Home/Blog
No, not that kind of feedback…
BACKGROUND
It’s been quite a while since I’ve discussed why the diagnosis of feedbacks in the climate system (and thus climate sensitivity) from observations is biased toward high climate sensitivity. It’s a controversial topic, one which we have a few published papers on, yet one I am more firmly convinced about than any other climate research I have ever published.
I’m pretty convinced that most of our detractors on the subject don’t even know what we are talking about. The refutations against our work have been a mixture of strawman arguments, red herrings, silliness, and deception.
To put it simply, if temperature change causes a change in the top-of-atmosphere radiative balance, then you can (with some assumptions regarding time lags) diagnose feedbacks by simply regressing the radiative variations against the temperature variations. BUT if it is instead a time-varying radiative imbalance causing a surface temperature change (causation reversed), then you cannot diagnose feedbacks.
If you try, then you will usually diagnose positive feedback, even if strongly negative feedback exists. Our most complete analysis of the effect was described here.
In general, both directions of causation are operating in the climate system. People like Andy Dessler will claim that ALL radiation changes are ultimately caused by temperature change, maybe at some earlier time, and so he thinks you can diagnose feedback.
But I totally reject that…there are many reasons why (for example) clouds (and thus albedo) can change that are not caused by temperature.
And if Dr. Dessler really believes it, why does he not include a time lag in his feedback diagnoses? (It usually take time — sometimes months — for the atmospheric response to a surface temperature change to fully develop). When you do that, the diagnosed feedback parameter almost always shifts in the direction of low climate sensitivity (Dick Lindzen has also published work on this issue).
ANOTHER REASON WHY FEEDBACKS CAN BE BIASED POSITIVE
For years, I’ve been mulling another reason (other than the radiation-causing-temperature change one) for diagnosed feedbacks to be biased positive. It would occur if different sources of climate variation have different feedbacks.
When feedbacks are strongly negative, then temperature changes will be minimized, because that’s what negative feedback does — it damps temperature change.
But when feedbacks are positive, the temperature changes are allowed to grow.
So, the BIG temperature changes and their associated radiation changes during positive feedback events will dominate our observations of the climate system, while the small temperature changes during negative feedback events will be less noticeable.
The net result will be an average diagnosed feedback that is biased positive, that is, toward high climate sensitivity, because we are really only analyzing the big climate events that were allowed to grow due to positive feedbacks.
1D FORCING-FEEDBACK MODEL TEST
One can test this idea quantitatively with a simple 1D forcing-feedback energy balance model (like the one we have use in our papers, but here assuming a simple 1-layer swamp ocean 25 m deep, and a 30 day time step). If I force the ocean surface temperatures departures from an average state with a random number generator that is smoothed in time, then assume a sinusoidally varying feedback parameter between 0 and 6.4 W m-2 K-1 over a period of 28 months as the radiative response to those temperature variations, I get behavior like this:
The net feedback parameter diagnosis is then usually just the regression slope between the radiative flux variations and the temperature variations, which from the model output looks like this:
We see that the regression diagnosis of the feedback parameter is biased low. Instead of an average of 3.2 W m-2 K-1 as specified (which would be 1.2 deg. C equilibrium climate sensitivity), the diagnosis is 2.07 W m-2 K-1 (about 1.8 deg. C climate sensitivity).
If I add in some time-varying radiative forcing like we have addressed in our recent papers (e.g. this one), the bias toward high climate sensitivity is even greater (not shown here).
The above discussion is nowhere near exhaustive; I’m just trying to stimulate thought and discussion on an issue I feel very strongly about, that is: climate feedbacks diagnosed from observational data are very error-prone, with the errors most likely leading to overestimates of climate sensitivity.
Bill Grays analysis was the best I’ve seen.
I am an Electronic Engineer who designed many negative and positive electronic and electromechanical feedback systems. Only negative feedback system display any ability to reach an equilibrium. Positive feedback systems rapidly slam into some limit in one direction or the other. I do not understand how the climate can have positive feedback without overheating or freezing the Earth more or less permanently. Can someone explain this?
I also used to puzzle over this. However if you dig into it a little you’ll find out that when a negative feedback gain lies somewhere between ‘0’ and ‘1’, it is often called a positive feedback in climate science.
Common complaint from engineers, Robert. For some reason, the main “feedback” which stabilizes the climate system, the so-called “Planck effect” (increasing infrared output as temperature increases) is NOT called a “feedback” in climate research. I don’t know why this is the case. When the Planck effect is included with all of the other feedbacks, the total feedback (even in climate models which produce huge warming) is still negative. As you allude to, it must be, otherwise there would be unlimited warming (I suppose it would stop when the Earth became has hot as the sun…I don’t know).
So, when the climate “experts” say the net feedbacks in the climate system are positive, they are excluding the Planck effect, which if included would in all cases make the net negative, not positive. It’s just a terminology issue, and causes unnecessary confusion.
The net feedback parameter I refer to in my post does include the Planck Effect. It must always be greater than zero…which would be a borderline unstable climate system.
Its just a terminology issue, and causes unnecessary confusion.
Unfortunately, it goes far past just being a terminology issue. This lack of scientific precision is one of the things that makes climate science a pseudoscience.
Climate science papers continually confuse the terms forcing, feedback, response, radiative flux, and energy imbalance. In the proper application of science, the terms are NOT interchangeable. Of course, all the confusion just makes it easier to peddle interpretations, beliefs, and assumptions as science.
Exactly, geran. AGW is wool-hat science.
yes, I mostly agree with you on this, geran.
I also agree with most of your points. The theory of feedback systems, especially for systems that can be approximated as linear, is very well defined. If climate scientists want to talk about feedback. they should adopt the accepted terminology and methods.
Roy, blog posts aren’t science. You know that. You know very well that your speculations here won’t be taken seriously unless they appear in the peer reviewed literature.
And you simply haven’t proven your case there. (The resignation of an editor-in-chief didn’t help.)
You and Christy have a habit of throwing out claims and graphs that would never pass peer review. But it accomplishes what I think is your chief aim — the denialist minions eat it up. Biased Senators accept it as truth without question.
Do you really think people don’t understand the game you’re playing?
PLEASE DON’T FEED THE TROLL !!!
Made me laugh.
Please indulge me. Based on the peer reviewed science…..In the next 10 to 20 years what will be the global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT)? A +/- range will be fine.
Crickets.
The science is nowhere near settled.
David,
It’s silly to say that a blog post of Roy’s isn’t science. Now, it may arguably not be correct science, but in order for something to be science it doesn’t have to appear in a journal.
@David Appell…”Roy, blog posts arent science. You know that. You know very well that your speculations here wont be taken seriously unless they appear in the peer reviewed literature”.
Peer review is not science either, no more than blogs are. Peer review was set up initially to keep laymen from publishing in scientific journals but peer review itself is not part of the scientific method or a requirement of the scientific method.
There is nothing to stop me performing an experiment based on a stated objective, publishing my method, equipment, observations, and conclusions in a blog and having it reproduced by laymen. Such science is just as valid as any other science.
On the other hand, having pseudo-science done in a climate model, publishing in a journal and having it reviewed by hand picked, biased reviewers is not science.
Roy’s climate science and that of John Christy is valid science because it is based on real data from NOAA satellite telemetry. When Roy dabbles in model theory, I don’t hear him making absurd claims as they do in mainstream climate modeling.
David Appell operates Quark Soup, a blog that purports to address science. Appell is a strange fruit.
Have you heard that Dr. Roy Spencer is on the list of creditors in Peabody Coal’s bankruptcy filing?
Yeah, but Roy — you don’t seem to disagree with much of it either. IMO, you accept far too much surrounding the way feedback is defined and applied in mainstream climate science.
The way the energy balance is maintained, i.e. the way system remains stable despite being so chaotic and dynamic, is far more involved that a simple Planck weighted negative feedback.
Robert, much confusion here.
Positive feedback does not necessarily lead to a runaway condition. That is just one example of it.
Positive feedback simply means that the initial input is increased. Negative feedback means that the initial input is reduced.
Positive feedback does not damp the initial input; it amplifies it. That’s why it is called positive feedback as opposed to negative feedback.
Many positive feedback systems are stable. The Earth’s climate is (probably) one of those.
@Mike B “Positive feedback simply means that the initial input is increased. Negative feedback means that the initial input is reduced”.
In an electronics amplifier that is not true. All positive feedback equations have a gain factor which is nearly impossible to produce in nature without an amplifier.
In an electronics amp, an input signal is amplified and a small fraction of the output signal is fed back to the input. If the feedback signal is in phase with the input signal the two add and then they are amplified. That additive output signal is sampled and fed back again, then re-amplified.
Simply increasing the input signal will not produce positive feedback. Amplification is required with part of its output fed back to the input. Of course, positive feedback is also a reference in servo systems but that refers to sign only and is not the positive feedback in question here.
Each cycle the signal grows exponentially. There are ways to slow the exponential rise or use it to create a controlled oscillation but the positive feedback will run away under normal conditions.
In the Seattle Tacoma Bridge disaster, wind caused the support cables to vibrate resonantly and the resonance produced a gain. That type of gain is not present in the atmosphere.
An equation for positive feedback is G – A/(1-AB), where G = overall gain, A = amplified gain, and B = feedback.
In the denominator, as 1 – AB -> 0, the overall gain G approaches infinity. If B is negative, 1 – AB is always greater than 1. If B is positive, 1 – AB is always less than 1. In a closed loop amplified system, B will increase each cycle so that 1 – AB -> 0 more closely each cycle.
Again, this does not apply to our atmosphere since there is no amplifier.
In the amplified system above, amplifiers are designed with negative feedback to broaden and flatten bandwith. That negative feedback prevents a positive feedback condition. However, there are times when positive feedback occurs within a transistor between the collector and base, causing it to oscillate at supersonic frequencies. That can destroy the transistor.
correction….”An equation for positive feedback is G A/(1-AB)…”
should read,
“An equation for positive feedback is G = A/(1-AB)…”
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of feedback. Positive feedback in any system that can be approximated as linear, ALWAYS forces the output to the positive limit. Even if the system is non-linear, the output will be forced to the positive limit unless the system is so non-linear that it reverses the feedback to negative at some input level.
@Roert Emmons…”Positive feedback…ALWAYS forces the output to the positive limit”.
Positive feedback in an electronics amplifier can force nothing. Any forcing, which is actually a word from modeling, as in forcing function, is due to the amplifier. Without amplification, positive feedback of the runaway kind is not possible.
There are natural processes which can produce a runaway positive feedback, such as the natural resonance in support cables on a suspension bridge, if undamped. The atmosphere has no such resonant systems or amplification.
A major source of error and misunderstanding is that positive feedback is amplification, or produces it. That is not true. If you have an amplified PA system howling due to positive feedback from the microphone to the speakers, and you shut the amplifier off, the howling (feedback) stops immediately.
Positive feedback in an amplified system is due only to the sign of the portion of the output signal feedback when it interacts with the input signal. If the feedback signal is in phase it adds to the input signal. When amplified, the net signal is larger than the original amplified signal and the portion fed back to the input is larger as well. Therefore, on subsequent cycles of amplification, the output signal increases exponentially.
The linear system you are describing sounds like the feedback used in a servomotor system. That is not the same positive feedback as claimed by climate scientists. In the event that it is, there is no way such a feedback could ever produce a runaway effect since there is no gain in the system.
@Robert Emmons….sorry, I thought your reply was to me but maybe it was to the original post. We seem to be in agreement as to the effect positive feedback would have on the atmosphere.
Actually, if the forcing function is positive, the positive feedback always forces the output to the positive limit. If the forcing function is negative, the positive feedback forces the output to the negative limit. You do not have to have a loop gain greater than one to cause this. Any loop gain greater than zero will do.
There appears to be strong evidence of bounding limits in the GISP2 ice-core data. We are currently at the upper bound which has been reached about once every 100,000 years for the last 500,000 years.
See: http://climatechange.umaine.edu/icecores/IceCore/Ice_Core_101_old_files/droppedImage_12.png
Anyone who thinks the ECS is a fixed number is fooling themselves, or trying to fool others.
Test.
That graphic does not seem to show any such thing. It just shows that dD closely matches CO2 and that both have moved within a range. Nothing whatsoever can be inferred about “limits”, let alone any limiting mechanism that could provide inferences about current events, and the entire series covers only a period of cycling in orbital forcing. Any inference that there must be a limit to the effect of radiative CO2e forcing is wishful thinking, to put it mildly.
mpainter says:
June 6, 2016 at 10:04 AM
Mpainter:The truth is that increased levels of CO2 have decreased crop loss due to drought.
Elliot Bignell: One mindless assertion deserves another: No, they havent.
Ah, interesting. A “d” in fromn of “CO2” stopped that from posting, repeatedly. A bit too close to the name of Mister Gravitational Temperature Gradient, perhaps?
Dear dr Roy spencer,
I’ve always been sort of confused on climate sensitivity. My question to you is if we were to continue to pump in co2 into the atmosphere for the next 100 years. That is if over the next 50 years 75% of our emissions which our oil and gas will have been used up and all we will have is coal which relies for about 25% of all fossil fuel emissions I would think that climate sensitivity would be only about a few tenths of a degree of warmin centigrade as Murray salby describes in one of his presentations on YouTube. I don’t know but i think even 1.8C is pushing it.
Warming to date shows that climate sensitivity to CO2 is obviously higher than a few tenths of a degree C.
I don’t see that Salby has any credibility. Just the opposite, in fact.
Davie, warming to date shows that climate sensitivity to CO2 is obviously much lower than predicted by the IPCC.
I don’t see that you, or the IPCC, has any credibility. Just the opposite, in fact.
Ha! Nice one geran
The simplest estimate of CO2’s climate sensitivity, using observations to date, suggests it’s at least 2 C. Calculation here:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/03/better-way-to-calculate-climate.html
So simple, it’s wrong.
Occams Razor only applies when geran wants it to.
Exactly, Paul!
I’m glad you didn’t go for the more sophisticated spelling, “Ockham”, which was the guy’s name. Us hicks have to stick together….
There are just too many degrees of freedom to even start to think that sensitivity can be calculated with any amount of confidence.
Geren would seem to be correct. Appell does not give enough details to check his calculation, but I get 1.5 to 1.8 K for TCR using a similar method with data from 1947-2015. Part of the difference is that Appell ignores non-CO2 greehouse gases, which are 20-25% of the total.
And I would not suggest that my simple analysis trumps more careful analyses. Those come out even lower.
All theory, no proof…
Warming during the satellite era is a step-up of 0.25-0.3 C, this due to decreased cloudiness, globally. Estimated increase in insolation of 2.5 W/sq m – 5 W/sq m. Otherwise, two flat trends connected by this step-up. See UAH May global anomaly.
Bottom line, CO2 had nothing to do with it. Sorry, David.
mpainter, you are totally CORRECT.
1. No warming in the UAH satellite record before the 1998 El Nino
2. No warming between the end of that El Nino in 2001 and the start of the current El Nino at the beginning of 2015.
3. No warming in the southern polar region for the whole 38 years of the satellite record.
4. No warming in the southern ex-tropicals for 20 years.
5. No warming in Australia for 20 years, cooling since 2002
6. No warming in Japan surface data for 20 years
7. No warming in the USA since 2005 when a non-corrupted system was installed, until the beginning of the current El Nino.
8. UAH Global Land shows no warming from 1979-1997, the no warming from 20012015
9. Iceland essentially the same temperature as in the late 1930s as now, maybe slightly lower.
10. Southern Sea temperatures not warming from 1982 2005, then cooling (is this a CO2 thing as well?)
11. Even UAH NoPol shows no warming this century until the large spike in January 2016.
That is DESPITE a large climb in CO2 levels over those periods.
There IS ABSOLUTELY NO CO2 WARMING effect evident in the temperature data. NONE WHAT-SO-EVER.
The ONLY very slight warming has come from ElNino and ocean circulation effects.
“mpainter, you are totally CORRECT.”
Which is a contradiction. Here’s a useful heuristic: If you agree with either mpainter or Mr. Natural Fabric you’re doing something wrong.
mpainter says:
June 6, 2016 at 10:04 AM
Mpainter:The truth is that increased levels of CO2 have decreased crop loss due to drought.
Elliot Bignell: One mindless assertion deserves another: No, they havent.
Eric, Nice photography.
Just stick to that, hey. 😉
AndyG55 says:
“1. No warming in the UAH satellite record before the 1998 El Nino”
It’s almost like someone tied your hands behind your back, preventing you from using a calculator.
Linear trend of UAH LT from inception to 12/1997 = +0.093 C/decade.
Warming based on that trend (trend*interval) = +0.18 C.
“2. No warming between the end of that El Nino in 2001 and the start of the current El Nino at the beginning of 2015.”
Too short an interval to say anything about climate.
Yes, rotten, we know you want to use the El Ninos to create a warming trend.
Its the only way you can.
Go back to writing sci-phatasy in your low-end journal
Its all you are fit for.
David Appell, there is no warming in the satellite record prior to El Nino. Your claim otherwise is incorrect. No warming in the satellite record after 2002. Study the UAH plot to see this. Note 0.25- 0.3 C step-up in record, connecting two flat trends. A step-up is not a trend.
The question of feedbacks is answered by simple observation of different climates found on earth. Compare the humid tropics with the dry Sahara. The Sahara reaches tmax of 125 F, the tropics only 90 F tmax. We see here that the least GHE means the highest tmax, the most GHE yields the lowest tmax. So much for the execrable science of AGW.
Are you assuming that all warming to date is solely due to rising CO2 concentrations?
What we know about CO2 and Climate Change
CO2 is a “Greenhouse” Gas
Burning fossil fuels produces CO2
About half of the CO2 produced appears to be reabsorbed through natural process.
By 2100 we will have burnt enough Fossil Fuel to double the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
Doubling the CO2 will increase in and of itself the Global Temperature about 1 degree C.
Increasing the Global temperature 1 degree C should not concern anyone.
But are there secondary effects of the Global Temperature increasing 1 degree C?
Yes there are. The most notable of these is, if the Global temperature increases 1 degree C there will be increased evaporation of the oceans, which will increase the amount of water in the atmosphere.
The question is will the increase of water vapor contribute to global warming (positive feedback) or reduce the global warming (negative feedback). And the answer is nobody knows.
But here are the 2 scenarios
1) If the increase of water vapor is manifested as cloudless skies with humidity then the water vapor will be a positive feedback and the global temperature will increase beyond 1 degree C.
2) If the increase of water vapor is manifested as clouds then the water vapor will be a negative feedback and the global temperature will increase less than 1 degree C.
What we appear to know.
The preponderance of “known” evidence heavily sides water vapor being a negative feedback but it is not enough evidence to state firmly a doubling of CO2 will not kick start a global warming of beyond 1 degree. So the debate goes on.
It appears the history has had no less than 8 major and rapid climate changes and at this time we cannot state, we understand why these major climatic events happen. We can state that none of the major climatic event appears to have been caused by concentrations of CO2. And we can also state that there is no strong evidence of a change in CO2 has ever caused minor climatic changes.
Here is one of the better pieces of evidence of how the world will react to warming
If we go back to the Holocene war period for 8,000 to 4,000 years ago, the globe was warmer than today. It appears during this time the globe was a significantly wetter place than today and most of the world’s deserts were much smaller and less pronounced.
We can go into hypotheticals from here but they are nothing more than hypotheticals.
Roy appears to be one of the few people who is interested in actually reducing what we don’t know. It appears most people who engage in this debate only wish to increase confusion.
FYI My response was to ClimateChange4Realz request for a “laymans” understanding of Climate Sensitivity.
The comment “it appears most people who engage in this debate only wish to increase confusion” is in reference to the General Climate Change Debate out in the world. It is NOT a reference, to the conversion in this thread. My apologizes, if I offended anyone here.
Thanks
It is good to have the comments back on!
Michal, one has to wonder what impact trenberth’s “heat hiding in the ocean” has on climate sensitvity estimates. If heat sinks into the ocean, then the 1C estimate for a doubling of CO2 (w/o feedbacks) might be significantly less to begin with. And then if positive feedbacks also sink into the ocean, then you can take off more warming there again. Just taking a look at the “pause”, there has been an increase of 40 ppm (?) and yet no warming. (and no warming also means no positive feedbacks) It would seem that unless all sources of natural warming are accurately accounted for, then no real estimates of climate sensitivity are possible…
Do not believe the heat sink of the Ocean will change the final outcome. I believe two natural phenomena are being place together here. And I believe it is better to think of them separately.
the two phenomena are Heat Sink and Ocean Over Turn
The heat sink of the ocean will change how fast or slow the Earth heats but not the temperature the Earth in 100 years.
Ocean Over Turn will cause cyclic variations in the Global temperature and will create noise in the long term observations of global temperature changes. Ocean Over Turn in an of itself will not change the temperature of the Earth in 100 years.
The pause was caused because the rate at which the Ocean Over Turns varies. And the the cyclic variations caused more noise than the gradual heating of the Earth. And the Earth has been warming at a minor rate for the 36 years (the time of scientific monitoring).
It was good for the pause to publicity because it illustrated how far fetched the IPCC models appear to be. But in and of it self the pause has little scientific voracity as to how much the Earth will warm due to CO2 increases.
Correction to my statements
Made some poor assumptions in my statements
“The heat sink of the ocean will change how fast or slow the Earth heats but not the temperature the Earth in 100 years.”
When I stated “Earth” it was a poor choice. I used two different definitions for “earth” in the same sentence. Just ick!
On the Earth we have two atmospheric systems Ocean (Liquid Water) and the Atmosphere (Gases), it appear many of us including myself has a bias of thinks the land and air temperature as the “Earth” and the Ocean temperature Especially the deep Ocean temp as something outside of the Earth.
A better way to say what i wished is,
The heat sink of the ocean will change how fast or slow the air and land heats and this may moderate the changes the temperature of the Air and Land in 100 years. But not the temperature the Earth (combined Air, Land Surface, and Ocean) in 100 years.” It is just how much of the warming is in the Air and Land Surface and how much is in the Ocean.
So the heat sink of the Ocean does not actually change sensitivity but it can change where the additional heat is stored.
And for the heat to be stored in the Ocean in a effective way to buffer air temperatures long term we need to describe Ocean Over Turn long terms but to get the heat out of the Air we need to describe Ocean Over Turn is short terms. This appears to be conflicting realities. Not stating I am correct just that it appears more information is needed to understand.
It is agreed the Ocean will and does moderate air temperatures on a global scale. But do not believe the ocean is a magic button that all the heat will disappear into. And even if it did and the IPCC is correct it will only smooth out the warming not remove it. Additionally, the top temperature reached by the CO2 warming could still be close to the same. The only change would be when the top temperature is reached. And how long we would be at the top temperature.
Please understand NOT stating the IPCC is correct.
Sensitivity estimates ARE for the surface temps (no?). And remember, if the heat is being stored in the ocean (or deep ocean) that will affect positive feedbacks at the surface (lessening them). No warming, no feedbacks. We could also see cooling at the surface all the while that the ocean continues to warm (so long as surface temps are higher than the equilibrium state temperature set hundreds of years ago)…
Trenberth (ocean warming) is such a recent addition to climate science that one has to wonder whether the ipcc has considered all the ramifications of…
fonzarelli,
Heat going into the ocean is the reason there is a difference between equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and transient climate response (TCR). ECS is the amount the surface temperature will increase once the oceans have caught up; that will take hundreds of years. The direct CO2 effect and the various feedbacks are contributions to ECS. TCR is less than ECS since it takes into account the cooling due to heat going into the oceans. TCR is the quantity relevant for policy since it occurs on a time scale relevant to policy. Scaremongers like to use ECS, since it is bigger.
Mike, thanx for the reply. Comments like yours remind me of just how great Dr Spencer’s blog is and how fortunate we all are that he’s managing to keep his comments open. I’ve been to other blogs since he shut down and i must say that i’ve done funner things. You don’t know what you’ve got til it’s gone. Well… now we know!
The point i’m trying to make is that trenberth is a brand new addition to climate science. They weren’t prepared for the pause. And they don’t seem to have a handle on this. Given trenberth, are we sure the heat is coming back? If the ocean is simply setting up a new temperature gradient then we can probably expect the heat to stay down there. If all that the weak forcing of co2 does is essentially heat the oceans then it will mean that ECS is far less than is thought. To me it’s a shocker that they are just getting around to trenberth’s deep ocean warming. This should have been well understood from the get go…
“They werent prepared for the pause.”
People are rarely prepared for stuff that you just make up.
mpainter says:
June 6, 2016 at 10:04 AM
Mpainter:The truth is that increased levels of CO2 have decreased crop loss due to drought.
Elliot Bignell: One mindless assertion deserves another: No, they havent.
“Doubling the CO2 will increase in and of itself the Global Temperature about 1 degree C.”
Michal, that is a “belief”. It is not science. It does not hold up under proper examination.
Yeah, geran, one need not even be a “sky dragon slayer” to ask the simple question of “where’s the heat?”. We’re nearly half way to a doubling of CO2 so we should have seen .5C of warming from CO2 alone already. (that without the positive feedbacks and natural sources of warming) So unless it’s down there hiding in the ocean ready to jump out like the loch ness monster, then somethin’s wrong…
Hi fonz.
I’ll go with “somethin’s wrong”.
“Were nearly half way to a doubling of CO2 so we should have seen .5C of warming from CO2 alone already.”
And yet we’ve seen about 0.8C, leaving the recent transient peak out of consideration. So what do you think is wrong with your calculations?
mpainter says:
June 6, 2016 at 10:04 AM
Mpainter:The truth is that increased levels of CO2 have decreased crop loss due to drought.
Elliot Bignell: One mindless assertion deserves another: No, they havent.
Doubling the CO2 will increase in and of itself the Global Temperature about 1 degree C.
This is a straightforward calculation.
If Ts is the initial surface temperature, S the sun’s irradiance, alpha the earth’s albedo, then the change in surface temperature dT from a forcing dF is
dT/dF =(def) lambda = Ts/((1-alpha)S) = 0.3 K/(W/m2).
for Ts = 288 K and S = 1365 W/m2 and alpha = 0.3.
Since F(CO2) = alpha*ln(CO2/CO2_0)
where alpha = 5.35 W/m2, we get, for the no-feedback climate sensitivity to CO2:
Delta(T) = lambda*Delta(F)
and where F(CO2) = alpha*ln(CO2/CO2_0) where alpha = 5.35 W/m2.
For a CO2 doubling, Delta(F) = alpha*ln(2)
so the temperature change for a doubling of CO2 is
Delta(T) = lambda*alpha*ln(2) = 1.2 K
For more details, see
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/climatsensitivity.html
Well copied.
Pity you don’t understand any of it.
Hi Dr Roy
Is this another reason for Trenberth’s missing heat ?
There are also variations in ocean circulation and heat uptake and bio chemical processes to consider.
How can one differenciate sensitivity on any aspect of climate with so many chaotic variables over time? Land use for instance has changed significantly over the last 200 years via mega farms, urban sprawl, mega dams, large scale wind/solar farms and on and on, independent of fossil fuel usage. Quite a challenge one would think.
You’re right, climate sensitivity w.r.t. any factor is complicated.
It’s really just a theoretical calculation. If models calculate that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is X, real world warming after a doubling won’t actually be X, because other factors are taking place too. (Though they’re probably smaller than CO2’s. But not necessarily, viz tipping points.)
“(Though theyre probably smaller than CO2s)”
Ah, so all of them are negative “forcings”
That’s the only way to be smaller than ZERO.
Forget land use changes. Sensitivity doesn’t even recognize the difference between terra firms and Poseidon’s realm
Dr Roy Clark highlights how trivial CO2 forcing is across the other significant variables
http://venturaphotonics.com/GlobalWarming.html
“If I force the ocean surface temperatures departures from an average state with a random number generator that is smoothed in time, then assume a sinusoidally varying feedback parameter between 0 and 6.4 W m-2 K-1…”
I’m confused, Dr Roy. Your test “forces” the ocean temps, and the feedback is a varying radiative flux? The feedback is a “forcing”?
Please help me out.
No, the feedback is a response to the temperature change caused by the forcing.
Thanks, RW.
So, where does this “feedback” (due to forcing surface temperatures) appear–the atmosphere?
“But I totally reject thatthere are many reasons why (for example) clouds (and thus albedo) can change that are not caused by temperature.”
In case u have not seen this yet
Nature
Cloud chamber aerosol-cloud albedo
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v533/n7604/full/nature17953.html
Of course, this isn’t going to be settled by a blog post — it needs to be published in the peer reviewed literature.
And, this time, not a “remote” journal where the editor-in-chief felt so hoodwinked he resigned.
Davie, have you checked the “reviewers” of RP’s paper (link you provided last post)?
It seems there are a few mistakes missed.
David are u with CERN on this one (paper above)? I imagine you are conflicted by their conclusions but you have to admit there are several papers coming out suggesting cosmic rays are most likely real climate drivers. You can decrease AGW to mostly methane forcing, if u use 3x the strenght of the sun. Totally erodes the IPCC thesis.
a remote journal ”
You mean like the one you write sci-fant for. !
That is a scientific article Aaron. But I am having loads of trouble understanding it. Can you please simplify it for me?
Thanks
Yea look at all the authors… i had to get help also. I would love for other people to help more here so i can understand more.
Based on my current understanding (not in my field) I would summarize key points as:
1. Clouds can form using natural molecules (not just sulphates), and the abundance of cloud forming ions are influenced by cosmic rays
2. This means pre industrial climate was also sensitive to cosmic rays not just man made pollution from sulphates
3. The sun’s strength has increased greatly from 1905 to 2005 then recently returned to a minimum (background knowledge not in paper)
4. Climate sensitivity and warming from GHG is exagerated in models because sun is stronger and influences albedo by clouds more than models include.
I quote them that their findings that the cloud state in a pristine climate- “reduce the estimated anthropogenic radiative forcing from increased aerosol-cloud albedo over the industrial period.”
Or simply put- cosmic rays likely influence climate and are excluded from IPCC models, which exagerates sensitivity to GHG and role of sulphate pollution.
Hmmmmmmmm interesting
A good way to look at it though
Supplemental cross post
https://judithcurry.com/2016/06/02/the-cloud-climate-conundrum/#more-21607
I still need to examine the cloud aerosol paper, but from what I’ve seen I’m a little astounded. It’s been known since the 1950-60s that most CCN are natural…they are everywhere…from sea salt, soil, etc. There are almost always more aerosols to act as cloud condensation nuclei than are required for cloud formation.
Yea its no surprise, but it seems some ‘key names’ previously suggested that Svensmark’s (and others) research linking cloud albedio to cosmic rays was irrelevent because human pollutants have changed the atmosphere so much from the pristine pre- industrial condition. Thus, many including CERN did an ellaborate study and more importantly put their names on the reality about uncertainty for climate sensitivity. Its a big deal because it sort of shifts momentum (for me at least).
Can this be seen in Excel?
“And if Dr. Dessler really believes it, why does he not include a time lag in his feedback diagnoses?”
That was the fatal flaw in the paper of Dessler’s that I saw. It was just awful.
BTW, a scatterplot is a very poor tool for diagnosing feedback. Depending on the phase response, and the dominant frequency components of the signal, you can get a positive or a negative slope, actually, any slope at all.
What you need to do is deconvolve the system response from the input/output data. I had a go at it way back when, as documented here. The bottom line is that the temperature-to-cloud-transmission feedback appears to be negative with a gain of roughly -10 W/m^2/degC and a nominal time constant of about 5 years, however, the data record is not long enough to have strong assurance in the result.
we spent a couple years on this, and finally decided the problem is almost hopeless…at least as far as getting a confident estimate of feedback (and therefore climate sensitivity). The fundamental problem is that there is no way to know how much of the radiative variability is forcing versus feedback. Depending on what you assume, you get answers that are all over the spectrum.
It seems that ‘what you assume’ is a large part of the problem. As you stated in your original post, paraphrased, large feedbacks get the most attention. The small ones, not so much or none.
This problem seems to occur in every area of endeavor, not just science, the large ‘issues’ get the attention, but they are only large because of our perception. It may be they are not the most important to the system, but something that has a seemingly small effect is more important. This is an emotional issue to do with decision making.
The only way past it is to analyze every input. Which leads you back to ‘what you assume’ as it is not likely we/anyone is going to cover it all.
Never “assume” because you’ll make an ass out of you and of me … (ass+u+me=assume)
I look at the scatterplot, and it appears to me that temperature deviations more than .2 degree C from zero anomaly mostly occurred while the feedback parameter was below its average. I think the greater temperature anomalies have greater effect on the slope, and the slope would be greater if only temperatures less than .2 degree C from zero anomaly are considered.
Is the temperature a function only of the random number generator going through a filter, or does it include feedback? If it includes feedback, then I think there would be some tendency to average climate sensitivity, and the reciprocal of the average of a varying climate sensitivity (which is the reciprocal of feedback factor) would be less than the average of the varying feedback factor.
I suspect many people (like myself) are familiar with the engineering use of the term feedback. For us it has an absolute sense. I.E. Positive feedback causes runaway or oscillation. It seems the climatologist have a different definition. Positive (or negative) feedback is deviation for what a simplified (sometimes unspecified) model would produce if system internal mechanisms did not react to the forcing function. Right?
If a system has gain less than infinity, then there is some amount of positive feedback that can be added without resulting in runaway or oscillation.
The Earth is such a system. Without oceanic/atmospheric/surface/biospheric feedbacks, its climate sensitivity is about .3 K/(W/m^2). The reciprocal of that is said to be the Planck feedback, which is a negative one whose magnitude is about 3.3 W/m^2-K. Additional feedbacks are deviations from that.
Hi Jimc,
being an engineer too, I thought the very same, but effectively someone remembered me that for the Barkhausen stability criterion the range for |A*B|<1 is always stable.
So a positive feedback (B) when multiplied by the forward open loop amplification (A) give a signal lesser than the input signal still produces a stable output, amplifying the input more than the forward open loop amplification alone.
This is not a widely used configuration in electronics. So, many (like me), may have forgot it.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Dr. Spencer , in reference to climate sensitivity “(about 1.8 deg. C climate sensitivity).” this is in reference to a doubling of CO2 ?
yes, the equilibrium response to 2XCO2.
Using the 1998 and 2016 super El Nino’s as reference points, there is approximately +0.1C degree difference over this 18 year period !! That’s about 0.045C degree per decade of warming at the El Nino +nexus.
It will be interesting to see if this delta hold true for the 2000-2018 La Nina -nexus ?
“Using the 1998 and 2016 super El Ninos as reference points”
What would make you want to do that, and why would you prefer it to plotting a regression line?
Roy,
I think that you make good arguments that observational feedback parameters might well be biased low. But I think the idea of positive climate feedback originated with trying to understand glacial/interglacial cycles. Is there a way to understand those cycles without invoking positive feedback?
“But I think the idea of positive climate feedback originated with trying to understand glacial/interglacial cycles. Is there a way to understand those cycles without invoking positive feedback?”
The glacial/interglacial cycles are result of Earth becoming cooler. Or glacial/interglacial cycles are characteristic
of the Ice box global climate which has been going on for millions of years:
“Reconstruction of the past 5 million years of climate history, based on oxygen isotope fractionation in deep sea sediment cores (serving as a proxy for the total global mass of glacial ice sheets), fitted to a model of orbital forcing (Lisiecki and Raymo 2005) and to the temperature scale derived from Vostok ice cores following Petit et al. (1999).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png
Or over longer periods:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
Or according to above we had antarctic re-glaciation about 12 million years ago and since that time have never return to warmer periods which prior to this and much warmer temperatures being more common for hundreds of millions of years. Or ice box global temperature during the interglacial periods are in range of 14 to 18 C, glacial periods having average temperature of 10 C or cooler. Or since glacial period are longer, to average both of them about global average temperature of about 10 C.
So with Earth over last 500 million years it’s have average global temperature of +20 C, and in last few millions years
it’s had average of about 10 C.
So the question is why are we in ice box climate- why on average are we 10 C cooler than what is normal for Earth.
And it seems that this cooler world is causing wide swings in average global temperatures of glacier and interglacial period
A symptom of this cooler world is we have polar ice caps- having two polar ice caps is unusual- having two land mass within arctic circle is unusual. Another part of description of Ice box Climate is when ocean’s average temperature is cooler- ours is currently about 3 C, and during past interglacial periods the average ocean temperature has reached as much a 5 C warmer than present average ocean temperature- or thermal expansion has risen sea levels 5 meters or higher than current sea levels.
During glacial periods large parts of temperate zones are covered with vast glaciers and average ocean temperatures are cooler than our present average of about 3 C, and polar sea ice extend further down from the poles. Now were our land temperate zone presently covered with large ice caps, temperate ocean covered with sea ice, this would significantly increase the amount sunlight reflected back into space- and would a cooling effect which may explain why glacial periods have longer duration than interglacial periods- or however the ice is formed, it’s cooling effect would prevent warming- or it’s feedback for cooling.
But of course at some point this overwhelmed and ice melts and we enter an interglacial period.
It could be that earth having large areas covered by ice has mechanism of warming the ocean. Currently warm tropical water are transported poleward, where ocean heat is radiated into space [and warms poleward regions as does Gulf Stream warms Europe]. And having thick sea ice acts insulation and prevent ocean water to mix due to winds.
The upshot is more warm waters can remain in tropics, and can get warmer deeper surface ocean temperatures, and eventually the build up large volumes of warmed tropic water overwhelm the cooling effect of ice covering the temperate zone.
“The glacial/interglacial cycles are result of Earth becoming cooler. Or glacial/interglacial cycles are characteristic
of the Ice box global climate which has been going on for millions of years”
This is rather the point, I thought. The forcing exerted by the Milankovich cycles is minuscule – I’m not the person to go to for solid figures, but I believe it is about an order of magnitude less even than that radiative forcing exerted by current anthropgenic gases. Yet we have millions of years of records demonstrating that it leads to substantial and quantifiable changes in global climate.
This alone ought to suffice to scotch any suggestion that feedback “might” be overestimated because a different line of evidence “might” entail a faulty assumption.
The M-Cycle theory falls to the ground when scrutinized. Anther climate myth that has gained currency.
Any particular reason why anyone should believe that assertion?
Yes, several reasons.
1. M-Cycles are known from Cretaceous sediments. No ice age then.
2. We know the temperature history of the Tertiary. M-Cycles cannot explain the temperature features of the Tertiary.
3. Decrease in NH summer insolation by a few watts per square m cannot explain the world wide ice age when global insolation is not changed on an annual basis.
4. M-Cycles simply do not match up with ice age temperature events, except on a random basis. Study the interstadials of the pastiche. M-Cycles miss everyone.
1. Obviously not a reason. The Theory states that M-Cycles cause glaciations, not that glaciations cause M-Cycles. There is no expectation that finding a period too warm for ice ages should suppress orbital changes.
This, in fact. is a perfect illustration of your inability to reason from evidence more generally.
2. They are the ONLY cycle that can explain it. The only anomaly is that the observed change is greater for changes in eccentricity than it ought to be, but the periodicity matches precisely.
3. Of course it can. Look at the NOAA article on Milankovitch theory – it explains this in terms of the persistence of ice in Summer.
4. Simply not true. The Milankovitch cycles were only ever accepted as the explanation in the first place because they match up.
Those who are interested should study the d18O temperature reconstruction of the last ice age. The interstadials, aka Oescher-Allerod Events,show complete disparity with the M-Cycles. See for yourselves. These abrupt warming events are the same magnitude as the start of the Holocene. Draw your own conclusions.
So what happened to points 1 to 4 all of a sudden?
“Draw your own conclusions.”
Ah, the denialist anthem. Perhaps you should put it to music?
There is a graph here showing the astonishingly close match between d18O records and the Vostok temperature proxy. From Watts’ blog, no less, which might give even YOU pause before trying to dismiss him as an “alarmist”.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/27/vostok-and-the-8000-year-time-lag/
And here’s some real science: “Detailed correlations of ancient glacial deposits, based on temporal records of carbon and strontium isotopes in seawater, indicate four (and perhaps five) discrete ice ages in the terminal Proterozoic Eon. The close and repeated stratigraphic relationship between C-isotopic excursions and glaciogenic rocks suggests that unusually high rates of organic carbon burial facilitated glaciation by reducing atmospheric greenhouse capacity.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC21204/
Note the last sentence of my quote.
Elliot, the fact that M-Cycles caused no glaciation in the Cretaceous nor any succeeding era before the Pleistocene is apparently lost on you.
Study the interstadials of the last ice age. Vostok has dating problems. Any long series ice core dating is problematic. C-14 dating stops at 44K ya. Ice core dating is more and more guesswork, the older the sample. Bottom line: lots of room for fudging with M-Cycle match. The interstadials are accurately dated, being more recent and within the scope of C-14 dating. Here’s the truth: M-Cycles don’t correlate with ice age events except on a random basis.
Yes, Elliot, I note that you believe that the ice age is caused by CO2. Or maybe M-Cycles. Or is it both?
Here I rest my case.
“Elliot, the fact that M-Cycles caused no glaciation in the Cretaceous nor any succeeding era before the Pleistocene is apparently lost on you.”
No, I simply know how to reason about causation, so I can seen that it is meaningless. The Cretaceous was generally warmer. It really is THAT simple, but even that little you cannot grasp.
Popper referred to scientific “falsificationist” thinking as the “modus tollens mode”. I suggest that you start your elementary science education by looking it up.
“Yes, Elliot, I note that you believe that the ice age is caused by CO2.”
It’s clear that you don’t “note” much of anything, which is why you have to make everything up. It’s really very simple, for someone able to grasp simple reasoning. I suggest you find one to explain it to you. Tell them I said this: “Orbital forcing initiates glaciations. Now that the overall level of CO2e has fallen sufficiently to allow the persistence of ice, lower Summer insolation during phases of the M-Cycle permits the persistence of ice during Summer which lowers albedo and creates a feedback effect leading to ice ages. As CO2 is a feedback as well as a forcing, CO2 levels reinforce this cycle while also closely matching it with a little lag-time”.
Good luck in finding anyone who can think down to your level and spell it out for you.
“As CO2 is a feedback as well as a forcing, CO2 levels reinforce this cycle while also closely matching it with a little lag-time.
A LITTLE Lag time Elliot? Really? Doesn’t the word ANY mean anything to you? Basically by you saying this you prove that co2 is an effect of climate change and happens as a result of it no even though it’s just “a little lag time”. Lmao! try again smart one!
“Bottom line: lots of room for fudging with M-Cycle match.”
So you openly admit that you know that the data cannot support your statements. Well, there’s a surprise.
Oh, and before you try that one: CO2e has fallen SINCE THE CRETACEOUS. Recently it is rising again. Hence the M-Cycles leading only later to glaciations. Hence also the glaciations now stopping in the near future because we are restoring the carbon to the atmosphere.
It’s getting quite tiresome trying to foreclose all the ways you can be expected to refuse to understand stuff, you know.
Elliot: “CO2e has fallen SINCE THE CRETACEOUS. Recently it is rising again”
Here we go again back to your elementary school science days learning that adding more co2 causes the earth to warm and yet you say “co2 has fallen since the Cretaceous. Recently it is rising again.” Do you have any clue when the cratcueos period even took place? Second define recently?
Yes Elliot it has been rising for the past 7,000 years according to this chart on climate4you:
http://www.climate4you.com
Where has the temperature been going for the past 7,000 years while co2 is going up if you even managed to look at the chart on the link? Co2 is going up but wait what’s this? Temperature is going down!? Wow!!!!! I can’t believe this!!!! But I thought the more co2 in the atmosphere the warmer it is? Lol you failed again Elliot
Ice core data show that CO2 levels lag temperature by several hundred years. Only the most virulent of the global warmers still cling to the notion that CO2 has anything to do with ice ages.
“most virulent of the global warmers”..remind you of anyone, Elliot?
“No, I simply know how to reason about causation, so I can seen that it is meaningless. The Cretaceous was generally warmer. It really is THAT simple, but even that little you cannot grasp.”
##
You say that M-Cycles did not cause glaciation in the Cretaceous because it was warmer. But M-Cycles caused the ice ages of the Pleistocene because it was cooler. Is this a correct understanding of your position,Elliot?
“Ice core data show that CO2 levels lag temperature by several hundred years.”
Yes, that’s what I said: “with a little lag-time”. Can’t you even read now?
There’s that word again! A little lag time! Wow Elliot yet you admit again that there are lags between temperature and co2. Keep up the intelligence.
“Is this a correct understanding of your position,Elliot?”
Close enough. Don’t want to tax your brain cell, now, do we?
Well now, Elliot, the wall is covered up. You can congratulate yourself.
Hey, I would do that just for not being YOU.
New alarmist blog has opened. It’s called
ClimateSplatter.
You should give there.
U__will__fit__right__in__.
I promise.
I do not frequent “alarmist” blogs. There’s nothing to be gained by discussing stuff with people who are already right. All I ever do is agree with them.
mpainter says:
June 6, 2016 at 10:04 AM
Mpainter:The truth is that increased levels of CO2 have decreased crop loss due to drought.
Elliot Bignell: One mindless assertion deserves another: No, they havent.
Elliott.. stick to photography..
This climate stuff is WAY beyond you.
“This climate stuff is WAY beyond you.”
Ah, mindless bluster. Well, I can do that too: None of the population of this blog, except perhaps Dr. Roy who rarely responds, is equipped to judge what is and is not beyond me. Indeed, most of you can barely form sentences, let alone arguments, whereas I am technically literate and have an IQ well into the genius range. As I also have the ENTIRE climate-scientific community except for Dr. Roy and Bill Gray backing me up, and as that opposition has just declined by 50% and the other 50% tends not to engage, I think I can safely regard anything you say on the matter as ignorant hot air.
Your basically just creationists and troofers.
“Elliott.. stick to photography..”
I mostly do. Take a look at the results. Imagine that I was here discussing photography and the rest of you were denying that there is such a thing as colour. Then you’ll have some idea of what it feels like to discuss science with any of you, and the degree to which I have to talk down to you even to get the simplest arguments about causation across.
Then you might understand my contempt and rage.
“This is rather the point, I thought. The forcing exerted by the Milankovich cycles is minuscule Im not the person to go to for solid figures, but I believe it is about an order of magnitude less even than that radiative forcing exerted by current anthropgenic gases”
I think the question is how much does greenhouse gases warm the ocean vs how much warming or cooling of ocean can Milankovich cycles do.
I think cooling or warming the ocean is mostly related to ocean circulation.
So tropical surface water can be 30 C, whereas 2000 meter under the surface it’s somewhere around 5 C. If the water 2000 meters increases by 5 C, one has a warmer world.
If it cools by 2 C, it’s a cooler world.
Another aspect is geometry, the earth is mostly warmed in the tropics- because Earth is sphere. And because Earth has tilted axis. If Earth’s axis was 0, the band around the equator- say up to 30 degree latitude, North and South this band would receive more sunlight as compared to Earth tilted at 23. Having a tilt spreads heated region pole ward according to seasons. This aspect is more important in terms of ocean regions. By important I mean how it could be related to average global temperature. Or land region actually more effected- one gets hot summers and cold winters, whereas ocean area have less surface or air surface temperatures differences.
Though another aspect is one has both land and ocean- with land region deflecting and channeling ocean water.
Anyhow one has numerous factors effecting ocean circulation and Milankovich cycles are another factor added- which could dampen or amplify or be doing both at same time depending upon which regions.
Long term ocean mixing warms the world, short term it cools it and/or warms it- or globally or regionally it is capable of cooling it rapidly and capable of warming it rapidly.
Well this is a good question from a good place. IMHO the forcing of milank cycles is small and requires a feedback, but why is CO2 needed…Isnt albedo and water vapor sufficient?
Also, Im curious if you envoke CO2 for a feedback, then what put a “natural ceiling” at 290ppm? Why not a runaway feedback until CO2 looses effectiveness?
Never understood this aspect.
Roy,
I am not going to pretend, I can keep pace with you on the scientific end of this article.
But I cannot remember a time when you used so many absolutes and adverbs in an article. It appears that by this article you have let Dr Dessler get to you and your calm steadfast logic has gotten a bit emotional.
In this statement. But I totally reject thatthere are many reasons why (for example) clouds (and thus albedo) can change that are not caused by temperature.
There are many reason that clouds can change that are not caused by temperature. But none of them known to be relevant in Earths conditions. So Dr Dessler needs to show in concrete logic why he believes, it is reasonable to state his statement. Until he can show reasonable effect and result, his statements are only diatribe.
In this Statement And if Dr. Dessler really believes it, why does he not include a time lag in his feedback diagnoses? (It usually take time sometimes months for the atmospheric response to a surface temperature change to fully develop).
All models need to ignore much evidence (typically the most unuseful evidence) to be useful but if Dr Desslers position is if it is instead a time-varying radiative imbalance causing a surface temperature change (causation reversed). It is difficult to understand how he could propose a model without some modeling with time lag included.
I imagine, Dr Dresslers did not include time lag because, it is very difficult to model given what we currently know and how the heat sinks of the ocean would exacerbate the time lag to undetermined amount of time. So for him to include time lag would be for him to postulate a conclusion based on an unknown variable. But if he wishes for his theory to be taken seriously and the important factor cannot be determined. He could have used a range of time lags and shown the net effect of the different time lags. Then at least, it would create the appearance he believes strongly in his own theory.
Hope this helps,
Test… (Dr S, your mobile comment page is a mess!)
It seems to me that we have a very reliable observation that tells us that climate feedbacks aren’t as positive as claimed: La Nina
If climate feedback was positive to warming, would we ever recover from an El Nino event? Why isn’t the climate “sensitive” to the rapid warming of El Nino? From early 2012 to March 2016 we had over 1 degree C of “warming”. One would think the positive feedback would kick in and latch the system into thermal runaway but it doesn’t.
as I explained above, in climate parlance “positive feedback” does not mean an unstable climate system. All perturbations are still damped, but the greater the positive feedback, the less they are damped.
But it is a flawed implementation of the notion of positive feedback. Resistance to change characterizes negative feedback — not positive feedback.
“If climate feedback was positive to warming, would we ever recover from an El Nino event?”
Why would we not? ENSO is driven by cyclical changes in wind direction over the Pacific. Why would a positive feedback stall a cycle in wind direction, in the general case? One would expect, rather, that the cycle would overlay the underlying trend.
Coincidentally, this is precisely what appears to be shown in Dr. Roy’s monthly graphs.
In the past 50 years the 95% confidence range for “climate sensitivity” has not been improved.
It’s still 1.5C to 4.5C which in practical terms is a range from beneficial to catastrophic.
Climate science is moribund. Thousands of researchers. Billions upon billions of dollars. And it still can’t offer better information for policy decisions.
Incredible. No wonder the US economy is in the tank when research with no milestones and no progress keeps getting funded decade after decade.
Go Trump.
“Its still 1.5C to 4.5C which in practical terms is a range from beneficial to catastrophic.”
With a median value of disastrous. And the 1C or so to date is already looking distinctly unfriendly.
“In the past 50 years the 95% confidence range for climate sensitivity has not been improved.”
Citation required.
“No wonder the US economy is in the tank”
Suits me. I live in one of the places that are prospering and also acting on anthropgenic warming…
“Go Trump.”
Chance would be a fine thing.
“research with no milestones and no progress keeps getting funded decade after decade.”
I wonder if you are aware that subsidies for fossil fuels in the USA, at half a (US) trillion dollars per annum, are 30 times the ENTIRE budget for NASA, 30% of which covers all NASA scientific activity and of which work on climatology represents a mere few percent?
Perhaps you should try taking a few lessons from the rest of the world, where people are aware of anthropogenic warming and the economy is not tanking…
Elliot, AGW is a giant environmental scam and it is in the process of collapse. Good riddance.
Dream on. I think you will find it is the denialist position for which no papers at all are now being published. Even Dr. Roy, despite often being portrayed as a denier, has been clear that there has actually been climatic warming taking place.
And the world has passed you by. Germany is peaking at 60% renewable capacity, China is making an energy transition at breakneck speed, Morocco is gearing up to supply solar energy to Southern Europe…
You lost. Sorry.
You are a nervous convulsion. Calm yourself. Think happy thoughts.
Grow up.
Think happy thoughts, anyway.
Elliott, you seem to be pushing two concepts. One is alternative energy sources, which very few disagree with, if the sources are feasible, like nuclear. The other is that AGW is valid science, which many people disagree with. The concept that atmospheric CO2 can “heat the planet” is easily debunked with textbook science.
“The other is that AGW is valid science, which many people disagree with.”
What “many people think” counts for nothing. The overwhelming preponderance of those with any standing in the field say that it is valid science, and theirs are by definition the only opinions with any value in the matter. Even Dr. Roy, despite a reputation as a contrarian, concedes the fact of anthropogenic warming. Just not the magnitude. Indeed, he has been attacked on this very blog by denialists for this very reason.
“The concept that atmospheric CO2 can ‘heat the planet’ is easily debunked with textbook science.”
Utter bilge. The science demonstrating that it can and does has been undisputed since the 19th Century. There is barely a specialist left alive to write a textbook who is not warning us that its capacity to do so is now actually dangerous, and none at all who dispute the fact of it.
Like China or India?
Please list some of these reasons for debate.
If you think about it Ken, you can come up with some of your own reasons. Then you can debate yourself.
circulation regime variations (which produces an near-infinite number of possibilities), wind shear, possible cosmic ray effects…
Add contrails. Anthropogenic Global _____ (fill in the blank, your choice)
Dr. Roy – All these and more are conceivable, certainly. However, is there any reason to believe that any can be observed to operate systematically as a countervailing feedback damping radiative forcing, or any reason to expect them to? The mere expectation of unexpected effects should not console us in the slightest unless there is solid reason to expect them to favour human prosperity, as they could just as easily work in our disfavour as in our favour.
Elliott, I could ask you the same question about positive feedbacks, belief in which depends upon unobserveable changes which occurred hundreds of thousands of years ago, and the risk of acting on such tenuous evidence by making energy much more expensive without any realistic large-scale replacements, dooming millions more people to energy poverty, misery, and early death.
Hi, Dr. Roy. Well, firstly, the fact that they are prehistoric does not by any means make them “unobservable”. Technically, we cannot even “observe” molecules, but we can certainly reconstruct their behaviour using observation we CAN make, such as X-Ray crystallography. The same applies to any line of palaeodata – switches in the magnetic field, the fossil record, climate proxy data… All of these can be observed. To deny that this is empirically sound is to deny practically all of science.
Secondly, the overwhelming consensus seems to be that the risk of energy poverty, misery, and early death is greater, on balance, in the case of inaction than in the case of action. I might, for instance, point to the Stern report. Indeed, this could probably be shown to follow even if we did not know about anthropogenic warming at all, as all non-renewable resources are BY DEFINITION going to run out, including sink capacity for pollutants. As you are presumably aware, the arithmetic of exponential growth has the necessary implication that half of any resource is consumed in the most recent doubling period: At 2% growth, half of all oil (for instance) will be consumed in the final 35 years. We could find quadruple the pre-fracking estimates of total global oil reserves and it would still run out in a century – unless the exponential growth curve is stalled.
Nor is the evidence of harmful warming and positive feedbacks “tenuous”. It is massive. Indeed, without positive feedbacks we could not explain the current climate state at all, as the water-vapour feedback is responsible for tens of degrees of warmth. As I am sure you will have heard once or twice, a truly overhwelming preponderance of findings in the field coincide on the fact of global warming, the likelihood of its driving the climate into a temperature regime for which humans did not evolve and the role of feedbacks. As I said, you have asserted that ONE line of evidence MIGHT have a positive bias; there are dozens of lines of evidence, many feedbacks and no guarantee that positive feedback will not still be sitting there once you correct this (hypothetical) bias. If you don’t like that line of data pick another one – I wish you luck in finding any, let alone a consilience, that gives an unbiased picture favouring overall negative feedback. Which is what you actually need, let us bear in mind!
In any case, it will soon be moot, as the trend is now firmly in favour of renewable energy becoming LESS expensive than the alternatives in only a few more years.
However, you seem to have missed my most important point above: Uncertainty is neutral. Merely shooting down positive grounds for pessimism does not in itself make the future more condign; it merely widens the error bars. Making us less confident of positive feedbacks exacerbating the danger to humans does not lead us to any inference that the future will be better, on balance. For that you actually need to reduce the upper bounds of projected change: You need to show negative feedbacks. Otherwise the average outcome remains the same. Uncertainty just makes the spread of extremes wider.
Elliott, you have allowed the alarmists to render you giddy with fright. Tsk, Tsk.
So what rendered you incapable of answering any of my points?
This is interesting: Dr. Roy says, “dooming millions more people to energy poverty, misery, and early death.”
mpainter says, “Elliott, you have allowed the alarmists to render you giddy with fright.”
And later, “‘Fear robs a man of the ability to reason.’ Julius Caesar, The Gallic War”
I have not yet read my copy of the latter, so I cannot speak for the quote’s provenance, but I have to wonder at mpainter’s inability to identify the source of alarmism. It seems that he only considers fright to be bad when it contravenes some unstated agenda.
Well, go read your copy.
Not a priority. I have some stuff on climate science further up the list.
Some people love being frightened. Personality types.
Grow up, painter.
Boo!
“Indeed, this could probably be shown to follow even if we did not know about anthropogenic warming at all, as all non-renewable resources are BY DEFINITION going to run out, including sink capacity for pollutants. ”
All the knowing about anthropogenic warming, has not reduced Co2 emissions, nor slowed the use of non-renewable.
But the knowing has already increased poverty.
If one encourages things which are waste of time and effort,
one decreases wealth [or increases poverty].
The knowing about anthropogenic warming has been a huge waste of time- nor is there any progress in the knowing about anthropogenic warming, we have the knowledge that past projection based upon this knowledge has been proven incorrect. That is not much progress and is certainly not worth the trillions of dollars of wealth pissed away.
Hi, Dr. Roy. This seems not to follow for simple logical rather than empirical reasons. If the causation is reversed then one cannot diagnose feedbacks based on one data stream and one then has a bias towards positive feedbacks. Fine. But this can only lead us to infer positive bias if we already know that causation is reversed. If the presumption about causation is correct, then no such bias seems to follow. So you need to presume in advance what you want to conclude in order circularly to infer it.
This would lead us to remain agnostic if only one line of empirical data were available. The fact is, however, that we have abundant lines of alternative evidence that support higher estimates for feedback. The warming rate to date is a pretty strong one. The radiative properties of gases, especially water vapour, are also very solid, if you’ll excuse the phase transition. Changes in albedo due to ice coverage, emissions from drying peat soils and fires, methane plumes and dozens of other points of data provide a very complex range of evidence from which feedback magnitudes can be inferred. The fact that one line of evidence MIGHT, but also might not, have a bias seems to be reconciled simply by cross-checking against other lines of evidence.
Elliott, first of all, calm yourself. It is difficult to think clearly if you are frightened. “Fear robs a man of the ability to reason.” Julius Caesar, _de Bellica Gallia_.
You must not listen to the scaremongering alarmists. They intend to frighten and deceive. The truth is that atmospheric CO2 is plant food, and is perfectly beneficial, the more the better.
So relax, have a beer or sip some vin, and reflect on the benefits of a greener earth.
“The truth is that atmospheric CO2 is plant food, and is perfectly beneficial, the more the better.”
The truth is that I have studied environmental science and am not falling for idiocies like this. CO2 is not the limiting factor for plant growth in most environments, so it is largely irrelevant. Even if we did not know this, it would self-evidently not make the slightest difference to the factual question of whether anthropogenic CO2e is causing warming, or the policy questions of whether this needs to be addressed.
So much for “thinking clearly”! Maybe you should try a bit more fright.
“The truth is that I have studied environmental science…”
Maybe that is one of your problems.
I don’t have problems. I’m not the one wearing the tinfoil hat here, remember?
☺ don’t poke it and it won’t hiss at you, geran.
Well said mpainter, to tell you the truth I don’t think there is any climate sensitivity becUase there has been no Global warming for almost 20 years now and co2 has risen significantly. Co2 is not a controller of the earths climate and this pause proves it all end of story. That’s all one needs to know
Dr. Roy has actually warned people against trying this particular imbecility. In fact, even his own monthly graphs quite clearly show significant warming for that period, as do all other independent global data sets.
You have studied dogpile, Elliott. Commercial greenhouses operate at ambient CO2 at circa 1,000 ppm.
“Commercial greenhouses operate at ambient CO2 at circa 1,000 ppm.”
I thought you might resort to that particular piece of diversion. Congratulations: Now you just have to show us how to convert the entire planet to a commercial greenhouse and render CO2 the limiting factor to plant growth worldwide.
I would not delude myself that you are really interested in whether or not the entire globe can be treated as a greenhouse, by the way. I’ve met you before, and I am quite aware that you are only making the claim just to keep the bark of denial afloat a little longer. However, for the interest of third parties, the point is of course that in a greenhouse plants can be supplied with unlimited light, water and minerals and can thus take advantage of extra CO2. Most environments have limitations to mineral supply (bogs, rain-forests), water (desert, karst) or light (woodland floors, ocean bed). Plants cannot, therefore, use extra CO2 to promote growth.
mpainter is not in the least bit interested in understanding this. As for more CO2 being good, might I draw spectators’ attention to the recent wave of coral bleaching: Once again, we can establish that unlimited CO2 emissions are nonsensical and mpainter’s utterances undesirable, or vice-versa, without even having to take anthropogenic warming into account. Reef fishing is responsible for a significant proportion of global dietary protein, by the way, so this also bears on Dr. Roy’s mention of human misery.
“I would not delude myself..”
##
Yeah you would.
Well, that’s not a problem. I’m the one that can go back to “Nature” magazine and the AAAS to return to reality, remember?
And as your answer indicates, in this case I am not: You aren’t in the least bit interested in the factual state of the matter.
Elliott Bignell,
“Most environments have limitations to mineral supply (bogs, rain-forests), water (desert, karst) or light (woodland floors, ocean bed). Plants cannot, therefore, use extra CO2 to promote growth.”
This is outside my expertise, but I am pretty sure you are out of date. Scientists used to think what you say. But it turns out that more CO2 enables plants to use the other resources more efficiently. So more CO2 does, in general, promote growth.
Mike – I am – see below. I found a paper from a few weeks ago that none of these failures could point me to if their lives had depended on it. I have posted a link.
Elliott Bignell,
You wrote: “This would lead us to remain agnostic if only one line of empirical data were available. The fact is, however, that we have abundant lines of alternative evidence that support higher estimates for feedback. The warming rate to date is a pretty strong one.”
Actually, the warming to date is not so strong; it is barely at the bottom extreme of the models. Observational estimates of climate sensitivity, based on changes in temperature and ocean heat content, give equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) most likely in the range of 1.5 to 2.0 K. Models give 2.0 to 4.5 K. IPCC cited 1.5 to 4.5 K, covering the full range of models and observations.
Note that these are observational estimates of ECS. The observational estimates Dr. Spencer refers to are of the feedbacks themselves. Looking at the same coin from two different sides.
The low value of ECS from observations is consistent with the combined effect of CO2, water vapor feedback, and lapse rate feedback. The higher sensitivities in models are due to hypothetical cloud feedbacks, for which there is no good observational evidence.
Note that the models do not have the spatial and temporal resolution to treat clouds in a remotely rigorous manner. And they do a terrible job at predicting the average distribution of clouds observed in the present climate.
The actual scientific evidence is that climate sensitivity is modest.
“The warming rate to date is a pretty strong one.”
Mike, all one has to do is go back a century to see the same rate of warming (without all the co2). The recent warming has done nothing to distinguish itself from natural variability. And also remember that we wouldn’t be having this discussion in the first place were it not warming to some extent. So i think we have to give elliot an “epic fail” on this one. (it wouldn’t be so embarrassing for him if he wasn’t riding around on such a high horse…)
fonzarelli,
I am bit puzzled as to why you quote Elliott Bignell, then address your comment to me.
You wrote: “all one has to do is go back a century to see the same rate of warming (without all the co2)”
Only if you very carefully cherry pick your time intervals. There seems to be a natural oscillation coupled to the AMO. If you analyze over roughly full cycles of the AMO (60-70 years), the warming trend over the most recent cycle is about double the trend over the previous cycle (the ratio is anywhere from 1.5 to 3, depending on the data set used). That is less than the factor of about 3.5 one would expect from anthropogenic forcing.
And yet CO2 quadrupled… (are we to assume that the rise in solar output had nothing to do with it as well?)
“Actually, the warming to date is not so strong; it is barely at the bottom extreme of the models.”
I did not say it was a strong rate of warming; I said it was a strong line of alternative evidence.
Mike M:
This is climate science where
weak warming = strong evidence.
We know this is true because Elliott Bignell sez so.
And now, we have the pause, and so
No warming = stronger evidence.
When it starts cooling, that’s the _strongest_ evidence.
Climate science is easy, once you get the hang of it. Elliot is here to answer any questions you might have.
“weak warming = strong evidence.”
If you’d ever actually done any science, you’d know that this entails no contradiction. It’s things like this that give you away.
I am content that others should judge between you and me.
Oh, so am I!
mpainter says:
June 6, 2016 at 10:04 AM
Mpainter:The truth is that increased levels of CO2 have decreased crop loss due to drought.
Elliot Bignell: One mindless assertion deserves another: No, they havent.
I’m still eager to see if you ever come up with a way to counter that counter-sssertion, you know. So far, zippo.
So disppointing…
Then, do you deny that crop yields have increased during drought because of CO2?
No, I deny that you can come up with an argument. So stop trying the “burden of proof” fallacy and come up with one.
mpainter says:
June 6, 2016 at 10:04 AM
Mpainter:The truth is that increased levels of CO2 have decreased crop loss due to drought.
Elliot Bignell: One mindless assertion deserves another: No, they havent.
Elliot, kindly let me know if I’ve missed any.
Thanking you in advance,
mpainter
☺
Elliott, you’re throwing out so much nonsense it’s hard to know where to begin.
First of all, fossil fuel subsidies in the US are about $5 billion, or 100 times less than you say. More specifically, for 2013 they were $1 billion for coal, $2.3 billion for hydrocarbons, and $3 billion for LIHEAP (which includes electricity). Prices of all fossil fuels have tumbled since then and so have subsidies, although the EIA has not updated its numbers AFAIK.
http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdf
The half-a-trillion figure is global and outdated anyway – it was reported before the plunge in oil and gas prices. Anyway, most of the subsidies are doled out in countries that export a lot of fossil fuels, or are poor, or both. If you have a problem with Yemen’s or Venezuela’s energy policies take it up with them.
(And what’s the money spent subsidizing LPG in Yemen got to do with the cost of climate policies?!)
Second, you say:
‘However, is there any reason to believe that any can be observed to operate systematically as a countervailing feedback damping radiative forcing, or any reason to expect them to?’
You’re mixing up two things. Spencer was answering a question on what, besides a radiative forcing, could affect the clouds. He was not suggesting ‘circulation regime variations (which produces an near-infinite number of possibilities), wind shear, possible cosmic ray effects’ are negative feedbacks. He was suggesting they could contaminate the analysis by introducing natural forcing, which can create the impression of a positive feedback even when there is none.
To Spencer’s factors I would add: anything that affects aerosols. That means deforestation, afforestation, fertilization (CO2-induced or otherwise), sandstorms, changes in sea and air currents, changes in cloud cover which in turn change how much sunlight hits seawater and how much isoprene is released… really, they idea that clouds can only change in reaction to a radiative forcing is absurd, although it’s also implicit in many climate analyses (because we can’t know exactly what these natural factors are doing – so we assume they don’t change).
Notice that even if cloud cover doesn’t change, and cloud height doesn’t change, and cloud thickness doesn’t change, you can still have cloud-induced forcing. This is because the same cloud will have different effects depending on the reflectivity of the surface (and emissions of aerosols from seawater too). The same cloud will have different radiative effects over Amazonian forest as compared to sea ice, or land ice, or seawater, or a mountain range, or a desert, or…
So a change in the DISTRIBUTION of cloud cover is enough to cause radiative forcing.
Your comments on oil depletion are simply absurd. Consumption is not following an exponential increase – and even if it was, the solution is best left to the market. If it becomes expensive people will look for alternatives, just like they went for more fuel-efficient cars when it was at $100/barrel. In any case it’s hard to see what that’s got to do with the present discussion).
The fertilization effect of CO2 has overwhelmed any other ‘limiting’ factor, whether it’s drought or anything else.
Furthermore, about fertilization/greening you say ‘it would self-evidently not make the slightest difference to the factual question of whether anthropogenic CO2 is causing warming, or the policy questions of whether this needs to be addressed’. Really? Greening has no policy implications? The world’s billion farmers probably disagree.
The truth is greening by itself probably outweighs any of the purported ‘negative externalities’ seen so far. Whether this will continue in the future is of course unclear, but hey, if you want to bet that yields will decline, or that species extinctions will increase, or that heat-related mortality will increase, or that a single town in the world will be abandoned due to sea level rise…
…then let’s bet.
“The half-a-trillion figure is global and outdated anyway
it was reported before the plunge in oil and gas prices.”
Yes, you’re correct. It’s the global figure rather than the US figure. And yet you even concede yourself that for the globe the number is correct for 2013 – which I believe is the last year for which figures were available last time I checked. So your characterising it as “nonsense” seems more than a little desperate. And it is STILL 30 times the entire budget of NASA, only a tiny fraction of which goes to climatology.
So I am at a loss as to what you think you gain by this.
“He was suggesting they could contaminate the analysis by introducing natural forcing, which can create the impression of a positive feedback even when there is none.”
So? This does not impact on the validity of my pointing out that they are not negative feedbacks. Dr. Spencer commits a straightforward logical fallacy if he intends us to infer that a bias in favour of positive feedbacks in one particular line of evidence mitigates the expectations of warming, for reasons that I have already pointed out. He might not have meant to indicate that these factors are negative feedbacks, but he REQUIRES them to be negative feedbacks if they areto do him any service. There is no reason to speculate, as I have already pointed out, that one could correct this alleged “bias” and still not be left with a positive feedback.
Indeed, the range of corroborating lines of evidence practically guarantees it.
“To Spencers factors I would add: anything that affects aerosols”
See Dr. Roy’s comments in re aerosols: He points out that they are in any case typically in excess of what is required for cloud formation: “There are almost always more aerosols to act as cloud condensation nuclei than are required for cloud formation.”
When the enviros and carbon-haters say “fossil fuel subsidies”, they refer to the depletion tax credits allowed to all extractive industry, from coal to iron ore to sand and gravel and even forest products. In their typical fashion, the haters invent untruths and distortions.
“they refer to the depletion tax credits”
Actually to the astronomical size of them as compared to grant-aid for science. But nice, if feeble, try.
You flail out wildly in all directions.
“Consumption is not following an exponential increase”
Well, then you are going to have to come up with an explanation for why the fossil carbon content of the atmosphere IS following an exponential curve.
” and even if it was, the solution is best left to the market.”
I do not share your religious convictions, so I have no need of this hypothesis. Indeed, all the evidence seems to be that environmental problems are usually classic market failures due to the icapacity of markets to cope with externalities.
“The fertilization effect of CO2 has overwhelmed any other limiting factor, whether its drought or anything else.”
Now who’s spouting nonsense?
Please show why it’s nonsense, Elliot.
But you can’t. The truth is that increased levels of CO2 have decreased crop loss due to drought.
Really, Elliot, you have no science, just talking points that you import from the execrable alarmist blogs and fling against the wall here. Then you point at the besplattered wall and declare victory.
“Please show why its nonsense, Elliot. ”
I already did: In most terrestrial ecosystems the limiting factor is not CO2. It is more often minerals, water or light.
Not my fault if you can’t process the information.
“The truth is that increased levels of CO2 have decreased crop loss due to drought.”
One mindless assertion deserves another: No, they haven’t.
The assertion is from the USDA.
No, it isn’t. If you had a halfway credible source you would already have posted it.
Elliot, my source is information that I have scanned over the years. The USDA has altered their crop production models to accommodate the higher levels of CO2. They found that actual crop production was increasingly beyond the bounds of model forecasts.
You have reverted to snarls and snark, whereas you should show gratitude for those here who have helped your understanding.
You have produced nothing BUT snarks and snarls. As usual. Silence, fool.
“those here who have helped your understanding.”
Actually, I think you’ll find that I am the only one to have come up with a link to anything qualifying my statements. You’ll find that to be characteristic of those who reason from evidence rather than blind faith.
Your link is years behind the rest of us, Elliott. You are in no position to call others a fool.
It is impossible to trace your mindless assertion back to any particular link that that I have posted in this exchange, but it goes without saying that you never provide any links to any scientific findings AT ALL, and do not even understand simple terms like correlation. So I will call you whatever I see fit.
Splatter, splatter, and now it ideally smells evil
Grow up.
Alberto – I have to give you this one. I found a paper from April referring to observations of greening. It must therefore follow that the CO2 fertilisation effect more than counterbalanced other limiting factors. Your point, well played.
It cannot, needless to say, be inferred that this will continue, or that it will contribute to nutrition, or that it will counterbalance other deleterious effects on human prosperity, but the bald fact of it must be acknowledged.
“Greening has no policy implications?”
I see you dodge the first part of my formulation, referring to the factual matter of whether or not warming is happening. No surprise there.
But okay, yes: Increased food production would have a limited set of policy implications, and if not outweighed by desertification and loss of coastal land might even have a beneficial effect.
However, as this is precisely what the IPCC’s documents and others attempt to quantify, and as their answer is that the outcome is likely to be Bad, once again I cannot imagine what you expect to gain from this line of argument.
“The truth is greening by itself probably outweighs any of the purported negative externalities seen so far.”
Citation required. To put it mildly. To my knowledge “greening” has not even been observed, and should certainly not be expected for the reasons I already outlined. Given the rate of desertification, recent flooding, temperatures in India and Phoenix and the water situation in California, among other things, this looks like delusion.
Splatter, splatter goes Elliot.
Is there any point to your existence, painter?
See below.
The water problem in California is partly El Nino and Partly California’s fault. No significant dam or lake projects have been started in the past 40 years do to environmental concerns. Lakes and Dams would be extremely useful in capturing the spring thaw in the high sierras for later use in the valley and in southern California. There is also a drought due to the large number of acres under permanent cultivation now as compared to 30 or 40 years ago plus a very large population growth requiring more water usage.
“The water problem in California is partly El Nino and Partly Californias fault”
Which may, of course, be entirely true without contradicting the role of climate change and general environmental degradation.
CORRECTION: Since you jokers don’t provide citations, I found one myself. There is a paper, published in “Nature” on 25th April, stating that greening has been observed over 25-50% of land area and 70% attributable to CO2 levels. I was not previously aware of it, and it requires acknowledgment.
It does not, of course, support any of the statements made by my interlocutors, it merely contradicts my stated perception that no greening had been observed. Whether and in what degree it counterbalances other effects is not stated.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3004.html
Mpainter:The truth is that increased levels of CO2 have decreased crop loss due to drought.
Elliot Bignell: “One mindless assertion deserves another: No, they havent.”
And of course that article says nothing whatsoever about decreases in crop losses or drought. But when has the complete and utter lack of any support stopped you from sounding off?
And be grateful that at least one of us can hold up your side of the argument.
My sources predate yours by years, Elliot. No one but you would be surprised at that.
You don’t have any sources. As usual.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alistair_Rogers/publication/24376339_Elevated_CO2_effects_on_plant_carbon_nitrogen_and_water_relations_six_important_lessons_from_FACE/links/00b49526ea940d5bac000000.pdf
Plant responses to the projected future levels of CO2 were first characterized in short-term experiments lasting days
to weeks. However, longer term acclimation responses to elevated CO2 were subsequently discovered to be very
important in determining plant and ecosystem function. Free-Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE) experiments are the
culmination of efforts to assess the impact of elevated CO2 on plants over multiple seasons and, in the case of
crops, over their entire lifetime. FACE has been used to expose vegetation to elevated concentrations of
atmospheric CO2 under completely open-air conditions for nearly two decades. This review describes some of the
lessons learned from the long-term investment in these experiments. First, elevated CO2 stimulates photosynthetic
carbon gain and net primary production over the long term despite down-regulation of Rubisco activity. Second,
elevated CO2 improves nitrogen use efficiency and, third, decreases water use at both the leaf and canopy scale.
Fourth, elevated CO2 stimulates dark respiration via a transcriptional reprogramming of metabolism. Fifth, elevated
CO2 does not directly stimulate C4 photosynthesis, but can indirectly stimulate carbon gain in times and places of
drought. Finally, the stimulation of yield by elevated CO2 in crop species is much smaller than expected. While many
of these lessons have been most clearly demonstrated in crop systems, all of the lessons have important
implications for natural systems.
See, DAVID has a source. Now you at least know what one should look like.
David – Bookmarked, thank you. Seems consistent with the April paper I found earlier.
mpainter says:
June 6, 2016 at 10:04 AM
Mpainter:The truth is that increased levels of CO2 have decreased crop loss due to drought.
Elliot Bignell: One mindless assertion deserves another: No, they havent.
mpainter – If you have any objections to this method of dealing with your empty assertions, I’ll be more than happy to destroy them for you. So far I have not seen so much as a hint of the existence of anything referring to “crop loss” or “drought”, and I am quite sure that you will never come up with anything.
Takes judgement, Elliot. Either one has the weights and measures, or one does not. You don’t understand, you are ill-informed, you can’t judge, you don’t try to keep up. It’s been known for years that arid regions like the Sahel have been greening. But you seem to be ignorant of this.
It’s been known for years that plants have responded to increased CO2 by reducing their stomata, and that this leads to more efficient utilization of soil moisture, hence the greening of arid regions and the increased crop yield during drought. You are way behind, and when presented with new information, your reflexive response is to sneer about citations and links.
“Either one has the weights and measures, or one does not.”
That’s why David and I post links. It is also why you do not.
“You are way behind, and when presented with new information, your reflexive response is to sneer about citations and links.”
Well, that’s science for you. Just a load of people sneering about actual evidence.
mpainter says:
June 7, 2016 at 2:04 AM
mpainter says:
June 6, 2016 at 10:04 AM
Mpainter:The truth is that increased levels of CO2 have decreased crop loss due to drought.
Elliot Bignell: One mindless assertion deserves another: No, they havent.
You keep spamming that self-same instance of your own effortless defeat. Is there a point to your doing so, or is it just a synecdoche of your generally pointless existence?
I think it is time to appeal to our great moderator, Doctor Roy*: mpainter is spamming this exchange repeatedly to no end. I think he should either be required to post a rebuttal or made to stop. Please block him until he grows up.
*Sir Roy, perhaps, on this occasion. Or perhaps even Saint Roy.
Do deny that crop yields have increased during drought because of CO2?
No, I am asserting without foundation that they have not, as a sufficient response to your assertion without foundation that they have.
They may turn out to have done so, but I have seen no evidence of this being the case and am fairly sure that you have seen none, either. As, when faced with a counter-assertion, you have repeatedly demonstrated that you cannot follow up with any evidence it seems sufficiently clear that I was right, and you have no basis for your claim.
It’s okay not to have heard of stuff. What I hope I will never stoop to is just making it up and then blustering when challenged, as you do.
mpainter says:
June 7, 2016 at 3:45 AM
Takes judgement, Elliot. Either one has the weights and measures, or one does not. You dont understand, you are ill-informed, you cant judge, you dont try to keep up. Its been known for years that arid regions like the Sahel have been greening. But you seem to be ignorant of this.
Its been known for years that plants have responded to increased CO2 by reducing their stomata, and that this leads to more efficient utilization of soil moisture, hence the greening of arid regions and the increased crop yield during drought. You are way behind, and when presented with new information, your reflexive response is to sneer about citations and links.
The above is probably beyond your level, Sao here’s one you can better comprehend:
mpainter says:
June 7, 2016 at 2:04 AM
mpainter says:
June 6, 2016 at 10:04 AM
Mpainter:The truth is that increased levels of CO2 have decreased crop loss due to drought.
Elliot Bignell: One mindless assertion deserves another: No, they havent.
Before we can discuss climate feedbacks intelligibly I think we need to redefine the terms “positive feedback” and “negative feedback” clearly and rigorously because the existing vague definitions in common usage (i.e. that “positive feedback” is any system-response that tends to cause warming and “negative feedback” is any system-response that tends to cause cooling) are crude, superficial, irrational, unworkable, unrelated to the definitions used commonly in other disciplines and totally unrealistic. It is futile to try and do serious science with them in my view.
In every other discipline that I can think of “positive feedback” is defined fundamentally as any response to an action that serves to increase the action and “negative feedback” is defined similarly as any response to an action that serves to decrease it. These fundamental definitions are very abstract and general though, so they need to be given specific formulations in different fields of study to suit their different special theoretical and practical requirements.
The scientific study of the climate requires us to try to understand equilibrium states of the climate system and the possible transitions between them. I think, therefore, that the following special formulations of the fundamental definitions that I described above could be useful in climate science:
1: Positive feedback is any climate system response to a displacement from equilibrium which serves to increases the displacement;
2: Negative feedback is any climate system response to a displacement from equilibrium which decreases the displacement.
Using these definitions, it would be easy (in principle) to determine whether the Earth’s global mean temperature is dominated by positive or negative feedback overall and to determine the magnitude of the feedback by examining the variations in the global temperature record. If the variations are found to increase over time it means that the system is departing from temperature equilibrium and therefore positive feedback must be dominant overall. But if the variations are found to decrease over time then it means that the system is approaching temperature equilibrium and therefore negative feedback must be dominant overall.
In the former case, projecting the positive trend in variations backwards in time to the zero-point where they began to emerge from equilibrium (theoretically) would enable us to locate that point in a timeline, which would provide an important benchmark in our climatological frame of reference.
In the latter case, projecting the negative trend in variations forward in time to the point where they diminish to zero would locate the next equilibrium point on the graph, which would provide us with another important benchmark.
You are right, of course, Turtle. But you will find it difficult to reform the AGE crowd. Their whole science depends on the sort of fuzzy thinking that you deplore. It’s like trying to teach a cat good table manners.
AGW, not AGE.
They are getting rather old, aren’t they?
Like Bill Gray and Lindzen, you mean? I’m glad you mentioned age, because I would have left it out due to tact otherwise. Opposition to AW is going to end the same way opposition to plate tectonics ended: When a generation that can’t adjust to it shuffles off into the history books. It’s already happening.
Sorry to say that, Dr. Roy. Not meant in disrespect, it’s just the truth.
But AGW will soon begin another extinct species. You cannot get more RF out of the multi-saturated 15 micron IR band. The “wings” will not fly, as this is already thermalized by atmospheric water.
No, there was no opposition to plate tectonics. This was universally accepted in very short order, as these things go. It was soon realizes that plate tectonics was the “unifying theory” that tied together so much that could not be explained. I speak with authority in this, believe me. Don’t go asking for links.
“No, there was no opposition to plate tectonics.”
I’m glad to see that your scientific ignorance is so pleasingly universal. It took, of course, until well into the 80s to be widely undisputed. An entire generation of the old guard had to die off first.
See AW for a further example of this.
I am a geologist, was there, saw it, did it.
mpainter,
You are a geologist? I thought you knew everything about science there is to know. You must have more degrees than just looking at rocks. Don’t be humble, go ahead an list them.
How much rock gawking do you get in these days anyway? Can’t be much since you spend 16 hours a day being a jerk on climate blogs.
SM
Elliot, you fool no one.
Yes, but I’m not the one relying on fooling people, am I?
Wegener proposed continental drift in 1912. The landmark paper, Isacks, Oliver and Sykes, was not published until 1968: http://www.mantleplumes.org/WebDocuments/Isacks1968.pdf?version=meter+at+1&module=meter-Links&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ch&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click
General consensus coalesced rapidly after that point, as it has with anthropogenic warming. Also as with anthropogenic warming, some scientists, especially in the USA, went into retirement or to their deaths without ever accepting it. As I said: Sometimes you just have to wait for the old guard to die off. This will be accomplished quite soon now in climate science.
Ortelius first proposed continental drift in 1596. Many others did so afterward. It was debated in the 19th century, long before Wegener, most notably by Lyell nd Dana.Hess proposed sea floor spreading as the mechanism in 1960. This was developed into plate tectonics during the ensuing decade. Acceptance was very quick. Debate after Hess was mostly about details. Go read up.
AGW is starting to draw flies.
As I said, sometimes you have to wait for the old guard to die off, and with plate tectonics this is what happened. As you cannot even apparently attempt to dispute this, and clearly don’t even understand what a successful counter would look like, I’ll just let it stand as uncontested.
“AGW is starting to draw flies.”
Is that why there is no science whatsoever disputing its reality in recent years, then?
mpainter says:
June 7, 2016 at 2:04 AM
mpainter says:
June 6, 2016 at 10:04 AM
Mpainter:The truth is that increased levels of CO2 have decreased crop loss due to drought.
Elliot Bignell: One mindless assertion deserves another: No, they havent.
Wegener gave full credit to his predecessors. As I stated, the debate on continental drift began in the mid-19th century. It effectively ended with the Hess paper on sea floor spreading (1960). Hess showed the mechanism, you see.
Plate tectonics is still being developed, as a theory. There are inconsistencies and debate about details. Thus science.
But AGW is not science. It is cult doctrine. It is also a modern day witch hunt. Conducted by modern day witch hunters. With misspelled names.◗
“One mindless assertion deserves another: No, they havent”
And you STILL cannot come up with so much as a single sentence to counter that. I put it to you that if you cannot support the original assertion you should simply shut up.
As I said, sometimes you have to wait for the old guard to die off, and with plate tectonics this is what happened. As you cannot even apparently attempt to dispute this, and clearly dont even understand what a successful counter would look like, Ill just let it stand as uncontested. Your repeated attempts to change the subject to how the process started, when what is at issue is how the process ended, shows just how incapable you are of even simple reasoning.
mpainter says:
June 7, 2016 at 2:04 AM
mpainter says:
June 6, 2016 at 10:04 AM
Mpainter:The truth is that increased levels of CO2 have decreased crop loss due to drought.
Elliot Bignell: One mindless assertion deserves another: No, they havent.
☺
As above: Dr. Roy, please stop mpainter from spamming the thread full of this until he either concedes that a counter-assertion suffices to stalemate his empty assertion or actually comes up with a rebuttal.
How about Elliot, have crop yields increased because of CO2? Particularly during drought?
“How about Elliot, have crop yields increased because of CO2?”
As the only person claiming that they have – i.e. you – has been instantly reduced to mindless spamming when challenged, and can come up with no evidence whatsoever, it seems safe to infer that there is no evidence that they have.
Surprising how long your wheel can keep turning after the hamster is dead, though.
Whoops, I missed one
mpainter says:
June 6, 2016 at 10:04 AM
Mpainter:The truth is that increased levels of CO2 have decreased crop loss due to drought.
Elliot Bignell: One mindless assertion deserves another: No, they havent.
Geran,
It’s supposed to appear at the TOA as a change in net outgoing flux (reflected SW + emitted LW).
Elliott, you ignored one part of my comment.
I bet crop yields will be higher every decade than the previous, until we’re both dead (and thereafter probably, but we won’t be there to see it).
I bet weather disasters will continue to decline as a share of GDP.
I bet not a single town over 10,000 will be abandoned due to sea level rise before 2100.
I bet not a single island over 1,000 will suffer that fate, again in the XXI century.
I bet the world’s green mass will be higher every decade than the previous, again indefinitely.
I bet verified species extinctions this century will be less than in the XIX or XX centuries.
I bet on those things no matter how much carbon we end up emitting, how much if that carbon remains in the atmosphere, or how much we warm up.
My Gmail is “name.surname.surname”. Contact me and we can hammer out the details.
I won’t be alive to collect on some of those, but I would be prepared to make a symbolic wager on some of those, certainly. I’ll mail you a bit later. We can record the deal here.
You are a very foolish person.
Alberto Zaragoza Comendador,
“I bet verified species extinctions this century will be less than in the XIX or XX centuries.”
You would lose that bet, if only because of sampling bias. Most species have likely not been discovered yet. As a result, most of the extinctions that occurred in the 19th and 20th centuries were of unknown species and can not be verified. As we learn more, we can document a higher percentage of the extinctions that do occur and the bias decreases. The result is to create a bias towards apparently higher extinction rates.
I am with you on the rest of your bets.
No, he’ll lose on anything I agree to bet on. He’ll lose WORSE on extinctions, certainly. (Frogs alone will crush him.) As I don’t expect to live much past 2050 based on my age we will have to agree on closer thresholds, but as Louisiana and the Maldives are already as good as gone and the Pentagon are already talking about losing deep-water ports he still doesn’t stand much of a chance. I’m not normally a betting person, but if people forget the wishful nature of their thinking to THIS extent…
He’s trying to bet against the rock-solid consensus of an entire science, and the consensus of an entire science is literally the best bet it is possible to conceive of. To bet against an entire field is the very definition of stupidity, and you can bet I’m not going to agree to any bet that I cannot trace back to the IPCC, which is basically the accumulation of the most conservative projections from the entire field. If the IPCC has conflicting statements, its reporting rules REQUIRE, by law, that it take the more conservative. There is no serious chance whatsoever of its projections being extravagant.
Some of these people are so tangled up in ideology they have begun to forget that they have only been betting with the lives of other people who can’t defend themselves up until now. It’s admirable in a superficial kind of way that someone is prepared to put their money in the same place as their hot air, but really very foolish to forget that it is hot air.
Elliott,
Alberto is not betting against the science. He is betting against the exaggerated nonsense that alarmist claim is base on science, but is in fact not based on science, or only weakly so.
“Alberto is not betting against the science. He is betting against the exaggerated nonsense that alarmist claim is base on science, but is in fact not based on science, or only weakly so.”
Wrong.
mpainter says:
June 6, 2016 at 10:04 AM
Mpainter:The truth is that increased levels of CO2 have decreased crop loss due to drought.
Elliot Bignell: One mindless assertion deserves another: No, they havent.
I hate to tell you Elliot but Louisiana isn’t going anywhere. The coastal erosion in Louisiana is not due to rising sea levels but the funneling of the Mississippi river delta for protection of homes and cities and farms. If the Mississippi had not been funneled by levee’s all the way to the coast then there would be no problem. This has not allowed the silt of the river to expand over the delta basin and replenish itself naturally like it has done for hundreds of thousands of years. There are studies being taken now to show that the coastline can be reestablished if and when river diversion projects are undertaken to allow for the natural movement of river silt. Again we are to smart for our own good. You can’t fool with Mother nature!
Also problems with subsidence due to sediment compaction, etc. The tidal gauge at Grande Isle shows 9.6 mm rate of SL rise, and it’s all subsidence. But you are right about the unintended ramifications of hydraulic projects in Louisiana, David.
Y’all, yer humble fonz lives right here in new orleans. Truth be told, i haven’t paid a lot of attention to this subsidence thing. One thing that i have heard over the years is that the rate of subsidence into the gulf is noticably affected by the amount of oil being drilled in the gulf. (the 80s oil boom saw greater subsidence than later days) You’ve got me interested in it, so i might just do some digging to find out what it’s all about. Painter, we once had a discussion about the levee board that got me doing research which was fascinating. Turns out that the rap on the levee board was NOT that they were misappropriating state dollars rather it was that they were more concerned about their enterprises than flood control. They were LOADED, some 50 million in assets because they were required to generate there own revenue for flooding projects. Whenever the state came a calling, it was because they had their own projects that they wanted the levee board to do. The state was actually eating out of the levee boards hand; not the other way around… Fascinating stuff about an agency that was always a mystery to me. I owe you one, thanx!
Yea fonz, I recall our discussion and how you explained that the flooding resulted from a breach in the canal wall and not the Ponchartrin levee, as I had supposed.
All because of faulty design by the Army Corps of Engineers, as the blame was laid. I wondered at the time if the Corps was a goat, rendered mute by political masters. Ya never know about such things.
If you are interested in subsidence, get a bathymetric chart of offshore Louisiana and study the depth off the birdsfoot delta. It might aide your understanding.
I to live right here in New Orleans! Yes, I do in fact believe that offshore drilling has something to do with the problem of subsidence but that is not the issue as if the Mississippi were allowed to overflow her banks regularly south of new orleans, then all that lost marshland would come back.
As I understand it, exactly that idea is finally starting to penetrate in the USA and elsewhere. One specific response to projections of higher storm surges in several parts of the world has been schemes to promote the re-growth of marshland. We have had a related problem across Europe, especially in the Somerset Levels near to where I grew up, as decades of efforts to clear woodland and “improve” upland drainage have led to uncontrollable floods on the Levels, lower down, which have been heavily built-upon. Live and learn, eh?
Needless to say, none of the denialist losers here would have lifted a finger, as they are committed to pretending that the problem will never emerge.
“I hate to tell you Elliot but Louisiana isnt going anywhere”
Ahem: http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2016/03/14/record-flooding-texas-louisiana-deweyville/81761246/
“The coastal erosion in Louisiana is not due to rising sea levels but the funneling of the Mississippi river delta for protection of homes and cities and farms.”
Which, of course, says precisely nothing about whether it is also due to climate change or whether it will survive further climate change. (Hint: It won’t.)
I meant, of course, to specifiy New Orleans rather than Louisiana. My bad. As should be clear from context, I was challenged on towns, not states. All the above should be taken to refer to the city. If that changes your response, then your choice takes precedence.
Why can none of you successfully copy my name, by the way? It does not exactly fill me with confidence in your ability to process complex tasks.
Now, there is your problem. You don’t even know how to spell Elliot. No need for the second “t”, is there? Why do parents hobble their offspring with screwball names? Tsk, Tsk. Messes them up for life. Blights their development. Lamentable.
Yes, my Mum recently admitted that they didn’t know how to spell it. It’s a constant nuisance.
But I bet they could at least have copied it when it was right in front of them. How does it feel to be less skilled than a plumber and a typist, painter?
But see how I spell idiott.
Is that better? ☺
It’s characteristic, if that helps.
Are you trying to imply that the floods this year are being caused by global warming? I do not believe anyone has made that case. The city of New Orleans has been built upon mangrove swamps for the most part. Land that was reclaimed but was always below sea level even back in the 1800’s. If you continue to build levee’s along every river in Louisiana in order to protect from flooding as nature intended, then you will continue to put the farthest cities downstream in jeopardy of being flooded. As the rain comes down, it must all be funneled into the river and not allowed to expand and keep the river at an acceptable level until it can subside down river. We have determined that people have the right to build wherever they want even if that is a bad choice(below sea-level, swamps). Once chosen, they then get the government to protect their investment(levees). Eventually you have an act of nature that man cannot control(Katrina, storm system, el nino) and the city or parts of it will be destroyed. It is not just New Orleans, but cities built all along the Mississippi and other major rivers all the way up to Canada.
“Are you trying to imply that the floods this year are being caused by global warming?”
Actually, I was referring to Katrina, since which the city has basically never recovered according to everything I’ve seen on the subject. Maybe people living nearby can tell me different, but that’s my information. Enhanced and more frequent storm-surges are a specific prediction of modelling of anthropgenic warming.
A connection to any specific event can only ever be made statistically, so it would be dishonest to claim that Katrina “was” caused by AW. But by the same token it would be exactly as dishonest to say it “was not”, and far more so to allege no connection at all.
As an old-timer, I want to tell you about a New Orleans visit back in the mid 1970s — when global cooling dominated the headlines. I was part of a group receiving VIP treatment by the mayor’s office, and we visited various points in New Orleans. When we came to the part where much of New Orleans is below sea level, I asked about what would happen if a Category 5 hurricane hit the city. The tour guide said that New Orleans would be devastated and that the inevitably a major hurricane someday would hit the city.
I reject your claim that it would be dishonest not to connect Katrina’s impact to AGW. The scenario was forseen 30 years before it happened — before AGW was in play. And that was independent of the problem that some levees failed due to design/construction issues — not due to the hurricane abnormal strength.
Some AGW models say tht hurricanes will be become more intense. Other AGW models say that hurriances will become less intense. So far, experience (Reality rather than models) has shown that hurricane activity is down.
Elliott has emailed me. He wants Michael Mann as an arbiter (not sure if joking).
Anyway, I’ve specified the bets a bit more. And the only arbiter is data. Ball in your court Elliott.
No, he’s not joking. The reflexive response of all these hard-core AGW types is to reach out and cling to big names, especially when they get in trouble. Shukla emailed Mann and asked for help when Steve McIntyre posted at Climate Audit on his double dipping. And now Elliot does because he knows he’s about to take a pounding. He’s frightened, you see. That is the key to understanding his behavior.
I said I’ll ask him. He has been helpful in the past, and I trust his honesty. I also explicitly stated that you will submit to external arbitation or no bet, so I’ve already caught you in an outright lie. I know perfectly well that if you people claim that “data” is the arbitator you will just continue to lie about what the data is saying, as you have been doing for decades. You are welcome to propose another party, but if you are going to try and play chicken you WILL accept binding, third-party arbitration. Any further attempt to dodge constitutes proof of bad faith and no deal.
I have no illusions that you would actually pay up, and I don’t care about the winnings, but if you want to try to bluster about “bets” you are going to have to agree to external binding so that you can be unambiguously humiliated once you have lost.
You don’t stand a chance against Alberto. You and your phoney frog extinctions.
Doesn’t really matter. Alberto is trying to beat reality. I can just wait for it to roll over him.
Actually, that’s not entirely fair. He’s CLAIMING he can beat reality. When actually confronted with a demand to let his claims be judged by a third party, he dodges, just like the rest of you.
The 15 micron IR is fully thermalized, including the “shoulders”. That’s called saturation. No more forcing, and the semantic dodges and twists by the cultists will not warm the globe. AGW = Adios Global Warming
Ah, an attempt to change the subject. How refreshingly original.
“No more forcing”
So explain Venus, the observed warming trend and the magnitude of galciations, you clown.
mpainter says:
June 6, 2016 at 10:04 AM
Mpainter:The truth is that increased levels of CO2 have decreased crop loss due to drought.
Elliot Bignell: One mindless assertion deserves another: No, they havent.
C’mon Appell, up your game. Bignell is out-trolling you about 7-to-1.
Dr. S., you should have a “100% [email protected]@N” award and make Mr. Big it’s first recipient… (☺)
I find your attempt to associate me with Mister Gravitional Temperature Gradient extremely hurtful. Firstly, I understand basic thermodynamics. Secondly, I can play more than one tune. Thirdly, I am honest, and am the only person on this blog, to my knowledge, who has ever actually posted scientific links correcting his own claims. (Indeed, aside from Dr. Roy I am mostly the only one to post any scientific content whatsoever.) Or any blog at all, when I think about it. Strange, that. Where was I?
Oh, yes: Fifthly, I can count. And fourthly, all that Dr. Roy has to do is ask me and I will desist from posting.
In fact, I’ll be gone again in a couple of days anyway, once I get bored with you losers. I mostly stick to torturing creationists.
mpainter says:
June 7, 2016 at 2:04 AM
mpainter says:
June 6, 2016 at 10:04 AM
Mpainter:The truth is that increased levels of CO2 have decreased crop loss due to drought.
Elliot Bignell: One mindless assertion deserves another: No, they havent.
Once again, Dr. Roy, please terminate mpainter’s spamming of the exchange in which he was yet again defeated. As he cannot rebut my counter-assertion, and as a counter-assertion is all that is required to defeat an assertion, this is all as pointless as mpainter’s existence itself. I’m sure it’s boring you as much as it is boring me, and mpainter is never going to understand even if we use diagrams.
Well, Elliot, do you agree that crop yields have increased during drought?
Now he’s resorted to another form of mindless repetition. Please shut him up, Dr. Roy, or at least require that he actually support his imbecilic claims. I can only repeat that he is not providing any basis for his original claim so often before becoming a vegetable just like him.
Or maybe I’ll just ignore him until he actually says something with some content. Which will probably be until one of us dies.
mpainter says:
June 6, 2016 at 10:04 AM
Mpainter:The truth is that increased levels of CO2 have decreased crop loss due to drought.
Elliot Bignell: One mindless assertion deserves another: No, they havent.
michael – Hey, even geniuses get bored.
Is David Appell a genius in your eyes? I wonder what ghetto thinks about you.
No, I was referring to myself, of course. What people think of it is immaterial, as a genius is generally considered to be a person with an IQ of greater than 140, which is objectively verifiable. Which means that you aren’t one. About 60% of one or so, most probably. And I’m nearly one and a half.
Large hands, too. Go, Trump.
Dear Mr. Bignell,
by definition, I am a genius. I expect a number of people who visit and post on this blog are as well.
You may be a genius by your definition, but socially, you’re an imbecile.
Have a nice day.
Lewis Guignard
Crouse, NC
Lewis – Oh, look. Another one who doesn’t want to talk about science.
Well, pretty-much everyone here is a social imbecile, and I seriously doubt that there’s even one of you as bright as me. Not on painter’s side, at any rate. You see, if you are on painter’s side you are by definition denying reality, which means that any residual intelligence you may have had has been used deliberately to keep reality out. But no matter, my high IQ is only counter-bluster here, objectively true but only relevant because your maladroit friends chose to make it relevant.
If you had any social intelligence of your own, you would have noticed that I always respond in kind, only better. If you greet me with courtesy or show signs of willingness to understand, you will get more back. If you start talking about “alarmists” or “liberals”, dodging questions or questioning my understanding or intelligence, you will receive withering contempt and be looked down upon from my intellectual Olympus. (Actually a Nikon, but you get the picture.) Your choice. You’ve opened with a poor one, by the way.
But you’ll notice that I am still being polite. I advise you to leave it that way.
By the way, don’t make the mistake of thinking I care how my posts are received, or am seeking to persuade. I have never seen a 9-11 Troofer persuaded merely by being shown to be wrong about the properties of metals. I have never seen a creationist persuaded merely by being shown the intermediates he claims cannot exist. They just change the subject, misrepresent what has been said, start raving about “liberals”…
None of you are any different. None of you are one whit better. I pop up here every few months to practice on you because I am bored. I’m basically just killing time until I can have you all executed in its stead.
Test
Can’t see it.
Read ’em and weep: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/07/the-great-barrier-reef-a-catastrophe-laid-bare
Elliott has bailed on green mass (I proposed Mynani’s Leaf Area Index but we could have chosen another) and yields. It would be rude to point out that green area is the biggest environmental measure and yields are the most important factor for the welfare of the world’s poor, and that his bailing out is a comical contrast with his aggressive rhetoric, so I won’t.
What I will point out is Elliott doesn’t seem to believe the IPCC very strongly.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/31/climate-change-food-supply-un
That leaves us with extinctions and weather disasters, as sea level will do pretty much nothing within our lifetime. The bets are evaluated on a decade-by-decade basis, i.e. starting in 2020-29 with the right to withdraw after each decade. (We could have started in 2017-26 but realistically a lot of data will always be published on a ‘calendar decade’ basis).
My bet is weather disasters as a share of GDP will be lower than over the 1990-2019 period; the disaster data will come from Munich Re and the GDP data can come from World Bank, IMF or any other source as long as it’s always the same source. As for extinctions, my bet is that the of extinctions will be lower any decade than it was in the XX century (obviously dividing by 10 to account for the different length of time – that’s why I say ‘rate’). I haven’t looked for a particular source on extinctions but the difference with the XX century will be so massive it won’t matter.
“Elliott has bailed on green mass”
More lies? I never said I accepted a bet on green mass, and you have bailed out comprehensively by refusing to accept third-pary arbitration: You, as I suspected all along, are determined to retain the leeway to simply lie your way out when you have lost.
I had you pegged right from the beginning, by the look of it.
You can choose any judge you want, Mann included. Will be fun to see his contortions when you lose, if he does accept.
I was going to choose any judge I want no matter what you say. What YOU have to do is submit in advance to their arbitation.
I have said six or seven times I’ll take any judge, as long as he uses the data and conditions we have already agreed to. Do you take the bets or not?
“The only third-party arbiter is data.”
Your words. You haven’t said that you accept the arbitration of a judge at all. And frankly, I think you have shown enough bad faith now to justify insisting that you state explicitly that you will submit to such arbitration.
So far I think we have agreed on islands and towns: If a town of 10,000 or an island of population greater than 1,000 is abandoned due to sea-level rise you pay out $100 in each case. As this does not yet commit me to any reciprocal risk I will add that if this has not happened by 2040, when I should with fair confidence still be alive, then I pay out $100 (2016 rates) for each case. This applies globally – there are few islands in Switzerland to which this outcome is likely to apply, so just treating with my place of residence seems unproductive. The above becomes binding when you submit explicitly to third-party arbitration – I’ll leave you free to reject any specific arbitrator at the time I name them, in which case the deal is dissolved.
Agreed?
I’ll pursue the remaining points off-group later and we can record the terms here.
Agreed. You can still bail on the extinctions.
No, we can continue to discuss terms later on extinctions. This is ultimately the only reason for my caring about any of the rest of it. I am confident that extinction rates are going to continue to climb and will commit to a bet on it, but I will look for statistical confidence.
Then do you take the bet or not?
On extinctions? I already said, we’ll discuss terms further. On islands and towns? I also already said: The terms will become binding if and when you ever explicitly state that you submit to third-party arbitration.
I don’t see how this leaves any room for ambiguity.
I already said I’d accept the judge. Call it submit if you want. And you forgot about weather disasters.
Not forgotten. You forget that there are two parties to any bet, and I get a choice which bets I place. I’ll finish off by e-mail when I have recovered the will to live. Just a couple of days on this site has left me needing a thorough shower.
I’ll have to take that as an acceptance, although I see that you have STILL not said that you will accept the judgement, and I suspect at this point that you are never going to. If you are wondering at my perhaps slightly legalistic approach, ponder the following: If you are playing chess against a pigeon, do you think the pigeon will understand better if you bet on the outcome? Unlikely. If it can fool itself about the outcome of an argument, why would it not be equally adept at fooling itself about a bet? So you bet on the outcome with someone a bit brighter who is watching.
No, the way to get a pigeon to play chess is to connect its food dispenser to a chess machine. If it plays, it gets fed. If it just knocks over the pieces and flies off to brag that it has won, it starves. Hence third-party arbitration.
Interesting choice of link. It states that we are ALREADY suffering the impacts on food supply that you are generally trying to pretend are “alarmist”, while not even mentioning the matter of “green mass” which you were trying to make the subject of a bet. It seems that my instinct not to accept this one has been instantly vindicated, while at the same time alarm bells are actually starting to penetrate your sound-proofing. It also seems that you knew all along that “green mass” is not a reliable test of risk to the food supply and that you have used it as a red herring. No surprises there.
And now I am no longer the only one to post links correcting my own position. If still the only one to do so intentionally.
It seems you are massively confused, as food supply is mostly affected by crop yield – which is a different thing than green mass. Which is why I mentioned them in two different lines in my original bet comment, and I mentioned them separately in the emails.
Anyway, you said you wouldn’t bet on green/leaf area. But you won’t bet on yields either. Why, if the situation is so catastrophic?
Because, if you will remember, I am advocating ACTING on the situation, not denying it exists in the first place. I am a technological optimist – it comes with being a scientific rationalist rather than a tinfoil-hatted denier – and I expect some problems to be solved within the ranges expected within my lifetime. If I win, and the world acts to protect soils and food supply, then I would lose the bet despite being right about needing to act. Where, then, is my incentive to bet? Also, biotechnology offers the promise of huge short-term gains and for another twenty or thirty years we can probably just keep throwing nitrates and phosphates at the production problem while letting biodiversity decline as a consequence. Either way, I can lose while being right. So such a bet serves no end.
I am confident about sea-level rise, biodiversity and coastal effects because they have already begun, because there is no serious hope of a solution during my lifetime and because the change is mostly locked in by legacy emissions. If you have been following the news of coral bleaching and acidification, for instance, you will know that we are alarmingly close to losing the whole of reef biodiversity in several locations THIS YEAR. It’s going to be close, especially for the Barrier Reef. And neither acidification nor coean temperature are anywhere near equilibrium conditions.
The news Elliot? Really? Is that your little source of information for this whole man made global warming fiasco? I bet you don’t even have a clue about the global cooling scare in the 1970s do you?
“Is that your little source of information for this whole man made global warming fiasco?”
As is clear from context, no. I just think you should watch it now and again. Or at least get off denialist blogs and take a look at the real world.
“I bet you dont even have a clue about the global cooling scare in the 1970s do you?”
Of course I do. One cannot discuss the science of anthropogenic warming for five minutes without some ignorant drone cropping up and claiming it happened. The trouble is, it didn’t. Basically just one paper suggested that it might be coming up and a couple of media articles mentioned it. You have all swallowed it as gospel because you think it by some mysterious process casts doubt on today’s science – I’m looking forward to seeing how you work that one out.
In fact, even in the 1970s the overwhelming majority of scientific papers were already mooting anthropogenic warming. As usual, you have picked the one little peanut out of the pile on the pavement that confirms what you want to believe and ignored the rest of the surrounding landscape.
“Of course I do. One cannot discuss the science of anthropogenic warming for five minutes without some ignorant drone cropping up and claiming it happened. The trouble is, it didnt. Basically just one paper suggested that it might be coming up and a couple of media articles mentioned it. You have all swallowed it as gospel because you think it by some mysterious process casts doubt on todays science Im looking forward to seeing how you work that one out.”
really Elliot? If they were so certain that mans co2 emissions were warming the earth then don’t you think they should’ve thought twice before introducing global warming into the picture and waited until they came up with more evidence prooving that it was real before going on about global cooling? Huh? Let’s see if you can work that one out? Nice try Elliot
mpainter says:
June 6, 2016 at 10:04 AM
Mpainter:The truth is that increased levels of CO2 have decreased crop loss due to drought.
Elliot Bignell: One mindless assertion deserves another: No, they havent.
Elliot, you cannot be serious. There are times I disagree with mpainter, but on the issue of CO2 and crops, there is no question that he is right. The research consistently shows that. To be sure, some AGW activists try to discount the beneficial impact of CO2 on crops, but reality always gets in their way.
Interestingly, there is a hypothesis that increased CO2 could cause stronger hurricanes due to the greening effect. Because of higher CO2 levels, the Sahara is greening (relatively speaking). That means less atmospheric dust over the eastern Atlantic. That means sea temperatures will be higher there. That means increased opportunities for hurricane formation, earlier formations, and stronger formations.
Of course I am serious. Not only can painter not support the claim, NONE OF YOU have so far come up with anything even vaguely resembling support. Even the hearsay that has been listed does not so much as come close – coccolithophores are not crops or subject to drought; greening of the Arctic could be (is) due to thawing; overall productivity gains could be due to improvements in husbandry, irrigation, crop varieties or growth in cropping area.
“The research consistently shows that.”
Then post it. Show me JUST ONE LINK supporting painter’s claim that “increased levels of CO2 have decreased crop loss due to drought”.
You can’t do it.
It’s not even as if I have disputed the possibility. All I have to do is say, “No, they haven’t,” and everyone is completely pole-axed. No-one can provide a single link.
I thought science was supposed to use EVIDENCE!
“Because of higher CO2 levels, the Sahara is greening (relatively speaking).”
Fine, support the claim. And no, I don’t mean support the claim that the Sahara is greening while talking about greenhouses. I mean: Support the claim that the Sahara is greening because of higher CO2 levels.
Anything you post will no longer be accepted as proof that mpainter is not lying when he subsequently tries to claim credit, by the way. It’s only you that can claim credit for coming up with your own research.
And one more thing Elliot. It doesn’t matter what or how many scientists agree that man made global warming is real or how smart they are or if they have a phd. Truth is. You don’t have to be a certified scientist to debunk the myth of man made global warming/ cooling or whatever it maybe. It’s simple. All you need to do is open up your little eyelids look at the information given to you, look at what’s being said. What’s the overall thing these alarmists idiots are saying? Co2 goes up the climate warms. Oh but co2 has been going up for the past 7,000 years now Elliot therefore the temperature should continue to go up as well. We were at 280 ppm now we are at 360 but wait why are there pauses in the temperature? Oh no can it be? Whoops oh it’s just a puase and it will resume in no time. Oh look another pause. Wow it’s okay ladies and gentlemen just another “pause” in man made global warming for the past 18 years although co2 continues to rise it’s just taking a break. Bull shit! Elliot lets face it you lose this battle! Your claim has been broken on numerous occasions despite on what the so called “97%” of the very well educated scientists think that are saying that increasing co2 causes warmer temperatures. Give it up Elliot. It’s over. I win. You lose. I celebrate. You have a hissy fit.
“It doesnt matter what or how many scientists agree that man made global warming is real or how smart they are or if they have a phd.”
Actually, whether or not they have a PhD related to climatology is basically the ONLY thing that matters. You can “think for yourself” all you want. It’s not going to help you one jot unless you first understand the material. And you clearly understand literally none of it. See below for an example.
“We were at 280 ppm now we are at 360 but wait why are there pauses in the temperature?”
Don’t need a PhD to see that this is idiocy, of course. Even the most basic scientific knowledge suffices to understand that an effect can be mediated by more than one cause, or exhibit a combination of cyclicity and a trend.
Such a pity you lack the most basic scientific knowledge. And the humility to stop trying to work such elementary stuff out yourself and listen to people who really understand it.
This, by the way, is why America no longer matters much these days.
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’ – Isaac Asimov
Pro tip for climate alarmists: bet only on irrelevant stuff. Ideally all your bets should be a variation of ‘temperatures keep going up!!!1’
Of course lots of people, myself included, agree that temperatures are going up and will continue to do so. CO2 levels keep rising, even if they stopped rising forcing would still increase due to declining aerosol levels, and even if forcing stabilized we’d still have a radiative imbalance – fancy name for extra heat in the ocean. In short, even if we managed to stabilize CO2 levels tomorrow, some level of warming (probably less than 1C/century) would continue for decades.
The question is why should anyone care.
Pro tip for scientific rationalists: Don’t expect Alberto to commit himself bindingly to a bet once challenged.
mpainter says:
June 6, 2016 at 10:04 AM
Mpainter:The truth is that increased levels of CO2 have decreased crop loss due to drought.
Elliot Bignell: One mindless assertion deserves another: No, they havent.
And where is your proof to this false obscured claim of yours mr. Alberto?
I must note that one of my emails very explicitly said ‘I don’t particularly care able [sic – should be ‘about’] the arbiter. Choose whoever you want.’
Elliott is desperately looking for an excuse to bail on the whole thing.
“The only third-party arbiter is data.”
Your words.
In this case I would agree with Alberto, but I can’t.
It should be that, but all depends on how data are collected and eventually “adjusted”.
I would never rely on paleoclimatic or tree rings proxies for any life threatening issues.
Have both a great day.
Massimo
“In this case I would agree with Alberto, but I cant.”
I almost did so myself. It sounds so diarmingly ingenuous doesn’t it, until one thnks for a few seconds? But I have been on the internet since before Microsoft even had a browser, and have been debating AW-deniers and creationists for 20 years. I have seen them conjure a “pause” out of the thin air of a relentlessly-climbing temperature record.
So I invested the few seconds.
“I would never rely on paleoclimatic or tree rings proxies for any life threatening issues.”
So what do you do when your life is threatened and palaeoclimate data is all you have? Just die?
No, I look for the signs of threatening, and I evaluate how much it costs fighting them in terms of other risks.
When the balance of risks and advantages for my life is well defined then I take my choice.
I’m not so ingenuous of following the chief lemming who asks the crowd to follow him jumping in the sea having not learnt swimming before. (I know that the mass suicide of that rat-like mammals is just a legend, it’s just to say here)
BTW that’s the way any living thing does on this planet.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Hoops!
my:
“BTW thats the way any living thing does on this planet.”
would be:
BTW thats the way any living thing who fight for survive, it does on this planet to succeed.
“No, I look for the signs of threatening, and I evaluate how much it costs fighting them in terms of other risks.”
Which of course sounds superficially sensible but completely misses the point, which is what do you do when the cost is death and the available data is inferential and incomplete? What do you do when the issue is life-threatening and palaeoclimate data is what you have?
And what makes you think that you can do better than the dozens of multinational and cross-disciplinary bodies that have already addressed such a complex issue?
“BTW thats the way any living thing does on this planet.”
Actually, the vast majority of life on this planet is determined in its behaviour almost entirely by its genes, which have been selected by evolution IN RETROSPECT. They do what has caused them to survive and reproduce UNTIL NOW. Plants, fungi and microbes all have more sophisticated means to respond to the environment that we used to think, but there is very little evaluation of threats in evidence, much less anticipation based on necessarily obscure data. Even animals usually just see a hawk’s silhouette and scarper.
It’s why we can generally outwit them with traps and decoys.
Just spend a little time thinking about what I asked you, would you, please? It really is quite an important question, as almost every policy set by every organisation requires anticipation based on incomplete data. Now I’m going to withdraw incrementally, because all the stupidity on display here is undermining my faith in my own species’ ability to survive at all.
HI Elliott,
“which is what do you do when the cost is death and the available data is inferential and incomplete?”
and
“What do you do when the issue is life-threatening and palaeoclimate data is what you have?”
These answers are paradoxes, you state that the issue cost is “death” or it is “life-threatening” but your fear comes only from “inferential and incomplete” or “palaeoclimate” data, this implies that you don’t really know that the issue is at cost of life or “life-threatening”, you just believe it.
I like to read about science, which means that I’m skeptic about everything I encounter that looks uncertain, I do that until my doubts about what I read are solved by clear explanations of the methods used for stating what I read.
I’ll never believe in science.
“And what makes you think that you can do better than the dozens of multinational and cross-disciplinary bodies that have already addressed such a complex issue?”
I suspect you don’t sufficiently read about how behaved and behaves those “dozens of multinational and cross-disciplinary bodies” in last 30 or so years.
If they are so certain of their work, why don’t they share their certain data who lead them to the truth?
Before talking about the temperature data, do you had a look to the raw data of the last 170 or so years?
I’m an engineer and I used such data for doing anything I surely get nothing out of them. They are nothing else noise.
Most of climate research is based on noisy data adjusted by arbitrary coefficients that in the best case were applied because the scientists just believed that they had to be applied (see UHI and irrigations corrections). In the worst case they just applied them to “magnify” the issue by their own admission.
Sorry, IMHO science should never work that way.
“They do what has caused them to survive and reproduce UNTIL NOW”
Really?
Uhmmm… No, they survived and still reproduce because what their ancestors did by their instincts allowed them to be here today just by selection. Their ancestors never known that what they were doing was winning in the fight for surviving of their offsprings, they just did it for themselves.
If you believe men should do that, then we should just give your ego maximum expression, next time you need something to survive that your neighbour have, just kill him and get it, that’s the way most animals did and does to survive.
That’s all, I’m an electronic designer and I’ve no more time to spend with you.
Only one thing, if you were really a genius then you should keep away politics from science.
Have a great day.
Massimo
“These answers are paradoxes”
You need to look that word up.
“this implies that you dont really know that the issue is at cost of life or life-threatening, you just believe it.”
Ah, postmodernism. No, in fact there is an objective world in which things really happen, independent of what you “believe” about it. And the very point of my question is that you can be faced with something in that world that threatens your survival yet whose existence can only be inferred from partial data. I asked you what you do then. You dodged. I expected no better.
“which means that Im skeptic about everything I encounter that looks uncertain”
There is an open mind, and then there is ventilation. As engineers we rely on the physical properties of materials which are based on science, and therefore also “uncertain”. That does not mean we do not reinforce a dam that might break. You are deliberately abusing the concept of uncertainty to sustain your dodge. The world IS uncertain. The battles still go to the big battalions. Uncertainty justifies scepticism, but reality crushes denial.
“I suspect you dont sufficiently read about how behaved and behaves those dozens of multinational and cross-disciplinary bodies in last 30 or so years.”
Ah, just another tinfoil-hatter, then. Again, no surprises there. The problem is that if you take a scientific rather than a conspiracy-theoretical approach you immediately notice that there are no scientific organisations of any kind that are producing ANY FALSIFYING RESULTS WHATSOEVER. If you understood ever the most elementary of science you would know that you need RESULTS to overturn a consensus, not wild claims about conspiracies and cover-ups.
“Sorry, IMHO science should never work that way.”
So stop pretending it has.
“No, they survived and still reproduce because what their ancestors did by their instincts allowed them to be here today just by selection. Their ancestors never known that what they were doing was winning in the fight for surviving of their offsprings, they just did it for themselves.”
Which is basically what I said. Can’t you even read?
“Thats all, Im an electronic designer and Ive no more time to spend with you.”
And, it would appear, nothing with which to fill it anyway.
“Only one thing, if you were really a genius then you should keep away politics from science.”
Oh, I would have done. But the denial industry has rendered the choices of geniuses moot. However, since the only one to have mentioned anything political in this exchange was you, right there, your mendacity is noted.
Just one moment to you again.
You BELIEVE in numbers, I EVALUATE the numbers.
“You are deliberately abusing the concept of uncertainty to sustain your dodge. The world IS uncertain.”
No, you are abusing the concept of uncertainty to sustain your dodge indeed. You are the one who believes in numbers without looking inside the methodology used to get them. I just ask to investigate how numbers were collected and adjusted, and the few times I had the privilege of read about that, I seen methodologies that an engineer wouldn’t never see.
You are asking for the falsification of the unfalsifiable because the methodologies of collecting data were completely inadequate. Taking apart the silly tree rings and paleoclimate ice cores, just to know, do you know that thermometers measurements until the first half of last century were measuring with the precision of 1C?
How the heck do you want to falsify graphs that show temperature trends below 1C?
Maybe integrating?
BTW you argued that you are a genius because your IQ is above 140, in fact you wrote “as a genius is generally considered to be a person with an IQ of greater than 140, which is objectively verifiable.”
OH YEAH!!!
Really a scientific statement that.
If you are an engineer like me, here stands the real difference between me and you: you believe in that silly number, and use it as if your opinion counts much than other ones because “the number” say that you are a genius.
Well, when a long time ago I used to play with those silly tests, I always scored much more than that 140 too, but I don’t believe I’m a genius at all. I’m just an engineer trained to face the reality, and when someone shows me a sequence of number, letters or figures, I use my mind, just that.
Here in Italy to presumptuous people like you, we use to say something like this: “fly down, put your feet on the ground”.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Massimo – “You BELIEVE in numbers, I EVALUATE the numbers.”
If you cannot understand or answer the question I asked you about evaluating risk in the face of equivocal data then just shut up. I am getting sick of seeing you people just making stuff up. Either answer the question without dodging again or mettere nella culo.
Patience has expired.
“If you are an engineer like me, here stands the real difference between me and you: you believe in that silly number, and use it as if your opinion counts much than other ones because the number say that you are a genius.”
You really don’t understand ANYTHING, do you? I’m using it as a stick to beat dogs. Nothing more, nothing less.
Amen Elliott, Amen.
“You really dont understand ANYTHING, do you? Im using it as a stick to beat dogs. Nothing more, nothing less.”
That said by you is a compliment.
You are not minimal entitled to establish what I understand and what I don’t.
You are just a presumptuous ignorant in the matter.
I’m ignorant in this field I know, but my goal is understand as much I can. Just that.
“mettere nella culo.”
you are a vulgar ignorant that is neither capable to use the right preposition.
Again Amen
You repeatedly dodge a direct question and you make false claims about my position. You don’t get to complain about vulgarity, kapiert? What you “understand”, if you’ll excuse the exaggeration, can be clearly inferred from the information you have made available. No entitlement required.
Now begone, fool.
Just to keep on the record the way this exchange began:
Massimo: I would never rely on paleoclimatic or tree rings proxies for any life threatening issues.
Me: So what do you do when your life is threatened and palaeoclimate data is all you have? Just die?
The record shows that Massimo has persistently dodged this question, changed the subject and deliberately misrepresented my position, including inventing wild irrelevancies about “believing numbers”. Where he came up with that steaming great pile of inaccuracy is anyone’s guess, but all the rest are textbook denialist tactics and this last just a specialisation.
Deliberately misrepresenting the positions of others, needless to say, is not something that someone who is “trying to understand” would do. It is what liars do. And it certainly leaves no leeway to complain about courtesy, as there IS no greater discourtesy.
“Me: So what do you do when your life is threatened and palaeoclimate data is all you have? Just die?”
Sorry,
if you can’t understand why this question is paradoxical, is your problem not mine.
I use to stop discussions with people who look at the fingertip when I point the moon.
Amen
Test.
Sorry about all the typos today. Multitasking, innit.
“Multitasking,”
Yep, you are being an idiot and a fool !!
Alberto, of course he wants to bail out. He’s already lost the bet on the thread above, where he claimed that the planet had not greened. Also, he maintains that crop yields have not increased because of CO2.
Plus, he is frightened.
mpainter apparently cannot read, as usual. As I never bet that the planet had not greened, as I myself posted the only paper saying that it has, and as I have clearly posted terms on arbitration for two points that Alberto has still not acknowledged, painter is openly misrepresenting posts that are a matter of record. Let’s be quite clear on this: painter is claiming that I “want to bail out” when I never agreed to one bet and when I have ALREADY made a binding commitment to two further ones. I have no doubt whatsoever, having been aware of painter’s mendacity for some time, that he is simply outright lying.
The rest of you can, as he put it earlier, draw your own conclusions.
When Mister Gravitational Temperature Gradient began to experience his hourly banishments, it was immediately suggested that mpainter be added to the list, by several participants not including myself. Perhaps it is time to revive the idea, Dr. Roy? I do not see how any position you may currently seek to promote through this blog is furthered by harbouring supporters who obviously think they can openly lie without censure.
Not to worry, Elliot. I am on the cAGW hate list and my name is circled. You will have to stand in line. The FBI has already questioned me concerning certain public statements by me which violate Presidential Decrees against Climate Denial.
Insane stuff their mpainter. Yes I know – your joking.
By the way, Elliot, sociological studies draw parallels between alarmists and lemmings. It seems that they share common attributes of panic. No surprise there. What is interesting is that the panic starts in a few individuals and spreads. There reaches a point where they all start milling about in a confused state of anxiety. Then they stampede. They don’t stop until mortalities exterminate them.
But a minority of the lemmings don’t panic. They don’t join the stampede, but stay behind. The Sociologists refer to these “stay-behinds” as skeptics.☺
“By the way, Elliot, sociological studies draw parallels between alarmists and lemmings.”
Really? I bet they don’t draw them between anyone YOU call an “alarmist” and lemmings, though. I’m not the one raving about Presidential decrees and conspiracies by an entire science community, remember?
It’s not the 97% of scientists and 100% of scientific papers who are “alarmist”. It’s the few clowns who think that acting to secure our future is all a liberal “plot”.
You’re the lemming in this scenario, Sunny Jim. One only has to look at your hamster-wheel spamming of an argument you actually lost to see the taxonomic proximity to your fellow rodents.
Now I’m going to leave you here to wallow in your own filth for a couple of months again in the hope that you have been eradicated by the time I come back. It’s a pity that I can’t block you, but there are plenty of places to go and get some fresh air while history passes you by. We even have windmills.
mpainter says:
June 6, 2016 at 10:04 AM
Mpainter:The truth is that increased levels of CO2 have decreased crop loss due to drought.
Elliot Bignell: One mindless assertion deserves another: No, they havent.
Where did you find it?
Lewis – “Where did you find it?”
The fresh air? In the Alps. They overlook my gaff. Used to be quite a good skiing area, for those who like that sort of thing, but AW has basically killed everything on the local pistes. Total washout 2 years running.
Good air, though.
Mr. Elliott:
The paper linked below is a copy of a speech themed “Nature Rebounds” given by Dr. Jesse Ausubel to the Long Now Foundation in January, 2015. If you do not have time to read the entire speech, which is fascinating because he brings to light so many positive things happening on land that our opinion shapers in the media ignore, at least try to read the section titled “Global Greening” on page 7. It’s only one page. I bring it to your attention because Ausubel provides cites to about a half dozen studies documenting the global greening phenomenon, which he refers to as “the most important ecological trend on Earth today.” He says the biosphere on land is increasing by about two billion tons per year. If you are interested in the studies he references you can use your Google machine to dig them up and evaluate them for yourself.
http://phe.rockefeller.edu/docs/Nature_Rebounds.pdf
Thank you, I’ve noted it and will follow up the links. I am gratified to see that the very first picture is an urban whale – I come originally from London. The Thames was once almost dead, but instead of raving about conspiracies to get grant-aid and liberal takeovers they just went ahead and cleaned the river up. When I was a kid, salmon had already returned. Today, seals are seen every day in the centre of London and they even get the odd whale. Despite the denial in little echo-chambers like this, the world has moved on and is starting to clean its act up. Maybe too little, probably too late, but the fact is that the denialists yet again lost the argument, and quite some years ago. It just hasn’t penetrated all the skulls yet.
You know, perhaps it is this community’s obsession with “opinion-shapers in the media” that is precisely their problem? If some of you were to go to primary sources you might have more idea of what is happening in the science community.
I notice that the first of those links PREDICTS, rather than observes, Antarctic greening, excatly the sort of “speculation” that most of the people here would reject as a communist plot if it instead predicted browning. Two of them suggest reasons for greening that are independent of anthropgenic CO2 – abandonment of cropland and the end of a period of drought. Not much of a surprise.
Oh, by the way: Tell painter that your links show that greening is linked to a REDUCTION, not a recovery, in cropping.
I wonder if you have considered the conseqeuences and implications of greening on Arctic soils? Firstly, if satellite measurements of greening are skewed by Arctic environments, then overall green matter could be increasing while cropping rate actually decreases. Secondly, if the Arctic is measurably greening then ice-bound terrestrial environments are most definitely receding, which flatly contradicts the position of quite a few of our brethren here. Finally, if greening has taken place on deep peat soils that were previously permafrost, it is very likely indeed that it coincides with substantial loss of soil carbon.
If greening of the Arctic is observed, rather than merely projected, then it may confirm exactly the kind of positive feedback that is so often disputed on this group – ice-albedo and soil carbon. One cannot have it both ways, so to speak.
now that I think about it. This article isn’t worth the read. There is no climate sensitivity whatsoever. It’s simple: the claim is that an increase in carbon dioxide in the earths atmosphere traps heat warming the climate. The more added, the warmer the earth becomes. However this stupid theory failed on numerous occasions such as the 18 year pause in global warming since 1998 and yet another pause before that between 1940 and 1980. If adding co2 warms the planet we should continue to see temperatures warm at a constant continuos rate. However this has not happened as I explained above. Carbon dioxide is not a controller of the earths climate whatsoever and doing calculations on climate sensitivity it the biggest waste of time a scientists could make. Historical data in ice core samples show that changes in the earths climate system happen before changes in co2. Co2 is an affect of climate change not the cause of it. So by assuming we are making the affect bigger the affect is going to change the cause. No. That’s not how it works. Affects don’t cause causes. There you go. Man made climate change is the biggest scientific scam alive no if, ands or buts. The sun is the only thing that changes the earths climate and there is nothing man can do about it
http://m.spiegel.de/international/world/a-906721.html#spRedirectedFrom=www&referrrer=
cc4realz, here’s an interesting link about the pause from the perspective of ipcc contributor hans von storch. According to him, the current rise in co2 should be producing consistent warming and a pause as we have seen should not be happening according to the models. (just a 1 in 50 chance) He gives it just a few more years till an acknowledgment that there is something fundamentally wrong with the models…
You are indeed right according to the ipccs model we should be a lot warmer then where we are at the current decade as the real temperature data show
Take a look at this link:
http://media.al.com/news_huntsville_impact/photo/john-christy-climate-change-chart-0a201a1637955761.jpg
The only thing man made fossil fuels do to the climate can be explained as to what is happening in China. These fools are releasing so much toxic waste into the air that they are creating a thick blanket of grey smog. This grey blanket acts as a force field by blocking out the Suns rays and reflecting them back into space. This doesn’t necessarily eliminate climate change completely but rather reduces the temperature gradient In climatic changes so the cooling trend is steeper and the warming trend is not as drastic. So if anything co2 cools the earths climate not warms it. and no this doesn’t mean that china will become a frozen tundra in the centuries to come. All it means is that as I explained above the temperature gradient in fluctations in the earths climate system for that specific region will be reduced causing less climate change and more of a distinct steady weather pattern throughout. co2 has nothing whatsoever to do with long term climate variations. Man made global warming is the biggest hoax ever to be perpetrated on man kind
I encourage you all to do the research yourself and form your own opinions on this subject matter
Ah, the chorus-line of science denial. Don’t forget to mention that burning paper can’t melt steel! Such a pity it doesn’t rhyme.
But at least you all sound the same.
Climatechange4realz says:
June 7, 2016 at 12:48 PM
“If adding co2 warms the planet we should continue to see temperatures warm at a constant continuos rate. However this has not happened as I explained above.”
…………………………………………………
The above statement doesn’t seem logical. The causes of climate change are complex, with degrees of chaos involved.
Increases in CO2 levels are surely only one factor. If other factors, according to changing circumstances, temporarily override the warming effects of CO2, then we might expect a resulting pause in the warming. One would expect to observe continuous warming only if CO2 were the predominant and major cause of all changes in climate.
Quite. That’s a good final word to hear before I go off to higher pastures for a while.
Vincent, not so… (at least according to the ipcc) See my link to the von storch interview above, i think you’ll enjoy the read. Odd that the “pause denier” seems to agree with you here…
Typical alarmist hogwash Vincent. There are no other factors of climate change. The sun is the controller of climate change. Things like El Nio or La Nia aren’t climate change they are just typical weather patterns. Climate change happens over a period of multiple years not just one or two like El Nio and La Nia and other crap like that. And as I said before co2 isn’t a cause of climate changes it is an effect. Ice core data shows that there is a 800 year lag between temperature changes and changes in co2 concentrations. An increase in temperature is always followed by an increase in co2 800 years later etc. co2 is an affect not a cause of climate change. Adding to an effect isn’t going to change the cause because the cause doesn’t happen because of the effect.
And yes fonzorelli the majority of the ipcc models show a continuous warming. No pauses whatsoever.
http://media.al.com/news_huntsville_impact/photo/john-christy-climate-change-chart-0a201a1637955761.jpg
“And yes fonzorelli the majority of the ipcc models show a continuous warming. No pauses whatsoever.”
That’s a coincidence. That’s what most of the temperature records say, too. Can you think of a reason?
Last post for a while. (Honest…):
Mpainter:The truth is that increased levels of CO2 have decreased crop loss due to drought.
Elliot [sic] Bignell: One mindless assertion deserves another: No, they havent.
Even if he didn’t grasp that he’d been beaten, I bet some of you did.
Search crop yield CO2.
You search it. You’re the one making empty assertions. If you can’t back up your own cretinous claims then why should I?
To benefit your own understanding, assuming you wish to.
My understanding is just fine. It suffices to inform me that you are never going to be able to come up with a source, after all! The point was merely to publically humiliate you by rubbing your nose in the obvious fact that you have no sources for your drivel. The only way to do that, quite obviously, is for me to keep challenging you and for you to keep blustering. And you performed beautifully, as expected.
But that end has long been achieved, so you can stop your hamster-wheel act now. Anyway, I was already supposed to be gone by now so sooner or later you will be exhibiting your vacuity solo.
Target-rich environment, cretinwise. Too tempting.
Search crop yield CO2
Elliott Bignell
You are a lazy genius (claim of around 200 IQ though not listed in any of the world’s smartest humans group but that IQ should get you there, nothing at all in your posts indicates an elevated IQ).
I did as mpainter suggested and he is quite correct by actual scientific studies.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0378377483900756
You are clearly no genius whatsoever, as you have missed the point that it is irrelevant whether I find anything: The point is that mpainter doesn’t know how to find anything and cannot post a single link supporting his claim.
You also aren’t even able to pick a link that actually supports his claim, so that makes two of you. Read it again, and this time strive for comprehension. There is not a single indication in the abstract that “increased levels of CO2 have decreased crop loss due to drought.”
It’s no wonder the world has left you all behind.
“claim of around 200 IQ”
Above 140 is genius-level. Look it up. I’m WAY above.
Elliott Bignell
If conceit were a measure of IQ I would agree yours if off the charts. You are still a very lazy and unmotivated genius. You are only reading things that agree with your already formed conclusions and only looking at material that supports those.
Droughts have not increased in reality. Only in models do we see increase in wetter and drier areas. Explain scientifically how a 1 C increase in temperature is leading to extremes in drought and wet? With your high IQ you should be able to figure it out. I can’t with my lowly 120 IQ.
Did you test your IQ on those computer 20 question type tests? I score around 145=150 on those but a more formal test gives me around a 120.
Here is a link to dispute your notion droughts are on the rise.
http://sciencenordic.com/scientist-no-evidence-extreme-drought-and-floods-twentieth-century
” You are still a very lazy and unmotivated genius. You are only reading things that agree with your already formed conclusions and only looking at material that supports those.”
And as you have seen me, right here, post a link that corrects me own position, that makes you a lazy and unmotivated liar. None too bright, either.
“I did as mpainter suggested”
And you STILL don’t get it. Not because it is in the slightest bit difficult to understand, bur because it would conflict with your insatiable thirst for confirmation.
MPAINTER has not done it, thicko. No matter how often he is challenged, he cannot support his statements with a single link. But for you cretins that is perfectly acceptable simply because he’s on the right side.
I would say history will laugh at you, but after 25 years of pretending AW is about to disappear, it has already started.
“and he is quite correct by actual scientific studies.”
Then why does your link not support his claim?
“your notion droughts are on the rise.”
And yet again at a loss as to anything you can actually argue with, you just lie.
Elliott Bignell
I think your mind is the only one lacking in reasoning ability in my debate with you.
You claim directly (Quote from your post): “And of course that article says nothing whatsoever about decreases in crop losses or drought. But when has the complete and utter lack of any support stopped you from sounding off?”
I pointed out that droughts are not increasing so the positive effect of carbon dioxide (more growth, less water needed to grow) are going to be a positive.
Here is a graph to show how you may want to reflect on your current understanding and reconsider. I am not stating AGW does not exist and I do believe carbon dioxide contributes some. I am not on the “denier” side. I think it is far less than the fanatic left believes and I still see little evidence in support of the fanatic position.
Here is a link to the graph. Global crop production is up and has been rising steadily. Carbon Dioxide increase shows no evidence that it is lowering crop production which makes mpainter’s claim correct and yours is wrong.
https://suyts.wordpress.com/2014/12/20/climate-reminder-co2-caused-global-warming-and-climate-change-will-harm-global-crop-production/
“Here is a link to the graph.”
That is a link to a BLOG, Norman. It has a “graph” of unattributed data, it has no publication number, it says nothing – NOTHING – about drought frequency or “crop loss”. It has literally nothing to do with the question of whether crop loss due to drought has been reduced.
For all you know it could simply reflect greater production due to a greater area of land under cultivation or an improvement in fertilisation or mechanisation.
Painter, the ol’ internet saying “do not feed the troll!” comes to mind here. Which is all that “iddiott bigmouth” is any way, a sophisticated troll. (and a light weight troll at that, his grasp of the science leaves much to be desired, especially for a genius) Quite a stunning display of the arrogant euro looking down his nose at all the stupid little people across the pond…
“looking down his nose at all the stupid little people across the pond”
Startling clear analysis for once. And no surprise that you have no objection to another poster mindlessly spamming the same idiocy over and over again, just so long as he is on your own side. Doesn?t it ever occur to you people that the rest of the world hates you for a good reason?
I’m still awaiting your response Elliot
The trick is to provoke him into his favorite type of response, as here:
mpainter says:
June 6, 2016 at 10:04 AM
Mpainter:The truth is that increased levels of CO2 have decreased crop loss due to drought.
Elliot Bignell: One mindless assertion deserves another: No, they havent.
As you’ll observe, the key is to present some irrefutable fact of science.
mpainter: You really need to find a hobby. Actually you probably need therapy and meds, but a hobby other than trolling climate sites would at least remove your neurosis from public view.
How about kite flying? You could put your knowledge of winds to a honest to goodness utility.
Sven
How about providing links to support your evidence evensmark instead of calling people names thinking you magically are the king of climate science
Wait a second now. You don’t even have any evidence or claims to provide links to support. I should’ve known. Trolllllllllolol
Sven, it’s one thing to be a “troll”, quite another to be “trolling the troll”. “Bigmouth” is perhaps the most obnoxiously rude creature that has posted at this blog in a long, long time. If he wants Painter to stop riding his a** then he can stop with the insults and show a little humility. Painter’s a pretty decent fellow who has every right to go after someone who has no respect for others…
Fonzy you took the words right out of my mouth
Did everyone note how the poor wretch could not bring himself to admit that increased atmospheric CO2 indeed raised crop yields, and particularly during droughts. And here comes one Sven with the same sort of affliction, calling me a troll. Couldn’t be better.
“Painters a pretty decent fellow”
Painter is a failure as a human being, just like the rest of you. I treat you with contempt because you merit contempt. You’ll notice that I treat Dr. Roy with courtesy because he really is a decent human being and really does have expertise.
You should have tried to learn from his example.
“Did everyone note how the poor wretch could not bring himself to admit that increased atmospheric CO2 indeed raised crop yields”
Everyone noted that you cannot support the claim. Nothing rides on me not knowing that such evidence exists. It may even exist – I certainly wouldn’t rule it out based on what I have seen in the last three days.
The point is that everyone can see that YOU were lying. YOU believe it just because it suits what you want to believe but cannot even imagine how to support it when challenged. You are science-denial embodied, and as such a boring sort of useful.
I would just accept it was true, if anyone ever actually comes up with any evidence. So far, zilch.
Search crop yield CO2
“Search crop yield CO2”
How would that help me to keep showing that you have no evidence? Explain.
mpainter – “As youll observe, the key is to present some irrefutable fact of science.”
I’m looking forward to that one. So far, you can’t even support the claims you’ve already made.
Search crop yield CO2
PLEASE DON’T FEED THE TROLL !!!
I agree with Sven, mpainter seriously needs hobby (actually therapy). His fanboys like Climatechange4realz will want some data even though mpainter never supplies any, so here is when mpainter posting recently. If I had a relative that displayed such behavior, I would call the doctor.
mpainter, “how about fishing”. It is a good hobby for compuslive people, and it is generally acceptable to lie about how good you are at it. You are a natural.
June 6, 2016 at 6:54 AM
June 6, 2016 at 7:19 AM
June 6, 2016 at 7:22 AM
June 6, 2016 at 8:20 AM
June 6, 2016 at 8:18 AM
June 6, 2016 at 8:24 AM
June 6, 2016 at 8:59 AM
June 6, 2016 at 9:01 AM
June 6, 2016 at 9:03 AM
June 6, 2016 at 9:15 AM
June 6, 2016 at 9:29 AM
June 6, 2016 at 9:30 AM
June 6, 2016 at 9:34 AM
June 6, 2016 at 10:04 AM
June 6, 2016 at 10:05 AM
June 6, 2016 at 10:08 AM
June 6, 2016 at 10:13 AM
June 6, 2016 at 10:14 AM
June 6, 2016 at 11:05 AM
June 6, 2016 at 12:31 PM
June 6, 2016 at 12:59 PM
June 6, 2016 at 1:03 PM
June 6, 2016 at 1:47 PM
June 6, 2016 at 2:11 PM
June 6, 2016 at 2:39 PM
June 6, 2016 at 3:05 PM
June 6, 2016 at 3:11 PM
June 6, 2016 at 3:12 PM
June 6, 2016 at 3:14 PM
June 6, 2016 at 3:19 PM
June 6, 2016 at 3:26 PM
June 6, 2016 at 4:03 PM
June 6, 2016 at 4:50 PM
June 6, 2016 at 6:38 PM
June 6, 2016 at 7:42 PM
June 6, 2016 at 8:09 PM
June 7, 2016 at 1:04 AM
June 7, 2016 at 1:16 PM
June 7, 2016 at 2:03 AM
June 7, 2016 at 2:04 AM
June 7, 2016 at 2:36 AM
June 7, 2016 at 2:37 AM
June 7, 2016 at 2:58 AM
June 7, 2016 at 2:41 AM
June 7, 2016 at 2:54 AM
June 7, 2016 at 3:03 AM
June 7, 2016 at 3:14 AM
June 7, 2016 at 3:45 AM
June 7, 2016 at 3:51 AM
June 7, 2016 at 4:07 AM
June 7, 2016 at 4:12 AM
June 7, 2016 at 4:52 AM
June 7, 2016 at 4:59 AM
June 7, 2016 at 5:04 AM
June 7, 2016 at 5:05 AM
June 7, 2016 at 5:09 AM
June 7, 2016 at 5:11 AM
June 7, 2016 at 5:21 AM
June 7, 2016 at 5:22 AM
June 7, 2016 at 5:45 AM
June 7, 2016 at 7:47 AM
June 7, 2016 at 7:54 AM
June 7, 2016 at 7:57 AM
June 7, 2016 at 8:01 AM
June 7, 2016 at 8:41 AM
June 7, 2016 at 10:16 AM
June 7, 2016 at 10:54 AM
June 7, 2016 at 11:06 AM
June 7, 2016 at 12:05 PM
June 7, 2016 at 12:05 PM
June 7, 2016 at 12:06 PM
June 7, 2016 at 12:07 PM
June 7, 2016 at 12:07 PM
June 7, 2016 at 12:09 PM
June 7, 2016 at 12:10 PM
June 7, 2016 at 12:12 PM
June 7, 2016 at 12:14 PM
June 7, 2016 at 12:18 PM
June 7, 2016 at 12:20 PM
June 7, 2016 at 12:21 PM
June 7, 2016 at 12:22 PM
June 7, 2016 at 1:12 PM
Oh man mpainter! That is impressive! It is also a good sign you need help.
I think mpainter should take up bird watching as a hobby. He knows how to sit for many hours with focus on something pretty pointless. He can also tell the birds how much smarter he is than them.
Thanks for your suggestions fellows, but I already have a hobby:Pissing off foaming AGW types.
Great fun, I recommend it to all. All you have to do is list the benefits of atmospheric CO2 and they come unglued.
Show them how the 15 micron IR is fully saturated and their brains explode.
Or talk about the latest NASA study which shows that Anarctica ice mass is increasing and they howl with indignation.
Or show where tidal gauges on stable coasts show no rise in sea level for thirty years, and they go into a catatonic state of denial.
M Bauer – “He can also tell the birds how much smarter he is than them.”
He wouldn’t dare. They’d out-debate him in seconds.
Mind you, he wouldn’t understand they’d beaten him, either, so maybe…
Why did leave off June 8? You shorted me at least twenty. I demand full credit, blogcounter.
A better hobby for mpainter would be karaoke singing. Repeat the same old lines somebody else wrote to a captive audience and pretend they clap because you are good.
But therapy would be yet better.
Marcus – I probably shouldn’t say this, as I am probably batting second, but Arf.
Poor Elliot Isn’t even aware that tiny factors such as el Nino and La Nia and other factors such as ash from volcanic dust are actually all controlled by one thing, the sun. Say it ain’t so! And if you look at historical data on solar sunspot activity you’ll see that the pauses such as the one we are experiencing now are actually caused by the sun! We were told that Adding greenhouse gasses such as co2 into the atmosphere attributed to the so called greenhouse affect making the earth “Warmer” that is continuing to add greenhouse gases should causes a continuous increase in global temps without any giant pauses like the one that happened between 1940 and 1980 which lasted for 40 years! The greenhouse gas theory doesn’t exist! There are no greenhouse gases! It is pure rubbish! There isn’t even water vapor! It’s called clouds! Ever heard of them! And yes clouds are caused by the sun heating the earth not adding stupid greenhouse gases to the atmosphere which don’t even exist. If anything I say that cloud is the only greenhouse gas in the atmosphere that has complete control over the weather and climate at any given time! Elliot needs to get his facts straight!
“Poor Elliot Isnt even aware that tiny factors such as el Nino and La Nia and other factors such as ash from volcanic dust are actually all controlled by one thing, the sun”
I do not share your religious agenda, so I have no need of that hypothesis.
As I said before if anything polluting actually causes cooling such as experienced in China causing “nuclear winters”
See this link for more details:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/222/4630/1283
Elliot you look at this chart and you tell me that there is a totally direct correlation between greenhouse gases and global temperature
https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/6068/width754/f86fa72a692eff1e-1322715817.jpg
“you look at this chart and you tell me that there is a totally direct correlation between greenhouse gases and global temperature ”
No, I don’t. But YOU would, if you could actually read the graph. Yet again, you cretins are posting evidence that actually says the opposite of what you pretend. There’s only one person who does that here and is actually honest about what the evidence says, and that’s me.
The climate sensitivity (silly and most unscientific term) of the entire atmosphere is negative, a substantial percentage of the energy from the Sun does not even reach the surface. About 30% is a figure often quoted.
Where supposed GHGs – H2O in particular – are lacking, surface temperatures are higher. The Sahara and Death Valley spring to mind.
Finally, the Earth has managed to cool from its apparent initial molten state to one demonstrably much cooler, CO2 notwithstanding.
CO2 heating (as in hottest month/year EVAH!) seems unlikely, to say the least.
Cheers.
Mike, compare the dry Sahara with the humid tropics (at about six times the specific humidity), and the diurnal temperature range and tmax, tmin. This is what the GHE does; it moderates temperatures through the diurnal extremes. The simplest observations are ignored by climate science in favor of their execrably mis-applied theory.
Dear mpainter,
How about fingerboarding as a new hobby?
It is getting big in Taiwan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeZ9sf__4mM
Good for people with too much time on their hands (or fingers).
No education requred too
Sincerely,
Amos
Ha ha ha! I think mpainter should do bovine breeding. All that experience shoveling bullsh*t.
Curious George – Arf, arf.
Elliot Bignell: “hello everybody I’m Elliot and I’m a dumb ass!”
Hi Elliot Bignell. Got yerself in a real snit, have yer?
mpainter,
I am not Elliot Bignell, never heard of him. My name is George and I thought Bauer had an excellent idea.
Do you really think there is only one person on here that is sick of your act? Come on everybody, lets show mpainter how much we are worried about him and find him a new hobby.
Except nobody believes you, Elliot.
Curious George – Pleased to meet you. I am he.
You can find me under the same name on Facebook and Flickr.
Animostiy – Arf.
What a baby
As in the application of Stefan-Boltzman principles, or the fallacy that the sun does not suffice to warm the surface above 255 K. AGW is full of such absurdities.
Beat it, Bignell.
Good morning mpainter,
Any hobby with a wetsuit. Then you can piss down your own leg and nobody notices.
Best,
Sam
This is more like it. 🙂
Well, Elliot, how many different personas do you need to convince us that you are a case?
mpainter says:
June 6, 2016 at 10:04 AM
Mpainter:The truth is that increased levels of CO2 have decreased crop loss due to drought.
Elliot Bignell: One mindless assertion deserves another: No, they havent.
“Well, Elliot, how many different personas do you need to convince us that you are a case?”
Funny how you clowns are always reduced to this in the end. Notice a certain parallel with your attempts to evade scientific consensus, perhaps?
Sam, go F yourself
All of these different personas are Bignell.
Sorry mpainter, I am not Eliot.
Sam I am!
Then you are another AGW bigot with no science in you. Your own scurrility was in response to my science. You pop up from nowhere spewing hate. I seriously doubt that the name is really your own. You types reveal yourselves in your own comments.
“Your own scurrility was in response to my science.”
Now, now, painter. Don’t lie to us. We’ve established over and over again that you can’t come up with any “science” when challenged. What you have are referred to as “wild claims”, or perhaps “drivel”, to use the technical term.
“Finally, the Earth has managed to cool from its apparent initial molten state to one demonstrably much cooler, CO2 notwithstanding.”
Please tell me this was meant as a joke.
Why?
Cheers.
Hi Mike,
I usually don’t write these things, but he I got enough of him.
Give it up, you are too smart to engage any discussion with that presumptuous troll.
Have a great day.
Massimo
He’s just claimed that the Earth cooling from its molten state is somehow a problem for the expectation of anthropogenic warming, Massimo. He’s barely smarter than yeast.
Long time no hear.
Hope all is well with you.
I’ll take your advice.
Cheers.
Hi Mike,
yes here is all ok, except for the first signs of age.
I hope all is well with you too.
I remember well, but aren’t the one who always ended his messages with “Live well and prosper”?
Have a really great day.
Massimo
Hi Massimo,
That’s me. I took a short break, and what came out when I resumed commenting was “Cheers”.
So here’s one for old times’ sake –
Live well and prosper!
And, as well –
Cheers.
Nice to read you again, Mike.
Even if we don’t agree on some aspects of the climate issue (not so much indeed), what it matters is the respect of each other.
Again have a great day and Live well and prosper!
Massimo
“what it matters is the respect of each other.”
Funny how it doesn’t matter while you are dodging questions and misrepresenting others, eh?
Massimo,
Exactly so.
Have a great day.
Hi Lewis.
Thank you for support.
A part is my fault.
Because I usually start believing that people are good and reasonable, but it’s not always necessary so.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Yeah, Massimo, there ARE some bastards out there…
Your a joke pea brain!
I’m talking to Elliot the gopher tortuse
Hi Elliott,
I would respond you no more, because you are clearly a presumptuous, prepotent and impolite empty skull, but I can’t pass your:
“Now begone, fool.”
The only one here that have the authority to write that is Dr. Spencer.
You are writing in his blog, not yours, you noticed it?
And, no you aren’t entitled to establish who I am what I understand or not, I read your CV dated no more than 8 years ago, your professional curriculum has nothing of exceptional compared to mine.
That’s all.
Amen.
I already told you, entitlement doesn’t come into it: You wear your incapacity to understand openly, like a badge of pride, and underline it with a big, red crayon by dodging and deliberately misrepresenting. You also don’t get to tell me who does and does not have “authority”, as one does not require authority. One requires a keyboard. Roy can tell me, if he wants. You are just another liar, to be ridiculed or ignored as the situation befits.
Now begone, fool.
Amen
Roy Spencer demands that bloggers be polite on this blog and you have, by my count, called others on this thread a “fool” or a “liar” on fourteen occasions.
Here you call Massimo a fool and a liar in one comment. Apparently Roy is not yet aware of your violations of blog ruled.
Show proper respect for Roy Spencer and stop flouting his ruled, Elliot.
For facts on CO2 fertilization of crops, search CO2 crop yield.
Have a good day ☺
rules, not “ruled”
Hi mpainter,
you are right, but I believe Dr. Spencer is doing the right thing.
Anyone is responsible of his/her behaviour, refuse censorship.
I agree with Fonzarelli (Hi Fonzie).
We should stop feed people like that, because trying to open a discussion with them lead just to a sort of pollution of the messages in this blog.
Have a great day.
Massimo
mpainter: you are a fool and a hypocrite now. If Roy banned people for being rude, you would definitely need a new hobby.
How about square dancing mpainter?
1. You go round and round with the same few partners
2. You never have to think for yourself
3. 98% of the people think what you are doing is stupid
Ha ha ha! Name calling pussies like you who don’t prove any evidence don’t deserve to be on websites like dr. Roy’s. GTFO weezle brain!
Search CO2 crop yield for a wealth of observations on how increased CO2 leads to higher crop yields, particularly during droughts.
Also, Roy Spencer has explicitly stated recently that “blog rules require that people be polite”. We shall see how much longer your type lasts here, Elliot.
PLEASE DON’T FEED THE TROLL !!!
It amuses me to see the foaming AGW types strangle in apoplectic fits. It also demonstrates to the world the peculiar personality pathology the lies at the core of the AGW cult. Isn’t it evident that Bignell is a case? It seems obvious to me.
Hey mpainter, How about skydiving? Flopping in the breeze until yo u die. Seems perfect for you.
How about you go to hell. Seems perfect for you. Lmao
See? One of Elliot’s personas.☺
Sorry mpainter, I am not Elliot. If you want, I can send you my personal email.
You are not Bignell? Then search CO2 crop yield and tell us if you agree with him that CO2 does not enhance yield. But I doubt that you have anything but scurrilities in you. Not one particle of science from you so far. And I am getting fed up with AGW trash who have no science but lots of hate.
“Not one particle of science from you so far.”
This from the man who has now dodged at least forty times when challenged for evidence to support his statements about crop yields!
“And I am getting fed up with AGW trash who have no science but lots of hate.”
So how do you think my various identities feel about you posting no science to support your own, concrete and specific claims, even when challenged to do so dozens of times? How would you feel if any of the 97% of real people who are actually me behaved the way you do?
Much the same way we all feel about you, I imagine.
So where is your evidence?
“Name calling pussies”
I especially like this. Truly a masterpiece. Or perhaps a piece by a master baiter.
While you are perusing topics on CO2 fertilization, don’t forget to check out how biomass increases annually by billions of tons, due to this fertilization. Also, the phytoplankton, for example, coccolithoporids have multiplied in the N Atlantic by a factor of ten, according to one study.
It’s all there on the web, and no doubt you will wish to spend the next few weeks remedying your deficiencies of understanding of CO2 fertilization effects on the biosphere, Bignell. May your brain not explode before you finish.
Amen, says the Italian gentleman.☺
Actually, the main thing I notice when perusing articles on CO2 fertilisation is that there is nothing whatsoever that says that it has stopped “crop loss” due to “drought”. But you already know that, don’t you?
“dont forget to check out how biomass increases annually by billions of tons”
Well, your problem here is that the same data also say that much of this is in the Arctic. So firstly, there is no reason to speculate that it has anything whatsoever to do with “crop loss” or “drought”. And secondly, as it is in the Arctic it probably means that much of the gain in green matter is taking place on recently-thawed peat soils, so it is very likely indeed that it is associated with greater losses in carbon from brown matter along with loss of ice cover.
As we know that peat soils are thawing, releasing methane and even physically collapsing across wide areas, it should be noted that this is exactly one of the positive feedbacks we were warned about.
But of course if you actually had any interest in science you would have known that already.
“Also, the phytoplankton, for example, coccolithoporids have multiplied in the N Atlantic by a factor of ten, according to one study.”
This is actually true for once, although I notice that as usual you are simply taking it on faith rather than providing evidence, and that you only mention it at all to try and pretend the issue of “crop loss” due to “drought” has mysteriously gone away.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, after all. Or twice a week in your case.
So, you have known all along about the CO2 fertilization effects and the greening of the planet. Yet you denied it all. Must be this what is meant when people say “denier” or “denialist”. Thus Elliot Bignell.
By the way, the increased yield during drought has to do with reduction in stomata as a response to increased CO2. See if you can figure out how that works. This is an intelligence test.☺
“So, you have known all along about the CO2 fertilization effects and the greening of the planet. Yet you denied it all.”
Keep flailing, quarterwit. Just ask yourself why you can’t score a hit on anything except what you have to make up. And why you still cannot find anything whatsoever to back up your claims about “crop loss” due to “drought”, despite being hammered into the ground over it for three days running.
Not a single link. Strange, don’t you think? Faced with incessant demands to support your claims, not to mention the blindingly obvious inference that any greening effect may be a thawing effect rather than a fertilisation effect, and you cannot produce A SINGLE SOURCE to back yourself up.
Must be a sad life, being you.
“By the way, the increased yield during drought has to do with reduction in stomata as a response to increased CO2.”
You haven’t yet come up with a single line of data that says there is any increased yield during drought. Nothing. Zippo. Nada.
And, needless to say, coccolithophore plankton rarely experiences drought. Not to mention having no stomata.
Oh, and how about bareback riding for a new hobby?
Or therapy.
A much needed time-out! The blog is getting bogged down my mindless personal attacks on the different posters. Can we get back to a civil scientific conversation? Maybe stick to the topic of Climate Sensitivity? I go off track as much as anyone but if we all stayed on the topic, shared our opinions and views it would not go so low.
The white fluffy material clothes are made from is banned so maybe we can get away from the trolls and trolling and get more with good science.
Hi Norman,
i just realized that this morning I wrote a long message to you, but for a strange reason it has not been posted. I’m absolutely sure that I pressed the “Submit Comment” button before closing the browser.
Anyways I was encouraging you to don’t care about IQ values and continue your way because I know that you are a passionate guy and climate science need hundreds of people like you.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Massimo PORZIO
Thanks for the nice post!
Here is one link that bothers me. I want an official explanation for this.
http://www.geoclimate.se/articles/20131107_giss_wibjorn_karlen.pdf
The drastic change in temperature for Reykjavik in 1940. I can’t see how an adjustment could be so drastic and why was the temperature so wrong from the initial monitoring?
“i just realized that this morning I wrote a long message to you, but for a strange reason it has not been posted. Im absolutely sure that I pressed the Submit Comment button before closing the browser.”
It’s not just you. I posted a “Test” message to the thread above in reply to you, which got through, but nothing else will, even quotes from your own posts. There is no warning most of the time – the page just loads without the new post. Sometimes a server error appears, but mostly not.
The name of Mr. Excavated Natural Fabric has been blocked, so other keywords could be, and might have been added overnight, but beyond that I can’t currently explain it.
” Can we get back to a civil scientific conversation?”
Have you ever witnessed a scientific conversation? There are teams which have not spoken to each other in decades. Gould and Dawkins’ public spat continued until Gould died, and Dawkins has been falling out with all surviving human beings on Twitter ever since.
There is only one kind of organisation in which “respect” is paramount, and that is the criminal kind. Street gangs and the mafia, for instance. If you want civil coversation, join the Bloods, Crips or Hells Angels. Or get Massimo to invite you to the Camorra.
Scientists beat the bejesus out of each other, and this is an essential part of why science works.
“Maybe stick to the topic of Climate Sensitivity?”
All for it. But if someone demands support for a statement and the answer entails “lemmings”, “alarmists” or “liberals”, expect it to go exactly the same way.
Given a mean sensitivity estimate of ~2C, linear response and an increase in CO2 over pre-industrial times of 40%, climate would be expected to equilibriate at some time in the future at 0.8C over pre-industrial temperatures. We have already seen 0.8C and the trend is currently rising at between 0.1C and 0.2C per decade, depending on how you sample.
Discuss.
“shared our opinions and views”
Opinions and views can only ever be an opening gambit. The normal routine is that someone then challanges them, and you then refute that challenge or post supporting evidence. In several cases, this final step takes weeks or months to occur – time which must be filled.
actually, I’m not sure where the white fluffy material went, since it ignores the ban anyway. I’ve just been deleting the lint whenever it shows up.
Deceased at last?
Dr. Spencer, you would do well to do the same with the “british brat”. There’s not a dimes worth of difference between him and d.c. (except that d. was relatively polite)…
I seem to have a stalker, Dr. Roy. Would you ban him, please?
OK, kids. I’ve added a 10 comment limit per day. Maybe that will reduce the bickering. 🙂
Thumbs up! (aaaaaay…)
Good move. And, of course, people who are prepared to switch identities every few hours like Mr. Natural Fabric will be delighted. But at least I can ignore mpainter in the knowledge that he can’t just keep spamming.
“Ive just been deleting the lint whenever it shows up.”
I can assure you you do not need to cut my bolls off, Dr. Roy. If you wish me to desist you need only ask, as I have said before. Unlike most of your supporters, I would honour your wishes. I also use my own identity, as can easily be ascertained, so if I miss a request I am easily reached and easily spotted.
You might like to take a quick scan of the posts and see who is really doing most of the rudeness, though. Not to mention repetitive posting and other evidences of disrespect. There are several candidates here that I would consider a higher priority, personally.
Norman, as long as the commentor who said this continues posting comments, this blog will never “get back to a civil scientific conversation”:
June 9 5:53a “I pop up here every few months to prctice on you because I am bored. I’m basically just killing time until I can have you all executed in its stead”
“prctice” should read “practice”…
Thanks, fonz. I believe it is important that these types to be exposed in all their ugliness. Ignoring them just encourages them in disruption of discussion. Exposing their bigotry is worthwhile, imo. Give them a few prods, and that’s what they do.
Hey mpainter, how about trying out needlepoint? I heard it is therapeutic. You have a lot of issues to work out.
As this Bauer who spits venom in the same fashion as Bignell. No mere coincidence, obviously.
Dude, I am not Bignell. I offered to send you my email address.
I am just worried about your mental health. You spent 26 hours over two days writing comments on Roy’s blog. This is not healthy.
How about taking up Extreme Ironing as a new hobby? It is considered quite hip and nobody will take you seriously.
You’re not fooling anyone, Bignell.
“who spits venom”
You should try posting some evidence when challenged, then. It should be clear from the plethora of responses that this is not the only one of my apparences which is sick of your dodging. All my avatars are fed up, too.
You want a scientific conversation? Fine: Post some science when challenged. Try starting with something that actually mentions “crop loss” or “drought”, or a cognate thereof.
“Norman, as long as the commentor who said this continues posting comments, this blog will never ‘get back to a civil scientific conversation'”
I should probably bask in the sense of omnipotence, but I cannot for the life of me work out how I am controlling your keyboard.
fonz, do you think elliott has any friends?
no… he bumped them all off
You’re thinking of the mafia, another organisation in which “respect” is considered paramount. I do not have to “bump off” friends. I have a great, big mountain behind my house so I can go out without having to make any in the first place.
The rest of you are simply being recorded in my knitting, for when I have personnel available.
+1
Hi Norman,
I fully understand your bothering about that Reykjavik 1940 link, this is one of the reasons that lead me to ignore the last 170 years of land temperature data for getting the global temperature trend, but its not the one that lead me to definitively ignore it. AFIK there are so much wrong doing on the adjusted land temperature dataset, that I really wonder how a scientist could rely on it. What to say about the temperature spatial homogenization? They firstly derive the land squares temperature from few stations (in some cases very few, see North Pole), then they integrate the resulting temperatures to get the averaged temperature of the whole area. No matter how they do that, its just a statistical trick to bury the fact that they dont have a significant number of samples to cover the total area.
Anyways, I stopped to take in consideration the land temperature data when I realized that if you take them adjusted by the supposed UHI effect the trend is negative, instead if you take them adjusted also by the (always supposed) irrigation cooling effect, the trend becomes positive.
By an engineering point of view, that means that the measurements have no more significance in the final data, because the corrections (which are in no ways measurements, just bets) overcomes them (at least for the trend determination).
It’s just a mathematical game, they love do them.
In the missing message, I also wrote you to follow what Steve Jobs said to the students some times ago, that is: “think different”. Who try to say that its bad, is just because he/she is a liar and want to hijack you from the well doing.
And more, if one calls you or considers you an ignorant, don’t spend you precious time considering him/her, because there are two kind of ignorant, the ignorant who well know that he is ignorant (Im one of this kind in climate science) and the ignorant who ignores that he is ignorant. Its not a shame being of the first kind, the contrary most of great discoveries happened to people of that kind. The second kind is instead dangerous, because the subject doesnt realize when to stop his bad doing.
BTW, the second kind is the favorite one by dictatorships.
Have a great day.
Massimo
“I fully understand your bothering about that Reykjavik 1940 link”
I do not. It is inexcusable. Science is not done by cherry-picking on unreviewed blogs. You pretend to have humility about science and then openly claim the authority to choose unattributed opinion pieces over journal papers written by genuine scientists and reviewed by genuine experts. You do not, in fact, have a shred of humility.
You, sir, are the foulest of hypocrites.
“this is one of the reasons that lead me to ignore the last 170 years of land temperature data for getting the global temperature trend”
And THAT is prima facie proof of dishonesty. If you had a shred of integrity you would show how the data can be interpreted to derive a more correct result. The fact is that you know that no such falsifying result can be found. And that is the only kind of criticism of science which counts for anything at all.
“And more, if one calls you or considers you an ignorant”
So what if they call you a “lemming”? You people are very keen to run off wailing about insults when you find yourselves outclassed, but you never seem to think about the consequences when you first start.
Amen Elliott.
Still Amen!
There goes Elliot, scampering across the tundra, snarling and snapping the whole way.
Begone, foul fiend.
Well, it all depends on which land data you take. If there were 2000 stations in 1900 that were not in the middle of major metropolitan areas and now you are only using 200 sights that are in the middle of major airports with tons of concrete everywhere, then there is something wrong. If you take a reading in the middle of a parking lot versus the middle of a field, I am sure you would get different readings. That is a given and has been proved many times. Now, if you remove from the 2000 stations all of the stations that are not in the middle of major metropolitan centers and look at those average temps, then the average temps will naturally be higher. By inclusion and exclusion of data stations from the records, you can raise the current temp and lower the previous temp allowing for a greater difference than is actual. I actually believe the uah datasets and other satellite datasets will be more accurate over time. The problem is you are mixing a highly accurate set of data with a very subjective set of data and coming up with a result. To me that seems to be more like apples to oranges comparison.
Well, this is precisely the kind of information that a systematic survey should reveal. And, of course, it is therefore exactly the sort of information that blog posts of that kind are keen not to reveal. And, of course, all the lemmings, to borrow a phrase used above, jump on it as if it were gospel while dismissing genuine analysis.
Elliott Bignell
Maybe you rely too much on the “experts” and do not do enough of your own reasoning.
You state: “You pretend to have humility about science and then openly claim the authority to choose unattributed opinion pieces over journal papers written by genuine scientists and reviewed by genuine experts.”
Here is what we find out about journals and experts.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/308269/
From the article: “He charges that as much as 90 percent of the published medical information that doctors rely on is flawed.”
Do you see that high number? 90% of medical journal information is found to be flawed.
More from the same linked article: “The article spelled out his belief that researchers were frequently manipulating data analyses, chasing career-advancing findings rather than good science, and even using the peer-review processin which journals ask researchers to help decide which studies to publishto suppress opposing views.”
Don’t kid yourself Elliott. As much as there in on the side of fossil fuel there is a huge industry pushing for renewables. It is in the billions of dollars and someone is making good profit off this. In order to launch a new industry to replace an old established one that is still working and functional one must generate fear of the old. Like was done with eggs a while back. Researchers created a state of fear and panic to change the established view that eggs were a good food to eat. Now eggs are found to be okay again. At one point they were considered a “heart-attack waiting to happen”.
“Maybe you rely too much on the ‘experts’ and do not do enough of your own reasoning.”
And maybe you rely to much on the unreviewed opinion pieces of vested interests and anti-science ideologues and do not do enough reasoning of your own. Whatever the flaws in science, YOU HAVE NOTHING BETTER.
And, indeed, there is nothing better. Expertise may be flawed; opinion is nothing.
Elliott Bignell
The article I linked to on Reykjavik temperatures was from a high up scientist not an uneducated moron.
How do you explain a plus 3 C temperature change at this location after adjustments?
The actual science (measured values) was for a much higher temperature. A computer algorithm that makes adjustments changed the actual science to a much much lower value so instead of showing that in 1940 Iceland was as warm as it is today, it shows quite a different view. Significant in the climate debate.
I can give you something better. Reasoning ability. I have been reading you exchange with mpainter about carbon dioxide greening. You need to reason a little to grasp what he is saying and there may not be a direct link to actual studies yet.
His claim is Carbon dioxide is greening even drier areas. Your counter claim is that with drought carbon dioxide may not help plant growth. However you do not indicate what you mean by drought. This is a much broader concept and needs to be clarified. Droughts are monitored by severity and it is highly variable. Just saying drought does not help the debate in any reasonable fashion, maybe your view is an extreme drought and mpainters by be a more mild drought.
The facts that have been empirically derived is that under higher carbon dioxide levels plants need less water (around 30% less with doubling of CO2). So in moderate drought conditions plants in a higher carbon dioxide atmosphere would do better. In an extreme drought there would be no benefit either way without some form of irrigation but under elevated CO2 you would need less water to irrigate.
If you clarify your position I will attempt to research the issue to your satisfaction.
“The article I linked to on Reykjavik temperatures was from a high up scientist not an uneducated moron.”
Which would presumably make him a supremely effective liar. So effective, in fact, that you might not be able to spot the lie at all if you were so foolish as to take his opinion off an unreviewed blog article rather than a journal with proper processes.
But no-one here would be so foolish. Right?
“How do you explain a plus 3 C temperature change at this location after adjustments?”
Probably due to the adjustments. How do YOU explain him not showing the aggregate result or all the data so you can see whether there are two deltas of -3C at other stations which balance it out?
I can explain it easily: Dishonesty. He’s not going through the review process for a reason, and that reason is dishonesty. How about you?
“The article spelled out his belief … Dont kid yourself Elliott.”
Just listen to yourself.
“From the article: ‘He charges that as much as 90 percent of the published medical information that doctors rely on is flawed.'”
So who is saying so? Apparently one man. If you said that 10% of experts were saying that the other 90% were wrong and you had unilaterally decided that the 10% of expertise is more trustworthy than 90%, then the best I could call you would be a fool. If you were saying that you had “looked at both sides” and decided for yourself that your non-expertise was better than the 90% of expertise I would say you are such a fool as to be a danger to yourself. Instead, it turns out that you are taking the word of ONE MAN over 90% of work by experts. What, then, am I to call you? Perhaps you can make a few suggestions in the privacy of your own head once clarity dawns.
Experts are called experts because they have expertise. They are BY DEFINITION the persons equipped to evaluate a question. The superior quality to expertise is MORE expertise. Not LESS expertise. Not the opinion of one man. Not fools looking at blogs and making up their own minds. If the experts have a consensus then there is no possible way to defeat that consensus except to build a bigger consensus.
If the experts say TODAY that the experts of yesterday were wrong then you apparently would believe them, going by your post. So why the sudden respect for their expertise? Hoping that such a new consensus will emerge in the future to fit your convenience now is the purest self-delusion, and it does not even exhibit consistency, because all you are doing is trusting experts that don’t exist over ones that do. Or you’re trusting ignorance.
How can people delude themselves so utterly?
“How can people delude themselves so utterly?”
Look in the mirror… idiot and fool !!
Elliott,
I promised my self to don’t feed your egocentric need of discuss with someone, but I can’t no reply to your:
“Or get Massimo to invite you to the Camorra.”
I don’t what the law is in England, but here in Italy writing that it suffice to sue you for slander.
You completely missed the cognition of your limits.
Well, you should have thought about that before starting with the insults. Now stop whining.
Amen!
Not just a river in Egypt, is it?
Not only. It’s Ebraic, it means “so be it” or “of course”.
(Sarcastic in this case)
BTW I’m not Ebraic as I’ve nothing to do with any cammorrist o outlaws, I’m just curious of everything, so it happens that I use to search for the etymology and meanings of the words I heard.
I write this not because I’ve something against Hebrews (who I highly respect), but just to prevent you to attack me on my own religion, because you are so closed minded to declare that you spent your time against creationists.
IMHO no matter the God one faith, it matters what one says in the specific context.
The problem is, Massimo, that creationists not only often employ the same fallacies as AW-deniers, they are also more often than not the very same people. Not all AW-deniers are creationists, but most creationists, especially in the USA, are AW-deniers. Science denial has a systematic structure which becomes very familiar with time, and if a person denies one piece of science it is very likely that they will deny certain others. One also acquires a toolbox for dealing with denial. (In my case it has a hammer and some sandwiches in it.)
“Its Ebraic, it means so be it or of course.”
I was referring to De Nial, which is not Hebraic but is also a river in Egypt. My apologies if I am demanding too much familiarity with English-language idiom.
I can’t even read the Hebrew Alphabet. Try Arabic in future.
“Im just curious of everything”
This is a virtue. Until it spills over into gullibility.
Amen!
sorry:
“I dont what the law is in England, but here in Italy writing that it suffice to sue you for slander.”
should be:
“I dont know what the law is in England, but here in Italy writing that it suffice to sue you for slander.”
So forgive me.
Already done.
Maybe you are not aware of what I’m doing here.
I’m just curious of everything and I very like the way science is discussed here and the vastness of different thoughts expressed here. This despite your very very particular point of view about science and freedom of thought. Contrary to your implicit or explicit accusations about my behaviour here, I’m no ways related to any political party (I really hate the politics as is per these times) and I’ve no interests in fossil fuels (other that they cost so much for fit the tank of my cars.
The only reason I decided to respond Amen to your messages (except this explanatory one), it is because I concluded that there are no reasons to continue any discussion with you until you don’t change your way of relate with others.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Nonsense. The thread is full of people raving about “lemmings”, “alarmists”, “hoaxes” and telling other people to “Go F themselves”. You haven’t so much as mentioned them. You have no interest in how people related to each other. As you, yourself, led with “lemmings” you clearly have no objections to insults, and as you have not so much as mentioned mpainter’s failure to back up his statements you clearly have no problem with dishonesty. You just don’t like it when someone who disagrees with YOU is rude back to you.
It is what is known as an “evasion”, or “excuse”.
“Already done.”
Grazie.
I was sorry to hear about your heart attack, by the way. I hope you are feeling better.
???
Thanks God I never had one till today, when I said that?
Maybe I wrote something bad, I’m italian and the phrase construct is very different with respect English, so maybe I wrote some silly things that induce you to believe I had one.
I had been of a car accident when I was 18 and I broken my neck, but that happened long time ago.
Have a great day.
Massimo
The blog post on Reykjavik illustrates a common problem in the denialist industry, which I might refer to as the “argument from bias”. I derive this term from the “argument from fallacy”, which is the fallacy of asserting that an argument FOR a proposition is fallacious so the proposition itself must therefore be weakened.
The blog in question makes allegations about trend adjustments. It is full of holes, which I will come to in a moment, but the “argument from bias” comes down to the following: The paper alleges bias in temperature trends, but it does not show that this bias invalidates the published trends, far less does it show that countervailing (falsifying) trends are available from any other source. Not all scientists are falsificationists, but most are, so the only line of evidence that would overturn observations of a warming trend is such a falsifying competitor. None is offered. At best, therefore, one could hope that it leaves the outcome less certain; it cannot reverse its sense, much less the sense of corroborating lines of evidence for AW.
Beyond that, the blog article is riddled with really obvious holes. It takes a SELECTION of stations and highlights three allegedly egregious instances of exaggerated warming trends. One of these is presented anomalously as a “short series”. How do the other short series add up for the selection shown? Not visible. How do the changes in trend rate due to correction add up to affect the aggregate dataset? Not visible. If the aggregate dataset is on balance altered by correction, in what direction, and why would the correction not still be valid? Not visible.
So ultimately, even if we had confidence that the author is not simply lying or deranged, a confidence that we cannot possibly have as the document has not passed review, it does not tell us anything about trends anyway.
Some genuine grounds for optimism for a change: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/09/co2-turned-into-stone-in-iceland-in-climate-change-breakthrough
That is great news! In the states we need it for fracking but the global warmers don’t want any fracking going on which would pump that gas underground.
Every silver lining has a cloud…
I worry too alot. Maybe mpainter can become a yodeler. He likes to make a lot of noise.
Sincereley,
Amos
Some genuine grounds for optimism again for a change:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/9/climate-models-overstating-case-for-man-made-globa/
Along with the Stevens Study and a Lewis and Curry study about to be published that all show the same thing.
As I have suspected all along. This is not such an easy nutshell to crack. Way to many components that make up the climate to blame only 1 small thing for its rise or fall!
Once again, why would you give preference to the “preliminary findings” of one study by two experts with a known agenda over the aggregate work of all the other experts combined? A study which you have found in a denialist political journal, no less, and which is not even referenced, and whose interpretation has been supplied by the Cato Institute, another political lobby group? Do you trust scientists or not? If you do, why listen to Curry and Lewis, who consistently seem to be able to come up with estimates for sensitivity that deviate in one direction and one direction only from the rest of the field, over the rest of the specialists in the field? If not, why do you not accept the overwhelming consensus of those who do NOT work for lobbying organisations like Cato?
From the article: “After climate change skeptics trumpeted the findings, Mr. Stevens issued a disclaimer saying his study did not challenge human-caused climate change, prompting a round of claims of vindication from advocates of the climate change consensus.” Always pays to read further.
I suspect that this study will simply turn out not to be replicable. The only resolution to any scientific dispute is ultimately that other teams can follow the methodology independently and get the same results. Due to statistical considerations, if you do 20 studies and only one shows a deviant result, you discard the one deviant result and take the consensus value. Which is, of course, what is meant by scientific consensus in the first place. It’s how science stops us fooling ourselves.
But we all know that a lot of people PREFER to fool themselves.
It appears that many are not thinking this Modern Warming was going to happen ANYWAY since it arrived approximately on schedule as it has since the Minoan Warming phase.
There is a distinct 950-1100 years cycle from warming phase to warming phase and the current one started around 950 years from the previous one.This is based on the Greenland Ice core data and other proxy information.
Warming trends per decade since the mid 1800’s has been similar every time,nothing unusual trend wise with the current one. The IPCC have in the last few published reports of a projected MINIMUM of .20C per decade warming to the latest of .30C warming,but the Satellite data show LESS than .20C warming per decade trend from 1979.
The IPCC projections are based on the overblown CO2 warm forcing effect,which has ALWAYS been too high since the temperature trends are well within observed past trends range.
Surely this simple examination should give credence to Dr. Spencer’s presentation that CO2 effect on the system is low,since it is hard to see any of it in the temperature data.
@sunsettommy lol there is no climate sensitivity whatsoever to mans contribution of co2 emissions in the atmosphere. I said this before but I guess i have no other choice whatsoever. Past ice core data shows that there has been 800 year lags between co2 and temperature changes. In other words. When earths climate warms, 800 years later co2 goes up in concentration visa versa. Therefore co2 is a result not a cause of climate change therefore the effect cannot cause the cause to get worse. Climate sensitivity is a big fat waste of time and concentration
“there is no climate sensitivity whatsoever to mans contribution of co2 emissions in the atmosphere.”
We’ve already seen that you cannot process the concepts of multiple causes or superposition of cycles on trends. We can weight your opinion on this appropriately, I think it is safe to say.
Stick to pretty photography,
or prove yourself an idiot and a fool.
“It appears that many are not thinking this Modern Warming was going to happen ANYWAY since it arrived approximately on schedule as it has since the Minoan Warming phase.”
Of course they are. It’s just wrong. We should be heading into another glaciation.
“Surely this simple examination should give credence to Dr. Spencers presentation that CO2 effect on the system is low,since it is hard to see any of it in the temperature data.”
Dr. Roy himself has warned against claiming that. Even by his more conservative analysis, warming is clearly happening.
Elliott Bignell says June 8, 2016 1:31am
“Last post for a while. (Honest…)”
What can I say?: Stubbornness issues.
“Dont need a PhD to see that this is idiocy, of course. Even the most basic scientific knowledge suffices to understand that an effect can be mediated by more than one cause, or exhibit a combination of cyclicity and a trend.”
Lol of course it can but co2 isn’t a cause of climate change as I said. It is an effect of it. Learn how to read properly Eliot
“Lol of course it can but co2 isnt a cause of climate change as I said.”
Like that makes an iota of difference to your failure of reasoning.
CO2 IS a cause of climate change. Your opinion on the matter doesn’t count. Dr. Spencer himself, with a reputation for being one of the most cautious of all in his field, only disputes the magnitude of sensitivity rather than its very existence. There is room for scepticism about the scale of future warming; only the most profoundly ignorant dispute that we know that there will be further warming.
I think you have that wrong. I believe the question is whether there is ANY sensitivity at all. If the effect of increasing CO2 is strictly proportional to its mole fraction relative to water vapor, which is the prime greenhouse gas, then the effect into the future will be very mild.
Ok, can we get at least one piece of empirical (observational) evidence as verification of this claim, please? I mean, from the real world, not from the realm of climate models and “expert opinion” …
That’s what I’ve been saying all along. Elliot the dumbo won’t listen to me because he’s so caught up in his own little world focusing to much on other people’s opinions rather then looking at what the real data says despite what other people think or say!
Kristian – “Ok, can we get at least one piece of empirical (observational) evidence as verification of this claim, please?”
Of course. For about the fortieth and certainly not the last time this year: The stratosphere is cooling.
Now you can explain why you ask for empirical evidence for my claim, but do not ask it for this claim in response to which mine was posted: “Lol of course it can but co2 isnt a cause of climate change as I said.”
As usual, you all allow baseless drivel like this to stand unchallenged and then expect evidence only when the claim is contested. In other words, you are Not Honest.
There are a whole range of other lines of evidence, of course. For instance, there is the energy imbalance of the atmosphere, the isotopic signature of fossil carbon, the measured warming trend and increase in heat energy, the confirmation of polar amplification, the movement of species ranges, and the clincher – the spectrum of greenhouse radiation and the peak corresponding to the wavelengths of CO2, which account for the heat imbalance rather precisely.
But of course all this has been common knowledge for decades, so I don’t imagine even for a moment that your question was ingenuous.
You mean the middle and upper stratosphere, I assume. Because the lower stratosphere hasn’t cooled since 1994.
Then I curious to know in what way exactly a cooling of the middle and upper stratosphere constitutes evidence for climate change at and near Earth’s surface …
Because the statement “CO2 does not cause climate change” is simply the null hypothesis of the positive statement that CO2 does cause climate change. It’s pretty hard to prove a negative, much easier to prove a positive.
The positive claim of modern climate science is that more CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming of the global surface. Well, where is the empirical support for this claim, from the real Earth system. Where exactly do we see the causal link: +CO2_atm -> +T_sfc ?
Two things:
1) According to the hypothesis of the enhanced GHE, there shouldn’t be an observable energy imbalance. Only if a doubling took place overnight. The increase, however, is incremental, and so T_e (and thus OLR) should ideally remain unchanged as T_s goes up:
http://www.climatetheory.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/greenhouse-effect-held-soden-2000.png
2) OLR hasn’t remained unchanged, though. It is observed to have increased in step with tropospheric temperatures. No sign whatsoever of any ‘enhancement’ of the GHE. And so, the whole reason why we do have a current radiative imbalance at the ToA isn’t because of reduced OLR at
all. As you imply. Quite the contrary. OLR isn’t reduced. It’s increased. The reason is rather the opposite: An increase in ASR (‘absorbed solar radiation’), evidently occurring between the 80s and the late 90s:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/toafluxesfdvserbs_zps3489ddec.png
Circular argument. Made under the assumption that CO2 does in fact cause global warming/climate change.
Circular argument. Made under the assumption that CO2 is in fact the cause of this warming and increase in “heat energy”.
You mean of course Arctic amplification. No such effect detected in the Antarctic. And anyhow, this is also a circular argument, made under the assumption that CO2 is in fact the cause of warming and (directly or indirectly) of Arctic amplification.
Another completely circular argument. Assuming a priori that CO2 is the cause of observed warming.
What imbalance are you talking about? The imbalance that shouldn’t be there according to the hypothesis of the enhanced GHE? Or the imbalance that is clearly caused by an increase in solar input (ASR) and rather partly countered by a resulting increase in OLR?
Has it indeed?
Don’t waste your breath on that buffoon Kristin. His climate science is just as fucked up as his Ego is himself!
Kristian, while it may be true that you’re wasting your time and energy on elliott, the rest of us always learn from what you have to say. (so hopefully your energies are not wasted on us…) You had a lengthy back and forth with dr. jan right around new years here (at this blog) which was referred to in okalear’s (sp?) blog/ comment page. Any idea where i might find that? Thanx… fonzie
fonzarelli, it’s on Spencer’s post “What Causes El Nino Warmth?” from January 1st this year. I tried posting a link, but wordpress seemingly won’t allow me to.
“Then I curious to know in what way exactly a cooling of the middle and upper stratosphere constitutes evidence for climate change at and near Earths surface ”
I see you have moved the goalposts. No surprise there. The original exchange is as follows:
Me: “CO2 IS a cause of climate change”
You: “Ok, can we get at least one piece of empirical (observational) evidence as verification of this claim, please?”
Stratospheric cooling is evidence of CO2 causing climate change because it conclusively demonstrates that the troposphere is not being warmed by radiation from without, which would WARM the stratosphere, but by retention of radiation from the surface. It’s like putting an extra blanket on the bed – the person beneath the blanket gets warmer, not the surface of the bed.
“Because the statement ‘CO2 does not cause climate change’ is simply the null hypothesis of the positive statement that CO2 does cause climate change. Its pretty hard to prove a negative, much easier to prove a positive.”
No, it is NOT the null hypothesis. Thermodynamics and the radiative spectra of gases are established science and the basis of entire fields separate from climatology. We could not build a steam engine or a CO2 laser if these established findings were at issue. These fields leave no doubt whatsoever that adding CO2 should enhance the greenhouse effect.
If there is reason to believe that CO2 is not behaving in the atmosphere in the way that it behaves in a laser or on Venus then it requires a SUPPLEMENTARY hypothesis as to why it is not doing so. The null hypothesis is that the behaviour of CO2 is consistent with established theory and does not deviate. The prediction of that null hypothesis is that more CO2 means more greenhouse effect.
“No such effect detected in the Antarctic.”
Wrong. The Antarctic is losing ice mass and has even recently been reported to have crossed a tipping point, such that the loss of one shield is probably irreversible.
I look forward to your attempt to change the subject to Antarctic sea ice instead of ice mass.
“Circular argument. Made under the assumption that CO2 does in fact cause global warming/climate change.”
And there’s the usual ignorance of the nature of reasoning from evidence. Actually, what the isotopic signature mainly demonstrates is that OUR carbon is the responsible agent, and if you’d criticised it on that basis you might have had a slight point. But the more general lack of understanding of evidential reasoning is, I think, more telling as it strikes to the heart of what it is to understand science. Empiricism is based on INDUCTION, and induction is based on the observation of consistencies. Consistencies are always, ultimately, circular. What we mostly do is look at new data and see stuff that is merely not inconsistent with what we already observed: That’s what evidence is.
Popper notoriously established that science operates in the “modus tollens” – if A then B; not B; therefore not A. This is falsificationism, and he established this as the demarcation that separates science from nonscience. As most advocates have never actually read Popper, they tend to miss a lot of the obvious modifiers and implications, one of which is that a successful theory NEVER ENCOUNTERS FALSIFICATION. All you have at the end is a series of observations and hypotheses which circularly confirm one another. It’s like natural selection – successful forms never suffer from it.
I could go on like this, but I don’t see the point. As usual, I have to explain even the most basic concepts and your pals here are singing the praises of your ignorance. I knew this is a denialist echo-chamber, of course, but it’s really a bit pathetic.
fonzarelli – “the rest of us always learn from what you have to say”
No-one ever learned anything from listening to people who only confirm their prejudices. That’s your problem, right there.
Elliott Bignell says, June 13, 2016 at 1:58 AM:
Er, no. You’re the goalpost-mover. You moved it from the surface and troposphere to the middle and upper stratosphere.
*Sigh* We have to take it one more time, then, it seems.
Two things:
1) According to the hypothesis of the enhanced GHE, there shouldnt be an observable energy imbalance. Only if a doubling of, say, CO2 took place overnight. The real increase, however, is incremental, and so T_e (and thus OLR) should ideally remain unchanged as T_s goes up:
http://www.climatetheory.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/greenhouse-effect-held-soden-2000.png
2) OLR hasnt remained unchanged, though. It is observed to have increased in step with tropospheric temperatures. No sign whatsoever of any enhancement of the GHE. And so, the whole reason why we do have a current radiative imbalance at the ToA isnt because of reduced OLR at all, as you imply. Quite the contrary. OLR isnt reduced. Its increased. The reason is rather the opposite: An increase in ASR (absorbed solar radiation), evidently occurring between the 80s and the late 90s:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/toafluxesfdvserbs_zps3489ddec.png
So I’m afraid there is no evidence of atmospheric “retention of radiation from the surface” at all. Quite the contrary. There is no “extra blanket” anywhere in sight.
And once again, an enhanced GHE isn’t supposed to reduce the OLR in the first place. It’s supposed to keep it steady under rising surface and tropospheric temperature. But we don’t see that. We rather see the opposite, the OLR follows tropospheric temps.
To top this off, the lower stratosphere hasn’t cooled since 1994 That’s 22 years. All the while, tropospheric levels of both CO2 and H2O have gone significantly up.
Yes it is. Look it up. A “null hypothesis” is simply the opposite of a positive claim. And the positive claim here is that CO2 does cause climate change. “CO2 doesn’t cause climate change” just isn’t a positive claim.
Yes. That doesn’t mean we know that more CO2 in the atmosphere will cause ‘global warming’. We can assume that it does, but we will have to test this assumption against reality. And so, where in the real Earth system do we observe the causal link +CO2_atm -> +T_sfc ? Nowhere!
What we do see is that the warming is caused not by an enhenced GHE, but by an increase in solar input.
Argument by assertion. Where’s your empirical evidence from the real Earth system? You demand such of others on this thread. Then please be prepared to produce your own as well.
You put out a lot of words, Bignell. But there’s no actual scientific content. And still no empirical evidence presented. Just words. Assertions. Conjectures. Assumptions upon assumptions. Talking points …
Strange, because the Antarctic hasn’t warmed at all over the last 35+ years. Where’s the “Antarctic amplification” in that? The rest of the world has warmed, the Antarctic hasn’t. Hmmmm.
But I do take note that you tried to change the subject from temperatures to ice mass.
What is this rant really supposed to be an answer to? You go off on a tangent and starts slinging mud around. Good for you.
But where’s the empirical evidence backing up your claims, pal?
We’re waiting …
Yet another aimless, incoherent, propaganda SPEW from Iddiott.
“Er, no. Youre the goalpost-mover. You moved it from the surface and troposphere to the middle and upper stratosphere.”
This is a straightforward lie, as the record of the exchange shows. You asked for evidence of the assertion that CO2 is warming the planet, and I cited stratospheric cooling. I never said anything about the surface or troposphere in this exchange; I never said anything about the “middle and upper stratosphere”. You made that up.
You are a liar.
Your graphics are unattributed blog posts, and one is a “schematic”, not even plotted from data. Most of your other claims can easily be determined to be straightforwardly false. The Antarctic, for instance, is warming:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI4236.1
The radiative energy imbalance of the atmosphere has been measured directly from satellites and agrees closely with radiative forcing estimates:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00294.1
And this: “A null hypothesis is simply the opposite of a positive claim.”
…is simple ignorance. You might as well try to pretend that the “null hypothesis” when you let go of a rock is that it will not fall to Earth.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/NullHypothesis.html
You simply do not know what you are talking about.
Elliott, are you sure you’re a genius?
Elliott Bignell says:
Wow. Just wow.
Oh, dear. Heard of NASA’s ERBE project? Or of their ISCCP FD product? Also, the “schematic” is from Soden & Held, 2000. You know, as in Brian Soden and Isaac Held, two rather well-known publishing atmospheric scientists. It depicts the hypothetical “enhanced greenhouse warming mechanism” quite straightforwardly. Notice how it distinctly stresses that T_e remains unchanged as Z_e is elevated. You seem unfamiliar with this mechanism, Bignell. Which speaks volumes. I apparently know your hypothesis better than yourself …
Not since 1979-1981, which is the recent 35+ year period I was specifically referring to. You’re moving the goalposts again, Bignell. Duly noted.
Well, I’m sorry to have to tell you this a third time, but the imbalance at the ToA is evidently NOT caused by a reduction in OLR, but rather and quite clearly by an increase in ASR. So ‘enhanced solar input’, not ‘enhanced GHE’. Which is what the observational data from the real Earth system shows. The OLR simply follows tropospheric temps. Completely at odds with AGW theory …
That IS the “null hypothesis”! The null hypothesis is a statement of no change, of no statistical correlation between two parameters, Bignell. “CO2 does not cause climate change” is such a claim. “CO2 does cause climate change” is the alternative hypothesis. How hard is this?
Elliott Bignell
Here is a clear example of evidence in support of mpainter’s posts on global greening and that is more evident in arid areas than the wet tropical jungles.
Here is the link.
http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/01/18669647-global-greening-the-other-greenhouse-effect-is-underway
Quote from the article: “Large stretches of arid land have become greener since the 1980s due to rising concentrations of carbon dioxide, which fertilizes plant growth, a new study shows.”
No, that is an article that says that arid areas are greening. That is a slightly different and more interesting proposition than anything anyone has attempted so far, but it DOES NOT address the claim by mpainter, which he is still unable to support. He claims that CO2 fertilisation has arrested “crop loss” during “drought”. This article says nothing about crops, crop loss or drought. In other words, it does not touch on mpainter’s claim at ANY POINT. He has been shotgunning variations of this claim in the hope of hitting something that turns out to be real, but I have been challenging him to support a very specific statement, and this article has nothing to do with the terms of that statement.
Now, is it REALLY so hard to parse simple sentences that you cannot tell that this article says nothing of the sort? Or is this yet more motivated reasoning?
elliot,
You seem extremely certain of 2xco2 sensitivity, climate models etc., and hence believe that the lower troposphere will warm at a rate well in excess of .2C/decade given the current trajectory of co2 emissions, and the ‘heat’ already in the pipeline.
If this is in fact the case how much of your own financial future would you be willing to wager on the outcome? You seem pretty happy to use the force of government to get other people to do so.
Pick a time frame and an amount. I am a size seller of lower tropospheric temperature change going forward at a rate of .2C/per decade. Happy to do so with posted cash collateral.
thanks
david
“You seem extremely certain of 2xco2 sensitivity, climate models etc., and hence believe that the lower troposphere will warm at a rate well in excess of .2C/decade given the current trajectory of co2 emissions, and the heat already in the pipeline.”
That’s right, if you cannot dispute the claims I have made, just go ahead and lie.
“If this is in fact the case how much of your own financial future would you be willing to wager on the outcome?”
You forget that I am not the one betting with other people’s lives.
“You seem pretty happy to use the force of government to get other people to do so.”
That’s right, if you cannot dispute the claims I have made, just go ahead and lie. Hey, Massimo, the cost of a pizza says that you suddenly won’t find introducing politics objectionable in this case. If you haven’t attacked david_in_ct for this by tomorrow and he hasn’t been eaten by the black bear by then, you’re buying.
I’m not the one making the bets here, not am I the one proposing anything to do with “government”. The most authoritative economic report on the costs of climate change, the Stern report, says that acting will SAVE trillions of dollars.
But $10 says that the countries acting on global warming, in particular China, will have grown more than the primary country of deniers, the USA, ten years from now.
You just don’t know when to give up do you dumb ass?
Massimo, you owe me a pizza.
Hi Norman,
I suggest you to read Elliott’s posts from the beginning.
Since his mind setup is all but scientific, he searches for a little wrong detail in your argumentation and despite it is absolutely marginal he move the attention of the discussion on it.
It is also apparent that he believes that all those who don’t agree with him are following his deceptive method. Fundamentally he his accusing the others of what he does systematically.
If you look at the specific case of mpaiter’s assertion, which you refer to (and I agree with you), you already demonstrated that the current science is highlighting, that is that CO2 is greening the planet. Anyways, Elliott is restricting the discussion to minimal and negligible details of how mpainter wrote it. Because is clear that mpainter was intending what you (and me) intended about his original post. Probably most of the honest readers here, really interested to the main argumentation of mpainter post, agree that mpainter was talking about that, but for Elliott “The truth is that increased levels of CO2 have decreased crop loss due to drought.” means that you must find a research that demonstrate that in those specific areas where there is a drought, the vegetables instead of die for the missing water are growing for the increased CO2. Which is obvious impossible and I’m sure mpainer wont meaning that. Because CO2 doesnt substitute water in the complex process of molecular reproduction of course.
I’m sure that mpainter isn’t an idiot, his intention was to highlight that CO2 is a beneficial gas for vegetables; in no ways he ever intended to support the silly hypothesis that CO2 substitutes water.
Elliott arguments are all but for scientific purposes, they are just thought to confuse the interlocutor and meant to show to third party readers that he is the winner in the discussion. Its just pure and sterile rhetoric.
Much better leave him in his religious belief in bad scientist such Mann and Hansen. By the way, the simple fact that he proposed Mann as an arbiter for his discussion with Alberto tell all about Elliott’s science concept.
Follow my advice: don’t waste your precious time with Elliott anymore, life is short and time should never wasted on stupid details.
Have a great day.
Massimo
P.S. I’m sure Elliott will write his stereotyped reply with a lot of accusations against me of being a liar in the payroll of some oil industry that I can’t neither imagine.
So knowing him, I anticipate my…
AMEN!
🙂
🙂
P.P.S.
Dr. Spencer seems have limited our posts to 10/day. IMHO it is a good choice to limit the impact of such rhetorical strategies on the quality of this blog.
So thank you Dr. Spencer.
Just an another question for you or better for your web master: some time ago I was able to place the emoticons simply by typing a colon and a closed bracket, why now can’t I do that no more?
Have a nice Sunday.
Massimo
Massimo, there is a code that Gordon shared with us to get a happy face icon. (the link to the list of codes is in the may temperature update comments) Try typing in &+#+9+7+8+6+; (but do it without the plus signs like this: ☺ plus a ; following…) Kudos to Dr Spencer for a great idea with the ten comments. Anything to save the blog from abuses as this is the very best blog going. I personal don’t mind the elliotts of the world, but i really don’t like seeing others go through what you went through. You’re right about elliott that he has well applied his genius to semantic tricks. He really has the “alinski” (rules for radicals) element down pat. (he’ll post a disgustingly vile comment and then claim that he was a model of politeness!) He’s as good as any “chicago style” politician at it. Me? I never engage such a person in a conversation. There are plenty of good and civil people of the alternate persuasion to discuss with. (slipstick comes to mind here…) Most warmists who comment have a suprisingly good grasp of the science (again, noticeably so with slipstick), something with which elliott is sorely lacking anyway…
“personal” should read “personally”
Hi Fonzie,
(I hope you don’t distress because I prefer call you so, but F-o-n-z-a-r-e-l-l-i is so long to write, and I’m a very lazy man ☺
Ok, hat tip to Gordon, who seems finally discovered that we have to enter the unicode directly as an HTML entity.
Anyways, there should be something wrong in the emoticons translation plugin because typing : followed by ) or : followed by – and ) it converts the strings indeed and both to the very same sequence of characters, so it seems working but the result isn’t what expected.
About the rest of your message I fully agree with you.
Have a nice and pleasant Sunday.
Massimo
“If you look at the specific case of mpaiters assertion, which you refer to (and I agree with you), you already demonstrated that the current science is highlighting, that is that CO2 is greening the planet.”
These are the exact words: “The truth is that increased levels of CO2 have decreased crop loss due to drought.” There is nothing unclear about this, and painter cannot support the claim. HE HAS NO DATA. But for you and your ilk, apparently there is nothing unscientific about posting false and unsupportable statements. Unscientific is apparently when one demands to see the support for a claim.
Well, I suppose that is why there is science-denial in the first place, right? After all, there’s nothing more scientific than just spamming the same false claim over and over, right? And why would anyone want to hold someone on their own side to basic standards of evidence? Much more “polite” to just back them up with irrelevant papers that support a completely different claim.
This is why dealing with people like you eventually forces me to shower.
There is a term in the philosophy of science: “Ad hoc hypotheses”. I think it was Kuhn, a physicist, who pointed out that any theory can survive contradictory evidence just by bolting on ad hoc hypotheses: It is not a single, falsifiable finding that actually forces a paradigm shift but a sudden cultural shift initiated by the accumulation of ad hoc hypotheses; eventually, a theoretical framework become so baroque that it can no longer be tolerated, and the dam bursts.
Needless to say, there is no indication of this ever happening in mainstrea, climate science. Indeed, there are no falsifying findings appearing AT ALL. Not a single paper in the last few years, I believe it is correct to say. Far from it in fact, the very few surviving “sceptics” are rapidly shuffling off into retirememt. But I can see YOU lot introducing ad hoc hypotheses many time a day.
mpainter’s claim is false, and worse, unsupported. I have challenged him at least 40 times and he has produced not a single source. And you all think this is perfectly okay. So look to your conscience, and take care to have some data in your hands before you presume to question my ability to understand science.
It is not I who has to deny it.
blah, blah, blah..
There is PLENTY of evidence that CO2 enhances plant growth
Get over your IGNORANCE , when you can open your mind enough to do so.
The claim is sustained in the copious literature, which you refuse to consult.
Dr. Roy
As a non-scientist and an occasional commenter, I’m curious about the domination of the comments here by 2 or 3 people. Please enlighten me here – I suspect others here will be interested in the answers:
1. Do you read all these comments, and do you simply choose to tolerate endless commenting, or do you particularly care one way or the other? I know you shut down comments for a while because of similar behavior by another (possibly the same) blogger.
2. I’m serious and not trying to be a wise-ass. It seems that blogger abuse could be stopped by active moderation. Dr. Curry has effectively dealt with this issue, IMO. The fact that a handful of commenters can post hundreds of comments, thus discouraging more moderate people, seems unfair to an awful lot of people.
Having some 600 comments may be impressive to some, but I’m curious about how a once-thoughtful blog can be hijacked by 2 or 3 people. The same has happened to dot earth – Andy Revkin can’t seem to shake the most toxic bloggers. This is his own fault, and may be caused by similarly warped view of free speech rights.
I know you’re a busy person, but I would think a relatively modest expenditure of effort could solve this problem. Please tell me if and why I’m wrong.
I think RWS has noted that he doesnt have the time to filter the offenders. And if its a choice between this and no blog, I prefer this.
Perhaps a refreshing change of pace from A Lot of Big Tell:
http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/world-famous-scientist-god-created-universe
He tried to stop a person whose name can no longer be mentioned, who thought he had spotted a way to make a perpetual motion machine work and accused Roy of fraud, and it took months to stop him, as he just kept logging in from a different IP address under different names again and again. Why Roy doesn’t stop mpainter the same way is beyond me, but probably has something to do with the problem with He Who Must Not Be Named, or perhaps just to do with sides.
As for me, if you go back about 4 days you will find that I disappear from the record for months. Once people like mpainter and Massimo stop lying about my statements, creating Straw Men, confabulating ad hominems about my competence and calling my honesty into question I will move on again soon enough, as there is nothing of any intellectual value to hold me here apart from Roy’s original blog posts.
as there is nothing of any intellectual value … in your posts. !
NONE , NADA ZIP
… just aimless propaganda pap.
It seems you and a couple of others have absolutely nothing else to do. Please get off your high horse and get a life.
Elliot’s breakfast…
http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/files/legacy/pills.jpg
And the outcome..
…a technicolour yawn of meaningless garbage.
http://i.imgur.com/rhlynx0.jpg
All talk no links I see ay Elliot?
“Because the statement CO2 does not cause climate change is simply the null hypothesis of the positive statement that CO2 does cause climate change. Its pretty hard to prove a negative, much easier to prove a positive”
Kristian please rephrase to me what you are trying to say there. Thanks
Climatechange4realz
Elliott Bignell
I do find you to be an interesting and intelligent person. But your approach really does not answer anything, kind of a diversion.
Your post above: “So ultimately, even if we had confidence that the author is not simply lying or deranged, a confidence that we cannot possibly have as the document has not passed review, it does not tell us anything about trends anyway.”
This is about Reykjavik temperature adjustments. What you are not doing is explaining why they made such a drastic adjustment. What is the justification? That is what I would like to know. I am not saying there is not a valid one, I just do not know what it is.
Here is another writer that has strong concerns about the Reykjavik adjustments and with downloading actual data shows that the adjustments just did away with high temperatures in the 1940’s, eliminated them to generate a new graph. Why? What is the valid reasoning. On this blog tonyb (a poster who has contributed here) is trying to find the answer but did not provide one in his posting.
http://euanmearns.com/re-writing-the-climate-history-of-iceland/
Within the posts there is a link to a science study that shows Reykjavik temperatures much higher than what is currently given by GHCN v3.1. This is used by NASA, GISS and NOAA.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.1051/pdf
I was hoping rather than trash someone questioning this massive adjustment you might offer a valid and intelligent reason for why this took place. Telling me how poor a researcher is does not explain the drastic change and is really unproductive. What is productive is to explain why this adjustment was made (by removing higher recorded temps) and how is it justified to portray a more accurate or valid portrait of Icelandic temperatures.
Norman – “This is about Reykjavik temperature adjustments. What you are not doing is explaining why they made such a drastic adjustment.”
And what the article is not doing is telling us whether it is of any importance. Is there any bias towards positive adjustements? Not stated. Is the adjustment valid per se? Not stated. Is the overall global outcome thereby affected? Not stated.
However emotive language about how “drastic” the change to one station is, all that we know is that when the author cherry-picks the largest couple of adjustements he can find, one of them has a particular magnitude. The reason for that magnitude lies in the methodology. The only thing that interests us from the point of view of the fact and magnitude of anthropogenic warming is whether the aggregate, global trend has thereby been changed, and if so whether the adjusted trend is more valid than the unadjusted. This we are simply not told.
If there is some critique of the method used in the adjustements then I will be glad to hear it, but all we have been told is that if one picks the two largest then they are quite large, while the two smallest are never even mentioned. This alone should have set alarm bells ringing.
So my explanation is quite simple, until I am given reason to suspect otherwise: The blog article is a deliberate effort to mislead by cherry-picking, and need not be considered as it has not been published. The largest values are simply the right horn of a normal distribution and require no specific explanation unless analysis of the entire data shows that they deviate systematically instead.
A wee bit off thread maybe.
As I understand things, C3 plants use 5 water to 3 carbon dioxide. Burning hydrocarbons produces water and carbon dioxide, at a minimum. Even burning CH4 will produce 2 water to 1 carbon dioxide, or 6 water to 3 carbon dioxide. Water left over.
Burning stuff should produce both enough H2O and CO2 for additional plant life, if appropriate hydrocarbons are chosen.
Really a way of storing solar energy for use later on.
I’m sure others will correct me if I’m wrong. I probably am.
Cheers.
You are not exactly wrong, but water vapour exists in a dynamic equilibrium and can move in and out of the gas state on a timescale of seconds to days. Added to this is the confounding factor of the presence of aerosols, the absence of which can hinder condensation, and the fact that arid areas are usually arid because air-flow patterns have caused the air to precipitate out its water before it reaches those areas. There is an extremely strong tendency for deserts to form in mountain rain shadows or 30 North and South of the Equator and at the Poles due to global convection patterns, for instance.
So what you are talking about is really just CO2 concentration. And as I have said before, CO2 is not usually the limiting factor for plant growth. There seems to be an increase in green matter based on the April paper, for instance, but so far no-one has convincingly shown that this can be linked to CO2 fertilisation. The thawing of the Artic and the relentless expansion of agriculture could suffice to explain it. And if Arctic soils are greening, then they are undoubtedly losing more soil carbon than they are gaining green carbon.
There is a class of grassland soils known as “mollisols” which contain more carbon per unit are than rainforest. In almost all environments except rain forest, soil carbon is the decisive measure – it simply contains the greater carbon mass. One potential way of sequestering carbon is “biochar”, which boosts soil carbon while improving soil quality. So greening might contribute to carbon sequestration, but it might also wotk the other way. Protecting and improving soils is likely to contribute more.
Wow Elliot you really know the specifics! But your generality lacks credibility! Awwwww poor thing too caught up in the specifics! I’ll be waiting here for you to join me in my world of “common sense”! Lol
CO2 is a limiting factor of growth, and this has been known for decades. You ignore the results of commercial greenhouses which enrich the ambient CO2 to about 1,000 ppm for improved growth. You know this, but you ignore it. You also ignore other facts such as the greening of arid regions, such as the Sahel.
I’m not sure what you mean by I’m “not exactly wrong”. If that means I’m “not exactly right”, I’d be happy.
If water is a combustion product, it must go somewhere. As you point out, it doesn’t go to the desert, so it must precipitate in a non desert area, I guess. If the desert margins are where greening is most pronounced, this would seem logical, as there would be an increase in the water/carbon dioxide ratio, due to CO2 being well mixed around the globe. Maybe it’s more widespread, I don’t know.
As you point out, nobody seems to know. Nobody seems to care enough to find out for sure, so I’m on even footing with the experts.
Maybe we need to release more plant food and water into the atmosphere, from the supplies that Nature tucked away, when both were obviously far more plentiful (otherwise the fossil fuels couldn’t have formed).
Pollution is not so good, but neither CO2 nor H2O really qualify, being essential plant foods.
What do you think?
Cheers.
Well, I meant you are right in that water is liberated, but that it really does not make much difference. Adding water vapour to the atmosphere per se has next to no effect, as in a dynamic equilibrium it simply increases the rate at which water is removed. Adding CO2 actually adds more water vapour and for longer, as it raises the temperature and thus alters the equilibrium position.
“If the desert margins are where greening is most pronounced, this would seem logical, as there would be an increase in the water/carbon dioxide ratio, due to CO2 being well mixed around the globe.”
The deserts expand and contract for a lot of reasons, and if this is really happening as part of anthropogenic climate change and/or CO2 fertilisation rather than, say, due to improved irrigation then it may be really good news. Note that there is no guarantee that it will outweigh emissions or that it will continue into the future, but it’s something worth watching. As desert soils have as good as no carbon whatsoever, making them productive could be a huge effect.
As an aside, have you noticed how people always point to brief media reports of a new Ice Age in the 1970s as grounds not to trust science on anthropgenic warming, but never point to the belief at the same time that deserts were expanding as reason not to trust scientific reports of deserts greening today? For some reason, today’s reports of desert greening are taken as gospel in a way that almost no other scientific finding about the climate is.
“Nobody seems to care enough to find out for sure, so Im on even footing with the experts.”
I suspect it is the focus of intense attention. Climate models explicitly take vegetation into account, for instance, so there is a strong motivation for wanting to quantify the effect. I just cannot say what the current state is, as I have not looked at this for a couple of years and some of this work is literally only months old.
“Maybe we need to release more plant food and water into the atmosphere”
Unlikely. We are already introducing CO2 and the consensus is that this will be Bad. Unless we actually KNOW that greening will be so great as to counterbalance the known dangers it is simply an unnecessary risk. Especially since what interests us as a species is not “greening” but food production and economic damage.
Also, we are already producing twice as much reactive nitrogen – plant food – as all natural processes combined. Using this as an example, we can see that merely feeding plants does not work uniformly to our advantage, even if we put it on plants that we want. Most of it ends up in rivers, creates dead zones in the sea and depresses soil carbon.
“Pollution is not so good, but neither CO2 nor H2O really qualify, being essential plant foods.”
I think H2O has been dealt with. As irrigation, potentially good. As anthropogenic vapour, mainly ineffective.
CO2 is an “essential plant food” AND a pollutant, specifically a greenhouse gas. It may or may not have some useful effect on food production – we simply cannot say – but its effect on the climate is undisputed. All the relevant scientific bodies, journals, economic studies and so forth uniformly report that more CO2 emissions will be harmful.
They are also, at this point, largely unnecessary, as we can acquire vastly more energy than we require from renewable sources and perhaps even produce concrete that absorbs rather than producing CO2. All that is so far lacking is the will.
Elliott Bignell,
Fair enough. Like me, you don’t know. Blithely saying that everyone agrees that CO2 is harmful is just an assumption, based on the assumptions of others. Unlikely, probably, maybe, largely, we simply cannot say – I’ll just make my own assumptions. I reckon my guesses are as good as anyone else’s.
So far, I don’t appear to have suffered by ignoring the strident claims of the Warmists.
People have been predicting doom since the dawn of recorded history. It all seems to have passed me by. I’m convinced the future is unknowable, assumptions that the Sun will rise tomorrow, that e will always equal mc^2, and so on notwithstanding.
I suppose if you have the will, you must do what you must. If you don’t want to pay for my frolics, I don’t expect you want me to pay for yours. Time will tell, I guess.
Good luck.
Cheers.
Mike – “Blithely saying that everyone agrees that CO2 is harmful is just an assumption, based on the assumptions of others.”
No, it can fairly easily be tested. And indeed, it has been – just leaf through the most recent IPCC report. You’ll find literally thousands of scientific papers referenced. Basically everything from several related fields.
You can even test assumptions yourself – try putting an extra blanket on your bed and measuring the temperature under and over the blanket, for instance. Or measure the heat needed to evaporate water. Or look for neutral sources of spectrographs for gases – old astronomy books might be a good one here. I’ve worked in the design of atomic absorbtion spectrographs, by the way, so this is by no means an “assumption” on my part. They really work.
“Assumption” is just a dog-whistle term unless you understand how science turns assumptions into theories.
“I reckon my guesses are as good as anyone elses.”
Well, that’s obviously a fundamental error. Informed guesses will always, on balance, beat uninformed. What’s your profession? Just imagine some layperson on the internet saying their “guess” is just as good as your quantitative estimate on your own specialism.
The smart money always buys expert advice. Show me a guy who does his own brain-surgery and I’ll show you most of the people here, for instance.
“So far, I dont appear to have suffered by ignoring the strident claims of the Warmists.”
Of course, you can afford an internet connection. You’re going to be the last to suffer no matter how it plays out.
“I just had gnocchi with pesto for lunch. Global hunger is a myth!” Sound convincing to you?
Well said Mike,
I fully agree, I can’t say it better.
But it doesn’t need to be a fortune teller to bet that it’s not ended here.
Have a great day.
Massimo
What an ABSOLUTE load of wordy CODSWALLO and BS !!!
CO2 is not a pollutant.
Never was, never will be
You are again speaking from MANIFEST IGNORANCE.
“All that is so far lacking is the will”
And al that you are lacking is ANY knowledge of anything
A RANTING rave of blatant ignorance is all you seem capable of.
Stupid post Elliot
Elliott Bignell
I would have to disagree with your assertions stated in your post above.
You: “And what the article is not doing is telling us whether it is of any importance. Is there any bias towards positive adjustements? Not stated. Is the adjustment valid per se? Not stated. Is the overall global outcome thereby affected? Not stated.”
Bullet points from the article:
There is wholesale over writing and adjustment of raw temperature records, especially pre-1970 with an overwhelming tendency to cool the past that makes the present appear to be anomalously warm.
In the 1960s, Iceland (and the whole N Atlantic) experienced a run of very cold years caused by extreme atmospheric pressure differentials linked to the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). Many of these cold records appear to have been systematically deleted in V3.1 with the effect of all but removing this well-documented event from Icelandic climate history.
Following the end of the Little Ice Age, Iceland experienced rapid warming in the 1920s reaching near record warmth in 1939. This near record warmth has also been written out of Icelandic climatic history by adjusting the temperature records down, leaving the false impression that 2003 was an anomalously warm year.
In addition to wide-spread deletion of records, large amounts of temperature data that does not exist in V2 appears to have been created in V3.1. It is difficult to understand why this should be done since it is quite straight forward to manipulate data without apparently having to make it up.”
Not sure which link you were looking at.
Interesting observation by Dr. Spencer on teasing out the element of causation in a correlation by looking for lead/lag times; would the same type of analysis work for payment/publication of seemingly scientific analyses?
For example, when Dr. Spencer received funding from the now-bankrupt coal company, Peabody Energy, as shown in the court record: did it precede or follow publication of particular papers, opinion pieces, and/or testimony by Dr. Spencer that directly or indirectly supported Peabody’s anti-AGW / pro-CO2 positions?
What data points would be needed, besides a list of funding received, amounts, and dates (plus appropriate explication of how each instance of funding was allotted) alongside any of Dr. Spencer’s publications* and statements that tend to minimize–or raise seemingly unanswered questions about–the concerns arising from climate science?
And in the end would it really matter if the public assertions he makes supporting Peabody’s pro-carbon-release policies came before or after funding was received from them? Or does it only tell us whether or not he works on spec?
Regardless, I thank Dr. Spencer for highlighting the lead/lag analysis required to better understand the impact of feedback effects on climate science.
-MFA
*And: Would one include only those publications that have passed standard peer review? What about any studies/analysis based on unpublished/tentative methodologies? Interesting questions.
MFA – I cannot speak for Dr. Roy, but it is my position that a scientist is free to hire his expertise out to whomever he likes, so long as he does not violate contractual obligations to the contrary, conceal wrongdoing, contribute to weapons development or otherwise violate ethical norms. The only non-negotiable condition from the point of view of ethics, I would hazard, is that any such income be openly declared wherever it might bear on conflicts of interest.
As long as we can examine the financial interests of those using their expertise to gain prominence in the public debate and spot any bias towards favouring the interests of fossil-fuel interests, environmental lobby groups or whomever is paying any such income, I don’t see the problem. After all, there are thousands of scientists out there, and we can just dismiss the unreviewed opinions of those with conflicts of interest and just go with the general consensus.
Coal companies have provided immeasurable benefits to the biosphere in the form of CO2. Biomass increases by 2 gigatonnes annually. The benefits to humanity include increased crop yields, particularly during droughts.
This one, as in “This is about Reykjavik…”: http://www.geoclimate.se/articles/20131107_giss_wibjorn_karlen.pdf
I cannot spend the time going over the two subsequent links in detail right now, but I would draw attention to the following. Off the blog’s comments at ‘February 27, 2015 at 2:15 am’:
http://oi62.tinypic.com/2a0avpc.jpg
All these seems top show a consistent picture.
Also, the blog author’s notes for Figure 6 make the statement that “sharp eyes are required to see the difference with the V2 data”. He’s not kidding. If you compare the trend lines for GHCN v2 and v3.1, both v2 and v3.1 show a rising trend. The blog author includes an erratum of his own, which is corrected in Figure 6.1. The trends for v2 and v3.1, once the blog author’s erratum is corrected, are in effect identical, reading off the graph. So that answers the only question that really matters: The adjustments have no systematic influence on the trend for Iceland. Take into account, however, that it is only a blog post – the real test is whether any criticism of this kind makes it past review.
The PDF at the IJC contains the following conclusions section:
“The climatic data surveyed here suggest that Iceland experienced a warming of between ~0.7 – 1.6C during 1871-2002, consistent with 20th century global warming trends (Houghton et al ., 2001). The warming was not gradual through time; rather, it was concentrated in the 1920s and 1930s and more recently from 1987 to 2002. There was a marked cooling from the 1940s to the 1980s, which is much more pronounced and prolonged than in the global temperature series. This result is perhaps no surprise, since regional amplitudes of change tend to be greater than global, but it is in line with other recent studies of climate change in this part of the (sub-) Arctic, and suggests that distinct changes in atmospheric circulation probably gave cooler conditions over Iceland. The warmest year in the 20th century Reykjavik record was 1941 and the coldest was 1979. The full 18732002 records indicate that the coldest years occurred before the 20th century, and 1859 and 1866 were very cold years. Warming resumed in the late 1980s and 1990s; however, as for Greenland, this was not the warmest period in Iceland.
“On the whole, warmer periods seem to be wetter, and precipitation appears to have increased somewhat in line with the overall warming. However, the precipitation trends are less signi fi cant and the uncertainties are greater than with the temperature records, to some extent owing to precipitation sampling error. From changes in the southnorth temperature difference, as well as in the ice index itself, sea ice around the Icelandic (north) coast seems to have become rarer over the past 120 years.
“A clear correspondence of extreme temperatures in Iceland and southern Greenland exists. This includes the conclusion that the most recent decade of the 1990s does not contain the warmest annual temperatures. This is in contrast to global average temperatures. An inverse pattern of extreme temperatures is sometimes, but not always, observed for the 20th century when Icelandic temperatures are compared with northwestern European temperatures. These patterns are linked with variations in the intensity of the North Atlantic atmospheric circulation, as indicated by the NAO index. The NAO correlations are often highly suggestive, but less often statistically signi fi cant. Sampling errors and data inhomogeneities associated with station relocation are partly to blame for reduced resolution of causal mechanisms. The fact that Iceland lies near one dipole of the NAO is probably a major factor weakening correlation of its climate with the NAO. Also, the NAO index is a purely statistical measure, imperfectly representing the underlying physical mechanisms and causes. Nevertheless, the patterns of temperature, precipitation, pressure and sunshine, taken together, form a coherent picture of the regional atmospheric circulation, which is dominated by the Icelandic low.”
So once again, I fail to see where you can find any inconsistency arising out of these adjustments. Whether they are included or not the overall result is always the same. So what are you driving at?
“I cannot spend the time going over the two subsequent links in detail right now…”
###
It doesn’t seem that you would spend it if you had it. You did not spend a minute to read any of the copious literature available on the internet detailing the fertilization effects of atmospheric CO2.
Pseudoscience is maintained by those who shun real science. Mindless assertions are the response to bad news:
mpainter says:
June 6, 2016 at 10:04 AM
Mpainter:The truth is that increased levels of CO2 have decreased crop loss due to drought.
Elliot Bignell: One mindless assertion deserves another: No, they havent.
Elliot: you say in one of your comments that adding co2 adds more water vapor but again like usual you don’t have any links supporting that claim. If your trying to prove a scientific theory the least you can do is provide a few links backing up the claims. But again your just like all the other AGW nut jobs on this comment board. All talk, no links or evidence to support there blabbering drivel
Test
http:_//pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_etal_1.pdf
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/268.htm
http://phys.org/news/2014-07-vapor-global-amplifier.html
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html
http://gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/hall0001.pdf
http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2008/02/common-climate-misconceptions-the-water-vapor-feedback-2/
From the last –
“Climate scientists can also verify the effects of the water vapor feedback by examining the response of water vapor to a global decrease in temperatures after a major volcanic eruption. After Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1992, for example, water vapor concentrations decreased within the range predicted by the model and amplified the cooling by 60 percent more than would have occurred as a result of the sulphate aerosol emissions alone.
“Claims that water vapor is the dominant driver of recently observed climate change are spurious at best. While uncertainties in the magnitude of water vapor feedbacks are one of the key areas concerning climate change, none of this research casts any doubt on the role of carbon dioxide and other anthropogenic greenhouse gases as the initial forcings behind our current climate perturbation.”
To all those who insist upon debating, arguing, and flaming ad nauseam; please consider starting your own blog somewhere else instead of cluttering Dr. Spenser’s posts with secondary and tertiary sidebars, and pointless ad hominem.
If I’m in the minority opinion on this, please accept my apology.
Elliot: you say in one of your comments that adding co2 adds more water vapor but again like usual you dont have any links supporting that claim.
Good reason to believe that warming increases H2O: Global total column water vapor increases with temperature during the seasonal cycle.
Also, observed warming trends are somewhat greater than Planck response when considering GHGs and published OHC trends.
Good reason to question that warming increases H2O: Radiosonde and ISCCP analyses don’t indicate a significant correlation.
Increased water vapor has benefits? reduces climate variability and extremes? It could, because increasing latent heat means less volume exchange is necessary to rebalance imbalances.
@Turbulent Eddie I appreciate you providing links to support your claims Eddie. Its one thing when your wrong about something even if you provide links for it then not providing any links at all like some people ELLIOT!
Elliot in one of your comments you say: “Stratospheric cooling is evidence of CO2 causing climate change because it conclusively demonstrates that the troposphere is not being warmed by radiation from without, which would WARM the stratosphere, but by retention of radiation from the surface. Its like putting an extra blanket on the bed the person beneath the blanket gets warmer, not the surface of the bed.”
You look at these climate charts of the layers of the atmosphere put out by yes! Yours truly dr roy spencer who claims that man has influence on the earths climate yet the data he puts out shows that there is no warming in any layers of the atmosphere! Since 1979! I’ll even provide a link to prove my claim in my next post like a real scientist would do:
Here’s the link:
http://www.climate4you.com
All you have to do is go down to where it says vertical profile of the atmosphere and boom! There you have it! Again I only provide the data I don’t force people into believing it! I let them form there own opinions! Decide for your self
The RSS website has a plotting tool for all their available data here: http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
It shows a trend of -0.259 K/decade for TLS. The trend is more negative for upper stratosphere channels available since the AMSU (-0.761 K/decade for C14).
Even the data I think you’re pointing at ( http://www.climate4you.com/images/MSU%20UAH%20DifferentAltitudesGlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif ) shows a net warming trend over the full period for the lowest altitude measure (presumably TLT, but labeled “2km”) and a net cooling trend at the highest (presumably TLS, but labeled “17km”).
It’s not apparent how that doesn’t support Elliot’s point.
I appreciate you showing links but that’s ridiculous! Anyone can draw a line going upward like that! A trick for the eyes that is! Such garbage! I’m not that stupid! If carbon dioxide influenced the climate the trend should’ve been much higher according to the IPCC
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ipcc_ar5_draft_fig1-7_methane.png
Sorry mark but even false obscure jiberish like that won’t get one anywhere in the world of climate science! Again you fools are too caught up in the specifics! The observed pause in global warming since 1998 has been caused by the sun not increasing greenhouse gasses. It’s stupid line trend charts like this that fool people into thinking that man causes global warming even by a smaller amount then ones forecasted. Kind of like the hockey schtick the stupidist chart in the history of man made global warming propaganda
Hockey SCHTICKS, plural. There are a few dozen of them now. Basically every attempt to reconstruct prehistoric temperatures from proxies produces a hockey stick shape:
https://www.google.ch/search?q=hockey+stick+graph&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjr96C5uafNAhVDPRQKHUbtCm8QsAQIQg&biw=1920&bih=1110&dpr=1
Take your shovel.
Again co2 was never a cause of climate change to begin with as historical data tells us so how can co2 possibly have any warming affect on the earth? It can’t because there is no direct correlation! Maybe if there was a direct correlation I would be more concerned with this
“Again co2 was never a cause of climate change to begin with as historical data tells us so how can co2 possibly have any warming affect on the earth”
Exactly right! And nuclear radiation was never a cause of death to begin with, so how can nuclear weapons possibly be dangerous now?
(Everyone please note that the claim quoted hereby fails on logical grounds alone, which obviously require no link, just an ability to think.)
We know that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect, of course, because it can be directly measured. Quite apart from its properties in the laboratory, the absolute clincher is the peak in infra-red radiation in the atmosphere at the characteristic frequencies of CO2. The Earth is about 30K warmer than a naked black body at this distance from the Sun, and CO2 absorbtion lines, together with water, almost exactly account for the difference. That’s a direct observation, and there is no way to lie your way out of it.
http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/EAS8803_Fall2009/Lec6.pdf
The fact that CO2 in prehistory has tended to follow external forcing rather than to initiate warming only proves that it WAS NOT the forcing which caused warming. It obviously cannot show that it IS NOT the forcing which is causing it now, and indeed it would contradict direct observations if it did, so we should not expect it to. It shows that it is a feedback. This is the worst possible outcome for the deniers and for our future, as it means that now we are artificially MAKING CO2 a forcing by introducing more of it with geological suddenness, it can be expected to feed back into a yet larger forcing as a consequence. (Once again, this follows on logical grounds and need not be further supported.)
The peat-dome fires last year in Indonesia were producing more CO2 than the entire US economy. They became possible because global warming has dried out the peat and because the palm-oil industry is starting fires to clear the land. That means that the USA could actually stop producing CO2 tomorrow and its efforts would already have been outweighed by the effects of its legacy emissions. This is what was meant by a “tipping point”. For the burning season, we need to reduce emissions by more than the entire US economy just to counterbalance this feedback.
2015 burn: http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2015/12/01/indonesias-fire-and-haze-crisis
1997 burn: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v420/n6911/full/nature01131.html
Then there are the peat soils in the Arctic, Amazon clearance, degradation of temperate soils…
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/96GB03035/full
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL024960/full
Elliot You say: “Exactly right! And nuclear radiation was never a cause of death to begin with, so how can nuclear weapons possibly be dangerous now?”
Do you have any idea what your even taking about?
Then you say:
“The fact that CO2 in prehistory has tended to follow external forcing rather than to initiate warming only proves that it WAS NOT the forcing which caused warming. It obviously cannot show that it IS NOT the forcing which is causing it now”
Bullshit! Of course it can genius! And you just proved it by saying “The fact that CO2 in prehistory has tended to follow external forcing rather than to initiate warming only proves that it WAS NOT the forcing which caused warming” if that is true then what makes you think that it is a forcing of warming now when greenhouse gases were much higher in concentration then the past yet temperatures were also a lot cooler as well. As I said before we are adding to an affect expecting the cause to get worse which is a falsified claim because that’s not how the world works! Affects happen becUase of causes. By you claiming that nuclear weapons are getting worse because nuclear radiation from nuclear weapons causes people to die is just like claiming that co2 which you say is what is causing the climate to change in the first place is getting worse therefore we should expect the climate to get worse with it but yet as I said before you start out by saying that co2 was never the cause of climate change in the first place which is what I was saying all along! You failed again loser Elliot!
Can’t post a reply no matter what I try, despite two successful posts at the bottom of the thread. I’ll try and reply down there, which will make the thread a little disjointed. Sorry.
What you seem to be struggling to express without using properly-formed sentences is that you don’t understand that, because CO2 was an effect when produced naturally, it can still be a cause when introduced artificially. Or perhaps that you fail to understand that we have demonstrated the latter based on scientific observations. Or maybe a bit of both.
No matter. Take my word for it: Just because people died naturally in the past, it DOES NOT follow that they cannot be murdered today, or that we cannot take fingerprints and convinct the murderer.
In the same way, the spectrographic fingerprint of CO2 and other GHGs is in the atmosphere and we can not only show that the climate is warming due to CO2e, but can actually measure the effect.
Rise in CO2: https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/
Isotopic signature of fossil-fuel combustion: http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/1473/2011/acp-11-1473-2011.pdf
Signature and properties of GHGs: https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/properties.html
And that’s all she wrote.
You do have a point there. The
Perhaps you do have a point there. Maybe the Changes in co2 are so tiny that they don’t have a noticeable affect on the climate system yet. I need more links to that so I can look into that a bit more. However, If co2 does happen to have a tiny impact on the climate how long do you think it will take before the warmin from emissions of co2 and other greenhouse gases catch up with the natural changes in climate. According to Murry salby we should only expect another .2 degrees in C by the end of this century. He also states that in 50 years though 75% of our fossil fuels will be exhausted and only 25% will be left for the next 50 years. IF and that’s a big IF which still needs more studying and observations. If you happen to be right and we continue to burn fossil fuels for centuries to come we would expect a warming that could disturb the climate system because the sensitive would have already caught up with the natural variablety am I right? But people like algore claim that co2 has such a catastrophic effect that the world is going to end in 50 years because the earth is going to warm 10 degrees.
Elliot I encourage you to look at this link and see why people like idiot Al gore shouldn’t be trusted
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=54ShNrTNzfQ
Elliot, As far as climate sensitivity goes in the long term if we manage to continue to burn fossil fuels I am sorry I doubted you my friend and as for you to dr Roy spencer. However no one and I mean no one can convince me that climate change is the greatest threat to mankind and Mother Nature as we speak!
Exactly right! And nuclear radiation was never a cause of death to begin with, so how can nuclear weapons possibly be dangerous now?
Exactly right Elliot! And how can we expect co2 concentration in the atmosphere to be worse even though it was never a cause of climate change?
Because we are putting more of it in the atmosphere! Duh!
Elliot, again, You say that nuclear radiation was never a cause of death so how can nuclear weapons be dangerous now yet you fail to say the affect of them being dangerous because they are dangerous. It’s just like saying that although co2 is an affect of climate change we are adding to the affect because we are releasing more co2 into the atmosphere but yet you don’t say how that affects climate change simply because climate change never was a cause of climate change in the first place it is an affect of it! Sorry Elliot but facts are facts and nothing you say or do can change them!
When you are skate boarding and you fall as an effect from losing balance and you try to change how you fall next time you lose balance thinking that some how that will prevent you from falling?! Of course not!
http://s157.photobucket.com/user/izzy_bizzy_photo/media/capture4.jpg.html
Dr Spencer,
A comment of mine has vanished into the abyss, I know not why.
If you feel like retrieving it, fine. I can’t be bothered rewriting it.
Cheers.
There must be something wrong in the new message moderation plugin because I can’t see my last message too.
I tried to repost it a couple of times but nothing happened.
Have a great day.
Massimo
I think it has to do with the posting limit, although I saw similar behaviour before it was introduced, so there is probably a more general problem which the limit just provokes. On Linux, Firefox takes you to a message about the limit being reached. On a Windows machine, I notice it just goes off into the void. You’ll find that if you have the page still open, the “back” button (unusually) retrieves your text input, so you can get it back.
Thanks Elliott,
I already reached your same conclusion because at home with Firefox I get the message while here at office I just have the message voided.
What I don’t realize is why this message is accepted instead.
Have a great day.
Massimo
I can’t post some text to elucidate the links I posted above no matter how I reformat and rewrite it. The text seems to be completely innocuous, but it’s just not getting through. The site seems to have some serious bugs. I might try later from my Linux machine, as the submission format might be subtly different.
Wow! 600 posts of ‘tit for tat’. I guess this is how our climate works. For each expressive change there is an opposing counter balance, just like the posts on this forum. (Wink!)
Every conservation law has an associated symmetry…
The Barrier Reef is taking a serious hammering from anthropogenic warming. Here’s the first mammel species driven extinct by AW: Right on top of the reef.
https://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/wildlife/threatened-species/documents/bramble-cay-melomys-survey-report.pdf
incontrovertible fact of coral reefs: growth is limited by cooler SST, not warmer SST. Bignell comes here to splatter the wall with the alarmist drivel and calls it science.
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/coral_bleach.html
Elliot,
Why do u think it is that not a single person advocating for the CAGW position has the balls to actually bet on it while a non-credentialed amateur denialist such as myself would be happy to plunk down all sorts of cold hard cash against the consensus position ?
odd don’t u think ?
David
whats the old saw, money talks bull$%$# walks ?
Because you are gamblers and we are thinkers. But if you would supply the date and time stamp of any concrete prediction I have made on this blog, together with the quantitative metric thereby implied for determining the outcome, then I will consider accepting a bet on my assertions. The condition is that you repsond within 24 hours with a speecific case, or the record will show that YOU are the one who lacks the gonads.
By the way, I want the tax money back that you spent on subsidising fossil fuels.
That seems to be more than 24 hours. You lack reproductive organs.
In the southern Red Sea SST reaches 34 C in the summer (93 F), yet coral and coral reefs thrive in this water (screeches of alarm subside in the background). Bignell will say it’s a lie because there is no link. Watch.
No, I will say that Red Sea corals are adapted to Red Sea conditions, and that they have accordingly suffered bleaching events due to warming in their own environment. (See link.)
There’s no point in asking you for links. You consist entirely of warm methane and have no idea whether support for your claims even exists, let alone what it should look like or where to find it.
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/biblio/susceptibility-central-red-sea-corals-during-major-bleaching-event
@David,
Perhaps you should put on your “reading comprehension hat” and re-read the last paragraph, including: “The above discussion is nowhere near exhaustive; Im just trying to stimulate thought and discussion on an issue I feel very strongly about”.
I’m sorry the real world isn’t exhibiting the warming your favorite models predict, indicating that climate sensitivity is in fact lower than most climate alarmists think. Actually, no I’m not.
Look at the trend calculation on Spencer’s dataset for the graphs he posts on this blog. The warming is there, just as it is in all the other temperature series. You also need to explain why sea-level is rising from thermal expansion if you want to pretend you can’t see the warming, by the way.
0.8C warming to date plus 1.2C per century measured by the UAH series add up to nearly 2C this Century before one even stops to think about the exponential rise in atmospheric CO2. That’s already in the second-largest temperature-rise scenario (A2) of the IPCC’s 2007 projections.
Sea level rise: http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/
IPCC Projections: https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html
Lol it’s clear that people like Elliot and MarkB have no understanding on co2s impact on the climate works even posting charts like this:
http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
Or saying things like “nuclear radiation was never a cause of death so how can nuclear weapons be dangerous now?” Don’t prove Dideoly squat! Simply because:
A- that chart that mark posted of the overall linear trend on where the climate is headed started out cooler in 1979 because the sun was still in its 206 year warming phase up until 1998 when the temperatures paused and there was no global warming yet people draw lines showing the overall trend like that by simply playing a game of connecting the dots and ignoring the fact that co2 and changes in temperature never had a direct correlation with each other whatsoever.
B. Notice how Elliot says that the effect of nuclear radiation was never a cause of people’s deaths so how can nuclear weapons be worse now? First of all nuclear radiation is the effect of people’s deaths in his sake so what he’s saying is that nuclear weapons which have nothing to do with the affect of people dying causing more nuclear radiation is making more people die causing less nuclear radiation even though we are adding more nuclear radiation with nuclear weapons at the same time yet less people are dying and more nuclear radiation is being added to the atmosphere causing more people to die when nuclear radiation has always been the effect of people dying
Posting text separately to try to get past bug in blog:
“co2 and changes in temperature never had a direct correlation with each other whatsoever.”
This is false. Palaeoclimate reconstructions of the last 400,000 years show a very strong correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature: (Link omitted)
Ice-core records show that CO2 levels LAG temperatures by about 800 years, which of course in itself entails a correlation: (Link omitted)
These data strongly confirm what I have already said: CO2 can be directly measured to be a forcing, right down to the individual spectral lines; CO2 lags temperature in natural cycles because it is also a feedback. This is Bad News, because it means that adding CO2 will activate a feedback that will eventually produce more CO2. When the feedback-induced emissions exceed the anthropogenic, we reach a “tipping point”, where we can no longer draw down emissions enough to reverse the effect. So we need to have acted before this point is reached.
The claim that CO2 was not a cause in the past very obviously cannot show, even in principle, that it is not a cause now for elementary logical reasons, as the simile of death by radiation illustrates.
Don’t worry, CC4R, a lot of people will get it.
Odd. Only the links won’t go through. Trying tinyurls:
http://tinyurl.com/bc5s5f
http://tinyurl.com/gwmk6x3
The saddest part about all this climate sensitivity crap is that real climate scientists like dr Roy spencer know that there is no climate sensitivity there just not allowed to admit or else there whole job will go down the drain. So instead they provide an “upper bound” in science which is a back up theory God forbid there theory goes wrong and then when the climate really cools and people say 20 years from now ha dr spencer I thought you said that and then all he has to say is no! I said that humans are somewhat responsible for the change in temperature not completely irresponsible for it and then people like Al gore say well dr spencer I appreciate that at least you think that co2 causes very little if any of the warming to the climate system! Meanwhile the hoax will then be changed and algore will instead say ladies and gentlemen theres a new study out that shows that there is no significant global warming however it also states that man causes insignificant global warming which can turn into a big mess in centuries to come for now! That is why dr spencer sadly cannot admit the truth!
Dr. Spencer, this man just accused you of fraud. Please have him executed.
Ego doth flow ever abundant in the forest of speculation and contrivance.
Dr Spencer- whats this all about? is it as hit piece/smear campaign? or true?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/roy-spencer-peabody-energy_us_57601e12e4b053d43306535e
“One of the worlds largest coal companies, Peabody Energy, paid a prominent scientist and dozens of others to promote climate change denial, new documents reveal.
The companys list of creditors, filed to comply with financial disclosure requirements as part of its recent bankruptcy, shows just how many different organizations and individuals Peabody Energy paid to deny climate change. The watchdog group Center for Media and Democracy published a breakdown of creditors that details their affiliations.
One such creditor is Roy Spencer, who teaches at the University of Alabama, Huntsville. Spencer, a vocal denier of climate change science who writes a popular blog, has a Ph.D. in meteorology from University of Wisconsin-Madison and was once employed by NASA, according to his website. The Senate often asks him to testify about climate science.
Spencers website claims he has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.
Yet, Peabody Energys bankruptcy documents show that Spencer is a creditor. As part of a Greenpeace undercover investigation published in late 2015, Spencer reportedly told Greenpeace representatives that he had received $4,000 from Peabody Energy in exchange for testifying at a hearing about climate science in Minnesota.”
If that statement of $4k is true. It sounds to me more like his expenses for the trip to Minnesota were covered.
Cause why would he come testify if he had to pay for his own expenses?
Just a thought…
$4k doesn’t go very far these days.
+1
Well, well. I’m using one of my ten shots a day to tell you this – aren’t I nice?: I posted a text above with URLs and it wouldn’t go through. I took out the URLs and posted them separately and the text went through but the URLs did not. I then converted the same URLs using tinyURL and posted them again and they went through. Something about some URLs is causing the site to reject posts as malformed queries. This is not the only bug, but this seems a firm indication that it is a bug.
Dr. Roy, might I suggest using a different blog host, perhaps one of those that allow one to sign on with a Facebook and/or Googol account. This would have a subsidiary advantage, because I generally block certain types of debater after the first exchange on Facebook. Some people simply have no value to contribute, and I am sure the feeling is often mutual. About half of the exchange above would have been forestalled because I would have simply blocked mpainter and CC4R months ago had I had the option.
Take you camera out Elliott, take a few more pictures of yourself… you are so important to one person… you.
.. NO-ONE sane is in the least bit interested in your non-science nonsense.
“people simply have no value to contribute”
Mirror, mirror.. Look at yourself, as usual, Iddiott.
“because I would have simply blocked mpainter and CC4R months ago ”
Because you have NO COUNTER to their knowledge.
Its called COWARDICE. !!
See what I mean?
I come here from time to time to educate myself on the claims and counterclaims in the AGW debate. Thus far, having read a few comments, and then scanned a whole bunch of comments, and then given a cursory glance to many, many more, I have concluded that the educational value of the comment section is inversely proportional to the word-count hegemony exerted by one or two self-styled geniuses with – we are to be constantly reminded, lest we adopt a posture of unacceptable disrespect – off-the-charts IQs and no discernible life other than trolling Dr. Spencer’s blog.
Skeptically yours,
Brent
well said
So now the denial industry is reduced to whining that the other side has all the arguments.
Figures.
“well said”
But content-free.
“But content-free”
Yes, compared to you and a couple of others, who occupy the other end of the spectrum.
Not the point, of course. You monopolize this blog with endless content, while others with perhaps less time (and more civility) are powerless to do anything about it other than to ignore it.
If I were Roy Spencer I don’t know what I’d do. He says he doesn’t have time to actively moderate and I believe him. The blog is less important to him than to others like Judy Curry. I wish he’s change his mind and get a graduate student or someone to help him moderate. My guess is he has the resources but priorities cause him to expend them elsewhere. Too bad.
But this shouldn’t result in a few bloggers, through ego, too much free time, compensation or whatever, crowding out perhaps “less motivated” bloggers. You and a couple others, Elliot, are unfairly taking advantage of this situation.
I mentioned earlier that science-denial has a structure, which one comes to recognise after a time when dealing with creationists, AW-deniers, 9-11 Troofers and the like. One characteristic symptom is that after a while they eventually resort to trying to use the fact that one is posting at all to dimiss one’s arguments. One can always spot it as the posts end up making no reference whatsoever to the arguments contained in the posts. The very fact that one has time to post on a subject is presented as if it were evidence that one should not be talking about it. It’s a desperation tactic, it hardly needs pointing out.
It is a form of subject-changing, combined with ad hominem. The Argument from Al Gore is essentially similar, as is the attempt to argue that the other side is motivated by financial motivations by introducing the subject of financial motivation with no obvious relevance to the prior arguments.
Needless to say, no AW-denier will ever advance an argument of this kind against his own side. Deniers can spam the same piece of text 40 times in a row, while dodging a direct challenge to produce support, and their fellows will simply not notice (see above). This has a historical precedent, of course: “The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” – George Orwell
Another potential reason why climate sensitivity is underestimated: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/16/russia-significantly-under-reporting-wildfires-figures-show
Russia appears to be under-reporting forest burn by a factor of at least 7, based on satellite data.
Dr. Roy, can you explain to us why all your “potential reasons” point in the opposite direction, while not actually sharing a coherent, physical mechanism?
Climatechange4Realz – Reply to thread from yesterday:
What in the name of Satan’s Gonads does Al Gore have to do with it?
“However no one and I mean no one can convince me that climate change is the greatest threat to mankind and Mother Nature as we speak!”
I find nothing objectionable in this. The problem is the denial that it exists at all, or that it must be acted upon.
Climatechange4Realz – I am spending a lot of my daily limit just trying to work out why this reply won’t post. Let’s try another edit:
UAH shows a 0.12K per decade trend. The record shows 0.8K to date over 1880. If we are to take Salby’s word for it over the consensus projections, then we need a concrete reason to prefer his estimate. The simple fact that it is lower is not a reason.
Heavily edited. If this gets through I have no idea why it didn’t before.
Here’s a link to one of his presentations:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K_hBOU26F5o
You mean there’s actually a “daily limit”?
Had me fooled.
Antarctic CO2, at the last station left on Earth where 400ppm had not been reached, has just reached it. This is the first time in 4 million years.
http://tinyurl.com/jjvtfd5
Fascinating animation of global GHG flows here: https://gfycat.com/InexperiencedFalseGypsymoth
Alaska is already looking like setting an annual record temperature: http://tinyurl.com/j3zpexk
Useful mapping facility here, although I see it defaults to stone age British Imperial temperature units rather than scientific: http://tinyurl.com/zey5j64
Coral bleaching penetrates Sydney Harbour for first time: http://tinyurl.com/jkd3tlk