Taking a break, it has been an exhausting week. Postings resume Monday.
Be sure to vote in the August ARCUS sea ice forecast poll.
Taking a break, it has been an exhausting week. Postings resume Monday.
Be sure to vote in the August ARCUS sea ice forecast poll.
Need to know: where are some photos of Weepy Bill McKibben weeping ?
Smokey says: “cms, CO2 lags temperature on all time scales, from months to hundreds of millennia. Thanks for providing additional evidence.”
http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/879/co2lagkz2.png
What does “CO2 change from year before moved back 5 months” mean? If this is CO2 from the year before, then it leads temperature, the opposite of what you say. As wiggle-matching goes, this is rather impressive, if we could actually see the chart, and if it didn’t contradict cms.
Mr. Lynn, I could submit a “forceful” rejoinder to Mann, but it probably would not be printed for the sake of the children :^)
Lucy Skywalker says:
August 4, 2012 at 2:35 pm
Paul Vaughan
I’m sure you would stand a lot more chance of support if you could explain what the h*ck your fascinating graphs are about, in common ordinary English. They really do look fascinating but you keep shooting yourself in the foot with cryptic comments.
I am aware that certain topics here get more or less short-changed,….
_________________________
I agree with you Lucy. I wish Paul would put up a thread on his work.
By all means go into LOD (Length of Day) SST (Sea Surface Temperature) ENSO, D-O (Dansgaard-Oeschger )/Bond (~1470 year) Event cycles, the 205 year de Vries cycle…
But do stay away from the Jupiter-Earth-Venus tidal cycles at this time. It detracts from the rest of your work.
mfo @ur momisugly August 5, 2012 at 3:36 pm
Good luck to NASA and the Curiosity mission. NASA doing what it does best.
Yes, NASA should concetrate on Aerospace .. leave the Earth thingy to NOAA.
Jan P Perlwitz says:
August 5, 2012 at 2:21 pm
Climate scientists are allowed to be personally attacked, to be defamed, smeared, being called liars and fraudsters on this blog thread after thread
>>>>>>>>>>>>
What word would you use to describe a scientist that insists that the world is coming to an end, but refuses to disclose to you how he knows while at the same time demanding that you take a great deal of money out of the pockets of people world wide to prevent it?
What adjectives would leap to mind if you then discovered that his predictions are predicated upon a computer program that searches the data for hockey stick shaped trends and emphasizes it over all other data?
In what manner would you descrive the behaviour of he and his colleague who, having found that their proxy data shows a decline in temperature rather than an increase, solve the problem by a “trick” to “hide the decline”?
For another researcher who published a hockey stick graph that turned out to be weighted 50% to a single tree that didn’t even match local weather records, could you suggest some suitable descriptors?
What is your view on freedom of speech? Are you supportive of a scientist who demands that people who disagree with him be jailed? Who has made prediction after prediction that failed miserably, but still demands that he be believed without question?
Two commenters were recently banned at WUWT for incessant assertions that the GHE did not exist at all. We’re policing our own here in skepticland.
How about you do the same on your side? If you did, you might find less invective hurled your way.
.
David A. Evans, you wrote:
I’m not aware that the Freedom of Information Act gives anyone the right to request from any climate scientist to provide proof of his/her assertions. The FOIA give the right to request certain information, which is documented and archived, from a federal agency, if the climate scientist works for this agency:
http://www.foia.gov/about.html
What does this have to do with what I said, anyway?
And probably not as incidentally, you, and actually you, have already been answered this:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
There is not just one paper. There is a whole bunch of papers that provide the evidence for different aspects of the causal link between carbon dioxide in atmosphere and temperature as effect.
What exactly are you saying hasn’t been proven? That CO2 is a radiatively active gas, which absorbs and emits longwave radiation? That it changes the radiation and energy balance in the atmosphere and at the surface, because it is radiatively active? Or that the change in the energy balance due to CO2 causes a change in the temperature distribution in the atmosphere and in the other climate components, e.g., the oceans?
Whowever it was in that Jazz thingy, I used to play trumpet … I blew and I blew and I blew and I still sucked. Really funny.
The only thing that could become tumescent in that overblown story on Not A Hurricane is me, ‘cos she’s cute and talks up a storm.
Lucy, Gail:
I think I’ve found a video of Paul Vaughn.
[Just teasing, Paul ☺]
@davidmhoffer:
I see in your comment only a list of assertions w/o any evidence or proof of sources. These are certainly some of the talking points that you tell each other in your false skeptic universe to confirm each other, about all the evil climate scientists and their sinister doings.
Jan P Perlwitz says:
August 5, 2012 at 6:19 pm
@davidmhoffer:
I see in your comment only a list of assertions w/o any evidence or proof of sources. These are certainly some of the talking points that you tell each other in your false skeptic universe to confirm each other, about all the evil climate scientists and their sinister doings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The in depth analysis to substantiate these assertions is available in the content on this blog, a few simple searches will turn it up for you to read for yourself complete with the details you demand. You can also find corroborating materal at climateaudit. Those of us who are regulars have already read these articles, and the debates that followed them in which the accusations were for the most part defended strenuously. Read them for yourself.
We’ve read also the climategate emails which no matter how you try and justify them, should make anyone who believes that there should be integrity in science ill just to read them.
We’ve drawn our conclusions based on the information available, and the issues I alluded to are common knowledge. All you need do to educate yourself is read the available material and corroborate it independantly yourself. You may be surprised at what you find.
But my expectation is that you won’t be surprised at all, because you just won’t do it.
Really, Perlwitz, you’re such a noob. Spend some time reading the WUWT archives. You will find that your arguments have been repeatedly addressed and dispensed with.
It gets tedious trying to educate someone with such a closed mind. No doubt that is the result of feeding at the public trough for so many years. You start to believe the runaway global warming nonsense you’re constantly emitting.
Lucy Skywalker – loved the starlings – saw a similar captivating view from the Palatine hill in Rome a few years ago – absolutely marvellous. Thanks too for the other hilarious posts – loved the jazz video. We need to laugh more and not just at the warmists. My contribution below for all those like me who love hydrocarbons, CO2 and water vapour.
Smokey wrote:
using this link http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/879/co2lagkz2.png for the time scale of months.
If one looks at the description of the figure, one can see it doesn’t show the time-series of the CO2-level, but the time series of the year-to-year change of the CO2 level. The long-term trend in the CO2 has been removed in the figure due to this method. The figure doesn’t show how CO2 lags the temperature. Instead, it shows that the yearly CO2 change lags the temperature.
That there was a close correlation between CO2 and temperature, CO2 always lagging temperature is valid for Smokey, unless it isn’t. When it is convenient for Smokey, something else is valid for him, as in this comment:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/29/headlines-over-solar-cycle-25-and-potential-cooling/#comment-879463
where he uses following figure.
http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/GlobalTroposphereTemperaturesAverage.jpg
CO2 goes up, but “no warming since 1997” according to Smokey. Wasn’t the CO2 supposed to follow the temperature trend in recent decades, as Smokey asserted in this thread here?
What are people called again who are holding to contradicting views at the same time?
lrdperfect says: @ur momisugly August 4, 2012 at 9:41 pm
…..If any warming is going on, it is part of a natural climate cycle we do not yet fully understand. Hansen’s latest crap report calling for a carbon tax obviously is just an effort to continually enrich the AGW “scientists” who have no qualms about changing data to fit their best interests…..
===============================
Did anyone else take note of this bribe in the Ged Davis Climategate e-mail?
(Sustainable is the code word for Agenda 21)
— R&D approaches two percent of GDP…. In 2011 World GDP was $69.97 Trillion US so that would be 1.4 trillion US dollars aimed at R&D instead of the approximately one trillion dollars spent in 2010. Having about half again as much money available for R&D is going to be very appealing to academics who have to fight tooth and nail for grant money and secretly think Society is too closed fisted when it comes to THEIR pet projects.
That promise has come through too.
That e-mail was from February, 1998
So it looks like the Movers & Shakers of the world made good on their promise to the Research Types. Push our agenda (Agenda 21) and we will reward you well.
Perlwitz doesn’t like the chart I linked to, so here is one with a little longer baseline [27 years]. As we see, it does not reflect annual CO2 changes. But it does show conclusively that CO2 lags temperature. No getting around it. And that fact alone debunks the CO2=CAGW fantasy.
Perlwitz also doesn’t like the Shaw chart [he has to be the unhappiest commenter here]. So to make him happy I’ll post the Hadcrut3 chart. It won’t make him happy. But it further debunks the CO2=CAGW belief system.
Empirical evidence shows that the planet itself is falsifying the CO2=CAGW conjecture. Who should we believe, someone with both front feet in the public trough? Or Planet Earth?
@davidmhoffer:
I do not think so. Just because you say so that this all could be found here? Your assertion with respect to that means nothing to me. I have read in this blog long enough to know how low the standards are here, what is accepted by the crowd as “evidence” for the alleged validity of assertions here, as long as it seems to confirm the views of the crowd. This blog lacks any objectivity with respect to the assertions listed by you. There is no trust whatsoever from my side in anything that is published here. And I’m not going on a wild goose chase. Either you have evidence for your assertions that comes from more objective sources than the mentioned ones, or you don’t have any.
Lucy Skywalker says:
August 5, 2012 at 1:56 am
….An interesting and neutral article from Grauniad???? WUWT?
_________________________
Lucy here is another one.
Heist of the century: university corruption and the financial crisis Monday 21 May 2012
University corruption used in a Grauniad title??? I think I am going to faint!
Kelvin Vaughan says:
August 5, 2012 at 7:16 am
LazyTeenager says:
August 5, 2012 at 5:15 am
Kelvin Vaughan on August 5, 2012 at 3:00 am
I have a cunning plan. If everyone in the world jumps up and down at noon zulu it will move the Earth away from the Sun and cool us down.
———–
I assume you are joking since it neither works in practice nor in principle,
Have you tried then?
_______________________
We did and got the school bus up on two wheels….
LOL
I predicted that Perlwitz would choose not to do the reading suggested, and he quickly proved my prediction to be correct. And it is SO hard to find these things…. because the results of a congressional investigation are really hard to look up. The “most powerful tree in the world” comment on CA is SO hard to find. Not to mention that the analysis is done in excutiating detail. As for the “hide the decline” debacle, there are so many instances on the internet that go into microscopic detail that one runs into them when looking for something else. If someone else wants to post links, by all means. I’ve just finished a debate with a sanctimonious pompous arrogant twit on another thread, and he didn’t bother to read a single one of them. Even triumphantly posted arguments that, had he read them, he would have realized were already refuted by the information and links I’d posted already. I’ve not interest in helping those determined to wallow in their own ignorance to do their own homework. When I started my own personal research in the questions regarding climate science, all I got was ignorance and snark to my questions. The tougher the question, the more ignorant and snarky. So I struggled through AR4 WG1 on my own, going nuts trying to verify all the vague assertions by running down the reference papers, a great number of which were behind paywalls at the time.
I did my homework Dr Perlwitz, and I did it without and help from you and your ilk. When I reached out, you pi$$ed all over me. So now I’ve told you WHAT to look for and I’ve told you WHERE to look for it. If you cannot get off your lazy butt and look into it yourself like I looked into all of the work of those I now accuse, that’s your problem, not mine.
H.R. says:
August 5, 2012 at 12:11 pm
As for the Arctic rowers; some days you get the Arctic and some days the Arctic gets you. Keep rowing and keep both oars in the water.
+++++++++++++++++
SIGH, Where are those Poley Bears when you rally need them.
[Moderator’s Note: I trust, Gail, that you meant that the Poley Bears would give them a valid incentive to row faster. -REP]
Smokey wrote:
So what? The trends are still filtered out. The figure still doesn’t show the time series of the absolute values. Smokey claims a) “no global warming since 1997” and b) CO2 follows the temperature with a lag of a few months. Thus, there shouldn’t have been any CO2 increase for at least a decade now, if the CO2 in the atmosphere was controlled by the temperature. But the CO2 data look like this:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1985
They look like this, because the CO2 increase in the atmosphere is primarily due to anthropogenic emissions, but not due to natural sources. It is not coming from the oceans. Nature is a net sink for CO2. Otherwise, the CO2 mixing ratio in the atmosphere would already be above 500 ppm due to anthropogenic emissions.
Only in Smokey fantasy is anthropogenically caused global warming refuted by a non-robust negative trend over such a short time period of 10 years. I have a picture for Smokey too:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47
Look the first eight of the last ten years can be seen there too.
Jim says:
August 5, 2012 at 11:34 am
Jim, Muller lives in the USA; they still use ℉ there.
What he has shown over 250 years is an rise of 0.057 ℃ per decade, or 0.6 ℃ per century.
When Prof. Akasofu calculated a rise of 0.6 ℃ for both the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, he was dismissed as a sceptic.
The only thing is that Muller finds a rapid rise since 1979. This is partly because he used the old trick of starting at a cold period, and partly because he used the official “figures” which have been “adjusted” upwards. This enables him to claim “unprecedented” warming caused by CO2. Had he started the recent trend in 1950 (to allow for a 60 year cycle) the rise would have appeared far less.
As far as I can see, Muller is trying to position himself as “the white knight” of AGW. He is smart enough to see that Mann, Jones, Hansen etc. are discredited (and to give him credit, probably disgusted with them) and wants to do papers as they should have been done (see that he has released code and data). His problem is his reliance on the corrupted temperatures.
So it is most unlikely we will see a 1 ℃ rise in the next 100 years, and with the sun “taking a holiday” more likely we will see a drop in temperature. The World would certainly agree with you that warming is good.
Jan P Perlwitz says:
August 5, 2012 at 7:28 pm
Try Search “James Hansen debunked” you should have approximately 39.000 articles.
It is not a fallacy of logic to make a statement of specific truth.
Indeed, Mr Hansen IS a disgrace to science.
http://www.soros.org/resources/articles_publications/publications/annual_20070731/a_complete.pdf
Pages 123 and 143 politicization of science ($720,000)
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/26/nasa-s-hansen-mentioned-soros-foundations-annual-report