Denier land: How deniers view global warming

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.