General AGW discussion thread

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

It's nice to see I struck such a chord that you're fearfully resorting to ad homs in a last-ditch attempt to maintain ground.

That is NOT an ad-hom, from the definition:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person" or "argument against the person") is an argument which links the validity of a premise to an irrelevent characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.

Not wanting to get into politics here, but it cannot be denied that AGW is very highly politicized and that that has been passing by here in this thread continuously by various posters, this cannot be regarded as an an-hom.

And no, I will not discuss this any further. So stop all this childish bickering (although I know this is impossible apparently in AGW discussions, which makes you wonder about both the pro- and opponents).

[Ivan Viehoff]

Originally Posted by Stroller

you also get the concentration of co2 in the atmosphere wrong; overestimating it by an order of magnitude.

Then you attack the 'other side' for not knowing their science.

A rhetorical nit-pick. The fundamental argument I made was correct, and does not depend upon the actual size of the numbers. Since I make no claim to be a scientific expert, (see below) I do not feel embarrassed by this.

Originally Posted by Stroller

snip ad hom rant

Not ad hom. See Tusenfem's post.

Your quote from Schneider is pretty much the theme of my "rant": "Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

What I have done in many of my posts in this thread is exhibit the use of rhetorical techniques that maximise effectiveness at too much cost in honesty. I am an economist, not a climate scientist, but it is not necessary for me to be an expert in climate science to spot these rhetorical devices. I have also pointed out some abuse of statistics, where I have some expertise.

Complete honesty without effectiveness is the material of dry scientific papers. The IPCC is not expected to be at the "no effectiveness" end of the scale, and most of us do not wish to address material of no effectiveness. In the case of the misappropriation of Keenlyside et al (2008) to make points that the authors say it does not support, who's being effective and who's being honest? For honesty, I will own up to the rhetorical device of anecdotalism in that comment.

[Stroller]

Originally Posted by Ivan Viehoff

A rhetorical nit-pick. The fundamental argument I made was correct, and does not depend upon the actual size of the numbers. Since I make no claim to be a scientific expert, (see below) I do not feel embarrassed by this.

the magnitude of the insulating effect of CO2 is sized, is significant, and the increase mentioned is, as a proportion, large.

Hi Ivan,

I genuinely do want to keep this civil and friendly, so I'll put my cards on the table too, so you can recognise me as a reasonably intelligent human being and hopefully treat me as such.

I come from an engineering background in fluid mechanics and systems. I have studied the science around climatology in some depth over the last few years. I also have formal training in examining and evaluating data, hypotheses and theories, and understanding the way individual scientists and institutions work, which I gained in a degree course in the history and philosophy of science.

With regard to your concerns about co2:
An extra 30% of naff all on top of naff all is still naff all. In any case, a doubling of co2 would warm the earth by at most 1C (IPCC figure), unless the apparent negative feedback nixes even that. The water vapour feedback the AGW theory relies on for the extra warming Schneider and his colleagues try to scare us with isn't happening. The reduction in outgoing radiation predicted by greenhouse computer games isn't happening. The mythical 'extra heat in the pipeline' can't happen because it doesn't make it past logic 101.

It's a falsified hypothesis being endlessly modified against each new piece of contrary real world empirical evidence in a desperate ad hoc fashion.

Bad Science.

If someone tried to present AGW as a new ATM theory they would get a justifiably good grilling from Tusenfem and others.
Back it up with $80,000,000 and a compliant disaster story hungry press however, and who knows where it will end.

[SolusLupus]

How is that post not political, again?

I thought you were screaming "ad hom" when someone pointed out the politics in your post, and now... more politics.

[Demigrog]

Originally Posted by Stroller

With regard to your concerns about co2:
An extra 30% of naff all on top of naff all is still naff all. In any case, a doubling of co2 would warm the earth by at most 1C (IPCC figure), unless the apparent negative feedback nixes even that. The water vapour feedback the AGW theory relies on for the extra warming Schneider and his colleagues try to scare us with isn't happening. The reduction in outgoing radiation predicted by greenhouse computer games isn't happening. The mythical 'extra heat in the pipeline' can't happen because it doesn't make it past logic 101.

Maybe you should concentrate on these claims; there may be actual merit in some of them. Unlike earlier debates in the thread, you seem to be acknowledging CO2 should have some ability to force temperatures, which is progress. If there is room for skepticism in the AGW debate, it is A) the extent to which feedbacks amplify CO2 forcing, and B) whether the time constant of ocean thermal inertia is really long enough for significant "heat in the pipeline".

Though my background is engineering, I've spent a lot of time reading papers on both subjects, and it is clear that zero or negative net forcing is statistically impossible--and anything under 1C is not very likely. It is also clear that for the high end predictions (anything over 3C) to be correct, the ocean thermal inertia time constant has to be huge--long enough that we have only seen half or less of the forcing of current CO2 levels so far. That is the part I'm skeptical about (I won't re-hash my previous posts). I'm comfortable with the low end of the IPCC report's range of 2C-4.5C--which doesn't put me in the ATM camp, but puts me squarely outside the alarmist camp (2C is bad enough, but probably not the end of the world).

[Stroller]

Originally Posted by Demigrog

Maybe you should concentrate on these claims; there may be actual merit in some of them. Unlike earlier debates in the thread, you seem to be acknowledging CO2 should have some ability to force temperatures, which is progress. If there is room for skepticism in the AGW debate, it is A) the extent to which feedbacks amplify CO2 forcing, and B) whether the time constant of ocean thermal inertia is really long enough for significant "heat in the pipeline".

Heh, I like the avatar.

As I said, 1C is the IPCC's figure. I know the physics, and it might be 1C all else being equal, but it never is. The climate system is such that if one parameter changes, all the others do something too, both because they were busy changing anyway, but also in response. We just don't know enough about how the Earth might compensate for an increase in one atmospheric gas. What we do know is that the earth has maintained itself within liveable limits in a bi-polar sort of way for a very long time. Not much sign of feedbacks disastrously amplifying anything so far. Lots of indications that the earth tends to equilibrium within limits.

There is heat in the pipeline, but it's solar heat and nothing to do with co2. Solar radiation penetrates the ocean to depths of a couple of hundred feet and gives its energy up. Back radiation from the atmosphere can't penetrate the ocean surface further then it's own wavelength. It concentrates a lot of energy there and causes prompt evaporation.

The ocean has an equilibrium level with respect to solar input of energy at which it neither gains nor loses heat-energy. Solar activity was well above that level for most of the C20th from around 1915 on to a peak around 1960 and another in the late 80's. The ocean heat content has been rising since we started measuring it in the late 50's, until 2003 when it started to level out and fall again.

So the cooling ocean will keep the land and atmosphere warm for a while yet, but unless solar cycle 24 get's it's act together, things will start to get a lot colder in a year or so from now. Just like 200 years ago, the last time the sun did a similar funk on us.

Volcanos and earthquakes are statistically more likely when solar activity is low too. There are lots of things to worry about besides co2, if you are the worrying type.

The evidence suggests the Earth was around 0.6C warmer than now about 1000 years ago. then it got pretty cold from around 1300-1740, then it has warmed back up since, and seems to be topping out about now.

Pardon me for not panicking.

[parejkoj]

(Note: I once again link to some blog posts, but they reference the peer reviewed articles)

Originally Posted by Stroller

With regard to your concerns about co2:
An extra 30% of naff all on top of naff all is still naff all.

Since you don't think that CO₂ is a greenhouse gas (against the pile of evidence to the contrary), then you obviously don't think it is important. But essentially all climate scientists agree that CO₂ is a greenhouse gas, with a radiative forcing of ~1.5 W/m² at the current concentration level. I'm going with the scientists who do this for a living, whom you repeatedly insult, mock and ridicule.

Also, since you apparently believe that adding a tiny amount of something to a tiny amount of something should have no effect, perhaps you wouldn't mind increasing the dioxin level in your body to ~1 part per billion. That's a very small amount: much, much, much smaller than the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere. By your logic, it shouldn't have any effect at all, right?

Originally Posted by Stroller

The water vapour feedback the AGW theory relies on for the extra warming Schneider and his colleagues try to scare us with isn't happening.

NONSENSE! Utter nonsense.

Originally Posted by Stroller

The reduction in outgoing radiation predicted by greenhouse computer games isn't happening.

Absolutely false. At this point, I've got nothing left than to assume you are just flat out lying. I linked to measurements of the outgoing radiation in this post, which you dismissed as irrelevant after it directly refuted your claim that there are no measurements showing that CO₂ is a greenhouse gas.

Originally Posted by Stroller

The ocean heat content has been rising since we started measuring it in the late 50's, until 2003 when it started to level out and fall again.

FALSE!

Originally Posted by Stroller

If someone tried to present AGW as a new ATM theory they would get a justifiably good grilling from Tusenfem and others.
Back it up with $80,000,000 and a compliant disaster story hungry press however, and who knows where it will end.

So you instead choose to insult the entire field of climate science, while making up your own "facts"?

I've repeatedly linked to Oreskes' paper showing the consensus in the peer reviewed literature. You described Oreskes 2004 as "... past her propagandize by date." That's extremely insulting, blatantly false and does nothing to refute the fact of the consensus. You said "... an increasingly large proportion of scientists question the attribution of that increase in temperature to increased co2." Well then, where are they publishing? If your claim is true, repeating Oreskes' study should find a large fraction of peer reviewed articles that dispute the consensus view. Where are they?

[Stroller]

Originally Posted by parejkoj

You said "... an increasingly large proportion of scientists question the attribution of that increase in temperature to increased co2." Well then, where are they publishing? If your claim is true, repeating Oreskes' study should find a large fraction of peer reviewed articles that dispute the consensus view. Where are they?

Someone recently compiled a list of 450 papers published in refereed journals which "Support Skepticism of man made global warming"

http://www.populartechnology.net/200...upporting.html

Plenty for you and Gillian to get your teeth into there.
Note well that I do not necessarily agree with or endorse all the views or hypotheses expressed in all these papers. Just as there are many pro AGW papers which don't agree with each other either. Science isn't neat, coherent, or cut and dried.

A lot of these were written since 2004. Like I said, Oreskes 2004 is past it's propagandize by date. If you thought that statement was scandalous, you should consider whether I was talking about her paper, or your misuse of it. Five years is a long time in science.

I've got nothing left than to assume you are just flat out lying

You didn't have much in the first place. I guess your reading of the subject is too limited to have come across Loehles reconstruction of ARGO data since 2003, (which I trust more than Willis' simply because as an independent researcher, he isn't having his arm twisted by his employers) and Lindzen's recent work on empirical satellite measurements of the radiation balance, but believe what you like from reading "climate progress". Personally I think Joe is another propagandist who is selective with facts. And "realclimate.org" is bought and paid for by a PR company with links to the 'environmental movement'. Both of these blogs heavily censor their comments sections.

Domain Name:REALCLIMATE.ORG
Created On:19-Nov-2004 16:39:03 UTC
Last Updated On:30-Oct-2005 21:10:46 UTC
Expiration Date:19-Nov-2007 16:39:03 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:eNom, Inc. (R39-LROR)
Status:OK
Registrant ID:B133AE74B8066012
Registrant Name:Betsy Ensley
Registrant Organization:Environmental Media Services

Long live independent research!

.

[Ari Jokimaki]

No need to waste time on that 450-list, it's rubbish as usual:
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/...hange-deniers/
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/...e-denier-lies/

[Ivan Viehoff]

Originally Posted by Stroller

...so I'll put my cards on the table...
With regard to your concerns about co2:
An extra 30% of naff all on top of naff all is still naff all.

When you say something, anything at all, on climate it would be a very effective method of discrediting it, regardless of its merits, simply to point out that you stand by this claim.

[Ari Jokimaki]

In addition to parejkoj's thorough response, couple of things about carbon dioxide's effect of the climate of the Earth:

- We have measured its absortion properties in laboratories

- We have measured the same properties from atmosphere

- We have measured how the outgoing longwave radiation decreases in carbon dioxide absorption band as expected theoretically

- We have measured how the downward longwave radiation increases accordingly, that is, we have measured how atmosphere emits more heat back to the surface. We even have measured it happening in the spectral band of carbon dioxide.

- We have measured that the water vapor feedback is positive, in other words it is amplifying the carbon dioxide induced global warming, just as expected theoretically.

- Cloud feedback has been unclear due to lack of measurements with enough quality but latest research shows that also cloud feedback is positive (Clement et al., 2009).

As Lindzen was advertised once again despite all the flaws in the latest work, here's some papers that show how Lindzen's iris hypothesis doesn't work in real world.

[Stroller]

Hi Ari,

I'm always open to the science, so I will work my way through your links and air my thoughts on the papers.

ETA I see most of the links are from your own blog. Excellent, I'll answer you there.

[lomiller1]

Originally Posted by Stroller

Someone recently compiled a list of 450 papers published in refereed journals which "Support Skepticism of man made global warming"

OMG are you serious!




Ok you really need to understand is that list was compiled by an absolute loon.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=156813


Among his basic assumptions is that since Science and Nature have committed fraud papers from any source have equal validity no matter how absurd. This means, for his purposes, a paper that claims global warming is being caused by a neutron star inside the Sun is “peer reviewed science that refutes AGW”

[SolusLupus]

One thing that I have to say about Deniers: They will always, without exception, applaud any argument that even looks like it supports their argument.

This is just another case in point. I have yet to be proven wrong.

[Stroller]

Originally Posted by lomiller1

for his purposes, a paper that claims global warming is being caused by a neutron star inside the Sun is “peer reviewed science that refutes AGW”

I know, it's nearly as crazy as papers getting published which show a positive warming trend across the whole antarctic from the '50's (Complete with lurid graphic of blood red antarctica splashed across the front cover of 'Nature'). Or papers which claim that the alleged temperature signals in tree rings are "teleconnected to global climate" when local temperature records show no trend. Or papers which show the medieval warm period never happened. There are plenty of loons out there.

Originally Posted by SolusLupus

I have yet to be proven wrong.

You've yet to say anything worth responding to. I can see why you are (in your own words) "on Mugs' ignore list".

Originally Posted by Trakar

Your responses are quite clear to me, but they are not in accord with mugalien's repeated assertions (suspected initial misunderstandings coupled with a later inability to admit mistake and withdraw or rephrase his commentary,...a pattern and trend of note) that you have provided detailed explanations of your process, complete with data, graphs and reference links.

The phrase "You seem to be lying," is not inflammatory, merely a statement of perception based upon the demonstrated facts of the exchange in question.

Here's an example of what I mean by excellent and well informed comment on whatsupwiththat. Compare and contrast with the warmist chunter being posted here.

I note that the magnitudes of the various energy fluxes are quite large compared to man-made GHG forcing, even if amplification by tropospheric moisture is assumed to be correct. It would be easy to not recognize a change in one of the fluxes that off-sets (or partially off-sets) man-made GHG forcing.

Recent work by Mishchenko et al (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/...nko_etal_4.pdf) suggest a substantial reduction in the optical density of the atmosphere between 1994 and 2005, indicating an increase of 2% – 3% in the intensity of solar radiation at the surface under clear sky conditions. This aerosol driven increase in energy reaching the surface is much larger than any increase caused by GHGs during that same 11 year period: a potential aerosol driven forcing of 3.4 to 5 watts/M^2. (GHG increases would add only a small fraction of a watt/M^2 over the same period.) Yet since about 2000 (or 2001) the average surface temperature has been essentially flat, and since 2003 the ocean heat content (according to Argo) has been flat to slightly falling…. in spite of falling aerosols and increasing GHG concentrations. So there must be some off-setting factor(s) that is(are) ‘canceling’ expected warming.

Wentz et al, Science 317, 233 (2007), http://www.remss.com/papers/wentz_sc..._paper+som.pdf, show that satellite measurements indicate increases in surface temperature have increased the net rate of ocean evaporation and global rainfall by close to 7% per degree K (in line with the Clausius-Clapeyron equation). By comparison, climate models consistently predict a much lower increase (1%-3% /K) in evaporation and rainfall. Since latent heat transport (and surface cooling of the ocean) must increase in proportion to the rate of evaporation, perhaps Wentz et al have identified a reason why the models appear to overstate climate sensitivity: the actual latent cooling increases by about 4 watts per square meter more than the models predict for each degree rise in surface temperature.

In addition, it only rains where there are clouds, so an increase in evaporation/precipitation can reasonably be expected to increase tropospheric cloud cover and increase net albedo, further off-setting radiative forcing. So maybe Richard LIndzen was right all along, and there is there an important ‘Iris’ effect that helps regulate the surface temperature.

Maybe the two papers cited could replace a couple of the whackier ones on the list of 450.

One of the interesting things about the Mishchenko result is that it agrees with the calculations I did on ocean heat retention between 1993-2003 where I identified a 4W/m^2 forcing which had caused the rise in steric sea level over the period. Of course, no-one here was interested in the calculations when I posted them on this thread. Probably because they didn't involve reference to the gas which warmists are addicted to.

[lomiller1]

Let me get this straight, you are ok with people who think the Sun is a neutron star, but can't believe papers in high impact journals because some blog told you not to?

[Stroller]

Originally Posted by lomiller1

Let me get this straight, you are ok with people who think the Sun is a neutron star, but can't believe papers in high impact journals because some blog told you not to?

The chances of you "getting it straight" seem remote.

[SolusLupus]

I know, it's nearly as crazy as papers getting published which show a positive warming trend across the whole antarctic from the '50's (Complete with lurid graphic of blood red antarctica splashed across the front cover of 'Nature'). Or papers which claim that the alleged temperature signals in tree rings are "teleconnected to global climate" when local temperature records show no trend. Or papers which show the medieval warm period never happened. There are plenty of loons out there.

I'm not sure how far equivocation goes in the realm of science, but I can't imagine it goes far.

"You really believe that the Earth was made 10,000 years ago?" 'I know! It's just like believing that something came from nothing!'

Originally Posted by Stroller

I can see why you are (in your own words) "on Mugs' ignore list".

I'm sure you can.

Considering Mug's reputation for "honesty", I take it as a compliment.

Originally Posted by Stroller

The chances of you "getting it straight" seem remote.

Nice evasion there.

[Atraveller]

Originally Posted by Douglas Adams

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

I though this quote might be appropriate at this point in the debate...

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Stroller

The chances of you "getting it straight" seem remote.

Stroller, stop this immediately! You seemed to be on the nice track lately.
SolusLupus, don't feed the frenzy, that does not help in any way.

Apparently, this thread is going for a train wrack again, maybe soon we will have to put in a cooling down time on this topic, of say ... 50 years.

[Ari Jokimaki]

Originally Posted by Stroller

I'm always open to the science, so I will work my way through your links and air my thoughts on the papers.

ETA I see most of the links are from your own blog. Excellent, I'll answer you there.

No, the discussion is here so answers are also expected here. Besides, lot of the evidence I gave have already been presented here many times, and some of it you already have given the "I take a look at it" sidebrush before.

[SolusLupus]

Also, a request:

Can people please avoid PMing me over this discussion? I'm not interested. If you can't say it in public, don't bother at all.

[Ari Jokimaki]

Meanwhile, in climate science (what this thread and forum should be about):

Two interesting papers have been posted to arXiv today:

ACRIM-gap and total solar irradiance revisited: Is there a secular trend between 1986 and 1996? - Krivova et al. (2009)

Abstract:
"A gap in the total solar irradiance (TSI) measurements between ACRIM-1 and ACRIM-2 led to the ongoing debate on the presence or not of a secular trend between the minima preceding cycles 22 (in 1986) and 23 (1996). It was recently proposed to use the SATIRE model of solar irradiance variations to bridge this gap. When doing this, it is important to use the appropriate SATIRE-based reconstruction, which we do here, employing a reconstruction based on magnetograms. The accuracy of this model on months to years timescales is significantly higher than that of a model developed for long-term reconstructions used by the ACRIM team for such an analysis. The constructed `mixed' ACRIM - SATIRE composite shows no increase in the TSI from 1986 to 1996, in contrast to the ACRIM TSI composite."

The Greenhouse Effect Does Exist! - Ebel (2009)

Abstract:
"In particular, without the greenhouse effect, essential features of the atmospheric temperature profile as a function of height cannot be described, i.e., the existence of the tropopause above which we see an almost isothermal temperature curve, whereas beneath it the temperature curve is nearly adiabatic. The relationship between the greenhouse effect and observed temperature curve is explained and the paper by Gerlich and Tscheuschner [arXiv:0707.1161] critically analyzed. Gerlich and Tscheuschner called for this discussion in their paper."

[Stroller]

Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki

Meanwhile, in climate science (what this thread and forum should be about):

Two interesting papers have been posted to arXiv today:

ACRIM-gap and total solar irradiance revisited: Is there a secular trend between 1986 and 1996? - Krivova et al. (2009)

Very interesting, thanks Ari. Combined with the increase in solar irradiance recieved at Earth's surface described in the paper I linked above a clearer picture of the increase in ocean heat content due to solar influence should emerge. I'll start tapping on my calculator again over the weekend.

Recent work by Mishchenko et al (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/...nko_etal_4.pdf) suggest a substantial reduction in the optical density of the atmosphere between 1994 and 2005, indicating an increase of 2% – 3% in the intensity of solar radiation at the surface under clear sky conditions. This aerosol driven increase in energy reaching the surface is much larger than any increase caused by GHGs during that same 11 year period: a potential aerosol driven forcing of 3.4 to 5 watts/M^2. (GHG increases would add only a small fraction of a watt/M^2 over the same period.)

Originally Posted by mugaliens

Gotta love the intrigue... The link stroller provided contained a link to where the original e-mails were posted.

It worked a couple hours ago. Now it's offline, a rare occurrence in webdom these days.

I'm glad I stayed awake long enough to download it all. There are some very interesting files in the .zip

I suspect they took it offline due to the load on the server.

eta the examiner has picked up the story

http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Esse...ocs-and-emails

[Klausnh]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

I'll give you the same answer others (including the mods) have given me when I've previously combined "global warming" and "big business" in the same sentence:

That's an interesting conspiracy theory... Perhaps you should start a thread about it, here.

Until proven false, we'll work with the evidence at hand.

I guess yo and I look at things differently.
If a note is found at a crime scene, the note is authenticated before it's used as evidence. If a gun is found at a crime scene, it's not assumed the gun is the murder weapon until it's confirmed it is the murder weapon.
The only fact we have right now is that CRU was hacked. I'll hold off judgement until the hacked file is confirmed to be authentic.
I really don't want to hijack this thread, so I'll bow out and let you have the last word.

[orionjim]

Originally Posted by Klausnh

I guess yo and I look at things differently.
If a note is found at a crime scene, the note is authenticated before it's used as evidence. If a gun is found at a crime scene, it's not assumed the gun is the murder weapon until it's confirmed it is the murder weapon.
The only fact we have right now is that CRU was hacked. I'll hold off judgement until the hacked file is confirmed to be authentic.
I really don't want to hijack this thread, so I'll bow out and let you have the last word.

How's this? http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...omment-page-1/

[lomiller1]

I think a good analogy for what we will see out of this is the Truthers who pick through the news footage for “discrepancies” in the official story. It’s really pretty easy to pick though incomplete informal communication for things that “seem” to contradict the end result.

The nature of pre-publish work is uncertainty, questions, opinion and speculation. This process as a whole lead to a clear picture at the end but this isn’t true though the entire process so there will always be an abundance of details that don’t seem to fit the final conclusion if you look at them out of context. The realclimate link above details just such out of context quotes being misused already.

[boppa]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Stroller, stop this immediately! You seemed to be on the nice track lately.
SolusLupus, don't feed the frenzy, that does not help in any way.

Apparently, this thread is going for a train wrack again, maybe soon we will have to put in a cooling down time on this topic, of say ... 50 years.

IMHO- that will be the time when the global warmist industry will finally fold and say `woops we was wrong- now give us another quatrillion dollars and we will will tell you why'

considering the `train wrack' of leaked emails from a dr mann and his friends (hmm why does that name sound so familiar???-- its almost lJke Jt's makJng me thJnk of J for some reason......why would that happen J wonder???) that got leaked had made me think .......

`J' is goooooood......


;-)

[boppa]

Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki

Meanwhile, in climate science (what this thread and forum should be about):

micheal mann

is one of the ones thats most implicated by these leaked emails

mann- j curve- THAT mann- the one the ipcc loves to use even after he's totally discredited everywhere else

so if the guy that the ipcc uses all the time for its data is `fibbing' about his data (again) and it gets out ...

by association- every `scientist' thats even says the sea level is rising (it is and has been for 10kyrs ) is going to have to be so open with their data- they would make a kings cross sausage look positively front page news...

unlike the ****fight mann and co had to have (8 years and court fights- over flaming sea levels..... WHY???- well now we know why...)

[William]

Theories make predictions. A theory that cannot explain observations is incorrect in some aspect.

Observations require an explanation.

As the planet has stopped warming there must either be some unknown mechanism that is cooling the planet (as CO2 continues to increase however the planet's temperature has not changed when corrected for El Niño and La Niña) or the late twentieth warming was due to a different mechanism than increases in CO2 AWG.

Also interesting is the recent abrupt unexplained simultaneous stoppage of Greenland Ice sheet surges into the Atlantic. As noted there is past evidence during the cyclic "Heinrich Events" of concurrent abrupt solar minimums, by the late Gerald Bond.

Comment:
There is no explanation of what caused the original ice sheet surge or why the ice sheet surge has abruptly stopped. Also interesting is evidence the increase in the ocean level has also abruptly stopped.

What is observed during a "Heinrick event" is a surge in ice flow into the Atlantic from multiple unconnected ice sheets followed by a roughly 500 year to 1000 year abrupt cooling period. Specifically what causes a Heinrich event is not know, however, there are multiple suggested mechanisms.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...662092,00.html

Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents.

Just a few weeks ago, Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research added more fuel to the fire with its latest calculations of global average temperatures. According to the Hadley figures, the world grew warmer by 0.07 degrees Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and not by the 0.2 degrees Celsius assumed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And, say the British experts, when their figure is adjusted for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El Niño and La Niña, the resulting temperature trend is reduced to 0.0 degrees Celsius -- in other words, a standstill.