Slashdot Mirror

I have provided you with the data in previous posts. I know you know how to read - even if belatedly. This was part of your problem, you don't comprehend what was being said to you and thought you already knew it all so didn't actually have to read the information I gave you. This is why your argument was wrong, and you lost the debate.

You very nearly got to a point where you understood the fundamental problem with the IPCC AGW hypothesis, that it predicts a TCS (and related TCR) which is a whopping factor of 3 higher than observed. You then considered that the IPCC would be wrong, some new physics would be needed (not really, although the models don't model existing processes properly). It never dawned on you that the whole hypothesis was wrong and certainly the propaganda being used against the population by the IPCC misdirects from the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapor. But it is hard to gain control of economies and extort 'green' taxes if you talk about water vapor, the words 'carbon pollution' sounds much scarier even if it is a false propaganda meme.

And when you are really to accept the truth, you can find why the narcissistic control-feaks UN wants to control economies through collectivist central planning from their own words here:
http://green-agenda.com/

All I'm doing is showing you the truth. We (climate realists) are the Rebel Alliance showing you the Galactic Empire wants to control you and does not have your interests at heart - it is by and for the people that rule it.

Second, many of the things you have written are pants-on-fire false, and now when presented with direct evidence that contradicts your statements, you chose to ignore the evidence, and double down on your fact-free views. So, if you don't want you ignorance pointed out in public, don't put it on display.

You have provided no evidence, You have only asserted your own opinion, that of a fanatical eco-loon. It is I who provided the archeological treatise - but you are so fanatical that deny it. You will cling to ANYTHING just so you can deny the satellite observations that show the IPPC's computer simulations are WRONG - even though they adjust the effect downward with every revision (not that someone with a goldfish-memory like you has noticed their sleight-of-hand that they don't bring to your attention).

How come you know so little about glaciers? the greatest rate of glacier loss at most sites around the World was in the late 19th century. Go and look at the photographs some time instead of repeating the hysterical propaganda of eco-loons with their anti-scientific agenda.

You still have not explained how the viking graves in Greenland are now under permafrost when it must have been warmer there in the past. Instead of accepting that the narrative of CAGW has been falsified by paleoarcheology and satellite observations (which show the warming rates predicted by the CAGW hypothesis is falsified with observational data) you cling to the failed computer models - and you are so scientifically illiterate that you don't understand that computer models are 'hypothesis' and not 'empirical data'. The real empirical data shows the computer simulations are WRONG - because the modellers don't understand Bode's model of feedbacks (as well as some other fundamental flaws).

Frankly, I wonder how you think you are applying the scientific method here.

I have a PhD in Physics. What do you have? you can wonder all you want, but these guys with a NOBEL PRIZE in Physics, the world's greatest aviation engineer, and a physicist who literally wrote the (graduate) textbook on atmospheric physics all think you are very, very WRONG:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Now perhaps I'm being too harsh on you. Perhaps you intend to not be a fanatical eco-loon. In that case, you MUST use the Scientific Method and seek and understand all the evidence and arguments that climate realists put out (and I've given you some videos to start with). You must hear their arguments from their own mouths and not the disinformation and distortions put out by the anti-scientific eco-loons.

The fanatics are not the climate realists, but the climate alarmists who cling to CAGW which was plausible in the 1990s but is falsified by the observed rate of mostly (but not entirely) ***NATURAL*** warming shown in satellite observations today. If you want to understand the intend of the fanatical collectivists who are trying to use concern about the environment as a way to gain money from and control over the global then you should read their words from their own mouths:
http://green-agenda.com/

Good post. Furthermore, even honest scientists are bamboozled because the source data is being corrupted. Deliberately !
http://green-agenda.com/

The real shills come from the CAGW camp, who are working towards a planetary government which is not a democracy. Here are their own words:
http://green-agenda.com/

Do the sheep know they are being prepared for culling? do you?

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?" - Maurice Strong,

Your belief is wrong. Consensus means nothing and is not part of the Scientific Method. You have been hoodwinked by a scam. I don't ask you to admit this to anyone except yourself. And learn why the CAGW alarmists are doing what they are doing, and do NOT care about the actual science:
http://green-agenda.com/

Actually, did you not know the Minoan Warm Period, Roman Warm Period and Medieval Warm period were warmer than today? This is why Vikings farmed in Greenland and wine grapes could be grown as far north as York in England. Now the graves of the Vikings are under 'permafrost', but it wasn't frosty in their day, because it has been much hotter in the past ! You talk about 'nutters' yet seem to be defending a position for which you don't even understand even the basic counter evidence. Furthermore, I would hope you would look at the statement of the leaders of the CAGW movement:
http://green-agenda.com/

Easy. Real Scientists follow the Scientific Method. They are empiricists who look at ALL the data, and if the data doesn't match their hypothesis they adapt their hypothesis.

The pseudo-scientists are also easy to spot. They talk about "consensus" (which is not part of the Scientific Method) because they don't want to talk about the satellite observations. They talk about computer models, but refuse to discuss why the computer models don't match observed reality. They discard any and all observations that don't match their hypothesis. They call for the legal punishment of their opponents. They care more about global wealth redistribution than whether the empirical data matches their Statist Collectivist worldview. They seek to control the flow of money, and want to dictate how you can live your life:
http://green-agenda.com/

Perhaps you should the statements of intentions from the vast left-wing conspirators themselves, you'll be shocked
http://green-agenda.com/

Does it never occur to you that your hypothesis could be wrong? that your interlocutors may, in fact, know a lot more than you suppose - and they understand not only the argument for skepticism, but also the argument made by CAGW alarmist/propagandists ?

Based on your statements, there is a lot you clearly do not know. Read through the statements made in the link I have posted. Oh yeah, if you didn't know about the 500 million people who will survive the intended cull, you are not one of them. Do not say you were not warned.

So I have to argue your side for you? lame.

Are you really so ignorant of your own sides predictions that you are defending something you don't understand ? that would make you zealot no less than any religious nutbar. No wonder the Climate Realists call you guys members of the "Cult of Climate Alarmism". Your anger is based on 'righteous fury' and not on the Scientific Method.

But since the ability to Google simple claims is apparently beyond you I'll do you the favor

For global observations since the late 1950s, the most recent versions of all available data sets show that the troposphere has warmed at a slightly greater rate than the surface, while the stratosphere has cooled markedly since 1979. This is in accord with physical expectations and most model results, which demonstrate the role of increasing greenhouse gases in tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling; ozone depletion also contributes substantially to stratospheric cooling.

From: http://www.ipcc.ch/publication...

Oh, and I bet you don't even know why the IPCC doesn't care about the science and why it was set up by sociopath Maurice Strong
http://green-agenda.com/

The claim of the IPCC's model is that the TLT will warm faster than the surface. What is seen observationally is the opposite. The TLT is warming, but the surface is warming faster. That means not only is the IPCC's AGW theory not confirmed observationally, the OPPOSITE is seen. Thus, the Scientific Method requires the AGW to be discarded or amended.

As usual, skepticalscience is too credulous and tells you exactly HALF the story. They omit the important part that it is the relative warming rate that matters- and then they DELIBERATELY misrepresent the Climate Realists position.

You are being lied to - and people are trying to inform you of the WHOLE story. You can make up your own mind based on ALL the evidence - but we believe once you have the correct and complete picture you will agree with the Climate Realists rather than Climate Alarmists. Which means you will not be a slave to the UN's control freak Green Agenda: http://green-agenda.com/

So sue me if you don't want to hear ALL the observational evidence, which falsifies the IPCC's AGW Hypothesis.

You have a very distorted view of science. Theories are bodies of evidence and models, and in the course of making them one expects some false predictions. When they happen, the theory is adjusted (possibly slightly, possibly greatly) to conform with observation. You're doing the rough equivalent of releasing helium balloons, observing them, and claiming that the Theory of Gravity is falsified, and we must therefore accept the null hypothesis and drift off into space.

Completely 180 degrees from the truth. It is you who looks at the balloons rising and says that humans have changed how Gravity works on the planet - despite it having kept the planet in a stable equilibrium for a billion years (that is, perturbations do not cause runway catastrophes).

It is YOU who asserts the Law of Gravity no longer functions because of the small perturbation of Industrialized Civilization !

We're dumping carbon dioxide into the air, it's warming up the surface, and you come up with something you claim is a prediction, a handwave at supposed evidence against it, and conclude that it's actually cooler out there.

The specific prediction of the IPCC's AGW Theory is that the TLT will warm faster than the surface. This is their prediction, not mine. What is seen in observational REALITY is the OPPOSITE. That means the IPCC's AGW theory must be amended or discarded, as you point out in your first post. But what you are doing is clinging to the Theory and discarding and dismissing the observational evidence that contradicts the theory. That makes your approach anti-scientific. You also don't seem to understand the specific test of AGW theory, which is why you cling to it despite the observational data falsifying it.

It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quo...

-- Richard P Feynman
You claim that a theory can survive contradictory data. Richard Feynman disagrees with you. I agree with Feynman, and am trying to get you out of your anti-scientific habit. AGW could be true at some point in the future, but the OBSERVATIONAL REALITY shows it is not true at this time. You have to let your prejudices and preconceptions go and follow the Scientific Method. AGW cannot be sustained at this time.

I've got news for you: the Universe doesn't care about your misguided nitpicks. The surface of the Earth is warming up regardless.

So you are saying you don't care about the science. Typical. You are just like the control freak sociopaths in the UN trying to control everyone's life: http://green-agenda.com/

The Earth is indeed warming. But the observations indicate it is natural warming expected due to the end of the Little Ice Age as well as oceans transeferring heat in complicated ways. Does CO2 have an effect? yes! does the AGW's water-vapor feedback have an effect (which is the thing the Alarmists claim is the problem)? NO! in fact, the observational reality shows the water vapor effect is neutral or even slightly negative. This is excellent news which means there is no need for de-industralization, or the UN regulating and controlling every aspect of your life, and energy poverty can be a thing of the past and we can improve the lives of BILLIONS. Do you not want this?

You mean their own statements?
http://green-agenda.com/

Your graph only shows Greenland temperatures, not global, so it's not useful for discussing global climate. It also cuts off most of the recent warming.

That's a fair enough comment. It turns out that if one looks at data from around the globe, such as stalactite growth rates one sees that the fluctuations in the Greenland ice core temperatures are matched. The data I presented is a nice set which illustrates what was observed globally (with some regional variability for sure). What else is clear is:
* NATURAL variability is quite significant
* We are climbing out of the Little Ice Age, and natural warming is to be expected
* Michael Mann's 'Hockey Stick' has been debunked for other reasons but this data reinforces the death of the Hockey Stick
* It has been much warmer in even the recent past and humanity not only survived, it THRIVED, it turns out that plants grow better when it is warm like Hawaii and not when it is cold like Greenland or Iceland

Yes, the most recent warming is cut off, but that warming is less than the natural warming seen in the past.

As for the Little Ice Age, a large factor in that cooling was the Spörer and Maunder Minimums in solar activity, which ended a couple hundred years ago. Solar output then climbed, and temperatures climbed with it - but then solar output peaked in the 1950s [gsu.edu], and has been slowly dropping since then. Yet temperatures kept on climbing.

It is great you accept the reality of the Little Ice Age - a lot of people invested in AGW theory do not. You do undertstand that solar luminosity varies a few Watts, right? not very significant compared to solar output. But solar magnetic activity varies hugely, and this is evidenced by sunspot activity. It turns out that there is a link between solar magnetic activity, the resulting heliospheric interaction with cosmic rays, and the effect of cosmic rays creating clouds in the atmosphere. Since water vapor is the dominant 'greenhouse gas' and determinant of global climate this means that solar magnetic activity is a significant driver. Not the only driver, but a significant driver. See the work of Svensmark and Nir Shaviv. Now what also has to be taken into account is not only the drivers, but the oceans which moderate the heat received from the Sun. The oceans have all sorts of multi-decadal oscillations and thermal reservoir effects which are not properly understood.

However, the specific prediction of the AGW theory (where human-emitted CO2 is the significant driver of climate) is that the Tropical Lower Troposphere (TLT) will warm faster than the surface. This is the 'fingerprint' of the AGW theory promoted by the UN's IPCC. The two satellite global surveys which look for this signature not only don't show TLT warming faster than the surface, which is enough to falsify the AGW hypothesis, but actually show the opposite is happening, the surface is warming faster than the TLT - which destroys the AGW hypothesis. That's ok, its just the Scientific Method in action and we'll come out with a new theory where solar magnetic activity is accounted for and a better attempt to model the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapor, and its very complex behavior eg. convection effects, etc).

Meanwhile, there is zero justification for the UN gaining more power over your life and imposing 'carbon pollution' tax on you (what happened to "no taxation without [directly elected] representation" ?). There is no need to follow the Agenda 21 described by the UN's folks here:
http://green-agenda.com/
Which admits that they don't care about the science at all, it's just an excuse for global governance and involuntary (and thus, immoral) collectivist wealth-redistribution from all the citizens of the First World to the Third World.

I know of Henrik Svensmark's cosmic ray hypothesis. There may be some relationship between cosmic rays and clouds but it's far from clear how much of an influence GCRs are. There are plenty of cloud condensation nuclei in the atmosphere even without the influence of GCRs.

Perhaps you might like to look at this, then: http://principia-scientific.or...

t's impossible to understand anthropogenic climate change without also understanding natural variability and the scientists who put together the IPCC WG1 reports are well aware of this.

Of course it is impossible, that is the point!
This analysis makes it clear that the Franework Convention defines 'climate change' as that change which is due to human activity" http://www.mclean.ch/climate/d...

Of course humans have an effect on the climate. Of course nature has an effect on the climate. Which is greater? the IPCC is NOT charged with finding out. "Climate Change" is *defined* as that from human activity *only*, so of course reasonable people like yourself will be convinced that humans need to de-industrialize in accordance with http://green-agenda.com/
I am trying to make you aware that the IPCC is not about science, but about cover for a pre-defined neo-Marxist policy which doesn't actually care about the science. Your problem is that you are unable to fathom the ways that non-scientists work. The scientists are mostly honest (although if you've done research as I have you'll know that once the fight for funding is on even scientists show self-interest and bias), but the bureaucrats writing the summaries and press-releases most certainly are not !

What data? You've just made the bald statement that "The fact that the RWP exists shows that NATURAL VARIABILITY is greater and faster than what we've seen over the last 200 years." No cites to anything to support that.

Yes I have. You simply dismissed the data I gave. Thus, I will MAKE you look through the links I have already given - to get you out of the bad habit of arguing your position without actually examining the evidence presented. Sorry, but it is for your own damn good. You sound like an intelligent person, but you are having a hard time throwing off the programming you've been subjected to. Unfortunately de-programming you requires some work on your part.

Sure but that doesn't mean that life in its current evolutionary state can easily withstand those conditions. It's probably been 100 million years since CO2 was at 2000 ppm and over 65 million years since it was even above 1000.

Great. But you still need to answer what the 'optimimum' CO2 and mean global temperature should be, right? I mean, surely the IPCC has laid that out exactly for you, right? It has not ! That is my point - they get the world into hysterics (because getting people to react emotionally bypasses their reason) but they never defined what the actual target conditions should be or why. We do get a hint of their true motivation when the leaders of the movement refer to pre-industrial conditions as the reference. Would you like to live in a pre-industrial World? because that is what the eco-loons behind this movement are really aiming for. Have you never thought about that?

Didn't I quantify it somewhat by saying " If you took the temperature change expected over the next 200 years with BAU and spread it out over 2,000 years or more it wouldn't be nearly as big a problem."?

Why wouldn't it be a problem? surely if the CAGW/AGW hypothesis is correct and human emitted CO2 is the biggest driver of the climate then the World is just as cooked in 2000 years as 200? no? the rate of change makes l

The question is can you find a current natural process other than CO2 to account for the bulk of the current warming.

Yes. Solar magnetic variability which is correlated with temperature changes, with the correlation affected by a lag explained by oceanic effects. Furthermore, the CO2 concentration itself follows temperature (specifically, Earth's surface properties which are strongly temperature dependent, eg. the biospheric respiration of microbial life is HUGE and very temperature dependent).

But hey, anyone who believes in anything other than CO2 as climate driver is called a "denier" by the warmistas. That makes you a denier.

In the original hockey stick graph the period from 1000 to 1200 was the warmest before the current warming. How is that denying the MWP? The period from about 1400 to 1900 is the coldest shown on the graph. How is that denying the LIA?

Nope. Michael Mann's Hockey Stick has a very flat handle. Very flat, The fact that the blade shoots up is the 'evidence' for CAGW. Without a 'flat handle' t it there is not proof of the 'A' in CAGW.

I'm confused by you mentioning RWP since it was 1000 years before the start of the graph. Which makes me wonder have you ever actually looked at that graph?

Yes, I understand you are very confused. Now you are making a legal argument and not a scientific one, "Your Honor, the RWP which disproves AGW happened before the time period of the Statute of Limitations !". You guys should really listen to yourselves sometime and just think through what you are saying from a 'common sense' point of view (which is apparently not very common amongst warmistas).

The hockey stick graph has absolutely nothing to do with as you put it "C"AGW theory. It is a reconstruction of past temperatures, not a theory of how climate changes. Therefore it has nothing to do with supporting or falsifying current climate theory.

BOOM ! A second time you demonstrate a complete ignorance of the argument that YOUR side makes. The Hockey Stick is *essentialy* to the argument that the cause of the warming after the LIA is principally due to humans. This is why the Hockey Stick *must* have a flat blade or AGW is falsified (which means warmunists MUST deny the LIA and WMP and RWM and even older warming in the Holocene), That is why I post this graph, because it shows that the hypothesis advanced by the warmistas CANNOT be true:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com...

That is why the warmistas always have to quantity the time period of their argument and prevent you from looking at ALL the data - because once you start collecting data they don't want you to see then you clearly see that not only is CAGW wrong, even AGW is wrong (meaning, humans are not the principal driver of climate change, but yes, we do put a small finger on the scales), and the only reason this zombie theory is still pushed is because the forces behind it are not scientific and using rationalism and the Scientific Method - but they are POLITICAL with a particular agenda that doesn't care about the science (except if it helped them, but observational reality has falsified their hypothesis and made things difficult for the international socialist agenda that is driving this).

You can read about the goals of the UN and IPCC from their own statements, here:
http://green-agenda.com/

I'm trying to help you use the Scientific Method and look at ALL the data - because the RSS and UAH satellites are the most important, but their data falsifies CAGW and AGW at this time. Same with the paleo record. But the warmistas are trying to play lawyer sophistry on you, and not do science. I want you to do the science using the Scientific Method.

You are starting to get the idea. But when you look at the most probable values for the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) and Transient Climate Sensitivity (TCS) that values coming out of the IPCC computer models are 4 to 8 K. That means, when CO2 is doubled from the pre-Industrial level of around 270 ppmV to 540 ppmV sometime next century then the computer models predict a rise of 4 to 8 K. Doubling CO2 itself produces a rise of about 1.2 K by itself, and the rest of the predicted rise is basically due to estimated water vapor effects. If this was the case then the alarmists would be correct. However, this is not the case.

Studies based on observation data show that the IPCC's modeled ECS of 4 K is way too high. The most probable value is around 1.1 to 1.2 K (see Lewis & Curry 2015). That means that water vapor does not provide a 'positive feedback' to CO2, but actually is either neutral or very slightly negative. This is the observed reality. The problem lies with the computer 'global circulation' models which project way to much warming - mostly because they are unable to model the complex effects of water vapor, such as convection.

The Climategate emails revealed that the modelers realized their models could not match observed reality, and could not explain the difference and people like Ken Trenberth considered this a "travesty". In short, a significant number of the climate change alarmists understand that their claims are not true, but they must maintain their position in order to keep the $29 Billion per year in funding going (otherwise they'll go back to being a poorly funded and ignored sector of science) and to save face. This is why their attacks on people using the Scientific Method to match observations to the predictions are so vicious. In addition, the politicians at the UN have a different agenda - which you can read for yourself from their statements at http://green-agenda.com/

Should humans look after their environment? of course ! but lying about the failed CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) undermines Science and real environmentalism - as well as allowing authoritarians to regulate every aspect of your life through control of 'carbon'.

Like I say, please look at the actual paleo data. Please look at the graphs I already supplied. Here's another one, which shows forest fires in the US which have declined massively since the 'dustbowl' of the 1940s. The forest fires agree with the UAH and RSS satellites and weather balloons and the data from well-sited surface stations. The only data that shows any significant warming is the non-well sited stations subject to Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect as well as unexplained adjustments that massively cool the past and warm the present (which produces an apparent warming trend that other data do not show - get rid of these unexplained adjustments and the weather looks perfectly normal with normal variability).

"Experts" like psychologist John Cooke? or journalist David Appell? or the disgraced 'Hockey Stick' fraud Michael Mann? or "Climategate" falsifier Phil Jones? or politicians like Al Gore? instead of actual climate scientists like Dr Judith Curry and Dr Roy Spencer and Dr Murray Salby (who literally wrote the graduate-level textbook on atmospheric physics). Your argument is an appeal to authority as much as the Freeman Dyson proponents are (with the difference that Freeman Dyson was not found to be a conspirator to fraud as the series of "Climategate" releases were).

The pro-CAGW "experts" you appeal to have things to say like this:

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world."

Where "justice and equality" are based on the involuntary (and thus, immoral) wealth-redistribution on the Marxist model (but re-branded as "Saving the Planet"). There are many, many more disgusting anti-democratic and anti-scientific quotes here:
http://green-agenda.com/