Trading Carbon as a Belief

“Australia’s Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has failed to see through the vested interests that promote anthropogenic global warming (AGW), the theory that human emissions of carbon cause global warming. Though masquerading as “science based”, the promoters of AGW have a medieval outlook and are in fact anti-science. Meanwhile carbon is innocent, and the political class is plunging ahead with making us poorer because they do not understand what science really is or what the real science is.”

This is the message from David Evans, former consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office, in an opinion piece first published by ABC Unleashed.  It continues:

“The Renaissance began when the absolute authority of the church and ancient texts was overthrown. Science then evolved as our most reliable method for acquiring knowledge, free of superstition and political authority. Suppose you wanted to know whether big cannonballs or small cannonballs fell faster. In medieval times you argued theoretically with what could be gleaned from the Bible, the works of Aristotle, or maybe a Papal announcement. In the Renaissance you ignored the authorities and simply dropped cannon balls from a tower and observed what happened – this was science, where empirical evidence trumps theory.

From 1975 to 2001 the global temperature trended up. How do you empirically determine the cause of this global warming? It turns out we can learn a lot simply by observing where the warming occurred: each possible cause of global warming heats the atmosphere differently, heating some parts before others. The pattern of warming is the cause’s “signature”.

The signature of an increased greenhouse effect consists of two features: a hotspot about 10 km up in the atmosphere over the tropics, and a combination of broad stratospheric cooling and broad tropospheric warming. The signature of ozone depletion consists just of the second feature. These signatures are theoretically derived by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and are integral to our understanding of how the atmosphere works. [1]

We have been observing temperatures in the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes – weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. The radiosonde measurements for 1979-1999 show broad stratospheric cooling and broad tropospheric warming, but they show no tropical hotspot. Not even a small one. [2]

Empirically, we therefore know that an increased greenhouse effect was not a significant cause of the recent global warming. (Either that or the signatures from the IPCC are wrong, so its climate models and predictions are rubbish anyway.)

Human carbon emissions were occurring at the time but the greenhouse effect did not increase. Therefore human carbon emissions did not increase the greenhouse effect, and did not cause global warming. So AGW is wrong, and carbon is innocent. Suspect exonerated – wrong signature.

Alarmist scientists (supporters of AGW) objected that the radiosonde thermometers were not accurate and maybe the hotspot was there but went undetected. But there were hundreds of radiosondes, so statistically this is unlikely. They have also suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, and use the radiosonde wind measurements instead. When combined with a theory about wind shear they estimated the temperatures on their computers – and say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hotspot. But thermometers are designed to measure temperature, so it’s a bit of a stretch to claim that wind gauges are accidentally better at it. Serious alarmist scientists do not claim that the hotspot was found, only that we might have missed it. The obvious conclusion is that the hotspot was too weak to be easily detected. We cannot collect any more data from the past warming, and there is no sign of the hotspot in the data that was collected – so the occasional claims that appear on the Internet that the hotspot has been found are simply wrong. [3]

So can we tell from the observed warming pattern what did cause the global warming? Unfortunately we have little idea of the signatures of some of the suspects, such as cosmic rays or the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, so we cannot say except to note that ozone depletion was one of the causes.

Is there any observational evidence in favor of AGW? As of 2003, none at all.

The only supporting evidence for AGW was the old ice core data. The old ice core data, gathered from 1985, showed that in the past half million years, through several global warmings and coolings, the earth’s temperature and atmospheric carbon levels rose and fell in lockstep. AGW was coming into vogue in the 1980s, so it was widely assumed that it was the carbon changes causing the temperature changes.

By the late 1990s ice core techniques had improved. In the old ice cores the data points were a few thousand years apart, but in the new ice core data they were only a few hundred years apart. In the early 1990s, New Scientist magazine anticipated that the higher-resolution data would seal the case for AGW.

But the opposite occurred. By 2003 it had been established to everyone’s satisfaction that temperature changes preceded corresponding carbon changes by an average of 800 years: so temperature changes caused carbon changes – a warmer ocean supports more carbon in the atmosphere, after delays due to mixing. [4] So the ice core data no longer supported AGW. The alarmists failed to effectively notify the public.

After several prominent public claims by skeptics in 2008 that there is no evidence left for AGW, alarmist scientists offered only two points.

First, laboratory tests prove that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. But that observation tells us nothing about how much the global temperature changes if extra carbon enters the real, complicated atmosphere. Every emitted carbon atom raises the global temperature, but the missing hotspot shows that the effect is negligible.

Second, computer models. Computer models are just huge concatenations of calculations that, individually, could have been performed on a handheld calculator. They are theory, not evidence.

Governments have spent over $50 billion on climate research since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence for AGW. [5]

So if there is no evidence to support AGW, and the missing hotspot shows that AGW is wrong, why does most of the world still believe in AGW?

Part of the answer is that science changed direction after a large constituency of vested interests had invested in AGW. The old ice core data provided support from 1985, the IPCC was established by the UN in 1988 to look into human changes to climate, and the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in 1997 to limit carbon emissions. By 1999 the western political class were doing something, the western media were rallying behind “saving the planet”, and scientists were being paid by governments to research the effects of human-caused global warming.

But then the evidence took science off in a different direction: the new ice core data in 2003, the missing hotspot in 2007, and the global temperature has stopped trending up since 2001 [6]. Governments, the media, and many scientists did not notice.

The remainder of the answer for the current belief in AGW is darker and more political. An offbeat theory in the 1970s, AGW was adopted by a group of about 45 atmospheric modelers and physicists. That group dominated climate science journals, peer reviewed each others papers, and hindered competing ideas by underhand methods [7]. AGW gained political support from proponents of nuclear power, and vice-president Gore appointed AGW supporters to science positions in the USA.

AGW grabbed control of climate funding in key western countries. Lack of diversity in science funding has been a major problem since government took over funding science in WWII. Science is like a courtroom – protagonists put forward their best cases, and out of the argument some truth emerges. But if only one side is funded and heard, then truth tends not to emerge. This happened in climate science, which is almost completely government funded and has been dominated by AGW for two decades. Skeptics are mainly scientists who are retired or who have moved on to other areas – their funding no longer depends on allegiance to AGW. The alarmists are full time, well funded, and hog the megaphone.

AGW was always promoted as being supported by nearly all scientists (though polls and history do not support this). Counting numbers of supporters and creating a bandwagon effect by announcing you are in the majority is a political tactic.

AGW always advanced principally by political means; as a scientific theory it was always weak, and now the evidence contradicts it. It’s like a return to medieval times, where authority rules and evidence is ignored. Notice how the proponents of AGW don’t want to talk about evidence of the causes? Anything but evidence of cause – attack people’s motives, someone else “has the evidence”, theoretical models, evidence that global warming is occurring, how important they are, what credentials they have, how worthy they are, the dog ate my evidence, “the science is settled”, polar bears, anything. Talking about the evidence of the cause of global warming does not advance their cause. Politics says AGW is correct; science says it is wrong.

Science demands evidence. Evidence trumps theory, no matter what the political authority of those promoting the theory, even if they dress up in lab coats and have job titles that say “scientist”. The hotspot is missing and there is no evidence for AGW. The alarmists cannot ignore this and continue to play political games forever. They are entitled to argue the case for AGW, but they should also acknowledge the evidence and inform the political class that AGW appears to be wrong – even if it means risking their status and their jobs (and yes, we scientists are also people who have kids and mortgages).

There are two central lies in the political promotion of AGW.

The first appears in Gore’s movie. He gave the old ice core data as the sole reason for believing AGW (the rest of the movie presents evidence that global warming occurred, a separate issue). He said that increases in carbon caused increases in temperature in the past warming events. But Gore made his movie in 2005, two years after the new ice core data had established the opposite! Gore’s weasel words when he introduced that segment show he knew what he was about to say was false. Who would have believed his pitch if he added “and each temperature rise occurred 800 years before the corresponding rise in carbon that caused it”? [8]

The second lie is the hockey stick graph, which presented the last thousand years of global temperature as the flat handle of a hockey stick and the next hundred as the sharply rising blade [9]. The hockey stick graph was heavily promoted by the IPCC in 2001, and the IPCC even adopted it as its logo before it got discredited. It is significant because most non-scientist AGW supporters seem to believe some version of the hockey stick. When the IPCC “scientists” who produced the graph were asked to show their data for past temperatures, they refused (true scientists share data). But one of those scientists was a British academic and subject to the British Freedom of Information Act, and after two years of stonewalling all was revealed. It showed they had grossly skewed the data (even omitting inconvenient data to a folder labeled “Censored”), and that the computer program used to process the data had the hockey stick shape built into it – you could feed it stock market data instead of tree ring data and you would still get a hockey stick! In reality it was warmer in the Middle Ages than today, and there was a mini ice age around 1700 from which we have since been warming ever since. [10] Finally, the sharply rising blade of the hockey stick is contradicted so far by actual temperatures, which from 2001 to 2008 have been flat – something all of the climate models got wrong.

Among non-scientists, AGW appeals strongly to two groups. Those who support big government love the idea of carbon regulations – if you control carbon emissions then you control most human activity. And those who like to feel morally superior to the bulk of their fellow citizens by virtue of a belief (the “warm inner glow” and moral vanity of the politically correct) are firmly attached to AGW. These groups are politically adept, are planning to spend your money and tell you how to eat, travel and how to live, and they are strenuously avoiding the evidence.

The media has avoided presenting information that undermines AGW, until recently. Instead they promoted alarmism, and discredited skeptics as being in the pay of big oil – while giving a free pass to Gore, who made a movie based on an obvious lie then made millions selling carbon offsets. The media is very keen to present evidence that global warming is occurring, but have you noticed how quiet it is on evidence that carbon emissions caused it?

In 2007 almost no one in the west knew that the hotspot was missing, that there was no evidence for AGW, that temperatures had been flat for six years, that the hockey stick was a fraud, or that Al Gore lied when he gave the old ice core data as a reason for blaming carbon. But due to the Internet the public is gradually finding out anyway, which risks further discrediting many media outlets. Why buy a newspaper if it’s not going to tell you the actual news?

And as the public become generally aware, what politician is going to risk being so ideologically stupid as to unnecessarily wreck the economy by slashing carbon emissions? Hmmm, Kevin Rudd?”

Republished from ABC Unleashed, December 19, 2008, with permission from Dr Evans.    Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.

Endnotes

[1] The IPCC published several signatures in IPCC Assessment Report 4, 2007, Chapter 9, Figure 9.1, page 675: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf

[2] The US CCSP published the observed changes in atmospheric temperatures for 1979 � 1999 in part E of Figure 5.7 on page 116 in 2006: http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-chap5.pdf

[3] See http://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf for links to debates, further commentary, and arguments from alarmist scientists.

[4] Callion’s 2003 paper is at http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf, and a colorful but informative and link-filled presentation is at http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/07/carbon-dioxide-and-temperatures-ice.html.

[5] The US has spent about $30b (http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/file-uploads/USGCRP-CCSP_Budget_History_Table_2.pdf) and other western countries combined have presumably spent about as much again. The UK will not release its sending figures. See also http://joannenova.com.au/2008/12/02/big-government-outspends-big-oil-1000-to-1.

[6] Look at the data from the four bodies that produce global temperature records. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but only goes back to 1979; satellites operate 24/7, measuring everywhere except the poles. Land based thermometer readings are corrupted by the urban heat island effect-and they show temperatures rising faster in areas with higher populations (see http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm and http://wattsupwiththat.com/test/).
1. Remote Sensing Systems in California. Uses only satellite data: www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/RSSglobe.html.
2. University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). Uses only satellite data: www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUglobe.html.
3. The Hadley Centre in the UK uses a mix of satellite data and land-based thermometers: www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/HadCRUG.html.
4. The Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at NASA uses land-based thermometers (plus a few ocean thermometers), but no satellite data: www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/GISSglobal.html.

[7] For many examples from an impeccable scientist in the trenches, see http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf.

[8] A British judge ruled that when Gore presented the ice core graphs of temperature and carbon in his movie, “the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts”. The nine errors found by the judge in Gore’s movie are summarized in the graphic at http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23416151-details/Judge+attacks+nine+errors+in+Al+Gore%27s+%27alarmist%27+climate+change+film/article.do.

[9] The Australian Department of Climate Change still sports the hockey stick on its website in 2008: http://www.climatechange.gov.au/science/faq/question2.html. Hear from the scientist who uncovered the fraud: http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf.

[10] What the combined mass of independent researchers say about the historical past in 2007 is in Figure 3 at http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm (the last blue downtick seems to be due to using 30 year averages with the last period ending in about 1975, the end of the last cooling).

174 Responses to Trading Carbon as a Belief

  1. Luke December 22, 2008 at 7:16 am #

    So will Evans be refunding his salary to the AGO for participating in what he now believes to be a scam.

    Analogous to reformed drunks not being worth listening to I’m afraid. It’s all just a bit too precious.

    Note the serious guys have now come out on his total lack of knowledge of hot spot issues.

    http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/12/20/skepticsdenialists-part-2-hotspots-and-repetition/

  2. Paul Biggs December 22, 2008 at 7:34 am #

    Lucia on WHO Expects a Tropical Tropospheric Hot Spot From ANY and ALL Sources of Warming?:

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/who-expects-a-tropical-tropospheric-hot-spot-from-any-and-all-sources-of-warming/

  3. david December 22, 2008 at 7:42 am #

    Any chance of seeing David’s peer reviewed science paper?

  4. Louis Hissink December 22, 2008 at 7:48 am #

    Luke,

    Obviously you have not read anything David Evan’s has written on this over the years, otherwise you would be even more sarcastic – after all David Evans was a believer until the data start contradicting the theory. He changed his mind. Your lot save your venom for the turncoats.

    However in your case it isn’t a case of whether, in the face of evidence, you might change your mind, or not. but sadly a case of your being unable to change your mind. Brainwashed is the vulgar term.

    Junkscience is best known for its practitioners ability to invoke all sorts of ad hoc tests to “prove” their theory – now I see its “hot spots”.

  5. ianl December 22, 2008 at 7:51 am #

    El Luko Dipstick’s usual puerile spitballs.

    Concluding quote from his “serious” reference:

    ” … it is not obvious a real model-observation discrepancy exists” (ie. the hotspot)

    Translated from the implied double-negative, this actually says it is equally not obvious that such discrepancy doesn’t exist.

    Weasels, indeed.

  6. Louis Hissink December 22, 2008 at 7:52 am #

    David,

    Obviously you have not read anything David Evans wrote otherwise you would know he is a computer programmer.

    SO your mischievous demand for a science paper by him in a censored journal, (peer review in the deductionist sciences such as AGW, is used to weed out inconvenient papers), imply tells us that you don’t know the issues.

  7. Malcolm Hill December 22, 2008 at 8:14 am #

    God I get sick of the repeated calls by this David dill for everything to be passed through peer review as if it was the only way to have an understanding of what is going in.

    If this was the case, where were you when the hockey stick hit the scene. Probably having show of hands at the IPCC supporting its inclusion and acceptance.

    Where were you when Gores AIT hit the scene with the full backing of the peer review fraternity, because it suited them, no doubt, and thats before it got pulled un done and exposed in a court of law where truth is more important.

    Where were the protests against the egregious failures that still do the rounds.

    Where are the calls for it to be made more open and transparent.

    Nothing but silence -why.?

  8. david December 22, 2008 at 8:15 am #

    >Obviously you have not read anything David Evans wrote otherwise you would know he is a computer programmer.

    That’s the point. No science and no expertise.

    Do you get a plumber to fix your car or a vet to paint your roof?

  9. Neville December 22, 2008 at 8:24 am #

    David Evan’s article is so good it’s hard to believe he hasn’t had some journalistic training.
    There must be close to a dozen or more clever factual quotes that could be used with real effect when refuting this AGW fraud.
    His stuff on the Gore god alone ( sorry Luke et al ) is damning and amusing, but I think his reference to wind shear and hot spot by GUESSTIMATE (why use a thermometer when you can guess using wind ho ho ) is priceless.
    His more sinister reference to control over mankind by controlling carbon is by far the most worrying aspect of this stupid fraud.
    Gore’s lying in his SCI FI idiotic movie ( remember the top CSIRO scientist claimed he had got the science ABOUT RIGHT ) cannot be excused because he must have known that temp caused co2 to rise because of the ice core evidence.
    Obviously Fluke et al still thinks it’s man’s co2 that causes the temp rise but it’s a pity the best technology using the AQUA satellite can’t find this feedback at all.
    The scam cannot go on much longer though, I agree that 2007 to 2008 have been good sceptical years and facts and the truth will get there in the end.
    Let’s hope the wider public are presented with those facts and the truth before it’s too late and I do mean the D word by the words too late.

  10. sod December 22, 2008 at 8:50 am #

    as has been demonstrated, Evans doesn t understand the hot spot.

    among scientists, this would disqualify his comments.

    among the denialist crowed, he continues to be cheered and quoted.

    sad state of the affair.

  11. Graeme Bird December 22, 2008 at 8:51 am #

    GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD IS ABOUT PEOPLE WHO WERE TOO WEAK-MINDED TO BE SECULAR.

    David is entirely right. But I tell you the truth. There is absolutely no use whatsoever in being nasty to our Christian friends or to be less than grateful for our Christian paternity. This is where I came off the rails early on thinking that it was possible to stomp all voodoo. Marxism, Keynesianism, more colloquial socialism, psychic powers, and Christianity. I saw it all as the same voodoo. This was a mistake. Because if very fundamentally weak-minded types like Luke/sod/STF Karoly, Hansen, Brook, Lambert, Quiggin et al do not accept the saviour of Christianity as the guide in their life, they are going to cause us trouble. So this decade it is CO2-bedwetting. Two decades ago they would be communisM. In two decades time when it will be snowing in Castlereagh Street most winters, it will be something else. And no matter what they do they are always going to be getting in the way. These are fundamentally useless human beings.

    Whereas you take your average scientist who is a mainstream Christian. He’s not got a problem with the evidence as it exists. Because he knows that he didn’t make the universe and its laws. In his view God did. And Gods rules are presumably good enough for him. And he’s just out to sort out what these rules and realities are.

    Whereas your dumb-left-winger actually wants to be part of CREATING their reality.

  12. Michelle December 22, 2008 at 9:12 am #

    Graeme describing real scientists – “And he’s just out to sort out what these rules and realities are.” That’s what scientists SHOULD be doing, and they need to look at ALL of the evidence available. There is so much evidence available that IPCC and other AGW groups seem to have ignored or disregarded – why?

    Does anyone know how long it took the scientific community to accept the fact that the world was round and not flat? Will CO2 as the cause of all problems be as hard to shake as that belief?

    I love this article from David Evans. It covers such a broad spectrum of AGW debate and politics, and answers some of the questions I have been asking.

  13. Pandanus67 December 22, 2008 at 9:45 am #

    Luke,

    Play the man, play the man, play the man…………….

    As usual you fail to provide a cogent and rationale counter argument. I don’t know why you even bother!

  14. John tons December 22, 2008 at 9:57 am #

    Managing the Global environment.
    It is good to see that Jennifer is as disingenuous as usual. The vested interests that promote AGW pale into insignificance compared to the vested interests that wish to assert the contrary position. This article is again a grab bag of half truths and distortions. Lets have a good look at the assertions made. “empirical evidence trumps theory” is that science? That is the myth about science. The reality is far more complex than that – Einstein’s theoretical physics is, in some instances, still waiting for solid empirical evidence but it is continually being tested and every time the empirical evidence confirms the theory the theory’s hold on our understanding is strengthened.
    The scientific literature supporting AGW is theory it cannot be anything but a theory and the theory will either be confirmed or denied by the empirical evidence. All that we can say for certain about the existing empirical evidence is that we are observing a shift in climate patterns and, as confirmed by this post, that there is some evidence that human activity is at very least a contributing factor.
    What is particularly disingenuous about this discussion is that there is no mention of the risk that we face if the theory is confirmed. If the theory is confirmed then effectively it will be too late to take any action at all. Compare it to health insurance. Very few of us will ever really need the full extent of cover offered yet many of us take out health insurance, because we know once we get sick it is too late to take out insurance. With respect to climate change we are in much the same position. Even if there is only a small chance that climate change is a product of human activity then it behoves us to be prudent and take appropriate action to protect future generations.
    The real criticism that needs to be made of Rudd is not that he has heeded warnings on climate change but that cap and trade responses are equivalent to sweeping the problem under the carpet. It is time that we acknowledge that an economic system that is based on the assumption that we will have infinite access to finite resources is doomed to failure. Instead we should be working towards developing a lifestyle which is not dependent on finite resources. But I suppose Jennifer would not like this either because the IPA vested interests are not particularly interested in the second law of thermodynamics – instead they prefer to pick and choose and just keep that bit of science that dioes not upset their shareholders.

  15. sod December 22, 2008 at 10:07 am #

    As usual you fail to provide a cogent and rationale counter argument. I don’t know why you even bother!

    he did provide, but you din t get it.

    hint: follow the link, look at the pictures!!!

  16. keiran0 December 22, 2008 at 10:07 am #

    Some months ago before this politico/religious Bawwy Blook banned me from his blog i asked him and others to have a look at the three major volcanic events, Agung in 1962, El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991 in these charts and to tell me what they FIND. The point was that Blook made no attempt to reply. Presumably he couldn’t find anything and obviously these AGWers have no ability to explain in their own words why stratospheric cooling ceased 15 years ago despite some moderate warming and increased CO2 levels.
    http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/images/update_images/msu_timeseries.png

  17. Graeme Bird December 22, 2008 at 10:36 am #

    You talking Barry Brook right? And making fun of his speech impediment. But if its not one thing its another. Of course Lambert is a dwarf. And Annan is a Scotsman who rides a tandem. And there is nothing more ridiculous in Gods bounteous earth than a scotsman who rides a tandem. If there is nothing obviously physical that is a problem with these blokes then you have to assume hideous psychic damage of some sort or another.

    “Does anyone know how long it took the scientific community to accept the fact that the world was round and not flat? Will CO2 as the cause of all problems be as hard to shake as that belief?”

    But isn’t it a rebellion against science or some sort of rebellion? I don’t think the alarmists are coming up with any evidence at all ever. There is always something kinda cool about rebels isn’t there? No matter how wrong or bloodthirsty. But not this crowd. Not this tawdry bunch of dwarves, loony-tunes, misfits and mental cripples. I wonder why they are so uncool. And it might be that science itself is always a sort of rolling thunder of rebellion. Perhaps it was that the legacy of the nineteenth century got us to thinking that science was the new norm. But if whats gone on lately is anything to go by this science business is always going to be a sort of ongoing revolution against power and lies.

  18. Graeme Bird December 22, 2008 at 11:00 am #

    “he did provide, but you din t get it.

    hint: follow the link, look at the pictures!!!”

    No hints sod. Just make good with the evidence you jerk.

    These are not normal science discussions are they? Its normal to have relentless filibusters by ludicrous and congenitally dishonest leftists. But its not normal to be having such discussions where the leftists are either pretending to be scientists or pretending to be interested in science.

    RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW SOD YOU FILTH.

    Evidence!!!

    GO!!!!!

  19. Graeme Bird December 22, 2008 at 11:03 am #

    “Einstein’s theoretical physics is, in some instances, still waiting for solid empirical evidence but it is continually being tested and every time the empirical evidence confirms the theory the theory’s hold on our understanding is strengthened.”

    Einsteins theories are crap. But nearly all people, even on our side of this argument, still believe them. My point is that this constitutes no argument whatsoever. So you have no point to make about science as such.

  20. Geoff Brown December 22, 2008 at 11:06 am #

    >Obviously you have not read anything David Evans wrote otherwise you would know he is a computer programmer.

    “That’s the point. No science and no expertise.”

    Dr David Evans, BSc, BE-EE, MA (Sydney)MS-EE, MS-Stat, PhD EE (Stanford) was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005

    More science and more expertise than most, I would think; and Fluke, More morals to turn his back on a well-paid job when he discovered there was NO SCIENCE to AGW.

  21. Graeme Bird December 22, 2008 at 11:09 am #

    “All that we can say for certain about the existing empirical evidence is that we are observing a shift in climate patterns and, as confirmed by this post, that there is some evidence that human activity is at very least a contributing factor.
    What is particularly disingenuous about this discussion is that there is no mention of the risk that we face if the theory is confirmed.”

    The theory is already refuted. It was a stupid paradigm from the start. To describe it is to see its stupidity which is why no-one goes through it step by step. The idea that there might be some tiny warming effect ought not be ruled out but thats a magnificent thing if true.

    NEWSFLASH NEWSFLASH NEWSFLASH.We live in a freezing cold world you dope.

    We have NO WARMING RISK. If you want to talk about risk, lest talk about risk, we have no warming risk and only a freezing certainty. So why are you putting warming and not cooling into what we ought to plan against as far as RISK is concerned?

    You cannot fake it mate. Everyone who has an authentic interest in science grew up knowing that cave men faced freezing conditions. And that cold was the norm and not warmth.

  22. keiran0 December 22, 2008 at 11:14 am #

    Birdie, i tend to use baby talk in reference to the naive alarmist AGWers who live in these closed religious playpens of the mind. Have never heard him speak to know if he has a speech impediment.

    Well i must say from my experience, being outside these religious playpens, it all seem just a bit odd to say the least. However to a person who has never left such a playpen the concept of the real world must be terrifying. Take away the religious playpen and what are you left with? An insecure child without a teddy?

  23. keiran0 December 22, 2008 at 11:19 am #

    John tons says ….. “The reality is far more complex than that – Einstein’s theoretical physics is, in some instances, still waiting for solid empirical evidence but it is continually being tested and every time the empirical evidence confirms the theory the theory’s hold on our understanding is strengthened.”

    If mathematicians remain the fashion leaders in physics then physics just becomes an intellectual game with no reality principles.

    Although important in their time I do not put Newton nor Einstein on some pedestal. Einstein for example postulated that empty space is a possibility however even from when i was a child 50 years ago i naturally assumed empty space to be an impossibility. This gave me the larger philosophical picture that nonexistence itself is impossible. i.e. The universe is infinite and consists only of matter in motion. There is nothing else.

    It is because Einstein came up with this mystical matterless motion crap that he then proposed this next bit of nonsense called curved space. Like how can anyone, even myself fifty years ago, be expected to believe that “nothingness” exists, that everything in the vast expanse of the known universe came from “nothingness” and the clincher, that this “nothingness” is curved even though it contains nothing at all. Very simply, if scientists are not interested in causality as with much of Einstein’s work, then they are not scientists.

  24. keiran0 December 22, 2008 at 11:30 am #

    Birdie, i tend to use baby talk in reference to the naive alarmist AGWers who live in these closed cosy playpens of the mind. Have never heard him speak to know if he has a speech impediment.

    Well i must say from my experience, being outside these closed circuit playpens, it all seem just a bit odd to say the least. However to a person who has never left such a playpen the concept of the real world must be terrifying. Take away the playpen and what are you left with? An insecure child without a teddy?

  25. Magnus December 22, 2008 at 12:02 pm #

    david: “That’s the point. No science and no expertise.”

    No, the point is that you don’t know the issue, just like Louis Hissink says. Professor David Evans have done lots of works within this field of science. He has not himself in his own peered papers debunked the AGW theory, itf that is what you ask for.

    But as Louis Hissink commment, you are not interrested in facts here, and you invent your own rules of credibility, which is allways too high for those you call “deniers” and never too low for Gore, Hansen, Lynas, Monbiot, or which AGW alarmist it might be.

    The interresting thing here isn’t if professor Evans has himself debunked the AGW theory, but if his argument are correct or not. The usual personal attacks, now from you without a clue and claiming demands which you know can’t be fulfilled, is at best annoying.

    A descent debate has no such bully tricks, but argue arguments.

    When will you begin?

  26. cohenite December 22, 2008 at 12:08 pm #

    Evans has been subject to spurious disclaimers from Lambert and this chris colose chap; the line now being taken is that IPCC has simply, in FIG 9.1 on p675 of AR4, pointed out, reasonably, that a THS will occur from a variety of natural and anthropogenic sources; as Lambert says at clubtroppo; “the hot spot is not a signature of greenhouse warming – it is a signature of surface warming from any source.” (21 Dec 08 11.58pm).

    Colose takes it a step further and says the THS is not “unique” and reverts to nominating an alteration in the moist adiabat and the lapse rate as ‘proving’ both a AGW effect/THS and a cooling stratosphere, courtesy of a rising tropopause. Colose also asserts that SH is increasing contrary to Miskolzi. Santer, Sherwood and Dessler get mentions by Lambert and Colose. The paper Colose refers to to prove stratosphere cooling is the Shine, Barnett and Randel 2007 effort, to which I’ll return.

    First FIG 9.1. At Fig 9.1(c) unequivocally states “Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from (c) well-mixed greenhouse gases.” The image shows between 30N-30S at 300hpa a temp increase of between 0.8-1.2C. That is plain and consistent with the TAR/AR4 forcing estimate for CO2 of a 3C increase for a doubling of CO2. Has it happened? No;

    http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUglobe-m.html

    From 1978-2008 the temp increase at 300hpa was ~ 0.1C; for THS theory to be right a temp increase of 0.7-1.1C for the period 1890-1977 would have to had occurred at a rate nearly 3 times the rate of increase during the period 1978-2008. This would be contrary to the increase in CO2 during this time, although oddly, consistent with the logarithmic effect of CO2 heating which would imply there is no more capacity for CO2 caused heating.

    The assumption by Colose and every other AGW spruiker that CO2 heating is causing SH to increase – and Soden and Dessler have assumed this – is problematic;

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/21/a-window-on-water-vapor-and-planetary-temperature-part-2/

    RH is also declining; if both SH and RH are declining Colose’s observation that “The hotspot arises due to the moist adiabat” can’t be true; if the THS isn’t there, except in the simulations, then stratosphere cooling is also problematic; and I note the Shine effort concludes with this;

    “This is particularly so in the mid-stratosphere, where the apparent and measured trends (neglecting the change in weighting function) are of the same size (but opposite in sign); this indicates that after accounting for the apparent trend, the corrected trend is approximately double that indicated in earlier analyses.”

    Well, it would be wouldn’t it?

  27. Robert LePage December 22, 2008 at 12:23 pm #

    I wonder just how these imbeciles will explain away the more obvious effects of global warming as it gets worse and starts to kill even more people?
    It’s cyclical, sunspots, a reverse upside down El Nino. I await this with fear and trepidation and and they should be too but as they say ” no sense no feeling”.

  28. Pandanus67 December 22, 2008 at 12:27 pm #

    Sod,

    I did follow the link, it is one of many that I follow regularly – both pro and skeptic AGW. The picture you refer to is inconclusive in that it presents a similar pcture for either a 2xCO2 increase and 1.2 x solar forcing increase. Please recall that these are GISTEMP scenario’s with a string of assumptions underpinning them. The real questions that need to be asked are about the assumtions. Are they real, representative, or are they what if scenario’s that allow greater exploration of our state of knowledge WRT climate.

  29. Louis Hissink December 22, 2008 at 12:27 pm #

    David,

    I think, from Magnus’ comment, you have shot yourself in the foot again. You really do need to get a grasp of the facts, expecially understanding what David Evan’s has written over the years after he left the AGO.

  30. Luke December 22, 2008 at 12:55 pm #

    Celebrity is a wonderful thing – look at ‘em go !

    Think they’ve found a big defector. Reality dudes it’s just the FULLCAM programmer.

    Now what would be fun is to have a very good look by Steven McIntyre at what’s in FULLCAM, what’s an assumption and what was ignored. One of those theshold credibility tests.

    Wonder why Steve hasn’t checked it out….

  31. bazza December 22, 2008 at 1:14 pm #

    The last couple of sentences of David Evans opening para struck some sort of chord or was it a dischord with me. So for a bit of a counterpoint I just changed 3 words and it began to make more rhythm and sense. The version with just 3 changes follows:

    “Though masquerading as “science based”, the denialists of AGW have a medieval outlook and are in fact anti-science. Meanwhile carbon is guilty, and the denialist class is plunging ahead with making us poorer because they do not understand what science really is or what the real science is”.

  32. Magnus Andersson December 22, 2008 at 2:49 pm #

    bazza. You ldo not argue your point. You use bully technique, all the way. When you completely changed the content of a final statement of an article you also have to adjust the aguments that back up the statement.

    Of course I do not think you will deliver any argument to your statement! But I can argue that you are wrong anyway. A little extras (that maybe a no-brainer don’t deserve):

    I’ve read dozens of peer reviewed papers well debunking the CO2 hypothesis. E.g. Enrico Palle et al’s documents on decreased low cloud cover (and thus less albedo; somewhat correlating with cosmic rays to >99.5 % significance) during the last decade in the 20th century, peered documents from others on exactly this topics, as well as scientist among the writers for IPCC which have the same “non-CO2″ explanation for the increase (e.g. J. Penner); that CO2 isn’t by far a main driver for the temperature increase in the last decades.

    Changes in energy from this change in clouds is larger than double concentration of CO2!

    There is also several other things with which the CO2 hypothesis is in the framework of peer reviewed science genuinely debunked. So David Evans has all the argument that there is no sound scientific base for regulation of CO2, but that there is a strong political force for the idea that CO2 controls our climate.

    The idea/hypothesis that CO2 drives climate — I gave you en example here — is debunked. Thus the political force to anyway believe that it is so, or the typical and never failed tendency among many CO2 hypothesis proponents — among others yourself and Luke — to use bullying techniques instead of argument, is quite medieval. No doubt!

  33. Graeme Bird December 22, 2008 at 3:00 pm #

    Well that was pretty idiotic of you. You’d have to be a total moron to not know which is the fraudulent side of this argument.

  34. Graeme Bird December 22, 2008 at 3:08 pm #

    “Birdie, i tend to use baby talk in reference to the naive alarmist AGWers who live in these closed cosy playpens of the mind. Have never heard him speak to know if he has a speech impediment.”

    Well go over there and get one of his tapes on the fly. With each of these characters its a bit like spot the defect. Probably Luke is some sort of bellringer with a nasty hunch on his back. But with the other bloke you cannot go past his voice. It reminds me of when these people were selling this socialist magazine in Melbourne. They used to sell it at the Bourke Street Mall. And they were all an unsightly bunch of freaks. But then one of them wasn’t. And I wondered what was wrong with her. And I couldn’t figure it out until she talked and she had this terrible bass-sounding almost-male voice. And you say to yourself “Well thats it then. Thats her affliction right there.”

  35. SJT December 22, 2008 at 4:32 pm #

    “Wonder why Steve hasn’t checked it out….”

    Why hasn’t Steve checked out Beck? Miskloczi? David Archibald? You’d think he had a goldmine of fun there.

  36. Neville December 22, 2008 at 5:59 pm #

    Steve hasn’t checked out the above mentioned because he has so many taxpayer funded fraudsters to choose from and all up this fraud totals many billions of dollars.
    So leave him alone as he exposes these scumbags and fraudsters and hopefully he’ll save the taxpayers world wide many more billions.

  37. Eyrie December 22, 2008 at 6:25 pm #

    Biggsy,
    I loved your link to Lucia’s place. Seems the warmy argument is that:
    1) A large solar forcing produces a mid troposphere fingerprint the same as CO2(hot spot)so the hot spot is not unique to CO2 and doesn’t matter because we can’t find it.
    2) There’s no large solar forcing recently.
    3)If we guess at the error bands on the real world measurements we can make them large enough that a hot spot MIGHT actually be there it’s just that we missed it due to the large error bands on the measurements.
    4)Because the hot spot might be there the CO2 theory is verified.

    I think that sums it up but I admit to being confused.

    Please warmies, could you get your lies internally consistent?

  38. Luke December 22, 2008 at 6:45 pm #

    Neville – nah – he’s just another denialist being selective as possible – looking after the sceptic mates who don’t publish. Hurry on the Royal Commission.

  39. Louis Hissink December 22, 2008 at 7:11 pm #

    SJT,

    Beck has not published any new research but published historical, but inconvenient, data.

    As for Steve McIntyre not checking out Beck et al, simple – none of those authors have published papers proxies inferred to represent climate – so Steve cannot be criticised but you can for the sin of crass ignorance.

  40. Louis Hissink December 22, 2008 at 7:18 pm #

    Luke,

    Royal Commissions are only put in place when the outcome is known – I suspect you might be waiting a long time.

  41. Gordon Robertson December 22, 2008 at 7:32 pm #

    keiranO “It is because Einstein came up with this mystical matterless motion crap that he then proposed this next bit of nonsense called curved space”.

    You have to be a bit careful when analysing anything Einstein said, because much of it was quoted in contexts that were assumed. He not only used the term curved space, he used the term ‘space time curvature’. Einstein also made it clear that time is an illusion, and that it exists only in the human mind. However, Einstein had to communicate with other scientists, and time, although an illusion, is a basic parameter in science. In fact, it was invented by the human mind to keep tract of changing processes.

    If you consider Galileo’s experiment with dropping the rock from the Tower of Pisa, it would be obvious that something was changing as the rock fell (acceleration due to gravity). How would you describe that, let alone measure it, without time? You’d need a device like a watch to time the change of velocity. It’s about the only means we humans have of describing changes in reality quantitatively and that’s what necessitated it’s invention.

    Even though time has no real existence, we talk about it freely as if it is real. In fact, most people are so used to using time to measure their life events, and as a psychological dimension, they have no idea it is not a real phenomenon like gravity. If you mention the illusionary nature of time, some people will get hostile in its defence, yet they cannot point to one shred of evidence to support its existence.

    My take on Einstein was that he understood what you are implying about curved space and empty space, but he also had to communicate his ideas to other scientists. I’m sure a lot of his quotes were taken from that context and were stated in a context well beyond what mere mortals could easily understand. I have seen him use time freely as a parameter and at other times deny its existence. When it was implied that time travel should be realizable, according to his theories, he said, “I did not say that”.

  42. janama December 22, 2008 at 7:43 pm #

    Neville – nah – he’s just another denialist being selective as possible – looking after the sceptic mates who don’t publish.

    “Hurry on the Royal Commission.”

    glad to see you are on board Luke :)

  43. Louis Hissink December 22, 2008 at 7:45 pm #

    But I can be criticized for bad grammar – “none of those authors have published papers proxies inferred to represent climate”

    when “none of those authors have published papers on proxies inferred to represent climate is what I should have wrote, writ, posted, said, uttered, inferred,waffled, waxed, pontificated,………….

    Not another Goon Show

  44. Graeme Bird December 22, 2008 at 7:57 pm #

    “Why hasn’t Steve checked out Beck? Miskloczi? David Archibald? You’d think he had a goldmine of fun there.”

    SJT. These guys are terrific. And you are an idiot. Now have you got that straight yet? You compulsive lying moron. Your very existence tests my opposition to euthanasia.

  45. Jeremy C December 22, 2008 at 9:34 pm #

    What exactly was David Evan’s responsibilities, tasks and outputs at the AGO?

  46. sod December 22, 2008 at 10:15 pm #

    ouch. Evans claimed that satellites only measure the lowest 5 km of the atmosphere

    That is, satellites cannot measure temperatures above 5 km up in the atmosphere.

    http://clubtroppo.com.au/2008/12/19/david-evans-greenhouse-sceptic-debates-his-views-on-troppo/#comment-338043

    when actually they do. (as pointed out by Tim et al..)

    http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html

    i wouldn t let David Evans measure the temperature in my freezer. but you guys think, he is the expert that should determine future policy and believe that his “work” is contradicting the majority of climate scientists.

    if it wasn t that sad, it would be funny.

  47. Pandanus67 December 23, 2008 at 6:06 am #

    Luke, strawman argument. You know that all of the assumptions that underpin FullCam are published and available on the AGO/DCC web site. So your point is?

    Sod, Satellites do not measure temperature, they provide a temperature proxy, one that is consistant and has global coverage unlike all other proxy records. Therein lies their strength.

  48. WJP December 23, 2008 at 6:28 am #

    Thanks for the laugh GB: “…like spot the defect”. Unfortunately the caravan has moved on, the dogs are now barking at……..

    http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/councils-prepare-for-worst–meteorites/2008/12/22/1229794326882.html

    Hahahaha!

  49. Robert of Ottawa December 23, 2008 at 7:04 am #

    Luke at 7.16am immediately and perfectly demonstrates Evans’ contention:

    Analogous to reformed drunks not being worth listening to I’m afraid.

  50. Nexus 6 December 23, 2008 at 7:28 am #

    Satellites do not have global coverage (they don’t cover the poles) nor are they consistent (adjustments have to me made for drift, results from different satellites stiched together arbitrarily etc.). They also include some rapidly cooling stratospheric temperatures in their ‘surface’ channel, thus reducing the current warming trend apparent in their data.

    That is not say that satellite temps should be not be used, but one should be careful in ascribing too much importance to their results compared to surface measurements.

    The sole reason denialists like satellite temperature measurement is the fact that they show a reduced rate of recent warming. Nothing to do with how well they work and how reliable their results are.

  51. Luke December 23, 2008 at 7:40 am #

    That’s your “published” assumptions are they Pandanus? We should get McIntyre to have a good look – might email him.

  52. cohenite December 23, 2008 at 8:20 am #

    sod; yes it is strange that Evans should say that; clearly he was thinking of something else, but he should be asked to clarify; why don’t you ask him instead of chortling like a demented chook?

    Nexus; what a pathetic groupie you are; still the photo is a vast improvement on your prior sacrilegious misappropriation from Bladerunner, although you are still using the name; and typically you couldn’t talk straight even if you only had 4 years to live. The satellites do not “include some rapidly cooling stratospheric temperatures in their ‘surface’ channel”; that bit of rubbish was knocked out with the Fu et al paper;

    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2004/05/04/assault-from-above/

  53. Nexus 6 December 23, 2008 at 8:38 am #

    Wrong as usual Cohenite.

    RSS say on their website that “almost all” of the stratospheric signal is removed, so clearly some remains.

    One suspects RSS know what they are talking about when it comes to their own temperature constructions.

  54. cohenite December 23, 2008 at 9:27 am #

    Nexus; now Roy Batty; alarmist and fanciful as usual; Mears and Wentz from RSS say this;

    “Channel TLT uses a weighted average between the near-limb and nadir views to extrapolate the data to lower altitude thus removing almost all of the stratospheric influence.”

    The real deal, the pathfinders who set the whole thing up, Christy and Spencer, “developed a clever solution that made use of different viewing angles by a single channel from the satellite to measure the temperatures occuring lower in the atmosphere. By doing so, they were able to produce the now famous lower tropospheric temperature history, one that is essentially free of stratospheric effects, and one that shows only about half as much global warming during the past 25 years as does the network of surface thermometers”.

    “So clearly some remains”; quantify please or release that white dove.

  55. Graeme Bird December 23, 2008 at 9:36 am #

    You are a dumbass Nexus. You reject the BEST source of data on the grounds that its not PERFECT. So what is your point dumbass? That you go with the worst over the best data on account of the idea that the best data is not PERFECT.

    That doesn’t follow dopey.

    If you had a true affinity for science you would understand that you go with the best data you can get and do your best to work around the imperfections.

    Or didn’t you think of that first?

  56. Graeme Bird December 23, 2008 at 9:40 am #

    “You have to be a bit careful when analysing anything Einstein said, because much of it was quoted in contexts that were assumed. He not only used the term curved space, he used the term ’space time curvature’. Einstein also made it clear that time is an illusion, and that it exists only in the human mind. However, Einstein had to communicate with other scientists, and time, although an illusion, is a basic parameter in science. In fact, it was invented by the human mind to keep tract of changing processes.”

    Well Einstein can say what he wants one time or another. But that cannot be cover for special relativity.

    Yes its true that time doesn’t exist as a primary concept. But how is it then that it can be dilated and all that other jive. You appear to be projecting onto a hero-figure. Much as I hate to point it out.

  57. keiran0 December 23, 2008 at 9:51 am #

    Well presumably the AGWers here like SJT and Luke cannot find anything and obviously these AGWers have no ability to explain in their own words why stratospheric cooling ceased 15 years ago despite some moderate warming and increased CO2 levels.

    http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/images/update_images/msu_timeseries.png

  58. DavidK December 23, 2008 at 10:07 am #

    Howyagoin Conehead … er, keiran?

    Still on that tired ol’ argument eh? Thought you woulda moved on by now.
    Oh wait! I see you’ve added a zero begods!

    Now, back to ur homework boy … 0 + 1 + 1 does NOT = 3

    Hint: adding nothing to your equation does nothing for your input, or your perceived outcome.

  59. Nexus 6 December 23, 2008 at 10:25 am #

    “ALMOST all” “ESSENTIALLY free”. One of my co-workers just wandered past – she’s almost not pregnant!

    Spencer and Christy? Aren’t they the ones who thought their data showed NO warming, only to be forced into an embarrassing correction? Aren’t they the one’s whose data is still showing a spurious annual cycle that to date hasn’t been corrected?

    Don’t get me wrong – I think both the satellite and surface data are useful – from UAH through to GISStemp. I’m just not blinded by denial to exclude the data I don’t like.

  60. sod December 23, 2008 at 10:36 am #

    Sod, Satellites do not measure temperature, they provide a temperature proxy, one that is consistant and has global coverage unlike all other proxy records. Therein lies their strength.

    thanks for reminding me. like a thermometer doesn t measure temperature either. but some property of mercury…

    sod; yes it is strange that Evans should say that; clearly he was thinking of something else, but he should be asked to clarify; why don’t you ask him instead of chortling like a demented chook?

    Tim asked him. he didn t get any reply so far.

    look, if you are not an expert on a subject, and you make claims that contradict all experts on the subject. and while doing so, you get many basic points wrong. and then, defending your point, you get even more basic points wrong and make more obviously false claims.

    at some time, the patience of those, who are not blind denialists, might run out.

    You are a dumbass Nexus. You reject the BEST source of data on the grounds that its not PERFECT. So what is your point dumbass?

    Bird, you didn t understand what he said. he doesn t reject satellite data. in his own words:“That is not say that satellite temps should be not be used,”

    Nexus is just surprised (as i am..), that people like you, who dismiss surface temperature data because of “manipulating” math influencing the values, agree with satellite data, that needs MUCH MORE MATH.

    the most logical explanation for this completely illogical denialist behaviour is the one that Nexus mentions: you denialists simply believe in any source, agreeing with your point of view.

  61. Graeme Bird December 23, 2008 at 10:44 am #

    “as has been demonstrated, Evans doesn t understand the hot spot….”

    What a pathetic lie sod. Retract that lie. Demonstrated? DEMONSTRATED BY WHOM? The fact is you fell for that Lambert JIVE!!!!! didn’t you? You fell for the deltoid dwarf-oracles nonsense.

    Well go on then. Explain why you think that you understand the hot spot and why you think David Evans doesn’t.

    Go on.

    GO!!!!!

  62. sod December 23, 2008 at 11:01 am #

    Evans wrote this:

    The signature of an increased greenhouse effect consists of two features: a hotspot about 10 km up in the atmosphere over the tropics,

    it has been shown, that the hotspot isn t the signature of “greenhouse warming”.

    Evans is wrong. period.

  63. Pandanus67 December 23, 2008 at 11:17 am #

    Sod, Nope mercury thermometers (secondary thermometers) measure a change in the physical state of mercury calibrated to a temperature scale against primary thermometers. They are calibrated instruments that exist for a single purpose only, to measure temperature.

    Satellites do not measure temperature directly they record radiance that is then converted to temperature via formulae and calibration. This science is not yet as exact as the proponents would like it but it does have known levels of precision and accuracy that surpass al other proxies. Sure there may be shortcomings but the records that exist since satellite proxy’s were first taken are at least consistant, something that cannot be said for land based thermometer measurements. Have a look at “Watts up with that” and the siting of many of the north American weather stations and you would have to agree that there are some serious anomalies there that according to the literature have not been accounted for.

    Id say that we would both love to see a temperature data set that is clean and robust with recognised levels of accuracy and precision. There is nothing worse than poor quality data being used as model inputs, because what comes out the other end is questionable and I doubt that either of us really desire that.

  64. Pandanus67 December 23, 2008 at 11:21 am #

    Luke, I dobt that he would be intersted in the AGO carbon accounting methods as they are published, peer reviewed and freely available. You just do not seem to understand that basic principle do you. Its all there, you have a computer, internet access and appear to be reasonably curious why don’t you have a look for yourself.

  65. Gordon Robertson December 23, 2008 at 11:22 am #

    Graeme Bird “Yes its true that time doesn’t exist as a primary concept. But how is it then that it can be dilated and all that other jive. You appear to be projecting onto a hero-figure. Much as I hate to point it out”.

    You can’t do anything to time…it’s not there. It’s only there to people who have accepted time as a psychological space. All this stuff about time dilation, and other bollocks, is jargon used by physicists caught up in the mental aspects of what they can’t describe in a better way. The entire field of quantum mechanics is the same bs. No one has ever seen an electron, a proton or a neutron, but people talk about them and their properties as if they had. It’s mathematical conjecture.

    David Bohm was a unique scientist in that he could converse in the jargon but turn around and talk plain English as well. When he did that, he admitted QM suffered from mental pollution.

    I got a kick out of Einstein but I understand the problems of making him a hero. I read an article recently in which someone explained how relativity theory is very limited. They were talking about the orbit of Mercury and it’s peculiarities as observed from Earth. Retrograde motion is a peculiarity of relativity in which a planet appears to be going the wrong way to an observer on Earth. It’s because we are in motion at the same time and the planet appears to be going backwards at times. Apparently, being able to work out the proper orbital properties was one of the only proofs of relativity.

    We could do that without relativity and we’ll probably find a way to describe atomic activity without QM one day. Don’t forget big E was working with a pencil and paper, on his coffee break, no less. He had no simulation devices like we have today. Bohm figured we should go back to the beginning at start over without using artificial parameters like time.

  66. keiran0 December 23, 2008 at 11:28 am #

    Just what do you think you’re doing, Dave? Seems you are seriously challenged when it comes to reading these simple hadobs.metoffice charts. I can see you’re really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over.

    then

    Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do.

  67. Gordon Robertson December 23, 2008 at 11:38 am #

    Nexus 6 “Spencer and Christy? Aren’t they the ones who thought their data showed NO warming, only to be forced into an embarrassing correction”?

    Why are you asking rhetorical questions? It’s all explained on the net…on Christy’s site at UAH. You can read about it on the RSS site as well. Their data showed no net warming till around 1995. In 1997, that El Nino drove temperatures up by more than half a degree C, as much as all other influences had warmed the planet in a century. Why are you not wondering about the ability of a natural process to warm the globe that radically?

    After the 1998 El Nino, temperatures did increase in the atmosphere to a mean of about 0.2 C for several years. Is that what you call warming….0.2 C? Since then it has trailed off till it dipped back below the 0 axis in 2008. As 2008 draws to an end, we are currently getting a reminder about cold weather in Vancouver, Canada, We are enduring the coldest winter season since 1990, and 1950 before that.

    The correction you mention was about 1/10th of a degree, in the tropics. Go read the facts instead of trying to discredit good scientists through innuendo. Also, try to put things in perspective. Atmospheric temperatures are 1/3 the surface average. There’s no hot spot and a cooler atmosphere cannot warm a warmer surface. The only way that’s possible is with creative math, something the AGW scientists excell at.

  68. Nexus 6 December 23, 2008 at 12:10 pm #

    Actually Gordy, the difference is over 0.2K/decade in the tropics and just under 0.2K/decade globally, but I’m sure you already knew that.

    But gee Gordy, let me think. The lower 48 contig states of the US. 1934 is now 0.02C hotter than 1998, rather than 0.01C cooler following a NASA adjustment. As a result, there’s an ever ongoing frenzy among denialists such as yourself and most of the other inhabitants of this and similar sites.

    Yet Spencer and Christy, who probably are good scientists just like Jim Hansen, make a correction that is over 5 TIMES larger and you talk about perspective.

    The reason denialists aren’t taken seriously is because of innumerable inconsistencies like this.

    It’s embarrassing.

  69. Luke December 23, 2008 at 1:18 pm #

    I think Birdy makes a valuable contribution here. I encourage him to try even harder. LOL

    Nexy – your gravatar bears a strong resemblance to someone I know? It’s on the tip of my tongue…. I know – I know – is it – is it John McLean?

    Pandanus – Fullcam is just Howard-esque denialist product. i.e. bunk.

  70. Pandanus67 December 23, 2008 at 1:57 pm #

    Luke,

    Nonsense, and if that is as deep as your analysis can go then why do you bother? The list of contributors to FullCam reads like a who’s who of CSRIRO, ANU etc. These people are hardly likely to be Howardesque deniers rather dilligent researchers. So now you want to teear down anyone who contributed tot eh programme and label them deniers when your responses so far indicate that you are unable to grasp the concepts involved in the development and building of FullCam.

  71. Graeme Bird December 23, 2008 at 2:02 pm #

    “Evans wrote this:

    The signature of an increased greenhouse effect consists of two features: a hotspot about 10 km up in the atmosphere over the tropics,

    it has been shown, that the hotspot isn t the signature of “greenhouse warming”.

    Evans is wrong. period.”

    Lies. You just restated your same assertion. Now get on with it spoon-bender. Lets have your explanation that you cribbed from the deltoid dwarf. IN YOUR OWN WORDS:

    GO!!!!!

  72. Louis Hissink December 23, 2008 at 2:06 pm #

    Sod: “it has been shown, that the hotspot isn t the signature of “greenhouse warming”.

    Evans is wrong. period.”

    What, by dint of your acclamation in your post or is there evidence to support it, and if there is, why not proffer it?

  73. Gordon Robertson December 23, 2008 at 2:14 pm #

    Nexus “Yet Spencer and Christy, who probably are good scientists just like Jim Hansen, make a correction that is over 5 TIMES larger and you talk about perspective”.

    5 times larger, bs. You have not read the particulars and you are throwing out numbers out of your head which has no doubt been filled with rubbish from realclimate.

    The adjustment to which you refer above regarding 1934, by Hansen and GISS, was brought about only because Steve McIntyre of climateaudit.org brought the mistake to Hansen’s attention. You claimed Hansen was a good scientist?? Why does he make so many fundamental errors then? He tried to rewrite the record in the US to make 1998 appear as the warmest year in history. He was caught with his hand in the cookie jar because McIntyre was checking his results. Otherwise he’d have gotten away with his chicanery.

    I guess you conveniently forgot that his crowd at GISSTEMP recently muddled the record by using September data in October. It was another skeptic group had to bring it to their attention only to have Gavin Schmidt try to shoot the messenger. Maybe you missed the admission that GISSTEMP does not verify its data sources.

    I guess you also forgot that Hansen predicted catastrophic climate change back in 1988 and had to retract that prediction by 1998. He also predicted the Arctic and Antarctic would warm dramatically. We’re still waiting, as the Antarctic cools. Then again, didn’t Schmidt at RC claim that was predicted by the models?

    Anyway you’re just waffling your way around the facts. This is not a response to you since it would be wasted. It’s to inform anyone with basic intelligence following the exchange so they can check the facts for themselves. People like you are beyond doing that.

    In 1979, when the satellite record began, the atmospheric temperatures were 2/10ths C below the zero trend line. There was no warming. Most of the warming has taken place since 1998 and mainly in the high north, in the Arctic regions. There has been no atmospheric warming in the tropics. There have been some peaks at 0.25 C after 1998, but that seems to be waning. I would refer to 0.25 C as essentially no warming but an AGW freak would see a mountain there.

  74. cohenite December 23, 2008 at 2:27 pm #

    Roy, what do you mean by this? “Yet Spencer and Christy….. make a correction that is over 5 TIMES larger”

    5 TIMES larger than what?

    And; “The reason denialists aren’t taken seriously is because of innumerable inconsistencies like this”. What inconsistency? S&C corrected their miniscule error. I’ll tell you what Roy, the day Hansen and any of his henchmen admit to an error, Mann1 and 2, Santer, Sherwood and Allen, Amman and Wahl, then and only then will replicants be allowed to take their place amongst sentient beings!

  75. janama December 23, 2008 at 2:32 pm #

    Who is this Tim Lambert anyway?

    All searches I’ve made only return that he is just a plain old lecturer (not a senior, or assoc prof) in computer graphics at UNSW. The University doesn’t even post his qualifications.

    The only research he has done is in computer graphics related papers and he is listed with a group of others. The last paper he was involved in was back in 05 and was about “Modelling Heating Of Liver Tumours With Heterogeneous Magnetic Microsphere Deposition”

    So what makes him an authority on climate science?

  76. Nexus 6 December 23, 2008 at 3:05 pm #

    Nah Gordy…I was havin’ a read of the original literature – Mears and Wentz (2005). Good stuff too. Have a squiz at Figure 2. You can rant and rave all you want – the fact remains that the magnitude of the adjustment made by Spencer and Christy was far far greater than that made by NASA.

    As displayed in Figure 2, the slope of the linear trend line fitted to the global temperature data since 1979 increases from 0.087 K/decade to 0.193 K/decade when corrected by Mears and Wentz.

    It’s a fairly major (and quite statistically significant) change, but these things happen from time to time.

    When NASA adjusted their data following the error identified by McIntyre, it lead to precisely no statistically significant change in decadal global temperature trends.

    So Cohenite, you’re correct. The difference to global temp trends following the two sets of corrections is far greater than 5-fold. My apologies.

    BTW Gordy, how’s the HIV/AIDS denialism going? Which one are you going to sway us dodgy scientists on first – HIV/AIDS or AGW?

  77. SJT December 23, 2008 at 4:04 pm #

    “So what makes him an authority on climate science?”

    He’s not. If he makes a claim, he makes a reference to research by those who are.

  78. DavidK December 23, 2008 at 5:17 pm #

    Keiran Oh

    “Just what do you think you’re doing, Dave? … I can see you’re really upset about this … Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do.”

    Or is it Hal 9000?

    The answers were there to see (and understand) – you abused it.

    As I have said:

    Typically, a person in ‘denial’ is faced with a few facts that are too uncomfortable for them to accept. Therefore, they reject these facts and insist that they are not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.

    They may deny the reality of unpleasant facts altogether (simple denial), admit the facts but deny their seriousness (minimisation) or admit both the facts and seriousness but deny responsibility (transference).

    What is really worrying is that they often deny their denial.

    This can be a difficult concept for many people to identify in themselves, and is a major barrier to changing their behaviour.

    Denial of denial involves thoughts, actions and behaviours which bolster confidence that nothing needs to be changed in one’s personal behaviour. This form of denial typically overlaps with all the other forms of denial, but involves more self-delusion.

    So … thanks to SJT, Luke, NT and others for challenging all the deniers on Jen’s blog (including the coneheads that think GCR are the cause of this current global warming) and keeping the bastards honest (not).

    To all the ‘deny-n-delay’ brigade here, without those good people challenging your illlogical falsies, well … you may as well be sharing one big motel room – boring.

    Jennifer, I pop in now and then for mostly a laugh (it’s hard to engage with people in a rational way when you are told to piss off out’a here) – a shame really, it doesn’t do their cause much good.

    Anyway, to everybody … have a good one, try and be nice to each other.

  79. SJT December 23, 2008 at 5:18 pm #

    “Lucia on WHO Expects a Tropical Tropospheric Hot Spot From ANY and ALL Sources of Warming?:”

    In which Lucia demonstrates why she is a blogger and not a climate scientist, since she cannot understand what is being claimed and what is not.

  80. sod December 23, 2008 at 6:11 pm #

    Lies. You just restated your same assertion. Now get on with it spoon-bender. Lets have your explanation that you cribbed from the deltoid dwarf. IN YOUR OWN WORDS:

    and

    What, by dint of your acclamation in your post or is there evidence to support it, and if there is, why not proffer it?

    Luke provided the answer via a link in the VERY FIRST reply to this topic.

    and the pictures provided, tell more than 1000 words. just scroll down a little.

    http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/12/20/skepticsdenialists-part-2-hotspots-and-repetition/

    the claim “The signature of an increased greenhouse effect consists of two features: a hotspot about 10 km up in the atmosphere over the tropics” made by Evans is simply false.

    as an example lets look at the sentence:
    the signature of Graeme Bird is a lack of understanding of climate science.

    now obviously Bird doesn t understand climate science at all. but it isn t his SIGANTURE. instead it is a vague (though accurate) description of basically every denialist posting here.

    the SIGNATURE of Bird is something completely different: his posts are full of insults, completely lack substance and make totally absurd claims about scientific facts.

  81. cohenite December 23, 2008 at 6:14 pm #

    Roy, you’ve been demoted to Leon; a unilateral reliance on the Mears and Wentz “original literature” doesn’t cut it; here is Spencer’s reply to M&W and clarification of the differences; note the correction to the UAH data was an increase in the trend from +0.09C to 0.12C PD;

    http://www.marshall,org/article.php?id=312

    You also haven’t mentioned the comparitive appraisal of RSS and UAH by Randall and Herman in 2007; they found;

    “Figure 5 shows that 10-year trends centre on the mid-1994’s through 10 year trends centred on the mid-1995’s indicates the RSS-Sonde trends are significantly different from zero where the Sonde-UAH trends are not.”

    Basically, Randall and Herman found the trend values of UAH group are more accurate. And what has the pro-AGW side got to show; Sherwood’s flight of fantasy and Santer; and Santer has form;

    http://www.john-daly.com/sonde.htm

    Troposphere warming as per AGW is as real as Pris’s snake.

  82. cohenite December 23, 2008 at 6:19 pm #

    sod, you cherry-picking pain in the buttocks, I replied to lukey and this chris colose oracle chap at 12.08 on the 22/12/08.

    And that Spencer link is here;

    http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=312

  83. sod December 23, 2008 at 6:35 pm #

    sod, you cherry-picking pain in the buttocks, I replied to lukey and this chris colose oracle chap at 12.08 on the 22/12/08.

    sorry, but you didn t say a word to clarify the “hotspot” mix up of Evans.

    why don t you simply tell us, why The signature of an increased greenhouse effect consists of two features: a hotspot about 10 km up in the atmosphere over the tropics,”

    so why does the SIGNATURE consist of a HOTSPOT?

  84. Nexus 6 December 23, 2008 at 8:25 pm #

    My God, Cohenite; your penchant for inaccuracy knows no bounds!

    The artificial snake belonged not to Pris, but to Zhora.

    I’m seeing a trend here, I am.

  85. cohenite December 23, 2008 at 9:01 pm #

    Damn! You’re right; how could I confuse the athletic but anodyne Daryl Hannah with charismatic Joanna Cassidy.

  86. sod December 23, 2008 at 9:11 pm #

    wow, not a single point, defending the hot spot theory of Evans. so we agree that he is wrong?

    and talking about your links, how do you think you ll notice the TROPICAL hotspot in a graph showing global temperatures?

  87. cohenite December 23, 2008 at 10:37 pm #

    Evans is right; you have a mind as resistant to reason as a stone; here are the tropics;

    http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/4659/hadcrut3tropicscg7.png

  88. SJT December 23, 2008 at 10:42 pm #

    From your broken link, Cohenite.

    “Nevertheless, all measurements systems have errors (especially for climate trends),”

    From the horses mouth. Can we all agree on that now?

  89. SJT December 23, 2008 at 10:52 pm #

    Wait, there’s more.

    “What isn’t generally recognized is that the satellite-thermometer difference that has sparked debate in recent years has largely originated over the tropical oceans — the trends over northern hemispheric land areas, where most people live, have been almost identical.”

    Thank you, Mr Spencer. Can we ditch the “UHI” argument now?

  90. Mary Jenkins December 24, 2008 at 3:13 am #

    Surely the real problem is that the Western World lives above its means. It used far to much energy and water and are the greatest polluters.
    Design is extravagant and needs to become more frugal in the use of water and energy and polluters must pay. But to penalise the community is just another form of GST.
    Manufacturers and corporations get subsidised for providing jobs yet the workers are forced to work longer hours so that profits can increase shareholders meagre contribution to the production process.
    The whole climate change and carbon credit is nothing but a con.
    Sybil

  91. Michael December 24, 2008 at 6:37 am #

    I’m almost convinced by Dave.

    When the interior decorator from the AGO comes out in support, then that will be enough for me.

  92. janama December 24, 2008 at 7:57 am #

    “wow, not a single point, defending the hot spot theory of Evans. so we agree that he is wrong?”

    I’m sorry but the diagram on page 675 of ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf shows a hotspot for well mixed greenhouse gases and the sum of all forcings.

    deny it much as you like.

  93. keiran0 December 24, 2008 at 8:37 am #

    Dave says … “The answers were there to see (and understand) – you abused it.”
    Just what are you on about? I’ve asked numerous times for some AGW believer to examine these simple hadobs.metoffice charts and tell me what they FIND. It is not an argument as such but a request which may even be a test for some AGWers who see this stratospheric cooling as “my” incriminating fingerprint.

    At no stage have you attempted to interpret these charts in your own words. What does that imply? All your expressed thoughts about this attitude of denial are most appropriate for yourself as you struggle to understand the complete lack of evidence for alarmist AGW. With regards to GCR have you noticed the increased cloud cover we are getting everywhere …. cripes Sydney has had consistent cloud cover for the last three of four months. Perhaps you may like to comment?

  94. Eyrie December 24, 2008 at 10:05 am #

    So if a THS isn’t a signature of GHG induced warming, what were Santer et al trying to do by showing that the THS could not be ruled out by the observational evidence? Why did it matter to them?

  95. Green Davey Gam Esq. December 24, 2008 at 1:00 pm #

    David Evans’ article rings true to me. I note the use, by the ABC, of the inevitable iconic cooling towers, belching – um – steam. Yet the steam is a funny colour. It is usually white. Has the ABC tinted it purple-grey to make it look more evil?
    I also note the attack on David’s expertise – a mere ‘computer programmer’. I am under the impression that he is a statistician, like Bjorn Lomborg, and so well qualified to comment on statistical evidence. A brief CV would be interesting. Can anyone help? Perhaps David himself, if he visits this blogsite.

  96. janama December 24, 2008 at 3:31 pm #

    here you go Green Davey

    Stanford University, Stanford, California, 1984 – 89
    Ph.D. Electrical Engineering
    M.S. Electrical Engineering
    M.S. Statistics

    University Of Sydney, Sydney Australia, 1979 – 83
    B.E. Electrical Engineering (First Class Honors), University Medal (1983)
    M.A. Applied Mathematics
    B.Sc. Applied Mathematics and Physics

    In his own words this is what he meant by describing himself as a “rocket scientist”.

    In US academic and industry parlance, “rocket scientist” means anyone who has completed a PhD in one of the hard sciences at one of the top US institutions. The term arose for people who *could* do rocket science, not those who literally build rockets.Thus the term “rocket scientist” means someone with a PhD in physics, electrical engineering, or mathematics (or perhaps a couple of other closely related disciplines), from MIT, Stanford, Caltech, and maybe a few other institutions.

    I did a PhD in electrical engineering at Stanford in the 1980s. Electrical engineering is your basic high tech degree, because most high technology spawned from electrical information technology. I specialized in signal processing, maths, and statistics.

    From 1999 to 2006 Evans worked for the Australian Greenhouse Office designing a carbon accounting system that is used by the Australian Government to calculate its land-use carbon accounts for the Kyoto Protocol. He wrote his own software for the task at hand.

  97. sod December 24, 2008 at 3:35 pm #

    I’m sorry but the diagram on page 675 of ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf shows a hotspot for well mixed greenhouse gases and the sum of all forcings.

    deny it much as you like.

    nobody is denying that. but the hot spot is NOT the “signature” of an increased greenhouse gas effect. it happens with all warming instead.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf

  98. janama December 24, 2008 at 3:40 pm #

    what really gets me is that Tim Lambert is giving this guy a hard time, he thinks he knows more about the subject.

    Tim Lambert is a lecturer in computer graphics.

    I’ve always associated computer graphics with the art department. Silly me.

  99. sod December 24, 2008 at 3:47 pm #

    In US academic and industry parlance, “rocket scientist” means anyone who has completed a PhD in one of the hard sciences at one of the top US institutions. The term arose for people who *could* do rocket science, not those who literally build rockets.Thus the term “rocket scientist” means someone with a PhD in physics, electrical engineering, or mathematics (or perhaps a couple of other closely related disciplines), from MIT, Stanford, Caltech, and maybe a few other institutions.

    shouldn t you tell us, that this is the DAVID EVANS DEFINITION og the term “rocket scientist”?
    and that people with some knowledge of the subject have never heard the term 2rocket scientist” in that way, and definitely not as a self description!

    http://www.desmogblog.com/who-is-rocket-scientist-david-evans

  100. janama December 24, 2008 at 4:02 pm #

    Sod – I don’t care! David refered to himself in that way – and justified it in another way – so WHAT?

    it’s not the question – it’s your distraction.

    you can’t answer his climate science!

  101. sod December 24, 2008 at 4:05 pm #

    what really gets me is that Tim Lambert is giving this guy a hard time, he thinks he knows more about the subject.

    Tim Lambert is a lecturer in computer graphics.

    I’ve always associated computer graphics with the art department. Silly me.

    well, he obviously knows more about the subject. how should he be able to give you “rocket scientists” such a hard time, if he didn t?

    so simply tell us, why “The signature of an increased greenhouse effect consists of two features: a hotspot about 10 km up in the atmosphere over the tropics,”

    why does the SIGNATURE consist of a HOTSPOT?

    and another point that Evans made, that remains completely undefended is this one:

    That is, satellites cannot measure temperatures above 5 km up in the atmosphere.

    don t you “rocket scientists” know more about the atmosphere than anybody else?

    (just in case that someone missed it, janama is a rocket scientist as well:

    I did a PhD in electrical engineering at Stanford in the 1980s. Electrical engineering is your basic high tech degree, because most high technology spawned from electrical information technology.)

  102. janama December 24, 2008 at 4:26 pm #

    OH sod – you amaze me – so you were part of the 80s science clique at Stanford and can interpret their lingo and keep young Tim uptodate, good on you mate.

  103. Gordon Robertson December 24, 2008 at 5:10 pm #

    cohenite “And that Spencer link is here;

    http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=312

    I did not pick up on the context of why you linked to that site but I want to point out that the link is from 2005. Since then, a lot of the problems with the so-called satellite errors have been ironed out, and UAH and RSS are now in agreement. See the following, and read it right to the end since there is a correction included to this article:

    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/01/08/musings-on-satellite-temperatures/#more-298

    Note the decadal trend from 1998 to 2007 as +0.04 C, a statistically insignifcant warming. Both RSS and UAH show a global temperature decline over the past few years. This reminds me of the parrot sketch from Monty Python in which the pet shop owner tried to convince the dead parrot owner that his parrott is not dead, it’s just sleeping…it’s pining for the fjords. The dead parrot owner goes into a long tirade, summing up with, “this is an ex-parrot”. I don’t know what bafflegab the AGWers have for the lack of warming, but I’d call it an ‘ex-warming trend’.

    The following link is an update to the previous article, showing RSS and UAH now being in step and showing essentially the graph Roy Spencer shows on his site.

    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/07/more-satellite-musings/#more-306

    I don’t know what the argument is regarding the hot spot. There is no part of the troposphere warmer than the surface, so there’s no way the troposphere can warm the surface. I know the AGW crowd have some creative math, called a ‘net energy balance’, but Gerlich and Tscheushner, two real physicists, have claimed energies cannot be added to produce a net energy balance. Having CO2 warm the surface under those conditions would be akin to running a perpetual motion machine. Or, it would be the sign of a poorly programmed climate model.

  104. Gordon Robertson December 24, 2008 at 6:03 pm #

    Nexus “BTW Gordy, how’s the HIV/AIDS denialism going? Which one are you going to sway us dodgy scientists on first – HIV/AIDS or AGW”?

    Why don’t you go talk to someone dying of AIDS and ask them how they feel about a science that works on a theory for 25 years and gets no results? Ask the person how he feels about scientists being oppressed when they try to help him by working on an alternate theory. I care about people who are sick, and it bothers me deeply that the peculiar kind of ignorance and pseudo-science that permeates AGW theory started back in 1983 with the HIV/AIDS paradigm.

    You get people on here braying about peer review. The initial HIV/AIDS theory, as laid out by Robert gallo, was never peer reviewed. It was stamped as the official explanation by the grade-B movie actor, Ronald Reagan. After that, all the butt-kissers lined up at the public funding trough, saying what they had to say, and agreeing to any consensus that would keep the money flowing. Not only that, they saw to it that top class scientists, like Peter Duesberg (California Scientist of the Year), who disagreed with them, we ostracized. If that’s the kind of science you’re on about, you’re a butt kisser too.

    If I was dying of a horrible affliction like AIDS, I’d want someone to speak up for me. I’m speaking out, subjecting myself to scorn, because I have spent hundreds of hours reading the arguments on both sides of the issue. How many hours have you put in? I had it out with James Haughton, who admitted knowing nothing about the HIV/AIDS arguments, yet he was willing to be scornfully critical of my skepticism about it. You’re doing exactly the same thing. You know nothing about HIV/AIDS, and from my correspondence with you, you know nothing about the basics of science either. You’re a windbag.

    Just to show you how thick you really are, consider your claim that you read the original literature in 2005. That was nearly 4 years ago. Since then, Mears and Wenz have worked closely with Spencer and Christy to work out the problems. Guess what? They were both wrong. UAH was reading a bit low and RSS were reading a bit high, in the tropics. It has been worked out and I posted links today to that effect.

    They have also switched in new satellites to the record and the new AMSU units don’t have the same problems as the older MSU units. The newer satellites don’t have the orbital problems of the older satellites. Guess what, again? Using the newer AMSU units and the new satellites, they found out the errors were not as large as suspected.

    Look at the graph on the links I provided and the graph on Spencer’s site.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures.php

    RSS and UAH are now in virtual lock-step, and they both show a decadal warming of 0.04 C, which means ‘NO WARMING FOR TEN YEARS’. Not only that, they show a mini cooling trend over the past few years.

  105. SJT December 24, 2008 at 6:08 pm #

    “RSS and UAH are now in virtual lock-step, and they both show a decadal warming of 0.04 C, which means ‘NO WARMING FOR TEN YEARS’. Not only that, they show a mini cooling trend over the past few years.”

    You’ve got a big note for “El Nino”, but no note for “La Nina”. Perhaps you forgot to add it to the diagram. I can point out where it is if you don’t know. ;)

  106. sod December 24, 2008 at 6:09 pm #

    OH sod – you amaze me – so you were part of the 80s science clique at Stanford and can interpret their lingo and keep young Tim uptodate, good on you mate.

    you don t amaze me. another post, without a word on the “hotspot is the signature” issue.

    Note the decadal trend from 1998 to 2007 as +0.04 C, a statistically insignifcant warming. Both RSS and UAH show a global temperature decline over the past few years.

    cherry picking, are we?

    let us look at the 1999 to 2007 trend:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1999/to:2007/trend/plot/rss/from:1999/to:2007

    the slope of the trend is 0.0327, that is 0.3°C per decade. pretty massive warming!

    This reminds me of the parrot sketch from Monty Python in which the pet shop owner tried to convince the dead parrot owner that his parrott is not dead, it’s just sleeping…it’s pining for the fjords. The dead parrot owner goes into a long tirade, summing up with, “this is an ex-parrot”.

    good example, used in a completely false way. in climatic time line, the parrot has just not moved for a few minutes. to conclude that he is dead, is utterly false.

    I don’t know what the argument is regarding the hot spot. There is no part of the troposphere warmer than the surface, so there’s no way the troposphere can warm the surface.

    well, you obviously don t understand the hot spot either. the warming is a relative warming (as in “+0.2°C”.

    Or, it would be the sign of a poorly programmed climate model.

    please don t blame your lack of understanding on the climate models.

  107. Gordon Robertson December 24, 2008 at 6:16 pm #

    sod “the SIGNATURE of Bird is something completely different: his posts are full of insults, completely lack substance and make totally absurd claims about scientific facts”.

    What’s your point? I think Birdie adds good colour commentary here. You must be carrying a horrible burden if the image you have of yourself is so fragile that you feel insulted by Birdie’s patter. You need some of Louis’s hitest rum. Lighten up, brother.

  108. Michael December 24, 2008 at 6:28 pm #

    Evans hasn’t done a bad job considering – considering he doesn’t know what he is talking about.

    For an amateur, I’d give it a pass. He’s confused about the hot-spot and he doesn’t understand satellite measurement, but why would he, he’s not a climate scientist.

    Assessed from a science perspective, it’s a load of old cobblers, but he seems kind of sincere.

    I guess it’s not all that uncommon that some people take a vey late veer in the career and decide to pontificate on matters outside their experience and training. But it is extremely uncommon for them to have any novel insight, and as David shows, they usually struggle to even cover the basics with any accuracy.

  109. Gordon Robertson December 24, 2008 at 6:45 pm #

    SJT “You’ve got a big note for “El Nino”, but no note for “La Nina”. Perhaps you forgot to add it to the diagram. I can point out where it is if you don’t know”.

    I didn’t touch the graph, that’s how it came. I presume Spencer circled the 1998 El Nino because it was so strong compared to the others. A lot of people hold up that year as an indication that global warming is upon us. However, like other El Ninos, it died off almost as quickly. It’s pretty tough to look at that graph, see the sudden jump in global temp after the El Nino, and not wonder if the increased temps were not a rebound. I realize there were La Nina and El Nino cycles causing cooling/warming in the post 1998 El Nino period, but don’t you think they should have ridden on top of the CO2 warming trend, if it was there?

    If you set up a system that has the ability to oscillate, like a harmonic oscillator, and you provide a significant impulse to it, depending on its damping factor, it will oscillate in several ways, with the oscillation dying out exponentially in one of them. I am not claiming the planet works like that but the waveform of the temperature variations in Spencer’s graph sure resembles an electronics circuit that has been excited by a large pulse.

    What caused the abnormally large El Nino? In a recent post I made, a geophysicist suggested it ‘might’ have something to do with internal process in the Earth. If it was jolted by some force, is it unreasonable to think the spate of El Nino’s/La Nina’s following the 1998 spike were not some kind of damped oscillation? This is where the music from the Twilight Zone cuts in.

    As you know, the current theory is that ocean oscillations like ENSO are overshadowing global warming. The PDO is apparently going into reversed mode and that is seen as bringing cooler temperatures. I think Keenlyside blamed it on the AMO. At any rate, after that whopper of an El Nino in 1998, would it not be reasonable to think natural variations in temperature ‘might’ have caused the warming in the past century? I think that’s may be why Spencer circled the El Nino. He seems to think so.

  110. Gordon Robertson December 24, 2008 at 7:22 pm #

    DavidK “Jennifer, I pop in now and then for mostly a laugh (it’s hard to engage with people in a rational way when you are told to piss off out’a here)”

    what’s this…another activist with a thin skin? That’s two in one night. Maybe if you had something worth saying people might engage you in intelligent conversation.

    What is it exactly we are denying? From Newton’s time, science has taken a path of observation and conclusion. That basically meant you needed hard data on which to base your conclusion. Circa 1900, it was discovered that atomic particles could not be described very well with Newtonian mechanics. It was found that atoms transmitted and received energy in discrete quanta, and generally fowled up attempts to observe them directly. Whenever you used an instrument to observe them, the energy drawn from the particle changed the observation.

    So, how did scientists of that era solve the problem? They went into the human mind for answers. Imagine that. They tried to solve reality with human thought. They devised mathematical relationships, tweaked them, and actually got reality to fit the thought patterns. At least, the humans convinced themselves that reality was now obeying their thoughts about it.

    Fast-forward to present times. With the advent of fast computers, scientists began to create models of real processes. They had good success with certain models, especially in fields that were well understood. They could model inductors and capacitors in circuits, then transistors. So, they could build a model of an electronic circuit, based on it physical components, and demonstrate the circuit operating on a computer to an accurate degree. However, they have never modeled the actual atomic particles that carry electrical charges in the circuits. What they have done essentially is create a model of how the human mind thinks the atomic world operates.

    Then they started on climate modeling. They had the arrogance to think they could replicate all the nuances of the climate within a computer program. Not only that, they shunned data from the real world that showed the models were wrong. There would be nothing wrong with a model being wrong if the object of the exercise was to learn how to make a better model that would hopefully one day come close to replicating the atmosphere. But that’s not how the story went.

    The UN got into the act by forming the IPCC. The IPCC admitted in 2001 that future climates could not be predicted, so they offered us the probability of future climates based on computer models that varied wildly with each other. Suddenly, science went from being based on observed data to being based on a virtualization of reality that could predict future climate as to certain ‘likelihoods’. AGW theory became to climate science what quantum mechanics was to physics. It became an exercise in human thought.

    When a bunch of us stepped up and cried, “enough with that rubbish”, we were regarded as deniers. Deniers of what…virtualized science? How can you be a denier of something that doesn’t exist?

  111. Gordon Robertson December 24, 2008 at 7:35 pm #

    ps. a concern of Roy Spencer is that real data will be modified to meet the criterion of models. In other words, if we allow the biases, distortions and general arrogance of the human mind to interfere, we will bend reality in a false manner to suit the models, that are virtual representations of the human mind.

    In certain kinds of research, there is a technique called the double-blind study. The basis of that study is keeping the participating scientists away from the data so they can’t influence it through bias. Where are those checks in climate science? It’s quite evident that vested interest have gone after satellite, surface station and radiosonde data in recent years to bring them in line with computer model predictions.

    I find that scary. Real data collected by satellites, radiosondes and surface stations should be collected independently, then presented to computer models for purposes of comparison. We’ve got to get the bias out of the science and keep it out. Most importantly, we’ve got to keep the computer modelers away from the data.

  112. Luke December 24, 2008 at 7:58 pm #

    “Real data collected by satellites” – so how much do you know about satellite data Gordon ?

  113. cohenite December 24, 2008 at 8:12 pm #

    sod; you’re incorrigible; Will’s doppleganger; RSS from 1999; here’s 1995-2000;

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1995/to:2000/trend/plot/uah/from:1995/to:2000

    and 2001-current;

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2001/to:2009/trend/plot/uah/from:2001/to:2009

    Apart from the super El Nino of 1998, which is a culmination of the El Nino dominated preceding 20 years, there has been no upward temperature trend. BTW, Lucia swept the floor with Arthur on the THS; Arthur came across as a snake-oil salesman, full of semantic clap-trap and legalese artiface; quite despicable really.

  114. Louis Hissink December 24, 2008 at 8:23 pm #

    Watches with interest.

    Wonders how “Luke” suddenly discovered data

  115. sod December 24, 2008 at 9:18 pm #

    what is this? the Christmas party of all those, who failed their quantum mechanic exams?
    Gordon, everything that you wrote above is complete rubbish!

    using the human mind for answers? what a shocking idea!

    In certain kinds of research, there is a technique called the double-blind study. The basis of that study is keeping the participating scientists away from the data so they can’t influence it through bias. Where are those checks in climate science? It’s quite evident that vested interest have gone after satellite, surface station and radiosonde data in recent years to bring them in line with computer model predictions.

    this is complete nonsense. there are many different data sets and plenty of other indicators. WARMING IS REAL.

    the claim of manipulation is a strong one. you better provide real evidence or shut up.

    Apart from the super El Nino of 1998, which is a culmination of the El Nino dominated preceding 20 years, there has been no upward temperature trend.

    this again, is simply false.

    i gave you the 1999 to 2007 trend above. it shows VERY strong warming.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1999/to:2007/trend/plot/rss/from:1999/to:2007

    the same is true for the 2000 to 2008 trend, using the other satellite data set.

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2000/to:2008/trend/plot/uah/from:2000/to:2008

    again, very strong warming

    little warming, when starting with 1998. strong warming, starting with 1999 or 2000. little warming or minor cooling with other start years, just tells us: do NOT cherry pick the start year! use a LONG period, when looking at climate change!

    Lucia swept the floor with Arthur on the THS; Arthur came across as a snake-oil salesman, full of semantic clap-trap and legalese artiface; quite despicable really.

    sorry, but John V first had to lecture Lucia on the basics of the subject, that she wrote about. your perception of the Lucia-Arthur discourse might be slightly tainted by your believes…..

    ———————–

    ps: why don t you simply explain, how the hot spot is the SIGNATURE of greenhouse gases? and why satellites can t measure temperature above 5 km?

    does this take a rocket scientist?

  116. cohenite December 24, 2008 at 10:05 pm #

    You really are an odd little fellow sod; callow, irritating but amusing at the same time; is this long enough for you?

    http://www.climate4you.com/CentralEnglandTemperatureSince1659.htm

  117. DavidK December 24, 2008 at 11:58 pm #

    Oh Keiran
    Wrong – repeat 100 times: 0 + 1 + 1 does NOT = 3

    Gordon
    Like I said, denial of denial is a problem.

  118. DavidK December 25, 2008 at 12:00 am #

    Merry Xmas everbody!

  119. Graeme Bird December 25, 2008 at 5:52 am #

    Sod get it together mate. Where is this hotspot explanation of yours. Is it the lunatic lefts scheme merely to waste the time of the opposition by never delivering on your claims.

    Go for it sod. Every post you ever make anywhere at all will be followed by a question on this matter until you retract your lies.

  120. SJT December 25, 2008 at 9:00 am #

    Cohenite, did you read the label for that temperature series?

    “These graphs has been prepared using the composite monthly meteorological series originally painstakingly homogenized and published by the late professor ”

    ROFL!

  121. Gordon Robertson December 25, 2008 at 6:21 pm #

    sod “using the human mind for answers? what a shocking idea”!

    To borrow from Louis, “you’re built…ah said…you’re built too close to the ground, boy, it went way over your head”.

    There’s no point trying to deal in awareness when you have a control-wrapper around your mind that excludes the awareness. You obviously have no idea what I’m talking about.

    The fact that you go raving on about ‘very strong warming’, is conclusive proof to me that you are totally lacking in awareness as to real warming issues. I have never claimed there was no warming, I’m just looking for the real reason why it happens.

  122. Gordon Robertson December 25, 2008 at 6:26 pm #

    DavidK “Gordon Like I said, denial of denial is a problem”.

    You seem to think whatever you say is absolute truth. You can get help for that.

  123. sod December 25, 2008 at 7:48 pm #

    good morning everyone.i hope father christmas brought a “beginners guide to basic logic” to allof you.

    again: the claim “the hot spot is a signature of greenhouse warming “is false. this is completely independent of the existance of such a hot spot.

    The fact that you go raving on about ‘very strong warming’, is conclusive proof to me that you are totally lacking in awareness as to real warming issues. I have never claimed there was no warming, I’m just looking for the real reason why it happens.

    sorry, but you made a wild claim about “no warming” when starting with 1998. the facts completely contradict your statement. we get very strong warming, when starting with 1999.

  124. cohenite December 25, 2008 at 8:11 pm #

    Will; you read like a demented monkey when you try to emulate superior nitwits like luke; ROTL; how dopey; you and sod will still be claiming warming even after your little tongues are frozen to the tip of your noses; now, if you want genuine homogenisation of data you can’t go past Mann;

    http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/series-not-used-for-extrapolation1.jpg

    And how can anyone claim exceptional warming in the 20thC when even IPCC proves it wrong;

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/fig610.png

  125. Bernard J. December 25, 2008 at 9:59 pm #

    Gordon Robertson 24th December, 2008 at 6:03 pm:

    Nexus “BTW Gordy, how’s the HIV/AIDS denialism going? Which one are you going to sway us dodgy scientists on first – HIV/AIDS or AGW”?

    Why don’t you go talk to someone dying of AIDS and ask them how they feel about a science that works on a theory for 25 years and gets no results? Ask the person how he feels about scientists being oppressed when they try to help him by working on an alternate theory. I care about people who are sick, and it bothers me deeply that the peculiar kind of ignorance and pseudo-science that permeates AGW theory started back in 1983 with the HIV/AIDS paradigm.

    [snip]

    If I was dying of a horrible affliction like AIDS, I’d want someone to speak up for me. I’m speaking out, subjecting myself to scorn, because I have spent hundreds of hours reading the arguments on both sides of the issue. How many hours have you put in? I had it out with James Haughton, who admitted knowing nothing about the HIV/AIDS arguments, yet he was willing to be scornfully critical of my skepticism about it. You’re doing exactly the same thing. You know nothing about HIV/AIDS, and from my correspondence with you, you know nothing about the basics of science either. You’re a windbag.

    Gordon Robertson.

    You have no shame.

    You have been told repeatedly that you do not understand even the fundamentals of immunology or of virology, and that you are demonstrably unequiped to come to any conclusions on HIV/AIDS.

    It is interesting that a Nobel was awarded this year for the work on HIV, so apparently you are privy to knowledge of a scientific scandal that even the most august of scientific institutions could not detect. Tell me, just how does that work?

    And how many of your “hundreds of hours” was spent garnering a basic education in immunology/virology? How many hours have you spent speaking with scientists in your local hospital or university biomed research department about the basic processes of viral immunology?

    I worked (professionally) for tens of thousands of hours in immunology, including HIV immunology, and I can quite categorically state that your misapprehensions on the whole HIV issue are grievous indeed. I have gone over this with you (repeatedly) in the past, and it completely staggers me that you still believe that you have some apparently divine insight that demolishes the collective work of tens of thousands of genuine research scientists. I have spoken to dozens and dozens of people dying of AIDS, including dear friends, and they have a very different view to the science than do you. In fact some of the folk I worked with actually had partners with the virus, and they are ropable whenever someone with your crank ideas tries to tell them that they are a part of a scientific conspiracy.

    I care about people who are sick, and it bothers me deeply that the peculiar kind of ignorance and pseudo-science that permeates the HIV/AIDS denial paradigm somehow still has a life, and especially that it finds voice on blogs even with the tattered reputation that this one has. If you really cared, you’d be knocking on the door of every immunologist within two hours travel of your home and finding out the reality of the disease, the reality which you steadfastly continue to ignore.

    I have a challenge for you: if you live in Sydney, I will arrange for you to speak with one of my colleagues who has worked for over 25 years in immunological research, including well over a decade of work specifically with the human immunodeficiency virus. This man reads the scientific literature like a duck swims in water – he spends several hours per day, every day, in a library with a notebook, and it is common for him to work 16 or more hours in the laboratory on his experimental material. His work is his life, and his work is HIV and the immunology of this virus.

    I will organise for you to meet and to speak with him and to explain your conspiracy theory and your deep perceptions of the waywardness of the science, and I will then post to all here, and on other blogs which you might frequent, what he has explained to you in response. I am happy to provide a digital voice recorder so that a complete transcript can be posted.

    Be assured, the exercise will demonstrate one thing…

    You know nothing about HIV/AIDS, and from my encounters with you, you know nothing about the basics of science either. You are the windbag here, and frustratingly for any person with real medical understanding, you are a very dangerous windbag.

  126. Bernard J. December 25, 2008 at 11:53 pm #

    Gordon Robertson.

    Just wondering…

    Upon what documentation do you base your several sentences of dubious chronology of HIV? Where is your proof of ‘no results’ after 25 years? Where is your demonstration that the “HIV/AIDS theory” of Gallo, or of anyone else, was not peer-reviewed?

    Where is the credible research that posits alternative explanations for the virus identified as HIV, if this virus is not in fact HIV, or does not cause AIDS, as you seem to want to believe?

    Where is your evidence for the global conspiracy of scientists that you claim exists, and how is it that this conspiracy managed to snag a Nobel and still resist penetration by your seekers of truth and integrity?

    And to make it entertaining, why do you think that there was nary a whisper of Gallo in the announcement of the prize?

  127. Michael December 26, 2008 at 12:27 am #

    Good to see that Jen is still providing a platform where the AIDS denialists feel comfortable.

  128. Graeme Bird December 26, 2008 at 5:38 am #

    “i gave you the 1999 to 2007 trend above. it shows VERY strong warming.”

    But thats a lie. Whose compiling the data? Essentially a lying blog site like that can graph any damn thing they want. Its got 2007 as the warmest year. So its just lying. That might be the case in the far north somewhere. But in scientific arguments lies don’t count.

  129. Graeme Bird December 26, 2008 at 5:44 am #

    Now sod. You have been lying about this hotspot business long enough. Lets have the explanation in your own words. Jennifer. Ought you really be allowing this blatant liar to defame David Evans in this way? Ought there not be one rule for all. Its pretty easy to see which side of this argument contains the compulsive liars. And for the most part anonymous compulsive liars at that.

    Like when I point out that Karoly and Brooks are incompetent anti-scientific loons this is likely to send a shudder of fear down any blog owners spine. Even though truth used to be a defense of sorts. Yet on the other hand compulsive liars like sod and SJT have a free hand in defaming people and there is no comeback to them whatsoever. Ought blogs be a vehicle for their malicious compulsive lying? I mean one of these lunatics is trying to pretend that 2007 is the warmest year ever. So they’ll lie about anything these people.

  130. sod December 26, 2008 at 6:20 am #

    But thats a lie. Whose compiling the data? Essentially a lying blog site like that can graph any damn thing they want. Its got 2007 as the warmest year. So its just lying. That might be the case in the far north somewhere. But in scientific arguments lies don’t count.

    1. the site is clearly stating its data sources. basic web research isn t your strong side, i guess?

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/credits

    2. all the data i used was global. none of the graphs i used, seems to be showing 2007 as the warmest year. you either got confused by the time period or you are mixing up MONTHS and YEARS. reading graphs isn t your strong side either?

    Now sod. You have been lying about this hotspot business long enough. Lets have the explanation in your own words.

    simple:

    the hot spot is NOT the “signature” of greenhouse warming.

    satellites can “measure temperature” above 5 km.

    why don t you simply provide evidence that contradicts these claims?

  131. Michael December 26, 2008 at 9:04 am #

    Now sod. You can’t be expecting a rational reply from Birdy, that isn’t his game.

  132. janama December 26, 2008 at 9:09 am #

    sod – on page 675 of IPCC ar4-wg1-chapter9 – fig 9.1 it shows 6 images of zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 as simulated by the PCM Model from.

    a. solar forcing
    b. volcanoes
    c. well mixed green house gasses.
    d. tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes
    e. direct sulphate aerosol forcing
    f. the sum of all forcings.

    Only c and f show a hotspot therefore c. “well mixed green house gasses” uniquely shows a hotspot above the equator between 30N and 30S and between 8 – 13 km. It also shows cooling of the stratosphere above the hotspot.

    Therefore “well mixed green house gasses” should show a hotspot and cooling of the stratosphere.

    You have evidence of the cooling of the stratosphere but that is also exhibited by d. “tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes” , therefore the unique aspect of c. “well mixed green house gasses” is a hot spot.

    The question is why would you want to spin it any other way?
    I’d appreciate an explanation.

  133. cohenite December 26, 2008 at 10:00 am #

    Silly sod and malacious Michael promote the utter hypocrisy which is being manifest at Lucia’s with arch-hypocrite and designated language mangler, Arthur, arguing that the IPCC didn’t predict a THS because it didn’t call the effect that, it wasn’t a fingerprint, but a signature, and would only be a signature if it was there and if it wasn’t there, which it isn’t, then it was because anything could cause an equivalent hot-spot; basically if it was there then it was a THS and if it wasn’t there it wasn’t there because something else didn’t cause it.

    You guys are wearing ideological mental straight-jackets; AGW unequivocally predicts a THS; it does so because the enhanced greenhouse theory predicts that the slight warming from increased CO2 will cause more water vapor to be in the atmosphere, particularly in the tropics; the IPCC models don’t understand water but that doesn’t stop them from stating that water will have a +ve effect on heating; the CEL will raise and the emission layer will enter the stratosphere with attendant cooling as the no longer confined CO2 an emit into space and cool as they do. You cannot have stratospheric cooling without a THS, they are 2 sides of the same coin; the problems for the THS is that the temps don’t show it, the SH is not increasing despite the rubbish by Dessler and Soden and Spencer and Braswell, building on Lindzen’s work, have shown that water vapor is not a +ve feedback; it is the opposite. All this was predicted by Miskolczi who has runs on the board whereas the AGW/Weartian model so beloved by you jabbering monkey’s has to rely on Santer’s outrageous statistical manipulations and fanciful rubbish by Sherwood.

  134. Eyrie December 26, 2008 at 10:22 am #

    OK Sod,

    the hot spot is NOT the “signature” of greenhouse warming.

    So why were Santer et al keen to show its existence wasn’t ruled out by the real world data?

  135. sod December 26, 2008 at 3:25 pm #

    You have evidence of the cooling of the stratosphere but that is also exhibited by d. “tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes” , therefore the unique aspect of c. “well mixed green house gasses” is a hot spot.

    John V gave a beautiful explanation on this to lucia.

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/who-expects-a-tropical-tropospheric-hot-spot-from-any-and-all-sources-of-warming/

    in short, those pictures show the temperature changes, caused by the real forcings over from 1890 to 1999.
    picture (a) solar does NOT show a hot spot, because there was no real increase in solar forcing!

  136. janama December 26, 2008 at 4:08 pm #

    No – Lucia thanked John V for being pedantic and then got stuck into dear Arthur whilst watching TV with her hubby.

    The statement;

    evidence of the cooling of the stratosphere but that is also exhibited by d. “tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes” , therefore the unique aspect of c. “well mixed green house gasses” is a hot spot.

    still stands.

  137. sod December 26, 2008 at 5:03 pm #

    No – Lucia thanked John V for being pedantic and then got stuck into dear Arthur whilst watching TV with her hubby.

    funny misrepresentation of what really happened. lucia did actually change her post on the advice she got from John.
    again, you are completely biased on the discussion with arthur.

    evidence of the cooling of the stratosphere but that is also exhibited by d. “tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes” , therefore the unique aspect of c. “well mixed green house gasses” is a hot spot.

    again: the hot spot can t be the signature of any warming, because it is a symptom of EVERY warming.

    ozone is cooling the stratosphere, but is not a WARMING effect. that the cooling is an effect of ozone as well, does NOT contradict the claim, that it is the signature of the greenhouse WARMING.

    CO2 and ozone have different cooling effects, btw:

    The impact of decreasing ozone concentrations is largest in the lower stratosphere, at an altitude of around 20 km, whereas increases in carbon dioxide lead to highest cooling at altitudes between 40 and 50 kmy (Figure 3).

  138. sod December 26, 2008 at 5:04 pm #

    No – Lucia thanked John V for being pedantic and then got stuck into dear Arthur whilst watching TV with her hubby.

    funny misrepresentation of what really happened. lucia did actually change her post on the advice she got from John.
    again, you are completely biased on the discussion with arthur.

    evidence of the cooling of the stratosphere but that is also exhibited by d. “tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes” , therefore the unique aspect of c. “well mixed green house gasses” is a hot spot.

    again: the hot spot can t be the signature of any warming, because it is a symptom of EVERY warming.

    ozone is cooling the stratosphere, but is not a WARMING effect. that the cooling is an effect of ozone as well, does NOT contradict the claim, that it is the signature of the greenhouse WARMING.

    CO2 and ozone have different cooling effects, btw:

    The impact of decreasing ozone concentrations is largest in the lower stratosphere, at an altitude of around 20 km, whereas increases in carbon dioxide lead to highest cooling at altitudes between 40 and 50 km(Figure 3).

    http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/20c.html

  139. sod December 26, 2008 at 5:04 pm #

    sorry for the double post. kid pushed the button :(

  140. cohenite December 26, 2008 at 5:18 pm #

    “again: the hot spot can’t be the signature of any warming, because it is a symptom of EVERY warming.”

    Utter and complete gibberish; you, your arrogant mate Arthur and this John V character should have copies of FIG 9.1 stapled to your pointy little heads; 9.1(f) is the sum of all forcings; 9.1(c) is the “specific simulation of temperature change from anthropogenic radiative forcing from emissions of CO2 and other well-mixed greenhouse gases.” That is plain and only a desperate, ideologically driven or otherwise psychotic nutter would argue otherwise; what’s more, as I said before, the AGW atmospheric model absolutely depends on successive layers of CO2 moving the CEL higher, producing the THS and stratospheric cooling. This little exchange, the response to Evans and the butchering of language and logic by that physics thug at Lucia’s convince me that you people are beyond rational discourse.

  141. janama December 26, 2008 at 5:41 pm #

    The question is why would you want to spin it any other way?
    I’d appreciate an explanation.

    we are talking about global tipping points and world wide catastrophe in your language – so why are you arguing so vehemently against the real possibility you may be wrong?

    are you a sadist?

  142. Graeme Bird December 26, 2008 at 5:46 pm #

    “again: the hot spot can t be the signature of any warming, because it is a symptom of EVERY warming.”

    No thats lies as well. Each different type of warming would lead to a different signature. That ought to be obvious enough. You were taken in by some typical Lambert dishonesty no doubt. Lets have your evidence then. Go.

  143. Louis Hissink December 26, 2008 at 6:11 pm #

    The “hot spot” idea inrigues me.

    How could a globaly pervasive, minor gas, CO2, cause a “hotspot” in the atmosphere?

    A spot is defined, sensu -strictu, as a circle with a specific diameter.

    So how is this spot formed, or do its creators have no understanding of the physical sciences.

  144. sod December 26, 2008 at 6:36 pm #

    Utter and complete gibberish; you, your arrogant mate Arthur and this John V character should have copies of FIG 9.1 stapled to your pointy little heads;

    congratulations! you didn t understand the graph either. perhaps you and lucia should join forces?

    just go over the discussion with “john v” as a search term. gibberish and arrogant are more words, that you don t understand, eh?

  145. Eyrie December 26, 2008 at 6:37 pm #

    Louis, Look at the article at Lucia’s blog. The reason for the predicted “hotspot” is explained.

    Cohenite, You are right, they are beyond rational discourse. John V and the Arthur creature at Lucia’s are lunatics.

    So if the “hotspot” is a sign of “any and every warming” and we don’t find a hotspot there hasn’t been any measurable warming, n’est ce pas, Sod? So increased GHG’s aren’t doing much?

  146. sod December 26, 2008 at 7:07 pm #

    So if the “hotspot” is a sign of “any and every warming” and we don’t find a hotspot there hasn’t been any measurable warming, n’est ce pas, Sod? So increased GHG’s aren’t doing much?

    yes, this would be a real (scientific) problem.
    but of course there has been measured warming.

    and the conclusion on the existence of the hot spot is NOT as obvious as denialists want it to be.

    for the moment, let us wait and see.

  147. Luke December 26, 2008 at 7:21 pm #

    It isn’t an IPCC model – it isn’t an “IPCC prediction”.

    It’s a report of a CSIRO model experiment – one part of the science. IPCC reports/summarises the science fuckers.

    I think we’re just gonna have to start smacking denialist turds in 2009.

  148. Michael December 26, 2008 at 9:25 pm #

    You gotta love cohenite’s ‘scienciness’.

    I guess you have to expect this kind of sophistry from a lawyer. The game is just to re-arrange words into a form to win the argument. There is no imperative to try and understand the real world.

  149. Graeme Bird December 27, 2008 at 7:01 am #

    Come on sod. Stop the filibuster. Lets have your explanation for your lies about what David Evans is saying.

    ” IPCC reports/summarises the science fuckers.”

    No Luke. The IPCC does not summarise ANY evidence for this racket. They have no evidence for this racket. You are lying.

  150. Graeme Bird December 27, 2008 at 7:02 am #

    If the IPCC were to summarise a whole lot of evidence in favour of this fraud then you could go to any one part of their summary and find actual evidence. But Luke cannot do that. So Luke is lying.

  151. Eyrie December 27, 2008 at 7:28 am #

    So Sod,

    You agree we haven’t found the hotspot but there has been measured warming (and cooling) and the hotspot might still exist . Why do you care about the existence or otherwise of the hotspot? Seems the only way the hotspot might exist is by extreme statistical manipulation to claim that its existence isn’t ruled out.

    When the data has to be so severely tortured to get anything, likely nothing much is happening. Which seems to sum up the state of the global climate nicely. There are regional droughts, regional floods, the arctic warms and the arctic cools and glaciers shrink and glaciers grow on multiple superimposed time scales ranging from the annual to the millenial and longer. Ho hum.
    Nice unimportant stuff to work on for second rate would be scientists of which there are far too many. Its the funding that attracts them.

  152. Michael December 27, 2008 at 9:35 am #

    “time scales ranging from the annual….” – Eyrie

    Oh Lordy.

    Why can’t the irrational denialists distinguish between the seasons and the climate???………oh, sorry, I just answered my own question.

  153. Graeme Bird December 27, 2008 at 12:31 pm #

    No you are just lying Michael. Now make yourself useful and shake sod down for his explanation as to why he lied about David Evans. Lets have his idea that the warming signature would be exactly the same no matter what type of warming it is.

  154. Michael December 27, 2008 at 6:17 pm #

    What’s the Bird twittering about now?

  155. Eyrie December 27, 2008 at 9:02 pm #

    Michael,

    I got taught about the difference between weather and the climate in the first couple of days on my meteorology course. Solar cycles and the observation that there are some years where the hemispherical flow is meridional and some where it is zonal and that this pattern may persist for some years at a time were also taught.

    Do you actually know anything about meteorology? And BTW not every year is the same which is why I said annual to millenial and longer. Climatology was regarded as a retirement job for burned out meteorologists to compile statistics of past weather averages and was looked down upon as not having any predictive worth. It seems the field has tried to get above its station lately.

  156. Michael December 27, 2008 at 10:06 pm #

    There will be regional droughts and regional floods even if there was global cooling. And the sun will continue to rise and set as well.

    All of which has nothing to do with long term climate trends.

  157. Graeme Bird December 28, 2008 at 1:38 am #

    So what was your point Michael? You were just lying about the other fellow’s position. Stop bogging down the conversation with such baseless lying, you anonymous jerk, and make good with the evidence.

    Every so often we have to interrupt your filibuster to remind you what it is you are supposed to be seeking evidence for. And so I’ll remind you now. You need evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic warming. Evidence for the proposition that a little bit of warming during a brutal and pulverising ice age is a BAD THING. And evidence that industrial CO2 release warms the global climate by any non-negligible amount.

    Now if you had it you’d simply hand the evidence over. But since you won’t do that you ought to admit to yourself and everyone else that you have been pushing a science fraud.

  158. Michael December 28, 2008 at 7:38 am #

    Oh, I’ve been Birdied.

    Evidence – stratospheric cooling, tropospheric warming. That’s a hole in one.

  159. cohenite December 28, 2008 at 10:54 am #

    The AGW model states that increased CO2 will cause more water vapor in the atmosphere; this H2O will +ve feedback and cause much more heating; there is more H2O in the tropics so it is assumed that the water effect will be pronounced there; the height at which the THS will occur is at the CEL; that height where the convectively transported CO2 rich parcel of air ceases to be warmer than the surrounding air and the LTE within the parcel breaks down; if increased water causes heating in the atmosphere this CEL will rise until the release point for the CO2 is at atmospheric heights where there is less water, that is in the stratosphere; this is why AGW theory predicts a THS and Stratosphere cooling. The theory is wrong because Specific Humidity and relative humidity levels are falling; there is no THS as conceded by such luminaries as Lambert and Smith; in fact there isn’t even unusual troposphere warming;

    http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUglobe-m.html

    As for AGW caused Stratosphere cooling which, if there is a THS and a higher release point for the CO2, should be occurring in the lower stratosphere;

    http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Stratosphere1278-1204.gif

    The graph shows the expected volcanic warming spike; if AGW was correct the periods following the volcano spike should be trending down; they aren’t.

  160. Michael December 28, 2008 at 5:49 pm #

    Good ‘ol cohenite chips in with his goobledegook.

    Sadly, he gets it wrong. Humidity levels are rising as predicted, in most places.

  161. cohenite December 28, 2008 at 8:56 pm #

    Michael; trollish behaviour; Relative Humidity;

    http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/GlobalRelativeHumidity.jpg

    Specific Humidity;

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/21/a-window-on-water-vapor-and-planetary-temperature-part-2/

  162. Michael December 29, 2008 at 1:49 am #

    Oh, fun with graphs!

    Watt’s famously wrong-headed take on the humidity levels is our sophists choice of tact.

    Try again.

  163. cohenite December 29, 2008 at 7:06 am #

    The graphs come direct from NOAA;

    http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/Timeseries/timeseries.pl?ntype=1&var=Specific+Humidity+%28up+to+300mb+only%29&level=300&lat1=90&lat2=-90&lon1=-180&lon2=180&iseas=1&mon1=0&mon2=11&iarea=0&typeout=2&Submit=Create+Timeseries

    Please present some contrary evidence, or be branded a troll, not that that should concern you.

  164. Michael December 29, 2008 at 7:48 am #

    An airswing from cohenite!

    The provenience of the graphs has not been questioned, just Watt’s inability to understand what they are and what they show.

  165. cohenite December 29, 2008 at 8:05 am #

    Favour us with your god-like understanding o great wise one; start with the 300mb chart above since that is a crucial height, being the tropical CEL; if CO2 was weaving its pungent magic that is the height at which naughty water would be increasing and aiding the CO2; is it not passing strange that water is decreasing at that level; most certainly a great mind like yours will explain this mystical contradiction.

  166. Michael December 29, 2008 at 8:53 am #

    The first problem for Watts is that he mis-understood the graph – it’s only a reading at, not up to, 300mb. Then, it’s a very unreliable data set. The early values should have been ringing alarm bells, even without the following warning about the quality of this data,

    “Major problems are found in the means, variability and trends from 1988 to 2001 for both reanalyses from National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) and the ERA-40 reanalysis over the oceans, and for the NASA water vapor project (NVAP) dataset more generally. NCEP and ERA-40 values are reasonable over land where constrained by radiosondes. Accordingly, users of these data should take great care in accepting results as real.” – National Centre for Atmosphereic Research

    And which data set does the NOAA graph come from? NCEP.

    RSS is considered to be the best data, and as luck would have it Soden et al (2005) looked at this data and found a trend of increasing moisture between ’82 – 2004.

    In summary, Watts looked at an unreliable data set from one slice of the troposphere and drew insupportably strident conclusions despite a warning against “accepting [the] results as real”.

  167. cohenite December 29, 2008 at 10:07 am #

    Lame and suspect Michael; Watt’s graphs are not just readings at 300mb but at every level up to 300mb; clear the Hansen fairy dust out of your [one]eye. Secondly, Soden uses NOAA ESRL data (see his latest effort with co-authors Buehler, Kuvatov, John, Milz and Jackson, 2008); RSS data is only from 1979; the NOAA data is from 1948; in any event the whole soden mess is summed up beautifully by Stockwell here;

    http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-thermodynamics-of-water-vapor-and-the-ipcc/

    You’ve also forgotten Relative Humidity; I included a graph above, but Minschwaner and Dessler had a look at that in 2003;

    http://mls.jpl.nasa.gov/library/Minschwaner_2004.pdf

    Then there is the problem of where the water is coming from; Dessler’s recent paper where he posits an increase in SH, ‘q’, based on temperature ignores the decline in Pan Evaporation over the last 30 years as found by Gifford’s team; that means the water must be coming from the ocean [if SH was increasing] which means Spencer and Braswell’s stochastic -ve feedbacks would come into play through increased cloud cover; has cloud cover been increasing, and if not, if Soden and Dessler are right, why doesn’t the increase in oceanic evaporation, which must be the source of their assumed increase in SH, produce an increase in cloud cover?

  168. Michael December 29, 2008 at 11:17 am #

    Beautiful example of artless sophistry here from cohenite. More of his ‘scienciness’, ie. the use of scientific words and phrases with which he attempts to bludgeon science over the head.

    First he counters the published scientific literaure with a blog post. I’m sure Stockwell is a fine statistician, but a climate researcher he ain’t.

    Then he links to a paper that doesn’t do what he thinks it does. He grabs a straw and ignores the haystack. Yes they point to a small decrease in relative humidity, but confirm an increase in tropospheric moisture and the existence of a positive water vapour feedback, while also dismissing any possibility of a negative feedback.

    Ignoring this paper he linked to, cohenite then asks why there is no increase in cloud cover if there is increasing evaporation. Well, duh! (slaps forehead) The Minschwaner paper!! (hint – clouds will increase with increasing relative humidity)

  169. cohenite December 29, 2008 at 8:57 pm #

    Michael, the only thing I approve in your typically condescending comment is the slapping [slapping? quiche-man] of the forehead; keep it up, harder.

  170. Graeme Bird. December 30, 2008 at 8:57 am #

    Right thats enough. You are not coming up with the evidence you filthy dog sod. So its time to put this thing to rest.

    Sods defamatory idiocy in this matter comes from a single realclimate thread so dishonest that not one of these pigs would put their name to it. But since it involves the failed Goddard computer model I’m blaming it on that compulsive liar Gavin Schmidt. It is on the basis of this dishonest thread that Australias useful idiots have based their critique.

    Here’s what these IDIOTS AND LIARS say:

    “The basis of the issue is that models produce an enhanced warming in the tropical troposphere when there is warming at the surface. This is true enough. Whether the warming is from greenhouse gases, El Nino’s, or solar forcing, trends aloft are enhanced. For instance, the GISS model equilibrium runs with 2xCO2 or a 2% increase in solar forcing both show a maximum around 20N to 20S around 300mb (10 km):

    The first thing to note about the two pictures is how similar they are. They both have the same enhancement in the tropics and similar amplification in the Arctic. They differ most clearly in the stratosphere (the part above 100mb) where CO2 causes cooling while solar causes warming. It’s important to note however, that these are long-term equilibrium results and therefore don’t tell you anything about the signal-to-noise ratio for any particular time period or with any particular forcings.”

    Did you catch it? These idiots, proving David Evans absolutely right, had to increase the suns power by TWO PERCENTAGE POINTS in order to get their model to produce an equivalent equilibrium hotspot.

    One of the arguments this same belly-crawling slime had for denying the role of the sun was that if you averaged each years solar output for solar cycle 23 the averaged variation was only 0.1 of 1 percent. So they had to crank up the sun twenty times that variation in order to make the two hotspots look the same. Further disproving their model and absolutely vindicating David Evans’ take on the matter.

    How much is 2%? Two percent would be a disaster. Since the planet ACCUMULATES joules and doesn’t work on this instantaneous flat earth model that the idiot side of the argument works with. And that unfortunately the rational side of the argument seems to be stuck with to some extent as well. Gavin well knows that under contemporary mainstream solar theory, right or wrong, that our sun is held to be on the MAIN SEQUENCE. What this means is that our sun is supposed to increase its average energy output 4% every billion years. Hence it would be at least about 400 million years for a solar output increase of 2% average, under Gavins own understanding of the issue.

    Now it remains the case that all these models, flawed as they were, predicted that if there were CO2-warming that it would show up disproportionately at certain heights and areas. Thats what they said and thats what David Evans said. And Gavin is NEVER willing to let go of his crap model. So he here reinforces the Evans thesis. Since he shows that to get that same hotspot he needs to crank the solar input into his stupid, yet representative model, by a whopping 2%.

    Now bloody bloody bloody bloody and I wish I could use stronger language but bloody bloody apologise SOD!!!!!!!!!!

    Its not alright for you to get about defaming people anonymously like this. On the basis of crap that Gavin will not even sign his name to. Gavin wouldn’t even refute Evans, cowardly dog that Gavin is. He knew Evans was right on the basis of Gavins own model. So that when you search for David Evans in realclimate you get a wiki page and you get a list of people who have allegedly refuted David. But they have done so on the basis of a filthy dishonest article that came from realclimate itself.

    So that filth at realclimate weren’t going to go up against David Evans. They just manipulated matters so that their useful idiots would bury the issue. This was a difficult situation for this filth because they never abandon their model. But they had to bury David Evans’ refutation of it.

    Apologise SOD.

  171. cohenite December 30, 2008 at 12:11 pm #

    Well done Bird; you’ll get nothing from sod who is nothing but a Deltoid interloper; do you have a link to that Schmidt quote; says it all really; say a few swear words for me.

  172. Graeme Bird. December 30, 2008 at 12:34 pm #

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/

    Yeah here it is. And notice that Lambert lifted his inane argument and the diagrams straight from this hateful article that Gavin would not put his name to, like some sleezy commie spy picking up his orders from one of Stalins reps in a basement in Washington. NEVER LEAVE THE BOAT. Its like what Marlowe says when it comes to their fixation with the Goddard model. NEVER LEAVE THE MODEL. So Evans shook these guys up much more than he probably realises. They did not dare take him on directly. So look what they did:

    http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=David_Evans

    So they listed the comebacks of every dirty commie and science-grant-whore that took the bait. You go to one of these links and its got a different diagram. One that said that we did get the hotspot. But the hotspot had to be a comparative deal with what was seen on the ground. Not an absolute but a comparative deal. And a bit of solar warming wouldn’t comparatively lift temperatures in those altitudes (longitudes/latitudes) to the extent that purely greenhouse based warming would. But when you check to see the diagrams that the follicly and morally challenged pervert put up there they aren’t labelled. They tell you jack shit. And they say “see post 179 for more detail” or some such legend. Its in no way readily apparent where the hell to go to find this here more detail. So of course you know he’s lying. And that we will find that these diagrams do not represent a falsification of David Evans’ take on the matter but rather a falsification of the standard models that never work and never will.

    I wanted to lay it out right from the start but I thought I could shame that little bitch SOD into making some sort of explanation for himself.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Jennifer Marohasy » High Profile Meteorologist Declares Himself a Sceptic and Slams Climate Models - January 28, 2009

    […] 2.  David Evans, Trading Carbon as a Belief. December 22, 2008. “Lack of diversity in science funding has been a major problem since government took over funding science in WWII. Science is like a courtroom – protagonists put forward their best cases, and out of the argument some truth emerges. But if only one side is funded and heard, then truth tends not to emerge. This happened in climate science, which is almost completely government funded and has been dominated by AGW for two decades.” http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/12/trading-carbon-as-a-belief/ […]

Website by 46digital