'Missing heat' discovery prompts new estimate of global warming

Nov 13, 2013
Credit: University of York

An interdisciplinary team of researchers say they have found 'missing heat' in the climate system, casting doubt on suggestions that global warming has slowed or stopped over the past decade.

Observational data on which climate records are based cover only 84 per cent of the planet – with Polar regions and parts of Africa largely excluded.

Now Dr Kevin Cowtan, a computational scientist at the University of York, and Robert Way, a cryosphere specialist and PhD student at the University of Ottawa, have reconstructed the 'missing' global temperatures using a combination of observations from satellites and surface data from weather stations and ships on the peripheries of the unsampled regions.

The new research published in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society shows that the Arctic is warming at about eight times the pace of the rest of the planet. Previous studies by the UK Met Office based on the HadCRUT4 dataset, which only covers about five-sixths of the globe, suggest that global warming has slowed substantially since 1997. The new research suggests, however, that the addition of the 'missing' data indicates that the rate of warming since 1997 has been two and a half times greater than shown in the Met Office studies. Evidence for the rapid warming of the Arctic includes observations from high latitude , radiosonde and satellite observations of temperatures in the lower atmosphere and reanalysis of historical data.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.

A member of the Department of Chemistry at York, Dr Cowtan, whose speciality is crystallography, carried out the research in his spare time. This is his first climate paper.

He says: "There's a perception that global warming has stopped but, in fact, our data suggests otherwise. But the reality is that 16 years is too short a period to draw a reliable conclusion. We find only weak evidence of any change in the rate of ." Robert Way adds: "Changes in Arctic sea ice and glaciers over the past decade clearly support the results of our study. By producing a truly global temperature record, we aim to better understand the drivers of recent climate change."

Explore further: NOAA/NASA satellite sees holiday lights brighten cities

More information: The paper 'Coverage bias in HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends' is published online in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10… 002/qj.2297/abstract

Related Stories

Past decade saw unprecedented warming in the deep ocean

Jul 02, 2013

From 1975 on, the global surface ocean has shown a pronounced-though wavering-warming trend. Starting in 2004, however, that warming seemed to stall. Researchers measuring the Earth's total energy budget-the balance of sunlight ...

Recommended for you

NOAA/NASA satellite sees holiday lights brighten cities

9 hours ago

Even from space, holidays shine bright. With a new look at daily data from the NOAA/NASA Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership (Suomi NPP) satellite, a NASA scientist and colleagues have identified how ...

User comments : 336

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

orti
1.6 / 5 (44) Nov 13, 2013
settled science?
eric_in_chicago
Nov 13, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
eric_in_chicago
Nov 13, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
runrig
3.6 / 5 (26) Nov 13, 2013
settled science?


In that temps are rising, yes. And in what is doing it, again yes.

The details of how the climate system is distributing heat around the planet are not settled. However the warming is the sum of those details and that must equal the temperature that the Earth must rise to overcome the back-radiated IR that CO2 necessarily causes. The basic equation is Solar in - IR out. The +ve value left over is AGW.

BTW: That the Arctic is warming fastest is no surprise either in theory or physical observation. It is just not properly quantified in terms of temperature away from the peripheries.
Modernmystic
2.4 / 5 (23) Nov 13, 2013
settled science?


It's settled science that human beings have a consciousness and are intelligent and capable of abstract reasoning and posting to the internet. We have a glimmer of understanding as to how all that ACTUALLY works inside our brains, but we know it does...

Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (21) Nov 13, 2013
based on the HadCRUT4 dataset, which only covers about five-sixths of the globe,


As has been pointed out again and again in these pages and elsewhere to a certain denialist who posts the data over and over. Isn't that a surprise!

Zephyr, no one remembers your "theory" because it is straight up bs.
Modernmystic
2.8 / 5 (20) Nov 13, 2013
..'Missing heat' discovery prompts new estimate of global warming...
I presume, someone still remembers my theory of global warming, induced with decay of readioactive elements, accelerated with dark matter and neutrinos...


I hate to feed him BUT....

How long have raidoactive elements been around? How long has dark matter been around? Neutrinos? Why isn't the Earth a molten mass of lava floating in space?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (11) Nov 13, 2013
It's settled science that human beings have a consciousness
Right off the bat youre wrong. There is no consciousness.
http://www.ted.co...ess.html

-And dennett is talking as a scientist, not an idiot philo.
Modernmystic
2.4 / 5 (26) Nov 13, 2013
Right off the bat youre wrong. There is no consciousness.


Interesting opinion. Thanks for sharing it unconsciously.
NikFromNYC
1.9 / 5 (51) Nov 13, 2013
They jumped another shark, tacking oranges onto apples.

Notice the hilarious psychological projection of a textbook troll, meaning someone merely posting to upset others, labeling those of us who post debate points and data plots, as being trolls. As they deny natural climate change they hurl the epithet (Holocaust) "denier." Lately, not getting a rise out of my seasoned New York City vibe which merely sidesteps such poo flinging lunatics who scream about everybody else being crazy, they have resorted to massive smoke screen campaigns that are so juvenile that it represents a massive public image advantage for skepticism.

This paper claims that satellite data, spliced into isolated regions, doubles real average global warming, all the while the actual satellites themselves show little recent warming, the two data sets being plotted here:
http://www.woodfo...rom:1997

Their own satellite data sets falsify their recent spike!
NikFromNYC
1.7 / 5 (50) Nov 13, 2013
Climatology cult scammers forge hockey sticks by splicing ("Mike's Nature Trick") real decadally sensitive thermometer data into decadally insensitive temperature proxy data after *deleting* proxy-falsifying contemporary downturns. They use the systematic mismatch between (relative) pencil straight tide gauge data and (absolute) pencil straight satellite altimetry data to publicly claim a recent surge in the rate of sea level rise.

These things they do? These things they do are lies.

Witness how NASA's own web site to this day *deletes* recent tide gauge data:
http://climate.na...dicators

They even call a *virtual* sea level plot "sea level" by following a study that added water in dams and reservoirs to the real sea level to obtain their upcurving tide gauge data, whereas the actual on-the-ground data plot shows no such trend change:
http://s22.postim..._Two.jpg
Sean_W
1.5 / 5 (39) Nov 13, 2013
So not deep oceans. The Arctic has it. Is that these guys' final answer or will we be told it is inside the Hollow Earth with the Nephilim tomorrow?
NikFromNYC
1.8 / 5 (50) Nov 13, 2013
Witness the literal Hockey Stick Team PR firm spin this twisted apples/oranges Frankenstein science that represents massive historical revisionism into just another everyday advance:
http://www.realcl...by-half/

"The public debate about the alleged "warming pause" was misguided from the outset, because far too much was read into a cherry-picked short-term trend. Now this debate has become completely baseless...."

YET THEIR NEW DATA SET IS THE BIGGEST OUTLIER OF ALL, and dozens of quotes from frantic climatologists show that their "media analysis" of layperson perception left out climatologists themselves.

Their web site administrative contact info points to the EMS division of Fenton Communications, the notorious PR firm behind anti-vaccine campaigns and the junk science breast implant scare that bankrupted Dow Corning:
http://whois.doma...mate.org
NikFromNYC
1.8 / 5 (50) Nov 13, 2013
"The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down in the growth rate of net climate forcing." - Jim Hansen, 2012

But! The sudden update of HADCRUT3 to the HADCRUT4 historical revisionism somewhat saved retiree Hansen....
http://www.woodfo...rom:2000

WHOAH!
goracle
2.7 / 5 (31) Nov 13, 2013
There... I saved the trolls a LOT of time!

You would have, but expect them to post anyway, as you doing it for them doesn't satisfy the underlying motivations of the trolls.
goracle
2.8 / 5 (29) Nov 13, 2013
So not deep oceans. The Arctic has it. Is that these guys' final answer or will we be told it is inside the Hollow Earth with the Nephilim tomorrow?

We don't even have to search to find your straw man in the surface layer of that comment.
goracle
2.7 / 5 (26) Nov 13, 2013
..'Missing heat' discovery prompts new estimate of global warming...
I presume, someone still remembers my theory of global warming, induced with decay of readioactive elements, accelerated with dark matter and neutrinos...

"readioactive elements" Are those the kind that undergo decay from fully-formed master works of world literature into chapters, paragraphs, sentences, clauses and syllables, often triggering secondary decay in other written material?
goracle
2.5 / 5 (24) Nov 13, 2013
FYI, that's the University of York, in Heslington, York, United Kingdom, which is not to be confused with York University, in Toronto. The latter is, like the University of Ottawa, in Ontario, Canada.
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (44) Nov 13, 2013
Oh, I lack simple motivation in defending the reputation of my still local Columbia University alma mater, the Colossus On The Hudson...it's "underlying" motivation at work, don't you see.

Not only that but the world's most notorious real troll has migrated to Phys.org as a death threat flinging shock jock, and dozens of sockpuppet accounts and fake account ratings bots join trained Gorebots here. A hundred million dollar a year literal PR firm designed Astroturf campaign tried to apply established old school Astroturf campaign tactics to this here new fangled Internet thingamabobby, but it done backfired, boss! Now the main clearinghouse skeptical site, WattsUpWithThat.com has this very year bursted in readership into the mainstream, literally doubling:
http://www.alexa....that.com

It's the lack of substance of online Astroturfing campaigns that fail The Man.
Shootist
1.6 / 5 (46) Nov 13, 2013
"The polar bears are drowning". - Al Gore, democrat, inventor of the Internet, counter of chads.
"The polar bears will be fine". - Freeman Dyson, smartest man never to receive the Nobel prize.

Who ya gonna believe?
NikFromNYC
1.7 / 5 (46) Nov 13, 2013
My motivation is indeed complex, but it is *not* financial nor tribal, so those with financial and/or very tribal "motivations" cannot divine it.

My old lab mate who served as Columbia's chemistry department chairman is Colin Nuckolls, overall, by now, old school, raw science genius:
http://www.google...XK6rb47g

He is a forerunner in attaching macroscopic multimeter leads to single junction nanotube gaps.

Primitive, granted.

We just want George Jetson to really fly.
NikFromNYC
1.7 / 5 (44) Nov 13, 2013
We want stuff to work.
Humpty
1 / 5 (25) Nov 13, 2013

Your grubby end of the planet, has more dirty people, dumping more dirty shit in the air, from all their dirty power stations, fires, internal combustion engines, and cookers, and this dirty shit lands on the snow and makes it black and dirty so it absorbs more heat and melts way faster, instead of reflecting the heat back into space.

Global Warming Advocates and Denialists - my gay arsehole.

Your all idiots.
orti
2.3 / 5 (30) Nov 13, 2013
I think you meant to say "You're all idiots."
NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (36) Nov 13, 2013
The Scat Frat.
NikFromNYC
1.8 / 5 (43) Nov 13, 2013
Via convicted online gambling money FRAUD CONVICTED DeSmogBlog supported greenie PR firm published book:

"Someone who is highly trained in rhetoric can argue any question from any angle." – J. Hoggan ("Climate Cover-Up", 2009)

"Spin is to public relations what manipulation is to interpersonal communications." – J. Hoggan ("Climate Cover-Up", 2009)

"Lies are darned handy when the truth is something you dare not admit." – J. Hoggan ("Climate Cover-Up", 2009)

"There was 100% consensus that global warming was not caused by natural climate variations." – J. Hoggan ("Climate Cover-Up", 2009)

"You will be consuming a steady diet stories that suggest that some aspects of climate science are still in doubt." – J. Hoggan ("Climate Cover-Up", 2009)

"You should be hypervigilant." – J. Hoggan ("Climate Cover-Up", 2009)

"Join the neighborhood watch of those who people who no longer stand for disinformation to be passed around your social circle." – J. Hoggan ("Climate Cover-Up", 2009)
omatwankr
1.1 / 5 (20) Nov 13, 2013
"eric_in_chicago
All studies and conclusions stating that Global Warming is true are false...All studies and conclusions stating that Global Warming is true are false...All studies and conclusions stating that Global Warming is true are false...All studies and conclusions stating that Global Warming is true are false...All studies and conclusions stating that Global Warming is true are false..............................................."

I and other Neandertrolls (we will survive climate change the same way Neanderthals didn't) will now use your insightful and exquisitely reasoned rebuttal to this amazingly ill informed piece, bravo , expect it to show up on wattsupwithtwat repeatedly

omater out
VendicarE
3.4 / 5 (22) Nov 13, 2013
"settled science?" - Orti

Yup. There isn't a single person in the field who doesn't know that omitting the poles, as Hadcrut does, produces a cold biased global average, since it is well known that the poles are warming faster than the rest of the globe.

Now fools and Liars like UbVonTard, are caught chronically using the earlier Hadcrut series in order to maximize the cold bias in those temperature series, and then cherry pick within that biased set to find the greatest cooling subperiods possible, then dishonestly presenting them as a real, valid trend.

UbvonTard and the others have been told about these problems with the Hadcrut series dozens upon dozens of times, and yet they persist in repeating their lies.

Sorry Charlie... The science is settled.
VendicarE
3.2 / 5 (20) Nov 13, 2013
Now, as to the Hadcrut series themselves, there is absolutely nothing wrong with them.

They are a measure like any other, and have utility where appropriate.

They are not a good measure of global temperature since they aren't global, and make no attempt to be global.

They are, however, an excellent measure of the region of the globe that they do measure.

The failure of Chronic Liars like UbVonTard, is in his chronic and dishonest misrepresentation of the HadCrut series.

VendicarE
2.9 / 5 (21) Nov 13, 2013
"The dark matter affects the thermal balance of Earth " - Walters1

Yes, but the magic pixie dust left over from Disney movies is counteracting the invisible, undetected, nothingness that you claim is heating the planet and which must be magically preventing CO2 from warming it by exactly the same amount.

Amazing stuff that dark matter.

By the way... Why isn't it also warming the sun?

Sinister1811
3.7 / 5 (15) Nov 13, 2013
Well, it didn't take long for the denier idiots to show up on the scene. I'm sure the people in The Phillipines agree with them.
goracle
2.5 / 5 (21) Nov 13, 2013
"The polar bears are drowning". - Al Gore, democrat, inventor of the Internet, counter of chads.
"The polar bears will be fine". - Freeman Dyson, smartest man never to receive the Nobel prize.

Who ya gonna believe?

Neither one qualified on the subject matter.
NikFromNYC
1.7 / 5 (36) Nov 13, 2013
Drum roll and a crescendo of a double dozen glorious trumpets as The Brain does explain his newly minted plan to Pinky:

"A member of the Department of Chemistry at York, Dr Cowtan, whose speciality is crystallography, carried out the research in his spare time. This is his first climate paper."

http://www.charac...rain.jpg

...yet RealClimate.org spins it as the now only valid temperature record. How did this crystallographer double global warming with only 16% of the planet? Ah, they were afforded a massive cherry pick of the arctic, it seems, even though full use of satellite data falsifies their global average result. The UAH satellite does show a burst in arctic warming:
http://s6.postimg...mage.jpg

What they don't mention in the RealClimate.org smack down is how the massive Antarctic continent that contains a whopping 90% of all ice is itself heading down in defiance of theory!
NikFromNYC
1.7 / 5 (36) Nov 14, 2013
The science is settled as this pause of 2011, before the 2012 HADCRUT update from The CRU University of Climategate:
http://www.woodfo.../mean:12

...turns into this spike of 2013:
http://cdn.physor...eatd.png

Magically, by a crystallographer!

Phil "Hide The Decline" Jones of the CRU is now a Saudi petrodollar prince in the making:
http://mpc.kau.ed...nes.aspx

...as Al Gore rants on about Big Oil money after Kuwait gave him half a *billion* dollars for his Global Warming cable TV channel.

The cult is thinning but the bitter enders are doubling down as concealed statistical fraud no longer gives them their desired extra warming. Alas for them the MET Office itself has just severely *downgraded* their former hot, hot, hot projections:
http://tallbloke....orecast/

But it's *already* hotter than their projection, says RealClimate!
NikFromNYC
1.7 / 5 (35) Nov 14, 2013
Wow, the Activity tab of commenters here shows that both Al_Gore and Michael_Moore are reading along here! I'm honored. Hi, Mike. Hi Al. It's amazing how both of you comment so fast at odd hours. And you sure are fond of Mr. Sinister.

But do you really afford five stars to "denier idiots" and shameless ambulance chasing bullshit that relies on converting peek wind gusts from Metric to English without changing the number itself and neglects that reality matches real theory that warming reduces instead of intensifies cyclones, tornadoes, hurricanes, twisters and lil' dirt devils? After all, Vice President, poor Obama has suffered the fewest hurricanes of any president, right?

Berkeley physicist Richard Muller chimes in, Al:
"Intense storms have not increased! They have not increased."

Muller: "The standards held over there at the University of East Anglia are just not up to what we consider standard scientific methods…."

Al? Why do you own a jet ski? Do you respect your *own* fans?
NikFromNYC
1.7 / 5 (36) Nov 14, 2013
Their included video demonstrates Larry, Curly and Moe science:
(1) Leave out the Arctic.
(2) Smear Siberia over the Arctic.
(3) Frankenstein monster of satellites only in the Arctic!

Woop! Szzzzdattle. Bong!

Hey what about (4)?

(4) Satellites everywhere.

Oh, that supports skepticism so well that those who run the satellite data set are themselves very outspoken skeptics! Roy Spenser and John Christy are not mere CrYsTaLographers.

In all seriousness, this isn't so much fraud as just junk science, since their own satellite input data falsifies their conclusion...and *yet* it passed peer review in the magical crystal world of Climatology.
axemaster
3.9 / 5 (15) Nov 14, 2013
I thought I had been desensitized to the global warming deniers by now, but once again I'm proven wrong. The sheer level of the craziness is pretty mindblowing. In some cases I have to wonder if there's some sort of mental illness involved; it's just hard to imagine this stuff being said by any sane, rational person.

With regards to the article, I'm really not surprised by the results. Given that the planetary radiation balance (measured from space) has remained consistently positive throughout this supposed "lull", it was obvious that all that energy had to be going somewhere. So the whole problem continues to progress more or less as expected.
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (33) Nov 14, 2013
The real monster here is aptly named Sinister, who represents those who would truly murder future cyclone victims by artificially rationing their available energy supplies from afar, quite proudly, and quite genocidally.

"Well, it didn't take long for the denier idiots to show up on the scene. I'm sure the people in The Phillipines agree with them."

History is filled with masses of such sinister people, acting out illusions, murderously. Their propaganda masters are faltering so badly that news sites have this year banned "climate change deniers" who try to post quotes from Jim Hansen:

"The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down in the growth rate of net climate forcing." - Jim Hansen, 2012

Without abundant energy how will dykes be built, hospitals be run, houses be rebuilt, bodies be buried quickly enough to avoid a plague, or airplanes be flown in with supplies, cheaply?
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (35) Nov 14, 2013
These maniacs even name themselves as evil:

(a) Vendicar(E = duplicate account when B, C, and D were death threat banned here) = Italian for revenge.

(b) Sinister

(c) axemaster

Their lack of a sense of humor makes playfulness and pun making appear to them as alien. What type of person lacks a sense of humor while spewing raw hatred? Climate Justice Jihadis from groups like eco-terroristic Earth Liberation Front who will burn down your new house? Yup!

NASA's Gavin Schmidt who nobody seems to know around here in the compact Columbia University area, is himself disgusted with these dehumanizing fanatics, seen here in a short video clip decrying the term "denier":
http://tinypic.co...&s=5

In this very thread they are hilariously fighting the statements if both Jim Hansen and his old right hand man, Gavin who still runs RealClimate.org.
Protoplasmix
1.8 / 5 (25) Nov 14, 2013
@ Nik: There's a bright side. We've demonstrated the capability, and are now demonstrating the wherewithal, to do terraforming. Pretty sure we'll get better at it in a hurry.

@ VendicarE -- your wit kind of reminds me of a character who's half Vulcan and half Klingon: brutally logical. Please give some thought to encoding your style & expertise into an AIML agent, and then set it loose on forums large & small.
axemaster
3.8 / 5 (13) Nov 14, 2013
I've always wanted to be named as an evil maniac, now my wishes have been granted.

But seriously, the pills are in that bottle on your desk. Use them.
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (35) Nov 14, 2013
Vendicar(E)'s wit is on display in screenshots of his rabid calls for public executions of skeptics:
http://postimg.or...yk73cod/

@ Protoplasmix does offer a serious "lukewarmer" economic argument, namely that as mildly enhanced warming eventually stops being a major life and biosphere enhancing benefit, next century when technology is ridiculously advanced via bio/nano breakthroughs, a Star Trek worthy civilization can be easily expected to tweak the climate with all manner of schemes that currently remain science fiction.

Alas, current biology and chemistry graduates are having their initial careers bursts thwarted by emergency level funding diversion into the junk science of Climatology and highly premature billion dollar green boondoggles! That is a generation lost to real science.

@ axemaster: calling sincere posts of Hansen's stated pause crazy, is crazy, and crazy people do project a lot, but I doubt you're really crazy, just acting crazy under the stress of ridicule.
NikFromNYC
1.7 / 5 (35) Nov 14, 2013
Here, Protoplasmix casually *compliments* the very definition of psychopathy ("half Vulcan and half Klingon: brutally logical") and then suggests forum spoofing as his own post supports skeptical calls for mitigation being favored over energy rationing, in agreement with the Oxford Union debating society of 2010:

"This House would put economic growth before combating climate change."

"The Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. It has been established for 182 years, aiming to promote debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe."
Titto
1.5 / 5 (30) Nov 14, 2013
Please guys where have you been?
There is NO global warming but rather global cooling.
Study, look around, keep your eyes and ears open and think!!!
CNN is porobably the only MSN currently still talking about global warming but its obvious why..
runrig
3.7 / 5 (15) Nov 14, 2013
In all seriousness, this isn't so much fraud as just junk science, since their own satellite input data falsifies their conclusion...and *yet* it passed peer review in the magical crystal world of Climatology.


Nik: What's junk about it? And why would you think that ignoring what temperatures are doing in the Arctic is good science? If you what to quantify fully what the Earth's climate system is doing with it's heat distribution that place needs to be included - fully.
Antarctica (for the nth time) is a world apart. Science does not expect it to respond to AGW in the same way as the rest of the globe, especially not the Arctic, which is uniquely vulnerable. The climate system is not linear - the totality of it's complicated response needs evaluation. Including ocean temperature BTW, which conveniently gets ignored in mention of a "pause" despite it's >90% storage of climatic heat. Without the Gulf stream/N Atlantic Drift the UK would have frigid winters for instance.
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (32) Nov 14, 2013
Fellow Harvard man and string theory physicist who was among the few selected for the Harvard Society of Fellows, demolishes this literal PR campaign promoted paper, here:
http://motls.blog...end.html

About the authors of this study:

"But if you click at the names above, you will learn that Cowtan is an expert in programming software that paints protein molecules while geography student Robert Way is a cryosphere kid who likes to play with the permafrost and a long-time assistant to kook John Cook at the doubly ironically named "Skeptical Science" server."

About hybrid data follies:

"One must be extremely careful about splicing data from different datasets. It's very easy to fool yourself. It seems to me that they have no control over the error margins (especially various kinds of systematic errors) that they introduced by their hybridization method."
NikFromNYC
1.7 / 5 (33) Nov 14, 2013
Lubos scoffs:

"But what I find remarkable is the weird sociological dimension of these "findings". After years in which everyone was told that the warming trend is known with certainty etc., it may easily change by 0.5 °C per century – even in the recent decades which should provide us with the most controllable raw data. Half a Celsius degree per century is almost the whole warming trend we like to associate with the 20th century! So if a computer graphics programmer and a cryosphere kid might change the figure by 150% overnight, and Germany's most important alarmist below 50 years instantly applauds them, someone else could surely change the trend in the opposite direction and the 20th century warming would be gone, right?"
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (23) Nov 14, 2013
@runrig

Over last few decades average rainfall in extended region of Perth, Western Australia seems to be falling, which suggests the ocean evaporation to the West of that region is reduced. Well we are not far from Antarctica so it seems plausible more melt water is coming off the ice there and flowing past our western regions to reduce the average temperature.

Perhaps Antarctica is not that much a world apart from where I live as the connectedness of those positions above do seem to tally from what little I know of some of the details of the combinatorial complexity of our dynamic climate system.

Some good comments btw runrig, I enjoy your posts they are to the point and not rambling with noise as so many others who waste space and don't actually follow a dialectic with any sort of intelligence, focus *or* educative input (sigh).
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (33) Nov 14, 2013
MET Officer runrig feigns confusion: "What's junk about it?"

Yet his *own* MET office New Year's down-projections make a mockery of this extra warming result, as does a direct quote from James Hansen himself.

Then he feigns ignorance again by hitting me with a strawman argument as if I endorsed ignoring the Arctic right after I pointed out that full satellite coverage of the planet that already includes the Arctic data used in this very paper, itself shows no recent warming.

What this study ignores is the bulk of satellite data! Stated differently, they did not so much add satellite data into ground data as much as suddenly toss out and replace inconveniently cooling full globe satellite data with hyper up-adjusted ground data, leaving behind a tiny part of the globe that satellites do show is warming considerably.

Then he pretends that polar amplification theory is just fine for ignoring mildly cooling Antarctica, all the while Hockey Stick Team members and Hansen claim warming.
NikFromNYC
1.7 / 5 (33) Nov 14, 2013
If two outspoken skeptics were *not* behind one of the satellite temperature data sets, activist re-adjustments like HADCRUT3 > HADCRUT4 would quite obviously be made to this space age fully global friend of skeptics that combined with the MET office flat projection now falsifies the core hypothesis of Climatology and the alarm that goes with it. That hypothesis was sold as the classic greenhouse effect through conscious PR firm tutored acts of raw slanderous deception that claimed that a few universally blog banned maverick greenhouse effect "slayers" represented mainstream water vapor feedback skepticism. All alarm pivots on this highly speculative supercomputer model feedback, but Gore's hundred million dollar a year PR campaign doesn't want laypeople to know this, so he trains Climate Crusaders to Astroturf the hell out of news forums with canned slander via his RealityDrop.com site in partnership with one of the very authors of this study:
http://www.skepti...team.php
NikFromNYC
1.7 / 5 (33) Nov 14, 2013
Wow, so this really is a Team effort propaganda piece. No, the five or six existing temperature series will *not* be replaced by a twenty year old activist kid playing on his computer, but a few PR firm promoted headlines may arrive during a big political meeting on climate in Poland.

It'll be popcorn time tomorrow, assuming WattsUpWithThat.com alerts the hundreds of propellor heads over there to it, rather than just politely ignores it like they ignore new reports of the Lock Ness Monster, or Jesus appearing in rainbows.

The real Climatology meltdown is abruptly accelerating, what with Cook's own 97% consensus fiasco and subsequent rejected paper, Lew's crazy blog survey only of alarmist activists pretending to be skeptics and Marcott's proxy re-dating hockey stick fraud. It's quite a site to behold.

-=The Skeptic Rapid Response Team=-, special Koch conspiracy agent -=NikFromNYC=-, Ph.D. (Columbia/Harvard)
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (32) Nov 14, 2013
Lubos confirms the indeed *junk* nature of this "science":

"A paradoxical feature of their conclusion is that they used the satellite data to increase the (small) warming trend seen at HadCRUT – even though the satellite data actually show a cooling trend since 1997 or 1998. That's ironic, you could say. Why wouldn't you prefer to use the satellites for the whole Earth, anyway?"
NikFromNYC
1.8 / 5 (32) Nov 14, 2013
Watch the mindless Gorebots down this bitter Kool-Aid like it was fine wine, on the study author's own collective blog:
http://skepticals...ast.html

(1) "This result is staggering. My congratulations...."
(2) "Well done."
(3) "Very well done."
(4) "Wow. This is going to tweak a few folks who shall remain unnamed."
(5) "Interesting and ingenious approach."
(6) "Like almost everyone, I am thrilled at the novelty of this work."
(7) "The MSM is going to be all over this and they will demand an explanation from the ''skeptics''."

These Bambis are cluelessly naive that blatant junk science never ends well and that their own reputations are being thrown into the hole their literal gurus are suddenly furiously digging in the last year alone.

"The UFOs didn't land after all, but oh wait!...*yes* they did, they're just ethereal airy bodies, bathing us all around! Wonderful doomsday any day now!"

Cult breakdown in action.
The Alchemist
1.2 / 5 (26) Nov 14, 2013
They needed a model to learn that the Earth's "waste heat" is going to be driven a la thermodynamics, to someplace cold?

Where it will be absorbed?

I've been saying that for 30 years, and that was six years before I even learned thermo'.

So yeah, pretty settled.

Add heat to the poles and the result is no warming, but plenty of melting.

Heat and temperature people, there is a difference, even if deniers and AGW-ers don't understand it. I defy anyone to propose a mechanism where the amount of energy in the Earth has not increased due to man's influence. And the principle results has NOT been warming.

(Sadly) Yet.

If you can so much as propose one, I'll be impressed.
You'll still be wrong, but I will be impressed.
NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (29) Nov 14, 2013
The biggest Team break from even the semblance of real science ironically appeared in (evidently pal review friendly) top journal Science this year, Marcott 2013 in which the input temperature proxies were re-dated to afford a temperature hockey stick:

Input data for Marcott plotted from their own supplement:
http://postimg.or...zirjyjd/

Hockey Stick Mann himself celebrating it:
http://s15.postim...2013.jpg

It was the first hoax anybody without a statistical background could easily understand since the "super hockey stick" blade is a pure data drop off artifact falsified by each and every input proxy that do not show such a sharp end spike.
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (30) Nov 14, 2013
@Alchemist: "I defy anyone to propose a mechanism where the amount of energy in the Earth has not increased due to man's influence."

A good 97% of skeptics readily accept the classic greenhouse effect (as you are WELL AWARE, you lie-of-omission, goal-post-moving propogandist). Serious skepticism, as you too well aware, is against indeed alarming positive feedback scenarios, merely.

Your proclaimed deniers of alarmism now include 48% of the American Meteorological Society members surveyed in 2012:

"Look at the views in column 1, then look at the % in the rightmost column: 52% state the the warming since 1850 is mostly anthropogenic. One common categorization would categorize the other 48% as 'deniers'." - Dr. Judith Curry ( http://judithcurr...nsensus/ )

The 97% consensus claims are utter BS, including the insane one by the blog partners of this very Frankenstein statistical paper where the bizarre boutique term "global climate change" was used as a filter.
The Alchemist
1.5 / 5 (26) Nov 14, 2013
They needed a model to learn that the Earth's "waste heat" is going to be driven a la thermodynamics, to someplace cold?

Where it will be absorbed?

I've been saying that for 30 years, and that was six years before I even learned thermo'.

So yeah, pretty settled.

Add heat to the poles and the result is no warming, but plenty of melting.

Heat and temperature people, there is a difference, even if deniers and AGW-ers don't understand it. I defy anyone to propose a mechanism where the amount of energy in the Earth has not increased due to man's influence. And the principle results has NOT been warming.

(Sadly) Yet.

If you can so much as propose one, I'll be impressed.
You'll still be wrong, but I will be impressed.


Sorry for the inanity. Can't control the chess playing pidgeons.
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (29) Nov 14, 2013
"An interdisciplinary team of researchers say they have found 'missing heat' in the climate system...."

Here "interdisciplinary" is smoke screen spin art for non-climatologists.

@Alchemist is here too, enjoying amateur hour, claiming that the massive *temperature* spike these kids "discovered" represents "no warming, but plenty of melting."

No wait...it's his own unpublished theory!

And dude, you just spammed the thread with a full quote of yourself, referring to your own copy as inanity.
Paulw789
1.3 / 5 (25) Nov 14, 2013

This result is physically impossible.

The Arctic ocean sea surface temperatures are assumed in the records to be -1.8C in the winter (ie frozen) and warm to as much as -1.1C in the summer (ie some ice, some melt, some melt-ponds).

It cannot be +1.5C warmer than this as the authors have calculated. All the sea ice would melt out at this temperature.

Not possible given there is still a lot of sea ice in the Arctic in the summer and in the winter.
NikFromNYC
1.7 / 5 (30) Nov 14, 2013
In the Climatology cult, just *calling* quotes by Ph.D.s "inane" makes it so!

Why? How? I'll tell you how, after years of seeing them in action. These are collectivists instead of independent mature adults, so instead of counter arguments (here, that the satellite data used itself falsifies the claimed result!), they carry out group bonding maneuvers between each other. This allows their neurotic egos to dehumanize others and afford them a righteous aire of feigned superiority over real Ph.D. commenters and academic skeptics. Instead of proactively engage in losing debates within skeptical blogs, they have formed multiple orbiting mirror blogs of WattsUpWithThat.com where they huddle to kvetch and whine about skeptics. Their whole good/evil ego boost obsessively *relies* upon skeptics as truly evil bogeymen. Note how the study author's own blog is overwhelmingly focused not on supporting evidence but on skeptics. Interesting is how the Climategate e-mails showed the *same* obsession.
The Alchemist
1.1 / 5 (23) Nov 14, 2013
They needed a model to learn that the Earth's "waste heat" is going to be driven a la thermodynamics, to someplace cold?

Where it will be absorbed?

I've been saying that for 30 years, and that was six years before I even learned thermo'.

So yeah, pretty settled.

Add heat to the poles and the result is no warming, but plenty of melting.

Heat and temperature people, there is a difference, even if deniers and AGW-ers don't understand it. I defy anyone to propose a mechanism where the amount of energy in the Earth has not increased due to man's influence. And the principle results has NOT been warming.

(Sadly) Yet.

If you can so much as propose one, I'll be impressed.
You'll still be wrong, but I will be impressed.

Sorry for the inanity. Can't control the chess playing pidgeons.
runrig
4 / 5 (8) Nov 14, 2013
What this study ignores is the bulk of satellite data! Stated differently, they did not so much add satellite data into ground data as much as suddenly toss out and replace inconveniently cooling full globe satellite data with hyper up-adjusted ground data, leaving behind a tiny part of the globe that satellites do show is warming considerably.


What it does Nik is use a hybrid of satellite derived data and the reporting stations at the edges to come up with an estimation of temp. change. This method was used to verify it's accuracy by repeating the process over a known region after removal of it's temp data. SO you do think it's good science to ignore quantification of what's happening over 1/6th of the world that is most affected by warming?

Then he pretends that polar amplification theory is just fine for ignoring mildly cooling Antarctica, all the while Hockey Stick Team members and Hansen claim warming

runrig
4 / 5 (8) Nov 14, 2013
Please provide evidence in the form of a peer-reviewed study that shows that Antarctica is "mildly warming" as I've done several times to show the reverse.

Yet his *own* MET office New Year's down-projections make a mockery of this extra warming result, as does a direct quote from James Hansen himself.


Any down projections were in the lower bound - by 0.5C I believe.
Also "quotes" from ANYONE are not science and are worthless (from either side). If you find a quote from a peer-reviewed study, then yes, that counts, otherwise no, sorry. We don't live in a world were we should take account of a person's pontifications, whether famous or knowledgeable. The only truth we can have is in the consensus science. I know you don't like it, but there is no other way. Full stop.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 14, 2013

This result is physically impossible.

The Arctic ocean sea surface temperatures are assumed in the records to be -1.8C in the winter (ie frozen) and warm to as much as -1.1C in the summer (ie some ice, some melt, some melt-ponds).

It cannot be +1.5C warmer than this as the authors have calculated. All the sea ice would melt out at this temperature.

Not possible given there is still a lot of sea ice in the Arctic in the summer and in the winter.


Err, no my friend. The temperature of the surface water in the Barents, Kara, and Laptev Seas especially has been getting up to 4/5C by Aug and the anomaly similarly. That's a lot of extra energy added to the atmosphere via condensation after evaporation. And also, no, it will not "all melt out at this temp" (not yet anyway). The primary melting agent is direct solar energy or warmth of the sea beneath.

http://nsidc.org/...09/4292/
Protoplasmix
2.2 / 5 (20) Nov 14, 2013
Here, Protoplasmix casually *compliments* the very definition of psychopathy ("half Vulcan and half Klingon: brutally logical") and then suggests forum spoofing

Hm, the very definition of psychopathy is mental illness. Are you suggesting that I was saying that biological offspring resulting from parents of different races are in some way born mentally ill? Racist much, Nik?

And forum spoofing is quite different from cloning an AIML agent. You have lots of knowledge but clearly lack understanding of it. I'd say stick to climate science, but after this insight into how your own brain is wired, I'm more inclined to suggest therapy.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (12) Nov 14, 2013
Over last few decades average rainfall in extended region of Perth, Western Australia seems to be falling, which suggests the ocean evaporation to the West of that region is reduced. Well we are not far from Antarctica so it seems plausible more melt water is coming off the ice there and flowing past our western regions to reduce the average temperature.
Perhaps Antarctica is not that much a world apart from where I live as the connectedness of those positions above do seem to tally from what little I know of some of the details of the combinatorial complexity of our dynamic climate system.

Mike,
I've had a quick look at this and the following study, attributes the southward movement of the Antarctic polar jet-stream and consequent rise in pressure this caused to give lower rainfall. This is further matched with anthropic forcing.
http://journals.a...LI3817.1
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (26) Nov 14, 2013
runrig, as an avid data digger yourself you are well aware that the UAH temperature data is one of the most rigorously peer reviewed series in existence exactly because nervous climate scientists have been trying to poke holes in it for a decade as detailed in the record of peer reviewed critiques on the Wikipedia page for the UAH satellite. It's already fully peer reviewed and this very study relies on such standard satellite data too. You can't dismiss peer reviewed data as not being peer reviewed. So how about you post a peer reviewed study of Antarctica that uses satellite data to show real warming there?

Lets find at the official trend map of satellite data for you:
http://nsstc.uah...._alt.png
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (26) Nov 14, 2013
FOLLY CONTEST WINNER!!!

Protoplasmix PULLS THE RACE CARD in a global warming debate by invoking aliens!

Oh runrig, your buddies are a riot.

Delving into this paper there is a vast well of statistical shenanigans at work and this is just a super fudged version of activist Hansen's GISS product but in obscure fashion they actually spread coastal thermometer data more robustly across uncharted ice while only using satellite data to guide that junk science smearing. This is an amateur hour kiddie playhouse version of Steig's warming Antarctic on the very cover of Nature that skeptics demolished via peer reviewed debunking. No, tender fawns, no, no, this will *not* suddenly *falsify* even GISS and render Hansen's face red since he already officially fetrilization effect backtracked just before parting with NASA as a multimillionaire. Trees are sucking up his warming, he now admits,
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (26) Nov 14, 2013
"We suggest that the surge of fossil fuel use, mainly coal, since 2000 is a basic cause of the large increase of carbon uptake by the combined terrestrial and ocean carbon sinks. One mechanism by which fossil fuel emissions increase carbon uptake is by fertilizing the biosphere via provision of nutrients essential for tissue building, especially nitrogen, which plays a critical role in controlling net primary productivity and is limited in many ecosystems and field studies confirm a major role of nitrogen deposition, working in concert with CO2 fertilization, in causing a large increase in net primary productivity of temperate and boreal forests."

[From the last NASA paper from Jim Hansen.]
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (26) Nov 14, 2013
Speaking of psychopathy, a wonderful professional documentary on political and corporate psychopaths requires a mere logical extension to yet another destructive government scheme: Climate Alarm. It's called "I AmFish Head - Are Corporate Leaders Psychopaths?" as you can contemplate how Enron has been now dwarfed by Solyndra and other billion dollar friends, mostly now bankrupt:
http://youtu.be/Jxq7hiHi1cE

Liberals will love its Bush bashing. But *their* power hungry wonks and profiteers are all saints, you see! They prove this here by the universal debate busting nuclear level smack down: SNIDE INNUENDO!

runrig adds last minute dead thread homework, so skeptics "lose" by attrition.

The way gurus are advancing out of passive-aggressive data tampering to just grab headlines into brazen lying with freshman F grade level hoaxing, and reaching for the censorship curtain, gosh it's rather odd behavior for mere nerdy scientists, eh? "Scientist" Mann is on Twitter using #DenierForHire.
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (26) Nov 14, 2013
Speaking of nukes, head of climatology at Georgia Tech, Judith Curry explodes this paper:

On their, uh, *innovative* use of the cited "Kriging" method:
"Kriging across land/ocean/sea ice boundaries makes no physical sense. While the paper cites Rigor et al. (2000) that shows 'some' correlation in winter between land and sea ice temps at up to 1000 km, I would expect no correlation in other seasons."

Overall:
"So I don't think Cowtan and Wray's analysis adds anything to our understanding of the global surface temperature field and the 'pause.'"

Background:
"The bottom line remains Ed Hawkins' figure that compares climate model simulations for regions where the surface observations exist. This is the appropriate way to compare climate models to surface observations, and the outstanding issue is that the climate models and observations disagree."
http://curryja.fi...kins.jpg

http://judithcurr...ta-sets/
Protoplasmix
2.4 / 5 (19) Nov 14, 2013
@ Nick: LOL, good one! I don't think I've ever had so many words put in my mouth that I didn't say. If you're trying to convince others of your position on the climate, it's an epic fail in this instance. I'm neither the first, nor likely the last, to say I see how you are.
goracle
2.3 / 5 (15) Nov 14, 2013
"An interdisciplinary team of researchers say they have found 'missing heat' in the climate system...."

Here "interdisciplinary" is smoke screen spin art for non-climatologists.

@Alchemist is here too, enjoying amateur hour, claiming that the massive *temperature* spike these kids "discovered" represents "no warming, but plenty of melting."

No wait...it's his own unpublished theory!

And dude, you just spammed the thread with a full quote of yourself, referring to your own copy as inanity.


These maniacs even name themselves as evil:

(a) Vendicar(E = duplicate account when B, C, and D were death threat banned here) = Italian for revenge.

(b) Sinister

(c) axemaster


I'd rather that than someone who tries to smear others while hiding their own, far more disturbing tendencies.
NOM
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 14, 2013
@ Nick: LOL, good one! I don't think I've ever had so many words put in my mouth that I didn't say. If you're trying to convince others of your position on the climate, it's an epic fail in this instance. I'm neither the first, nor likely the last, to say I see how you are.

Careful. You'll make him get his caps-lock key stuck again.
NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (27) Nov 14, 2013
Extortive tone libelous slander noted, goracle. Make it a pattern and you won't just lose debate points but possibly your no longer anonymous shirt.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 14, 2013
Nik:
I have said many times that AGW theory does NOT expect any large changes in temp for Antarctica away from the peripheries. I will not go again into the geography of it but meteorologically it stems from the strong cold vortex inherent there coupled with the ozone hole which serves both to cool the upper atmosphere (strengthen vortex) and also due a lessened GHE from that lesser O3.

From wiki…
http://en.wikiped...fication]http://en.wikiped...fication[/url]
"It is not observed in the Antarctic, largely because the Southern Ocean acts as a heat sink and the lack of seasonal snow cover. It is common to see it stated that "Climate models generally predict predict amplified warming in polar regions", … However, climate models predict amplified warming for the Arctic but only modest warming for Antarctica."
http://en.wikiped...fication]http://en.wikiped...fication[/url]

http://www.mitosy...2-09.pdf

cont
runrig
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 14, 2013
"Mean surface temperature trends in both West and East Antarctica are positive for 1957–2006, and the mean continental warming is comparable to that for the Southern Hemisphere as a whole. This warming trend is difficult to explain without the radiative forcing associated with increasing greenhouse-gas concentrations….."

"….It is shown that significant tropospheric warming prevails during Antarctic winters and springs, but we also find significant winter cooling over half of East Antarctica. We find the largest winter tropospheric warming of about 0.6 K/decade for 1979–2005 between 120°W and 180°W…."

http://onlinelibr...abstract

broken link below ....http://en.wikiped...fication
NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (27) Nov 14, 2013
runrig, I'm indeed fully aware that the rogue "science" of Climastology offers all manner of ex post facto claims that what contradicts their theory fits it just fine.

Jim Hansen's own 1988 paper that helped turn the whole Global Cooling scare into Global Warming, predicted simple theory-based North *and* South pole amplified warming the predicted 2010 temperature change map being right in his paper:
http://postimg.or...mddmktp/

[Reference: http://pubs.giss....etal.pdf ]

Today your argument that heating isn't predicted for Antarctica contradicts in spirit your additional claim that it is really hearing after all.
Protoplasmix
2.5 / 5 (19) Nov 14, 2013
@Nik: Your effort to diminish the work of runrig with a hastily assumed association that I am one of his buddies is another indication of flawed cognitive processes, and it's an outright misrepresentation of facts. My assertion was based on terraforming and had nothing to do with the effort to quantify the amount of heat that humanity is adding to the system, or how much heat is being retained. Humanity's ability to regulate the environment of closed systems on smaller scales is plainly evident. But there are apparently no lessons in that for you, Nik, and so your assertions that human activities have an inconsequential effect on the environment of the planet, and that climatology is pseudoscience and politically motivated, carry a lot less weight.
Protoplasmix
2 / 5 (16) Nov 14, 2013
@Nik: You said I advocate "Forum spoofing"? I've heard of spoofing a login prompt. My bank takes special precautions to let me know no one's spoofing their website. But forum spoofing?? What do you know about forum spoofing, Mr. Screenshot Forum Archiver? And who would want to do such a thing? For what purpose?
echo check
echo
echo
lmao
PinkElephant
4.6 / 5 (11) Nov 14, 2013
Replying to NikFromNYC's first post on this thread, let's modify your graph slightly by plotting linear trends:

http://www.woodfo...97/trend

Wow what do you know, global mean has distinctly positive trend where land-only mean is nearly flat horizontal. Land-only (RSS) in this case approximates the global data sans the poles, whereas the full data set (UAH) represents full coverage. Barely any trend in the former; significant trend in the latter. Basically, the same pattern as described in the above article. And you were trying to use this data to make some kind of counter-point?

Here's a small modification to the graph: just moving the starting point back from 1997 to 1987:

http://www.woodfo...87/trend

Hmmm, nearly identical trends for global vs. land-only. Again, just like in the video above. Wow, who-da-thunk... derrrrr
PinkElephant
4 / 5 (9) Nov 14, 2013
P.S.

Don't expect me to hang around and debate this here any further. Reading the exchange above, I'm strongly reminded of why I stopped bothering with the comment threads on this site in the first place. You people are mentally ill, and need to seek professional help...

And the fact that this site refuses to moderate these "discussions", thereby tacitly encouraging and endorsing your pathology, is a good reason for normal and sane people to avoid this site altogether (this time around, I only found myself back here through Google News.)

Toodles!
NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (27) Nov 15, 2013
FRAUD APOLOGISTS:
"flawed cognitive process"
"caps-lock key stuck"
"inclined to suggest therapy"
"the trolls"
"underlying motivation"
"#DenierForHire"
"sheer level of the craziness"
"some sort of mental illness"
"the pills are in that bottle"
"chess playing pigeons"
"inclined to suggest therapy"

SKEPTICS:
"data don't fit no hockey stick!"
(A) http://postimg.or...zirjyjd/
(B) http://s15.postim...2013.jpg
runrig
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 15, 2013
Today your argument that heating isn't predicted for Antarctica contradicts in spirit your additional claim that it is really hearing after all.


That isn't what I said Nik (so again again)…

The INTERIOR of the Continent is not predicted to warm substantially. Because of the reasons I repeatedly post, often in response to you.

Try to understand that the Antarctic interior is at an AVERAGE height of 12000ft, has maximum albedo and has air in almost constant circulation over it. Air has great difficulty in penetrating into it and bring any warming from further afield. The Ozone hole (man-made) has contributed to a cooling effect.
Yet still West Antarctica and the peripheries are warming. Making for an average warming.

This paper found a cooling in the Strat and warming in the mid Trop. (both signatures of AGW). A surface trend for warming will be further masked by proximity to ice/snow ( radiative, sublimative cooling).
https://ore.exete...71/10642
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (27) Nov 15, 2013
Runrig, *all* of your "papers" come from a field of "science" that claims a 97% consensus supports the likes of my above mentioned Marcott 2013 hockey stick that any kid can *see* has no hockey stick in the fucking input data, so go fish, expert!

It don't take Sherlock
To see
Da data don't fit
Da data don't fit
No hockey stick!
Yo, bo, runrig
WattsUpWithThat?
DOT COM...

Sing it again, Al:
http://tinypic.co...&s=5

...and an after show of Hansen's follies:
http://oi52.tinyp...fktk.jpg

...where even Banksy gets a cameo:
http://oi53.tinyp...bol5.jpg

...here in outter spazzxe:
http://a2.img.mob...arge.jpg

Ground control to Major Runrig, now it's time to leave the capsule if you dare...
http://oi52.tinyp...mn83.jpg
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (26) Nov 15, 2013
"hide the decline"
"the divergence problem"
"the missing heat"
"Big Oil money"
"deniers!"
"data terrorists"
"BULLSHIT!"
"public executions"

Welcome to deba$ed liberalism, the new doomsday religious factor in politics.

Old school iconic liberal journalist Alexander "Hot" Cockburn spells it out for you kiddies, and old MET man runrig, complete with a Moore's law criticism of nuclear energy to warm your cockles:
http://www.youtub...YenWfz0Y
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 15, 2013
Runrig, *all* of your "papers" come from a field of "science" that claims a 97% consensus supports the likes of my above mentioned Marcott 2013 hockey stick that any kid can *see* has no hockey stick in the fucking input data, so go fish, expert!


That is of course true (97% consensus). I will continue to say that even if you cannot/will not understand the science, that is the only sensible opinion to side with. Disregarding all theories of incompetence/conspiracy by pointing to the few who contradict and calling the 97% wrong, is by any measure of probability, bizarre. And you will not do so by goading me to provide it for you, ignoring, then returning to the self-fulfilling prophesy that is reading WUWT eg. It matters not that you do – I don't seek to convince you. I'm on here to deny ignorance, where my knowledge allows – for others.

The Hockey-stick will never go away – because that's all you have. If the MWP was warmer than present then the present isn't unprecedented.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 15, 2013

Cont
The fact that all peer-reviewed science rejects that, matters not a jot to you. In a sane world the minority that shouts loudest do not get to win my friend.

Now find me a causation that warms climate (air/land) that isn't the sun, isn't albedo, CFC's,CR's and isn't merely a redistribution twixt air/sea in a cycle that will play out. And that's not anthropic GHG's. Which it is.

http://en.wikiped...troversy

Also I will continue to disregard any posts that denigrate a personality because of their opinion and equally those that claim veracity because of some personality supporting it.

All that matters is the majority view. All other ways of doing things don't work. Not least because the laws of probability say so.

Like the chance of there being a greater Arctic sea-ice this year being 97% ( normal distribution ) and the fact that '10/'11, 11/'12 and 12/13 were all well beyond 2 sd's from the norm. Quite plainly the norm is quickly decreasing.
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (13) Nov 15, 2013
Nik increasingly frantic, desperate attempts to inject himself into the "debate" (which isn't a debate any more, except in the minds of an increasingly shrill few) says far more about his political motivation than any laughably inept attempts to counter the science.

The science is robust, multi-disciplinary and increasingly precise.

Shake your head Nik from Denierville, your eyes are clearly stuck.
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (26) Nov 15, 2013
Comic relief about motivated denial of the whole satellite temperature data set:
http://wattsupwit...ters.png
VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 15, 2013
"Nik increasingly frantic" - Maggnus

Mostly he is just spouting incoherence that doesn't even rise to the quality of Childish Nonsense.

Witnessing his mental illness is truly sad.
VendicarE
3.1 / 5 (9) Nov 15, 2013
"Old school iconic liberal journalist Alexander "Hot" Cockburn spells it out for you kiddies, and old MET man runrig, " - NikkieTard

How sad for NikieTard that the political author who he elects to use as a source of climate information knows so very little about science, in general, and thermodynamics in particular.

"Cockburn was also critical of the "greenhouse" explanation for warming by positing that it is incongruous with the laws of physics, specifically the second law of thermodynamics" - http://en.wikiped...Cockburn

Poor NikkieTard. I can only conclude that he is as ignorant of the subject of thermodynamics as his chosen author.

His is such a sad and pathetic mental disease.
VendicarE
3.1 / 5 (9) Nov 15, 2013
"Marcott 2013 hockey stick that any kid can *see* " - NikkieTard

the New Marcott 'Hockey Stick

http://www.skepti..._500.png

https://skeptical...ism.html
VendicarE
2.9 / 5 (10) Nov 15, 2013
NikkieTard posts the following plot

http://postimg.or...zirjyjd/

Note that the scale he has chosen has been specifically chosen by him (TO HIDE) the fractions of a degree in temperature that the data documents.

Poor NikkieTard... His mental disease makes him so unfit to do science.

I suppose that is why he is making desk lamps for a living rather than doing science.

NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (27) Nov 15, 2013
I swear I couldn't invent better fake psyops alarmism clowns if I tried.

John Cook's site SkepticalScience.com was a standard reference for journalists back in the days when arcane statistics were used to conceal hoaxing and data tampering, but as of the last year alone, full meltdown mode is witnessed. In Vendicar(E)'s link Cook cooks up the bizarre idea that Marcott's own disavowed "so-called uptick" in his data drop off hockey stick blade repeadedly celebrated by The Mann, is really in fact just the happy dandy instrumental temperature record you see, so it's just fine now, you know, grafting data oranges onto data apple trees, like good scientists do *all* the time!

His group of activists, secret forum included, really has degenerated into a real doomsday Kookies cult, lead by divinity student Al Gore and Evangelical Christian John Kook. They were recently found to be hosting photos of themselves in great detail Photoshopped into old NAZI soldier photos, no less!
Protoplasmix
2.3 / 5 (21) Nov 15, 2013
I swear I couldn't invent better fake psyops alarmism clowns if I tried.

If you say so. Based on what I've seen, inventing a semblance of academic integrity is what's giving you the most trouble. I won't tell you to take my word for it. I've seen what you do with my words. :))
VendicarE
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 15, 2013
"Vendicar(E)'s link Cook cooks up the bizarre idea that Marcott's own disavowed "so-called uptick" in his data drop off hockey stick blade repeadedly" - NikkieTard

TardieBoy hasn't posted anything coherent in more than a week.

The progression of his mental disease is self evident.

Protoplasmix
2.3 / 5 (19) Nov 15, 2013
...here ya go: "Inventing Better Fake Psyops Alarmism Clowns for Dummies" by Yerwott Hertz
VENDItardE
1.4 / 5 (19) Nov 16, 2013
seriously now SCOTT, just do it
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 16, 2013
His group of activists, secret forum included, really has degenerated into a real doomsday Kookies cult, lead by divinity student Al Gore and Evangelical Christian John Kook. They were recently found to be hosting photos of themselves in great detail Photoshopped into old NAZI soldier photos, no less!


Wow you're really losing it there skippy. Hosting photos of themselves you say. runrig has run logical and scientific circles around you, and vendicarE has exposed you for the fraud and worse that you are, and this is the best you can respond with? No wonder the "denialists" sound so terribly shrill and desperate.

You should consider cozying up with Watt, the two of you are at about the same level. You know - pretending to be scientists while delusional visions of grandeur dance in your heads.

Laughably pathetic.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (18) Nov 16, 2013
The sky is falling, the sky is...
Wait a minute, it should read,
We're causing the sky to fall, we're causing the sky to fall...
Aaaahhhhhhh!
The Alchemist
1.3 / 5 (18) Nov 16, 2013
In the Climatology cult, just *calling* quotes by Ph.D.s "inane" makes it so!


Everyone on the internet has a PhD, yourself included! don't you know that?

No wait...it's his own unpublished theory!


My own unpublished conclusion based on basic science, 30 years old, now being supported by this article and this article http://phys.org/n...on.html, and more and more.

The problem with my unpublished theory is that anyone with a highschool education can use it and make accurate predictions about climate change and macro-weather.

I guess that offends some PhDs who cannot.
MandoZink
4.1 / 5 (14) Nov 16, 2013
From an older post:

-------------
You know, when I first joined this website I naively assumed contrary data and evidence would be discussed in a scientifically rational manner. More so than any other articles, climate related stories are inevitably followed by a surge of dialogue full of false logic and dismissive terminology.

RELIGION, CULT, AGENDA, CONSPIRACY, LEFTIST, SOCIALIST, PROPAGANDA, HOAX, SCAM, MYTH, ALARMIST, etc. are the talking points instead of honest discussion. Disliked personalities (e.g. Al Gore) are represented as some valid claim of proof. Persistent accusations that funding grants are the only motivations behind the majority of scientists are relentless. That, in itself, is absurd and an insult to the great researchers I have known working in the sciences they love.

Worse yet, it looks appears to look like religion vs. science – those with unshakeable faith arguing ever more vehemently against a consilience of continuously mounting evidence.
MandoZink
4.2 / 5 (15) Nov 16, 2013
Older post questions:

--------
Things I've always wondered about the global warming conspiracy:

1. When was the conspiracy conceived?
2. When and where did they hold meetings to plot this?
3. Who were the organizers?
4. What made them decide they could successfully corrupt a global collection of professionals to abandon all integrity?
5. How did they manage to contact 97% of the planet's climate researchers and leave no evidence?
6. What the hell did they offer all these people to abandon their dignity?
7. What the hell did they threaten them with to guarantee they would comply and not expose the contact, the offer, or the threat?
8. How do they manage to coordinate all of the world's researchers now under their control?
9. How did the other 3% of researchers manage to ALL get hired by oil companies and conservative think-tanks?
10. Since this was so very stealthily done, RIGHT UNDER OUR NOSES, what can we do to prevent this from happening to all other research fields?
plaasjaapie
1.6 / 5 (21) Nov 16, 2013
So they massaged their existing ground station data to include satellite data in places not well covered by weather stations and, MIRABILE DICTU, the warmist creed is reaffirmed!

Did you stop and wonder why they didn't just use the satellite data for the whole planet rather than just the missing areas? These guys are cooking the books yet again.
MandoZink
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2013
Thank you. "MASSAGED THEIR DATA" should have my post above. It was not in the original post.

Any more suggestions of dismissive language? Anyone?
The Alchemist
1.2 / 5 (18) Nov 16, 2013
Assuming a conspiracy:
1. Somewhere in the 1950's, it is inconceivable that an educated/interested person did not discover what was going to happen, as I did in the 1980's. 3. It can only be one culpret, big oil.
2. They used the "Thank you for smoking" www.imdb.com/title/tt0427944, apporaches, which also evolved about the same time. They pointed to amorphous causes and effects, (CO2 and warming), knowing that even with demonstrables, the effects were contentious.
2a. And the contentious was promoted, and promoted.
4. Mostly funding silly things like models with faulty though reasonable-sounding assumptions, like CO2, which at the time was not seriously increasing, and may not be now.
5. No evidence? The proof is all around you and everyday! Consider this and simply, the Earth's ice has melted, this requires energy, the energy is here for so long as that ice is melted.
6-9. They didn't, their have always been those publishing counter details.
10. I wish I had an answe
The Alchemist
1.1 / 5 (18) Nov 16, 2013
@plaasjaapie makes a good comment, I've brought up before.
Why do they take measurements of CO2 on the top of increasingly active volcanos in the Pacific and Italy for their data? Remotenes is one of those faulty but reasonable sounding assumptions. Mauna Loa is populated.
You want to measure these things far enough away from sources (including active volcanos) so that sources like industry and the morning commute are mollified. Some weather station not on an active volcano would be fine. In the long stretch of Pensyvania would be fine, middle of Australia would be fine... get it.
Measuring temperature... let's not discuss what that even means! Temperature vs heat! I can add heat and greenhouse insulators to a system all day and not see the temperature change at all... IF I have any amount of ice remaining in the system!
Are you amazed where this is going?
I am, and I've seen it before it was popular.
runrig
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 16, 2013
@plaasjaapie makes a good comment, I've brought up before.
Why do they take measurements of CO2 on the top of increasingly active volcanos in the Pacific and Italy for their data? Remotenes is one of those faulty but reasonable sounding assumptions. Mauna Loa is populated.
You want to measure these things far enough away from sources (including active volcanos) so that sources like industry and the morning commute are mollified. Some weather station not on an active volcano would be fine. In the long stretch of Pensyvania would be fine, middle of Australia would be fine... get it.


Alchemist: there are many sources of CO2 measurement, if you'd care to search, including Sat data.
As I've told you before Mauna Loa sits in the sub-tropical HP zone and as such has descending air above it's subsidence inversion (where the station is) – this air coming being well mixed air transported by jet-stream. + Isotopic measurement excludes pollution from local sources.
Kron
1.4 / 5 (19) Nov 16, 2013
Climate science transcends sciences golden rule: empirical data ie observational evidence. In the last 100 years there hasn't been a single degree celsius change in global temperature. Where is the crisis?

Seems like every day there is an apologist plug to why the warming is not more prominent, or why it is taking such a long time for these calculated climate changes to present themselves in the real world.

The simple truth is: the science is bunk and the anthropogenic warming is negligible.
runrig
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 16, 2013
Climate science transcends sciences golden rule: empirical data ie observational evidence. In the last 100 years there hasn't been a single degree celsius change in global temperature. Where is the crisis?

Correct … it's been +0.8C
My friend, humans live ~80 odd years if lucky and as such we individually see but a small part of a geologically/ecologically major change – I happen to be among the unselfish proportion of the population who would like to see the Earth passed on as little damaged as we can manage to future generations. But then I don't have tax dollars I have tax Pounds..
richard_dress
1.4 / 5 (18) Nov 16, 2013
Wow, the UNIPCC has a billion dollar model that is missing about five first order terms and can't see very well, and along comes this dude who solves the problem in his spare time, in his basement, in his underwear. And he gets serious attention from the trades. Haha.
goracle
2.1 / 5 (15) Nov 16, 2013
I swear I couldn't invent better fake psyops alarmism clowns if I tried.

If you say so. Based on what I've seen, inventing a semblance of academic integrity is what's giving you the most trouble. I won't tell you to take my word for it. I've seen what you do with my words. :))

Well said.
gregor1
1.4 / 5 (20) Nov 16, 2013
This report is bunk. Everyone knows that 97% of the world's top scientists agree that unicorns stole the warming.
Protoplasmix
1.9 / 5 (17) Nov 17, 2013
Wow, the UNIPCC has a billion dollar model that is missing about five first order terms and can't see very well

Oh, really? Interesting since they (IPCC) say that "a variety of integrations (and models) must be used to produce an ensemble of climate states." Were you referring to a specific model? And by 'about five 1st-order terms' do you mean like 2 or 3? 4? So, which 1st-order terms are missing?
Protoplasmix
1.8 / 5 (16) Nov 17, 2013
This report is bunk. Everyone knows that 97% of the world's top scientists agree that unicorns stole the warming.

Actually, everyone now knows where you stand, and that you've offered nothing substantive to defend the stance. Not even humor, but nice try.
VendicarE
2.4 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2013
"Wow, the UNIPCC has a billion dollar model that is missing about five first order terms " - Richard CrossDresser

Really? What are they and how do you know they are first order.

Where is your model that shows your claim to be true?

We are waiting for you to substantiate your lie.
VendicarE
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2013
"In the last 100 years there hasn't been a single degree celsius change in global temperature." - Kron

Overheard from a 911 trade tower jumper....

"I've fallen 100 floors so far and haven't hit bottom yet.

Where is the crisis?"

"The simple truth is: the science is bunk" - Kron

and yet 97% of the worlds scientists claim otherwise.

They are vastly smarter than you are.

Collectively they are smarter than you have the capacity to imagine.

VendicarE
3 / 5 (10) Nov 17, 2013
"Why do they take measurements of CO2 on the top of increasingly active volcanos in the Pacific" - Alchemist

Just to piss you off.

Seriously, the site was selected as part of the vast global conspiracy by the illuminati to enslave the world.

Oh, wait.....

Co2 levels are now so high that high school students can measure the deviation from historical levels.

Damn those High School students. They must be part of the Illuminati Conspiracy.
VendicarE
2.4 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2013
"Assuming a conspiracy:" - Alchemist

It is vastly more productive just to assume that you are a moron, and move on.....

The Alchemist
1.3 / 5 (16) Nov 17, 2013
Alchemist: there are many sources of CO2 measurement, if you'd care to search, including Sat data.
As I've told you before Mauna Loa sits in the sub-tropical HP zone and as such has descending air above it's subsidence inversion (where the station is) – this air coming being well mixed air transported by jet-stream. + Isotopic measurement excludes pollution from local sources.

That could be runrig, my memory isn't the best: Were you the one who gave me a wild goose chase for all the stations in Italy that were on top of volcanos, or the one who assumed I couldn't read French and so supplied a non-sequitor graph, that would support the theory, if you couldn't read the article?

No matter what, the isolation arguement doesn't work for an active volcano or a city, you can claim inversions, compensation algorithms, but these should be unnecessary for a "flag-ship" measuring station-and hence suspicious.

We must be able to agree on that.
goracle
1.8 / 5 (15) Nov 17, 2013


...Co2 levels are now so high that high school students can measure the deviation from historical levels.

Damn those High School students. They must be part of the Illuminati Conspiracy.

Hmm... Sounds like a plot for a movie. We could call it 'High School Extremely Confidential'.
goracle
1.8 / 5 (16) Nov 17, 2013
@plaasjaapie makes a good comment, I've brought up before.
Why do they take measurements of CO2 on the top of increasingly active volcanos in the Pacific and Italy for their data? Remotenes is one of those faulty but reasonable sounding assumptions. Mauna Loa is populated.

Show that these are INCREASINGLY active over the relevant time period. Why they locate them there is irrelevant if the assumption on which your question is based is not correct.
The Alchemist
1.3 / 5 (16) Nov 17, 2013
Climate science transcends sciences golden rule: empirical data ie observational evidence. In the last 100 years there hasn't been a single degree celsius change in global temperature. Where is the crisis?

Kron, there is wisdom in what you say. Temperature increase is indeed a secondary effect the mainstream media uses to confuse.
Consider the Earth. If I gave you all the heating units in the world with which to warm the Earth, could you do it?
It is a good and not obvious question. If you added heat slowly enough, the Earth will not warm: Glacial and Polar Ice will melt, lowering the temperature all together.

@Vendi, as soon as intelleigent discourse begins, you need to urinated all over it. I am starting to pity you, even as I stop reading your posts.
VendicarE
2.1 / 5 (10) Nov 17, 2013
"@Vendi, as soon as intelleigent discourse begins, you need to urinated all over it." - AlchemisTard

"Urinate", not "Urinated"

Is your improper use of the word proof that you are in league with the Whore of Lucifer?
The Alchemist
1.3 / 5 (16) Nov 17, 2013
Here is the active increase of the volcano...
http://hvo.wr.usg...data.php

If you look more into it, they are all increasing in that area.
Mike_Massen
1.4 / 5 (14) Nov 17, 2013
The Alchemist offered
"Here is the active increase of the volcano...
http://hvo.wr.usg...data.php

If you look more into it, they are all increasing in that area."
There is a CO2 monitoring station there which the linked article states:-
"..changes in gas emissions can signal a change in eruptive status.."
and
"..establish normal background levels for gases emitted from the volcano.."
Which raises (at least) these questions (more anybody & without complaining rhetoric Eg. Nik):-

1. How is the raw data corrected for average regional levels of CO2 not attributed to the volcano and how significant is the local weighting on this site ?

2. What do the nearest three CO2 monitoring stations which are not on or adjacent to volcanoes show in terms of average regional levels ?

3. How far away are those in item 2 above ?

4. What are the prevailing winds in terms of what can be attributed to the site in question ?

runrig
2.8 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2013
That could be runrig, my memory isn't the best: Were you the one who gave me a wild goose chase for all the stations in Italy that were on top of volcanos, or the one who assumed I couldn't read French and so supplied a non-sequitor graph, that would support the theory, if you couldn't read the article?

No.
Egleton
1.8 / 5 (13) Nov 17, 2013
You've convinced me Nik.
antonima
3.4 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2013
Obviously, aliens are stealing our heat. We are watching [for] YOU aliens.
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (20) Nov 17, 2013
'Missing heat' discovery prompts new estimate of global warming
Isn't it amazing how this magical "missing heat" knows to hide only in places we have not looked before? And isn't it amazing it doesn't affect surrounding regions which have lengthy temperature records?

I wonder, how does it do that? If we can figure this out, might we not be able to finally resolve the ubiquitous arguments over the thermostat?

Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (20) Nov 17, 2013
Once you do the math on water's specific heat, ice through to latent heat of fusion through to melt water do you realise 'heat', its flow & interaction with a myriad sea currents is hugely complex & dynamic.

However one rather simple fact should be noted from the basic physics of the properties of water in that:-

If the very same heat that melts ice at zero degrees to produce water at zero degrees were then applied to the water from zero degrees it would raise its temperature to about 79 degrees Celsius !

Then its just a matter of distribution & running the numbers asymptotically until we run out of ice, where will we be then ?

One could then infer that the 97% of climate scientists who accept global warming trends despite local oddities have a good understanding of thermodynamics.

Such as:- http://en.wikiped...iki/Heat

Why is it the bulk of AGW deniers appear ignorant of this simple (although) unusual phenomena - too hard ?
jackjump
1.5 / 5 (17) Nov 17, 2013
Seriously, the heat is hiding just where there are no thermometers? How clever of it. This ruse failed when they tried to prove antarctica was warming with just the same sort of temperature averaging scheme a few years ago. Didn't work then, not gonna work now. Give it up guys. AGW is freezing to death. CPR isn't going to save it.
The Alchemist
1.1 / 5 (17) Nov 17, 2013
@Mike Massaen
A genuinely interested and objective individual? Get your galoshes and rubber coat on, you are about to be irrationally insulted by the trolls of this sight.

To be fair,I am beating runrig to the punch that they do claim to compensate for the activity and weather at the volcanos. But I think we can agree that we could do that anywhere. Which raises the question.

As far a the remoteness arguement, I think I said, it is an occupied island.

Hang in there Mike, we need you.
runrig
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2013

Seriously, the heat is hiding just where there are no thermometers? How clever of it. This ruse failed when they tried to prove antarctica was warming with just the same sort of temperature averaging scheme a few years ago….

Obviously anything "missing" is most likely to be "where we've not looked (thermometers)".
You do understand the basics of a system that means the Arctic will change quickest (and Antarctic interior the slowest - for unique reasons). Yes, No?
You are aware that the Arctic comprises 1/6th the area of the planet? And that even a small changes of temp in a short-term period makes a large change in trend?
Look at the graphic at the top of this page. What colour do you suppose we infill the un-mapped area? (from the colours surrounding) Would you suggest that white is best used? Or perhaps red, even dark red?

When you get up from your rabbit-hole be careful you're not blinded by a sudden flash of logic and coherence.
Protoplasmix
1.8 / 5 (16) Nov 17, 2013
Isn't it amazing how this magical "missing heat" knows to hide only in places we have not looked before?

No, missing things are often found in the last place you think of looking, and sometimes they're found even in places you didn't think to look.
Protoplasmix
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 17, 2013
@Mike Massaen
A genuinely interested and objective individual? Get your galoshes and rubber coat on, you are about to be irrationally insulted by the trolls of this sight. … Hang in there Mike, we need you.

Uh, did you read Mike's post on heat of fusion that started, "Once you do the math …." and ended, "Why is it that the bulk of AGW deniers appear ignorant of this simple (although) unusual phenomena – too hard?" ?
goracle
1.9 / 5 (14) Nov 17, 2013
Here is the active increase of the volcano...
http://hvo.wr.usg...data.php

If you look more into it, they are all increasing in that area.

One volcano. Then "that area". And the other areas?
baudrunner
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 17, 2013
]
By producing a truly global temperature record, we aim to better understand the drivers of recent climate change.
Recent climate change? Just because we have had the instruments to measure climate data over the last few decades climate change is recent? That's like saying that AIDS has only been around since 1981, because that is just abouthow old the technology that enabled us to detect the virus has been around, whereas people have probably been dying from it for millenia. They used to call it consumption.
Protoplasmix
1.7 / 5 (15) Nov 18, 2013
Recent climate change? Just because we have had the instruments to measure climate data over the last few decades climate change is recent?

4 billion years ago, the climate was inhospitable. It changed. That would not be called a recent change. For a most excellent perspective on recent climate changes, just covering the last 65 million years, please see this page on "Temperature" from John Baez: http://math.ucr.e...erature/
DarkHorse66
3 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2013
] That's like saying that AIDS has only been around since 1981, because that is just abouthow old the technology that enabled us to detect the virus has been around, whereas people have probably been dying from it for millenia. They used to call it consumption.

AIDS=consumption??? Erm, no, definitely not:
http://pubs.acs.o...ine.html
http://medical-di...sease%29
(note, the only mention of AIDS is that it can be a facilitator (gives defective immune system) for a SIMILAR disease)
As for AIDS, that's caused by a retrovirus & only evolved into its current form from a version infecting simians. The most recent common ancestor appears to be around 1910 - not millenia as you suggest. As for the technology, that predates 1981 too. See 'origins' in:
http://en.wikiped...HIV/AIDS
Regards, DH66
DarkHorse66
3 / 5 (7) Nov 18, 2013
@Unbiased Observer:
Did you actually READ what I linked to, and why, BEFORE you rated me? If you had done any checking, you would have noticed that I answered to what baudrunner had said, rather than downranking him. If you have a problem with legitimate answers, then at least have the courtesy to say why. Rating people down for the sake of it (especially without reading what is linked to or posted), is just trolling. Also, not very unbiased. And not observant.
DH66
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (15) Nov 18, 2013
@goracle,
Sorry man, I spent an evening hunting the crap down and coming up with nothing. They measured on an increasingly active volcano, there are others on other active volcanoes, there are still others in the ant/arctic, and none of them have any reason to be used.

The bottom line is that the Gore chart starts with agglomerated reading, shifts to arctic/ant readings and then to Macadamia Nut island, no reason I can see.
Unbiased Observer
1.3 / 5 (15) Nov 18, 2013
@DH66

Wow, sensitive? Ranking people down because they have incorrect assumptions is perfectly legitmate. Basically you posted something that everyone already knows and expect kudos? While you are correct that consumption != AIDS, you did not address any other point he made. While his analogy was incorrect, context allows us to derive his original point, which is not unreasonable. You could have approached this quite differently and received higher points.

You yourself made a mistake if I remember some of my medical info while the tech for testing for HIV may have been available around in 1981, the first test for HIV wasn't developed until 1985.

PS - Stop acting like such a victim. You ignored an argument and tried catch someone on a technicality, while simultaneously making a mistake yourself. Grow up.
PSS - And I didn't rate him high either and personal attacks don't make you friends. If you want a troll go up a couple posts and look at VendicarE.
goracle
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 18, 2013
Extortive tone libelous slander noted, goracle. Make it a pattern and you won't just lose debate points but possibly your no longer anonymous shirt.

Yawn....
goracle
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 18, 2013
So not deep oceans. The Arctic has it. Is that these guys' final answer or will we be told it is inside the Hollow Earth with the Nephilim tomorrow?

Logical fallacy. The two are not mutually exclusive, as you try to imply. Both can contribute.
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (16) Nov 19, 2013
Steve McIntyre chimes in, models still starved of Hansen's hothouse:
http://wattsupwit...-models/

...with a Hockey Stick Team worthy difference curve!
http://climateaud...2013.png
runrig
3.8 / 5 (4) Nov 19, 2013
...with a Hockey Stick Team worthy difference curve!
http://climateaud...2013.png


Interesting eh?
After 2005 the ENSO cycle generally flipped into cool/neutral, and 2005 was close to 1998 as the warmest year on instrumental record (some data sets make it warmest, some not).

http://www.metoff...perature

By 2007 a greater/warmer Arctic water extent could well have caused a sig shift in climate patterns. There is ongoing research into the effect this has had. Vis more frequent –AO events and Winter severe spells in Europe.

http://nsidc.org/...e_index/

Or are you/McIntyre implying different?
NikFromNYC
1 / 5 (14) Nov 19, 2013
runrig, I have noticed that the satellite temperature data that shows a lull globally does indeed show a recent Arctic hockey stick blade, enhanced by soot (?):
http://postimg.or...owlv7cd/

More detailed analysis of this paper, here:
http://wattsupwit...-trends/

"The datasets produced by Cowtan and Way (2013) do not appear to provide polar amplification for the period of 1979 to 2004, because the HADCRUT4 data warmed faster than the Cowtan and Way (2013) data before 2005. See the discussions of Figures 3, 4 and 5.

Increasing polar-amplified warming in the Arctic does not help climate models, which show poor polar amplification results. Refer to the discussions of Figures 7, 8 and 9.

And due to the differences in the spatial patterns of warming and cooling, using lower troposphere temperatures to infill surface temperature data appears questionable."
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (17) Nov 19, 2013
WUWT tidbits:

hunter: "The climate hypesters will adjust the data and change the standards until they have the answer they want. / This is just another, of a very large number, of AGW deception papers. / When climate hypesters are not hiding declines, they are "adjusting" data. When they are not adjusting data they are cherry picking. When they are not cherry picking, they are using populations of zero to "infill" data. And when all of that fails (and it does), they move the goal posts."

DPP: "So no 17 year pause or slowdown? Hmmm…okay. Also no increased trend in 'extreme weather' events, rate of sea level rise, spread of disease, three eyed kittens, birds flying backwards etc. Trying to fix the models, does not fix the failed theory. / The tighter they pull on the loose thread, the more holes open up. At some point their ass is going to fall out for all to see, and they are not going to be able to fit all their junk back in no matter how hard they try."
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (17) Nov 19, 2013
Hockey Stick breaker Steve McIntyre chastises study author Way on ClimateAudit.org, referring to a public backup of their secret tree house club forum on the skeptic bashing site SkepticalScience.com:

"As to my remarks on your comments in the SKS forum: over the years, I've gotten tired of people privately conceding the validity of my criticisms of paleoclimate practices, but failing to do so publicly. In your case, your SKS forum comments show that you agreed with many of my criticisms, but, instead of saying so at SKS, you called me a "conspiracy wackjob" – an offensive and untrue allegation. instead of apologizing when I took issue in my above remarks – as you ought to have done – you complained that your remarks had become public. I understand that you were young at the time and I would be quite happy to accept your withdrawal of these offensive and untrue remarks and move on. But first you have to withdraw the allegations, rather than complaining about how they became public."
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (17) Nov 19, 2013
...as anybody can thus see, the lunatic foul mouthed trolls on this very site are part and parcel representations of mainstream climate "science," with official statements of support being offered to dishonestly slanderous author May by the likes of one of Germany's top "climatologists," Hockey Stick Team member Rahmstorf, who keeps creating virtual sea level fantasies that he still labels "sea level" and then so do other Team members even though tide gauges falsify his result. Adding dam and reservoir water on land to sea level while hand waving away well water pumping and then telling policy makers you have a more accurate sea level result is immoral.
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (16) Nov 19, 2013
Bunch of dummies over there at ClimateAudit.org, eh?:

"loc="http://www.climat...tas.tab"
dest= "d:/temp/ chron_glb_tas.tab"
download.file(loc,dest,mode="wb")
load(dest)
chron=chron_glb_tas
dim(chron) #5412 82

anom=function(x,start=-999999,end=999999,Round=2) { #assumes time series
work= ts( rep(1:12,ceiling(tsp(x)[2]-tsp(x)[1]+1)), start= floor(tsp(x)[1]),freq=12)
work=window(work,start=tsp(x)[1],end= tsp(x)[2] )
anom=month=factor(work)
temp= time(x)>=start & time(x)<= (end+1)
levels(anom)=unlist(tapply(x[temp],month[temp],mean,na.rm=TRUE))
anom= round(x- as.numeric(as.character(anom)),Round)
return(anom)
}

work=chron
P=ncol(chron)
for(i in 1:P) work[,i]=anom(work[,i],1980,1999.99)
chrona=work
ann= ts( array(NA, dim=c( nrow(work)/12,P) ),start=tsp(work)[1])
for(i in 1:P) ann[,i]= annavg(work[,i])

ann=window(ann,1880,2099.99)
ci= t (apply(ann,1, function(x) quantile...."
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (16) Nov 19, 2013
ClimateAudit commenter ilmis reveals study author Cowtan at work on the formerly secret SKS forum:

"Cowtan on finding an error in a Rahmstorf-Tamino paper that claimed there is no slow-down"

Cowtan: "Well, I could write a response to ERL, showing why the solar contribution is overestimated. And thus show that warming has in fact slowed in the last decade. … But it is an extremely disheartening prospect, doing a load of work to point out an error by someone whom I greatly respect, and who has contributed more to the debunking of climate denial than I will ever acheive."

"In the end he seems to consider contacting Tamino (in 2011, "Better that I do it than a denier") but never follows up, on that thread at least."
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (16) Nov 19, 2013
...ilmis continues...

Cowtan quote: "It's looking like when 2012 begins, we are again going to be in the sitation where HADCRUT shows 11 years of negative trend. Worse, if the La Nina holds on, it could reach 12 years in 2013. Worst of all, it may turn out to be a statisitcally signficant deviation from the 1975-2000 trend."

"It's somewhat unsettling. Years of relentless work to push the warming trend up, one small step at a time, with subtle and esoteric corrections. But refusal to notify a friendly team member about a correction that would give support to the pause."

"Things could look different if these people worked to genuinely correct the scientific record instead of pushing a narrative."

"Is there any correction in the other direction? Has UHI become net cooling yet?"

FULL ILMIS COMMENT:
http://climateaud...t-449976

[UHI = the urban heat island effect]
NikFromNYC
1 / 5 (14) Nov 19, 2013
The Rahmstorf-Tamino reference of ilmis refers to blogger Tamino who is also a Team member who for years convinced the cult followers of his highly moderated blog that the oldest thermometer record of all of Central England actually represented a hockey stick by a textbook case of lying with statistics, and *this* by a man who self-published a little hard copy book on watching out for statistical lies! I debunked his claim by feeding sample data into his chosen software smoothing filter, and noted Phil "Hide The Decline" jones using the same deception for an IPCC report.

Single glance graphic:
http://s1.postimg...INAL.gif
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (16) Nov 19, 2013
Account NOM is now acting as an often minute fast, downratings bot, and though NOM does comment on occasion, unlike all the other ratings bots here, all on the alarmist side, his Activity tab in his profile is blank, suggesting an administrator account on Phys.org, a site owned by a green energy educational consulting firm which explains the daily dose of headline grabbing climate alarm. NOM explains that he is temped to kill:
http://s12.postim...reat.jpg

Commenter Vendicar(E) is more aggressive:
http://s11.postim...eats.gif
NikFromNYC
1 / 5 (15) Nov 19, 2013
WUWT tidbit:

Commenter Jimbo presents abstracts of *many* mainstream referenced studies that show that Greenland was warming/melting more rapidly in the dust bowl era of the 1930s, Greenland being by far the *largest* ice mass that the current study is radically revising the temperature history of:

http://wattsupwit...-1479500

"We show that many land-terminating glaciers underwent a more rapid retreat in the 1930s than in the 2000s...."

"…the rate of warming in 1920–1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995–2005…."

"…The annual whole ice sheet 1919–32 warming trend is 33% greater in magnitude than the 1994–2007 warming…."

"…The warmest year in the extended Greenland temperature record is 1941, while the 1930s and 1940s are the warmest decades…."

"…the rate of warming in 1920–1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995–2005…."
NikFromNYC
1 / 5 (14) Nov 19, 2013
What's amusing is that Phys.org that so far allows skeptical comments has an Alexa world web traffic traffic ranking of 5,921 whereas the coauthors' own widely supported post facto revisionist skeptic smear site that suddenly moderates out skeptical follow ups to achieve the dishonest illusion of triumph, SkepticalScience.com, is ranked at a barely alive 82,489 as of today, as I act as a chemist, distilling the crowd sourced skeptical knowledge base into their essence. WattsUpWithThat.com suddenly *tripled* its popularity ranking from 30K to 10K this very year, as I posted links to them, here on Phys.org, uh...coincidentally:
http://s6.postimg...mage.jpg

Michael "Hide The Decline" Mann himself pointed to a post here this year that I similarly engaged in, again establishing a clear link between the sockputtet account abuse hurled upon criticism, and the Team at the heart of climate alarm:
http://wattsupwit...nomenon/
NikFromNYC
1 / 5 (14) Nov 19, 2013
Study author Robert Way is also coauthor with SkepticalScience.com founder John Cook of a totally bogus "confirmation" of the original mere weak-case-survey-question original junk science claim by Orsekes that most skeptics need be included in (!). What a mess this kid is in! Yet these guys *represent* mainstream climate "science."

One statistician pointed out that their bizarre use of the obscure term "global climate change" to select their study abstracts, when corrected to "global warming" or "climate change" reversed their consensus to minority status!

Climatologist Mike Hulme berated them so badly that cartoonist Josh was inspired to capture the "Walk Of Shame" moment from earlier this very year:
http://wattsupwit...hame.jpg

"...97% consensus article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed...." - Hulme
NikFromNYC
1 / 5 (13) Nov 19, 2013
In the formerly secret forum of SkepticalScience.com, these incompetents who placed a backup copy in a public web site directory, Robert Way's coauthor and site founder John Cook conspired to plan results of a positive funding of 97% consensus *before* the analysis had been even started!

Details: http://www.popula...lan.html

"To achieve this goal, we mustn't fall into the trap of spending too much time on analysis and too little time on promotion. As we do the analysis, would be good to have the marketing plan percolating along as well." - John Cook, 2012
NikFromNYC
1 / 5 (13) Nov 19, 2013
There's good reason cartoonist Josh referred to the likes of coauthor Cowtan's group of activists over at SKepticalScience.com as a Tree House Club:
http://s6.postimg...mage.jpg

Kevin Cowtan on the secreté SKS forum, quoted by Steve McIntyre::

"If you want it to be a good game, the best way to do it is to pick a game out of the top 500 rankings on boardgamegeek and retheme it (although Cleudo is probably the best of the classics).

Off the top of my head, 'Pandemic' might be a good candidate. It's a cooperative game in which all the players are working together to save the world from 4 pandemic diseases. Change the diseases to climate myths. The Epidemic cards can have pictures fro the deniers on. The operatives (players) could either be well known mythbusters, like John, or climate scientists, or more generic roles (climate scientist, environmental journalist, climate blogger etc."
NikFromNYC
1 / 5 (14) Nov 19, 2013
SkepticalScience.com main partner Dana Nuccitelli who also blogs for The Guardian, has a day job at a nuclear weapons design firm called Tetra Tech that also receives the likes of $300,000,000 green energy grants.
[Details: http://www.popula...-by.html ]

Dana is seen here in the NAZI photos also discovered in a public SKS directory this year:
http://wattsupwit...boy2.jpg
http://wattsupwit...boy2.jpg
http://wattsupwit...kboy.jpg

[Backgound of this "hacked" web site directory:
http://wattsupwit...w-level/ ]
baudrunner
1 / 5 (14) Nov 19, 2013
@DarkHorse66: This quote from a pbs.org page:
Africans have hunted chimps and monkeys and kept them as pets for centuries; they've presumably been exposed to SIVs during most of that time.
Why just centuries? Anyway, the analogy was made to point out that since we have been studying instrumental climate data over the last few decades, we shouldn't infer that we have been causing it. Fifty years is a hairline breadth of time compared to the entire geological time frame. The obvious correlation between the Earth's axial precession and ice age cycles cannot be overlooked. And, yes, the last phase of ice melt in the Arctic will show a logarithmic increase in the rate of that melting, because of the compounding effect of ice loss on ambient temperatures and because ocean currents are carrying away the cold water into tropical areas, seriously affecting weather. "Global warming" is now an industry, invented by alarmists. It won't go away, but climate change is inevitable.
Protoplasmix
2.1 / 5 (14) Nov 19, 2013
@Nik: Do you have any near-term (< 100 y) predictions for the climate? Near as I can tell so far, you're predicting that predictions from IPCC are wrong. And I don't have much to base that observation on other than your spam to science ratio, which is about 100:1. And the science side of that is shaky at best since you don't follow-up most counter points (which usually contain links to peer-reviewed material) that are posted by runrig and others (except in rare cases, and even then, your follow-up is quickly refuted with more links to more peer-reviewed science). Rambling, mud-slinging rants don't count for much in the giant scheme of things. So Nik, where are we headed climate wise?
NikFromNYC
1 / 5 (14) Nov 19, 2013
Speaking of satellites vs. ground data, today shock jock blogger Steven Goddard presents a simple, data-referenced, difference curve between the official National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) global average temperature results (after a mind blowing hockey stick overall adjustment curve is added to their final product that is then used by *all* of climate "science"), to demonstrate that satellite data (RSS = Remote Sensing Systems) makes a mockery of this study:
http://stevengodd...correct/

"The graph below plots the difference between adjusted NCDC US temperature anomalies and RSS US temperature anomalies. NCDC shows a strong US warming trend, and RSS shows no US warming trend. NCDC and RSS are diverging at an astonishing 2.4ºC per century."

2.4° is the ENTIRE alarmist scenario!
NikFromNYC
1 / 5 (14) Nov 19, 2013
Propagandist Protoplasmix protests: "So Nik, where are we headed climate wise?"

The head of climatology at Georgia Tech, Dr. Judith Curry in a peer reviewed 2013 publication indicates that our recent warming spike and now twenty fucking year lull, are both explained by ocean cycle variations. A Google search for "STADIUM WAVE CURRY" answers his testy Q:
https://www.googl...%20curry

I personally used the NOAA's own Climate.gov web site to provide a poor man's early version of her claim:
http://s16.postim...mage.jpg
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (15) Nov 19, 2013
The meme, push-sold by literal PR firm tutored propagandist Protoplasmix is that peer/pal review thwarted Koch brother mother fucking funded (damn it!!!) deniers of climate change (sic)...uh...thoze BAHD guyz, they...uh...don't build climate models so...NO NO NO...no listen thoze BAHD MEN.

We call these sorry dupes "bitter enders," properly, as they play a canned Gorebot confidence game like it was still 2008, prior to Climategate.
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (15) Nov 19, 2013
Protoplasmix fantasizes: "Rambling, mud-slinging rants don't count for much in the giant scheme of things."

Oh, but book writers with millions of eventual readers will find my skeptical distillate, and in coming decades, help immunize Science forever from villainous corruption. If I am ranting, please egg me on, Propogandist Protoplasmix, instead of try to psyche me out, eh?

Have you even ever visited a real, messy, confused, hard empirical science laboratory in your whole life? What is your background and stake in this?

My own fight is local. I live on the Upper West Side, two blocks from Jim Hansen/RealClimate headquarters, so I as an adult surrounded by left wing intellectuals who I enjoy dining around, well it was either hide my opinions or destroy the corrupt beast in a full frontal assault. Manhood won the day.
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (15) Nov 19, 2013
I wonder if "Protoplasmix" is profitably proud aromatic Dr. Anderson:

"Global warming professor Kevin Anderson 'cuts back on washing and showering' to fight climate change – Admits at UN climate summit: 'That is why I smell.'

"Anderson also defended his advocacy of 'a planned economic recession' to combat man-made global warming."

"Prof Anderson, I note, is a non-executive director of Greenstone Carbon Management, which makes a pretty penny advising clients including Eversheds, Clifford Chance, Fujitsu, Henderson Global Investors, Ocado,and Virgin UK on how to reduce their carbon emissions."

[Reference: http://www.neweco...anderson ]
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (16) Nov 19, 2013
IF I MAKE FUN OF RANTING, LIKE THIS!!!, these misanthropic oddballs chime in that I'm ranting, as if I'm really screaming, even though it's just capitol letters, playfully entered into a text entry box on an iPhone, as counterpoint. If their severe lack of a sense of irony or humor doesn't upset you, then it should, since these doomsday cultists are currently in charge of US energy policy.

"You can keep your climate data if you like it. Period." - Enroncare flier
Protoplasmix
1.8 / 5 (13) Nov 20, 2013
Nik,
So you advocate including the dynamics of the stadium wave in the IPCC integrations. That wasn't so hard, was it?
We all practice psychology, Nik: sometimes a forum is just a forum. <--Not bad, huh? Seriously, you flatter me with terms like propagandist, and with associations to people and institutions and scientific works. But I don't know them from Adam. So kindly dial it down a few notches. When you use the unsound logic of hasty generalizations about me, it makes me perceive you as a practitioner of pseudoscience. Go figure.
Writing a book you say? Thanks for the correction, I should've prefaced "rambling mud-slinging" with "self-serving". Live and learn.
My background is being born left-handed, but I specialize in ambidexterity. :)
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (13) Nov 20, 2013
@goracle,
Sorry man, I spent an evening hunting the crap down and coming up with nothing. They measured on an increasingly active volcano, there are others on other active volcanoes, there are still others in the ant/arctic, and none of them have any reason to be used.

The bottom line is that the Gore chart starts with agglomerated reading, shifts to arctic/ant readings and then to Macadamia Nut island, no reason I can see.


@goracle,
Sorry man, I spent an evening hunting the crap down and coming up with nothing. They measured on an increasingly active volcano, there are others on other active volcanoes, there are still others in the ant/arctic, and none of them have any reason to be used.

The bottom line is that the Gore chart starts with agglomerated reading, shifts to arctic/ant readings and then to Macadamia Nut island, no reason I can see.

Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 20, 2013
The theory of delusional denialism encompasses the contrarianism displayed continually by Nik from Pedophiliaville. As usual, a mix of half truths, out of context quotes. and reliance on minutia to create an atmosphere of doubt in a robust and essentially settled field of science.

A continuing study in duplicitous tactics and shrill protestations. An interesting subject, despite his obvious descent into madness.
Maggnus
3.2 / 5 (11) Nov 20, 2013
Manhood won the day.


Is that what you told police that day? It was manhood?

A full frontal assault requires that you actually meet the challenges head on, not denigrate into a self-pitying cesspool of innuendo, out of context quoting, and data manipulation.
Protoplasmix
1.7 / 5 (12) Nov 20, 2013
Especially for you, Nik, hot off the self-publication presses, no forum required: "Sorry, I'm Not An Apologist" by Kly Mitz Vorming and Noah Tizzant
Could be a best-seller.
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (16) Nov 20, 2013
Maggnus, I told the police via my lawyer to check the half dozen surveillance videos from my campus area, mostly student housing, high security doorman building, and so they did, and charges were dropped since I was seen in five time stamped videos at home when some creeper grabbed a shopping mall kid downtown. Thanks though, for once again demonstrating the vicious nature of natural climate change denialism, and your lack of compassion and sympathy for my plight is duly noted. Lubos Motl was twice audited, and might my existence as an outspoken Global Warming skeptic have helped inspire my being shoved into a lineup? I have no idea.

Now that you are aware, as any stalker like you must be, that charges were dropped, no trial or plea bargain occurred, to slander me in the future amounts to libelous defamation of character with intent to extort.
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 20, 2013
Details of Frankenstein anatomy from Dr. David Whitehouse via WUWT:

(1) "The researchers created what they call a hybrid global temperature dataset from the satellite and ground data. When ground data is available they used that. When it was not they adjusted the satellite data over that region to produce an estimate of the ground data. They created global temperature databases based on their two approaches. They also removed data at the start and saw if their method was any good in reproducing the deleted data."

(2) "Given that Antarctica shows no overall warming and that the missing Arctic region is a very small section, about 6 per cent, of the globe, it is curious, perhaps even a fluke that such a small region of the Earth has come to the rescue of climate science from the undermining 'pause?'"
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 20, 2013
...
(3) "This new work doesn't affect the fact that the temperature databases, with their own allowances for data-free regions, show no warming for 16-years, or at the very least no warming for about 95% of the globe for 16-years. That in itself is inconsistent with the climate models."

(4) "This research is interesting but doesn't live up to the headline that it explains the 'pause.' It also does not warrant such an extensive press release, complete with explanatory videos. It is clear that it has been used as a political tool to deride 'sceptics' who rightly see the 'pause' as significant. By aiming at 'sceptics' such an approach also derides many working scientists who are trying to explain the 'pause.' This is regrettable."

Full essay: http://wattsupwit...ne-away/
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 20, 2013
Protoplasmix, I hope I haven't antagonized a fence sitter. I wonder if you can understand my jaw dropping sense that fraud lies at the very core of Hockey Stick Team claims, upon seeing my above described Marcott 2013 hockey stick links?:

(A) Input data for Marcott, plotted from their own supplement:
http://postimg.or...zirjyjd/

(B) Mathematician Mann himself celebrating it:
http://s15.postim...2013.jpg

Isn't it rather *odd* that skeptics pointing out that there's no hockey stick in the input data is met with frantic hate speech, day after day, here?

Is it really not blindingly clear that a pattern of deception is being exposed, merely?

Can you also not use a bit of emotional intelligence to understand how regular slander and hate speech attacks on skeptics might make us angry and defensive?

And if you have been overexposed to tribalistic dehumanization chants (denier, denier, denier!) in books and on blogs etc., then what does that make you?
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (16) Nov 20, 2013
Chris Monkton who was one of Margaret Thatcher's science advisors back when the chemistry trained Prime Minister was instrumental in setting the whole Gore Ball Warming in motion, now chimes in, skeptically:

"The fundamental conceptual error that Cowtan & Way had made lay in their failure to realize that large uncertainties do not reduce the length of The Pause: they actually increase it."

He goes on to explain that, statistically, their complex data hybridization has indeed created a Frankenstein monster of necessarily much wider resulting error bars in their overall result that thus allows a *longer* warming pause to be claimed as statistically plausible!
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (16) Nov 20, 2013
Monckton: "Publication of papers such as Cowtan & Way, which really ought not to have passed peer review, does indicate the growing desperation of institutions such as the Royal Meteorological Society, which, like every institution that has profiteered by global warming, does not want the flood of taxpayer dollars to become a drought." / "Those driving the scare have by now so utterly abandoned the search for truth that is the end and object of science that they are incapable of thinking straight. They have lost the knack."

[Full essay with his usual boilerplate filler: http://wattsupwit...-course/ ]
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (15) Nov 20, 2013
Above I claimed: "Instead of proactively engage in losing debates within skeptical blogs, they have formed multiple orbiting mirror blogs of WattsUpWithThat.com where they huddle to kvetch and whine about skeptics."

Well, as I write this on world Internet ranking site #5,921 here is a look at a site ranked #431,854 called HotWhopper:
http://blog.hotwh...way.html

"Anthony Watts' protest about Cowtan, Way and the Arctic"

...blah blah blah about evil comments within WattsUpWithThat.com blogroll.

There are dozens of these little alarmist community blogs with members that are viscerally averse to skepticism. Well, with a dozen favorite orbiting blogs full of daily doses of hate speech, Al Gorism Climatology cult members are so riled up that when they appear on Phys.org, you know, a *normal* site, they are frothing at the mouth after their daily group bonding sessions. On everyday news sites, they organize to ban skepticism, successfully.
AlisaJennie
Nov 20, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (15) Nov 20, 2013
Here is what the whole Climatology cult is so worried about enough to start grasping for "missing heat," a current plot of HadCRUT4 diverging from CO₂:
http://wottsupwit...fig3.png

That site is yet another orbiter blog, one of *two* called Wotts Up With That.

To avoid having their blog arguments possibly torn to shreds by thirty thousand propeller heads at the actual WUWT blog, they simply don't post them there. Instead, they *orbit* and group bond. Whenever Tony Watts blusters a bit, they shudder in angst, collectively, day after bitter day. Fairly composed runrig, above, in many a thread here has displayed similar aversion to mere links to perfectly ordinary skeptical blogs mostly devoid of political taint. Their lashing out on news sites has minted many a skeptic, in fact nearly every one describes the same path to recovery from naive belief in climate "scientists."

[Link: http://wottsupwit...mment-1/ ]
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (15) Nov 20, 2013
The Tree House Gang of SkepticalScience.com that includes these two literally amateur hour study authors ("carried out the research in his spare time") got really great press at least *last* time, when Obama's Twitter account announced the result of Cook and Nuccetelli 2013: "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.":
http://thinkprogr...eet1.png

...alas, their next paper together was flatly rejected, with *scathing* reviews:
http://www.earth-...ion.html

And last month Harvard's Willie Soon and Chris Monckton et al. have in peer review demolished their original, finding a true consensus of dangerous man made global warming to be 0.3%, using Cook's same data:
http://wattsupwit...-errors/

"...exposed grave errors in an earlier paper in a new and unknown journal...
runrig
5 / 5 (3) Nov 20, 2013
"Chris Monkton who was one of Margaret Thatcher's science advisors back when the chemistry trained Prime Minister was instrumental in setting the whole Gore Ball Warming in motion, now chimes in, skeptically:"


Nik: This isn't meant to be "Monty Python" ( who are reforming on a project BTW).
So why reference/quote Monckton?

I'm just forced to put up this link so peeps can have a laugh...

http://www.youtub...yctTvuCo
runrig
5 / 5 (4) Nov 20, 2013
... twenty fucking year lull,


Ah right Nik: It's grown to twenty years has it - cripes I must have gone into rip-van-winkle mode, as the last time I checked it's been 15 years since '98 and only 8 since 2005, which at least tied with '98 as the warmest year on record.

Dr. Judith Curry in a peer reviewed 2013 publication indicates that our recent warming spike .. f-word..., are both explained by ocean cycle variations.


Tell me pray, how an ocean continually acts as a heat source on the atmosphere? without said atmosphere returning to the initial state? The Ocean gets it heat from the Sun ( unless we delve into volcanoes). It will add heat to air, obviously, but equally obviously it has a finite excess and comes a time when it/air cools back to the previous cycle minimum.

Also deep water is warming (0.65C) represents a rise of 65C if (magically) it could be instantly put into the atmosphere. It's come from the Sun and has been retained - because of GHG's.
Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 20, 2013

Now that you are aware, as any stalker like you must be, that charges were dropped, no trial or plea bargain occurred, to slander me in the future amounts to libelous defamation of character with intent to extort.


Oh, and we are to take your word for it are we? Bahaha as laughing inept at law as you are at chemistry I see. Tell me Nik from Pedophiliaville, why would I take the word of a slanderous wretch who stated purpose is to attack the reputations of real scientists who actually do science? You don't do science, you design lighting! You're a fraudulent liar and a criminal.
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 20, 2013
wonder if you can understand my jaw dropping sense that fraud lies at the very core of Hockey Stick Team claims, upon seeing my above described Marcott 2013 hockey stick links?:


And I wonder if you can sense the desperate, shrill keening sound your words invoke? You claiming fraud from another, hilarious!
runrig
5 / 5 (5) Nov 20, 2013
Nik:
And last month Harvard's Willie Soon and Chris Monckton et al. have in peer review demolished their original, finding a true consensus of dangerous man made global warming to be 0.3%, using Cook's same data:
http://wattsupwit...-errors/

Yes Nik: you can create that result …. But only if you take the abstracts that make mention of AGW and work out a percentage of all the abstracts (12000). Err
You do actually need to take away from that 12000 the number of abstracts that take no position at all. ~66% of abstracts didn't take a position on the causes of GW, for various reasons (e.g. not relevant to or a key component of their specific research paper). So in order to estimate the consensus on human-caused global warming, it's necessary to focus on the abstracts that actually gave a position. If you don't know their position on the issue - that doesn't mean they endorse or reject the consensus position. See how that works. So the 0.3% is pure distorted and denialist bollocks.
The Alchemist
1.5 / 5 (16) Nov 20, 2013
I think NikfromNYC and the Vendicars, and probably a few others are the same person.
They have the pattern of diffusing by ranting, conversation promoting elucidation.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (8) Nov 20, 2013
Thank you runrig, for an absolutely delightful video! I had to go on to listen to a few more, including some of Moncton's own offerings, and I have to state how predictable it is that Nik would quote him as a credible source.

Monty python indeed! (And I've heard the remaining members are getting together for a show as well! I am so excited!)
goracle
1.9 / 5 (13) Nov 20, 2013
I think NikfromNYC and the Vendicars, and probably a few others are the same person.
They have the pattern of diffusing by ranting, conversation promoting elucidation.

I think you ignore some rather obvious contrary indications.
goracle
1.9 / 5 (13) Nov 20, 2013

♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦Want to do a part time job....?♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦
Work less, Earn more..Start working at home with Google. It's the most-financialy rewarding I've ever done. On tuesday I got a gorgeous BMW after having earned $7439 this last month. I actually started five months/ago and was bringin in at least $74, per-hour. visit this site right here
.......>w­w­w.b­l­u­e­4­8.c­o­m

I gave this 2 stars just to indicate I give it slightly more credibility than Nik's ravings.
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (16) Nov 20, 2013
By gaming the ratings/reporting system on Phys.org, these sockpuppeteer Gorebots have ironically broken their usual ability to achieve easy bans of skeptics on news sites, here. The desperation reached a crescendo this year with several major news sites finally removing comments altogether (Popular Science) or censoring letters from "deniers" (LA Times).

An entire major web site exists just to character assassinate skeptics, DeSmogBlog.com, run by a greenie PR firm that was established by an online gambling money convicted fraudster who went on to sell solar panels (yep!).

Note how Maggnus desperately labels me a pedophile, then breathlessly cheers runrig about a YouTube video of early Monckton bloopers. These doomsday dedicate stalkers are in for the worst decade of their lives, and heck, I have little sympathy for those who again ironically created a huge skeptical movement exactly by being so nasty.

By *not* being so juvenile, skeptics are winning over whole political parties.
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (16) Nov 20, 2013
I think NikfromNYC and the Vendicars, and probably a few others are the same person.
They have the pattern of diffusing by ranting, conversation promoting elucidation.


Oh, you have to admit ownership of your own attack dog, Maggnus, and you are likely already full aware that your statement itself is utter misdirection, since any and all regulars here know VendicarE is a decade long textbook Internet troll that Google reveals via "Scott Nudds troll" going back to the 1990s.

In contrast, in the 1993/4 I appeared as -=Xenon=- on the early Internet, organizing a graphical interface project for the encryption program PGP back when yet another Congress was going crazy, trying to install hardware (Clipper Chips) backdoors into PCs:
https://groups.go...hPCdS2Ks

The contemporary liberal anti-NSA movement properly considers such early activism heroic.

You guys really are bitter enders, after Gore already cashed out and now Marcott 2013 etc!
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (15) Nov 20, 2013
runrig keeps this game up day after tiring day, furiously sketching his paper tiger that is no different in flavor than those terrible and banned greenhouse effect debunkers called "sky dragons" that represent skeptical folly:

"Tell me pray, how an ocean continually acts as a heat source on the atmosphere? without said atmosphere returning to the initial state?"

Reply: On a thousand year time scale, sure, why not? But you are insisting that Nature throw away any century scale variation even though former non-greenhouse spikes are clearly established and especially in Greenland that is the focus of this study, as I linked to references of above not to mention the warm spike-littered ice core record.

What you guys know well but smoke screen cover up is that hockey stick claims represented vast historical revisionism of deeply established and indeed consensus science! With former century *scale* peaks prior to emissions, your paper tiger is scrolled on toilet paper.
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 20, 2013
The main author of Monckton's debunking of Cook's 97% consensus claim, Dr. David Legates, served as state climatologist of Delaware.

Another coauthor, William M. Briggs is a seasoned (and fellow Manhattanite) statistician, something you will rarely find on Hockey Stick Team papers, for good reputation risking reason.

On the other hand Evangelical "Climate Justice" activist Cook lacks a Ph.D. in any physical science and spent over a decade as a semi-employed comic pane artist:
http://www.popula...nce.html

In 2005, said state climatologist and coauthor with former science advisor to a UK prime minister, was sacked for not adhering to the state doomsday religion.

Finally, as these link shy stalkers are wont to admit, I had a future Nobelist (Chalfie) and future Am. Chem. Soc. president (Breslow) on my Ph.D. committee and won the organic division top student award prior to three years at Harvard with Whitesides.

-=NikFromNYC=-
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 20, 2013
Note how Maggnus desperately labels me a pedophile,

No desperation necessary, the facts would seem to speak for themselves.
then breathlessly cheers runrig about a YouTube video of early Monckton bloopers

Breathlessly lol! How gauche! So apparently university level English escapes you too. Another tick in the "doesn't have a secondary education" column.
I have little sympathy for those who again ironically created a huge skeptical movement exactly by being so nasty.

A thorn by any other name is still a thorn. There is no "skeptical movement", at least not in the manner with which you use the term. There are a small (and ever shrinking) but loud cadre of denialists, contrarians and conspiracists, most of whom have a political axe to grind, and absolutely no empirical support. They Believe! You are just another fraud trying to take advantage of them. You're not even very good at it.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 20, 2013
By *not* being so juvenile, skeptics are winning over whole political parties.


"Skeptics", the real ones, perform a valuable and necessary service, a check and counter balance to the claims of frauds and charlatans who use deceit, duplicitousness and fear to take advantage of those who, for whatever reason, do not take the time to learn for themselves. Just like you are trying (and failing) to do.

You have no clue what a skeptic is. You simply deny and pretend that means the same thing. News flash there skippy - it doesn't.

You are a fraud, a charlatan dressed in the robes of self-righteous fervor. You've admitted it! As to political parties (oh yes, fraud, you are definitely a tea partier) Lincoln had a saying about those who can be fooled.
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (15) Nov 20, 2013
The way I personally helped promote Climategate into the mainstream media was to utterly blanket in topical and polite fashion, nearly every conservative blog and comment ready news site with quick single glance infographics back in early 2009 so really, conservatives were already fully informed prior to the scandal without their having had to wade through millions of words about arcane statistics on skeptical blogs. Over time I threw out arguments that were embarrassingly hypothetical after all, searching for silver bullets instead. In 2013, the Hockey Stick Team of professionals merged with The Tree House club of hacks to provide skeptics with golden bullets.

They are now in full meltdown mode, Frankenstein science by spare time kids included. What no press? Where's the NY Times *this* time, kids? Alas, they burned reporter Revkin with the Marcott 2013 "super hockey stick" earlier this year. Oops!
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 20, 2013
Oh, you have to admit ownership of your own attack dog, Maggnus, and you are likely already full aware that your statement itself is utter misdirection, since any and all regulars here know VendicarE is a decade long textbook Internet troll that Google reveals via "Scott Nudds troll" going back to the 1990s


Yea, just more nonsense. You just love backing into pleas of oppression and censorship whenever you get pressed on being the criminal fraud you are. Poor little Nik, so hard done by. I bet within a post or two you'll don your mantle of self-righteous indignation, and claim to be some savior or bastion against the evil government or whatever power your diseased mind has leading the conspiracy.

You're just another gish-galloping fraudster, a Zephyr on the climate side of science, a nobody with an axe to grind. Bet you're good buddies with Manuel. Maybe soon you'll get to share a cell with him.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 20, 2013

In contrast, in the 1993/4 I appeared as -=Xenon=- on the early Internet, organizing a graphical interface project for the encryption program PGP back when yet another Congress was going crazy, trying to install hardware (Clipper Chips) backdoors into PCs:
https://groups.go...hPCdS2Ks


BAHAHAHAHA didn't even make it to a new post! SO predictable, just a typical denialist wrapped in a cloak of righteous indignation. A Fraud!
The Alchemist
1.1 / 5 (14) Nov 20, 2013
I think NikfromNYC and the Vendicars, and probably a few others are the same person.
They have the pattern of diffusing by ranting, conversation promoting elucidation.

I think you ignore some rather obvious contrary indications.


I see your point, but their objectives and effects are identical.
Reality trumps opinion. The reality is they disrupt and calcify, rather than enlighten and free.
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 20, 2013
What if I *was* politically active, Maggnus?

As anybody can tell, I'm an equal opportunity political cynic, focusing on data and fraud.

But hold on, Maggnus, in fact *you* reveal near shrill tribalistic political intensity, by the very act of trying to denigrate me via politics. You guys project so much it's really almost endearing but more so comical: "you're definitely a tea partier."

On a *science* site, you are yammering on about the Tea Party as *if* it's a trump card. This makes you publicly guilty of your own accusation of having a political bias taint in your ability to sort facts!

You are textbook psychologically projecting.

I'm a formerly Whole Earth Catalog addicted trippy hippy, former lab mate of the recent Columbia chemistry department who was a classic Grateful Deadhead. I'm an atheist who despises conservative religious activism and stem cell bans, who despises Drug War red tape ruination of neuroscience, and am an established culture jamming old school cypherpunk.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 20, 2013
runrig keeps this game up day after tiring day, furiously sketching his paper tiger that is no different in flavor than those terrible and banned greenhouse effect debunkers called "sky dragons" that represent skeptical folly:


Yet another glib response to the one person who gave you the benefit of the doubt and engaged you reasonably until you showed your true color. The knots you tied yourself in trying to keep up to someone who actually HAS a university education were amusing, if just a tad sad. You could not keep your duplicity, denialism and contrarianism in check even in the face of someone willing to listen and try to reason with you. (Not debate - it was never a debate because you know so little of science and the scientific method. More like guiding a petulant child)

That you would attempt to tar him with your poisoned brush just goes to show what a low life scum you are. AGREE with ME or PREPARE for the FIRES to take your VERY SOUL! And other such hogwash. Fraud.
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (16) Nov 20, 2013
I suspect Vendicar(E) is Michael Mann, venting. After all, Mann himself this year linked to comments here via Twitter, full of Emperor Vendicar(E), rar rar rar!
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 20, 2013
I see your point, but their objectives and effects are identical.
Reality trumps opinion. The reality is they disrupt and calcify, rather than enlighten and free.


Perhaps Alchemist. I have sat silent for a good while, reading the rhetoric of Nik and watching as his posts became shriller and shriller while runrig, djr, oracle and others (who deserve to be named but I can't think of right now), engaged him (mostly) politely. I and watched as he spammed more and more articles, setting himself up like some anti hero or whatever his particular illusion was. His lies and his attacks on those who gave him audience have moved me to speak my mind to him. To him Alchemist, the person who spams every article that comes up mentioning anything remotely close to global warming.

He is a fraud. He is a criminal. And he is trying to perpetrate his fraud on others. I do not fear saying what he is.
NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (14) Nov 20, 2013
Maggnus The Magnificent: "That you would attempt to tar him with your poisoned brush just goes to show what a low life scum you are. AGREE with ME or PREPARE for the FIRES to take your VERY SOUL!"

Dude, maybe he's just wrong about the time scale of semi-chaotic natural variation.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 20, 2013
I suspect Vendicar(E) is Michael Mann, venting. After all, Mann himself this year linked to comments here via Twitter, full of Emperor Vendicar(E), rar rar rar!


I only wish it was so. Unfortunately, Mann is a real scientist Nik, something you have never understood. He doesn't have time to listen to the petty misunderstandings of those such as you, as the reality of the situation requires his attention to the science, not the fantasy you are trying so hard to perpetuate.

You should take some time to learn how real scientists work Nik. Might enlighten you a bit.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 20, 2013
Maggnus The Magnificent: "That you would attempt to tar him with your poisoned brush just goes to show what a low life scum you are. AGREE with ME or PREPARE for the FIRES to take your VERY SOUL!"

Dude, maybe he's just wrong about the time scale of semi-chaotic natural variation.


How would you know if he was Nik? You know nothing about climate science, or even science in general. You design lighting. Judging from your own words, you're seemingly a college drop-out and former drug addict caught in the throes of self hatred that you project as motive for others' attempts to discuss real science with you.

Your laughingly inept at science. Your motivation for wanting to appear otherwise is what is not clear.
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (15) Nov 20, 2013
O.K. guys, time out, in a *debate* you are supposed to *expose* lies, specific ones. You *lose* debate points when you merely group bond together and chant the mere word "lies" together as the other team fidgets.

All right, carry on, fellas, Al Gore is rooting for you from his yacht, you know the he bought, for when sea level rise renders his seaside palace naught.

Oh...and go get some physical science Ph.D.s!
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 20, 2013
As anybody can tell, I'm an equal opportunity political cynic, focusing on data and fraud.


Laughable! The only "equal" you offer is to agree with you or be damned. You focus on denial and contrarianism, because you don't know how to look at things any other way. You don't use critical thinking skills because you don't understand how they work and worse, they may cause you to take a second look at the pretend world you have convinced yourself exists.

Denialism is not skepticism skippy. You should try to learn the difference.
Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 20, 2013
O.K. guys, time out, in a *debate* you are supposed to *expose* lies, specific ones. You *lose* debate points when you merely group bond together and chant the mere word "lies" together as the other team fidgets.

All right, carry on, fellas, Al Gore is rooting for you from his yacht, you know the he bought, for when sea level rise renders his seaside palace naught.

Oh...and go get some physical science Ph.D.s!


See you can't even get that right. Its not a debate skippy, the debate ended some 25 years ago. It's a handful of denialists trying desperately to convince someone, anyone, that they should be legitimized. Its people like you, shouting loudly about how oppressed they are while simultaneously stepping on the throat of anyone who dares point out that the Earth orbits the sun, not the other way around.

Most scientists don't even bother trying to correct your denialism and contrarianism because warming is so self evident, only those who will accept no evidence still argue
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (15) Nov 20, 2013
Maggnus, like the bulk of seasoned skeptics, I *did* use critical thinking skills in the three years I spent delving into Hockey Stick Team science. The process of concluding that here lied fraud instead of sincere science took place years ago now so indeed what you are mistaking for a lack of open mind is merely a hurried person's shortcuts in helping to expose that fraud.

In this very thread I'm harping on Marcott 2013, the latest famous hockey stick. The blade that was a mere spurious artifact was hailed as vindicating Mann, and I'm using it here as a lever to expose the blindness of Gore sponsored activism to even the most brazenly clear deceptions.

Your essential plea for a soft landing for climate "science" is noted, as you slander me, now in a pattern that represents growing and willful libel. I'm asking you now to discontinue defaming my hard earned credentials.
NOM
5 / 5 (3) Nov 20, 2013
Oh...and go get some physical science Ph.D.s!
Or just make it up, like you.
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (15) Nov 20, 2013
Oh fun, Maggnus the criminal defamer, now suggests the "debate" (when were so-called skeptical "DENIERS!!!" invited?!) ended 25 years ago, in the magical year 1988, when "really make a battle of it" Senator Wirth sponsored Hansen's A/C stunt hothouse predictions, that I indeed made an infographic of too, and I made it rEaLly kRaaZy, to mirror Hansen's activism, but the Mother Nature carried out *it's* half of the "debate" since then, and won:
http://postimg.or...city7zh/

Enjoy the likely porn banner ads on Google's top ranked free image hosting site!

This Frankenstein science tries in last gasp fashion to *raise* the global average temperature *up* to Hansen's activist *lowest* emissions scenario, his ideal safe zone!

But now his safe zone is alarming?!

-=NikFromNYCTheWonkAndKochBrotherHomie=-
Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 20, 2013
what you are mistaking for a lack of open mind is merely a hurried person's shortcuts in helping to expose that fraud.


You don't truly believe that anyone would be taken in by that bs do you? I've read the rhetoric you try to pass of as "skepticism", as have those others who engaged you here. You are a denialist, plain and simple. That you can't understand what that means doesn't surprise me in the lease.

But at least you admit you "did" use critical thinking skills, because you sure don't now. Unfortunately, like the scientific method you claim to have once known, I very much doubt you ever understood what that means.

I'm using it here as a lever to expose the blindness of Gore sponsored activism to even the most brazenly clear deceptions.


Hogwash, you're doing nothing of the kind. What your ARE doing is exposing the biased, uninformed, unthinking stance you take on anything that you perceive somehow impinges on your preconceived belief. You know - denialism.
Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 20, 2013
Oh fun, Maggnus the criminal defamer,
Cute. Once again showing off that you lack even an under-grad's knowledge of law. Another tick Nik.
now suggests the "debate" (when were so-called skeptical "DENIERS!!!" invited?!) ended 25 years ago, in the magical year 1988, when "really make a battle of it" Senator Wirth sponsored Hansen's A/C stunt hothouse predictions, that I indeed made an infographic of too, and I made it rEaLly kRaaZy, to mirror Hansen's activism, but the Mother Nature carried out *it's* half of the "debate" since then, and won:
Cute, more gish gallop. Denialism at its finest!
This Frankenstein science tries in last gasp fashion to *raise* the global average temperature *up* to Hansen's activist *lowest* emissions scenario, his ideal safe zone!

But now his safe zone is alarming?!
And now pontificating. You really like to pull out all the stops, don't you? Shall we gather the holy hand grenade?
Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 20, 2013
By the way Nik, I can't help but laugh at the way your links ALWAYS contain pornographic shots of young women. That's what happens when you spend so much time at porn sites, your computer gets hacked. A person with something beyond a junior high school education knows that - and also knows to employ virus protection against it.

Course you like that crap, as evidenced by charges laid against you. You ought to come by for a visit, I got some good ol boys that'd like to meet you.
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (16) Nov 20, 2013
Speaking of perversion...the head of the IPCC's novel took the cake:

"I haven't yet reached the stage of wanting to make love to a buffalo. Frankly, every time she reminded me that I should shower her with kisses, I felt like showering her with pisses. I would have invited all of you to join in and help out."

"As soon as the act was over, she rushed to the bathroom and spent twenty minutes douching herself thoroughly."

"She merely said that she kept small pieces of sponge, which she promptly inserted whenever she and Amar were ready to make love."

"Even though the deity before which he stood was shaped so authentically like the vagina, he no longer questioned why people coming here to worship and to pay homage did not feel embarrassed. So true to life was the whole construct and ambience of the stone carving depicting the vagina that it was kept constantly moist by the waters of a permanent underground spring."

"She held back nothing, telling him about Jolly's sexual perversion."
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (17) Nov 20, 2013
Maggnus it's not a virus, it's an occasional playful defense against the constant Mannian claim that I am paid to do this by conservative activists. It's a basic Guerrilla activist tactic since our side does not have hundred million dollar PR campaigns helping us out, eh?

Do you really think PostImage.org that Google presents as the first hit for free image hosting has a virus?!

And *score* third hit for a death threat collection, added to the ones linked above concerning administrative account owner NOM, and Vendicar(E): "I got some good ol boys that'd like to meet you."

You would do that too, fascist, take the official victim of temporarily mistaken identity and physically hurt him, based on incomplete information, in a riot of hatred towards a debate foe.

Oh, I've met your kind now, as an online skeptic, going on six years. You are the very face of the Climate cult. People like you created the skeptical blogosphere, ironically. And, Maggnus, you can't phase a Mannhattan man.
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (6) Nov 20, 2013
Maggnus it's not a virus, it's an occasional playful defense against the constant Mannian claim that I am paid to do this by conservative activists.


Outstanding! So you admit you put images of undressed young women in your links as a "playful defence"? What kind of an idiot are you?

I didn't say anything about threats, you purveyor of lies and filth. That you took it as such says much about your paranoia. You should seek counselling.

You are not a skeptic, denialist purveyor of smut. You are a fraud.
runrig
4 / 5 (4) Nov 20, 2013
The main author of Monckton's debunking of Cook's 97% consensus claim, Dr. David Legates, served as state climatologist of Delaware.

Monckton's never debunked anything – he's just not credible to an enquiring mind my friend. A joke.
I'll repeat this to see if by any sane consideration you find this credible Nik: And what on Earth that may be.
Only taking the abstracts that make mention of AGW as a percentage of all the abstracts (11994) you will get that result BUT you need to take away from that 11994 the number of abstracts that take no position at all ( ~66% ) on the causes of GW, for various reasons (not relevant to or a key component of the research paper). To estimate the consensus on human-caused global warming, it is necessary to focus on the abstracts that actually gave a position. If you don't know their position on the issue - that doesn't mean they endorse or reject the consensus position. See how that works. So the 0.3% is pure distorted and denialist bollocks.
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (16) Nov 20, 2013
Maggnus: for Christ's sake man, it's 2013, but you are indeed still living in 1988, evidently, never having seen a porn banner on a web site. Here, Google "free image hosting" and then upload an image to the first ranked site called PostImage.org and merely select the "Adult" category. Presto, porn banners. Google's top ranked site put them there, and my point is now emphasized that nobody would pay me to be my playful self online, nobody conservative any way! That Mike Mann *claims* such conspiracy reflects his lack of touch with reality, specifically linking to a thread here I was the major skeptical voice, as being Koch money related. And earlier this year he did cheer a pure artifact hockey stick. I do believe I am making a pretty damn good point: he's not relating to reality well.
goracle
1.6 / 5 (13) Nov 20, 2013
Re Nik and Monckton: http://www.parlia...onckton/

"Letter to Viscount Monckton of Brenchley from David Beamish, the Clerk of the Parliaments.

Dear Lord Monckton

My predecessor, Sir Michael Pownall, wrote to you on 21 July 2010, and again on 30 July 2010, asking that you cease claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication. It has been drawn to my attention that you continue to make such claims.

In particular, I have listened to your recent interview with Mr Adam Spencer on Australian radio. In response to the direct question, whether or not you were a Member of the House of Lords, you said "Yes, but without the right to sit or vote". You later repeated, "I am a Member of the House".

I must repeat my predecessor's statement that you are not and have never been a Member of the House of Lords....
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (16) Nov 20, 2013
runrig, Cook cooked his result by leaving out the mothership term "climate change" in his abstract selection filter! He used "global warming" and "global climate change." The fraud here is just astounding, but you want to nitpick opinionated reputation dynamics of Monckton and deny the core finding of their debunking paper, while also utterly setting this thread up for a long list of embarrassing quotes by established climatologists themselves saying Cook's volunteers mis-categorized their own papers etc.

Has a single paper *ever* contained even a hint of misdirection in all of climate science?! Your side of this debate keeps minting skeptics from formerly disinterested scientists, including 48% of your own field of meteorology as I already linked above, by this very incredibly unscientific act of deifying previously unknown third rate scientists who jumped on a funding bandwagon while you attack opponents. The IPCC chairman called a huge typo correction by skeptics, "voodoo science."
goracle
1.9 / 5 (13) Nov 20, 2013
"Shall we bring out the Holy Hand Grenade?"
I've texted Brother Maymard re the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch. Nik has most definitely been naughty in His sight, and should 'snuff it'.
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (16) Nov 20, 2013
Oh, blah blah blah, goracle, and Mann and the IPCC chairman (an engineer with no science background) both falsely claimed they won the Nobel Prize after only the IPCC organization did that. You see, it's good enough to keep you Gorebots on the farm to have even a sliver of taint in opposing players, as Marcott 2013 grabs headlines with artifacts (!), but normal smart people, they face *facts*, they understand subtly, they understand hype versus reality on both sides, and your nasty overall behavior along with your online allies, fall outside of this normal human savvy. All I see here are attempts to shut up a hard working whistle blower. But it sure was fun to fit the whole Tree House Club background into this nice compact online archive. Thanks for the entertainment, guys, and conversational pivots that draw me out and afford relief. Each time you help me out like this, I re-polish my argument, making it tighter, adding anticipations of boilerplate smears, and tutor new skeptics.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 20, 2013
Nik: I meant do you really believe that in the real world that only 0.3% of climate scientists believe in AGW?
"They also contacted 8,547 authors to ask if they could rate their own papers and got 1,200 responses. The results for this again found that 97% of the selected papers stated that humans are causing global warming. They did this to determine that there wasn't any sort of inherent problem in their rating system and this seems to indicate that."
http://www.realsc...ination/

And, as I've said at least twice to you already 48% of US meteorologists doing anything is not a representation of the World – considering the politically motivated consideration involved and the number of "weathercasters" in the AMS.
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (17) Nov 20, 2013
runrig, your latest link is certainly appreciated on a science site like this, but I detect the same old double entendre strategic rabbit hole digger politicking in it: headlines grabbed by crude deception, with damage control "right anyway" follow-up claims, all the while being all in first principle alienated from the very foundation of science, namely as *if* consensus isn't actually in the main, historically and by extension contemporarily just a bunch of me too rent seeking bullshit, or the real deal.
dedereu
1.4 / 5 (14) Nov 20, 2013
It is not fantasies, look at the measured past climat in ice and sediments, over the past 5 or 3 millions years, ( wikipedia ), and you observe that the temperature and sea level have been more and more oscillating, with the same variation of solar heating,. This proves that the earth climat became more and more unstable with respect to the same variations of solar light (Milankovich). Thus the small solar heat to due to human CO2 and CH4, a variation of the same order,, with a small effect 5 millions years ago, will have a dramatic effect, stronger than the last warming, 125000 years ago, with 3°C more and sea level 5m higher than to day !!
This is dramatic, because when ice melt, it is irreversible, impossible to stop the rising seas, over several 1000years, like between 16000 and 6000 years ago, rising of 120m, impossible to stop by any means, even supressing all human CO2 !!
Our children will live with the seas rising steadily, without end, due to our fault.!, too late.
NikFromNYC
Nov 20, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Maggnus
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 20, 2013
the head of the IPCC's novel took the cake:


Pretty much says everything there is to say about you, that you take a novelist's written flights of fancy and suggest it is somehow worse then your own sick tastes.


your latest link is certainly appreciated on a science site like this, but I detect the same old double entendre strategic rabbit hole digger politicking in it: headlines grabbed by crude deception, with damage control "right anyway" follow-up claims, all the while being all in first principle alienated from the very foundation of science, namely as *if* consensus isn't actually in the main, historically and by extension contemporarily just a bunch of me too rent seeking bullshit, or the real deal.
More gish gallop.

FUCK YOU


Use your words, petulant child.
VendicarE
3.2 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2013
"FUCK YOU." - NikkieTard

Nikolaos Willmore 48, (NikkieTard) has prior arrests, police said, for assault, aggravated harassment and two counts of criminal mischief, all from 2009.
VendicarE
3.2 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2013
"Cook cooked his result by leaving out the mothership term "climate change" in his abstract selection filter!" - NikkieTard

Poor NikkieTard, he doesn't even remember what "cooking" a result means.

His brain damage is getting worse with every passing day.
SteveS
3.7 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2013
@Maggnus

Niks inability to understand how inappropriate his link is is due to his minor aspergers and his self-aggrandizement and oppositional insensitive behaviour is due to type 6 "ring of fire" ADD.

There really is no point engaging with him.
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 21, 2013
And Death Threat Guy chimes in to *confirm* my real credentials, BINGO, I am indeed -=NikFromNYC=-, a guy with a cat and an iPhone, with a few damn good stories to tell about dropped charges.

Take that, NOM and Maggnus, assuming you are not just Cowtan & Way!

My stalkers even reveal my INTP near genius-level "ring of fire" ADD, which confounds them greatly since my mind is lit up all around, *including* the frontal lobe that represents self-control and discipline, as *they* spaz out about a porn banner, evidently having never used the Internet until this week. Now they're fighting Google, whose Grateful Dead chef deli sandwiches I ate for two years when I was dating a freckle-faced Ph.D. Google chick.

Thanks, Vedicar(E), I was waiting for you.

They even suspect I made you up!
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 21, 2013
"The Muses weave a brightness for his head…. For lawless joys a bitter ending waits…." – Pindar, (Isthmian Odes, 500 BC)

The pent up resentment of 30,000+ regular readers of WattsUpWithThat.com, mostly all dicked with and strategically banned by the spider web that is SkepticalScience.com, won't let this snake go! Yet another stick is poking it now, over @WUWT.

But this is to the Tree House Boys' delight, you see, since their particular brand of neurosis is narcissistic attention grubbing, and they self-destructively *want* infamy, as revealed in yet another "hacked" comic from their web site, comparing themselves to Gandhi:
http://wattsupwit...acks.jpg

This graphic hints at a doomsday cult meltdown phase has been initiated right on schedule, now that the UFOs didn't land at the end of the Mayan calender in 2012.

Anyway...let's see what WUWT is up to tonight...titled "The Magician's Red Scarf Trick"...
http://wattsupwit...d-lines/
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 21, 2013
@WUWT:

"C&W state explicitly above "This highlights the danger of drawing conclusions from trends calculated over short periods." Well, of course it does. In the world of performing magic, in the old style, patter, the words spoken by the performer, supplied a great deal of the distraction and misdirection required to make the magic acts work. This bit, used by C&W, is "the denial" — in which the performer formally and explicitly denies that he is going to do something to trick the audience, even at the very moment that he does that exact thing." / "They have caused you too look at the red scarves (supplied trend lines) and not the whole graphically presented data set."

Ah...polarity responder Nick Stokes nails it o'er there in a comment...

The divergence of their new Frankenstein global average temperature from the standard (already up-adjusted in 2012 by Saudi prince Phil Jones!) is remarkably *recent*, which is not a good sign of validity.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2013
runrig, your latest link is certainly appreciated on a science site like this, but I detect the same old double entendre strategic rabbit hole digger politicking in it…


It doesn't matter where I linked to – it is a quote of a fact. Find where it says it wasn't done. Cook asking the paper's authors to rate their own papers to the extent that their findings were vindicated. Either you think that the paper was deliberately misleading – or you think that climate scientists that believe in AGW genuinely do only number 0.3% of that population.

I don't know which is the most bizarre conclusion.

Oh, and don't be a hypocrite – all you ever post is links/quotes from Blogs that "are certainly appreciated on a science site like this"
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 21, 2013
Bruce o'er @WUWT adds another nail to the CAGW (cATosTroPhic Anthropologic Gorebull Warning):

"Alarmists are peddling a neat line in cognitive dissonance here. They've always been suspicious – if not dismissive – of satellite data sets because they failed to produce the warming they were after. Now, they're using a satellite data set to get them out of a hole created by their favourite ground-based measurements. Oh, the irony."

And Greg accurately explains their Krigging statistics:

"All this keeps reminding me of the Sex Pistols number:

"We were krigging in the rigging, krigging in the rigging, krigging in the rigging, 'cos there's fsck all else to do"
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 21, 2013
runrig insists: "Either you think that the paper was deliberately misleading – or you think that climate scientists that believe in AGW genuinely do only number 0.3% of that population."

You're being a tedious nag.

Junk science surveys involve using soft questions most anybody agrees with (are humans causing any climate change) and applying it *only* to about 80 interest-conflicted, demonization-risking, activist climate scientists, and then encouraging Obama and Gore to project this dodge upon *all* scientists.

But when the survey filter becomes climate *alarm*, skeptics appear in a near majority, which isn't necessarily a good sign anyway for them since the majority have usually been wrong all throughout the history of science, and that is for well *established* science, unlike the ridiculously *revisionist* Hockey Stick remake of climate history that flew in the face of the majority of proxy studies and historical evidence that show perfectly *natural* hot spikes in the past.
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 21, 2013
Exhibit A: -=NikFromNYC=- wants to practice iPhone typing so he grabs tidbits from skeptical blogs and playfully drops them with commentary into an old school unmoderated (remember Usenet?) Internet science site with very large readership, doing so quickly and efficiently, prior to now failed income redistribution (climate justice) talks that will not help expand use of low overall emissions fracking and nuclear energy that only stark hypocrites can now oppose.

Exhibit B: panic, slander, death threats, and stalking.
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (16) Nov 21, 2013
I wonder if runrig's ally Vendicar(E) isn't the pervy guru of the IPCC, actually. When I wrote in another thread about "Cavemen discovered recycling":

"Linguistics wordplay thrust into peer review is crappy science that impoverishes and sickens people by diverting R&D funds away from the hard physical sciences."

He sent me this disturbingly perverted private message:
http://s10.postim...Mail.jpg
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (16) Nov 21, 2013
Maggnus the likely invested interest says: "Use your words, petulant child." in response to my verbal middle finger expression of the current public response to climate alarm, a topic now dead *last* in concern, worldwide, in every survey of the last year or two, so he will face lots of middle fingers when the fraud is publicly exposed to a wider audience beyond mere blogs, as the most popular cable news network has already started to scoff at nearly every day. But Maggnus, Michael Mann claims I'm a Koch brother funded plant. I have now doubly made my *point* that I am not what raunchy punster Michael Mann says I am:

http://wattsupwit...for2.png

But what if I *was* paid to post skeptical tidbits in response to climate alarm? Isn't Al Gore paid? Aren't the guys at ThinkProgress/ClimateProgress or DeSmogBlog paid? Are not climate scientists paid to be alarming? Is not Hansen now a millionaire?
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2013
You're being a tedious nag.


Good – because I'm the only one on here that is engaging you - "nagging" you if you prefer, in order to call you to account for the bollocks you spout/quote. Merely exposing your (re-hashed) miss-truths and denialist bigotry does not make me a nag. You should be able to back up your claims with science. You cannot. If I have to resort to quotes that state the truth of things, I will, as your 0.3% thing is indeed beyond stupid as a claim. Again don't be a hypocrite and call peeps for the thing that you do.
I hazard to guess that there are many on here that find you a nag and a few other choice nouns as well.
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (16) Nov 21, 2013
runrig, I will derive my own value then, since Cook has the data online from his buddy rated abstracts of a study he pre-named with the outcome (!) as The Consensus Project:

The first paragraph of Cook's paper adopts the standard IPCC definition of consensus that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century, and Cook indeed found a whopping 64 of twelve thousand papers that made this claim, which is 0.53%. Alas he also found 78 papers that rejected the consensus. Most papers were mitigation/impact studies, so of *course* their abstracts began with boilerplate climate change introductions.

Then they promoted it to the press and policy makers as a survey of scientists in general. That's classic bait and switch fraud that disqualifies *them* as scientists.

All Monckton did was re-check those 64 papers and found only 0.3% after some were found to be mis-categorized by the mere dozen Tree House Club volunteers involved.
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (16) Nov 21, 2013
runrig, Dr. Richard Tol has been trying to obtain the *full* data from Cook's survey for months now! In classic Climategate fashion, he's getting the run around, a sign of scientific misconduct by Cook:

"I found that the consensus rate in the data differs from that reported in the paper. My interest piqued, I wrote to Mr Cook asking for the underlying data and received 13% of the data by return email. I immediately requested the remainder, but to no avail." / "I asked Mr Cook again for the data so as to find a coherent explanation of what is wrong with the paper. As that was unsuccessful, also after a plea to Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, the director of Mr Cook's work place, I contacted Professor Max Lu, deputy vice-chancellor for research, and Professor Daniel Kammen, journal editor. Professors Lu and Kammen succeeded in convincing Mr Cook to release first another 2% and later another 28% of the data."
http://richardtol...-of.html
runrig
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2013
More on Cook13:

One quote of several in similar terms from Mr Watts:
"You see, it turns out that Cook simply employed his band of "Skeptical Science" (SkS) eco-zealots to rate papers, rather than LETTING ALL AUTHORS OF THE PAPERS RATE THEIR OWN WORK"

From the Cook (abstract) paper:
"In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus."
Body:
"to complement the abstract analysis, email addresses for 8547 authors were collected, typically from the corresponding author and/or first author. For each year, email addresses were obtained for at least 60% of papers. Authors were emailed an invitation to participate in a survey in which they rated their own published papers."

Either Watts never read the paper or chose to keep this inconvenient truth from his blind admirers.
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (15) Nov 21, 2013
When corrected, Anthony Watts modified the original quote you dug up from an orbiter blog, runrig, albeit awkwardly, to indeed mention the author survey follow-up *claim* at the end of the paper, so his readers would *know* about that detail, and he also links to a debunking quotes by many of those very authors who express exasperation with Cook's *claims*, which Cook is now turning into Consensusgate by withholding data:
http://www.popula...sts.html

Dr. Richard Tol whose *own* (anti-solar effect) papers supported AGW, even confronted coauthor Nucceteli via Twitter, the green energy firm worker who appeared in the revealed Tree House Club NAZI photos:

Tol: "@dana1981 I think your data are a load of crap. Why is that a lie? I really think so."

Tol: "@dana1981 I think your sampling strategy is a load of nonsense. How is that a misrepresentation? Did I falsely describe your sample?"
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (16) Nov 21, 2013
Extremely distinguished lead IPCC author Dr. Richard Tol spilled the beans on The Tree House Club, here berating the non-Ph.D. employee of a huge green energy consulting firm, Dana Nuccitelli, who appeared in most of the revealed secret forum NAZI photos:

Tol: "@dana1981 Don't worry. I did read your paper. A silly idea poorly implemented."

Tol: "@dana1981 I published 118 neutral (in your parlance) papers. You missed 111. Of the 7 you assessed, you misclassified 4."

Tol: "@dana1981 Most importantly, consensus is not an argument."

Tol: "@dana1981 How is Denier defined? What is being denied? Can someone be in the 97% who accept AGW and still be a denier?"

Tol: "@dana1981 Semantics. You misrated my papers. When did I lie, what did I misrepresent?"

Tol: "@dana1981 Not at all. You generated data. The data that I understand are all wrong. The errors are not random. But now tell me about my lie."
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (16) Nov 21, 2013
Within hours of publication Tol revealed the of the bizarre term "global climate change":

Tol: "In his defense, [Dana] has had limited exposure to stats at uni"

Tol: "Including "global" before "climate change", Cook et al. dropped 75% of papers and changed disciplinary distribution."
http://postimg.or...5wv5bsd/

Tol: "Including "global" before "climate change", Cook et al. dropped many papers by eminent climate researchers."
http://postimg.or...s8dpxbh/

Tol: "Including "global" before "climate change", Cook et al. dropped 33 of the 50 most cited papers."
http://postimg.or...65v3q3x/

Tol: "Choosing exclusive WoS over inclusive Scopus, Cook et al. dropped 35% of papers and changed disciplinary distribution."
http://postimg.or...v098e0d/
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 21, 2013
Typo: revealed the of > revealed use of

I also used a separate word processor app so didn't notice my duplication of terms, just above, sorry.
VendicarE
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2013
"Bruce o'er @WUWT adds another nail to the CAGW" - NikkieTard

Bruce ay?

Isn't he the guy at the hospital who cuts your hair?

VendicarE
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2013
Typo: revealed the of > revealed use of

Are you sure revealed the of is greater than revealed use of?

I don't think it is.

What is your metric?
VendicarE
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2013
"When corrected, Anthony Watts modified the original quote you dug up from an orbiter blog," - NikkieTard

Modifying quotes sounds like the kind of thing that Watts would do.

Like every other Conservative, he seems to have a great deal of trouble keeping honest.

VendicarE
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2013
"Within hours of publication Tol revealed the of the bizarre term "global climate change":" - NikkieTard

None of the nebulous links you posted say anything about the term "global climate change." , and no one has revealed the origin of the term.

Have you taken an overdose of your anti-psychosis medication TardieBoy?

You are clearly living in a land of psychotic self delusion, hanging on to reality only by a few slender threads.

VendicarE
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2013
"Dr. Richard Tol spilled the beans on The Tree House Club" - NikkieTard

In reality the tree House club is a children's TV program that TardieBoy has magically woven into his world vision as a home for retired NAZI, tree dwelliing, cobblers that invades his mind every morning at 7am to 8am.

http://www.magictreehouse.com/

TardieBoy is also offended at the way Tinky Winky thrusts his wanton pelvis at his mind during the opening credits of the Tellitubbies.
VendicarE
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2013
"Exhibit A: -=NikFromNYC=- wants to practice iPhone typing" - NikkieTard

Don't you have any desk lamps that need building, TardieBoy?

They don't build themselves you know.

Do you chrome your own parts? I'm wondering if you are suffering your obvious mental problems as a result of Chromium poisoning.
VendicarE
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2013
"My stalkers even reveal my INTP near genius-level "ring of fire" ADD, which confounds them greatly since my mind is lit up all around," - NikkieTard

Do you also hear voices in your head Nikkie?
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (16) Nov 21, 2013
runrig's pervy smoke screen buddy wakes up, a Canadian whose leader just commended Japan for rejecting emission reductions, as today runrig's UK prime minister now surrenders England to... -=NikFromNYC=- :
http://s6.postimg...crap.jpg

"He's telling everyone, 'We've got to get rid of all this green crap.' He's absolutely focused on it. It's vote blue, get real, now – and woe betide anyone who doesn't get the memo." –George Eaton, New Statesman, 21 November 2013

Smoke Screen Guy Vendicar(E) then suggests: "Modifying quotes sounds like the kind of thing that Watts would do."

But only his buddies at SkepticalScience.com do *that*, whereas Watts merely inserted a new paragraph mark contained boldface update and continues to warn next to his blogroll link to SKS that it is unreliable:

"* Due to (1) deletion, extension and amending of user comments, and (2) undated post-publication revisions of article contents after significant user commenting."
runrig
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2013
When corrected, Anthony Watts modified the original quote you dug up from an orbiter blog, runrig, albeit awkwardly, to indeed mention the author survey follow-up *claim* at the end of the paper, so his readers would *know* about that detail


"when corrected" - exactly. Why does he need to be corrected? His only raison d'etre is to debunk consensus science – yet he's not able even to read/convey an abstract. The unthinking admirers will go along breathlessly – but *commendably* a few put him right. They shouldn't need to. He tries it on wherever possible because he doesn't need/want to convince any more than the current rabbit-hole occupiers – just to keep the press in headlines that the right-wingers can hang on to. The man is a disgrace.
VendicarE
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2013
"whereas Watts merely inserted a new paragraph mark contained boldface update" - NikkieTard

So contrary to your earlier claim, he didn't modify the quote.

Make up your mind TardieBoy.
Maggnus
2.6 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2013
Geepers Nik, your tin foil hat seems to be slipping even more than normal. Amazing the way you take a mixed bag of denialist crap and joke science from sites like WUWT and then try to pretend there is anything beyond the shrilly cried laments of "hey listen to me!" Once again, you true lack of anything approaching science stands out.

What a maroon! You're so easily duped I am surprised you haven't jumped aboard the "there's a UFO trailing ISON bandwagon.
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 21, 2013
Maggnus claims I was duped by a lead IPCC author, a non-skeptic, and prominent climatologist Mike Hulme, also not a skeptic. These real professionals are doing damage control against a monster they helped create.

Maggnus, are Tol and Hulme who both utterly trashed Cook's 97% paper, wearing tinfoil hats?

Your comment mirrors the ones of coauthor Dana that Tol was confronting in earnest. You are doing half my work for me. It's as if you've signed up to sponsor me, match my donation to skepticism half way! Your buddy Vendicar(E) matches me in full, though, so he's a better player in the effort to sanitate science from charlatanisn.

Skeptical blogs are the one place crackpots avoid, for fear of being continually exposed. Blogs ban the very few who stick around. I mean there is near zero overlap between the *huge* world of conspiracy theory culture, online, with seasoned skepticism.

And, Maggnus, in this it is not *me* who is wearing the T history revisionist sandwich board.

It's *you
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (13) Nov 21, 2013
Typo: *you → *you*.
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 21, 2013
Their house of cards is sparkling like a jewel, each and every climate study is diamond perfect, but extremely brittle it is, that stack. The problem is, it was designed to require future warmth to anneal the lapidary worthy supercomputer-designed adhesive called Cook Epoxy. But it's *cold* out, baby! A lot colder than this study claims it is, as runrig's home of Central England, a great nearby proxy for Greenland, recently plunged to how cold it was in 1735:
http://notalotofp...ge39.png

I already mentioned Central England above, since the German climate "scientist" who wrote the RealClimate.com press release for this study is a frequent coauthor of blogger Tamino who dishonestly hockeystick-a-fied the boring data series. It turns out, Central England has lots of boring friends too, namely nearly *all* old records!:
http://postimg.or...v1zfzsd/
runrig
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2013
as runrig's home of Central England, a great nearby proxy for Greenland, recently plunged to how cold it was in 1735:
http://notalotofp...ge39.png


Nice one Nik: another fine example of you posting up stuff that disproves your case.
Right then: Have you ever noticed that graphs of temperature on short time scales exhibit a variable nature (up/down etc). Good. Weather. Then looked at in the long-term the trend becomes apparent. That is climate.
Now draw a trend line through the temps from the beginning of the 20th cent to the end. Print it out and do it with a pencil/ruler. But it's there by eye. What do we have? – why a rise of ~1C. What is the consensus of Global temp rise since CO2 pollution began – well would you cocoa it … 0.8C.
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (17) Nov 21, 2013
The career ruining problem this PR stunt paper tried to avoid is that Tony Banton, here called runrig, his own MET Office and likely his retiree pension relies on avoiding a massive defunding backlash now that the 2007 MET Office predictions for today have been shown to have been vastly inflated by proudly biased computer models:

"The predictions were spread far and wide. They were included in a Met Office Press release, and a glossy brochure on "Informing Government policy into the future", with the almost obligatory scaremongering background pictures of black clouds and people wearing facemasks. Vicky Pope gave a talk on these predictions, saying that "these are very strong statements about what will happen over the next 10 years." And of course the faithful media reported the story without questioning it." / "These predictions have turned out to be wrong. We are almost into 2014 and there has been no warming at all since 2004."
http://ipccreport...science/
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (16) Nov 21, 2013
runrig then postures: "...another fine example of you posting up stuff that disproves your case." / "Now draw a trend line through the temps from the beginning of the 20th cent to the end. Print it out and do it with a pencil/ruler. But it's there by eye. What do we have? – why a rise of ~1C. What is the consensus of Global temp rise since CO2 pollution began – well would you cocoa it … 0.8C."

My "case" was never stated as bizarre blind denial of natural warming, but that real single site thermometer records going back two centuries that would otherwise be touted far and wide as "Look here, proof!" by the IPCC, Gore, and the MET Office show little correlation with CO₂ and they *falsify* Hockey Stick World.

And you just called plant food that you yourself are breathing out, "pollution!"

Tamino's desperately dishonest actions alone in convincing alarmist for years that Central England was a hockey stick by using a mere well known smoothing filter *artifact* alone reveals fear.
VendicarE
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2013
"Your buddy Vendicar(E) matches me in full, though, so he's a better player in the effort to sanitate science from charlatanisn." - NikkieTard

Unlike you, TardieBoy, I actually understand the science, and the implications haven't been arrested for child molestation, or assault, threatening, stalking, and am not suffering from a mental disorder.

I can understand how there is a lot of pressure on the mentally Ill in America, given it's low level support for you people.

All the more reason your behaviour is not rational.
VendicarE
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2013
NikkieTard's graphic (below)

http://notalotofp...ge39.png

Shows some considerable warming in central England.

Denialists claim the opposite.

Such is the nature of their mental disease.

VendicarE
3.2 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2013
NikkieTard also posts the following link to support his claim that there has been no warming.

http://postimg.or...v1zfzsd/

But all of the graphs in the above graphic show considerable warming.

I expect better from someone who spends his days making desk lamps and claiming to have a degree in chemistry.

Poor NikkieTard.

He would have been far better off in Prison where he would have been provided with the necessary anti-psychotic medication.
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 21, 2013
They call the mere mortar-betwixt-bricks of Skepticism, me, -=NikFromNYC=-, a lowly iPhone goofball..."crazy," lacking any way to renew the wall that now doth fall, upon them.

The story of Tol
Now told
To all

Vendicar(E), just crazed, and runrig, just frat boy MET Office hazed...they really do no one else harm, as they sell alarm, ineffectively, while indeed adding melting pot worthy perfectly useful counterpoint opinion to Western Civilization.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 22, 2013
My "case" was never stated as bizarre blind denial of natural warming, but that real single site thermometer records going back two centuries that would otherwise be touted far and wide as "Look here, proof!" by the IPCC, Gore, and the MET Office show little correlation with CO₂ and they *falsify* Hockey Stick World


Then don't use a stupid cherry-picked graph that shows temps on the CET dipping to the "1735" level when the trend is showing a 1C rise. Blind denial nothing, "natural warming" (globally) from what? Give me/us the causation, and the physical mechanism behind it. Yes it could be "natural warming" (CET) as it is for a tiny part of the world. Therefore it proves zero. Either way. But happens to show the global ~1c rise anyway.
runrig
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 22, 2013
error
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 22, 2013
runrig, in this lifetime I may indeed fail to:

cure zits
cure cancer
cure heart disease
cure diabetes
cure the common cold
cure AIDS
mathematically explain consciousness
solve the Shrödinger equation for the Universe
steady the stock market
break light speed
chat up aliens
fold proteins accurately in Mathematica
re-read Finnegans Wake
predict climate change

But one thing I *may* be very likely to do...
...is...
...suggest a few geo-engineering avenues for the George Jetson era kids of the future to trivially moderate boring old *moderate* climate change, now that your own MET Office put the brakes on sudden alarm, this New Year's Eve.

You, a retiree, are much more ambitious, I see!

You can do *anything*, Superman!

Even dictatorially alter human nature.

error
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 22, 2013
I can't even easily scroll down this far any more, on my pocket computer.

I didn't add the fascistically Orwellian Tree House Club psychoanalytic publications of Cook's local colleague Dawktor Stephan Lewandowsky, oh good God what a stuffed shirt this dope is:
http://www.youtub...VfxoPqPA

His first junk science paper in informal collaboration with Cook's alarmist cult was called:
"NASA faked the moon landing—Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science."

...even *though* the most outspoken skeptics (of supercomputer climate *models*) are guys who really did walk on the Moon:
http://a2.img.mob...arge.jpg

As funny as it is, actually, psychologizing of dissent has serious fascist and totalitarian links to terrible episodes in history.

NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 22, 2013
Witness these avid cultists today stalking me on mere nutrition articles, as the very face of contemporary climate alarm. Due to psychological projection, you may know cultists by their own accusations:

"NOM
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 20, 2013
So what do the nice men in white coats give you to eat Nik?

VendicarE
1.4 / 5 (5) Nov 20, 2013
They give NikkieTard teething biscuits and milk.

He pretends they are girl guide cookies.

One wonders how many desk lamps NikkieTard has to make and sell before he can afford to buy a bag of Rich Folk Food, Mixed Nuts.

I give NikkieTard an A for at least trying to live and independent life away from the hospital."
http://medicalxpr...ath.html
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 22, 2013
I wasn't aware before today that the former *head* of NASA was a skeptic of climate alarm too! You know before they literally changed their purpose statement into that of making Muslims proud (?!?!?!?!?!?!):

"I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take." - Michael Griffin

New Tree House Club member Steven Lewandowsky spoofed his Moon landing "motivated denial" paper by sending it out with announcements to his own online activist pals who then immediately proceeded to fake skeptical responses, as his obscure e-mails to real skeptical blogs from one of his students, ended up in spam filters but he never posted publicly. He did a Kafkaesque followup after collecting exasperated skeptical critiques. An FOIA request was needed to debunk him.
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 22, 2013
runrig's MET Office shows the coldest UK December on record in 2010:
http://www.metoff...lmonthly

The MET Office's own curve fit clearly suggests a cycle has now reversed and that further "climate justice" activist hothouse alarm now amounts to manslaughter since people's lives depend on their projections as much as they depend on cheap energy in the dead of winter.
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (15) Nov 22, 2013
Here are the exact same politicians who rely on Frankenstein studies like this to confidently sell you energy rationing Enroncare via climate alarm, *lying* to you about Obamacare (and by the way I love Obamacare since Manhattan rates will *plunge* since they already dictate high quality coverage):

SEN. HARRY REID (D-Nev.): "In fact, one of our core principles is that if you like the health care you have, you can keep it." (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.8642, 8/3/09)

SEN. RICHARD DURBIN: "We believe — and we stand by this — if you like your current health insurance plan, you will be able to keep it, plain and simple, straightforward." (Sen. Durbin, Congressional Record, S.6401, 6/10/09)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): "If you like your insurance, you keep it." (U.S. Senate, Finance Committee, Bill Mark-Up, 9/29/09)

SEN. PATTY MURRAY (D-Wash.): "Again, if you like what you have, you will be able to keep it. Let me say this again: If you like what you have, when our legislation is passed and signed by the President, you will be able to keep it." (Sen. Murray, Congressional Record, S.6400, 6/10/09)

SEN. MAX BAUCUS (D-Mont.): "That is why one of the central promises of health care reform has been and is: If you like what you have, you can keep it. That is critically important. If a person has a plan, and he or she likes it, he or she can keep it." (Sen. Baucus, Congressional Record, S.7676, 9/29/10)

SEN. TOM HARKIN (D-Iowa): "One of the things we put in the health care bill when we designed it was the protection for consumers to keep the plan they have if they like it; thus, the term 'grandfathered plans.' If you have a plan you like — existing policies — you can keep them. … we said, if you like a plan, you get to keep it, and you can grandfather it in." (Sen. Harkin, Congressional Record, S.7675-6, 9/29/10)

THEN-REP. TAMMY BALDWIN (D-Wis.): "Under the bill, if you like the insurance you have now, you may keep it and it will improve." (Rep. Baldwin, Press Release, 3/18/10)

SEN. MARK BEGICH (D-Alaska): "If you got a doctor now, you got a medical professional you want, you get to keep that. If you have an insurance program or a health care policy you want of ideas, make sure you keep it. That you can keep who you want." (Sen. Begich, Townhall Event, 7/27/09)

SEN. MICHAEL BENNET (D-Colo.): "We should begin with a basic principle: if you have coverage and you like it, you can keep it. If you have your doctor, and you like him or her, you should be able to keep them as well. We will not take that choice away from you." (Sen. Bennet, Press Release, 6/11/09)

SEN. BARBARA BOXER (D-Calif.): "So we want people to be able to keep the health care they have. And the answer to that is choice of plans. And in the exchange, we're going to have lots of different plans, and people will be able to keep the health care coverage they need and they want." (Sen. Boxer, Press Release, 2/8/11)

SEN. SHERROD BROWN (D-Ohio): "Our bill says if you have health insurance and you like it, you can keep it…"(Sen. Brown, Congressional Record, S.12612, 12/7/09)

SEN. BEN CARDIN (D-Md.): "For the people of Maryland, this bill will provide a rational way in which they can maintain their existing coverage…" (Sen. Cardin, Congressional Record, S.13798, 12/23/09)

SEN. BOB CASEY (D-Pa.): "I also believe this legislation and the bill we are going to send to President Obama this fall will also have secure choices. If you like what you have, you like the plan you have, you can keep it. It is not going to change." (Sen. Casey, Congressional Record, S.8070, 7/24/09)

SEN. KAY HAGAN (D-N.C.): 'People who have insurance they're happy with can keep it' "We need to support the private insurance industry so that people who have insurance they're happy with can keep it while also providing a backstop option for people without access to affordable coverage." ("Republicans Vent As Other Compromise Plans Get Aired," National Journal's Congress Daily, 6/18/09)

SEN. MARY LANDRIEU (D-La.): "If you like the insurance that you have, you'll be able to keep it." (MSNBC's Hardball, 12/16/09)

SEN. PAT LEAHY (D-Vt.): "[I]f you like the insurance you now have, keep the insurance you have." (CNN's "Newsroom," 10/22/09)

SEN. BOB MENENDEZ (D-N.J.): "If you like what you have, you get to keep it" "Menendez is a member of the Senate Finance Committee, which is expected to release a bill later this week. He stressed that consumers who are satisfied with their plans won't have to change. 'If you like what you have, you get to keep it,' he said." ("Health Care Plan Would Help N.J., Menendez Says," The Record, 6/19/09)

SEN. JEFF MERKLEY (D-Oreg.): "[E]nsuring that those who like their insurance get to keep it" "The HELP Committee bill sets forward a historic plan that will, for the first time in American history, give every American access to affordable health coverage, reduce costs, and increase choice, while ensuring that those who like their insurance get to keep it." (Sen. Merkley, Press Release, 7/15/09)

SEN. BARBARA MIKULSKI (D-Md.): "It means that if you like the insurance you have now, you can keep it." (Sen. Mikulski, Press Release, 12/24/09)

SEN. JAY ROCKEFELLER (D-W.Va.): "I want people to know, the President's promise that if you like the coverage you have today you can keep it is a pledge we intend to keep." (U.S. Senate, Finance Committee, Hearing, 9/23/09)

SEN. JACK REED (D-R.I.): "If you like the insurance you have, you can choose to keep it." (Sen. Reed, Town Hall Event, 6/25/09)

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-Vt.): "'If you have coverage you like, you can keep it,' says Sen. Sanders." ("Sick And Wrong," Rolling Stone, 4/5/10)

SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN (D-N.H.): 'if you have health coverage that you like, you get to keep it' "My understanding … is that … if you have health coverage that you like you can keep it. As I said, you may have missed my remarks at the beginning of the call, but one of the things I that I said as a requirement that I have for supporting a bill is that if you have health coverage that you like you should be able to keep that. …under every scenario that I've seen, if you have health coverage that you like, you get to keep it." (Sen. Shaheen, "Health Care Questions From Across New Hampshire," Accessed 11/13/13)

SEN. DEBBIE STABENOW (D-Mich.): "As someone who has a large number of large employers in my state, one of the things I appreciate about the chairman's mark is — is the grandfathering provisions, the fact that the people in my state, 60 percent of whom have insurance, are going to be able to keep it. And Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. That's a strong commitment. It's clear in the bill … I appreciate the strong commitment on your part and the president to make sure that if you have your insurance you can keep it. That's the bottom line for me." (U.S. Senate, Finance Committee, Bill Mark-Up, 9/24/09)

SEN. JON TESTER (D-Mont.): "'If you like your coverage, you'll be able to keep it,' Tester said, adding that if Medicare changes, it will only become stronger". ("Tester In Baker To Discuss Health Care," The Fallon County Times, 11/20/09)

SEN. TOM UDALL (D-N.Mex.): "Some worried reform would alter their current coverage. It won't. If you like your current plan, you can keep it." ("What I Learned: About Health Care Reform This Summer, By Your Lawmakers In Congress," Albuquerque Journal, 9/8/09)

SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE (D-R.I.): "…it honors President Obama's programs and the promise of all of the Presidential candidates that if you like the plan you have, you get to keep it. You are not forced out of anything."(Sen. Whitehouse, Congressional Record, S.8668, 8/3/09)
Maggnus
3 / 5 (8) Nov 22, 2013
Witness these avid cultists today stalking me on mere nutrition articles, as the very face of contemporary climate alarm. Due to psychological projection, you may know cultists by their own accusations:
Not just stalking, pedoboy, hunting. Looking for any excuse to illuminate the lying denialist you are. Your brand of self delusion and anti-science rhetoric requires constant vigilance. In the past, it has led to people being burned at the stake for daring to suggest the real world behaves differently then they desire it to. Your shrill, unyielding denialism is exactly what scientists like Galileo have had to contend with since the dark ages.
Maggnus
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 22, 2013
Holy what are you on about now Nik the Lamp Assembler? Equating US health care with global warming or something?

News flash there denialist scumbag - most of the world could not care less about the domestic problems in the US. Given the conservatism displayed by the likes of people like you, the best thing that could happen is a revision of your electoral system so that such extreme prejudice, denialism and religious extremism can be put back where it belongs.
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 22, 2013
Maggnus projects more and more, now with stake burning desires, deep in his monstrous psyche, for only leading climate alarmists call for censorship, only they use religious labels for critics, only they burn newlywed couple's new house building projects down, only they call for indeed execution worthy trials for skeptics, and indeed only they issue death threats and "hunt" skeptics online in acts of pure rotten harassment that as they form a pattern amount to illegal cyber bullying (in the UK and Canada especially!) as well as slander. You, Maggnus, are behaving criminally.

You see the great irony of projection here as he viscerally expresses *fear* of the lynching wrath of mere polite retired engineer type skeptics over at WUWT.

His guru might as *well* be Charles Manson, an outspoken and iconic climate change alarmist:
http://youtu.be/tmPzLzj-3XY

His Tree House Club buddy Lewandowsky is busy beaver trying to lay the phantastic groundwork for Soviet/Chinese style reeducation.
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 22, 2013
The transition to full psychosis from mere Nature-projected hypochondia has perfect overlap with *actual* alarm-spouting murderous psychopaths, seen in a single glance here:
http://s6.postimg...mage.jpg

Climate alarm creates mental problems not in skeptics but in doomsday cultists!

Just *look* at their behavior. Would you want to have a beer with these guys? What if you gave them *more* power, would you feel safe?
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 22, 2013
Today commenter rabbit over at WUWT describes the universal common man's path from confusion to seasoned skepticism thanks to censorship on the Hockey Stick Team blog RealClimate.org:

"A few months ago, RealClimate had a story with dire predictions of a huge rise in sea levels. I posted a comment, complete with a link to a paper from NOAA, pointing out that there is no evidence of recent acceleration in sea level rise, and that current trends do not support these dire predictions. / I was denounced as a troll and prevented from commenting again. / Surprising given that I was not "denying" AGW or anyting like that. It was just a polite factually based post discussing a single technical point. / This convinced me more than anything else could that RealClimate is not a scientific web site, but a church for true believers where even a hint of heresy is not tolerated."

Today's essay is about German climate "scientist" Rahmstorf who wrote the RealClimate.org summary of this study:
http://wattsupwit...ty-wins/
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 22, 2013
Today, Rahmstorf's *virtual* "sea level" caught up with President Pinocchio, the Gorebull Warmist:
http://cdn.static...a400.jpg

"This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."
runrig
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 22, 2013
runrig's MET Office shows the coldest UK December on record in 2010:
http://www.metoff...lmonthly


So? you refer to weather - and only 4 weeks of it at that.
http://en.wikiped...eat_wave

The MET Office's own curve fit clearly suggests a cycle has now reversed and that further "climate justice" activist hothouse alarm now amounts to manslaughter since people's lives depend on their projections as much as they depend on cheap energy in the dead of winter.


You refer to an experimental decadal forecast that attempts to capture climate cycles in detail. Which is certainly NOT what the IPCC's forecasts can do. They are an ensemble that average out the cycles to give error bars - which the measured global temp does indeed lie between.
runrig
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 22, 2013
Broken link from below post...

http://en.wikiped...eat_wave
Maggnus
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 22, 2013
Today commenter rabbit over at WUWT blahblahblah..
And Nik once again provides evidence of his lack of education, providing hearsay evidence on a science site as if it means something. You should have stuck around for a couple of semesters, drop-out, the undergrad course on law might have done you some good.

Well, that combined with courses on logical thinking and word comprehension.

Well, and math.

And high school.......
Maggnus
3 / 5 (6) Nov 22, 2013
His guru might as *well* be Charles Manson, an outspoken and iconic climate change alarmist:
http://youtu.be/tmPzLzj-3XY


Hahaha that's sad hey Nik - Charles Manson has a better understanding of climate than you, and he didn't get through grade 8.
Maggnus
3 / 5 (6) Nov 22, 2013
Climate alarm creates mental problems not in skeptics
Well actually "climate alarm" (whatever that's supposed to be) doesn't "create" anything in anyone. There does seem to be a kneejerk response to articles discussing the impacts of climate change by denialists like Nik, so I'm guessing that's what he trying to go on about.
goracle
1.9 / 5 (14) Nov 22, 2013
"When corrected, Anthony Watts modified the original quote you dug up from an orbiter blog," - NikkieTard

Modifying quotes sounds like the kind of thing that Watts would do.

Like every other Conservative, he seems to have a great deal of trouble keeping honest.


Modifying quotes sure sounds like a 'trick' to me. Perhaps he should try to hide the decline of his honesty.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (14) Nov 23, 2013
NikkieTard also posts the following link to support his claim that there has been no warming.


Vendie,
If we compare writing styles, you are NikkieTard.
VendicarE
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 23, 2013
"If we compare writing styles, you are NikkieTard." - Alchemist

I suppose if you take what I write, read every third word, and transpose the first and second, you are right.
VendicarE
3 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2013
"runrig's MET Office shows the coldest UK December on record in 2010:" - NikkieTard

The 75th person to walk into the fifth door from the right in the last movie theater I went to was the shortest person I had ever seen

Poor Mentally Ill NikkieTard. He claims to have a degree in Chemistry, makes desk lamps for a living, and doesn't know the most trivial thing about statistics.

What a moron.
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (13) Nov 23, 2013
Steve Goddard has yet a new nail for the AGW coffin, in reference to this paper:

"Since the start of the 21st century, temperatures have declined 0.03ºC with each additional 10 PPM of CO2."
http://stevengodd...co21.jpg

"At first glance this appears to be a problem for the hockey team, but they have met the challenge by selectively picking only the tiny portion of satellite data which supports their ongoing funding."

[Original: http://stevengodd...itivity/ ]
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (17) Nov 23, 2013
Note the proud and willful denial of the core principle of science that is rejection of consensus in favor of measurement, this by the *only* detractors here of my claim that climate science has been corrupted by postmodern activism and sociopathic activism. It is this very faith in mere trendy and fashionable authority that locks them into cycles of group bonding angst.

A collection of sociologically minded essays about climate alarm from a skeptical viewpoint is provided by blogger Pointman in his "Know Your Enemy" series:
http://thepointma...-series/

KNOW YOUR ENEMY : THE FOOT SOLDIERS.
Posted by Pointman on June 14, 2013 · 19 Comments

We wretched dissenters from the climate orthodoxy have been placed under the psychological microscope several times in the last year or so. Since the studies, and I use that word advisedly, were conducted by featherweight academics with warmista rap sheets as long as your arm, the results as you might guess have not been too flattering.

There is a substantial school of thought that these studies were nothing more than crass propaganda mixed up with a substantial helping of hate catharsis, all of which was wrapped up in pseudo academic respectability, rather like a turd artfully concealed inside what looks to be a decent take out chili dog. Such studies were christened Lewpapers by the wits of the skeptic community, after one of their early pioneers, and as the saying goes, many a true word is spoken in jest.

When it comes to anything to do with climate science, academic rigour is very much going through one of its more sordid episodes.

In that great tradition of geese, ganders and sauce, I initially thought it time the favour should be returned, if only to show them how to do a real hatchet job on the reputation of the opposition, but on reflection, it's not my style and realised a more useful service might possibly be rendered to the skeptic community, by giving some insight into the opposition, or at least my thoughts about them. It's also much more fun.

I won't be conducting mysterious snark-like surveys that nobody can quite find a definitive trace of. I won't be selectively pre-processing, post-processing or mugging the numbers supposedly derived from any surveys. I won't be running the choicest and fittest cherubic numbers through wholly inappropriate statistical methods and I won't be drawing totally unwarranted conclusions from the hardy numerical survivors of all the aforesaid methods, all of which means my non-existent survey will be 100% more honest than any one of theirs, and Mac the Knife can sit this one out.

Unlike the bizarrely childish approach taken by the Cook the Books or Lewpaper brigades, I won't be trying to shoehorn them all into a single lumpy profile; they're too rich and sumptuous a feast of biodiverse loonies to do anything so rushed and gauche. We'll enjoy them course by course, tasting the sweet with the sour, the piquant with the bland, the outright insane with the just mildly deranged. Perhaps all washed down with a nice Chianti and a side order of fava beans. It's a bit like that classic conundrum of how one eats an elephant, and to avail myself of the classic solution, I'll be tackling it one mouthful at a time.

We'll start with the foot soldiers of the movement, and though I'll be covering all the rest of the sub-groupings in turn, it should be borne in mind that none of the various categories are mutually exclusive, as significant overlaps can occur. Also, a particular individual could for instance fall into the scientist category but in reality is more a pure political activist. James Hansen would, in my estimation, be an exemplar of that particular variation. He's actually worthy of his own unique category, something like mega-loon, not to be confused with Megaluth, though he'd probably get arrested there as well, but anyway that's a level of taxonomic detail I don't intend to go down to.

They're mainly young with not much in the way of thought out politics except a youthful altruism that sees the complex problems of the world in simple ways. In terms of political consciousness, they're black and white thinkers with no grey shades in between – that'd be seen as selling out. Given such an innocent world view, they are the most easily exploited and are therefore ruthlessly exploited. All youth is, just ask anyone in advertising. All that's needed is to assure them the science, which is terra incognito to most of them anyway, is rock solid and then take cynical advantage of their youthful enthusiasm by playing on their emotions and appealing to the better angels of their nature.

It is natural for young people to rebel and that need is also being exploited. They get to go on slightly unruly demonstrations, do a bit of chanting, wave a few placards around and get ejected from various premises by security or the cops, who really can't be arsed going through the whole tiresome procedure of arresting them with a serious view to dragging them up in front of some court. A couple of hours in the holding cells till they calm down and then sling them back out onto the street.

Everyone is happy. The legal eagles are glad the courts aren't log jammed with misdemeanours, the cops don't have to do tons of paperwork and the kids have had their very own martyrdom experience saving the planet, which thank goodness won't appear permanently on their unblemished record. Everyone has a jolly time, even the cops, who occasionally like to dress up like Robocop and always appreciate a bit of overtime.

Mostly it's harmless fun. A good PR statement has been made for the cause and the foot soldiers are enjoying for once being naughty with the full approval of older more authoritative figures. Most of them are the white offspring of the economic middle to upper classes, many of whom are working through some really heartfelt problems with Memmy or Deddy. It's a way of swapping them out for more "with it" parental figures, and boy do those new age parental figures get high on that opiate of adulation. Reading over the Facebook pages and tweets of people like Mann, it's easy to see we are as dust beneath their carbon-free chariot wheels. You do have to wonder how such walnut-sized brains could possibly contain such planetary-sized egos.

The foot soldiers have successfully been sold the romantic dream of a grand mission to save the planet and a coming pastoral living in tune with nature fantasy, and the only thing stopping that happening is some vast pervasive but never quite defined conspiracy by big business, money, right-wing politics, and most especially those well-funded and overwhelmingly powerful Panzer divisions of that evil skeptic Wehrmacht. They're all totally prepared to hurl their pink little bods into the path of advancing but frankly non-existent Tiger tanks.

When you look around the skeptic blogs, you can see how devilishly well they're camouflaged. It's all a cover and that impression of a game rooster, flailing away against overwhelming odds and that fiendishly clever touch of them looking like it's all a Boulting Brothers Ealing comedy amateur lash up kept going by nothing more than the odd nail, a few elastic bands, spit and a judiciously placed wad of chewing gum. Any fool can see through that, except of course revolting youth, to use that ambiguous adjective, because their sentience is still in so many ways a work in progress.

Youth, of course, is always the prized demographic to capture, hence so many environmental projects in junior schools, which in a number of cases are in reality nothing more than touchy feely political indoctrination programs. The none too subtle message being hammered home into formative minds, is that we're harming the planet, which means we humans are somehow innately evil, but we can be saved by giving ourselves to Mother Gaia. Given the absence of not much in the way of any religious education in so many schools these days, it's their first brush with the green version of original sin. Vacuums always get filled.

If it sounds like a youthful fashion thing, that's because it is. Like all fashions and crazes, it builds up to a frenzied peak and then disappears just as quickly as it appeared. They're on to the next fashionable thing. It's like a massive flock of starlings spontaneously coming together to make those strange attractor shapes in the evening sky, before splitting up and going their separate ways. The gigunda flocks broke up in the aftermath of the Copenhagen fiasco and nowadays there's only the hard-core flockers left.

And speaking of them, a small but significant sub-demographic of the foot soldier is the personality defective. In the real world, they're the ones working out their issues at the front of demonstrations, who'll make sure it ends in some sort of civil disorder. They're just into relieving their frustrations by doing a bit of smash and burn, with the adrenalin rush thrown in as a bonus. Irrespective of the issue, they'd be using it to the same end. If I were looking for a Luca Brasi or two as shock troops, I'd be recruiting a few of the more stable ones, but I would be very selective.

In the cyber world, they manifest themselves as trolls. Essentially, the supposed anonymity of the internet allows them to be personally offensive to people in a manner they'd be too afraid to do in real life. The classic advice is don't feed the trolls and it's very true. Ignore them and they give up, like a petulant and badly behaving child seeking attention who's being ignored. In practical terms though, they specialise in giving real offense to people, who run out of patience trying to ignore their often tasteless and juvenile comments. Around here, I just drop the ban hammer on them, because I've seen too many good debates and even discussion forums destroyed by a single pathological troll. They can be someone else's problem.

They're the lineal descendants of those anonymous grubby people who used to make life miserable for women with their heavy breathing phone calls. They disappeared as soon as the phone system became digital, which meant all calls were immediately traceable. The internet is also digital. I used to track them down but so often what I found was some really pathetic cheese dick creature hunched over their keyboard who really needed to get a life, so I usually don't do it anymore.

The one remaining significant segment of the cannon fodder, would be the grassroots political activist, but I'll cover them in a few paragraphs in the piece about the higher-level political activists, who're much more interesting beasties.

Given the heavily depleted numbers of climate foot soldiers nowadays, the alarmist propaganda machine is working hard to big up the numbers on the internet, with the low-level activists wearing their stubby little fingers to the bone commenting everywhere under multiple handles and even trying to auto spam blogs, but after a succession of climate conference attendance flops and big Al's climate events turning into what can only be termed non-events, it's all looking distinctly last days of Disco.

Perception is always important in politics, and around the time of Copenhagen in 2009, it was the foot soldiers who saw themselves making an important though in retrospect an ineffectual move to protest against the climatic end of the world. The current but same youthful demographic now looks at all that sort of hysterical saving the planet stuff with indulgent derision.

Personally, I always grudgingly admired their enthusiasm to actually do something for what they felt strongly about, despite my deep loathing of the causes they thought they were espousing. I suppose there are too many echoes of my own youth for me to dislike them. For one or two of them, there's now a sense of betrayal and the feeling they should have achieved something more lasting. It all turned out to be a silly waste of youthful energy. They were just being exploited, as we all were as young people, but we all grow up. It was just a shadow we were chasing.

As Private Murphy, the poor man's Marcus Aurelius of military life observed, it's not the guys shooting at you that you have to worry about, it's the maniacs on your side giving the orders.

©Pointman
goracle
1.9 / 5 (14) Nov 23, 2013
Nik, the deranged pervert, continues to show his true colors by hacking and spamming.
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (16) Nov 23, 2013
Uh oh, SpaghettiOs...
DATA DROP OFF ARTIFACT ALERT!

As Gorebots slander and kvetch, skeptics *calculate*, explaining why an echo of 2013 Marcott haunts this study:

"I would suggest that the paper's observation that "coverage is very slightly reduced" understates the impact of these reductions by ignoring the geography of where they occur."
http://wattsupwit...erences/

Oh the sweet irony (albeit not yet formally peer reviewed, just crowd souce analysis) of massive record Antarctic sea ice *growth* having cut off ship based temperature coverage!

"So IMHO, that bright red ring in Roman's figure 3 above showing frequency of grid cell loss circumventing Antarctica represents the sea ice barrier and loss during those months when ships cannot operate."

This study seems to be a study in artifact mining and widening error bars instead of narrowing ones afforded by full satellite coverage.
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 23, 2013
Data Debate Round Two, Doomsayer Group-Bonding Hate Speech:
"spouting incoherence"
"mental illness"
"political motivation"
"frantic, desperate"
"pathetic mental disease"
"really losing it"
"delusional visions of grandeur"
"terribly shrill and desperate"
"fraud and worse"
"talking points"
"unshakeable faith"
"smarter than you have the capacity to imagine"
"Illuminati Conspiracy"
"Urinate", not "Urinated"
"the Whore of Lucifer"
"AGW deniers"
"consumption != AIDS"
"you flatter me with terms like propagandist"
"delusional denialism"
"descent into madness"
"Pedophiliaville"
"fraudulent liar and a criminal"
"desperate, shrill keening sound"
"denialist bollocks"
"just another fraud"
"a fraud, a charlatan"
"definitely a tea partier"
"gish-galloping fraudster"
"criminal fraud"
"share a cell"
"typical denialist"
"petulant child"
"trying to perpetrate his fraud"
"college drop-out"
"drug addict"
"Your motivation"
"purveyor of lies and filth"
"denialist purveyor of smut"
"denialist bollocks"
"the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch"
"seas rising steadily, without end, due to our fault.!"
"sick tastes"
"brain damage"
"ring of fire" ADD"
"(re-hashed) miss-truths"
"denialist bigotry"
"beyond stupid"
"other choice nouns"
"blind admirers"
"guy at the hospital"
"Like every other Conservative"
"Nikkitard"
"anti-psychosis medication"
"TardieBoy"
"psychotic self delusion"
"Tinky Winky thrusts his wanton pelvis"
"Chromium poisoning"
"voices in your head"
"consensus science"
"rabbit-hole occupiers"
"What a maroon!"
"a UFO trailing ISON bandwagon"
"far better off in Prison"
"Not just stalking, pedoboy, hunting."
"denialist scumbag"
"religious extremism"
"lack of education"
"Charles Manson has a better understanding"
"What a moron"
"deranged pervert"

Data Debate Round Two, Skeptical Logic:
follow the money, honey...
da data don't fit!
no hockey stick

And the jury says...?
VendicarE
3 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2013
NikkieTard is right.

He is all those things. And more.

NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 23, 2013
The jury still can't decide?

Let's now present the avatar image of the most active often instant fake alarmist ratings sockpuppet account here, then, named "open":
http://s6.postimg...2628.jpg

And John Cook's own Photoshop collection, discovered on his own site:
http://s6.postimg...cook.jpg

And Vendicar(E)'s hoarder house that his old Usenet victims of trolling pointed to (omitted for privacy).

Oh, look, that didn't take long...!
NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (13) Nov 23, 2013
Avatar image of alarm-side sockpuppet ratings account "Father Brrenk":
http://s6.postimg...3a18.jpg

Profile of commenter goracle: "Sub-Mattress Institute of Marxist Revolution" / "Corrupting Libertarian children with socialist ways (for the few that reproduce through normal sexual means)."
goracle
1.7 / 5 (12) Nov 23, 2013
Avatar image of alarm-side sockpuppet ratings account "Father Brrenk":
http://s6.postimg...3a18.jpg

Profile of commenter goracle: "Sub-Mattress Institute of Marxist Revolution" / "Corrupting Libertarian children with socialist ways (for the few that reproduce through normal sexual means)."

Did you know that the Sub-Mattress Institute of Marxist Revolution recently opened a new School of Climate Change Science? Al Gore will get it's first honorary degree.
NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (13) Nov 24, 2013
The vast majority of actual ice in the Arctic that this study claims to find the hidden warming in is Greenland, yet the continent has been *cooling* since records began:

2004 Study: "Global Warming And The Greenland Ice Sheet"

"Since 1940, however, the Greenland coastal stations data have undergone predominantly a cooling trend. At the summit of the Greenland ice sheet the summer average temperature has decreased at the rate of 2.2°C per decade since the beginning of the measurements in 1987. This suggests that the Greenland ice sheet and coastal regions are not following the current global warming trend."
[Reference: http://folk.uib.n...ox04.pdf ]

Watts up with that, goracle?

Was Gore's old climate professor really *senile* when he said that rather inconvenient thing, goracle?
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (17) Nov 24, 2013
Can NikFromNYC please:-

1. Stop hacking the site posting submissions more than 1000 characters at a time.
2. Stop waffling, NikFromNYC uses 10 times as many words as runrig yet says less.
3. Stop spamming with multiple posts which also say nothing useful.
4. Stop focusing on tangentials instead of Science.
5. Stop diverging to irrelevancies which do not settle an issue.

Instead, can NikFromNYC do this please:-

a. Focus on the Science whilst being concise.
b. Focus on the Science whilst not berating.
c. Focus on the Science and demonstrating good communications
d. Be aware he is setting a bad example for even less intelligent people

and of course, can NikFromNYC include attention to:-

i. Focus on the Science
ii. Instead converge on an issue of dispute so the Science can be addressed

Thank you

The Alchemist
1.2 / 5 (11) Nov 24, 2013
The Change in the State of the Earth over 30 Years

Made an interesting discovery: The amount of heat absorbed by the Earth's retreating ices, is the same as the heat necessary to raise the Earth's temperature:
3.61e12 cm2 ocean area
X 6 cm change in ocean height/depth
2.166e13 cm3 ice melt volume
x
333.55 j/g to melt ice
7.22e15 joules absorbed by Earth ocean-30 year
2.41e14 joules/year



X 5.27e19 Earth's atmosphere's mass kg
1000 j/kg (K)
X 0.15 K (increase in temperature in 30 years)
7.9e15 joules absorbed by Earth atm-30 year
2.63e14 joules/year

Note: This is a very interesting result, as the Earth will radiate heat nightly.
That there is persistence indicates a source of heat.
Greenhouse gases contribute in an obvious way.
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 24, 2013
Mike Massen translation:

"Please stop exposing *fraud* and cultism in a way that teaches layperson's to understand the details."
"Pretty please, I consult for solar energy companies and study Islam that requires America to stop using coal."

Similar to vested interest runrig himself, whose UK Met Office pension is at terrible risk deep backlash de-funding by the UK prime minister who this week was reported to have had a tirade about getting "rid of all the green crap!" and the monstrous backlash when the suffering UK public realizes it was all a big scam.

Vested interests *really* don't want me writing passionately about *alarmist* *culture* *revealing* long form stuff, just obscure crap non-scientists can't follow.

It's not about science any more, guys...you LOST that debate this year, with a self-destructive IPCC *upping* its confidence level as satellites clearly shows a continuing lull...and Marcott 2013 (!) gave the whole headline grabbing game away.
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (16) Nov 24, 2013
Mike built his own paper tiger of alarm in another thread which I slaughter in brackets:

- Climate is an essentially closed system [a thin spectral sliver of IR may evaporate more water to form clouds that reflect away broad spectrum radiation, and solar magnetism mysteriously affects cloud cover, as may unknowns]
- Properties of CO2 & other GHG are well known & easy to check [skeptics *agree*]
- Properties of water re heat & especially latent heat of fusion energies [ditto]
- Water vapour has easy path to precipitate & does so quickly as rain/snow/hail [desperate hand-waving rejection of negative feedbacks!]
- CO2 & other GHG don't have easy or quick path to exit atmosphere [duh]

Combinatorial sum is increasing heat in the system but, it's hard for non climate scientists to understand, its distribution is non-linear & so take the easy way out ! [a complex semi-chaotic fluid ocean/air dynamic heat system is highly likely to be internally chaotic on decadal *and* century time scales]
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (15) Nov 24, 2013
With climate being an essentially closed system why does NikFromNYC not consider the high probability increasing CO2 in the atmosphere predisposes the system to storing greater heat & especially so that you agree re properties of CO2 ?

Then NikFromNYC comes up with a mere guess
"[a complex semi-chaotic fluid ocean/air dynamic heat system is highly likely to be internally chaotic on decadal *and* century time scales]"
First of all evidence is lacking on that in any sort of causal detail.

Regional minima & maxima in conjunction with *integration* over periods indicate a trend & already beyond a mere decade Eg Even allowing for sun's cooling we are still seeing rising temps.

Your predilection to hacking the site NikFromNYC, does you no credit !

A considerable way to regain credibility Eg. is converge on each point runrig offers to counter your claim, do it one at a time so u don't clutter the forum or anyone's saturation threshold.

Foucs NikFromNYC dammit, you are a mess !
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (16) Nov 24, 2013
"Foucs NikFromNYC dammit, you are a mess !"

Me: http://s6.postimg...mage.jpg

You: http://s6.postimg...41_n.jpg

Mike, a gray pony-tailed Noam Chomskyite, Gorebot fossil hippy, like yourself isn't my audience, Tree House Club kid, it's mature and savvy journalists and writers who find these threads via Google. Grow up and deal with the melting pot. If my new favorite obscure iPhone browser ignores amateur hour Phys.org JavaScript, complain to Phys.org about fixing their stupid site that also multilates multi-link content if you just want to edit out a typo.

You're not even a serious player, Mike. You out of hand dismiss the issue of time scale in your argument from ignorance, as if one human life of warming might not indeed be just another ocean current heat engine blip with some sort of solar magnetic mystery and internal cloud cover variation at work. It's a mainly empirical question that faux Hockey Sticks attempt to rule out, revealingly!
Mike_Massen
2.6 / 5 (17) Nov 24, 2013
NikFromNYC is not getting it, diverging and posting arbitrary pictures does u no credit,
the more you diverge the more you confirm an inability to focus, one wonders about you !

Please please focus on the Science and that also means the rationale leading up to a
position, please offer a focused reflection on my question and in concert with the balance
of probabilities as I quote here:-
"With climate being an essentially closed system why does NikFromNYC not consider the high probability increasing CO2 in the atmosphere predisposes the system to storing greater heat & especially so that you agree re properties of CO2 ?"
Please NikFromNYC can you focus, reason & address what i consider a foundational paradigm which has obvious worthy decision trees subsequently worthy of consideration ?

NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (16) Nov 24, 2013
Mike the Aussie consultant, you should move to NYC, the new center of for the young entrepreneur, where the big flowing money's at, as business incubators flood Manhattan:
http://birch.co/p...oworking

Be jealous, all of you poo flinging losers who issue tyrants of hate speech and then complain about real content.

Now, with added chicks in Silicon Alley!

Oh Mike, your literal rent seeking Australian green energy rationing dream really *is* over:
"Hundreds of public servants from the Industry and Climate Change departments have been told to quit their jobs if they do not want to implement the Abbott government's policies."
http://www.canber...1122-2y1

Court dismissed!

LIES DON'T WORK GUYS.
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (16) Nov 24, 2013
Oh pleadingly desperate and anal retentive forum cop Mike, the skeptical focus will *not* be on the "science" any more, but properly on the fraudulent "*scientists*" involved, from now on, many a doctoral thesis included in coming centuries about the madness of crowds and political psychopathy.

Mike, if you can gloss over the Marcottgate 2013, you are lost in a haze of confusion, for there is policy advise *fraud* clear enough for any kid to fully grok. What science is in it?! Data drop off isn't science.
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 25, 2013
Today's mainstream German newspaper FAZ presents a chart by Dr. John Christy (who runs the UAH satellite data used in this study), former student of Kevin "Missing Heat Travesty" Trenberth of Climategate fame, showing the alarmist climate model meltdown that this study purports to save, using Christy's own data:
http://s6.postimg...mage.jpg

[Background: http://notrickszo...s-graph/ ]
Mike_Massen
2.4 / 5 (14) Nov 25, 2013
@NikFromNYC,
I see you are diverging again and much more widely and wildly, can you please focus on my question to you, quote again for you to address here:-
"With climate being an essentially closed system why does NikFromNYC not consider the high probability increasing CO2 in the atmosphere predisposes the system to storing greater heat & especially so that NikFromNYC agrees re properties of CO2 ?"
Focus please NikFromNYC ?
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 25, 2013
Mike: The *classic* greenhouse effect does exactly what you say indeed, in rather *insignificant* magnitude.

You are just being an ass, since it's obvious that anybody with your technical background knows all this crap already. You have not the tone of a curious fella but of a bald-faced activist, digging for cheap debate points. What an humorless clown! You look at my lists above, of desperate moth frothing insults, almost a hundred of them in two collections, and then you dare condescend about *my* posting *style*. What a bozo. This is fish in a barrel stuff you are tossing out.

You leave out mature consideration of:

(A) Magnitude
(B) Time scale
(C) Chaos
(D) Unknowns

...then twist me into a boring straw man argument, as I post *extremely* topical material such as this study's satellite data falsifying their claims, as the very creator of that data set, John Christy, himself points out in the news of the day.

You think I'm going to jump through your colored plastic hoops, boss?!
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 25, 2013
@Mike_Massen,
I see you diverging again and much more widely and wildly, can you please focus on my question to you, quote again for you to address here:-

(A) Input data for Marcott, plotted from their own supplement:
http://postimg.or...zirjyjd/

(B) Mathematician Mann himself celebrating it:
http://s15.postim...2013.jpg

Isn't it rather *odd* that skeptics pointing out that there's no hockey stick in the input data is met with frantic hate speech, day after day, here?

Focus please Mike_Massen?
The Alchemist
2.1 / 5 (15) Nov 25, 2013
Oh gawd, retreating into complexity for a simple system. How insecure.

Although GH effects are complex, they are not chaotic. Weather is chaotic, climate and macroweather are not. They are very well understandable and predictable, even by someone with a high school education.
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 25, 2013
Alchemist, thank you for displaying such naive posturing in public. What a win for the day! Trying to dismiss a serious mainstream argument as a mere personal insecurity is no vital response, merely escapism indeed.

So what caused the hot spikes in the past, especially the large Roman one before the Mediaeval Warm Period? What caused warming in the first half of the 20th century now exactly mirrored in the time since then, seen here even in Phil Jones up-adjusted HadCRUT4 global average temperature?:
http://www.woodfo.../to:1950

Even if granted a hockey stick fantasy, you still have a very early blade, much too early to point to emissions, but I note that it's never explained as you claim, and *if* a high school graduate can understand your argument about all warming being emissions based, then why not *offer* that argument instead of merely imply it exists? Explain away, how you discount Nature.
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 25, 2013
The Tree House Club's web site SkepticalScience.com is organized around myriad supposed skeptical myths, mostly straw man projections into skeptics and also plenty of lunatic fringe crackpot claims of a tiny mostly skeptic blog banned minority. Physicist Lubos Motl quickly reveals the snakes in their grass in a quick list of the first 104 of their claims, here:
http://www.google...nce.html

I'm scanning now for Tree House Club dismissal of internal variability, the likes of which lead Alchemists and goracles to haughtilly snub us Ph.D. philistines of the lowly Ivy League.
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 25, 2013
Nap over, the Tree House Club internal variability "myth" page on quick inspection reveals two whoppers to support author Dana's (Tetra Tech green energy company employee) assertion of a limit of only 0.3° C for Gaia to assert:
http://www.skepti...lity.htm

(1) Total lack of use of a hockey stick to support the claim! Uh oh, where'd it go? And *yet* without a hockey stick blocking my debate path, I need merely re-assert the widely supported and accepted (even by the early IPCC!) Roman and Mediaeval warm periods to make an utter mockery of a 0.3° C limit to natural variability in both rate and absolute value. Checkmate!

(2) Reference to a paper by blogger Tamino whose Phil Jones worthy fake "filter end effect" Central England hockey stick I feature already, here:
http://s1.postimg...INAL.gif
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 25, 2013
A far as real debate goes, concerning the Tree House Club internal variability limiting BLOG page, the whole argument revolves around the co-creators of the very satellite data used in the present Tree House Club study itself: Roy Spenser and John Christy and their papers.

(A) I have been writing skeptical tidbits for years, online, only two blocks down Broadway from Tom's Diner where Jim Hansen and Gavin Schmidt claim to work though I've only seen Hansen around once in the last decade I've known his face, and Gavin never over the five years I've known his, so certainly I'm *around* guys, if you'd like to convince me over tea! But the alarm raising side doesn't dare do that since I'll ask about Marcott 2013 and Tamino's fake hockey stick.

(B) Gavin himself *literally* and very revealingly skirted around any live debate with Roy Spenser himself on national TV, an act and attitude that displays not a winning hand but abject fear of himself being checkmated by a real insider:
http://tinypic.co...&s=5
The Alchemist
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 25, 2013
Nik,
You wouldn've answered if it weren't true.
Gottcha!
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 25, 2013
Whateverz *you* say, Alchemist, as you yourself now dodge a reply.

...and just in time for dinner, your NAZI cosplayer buddiez of the Tree House Club release a shamelessly vile propaganda piece as a smart phone app (and web widget), likely coded by the study authors, that equates greenhouse effect heat to bright red Hiroshima atomic bombs:
http://www.weekly...926.html

Watts up with that, Alchemist?!

"The issue of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings has developed what could be described as a "sacred or religious" aura" in this country that makes it totally off limits for purposes of comparison, allegory or humor. This app breaks that taboo in a way that most Japanese people would find deeply offensive...."

Propaganda planning session:

"Doubling CO2 in Earth's atmosphere would add 4 watts to every square meter of the Earth's surface. This is equivalent to running a child's night light on every square meter permanently." / "Somehow, 3 nuclear bombs per second sounds a lot more impressive than a child's night light!" – John Cook
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 25, 2013
Corrected link: http://wattsupwit...st-kind/

Lead IPCC author Richard Tol laments:

"Metaphors create an image. Few people would associate "Hiroshima" with energy. A more common association is death and devastation. The atom bomb instantly killed 70,000-80,000 people. The image created by this app is that climate change kills 300,000 people per second. That is patently wrong.

This abuse of one of the most atrocious events in human history insults those who perished there and then and their loved ones who survived."
The Alchemist
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 25, 2013
Though I don't approve, you'll notice John Cook stole, twisted and exaggerated my concept. Without crediting me, a no-no demonstrating his ethics.

But even you with your PhD can follow a 6 cm increase in water level as melted ice, right?
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 25, 2013
Alchemist, I believe bad ethics also translates to bad science in Cook's case.

The execution of the software and social media campaign is top notch, but it may backfire just as the Heartland Institute's vast oversimplification of my own "Psychopaths For Global Warming" infographic did, linked above when I mention Charles Manson, where my graphic point is a sociological one that Heartland turned into a mere sensationalistic jab on a billboard.

I do note that the widget info page references the standard study of sea level update of Church & White 2011, that finally, in this latest update, stopped leaving *out* a plot not just of virtual sea level but of actual on-the-ground raw tide gauge data, and here your 6cm reference becomes cryptic because this pencil straight plot that I extract in black below shows an un-alarming rate of ~1.8 mm/yr and THE TREND REMAINS THE SAME, falsifying many a headline (!!!):
http://oi51.tinyp...koix.jpg

Literal end of the line, for alarm!
NikFromNYC
1 / 5 (12) Nov 25, 2013
Commenter Tim Grove @WUWT:

"The fact that they are resorting to Hiroshima bomb analogies to describe anticipated heat that isn't actually being detected in the atmosphere, at the earth's surface or in the top 700 meters of the oceans, but which may well be lurking down in the depths along with Godzilla, sea monsters and Captain Nemo, is an indication that their project is well on the way to degenerating into farce." / "John Cook may fantasize about being Himmler, but I think his role in the alarmist movement is closer to that of a Goebbels."

Moderator: "Many comments about using SkS and SS in this forum several months ago. SkS is preferred (here on WUWT) to avoid this specific association. Mod"
NikFromNYC
1 / 5 (12) Nov 26, 2013
The headline reveals to the public all they really need to know to apply a bit of street smarts to political claims of alarm: the *extra* heat that supercomputer models claim must magically attach to the classic and boring textbook greenhouse effect is just that...MISSING!

"'Missing heat' discovery prompts new estimate of global warming
Nov 13, 2013"

...oh...but they *found* it now...in yet *another* computer program!
NikFromNYC
1 / 5 (12) Nov 26, 2013
In the formerly secret Tree House Club forum, coauthor Robert Way spilled the beans about Michael Mann's hockey stick and subsequent followup defenses of it:

"MBH98 was not an example of someone using a technique with flaws and then as he learned better techniques he moved on… He fought like a dog to discredit and argue with those on the other side that his method was not flawed. And in the end he never admitted that the entire method was a mistake. Saying "I was wrong but when done right it gives close to the same answer" is no excuse. He never even said that but I'm just making a point. What happened was they used a brand new statistical technique that they made up and that there was no rationalization in the literature for using it. They got results which were against the traditional scientific communities view on the matters and instead of re-evaluating and checking whether the traditional statistics were valid (which they weren't), they went on and produced another one a year later. They then let this HS be used in every way possible (including during the Kyoto protocol lead-up that resulted in canadian parliament signing the deal with many people ascribing their final belief in climate change being assured by the HS) despite knowing the stats behind it weren't rock solid. Of course someone was going to come along and slam it. In the defense of the HS method they published things on RC like what I showed above where they clearly misrepresented the views of the foremost expert on PCA in atmospheric sciences who basically says that Mann's stats were dubious."
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 26, 2013
In a SkepticalScienceGate inner forum post, Robert also admits the whole skeptical point about Climategate:

"Similarly, with regard to "hiding the decline" in Climategate, I am left with the impression that the real question is, Why would you believe the tree-ring proxies at earlier times when you KNOW that they didn't work properly in the 1990s? I guess there is a good answer to that, but no one has ever given it to me."

[Source: "Behind the SKS curtain...." http://climateaud...curtain/ ]
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 26, 2013
Robert Way also criminally conspires to include hacking in their activism:

"Make no mistake, there is some social networking going on here behind the scenes (does that group who hack mega corporations also hack emails of people like McIntyre?)."

Likewise Hockey Stick Team climatologist Peter Gleick recently used brazen identity theft and conspiratorial Heartland Institute document forging to try to smear skepticism, and he has been rewarded for it within the Church of Climatology:
http://fakegate.org/

To satirically compare Climatology to Scientology I designed a logo and included in the middle of a cathartic scrapbook collection of alarmist bullshit, I called GREEN BANK AUTHORITY:
http://postimg.or...971ycj1/
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 26, 2013
Robert also reveals his own fascism:

"I have no idea how one deals with this– to be candid, McIntyre or Watts in handcuffs is probably the only thing that will slow things down."

...his worry being that like myself, McIntyre's sin is clarity of voice:

"Part of Mcintyre's magic, is his ability to take his statistical ability (whether right or wrong) and transfer that into rhetoric that the normal person can understand."

Writer/blogger David Appell reveals the same call for Soviet tactics from Michael Mann of Penn State:

"I don't know. Donald Brown, the philosopher at Penn State who has been writing about the ethics of climate change for well over a decade -- I interviewed him in the early 2000s -- thinks they are perhaps guilty of crimes against humanity. / Are they? Are Anthony Watts and Marc Morano and Tom Nelson and Steve Goddard smart enough to be guilty of climate crimes? / I think so. You can't simply claim that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. / I think they're crimes will be obvious in about a decade. / When I profiled Michael Mann for Scientific American, he said he thought it would eventually be illegal to deny climate change. I had doubts about that, but maybe." - Dave Appell
http://davidappel...lem.html
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2013
Hey lookie here

"Big methane burp: Cow farts a greater problem than EPA previously thought, study says

"WASHINGTON – The United States is spewing 50 percent more methane — a potent heat-trapping gas — than the federal government estimates, a new comprehensive scientific study says. Much of it is coming from just three states: Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas.

"That means methane may be a bigger global warming issue than thought, scientists say."

-Huh. Another major global warming factor that wasnt included in the climate models. And I thought they had this all figured out.

Silly me.
runrig
4 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2013
"That means methane may be a bigger global warming issue than thought, scientists say."

-Huh. Another major global warming factor that wasnt included in the climate models. And I thought they had this all figured out.

Silly me.


Yes. Silly you.

Some stats…..

Total Global CO2 emissions 2012 = 36x10^9 tonnes
US CH4 emissions = 2.3x10^6 tonnes
Now x20 for eqiv CO2 GHE (100yrs) = 46x10^6 tonnes
But that's 50% more than accounted for anyway ~15x10^6 tonnes extra.

So excess US CH4 emissions above forecast is ~0.4x10^-3 or 0.4 1000th's ( ie 0.04% ) of the global CO2 GHE.
Yes, something vital missed there. Would've completely turned the IPCC forecasts on their head.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.