Perhaps my comment was rejected because it included a link to that notorious denier site.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/14/nsidcs-dr-walt-meier-part-2/
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
- “pushing nature past its limits”
- Compassion For Terrorists
- Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- Maldives Underwater By 2050
- Woke Grok
- Grok Explains Gender
- Humans Like Warmer Climates
- Homophobic Greenhouse Gases
- Grok Explains The Effects Of CO2
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2027
- Red Hot Australia
- EPA : 17.5 Degrees Warming By 2050
- “Winter temperatures colder than last ice age
- Big Oil Saved The Whales
- Guardian 100% Inheritance Tax
- Kerry, Blinken, Hillary And Jefferson
- “Climate Change Indicators: Heat Waves”
- Combating Bad Weather With Green Energy
- Flooding Mar-a-Lago
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2020
- Colorless, Odorless CO2
- EPA Climate Change Arrest
Recent Comments
- arn on Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- Disillusioned on Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- Gamecock on “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
- Disillusioned on “pushing nature past its limits”
- Disillusioned on “pushing nature past its limits”
- czechlist on “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
- Jehzsa on “pushing nature past its limits”
- arn on Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- dm on Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- dm on “pushing nature past its limits”
Hi Goddard, Mosher was attempting his usual hit and runs aimed at my comment there. I put him and others right.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/23/sea-ice-news-volume-5-2-noaa-forecasts-above-normal-arctic-ice-extent-for-summer/#comment-1644732
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/23/sea-ice-news-volume-5-2-noaa-forecasts-above-normal-arctic-ice-extent-for-summer/#comment-1644726
So why do you think my comment was rejected?
Are you a permanent ‘persona non grata’ at WUWT now, or just on specific comments?
If permanent, when did that happen?
Thanks.
I don’t know why your comment was rejected.
You just haven’t lived right; I have, and it had NOTHING to do with the comment.
.
I’m dissapointed to see WUWT rejected your comment. Trolls get banned from time to time, but only after several warnings to be honest and truthful. This is the first time I have seen WUWT reject a reasonable comment. Anthony owes you an explanation. I hope it was an honest error.
Do not assume malice when other reasons abound; I have had this occur on more than just one occasion.
So why do you think my comment was rejected?
===
Steve, it’s happened to me too….I asked CTM about it and he said when they’re doing something with the blog, it’s more likely to happen….said just post it again….I did, and it worked
Correct. They often praise Steven Goddard there. If you put in a link, it sometimes crashes the comment.
Your comment was rejected because Anthony Watts is a sophist just like any other alarmist. Anthony Watts is an opportunist and feeds off of the climate to-and-fro, he will do everything and anything he can to continue the debate and keep it going as long as he can. For years I was a WUWT blog addict, but I have finally seen clearly what Watts and company really are. I would suggest it is time that you wake up to those FACTS as well. Don’t get me wrong, Watts has done some good things along the way, but that is not cover for what/who he really is.
Who needs ice at the poles? They have only been glaciated for 15 million years, and again about 30 million. North and South pole had no ice whatsoever during the Eocine Optimum:
http://www.hyzercreek.com/IceAge65.jpg
The earth is much too cold now, and is carbon starved. We need to add as much CO2 to the air as we can.
Exactly. I don’t understand the fascination with having something covered with ice. An ice-free Arctic is desirable. Europe-Orient shipping would be greatly simplified. The Northwest Passage was the dream for centuries.
During the PETM, mammals greatly flourished and spread around the world, including the poles. All life on land flourished. Do we really need to worry about the freaking ice at the poles?
It took 2000 gigatons of carbon to make the PETM and we are only adding 8 gigatons a year. Do you think we can try harder? Obama needs to decrease the price of gas and oil so we can afford to make more CO2.
Yes they always neglect to mention that the tropics pretty much stay the same temperature while the high latitudes get warmer or colder.
So where does everyone want to go to retire or vacation? A tropical paradise.
Yeah, so why can’t we bring the tropics here? Retire every weekend, and at night. Wear flip flops to work.
Why the heck do you think I left the Boston MA area to move just north of Fayettville NC?
We get the change of seasons. Mountains, seashore, Jordan Lake rec area and just enough snow to remind us why we moved south . {:>D
I just got that same error message on your *own* web site, so I am now switching from iPhone to a homebuilt GOOD CAPACITOR PC.
You can’t just lay down the law in terms of victimology.
Well yes you can, in survivalist circles.
On a much more serious note, I am highly encouraged that one Steven Goddard is exploring psychology and the ridiculously soft Marxist “science” of sociology. John Ray put in professional effort into it and claimed it was all about hate, not just envy, in other words pure evil or possibly righteous wrath, instead of just that which is pathetic.
His masthead for about a year exclaimed that leftism wasn’t envy, just hate.
Now it says:
“Until you accept that the aim of Leftists is to hurt, not help, none of their actions makes sense
Leftism, Liberalism, Progressivism are all words for the politics of hate. They hate the world about them.
And with motivations like that behind them, principles pass them by like a fart in a breeze.”
But before that, Archive.org shows a more subtle aspect:
Oops…I am finding different mastheads:
“It’s the shared hatred of the rest of us that unites Islamists and the Left.
American liberals don’t love America. They despise it. All they love is their own fantasy of what America could become. They are false patriots.
The Democratic Party: Con-men elected by the ignorant and the arrogant.
The Republicans are the gracious side of American politics. It is the Democrats who are the nasty party.”
Here is the variation I meant to debate:
“The Democratic Party is a strange amalgam of elites, would-be elites and minorities. No wonder their policies are so confused and irrational.”
No, that’s not the quote.
I tried.
Steve? You are a bit crazy. Exactly because you are not vacationing in NYC.
There is now social ENERGY behind the [snip] in power who say “you didn’t build that.”
I’m so sorry to let you in on this urban living secret.
If you continue trying to sabotage my site, you will be banned.
Your posts always start out on track, but you some how become incoherent about 2 paragraphs in – every time. So, if I may ask, what are you babbling about?
No wonder Nik hates the Iron Sun guy, too much competition.
I think I meant to say there is “no” social ENERGY behind the [snip] in power…”
…instead of saying there is “now” social ENERGY behind it.
But maybe I am wrong?
Either way, you need to lay off the Jimson weed
perhaps this?
http://en.forums.wordpress.com/topic/sorry-this-comment-could-not-be-posted-error-1?replies=19#post-1850908
I’ve had those “Sorry, this comment could be posted” messages on WUWT before and all it required to rectify the situation was logging back into WordPress and then I could re-post the comment … don’t ask me why. I do bounce around between several different PCs, so that could be part of it.
One should not assume malice when simple authentication and security ‘processes’ interrupt one’s posting.
.
Errata, make that: “Sorry, this comment could not be posted”
I think there has been a change in procedure at WUWT. I used to post freely, now all my posts are held for moderation. None has been rejected.
Multiple links and certain keywords trigger this; you are not alone in this department.
Just don’t criticize Anthony Watts or his sidekick Willis, you can get yourself banned in a jiffy. Happened to me with a relatively mild, sincere and honest criticism. Then he and Willis turned into total dicks. I have read many very similar complaints over the past year or so. I have found WUWT to be a boring echo chamber with too high of a degree of bullshit and sophistry.
I will stick with blogs like this one, thank you very much. Keep up the great work Steven!
Willis is one of the reasons why I don’t visit WUWT much anymore. And one of Anthony’s most recent posts on NOAA changing their color scheme for temperature maps is another example. Anthony tries too hard to be liked and respected by the very scumbags who are pushing us into modern slavery.
Steven tells it like it is. Something which I decided to do a few years back, even if it costs me friends, which in a few cases it has.
Anthony can pander all he likes, and Willis can ramble on about nothing all he likes, I just won’t be a regular visitor.
The Attack Dogs savaging Tall Bloke and Nicola Scafetta over peer-review is what turned me completely off. Especially given the fact it continued though multiple posts. The viciousness was completely uncalled for with the fallout being a major schism among Skeptics.
The words “divide and conquer” comes to mind.
Sounds like a software/hardware glitch. On the one or to occasions my comments have been deleted @ WUWT I got a “Comment off topic” or whatever.
Normally I get stuck in moderation. Sometimes on a one sentence post with no links.
Hard to imagine seeing that happen to you, Gail … ;^)
Mosher has appointed himself chief clown and head promoter of the Muller way.
The thing about Mosh’s comments that make them so funny is his effort to sound like an expert.
Incoherent rambling: Uninteresting
Incoherent rambling, while trying to sound like an expert: Hilarious
I noticed you used the ‘Mosher comment format’. 🙂
In any case Mosher’s point is… what ?
The entire basin is full of ice. Isn’t that correct ?
In our culture we have a word for people like him. Putz.
Love that word … a “putz” ! Though, I would put Mosher in the “schmuck” category.
I grew up with many Jewish friends and found their Yiddish ‘slang’ most entertaining.
“Putz
–noun Slang. 1. fool; jerk.
2. Vulgar. penis[Origin: 1900–05; < Yiddish puts lit., ornament, finery, prob. n. deriv. of putsn to clean, shine; cf. early mod. G butzen to decorate (G putzen to clean, brighten)]
–schmuck also shmuck (shm?k)
n. Slang
A clumsy or stupid person; an oaf.
[Yiddish shmok, penis, fool, probably from Polish smok, serpent, tail.]
So he's a putz because he dresses up his idiocy, and displays his foolishness proudly, while your average schmuck tries to hide it.
Here is what ice free means : extent or area less than 1 million sq km
====
I’m having a hard time wrapping my brain around the fact that something the size of Egypt….does not exist
My thoughts exactly.
I am sure the captain of the Titanic would have agreed that 1 million sq km of ice floating in the North Atlantic is NOT free of ice.
I was sick of getting brain freeze at Dunkin Donuts, so I asked for a ice-free and they put a square kilometer of ice in my Coolatta.
I mean a million square kilometers!
Agreed. Only a consensus climate scientist would define a miilion sq km as “ice free”. And Mosher of course brandishes the absurd definition in a puerile attempt to score points against Steven Goddard.
A million square kilometres? I think that Mosher is growing weak. A REAL climate scientists would say that “ice free” means FIVE million square kilometres. No! Let’s make it TEN million! Yeah, that’s it. “Ice free” now means less than ten million square kilometres. That was easy. It turns out that we have been ice free every summer as far back as we know. Yes, it really is even worse that we thought! Again, not only have our predictions, uh, “senarios”, been correct, they have been understating the truth.
Steve,
I have received that same message at WUWT anytime I try to use my WordPress account for the last few weeks. At the same time I can use my Twitter account for the same message without any problems. I think it is a WordPress problem.
There are things at WUWT that will get you on the moderation list, but this is a different type of situation it looks like.
~ Mark
I get multiple requests to sign-in, even when I’m already signed on to my WordPress account. This doesn’t happen anywhere else. It such a pain that I don’t often go to WUWT.
Dang Gail! I have never got that one and now I feel I must try harder. You are getting ahead of me. 🙂
That was from the Moderator back when I was trying to get people to see that CAGW was a POLITICAL problem and not a science problem. Real scientists really hate being dragged kicking and screaming into politics, which says a lot about the CAGW crowd.
All my comments at WUWT currently vanish; without “in moderation” display, but later appear. I guess they undergo special rendition and waterboarding before they get posted. Reason is political as well; and a misunderstanding on WUWT’s part, but impossible to clear up.
DirkH, what did you do to get put on the “special watch list”? Are you one of those who has never seen any proof that “greenhouse gases” act in the manner that we are told they do? Or is your crime something else?
~ Mark
… probably they are being held up in ‘customs’. Or maybe an NSA queue of some sort …
Something else. But it’s kind of a guess so it’s no use talking about it.
I”m not sure why, but if I stay on line on WordPress for a long period, (especially if I get called away from my computer “for a minute” and come back eight hours later,) there are certain processes that don’t work. Maybe there are anti-virus systems that think there is something fishy about long periods of inactivity, or even about being on line actively for a long time. In any case, if I log off and then log back on, everything seems to work fine again.
markstoval says:
May 24, 2014 at 9:14 pm
DirkH, what did you do to get put on the “special watch list”? Are you one of those who has never seen any proof that “greenhouse gases” act in the manner that we are told they do? Or is your crime something else?
>>>>>>
Anthony supports the greenhouse “science”. If you do not, you are censored.
I don’t buy that at all. And I dare say, you would be very hard pressed to support that assertion with objective evidence.
I’m not hard pressed at all to support that assertion, I am no longer allowed to comment there.
You can perform a test, if you are so inclined. Just try to repeatedly comment that CO2 is not causing any warming. Explain why.
If you don’t get censored, let me know. Maybe I need a mustache….
“ CO2 is not causing any warming. Explain why. ”
“is not CAUSING any warming” or “is not CAPABLE of causing any warming”?
Two different animals … and one buys you a ticket at the ‘Slayer’s Ball’ …
.
geran,
Anyone who thinks CO2 does not bounce photons back towards earth is considered a “Slayer” at WUWT and is liable to get a lot of flak or outright banned.
WUWT is trying to stay middle of the road. This seems to be the position taken by WUWT:
1, Yes CO2 does bounce 50% of the IR absorbed from the earth back towards earth.
2. No the CO2 effect does not get multiplied by a factor of three because of water vapor. (The evidence on water vapor shows it is not correlated with an increase of CO2 and may actually be negatively correlated.)
3. The climate sensitivity to CO2 is probably ~1 °C per doubling not the 3 – 6°C the IPCC has been pushing.
4. The ‘IPCC’ climate models do not reflect reality.
5. Models do a very poor job with clouds.
6. The Climate is “Chaotic” and therefore models will never work past the short term.
6. The sun is stable not variable and therefore does not effect climate.
7. Cycles, especially those related to the sun do not exist.
8. The weather/climate oscillations we see are generally from the oceans and are intrinsic to the earth climate system and not influenced by outside forces like the sun or moon.
(This is my opinion of the general attitude at WUWT but I certainly may be incorrect.)
Uh, you asked for evidence that Anthony censored those that DENIED CO2 could heat the planet.
I indicated my experience. Now, you are bouncing in another direction. That indicates you know debate techniques, and how to obfuscate and confuse.
And, that disqualifies you for the Ball.
Anthony has censored or banned those he terms “Slayers” I have certainly seen it.
Gail,
I will be teaching at NCSU from June 2 through 6.
https://onece.ncsu.edu/mckimmon/divisionUnits/tts/fiberOptics.jsp
Let’s make a spirited attempt to meet this time. Just email me at so I can send you my contact information.
This web site is so smart that it deleted my email address!
You can easily find my email address at the gallopingcamel.info website.
Thanks for the confirming evidence, Gail.
(For the record, I am not anti-WUWT. I think Anthony was one of the original heroes in the war against the Big Lie of AGW. I have followed his blog for years, and have even been a contributor. I have told him I hope he makes a billion dollars. He relies on science and math “experts”, and I’ve suggested he needs some better ones, but he knows more about running a successful blog than I do.)
geran,
You are correct to say that CO2 does not cause warming. If it did we would have nailed down the sensitivity constant by now.
On the other hand, the contrary hypothesis (warming causes CO2) has plenty of hard evidence to support it:
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/the-dog-that-did-not-bark/
http://notrickszone.com/2013/06/19/reader-jeff-glassman-comments-on-murry-salby-and-co2-climate-forcing/
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/attachment.php?aid=125
re: gallopingcamel says May 25, 2014 at 1:55 pm
geran,
You are correct to say that CO2 does not cause warming.
You really have to qualify this, or look really, really stupid.
It shows a) that you and several others are still quite willfully ignorant of EM energy and its action at the molecular level and b) also willfully quite ignorant of the field of IR Spectroscopy.
.
usJim,
I would not accuse you of being ignorant but you may be brainwashed. Why not reject the propaganda, look at the hard evidence and come to your own conclusions. At least take the time to read the links I provided that show temperature driving CO2.
If you want to explain temperature in terms of [CO2] you have to be able to vary the sensitivity constant depending the time scale. For example the last seven glaciations can be explained if the sensitivity constant is 16 K/doubling.
You can explain the warming since 1850 by assuming the sensitivity constant is 1.6 K/doubling. So which one is correct?
There is no correct answer because the hypothesis is false. That does not stop people like James Hansen from publishing nonsense based on his obsession with CO2. Take a look at slide #35 attributed to the guru of “Carbocentrisme”.
Hansen shows 16 K/halving and 4.5 K/doubling in one slide. Pure genius!
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/planetary_atmospheres/presentations/Catling.pdf
Gail Combs said:
“1, Yes CO2 does bounce 50% of the IR absorbed from the earth back towards earth.”
That single layer radiative transfer model makes perfect sense in the stratosphere where the pressure is low, so that excited molecules can radiate a photon before giving up their excess energy via collisions with other molecules.
Down at sea level on Earth gas molecules are colliding every ~200 pico-seconds. The lifetime of excited states for complex molecules such as water and CO2 is measured in micro-seconds. There simply is not time for excited molecules to emit radiation.
Thanks!
re: gallopingcamel says May 25, 2014 at 5:49 am
…
Down at sea level on Earth gas molecules are colliding every ~200 pico-seconds. The lifetime of excited states for complex molecules such as water and CO2 is measured in micro-seconds. There simply is not time for excited molecules to emit radiation.
What is the time ‘period’ for one cycle of an oscillation in the 4 micron CO2 ‘absorption’ band?
I think it may be orders of magnitude less than microseconds. The oscillating or ‘moving’ charges creating EM radiation from a CO2 molecule continuously absorb and re-radiate EM energy, there is no ‘storage’ mechanism involved, nor some threshold below which EM radiation ceases. AS long as a molecule is ‘wiggling’, it’s radiating (the ONLY way to stop it is to STOP the vibratory movement within the molecule) …
.
Gail,
The way to kill dubious theories is to build a physical model that accurately predicts temperatures at all altitiudes in planetary atmospheres.
Recently, Robinson & Catling produced such a model that works for the Troposphere, Tropopause and Stratosphere on all seven bodies with significant atmospheres in our solar system. No doubt it can be extended to cover the Mesosphere as well if anyone cares.
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/robinson-and-catling-model-closely-matches-data-for-titans-atmosphere/
Thanks for the link (Verity’s) and Yes I really do want to connect this time.
That’s impressive.
“The R&C model matches the probe data really well whereas the N&K plot does not”
From my point of view, it’s more like:
“The R&C model matches the probe data almost perfectly whereas the N&K plot is utter bollocks”
usJim (above) states
“You really have to qualify this, or look really, really stupid.
It shows a) that you and several others are still quite willfully ignorant of EM energy and its action at the molecular level and b) also willfully quite ignorant of the field of IR Spectroscopy.”
>>>>>
It shows a) that you and several others are still quite willfully ignorant of EM energy and its action at the molecular level and b) also willfully quite ignorant of the field of IR Spectroscopy.
You really have to qualify this, or look really, really stupid.
Hint 1, Jim: If you make insinuations based on false accusations, you only demonstrate your inability to reason.
Hint2, Jim: If it comes from the IPCC, it is most likely NOT science.
usJim,
Please accept my apologies for assuming that you had not taken the time to read the links I sent.
While I am a physicist, I am not a climate scientist. My field is quantum electro-optics; I have been building lasers since 1970 for fun and profit, starting with dye lasers and finishing with the HIGS (High Intensity Gamma Source):
https://www.phy.duke.edu/content/gamma-ray-production-storage-ring-free-electron-laser-2
I only mentiion this as my understanding of the way that lasers work causes me to doubt the single layer radiative transfer model used by Kevin Trenberth, Michael Mann and others when they claim a “Forcing” of several Watts/square meter caused by CO2.
The main absorption lines for CO2 that relate to the capture of thermal IR from the Earth’s surface are in the 4 and 15 micron bands. The corresponding frequencies are 75 and 20 Tera-Hertz. The periods are 0.013 and 0.050 femto-seconds.
As you correctly point out, these periods are shorter than the mean time between molecular collisions by at least seven orders of magnitude. However, a molecule cannot emit a photon unless it has first been raised to an “excited state”. The lifetime of these excited states is typically measured in micro-seconds or milli-seconds.
If left undisturbed, excited atoms or molecules will eventually give up their excess energy via radiative transitions to lower energy states or via collisions with other molecules. When total pressure is low, radiative transfer dominates so the outgoing radiation is absorbed by CO2 (or water vapor) is re-radiated isotropically. This means that half of the outgoing radiation is returned to the surface exactly as claimed by Trenberth & Co.
In the troposphere the mean time between collisions is quite short (~200 pico-seconds) so most of the outgoing IR radiation absorbed by complex molecules will be lost in collisions before a photon can be radiated. This means that in the lower atmosphere it makes no difference whether the energy is transfered by radiation or by convection. In either case the energy is retained in the troposphere.
Currently, I am a big fan of the Robinson & Catling atmosperic model:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n1/full/ngeo2020.html
Thank you gallopingcamel.
I always thought the problem with the CO2 causes warming theory was TIME but this is the first time I have ever seen it actually laid out in a manner people like me can understand.
Your comment is a real keeper!