Josh writes in with a new cartoon.
This is a spoof on the xkcd.com/1321/ cartoon that was doing the Twitter rounds the other day.
First, the XKCD cartoon on global warming:
![cold[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/cold1.png)
Now, here’s Josh’s spoof of it:
Josh writes in with a new cartoon.
This is a spoof on the xkcd.com/1321/ cartoon that was doing the Twitter rounds the other day.
First, the XKCD cartoon on global warming:
Now, here’s Josh’s spoof of it:
I’ve been lurking here a while, but I HAD to reply to this.
My boss is a AGW supporter. Recently, he told a client, “It hasn’t snowed in St. Louis for 20 years.”
Only 2 years before, I drove us through one of the worst snow storms in recent memory. It was snowing when we left for Kentucky, and had dumped 2′ on us by the time we got back that night. This is a man who’s sent company-wide e-mails alerting employees not to come to work due to dangerous road conditions caused by SNOW.
Facts, logic, and reality don’t matter to most of these folks.
Kyle says:
“They have found the heat to be going to the deep ocean… The logic is inescapable – the pause in surface temperatures (2.3% of climactic heat content) is very, very likely caused primarily by a slight increase in warming of the oceans (93.4% of climactic heat content) by means of a known mechanism! …I’m 55 yrs old and know both the science and the misinformation…”
Kyle, I am 65 years old. Listen up, please:
1. There has not been a “pause” in global warming. That is a misuse of the language. For there to be a pause, warming must have resumed after it stopped. It has not. It is still stopped. After global warming’s halt beginning ≈17 years ago, there is no indication that global warming has resumed.
2. Your “logic” is just a baseless assumption: that global warming has somehow bypassed the 3,341 ARGO buoys — which regularly dive thousands of metres deep — and ends up warming the very deep ocean. Do you see how crazy that sounds to rational people? In addition the ARGO array consistently showed that the oceans are cooling [before that inconvenient fact was “adjusted”].
3. The oceans have stopped warming. In fact, almost all of the predicted ocean heat content is missing.
If you have verifiable data showing where the deep oceans are heating up, please post it here. I have not been able to find any such data. Without measurable data, all you have are assertions. That is not nearly good enough. In fact, it amounts to misinformation.
================================================================
Huh? If ‘they” actually found it then why is it still missing? Or is it that since they can’t find it anywhere else it must be where it can’t be measured and/or where there is no long term records?
Kyle,
The rising in ocean temperatures previously have been caused by a known mechanism that alarmists were ignoring, no wonder they are always wrong. This mechanism involves reduction global low cloud levels during the 1980s and 1990s causing increased solar radiation penetrating the ocean surface. Solar shortwave energy penetrates down to 100 m, hence why the oceans were warming. During the recent period of cooling cloud levels have stabilized and surprise surprise, with no increased solar penetration this has led to no further warming.
If you wondering is it possible to remove the recent warming from global temperatures? The answer is yes it is just by adjusting for satellite low global cloud levels. I can remove all the warming just by this adjustment in one swoop. The alarmists are wrong because CO2 has not caused this as I have demonstrated.
Increased solar energy during the 1980s and 1990s fueled the stronger El Ninos that we saw. Since the last strong El Nino in 1997/98 there has been no warming.
Kyle:
You say you are 55 years old.
I am saddened for you that you are unable to accept helpful advice. Perhaps that is why a 55-year-old behaves in such a childish manner. It does you no good.
Perhaps you have a different persona on the web than when you are talking to people. I sincerely hope so because if not then you must be a very lonely person.
I urge you to behave rationally. Try not to make self-harming statements such as
The sentence I quote provides you with disdain and probably contempt. Is that what you want?
I will explain using that sentence as example.
1.
You have not refuted anything, On the contrary. You have made unsubstantiated assertions which are plain wrong and others have refuted your assertions with real evidence and data. So the sentence starts with a blatant falsehood which everybody who has read the thread knows is a falsehood. In plain language, you have proclaimed yourself to be a liar and nobody likes or trusts a self-proclaimed liar.
2.
Adopting a “mocking or dismissive manner” makes you disliked especially when most people here can see that you are their inferior in both intellect and knowledge.
3.
Calling people names such as “you guys” induces a rejection of you by everybody whether or not the names are directed at them.
4.
Unfounded and unjustifiable insults such as “undeserving of more respect” cause you – and thus what you say – to be treated with contempt especially when the insults are hurled over the coward’s barrier of anonymity.
You claim to be 55 years old. Whether or not that is true, for your own sake I beg you to grow up.
Richard
Richard, I’ve long since gicivil with “you guys”. You earned it. I’ve already been bombarded by more BS than I can ever address, allowing you apparently full-time science obscurers to claim victory. I work for a living; I can’t refute what a dozen retirees and paid shills can produce.
dbstealy alone has just posted a rafty of BS, mostly refuted in the very links that he cites. Multiple posters are simply reassserting over and over that ENSO, etc. has not been considered by climate researchers in the recent past.
I do know that the lead researcher in CERN’s CLOUD study unequivocally stated years ago that nothing in the their results supported the claims being made by the ABC crowd (anything but carbon) and then in 2013, he stated flatly that their latest results indicate an unaccounted for cooling forcing that points to a higher CO2 sensitivity:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v502/n7471/full/nature12663.html
CERN press release:
http://press.web.cern.ch/press-releases/2013/10/cerns-cloud-experiment-shines-new-light-climate-change
“Results from the CLOUD experiment at CERN bears directly on the Svensmark hypothesis: ionizing radiation has a negligible influence on the formation rates of aerosols.”
In the lead researchers own words:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/10/14/2774891/nature-cloud-study-climate-sensitive/
“The global average temperature on land and sea rose by 0.85C from 1880 to 2012, the IPCC said in a major report last month. The fact that amines are produced by animal husbandry means that humans are responsible for a previously unknown cooling effect on the planet. So the overall man-made “forcing” of the climate -– once greenhouse gases are taken into account -– may actually be less than thought.
And that could be bad news because, Professor Kirkby said, it suggested “the climate may be more sensitive than previously thought”. “If there’s been more cooling from aerosols than thought at the moment then this temperature rise will have resulted from a smaller forcing – or change – than previously thought,” he said. “That would mean the projected temperatures this century for a doubling of carbon dioxide may be bigger than current estimates.””
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=cosmic-rays-not-causing-climate-change
And then there’s the other study that I made reference to earlier:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12829.html
“Equilibrium climate sensitivity refers to the ultimate change in global mean temperature in response to a change in external forcing. Despite decades of research attempting to narrow uncertainties, equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates from climate models still span roughly 1.5 to 5 degrees Celsius for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, precluding accurate projections of future climate. The spread arises largely from differences in the feedback from low clouds, for reasons not yet understood. Here we show that differences in the simulated strength of convective mixing between the lower and middle tropical troposphere explain about half of the variance in climate sensitivity estimated by 43 climate models. The apparent mechanism is that such mixing dehydrates the low-cloud layer at a rate that increases as the climate warms, and this rate of increase depends on the initial mixing strength, linking the mixing to cloud feedback. The mixing inferred from observations appears to be sufficiently strong to imply a climate sensitivity of more than 3 degrees for a doubling of carbon dioxide. This is significantly higher than the currently accepted lower bound of 1.5 degrees, thereby constraining model projections towards relatively severe future warming.”
[Request you clarify who is a “paid shill” and justify that claim. Mod]
“So, I repeat that if you want to come here and play with grownups you need to try to act as a grownup and not as you would in your school playground.”
You are using kindergarten tactics, Richard
REPLY: You are BOTH acting like children, 24 hour timeout for both Richard and “sisi”. – Anthony
From Kyle on February 3, 2014 at 1:28 pm:
Um, no, you are not talking about the Sherwood paper and I have NO idea who you’re talking about.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12829.html
Title: Spread in model climate sensitivity traced to atmospheric convective mixing
Authors: Steven C. Sherwood, Sandrine Bony, Jean-Louis Dufresne
No “Kirkby” mentioned at all, whomever that is.
I notice you have not been supplying links to all this learned knowledge you’re spewing. I understand it’s difficult for a paid commenter who’s working off a “talking points” list to know where the “truth” they’re ordered to disseminate has come from. But can you, Kyle, at least TRY to provide some links?
Kyle spouted on February 3, 2014 at 1:37 pm:
KYLE, we’re referring to GLOBAL temperature datasets, not US-only. There is no “2.3%” metric, only a 100% metric.
What’s wrong? Just can’t process the fact that you’re that far off base? Such dogmatic thinking!
From Kyle on February 3, 2014 at 2:09 pm:
Gee, I’m sorry we didn’t automatically recognize the absolute scientific truthfulness of your un-sourced badly-stated incorrectly-worded “talking points” pronouncements. My apologies for how we did not endear ourselves to you and prove we deserve more respect from you BY PROMPTLY KNEELING DOWN AND POLISHING YOUR WANG!
As it is, you proved yourself to be a boring troll who has demonstrated ignorance of the “proof” you cite, who cannot tell us where your “knowledge” came from, and appears only interested in chucking steaming handfuls of your “wisdom” around the site, not civilized debate.
Therefore, although we originally extended to you far greater respect than you ever gave us, as is our normal wont, we must sadly withdraw that respect, and admit you’re just another closed-minded willfully-ignorant a-hole.
You are dismissed. Leave.
Oh sure, sometime right before I post, THEN Kyle finally dredges up some links. Including one from ThinkRegress, noted center of paid shilling.
And he’s linked to the Sherwood paper I referenced, as well as some “Kirkby” paper he was mistakenly referring to when rebutting(?) the Sherwood paper.
Kyle had said on February 3, 2014 at 1:28 pm of Kirkby: “You know, the guy and the study that you guys have been heralding for years as the silver bullet to kill the CO2 werewolf.”
I’ve never heard of him before. Anyone here know who the heck he is?
kadaka – Dismissing information because of the source is an ad hominem fallacy.
Although you may genuinely be unaware of Kirkby, CLOUD, and CERN, I assure you that most of Anthony’s minions are quite familiar. The CLOUD project at CERN, led by Kirkby, has been repeatedly misrepresented as supporting the Svensmark hypothesis (a WUWT favorite ABC contender) even after Kirkby specifically and unequivocally declared that it did no such thing. Then, last year, CLOUD actually produced results (much like BEST) that are 180 degrees from that which the resident ABC crowd had been claiming. See the previous links.
kadaka – “Um, no, you are not talking about the Sherwood paper and I have NO idea who you’re talking about.”
Um, no, I was referencing both. Try to keep up.
“http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12829.html
…snip… No “Kirkby” mentioned at all, whomever that is.”
In spite of your inability to deal with all of two papers, I must thank you for citing the Sherwood paper. Be sure not to miss this part of it – “Equilibrium climate sensitivity refers to the ultimate change in global mean temperature in response to a change in external forcing. Despite decades of research attempting to narrow uncertainties, equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates from climate models still span roughly 1.5 to 5 degrees Celsius for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, precluding accurate projections of future climate. The spread arises largely from differences in the feedback from low clouds, for reasons not yet understood. Here we show that differences in the simulated strength of convective mixing between the lower and middle tropical troposphere explain about half of the variance in climate sensitivity estimated by 43 climate models. The apparent mechanism is that such mixing dehydrates the low-cloud layer at a rate that increases as the climate warms, and this rate of increase depends on the initial mixing strength, linking the mixing to cloud feedback. The mixing inferred from observations appears to be sufficiently strong to imply a climate sensitivity of more than 3 degrees for a doubling of carbon dioxide. This is significantly higher than the currently accepted lower bound of 1.5 degrees, thereby constraining model projections towards relatively severe future warming.”
I notice you have not been supplying links to all this learned knowledge you’re spewing. I understand it’s difficult for a paid commenter who’s working off a “talking points” list to know where the “truth” they’re ordered to disseminate has come from. But can you, Kyle, at least TRY to provide some links?
Already done. BTW, I work for a living and post as I can and don’t always have time to spoon feed you. Your accusation is unfounded. It is also projection of the highest order as many climate “contrarians” (cough, cough) are known to be exactly as you accuse me.
“KYLE, we’re referring to GLOBAL temperature datasets, not US-only. There is no “2.3%” metric, only a 100% metric.”
Where did you come up with “US only”?! I’m referring to the FACT that all of “surface temperature” represents 2.3% of climactic heat content. That’s the US, all the rest of the land mass, the ice, and the entire ocean surface! What’s wrong? Just can’t process the fact that you’re that far off base? Such dogmatic thinking!
“Gee, I’m sorry we didn’t automatically recognize the absolute scientific truthfulness of your un-sourced badly-stated incorrectly-worded “talking points” pronouncements. My apologies for how we did not endear ourselves to you and prove we deserve more respect from you BY PROMPTLY KNEELING DOWN AND POLISHING YOUR WANG!”
Well, now that I have provided the sources, corrected your misunderstandings, etc., you can do exactly that.
“Therefore, although we originally extended to you far greater respect than you ever gave us, as is our normal wont, we must sadly withdraw that respect, and admit you’re just another closed-minded willfully-ignorant a-hole. You are dismissed. Leave.”
I’ll leave when “you guys” have sufficiently discredited denial. Or when the mods dishonestly and selectively delete my input and ban me. Happens here and at Goddard.
(REPLY: You will not find a more open and uncensored site than this one. It would be easy to snip your comment for using the “denial” pejorative. But maybe you haven’t read the Policy page yet. Suggest you do. ~ mod.)
Kyle says:
“dbstealy alone has just posted a rafty of BS, mostly refuted in the very links that he cites.”
That is the problem with the alarmist crowd. As Kyle demonstrates, he debates science by assertion. Nothing in his comment contains any raw data or empirical observations, otherwise known as scientific evidence. I asked him to post any evidence he has; his response was to make his baseless assertion above. [Kyle does not understand that neither pal reviewed papers, nor computer model outputs are “scientific evidence”.]
That is the problem with the climate alarmist point of view: they assume that their baseless opinion alone is enough to win the debate. It isn’t. They assume that since they have reached a conclusion, that their papers and models are all that is needed to validate their conclusions; they aren’t. Skeptics — the only honest kind of scientists — require evidence. Such evidence must be measurable, and testable. Otherwise, Kyle and his side are merely asserting what they believe. That is not nearly good enough.
There is no evidence of any ‘hidden heat’ lurking and collecting in the deep oceans, as I showed in my links. The oceans are not warming at an accelerating rate. In fact, they are not warming at all, as I also showed in my posted links. Kyle claims, with no evidence given, that “93.4%” of the oceans are warming. I posted links showing that is false.
The job of skeptics is to tear down conjectures and hypotheses. That is how we arrive at a position closest to scientific truth. The alarmists should be happy to pursue truth, but of course, they aren’t. They act as if it’s a bad thing if global warming stops. But it is neither good nor bad, scientifically. It is an advance in our knowledge. That is good.
As I wrote to Kyle above:
If you have verifiable data showing where the deep oceans are heating up, please post it here. I have not been able to find any such data. Without measurable data, all you have are assertions.
Enough with the assertions, Kyle. Either post verifiable, measurable scientific evidence showing rising heat in the deep oceans, or admit that your conjecture is nothing but another assertion, designed to keep the runaway global warming scare alive.
The key observation from what I’ve read regarding the CLOUD experiment results is the need for charged attractors to nucleate droplet formation. Cosmic rays, and the shower of charged daughter particles certainly can knock electrons off molecules. The question is to what degree the particulates in the air accumulate charged centers that can attract the water dipole.
It’s important to be sure we are discussing an experiment or a model.
The PNNL/ SUNY experiment was not an experiment (http://phys.org/news/2013-02-cosmic-rays-cloud-droplet-formation.html) it was only modifying an existing model. Their results may have no meaning in the real world.
One of Kyles refes from above.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v502/n7471/full/nature12663.html
This paper discusses amines and sulfates in relation to cosmic ray ion production. Alone it is almost useless. I don’t have time to do a proper analysis at the moment, but my gut feeling is Kyle wants me to be wowed by the awesomeness of the graphs. In reality, the paper has a lot of holes in it. For one thing, I haven’t found a discussion of the fraction of cosmic ray energy actually deposited. Most of the energy would be deposited at the end of the track, not the beginning. For all I know, the entire CLOUD experiment was botched because of that fact. I have to look into that question.
I don’t have time to go through the rest of the Kyle refs either right now.
Well, I know Kyle was saying Kirkby was the “lead researcher” according to that ThinkRegress piece, but at the actual Nature link, Jasper Kirkby is the last author on the list. And with 79 authors, I doubt all of those authors would willingly agree any one of them was lead researcher, although many would be willing to claim they are on CV’s and for mass-consumption media pieces.
I did find a 2007 Surveys in Geophysics paper for which he’s the sole author, for which I will not be paying Springer $39.95 to glance through. 170 references, yet no Supplementary Material?
Cosmic Rays and Climate.
Looks like his work is similar to Svensmark, who’s a reference, as well as Shaviv. But as both have been awarded their Scarlet “D”s and associating with them is persecuted by the (C)AGW entrenched establishment, it’s understandable if Kirkby wants to differentiate his work from Svensmark et al.
And Kirkby is still not “…the guy…that you guys have been heralding for years as the silver bullet to kill the CO2 werewolf.” Which orifice did Kyle extract that from?
Kadaka bloviated – “Well, I know Kyle was saying Kirkby was the “lead researcher” according to that ThinkRegress piece, but at the actual Nature link, Jasper Kirkby is the last author on the list. And with 79 authors, I doubt all of those authors would willingly agree any one of them was lead researcher, although many would be willing to claim they are on CV’s and for mass-consumption media pieces.”
http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Jasper-Kirkby/277736296
“Looks like his work is similar to Svensmark, who’s a reference, as well as Shaviv. But as both have been awarded their Scarlet “D”s and associating with them is persecuted by the (C)AGW entrenched establishment, it’s understandable if Kirkby wants to differentiate his work from Svensmark et al.”
Conspiracy theory much? LOL
“And Kirkby is still not “…the guy…that you guys have been heralding for years as the silver bullet to kill the CO2 werewolf.”
Uh, yes, he is, because the Svensmark hypothesis has been the go-to ABC for quite some time. It’s been CLOUD this and CERN that all over WUWT for what seems like forever. In previous years, CLOUD was lied about so much by the ABC crowd that Jasper Kirkby made statements explicitly condemning their misrepresentation of CLOUD. Now that CLOUD has produced results antithetical to the ABC crowd, they’ve largely ignored it. Or when brought up as I have done, they must lie about it.
“The lack of knowledge about aerosols – particles suspended in the atmosphere – and their effect on clouds is widely recognised as the major source of uncertainty in predictions about global warming. “We have to understand how clouds have been changed by human activity or natural activity if we are to understand climate change in the 20th century and therefore have reliable projections in the 21st century,” Professor Kirkby said.
The global average temperature on land and sea rose by 0.85C from 1880 to 2012, the IPCC said in a major report last month. The fact that amines are produced by animal husbandry means that humans are responsible for a previously unknown cooling effect on the planet. So the overall man-made “forcing” of the climate – once greenhouse gases are taken into account – may actually be less than thought.
And that could be bad news because, Professor Kirkby said, it suggested “the climate may be more sensitive than previously thought”. “If there’s been more cooling from aerosols than thought at the moment then this temperature rise will have resulted from a smaller forcing – or change – than previously thought,” he said. “That would mean the projected temperatures this century for a doubling of carbon dioxide may be bigger than current estimates.””
Hey, Kevin Knoebel, welcome back (you were missed for a couple of months, there). Hope all is well.
And, now, back to our regularly scheduled programming…
GREAT CARTOON, Josh! #(:)) (sshh, don’t tell anyone, but…. I saw l/ (hockey sticks!!!) all over the place in your drawing — seriously, very clever of you (smile))
Kyle writes:
…Professor Kirkby said, it suggested “the climate may be more sensitive than previously thought”. “If there’s been more cooling from aerosols than thought at the moment then this temperature rise will have resulted from a smaller forcing – or change – than previously thought,” he said. “That would mean the projected temperatures this century for a doubling of carbon dioxide may be bigger than current estimates.”
Nuts. Another evidence-free assertion. [And re: Kyle’s failure to respond to my last comment leads me to think, “Silence is concurrence.”]
The comment above in italics seems to imply that warming and cooling forces are so exactly in balance, that they result in the exact same natural step changes observed since the 1800’s. Does anyone believe in such an extraordinary coincidence?
I don’t. Because the universe doesn’t work that way.
Enough with the assertions, Kyle. Post measurable scientific evidence, or admit that you are doing nothing but speculating.
dbstealy – “I asked him to post any evidence he has; his response was to make his baseless assertion above.”
Believe me, I CAN support exactly what I claimed.
“[Kyle does not understand that neither pal reviewed papers, nor computer model outputs are “scientific evidence”.]”
dbstealy does not understand that dismissing peer review as “pal review” and any unwelcome climate science as “mere models” is classic science d____l.
“There is no evidence of any ‘hidden heat’ lurking and collecting in the deep oceans, as I showed in my links. The oceans are not warming at an accelerating rate. In fact, they are not warming at all, as I also showed in my posted links.”
We shall see.
“Kyle claims, with no evidence given, that “93.4%” of the oceans are warming.”
Wrong. I claim that 93.4% of any net heat flux ends up in the ocean because the ocean represents 93.4% of the thermal mass relevant to climate. Try to keep up.
“As I wrote to Kyle above: If you have verifiable data showing where the deep oceans are heating up, please post it here. I have not been able to find any such data. Without measurable data, all you have are assertions.”
Sure thing:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00548.1
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2010JCLI3682.1
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5732/284.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50541/full
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/full
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rog.20022/full
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00834.1
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1767.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v501/n7467/abs/nature12534.html
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n7/full/nclimate1863.html
http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/7/245/2013/tcd-7-245-2013.html
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n2/full/ngeo1375.html
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rog.20022/full
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JC006601/abstract
dbs – “The comment above in italics seems to imply that warming and cooling forces are so exactly in balance, that they result in the exact same natural step changes observed since the 1800′s. Does anyone believe in such an extraordinary coincidence?”
That’s an insane interpretation.
I also like how you dismiss the project lead’s unequivocal conclusions as “an evidence-free assertion”. You seem to think you know better than these stupid PhD’s. Write it up. Your Nobel awaits. (face -> palm)
Let it be known that my previous comment came through but the one prior – the one with numerous links to peer reviewed science – is for some strange reason still stuck in moderation. Perhaps the mods are trying to decide if there’s any science that needs to be suppressed?
[Reply: Read the Policy and About pages. Comments with several links are held for approval. ~ mod.]
Kyle posted a lot of links, all of which confirm my statement that without measurable data, all he has are evidence-free assertions.
A sentence from each of Kyle’s first seven links:
Model results from the Community Climate System Model, version 4 (CCSM4), show that…
And:
Models contain a delay between greenhouse gas forcing and surface temperature increase…
And:
…two anthropogenically forced climate models. We conclude that it is of human origin, a conclusion robust to observational sampling and model differences…
And:
We investigated the extent to which state-of-the-art general circulation models (GCMs) can capture this hiatus period by using multimodel ensembles of historical climate simulations…
And:
Several recent modeling studies… advocate for the role of the deep ocean…
And:
Simulating these processes in a coupled climate model…
And:
Although the surface temperature prescription is limited to only 8.2% of the global surface, our model…
I have explained to Kyle several times now that models are not scientific evidence. Not one GCM [computer model] was able to predict the major event of the past two decades: the stopping of global warming. That’s how good [or bad] his models are.
Models are not evidence. But Kyle will not accept that, because if he did, he would have to admit that there is no evidence supporting his belief in Trenberth’s ‘hidden heat’ lurking in the deep oceans. That is a preposterous assertion to any reasonable person, since heat rises. The 3,351 buoy ARGO array would have detected rising heat long ago. Instead, ARGO shows ocean cooling.
Kyle is just winging it. He has no measurable evidence that supports his belief system. Until he can post scientific evidence showing his hidden heat in the oceans, his entire argument consists of baseless assertions.
dbs – Models are fundamental to many scientific fields. Many applications of models are rock solid science. As I stated previously, dismissing science by essentially claiming that if the word “model” is involved, it;s all BS, is a lazy d____r copout.
[snip. It does not require a moderator to ‘discredit’ comments, only logic. ~ mod.]
“The 3,351 buoy ARGO array would have detected rising heat long ago. Instead, ARGO shows ocean cooling.”
Both a Big Lie and a red herring, as they are limited in depth to less than 2000m.
“Not one GCM [computer model] was able to predict the major event of the past two decades: the stopping of global warming. That’s how good [or bad] his models are.”
His reasoning is perfectly circular. The 2.3% of the total heat that he obsesses on is KNOWN to be subject to annual/decadal scale cycles imposed over any trend by a small variation in the heat flux to/from the 93.4%. It is also KNOWN that we have been in a cycle of surface cooling/ocean warming for several years. These are FACTS, Jack! Simple logic says that there has been above average heat uptake by the oceans during this time.
Yet dbs ignores 93.4% to dwell – dishonestly – on the 2.3% in spite of the KNOWN processes and their KNOWN effects. The motivated reasoning and intellectual dishonesty involved is astounding to behold. Also entirely predictable. That’s what “you guys” do.
Models may be fundamental, but measured data is more fundamental. Without it, all you have are True Beliefs. That’s witch doctor territory.
Kyle has no evidence to support his assertions. Further, he does not seem to even accept that heat rises.
Until measurable evidence is produced, everything being claimed is nothing more than assertion. Conjecture is the first step in the hierarchy: Conjecture, Hypothesis, Theory, Law. So an assertion is not ipso facto wrong. But without verifiable measurements, assertions are hardly science. And there are no measurements of Trenberth’s ‘hidden heat’ in the deep ocean. That nonsense is the King of Baseless Assertions.
So Kyle has nothing. He keeps arguing as if he has measurable facts, but he has no scientific evidence to support his True Belief. None. He is winging it.
Skeptics view people who actually believe that heat is coming into the deep oceans, but is unmeasurable and hidden from view, as somewhat off the deep end. It’s like a man who believes there is a black cat in his dark bedroom, hiding under his bed. He believes that he can even hear the cat breathing! But when he turns on the light… there is no cat. And there never was.
Just like ‘hidden heat’ in the ocean. Same-same. ☺
“Kyle has no evidence to support his assertions.”
Only conservation of energy, the First Law of Thermo!
“Further, he does not seem to even accept that heat rises.”
Whuh?! ROTFLMAO!!!
“he has no scientific evidence to support his True Belief. None. He is winging it.”
Says the guy who thinks that rising cold waters can cool the entire planet without warming! Put a fork in this loser; he’s done!
Kyle says:
February 3, 2014 at 8:33 pm
His reasoning is perfectly circular. The 2.3% of the total heat that he obsesses on is KNOWN to be subject to annual/decadal scale cycles imposed over any trend by a small variation in the heat flux to/from the 93.4%. It is also KNOWN that we have been in a cycle of surface cooling/ocean warming for several years. These are FACTS, Jack! Simple logic says that there has been above average heat uptake by the oceans during this time.
Since it is so well KNOWN then all the Climate Models predicted a 30 year stall in warming starting around 2010*, right? That is, we should easily be able to check any single one of the models and every single one of them will show a flat to declining line up until the year 2040 or so, correct?
* the Pacific Decadal Oscillation flipped in 2008, not 1997 when Global Warming actually started its stall. So even if you somehow talk yourself into believing the stall is happening because of the negative cycle, you are still left with the 12 inconvenient years (or 71% of the total stall period) from 1996-2008 that goes against your entire theory.
@ur momisugly D. B. — just so you know, those of us up here laughing at “Kyle” in the stands, can see he is nothing but a bagful of straw. He is PATHETIC.
His trash talk would not be worth dignifying with a response except for the opportunity it provides for a genuine seeker of truth to learn. Good job, Professor Stealey!
This sums up the entire attempt by “Kyle:”
“Kyle”: You want “evidence?” Okay. Mister Expert says so.
DB (et. al.): “Mister Expert says so” is not evidence in this forum.
K: But, Mister Expert says so very, very, definitely.
DB (et. al.): Provide the evidence for what Expert says, please.
K: Oooo, you are just “insane.” Laws of physics…. they, uh, they support my conclusions.
DB (et. al.): Proof? Causation? EVIDENCE?
K: {hurls an armload full of sawdust, a.k.a. the proven-failed CLIMATE MODELS, lol} Here! This proves everything.
Conclusion: Kyle’s performance had some entertainment value, ZERO science value.
D. B. Stealey (et. al.) — High science value. GREAT WORK!
Kyle says:
February 3, 2014 at 9:42 pm
“Only conservation of energy, the First Law of Thermo!”
I can’t decide if you are serious here.
I mean, you can’t be that dumb, can you?
What’s your position then? Do you deny that we’ve been in a phase wherein increased upwelling of cold water has acted to cool surface temps? Do you deny that heat extracted from the atmosphere by the ocean is, in fact, going into the ocean? Seriously, I have no idea what you’re objecting to or why.