A global temperature conundrum: Cooling or warming climate?

A global temperature conundrum: Cooling or warming climate?
A fisherman walks toward open water in the Antarctic ice sheet. Conflicting research on the heating and cooling of Earth has led to a global temperature conundrum, which climate scientists plan to address further this fall.   Credit: iStock Photo

When the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently requested a figure for its annual report, to show global temperature trends over the last 10,000 years, the University of Wisconsin-Madison's Zhengyu Liu knew that was going to be a problem.

"We have been building models and there are now robust contradictions," says Liu, a professor in the UW-Madison Center for Climatic Research. "Data from observation says global cooling. The physical model says it has to be warming."

Writing in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences today, Liu and colleagues from Rutgers University, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, the University of Hawaii, the University of Reading, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and the University of Albany describe a consistent trend over the course of the Holocene, our current geological epoch, counter to a study published last year that described a period of global cooling before human influence.

The scientists call this problem the Holocene temperature conundrum. It has important implications for understanding and evaluating climate models, as well as for the benchmarks used to create for the future. It does not, the authors emphasize, change the evidence of human impact on global climate beginning in the 20th century.

"The question is, 'Who is right?'" says Liu. "Or, maybe none of us is completely right. It could be partly a data problem, since some of the data in last year's study contradicts itself. It could partly be a model problem because of some missing physical mechanisms."

Over the last 10,000 years, Liu says, we know atmospheric carbon dioxide rose by 20 parts per million before the 20th century, and the massive ice sheet of the Last Glacial Maximum has been retreating. These physical changes suggest that, globally, the annual mean should have continued to warm, even as regions of the world experienced cooling, such as during the Little Ice Age in Europe between the 16th and 19th centuries.

The three models Liu and colleagues generated took two years to complete. They ran simulations of climate influences that spanned from the intensity of sunlight on Earth to global greenhouse gases, ice sheet cover and meltwater changes. Each shows global warming over the last 10,000 years.

Yet, the bio- and geo-thermometers used last year in a study in the journal Science suggest a period of beginning about 7,000 years ago and continuing until humans began to leave a mark, the so-called "hockey stick" on the current climate model graph, which reflects a profound global warming trend.

In that study, the authors looked at data collected by other scientists from ice core samples, phytoplankton sediments and more at 73 sites around the world. The data they gathered sometimes conflicted, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere.

Because interpretation of these proxies is complicated, Liu and colleagues believe they may not adequately address the bigger picture. For instance, biological samples taken from a core deposited in the summer may be different from samples at the exact same site had they been taken from a winter sediment. It's a limitation the authors of last year's study recognize.

"In the Northern Atlantic, there is cooling and warming data the (climate change) community hasn't been able to figure out," says Liu.

With their current knowledge, Liu and colleagues don't believe any physical forces over the last 10,000 years could have been strong enough to overwhelm the warming indicated by the increase in global greenhouse gases and the melting , nor do the physical models in the study show that it's possible.

"The fundamental laws of physics say that as the temperature goes up, it has to get warmer," Liu says.

Caveats in the latest study include a lack of influence from volcanic activity in the models, which could lead to cooling—though the authors point out there is no evidence to suggest significant volcanic activity during the Holocene—and no dust or vegetation contributions, which could also cause cooling.

Liu says scientists plan to meet this fall to discuss the conundrum.

"Both communities have to look back critically and see what is missing," he says. "I think it is a puzzle."


Explore further

Global warming 'pause' since 1998 reflects natural fluctuation, study concludes

More information: The Holocene temperature conundrum, PNAS, www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1407229111
Citation: A global temperature conundrum: Cooling or warming climate? (2014, August 11) retrieved 23 May 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2014-08-global-temperature-conundrum-cooling-climate.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
5 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Aug 11, 2014
Data from observation says global cooling

Another nail in the coffin, of the AGW Cult's CO2 lies.
So, who are truly in denial?

Aug 11, 2014
Cooling or warming?

Yes. The climate changes. It's what it does. Dairy farms in Greenland 1000 years ago.

Aug 11, 2014
What the Article seems to be saying, AntiG, is that MAYBE the overall cooling of the Holocene is being replaced by artificially induced alterations of the "natural" cycle.
At least this researcher admits to a great degree of uncertainty.

Aug 11, 2014
"Data from observation says global cooling. The physical model says it has to be warming."

The IPCC's solution to the conundrum: Just like our current policy, we'll choose the one (and its severity) that fits our agenda (and fudge it from there).

Aug 11, 2014
A global temperature conundrum: Cooling or warming climate?


The conundrum exists because of the need to show global warming. Otherwise, the observed reality would present nothing but information.

The political agenda cannot long survive a cooling or static climate.

Aug 11, 2014
Reading the article it says "It does not, the authors emphasize, change the evidence of human impact on global climate beginning in the 20th century." The article actually talks about analytic complexties of temperature proxies from 10,000 years ago.

Aug 11, 2014
The model doesn't match reality. At least they finally admitted it and stopped trying to hide the data.

of course they will need more money to study the issue.

We seriously need to end the way science is funded and ostensibly advanced.

Aug 11, 2014
So last month it was - The MYSTERIES of Antarctic sea ice
http://phys.org/n...ice.html

Now it's the - global temperature CONUNDRUM.

At this rate the AGW Cult will soon run out of words for the only one they really need - LIES.

Aug 11, 2014
32 years of science never being more than their laughable 95% certain for a GLOBAL CLIMATE CRISIS was anything anybody wanted it to be except "sustainable in belief" for another 32 years of ; "Help my planet might possibly be on fire maybe with 95% certainty!".

Yes the lab coats you doomers bow to like bible thumpers are 100% certain the planet is not flat but 95% certain that THE END IS NEAR? REAL progressives doubt, question and challenge all authority especially ones that condemn the planet with 32 years of "could be" warnings. Grow up!

Aug 11, 2014
IMO, the point is that often people want to simplify complex things well beyond reason (see first sentence of article), Measuring climate, particularly in the distant past, and reporting it in a way to portray a broad pattern of change is extraordinarily difficult. Reducing it to a single number or a nice, clean curve on a graph is actually quite unreasonable and potentially misleading to the uninformed. The facts we currently face are that our climate has and continues to express more potentially destructive warming recently than in the not so distant past. And that mankind has recently pumped an enormous amount of GHGs into the atmosphere. If one correlates these, it prudently recommends changes in our behavior as a species. If one does not correlate these, then you are advocating taking a substantial risk that the rest of us may not agree to take, yet will be affected by. It will be hard to describe advocating the unnecessary release of more GHGs as anything but negligent.

Aug 11, 2014
Ah, finally a paper that admits that climate science does not really know what is going on, the models are wrong and man's contribution to temperature change cannot be quantified.

Goodby 97% it was nice knowing you.

Aug 11, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 11, 2014
Since, this research appears to indicate anthropomorphic interruption of the natural cycle, Mayday is right. Prudent monitoring, interpretation and action is in order and just seems -
well - prudent...

Aug 11, 2014
Climate change is real, and serious.
I have no clue how any of you can deny something funky has been going on with the weather. You don't need to go to college or watch a bunch of documentaries, i'm 23 years old and I can tell the weather has just become more extreme in just my time here, and a bunch of you are freaking middle aged.

This planet has not had major ice sheets on it since the Permian, that was about 300M to about 250M years ago, and had about 3x time the CO2 levels of the postindustrial world, yet it was only a few degrees hotter.
So what?
It matters because our oceans and atmosphere have reached a stable state at declined CO2 levels. Our modern ecosystems are intimately linked to have those cooler regions, even lady bugs actually go to the tundra to reproduce. But even if you don't care about that, our oceans are set to be relatively PH neutral with our current atmospheric conditions, with the added CO2 and pollution they have become more acidic.

cont.

Aug 11, 2014
Both communities have to look back critically and see what is missing
What is missing are various cosmic effects, which are generally neglected in the present era of anthropogenic warming hysteria. The skeptics have tendency to occupy more insightful stance in this controversy - albeit the main warming factor of Holocene period, i.e. the dark matter at the galactic plane wasn't considered yet.

Aug 11, 2014
...i'm 23 years old and I can tell the weather has just become more extreme...


So how exactly did you determine that? Raised a hand to feel more apparent wind?

Aug 11, 2014
Hey, dumbass, that's not what the article (or paper) say. try reading before commenting idiot.


Have you not yet noticed the Toad is gone? You can be next.......

Aug 11, 2014
"You don't need to go to college or watch a bunch of documentaries, i'm 23 years old and I can tell the weather has just become more extreme in just my time here, and a bunch of you are freaking middle aged."

It is really a shame that our higher educational system is capable of producing graduates that lack critical thinking skills. I suppose that feeding a young mind 97% propaganda can turn it to mush.

Aug 11, 2014
What the Article seems to be saying, AntiG, is that MAYBE the overall cooling of the Holocene is being replaced by artificially induced alterations of the "natural" cycle.
At least this researcher admits to a great degree of uncertainty.


Maybe.
And the 'science' is settled!

Aug 11, 2014
...i'm 23 years old and I can tell the weather has just become more extreme...


So how exactly did you determine that? Raised a hand to feel more apparent wind?


I'm observant, I remember what winters were like in certain years, I remember when it snowed, when it rained, how much precipitation we had, and yes, how hard the wind blew. You don't need a weatherman for the past.

Aug 11, 2014
It is really a shame that our higher educational system is capable of producing graduates that lack critical thinking skills. I suppose that feeding a young mind 97% propaganda can turn it to mush.


Joke's on you, I never went to college in a meaningful capacity, and I'm still smarter than you. I started my own machining business a while ago so I didn't need to go to get out of the corporate world, but I've always had an interest in the natural sciences, which has been my passion since I was a kid. Yale posts many of thier lectures on youtube and this great guy (ex hedge fund manager) started this website called khanacademy.org. There are many great resources out there.

I am a critical thinker, I don't understand what you are getting at. Are you saying that there is a global conspiracy that hydrocarbons don't turn to CO2 when you burn them with oxygen?
Basic chemistry
are you saying that CO2 doesn't impact the environment?
about 4 billion years of geology proves otherwise.

Aug 11, 2014
"The fundamental laws of physics say that as the temperature goes up, it has to get warmer," Liu says.

Truer words were never said.

Aug 11, 2014
I keep warning you pro-AGWers. CO2, temperature increase; red herrings. That isn't the way the world can work.

Actually, we're on a threshold. I think the climate will start warming, finally, in the future. But short-term realities will cause confusion to you sheep who won't think about how the world must change according to simple principles.

To start, again: You add heat to the earth system in addition to the Sun, you cause a change. The equilibrium change of adding heat to the earth system, and you've been arguing about it for long enough that I feel comfortable using an equilibrium approximation, is glacial melting, and other noticeable changes along those veins.

Not complicated, I've been predicting this for years now.

@adam_russel
If I put ice in your kool aid, then put it in the sun, does the temperature go up? No, it doesn't change, except at the fringes.

The Earth is much more stable than an iced drink.

Aug 11, 2014
Actually adam, I believe you would find that a low temperature and high humidity could give the same warmth as a high temperature and low humidity.

Aug 11, 2014
I'm observant, I remember what winters were like in certain years, I remember when it snowed, when it rained, how much precipitation we had, and yes, how hard the wind blew. You don't need a weatherman for the past.


Human memory is not very reliable apparatus. We are talking temperature change 0.6C/century, and even this minuscule amount is debatable. Divide that by your conscious lifespan; 20 years at best? BTW, where are you living, on the coast? It always amuses me how many people living in the middle of the continent, where temperature swings 50 degrees during a single week are common, form an opinion about the climate based on their weather perception.

If you are living in growing metropolitan area, what you might have notice is UHI.

Aug 11, 2014
"morons...below average in mental capacity...dumbass..."

Ah yes, what is it they say? Insults are the last recourse of a lost argument?

Students of science ethics will still be studying the AGC movement a hundred years from now. It will be seen as the worst example of politics driving science since the middle ages.

Aug 11, 2014
Climate change is real, and serious.
I have no clue how any of you can deny something funky has been going on with the weather. You don't need to go to college or watch a bunch of documentaries, i'm 23 years old and I can tell the weather has just become more extreme in just my time here, and a bunch of you are freaking middle aged....


Some of us are considerably older than middle aged, and it doesn't look much different than what I can remember in my childhood. But, you are young and aren't used to such changes in weather in your area. You should read climate reports from the 1920s and 1930s. They read almost identically to the ones we see today, including melting glaciers, glaciers gone, wildlife affected by heating, and so forth. Yes, I am serious. By the way, as many are fond of saying, you cannot judge climate by weather. :-)

Aug 12, 2014
Possibly we are beginning to understand just how complex our climate really is. Standing toe-to-toe screaming at each other is unlikely to advance our understanding much.

Aug 12, 2014
32 years of science never being more than their laughable 95% certain for a GLOBAL CLIMATE CRISIS was anything anybody wanted it to be except "sustainable in belief" for another 32 years of ; "Help my planet might possibly be on fire maybe with 95% certainty!".

Yes the lab coats you doomers bow to like bible thumpers are 100% certain the planet is not flat but 95% certain that THE END IS NEAR? REAL progressives doubt, question and challenge all authority especially ones that condemn the planet with 32 years of "could be" warnings......

Grow up!

Exactly and quit with you pasting of the same sad argument and spamming this site.

Aug 12, 2014
...............

Goodby 97% it was nice knowing you.


Hey, dumbass, that's not what the article (or paper) say. try reading before commenting idiot.


Supa....
They are so deluded that even if they did "read it" they'd spin what they want out of it.
If you start from a biased opinion you will ALWAYS bolster that opinion by ignoring everything bar the bits you think support you, and by twisting anything close to what you think is happening (or not - in this case). The last thing that was hilarious in this regard was the paper that found some additional warming from volcanic activity in one part of one glacier in Antarctica .... and magically that was THE reason that ALL the sheets there were melting.

Err .... it's the reason why jurors are screened to eliminate anything that may inform their judgment .... for a fair trial.
But then they get around that by maintaining there's a global scientific/socialist conspiracy to lie to the world.
FFS squared

Aug 12, 2014
Data from observation says global cooling.

So runrig, after denying it for so long, how would you spin that?

Aug 12, 2014
Data from observation says global cooling.

So runrig, after denying it for so long, how would you spin that?

Try reading ... and most importantly comprehending what the article is saying - like I said, and not spinning it to mean what you want it to mean, that is, current post industrial warming. Look at a graph of temp trends since the HCO and you will see a general cooling trend UNTIL the post-industrial era.
from above ...
"....describe a consistent global warming trend over the course of the Holocene, our current geological epoch, counter to a study published last year that described a period of global cooling BEFORE HUMAN INLUENCE." (my caps)

They are saying that models want the world to warm from the HCO and observation shows it cooled............... THEN has warmed during the industrial era.

Not new ...
see (those who want to try to comprehend)

http://www.realcl...olocene/

Aug 12, 2014
Possibly we are beginning to understand just how complex our climate really is. Standing toe-to-toe screaming at each other is unlikely to advance our understanding much.

Think about all the hot air it is adding to the system...:-)

Aug 12, 2014
The article was great, the title was not misleading as bunch have suggested and above all its great to see something like this on physorg.

The greatest problem with "climate science" is that its still taking it's baby steps yet the politicians and people alike demand for concrete answers to one of the most complex systems of planet earth.
It should not be the topic of heated public discussion or the cornerstone of someone's campaign.
All it should be is a pile of research resulting in whatever it will be.

Aug 12, 2014
Not that I'm conceding the point of AGW, because I'm not......

However, for the sake of argument....doesn't it make sense to get off hydrocarbons? Funneling money indirectly to ISIS, knowing that we're going to run out, knowing that (even if they don't heat up the earth...which they do) they put tons of particulate crap in the air which in FACT does kill millions....

Hydrocarbons make no sense geopolitically, health wise, and eventually not even economically. The only way they make sense is if you work for one of these companies, or own stock in them...and even then, taken all things into consideration, not even that makes ultimate sense.

GIVEN all that how about nuclear power. Barring that, how about sensible wind and solar for residential applications at the least. These should be non contraversial, especially with new nuclear costing half as much, producing no waste or weapons grade material, and being walk away safe....

Aug 12, 2014
Thanks runrig, excellent spin job, you didn't disappoint.
http://wattsupwit...-period/

Aug 12, 2014
Mystic there is no doubt that we need to find other sources of energy. Fossil fuels are a finite resource. But, that fact does not mean that we should jump off an energy cliff and give monies to governments and their crony friends.

Every form of energy kills something so it has to judged on a cost effective/harm basis. As an example, we could pass a law that only solar and wind energy can supply electric power. How much poverty and starvation will that create?

If you look at history, governments have never solved a problem or created prosperity. Only bright free individuals can do that.

Aug 12, 2014
Hey, dumbass, that's not what the article (or paper) say. try reading before commenting idiot.


Have you not yet noticed the Toad is gone? You can be next.......


Toad is gone because he actually threatened to beat someone up. antig somehow wasn't banned for threatening the president though... kinda surprised he didn't receive a visit from the FBI. this site is barely moderated, and you're still an anti-science idiot.

Aug 12, 2014
"morons...below average in mental capacity...dumbass..."

Ah yes, what is it they say? Insults are the last recourse of a lost argument?

Students of science ethics will still be studying the AGC movement a hundred years from now. It will be seen as the worst example of politics driving science since the middle ages.


But not in the way you think - the Bush admin used to change scientific reports that didn't match their politics. The deniers have paid massive amounts of money to politicians so they do nothing on the climate. That is the politics driving "science" today.

Aug 12, 2014
Hydrocarbons make no sense geopolitically, health wise, and eventually not even economically.

Yes, they do make sense.
http://www.cleane...parison/

Aug 12, 2014
Toad is gone because he actually threatened to beat someone up. antig somehow wasn't banned for threatening the president though... kinda surprised he didn't receive a visit from the FBI. this site is barely moderated, and you're still an anti-science idiot.
--supatard
Obviously being retarded, has afforded you many privileges, denied to the intelligent.

Aug 12, 2014
the Bush admin used to change scientific reports that didn't match their politics.


" John Beale, the Environmental Protection Agency employee who bilked taxpayers out of almost $900,000 by pretending to be a secret agent. Telling EPA colleagues that he was a CIA operative, Beale was paid for long absences while on imaginary missions for "Langley." Now there is a disturbing new question about John Beale that goes to the heart of the EPA's mission. What was he doing when he actually showed up for work?"
"From 1989 until 2013, Beale was employed in the EPA's Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), which develops policies and regulations related to air pollution and climate change. It is the most powerful office within one of Washington's most powerful agencies, given the costs it can impose on American business and consumers. And for much of his time Beale was senior policy adviser. "
http://online.wsj...92025230

Aug 12, 2014
Supa you really do not understand the underlying forces behind climate "science". It is totally funded and supported by those who are the direct beneficiaries of increased government power.

The governments, press and universities are all pretty much on the same side of the movement that is trying to strip you of your individual freedoms. Contrary to popular belief, this movement is funded by the few ultra wealthy that control the system. Of course it is popular to blame our ills on the right wing supporters of individual freedoms but this can not be further from the truth.

Aug 12, 2014
Supa you really do not understand the underlying forces behind climate "science". It is totally funded and supported by those who are the direct beneficiaries of increased government power.


They do understand.
AGWism is just another knob for 'liberals' to turn to increase their power.
Unfortunately, as we see by the shrill response of the socialists here, they are seeing that power slip away as the inevitable failures of socialist policies are in full view of all.

Aug 12, 2014
Supa you really do not understand the underlying forces behind climate "science". It is totally funded and supported by those who are the direct beneficiaries of increased government power.

The governments, press and universities are all pretty much on the same side of the movement that is trying to strip you of your individual freedoms. Contrary to popular belief, this movement is funded by the few ultra wealthy that control the system. Of course it is popular to blame our ills on the right wing supporters of individual freedoms but this can not be further from the truth.


Lol, you don't even understand why CO2 is a greenhouse gas; or why temperature *must* rise with increasing [CO2] absent other factors (such as sulfate aerosols like in the 60's and 70's). You claim all this money is going to AGW proponents, ignoring that an order of magnitude more money is funding deniers like yourself. You should be ashamed, but you're too stupid to understand why.

Aug 12, 2014
Supra I do understand that CO2 is a greenhouse gas but a real science requires more than one variable in a perhaps 20 variable equation. If more CO2 equals higher temperatures equals even more CO2 from the oceans and even higher temperatures as "climate science" claims, the earth would be uninhabitable by now. Negative feedback loops have been totally discounted or misrepresented by this science.

Aug 12, 2014
If your goal is to have man have absolutely no influence on the ecology of the planet then you are condemning mankind to a life of bare subsistence.

Aug 12, 2014
You claim all this money is going to AGW proponents

"SEPP calculated that from Fiscal Year (FY) 1993 to FY 2013 total US expenditures on climate change amount to more than $165 Billion. More than $35 Billion is identified as climate science. The White House reported that in FY 2013 the US spent $22.5 Billion on climate change. About $2 Billion went to US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). The principal function of the USGCRP is to provide to Congress a National Climate Assessment (NCA). The latest report uses global climate models, which are not validated, therefor speculative, to speculate about regional influences from global warming.

Much of the remaining 89% of funding goes to goes to government agencies and industries claiming they are preventing global warming/climate change, even though they do not understand the natural causes of climate change and, likely, far overestimate the influence of CO2. "
http://www.powerl...rming-fo

Aug 12, 2014
Thanks runrig, excellent spin job, you didn't disappoint.
................

Neither have you (disappointed)

That link is more semantics about words in emails etc, is science free and says nothing about the graph shown by Monckton etc not being global and all spinning graphs thereafter omitted latest modern day warming to make it seem warmer. The graph is for central England and a schematic

Nothing and I repeat nothing in terms of headline comment, is of any worth on WUWT. Like I said, all you have to do to confirm your bias is ... read bias. And don't say it isn't - the whole raison d'etre of WUWT is to deny AGW. So why would you expect anything other than denial. Eh?
And before you say it RealScience has links to papers to support. Why I posted the link.

You know I have posted there and my comments were some of the very rare sensible ones to be found on it. Those that do, get hounded away or leave to preserve their sanity (me).

Aug 12, 2014
Oh, the "righteous" runrig, everyone outside the AGW Cult persecutes him. The climategate emails proved otherwise.

Aug 12, 2014
Climate change is a better term for the problem. We have the uninformed mass media to blame for the use of "global warming" which gives those with an overly simplistic view of the world a reason to cry when there is localised cooling or something else they fail to understand the significance of is reported...

The weather is driven by changes on an worldwide scale. The increased energy absorbed by CO2 in the atmosphere results in more extreme weather events, such as, hurricanes, heavy snow fall, extreme high temperature days in summer, etc.

Weather patterns have been shown to shift with impacts on a state and country scale. In some areas that will actually create more extreme winters, as weather patterns shift and dump heavy snow where little would normally fall. In other areas, high productivity farming land is destroyed through lack of rain.

Aug 12, 2014
Climate change is a better term for the problem.

The climate has been changing for thousands of years.
Now AGWites can claim any unusual weather event is human caused 'climate change'.
Convenient.
igh productivity farming land is destroyed through lack of rain.

Recall the dust bowl of the 1930s?
The Sahara was once forested I hear.

Aug 12, 2014
Oh, the "righteous" runrig, everyone outside the AGW Cult persecutes him. The climategate emails proved otherwise.

They proved nothing except to bolster the denialists world view.

So they proved what precisely?
That the world's experts are scamming the world?
Or that proxy data from Scandinavian trees no longer followed temps and was replaced by REAL data..... for a presentation graph NOT a peer-reviewed paper.

As I said, in this or another thread... I'm denying your spamming bollocks on several threads as usual... not in this Universe my friend.

Aug 12, 2014
rygge said,
Recall the dust bowl of the 1930s?


poor ignorant rygge, the dust bowl was caused by a drought and bad farming practices that occurred after an unusually wet period in the region. Every decade after the 1930's has been warmer than the 1930's.

Aug 12, 2014
The climate has been changing for thousands of years.
Now AGWites can claim any unusual weather event is human caused 'climate change'.
Convenient.
igh productivity farming land is destroyed through lack of rain.

Recall the dust bowl of the 1930s?
The Sahara was once forested I hear.

I've told you before ... science is not your strong point.
Better stick to your quote-mined, ranting regarding .... something that seems to bother you inordinately.

You hear right about the Sahara ... a PJ stream that was further south and brought Atlantic depressions further south into the Med. Mind have to go back to the time of the Pharaohs there.
Dustbowl ...
"The study found cooler than normal tropical Pacific Ocean surface temperatures combined with warmer tropical Atlantic Ocean temperatures to create conditions in the atmosphere that turned America's breadbasket into a dust bowl from 1931 to 1939. The team's data is in this week's Science magazine.

These changes in sea surface temperatures created shifts in the large-scale weather patterns and low level winds that reduced the normal supply of moisture from the Gulf of Mexico and inhibited rainfall throughout the Great Plains"
http://www.nasa.g...owl.html

Aug 12, 2014
Climates changed, before CO2 increased.

Aug 12, 2014
So they proved what precisely?
That the world's experts are scamming the world?

Poor runrig, all the heretics are against him, only the AGW Cult speaks the truth.
http://www.forbes...-debate/

Aug 13, 2014
Ryggy -
Climates changed, before CO2 increased.


Wow - profound observation there. Good job you pointed that out. The climate scientists who constructed millions of years of proxy data - did not know that. They also did not know that there were milankovich cycles, or solar radaition changes, or atmospheric content changes, or plate techtonics, or albedo effect, or anything like that. You'd better write a paper on it Ryggy - make youself famous........

Yep Strange...

As I say - science isn't his strong point.
He just displays a stunning D-K syndrome infected by peculiar politics.

Well what's new on here eh? Many do. But you know what I mean. There's the laughter quotient with him as well. Whatever happened to NotParker?

Aug 13, 2014
As the dust settles everything is exactly the same way as before the storm. Same arguments and same discussions over and over again.
I wonder if it's the perspiration Newton thought of so highly or is it just the insanity defined by Einstein that keeps this going.

Aug 13, 2014
As the dust settles everything is exactly the same way as before the storm. Same arguments and same discussions over and over again.
I wonder if it's the perspiration Newton thought of so highly or is it just the insanity defined by Einstein that keeps this going.


If you understand physics the question will answer itself. Many of us indulge to make sure that unsupportable comments are not allowed to stand without response. Newton would quickly see that greenhouse gases trap IR and raise the heat on the earth. It is those who do not understand physics that refute this. The banter you see is those of us who will not let pseudo-science prevail.

Aug 13, 2014
MR166 misses the mark
Supra I do understand that CO2 is a greenhouse gas but a real science requires more than one variable in a perhaps 20 variable equation. If more CO2 equals higher temperatures equals even more CO2 from the oceans and even higher temperatures as "climate science" claims, the earth would be uninhabitable by now. Negative feedback loops have been totally discounted or misrepresented by this science.
You forget or havtn worked out that water has a massive capacity for absorbing heat, habitability in some places is declining Eg Tuvalu etc

For there to be a negative feedback effect you need to remove more heat from the earth and that is atmosphere AND oceans, or you need to Reduce the amount of heat being absorbed.

So far all the mechanisms of potential to remove more or absorb less are in trouble. Eg more GHG's retain heat and less reflection so more is abosrbed.

What are your top 5 other negative feedback effects which 'might' play any role MR166 ?

Aug 13, 2014
adam_russell_9615 uttered
"The fundamental laws of physics say that as the temperature goes up, it has to get warmer," Liu says.

Truer words were never said.
BUT only when summed properly eg Atmosphere AND Oceans AND Land etc...

AND its also absolutely true H2O can absorb massive amounts of heat and not change temperature !

Education in Mathematics & Physics is essential, why are so many deniers not educated ?

Aug 13, 2014
Ryggy -
Climates changed, before CO2 increased.


Wow - profound observation there. Good job you pointed that out. The climate scientists who constructed millions of years of proxy data - did not know that. They also did not know that there were milankovich cycles, or solar radaition changes, or atmospheric content changes, or plate techtonics, or albedo effect, or anything like that. You'd better write a paper on it Ryggy - make youself famous........

If one doesn't know why climate changed in the past, how confident should anyone be about any climate change now?
This is why Mann had to fake his data to create the Hockey Stick.

Aug 13, 2014
Climates changed, before CO2 increased.


But now is the first time a living organism has changed the climate in about 600 million years (since "snowball Earth").

Also, you'll find that [CO2] is a leading indicator of climate change every time (it goes up, then temp goes up, [CO2] goes down then temp goes down).

What's it like having the mental capacity of a 14 year old? Do you even realise how outmatched you are intellectually?

Aug 13, 2014
Also, you'll find that [CO2] is a leading indicator of climate change every time (it goes up, then temp goes up, [CO2] goes down then temp goes down).


How do you track that from 600 million year old data?
Most likely CO2 increases as oceans warm releasing CO2. Cold water holds more CO2.
Why did the oceans warm?

"Our analyses of ice cores from the ice sheet in Antarctica shows that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere follows the rise in Antarctic temperatures very closely and is staggered by a few hundred years at most," - Sune Olander Rasmussen"

Aug 13, 2014
Ryggy -
Climates changed, before CO2 increased.


Wow - profound observation there. Good job you pointed that out. The climate scientists who constructed millions of years of proxy data - did not know that. They also did not know that there were milankovich cycles, or solar radaition changes, or atmospheric content changes, or plate techtonics, or albedo effect, or anything like that. You'd better write a paper on it Ryggy - make youself famous........

If one doesn't know why climate changed in the past, how confident should anyone be about any climate change now?
This is why Mann had to fake his data to create the Hockey Stick.


Because we know the drivers of climate...
Orbital parameters
TSI
Albedo
GHG's

And we are sure it's the last one this time.
Why, because it's not the others ..... unless it's dark matter or something that coincidentally and magically matches the empirical science, observation and correlation of CO2, with ave global temps.

Aug 13, 2014
And we are sure it's the last one this time.

But in the past, CO2 lagged temperature increases.
THE GLOBAL CLIMATE MODEL is not matching observations very well lately.

Aug 13, 2014
And we are sure it's the last one this time.

But in the past, CO2 lagged temperature increases.


[citation needed]

Aug 13, 2014
And we are sure it's the last one this time.

But in the past, CO2 lagged temperature increases.


[citation needed]

Look it up, if you know how.

Aug 13, 2014
I had to make sure to read all the posts to see that none of the deniers were called out on their blatant support of models used in this research:

The three models Liu and colleagues generated took two years to complete. They ran simulations of climate influences that spanned from the intensity of sunlight on Earth to global greenhouse gases, ice sheet cover and meltwater changes. Each shows global warming over the last 10,000 years.


IMHO, the deniers love this article because in their form of creative logic, the article supports their position. The reality is that it does not, and that it is based on the results of models, which in this case is fine with the deniers because these models, even though they support global warming, incredibly seem to the deniers to support their position! No doubt about it - the deniers don't trust models except when they think the models support their position.

I rest my case.

Aug 13, 2014
And we are sure it's the last one this time.

But in the past, CO2 lagged temperature increases.


[citation needed]

Look it up, if you know how.


You made the claim, it's your responsibility to back it up. Of course, you pulled that claim from your ass so there is no backup, typical anti-science denier troll.

Aug 13, 2014
And we are sure it's the last one this time.

But in the past, CO2 lagged temperature increases.


[citation needed]

Look it up, if you know how.


You made the claim, it's your responsibility to back it up. Of course, you pulled that claim from your ass so there is no backup, typical anti-science denier troll.

Look it up:
"Our analyses of ice cores from the ice sheet in Antarctica shows that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere follows the rise in Antarctic temperatures very closely and is staggered by a few hundred years at most," - Sune Olander Rasmussen"

If this were a real science site, physorg would have provided this information. AGWism is a religious/political movement and dissent must be shouted down.

Aug 13, 2014
We have been building models and there are now robust contradictions," says Liu, a professor in the UW-Madison Center for Climatic Research. "Data from observation says global cooling. The physical model says it has to be warming.

Really LariAnn!!
I've admonished supatard about burning out that lone neuron you, in the AGW Cult's peanut gallery, share. He, obviously, was too stupid to listen and then passed it on to you. So, LariAnn, after you've grown a brain, tell us which would you trust, observed data or the AGW Cult's computer models.

Aug 13, 2014
lol, NAMBLA member antigoracle trolls again.

Aug 13, 2014
"There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature."
http://www.scienc...12001658

Aug 13, 2014
And we are sure it's the last one this time.

But in the past, CO2 lagged temperature increases.
THE GLOBAL CLIMATE MODEL is not matching observations very well lately.


If I had a pound for every time I have explained this, never mind others on here, to the goldfish circling the bowl - I would be rich man.
CO2 is a GHG and as such slows terrestrial IR in it's path to space. As a result the Earth has to warm in order to achieve the requisite balance. SB law.
Now in the past CO2 was a feed-back as it only followed temp changes in being released from the biosphere.
Now, would you credit it - mankind has stepped in and bloody well injected a 40% increase of atmospheric CO2 in just ~100 years. Result .... it's now a driver and temps have followed.
In short CO2 can do both. In a natural world it follows and latterly in mankind's planet destroying one it leads.
It is not mysterious nor hard to understand .... so why do the usual suspects continue to circle the bowl? Spamming.

Aug 13, 2014
We have been building models and there are now robust contradictions," says Liu, a professor in the UW-Madison Center for Climatic Research. "Data from observation says global cooling. The physical model says it has to be warming.

Really LariAnn!!
I've admonished supatard about burning out that lone neuron you, in the AGW Cult's peanut gallery, share. He, obviously, was too stupid to listen and then passed it on to you. So, LariAnn, after you've grown a brain, tell us which would you trust, observed data or the AGW Cult's computer models.

I don't know about Lariann - but the observational data shows cooling until the industrial age then warming. Chiming with the 40% increase of a gas in the atmosphere that has been known for around 150 years to retard IR to space.
GCM's model that gases behaviour and attempt to include natural climate cycles. Those that have coincidentally modelled ENSO correctly are spot on and the rest are within the error bars.
So next Anti..?

Aug 13, 2014
Also, you'll find that [CO2] is a leading indicator of climate change every time (it goes up, then temp goes up, [CO2] goes down then temp goes down).


How do you track that from 600 million year old data?
Most likely CO2 increases as oceans warm releasing CO2. Cold water holds more CO2.
Why did the oceans warm?

"Our analyses of ice cores from the ice sheet in Antarctica shows that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere follows the rise in Antarctic temperatures very closely and is staggered by a few hundred years at most," - Sune Olander Rasmussen"

Now ryggy baby ... give it up sunshine - this is getting too repetitive even for your denialist brethren to stomach, surely. You are swimming very fast around the bowl.
Warming is induced by orbital cycles and then the CO2 follows (up or down). Your quote merely confirms accepted science. Bless.

Aug 13, 2014
lol, NAMBLA member antigoracle trolls again.
-- supaturd
Hmmm... seems like that priest did molest you after all and you liked it.
It's the only explanation for your mental state.


Oh, you're a priest too?

Aug 13, 2014
Nam-yo-ho renge-CO2...

Aug 13, 2014
Oh, you're a priest too?
--supaturd
Why, are you looking for more?
You truly need professional help.

Aug 13, 2014
CO2 is a GHG and as such slows terrestrial IR in it's path to space.

How much? Not much at 15 um.
As a result the Earth has to warm in order to achieve the requisite balance.

How can it balance? By radiating IR energy in bands not absorbed by CO2 and H2O.

Aug 13, 2014
Oh, you're a priest too?
--supaturd
Why, are you looking for more?
You truly need professional help.


It's amusing to see your impotent responses, they're not nearly as creative or amusing as mine (which aren't particulary creative, because you're not really worth the effort) and it's fun to troll the trolls (and you *are* certainly a troll here).

Aug 13, 2014
CO2 is a GHG and as such slows terrestrial IR in it's path to space.

How much? Not much at 15 um.
As a result the Earth has to warm in order to achieve the requisite balance.

How can it balance? By radiating IR energy in bands not absorbed by CO2 and H2O.

Go look it up yourself ... but the answer is by enough to give the warming we have seen and is measured by surface spectroscopic analysis and satellite TOA imbalance.
Just does - and if you want to know why and by how much you can find the answer just as well as me.
That's not your agenda is it though ryggy? It's just to continually spam this site.

Aug 13, 2014
runrig
Warming is induced by orbital cycles and then the CO2 follows (up or down).


But the really pertinent point in this discussion - is that Rasmussen establishes that C02 increase CAN follow temperature increase - BUT - in the current situation - human activity is increasing the C02 levels, which are then driving the observed warming. It is very clear in the last paragraph of this article.

http://news.ku.dk...and_co2/


Err .... I'm sorry? .... I thought that was precisely what I said! (in my just prior post)
And have been saying ad nauseum on here for several years.

Aug 13, 2014
Go look it up yourself ... but the answer is by enough to give the warming we have seen and is measured by surface spectroscopic analysis and satellite TOA imbalance.


By using the appropriate 'forcings' in THE GLOBAL CLIMATE MODEL, that is now having credibility problems.

Aug 14, 2014
Go look it up yourself ... but the answer is by enough to give the warming we have seen and is measured by surface spectroscopic analysis and satellite TOA imbalance.


By using the appropriate 'forcings' in THE GLOBAL CLIMATE MODEL, that is now having credibility problems.

Only if you don't understand what it is that GCM's do and DO NOT do.

Which is of course the whole of the denialosphere.

Aug 14, 2014
what it is that GCM's do and DO NOT do

It's what THE GLOBAL CLIMATE MODEL is being used for by AGWites. It is being used to promote panic for a disaster in 100 years.

Aug 14, 2014
Keep focusing on warming and cooling, and just ignore the pollution, deforestation, ocean-killing, massive species extinction, and habitat destruction that actually matter. Our species deserves to destroy itself simply due to ignorance and irresponsibility. It will either be a warmer death or a cooler one, but we will still extinguish ourselves via sheer aggregate stupidity. Our planet of the apes is being filled with poop that we intentionally flung and soon we'll all be covered in shit.

Aug 14, 2014
what it is that GCM's do and DO NOT do

It's what THE GLOBAL CLIMATE MODEL is being used for by AGWites. It is being used to promote panic for a disaster in 100 years.


They are being used to give those who need the advice a range of scenarios. All of which are serious.
The "disaster" ones, are a possibility and it is human nature to focus on headline grabbing alternatives.
Ever heard of journalistic license?
The IPCC clearly states the range of possibilities.
AND lets just go with that ..... just because they maybe being touted as disastrous within 100 years and "promote panic"..... doesn't mean they wont be.
Disastrous I mean.

Aug 14, 2014
AND lets just go with that ..... just because they maybe being touted as disastrous within 100 years and "promote panic"..... doesn't mean they wont be.


AGWites have a PR problem.
What a tangled web you weave when you first practice to deceive.

Aug 14, 2014
AND lets just go with that ..... just because they maybe being touted as disastrous within 100 years and "promote panic"..... doesn't mean they wont be.


AGWites have a PR problem.
What a tangled web you weave when you first practice to deceive.


No need to deceive you or anyone ryggy... you do that job yourself.

There is NO PR.... that's just the point.
The IPCC is not a political body - just a collection of experts collating the climatic science evidence.
If you see all through a prism of paranoia then all will seem political, and spin (or PR as you put it).
All on here know how that applies to you.
But please be my guest and go off on another one and make this a 100+ post thread.

Aug 14, 2014
Actually adam, I believe you would find that a low temperature and high humidity could give the same warmth as a high temperature and low humidity
@antiG
wrong again. try living in Germany for a few years then live in South or Central Florida for a few years
it will enlighten you to just how stupid your remark really is

Nam-yo-ho renge-CO2
@Saposjoint
how very Japanese... did you remember the beads?
AGWites have a PR problem.
@rygtard
only in your eyes... and the eyes of the stupid
when you don't know the science, all that is left is to support the stupid... which is why you keep posting against AGW
Keep focusing on warming and cooling, and just ignore the pollution, deforestation, ocean-killing, massive species extinction, and habitat destruction that actually matter
@xstos
the problem is NOT so much that we are ignoring it, but that we can't get enough people on board to help because it is too inconvenient to too many, like ryg etc...

Aug 14, 2014
Keep focusing on warming and cooling, and just ignore the pollution, deforestation, ocean-killing, massive species extinction, and habitat destruction that actually matter
@xstos
This deserved a little more to it.
So far, we have seen that there are a great many people who ignore the scientific evidence in front of them regardless of it's dire predictions because they are scientifically illiterate... but that is not always the case either
If you will read this link: http://arstechnic...nformed/

You will see that for some people, it is a challenge to their easy life, etc, and so they simply support what they PERCEIVE OTHERS SHOULD BE doing in their peer group... which can also be broken into age/religion/political/and other groups as well... essentially, PEER PRESSURE for adults and leadership that is obviously ignorant of the facts and the scientific method


Aug 14, 2014
The IPCC is not a political body - just a collection of experts collating the climatic science evidence.


"The IPCC is an intergovernmental body. It is open to all member countries of the United Nations (UN) and WMO. Currently 195 countries are members of the IPCC. Governments participate in the review process and the plenary Sessions, where main decisions about the IPCC work programme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. The IPCC Bureau Members, including the Chair, are also elected during the plenary Sessions. "
http://ipcc.ch/or...on.shtml
I have a bridge to sell.

Aug 14, 2014

http://ipcc.ch/or...on.shtml
I have a bridge to sell.


You missed this bit ...
"The IPCC is a scientific body under the auspices of the United Nations (UN). It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters.

Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. IPCC aims to reflect a range of views and expertise. The Secretariat coordinates all the IPCC work and liaises with Governments. It is supported by WMO and UNEP and hosted at WMO headquarters in Geneva."

You have a world-view to support and a hatred of humanity.

Aug 14, 2014
You missed this bit ...

No, I did not.

"The [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's] charter from the outset has been "to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation".

The IPCC's focus is therefore very specific – any human influence on climate. It has no mandate to examine other causes of climate change."
"What starts out being a scientific report becomes a political instrument because after a hard-core group of IPCC supporters draft the Summary for Policymakers, government representatives discuss, negotiate and eventually agree on the wording of each sentence. The scientific component of the report is then modified to better align it with the thinking of government representatives."
http://www.brisba...clouds-t

Aug 14, 2014
97% of scientists agree that the Earth is warming. Whilst the other 97% agree it's cooling.

Aug 14, 2014
You missed this bit ...

No, I did not.



You just chose to badly interpret it? Okay...

Aug 14, 2014
97% of scientists agree that the Earth is warming. Whilst the other 97% agree it's cooling.


"Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research. "
"Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch —most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change."

http://online.wsj...13553136

Aug 14, 2014
one of course has to study all of the factors

Not if the intent is to 'prove' humans are the cause.
You assume IPCC wants to really understand climate.

Aug 14, 2014
I have a bridge to sell.


Should read "I have a bridge to re-sell"

You already bought the corporate version of the Brooklyn Bridge didn't you? Which goes a little like:

"No amount of pollutants dumped into the atmosphere could possibly have any affect on the world. Watch while we continue running this experiment"

And now you're trying to pawn it off on someone else. Nice try ryg.

Aug 14, 2014
"You already bought the corporate version of the Brooklyn Bridge didn't you?"

Rockwolf do you really understand how gullible that statement makes you? To think that major industry is not 100% behind "climate science" and the funds that it generates for them really shows that you have your head stuck in the sand. BTW, that is putting it nicely. I could have referred to body a part.

Aug 14, 2014
Corporations are fully behind AGWism.
Enron pushed hard to have Kyoto approved and if you dig a little you will find letters Ken Lay sent to GHW Bush urging him to go to Rio.
Enron was hoping for two big scores. One, to corner the market on carbon trading and two to build more natural gas pipelines.
Then you have GE sucking up as much govt cash as they can along with BP and so many others on the bio-fuels, windmill, solar , ...crony gravy train.
AGWism is good for many big corporations.

Aug 14, 2014
" But are you not aware that the fossil fuel industry has benefited greatly from government supports for many decades."

They received no greater subsidies than some other companies and in return they supplied the nation with inexpensive power that made us great. Oh what a shame eh!

Aug 14, 2014
I could have referred to body a part.


You and ryggy been huffing the glue again I see.

You wanna try that again? In English perhaps?

Aug 14, 2014
Corporations are fully behind AGWism.
Enron pushed hard to have Kyoto approved and if you dig a little you will find letters Ken Lay sent to GHW Bush urging him to go to Rio.
Enron was hoping for two big scores. One, to corner the market on carbon trading and two to build more natural gas pipelines.
Then you have GE sucking up as much govt cash as they can along with BP and so many others on the bio-fuels, windmill, solar , ...crony gravy train.
AGWism is good for many big corporations.


"AGWism" as you call it is good only as far as their marketing department goes in most cases. The whole system is corrupt as far as I'm concerned whether you pump oil or make solar panels. In reality, large corporations will do whatever it takes to make a buck for themselves and their shareholders. They are legally obligated to do this. It's all just a shell game to disguise their greedy and immoral business practices. What? You think solar panel companies are run by hippies??

Aug 15, 2014
They received no greater subsidies than some other companies and in return they supplied the nation with inexpensive power that made us great. Oh what a shame eh!

US oil companies effectively ARE the US government as the USA dollar is defined by energy, called the petrodollar. The influx of energy caused financialization, and the present decoupling means that your money is dangerously financialized at your bank instead of being held safe. Thus the impending crash will destroy your wealth and bring your economy in line with other banana republics, instead of flatlining a few mere economic sectors

Aug 15, 2014
There you go again referencing an opinion piece as the truth.
Err no, anything filtered through someones psychology is worthless ..... I mean just look at you.

About the author Mr Mclean...

http://www.skepti..._arg.htm
www.crikey.com.au...ments=50

Aug 15, 2014
97% of scientists agree that the Earth is warming. Whilst the other 97% agree it's cooling.


That's the conclusion only a confused idiot would arrive at.

Aug 15, 2014
"As many readers are aware, John Cook of SKS refused to provide complete data on his 97% Consensus Project (flatly refusing date-stamp and anonymized rater identification.) Ironically, Cook left the data lying around the internet (to borrow a phrase from Phil Jones). In an incident remarkably similar to the Mole Incident, Brandon Shollenberger alertly located the refused data, which he has provided a teaser at his blog.

The University of Queensland sent Brandon Shollenberger a threatening cease-and-desist letter. Brandon has been discussing the events at his blog. This morning, he announced his surprise at discovering that the University's threatening letter had been parodied as a Hitler video online."
http://climateaud...ensland/

Aug 15, 2014
what percentage of climate scientists

1) define a 'climate scientist'
2) how many of are there?

""What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. … They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face. … And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006," Scafetta added.

Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv similarly objected to Cook and colleagues claiming he explicitly supported the 'consensus' position about human-induced global warming. Asked if Cook and colleagues accurately represented his paper, Shaviv responded, "Nope… it is not an accurate representation. "
http://www.forbes...-claims/

Aug 15, 2014
"Misleading the public about consensus opinion regarding global warming, of course, is precisely what the Cook paper sought to accomplish. This is a tried and true ruse perfected by global warming alarmists. Global warming alarmists use their own biased, subjective judgment to misclassify published papers according to criteria that is largely irrelevant to the central issues in the global warming debate. Then, by carefully parsing the language of their survey questions and their published results, the alarmists encourage the media and fellow global warming alarmists to cite these biased, subjective, totally irrelevant surveys as conclusive evidence for the lie that nearly all scientists believe humans are creating a global warming crisis."
http://www.forbes...-claims/

Aug 15, 2014
"Specifically, Mann alleged that four phrases in Simberg's post were defamatory: "data manipulation," "academic and scientific misconduct," "posterboy of the corrupt and disgraced climate science echo chamber," and accusing the Penn State professor of molesting his data and thus being the "Jerry Sandusky of climate science." He also cited a subsequent CEI press release that called his research "intellectually bogus.""
"The entire situation is silly. If this were a playground, Dr. Mann would be a tattle-tale who complains to the teacher that someone said mean things about him. After spending years arguing that climate-change skeptics are shills for big oil, Mann has apparently decided that the government should shut them up instead."
http://www.forbes...-column/
This is climate 'science', today.

Aug 15, 2014
"Some climatologists have long been frustrated that a persistent group of scientists have not yet fully accepted the theory of an impending climate-change catastrophe. For most normal scientists, the fact that there are others who disagree with them is not a problem. Disagreement in science, after all, is how science progresses. For some climate-change catastrophists, however, the fact that there are people who disagree with them is a reason to sue."
http://www.forbes...r-wilde/
Can 'strange' understand how Mann's actions are very bad for science and really show how insecure climate scientists must be.
We see it here every day with the personal attacks and insults.
If Mann wins, then I can sue physorg for enabling those who attack critics here.

Aug 15, 2014
Not only that, Climate-gate confirmed the despicable acts the AGW Cult did to force out true scientists who revealed the CO2 lie.

Aug 15, 2014
The point is that the scientific community that is studying our climate has a very level of agreement on the basic facts of climate change.


Based upon ....what?
It has been demonstrated that the 97% 'consensus' data is flawed.

Aug 15, 2014
The point is that the scientific community that is studying our climate has a very level of agreement on the basic facts of climate change.


Based upon ....what?
It has been demonstrated that the 97% 'consensus' data is flawed.


Rygg2: It has only been demonstrated to you. That is because you troll the denier blogs and believe what they tell you. You need to find a peer reviewed paper that refutes the peer reviewed 97% number.

Aug 15, 2014
Corporations are fully behind AGWism.


In other world of rygge news, up is down, left is right, and cats 'n dogs are shaggin' in the streets.

How do you even type such obvious bullshit and still keep a straight face? Is it because you're getting paid to post this drivel? How much money is enough to sell out the human race rygge?

Aug 15, 2014
Big business is fully behind the AGW govt gravy train.
Obviously you are too lazy to dig into the details for yourself.
denier blogs and believe what they tell you.

You believe what the IPCC politicians tell you.
spreading disinformation

Yep, like all AGWites, strange is on the censorship bandwagon.

When has any scientist ever sued for libel over criticism of his work?
Mann sued because he needs a court to state he is not a fraud. A real scientist would be exonerated by his science.

Aug 15, 2014
rygge said:
You believe what the IPCC politicians tell you.


It's already been explained to you several times that they are not politicians, are you really that stupid or do your paymasters direct you to continue lying?

Aug 15, 2014
rygge said:
You believe what the IPCC politicians tell you.


It's already been explained to you several times that they are not politicians, are you really that stupid or do your paymasters direct you to continue lying?


Of course you must believe that or your world collapses.

Aug 15, 2014
rygge said:
You believe what the IPCC politicians tell you.


It's already been explained to you several times that they are not politicians, are you really that stupid or do your paymasters direct you to continue lying?


Of course you must believe that or your world collapses.


No, not really... it just happens to be fact (and I, unlike you, live in a fact based world).

Aug 15, 2014
go ahead and do the research - come up with the correct number.


The research has been done. I posted the results.

I wouldn't conduct consensus research since real science places no value on consensus 'science'.
But I notice this crowd places much value on the opinion of others whining when they are 'downrated'.
Crony 'capitalists' have been quite supportive of AGW to get their piece of the govt pie.
http://www.politi...1297.pdf
"Dear Mr. President:

I am writing to urge you to attend the upcoming United Nations Conference on Environment and Development scheduled for early June in Brazil and to support the concept of establishing a reasonable, non-binding, stabilization level of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.
- See more at: http://www.master...ZYF.dpuf

Aug 15, 2014
go ahead and do the research - come up with the correct number.


The research has been done. I posted the results.


no you didn't, liar. You posted some stuff that doesn't have anything to do with what strangedays is requesting. That's alright, we all know you have no sciene education or ability. That's nothing to be ashamed of, but making continued claims that you *should* know are false *is*.

Aug 15, 2014
"When faced with a powerful, threatening argument to a troubled paradigm, those in denial will first ignore. If this does not work, they will ridicule. And it this does not work, they will shout and even use hateful talk.
" "You just don't get it," Jeff Skilling would tell Enron's detractors. Ken Lay, in the middle of his company's implosion, likened short sellers and media critics to 'terrorists' (his last speech to employees was a few months after 9/11). The Enron duo wanted an undeserved peace. They were really saying: "Stop the criticism. Just believe the shared narrative, and we will all be better off." Enron, indeed, was a postmodern corporation.

Enter the Shared Narrative of catastrophic global warming. The data is going the other way, the public has all but turned off the alarm, and the climate lobby has increased their shrillness."
- See more at: http://www.master...N7T.dpuf

Aug 15, 2014
"We now have yet another distressing example, where a leading scientist has lost his job — apparently for the crime of being a conscientious, competent academic, focused on quality research (instead of chasing grant money). "
"Dr. Henrik Møller is an world-renown expert on infra-sound, and has published several high-quality studies on low-frequency acoustics (like here, here, here, and here). More recently, some of these have dealt with industrial wind energy noise (e.g. here — which was peer-reviewed) "
"The VP of the Danish Confederation of Professional Associations noted that it's rare that a Danish professor is fired.

— It has been reported that the wind industry has frequently complained about Dr. Møller to his boss (Dean Eskild Holm Nielsen)"
- See more at: http://www.master...re-31359
Not everyone is happy in Denmark.

Aug 15, 2014
" A reason why we seem to be a nuisance to the wind industry in Denmark is that we keep finding errors in noise calculations and evaluations. As an example, we found serious errors in the environmental impact assessment behind a new law on a wind turbine test center, and the law had to be changed. "
"We also criticized Danish regulation of wind turbine noise, which resulted in feature articles in Danish newspapers. I am not sure if others have been translated, but here is one example.

5) We also put together some web pages about the Danish wind regulations, which made the wind industry complain about me to the Dean (again)."
- See more at: http://www.master...re-31359
Another Dane, Lomborg, once a high priest for AGWites has been excommunicated.

Aug 15, 2014
lol, you're equating a Danish prof getting fired for writing about noise from windmills to being fired for claims about AGW (which he didn't write about)... in a region where windmills have existed for centuries. get a clue, and stop spamming your off topic nonsense. idiot.

Aug 15, 2014
" inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. "
http://link.sprin...3-9647-9

Aug 15, 2014
"The Benestad (Cook, Nuccitelli) et al paper on "agnotology", a bizarre concoction that tried to refute just about every sceptic paper ever written has been rejected by Earth System Dynamics

Based on the reviews and my own reading of the original and revised paper, I am rejecting the paper in its current form. The submission is laudable in its stated goals and in making the R source code available, but little else about the paper works as a scientific contribution to ESD. "
http://wattsupwit...-errors/

"Schulte (2008) reviewed 539 papers in the three years following the period studied by Oreskes, using the same search term ("global climate change") and the same definition of consensus. He found that "the proportion of papers that now explicitly or implicitly endorse the consensus has fallen from 75% to 45%.""

http://wattsupwit...nsensus/

Aug 15, 2014
Pssst, rygge - spammnig lie after lie is not the best way to make your point, unless you're trying to convey that you're a liar... in which case, job well done?

Aug 15, 2014
"When faced with a powerful, threatening argument to a troubled paradigm, those in denial will first ignore. If this does not work, they will ridicule. And it this does not work, they will shout and even use hateful talk.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

Aug 15, 2014
"That's the conclusion only a confused idiot would arrive at."

You're two tents, runrig! (it was a joke)

Aug 15, 2014
""Schulte (2008) reviewed 539 papers in the three years following the period studied by Oreskes, using the same search term ("global climate change") and the same definition of consensus. He found that "the proportion of papers that now explicitly or implicitly endorse the consensus has fallen from 75% to 45%.""

http://wattsupwit...nsensus/

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...tml#jCp"

Aug 15, 2014

" In the present review, 31
papers
(6% of the sample) explicitly or implicitly reject
the consensus. Though Oreskes
said that 75% of
the papers in her sample endorsed the consensus,
fewer
than half now endorse it. Only 6
% do so
explicitly.
O
nly one paper refers to
"catastrophic" climate change, but without
offering evidence
.
There appears to be little
evidence
in the
l
earn
ed journals to justify the
climate
-
change alarm that
now harms
patients."

http://scienceand...omat.pdf

Aug 15, 2014
I'm still wondering how much the 400 billion or so watts of 98 degree heat energy that 7+ billion people put out every hour is having on the climate. Is that calculated into these computer models too? It's got to be having some effect.

Aug 15, 2014
"I analysed all abstracts listed on the ISI databank for 1993 to 2003 using the same keywords ("global climate change") as the Oreskes study. Of the 1247 documents listed, only 1117 included abstracts (130 listed only titles, author(s)' details and keywords). The 1117 abstracts analysed were divided into the same six categories used by Oreskes (#1-6), plus two categories which I added (# 7, 8):

explicit endorsement of the consensus position
evaluation of impacts
mitigation proposals
methods
paleoclimate analysis
rejection of the consensus position.
natural factors of global climate change
unrelated to the question of recent global climate change

RESULTS

The results of my analysis contradict Oreskes' findings and essentially falsify her study:

Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (or 0.1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'."
http://motls.blog...ata.html

Aug 15, 2014
"The influential Russian Academy of Sciences called the theories underlying the Kyoto protocol "a scientifically unfounded nonsense". They said that the decision to sign the protocol was "purely political" and "it had no scientific justification". At least one half of my colleague physicists - which of course mostly includes liberals - agree with me that compared to physics, climate science is very shaky and uncertain. And it is just not possible for a scientist to approve something that she or he has not verified. Let me say a couple of trivial observations about the scientific statements: "
http://motls.blog...ing.html

Aug 15, 2014
@24Volts
That's the kind of thinking that is absent here. It is good to see, thank you. They are all too busy arguing over things they've been arguing about for 30+ years now.
In my analysis, absolutely. CO2 contributes nothing until about 40 its current concentration. Temperature... what does it even mean for it to change?

Now addition of heat to the environs, this allows prediction of climate change. The Earth is buffered with heat reservoirs. Like the deep ocean and glaciers. The addition of heat has the most prominent effect of melting global ice. Not changing temperature, at least not as a primary or non-local effect

Aug 16, 2014
The Alchemist got his idea of science somewhat skewed with
In my analysis, absolutely. CO2 contributes nothing until about 40 its current concentration.
Well its now 400ppm & still rising not a mere 40 but, hey you DID an analysis - please show us !!!

How did u factor in re-radiation and the fact that adding a greenhouse gas increases resistivity to heat flow ?

The Alchemist went on with odd language
..The Earth is buffered with heat reservoirs.
These should be heat SINKS.

The Alchemist continued suggesting he is unaware of properties of water
Not changing temperature, at least not as a primary or non-local effect
Surely you must have looked at the massive effect melting ice has on absorbing massive heat without changing temperature.

Have you noticed there is decreased ocean salinity & receding glaciers ?

However, your 'analysis' that adding a resistor to heat flow doesn't increase temperature is of great interest & look forward to your addressing contradictions ?

Aug 16, 2014
First of all: I am love me some coal rolling and I open carry an RPG-7 and an M-16 all the time, for the case that there were any doubt about my political affiliation.

I do however not completely understand what this article says: It seems to call victory for us Anti Climate Rebels but if you read it correctly it isn't. At least this is what is seems to me so that I kindly ask for your help to understand this.

My limited intelligence understands this:

When watching the data from the 10000 (ten thousand?) last years we see that the temperatures have been falling, since 10000 years ago, but they are now rising.

Wouldn't this mean that it's even worse than these alarmist tell us? If it was supposed to be cooling but is now rising? And why has this summer been declared the hottest on record if he temperatures are falling? And how can it be that they have data from 10000 years if the world was created 6000 years ago?

Thanks folks.

Aug 16, 2014
"The influential Russian Academy of Sciences called the theories underlying the Kyoto protocol "a scientifically unfounded nonsense".


Greetings brother, the "source" that you mention only produces one hit in Google, that's to the blog itself and a few links to completely unrelated commecial products. Can you be more sepcific on citing a source? Not that I disbelieve you: We all trust the Russian, specially when they say that they didn't fire a ground-to-air missile killing nearly 200 of my Dutch countrypeople. Thanks.

Aug 16, 2014
Ryggy
Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (or 0.1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'
Do you see what total crap you put out????


Oh NOES!! Are you saying that we can't believe the Russian Academy of Arts? This makes me so sad :_(

Aug 16, 2014
EnricM offered great satire & implication the anti-AGW crowd are really bad thinkers confused about religion with
And how can it be that they have data from 10000 years if the world was created 6000 years ago?..
Thanks EnricM great comment,

For those plebes that have emotional attachment to religions & have not addressed any sort of the logic/history of provenance, this might be worthy of some consideration:-

Pity all claimed deities are:-
1 Created by men (& arguably the most emotionally feeble & insecure)
2 Can't relate well to women & marginalise them
3 Very bad & lazy communicators, nothing better than human attempts

& all religious works only describe:- Status, Punishment & Authority - ie No education !

It seems we are but lonely means to explore all permutations of universal arrangements and argue basic physics eg That CO2 has well known demonstrable thermal properties !

Aug 16, 2014
Corporations are fully behind AGWism
@rygtard
ya got that backwards: http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

http://wattsupwit...-errors/
this is an OPINION site, not a credible peer review of a publication

please feel free to show us a peer reviewed study refuting Cook's work, which is what was produced to you

similar evidence for proof.... this is why you are an epic failure, rygtard. you think an OPINION site is a legitimate refute to EMPIRICAL DATA
If this does not work, they will ridicule. ... shout and even use hateful talk
it is not ridicule or hateful to point out a blatant lie in use, especially when said LIE is not supported by empirical data or evidence of the same type as the opponent (which in this case is a peer reviewed study)

The ridicule is not ridicule if it is simply pointing out the flaw of the argument

you FEEL it is ridicule because you KNOW you are wrong

Aug 16, 2014
Hey cap'n stunty, was that peer or pal review.
http://blogs.tele...-review/

Aug 16, 2014
antigoracle muttered laconically
Hey cap'n stunty, was that peer or pal review.
http://blogs.tele...-review/
hmmm surprise, an opinion.

Where is the actual peer reviewed study showing just how ADDING a greenhouse gas such as CO2 with known & proven thermal re-radiation properties does NOT increase heat retention & therefore temperature increase WHILST addressing massive capacity of oceans to absorb the bulk of this heat.

Do deniers not understand physics ?

Do deniers not understand ADDITION ?

What mechanism is there which results in SUBTRACTION - something actually plausible ?

One might be sympathetic to deniers hand-waving "..well there must be other feedback mechanisms..", Really ?

Have we missed them ? maybe, ok fine, where are they & are the existing feedback mechanisms under assault, any sign of:-

a. Greater heat emission to space &
b. More reflection of sun's heat

Where ?

Aug 16, 2014
Formerly Alchemist
@Mike,
400 ppm. How lame.
Here is a CO2 experiment we can all do:
Set your AC to equal outside temperature. Notice how warm or cool it feels in the house, believe it or not, your skin is very sensitive. See how much heat you can feel from the stove at distances. The CO2 in your home is probably over 1000ppm, up to about 3000ppm. The H2O is probably 40% from the AC.
Now open your doors and windows.
Immediately you will notice it feels warmer. You will feel less heat further away from the stove.
The CO2 will have dropped to near 400ppm, and the humidity will probably have increased only a little bit, to 60% max, maybe. You can also notice no difference by letting the CO2 drop with the open windows, and then turning the HVAC back on, then returning.
A 3-10x reduction in CO2 to 400ppm, and a slight increase in H2O results in a dramatic and uncomfortable change to our sensible environ, a warming, which would be more, not less impressive were you to measure it. More.

Aug 16, 2014
What mechanism is there which results in SUBTRACTION

Radiation.

Aug 16, 2014
Mike I agree that man is responsible for some small increase in global temperatures over what they would normally be. Do you agree that food and water should not be sold if it contains poisons and carcinogens?

Aug 16, 2014
Re. the Holocene Conundrum: are the models right (indicating warming during the Holocene) or are the data observations correct (indicating cooling during the Holocene). That could only be a conundrum for those who love their models more than reality. Maybe they need to broaden their observations base. There have been more than one interglacial. If you look at the last five interglacials, four of them start off at their maximum and then began slipping back into glaciation, slowly at first then faster. The fifth interglacial peaked about in the middle of the interglacial, but still, from the peak it was all downhill. Why would these researchers think it should be all uphill throughout the Holocene? Sure maybe we're heating things up in the last hundred years or so but the Holocene is over 10,000 years old. They need to rethink their model.

http://www.global..._Rev.png

Aug 16, 2014
@Mike
Errr... the corrections to my post as the Alchemist.
Those were exactly what I was saying. Heat not temperature, and I don't know where you took your thermo., but reservoir vs sink: Reservoir would be someplace in the system that is so large it doesn't change significantly due to the experiment, hot or cold, a sink or source is a more like a black box. They are occasionally used interchangeably.
You're actually saying what I am saying, but trying to make it sound wrong.(?)
If you add heat to a glass of water mixed with ice, the temperature doesn't change, if the heat is added near equilibrium, except "locally" like where the heat source is physically placed, and since the TEMPERATURE of the Earth is still an argument among you folks, that is a good approximation. Again you're agreeing with me.(?)

Aug 16, 2014
Where is the actual peer reviewed study..blah..blah...

Was that peer or pal review.
http://blogs.tele...-review/

Aug 16, 2014
Water_Prophet claims
Formerly Alchemist...
Here is a CO2 experiment we can all do
NOT quantitative at all !

Merely an exercise in confirmational bias as a setup.

You Water_Prophet, need to stop using words like 'feel', 'probably' (3 times) if you want any sort of credibility - instead learn Science such as "experimental methods" that is NOT qualitative !

Its amazing how this stuff is obviously not taught in high schools in some places as is evidence here Water_Prophet that you can't construct a proper experiment :-(

Same time look up properties of water, how melting ice absorbs tremendous amounts of heat whilst not increasing temperature (Prophet ha!)

Look at that Oceans have 1000x the heat capacity of water

Education is so important, please get one before wasting everyone's time

@MR166
It all depends on the dose, look up Paracelsus

@ryggesogn2
Learn how to construct a full sentence that explains how INCREASING resistivity in heat flow can possibly REDUCE temperature ???

Aug 16, 2014
Water_Prophet (sigh)
Those were exactly what I was saying. Heat not temperature, and I don't know where you took your thermo..
When you understand specific heat AND integration that you can talk thermo, obviously you havent you are ignorant of quantitative experimental methods !

A reservoir is traditionally a reserve. A sink is where heat is absorbed, these should NOT be used interchangeably in Science - you are asking for trouble - you should KNOW this if you had any sort of Science education.

Water_Prophet mumbled
...since the TEMPERATURE of the Earth is still an argument among you folks,
Not an argument at all, well not amongst those that know Integration, ie. Calculus, Heat flow resistivity, thermo

Your postings are not properly worded to lend you any sort of technical/scientific credibility & your attempt at an experiment is a joke.

If you know any thermo (at all):-

"How can ADDING a gas with known thermal properties NOT increase thermal resistivity ?"

?????

Aug 16, 2014
jackjump offered
Re. the Holocene Conundrum: ... Sure maybe we're heating things up in the last hundred years or so but the Holocene is over 10,000 years old. They need to rethink their model.
http://www.global..._Rev.png
IIRC, these temps are based on ice core samples re gases with isotopic differentials. it 'might' be indicative of local temperature changes - where it is collected to a degree but, I can't see how it can be indicative of heat content or global integration of temperatures. During these periods how can we also be sure of insolation & other factors such as axis wobble, orbital issues - though hopefully minor.

The point about current dilemma is rapid rise of CO2 with indisputable evidence of thermal properties of re-radiation - some back to Earth. Physics shows this MUST increase heat flow resistivity, without something comparable to counter it then temperatures rise, most heat goes to Oceans & so far melting ice...

:-(

Aug 16, 2014
without something comparable to counter it

Radiation into space.

Aug 16, 2014
Where is the actual peer reviewed study showing just how ADDING a greenhouse gas such as CO2 with known & proven thermal re-radiation properties does NOT increase heat retention & therefore temperature increase..blah..blah

Perhaps your pal reviewed studies could explain the HIGH CO2 and LOW temperatures during the Carboniferous Period.
http://www.geocra...ate.html

Aug 16, 2014
@24Volts
That's the kind of thinking that is absent here. It is good to see, thank you. They are all too busy arguing over things they've been arguing about for 30+ years now.
In my analysis, absolutely. CO2 contributes nothing until about 40 its current concentration. Temperature... what does it even mean for it to change?

Now addition of heat to the environs, this allows prediction of climate change. The Earth is buffered with heat reservoirs. Like the deep ocean and glaciers. The addition of heat has the most prominent effect of melting global ice. Not changing temperature, at least not as a primary or non-local effect

Anthroprogenic waste heat is around 1% of the excess GHG heating ....
It's effect is negligible.....

http://www.cgd.uc...tss/ahf/

Aug 16, 2014
Hey cap'n stunty, was that peer or pal review.
http://blogs.tele...-review/


It's expert review sunshine .... whatever you want to call it.

Perhaps you advocate dragging in random people off the street to spend the odd few minutes reviewing the relevant science.

Now that makes sense eh?
FFS

Aug 16, 2014
Sorry Mike, I've understood chemistry and Calculus for 30 or so years now and been using it professionally since 1991.
Let splain what you don't understand. With practice, your fingers can distinguish the weight between playing cards based on the amount of ink, the nose is the most sensitive detector of ammonia, and so on. You may not be able to ascribe units, but you can definitely distinguish between nothing with concentrations that are supposed to melt the planet.

It is funny you are trying to discredit an experiment that allows people to make their own, verily, SEMI-quantitative judgments. But it does allow anyone to see CO2 is not a factor. Think about it this way 400ppm IS 0.4%, and the change is 0.1%. Water is a far more powerful GHG, and there is far more of it; oceans ~150x as much, land average ~100x as much.

Aug 16, 2014
.....
Set your AC to equal outside temperature. Notice how warm or cool it feels in the house, believe it or not, your skin is very sensitive. See how much heat you can feel from the stove at distances. The CO2 in your home is probably over 1000ppm, up to about 3000ppm. The H2O is probably 40% from the AC.
Now open your doors and windows.
Immediately you will notice it feels warmer. You will feel less heat further away from the stove.
The CO2 will have dropped to near 400ppm, and the humidity will probably have increased only a little bit, to 60% max, maybe. You can also notice no difference by letting the CO2 drop with the open windows, and then turning the HVAC back on, then returning.
A 3-10x reduction in CO2 to 400ppm, and a slight increase in H2O results in a dramatic and uncomfortable change to our sensible environ, a warming, which would be more, not less impressive were you to measure it. ...


Is it just me .... or does this make NO sense at all??

Aug 16, 2014
What mechanism is there which results in SUBTRACTION

Radiation.

I'll keep telling you while ever I'm around ryggy.... You don't do science.
I suggest you best stay away from it and continue your blogged quote mining bollocks.
Now there's a good spammer.

Aug 16, 2014
To answer your surprising relevant question about adding something that is known to have a physical effect, not having it: At very low concentrations, that change with the substance is non linear, it grows exponentially until it has the understood effect. But until that point, it is pretty negligible, despite the growth. In the lab, I have found you need many experiments to even determine the effect, it is dramatically biased by impurities and other variables.
CO2 effect is pretty small, and the atmosphere has many impurities. So you see a large change in %, but practically nothing in the atmospheric "solution."
Water has gone up 2.2%. As you see above, 2.2% of H2O dwarfs in physical properties and amount, CO2.

Aug 16, 2014
Where is the actual peer reviewed study showing just how ADDING a greenhouse gas such as CO2 with known & proven thermal re-radiation properties does NOT increase heat retention & therefore temperature increase..blah..blah

Perhaps your pal reviewed studies could explain the HIGH CO2 and LOW temperatures during the Carboniferous Period.
http://www.geocra...ate.html


So you are suggesting (again) that the Earth 360m years ago is an analog for the present? FFS ryggy - grow a critical brain will you.
For the neutrals look her to see how different a planet it was then....

http://en.wikiped...niferous

Aug 16, 2014
@runrig,
I'll walk you through it.
1. It is an experiment you can do.
2. Make the temp in your home equal to the outside, with the thermostat.

Let me know where you're getting lost from there.

I know, you are losing something precious to you, but CO2 has been a red herring from the start, as evidenced by no one proving anything conclusively, and don't tell me it's proven, because there are people on this site who can argue with you, with just a spurious facts.

That experiment allows anyone to prove it with their own senses. If you want to invest in CO2 meters and IR sensors, you can prove it quantitatively. But your senses are sufficient.

Aug 16, 2014
antigoracle just doesnt understand with this lurch
Perhaps your pal reviewed studies could explain the HIGH CO2 and LOW temperatures during the Carboniferous Period.
http://www.geocra...ate.html
Are you claiming this is an entry in a peer review journal - if so then where is the review ?

Although nicely crafted, has negligible evidence and does not address several imponderables.

See my earlier postings please antigoracle approx 2 hrs before (do you READ) - try to understand, then you can work it out, if of course you have some actual training in Science & not just a superficial smattering that makes you blurt unconnected ideas...!

Aug 16, 2014
Alche sockpuppet said:
That experiment allows anyone to prove it with their own senses. If you want to invest in CO2 meters and IR sensors, you can prove it quantitatively. But your senses are sufficient.


WaterDolt: The only thing this experiment proves is that you are incompetent and you have no sense. Your senses are not sufficient.

Look at the Beer-Lambert law and you will see that you have to have a few hundred meters of 400 ppm CO2 to have a measurable effect.

http://en.wikiped...bert_law

You are saying that you don't feel an effect and that goes right along with the concentration of CO2 you imbecile.

It is also easy to see why you thought Captain Stumpy and I were the same person considering you have a sockpuppet. We aren't the same, but you have at least two accounts. How many more do you have you shill?

Aug 16, 2014
Water_Prophet lied openly with
Sorry Mike, I've understood chemistry and Calculus for 30 or so years now and been using it professionally since 1991.
Obviously NOT because your language & logic is totally inconsistent with its application !

Or maybe you have read the words & think that is enough to understand Integration - its Not !

Your preoccupation with "feel" is not only open to placebo & idiocy, it has no credibility & zero chance of duplication with any sense of certainty hence not reliable.

CO2 thermal properties have been studied for over 100 years and well known & duplicable in properly constructed experiments - your bias re "feel" Water_Prophet is not reliable.

Learn some Science & try to understand basic psychology & placebo effect along with confirmational bias.

You have still failed to explain how ADDING a gas with known thermal re-radiation properties should NOT increase thermal resistivity.

Please try to understand the term "linear" in terms of mathematics..

Aug 16, 2014
What mechanism is there which results in SUBTRACTION

Radiation.

I'll keep telling you while ever I'm around ryggy.... You don't do science.
I suggest you best stay away from it and continue your blogged quote mining bollocks.
Now there's a good spammer.

Radiation is the only way heat can escape the earth.

Aug 16, 2014
The problem is, its getting colder where we are not measuring. Several reports of glaciers that are not popular or routinely visited sights are expanding. Lake Erie froze over last year, first time in 20 years. The global warmies better get out the razor blades and buckets.

Aug 16, 2014
The problem is, its getting colder where we are not measuring. Several reports of glaciers that are not popular or routinely visited sights are expanding. Lake Erie froze over last year, first time in 20 years. The global warmies better get out the razor blades and buckets.


And, can you give us a reference that shows which glaciers are expanding and how those compare with the number that are contracting? A few expanding are regional. The global loss of ice in the sum of all glaciers is "global."

As for cold in the great lakes region, that is weather and regional not global climate.

And, for my final observation. If "its getting colder where we are not measuring." Then how do you know it is getting colder since we are not measuring? Do you have a magic 8-ball that tells you where it is warm and cold where we are not measuring?

Aug 16, 2014
And apparently climate change is not global.
http://phys.org/n...bal.html

Aug 16, 2014
So you are suggesting (again) that the Earth 360m years ago is an analog for the present?

runrig, I'm presenting factual evidence that contradict your cult's climate models, which you preach as analogs for the present.

Aug 16, 2014
@runrig,
I'll walk you through it.
1. It is an experiment you can do.
2. Make the temp in your home equal to the outside, with the thermostat.

Let me know where you're getting lost from there.

I know, you are losing something precious to you, but CO2 has been a red herring from the start, as evidenced by no one proving anything conclusively, and don't tell me it's proven, because there are people on this site who can argue with you, with just a spurious facts.

That experiment allows anyone to prove it with their own senses. If you want to invest in CO2 meters and IR sensors, you can prove it quantitatively. But your senses are sufficient.


Fraid you haven't .... walked me through it , that is.

What you are trying to say is a complete mystery to me, sorry.

Aug 16, 2014
It's becoming quite obvious that not only does the AGW Cult's peanut gallery share a lone neuron, but that senility has set in. There is no longer any doubt that these morons cannot read far less comprehend.

Aug 16, 2014
It's becoming quite obvious that not only does the AGW Cult's peanut gallery share a lone neuron, but that senility has set in. There is no longer any doubt that these morons cannot read far less comprehend.

A totally worthless post my friend.

Aug 16, 2014
That's what they get for jumping to conclusions before they understood the full system.

Aug 16, 2014
phprof said:
That's what they get for jumping to conclusions before they understood the full system.


References please?

1) What conclusions?
2) Who jumped to them?
3) What part of what system is not understood and how did that make anyone jump to a conclusion?

Welcome aboard. Please add reference links when you make a statement that pertains to the science involved. Otherwise we can't follow your reasoning. You might have information we have not seen before.

Aug 16, 2014
Strangedays is correct. You have to hunt for unbiased references, such as look for correlations between insect size and CO2/O2, but you find from these, which are, I assume, unbiased, that there is no correlation between Earth CO2 and temperature.

On the other hand, there are many studying the effect of CO2 on temp., which say different.

@Mike, you are just wrong here. Any applied scientist can tell you senses are better metrics than many tools for a few applications.

But by all means keep criticizing an experiment ANYONE can perform, it makes you look so smart.

Aug 16, 2014
@runrig
By setting temperature inside equal to outside, you are eliminating a variable.
Now you can compare insulating effects of CO2 vs. H2O.
Your basic Air Conditioner reduces humidity to 40%. This serves as your other baseline. If you don't have an IR thermometer, your skin is plenty sensitive.
When your home is closed up, like when you run your AC, the CO2 goes up, and so the GHG effect in your home. You think 400ppm is heating up the Earth, it should do the same in your home. Your home has 3-10x that amount, enough to notice. You don't stay warmer though.
Now when you open the windows, CO2 drops, to 400ppm or so, humidity increases. You notice it feels warmer. This is just a bit of humidity.

The feeling is perfectly valid, it is how much heat is escaping from you, it is surprisingly accurate because it is tied to survival. Be mindful if humidity is causing condensation or you're sweating.
Other than that, counter arguments have been a new breed of denier.

Aug 16, 2014
Alche/WaterDupe sockpuppet: You have no idea why you are wrong on this experiment do you?

You are trying to compare an absorption distance of a few meters with the height of the atmosphere. You are absurd.

I told you to go through and just do the arithmetic using the Beer-Lambert law. It is not even calculus, just arithmetic. If you do that you can see that you need more than a hundred meters to be able to see a difference and at that distance you wouldn't be able to feel the radiant heat transfer anyway.

Do you really not see that a few meters is not enough?

All you are feeling for a difference is the change in evaporation off your skin.

Please just go back and do a little arithmetic to check your basic assumptions.

Aug 17, 2014
By setting temperature inside equal to outside, you are eliminating a variable.
Now you can compare insulating effects of CO2 vs. H2O
@alkie/waterboy
are you REALLY still trying to push this fallacy?
this is proof positive that you are a complete idiot, you know... did your experiment
there is NO way to compare the effects of CO2 and Humidity with the experiment because there is no way to separate CO2 and Humidity in the experiment.

Therefore the effects you feel in ONE (the A/C idiocy) are also being felt in the other (the stove idiocy)

we can then conclude without a shadow of a doubt that not only is THERMODYNAMICS COMPLETELY CORRECT,
but that you are trying to obfuscate reality with a delusional flawed experiment that has NO BEARING at all whatsoever on reality other than to jack up your electric bill and waste heat on your stove!

and you CLAIM that you know thermodynamics and physics? REALLY?
You screwed the experiment from the start!
ANY FIRST YEAR IDIOT knows that

Aug 17, 2014
Your basic Air Conditioner reduces humidity to 40%. This serves as your other baseline. If you don't have an IR thermometer
@waterbaby
the ONLY thing you did with your experiment was PROVE that:

you are not very good at physics

you might be drunk

you are not very good at conducting experiments and getting a valid scientific result

you know enough stupidity to create a flawed experiment that sounds good ONLY in the mind of a "delusional acolyte against reality and empirical data"

you definitely don't know much about science...

if anyone tried an experiment like this in college, they would be drummed out for being a complete moron...

bye bye degree, hello Super size fries

http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

you really should be listening to Thermo and Runrig on this one
your body can be fooled regarding temps and the reality of hot and cold

http://www.netpla...cold.htm


Aug 17, 2014
ryggesogn2 finally said something approaching plausibility though not entirely complete
Radiation is the only way heat can escape the earth.
Now stay with this ryggesogn2 you are almost there but, as before your statements show you never got a degree in Physics...!

"How can ADDING a greenhouse gas like CO2 with proven thermal properties of re-radiation in some way NOT add resistivity to heat flow ?"

When you have formed a sentence on that question please get back to us with some Science, until then go back to vague boring politics that has no place here and which wastes all our time - ie Post Science re my question or go away please.

MR166 should on this occasion listen to ryggesogn2 :-)

Aug 17, 2014
By setting temperature inside equal to outside, you are eliminating a variable.
Now you can compare insulating effects of CO2 vs. H2O.

water/alchey.....

But you're not.
The atmosphere cannot be replicated in house (or a lab even easily).

Please look up Beer-Lambert law and the (vital) importance of path-length in GHG physics.

Aug 17, 2014
ALL GHGs have narrow and specific infrared absorption bands.
H2O has the most broad band absorption bands due to its complex molecular nature.
CO2 has few as its molecular structure is simpler. The only IR band of interest for climate is ~15 um.
There is not that much energy in the 15 um band. There is much more energy in the IR windows between 8-12 um. Most photons in these bands radiate into space. As temperature increases, the peak of the Planck curve shifts to shorter wavelengths and the amount of energy increases into the IR window bands.
Clear, dry atmospheres radiate most heat rapidly into space. That's why temperatures over dry areas can change up to 40 deg F after sunset. Without the return of the sun every day, the temperatures would continue to drop, regardless of any increase in CO2.

Aug 17, 2014
complete blockout, of infrared radiation beyond about 13 microns.

No, not complete.
strong absorber of infrared

So? How much energy?
A blackbody at -80C has a peak wavelength of 15 micro-meters.
A blackbody at 300K has a peak wavelength of 9.6 um.
As an exercise for the student, how much energy per K is between 14.5um and 15.5 um as temperatures increase from 275K to 305K?

Aug 17, 2014
"I want to critique IPCC reports #1 (1990) to #5 (2013). As a so-called 'expert reviewer' I have enjoyed a unique observation platform for successive IPCC drafts. It is rather amusing that the Summaries talk about increasing certainty for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) -- while at the same time modeled temperatures increasingly diverge from those actually observed [S-2]. "
"we note that each report "Summary" is produced by a political consensus, not like the underlying scientific report."
"After severe criticism of this 'evidence', IPCC dropped the climate sensitivity to 2.5 deg by considering only the most recent decades of reported global warming as anthropogenic. The earlier warming (1910-1940) is now considered to be caused by natural forcing. "
http://americanth...ons.html

Aug 17, 2014
"Because of many valid criticisms, the Hockeystick argument has now been dropped by IPCC and is no longer used to claim AGW. Instead both AR4 [2007] and AR5 [2013], in their chapters on 'Attribution,' rely on very peculiar circular argument for supporting AGW.

Both reports 'curve-fit' a calculated curve to the reported temp data of the second half of the 20th century. [This can always be done by choosing a suitable value of climate sensitivity, and an assumed aerosol forcing]. After having obtained a reasonable fit, they then remove the greenhouse- gas forcing, and of course, obtain an unforced model curve that no longer shows any temp increase (see S-6). But they then claim that this gap with respect to the data is sure evidence for AGW. This claim defies logic and makes absolutely no sense. They simply modified the calculated curve and then claimed that the resultant gap proves anthropogenic warming. "
http://americanth...pcc_conc

Aug 17, 2014
Ryggy contested the information

I did? What?
Here is one bit of information about atm transmission.
http://irina.eas....Lec6.pdf

"From 10 to 13 microns there is more absorption by H2O. Starting at 13 we get CO2 absorption but that wavelength corresponds to temperatures below even that of the south pole. Nowhere from 9 to 13 microns do we see appreciable absorption bands of CO2. This means the greenhouse effect is way over 95% caused by water vapor and probably less than 3% from CO2. I would say even ozone is more important due to the 9.6 band, but it's so high in the atmosphere that it probably serves more to radiate heat into space than for back-radiation to the surface. "
"not one single IR astronomer gives a rats arse about CO2. "
http://stevengodd...the-co2/

Aug 17, 2014
No, not complete.


Source for this assertion please.

Here is a quote from a skeptic site -

"CO2 absorption is pegged at 100% at these wavelengths"

http://cosmoscon....orption/

Can't you read the chart?
The chart shows CO2 IR absorption from 13-14 um to 20 um. That's not the complete IR spectrum.

Aug 17, 2014
"As we can see above, carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in only three narrow bands of frequencies, which correspond to wavelengths of 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µm), respectively. The percentage absorption of all three lines combined can be very generously estimated at about 8% of the whole IR spectrum, which means that 92% of the "heat" passes right through without being absorbed by CO2. In reality, the two smaller peaks don't account for much, since they lie in an energy range that is much smaller than the where the 15 micron peak sits - so 4% or 5% might be closer to reality. If the entire atmosphere were composed of nothing but CO2, i.e., was pure CO2 and nothing else, it would still only be able to absorb no more than 8% of the heat radiating from the earth."
http://www.middle...-01.html

Aug 17, 2014
Strangedays, you need to learn how to read an IR spectrum. Apparently, so does the person you cited. You need to look at the absorption spectrum from both the perspective of transmission and absorption, and you have to do so looking at the numbers. Your reference doesn't show the numbers (is also dated) and can be misleading because of that fact.

Go here for the NIST version of the spectrum (hoping the link survives posting):

http://webbook.ni...#IR-SPEC

Modify the variables for the chart for yourself to see transmission and absorption in wavenumber (cm-1) and wavelength (μm). You also can use reverse X or normal X for the X axis.

Notice the line along the zero for absorption and notice carefully the overall transmissibility of CO2. In only three IR wavelengths is CO2 less transmissible. In other words, most of the IR spectrum gets through easily except in three "peaks."

Aug 17, 2014
most of the IR spectrum gets through easily except in three "peaks."


The other part of this is the energy that is absorbed.
The energy in ~15 um band at 300K is very low compared to the total energy.

As the IR astronomer said, they are most concerned with H2O, not CO2.

Aug 17, 2014
@Strangedays
Get used to obfuscation, and being tempted down rabbit holes, false websites and sources, as well as real ones.
Whatever the truth maybe, and my opinion is it is too late to make a decent difference, these people do not have the fortitude to change.
Though Ryggy seems to have it right. CO2 bands are too narrow, and overlap H2O significantly, as well as being far more prevalent in the atm..

Aug 17, 2014
It is important to realize that thermo and the captain are the same person, or at least they answer on each other's accounts.

Insulation is insulation. If water is 1000x more powerful over the short range, it is far more powerful over the long.
The variations, the small changes, in humidity overwhelm and compliment to EXTINCTION any effect CO2 could have.

But run the experiment, I haven't shared all the things that will become apparent by doing it. Some are amazing, ok, at least interesting.

Aug 17, 2014
ALL GHGs have narrow and specific infrared absorption bands.
H2O has the most broad band absorption bands due to its complex molecular nature.
CO2 has few as its molecular structure is simpler. The only IR band of interest for climate is ~15 um.
There is not that much energy in the 15 um band. There is much more energy in the IR windows between 8-12 um. Most photons in these bands radiate into space. As temperature increases, the peak of the Planck curve shifts to shorter wavelengths and the amount of energy increases into the IR window bands.

ryggy....
Err - experts in radiative physics know exactly what windows are present in the Earth's atmosphere, and exactly what CO2 can capture and re-emit to space.

Now if you think you know better and indeed are denying measurements via ground based spectroscopy (able to identify CO2 as the emitter) that match the modeled AGW increase in back-radiation.
Then you are due a Nobel my friend.

Until that day please shut the f**k up.

Aug 17, 2014
Clear, dry atmospheres radiate most heat rapidly into space. That's why temperatures over dry areas can change up to 40 deg F after sunset. Without the return of the sun every day, the temperatures would continue to drop, regardless of any increase in CO2.

And what pray has this to do with AGW?
What a stupid bloody pointless argument.
BTW: The equal reason temps fall quickly in a desert is the extremely dry and insulating sandy surface and calm winds along with clear skies - making for a strong surface inversion .... which then quickly heats up in early am. The whole atmospheric column doesn't cool you know.
Err, no you don't - I forgot briefly. You don't do science. Do you?

Aug 17, 2014
"not one single IR astronomer gives a rats arse about CO2. "
http://stevengodd...the-co2/


ryggy spammed the above amongst other bollocks.

Here is who Mr "Goddard" is....
surprise, surprise (not to me) nothing other than a non-expert, who, like ryggy, is ideologically challenged on AGW. Read right-wing zealot.

reallysciency.blogspot.co.uk/p/who-is-steven-goddard.html
www.desmogblog.co...-goddard


Aug 17, 2014
@strangedays-
You have "experts" on both sides. Both sides present falsehoods. If you can run an experiment and bring it to a conclusion, why not? Are you as afraid as everyone else who have staked their egos on mainstream misrepresentations?
These articles are arguable, as the last hundreds of posts clearly show.

If you are not open to new ideas, then why are you here?

Aug 17, 2014
.........
These articles are arguable, as the last hundreds of posts clearly show.
If you are not open to new ideas, then why are you here?


Only aruable by denialist idiots Alchey....
Which is NOT arguing at all. It's called spamming.
Keeping the doubt in the layman's mind in order to obsfucate things to a maximum. Meanwhile in the land above ground the knowledgeable doers of this world get on with things and *try* to get mankind to see what is happening on our planet.
What you see here is a bizarre attempt by those who have an ideological objection to their "tax dollars" being *taken", arguing black is white against empirical science. Making the world fit their ideology rather than the other way around. Claiming greater knowledge of science than the expert, only informed by biased blogs and somehow relevant climate *gods* with multiple spamming of quotes as though opinion is worth more than observation and physics.
Those that are worth a jot appreciate that.

Aug 17, 2014
""Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman"

"Another problem to be overcome by ground-based observatories was the absorption of infrared radiation by gases such as water vapor and carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere. Fortunately, in the near-infrared and mid-infrared regions, from 1 to 10μm, there are some clear atmospheric 'windows'. From observatories on high mountain peaks, astronomers are able to use these 'windows' to investigate the infrared sky at certain wavelengths."
"However, even the Mauna Kea site is not high enough to allow far-infrared observations. In order to rise above the bulk of the water vapor and the atmosphere, astronomers have turned to placing telescopes on balloons, sounding rockets or high-flying aircraft"
http://www.astro....opes.pdf

Aug 17, 2014
A few years ago, if you had a certain type of ulcer, a doctor prescribe an expensive antacid.
After Dr. Barry Marshall challenged the consensus, a doctor may now prescribe and antibiotic to kill the bacteria causing the ulcer.
Experts were ignorant of the bacteria for decades. Why?
Marshall received a Nobel for challenging the consensus.
If strange continues to trust 'modern' western medicine and the FDA regulators, he will definitely not live forever as he desires.

Aug 17, 2014
Trust the 'experts'?
"More than 1,100 laboratory incidents involving bacteria, viruses and toxins that pose significant or bioterror risks to people and agriculture were reported to federal regulators during 2008 through 2012, government reports obtained by USA TODAY show.

More than half these incidents were serious enough that lab workers received medical evaluations or treatment, according to the reports. In five incidents, investigations confirmed that laboratory workers had been infected or sickened; all recovered."