Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- The Climate Of 1923
- Market Volatility
- Arctic Report Card
- Green Colorado
- Hottest Summer Ever
- “Sea ice could be gone by 2012, scientists warn”
- Record CO2 Growth
- Walz’s For Trump
- 6,000 Year Old Tree In The Austrian Alps
- Gemini Can See The Future
- Clinton To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Climate Intelligence Means “Making Things Up”
- Comedy From The BBC
- The Climate Afterlife
- Rewriting The Northern Hemisphere
- Useful Graphs From ChatGPT
- Fort Lauderdale Drowning
- Sinking Of The Titanic
- Expert Arctic Forecasting
- Sinking Of The Titanic
- Nobel Prize Winning Forecast
- Changing Climate
- Gen Z Math And Solutions
- Orwellian NASA Maps
- Faking US Temperature Data
Recent Comments
- arn on Market Volatility
- arn on Gemini Can See The Future
- conrad ziefle on Gemini Can See The Future
- conrad ziefle on “Sea ice could be gone by 2012, scientists warn”
- Bill on Gemini Can See The Future
- conrad ziefle on Market Volatility
- conrad ziefle on Hottest Summer Ever
- stewartpid on Market Volatility
- William on Record CO2 Growth
- Greg in NZ on Hottest Summer Ever
I can clearly see how the elections of Clinton and Obama saved the world from turning cinder
B and C never happened so they should be removed from discussions! The only proper reply to one bringing up either B or C would be ” What a load of Bull $hit”! The increase in CO2 emissions were even greater than A projected.
“The mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures [15 year temperature stall] is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now.” From: http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions
Hey Mike! I was thinking about how you when I used “Chicken Little Brigade” in my last comment, how you gave me the tip on that term. Where you bin? I know, busy with other things, like me soon.
Hansen is an idiot who believes that earth will resemble Venus if Co2 rises. The whole Co2 scare comes from Venus. Hansen was screaming about Venus in the 60s and 70s. I think he read too many Asimov sci-fi b.s. The only problem for these brain dead morons is that Venus is likely a very new planet; still red hot; has not cooled yet; with 95% of its atm. gas being Co2 – a totally different set of circumstances vs. earth.
Venus surface is hot because of the high atmospheric pressure. Same reason Death Valley is hot, and Mt. Everest is cold.
B I N G O ! ! ,,, DING DING DING … And we have a winner!
Very right you are Sir Goddard .. you nailed it precisely on the head! CO2 has nothing to do with it, as there is no such GHE present on either (any) planet!
Good work sir! .. keep up the good fight!
Back in the 1960s Hansen picked on dust for making Venus hot.
He once blamed soot for most of Earth’s recent warming, then non-co2 greenhouse gases and now co2. Maybe he should be on medication.
Yea Steve, but Dana used Hansen’s scenario B. Models always have more than one scenario yet you misinform by only referencing the outlier scenarios. The “what if” beginning point of Hansen’s Scenario B was quite accurate, unlike Lindzen’s 1989 statement “I personally feel that the likelihood over the next century of greenhouse warming reaching magnitudes comparable to natural variability seems small,” Dana point out “The natural variability of the Earth’s climate rarely causes more than 0.2°C global surface warming over the span of a few decades to a century, yet we’ve already seen 0.8°C warming over the past century and 0.5°C over the past 3 decades.”
To further underscore Lindzen’s credibility, he still says there is no link between tobacco and lung cancer. Here is the link to the Dana article if folks want to make up their own minds. http://gu.com/p/3ytag
Dana didn’t use Hansen’s Scenario B. He created his own scenario B which was much lower than Hansen’s for recent years.
I know that normal evolving, always skeptical, refining science is portrayed as a sign of fraud in your disinformation campaign, but; science, any branch of science, could not operate at all with your dishonest approach to scientific discourse. Why don’t you ever apply your dishonest stricture to your own denialistas. Although Hansen’s projected global temperature increase has been higher than the actual global warming, this is because his climate model used a high climate sensitivity parameter. Had he used the currently accepted value of approximately 3°C warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, Hansen would have correctly projected the ensuing global warming. That is not fraud. That is normal science.
It’s fraudulent to pretend that the range of “natural variability” is something that is commonly agreed upon. Which is what you’ve just done. Lindzen has pointed out in the past the problems and complexities of interpreting large epidemiological studies such as cancer studies. This is common knowledge among scientists and examples of junk science that came out of second hand smoking claims is a perfect vindication of the point Lindzen was making. It’s fraudulent to misrepresent Lindzen as you are trying to do, and that’s not normal science either.
The anti-AGW folks rarely acknowledge that the AGW premise includes natural variation. AGW says the issue is human CO2 emissions ADDED to natural variation. The honest debate has never been natural variation VS AGW.
Regarding tobacco, Lindzen worked with the Tobacco Institute and Heartland and was one of their biggest defenders of the tobacco industry. His job and lawyerly tactic was to poke holes in the science, but the bottom line was that tobacco is dangerous to one’s health. This quote is from the Tobacco Institute for which Lindzen worked. Notice how you could interchange some of the words with the anti climate science language.
“The claim that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer has not been scientifically proven………..it is a reductionist error and not keeping with the current theories of cancer causation to attempt to assign each cancer to an exclusive single cause…………the use of results from flawed population studies to frighten people by attributing large numbers of death yearly to smoking may be misleading and is most regrettable……….that emotionalism can override objective analysis is illustrated by the headlines………despite millions of dollars spent by the government on smoking and health-related research, many questions about the relationship between smoking and disease remain unanswered…………indeed, many scientists are becoming concerned that preoccupation with smoking may be both unfounded and dangerous – unfounded because evidence on many critical points is conflicting, dangerous because it diverts attention from other suspected hazards.”
-from Smoking and Health: 1964-1979: The Continuing Controversy, published in 1979 by the Tobacco Institute
The simple fact is CO2 forcing is undefinable, immeasurable, untestable and, therefore, not science. Moreover, it’s pretty dimwitted to claim that everytime your model fails that its your opponents fault for not allowing for natural variabiity. Using that kind of logic we might as well use astrology to make our predictions.
From CDIAC
There is a close correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (Barnola et al. 1987). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows that the main trends of CO2 are similar for each glacial cycle. Major transitions from the lowest to the highest values are associated with glacial-interglacial transitions. During these transitions, the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rises from 180 to 280-300 ppmv (Petit et al. 1999). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr. Pre-industrial Holocene levels (~280 ppmv) are found during all interglacials, with the highest values (~300 ppmv) found approximately 323 kyr BP. When the Vostok ice core data were compared with other ice core data (Delmas et al. 1980; Neftel et al. 1982) for the past 30,000 – 40,000 years, good agreement was found between the records: all show low CO2 values [~200 parts per million by volume (ppmv)] during the Last Glacial Maximum and increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations associated with the glacial-Holocene transition. According to Barnola et al. (1991) and Petit et al. (1999) these measurements indicate that, at the beginning of the deglaciations, the CO2 increase either was in phase or lagged by less than ~1000 years with respect to the Antarctic temperature, whereas it clearly lagged behind the temperature at the onset of the glaciations.
Individuals studies are never conclusive but this is quality science.
I’m not interested in what you think you know. I am interested in why you think you know it.
You are putting the cart before the horse. CO2 rises hundreds of years after temperature.
Warm seawater holds less CO2 than cold seawater. When temperatures rise, the oceans outgas CO2 – raising atmospheric CO2. First year geology which government scientists should understand, but many don’t.
So it is pure coincidence that Vostock and other studies shows a relationship between temperature and CO2 going back 400,000? Even if there is a historical lag time (sometimes) between the two, that is weather thinking, not climate. That lag time has been much less the past 100 years. If humans stopped putting CO2 in the atmosphere today, it would take 1000 years for what we have put up there to leave the atmosphere.
“When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth’s orbit. The warming causes the oceans to release CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise. Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurs after the CO2 increase.”
You didn’t comprehend a single word I wrote.
It goes both ways it seems. You don’t get or care to understand where I am coming from either. It is just the nature of the intellectual dishonesty of your site.
ROFL
Whenever someone wants to have an honest discussion on specific science points and you all don’t want to engage, or can’t; you resort to the last refuge of a scoundrel, the personal insult. Pathetic.
Illiterates, as usual, chime in with bafflegab that doesn’t apply to reality.
Hansen’s “Scenario B” doesn’t apply to reality (Business as Usual (ie continued emission growth)), so Nutters is applying the wrong scenario. Nutters also doesn’t seem to understand where the temperatures start, either. The third problem is lying about what Lindzen has said, which this limp-dick does as well.
Also, linking to a liar’s article to prove that a liar isn’t lying is a great tactic, let me tell ya.
I guess someone could possibly point out where cancer has something to do with global warming. Sounds like the typical soft-headed thinking that Toasties engage in.
While Hansen’s model is obviously wrong, it would help if you knew what you were talking about before commenting on it.
Technically you are right, Hansen’s model is wrong, but only as a 1988 science datum. From a science standpoint, what is wrong with taking a 1988 statement and making it apples to apples with current, evolved science. Hansen’s climate model used a high climate sensitivity parameter. Had he used the currently accepted value of approximately 3°C warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, Hansen would have correctly projected the ensuing global warming. Changing the climate sensitivity factor to the currently accepted value does not change the efficacy of Hansen being on the right track. He is hardly the fraud Steve claims.
Hansen said scenario A is BAU. He says now that we are continuing with BAU.
The only rational conclusion is scenario A
Given that Dana Nutters is claiming Hansen’s 1988 prediction is correct, you really don’t make a lot of sense when you say stupid things like this.
If Nutters wanted to lie about a different prediction, he should have started by bringing up a different prediction.
Tu quoque.
Here ya go (from the article you couldn’t be bothered to link or quote):
“He’ll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking.”
This is not a quote from Lindzen. This is also not the same as “no link”. You are an idiot & illiterate if you cannot tell the difference between weakly linked & no link.
At least with smoking, smokers were dying prematurely. There is no such dramatic affect from alleged global warming, so that comparison is not valid. They were not trying to claim that smoking was going to kill your grandchildren. If they had, people would have laughed in their face.
Second hand smoke has also been conclusively proven to be injurious to one’s health. Even conservatives don’t want to be around it. The Guardian was my first source, goggle and you will see a whole list of sources that mention Lindzen defending the tobacco industry. You will also see that Lindzen has been wrong on just about everything to do with climate science as well. Defending tobacco and bogus climate climate will be his lasting legacy.
This talk of tobacco is beside the point. Some would even say it is a strawman issue in this context. The fact is whatever scenario is considered, observed temperatures are still running below them.
What does second hand smoking have to do with climate change? Nothing. You’re just handwaving. I could easily bring up that the chronic vitamin D deficiency is responsible for cancers. You fail. Lindzen is right.
Lindzen defending the tobacco industry? Um, no, Lindzen points out the shoddy ‘science’ used to condemn the tobacco industry. But what of the saint Michael Mann?
“Do NOT miss this: Look who’s representing climate hoax promoter Michael Mann…
Being represented by experienced defamation lawyer John B. Williams of Cozen O’Conner… Cozen O’Connor People: John B. Williams
In 2001, John successfully represented R.J. Reynolds in the three-month Blue Cross/Blue Shield RICO trial before Judge Jack B. Weinstein.
Advertising Litigation — John has significant experience in all types of advertising litigation, including cases brought by the Federal Trade Commission, cases brought by the state attorneys general, consumer class actions, and private Lanham Act litigation. He successfully defended R.J. Reynolds in the commercial speech case filed by the Federal Trade Commission challenging the cartoon character, Joe Camel. He successfully defended Mobil Oil Corporation when seven state attorneys general, as well as the FTC, challenged Mobil’s Hefty degradable bag claim…”
Now back to the science skippy.
If the evidence is so clear to them and their understanding is so definitive why are alarmists unwilling to debate detractors (skeptics, deniers) to demonstrate to their audience how their understanding is so unassailable?
If AGW was a genuine emergency based on genuine, reproducible experimental evidence it’s adherents would be so eager to debate that no force on this planet could stop them.
The fact that it’s main scientific proponents have censored themselves tells everybody everything they need to know about the scientific validity of the AGW premise.
Real scientists with real scientific understanding of real impending disasters would never let scientific illiterates, politicians, and movie stars deliver their message.
Real scientists are eager to debate.
Real scientists stop at nothing to create/establish conceptual clarity
Real scientists who genuinely believe in impending disaster would be eager to be proven wrong.
In contrast, phoney scientists keep their scientific details obscure, vague and pepper their narrative with alarmists statements because they know that these tactics will insure that their alarmist message will never be disproven and the flow of cash chasing the phoney emergency will never stop.
The way to stop AGW alarmism, or any science based fraud, is to allow its proponents no to escape from debating their scientific opponents.
Specifically, congress needs to enact laws that anybody receiving federal funds in science has an obligation to debate their scientific details in a public forum and has no right to draw federal funds if they are not willing to debate/discuss these details.
Hansen was wrong every which way. CO2 Emissions increased more then he projected, The earth warmed less then his scenario C, reduce to zero all emission growth. That is the story, and it is not controversial. Politically CAGW should be dead.
(All the rest is pedantic academic haggling, fit for a class room, unfit for policy).
Models don’t predict CO2, models do “what ifs.” “If CO2 is this, temperatures will do that.” Also, scenario C was the outlier, scenario B was in the middle scenario and considered the more likely and now proven accurate scenario. You mention “policy”, your policy is “what me worry”, everyone should just agree with me.
Climate models are GIGO, and nothing more.
Wrong, he did make predictions on emissions depending on policy, He was wrong on emissions, they increased more then A. He was wrong on CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere. He was very wrong on resulting mean T, which is below scenario C. My policy is that drought, hurricane and disastrous SL rise is not and has not happened, but every crop on the planet grows more food on less water, due to the CO2 increase. Your policy destroys wealth and leads to greater pollution, as poverty always does.
Also my policy makes no demand on what other people do. Feel free to worry yourself silly. I guess that you have. Your policy is the one telling me what to do, how to behave and redistribute other peoples income, to no affect anyway, except greater society depression and a reduced middle class.
Didn’t C02 peak at the of the last ice age? And doesn’t it lag warming temperatures by about 800 years?
Admittedly, I’m a novice about this subject.
“When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth’s orbit. The warming causes the oceans to release CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2
causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise. Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurs after the CO2 increase.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=33
Yes, and the last 17 years bears this out. Really.
Funny, when you actually follow the references used to make SkS claim, you get…
Cuffy 2001: “using a model…”
Stott 2007: “The cause of this deep water warming does not lie within the tropics, nor can its early onset… Be attributed to CO2 forcing.”
Callion 2003: “The following conclusions are based on the assumption… And so they must be considered tentative.”
Settled science! 😆