Peer-reviewed pocket-calculator climate model exposes serious errors in complex computer models

January 21, 2015, Science China Press
Near-term global warming projections (brick-red region) on[0.13, 0.50] K decade-1, compared with observations (green region)that fall on [0.0, 0.11] K decade-1, and the simple model's 21stcentury warming projections (yellow arrow), falling on 0.09 [0.06,0.12] K decade-1. Credit: Science China Press

A major peer-reviewed climate physics paper in the first issue (January 2015: vol. 60 no. 1) of the prestigious Science Bulletin (formerly Chinese Science Bulletin), the journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, exposes elementary but serious errors in the general-circulation models relied on by the UN's climate panel, the IPCC. The errors were the reason for concern about Man's effect on climate. Without them, there is no climate crisis.

The IPCC has long predicted that doubling the CO2 in the air might eventually warm the Earth by 3.3 °C. However, the new, simple presented in the Science Bulletin predicts no more than 1 °C warming instead - and possibly much less. The model, developed over eight years, is so easy to use that a high-school math teacher or undergrad student can get credible results in minutes running it on a pocket scientific calculator.

The paper, Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple model, by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, Willie Soon, David Legates and Matt Briggs, survived three rounds of tough peer review in which two of the reviewers had at first opposed the paper on the ground that it questioned the IPCC's predictions.

When the paper's four authors first tested the finished model's global-warming predictions against those of the complex computer models and against observed real-world temperature change, their simple model was closer to the measured rate of global warming than all the projections of the complex "general-circulation" models:

Next, the four researchers applied the model to studying why the official models concur in over-predicting global warming. In 1990, the UN's climate panel predicted with "substantial confidence" that the world would warm at twice the rate that has been observed since.

The very greatly exaggerated predictions (orange region) of atmospheric global warming in the IPCC's 1990 First Assessment Report, compared with the mean anomalies (dark blue) and trend (bright blue straight line) of three terrestrial and two satellite monthly global mean temperature datasets since 1990.

The measured, real-world rate of global warming over the past 25 years, equivalent to less than 1.4° C per century, is about half the IPCC's central prediction in 1990.

Medium-term global temperature trend projections from FAR, extrapolated from January 1990 to October 2014 (shaded region), vs. observed anomalies (dark blue) and trend (bright blue), as the mean of the RSS, UAH, NCDC, HadCRUT4 and GISS monthly global anomalies. Credit: Science China Press

The new, simple climate model helps to expose the errors in the complex models the IPCC and governments rely upon. Those errors caused the over-predictions on which concern about Man's influence on the climate was needlessly built.

Among the errors of the complex climate models that the simple model exposes are the following -

The assumption that "temperature feedbacks" would double or triple direct manmade greenhouse warming is the largest error made by the complex climate models. Feedbacks may well reduce warming, not amplify it.

The Bode system-gain equation models mutual amplification of feedbacks in electronic circuits, but, when complex models erroneously apply it to the climate on the IPCC's false assumption of strongly net-amplifying feedbacks, it greatly over-predicts global warming. They are using the wrong equation.

Modellers have failed to cut their central estimate of global warming in line with a new, lower feedback estimate from the IPCC. They still predict 3.3 °C of warming per CO2 doubling, when on this ground alone they should only be predicting 2.2 °C - about half from direct warming and half from amplifying feedbacks.

Though the complex models say there is 0.6 °C manmade warming "in the pipeline" even if we stop emitting greenhouse gases, the simple model - confirmed by almost two decades without any significant global warming - shows there is no committed but unrealized manmade warming still to come. There is no scientific justification for the IPCC's extreme RCP 8.5 global warming scenario that predicts up to 12 °C global warming as a result of our industrial emissions of greenhouse gases.

Once errors like these are corrected, the most likely global warming in response to a doubling of CO2 concentration is not 3.3 °C but 1 °C or less. Even if all available fossil fuels were burned, less than 2.2 °C warming would result.

Lord Monckton, the paper's lead author, created the new model on the basis of earlier research by him published in journals such as Physics and Society, UK Quarterly Economic Bulletin, Annual Proceedings of the World Federation of Scientists' Seminars on Planetary Emergencies, and Energy & Environment. He said: "Our irreducibly simple climate model does not replace more complex models, but it does expose major errors and exaggerations in those models, such as the over-emphasis on positive or amplifying temperature feedbacks. For instance, take away the erroneous assumption that strongly net-positive feedback triples the rate of manmade global warming and the imagined vanishes."

Dr Willie Soon, an eminent solar physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said: "Our work suggests that Man's influence on climate may have been much overstated. The role of the Sun has been undervalued. Our model helps to present a more balanced view."

Dr David Legates, Professor of Geography at the University of Delaware and formerly the State Climatologist, said: "This simple model is an invaluable teaching aid. Our paper is, in effect, the manual for the model, discussing appropriate values for the input parameters and demonstrating by examples how the model works."

Dr Matt Briggs, "Statistician to the Stars", said: "A high-school student with a pocket scientific calculator can now use this remarkable model and obtain credible estimates of simply and quickly, as well as acquiring a better understanding of how climate sensitivity is determined. As a statistician, I know the value of keeping things simple and the dangers in thinking that more complex models are necessarily better. Once people can understand how climate sensitivity is determined, they will realize how little evidence for alarm there is."

Explore further: New research highlights the key role of ozone in climate change

More information: Christopher Monckton, Willie W.-H. Soon, David R. Legates, William M. Briggs. Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model. Science Bulletin, 2015, 60(1): 122-135. www.scibull.com:8080/EN/abstra … bstract509579.shtml#

Related Stories

Global warming's influence on extreme weather

December 12, 2014

Extreme climate and weather events such as record high temperatures, intense downpours and severe storm surges are becoming more common in many parts of the world. But because high-quality weather records go back only about ...

Recommended for you

Diverse forests are stronger against drought

September 19, 2018

Diversity is strength, even among forests. In a paper published in Nature, researchers led by University of Utah biologist William Anderegg report that forests with trees that employ a high diversity of traits related to ...

Echo chambers persist in climate politics, research shows

September 19, 2018

New research from the University of Maryland (UMD) finds that contentious climate politics continue to be influenced by the diffusion of scientific information inside "echo chambers"—social network structures in which individuals ...

355 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

runrig
3.7 / 5 (27) Jan 21, 2015
Lord Monckton, the paper's lead author


I wasn't aware the "Lord" was a scientist of any description, never mind of climate.

And I don't suppose his denial of anything AGW has any outcome in "the paper".

A "simple model" CANNOT predict AGW temp rise because as the overwhelming driver of climate, once solar insolation has been absorbed in Earth's climate system - is the Oceans Even the thickest AGW denialist ought to realise that the atmosphere MUST be coupled with the oceans.
There is a much heat contained in the top 3m of the Oceans as in the whole of the atmosphere.
There's a LOT of ocean below that in which some of that heat can be temporarily hidden. Vis the -ve ENSO/PDO phase that has been the primary cause of said "hiatus".
So the "Lord" immediately eliminates the cause of that hidden heat to keep his hiatus going.

http://www.thegua...-warming
winthrom
4.1 / 5 (27) Jan 21, 2015
Great! The melting Ice Cap in Greenland needs to be told that it isn't melting because the climate is getting warmer. Must be all that hot air from the climate change deniers.
Eddy Courant
1.4 / 5 (19) Jan 21, 2015
B-b-but, what about all the people employed in the Climate Apocalypse Industry. They're out of a job now! LOL
JamesG
1.4 / 5 (14) Jan 21, 2015
Cool. I wish I had ocean front property. The value just went up.
Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (22) Jan 21, 2015
I withhold judgement at this time. I want to see what the experts say about this model as well as seeing what is said about the methodology. I find it hard to believe that this "simple" model is credible, but I am not the expert and will wait for the experts to chime in.

cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (18) Jan 21, 2015
"Our work suggests that Man's influence on climate may have been much overstated. The role of the Sun has been undervalued."


How can such blasphemous statements be publicized on a "science" website. Clearly this guy didn't get the memo that this issue has already been voted on and the science "settled".
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (25) Jan 21, 2015
Cool. I wish I had ocean front property. The value just went up.


You're an idiot.
daqman
4.3 / 5 (23) Jan 21, 2015
Is this a joke? A "simple model" promoted by a vague group of people who have no credentials at all to be creating a climate model has a "peer reviewed" paper in the "Science Bulletin" formerly the "Chinese Science Bulletin". So not a mainstream climatology journal. Oh, and now I use a well known search engine I find that Lord Monckton is a well known denier. Seriously? NO.
Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (32) Jan 21, 2015
Well, ol Really-Skippy is going to be upset with the climate-Scientist-Skippys because he it going to accuse them of not doing their diligences over the years.

Since he has a fondness for crankpot not really scientist-Skippys he will probably think that Lord-Monckton-Skippy is almost as smart as he it. The Lord-Skippy is a journalist and thinker like the Really-Skippy and not a scientist like the Really-Skippy isn't either.

Willie-Soon-Skippy (that sounds like a physorg comment board peoples makes up) got into some hot waters over taking about 2 millions of dollars for his science papers from the Koch-Tea-Party-Club-Fountain-Skippys, the Petroleum-Associated-Skippys and the Energy-Making-Skippys-Club.

I got to next part two this for the rest of the stuffs google-Skippy told me. It won't fit here.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (22) Jan 21, 2015
Now we know Monckton is an ignorant DK afflicted ideologically driven denialist.
ALSO, "According to Greenpeace, every grant Dr. Soon has received since 2002 has been from oil or coal interests."
http://www.desmog...lie-soon
http://www.desmog...-legates

This is a critque of the paper...

https://andthenth...climate/

This is how Monckton et al come to a low estimate of ECS:

"In Fig. 5, a regime of temperature stability is represented
by g∞ ≤ +0.1, the maximum value allowed by process engineers designing electronic circuits intended not to oscillate under any operating conditions".

I kid you not: this is really all there is to it."

Breathtaking! "

Liars as well. At the end of the paper they state: "The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest".
Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (34) Jan 21, 2015
P.S. for everybody. Here is the next part two of what I found out about these paper-writer-Skippys. Truth be told about it, google-Skippy did the finding, I just ask the questions.

David-Legates-Skippy (where got these names from anyway) not long ago signed the declaration of God Design Gobbledygook that said "We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."

Matt-Briggs-"Statistician to the Stars"-Skippy don't have a job or a science school that googleSkippy can find. But google-Skippy found me a lot of stuffs he writes on places like the World-Net-Daily-Conspiracy-Place. I not even find a star that admits to knowing him so I don't know if he was lying about too.

How was my diligence doing on this one Really-Skippy?
Science Officer
1.8 / 5 (16) Jan 21, 2015
It's kind of like the difference between NASA, spending millions for an ink pen that would work in outer space; and the Russian cosmonauts, who just used a pencil.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (19) Jan 21, 2015
So, there you have it, we can't warm much over the coming century because the designers wouldn't have designed a system that would allow for this. Of course, I should be honest and admit that I may have misunderstood the paper, but that's mostly because it's gobbledygook.


survived three rounds of tough peer review in which two of the reviewers had at first opposed the paper on the ground that it questioned the IPCC's predictions.


Only because it questioned the IPCC? Me thinks there is more to this than stated.

I would really like to see the reviewers' comments before this was published. I am looking for more critiques.

Seriously, considering the tone of the article above, I can't help but wonder if the author of the article has chosen not to "believe" in global warming, I'll post what I find.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (22) Jan 21, 2015
That's some nice work there Ira! So much for ""The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest". I am beginning to detect a stink surrounding this "paper"!
runrig
4.8 / 5 (17) Jan 21, 2015
It's kind of like the difference between NASA, spending millions for an ink pen that would work in outer space; and the Russian cosmonauts, who just used a pencil.

Not when your "rocket science" is based on....
"the maximum value allowed by process engineers designing electronic circuits intended not to oscillate under any operating conditions".
...Just to arrive at the answer you want my friend.

Err, you'll be needing aerodynamics, Newtons laws, Earth's rotational speed and Centripetal force to get into space ... even with your Russian pencil.
FFS^3
runrig
4.5 / 5 (17) Jan 21, 2015
Seriously, considering the tone of the article above, I can't help but wonder if the author of the article has chosen not to "believe" in global warming, I'll post what I find.


Maggnus:
Surely you know of Monckton's MO????
The other 2 authors as well.
Uncle Ira
4.7 / 5 (33) Jan 21, 2015
That's some nice work there Ira! So much for ""The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest". I am beginning to detect a stink surrounding this "paper"!


Well I had no idea who this paper-writing-Skippys were, but the part about the statistic-Skippy to the stars struck me as weird so I decided to try to find out something about them.

After the statistic-Skippy I checked on the Legate-Skippy and found out that he was in a creationist club. I guess it means that the Delaware science school must have been hard up trying to find a geology-scientist-Skippy to work there. I hope he does not pass on any of that silly stuffs to the kids.

I bet the chinese-journal-Skippys are going to wish they had been doing their diligence on these four couyons before they printed their article. Not one normal one in the four of them.
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (15) Jan 21, 2015
That's some nice work there Ira! So much for ""The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest". I am beginning to detect a stink surrounding this "paper"!
Piggybacking on Maggnus post...
GREAT WORK IRA

i had not had the time to look into this... guess i don't have to now
Keep up the "due diligence"
but don't expect any kudo's from rc
he is still trying to decide where to post his paper to save us all
ROTFLMFAO

THANKS
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (17) Jan 21, 2015
Seriously, considering the tone of the article above, I can't help but wonder if the author of the article has chosen not to "believe" in global warming, I'll post what I find.


Maggnus:
Surely you know of Monckton's MO????
The other 2 authors as well.

I do Runrig, my comment is about the writer of the article, not the authors of the paper.

I knew about Monckton and Soon, but not the other two.
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (16) Jan 21, 2015
That's some nice work there Ira! So much for ""The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest". I am beginning to detect a stink surrounding this "paper"!
Piggybacking on Maggnus post...
GREAT WORK IRA

i had not had the time to look into this... guess i don't have to now
Keep up the "due diligence"
but don't expect any kudo's from rc
he is still trying to decide where to post his paper to save us all
ROTFLMFAO

THANKS

Heeeyyyyy - maybe that IS RC!?!?! Maybe this was the paper he was on about!

Or, no wait - its not his Theory about Mostly Nothing which he keeps claiming. I was getting all excited for nothing it seems. (Punny right lol!)
Uncle Ira
4.7 / 5 (27) Jan 21, 2015
rc
he is still trying to decide where to post his paper to save us all


It seems the chinese-Skippy-journal that put in this paper will let anybody in their journal. Even the not really Scientists like Really-Skippy isn't either. Maybe he can get him in there.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (19) Jan 21, 2015
Here's a review I found intriguing :

First, there has been warming. That is clear to anyone looking at decadal averages, five year normalized curves, or the like. Second, vast portions of the ice sheets and the arctic sea ice have disappeared. That takes astounding amounts of energy. That is a shocking misrepresentation of the facts.


Not from a climate scientist, so I'm not presenting the source, but I thought it was an interesting, and very true, statement.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (12) Jan 21, 2015
Seriously, considering the tone of the article above, I can't help but wonder if the author of the article has chosen not to "believe" in global warming, I'll post what I find.


Maggnus:
Surely you know of Monckton's MO????
The other 2 authors as well.

I do Runrig, my comment is about the writer of the article, not the authors of the paper.

I knew about Monckton and Soon, but not the other two.


Ah - seems he's well into it true .... or just being even handed ??
bill_walters
1 / 5 (14) Jan 21, 2015
I'm in my 2nd week of Globewarmers school. Its darn tough acting as stupid as they want us to be. Next week they teach how to lie, cover up our lies and lie some more. We have to do this with a look as if we are edumacted and smart. The week after that they teach us how to fold our tin-foil hats and when were done we get our graduation pictures taken wearing them.

They said be careful after they dumb-down us, we may start walking into glass doors, but that's not the worst part....they say we will back up and walk right back into it........repeatedly.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (10) Jan 21, 2015
Complex is not by definition, better.
GIGO
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (18) Jan 21, 2015
I'm in my 2nd week of Globewarmers school. Its darn tough acting as stupid as they want us to be. Next week they teach how to lie, cover up our lies and lie some more. We have to do this with a look as if we are edumacted and smart. The week after that they teach us how to fold our tin-foil hats and when were done we get our graduation pictures taken wearing them.

They said be careful after they dumb-down us, we may start walking into glass doors, but that's not the worst part....they say we will back up and walk right back into it........repeatedly.


Ah the one being co-taught by Judith Curry and Roy Spencer! Yea, it sucks having to listen to those two pontificate on how to address global warming. I can feel your pain!

Once you've been through their lessons on denialism, you should take a real science course. You'll be amazed at the difference between how obfuscation and stubborn denial of facts gives way to enlightened conversation and wonder at the power of nature!
Uncle Ira
4.8 / 5 (26) Jan 21, 2015
Complex is not by definition, better.
GIGO


But complex by the definitions is not simple, now is it Skippy?
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (22) Jan 21, 2015
Ah - seems he's well into it true .... or just being even handed ??


I'm not seeing the even handedness. Quoting from the article:

A major peer-reviewed climate physics paper in the first issue
- this is not a "major" paper, nor is it about climate physics. It is, at best, a minor paper about statistical claims and modelling.

The new, simple climate model helps to expose the errors in the complex models the IPCC and governments rely upon.
A statement of fact, when it is an unproven assertion. It also presupposes errors in the "models" that needed "correcting". Neither has been shown.

They are using the wrong equation.
As above, a statement of fact regarding an (as yet) unchallenged paper. He/she doesn't use words like "it appears that" or " they suggest that" - he makes bold statements as if they are unassailable.

I am frankly disappointed that such a poorly written article would be allowed on this site. Hit bait I think.
bill_walters
1 / 5 (12) Jan 21, 2015
When grubber Pelosi and Reid collaborated about "relying" upon the "stupidity" of the voter they weren't limiting it to just Obamacare, they rely upon it for all their causes, AGW and global warming included.

And you imbecilic notions of what "real' science is do you know not one climate scientestetetet theory has made it through a science "vetting" process. WHY? because they fail to use "proper" scientific methods. That's why "ALL" climate horse sheet is peer reviewed only.
joe_spongebob
1.3 / 5 (13) Jan 21, 2015
Really?,, John Kerry says the science is settled and Hes a great well known Climate scientist and is told that by all the other Govt. funded fake scientists that use the flawed faked models data.
rockyrocky
1 / 5 (17) Jan 21, 2015
OMG!!! I always wondered why the computer climate models of the 'climate scientists' were worse than worthless. Now we know. They are worse than worthless.

C02 has a minimal influence on climate. The global warming alarmists are a religious movement based on junk science.

Don't hold your breath for rising global temperatures as C02 levels rise. not going to happen. C02 has minimal to no influence on climate as we all know now. Global temperatures have not budged for the past 20 years despite the fact that one half of all C02 [produced by humanity has occurred in the past 20 years

Junk science can best decriibe the Church of Global Warming
FrisbeeChemist
4.7 / 5 (16) Jan 21, 2015
This paper was published in some Chinese journal, in its first edition since "entering a new era", that era apparently being one in which they publish junk science.

The first figure in the paper is just a blatant misrepresentation of the IPCC FAR, showing a projected linear trend of 2.78°C/century (0.28°C/decade) since 1990. In reality IPCC FAR projected an accelerating warming trend that's around 0.17°C/decade since 1990. The IPCC FAR projections were almost right on the button.

Skimming through the paper, Figure 6 is even worse, misrepresenting Hansen's 1988 projection as well as 4 IPCC projections, and then comparing them to satellite TLT measurements instead of surface temperature measurements, which is what they were projecting. They do the same misrepresentation of Hansen 1988 as Patrick Michaels by only showing his Scenario A when reality has been between Scenarios B and C.
mbee1
1 / 5 (12) Jan 21, 2015
I see the AGW lap dogs just do not get it. The official models including the IPCC models are horse manure. You can see that for yourself with the 2014 warmest record. Arctic ice and antarctic ice are increasing in a warmer world. That is impossible. Throw in the Noverber snow and ice cover, 5th largest in the northern hemisphere and largest for north america since records began yet the world is warmer, impossible. Giss warmer Rss no warming, Giss warmer, no trend in the mid and lower troposphere, Giss warmer, no ocean heat gain per Nasa, Giss warmer only becauser the giss data set throws out every northern actual measured temperature and adjusts it upward as the modelers claim the northern hemisphere has a cold bias. Of course it has a cold bias, it is colder. Give it up AGW lap dogs, those people as Lima demonstrates just want your money anyway.
altizar
1 / 5 (5) Jan 21, 2015
This looks to have been done by females. Only female eyes have enough rods in their eyes to determine difference in shades of red to tell which arrow belongs to which plan on the graphic . . .
FrisbeeChemist
5 / 5 (15) Jan 21, 2015
The mere fact that those figures made it into the final paper means it either wasn't reviewed by anyone who knows anything about climate science, or that the comments by any such expert reviewers were ignored. It's garbage. Something I'd expect to see (and have) in a Monckton blog post on WUWT, but an embarrassment for any journal to have published.
jdlawlis
5 / 5 (15) Jan 21, 2015
The Chinese Science Bulletin is a prestigious journal? Really? Not for climate change. Try getting something published in Science, Nature, Journal of Geophysical Research, Journal of Climate or Geophysical Research Letters and I might be impressed.
loyds1000
1.8 / 5 (8) Jan 21, 2015
Interesting. I don't trust Lord Mockington, but the paper has been reviewed and makes the cut. We know that all models are wrong. Lets see what insights are gained from this model that can improve predictions. I'm not saying stop reducing emissions by any means. Reducing emission by identifying alternative energy sources is a good thing regardless of global warming, and significant global warming has not been ruled out yet. Modelers just may have more insights into why it is overestimating. Remember, this is NOT a statistical model. It relies on physics to identify mechanisms that cause warming through cause and effect. But that does not mean that the "simple model" is not useful.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (21) Jan 21, 2015
Hi Folks, here is more proof, if needed, that poor Idiotbot-voting-Ira+Maggnus are trolling their own porkies about me and my posts....

From Ira:
Since he has a fondness for crankpot not really scientist-Skippys he will probably think that Lord-Monckton-Skippy is almost as smart as he it.
And from Maggnus:
Heeeyyyyy - maybe that IS RC!?!?! Maybe this was the paper he was on about!


Genuine PO forummers, who don't bot-vote my posts like Ira etc without paying attention to the content, would know I have always SUPPORTED the Climate Change Science trends' presented by mainstream studies, and have even suggested where improvements may be made to account for missing factors to make them even more accurate.

And I have always recognized "lord" Monckton/deniers as congenital nitwits!... much like Ira+Maggnus, who have (again) shot themselves in the foot, proving they just troll their own 'personal hate' misinformation in ignorance of me/my comments. Thanks losers!
Norma Loquendi
1 / 5 (13) Jan 21, 2015
For all the juvenile name-calling, you AGW tinfoil hat alarmists ignore the essential message: NASA, NOAA, Penn State's Michael Mann, Algore or the IPCC, none of their doom and gloom predictions has come true.
NASA, NOAA and the IPCC cook their data to conform to what the Obama administration wants. Mann's infamous "hockey stick" graph was immediately shown as bogus: It omitted the hottest period in recorded history, the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) when Vikings settled in Greeland, raised sheep and cattle, while others settled in Newfoundland and grew subtropical fruits like wine grapes (they named the place Vinland.) Ice-core drillings in the 1980s analyzed trapped air bubbles and found atmospheric CO2 in the MWP was a fraction of today's. Algore predicted in 2007 that all Arctic ice would be melted by 2014. The fastest rise in atm. CO2 was from 1940 to the early 1970s - and global temps. dropped steadily. So much for "more CO2 causes global warming." Keep drinking the AGW KoolAid.
David R_
5 / 5 (14) Jan 21, 2015
I have followed Dr. Hansen and NASA's model predictions since we were introduced to his antropogenic carbon forcing theories in a 1974 interdisciplinary science course on energy my university taught the year after the first mid east oil embargo. From 1970 baseline to now, Hansen's models have been right on the money for predicted degree of warming and more importantly for the kinds of damaging consequences we could expect in the first decades of this century if CO2 concentrations exceeded 350ppm.
Since the polar regions have warmed faster than anticipated, some of the natural feedback loops Hansen predicted are actually occurring decades earlier than his model projections. The most potentially serious of these is the melting of frozen methane hydrates from thawing tundra and polar ocean floors.
The current warming level is already doing far more rapid damage to the biosphere and to the future of human civilization than was anticipated. I see it happening all around me.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (21) Jan 21, 2015
Hi Norma Loquendi. Be wary of facile and superficial conclusions based on missing he complexities and timelags involved in 'stages' of developing new CIRCULATION patterns/dynamics within both ocean and atmosphere. The additional heat load creates INSTABILITIES in previously established circulation patterns/densities which now bring DEEPER levels of he ocean water column more strongly/quickly than before.

Such 'hiatus' and 'buffering' effects will produce TEMPORARY plateau in he apparent temperature trends, but he trend itself is always upwards DESPITE these new factors which 'muddy the waters' for those who treat it all too superficially, as you seem to.

Also remember, more warming in previously cooler regions will bring more pests/diseases and unseasonal weather locally (like early/late frosts, floods, droughts, windstorms etc)which will severely/expensively compromise/disrupt agriculture, health, transport etc.

So please be more careful what you wish for, Norma! :)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (23) Jan 21, 2015
From Ira:


A joke Really-Skippy. You should see if you can find a sense of humor and not get your feelings hurt at every little word from everybody and every time.

You must still be under the misunderstanding that this is the place where all the real-scientist-Skippys come to do their deep thinking and diligences. It is not that non Cher, I tried to explain they mostly read the comments here on the physorg for something to laugh about.

This is the only place you haven't been able to get the boot from yet, the real-scientist-Skippys are probably hanging out at the serious science forums like the ones you got shown the door at, unless they just want to see what all the couyons like you are saying for fun.

Tickle your diligent toes Skippy, smile once and again in a while. You will have the better life for it.
m_stone969
4.9 / 5 (9) Jan 21, 2015
This new model is likely wrong, but in that it is not much different than most other climate models that have been in place for 20+ years. The vast majority are, in fact, running 'hot' relative to actual surface and atmospheric temperatures measured over the last 15 years or so. While this observation in itself does not refute the existence of global warming, or man's likely contribution to it, it does illustrate that we still have a great deal to learn about factors that regulate the our climate. While this recent trend may represent a hiatus, attributable to previously unappreciated "buffering" (or other unknown) effects, this is presently a hypothesis. There remains considerable uncertainty as to he extent and rate of warming that may occur in the next 30-100 years. Would be interesting to see the Monckton 'model' tested using various earlier "start times".

PS: Name calling and appeals to authority do not comprise effective rebuttal.
RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (23) Jan 21, 2015
Poor bot-voting Ira twit under the misunderstanding that his bot-attempts to skew the ratings system is "just fun' ON A SCIENCE SITE. Insensible moronicity personified is Bot-voting-Ira.

Poor Ira-troll-twat thinks that those mod-troll-gang-run sites which banned me (because I proved via experiments their ABUSES and CORRUPT behavior) are any sort of 'science site' at all. Idiotic Ira-bot.

No wonder Cosmology science literature base/peer review system infested with flawed assumptions/confirmation-biased 'study/results' which recent PO articles from MAINSTREAM have highlighted to exist....just as I have been objectively observing and cautioning about for YEARS now while these corrupt ignoramuses of mod-troll-gangs have been attacking the messenger and abusing the whole concept of Scientific Method based on fairminded NON-confirmation bias principles!

These bot-vote gang make a mockery of all that, while giving 5's to each others travesties...what utter trolling losers, hey folks?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (9) Jan 21, 2015
Simple model? Warming exaggerated? IPCC wrong? Temperature feedback not as strong? The Earth buffers it's temp? (aka No bode effect-I haven't heard that one in a while).

Who has been say-ing that!

You know who!

You go Norma L!
OZGuy
5 / 5 (14) Jan 21, 2015
It's kind of like the difference between NASA, spending millions for an ink pen that would work in outer space; and the Russian cosmonauts, who just used a pencil.


You do know that story is BS don't you?
OZGuy
4.8 / 5 (12) Jan 21, 2015
RC
Get back to writing your world changing presentation. The ICC needs your global warming solution ASAP! You don't have time to play with others let alone the ability.
OZGuy
5 / 5 (12) Jan 21, 2015
For those that believe the pencil story is true.
http://www.scient...sa-spen/
Water_Prophet
1.1 / 5 (7) Jan 21, 2015
Just being me, an experienced scientist:
In reality, especially in systems there are rarely linear results. If you change the Earth by a constant in time, or by property it should change an fall to another equilibrium.

This looks like a short variable engineering model. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but just making the observation...
Huns
5 / 5 (10) Jan 21, 2015
Beijing and any number of other Chinese cities belch toxic fumes into the environment so fast that the people who live there have to wear full-mask respirators with cartridge filters.

The Chinese government has a lot of sway over everything that goes on, such as (just picking a totally random example here) the agenda pursued by various science journals under their jurisdiction.

A science journal with China in the name abandons the Chinese moniker, so that we will not immediately associate it with the same government that produces so much smog, that it has ruined the air quality in Hawaii and even shows up all the way across the ocean in California.

Now, they want us to believe they found it SO CHALLENGING to accept something that controverts the IPCC, something that makes it seem that China's pollution isn't so bad after all.

Yeah, let me take this paper seriously. I'm sure it's not a manipulation piece contrived and sham-reviewed under the control of LYING SOCIOPATHS.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (13) Jan 21, 2015
Just being me, an experienced scientist:
@ALCHE
1- you've never demonstrated or proven that you are even somewhat educated in any scientific field, only claimed it
2- if you were actually an experienced scientist, you would be able to research enough to present findings that are equivalent to the studies i posted
3- if you didn't lie all the time and get caught, more people might actually believe you when you say things like this above... luckily, you stand out as the perfect example of how NOT to argue a scientific point (through logical fallacies, ignoring relevant arguments, misdirected arguments and absolutely NO evidence supporting your conjectures)

so, where are the studies or the equivalent evidence that we can see regarding your claimed "refute" of the studies i linked?
artist1270
2 / 5 (8) Jan 21, 2015
Sorry, but no. Congress just passed an amendment that climate change is real, so take your silly science and mathematical facts and burn them. Otherwise you might end up in prison.
rogervanbrunt
4.2 / 5 (11) Jan 21, 2015
what???????????? this sounds like something with zero peer review
who is funding you and what are your motives this is not science its speculation
and conjecture. We are racing past tripping points which will only accelerate the
process of global warming. I think you just shot yourself in the foot with this foolish
bull shit
Z99
4.8 / 5 (8) Jan 22, 2015
What did the 2007 IPCC report say about the oceans as buffers?
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.6 / 5 (17) Jan 22, 2015
"by Christopher Monckton", in an obscure publication. 'Nuf said.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.8 / 5 (17) Jan 22, 2015
Just for kicks, I looked at what they have done. Essentially a FAR statistical model without underlying physics, using the -98 atmospheric temperature anomaly as a means to proclaim "little heating".

The climate science denialists will play this for years, despite -14 being the 8th heat anomaly year in a row or so. But I note that even the "no see, no hear, no tell" Monckton has stopped to claim 'no warming' because the data alone is now unassailable.
mooster75
4.4 / 5 (16) Jan 22, 2015
Now we know why the trolls don't get bounced; the site itself is trolling us.
rlladbury
4.4 / 5 (14) Jan 22, 2015
Monkton, Soon, Legates and Briggs--that tells you all you need to know. They've never been right about anything yet. Then there is the obscure journal in which it was published. Finally, the fact that they are claiming a "simple" model is an improvement on the coupled circulation models. And they cherry-pick only the two models that show the least warming. This is idiocy.
Wake
1.1 / 5 (8) Jan 22, 2015
What this shows is NOT global warming but short term warming in a climate that is actually quite stable. This COULD be signs that we are coming out of our present Ice Age but it is unlikely since we've been in this cycle too short a time. If the weather patterns reverse and we cool for the next couple of decades are we going to hear cries to burn more coal?
gkam
2.3 / 5 (24) Jan 22, 2015
" If the weather patterns reverse and we cool for the next couple of decades are we going to hear cries to burn more coal?"
--------------------------------------

Only from Don Blankenship, . . from prison.
gkam
2.8 / 5 (27) Jan 22, 2015
David R_
4.9 / 5 (15) Jan 22, 2015
The point is that warming does not happen absent cause. The cause of the current warming trend is rapid change in atmospheric composition with respect to greenhouse gases. That is very well established from hard physical data. It hasn't been scientifically controversial since the late 1980's when we exceeded natural cycle concentrations that have been stable within a narrow range of 200-300ppm for at least the last 230,000 years, including the last ice age and earlier warming periods. Other natural potential causes have been looked at an ruled out since by the historic natural cycles we should be cooling down slightly. Hasn't happened.
axemaster
4.7 / 5 (16) Jan 22, 2015
I thought this might be something important, until I saw the name...

Lord Monckton

Not to use an ad-hominum but seriously, putting his name on this guarantees that it won't have any credibility. He's one of the slimiest guys out there.
gkam
2.9 / 5 (28) Jan 22, 2015
Norma Loquendi: "For all the juvenile name-calling, you AGW tinfoil hat alarmists, . . . "

Pot, meet Kettle.
RichManJoe
4.9 / 5 (9) Jan 22, 2015
But it's simple enough that any high school student can use it. Ergo, it must be right.

And it's not even April 1 yet.
gkam
2.4 / 5 (25) Jan 22, 2015
If I write a paper on a topic such as quantum mechanics, about which I know absolutely nothing, and it is read and analyzed by my neighbor who knows just as little, it it "peer-reviewed"?
MP3Car
4.7 / 5 (16) Jan 22, 2015
IF ANYONE IS STILL READING THIS FAR DOWN...

Take a look at the wikipedia entry on "Lord" Monckton...

From http://en.wikiped...renchley

In July 2011 the House of Lords took the "unprecedented step" of publishing online a cease and desist letter to Monckton from the Clerk of the Parliaments, which concluded, "I am publishing this letter on the parliamentary website so that anybody who wishes to check whether you are a Member of the House of Lords can view this official confirmation that you are not."

On 6 December 2012 Monckton took Burma's seat at the COP18 Climate Change Conference in Doha without permission and made a short speech attacking the idea of man-made climate change. He was escorted from the building and given a lifetime ban from attending UN climate talks. Monckton said that there had been no global warming over the last sixteen years, and thus the science should be reviewed.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (17) Jan 22, 2015
I must say it is refreshing to see how many people who posted on this article understand the truth of global warming. I expected the comments section to be a love orgy from the denialist camp, and I am pleasantly surprised to see much more reasoned responses.
bertwalker
1.1 / 5 (11) Jan 22, 2015
Interesting...
If you don't agree with the findings in the paper then prove it wrong.
But...
No comments on the content of the paper? No one showing error in the math?
No one attacking the theory the authors describe? Or even the premises they hold?
Perhaps only a few commenters here, if any, actually read the paper.

BTW Science bulletin is the largest Science publication in the world. Prestigious? Yes, but perhaps not to the western narcissists, and the misogynists (you know who you are).
To the rest of us in the world, in a most objective manner, the comments appear undignified petty and ignorant.

The personel attacks exhibited in the comments are really one of the greatest forms of flattery to the authors.
If you can't disprove the theory, personally attack the one who proposes it.
Galileo, Einstein,Tesla et al., all being on the receiving end of such attacks learned this well.
namtupdj
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 22, 2015
This is an old claim (now "peer reviewed" / concurred with by Chinese "scientists", whose government - to whom they must often kowtow ... if they know what is best for them - is desperate to preserve and continue the use of fossil fuels). AND it has already been thoroughly debunked at - realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/monckton-makes-it-up/comment-page-4/.
Scroofinator
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 22, 2015
Dr Willie Soon, an eminent solar physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said: "Our work suggests that Man's influence on climate may have been much overstated. The role of the Sun has been undervalued


I have been saying this for how long now? Glad to see some new peer reviewed material that expresses this point.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (15) Jan 22, 2015
Interesting...
If you don't agree with the findings in the paper then prove it wrong.
But...
No comments on the content of the paper? No one showing error in the math?
No one attacking the theory the authors describe? Or even the premises they hold?
Perhaps only a few commenters here, if any, actually read the paper.


Try looking again - I did (1st one FI) and have referenced sites that have.

It's so ibecilic as to be laughable, even without the "Lords" name on the cover.

Look Monckton is in this for one reason and one reason only ... to lie about AGW scince.
here are a few vids proving that.....

https://www.youtu...2prBtVFo
https://www.youtu...3FnsFZ7Q
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (13) Jan 22, 2015
on the content of the paper?
@bert
posted above: "pocket-calculator climate model"
this cannot be compared to a complex model (especially as they would have to cherry pick through the data to get the results they WANT (as noted above by rlladbury ) )

second point is: the ASSUMPTION that this is a peer reviewed study is fallacious

-There is no historical accounting from the publication
-the publication cannot be considered legitimate as this is usually established over time by publishing legitimate science
-The choice in publication only demonstrates that they are willing to disregard hundreds of other complex studies in order to push a fringe idea & they published this for the SHOCK value, not for the science in it
-it is easy to find a way to make something look accurate AFTER the fact
-the blatant lie at the end
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest
is deliberate deception and obfuscation of actual science
-publication has ZERO impact
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (13) Jan 22, 2015
on the content of the paper?
@Bert
then there is the assessment by Runrig above (see details above)

in a case like this, it is difficult to choose where to follow, as this seems legit

HOWEVER, if you take into consideration the players involved, the blatantly fallacious claims in certain parts (like the declaration of no conflict of interest), the fact that they are manipulating cherry-picked PAST data in order to come to a current conclusion without accepting or utilising the complex data used in the models (ignoring important data) while choosing to ignore the error bars as well... it leads one to believe that the paper is agenda driven rather than science driven

Tell you what, Bert... there is BOUND to be some type of feedback from the scientific community with regard to this, so why not simply take a "wait and see" approach and see what happens with it and where it goes
Scroofinator
1.6 / 5 (8) Jan 22, 2015
publication has ZERO impact

You're talking about it
RealityCheck
2.2 / 5 (21) Jan 22, 2015
Dr Willie Soon, an eminent solar physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said: "Our work suggests that Man's influence on climate may have been much overstated. The role of the Sun has been undervalued
I have been saying this for how long now? Glad to see some new peer reviewed material that expresses this point.


Scroof, please realize that if it wasn't for Earth atmosphere insulating/buffering, the Sun's radiant energy input to our atmosphere/surface would be re-radiated overnight back to space.

It is 'lag' and 'blocking outwards' that makes Earth ecosystem heat balance what it is.

If this 'lag' and 'blocking' is decreased/increased beyond stable tolerable 'goldilocks zone' range for life as we know it (ie, by drastic 'excursion' up/down from pre-industrial era levels of CO2 component of atmosphere), then the changed CO2 etc effect will be main driver of warming/cooling, irrespective of normal range variation in Solar radiation input.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (20) Jan 22, 2015
Hello OZ.
RC
Get back to writing your world changing presentation. The ICC needs your global warming solution ASAP! You don't have time to play with others let alone the ability.


Just because you can't walk and chew gum at the same time don't assume others can't. :)

Anyhow, exposing and confronting those morons, who think it "just fun" to skew and sabotage review/rating system and discourse on a SCIENCE SITE, is one's duty, not 'playing'.

A pity that you enable and encourage and participate in such 'play' and 'fun' which makes a mockery of all science and humanity principles, while still trolling me with your personality cult posts adding nothing to the advancement of either science or humanity.

Leave it alone or you'll go blind as well as stupid, OZ....oops, too late for you, judging by your continued drivel in lieu of actually looking and addressing the issues raised in those links in the other thread which proved me correct all along. Give it up, loser. :)
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (7) Jan 22, 2015
please realize that if it wasn't for Earth atmosphere insulating/buffering, the Sun's radiant energy input to our atmosphere/surface would be re-radiated overnight back to space.

So you're saying if we didn't have an atmosphere we'd all die??? You must have went to college.

RC, please realize climate models (irregardless of complexity) are too erroneous to still believe we fully understand Earth's climate system. Solar radiation alone (TSI) is not the only influence provided by the Sun.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (19) Jan 22, 2015
No Scroof, it's not an atmosphere as such, it's what the atmosphere DOES that is the point in the context we are speaking about. Your flippant remark attempt at 'cheap shot' is indicative of your own facile mind/attitude you bring to this discussion in this context.

And FYI, I have always urged everyone, especially those who have been tempted to make facile observations/conclusions, that it IS complex. That is the point.

Whatever form of energy input from Sun-Earth system (be it in the form of solar radiation directly, or indirectly via electro-magnetic field interactions which dump energy via charged particles and electric currents etc etc into Earth's system), it is this CO2 etc 'lagging' effect which prevents total re-radiation of that energy straight back to space overnight.

That is the point. Whatever the inputs to our planet's heat load from the sun-earth system directly/indirectly, CO2 etc effect is key. :)
joubaur
4 / 5 (8) Jan 22, 2015
Chinese Science peer reviewed in a Chinese Science Journal.
WOW!
That sounds real reliable.
Water_Prophet
1.1 / 5 (8) Jan 22, 2015
See folks look at this, I know what my positions are, I know the logical deductions I have made from baseline physical properties, and I know I have changed them in several areas.

But let me ask you, who has enough authority and knowledge to change your opinions? What criteria will cause you to to say Mockton is good or bad? He is represented here, after all.

Has anyone here ever changed what they BELIEVE about the subject?
seversky
1.7 / 5 (13) Jan 22, 2015
How do we deal with this? I know! Let's completely dismiss this paper on the basis of who wrote it, rather than the validity of its ideas!
runrig
4.7 / 5 (15) Jan 22, 2015
How do we deal with this? I know! Let's completely dismiss this paper on the basis of who wrote it, rather than the validity of its ideas!

I've done both thanks.
philstacy9
1.3 / 5 (12) Jan 22, 2015
Carbon reduction to fix global warming is like trying to cure cancer with vitamins except we are more certain that cancer exists. Mass media reporting on global warming creates locust minds that swarm mindlessly, consuming rational behavior.
zz5555
4.7 / 5 (14) Jan 22, 2015
What criteria will cause you to to say Mockton is good or bad?

To prove that the sea level wasn't rising, he tilted a graph on it's side so the upward trending line representing sea level rise was horizontal. He calls scientists that understand climate science Nazis. He's a habitual liar, whether it's claiming to win lawsuits or curing AIDS, Multiple Sclerosis, and herpes. There is great reason to be skeptical of anything said by Mr. Monckton. The write-up above about this paper is so full of nonsense that it's easy to believe that it was written by Monckton.
Has anyone here ever changed what they BELIEVE about the subject?

Of course they have. Haven't you? Anyone who calls themselves a skeptic and hasn't changed their opinion on the science at some point is no skeptic.
mbee1
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 22, 2015
Do you people even bother to read the grafts? What the grafts are saying is over the pass 17 years the RSS data shows zero climate warming. All the models show various warming way above zero. This new simple model is the closest to zero. The other models are horse puckey as they do not model the actual climate. you can argue all day about some talking head like Mockton or Mann or Santa Claus, which is simply silly. Find a model which actually tracks with the climate and than predict.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (15) Jan 22, 2015
The criticisms of the Monckton paper are mounting.
runrig already posted one: https://andthenth...climate/

Here's another: https://quantpala...ars-ago/

And in reading this: http://motherboar...e-denial I was struck byt an admission by Monckton:
Monckton acknowledges that there was a publication fee, as well as an open access fee, which was covered by the Heartland Institute, an organization perhaps best known for ​displaying a billboard that compared those who believed in climate change to Charles Manson.


The problem begins with the authors, but to the someone who pointed out that the paper is being rejected only because of the authors, I say not so; the authors certainly have a deserved reputation, but it is their actual research that is being challenged, not because it is written by them, but because it is junk.
netprophet
1.5 / 5 (11) Jan 22, 2015
This paper went through three rounds of peer-review. You alarmists don't like it because it does not support your paradigm. The temperature gauges we use now are at best +/- 0.5 degrees C in accuracy and we are quibling over 0.01 degree differences. Second, Klaus Hager 44-year veteran German meteorologist placed dozens of older mercury thermometers side-by-side with modern instruments used today all over Germany. Over an 8 and half year study, he found on average that the newer thermometers showed temperatures 0.93 deg C higher than the old mercury types. Germany began replacing their mercury thermometers in 1985 at all 2000 weather stations and completed the task by 2000. "Warming" in Germany began in 1986, stopped in 2000 and has been flat since 2000 and also was flat prior to 1985. Coincidence?

All you guys will do now is sneer at Hager because he doesn't meet your genetic fallacy criteria.
netprophet
1.5 / 5 (11) Jan 22, 2015
German climate physicist Prof. Dr. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke: "It is senseless to favor a certain hypothesis – senseless according to our still valid scientific paradigm – when no confirming measured data can be shown to support it. One can occupy himself with a hypothesis, put it at the center of his research, and even have complete faith in it. However one cannot use it as a basis for taking rational action without first having confirmed measurements. In summary: If we cannot observe any unusual climate activity since 1850 compared to the times before that, then we have no choice but to assume natural climate change."
netprophet
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 22, 2015
Science Bulletin (Sci. Bull., formerly known as Chinese Science Bulletin from 1966 to 2014) is a multidisciplinary academic journal supervised by the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) and co-sponsored by the CAS and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC). Sci. Bull. is a semi-monthly international journal publishing high-caliber peer-reviewed research on a broad range of natural sciences and high-tech fields

What is wrong with that???
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (14) Jan 22, 2015
And now yet another critique: http://climatecon...ggs.html

I would like to point out that all of the critiques I have linked are speaking to the claims made by Monckton et al, not them personally.

The foundations of their paper are shakey and poorly researched, they appear to have no grasp of the physics, and they show bias in their cites and they display a flagrant disregard of factual information. I wouldn't be relying on this paper for much more than use in an outhouse.
zz5555
5 / 5 (12) Jan 22, 2015
What the grafts are saying is over the pass 17 years the RSS data shows zero climate warming.

But that's one of the silly bits in the paper. The models look at surface temperature, but satellites don't measure surface temperature. So the actual temperature rise was larger than the paper's model. And they claim that climate sensitivity is <= 1 according to their model. But empirical data shows that that's not the case. I haven't seen their actual model, but their results don't inspire much confidence.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (14) Jan 22, 2015
This paper went through three rounds of peer-review. You alarmists don't like it because it does not support your paradigm.
So the author claims. Yet very fundamental incorrect aspects of the physics, the cites, and the methodology have been overlooked. I can't speak for these "alarmists" you talk about, but for myself I don't like it because it is a poorly written and inaccurate paper. Junk science, in my opinion.
All you guys will do now is sneer at Hager because he doesn't meet your genetic fallacy criteria.
So provide a cite so "us guys" can look at what is actually being said.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (14) Jan 22, 2015
German climate physicist Prof. Dr. Horst-Joachim L�Ľdecke: "It is senseless to favor a certain hypothesis – senseless according to our still valid scientific paradigm – when no confirming measured data can be shown to support it. One can occupy himself with a hypothesis, put it at the center of his research, and even have complete faith in it. However one cannot use it as a basis for taking rational action without first having confirmed measurements. In summary: If we cannot observe any unusual climate activity since 1850 compared to the times before that, then we have no choice but to assume natural climate change."
Another quote: "Climate Specialist I'm not. […] My criticism is well founded and professionally sound mix, but [I am] not a specialist in technical details of climate physics." http://www.schman...itik.pdf Do you understand what "Appeal to Authority" is?
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (14) Jan 22, 2015
Science Bulletin (Sci. Bull., formerly known as Chinese Science Bulletin from 1966 to 2014) is a multidisciplinary academic journal supervised by the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) and co-sponsored by the CAS and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC). Sci. Bull. is a semi-monthly international journal publishing high-caliber peer-reviewed research on a broad range of natural sciences and high-tech fields

What is wrong with that???


Nothing. So?

Caliban
3.9 / 5 (15) Jan 22, 2015
Regarding "Lord" Christopher Monckton, I have in the past run this piece up the flagpole for the edification of those that wish to claim that his "science" holds any water:

http://static.stt...entation

Not a single drop, as it turns out.

Even though Dr Abraham's refutation of Monckton's lunatic idiocity is now about four years old, it still sharply illuminates the many reasons for Monkton's complete and utter lack of scientific credibility.

He is nothing more than a hired hack for BigCarbon.

There -I've said it.

Let the wailing commence.
Water_Prophet
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 22, 2015
Only doofs on this site would mock a "Lord," as if it were a title to be mocked and not honored.

Anyone who disagrees with you, is no good, anyone agreeing with you...
Well anyone agreeing wwith you is just one of the three people who visit ohys.org, everyone else thinks you're nuts.
Vietvet
4.7 / 5 (15) Jan 23, 2015
Only doofs on this site would mock a "Lord," as if it were a title to be mocked and not honored.

LMFAO!

Monckton did nothing to earn his title, it was inherited along with his wealth.

He makes a mockery of the individual's knighted for their accomplishments.

He is most decidedly a charlatan.

https://bbickmore...p-sheet/
fadingfool
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 23, 2015
Amazing - not a single critique of the peer reviewed paper. Well done all for your example of post normal science at its best. Lysenko would be proud.
Uncle Ira
4.8 / 5 (24) Jan 23, 2015
Only doofs on this site would mock a "Lord," as if it were a title to be mocked and not honored.


Have you seen the Lord-Skippy's track record? Only a doof (whatever that is) would not mock him. Water-Skippy, this Lord-Skippy is the very mockable crankpot. You should read up on him, he is threes or twice as weird as Al Gore or Mann you guys like to make the fun with all the time. He is more weird than anything you've seen post up here. He is more weird than the Tux-Skippy or even the katie-Skippette.
zz5555
5 / 5 (12) Jan 23, 2015
Amazing - not a single critique of the peer reviewed paper. Well done all for your example of post normal science at its best. Lysenko would be proud.

Haven't you read the posts here? There have been several refutations of the paper posted. In addition, the conclusions from the paper disagree with empirical data. Shouldn't that be a hint that you should be very skeptical about the paper?
zz5555
5 / 5 (12) Jan 23, 2015
Only doofs on this site would mock a "Lord," as if it were a title to be mocked and not honored.

This is a bizarre statement. "Lord" (a title inherited and not earned) is a title to be honored? So you claim that someone whose claim to fame is making things up should be honored merely because they were born into royalty? That says an awful lot about you.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (14) Jan 23, 2015
Just being me, an experienced scientist:
In reality, especially in systems there are rarely linear results. If you change the Earth by a constant in time, or by property it should change an fall to another equilibrium.

This looks like a short variable engineering model. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but just making the observation...


Scientists are not welcome here........only ROC (Retired Old Codger) members of the Church of the Holy Hockey Stick as they quote from their Holy Books of the Apocalypse. If you've ever noticed, there are no Differential Equations contained within the pages of their holy books, just complex AGW computer models even they are unable to comprehend because they've never taken & passed a course in Thermodynamics or Chemistry.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (12) Jan 23, 2015
Another, more detailed criticism of the paper is here: http://www.carbon...gerated/

and here: https://docs.goog...LJU/edit

The more it is looked at, the more problems are found with it. Not the authors, despite some incorrect claims here, but the actual details within the paper, including the methods used, the short comings of the authors' assumptions, and other errors.
David R_
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 23, 2015
Monckton is an obvious fraud who misappropriates and distorts the work of real scientists doing research in the field to suit his own foregone conclusions. That is what peer review has determined in the past. It is the same with the current article.
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (13) Jan 23, 2015
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ny6UAs5I9_PBKoIle7tptLXjeAuQYTaznhxXvTrZLJU/edit
@Maggnus
that link to Dr Jan Perlwitz is flat out devastating to this study

Awesome link and very clear as well
THANKS

If you've ever noticed, there are no Differential Equations contained within the pages of their holy books
@benniTROLL
besides being baiting/trolling
i noticed you have a point.... about your own posts
you ALSO never post any differential equations
you've also never demonstrated any knowledge of Thermodynamics or Chemistry

interestingly enough... in fact, the closest you've come to posting science is a copy/paste of Einsteins words (the same copy/paste which you denigrate others for)

makes a good indicator of who the TROLL is

at least Maggnus, Runrig and those above are posting links to science which validate their conclusions... all you do is whine about being outed and picked on because you are a TROLL
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (14) Jan 23, 2015
Monckton is an obvious fraud who misappropriates and distorts the work of real scientists doing research in the field to suit his own foregone conclusions. That is what peer review has determined in the past. It is the same with the current article.


True, but there are enough errors in the paper that it can be dismissed for that, not just that he co-authored it.

One has to wonder what peer review was done before it was published. The article's author claims that the paper "survived three rounds of tough peer review in which two of the reviewers had at first opposed the paper on the ground that it questioned the IPCC's predictions. " which certainly doesn't sound like an objection that an honest reviewer would make. Questioning the IPCC projections and giving proof you were right would make you an instant celebrity - not to mention the fact that that is exactly what this paper claims to do. There are many other errors that are far more grievous to reject it by than that.
runrig
4.7 / 5 (12) Jan 23, 2015
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ny6UAs5I9_PBKoIle7tptLXjeAuQYTaznhxXvTrZLJU/edit
@Maggnus
that link to Dr Jan Perlwitz is flat out devastating to this study

Awesome link and very clear as well
THANKS

Yes indeed, it's nice to see what I saw and other things besides, down in print by a (proper) climate scientist.
And as usual Monckton turns evasive and "difficult".

https://disqus.co...erlwitz/
http://pubs.giss....itz.html
rufusgwarren
5 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2015
Let's not kid ourselves. What are the changes made to the dampening effects that stabilize delta T and life? Let's just say the guy holding the calculator in the near future may not be as human as we are, TG.
Water_Prophet
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 23, 2015
Yeah, so Lord M., despite being born into the title, worked as a journalist, a very stress filled choice for a career and struck out as an entrepreneur, making a business from a toy, whose variation you have probably played with.

Seems pretty respectable to me.
But he does contradict your opinions, therefore the penalty is ridicule and defamation.

Something like: Being a journalist, come entrepreneur, come think-tank founder, come serving as science advisor to England, and so on really, is still not good enough, but any crackpot who does agree with you is pure gold.

Face it, his opinion is much>much>much better than skepticalscience.com.
runrig
4.7 / 5 (13) Jan 23, 2015
serving as science advisor to England, and so on really, is still not good enough,


"John Gummer, who was Environment Minister under Thatcher, however, has claimed Monckton was "a bag carrier in Mrs Thatcher's office. And the idea that he advised her on climate change is laughable."Writing in The Guardian, Bob Ward of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment notes that Thatcher's memoirs, The Downing Street Years, do not mention Monckton and credit George Guise with the role of science advisor."
http://en.wikiped...renchley
Face it, his opinion is much>much>much better than skepticalscience.com.

No it isn't ... no one's opinions matter. Full stop. It is the science that matters, which is where Monckton is devoid.
David R_
4.7 / 5 (12) Jan 23, 2015
Monckton's opinion blatantly ignores obvious facts about current warming conditions and the nature of AGW. Willful ignorance is not science regardless of how it is dressed up to appear so. What is his opinion worth absent reality?
Water_Prophet
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 23, 2015
As ignorant as he may very well be, according to someone else (Gummer) whose opinion you'd say was rubbish if they didn't agree with yours, as many facts as he ignores, what's really eating you is he's right.

You can't ignore he's been a successful hard-worker, entrepreneur, developed a brain trust, and went into politics.

He's an amazing guy, much much more amazing than any one of us, and most article publishers who may or may not agree with your all-important opinions.

And the article agrees with reality. Sorry Charlies. What's really eating you is he is right.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (19) Jan 23, 2015
Water_Prophet, Benni et al. As trolls on all 'sides' here have learned long ago, I am a scrupulously lone independent researcher/commenter, probably the most objective person you are ever likely to encounter in discussion on any issue I take interest in enough to research/post about. So please take it from me, you have missed the main point in all this context. This issue is a global problem too important to leave to the usual opinion/politics etc.

As I have already pointed out to Norma Loquendi above, when all those other variable/intermittent/non-ubiquitous factors are allowed for, it remains CO2 factor as the final arbiter of what those other factors 'add up to' in overall effect.

The point is that ONLY CO2 atmospheric 'lagging' is ALWAYS ON, and increases and becomes more distributed higher and higher in the air column as emissions increase and warming causes more severe cyclonic and convection transport/spread of CO2 effect higher/all over in atmosphere.

Rethink. :)
Water_Prophet
2.1 / 5 (9) Jan 23, 2015
@Reality, it's funny, the only thing I disagree with about AGW is CO2. It's a red herring. The change driver is simply heat. Think about it, is the worlds climate changing because of insulation, aka CO2, or heat? I don't require to generate observed changes.

If you know your thermodynamics, and it seems like you may, you understand the concept of insulation and "waste heat."

You know that if the root cause were insulation, you would observe certain effects, if waste heat, you'd see others.

Without pointing fingers, at the roots cause, allow me to politely ask the questions: What would happen to the Earth under insulating conditions? vs those of increased heat on land from sources?

What matches up to observations?

The only assumption you need to make is that the Earth is changing slowly vs equilibrium conditions, just like textbook thermodynamics.
zz5555
5 / 5 (11) Jan 23, 2015
Think about it, is the worlds climate changing because of insulation, aka CO2, or heat?

But as you know, increasing atmospheric CO2 increases the amount of heat retained in the climate. So increasing atmospheric CO2 results in increased heat.
Without pointing fingers, at the roots cause, allow me to politely ask the questions: What would happen to the Earth under insulating conditions? vs those of increased heat on land from sources?

Increased levels of CO2 will should cause nights to warm faster than days, less heat escaping to space, more heat reflected to the ground and a cooling stratosphere. These are all observed. None of these would be caused by waste heat. In addition, you indicated that increased heat coming from elevated levels of CO2 is ~56x more than the increased heat from waste heat. All of this means that CO2 is much stronger than waste heat in raising the global temperature.
zz5555
5 / 5 (11) Jan 23, 2015
What matches up to observations?

As I noted above, there's no question that CO2 matches observations very well. There's no question that waste heat contributes to the heating, but on a much smaller level than CO2.
Huns
5 / 5 (11) Jan 23, 2015
No one attacking the theory the authors describe? Or even the premises they hold?
Perhaps only a few commenters here, if any, actually read the paper.

That was done several times. You should read the comments before you say "no one" did something that several people did.

BTW Science bulletin is the largest Science publication in the world. Prestigious? Yes, but perhaps not to the western narcissists, and the misogynists (you know who you are).

Prestigious to gullible idiots who love having lies shoveled into their fat, stupid faces, perhaps.

To the rest of us in the world, in a most objective manner, the comments appear undignified petty and ignorant.

You spoke with several billion people to find out how this appears to non-Westerners?

Are you just a random gullible person, or were you paid to come here and astroturf?
laden_greg
5 / 5 (11) Jan 23, 2015
Dear Physorg.

You need to realize that you just posted an article lauding a paper written by the Four Stooges of Science Denialism.
GoodElf
3.7 / 5 (13) Jan 24, 2015
Utter rubbish. What the calculator suggests is that "global temperature rise" to the end of the century will be the same as previously. Look at the page here:
http://www.geo.co...nge.html
There is a curve for Observed Temperature Anomaly there. The term Temperature Anomaly means temperate above the reference temperature (0 degrees on the LHS of curve). It is not a measure of temperature. The curve shows the temperature anomaly increasing with time. This means the temperature is increasing along a geometric curve not a linear one.
GoodElf
3.7 / 5 (12) Jan 24, 2015
... Actual global temperatures are not shown on Monkton's data and the "sly" inference is this is a temperate curve when it is actually an anomaly curve. While not an outright "lie" it is a distortion of what a "simple" interpretation needs. Actual temperature observations indicate that measured global temperatures have warmed 0.7 degrees Centigrade in the last 20 years to 2010. Extrapolations indicate by 2100 it will be 2 deg C higher. See:
http://www.skepti...sar.html
See curve on 1995 IPCC Projections and Observations and also Projected Global Mean Surface Temperature curves there for explanation.
GoodElf
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 24, 2015
Ignore this blank post
GoodElf
3.7 / 5 (12) Jan 24, 2015
Damn... Slight misreading of the data. Does not change conclusions (except upwards). According to the original curve Global Temperature have warmed 0.3 Deg C in the 20 year period not 0.7 Deg C as I had stated. Unfortunately this was an underestimate (see improved curve on same page below). See:
http://www.skepti...sar.html
However the other figure is correct of about 2.0 deg C by the end of the Century but is now currently a severe underestimate of the total warming. See IPCC SAR global warming projections under the IS92 emissions scenarios from 1990 to 2010 with a 3°C equilibrium climate sensitivity (on same page) shows a change of actually 0.4 deg C since 1990 (not 0.3 deg C as shown above) . Projection is now 3.0 Deg C elevation to end of century (up from 2 Deg C). Delete Monkton's app from your mobile device, it only shows gobbledygook.
OZGuy
4.7 / 5 (12) Jan 24, 2015
I am a scrupulously lone independent researcher/commenter, probably the most objective person you are ever likely to encounter in discussion on any issue I take interest in enough to research/post about.


Hardly!

You are a self-proclaimed genius who claims to have written the definitive Theory of Everything and has the solution for Global Warming waiting to be presented at an International Climate Conference. Apparently hiding your brilliance under a bushel since age 9 you consistently call mainstream scientists idiots and are terrified they will steal your work.

Anyone who asks you to prove your fantastic claims is immediately called a troll/twat/moron in one of your dummy spits.
We're all ganging up on you and skewing the ratings to obfuscate your brilliance from the general public.
We're all too stupid to understand your genius.

"Most objective person", think you mean most objectionable person!
mooster75
5 / 5 (11) Jan 24, 2015
Regarding "Lord" Christopher Monckton, I have in the past run this piece up the flagpole for the edification of those that wish to claim that his "science" holds any water:

http://static.stt...entation

Not a single drop, as it turns out.


Thanks for the link; nice presentation!
Benni
2.4 / 5 (14) Jan 24, 2015
The point is that ONLY CO2 atmospheric 'lagging' is ALWAYS ON, and increases and becomes more distributed higher and higher in the air column as emissions increase and warming causes more severe cyclonic and convection transport/spread of CO2 effect higher/all over in atmosphere.


You may think this is the case, but this is not the way it was presented in 1998, the year of the infamous Hockey Stick. Remember that was the year ppm of CO2 reached a peak never before measured while also that year was recorded as the "hottest on record", thus a supposed "direct" correlation was presented as "science", yeah, "science" for that year. Then as ppm of CO2 continued increasing in subsequent years to 400 ppm with no increase in global temperatures there was a need to change the "science".

When it is necessary to keep changing the "science" to fit the facts, is it any wonder skeptics arise? Even the so-called "greenies" out there see the incongruities in the math.

zz5555
4.7 / 5 (12) Jan 24, 2015
Then as ppm of CO2 continued increasing in subsequent years to 400 ppm with no increase in global temperatures there was a need to change the "science".

Do you have any evidence that this occurred? Only by cherry picking a start date of 1998 can anyone claim that the trend has changed. But looking at the entire warming trend since the current warming started in the 70s shows no pause (https://tamino.wo...tupid-3/ ).
When it is necessary to keep changing the "science" to fit the facts, is it any wonder skeptics arise?

Um, this is what science does - it always changes to fit the facts. Otherwise, it becomes religion. But the changes in climate science have been evolutionary, not revolutionary. As for skeptics, any good scientist is, almost by definition, a skeptic. But when the opposition to science is only based on political/philosophical beliefs, it isn't skeptics that arise.
zz5555
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 24, 2015
Then as ppm of CO2 continued increasing in subsequent years to 400 ppm with no increase in global temperatures there was a need to change the "science".

By the way, the fact that global temperature doesn't rise monotonically has been pointed out over and over and over and over (at, for example, http://www.skepti...php?g=47 ). That the fake skeptics ignored this for political and/or philosophical reasons doesn't make it any less true.
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (7) Jan 24, 2015
Peer-reviewed pocket-calculator climate model exposes serious errors in complex computer models
What a bunch of B.S.. Just because the calculations are adjusted to get the results they want does not infer this model is any better than any other.

"Modeling" the climate is akin to playing a race car game on Nintendo and definitively stating this is proof Danica Patrick will win the Daytona 500 this year.

Water_Prophet
2 / 5 (6) Jan 24, 2015
@Reality
Who knows if you'll come back...
So if it were insulation, and a 135ppm/1000000ppm = 0.000135 change really wouldn't make a difference, the world would be warmer, yes, but weather would be more stable. Increases in temperature have been below expectations, shall we say.

Now if it were heat, temperatures would be buffered, they would increase locally, fade and be absorbed in the colder area of the Earth. Also known as melting icecaps. More tellingly, weather would be more extreme. Demonstrated.

Also temperature would grow with increased CO2, no hiatus.
With heat you'd expect more but weaker hurricanes. Demonstrated.

@Uba, modeling weather, hard, but done, weather forecasts. Climate modeling, easy, but political, if they had an accurate model, predicting EXACTLY WHAT WE'VE WITNESS, then people would be able to make decisions. Being right or wrong, people make decision, but uncertainty or ambiguity stops people dead in their tracks.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 24, 2015
Then as ppm of CO2 continued increasing in subsequent years to 400 ppm with no increase in global temperatures there was a need to change the "science".

By the way, the fact that global temperature doesn't rise monotonically has been pointed out over and over and over and over (at, for example, That the fake skeptics ignored this for political and/or philosophical reasons doesn't make it any less true.


Look ZZ, there are those so asleep at the switch that they unwittingly fall into a class of people who can be labeled as: "those who can be fooled all the time"; you are one of these.

I wouldn't live anywhere near a coal power generating facility, but let me tell you that the stuff that comes out of volcanoes is far worse, yet millions continue to live within sight of volcanoes by choice. The problem with the "greenie" solution is that they want to enforce unproven "solutions" on others that even they will not adopt.
zz5555
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 24, 2015
The problem with the "greenie" solution is that they want to enforce unproven "solutions" on others that even they will not adopt.

What the heck does any of this have to do with any solutions? When did solutions ever come into the question of whether there is a problem or not? Why change the subject?

From your refusal (or inability?) to refute the data, I'm assuming that you now agree that there never was an actual "hiatus" in global temperatures.
gkam
2.6 / 5 (22) Jan 24, 2015
I think benni projects his own vulnerability to politics onto others, and loses touch with reality. He thinks because we have volcanoes we can keep on polluting, instead of cutting back to save the Earth.

Apparently he is not in science, or he would understand how it works, with proof required, and hundreds of others in the same field waiting to make their mark by proving you wrong.

The ethics of business, of finance, or politics, or theology, of law, of all the fields we invented are completely different from Natural Laws. We can and do change the rules to suit ourselves in those other fields, but not in science. In other fields, fudging, or outright lying is normal, . . . you're selling, after all. In science it is professional death.

The rest of you not in science have a lot to learn about professional ethics.
Benni
2.4 / 5 (14) Jan 24, 2015
@ gkam- I have 6 years of Engineering School education in Nuclear & Electrical engineering behind me & can follow every Differential Equation contained within the pages of Einstein's Thesis on General Relativity. With 3 semesters of Chemistry under my belt I have gained great proficiency in solving Rate of Reaction Equations, whereby I gain educational insight ignored by greenie alarmists who invented the 1998 Hockey Stick.

I am not one of those few among us 'who can be fooled all the time".

So gkam, describe your lifestyle. Do you drive a car? Where do you get your energy from? Do you have a "green job"? Describe your house to us, are you off the grid?

It doesn't count to be labeled as "green" if all you do is read stuff about it & never apply it to yourself as Al Gore does. Preaching without practice is always a nonstarter.
gkam
2.2 / 5 (22) Jan 24, 2015
Why would you expect us to have the systems just now available?

Poco a poco, Benni. I have converted my 1956 tract house into a more modern and efficient place, and am not through. It takes time for market penetration to allow us to afford these things, not being able to just change out all systems at once. My house is now insulated, my furnace is condensing, my lighting is LED, and I am getting PVs, which will supply our next car with electricity.

Send money, and I will design a living system for you built into your location to blend in with it. It can make its own energy, clean its own waste, and take care of you.

gkam
1.7 / 5 (19) Jan 24, 2015
Benni, thank you for revealing your history. It makes you more Human, and lets me address you more appropriately, with an understanding of your CV.

BTW, I am serious about designing a self-sustainable domicile.

Also BTW, were you in Navy nukes? Otherwise, We might have met. since I taught public and private seminars for engineers, usually for the local utility.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 24, 2015
Benni, thank you for revealing your history. It makes you more Human, and lets me address you more appropriately, with an understanding of your CV.

BTW, I am serious about designing a self-sustainable domicile.

Also BTW, were you in Navy nukes? Otherwise, We might have met. since I taught public and private seminars for engineers, usually for the local utility.


Except that it's probably made up. Real engineers aren't as oblivious to science as he obviously is.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (20) Jan 24, 2015
Mag, I take him at his word. No true professional would lie. As a technical consultant, my greatest fear was that I would make a mistake and lose credibility. Truth-fudging was not an option.

I am interested in what he did, and why he has his opinions. We all learn, . . and sometimes change: I was the only troop in my outfit overseas who actually volunteered for the Vietnam War, and the only person to stand up against it while still in it.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 24, 2015
Benni. I have converted my 1956 tract house into a more modern and efficient place, and am not through. It takes time for market penetration to allow us to afford these things, not being able to just change out all systems at once. My house is now insulated, my furnace is condensing, my lighting is LED, and I am getting PVs, which will supply our next car with electricity.
Well good for you, you're not too far behind me. I built the house I live in with 4 kids mostly preteen. We have nonGMO gardens comprising 3-4 acres just in gardens alone not to speak of the woodland acreage from which I often make my own lumber.

Send money, and I will design a living system for you built into your location to blend in with it. It can make its own energy, clean its own waste, and take care of you.
With as far behind me as you are, I don't see how you can help "me".

Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 24, 2015
Mag, I take him at his word. No true professional would lie. As a technical consultant, my greatest fear was that I would make a mistake and lose credibility. Truth-fudging was not an option.
Whereas I consider everything he says. And what I hear is a person who has little grasp of science and makes claims that global warming is a farce because Al Gore flies in a jet. Or that taking steps to curb warming is a mistake because the Republican tea-partiers in the US might lose to the Democrats. And other, similarly ridiculous - nay, stupid - claims.

I am interested in what he did, and why he has his opinions. We all learn, . . and sometimes change: I was the only troop in my outfit overseas who actually volunteered for the Vietnam War, and the only person to stand up against it while still in it.
Fill your boots. His words betray him. And I seriously doubt you were the only one to stand up against the war while still in it. Exaggeration much?
gkam
1.9 / 5 (20) Jan 24, 2015
"And I seriously doubt you were the only one to stand up against the war while still in it. Exaggeration much?"
---------------------------------------

"in my outfit "

What is it with you? Stop your hostility. Yeah, it happened, and I am the only survivor of my group of patients in Ward D-2 of David Grant USAF Hospital at Travis AFB at the time.

They told my group back in the war that I had died, and I got to call an old buddy over 30 years later and tell him I disobeyed orders again, and was really still alive. Look us up, we were the 553d Reconnaissance Wing, Igloo White. You can see my picture.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (19) Jan 24, 2015
Has this forum been infected with liars in the past? I do not understand how you folk can just assume others lie. Is that what you would do?

Stop the personal attacks and nastiness. It infects me, too, and I find myself nasty in response.

zz5555
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 24, 2015
Except that it's probably made up. Real engineers aren't as oblivious to science as he obviously is.

I've got to agree. The
When it is necessary to keep changing the "science" to fit the facts

statement is a clear indication that he hasn't had much exposure to science. His comment about:
greenie alarmists who invented the 1998 Hockey Stick

is also pretty revealing. To ignore that the 1999 paper by Mann et al was a 1st attempt at this (and expected to have issues) is one thing. But to ignore the subsequent follow-ups (some by Mann and some be independent researchers) show much the same results is embarrassing. I'm not sure how anyone familiar with science can view the "hockey stick" as a con as Benni claims to.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (19) Jan 24, 2015
If we are going to have a mature discussion, we have to know with whom we are in discussion.

I am George Kamburoff, with the unlikely CV I have revealed in these threads over the past month or so. Look me up. Know my past and my abilities and weaknesses, and we can educate each other.

Who are you, and why do you feel the way you do?

Only the brave and professional need respond.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 24, 2015
"in my outfit "

What is it with you? Stop your hostility. Yeah, it happened, and I am the only survivor of my group of patients in Ward D-2 of David Grant USAF Hospital at Travis AFB at the time.

They told my group back in the war that I had died, and I got to call an old buddy over 30 years later and tell him I disobeyed orders again, and was really still alive. Look us up, we were the 553d Reconnaissance Wing, Igloo White. You can see my picture.
**sigh** I think you mistake "contempt" for "hostility". I don't doubt your claim to have been in the forces. I doubt your grandiose claim that you were alone in being against the war. The "in my outfit" part I overlooked. Either way, it had nothing to do with the conversation.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (19) Jan 24, 2015
" I doubt your grandiose claim that you were alone in being against the war. "
-------------------------------------------

I did NOT allege that.

You folk have gotten so hostile we cannot even agree on things.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 24, 2015
Has this forum been infected with liars in the past? I do not understand how you folk can just assume others lie. Is that what you would do?

Stop the personal attacks and nastiness. It infects me, too, and I find myself nasty in response.


Liars? I would say yes. And I would point you to the likes of Benni or Ubamoron as examples. I have no problem dealing with someone who has a legitimate argument against whatever we may be talking about. But I also have no time for a person who comes to a science site to spout hate and lies, or dismisses the work of honest, hard working, poorly paid students and researchers because Al bloody Gore flies in a jet!

gkam
1.8 / 5 (19) Jan 24, 2015
Good response. But I am giving Benni, who is WAY ahead of me, a chance to educate me in what he did and how he did it, and why he has no nukes on his property.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (7) Jan 24, 2015
" I doubt your grandiose claim that you were alone in being against the war. "
-------------------------------------------

I did NOT allege that.

You folk have gotten so hostile we cannot even agree on things.
You may want to reread what I said. You seem to have missed the sentence right after the one you quoted.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (19) Jan 24, 2015
Is benni going to man up and tell us who he is, or what he did and how he did it, and why he has no nukes on his big property?
gkam
1.5 / 5 (17) Jan 24, 2015
Looks like I got under the skin of Ira-Skippy. He blindly gives me ones now, without discussion.
Come out Ira, and tell me what I got wrong.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (9) Jan 24, 2015
Good response. But I am giving Benni, who is WAY ahead of me, a chance to educate me in what he did and how he did it, and why he has no nukes on his property.


Way ahead of you in what? Please don't say education or experience, because I will be sorely disappointed in your comprehension skills. Or was that sarcasm?
gkam
2 / 5 (20) Jan 24, 2015
I was using (essentially) his words.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 24, 2015
Seems pretty respectable to me
ALCHE
respectable does not lie about their seat in the house of lords: http://www.parlia...0715.pdf
But he does contradict your opinions, therefore the penalty is ridicule and defamation
you mean like you are doing with skeptical science?

Please note that MY link above is posted on the uk parliament site, not some cheezy BIASED lying POS site like the one you choose to use when trying to defame the SCIENCE listed on skeptical science... but i digress

perhaps we should clarify this

YOU choose to denigrate an individual because he lists studies and science that legitimately debunk anything you say, and it is OK because the site you link hates him too (and because you have no science to refute him)

but when someone points out the lies spread by the lord dip-doodle, you start to push the denigration issue as a bad thing?

Hmmmm
fascinating
gkam
2.4 / 5 (23) Jan 24, 2015
Captain, did you see the declaration by the House of Lords which states that goober is NOT a member?
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 24, 2015
I was using (essentially) his words.


He claims to be WAY ahead of you!?! Bahahah that's actually funny! Let me guess, he claims he can complete Einstein's equations without a notebook? Or that he is a nuclear engineer? Or some other lie?

Like I said, his words betray him.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 24, 2015
Face it, his opinion is much>much>much better than skepticalscience.com
@ALCHE
lets look at this side by side, shall we?
Skeptical science gives references to studies and has physics spelled out in easy to understand terms that people can then look up and reference to insure that the statements are legitimate and have sctual provable science in them... IOW - they state the science clearly and concise, and give references and legitimate published studies from reputable sites ( http://skepticals...made.htm )

the lord is known for lying about his seat in the house and has a history of publishing blatantly false or really bad science that is repeatedly debunked and shown to be false and incorrect
http://www.parlia...0715.pdf

as someone who prefers science over politics, regardless... i would rather read skepti than the idiot monckton
gkam
1.7 / 5 (18) Jan 24, 2015

We will see if Benni has the character to discuss it. If not, you are correct.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 24, 2015
Captain, did you see the declaration by the House of Lords which states that goober is NOT a member?


That's what he is talking about. That was well said Stumpy.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Jan 24, 2015
gkam, the only partial cure is the ignore button. Maggnus, and the skeptigarbagers insult and defame anyone with an education away from this site.
As cyberbullies go, they're rather sophisticated. I am sure they operate multiple user names.

They can be id'd by never insulting each other. If they did that they'd have no time at all.

I'd be afriad to reveal my ID to folks on this site, they might move from cyberstalking to real stalking.

I have four technical degrees, am or have been a leader in Chem-bio defense and predictive sciences. I have been tracking climate issues since 1984.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 24, 2015
I have 6 years of Engineering School blah blah blah can follow every Differential Equation contained within the pages of Einstein's Thesis
@BenniTROLL
You've made this claim a LOT, but you've never before demonstrated this to anyone here..so, assuming it is true:
why haven't you been able to debunk the studies i linked regarding climate science and specifically the ones regarding CO2?

You claim that they are WRONG, but you've never been able to produce anything here to send on to the authors so that we can get that study retracted or corrected

You have also never contacted the authors or the publishers with your differential equations proving that the studies were wrong

you only make claims here on a pop-sci article site in the comments

you denigrate anyone who follows the science & studies as copy/paste stupids while you post political BS which is being pushed by the anti-science crowd

and you wonder why everyone calls you a troll/idiot/stupid/etc?
zz5555
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 24, 2015
Who are you, and why do you feel the way you do?

Only the brave and professional need respond.

I don't know if you were addressing me with that or Benni (or everyone). However, I won't be revealing my identity and can understand anyone else wishing to remain anonymous. For me, I work at a (somewhat) government lab and, contrary to what I often hear on the internet, government labs are very conservative (at least, the ones I've been associated with). I suspect most of the engineers and scientists know that the science in climate science is valid (certainly, those of us working in modeling know the models do a good job), but, unfortunately, accepting climate science is associated with being a Democrat. I don't know that being a Democrat would hinder my career, but see no reason to risk being associated with any political party. (For the record, I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat).
gkam
1.7 / 5 (18) Jan 24, 2015
The point is whether the learned instruction set of Benni can help him make decent sense of those things in which he was not trained. Nukes and equations are not always applicable to his existence: Ohm's Law and firewood are all it takes.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 24, 2015
Maggnus, and the skeptigarbagers insult and defame anyone with an education away from this site
@ALCHE
no
we push actual science rather than pretend science like you do
As cyberbullies go, they're rather sophisticated. I am sure they operate multiple user names
you like to make this claim but you are the one who keeps name changing, not anyone else here

Also, gkam knows some of us (like myself) and i can personally vouch for Maggnus as an individual with a single account, unlike you, who has repeatedly proven to be a troll pushing known pseudoscience

Captain, did you see the declaration by the House of Lords which states that goober is NOT a member?
@Gkam
Yep!
linked it above... straight from the parliament site too
We will see if Benni has the character to discuss it
coming into this late but... just FYI
Benni is a troll who likes to denigrate science but never shows proof
like rc or alche/prophet
lots of talk but no substance/proof
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Jan 24, 2015
Whoops, I have four degrees, three of them are technical, the other is your token MBA. I worked 10 years as a chemist, moving inexorably to management, 15 years of leading or managing other technical efforts.
gkam
2 / 5 (20) Jan 24, 2015
zz55555, your points are valid. I am retired, but even when working, I never stopped inserting my opinions. In the years of traveling, I got great delight in the use of Reagan references. Since I worked a lot in the South, they were not always appreciated.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 24, 2015
Mag, I take him at his word. No true professional would lie.
@gkam
1- this is the internet
2- you don't know that he really IS a true professional
3- benni has proven to be a liar in the past, especially with regard to climate science, which he is not only not well versed in, but simply accepts the anti-science anti-climate change rhetoric as legitimate without researching the reality of the situation

Maggnus is correct and has been fighting benni's stupidity for a LONG time, as well as alche/prophet and a few others

I can personally vouch for Maggnus, which says a lot because i cannot personally vouch for many people
Feel free to contact me in e-mail for information that i CAN give out regarding certain people

Maggnus is one of the better and more knowledgeable climate science posters and is pretty up on physics and astrophysics as well, just FYI
gkam
1.9 / 5 (20) Jan 24, 2015

WP, I would love to hear what you did more exactly. I can learn from those with other experience.

My experience came from just bouncing around with a little PTSD as a wild card. Those of us with no ability to take BS have interesting work histories.

Captain, I expose myself with the awareness of the dangers, . . I hope. Let's purge ourselves of the phonies. Those are exposed with examination.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (17) Jan 24, 2015
Looks like I got under the skin of Ira-Skippy.


If you was getting under my skin, I would be writing you notes like the ones I write for Really-Skippy. Would like for me to do that?

He blindly gives me ones now, without discussion.


I can see just fine. What that means anyway?

Come out Ira, and tell me what I got wrong.


Being so dense to not have known like everybody else knows from one or two posts that Bennie-Skippy is the only pretend engineer math wizard. Everybody else knows it from his third or second message. And for somehow making the assuming that Maggus-Skippy needs your help to how to read the Bennie-Skippy's foolishment.

Not being able to find a single thing registered with the Google-Skippy about you that wasn't something you wrote yourself doesn't help much either, but Otto-Skippy has already got that pretty much covered.

Does that about answer the why Cher?
gkam
1.5 / 5 (18) Jan 24, 2015
Uh, . . no. What do you want, my birth certificate?

I took you at your word. Why would you assume you cannot accept mine? Ask the Captain. I will send another example to him, since we can send attachments in email. I don't know what else I can do, but perhaps send you some references written by others. You want that? references by my customers? I would be please to do so.
Benni
2.2 / 5 (13) Jan 24, 2015
We will see if Benni has the character to discuss it. If not, you are correct.

....to discuss what? "Lord" someone?

I don't have much concern for anyone's opinions about anything except for when I discern they are dishonest people.

It appears I'm half the age of a lot of ones who come here with their newly learned Copy & Paste expertise but who've never seen the inside of a college classroom filled with Engineering students. Three fourths of the freshman class I started with never finished, half were gone at the end of the freshman year, half the remainder by the end of the following.

I knew from kindergarten age what I wanted to do with my life, I'm achieving it & it isn't bragging when you've done it, it's pride. I can't help it others cannot appreciate how my profession has gone the distance enhancing their lifestyle, but I don't live for them, I have 5 other people plus close relatives to live for & with whom to share my wealth of talents, I even play guitar.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (18) Jan 24, 2015
Uh, . . no. What do you want, my birth certificate?

I took you at your word. Why would you assume you cannot accept mine? Ask the Captain. I will send another example to him, since we can send attachments in email. I don't know what else I can do, but perhaps send you some references written by others. You want that? references by my customers? I would be please to do so.


You just the another Skippy on the internet using a weird name to argue with people like I do too. I only pay attentions to what you write down here.

Everything about all your life you think makes you so much qualified to not be doubted is nothing to me but stuffs you say you did. I don't care what you did. It doesn't look like anybody else does either because they aren't asking, only you telling.

Writing the one sentence about your opinion with the book long list of your qualifications might impress your momma, but nobody cares. If they did they would ask before you tell them.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 24, 2015
Whoops, I have four degrees, three of them are technical, the other is your token MBA. I worked 10 years as a chemist, moving inexorably to management, 15 years of leading or managing other technical efforts.
I frankly doubt this, but honestly, even if you do, so what? Do you understand the fallacy of appeal to authority? Your model does not hold water, it has been shown to not hold water, you have been provided with the evidence and cites by which you can come to understand why it does not hold water, yet you continually ignore all of that to claim it somehow holds water. And that, pretender, is why I insult you and have nothing but contempt for you and your "theory".

But, more than that, I watched as thermo tried to go through it with you. As you pouted, and tried to change the rules, and prematurely claimed victory, and then changed your handle and tried to pretend you were someone else.

You are a dishonest cheat. Your own words prove it.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 24, 2015
I don't have much concern for anyone's opinions about anything except for when I discern they are dishonest people
@BenniTROLL
so you really hate yourself then, right?
now i get it...

that is why you post like you do... because you hate yourself
makes more sense now
their newly learned Copy & Paste expertise
i've seen you apply this same term to people i happen to know hold PhD's and are much more well versed in the subject you were arguing (wrongly) about (astrophysics)
I even play guitar
but you are not claiming to be the guitarist for Metallica or claiming to be better than Page here... you ARE claiming to be an Engineer but not demonstrating a knowledge that you are versed in the subject to which you are pontificating

i've never claimed to be a scientist NOR a specialist in climate science, but i back up my posts with science and links supporting my conclusions, just like Runrig

whereas you post politics and stupidity because you're mad

checkmate

gkam
1.7 / 5 (19) Jan 24, 2015
"I don't have much concern for anyone's opinions about anything except for when I discern they are dishonest people."
----------------------------------------------

And what tells you that? Political prejudice? Emotions?
gkam
1.5 / 5 (20) Jan 24, 2015
"You just the another Skippy on the internet using a weird name to argue with people like I do too."
------------------------------------

No, "uncle Ira", I am real. You hide behind a pseudonym, but accuse others of being duplicitous. I guess I will have to send you to some third-party sources. Look up my customers one at a time. We will start with the designers of data centers. Google "kamburoff 7X24" to start.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 24, 2015
Uh, . . no. What do you want, my birth certificate?

I took you at your word. Why would you assume you cannot accept mine? Ask the Captain. I will send another example to him, since we can send attachments in email. I don't know what else I can do, but perhaps send you some references written by others. You want that? references by my customers? I would be please to do so.

To what end, exactly? On the whole gkam, I think that you are a reasoned and informed poster. Why you think you need to qualify or promote yourself is beyond me. But the fallacy of appeal to authority works both ways. I don't agree with you on some stuff, and I don't particularly care that you have expertise I don't. It is your argument I consider, not how many famous people you met or how much education you got.

Do you get that?
gkam
1.6 / 5 (21) Jan 24, 2015
"Why you think you need to qualify or promote yourself is beyond me"
------------------------------------

Apparently.

No promotion, I am trying to tell you my experience has taught me something. Sorry if I stepped on your ego.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (19) Jan 24, 2015
"You just the another Skippy on the internet using a weird name to argue with people like I do too."
------------------------------------

No, "uncle Ira", I am real. You hide behind a pseudonym, but accuse others of being duplicitous. I guess I will have to send you to some third-party sources. Look up my customers one at a time. We will start with the designers of data centers. Google "kamburoff 7X24" to start.


What part of "nobody cares about all your great feats of qualifying your self" is that you can't fathom? The ideas you write down here is all that matters.

Writing a book about your self to prove a one sentence thing you write must be true is what the Bennie-Skippy and the Really-Skippy and the other silly couyons what them selfs to serious do. Why you think it is important to anybody but you and your momma?

You are not getting under my skin, but you are starting to get my attention you.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (18) Jan 24, 2015
My gosh, I guess I have to spell it out: With my PTSD attitude, I spent my life learning new skills and fields. Not being in my own field, I too often had to rely on my more advanced professional peers for education. We were all on the same team, and learned who we could trust, and who was better at what. These were usually in production facilities, and no place for game-playing. I do not know what kind of work environment you folk had, but I would not want to go there.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (16) Jan 24, 2015
Do you get that?


I can not speak for him non. But I do get all that, that is what I have been trying to tell to him but you say it better so I hope he gets it soon.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 24, 2015
It makes a treatment very simple. Increased intake of potassium from low sodium foods. If it still troubles you, go look for the green labels foods with the Sodium removed and replaced with Potassium. See if it helps.
@ALCHE
really?
is this your PROFESSIONAL opinion?

is there ANY science at all related to this posted public demonstration of not only piss poor knowledge of PTSD but of biology in general?

In fact, i would state that, given the above post, this is proof POSITIVE that you are not only NOT educated, but you can't even figure out how to do a basic 30 second check of the subject (in this case PTSD) nor a simple search of treatments that ACTUALLY work!

you do know too much potassium is fatal right?
that should have been included in some of the BASIC chemistry courses you took, BTW...

WOW!

just...

WOW!
That's why I always use as my MO physical properties of materials, not citations.
too bad you don't understand what you're talking about
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Jan 24, 2015
The ideas you write down here is all that matters.

And from the mouth of Uncle Ira. He's right of course. That's why I always use as my MO physical properties of materials, not citations.
How true and how ironic.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (19) Jan 24, 2015
My gosh, I guess I have to spell it out: With my PTSD attitude, I spent my life learning new skills and fields. Not being in my own field, I too often had to rely on my more advanced professional peers for education. We were all on the same team, and learned who we could trust, and who was better at what. These were usually in production facilities, and no place for game-playing. I do not know what kind of work environment you folk had, but I would not want to go there.


Why you think anybody is so interested in that? What does it have to do with a Lord-not-scientist-Skippy working out the global warming with a pocket ciphering machine? glam-Skippy, you are about to win a silly looking pointy cap for being the genius who can get told something 12 times in 10 minutes and still be clueless.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (9) Jan 24, 2015
"Why you think you need to qualify or promote yourself is beyond me"
------------------------------------

Apparently.

No promotion, I am trying to tell you my experience has taught me something. Sorry if I stepped on your ego.


What? Stepped on my ego? Really?

How about you try hearing what I am saying and not just seeing the words. I have some experience too, and I am not all that much younger than you. Shall we compare accomplishments?

Seriously, look up the fallacy of appeal to authority.
gkam
1.5 / 5 (20) Jan 24, 2015
"You are not getting under my skin, but you are starting to get my attention you."
----------------------------------------
Is that a threat?

What is it with you folk? I exposed myself to you, and you attack. Hoping our different experiences would let us learn from each other, I open up about how and why I got my opinions. You attack. Is this forum a battle of fragile egos, or a discussion group?
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 24, 2015
It makes a treatment very simple. Increased intake of potassium from low sodium foods. If it still troubles you, go look for the green labels foods with the Sodium removed and replaced with Potassium
TO ANYONE in the forum with PTSD problems

do NOT, under ANY circumstances, attempt to follow this advice!

first of all, it will lead to euthanasia, NOT to any self healing!

Second - PTSD is not JUST a physical alteration of the brain (there are physical changes in the structure of the brain)

if you are going to seek advice, LEARN something about it FIRST: http://makethecon...ign=ptsd

http://www.webmd....disorder

http://www.ptsd.va.gov/

https://en.wikipe...disorder

THEN seek out a competent professional in your area who can assist with meds as well as counseling and treatment that WORKS

Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (11) Jan 24, 2015
"You are not getting under my skin, but you are starting to get my attention you."
----------------------------------------
Is that a threat?

What is it with you folk? I exposed myself to you, and you attack. Hoping our different experiences would let us learn from each other, I open up about how and why I got my opinions. You attack. Is this forum a battle of fragile egos, or a discussion group?

I am trying hard to get through to you, but you seem to almost be willfully misunderstanding what is being said to you. There was no attack there gkam, there was an honest attempt to make a point.

That you have a lot of experience is irrelevant. That you are well educated is irrelevant. That you have lived a long time is irrelevant. None of those things makes your argument stronger than someone else's.

I don't know you. When I look at the things you say, I consider your words and whatever proof you provide. Do you understand that?
gkam
1.9 / 5 (20) Jan 24, 2015
Captain, the Vet Centers saved my life. They are separate from the VA, who refused me after the Republican Congress took away in 2003 my benefits I earned in the war. The Vet Center folk saw me walking the streets at ridiculous hours, and took me right in and made space for me. It took the VA two more years before they accepted my claim number from January 1969.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (19) Jan 24, 2015
"You are not getting under my skin, but you are starting to get my attention you."
----------------------------------------
Is that a threat?


How you think that is a threat? I am just pointing out that you are attracting my attention. You might not want my attention, I do know. Maggnus-Skippy don't seem to be able to help you non. Maybe you might ask the Captain-Skippy what that might entail, he is pretty good at explaining stuffs too like Maggnus-Skippy.

What is it with you folk? I exposed myself to you, and you attack.


Telling you I do not care about all the stuffs you can not resist telling us about unasked is the attack. It is me saying "SO WHAT SKIPPY?" and "WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH LORD-NOT-SCIENTIST-SKIPPY WITH THE POCKET CIPHER MACHINE?"

Nobody cares about you doing everything or your mental conditions. This is your last chance to let me not pay attention to you.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 24, 2015
It took the VA two more years before
@gkam
i fought with them for over 10 years... so i understand your frustration

I suppose, if you take mineral potassium
@ALCHE
first off, you are NOT a doctor, so unless you have at least SOME experience with medicine (like being an EMT-B at least) i suggest you shut up before someone decides to follow your advice opening you up to litigation

second- K levels in the body are delicate and taking too much is lethal. period. that is why it is included in the poisons in most lethal injections (because it is EFFECTIVE and adds to the fatality of the substance)

lastly- the argument is not about low sodium food, moron. try re-reading for comprehension

you are suggesting someone replace sodium with potassium which WILL lead to death if they follow it for any length of time

that makes you posting something that is EASILY CHECKED as being false and baltantly wrong

That makes you STUPID

care to continue that argument?
gkam
1.5 / 5 (20) Jan 24, 2015
My gosh, apparently there is no understanding of past errors and lessons learned. I try to relate to you experience to do that, and you assume it is bragging.

I can understand how a liar will assume others lie. That is why I identified myself. Some of you cannot, and I understand. Others must have poorer character.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Jan 24, 2015
Anyway, peer-reviewed simple model slays CO2 believing AGW-ers. Deniers chortle, the Water_Prophet, shrugs again, and says, "I told you so," again. News at 11:00.

My citation is the article above.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 24, 2015
My gosh, apparently there is no understanding of past errors and lessons learned. I try to relate to you experience to do that, and you assume it is bragging.

I can understand how a liar will assume others lie. That is why I identified myself. Some of you cannot, and I understand. Others must have poorer character.
@Gkam
that is NOT what Maggnus is saying
Please read your e-mail

My citation is the article.
@ALCHE
my citation still proves your citation wrong
it also shows that your citation doesn't take into consideration far too many FACTS
it also proves you a liar and repeated pseudoscience poster

and as for your above stupidity with K and replacing sodium in your diet with potassium... not only will i report that one, but i am telling you now...

stop practicing medicine without ANY chemistry knowledge, knowledge of the body or biology and a license giving you authority to do so

you are going to kill someone

Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 24, 2015
My gosh, apparently there is no understanding of past errors and lessons learned. I try to relate to you experience to do that, and you assume it is bragging.

I can understand how a liar will assume others lie. That is why I identified myself. Some of you cannot, and I understand. Others must have poorer character.


Ok, I give up. Stumpy, maybe you can get through to him.

Thank you gkam, I appreciate being called a liar and having poor character. I guess you are about to be fitted for a silly looking pointy hat. Wear it with pride, Crying Waterbaby does.

Laters!
Benni
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 24, 2015
"Captain Stumpy4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 27, 2014

@benni-haha

ROTFLMFAO
you DO REALISE that if I wanted to steal your info, I would just ping your server and get your internet IP which would give me the ability to go right to your doorstep? Easy since I KNOW your login here AND when you are on"

Above paragraph is copied from an El Stumpo post to me very clearly exhibiting how little civil discourse he ever intends to engage in. In this paragraph he is more than threatening ID theft, is talking about showing up at my "doorstep", that to him is "science".

So with this kind of language by someone who has never seen the inside of an Engineering classroom, why would anyone want to post personal contact information here? Click below link & you can read his entire post

http://phys.org/n...ars.html

And guess who were the ones giving him 5 Stars for this post for making threats of face to face confrontations on my doorstep?

gkam
1.8 / 5 (19) Jan 24, 2015
Okay, WP, back to the debate: LIAR, LIAR.

Sorry, I just had to include some humor. No offense meant to anybody.

Thanks for getting us back on track.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (19) Jan 24, 2015
Maggnus, you gave a perfectly good reason for not revealing yourself, as you revealed your field, which is what I really wanted. I thought I had referred to that. Others have good reasons as well.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 24, 2015
like i said, benni... your argument in that thread simply underlines your complete LACK of ability demonstrated by your continual inability to provide PROOF of your claims... case in point- the CONTEXT which you posted kept pointing out that you have NO comprehension of internet/computers even though you CLAIMED to be an EE
you don't have anything of value to me.

and AGAIN! MORE PROOF that you are not an electrical engineer! LOL
YOU DON'T KNOW SQUAT about computers!
you left THAT part out!

you also left out how you thought the PM and CONTACT function of the site is the same thing

you also left out that you are STILL OT and have no proof supporting your conjecture

tell you what, differential boy, debunk the MATH in this study: http://www.scienc...abstract

THEN you can prove you are an engineer, EE or nuke boy as per your claims!

PS. i suggest reading the ENTIRE exchange on that page
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (20) Jan 24, 2015
@benni-haha

ROTFLMFAO
you DO REALISE that


Well this is the Bennie-Skippy you are talking to so he probably don't realize.

if I wanted to steal your info,


See, I told he'd have trouble with it. "if" don't mean a threat down here how about up there?

I would just ping your server and get your internet IP which would give me the ability to go right to your doorstep?


Maybe where Bennie-Skippy is from "would" means the same as "will".

In this paragraph he is more than threatening ID theft, is talking about showing up at my "doorstep", that to him is "science".


Only for peoples who don't know the easy words like "if" and "would".

And guess who were the ones giving him 5 Stars for this post for making threats of face to face confrontations on my doorstep?


Well if I had to guess, one of my first picks would be ol Ira-Skippy.

What about it Cher? Did I get that one right?
Benni
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 24, 2015
like i said, benni... your argument in that thread simply underlines your complete LACK of ability demonstrated by your continual inability to provide PROOF of your claims...

PS. i suggest reading the ENTIRE exchange on that page


You bet ROC, that's why I also did a Copy & Paste for that link. I told you many months ago that this post of yours would be back to haunt you, you simply kept hoping I'd forget it. Well, at least you know at least one another person in the world has your Copy & Paste skills.
Water_Prophet
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 24, 2015
Before anyone litigates me, they should consider those deep pockets of the companies selling those fatal foods.
Chunky, Bumble Bee, Delmonte, Cambells... They're murder incorporated!

Ah, @Stumps, you're really such an incredible idiot, I thought you were just a paid troll, but you really are a few pistons short of an engine. You now have my sympathy. This is the only outlet you have isn't it? where no one can to to talk to you and discover just what a complete moron you are. No wonder you use citations, they're your smoke-screen to hide you own flawed intellect.

To show my support, I'll keep you more firmly ignored, even if I do see your posts.
If you're feeling down, just remember "soup is good food." Particularly Chunky's low sodium, It warms the soul.

But you're right @gkam, back to the debate.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 24, 2015
you simply kept hoping I'd forget it
@banniTROLL
why would i do that?
everything i said there is 100% true and provable... and like i also pointed out: why do i care about a no-nothing liar like yourself?

You continue to DEMONSTRATE for me that:
-you have no EE experience or training
-you are not a scientific professional
-you are lying about your credentials
-you know NOTHING about climate science
-you're not so hot in astrophysics either (and i had to remind YOU of the actual name Milankovitch cycles)
-you don't know SQUAT about computers

so KEEP linking that thread!
PLEASE
it only helps demonstrate my conclusions

THANKS

I'll keep you more firmly ignored
@ALCHE
ok
not a problem for ME... i will simply keep posting studies that undermine your stupidity

or posting real science proving you know SQUAT about chemistry (like above)
anyone stupid enough to think they can replace sodium with potassium and live deserves to eat their own crow
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 24, 2015
Before anyone litigates me, they should consider those deep pockets of the companies selling those fatal foods
@ALCHE-TROLL-TERRORIST
those companies did not suggest replacing sodium with potassium either...
that is ALL on you
No wonder you use citations
no wonder you DON'T use citations... citations would prove you wrong and show you are a compete liar and moron
you use citations, they're your smoke-screen to hide you own flawed intellect
i use citations like i would in any college thesis, report, study or legitimate science... to support my conclusions...

oh wait... no wonder why you DON'T use them!
you don't know anything about actual science!

tell me again how replacing sodium in my diet with potassium will cure my PTSD?
Are you saying that euthanasia is the only cure?
or is it the only one you think is acceptable?
I'll keep you more firmly ignored
and i will continue to debunk your stupidity with actual science and links/references/citations

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (17) Jan 24, 2015
Hi gkam. Since you have divulged your ID, allow me to say: Pleased to meet you!". :)

Careful to whom you trust further personal info! It may attract loony troll/stalker types who use the internet nowadays for their spittle-soaked craziness. Last year I (twice) helped someone who owned a forum site of his own which was going down due to financial stress. So I made substantial no-strings-attached contributions to help keep his site afloat. Later, a poster from here 'joined' his site and 'befriended' that site owner; and soon afterwards the site owner banned ME and let this loony stay because he was convenient to his own malignant agenda (of which I never thought him capable or I would have let that site crash and burn along with its ungrateful duplicitous malignant troll-mod-gangmember of an owner).

Anyhow, the loony (still posing here) stalked me, even posted GOOGLE MAP images purportedly showing my home location. He had the WRONG person; an innocent third party! Crazy.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 24, 2015
El Stumpo,

I haven't given you a 1 Star downvote on anything you've posted here today. You're probably curious as to why aren't you? My concern is that it may tilt your posting ratings too far to the downside of the filter that those only desiring to read 5 Star posts will fail to see you as you really are, and identify the manner of people who flock to your corner.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (18) Jan 24, 2015
Hi Water_Prophet. :)

Over the years I pointed out many of those factors causing buffering/pause observed. Eg, when warming reached a certain threshold 'accumulated jump' in ocean water and air column, many pre-warming 'reservoirs of cold mass/cooling-phase-change' factors are triggered. Like methane/CO2/other gas 'clathrates' in permafrost/ocean sediment etc absorb heat when hey melt and gases expand into water/air column; ice masses/cover going from cooler below-freezing temps to warmer below-freezing temps while ice itself still intact, then melting itself absorbs even more heat. Also when mountain ice cover gone, exposed cold rock absorbs even more heat from air/insolation. The list goes on. I assure you I have covered all the angles, so your concerns are already included. When all those temporary TRANSITIONAL factors/processes/buffers etc are accounted for (even solar/volcanic/hydrologic cycle/inputs), it remains: the extant CO2 levels will determine 'net' effects. ok? :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (18) Jan 24, 2015
Hey, gkam, Forum. :) Here are more 'insensible gems' (posted to gkam) by the inbred-idiot and malignant court jester "Uncle---bot-voting---Ira"...
I only pay attentions to what you write down here.
...and...
The ideas you write down here is all that matters.
How about it, folks? Does that sound sincere in light of Uncle---bot-voting---Ira's history so far?

Idiot-bot previously exposed as, tricked into admitting to, being a non compos mentis ratings troll, bot-voting from his bot-program's "personality cult list"....skewing and making a mockery of both discourse and ratings system....on a SCIENCE site...which this moron says is "fun" to do!

This bot is so dumb it thinks real people will fall for its patently self-falsified pretense that he has any interest in "paying attention to what has been posted" before 'bot-voting' from a 'list'.

For example: Vietvet gives me a '5' for my above defense of Climate Change Science. But "Uncle Ira" bot-votes it a '1'. Q.E.D. :)
Eddy Courant
1 / 5 (6) Jan 24, 2015
Interesting...
If you don't agree with the findings in the paper then prove it wrong.
But...
No comments on the content of the paper? No one showing error in the math?
No one attacking the theory the authors describe? Or even the premises they hold?
Perhaps only a few commenters here, if any, actually read the paper.

BTW Science bulletin is the largest Science publication in the world. Prestigious? Yes, but perhaps not to the western narcissists, and the misogynists (you know who you are).
To the rest of us in the world, in a most objective manner, the comments appear undignified petty and ignorant.

The personel attacks exhibited in the comments are really one of the greatest forms of flattery to the authors.
If you can't disprove the theory, personally attack the one who proposes it.
Galileo, Einstein,Tesla et al., all being on the receiving end of such attacks learned this well.

-----------------------------------
Bravo bertwalker! Hear Hear
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Jan 24, 2015
@Reality, those are all good reasons... and the lost of millions of kilometers of high albedo snow causes more solar absorption, especially into oceans.

Actually, the pause means little to me. The most simple explanation is that given change and Le Chatelier's principle, the Earth has just reached a new equilibrium. Or, the rate of ice melt has reached the rate of heat introduced.

Temperature to me is a secondary effect, and another red herring like CO2.

But on the topic of simple models: So for simplicity, we all know insulation increases with thickness. So, CO2 has increased 280ppm/1e6ppm to 415ppm/1e6. Water vapor on anemic average has increased 20000/1e6 to 20435/1e6.

Everyone agrees that water is a more powerful GHG, Wiki GWP. But let's call them equal. So if we calculate the linear differences we have a root impact we get: 135ppm and 435ppm, not a good model, but it still tells us water should TRUMP.

cont.
Uncle Ira
4.8 / 5 (21) Jan 24, 2015
For example:Vietvet gives me a '5' for my above defense of Climate Change Science. But "Uncle Ira" bot-votes it a '1'.


Hey Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I pretty good me, thanks.

I don't vote the way other peoples vote. I make up my own mind all alone. My voting is my business, it's a service I do for scientists and humans. It's so the peoples that drive through the the Drive-Thru-Window don't get to be bothered by all the silly stuffs you write if they got slider set to 5 or 4.

But even when you write something you think is nice and scientifical, it's usually got that tone of voice that makes it seem as you think you are a whole smarter than you really are and more smart than everybody else.

So try to do better with your diligence otherwise people are going to think you must be extra slow on the uptake if after so long you still don't seem to have figured out why ol Ira-Skippy votes the way he does.

Only the couyons complain about other peoples votes.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Jan 24, 2015
More accurately the difference in their squares:
CO2: 9.4e-8
H2O: 1.7e-5

So why isn't this huge difference causing 1.7e-5/9.4e-8 ~ 200x more warming?

@Eddy, do I still need to prove the math if I agree with it? LOL.
Benni
2.4 / 5 (12) Jan 24, 2015
The personel attacks exhibited in the comments are really one of the greatest forms of flattery to the authors.


If you can't disprove the theory, personally attack the one who proposes it.
Galileo, Einstein,Tesla et al., all being on the receiving end of such attacks learned this well.
........as exhibited by the fact that everytime I put up a quote copied right out of Einstein's GR, the rage voters (all of whom are here right now), begin their 1 Star rage voting. They don't comprehend the science because they don't have the background for it, but boy am I supposed to be some kind of "moron" because I copied & posted something right out of Einstein's GR. It's just laughable that they get so upset when I demand they put up their math countering the differential equations of Einstein's which proves his entire thesis. .....but this is the world we live in.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (20) Jan 24, 2015
Hey folks, Ira-bot is too dumbass to quit. :) It's already self-proven inbred idiot-bot-voting troll. How poignant a commentary is that on the type of mentality issuing from the slime-pool of insensibility that produced it. I just above falsified its lame claims to be "paying attention" to what's posted; by demonstrating where 'it' does NOT do exactly that before bot-voting...
For example: Vietvet gives me a '5' for my above defense of Climate Change Science. But "Uncle Ira" bot-votes it a '1'. Q.E.D.
And what is 'its' response to proof of 'its' lying bot idiocy? Here...
I pretty good me, thanks.
"Good" what. Good Bot-voting twat.
I make up my own mind
What "mind", you sad bot-voting twerp.
But even when you write something you think is nice and scientifical,
Which idiot-bot-Ira doesn't understand or care about before 'it' bot-votes.
Only the couyons complain about other peoples votes.
Only the couyons bot-vote on a SCIENCE site, you couyon.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Jan 24, 2015
Hey @Reality, "1" it's the new "5."
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (18) Jan 24, 2015
Hi Whyde. :)
Hey @Reality, "1" it's the new "5."
Hehe, that's one way of looking at 'it'. Thanks for the "heads up". Still, newbies and passive surfers don't get the opportunity to become acquainted with that new "take" on it. Anyway, Peace. Bye for now. :)
Benni
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 24, 2015
Hey @Reality, "1" it's the new "5."

......that's for sure.
OZGuy
5 / 5 (10) Jan 24, 2015
I knew from kindergarten age what I wanted to do with my life, I'm achieving it & it isn't bragging when you've done it, it's pride. I can't help it others cannot appreciate how my profession has gone the distance enhancing their lifestyle, but I don't live for them, I have 5 other people plus close relatives to live for & with whom to share my wealth of talents, I even play guitar.


My gosh, I guess I have to spell it out: With my PTSD attitude, I spent my life learning new skills and fields. Not being in my own field, I too often had to rely on my more advanced professional peers for education. We were all on the same team, and learned who we could trust, and who was better at what. These were usually in production facilities, and no place for game-playing. I do not know what kind of work environment you folk had, but I would not want to go there.


Seriously?

So when did this site become an encounter group?
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (21) Jan 24, 2015
Seriously?

So when did this site become an encounter group?


It's starting to look like Really-Skippy's mental condition is contagiously spreading around.

I don't have to none me because he told me I was the desensitized sot, with some other bad words too.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Jan 24, 2015
@OZGuy, Dangerous Liaozones.

So, @gkam, though believing that the Earth buffers temp. enough that climate impact measured by temp. will be a secondary effect; other things change more as a result of anthro-global change (AGC).

Still here is another brass bowl model explaining the pause.
Take the brass bowl, fill it with water, put a brass lid on it. Put a 60 watt heater underneath it. Now, let's just assume, that because of the contrivances of out set-up, the water in the bowl only warms to 60C, in equilibrium.

What happens is, the water evaporates, though below boiling, condenses onto the lid, releasing heat. At equilibrium it releases the 60 watts. Now, if we increase the watts to 70, the temperature climbs rapidly at first, then approaches equilibrium "asymptotically."

Thus the pause, despite AGC.

For my cleaver readers, this simple model also dispels the CO2 myth. But I'll leave it as an exercise to say how.

Three simple models, one article!
Benni
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 24, 2015
I knew from kindergarten age what I wanted to do with my life, I'm achieving it & it isn't bragging when you've done it, it's pride. I can't help it others cannot appreciate how my profession has gone the distance enhancing their lifestyle, but I don't live for them, I have 5 other people plus close relatives to live for & with whom to share my wealth of talents, I even play guitar.


My gosh, I guess I have to spell it out: With my PTSD attitude, I spent my life learning new skills and fields. Not being in my own field, I too often had to rely on my more advanced professional peers for education. We were all on the same team, and learned who we could trust, and who was better at what. These were usually in production facilities, and no place for game-playing. I do not know what kind of work environment you folk had, but I would not want to go there.

So when did this site become an encounter group?


It does seem to coincide with about the time you came aboard.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 25, 2015
@beniTROLL
I haven't given you a 1 Star...
SO?
OT trolling/baiting
You're probably curious
nope
My concern
you flatter me... but sorry b, i am straight
is that it may tilt your posting ratings
so?
that those only desiring to read 5 Star posts
they will see me as someone who actually supports their opinion with scientific links and doesn't make anti-science claims like you do, and then fail to support that with any evidence?
THANK YOU benni
By the way, benni - i haven't forgotten that you are a climate change denier
feel like refuting those studies now that you've tried to cozy up?
or are you still trying to avoid demonstrating your differential equations etc?
their 1 Star rage voting. They don't comprehend the science
actually, you are usually downvoted because you lie about your abilities and haven't proven you are capable of understanding anything

P.S. still not your type
i am straight, educated and i love actual, provable science
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 25, 2015
For my cleaver readers, this simple model also dispels the CO2 myth. But I'll leave it as an exercise to say how
@ALCHE
and again, you like to make this claim but you've never ONCE been able to prove how your waterbowl debunks the actual physics of the studies i linked
and i will link that again for you: http://www.scienc...abstract

This study not only debunks your waterbowl, but it also proves you are a complete moron and cannot read nor comprehend the complex physics and interactions between CO2 and WV which is SPELLED OUT in the study

In fact, it actually uses not only the properties you like to CLAIM are so very important, but it also uses measured interactions, measured and observed properties and proven science to refute your stupidity and claims regarding CO2

and i will say it again: you have YET to provide ANY science, refute or equivalent evidence debunking that study
epic fail for the ALCHE/morelikewater-profit$$
zz5555
4.7 / 5 (12) Jan 25, 2015
So if we calculate the linear differences we have a root impact we get: 135ppm and 435ppm, not a good model, but it still tells us water should TRUMP.

Except, of course, you've stated that water vapor is a short lived gas in the atmosphere and it requires something else to heat up the planet before water vapor can increase. So as you've indicated, water vapor can't drive the climate, it can only serve as a feedback to something else that warms the planet.

You've also indicated that waste heat is much, much less than the additional energy that CO2 adds to the climate.

So come on Water_Prophet, connect the dots here. Water vapor only acts as a feedback and CO2 is the primary cause of the warming. So CO2 is the primary driver of the climate.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (8) Jan 25, 2015
zz5555, except of course you have no clue about what persistence means in the atmosphere: How long it takes a GHG to be chemically degraded:
http://en.wikiped...otential
Note there are citations at the bottom.
You incomprehension of feedback is truly amazing. If a little thing changes a big thing, that causes itself to increase, and that is not observed, you've got problems. More than just being a username for thermodynamics.

And no, according to your skeptigarbage site, it is 10x more than heat released by burning fossil fuels. BUT, that would make it on par with changes in the Sun. John Cook NEEDS to do this so that his assertions aren't stupid. But since he fixed his value at that of the Sun's deltas, so incorrectly, he failed to realize those effects would be brutally noticeable. so much it would suck to live on Earth.

So get a math background zz5555, then I won't have to make these trivial and obvious conclusions for you.
mooster75
4.7 / 5 (12) Jan 25, 2015
El Stumpo,

I haven't given you a 1 Star downvote on anything you've posted here today. You're probably curious as to why aren't you?

I seriously doubt anyone other than you cares.
OZGuy
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 25, 2015
Benni
Wasn't me blubbing on about kindy and my hopes and dreams. Did you just want applause or are we supposed to chip in for a card?
Benni
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 25, 2015
Benni
Wasn't me blubbing on about kindy and my hopes and dreams. Did you just want applause or are we supposed to chip in for a card?


........ever seen a Differential Equation you could solve? If you'd learn some math skills you wouldn't need to do so much Copy & Paste because then you'd actually understand the language behind the science under discussion.
Benni
2.7 / 5 (12) Jan 25, 2015
"Captain Stumpy4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 27, 2014

@benni-haha

ROTFLMFAO
you DO REALISE that if I wanted to steal your info, I would just ping your server and get your internet IP which would give me the ability to go right to your doorstep? Easy since I KNOW your login here AND when you are on"


......and above quoted is the kind language skills used by those who do not understand the language of scientific discourse.


Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 25, 2015
ever seen a Differential Equation you could solve?
@Benni
at least i can vouch for OZ and his abilities... you've only made unsubstantiated claims and you've YET to prove you have the ability to solve differential equations yourself

in fact, you've only SAID you could... which is like saying you are the Pope
ANYONE can do it and you've not proven you are anything but a charlatan
is the kind language skills used by those
let me finish that for you IN CONTEXT:
the language skills used by someone who is educated but knows you are full of sh*t and that you've never proven the ability to do or be ANYTHING you've claimed yet

IOW - the language skills of someone making fun of you for being an idiot troll poster who only talks about being an engineer

engineer's can usually figure out the difference between PM and CONTACT links in a web site unless really, REALLY old, blind, affected by alzheimers and without feeling in their extremities

what was your excuse?

Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 25, 2015
above quoted is the kind language skills used by those who do not understand the language of scientific discourse
@BenniTROLL
ok benni-ha-ha

lets discuss science
here is a STUDY: http://www.scienc...abstract

lets talk about the SCIENCE:
1-how does it relate to your "the year of the infamous Hockey Stick" post?
2-How does it undermine your post regarding "the year of the infamous Hockey Stick" and your claims?
3- can you differentiate between weather and climate? (you've demonstrated that you are having issues with this)

You are making a stand and saying we are all stupid
so lets delve into your engineering abilities (and especially Thermodynamics) and now you can demonstrate your prowess with science yourself

This is important because to date, you've only demonstrated you don't comprehend climate science and the physics involved

the proof is in the demonstration of your ability
something you've never done yet
ralbol
5 / 5 (8) Jan 25, 2015
Let's calm down.

This "paper" is authored by known "deniers": Monckton is a non-scientist, Willie Wei-Hock Soon is a physicist whose research grants come from Exxon and Koch Industries, David Legates is a Professor of Geography and frequent contributor to a conservative think-tank opposing climate change regulations, and William M. Briggs is "a statistical consultant".

Not the slightest trace of a serious climatologist in that "paper", conveniently published in China, probably because it was the only place they could publish it without proper scrutiny.

I give that "paper" one week to be debunked and ridiculed by true climatologists, and exposed for what it is: another feeble attempt by big petroleum/coal, to convince ignorants to keep marching to extinction at the sound of THEIR cash registers.
Water_Prophet
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 25, 2015
rabol,
Deniers who conclusion is not to deny, but show effects were exaggerated.
Hmmmm

I enjoy your prejudice against a Chinese educational system, and insight of other experts. Also the idea that climatologists have all the answers: Their education does not require physics and chemistry, as it's core, two disciplines I find very useful in debunking even published topics.

So, true or false, the premise presented above matches data observed. It is of course possible to construct a false premise to match observables; perhaps that is what the discussion should be about.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (12) Jan 25, 2015
I give that "paper" one week to be debunked and ridiculed by true climatologists, and exposed for what it is: another feeble attempt by big petroleum/coal, to convince ignorants to keep marching to extinction at the sound of THEIR cash registers.
Yea, it didn't take that long. Go back and read some of the links I provided earlier in this thread. The paper has already been thoroughly discredited.
runrig
4.7 / 5 (12) Jan 25, 2015
This is amusing chaps/ess's (highly) - comments that is.

http://climatecon...ggs.html
ralbol
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 25, 2015
@ Water_Prophet

- "So, true or false, the premise presented above matches data observed."

Data shows ice falling from the sky in the form of snowflakes... conclusion: clouds are giant refrigerators.

Without proper knowledge conclusions made from correct data can be totally wrong.

Which is exactly what we see here.

Anyway, this pseudo "paper" is being debunked, shredded, torn apart by REAL climatologists, and shown for what it is: a feeble attempt at clouding the issues humanity faces in order to maintain profits of fossil fuel corporations.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (21) Jan 25, 2015
I enjoy your prejudice against a Chinese educational system,


Except all those Skippys aren't Chinese. The Lord-Skippy is sort of a Chinese since he spend most of his life in Hong Kong. But he went to the England pubic schools which over there does not mean what it does down here in Louisiana. Another one of the Skippys is from Delaware where they are hard up for people to teach in the geology school. Another two of the Skippys is at the Boston school which is not in China. The last one is the statistic keeper for the actor-Skippys out in Hollywood and that is not in China either.

and insight of other experts.


A journalist-writer-Skippy, creation-Skippy, astronomer-Skippy and statistic-keeper-for-the-Stars-Skippy are not exactly experts are they?

Also the idea that climatologists have all the answers: Their education does not require physics and chemistry, as it's core


Cher, you just lost your mojo on that one. That is almost all they study.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 25, 2015
Maggie, if you will notice I gave only you a 1 Star & not El Stumpo. I don't want to do anything that would dilute the Stumps' rating on the filter with a 1 Star, this is because I want his posts to be rated as high as possible so that the casual reader can see for themselves what the 'hood is like around here when so many people who don't know anything about science & math congregate in one place.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (22) Jan 25, 2015
Their education does not require physics and chemistry, as it's core,

Lookee what I find Cher, I took the one at the top of Google-Skippy's list, and peeked in on all the other and they are almost exactly the same. Let me give you a hint on making up things to win the argument,,,,, if ol Ira-Skippy can look him up to find out it is foolishment, you ain't got no chance of fooling the peoples here who really know a lot about science stuffs.
For to start they got,,,,,
101 Introduction to Physics for Scientists and Engineers Part I
102 Introduction to Physics for Scientists and Engineers Part II
101 General Chemistry I
102 General Chemistry II
107 Organic Chemistry
181 Atmospheric Physics and Dynamics.
181 Atomspheric Chemistry and Physics Laboratory
103 Introduction to Marine Geochemistry
106A: Physical and Chemical Environment of the Oceans
143: Introduction to Watershed Hydrology (Look him up, that is physics stuffs.)
166: Evolutionary Biogeography
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 25, 2015
Let's take a look at the basis of this approach. They are using a zero-dimensional model. That means that everything is considered to be a point in space. All quantities are lumped together. There is nothing wrong with this approach if all you are looking at is a balance of incoming and outgoing energy. This is similar to the 0D model (the bowl) that Alche/Waterdummy pushes. When we started looking at a model back in the old days when Alche and I were supposed to work on a model, we started with 0D and it quickly became clear that the 0D model could not account for the vertical interaction of the atmosphere. I then went to a 1-D model and the interaction of the CO2 in the atmosphere became clear. That was the point where Alche stomped his feet and left the conversation. The bottom line is that a 0D model misses the vertical interaction of the atmosphere and cannot reflect the interaction of CO2 with IR. Continued
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (21) Jan 25, 2015
P.S. for you Water-Skippy because I ran out of letters.

And that was just the first two years when they first get there. They still got to pick some stuffs they got a choice about. I did not include all the math stuffs and geology stuffs they also got to learn because I do not want to keep running out of letters and make a string of P.S.s for you. But there is lots more and thanks for the tip. All that looking taught me a thing or two things about what the scientist-Skippys have to learn about.

Laissez les bons temps rouler Skippy
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 25, 2015
Continued: If you want to quantify the interaction of the gases in the atmosphere you must have, at least, a 1-D model. If you stick with a 0D model you have to parameterize the equivalent of the atmosphere to appear as a point with a "factor" representing balancing of the incoming and outgoing radiation. This is a weak approach. Even going 1D you can only make a calculation based on average conditions (the column at the equator is very different from a column near either pole). So, you can enhance your system to take into consideration 2D or, better yet, 3D systems. However, your computational burden goes up. The benefit is that you have a much more realistic system. For instance, in a 3D system you can consider wind and ocean currents. In a 0D system those do not exist. It is the reason that the serious modelers are scratching for computer power to make their systems more accurate. Continued
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 25, 2015
Continued: The idea that Moncton or Alche/Waterdummy think that they can use a 0D model or a water bowl with a candle under it and out perform a fundamental 3D computer model is laughable. The idea that they make their claims public is pathetic, and, perhaps, a reflection on the educational level of those who publicize such claims as credible. They are not credible and a superficial examination of the approach shows why. For instance, with the water bowl from Alche, how does he take CO2 into consideration since there is no vertical column of gas to absorb and emit IR? From the 0D model of Moncton, how does he take ocean currents into consideration if his world is a point? The answer is they can't. A 0D model is inherently incapable of modeling climate and can be dismissed as soon as someone claims to have produced one. There are just too many "knobs" to be turned to make one work.
Water_Prophet
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 25, 2015
Ah, Unc., I also surveyed curriculae, and the one you picked, well must be cherry picked. Because I googled "Climatology curriculae," got UC Berkely, a credible school.

So congratulations on demonstrating how wrong I am...meh. On the other hand how many people are taking the high road, when an awesome school has a less challenging curriculum?

Que dites-vous à ca, chere?

Oh, look, @thermodynamics is back, & what a joke, he uses John Cook and his skepitcalscience as a referent authority instead of a quack:
http://www.popula...nce.html

Reviewing and comparing credentials, I think I'll pick @RealityCheck as my referent authority. Actually, I think Reality's credentials check out better. He advertises his second-guess nature, while Cook pretends he is not a fraud.

Rabol, Unc., and I assume thermo., good job, my ankles are so bit right now!
ralbol
5 / 5 (7) Jan 25, 2015
@ Water_Prophet

- "Rabol, Unc., and I assume thermo., good job, my ankles are so bit right now!"

We got that close to the center of your thought process ?
ralbol
4.9 / 5 (9) Jan 25, 2015
Most people here who agree with "the paper" would probably be satisfied at being treated for cancer by an ophthalmologist.

Sure, admit it, an ophthalmologist has no expertise in cancer treatment so he obviously can treat you simply because he has an "interest" in cancer and reads a lot about it.

After all, if a non scientist, a physicist, a Professor of Geography and a consultant can speak with authority about Climatology, obviously an ophthalmologist can treat you for cancer...

Why not ?

Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (21) Jan 25, 2015
Ah, Unc., I also surveyed curriculae, and the one you picked, well must be cherry picked. Because I googled "Climatology curriculae," got UC Berkely, a credible school.


Well what does the cherry picked mean? I picked the very first on the list of four or three dozens. They pick cherries at the Berkley science school? That was the first on my Google-Skippy's list. After that one all the others so much like that one that I thought I should just go with that one.

On the other hand how many people are taking the high road, when an awesome school has a less challenging curriculum?[/g]

I did not go to the science school just the engineer's classes at the community college. I suppose I should take your word for it that the Berkley science school is less challenging, but I won't just like I didn't take your word for that they do not study the physics and chemistry.

Que dites-vous à ca, chere


I say Ira-Skippy or Uncle-Anything is the cher, not the chere.

David R_
5 / 5 (7) Jan 25, 2015


Well what does the cherry picked mean? I picked the very first on the list of four or three dozens. They pick cherries at the Berkley science school? That was the first on my Google-Skippy's list. After that one all the others so much like that one that I thought I should just go with that one.



It means picking only the data that supports your preconceived views rather than finding an accurate explanation that is supported by all of the available data from all sources. Monckton misrepresents a limited set of satellite data to conclude that no warming has occurred in the last 15 years. Satellites can't measure surface temperatures directly. From NASA. " Landsats 7 and 8 record blue, green, and red light in the visible spectrum as well as near-infrared, mid-infrared, and thermal-infrared light". To interpret the data it is locally referenced to ground observations, NOAA and NASA run climate models on supercomputers, not phones.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 25, 2015
Hey Ira, do you realize how many more characters you could type if you'd drop the contrived "skippy" & "cher" stuff? You might even save enough characters that would enable you to insert additional Copy & Paste links that would rival in number those of El Stumpo. Think about that?
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (21) Jan 25, 2015
Hey Ira, do you realize how many more characters you could type if you'd drop the contrived "skippy" & "cher" stuff?


Yeah Bennie-Skippy I do realize that. Somebody else mentioned that the other day to me but he was nicer about it. Would you like the same answer I give him or are you picky and want a custom one just for you?

Anyhoo, I told him "Yeah, I hear that a lot from Mrs-Ira-Skippette me". If you want the special answer just for you all you got to do is ask Skippy-Cher-couyon-podna-p'tit boug you.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2015
@ Water_Prophet

- "Rabol, Unc., and I assume thermo., good job, my ankles are so bit right now!"

We got that close to the center of your thought process ?

Just 3 feet higher and you would have bull's eyed.
ralbol
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 25, 2015
@ Water_Prophet

- "Just 3 feet higher and you would have bull's eyed."

You a basketball player ?
ralbol
5 / 5 (7) Jan 25, 2015
@ Water_Prophet

Cuz there ain't nuthin there...
Bongstar420
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 25, 2015
I wish we were warming the planet. Ice ages sound really crappy. It sounded way better with crocodiles at the north pole like a few dozen million years ago. Ya
ralbol
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 25, 2015
@ Bongstar420

- "I wish we were warming the planet. Ice ages sound really crappy. It sounded way better with crocodiles at the north pole like a few dozen million years ago. Ya"

Problem is, we're warming the planet way too fast, plants, animals and humans can't adapt that fast.

Moreover, we're not just warming the planet, we're contaminating and polluting it, pushing plants and animals to extinction.

But hey, look on the bright side... the Dow Jones hit 18,000 points !
zz5555
4.7 / 5 (12) Jan 25, 2015
except of course you have no clue about what persistence means in the atmosphere: How long it takes a GHG to be chemically degraded:

How is the length of time it takes a GHG to breakdown related to the persistence of water vapor in the atmosphere? Because CO2 and CH4 do breakdown? Why is it that the anti-science group believes that there can be only one way that things occur? They claim that science only looks at CO2 even though many papers and the IPCC reports list many things other than CO2. And you say here that the only way water vapor is removed from the atmosphere is through chemical degradation because that's what happens with CO2 and CH4. Do you actually believe that only chemical reactions can remove anything from the atmosphere? How about soot? Do you think that soot must break down to be removed from the atmosphere? Why, then, can we see soot on the ground?

Cont.
zz5555
4.7 / 5 (12) Jan 25, 2015
Here's another Wikipedia page that shows this is wrong: https://en.wikipe...er_vapor . It also has a link to a paper by the EPA that also disagrees with you - water vapor is a short-lived gas. I know you've claimed in the past that the scientists are in cahoots to deny the role of water vapor, so if you don't believe the scientists, how about your own words? Here's your quote dated 1/1/15 from http://phys.org/n...rth.html :
So here's the thing about the life time of water, it is defined by the temperature.

Which is correct: as the temperature goes up, more water vapor can be held in the atmosphere. And as the temperature does down, less water vapor can be held in the atmosphere. How do you think water vapor gets out of the atmosphere as the temperature goes down? Do you think the excess water vapor breaks down chemically? Or does it maybe, just maybe, precipitate out of the atmosphere?

Cont.
zz5555
4.7 / 5 (12) Jan 25, 2015
So even you don't agree with your claim that GHGs must breakdown to leave the atmosphere. If you doubt even yourself about this, just think about the difference in absolute humidity between summer and winter. There's much more water in the air during the summer than in the winter. And, no, the water doesn't breakdown between the two seasons.

You've claimed that water vapor isn't a short-lived gas in the atmosphere, but even you disagree with that claim. Even you agree that something else must be heating up the earth in order to enable water vapor to act as a feedback. You've also indicated that CO2 is a prime candidate for that "something else".
ralbol
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 25, 2015
@ zz5555

...and, as CO2 helps trap heat, temperatures rise leading to melting of the poles, which raise ocean water levels, which leads to a greater ocean water surface area, which leads to greater water evaporation due to the increased water surface area, which leads to greater atmospheric water content, which leads to increased heat retention, which leads to faster ice melting, which leads to...
OZGuy
4.7 / 5 (12) Jan 26, 2015
Benni
Yeah I can do differential equations, so what, I did them at High School, I did them during my Bachelor at Uni and during my Masters at Uni. Big deal, so did LOTS and LOTS of other people, it isn't a rare ability to solve differential equations, in fact you won't get through any science/mathematics degree if you can't.

What is actual your fixation with differential equations? Is that your one parlour trick you show at parties or something? Seriously it isn't a super power it's just mathematics.

What does solving equations have to do with you nearly breaking out into kumbaya and wanting a group hug to say how lucky the world is to have you here? Nothing. It's just a means to deflect attention away from your look at me I'm so special moment now that you reread it and it makes you sound so very very precious.

RC at least waited until he was 9 to declare himself precocious seems you started at 5.
Caliban
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 26, 2015
@ Water_Prophet

- "Rabol, Unc., and I assume thermo., good job, my ankles are so bit right now!"

We got that close to the center of your thought process ?

Just 3 feet higher and you would have bull's eyed.


That's a pretty -albeit unintentionally-- revealing statement regarding the quality of your intellect, Whiffenpuff.

I believe it's both fair and accurate to characterize it as no better than incontinent,
damp, smelly flatulence, devoid of substance.

Blow that out of your flabby bull's eye.
Urgelt
3.8 / 5 (16) Jan 26, 2015
This article is troubling. No experts are cited who criticize the paper. Why would a journalist fail to obtain opposing viewpoints when a controversial claim is made?

Answer: this isn't journalism, it's propaganda.

Several statements in the article are factually deficient. For example, the denier claim of 'no warming in 18 years' has been thoroughly debunked many times.

I see no reason to go deeper. It's just another attempt by deniers - and yes, China has them, too - to sow disinformation and delay reforms to protect special interests.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Jan 26, 2015
Ah @zz, you're so funny. It doesn't show it is wrong because it disagrees with your opinion, it shows that it is contested or conflicting data.

That you proclaim it wrong says more about yourself than the matter at hand.

3 feet higher
yeah, guys, I "digged" myself, you didn't get it, probably because your own egos are so fragile you couldn't imagine it.
Caliban
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 26, 2015

3 feet higher


yeah, guys, I "digged" myself, you didn't get it, probably because your own egos are so fragile you couldn't imagine it.


Yeah, Whiffen_Poof, I "got it".

And I'm sure every one else did, too, only, unlike me, they were too polite to wholeheartedly concur with your rather incisive self-ASSessment.

The point is, given the context of your reply(vs your inent), it had the unfortunate result of turning your attempted "dig" at... "Rabol, Unc., and I assume thermo.,"... back upon yourself.

Again --clearly demonstrating the quality of your intellect to be no better than incontinent,
damp, smelly flatulence, devoid of substance.
zz5555
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 26, 2015
Ah @zz, you're so funny. It doesn't show it is wrong because it disagrees with your opinion, it shows that it is contested or conflicting data.

That you proclaim it wrong says more about yourself than the matter at hand.


What's not wrong? The original article? There's been enough refuting of that to show that the original article has very serious problems.

Or are you talking about your claim that there must be some chemical reaction to get water vapor out of the air? But you've already said that's wrong. And you should really think about how air can hold lots of water vapor during the summer when it's warm and much less in the winter when it's cold. If you still hold to the idea that water must break down to remove it from you atmosphere, then you must also agree that that process is pretty fast in order to allow such a great change over just 6 months - so even your odd claim means that water vapor is a short-lived gas.
zz5555
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 26, 2015
If you still hold to the idea that water must break down to remove it from you atmosphere, then you must also agree that that process is pretty fast in order to allow such a great change over just 6 months - so even your odd claim means that water vapor is a short-lived gas.


Here's an experiment you can make. On the next hot, humid day fill a glass with ice water and leave it on a table in your house (this way you can't claim it's convection). In just a few minutes you'll see that the outside of the glass is covered with drops of water. Most of us call this condensation - you can call it a chemical byproduct ;). Unless you believe that glasses leak water (or sweat), you've just proven that it doesn't take much time at all to get water vapor out of the air. So believe that water vapor must degrade to come out of the air if you want, but you now know, without any question, that it happens quickly and water vapor is a short-lived gas.
schroedingercat
3.8 / 5 (6) Jan 26, 2015
Long time reader of this site, but as of this publishing, no more. May as well post huffington post news articles to support global warming claims. How ridiculous would that be? This gives credibility to an article full of unsubstantiated assertions that is funded by business interests, and damages the reputation of this website as a purveyor of scientific news.

How about we scientists go colonize other planets and leave the climate deniers with their businesses profiting from it to have earth? Would clean up the gene pool. Besides, climate or no, the sun will eventually expand and consume the earth no matter what humanity does on our little rock. No saving it in the long run!

Ira, I want to read what you have to say because of make so many good points, but you make it so hard.. It's like reading posts by jar jar blinks.
EnricM
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 26, 2015
FAKE.
" confirmed by almost two decades without any significant global warming"

there is no such lag, this is just a very idiotic misinterpretation of the data by a bunch of idiots who have no idea of statistics and also a grave case of visual impairment as there is no such hiatus shown in the data. AND to make matters worse, this is the same data this "pocket calculator" guys use. And I am not talking about projections but about simple and silly datapoints on a plot.

Anyway, where the hell is the link to the paper/study or whavert? :
[quote]
Thanks to the generosity of the Heartland Institute, the paper is open-access. It may be downloaded free from http://www.scibul...9.shtml. Click on "PDF" just above the abstract.
[/quote]

So, I declared it officially BULLSHIT

EnricM
3.5 / 5 (4) Jan 26, 2015
hoax!!!

The article is a HOAX

There is no such study in the Chinese Science Bulletin, check it out:

http://earth.scic...yword.do

check out on Climate.

Adn why in hell's bloody name would a bunch of US guys publish in a Chinese Official publication dedicated to Chinese Universities and Research institutes?

Phys.org has been hacked ?
EnricM
4.4 / 5 (8) Jan 26, 2015
Here, more interesing information.

Found the paper:

This is the author: http://www.desmog...monckton
"According to George Monbiot at The Guardian, Monckton "has a degree in classics and a diploma in journalism and, as far as I can tell, no further qualifications." [1]"

;)

And here another of them:
http://en.wikiped...lie_Soon

Here goes another one:
http://www.desmog...-legates

And here we have the last one, Mr Biggs (related to Ronald by chance?)
http://scienceblo...sunders/

OK. Thank you very much Phys.org you are almost at the level of any clickbait site, the only thing I miss are these stupid adds.

Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (10) Jan 26, 2015
@EricM - 2 comments to you; I think it is good that Phys.org presents articles like this claptrap as it gives a forum by which the garbage science in the paper can be dissected and discussed. Like it or not, this article was published, and as such it is science news.

Secondly, Phys.org is a site that survives or not mostly by the ad revenue it generates. One measure of the number of people visiting your site is the number of comments that are left. Look at the number of comments this article has generated. Remember that Phys.org does not have writers of their own, they simply gather and communicate news articles from around the globe.

By all means, disparage and show fault with the article and the paper that gave rise to the article. But don't fault Phys.Org just because they reported it. That is, after all, what they do right - report on science news, right?
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 26, 2015
If anyone is interested in what a duplicitous, slithery, arrogant sort Monckton is then I would (AGAIN) point you to the comment section (there's several pages) here....

http://climatecon...ggs.html

Primarily between Monckton and "There's physics" and Monckton and Jan Perlwitz

It's like getting someone to to say something that is white, is white, and not black and repeatedly failing with returned retorts of "don't be childish" when a scientific comment is made, and "your scientific point is", when not.

The man is completely impossible.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 26, 2015
Here's another Wikipedia page that shows this is wrong: https://en.wikipe...er_vapor
@zz5555
funniest thing about that link is that the idiot ALCHE has used it in the past... funnier still is that ALCHE never noticed that the CO2 study i linked to him is referenced in that page supporting the assertions regarding the feedback and forcing of WV with CO2

it isn't a rare ability to solve differential equations, in fact you won't get through any science/mathematics degree if you can't
@OZ
actually, it is required for ANY STEM course to a 4yr minimum degree as far as i know... but benni-tard thinks it SOUNDS difficult, so he has to push it
(i personally think he just learned a new hard sounding word -at least for him- so uses it like any other 8y/o with a new word)

@benni
this is what happened LAST time i wanted to talk science with you NUKE BOY

so where is it?
debunk that study, Nuke-EE-benni!
it directly refutes you so...
Hueight
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 26, 2015

water vapor is a short-lived gas.

Water vapor is a liquid. Water becomes a gas at boiling.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 26, 2015
That you proclaim it wrong
@ALCHE
actually, the STUDIES linked in the page and the science linked "proclaim YOU wrong" as it is blatantly obvious that you are ignoring all the relevant data as well as science just to cling to your feeble waterbowl pseudoscience fallacy

So, this is a perfect time to demonstrate your prowess with chemistry and physics as per your historical claims (and your claims of multiple degree's)

it is VERY SIMPLE
please dissect the studies and clarify specifically what is wrong with them and post it here

this will allow everyone to re-submit your critique to the original authors and peer-review for the studies and (if you are correct) they will be retracted

Considering that the studies referenced by zz (wiki link) also contain the "physical properties" you so repetitiously post here, then this should be an easy task for you

I sincerely await your attempts at this
(i've not had a good laugh since you tried this & failed with Thermo)
runrig
4.3 / 5 (12) Jan 26, 2015

water vapor is a short-lived gas.

Water vapor is a liquid. Water becomes a gas at boiling.

What???????

Are you having a laugh?

Err, WV is well, the clue is in the name .... a vapour (gas) and it is water evaporated at any temp above 0K (yes ice evaporates ... it's called sublimation).

Water evaporated at 100C is called steam.

FFS^3
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 26, 2015
Repeat after the IPPC and AL Gore: "There is global warming, there is global warming! "

There is no such thing as a stable climate, never has been, never will be, regardless of what humans do or don't do.
More from the gallery of "there's no warming because I don't like Al Gore"! Sure the planet's climate has always changed, no one says differently. Humans, in this era, have been able to effect the climate for the first time. On the one hand, that is pretty amazing. Denying that is just imbecilic.

The other hand is that the effect is pronounced and very very fast. When such a large thing as the climate system is affected very fast, chaotic results can also be expected. And that is what the problem is. These simple facts don't care about what Al Gore thinks.

No wonder Americans get painted with the brush of science illiterate - people like this one open their mouths.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Jan 26, 2015
Gosh @zz, you've put me right to sleep, why would I ever say condensation was a chemical reaction, oh I know, because you'd try to put those words in my mouth.

No, I was referring to the seeming conflicting wiki articles. You see, I already understood the conflict and the resolution, therefore have no surprises or conflicts between them.

Water does have multiple absorption peaks and has small absorption just about everywhere in the thermal IR. Therefore it must be O2. So that means you need to rectify how the article you posted can also be true and under what caveats.

Wow, that was a much more polite answer than you deserve. I guess I can take comfort in the fact that you'll have some lame excuse to ignore it.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Jan 26, 2015
If anyone is interested in what a duplicitous, slithery, arrogant sort Monckton is then I would (AGAIN) point you to the comment section (there's several pages) here....

http://climatecon...ggs.html

Primarily between Monckton and "There's physics" and Monckton and Jan Perlwitz


@Runrig, my view on it is he is just as credible as anyone else. Your own paper says he uses an energy model.
or over 30 years I have been disgusted by both sides doing the same thing as Mockton.

On the side of bias, he IS agreeing with AGC, just claims it isn't some powerful, and really, if you don't agree, look out the window.
David R_
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 26, 2015
Repeat after the IPPC and AL Gore: "There is global warming, there is global warming! "

There is no such thing as a stable climate, never has been, never will be, regardless of what humans do or don't do.



Our climate has been remarkably stable within a very narrow range for at least the last 22,000 years. Human civilization evolved during this stable period. Natural non -human induced causes of minor climate fluctuations are still the same as they have been throughout this period. None of these can explain the current rapid climate change cycle we are entering now. None of them. Only human activity, especially since the beginning of the modern industrial period, can explain the current rapid changes. I took 7000 years at the end of the last peak glaciation period for CO2 to rise by 50ppm. We have caused it to rise by 100ppm in less than 100 years. 25% of existing carbon in the atmosphere, one molecule in 4, can be traced to human burning of fossil fuels.
ralbol
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 26, 2015
Water_Prophet

- "...The model, developed over eight years, is so easy... ...running it on a pocket scientific calculator.X

- "...and really, if you don't agree, look out the window."

Aahhh !

The peace and joy of being simple, of modeling climate on a pocket calculator, of looking out of the window to gauge our planet's global climate...

I can almost hear you utter the famous "D'oh !".
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Jan 26, 2015
@rabol

By look out the window, I mean to compare how it has changed in 30+ years. September USED to be a cold month, and yet we don't have the huge rise in temperature promised by alarmists.

The result, something in between.

In other words:

Eureka!
ralbol
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 26, 2015
@ Water_Prophet

...and by the way, here's a graph of the average Global temperature changes from the 20th century:

http://blogs.tele...arge.jpg

As you can see, the curve has been steadily rising, even if there are sometimes pauses for a few years.

But, this graph is probably part of the plot, and the FACT that this kind of rapid temperature rise occurs as human activity peaks, is simply just a coincidence...

Me thinks your hat needs sole repair and new laces.
ralbol
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 26, 2015
- "...and yet we don't have the huge rise in temperature promised by alarmists."

Nobody predicts INSTANT HUGE temperature rises, only GRADUAL rises.

As for the month of september, don't let the FACTS bother you:

"September broke another record for global average temperature"

http://www.nydail....1981386
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Jan 26, 2015
@rabol, and yet we were supposed to go up by 4C in 2012, but AGW-ers conveniently forget that prediction. So you are another misconstruist. Whatever.
@David R
Here is a bit of good info-This is better than ralbol's site
http://woodfortre....9/trend

Notice the near perfect correspondence between the two. Now if it were CO2, you'd see a summa character.

Not much of a mystery left after that.

So many simple models and correlations seeming to explain climate change.
ralbol
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 26, 2015
@ Water_Prophet

- "and yet we were supposed to go up by 4C in 2012, but AGW-ers conveniently forget that prediction. So you are another misconstruist. Whatever."

And pray, that "prediction" comes from... where ?

There is no such prediction of a 4C temperature rise by 2012.

This is fabulation, disinformation and outright lie.

There was, in 2012, a WARNING by the World Bank, of a POSSIBLE 4C rise in temperatures BY THE END OF THE CENTURY, if nothing is done.

At least, get your facts right.

Whatever, is exactly all you are saying.
RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (19) Jan 26, 2015
Hi OZ. :)
RC at least waited until he was 9 to declare himself precocious...
Not 'precocious', more aware of reality more clearly than my peers at that age; and since, it seems. :)

It may be due do my being a Migrant Child who easily learned the new language and was depended upon widely by my family, relatives and friends not able to read/understand properly many medical/official/legal/work-business communications/terms etc.

It was while growing up having to read/understand and translate/interpret and interact with a wide range of professional/important/people/issues on behalf of my family, friends etc, that I early on became aware of a much wider world of knowledge/understanding/perspectives etc.

The only way I could be useful to those depending on me then, and during the many years following, was to be as dispassionate/objective as possible comprehending reality/facts so that I could liaise without misunderstandings/dire consequences.

Great training for science. :)
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (18) Jan 26, 2015
Hi Water_Prophet. :) Thanks for agreeing that Climate Change is real, even though we disagree what is the ultimate driver/arbiter of heat-load-increase caused changes.

Take current 'historic' extreme snow-storm system affecting the East Coast US. While you acknowledge the water vapour content/effects involved, you keep missing the whole reason why the water vapour comes into play more than usually. The WARMER OCEAN water due to prior heat-build-up caused by prior effect of CO2 is producing more warmer/humid air to circulate and interact with the cold air masses drawn in by more strong convection/transport system which would otherwise not come into play so much as that.

Water vapour/warmer air are merely HEAT TRANSPORT 'vectors', not 'causes', of this dynamics. It is ultimately the HEAT load increase due to prior CO2 'lagging' and warming effect it has on all 'sinks' (ie, ocean/air/land/permafrost/clathrate etc masses) that causes more/less water vapour involvement. Ok? :)
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 26, 2015
Here's an interesting article that applies to one of the authors, Dr Soon, who has now been accused of failing to disclose conflicts of interest when he submitted his paper to Science Bulletin: http://www.boston...ory.html . Specifics of the charges are outlined in the article, but the important part is this:
n a note at the end of the paper, all four authors claimed no conflicts of interest on the published study..(but)..Soon's long track record of accepting energy-industry related grants indicates otherwise and might constitute a violation of Science Bulletin's disclosure policy.
I also found this bit interesting:
Though Soon uses his full Harvard-Smithsonian credential on the Science Bulletin paper, he is technically employed by the Smithsonian side and has no other affiliation with Harvard University.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Jan 26, 2015
@Reality:
Don't patronize me :D
Truly I've been saying climate change is real since 1986. I have never had to use CO2 to explain it, and my predictions are simple and accurate. The results are exactly what we are seeing. More extreme weather, (CO2 would make it warmer, but milder).

I'm guessing you don't remember when it was still a debatable that CO2 was going up. That was before we started killing the oceans, preventing them from sinking all the CO2 we could produce.

The fact remains, W V is a more powerful GHG, there is more of it and it has increased more. If it transported more, its increase to would balance.

What do you say about the correlation between GDP, presumable energy USE and temperature, vs . a weak correlation between increase in CO2 and temperature?

It didn't take my link above I see:
http://www.truthf...-gdp.jpg

Combine this with "woodfortrees" above, and tell me what you think.
ralbol
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 26, 2015
@ Maggnus

You forgot that part, about Dr Soon and Harvard...

"The institute has previously disavowed his work on climate change."
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (17) Jan 26, 2015
Hi WP. :)
@Reality: Don't patronize me :D
No, mate; just being polite/factual, as between equals in objective science and humanity discourse. :)
Truly I've been saying climate change is real since 1986. I have never had to use CO2 to explain it, and my predictions are simple and accurate.....More extreme weather, (CO2 would make it warmer, but milder).
"Warmer but milder"....only when 'equilibration' achieved centuries from now! Meantime more extreme 'temp gradients' between poles and equator means more extremes.

The 'balancing' is precisely the dynamics which is being made more violent/exacerbated by, but not caused by, the increased water vapour 'entrained' by warmer air taking up additional evaporation from warmer oceans...itself caused by prior CO2 effect.

It seems your analysis is missing that. Your 'brass bowl' etc is 'open system' dumping heat to surrounding room/air. But CO2 effectively 'closing' Earth's system more and more as emissions increase. See? :)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (21) Jan 26, 2015
Yeah, I read it. So did Mrs-Ira-Skippette and she is the normal and educated one in our family. She even talks the way you peoples keep telling me I should talk like. She said it was worth the 1 since you are not allowed to give out the 0.

She said it fancy words but she agreed with ol Ira-Skippy. Sounds like somebody strutting around the room with the BIG colorful headdress on thinking he is the BIG CHIEF of a Mardi Gras Indian Krewe. If I told how she said it would make you cry so I won't tell it because you already embarrrass your self enough while you are fighting the scientists and humans and doing your diligences.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Jan 26, 2015
Don't take the brass bowl too seriously, it is just meant to make it intuitive that ice melting is the primary observable and effect of climate change. Which is observed.

It predicts temperature stability, observed in major and minors: Globally and this "pause."
It predicts local temperature effects, and thus more extreme weather.
More but less severe tropical storms/hurricanes.

Rise of oceans.
And decrease in near polar albedo, due to ice recession.
All these are observed-primary effects and predicted/-able.

Temperature is still being debated (by some), but is definitely a secondary effect.

Insulation effects are different. Less extreme weather, for example, because of decreased gradients.

Once you grasp the brass bowl, you increase the fidelity of your mental model, to climate regions, like Australia, the US NW and NE, etc., and you can make other predictions.

What do you think of the correlation between GDP and Temp.?
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (20) Jan 26, 2015
You're the proven insensible bot-voting village idiot Uncle Ira, so when you say you 'read it' it is patent that you did not understand or consider or even argue the points before you bot-voted as usual from your 'list'. You poor sod, how insensible can you inbreds get over there? Your wife and 'friends' are just 'nodding and smiling and agreeing' with the village idiot in their midst who might turn violent if confronted with the awful tragic truth about 'itself'. They can see very clearly that if you would go so far into anti-science/humanity internet insanities as 'bot-voting from ignorance and a personal hate list' on a SCIENCE SITE which should be spared such atrocities from the likes of you, then what could you be capable of doing to your friends/family in real world if they even attempt to show you what insanely anti-science/humanity ethics you are dribbling here? Insensible bot-voting ignoramus Ira pretending to be anything but an inbred moronic loser on the internet.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (17) Jan 26, 2015
Hi WP. :) GDP and temp correlate only so far. The problem is the lags and lead times and 'in train but not obvious' prior effects/accumulations etc of instabiliies/gradients which 'play out' over decades...which may or may no be coinciding with the 'overt' GDP-temp graphing/conclusions in any one year/years of an economic cycle.

All these other factors and correlations/decouplings etc are mere distractions from the main game. Which is the overall warming/extremizing trend during this transition from one prior equilibration set to the new equilibration set many decades from now.

That main game is ultimately enforced by the 'system closing' lagging effect of CO2 which makes all these other players/factors more/less evident, but not the actual 'causes'.

The more 'separate' extremes that occur because of warming by CO2 & increased vapur hereby, the greatly increasing chances of more 'historic' CONVERGENCES into superstorms occuring....just like now affecting US East Coast. :)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (21) Jan 26, 2015
Why you don't tell me how you really feel? And when you get done telling that maybe you will tell why you get bot voted, whatever that is, by everybody everywhere you ever been. If you would not work so hard to make sure I see you maybe I would overlook and miss you from time to another time sometimes.

Skippy you came into my life begging for my attention and hoping the other peoples who attention you wanted would be impressed for a change while you tackled ol Ira-Skippy. That backfire on you Cher, but you too stupid to realize since you been trying to slay me you have only make yourself look sillier and sillier.

You started off with me with you telling everybody that I was a fool and not to talk to me. Then to telling them how stupid they are for talking to me. Then you go to begging them to not let me be here with the scientists and humans.

You make up the bed, if you don't like it, unmake it and do it over. Or sleep in it, it do not matter to me which you pick.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Jan 26, 2015
@Reality,
The correlation is great, especially look at 1972, before and after. On average it looks like it differs only by a "k." Konstant.

Oddly, I've always seen CO2 and temperature as the distraction: An independent variable that when it is hotter, people say CO2. When colder deniers say, "see told you so." And the debate rages, and no one changes.

The brass bowl has no such distraction, and it works.

Pleasure to disagree with you, it is nice to do that "professionally" for once.
One misconception you do have is; though the Earth is not, or ever in equilibrium, it changes so slowly, especially with regard to climate, that it can be regarded as changing in "textbook," equilibrium-slowly enough that you can use simple thermodynamics.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (17) Jan 26, 2015

@Water_Prophet, the pleasure (and respect) is mutual.

The 'distractions' problem is a function of those that bring them, irrespective of what's being 'labeled' a distraction. When actual factors examined as to being 'mere distractions per se', my own scrupulously independent objective researches/observations end up with CO2 'system closing' effect; the rest 'mere players' entrained BY said CO2 effect. In other words: One man's 'distraction' may (like CO2) be 'final arbiter'.

As for "not ever in equilibrium', that is facilely 'true' depending on temporal range involved (geologic/human history). If one takes human history, the changes will be observable and greatly accelerated as Industrialization took hold and 'matured' along with POPULATION increase and their UNnatural inputs to CO2 balance, which vary, as you observe, in some loose correlation with GDP and developed/developing economies.

There was tolerable 'range of instability'. Evolving 'range' may not be. Bye now. :)
zz5555
4.3 / 5 (12) Jan 26, 2015
why would I ever say condensation was a chemical reaction

Excellent. So you agree that water vapor doesn't need to break down chemically in order to exit the atmosphere and, instead, just condenses. Therefore, the water vapor content of the atmosphere is controlled by the temperature (as you stated) and is a short-lived gas with a lifetime in the atmosphere of ~9 days.
Water does have multiple absorption peaks and has small absorption just about everywhere in the thermal IR. Therefore it must be O2. So that means you need to rectify how the article you posted can also be true and under what caveats.

But, as you've indicated, this is irrelevant. The amount of water vapor in the air is controlled by the temperature and, currently, the biggest driver for that is CO2. So water vapor just acts as a feedback and it's kind of a red herring to talk about water vapor.
RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (19) Jan 26, 2015
Wow, folks!
...when you get done telling that maybe you will tell why you get bot voted, whatever that is, by everybody everywhere you ever been.

Skippy you came into my life begging for my attention and hoping the other peoples who attention you wanted would be impressed for a change while you tackled ol Ira-Skippy.

You started off with me with you telling everybody that I was a fool and not to talk to me. Then to telling them how stupid they are for talking to me. Then you go to begging them to not let me be here with the scientists and humans.
This insensible malignant trolling moron admitted bot-voting from his 'list' without reading or understanding context/content posted.

When first asked to PLEASE cease and desist corrupting the SCIENCE discussion with his BOT-voting he says "NO, i'll do what I please!" And now he imagines anyone was craving his attention? How imbecilic is this bot?

And he just admitted others/other sites have bot-voter problems too! Wwow.
zz5555
4.4 / 5 (13) Jan 26, 2015
Wow, that was a much more polite answer than you deserve. I guess I can take comfort in the fact that you'll have some lame excuse to ignore it.

Hmm, I don't recall ever ignoring a reply you've made. The replies you might have thought I ignored were probably like this one, kind of irrelevant to the topic. What possible difference could the absorption spectra of water vapor have in determining whether water vapor is a short-lived gas or not?
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 26, 2015
This insensible malignant trolling moron admitted bot-voting from his 'list' without reading or understanding context/content posted.

When first asked to PLEASE cease and desist corrupting the SCIENCE discussion with his BOT-voting he says "NO, i'll do what I please!" And now he imagines anyone was craving his attention? How imbecilic is this bot?

And he just admitted others/other sites have bot-voter problems too! Wwow
I don't often say to much to you, nor do I pay too much attention to what you say, but I am going to give you a little advice on this one. This is a fight you cannot win. If you have an issue with Ira, then you should just ignore him, and he will then (probably) ignore you. Now I don't care if you do or if you don't but I will tell you what - he is making you look bad. And every time you make one of these rants, it makes you look worse. Ira is smarter than you give him credit for, and you are playing in his arena.

Or don't. Like I said, I don't care.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (13) Jan 26, 2015
Hmm, I don't recall ever ignoring a reply you've made. The replies you might have thought I ignored were probably like this one, kind of irrelevant to the topic. What possible difference could the absorption spectra of water vapor have in determining whether water vapor is a short-lived gas or not?
He did much the same to me when I was making almost the exact same arguments. I imagine you will join the ranks of us poor unwashed sots, once he realizes he can't bamboozle you and that you actually understand the science he doesn't.

He starts getting snarky right about when you make the point that he is wrong about what causes the atmosphere to warm. When he has no argument left to make, and begins falling back on the arguments he already unsuccessfully tried, he will begin accusing you of undermining him or not giving him proper due or what have you. He did the same to Thermo when he tried to reason with him. And he did the same to me. And others.

Nice job though zz!
Caliban
4 / 5 (12) Jan 27, 2015
Wow, that was a much more polite answer than you deserve. I guess I can take comfort in the fact that you'll have some lame excuse to ignore it.

Hmm, I don't recall ever ignoring a reply you've made. The replies you might have thought I ignored were probably like this one, kind of irrelevant to the topic. What possible difference could the absorption spectra of water vapor have in determining whether water vapor is a short-lived gas or not?


zz5555, RC,

You'll do well to consider Maggnus' advice on this one.
zz5555,

Whiffen_puff is simply a troll here, trying to draw people into discussion by appearing to be firmly in the "GW is real" camp, only to SURPRISE!!! reveal that he has a big, fat secret that is the real cause of warming, which everyone else is too stupid to have discovered:

Warming is caused by the excess heat of fossil fuel combustion!

Like i said --no more than damp, smelly, incontinent flatulence.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 27, 2015
@ Maggnus

You forgot that part, about Dr Soon and Harvard...

"The institute has previously disavowed his work on climate change."

Yea, got cut off :( Glad you caught it!
Caliban
4 / 5 (12) Jan 27, 2015
And, zz555,

Just to give you a specific example of the scale of Whiffen_Poof's(the troll formerly known as "Alchemist") perfidy, just ask @thermodynamics to post the link wherein he offered "Alchemist" the opportunity to rigorously establish falsity of CO2 as the primary driver of warming.

It is hilarious.

Unfortunately, since Whiffen_Poof was exposed as a complete troll fraudster, I didn't bother to bookmark the article for future reference, assuming that shame would prevent his continued presence here --or, at least from commenting in the area of AGW-- but apparently this troll knows no shame.

As an extra bonus, the comments contain a link to a facebook page of his, which I coaxed him into providing us, an exegesis upon his excess heat of combustion hypothesis.

Actually quite sad.
OZGuy
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 27, 2015
RC
You try to claim you have this highly intellectual zen like quality to accompany your amazing insight into science that the rest of us mere mortals could never understand.

For such a supposed enlightened being you sure like to call people twats and morons during your never ending rants and dummy spits. Did you acquire this nasty little habit from the important "professional people" you dealt with as a kid or is it a family trait handed down generation to generation?

BTW there has been a migrant translation service in Australia since before you were born. You weren't as essential to everyone around you growing up as you may been led to believe.
bluehigh
2 / 5 (5) Jan 27, 2015
.. And that puke comes from a narrow minded selfish dimwit.

Into the gutter again gentlemen?

Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 27, 2015
.. And that puke comes from a narrow minded selfish dimwit.

Into the gutter again gentlemen?



Um, pardon? WTF was this supposed to mean?
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 27, 2015
And, zz555,

Just to give you a specific example of the scale of Whiffen_Poof's(the troll formerly known as "Alchemist") perfidy, just ask @thermodynamics to post the link wherein he offered "Alchemist" the opportunity to rigorously establish falsity of CO2 as the primary driver of warming.

It is hilarious.

Unfortunately, since Whiffen_Poof was exposed as a complete troll fraudster, I didn't bother to bookmark the article for future reference, assuming that shame would prevent his continued presence here --or, at least from commenting in the area of AGW-- but apparently this troll knows no shame.

As an extra bonus, the comments contain a link to a facebook page of his, which I coaxed him into providing us, an exegesis upon his excess heat of combustion hypothesis.

Actually quite sad.


http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

Here is the link.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 27, 2015
Here's another, where deepsand and I were trying to get through to him. He has history!

http://phys.org/n...ies.html

It was shortly after that when Alchemist (now crying waterbaby) decided that both deepsand and I were colluding to oppress his greatness and steal the thunder of his amazing discovery that no one else but he could understand - or something.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Jan 27, 2015
@David R_
Our climate has been remarkably stable within a very narrow range for at least the last 22,000 years.
How can you be this ignorant? We didn't pull out of the last deep ice age until just 10,000 years ago.

http://upload.wik...ions.png

And what is worse is all the more experienced AGWites like, yyz, runrig, thermodynamics, Caliban, Maggnus, Water_Prophet, mooster75, and Vietvet, upranked your post with 5's!

This is the problem with AGWites. They habitually fudge and falsify the data, and then the rest of them buy right into it!

Read this:

"As a species we insist on sticking with what we have been told despite knowing its wrong. Humans use error-prone gossip to dictate their actions, even when accurate information is freely available."

http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 27, 2015
This is a new video by Richard Muller, prime author of the BEST "hockey stick" study. A former "skeptic" and recipient of funds by the Koch bros.... proved an epic fail for them. Ah diddums!

https://www.youtu...8Dhr15Kw
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 27, 2015
This is a new video by Richard Muller, prime author of the BEST "hockey stick" study. A former "skeptic" and recipient of funds by the Koch bros.... proved an epic fail for them. Ah diddums!

https://www.youtu...8Dhr15Kw

Koch Bros.= Conspiracy!
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 27, 2015
How can you be this ignorant? We didn't pull out of the last deep ice age until just 10,000 years ago.
Wow, that's a good point by the ubamoron! Within a narrow range of temperatures, the Earth's climate has actually been remarkably stable for at least the last 180,000 years! And, in fact, the last time there were CO2 levels in line with what we are seeing today was in roughly the Pliocene - about 3 million years ago. At that time the Arctic was - hold on to your hats folks - an ASTOUNDING 3C higher than today!!! During glacial maximum, which is about 22,000 years ago, the average global temperatures were - again, hold onto your hats folks - an even MORE ASTOUNDING 3-5C lower than they are now.

This all goes to show that ubamoron has very little comprehension of climate science. A 6-8C change is a very narrow range, and in the IPCC worse case scenerio, the increase in temperature could be up to 8C HIGHER than now!

So it seems David R deserved his 5's!

runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 27, 2015
This is a new video by Richard Muller, prime author of the BEST "hockey stick" study. A former "skeptic" and recipient of funds by the Koch bros.... proved an epic fail for them. Ah diddums!

https://www.youtu...8Dhr15Kw

Koch Bros.= Conspiracy!

No. Koch bros = oil money
Muller (before BEST study ) = skeptic (therefore Koch money)
Now Muller accepts AGW
= epic own goal.
Only deniers have to resort to Conspiracy theory.
I maintain that the Cock-up theory explains 99% of the way the world works.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 27, 2015
and my predictions are simple and accurate
@ALCHE
you've never been able to demonstrate a single historical prediction that was accurate
Don't take the brass bowl too seriously
no one takes it seriously at all except you
Once you grasp the brass bowl, you increase the fidelity of your mental model
wrong again
1- you just said not to take it seriously (which no one does)
2- the SCIENCE will increase the fidelity of the mental model, not the brass bowl
3- you are promoting "intuitive" over hard science, which is, in fact PSEUDOSCIENCE
The brass bowl has no such distraction, and it works
and again, you've never once been able to prove this with any credibility nor provide empirical evidence of this
@Water_Prophet, the pleasure (and respect) is mutual
get a freakin ROOM why don't ya
that actually proves it, though

there is no better proof that you are promoting PSEUDOSCIENCE than love from rc!
LOL
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 27, 2015
Koch Bros.= Conspiracy!
@cd
i am SO glad you brought up this point
in fact, i was going to 5-star you but i am sure you were being facetious and attempting to troll the thread

let us take a look into the conspiracy behind the anti-science deniers trolling here who most likely belong to the climate change countermovement

This has been STUDIED... how they get funding and how the big oil/big $$ hides those funds to undermine the actual science... here is that study: http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

you can also read the article that was posted on PO about it here: http://phys.org/n...ate.html
The study is linked at the bottom

again, please note that there IS a climate change countermovement being funded by those with a vested interest in undermining the actual science

Those people pay for the stupidity & anti-science you see above, directly or indirectly
RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (18) Jan 27, 2015
Hi Maggnus. :)
This insensible Ira malignant trolling moron admitted bot-voting from his 'list' without reading or understanding context/content posted. When first asked to PLEASE cease and desist corrupting the SCIENCE discussion with his BOT-voting he says "NO, i'll do what I please!" And now he imagines anyone was craving his attention? How imbecilic is this bot? ...he just admitted others/other sites have bot-voter problems too!
...I am going to give you a little advice on this one. This is a fight you cannot win. If you have an issue with Ira, then you should just ignore him, and he will then (probably) ignore you.
Read what you quoted above. Ira's bot-voting is maliciously skewing the site's filer system to DICTATE what won't pass through readers' filters. It is the very same effect that occurs when ANY 'peer review' system is corrupted/biased. Recent PO news articles have highlighted this serious problem in science. By your silence that "travesty" flourishes.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (17) Jan 27, 2015
Hi OZ, stop your cheap shots out of your own patent trollish ignorance and malice, mate.

It was a matter of who was available 'after hours' as well; and who was more trustworthy, some stranger or family/friend. Then there was the advantage of being 'immersed' in the ongoing situation/matters more continuously/consistently than some 'changing/occasional' interpreter service person who comes in 'cold' and needs too much 'backgrounding' every other instance. You had to be a Migrant Child in my shoes there and then to know what it was all about.

Were you a Migrant Child yourself, OZ? :)
ralbol
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 27, 2015
Meanwhile...

- global temperature IS rising;

- Arctic AND Antarctic ice IS melting;

- global ocean water levels ARE rising;

- oceans ARE has gone up 26% since pre-industrial age;

- mass die-offs are increasing among birds, fish and marine invertebrates;

- wildlife has declined 50% in 40 years;

And all this, coincidentally, is happening since humans have "industrialized".

You can deny all you want, won't change the consequences, for you, your children and grandchildren.

Pushing humanity to extinction for little green papers we invented...

Maybe we deserve it.
ralbol
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 27, 2015
- oceans acidity has gone up 26% since pre-industrial age;
Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 27, 2015
- oceans acidity has gone up 26% since pre-industrial age;


Thanks for the correction. Now I can give your original comment a 5.
zz5555
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 27, 2015
http://phys.org/news/2014-04-today-antarctic-region-hot-california.html#jCp

Here is the link.

Thanks for the link. That was a real treat. So his argument seemed to boil down to "CO2 isn't an important gas because CO2 isn't an important gas. QED". Which is a shame because he seemed to have the knowledge to understand that his claims were wrong. It's also clear that no amount of data will convince him otherwise (I don't think his ego would allow that), so it seems pointless to discuss anything with him (or her, as the case might be).
jdswallow
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 27, 2015
Lord Monckton, the paper's lead author


I wasn't aware the "Lord" was a scientist of any description, never mind of climate.

And I don't suppose his denial of anything AGW has any outcome in "the paper".


As far as education goes and it is for sure an important part of any civilized countries make up; but, one needs to consider that Thomas A. Edison held 1095 patents, making him one of the most prolific inventors ever, and he had three months of formal education. Was he a scientist? Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard during his freshman year & went on to do some pretty amazing things. Steven Jobs also dropped out of university during his freshman year. It is no theory or hypotheses that both Jobs and Gates went on to do some amazing things regarding computer science. I wonder if they had been exposed to some one like you; Tony Banton, (AKA, runrig), while in college, what would have been the outcome of that, had they not dropped out when they did?


jdswallow
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 27, 2015
Lord Monckton, the paper's lead author


I wasn't aware the "Lord" was a scientist of any description, never mind of climate.

And I don't suppose his denial of anything AGW has any outcome in "the paper".


Tony Banton, (AKA, runrig): That you tend to desire to classify yourself as a scientist and believe that for that reason you are on a pedestal of your own making and omniscient is somewhat amazing when compared to what these people I mention above have actually done regarding science and they probably do not consider themselves to be as special as you seem to desire everyone to consider you to be.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Jan 27, 2015
While Maggnus (aka "what's a mole?") and thermo ("I can prove CO2 is the culprit by giving it 100% absorbency in it's band, doubling it's band and iterating THAT multiple times"), lick their wounds over the triple-trouncing I gave them MONTHS AGO, gutlessly hoping that I won't accidentally read their ignored posts (while not logged in), and respond to them, here's something worth reading:

We're awfully hard on conspiracy.

They really are everywhere, and not all necessarily malignant.

Face it, every money-making thing you can think of has a secret, those that keep it are part of a conspiracy.

When that secret is bad, like smoking causes cancer, people lie about it for years.
Anthropomorphic change is another one. It should be very simple, and provable to the casual observer, even you.
ralbol
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 27, 2015
@ jdswallow

Monkton doesn't "invent" anything, he is paid to just disseminates falsehoods on subjects he has no academic knowledge of.

Practicing scientists have called his assertions "very misleading," "profoundly wrong," and "simply false." (http://www.thegua...nckton). Not long ago, the House of Lords took the "unprecedented" step of demanding Monckton stop calling himself a lord. ( http://www.thegua...-lords).

Now, if it's the kind of Guru you want to believe in and follow, feel free to do so.

Credulity still is not a crime.
OZGuy
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 27, 2015
RC
Reading and translating a document is reading and translating a document What did you tell these poor sods, that translation is akin to interpreting poetry and ONLY YOU could give them the CORRECT interpretation? "Quick get the bambino, the document she no look so good to me"
The middle of the night? What were these people, burglars and drug dealers?

Talking about documents, how goes the ToE and the ICC presentation? Tuvalu is still worried about rising sea levels and anxiously awaiting your GW solution, where IS the RC cavalry?
OZGuy
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 27, 2015
For the latest on the Koch brothers read the New York Times article:
http://www.washin...lection/
ralbol
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 27, 2015
@ Water_Prophet

- "Anthropomorphic change is another one."

It's called Anthropogenic Climate Change.

Now I see why we can't agree. You argue against Anthropomorphic change, something that doesn't exist, and we speak about Anthropogenic Climate Change which does...

Simple misunderstanding.
RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (19) Jan 27, 2015
OZ.
Reading and translating a document is reading and translating a document What did you tell these poor sods, that translation is akin to interpreting poetry and ONLY YOU could give them the CORRECT interpretation? "Quick get the bambino, the document she no look so good to me".The middle of the night? What were these people, burglars and drug dealers?

Is your real name "Tony (OZ) Abbot" (our obtuse, malignant, laughing stock of a PM)? You could be, judging by your obtuseness, personal prejudice, malice trying to twist the reality to your 'troll fantasy versions'. :)

Doesn't it even occur to you that translation/interpretation/explanation can occur in real time/stressful verbal communications over phone/in person/onsite, as well as in documentation exchanges, "Tony"?

And that 'after hours' does not automatically imply 'middle of the night', it means 'after working hours'.

And shift workers in accidents may go to Hospital Emergency at midnight, "Tony"!

Bye OZ-Tony.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Jan 27, 2015
@rabol,
Thank you for pointing that out, I am sure everyone was lost without you, on the count of them being idiots.
Indeed, all you idiots who didn't get it, I did mean "Anthropomorphic Climate Change."

Please thank rabol for his insight.
OZGuy
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 27, 2015
http://en.wikiped...y_Abbott

Sorry but never been a Catholic so NOT Tony. Politics aside he is fairly well educated. Problem RC? Did Tony get your position as an Oxford Scholar or do you simply despise anyone with high academic achievements?

That's it isn't it! You're jealous of anyone with any form of academic achievement because you haven't accomplished any! You have THE ANSWERS, you know THE TRUTH but no-one will acknowledge your superior intellect and reward the omniscient being you truly are.

But you'll show them RC, yes you will! You just need to refine the ToE, make it perfect and then they'll see, they'll be sorry they didn't listen earlier, blah, blah, blah. You'll soon show them that Mama was right when she called you special. Well soonish.

Attending emergency rooms at midnight, I'm surprised you weren't asked to lay hands on the sick and cure them or were you too busy calling the actual medical staff ignorant twats to perform miracles?
ralbol
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 27, 2015
@ Water_Prophet

- "Indeed, all you idiots who didn't get it, I did mean "Anthropomorphic Climate Change.""

Doesn't bode well for the rest of your arguments... you STILL don't have it right...
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Jan 27, 2015
@rabol, you got me.
Congratulations. It's happened about four times I can recollect. I am the only one who admits it.

I was going for the Anthro-human
Morphic- shaping or changed.

I meant Anthromorphic, sans "po," I'll blame it on spell check, bad eyesight and being educated in the use of Greek.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 28, 2015
An article in the Boston Globe re Dr Soon's "non" conflict of interest.

http://www.boston...ory.html

Just putting out there as WUWT is outraged about it.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 28, 2015
An article in the Boston Globe re Dr Soon's "non" conflict of interest.

http://www.boston...ory.html

Just putting out there as WUWT is outraged about it.


I posted that earlier :)
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 28, 2015
triple-trouncing I gave them MONTHS AGO
@ALCHE
funny... here you are making the claim AGAIN even though you give NO evidence or proof... and the link above shows YOU getting trounced because you have no idea how to comprehend PHYSICS
I won't accidentally read their ignored posts (while not logged in)
this goes to show that you are still lying about everything
you SAY we are ignored but you still check up on everything... why is that?
if we are ignored, what is it to you? after all, Maggnus, Thermo, Runrig, myself and others all provide LINKS and PROOF of our claims (see above)
unlike YOU
When that secret is bad, like smoking causes cancer, people lie about it for years
you mean like you are doing now?
how is this related, conspiracy boy? after all, we are the ones outing YOU as a liar

as we can see... all talk and no proof.evidence
and the evidence she does give is not comprehended

still one big epic fail for ALCHE
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 28, 2015
Is your real name "Tony (OZ) Abbot"
@rc
his name is not TONY (and yes, i do know OZ outside of PO)
and why are you still ranting OT BS?
http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/
all we all want to know is when and where you will be producing this fabled AGW paper so that we can all record the moment for posterity... so we can cling to the history of you finally presenting at least ONE paper you claimed to be writing or involved in!
I think OZ is right

That's it isn't it! You're jealous of anyone with any form of academic achievement because you haven't accomplished any!
it would explain all your rants here and elsewhere

trolling/baiting reported

don't bother responding, i will only downvote it and report that too

https://www.googl...af4331c2
Caliban
3.9 / 5 (11) Jan 28, 2015
@rabol, you got me.
Congratulations. It's happened about four times I can recollect. I am the only one who admits it.

I was going for the Anthro-human
Morphic- shaping or changed.

I meant Anthromorphic, sans "po," I'll blame it on spell check, bad eyesight and being educated in the use of Greek.


Fat chance of there being any truth to that last claim.

If it were true, Whiffen_Poof, then you would know that the correct term is ANTHROPOGENIC. which not only includes the "po" as you idiotically point out, but also has a very different meaning, as in: having its origin or cause in[human(activity)], as opposed to anthropomorphic, which means: in the shape[form] of, or, after the fashion of{human/humanity}. Look it up.

Don't you EVER get tired of having your idiocy exposed?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Jan 28, 2015
@Cali-
I might, but it happens so rarely, four times in about two years. It's a good record.

But I admit, your fortitude is amazing, you're idiotic just about every time you type, yet still here you are. But I guess that's just an idiot's paradigm:
"I see stupid people, they're everywhere. They walk around like everyone else. They don't even know that they're dumb."

I mean maybe nobody's ever told you before, go introspect a little bit, it could change your life.
Caliban
4 / 5 (12) Jan 28, 2015
@Cali-
I might, but it happens so rarely, four times in about two years. It's a good record.


Hardly, since you've already exceeded that count in this thread, alone. That's why self-reporting is one of the least reliable methods of data collection.

But I admit, your fortitude is amazing, you're idiotic just about every time you type, yet still here you are. But I guess that's just an idiot's paradigm:
"I see stupid people, they're everywhere. They walk around like everyone else. They don't even know that they're dumb."


It is impossible to take this assessment seriously, coming, as it does, from one who can't differentiate between "anthro(po)morphic" and "anthropogenic", while claiming to have "studied Greek".

I mean maybe nobody's ever told you before, go introspect a little bit, it could change your life.


Excellent advice, Whiffen_Poof! I recommend that you join me in following it.

Sadly, though, it's not likely to cure your idiocy.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (18) Jan 28, 2015
Hey OZ, why keep 'making believe' instead of actually recognizing reality? That latest 'fantasizing' rationalizations effort of yours is too silly even for Tony Abbot's 'boofheaded' standards. And Tony Abbot is 'educated' like you are 'honest': totally bogus and self-evidently inadequate for the tasks in hand requiring real deep thought and objective comprehension instead of shallow slogans and self-serving fantasies flying in the face of reality and facts in evidence. You poor sot, do you even know what it's like to SACRIFICE one's own time for family/friends in NEED of your assistance at times of serious want of help and comfort, even at midnight in hospital emergency...especially when translation/interpretation is needed and may be life-or-death if the one helping is not 'up to speed' with the patient's life/medical history/story on an intimate family/friend basis of continuity? You're obviously ignorant of things not within your narrow 'field of personal experience'. Sad.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2015
Within a narrow range of temperatures, the Earth's climate has actually been remarkably stable for at least the last 180,000 years! And, in fact, the last time there were CO2 levels in line with what we are seeing today was in roughly the Pliocene - about 3 million years ago. At that time the Arctic was - hold on to your hats folks - an ASTOUNDING 3C higher than today!!! During glacial maximum, which is about 22,000 years ago, the average global temperatures were - again, hold onto your hats folks - an even MORE ASTOUNDING 3-5C lower than they are now.

A 6-8C change is a very narrow range, and in the IPCC worse case scenerio, the increase in temperature could be up to 8C HIGHER than now!

So it seems David R deserved his 5's!
What a bunch of rationalist B.S..

But, since you suddenly seem to think this small range in temperatures doesn't matter, why are you against global warming, within a much smaller parameter?

Maggnus (and his uprankers) = moron

David R_
5 / 5 (7) Feb 01, 2015
Well consider that a mere 1C shift to the colder side during the Medieval Little Ice Age cost Europe 1/3rd of its population, wiped out most of the existing grain agriculture, north of Italy, and resulted in the numerous famines, disease plagues and wars as well as the witch hunts of the Spanish inquisition.
Droughts, floods and agricultural collapse caused the fall of the Ming dynasty in China. Endless winter in the Northeast Colonial America drove the early westward migrations. Even relatively small shifts in climate conditions have major effects on life and civilization. We are not immune. Look at the current unprecedented drought in California and its impacts on agriculture and wildfires. Nearly half the total budget of the US Dept. of Interior last year was spent containing western wildfires. The annual cost of fighting the greater number of large scale fires of over 1000 acres has increased 10 times compared to the decade of the 1980's, not including property damage.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2015
David_R:
Excellent point: But this is because all of the changes that need to happen to the Earth for it to have a 1C shift. The oceans need change, ice needs to grow, the land and the air needs to come to equilibrium.

Just the energy from the air changing is about 10^15 Joules. The ocean, if runrig is correct would require 10^19 to significantly change.
David R_
5 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2015
The cause of the Little Ice Age was a massive increase in volcanic activity both in Europe and around the entire Pacific Rim. It happened very quickly over less than a century due to increased cloud cover blocking solar radiation. Some scientists also think that a particularly close pass by Halley's comet might have contributed to dust in the upper atmosphere. The oceans act as a buffer, but daily solar radiation striking the Earth is on the order of 1.07 x 10^15 KiloJoules per minute. Enough to heat the surface to the Moon's average daytime temp of 173C in the absence of any atmosphere. Atmosphere has tremendous short term effects and the long term makeup has continuing effects in altering climate that overwhelms any other influence absent major natural catastrophes.
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (10) Feb 17, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
I have four technical degrees, am or have been a leader in Chem-bio defense and predictive sciences
Really ?
Other than claim of graduating in Physical Chemistry, just what other 3 TECHNICAL degrees do u have, from which universities & when ?

U definitely don't write like anyone who has ever achieved any uni degree !

Water_Prophet claimed
I have been tracking climate issues since 1984
Really ?
What do u mean by "tracking" ?

How does your brass bowl heated by a candle possibly predict onset of the 1998 so called "Pause" ie thermal flow shift such as Enso, ie What specific group or parameters could possible collide or correlate with an over-simplistic unscalable childish toy ?

Re Bio
In all posts U made u show nil capacity in bio related, as if u don't know fundamentals, just like properties of materials ie CO2's vibrational states re IR absorbance & have never quantified your claim re CO2 in Watts/m^2.

Y can't U prove it ?
ralbol
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 22, 2015
Doctor Willie Wei-Hock Soon has been discredited: he is a part-time employee of the Smithsonian Institution with a doctoral degree in aerospace engineering.

No expertise in climatology, and failure to disclose conflicts of interest:

http://www.nytime...amp;_r=0

Gavin A. Schmidt, head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan said: "The science that Willie Soon does is almost pointless."

Laughing so hard.

They published their rag in China, because the collective reputation of these clown "scientists" is shot everywhere else.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2015
Doctor Willie Wei-Hock Soon has been discredited: he is a part-time employee of the Smithsonian Institution with a doctoral degree in aerospace engineering.

No expertise in climatology, and failure to disclose conflicts of interest:

http://www.nytime...amp;_r=0

Gavin A. Schmidt, head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan said: "The science that Willie Soon does is almost pointless."

Laughing so hard.

They published their rag in China, because the collective reputation of these clown "scientists" is shot everywhere else.
@ralbol
THANKS for that link
it is much appreciated
It is also very enlightening
Maggnus
5 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2015
Doctor Willie Wei-Hock Soon has been discredited: he is a part-time employee of the Smithsonian Institution with a doctoral degree in aerospace engineering.
Well, I can't say I am at all surprised; if anything, I am surprised it didn't come out Sooner (get it? Soon-er! LOL)

I wonder if we'll see a round of retractions now?
ralbol
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 23, 2015
@ Maggnus

- "I wonder if we'll see a round of retractions now?"

Never.

The "contaminated" papers will still float around, maintained afloat by the "fossils" who paid for them.

The exposed "scientists" will be replaced by a new batch bought with new and possibly more money, and our march to extinction will resoundingly continue to the ever more glorious sound of cash registers.

So expected...
Maggnus
5 / 5 (6) Feb 24, 2015
Here's another dissection of Soon's claims, especially as it relates to his suggested driver, our sun: http://www.washin...warming/

@ralbol - so true, and more succinctly, the papers will resurface every few years as if they were never considered before, and a new round of whack-a-mole will begin.

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

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