Climate change can change colors, any time it feels its funding is threatened by reality.
Climate change: Is it game over for Earth? – San Francisco Climate Change | Examiner.com
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Angry Democrats
- November 9, 1913 Storm
- Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- Obliterating Bill Gates
- Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- The End Of Everything
- Harris To Win In A Blowout
- Election Results
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
- Glaciers Vs. The Hockey Stick
- CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Deadly Cyclones And Arctic Sea Ice
- What About The Middle Part?
- “filled with racist remarks”
- Defacing Art Can Prevent Floods
- The Worst Disaster Year In History
- Harris Wins Pennsylvania
- “politicians & shills bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry”
- UN : CO2 Killing Babies
- Patriotic Clapper Misspoke
- New York Times Headlines
Recent Comments
- arn on Angry Democrats
- Gordon Vigurs on November 9, 1913 Storm
- arn on Angry Democrats
- Denis Rushworth on November 9, 1913 Storm
- Billyjack on Angry Democrats
- Francis Barnett on Angry Democrats
- Gamecock on Angry Democrats
- arn on Angry Democrats
- Gordon Vigurs on November 9, 1913 Storm
- Tel on Obliterating Bill Gates
Never underestimate the ability of Mann-caused CO2 to hide all the heat it’s trapped.
Damn, there’s a great bumper sticker: “I believe in Mann-caused Global Warming.”
Mr. G, maybe you could do something with Cafe Press or one of those outlets, nice little promo for you as well.
People in SF will believe anything.
The lying catastrophists are never held to account.
I see no proof that the arctic is melting faster than any other year or that any more methane than any other time is being released.
Besides, iced over dead plants are not permanent geological features. Nor is frozen methane.
If things grew there before, then , things might grow there again.
They never say that though.
So the negative (cold) anomalies in March 2013 are more geographically limited than the positive (warm) anomalies in March 2012, and even now at least a third of the country is experiencing above-average warm temperatures in March. Got it.
Yep. That’s how weather works.
The positive (warm) anomalies in March 2012 were more geographically limited than the negative (cold) anomalies in March 2013, and even now at least a third of the country is experiencing below-average cold temperatures in March.
Have I got it?
So Henry, you’re stating that the graphic in the OP is inaccurate?
OK, I think you got it alright… hehe.
That big red warm spot in Maine helps explain this article. Why would anyone need heating oil in Maine?
http://www.sunjournal.com/news/franklin/2013/01/29/home-heating-oil-theft-investigated/1313160
When peak demand in winter exceeds peak demand in summer in the South, don’t you think that you should start thinking?
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/southern-company-sets-winter-peak-demand-record-again-third-record-in-seven-days-tops-summer-peak-demand-81159202.html
Is that article (the second one) from this year? There’s no year in the dateline.
Oh, yeah. I see your point. So exactly where & when should I start my trend?
The point you seem to miss is that global warming fanatics predicted ever increasing temperatures. That hasn’t happened. In fact none of their doom and gloom predictions have come true … none. Yet people for some strange reason would rather believe people with a zero accuracy rate in predictions instead of their own five senses.
March, 2013 is likely to be the coldest since 1969 in the US.
Gina is not fooled. She understands that heat caused by Mann-made CO2 is very clever and can hide until a tipping point is reached…..then it’s effects will be much worse than originally though. When all that heat comes boiling out of the cold, deep oceans where Trenberth found it, look out.
It’s merely a common occurrence as a result of becoming cognizant. When CO2 became self-aware, it developed bi-polar disorder. I see a coming explosion in the field of climate psychology.
This is the author of that article:
“Dorsi Diaz holds a degree in Commercial Art from Chabot College. Her experience includes teaching art to children. Previously, she also ran her own Sign Design businesses Dorsi Designs and a Signs Now Franchise in Fremont.”
http://www.greenforestartstudio.com/instructors/
http://www.greenforestartstudio.com/#
Unbelievable.
That was in her flower power phase. She’s moved on and grown up. The crystal tells her what to write now. She has seen the Signs…..
😀
At least she isn’t afraid to use her real name.
Yes. Peaceful River Rainbow Sunsign Child wasn’t accepted by the IRS on her tax return.
alot of great stuff comes out of california…and an awful lot of stupidity too. I’m almost inclined to think this is a premature april fool’s right? greetings from f***** cold london btw
So do you think CO2 doesn’t absorb infrared radiation, or that the Earth doesn’t emit it?
David immediately jumps in with his usual straw man, to try to change the subject.
The topic of this post is that last year they blamed US March warmth on CO2, and this year March is cold.
I didn’t say anything about radiative transfer.
You think all of the CO2 increase is attributable to humans?
I suggest not going down David’s rat hole.
You think all of the CO2 increase is attributable to humans?
Almost all of it, yes.
What do you think — and why?
I suggest not going down David’s rat hole.
Only on a blog like this would a question about the fundamental principles of physics be considered a “rat hole.”
Problem is David, you do not discuss the “physics”. I’ll bite. Let us discuss the “physics” .. if you can.
Below scenario C
Perhaps 1988 was the peak of your vitality, but it wasn’t for the vitality of climate modeling.
How hard is it to model “no increase in forcing after the year 2000?”
ROFLMAO
It’s pretty hard to model climate, especially when your claim isn’t true.
Why don’t you move the conversation over to another thread, so everyone can see how FOS you are.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/giss-february-is-in/
Sure. Just admit you were wrong about USA48 temperatures.
The topic of this post is that last year they blamed US March warmth on CO2, and this year March is cold.
Climate change is expected to increase the frequency of extreme events.
Normal is not an extreme event.
Extreme events do not occur every year.
(Do you know what a probability distribution is?)
Gordon Bennet.
Never heard of him.
February 1936 was the coldest month in US history and July 1936 was the hottest. Anecdotal crap about increasing frequency isn’t going to fly.
Sent from my Virgin Mobile Android-Powered Device
False.
The warmest February occurred in 1954:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cirs/drd964x.tmpst.txt
The warmest USA48 month was 3/2012:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cirs/drd964x.tmpst.txt
In any case, a probability distribution is not defined solely by its peak.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_North_American_cold_wave
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_North_American_heat_wave
Notice how David Falsifies the coldest February by citing the warmest February, which also occurred before modern history began in 1979 .
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/08/us-usa-heat-july-idUSBRE8770Y220120808
Then note that July 2012 was a whole 1/10 of a degree F warmer than July 1936 ( at best ),
1/10 of a degree is not proving much beyond it gets hot in July, but rarely exactly the same degree.
It got hot then. It gets hot now. Big effin’ deal. 10th of a degree.
Nevermind all the places that are covered in SNOW and are not warm at all.
Do you have reading comprehension problems? I said the *coldest* February was in 1936 ROFLMAO
Yes, I read that. That’s exactly what’s expected — the probability distribution shifts toward warmer temperatures. It’s *expected* that colder months occurred long in the past. LOL
Sure you did …. LOL
Why are you posting NCDC tampered data, when you have never responded to my questions about why they upwards adjust recent temperatures 1.5 degrees relative to the 1930s? Their adjustments are greater than their claimed trend. It is complete bullshit.
Did you do a literature search for papers about the NCDC’s methodology?
If not, did you read the support pages for their data?
If not, have you compared GHCN trends to trends derived from satellite data?
If not, did you contact any scientists at NCDC with your questions?
if not, why not?
I’ve read their literature. The adjustments they are using are much (300%) larger than what they have documented. Even worse, they were supposed to go flat after 1990, but have increased exponentially over the last 20 years.
And where is the documentation of your results?
Did you write a paper disputing their methods?
If so, where was it published?
Did you contact the journal editors?
If so, what was their response?
Did you contact the scientists themselves?
If so, what was their reply?
Did you at least write a blog entry, linking to their results and Fisking them line by line?
If so, what is the link to those posts?
I’ve published tons of data right here showing the magnitude of their tampering. I have also published my code.
You claim you are really smart, so prove me wrong.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/tracking-us-temperature-fraud/
So you didn’t write any papers.
You didn’t write to the journal.
You didn’t contact the scientists.
You merely hid here and put out your tiny little blog posts, unreviewed by anyone, and expect that to matter.
I’m sorry, the world doesn’t work that way. It rewards risk, and you haven’t taken any.
My tiny little blog posts get read by far more people than any peer-reviewed papers
How did that Marcott POS publication make it into Nature?
I take tons of risks. Siding with Orthodoxy when you know they are wrong is cowardly.
How did that Marcott POS publication make it into Nature?
It didn’t.
My tiny little blog posts get read by far more people than any peer-reviewed papers.
I said reviewed, not read.
Your posts get read by little boys who call each other “dickheads” and are merely looking to have their emotional needs met.
You don’t have the courage to submit your work to real review. You know it and I know it.
ROFL. This scam is going to collapse soon. Even world class morons like Barack Obama might be able to figure it out in the next 12-24 months.
You don’t have the courage to submit your work to real review. You know it and I know it.
This scam is going to collapse soon.
That brings us back to my original question: do you think CO2 doesn’t absorb infrared radiation, or do you think the Earth doesn’t emit it?
You crack me up David. You like to talk, but not read.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/co2-contributes-14-of-the-greenhouse-effect-in-the-arctic/
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/methane-contributes-almost-nothing-to-the-greenhouse-effect-in-the-tropics/
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/co2-contributes-1-3-of-the-greenhouse-effect-in-the-tropics/
Gee, some places are warm and others are cold. Weather patterns come and go. Who would have ever drempt that? That never used to happen.
Andy, where is your calculation for dT/dCO2?
Or it paleoclimate data?
david:
isnt it true that the number and strength of hurricanes hasnt incresed in the last ten of twenty years or so?
isnt it true that colder temperatures on a global scale are associated with stronger storms, due to the greater difference in temperature betweeen tropical and subtropical areas of the earth?
whats your background in statistics? are you aware that there are a bunch of probability distributions extant, most of them not normal?
the whole point of this post was to point out how weather related events are viewed through a lense which filters out all information that doesnt conform to athe CAGW meme.
Of course, you know alll of this, which is why you avoid that point.
really, isnt water vapor the biggest greenhouse gas of them all?
We all know you hate plants, which is why you want them to die from lack of CO2.
There was a time when cooling was associated with an increase in the frequency of extreme events. This was before it became necessary to pin everything on global warming, aka climate change.
So David, are you now telling us that CO2 absorption of IR is how the GHE is supposed to work?… please fill me in on this and describe the GHE hypothesis.
If you don’t know how the greenhouse effect works, do yourself a favor and go read a textbook chapter about it.
I have a very clear understanding of several versions of the GHE hypothesis, and the history behind the various hypothesis. Hence my ongoing question to you.
Please describe for me the GHE hypothesis within the framework of physics.
This is very important if you wish to discuss these things, especially within the framework of physics, as I need to know what your definition of the GHE hypothesis is. There are several different versions that have evolved of the past century, and I wish to know from what perspective you are discussing. I cannot continue a conversation with you on this subject if you are unwilling to define your position.
Please describe for me the GHE hypothesis within the framework of physics.
Yes, it absorbs infrared radiation. The question is whether .0001% difference in atmospheric content can cause catastrophic warming.
Finally, someone brave enough to answer a simple question.
Yes, the question is one of scale. What do your calculations show for dT/dC — and what experimental and paleoclimatoligical backs that number up?
When are you going to be brave enough to stand up to the orthodoxy, who steal hundreds of billions of dollars from honest people?
When are you going to be brave enough to stand up to the orthodoxy
When they are wrong.
They aren’t wrong about dT/dC — CO2 absorbs IR, and the Earth emits it.
“Climate change can change colors, any time it feels its funding is threatened by reality.”
That is because climate change is not based on science but is a religious belief.
Ultimately, science is empirical, rather than theoretical. As Fourier points out:
in the present state of physical science, all known facts are naturally explained without
having recourse to other properties than those derived from actual observation.
According to the Eleventh Edition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary:
Science (noun) the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Empirical (adjective) based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
“Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997,” J.E. Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
“Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present,” J.A. Griggs et al, Proc SPIE 164, 5543 (2004). http://spiedigitallibrary.org/proceedings/resource/2/psisdg/5543/1/164_1
“Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006,” Chen et al, (2007) http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/Publications/Conference_and_Workshop_Proceedings/groups/cps/documents/document/pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v.pdf
“Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect,” R. Phillipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract
“Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate,” W.F.J. Evans, Jan 2006
https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
“Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997,” J.E. Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
“Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present,” J.A. Griggs et al, Proc SPIE 164, 5543 (2004).
“Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006,” Chen et al, (2007)
“Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect,” R. Phillipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract
“Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate,” W.F.J. Evans, Jan 2006
https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
“Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997,” J.E. Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
“Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present,” J.A. Griggs et al, Proc SPIE 164, 5543 (2004).
“Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006,” Chen et al, (2007)
“Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect,” R. Phillipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004)
“Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate,” W.F.J. Evans, Jan 2006
PS: Write me for links: [email protected]
David,
The papers you cite prove nothing about CO2 being the primary cause of recent warming (your bogus CAGW belief). They merely use measurements to infer increased ghe. They provide no empirical evidence that ghgs were the primary cause of recent warming, nor did they provide any quantification of what part CO2 played in that warming.
Specifically, what did Harries2001 really do? They used empirical outgoing longwave radiation data to show that over a portion of the oceans (excluding land) trace-gas concentrations have gone up. Big whoop! That has not been in dispute. Their results were? not global and the did not show a total increase in ghg concentration b/c they omitted water vapor!
They proved nothing about any temp changes due to those increases in trace ghgs. That alleged relationship was based on models! See a more detailed explanation at bit.ly/13tHjbw & search for ‘H01’. There’s a 10 part comment explaining why Harries01 proves nothing about CO2 being the primary cause of warming.
There’s no empirical proof that CO2 was the primary cause of late 20th century warming. It’s all based on faulty climate models that have assumed exaggerated effects of positive water vapor feedback. And empirical data shows that water vapor did not increase as temperature increased.
If the Harries studies were updated to today, they would likely show a continued increase in ghe, but there has been no increase in global temp over the last 15yrs, adding another nail in the coffin of your failed CO2 theory.
Natural climate variability drove the recent warming, just like it has every other time over the last 4.5 billion years on earth. Your CO2 theory fails when tested against empirical science. Your models are merely a model mathturbation exercise.
Yes, that paper finds a decreased brightness paper at the absorption frequencies of CO2 and CH4.
The answer to the rest of your questions lie elsewhere, in papers too numerous to list. (Start with the IPCC 4AR.)
Theory and paleoclimate studies strongly suggest that increased atmospheric CO2 should warm the planet. Observations show that the planet is warming. Observations find no other sources sufficent to explain this warming. Observations find the enhanced greenhouse effect behaving as expected: lower brightness temperatures at the suggested frequencies, more downwelling IR, a cooler stratosphere.
Ergo, it’s almost certainlty an enhanced greenhouse effect, with all calculations and paleoclimate studies suggesting a climate sensitivity of 3 K +/- 50%
Ergo, we should do something about.
Ergo, we should do something about.”
Right, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling!
HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
This guy is a HOOT, Steve! You sure do draw the clueless doomsday zealots!
ps. Nice job there ignoring the FACTS that I posted! Go back to your church of CAGW & preach your doom there. We are too intelligent to fall for your SCAM! Hahahaha.
“increasing” GHE? … really?
Please explain the “physics” behind this David.
Unfortunately you seem very unaware of the basics. Study up, and come back and ask again. Have fun.
Exactly how have you determined this? Have you ever read anything I have written about physics? Anything I have written about the GHE hypothesis?
You are dodging, because you are a coward, and because you are ignorant on the subject.
Have you ever read anything I have written about physics?
Of course not — you’re just another anonymous coward on the Internet, much like Steve….
I am the coward?
Please describe for me the GHE hypothesis within the framework of physics.
“Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred …”
Nice try but last time I looked inferred did not mean prove.
They said inferred for a reason. (No one has yet thought of a way to measure CO2’s effect independently of the complicating factors of H2O, O3, etc., than by subtracting those effects out via a model. This is common in science – you got a better way? You even got anything that “infers” the opposite?)
The other references are less subtle.
Explain to me the “physics” behind the “force” … sounds like something from Star Wars…
The whole theory of human produced CO2 affecing climate was started by late 19th century and early 20th cenury scientists and philosophers. During these times the theory of luminiferous aether was prevalent, and this illusive substance was said to permeate all the universe, and was thought of as the medium through which light and heat travelled.
One of the scientist that believed this was Svante Arrhenius, and by refining Tyndall’s idea of aethereal heat transfer (Tyndall, 1861, p. 285) with a “backradiation” warming mechanism, Arrhenius (1896, p.255) devised the “Greenhouse Effect”. Like many career scientists, even two decades after the Michelson-Morley experiment demolished the idea of aether, Arrhenius (1906, p.154, 225) continued to glibly propagate the idea, as if it had never been challenged. Investigation of the science, or lack thereof, behind the “Greenhouse Effect” exposes it as another career proposition just like luminiferous aether, with yet another refutation (Wood, 1909) that is studiously ignored, even though it has been confirmed by others.
The lesson we learn from the history of science is that scientific-sounding speculations have little, if anything, to do with science. Though vast and impressive theories can be built on it and last some conciderable time give enough gullable fools to propergate it.
Spot on….
I am waiting for David to explain his version of the GHE within the framework of physics.
David, I would suggest you begin by taking note of what tckev has posted and begin your research from there. Once you believe you know what the GHE hypothesis really is, come back and explain it to me, within the framework of physics please.
My version of the GHE is the canonical version.
Have you studied up on that yet?
I didn’t ask you for a “name” David, I asked you for a “description”. Please describe.
You are still wasting time commenting here when you were told to go read a textbook. Come back them.
You still haven’t described for me the GHE hypothesis. If you are so well schooled, this should not be difficult for you. You should be able to do this in just a few simple lines of text, and it would help me to better understand some of the other things you are saying if I just understood your description of the GHE hypothesis.
David, I am trying to understand what you are writing. You just keep dodging a very simple question that I am asking. Here, I will try it again.
Please describe for me the GHE hypothesis withing the framework of physics.
I’m very schooled, thank you. Too schooled to waste time explain basic principles to you.
Go read a textbook. Until then you deserve no further replies.
If you are so schooled on this subject as you say, then two things should be painfully apparent. First, you should have a clear understanding that there are a variety of hypotheses concerning the GHE. Secondly, you should be able to describe for me the hypothesis that you refer to when discussing CO2, and do so in a relatively simple and concise manner.
Since you have continually dodged this very simple request of mine, have bashed me without having the first clue who I am or what I know, I can only arrive at one conclusion, you haven’t a clue what you are talking about pertaining to the discussions of CO2 and the GHE hypothesis.
You no longer have my attention as you clearly posses no value within this discussion.
Thanks for the reminder of a fundamental truth about the advancement of science — it relies on proving ideas wrong.
And a lot of ideas get proved wrong on the way to finding the right ideas. This has been going on since (at least) Galileo, and look at how far science has advanced because of this approach and how much better your life is because of it.
And what is the description of the GHE hypothesis within the framework of physics?
David A:
I have read at least 10 different GHE “Theories” in the last 8 years, possibly even more as each promoter has their own twist to the GHE opinion. The problem is, there is no GHE “Theory” A theory has to be testable and observable. You admit your opinion can not be tested or even separated from other forcing to prove it exists. That leaves it as an opinion that you share with like minded guessers! Unless you want to share your “Version of the so called GHE “Theory” how do we know which school of thought you belong to!
I have read at least 10 different GHE “Theories” in the last 8 years
Really?
Please list these 10 for me.
The problem is, there is no GHE “Theory” A theory has to be testable and observable.
Actually, no it does not. Can you observe proof that smoking causes cancer?
In any case, here you go. I have links for all of them, but this site blocks links. Write me for them:
“Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997,” J.E. Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
“Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present,” J.A. Griggs et al, Proc SPIE 164, 5543 (2004).
“Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006,” Chen et al, (2007)
“Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect,” R. Phillipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004)
“Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate,” W.F.J. Evans, Jan 2006
David A:
AFAIAC they are equal to either fairy tales or myths! You must have faith to believe in them and have a little bit of Pixie Dust
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wb7F8cNF5lQ
1947: Let’s set the cartoon aside for now….
Do you think CO2 doesn’t absorb infared radiation, or that the Earth doesn’t emit it?
Any rent a climate scientist could have told you that is global warming cold.
Astrologists predict the future.
Climate scientists predict what happened a week or a month ago.
🙂
It’s not hard at all to predict the future.
CO2 traps radiation.
More of it will trap more radiation.
More radiation will warm the lower atmosphere and oceans.
Oh, now CO2 traps radiation? Can you explain this within the framework of physics? I would like to understand how CO2 “traps” radiation as I am not familiar with that physical process.
we have a problem Houston…………..
Thank-you I’ll use that!
Squid:
It is a trap, just kike the one I use for Raccoon!
Maybe it is a dry land Lobster trap!
I have not seen anything called a Radiation trap at the local coop! 😉
I once wore a dosimeter to measure radiation, but I could not find a trap even then!
It’s important to give examples of how the CO2 we produce really influences the climate, here is a different postulation –
IF
Active Carbon Dioxide Distribution is:
a. 98% of Earths (active) CO2 is dissolved in the oceans.
b. 2% of Earths (active) CO2 is in the atmosphere.
c. 97% of atmospheric CO2 is of Natural Origin.
d. 3% of atmospheric CO2 is Human attributable.
And
e. Atmospheric H2O is about 95% of the total greenhouse effect.
It would seem then that if we want to control CO2 levels we need to control three items:
1. The oceans and 2. Water vapour 3. Natural CO2 emissions.
Logically the Atmospheric CO2 and Ocean origin CO2 interaction needs serious study and Human CO2 emissions are rendered insignificant by the shear weight of the Water GHG effect.
So the Total GHG effect is
1. Water about 95%
2. Total CO2 about 4% of GHG effect
3. Human proportion of CO2 is 3% of the above 4% or 0.12 % of all CO2 effect.
IF
If world atmospheric temperature rose by 0.6 C degrees over the last 150 years from 1860 (maybe).
And if Greenhouse gases are the only cause of this rise (very debateable as that close star does something).
And if human origin CO2 is to be taken into account.
THEN.
Our part of the world’s greenhouse gas effect is 0.0009 C degrees of the temperature rise of 0.6 C degrees. (calculated as a max).
The rest is nature.
Likewise we are responsible for 0.0045 mm of the annual 3mm ocean increase.
Over 100 years we would cause 0.45 mm (max) sea rise.
In Conclusions –
When you quantify the “Greenhouse” ( if I can use that term) effects:
• we have a major mover called Water!
• followed by Naturally produced CO2.
• and way behind both in magnitude and effect, Human Related CO2 (its truggles to make any visible effect on the natural system.)
• this planet’s atmosphere expands and contracts at a decadal rate.
Our greenhouse roof moves!
Of course, climate scientists and biogeochemists were the ones to establish all these numbers.
And yet they still think anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are a big problem.
What do you suppose they know that you don’t?
They know that if they don’t claim it as a crisis they won’t get any more funding! Of course certain politicians need the crisis as well to gain more control over our money. So it is a viscious scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours between unethical scientists and unethical politicians. There you have it – our Man made global warming crisis.
Lacis, A.A, G.A. Schmidt, D. Rind, and R.A. Ruedy, 2010: Atmospheric CO2: Principal control knob governing Earth’s temperature. Science, 330, 356-359, doi:10.1126/science.1190653.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/la09300d.html
(Have you read this, by any chance?)
No I haven’t read about the minutia of climate models and the fiction they profess as truth.
Have you read –
GERHARD GERLICH and RALF D. TSCHEUSCHNER, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 23, 275 (2009). DOI: 10.1142/S021797920904984X
FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS
GERHARD GERLICH
Institut für Mathematische Physik, Technische Universität Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig, Mendelssohnstraße 3, D-38106 Braunschweig, Federal Republic of Germany
RALF D. TSCHEUSCHNER
Dr. Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Dipl.-Phys. Postfach 602762, D-22377 Hamburg, Federal Republic of Germany
Sorry I don’t have a link.
Yes, I’ve read them.
Their work is infamous and has been repeatedly debunked.
Have you really not tried to understand it in that detail? Or did you just accept whatever they said because it fit your preconceived notions?
link: http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161v4
Sorry, David. CO2 is not the control knob. Water vapor & it’s effects (ghe, latent heat exchange, etc.) drives the climate far more than CO2.
ps. Your “principal control knob” has been broken for the last 15 yrs, b/c CO2 has continued to rise, while global temps have not. The CO2 fails again!
Anyone can post a paper on the arXiv.
That paper has been dissected and debunked everywhere. If you don’t know that, you’re not seriously trying. Up your game.
Sorry, David. CO2 is not the control knob. Water vapor & it’s effects (ghe, latent heat exchange, etc.) drives the climate far more than CO2.
Those people did a calculation.
You haven’t.
Hence, your opinion is worthless.
Their work isn’t.
Thermostat has been broken for 17 years. Send over the repairman.
David, What did the repairman say about the broken thermostat? Come back during the next natural warming cycle & it will be working again? Hahahahaha. What a JOKE you are!
Thermostat has been broken for 17 years.
The top 700 m of the ocean has warmed more in the last 16 years than in the 16 years before.
CO2 hasn’t stopped being an IR absorber. The Earth hasn’t stopped being an IR emitter. Basic physics says the surface will continue to warm, above oceanic weather.
The planet has to warm, for the same reasons the transistors in your computer work: quantum mechanics.
“The top 700 m of the ocean has warmed more in the last 16 years than in the 16 years before.”
Too bad we don’t have accurate or comprehensive enough data to know how much the global heat content has changed.
“LACK of sustained observations of the atmosphere, OCEANS and land… In 1999, to combat this LACK OF DATA… Argo deployments began in 2000 and by November 2007 the array is 100% complete” Source: ARGO website: bit*ly/9KEHD
Yeah, just like Trenberth said: “It’s a TRAVESTY” Hahahahaha.
David, you didn’t get it did you.
Your reference is a useless, overly complicated trash that panders to your preconceived ideas and your foolish (IMO) belief in the computer models .
My reference is a fine piece of work that does exactly the same for me.
Too bad we don’t have accurate or comprehensive enough data to know how much the global heat content has changed.
Levitus et al 2012 have a long explanation of their analysis of uncertainties in their Supplementary Material. With which parts of it do you disagree?
“Levitus et al 2012 have a long explanation of their analysis of uncertainties in their Supplementary Material. With which parts of it do you disagree?”
Let’s see, Levitus et al 2012 “We provide updated ESTIMATES of the change of ocean heat content”
Get that davie lad? ESTIMATES
Hahahahahahahahahaha.
Yep, that’s why Trenberth said “It’s a TRAVESTY we can’t do a simple energy balance! We don’t know WTF the ocean or climate is doing to any reasonable accuracy! Hahahahahaha. Keep going, IDIOT! Hahahahaha.
And I see, you’ve pointed out NO, ZERO, ZIP, NADA, errors in my 10 part comment on Harries01 ! Hahahahaha. Back to the corner & don the pointy hat! Hahahahaha.
Steven:
I am the repairman!!!
The only trouble I found was some fools thought they found a Thermostat that controlled climate, however they had their heads up their rears and found a myth. Climate has been controlled by natural forces for billions of years and an effect can not be the cause as it would lead to uncontrolled runaway weather patterns. SORRY DAVID A! SO Sad 🙁
Which “natural forces?”
Is CO2 one of them?
All climate scientists consider CO2 a bedrock influencer of climate.
What do you know what they don’t?
Are you dense along with Lacis david? Leave it to alarmists to invent a control knob that works the opposite in nature. You see in nature temperature drives CO2 concentration not the other way around.
😀
Laz:
I found this for you
http://s53.photobucket.com/user/DerekJohn_photos/media/stuff/6a00d834519c3c69e200e553d605cf8834-.jpg.html
miked1947,
I give you studies and statements by scientific organizations and you reply with cartoons and drawings?
You have just described, in a nutshell, what this site is all about.
tckev,
Most atmospheric physicists think that CO2 contributes closer to 15% of the total greenhouse effect — a huge amount from a trace gas. Andover the past few centuries, man has simultaneously stripped the earth of its carbon sinks while increasing CO2 by 40%.
So tckev, I have a multiple choice question for you:
What effect does adding heat-trapping gasses to the environment have?
(A) More heat is added to the environment
(B) All of the above.
Laz:
Does it trap heat the same way a blanket or insulation restricts heat transfer?
At what concentration does it TRAP Heat?
Where can I buy some of this heat trapping gas, because it is freezing at my house this week?
I’m glad for your confirmatory atmospheric physicists think it’s 15%. When they get their face out of the grant troff maybe they will find out nature is a little more complicated than the alimentary computer models they misuse.
Those scientist that do not agree with the 15% obviously understand more about science, and the FACT that we do not understand the basic fundamentals of our climate, and what are the governing drivers of our climate.
Does that clear things up for you.
Yes, tckev, I appreciate your great insights into today’s science, and am very grateful that you took the time to illuminate all us lesser mortals. Thank you for your insights and especially for your wisedom into these most important issues of our day.
To whom should I credit these epiphanies?
miked1947,
“Continuous increase of CO2, CH4, and N2O in the atmosphere is the dominant driving force to change in the global climate”
This is a statement from the International Association of Meteorology and Atmospheric Sciences (IAMAS) in their Symposium on Air-Sea Exchange: Impacts on the Atmosphere and Ocean: http://atmo.tamu.edu/files/ducebooklet.pdf
For more information on how greenhouse gasses work, I suggest you visit the IAMAS home page – http://www.iamas.org/. They study:
Atmospheric Chemistry and Global Pollution (ICACGP)
Atmospheric Electricity (ICAE)
Climate (ICCL)
Clouds and Precipitation (ICCP)
Dynamic Meteorology (ICDM)
Middle Atmosphere (ICMA)
Planetary Atmospheres and their Evolution (ICPAE)
Polar Meteorology (ICPM)
Ozone (IOC)
Radiation (IRC)
Or are you, like “Steve Goddard,” just another coward afraid to attach his name to his opinions?
perhaps like David Appell – afraid to state an honest opinion
Sent from my Virgin Mobile Android-Powered Device
Steve,
David is the only person on this site who has offered up anything of substance. Apparently, he is the only person here that has qualifications in a field related to climate science.
Lazarus said (March 22, 2013 at 3:48 am)
“…Steve,
David is the only person on this site who has offered up anything of substance. Apparently, he is the only person here that has qualifications in a field related to climate science…”
There, you’re right – he’s probably the only “climate scientist” who’s taken a Graduate Program in Creative Writing from Arizona State University.
Lazarus, if CO2 contributes 15% to the greenhouse effect and did what most atmospheric physicists thought then we would have a tropical hot spot in the atmosphere. Since we do not that proves that most atmospheric physicists are wrong. So as such it means that atmospheric physicists like Lindzen and atomic physicists like William Happer are much closer to the truth than a cadre of alarmist scientist who depend on CGAW funding as a gravytrain. btw science has never depended on consesus, if it did there would be nothing left to discover.
“Most scientists” translates to pulling a number out of his ass.
Don’t care what a tiny cadre of scientists (although enormously influential in the media) think. Most scientists are wrong about their new theories most of the time. Science is tough. Show me the data matching the theory. Anything else is bullshit.
I’ve given links. Naturally, they were ignored.
I don’t need links from some clueless wanker. I know how to look up OHC, surface and mid tropospheric temperature trends. Even global sea ice. You’re a dickhead, so what? World’s full of them.
That’s the kind of intellgent comment I’ve come to expect from this blog — “You’re a dickhead!!”
When you make it to high school, let us know.
No, they weren’t ignored, they were irrelevant to your CO2 theory.
Clearly you lack the intelligence to understand them.
I don’t.
“Clearly you lack the intelligence to understand them.
I don’t.”
Hahahahahaha. Let’s see, I led you by the nose to my 10part comment on Harries01, & you’ve pointed out how many errors in my comments? NONE, ZERO, ZIP, NADA!!!
You excel in projection! Hahahahahahaha.
It seems that every time I see a post with a lot of comments, it is either Appell or some other CAGW doomsday zealot playing Chicken Little & crowing their sky-is-falling CO2 scare. Pathetic.
Or they are trying to impress everyone by how much of the AGW prayer book they know and can recite – chapter and verse.
They do this because of their deep-seated inadequacies and they want to prove to everyone how wonderful they are. Of course they’re just sad, immoral, grant-troff hunters because they few other talents.
Yep, that describes DA to a T!
And can be amusing.
DA says “I’m very schooled, thank you.”
I didn’t know they granted degrees in idiocy!
😉
It looks like It’s not just the USA having a cold March. Other parts of NH also. Including the UK and parts of India. Ain’t GW a bitch. 🙂
Got the data to prove it? I doubt it…. UAH LT raw temps are running about at about +0.2 C
Yawn:
David.
I suppose Russia and the Ukraine aren’t part of the NH, either then. Latest March coldsnap killed at least 37 people.
That’s unfortunate.
You do realize, I hope, that cold snaps aren’t inconsistent with AGW?
Below scenario c
When will you be ready to leave the ’80s?
“All models are wrong — some are useful.” Hansen’s was very useful.
Hey Steve, Pleeeeeeze don’t ever succumb to the temptation to block David Appell. I always love the belly laughs I get from reading the threads where he exposes his ignorance, inability to reason, & spews his doomsday zealot nonsense. He’s priceless!!! He does more to expand skepticism than we ever could!
Haven’t had such fun on a PC for a long time. I know, I know I must get out more.
:-}
tckev, You told the rotten Appell “Please read twice a day until you understand”
Your problem was when you got to “read”. He’s demonstrated that he can’t do that, let alone understand anything!
I have to disagree, I believe he can read and at times understand but now is not the right time. Once he’s passed 60 he’ll realize what governments do…
(e) is wrong: see Lacis et al Science 2010.
It’s CO2 that keeps the temperature high enough to keep water out of the frozen state. Without that, there is little GHE from water vapor.
You too — do you think CO2 doesn’t absorb IR, or do you think the Earth doesn’t emit it?
Please read twice a day until you understand
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/co2-is-a-chameleon/#comment-205862
As one of the great American scientist R. Feynman said: “Western civilization, … stands by two great heritages. One is the scientific spirit of adventure — the adventure into the unknown, an unknown which must be recognized as being unknown in order to be explored; the demand that the unanswerable mysteries of the universe remain unanswered; the humility of the intellect …. The other great heritage is Christian ethics — the basis of action on love, the brotherhood of all men, the value of the individual — the humility of the spirit.”
And IMO we are throwing away what we have gained with a theory of how climate works, a theory that is not verified by nature.
I can not say it better than another quote from the great man –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3Rvy-ft1bI
Feynman, were he alive today, would be one of the leading voices warning against our CO2 emissions. He understood matter-radiation interactions.
“Feynman, were he alive today, would be one of the leading voices warning against our CO2 emissions. He understood matter-radiation interactions.”
IMO I very much doubt it, not at todays primitive level competence.
Like all good scientist he was humble and understood that nature is far more complex system than some elementary computer models’ portray.
Unlike David Appell, Feynman recognized junk science when he saw it.
Feynman was one (of three, perhaps 4-5) who developed the theory that describes the interaction of radiation with matter, called quantum electrodynamics. It is the most successful theory ever developed, capable of predicting quantities to more than 1 part in a billion.
Feynman would certainly understand why fundmaental physics requires global warming.
Yup David including Freeman Dyson and Hal Lewis. I guess where they stand on this issue doesn’t support your storyline of how Feynmann might react.
GISS just released their data for February.
The 15yr trend — which is for suckers — just went from 0.07 C/decade to 0.08 C/decade, both statistically significant.
The past 12 months are 0.06 C warmer than the previous 12 months. That’s 6 C a century — almost 11 F. We’re doomed (by feptic thinking).
15 years is the new
cherryAppell pick!Weren’t you and your minions hawking the 15 yr trend recently?
Yes, I believe you were.
ROFL. Now we are up to 17 years of no warming. What kind of maroon would try to cherry-pick a La Nina as a start date to prove global warming, and think he could get away with it?
Wrong. Clearly you can’t calculate trends. (And you haven’t yet realized that your insistence on anonymity makes your opinion worthless.)
15yr trend significant?
RSS? No.
HadCRUT3? No.
HadCRUT4? No.
GISS? Yes. Keep adjusting until you get the desired result! Hahahahahahaha.
Read Steve’s scientific analysis of GISS adjustments & historical revisionism Davie laddie.
You’re wrong about HadCRUT4.
HadCRUT3 is now old and out-of-date.
UAH is warm.
ROO2, I’m going to filter your responses out — you just aren’t saying anything relevant, and what you do say is wrong. Sorry, nothing personal.
“You’re wrong about HadCRUT4”
No, I’m not wrong. The last 15yr (180mo) available from WFT has a P-value >0.05 which means that it is NOT statistically significant! In addition to knowing nothing about climate, you know nothing about statistics either!
“ROO2, I’m going to filter your responses out — you just aren’t saying anything relevant, and what you do say is wrong. Sorry, nothing personal.”
Hahahahaha. Your typical projection, proved by your HadCRUT4 ERROR & burying your head in the sand, or somewhere else that the sun doesn’t shine. Hahahahahaha. What a JOKE!
Funny that you forget that the IPCC projected .20C per decade warming starting year 2000.
You crow over a much smaller trend,
Meanwhile you chose the one data set that is mucked up by the “data adjuster” and that is why you follow it.
LOL
Where did the IPCC do that?
I recall they predicted a certain amount of warming by 2100, with an uncertainty, based on 36 or so different economic scenarios. But I’m sure you can set me straight.
Whatever happened to Joe Bastardi’s failed prediction?
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/06/16/joe-bastardi-explains-the-warm-us-weather-and-what-to-expect-the-rest-of-the-year/#comment-95261
Joe answered it and you ran away after that:
“Dave, the main aspect of my forecast is by 2030, NHem temp as measured by objective sat temps and the sea ice returns to where it was when we started the satellite era. As you have picked out me being wrong here, and of course this will be the kajillionth time I have admitted it, I realize that you and your 113 followers or whatever need to hear that I know I am wrong. Since you wish to bring it up again, yes I was wrong about that.
By the way, that forecast also calls FOR A REDUCTION of southern hemisphere sea ice a it should reverse its trend. If it doesnt, than we are in a heap of trouble the other way.
Since I forecast every day, and dont get paid unless I show my clients the value of being right, rather than blog from my basement or wherever it is you are, and since outside of 1 month between jobs I have forecasted every day for the past 10 years, starting working in the field the day after graduation on March 4,1978 and was at the same company for close to 33 years, I would say me being tested in the field far outweighs yours, the weather equal of the fan that eats hot dogs, sits in the stands, and thinks he can play on the field with people who actually know what its like to compete.”
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/06/16/joe-bastardi-explains-the-warm-us-weather-and-what-to-expect-the-rest-of-the-year/#comment-95281
Bullshit. Bastardi’s prediction was for the short-term.
It utterly failed.
At least have the bals to admit it.
He admitted he was wrong you blind idiot!
Here David and this is not validated stuff just a bunch of modeling guesses:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html
So do you think CO2 doesn’t absorb infrared radiation, or that the Earth doesn’t emit it?
It’s funny how you missed this section:
IPCC 4AR WG1 Ch8, FAQ 8.1: ???How Reliable Are the Models Used to Make Projections of Future Climate Change?
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-8-1.html
Funny you are willing to ignore this that is from the link I just gave you:
“For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected.
Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15°C and 0.3°C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections. {1.2, 3.2}
Model experiments show that even if all radiative forcing agents were held constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming trend would occur in the next two decades at a rate of about 0.1°C per decade, due mainly to the slow response of the oceans. About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade) would be expected if emissions are within the range of the SRES scenarios. Best-estimate projections from models indicate that decadal average warming over each inhabited continent by 2030 is insensitive to the choice among SRES scenarios and is very likely to be at least twice as large as the corresponding model-estimated natural variability during the 20th century.
Continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century.
Advances in climate change modelling now enable best estimates and likely assessed uncertainty ranges to be given for projected warming for different emission scenarios. Results for different emission scenarios are provided explicitly in this report to avoid loss of this policy-relevant information. Projected global average surface warmings for the end of the 21st century (2090–2099) relative to 1980–1999 are shown in Table SPM.3. These illustrate the differences between lower and higher SRES emission scenarios, and the projected warming uncertainty associated with these scenarios.”
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html
You are in love with pseudosciencescience crap since it is a bunch of modeling scenarios that have no demonstrated forecast skill and runs to year 2100 and even to year 3000 elsehwere in the report.
Do you consider the 1990 report more important than that one that came 17 years later?
Climate science changed a lot over that time. (All sciences did, in fact.) Were they allowed to change their opinions?
If not, why not?
@DavieAppalling
“How Reliable Are the Models Used to Make Projections of Future Climate Change?”
The climategate emails tell the honest truth about the models.
“Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds” – Phil Jones
“…clearly, some tuning or very good luck [is] involved. I doubt the modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer”
““It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.”
“By now, we can begin to see why, despite many important and exciting advances in our understanding of the physics of climate, we must exercise great caution over the true depth of our understanding, and our ability to forecast future climate trends. Earlier, we pointed out that the instantaneous radiative effect of doubling CO2 might be of order 4W/m2 (IPCC 1990) . We have also shown that the magnitude of just one feedback process, the cloudradiative feedback (albeit, probably one of the largest, and most poorly understood) ranges from -140> W/m2 to +50W/m2, with a global, annual mean of about -20W/m2. Our knowledge of, for example, high cirrus (ice) cloud is very poor, despite the strong radiative effects of such clouds: we could easily have uncertainties of many tens of W/m2 in our description of the radiative effect of such clouds, and how these properties may change under climate forcing. Other feedback processes, involving atmospheric water vapour for example, also involve considerable uncertainty. This means that uncertainties as large as, or larger than the doubled CO2 forcing could easily exist in our modelling of future climate trends, due to uncertainties in the feedback processes. In 1993, Hartmann wrote `The net eVect of clouds under global warming are not currently predictable’ . Much progress has been made since then, but the concern over the uncertainty due to feedback processes remains.” – Harries 2000 ‘Physics of the Earth’s radiative energy balance’, Contemporary Physics, Sep2000
Yes, uncertainties in your models that are greater than the entire effect of doubling of CO2! And yes, that’s the very same Harries that you cited & I showed proved nothing about CO2 being the primary cause of recent warming. The models are GIGO! Now, back to the corner & put that pointy hat on!!! Hahahahahaha.
Notice how “Steve Goddard” shuts up whenever the subject of his IP address comes up?
68.247.33.235
He’ll be back… when he thinks it’s safe.
Wow I did not realize that PH.D holders are in the business of wasting time on witch hunts.
It is clear from your continual low level quality comments you post that you are a lost boy in a man’s body.
Don’t you have better things to do?
What is dT/dCO2, and why?
LOL.
Don’t you have better things to do?
Frankly, I think I have done more good here, asking hard questions, comments that are read by readers who would never comment or show their face but who read these rebuttals and start to wonder, who see that there is another point of view besides pure denialism, and not from someone backing down…. …than most other things I could be doing right now.
In any case, I’ve learned a lot by defending the canonical POV.
what is C-3po ?
We laugh at you because you go all over the place in your replies along with the never ending obsession over Steve’s identity and that you are a low grade conversationalist.
I know a lot of PH.D holders and ALL of them write much better than you,even some of the warmists write better than you and they do not spend a lot of time at ANY skeptic site because they have other things to do that commensurates with their educational base.
Eventually Steve will shut you down like Anthony has done because you are a lousy thinker.Maybe you should go visit Jo Nova’s blog and try to impress someone there as you have failed here with us.
I now suspect that “sunsettommy” is another fake name used by “Steve Goddard.”
Can we see the logs for this blog?
(Never mind — no one would accept them as honest.)
You are so freaking STOOOOPID!
I have a forum (My name takes you there) and write very differently from the way Steve writes.
You are so wrong that it is funny……………
I don’t give a crap about your forums or pet sites.
dT/dCO2 = ?
Who wrote this?
“I now suspect that “sunsettommy” is another fake name used by “Steve Goddard.”
Can we see the logs for this blog?”
You are pathetic.
The logs, please?
Jeezus, you are a creepy bastard. If anything (God forbid) happens to Steven I think the cops will know who to look at first.
David. You are paranoid, delusional and you are cyberstalking, which is a federal crime. I suspect that you are mentally ill. You will no longer be permitted to post on this blog. You need to seek help.
Who cares about failed predictions ?
If insulating a hot object causes it to increase its own temperature why has this NEVER been demonstrated.
Why is the basis of climate science based on a model which is not real – the sun does not shine at one quarter power 24 hours a day.
Averaging to 170 W /sq metre over a sphere does not produce the same thermal response as as 4 times that over a significant portion of a hemisphere.
I suppose you’d believe in Willis Eschenbach’s steel greenhouse theory as well ?
If insulating a hot object causes it to increase its own temperature why has this NEVER been demonstrated.
Are you a complete idiot?
Why do you sleep under a cover at night?
“Are you a complete idiot?
Why do you sleep under a cover at night?”
Nice projection there Davie lad. You are the complete idiot.
I take it that you remove the covers every few minutes so that the fluids in your body don’t boil (like Hansen’s oceans) because of the additional “warming” due to those covers would cause your body temperature to go into runaway temperature rise! Hahahahahahaha. Back to the corner & put your pointy hat on! Hahahaha!
Like I said Steve, pleeeeeeze don’t block Appalling Davie from posting. He’s entirely too much fun!
Any one who believes you can get 2 decimal places from data that is likely to be at best a guesstimate at 0.5 accuracy is really just playing with themselves.
I’ve seen lots of the data recording stations used in Queensland anf half a degree accuracy requires a guess.
My uncle, who was meterologist for the airforce, would be rolling in his grave at this BS.
My uncle, who was meterologist for the airforce, would be rolling in his grave at this BS.
Did your uncle ever understand that vacuum tubes went out many, many years ago?
You very much sounds like retards trying to defend that sun is bad for you and saturated fat is bad for you. After 30 years, now backed by science, they are completely wrong.
Just like you, hansen, mann, etc are completely wrong.
Sure — like you have the expertise needed to understand Hansen or Mann, let alone judge them wrong.
You do not.
“….like you have the expertise needed to understand Hansen or Mann…”
Regardless, we DO have the expertise to understand fellow traveler Gleick and that is all we need to know about the character of the team you so desire to be head cheerleader for David.
Wow! This Appell fellow has some classic signs of cognitive dissonance. I’m curious as to how old he is – his postings make it sound like he’s a frustrated pre-pubescent teen. But cognitive dissonance will do that to you. He’ll hang on to his cult like beliefs with everything he has because to look at the reality is too painful. He has too much emotion and years of his life invested. Shame really.
Do you think CO2 doesn’t absorb IR, or that the Earth doesn’t emit it?
Most skeptics know that CO2 absorbs IR and that Earth emits it.
You ask this question over and over because you are full of crap.
This is a common position skeptics accept and shown on the chart here:
http://globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-188-post-3677.html#pid3677
Even most CAGW believers accept the basic point of the chart.It is the question of Positive feedbacks that you CAGW believers push to support the run away warming meme.
So drop this question B.S. ok David?
Even most CAGW believers accept the basic point of the chart.It is the question of Positive feedbacks that you CAGW believers push to support the run away warming meme.
This isn’t well written and I don’t know what it means.
Do you think feedbacks don’t exist??
Yes, quite pathetic. His mindless regurgitation of the same CO2/IR dogma mantras suggest he might just be a programmed robotic bot. It’s hard to believe that a real person could be so ignorant.
Old Guy:
You want to see real ignorance, Visit David’s Sand Box, or is it Litter Box?
What I find so remarkable is that historical evidence does not give credence to their theory. Temperatures and CO2 do not track.
Yup it is obvious feedbacks exist and that the net all of them are negative. Otherwise the last interglacial we had where the temps were up to 8C warmer than today would have caused the tipping points you alarmists try to scare everyone with.
Think about that for a minute – 8C warmer than today, no mass extinctions, life on the planet goes on. Kinda takes a little of the wind out of your CAGW sails at 3C warming will kill 80% of the population scenarios.
David caught out with my long irrefutable quote from the 2007 IPCC report link with his bullshit:
“Do you consider the 1990 report more important than that one that came 17 years later?
Climate science changed a lot over that time. (All sciences did, in fact.) Were they allowed to change their opinions?
If not, why not?”
Here it is again you freaking idiot!
The TITLE of the page is: Projections of Future Changes in Climate
the FIRST TWO PARAGRAPHS:
“A major advance of this assessment of climate change projections compared with the TAR is the large number of simulations available from a broader range of models. Taken together with additional information from observations, these provide a quantitative basis for estimating likelihoods for many aspects of future climate change. Model simulations cover a range of possible futures including idealised emission or concentration assumptions. These include SRES[14] illustrative marker scenarios for the 2000 to 2100 period and model experiments with greenhouse gases and aerosol concentrations held constant after year 2000 or 2100.
For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected.”
It is clear that you didn’t know there was this minimum .20C per decade trend projection that could be .30C or more and that is why you made that idiotic and pathetic deflection comment.
Give it up David you ain’t fooling anyone here.
Sorry I’m so stupid, but: do you consider the 1990 report more authorative than the 2007 report, or less so?
Do you think the average global surface temperature must increase by 0.2 C/decade, or all bets are off?
Do you really think that’s what the IPCC said?
What glasses are you wearing David?
“Sorry I’m so stupid…”
No you’re not David. If you were, you would try and correct that fault. You’re just a simple attention whore….nothing more.
David quoting me admits he can’t understand the obvious:
I wrote,
“Even most CAGW believers accept the basic point of the chart.It is the question of Positive feedbacks that you CAGW believers push to support the run away warming meme.”
David responds,
“This isn’t well written and I don’t know what it means.
Do you think feedbacks don’t exist??”
Sigh and this from a PH.D dude
At least you didn’t dispute the chart or did you ignore the link to it David?
I never stated feedbacks didn’t exist it is the often stated POSITIVE feedbacks that are pushed to argue that the projected warming trend will be well beyond the standard CO2 warming effect as shown by the chart I linked to.
Wake up David and smell the coffee!
You seem incapable of giving direct answers.
Do you think feedbacks don’t exist?
(Either address these points, or I wil filter you too.)
Is it true that you hold a PH.D because I showed you the chart that make it clear there are some feedbacks in it and yet you still don’t understand the simple words.I wonder if you even looked at the chart at all.
Meanwhile I pointed out this AGAIN,that skeptics can understand because it is written in rational code:
“I never stated feedbacks didn’t exist it is the often stated POSITIVE feedbacks that are pushed to argue that the projected warming trend will be well beyond the standard CO2 warming effect as shown by the chart I linked to.”
Stop asking the question you idiot as it has been answered many times and by many skeptics.
Appesll says…?When will you be ready to leave the ’80s?
“All models are wrong — some are useful.” Hansen’s was very useful.?
Yes indeed, Hansen’s A and B projections were the “C” n CAGW. Emissions continued at the worst case senario. The T increase is below the best case. Hansen proved CAGW is nothing more then, at the best, a little warming good for humans, and not a disaster at all.
A nice lovely spring:
Bloom off of global warming on first day of (brrrr) spring
http://blogs.detroitnews.com/politics/2013/03/21/bloom-off-of-global-warming-on-first-day-of-brrrr-spring/
Weather Climate.
Capisce
But last year they screamed over it like it was the beginning of the end with their endless doomsday global warming/climate change pap.This year as pointed out in the link just some cold weather we put up with and no screams of doomsday either.
Just love the way David misses the obvious point in the link:
“Weather makes for great anecdotal scare stories with which to push more regulation. Not surprisingly, the media hysteria was non-existent this week as Samenow & Co. went back to reading temperature forecasts. “And the chilly air is here to stay for a while,” deadpanned Samenow. New England welcomed spring with a foot of snow. No screaming headlines. No predictions of disaster. Nothing to see here, just move along.”
You are embarrassing the PH.D fraternity with your endless bullshit.
Again: Do you think CO2 doesn’t absorb IR, or that the Earth doesn’t emit it?
You still haven’t answered directly: do you think CO2 doesn’t absorb IR, or that the Earth doesn’t emit it?
David can’t help himself as he ask the same freaking question again and again.
and same answer is this:
“Most skeptics know that CO2 absorbs IR and that Earth emits it.”
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/co2-is-a-chameleon/#comment-206079
“Most skeptics know that CO2 absorbs IR and that Earth emits it.”
At what rate, and why?
LOL.
What you warm-mongers don’t understand is that the climate is not governed by one factor alone. It is a bit more complicated than that. CO2 is rising – and I don’t think you can prove it’s all man made either – but the global temperature has been static for over 15 years. There is no direct correlation between the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere – there never has been over geologic time.
As Feynman said – if your theory doesn’t match reality, your theory is wrong. February GISS is out and it is well below Scenario C. The warm-monger’s theory is wrong. Pure and simple. Get over it.
LOL
At what rate, and why?
JH: If you’re unaware of the role of CO2 thoughout geologic time, you need to put your head down and study harder.
What is your value for dT/dCO2, and why?
You have no idea why I am laughing at you.
dT/dCO2 = ?
What is R2-D2?
At what rate, and why?
You’re working awfully hard to avoid this question.
Because you want to change the subject and run with modeling crap in its place because that is the science you prefer.
Steve (fake name), you sure are working hard to avoid this question.
Why?
dT/dCO2 = ?
David,
you are trying to get us on the modeling bullshit and that is why I am laughing at you,but I will give you this to placate your need to look smart here with a well known equation you are asking about:
Utility of the expiratory capnogram in the assessment of bronchospasm.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8839525
Enjoy.
dT/dCO2 = ?
You sure are working hard to avoid this question.
Why?
I already answered but you can’t to figure it out.
You are that stupid David and that is why I laugh at you.
dT/dCO2 = ?
Nope,you are being an idiot with it.
You won’t answer a simple question.
This is why denialism is losing steam — people see you as evasive clowns who say anyhing or nothing.
Denialism?!? – no dictionary results. That isn’t even a word David. Yet, you expect us to believe the rest of the crap you spew? I truly feel sorry for you. Here is a real word that might be helpful to you; masochist – a person who is gratified by degradation, etc.
You will thank me later…
dT/dCO2 = ?
Meaningless. As it stands. What’s your figure?
I’m a geologist. I know what role CO2 has played over geologic time.
By the way it would be good to see a picture of the average value for the two years (this March and last year’s) over the US.
If you’re really a geologist (PhD? or just a BS?) and you don’t understand the role of CO2 throughout geologic climate, then your degree should be taken back. It’s a cornerstone of paleoclimatology, and of the present day. Nothing really makes sense in climate science unless CO2 is a strong greenhouse gas — as, of course, its molecular structure says it is.
Wow. Enough feeding the troll. Some of us have a life.
Wow! Then you must know that there was an ice age 450 million years ago at 4000+ PPM.
You got a degree in creative writing from ASU, while I got a degree in geology from ASU, and studied under the father of modern plate tectonics.theory – Robert Dietz.
What a maroon.
From Appell
TADA! … right from the horses mouth! … I couldn’t have said it better myself. And you are most assuredly correct David. Nothing really makes sense in climate science! How correct your are!
David. As a final suggestion to you. Why don’t you start your own blog and then you can hold discussions there?
@Jimmy: He has a blog … he gets very few comments, certainly no discussions like you get here.
Exactly! No one visits his sad little blog so he, like quite a few other warm-mongers, has to hijack the discussions on successful blogs – like this one – to try to push his idiotic ideas.
Yup … Steve probably gets more hits in a week than Appell gets in a year.
Readership on this blog is going through the roof.
Well, maybe people come here ’cause they’re interested in a site called “Real Science”
You see a site called “quark soup”, and you wonder if it’s some strange cooking blog.
Or a science store: http://www.quarksoup.ca/
Whenever DA shows up posts go from 8 – 10 comments to hundreds. Loads of fun for all to have a peek into the unhinged batshit crazy mind of todays leftists.
Indeed. Dave would make an interesting subject matter for any ambitious psych major’s thesis. Dude has some serious issues – He apparently thinks he is coming here to proselytize and all he ever accomplishes is making a complete ass out of himself. And yet, Dave appears to be the only one commenting here that doesn’t realize that simple little truth. Not helping ‘the cause’ Dave.