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

What went wrong?
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.

What went wrong?
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#
Journal information: Chinese Science Bulletin

Citation: Peer-reviewed pocket-calculator climate model exposes serious errors in complex computer models (2015, January 21) retrieved 25 May 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-01-peer-reviewed-pocket-calculator-climate-exposes-errors.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
454 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

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

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.

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

Jan 21, 2015
Cool. I wish I had ocean front property. The value just went up.

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.


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".

Jan 21, 2015
Cool. I wish I had ocean front property. The value just went up.


You're an idiot.

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.

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".

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?

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.

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.

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"!

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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!)

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.

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.

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 ??

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.

Jan 21, 2015
Complex is not by definition, better.
GIGO

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!

Jan 21, 2015
Complex is not by definition, better.
GIGO


But complex by the definitions is not simple, now is it Skippy?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 . . .

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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! :)

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.

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.

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?

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!

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?

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.

Jan 21, 2015
For those that believe the pencil story is true.
http://www.scient...sa-spen/

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...

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.

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?

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.

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
Jan 22, 2015
What did the 2007 IPCC report say about the oceans as buffers?

Jan 22, 2015
"by Christopher Monckton", in an obscure publication. 'Nuf said.

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.

Jan 22, 2015
Now we know why the trolls don't get bounced; the site itself is trolling us.

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.

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?

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.


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.

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.

Jan 22, 2015
Norma Loquendi: "For all the juvenile name-calling, you AGW tinfoil hat alarmists, . . . "

Pot, meet Kettle.

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.

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"?

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.

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.

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.

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/.

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.

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

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

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

Jan 22, 2015
publication has ZERO impact

You're talking about it

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.

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. :)

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.

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. :)

Jan 22, 2015
Chinese Science peer reviewed in a Chinese Science Journal.
WOW!
That sounds real reliable.

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?

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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???

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?


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.

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.

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/

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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. :)

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Jan 24, 2015
Ignore this blank post

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.

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!

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!

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.


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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

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".


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?

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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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!


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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

Jan 24, 2015
I was using (essentially) his words.

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

Jan 24, 2015
Captain, did you see the declaration by the House of Lords which states that goober is NOT a member?

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.

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

Jan 24, 2015

We will see if Benni has the character to discuss it. If not, you are correct.

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.

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.

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?

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).

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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


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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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


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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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


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!

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?


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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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


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.

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.

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.