Subscribe Contribute Advertise Facebook Twitter Instagram Forums Newsletter
The Carbon Flame War
Display Avatars Sort By:
Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
The Carbon Flame War - Prediction of future trends on 08/28/2012 01:22:21 MDT Print View

Lynn said:
Rog's 'co-author' Scaffeta even admits the contribution of increased solar radiation is minimal (he estimates 10-30% of the temp increases seen can be attributed to this cause)

Scafetta and I are not co-authors, he wrote the published papers entirely himself. As you can see from the link to the post on my website, my research group had made the discovery which Scafetta further investigated and wrote up for publication seven months later. As both he and I have been saying consistently is that apart from the temperature increase attributable directly to increased solar radiation, there is also a terrestrial amplification of that increased solar output through its effect on other climate variables - predominantly cloud cover, which fell during the '80's and 90's. Sunshine hours counts correlate very well with temperature change. Much better than co2 does.

and he also thinks that, even though we are entering a quieter time in solar output that he expects we will still see an increase in warming over the next 30-40 years. So clearly Rog and Scaffeta don't see entirely eye-to-eye either.

Scafetta offers two scenarios. One in which an underlying quadratic fitted to the temperature data continues to rise in the future, taking the temperature upwards. Another in which it doesn't, which brings about cooling. The question is, does the quadratic represent something real in the physical climate system? Is it the ongoing recovery from the little ice age? Plus a Co2 effect? Or is it that a lot of temperature datasets have been 'adjusted' to fit the theory? Lynn doesn't have to travel far to find one of those on her own doorstep in NZ. There are many more, in the southern hemisphere especially.

In order to get work published in the present academic climate, you have to make a nod to the warming paradigm. You shouldn't confuse this with what an author's own beliefs are.

A lot of the theorized effect from additional co2 rests on theorised positive feedbacks from clouds and water vapour. These are not observed in the real climate system, only in the models. Specific humidity at high altitude has been falling for many years. This contradicts the claims of the co2-driven-climate theorists. Nature itself has falsified their theory.

Craig Savage said:
graphs from fox news.

You are incorrect Mr Savage.

The graphs I post here are either produced by our research group, come from the peer reviewed literature or are sourced directly from climate monitoring agencies such as NOAA, GHCN, MET etc.

I don't use graphs from the CRU/UEA since their director colluded to use
"Mike's [Mann's] Nature [journal] trick to hide the decline" and thus gave us the 'Hockey Stick' graph.

Maybe the impending court cases will reveal what Mann himself described as "dirty laundry" during the discovery process.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
minimal warming in deep Southern ocean won't cover Trenberth's 'missing heat' on 08/28/2012 10:15:24 MDT Print View

Dan said:

"The oceans circling Antarctica are warming."


http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/gjohnson/gcj_3w.pdf

“The
recent decadal warming of the abyssal global ocean below
4000 m is equivalent to a global surface energy imbalance
of 0.027 (+/-0.009) W /m^2 with Southern Ocean deep
warming contributing an additional 0.068 (+/-0.062)W/m^2
from 1000 to 4000 m.”

So Southern Ocean warming below 4000m may be as much as 0.13W/m^2 equivalent to a surface imbalance, or 'as much as' almost nothing at all - 0.006W/m^2

The claimed forcing from co2 plus supposed positive feedbacks which we haven't seen much in the way of any signs of for a decade (if we ever did) is 1.7W/m^2 or fifteen times bigger than the larger figure. Three hundred times bigger than the smaller figure. Globally, they are saying deep ocean warming might be between 0.018 and 0.036W/m^2 (equiv to surface imbalance). This is between 10 and 50 times less than the 'missing heat'.

Signs of any warming of the Southern Ocean between 2000 and 4000 m are hopelessly uncertain; error bigger than signal. The surface has been cooling since 1988 according to the Reynolds dataset.

Kevin Trenberth's 'missing heat' is likely somewhere past Alpha Centauri by now, since the planetary energy balance slipped into negative territory somewhere around 2005. Still warm on the surface as the increase in ocean heat content due to solar input since 1934 and reduced cloud cover since at least 1980 to 1998 works it's way back out of the system.

Colder times ahead as the Sun sputters along in solar cycle 24 with an inactive outlook until around 2040.

Don't sell your old winter coats.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Cosmic Rays Affecting Cloud Formation - Results Published in Nature Journal on 08/28/2012 10:44:43 MDT Print View

http://sciencebits.com/CLOUDresults
The CLOUD is clearing

Submitted by shaviv on Sat, 2011-08-27 00:53

The CLOUD collaboration from CERN finally had their results published in Nature, showing that ionization increases the nucleation rate of condensation nuclei. The results are very beautiful and they demonstrate, yet again, how cosmic rays (which govern the amount of atmospheric ionization) can in principle have an affect on climate.

What do I mean? First, it is well known that solar variability has a large effect on climate. In fact, the effect can be quantified and shown to be 6 to 7 times larger than one could naively expect from just changes in the total solar irradiance. This was shown by using the oceans as a huge calorimeter (e.g., as described here). Namely, an amplification mechanism must be operating.

One mechanism which was suggested, and which now has ample evidence supporting it, is that of solar modulation of the cosmic ray flux, known to govern the amount of atmospheric ionization. This in turn modifies the formation of cloud condensation nuclei, thereby changing the cloud characteristics (e.g., their reflectivity and lifetime). For a few year old summary, take a look here.

So, how do we know that this mechanism is necessarily working? Well, we know that cosmic rays have a climatic effect because of clear correlations between unique cosmic ray flux variations and different climate variability. One nice example (and not because I discovered it ;-) ) is the link between cosmic ray flux variations over geological times scales (caused by spiral arm passages) and the appearance of glaciations (more about it here). We also know empirically that the effect of the cosmic rays is through the tampering in the properties of cloud. This is through the study of Forbush decreases which are several day long decreases in the galactic cosmic ray flux reaching the Earth. Following such events, one clearly sees a change in the aerosol and cloud properties (more about it here).

So, what is new?

Well, the new results just published in nature by Kirkby and company are the results of the CLOUD experiment. This experiment mimics the conditions found in the atmosphere (i.e., air, water vapor, and trace gasses, such as sulfuric acid and ammonia). It is a repeat of the Danish SKY experiment carried out by Henrik Svensmark and his colleagues (e.g., read about it here), and it produces the same results—namely, they show that an increase in the rate of atmospheric ionization increases the formation rate of condensation nuclei. The only difference is that the CLOUD experiment with its considerably higher budget, has a better control on the different setup parameters. Moreover, those parameters can be measured over a wider range. This allows the CLOUD experiment to more vividly see the effect.

The results can be seen in this graph:

.cloud results


What does it mean?

The first thing to know is that when 100% humidity is reached in pure air, clouds don't form just like that. This is because there is an energy barrier for the droplets to form. To get over this barrier, the water vapor condenses on small particles called cloud condensation nuclei (CCNs). Some of these CCNs can be naturally occurring particles, such as dust, biologically produced particles, pollution or sea salts. However, over a large part of the globe, most of the CCNs have to be grown from basic constituents, in particular, clusters of sulfuric acid and water molecules. As the CLOUD and SKY experiments demonstrate, the ionization helps stabilize the clusters, such that they can more readily grow to become stable "condensation nuclei" (CNs). These CNs can later coalesce to become the CCNs upon which water vapor can condense.

Moreover, the number density of CCNs can clearly have an effect on different cloud properties. This can be readily seen by googling "Ship Tracks" where more CCNs (in the form of exhaust particles) serve as extra CCNs (You can also read about it here). It should be stressed that although the results are extremely impressive (it is a hard measurement because of the very precise control over the conditions which it requires), they are not new, just a formidable improvement. This implies that anyone who chose to ignore all the evidence linking solar activity, through cosmic ray flux modulation, to climate change, and the evidence demonstrating that the link can be naturally explained as ion induced nucleation, will continue to do so now. For example, you will hear the real climate guys down playing it as much as possible.

Ok, so what do these results imply?

The first point was essentially pointed above. The results unequivocally demonstrate that atmospheric ionization can very easily affect the formation of condensation nuclei (CNs). Since many regions of earth are devoid of natural sources for CCNs (e.g., dust), the CCNs have to grow from the smaller CNs, hence, the CCN density will naturally be affected by the ionization, and therefore, the cosmic ray flux. This implies that ion induced nucleation is the most natural explanation linking between observed cosmic ray flux variations and climate. It has both empirical and beautify experimental results to support it.

Second, given that the cosmic ray flux climate link can naturally be explained, the often heard "no proven mechanism and therefore it should be dismissed" argument should be tucked safely away. In fact, given the laboratory evidence, it should have been considered strange if there were no empirical CRF/climate links!

Last, given that the CRF/climate link is alive and kicking, it naturally explains the large solar/climate links. As a consequence, anyone trying to understand past (and future) climate change must consider the whole effect that the sun has on climate, not just the relatively small variations in the total irradiance (which is the only solar influence most modelers consider). This in turn implies (and I will write about it in the near future), that some of the 20th century warming should be attributed to the sun, and that the climate sensitivity is on the low side (around 1 deg increase per CO2 doubling).

Oh, and of course kudos to Jasper Kirkby and friends!

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Chinese scientists report diminishing cloud cover over 50 years on 08/28/2012 16:41:47 MDT Print View

It's 2012 - Science moves on.

http://www.ann-geophys.net/30/573/2012/angeo-30-573-2012.pdf

Significant decreasing cloud cover during 1954–2005 due to more
clear-sky days and less overcast days in China and its relation to
aerosol

X. Xia
LAGEO, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100029, China
Correspondence to: X. Xia (xxa@mail.iap.ac.cn)
Received: 6 January 2012 – Revised: 16 February 2012 – Accepted: 19 March 2012 – Published: 26 March 2012

Abstract. An updated analysis of cloud cover during 1954–
2005 in China was performed using homogeneous cloud
cover data from 314 stations. Long-term changes in frequencies
of different cloud cover categories and their contributions
to long-term changes in cloud cover were assessed.
Furthermore, aerosol effects on cloud cover trends were discussed
based on comparison of cloud cover trends in polluted
and mildly polluted regions. Frequencies of clear sky (cloud
cover <20 %) and overcast days (cloud cover >80 %) were
observed to increase by2.2 days and decrease by3.3 days
per decade, respectively, which accounts for 80% of cloud
cover reduction. Larger decreasing trends in cloud cover due
to larger increase in clear sky frequency and larger decreases
in overcast frequency were observed at stations with lower
aerosol optical depth. There is no significant difference in
trends regarding cloud cover, clear sky frequency, and overcast
frequency between mountain and plain stations. These
results are inconsistent with our expectation that larger decreasing
trends in cloud cover should have been observed
in regions with higher aerosol loading where more aerosols
could lead to stronger obscuring effect on ground observation
of cloud cover and stronger radiative effect as compared
with the mildly polluted regions. Aerosol effect on decreasing
cloud cover in China appear not to be supported by this
analysis and therefore, further study on this issue is required.

And it's not just china. This from Spanish scientists:

http://www.clim-past.net/8/1199/2012/cp-8-1199-2012.pdf

Increasing cloud cover in the 20th century: review and new findings
in Spain

A. Sanchez-Lorenzo1, J. Calb´o2, and M. Wild1
1Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
2Group of Environmental Physics, University of Girona, Girona, Spain
Correspondence to: A. Sanchez-Lorenzo (arturo.sanchez@env.ethz.ch)

Received: 15 March 2012 – Published in Clim. Past Discuss.: 5 April 2012
Revised: 26 June 2012 – Accepted: 28 June 2012 – Published: 20 July 2012

Abstract.

Visual observations of clouds have been performed
since the establishment of meteorological observatories
during the early instrumental period, and have become
more systematic and reliable after the mid-19th century due
to the establishment of the first national weather services.
During the last decades a large number of studies have documented
the trends of the total cloud cover (TCC) and cloudy
types; most of these studies focus on the trends since the second
half of the 20th century. Due to the lower reliability of
former observations, and the fact that most of this data is not
accessible in digital format, there is a lack of studies focusing
on the trends of cloudiness since the mid-19th century.
In the first part, this work attempts to review previous studies
analyzing TCC changes with information covering at least
the first half of the 20th century. Then, the study analyses
a database of cloudiness observations in Southern Europe
(Spain) since the second half of the 19th century. Specifically,
monthly TCC series were reconstructed since 1866
by means of a so-called parameter of cloudiness, calculated
from the number of cloudless and overcast days. These estimated
TCC series show a high interannual and decadal correlation
with the observed TCC series originally measured in
oktas. After assessing the temporal homogeneity of the estimated
TCC series, the mean annual and seasonal series for
the whole of Spain and several subregions were calculated.
The mean annual TCC shows a general tendency to increase
from the beginning of the series until the 1960s; at this point,
the trend becomes negative. The linear trend for the annual
mean series, estimated over the 1866–2010 period, is a highly
remarkable (and statistically significant) increase of +0.44%
per decade, which implies an overall increase of more than
+6% during the analyzed period. These results are in line
with the majority of the trends observed in many areas of the
world in previous studies, especially for the records before
the 1950s when a widespread increase of TCC can been considered
as a common feature.

Whether these findings will be included in the AR5 IPCC report remains to be seen.

Edited by tallbloke on 08/28/2012 17:47:07 MDT.

dan mchale
(wildlife) - MLife

Locale: Cascadia
deep ocean on 08/28/2012 19:37:17 MDT Print View

For all those concerned, somebody on our
'team' got hold of this;


Deep Ocean

From NOAA

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100920_oceanwarming.html

"This study shows that the deep ocean – below about 3,300 feet – is taking up about 16 percent of what the upper ocean is absorbing."


"If this deep ocean heating were going into the atmosphere instead – a physical impossibility – it would be warming at a rate of about 3°C (over 5°F) per decade."



From Purkey & Johnson:

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/gjohnson/gcj_3w.pdf

"From 1993 to 2008 the warming of the upper 700 m of the global ocean has been reported as equivalent to a heat flux of 0.64 (±0.11) W m–2 applied over the Earth’s surface area (Lyman et al. 2010). Here, we showed the heat uptake by AABW contributes about another 0.10 W m–2 to the global heat budget. Thus, including the global abyssal ocean and deep Southern Ocean in the global ocean heat uptake budget could increase the estimated upper ocean heat uptake over the last decade or so by roughly 16%."

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: deep Atarctic ocean cooling since 2005 says Bremen Institut on 08/29/2012 01:15:43 MDT Print View

OK Dan, if you want to do "science by press release".

Just be aware that this is where junk science creeps in to the debate. For example, the NOAA press release you quoted says:

"Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide, cause heating of the Earth. Over the past few decades, at least 80 percent of this heat energy has gone into the ocean, warming it in the process."

This also, is "a physical impossibility". Downwelling longwave radiation from the atmosphere is absorbed in the top few nanometres of the ocean surface, where its concentrated energy promotes evaporation. Due to the energy of the latent heat of evaporation being lost to the atmosphere by the ocean, the effect is to cool the ocean not warm it.

To see this is true, you only have to consider why it is that despite plenty of extra downwelling radiation from clouds and co2 since the end of the last glaciation 11700 years ago, the bulk of the ocean hasn't warmed. It's still around 2C, whereas the atmosphere averages about 15C. The other thing to realise is that these deep ocean temperatures are measured in a limited number of locations at a frequency of about once per decade using a model of the relationship of density to temperature. They are measuring salt content not temperature. Local changes may well confound assumptions about averages over the entire ocean. Hence the big error terms, which estimate warming of the abyss to be just about zero, to ten times less than Trenberth's "Missing Heat".

The real reason for the warming of the oceans during the later C20th and the first few years of the C21st is the extra solar radiation due to the drop in cloud cover, as noted in my post above yours, penetrating up to 100m or more into the upper ocean and being mixed down by wave vortices and internal tides and thermohaline overturning. Cloud started increasing again in 1998.

The high solar cycle 23 and the after effects of the '98 El Nino prolonged the surface warming for a few more years. The deep oceans started cooling around 2005. Meanwhile co2 continues its steady upward plod.

This is confirmed by the Bremen Institut study in 2008:
Here's the press release:

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080430/full/453015c.html

Warming Antarctic waters begin to cool

ALFRED WEGENER INSTITUTE FOR POLAR AND MARINE RESEARCH

"Antarctica's deep ocean waters are getting colder after years of warming, say researchers who have just returned from a Southern Ocean voyage aboard the German research vessel Polarstern.

"Samples from previous expeditions showed that water at a depth of 4,500 metres in the Weddell Sea warmed by a tenth of a degree Celsius between 1989 and 2005, although the warming trend may have begun earlier. The latest work, by researchers from the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Bremerhaven, found that temperatures have cooled slightly since 2005, suggesting that more cold surface water is reaching the deep ocean, perhaps as a result of changes in sea-ice coverage and atmospheric conditions. The team plans to revisit the region during the summer of 2010–11."


Now as an exercise in reading between the lines of press releases, consider what might be meant by "changes in ... atmospheric conditions"

It can't mean the increase in co2, since that would cause warming - right? ;-)

So, it's means a change in wind velocity, or a change in cloudiness. Since we have a hard time measuring those things, especially near the poles, the editors of Journals such as 'Nature' try not to refer to them directly. It gives too much of a sense of uncertainty to the public, in contradiction to the certainty with which the IPCC tells us that they are 90% sure that more than 50% of the late C20th warming was due to human emission of co2. Even though the IPCC grudgingly admits we have "a low level of scientific understanding" of several important climate variables.

Edited by tallbloke on 08/29/2012 02:59:09 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Long Term on 08/29/2012 09:12:36 MDT Print View

Interesting article in September Scientific American "The Great Climate Experiment"

The main point - "business, government or technology forecasts usually look five or 10 years out, 50 years at most. Among climate scientists, there is some talk of century’s end. In reality, carbon dioxide dumped into the atmosphere today will affect Earth hundreds of thousands of years hence."

Any change we've seen so far is insignificant. Everything Rog is arguing about is irrelevant.

End of the century we'll start seeing effects. 1000 or 10,000 years from now is when we'll see the full effects. It takes 1000s of years for the CO2 in the atmosphere to turn to carbonate shells of animals that get deposited onto ocean bottoms and the CO2 level to go back to normal.

And he said estimates could be twice as bad or half as bad. I think factor of 4 or 10 is possible.

The Sahara climate would move to Southern Europe. Southern Europe climate would move to Siberia, Scandanavia, and Canada. It's not like humans will go extinct or anything.

We have burned a small fraction of one percent of carbon in the earth. There is a lot of carbon available that we could either continue to extract and exacerbate problem or sanity return and we could quit burning carbon and cap the problem.

Unfortunately, all our decisions are dominated by fossil fuel burners that want things to continue as is because they're making tons of money.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Long Term on 08/29/2012 12:26:43 MDT Print View

Jerry quotes Sci-Am, which makes this over-reaching claim:
"In reality, carbon dioxide dumped into the atmosphere today will affect Earth hundreds of thousands of years hence."

In reality, the 'residence time' of co2 in the atmosphere is less than 10 years.
In reality, there is no compelling evidence that it does what co2 theorists say it does. Models are not evidence. Nor are they successful in prediction from what we've already seen.
In reality, Co2 is plant food gas first and foremost.

Jerry Says:
Any change we've seen so far is insignificant. Everything Rog is arguing about is irrelevant.

Oh yeah? :-)

Argument by assertion doesn't really fly Jerry. You need to present some reason and argument, preferably along with some evidence that you and Sci-Am are correct.

In reality, there is plenty of evidence that you are not correct. Just one worth mentioning is the geological evidence that Earth will quite happily sit at the higher temperature it stabilises at whether the co2 level is 8000ppm or 270ppm for millions of years on end. See the graph I posted on page 1 of this thread.

Unfortunately, all our decisions are dominated by fossil fuel burners that want things to continue as is because they're making tons of money.

Actually Jerry, since solar can, in reality, only supply about 1% of Germany's electricity needs despite decades of subsidy and investment, and wind needs fossil fuel backup because it only works 16% of the time (figures just published). In reality, there are a lot of ordinary folks out here in the real world who who prefer not to see relatives die in hospital during power cuts, or find themselves without power in the middle of winter.

Edited by tallbloke on 08/29/2012 12:46:37 MDT.

dan mchale
(wildlife) - MLife

Locale: Cascadia
NOAA is not the New York Times on 08/29/2012 13:43:58 MDT Print View

Rog, I think your theme of Science by Journalism is fundamentally wrong. What we do on our side to get info out is not different from what you do.

How on Earth, if the oceans have been cooling since 2003 or 2005, could The Arctic ice melt set a new record this year by a large margin?

Rog, your comments about the NOAA greenhouse gas statement below sure sound like you are saying the oceans are/have been expelling more heat than they are receiving. Again, this is unlikely given the Arctic situation and unlikely in general.

"Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide, cause heating of the Earth. Over the past few decades, at least 80 percent of this heat energy has gone into the ocean, warming it in the process."

Rog said, "This also, is "a physical impossibility". Downwelling longwave radiation from the atmosphere is absorbed in the top few nanometres of the ocean surface, where its concentrated energy promotes evaporation. Due to the energy of the latent heat of evaporation being lost to the atmosphere by the ocean, the effect is to cool the ocean not warm it."

It's funny how you use the images that the most idiotic of skeptics use, like CO2 is plant food, CO2 has a limited residency, wind power is useless like all alternative and additive power sources......so don't worry everybody, we don't need to change even though change is about as normal as apple pie.

Oil companies are now doing Arctic exploratory drilling with a high degree of confidence that the warming trend is here to stay.

Edited by wildlife on 08/29/2012 14:33:47 MDT.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
NOAA and the New York Times are both warm biased on 08/29/2012 14:33:57 MDT Print View

Dan asks:
How on Earth, if the oceans have been cooling since 2003 or 2005, could The Arctic ice melt set a new record this year by a large margin?

NSIDC were predicting 4.7M km^2 until a week ago. A huge arctic storm in mid August broke up a lot of thin ice which melted rapidly so the minimum will actually be around 4M km^2 this year.

Try not to worry too much, a new study reckons the summer minimum was around 2.5M km^2 8000 years ago.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6043/747.full

At that time, the sahara was full of swamps, hippos and crocodiles. Climate changes, remember? And the polar bears are still with us. So are the ostriches...

And another study shows the mid-layers of the arctic ocean were 1-2C higher in temperature than today during the latter half of the last glacial period.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1557.html

Dan Asserts:
It's funny how you use the images that the most idiotic of skeptics use, like CO2 is plant food.......so don't worry.

Below 160ppm co2, all the trees die. It came close to it in the last glacial. The shellfish and calciferous plankton are busy stealing it from the atmosphere and locking it up on the ocean bed. Good job we're around to burn some coal really.

Anyway, none of that changes the fact that airborne co2 doesn't heat the oceans.

dan mchale
(wildlife) - MLife

Locale: Cascadia
art on 08/29/2012 14:46:01 MDT Print View

For the art of it all;

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/science/isaacnight_vir_2012241_lrg.jpg


Rog puts things in strange ways. From what he says below you would think we don't have a new record or that it's a big surprise that we do;

NSIDC were predicting 4.7M km^2 until a week ago. A huge arctic storm in mid August broke up a lot of thin ice which melted rapidly so the minimum will actually be around 4M km^2 this year.

We all know about the storm Rog and the record melt has been on track for quite some time - I have been following it all year and the melting is not over - it's going on after the record was set - and according to the oil people, is following the pattern of the last record year of 2007. 'Thin Ice' are the operative words. That brings up the actual 'ice volume' which must be quite low and record setting itself. Rog, to me, you come off more like a lying journalist than a scientist. Is the fact that you are mostly a journalist the main reason you do not like science by journalism? It's not that hard to counter your BS you know?

So in answering my question about the oceans cooling since 2003 as you say, and I ask how could the Arctic be melting so much then.....you say one storm got in the way of all that cooling? And then you throw out what may have been going on 8,000 years ago? Sorry, that does not answer my question. Your answer is stupid - you are trapped by your own contradictions.

More science propaganda from the warmanistas:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19393075

Edited by wildlife on 08/29/2012 16:04:34 MDT.

Lyan Jordan
(redmonk)

Locale: Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
The Carbon Flame War on 08/29/2012 15:10:19 MDT Print View

To be a scientist, one needs to be objective have the ability to recognize the validity in others' arguments, be able to recognize flaws in their favorite theories, and when needed, admit they were wrong and move on with advancing their field.

Scientists also publish.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Et tu Brute on 08/29/2012 16:18:49 MDT Print View

Cameron says:
To be a scientist, one needs to be objective have the ability to recognize the validity in others' arguments, be able to recognize flaws in their favorite theories, and when needed, admit they were wrong and move on with advancing their field.

Speaking as a qualified engineer and historian of science, I would say that this is excellent advice which certain rather dogmatically entrenched climatologists would be wise to heed.

Scientists also publish.

Maybe later, I'm busy discovering and learning right now.

Craig Savage
(tremelo) - F

Locale: San Jacinto Mountains
Re: Et tu Brute on 08/30/2012 14:24:12 MDT Print View

"Maybe later, I'm busy discovering and learning right now"

what you're really busy at is looking like the other side of the al gore aisle. Objectivity is somewhere in your rear view mirror IMHO

Craig Savage
(tremelo) - F

Locale: San Jacinto Mountains
Re: The Carbon Flame War - Prediction of future trends on 08/30/2012 14:26:53 MDT Print View

"The graphs I post here are either produced by our research group, come from the peer reviewed literature or are sourced directly from climate monitoring agencies such as NOAA, GHCN, MET etc."

for all those scientists that work in earth sciences AND are staff at Fox News. Holy obtuse Batman

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Et tu Brute on 08/31/2012 02:47:26 MDT Print View

Craig says:
what you're really busy at is looking like the other side of the al gore aisle. Objectivity is somewhere in your rear view mirror IMHO

Another unsubstantiated ad hominem attack. Do you ever back any of your arguments with anything which can be independently checked? It's known as following the scientific method. I can understand why you prefer to make vague accusations and obtuse statements though. It helps mask the fact that you don't have any evidence to back them up with.

Here are a couple of observations about Gore's claims in contrast to mine.

1) Gore's claims are contradicted by the scientific literature, frequently the very scientific literature he cites. This was conclusively demonstrated in court, and the judge then ordered that whenever 'An Inconvenient Truth' was shown in schools, a declaration would be read out before the film started, stating all the errors of fact it contained that had been demonstrated to the court. The plaintiff was a truck driver who had done some fact checking on Gore's fantasy horror movie and decided he didn't want his children brainwashed with Gore's Man Made Global Warming propaganda. He won. Comprehensively. He also proved that you don't have to be a scientist to understand the lies for what they are. RED HOT LIES.

2) In contrast, the evidence I've been putting forward on this thread to support my position can be checked against the scientific findings I have cited. My original research has been validated, written up and published by an eminent scientist who doesn't work for Fox News, but rather works at Duke.edu on one of the teams responsible for measuring the variation in the Sun's output.

Mr Savage, please desist your childish unsubstantiated slurs and contribute something of value to the thread that can be discussed by grown ups.

Edited by tallbloke on 08/31/2012 04:29:08 MDT.

Craig Savage
(tremelo) - F

Locale: San Jacinto Mountains
Re: Et tu Brute on 08/31/2012 08:41:43 MDT Print View

"Another unsubstantiated ad hominem attack. Do you ever back any of your arguments with anything which can be independently checked? It's known as following the scientific method. I can understand why you prefer to make vague accusations and obtuse statements though. It helps mask the fact that you don't have any evidence to back them up with."

no worries, I know how easy it is to miss the last 142 pages. O_o

"Mr Savage, please desist your childish unsubstantiated slurs and contribute something of value to the thread that can be discussed by grown ups."

sure, when you grasp what objectivity is or show an inkling of acceptance to the other side of the argument. <---- both fundamental traits of someone that MIGHT amount to more than a straight up propagandist. Your walls of text & graphs have been met with science, only to be countered with more of your denial science. Sounds like an endless cycle, I choose the path that sheds light on someone with obvious agenda absent of balanced thoughts on such complex issues...

Craig Savage
(tremelo) - F

Locale: San Jacinto Mountains
wow on 08/31/2012 08:44:26 MDT Print View

I can't believe that Fox News stuff was taken to point - someone must've thought obtuse was only for math

Diplomatic Mike
(MikefaeDundee)

Locale: Under a bush in Scotland
Very warm on 08/31/2012 09:37:14 MDT Print View

Folk scraping ice from car windscreens this morning. I can't remember that happening in August in Scotland before.

Dave T
(DaveT) - F
science! on 08/31/2012 09:45:49 MDT Print View

"Another unsubstantiated ad hominem attack. Do you ever back any of your arguments with anything which can be independently checked? It's known as following the scientific method. I can understand why you prefer to make vague accusations and obtuse statements though. It helps mask the fact that you don't have any evidence to back them up with."


Coming from Rog, this is comedy of the highest order.