Material from Nuccitelli and Cook at Skeptical Science

[westwall]

This is the most insignificant of nit-picks. The question under debate between Cook, Nuccitelli and Asafoku is whether or not gloabal warming has halted in the last 15 years, not the availability of weather records for 15th century Europe. That would be a FAIL.

But, really, I appreciate the effort.

That response was to an olfraud accusation. I had already addressed the problems with Cook et al and their "study".

 

[flacaltenn]

What was the purpose of this paper you posted.. And what was the ORIGINAL topic..
(i know the answers --- want to see YOU explain the reason for the "paper".)

Dana Nutti went after this guy because he had the gall to submit a paper showing the effect of merged PDO/AMO cycles on the temperature charts. An excersize that many others have actually already done. But he had the GALL to suggest that these natural variations ought to be subtracted from temp. record to show the REAL effects of CO2.

I not only read the abstract --- but I TRIED to read the "paper" which was so disjointed and wildly unorganized that I didn't care to wade thru it or to compare his claims to what was said in the original work he was criticizing..

You are aware that this is not ORIGINAL work. It's a critique.. A review of someone else's work. And a bad one at that. Chosen ONLY BECAUSE a paper unfavorable to the AGW agenda DARED to be submitted for publication to his Buddies new "journal"..

 

[Mr. H.]

It's not "Global Warming", it's not "Climate Change"....

The operative is now "Weather Modification".

You get up in the morning, look out the window... and bear witness. Day in, day out.

The Liberal world is now the daily world. No matter if it's raining, snowing, scorching hot, freezing cold, parched dry.

And the daily world is the fault of Conservatives and their hydrocarbons.

We know the drill.

That would be a FAIL

It was fun while it lasted. But thanks anyway.

 

[Kosh]

Let's see if you whiz brains can refute what they've got to say. If they're "bottom feeding scum", as FCT contends, it should be quite easy. Besides, global warming is a hoax and we're all just ignorant shills for the democrats and scientists getting fat and rich on billions in grant money.

Download a Nucccitellli paper here as a PDF. Then tell us what you think he got wrong.

Climate | Free Full-Text | Comment on: Akasofu, S.-I. On the Present Halting of Global Warming. Climate 2013, 1, 4?11

You know what, despite the spirited debate that goes on on this board the truth is that everyone has been really accommodating of you so far. But your grace period is over. You have no interest in having a real and honest discussion on anything. In your brief time here you've done nothing but purposely and deliberately mischaracterize the position of people who disagree with your own. You're a quack. You're a complete loon. You're on the same level as National Socialist, Rdean, Franco, and Chesswarsnow.

Translation: SwimExpert doesn't know how to read scientific papers, so he resorts to personal, politically charged attacks.

And obviously neither do you.

 

[Abraham3]

This is the most insignificant of nit-picks. The question under debate between Cook, Nuccitelli and Asafoku is whether or not gloabal warming has halted in the last 15 years, not the availability of weather records for 15th century Europe. That would be a FAIL.

But, really, I appreciate the effort.

That response was to an olfraud accusation. I had already addressed the problems with Cook et al and their "study".

This is not their study. This is a paper they wrote, which was published somewhere or other, criticizing an earlier paper by Asafoku. Sorta like something McIntyre might do without his level of snarkiness.

 

[mamooth]

Fascinating primadonna backstory here.

More fascinating is how fixated you are with gossiping about personalities

Must be WUWT thing. Pity no one else cares.

 

[westwall]

Fascinating primadonna backstory here.

More fascinating is how fixated you are with gossiping about personalities

Must be WUWT thing. Pity no one else cares.

Oh? You cared enough to respond to this thread...didn't you

 

[flacaltenn]

For crap sake.. Were talking about 2 guys who have realtime ATOMIC BOMB counter on every page of their blog to help you understand the science of GW. You think award winning science is gonna spontaneously generate out of that mindset???????????

 

[Kosh]

Yes and the OP has a "Global Warming Kills" on the bumper of their SUV.

 

[Abraham3]

TO: FCT and anyone else that want to throw in their two cents:

[4] is, of course, Akasofu, S.-I. On the present halting of global warming. Climate 2013, 1, 4–11.

If you think Nuccitelli, Abraham, Benestad and Mandia's paper is confused and disjointed, perhaps you missed the disclaimer that read: "While there are a number of errors in [4], here, only the most critical ones will be addressed, for sake of brevity. There is not particular ordering of importance; each of these errors is significant on its own".

Akasofu claims that we are experiencing a linear warming trend which he characterizes as a "recovery" from the LIA, without identifying or even suggesting a cause.

Do you believe the temperature increases seen in the 20th century are part of a linear warming recovery from the LIA?

Akasofu claims that global heating has stopped. It is a common claim around here. Nuccitelli provide 11 reference studies using direct satellite measurement of the ToA imbalance, ocean temperatures, combined land and ocean temperatures, sea level increases and so forth, that all show the Earth's total heat content is still increasing. He goes on to state that they know of none that show heating to have stopped.

Do you know of a study that shows the Earth's heating to have stopped? The claim has been made here dozens of time by dozens of posters. From what study does that come?

Akasofu made use of proxy data to construct his two century record. He did not discuss the accuracy or resolution of his proxies nor did he discuss how he blended the proxy data into the instrumented data. Sound familiar?

Akasofu plotted his data (1800-2000) and then simply stated "all these results clearly shown near linear increases in temperature". He provided no mathematics; no statistics. Nuccitelli et al plot a quadratic curve through the data with a demonstrably superior fit (lower residuals). Do you think Akasofu's unsupported claim is acceptable?

Akasofu ignores the effects of solar variability, orbital changes, volcanoes, natural greenhouse gases, anthropogenic greenhouse gases, land use changes and aeosol production on the Earth's climate during the period under discussion. Do you think that's acceptable?

You have correctly noted on multiple occasions that the relationship between CO2 concentration and its radiative forcing factor is not linear. Yet Akasofu claims that a linear increase in temperature in the face of a quadratic increase in atmospheric CO2 is "problematic". Do you believe it is problematic?

Nuccitelli et al conclude, saying

"It is reasonable, as the author (Akasofu) suggests, to consider that the Earth's temperature variations have a natural component related to multi-decadal ocean oscillations. It is also true that recent atmospheric temperature measurements have significantly slowed their increase compared to previous years. Exploration of the role of the PDO in moderating temperature increases and in distributing heat more efficiently to deep ocean zones is a useful and important endeavor. However, the method carried out in [4] makes errors of such gravity that the central conclusions cannot hold".

Do you have a disagreement with anything they say there?

 

[Kosh]

TO: FCT and anyone else that want to throw in their two cents:

[4] is, of course, Akasofu, S.-I. On the present halting of global warming. Climate 2013, 1, 4–11.

If you think Nuccitelli, Abraham, Benestad and Mandia's paper is confused and disjointed, perhaps you missed the disclaimer that read: "While there are a number of errors in [4], here, only the most critical ones will be addressed, for sake of brevity. There is not particular ordering of importance; each of these errors is significant on its own".

Akasofu claims that we are experiencing a linear warming trend which he characterizes as a "recovery" from the LIA, without identifying or even suggesting a cause.

Do you believe the temperature increases seen in the 20th century are part of a linear warming recovery from the LIA?

Akasofu claims that global heating has stopped. It is a common claim around here. Nuccitelli provide 11 reference studies using direct satellite measurement of the ToA imbalance, ocean temperatures, combined land and ocean temperatures, sea level increases and so forth, that all show the Earth's total heat content is still increasing. He goes on to state that they know of none that show heating to have stopped.

Do you know of a study that shows the Earth's heating to have stopped? The claim has been made here dozens of time by dozens of posters. From what study does that come?

Akasofu made use of proxy data to construct his two century record. He did not discuss the accuracy or resolution of his proxies nor did he discuss how he blended the proxy data into the instrumented data. Sound familiar?

Akasofu plotted his data (1800-2000) and then simply stated "all these results clearly shown near linear increases in temperature". He provided no mathematics; no statistics. Nuccitelli et al plot a quadratic curve through the data with a demonstrably superior fit (lower residuals). Do you think Akasofu's unsupported claim is acceptable?

Akasofu ignores the effects of solar variability, orbital changes, volcanoes, natural greenhouse gases, anthropogenic greenhouse gases, land use changes and aeosol production on the Earth's climate during the period under discussion. Do you think that's acceptable?

You have correctly noted on multiple occasions that the relationship between CO2 concentration and its radiative forcing factor is not linear. Yet Akasofu claims that a linear increase in temperature in the face of a quadratic increase in atmopsheric CO2 is "problematic". Do you believe it is problematic?

Nuccitelli et al conclude, saying

"It is reasonable, as the author (Akasofu) suggests, to consider that the Earth;s temperature variations have a natural component related to multi-decadal ocean oscillations. It is also true that recent atmospheric temperature measurements have significantly slowed their increase compared to previous years. Exploration of the role of the PDO in moderating temperature increases and in distributing heat more efficiently to deep ocean zones is a useful and important endeavor. However, the method carried out in [4] makes errors of such gravity that the central conclusions cannot hold".

Do you have a disagreement with anything they say there?

Link?

 

[Abraham3]

Yes and the OP has a "Global Warming Kills" on the bumper of their SUV.

What is your understanding of the meaning of "OP"?

Just as a little FYI, we own a Honda Fit and two Hyundai Elantras. Would you like to see photographs of them in my driveway?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Let's see if you whiz brains can refute what they've got to say. If they're "bottom feeding scum", as FCT contends, it should be quite easy. Besides, global warming is a hoax and we're all just ignorant shills for the democrats and scientists getting fat and rich on billions in grant money.

Download a Nucccitellli paper here as a PDF. Then tell us what you think he got wrong.

Climate | Free Full-Text | Comment on: Akasofu, S.-I. On the Present Halting of Global Warming. Climate 2013, 1, 4?11

Did you bother to read it before you posted it?

"Other errors in the article are: the claim that the heating of the Earth has halted, misunderstanding of the relationship between carbon dioxide concentration and the resultant radiative forcing, and a failure to account for forcings other than carbon dioxide (such as other greenhouse gases, atmospheric aerosols, land use changes, etc.)."

The most ardent member of the AGW Cult admit CO2 is a non-factor

 

[jon_berzerk]

Let's see if you whiz brains can refute what they've got to say. If they're "bottom feeding scum", as FCT contends, it should be quite easy. Besides, global warming is a hoax and we're all just ignorant shills for the democrats and scientists getting fat and rich on billions in grant money.

Download a Nucccitellli paper here as a PDF. Then tell us what you think he got wrong.

Climate | Free Full-Text | Comment on: Akasofu, S.-I. On the Present Halting of Global Warming. Climate 2013, 1, 4?11

Did you bother to read it before you posted it?

"Other errors in the article are: the claim that the heating of the Earth has halted, misunderstanding of the relationship between carbon dioxide concentration and the resultant radiative forcing, and a failure to account for forcings other than carbon dioxide (such as other greenhouse gases, atmospheric aerosols, land use changes, etc.)."

The most ardent member of the AGW Cult admit CO2 is a non-factor

cant get much clearer then that

 

[Abraham3]

Much "clearer" than what?

 

[Kosh]

Yes and the OP has a "Global Warming Kills" on the bumper of their SUV.

What is your understanding of the meaning of "OP"?

Just as a little FYI, we own a Honda Fit and two Hyundai Elantras. Would you like to see photographs of them in my driveway?

And the AGW cultists show that they will kill the planet in order to save it.

 

[Kosh]

Much "clearer" than what?

It is clear that you are an AGW cultist that cuts and pastes AGW church propaganda.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Much "clearer" than what?

It is clear that you are an AGW cultist that cuts and pastes AGW church propaganda.

religiously

 

[Abraham3]

I believe OP stands for "Opening Post". The OP cannot own an SUV.

The lack of thought, consideration, reason, objectivity, appropriateness and rationality in your postings is simply astounding. You are an absolute paragon of vacuity.

The question I posted: "clearer than what?" was intended for Jon Berzerk (btw Jon, that should be spelled Berserk). Are you Jon? Did Jon tell you what answer to give? Can you read Jon's mind? No? No? No? Then WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU ANSWERING FOR HIM? You MOST CERTAINLY DON'T HAVE A FUCKING THING TO SAY THAT ANYONE WANTS TO HEAR.

 

[jon_berzerk]

I believe OP stands for "Opening Post". The OP cannot own an SUV.

The lack of thought, consideration, reason, objectivity, appropriateness and rationality in your postings is simply astounding. You are an absolute paragon of vacuity.

The question I posted: "clearer than what?" was intended for Jon Berzerk (btw Jon, that should be spelled Berserk). Are you Jon? Did Jon tell you what answer to give? Can you read Jon's mind? No? No? No? Then WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU ANSWERING FOR HIM? You MOST CERTAINLY DON'T HAVE A FUCKING THING TO SAY THAT ANYONE WANTS TO HEAR.

jeez abe last time i checked

i was allowed to spell a message board id however i wanted you ninny

did you ever get chance to figure out the differences between

correlation and causation

--LOL