Global warming discussion IV

[Haig]

December 2015 ENSO Update – Shouldn’t Be Long Now Until the El Niño Starts to Decay

This post provides an update of many of the ENSO-related variables we presented as part of last year’s 2014-15 El Niño Series. For the posts this year, we’ve used the evolution years of different El Niños as references to the goings-on in 2015. This month we’re including the 1982/83 and 1997/98 El Niño because they were the strongest El Niños in our short instrument temperature record, comparable to the one this year.

 

[Haig]

Why does Exxon acknowledge AGW and you blather on oblivious to reality. They knew in the 70s - you haven't a clue going on 40 years later.

I can't answer "why" for Exxon but I can answer "why" for me

"CO2 is a “trace gas” in air, insignificant by definition. It absorbs 1/7th as much IR, heat energy, from sunlight as water vapor which has 188 times as many molecules capturing 1200 times as much heat making 99.8% of all “global warming.” CO2 does only 0.2% of it. For this we should destroy our economy?

There is no “greenhouse effect” in an atmosphere. A greenhouse has a solid, clear cover that traps heat. The atmosphere does not trap heat as gas molecules cannot form surfaces to work as greenhouses. Molecules must be in contact, as in liquids and solids to form surfaces.

The Medieval Warming from 800 AD to 1300 AD Micheal Mann erased for his “hockey stick” was several Fahrenheit degrees warmer than anything “global warmers” fear. It was 500 years of world peace and abundance,the longest in history.

Vostock Ice Core data analysis show CO2 increases follow temperature by 800 years 19 times in 450,000 years. Thus temperature change is cause and CO2 change is effect. This alone refutes the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.

Methane is called “a greenhouse gas 20 to 500 times more potent than CO2,” by Heidi Cullen and Jim Hansen, but it is not per the energy absorption chart at the American Meteorological Society. It has an absorption profile very similar to nitrogen which is classified “transparent” to IR, heat waves and is only present to 18 ppm. “Green vegans” blame methane in cow flatulence for global warming in their war against eating meat."

and

"the 4 interglacial periods before our current one were all 2 degrees higher than now. And during this one the co2 level is 40% higher (and we're likely to be nearer the end of this interglacial) . You don't need much help from others to figure out that climate is hardly sensitive to co2 level. It also represents just 4/100 of one percent by volume of the atmosphere, so that would seem to be consistent."

source

The climate does change naturally at times ...this is not one of those times. Take your denier crap to the conspiracy forum where it belongs.

You seem a little testy macdoc

Is that aleCcowaN still giving you a hard time on the correct way to defend AGW ?

No they don’t. They show the MCA as 0.5 – 1 deg C cooler than the last decade.OTE]

I disagree

During the Little Ice Age, average global temperatures were 1-1.5 degree Celsius (2-3 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than they are today.

Lot's of other sources too and also see the reply to macdoc above about The Medieval Warming.

What? How can you tell from a “written description” without actual temperature data, that temperatures changes were more extreme? What seems to be going on is that you are assuming 0.5 deg C isn’t very much because it’s smaller and slower than current changes when in fact it’s quite large.

Quite a lot actually can be gleaned from written historical records regarding temperature. The other advantage of disperse written historical records is that they are not very easily altered as climate models can be. Hockey anyone

Furthermore, the populated area of Greenland is a lot farther north now. Greenland’s population is centered around mining areas not the areas most suitable for agriculture as it would have been 600 years ago.

I don't see the Vikings rushing to colonise there again

“Our study shows a major shift towards cooler conditions and extensive sea-ice which coincides with the estimated time for the collapse of the Western Settlement in AD 1350," said Dr Ribeiro.

Did Climate Change Cause Greenland’s Ancient Viking Community to Collapse?

 

[lomiller]

I disagree

Lot's of other sources too

That’s not a source it’s yet another link to a web site making assertions that are completely unsubstantiated by peer reviewed literature. You should take a more skeptical approach than simply believing anything you read on the internet.

 

[Haig]

That’s not a source it’s yet another link to a web site making assertions that are completely unsubstantiated by peer reviewed literature. You should take a more skeptical approach than simply believing anything you read on the internet.

So you are more of a skeptic than me

It is generally accepted that the world was coming out of a little ice age around 1850. The Little Ice Age was a time of cooler climate in most parts of the world. Although there is some disagreement about exactly when the Little Ice Age started, records suggest that temperatures began cooling around 1250 A.D. The coldest time was during the 16th and 17th Centuries. By 1850 the climate began to warm.

During the Little Ice Age, average global temperatures were 1-1.5 degree Celsius (2-3 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than they are today. The cooler temperatures were caused by a combination of less solar activity and large volcanic eruptions. Cooling caused glaciers to advance and stunted tree growth. Livestock died, harvests failed, and humans suffered from famine and disease

source pdf

 

[lomiller]

So you are more of a skeptic than me

Yes.

source pdf

Are you posting this link to debunked pseudoscience to help prove I am more of a skeptic than you?

 

[CapelDodger]

Poor Haig. "Five hundred years of world peace" and he missed it. As did everybody at the time, what with Norsemen, Mongols and Turks running riot and Europeans at each others' throats as per usual.

The "bad" Little Ice Age brought the world no less conflict but the Industrial and Scientific Revolutions as compensation.

The things one has to believe to be an AGW denier these days is an astonishing list. Get that lot under your belt and sun-caused earthquakes must be a doddle.

 

[Reality Check]

Haig: A fact less rant about James Hansen does not help you

The clue is in the TITLE and FIRST line of the article of the source I used

We know what you wrote, Haig - an insult about a "dire" track record from James Hansen. More ranting abut the news article and delusions about a "high priest" does not help you. More mindless parroting does not help you.
Haig's 40 posts of parroted ignorance and lies from climate change deniers dating from 11 May 2015 with the list continuing to grow !

1. 8 December 2015 Haig: It is a lie that James Hansen has a "dire" track record.
2. 8 December 2015 Haig: Swallows paranoiac lies about the IPCC manipulating evidence without checking the facts!
3. 9 December 2015 Haig: A fact less rant about James Hansen does not help you.
4. 9 December 2015 Haig: More mindless citing of climate change deniers (that Marc Morano rant again).
5. 9 December 2015 Haig: A mindless citing of climate change deniers (a 'The Migrant Mind' blog).
6. 9 December 2015 Haig: A mindless citing of climate change deniers (WUWT).
   The last 3 deniers are so stupid that they think that climate science was perfected in 1986 and thus had prefect predictions ! They start with a lie: There was no 1986 prediction by James Hansen - there was an opinion stated to a newspaper reporter.
   What happened is that James Hansen published a predication in 1988 using an existing 1986 model and existing 1986 data. This prediction was 0.6 °C to 1.5 °C by 2020. What do we learn from James Hansen's 1988 prediction?
   

   Although Hansen's projected global temperature increase has been higher than the actual global warming, this is because his climate model used a high climate sensitivity parameter. Had he used the currently accepted value of approximately 3°C warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, Hansen would have correctly projected the ensuing global warming.

 

[Reality Check]

Haig: Parrots the models have not matched predictions lie from some deniers

I note that the graphs are "reconstructions and modeling of temperature" and show the Medieval Warm Period as being not as warm as the Modern Warm Period now..

Well duh, Haig: Any temperatures before the invention of thermometers and the start of temperature recording has to be "reconstructions and modeling of temperature" !

Displaying ignorance about the modern world is really bad, Haig:
The IPCC did no predictions of future temperatures - they collated existing predictions of future temperatures from climate models.
It is a climate change denier lie (e.g. from WUWT) that these predictions have not matched observations. How reliable are climate models?

While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations.

9 December 2015 Haig: Parrots the models have not matched predictions lie we see from some climate change deniers.

 

[Reality Check]

Gezz don't you know Hansen predictions ?

Geez, you think that newspaper articles are scientific literature, Haig ?.
Hansen stated opinions in 1986 newspaper reports. He had not run the model yet - they were guesses. Hansen made predictions in his 1988 paper.

Prehaps you need to get out more if you think sites like WUWT can be dismissed so easily :

You still cannot understand that WUWT has lied to you, Haig, and so you should dismiss it as any thinking person would!
Haig's 40 posts of parroted ignorance and lies from climate change deniers dating from 11 May 2015 with the list continuing to grow !

 

[Reality Check]

Haig: Parrots Anthony Watts lying about the real world (97% consensus)

Claim: positive CO2 feedback from plants due to “warm nights” will flood atmosphere with carbon

Haig's 40 posts of parroted ignorance and lies from climate change deniers dating from 11 May 2015 with the list continuing to grow !
And what do we have here, Haig?
We have the ignorant Anthony Watts ranting about a climate science paper staring with the idiocy of "department of 97% consensus and 911 Trutherism" from obsessing on 2 of the many authors !
Watts starts with a lie: The 97% consensus of climate scientists that AGW is happening has not been debunked - it has actually grown to 98%!
9 December 2015 Haig: Parrots Anthony Watts lying about the real world where there is a 97% consensus.

The paper is
William R. L. Anderegg, Ashley P. Ballantyne, W. Kolby Smith, Joseph Majkut, Sam Rabin, Claudie Beaulieu, Richard Birdsey, John P. Dunne, Richard A. Houghton, Ranga B. Myneni, Yude Pan, Jorge L. Sarmiento, Nathan Serota, Elena Shevliakova, Pieter Tan and Stephen W. Pacala. Tropical nighttime warming as a dominant driver of variability in the terrestrial carbon sink. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2015 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1521479112

A rational explanation of the paper contents: Warm nights could flood the atmosphere with carbon under climate change

Note this is bad - more CO2 = higher temperatures and more likelihood of hitting the 4C mark for catastrophic effects.

 

[Reality Check]

Haig: An irrelevant post from the ignorant Bob Tisdale of WUWT

December 2015 ENSO Update – Shouldn’t Be Long Now Until the El Niño Starts to Decay

Another WUWT post this time from the ignorant Bob Tisdale.
27 August 2015 Haig: Bob Tisdale is an ignorant climate change denier, not a climate researcher.
This is an irrelevant rehash of his previous posts about the ENSO with an update. It could be replaced with a link to real climate science, e.g. IRI ENSO Forecast.
9 December 2015 Haig: An irrelevant post from the ignorant Bob Tisdale of WUWT

 

[Reality Check]

Haig: Insanely ignorant greenhouse effect denial

"CO2 is a “trace gas” in air, insignificant by definition.

Your delusions about climate are not what the science says, Haig. Way to come out of the shadows as a full scale climate change denier basing their statements on total denial of the real world.
9 December 2015 Haig: A CO2 is a trace gas and is insignificant fantasy.
CO2 is not the only driver of climate

While there are many drivers of climate, CO2 is the most dominant radiative forcing and is increasing faster than any other forcing.

There is no “greenhouse effect” in an atmosphere.

9 December 2015 Haig: Insanely ignorant greenhouse effect denial .
9 December 2015 Haig: A delusion about Michael Mann "erasing" medieval warming.
Michael Mann's hockey graph and later papers have reconstructed the temperatures in the past 2000 years. They have shown that no global medieval warming happened. Mann 2009 in fact showed that local medieval warming happened for regions in the Northern Hemisphere.
What evidence is there for the hockey stick?
How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures? (answer - globally cooler).
9 December 2015 Haig: A lie about historical (non anthropogenic) refuting AGW!
9 December 2015 Haig: A methane is not a greenhouse gas delusion. CH4 has about a quarter of the radiative forcing of CO2.
CO2 is not the only driver of climate

 

[Haig]

Yes.

Well done! But how can you then believe in AGW ?

Are you posting this link to debunked pseudoscience to help prove I am more of a skeptic than you?

Nope, that was more info for a previous post.

This is a debunk of the pseudoscience of AGW Enjoy!

Climate Change is Unfalsifiable Woo-Woo Pseudoscience

Published on 8 Dec 2015
Karl Popper famously said, “A theory that explains everything explains nothing.” So what do you make of the theory that catastrophic manmade CO2-driven “climate change” can account for harsher winters and lighter winters, more snow and less snow, droughts and floods, more hurricanes and less hurricanes, more rain and less rain, more malaria and less malaria, saltier seas and less salty seas, Antarctica ice melting and Antarctic ice gaining and dozens of other contradictions? Popper gave a name to “theories” like this: pseudoscience.

 

[macdoc]

Tell that to the Navy ...time to lose the pseudo-science crap you've been polluting the forum with ad nauseum against specific mod rules

The U.S. Navy’s $500 million ship that’s ready for disaster in a warmer world
By David Axe December 9, 2015

The USNS Lewis B. Puller. COURTESY OF GENERAL DYNAMICS/NASSCO

Culturally, the U.S. military is a fairly conservative organization. But unlike many other conservative American institutions, the armed services harbor no doubt about arguably the most important issue in the world today — one that has drawn experts, advocates and leaders from all over the world to Paris for an historic conference.

Climate change.

The military believes in it. And it’s already preparing for a world with a climate that’s hotter, more volatile and more destructive. It is evident in the armed forces’ investment in solar energy to power their bases and in their experimentation with renewable, non-petroleum “bio-fuels.”

And the Defense Department’s commitment to addressing climate change is also apparent in the kinds of equipment it buys. Today, the National Steel and Shipbuilding Company, part of defense giant General Dynamics, is building a new ship for the Navy that’s ideal for dealing with the consequences of a warmer, more volatile world.

The $500-million Expeditionary Mobile Base vessel — 784 feet long from bow to stern — combines all the most important features the military believes ships will need to respond to the more frequent and more severe natural disasters.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-deba...p-thats-ready-for-disaster-in-a-warmer-world/

 

[Haig]

Tell that to the Navy ...time to lose the pseudo-science crap you've been polluting the forum with ad nauseum against specific mod rules

That's pure projection macdoc

Some awkward questions for the AGW believers being asked ...

Tables turned: Scientist Judith Curry and Author Mark Steyn question, school Sen Markey on climate

 

[Reality Check]

Haig: The delusion that AGW is pseudoscience.

This is a debunk of the pseudoscience of AGW

10 December 2015 Haig: The delusion that AGW is pseudoscience.
That is a YouTube video. James Corbett ranting about the various predictions of climate science does not make it pseudoscience. James Corbett lying about climate science does not make it pseudoscience. James Corbett lying about a "catastrophic" AGW existing does not make climate science does not make it pseudoscience

 

[Reality Check]

Haig : Cites WUWT lying about a congressional committee meeting

Some awkward questions for the AGW believers being asked ...

10 December 2015 Haig : Cites WUWT lying about a congressional committee meeting.
Judith Curry was objecting to her portrayal basically as a climate change denier and goes on an irrelevant Gish Gallop that almost confirms her as a denier!
She asserts a flat line in temperatures and Markey points out that a chart of the global temperatures is just over her shoulder
Markey states standard climate science: warmer winter sea water = more moisture on the atmosphere = more snow.

Mark Steyn is the guy interrupting with stupid questions since he is a shock jock. Why Is Shock Jock Mark Steyn Testifying At A Senate Hearing On Climate Science?

 

[Reality Check]

Haig: Greenhouse effect denier - what more need be said

Haig's 40 posts of parroted ignorance and lies from climate change deniers dating from 11 May 2015 with the list continuing to grow !

1. 8 December 2015 Haig: It is a lie that James Hansen has a "dire" track record.
2. 8 December 2015 Haig: Swallows paranoiac lies about the IPCC manipulating evidence without checking the facts!
3. 9 December 2015 Haig: A fact less rant about James Hansen does not help you.
4. 9 December 2015 Haig: More mindless citing of climate change deniers (that Marc Morano rant again).
5. 9 December 2015 Haig: A mindless citing of climate change deniers (a 'The Migrant Mind' blog).
6. 9 December 2015 Haig: A mindless citing of climate change deniers (WUWT).
   The last 3 deniers are so stupid that they think that climate science was perfected in 1986 and thus had prefect predictions ! They start with a lie: There was no 1986 prediction by James Hansen - there was an opinion stated to a newspaper reporter.
   What happened is that James Hansen published a predication in 1988 using an existing 1986 model and existing 1986 data. This prediction was 0.6 °C to 1.5 °C by 2020. What do we learn from James Hansen's 1988 prediction?
7. 9 December 2015 Haig: Parrots the models have not matched predictions lie we see from some climate change deniers.
8. 9 December 2015 Haig: Parrots Anthony Watts lying about the real world where there is a 97% consensus.
9. 9 December 2015 Haig: An irrelevant post from the ignorant Bob Tisdale of WUWT
10. 9 December 2015 Haig: A CO2 is a trace gas and is insignificant fantasy.
11. 9 December 2015 Haig: Insanely ignorant greenhouse effect denial .
12. 9 December 2015 Haig: A delusion about Michael Mann "erasing" medieval warming.
13. 9 December 2015 Haig: A lie about historical (non anthropogenic) refuting AGW!
14. 9 December 2015 Haig: A methane is not a greenhouse gas delusion. CH4 has about a quarter of the radiative forcing of CO2.
15. 10 December 2015 Haig: The delusion that AGW is pseudoscience.
16. 10 December 2015 Haig : Cites WUWT lying about a congressional committee meeting.

Now that Haig has revealed the total ignorance of denying the greenhouse effect, there is no need to document any more of his delusion about science.

Haig: Greenhouse effect denier - what more need be said ! Except that he has 56 posts of parroted ignorance, delusions and lies from climate change deniers with some of his ignorance, delusions and a lie or two.

 

[macdoc]

Judith Curry is a paid shill of the fossil fuel interests and she just made an ass of herself once again.
Your fellow travelers are only slightly less ignorant of climate science than you...at least they are getting paid for it.

Judith Curry - SourceWatch
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Judith_Curry
Jump to Fossil fuel industry funding - Curry receives ongoing funding from the fossil fuel industry. In an interview with Curry for a October 2010 Scientific ...

 

[Reality Check]

If you really want to see how bad asking Mark Steyn to testify was have a look at the ranting in his prepared remarks for the committee (PDF). This is mostly an anti-Mann tirade.
"Michael Mann of Penn State, who is too cowardly to be here today and has instead sent his proxy"!
"Mann and his fellow ayatollahs of alarmism"
Paranoia about "if you cross Mann and the other climate mullahs, there goes tenure, there goes funding, there goes your career".
Quotes his lie of " Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change ‘hockey-stick’ graph" (the graph was not faked and has been confirmed).
The delusion of a "fake 97 per cent consensus".
A total derail into his musical theater expertise !
A lie about a " two-decade global-warming pause".