Why Co2 Can Not Cause Further Warming...

[Crick]

Idiots hanging their hats on another failed paper.

Anthony Watts has found another insignificant paper on climate sensitivity
Sou | 2:05 PM23 Comments - leave a comment

Anthony Watts has found an insignificant and wrong paper on climate sensitivity. He thinks it's significant because it claims that climate sensitivity is only 0.43°C. But what would he know?

It wasn't really Anthony Watts who found the paper. It was one of Anthony's blogging denier mates, "hockeyschtick", who he turns to when he needs to fill a space at WUWT. (WUWT article is archived here.)

This insignificant and wrong paper is in some new (insignificant?) journal that calls itself "Open Journal of Atmospheric and Climate Change" and so far (since May 2014) has published two issues with a total of eleven papers. It has one "paper in press", which is the one that Anthony Watts likes.

paper in press is by Hermann Harde, who says he hails from Experimental Physics and Materials Science, Helmut-Schmidt-University, Hamburg. I checked - here and archived here. It looks as if he's not a full time academic there, he's listed as "ehemalige", which Google translates as "former" and might be the same as "adjunct". It could mean he is allowed to keep his association with the university, but is no longer employed there. Perhaps someone who is familiar with universities in Germany can explain.

Old CROCK gives up his information source showing where he derives his stupidity from..

Yes. It comes from Anthony Watts good friends Willis Eschenbach published on WUWT

Tht Boys at SKS playing with broken models.....

There is no mention of or link to Skeptical Science in Old Rocks post. The quotations (with links) from Willis Eschenbach on WUWT came via an article on HotWhopper.com

Defaming real scientists all the while holding up thief's and whores as those to follow..

Neither Anthony Watts nor Willis Eschenbach have ever been scientists. Neither has the education. Neither has ever held a job in research. Herman Harde WAS a scientists, but is now retired. The "journal" in which his paper was published is NOT an established one.

SO for the alarmists, being retired is now just one more reason to defame people who expose their lies.

It would indicate that they are NOT conducting active research, that whatever work they are accomplishing is being done with their own resources and conducted from the comfort of the recliner in their den. The proportion of "scientists" who deniers name as notable supporters who also happen to be retired, unemployed and of advanced age is beyond significant.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Idiots hanging their hats on another failed paper.

Anthony Watts has found another insignificant paper on climate sensitivity
Sou | 2:05 PM23 Comments - leave a comment

Anthony Watts has found an insignificant and wrong paper on climate sensitivity. He thinks it's significant because it claims that climate sensitivity is only 0.43°C. But what would he know?

It wasn't really Anthony Watts who found the paper. It was one of Anthony's blogging denier mates, "hockeyschtick", who he turns to when he needs to fill a space at WUWT. (WUWT article is archived here.)

This insignificant and wrong paper is in some new (insignificant?) journal that calls itself "Open Journal of Atmospheric and Climate Change" and so far (since May 2014) has published two issues with a total of eleven papers. It has one "paper in press", which is the one that Anthony Watts likes.

paper in press is by Hermann Harde, who says he hails from Experimental Physics and Materials Science, Helmut-Schmidt-University, Hamburg. I checked - here and archived here. It looks as if he's not a full time academic there, he's listed as "ehemalige", which Google translates as "former" and might be the same as "adjunct". It could mean he is allowed to keep his association with the university, but is no longer employed there. Perhaps someone who is familiar with universities in Germany can explain.

Old CROCK gives up his information source showing where he derives his stupidity from..

Yes. It comes from Anthony Watts good friends Willis Eschenbach published on WUWT

Tht Boys at SKS playing with broken models.....

There is no mention of or link to Skeptical Science in Old Rocks post. The quotations (with links) from Willis Eschenbach on WUWT came via an article on HotWhopper.com

Defaming real scientists all the while holding up thief's and whores as those to follow..

Neither Anthony Watts nor Willis Eschenbach have ever been scientists. Neither has the education. Neither has ever held a job in research. Herman Harde WAS a scientists, but is now retired. The "journal" in which his paper was published is NOT an established one.

SO for the alarmists, being retired is now just one more reason to defame people who expose their lies.

It would indicate that they are NOT conducting active research, that whatever work they are accomplishing is being done with their own resources and conducted from the comfort of the recliner in their den. The proportion of "scientists" who deniers name as notable supporters who also happen to be retired, unemployed and of advanced age is beyond significant.

Every rebut and reply from you two can be found in one of four places. SKS, Huffingtonpost, The Guardian, or the UN IPCC/EPA. And they are all dated before 2005.

As for those men who, from their own monies choose to expose the CAGW LIE, I applaud them. They do work that should have been done 40 years ago when this lie fist was given birth. Cilmategate exposed how those who wanted to do the science were shunned, denied publication, and manipulated by a mere few who were paid for by big government bureaucrats. The open hatred of those with whom you disagree is frightening.

You two obfuscate and create clouds of misinformation when the subject matter must be made clear. You Malign those with whom you disagree when your position is shown incorrect rather than show your work and numbers to provide/prove your basis. IF someone shows work, of their own, you demand links as if YOU are some arbitrator or judge of the work product rather than discuss what it is that was found. You two have shown you are unwilling to do the work even when data is provided. YOU are a spin doctor. Your job is to create chaos, FEAR and doubt when none should be present.

 

[Crick]

Every rebut and reply from you two can be found in one of four places. SKS, Huffingtonpost, The Guardian, or the UN IPCC/EPA. And they are all dated before 2005.

The vast majority of them originate in scientific studies published in peer reviewed journals. Personally, I have never read Huffington Post, I do NOT frequent "The Guardian" and your comment about 2005 is utter nonsense. That you should think to criticize us for using the IPCC or the EPA as a source in these conversations simply illustrates how far afield and anti-science you truly are.

As for those men who, from their own monies choose to expose the CAGW LIE, I applaud them.

You applaud anyone who puts out material you can use in these arguments. I bet you were a big fan of the BEST group before they arrived at the conclusion that mainstream science was right about AGW.

They do work that should have been done 40 years ago when this lie fist was given birth.

The work of objective research by qualified scientists into the workings of Earth's climate has been taking place every day of the last 40 years. The only lies running around the topic are yours.

Cilmategate exposed how those who wanted to do the science were shunned, denied publication, and manipulated by a mere few who were paid for by big government bureaucrats.

Climategate exposed nothing save that you and yours steal and lie.

The open hatred of those with whom you disagree is frightening.

So you're frightened of us? Why? Because the research backs us up? Because the data backs us up? Because ALL the evidence backs us up? Because the world's scientists back us up? There's a reason for all that? Mainstream science is correct. You are not.

You two obfuscate and create clouds of misinformation when the subject matter must be made clear.

We're the ones providing text and links from peer reviewed studies. If you find that difficult to understand, realize that the problem is on your end.

You Malign those with whom you disagree when your position is shown incorrect rather than show your work and numbers to provide/prove your basis.

Show my work? I'm not a climate scientist doofbrain. Neither are you. I DO show my sources. You fail to do so on almost every occasion.

IF someone shows work, of their own, you demand links as if YOU are some arbitrator or judge of the work product rather than discuss what it is that was found.

I demand the identification of sources when you or anyone else put data from unidentified sources up here that contradict mainstream positions. YOU are the worst offender in that regard.

You two have shown you are unwilling to do the work even when data is provided. YOU are a spin doctor. Your job is to create chaos, FEAR and doubt when none should be present.

I'm certainly unwilling to do your work. I've located and posted more valid, qualified and objective material here than all you deniers put together.

You truly are a worthless boob.

 

[mamooth]

And still none of the deniers want to tell me whether Harde (2014) is totally wrong, or whether Lewis & Curry (2014) is totally wrong. They contradict each other, so one of them has to be wrong.

Much of the denier crank cult pseudoscience contradicts various other bits of denier crank cult pseudoscience, but they don't care. Consistency is only important to honest people. Their cult has ordered them to believe that all the contradictory beliefs of their cult can be simultaneously true, hence they ignore the impossibility of it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Every rebut and reply from you two can be found in one of four places. SKS, Huffingtonpost, The Guardian, or the UN IPCC/EPA. And they are all dated before 2005.

The vast majority of them originate in scientific studies published in peer reviewed journals. Personally, I have never read Huffington Post, I do NOT frequent "The Guardian" and your comment about 2005 is utter nonsense. That you should think to criticize us for using the IPCC or the EPA as a source in these conversations simply illustrates how far afield and anti-science you truly are.

As for those men who, from their own monies choose to expose the CAGW LIE, I applaud them.

You applaud anyone who puts out material you can use in these arguments. I bet you were a big fan of the BEST group before they arrived at the conclusion that mainstream science was right about AGW.

They do work that should have been done 40 years ago when this lie fist was given birth.

The work of objective research by qualified scientists into the workings of Earth's climate has been taking place every day of the last 40 years. The only lies running around the topic are yours.

Cilmategate exposed how those who wanted to do the science were shunned, denied publication, and manipulated by a mere few who were paid for by big government bureaucrats.

Climategate exposed nothing save that you and yours steal and lie.

The open hatred of those with whom you disagree is frightening.

So you're frightened of us? Why? Because the research backs us up? Because the data backs us up? Because ALL the evidence backs us up? Because the world's scientists back us up? There's a reason for all that? Mainstream science is correct. You are not.

You two obfuscate and create clouds of misinformation when the subject matter must be made clear.

We're the ones providing text and links from peer reviewed studies. If you find that difficult to understand, realize that the problem is on your end.

You Malign those with whom you disagree when your position is shown incorrect rather than show your work and numbers to provide/prove your basis.

Show my work? I'm not a climate scientist doofbrain. Neither are you. I DO show my sources. You fail to do so on almost every occasion.

IF someone shows work, of their own, you demand links as if YOU are some arbitrator or judge of the work product rather than discuss what it is that was found.

I demand the identification of sources when you or anyone else put data from unidentified sources up here that contradict mainstream positions. YOU are the worst offender in that regard.

You two have shown you are unwilling to do the work even when data is provided. YOU are a spin doctor. Your job is to create chaos, FEAR and doubt when none should be present.

I'm certainly unwilling to do your work. I've located and posted more valid, qualified and objective material here than all you deniers put together.

You truly are a worthless boob.

So you see no problem with your side... Blocking publication of dissenting points of view through pal review and control of access to professional publications.. Denying funding to the same because they do not share your point point of view thought the same huge cult of pal reviewers and control set up through the controlling bureaucracy..

Because you think your entitled to do this!

OBJECTIVE? You have the balls to say your objective when your side has been shown liars and thieves {ie: Peter Glieck} You wouldn't know objective if it smacked you up side of the head.

Your Models are garbage. Your policy based on those models is Garbage. Your attempt to deny freedoms to all mankind because you think you know better.... Revolting!

 

[jc456]

Idiots hanging their hats on another failed paper.

Anthony Watts has found another insignificant paper on climate sensitivity
Sou | 2:05 PM23 Comments - leave a comment

Anthony Watts has found an insignificant and wrong paper on climate sensitivity. He thinks it's significant because it claims that climate sensitivity is only 0.43°C. But what would he know?

It wasn't really Anthony Watts who found the paper. It was one of Anthony's blogging denier mates, "hockeyschtick", who he turns to when he needs to fill a space at WUWT. (WUWT article is archived here.)

This insignificant and wrong paper is in some new (insignificant?) journal that calls itself "Open Journal of Atmospheric and Climate Change" and so far (since May 2014) has published two issues with a total of eleven papers. It has one "paper in press", which is the one that Anthony Watts likes.

paper in press is by Hermann Harde, who says he hails from Experimental Physics and Materials Science, Helmut-Schmidt-University, Hamburg. I checked - here and archived here. It looks as if he's not a full time academic there, he's listed as "ehemalige", which Google translates as "former" and might be the same as "adjunct". It could mean he is allowed to keep his association with the university, but is no longer employed there. Perhaps someone who is familiar with universities in Germany can explain.

Old CROCK gives up his information source showing where he derives his stupidity from..

Yes. It comes from Anthony Watts good friends Willis Eschenbach published on WUWT

Tht Boys at SKS playing with broken models.....

There is no mention of or link to Skeptical Science in Old Rocks post. The quotations (with links) from Willis Eschenbach on WUWT came via an article on HotWhopper.com

Defaming real scientists all the while holding up thief's and whores as those to follow..

Neither Anthony Watts nor Willis Eschenbach have ever been scientists. Neither has the education. Neither has ever held a job in research. Herman Harde WAS a scientists, but is now retired. The "journal" in which his paper was published is NOT an established one.

SO for the alarmists, being retired is now just one more reason to defame people who expose their lies.

It would indicate that they are NOT conducting active research, that whatever work they are accomplishing is being done with their own resources and conducted from the comfort of the recliner in their den. The proportion of "scientists" who deniers name as notable supporters who also happen to be retired, unemployed and of advanced age is beyond significant.

I applaud WUWT from mr. Watts. You should show more respect. LoSiNg

 

[jc456]

And still none of the deniers want to tell me whether Harde (2014) is totally wrong, or whether Lewis & Curry (2014) is totally wrong. They contradict each other, so one of them has to be wrong.

Much of the denier crank cult pseudoscience contradicts various other bits of denier crank cult pseudoscience, but they don't care. Consistency is only important to honest people. Their cult has ordered them to believe that all the contradictory beliefs of their cult can be simultaneously true, hence they ignore the impossibility of it.

What is it you're told to do?

 

[mamooth]

jc, almost all of your questions are stupid and/or nonsensical. That was a fine example.

We ignore them because they're just dumb, and because they're rather transparent attempts at deflection from the issue at hand. Ask a question which is both sensible and not an obvious red herring, and you'll get an answer.

 

[jc456]

jc, almost all of your questions are stupid and/or nonsensical. That was a fine example.

We ignore them because they're just dumb, and because they're rather transparent attempts at deflection from the issue at hand. Ask a question which is both sensible and not an obvious red herring, and you'll get an answer.

So you can't answer my question. I expected you were paid to be here. Thanks for acknowledging that. The red herring is the fact that there is climate change concerns.

 

[Crick]

What is it you're told to do?

Learn the sciences. Follow mainstream research. Remain skeptical. Don't be taken in by pseudoscience. Don't be taken in by what you want to believe.

You should try it all sometime.

 

[jc456]

What is it you're told to do?

Learn the sciences. Follow mainstream research. Remain skeptical. Don't be taken in by pseudoscience. Don't be taken in by what you want to believe.

You should try it all sometime.

I knew it. See you were told to do something. Thanks again for proving that I do know what I talk about. See no one tells me anything. I think for myself. You should try it sometime. Naw you won't, you'll just take your orders and show your ignorance then call others names. It is who you are.

 

[Crick]

So did you never go to school or did you simply flunk everything?

 

[jc456]

So did you never go to school or did you simply flunk everything?

Sure I did and I actually learned how to think for myself based on the knowledge I received. I think logically as I stated awhile ago. I don't merely take someone's word for something. I actually do research. Even if I'm not in that field. See responsible folks do research. One doesn't need to be a specialist to comment. That's why I can watch sports, comment on a game without having actually played the sport. You have little intelligence if you don't believe someone can't comment on something without being an expert. That's acting foolish.

 

[Roadrunner]

Idiots hanging their hats on another failed paper.

Anthony Watts has found another insignificant paper on climate sensitivity
Sou | 2:05 PM23 Comments - leave a comment

Anthony Watts has found an insignificant and wrong paper on climate sensitivity. He thinks it's significant because it claims that climate sensitivity is only 0.43°C. But what would he know?

It wasn't really Anthony Watts who found the paper. It was one of Anthony's blogging denier mates, "hockeyschtick", who he turns to when he needs to fill a space at WUWT. (WUWT article is archived here.)

This insignificant and wrong paper is in some new (insignificant?) journal that calls itself "Open Journal of Atmospheric and Climate Change" and so far (since May 2014) has published two issues with a total of eleven papers. It has one "paper in press", which is the one that Anthony Watts likes.

paper in press is by Hermann Harde, who says he hails from Experimental Physics and Materials Science, Helmut-Schmidt-University, Hamburg. I checked - here and archived here. It looks as if he's not a full time academic there, he's listed as "ehemalige", which Google translates as "former" and might be the same as "adjunct". It could mean he is allowed to keep his association with the university, but is no longer employed there. Perhaps someone who is familiar with universities in Germany can explain.

Old CROCK gives up his information source showing where he derives his stupidity from..

Yes. It comes from Anthony Watts good friends Willis Eschenbach published on WUWT

Tht Boys at SKS playing with broken models.....

There is no mention of or link to Skeptical Science in Old Rocks post. The quotations (with links) from Willis Eschenbach on WUWT came via an article on HotWhopper.com

Defaming real scientists all the while holding up thief's and whores as those to follow..

Neither Anthony Watts nor Willis Eschenbach have ever been scientists. Neither has the education. Neither has ever held a job in research. Herman Harde WAS a scientists, but is now retired. The "journal" in which his paper was published is NOT an established one.

SO for the alarmists, being retired is now just one more reason to defame people who expose their lies.

It would indicate that they are NOT conducting active research, that whatever work they are accomplishing is being done with their own resources and conducted from the comfort of the recliner in their den. The proportion of "scientists" who deniers name as notable supporters who also happen to be retired, unemployed and of advanced age is beyond significant.

Every rebut and reply from you two can be found in one of four places. SKS, Huffingtonpost, The Guardian, or the UN IPCC/EPA. And they are all dated before 2005.

As for those men who, from their own monies choose to expose the CAGW LIE, I applaud them. They do work that should have been done 40 years ago when this lie fist was given birth. Cilmategate exposed how those who wanted to do the science were shunned, denied publication, and manipulated by a mere few who were paid for by big government bureaucrats. The open hatred of those with whom you disagree is frightening.

You two obfuscate and create clouds of misinformation when the subject matter must be made clear. You Malign those with whom you disagree when your position is shown incorrect rather than show your work and numbers to provide/prove your basis. IF someone shows work, of their own, you demand links as if YOU are some arbitrator or judge of the work product rather than discuss what it is that was found. You two have shown you are unwilling to do the work even when data is provided. YOU are a spin doctor. Your job is to create chaos, FEAR and doubt when none should be present.

When I was a kid, and the lakes in Baton Rouge froze over, we were all warned a new Ice Age was coming.

I'd rather be warm than cold anyway.

 

[Crick]

Then your future looks pleasant.

 

[Old Rocks]

So did you never go to school or did you simply flunk everything?

Sure I did and I actually learned how to think for myself based on the knowledge I received. I think logically as I stated awhile ago. I don't merely take someone's word for something. I actually do research. Even if I'm not in that field. See responsible folks do research. One doesn't need to be a specialist to comment. That's why I can watch sports, comment on a game without having actually played the sport. You have little intelligence if you don't believe someone can't comment on something without being an expert. That's acting foolish.

Just Crazy, I have yet to see any evidence that you have ever researched anything that you post on. Sad, but true.

 

[Billy_Bob]

One more point of contention as to why CO2 can no longer affect the earth long term. IN cool phases of each hemisphere the water uptakes CO2 at a slow rate. The sea water has SALT in it and one of the process of the ocean is the manufacture of Sodium Bicarbonate. Even if the Oceans were up-taking large amounts of CO2 the system would would render it harmless and sequester it deep in the form a hard round crystaloid. We could burn every fossil fuel on earth and not make a dent in our oceans.

 

[Crick]

pH in the oceans is buffered, but not by sodium bicarbonate. In the long run, it gets buffered by weathering of limestone (CaCO3). Buffering from such weathering is why in many periods in which CO2 levels reached into the thousands of ppm, ocean pH was not dramatically affected. That worked because the change in CO2 and pH took place over millions of years, not hundreds as is happening now. On occasions in which pH changed rapidly, not allowing time for weathering, the Earth suffered massive extinctions. (the Great Dying at the PT boundary, for instance). The current rate of change is even greater than the best estimated rate seen then.

Sodium bicarbonate... god are you stupid.

 

[SSDD]

So global warming slows chemical reactions now? Tell us more about the magic.

 

[Crick]

So global warming slows chemical reactions now? Tell us more about the magic.

What I'll tell you is that your comprehension of basic English needs some serious work.