I’ll be offline most of this weekend, as I got virtually no work done for myself this week thanks to the BEST “PR before peer review shenanigans” and the compliant cadre of barking media lapdogs that followed with tails-a-wagging looking for a sound bite.
Discuss topics on science, weather climate, etc here quietly amongst yourselves. don’t make me come back here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Vukcevic
Important point here is that it precedes movements of the SST by 11 years
Any cyclic forcing will precede the SST by a little less than 1/4 of the cycle time (15 yrs in this case) so nothing strange about that, and it should not concern the AGW experts because they know the heat capacity of sea water.
Your precursor will only be interesting after you have told us what it is.
R. Gates
http://geology.er.usgs.gov/eespteam/prism/products/agu3.pdf
So, 3C warmer means Sahara 1/3-1/2 the size of today, deserts of Australia almost gone, Arabian desert gone, grassland or forest along the arctic siberian coast. Not quite what the scaremongers are telling us … Interesting read indeed. And from the IPCC : “5°C to 10°C increases over the northern North Atlantic”, perfect.
AAS anabolic steroid is delightful short term. Testosterone is allowed by Cholesterol.
1959 The Clovers ‘Love Potion #9’. song describes a man seeking help finding love, so he talks to a Gypsy, who determines through palm reading that he needs “love potion number 9”. The potion causes him to fall in love with everything he sees, kissing whatever is in front of him, eventually kissing a cop on the corner, who breaks his bottle of love potion.
If the King advocates the utopian steroid, because he is the king, a Judas Goat becomes the norm on the street. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Judasgoat.jpg
The slumber of reality – 8th Air Force painted the lead Judas Bomber with individual psychedelic colors in stripes, checkers, or polka dots, enabling easy recognition. War is hell. Gore is that hell. Science must not enter such faith.
Debt that has no-equal is far more lethal to humanity than any level of a natural product. Too much CO2 will by its chemistry solve any conceived problem in a single black plague. Before some level is reached, the weeding out of excess begins. If a combination of governments fail all at one time, the utilization of ICBMs will never happen as these mechanical devises require an extensive AAS cadre of technicians/maintenance. Now, testicle sized Nukes are a completely different game plan. Cities beware? Every two bit war lord that sequesters such, will at least once exhibit too much testosterone.
lgl says:
October 23, 2011 at 6:21 am
R. Gates
it seems 3C of warming is very reasonable with a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 levels
or… it seems a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 levels is very reasonable with a 3C warming.
———
Then you’d better have a forcing that can explain that warming. Either way, a 3C warmer Earth is a very different Earth than we have seen during the Holocene. Does that mean “catastrophically” different? I’m not convinced, but it would be prudent to at least consider the full range of potential changes and how we might need to adapt.
R. Gates says:
October 23, 2011 at 5:32 am
CO2 is far more well mixed in the atmosphere than oil would be in water, and while it is true that CO2 is more dense than air and if there was absolutely no wind and constant churning of the atmosphere CO2 would separate out from air and settle to the ground, that’s not the planet we happen to live on…i..e. the container is constantly being stirred.
——————–
RG, I think, for once, you are wrong. CO2 would not separate out, even without stirring. Gases behave as if other gases are not there, due to the molecules being so sparse. This is another reason the “390ppm can’t be significant” meme is rubbish. It is actually the partial pressure of CO2, i.e. the amount of CO2, that matters. The fact that there area lot of other, non-GH gases in the atmosphere is irrelevant.
http://library.thinkquest.org/10429/low/gaslaws/gaslaws.htm
Dirk H,
Reasonable question.
From what I’ve read, we haven’t seen this happen in the past ( i.e., a runaway feedback loop involving increasing atmospheric temperature and increasing water vapor in the atmosphere ) because of various negative feedbacks, and because a constant positive forcing of sufficient strength (such as increasing amounts of atmospheric CO2) were lacking. As the Earth warms because of increasing CO2, the increasing atmospheric water vapor will have a multiplier effect, causing extra warming. There will be other multipliers, too, such as the loss of albedo through the loss of glaciers and the shrinking of ice caps, and the release of methane from now frozen organic matter.
But, I don’t think the basic physics is in dispute: water vapor is a greenhouse gas, and a warmer atmosphere will hold more water vapor.
John B says: October 22, 2011 at 4:28 pm
@Lucy, I clicked on your name. To answer Otter’s question, very little peer-reviewed support and what there is comes from the few, well-known contrarians. But it is an excellent, all-in-one-place resource for all the usual “skeptic” talking points. I certainly wouldn’t send anyone there for a science education 🙂
Well well well. Nice typical alarmist behaviour John B. Ruffians’ ploy. Gagging. Denial of Witness. “The Debate Is Over”. “I’ve looked and you don’t even need to look. Believe me.”
The fact that there are few well-known peer-reviewed “contrarians”, is a horrible indication of the advanced state of corruption in Climate Science. It doesn’t necessarily take long for corruption to take hold – cast your memory back over history.
And I can trump your argument. There are a lot of references to peer-reviewed material, unlike what you claim. But they are not stacked quite so in-your-face as at Skeptical Science. That’s because I refer to a higher authority than peer-review, I refer in effect to “Nullius In Verba” – the motto of the Royal Society – the foundation of all true science, and the missing element in “consensus” climate science. I’ve written primarily from my own internalized understanding of Climate Science as a whole, though the references and leads to peer-reviewed material are there too. It’s precisely this wholistic understanding that’s missing, that allows “divide and rule”.
And, John B, you may not have read me carefully enough to realize that I too was once an ardent warmist, who got persuaded otherwise purely by the science. I would be perfectly happy to send people to you for part of their science education – in addition to sending people to my own pages. If you look more carefully at my stuff, you will see RealClimate and other warmist websites linked-to. OTOH, if you go to RealClimate, you will find NO links to skeptics websites. Zilch. Nada.
Jesse Fell says:
October 23, 2011 at 8:38 am
“From what I’ve read, we haven’t seen this happen in the past ( i.e., a runaway feedback loop involving increasing atmospheric temperature and increasing water vapor in the atmosphere ) because of various negative feedbacks, and because a constant positive forcing of sufficient strength (such as increasing amounts of atmospheric CO2) were lacking. As the Earth warms because of increasing CO2, the increasing atmospheric water vapor will have a multiplier effect, causing extra warming.”
Water vapour content is highly variable. Shouldn’t the conditions for this runaway feedback already be met at some places, some time of the year? Whether the temperature comes about due to CO2 or due to normal solar forcing doesn’t matter.
DirkH says:
October 23, 2011 at 6:27 am
“The tropospheric hot spot, that’s a critical one. Santer tricked around a lot to ‘find’ that; Jo Nova has written a lot about that; see http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/this-is-90-certainty-really-yet-another-paper-shows-the-hot-spot-is-missing/comment-page-1/#comment-561555
and see also this comment http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/12/our-sustainable-mirth/#comment-765890 ‘when even Dr.Syukuro Manabe, the godfather of climate modeling, now agrees with Fred Singer that it’s not there (see Fu, 2011) and that climate models overstate the warming by 2 to 4 times.
‘”
No, item #9 on the list at http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html isn’t about the model-predicted equatorial hot spot that hasn’t been found; it’s about global measurements of tropopause height.
Can you show me a refutation of what item 9 is actually about (measurements of tropopause height), or cite a comprehensive theory that explains items 1-10 better than AGW claims to do?
@jesse, greenhouse gas is physical nonsense since real greenhouse and supposed scattered radiation are totally different things. It is like marking someone “enemy of the workers and peasants” in Soviet Russia. Second, there is no increase, rather decrease of water vapor in stratosphere, totally in contrary with models, so the real world is again more complicated than “high school physics”. Third, nobody yet proved that the back scattered radiation from molecules has some substantial effect on the surface temperature, since per each “anthropogenic” CO2 molecule there are ten thousand N2/O2 molecules radiating IR downwards as well, according to their temperature. IR is more sign that the atmosphere has some above zero temperature. Subtract the heat capacity of oceans and bulk atmosphere and you get Mars – with 6,000ppm of CO2 and theoretical and practical temperature is the same, 210K.
Lucy Skywalker says:
October 23, 2011 at 9:09 am
“Well well well. Nice typical alarmist behaviour John B. Ruffians’ ploy. Gagging. Denial of Witness. “The Debate Is Over”. “I’ve looked and you don’t even need to look. Believe me.””
________________
I’m sure John B isn’t saying that he is 100% sure that everything in your website is wrong or that he wants to gag, deny witness or otherwise stifle inquiry. What he is getting at is that peer-reviewed scientific results are an important part of the modern scientific process, and that having evidence that is based in the modern scientific process is important. He is skeptical of your website because of that. Slap me if I am wrong on any of this, John B.
I think, what some would call for is an overhaul or an improvement of your argument in your website. Do an exhaustive search for all the peer-reviewed papers that you feel best represent the science; maybe put them in a list. Get rid of any accusations or statements that don’t have a good piece of evidence associated with them. This may be another task to do, but science does not reward inaction. Also, my comment would be to get rid of that picture with the “Daily Express” tabloid headline. Not too many people put faith in what tabloids say, haha.
Not sure I buy these Las Vegas tail-gate parties where people watch the nuclear bombs going off from a safe distance. Or that these detonations explain the strange weather in Nevada.
In the late 1980s a group of us were invited to the Nevada Test Site to see the area where the underground testing was taking place. They did have two detonations where the surface material was ejected during the explosion (even though these were both underground as well). We spent 20 minutes near the edge of one crater, enough for a year’s radiation exposure. The tests were attempted to demonstrate atomic bombs as a means for large excavations. Very effective with the exception of the radioactive material left behind which would preclude human use for several thousand years. Dang.
Tail-gate parties watching above ground atomic detonations? This would explain most of the warming in the latter part of the past century. If it were only true.
And now we are told that America, Australia, Britain and New Zealand are embracing the carbon tax or cap and trade, not because their elected leaders are smart like hammers, but because it is a concerted effort to address the uncontrolled growth of China and India. Apparently, if you don’t believe this then you don’t know much about international diplomatic negotiations. Just so I get this right, the US is giving up producing oil, mining minerals, manufacturing etc all to China as part of a carefully planned international diplomatic negotiations to get China to reduce its CO2 emissions? And Australia, an exporting juggernaut which sends massive quantities of coal and iron ore to Asian countries and has recently introduced a carbon tax on its own people, has done this because it is engaging in international diplomatic negotiations with the US and other countries in an attempt to convince the emerging countries including China and India to reduce their CO2 emissions?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…
Richard B. Woods says:
October 23, 2011 at 9:16 am
“No, item #9 on the list at http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html isn’t about the model-predicted equatorial hot spot that hasn’t been found; it’s about global measurements of tropopause height.
Can you show me a refutation of what item 9 is actually about (measurements of tropopause height), or cite a comprehensive theory that explains items 1-10 better than AGW claims to do?”
Sorry, i misread it. But shouldn’t any warming, whether caused by antropogenic CO2 or by other causes, lead to an increase in the height of the tropopause?
Andrew Harding says:
October 23, 2011 at 3:51 am
“Otter17: You seem to have stirred up a hornet’s nest with what I think is a sensible question.”
____________
Hey, thanks Andrew. Sensible questions that get one’s intellect jostled a bit are excellent exercises once in a while. It was a bit hairy responding to so many, but I had time to kill with my sprained knee, haha.
The Strong snake bite – will WUWT be the cure?
I disliked history at school, but whether that was due to my indolence or that of the teacher is debateable. However, fast-forward half a century, and it is obvious to even this historically ignorant student, that history does play a very important role in any education. “Learn from your mistakes”, we have been told, and yet most of us ignore what has happened in the past, sometimes with dire consequences.
Every major country on this planet appears to have an urgent need to rattle its sabre to others that are weaker, but although the morals of these more powerful nationalities may be offended, the dissipation of life and wealth is usually exhausted in a cloud of obnoxious smoke. This state of affairs has been happening for centuries, and it should be concluded that we pay little heed to our expensive mistakes, and, indeed, to our history.
Most political upheavals are generated by a single person, and, given the right circumstances, time and finance, can lead to some horrific situations for many folks in the so-called third world.
We are now faced with another despot, who is more worldly-wise than any before him, who has accrued wealth by devious means, and thus with some well-paid assistance from academia, managed to infiltrate the largely ignorant minds of the western world regarding anthropogenic global warming. This person’s name is Maurice Strong, whose obsession with control is possibly paranoiac.
Strong’s success is underpinned by strategic use of propaganda, especially to younger people via a generation of teachers who have been indoctrinated via their various training colleges. This is considerable cause for concern, but more importantly, a world-wide block was made on main-stream media some years ago, which although a few brave-hearted editors, publishers and owners ignored, it was usually to their cost.
The only means of communication that cannot be stymied with regard to this particular matter, or to any other come to that, is by the marvellous, international web, and it is for such efforts of WUWT, GWPF, JoNova, the Hill, et al that we must be truly thankful for, in order that hopefully, some sense will be discerned by one or more politicians, and that we can rid this blue planet of its green shackles. (Apologies, Vaclav.)
Chris
otter17 says:
October 23, 2011 at 9:51 am
Lucy Skywalker says:
October 23, 2011 at 9:09 am
“Well well well. Nice typical alarmist behaviour John B. Ruffians’ ploy. Gagging. Denial of Witness. “The Debate Is Over”. “I’ve looked and you don’t even need to look. Believe me.””
________________
I’m sure John B isn’t saying that he is 100% sure that everything in your website is wrong or that he wants to gag, deny witness or otherwise stifle inquiry. What he is getting at is that peer-reviewed scientific results are an important part of the modern scientific process, and that having evidence that is based in the modern scientific process is important. He is skeptical of your website because of that. Slap me if I am wrong on any of this, John B.
I think, what some would call for is an overhaul or an improvement of your argument in your website. Do an exhaustive search for all the peer-reviewed papers that you feel best represent the science; maybe put them in a list. Get rid of any accusations or statements that don’t have a good piece of evidence associated with them. This may be another task to do, but science does not reward inaction. Also, my comment would be to get rid of that picture with the “Daily Express” tabloid headline. Not too many people put faith in what tabloids say, haha.
————–
That’s about right. But the reason you will never see a fully peer-review supported “skeptic” site is that the peer-reviewed literature overwhelmingly supports the mainstream view. Hence, “skeptics” invoke conspiracy theories and talk about “pal review”, except when applied to the handful of papers that support their personal views, in which case peer review is taken to mean that those papers are unassailable.
Hi all —
We just got back from our vacation in South Korea. Over there, they have gone green in a big way. All the restaurants have gone to CFLs — didn’t see on incandescent bulb in even the smallest restaurant. On one of the smaller bus tours (Namsan Park/Tower), at the end of the tour the bus drivers jump out and connect a giant electrical cord to an electrical charging station (the buses are electrically powered, but the route is only about 5 miles).
Many of the neighborhood parks also have huge solar-cell arrays. The park near where we stayed also had a large LED display showing power output, and had some exercise equipment that would show how much electricity and CO2 you generated when you used it.
How is this possible? Well, it appears the government taxes the daylights out of the populace. And our restaurant bills had a hefty 10% value-added tax added to the bill.
Koreans also have socialized health care — $10,000 per family per year, but understand it’s pretty good.
The people all seem pretty happy — seems the government minimally regulates business, so it is easy to make money. The biggest protest when I was over there — the small “chop-house” owners in downtown Seoul, who cater to the business crowd during lunch were protesting the fees charged by the credit-card companies — claim they are making it difficult to profit.
From my past brief perusal, I think Lucy’s site is OK and a good effort to bring some general points to bear. Certainly, if we consider that the single solitary basis for good science is skepticism before acceptance – then the questioning/querying type presentation is entirely appropriate. It’s not right ’til it’s proven – and until that point everyone (who is a scientist) should be skeptical and keep questioning – science is not done by concensus.
As for the r’equirement’ for peer reviewed references – I’d ask the doubters to comment on how many NON peer reviewed stuff was included in IPCC’s AR4 !!! But of course, Lucys site is just for casual observers and is Sooooo important that it must be above reproach! However, by contrast the IPCC machinations – which are purported to be ‘required’ reading for the ENTIRE fecking world are perfectly at liberty to use non peer reviewed and other NGO type references!! I’d suggest you start to look at the so called ‘settled science’ first!…..
Urgent warning to the Canadians:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/23/us-warming-idUSTRE79M2L720111023?feedType=RSS&feedName=scienceNews&rpc=22&sp=true
“Global temperature rise could exceed “safe” levels of two degrees Celsius in some parts of the world in many of our lifetimes if greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase, two research papers published in the journal Nature warned.”
“”Large parts of Eurasia, North Africa and Canada could potentially experience individual five-year average temperatures that exceed the 2 degree Celsius threshold by 2030 — a timescale that is not so distant,” the paper said.”
They don’t mention Minnesota but I fear the worst for them.
Jurajv,
I had never heard that the amount of water vapor in the stratosphere was part of the issue — I’ve always read that it is amount of water vapor in the troposphere that is significant.
You write: “Nobody yet proved that the back scattered radiation from molecules has some substantial effect on the surface temperature.” I’ve read that the greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier (1763 – 1830), and that Fourier’s discovery was confirmed and elaborated by subsequent researchers, such as John Tyndall (1820 – 1893) , Svante Arrhenius (1858 -1927), G.N. Plass (1920 -2004), and a host of modern researchers. Their fundamental papers are reprinted in an anthology titled “The Warming Papers,”, ed. David Archer. If you know of publications that overturn the work of these scientists, I would be glad to hear about it.
Fourier’s discovery was that CO2 absorbs (rather than blocks) IR, warming in the process; and that the more it warms, the more IR it emits itself, in all directions — one of those directions being down. This would necessarily warm the surface of the Earth; in fact, scientists believe that the surface of the Earth receives more heat energy from the atmosphere than from the sun directly.
And, I was never read a refutation of what for decades has been called “the natural greenhouse effect” — the warming effect of the greenhouse gases that occur in the atmosphere naturally. The usual calculation is that without these naturally occurring gases, the surface temperature of the Earth would be around zero degrees fahrenheit — or something in that uncomfortable neighborhood.
Lucy Skywalker,
Don’t let the execrable troll John B get to you. He is invariably wrong, as you pointed out in your correction. You have an amazingly thorough and well documented site with loads of peer reviewed papers, charts and studies refuting the CAGW nonsense.
The alarmist contingent argues incessantly, but the one true test of whether they are right or wrong is this.
The planet itself falsifies their ridiculous CO2 conjecture, and there’s not a damn thing they can do about the fact that the real world is making fools of the True Believers and their non-existent “carbon” threat.
otter17 says: —
Otter you post the REALLY MISLEADING CO2 “abosorption experiment, which I’ve commented on before.
If you check, you will find a pronounced CO2 absorption peak at 900 nanometers. This compares with the 6000 nanometer peaks and 12000 nanometer peaks which are the IMPORTANT RADIATIVE EXCHANGE PEAKS for atmospheric physics. THE FLAME in the demonstration you post generates a emission peak at 900 nanometers, because IT IS EXCITED CO2. Bully for you, you’ve intented an IR Spectrometer. The “infra red camera” is actually sensitive to only NEAR infra-red, NOT “far infra red”. What I would be fascinated by would be to find the RE-EMISSION (which happens!) in this system in the 6000 and 12000 nanometer range. (And the fact that, NO, not all of said far IR is contained in this system.)
Now, since I’ve given you the PRECISE DETAILS TO SHOW THAT THIS DEMONSTRATION IS MEANINGLESS…what part of “intellectual dishonesty” do you file this under? Not QUITE as deliberately devious as Al Gore’s demo, but really on the same level.
Better luck next time. FAIL.
Max
John B says:
October 23, 2011 at 8:31 am
R. Gates says:
October 23, 2011 at 5:32 am
CO2 is far more well mixed in the atmosphere than oil would be in water, and while it is true that CO2 is more dense than air and if there was absolutely no wind and constant churning of the atmosphere CO2 would separate out from air and settle to the ground, that’s not the planet we happen to live on…i..e. the container is constantly being stirred.
——————–
RG, I think, for once, you are wrong. CO2 would not separate out, even without stirring. Gases behave as if other gases are not there, due to the molecules being so sparse. This is another reason the “390ppm can’t be significant” meme is rubbish. It is actually the partial pressure of CO2, i.e. the amount of CO2, that matters. The fact that there area lot of other, non-GH gases in the atmosphere is irrelevant.
———
Thanks for the explanation. I certainly know that CO2 is well mixed, and the notion that is an insignificant trace gas is garbage, but now I can research a bit more about why
Interesting post from Judy Curry’s site: (by me:)
There is a common narrative in the breathless, orchestrated press accounts of the BEST results: Climate skeptics do not believe that the World has been warming. The BEST results confirm what everybody else (the smart people) already knew; the World has been warming. The Global Warming debate that was over, is over once again. The science that was settled, is settled again. The team has a new convert and hero, Dr. Richard Muller.
But this media blitz is hyperventilating BS propaganda. Most climate skeptics know that the World has warmed in recent history. And most of those who agree that there has been warming believe that some of that warming is the result of radiative forcing from anthropogenic CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.
Richard Muller, the orchestra leader/former skeptic, sets up the straw man:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348.html#printMode
“The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism
There were good reasons for doubt, until now.”
Dr. Muller goes on to lay out the straw man version of the significant objections of the skeptics, which were the basis for their erroneous disbelief of the team’s story on AGW. Bad surface stations, and UHI effect. Well, he promptly lays those issues to rest with his as yet non-peer-reviewed study results. The problem is, those aren’t really the most significant objections of the skeptics, and he really did not lay them to rest. See Anthony Watts on the surface stations issue:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/21/best-what-i-agree-with-and-what-i-disagree-with-plus-a-call-for-additional-transparency-to-preven-pal-review/#more-49721
See William Briggs reaction:
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/
Briggs sums it up succinctly:
“His conclusion is that “Global warming is real.” He hopes that “Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate.”
But this blog, and all of the scientists who are critics, have agreed with this conclusion since this beginning. There simply is no debate on this question. There are no tempers to cool.
There has been, and still is, a vigorous disputation on the size of the warming and our confidence on this magnitude of warming. And Muller forgets that there has been a much more contentious argumentation about why the temperature has increased (in some places and cooled in others).
Just one thing about the first point of contention. If you look, say, at the year 1945 and compare it to the year 2010, you find warming of a certain size. But if you begin at 1940, just five years earlier, you find much less warming. Temperature increases (or decreases) are always relative to something (this is a point of logic, not physics). The choice of the comparator is arbitrary and subjective. Because of this, it is possible, and it has oft occurred, that someone wanting to stress the size of the increase will choose a comparator that best makes his case. Muller doesn’t state in his editorial what his comparator is; or why he has chosen just one.
However, we can afford to be as generous as Muller when he invited skepticism and allow that his statistical results are far more certain than any prior analysis. This merely brings us to the big question. As to that, Muller admits:
How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.
From that he insists, “you should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer.” Somebody has to remind Mr Muller that skeptics aren’t skeptical of that some warming (and some cooling) has occurred. We are skeptics about our ability to explain this warming (and cooling), and to predict skillfully future warming (and cooling).
The fallacy—and it is a fallacy Mr Muller commits—is to suppose that because many climatologists have offered one theory for the observed warming (and cooling), and that, at least for the moment, they cannot think of one better, that therefore their theory is true. Thus, I remain skeptical.”
Smokey says:
October 23, 2011 at 11:29 am
Lucy Skywalker,
Don’t let the execrable troll John B get to you. He is invariably wrong, as you pointed out in your correction. You have an amazingly thorough and well documented site with loads of peer reviewed papers, charts and studies refuting the CAGW nonsense.
The alarmist contingent argues incessantly, but the one true test of whether they are right or wrong is this.
The planet itself falsifies their ridiculous CO2 conjecture, and there’s not a damn thing they can do about the fact that the real world is making fools of the True Believers and their non-existent “carbon” threat.
—————
Smokey, tell me this: how can 10 years or so of relatively flat temperatures be “refuting the CAGW nonsense” when 30+ years of declining Arctic sea ice is regularly cited here as being far too short a time span to be significant?
And if/when the energy imbalance re-emerges as surface warming and your cherry picked charts become obviously nonsense, will you admit you were wrong?