise increases being determined from these studies
neither of the studies addresses or make any claims about the impact of their research results on specific future sea level rise projections.

In fact GLC study mentions nothing specific about future sea level rise projections while the Science study clearly notes that their research
models “are not coupled to a global climate model to provide forcing nor do they include an ice-shelf cavity-circulation model to derive melt
rates. Few if any such fully coupled models presently exist (13). As such, our simulations do not constitute a projection of future sea level in
response to projected climate forcing.”

Also unreported by the same climate alarmist propaganda focused media were the significant qualifications, limitations and cautions noted in
these studies concerning their glacier melt research findings.

The GRL published study noted for example the following qualifiers regarding its analysis:

“These observations are a possible sign of the progressive collapse of this sector in response to the high melting of its buttressing ice shelves
by the ocean.”

“Until numerical ice sheet models coupled with realistic oceanic forcing are able to replicate these observations, projections of the evolution of
this sector of West Antarctica should be interpreted with caution.”

The Science published study contained the following similarly related qualifiers regarding its analysis:

“Although our simple melt parameterization suggests that a full-scale collapse of this sector may be inevitable, it leaves large uncertainty in the
timing. Thus, ice-sheet models fully coupled to ocean/climate models are required to reduce the uncertainty in the chronology of a collapse.”

Why aren’t these significant research finding qualifiers regarding the preliminary nature of these studies results addressed by the main stream
media?

The main stream media manufactured numbers alleging sea level rise projections not addressed at all in either of these studies and then
compounded that alarmist portrayal by concealing very significant scientific qualifiers noted in both studies regarding their glacier melt rate
research findings.

Even some of the climate media have problems with how this entire climate alarmist episode has been handled. New York Times reporter
Andrew Revkin wrote an article in that paper in 2009 addressing the glacier study work underway in West Antarctica titled “Study: West
Antarctic Melt a Slow Affair” where he challenged the use of the word “collapse” in describing the melt behavior of that region. This article
included the following observation:

“Over all, the loss of the West Antarctic ice from warming is appearing “more likely a definite thing to worry about on a thousand-year time scale
but not a hundred years,”

With latest round of speculative media climate alarmism regarding the West Antarctica region glacier research Revkin has written yet another
article titled “Consider Clashing Scientific and Societal Meanings of ‘collapse’ When Reading Antarctic Ice News” again challenging the use of
the word “collapse”. He offers the following observations in this article about the recent alarmist news reporting:

News articles by The Times, Time, the Associated Press and others capture the basics in two new papers, one on six West Antarctic glaciers
that appear to have nothing holding back eventual disappearance, accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters, and the other
taking a closer look at one of those ice masses, the Thwaites Glacier, posted online today by the journal Science.

Some headlines are completely overwrought — as with this NBC offering: “West Antarctic Ice Sheet’s Collapse Triggers Sea Level Warning.”
This kind of coverage could be interpreted to mean there’s an imminent crisis. It’s hard to justify that conclusion given the core findings in the
studies. (Am I trying to maintain a hold on reality or am I a “scold”?)

Take the Science paper: Marine Ice Sheet Collapse Potentially Under Way for the Thwaites Glacier Basin, West Antarctica. Using ice-flow
models and observations, the researchers, led by Ian Joughin of the University of Washington, concluded:

“Except possibly for the lowest-melt scenario, the simulations indicate that early-stage collapse has begun. Less certain is the time scale, with
the onset of rapid (>1 mm per year of sea-level rise) collapse in the different simulations within the range of 200 to 900 years.

To translate a bit, that means sometime between 200 and 900 years from now the rate of ice loss from this glacier could reach a volume
sufficient to raise sea levels about 4 inches (100 millimeters) a century. At that point, according to the paper, ice loss could pick up steam, with
big losses over a period of decades.* But in a phone conversation, Joughin said the modeling was not reliable enough to say how much, how
soon.”

This on going West Antarctica reporting frenzy clearly establishes that the climate alarmist news media have abandoned any pretense of
objectivity regarding climate reporting and become soldiers dedicated to conducting an alarmist propaganda campaign that is built on
manufacturing misleading, inaccurate and erroneous headline grabbing articles unsupported by published science to support their flawed
cause.

jjjust moi said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

No one here believes you Observer

haven’t you figured that out yet.

Speak for yourself please.

There is a lot of data posted that has not been refuted on here.

It hasn’t been refuted because it is a complete waste of time trying to discuss anything with observer (or permeate for that matter). They are both free of the tiniest bit of scepticism about any data that can be represented or misrepresented as supporting their preconceptions.

The Rev Dodgson said:

jjjust moi said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

No one here believes you Observer

haven’t you figured that out yet.

Speak for yourself please.

There is a lot of data posted that has not been refuted on here.

It hasn’t been refuted because it is a complete waste of time trying to discuss anything with observer (or permeate for that matter). They are both free of the tiniest bit of scepticism about any data that can be represented or misrepresented as supporting their preconceptions.

.
.

Hypocrisy

bought to you by ‘Rev’

available online, anytime

Have you posted on the other science forums yet Observer ?

I’m looking forward to you doing that and to the responses you get.

Or aren’t you up to it ?

rumpole said:

Have you posted on the other science forums yet Observer ?

I’m looking forward to you doing that and to the responses you get.

Or aren’t you up to it ?

I seem to remember you daring me to go on the SSSF way back troll

don’t you learn?

The_observer said:

rumpole said:

Have you posted on the other science forums yet Observer ?

I’m looking forward to you doing that and to the responses you get.

Or aren’t you up to it ?

I seem to remember you daring me to go on the SSSF way back troll

don’t you learn?

Ahhh abuse.

I’ll take that as a no, ie you aren’t up to it.

rumpole said:

The_observer said:

rumpole said:

Have you posted on the other science forums yet Observer ?

I’m looking forward to you doing that and to the responses you get.

Or aren’t you up to it ?

I seem to remember you daring me to go on the SSSF way back troll

don’t you learn?

Ahhh abuse.

I’ll take that as a no, ie you aren’t up to it.

not up to what exactly troll?

being abused by a climate scientist, I doubt they would respond to me that way.

not up to providing the views of climate scientists that show the alarmism is unjustified?

why would I worry bout doing that. It’s the views of scientists afterall.

I know rumpole that to you I must seem like a bully here,
picking on lesser people.

I can’t help that.

By the way rumpole, what apparent experts reside over at Q&A where you spend your
life espousing your strong views.

None.

“why would I worry bout doing that. It’s the views of scientists afterall.”
========================
Good then. As I said, I look forward to you presenting your views on the forums quoted.

rumpole said:

“why would I worry bout doing that. It’s the views of scientists afterall.”
========================
Good then. As I said, I look forward to you presenting your views on the forums quoted.

firstly, let me point out that I have not said I wouldn’t

or that I don’t

and neverwill you know what nic’s I use, or what science forums I go to

because just like here

I can do without the ankle biters

and the pack dogs.

Now rumpole, if you “are up to it”, you can challenge anything I have posted here.

chicken little

The_observer said:

Figure 2. Temperatures from 44 of the latest computer climate models plotted against UAH and RSS satellite temperature measurements. The models weren’t even close! (Spencer, 2014)

Why is the graph based on a 5 year average and why the years 1979-1983?

How many of the 44 climate models being abused here used the same base?

NASA’s released their global temperatures for April.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

April 2014 was the second hottest April on record, 0.07 degrees lower than April 2010.

dv said:

NASA’s released their global temperatures for April.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

April 2014 was the second hottest April on record, 0.07 degrees lower than April 2010.

Ah ha, see, the earth is cooling

(the_observer)

:)

>>>>How many of the 44 climate models being abused here used the same base?<<<

whatever esselte, just show a climate model projection that correlates to their projected temp output that matches reality.

Then show me where the IPCC states that their climate models are accurate

dv said:

NASA’s released their global temperatures for April.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

April 2014 was the second hottest April on record, 0.07 degrees lower than April 2010.

can I just get confirmation on that figure -

was that . . . ZERO – point – ZERO -SEVEN

FUCK ME we’re doomed

.
.
that this fandangle new satelight thingy data stuff whatever

John and Tim went to a penis restaurant in this two Men in China thing. They weren’t game to try it.

Oh good, this thread is still going.

whoops, wrong thread. I didn’t mean to post that here!

Arts said:

Oh good, this thread is still going.

Yes, its a winner,,,here

Does the_observer deny global warming, or just that humans are causing it?

bump

Just want to be part of history.
And of course adding my little bit of pollution to this thread and the planet.

Kingy said:

Does the_observer deny global warming, or just that humans are causing it?

maybe try asking observer nobby

Paging observer nobby

Do you deny global warming, or just that humans are causing it?

Do you deny global warming, or just that humans are causing it?
<<<

all the alarmist predictions are based on climate sensitivity being strongly positive.

the observations show that climate sensitivity is not strongly positive & perhaps negative

Observer – what do you think of the AFL’s white shorts policy? Time for a change?

party_pants said:

Observer – what do you think of the AFL’s white shorts policy? Time for a change?

well, if you want my genuine opinion;

you should grow a brain & come to your own conclusion

so how’s the posting going on real science forums? grown any balls yet to actually do it?

ChrispenEvan said:

so how’s the posting going on real science forums? grown any balls yet to actually do it?

I’m waiting for you to grow balls so I can use them to roll myself to the point of climax

ahhh i see you aren’t really convinced of your own arguments.

ChrispenEvan said:

ahhh i see you aren’t really convinced of your own arguments.

take me on then, cowgirl

ChrispenEvan said:

ahhh i see you aren’t really convinced of your own arguments.

take me on then, cowgirl

getting a bit angry there mate, double posts are always a dead giveaway.

still i’m not a scientist. go argue with some real ones. if you can.

The_observer said:

Do you deny global warming, or just that humans are causing it?
<<<

all the alarmist predictions are based on climate sensitivity being strongly positive.

the observations show that climate sensitivity is not strongly positive & perhaps negative

Thank you for that answer. I generally do not join in on AGW discussions because I am not a climate scientist.

It certainly appears that the climate is warming, there are many things happening that prove it, but the current pause gives food for thought. My guess is that it will keep warming due to the rapid increase in CO2. I am hoping that we get a major volcano soon to slow it down.

ChrispenEvan said:

getting a bit angry there mate, double posts are always a dead giveaway.

still i’m not a scientist. go argue with some real ones. if you can.

no, not angry

I’m not a real scientist either

that apparently intimidates you

here’s my point -

all the alarmist predictions are based on climate sensitivity being strongly positive.

the observations show that climate sensitivity is not strongly positive & perhaps negative

reply

go argue with real scientists then and they will set you straight. arguing here wont improve your knowledge. bit like only playing chess with opponents you can beat. pointless. strokes the ego is all.

Kingy said:

The_observer said:

Do you deny global warming, or just that humans are causing it?
<<<

all the alarmist predictions are based on climate sensitivity being strongly positive.

the observations show that climate sensitivity is not strongly positive & perhaps negative

Thank you for that answer. I generally do not join in on AGW discussions because I am not a climate scientist.

It certainly appears that the climate is warming, there are many things happening that prove it, but the current pause gives food for thought. My guess is that it will keep warming due to the rapid increase in CO2. I am hoping that we get a major volcano soon to slow it down.

Thank you Kingy for being polite & tolerant of my opinion

The_observer said:

>>>>How many of the 44 climate models being abused here used the same base?<<<

whatever esselte, just show a climate model projection that correlates to their projected temp output that matches reality.

Then show me where the IPCC states that their climate models are accurate

What do you mean “whatever”?

http://web.archive.org/web/20100322194954/http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/models-2

Chapter 8 of the IPCC AR4 report lists 23 computer models which contributed to the AR4 assessment. The output of those models is available from Climate Explorer, and for most of the models multiple ensemble member runs are available. Downloading the global average temperate data from the 20C3m (20th-century) and SRES-A1B experiments provides data for 118 runs of those 23 models. This enables us to compare the models’ global average surface temperature, as well as the average of all the model runs, to the observed global temperature according to NASA GISS (using anomalies on a 1980-2000 baseline):

Climate explorer
http://web.archive.org/web/20090610041014/http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_co2.cgi?someone@somewhere

god I’m tired
= This enables us to compare the models’ global average surface temperature, as well as the average of all the model runs, to the observed global temperature according to NASA GISS (using anomalies on a 1980-2000 baseline):
=
go ahead then, show us how accurate they have been projecting the climate,

then show how accurate the IPCC considers their model to be

Observer,

The first URL will show you the accuracy of predictions made by 23 models used in AR4.

The second URL will take you to a site where you can download the data provided to the IPPC by those modelling groups.

esselte said:

Observer,

The first URL will show you the accuracy of predictions made by 23 models used in AR4.

The second URL will take you to a site where you can download the data provided to the IPPC by those modelling groups.

good then, show us all here

no need to show me esselte.

ChrispenEvan said:

no need to show me esselte.

enough said

The_observer said:

good then, show us all here

I don’t understand what you mean. Visiting the first web site I listed earlier will show you the results of multiple runs of 23 climate simulations. That is what you are asking for, isn’t it?

I provided the second web address so that you could potentially check the raw data from those climate models yourself, to check for bias in the analysis given in the first web site. I say potentially because I have no idea what form that data takes or how difficult it might be to interpret.

Are you going to answer my questions about the graph you posted?

esselte said:

The_observer said:

good then, show us all here

I don’t understand what you mean. Visiting the first web site I listed earlier will show you the results of multiple runs of 23 climate simulations. That is what you are asking for, isn’t it?

I provided the second web address so that you could potentially check the raw data from those climate models yourself, to check for bias in the analysis given in the first web site. I say potentially because I have no idea what form that data takes or how difficult it might be to interpret.

Are you going to answer my questions about the graph you posted?

Addendum: the first website compares the data from those models to temperature observations.

I don’t understand what you mean.
<<<

climate models used by the IPCC to predict climate response to radiative forcing
all show too much warming.

because the hypothesised amplification of the direct effect of greenhouse forcing
has not occured

I’m off to dreamland E

tomorrow

perhaps

or maybe not

The_observer said:

I’m off to dreamland E

tomorrow

perhaps

or maybe not

Hi Observer
I collected quite a lot of information yesterday to present you with, which no doubt would have had you raving at your end, but with all the other posters, things have moved on and I shall save them for another time. Besides you have provided me with a considerable amount of fun, but now I am becoming a little bored both with you and the subject, so I hope you don’t mind if I leave it for another day, as I don’t want to be dispossessed of any future amusement.
Kind regards
Permeate

Climate Models Vs Reality

Second Order Draft. Chapter 1. IPCC WGI Fifth Assessment Report
Figure 1.4: Estimated changes in the observed globally and annually averaged surface temperature (in ºC) 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)

-

Second Order Draft. Chapter 1. IPCC WGI Fifth Assessment Report
Figure 1.5: with annotations showing HadCRUT4 Temperature Data (yellow):
Similar to Figure 1.4 except that the focus is now on the range of selected scenario
projections from AR4. The shading shows high, low and mid-range SRES scenarios from AR4 for the years 1990–2015
of global annual mean near surface temperature change (note that these are high, mid-range, and low for this time period,
not at end of the 21st century). SRES data was obtained from Figure 10.26 in Chapter 10 of AR4 and re-calculated to a
baseline period of 1961–1990.

-

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/10/maybe-that-ipcc-95-certainty-was-correct-after-all/

-

http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2013/updated-comparison-of-simulations-and-observations/

-

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/science-is-shortcut.html

Fixing the Facts 2

Steve McIntyre
Oct 8 2013
AR5 Second Order Draft (SOD) Figures 1.4 and 1.5 showed the discrepancy between observations and projections from previous
assessment reports. SOD Figure 1.5 (see below as annotated) directly showed the discrepancy for AR4 without additional clutter
from earlier assessment reports. Even though AR4 was the most recent and most relevant assessment report,
SOD Figure 1.5 was simply deleted from the report.

http://climateaudit.org/2013/10/08/fixing-the-facts-2/

Over the last couple of days I have read a considerable amount of Judith Curry’s work, which I might add is a tiny fraction of what she has written, she is very prolific. It appears in her younger day she was very much in the main stream regarding conventional global warming science, but suddenly she changed and began heavily criticising it.

It looks to me she began having considerable frustration and pain in dealing with the climate science establishment, possibly the glass ceiling, being ignored or undermined by more influential people. However whatever it was, I think she decided much like a woman scorned, to retaliate against the science and so the people and institutions involved. Something she has done most effectively.

She is a professional scientist, well versed in climate science and with any new research which she now denigrates, they open up new fields of knowledge and create many lines of inquiry that are left for others to follow up. I believe she has used these uncertain areas to undermine the original research to unfairly sow doubt and confusion.

With her background she is able to dig deeply and use technical argument to misrepresent the original research, particularly exploiting the variability of nature to pass off the research as observations of normal activity, although the actual situation from researchers was vastly different. She has I feel been justly and strongly criticised by researchers as being a vandal (or the equivalent) in her misrepresentations.

Personally, I am not a climate scientist and only repeat what 97% of climate scientists produce and I take what they claim, especially when pier reviewed as being sincere and genuine. I do not know enough to argue with someone like Judith Curry as her being in the business has access and experience on a very different level.

The sad situation is Curry has used her influence to pull the wool over the eyes of many ordinary people and given birth to those like The-observer to continue her destructive work in non-scientific circles. She has provided in simple format for them to use with vast quantities of distorted science to swamp and dominate global warming discussion over other non-scientific people.

Genuine climate science will not be stopped by her, or people like her, but they have certainly thrown some very large obstacles in the way of progress and are likely to be largely responsible for a great deal of suffering in this world.

From: Permeate Free (PhactFree)
ID: 531184

Subject: re: Skeptical Arguments that Don’t Hold Water

1. Over the last couple of days >> I << have read a > considerable < amount of > Judith Curry’s work <.

2. It appears in her younger day she was very much in the > main stream < regarding > conventional. global warming science, <
but suddenly she changed and began heavily > criticising < it.

3. It looks to >> me << she began having considerable > frustration and pain < in dealing with the climate science establishment,
possibly the > glass ceiling <, being > ignored <
or undermined by more > influential people <.

4.However whatever it was, >> I << think she decided much like a woman scorned, to > retaliate against the science and so the people and institutions involved. <

-

It looks to >> me << >> being ignored or undermined

> I < think she decided much like a woman scorned

-
-

About the Woman Scorned who was Ignorned

I am Professor and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology
and President (co-owner) of Climate Forecast Applications Network (CFAN).

I received a Ph.D. in Geophysical Sciences from the University of Chicago in 1982.

Prior to joining the faculty at Georgia Tech, I held faculty positions at the
University of Colorado,
Penn State University and
Purdue University.

I currently serve on the NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee and the
DOE Biological and Environmental Science Advisory Committee,
and have recently served on the
National Academies Climate Research Committee
and the
Space Studies Board, and the NOAA Climate Working Group.

I am a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society,
the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
and the American Geophysical Union.

Quote:
Permeate Free: Personally, >> I << am not a climate scientist

conspiracy theorist ?

nutcase ?

Tickets, on yourself !

The_observer said:

From: Permeate Free (PhactFree)
ID: 531184

Subject: re: Skeptical Arguments that Don’t Hold Water

1. Over the last couple of days >> I << have read a > considerable < amount of > Judith Curry’s work <.

2. It appears in her younger day she was very much in the > main stream < regarding > conventional. global warming science, <
but suddenly she changed and began heavily > criticising < it.

3. It looks to >> me << she began having considerable > frustration and pain < in dealing with the climate science establishment,
possibly the > glass ceiling <, being > ignored <
or undermined by more > influential people <.

4.However whatever it was, >> I << think she decided much like a woman scorned, to > retaliate against the science and so the people and institutions involved. <

-

It looks to >> me << >> being ignored or undermined

> I < think she decided much like a woman scorned

-
-

About the Woman Scorned who was Ignorned

I am Professor and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology
and President (co-owner) of Climate Forecast Applications Network (CFAN).

I received a Ph.D. in Geophysical Sciences from the University of Chicago in 1982.

Prior to joining the faculty at Georgia Tech, I held faculty positions at the
University of Colorado,
Penn State University and
Purdue University.

I currently serve on the NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee and the
DOE Biological and Environmental Science Advisory Committee,
and have recently served on the
National Academies Climate Research Committee
and the
Space Studies Board, and the NOAA Climate Working Group.

I am a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society,
the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
and the American Geophysical Union.

Quote:
Permeate Free: Personally, >> I << am not a climate scientist

conspiracy theorist ?

nutcase ?

Tickets, on yourself !

Shrugs

And you reckon I’m a nutcase.

>>>Quote:
Permeate Free: Personally, >> I << am not a climate scientist

conspiracy theorist ?

nutcase ?

Tickets, on yourself !

Sexist; Tick

The_observer said:

>>>Quote:
Permeate Free: Personally, >> I << am not a climate scientist

conspiracy theorist ?

nutcase ?

Tickets, on yourself !

Sexist; Tick

She got a good one with you Observer, you would swallow anything.

Model – Data Comparisons Bob Tisdale

Model. . . CSIRO Model Mean MK3 6.0 Historic/RCP6.0

Data. . . Australia BOM

Australian Land Surface Temperature Anomalies
Jan 1979 to Jan 2014

Model Warming Rate = + 0.248 Degree C / Decade

. Data Warming Rate = + 0.106 Degree C / Decade

The CSIRO model more than doubles the observed warming rate for Australia since 1979.

http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2014/04/doubling-dud-projections/

.
.

Model. . . CSIRO Model Mean MK3 6.0 Historic/RCP6.0

Data. . . CRUTEM4

Southern Hemisphere Land Surface Temperature Anomalies
Jan 1979 to Jan 2014

Model Warming Rate = + 0.245 Degree C / Decade

. Data Warming Rate = + 0.135 Degree C / Decade

The CSIRO model also fails in assessing warming rates for the whole Southern Hemisphere land masses.
It gets the rate too hot by a factor of almost two. By way of consistency, the IPCC model suite does the same.

CMIP5 (IPCC AR5)

I’m not a scientist, but on the basis of the last graph, the peak actual warmings appear to exceed the model predictions by a significant amount.

rumpole said:

I’m not a scientist, but on the basis of the last graph, the peak actual warmings appear to exceed the model predictions by a significant amount.

I believe it’s the trend that’s important

The_observer said:

Model – Data Comparisons Bob Tisdale

Model. . . CSIRO Model Mean MK3 6.0 Historic/RCP6.0

Data. . . Australia BOM

Australian Land Surface Temperature Anomalies
Jan 1979 to Jan 2014

Model Warming Rate = + 0.248 Degree C / Decade

. Data Warming Rate = + 0.106 Degree C / Decade

The CSIRO model more than doubles the observed warming rate for Australia since 1979.

http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2014/04/doubling-dud-projections/

.
.

Model. . . CSIRO Model Mean MK3 6.0 Historic/RCP6.0

Data. . . CRUTEM4

Southern Hemisphere Land Surface Temperature Anomalies
Jan 1979 to Jan 2014

Model Warming Rate = + 0.245 Degree C / Decade

. Data Warming Rate = + 0.135 Degree C / Decade

The CSIRO model also fails in assessing warming rates for the whole Southern Hemisphere land masses.
It gets the rate too hot by a factor of almost two. By way of consistency, the IPCC model suite does the same.

CMIP5 (IPCC AR5)

Goodness me, look at that! Both trend lines are going up, doesn’t that conflict with many other assessments from the observer?

Dear Oh Dear, what is the world coming too.

>>>Goodness me, look at that! Both trend lines are going up,
doesn’t that conflict with many other assessments from the observer?

<<<

Not at all fido, it shows exactly what I rave on about.

observations proving climate models are too sensitive.

Multiply the observational decadel trends by 10. That = 100 years

you get a warming range of 1.11C to 1.35C
.
.

Here comes the sun,

Here comes the sun,

and I say

its all right

The_observer said:

>>>Goodness me, look at that! Both trend lines are going up,
doesn’t that conflict with many other assessments from the observer?

<<<

Not at all fido, it shows exactly what I rave on about.

observations proving climate models are too sensitive.

Multiply the observational decadel trends by 10. That = 100 years

you get a warming range of 1.11C to 1.35C
.
.

Here comes the sun,

Here comes the sun,

and I say

its all right

How about the Northern Hemisphere observer, do you have similar information for that zone?

>>.How about the Northern Hemisphere observer, do you have similar information for that zone?<<<

I can have a look when I get a chance

but I’d guess that you would predict less warming in that hemisphere because of the vast amounts of aerosols emitted
there that don’t travel to the southern hemisphere. & you probably will suggest that aerosol cooling is great & accounts for
the lack of warming?

The_observer said:

>>.How about the Northern Hemisphere observer, do you have similar information for that zone?<<<

I can have a look when I get a chance

but I’d guess that you would predict less warming in that hemisphere because of the vast amounts of aerosols emitted
there that don’t travel to the southern hemisphere. & you probably will suggest that aerosol cooling is great & accounts for
the lack of warming?

No, looks like the vast amount of aerosols emitted in the northern hemisphere has had no effect

.
as far as a northern hemisphere – model Vs observation graph I’ll look into it.

The_observer said:

>>.How about the Northern Hemisphere observer, do you have similar information for that zone?<<<

I can have a look when I get a chance

but I’d guess that you would predict less warming in that hemisphere because of the vast amounts of aerosols emitted
there that don’t travel to the southern hemisphere. & you probably will suggest that aerosol cooling is great & accounts for
the lack of warming?

Didn’t enter my mind.

The_observer said:

The_observer said:

>>.How about the Northern Hemisphere observer, do you have similar information for that zone?<<<

I can have a look when I get a chance

but I’d guess that you would predict less warming in that hemisphere because of the vast amounts of aerosols emitted
there that don’t travel to the southern hemisphere. & you probably will suggest that aerosol cooling is great & accounts for
the lack of warming?

No, looks like the vast amount of aerosols emitted in the northern hemisphere has had no effect

.
as far as a northern hemisphere – model Vs observation graph I’ll look into it.

I would have thought the northern hemisphere would have had more attention that the southern. Must be some decent graphs around.

Some people make up graphs

very easy to do using a computer

CrazyNeutrino said:

Some people make up graphs

very easy to do using a computer

Now don’t be too sceptical CN, but we do need more evidence.

The assessment in the link below is about climate history and is extremely informative about global warming not only with graphs, but also the main controversies presented by sceptics and of the scientific work carried out to find the truth of the matter. Unfortunately for you Observer although they are very fair, the science wins out in the end with undisputable proof. Nevertheless, you should try to read it with an open mind, as I think you will find it most rewarding.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm

aip = The American Institute of Physics

>>> the link below is about climate history.
You should try to read it with an open mind,
as I think you will find it most rewarding.
<<<

LOL, you must be joking. Didn’t need to look hard to see it was alarmist tripe.
Let’s consider the links very first graph.

.

Now here’s the same data (HadCRUT3) detrended to simply compare the warming periods of
1910 to 1940 & 1975 to 2005, both thirty year periods.

Notice the warming 1910 – 1940. It’s the same as the warming from 1975 – 2005.
But the IPCC doesn’t blame the earlier warming on co2 emissions, for good reasons.
Emissions go nowhere until after the 1950’s

Phil Jones is director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA)
Q: Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of
global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

Phil Jones: “Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th
Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not
statistically significantly different (see numbers below).
“I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.
“So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.”

1860-1880 21 years 0.163 C
1910-1940 31 years 0.15 C
1975-1998 24 years 0.166 C
1975-2009 35 years 0.161 C
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm?oo=102541

Note the above, naturally caused warming period 1860 – 1880.
Only 21 years in duration, yet the temp increase is greater than the apparently CO2 driven warming period of 1975 – 2009 35 years
which they claim is unprecedented.

Also, the warming period 1910 – 1940 was natural.

The warming period 1975 – 1998 is also natural, perhaps with some CO2 forcing.

And lets not ignore what’s been happening with the atmospheric temp trend
over the last 16 1/2 years, using the same data – HadCRUT3 -

I’ve posted iPCC models Vs observation graphs, amongst others earlier in this thread.
They all show that the warming we were supposed to have due to CO2 forcing + positive feedback has not occurred.

The model Vs observation comparison that is most important is in the tropical zone.
This is where the IPCC’s strongest hypothesised positive feedback – water vapour – would be detected, in the tropical mid troposphere
amplifying any modest warming directly from CO2.

As I have already shown here, using RSS temp data for mid Vs lower tropospheric temp trends, this amplification is not occurring.

A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions

David H. Douglass, a* John R. Christy, b Benjamin D. Pearson a† S. Fred Singer c,d
a Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627, USA
b Department of Atmospheric Science and Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, AL 35899, USA
c Science and Environmental Policy Project, Arlington, VA 22202, USA
d University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22903, USA

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLIMATOLOGY

ABSTRACT: We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to
reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era).
Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the
uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and
observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same
data. Copyright  2007 Royal Meteorological Society
KEY WORDS climate trend; troposphere; observations
Received 31 May 2007; Accepted 11 October 2007

4. Discussion and conclusions
Evaluating the extent of agreement between models and observations. Our results indicate the following
(1) In all cases, radiosonde trends are inconsistent with model trends, except at the surface.
(2) In all cases UAH and RSS satellite trends are inconsistent with the model trends.

5. Summary: We have tested the proposition that greenhouse model simulations and trend observations can be reconciled. Our conclusion is
that the present evidence, with the application of a robust statistical test, supports rejection of this proposition.

The_observer said:

>>> the link below is about climate history.
You should try to read it with an open mind,
as I think you will find it most rewarding.
<<<

LOL, you must be joking. Didn’t need to look hard to see it was alarmist tripe.
Let’s consider the links very first graph.

.

Now here’s the same data (HadCRUT3) detrended to simply compare the warming periods of
1910 to 1940 & 1975 to 2005, both thirty year periods.

Notice the warming 1910 – 1940. It’s the same as the warming from 1975 – 2005.
But the IPCC doesn’t blame the earlier warming on co2 emissions, for good reasons.
Emissions go nowhere until after the 1950’s

Phil Jones is director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA)
Q: Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of
global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

Phil Jones: “Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th
Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not
statistically significantly different (see numbers below).
“I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.
“So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.”

1860-1880 21 years 0.163 C
1910-1940 31 years 0.15 C
1975-1998 24 years 0.166 C
1975-2009 35 years 0.161 C
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm?oo=102541

Note the above, naturally caused warming period 1860 – 1880.
Only 21 years in duration, yet the temp increase is greater than the apparently CO2 driven warming period of 1975 – 2009 35 years
which they claim is unprecedented.

Also, the warming period 1910 – 1940 was natural.

The warming period 1975 – 1998 is also natural, perhaps with some CO2 forcing.

And lets not ignore what’s been happening with the atmospheric temp trend
over the last 16 1/2 years, using the same data – HadCRUT3 -

I’ve posted iPCC models Vs observation graphs, amongst others earlier in this thread.
They all show that the warming we were supposed to have due to CO2 forcing + positive feedback has not occurred.

The model Vs observation comparison that is most important is in the tropical zone.
This is where the IPCC’s strongest hypothesised positive feedback – water vapour – would be detected, in the tropical mid troposphere
amplifying any modest warming directly from CO2.

As I have already shown here, using RSS temp data for mid Vs lower tropospheric temp trends, this amplification is not occurring.

A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions

David H. Douglass, a* John R. Christy, b Benjamin D. Pearson a† S. Fred Singer c,d
a Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627, USA
b Department of Atmospheric Science and Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, AL 35899, USA
c Science and Environmental Policy Project, Arlington, VA 22202, USA
d University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22903, USA

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLIMATOLOGY

ABSTRACT: We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to
reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era).
Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the
uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and
observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same
data. Copyright  2007 Royal Meteorological Society
KEY WORDS climate trend; troposphere; observations
Received 31 May 2007; Accepted 11 October 2007

4. Discussion and conclusions
Evaluating the extent of agreement between models and observations. Our results indicate the following
(1) In all cases, radiosonde trends are inconsistent with model trends, except at the surface.
(2) In all cases UAH and RSS satellite trends are inconsistent with the model trends.

5. Summary: We have tested the proposition that greenhouse model simulations and trend observations can be reconciled. Our conclusion is
that the present evidence, with the application of a robust statistical test, supports rejection of this proposition.

Observer you are such a poor loser, would anyone in their right mind just dismiss all that information from some of the brightest minds in the world today? But you say yes, look at my stuff, it is far superior to your alarmist crap! Climate science is very complex Observer and is affected by many influences, all of which (except for your graphs) you totally ignore. I could dig out the reasons as to why your graphs although correct, do not give the entire situation, but you would just brush them off as you have done with the History of Climate Change.

Observer what you present are just a few statistics, probably collected to show something quite different to what you claim here. In such a complex matter as climate and specifically global warming, you must look at the overall trend, which even with your graphs point upwards.

>>> Observer what you present are just a few statistics, probably collected to show
something quite different to what you claim here. In such a complex matter as climate
and specifically global warming, you must look at the overall trend, which even with your graphs point upwards.
<<<

Yes, the overall trend has shown global warming. I totally agree.

There was a significant climate change ending the little ice age.
A warming phase began that has consisted of atmospheric warming periods.
Global Warming, not anthropogenic global warming

Reasonably comprehensive & accurate thermometer data became available around 1850
& recorded the first warming period -
1860 to 1880 – around 21 years – warmed the earth by about 0.163 C

Then came a second warming period -
1910 to 1940 – around 30 years – warming the earth by about 0.150 C.

Then there was a third and most recent warming period –
1975 to 1998 – around 24 years – warming the earth by the same amount as the previous two warm periods – 0.166 C.

But;
Because human emissions of CO2 increased dramatically around 1950, prior to the third warming period,
some people have suggested the third warming period was the result of those emissions & not the natural
warming that accounted for the two previously instrumentally recorded warming periods.

Correlation is not causation!

Despite the increasing emissions of anthropogenic CO2, peaking during the first decade of
the new millennium, there has been no atmospheric warming since 1998.

Natural climate fluctuations still rule.
There may well be another 20 to 30 year period of atmospheric warming around the corner.
But again it will be dominated by natural causes!

The_observer said:

>>> Observer what you present are just a few statistics, probably collected to show
something quite different to what you claim here. In such a complex matter as climate
and specifically global warming, you must look at the overall trend, which even with your graphs point upwards.
<<<

Yes, the overall trend has shown global warming. I totally agree.

There was a significant climate change ending the little ice age.
A warming phase began that has consisted of atmospheric warming periods.
Global Warming, not anthropogenic global warming

Reasonably comprehensive & accurate thermometer data became available around 1850
& recorded the first warming period -
1860 to 1880 – around 21 years – warmed the earth by about 0.163 C

Then came a second warming period -
1910 to 1940 – around 30 years – warming the earth by about 0.150 C.

Then there was a third and most recent warming period –
1975 to 1998 – around 24 years – warming the earth by the same amount as the previous two warm periods – 0.166 C.

But;
Because human emissions of CO2 increased dramatically around 1950, prior to the third warming period,
some people have suggested the third warming period was the result of those emissions & not the natural
warming that accounted for the two previously instrumentally recorded warming periods.

Correlation is not causation!

Despite the increasing emissions of anthropogenic CO2, peaking during the first decade of
the new millennium, there has been no atmospheric warming since 1998.

Natural climate fluctuations still rule.
There may well be another 20 to 30 year period of atmospheric warming around the corner.
But again it will be dominated by natural causes!

Very strange that the vast majority of people who are climate scientists do not agree with you. What makes you think your views are more accurate than theirs?

I also refer you to the average global warming graph, which clearly shows a steep upward trend. Perhaps you could explain that condition too?

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11639/dn11639-2_808.jpg

PermeateFree said:

I also refer you to the average global warming graph, which clearly shows a steep upward trend.
Perhaps you could explain that condition too?

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11639/dn11639-2_808.jpg

.
Which steep upward trend would you be referring too?

I believe I covered all three of them in my previous two posts
.
.

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

I also refer you to the average global warming graph, which clearly shows a steep upward trend.
Perhaps you could explain that condition too?

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11639/dn11639-2_808.jpg

.
Which steep upward trend would you be referring too?

I believe I covered all three of them in my previous two posts
.
.

Sorry Observer, but I can’t find them, would mind repeating them? Thanks!

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

I also refer you to the average global warming graph, which clearly shows a steep upward trend.
Perhaps you could explain that condition too?

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11639/dn11639-2_808.jpg

.
Which steep upward trend would you be referring too?

I believe I covered all three of them in my previous two posts
.
.

Sorry Observer, but I can’t find them, would mind repeating them? Thanks!

Here’s a bit from when I first refer to your upward trend: Post ID: 534053

1860-1880 21 years 0.163 C
1910-1940 31 years 0.15 C
1975-1998 24 years 0.166 C
1975-2009 35 years 0.161 C

And here’s a bit from an entire post referring to your upward trend: post ID: 534422

>> Yes, the overall trend has shown global warming. I totally agree.

There was a significant climate change ending the little ice age.
A warming phase began that has consisted of atmospheric warming periods.
Global Warming, not anthropogenic global warming

Reasonably comprehensive & accurate thermometer data became available around 1850
& recorded the first warming period – 1860 to 1880 – around 21 years – warmed the earth by about 0.163 C

Then came a second warming period – 1910 to 1940 – around 30 years – warming the earth by about 0.150 C.

Then there was a third and most recent warming period –
1975 to 1998 – around 24 years – warming the earth by the same amount as the previous two warm periods – 0.166 C.
<<<

Of course phactFree, if the y axis on the graph was scaled in 1°C increments

instead of 0.2°C increments in wouldn’t be steep at all.

Its done to give you a perception of magnitude.

The_observer said:

Of course phactFree, if the y axis on the graph was scaled in 1°C increments

instead of 0.2°C increments in wouldn’t be steep at all.

Its done to give you a perception of magnitude.

if we are talking CO2 here its because even small changes in CO2 levels mean big changes

>>>
if we are talking CO2 here its because even small changes in CO2 levels mean big changes
<<<

can you elaborate on that?

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

.
Which steep upward trend would you be referring too?

I believe I covered all three of them in my previous two posts
.
.

Sorry Observer, but I can’t find them, would mind repeating them? Thanks!

Here’s a bit from when I first refer to your upward trend: Post ID: 534053

1860-1880 21 years 0.163 C
1910-1940 31 years 0.15 C
1975-1998 24 years 0.166 C
1975-2009 35 years 0.161 C

And here’s a bit from an entire post referring to your upward trend: post ID: 534422

>> Yes, the overall trend has shown global warming. I totally agree.

There was a significant climate change ending the little ice age.
A warming phase began that has consisted of atmospheric warming periods.
Global Warming, not anthropogenic global warming

Reasonably comprehensive & accurate thermometer data became available around 1850
& recorded the first warming period – 1860 to 1880 – around 21 years – warmed the earth by about 0.163 C

Then came a second warming period – 1910 to 1940 – around 30 years – warming the earth by about 0.150 C.

Then there was a third and most recent warming period –
1975 to 1998 – around 24 years – warming the earth by the same amount as the previous two warm periods – 0.166 C.
<<<

Well to take your assessment further, your graph showing similar steep rises in global temperature is very interesting, so lets have a closer look.

The steep average increases are somewhat parallel and the temperature increases for them I admit are very similar, but let us look at the periods between these increases.

Between 1880 and 1910 the temperatures fell quite heavily, but between 1940 and 1970 there was hardly any or no fall at all before temperatures took off again, so there was no temperature correction as was the case in the earlier period

So what next? As we are not only maintaining our co2 emissions, but continue to exceed them and the temperature since 2000 is not falling and is very likely to take off yet again in an upward direction. This is evidenced by the increase of extreme climate events in recent years. The levelling off of these temperatures the scientist say is because the ocean is absorbing this increased heat, but what would I know.

Anyway the graph does not show any recent temperature fluctuation due to natural effects like volcanic activity or anything else, the only serious co2 emissions are from our burning of billions of tons of fossil fuels.

Would you like to comment? And please just on the graph you supplied.

The_observer said:

Of course phactFree, if the y axis on the graph was scaled in 1°C increments

instead of 0.2°C increments in wouldn’t be steep at all.

Its done to give you a perception of magnitude.

Of course hadn’t thought of that, but even so, wouldn’t still be going up?

>>>The steep average increases are somewhat parallel and the temperature
increases for them I admit are very similar, but let us look at the periods between these increases.

Between 1880 and 1910 the temperatures fell quite heavily, but between 1940 and 1970 there was hardly any or no fall at all before
temperatures took off again, so there was no temperature correction as was the case in the earlier period.
<<<

I believe you should reconsider your use of hyperbole.
>>Between 1880 and 1910 the temperatures fell quite heavily
>> but between 1940 and 1970 there was hardly any or no fall at all

A temperature correction as you put it took place & even a standstill creates a cycle.

>>This is evidenced by the increase of extreme climate events in recent years.<<

sorry, but you cannot go around like bob brown making stuff up.

The IPCC clearly admitted that there is no evidence to back that statement up.

Just because you & your like want to blame every extreme event on global warming doesn’t make it true.

>>>The levelling off of these temperatures the scientist say is because the ocean is absorbing this increased heat, but what would I know.<<<

the ocean heat content has only been measured accurately from around 2003 with the introduction of ARGO.
In that time there has been little change.

Luboš Motl

In the last 45 years, the average temperature of that layer of the ocean increased by 0.065 Celsius degrees only! That would give you 0.14 °C
per century, about 20 times smaller temperature difference than the changes of the global mean temperature predicted for the surface.

(Update: Paul Matthews informed me via Twitter about this ARGO pagewhere they confirm that since the 1960s, the warming of that layer was
0.06 °C.)

If you include the oceans up to the depth of 2 kilometers, oceans’ message is unequivocal: the change of the temperature in the recent decades
is completely negligible – a whopping sixteenth of a degree per half a century.

You might rightfully object that the ocean heat content primarily changes because of the changes in the surface layers while the deeper layers
mostly keep their temperature. You would be partly right. We may consider a thinner graph, the water between 0 meters and 700 meters of
depth. I estimate its heat capacity as one-half of the layer at 0-2000

The depth 700 meters is already relatively low and circulation at the decadal scale is able to transfer much of the heat to this depth.
Nevertheless, we still obtained the averaging warming just by 0.2 Celsius degrees per century! Even if you were assuming that only the upper
350 meters “do something” while the temperature of the lower 350 meters “remains the same”, you could justify a trend by at most 0.4 Celsius
degrees per century.

One may also convert the temperature changes to forcing and one gets less than 0.5 watts per squared meter, almost an order of magnitude
less than the forcing 3.7 watts per squared meter commonly associated with the CO2 doubling.

Well aren’t the downward temperature corrections of both those graphs getting worse. The first one is the steepest, the second far less so and the last (current) is hardly if anything at all. Coupled with the distinctly upward temperature trend as shown in the graphs you supplied. To my mind it does not look good for the future. What do you say?

>>>Well aren’t the downward temperature corrections of both those graphs getting worse.<<

why do you believe that after a warming period takes place there
has to be some sort of correction???

just using the phrase “temperature correction” after a warming period
shows some sort of bias that doesn’t exist in the real world.

like the earth isn’t allowed to get warmer without reducing all the increase
straight after.

what about a temp correction after a cooling???

show me where there’s some natural climate law that states your proposition.

The_observer said:

>>>Well aren’t the downward temperature corrections of both those graphs getting worse.<<

why do you believe that after a warming period takes place there
has to be some sort of correction???

just using the phrase “temperature correction” after a warming period
shows some sort of bias that doesn’t exist in the real world.

like the earth isn’t allowed to get warmer without reducing all the increase
straight after.

what about a temp correction after a cooling???

show me where there’s some natural climate law that states your proposition.

Observer your graphs say it all. The temperatures are exceeding every previous high and the temperature reductions are becoming less. This means not only are temperatures rising, but so are all temperature reductions. It is a clear sign that global warming is not only happening but accelerating and due to the absence of large natural releases of co2, we are the cause of global warming.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

>>>Well aren’t the downward temperature corrections of both those graphs getting worse.<<

why do you believe that after a warming period takes place there
has to be some sort of correction???

just using the phrase “temperature correction” after a warming period
shows some sort of bias that doesn’t exist in the real world.

like the earth isn’t allowed to get warmer without reducing all the increase
straight after.

what about a temp correction after a cooling???

show me where there’s some natural climate law that states your proposition.

Observer your graphs say it all. The temperatures are exceeding every previous high and the temperature reductions are becoming less. This means not only are temperatures rising, but so are all temperature reductions. It is a clear sign that global warming is not only happening but accelerating and due to the absence of large natural releases of co2, we are the cause of global warming.

No comment Observer?

Be nice if you two could find some sceptical water that don’t hold arguments.

>>> Observer your graphs say it all. The temperatures are exceeding every previous high
and the temperature reductions are becoming less.
<<<

Graphs hey, exceeding every previous high hey
.

Last 1,400 years showing warmth equal to now

last 11,000 showing the Holocene which was 0.5 to 2 C warmer than now

Last 11,000 again showing all the warmer periods than now including the Holecene

And again

Last 160,000 years showing the previous interglacial warmer
than the warmest period of this interglacial, the Holocene period

And again

Last 400,000 years showing two previous interglacials warmer
than the warmest period of this interglacial, the Holocene period

And again

Last 450,000 years showing 3 of the last 4 interglacials warmer than
the warmest period of this interglacial, the Holocene period

Last 700,000 years showing 3 of the last 4 interglacials warmer than
the warmest period of this interglacial, the Holocene period

.
all natural climate change just like now

& there’s nothing you can do about sport

Bubblecar said:

Be nice if you two could find some sceptical water that don’t hold arguments.

You obviously have not read today’s posts, there has been no argument, must be all in your mind.

The_observer said:

>>> Observer your graphs say it all. The temperatures are exceeding every previous high
and the temperature reductions are becoming less.
<<<

Graphs hey, exceeding every previous high hey
.

Last 1,400 years showing warmth equal to now

last 11,000 showing the Holocene which was 0.5 to 2 C warmer than now

Last 11,000 again showing all the warmer periods than now including the Holecene

And again

Last 160,000 years showing the previous interglacial warmer
than the warmest period of this interglacial, the Holocene period

And again

Last 400,000 years showing two previous interglacials warmer
than the warmest period of this interglacial, the Holocene period

And again

Last 450,000 years showing 3 of the last 4 interglacials warmer than
the warmest period of this interglacial, the Holocene period

Last 700,000 years showing 3 of the last 4 interglacials warmer than
the warmest period of this interglacial, the Holocene period

.
all natural climate change just like now

& there’s nothing you can do about sport

We are not talking about past ages, we all know the climate goes up and down, only it is now us causing the increases.

>>>We are not talking about past ages,
we all know the climate goes up and down,
only it is now us causing the increases.
<<<

No, it’s natural. Maybe emissions are having a small effect,
but it’s mostly natural.

You can’t have three warming periods in the last 150 years where the first two were natural,
then blame the third on entirely something else.

As I clearly showed with the graphs, it was warmer by 0.5 to 2 C during the
Holocene – part of this interglacial – and 3 to 4 previous interglacials were even warmer than the Holocene.

present climate is natural

The_observer said:

>>>We are not talking about past ages,
we all know the climate goes up and down,
only it is now us causing the increases.
<<<

No, it’s natural. Maybe emissions are having a small effect,
but it’s mostly natural.

You can’t have three warming periods in the last 150 years where the first two were natural,
then blame the third on entirely something else.

As I clearly showed with the graphs, it was warmer by 0.5 to 2 C during the
Holocene – part of this interglacial – and 3 to 4 previous interglacials were even warmer than the Holocene.

present climate is natural

There is no such thing as a natural climate change, they are all caused by something and in this instance it is us releasing billions of tons of co2 by burning fossil fuels. In other times it could be volcanic or tectonic activity, or a hundred different things that might change the then temperature levels. As there is no other major source of co2 production or disruption other than ourselves, it is reasonable to assume we are the cause.

>>>“There is no such thing as a natural climate change, they are all caused by something”<<<

LOL in amazement

now I can honestly, truly & accurately call you a fuckwit perm

The_observer said:

>>>“There is no such thing as a natural climate change, they are all caused by something”<<<

LOL in amazement

now I can honestly, truly & accurately call you a fuckwit perm

You really are a waste of time observer. Do you know there are people here who think you are the secret but excluded love child of Gina Rinehart and you only carry your extreme global warming denier profile in order to carry favour with her, hopefully to be accepted into the family and receive the love you never had.

>>>You really are a waste of time observer. Do you know there are people here who think you are the secret but excluded love child of Gina Rinehart and you only carry your extreme global warming denier profile in order to carry favour with her, hopefully to be accepted into the family and receive the love you never had.
<<<

LOL you’re a real card perm,

a real card

If it is any consolation, you are both dingbat.s

If it is any consolation, you are both dingbat.s

why would you ever think either one of us would need consoling from you

The_observer said:

If it is any consolation, you are both dingbat.s

why would you ever think either one of us would need consoling from you

Well, because of how sad and angry you are.

The_observer said:

>>>You really are a waste of time observer. Do you know there are people here who think you are the secret but excluded love child of Gina Rinehart and you only carry your extreme global warming denier profile in order to carry favour with her, hopefully to be accepted into the family and receive the love you never had.
<<<

LOL you’re a real card perm,

a real card

Your a loser observer

>>>Well, because of how sad and angry you are.<<

I’m neither sad or angry

but you talk shit

>>>Your a loser observer<<

not at all.

but your a reject who takes illegal drugs

I recommend charity work. Helping others will take your focus off your own problems.

The_observer said:

>>>Your a loser observer<<

not at all.

but your a reject who takes illegal drugs

Your a loser Observer

The_observer said:

>>>Your a loser observer<<

not at all.

but your a reject who takes illegal drugs

You’re

You’re a loser Observer

I feel grammatically correct now

>>I recommend charity work. Helping others will take your focus off your own problems.<<

No, no problems

CrazyNeutrino said:

The_observer said:

>>>Your a loser observer<<

not at all.

but your a reject who takes illegal drugs

Your a loser Observer

and, you’re a reject druggie scum

Bump.
This thread still alive?

it’s the walking dead.

The_observer said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

The_observer said:

>>>Your a loser observer<<

not at all.

but your a reject who takes illegal drugs

Your a loser Observer

and, you’re a reject druggie scum

No, not at all

Millions of other people smoke cannabis

20 states in America have decriminalized it

you need to Observe current events more properly

You’re a lousy Observer

CrazyNeutrino said:

The_observer said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Your a loser Observer

and, you’re a reject druggie scum

No, not at all

Millions of other people smoke cannabis

20 states in America have decriminalized it

you need to Observe current events more properly

LOL druggie scumbag