The 1970s Ice Age Myth and Time Magazine Covers – by David Kirtley

Spread the love

This is a guest post by David Kirtley. David originally posted this as a Google Doc, and I’m reproducing his work here with his permission. Just the other day I was speaking to a climate change skeptic who made mention of an old Time or Newsweek (he was not sure) article that talked about fears of a coming ice age. There were in fact a number of articles back in the 1970s that discussed the whole Ice Age problem, and I’m not sure what my friend was referring to. But here, David Kirtley places a recent meme that seems to be an attempt to diffuse concern about global warming because we used to be worried about global cooling. The meme, however, is not what it seems to be. And, David places the argument that Ice Age Fears were important and somehow obviate the science in context.

<

h3>The 1970s Ice Age Myth and Time Magazine Covers
– by David Kirtley

A few days ago a facebook friend of mine posted the following image:

From the 1977 cover we can see that apparently a new ice age was supposed to arrive. Only 30 years later, according to the 2006 cover, global warming is supposed to be the problem. But the cover on the left isn’t from 1977. It actually is this Time cover from April 9, 2007:

As you can see, the cover title has nothing to do with an imminent ice age, it’s about global warming, as we might expect from a 2007 Time magazine.

The faked image illustrates one of the fake-skeptics’ favorite myths: The 1970s Ice Age Scare. It goes something like this:

  • In the 1970s the scientists were all predicting global cooling and a future ice age.
  • The media served as the scientists’ lapdog parroting the alarming news.
  • The ice age never came—the scientists were dead wrong.
  • Now those same scientists are predicting global warming (or is it “climate change” now?)

The entire purpose of this myth is to suggest that scientists can’t be trusted, that they will say/claim/predict whatever to get their names in the newspapers, and that the media falls for it all the time. They were wrong about ice ages in the 1970s, they are wrong now about global warming.

But why fake the 1977 cover? Since, according to the fake-skeptics, there was so much news coverage of the imminent ice age why not just use a real 1970s cover?

I searched around on Time’s website and looked through all of the covers from the 1970s. I was shocked (shocked!) to find not a single cover with the promise of an in-depth, special report on the Coming Ice Age. What about this cover from December 1973 with Archie Bunker shivering in his chair entitled “The Big Freeze”? Nope, that’s about the Energy Crisis. Maybe this cover from January 1977, again entitled “The Big Freeze”? Nope, that’s about the weather. How about this one from December 1979, “The Cooling of America”? Again with the Energy Crisis.


Check out: Ubuntu and Linux Books

___________________

Now, there really were news articles in the 1970s about scientists predicting a coming ice age. Time had a piece called “Another Ice Age?” in 1974. Time’s competition, Newsweek, joined in with “The Cooling World” in 1975. People have collected lists and lists of “Coming Ice Age” stories from newspapers, magazines, books, tv shows, etc. throughout the 1970s.

But if it was such a big news story why did it never make the cover of America’s flagship news magazine like the faked image implies? Perhaps there is more to the story.

In the 1970s there were a few developments in climate science:

  • Scientists were finding answers to the puzzle of what caused ice ages in the past: variations in earth’s orbit.
  • Scientists were gathering data from around the world to come up with global average temperatures, and they found that temperatures had been cooling since about the 1940s.
  • Scientists were realizing that some of this cooling was due to increasing air pollution (soot and aerosols, tiny particles suspended in the air) which was decreasing the amount of solar energy entering the atmosphere.
  • Scientists were also quantifying the “greenhouse effect” of another part of our increasing pollution: carbon dioxide (CO2), which should cause the climate to warm.

The realization that very long cycles in earth’s orbit could cause the waxing and waning of ice ages, coupled with the fact that our soot and aerosols were already causing cooling, led some scientists to conclude that we may be headed for another ice age. Exactly when was still a little unclear. However, the warming effects of CO2 had been known for over a century, and new research in the 1970s was showing that CO2 warming would more than compensate for the cooling caused by aerosols, resulting in net warming.


Check out: Books on programming, especially for kids
________________________________

This, in a very brief nutshell, was the state of climate science in the 1970s. And so the media of the time published many stories about a coming ice age, which made for timely reading during some very cold winters. But many news stories also mentioned that other important detail about CO2: that our climate might soon change due to global warming. In 1976 Time published “The World’s Climate: Unpredictable” which is a very good summary of the then current scientific thinking: some scientists emphasized aerosols and cooling, some scientists emphasized CO2 and warming. There was no consensus either way. Many other 1970s articles which mention a Coming Ice Age also mention the possibility of increased warming due to CO2. For instance, here, here and here.

Fake-skeptics read these stories and only focus on the Coming Ice Age angle, and they enlarge the importance of those scientists who focused on that angle. They totally ignore the rest of the picture of 1970s climate science: that increasing CO2 would cause global warming.

The purpose of the image of the two Time magazine covers, and of the Coming Ice Age Myth, is not to show the real history of climate science, but to obscure that history and to cause confusion. It seems to be working. Because today, when there really is a consensus about climate science and 97% of climatologists agree that adding CO2 to the atmosphere is leading to climate change, only 45% of the public know about that consensus. The other 55% must think we’re still in the 1970s when scientists were still debating the issue. Seems newsworthy to me, maybe Time will run another cover story on it.

To learn more see:

Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:

In Search of Sungudogo by Greg Laden, now in Kindle or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.

Spread the love

837 thoughts on “The 1970s Ice Age Myth and Time Magazine Covers – by David Kirtley

  1. 1400GMT
    CO says: “Thus, anthropogenically produced tropospheric aerosols cannot be looked on as offsetting the warming tendency of increased carbon dioxide: their concurrent buildups MUST INEXORABLY tend to warm the planet’s surface.”

    The poor drooler will never understand the meaning of the words “tend” or “quantify.” Nobody disputes such a statement, least of all Idso at any point in his career. And yet Idso and son are renowned skeptics. Will that ever register in CO’s brain? Nope. –AGF

    1. “And yet Idso and son are renowned skeptics.”

      No, he is not a skeptic, nor is he “renowned.” Idso is a known denier of observed reality who has denied reality for political gain and economic greed. See the web page about him here:

      http://www.desmogblog.com/craig-idso

      (By the way, all well-known scientists are renowned skeptics, Sub-Genius.)

  2. He’s completely shameless.

    Or he’s too socially primitive to accept that his attempts at saving face are just making him look ridiculous–the core of head in the sand denial.

    At this point you’re just talking to agf ostrich butt.

  3. @306.A G Foster :

    StevoR: What on earth would make you ask whether I or Bryson or any other CACC skeptic doubts the GHG effect of water vapor? ..

    Your comments here upthread.

    .. It overwhelms CO2, as the realists have been saying for decades, and there is very little CO2 IR bandwidth not covered by water vapor. Water vapor and cloud feedback have always been the great unknowns which the alarmists assumed to be positive and significant, but which time has shown to be fairly insignificant.

    Oh my FSM seriously ya schmuck? No. See :

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAtD9aZYXAs&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33&index=70

    From back in 2009 – but entertainingly and memorably explaining an accurate scientific explanation that goes back much further.

    Just how dumb exactly do you think climatologists are, dude? Just how ignorant of scientific facts and history here are you?

    Why does NOAA do that? It’s no different from NASA GISS, which was run for years by James Hansen.

    Because they’re actual climatologists and scientists who know what they are talking about and doing? Nah, couldn’t be could it?

    (Do I really need a sarc tag?)

    Obama? Pretty sure he had nothing to do with doing any actual science here but if you know about any peer reviewed paper he’s published – as opposed to just listened to and respected, then please let me know.

    And many glaciers continue to uncover MWP forests as they melt, in both hemispheres. –AGF

    Many glaciers, melting, in both hemispheres. hmm .. now I wonder why that might be?

    (Also citation needed – even just name say five specific examples of such petrified forests?)

    Oh & again, what do you think explains the current global overheating if it isn’t being caused by GHG emissions from Humanity?

    1. @306.A G Foster : StevoR: What on earth would make you ask whether I or Bryson or any other CACC skeptic doubts the GHG effect of water vapor?

      I’m still waiting to learn WTF a “CACC skeptic” is.

    2. V: Oh & again, what do you think explains the current global overheating if it isn’t being caused by GHG emissions from Humanity?

      Anything and everything except human-released greenhouse gases, obviously. You know: the invisible, never-specified reasons no scientists are aware of but only deniers of the laws of physics are aware of. Jesus, maybe, or space aliens, or Sedona Vortexii.

  4. ” So would 2015 top an extension of surface to 100mb? Not very likely. ”

    Of course it would be unlikely, since at 100 mb you are looking at the stratospheric contribution, which is expected (and shown) to cool when the troposphere warms due to GHG forcing. Hence also the reason 200 mb is so low on the list for 2015: stratospheric contamination in the signal.

    I explained that to you before, but unexpectedly, this apparently went straight over your head. After all, it contradicts what you hold as true.

  5. 1730GMT
    Let me repeat myself:

    A G Foster

    April 19, 2016
    0240GMT
    There are two kinds of people here, those who drool out of the left side of their mouth and those who drool out the right. I just don’t see anyone or anything worth responding to. I’m swimming in slobber. –AGF

  6. 2010GMT

    StevoR thinks I’m making up the “petrified” trees (of course they’re not petrified, being only a few centuries old). All the doomsday cultists have to be educated from scratch. Here are some samples:

    Mendenhall Glacier:
    http://juneauempire.com/outdoors/2013-09-13/ancient-trees-emerge-frozen-forest-tomb#.Ujsn03_iSeZ
    Exit Glacier:
    http://www.nps.gov/kefj/learn/nature/upload/The%20Retreat%20of%20Exit%20Glacier.pdf
    Jorge Montt Glacier:
    http://www.clim-past.net/8/403/2012/cp-8-403-2012.pdf
    Bering Glacier (p.ix):
    https://books.google.com/books?id=TlZG658NZYcC&pg=PR9&lpg=PR9&dq=dating+glaciers+by+forest+remnants&source=bl&ots=lBo_ZDTd1C&sig=jfPiGmWGUMLizGBrvwJA6TPBUgM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7PZZVZikINiwogShs4CYDg&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=dating%20glaciers%20by%20forest%20remnants&f=false
    Eight glaciers from Prince William Sound (all with forest remnants):
    http://web.cortland.edu/barclayd/publications/1999b_Holocene.pdf
    A collection of Canadian glaciers:
    http://www.uwpcc.washington.edu/documents/PCC/menounos_2009.pdf
    Five Patagonian glaciers:
    http://www.researchgate.net/publication/222560014_Little_Ice_Age_fluctuations_of_small_glaciers_in_the_Monte_Fitz_Roy_and_Lago_del_Desierto_areas_south_Patagonian_Andes_Argentina
    And Holocene remnants generally (from western Canada), including MWP (Table 2):
    http://www.uwpcc.washington.edu/documents/PCC/menounos_2009.pdf

    All these glaciers have uncovered remnants of ancient forests which grew when the world was much warmer, before the LIA just a few centuries ago. That’s why glaciologists reject CRU’s temperature reconstructions generally, as far back as Groves and Switzur 1994: http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Glacial.pdf

    …and continuing till the present. –AGF

  7. 2200GMT
    ================
    Marco

    April 21, 2016
    ” So would 2015 top an extension of surface to 100mb? Not very likely. ”

    Of course it would be unlikely, since at 100 mb you are looking at the stratospheric contribution, which is expected (and shown) to cool when the troposphere warms due to GHG forcing. Hence also the reason 200 mb is so low on the list for 2015: stratospheric contamination in the signal.

    I explained that to you before, but unexpectedly, this apparently went straight over your head. After all, it contradicts what you hold as true.
    ==========================
    Poor Marco illustrates once again a total inability to carry on a scientific discussion. The “surface to 100mb” would refer to an integral of T measurement from surface to lower stratosphere, and the average would not have 2015 as the hottest year. All the poor pinhead would have to do is find or create a graph which extends the other to the present. The concept goes over his head. –AGF

  8. “and the average would not have 2015 as the hottest year.”

    Well, go ahead then, AGF. Provide us with the plot.

    But note once again that you are introducing stratospheric interference, and the stratosphere COOLS when the troposphere WARMS due to GHG forcing. You are thus making an analysis that makes little sense.

  9. agf:

    The “surface to 100mb” would refer to an integral of T measurement from surface to lower stratosphere

    No shit Sherlock.

    As Pauli would say, “not even wrong”.

  10. @327. A G Foster : Well,it is nice to see links to real science papers from you – good interesting sources actually.

    They don’t really show what you think they do though as #330 Marco has observed.

    Note that none of these sources are actually arguing for what you are – i.e. that their scientific observations refute the climatological consensus in any way. They use dendrochronology to date glacial advances – and retreats and, hmm .. Someone else used tree rings for something in an another thorough study didn’t they?Who does that remind me of , some guy ..no, some Mann .. who established some “hockey stick” graph or other! One of a great many since confirmed by multiple lines of scientific evidence. Given your acceptance of the dendrochronology used to date these glaciers pre-LIA here; I’m sure you accept the dendrochronological based work of that Mann – yeah? 😉

    Yes, there was a Little Ice Age and forests before that in some areas that are now been returned from melting ice.
    That certainly doesn’t refute the current Global Overheating phenomenon though.

    Again, I ask you, if humans (& the known & well established physics of how GHG’s trap infra-red radiation) aren’t causing the current rise in global temperatures then what is?

    Please note that Solar activity, Milankovitch astronomical glacial cycles and a lot of other things have already been considered and eliminated as causative factors here.

  11. 0010GMT (Apr 23 GMT)
    Reposted 2230GMT

    Marco says: “Well, go ahead then, AGF. Provide us with the plot.”
    ==========================
    Marco, you’re the one who says Heller is cheating by comparing

    the two. Let’s see you do better. But the critical point

    you’re missing Is that NOAA has 2015 hottest only at 500mb, not

    higher OR LOWER (in altitude)! Which thoroughly contradicts the

    RATPAC innovation. The takeaway being Carl has done to

    radiosondes what he did to GISSTEMP: revised the history to make

    data match theory.

    As for your non sequitur from Groves and Switzur, my list

    included examples from “Holocene remnants generally (from western

    Canada), including MWP (Table 2)”:
    http://www.uwpcc.washington.edu/documents/PCC/menounos_2009.pdf
    …showing precisely such glaciers as you refer to. Even now a

    small percentage of glaciers in both hemispheres is growing,

    generally due to increased precipitation. Not all glaciers grew

    enough during the LIA to survive early 20th century warming, and

    not all modern glaciers had melted and warmed enough during the

    MWP to grow forests. The point to take away (from Groves and

    Switzur) being that glaciologists universally accept the LIA

    which the Hockey Stick attempted to do away with.

    So to remind all lurkers, I’ve shown the following chasms within

    the “settled science”:
    1) There is little agreement as to proposed solutions to GHG

    warming, e.g., Oreskes vs. Hansen on nuclear power.
    2) There is little agreement on ECS, i.e., how much warming is to

    be expected as per models.
    3) Glaciologists never accepted Bradley and Jones 92, 93’s

    attempt to do away with the LIA (the whole purpose of Groves and

    Switzur 94).
    4) Mann (most famous for the Hockey Stick) does not accept Carl

    et al’s attempt to do away with the pause.

    And now it is the same Carl of NOAA who we see trying to revamp

    the radiosonde data. The science is hardly settled, and claims

    that it is reveal hopeless corruption.
    –AGF

    Addendum, 2235GMT
    StevoR
    Using tree rings to establish chronology is a heluva lot different than using them to determine T. You know, one ring per year, or thereabouts? How do you think C14 dating got corrected? –AGF

  12. “The takeaway being Carl has done to radiosondes what he did to GISSTEMP: revised the history to make data match theory.”

    Amazing how Karl apparently is so all-powerful that he even influences how NASA does its analysis.

    “The point to take away (from Groves and Switzur) being that glaciologists universally accept the LIA which the Hockey Stick attempted to do away with.”

    If by “the Hockey Stick” you mean MBH98/99, interesting to see you propose a new meme: that MBH98/99 tried to get rid of the LIA. It didn’t, of course, but for a conspiracy nutter like yourself (see above), any story that fits your beliefs will do. Regardless of veracity.

    1. Amazing how Karl apparently is so all-powerful that he even influences how NASA does its analysis

      and Hadley and JMA and Berkeley and …

      It’s all part of the worldwide global warming conspiracy y’know.

  13. agf:

    the following chasms within

    the “settled science”:
    1) There is little agreement as to proposed solutions to GHG

    warming

    Brain-dead moron thinks that a problem doesn’t happen if you can’t come up with a solution.

  14. 0030GMT
    “Amazing how Karl apparently is so all-powerful that he even influences how NASA does its analysis.”

    How little y’all know. See http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-hiatus-disappears-with-new-data-1.17700
    NCDC, GISSTEMP and RSS have already adopted Karl’s pause busting innovation. No more need for all those ‘the ocean ate my warming’ papers.

    And “If by “the Hockey Stick” you mean MBH98/99, interesting to see you propose a new meme: that MBH98/99 tried to get rid of the LIA. It didn’t, of course…”

    Well go to Figure 5b on page 783 and kindly inform us when the LIA starts if you think it’s there: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/mbh98.pdf
    Or better yet, use the HS from BH99:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T_comp_61-90.pdf
    …and try to find the LIA there. Next you’ll be telling us skeptics invented the hockey stick. But you dupes are sure good for laughs: I tell you glaciologists don’t buy the hockey stick and your knee jerk response is to claim the HS includes the LIA. Time to give up.
    –AGF

  15. Hey, AGF, what do you think of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tciQts-8Cxo&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33&index=27

    &

    http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/

    StevoR
    Using tree rings to establish chronology is a heluva lot different than using them to determine T. You know, one ring per year, or thereabouts? How do you think C14 dating got corrected? –AGF

    Properly by dendrochronology experts which you are not and peer reviewed.

    Doing a bit of cherry-picking :

    I see – you’ll use the science data when you (mistakenly) think it supports your case and conveniently ignore it when it refutes your arguments. Quelle surprise!

    Oh & you still have’;t answered my question :

    If humans (& the known & well established physics of how GHG’s trap infra-red radiation) are *not* causing the current rise in global temperatures then what is?

    Please note that Solar activity, Milankovitch astronomical glacial cycles, cosmic rays and a lot of other things have already been considered and eliminated as causative factors here.

  16. I think AGF’s hot air is causing the plant to warm uncontrollably.

    His self-righteous attitude is a problem that hashappened, and no one’s come up with a solution there.

  17. 1510GMT
    StevoR doesn’t know the difference between tree ring dating and tree rings as climate proxies and he still thinks he’s smart enough to keep teaching us about it! StevoR, even you can count tree rings (I think). But the size of the rings indicates growth rate, which is mainly a function of precipitation. Trying to tease temperature out of them is something the experts are pretty leery of, but that certainly didn’t slow down the CRU crew. Some at CRU were appropriately skeptical on the radical nonsense coming out:
    http://www.di2.nu/foia/1062592331.txt
    To repeat such criticism now from outside the inner circle is to be automatically labeled a denier. The CRU majority admitted in the early ’90s that they had no clear evidence of an anthropogenic signal in the air, and shortly after came the Pause. So no, there remains NO clinching evidence for man made warming; as Bryson insisted, we’re still coming out of the LIA. The glaciologists agree. The radical lying climate fanatics have duped the liberal world, but the skeptics know better.

    And you moron, StevoR show me a video about cherry picking?? My hell, the CRU invented the practice. M Mann is the champion cherry picker of all time. Mann has been abandoned by the scientific community generally. He is only supported now by the ignorant and the dishonest. And that characterizes everyone here. Mark Stein has compiled a book full of scientific disparagement of Mann’s crap: http://www.yalescientific.org/2015/11/book-review-a-disgrace-to-the-profession/

    StevoR informs us that Milankovitch cycles have been eliminated as a potential factor in current warming. Aint that rich? StevoR you know-nothing blabberbox, the warming is occurring IN SPITE of decreasing insolation. We have to understand what caused the LIA before we can understand why it ended. It ended long before CO2 became a factor, but the glaciers continue to catch up to MWP conditions. Hell, Glacier Bay is still rebounding an inch per year due ice loss from LIA recovery. Do you know what that means? I won’t even try to explain it to you. –AGF

  18. And now StevoR mindlessly parrots the propaganda from the newly modified (Karlized) GISSTEMP. They’ve fiddled with T history so bad they wouldn’t know a record year from a hole in the ground. UAH shows records, but that’s a pretty short history. Still, as we pull further out of the LIA record years are to be expected and hoped for. The more distance we put between us and the LIA the better. The LIA was no fun.
    –AGF

  19. agf:

    record years are to be expected

    No they’re not. They’re Karlized.

    You’ve got to keep your shit straight.

  20. How little y’all know. See http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-hiatus-disappears-with-new-data-1.17700

    Indeed. Newspaper journalist Tollefson has to make up this shit:

    That finding, which contradicts the 2013 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

    Karl and every other global surface temperature record does nothing of the sort. IPCC 2013 said there are TEMPORARY slowdowns in the rate of global warming and that’s exactly what happened in every global surface temperature record.

    No need for Tollefson to make up his shit.

    No more need for all those ‘the ocean ate my warming’ papers.

    The brain-dead think they have to mean ‘the ocean eats global warming forever‘. Looks like the brain-dead will never get over the “pause” not lasting forever.

    I tell you glaciologists don’t buy the hockey stick

    Sure ya tell us. And they don’t believe this lake exists either:

    “In 1973 Tasman Glacier had no terminal lake and by 2008 Tasman Lake was 7 kilometres (4.3 mi) long, 2 kilometres (1.2 mi) wide, and 245 metres (804 ft) deep.”

    As I said, stick to lying agf. You won’t look quite so dumb e.g. this is a good lie:

    There were plenty of cold alarmists besides Bryson.

  21. agf:

    as Bryson insisted, we’re still coming out of the LIA

    You have to be pretty brain-dead to cite someone you’ve agreed is a crackpot.

  22. agf:

    Glacier Bay is still rebounding an inch per year due ice loss from LIA recovery

    Dumb clown doesn’t understand the difference between ground level and surface air temperature. Most isostatic rebound is from ice age (> 10,000 y ago) ice removal BTW.

    I won’t even try to explain it

    You’re not capable of having anything explained to you anyway.

  23. 1400GMT
    Working backwards:
    1) Glacier Bay rebound is blamed entirely on LIA recovery: http://fairweather.alaska.edu/chris/epsl_larsen.pdf
    2) Tasman Glacier’s anomalous behavior is explained by debris insulation delaying LIA recovery: “THE CONTEMPORARY RETREAT OF TASMAN GLACIER, SOUTHERN ALPS, NEW ZEALAND, AND THE EVOLUTION OF TASMAN PROGLACIAL LAKE SINCE AD 2000”
    Robert C. Dykes, Martin S. Brook and Stefan Winkler

    “Contrary to their western counterparts, the termini of the larger, debris-covered glaciers of the Aoraki/Mt Cook region, situated on the eastern flank of the Southern Alps, have shown a pattern of fluctuations less intimately connected to the regional climate trends over the last century” (p.142).

    “The formation of these proglacial lakes has further decoupled these glaciers from changes in climate, with the transition to calving termini appearing to over-ride climatic
    inputs” (Ibid., PDF online).

    O’Neill’s blanket condemnation of Tollefson’s piece is most unfortunate for his dogma, as it reports the demise of the Pause which had been accepted by the IPCC’s 2013 report (9.2). It’s not obvious what part of Tollefson’s report O’Neill objects to; he seems motivated only by self justification. He denies the Pause generally, but he more recently denied that any data sets had adopted Karl’s Pause buster. Therefore he demonizes Tollefson for reporting that such was indeed the case. And he probably denies that the IPCC ever accepted the Pause.

    It will be interesting to see whether BEST updates its graphs comparing BEST, NOAA, GISS and HadCRUT, after seemingly going to so much pains to align them, but the new divergence is slight. –AGF

  24. From September 1969 to December 1971 I was in College at Oshkosh and I distinctly remember receiving a Newsweek or Time Magazine which said on the Front Cover, “New Global Ice Age Coming” Underneath at the Bottom it said, “Climate Scientists predict New Global Ice Age.” It was either a Time Magazine or a Newsweek Magazine. I had a subscription to Newsweek while a Resident Assistant at Oshkosh. I clearly remember it as it seemed extremely out of the ordinary and I read the article inside the magazine. These same Catastrophic Climate Change Chicken Little Falsifiers morphed into a New Global Warming Climate Change Disaster agenda when their Ice Age Agenda from Pollution proved false. They are as false today as they were in the 1970’s. In 1850 the amount of Carbon in the air was about the same as it is today, .04%…Man’s use of fossil fuels is not causing massive climate change. They are lying just like they were lying in the 1970’s.There are hundreds of reasons for regular and normal climate change and man’s use of Fossil fuels is a tiny, tiny factor. In the 1300’s there was a period of time where Earth’s temperatures soared and were extremely hot, more than in previous centuries. These FLat Earth Global Warming theorists would have predicted massive Earth Calamities, rising oceans, death to coastal cities, Polar Bears floating on ice floes (Which they rest on while hunting) and the End of the Earth if we didn’t do what they said! It is like Chicken Little saying “The Sky is Falling, the Sky is falling.” Climate Change Falsifiers are saying, “Beware! Climate Change Disasters are coming, Climate Change Disasters are coming! ” Their Global Ice Age Disaster was False and so are their Catastrophic Climate Change Disasters. Remember that most Earth Inhabitants once believed the Earth was Flat based on their “proven science.” Government Climate Scientists tell us the same things today; that their “science” is accurate and we should simply “trust them.” Their science is based on you believing their fear mongering based on False and short term climate data fed into their computer models. It is all based on assumptions and politically motivated calculations. They don’t include 300-500 year periods or 1000 or 5,000 or 10,000 year periods. The Pacific and Atlantic oceans have gone into their cooling phase simce 2010 and it will produce cooler temperatures for the next 45 years just like from 1977 to 2010 the Oceans went into their warming phases and produced warmer Earth temperatures. From 1944 to 1977 the Oceans were in their cooling Phase producing cooler Earth temperatures and that is why Climate Scientists then predicted a New Global Ice Age based on short term computer model data…Don’t listen to them! They are trying to deceive you to control the masses Globally and push their extremist Environmental agenda which will eliminate clean inexpensive coal energy and shove expensive solar and wind down our throats. Even Germany the world’s renewable energy leader must use coal when wind and solar do not meet their nation’s energy needs, which is often. Catastrophic Climate Change is a lie and future generations will laugh and call them fools in the same class as the Flat Earth believers. Stay true to the truth and not the lying Babel from Government controlled and paid false climate change falsifiers.

    1. Most of your information about climate is incorrect.

      But you are really good at paragraph length!

    2. Thank you for your insightful comment. It gave me a lot of information to contemplate. Plus your put down is childish as hell. But your comment is simply your opinion. I have found that people who disagree with the False science of Catastrophic Climate Change Disasters always receive derogatory comments, put downs, bullying and mockery from those who believe these lies. Maybe you cannot help your arrogant attitudes and prideful disdain of the lower classes and anyone who disagrees with you and who does not support your ideology. The Flat Earth Believers were the same way. Eventually they eliminated their opponents, those who taught the Earth was round, by murdering or imprisoning them. I sense the same attitudes in you. Degradation of opponents is a typical liberal leftist extremist environmentalist tactic.It makes it easier in “your” eyes to dismiss any evidence that does not agree with your agenda. But I do wish you a nice day. May God Bless you and His son Jesus open your eyes to the truth. Don’t mock Him or you will be fighting a battle you cannot win. I pray your eyes are opened to the Truth of Salvation and who really is in control of the Climate.
      PS. I don’t care about paragraph length. The information is the same.

    3. Michael Plautz: “…. and I distinctly remember receiving a Newsweek or Time Magazine which said on the Front Cover, “New Global Ice Age Coming” Underneath at the Bottom it said, “Climate Scientists predict New Global Ice Age.'”

      Yes: magazines constantly misrepresent what scientists said. So what? This has always been the case, since the invention of magazines.

    4. Newsweek was supportive of climate scientists of the 1970’s and printed exactly what the scientists were saying. This magazine article and many thousands of others from that time period stated exactly what the climate scientists of that time were saying and their predictions with Quotes by those scientists. They were not mis-representing anyone. Magazines in those days were actually concerned with finding the truth about what anyone said and actually printed their remarks and conclusions without twisting the truth like they do today.
      You cannot dismiss the truth about what the False Climate Scientists in the 1970’s were saying by saying the magazines mis-represented the climate scientists. They did not. I read hundreds of articles in the 1970’s about the Global Ice Age that government climate scientists were predicting. They lied and were false back then and they lie and are false today. Do not associate yourself with liars or you will become as foolish as they are.

    5. “Newsweek was supportive of climate scientists of the 1970’s and printed exactly what the scientists were saying”

      Newsweek printed a headline (“The Cooling World”) that was the opposite of what the world’s climatologists were saying at the time and still are saying— and the opposite of what the scientists the article was attempting to quote said. Shit, even the Newsweek article stated the exact opposite of the fucking headline! Dr Rasool and Dr Schneider bitched and complained at the time, and the reporter (Peter Gwynne) apologized for the incorrect headline (even though reporters don’t write headlines and he didn’t write the Newsweek one).

      THE FCKNG *WRITER* of the Newsweek article you pretended, above, to summarize said you’re full of shit.

      Be ashamed.

      70s ice age: the facts that refute the claim.

      Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate:
      http://www.sciencemag.org/content/173/3992/138

      http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf

      http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/Myth-1970-Global-Cooling-BAMS-2008.pdf

      http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

      http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/weekinreview/warm1956.pdf

      http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/download/charney_report.pdf

      Study debunks ‘global cooling’ concern of ’70s:
      http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm

      The global cooling mole:
      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/the-global-cooling-mole/

      Killing the myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus:
      http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

    6. Like I said earlier, those of us who disagree with you are subject to mockery, swearing, vulgar language, bullying, derogatory comments and put downs. It makes no sense whatsoever to try to even debate with someone who loves to use swear words and treat humans who disagree with them like a piece of crap. It is no wonder no one else comments on your site except those of you who are extremist environmentalists with your own radical agenda. You believe your own lies, so I would be wasting my time to even try to debate with you. Enjoy your delusion, it won’t last much longer.
      I am not referring to the same Newsweek Magazine that you are. I also don’t have time to waste with someone who seems to have smoked their mind already and is in a dense fog.
      I am still waiting for Desertphile to act like a human being instead of a Neanderthal man from the Global Ice Age predicted by Climate Government Controlled “so called” “scientists” from the 1970″s.
      I could show you hundreds of articles I still have from the 1970’s showing climate scientists predicting a Global Ice Age and vastly cooling temperatures because the Earth Oceans had gone into their cooling phase and they severely Mis-interpreted the data. They always will and they always have done so.
      Please tell Chris O’Neill that he will never be invited to a forum on Climate Change with “respected” scientists. All he can do is spout what any ignorant fool will say: “Now that the brain-dead agf has run out of arguments…..What a dishonest and pathetic piece of scum he turned out to be.”
      Normal Brain Active humans do not treat other humans with such disrespect and disgust. It is like a group of ignorant pack animals ganging up to attack anyone who “Dares” to Disagree with your Chicken Little, The Sky is Falling, The Sky is Falling, Nonsense.
      Have fun in your own world, and I pray you do not devour one another some day. That is what pack animals do.

    7. Michael Plautz: “Like I said earlier, those of us who disagree with you ar….”

      It’s called “lying.” You lied and were caught, again.

  25. agf:

    Glacier Bay rebound is blamed entirely on LIA recovery

    Well lucky, lucky, lucky Glacier Bay. That paper also points out:

    “in Fennoscandia [1] and Hudson Bay [11], where ongoing isostatic rebound has been exponentially decaying since the terminal phases of deglaciation from the Last Glacial Maximum”

    Dumb clown still doesn’t understand the difference between ground level and surface air temperature.

    transition to calving termini

    OK. Tipping points can produce more rapid than usual change. This is hardly good news about the consequences of global warming.

    It’s not obvious what part of Tollefson’s report O’Neill objects to

    How dumb can you get? I’ll quote it AGAIN:

    That finding, which contradicts the 2013 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

    Karl (2015) actually says:

    A more comprehensive approach for determining the 0.10 significance level (supplementary materials), which also accounts for the impact of annual errors of estimate on the trend, shows that NOT the 1998–2012 trend was positive at the 0.10 significance level.

    Not statistically significant. Just the same as the IPCC (2013) said about the 1998-2012 trend.

    Saying that Karl (2015) contradicted the IPCC (2013) is like saying that Karl stating 2014 was a record warm year contradicts the IPCC saying 2012 was not a record warm year. A plain stupid claim of contradiction. As I said, no need for Tollefson to make up this shit.

    he probably denies that the IPCC ever accepted the Pause

    You are full of shit. As I stated above, the IPCC (2013) said the 1998-2012 trend was not statistically significant. Karl (2015) agrees the 1998-2012 trend was not statistically significant.

    It will be interesting to see whether BEST

    BEST are part of the Great Global Warming Conspiracy after all.

    BTW, even Bryson said his prediction of global cooling was conditional on human generation of aerosols. He just thought that generation of aerosols would get out of control. In any case,

    there were plenty of cold alarmists besides Bryson

    is a good lie.

    1. It is sad that you cannot debate the facts but resort to mockery, condescension, calling names and bullying to prove your point, whatever that may be. I am not interested in your childish put downs. I stand up to bullies and don’t let your garbage infiltrate my core of who I am. Your derogatory comments are fit for the trash bin of history. Maybe the water in your State is the problem. We here in Wisconsin are just fine with the actual truth and will not cower in fear from your puny and foolish attacks. I have someone who loves me so I could care less what you say and think about my character. Too bad you know nothing about who I am or what I do or who I support and help. Your lack of insight and understanding will be your undoing.

  26. 1330GMT
    Laden’s jester in residence offers the following ungrammatical paragraph:

    “Karl (2015) actually says:

    “A more comprehensive approach for determining the 0.10 significance level (supplementary materials), which also accounts for the impact of annual errors of estimate on the trend, shows that NOT the 1998–2012 trend was positive at the 0.10 significance level.

    “Not statistically significant. Just the same as the IPCC (2013) said about the 1998-2012 trend.”
    ============================================
    Ungrammatical, that is, because of the intrusive “NOT,” which O’Nell inserted. The original reads:
    “A more comprehensive approach for determining the 0.10 significance level (supplementary materials), which
    also accounts for the impact of annual errors of
    estimate on the trend, shows that the 1998–2014
    and 2000–2014 trends (but not 1998–2012) were
    positive at the 0.10 significance level” (p.1471, penultimate paragraph).
    https://www.nas.org/images/documents/Climate_Change.pdf

    How can a guy like O’Neill stand to live with himself?
    –AGF

  27. Oh my God. How brain-dead can agf get?

    According to agf:

    the intrusive “NOT,” which O’Nell inserted

    and then IMMEDIATELY quotes:

    (but NOT 1998–2012)

    My emphasis on the “not” of course because of agf’s severe cognitive incapacity.

    Hard to know if agf has a reading problem as well as being brain-dead. The latter can influence the former of course.

  28. 1320GMT
    And of such are the priests of climate doom: Pachauri, Mann, Oreskes, Gleick, O’Neill. Whether through original sin or their own waywardness, they are totally depraved. And the dangerous, heretical books that could alert you to their depravity are banned. Thinking skeptically is poison for the soul.

    Now what you do with your faith is entirely up to you. Live in the sticks and burn firewood if you like, or drive a volt. Vote democratic socialist, support the European Union (CRU’s patron). But don’t listen to neo-deniers like James Hansen! Safe nuclear energy might just solve the problem, and that’s really the last thing we want. –AGF

  29. Now that the brain-dead agf has run out of arguments all he can resort to is ad hominems. What a dishonest and pathetic piece of scum he turned out to be.

  30. “I could show you hundreds of articles I still have from the 1970’s showing climate scientists predicting a Global Ice Age ”

    Well, go ahead then, show us those hundreds of articles that you still have. Scientific articles, please, not newspaper articles that claim some scientist said something.

    1. “I could show you hundreds of articles I still have from the 1970’s showing climate scientists predicting a Global Ice Age ”

      Marco: Well, go ahead then, show us those hundreds of articles that you still have. Scientific articles, please, not newspaper articles that claim some scientist said something.

      *CRICKETS*

      I already posted several links (above) that demonstrate the claim is false— yet he keeps repeating the falsehood. Back in my grand parent’s time they called this “lying;” these days it’s called “Hey, everyone has a right to their opinions and all opinions are equally valid even when they are contrary to observed reality.”

  31. mp:

    Please tell Chris O’Neill that he will never be invited to a forum on Climate Change with “respected” scientists.

    Neither will you so what’s your point?

  32. he will never be invited to a forum on Climate Change with “respected” scientists.

    By the way, at least I’m not the one calling climate scientists liars. Can’t imagine getting too many invitations for calling them that!

  33. “I could show you hundreds of articles I still have from the 1970’s showing climate scientists predicting a Global Ice Age ”

    …. in about 21,000 years. No one claimed scientists do not predict that another glacial period will happen (which, by the way, Earth is still in).

    Your falsehood is that in the 1970s some scientists predicted another ice age *SOON.* You were exposed as a liar.

  34. Has AGF answered my question in #338 yet?

    If humans (& the known & well established physics of how GHG’s trap infra-red radiation) are *not* causing the current rise in global temperatures then what is?

    Hmm .. I’m guessing no?

  35. @353. Michael Plautz :

    Plus your (Greg laden’s – ed) put down is childish as hell. But your comment is simply your opinion.

    The blogger’s opinion is also based in solid science and reality as observed by an overwhelming climatological expert consensus.

    I have found that people who disagree with the False science of Catastrophic Climate Change Disasters always receive derogatory comments, put downs, bullying and mockery from those who believe these lies. Maybe you cannot help your arrogant attitudes and prideful disdain of the lower classes and anyone who disagrees with you and who does not support your ideology. The Flat Earth Believer were the same way. (EDIT : Erm, actually not historically true.) Eventually they eliminated their opponents, those who taught the Earth was round, by murdering or imprisoning them. I sense the same attitudes in you. Degradation of opponents is a typical liberal leftist extremist environmentalist tactic.It makes it easier in “your” eyes to dismiss any evidence that does not agree with your agenda.

    So .. no childish insults, or political childish polemical attacks there, no sirree, just all the bits I’ve italicised. And maybe more. I was going to contrastingly put the substance of your argument against climate reality in bold but I couldn’t find anything applicable.

    Is this intentional satire or or are you for real here?

    If you are intentionally satirical -congratulations ya got me! It is sometimes pretty hard to tell at least for me! 😉

    But I do wish you a nice day. May God Bless you and His son Jesus open your eyes to the truth. Don’t mock Him or you will be fighting a battle you cannot win. I pray your eyes are opened to the Truth of Salvation and who really is in control of the Climate.

    So .. God controls the climate eh? Which god and with what supporting evidence for, well, any part of that non-sequiteur may I ask?

    PS. I don’t care about paragraph length. The information is the same.

    Firstly, what information exactly?> Secondly, improved readability and presentation helps your case and could make you somewhat more convincing if you actually had a case to put. Thirdly, yes we can tell and yes that is your erroneous personal opinion not objective quantifiable fact.

  36. Damn. Italics within blockquotes don’t work here do they? Okay take II :

    … the False science of Catastrophic Climate Change Disasters .. lies. … your arrogant attitudes and prideful disdain .. The Flat Earth Believer were the same way. (EDIT : Erm, actually not historically true.) … typical liberal leftist extremist environmentalist tactic. ..

    So .. no childish insults, or political childish polemical attacks there, no sirree, just all the bits I’ve cited there.

  37. @341. A G Foster :

    StevoR doesn’t know the difference between tree ring dating and tree rings as climate proxies and he still thinks he’s smart enough to keep teaching us about it!

    Actually I’m citing the experts who do know what they’re talking about here. Y’know scientists. I’m not claiming any personal expertise so I’m going to listen to & respect those who are experts in their field. Just as I don’t do my own plumbing or wiring but leave those to plumbers and electricians.

    The CRU majority admitted in the early ’90s that they had no clear evidence of an anthropogenic signal in the air, and shortly after came the Pause.

    Er , nope and nope. I take it you are relying on the misinterpreted taken out of context stolen Climate Research Unit of East Anglia “climategate” manufactroversy which have been repeatedly debunked?

    The “Pause” .. like those other Denier PRATT’s is also a complete myth as plenty of scientific evidence has since shown :

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/11/05/climate_pause_nope.html

    (Plenty of links there and actual NASA rocket climate scientist speaking.)

    StevoR informs us that Milankovitch cycles have been eliminated as a potential factor in current warming. Aint that rich? StevoR you know-nothing blabberbox, the warming is occurring IN SPITE of decreasing insolation.

    Er, doesn’t that actually support what I’m saying here and tell you that the climatologists consensus is correct?

    We know where the Milankovitch cycles are trending and we’ve observed what the climate is doing and these are going in opposite directions so, yes, Milankovicth cycles – like solar activity have been eliminated as causing the present planetary overheating.

    We have to understand what caused the LIA before we can understand why it ended.

    And, funnily enough, we *do * understand this at least those who do & know the science do. See, for instance :

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-little-ice-age-intermediate.htm

    & http://earthsky.org/earth/volcanoes-might-have-triggered-the-little-ice-age

    Hell, Glacier Bay is still rebounding an inch per year due ice loss from LIA recovery. Do you know what that means?

    Isostatic rebound – where rock rises following being pressed down by the weight of ice over aeons – yes I do know what that means and what its significance is.

    You, it seems, do not. It doesn’t mean – as you seem to wrongly think – that Global Overheating isn’t real and it doesn’t refute any climate reality.

  38. Once again, StevoR doesn’t know the difference between a tree ring chronology and tree ring density proxy, nor is he capable of admitting such, but he blabbers on with gibberish. Not a single competent person or argument has shown up here, so I think I’ll take my arguments elsewhere. For the record, Glacier Bay was added to the evidence of MWP forests covered by LIA glaciers to illustrate to the novices how thoroughly the hockey stick is refuted by glaciology, but even that argument goes over the heads of everyone here. So the lists I’m working on of global cooling fanatics, I’ll reserve for a more critical audience. –AGF

  39. MWP forests covered by LIA glaciers to illustrate how thoroughly the hockey stick is refuted

    Brain-dead moron agf doesn’t realise that his MWP followed by a LIA followed by his “rebound”, regardless of cause, forms a hockey stick.

  40. 1940GMT
    Didn’t I ask O’Niell once before to point out the time of demarcation between MWP and LIA on the hockey stick? Did he? Can he? Only if he gets stoned first. –AGF

    1. A G Foster “[….] the time of demarcation between MWP and LIA on the hockey stick [….]”

      “The” hockey stick is MBH98; you are complaining because scientists did not include data no scientists had at the time. LOL!

      The MCA occurred in the Northern Atlantic region, parts of China, and other northern regions from c 950 CE to c 1,100 CE. “The” hockey stick went back to year c 1,400 CE.

      Do you really believe M, B, and H should have included data no one on the planet had at the time?

      Why did you switch your lies from the human-caused cooling of the 1970s, to the MCA? Are you finished lying about the 1970s ice age myth?

      http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/mbh98.pdf

  41. 0315GMT (3May16)
    Desertphile adds his name to the growing list of posters here who speak with perfect confidence about things they know absolutely nothing about. DP, the stick derives from MBH99 which goes back a thousand years and attempts to revise a long history of climate reconstructions, all vastly superior to it. Do you think the MWP and LIA were inventions of modern skeptics? That’s what you’re saying! But even if we go back only 600 years we would have no trouble finding temperatures warmer than 1945. Then again, maybe the Koch brothers planted all those MWP logs in all those glaciers. –AGF

  42. @379. A G Foster : Didn’t I ask you quite a few times before :

    If humans GHG emissons – & the well established basic physics of how these trap infra-red radiation – are *not* causing the current rise in global temperatures then what is?

    Yes, I did and yet you haven’t answered my question. Pity, you’d almost certainly win a Nobel prize if you could prove your case here and set a whole new physics paradigm.

    Oh & no, it isn’t natural causes or cycle as explained here :

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kq8_l6s89uY

    “5 Climate Change isn’t it natural from potholer54”

    Also thought you’d tucked tail and run @ #377. No such luck eh?

    As noted already previous natural changes such as the Little Ice Age (caused by a combination of volcanic activity and prolonged solar minimum) & Medieval Warming Period aren’t the same as the current Global Overheating because we don’t have these natural factors causing the current exceptionally high and rapid planetary heating.

    1. “If humans GHG emissons – & the well established basic physics of how these trap infra-red radiation – are *not* causing the current rise in global temperatures then what is?”

      *CRICKETS*

  43. Two days later and my last post hasn’t shown up. I’ll keep this short. If Desertphile had bothered to check Wikipedia he would see he was wrong on every count: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
    Or maybe he plays with crooked, broken hockey sticks.

    Open challenge: find a glaciologist who doesn’t invoke the LIA in explaining glacier behavior. And for our purposes we’ll define the MWP as the warm time before the LIA.
    –AGF

  44. 1700GMT
    If there is any validity to StevoR’s dubious explanations for the LIA then the same explanations would apply to current warmth: a lack of volcanic activity and resumed solar irradiance. And there remains the probable but as yet unquantified anthropogenic component, still not detected in the troposphere where it should first be identified.

    But compare Wikipedia’s LIA graph with its hockey stick graph and you will see how far apart are StevoR and Desertphile, i.e., MBH vs. the world:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T_comp_61-90.pdf
    See, you don’t have to have the foggiest notion what you’re talking about as long as you bow to the credo.
    –AGF

  45. ” If Desertphile had bothered to check Wikipedia he would see he was wrong on every count: “

    And yet all of the world’s experts on thesubject, without exception, agrees with me about “the” hockey stick. How do you explain your delusion?

  46. 2030GMT
    And to add to Wiki’s disagreement (above) is Ed Cook of the self same CRU. He calls Mann’s work a “mess,” holds Bradley in contempt, and Mann beneath contempt: see http://www.di2.nu/foia/1062592331.txt
    And remember Stein’s book. Sorry, DPhile, Mann is universally considered a quack, except by the alarm machine.
    –AGF

  47. @385. A G Foster :

    If there is any validity to StevoR’s dubious explanations for the LIA then the same explanations would apply to current warmth: a lack of volcanic activity and resumed solar irradiance.

    So you are claiming the same things that caused the LIA -volcanic activity and solar activity are responsible for the present Global Overheating then, AGF?

    Your problem – which you’ll no doubt remain in willfully ignorant denial of – is that, of course, both factors have already been considered and ruled out by climatologists because they aren’t actually as ridiculously stupid as the Denialists would claim they are.

    We know its not our daytime star that’s to blame :

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Sf_UIQYc20&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33&index=88

    Climate Denial Crock of the Week – Solar Schmolar by greenman3610.

    Plus since AGF keeps hammering the MWP please watch and think about this clip as well :

    As for the second volcanic idea – again that’s another PRATT (Point Refuted Already a Thousand Times) from AGF as explained here among many other places :

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-ice-age-volcanoes.htm

    Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) used a multiple linear regression approach to filter out the effects of volcanic and solar activity, and the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). They found that volcanic activity, as measured by aerosol optical thickness data (AOD) has only caused between 0.02 and 0.04°C per decade warming from 1979 through 2010 (Table 1, Figure 2), or about 0.06 to 0.12°C warming of the surface and lower troposphere, repsectively, since 1979 (out of approximately 0.5°C observed surface warming). … (snip graph) .. Like Foster and Rahmstorf, Lean and Rind (2008) performed a multiple linear regression on the temperature data, and found that although volcanic activity can account for about 10% of the observed global warming from 1979 to 2005, between 1889 and 2006 volcanic activity had a small net cooling effect on global temperatures. Thus volcanoes have not caused the long-term global warming over the past century, and can explain only a small fraction of the warming over the past 25 years.

    So quelle surprise AGF your supposed alternative causes for the Global Overheating phenomenon have been debunked repeatedly long ago by actual climate scientists.

    If you disagree with these debunkings well, please watch the clips linked here and read the scientific papers cited and explain exactly where and how and why you think they are wrong with supporting scientific evidence.

    Or, y’know just run away again, which ever you choose.

  48. The brain-dead agf, since he is brain-dead, never did realise his total misunderstanding of Karl (2015), EVEN THOUGH HE QUOTED IT HIMSELF:

    A more comprehensive approach for determining the 0.10 significance level (supplementary materials), which
    also accounts for the impact of annual errors of
    estimate on the trend, shows that the 1998–2014
    and 2000–2014 trends (

    BUT NOT 1998–2012

    ) were positive at the 0.10 significance level” (p.1471, penultimate paragraph).

    The IPCC previously stated that the 1998–2012 trend was NOT significant.

  49. 1430GMT
    Never argue with a fool, it says somewhere. StevoR, if X makes it cold, then not X does not make it cold. Not cold is warm. The LIA was cold; the present is not. So, IF your explanation for the LIA was valid (it probably isn’t) then the the termination of your supposed causes brought an end to the LIA. In any case the LIA is gradually coming to an end for whatever reasons, but it will take some time for the glaciers to revert to pre-LIA conditions, as seen by the MWP forest evidence. We cannot know what causes current warmth if we do not know what caused the LIA.

    AS for the other fool, I quoted Karl correctly; O’Neill did not. He left out this:

    the 1998–2014 and 2000–2014 trends (but

    …when he changed “not” to “NOT,” and inserted no ellipsis (…) to indicate the deletion, which is a major no-no. And of course cutting the sentence in the middle of a parenthesis is an even worse no-no, but this is the sort of thing one can expect from a perfect idiot.

    All this is irrelevant; Karl is full of crap as even a con man like Mann could tell you (or especially a con man like Mann):

    “It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims.”
    http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/articles/FyfeEtAlNatureClimate16.pdf

    Now O’Neill will not be able to make much sense of that subtitle but the reader of average intelligence will. Mann is making a feeble attempt to rehabilitate himself by calling out Karl’s BS. Too late for the science though–as I tried to inform the morons way back (O’Neill characteristically denied it)–NOAA and NASA have already adopted Karl et al. This leaves Mann et al at odds with GISS and NCDC. The settlers should find this unsettling.
    –AGF

  50. agf:

    He left out this:

    the 1998–2014 and 2000–2014 trends

    You just don’t get it you brain-dead moron.

    THE IPCC WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT THE 1998-2014 AND 2000-2014 TRENDS

    1. Chris O’Neill: “You just don’t get it you brain-dead moron. THE IPCC WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT THE 1998-2014 AND 2000-2014 TRENDS”

      Well… what he “gets” and what he claimed he “gets” are likely to be two different things: he is lawyering (i.e. engaging in politics), not sciencing.

  51. 1620GMT
    Well, Chris O’Neill, when you accuse “Nature’s” Tollefson of lying you should at least quote and reference where the IPCC 2013 report shows this to be the case. Your credibility is down to zero, you know. –AGF

  52. Chris O’Neill: “The IPCC previously stated that the 1998–2012 trend was NOT significant.”

    The IPCC said that because all of the world’s experts in the subject said it; Dr Philip Jones said it. “A G Foster” wants people to believe that some scientist some where has said the trend was/is statistically significant— when none have said so. The cultist is attacking an imaginary claim, which no scientists defend, because he knows he cannot attack what scientists do assert and therefore to defend.

  53. 0105GMT (5/7/16 GMT)
    Well, DPhile, if the IPCC said that why don’t you tell us when and where they said it. CO’N man can’t. But significance is in the eye of the beholder:
    1. Dozens of papers have been written to explain the “insignificant” pause.
    2. Oreskes campaigned to have the word banned.
    3. Karl et al wrote a paper denying the pause.
    4. NOAA and NASA adopted Karl et al.
    5. Fyfe and Mann et al wrote a paper debunking Karl et al.

    Back at 334, 335 Marco and CO’N man ridiculed the notion that NOAA and NASA adopted Karl et al, so I linked Tollefson at Nature, whom CO’N man immediately called a liar. He prefers to demonize his allies rather than admit a mistake. Take his word for anything at your own risk.
    –AGF

  54. agf:

    you should at least quote and reference where the IPCC 2013 report shows this:

    THE IPCC WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT THE 1998-2014 AND 2000-2014 TRENDS

    to be the case.

    You utterly stupid moron. Where is a 2013 IPCC report going to talk about trends to 2014?????????????????????????

    The IPCC 2013 only talked about trends up to 1998-2012. The only mention of the 1998-2012 trend by Karl was where he said it was NOT significant, AGREEING WITH THE IPCC 2013.

    Only crap journalists like Tollefson and brain-dead morons like agf who repeat his crap claim they DISAGREED.

  55. “Back at 334, 335 Marco and CO’N man ridiculed the notion that NOAA and NASA adopted Karl et al, so I linked Tollefson at Nature,”

    Actually, I ridiculed your claim that Karl et al did anything to GISTEMP. You still haven’t been able to figure out how enormously stupid you sounded there. Tollefson doesn’t support your view in any way.

  56. @390. A G Foster :

    ..StevoR, if X makes it cold, then not X does not make it cold. Not cold is warm.

    No. Not-cold is not-cold, warm is something else.

    Its quite possible to be neither feeling cold nor hot, even not really either warm or cool.

    Also Cold can be caused by Y as well as or instead of X. Therefore, just because it is cold does NOT mean that X is causing it – and ditto for heat too.

    You can be warm because you’ve put on an extra blanket or because its hot outside or because you are next to a roaring fire, et cetera..

    Now in this case specifically the causation of the Little Ice Age is known to be a result of several factors including reduced solar insolation and increased volcanic activity.

    Today during this current Overheating hothouse trending planetary environment, here’s nothing special far as I’m aware with volcanic activity levels and solar irradiance is lower than usual and these have been studied, observed and calculated and found NOT to be causative factors in the current observed planetary heating.

    What part of that do you fail to understand or reject on what factual basis and what evidence to have to support your claims? (Hint : None. Because reality is not supporting AGF here.)

    … So, IF your explanation for the LIA was valid (it probably isn’t) ..

    Its not *my* explanation for the LIA, it is what the various scientific studies have shown. Did you miss all the linked and cited sources in my #388 here?

    You,AGF, are saying the scientific consensus there like the one on Global Overheating is wrong because _____??? And that we should believe you over all those real climate scientists because ____??? (Fill in the blanks if you can!)

    .. then the the termination of your supposed causes brought an end to the LIA. In any case the LIA is gradually coming to an end for whatever reasons, but it will take some time for the glaciers to revert to pre-LIA conditions, as seen by the MWP forest evidence. We cannot know what causes current warmth if we do not know what caused the LIA.

    That’s just fractally wrong – wrong on every level.

    AGF keeps on spewing up repeatedly debunked PRATTs as though repeating them makes them right somehow – which never works. But is a typical anti-science tactic.

    To sum up yet again :

    Yes, climatologists do have a good understanding on what caused the LIA, no we’re not just “reverting” to MWP conditions naturally. Yes, humans are causing the current global Overheating phenomenon and, yes these basic facts have been very well and clearly established by multiple lines of scientific evidence collected and understood by actual climate scientists for well over a hundred years now. (Starting with Svante Arrhenius in 1896.)

    At this point – well, even earlier really – AGF is just sticking his head in the sand singing la-la-la can’t-hear you.

    Now O’Neill will not be able to make much sense of that subtitle but the reader of average intelligence will.

    Whelp, that sure rules *you* out then doesn’t it AGF!

    @395. AGF :

    1. Dozens of papers have been written to explain the “insignificant” pause.

    Which have it needs to be added shown that actually there was really no so-called “pause” and that Global Overheating has continued.

    BTW. AGF are you a believer in that mythical “pause” or are you sticking to chanting your “Just LIA natural recovery” crock because these two false claims are mutually incompatible and contradictory. Note that the “pause” assumes Global Warming was and is real before a certain arbitrary point at which it somehow stopped or slowed – which, again, we know now didn’t actually happen anyway.

  57. ^ Correction :

    “1. Dozens of papers have been written to explain the “insignificant” pause.”

    Papers which have, it needs to be added, shown that actually there was really no so-called “pause” and that Global Overheating has continued.

    As explained here – complete with links :

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/nov/24/study-drives-a-sixth-nail-in-the-global-warming-pause-myth

    Perhaps the best-known myth is the so-called “pause” or “hiatus” in global warming. This year, six individual studies have looked into this and found it incorrect. I have co-authored one of the studies, and I’ve written about some of the others here and here.

    Well just today, another paper was published by Stephan Lewandowsky, James Risbey, and Naomi Oreskes that comes to the same conclusion. The paper is titled, “On the definition and identifiability of the alleged “hiatus” in global warming”.

    & as summarised by Naomi Oreskes :

    So the bottom line is: there is no pause, and there has never been one. The rate of global warming does fluctuate—but this has been known for a long time. Whether or not any particular fluctuation has an identifiable cause—like the effects of ocean heat uptake or an El Nino– is an interesting question, but a fluctuation is not a pause, and it is important to be clear that the recent fluctuation is not statistically anomalous compared with other fluctuations we have seen, relative to the longer-term warming trend.

    Of course deniers gunna deny but that’s the scientific reality.

  58. agf:

    Fyfe and Mann et al wrote a paper debunking Karl et al.

    It did nothing of the sort. You’re just making shit up as usual. Mann et al point out:

    “we investigate whether the slowdown and its recent recovery were predictable.”

    Karl et al. pointed out the recovery, just like Mann et al.

    1. Chris O’Neill: It did nothing of the sort. You’re just making shit up as usual. Mann et al point out: “we investigate whether the slowdown and its recent recovery were predictable.” Karl et al. pointed out the recovery, just like Mann et al.

      Heh. Anyone who passed a high school chemistry class could have predicted the slowing of increasing global average temperature was temporary. Sheeeit, anyone who looked at GLB.Ts+dSST could and can see time periods when warming slowed temporarily.

      Gosh: I hereby predict that within the next 25 years there will be another slowing of the warming of Earth’s global average temperature, and it will be temporary.

      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1002/2016GL068159/full

  59. 2005hrs.5May16GMT
    It’s a regular bullshitting convention, so put on your hip waders ’cause knee boots won’t cut it. A sampling: compare #’s 396 and 397, nicely juxtaposed and wholly contradictory. O’Neill maintains Tollefson is a liar and Marco says I misrepresented him. Obviously they can’t both be right, but don’t expect them to sort that one out (Marco is in effect calling O’Neill a liar).

    Marco goes on to say: “Actually, I ridiculed your claim that Karl et al did anything to GISTEMP. You still haven’t been able to figure out how enormously stupid you sounded there. Tollefson doesn’t support your view in any way.”

    Marco is clueless as always, as the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs in Tollefson’s story clearly tell:

    “That finding, which contradicts the 2013 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is based on an update of the global temperature records maintained by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The previous version of the NOAA data set had showed less warming during the first decade of the millennium.

    “Researchers revised the NOAA data set to correct for known biases in sea-surface-temperature records and to incorporate data from new land-based monitoring stations that extend into the Arctic — an area where observations are sparse. The updated NOAA data set also includes observations from 2013 and 2014; the latter ranked as the warmest year on record.”

    And for further confirmation see the Fyfe, Mann et al paper, especially figure 1 which labels the revised NOAA graph NOAA-Carl: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/articles/FyfeEtAlNatureClimate16.pdf
    And for further corroboration of my take on it see Tollefson again: http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414

    These trolls of Laden’s never get anything right, nor do they care whether they get anything right. They are here to obfuscate, to load the blog with bullshit and drown out the sound of the honest whistle blowers.
    –AGF

  60. 2035.8May16GMT
    And CO’N man keep up babbling about Reid Bryson being a lone ice doom prophet. Here’s a preliminary list of like thinkers culled from PopTech:

    Dr. Earl W. Barrett of the ESSA Research Laboratories, Boulder Colo., says the planet’s total environment ‘is being altered, perhaps disastrously and irreversibly, by human activities.

    Meteorologist Paul Cato says pollution “could bring on a new Ice Age that would cover states like Florida with 400 feet of water” (sic).

    Cites William Cobb of NOAA, who in original version refers to a new ice age as only a possibility: https://news.google.com/newspapers

    Dr. Tadashi Yano. Says nearly one degree drop already occurred.
    “Air pollution may cause another ice age, warns a Japanese meteorologist…”

    Hubert Lamb

    Cesare Emiliani “fears a new Ice AGe could come within 2000 or 3000 years, or even earlier if man’s contribution to climate changes–through pollution, deforestation, and other means–should alter the present balance”

    Francis Stehli, geologist with Case Western Reserve University: “…the world is headed for another Ice Age within 200 years.” 1/73

    “Lamb predicts another LIA; Jiri Kukla predicts a big ice age. Dansgaard predicts only 10 to 20 years more cooling. Murray Mitchell and Steven Schneider assert CO2 warming and particulate cooling cancel each other out.”

    James McQigg

    Kenneth Hare, U of Toronto, former president of Britian’s Royal Meteorological Society says, “Bryson is the most important figure in climatology today…I’m naturally a lot more conservative than he is, but I take what he says very seriously indeed.”

    Helen Kukla

    George Denton

    James Fletcher NASA chief

    Cites a skeptical Donald Gilman of the NWS. “Bryson has many supporters. Others aren’t convinced. 2/2/75

    E W Wahl and T L Lawson:
    “…one might express this in an even more general way by ,asserting that we really are still in the “Little Ice Age” which was interrupted only briefly for something like 70 yr by a temporary warm spell in the Northern Hemisphere .”

    Dendrochronolgists Samuel Epstein and Crayton Yapp 1/2/78

    Madeleine Briskin of U of Cincinnati: “…almost all my colleagues agree we’re entering a cold phase” 2/10/78

    Drs. Lenoa M. Libby of UCLA and Louis J. Pandolfi. 1/16/79

    Maynard Miller, U of I, Alaska glaciologist: “…we are in the middle of or long overdue for some kind of Ice Age.” “…we are apparently dropping into a cooling phase.” 6/5/79
    ========================================
    So far I’ve found only one warming warning, near the end of the decade:
    Verner E. Suomi, chairman, Woods Hole NAS panel, 1979:
    “A wait-and-see policy may mean waiting until it is too late.”

    Excerpts:
    1977 – Has The Ice Age Cometh Again? (Calgary Herald, February 1, 1977)
    Horrible titular grammar. Article by Bruce Ingersoll (Chicago Sun-Times). Cites Bryson: “I catch hell from my colleagues for being a doomsayer.”

    1978 – Little Ice Age: Severe winters and cool summers ahead (Calgary Herald, January 10, 1978)
    UPI Cites Madeleine Briskin of U of Cincinnati. “…almost all my colleagues agree we’re entering a cold phase.”

    Repeat:
    Kenneth Hare, U of Toronto, former president of Britian’s Royal Meteorological Society says, “Bryson is the most important figure in climatology today…I’m naturally a lot more conservative than he is, but I take what he says very seriously indeed.” –1974 – Ominous Changes in the World’s Weather (PDF) (Fortune Magazine, February 1974)
    ============================================
    And we’re just getting started. That global cooling scare was as real as it could be, and the real deniers are the liars and ignoramuses who deny it. –AGF

  61. agf:

    They are here to obfuscate, to load the blog with bullshit and drown out the sound of the honest whistle blowers.

    What an appalling full-of-shit shameless hypocrite you are.

    O’Neill maintains Tollefson is a liar

    or bullshitter in claiming Karl 2015 contradicts the 2013 IPCC report. Absolutely true. Tollefsen is making shit up.

    and Marco says I misrepresented him.

    Marco: “Tollefson doesn’t support your view in any way – that Karl et al did anything to GISTEMP.”

    Notice the difference: Tollefsen is making shit up about Karl contradicting the IPCC. Agf is making shit up that Tollefson said Karl did something to GISTEMP. Hell, Tollefsen doesn’t even mention GISTEMP.

    Two different things. But the utterly stupid agf is too brain-dead to realise there is a difference.

    Marco goes on to say: “Actually, I ridiculed your claim that Karl et al did anything to GISTEMP. You still haven’t been able to figure out how enormously stupid you sounded there. Tollefson doesn’t support your view in any way.”

    Marco is clueless as always, as the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs in Tollefson’s story clearly tell:

    “That finding, which contradicts the 2013 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is based on an update of the global temperature records maintained by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The previous version of the NOAA data set had showed less warming during the first decade of the millennium.

    You are such a moron agf. GISTEMP is not the same thing as the NOAA data set.

  62. agf:

    Cites William Cobb of NOAA, who in original version refers to a new ice age as only a possibility: https://news.google.com/newspapers

    Duh, yes. I did point out that the predictions by virtually everyone who predicted an ice-age was conditional (on air pollution in the form of aerosols) and thus only a possibility.

    But as we all know, agf is too brain-dead to understand the difference between conditional and unconditional.

  63. “Marco is clueless as always, as the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs in Tollefson’s story clearly tell:”

    Upon which a quote follows that mentions only NOAA, but not GISS (and thereby NASA)…

    And *I* am supposed the one who is clueless?

  64. Hell’s teeth.

    I omitted this blog from my bookmarks accidentally a few months ago. I come back and this garbage is -still- going on.

    Greg, I salute you. My grumpy old lady nature would have grrrrown irresistible and shut this down long ago.

  65. Foster #404

    Nice Gish Gallop BTW with considerable name dropping and quotes out of context I suspect, although I have yet to examine each one in detail, which of course is the aim of a Gish Gallop — similar to that of a document dump.

    However one stood out to me, that quote attributed to Cesare Emiliani.

    Now those exact words only crop up in one source I could find Popular Science Jan 1973 and they are of editorial origin and not a direct quote from Emiliani.

    On the ice age prospect, largely a media driven storm built upon concerns of a possible nuclear winter, Wiki has a reasonable run-down of non-scientific controversy and has this to say:

    In 1972, Emiliani warned “Man’s activity may either precipitate this new ice age or lead to substantial or even total melting of the ice caps…”

    Very different — No!

  66. and shut this down long ago

    Trouble is, shutting down science denialists’ comments doesn’t make science denialists cease to exist. They keep spreading their disinformation wherever they get the opportunity and keep influencing how people vote. Shutting down comments here will not stop that.

  67. denialist claptrap should not be removed imo (apart from blatant threats etc)

    it should be left as a monument of stupidity and self delusion

    and it is sometimes informative to refer back to old threads – where the same tired old arguments are put forward – promoted with the certainty only the truly deluded can manage

  68. @411. tadaaa : I agree – its good to have evidence given the number of times the same PRATT’s come up and then get shot down in flames of logic and evidence. I wouldn’t want them removed or history rewritten. Leaving a record for future generations to judge – I’m definitely in favour of that.

    I would ju-ust love a, say, fifteen minute or so editing window to fix typos and italics fails etc.. or even just a preview ability please but that’s another story and yeah, mea culpa I do suck at typing, sorry.

    ***

    Hey, AGF, no response from you to the points I raised in my #398 then? No answer to the question :

    Are you a believer in that mythical “pause” or are you sticking to chanting your “Just LIA natural recovery” crock because these two false claims are mutually incompatible and contradictory?

    Or / & :

    You,AGF, are saying the scientific consensus there like the one on Global Overheating is wrong because _____??? And that we should believe you over all those real climate scientists because ____??? (Fill in the blanks if you can!)

    In addition to :

    Today during this current Overheating hothouse trending planetary environment, there’s nothing special far as I’m aware with volcanic activity levels and solar irradiance is lower than usual and these have been studied, observed and calculated and found NOT to be causative factors in the current observed planetary heating. What part of that do you fail to understand or reject on what factual basis and what evidence to have to support your claims?

    Please answer these questions rather than dodging them AGF.

  69. 1520.9May16GMT

    Acronyms for today:
    NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
    NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

    Karl ran NOAA’s NCDC, now NCEI, “the world’s largest provider of weather and climate data,” to which NASA defers:

    “July 19, 2015: The data and results put on the public site on July 15 were affected by a bug in the ERSST v4 part of the automated incremental update procedure. The analysis was redone after recreating the full version of SBBX.ERSSTv4 separately. We would like to acknowledge and thank Nick Stokes for noticing that there might be a problem with these data.

    “July 15, 2015: Starting with today’s update, the standard GISS analysis is no longer based on ERSST v3b but on the newer ERSST v4. Dr. Makiko Sato created some graphs and maps showing the effect of that change. More information may be obtained from NOAA’s website.”
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/

    It only took a few weeks for GISS to adopt Karl et al, and I repeat, Fyfe, Mann et al reject NOAA’s and NASA’s “pause buster” adjustment. So back at 334,5 where Marco and CO’N man said, “Amazing how Karl apparently is so all-powerful that he even influences how NASA does its analysis,” they were of course clueless as always. NASA copied NOAA and Karl runs NOAA’s NCEI. The Nick Stokes mentioned in the NASA quote agrees with Bob Tisdale’s analysis which I could have linked to if Laden hadn’t banned it. Much like teaching calculus to savages.
    –AGF

  70. 1540.9May16GMT

    StevoR, who hasn’t been right about anything yet, asks about the “mythical pause,” claiming it’s incompatible with LIA recovery. (Could it get any more ridiculous?) As I said a month ago, I could link you to lists of over 60 excuses for the pause but the knowledgeable websites are banned. Here’s from the abstract of the first on the list:

    “However, the most recent climate data [2], show global temperature development levelling off or even turning negative since 2001 in contrast to the anticipated course related to the steady increases in the concentration in the atmosphere of green-house gasses, primarily carbon dioxide and methane.”
    http://file.scirp.org/pdf/ACS_2014010909502804.pdf

    And guess what? He never uses the word “pause”! He just mentions a “negative” trend. How can one who never had an intelligent thought in his life ever ask a relevant question?
    –AGF

  71. “It only took a few weeks for GISS to adopt Karl et al,”

    ERSST v4 is not from Karl et al. Karl et al actually USE ERSST v4. ERSST v4 does come from NOAA, but so did the prior versions used.

    And guess what else it says here:
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/
    Please note that neither the land data nor the ocean data used in this analysis are the ones used in the NCEI paper “Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus” that appeared on June 4, 2015. For the ocean data, GISS still uses ERSST v3b rather than the newer ERSST v4, but will switch to that file next month, when we add the June 2015 data; the collection of land station data used in that paper includes many more sources than GHCN v3.3.0 and will probably be incorporated into a future GHCN v4.

    1. A G Foster: “It only took a few weeks for GISS to adopt Karl et al”

      In the same sense that all of the world’s geophysicists adopted Al Gore.

  72. 2100.9May16GMT
    Timeline:
    Sept 2014: Oreskes goes on a rampage to abolish the word ‘pause’ https://twitter.com/NaomiOreskes/status/514794891348815872

    May/June 2015: NOAA releases paper explaining temperature adjustments which eliminate the pause; changes the name from NCDC to NCEI

    June 2015: GISS makes adjustments that serve to keep GISSTEMP up with NCEI, ostensibly by way of independent reconstructive lineage

    Summer 2015: NCAR publication devoted to pause controversy: https://usclivar.org/sites/default/files/documents/2015/Variations2015Summer.pdf

    Sept 2015: RSS adopts Karl et al (through whatever means)

    Feb 2016: Fyfe et al challenge Karl et al
    =============================================
    The effects are:
    1) To distance GISS and NOAA from HadCRUT and UAH;
    2) To alienate a good share of climate scientists;
    3) To warm sea surface temperature relative to night marine air temperature, hence:
    4) To call into question the laws of thermodynamics, since evaporation tends to cool SST relative to air temperature:
    https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/figure-12.png

    Quite the string of coincidences, unless (upward) adjustments were so frequent that the stars are always aligned. But many of the faithful are dissenting, and it just doesn’t work to call Mann and Santer deniers. Have at it, Tedesco. –AGF

  73. “Sept 2015: RSS adopts Karl et al (through whatever means)”

    This is even more amazing conspiracy nuttery. Then again, this *is* AGF, so expect more to come.

    I *could* for example point out that HADCRUT adopted a new ocean temperature reconstruction well before NOAA and GISS did. I *could* point out that this increased the trend for HADCRUT to make it larger than that of NOAA, and that the latest GISS and NOAA trend are only a little bit larger than that of HADCRUT4 (not significant difference), but all of this will just make AGF dig deeper into conspiracy ideation, because *any* evidence, contrary or not, is evidence for a conspiracy!

  74. Notice the difference: Tollefsen is making shit up about Karl contradicting the IPCC. Agf is making shit up that Tollefson said Karl did something to GISTEMP. Hell, Tollefsen doesn’t even mention GISTEMP.

    Two different things. But the utterly stupid agf is too brain-dead to realise there is a difference.

    Even with (the false) conspiracy theories about Karl and GISTEMP, the above two pieces of made-up shit (one by Tollefson and one by agf) are still different pieces of shit. The utterly stupid agf is still too brain-dead to realise they are not mutually exclusive.

  75. 1545.5May2016
    Tedesco, we only have to go as far as yesterday’s Washington Times to find some level of conspiracy, right at the top:
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/9/obama-wh-shows-bad-faith-global-warming-case-judge/
    And we could point out that the Washington Post would never report such a story, nor would any other liberal paper in the country. But not all climate fanatics are liars–some are just idiots, and it’s hard to tell a crooked referee from an incompetent one.

    Which are you and your colleagues? I don’t know for sure, but it’s interesting that an outsider named Nick Stokes saw the need to correct your numbers somehow. Are the before and after figures available to us, from either GISS or Stokes? Let’s see what else. Here’s a graph from BEST comparing HadCRUT and GISS and NCDC and BEST (4th chart):
    http://berkeleyearth.org/berkeley-earth-temperature-update/
    It shows GISS and NCDC well above HadCRUT and BEST just a few months before the Karl adjustment in apparent disagreement with the essence of your claim. Whatever adjustment HadCRUT may have made “well before NOAA and GISS did,” the Karl adjustment to NOAA and the nearly simultaneous non-Karl adjustment to GISS certainly widened the distance between them, like I said. (Is a tenth of a degree significant?) So it seems you are not to be trusted. And I haven’t mentioned ARGOS (directly) or the radiosonde data, which jive with UAH and used to jive with RSS before their big adjustment. And you’ve ignored Tisdale’s graph. So whether it’s a conspiracy of incompetence or of intent, you seem to be part of it.
    –AGF

  76. 1700GMT
    Possibly Tollefson did not distinguish between the working group drafts and the final, sanitized version of the 2013 IPCC report. What the Working Group I originally stated was this:

    “In summary, the observed recent warming hiatus, defined as the reduction in GMST trend during 1998–2012 as compared to the trend during 1951–2012, is attributable in roughly equal measure to a cooling contribution from internal variability and a reduced trend in external forcing (expert judgment, medium confidence).”

    Pachauri and his ideologue henchmen had no use for such “expert judgement.” (We’ll make the report say what we want it to say.) So we could possibly allow that CO’N man is technically correct as far as the finished product goes, but only at the expense of a doomsday world devoid of conspiracy, since any rational person would deem the censoring of “expert judgement” to conform to purposes of propaganda, to be conspiratorial.
    –AGF

  77. Oh for fucks sake AGF! Open conspiracy theories against the climatologists and the IPCC – thousands of climate scientists around the world who have spent years learning the intricacies and doing the maths and who would actually have a vested interest in disproving Global Overheating i.e. winning Nobel prizes and creating a revolution in basic physics & climatology – now? Seriously dude. I didn’t think I could think much less of you but turns out I can.

    As for having “no use for such expert judgement” – are you trying to set a world record in projection and break everyone’s toughest tungsten strength irony meters or something?

    @AGF #414 :

    StevoR, … ( Blatant AGF lie snipped) .. asks about the “mythical pause,” claiming it’s incompatible with LIA recovery.

    I asked whether you believed in the mythical “”pause” BS and pointed out that if we’re recovering from the LIA then the supposed and actually non-existent “pause” in this warming is not compatible with that either. Hardly a straight answer but I’ll take that as a ‘yes’ and that you hold mutually incompatible positions and are too willfully ignorant or disingenuous to accept that fact. I don’t think you are arguing in good faith here AGF.

    As I said a month ago, I could link you to lists of over 60 excuses for the pause but the knowledgeable websites are banned.

    No. Denialist anti-science propaganda sites are banned.

    Knowledgeable websites are fine here for instances all the one’s I’ve linked for you throughout this thread and you’ve deliberately ignored.

    Here’s from the abstract of the first on the list:
    “However, the most recent climate data [2], show global temperature development levelling off or even turning negative since 2001 in contrast to the anticipated course related to the steady increases in the concentration in the atmosphere of green-house gasses, primarily carbon dioxide and methane.”

    Turns out AGF’s linked paper :

    http://file.scirp.org/pdf/ACS_2014010909502804.pdf

    is titled Reduced Solar Activity Disguises Global Temperature Rise LOL! I kid you not folks! 😉

    It includes the following, immediately after AGFs typically cherry-picked and misleadingly out of context quote :

    The purpose of this communication is to demonstrate that the reduced rate in the global temperature rise complies with expectations related to the decaying
    level of solar activity according to the relation published in an earlier analysis [3]. Without the reduction in the
    solar activity-related contributions the global temperatures would have increased steadily from 1980 to present.

    Wow. Your own source completely and utterly refutes the case you’re actually claiming it supports! Thanks I guess.
    Did you think people wouldn’t actually check your links AGF?

    And guess what? He never uses the word “pause”! He just mentions a “negative” trend.

    Gee I wonder why especially given the papers title eh?! Indeed, this papers author goes much further and quite literally concludes with :

    “The decaying solar activity makes the recently recorded global temperatures flatten out and thus disguises the real climate development. With a steady level of cycle-average solar activity the global temperatures would have shown a steady rise from 1980 to present (2013) in agreement with the increasing atmospheric concentrations of green-house gasses, primarily carbon dioxide and methane [16], and not the levelling-off actually observed since 2001.

    The solar activity is now at the lowest level seen in the
    past 100 years and could not go much lower. Thus, the
    observed global temperatures may soon resume the steady rise observed from around 1980 to 2001. If solar activity starts increasing then the global temperatures may rise even steeper than that seen over the past three decades.

    (Bold added in the forlorn hope that AGF might actually get it!)

    So the whole point of that paper was saying the “pause” was
    actually never there and that solar activity misled some people – like AGF – into wrongly concluding that it was real.

    Again, thanks for the informative link and source that demolishes your own PRATTs and delusions!

    Oh & it shall be noted here that you’ve failed to answer the other questions I asked in #412 & before.

    Since you’ve been so kind already 😉 , please do so :

    1) You,AGF, are saying the scientific consensus there like the one on Global Overheating is wrong because _____???

    2) And that we should believe you over all those real climate scientists because ____??? (Fill in the blanks if you can!)

    &

    3. Volcanic activity levels and solar irradiance have been studied, observed and calculated and found NOT to be causative factors in the current observed planetary heating. What part of that do you fail to understand or reject on what factual basis and what evidence to have to support your claims?

  78. Pachauri and his ideologue henchmen had no use for such “expert judgement.

    And with that outrageously inappropriate and libellous statement AGF further delves into the murk of gutter denial and reveals that he, like many of his ilk, are clueless about the nature of the IPCC and its work, probably because he is regurgitating something that has previously been regurgitated umpteen times.

    Whatever, it has been explained over and over that any use of the term pause in this context was to describe a slow down in rate of surface temperature increase, and not that of the climate system, which includes the oceans, as a whole.

    The way the term has been used by deniers is a mischaracterisation, often based upon the trend of one temperature data set (RSS) with cherry picked start and end dates. Thus it is cherry picking from picked cherries.

    That later is made clear if one studies the three part report issued by the UK Met’ Office . Do download and read closely using included external references to clarify if you don’t understand something or wish to try to not understand it.

  79. agf:

    Possibly Tollefson did not distinguish between..

    Possibly? Possibly? What a pathetic excuse for not realising that Tollefson’s statement must be mistaken in at least some way.

    “In summary, the observed recent warming hiatus, defined as the reduction in GMST trend during 1998–2012 as compared to the trend during 1951–2012, is attributable in roughly equal measure to a cooling contribution from internal variability and a reduced trend in external forcing (expert judgment, medium confidence).”

    So fucking what? That is still not contradicted by what Karl said about the 1998-2012 trend not being statistically significant.

    So we could possibly allow that CO’N man is technically correct

    Absolutely pathetic.

    a doomsday world devoid of conspiracy

    It always comes back to a conspiracy theory.

  80. More correctly, the ‘pause’/’hiatus’/”negative trend” is part of the reason 97% of climate models run hot. That they run hot indicates the modelers don’t have an adequate understanding of how climate responds to human interference, that climate sensitivity is lower than assumed, and that undesired consequences of GHGs have been exaggerated.

    But I haven’t been able to get a single response to my first post here: who is right–Oreskes or Hansen? Oreskes called Hansen a ‘denier’ for advocating a realistic energy approach to reducing CO2 emissions: nuclear energy. This in itself proves Oreskes doesn’t care at all about global warming, let alone solutions to the supposed problem. She is only interested in advancing her Marxist agenda.

    So as I have said several times before, it makes no difference whether we confess our sins of emission and recite the credo if we all go on our merry way sinning as before. Expenditure translates roughly into energy consumption. The wealthy cannot spend their money except on energy consumption. Hansen is at least smart enough to know that solar and wind power cannot replace fossil fuels, but nuclear energy can to a large extent. Oreskes doesn’t really want a solution–only a victimized planet.

    And you all, who can’t understand these simple facts that undermine your belief system, can just keep on calling the agnostics deniers. We don’t care, but we don’t think any of you are very bright.
    –AGF

  81. “More correctly, the ‘pause’/’hiatus’/”negative trend” is part of the reason 97% of climate models run hot. That they run hot indicates the modelers don’t have an adequate understanding of how climate responds to human interference, that climate sensitivity is lower than assumed, and that undesired consequences of GHGs have been exaggerated.”

    Where has AGF been for the last three years? My pre-breakfast farts contain more logic than this dimwit has expended throughout these comments.

  82. …the reason 97% of climate models run hot.

    Which statement demonstrates that you know very little about climate models. How many different types there are, how many research teams from diverse countries are involved and that models are often run many times starting with different boundary conditions and/or time frames.

    Go look up stuff about climate models, most good text books on the sciences behind climate change have sections on this as do reliable websites such as Real Climate, and Skeptical Science. Don’t knock them until you have studied them.

    There was also commentary on climate models in the Met’ Office report I pointed you at above, which will give you clues.

    We don’t care, but we don’t think any of you are very bright….

    Said the Hatter looking into the mirror.

  83. 1800GMT

    Lionel A, you don’t seem to know the difference between climate and weather. Look them up. If the pause is not significant, your record hot months certainly aren’t. There is only one reason 97% of models run hot: they don’t reflect reality. And to deny that is to deny reality, which is all you alarmists know how to do.

    And speaking of consensus, let’s hear your guess for ECS. This picture is worth a million words: http://skepticalscience.com//pics/ProjvsObs.png
    And none of SS’s BS can explain it away.

    So Lionel A, what have you done to save the world today? Switched from jets to bikes? Campaigned for nuclear power? You’re all just quacks. And hypocrites. –AGF

  84. AGF

    And speaking of consensus, let’s hear your guess for ECS. This picture is worth a million words: http://skepticalscience.com//pics/ProjvsObs.png
    And none of SS’s BS can explain it away.

    Explain what away?

    It is well understood that:

    – natural variability overprints the forced signal over short timescales

    – therefore nothing much about sensitivity can be inferred from a short period of observations

    – and comparing single-instance observations with the multi-model mean is uninformative and potentially misleading

    – and the forced signal dominates on multi-decadal / centennial timescales and that is the AGW problem

  85. 1930GMT
    Getting back on track, here’s a two year old obituary:

    “Maynard Malcolm Miller, explorer, committed educator and noted scientist whose glaciological research was among the first to identify hard evidence of global climate change as a result of human industrial activity, died on January 26 at his home in Moscow, Idaho. He was 93.”

    That eulogy, “noted scientist whose glaciological research was among the first to identify hard evidence of global climate change as a result of human industrial activity,” requires context. Here’s what he was saying back in 79:

    “…we are in the middle of or long overdue for some kind of Ice Age.” “…we are apparently dropping into a cooling phase.”

    So here they are, claiming priority for climate change alarm, when the original alarm was in fact about cooling danger.
    Here Miller is pushing warming while Motyka and Hartmann are a bit skeptical: http://juneauempire.com/stories/072703/loc_glaciers.shtml#.VzOE7ITyvcs
    And who was concerned with CO2 warming in 1968? Fred Singer –see the introduction to Part I of “Global Effects of Environmental Pollution.”
    https://books.google.com/books?id=hWa0LcQNZhcC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_book_other_versions#v=onepage&q&f=false
    Some scientists are influenced by recent climate cycles and some aren’t.
    –AGF

  86. AG Foster

    Oreskes called Hansen a ‘denier’ for advocating a realistic energy approach to reducing CO2 emissions: nuclear energy. This in itself proves Oreskes doesn’t care at all about global warming, let alone solutions to the supposed problem. She is only interested in advancing her Marxist agenda.

    Nonsense. It ‘proves’ nothing of the sort. At most, it shows that Oreskes probably doesn’t understand the technical challenge of switching to 100% renewables very clearly. As for this rubbish about ‘Marxist agendas’, well that’s just unhinged. Favouring a renewables-heavy future energy mix doesn’t make anyone a Marxist.

  87. So here they are, claiming priority for climate change alarm, when the original alarm was in fact about cooling danger.

    Except that it wasn’t. The majority scientific view has always been that CO2 will cause more warming.

  88. 2200GMT

    BBD:

    “So here they are…” refers to Miller’s obituary writers. But your misinterpretation of the sentence is probably wrong too–we just don’t have any polls from the 70s.

    Oreskes attacked Frederick Seitz for his strident anticommunism in Merchants. She’s anticapitalist. She’s socialist. Those who know her consider her a Marxist, e.g.,
    http://motls.blogspot.com/2014/10/who-is-bigger-hater-of-fundamental.html
    And she’s not opposed to unworkable renewables–like wind and solar–just workable ones like nuclear.

    Thou hast misconstrued everything. –AGF

  89. “So here they are…” refers to Miller’s obituary writers. But your misinterpretation of the sentence is probably wrong too–we just don’t have any polls from the 70s.

    What misrepresentation?

    Look at the contemporary evidence as reviewed in “The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus,” Peterson, Thomas C., William M. Connolley, John Fleck, 2008: Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 89, 1325–1337. Which was referenced in the headpost.

    Majority scientific opinion was that CO2 would cause warming.

    Oreskes attacked Frederick Seitz for his strident anticommunism in Merchants. She’s anticapitalist. She’s socialist.

    Seitz is old school Cold War nuts, AGF. Oresekes having a go at Fred’s reactionary politics doesn’t make her a Marxist. As for the view from rather right of centre provided by Lubos, well, he’s not exactly a balanced commentator.

    Thou hast misconstrued everything. –AGF

    Um, no.

  90. claiming priority for climate change alarm, when the original alarm was in fact about cooling danger

    The original warnings, Schneider e.g., were conditional warnings – cooling conditional on aerosols – warming conditional on GHGs.

    The warnings haven’t changed, only the conditions.

  91. Has Lubos called for Naomi’s “liquidation” yet? (With him, it’s less a threat than a bon Motl.)

  92. agf:

    If the pause is not significant

    From your favourite citation:

    “Recent studies have assessed whether or not trends during the slowdown are statistically different from trends over some earlier period. These investigations have led to statements such as “further evidence against the notion of a recent warming hiatus”4 or “claims of a hiatus in global warming lack sound scientific basis”9. While these analyses are statistically sound

    i.e. the slowdown was not statistically significant. I know how important statistical significance is to global warming denialists so I know they will want statistical significance before even considering the significance of a slowdown – unless they’re shameless hypocrites of course.

    Also from the brain-dead’s favourite citation:

    “The legacy of this new understanding will certainly outlive the recent warming slowdown.”

    Poor recent warming slowdown, outlived by the legacy this new understanding.

  93. agf:

    that climate sensitivity is lower than assumed

    According to your favourite citation, it means nothing of the sort:

    “A different perspective on the role of internal variability is obtained through the analysis of the individual models
    and realizations comprising the MME. In 10 out of 262 ensemble members, the simulations and observations had the same negative phase of the IPO during the slowdown period — that is, there was a fortuitous ‘lining up’ of internal decadal variability in the observed climate system and the 10 simulations15,16. These 10 ensemble members captured the muted early-twenty-first-century warming, thus illustrating the role of internal variability in the slowdown.”

    Thus the short-term slowdown was due to short term factors that are not incorporated into the climate models, except by chance, such as the IPO. This makes absolutely no difference to long term average outcomes which include climate sensitivity.

  94. AGF

    Lionel A, you don’t seem to know the difference between climate and weather.

    So, clever clogs, what is the difference between climate and weather? This would be easy for you to answer if you had studied ‘Atmosphere, Weather & Climate’ by Roger G. Barry and Richard Chorley as I have. I still have the 1982 edition I used way back here.

    And I note that, by your repetition of this ‘97%’ BS that you still lack knowledge of the nature of models and on what they are constructed, think palaeoclimatology for one.

    Now dropping in a chart from anywhere, shorn of context and even if from SkS is not the action of an honest broker.

    However that is the nature of the particular climate models run to develop those particular scenarios. You will find that from which it is a crop, on page 131 of WGAR1AR5 final. If you think that is the product of ‘97% of climate models’ then your are misinformed.

    As for ESC and TSR (or TCS), what is the difference and why does it matter? Come on, stop avoiding and provide some substance.

  95. As for ESC and TSR (or TCS)

    Acronym alert:

    TCR -> ECS -> ESS

    And don’t let’s get started on ‘effective climate sensitivity’…

  96. Yep! I got my acronyms really muddled there whilst watching a computer out of the corner of my eye which had got a dose of uninvited Windows 10 updates which I was sorting. Grrr!

  97. 1750GMT
    We have two sorts here, droolers and foamers. The simplest things go over everyone’s head. Miller’s obituary brags about him being one of the first to identify anthropogenic climate change, when the record shows the climate change he in fact promoted was global cooling. Too hard for everyone here.

    The main point is this: global warming is a good thing, whatever is causing it. It has allowed agriculture in temperate zones where formerly there was none. Increased precipitation together with CO2 fertilization has greened the Sahel. It might possibly open the Arctic to navigation for part of the year. It might save us from another LIA or the next major glaciation. But it has not been sufficient to prevent the southern migration of the US citrus belt.

    What are the dangers of warming? Nearly zilch. Far less at any rate than those of cooling. The coolers were right in every aspect except the worldwide starvation predicted by Bryson and a few others. Cold is bad. Warm is good.

    BBD refers us to PCF like we hadn’t discussed the hell out of it here. He has a lot of catching up to do. Lionel A thinks ECS and TCS aren’t important or something. If it ain’t quantified it ain’t science. If we don’t know how strong CO2 is we don’t know squat. If it’s weak, the citrus groves will continue to freeze–partly due to swamp draining in Florida–but not in Texas or California.

    So what about sea level rise? Is that a problem? This is a threat on a par with the interstadial coming to an end: the time scale is millennial. 3mm/year with only imagined acceleration, such as by comparing the apples and oranges of satellite measurement against tide gauges. The gloom and doom is not based on observation but on worst case scenarios of ECS, which ECS remains unquantified, but necessarily lowered by the pause. An inch per decade. A foot per century, at present rates, which rates are largely a function of LIA recovery. It’s a symptom of better days ahead. The LIA is over.

    Cheer up. Bryson was wrong. So is Hansen.
    –AGF

  98. The main point is this: global warming is a good thing, whatever is causing it. […] What are the dangers of warming? Nearly zilch.

    Argument from assertion is a logical fallacy, not least when contradicted by pretty much the entire field of ecosystems science.

    The gloom and doom is not based on observation but on worst case scenarios of ECS, which ECS remains unquantified, but necessarily lowered by the pause.

    Wrong and debunked just a few comments above. Repeating tripe does not constitute an argument.

  99. Lionel A thinks ECS and TCS aren’t important or something.

    Foster (far from like your namesake) your comprehension is appalling if that is what you think.

    So tell us do, what are are the differences between equilibrium climate sensitivity and transient climate response? Stop ducking questions.

    Other part of the question was for you to explain why it matters. Which was not an indicator of importance or other from myself.

    As for warming being good — do your lying eyes deceive you about extreme weather event occurrences. As BBD writes the evidence from ecological systems is one of distress, think phenological disruption alone.

    Now it is too late in the day here to go into further detail but that should be homework for you to do.

  100. agf:

    global warming is a good thing

    A.k.a. the third stage of climate science denial (1st stage: there is no global warming, 2nd stage: humans aren’t causing it).

    But we’ve come to expect science denial from someone who makes shit up and cites made-up shit and thinks the two pieces of shit are mutually exclusive. Pieces of shit aren’t mutually exclusive, they’re just pieces of shit.

  101. 1540GMT
    All the believers have to be educated from scratch–deprogrammed, degaussed, rehabilitated, weaned from junk science and decades of brainwashing. In a sane world the burden of proof is left to the doomsayers, not the skeptics. The ubiquitous junk science such as that which Lionel A links us to makes Bryson’s predictions of a starving freezing world look reasonable by comparison. LA’s link begins:

    “Anthropogenic climate change is widely expected to drive species extinct by hampering individual survival and reproduction, by reducing the amount and accessibility of suitable habitat, or by eliminating other organisms that are essential to the species in question.”

    What better example of BBD’s argument from assertion! Grand scale extinction from a return to Eemian conditions or worse: Pliocene even. Yeah, it was so cold around my place after a warm March that I thought my cherries and apricot blossoms wouldn’t get fertilized, but they managed.

    But this climate nonsense is throwing us back into the dark ages. Only junk science is funded. Only lying and incompetent scientists get grants. We’re in big trouble. Polar bears starving and drowning (while their numbers increase). Armadillos heading back south (after moving north in the 70s). Birds changing routes and nests and crossing borders without documentation. It’s total havoc, all because you refuse to buy a hybrid! What’s going on?

    Here’s what, to name a few:
    1) Worms are being introduced by gardeners and foresters to northern parts where they haven’t been for tens of thousands of years.
    2) Bird feeders are everywhere.
    3) Growing cities provide unprecedented habitat for pigeons and swallows.
    4) European starlings largely replaced extinct passenger pigeons in North America.
    5) Forests continue to be cleared for agriculture and wood pellet burning.
    6) Forest fires have been prevented, radically altering the natural ecosystem.
    7) Roads in forests facilitate predation.

    And so on. And in the midst of this global environmental disruption these biologists claim to detect problems created by a one degree temperature change, and try to tell us climate change is the main problem threatening species, not whaling, fishing, logging, deforestation, exotic species introduction, etc. We are dealing with nothing but junk science and you rabidupes are the perpetrators. And you try to teach us?

    Now about that TCS. Short term GHG forcing plus feedbacks, with the primary feedback expected to be water vapor. Generally, more H2O in the troposphere amplifies; more in the stratosphere attenuates. What’s happening?
    Total column over the ocean increasing a little:
    https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-3-20.html
    Precipitable H2O holding fairly steady:
    http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/fig4c_tpw.jpg
    Global relative humidity decreasing significantly:
    http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/GlobalRelativeHumidity300_700mb.jpg
    Specific humidity at 400mb decreasing markedly:
    http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/SH400mb.jpg
    So H2O feedback may well be negative, possibly sufficiently negative to counteract CO2 altogether.

    Makes a hot spot hard to find. In fact it was not identified till May 2015 when innovative statistical analysis made it show up where none had seen it before. 2015 was a good year. And in September RSS, which formerly showed the best (negative) pause, was adjusted enough to replace the pause with a hot spot. It was a very good year. Whereas previously RSS and UAH and radiosondes were closing the gap with surface measurements–against theory–novel interpretation brought all the old sensors in line with the dogma. Marvelous these mathematical advances. And the rabidupes eat it all up.
    –AGF

  102. GISS and NCDC well above HadCRUT and BEST

    BTW, regarding the “adjustment” period 1998-2012 inclusive, GISS now shows 0.103±0.142?/decade while BEST now shows 0.096±0.136?/decade. Saying the former is “well above” the latter is just making shit up. Obviously BEST are part of the Great Global Warming Conspiracy.

  103. What better example of BBD’s argument from assertion!

    The quote isn’t an argument from assertion. It is backed by pretty much the whole field of ecosystems science. The only person arguing from assertion counter to the mainstream scientific position is you, AGF. Please try to keep this in mind – it’s the second time I’ve had to remind you.

    * * *

    So H2O feedback may well be negative, possibly sufficiently negative to counteract CO2 altogether.

    Then how do you explain past climate variability? Let’s take the example of deglaciation under orbital forcing (Milankovitch forcing). Total solar irradience during deglaciation is virtually unchanged. All that happens is that orbital dynamics reorganise seasonal and spatial insolation without increasing the total amount. Yet this is sufficient to trigger an increase in global average temperature of >4C. That is absolely robust evidence for the dominance of postitive feedbacks in the climate system. You need to think more carefully about what you are claiming. I would also recommend a good textbook on physical climatology as your topic knowledge is extremely weak.

  104. And the rabidupes eat it all up.

    If you want to be dismissed as a nutter, keep up with the conspiracy theory nonsense. If you want to be taken seriously – even a little bit – put the tinfoil away.

    Only and final warning.

  105. 1930GMT
    BBD, if you look here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#/media/File:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg
    you’ll see that 60ppm CO2 correspond to 10C, which is one hell of a forcing to blame on CO2. The most that has been attributed to CO2 and the ice ages is a little amplification. If you look lower on the chart you’ll see that insolation varies over 100W at 65N in June, two orders of magnitude greater than CO2 forcing, and which is clearly what triggers the show. Not a tiny bit of CO2. So we see as always, you don’t know the first thing about climatology, yet here you are parading you ignorance for all to see, and resorting to arguments of consensus and authority. Next you’ll insist a peregrine falcon can stoop at 240mph.

    Was Lysenkoism a conspiracy? –AGF

  106. The most that has been attributed to CO2 and the ice ages is a little amplification.

    First, I’m not arguing that deglaciation is forced by CO2 alone. CO2 and CH4 are *feedbacks* – positive feedbacks – to changing seasonal and spatial insolation, itself modulated by orbital dynamics. Just so we are clear.

    If you look lower on the chart you’ll see that insolation varies over 100W at 65N in June, two orders of magnitude greater than CO2 forcing, and which is clearly what triggers the show.

    See above.

    Not a tiny bit of CO2. So we see as always, you don’t know the first thing about climatology, yet here you are parading you ignorance for all to see, and resorting to arguments of consensus and authority.

    See above.

    The point we were discussing was whether or not there is evidence for a strong *negative* feedback – you brought up water vapour – which could counteract the effects of radiative perturbation. Deglaciation under orbital forcing illustrates that the climate system must be dominated by *positive* feedbacks because total energy input (global TSI) changes very little during deglaciation but the climate system warms up by >4C. This is only possible if the net of all feedbacks is positive. If a strong negative feedback existed, it would have prevented deglaciation. The Pleistocene ice age would not be punctuated by interglacials.

    * * *

    So we see as always, you don’t know the first thing about climatology, yet here you are parading you ignorance for all to see

    🙂

    You need a good textbook. Try Ruddiman Earth’s Climate: Past and Future (2nd Edition). Don’t buy the 3rd Ed because you don’t need to spend the considerable extra money. The 2nd Ed is fine and by no means obsolete. $10 – $30 USD is a bargain if you are more interested in the science of physical climatology than pushing a political peanut.

  107. 2045GMT

    You have obviously never read a good text book. “See above” and “see above” doesn’t add much. Anyone who tries to dismiss orbital forcing by way of globally averaged insolation and thinks a fraction of a watt of CO2 amplification constitutes significant feedback, aint up to par on the subject.

    First thing, asymmetric albedo. The 100W cycle has little effect on the S hemisphere, huge effect on the N. Land ice area is relatively constant in the S; highly variable in the N. The albedo feedback alone swamps CO2 feedback. And methane is pretty much a farce as feedbacks go.

    So insolation varies over a max of 100W through orbital forcing. Southern albedo is fairly constant long term; only sea ice varies much. As long as the northern ice melts faster than it snows, the ice diminishes, and vise versa. And you think M cycles can’t do that? The global average doesn’t trigger squat. The 100W cycle, together with albedo and cloud feed back, make your GHG’s and H2O feedback look like peanuts.

    What does it take to melt a km of ice in 10ky? 3W/m^2.
    You’re just talking junk science.
    –AGF

  108. You have obviously never read a good text book. “See above” and “see above” doesn’t add much. Anyone who tries to dismiss orbital forcing by way of globally averaged insolation and thinks a fraction of a watt of CO2 amplification constitutes significant feedback, aint up to par on the subject.

    Are you being deliberately stupid?

    Here’s what I wrote:

    First, I’m not arguing that deglaciation is forced by CO2 alone. CO2 and CH4 are *feedbacks* – positive feedbacks – to changing seasonal and spatial insolation, itself modulated by orbital dynamics. Just so we are clear.

    See above. Idiot. And stop strawmanning me to avoid engaging on the actual issue, which is your being wrong about negative feedbacks. See above.

    First thing, asymmetric albedo.

    Not in dispute. Strawman.

    The albedo feedback alone swamps CO2 feedback. And methane is pretty much a farce as feedbacks go.

    Albedo is *larger* but you are grossly over-stating the case. The combined forcing increase from CO2 and CH4 (~18ka – 11.5ka interval) was ~2W/m^2 which is most definitely climatologically significant (eg. IPCC AR4 WG1 Ch 6).

    So insolation varies over a max of 100W through orbital forcing.

    It’s about 40W/m^2 and only at high north latitude in summer. You are over-stating again.

    The global average doesn’t trigger squat.

    More straw. I never said that it did.

    The 100W cycle, together with albedo and cloud feed back, make your GHG’s and H2O feedback look like peanuts.

    The key problem is that you don’t really know what you are talking about.

    Here’s how deglaciation actually works:

    – NH summer insolation increases from ~21.5ka especially at high latitudes

    – By ~19ka, mid/high latitude NH temperature increase causes sufficient melt from NH ice sheets for freshwater flux to inhibit NADW formation and halt AMOC
    [THC fact sheet: see fig. 2]

    – NH now *cools* as equatorial >>> poleward heat transport stops

    – With the NH ‘heat sink’ turned off, the SH *warms*, as it must

    – Deep water warming in SH ocean causes release of carbon to atmosphere. This positive feedback globalises and amplifies the warming

    – NH melt resumes, fully engaging strongly positive ice albedo feedback

    – Deglaciation accelerates until largely complete by ~11.5ka. Holocene interglacial begins

    See eg. Shakun et al. (2012).

    You’re just talking junk science.

    Please stop the aggressive bullshitting. It should be obvious by now that I know you are bluffing. You aren’t fooling me. You couldn’t.

    Now, you were wrong about negative feedback. You are wrong about CO2 not being a necessary part of the system of positive feedbacks to orbital forcing. What next?

  109. 1350GMT
    BBD, in comparing modern short term climate variability and feed backs to ice ages you jumped the ship. They are not comparable.

    First off, why don’t you explain to us what causes the variability in CO2 and CH4?

    Here’s what you said at 449: ” Total solar irradience during deglaciation is virtually unchanged. All that happens is that orbital dynamics reorganise seasonal and spatial insolation without increasing the total amount. Yet this is sufficient to trigger an increase in global average temperature of >4C. That is absolely robust evidence for the dominance of postitive feedbacks in the climate system.”

    They are not analogous.

    Concerning insolation cycles you state: “It’s about 40W/m^2 and only at high north latitude in summer. You are over-stating again.”

    Where do you get that? I already referred you to a chart indicating 100W peak to peak. Did the Vostok group lie? And here’s http://www.clim-past.net/12/1119/2016/
    asserting :
    “The transient experiments indicate a highly inhomogeneous early Holocene temperature warming over different regions. The climate in Alaska was constantly cooling over the whole Holocene, whereas there was an overall fast early Holocene warming in northern Canada by more than 1?°C?kyr?1 as a consequence of progressive LIS decay.”

    And what could be more absurd than “its… only at high north latitude in summer”? Where do you think it matters? It matters where the ice is, you idiot. Where the ice melts when it gets an extra 40 or 50W over the average (80 or 100 over the minimum).

    So again, what makes CO2 and CH4 oscillate? Temperature, and nothing more. Only the slightest circular feedback. What drives T? Insolation, the presence or lack of ice, clouds, etc. Do you have benthic evidence for your NADW and AMOC modeling? Or is it just…modeling?

    At minus 50W the ice doesn’t melt. At plus 50 it does. Where T = 0C, that is, not at the South Pole. And the ice doesn’t give a hoot about 1W global CO2 feed back.

    Time to start over. –AGF

  110. BBD, in comparing modern short term climate variability and feed backs to ice ages you jumped the ship. They are not comparable.

    Why? Physics hasn’t changed. If feedbacks net positive, then the climate system is going to respond to *any* radiative perturbation. Including increased anthropogenic CO2 forcing.

    First off, why don’t you explain to us what causes the variability in CO2 and CH4?

    Assuming you are referring to glacial/interglacial cycles then, as explained, they are feedbacks to orbital forcing. My point is simply that they are *positive* feedbacks. They amplify the warming because they are efficacious climate forcings.

    They are not analogous.

    A positive feedback is a positive feedback. And you can’t get from a 0.2% global insolation boost at TOA to >4C surface temperature change without positive feedbacks.

    The point about positive feedbacks is that they offset lukewarm rhetoric.

  111. Where do you get that? I already referred you to a chart indicating 100W peak to peak.

    I think you’ve misunderstood the graph you linked earlier. This shows data from the Vostock ice core extending back ~420ka. Insolation at 65 degrees north latitude is presented at the bottom of the graph (bottom curve: orange). Magnitude is plotted on the vertical axis and the units are joules not W/m^2.

    The increase from the LGM to peak values ~12ka is about 60J.

  112. I think you’ve misunderstood the graph you linked earlier. This shows data from the Vostock ice core extending back ~420ka. Insolation at 65 degrees north latitude is presented at the bottom of the graph (bottom curve: orange). Magnitude is plotted on the vertical axis and the units are joules not W/m^2.

    Nope, that’s me confused, and hands up.

    The increase from the LGM to peak values ~12ka is about 60 Wm^2. Conservatively.

    Nothing else I have said changes.

  113. 0115GMT16May16
    To my question:
    “First off, why don’t you explain to us what causes the variability in CO2 and CH4?”
    BBD replies:
    “Assuming you are referring to glacial/interglacial cycles then, as explained, they are feedbacks to orbital forcing. My point is simply that they are *positive* feedbacks. They amplify the warming because they are efficacious climate forcings.”

    I don’t understand–the answer seems too vague. Let me ask further, why are the three responses (T, CO2, CH4) so closely correlated?
    –AGF

  114. They say you “can’t fix stupid”, but OMG, stupid coupled with raging political agenda is just insufferable… (I think it’s because the one reinforces the other.)

    1. They say you “can’t fix stupid”, but OMG, stupid coupled with raging political agenda is just insufferable… (I think it’s because the one reinforces the other.)

      One can, however, ignore Stupid.

  115. “I don’t understand–the answer seems too vague. Let me ask further, why are the three responses (T, CO2, CH4) so closely correlated?”

    (This suggests a sincere attempt at understanding, and I don’t want to belittle that in any way.”)

  116. 1905GMT
    Over at WUWT Shakun et al was appropriately deconstructed four years ago. To quote myself from a comment made I made (4/6/12, 1156AM) :

    “As most know, the great advantage of the ice cores is that multiple data are contained in close proximity in the ice. CO2 is locked in within a century or two of snowing, and the lag can be estimated and accounted for. So mixing in other proxies can only obfuscate.”

    The Vostok core compares CO2 and CH4 with ?18O with great precision, and it’s marvelous how well the first two correspond to reconstructed T. A primary task for the climatologist is to account at least for correlation between CO2 and CH4. The best, general explanation for the correlation is that the three mainly reflect ice sheet extension. With above average TOA insolation the ice melts rapidly, eventually (after several thousand years) uncovering organic debris, releasing CO2 and CH4 nearly in tandem with T rise, and providing no evidence per se of GHG warming, let alone TCS. If you have a better explanation for CO2/CH4 correlation, I’m all ears.

    Cf. this with the Vostok graph and you get an idea how useless is Shakun et al compared to a good ice core: https:// +
    wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/nature_shakun_proxies_plus_co2.jpg
    –AGF

  117. Over at WUWT Shakun et al was appropriately deconstructed four years ago.

    No it wasn’t. If you think the confusion at WUWT constitutes a scientific critique of S12 then you are mistaken. Please don’t reference this misinformation blog again. If there was a valid problem with S12 then it would be detailed in a reply in the literature. Where is that reply?

    If you want to discuss science, then deal in science. Same goes for Mearns’ stuff. He’s just wrong and badly out of date. If he knew what he was talking about, he would be aware that the ‘CO2 lags temperature’ meme is a debunked contrarian talking point, not a valid scientific perspective.

    releasing CO2 and CH4 nearly in tandem with T rise, and providing no evidence per se of GHG warming, let alone TCS

    (TCS -> TCR )

    This is physics denial. You are claiming that there is no climate forcing from GHGs, which isn’t something I am going to waste time arguing about. It’s Sky Dragon lunacy that is supposed to be banned even at WUWT.

    Read Shakun 12 instead of WUWT. In the real world, ice albedo alone is not sufficient to account for the temperature difference between the LGM and the pre-industrial Holocene. You need another radiative term. We’ve already established that *globally* TSI barely changes during deglaciation so we need something else and that something is GHG forcing. See eg. Hansen & Sato (2012):

    The altered boundary conditions that maintained the climate change between these two periods had to be changes on Earth’s surface and changes of long-lived atmospheric constituents, because the incoming solar energy does not change much in 20,000 years. Changes of long-lived GHGs are known accurately for the past 800,000 years from Antarctic ice core data (Luthi et al., 2008; Loulergue et al., 2008). Climate forcings due to GHG and surface albedo changes between the LGM and Holocene were approximately 3 and 3.5 W/m2, respectively, with largest uncertainty (±1 W/m2) in the surface change (ice sheet area, vegetation distribution, shoreline movement) due to uncertainty in ice sheet sizes (Hansen et al., 1984; Hewitt and Mitchell, 1997).

    Almost *half* the RF necessary to drive the LGM – Holocene transition is from GHGs.

  118. So mixing in other proxies can only obfuscate

    […]

    Cf. this with the Vostok graph and you get an idea how useless is Shakun et al compared to a good ice core

    No, this is incorrect. You are still ignoring the process of deglaciation which I outlined above. It isn’t globally simultaneous; there is hemispheric antiphase on millennial timescales. Pointing to an Antarctic core and saying that the rest of a global analysis is wrong because it is out of phase with the Antarctic shows that you have failed to understand this at the most basic level:

    – NH summer insolation increases from ~21.5ka especially at high latitudes

    – By ~19ka, mid/high latitude NH temperature increase causes sufficient melt from NH ice sheets for freshwater flux to inhibit NADW formation and halt AMOC

    – NH now *cools* as equatorial >>> poleward heat transport stops

    – With the NH ‘heat sink’ turned off, the SH *warms*, as it must

    – Deep water warming in SH ocean causes release of carbon to atmosphere. This positive feedback globalises and amplifies the warming

    – NH melt resumes, fully engaging strongly positive ice albedo feedback

    – Deglaciation accelerates until largely complete by ~11.5ka. Holocene interglacial begins

    It’s all in Shakun et al. If you read the actual science and not contrarian misinformation blogs you have at least a hope of sorting out the mess. I can’t do it for you.

  119. 1335GMT
    BBD sounds like Pravda dissing Radio Free Europe. Next he’ll be denouncing Climate Audit as science denial. SS is the propaganda site; WUWT draws on scientists everywhere to expose the junk science. Y’all need to get politically educated, and as your first lesson I suggest: http://michaelkelly.artofeurope.com/cru.htm

    Where you will read tidbits like this: “””

    Focus. Wait, it is juicy, it is devastating, it is priceless stuff. Tom Wigley to Jones:

    Phil,

    I have just read the M&M stuff critcizing MBH. A lot of it seems valid to me.
    At the very least MBH [the hockey stick] is a very sloppy piece of work — an opinion I have held for some time. [Although not in public.]
    Presumably what you have done with Keith is better? — or is it?
    I get asked about this a lot. Can you give me a brief heads up? Mike is too
    deep into this to be helpful.
    Tom.
    Phil’s reply:

    you cannot trust anything that M&M write. MBH is as good a way of putting all the data together as others. …
    Bottom line – their is no way the MWP (whenever it was) was as warm globally as the last 20 years. There is also no way a whole decade in the LIA period was more than 1 deg C on a global basis cooler than the 1961-90 mean. This is all gut feeling, no science, but years of experience of dealing with global scales and varaibility.
    Must go to Florence now. “””
    ========================================
    No, I never said there is no GHG forcing; I said we don’t know what the feedbacks are. We can’t quantify ECS or TCS and until we do we don’t even know for sure they’re not negative (however unlikely that might be). And after making silly claims about strawmen you really do it with:
    “Pointing to an Antarctic core and saying that the rest of a global analysis is wrong because it is out of phase with the Antarctic shows that you have failed to understand this at the most basic level..” You’re just making this crap up.

    Insolation is measured in watts. A watt is a joule per second. It only takes three watts to melt a km of ice in 10ky, and for a few months of the year when conditions are right the ice gets a whole lot more than that, plus feedback. Ergo, the primary response to insolation is ice sheet extension, of which CO2 and CH4 are merely symptoms with unknown and possibly insignificant amplification. Ice ages don’t tell us squat about their ECS and it’s quackery to claim otherwise.

    –AGF

  120. BBD sounds like Pravda dissing Radio Free Europe.

    Don’t be ridiculous. It has exactly the opposite effect you intend: it telegraphs that you have lost the argument and are desperately trying to deflect attention from the fact.

    As for the rest of the misdirection – in all the years since MBH99, nobody has ever shown it to be substantially flawed. Instead, every subsequent millennial temperature reconstruction has *confirmed* that the study – the first of its kind, let’s not forget – was essentially correct. And that’s the end of the matter. I’m not going to revisit the hockey stick wars in 2016.

    No, I never said there is no GHG forcing; I said we don’t know what the feedbacks are. We can’t quantify ECS or TCS and until we do we don’t even know for sure they’re not negative (however unlikely that might be).

    We *do* know they are not negative and events like deglaciation prove it. I have explained all this in some detail now and I’m not going to do it again. If you cannot follow the discussion, you should leave it, or at the very least, go back and read the thread until you understand the topic better.

    And after making silly claims about strawmen you really do it with:
    “Pointing to an Antarctic core and saying that the rest of a global analysis is wrong because it is out of phase with the Antarctic shows that you have failed to understand this at the most basic level..” You’re just making this crap up.

    No, you are. Go back and read what I wrote carefully. Either this is going over your head or you aren’t paying sufficient attention.

    Ice ages don’t tell us squat about their ECS and it’s quackery to claim otherwise.

    Redundant proof that you haven’t got the faintest idea what you are talking about. If you only read the references you would realise just how daft some of the things you say really are:

    The empirical fast-feedback climate sensitivity that we infer from the LGM-Holocene comparison is thus 5°C/6.5 W/m2 ~ ¾ ± ¼ °C per W/m2 or 3 ± 1°C for doubled CO2. The fact that ice sheet and GHG boundary conditions are actually slow climate feedbacks is irrelevant for the purpose of evaluating the fast-feedback climate sensitivity.

    This empirical climate sensitivity incorporates all fast response feedbacks in the real-world climate system, including changes of water vapor, clouds, aerosols, aerosol effects on clouds, and sea ice. In contrast to climate models, which can only approximate the physical processes and may exclude important processes, the empirical result includes all processes that exist in the real world – and the physics is exact.

    You need to read a decent textbook and stop trying to bluff your way through discussions like these. You cannot do it. Surely this is obvious to you by now?

    Do you *want* me to start openly mocking you?

  121. Since ancient citations of Tom Wigley are in fashion, here is what he says:

    The human-induced changes that are expected over the next 100 years are much, much greater than any changes that societies experienced in the past. Much greater.

  122. 1710GMT

    BBD: “Do you *want* me to start openly mocking you?”

    This from a guy who thinks you can get different numbers by switching from watts to joules. We can’t even predict water vapor and cloud feedback in the present climate regime, and BBD thinks that can be done with tolerable precision over ice ages, sufficienty, anyway, to estimate ECS. We don’t know the ancient extent of sea ice or shallow land ice. We can only guess what ocean currents were doing, and whether the Volga was flowing into the Caspian or the Arctic, or how much of the melting is due to rain brought up from the tropics (dependent on equatorial insolation).

    After the Eemian peaked CO2 stayed high for 15ky while T plummeted, apparently in response to falling insolation. CO2 couldn’t save our ancestors from the last ice age and we’ll be lucky if it saves us from the next, Callendar’s optimism notwithstanding.

    BBD: “As for the rest of the misdirection – in all the years since MBH99, nobody has ever shown it to be substantially flawed.”
    ======================
    What a load of BS. Wigley thought it was garbage; Edward Cook called it a “mess.” And this is from CRU insiders. Groves and Switzur swiftly trashed it, as have the glaciologists ever since, universally, indirectly. And Mann has not attracted a single amicus brief in his spat with Steyn. Steyn’s book says it all (“In Their Own Words…”).

    What you don’t seem to understand is that there is no LIA in the hockey stick. If you do understand that then what you don’t understand is that glaciologists have never doubted a global LIA–not in 1998, not now. Never read a glacier paper? Try to find one that doesn’t accept a global LIA. Good luck.

    –AGF

  123. You are spouting nonsense again.

    This from a guy who thinks you can get different numbers by switching from watts to joules.

    No, I misread the units on the Y axis. You, on the other hand misrepresented the graph itself and increased ~60W/m^2 to 100W/m^2 while simultaneously omitting to mention that this was for June at 65N latitude. And you have yet to acknowledge your errors. Or any of the dozens of others now pointed out to you on this thread.

    Spare me the climate agnosia and read the references. I’m not interested in your rhetoric. Produce a referenced argument or concede that you have lost this one.

    What you don’t seem to understand is that there is no LIA in the hockey stick. If you do understand that then what you don’t understand is that glaciologists have never doubted a global LIA–not in 1998, not now. Never read a glacier paper? Try to find one that doesn’t accept a global LIA. Good luck.

    PAGES 2k Consortium (2013) Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia

    Past global climate changes had strong regional expression. To elucidate their spatio-temporal pattern, we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia. The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century. At multi-decadal to centennial scales, temperature variability shows distinctly different regional patterns, with more similarity within each hemisphere than between them. There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.

  124. After the Eemian peaked CO2 stayed high for 15ky while T plummeted, apparently in response to falling insolation.

    Climate responds to the net of forcings. Not just CO2 or just insolation or just aerosols. So at a period when NH summer insolation has reduced to the point where NH ice sheets are growing it’s no surprise to see GAT falling faster than CO2 ppmv. Only a contrarian could possible think this constitutes an argument.

  125. 2030GMT
    Back at #451, I said: “insolation varies over 100W at 65N in June,” which BBD now denies. But we know he ignored it, or he would not have mistaken J for joules rather than June, nor would he have accused me of having misled him by leaving it out. And any scientist (which BBD obviously isn’t) would not need to be informed that insolation is measured in watts, that watts and joules measure different energies: kinetic and potential, hence are not interchangeable as units of measurement, but if by some sort of sloppy shorthand they were used interchangeably, there would be a one to one correspondence and no room for different values. Nor would he need to be taught the difference between zero to peak, and peak to peak amplitudes of waves. But I did point that out, and now BBD is trying to save face by lying.

    And he hopes to save face by spouting alarmist rhetoric purporting to back MBH98. BBD would learn more simply by reading my comments than by all his scriptures of doom. He doesn’t know about MWP logs turning up at lots of glaciers on various continents in both hemispheres. He needs to be educated from scratch.

    There is no such thing as a scientific argument between a priest of climate doom and a free thinker. (Hey, BBD, should we invest in nuclear power like Hansen says?)
    –AGF

  126. More desperate misdirection and no admission of errors.

    From #430 onwards:

    1/ Wrongly claims that the non-existent pause imlies lower climate sensitivity

    2/ Wrongly claims that the dangers from warming are ‘nearly zilch’ (a lunatic statement, if there ever was)

    3/ Wrongly claims that ECS ‘remains unquantified’ although a best estimate of ~3C has been accepted for decades

    4/ Wrongly claims (again, despite correction) that the non-pause lowers ECS

    5/ Wrongly claims that ‘only junk science is funded [and] only lying scientists get grants’ (more lunacy)

    6/ Wrongly claims that WV is flat or decreasing

    7/ Wrongly claims that WV feedback may be negative

    8/ Wrongly claims that RSS data were falsified

    9/ Wrongly claims that CO2 plays no part in deglacial climate change

    10/ Wrongly claims that albedo ‘swamps’ CO2 feeedback during deglaciation

    11/ Wrongly claims that modern and palaeoclimate variability are not comparible, thus implying that the laws of physics are mutable over time

    12/ Wrongly claims that insolation at 65N latitude increases by 100W/m^2 despite linking a chart clearly showing 60W/m^2

    13/ Wrongly claims that a crank denier blog has found errors in Shakun 12

    14/ Wrongly claims that CO2 has no climatological effect during deglaciation (again)

    15/ Wrongly claims that Shakun 12 invalidated by Vostock core data, showing total failure to understand deglacial process

    16/ Wrongly claims significant errors in MBH99

    17/ Wrongly claims feedbacks may be negative (again, despite repeated correction)

    18/ Wrongly claims it is impossible to extract ECS estimate from LGM Holocene transition (again)

    19/ Wrongly claims Late MIS5e CO2 vs T shows that CO2 is not an efficacious forcing

    20/ Wrongly claims that there was a defined, global and sychronous LIA event

    21/ Wrongly claims that There is no such thing as a scientific argument between a priest of climate doom and a free thinker. (Hey, BBD, should we invest in nuclear power like Hansen says?)

    Yes, of course we should expand nuclear. And you aren’t a ‘free thinker’ – you are a dogmatist pushing a political peanut. I have never claimed to be a scientist but I do understand the basics at a level considerable higher than you do. Look up: QED.

    Stop bluffing and admit your errors.

  127. AGF is indeed a free thinker, free to think what he likes. His mistake is in thinking that that automatically equates to being a good thinker — in itself an indication that he is in over his head. In fact he is, among other things, completely free of some basic tools required for quality, original thought.

  128. 0115.19MAY2016GMT
    BBD’s #1 is all we need to see he is an irrational dupe and ideological tool of climate quackery–a dogmatist of doom. The CRU emails show the conspirators were worried about the pause clear back in 2009 (with 5 years to go):
    http://www.di2.nu/foia/1255523796.txt
    And the lying fools like BBD now deny there ever was a “pause.” Hacked emails? No, leaked by an insider with an intellectual conscience.
    –AGF

  129. BBD’s #1 is all we need to see he is an irrational dupe and ideological tool of climate quackery–a dogmatist of doom. […]

    And the lying fools like BBD now deny there ever was a “pause.”

    How can I be both an irrational dupe and a lying fool? Dupes believe what they say and so by definition cannot be lying 🙂

    Anyway, leaving aside the mess that you mistake for coherent argument, let’s get back to the science.

    Like so many confused contrarians, you are conflating the troposphere with the climate system as a whole – a basic but serious error. The climate system as a whole is predominantly ocean. So a modest and brief slowdown in the rate of surface warming cannot by any means be described as a ‘pause’ in ‘global warming’. First, it is a slowdown, not a ‘pause’. Second, since OHC for the 0 – 2000m layer continues to shoot up, global warming continues unabated.

    This is exactly the kind of muddle that contrarians fill each others’ minds with and which could be readily dispelled if they simply stuck to the science.

    Who is the dogmatic dupe? Who is the fool? Who is irrational?

  130. …stick to the science…

    Well, in most cases that’s just not going to happen. In terms of argument, the situation is simple to describe. Conspiracy theory is the organizing principle, motivated reasoning is the method. That’s it. And it’s an idee fixe.

    The psychology is a bit more complicated to describe, but suffice it to say, I doubt that even one in a thousand is capable of mustering the resources and sorting themselves out to the point where they can stick to the science.

  131. Stick to the science? But, but, but… that’s a terrible distraction to staying on script with the idee fixe.

    Every sentence must contain a word from { alarmist, doom, quackery, ideological tool, dogmatist, conspirators, fools, lying, mistaken, flawed, crap, cannot trust, propaganda, junk science, squat, farce, obviously, ignorance, dupes, nonsense, dark ages, incompetent, doomsayers, brainwashing, hypocrites, Marxist, exaggerated, rampage, savages, clueless, doom prophet, ignoramuses, liars, misrepresented, trolls, demonize, mistake, irrelevant, alarm machine, full of crap, con man, unsupported, feeble, mindless, morons, contempt, dubious, blabberbox, crooked, broken, gibberish, refuted, fanatics, priests of climate doom, wayward, depraved, heretical, poison, self justification, parrots the propaganda, radical, cherry picker, abandoned, dishonest, disparagement, know-nothing, knee jerk response, intentionally confuse, doomsday, cheating, contradicts, non sequitur, corruption, claims, total inability, pinhead, reject, drooler, fishy, insignificant, fiddled with, fiasco, waste of time, alarm bells, hysteria, obfuscate, absolutely hopeless, gullible, fails, brainwash, radical, sucker, stupid, jackass, idiot, babble, retarded, perpetual liars, arrogance, silly notion, sacred, unrealistic, deluded, moron, imbecilic, congenital liar, load of BS, warm mongering, ideological goal, scare, alchemists, voodoo science, nincompoops, horrendous, zealous, babbling, inane, thick-skulled, band wagon, crackpots, delusion, setup, climate credo, naysayers, censorship, bankrupt, disaster, pathological }

    All of the above list was culled from a quick survey of AGF’s blather. He seems to be cycling through the dictionary of disparaging terms. Perhaps he’s actually a bot…

  132. 1555GMT
    BBD and the CO’N man have just learned about “where the heck is global warming,” proving the pause that both have been denying. How does the CO’N man respond? The recent spike is what matters, not a decade and a half of no warming. The coolers had much longer weather to worry about than two years of warming.

    BBD responds to having just learned about the pause by blaming the oceans. OK:
    1) The oceans were there before the pause and the models.
    2) A mechanism for switching warming from the air to the water ought to be identified. No such thing was predicted and no such thing has been identified, except as natural cycles apply.
    3) The pause is older than ARGO; ARGO has measured a twentieth of a degree of warming to a depth of 2km over its decade of existence.
    4) Without an identified mechanism for current ocean warming it is safe to blame it on LIA recovery.
    5) The thermal inertia it supplies is a good thing, tempering atmospheric cycles and potentially retarding a new LIA.
    6) When oceans are heating ice is not melting and the sea is not rising: steric SLR requires far more energy than eustatic rise.

    So yesterday BBD was a dupe, eating up the no pause propaganda. Today he is explaining away the pause with sea inertia propaganda. Does he believe it? Maybe. Does he still believe in the pause? I guess not. Can he be a fool and a dupe and a liar at the same time? No problem.
    –AGF

  133. I agree it’s probably worth doing– for the sake of the peanut gallery if nothing else.

    Short term, I’m inclined to marginalize. But that’s just me.

    IMO however, there is a huge pothole on the road to sensible discussion when it comes to metaliteracy. Just my 2 cents here, but in general I think it needs a lot more attention and development than it’s getting.

  134. AGF would immediately vomit forth accusations of dogmatic liberal-Marxist word cloud quackery and alarmism, then point to Michael Mann colluding to falsify the cloud to form a imaginary hockey stick that hides a MWP (Medieval Wordsmithing Period), and argue that the LIA (Linguistic Idiom Analytics) has given way to a warming word pause that’s being obfuscated by pinhead naysayers peddling voodoo language science in an attempt to dupe gullible people into becoming brainwashed to believe retarded babble coming from congenital liars who are full of crap, all in the name of following an exaggerated ideological world climate credo blabbered by thick-skulled, drooling prophets of doom…

  135. 2040GMT
    To what should I compare this bloggersville diversion? It would seem I have staged a simultaneous chess exhibition in a sanitarium. They call the pieces horses and castles and they move every which way, but the players call me a cheat and claim they won. No use trying to teach them how to play.
    –AGF

  136. 1) The oceans were there before the pause and the models.

    So?

    2) A mechanism for switching warming from the air to the water ought to be identified. No such thing was predicted and no such thing has been identified, except as natural cycles apply.

    Increase in wind-driven ocean circulation: England et al. (2014).

    3) The pause is older than ARGO; ARGO has measured a twentieth of a degree of warming to a depth of 2km over its decade of existence.

    That required a *hell* of a lot of energy! And the point is that energy accumulation was rapid and unabated during the misnomered ‘pause’. So there has been no ‘pause’ or even slowdown in the rate of global warming when correctly defined as the accumulation of energy in the climate system as a whole.

    4) Without an identified mechanism for current ocean warming it is safe to blame it on LIA recovery.

    Oceans warm as the troposphere warms. If you want a detailed explanation, I will provide it.

    5) The thermal inertia it supplies is a good thing, tempering atmospheric cycles and potentially retarding a new LIA.

    Why would there be a new LIA when the current radiative imbalance will only equilibriate when ocean thermal intertia has yielded up about another 0.6C warming (assuming atmospheric CO2 was somehow stabilised tomorrow at 400ppm)?

    6) When oceans are heating ice is not melting and the sea is not rising: steric SLR requires far more energy than eustatic rise.

    Um? The ocean is already warm enough to melt ice. As forcing increases and the ocean warms further, ice melt will continue.

    So yesterday BBD was a dupe, eating up the no pause propaganda. Today he is explaining away the pause with sea inertia propaganda.

    Not propaganda. Published science. Variability in the rate at which energy accumulates in the ocean modulates the rate of surface warming in the short term. There are other factors as well, but this is probably a significant contributor to the slowdown in the rate of surface warming from 2004 – 2014. In the long term – multidecadal to centennial – the forced trend dominates.

  137. agf:

    “where the heck is global warming,” proving the pause that both have been denying

    Actually, if it was somewhere then it wasn’t paused. To be paused it can’t be anywhere at all.

    As I said before from the brain-dead moron’s <a href="http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/articles/FyfeEtAlNatureClimate16.pdf"favourite citation:

    “The legacy of this new understanding will certainly outlive the recent warming slowdown.”

    Poor recent warming slowdown, dead as a doornail like agf’s brain.

  138. agf:

    “where the heck is global warming,” proving the pause that both have been denying

    Actually, if it was somewhere then it wasn’t paused. To be paused it can’t be anywhere at all.

    As I said before from the brain-dead moron’s favourite citation:

    “The legacy of this new understanding will certainly outlive the recent warming slowdown.”

    Poor recent warming slowdown, dead as a doornail like agf’s brain.

  139. By convention the “pause” was defined as a zero trend in global surface T, i.e., bottom atmosphere, not potential energy content of hydrosphere, cryosphere, or lithosphere. The propagandists preferred the word “hiatus” to describe a “slowdown” in the T trend, as they loathed the counter-propaganda value of the word “pause.” An honest approach to the semantics would not accept a change of definition midstream. There is a big difference between surface T and ocean T; e.g., “your children won’t know what snow is,” is a prediction that takes no account of possible ocean uptake of energy.

    Me:
    “6) When oceans are heating ice is not melting and the sea is not rising: steric SLR requires far more energy than eustatic rise.”
    You:
    “Um? The ocean is already warm enough to melt ice. As forcing increases and the ocean warms further, ice melt will continue.”

    According to Balmaseda, Trenberth, Kallen, 2013, “Over the past 50 years, the oceans have absorbed about 90% of the total heat added to the climate system [Bindoff et al., 2007], while the rest goes to melting sea and land ice, and warming the land surface and atmosphere.” http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/full

    Accordingly I find it necessary to explain to you that if the figure were say, 70% rather than 90%, that would mean more ice would be melting and eustatic SLR would triple.

    As for your mechanism for ocean warming, it’s better than nothing, but I would point out:
    1) An opposite effect was described in 2006: http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/walker.shtml
    2) It is rather counter intuitive. Get out of the shower and stand in front of a fan and you will soon be shivering. Hurricanes lower ocean T by about 10C to depths of tens of meters. It would be a good trick for the trade winds to sink warm water before cooling it, though as always, observation trumps theory.
    3) But the trade winds strengthened before the pause.
    4) Few seemed to have jumped on the band wagon. I might point out where Prof. Barry Bickmore confidently asserts what others in this thread have insisted:
    By: Barry Bickmore on January 14, 2016
    at 5:13 pm
    “It’s been known for quite a while that the warming “pause” or “speed bump” or whatever you want to call it is simply a function of a shift toward more La Niña years, lately.”
    https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2016/01/13/ted-cruz-pwned-by-satellite-expert/
    5) It flies in the face of recent trend adjustments adopted by NASA, NOAA, and RSS. These adjustments not only bust the pause, but much of the “slowdown” as well, to the consternation of Fyfe, Mann, et al.
    6) It remains one of some 60 explanations for the pause, all of which are likewise rendered superfluous to a large extent by Karl et al.

    But thanks for pointing it out. –AGF

  140. Accordingly I find it necessary to explain to you that if the figure were say, 70% rather than 90%, that would mean more ice would be melting and eustatic SLR would triple.

    This is yet more diversionary waffling. The variability in ocean heat uptake is tiny – fractions of a percent.

    1) An opposite effect was described in 2006: http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/walker.shtml

    In which you confuse a long-term decrease in the Walker Circulation of ~3.5% since 1800 with decadal variability as described in England et al. Stop trying to be a smarty-pants. It fools nobody.

    “It’s been known for quite a while that the warming “pause” or “speed bump” or whatever you want to call it is simply a function of a shift toward more La Niña years, lately.”

    As I understand it: IPO negative -> ENSO – LN predominant -> slowdown in the rate of surface warming.

    5) It flies in the face of recent trend adjustments adopted by NASA, NOAA, and RSS. These adjustments not only bust the pause, but much of the “slowdown” as well, to the consternation of Fyfe, Mann, et al.

    Only contrarians made a really big deal out of the very slight slowdown in the rate of surface warming. For example, only contrarians argued that it was evidence that climate sensitivity had been grossly overestimated by alarmist scientists.

    Your commentary is becoming increasingly incoherent and contradictory.

  141. Your commentary is becoming increasingly incoherent and contradictory.

    Symptom of cognitive dissonance.

  142. 0310.22May2016GMT

    BBD: ” The variability in ocean heat uptake is tiny – fractions of a percent.”
    Total BS: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/figures/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/#figure-viewer-grl50382-fig-0001

    BBD: “Only contrarians made a really big deal out of the very slight slowdown in the rate of surface warming. For example, only contrarians argued that it was evidence that climate sensitivity had been grossly overestimated by alarmist scientists.”

    Cf. Balmaseda et al: “The elusive nature of the post-2004 upper ocean warming has exposed uncertainties in the ocean’s role in the Earth’s energy budget and transient climate sensitivity.”
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/full

    The high variability in ocean heat uptake which BBD knows nothing about or chooses to deny, and which was not taken very seriously before the pause or measured more than sparsely before ARGO, is precisely what throws the very definition of TCS into a quandary. But BBD can get away with his blather as long as his audience doesn’t know the difference between a straight and a wavy line, or between a joule and a watt.
    –AGF

  143. Still no answers to my earlier questions (#412, 422) AGF?

    ***
    Fill in the blanks if you can! :

    1) You,AGF, are saying the scientific consensus there like the one on Global Overheating is wrong because _____???

    2) And that we should believe you over all those real climate scientists because ____???

    &

    3. Volcanic activity levels and solar irradiance have been studied, observed and calculated and found NOT to be causative factors in the current observed planetary heating. What part of that do you fail to understand or reject on what factual basis and what evidence to have to support your claims?

  144. Correction : I’m going to simplify and make that first question just :

    11) You, AGF, are saying the scientific consensus on Global Overheating is wrong because _____???

    Who knows, just maybe that’ll help get a simple, direct answer?

  145. Ocean heat *content* is rising because of increasing GHG forcing. That’s not the same as variability in the rate of ocean heat uptake. The last major example of that was the response to Pinatubo.

    Transient climate sensitivity is formally defined as the temperature at the time of CO2 doubling (reaching 560ppm). Short-term variability in the rate of ocean heat uptake will have no significant effect on TCR and non at all on ECS.

  146. And enough of the misleadingly selective quotation.

    The elusive nature of the post-2004 upper ocean warming has exposed uncertainties in the ocean’s role in the Earth’s energy budget and transient climate sensitivity. Here we present the time evolution of the global ocean heat content for 1958 through 2009 from a new observation-based reanalysis of the ocean. Volcanic eruptions and El Niño events are identified as sharp cooling events punctuating a long-term ocean warming trend, while heating continues during the recent upper-ocean-warming hiatus, but the heat is absorbed in the deeper ocean. In the last decade, about 30% of the warming has occurred below 700 m, contributing significantly to an acceleration of the warming trend. The warming below 700 m remains even when the Argo observing system is withdrawn although the trends are reduced. Sensitivity experiments illustrate that surface wind variability is largely responsible for the changing ocean heat vertical distribution.

    Since you are easily confused, let me remind you that the 30% figure does not refer to total ocean heat uptake but rather to the change in vertical ocean heat distribution.

  147. or between a joule and a watt.

    Since you persist in being an arsehole about this, let’s return to your own never-acknowledged error. You repeatedly claimed that the graph showed insolation increase of 100W/m^2 during the last deglaciation. It did not. It showed 60W/m^2. Your incorrect claim is inflated by 67%.

    And you have not acknowledged this massive error despite my pointing it out to you. I, on the other hand, spotted my own mistake immediately and posted a follow-on comment acknowledging it.

    If I were you, I would let the matter drop, or we are going to have to keep revisiting your dishonesty and dual standards when it comes to errors. There are a considerable number more we can revisit. I listed them in a previous comment.

  148. 1450GMT

    BBD, you’re just full of lying BS. Here’s what I said:
    =======================================
    A G Foster

    May 13, 2016
    1930GMT
    BBD, if you look here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#/media/File:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg
    you’ll see that 60ppm CO2 correspond to 10C, which is one hell of a forcing to blame on CO2. The most that has been attributed to CO2 and the ice ages is a little amplification. If you look lower on the chart you’ll see that insolation varies over 100W at 65N in June, two orders of magnitude greater than CO2 forcing, and which is clearly what triggers the show.
    ===================================
    You are the clown who mistook that to refer specifically to the LGM and accused me of getting it wrong ever after. And I repeat, orbital forcing is two orders of magnitude greater than CO2 where it counts, at the edge of the ice. And that would still be true at the LGM: 70W extra (over the minimum), two orders of magnitude greater forcing.

    So what do you do when I try to teach you the basics? You get the details wrong, accuse me of getting them wrong, and throw out endless BS. Lastly you say:
    “The variability in ocean heat uptake is tiny – fractions of a percent.”
    Which of course would yield a straight line graph of ocean heat uptake. And you attempt to justify yourself with this:

    “Ocean heat *content* is rising because of increasing GHG forcing. That’s not the same as variability in the rate of ocean heat uptake.”

    And you accuse me of confusion? If you hadn’t been such a consistent asshole I’d be happy to forget your J/W confusion, but you have to admit that tipped your hand–you haven’t looked at very many ice core records, if any. But just as you missed the big point about insolation trumping CO2 forcing, so you miss the big picture problem of ocean heat uptake taking the world of climate doom by surprise. The heat is going into the ocean, average maybe roughly 90%, ice not melting (you were wrong there too), heat going into insignificant steric SLR, problem delayed a century or more, plenty of time to raise the dykes.

    The impending doom is BS and it’s time you admitted it.
    –AGF

  149. Here we go again.

    you’ll see that 60ppm CO2 correspond to 10C, which is one hell of a forcing to blame on CO2.

    I didn’t say that deglaciation was mainly forced by CO2. You inserted a strawman and have now revisited it.

    And I repeat, orbital forcing is two orders of magnitude greater than CO2 where it counts, at the edge of the ice.

    And I repeat that CO2 is a positive feedback to orbitally-forced regional and seasonal insolation change. And I repeat that full deglaciation requires the inclusion of RF from CO2 – albedo alone is not sufficient. This was all detailed above.

    And you accuse me of confusion?

    I’m trying to be charitable.

    But just as you missed the big point about insolation trumping CO2 forcing,

    That is confused.

    so you miss the big picture problem of ocean heat uptake taking the world of climate doom by surprise.

    The trendless and transient variability in ocean heat uptake is being overplayed by contrarians. To wit:”[it] throws the very definition of TCS into a quandary”. Rubbish. Trendless natural variablity cancels out on multidecadal timescales leaving the forced trend dominant. This is why it is incorrect to insist that a short term slowdown in the rate of surface warming has any significant implications for TCR, let alone ECS.

  150. Yes, that is consistent with England et al.

    It helps to have water that’s actually warming.

    Even the abstract is explicit that the water is warming, AGF:

    We find that the enhanced heat uptake by the Pacific Ocean has been compensated by an increased heat transport from the Pacific Ocean to the Indian Ocean, carried by the Indonesian throughflow. As a result, Indian Ocean heat content has increased abruptly, which accounts for more than 70% of the global ocean heat gain in the upper 700 m during the past decade.

  151. the “pause”

    By the moron’s favorite citation, there was no “pause”:

    Recent claims .. were made in the context of an examiniation of whether warming has ceased, stopped or paused. We do not believe that warming has ceased, but we consider the slowdown

    “pause” was defined as a zero trend in global surface T

    But the data does not say there was zero trend in global surface T from 1998 to 2012 inclusive. No zero trend, ergo, no pause.

    But agf can argue semantics all he likes. It won’t change the fact that the recently deceased slowdown, pause, whatever you want to call it is dead like his brain.

  152. 0620GMT
    Well they agree that it starts with tropical east Pacific warming, but Lee et al claim the Pacific is cooling in its entirety–I guess they put more stock in ARGOS than in the pinniped studies. Accordingly they differ in where the heat is going, England et al claiming the warm water is sinking in the Pacific, Lee et al claiming it’s flowing into the Indian Ocean. Explanations 61 A and B for the pause–evidently based on a paucity of observation. They can’t both be completely right.
    –AGF

  153. England et al. shows that strengthened Walker circulation is pushing warm waters west. Lee et al. shows how this process engages the THC which circulates the warm waters into the Indian ocean. The two studies are compatible.

    Neither they, nor the non-pause have any significant impact on TCR or ECS.

  154. AGF

    Getting very tired of your attempts to insinuate that there is something wrong with the science. There really isn’t. The problem is with you, and your indefensible position, adequately summarised in your own words:

    The impending doom is BS and it’s time you admitted it.

    You need an unphysically low TCR / ECS for that, and physics isn’t going to give it to you. Time you admitted it.

  155. 2145GMT
    BBD: “Getting very tired of your attempts to insinuate that there is something wrong with the science. There really isn’t.”

    BBD is transparently no scientist. Climate science is probably the most complex physical science we have. The models are inadequate to the science and the computers are inadequate to the models. And if it ain’t quantified it ain’t science. And believe me, it ain’t quantified.

    Here’s the state of the art: https://niclewis.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/lewiscurry_ar5-energy-budget-climate-sensitivity_clim-dyn2014_accepted-reformatted-edited.pdf
    Here’s a history of the art:
    http://euanmearns.com/zeroing-in-on-the-true-value-of-climate-sensitivity/
    The estimates are steadily dropping.

    Nothing wrong with the science, says he. BBD could not even define the science. –AGF

  156. I happen to have been an avid student of Geology 1971- 76, at the University of Arizona, even though I was not a Geology major. I believe I took every undergraduate course they offered in Geology. We were mostly talking about Global Warming using data collected since temperatures were recorded in the 19th Century. An Ice age was only discussed as an outside chance…a slim chance, because it had been calculated from historical data like ice cores that we were about halfway through the arc of the last event from colder to warmer. No one seriously believed we could have another global Ice Age.
    Some computers models we used for Global Warming way back then have proved remarkably accurate in the short term; the Oglala aquifer being pumped dry would change the climate of the plains, for one. The rapid rise in temperatures relative to geologic time is already in the process of building a feedback loop that is changing life as we know it while I type this comment.
    Global Warming deniers just amaze me. The data is readily available in layman’s terms. I recently was looking for records of volcanic activity that I could juxtapose to European climate history and found a treasure trove of information in a few searches; records of famines, caused by excessive snow, burning heat and torrential rains, and the accompanying diseases…I have not finished attempting to correlate those weather events to volcanic eruptions, but it is promising: a two year Winter!
    You folks who deny a warming planet might read a bit more history related to weather events. We are not immune.

  157. But L&C is not the state of the art. It is a methodologically compromised under-estimate.

    Lewis cannot get his results to fit palaeoclimate behaviour, which rather suggests that there are serious problems. Whenever I have asked him about this, he has not been able to respond.

    Contrary to contrarians, estimates of ECS remain stuck firmly around 3C per doubling.

  158. Mearns writes:

    My guess is that they will eventually settle somewhere below 1.5C – maybe even as low as 1C, which is generally agreed to be the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 in the absence of feedbacks.

    Which means we can discount everything else he says because he’s denying the GHE – which *already* includes a substantial RF term from WV. Anybody who thinks that a warmer troposphere and increase SSTs *won’t* result in more WV doesn’t have a clue and can safely be ignored.

    Why do you listen to these amateurs instead of actual scientists. Speaking of amateurs, Lewis is one – he’s a retired banker, not a scientist. He has no career professional expertise whatsoever.

    BBD is transparently no scientist.

    And for the second time, I have never claimed to be one. You are transparently not a scientist either, so why are you wittering about this irrelevance again?

    The fact is, you are stuck. You cannot defend your position because it is confounded by multiple lines of scientific evidence and you know it, hence all the ‘BBD is this’ and ‘BBD is that’ crap. It just underlines how hopeless your position is.

    I’d advise you to stick to the science, but you haven’t actually got any that supports your position, so…

  159. maybe even as low as 1C

    Obviously ludicrous because we are already at 1C with barely more than half CO2 doubling. Other forcings don’t come anywhere near making up the difference.

  160. Why do you listen to these amateurs instead of actual scientists.

    Because scientists will not co-operate and tell him only what he wants to hear. Reality be damned for its insolence, he’ll just find someone –anyone– who will say things that he finds reassuringly self-serving.

    And then use it to relentlessly beat everyone else over the head who has the temerity to point out his falsehoods and faulty “reasoning”.

  161. Chris O’Neill

    Obviously ludicrous because we are already at 1C with barely more than half CO2 doubling.

    Absolutely. And this also drives a truck through Lewis & Curry, which gives a best estimate (median) TCR (formally defined as temperature response at the point of doubling) of 1.33C. ‘State of the art’ is about the last thing we can say about L&C.

  162. 2015GMT
    The debate settles around two basic questions: how much trouble are we in (if any), and what should we do about it (if anything)? On the solution side of the problem BBD has thrown in his hat with Hansen et al (letter to COP21), and whether he is aware or no, he is now a “denier” according to Naomi Oreskes (whom he has defended here against charges of Marxism). Whether or not Oreskes is a card carrying commie (like so many of her colleagues), she is a career prevaricator, slandering right and left both the living and the dead, but especially the dead. She leaves it to Neirenberg’s heirs to defend the scientist’s good name from her wild accusations: http://www.nicolasnierenberg.com/

    BBD doesn’t give a damn that Oreskes serves as minister of propaganda or that he’s a denier by her terms. Is BBD an oblivious idiot or a fellow propagandist? At least he’s making a little sense with the nuclear option.

    Mearns and Lewis &Curry mostly report the IPCC history of revision, and a Russian model that actually works. Input a high sensitivity estimate and your model will run hot, as 97% of them do.

    But there’s nothing wrong with the science. –AGF

  163. @511. AGF ;

    BBD is transparently no scientist. .. (snip) ..
    The models are inadequate to the science and the computers are inadequate to the models. And if it ain’t quantified it ain’t science. And believe me, it ain’t quantified. … (snip).. Nothing wrong with the science, says he. BBD could not even define the science. –AGF

    Why the hell would any of us believe you here or accept anything you say when almost everything you have spewed out has turned out to be wrong, misleading, cherry-picked or actually saying the opposite of what you claim it does?

    I don’t see anything to remotely suggest you area scientist or could find the scientific method with a map, directions and a teleporter. I’d asked you about why we should believe you and you haven’t answered that or my other simple questions :

    1) You, AGF, are saying the scientific consensus on Global Overheating is wrong because _____??? (Fill in the blank.)

    2) And that we should believe you over all those real climate scientists because ____??? (Fill in the blank.)

    &

    3. Volcanic activity levels and solar irradiance have been studied, observed and calculated and found NOT to be causative factors in the current observed planetary heating. What part of that do you fail to understand or reject on what factual basis and what evidence to have to support your claims?

    I think Brainstorms #516 here is spot on.

  164. 1350GMT
    StevoR, I don’t usually respond to you because you’ve never had an intelligent thought in your life, which of course means you are not capable of framing a meaningful question. What the hell is “the scientific consensus on Global Overheating”?
    –AGF

  165. AGF #518 = yet more evasive verbiage 🙂

    L&C is an obvious underestimate, AGF. Even non-scientists like you and I can see that – assuming that we are objective and actually understand the topic, of course.

  166. AGF:

    What the hell is “the scientific consensus on Global Overheating”?

    That you have to ask is a stunning indication that your view of the subject (AGW) is poorly informed, naive, and ridiculously lopsided (as if we didn’t already know).

    StevoR, I don’t usually respond to you because you’ve never had an intelligent thought in your life, which of course means you are not capable of framing a meaningful question.

    Even your insults are boring.

  167. Input a high sensitivity estimate and your model will run hot, as 97% of them do.

    Compared to what, AGF? Observations?

    We’ve already been through this. A single instance of the real Earth climate cannot be compared to the multi-model mean. It’s misleading.

    The actual Earth climate is heavily influenced over the short term by the predominant ENSO state (itself a reflection of the IPO phase), by volcanism and by variability in solar output. All are transient and do not affect the multi-*model* mean. So divergence on the scale of 1 – 2 decades is to be expected. Sometimes the MMM will correspond quite well to observations. Sometimes it will exceed them. Sometimes it will be lower than observed temperatures. Over the short term, the comparison is uninformative.

    The best you can do is update the CMIP5 forcings used for AR5 and compare the results with observations. And when CMIP5 forcing estimates used for AR5 are updated to bring them into line with real-world forcing history, then modelled global average temperature comes into much closer agreement with observations (Schmidt et al. 2014). This would suggest that model physics and so emergent behaviours – like model sensitivity – are reasonably accurate.

    So the oft-repeated claim that the models are ‘running hot’ is yet another contrarian confusion, not actual evidence that climate sensitivity is lower than expected.

    And once again, let’s remind ourselves that short-term variability in temperature has no significant impact on TCR and none on ECS. That’s another contrarian confusion that tends to get muddled in with the previous one.

  168. Input a high sensitivity estimate and your model will run hot, as 97% of them do.

    I suppose I should have also said that you don’t appear to understand how AOGCMs actually work. Sensitivity is not parameterised. It is not an input value. It is an emergent property of the model physics. The model exhibits a sensitivity – it is not given one.

    Unless this is clear you will not grasp what I wrote above, eg.:

    This would suggest that model physics and so emergent behaviours – like model sensitivity – are reasonably accurate.

    There’s already far too much confusion around as it is.

  169. @520. A G Foster : And you still haven’t answered the questions!

    Insulting me with your own projection is not an answer.

    Asking a disingenous question that I simply don’t believe you don’t already know the answer to – and if you genuinely didn’t know reveals you to be completely ignorant on this issue – is not an answer either.

    For the record since you asked :

    “Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.” (2009)

    Source : http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

    One of many statements listed along with the facts on the NASA website.

    Oh & if you think things might have changed since – they haven’t. The overwhelming scientific evidence has only gotten ever stronger and more convincing :

    In a paper published in Environmental Research Letters on April 13 (2016 – ed), I collaborated with the authors of seven of the leading consensus studies to perform a meta-study of meta-studies synthesising the research into scientific consensus on climate change. (A meta-study combines the findings from multiple studies.) Among climate scientists, the estimates of consensus varied from 90 to 100 percent, with a number of studies converging on 97 percent, the very figure derided by Cruz, Santorum, and others opposed to action on global warming.

    A key finding from our meta-study was that scientific agreement was highest among scientists with the most expertise in climate science.

    Source : http://thebulletin.org/yes-there-really-scientific-consensus-climate-change9332

    Of course, you could have just googled this :

    https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=The+overwhelming+scientific+consensus+on+Global+Warming

    (Or used Wikipedia, their summary of this is pretty good too.)

    But clearly that basic level of intelligence is beyond you.

    So the climatological consensus is that Global Overheating is real, we’re causing it and its a serious problem that will have massive negative impacts on our lives into the future.

    Attempts to deny this reality have long been exposed as a Point Refuted Already Thousand Times by those with vested economic and ideological interests or those who have been duped by those.

    So, now you know – not that you didn’t already – could you just answer the flippin’ questions?

  170. BBD: “The model exhibits a sensitivity – it is not given one.”

    You’re right there. I should have said, overestimate the feedbacks and your model will run hot, as 97% of them do.

    BBD: “So divergence on the scale of 1 – 2 decades is to be expected.”

    Quite possibly. But it’s impressive how a dogma can bloom. Back in 1996 the anthropogenic signal was hypothetical: “the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate” ( http://www.di2.nu/foia/0845217169.txt ), and there has been little warming since, yet the signal grew more incontrovertible even while it got weaker. Just goes to show the fanatics shouldn’t make predictions like, in 20 years your kids won’t know what snow is. Too much natural variability.

    The CRU pulled off a miracle, creating the anthro signal ex nihilo with the help of a magic hockey stick and their considerable PR skills. Somehow I remain unconvinced.
    –AGF

  171. and your model will run hot, as 97% of them do.

    I’ve just explained why this is not an accurate statement.

    The CRU pulled off a miracle, creating the anthro signal ex nihilo with the help of a magic hockey stick

    First, this is conspiracy theory nonsense and just wrong – CRU had nothing to to with the hockey stick. Get your tinfoil hat on straight. Second, the C20th warming is visible in a large range of metrics, none of which have anything to do with CRU or MBH99/ 99. More confused and diversionary waffle.

    * * *

    I’ve noticed that you just move from one contrarian muddle to the next as each is debunked. You might think this is an argument, but it isn’t.

  172. 1745GMT
    Had a nice long weekend, hiking, swimming, photographing, etc.

    CO’N man shows us a Niño, a Pause, and another Niño, with warming comparable to that of the early 20th century, and no tell tale sign of human interference with climate.

    BBQ asserts the hockey stick is an American invention, and since MBH are American citizens there is some superficial truth to the assertion. And were it not for the CRU email leaks historians of science might have been none the wiser, but the emails tell a different story, of a English mother and an American baby, born as British as the 13 colonies. How British (and European) is the hockey stick? Let us count the ways.

    1) Thatcher set up the CRU for the purpose of assessing the danger of global warming. The EU lavishly funded the CRU with the apparently assigned mission of identifying evidence of anthropogenic climate change.
    2) The CRU adopted dendrochronology as the best hope for such identification when models failed to reproduce natural variation .
    3) P D Jones of CRU collaborated with Bradley in 1993 to smooth the LIA out of the graphs. http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/bradley1993b.pdf
    4) Briffa established himself as the go to guy to get tree ring studies published.
    5) Briffa and others asserted the utility of dendrochronology for climate reconstruction by insisting that tree ring density could be used not only as precipitation proxy but also as temperature proxy, by first identifying volcanic eruptions.
    6) Briffa encouraged dendrochronologists to publish temperature reconstructions whether or not the data warranted them, as we see with Graybill and Funkhauser.
    http://www.di2.nu/foia/0842992948.txt
    7) The CRU covertly campaigned to oust editors and discredit journals that published criticism of the warming dogma as espoused by the CRU. They are more activists than scientists: http://www.di2.nu/foia/1057941657.txt
    8) MBH could be confident of publication even when their novel statistics rewrote climatic history, eliminating the most pronounced natural variation, the LIA. They knew they were offering precisely what the EU and CRU were looking for.
    9) CRU man Phil Jones was eager to collaborate with Mann in subsequent publications.

    So Briffa, Jones and colleagues set the stage for the blooming of junk science and MBH were glad to comply. Of course not all the CRU were happy with such a cheap and easy proof of doom when some of them were still sticking to legitimate observation, but none had the guts to publicly denounce the schtick. The few who dissented from within quickly found their place among the compliant silent minority.

    But the hockey stick is a tiny piece of the climate fraud: SLR, super storms, extinctions are fraudulent scares in their near entirety. And the conspiracies invented: all the skeptics are funded by big oil–all 3% of the whole. Back when the alarmists were harping on cooling, realists like Singer were worried about warming. When the CRU jumped the observation gun they spoke out, and were labeled deniers, funded by Exxon et al. We’re talking about the biggest scientific fraud the world has ever seen, and there’s not a competent scientist on the planet who buys into the world of warming doom. If there were there would exist some consensus of workable solutions, like ramping up nuclear energy. That a quack like Oreskes can so easily shout down a fellow quack like Hansen who at least gets his solutions right, shows how insanely corrupt the science really is. Shut down the reactors and tax the hell our of ’em, while Asia ignores the nonsense.
    –AGF

  173. 1) Thatcher set up the CRU for the purpose of assessing the danger of global warming. The EU lavishly funded the CRU with the apparently assigned mission of identifying evidence of anthropogenic climate change.

    Complete bollocks from start to finish. CRU set up in 1971 – *not* by Thatcher – who only became PM in 1979. As for funding, Wiki sez:

    Initial sponsors included British Petroleum, the Nuffield Foundation and Royal Dutch Shell.[6] The Rockefeller Foundation was another early benefactor, and the Wolfson Foundation gave the Unit its current building in 1986.[5] Since the second half of the 1970s the Unit has also received funding through a series of contracts with the United States Department of Energy to support the work of those involved in climate reconstruction and analysis of the effects on climate of greenhouse gas emissions.[7]

    Why bother proceeding? Especially when one lot of rubbish is followed by this:

    But the hockey stick is a tiny piece of the climate fraud […] We’re talking about the biggest scientific fraud the world has ever seen, and there’s not a competent scientist on the planet who buys into the world of warming doom.

    Pure tinfoil. If you want a serious discussion, ditch the conspiracy lunacy. There isn’t a competent climate scientist on the planet who *doesn’t* recognise that the physics is correct and AGW is real, is us and is potentially extremely dangerous.

  174. Climate change denial: We’re talking about the biggest anti-scientific fraud the world has ever seen, and there’s not a competent scientist on the planet who doubts that the world is warming.

    You were close, AGF, only needed a slight amount of editing to get something worth publishing.

  175. BS: “…and there’s not a competent scientist on the planet who doubts that the world is warming…”

    Including me.

    1971? My memory failed me. So it began in the days of the cool scare as promoted by its first boss, H Lamb. AS for EU funding, see:
    https://books.google.com/books?id=if4jI20wxOUC&pg=PA303&lpg=PA303&dq=european+commission+grants+to+cru&source=bl&ots=3D4A4TdUM1&sig=5krthv2e671iubjrnBGKA1Q-_Gw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjRv52ZqIXNAhXK34MKHfo0AasQ6AEIPzAE#v=onepage&q=european%20commission%20grants%20to%20cru&f=false
    “Most of the CRU’s funding for climate research comes from external grants and research contracts, with the European Commission as the largest source” (p.303).

    Here’s Briffa sending out feelers on applying for a 17 million Euro EU grant. Did he get it? Most likely.

    Lavishly funded? The emails brag continually of weekly trips to this place and that, for the purposes of…you tell me.

    Does lavish funding from the EU or claims of such constitute conspiracy ideation? You tell me, but you seem to think so. And I point out over and over how the conspiracies originate in the believer camp: BIG OIL, EXXON, BIG COAL funds the “deniers.” And it’s all BS, but it all goes over your head, while you zoom in on the comparatively irrelevant details.

    The initial forcing is real, the feedbacks are unknown, as is the danger. Global cooling remains a more credible threat. But if you were right, we should do something about it, like ramp up nuclear power, which is pretty much out of the question under the quacks in charge. And the Chinese open a coal plant every week or two. You’re all complete idiots.
    –AGF

  176. 1971? My memory failed me.

    You were flat-out wrong and what you wrote was bollocks, AGF.

    Does lavish funding from the EU or claims of such constitute conspiracy ideation? You tell me, but you seem to think so.

    No, AGF you think that, not me. You think that:

    But the hockey stick is a tiny piece of the climate fraud […] We’re talking about the biggest scientific fraud the world has ever seen

    You are a conspiracy theorist and as a consequence, clearly a crank. And when confronted over your crankery, you can’t even get your own tinfoil hat on straight. It’s pitiful.

    The initial forcing is real, the feedbacks are unknown, as is the danger.

    Argument from assertion and basically wrong anyway. We’ve already established from palaeoclimate behaviour that the feedbacks net positive and ECS to a radiative forcing change of ~3.7W/m^2 is about 3C.

  177. 1720GMT

    BBD, denial conspiracy theorist par excellence, doesn’t want anyone claiming conspiracy besides him. You say conspiracy? You’re a crank. I say it? That’s OK; I’m always right:

    “BBD says:
    December 11, 2013 at 10:14 am
    This is what I mean when I say that the denial industry has constructed a false narrative for contrarians to karaoke. Misdirection, false equivalence and dogmatism are central to it all and it needs to be shut out of public discourse because it is a fundamental distortion of the truth. If more were publicly known about the contrarian spin machine, its outputs would be less tolerated by the public and (more) policy makers. Perhaps it’s not the science that needs better communication, but the dishonest tactics of the misinformation industry. IMO, people do not realise what is going on behind the scenes and that is the greatest ‘communication’ problem of the lot.”
    https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2013/12/09/communicating-uncertainty/#comment-9234

    So maybe BBQ thinks the world is in trouble, but even that remains in doubt. If there were the tiniest shred of sincerity in his advocacy of climate doom he would come out and denounce Oreskes as a fraud for calling Hansen a denier for advocating nuclear energy. BBQ can’t do that because he is a fraud. He has no real interest in solving the CO2 problem.

    Prove me wrong, BBQ. –AGF

  178. Good comment, that. I must have been on form on 09/12/2013. But why have you brought this up? There is a wealth of evidence that the denial industry is at core funded by vested interest. If you are in a mood to be educated in public, we can review it together here.

    he would come out and denounce Oreskes as a fraud for calling Hansen a denier for advocating nuclear energy. BBQ can’t do that because he is a fraud. He has no real interest in solving the CO2 problem.

    Prove me wrong, BBQ.

    It’s BBD. Can’t you even get the simplest things right?

    I said above somewhere that you were muddling this up horribly (in your usual way). Hansen and Oreskes agree on the science and disagree on energy policy. As is their perfect right. I’ve already said that I suspect that Hansen has a deeper understanding than Oreskes of the engineering and technology challenges that need to be overcome in order to transition to a renewables-only world. Why you keep going on about this is mystifying. Presumably you just haven’t got anything else.

  179. 1840GMT

    BBQ: “There is a wealth of evidence that the denial industry is at core funded by vested interest. If you are in a mood to be educated in public, we can review it together here.”

    Total conspiratorial rubbish. The alarmist camp is out funded a thousand to one over the skeptics. Fire away. But first note that you evaded the meat of the matter. Solutions are what count, not ideologies. Most skeptics are in favor of Hansen’s solution, only for different reasons. Oreskes’ ignorance is dangerous if the globe is really threatened, but you are incapable of coherence–of tackling solutions rather than rationale for solutions.

    To make it easier for you, if CO2 is dangerous as you claim, the likes of Oreskes must be marginalized; the skeptics are ultimately on your side. You’re just not smart enough to figure that out. Or you’re a fraud.
    –AGF

  180. a great f/wit:

    Most skeptics are in favor of Hansen’s solution

    They’re not actually. They favour the cheapest solution with zero Carbon pricing which for the time being usually means fossil fuels.

  181. AGW

    Brulle (2013) Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations.

    The ‘alarmist camp’ exists only in your mind. There are the misinformers (see Brulle) the misinformed (see mirror) and the rest of us. And there’s no equivalence between peddling misinformation for vested interest and promoting the public understanding of science.

  182. 1450GMT
    BBQ: “The ‘alarmist camp’ exists only in your mind.”

    That reminds me of Ahmadinejad denying the existence of gays in Iran: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2007/09/24/16472/ahmadinejad-denies-existence-of-gays-in-iran/

    David Viner’s prediction 16 years ago of no more snow in 20 years apparently stemmed from an honest conviction shared by most his colleagues, who warned of the demise of the Scottish ski industry. http://michellemalkin.com/2010/12/20/children-snow/
    Now record snow storms are explained as a product of global warming. But there was nothing honest about former IPCC boss Rajendra Pachauri’s prediction of Himalayan glaciers disappearing by 2035, and its insertion into the IPCC report of 2007. He called Jairam Ramesh’s expert survey “voodoo science”:
    http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/himalayan-glacier-controversy-jairam-ramesh-says-india-vindicated/article82061.ece
    The IPCC eventually retracted the report and the lying sleaze bag Pachauri retained his post. He was just doing what he was supposed to do. You can’ t always get away with it.

    I could give one or two examples per day indefinitely, but this long history of false alarms–of alarmist pseudoscience–the existence of which the denier BBQ denies–is of course the main factor behind public skepticism. Nobody needs corporate funding of conservative think tanks to instill doubt in the minds of people whose memories can span a week or two.

    But if such magnanimous funding as BBQ imagines did exist, one could only ask, where is it going? The first thing I would do is start a TV channel debunking climate hysteria, but I can’t find so much as a billboard or bumper sticker in my back yard. Fox News, conservative talk radio, and the WSJ are profit making outfits, quite capable of getting by without help from donors. Brulle’s paper is wishful nonsense, equating supposedly conservative funding to promotion of skepticism. Of his figure 2 the only group I recognize as being devoted to climate is the Heartland Institute. And I might mention that the overlap between Oreskes’ conspiracy theory and BBQ/Brulle’s conspiracy is just about zilch.

    Where the overlap is is between socialists and social engineering and climate doom on the one hand, and capitalists and conservatives and economic realists on the other. A sucker is born every second now and no Darwinian mechanism has evolved to weed them out.
    –AGF

  183. agf:

    there was nothing honest about former IPCC boss Rajendra Pachauri’s prediction of Himalayan glaciers disappearing by 2035

    The only thing that is dishonest is the claim that the IPCC was dishonestly claiming that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. The 2035 typo originated from this statement:

    The extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates – its total area will shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2350.

    I could give one or two examples per day indefinitely

    of your dishonest claims.

    But we already knew that.

  184. 1815GMT
    CO’N man can’t even parrot the alarmist apology right. The supposed typo he refers to would have been made in 1999 according to his source, by the author of a magazine article. The IPCC accepted the magazine article precisely because of the enhanced alarm the eight year old typo introduced.

    We know moreover that Pachauri condemned the expert report of Jairam Ramesh as I indicated above, calling it “voodoo science,” because it attempted to set the lying record straight. CO’N man’s BS is typical white washing of the truth just as was done with the CRU email probe. You can’t believe anything an alarmist tells you, especially when one says there is no such thing as an alarmist camp.
    –AGF

  185. But if such magnanimous funding as BBQ imagines did exist, one could only ask, where is it going?

    So-called ‘think tanks’ that peddle right wing ideology on a wide range of topics.

    Fox News, conservative talk radio, and the WSJ are profit making outfits, quite capable of getting by without help from donors.

    The right wing media just megaphones the misinformation generated and disseminated by the ‘think tanks’ – who are paid by vested interest to generate and spread misinformation.

    Of his [Brulle’s] figure 2 the only group I recognize as being devoted to climate is the Heartland Institute.

    Shows what you don’t know. See first link, above.

  186. 0120hours4June2016GMT
    Every dooms day cult has been absolutely certain it had a monopoly on truth and that the rest of the world wandered in benighted ignorance, and BBQ is no different. He knows he’s right, and anyone who differs from him is a heretic, a denier of truth, a corrupt propagandist and a shill for Big Oil. He has science on his side and science is infallible. He is blind to the most remote possibility that he could be wrong in any significant part of his world view. And he thinks those who doubt any part of his dogma are evil and dishonest.

    Well I’ve tried to inject a little reality into his world view by pointing out the dichotomy of the debate: we have a supposedly infallible climate science of doom, and we have a host of proposed solutions to address the supposedly infallible science of doom. BBQ is in the minority of climate fanatics in supporting nuclear energy, but he would be among the majority of skeptics with such support. But his blind dogmatism will not allow him to recognize his dilemma. The credo is paramount; the discipline is worthless.

    The current CO2 crisis is largely a result of the the antinuclear campaign of the 70s. If the US and UK had followed France’s lead, the CO2 output of the West would have been cut in half, maybe more. Environmentalists helped create the problem and environmentalists are the last to solve it. Most skeptics favor nuclear energy.

    Now I don’t know what these evil think tanks have to say about it, and I bet BBQ doesn’t have a clue either, but my guess is any responsible conservative or libertarian tank would be low on ethanol and wind and high on nuclear. The skeptics are the only ones with solutions to the doom even if they are too smart to believe in it. BBQ would rather roast than admit it.
    –AGF

  187. 1430GMT

    Initiate: I believe.

    BBQ: You’re saved.

    Initiate: That’s all?

    BBQ: Yup.

    We like our religion easy. –AGF

  188. the alarmist apology right: The IPCC accepted the magazine article precisely because of the enhanced alarm

    As if an apology would say it was included precisely because of the enhanced alarm.

    I’ll leave agf to continue with his daily dishonest claims.

  189. agf:

    The current CO2 crisis is largely a result of the the antinuclear campaign of the 70s.

    But there is no CO2 crisis according to climate science denialists like agf. You can’t keep your shit straight.

  190. AGW

    BBQ is in the minority of climate fanatics in supporting nuclear energy, but he would be among the majority of skeptics with such support. But his blind dogmatism will not allow him to recognize his dilemma. The credo is paramount; the discipline is worthless.

    Okay – this much I will respond to.

    All plausible estimates suggest that the best we might manage with intensive nuclear build-out is ~30% of world electricity demand by mid-century. So ‘sceptics’ who claim that nuclear will – alone – solve the decarbonisation problem are (as ever) badly misinformed.

    The problem is so big and the timescale for action so limited that it’s going to take all available low-carbon technologies (with a heavy emphasis on solar and wind) to have even a hope of averting high-risk warming.

    I’ll add that I keep seeing deniers trying to start food fights over nuclear. It’s boring.

  191. 1740GMT
    Socialist U S presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has promised to decommission all nuclear power plants as his contribution to the problem of global warming. Germany has shut down eight of its seventeen nuclear plants with plans to shut down the others and replace them with lignite coal burners, just because of Fukushima. Of course in those regions where Haupt Deutsch is spoken the reactors are especially vulnerable to tsunamis.

    Meanwhile, with the rising cost of electricity due to massive investment in expensive renewables, UK retirees can’t afford to heat their homes: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2050961/Thousands-dying-afford-heating-bills.html
    This piece of news no doubt originated in an American think tank funded by Exxon et al.

    Here’s the latest anti-alarmist complaint, ostensibly motivated by the potential loss of Australian tourism but in reality fomented by the fossil fuel industry somewhere, since there is no such thing as an “alarmist camp,” let alone a legitimate anti-alarmist camp, as BBQ assures us:
    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/election-2016-misinterpretation-government-officials-reject-claims-great-barrier-reef-is-mostly-dead-20160603-gpb6af.html

    This video most likely did not originate in the propagandizing innards of Exxon–a dead consumer is not very profitable: https://youtu.be/bXEddCLW3SM

    One of the better examples of global climate alarm is the case of Jorge Montt Glacier, which made news around the world when its melt rate of half a mile a year was caught on time lapse photography: http://www.thejournal.ie/researchers-release-images-detailing-glaciers-rapid-retreat-in-chile-299661-Dec2011/
    “The Journal ie” was one of the few news outlets that included the real reason for the rapid retreat, the peculiar bathymetry of the fjord.

    Wikipedia’s entry on the Jorge Montt glacier made no mention of this until I updated it a few months ago. And while it mentioned Rivera’s paper it provided no link to it until I did. And it never told about the the evidence for a MWP forest being covered by the advance of the LIA until I inserted Rivera’s quote.

    No news outlet in the world did–only a couple of climate skeptic blogs, Paul Homewood’s and Pierre Gosselin’s. Yet BBQ would have you believe that my reporting it here was dependent on a Big Oil funded skeptical echo chamber.

    In the real world climate skepticism is fomented by critical thinkers who do their homework. –AGF

  192. This piece of news no doubt originated in an American think tank funded by Exxon et al

    No, it comes from a ‘think tank’ in the UK called the GWPF which refuses to reveal the sources of its funding. And it’s wrong. The price of natural gas accounted for the increase in UK energy prices leading up to 2011. Not the few per cent of the bill made up of ‘green taxes’.

    So the butcher’s bill goes to the FF industry.

    Can’t be bothered with the rest of your comment as you did not respond to #550.

  193. 2030GMT
    Why did the chicken cross the street? To get to the other side. Why are UK energy prices rising? The price of natural gas has gone up. Who pays for all those idle windmills? Certainly not the power consumer.

    I linked to the “Daily Mail,” which used Professor John Hills’ study, commissioned by Energy and Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne.

    The GWPF reproduced part of this article: http://www.thegwpf.com/uk-energy-prices-rising-much/
    …by Lewis Page in “The Register,” which is based in part on this report: http://www.npower.com/idc/groups/wcms_content/@wcms/@corp/documents/business/ee_latest_report.pdf
    …written by Big Oil itself. No doubt Big Oil paid GWPF millions to reproduce a little of The Register’s article. But did Big Oil pay Lewis Page a hefty sum for picking up on their release? Who knows? But the alarmist camp is far better funded and connected than the skeptics, and is probably paying out millions right and left to its puppets in the press.

    But does cold weather kill more people than warm weather? You’d better believe it, notwithstanding all the alarmist propaganda you hear. Even WHO will tell you so. But there’s no alarmist camp; only alarmist skeptics. And there’s no GW conspiracy; only a conspiracy of Big Oil and skeptics. It just gets curiouser and curiouser.
    –AGF

    PS. Comment #550 is your typical rubbish. 76% of France’s electricity is from nuclear. UK: 21%, to be cut in half within a decade. The US is about the same, and will be cut to zero if Bernie Sanders has his way. What might have been.

  194. by definition a myth is something that never happened, LONG BEFORE the 70’s in the 50’s yes the 50’s long before articles written in 70’s, we were taught in ” junior high” 2 things– “not by news media”, -1. a massive glacier would come down middle of US into Texas, I just hoped it would not reach Houston 2. when world reached 7 billion would have mas starvation and wars would be about nations getting food. NEITHER HAPPENED but REAL SCIENTISTS predicted BOTH and the stories were NOT A MYTH!!!

    1. a massive glacier would come down middle of US into Texas

      According to whom? Please name just one scientist who thought that.

      when world reached 7 billion would have mas starvation and wars would be about nations getting food

      According to whom?

      By the way, about 45% of all deaths of children (17 years and younger) is due to hunger. That’s over 3 million every year. About 21,000 people die from starvation every day.

      As for wars, look at Syria’s peasant uprising and why it happened.

  195. Also did you know the office of Climate Scientist, which John Holdren in Obama Admin. , now holds was created by Pres. Nixon over scientists, including CIA that a coming ice age could create massive disasters for the world. GOSH, without the myth of an ice age, as YOU SAY , what job would Holdren have ??

    1. Jim Cantrell: “Greg, you were not alive when this was taught,

      Where was it taught, and by whom, and when? Name just one scientists who said what you claimed scientists said. Gosh, what seems to be causing the delay in you answering?

  196. By definition a 1970s myth is something that never happened in the 1970s.

    I think you missed the “1970s” part Jim.

  197. “NEITHER HAPPENED but REAL SCIENTISTS predicted BOTH and the stories were NOT A MYTH!!!”

    No, those stories are myths, apocrypha, lies.

    Oh, maybe you can find one or two crackpots calling for the end of the world, but of no greater import or standing or believed better than the same crackpot with a sign on their chest ranting on a street corner.

  198. Chris O’Neill: “By definition a 1970s myth is something that never happened in the 1970s. I think you missed the “1970s” part Jim.”

    Well sheeeeit, the myth was even studied, and a link to that study has been provided (above). Hysterical paranoid conspiracy alarmists love to insist “I remember when it was global cooling!” even though they do *NOT* remember any such claims made by scientists— their cult leaders stated it happened, therefore the cult followers “remember” it did. That behavior has also been extensively studied: people remember that which never happened when they are told it happened by “authority.” Note how well that behavior is described in the novel 1984.

  199. Utter nonsense.

    See e.g. SCIENCE DENIER WEB SITE DELETED AS PER BLOG POLICY

    Sorry folks but the “settled science” in the 1970s actually WAS that there was another ice age on the way caused by, you guessed, those nasty human beings.

    [NOTE: David, no linking to sites such as that on this blog. -gtl]

    1. “Sorry folks but the “settled science” in the 1970s actually WAS that there was another ice age on the way….”

      No.

  200. There was a ‘beware the coming ice age’ cover on Time (or Science or some other major magazine) in the late 70’s. I know because I remember it. We had it in our house. It was talked about on the nightly news as well.

  201. Whether this writer thinks this Time cover existed or not; whether or not there was serious consideration of a coming ice age or not; I was an adult in the early 70s and I bought this issue of Time. The “coming ice age” article was in the magazine. Additionally the concern went on for years. Modern day “scientists” would rather spread fear and stupidity based on “computer models” than telling the truth. First, climate change is always happening; it’s called weather. Second, any work on a computer still centers on “garbage on, garbage out” fact. Third, many sources of global warming/climate change have been proven to be falsified.

  202. additionally, Stephen Hawking, the smartest human being in the world, says that maybe in 1,000 years the earth might be uninhabitable!

  203. “I was an adult in the early 70s and I bought this issue of Time.

    Good. Were you then, or are you now, adult enough to realize that Time was not a science journal?

    “First, climate change is always happening; it’s called weather.
    Apparently you aren’t as on top of things as you would have us believe.

    “Third, many sources of global warming/climate change have been proven to be falsified.”
    Well let’s see: aside from the odd wording, “many” is not all, and despite your correct but perfectly irrelevant comment about computers, nothing has contradicted the data that warming is proceeding and is enhanced by human activity.

  204. The “coming ice age” article was in the magazine. Additionally the concern went on for years.

    The extent to which the “coming ice age” claims and the concerns went on for years is due solely to their being promoted by non-scientific media — for the purposes of drawing people’s attention and making money.

    And it obviously drew your attention. Which provides the explanation for your next claim…

    Modern day “scientists” would rather spread fear and stupidity

    Modern day scientists, and non-modern day scientists would rather perform research to find out the facts and truths about the world (via physics, chemistry, planetary science, etc.) Most of them spend no time with, and aren’t interested in, spreading anything in the media. They prefer to report their work in scientific journals. Which most people (such as yourself, by what you’ve demonstrated) find too dry and boring to bother to read.

    The media corporations, by contrast, live & die by drawing viewers & readers, in order to sell advertising and subscriptions. And, as they are well aware, nothing sells like controversy. And where there is instead consensus and certainty, they must do what they must do to generate false controversies — in order to sell & survive. They’re good at this: You bought it, obviously. (In more ways than one!)

    So, your claim about “spread fear and stupidity” applies to the media, such as Time, Newsweek, etc., and not to “scientists”.

    climate change is always happening; it’s called weather.

    We’ll forgive you for your ignorance here. “Climate” is the long-term trends of “weather” in a region of interest. “Weather” change is always happening, yes. And as it does, the “climate” typically stays the same — it’s supposed to: An unchanging “climate” gives us a predictable range of weather patterns, including predictable swings in temperature. When “climate” changes, it indicates something is upsetting the normal weather patterns, such as a trend of increasing temperatures. This is abnormal, and requires an abnormal cause — such as dumping billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

    You might read up on this; it’s really interesting and you’ll likely learn something useful.

    any work on a computer still centers on “garbage on, garbage out” fact.

    And this is why you should be happy to know that a great deal of effort is made by a very large number of scientists in many fields, in many countries, to collect a variety of data — which is good for cross-checking — and this data is carefully vetted and properly prepared to ensure that no “garbage” goes into their models.

    You’ll also be relieved to know that the different groups of scientists that study climate carefully check the published work of other climate scientists — with an eye toward catching any of these mistakes that you’re obviously worried about. (Yes, scientists compete with each other in a sort of rivalry, and catching mistakes and shortcomings is a big thing for them.)

    And yes, mistakes and insufficiencies have been caught and addressed from time to time over the years. This is how science works: As more data is gathered, and more experiments are conducted, and better instruments are developed, one group of scientists helps improve the results of other scientists. This helps to allay fears and slow the spread of stupidity. (Take note!)

    So, with climate science, the correct phrase is “garbage removed, good data in, and trustworthy results out”. Otherwise, “you’re going to get caught by your peers”. And no scientist wants to be caught publishing something that is not substantiated.

    many sources of global warming/climate change have been proven to be falsified.

    Very few, actually. Many sources of self-serving denial of global warming/climate change have been proven to be false. These sources of denialist tropes are inherently stupid (because they are self-defeating and self-destructive), and intented to spread fear and doubt towards the scientists who are your best hope for avoiding the very unpleasant consequences due to what humankind is doing to change our global climate through generating so many greenhouse gases.

    So now you know! Now go tell everyone you meet…

  205. well constructed and succinct statement Brainstorms #571. With your permission I’d like to copy/paste to FB etc?
    Also would like to challenge Deborah to seek out and communicate with a climatologist or ecologist or biologist … personal interaction would go a long way to dispel the notion of some conspiracy or self enrichment scheme as their motivation.

  206. Curtis, be my guest. “Truth is free. Falsehoods come at a price.” — a high price, in this case.

    As Deborah will learn — if she bothers to put aside her self-serving claims (that will only soothe her fears for a short period), failing to acknowledge & deal with AGW will unleash a whole host of very unpleasant and very irreversible damage to her world, her lifestyle, and her life.

    She needs to learn that the scientists are not the “bad guys” here — it’s the media, corporations, and denier websites, all of whom seek to use and abuse her for their purposes of short-term self-enrichment.

    It’s the scientists who have the ability to light the way to the best path out of our predicament. If only the politicians and public can summon enough smarts to follow…

  207. “any work on a computer still centers on “garbage on, garbage out” fact.”

    Which begs the question of whether the climate models that the IPCC cite have garbage in.

    It’s a truism that denialist models have garbage in, and proven that it produced garbage out, however, those same ones proclaiming models bad and GIGO do not care that the models showing AGW wrong, falsified or overblown have shown garbage results, they still point to these results as if valid.

    Evidently the accuracy of a model is not their complaint…

  208. Although I have this nagging feeling Deborah Gayou did a drive-by, maybe she can explain why she is so dismissive of climate science but so apparently reverent of Stephen Hawking, who *frikkin’ly referred to AGW as one of the important reasons the earth would become uninhabitable in the next 1000 years* !!!

  209. “Who pays for all those idle windmills? ”

    Well, for a start, nobody pays for idle windmills, unlike spinning reserve fossil fuel generators. Idle windmills have already been paid for when put up, before they can become idle. They pay back when they are not idle. Usually at times of peak demand and power cost, reducing the cost of energy production at the expense of the slower reacting coal and nuclear power producers.

    Who pays for the gas price increases? Customers. Who pays for nuclear accidents? Taxpayers.

    Who AVOIDS taxes by offshoring? Big multinationals, like the ones running the nuclear power stations and large energy providers.

    If the problem were the cost increases, is it. the problem is that it “feels” like environmentalism, and you hate those hippies, so they cannot, ever, be right.

  210. Ken Fabian (June 2013): It’s a shame that the US Academy of Science’s 1975 report “Understanding Climate Change: A Program for Action” is yet to make it into digital format and made available online.

    FWIW, I found an ISBN on another blog. I entered it in Amazon and came up with this. It’s the 1980 version, but may be similar enough to be worth buying (prices start at $0.98.)

    And there’s also eBay…

    https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Climatic-Change-Program-Action/dp/0309023238/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1479757333&sr=8-1&keywords=0309023238

  211. Deborah Gayou (#569): additionally, Stephen Hawking, the smartest human being in the world, says that maybe in 1,000 years the earth might be uninhabitable!

    Huh? I thought Marilyn vos Savant was the smartest human being in the world. /s

  212. Sorry to pop your bubble but I lived in the 1980’s and distinctly remember sitting in my office reading the Houston Chronicle or the Houston Post (no longer around) talking about “scientists may have to build huge underwater structures designed to keep our oceans from freezing over”. Trying to call foul on what so many of us remember reading about and then saying we are wrong isn’t fair. I’m all for protecting the environment but unless the scientific community can come clean – it doesn’t lead me or anyone who DOES remember this discrepancy to trust what is being said NOW about what needs to be done ref: the environment. Please STOP calling our claim wrong because I would take a lie detector or be hypnotized or whatever to prove it. Seriously!

    1. the Houston Chronicle or the Houston Post (no longer around)

      Wow! You really know how to pick scientific journals don’t you?

      Trying to call foul on what so many of us remember reading about

      No one is calling foul on what you remember reading about so stop pretending that anyone is. The foul is the rubbish publications you remember reading and the rubbish they published.

  213. The foul rubbish is pretending what you selectively remembered as “they were all telling us a new ice age was coming!” was total bollocks, EVEN AFTER REPEATED CORRECTIONS.

  214. “Sorry to pop your bubble but I lived in the 1980’s and distinctly remember …”

    Do you remember reading the scientific journals and noting what the scientists said? No? Then why should your remembrance be worth anything more than “I remember some newspapers telling me…”?

    Do you remember in 1959 Disney putting out a short educational movie on global warming caused by human actions?

    If you don’t, then you know that your remembrance is unreliable. If you do, then why did you not mention that?

  215. “Whether this writer thinks this Time cover existed or not”

    Since this writer put the cover in the topic discussion, I think we can conclude the answer to this one fairly easily.

    “whether or not there was serious consideration of a coming ice age or not;”

    There was serious discussion about the nuclear tests causing a firestorm igniting the earth’s atmosphere. It wasn’t considered likely, but there WAS the discussion. You need more than “this thing was discussed” to make a claim on what it means.

    “The “coming ice age” article was in the magazine. ”

    But if the magazine was not there, it can’t have been, so your earlier fake balance was already known to be speicous.

    “Additionally the concern went on for years.”

    How do you know? This would require that Time come up with the discussion for several years. Did it? If not, you have no evidence, except “gut feeling”. Which is no evidence at all.

    “Modern day “scientists” would rather spread fear and stupidity based on “computer models” than telling the truth. ”

    If there’s something to fear, then spreading fear is telling the truth. If the computer models are valid, then using them is telling the truth. The only ones spreading stupidity are the idiots you listen to and parrot the words of here, with zero skepticism for them.

    Overall, that claim is begging the question that computer models are lies, that telling people that bad things will happen is lying and educating people about the science and results is spreading stupidity, and that these only happen with 97% of the science community, and every national scientific institution, but none of the places you get your “information” from.

    That’s a lot of begging.

  216. “…Scientists can’t be trusted, that they…say/claim/predict whatever to get their (bills paid), and that the media falls for it all the time. They were wrong about ice ages in the 1970s, they are wrong now about global warming”- Spot ON.
    The rest of us who are not paid to try and prove warming and alarming views know that most predictions from those who are paid to ‘prove’ only one side and ridicule any critique are not worth any consideration. The warmer’s hysteria and mouth foaming screams at any dissent will fade as fast as the ice age theories did until the next ‘paid for’ fashionable subject pops up. Sorry, we do not trust anything you ‘warmers’ say. We are neither sheep nor fools. We did not trust Mr Hubert Lamb (University of East Anglia) either in 1974 when he said “Global temperatures since 1945 constitute, we believe, the longest unbroken trend downwards in hundreds of years” . Fortune magazine February 1974.

  217. Why is it that the “warmer conspiracy” alarmist are always saying/claiming/predicting whatever to prevent their energy bills from rising, and they try to get the media to fall for it all the time? They were wrong about a medieval warming period and a global warming hiatus, they are wrong now about denying global warming.
    The rest of us who are not trying to evade paying the true cost of our energy by asserting no AGW and spreading alarming anti-science views know that most predictions from those who are paid to ‘prove’ only one side and ridicule any expertise are not worth any consideration. The anti-science hysteria and mouth foaming screams over any data or studies will fade as fast as their desperate ice age theories did until the next ‘paid for’ fashionable denial scheme pops up. Sorry, we do not trust anything you ‘conspiracy alarmists’ say. We are neither sheep nor fools. We pay attention to what science shows us, we realize that scientists are not “on the take”, and while we are not any more happy about the threatening situation humanity has put us in, we also don’t childishly and self-servingly stick our fingers in our ears and scream “Nya, nya, nya, it isn’t true, we don’t believe it!”

  218. Thank you very much for your responses. They help prove the original point that this whole subject is full of hubris and childish sulking by so many towards anyone who may, may just have a differing opinion and are not swayed by your pretentious and rude condescension any longer. What a shame as one is sure any further responses by you foaming (now hysterical) warmers will just be as rude and dismissive as most of the other attempts at engaging. There is no debate on here, you clearly are not capable of any open minded critique, just your insistence that you are right and the rest of the world is just dumb. Go on, spew your hate and fill out your next funding forms which the suckers will pay for. No one is listening any more. As you will only understand, we are now (as you point out) have our fingers in our ears going ‘la la la la’.
    By the way well done – “The rest of us who are not trying to evade paying the true cost of our energy” and “alarming anti-science views”, hilarious, just hilarious. You are card – don’t bust a blood vessel being angry and hateful now that people are not taking you seriously anymore. You should just join your other Liberal anarchist friends who burn and smash other people’s property to stop any dissent. That will cheer you up.

  219. And how much hubris does it take to manufacture a fake name that starts with “Mr Non Pretentious”???

    And how pretentious to then leap off into his ad hom and baseless accusation!

  220. “Now where have you heard that before?”

    There’s no moral comparison between deniers denying evidence and mocking those evidence-denying deniers.

    (And it’s fun to watch the willfully ignorant sputter whilst avoiding ANY substance in their replies.)

  221. @ Mr Non

    anyone who may, may just have a differing opinion

    Your ‘opinion’ is scientifically weightless. It means nothing and nobody cares exactly how you got it wrong. So you get lumped in with all the other nutters and pub bores and tweedy Tory windbags. You put yourself in that set, so you can deal with it. If you don’t like being dismissed as an arse, stop acting like one. A first step would be to stop denying the scientific evidence based on your utterly uninformed ‘opinion’. What arrogance; what hubris.

    Who on earth do you think you are?

  222. Wow, you lot really are angry, hateful and hysterical here. You cannot consider any other view can you?. Reid Bryson? nope he was a crackpot too I hear you scream. It is your way or you spit venom eh?. Thank goodness this echo chamber is not taken seriously out of this box. Come on BBD et al, vomit more hate, spite and tantrums…yeah that will change minds.

  223. @Auntie Hubris, who is very lacking on here:
    Thank you very much for your responselessness. You help prove the original point that anyone attacking those who study this whole AGW subject is full of hubris — the childish sulking by so many towards anyone who may be involved in conducting and reporting on climate science. You think you may just have a differing opinion but we are not swayed by your pretentious and rude condescension any longer. What a shame as one is sure any further responses by you foaming (now hysterical) warmist alalmists will just be as rude and dismissive as most of the other attempts at engaging. There is no debate on here, you clearly are not capable of any open minded critique, just your insistence that you are right and the rest of the world is just dumb. Go on, spew your hate and fill out your next blog response hoping the suckers will pay for it. No one is listening any more. As you will never understand, you now (as pointed out) have your fingers in your ears going ‘la la la la’.
    By the way thanks for ‘well done – “The rest of us who are not trying to evade paying the true cost of our energy” and “alarming anti-science views”, hilarious, just hilarious’. You are card-carrying anti-science – don’t bust a blood vessel being angry and hateful now that people are not taking you seriously anymore. You should just join your other Libertarian anarchist friends who burn and smash other people’s lives, reputations, property to stop any reporting on what science teaches us. That will cheer you up.

  224. Hi Brainstorms, you keep proving the original point. You cannot help yourself. Just keep digging. It has been a blast and one can almost see the steam coming out of your ears. Wonderful, such fun.

  225. You cannot consider any other view can you?.

    By ‘other view’ you mean alt-science, wrong-o nonsense. Nobody has to ‘consider’ that. Be serious.

  226. “Wow, you lot really are angry, hateful and hysterical here” Spot on. No one is going to be persuaded by such behavior. All of you, just grow up.

  227. You cannot consider any other view can you?.

    We can. We have. We have found ample reason to reject it.

    Ask a paedophile if three year old girls are gagging for it and whether this is all right.

    Either you agree with him and you’re a scumbucket, or You cannot consider any other view can you? and a fool.

  228. As discussed earlier Mr Hubert Lamb (University of East Anglia) a well respected scientist did sat that “Global temperatures since 1945 constitute, we believe, the longest unbroken trend downwards in hundreds of years” in February 1974. Plus Reid Bryson, known as the “father of climatology’ also said that many say “It is a fact that the warming of the past century was anthropogenic in origin, i.e. man-made and due to carbon dioxide emission. Wrong. That is a theory for which there is no credible proof” Many take their work into account for example before they conclude anything.

    Global Warming? by Reid A. Bryson Ph.D., D.Sc., D.Engr.[1]
    The Built-in Nonsense Detector:
    Hardly a day goes by without a news article in the paper containing a reference to someone’s opinion about
    “Global Warming”. A quick search of the Internet uncovers literally hundreds of items about “Global Warming”.
    Issues of atmospheric science journals will normally have at least one article on climatic change, usually
    meaning “Global Warming” or some aspect thereof. Whole generations of graduate students have been trained
    to believe that we know the main answers about climate change and only have to work out the details.
    Why then do I bother you by introducing this section with such a ludicrous title?
    I do it because, as one who has spent many decades studying the subject professionally, I find that there are
    enormous gaps in the understanding of those making the most strident claims about climatic change. In order
    to read the news rationally, the educated reader needs a few keys to quickly sort the patently absurd from the
    possibly correct. I propose to supply some of those keys to give the reader at least a rudimentary nonsense
    detector.
    Some Common Fallacies
    1. The atmospheric warming of the last century is unprecedented and unique. Wrong. There are literally
    thousands of papers in the scientific literature with data that shows that the climate has been changing one
    way or the other for at least a million years.
    2. It is a fact that the warming of the past century was anthropogenic in origin, i.e. man-made and due to
    carbon dioxide emission. Wrong. That is a theory for which there is no credible proof. There are a number of
    causes of climatic change, and until all causes other than carbon dioxide increase are ruled out, we cannot
    attribute the change to carbon dioxide alone.
    3. The most important gas with a “greenhouse” effect is carbon dioxide. Wrong. Water vapor is at least 100
    times as effective as carbon dioxide, so small variations in water vapor are more important than large changes
    in carbon dioxide.
    4. One cannot argue with the computer models that predict the effect of a doubling of carbon dioxide or other
    “greenhouse gasses”. Wrong. To show this we must show that the computer models can at least duplicate the
    present-day climate. This they cannot do with what could be called accuracy by any stretch of the imagination.
    There are studies that show that the average error in modeling present precipitation is on the order of 100%,
    and the error in modeling present temperature is about the same size as the predicted change due to a
    doubling of carbon dioxide. For many areas the precipitation error is 300-400 percent.
    5. I am arguing that the carbon dioxide measurements are poorly done. Wrong. The measurements are well
    done, but the interpretation of them is often less than acceptably scientific.
    6. It is the consensus of scientists in general that carbon dioxide induced warming of the climate is a fact.
    Probably wrong. I know of no vote having been taken, and know that if such a vote were taken of those who
    are most vocal about the matter, it would include a significant fraction of people who do not know enough about
    climate to have a significant opinion. Taking a vote is a risky way to discover scientific truth.
    So What Can We Say about Global Warming?
    We can say that the Earth has most probably warmed in the past century. We cannot say what part of that
    warming was due to mankind’s addition of “greenhouse gases” until we consider the other possible factors,
    such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past century, but to my
    knowledge this data was never used.
    We can say that the question of anthropogenic modification of the climate is an important question — too
    important to ignore. However, it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific
    problem. What a change from 1968 when I gave a paper at a national scientific meeting and was laughed at for
    suggesting that people could possibly change the climate! [2]
    [1] Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography and of Environmental Studies. Senior Scientist, Center
    for Climatic Research, The Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies (Founding Director), the
    University of Wisconsin, Madison.
    [2] Bryson, R. A. and W. M. Wendland, 1968: “Climatic Effects of Atmospheric Pollution,” in Proceedings of
    AAAS Annual Meeting, Global Effects of Environmental Pollution (Singer, ed.), pp. 130-138, Dallas, Texas,
    December 26-31, 1968. Also as “Climatic Effects of Atmospheric Pollution,” S. Fred Singer (ed.), 1970; The
    Changing Global Environment, pp. 139-147, 1975.

  229. “Ask a paedophile (Peadophile do you mean?) if three year old girls are gagging for it and whether this is all right.” Now you have passed into extra weird and creepy. Better get the moderator and you some some spelling lessons.

  230. So which is it? Scumbag or intolerant asshole, bs? Why so scared to answer the question?

    poor snowflake. so hard having to stick to your guns when you don’t want to, eh?

  231. 1. How does one discount 37 years of satellite photographs of shrinking polar ice?
    2. How does one discount gravimetric satellite measurement of diminishing Greenland and Antrarctic ice?
    3. How does one discount one’s training in physics and chemistry that clearly shows that carbon dioxide interacts with infrared photons?
    4. How does one discount the poleward migration of species to follow their preferred climate?
    5. How does one discount rising sea levels?

    You and I might not easily be able to discount all these things, but the FUD squadrons of flying denialist monkeys can, because most of them have no training in science, and they are easily susceptible to peer and economic pressure.

    These are the people who confuse science with socialism, especially if that science highlights something that might potentially offend the economic sensitivities of their “leaders”.

    Finding a credentialled scientist who discounts these things is essentially impossible. Even those few members of the scientific community who go against the grain pretty much universally accept that the globe is warming and that at least some of that warming comes from fossil fuel carbon dioxide. Curiously enough, the scientists who see no problem in a warming planet are typically those bank rolled by fossil fuel funded think tanks. And religious nuts.

    What is becoming increasingly clear is that scientific observations and conclusions are being jammed by the fossil fuel industry and its wealthy collaberators, who finally managed to have grabbed publically what they have been grabbing privately for years.

    As I remember it the realization that ice ages were found to correlate with orital precession was a big deal in the 70’s. And air pollution that was largely unchecked at the time was a concern. But the projected time for a full ice age based on orbital precession was millennia away.

    Well, the current regime certainly seems to be declaring war on climatology and on any use of science to benefit humanity. Anti-vax, anti-psychology, anti-education. Anti-compassion. Pro tribalism.

  232. Said best earlier. “You lot really are angry, hateful and hysterical here” Spot on. No one is going to be persuaded by such behavior. All of you, just grow up”. That includes you Wow. You just keeping digging an even bigger hole with your nasty hate.
    However, life is too short and I wish you all the best.

  233. “pretty much universally accept that the globe is warming”. That most of us do agree on. As it has in the past and then cooled. The whole debate is on who is causing it, Nature or humans? At least you argument seems reasoned and not just foaming at the mouth hatred as provided by others towards anyone still needing to be convinced.

  234. Lots of charges of “foaming at the mouth” from the usual ignorant trash, but a curious inability to pursue the relevant attribution studies. I’d point Duhvinia to SkS’s article and citations, for example – but why bother?

  235. Davinia, if a group of people come into your house while you’re gone and slowly, ever so slowly strangle your children, with a certainly that your children will slowly, agonizingly, die as a consequence, don’t you think you’d feel at least a twinge of hatred towards those persons who are killing your children?

    Or are you the type who would instead count up the amount of money you’re going to save by no longer having to support children any longer?

    Which type are you? You & BS seem to be the second type.

  236. We know from Milankovitch orbital cycles that ice ages are pretty well explained. We also know that, without some other interferring factor, we would now be entering the slow cooling that would ultimately lead to a full glaciation. But instead, we are on a steep temperature rise. We know this from tell tale chemicals, isotope levels, and dust in layers of ancient ice. We have carefully studied the level of solar radiation hitting the Earth and it is not rising. The data is quite robust. Carbon dioxide from humans burning fossil fuel is warming the surface of the planet. The only question at this point is what do we do about it.

    The current Murkan regime is planning on doing nothing . That is their strategy. Let dead Hayak and the free market forces settle everything, while banning even the discussion of this potential environmental disaster.Oh, and trash climatologists for discovering this event, call them socialists, and do everything possible to make them look like self centered crooks and fools. Wow. Happy STEM day everyone.

    So, even though there is abundant useful clean energy hitting the Earth each day , attempts to capture it are attacked by people who, coincidentally, are heavily invested in the fossil fuel status quo. Those nascent, cleaner, job- creating energy sources being born, just kill them. That is how some people interpret free market economics. Ignore the valuable scientific knowledge that society has invested billions of dollars discovering over the last century, and let the mysterious market eight ball take the place of science and scientists. Yeah. Llike that will work out well.

    What a pathologicall ignorant way to deal with the world. Oh Well. Nature and Nature’s God will take care of everything. Be assured. Nature bats last, and never, ever misses.

  237. Mr Non Prentious Anti Hubris @589 complained

    There is no debate on here . .

    If you want a serious discussion about the pros and cons of whether or not AGW is taking place, you are several decades too late. It was hashed out from the 1960s to the 1990s. What you are seeing now is blustering by people who feel they will lose too much if serious action ever takes place, backed up by those who don’t know an absorption band from a brass band but feel that they none-the-less have an important contribution to make.

  238. The tone on here is really toxic. Just like the atmosphere perhaps. Too much hate. No listening and no attempt to persuade anyone. Small minded and childish behavior achieves nothing. Perhaps you won’t listen to reason, you will just go on right fighting, being defensive and never mature. Good luck with that.

  239. Davinia

    The whole debate is on who is causing it, Nature or humans?

    That is a false claim. Others have tried that gambit and been thoroughly debunked.

    If you wish to take a high moral tone, you mustn’t peddle misinformation. People might think you are being hypocritical.

  240. Wow, great demonstration of false equivalence and the equivocation fallacy, Wandering.

    Not forgetting the blank assertions!

  241. “The tone on here is really toxic. Just like the atmosphere perhaps. Too much hate. No listening and no attempt to persuade anyone. Small minded and childish behavior achieves nothing. Perhaps you won’t listen to reason, you will just go on right fighting, being defensive and never mature. Good luck with that.”

    SPOT ON

    Global Warming = FAKE NEWS

    Now sit back and watch the bicarb react with lemon juice.

  242. “You lot really are angry, hateful and hysterical here…No one is going to be persuaded by such behavior. All of you, just grow up”.

    From what I have read in these posts, that is so true.

  243. And a blend of science denial and blatant trolling elevates you to the moral high ground how, Herman?

    Grow up and do some reading.

  244. Herman, how long have you been following climate? I’ve been following the arctic since before there was an internet. In that time do you know how many people I’ve met that care enough to study the data and change their preconceptions? One.

    One.

    Now, do you think it’s an efficient use of my time to try and “persuade” science deniers? I don’t. No, it has become pretty obvious to me that most people either don’t care, aren’t smart enough, or have cognitive biases so strong that nothing I do, say, or show them is going to have much if any effect.

    By the end of this summer arctic sea ice will have likely lost 80% of the volume that it used to have.

    80% of the sea ice volume will have been lost and there’s no reason to think it will stop there. It will just continue to fall even lower.

    Now if you, or my neighbor, or some nutter on WUWT doesn’t understand the implications and the danger this puts us in why should I care about your feelings? It’s not like anything so banal as facts are going to change your mind. So rather than persuade I have chosen The Onion strategy. Just make fun of the idiots. It can’t be any less productive than a serious attempt to persuade and it’s much more fun.

    Besides, it’s also performing a public service. Idiots like yourself have a right to know that they’re idiots.

  245. “Just make fun of the idiots”

    “Idiots like yourself have a right to know that they’re idiots”

    “offer handjobs to “persuade”

    I see that the original comments were right.

    Foul people like you are not worth any thoughts.

    You are not changing any minds or making any reasonable case, you are just showing how crude and disgusting you really are deep down.

    Open minded, inclusive, tolerant, diverse and progressive many of you would describe yourselves. Plenty of evidence of that on here ……..(shudder).

    Enjoy your crude and hateful echo chamber….

  246. Oh poor Herman, his prejudices have been verified. LOL

    Crude and *hateful* — because obviously calling a dolt an idiot is pretty damn hateful. Or is that truthful?

    Herman, most of us have been around the block more than once or twice. We know a concern troll when we see one. And you my friend look like a duck, walk like a duck, and even squawk like a duck. Far be it from me to disregard all evidence and call you a frog.

    But hey, thank you for playing and most assuredly thank you for your concerns.

  247. Still waiting for Herman to explain how science denial and trolling give him the moral high ground.

    Troll-ishly, he blanked my question.

  248. As was once said about you warmers on many other sites you have trolled your way through
    “Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference” Mark Twain

    It has been fun seeing you all foam at the mouth with your disgusting rants but time is short and you crackpots need to move your pizza boxes out of the way and find the door.

    As Herman rightly said “Enjoy your crude and hateful echo chamber”

  249. I suspect that at least some of the recent Denialati here are sock puppets – they’re all posting similarly-styled screeds about the same topic.

  250. Open minded, inclusive, tolerant, diverse and progressive many of you would describe yourselves.

    “You round a corner, finger wrapped around the trigger like a child clinging to a safety blanket. A nazi appears. You try to fire, but a mysterious force prevents you. Nazi magic? No, something much more sinister. You hear a voice: ‘Is iit really OK to deny fascism a platform?’ ‘Oh no,’ you whisper. Then you die.”

    Wolfenstein Parody Thoughtfully Examines The Ethics Of Violence Against Nazis

  251. I debated in college in 1984. The broad topic was disposal of hazardous waste – including carbon dioxide. There were a substantial number of cited experts on the possibility of a “new ice age”. I don’t have my records from the time but the debates were quite active.

  252. “There were a substantial number of cited experts on the possibility of a “new ice age”. I don’t have my records from the time but the debates were quite active.”

    So another assertion without documentation. Funny how that happens.

  253. Oh boy, more pseudo scientists saying we are destroying the planet! Wheeee, ain’t we got fun? The earth is over 4 billion years old. We, mankind, are around 10,000 or so years old. We have NO impact on the earth. Plain and simple, we DON’T! So, go to work, pay your bills and don’t pollute. Pollution is the culprit and always has been. Remember Iron Eyes Cody (Who really WASN’T an Native American) shedding that single tear because someone threw a bag of fast food garbage at his feet? We’ve come a long way since then and why? Because, we cleaned up POLLUTION. We ain’t done a dam-ned thing about climate change because WE CAN’T and the sooner you Liberal Chicken Little’s realize that, the quicker we can move on to more serious things. Like we have fallen so far in education against the rest of the world while we cry and huff and puff about the weather. Sheeeeesh sheeple, WAKE UP!

    1. We have NO impact on the earth.

      Just another arrogant global warming denialist.

  254. Okay, Barry… Carbon dioxide is a pollutant.

    Ergo, by your argument, we need to reduce CO2 emissions and make a stab at extracting it from the atmosphere for sequestration.

    Because “pollution is the culprit” and CO2 is the pollution. Always has been.

    Glad you got that right!

  255. Ah, baz, so because you used hyperbolic language to describe the results of AGW, that means AGW doesn’t exist.

    Wow.

    Ever bother to think before you type?

    1. Oh how the Lemmings march unto their own destruction. CO2 is not a pollutant, never has been no matter WHAT an irrelevant pseudo scientists like Al Gore says. CO2 is what we EXHALE. So, if you Liberal Lemmings would all just PLEASE jump off the nearest cliff, maybe the other half of the population could live in peace. Then the cows could fart in total bliss now that the Liberal Lemmings have jumped to their doom.

      CO2 is NOT a pollutant.

      People are confusing smog, carbon monoxide (CO) and the pollutants in car exhaust with the life supporting, essential trace gas in our atmosphere – carbon dioxide (CO2). Real air pollution is already regulated under the 1970’s Clean Air Act and regulating carbon dioxide (CO2) will do absolutely nothing to make the air you breath “cleaner”.

      http://www.populartechnology.net/2008/11/carbon-dioxide-co2-is-not-pollution.html

  256. “We have NO impact on the earth. ”

    Tell that to the Dodo. Or the Mastodon. Or carrier pigeons or Bison. Tell it to Rhinos (especially the white), whales and all the other species we’ve either wiped out or put on the edge.

    If you, barry, are so meaningless and powerless, do everyone else a favour and go kill yourself and open up a space for someone who can do something. Anything. We’ll then see how that goes.

    1. Marco, the SCOTUS also ruled gays had a RIGHT to get married. They are not infallible. YOU lose. And, it’s ONE O.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.