SINCE Copenhagen the intensity of doom and gloom [D&G] has been ratcheted up with such anthropogenic global warming luminaries as Will Steffan and David Karoly declaring their previous predictions not dire enough and so have been superseded by much worse predictions.
Jay Leno has a good response to this;
“According to a new U.N. report, the global warming outlook is much worse than originally predicted. Which is pretty bad when they originally predicted it would destroy the planet.”
The question is, is there any evidence to support the worsening D&G?
Professor Chris Field was recently reported on the ABC doing D&G about an increase in fossil fuel emissions, but this quickly died when the penny dropped that the main increase in emissions was coming from China and India, not to mention the fact that temperature was declining concurrently.
With increased emissions insufficient to sustain the D&G could the peer-reviewed literature provide justification? Peer-review is the life-blood of AGW and lo-and-behold it was apparent that the D&G was backed up by several new and recycled papers. 10 of these papers which offer ‘evidence’ for the D&G are discussed. All of them exhibit the usual defects of pro-AGW papers; reliance on modeling regardless of contradictory or non-existent ‘real-world’ data.
1. Warming of the Antarctic ice-sheet surface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year
Eric J. Steig et al [including Michael Mann].
http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/SteigetalNature09.pdf
This paper is an instant classic and template for future virtual science projects. Forget the prior AGW orthodoxy of a cooling Antarctic; forget the latest British Antarctic Survey report showing cooling due to ozone depletion [which is no longer declining]; forget cooling in the satellite data and the AWSs and manned stations; forget the geological distinction between the Western Antarctic Peninsula [WAP] and the rest of Antarctica; forget the volcanoes; forget the Thomas, Marshall, McConnell [2008] paper which shows snow cover in the WAP doubling since 1850; forget the expanding sea-ice and ice cover over 95% of Antarctica. The real problem with Steig et al is Mann and PCA [RegEM]; insufficient principle components and inappropriate weighting of those used. The same old methods, the same old tricks, the same old faux reality.
2. Water vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, 2003 – 2008.
A.E. Dessler, Z. Zhang, P. Yang
http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/Dessler2008b.pdf
Dessler et al say specific humidity, “q” is increasing as a factor of increased temperature, “Ta”, and the increased “q”, is a “strongly positive” feedback. There are only 2 problems; NOAA and NCEP data show declining “q” at mid and high altitudes; secondly, increased “q” at the surface is most likely not even a feedback but a cause of temperature [Spencer and Braswell]. Then there is the problem of decreased pan evaporation [Roderick et al, 2007] which means the increased “q” must come from the oceans. Sea surface temperature has been neutral or declining for almost 2 years; http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/sst_oct_nov_dec.jpg
3. An analysis of the independence of clear-sky top-of-atmosphere outgoing longwave radiation on atmospheric temperature and water vapor.
A.E. Dessler, P. Yang, J. Lee, J. Solbrig, Z. Zhang, K. Minchswaner
http://gesa.tamu.edu/people/faculty/dessler/Dessler2008.pdf
Dessler has a second shot at D&G and he concludes that the surface temperature, Ts, atmospheric temperature, Ta, and “q” combine, primarily in the tropics, to decrease outgoing long-wave radiation [OLR]. Dessler calls this the “super greenhouse effect”. Unfortunately neither “q” or Ts or Ta are increasing. Also the decrease in OLR is problematic with Professor Lindzen noting there has been an increase in OLR;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/30/lindzen-on-negative-climate-feedback/
This elegant synopsis by Professor Lindzen was critiqued by Chris Colose. Too bad Chris didn’t read p33 of this;
Richard Lindzen, Beyond Models-using physics to assess climate sensitivity, attribution, and the relevance of both to alarm.
Click to access LindzenLectureBeyondModels.pdf
We will just have to wait for the ‘super-doper greenhouse effect’.
4. How declining aerosols and rising greenhouse gases forced rapid warming in Europe since the 1980s
Rolf Philipona, Klaus Behrens, Christian Ruckstuhl
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008GL036350.shtml
Prolific Professor Philipona is a leading exponent of back-radiation and consequent temperature and humidity effects. Here he argues the rapid increase in temperature since 1980 is due to aerosol dimming ceasing, with a consequent increase in short-wave forcing. Some problems; the study covers Switzerland and a bit of Northern Germany, an area about the size of Al Gore’s backyard. Aerosols are assumed to have only a cooling effect and humidity only a warming effect; the temperature trends from the 25 Switzerland and 8 German sites have anomaly ranges from 0.56C and 0.87C respectively yet there is no consideration of UHI influence; long-wave down radiation [LDR] is derived from absolute humidity, Uabs, yet short-wave net radiation cloud effects are equated with LDR cloud effects [Table 1]; how can the top and bottom of clouds be equivalent? Read Clausius and Heinz Thieme instead.
5. Consistency of modeled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere.
Santer, B.D., et al [including G.A. Schmidt and S.C. {wind-shear} Sherwood]
http://www.realclimate.org/docs/santer_etal_IJoC_08_fact_sheet.pdf
This paper is one of the great obfuscations from a champion cherry-picker. Fig 9.1[c], AR4, p675, unambiguously predicts a tropical hot spot [THS] from increased ACO2 warming of the surface. Santer et al finds it using a “global” weighting function, T2lt, derived from a synthetic [sic] base, T2, with an error margin of 0.0 – 0.5CPD, which means no warming at all would still produce a THS. A crescendo of Santer support followed based on increased humidity [not happening], changes in the moist adiabat and a rising tropopause. The THS is not hotter, it’s taller. This height issue was rebutted by Spencer and Christy’s response to Fu et al. Finally, the non-existent THS was rationalized by Tim Lambert as a signature of surface warming from any source not just ACO2. The only problem with this is an equivalent solar forced THS requires a 2% increase in insolation. Now that’s hot [thanks Birdie].
6. Temperature trends derived from Stratospheric Sounding Unit radiances: The effect of increasing CO2 on the weighting function.
Keith P. Shine, John J. Barnett, William J. Randel
http://acd.ucar.edu/~randel/2007GL032218.pdf
The other side of the coin to a THS is a cooling Stratosphere. Keith Shine and the lads claim to have found it, again riding on the well-worn back of model corrections of incorrect data. After corrections to the CO2 weighting function Keith finds Stratospheric temperature trends ranging from – 0.4K decade-1 to + 0.4K decade-1. Yep, Keith found nothing.
7. Is the climate warming or cooling?
David R. Easterling, Michael F. Wehner
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/csi/images/GRL2009_ClimateWarming.pdf
The previous Keenlyside et al effort predicted masking of underlying AGW due to SST driven natural variation. Unfortunately, when the ENSO is removed from temperature trends there is no post 2000 underlying AGW;
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/10/temperature-trends-and-carbon-dioxide-a-note-from-cohenite/
Easterling and Wehner revisit this trainwreck of an idea to prove that future cooling will still have underlying AGW. Their null hypothesis [NH] really settles the matter. The NH is that there will be an “equal percentage of statistically significant positive and negative trends” [p6]. This is high order virtual reality; the concept of the 100 year flood explains why. Pacific Decadal Oscillation [PDO] climate phases have greater probability of floods during a negative phase during which time [about 30 years] there may be several 1 in 100 year floods. During the positive, El Nino dominated PDO phase there will most likely be no 1 in 100 year flood.
The same principle applies to temperature. Positive PDOs will have increasing temperature trends and vice-versa for negative PDOs. The paper doesn’t consider ENSO at all apart from an admission that it is not modeled well [p6]. Table 1 shows more positive temperature trends in the 20thC. This was due to positive PDO dominance not, as the paper claims, AGW. Still, it’s a great title.
8. Decadal-Scale Temperature Trends in the Southern Hemisphere Ocean.
Sarah T. Gille
http://www-pord.ucsd.edu/~sgille/pub_dir/i1520-0442-21-18-4749.pdf
The issue of ocean warming is crucial for AGW but problematic. Sarah puts her hand up for warming and produces this gem;
“Overall, the results indicate that the Southern Hemisphere ocean has warmed substantially since the 1930s. Some 80% of this warming is concentrated south of 30 degrees S where it is evident at all depths. Observations are also sparsest in this latitude range. Estimates of the exact amount of warming that has occurred therefore depend on the details of the assumptions made about temperature trends in regions where no observations are available” [p4761] Priceless.
9. Role of water vapor feedback on the amplitude of season cycle in the global mean surface air temperature.
Qigang Wu, David J. Karoly, Gerald R. North
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL033454.shtml
Speaking of Dr Karoly this little bit of virtual science; Dr K equates seasonal variation in Surface Air Temperature with water vapor feedback “since both are subject to the same feedback process” of downward long-wave radiation. The same problems with Dessler, Philipona and Santer apply. You would be excused in thinking they are reading from the same book.
10. Declining Coral Calcification on the Great Barrier Reef
Glenn De’ath, Janice M. Lough, Katharina E. Fabricius
Science. Volume 323, pp116 – 119; 2 January 2009
Coral is one of the ‘Koala Bear’ emotive images of AGW. This study found coral growth from Great Barrier Reef [GBR] samples increased 5.4% between 1900 -1970, but declined 14.2% from 1900 – 2005; the culprit, ACO2. Professor Hoegh-Guidberg started waving his hands and Premier Bligh promised action on the coral and got elected. More salient facts: Dr Alina Szmant noted that studies on coral decline used hydrochloric acid, not CO2, to lower the pH of water, so conclusions about the role of CO2 were premature; John McClean and Warwick Hughes noted there had been no temperature increase from 1982 to the present along the GBR; in fact, in June 2007 record low temperatures caused extensive bleaching of GBR coral; Professor H-G began hand-waving again and the culprit, again, ACO2. The good news is, according to Dr Guillermo Diaz-Pulido, the coral has recovered and expanded; the culprit… Perhaps Dr De’ath’s conclusions from his earlier study, that further data on the “links between environmental change and effects on coral growth” is needed, should have informed this study.
In Conclusion: There is no evidence in the PR literature that AGW is worsening, or exists for that matter.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
“Dr Alina Szmant noted that studies on coral decline used hydrochloric acid, not CO2, to lower the pH of water, so conclusions about the role of CO2 were premature…”
They put Hydro-Chloric Acid in the corals water and then inferred like effects from CO2? Did they make that clear in the summaries? Unbelievable. How about I neglect to put in lime in the vegetable garden and instead judiciously work in some Sulphuric Acid? How about that? And then when the plants don’t grow so well, “Global warming”. I’d like some science money in advance. Man I hate these people. And if we cannot get them all sacked what sort of human beings are we? All of the studies mentioned sound like straight science fraud to me.
Cohenite, great work.
My question is – where are the science journalists? com’on Marion Wilkinson, Robyn Williams and other mainstream science journalists – reply to Cohenite’s statements – that’s what you are paid to do. You are NOT paid to push your own misled agendas.
This is a great article.
At Climate Resistance, we have argued that the rise in gloom and doom fulfils a very political need.
Throughout the West, governments appear to be increasingly sympathetic to climate alarmism. E.G, Obama, Rudd, the UK’s Climate Change Act. This would suggest that an international deal to replace Kyoto is more likely.
But growing sympathy for environmentalism undermines the political leverage that the environmental lobby has generated. If governments are sympathetic, then it is deprived of its principle moral weapon: that government inaction will cause catastrophe. What use is a pressure group with no resistance to its objectives?
Accordingly, environmentalists simply escalate their claims, not in order to save the planet, but to sustain their political influence. And, no doubt, to sustain their incomes. Chief among these are Hansen, who announced recently that there were just four years left to save the planet; and Stern, the author of the keystone of UK climate legislation who now claims that his original, and mush disputed report underestimated the effect of climate change. Now he’s cashing in on the profile he has generated for himself by setting up carbon-finance ventures, and writing an apocalyptic book.
http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/01/only-four-years-left-to-save-environmentalism.html
http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/01/pick-a-number-any-number.html
Well how do you know Janama? He’s anonymous. But probably not or he’d make a better job of it.
Anyway – you don’t even know what he’s talking about. You haven’t and won’t be reading the papers. You’re just part of the cheer squad.
In fact Janama Cohenite has no credibility – he’s been thoroughly despatched by E Rabett on such previous fishing expeditions. So unless you actually go through the papers criticised by his arguments in detail all you are getting is the usual denial-o-sphere recycled yarns that masks for a critique.
A serious attempt would be to write a rebuttal to the journals involved and seek the authors response in defense as opposed to a trumped up shoddy blog attack.
Cowardly without such an attempt, as his comments have been quite easily rebutted in the past.
Why do you think he knows anything – simply because it appeals to your POV.
Really luke, do you think a reputable science journal would publish something from a “tosspot” lawyer? I’m just glad that Jennifer allows me a little space here to work off a few demons. Speaking of which, could you repost that link which didn’t work before?
Well yes I do – especially if Bob and Stew help with some of the fine points of style.
NCAR is down at the moment – http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/flow.jsp – you may have to wait a bit
AGW proponents have the absolutely fundamental problem of trying to explain why the oceans and the atmosphere are no longer warming despite the continuing rise in carbon dioxide concentration, and have not for the past decade.
It would be nice to feel that if, in two years time or so, and more cooling had been demonstrated, that the AGW movement would finally throw in the towel and admit they were wrong. Somehow, that seems unlikely.
After all, it only took the geographers of the world about 30 years to realise that Wegener was right, and the Russias 30 years or so to admit that Lysenko had erred.
AGW is, was and will be, a fraud.
There is no climate apocalypse coming and no honest evidence one is coming.
Why would you think that. Stasis periods are typical within individual model runs and have indeed happened historically. A less active Sun adding a bit more. CO2 warming doesn’t work without the Sun ?! There is no fundamental problem.
It is typical of fear based social movements, like AGW, that as reasons to support the fear fail to appear that the fear mongers resort to ever increasing obfuscation and appeals to authority.
Eugenics, so popular so recently with so many world governments, seems to be rapidly falling to second place as the worst example of how fraud disguised as science can corrupt public policy.
Eugenics and AGW, nothing at all in common except in an author of popular trash’s mind.
Face it SJT. Eugenics and AGW are pretty much one. You name me an environmentalist and you can best believe that he’s a DDT-bureaucratisation holocaust-denier and a bigtime neo-Malthusian late-term-abortion-lover. Same movement. They hate black kids.
SJT,
The late author, whose education and accomplishment is well known, vs. some internet denialist.
Hmmmm……who is the credible person on that one?
And, fwiw, Chrichton merely affirmed an observation a lot of people had already made.
The similarity between eugenics and AGW are profound- both are spin offs from relatively new science. Both are pseudo scientific. Both are non-falsifiable. Promoters of both cannot stand the scrutiny of skeptics. Both rely on imposing their ideas as public policy. Both seek to destroy those who disagree. Both deny the negatives their beliefs deliver when turned into policy.
That shoe fits rather well, SJT. Enjoy it.
Reading the post by Climate Resistance above, I was reminded of the cartoon I came across recently with the father of a green activist saying, “Now you know what it feels like to be mainstream?”
Examples of activists becoming more and more radical as government and the general populace ‘fall into line’ abound. Recently I saw an article detailing many such incidents, my favourite being –
‘In California, hundreds turned out at the end of July to protest a connection between the solar and geothermal fields of the Imperial Valley to Los Angeles and Orange County. The environmental class is likewise lobbying state commissioners to kill a 150-mile link between San Diego and solar panels because it would entail a 20-mile jaunt through Anza-Borrego state park. “It’s kind of schizophrenic behavior,” Arnold Schwarzenegger said recently. “They say that we want renewable energy, but we don’t want you to put it anywhere.”‘
Doug Lavers commented –
“AGW proponents have the absolutely fundamental problem of trying to explain why the oceans and the atmosphere are no longer warming despite the continuing rise in carbon dioxide concentration, and have not for the past decade.”
Right on Doug.
But I think that there are two fundamental issues which tell against AGW and all of that stuff.
As a matter of logic, the first difficulty which an AGW proponent has to confront is the ‘non-problem’ issue: that is to say that there is nothing to show that there is anything happening to the world’s climate to-day which is in any way unusual. And since there is nothing to explain – it is a ‘non-problem’.
The second difficulty is the one to which you have drawn attention: in spite of a (more or less) linear increase in CO2 concentration over the past (however many) years, there is no corresponding increase in global temperature.
So – there is nothing to explain, and CO2 does not explain it.
I don’t think AGW supporters are concerned about explaining anything; their “proof” comes from computers which are sources of authority and beyond the ken of most people; to back up this source of authority we have academics like this hypocrite;
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25380219-17803,00.html
For Manne the ‘science’ from computers is beyond knowing by the average folk and it’s a case of trust me, I’m a high priest of AGW and I will direct your worship of the holy inviolate script of computer proof; what arrogance and elitism; then we have really dangerous egoes like this spreading the good word;
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/whats_your_interest_in_this_mr_gore/#commentsmore
When is the penny going to drop that AGW is about power and vanity mixed in with some inhumane zealotry?
The penny will drop when we can get some of these people sacked and not before.
Seriously. Once a relative said to me “if its going to get cold soon then why worry? The movement will be over with because the evidence won’t be there” I told him the problem with that theory is that the evidence isn’t there now. And as we’ve seen its getting cold already and these people are only getting worse and more insulting.
If we could get half the people sacked who show up on Lamberts blog the rest of them will go quiet and keep their nose to the grind-stone. But then times are tough and we’d want to sack all the others just to bring the budget into surplus, provide tax exemptions to solve our problems and so forth. So the deal is to go after mass-sackings and if that process starts these guys will go into squealing denial like penitents under medieval torture.
As you’d expect – the usual sceptic goons are clueless about the science. They haven’t and won’t be reading the papers whose authors Cohers has libeled. So when you don’t know what to say – name drop eugenics, Nazis, DDT, religion and the usual septic sceptic denialist recycled bilge. Have a bit of a ranty tanty. Tell a few fireside stories.
Yep keep going guys.
I don’t think the onus is on AGW critics to take the post to task; why don’t you do it luke? I have, after all, had a go at your guy Rolf.
Ah, Robert Manne. A professor of politics thinks that it is not what we believe, but who we believe!
That just about sums up the confounding ignorance of the pseudo intelligentsia who glory in the fanatical pursuit of whatever populist, leftist cause is for the moment fashionable. It has nothing to do with fact and truth and everything to do with the tools of the propagandist.
So long as I persuade a lot of people to my point of view, I cannot be challenged – I cannot be wrong. And if I cannot be wrong then no-one may gainsay what I have propounded; and I am justified in suppressing contrary opinion, and any misrepresentation, any lie, any political trick to that end is also justified.
This bloke is vacuous and clueless. He understands nothing but the classic pursuits of the demagogue – Tell the big lie and tell it often !
Cohers – you don’t have the credentials to be recognised – let’s see what’s happened to the last horse you flogged.
You assured us that Miskolczi was the ducks guts – the bees knees. This was “IT” !
Now Mr big hitting dragon slayer scepo, Stevey “wonder” Short says
“Personally I think this is all getting too silly for words. I can’t see why anyone in the local Climate Sceptic camp should persist in holding up Miskolczi Theory. It doesn’t actually provide a verifiable, easy to understand raison d’etre for global homeostasis or Greenhouse saturation or whatever one wants to call it no matter how much numerological mumbo jumbo it cooks up.”
Eli warned you about false Gods.
The decent thing to do with Rolf is engage him and ask some questions personally. The last lot you asked were answered and proved you a laughing stock. Last time I act as your intermediary on the issue.
Well luke, Miklos Zagoni is in the country and is willing to talk to anyone about Miskolczi; I will be encouraging Steve to contact him with his analysis of the theory; why don’t you contact Miklos as well with any query you might have; he is a very approachable guy. As for Rolf, there is nothing I want to ask him, I have read his papers and there appear to be some deficiencies which I have outlined; I can’t do any more than that.
Luke mentions ‘credentials’. What credentials does Luke have I wonder?
B. Arts in Persian Studies mate. Kohl perhaps you would like to make a science comment?
Cohers – If you were serious you’d be writing rebuttal letters to the journals aided by your sceptic mates – any less is hardly convincing.
Don’t give up your day job,Cohey!
Luke wants me to make a “science comment”. Eh? When the silly stuff put forward here by you and others starts being ‘science’ I will be happy to make ‘science comment’.
In the meantime I offer political comment on politics, sociological comment on sociology and logical comment on matters of logic. Unfortunately I am unable to offer comments on Persian Studies, but then again I havn’t seen much put forward on Persian Studies.
Further to my last post. I looked back through the comments and it is remarkable how many off topic comments are being put forward by Luke and one or two others.
I am forced to the conclusion that they are just ‘shit-stirrers’ and I therefor propose to ignore them henceforth, here and everywhere else.
Doug said:
“AGW proponents have the absolutely fundamental problem of trying to explain why the oceans and the atmosphere are no longer warming despite the continuing rise in carbon dioxide concentration, and have not for the past decade.”
Luke responds in denial:
“Stasis periods are typical within individual model runs and have indeed happened historically.”
Pure mythologising. Luke’s on about “climate stasis” sophism again. It’s the latest brand of secular creationism. But if you want to stop “Climate Change” you must believe a climate stasis is possible or, indeed, desirable.
In fact, “climate stasis” is a much an oxymoron as “Climate Change” is tautological. The Earth’s complex and utterly dynamic geophysiology exists in a state of constant evolution and shall continue to do so regardless of any legislation passed by parliament forbidding climate change.
What Luke really believes is that somewhere in the past existed a Garden of Eden, an optimal ecological stasis from which humanity has fallen–tempted by the sin of capitalism–into our modern era of plague, pestilence and catastrophe. Shame and guilt and submission are the only proper responses to our crimes.
Luke’s only interest in science is to appropriate its secular mantle of rational respectability to cloak a very, very old agenda.
“As you’d expect – the usual sceptic goons are clueless about the science. They haven’t and won’t be reading the papers whose authors Cohers has libeled…..”
I’ll get round to reading them sooner or later. But we already know at this stage that they’ll be lies since their theory is already proven wrong.
“Don’t give up your day job”? Look Nick, it’s the water and the OLR; for that I have to give up my day job; if I had one.
Wes George describes a belief in “an optimal ecological stasis from which humanity has fallen..” etc etc.
I think that something must have gone seriously wrong with the ‘optimal’ bit:
In the US people love to take their holidays in, or retire to somewhere warmer than where they live. So New Yorkers make the move to Florida, or California or Hawaii.
In Australia, Melbournians (down South) love to visit Queensland in the North, where the promotions go something like this – come to sunny Queensland, sunny one day, perfect the next.
As I understand it, this is a world-wide phenomenon i.e. people from colder climes seeking the sun in warmer climes by choice.
You get the idea.
These places are all many degrees warmer than where the visitors come from.
It seems that however the ‘optimal’ climate characteristics of our world were settled upon, an unfortunate mistake has been made! Everywhere should be a bit warmer to accommodate the ‘warming’ aspirations of holidaymakers and retirees everywhere!
That it is not, and yet still they complain about the possibility of it getting warmer is a source of wonder to me.
Oh no – Wes is back. More science free 3000 word essays. More misrepresentation. More words noone understands. More English lessons. More summarising the threads.
Argh ! The horror.
Threshold test for Bird – what have read from GRL this year. Lyiing porker.
I read a lot of stuff. But not much this year its true. Because I already know its a fraud. So it does seem a bit pointless. All those pdf reads will ruin your eyes and they never have anything worthwhile in them. You just got lucky saying “this year”. I’m not saying that you eugenicist leftist filth lack intuition. It was more 2005 and 2006 that I was reading everything because back then I was pinching myself wondering what they had up their sleeve that they were holding out on us about. But they have nothing. So its true that I’ve moved on to other things. The fraud of this being 100% established.
If I’m wrong you could come up with the evidence RIGHT NOW.
Reading fraudulent pdf’s one after another would be like being a religious penitent practicing self-flagelation with those brush-whip things right now. Because all of them are crap. I tried it with ocean acidification and couldn’t find what we needed to know for them to be a problem. Ie rate of change. Proof of assertions of ph change. Allowance for melted ice as part of the ph change and so forth.
I’ll get around to reading these reports but why would I priortise it? When I already have proven that its a racket. We saw this when Jennifer asked for papers. Four threads, dozens of suggestions. No evidence.
THATS FRAUD.
You’ve never read anything from GRL in your life you total shonk. Spare us the bluster. What’s proven? That you’re a content free idiot – that’s all.
No you are lying. And you are just filth mate. And you are a fraud. Because if you had evidence you could come up with it RIGHT NOW.
You are filth Luke. We have that on record in reaction to tens of millions of black kids dying from environmentalism. Your reaction was to ask for their names and addresses. You laughed at them and asked for their names. You tried to pretend that it didn’t happen. Your scum status is fully documented on this very blog.
Just bluster mate and all water off a ducks back. I’ve been abused by experts.
Your tantrum simply shows you’re railing against published papers that you have not read, won’t be reading and wouldn’t understand if you did.
And the person recommending these papers to you – i.e. Cohers – has a pet anti-greenhouse theorist Miskolczi – that the sceptics are now even deserting. What’s that say mate – it says you’re flakes/hacks/boofheads.
Take a hike – go read some of your pretentious arts graduate economic fluff.
BTW names two blacks kids – you can’t can you?
Luke,
“truth from the mouth of a babe…or a Chuckie doll:
“I’ve been abused by experts”.
Truer words were never spoken by you, dear Luke.
Luke,
“Why would you think that. Stasis periods are typical within individual model runs and have indeed happened historically”
Ahh yes, the old EVERYTHING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE MODELS trick!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You and Reli Abbett are becoming a really good comedy routine!! Have you asked Leno for a shot yet??
Luke apparently doesn’t care to defend or cite papers that support “past climate stasis.”
I don’t know why. Michael Mann went to great lengths to show the past 1100 years was pretty much a “climate stasis,” sacrificing his scientific credibility in the process.
Why is the concept of a climate stasis so near and dear to the AGW apocalypse hypothesis’ heart?
Because if the Medieval Warm Period was as warm or warmer than today, which it well might have been, then there is no need for a one-off special case anthropogenic Rube Goldberg theory to explain 20th century warming. Something else is driving climate evolution.
If “climate change” isn’t an anomalous break from a Mannian “climate stasis” we need to look for more elegant and subtle solutions to climate evolution….But the constant chorus from the AGW acolytes is pleased don’t bother…“the science is settled.” Look at any post by Luke. He’s basically repeating a mantra—“shut TF up. I don’t want to hear it. I know everything I want to know already.”
When a person stops intellectually growing, stops being open to cognitive evolution as new data and ideas become known, then that person forfeits a very important aspect of his humanity. He is no longer creating his own destiny, but is subject to whatever fate time sees fit to impose upon his ossified convictions.
Kohl is amazed at the hypocrisy of the Warmists. What I find most puzzling is their utter lack of curiosity, humility or a sense of awe before Brobdingnagian complexity of the Earth’s climate.
Comment from: Luke April 25th, 2009 at 10:36 pm …………. “… A less active Sun adding a bit more. CO2 warming doesn’t work without the Sun ?! There is no fundamental problem.”
——————————————————————————————————————-
But you say that now Luke.
For the last two Decades the AGW hypothesis and IPCC said the Sun was constant and had nothing to do with warming.
Suddenly the AGW proponents are grabbing at natural variation whereas before they were scathing in their contempt for such folly…. They accept that the sun can cool, but refuse to accept that it can warm????!!!!!
It seems the AGW proponents pick anything that suits their purposes…. They are in the pursuit of Politics, not Climate science.
Oops, small correction….. “They NOW accept…”
….. and a bit more if I may.
The IPCC accept a Global average figure of 0.7 degree Celsius temp rise over the last 100 years….(the problems with a surface temp record that was never intended for a resolution of tenths of a degree let alone hundredths notwithstanding, or natural variation.)….
However as this Global average 0.7 degree temp rise was occurring….. The Global Average human life span doubled….. The Global Average crop yield quintupled….. The Global Average individual wealth increased Ten Fold.
Frankly, I can’t see a catastrophe.
Well J Hansford (and must we be so formal) – IPCC have never said the Sun does not have an influence. Lately with a quieter Sun and change in PDO – frankly it’s all about what you’d expect. Indeed depending on your analysis – it’s probably still in a slowly warming trend.
Or perhaps for Wonky Wes’s delectation – a “stasis” neither rising nor cooling.
So some factors have simply taken the top off the long term warming trend. Frankly unremarkable.
But gets the sceptics all lathered up. You guys are betting the bank. When it starts to rise again and sharply it’s be all over.
Of more interest are the circulation changes with Dai’s latest work complementing the previous PDSI drought work. Add in SAM, STR, IOD and declining Walker circulation and you have some most disturbing trends.
Alas for Bird-Brain – you have to be able to read something deeper than Phantom comics to understand.
Hey Wes – stasis stasis stasis !! Like that ? Off you go now and write a 100 word essay for us.
And gee J Hansford esq – wonder what else happened in the 20th century. Ever thought about cause not being correlation – no don’t bother answering. Eve rtrhought about massive agronomic and genetics improvements. – don’t bother answeringt that either.
Just tell the rice growers when the water will be back. Imagine that – highest yields one minute and zero the next. http://wine-econ.org/2008/04/19/wine-rice-and-drought-in-australia-2.aspx
http://www.ausfoodnews.com.au/2009/03/18/sunrice-to-make-36-redundant-as-drought-takes-its-toll-on-harvest.html
Yes they’ve said that the sun doesn’t have influence you are lying. They have claimed that the climate is human-driven and that CO2 is the driving force. They have played down the sun and tried to make it sound like its variation is minimal. Trying to stooge people into thinking that its variation is ) 0.1 of 1%. They emphasize what they call a “solar constant” relying on watts per square metre alone and totally ignoring the composition of the radiation involved.
Just more lying on your part. And look at you making your point by quoting recent backpedaling links even as you talk about the past tense in the IPCC long history of fraud and unscience.
Coho,
You just don’t know enough about this to be so dismissive. And you have some wildly off-the-wall unscientific beliefs which invalidate large parts of your discussions. But you actually have chosen some good papers for discussion, and your comments merit a response:
1. Steig et al. Folks here get overly excited about alleged discrepancies about Antarctic predictions. The accepted view is that the Antarctic will warm, but more slowly, because the heat has to arrive across the Southern Ocean with a long time constant. And, as everywhere, there will be variations about this slow trend due to other factors. The complication with Antarctica is that the observations are sparse.
I actually know quite a lot about principal components analysis. I’ve read what Steig has done (and Mann before him). Mann made some relatively monir errors; Steig, as far as I can tell, has done a correct analysis as far as it goes.
Which is not all that far. PCA is a good exploratory tool. It draws out suggestive patterns from otherwise messy data. But there is more than one way to set up analyses. It’s not good for giving conclusive answers. I think that Steig’s paper is well worth publishing, but maybe not in Nature.
Oddly, my chief criticism of Steig is that it gives too much attention to the Antarctica that you see on the map as an isolated entity. It’s odd, because the critics at CA etc have adopted this approach enthusiastically too. But the “land” is really inseparable from the large floating shelf, and beyond that, the ocean, which is perhaps better measured than the land, imposes a boundary condition which should be taken into account.
Your stuff about volcanoes is just dumb,
2&3. Dessler et al
I think it is amusing that denialists enthusiastically promote this NCEP data, which real scientists like Trenberth and Soden regards sceptically. Amusing, because what NCEP does is take a whole lot of (patchy)historic data and fits a model similar to a GCM. It then reports the model output as data, which is why you get nice apparent curves measured at 300 mbar etc. And folks like Ken Gregory then analyse this trustingly.
No, there’s no good evidence that “q” is declining. Global humidity is hard to pin down – I find Dessler’s claim of an increase to be the most probable, but hope that we’ll see better evidence.
Your statement about q being a cause of temperature rise rather than a feedback makes no sense. The point of a feedback is that it is both a response and a cause – that’s what the loop means.
Chris Colose’s criticism of Lindzen’s claim about OLR is absolutely valid. RL cited evidence that has been withdrawn by it’s authors. Despite sunsequent bluster, you just can’t do that. If the people who made the finding now say it is wrong, then the data just has no backing. It only ever existed on their authority.
Your comment on pan evaporation is irrelevant. The vast majority of evaporation is from the sea. And the vast majority from land is by plant transpiration. Pan evap tells you something about the state of the soil, but not about the atmosphere. But iyour comment is also wrong – Farquhar et al now say that the decline in pan evap correlates with a decline in wind speed, which is interesting, but not AGW.
4. Phillipona et al.
Again, your commentary about Thieme and co is just dumb, and spoils the rest. No-one (including Spencer, Lindzen etc) doubts the reality of back radiation. If that’s your basis for inclusion in the list of worst papers, you’ve tagged the whole scientific literature.
There really isn’t any doubt that sulphate etc aerosols cause cooling, and that they increased in Europe, and then decreased. So Phil is just assembling observations consistent with this. It would be better to have an analysis over a larger area, but there is nothing wrong (or controversial) with what he has done.
I’ll skip 5 and 6 due to lack of time
7. Easterling. Your criticism is pointless. They say that models show ups and downs; lots of other things are superimposed on the AGW trend. ENSO is just one of them. A flat period with ENSO removed is consistent with their paper. I thought what they had to say is a bit lightweight, but not wrong.
8. Gille. The quote you’ve highlighted is a bit awkward, but actually correct. Any use of spatial data has to model what goes on between data points, and your result depends on what assumptions you make. Mininbg engineers are vary conscious of this.
But you’ve missed the point of her paper. It isn’t about warming as such, but how the warm water actually moves south. She calims to have verified a common suggestion that the Antarctic convergence is moving south, which has implications for the CO2 sink etc. Whether she has done this adequately is the issue.
9. Karoly et al. I haven’t read the paper (paywall, but I’ll get to it during the week). But I think the only criticism of the abstract is that it is inconclusive. Trying to quantify WV feedback via seasonal variation is definitely a good idea.
10. De’ath et al. Again, I can’t currently read it, and it looks like you haven’t either, but are basing your dismissal on something Szmant said. There’s nothing there. If you want to test a pH effect, it doesn’t matter at all what acid you add (as long as the anion doesn’t interfere). It’s well understood that the ocean is a bicarb buffered system, so you should really test varying carbonate species. I hope they did that – there’s no evidence that they didn’t.
In fact, it isn’t clear that your comments relate to De-ath’s paper at all.
Where is your evidence for this racket Luke. How did I know that you wouldn’t come up with any. Because the movement is a fraud Luke, as are you. And you are filth as well. Thats how I knew. And not by way of any prophetic gifts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I’m not seeing enough concern amongst skeptics that the ass will not drop out of our CO2 levels. I don’t see how anyone can be confident we can maintain the levels we have now. Much less successfully raise them above 600ppm to deal with the food and energy shortages which face us. Policy ought to be to raise CO2 levels by leaps and bounds until such time as we are quits with this new little ice age. Or at least have some interim recovery from it or at least have put the alternative fission in place, that industrial development of course driven itself by expanded hydrocarbon usage.
People willingness to engage with the lunatics as if it were a collegial disagreement and not a clear case of open fraud is dangerous and deluded. And it appears that there is some implicit psychological deal going on wherein this lunatic wall-of-sound claiming a cataclysm from too much stimulus to the biosphere via CO2 means that even the skeptics have been made blind to the absolute catastrophe of a precipitous drop in CO2 levels.
THE LIKELIHOOD OF A CATASTROPHIC DROP IN CO2 LEVELS, ON THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE COULD COME AT ANY TIME.
Just think about the available evidence. I’m talking to the skeptics now. Just think about what evidence there is linking warming to CO2 level increases and cooling to CO2 level declines. I’m not about to tip you off here because you ought to run through the available evidence in your own minds eye. That evidence which is pretty well known to all parties.
The potential for a catastrophic drop in CO2 levels ought to be the greatest worry that abounds as we head into the Landsheidt minimum.
Why am I perceiving that skeptics are blind to this danger? Is is that you’ve let yourself be influenced by some swaying towards the lunatics? The world does not respond to their ambit claims. Nor to your personal sense of optimism.
Can anyone claim for me that the evidence DOES NOT suggest that CO2 levels could plummet in an unpredictable way and at pretty much any decade going forward? Tell me what you think the evidence says.
We’ve got to shake loose from the stalling tactics of the lunatics. We are always playing within our 25 yard territory. So much so as I would venture that perhaps no other skeptic here has considered the potential disaster of a failure for us to increase CO2 levels or indeed the potential for these levels to drop precipitously.
Well Graeme
Luke said “a “stasis” neither rising nor cooling.”
but that’s not what is actually happening. Temps are dropping both land and ocean. Sea level is the only stasis at the moment.
And there IS good, solid, reliable records of Antarctica – Cohenite posted the Aussie base temp records and they show a cooling Antarctic.
It’s not unreasonable to expect the CO2 levels will start to fall.
All the AGWs have got at the moment is “well after this is over we’ll be back in business”
wouldn’t count on it.
Fair dinkum Stokesy, a tardy effort. You are far too generous to Steig and especially Mann. The issue was RegEM and the infilling to begin with. PCA came later after the amphigory of the infilling had been ‘completed’. As you note Antarctica is not homogenous; the spatial temperature range is enormous but Steig assumes a “high spatial coherence”! The infilling or Regularisation by Mann at particular sites is grotesque and actually altered existing definitive trends;
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/South_Pole_Temps.jpg
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Vostok_Temps.jpg
Compare this data with what is in the paper’s supplementary information and try not to giggle [assuming you are serious].
The PCA was applied to a falsely uniform data set with a dearth of principal components both spatial and chronological [there are 2 verification periods]. The trend base was supposedly the satellite data but Steig has not released details and UAHMSU shows cooling. I could really go on but it is a farrago.
Dessler is the great white hope; the thing about SH is that it is decreasing high up and increasing near the surface; you denigrate the data but extol the virtues of the modelling which really is my point; the high-up decline increases the window; the low increase is subject to Spencer and Braswell. I find this explanation of the difference between a feedback [why are they always +ve in the pro-AGW literature and I haven’t conceded our little sparring with the ODE] and a stochastic cause instructive;
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=e12b56cb-4c7b-4c21-bd4a-7afbc4ee72f3
PP 2-3 are relevant and make your gibe about loops problematic
I can’t say any more about Philipona; even if backradiation exists [of course] the heating argument is spurious.
You miss the point entirely about Easterling; with ENSO removed post 2000 there was no AGW; read the link, the period wasn’t flat, it was declining for a decade when Field and others were jumping up and down about emission increases; how can you mask something which doesn’t exist? Geez.
Gille a bit awkward!? Consider this; “your Honour we have no evidence but we are pressing for conviction because we assume he is guilty”; happens I suppose but I’d hate to rely on the paper’s methodology.
De’ath; for cripes sake my second sentence summarises the paper’s findings.
The Cutting Edge Tueday at 8.30. Growing Anger At Hunger.
Just heard it on the TV. Its only the beginning. Thank you very much environmentalist movement. Its not to be thought that this growing world hunger troubles these eugenicists. If that was the case we would simply end the conditions that are causing the hunger and make good with building our energy production, our food production, financed via reductions in public sector parasitism allowing tax exemptions.
Its not to be thought that these lunatics will campaign to get rid of ethanol subsidies. Follow Luke around for weeks you won’t find him suggest it. They WANT this hunger. Which they will use as a base upon which to build famine and human eradication. Malaria used to be a weapon and these things will tend to compound.
How about encouraging HIGHER CO2 levels to ease this hunger? No chance. You see they WANT these people dead. If they did not want these people dead they would want higher CO2 levels and there is just no getting around this fact.
Thats the whole point of the exercise. How about more energy and tax exemptions on fixed nitrogen production? No chance of that. Just watch them argue against the closure of bureaucracies necessary to make such long-term tax exemptions.
We shall know them by their deeds. Its not hard to figure out where their North Star is. They want these people dead.
Anyone against higher CO2 levels is in favour of human eradication. Its pointless to give these people the benefit of the doubt.
you are off your rocker!
maybe come back when you sober up.
What are you talking about you jerk?
Are you or are you not in favour of higher CO2 levels. Clearly you aren’t. So you are therefore in favour of all these people that are now hungry being hungrier still.
There is absolutely no getting around that fact Nazi. Try it!!!!! Try making the claim that you are in favour of lower CO2 levels but you want this current blight of food shortages to end.
You are off your rocker in that you are a proven evil eugenicist bastard. You are filth mate. Everywhere people hungry. Food budgets gobbling up families entire incomes. And you, by your own admission, want LOWER CO2 levels.
Your opportunity to bring evidence that you are not a Nazi has passed you by long ago.
Can any of you skeptics make a logical case that someone can be for LOWER CO2 levels and against death-dealing food scarcity? You want to take Luke and Jamamas case up for them? Argue that they are not in fact callous nazis? Argue that MattB ISN’T in favour of thinning the human races numbers down via this energy and CO2-deprivation crusade?
Bird – are you some sort of mental case. I’m pro-agriculture. Indeed global food security is back as an issue. Drying of the sub-tropics (which is actually happening goofball) is a major concern in this.
Furthermore before the global economy pooped itself fertiliser inputs (NPKS) were hyperinflating. The long term issue of a stable supply of nitrogenous inputs remains lest yields start to markedly decline.
And a input whore such as yourself wouldn’t know anything about perils of insecticide resistance and how close we are on that score as well. Squander pesticides wantonly and insects and acarines develop resistance.
Really you are a pig ignorant dropkick aren’t you.
Even more Birdy – to illustrate what a stupid – and here we mean really stupid dipshit you are – if you seriously believe that the planet will cool (moron) then increased CO2 will make crops more frost prone.
Who’s the baby killer now maggot? Piss off.
“I’m pro-agriculture.
ROTFL.
Nick Stokes: “The accepted view is that the Antarctic will warm, but more slowly, because the heat has to arrive across the Southern Ocean with a long time constant.”
I thought the heating was from the LW radiation coming from the extra CO2? Isn’t the CO2 well mixed after all? Why does the heating have to cross the Southern Ocean???
I think you’re making shit up like lots of the so called scientists employed in this field.
Eyrie “Isn’t the CO2 well mixed after all? Why does the heating have to cross the Southern Ocean???”
CO2 is well mixed, but sunlight isn’t. Antarctica gets most of what warmth it has from atmospheric and oceanic circulation. Radiatively it emits 70 W/m2 more as IR than it gets from sunlight. The balance comes across (or in) the Southern Ocean from warmer latitudes.
Eyrie – I just sigh when I see comments like yours. Is the world currently a uniform place. Why would any AGW impact be uniform. Changes in atmospheric circulation systems are predicted as a part of an AGW world. Greenhouse forcing is one of the factors at work.
In terms of Antarctica the ozone hole and greenhouse forcing are both at work. Southern hemisphere as more ocean, albedo is different , positions of land and mountains different. Ocean circulation different.
As are changes in the circumpolar vortex and SAM. I bet you have never read any of the associated literature.
Eyrie – Typo – that should be 90 W/m2.
And Coho, I’ve been posting a reply, but it hasn’t shown yet.
Coho,
A few ripostes:
“The PCA was applied to a falsely uniform data set with a dearth of principal components”
No, you’re missing how PCA works. You work down subsets of principal components. One just gives the mean; then you look at the next subset which you can be statistically confident does not contain an incomplete set of identical eigenvalues. For a disk, that would be 3. Steig says that is true (no split identical eivals) for his case, and that is plausible. Then that gives the next level of spatial variation. An analogue is the set of modes of a drum. The mode that you find is still highly spatially coherent; in fact they all will be. You don’t have to “assume” coherence to do the analysis; it’s just that the mode you find won’t predict or explain sharp variation. Another analogue is Fourier or spectral analysis.
You can look at more than three components, but they get noisier.
“extol the virtues of the modelling”
Huh? Where? I don’t think much of the NCEP data at all.
“make your gibe about loops problematic”
I can’t access that link, but it wasn’t a gibe, just a fact about feedback. A cause produces an effect which modifies the cause.
“how can you mask something which doesn’t exist?”
No, it goes the other way. If it’s masked in some method of observation, you don’t know (from those observations) if it exists. You can’t deduce that it doesn’t.
“De’ath; for cripes sake my second sentence summarises the paper’s findings.”
Well, I looked up the abstract*. These AIMS people are just reporting on their measurement of coral growth. How does that make it a bad AGW paper. Do you think they are wrong? Why?
* I tried to post a link, but it seems to prevent my post from showing.
Seriously Jen do you moderate this site at all. There are lots of sceptical types here who can wax lyrical about their reasons for being so… just what does Bird bring to the debate other than calling folks Nazis. He is the sceptic that even the loony fringe of the sceptics avoids at the drinks session of the annual sceptics r us shindig. I’m happy to come here and engage in discussion and quite enjoy the blog – but bottom line Bird is bad for your business.
“Bird – are you some sort of mental case. I’m pro-agriculture. Indeed global food security is back as an issue.”
No you are lying. Because by your own admission you are for lower CO2 levels. So you are against agriculture. You are not pro-agriculture. If you were pro-agriculture you would be for higher CO2 levels.
Therefore you are lying. You are against agriculture and for starvation and hunger. And thats the same with everyone who is against higher CO2 levels. For ethanol subsidies, and against expansion of energy production. So you are just a liar Luke. And no-ones going to believe you after all this time. Its too late to withdraw your taunts about wanting the names of Malaria victims now fella.
Matt B. You are, are you not, against higher CO2 levels. You are therefore clearly in favour of starvation are you not? This hunger we see breaking out all around the world thanks to ethanol subsidies and energy obstruction is what you are after surely.
If not defend your position and stop whining.
Yes. No. What is the best method of defence against a retarded fucknuckle?
Justify your position you Nazi Matt B. Lets hear it. Here everyone is starving, food riots all around the world, directly attributable to decades of energy-obstruction combined with a few years of ethanol subsidies, AND YOU WANT CO2 LEVELS TO DROP.
Defend yourself you human eradication promoting Nazi.
Your movement set Africa up for a Malaria holocaust. Now you’ve set up the Western World for an energy-capital vortex. In your spare time you are trying to centralise and ration energy and have a world starvation food-burning for fuel plan on the fly. And whats the cover story for all this?
This pretense that you guys are scared out of your wits that little Yukos might see his first butterfly. That some Laplanders might have winter mornings just the tiniest bit less freezing.
Its not hard to see where your North Star is Matt B. You are for CO2 to drop. That means you are for human eradication. Because thats what will happen. Lukes coverstory turns on its head the scientific and historical knowledge that cold means drought.
So you guys are blatant nazis. Because lying about warmth and wetness is no fig leaf at all.
You are for lower CO2 levels. So you are in favour of worsening starvation.
Defend your position. You are a repulsive racist Matt B. These people are not hungry enough for you. You want them dead.
Birdy – by being a CO2 lover – you’re a drought spreader.
So matey – it’s off to exile on Ball’s Pyramid for you. And no touching the rare phasmids while you’re there.
And over there you can contemplate 2 things (1) why you can’t name two and (b) why there are earthquakes.
Matt B,
I think Bird could have something to offer if he would chill the hate speech. Personally, I think the bloke goes off his medication occasionally and we get the worse end of it. However, I relate to his sense of outrage when in almost every post some otherwise perfectly rational AGW supporter sees fit to compare those skeptical of the AGW hypothesis with deniers of the Nazi extermination of Jews in Europe during WWII. So much for rational debate.
Therefore, it is difficult to discern the fanaticism of Bird from those of yourself, Luke, RW, Sod and others who regularly compare the views of those who dissent to that of the Nazis. To me you are birds of a feather albeit far left to far right. Nutters one and all.
Repulsive racist my arse. If anyone was to starve I’d vote for you Birdy – no race issues at all. Christs everyone you meet must hate you and wish they had never met you… god help your family if they are so unfortunate that you have one.
The signature of denial Wes… defend the indefensible.
And Wes… the tern denier has no nazi connotations. They are fabricated by those who don;t like being called what they are… deniers.
Anyway I’m outta here – it is not worth the hate-speech. If I want http://www.stormfront.com I could go there.
And holy crap I gotta call my mates at Murdoch Uni and tell them to stop advertising here!!! What are they thinking? Are things that desperate in the WA tertiary sector???
Nick; Steig is a bodgey job; I’ve looked at the real data and how it differs from the paper’s results; and you can cut and dice that anyway you like, the fact remains Steig employs correlations between distant points and since he only used 3 PCs got good/cooked results; in a land mass the size of Antarctica many more PCs should have been used; anyway look at the ‘results’; Butler Island is listed as having the highest rate of temperature increase [Table S1]; here is the raw data and graph;
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=700892660009&data_set=0&num_neighbors=1
The r value for Butler is 0.45, the r^2 of 0.22 or 78% unexplained, yet this is the feature site.
Masking something which is not there; this is sophistry; “you can’t deduce that it doesn’t” you mean like disprove a negative? Here is the graph, ENSO corrected;
http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/ipcc-falsifies-gavin.gif
The IPCC assumption of an underlying AGW effect is plain; the reality is that assumption is wrong; you can’t disprove a negative but that is not what we are doing; the assumption is positive; it is negated; this is solid evidence, not that AGW is being masked but that it doesn’t exist.
MattB,
Hansen & pals state quite openly that they compare those who disagree with them as being the same as holocaust deniers.
As usual, you are full of nothing but hot air.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/holocausts/
So just like the inability of AGW to predict anything in the real world of climate, you are unable to provide even a smidgen of apologetics for the excesses which your faith depends on.
The fact-free argument is sort of the unifying behavior of AGW true believers, clearly.
No, Coho, you’re missing the point of PCA. It isn’t a predictor of individual values; it can’t be. With 3 pc it’s a 2D analogue of linear regression; it gives a trend from E-W. You don’t expect a regression to pass through every individual point, but it does tell you that on average it’s higher at one end than the other.
And on ENSO, I repeat that Easter and all didn’t say that if you removed ENSO you’d see warming. They just said that the warming was masked by other effects. The other effects are many and tend to be short term – that’s why looking for warming over less than a decade is a fools game.
An analogue is looking at spring daily temps to see if you can detect warming. Over a week you likely won’t; there’s too much else going on. And you can allow for this and that, but it still won’t help. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t warming, just that it is masked by noise. But after a couple of months, you should get a reliable warming signal.
Ah Wes – so you’d like to have an intelligent structured conversation eh?
Birdy off his meds again is on the best weapons the AGW side has got. Keep going. And good on you Wes for supporting him. Stick with ya mates eh?
Hunter,
I think that holocaust type imagery is inappropriate, and it would be better if Hansen stayed away from it. But in your link he certainly does not “compare those who disagree with them as being the same as holocaust deniers”. You can read down to where Peter Singer, who is a careful reader, makes this point.
OK, so “after a couple of months, you should get a reliable warming signal.” The ENSO corrected graph covers 7 years and shows no warming signal.
Graeme Bird is either the Chaser or he is quite, quite mad.
Not believing what Hansen himself says is simply enabling behaviour on the part of AGW believers.
Here is what he said:
“Mr. Naasz wrote:
“The suggestion that coal utilization for electricity generation can be equated with the systematic extermination of European Jewry is both repellant and preposterous” Mr. Naasz wrote. “Your advocacy on behalf of global warming is ill served by an invidious comparison that manages not only to trivialize the suffering of millions but undermines your credibility as a rational observer of a complex phenomenon.”
Dr. Hansen response on this point was:
“There is nothing scientifically invalid about the above paragraph. If this paragraph makes you uncomfortable, well, perhaps it should.”
It is you AGW believers who are calling for criminalization of dissent.
It is you AGW believers who believe the preposterous idea that the science is settled.
It is you AGW believers who support a theory that has proven to enaccurate yet still defend it.
You guys support Hansen & the others calling for ending democratic rule and giving poewr to those they approve of.
MattB, and other AGW promoters and believers, who apparently cannot be on the fact side of an argument is not someone worth defending, but here you are.
“Birdy – by being a CO2 lover – you’re a drought spreader.” No you are lying. That isn’t even a cover story try again. Your own claim is that CO2 increases ambient warmth. Were this true it would increase precipitation. So that it would reduce droughts were this true. Not only that CO2 increases the water productivity of plants. Can anyone defend Luke from my egeniicist charge? He’s already proven to be a DDT-bureaucratision-holocaust-denier. He’s a Nazi face it. After World War II he would have been sent to Stalin for a quick death.
Lets go again. How can you be for LESS (rather than drastically more) CO2 and not be for human eradication? How is this possible.
Its not possible. Supposing you said you were for more rock phosphate mining, more mining of lime. More fixed nitrogen production. But the environmentalist Nazi are not for any of these things. They hate mining. Fixed nitrogen production is as purely a transmutation from energy into fertiliser as any process there is. But they are luddites only interested in energy that is not about to successfully go online. They hate uranium fission. They hate synthetic diesel.
So can someone defend Luke from the charge of being a Nazi. By his own judgment CO2 has greenhouse effects so it must mean more rainfall. So his only fig leaf to suggest that he doesn’t want everyone that goes hungry today to be dead tomorrow is a feeble lie.
So Luke has defended himself by pure loony-toons unreason. Its actually an insanity plea. Whereas MattB and Jamama have not defended themselves. They’ve more or less confessed to being in favour of human eradication.
I didn’t mean to imply that we could ever get 600ppm CO2 but we would want at least that to pull us through. Commercial growers talk about 1500ppm as a good growing level. And they used to burn propane to get it. CO2 levels have only been growing at only .4 of 1% per year. A depressingly slow rate that everybody insists will tail off. But the evidence appears to suggest that CO2 levels could not merely tail off but they could plunge. We must remember who we are dealing with here. A lot of neo-Nazi-Malthusians. I’m not implying that CO2 can warm things enough to increase rainfall either. But Luke says its a warmer. Therefore it must increase evaporation over the ocean and rainfall. So the drought story is a feeble insanity plea. He’s a nazi you bet.
Comment from: Nick Stokes April 26th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
“CO2 is well mixed, but sunlight isn’t. Antarctica gets most of what warmth it has from atmospheric and oceanic circulation. Radiatively it emits 70 W/m2 more as IR than it gets from sunlight. The balance comes across (or in) the Southern Ocean from warmer latitudes.”
So if it receives any extra energy from IR from extra CO2 in the atmosphere above it shouldn’t it warm anyway even if no greater amount of heat comes from warmer latitudes? Aren’t we told the effects of the greater CO2 will be greatest in polar regions where there is minimal water vapour in the atmosphere?
Its very hard for any extra warming from the rest of the globe to make its way down to ground level in Antarctica. This is because of its circumpolar current. You would expect a lot of the warmth to funnel in maybe mid-trophosphere but its hard to see it reaching the ground. Actually you get these temperature reversals near the ground. Where the air is colder down low then above in some cases. The opposite of most places in the rest of the world.
There is no hope we can make much progress melting the Antarctic anytime in likely millions of years. The Antarctic will always act like a pinhole to any excess warming. Since it never gets warm enough to hold water vapour it will always funnel any extra warmth up into space. This won’t change until we get a different kind of ocean current as Antarctica moves away from the Pole. We have no chance of catastrophic warming anytime soon. The notion is entirely ridiculous.
To Graema Bird.
While freedom of speech and the right to say to others that which they do not wish to hear, is the very basis of our democracy.
Such words should be tempered, thought provoking and truthful.
Let your written word be but the crumbs that fall from the feast of your mind.
Giving offence does not win arguments.
Pikey.
Dumbass. The argument was won a long time ago and these lunatics still want to go ahead with the cap-and-kill and their various other murderous projects. Why are you talking to ME about tactics of abuse? Have you been over at Lamberts place making these speeches yet? These people are nazis. And polite conversation doesn’t work with fascist anti-judges who carry a verdict of death always with them.
How about you stop being a little bitch and make the case for them: How can you be for lower CO2 levels without being in favour or hunger, starvation and famine?
Alright Nick, so the NCEP water data is ‘patchy’ but it is the best we have; the AGW effect can still be masked even though ENSO is removed [the graph I linked to is during a peaking and then declining solar period, there are no proximate volcano eruptions, so what else is doing the masking?]; the Lindzen kerfuffle is IMO resolved in his favour because the link I gave showed he was aware of the revision to the OLR data and even Colose’s before and after OLR graphs showed clearly there was still a substantial increase in OLR in the amended graph; De’arth’s findings were clearly rebutted by the examples I gave. If these papers are the creme de la creme of the AGW science then it should be put back in its box pronto tonto.
I was delighted to see the mendacious paper on the Great Barrier Reef by De’ath et al. (Science 2009) made it to the top ten.
Here’s their Abstract [with my commentary in square brackets]:
“…We investigated 328 colonies of massive Porites corals from 69 reefs of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) in Australia. Their [sic, as only 12 reefs that had data extending beyond 1990 were used and archived] skeletal records show that throughout the GBR [not true, as the only 12 reefs with post-1990 data are all between 18 and 22oS, i.e. southern end], calcification has declined by 14.2% since 1990 [not true for the 69 reefs, because only 12 reefs extend beyond 1990], predominantly because extension (linear growth) has declined by 13.3%. The data suggest that such a severe and sudden decline in calcification is unprecedented in at least the past 400 years [not true, as only ONE of the 12 archived reefs with post-1990 data has a life starting 400 years ago]”.
The De’ath et al paper not only states in its Abstract that its results come from 400-year data for 328 colonies in 69 reefs, it also repeats this claim in the text, p.119, final para: “..our data show that growth and calcification of massive Porites in the GBR are already declining and are doing so at a rate unprecedented in coral records eching back 400 years [sic, only ONE record goes back that long].
I also wonder why the 12 archived data sets end in 2001 at latest if as the authors claim they sampled the 13 (sic) reefs in 2005? Perish the thought that the full data to 2005 did not match their conclusions!
As for the only data set going back 400 years, namely ABR, it shows a decline in the calcification growth rate of only from 0.1114% pa to 1990 to 0.103% pa by 2001. I suspect that is within the error range and hardly significant.
I really do wonder if scientists now have any basis for being considered to have greater integrity than one finds amongst investment bankers and the likes of Bernie Madoff, in fact less, as the De’ath paper would not pass muster with the ASX as a prospectus for a share issue. I wrote asking one of the co-authors if they would write to Science correcting these misleading statements, no reply, so I assume they have not.
Perhaps this paper could be promoted to head the list here?
cohenite…good work, mate.
Don’t forget the AR4 Summary for Policymakers. It was a culmination of 4000 peer-reviewers which the IPCC rewrote and downgraded with 50 alarmists as authors. It may go down as the ultimate in scientific censorship.
Tim; the papers are not from most egregious to ‘least’; regard them as all being equally questionable:-)
Thanks Gordon, I’ve been wandering about doing a critique of the Summary for Policymakers which is dreadful but time constraints etc
Fully half of this thread is troll fodder. DON’T FEED THE TROLLS.
ian
Nick Stokes “Mann made some relatively monir errors;…”
Relatively minor errors, what’s new??? He lost the damned Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period that the IPCC included in their 1990 review. Their peer-review blundered so badly they didn’t even notice.
Mann was lambasted by the statistician Wegner and by the National Academy of Science. The latter told Mann he could not use bristle cone data in his analysis and McIntyre pointed out that if the bristle cone data was omitted any data would have given Mann’s hockey stick. Cohenite has Mann’s latest drivel at the top of his list where it no doubt belongs.
Encouraged by his monumental defeat, Mann went on to claim Antarctica was actually warming. The guy’s arrogance knows no bounds.
You know, Nick, there’s a difference between providing clever arguments based on math, at which you excel, and making rhetorical statements. Get a grip on your ego, man, and have a look at the science.
You said, “No-one (including Spencer, Lindzen etc) doubts the reality of back radiation”. Lindzen doesn’t even comment on back-radiation, and he calls the GHE simplistic. He talks about heat being moved from the tropical surface by convection through clouds to higher latitudes, where it is radiated to space at higher altitudes, and that the tropical skies are opaque to radiation.
Spencer talks about the GHE as being valid but does not talk about back-radiation. He thinks precipitation system are responsible for moving heat in the atmosphere. In his Global Warming 101 essay, on his site, he says, “Now, you might be surprised to learn that the amount of warming directly caused by the extra CO2 is, by itself, relatively weak”. He explains later on his site that we humans are adding 1 molecule of CO2 to 100,000 molecules of air every 5 years. That hardly supports the back-radiation theory since that theory depends heavily on ACO2.
Spencer recently added an article to his blog claiming a mistake had been made by people claiming the GHE contradicted the 2nd Law. He doesn’t even seem to be aware that the argument is not about the GHE but that back-radiation warming the surface beyond the temperature it is warmed by solar radiation is what contradicts the 2nd Law. IMHO, Spencer does not subscribe to the theory of back-radiation, and if he does, he thinks it’s irrelevant.
His partner, John Christy has said ACO2 ‘should’ warm the atmosphere but that his satellite data is not showing that. What further evidence do you need? The back-radiation theory claims back-radiation from ACO2 is warming the surface, which should in turn warm the atmosphere, but that warming is NOT THERE.
You said regarding cohenite, “You just don’t know enough about this to be so dismissive”.
Yeah…like you do!! I’ve read your scientific contributions and I’m bothered with your authority. My impression is that you think you know what you’re talking about but that you don’t. In fact, the whole crowd of you AGW types on this site take shots at scientists like G&T with no scientific evidence to back your comments. When I supplied an equation that describes black bodies, right out of the Fundamentals of Atmospheric Radiation, written in part by a meteorologist and a physicists, you and RW implied I was wrong. Not only that, you said the Sun was a black body due to its optical depth, revealing that you know nothing about black bodies.
With regard to the Nazi ad homs, I don’t think the AGW crowd has sunk that low. I am disturbed by comments comparing AGW skepticism to Holocaust denial because anyone who has read the atrocities of the WW II concentration camps would hesitate to compare them to anything, or to bring them up to discredit anyone. There’s something sacred about the poor souls who suffered and died there and anyone with an ounce of decency would not besmirch their memory with tawdry comparisons in order to discredit others.
The denials involved are entirely different, at any rate. I don’t like the term ‘Holocaust, since it is somewhat self-serving. Just as many people died at the hands of the Nazis, including Germans, as did Jews. There were countless witnesses to the atrocities and hundreds, if not thousands of books have been written on the subject, many by eye-witnesses. Former US President Dwight Eisenhower witnessed it first hand when the troops freed the prisoners. AGW denial is a rhetorical claim since not many people deny that warming has occured, only the mechanism and the effect of it. It is also a theory built on shaky ground.
I am bothered by the thought processes that go into AGW advocacy. Here’s an example from the Greenpeace exxon secrets site:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=903
This site is aimed at people who are claimed to be funded by Exxon and other oil companies. John Christy is a religious man who has worked as a missionary in Africa teaching science to poor Africans. When he travels to meetings, or to appear at a trial as he did recently, he pays his own way. The man’s integrity is above reproach, yet here are scumbags at Greenpeace trying to smear him for nothing more than expressing skepticism based on direct observation of the atmosphere.
Here’s another one:
http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-change-denier-research
This site is run by James Hoggan, who sits on the board of the David Suzuki Foundation. They offer to track down those undesirables who dare to be skeptical about the AGW theory. Even Ian Plimer is on the hit list. I’m surprised Jennifer is not on the list.
Here’s the laugh:
http://redmaryland.blogspot.com/2008/05/tom-pelton-cites-blog-funded-by-dirty.html
The article claims, “John Lefebvre, the top financial benefactor of the DeSmog Blog, is facing substantial prison time after pleading guilty to federal money-laundering charges.
The DeSmog Blog is operated by a small group of public relations people who specialize in attempting to discredit respected scientists and policy analysts who disagree with alarmist global warming theory.
Ironically, DeSmog Blog’s favorite tactic is to claim scientists and policy analysts who disagree with alarmist global warming theory are funded by “dirty money.””
“They offer to track down those undesirables who dare to be skeptical about the AGW theory. ”
Socratic Ignorance is not scepticism.
SJT,
Blind faith in non-falsifiable assertions like AGW, is not science, but magical thinking.
Here is a sequence of posts taken from Deltoid, whereby Davidk, aka Karoly? is responding to a comment by Cohenite,and thereby reveals a lot about himself.
Cohenites comment.
Hi lads; the 4% is actually 3.67% and like most of my ‘facts’ is straight from the gelding’s mouth; IPCC; Fig 7.3 AR4, p515. For a balance to the shortcomings of Professor Plimer you are kindly pointing out here’s my take on the shortcomings of, well, just about everyone on your side of the fence;
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/04/more-worst-agw-papers/#more-4954
Don’t be shy, come over and punish me.
Posted by: cohenite | April 26, 2009 1:24 AM
Karoly’s retort
Nah. If you were a straight shooter cohenite you would have at least accepted some of the shortcomings of Plimer’s book – here or at Brook’s site. You aren’t and you won’t.
Rather, you ignore them, pretend they don’t exist and have the audacity to challenge everybody here to read more dumb denialist diatribe before letting Jen’s Jackals rip into anyone who ventures there that challenges your stupidity.
Posted by: DavidK | April 26, 2009 2:35 AM
Karoly again
Greg, there is reason for this “hostility” and you are correct about asking questions and keeping an open mind – there is no argument here.
However, while Plimer appears to advocate this open mindedness, he shoots from the hip in a book targeted to a select audience.
See another open mind here:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/
I have no doubt Plimer will derive a nice income stream heading into his retirement from world-wide book sales.
However, being of open mind myself, I have to ask why he doesn’t publish his musings in recognised scientific journals on climate science – for critique and review by his peers?
My guess, there’s no money in it – far better to maintain the delusion of controversy, go on a public speaking tour and sprout-off in the popular press and the blogosphere.
After all, there is big money still to be made in not only denying humanity’s impact on the Earth systems, but delaying any countermeasures, don’t you think?
Posted by: DavidK | April 25, 2009 9:26 PM
Karoly again- responding to a Don
Ok Don. Plimer has backed himself into a corner that is extremely difficult to extricate himself from. He dismisses ALL ‘climate science’ in favour of the geologic record.
Can I ask this of you, Don: why does Plimer not publish his latest ‘musings’ in the recognised scientific journals on climate science (for critique and review by his peers)? Surely, if what he has to say in his book can stand the rigor of the scientific process, he would be acclaimed the world over for putting the nail in the coffin of AGW.
No, Plimer is different to Gore in at least one respect.
Plimer is a scientist, Gore is a propagandist (and in my opinion, the last I would have selected as the one to champion the challenges humanity faces). Gore has disnfranchised a lot of people just because of his politics.
Before you jump down my throat, at least Jim Hansen publishes in ‘climate science’ journals. To my mind, Plimer is no different to Bob Carter or David Bellamy – or for that matter, the Lord Monkton.
And please, there are extremists on both sides of the fence – they should all pull their collective heads out of their collective butts. Nevertheless, an 80 cm sea level rise is catastrophic enough, don’t you think. And if it has gone over your head, the vast amount of scientists are not extremists, we are in fact quite conservative. This is what you should be concerned about.
The way I see it (please discuss at will) is that the ‘debate’ has gone far beyond science. Whatever happens from now is social, political and economic (political scientists should understand this). I for one think the UNFCCC, policy makers and captains of industry are in a quandary about what to do – this is going to be a real test leading up to Copenhagen and its aftermath – not the science. I am not optimistic.
Posted by: DavidK | April 27, 2009 7:12 AM
Now isnt that so reveavling about Karoly? and his expectations, not the least of which he:
1. Acknowledges that there are extremists on both sides of the fence,
2.Thinks that Gore is just a political propogandist and Hansen is ok because at least he has published.
3. No mention of all the other crooks and extremists in the AGW game eg Mann
4. Lumps Plimer,Carter, Monckton and Bellamy all together.
This bloke is one the leaders of the push for the idiotic AGW game that will further screw our economy for not net gain.
To think that many thousands will be put out of work on the say so of charmers like him.
We are stuffed-either way.
Ah, so DavidK is the good Professor Karoly? One of the questions I’d like to put to DK is whether he is going to put his hand up when Pachauri finally falls off his perch or is otherwise wheeled out the door.
“Jen’s Jackals”? And the reason why Plimer has published a book like “Heaven and Earth” is as he stated before apparatchik Jones, the book is a chance for the average person who has been disenfranchised in this ‘debate’ to get some plain-speaking information; we saw a recent example of this disenfranchisement from Robert Manne who endorsed Clive Hamilton’s view about everyone shutting up and doing as told by the scientists; that is the scientists he agrees with.
Cohenite,
A replacement for Pachauri, coming from any of the current aparatchiks would be unthinkable.
It would kiss good bye for ever the notion that there is now, and would ever likely to be in the future, any sort of objectivity coming out of the IPCC process.
No doubt the Australian Grant Grabbers Collective would push its favourite toady forward.
If any of you get the chance go over and have a bit of a look at Tim Curtain’s blog. Its really got a lot of marvelous stuff there. A Sterling effort. I was motivated to go there after I’d raided Harry Clarkes blog taking a swipe at Harry and some of the rogues gallery of stupid and malign contributers that were there. Tim gave me a bit of a swipe, so I was around to his blog on the instant to see if I could start bullying him without a moment to lose and I was stunned by what a smart guy this fellow is. Tim I should have heard of you. But somehow I never did. Great blog fella. The rest of you ought to take a look. Its quite rich reading. And you won’t necessarily be in the mood for it at all times.
Of course there is no question whose blog is the best one and that is Jennifers. It hasn’t always been the best Climate Science blog in the world and amongst the best libertarian blogs in Australia. But since 2008, with the good crew that have supported it, its been a sensation. I’d hung out at Roger Pielke Seniors site for a long time, and I saw that blog as a standard in true excellence. But from about 2008 onwards Jennifers site even overtook that because we had a diverse bunch of guys that kept on putting striking new perspectives on the table. I’m wondering if we have that sort of level of ensemble excellence right now. I guess people get busy with other things.
“4. Lumps Plimer,Carter, Monckton and Bellamy all together.” These are all good blokes though cohenite. Carter and Plimer is where the true excellence is. But they are fine gentlemen. Plimer is a fine scientist but he’s also a full-spectrum intellectual. A philosopher if you like. He’s been a bit harsh on some of these creationists in the past. But he’s one of the people I admire most in this country. And its just astonishing that this hateful goon-show could have sidelined someone so vastly superior to them in every way. I’m not given to bouts of great shyness these days but I could imagine getting nervous going to get Plimers autograph. It would be like getting Clint Eastwoods or George Reismans.
This is what happens when you go easy on the stupid, the less competent and the more intellectually dishonest. You are selling our best people short. Some of us have to be really nasty towards these people and more of us ought to be taking up that role. Putting on that mask, gearing up for that persona. Being nasty is a dirty job. Somebodies got to do it. And its important that some of us become lightning rods for this contempt and gestapo like hatred these people have developed for our honest and more committed scientists. Its better that the hostility of these goons is transmuted to someone like me whose job does not rely on what I say about climate science. We have to take the load of the true heroes here who have stayed committed to the scientific ethos while all others were lost in sin and immorality towards the the values that make science work and make it good.
Superb. I’ve just tracked down a playlist for Ian Plimers lecture:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VDDNgl-UPk&feature=PlayList&p=0E25DB23184B21A2&index=0&playnext=1
Absolutely sensational. But the audience are bonehead-“skeptics” I think.
“the book is a chance for the average person who has been disenfranchised in this ‘debate’ to get some plain-speaking information;”
Another statement by Plimer that damns him as a denialist.
Shut idiot. Stop lying. Don’t you ever get lying all the time you loathsome stinking lump of dog vomit?
Bird or Louis? Hard to know who is the easiest person to ignore here.
Cohenite wrote:
2. Water vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, 2003 – 2008.
A.E. Dessler, Z. Zhang, P. Yang
http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/Dessler2008b.pdf
Dessler et al say specific humidity, “q” is increasing as a factor of increased temperature, “Ta”, and the increased “q”, is a “strongly positive” feedback. There are only 2 problems; NOAA and NCEP data show declining “q” at mid and high altitudes; secondly, increased “q” at the surface is most likely not even a feedback but a cause of temperature [Spencer and Braswell]. Then there is the problem of decreased pan evaporation [Roderick et al, 2007] which means the increased “q” must come from the oceans. Sea surface temperature has been neutral or declining for almost 2 years; http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/sst_oct_nov_dec.jpg
I don’t have the time to research all 10 of the worst papers to see if the criticisms are correct. I can easily see that the above criticisms are incorrect.
The online NOAA data I am familiar with is from radiosonde balloons which have a lot of problems.
Also part of the feedback effect was measured when temperatures were declining in 2007, according to Dessler’s paper. The measurements showed how humidity tracked surface temperature, and the temperatures did not have to increase to measure the feedback.
It is pretty clear from this criticism, that you do not have the ability to read and understand the literature you are criticising. My experience is that this is a common failing of the denier bloggers.
It is all attitude and no real scientific content.
eric, you’re hopeless; here from ISCCP data on column atmospheric water levels, first graph from top;
http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndClouds.htm#Clouds%20and%20atmospheric%20water%20vapour
You are simply doing what all AGW supporters do and it is a one-trick show: you attack the data source or the person rather than the revealed evidence; when I presented the NCEP data to Nick he linked to an appraisal of this data, which unequivocally shows decling high water and increasing low water, which said this data was a bit patchy; really? That the computer modeling of Dessler should be preferred to patchy data and totally contradictory climate trends says all that needs to be said about AGW supporters; which is, the concept is ideological and at heart evidence is irrelevant; so eric, I may or may not be able to read data, but you won’t read it even if you could. Just for the record here is the relevant NOAA data as graphed by NOAA;
http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/optical-depth-trend-1.png
Why don’t you go to the site and generate your own graphs eric;
http:www.cdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl [// excluded]
I have seen the graphs before. The source of the data is radiosonde balloons. THere is no other way that data before the satellite era at high altitudes could be obtained. It is well known that this data sucks. A lot of papers have been written to that effect. Here is one.
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0477(1991)072%3C1507:OTUORH%3E2.0.CO%3B2
This doesn’t stop deniers who are looking for any argument, no matter how incorrect, to throw at the idea of AGW.
You haven’t rebutted the illogic of your argument that a reduction in temperature made it impossible for positive feedback of water vapor to exist. It is clear that you don’t know the first thing about this subject, and are talking nonsense.
cohenite
The last post was meant for you. You will have to copy and past the url into the browser window for it to work.
Very good eric; a 1991 paper saying the pre-1973 radiosonde data is not homogenously accurate; here’s an interesting take on the 2009 Paltridge, Arking and Pook paper which takes amore sanguine view about the veracity of the water records, compared with the Dessler and Sherwood [Mr windshear himself] modeling paper which concludes on the basis of a modeled increase in water that a +ve feedback is occuring;
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5416
And I agree, I have no idea what this means;
“You haven’t rebutted the illogic of your argument that a reduction in temperature made it impossible for positive feedback of water vapor to exist”
At least we are in agreement that there has been a decrease in temperature, but how that combines with a positive feedback from/of water vapor I honestly don’t know what you mean.
Cohenite,
If the feedback is positive, a decline in temperature, would mean a decline in water vapor content.
This would cause a reduction in downwelling radiation.
If the measurements show this is happening, a decline in temperature could be used to measure the positive feedback effect of water vapor.
eric, the key is, is water level a +ve feedback; that is, is simply more water a +ve feedback; I don’t think it is as clearcut; even the papers and modeling which question the NCEP data allow for different responses depending on the height/location of the water; everyone agrees that more high water is a +ve feedback; the issue is what is low/surface water; the Spencer and Braswell thesis is that it is a -ve feedback; that is, the increase in low water will suppress or moderate temperature; as an anchillary consideration of this is the issue of the form of water, whether vapor or cloud. The Kump and Pollard paper puts a good case for previous hot-house conditions being a response to decline in cloud cover due to a lack of consensation nuclei; it is a fact that a 1% variation in cloud cover has more forcing effect than all of the increase in CO2. One thing is for sure, more accurate records, not just modeling, of water levels is required before the crucial issue of water can be resolved.
Awesome article, I believe it’s awesome when folks express their positions as vehemently as you have. Thanks