Denier land: How deniers view global warming

Thanks to Skeptical Science and ScienceFrontier for making this video possible. We can now see the error of our ways.

Consider this a bonus Friday Funny. h/t to Josh.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Humor, Satire. Bookmark the permalink.

203 Responses to Denier land: How deniers view global warming

  1. Mike Maguire says:

    That’s the most hilarious video ever!!!

  2. philjourdan says:

    The art of humor! Josh is a prize! LOL

  3. Larry Ledwick says:

    I think I hurt myself!
    That is the best laugh I have had in a long time.

  4. PaulH says:

    Ha ha! Cute. :-)

  5. Mac the Knife says:

    ….No! Don’t Go There!…Think Of The Children!….. (in that funky, whiny voice….)

    Gads! Just about coughed clam chowder across the display monitor!
    Too funny!

  6. ldd says:

    Succinct & funny!

  7. dbstealey says:

    Funny!

    At first they had me going — I ran to my bookmarks and found this.

    But then I saw the article was a Cook parody.

    Nevermind.

  8. Tom G(ologist) says:

    Very effective. When I lecture on this topic I show similar graphs for the past 250 years, 25,000 years, 250,000 yrs, 60,000,000 yrs and 600,000,000 yrs. I then hold out my pointer and invite (I actually DARE) anyone to come to the stage and draw the horizontal line across the graph which would represent the temperature the Earth SHOUD be. It is the first thing I do in every presentation and I have yet to get a taker. It is a really effective way to preclude any heckling about unprecedented temperatures or rates of warming as I go through the rest of the graphs..

  9. john robertson says:

    The proper and civilized method of dealing with delusional zealots.

  10. crabalocker says:

    That’s pretty funny!

  11. Bloke down the pub says:

    Unfortunately it sounded all too realistic.

  12. TimiBoy says:

    Best ever. Easiest Nobel Prize win. Well, it should be…

  13. kingdube says:

    The squeaky, nasalized voice reminds me of Richard Alley.

  14. Mark says:

    That’s funny.

  15. David, UK says:

    I genuinely laughed out loud! Thanks for sharing!

  16. Brilliant, just brilliant.

  17. David, UK says:

    Duly shared on Facebook!

  18. lorne50 says:

    David, UK says:
    December 6, 2013 at 12:31 pm

    Me yo FB and Twitter should get some flack from a couple of friends and followers ;>)

  19. William Astley says:

    Priceless!

    Josh illustrates in 2 ½ minutes (with humor) why the warmists will not participate in a scientific debate.

    Best wishes,
    William

  20. andrewmharding says:

    Brilliant, the bigotry, condescension and the wiser than thou attitudes shone through, like a gold plated turd!
    Makes me proud to be a “Denier”!

  21. Tim Walker says:

    Love it. I might have to watch it again and again.

  22. Brian H says:

    The Troof hurts!

  23. Lady Life Grows says:

    I clapped my hands with delight. Nailed it again.

  24. Harry says:

    If one of you missed it:
    Global Warmiing is real and it is happening now “TM”.

    I had to to laugh at the TM part.
    Just in the beginning of the video.

    Harry

  25. NevenA says:

    [it is humor, get over yourself - mod]

  26. Felix says:

    Comparing global mean temperature to data from just one location is not valid. If you want to refute SkS refute this:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=1928

  27. Ralph Kramden says:

    Very funny, I liked it.

  28. jai mitchell says:

    [it is humor, get over yourself - mod]

  29. tmitsss says:

    Still looking for the Goldilocks Line

  30. Dave H-O says:

    Such an awesome tool to get true believers to lower their guard a bit and be exposed to some real data.

  31. JohnWho says:

    Ok, so global warming is real and happening when global cooling, which is also real, is not happening, according to the graph I wasn’t supposed to look at.

    [Vinnie Barbarino]“I’m so confused!”[/Vinnie Barbarino] *

  32. Matt says:

    Overlaying global temperatures on a time series of the temperature from one location? You’d have much bigger anomalies in the recent era if you used a time series that matches the location of the longer time series.

    [like with the previous posters, it is humor - mod]

  33. lurker, passing through laughing says:

    I am wondering how they got Dana to narate this?

  34. JimK says:

    I had to stop laughing before I could type this. Bravo!!

  35. John W. Garrett says:

    Priceless.

  36. TRM says:

    ROTFLMAO

    BEST EVA!!!!!!

  37. tmonroe says:

    Felix says:

    December 6, 2013 at 1:24 pm

    Comparing global mean temperature to data from just one location is not valid. If you want to refute SkS refute this:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=1928

    Well, we can start with this:

    Global average temperature since the last ice age (20,000 BC) up to the not-too distant future (2100) under a middle-of-the-road emission scenario.

    What does “NOT TOO DISTANT FUTURE” mean? It means it hasn’t happened yet. It is projected to happen. You have to accept the premise that CO2 drives warming for that to work. Otherwise, the temperature, you know “actually has to warm up”. The fact that its’ been stagnant for the last 17 years means it better hurry up and start actually warming in order to make the amount of projected (not the actual amount of warming).

  38. Walter Allensworth says:

    Didn’t even show the REALLY scary part… if you zoom back just a little farther where the temperature drops 5C and New York is covered by a mile of ice.

  39. Scott Scarborough says:

    Felix says:
    December 6, 2013 at 1:24 pm
    Comparing global mean temperature to data from just one location is not valid. If you want to refute SkS refute this:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=1928
    _______________________________________________________________________

    Don’t need to refute it. Marcott himself said that the last vertical part of the plot was not robust (and it was not on his PHD thesis).

  40. Scott Scarborough says:

    But you’re right about comparing global data to data from one area.

  41. Arno Arrak says:

    CO2 pollution did this. No science. No pseudo-science. No religion. No superstition, No nothing, just babbling morons.

  42. NikFromNYC says:

    Felix:

    Willis here plotted Marcott’s input proxies, none of which show a hockey stick outside of noise:
    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/all-marcott-proxies.jpg?w=640&h=594

    Yet mathematician Mike Mann actively promoted this mere artifact result that the study authors promoted to the NY Times as a “super hockey stick”:
    http://s15.postimg.org/5x1hmvhcr/Mann_Celebration2013.jpg

    I thus refute the whole of alarmist climate science peer review and policy advice and thus the whole of alarmist climate science, using your own reference.

  43. kingdube says:

    I have to say it again:

    It sounds like someone took control of Richard Alley’s computer while he was trying to explain his thinking to followers.

  44. Robertvd says:

    Strange that most people don’t know we actually live in an ice age right now. A warm moment, an optimum but ice age.

    http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c017c37fa9895970b-pi

  45. jai mitchell says:

    NikFromNYC

    The reason that those proxies have no hockey stick is because they all end well before 1955 If you look at the supplemental data you can see the column that has years before present (present is 1955)

    this is the same error that the author used when making this “humor” video.

  46. Stephen Brown says:

    I started watching this and went into “Gobsmacked” mode, then I started laughing, and laughing some more. Each switch to the longer time-frame graph brought on more hilarity! The “Think of the children” comment floored me!!
    Abso-bloody-lutely BRILLIANT

  47. dbstealey says:

    Felix is almost as dopey as jai mitchell. Here is the long view of global temperatures. Notice where we are today.

    The planet is now in a protracted cool period. It could warm up by several degrees, and still not reach average temperatures. Thus, the entire alarmist scare is based on nonsense.

  48. wayne says:

    Funny video!! (even though still just partially true)

    ——-

    @ Felix says:
    December 6, 2013 at 1:24 pm

    Comparing global mean temperature to data from just one location is not valid. If you want to refute SkS refute this:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=1928

    ——-

    Oh, great chart Felix! Thanks!

    Only problem is that chart tends to prove my current view of what the GAT represents… it is all in the upward adjustments… your straight up segment of man-made upward adjustments of, yes, ≈0.75°C/cy. I’ll just keep your link because it so adds credence to my chart that simply removes those upward adjustments that is the same as your upward segment!
    see: http://i44.tinypic.com/29axhua.png

    (the 0.75°C/cy slope roughly derives from: http://i43.tinypic.com/s3m3wk.png http://i39.tinypic.com/1zfrn1l.png http://i40.tinypic.com/2uy2bg4.png)

  49. Aphan says:

    I literally laughed until I cried! This is beautiful. Let’s make it go viral folks! The truth in two minutes.

  50. HGW xx/7 says:

    Jai said:

    “this is the same error that the author used when making this “humor” video.”

    Tsk tsk. Such a critic. Makes me wonder what you’d file the 10:10 video under. I bet you split your sides watching that one, eh buddy? ;-)

  51. Bill Illis says:

    Extremely funny parody.

    But this is exactly what Pete Sinclair’s Climate Denial Crock of the Week videos are like. Right down to the almost unbearable condescending voice-over. I’m sure he has an “escalator” one.

  52. Sisi says:

    “[it is humor, get over yourself - mod]”

    Whatever makes you feel good about yourself! Have fun!

    (my personal opinion is that someone was trying to be funny but needs a lot of practice still. I am waiting for something better.)

  53. BW2013 says:

    Hysterical!!!!!

  54. u.k.(us) says:

    Very nicely done.
    The bad news is, 4-5 years ago, it would have went right over my head.
    Now, I know what it means.

    Nobody is watching/questioning our elected/unelected leaders, and they will ride this wave till the taxpayers catch on to the hoax.

  55. John says:

    Wonderful!

  56. DirkH says:

    Gavin Schmidt adjusted his GISTEMP machinations to show the same trend as RSS.
    All Hansen inventions gone.
    NASA trying to retain credibility?

  57. Aphan says:

    Felix-
    No one has to debunk the Marcott et al paper. Marcott did that himself.

    ” Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.”

    Pielke Jr does a great job explaining it all for you:

    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2013/03/fixing-marcott-mess-in-climate-science.html

  58. Aphan says:

    Dirk…he did? When did this happen???

  59. Just checking on fail to post problem.

  60. Test with notify turned on.

  61. Bruce Cobb says:

    And do not, I repeat not – I said NO! DON’T LOOK AT … the last 17 years.
    Global WarmingitsHereitsNowitsHappening. Now go away.

  62. Robert of Ottawa says:

    The Warmistas are the deniers.

    They deny natural climate change.

  63. Robert of Ottawa says:

    This is satire right?

  64. DABbio says:

    Fabulous. My sentiments exactly

  65. One more test.

    [There is a 'Test' page. Please use that. — mod.]

  66. Felix says:

    tmonroe: Fair point. But it only applies to the first graph.

    dbstealey: Non sequitur.

    NikFromNYC: One has to analyze data to see the trend. And yes that involves math.

    Wayne: See response to tmonroe.

    Aphan: We already have robust data for the 20th century. But I will check out Pielke’s post. Thanks. …. OK. I read Pielke. He does not refute that the paper found that we have had a long cooling trend and that recent average temperatures from other sources show a sharp increase. He points out that this paper does not produce robust 20th century data. In science one is allowed to read more than one paper at a time, but the press release should have been clear that the 20th century data was not from this paper.

    At least we are debating real science instead the invalid comparison in the video.

  67. Bill Illis says:

    DirkH says:
    December 6, 2013 at 4:29 pm
    Gavin Schmidt adjusted his GISTEMP machinations to show the same trend as RSS.
    All Hansen inventions gone. NASA trying to retain credibility?
    —————–
    I speculated that this was the case a month or so ago on another board when all the old GISS temp records were suddenly adjusted up by 0.01C (versus the previous pattern of the old records being adjusted down by 0.01C every month when Hansen was in charge). Man, did I get pilloried by the pro-warmers on the board about how I was questioning the integrity of a holy man.

    But I get an email every few weeks showing how GISSTemp has been changed. There is a pattern that an objective person cannot ignore. The past-cooler, the recent-warmer. This happens every month (and actually more than 1 time per month) and when one thinks about this occurring on and off for 20 years, every month or so, it adds up to a big overall adjustment increasing the warming trend (and getting rid of the warm 1930-1940 period for example).

    Now that Hansen is gone, however, it is going the other way. Patterns are hard to ignore.

  68. DirkH says:

    Aphan says:
    December 6, 2013 at 4:32 pm
    “Dirk…he did? When did this happen???”

    Don’t know since when. But go to http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/ and check for yourself.

  69. Aphan says:

    Dirk-
    woodfortrees.org-”This website is a self-funded personal project by Paul Clark” How do you connect Gavin Schmidt to the woodfortrees site? Just curious as Real Climate (Gavin’s site) doesn’t appear to show obvious changes…

  70. Aphan says:

    Felix-
    I’d be THRILLED to see the author of the video make another comparison using global data instead of regional if THAT is your sore point. The results will be exactly the same.

  71. CoRev says:

    Felix, it may not be scientifically valid to claim a single point represents the world, but it appears to be a common practice in paleo studies. Moreover, it is not quite so obviously a bad practice when the compared multi-proxy, multi-location method simulates equivalent results to the single point. Which data is validating which?

    As for refuting the SkS article we have a fairly close/similar representation of trend lines over the ~8,000 years before the 20th century. Without the 20th century we can ignore the Marcott endpoints. Why? Because Marcott said so: “Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions. ”

    Since you said you read Pielke’s article how did you miss this: “What that means is that this paper actually has nothing to do with a “hockey stick” as it does not have the ability to reproduce 20th century temperatures in a manner that is “statistically robust.” The new “hockey stick” is no such thing as Marcott et al. has no blade. (To be absolutely clear, I am not making a point about temperatures of the 20th century, but what can be concluded from the paper about temperatures of the 20th century.)”

  72. Mark Bofill says:

    :) Thanks Josh. Sometimes a laugh is almost beyond price.

  73. Windchaser says:

    Sure, CoRev, but we have scads of other data that show the hockey stick, even if Marcotts data is too uncertain here. Scientists combine independent lines of data all the time – they have to, really.

    So I guess I don’t really get the humor. Show a misleading graph, make people laugh? But I guess it wouldn’t work if we actually showed our best global temp reconstructions from the last 5-10k years. There’s no humor in reaffirming Nucitelli’s narrative.

  74. corev says:

    Windchaser, misleading? Its data! Was that misleading? Talk to Alley.

  75. _Jim says:

    +1 Josh. Got a good laugh out of it too!

  76. Aphan says:

    Felix-

    Climate4you demonstrates a fairly common practice of using ice core data to simulate historical periods of temperature changes due to the length of the record. Since the video was drawing attention to the SAME THING that the Escalator video was created to highlight-temperature changes/trends over time, it is perfectly scientific to compare the trend in global sea surface temps to the trend in the Greenland dome core.

    “Clearly Central Greenland temperature changes are not identical to global temperature changes. However, they do tend to reflect global temperature changes with a decadal-scale delay (Box et al. 2009), with the notable exception of the Antarctic region and adjoining parts of the Southern Hemisphere, which is more or less in opposite phase (Chylek et al. 2010) for variations shorter than ice-age cycles (Alley 2003). ”

    http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm

    “The period since 1979 only covers the most recent example of global warming (ca.1977-2001), but no examples of the many previous periods of warming or cooling. This should prudently be borne in mind when interpreting the temperature record since 1979 only, such as shown in several of the diagrams found on this website. As mentioned above the time since 1979 would only take up the final 3 cm of the entire 4600 km long geological climatic record, if each year is represented by one millimetre.”

    In other words, the video maker isn’t comparing global temps in greenland to average sea surface temps since 1979-although Dana seems to think that amount of data is perfectly capable of capturing exactly how all “climate change sceptics” view temperature changes-(a highly stupid and unscientific declaration to make in the first place), he’s comparing how AGW believers only focus on ONE period in time, the modern era, when getting hysterical about warming, while ignoring the scientific FACT/DATA that demonstrates it’s nothing new AND less warm now than in the past.

    But nice try :)

  77. MrX says:

    Oh man! That was awesome! Haven’t laughed that hard in a while.

  78. Aphan says:

    Windchaser-
    “But I guess it wouldn’t work if we actually showed our best global temp reconstructions from the last 5-10k years. ”

    That’s just it-the video puts the past 150 years into PERSPECTIVE of the past thousands of years.
    Here’s some pictures…maybe they’ll help. In a global historical sense, even the past 10k years are the blink of an eye.

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/clip_image0024.jpg

    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/10/17/another-swipe-at-the-hockey-stick/

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.png

    http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png

  79. NikFromNYC says:

    jai:

    …so where did the blade come from? Whose side of the fence is the “mistake” on?

  80. dbstealey says:

    Felix says:

    “dbstealey: Non sequitur.”

    Felix disregards 4.6 billions years of data with his throwaway line: “non sequitur”.

    In fact, that chart deconstructs the SkS human-caused global warming nonsense rather completely.

    It is not a ‘non sequitur’; it shows that SkS has cherry-picked a very short time interval in order to argue that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming. But the reality is that current climate parameters are well within historical norms. [There] is [nothing] occurring now that is out of the ordinary, or unusual, or unprecedented. Everything observed now has happened before — and to a much greater degree.

    There is no scientific evidence measuring any human fingerprint. That idea is nothing but a fabrication; an opinion. A conjecture.

    Wake me when Felix uses the Scientific Method. So far, he has not even started.

  81. Dudley Horscroft says:

    dbstealey says:
    December 6, 2013 at 3:31 pm
    “Felix is almost as dopey as jai mitchell. Here is the long view of global temperatures. Notice where we are today.”

    There is an error in the graph. At the left hand end, at 4.6B years before present, the temperature curve should be way off the top of the page. When the earth was formed (so we are told) the earth was a molten ball, and it would have taken a few million years for the earth to cool to the same temperatures as Venus is at now – which would still have been off the page. And then a few more hundreds of thousands to get to the top of the ‘comfortable’ range we have been enjoying ever since.

  82. A.D. Everard says:

    Absolutely the best! Oh, I so hope that spreads far and wide! Well worth it. Thank you. :D

  83. barry says:

    So the climate changed in the past? Wow, I bet the scientists never thought that could happen.

    I wonder where those graphs going back thousands of years came from.

  84. Felix says:

    CoRev: Pielke’s point was that the paper is not a good source for 20th century. But we have other data for the 20th century warming. A more serious issue is that if there were similar century long spikes in the period they cover the “inherent smoothing in [their] statistical averaging procedure” might obscure these. Excellent point. So, the results of the paper are consistent with a “hockey stick” but do rule out other similar naturally caused warming spells. This is what the SkS re-posted article says! “The study of Marcott suggests that the earth is warming rapidly from a historical perspective, though the authors warn that the low time resolution of about 120 years and subsequent smoothing preclude a hard statement on whether it is truly unprecedented.”

  85. Felix says:

    Aphan: The source your link uses for the claim about Greenland temps is from a paper that is only concerned with the period 1840–2007. I’ll check out your link as time permits. I had not seen it before, so thanks for sharing it. You might want to check out: http://www.skepticalscience.com/humlum-at-it-again.html

  86. Felix says:

    dbstealey said: “There is no scientific evidence measuring any human fingerprint.” You may disagree that the evidence presented by climate scientists is sufficient to establish the claim to a reasonable degree, but you are in denial if you deny such evidence exists.

  87. John M says:

    “I bet the scientists never thought that could happen.”

    I thought we were talking about the boyz at Skeptikal Seance?

  88. jai mitchell says:

    NikFromNYC

    The blade came from actual temperature data. That is why there is very little uncertainty in that data compared with the earlier portion of the curve. The proxy data (and the Greenland ice core data too by the way) all pretty much end around 1855.

  89. Janice Moore says:

    Dear Felix,

    Re: you at 8:36pm today: “… you are in denial if you deny such evidence exists.”

    Please present that evidence. Until then, the logical presumption is that there is none.

    Your side has the burden of proof. You have not yet created even a rebuttable presumption that there is any evidence. You have not presented one scintilla of evidence. You ask us to simply BELIEVE. Well, we won’t.

    Unless it is with relevant evidence of discernible probative value, please do not bother to reply.

    Fighter for Truth and Logic, thus, for the time being,

    Your Opponent,

    Janice

  90. Werner Brozek says:

    Bill Illis says:
    December 6, 2013 at 5:11 pm
    I speculated that this was the case a month or so ago on another board when all the old GISS temp records were suddenly adjusted up by 0.01C
    So that’s it!
    I noticed something rather odd as well. When I gave the statistics with September data, I wrote the following for GISS:
    1. For GISS, the slope is flat since September 1, 2001 or 12 years, 1 month. (goes to September 30, 2013)
    However when I gave the statistics with October data, this had changed to:
    1. For GISS, the slope is flat since May 2001 or 12 years, 6 months. (goes to October)

    Of course a huge drop below the zero line can change the time for a slope of zero by 5 months, but the problem was that the October anomaly was 0.61. This was above the zero line of 0.59! So the time should have increased by only one month.

    Then we have this article:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/10/cei-wins-foia-tiff-with-nasa-via-judicial-order/

    Is there some connection here?

  91. RACookPE1978 says:

    Felix says:
    December 6, 2013 at 8:36 pm (replying to)

    dbstealey said:
    “There is no scientific evidence measuring any human fingerprint.”

    You may disagree that the evidence presented by climate scientists is sufficient to establish the claim to a reasonable degree, but you are in denial if you deny such evidence exists.

    I’m sorry, I was distracted looking at 17 years of steady temperatures while the CO2 levels steadily rose…. Was looking at 25 years of declining temperatures between 1945 and 1970 while CO2 steadily rose. Saw 25 years of increasing temperatures while CO2 was steady just before that…

    1) Now, just what is your “evidence” of man-released CO2 affecting global temperatures?
    2) What is the specific credible HARM that increasing CO2 is supposed to cause? (We are, after all, supposedly purchasing an “insurance policy” by causing 200 years of guaranteed HARM to the world and its people by deliberately restricting energy use and deliberately increasing energy prices. You and your policies are credited with killing 25,000 innocents in the UK last winter. You and your policies are specifically the root cause of 7 years of high energy prices and restricted energy development worldwide that have caused a running recession you are proud to claim as your own legacy.)

    Thus, I need to know what the “cost” of this insurance policy of causing guaranteed harm for 200 years to billions of innocents is going to avoid? there is NO harm from an increase of global temperatures of 1, 2, or even 3 degrees.

    Now, what exactly is the probability of man-released CO2 causing a temperature increase of 4 degrees C? So far, as CO2 has increased, temperatures have a history of going down. Or holding steady. Yet, when CO2 was steady, temperatures had that nasty habit of going up, holding steady, and going down.

    CO2 increased, the number of tornadoes is down.
    CO2 increased, the number of hurricanes is down.
    CO2 increased, there are no extinction events, and all plants worldwide are growing faster, stronger, more resilient, taller, wider, and heavier. Result? More fuel, more food, more fodder, more farms, more fields, more feed. More fish, fowl, flocks, phytoplankton and furry critters.
    CO2 has increased, and malaria has decreased.

    You may argue that the Arctic has less ice, but why is that a problem or a threat? At 82 degrees latitude at the time of minimum sea ice extents up north, there is no solar heat gain and the exposed water loses more heat by evaporation, convection, and radiation and conduction than it gains from the sun. But down south?
    The increased CO2 has apparently caused three years of record-setting Antarctic sea ice extents, and THOSE millions of square kilometers of sea ARE reflecting more solar energy into space at substantial and ever-increasing rates. Which will cool the planet even more.

    So, to return to the intent of dbstealy’s original question: What exactly is your evidence that increasing CO2 as each man and each woman tries to improve her condition for their children, save lives and help people grow will cause any harm to the planet or its inhabitants?

  92. Janice Moore says:

    Whooo — hoo! — GO, R. A. Cook!!

    Game — set — and MATCH to Cook the Magnificent.

    No wonder the AGW gang won’t debate our side.

    Admiringly,

    Janice

  93. Paul Clark says:

    It’s weird to look at the site you view every day as an avid reader and see your own video. Glad you enjoyed it. I’ve a six minute video in the works too, about how science is done by counting papers, not by reading the contents of them. Cheers.

  94. Janice Moore says:

    FINE JOB, Mr. Clark (lol, and you didn’t even say anything about the dozens of people above who thought Josh was its producer, not just the promoter)!

    I’m sure everyone will be looking forward to your next production.

    Congrats!

  95. barry says:

    “I bet the scientists never thought that could happen.”

    I thought we were talking about the boyz at Skeptikal Seance?

    There was a comment upthread that referred to science in general, but I’ll amend the sarc if you like….

    Wow, SkS never imagined climate changed in the past.

  96. BW2013 says:

    Third time I have watched it, coupled with my third glass of wine. My wife thinks I am nuts LMAO all by myself!
    Dogs have also moved away into the bedroom…however the ghost of my paleontologist grandfather, Dr. Stuart A Northrop, UNM, is laughing with me.

  97. Paul Clark says:

    Janice Moore says…

    It’s even better if they think its Josh’s. Adds legitimacy I feel!

  98. Txomin says:

    Goofy. Thanks.

  99. TB says:

    Right.
    Can someone tell me how the graph depicted on this video is relevant to the modern day average global temperature.
    Did anyone notice that the post-industrial global ave temp has been added to the end of a graph of historical ice-core data from the Greenland dome? ( regional – and at the extreme end of the Earth’s climatic environment ). The vertical axis rather gives it away actually with a scale in the minus 30′s C. Oh, so the Earth is in a “snowball” state is it?

    Also it goes back to 8000yr BCE. Do you not know of the Holocene climatic optimum, you know, when the NH was receiving ~40W/m^2 more summer insolation than present and the ocean currents/thermohaline balance was chaotic in the seas around?
    No? well it’s called applying science to the discussion.
    I’m sorry it may be a laugh – but it is comparing apples with oranges, with bananas.

  100. Alfred Deakin of the Commonwealth of Australia says:

    Great spoof. That’s what those turds sound like.

  101. DirkH says:

    TB says:
    December 7, 2013 at 1:28 am
    “Right.
    Can someone tell me how the graph depicted on this video is relevant to the modern day average global temperature.”

    Life didn’t end when it was warmer.
    Actually it flourished.
    That’s how it’s relevant.

  102. Paul Clark says:

    The vertical axis rather gives it away actually with a scale in the minus 30′s C

    It’s in the minus 30′s because it’s from Greenland, the rest of the world would be warmer. The important factor is the magnitude of the change, global temps are reflected in the Greenland temps. We use Greenland ice core because that’s where the ice is.

    There are several degrees of temp variation despite CO2 being fairly steady over the last 10,000 years — all natural climate change.

    Another criticism I’ll accept is that the temp core comes from Greenland, while the CO2 is from EPICA in Antarctica. But still there should be a correlation over the Holocene period which there isn’t. That’s why Al Gore likes to focus on time periods of 100,000′s of years where there is a correlation of CO2 to temp; of course it’s the temp that causes the CO2 change not the other way around, due to the warming of the oceans, which has been pointed out may times.

  103. TB says:

    “Life didn’t end when it was warmer.
    Actually it flourished.
    That’s how it’s relevant.”

    Actually I meant the graph, as it, as I said, compares “apples with oranges with bananas” and the above IMO is not what the author was implying. It attempts to convey a miss-truth. That Industrial warming is comparable with an extreme climatic region on Earth (who anyone with the wit/wont to investigate would find reasons for the variability). To boot, modern times are at a lower level on a scale of minus tens of deg C.

    No, you’re right, life isn’t “expected to end when it’s warmer” – just than “life” will experience disruption.
    It will still flourish but in different ways (except in the oceans where increasing acidity will have a toll ) – contrary to that that modern man has built this complicated society around.

    “It’s in the minus 30′s because it’s from Greenland, the rest of the world would be warmer. The important factor is the magnitude of the change, global temps are reflected in the Greenland temps. We use Greenland ice core because that’s where the ice is.
    There are several degrees of temp variation despite CO2 being fairly steady over the last 10,000 years — all natural climate change.”

    I know it’s from Greenland (I did say that) and the temp variation is because it’s at an extreme, both in temp, height and region which would have had vast climate fluctuations due to changes in the seas around Greenland ( ice flow, salinity gradient – AMO circulation). Note: it is not Antarctica, which is very much isolated as a frigid climatic region. Greenland is very vulnerable to change and is therefor not comparable with the GLOBE likewise – which is what the deception is behind the “joke”.

    CO2 steadiness is irrelevant when the driver is solar. In the absence of anthroprogenic influence the carbon cycle balances out the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to equalise with insolation until that insolation increase/decrease stops/slows.

    Natural climate change … yes of course it is – but over scales of 1000’s of years. However in the ~150 years since industrialisation the suns output has varied ~+/- 0.2%. Not 8% as it did through the period of the graph.

  104. DirkH says:

    TB says:
    December 7, 2013 at 3:42 am
    “No, you’re right, life isn’t “expected to end when it’s warmer” – just than “life” will experience disruption.
    It will still flourish but in different ways (except in the oceans where increasing acidity will have a toll ) – contrary to that that modern man has built this complicated society around.”

    Our society is complicated only insofar as we have layers upon layers of useless parasites, called the UN, David Suzuki, a byzantine array of international commissions hiding under every rock you turn.

    The basis for human survival is agriculture, and if you’re lucky, you have fuel to burn, and that’s all. Tell me how agriculture suffers when giantic areas of land in Canada and Siberia become more fertile, I’m all ears.

  105. barry says:

    DirkH,

    Agriculture would suffer if green zones shift to places with less fertile soil, if long periods of drought occur, if water resources dry up, if increased flooding wipes out crops, and if sea levels rises causing flood and cause salinity in low-lying food-producing areas, like the rice paddies around the Asian deltas (eg, Mekong), which feed millions.

    Other places would flourish in a warming world, but stability is safer and cheaper.

  106. John West says:

    Ever notice how alarmists are always sticking the instrumental record onto the end of proxy records and proxy compilations but the second a skeptic does it it’s an invalid procedure?

    How about this: we’ll stop when you stop.

    Good job Paul Clark! I don’t think anyone has better captured how I “view” global warming.

  107. Lars P. says:

    TB says:
    December 7, 2013 at 3:42 am

    “I know it’s from Greenland (I did say that) and the temp variation is because it’s at an extreme, both in temp, height and region which would have had vast climate fluctuations due to changes in the seas around Greenland ( ice flow, salinity gradient – AMO circulation). Note: it is not Antarctica, which is very much isolated as a frigid climatic region. Greenland is very vulnerable to change and is therefor not comparable with the GLOBE likewise – which is what the deception is behind the “joke”.”

    TB the warmist attempt to talk about greenland as only a limited regional proxy fail to mention that the medieval warm period was true and GLOBAL:
    http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/quantitative.php
    http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/qualitative.php
    That the ice core deducted temperature
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/24/easterbrook-on-the-magnitude-of-greenland-gisp2-ice-core-data/
    “The ratio of 18O to 16O depends on the temperature at the time snow crystals formed, which were later transformed into glacial ice. ”
    These are well preserved atmospheric values.

  108. David A says:

    TB says..I know it’s from Greenland (I did say that) and the temp variation is because it’s at an extreme, both in temp, height and region which would have had vast climate fluctuations due to changes in the seas around Greenland ( ice flow, salinity gradient – AMO circulation).
    ======================================================
    So the extremely minor changes in Greenland now mean what? BTW, this past summer was the coolest northern latitudes arctic circle Ts recorded in the satellite era.

  109. David A says:

    Paul Clark, Please do more. Even do some parody’s of the Felix and other silly critical comments, and go to some global graphs, and throw in the silly debunked predictions of disaster and more hurricanes droughts fires etc, with real world observations.

    Great job, thanks.

  110. John M says:

    Barry sez

    “Wow, SkS never imagined climate changed in the past.”

    I am reminded of what climate scientists and the Boyz at non-Skeptical Seance say when caught behaving badly:

    “But the e-mails/photos/secret messages/threatening letters to review editors, (pick one) weren’t presented ‘in context’”.

  111. Aphan says:

    Paul Clark as in woodfortrees Paul Clark? If that is true, I know several CAWG soldiers who will have a stroke when they find out you have turned to the “Dark Side”. Lol
    Thank you for all the work you do on your site. :)

  112. mbur says:

    “Denier land:How deniers view global warming”

    I think i’m going to go with “Defierland: How defiers view global warming”
    We turn the heat on.
    Outside:10°F
    Inside:68°F
    Nice way to ‘zoom’ in on the point.
    As another commenter on another thread mentions,
    Thanks for the recent introspective articles and comments.

  113. Pamela Gray says:

    Here in the Northwest part of North America, we are in a deep freeze. Records are falling everywhere for night and day time low lows. Many of these records go back to the late 1800s. Even the sheep are cold. Now that’s cold!

    Oh where oh where has our global warming gone,
    Oh where oh where can it be?
    With our rivers froze up and our temperatures down long
    Oh where, oh where can it be?

  114. Pamela Gray says:

    By the way, that little ditty started out as a drinking song that was not very complimentary to Germans (way back then all drinking songs engaged in across publand were not very complimentary to Germans). So if we could sing it with a warmer’s accent, we could more closely get the derisive flavor of the lamentable state of the lack of global warming.

    To wit: In honor of Suzuki, we have to get our “groove on” and smoke the pipe while eating potato chips in order to do the song justice. Crazy man.

  115. barry says:

    John,

    Way to change the subject.

    You can see from the links that SkS has often explained that climate has changed in the past. But “they think climate never changed before” it’s an attractive furfy and will probably never die out completely.

  116. Jtom says:

    Hmm, which would be the better proxie for estimating global climate, temperature reconstructions from Greenland ice cores, or a tree in Yamal?

  117. Pamela Gray says:

    And just in case someone tells me this is just weather, remember it is the nighttime lows that should be increasing under global warming scenarios with other temperature baselines following. Well guess what? We don’t have enough cloud cover because of the dry air. No humidity. No water vapor. No re-radiated longwave. Poor little CO2, which is being chucked out our chimneys at an alarming rate, has to do its magic all by its little ol’ self. And is failing miserably.

  118. dborth says:

    TB,

    You suffer from the same fundamental problem as does the IPCC – which stems from the misguided presumptuous primary principle guiding their effort – “…to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change…”

    Their mission is to investigate and therefore justify “human-induced climate change”. We “deniers” are often hard on the scientists that support that “mission” but when they are asked to prove a preconceived notion, it’s pretty hard for them to look at data that says orherwise.

    The difference is that you have a choice when you make things up to justify your “conclusion/consensus” on the causes of climate change – the IPCC doesn’t.

  119. dborth says:

    TB,

    You suffer from the same fundamental problem as does the IPCC – which stems from the misguided presumptuous primary principle guiding their effort – “…to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change…”

    Their mission is to investigate and therefore justify “human-induced climate change”. We “deniers” are often hard on the scientists that support that “mission” but when they are asked to prove a preconceived notion, it’s pretty hard for them to look at data that says orherwise.

    The difference is that you have a choice when you make things up to justify your “conclusion/consensus” on the causes of climate change – the IPCC doesn’t.

  120. mbur says:

    A little moderation of the atmosphere at my house would be nice too….But , have to run the fan so condensation doesn’t form on my windows.

    Excelent video, a candidate for a ‘climate minute’

  121. mbur says:

    sorry,fingers cold…

  122. Richard D says:

    Priceless. Funny yes, but with a few serious points to be made too.

  123. davidmhoffer says:

    Felix;
    I gotta support you on this one. Taking temperatures from one spot and suggesting they are representative of the entire earth is just silly, ridiculous, and completely over the top stupid. Would you please co-sign a letter from me to the IPCC pointing this and demanding that they remove their use of tree ring studies from a handful of trees in Siberia as evidence of global temperatures? If you’d like, we could include also a whole bunch of proxy studies from all over the planet using a variety of proxies that would be much more informative. Here’s a list of the ones I had in mind:

    http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html

    I’m looking forward to working with you on this!

  124. TB says:

    “So the extremely minor changes in Greenland now mean what? BTW, this past summer was the coolest northern latitudes arctic circle Ts recorded in the satellite era.”

    We can put the puzzle together now with the rest of the globe available for study and measurement. The Greenland ice-core data stands as a unique record of an extreme climate it is not a proxy for the whole globe. Currently we see changes commensurate with warming locally and we can see that the world is warming globally (taking out natural cycles such as ENSO/PDO which merely redistribute heat and don’t make it). The ice-core data shown on the “joke” runs through a period of large NH solar variation, and if only for that is not comparable with the last 150 years. But likewise also the implication that the rest of the globe has seen similar large variations during that time. ~ –29C to –33C translates to the current ave global temp varying from 13C to 17C does it? (I hope rhetorical) As I said, apples, pears and bananas.

    Yes, the Arctic did have a cold summer – it’s what saved the melt there from being another “outlier” ( beyond 2sd’s from the mean ) as it is, it only returned the ice-loss to the falling trend line. And BTW one season is called weather just like last summer the US’s record heat was weather.

    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.png

    “…… Here is the long view of global temperatures. Notice where we are today.
    The planet is now in a protracted cool period. It could warm up by several degrees, and still not reach average temperatures. Thus, the entire alarmist scare is based on nonsense. “

    And

    “Would you please co-sign a letter from me to the IPCC pointing this and demanding that they remove their use of tree ring studies from a handful of trees in Siberia as evidence of global temperatures? If you’d like, we could include also a whole bunch of proxy studies from all over the planet using a variety of proxies that would be much more informative. Here’s a list of the ones I had in mind:”

    Would that include the tree-ring proxy data that Jones removed in his “trick” and instead replaced with real data? For a graph in a magazine and not a peer-reviewed paper.
    You know the “Climategate” thing.

    Err, are you (both) really suggesting that because the Earth’s climate has varied enormously over geological time – then that is a proxy for it doing so now? When we know that orbital eccentricity rules and CO2 follows (normally – carbon cycle) and that albedo from ice/snow (either way) and CO2 (warming – via slowing of outgoing LW) will be major feedbacks. Not to mention continental drift and a weaker sun millions of years ago. Look, we know the (recent) behaviour of the sun to within fractions of a percent and we can measure incoming SW and outgoing LW such that we see an imbalance. That’s the basic problem. Energy in exceeds energy out. All the internal chaos in the world will not make that equation different. The oceans store >90 of the climate heat and that isn’t cooling – it’s warming. Deep sea temps have increased by 0.065C globally (see Lubis Motl) which equates to 65C if (instantaneously) transferred to the atmosphere. If there were a hidden cycle (of stored heat) driving industrial warming then the deep ocean would have cooled as that heat passed to air (unless you invoke heat from the seabed). Look at a graph of ENSO’s – you can see that whatever the colour (Nino or Nina) the trend line is upwards. So THE major climatic cycle (as has operated since around 2005 to slow GW ) lies ON TOP of the major warming driver.
    http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/files/2012/04/1967withlines.pdf

  125. john robertson says:

    Much “we know” ‘We know”.
    Well TB if you “know so much about weather cycles, why are the modelled projections of future climate, so far off reality?
    Is it possible, we do not know, what we think we know?

  126. davidmhoffer says:

    TB;
    If you want to be an effective communicator you need to state who you are attributing each quote to, and from which comment. Very difficult to sift through your responses to see who you are replying to and in which context.

    I answer your question to me by suggesting you read the comment again. The answer is in the comment.

    As for this comment:

    TB
    December 7, 2013 at 12:15 pm
    Deep sea temps have increased by 0.065C globally (see Lubis Motl) which equates to 65C if (instantaneously) transferred to the atmosphere.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Aside from the measurement being a guestimate based on a variety of suspect measurements and worse, suspect extrapolations from those suspect measurement, this statement is actually meaningless. There is no physical process by which energy from the ocean can instantaneously be transferred to the atmosphere. In fact, if 90% of the warming is in fact going into the oceans, then we’ve got thousands of years before we have to worry about any significant temperature increase of land and atmosphere.

  127. George McFly......I'm your density says:

    very clever…..well done

  128. TB says:

    “davidmhoffer says:
    December 7, 2013 at 12:47 pm
    TB;
    If you want to be an effective communicator you need to state who you are attributing each quote to, and from which comment. Very difficult to sift through your responses to see who you are replying to and in which context.”

    Fair point (I was being lazy – it’s not my usual method) and I will/have rectified…

    “… this statement is actually meaningless. There is no physical process by which energy from the ocean can instantaneously be transferred to the atmosphere. In fact, if 90% of the warming is in fact going into the oceans, then we’ve got thousands of years before we have to worry about any significant temperature increase of land and atmosphere.”

    No, it’s not meaningless (though it is impossible as I meant in the OP) – it is a measure of the energy stored in the oceans which have a mass 1000x that of the atmosphere. You need to look at Joules and it’s 2.6×10^22 increase in 45 years (Motl).
    Put that into the atmosphere and you would get 65C rise.
    I didn’t say it was meaningful, as obviously an instantaneous transfer is IMPOSSIBLE. It’s merely a conceptional comparison.
    http://motls.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/ocean-heat-content-relentless-but.html

    Why, he’s a skeptic isn’t he ? and he believes the measurements.

    Also you said …
    “In fact, if 90% of the warming is in fact going into the oceans, then we’ve got thousands of years before we have to worry about any significant temperature increase of land and atmosphere.”

    The whole system should be in balance. That’s the point. The heat in oceans and air should be static given a balance between SW in and LW out, bar a small exchange between that the SST’s redistribute to the air. The 90% oceans 10% air is just the equilibrium differential of heat stored. It doesn’t flow out at the exclusion of the balance point. It should remain that way due the physical properties of the mass of water in the oceans and the mass of air in the atmosphere.

    “john robertson says:
    December 7, 2013 at 12:37 pm
    Much “we know” ‘We know”.
    Well TB if you “know so much about weather cycles, why are the modeled projections of future climate, so far off reality?
    Is it possible, we do not know, what we think we know?”

    Is it possible we know what we know correctly? Given the wealth of science behind – on the balance of probability, yes, overwhelmingly so. I’d rather go with that than the minority and lesser probability.

    They are not far off reality…
    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044035/article

    GCM’s do not capture internal chaos (just as a in boiling pan of water it matters not how the H2O molecules move around we can know exactly when the water will reach boiling and how much energy is needed ( given known starting conditions)). An ensemble technique is used in GCM’s which due to addition/meaning smoothes out any major variations. Individual members show “pauses” but are meaningless due the unknown lengths of cycles such as ENSO/PDO. And no, that is not a fail as the cycle will play out warm-cold-warm (yet still the overlying warming continues).
    In other words the chaos oft quoted in climate is largely internal (as analogy) and we come back to the fundamental >> Energy in vs Energy out. It’s not balanced.

    http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/files/2012/04/1967withlines.pdf

  129. joe says:

    Felix says:
    December 6, 2013 at 1:24 pm
    Comparing global mean temperature to data from just one location is not valid. If you want to refute SkS refute this:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=1928

    Alarmists still cite marcott – Demonstrates how little the alarmists respect or understand science – it further demonstrates how easily fooled they are.

  130. John M says:

    Barry sez

    But “they think climate never changed before” it’s an attractive furfy and will probably never die out completely.

    Speaking of changing the subject, since you put that in quotes, I would think you are quoting someone on this thread.

    Who?

  131. jai mitchell says:

    Alarmists still cite marcott – Demonstrates how little the alarmists respect or understand science – it further demonstrates how easily fooled they are.

    –Scientists still cite marcott — Demonstrating how skeptics have not yet produced real and effective criticism within the peer reviewed documentation of marcott’s paper, showing how easily fooled they are.

  132. davidmhoffer says:

    TB;
    Why, he’s a skeptic isn’t he ? and he believes the measurements.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Being a skeptic doesn’t make your information right anymore than being a warmist makes your information wrong. Bob Tisdale has written several articles regarding the manner in which the heat content is calculated. Sorry, no links at hand, but once you read through them you’ll see what I mean about the values being suspect. If we suppose however that the values are correct, the bottom line is that heat capacity being about 1200 times that of the atmosphere, the atmosphere cannot heat any faster than the ocean. So, a teeny tiny change in temp in the ocean can only drive a teeny tiny change in temp in the atmosphere. It matters not in the least how many joules of energy are involved. If you hook up two fully charged car batteries in parallel, +ve to +ve and -ve to -ve, nothing happens. Make one of them a millionth of a volt higher than the other and then something happens. But not much. It doesn’t matter if the battery with the higher voltage is as big as a house, the energy flux is defined by the voltage, and at 1 millionth of a volt difference, diddly squat happens.

  133. TB says:

    “davidmhoffer says:
    December 7, 2013 at 3:22 pm
    TB;
    Why, he’s a skeptic isn’t he ? and he believes the measurements.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Being a skeptic doesn’t make your information right anymore than being a warmist makes your information wrong. Bob Tisdale has written several articles regarding the manner in which the heat content is calculated. Sorry, no links at hand, but once you read through them you’ll see what I mean about the values being suspect. If we suppose however that the values are correct, the bottom line is that heat capacity being about 1200 times that of the atmosphere, the atmosphere cannot heat any faster than the ocean. So, a teeny tiny change in temp in the ocean can only drive a teeny tiny change in temp in the atmosphere. It matters not in the least how many joules of energy are involved. If you hook up two fully charged car batteries in parallel, +ve to +ve and -ve to -ve, nothing happens. Make one of them a millionth of a volt higher than the other and then something happens. But not much. It doesn’t matter if the battery with the higher voltage is as big as a house, the energy flux is defined by the voltage, and at 1 millionth of a volt difference, diddly squat happens.”

    David ..

    Yes, indeed I do appreciate that “diddly squat will happen”.
    I merely make the point that energy in the oceans is increasing and given the specific heat of water and comparative mass differentials – then it is significant and a measure that the heat added to the atmosphere does not come from the oceans ( as it would cool in transfer ). I agree it will not effectively “flow out” but it’s been PUT IN. So where is GW coming from? If not from the measured Solar in vs LW out imbalance.

    From: http://uwpcc.washington.edu/documents/PCC/purkeyjohnson_2010.pdf

    “The upper 3000m of the global ocean has been estimated to warm at a rate equivalent to a heat flux of 0.20 W m^2 applied over the entire surface of the earth between 1955 and 1998 with most of that warming contained in the upper 700 m of the water column (Levitus et al. 2005). From 1993 to 2008 the warming of the upper 700m 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 heat budget could increase the estimated ocean heat uptake over the last decade or so by roughly 16%.”

    And
    ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat08.pdf

  134. Rational Db8 says:

    Shades of South Park! Thanks so much Paul Clark for the great laugh (and more importantly the implicit debunking of some “warmist” memes)!! I’ve passed it along to friends.

  135. davidmhoffer says:

    TB;
    If not from the measured Solar in vs LW out imbalance.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Again, I regret that I do not have a convenient link to provide you, but the best estimates from the IPCC themselves are an imbalance of 0.6w/m2….+/- 17.0 w/m2 which is short hand for “we haven’t a clue”. Plus, the measurements to which you refer are suspect as the majority of the time period was well before the Argo buoy era. Coverage by the Argo buoys is poor, but usable. Coverage prior to that is a joke.

  136. barry says:

    John,

    My initial post was a joke inspired by the video. But you can see a proponent of the view I described upthread here.

    “The Warmistas are the deniers.

    They deny natural climate change.”

    That gave me some inspiration, too.

    The sarc in the video is basically the old “climate has changed before!” talking point. It’s an empty argument, but taken seriously, as can seen by the some of the acclaim on this thread. As if this information is a devastating point that is overlooked by the “warmistas.”

    But rather than talk about that I thought I’d try to make a joke out of it, in keeping with the tone of the vid.

  137. Janice Moore says:

    “0.6w/m2….+/- 17.0 w/m2 which is short hand for ‘we haven’t a clue.” (David Hoffer at 5:01pm today). Precisely! And well said, lol.

    ****************************************

    Dear Barry,

    Apparently (from your post this evening at 5:53pm) you are unfamiliar with the “arguments” that the AGW crowd regularly assert in their attempt to perpetuate their Cult of Climastrology alarmism.

    AGWer: This warming is “unprecedented!!” This warming is “greater than ever before,” it’s going to “kill the planet”!!!!!

    Realist: The climate has changed before. In fact, it was much warmer during many eras in the past. Your alarm is unfounded.

    We just meet them where we find them. And, given the high calibre of many of the WUWT scientists (for instance, David Hoffer, above) who bother to address the AGWer’s inanity, our side is truly stooping to conquer.

    If your little boy, on his first trip to the seashore, cried: Daddy! The water has come up over the whole beach! It’s going to flood our cabin!!

    Would you answer with an encyclopaedia article’s worth of information about the moon and the ocean and tidal physics? The scientists on this site (and in a video such as was posted) could do just that (v. a v. the issues presented). In fact, they often do try, but the S!si!s and the Ja! M!tche!!s and the P!ppens and Poppens NEVER indicate that they understand what they are being with such exquisite accuracy, care, and patience, taught. Hence, the use of basic, VERY basic, refutation.

    Like this: It’s okay, son. The water does that regularly. It has been up this high many times before.

    I think you give far to much credit to the AGWers for rational thought.

    Further, ridicule can be a very effective technique to prevent those readers who are considering joining the Cult from falling for their silly conjecture.

    Also, remember that there is another, very good, purpose for videos such as that one: boosting the morale of the fighters for truth in science.

    Hoping you understand me and glad you are here,

    Janice

  138. davidmhoffer says:

    Janice Moore;
    And, given the high calibre of many of the WUWT scientists (for instance, David Hoffer, above)
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Heh. Believe it or don’t, but I am not a scientist. In fact, I’m a salesman. Yep, I am the incarnation of dirt. I am so low I have to reach up to scratch the belly of a snake. Sure, I sell some really complicated stuff to people who do really complicated things and I have to understand a lot of science to have a meaningful conversation with them, but I’m not a scientist. For the record, I prefer davidmhoffer.

    As for Barry, well, in addition to Janice’s points above, I’d observe that 10+ years ago, skeptics were ridiculed for claiming that the warming of the 1990′s was within natural variability. Now you come along and claim that this is something that the alarmists in fact didn’t overlook at all. In fact, some warmists are claiming that the current “pause” is due to the natural variability they previously ridiculed skeptics for pointing to. LOL. Not only do you want to have your cake and eat it too, you also want it to instantly be a pie instead of a cake as the mood suits you.

  139. Janice Moore says:

    davidmhoffer,

    Thank you for correcting my misimpression about your formal education. I hope that you will come to see my mistake as a compliment all the same (even more so, really). In your place, I would have been very pleased to have been mistaken for one of the Science Giants (Bart is one, for sure!) of WUWT.

    Please forgive me for taking liberties with your name.

    Janice

  140. barry says:

    Janice,

    as I said to Jim – that the climate has changed in the past (and been warmer) is a surprise to no one, but it is used as a talking point for some, as if that scotches the notion of AGW.

    To keep the tone light, I’ll make another joke to make the point.

    Arson? I’m sorry, there were forest fires before humans came along, so humans cannot be the cause of any current forest fires.

    Here’s another one.

    When the planet was being formed it was 1000C hotter than now. Yet humanity is flourishing!

    I think the video is funny, but it becomes less so when people take it seriously. It’s a non sequitir, not an argument, but it seems it is being mistaken for one.

    And back to our regular programming….

    How many scientists does it take to change a light bulb?

  141. Paul Clark says:

    Aphan says:
    December 7, 2013 at 9:00 am
    Paul Clark as in woodfortrees Paul Clark?

    Nah, different Paul Clark. It’s all too common a name unfortunately. I’ll have to call myself “Paul Clark — not the Wood For Trees guy”.

  142. barry says:

    Oh, and Janice,

    Where I’ve seen “unprecedented” used to describe current climate condiditons, it almost always refers to the pace of some factor, not the degree, or it is qualified within a certain time frame, like the holocene, or the quaternary period. I’ve never seen anyone assert that AGW will “kill the planet”, but I’m sure some nutter somewhere has said it.

    The issue highlighted for me in the comments here is that there is a big disconnect between what is said in popular science blogs and what critics say is said in those blogs. Eg, the clearest example on this thread….

    “The Warmistas are the deniers.

    They deny natural climate change.”

    And this kind of misinterpretation pervades more subtley in other comments.

    BTW, I am not alarmed. I have no emotional attachment to the issue or the future. Many commentators on both sides seem ‘alarmist’ to me – whether foretelling economic destitution under carbon pricing or warning of climate catastrophe.

  143. Barry says there are alarmists on both sides….
    Carbon taxes don’t alarm you?
    Useless windmills killing 600,000 bats (cbs news) doesn’t
    Alarm you?
    Co2 carbon capture fantasies don’t alarm you?
    Propaganda by gore et al doesn’t alarm you?
    Billions of dollars in the U.S. and Europe wasted on a problem
    That does not exist doesn’t alarm you?
    Climategate.Mann’s hockey stick,
    It alarms me and it pisses me off.
    ……,…………..

  144. Barry says….howw many scientists does it take to change
    A lightbulb? None, if it’s not broken.

  145. Dudley Horscroft says:

    Barry says….how many scientists does it take to change a light bulb?

    If they are CAGW alarmists, none – they won’t change it, arguing that if it cannot be switched on it won’t consume electricity so the generating station will not emit carbon.

    If they are CAGW sceptics or deniers, one. He just uses common sense.

  146. davidmhoffer says:

    barry;
    I’ve never seen anyone assert that AGW will “kill the planet”, but I’m sure some nutter somewhere has said it.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Seriously? For years, that is ALL we heard. For years, it wasn’t called AGW it was called CAGW with the C standing for Catastrophic. The story line was constant and continuous. We had to cut back CO2 emissions enormously, even though doing so would cast billions into poverty and starvation because the alternative was even worse. You are either very new to the debate and hence startlingly misinformed, or you are just a troll doing what trolls do.

  147. davidmhoffer says:

    barry
    As it happens BTW, James Hansen, former head of NASA/GISS, has an opinion piece running on CNN right now. So dire are the results of CAGW that he is arguing that the courts should compel the government to reduce emissions or the result will be catastrophic.

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/06/opinion/hansen-climate-last-chance/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

    This is the drivel we have heard over and over again for decades. Not just from Hansen when he was head of NASA/GISS, but from his counterparts the world over. The ClimateGate emails even reveal discussions among the leading climiate researchers world wide regarding how much exaggeration to employ with the public. The head of the IPCC admitted that claims of Himalayan glacier melt were known to be false when they were included in AR4, but were included anyway to deliberately scare people.

    An entire industry has emerged driven by alarmism that cannot be substantiated, and you are here now claiming that this was only something a nutter or two said. Talk about re-writing history!

  148. TB says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    December 7, 2013 at 5:01 pm
    TB;
    If not from the measured Solar in vs LW out imbalance.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Again, I regret that I do not have a convenient link to provide you, but the best estimates from the IPCC themselves are an imbalance of 0.6w/m2….+/- 17.0 w/m2 which is short hand for “we haven’t a clue”. Plus, the measurements to which you refer are suspect as the majority of the time period was well before the Argo buoy era. Coverage by the Argo buoys is poor, but usable. Coverage prior to that is a joke.

    David, I’m sorry the IPCC do NOT say that. Bob Tisdale says that … there is a difference.

    Some studies..
    From: http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/Earth'sEnergyFlows.pdf

    “…..based on these estimates the flux imbalance at the
    TOA is estimated to be 0.9 +/-0:3W/m^2.”

    From: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n2/abs/ngeo1375.html

    “We combine satellite data with ocean measurements to depths of 1,800 m, and show that between January 2001 and December 2010, Earth has been steadily accumulating energy at a rate of 0.50±0.43 Wm−2 (uncertainties at the 90% confidence level). We conclude that energy storage is continuing to increase in the sub-surface ocean.”

    Don’t you think that you should go to the horses mouth rather than having science filtered through a mouth-piece?
    And why would you think that that any scientific finding that comes up with 10ths +/- 10’s is scientific? Would be printed? It’s obviously not, and you would find that in any paper, as people rightly said (for the wrong reasons), on the Tisdale thread, quoted below – It’s meaningless.

    This from the thread regarding a “video” Tisdale quotes the +/- 17 W/m^2

    “Sisi says:
    November 29, 2013 at 4:09 pm
    @dbstealey
    Meanwhile I did read the paper. I am still sure that you only need the abstract and the figure that Bob uses in his video to figure out that he is making a false comparison. The Hiro measure (whatever you think about this measure) is meant to illustrate how much energy is accumulating in the earth system. Bob compares the Hiro measure to the energy budget of the earth’s surface. However, this has not much to do with how much energy the earth is accumulating (the earth’s surface is only for some part exchanging energy directly with surrounding space). For this you need to look at the energy budget at the top of the atmosphere. The numbers for the top of the atmosphere are in the figure that Bob uses in his video, for everybody to see! 0.6 watts/m^2 +/- 0.4. That’s why it is not necessary to read the paper. Bob is making a porkies comparison, that’s all.”

    BTW: you can deny that the evidence is not there of ocean warming at all levels and come up with “ Coverage by the Argo buoys is poor, but usable. Coverage prior to that is a joke” and dismiss it with the wave of a hand. That doesn’t count unless the majority of the climate science community thinks so. As they do with for instance with Roy Spencer’s cloud feedback theories.

  149. davidmhoffer says:

    TB;
    That doesn’t count unless the majority of the climate science community thinks so.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    With that single sentence you demonstrate conclusively that you understand nothing about science, that you are committed to dogma rather than any rational discussion of the facts, and that there is no point in further discussion with you.

  150. TB says:

    “davidmhoffer says:
    December 8, 2013 at 9:44 am
    TB;
    That doesn’t count unless the majority of the climate science community thinks so.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    With that single sentence you demonstrate conclusively that you understand nothing about science, that you are committed to dogma rather than any rational discussion of the facts, and that there is no point in further discussion with you.”

    David – look I gave you the links to papers that show that the Oceans are warming – you dismiss them with a wave of the hand rather than providing evidence for your hand-wave and that’s not science. You also dismiss some of your ilk who at least go with that evidence (Motl).

    You come up with ludicrous “science” propagandised by Mr Tisdale and you display your understanding of science by calling the kettle black with “you understand nothing about science” when you are prepared to accept that the IPCC would come up with 0.6W/m^2 +/-17 – which would stand out to anyone who “knows science” as a ridiculous figure that would be laughed out of peer-review.

    If you only get your science from certain sections of the Internet and do not read the likes of the IPCC AR5 then you DO NOT get the whole/real picture.

    Oh BTW – I am a scientist, so I most certainly understand science. A retired meteorologist with 32yrs service in the UKMO actually.

  151. davidmhoffer says:

    TB;
    If you only get your science from certain sections of the Internet and do not read the likes of the IPCC AR5 then you DO NOT get the whole/real picture.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I have read AR5. And AR4. And AR3. And most of the papers which underpin them. And while you seem to think being a retired meteorolgist with 32 years of experience makes you a scientist, not only does it nothing of the sort, it is ultimately an appeal to authority. As for my own credentials, I have none. But don’t think for a moment that means I haven’t studied math and physics. I’ve gone toe to toe on issues with PhD’s in physics from both sides of the debate on multiple issues, and those who took me lightly got backed into a corner right quick. The +/- 17 number was known to me well before I read it in anything Tisdale wrote. Doesn’t matter though, as I repeatedly pointed out to you upthread, even if the joules of heat content have gone up exactly as you claim, that’s cause for relief, not alarm, because the temperature differential that results is so small as to be insignificant.

    dropping thread

  152. Schitzree says:

    barry says:
    December 7, 2013 at 9:04 pm

    ‘Arson? I’m sorry, there were forest fires before humans came along, so humans cannot be the cause of any current forest fires.’

    Ha, I’ll give you this one. There are a lot of skeptics who seem to think this way. On the other hand the opposite seems to be true for a lot of Warmists.

    ‘We know there are people who intentionally set fires. Just because some forest fires occurred naturally in the past doesn’t mean that not all fires are arson now.’

    The real question is where between those two extremes the truth lies.

  153. RACookPE1978 says:

    Schitzree says:
    December 8, 2013 at 12:21 pm (replying to)

    barry says:
    December 7, 2013 at 9:04 pm

    ‘Arson? I’m sorry, there were forest fires before humans came along, so humans cannot be the cause of any current forest fires.’

    Ha, I’ll give you this one. There are a lot of skeptics who seem to think this way. On the other hand the opposite seems to be true for a lot of Warmists.

    ‘We know there are people who intentionally set fires. Just because some forest fires occurred naturally in the past doesn’t mean that not all fires are arson now.’

    The real question is where between those two extremes the truth lies.

    But it is worse than you think!

    The CAGW religion requires the extrapolation of their dogma to control the world’s energy

      BECAUSE 3% of forest fores are made-started (through both carelessness and arson),

    we MUST outlaw ALL use of fire in ALL forms in ALL locations by ALL people (just to make sure that 25,000 people will die every year) BECAUSE in 100 years we MIGHT burn a forest SOMEWHERE that MIGHT kill SOME critters SOMEWHERE else that MIGHT also cause SOME harm SOMETIME later to SOME plants that MIGHT have led to a natural cure for an illness that MIGHT cure somebody. (Who has not already died from exposure and the cold and hunger and bad water and no sewage treatment.) Maybe.

  154. TB says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    December 8, 2013 at 11:24 am
    TB;
    If you only get your science from certain sections of the Internet and do not read the likes of the IPCC AR5 then you DO NOT get the whole/real picture.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I have read AR5. And AR4. And AR3. And most of the papers which underpin them. And while you seem to think being a retired meteorolgist with 32 years of experience makes you a scientist, not only does it nothing of the sort, it is ultimately an appeal to authority. As for my own credentials, I have none. But don’t think for a moment that means I haven’t studied math and physics. I’ve gone toe to toe on issues with PhD’s in physics from both sides of the debate on multiple issues, and those who took me lightly got backed into a corner right quick. The +/- 17 number was known to me well before I read it in anything Tisdale wrote. Doesn’t matter though, as I repeatedly pointed out to you upthread, even if the joules of heat content have gone up exactly as you claim, that’s cause for relief, not alarm, because the temperature differential that results is so small as to be insignificant.

    dropping thread
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Well I’m not … yet.

    David, my “ultimately an appeal to authority” is indeed valid, and to state a “meteorologist is not a scientist” says more about you than me or of Meteorology.
    Oh, by the way, in a sane world we do need to appeal to authority. You know, like we do when we get taught for or Phd’s or whatever. You don’t become an expert by Googling or we’d have no need for “authority”.

    Oh – And it occurs to me that that is also a slur on Anthony! As he is also a Meteorologist. Yes we can have opposing views in this profession.

    Actually, I was refuting your accusation that I “was not a scientist” in amongst the obvious evidence that you are the one with the non-scientific method in this discussion. Papers please, and no, if you did read of the +/17W/m^2 then it was NOT from a scientific source, as my criticism stated – it’s NOT a scientifically valid conclusion.

    I did not for a second think your views would change, but if you cannot see that warming seas at all levels ( they just are – give me a link to a peer-reviewed paper that shows they aren’t) prove that heat flowing from them is NOT heating the atmosphere (beyond transitory ENSO/AMO cycles) – you know – it’s the 2nd law of thermodynamics. To heat something then you must cool. Ergo the heat must come from the sun. And is being stored in the oceans because of the radiative imbalance (otherwise they would be stable) and not magically appearing to heat the air.

    I now finish … unless

    Addendum …

    “I’ve gone toe to toe on issues with PhD’s in physics from both sides of the debate on multiple issues, and those who took me lightly got backed into a corner right quick”

    Come on then I’m game.

  155. jai mitchell says:
    December 7, 2013 at 3:18 pm

    “…keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” Nowdays a pal review means about as much as a Nobel Peace Prize, and doesn’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. If the paper(s) you cite are garbage, they’re still garbage no matter where/when they got published. I’m sure many papers got published on how to treat ulcers that became instant bird-cage lining when one doctor proposed, and proved, an antibiotic would CURE an ulcer. If it’s wrong, it’s still wrong.

  156. TB says:
    December 7, 2013 at 2:11 pm

    TB, unlike most trolls I see you are fairly well-read, and might even grasp the essence of much of what you read. But for someone so well read, you seem to engage in an inordinate amount of hand-waving and misdirection, might I even call it prestidigitation? Your “heat imbalance” is indeed irrelevant. I have studied heat transfer, and I understand, under steady state conditions, if any defined space receives more heat than it rejects (in any form, convection, conduction or radiation) then its temperature will rise… and you stop thinking there, because the rest of that sentence is …until it achieves a new steady state temperature. So on that ground alone, a heat flux imbalance is not a problem, the Earth’s temperature will stabilize at some point higher than it was when the flux was lower. But it’s ultimately irrelevant because the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans are not in a steady state, nor is the sun that provides that heat influx! The atmosphere and oceans move around and redistribute heat all over the place! And this Earth, on a whole can receive no other heat than what it gets from the Sun, and since it is also variable… Well, if you don’t like the heat flux at this moment, just wait an hour or so, it will change.

    Ultimately what I’m saying is, everybody needs to lighten up. There’s no need to cure the patient by killing it. Or, in this case, there’s no need to save a future 10,000 deaths/per year from global warming that isn’t even happening by causing 250,000+ deaths per year in this present year by making energy so expensive those people cannot stay warm, or even pump the water to grow themselves some food. If indeed humans are causing ANY global warming, and the papers saying human activities will raise the Earth’s temperature may be about equal to the papers that say they will lower it, then our cheapest, most effective response is adapt to it. If the market is ready, the solution will appear, the government doesn’t need to mandate it.

  157. John West says:

    For the record the energy imbalance of 0.6 +/- 17 is from peer reviewed article published in Nature Geoscience:

    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/full/ngeo1580.html

  158. I’m confused, is it the globe that’s warming or the Oceans? Are we now calling is AOW! If the land and air temperature records are suddenly irrelevant, it invalidates any claims of warming based upon them! (I’m not sure if this is sarcasm or not!)

  159. rogerknights says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    December 8, 2013 at 7:44 am
    ………….
    The head of the IPCC admitted that claims of Himalayan glacier melt were known to be false when they were included in AR4, but were included anyway to deliberately scare people.

    No, that was Lal, head of the Asia group, in a phone interview with David Rose of the Daily Mail. Lal disowned / disavowed his remark after Rose published it, and Rose didn’t have a tape to back him up, but repeated his claim that he’d quoted Lal accurately. My feeling about Lal’s disavowal is that “he would say that, wouldn’t he?” once he realized that he’d put his foot in it.

  160. philjourdan says:

    @ Felix – “We already have robust data for the 20th century.”

    Robust data does not need to be manipulated. Once manipulated, it is no longer robust.

  161. dbstealey says:

    TB says:

    “Oh BTW – I am a scientist, so I most certainly understand science.”

    Then TB should understand that the ARGO buoy array deconstructs his belief in ocean warming. Despite all the wild-eyed model predictions, there has been zero ocean warming.

    That fact alone deconstructs TB’s entire argument. TB says:

    “…if you cannot see that warming seas at all levels ( they just are – give me a link to a peer-reviewed paper that shows they aren’t)…”

    First off, empirical observations always trump ‘peer reviewed papers’. Always. And the ARGO buoys are empirical evidence.

    Therefore, there is not “warming seas at all levels”. Thus, TB’s entire argument fails.

    In fact, the entire ‘runaway global warming/climate catastrophe conjecture fails, since the planet contradicts that belief. The rise in CO2 is not causing a concomitant rise in global temperature. And anyway, more CO2 is both harmless and beneficial. Any honest scientist would understand that all available scientific evidence and measurements support that conclusion, while nothing supports the runaway global warming belief.

  162. TB says:

    John West says:
    December 8, 2013 at 9:21 pm
    For the record the energy imbalance of 0.6 +/- 17 is from peer reviewed article published in Nature Geoscience:

    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/full/ngeo1580.html
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    John: From the above paper ….

    “The net energy balance is the sum of individual fluxes. The current uncertainty in this NET SURFACE ENERGY BALANCE is large, and amounts to approximately 17 Wm–2…..” (my caps)

    The figure of 0.6 +/-0.4 W/m^2 is actually printed on the top of the schematic (TOA) at the top of the paper.

    In other words the +/-17 figure has been confused with the TOA figure ( Top of atmosphere ).

    For those who don’t know why the distinction is important – it’s because that’s the interface of Earth’s input (solar ) and output (reflected solar SW + radiated LW ). Like measuring the electrical energy (Watts) going into a heater and the radiative energy coming out – thereby determining the heaters efficiency. The bits going on inside are irrelevant (if you just want to find that number) – Internal chaos – which incidentally is what the Earth’s climate cycles are doing and so this differential – (here 0.6+/-0.4) gives us the best measure of it’s energy imbalance.

    Look up this thread….
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/27/video-comments-on-human-induced-global-warming-episode-1-the-hiroshima-bomb-metric/

    And also up this thread to see where this *discussion* began. (others chiefly Sisi)

  163. dbstealey says:

    I note that when TB is confronted with empirical evidence, he hides out from responding, in favor of his pal-reviewed papers — and Sisi’s nonsense.

    TB is a typical warmist: when the real world contradicts his True Belief, he falls back on appeals to bought-and-paid-for ‘authorities’.

    No wonder warmists are losing the debate. Planet Earth proves them wrong.

  164. TB says:

    dbstealey says:
    December 9, 2013 at 7:39 am
    TB says:
    “Oh BTW – I am a scientist, so I most certainly understand science.”

    Then TB should understand that the ARGO buoy array deconstructs his belief in ocean warming. Despite all the wild-eyed model predictions, there has been zero ocean warming.

    That fact alone deconstructs TB’s entire argument. TB says:

    “…if you cannot see that warming seas at all levels ( they just are – give me a link to a peer-reviewed paper that shows they aren’t)…”

    First off, empirical observations always trump ‘peer reviewed papers’. Always. And the ARGO buoys are empirical evidence.

    Therefore, there is not “warming seas at all levels”. Thus, TB’s entire argument fails.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Oh really?

    From: ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat08.pdf

    “We provide estimates of the warming of the world ocean for 1955–2008 based on historical data not previously available, additional modern data, correcting for instrumental biases of bathythermograph data, and correcting or excluding some ARGO float data. The strong interdecadal variability of global ocean heat content reported previously by us is reduced in magnitude but the linear trend in ocean heat content remain similar to our earlier estimate.”

    From: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079661109000160

    “The Argo 5-year mean is compared to the World Ocean Atlas, highlighting the middle and high latitudes of the southern hemisphere as a region of strong multi-decadal warming and freshening. Moreover the region is one where ARGO data have contributed an enormous increment to historical sampling, and where more ARGO floats are needed for documenting large-scale variability. Globally, the ARGO-era ocean is warmer than the historical climatology at nearly all depths, by an increasing amount toward the sea surface; it is saltier in the surface layer and fresher at intermediate levels.” (my caps)

    From: http://www.awi.de/en/news/press_releases/detail/item/awi_longterm_data_reveal_increase_of_temperature_in_the_deep_greenland_see/?cHash=5c544da858444ebee05f5f7cab41d22f

    “For the present study, the AWI scientists have combined these long term DATA SET WITH HISTORICAL OBSERVATIONS dating back to the year 1950. The result of their analysis: In the last thirty years, the water temperature between 2000m depth and the sea floor has risen by 0.3 degrees centigrade.
    ‘This sounds like a small number, but we need to see this in relation to the large mass of water that has been warmed’ says the AWI scientist and lead author of the study, Dr. Raquel Somavilla Cabrillo. ‘The amount of heat accumulated within the lowest 1.5km in the abyssal Greenland Sea would warm the atmosphere above Europe by 4 degrees centigrade.”

    From: http://uwpcc.washington.edu/documents/PCC/purkeyjohnson_2010.pdf
    (this was linked in one of my previous posts)

    “Here we make quantitative global estimates of recent (1990s to 2000s) deep and abyssal ocean warming,mostly within or originating from the Southern Ocean. We use repeat HYDROGRAPHIC SECTION DATA to quantify temperature trends in two regions of the world’s oceans: the global abyssal ocean, defined here as >4000m in all deep basins ….”

    “In summary,we show that the abyssal ocean has warmed significantly from the 1990s to the 2000s (Table 1). ” (my caps)

    For any really interested in what research there’s been on (instrumental data) ocean temps look here:

    http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/10/papers-on-ocean-temperature/

    dbstealey: I use your words…
    “First off, empirical observations always trump ‘peer reviewed papers’. Always. And the ARGO buoys are empirical evidence”

    Couldn’t have said it better myself.

  165. TB says:

    dbstealey says:
    December 9, 2013 at 9:13 am
    I note that when TB is confronted with empirical evidence, he hides out from responding, in favor of his pal-reviewed papers — and Sisi’s nonsense.

    TB is a typical warmist: when the real world contradicts his True Belief, he falls back on appeals to bought-and-paid-for ‘authorities’.

    No wonder warmists are losing the debate. Planet Earth proves them wrong.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Err – right let me get this right. You are turning the world on it’s head by saying peer-reviewd papers are pal-reviewed and therefor I have “true belief”

    You put the cart before the horse. I take on board the 95% confidence level that the IPCC quantifies from these “pal-reviewed” research papers ( from multi diciplines BTW ). The research comes first along with my (ex)professional understanding of atmospheric physics and I then take a view. Can I ask how you arrived at your “true belief”?
    BTW: do you have an annual review at your work? If so, is it done by someone who knows you? (likes/dislikes) You see my drift? Any people working at a specialism at least probably “know of” others that may review their papers. Would you like peer-review by laymen, who have insufficient knowledge (obviously) with which to review that paper. It may be imperfect but as Churchill said – “it’s the worst – apart from all the others we’ve tried” (Democracy)

    “.. he falls back on appeals to bought-and-paid-for ‘authorities’.”
    Can you tell me what else to do when we need research/guidance on a complex subject that an individual alone cannot quantify? By the balance of probability dismissal of authority in knowledge makes no sense. We get taught by “experts” – even Newton did, he “stood on the shoulders of giants”

    “Planet Earth proves them wrong”.
    OK: Now please provide some evidence for that rather than resorting to your “belief”.
    Because that’s all it is otherwise.

    OH, one other thing..” he hides out from responding, in favor of his pal-reviewed papers — and Sisi’s nonsense.”
    You’ll need to read what I’ve linked to, to realise that statement is nonsense. But then it’s an “appeal to authority” of course – so it doesn’t count. Silly me.

  166. dbstealey says:

    TB quotes my words:

    “…empirical observations always trump ‘peer reviewed papers’. Always. And the ARGO buoys are empirical evidence.”

    Those words are as valid as they ever were. View the empirical evidence, which debunks the nonsense that the oceans are rapidly warming. They aren’t. And neither is any unusual so-called “acidification” happening, either.

    Note also that there is now substantial controversy over the “adjustments” of the ARGO buoys. Since these ‘adjustments’ were made, like all ‘adjustments’ to the official record, they go only in the direction of climate alarmism. Therefore, recent ARGO readings must be completely discounted as being unreliable. And all the appeals to authority are not enough to contradict what the planet is clearly telling us: that CO2 does not have the claimed effect.

    Empirical evidence conclusively debunks the runaway global warming belief. The only ‘deniers’ remaining are those who blindly deny natural climate variability — which includes TB and all the rest of the climate alarmist crowd. They cannot admit that natural variability is the primary reason for climate change. How closed-minded is that?

    Currently, there is nothing either unprecedented or unusual happening. What we observe now has happened many times before — and to a much greater degree. Every climate parameter has been exceeded in the past. The climate Null Hypothesis has never been falsified, therefore all claims of runaway global warming are deconstructed, per the Scientific Method. The truth is that we are living in an unusually benign era right now, and we should be thankful that natural variability has not gone to the prior extremes that punctuate the Holocene and before.

    I think TB is finding out that the usual alarmist blogs are not represented here. WUWT is a true scientific skeptics’ site, and all points of view are welcomed. But when someone cites grant-seeking papers as his authority, he will get some serious pushback. The real world is not as alarmist blogs presume. Not by a long shot.

  167. TB says:

    Dbstealey says….
    But when someone cites grant-seeking papers as his authority, he will get some serious pushback. The real world is not as alarmist blogs presume. Not by a long shot.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    As I said to you above – it is the worst way of doing it – apart from all the others.

    Just because you don’t like what most climate science studies say, does not make them wrong. The experts in their fields say so. You know, like a 97 of 100 doctors you consult give the same diagnosis but 3 give a contrary one. So you would risk your life (hypothetically) and go with the 3? Or does it come back to something like a conspiracy or incompetence, peer review? I say the balance of probability is overwhelming against that 3% view.

    There’s no side there my friend – it is just what the probabilities say. Why the “consensus” is important.
    And I’m not getting into the full “CO2 is not causing it” debate – not yet anyway – else we could go on for ages on this thread.

    BTW: A “warmist” – is not a pejorative to me.

    I’ve no idea what the “empirical evidence” link you gave shows ( there’s no attribution or indication what the sine wave shows) temp? depth? Location? By eye it looks like an annual cycle?

    Here’s more ARGO data studies…
    http://www.ioc-unesco.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=229:argo-data-show-16-year-ocean-warming-trend&catid=16&Itemid=100061

    https://wwz.ifremer.fr/euro_argo/content/download/64701/870120/version/1/file/Boyer-ASW4-Sept2012.pdf

    http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100519_ocean.html

    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

    “Currently, there is nothing either unprecedented or unusual happening. What we observe now has happened many times before — and to a much greater degree. Every climate parameter has been exceeded in the past.”

    Yes, of course it has “happened before”– just for other reasons that we know about, and that don’t apply today. If you want to go back as the HCO then look at a graph of solar insolation for 65 deg N (greatest sensitivity to warming) and you’ll see that it only bottomed out at around the time of the MCA.

    These data along with that I link to above re radiative imbalance show that that imbalance at TOA of ~0.6W/m^2 is largely being stored in the oceans at present with only a small proportion actually heating the atmosphere – this stalled by the preponderance of La Ninas since ~2005.

    “They cannot admit that natural variability is the primary reason for climate change. How closed-minded is that?”

    Of course there are (overlying) climate cycles – such a complicated heat engine MUST have them – and they need ~30 years to play through. Which is why pointing at any trend (up or down) is disingenuous.
    I made an analogy in a post above( or perhaps another thread).
    A pan of water brought to boiling point is entirely predictable (knowing initial conditions – mass, pressure, temp) in the amount of energy/time required. What happens to the molecular flow within the pan is irrelevant to that. It is INTERNAL chaos – as is the Earth’s climate cycles when measured against Solar SW in and SW+Terrestrial LW out. Hence the conclusion that consensus science has
    reached.

    Pray tell where this warming is coming from. Unless you don’t even admit that the atmosphere is warming.
    You say it’s a natural cycle. How is it at play?

    I (paraphrase) your words again…
    “ The real world is not as skeptical blogs presume. Not by a long shot.”

  168. dbstealey says:

    TB says:

    “…97 of 100 doctors you consult give the same diagnosis but 3 give a contrary one.”

    That old canard has been debunked so many times here, and so thoroughly, that it is not worth the pixels to respond. If TB wants some real education, the WUWT archives are the place for him to start.

    Further, the true consensus [for whatever that is worth in science] is entirely on the side of scientific skeptics. The OISM statement has more than 31,000 co-signers, all of them professionals with degrees in the hard sciences, including more than 9,000 PhD’s. If TB can find even half that number of climate alarmists with the same credentials to support the demonization of “carbon” and human-cause global warming, he would be doing better than anyone else has been able to do. In fact, the true consensus is the set of scientists who state that CO2 is ‘harmless’ and ‘beneficial’; more is better. NO alarmist group has been able to come anywhere close to the OISM numbers, so if the doctor analogy is valid [it isn't], then those spouting the 3% number are the true contrarians.

    Next, I have posted ARGO data taken before the “adjustments”. Everything after “adjustment” is unreliable — as are the grant-trolling, pal reviewed papers.

    Next, the default position [prior to the global warming scare, which followed the '70's global cooling scare] is that natural variablity fully explains the climate. But since money became so involved [more than $100 BILLION since 2001], the global warming scare has taken on a life of its own.

    But the default position remains: natural variability fully explains all current climate observations. Any claims that “carbon” causes global warming would have to withstand the scrutiny of the Scientific Method, and the climate Null Hypothesis, and Occam’s Razor. But that conjecture has failed every test. Keep in mind that the onus is entirely on the alarmist crowd, to support their failed conjecture. Pal reviewed papers and computer models are not scientific evidence, and all the available scientific evidence debunks the “carbon” scare.

    TB asks:

    “Pray tell where this warming is coming from… You say it’s a natural cycle. How is it at play?”

    Glad TB asked. Let me educate him:

    The planet is naturally warming as it recovers from the Little Ice Age [LIA], which was one of the coldest episodes of the entire Holocene. We do not yet understand what caused the rapid cooling. But we do know that CO2 is insufficient to cause the subsequent warming. The recovery from the LIA has been in fits and starts, but it has repeated the same step cycle — whether CO2 was low, or high. Therefore, CO2 has nothing measurable to do with global warming. At this point let me say what I have said repeatedly for years and years: CO2 may have some minor effect. But if so, its effect is too small to measure, therefore it can be disregarded for all practical purposes. The first 20 ppmv had a major effect, but since it is a log effect, at current concentrations, CO2 is too insignificant to make any measurable difference; it does not really matter at current concentrations.

    Note that I always use real world measurements, while the alarmist crowd relies on computer models and pal reviewed papers. That is because what Planet Earth is telling us is true; everything else is either conjecture, or grant trolling.

  169. TB says:

    dbstealey says:
    December 9, 2013 at 2:29 pm
    Glad TB asked. Let me educate him:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    The planet is naturally warming as it recovers from the Little Ice Age [LIA], which was one of the coldest episodes of the entire Holocene. We do not yet understand what caused the rapid cooling. But we do know that CO2 is insufficient to cause the subsequent warming. The recovery from the LIA has been in fits and starts, but it has repeated the same step cycle — whether CO2 was low, or high. Therefore, CO2 has nothing measurable to do with global warming. At this point let me say what I have said repeatedly for years and years: CO2 may have some minor effect. But if so, its effect is too small to measure, therefore it can be disregarded for all practical purposes. The first 20 ppmv had a major effect, but since it is a log effect, at current concentrations, CO2 is too insignificant to make any measurable difference; it does not really matter at current concentrations. Ain’t no other way to know. :-)

    From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

    “Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of “Little Ice Age” and “Medieval Warm Period” appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries… [Viewed] hemispherically, the “Little Ice Age” can only be considered as a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1°C relative to late twentieth century levels.”

    The LIA was not a global event is was a regional one – please provide evidence to the contrary.

    It was an event that coincided a small ~0.2% reduction in solar insulation (due grand minima) and heightened volcanic episodes to produce a climatic shift in distribution of heat over the Earth chiefly the NH.

    “But we do know that CO2 is insufficient to cause the subsequent warming”

    I’m sorry that is not true.

    Co2 increase by 40% since re-industrial times is more than sufficient to provide the warming we’ve seen since then.
    Again please provide evidence to the contrary > Mine below.
    You allude to the meme that co2 follows temp. Well yes it does, we know that – it’s due to the carbon cycle. But it is also a GHG, and if put it there unnaturally then it will drive temperature. ~150yrs of empirical experimental/laboratory results prove that. Again provide evidence that that is not the case.
    GHG’s require a triatomic structure and only ~1% of the atmosphere (78% N2 and 21% O2) has that property. A 40% increase in CO2 certainly is very significant and the CO2 increase is anthroprogenic – you agree on that? (isotopic analysis)

    From: https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm

    “Measurements of the downward radiative flux have been made for several important greenhouse gases. At mid-latitudes in summer as compared to winter, our measurements show that the downward
    surface flux from H2O has doubled to 200W/m2. The water increase causes a reduction of the fluxes from the other greenhouse gases. These measurements show that the greenhouse effect from trace gases in the atmosphere is real and adds significantly to the radiative burden of the atmosphere. The greenhouse radiation has increased by approximately 3.52 W/m2 since pre-industrial times. This compares favorably with a modeled prediction of 2.55 W/m2. Measurements such as these can provide a means by which to verify the predictions made by global warming models (Puckrin et al; 2004).”

    The effects of GHG’s are very significant, have been measured on Earth, and fit both historical/empirical physical knowledge and modelling.

    Then you have the H2O/WV amplification making a GHE x2 (x3 with other effects included).
    You do appreciate that as temps rise, relative humidity stays the same whilst absolute humidity rises ( hotter air holds more moisture )? Eg the saturation of air at 30C yields 3x as much H2O as air at 10C. hence the +ve feed-back caused by CO2.

    BTW: do you have an explanation for your posted link to ARGO data that seems to show an annual fluctuation?

    “But the default position remains: natural variability fully explains all current climate observations. Any claims that “carbon” causes global warming would have to withstand the scrutiny of the Scientific Method, and the climate Null Hypothesis, and Occam’s Razor. But that conjecture has failed every test. Keep in mind that the onus is entirely on the alarmist crowd, to support their failed conjecture. reviewed papers and computer models are not scientific evidence, and all the available scientific evidence debunks the “carbon” scare.”

    I’m sorry if you don’t like it but it is just hand-waving to say “that conjecture has failed every test”.
    It most certainly has not and I’d thank you for evidence that it has.

    “Keep in mind that the onus is entirely on the alarmist crowd, to support their failed conjecture”
    They have, and I am.
    BTW: as with “warmist” I do not consider “alarmist” a pejorative.

    “Next, the default position prior to the global warming scare, which followed the ’70′s global cooling scare is that natural variability fully explains the climate. But since money became so involved [more than $100 BILLION since 2001], the global warming scare has taken on a life of its own.”

    You bring in politics – and I will not discuss that. It is the road to madness. I maintain the science comes first. The advice of “consensus” science is put in the public domain and elected officials are free to use that knowledge by being given the right by the electorate. Again it’s a rubbish system – but still better than all the rest.

    Oh, and since you bring up anther myth – that of the global cooling thing in the 70’s …

    From: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

    “A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists’ thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth’s climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.”

    “That old canard has been debunked so many times here, and so thoroughly, that it is not worth the pixels to respond. If TB wants some real education, the WUWT archives are the place for him to start.”
    And
    “so if the doctor analogy is valid [it isn't], then those spouting the 3% number are the true contrarians.”

    Not I my eyes it hasn’t and in the eyes of the climate science community either. You do know how many contribute to the IPCC’s report….
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/annexessannex-ii.html
    Can you please give a complimentary list of scientists ( relevant ones) that disagree?

    You really do think that it’s all a scam don’t you? The logic remains overwhelming sensible and I refer again to that balance of probabilities.

    “Note that I always use real world measurements, while the alarmist crowd relies on computer models and pal reviewed papers. That is because what Planet Earth is telling us is true; everything else is either conjecture, or grant trolling.”

    I don’t know that at all – I have yet to see any see my request for explanation of the graph you linked)
    Meanwhile I have linked multiple papers that use “real world measurements”
    At least you’re right on this: “because what Planet Earth is telling us is true”.

    “Grant-trolling” is nothing more than human nature. If you have a specialism you want to study it. Happens the world over in any walk of life you care to mention What it does not do is make the consensus science invalid despite your willing it to be.

  170. dbstealey says:

    I commented above

    “Glad TB asked. Let me educate him…”

    Now it is clear: TB is not capable of being educated. His mind is made up, and closed tighter than a drumskin. His On/Off switch has been wired around, and there is no educating him.

    Other readers understand that the onus is not on skeptics to prove a negative; the onus is entirely on the alarmist crowd, to show that CO2=cAGW. They have failed.

    Yes, they have consistently failed, and failed miserably. TB is simply the latest loser in that attempt. Not one thing he has posted shows that anything currently observed is out of the ordinary. Thus, in addition to the Null Hypothesis never being falsified, Occam’s Razor favors scientific skeptics, and the Scientific Method is 100% on the side of skeptics. The fact is that alarmists run and hide out from the Scientific Method. All of them, from Mikey Mann, to Phil Jones, Briffa, Trenberth, and the rest of the climate alarmist charlatans. None of them will even debate any more, after having their heads handed to them in every debate they attempted [citations on request].

    There is simply no credible evidence that human emissions are the cause of global warming. None. That would require testable empirical measurements, directly connecting emissions with temperature.

    No such measurements exist. There are grant-seeking papers purporting to show a connection, but they do not survive even the most rudimetary scrutiny. There are computer models purporting to show a connection, but not one model — not a single GCM — was able to predict the 17-year halt to global warming. They all failed, and failed badly.

    That is to be expected: if a computer model could predict the climate, then it could easily predict the much smaller universe of the stock or commodities markets, and the climate model programmers would be phenomionally wealthy almost overnight.

    Which of course proves conclusively that climate alarmism is complete nonsense; promoted either by lunatics, or by self-serving riders on the grant gravy train. TB, just an anonymous internet coward, falls into the former category. Ottherwise, he would be trumpeting his name and accomplishments. No, TB is just someone pretending to be credible. He is not. Sisi is more credible — and she is incredible.

  171. Werner Brozek says:

    TB says:
    December 9, 2013 at 4:11 pm

    GHG’s require a triatomic structure and only ~1% of the atmosphere (78% N2 and 21% O2) has that property.

    Are you saying 1% of dry air is triatomic? The percentages are N2 = 78.0805, O2 = 20.9437, Ar = 0.934. So all other gases are 0.0418. Now it must be kept in mind this is dry air so at the most, 0.0418% is triatomic. However as we know, H2O is the biggest greenhouse gas and its percentage can vary from 0% to 4% so we can assume very roughly that water vapor counts for 2% of the atmosphere. If we add CO2 from 1750, we get 2.028% for H2O and CO2 combined. If we add CO2 from the present, we get 2.040% for H2O and CO2 combined. Neglecting other very trace gases, it does not seem likely that the increase from 2.028% to 2.040% would have a huge affect on climate.

  172. philincalifornia says:

    Forget the essays TB, please provide 1, 2 ,3, 4 or 5 bullet points showing direct evidence that anthropogenic CO2 gives a measurable change in anything associated with global climate.

    You’ve had 30 years and a 40% increase in CO2, of which not all is anthropogenic.

    Your next post will not contain the asked for bullet point(s).

  173. Werner Brozek says:
    December 9, 2013 at 6:12 pm

    “However as we know, H2O is the biggest greenhouse gas and its percentage can vary from 0% to 4% so we can assume very roughly that water vapor counts for 2% of the atmosphere.”

    I agree with you but have been wondering about the validity of these measurements. I would like to hear from someone who has measured the H2O content of the ‘Great Aerial Ocean’ (As Tim Flannery so often refers to the ‘atmos-fear’). My doubt stems from the report that the 4% figure is related to the temperature and relative humidity of H2O in gas phase. I genuinely wonder If anybody really knows how much water is “in” the atmosphere in condensed form, in clouds! This kind of water will be having an effect on the chemistry and heat content of the atmosphere. Latent heat, is hidden heat of course and the metaphor of boiling water that many are fond of using, overlooks the fact that heat hides in changes of state. Both the gas and the liquid can be at the same temperature but one contains twice the heat!!

  174. Dudley Horscroft says:

    Re Scott Wilmot Bennett:

    Thought I would test your last statement: “Both the gas and the liquid can be at the same temperature but one contains twice the heat!!”

    Assuming that the specific heat of water is constant from 0 K to 373 K, one gram of water at 373 K holds 373 calories plus the latent heat of melting, total 453 calories. The latent heat of vaporization is 538 calories per gram, so one gram of steam at 373 K contains 991 calories. 991 divided by 453 gives 2.1876, so the phrase should read “one contains roughly 2.2 times the heat!!”

    Apologies for using calories, but they are easier to work with than Joules in this calculation. Though of course their utility has been subverted by nutritionists who are unhappy that drinking one litre of warm water at 47.4 Celsius will put weight on you, as it releases 10 000 calories when it cools to body temperature of 37.4 Celsius. Come to think of it, nutritionists must be rather like
    CAGW warmists in ignoring scientific facts!

  175. Werner Brozek says:

    Scott Wilmot Bennett says:
    December 9, 2013 at 8:35 pm
     I would like to hear from someone who has measured the H2O content of the ‘Great Aerial Ocean’
    “The percentage water vapor in surface air varies from .01% at -42℃ (-44℉) to 4.24% when the dew point is 30℃ (86℉).”
    See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor

    It may answer your other questions.

    Dudley Horscroft says:
    December 10, 2013 at 5:34 am
    Assuming that the specific heat of water is constant from 0 K to 373 K

    Do not forget that you have ice up to 273 K and ice has about half the specific heat capacity of liquid water.

    As for nutritionists, someone did not realize that a food calorie is really a kilocalorie and once wrote to a doctor about a great way to lose weight, namely by eating a bit of ice each day so the body has to get rid of a lot of heat to melt it. The problem was that a rather large amount of ice needed to be eaten to have any real affect.

  176. TB says:

    dbstealey says:
    December 9, 2013 at 6:00 pm
    I commented above

    “Glad TB asked. Let me educate him…”

    Now it is clear: TB is not capable of being educated. His mind is made up, and closed tighter than a drumskin. His On/Off switch has been wired around, and there is no educating him.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    You’re not going to win the argument (not winnable anyway in minds that are made up ) – do you think I thought that whatever I said would persuade you? – no, I merely give you the science as in the consensus peer-review papers. You may/may not read them as you wish. To say that I am “not capable of being educated” doesn’t scan when you have provided no evidence for me to be educated with – just hand waving assertions – and then I’m not capable of being educated? Really? Give me something to be educated with my friend.

    “Other readers understand that the onus is not on skeptics to prove a negative; the onus is entirely on the alarmist crowd, to show that CO2=cAGW. They have failed”

    Read IPCC AR5 and along with some education in climate science it should be easy enough for you to fathom the proof.

    “TB is simply the latest loser in that attempt.”

    Again I did not expect to “win” on this forum.

    “The fact is that alarmists run and hide out from the Scientific Method. All of them, from Mikey Mann, to Phil Jones, Briffa, Trenberth, and the rest of the climate alarmist charlatans. None of them will even debate any more, after having their heads handed to them in every debate they attempted [citations on request].”

    A resort to character assassination is not science – try attacking the science… with something physically sensible and peer, or if you like, “pal” reviewed.

    “No such measurements exist. There are grant-seeking papers purporting to show a connection, but they do not survive even the most rudimetary scrutiny. There are computer models purporting to show a connection, but not one model — not a single GCM — was able to predict the 17-year halt to global warming. They all failed, and failed badly.”

    The measurement are there – you can even download them (ARGO) yourself and prove yourself right if you so wish.

    GCM’s cannot predict a specific “pause period” – nothing can yet. Ensemble techniques needed to quantify error bars and sensitivity to starting conditions make that impossible (through multi-members – a single member does often show pauses/spikes however ). And no it does not matter because of the reasons I’ve posted up already (radiative imbalance and take up of heat by the oceans).
    Try to think about what can be done INSIDE a closed system – it is because of what goes in (should) = what goes out. Unfortunately it doesn’t. Yes, it merely redistributes heat INTERNALLY and does not change the overall heat content.

    “That is to be expected: if a computer model could predict the climate, then it could easily predict the much smaller universe of the stock or commodities markets, and the climate model programmers would be phenomionally wealthy almost overnight.”

    No, you talk of a truly chaotic system. Chaos in climate is constrained. You confuse with weather – that is chaotic – and NWP can only go to around 6-10 days max before chaos makes (absolute) prediction impossible. This chaos can be quantified via the ensemble technique to test sensitivity to starting conditions (small changes made then model rerun). Sometimes chaos my mean a sig lack of confidence even at the 3-4 day range.
    To return to the much smaller chaos with long-term climate – you need to think about the boiling water analogy.

    “Which of course proves conclusively that climate alarmism is complete nonsense; promoted either by lunatics, or by self-serving riders on the grant gravy train. TB, just an anonymous internet coward, falls into the former category. Otherwise, he would be trumpeting his name and accomplishments. No, TB is just someone pretending to be credible. He is not. Sisi is more credible — and she is incredible.”

    No, I await any evidence at all from you – the only graph you linked to is unintelligible and after repeated requests no enlightenment is forthcoming.

    “. No, TB is just someone pretending to be credible. He is not”

    As they say my friend..
    There’s many an inmate of the lunatic asylum that thinks they are the only sane one in there.

    BTW: I have been insulted by certain skeptics before and it doesn’t make me, either not knowledgeable or “not credible” either. There are many climate researches out there who know otherwise … I await a list of those that agree with you and a list of their papers. You know the ones that the IPCC thought overwhelmingly outnumbered the ones I agree with.

  177. mbur says:

    i may have insufficient knowledge (obviously) .am willing to learn>>> Does cold water ‘hug’ warm water as it desends through it? could you explain that in layman’s terms?

    From one of @TB links:
    “That means, while rolling down the Arctic shelf, the salty sinking water masses come across a layer of warm Atlantic water. They take part of the heat and salt in this Atlantic layer and transport it to deeper levels in the Arctic Ocean”
    http://www.awi.de/en/news/press_releases/detail/item/awi_longterm_data_reveal_increase_of_temperature_in_the_deep_greenland_see/?cHash=5c544da858444ebee05f5f7cab41d22f

    Thanks for the info.

  178. dbstealey says:

    TB says:

    “You’re not going to win the argument (not winnable anyway in minds that are made up ) – do you think I thought that whatever I said would persuade you? – no…” & etc.

    TB is wrong. He can easily persuade me by simply posting verifiable, testable evidence showing the measurable degree of temperature rise per unit of human-emitted CO2. Measurements, please. Science isn’t much without measurements: it can go no farther than a Conjecture [Conjecture, Hypothesis, Theory, Law.]

    I have been asking for that specific information here for years, but not one person has been able to provide it. Maybe TB will be the first, eh?

    Since it has been proposed that the U.S. and other developed countries should pay out $Trillions for ‘mitigation’, it is only reasonable to request stringent, measurable, verifiable and testable standards.

    As a true scientiofic skeptic, my mind is never made up. But it is a hallmark of the alarmist clique that nothing can change their minds, not even definitive proof that CO2 does not cause any measurable change in global temperature; in reality, the exact opposite is true: changes in global T cause changes in atmospheric CO2. [For empirical evidence, just ask]. There are no verifiable long term measurements that ∆CO2 causes ∆T. None at all. The alarmist crowd simply got causality reversed. ∆T causes ∆CO2; there is no long term evidence for the reverse being true.

    I trust that decisively settles the question of those whose minds are made up and closed tight, and those whose minds are open to be changed.

    As a skeptic, the following hypothesis [which I have repeatedly proposed] is in order. Simply falsify this testable hypothesis, per the Scientific Method, and I will concede the argument. The skeptics’ hypothesis is:

    At current and projected concentrations, CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere

    Be sure to identify verifiable global harm due specifically to the rise in human-emitted CO2, and also be prepared to show conclusively that more CO2 is not a net benefit to the biosphere.

    Others have tried; all have failed. Most do not even try to falsify the skeptics’ hypothesis. Conversely, the climate alarmist crowd’s CO2=cAGW conjecture has been repeatedly falsified. That debate was decided long ago. All we are left with now is nitpicking by those who insist on believing that runaway global warming and climate catastrophe, due to the rise in human CO2 emissions, is a scientific fact. It is not, and it never was.

  179. Dudley Horscroft says:

    Thanks, Werner, for your correction. The relevant paragraph should now read:

    “Assuming that the specific heat of ice is 0.5 from 0 K to 273 K, one gram of water at 373 K holds 273/2 + 80 [latent heat of melting] + 100 calories, total approximately 316.5 calories. The latent heat of vaporization is 538 calories per gram, so one gram of steam at 373 K contains 316.5 + 538 = 854.5 calories. 854.5 divided by 316.5 gives 2.6998, so the phrase should read “one contains roughly 2.7 times the heat!!” “

  180. Dudley & Werner,
    Thank you both for the calculations! I was holding my breath as I wrote, ‘twice the heat’, because that is how I remember it, when I first learn’t about the latent heat of steam a very long time ago! I just wanted to make the point, particularly to layman, that heat isn’t temperature. And water’s changes of state, play an important role in heat exchange in aspects of the hydrological cycle that are underplayed in the debate (Particularly as regards the modelling of clouds!). My personal concern is with the “non-equilibrium behavior of water vapor. (Take two masses of air, at the same temperature and pressure, with the same water content. One will have clouds, the other won’t.)” I worry that the actual water content of the atmosphere at any one time is unknown because it is dependant on condensation nuclei (CCNs). And my other interest is just how much CO2 is handled by clouds to form carbonic acid and bicarbonate ions, thus absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere in the immediate vicinity! Clouds do a lot of other complex stuff too! They shade, cool, warm, radiate, absorb, transmit, emit, convect, sublimate, generate… etc ;-)

  181. TB says:

    philincalifornia says:
    December 9, 2013 at 6:23 pm
    Forget the essays TB, please provide 1, 2 ,3, 4 or 5 bullet points showing direct evidence that anthropogenic CO2 gives a measurable change in anything associated with global climate.

    You’ve had 30 years and a 40% increase in CO2, of which not all is anthropogenic.

    Your next post will not contain the asked for bullet point(s).
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Phil:
    The “essay” you talk of was what was needed to adequately comment on assertions made up-thread. Notice I provided links/quotes to back up my statements……… not hand-waving.
    Hence the length of post.
    I have provided much direct evidence already – specifically of the radiative imbalance and the uptake of heat into the oceans. Here I give evidence for increase in CO2 being anthro.

    “You’ve had 30 years and a 40% increase in CO2, of which not all is anthropogenic “

    From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suess_effect

    “Fossil fuels such as coal and oil are made primarily of plant material that was deposited millions of years ago. This period of time equates to thousands of half-lives of 14C, so essentially all of the 14C in fossil fuels has decayed. Fossil fuels also are depleted in 13C relative to the atmosphere, because they were originally formed from living organisms. Therefore, the carbon from fossil fuels that is returned to the atmosphere through combustion is depleted in both 13C and 14C compared to atmospheric carbon dioxide.”

    Look, the ph of the oceans is increasing (getting more acidic) therefore they MUST be a SINK for CO2 and not a source…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
    And from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink

    “Oceans are at present CO2 sinks, and represent the largest active carbon sink on Earth, absorbing more than a quarter of the carbon dioxide that humans put into the air. On longer time-scales they may be both sources and sinks”

    http://chartsgraphs.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/hansen_pnas_fig.png
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CO2-Mauna-Loa_(2).png

    CO2 should be naturally stable in the atmosphere give a stable climatic regime. Ie the sinks match the sources in sequestering the naturally produced carbon. It is only when the climate is perturbed and temps rise/fall (primarily orbitally induced) that the carbon cycle switches to an overall addition of CO2 to atmosphere or vice versa.
    From: http://isnap.nd.edu/Lectures/phys20054/Industrial_Revolution_and_the_Impact_on_Global_Climate.pdf

    “A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.”

  182. TB says:

    Werner Brozek says:
    December 9, 2013 at 6:12 pm
    TB says:
    December 9, 2013 at 4:11 pm

    GHG’s require a triatomic structure and only ~1% of the atmosphere (78% N2 and 21% O2) has that property.

    Are you saying 1% of dry air is triatomic? The percentages are N2 = 78.0805, O2 = 20.9437, Ar = 0.934. So all other gases are 0.0418. Now it must be kept in mind this is dry air so at the most, 0.0418% is triatomic. However as we know, H2O is the biggest greenhouse gas and its percentage can vary from 0% to 4% so we can assume very roughly that water vapor counts for 2% of the atmosphere. If we add CO2 from 1750, we get 2.028% for H2O and CO2 combined. If we add CO2 from the present, we get 2.040% for H2O and CO2 combined. Neglecting other very trace gases, it does not seem likely that the increase from 2.028% to 2.040% would have a huge affect on climate.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    OK fair 1st point Werner
    From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_composition

    N2=78.084
    02=20.946
    Ar=0.934 or 99.656% of atm by molecule

    CO2=0.000314
    CH4=0.000002

    OK % Triatomic is 0.000316% (not including H2O)

    My rounded approximation of ~1% is wrong when looked at in thousandths.

    Still the comparison remains that a GHG forcing percentage affected by a 40% increase in the CO2 fraction is VERY significant it you first have to discount 99.6% of the atmosphere not having that effect.

    However the (ave) water content of the (whole) atmosphere is not 2% – it is

    From: http://www.ccpo.odu.edu/~lizsmith/SEES/ozone/class/Chap_2/2_2.htm

    The remaining 0.1% of the atmosphere consists of the trace constituents. These include water vapor, carbon dioxide, ozone, methane, various oxides of nitrogen, neon, and helium. They are called trace gases because they exist in small amounts.
    “Near the surface, water vapour can be as high as 2-3% of the gaseous portion of the atmosphere in a warm ground fog. (The 0.1% figure cited above for trace constituents is a global average.) In the stratosphere, the layer of the atmosphere where temperatures increase with height and vertical motions are weak, water vapour is typically a few parts water per million molecules of air by volume (ppmv).”

    And from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth

    “Water vapour accounts for roughly 0.25% of the atmosphere by mass. The concentration of water vapour varies significantly from around 10 ppmv in the coldest portions of the atmosphere to as much as 5% by volume in hot, humid air masses”

    You confuse WV in the Trop, specifically the lower portion with the total content in the whole atmosphere including in the Strat (v v dry). The GHE works greatest over arid regions – deserts and the poles where there are only trace amounts of WV.

    A 40% increase has “a huge affect on climate.”….
    Depends what you mean by huge. If you mean in historical/geological terms, yes. The rate of increase is unprecedented ( given that CO2 normal follows temp and not leads). Bare in mind though that we have seen an increase of just ~0.8C and the problem is that as the Earth’s climate/ecosystems are so finely balanced feed-backs occur quite quickly to put the system out of balance.

  183. Ulric Lyons says:

    TB says:
    December 7, 2013 at 1:28 am
    “Did anyone notice that the post-industrial global ave temp has been added to the end of a graph of historical ice-core data from the Greenland dome?”

    What I noticed was that there is less than 0.5°C variation through the last 700yrs on that graph, which is most unlikely. Compare it to this where we see a 2°C variation:
    http://www.21stcentech.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Greenland-ice-core-data.png
    What everyone is failing to notice is that the Greenland ice cores are an inverse proxy for the temperate zone. Note on this graph that temperatures drop from 1690/95 (the coldest part of Maunder) to 1725, and that they drop from 1820 (the end of Dalton) to 1830, and then rise to 1845. Most of it is going in the complete opposite direction to CET:
    http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/tcet.dat
    The warm periods in Greenland around 2300-2200 BC and 1300-1200 BC were very cold periods in the temperate zone that caused the collapse of many civilisations, the latter is erroneously referred to as the Minoan warm period, it was actually the century of their demise. The colder period in Greenland around 2700-2400 BC was the greatest period of human expansion previous to the current one, and has the most similar temperatures to the present too:
    http://snag.gy/BztF1.jpg

  184. Werner Brozek says:

    TB says:
    December 11, 2013 at 2:01 am

    I will admit that my 2% was off since I just read from:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth
    “Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1%.”
    I was not talking about the stratosphere, but just about the layer below the clouds. Of course the water vapor is much less above the clouds.

    As for the number for CO2 being 0.000314, that must be an older source since it is now 0.04%. So 99.96% is not carbon dioxide.
    You say: “The GHE works greatest over arid regions – deserts and the poles where there are only trace amounts of WV.” Did you see the latest record low temperature recorded in Antarctica? Somehow the greenhouse affect of CO2 does not scare me.

    P.S. Thank you for your comments Dudley and Scott.

  185. TB says:

    Werner Brozek says:
    December 11, 2013 at 8:02 am
    TB says:
    December 11, 2013 at 2:01 am

    I will admit that my 2% was off since I just read from:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth
    “Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1%.”
    I was not talking about the stratosphere, but just about the layer below the clouds. Of course the water vapor is much less above the clouds.

    You say: “The GHE works greatest over arid regions – deserts and the poles where there are only trace amounts of WV.” Did you see the latest record low temperature recorded in Antarctica? Somehow the greenhouse affect of CO2 does not scare me.”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    OK Werner no probs…

    However it is the whole atmosphere, not just the boundary layer wherein the GHE works and where the WV feed-back is calculated from.

    I actually nearly explained why Antarctica is different in the OP as I thought someone would chime in when they saw “poles”.
    A lesson on Antarctica – it is very, very, different from the Arctic…
    Antarctica is at an AVERAGE height of 12000ft, has maximum albedo and has air in almost constant circulation over it (aloft of katabatic drainage). Air has great difficulty in penetrating into it and bring as well.
    Yet still West Antarctica and the peripheries are warming. Making for a slight average warming.
    Sea ice is half as thick as that formed in the Arctic sea and is not enclosed by land-mass. It is free to expand out through winter and is doing so because of lower salinity from peripheral melt in summer and divergent winds blowing it further afield. In short sea-ice has more than temp involved in it formation. The frigid temps recorded in the high Dome Ridge area are no surprise – who knows what temp would have been seen in past decades if we’d had the satellites.

    This paper found a cooling in the Strat. and warming in the mid Trop. (both signatures of AGW). A surface trend for warming will be further masked by proximity to ice/snow ( radiative, sublimative cooling).
    https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/handle/10871/10642

  186. Werner Brozek says:

    TB says:
    December 11, 2013 at 9:39 am
    Thank you! I have a question for you.
    Will GISS now update their August 2010 anomaly using their usual methods?

  187. dbstealey says:

    Werner and Ulric,

    As usual, I expect endless nitpicking from TB. We’re familiar with the type around here: whenever it is pointed out that Planed Earth is decisively falsifying the catastrophic AGW conjecture, some alarmist pops up with a pal reviewed paper, or a reference to one of the always-inaccurate GCM models — or a nitpick about how water vapor is “very, very different” in one particular location. But none of that matters.

    The bottom line is this: All predictions of runaway global warming have been decisively refuted. Not only is accelerating global warming not happening, even with the rise in [harmless, beneficial] CO2, global warming has stopped.

    If there is any validity to Occam’s Razor, the simple explanations is that CO2 does not have the claimed effect. But for various reasons, the alarmist crowd is unable to accept reality. They have no concept of scientific skepticism. So they constantly nitpick with their impotent appeals to authority, while the planet ignores the rise in harmless CO2.

  188. mkelly says:

    TB says:

    December 9, 2013 at 4:11 pm

    “The LIA was not a global event is was a regional one – please provide evidence to the contrary.”
    ===================
    OK here is a link to papers about the LIA in New Zealand.

    http://www.co2science.org/articles/V7/N19/C3.php

  189. TB says:

    TB says:

    December 9, 2013 at 4:11 pm

    “The LIA was not a global event is was a regional one – please provide evidence to the contrary.”
    ===================
    OK here is a link to papers about the LIA in New Zealand.

    http://www.co2science.org/articles/V7/N19/C3.php
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Yes, there is some conflicting evidence….
    See what I mean by the below.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/324/5927/622

  190. Dudley Horscroft says:

    I thank TB for his link to the second paper – a most interesting article. First, it appears that the age measurements of the NZ glacier moraines were based on 10 Beryllium. This is formed from the cosmic ray spallation of Oxygen atoms, and the deposit of the Be atoms on exposed rock surfaces, together with similar spallation of oxygen atoms within rock boulders with the 10Be atoms remaining in situ. 10Be has a half life of 1.39M years, with a stable decay product of Boron 10. The major Be isotype is 9Be = 100% with 10Be and 7Be being quoted as “trace”. Nevertheless, I accept that the ages measured for the samples taken are accurate.

    However, the “terminal moraines are created at the edge of the greatest extent of the glacier. At this point, the debris that has been accumulated by plucking and abrasion, that has been pushed by the front edge of the ice is driven no farther, but instead is dumped in a heap.” (Wikipaedia on ‘terminal moraines’). As such an age from any particular rock may not be the actual age the terminal moraine was created, but may reflect an older age if it was exposed to the deposition/ creation of 10Be at an earlier date, and has survived on or near the surface, ready for sampling. This is evident from five samples on one moraine, ranging from 170 plus/minus 20 years ago to 530 plus/minus 50 years ago. It is more plausible, surely, that this particular moraine was created about 1830, rather than about 1480. The oldest sample, BC 2370 plus/minus 760 years, is from an outlier and only one sample was taken from that moraine.

    The article is surely on good ground when the writers argue that their results are consistent neither with the hypothesis that Southern hemisphere glaciations (as demonstrated by their research in NZ) occurred at the same time as in Europe, nor the opposite, that Southern hemisphere glaciations alternated with the European glaciations. Rather, they opine that the evidence argues for some sort of regional influence on glaciations in NZ. Given the South Island of NZ’s exposure to maritime influences, and NE/NW Europe’s exposure to continental influences, this would seem reasonable, and that anyone searching for definite evidence from NZ for a confirmation of Global Warming and CO2 relationship would have a hard time.

    Or did I misunderstand what they are saying?

  191. philjourdan says:

    @TB – you did not ask him for a complete debate on the LIA, just evidence it was world wide. He provided it. You did not prove your assertion. He disproved it.

  192. TB says:

    philjourdan says:
    December 12, 2013 at 6:35 am
    @TB – you did not ask him for a complete debate on the LIA, just evidence it was world wide. He provided it. You did not prove your assertion. He disproved it.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    “some” would of course think that Phil – and as I said there is some contradictory evidence and also “one swallow does not make a summer”. There is plenty of scope for a linked, probably ocean current related phenomenon to explain it. The fact remains that there has to be a theory the explain “any” such long-term global warming, if not caused either by the sun or orbital forcing (this needs to be in the NH due the much larger land mass there). There is none.
    Global cooling can however be caused by change in albedo – volcanic activity for instance and the time of the LIA did see some above average vulcanism
    The science does not accept that the MWP or LIA where global. Argue with the text books, not me. It’s not my place to prove anything – I just merely offer up the consensus theory here. And no more.

  193. dbstealey says:

    philjourdan,

    As I pointed out above, TB, like most alarmists, will nitpick any subject to death. It is their cognitive dissonance; not being capable of admitting that the planet periodically goes through warming and cooling episodes.

    Mountains of empirical evidence show that there was a global MWP and LIA. But since accepting that fact destroys the basic premise of the alarmist clique, they simply cannot admit to it. Sad, really.

  194. philjourdan says:

    @TB – No, all would. Your exchange was not the sum total of a debate. You made a simple demand – provide ANY evidence. He did. He did not provide all the evidence. He did not prove that the LIA was world wide. He did provide ANY evidence that it was.

    So he proved you wrong. Perhaps you meant to ask him to PROVE the LIA was World wide. But you did not. If you had demanded THAT point, his response would have been inadequate.

    Either learn to ask what you mean, or accept that what you ask is what you get.

  195. philjourdan says:

    @dbstealey – I know. But they try to trip you up with semantics and bait and switch. While my technical knowledge of the subject pales in comparison to many here, I have the good fortune to be married to a lady who is in the legal profession. So I have been trained to watch for the semantic switches and the bait and switch. And I call them out on it.

  196. TB says:

    philjourdan says:
    December 12, 2013 at 6:35 am
    @TB – you did not ask him for a complete debate on the LIA, just evidence it was world wide. He provided it. You did not prove your assertion. He disproved it.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I accept that there is some evidence that warm/cold periods around the time of the MWP and LIA in the SH. (I did know of some – but had not researched).

    I apologise therefore for not giving credit for that.

  197. philjourdan says:

    @TB – You are an honest man. Thank you.

  198. TB says:

    philjourdan says:
    December 13, 2013 at 9:54 am
    @TB – You are an honest man. Thank you.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    And thank-you Phil for acknowledging my admission.

    Look, I make take the opposite view than most on here but I do not seek to bullshit may way along.

    If I am wrong I hope I will admit it again in the future.
    I am on here to learn as well as you.

  199. Brian H says:

    Cyrus;
    +1

Comments are closed.