how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[IanC]

[.......The cranks that claim no change are just as incorrect as those who claim 6 degrees of warming.

And you base that clam on exactly what observed, empirical, repeatable evidence?

I base it on hundreds of years of scientific inquiry that have investigated the properties of gases, elements, light, and equilibriums.

 

[PMZ]

I use "you" as a descriptor for all of the failed AGW scientists and their claims which to date have not occurred and now, with the drop off in solar activity, it is looking ever more like Svensmark's theory is the accurate one.

Once upon a time there was a nice correlation between CO2 rise and global temp rise. That stopped at least 15 years ago. Now.........you've got nuthin, nuthin at all but ad homs and attacking the "credentials" of the sceptics that regularly skewer your (once again a generic) claims.

Wrong again, us usual. It's almost like science doesn't like you and refuses to behave as you'd prefer.

What has global warming done since 1998?

You must be Gavin. I think that is the only site you ever post links to. Of course they are wrong.....

You must be 'wrong way Corigan' trying to explain how you ended up in Ireland on a trip from NY to California.

 

[PMZ]

What science is available to you that's not to the IPCC?

 

[gslack]

I've never read you engaged in a conversation. When was it?

The next time someone cries about me being mean, I can point to crap posts like this from ignorant trolls as why...

Want to know why I am so intolerant of you and your clones socko? Take a good look at what you post daily.. Either you are rambling your half-baked nonsense full of crap you pull out of your butt, or you are trolling for effect... Not a genuine bone in you..

Oh look I see the admiral grew a pair and came back to save you.. How nice... What's wrong admiral? New clone falling so quickly?

Is this an example of you in conversation?

LOL, you and ifitzpmz, your rep hasn't gone up at all now.. SO what's up dude why are you contantly at 11-13 rep? I think it's a socking penalty...But please explain..

 

[gslack]

What science is available to you that's not to the IPCC?

And as if we needed more evidence that PMZ is an idiot..

 

[IanC]

What science is available to you that's not to the IPCC?

The lead writers for chapters in the IPCC chose which direction and what papers will be included. The AR4 was a travesty in that it discounted the evidence against Mann's hockeystick and used papers that were not even published yet as rebuttals. In at least one case the paper was never published, in others the papers were substantially changed. This is why the Ar4 emails were deleted to evade FOI.

Many of the cited papers in AR4 were specifically prepared to be included in the report. One journal printed an issue after the release of AR4 that had more than 80 percent of its articles cited. Where is the error checking besides rushed 'pal review'?

The IPCC is not as pristine as you think even if you ignore such whoppers as Himalayagate or the false claim that only peer reviewed sources were used.

 

[gslack]

[.......The cranks that claim no change are just as incorrect as those who claim 6 degrees of warming.

And you base that clam on exactly what observed, empirical, repeatable evidence?

I base it on hundreds of years of scientific inquiry that have investigated the properties of gases, elements, light, and equilibriums.

SO then you don't have anything specific.. Got it... Haven't you taken a moment to realize that you support a theory that not only can you not prove, BUT requires so much faith and is so fragile,anyone with an alternate theory must be purged... LOL, dude even YOU can only logically argue it so far and then you stomp off in a huff...

Does the reality that there is as much "evidence" for your theory as their is mine or SSD's really ever enter your mind? Yours is a mathematical construct Ian, it exists nowhere else..

 

[IanC]

Gslack- my evidence is all encompassing, from many converging fields. I don't have to throw out anything it is part of the equilibrium. SSDD is interested in pv=nrt. I think that is a majorpart of the equilibrium but it does little to explain effects from small changes in the atmoshere. I have no idea what your theory is because all you ever do is insult people.

I cannot understand how anyone can think changing conditions will not affect the equilibrium. Anyone who has taken any science knows that a change in one place will affect something elsewhere. We know increased CO2 causes a change, what we don't know is exactly what that change will be.

 

[orogenicman]

Your "peer reviewed papers" got destroyed in ten hours by a statistician. I know who I will place more credibility with...and it ain't your clowns...

No, sir, they actually didn't. And your "statistician" is McIntyre, who lost any credibility he might have had long ago. Of course, that has nothing whatsoever to do with this nonsense Ed Hoskins is promoting. But you knew that.

Uhhhhh, yes they did....Gergis et al was removed from the website. Here's what you get when you click on the original link. So yes, you are either grossly uninformed or lying....

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Here's the backup of the original....

http://static.stuff.co.nz/files/melbourne.pdf

And here is the letter to McIntyre informing him that the issues HE FOUND were being reviewed. So, yet again, you and your ilk are WRONG.

"Dear Stephen,

I am contacting you on behalf of all the authors of the Gergis et al (2012) study ‘Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium’

An issue has been identified in the processing of the data used in the study, which may affect the results. While the paper states that “both proxy climate and instrumental data were linearly detrended over the 1921–1990 period”, we discovered on Tuesday 5 June that the records used in the final analysis were not detrended for proxy selection, making this statement incorrect. Although this is an unfortunate data processing issue, it is likely to have implications for the results reported in the study. The journal has been contacted and the publication of the study has been put on hold.

This is a normal part of science. The testing of scientific studies through independent analysis of data and methods strengthens the conclusions. In this study, an issue has been identified and the results are being re-checked.

We would be grateful if you would post the notice below on your ClimateAudit web site.

We would like to thank you and the participants at the ClimateAudit blog for your scrutiny of our study, which also identified this data processing issue.

Thanks, David Karoly

Print publication of scientific study put on hold

An issue has been identified in the processing of the data used in the study, “Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium” by Joelle Gergis, Raphael Neukom, Stephen Phipps, Ailie Gallant and David Karoly, accepted for publication in the Journal of Climate.

We are currently reviewing the data and results."


Gergis et al ?Put on Hold? « Climate Audit


Your credibility is plummeting fast when you ignore reality on such a consistent basis. You might as well come back as Saigon or whoever you were the last time....

Wow, I've heard of moving the goalpost, but man, you moved the entire country in which the goalpost was located! Congratulations.

 

[orogenicman]

I never said it was peer reviewed.
Believe who and what you want.
All I see are the defensive attacks on someone's hard work.

O-M-G. EPIC FAIL!



Of course. Because any suggestion that the sun's output has not been accounted for, and that it explains global warming (which you people alternately agree and disagree is occurring) is nonsense.



Since June's global climate data just came out, and showed it being the fifth warmest June on record, you can't know what July did globally. I know you guys depend utterly on the crap Bob Tinsdale and Roy Spencer spew on a regular basis, but do wait for the official tally to be published before you start drooling.

May and June were also colder than normal by many degrees.

You really should have your Kool-Aid checked because, damn.

June 2013 Global Climate Update | NOAA Climate.gov

State of the Climate | Global Analysis - June 2013

The failure is all yours.

Au contraire. That person made specific claims that I showed were not only not true, but were outright lies. I predict that you folks will attempt to move more goalposts, or attempt to divert attention to your lies by changing the subject completely and/or trying to project your own failings on others. This is going to get interesting, for sure.

 

[orogenicman]

So 64 pages in and none of the warmers can answer the OP. How much warming is our contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere causing?

Answer = zero and even if the magic existed to some small degree,(which it doesn't) the amount would be so small as to be hopelessly lost within natural variation.

Actually, it has been addressed a number of times. That the answer wasn't what you wanted or expected is no one else's problem but yours. But let's look at the OP for a moment, shall we?

The question of how much warming will result from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we skeptics are skeptical of. The climate system is amazingly complex, and the IPCC position that elements within the climate system (especially clouds) will change in ways which amplify the resulting small warming tendency is highly questionable, to say the least. If the climate system instead acts to reduce the warming, then anthropogenic global warming (AGW) becomes for all practical purposes a non-issue.

Problems with his thesis are:

1) He makes an unsupported assumption that the IPCC position is incorrect. Unsupported because it is simply a statement of opposition to the IPCC position, not a valid argument presented with evidence backing up the statement. If the IPCC had made their statements in the same way, they'd be the laughing stock on the planet. But for some reason, he gets a pass when he does it.

2) He makes another (qualified) assumption that if the IPCC position is incorrect, then somehow the climate will shrug off its heat build up with out even bothering to suggest how that is even physically possible. The heat has to go somewhere. It doesn't get magically transported to Vulcan and solve our problem. If it is not being radiated back into space, then it stays in the atmosphere or is absorbed into the land, the biosphere, the sea, and/or all of the above.

Either way, without presenting supporting evidence, his thesis is untenable, to say the least.

Spencer wrote

Train wreck after train wreck that have long been refuted.

that article not long after he published a paper that demonstrated how clouds react to excess available heat by pumping it above the cloud tops in a manner that is finer grained and more localized than climate models handle clouds.

Prime example of one of his train wrecks that was refuted, as he has already admitted.

Why do you get to claim everything ever mentioned by the IPCC while denying Spencer even his own work?

Because Spencer long ago lost whatever credibility and respect he may have earned.

Climate sensitivities is going to be a big issue with AR5.

They are always an issue. One cannot study the climate without accounting for climate sensitivities. Thanks for reminding us, Mr. Obvious.

The science based working groups are going to scale back the presumed positive feedbacks while the politically based third working group that predicts consequences of global warming will continue to use old estimates and carry on with projections of doom. Just wait and see. The report is already in its final stages and I don't see it being changed significantly. The political side is going to ignore the science side.

It is certain that the deniers will ignore whatever science comes out of it. I am willing to bet that I could set my clock to that prediction.

 

[orogenicman]

So 64 pages in and none of the warmers can answer the OP. How much warming is our contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere causing?

Answer = zero and even if the magic existed to some small degree,(which it doesn't) the amount would be so small as to be hopelessly lost within natural variation.

Let's see. You have no theories that explain how AGW does not exist, no data, no peer reviewed science. All you can claim is that you don't want it to exist because then the media entertainers that you've mistaken for news reporters would be right and you would not look like the cultist that you are.

Not much to believe in. Science vs Fox News.

None of the major skeptics deny that CO2 has an influence. They argue that the climate system has homeostatic mechanisms that compensate rather than exacerbate the predicted impact. The cranks that claim no change are just as incorrect as those who claim 6 degrees of warming.

Erm, then you won't mind detailing those "homeostatic mechanisms, and how they "compensate" for the greenhouse effect, will you?

By the way, skeptics don't deny that CO2 has an influence. Deniers, however, do.

 

[gslack]

Gslack- my evidence is all encompassing, from many converging fields. I don't have to throw out anything it is part of the equilibrium. SSDD is interested in pv=nrt. I think that is a majorpart of the equilibrium but it does little to explain effects from small changes in the atmoshere. I have no idea what your theory is because all you ever do is insult people.

I cannot understand how anyone can think changing conditions will not affect the equilibrium. Anyone who has taken any science knows that a change in one place will affect something elsewhere. We know increased CO2 causes a change, what we don't know is exactly what that change will be.

Ian you run from every challenge to your theory so seriously, you are full of it.. And the only reason I ever insulted you was the way you responded to me or anybody else who dares to question your theory.. I remember you insulting me instead of answering a question so many times it is ridiculous. I also remember you playing obtuse when you reach a point you can't debate.

As soon as your theory is questioned and you can't defend it, you turn into a sniveling little weasel or run away. And the worst part is you lack the spine to insult people directly, instead you play dumb and insult their intelligence or try some other weasel method. You think it's not actually not insulting someone if you do it like a cowardly punk?

Personally I'd rather be an intolerant prick, than a weasel or meally mouthed punk.. At least people know where they stand with me. For those unaccustomed to hidden insults or sarcasm, you may seem civil, but people with the proper social skills, will always spot you for the coward and weasel you are..

And as for your simplification, or claim regarding changing the sytem and equilibrium.. No one is saying any such thing, or opposing it. The problem is you are assuming the changes manifest in the way your pet theory claims, yet there has been NO proof of that yet. What I am saying for one thing is that perhaps the theory is flawed and the reality is my contention has as much scientific evidence that yours does if not more.

You agree that energy is neither created nor destroyed but merely changes form? I hope so.. That being the case we can also assume that once that energy is used or changes form, we cannot re-use that energy within the same system to do the same task with out some kind of machine or mechanism to accomplish it.. If we can agree to that point, why do you still adhere to back-radiation?

Back-radiation is not needed in nature. It's a superflous bit of nonsense only needed in one scenario. And that is to prove AGW theory. You tell me what is more likely, that in this one instance, all natural laws are suddenly pliable and malleable to conform to the theory, or is it likely that the theory is flawed?

It's a completely silly pretense Ian, and what's more you know it by now. Why else do you run after a certain point in a debate to prove it? Because logically you cannot prove it beyond a mathematical possibility. It's another one of those things that may be mathematically possible, but somehow doesn't prove likely in the real world. Yet you ignore that and call if fact anyway...

Time to get off your scientific high horse and stop assuming yourself or your "gods" correct in all things simply because they or you say so...

 

[orogenicman]

What science is available to you that's not to the IPCC?

The lead writers for chapters in the IPCC chose which direction and what papers will be included. The AR4 was a travesty in that it discounted the evidence against Mann's hockeystick and used papers that were not even published yet as rebuttals. In at least one case the paper was never published, in others the papers were substantially changed. This is why the Ar4 emails were deleted to evade FOI.

So you are saying that they should have admitted for refereed acceptance, unpublished, non-refereed material posted on political blogs? Not going to happen. If you believe something along these lines did happen, present your case here, now.

 

[gslack]

What science is available to you that's not to the IPCC?

The lead writers for chapters in the IPCC chose which direction and what papers will be included. The AR4 was a travesty in that it discounted the evidence against Mann's hockeystick and used papers that were not even published yet as rebuttals. In at least one case the paper was never published, in others the papers were substantially changed. This is why the Ar4 emails were deleted to evade FOI.

So you are saying that they should have admitted for refereed acceptance, unpublished, non-refereed material posted on political blogs? Not going to happen. If you believe something along these lines did happen, present your case here, now.

Organman, you perpetual 13 rep clones are getting less credibility by the post.. You're trying to put words in his mouth, and doing a porr job of it.. You keep that tactic going and all that defending you received earlier will dry up quick..

You somehow got a by from some people on here. I was not fooled and you have so far posted and behaved in the manner which I said you would. SOfar not a single shred of the credentials you claimed to have are showing in your posts. So far all I have seen is the same tired posting style we see from any number of cones here. You claim scientific superiority yet use tactics like that one. He says one thing, you try and make itr seem something else.. That's not scientific, that's juvenile..

Please keep posting like this and I can shout "I TOLD YOU SO!" for as long as I wish..

 

[IanC]

What science is available to you that's not to the IPCC?

The lead writers for chapters in the IPCC chose which direction and what papers will be included. The AR4 was a travesty in that it discounted the evidence against Mann's hockeystick and used papers that were not even published yet as rebuttals. In at least one case the paper was never published, in others the papers were substantially changed. This is why the Ar4 emails were deleted to evade FOI.

So you are saying that they should have admitted for refereed acceptance, unpublished, non-refereed material posted on political blogs? Not going to happen. If you believe something along these lines did happen, present your case here, now.

I am against tailor made papers being concocted and published at the last moment for inclusion in the IPCC reports. I thought I made that clear.

In the specific case of McIntyre demolishing the hockeystick, here is an article putting down a timeline for the needed rebuttal of McIntyre's paper.

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html

Please check it out and identify any dates that you disagree with so that we can investigate further.

As anyone can see papers friendly to the direction of the lead authors are treated differently, including breaking rules.
.

 

[orogenicman]

The lead writers for chapters in the IPCC chose which direction and what papers will be included. The AR4 was a travesty in that it discounted the evidence against Mann's hockeystick and used papers that were not even published yet as rebuttals. In at least one case the paper was never published, in others the papers were substantially changed. This is why the Ar4 emails were deleted to evade FOI.

So you are saying that they should have admitted for refereed acceptance, unpublished, non-refereed material posted on political blogs? Not going to happen. If you believe something along these lines did happen, present your case here, now.

I am against tailor made papers being concocted and published at the last moment for inclusion in the IPCC reports. I thought I made that clear.

In the specific case of McIntyre demolishing the hockeystick, here is an article putting down a timeline for the needed rebuttal of McIntyre's paper.

- Bishop Hill blog - Caspar and the Jesus*paper

Please check it out and identify any dates that you disagree with so that we can investigate further.

As anyone can see papers friendly to the direction of the lead authors are treated differently, including breaking rules.
.

The only people who believe that the hockey stick has been refuted is the small body of mostly non-scientist political bloggers, and their scientifically illiterate rightwing minions. Are you their spokesperson?

 

[gslack]

So you are saying that they should have admitted for refereed acceptance, unpublished, non-refereed material posted on political blogs? Not going to happen. If you believe something along these lines did happen, present your case here, now.

I am against tailor made papers being concocted and published at the last moment for inclusion in the IPCC reports. I thought I made that clear.

In the specific case of McIntyre demolishing the hockeystick, here is an article putting down a timeline for the needed rebuttal of McIntyre's paper.

- Bishop Hill blog - Caspar and the Jesus*paper

Please check it out and identify any dates that you disagree with so that we can investigate further.

As anyone can see papers friendly to the direction of the lead authors are treated differently, including breaking rules.
.

The only people who believe that the hockey stick has been refuted is the small body of mostly non-scientist political bloggers, and their scientifically illiterate rightwing minions. Are you their spokesperson?

Classic divert... Plan on defending anything ever? How about answering a question? No?

Nice work socko...

 

[PMZ]

What science is available to you that's not to the IPCC?

The lead writers for chapters in the IPCC chose which direction and what papers will be included. The AR4 was a travesty in that it discounted the evidence against Mann's hockeystick and used papers that were not even published yet as rebuttals. In at least one case the paper was never published, in others the papers were substantially changed. This is why the Ar4 emails were deleted to evade FOI.

Many of the cited papers in AR4 were specifically prepared to be included in the report. One journal printed an issue after the release of AR4 that had more than 80 percent of its articles cited. Where is the error checking besides rushed 'pal review'?

The IPCC is not as pristine as you think even if you ignore such whoppers as Himalayagate or the false claim that only peer reviewed sources were used.

But what science is available to you and not the IPCC? I'm not sure what you mean by pristine. This is science.

 

[PMZ]

So 64 pages in and none of the warmers can answer the OP. How much warming is our contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere causing?

Answer = zero and even if the magic existed to some small degree,(which it doesn't) the amount would be so small as to be hopelessly lost within natural variation.

Let's see. You have no theories that explain how AGW does not exist, no data, no peer reviewed science. All you can claim is that you don't want it to exist because then the media entertainers that you've mistaken for news reporters would be right and you would not look like the cultist that you are.

Not much to believe in. Science vs Fox News.

None of the major skeptics deny that CO2 has an influence. They argue that the climate system has homeostatic mechanisms that compensate rather than exacerbate the predicted impact. The cranks that claim no change are just as incorrect as those who claim 6 degrees of warming.

What science do you offer that demonstrates that square mile of less ice and snow doesn't reduce earth's albedo? How about the release of co2 from melting permafrost?