How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic

[TrueSceptic]

The original graph was based on a NASA graph. Yes, the x-axis was in error; yes, the graph was out of date. This does not make it a "fake" nor does it make it not a NASA graph, nor does it make it misrepresentation. Sloppy, yes, fake, no. A scientist who took reasonable due diligence before criticising the programme would have made the correct claims, not distorted claims of the type you and RMS made. The nuance is subtle, but seems to have gone over your head.

You appear to have very basic comprehension difficulties.

McIntyre refers to a different graph: straw man fallacy.

The graph, as shown in the original TGGWS and cited by Ward, was never published by NASA. Ward was correct.

 

[Klimax]

Hi Klimax.

Welcome. I look forward to more from you. Do you have any links to the above?

Links to what?There are multiple things in my post and I do not know which one do you want.(Or all? )

 

[Klimax]

klimax, I am at a loss as to how to view your comments. Motl every now and then analyzes what he thinks is an important article in climate science. Sure I will link to those. Although many of the "warmers" here may be critical of my opinions, I cannot recall any directly ever digging into one of Motl's analysis and refuting it.

Sure you can use him as addtional source,but not as primary.As I said he is not climate scientist and so his interpretation is often as good as ours,so he is not a good authority for this...

I have NO knowledge of Czech politics by the way.

I know,that is why I am leaving that part of his blog out...

 

[TrueSceptic]

Links to what?There are multiple things in my post and I do not know which one do you want.(Or all? )

BTW He [Motl] likes cenzorship of opposition,he banned me from comments for petty reason...

 

[David Rodale]

How are they irrelevant? Because, you deem them so?

Empty assertions are nothing more than waffle. Explain the disagreement for us, if you can.

Try using just tad bit of logic, if possible.

If a linear regression trend is said to be .14deg/dec in the positive over 28 years, and it begins to move negative at .14deg/dec, it can still be said (by a logically vacuous individual) it is warming for the next 20+ years. What part of that is difficult to comprehend? Megalodon's favorite color graph does just that.

The fun part is Megalodon has said I based my claims on using 1998 (El Nino) in my assertion. The kicker, it is not, and Megalodon's pretty graphs do.

There are a number of more qualified analysis available to support what I've been saying for the last 6 months.

Also, and I'm asking that you think really hard now.....what is the likelihood (probability) that 2008 will not be in the top ten years? Hint; not very high. See, you must be able to go beyond the fluff.

If you want to join the village idiot and be convinced that since 2001 the temperature trend has not flattened, all you must do is, well, be an idiot.

No more graphs, bar charts or discussion on this matter will be done on my part. If you wish to see a thorough analysis, they are available, but from what I can tell you have no interest.

There is a reason why the 2007 predictions were completely dismantled, which were well documented in earlier threads. The lack of ocean warming is the crux of the matter. These questions must be answered, but you don't seem to think they do.

Keep the blinders on Truesceptic.

And remember, the sun has no influence on weather or climate; it's an incandescent light bulb. So that in the coming year when temperatures fail to warm as IPCC predicted, you can be reassured the weakening strength of the sun had nothing to with it, even though SC23 keeps lingering on. A discussion at Anthony Watts weblog concerning NASA's moving the goalposts

 

[David Rodale]

Sure you can use him as addtional source,but not as primary.As I said he is not climate scientist and so his interpretation is often as good as ours,so he is not a good authority for this...




I know,that is why I am leaving that part of his blog out...

Define "climate scientist" for us all.

 

[Megalodon]

Try using just tad bit of logic, if possible.

In your mouth, logic is a dirty word...

If a linear regression trend is said to be .14deg/dec in the positive over 28 years, and it begins to move negative at .14deg/dec, it can still be said (by a logically vacuous individual) it is warming for the next 20+ years. What part of that is difficult to comprehend? Megalodon's favorite color graph does just that.

Congrats... you've made a fool of yourself, once again... my color graphs have no trends. I know it's dificult to grasp, but well... you do need some kind of nervous system to achieve it...

The fun part is Megalodon has said I based my claims on using 1998 (El Nino) in my assertion. The kicker, it is not, and Megalodon's pretty graphs do.

And the funnier part is that, when I said it, you had just done it... or better yet, one of your blogger friends, from whom your constantly stealing stupid ideas, had done it.

There are a number of more qualified analysis available to support what I've been saying for the last 6 months.

You are gettin closer and closer of becoming certifiable...

Also, and I'm asking that you think really hard now.....what is the likelihood (probability) that 2008 will not be in the top ten years? Hint; not very high. See, you must be able to go beyond the fluff.

And that is a sign of cooling... I get it...

If you want to join the village idiot and be convinced that since 2001 the temperature trend has not flattened, all you must do is, well, be an idiot.

For that he would have to agree with you, Davey boy

No more graphs, bar charts or discussion on this matter will be done on my part.

You never did any... You stole work, it's a different thing.

There is a reason why the 2007 predictions were completely dismantled, which were well documented in earlier threads.

You are out of your mind... 2007 tied with 1998 as the 2nd warmest year on record... with a La Niña.

The lack of ocean warming is the crux of the matter. These questions must be answered, but you don't seem to think they do.

The problem is that no one takes you seriously, since what you say doesn't make sense...

And remember, the sun has no influence on weather or climate; it's an incandescent light bulb.

And here you show yourself as a... well, as you have accustumed us.. Of course the sun has an influence, discovered and documented by Tsung et al (2007). It explains the recent flattening of the temperature trend, which in the absence of GHG would have been a temperature drop. You have been explained all these things, and still persist in your delusions.

Now let's see if you really have me on ignore...

 

[TrueSceptic]

Try using just tad bit of logic, if possible.

If a linear regression trend is said to be .14deg/dec in the positive over 28 years, and it begins to move negative at .14deg/dec, it can still be said (by a logically vacuous individual) it is warming for the next 20+ years. What part of that is difficult to comprehend? Megalodon's favorite color graph does just that.

It shows the data. Nothing more nor less. If it doesn't show what you like, that's your problem, not Megalodon's or mine.

The fun part is Megalodon has said I based my claims on using 1998 (El Nino) in my assertion. The kicker, it is not, and Megalodon's pretty graphs do.

I don't recall if you did, but comparisons with 1998 are rife in GWS claims.

There are a number of more qualified analysis available to support what I've been saying for the last 6 months.

Also, and I'm asking that you think really hard now.....what is the likelihood (probability) that 2008 will not be in the top ten years? Hint; not very high. See, you must be able to go beyond the fluff.

If you want to join the village idiot and be convinced that since 2001 the temperature trend has not flattened, all you must do is, well, be an idiot.

Hmm. Idiot? Yes, it's flattened. So what?

No more graphs, bar charts or discussion on this matter will be done on my part. If you wish to see a thorough analysis, they are available, but from what I can tell you have no interest.

I like honest graphs. I also like graphs that are so obviously dishonest that they make me laugh.

There is a reason why the 2007 predictions were completely dismantled, which were well documented in earlier threads. The lack of ocean warming is the crux of the matter. These questions must be answered, but you don't seem to think they do.

Not me. I haven't adddressed that.

Keep the blinders on Truesceptic.

And remember, the sun has no influence on weather or climate; it's an incandescent light bulb. So that in the coming year when temperatures fail to warm as IPCC predicted, you can be reassured the weakening strength of the sun had nothing to with it, even though SC23 keeps lingering on. A discussion at Anthony Watts weblog concerning NASA's moving the goalposts

What blinders? I can see very clearly how you think and behave.

 

[varwoche]

It is patently absurd to hang sloppy/biased news reports around the neck of climate scientists. If we're going to use press reporting (cherry-picked or otherwise) to judge the state of the science, then it's a simple matter to discredit all fields of science.

Following up here Dr. Imago, I know you said you were bowing out of the discussion but I'm hoping you're reading and perhaps inclined to respond...

You said you were an MD, yes? In order to evaluate the state of the medical science on a given topic, is it a sound to use news reports as the basis? More to the point, would it be rational to condemn medical science (imagine "medical science" scare-quoted for the full effect) based solely on cherry-picked news reports, as you have done in regard to climate science?

Presumed answer: Of course not.

What about opinion pieces placed on the internet by agenda-driven, non-experts? For instance, would you condemn medical science because of biased articles at a site such as BanTobaccoNow.com? (fictitious)

Presumed answer: Of course not.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Presumed answer: Of course not.

I think he said that he had said all he had to say, and he meant it.

The sort of double-think he displayed is not unusual in GWS.

 

[mhaze]

Try using just tad bit of logic, if possible.
.....in the coming year when temperatures fail to warm as IPCC predicted, you can be reassured the weakening strength of the sun had nothing to with it, even though SC23 keeps lingering on. A discussion at Anthony Watts weblog concerning NASA's moving the goalposts

From your link to Watts -

If we go to May or later before the solar min is reached, cycle 23 will be the longest cycle since the late 1800s.

Now if that favored warming, it would being shouted from the rooftops, babbled in the pop sci AGW tv "documentaries", etc.

Oops....it doesn't do that at all....

 

[a_unique_person]

klimax, I am at a loss as to how to view your comments. Motl every now and then analyzes what he thinks is an important article in climate science. Sure I will link to those. Although many of the "warmers" here may be critical of my opinions, I cannot recall any directly ever digging into one of Motl's analysis and refuting it.

Although they are certainly free to do so.

I have NO knowledge of Czech politics by the way.

I would seriously doubt you remember anything being refuted.

 

[mhaze]

I would seriously doubt you remember anything being refuted.

Interesting point.

Which blogs or figures have we often seen refuted?

Tamino and realclimate come to mind for warmer sites.

Motl hasn't been brought up that often, but I do not remember anyone correcting his math, facts or analysis.

Climateaudit, there is such a massive overload of material there, there should have been a few errors.

Any actual refutation of argument made by Piekle?

 

[VonNeumann]

Methane?

Maybe I don't know how to properly use the tool to search a thread for a keyword, but I only found two references to methane (maybe I should have searched for CH4?) and neither reference was about what I think is very salient with respect to this subject.

About a year ago, Scientific American magazine produced an article about the Methane output of living plants. I was amused how they even put a disclaimer in the article in large bold orange print that apologized for the article being possible material for AGW-deniers and to reinforce the notion that the article did not have the intent behind it of bolstering the position of doubters.

The crux was that the assumption was found to be false, that the CH4 output of decaying organic matter is the only important plant output of methane we should be concerned with. What they discovered was that living plants emit methane on a constant basis, and this constant output much exceeds the output of the plant when it dies and decays. ...if for no other reason that decay is a transient case (material gets used up and it halts) vs living plants continue to produce over a long span of time.

The other important consideration is the greenhouse weighted factor for CH4 vs CO2. Methane is much more dense and is that much more a contributor than would be CO2. Also, world-wide natural methane production to the atmosphere by flora is greater than man-made production of atmospheric hydrocarbons.

One last thought... didn't President Reagan's administration receive nothing but scoffing at the notion that a tree produces more atmospheric hydrocarbons than a plurality of average automobiles?

I didn't have time to read through this thread but I was surprised, since this article was in SciAm a year ago, that methane sourced by plants is not one of the first points of discussion in any controversy on the subject of AGW. ... or is the SciAm article wrong?

 

[Alric]

Because the unprecedented rise in atmospheric methane is anthropogenic. Unless the argument has been made that plant methane output has increased since industrial times along with co2.

 

[mhaze]

I didn't have time to read through this thread but I was surprised, since this article was in SciAm a year ago, that methane sourced by plants is not one of the first points of discussion in any controversy on the subject of AGW. ... or is the SciAm article wrong?

Not wrong. lots of interesting things about methane.

1) methane by plants
We only figured this out a year ago. Some say (or used to say) the "science is settled".

2) Atmospheric Methane (contrary to Alric's comment) has been flat for a decade. Why?

3) Supposedly 16% or so of all AGW is due to methane from livestock, and 4% from methane from dams.

4) A large percentage of "CO2 offsets" are tracable to methane, not CO2 control schemes. For example a 3rd world village may shovel all manure into a tent, burn methane from a top stovepipe, and try to sell carbon offsets for the "good" they have done.

 

[CapelDodger]

The crux was that the assumption was found to be false, that the CH4 output of decaying organic matter is the only important plant output of methane we should be concerned with. What they discovered was that living plants emit methane on a constant basis, and this constant output much exceeds the output of the plant when it dies and decays. ...if for no other reason that decay is a transient case (material gets used up and it halts) vs living plants continue to produce over a long span of time.

Decay is transient for an individua, but it's a constant process, just as life is. Life, death, decay. It's been going on for a heck of a long time, and what it demonstrably hasn't caused is a constant accumulation of atmospheric methane. The reason for which is that methane, oxygen, and sunlight make for a marriage born in heaven.

If there's an accumulation of methane now it's not because plant life has suddenly turned inimical to us. Something else must be in play. Pumping up hydrocarbons from deep underground and melting permafrost are reasonable candidates. Trees ain't.

 

[CapelDodger]

I know,that is why I am leaving that part of his blog out...

I know enough about Czech politics to be glad I'm not living there right now, but I also know enough Czech history to be optimistic about its future. Social transitions (like climate transitions) do not go smoothly.

 

[CapelDodger]

Not wrong. lots of interesting things about methane.

1) methane by plants
We only figured this out a year ago. Some say (or used to say) the "science is settled"

Singer said the science is settled on climate change. As far as I know he hasn't yet said that science in toto is settled, just the bits he finds otherwise unsettling.

So this methane from plants : is that a new thing? Even if it's real? We may have just have found about it, but the plants have never cared, they just do they're own thing, and they've been around longer than us.

2) Atmospheric Methane (contrary to Alric's comment) has been flat for a decade. Why?

I can't comment before I've seen photographs of the sampling stations.

3) Supposedly 16% or so of all AGW is due to methane from livestock, and 4% from methane from dams.

Over what period? You clearly don't mean the last decade with its invarient global methane load (and just how do they work that out, I wonder, given its inevitable local and regional variance? Has the methodology been properly Audited?) It's hard to see anybody "supposing" that an invariant is affecting global warming.

4) A large percentage of "CO2 offsets" are tracable to methane, not CO2 control schemes.

I suggest you take "schemes" to Politics or Conspiracy.

 

[CapelDodger]

Because the unprecedented rise in atmospheric methane is anthropogenic. Unless the argument has been made that plant methane output has increased since industrial times along with co2.

I recall a short-lived denialist talking-point about how Earth's animals produce vastly more CO2 than humans do, therefore ...

This methane talking-point smells just the same. It adds nothing new, it doesn't even propose that there's something new. Just another "What about this, eh?". Well, what about it? Desperate stuff.

If they think plant-life has suddenly turned on us they should come out and say so. What are they scared of? Plants?