• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Polar Bears would self-ignite

Yep, you've been tagged WOO. But only after having really deserved it, and only on the subject of climate science.

As for your graphs, I would note you have a comfort zone with 1975+, but don't see much else of interest there. Are there conclusions that can be drawn from these? If so, what are they? Now, what would the point be exactly?

All I've done is note that multiple groups of scientists are scientifically predicting several cooler decades ahead; further, that predictions by Hansen et al were not scientific predictions.


So name calling and such, but no evidence. Just great.
 
Un-Real Climate is an unreliable site. It's not scientific because it is biased. They don't allow real scientists to post there in defense of their papers. As a scientist, I'll never take Un-Real Climat site seriously.

There are not thunderstorms unconnected with clouds of water vapor or dust particles. The reason some lightning flashes seem to come from the blue sky is that lightning flashes can travel up to 80.47 kilometers away from the system which generated them.

No, Mega Woo.

We don't know enough about the personality and behavior of Galileo to include or exclude him. But thanks for trying to blur the distinctions , albeit sloppily.

Is it so complex for you? :D


Funny how you two run into lots of areas that are not about the data and evidence.
 
So name calling and such, but no evidence. Just great.

Yawn. 1've made specific links to technical refs in 345, 368, 372, and 408, just looking at the last few pages. You?

Zip.

Oh, wait...one of my links was a rebuttal of your assertions on solar irradiance since 1750.

Gee, you didn't respond to that.
 
Just a clarification, Varouche. Are you trying to argue that solar wasn't about 100% causative for overall planetary warming since 1750, or are you making an argument regarding the last 30 years?

The former hot frying pan Dancing David nimbly cavorts in, if I understand his take on the matter properly.
 
Yawn. 1've made specific links to technical refs in 345, 368, 372, and 408, just looking at the last few pages. You?

Zip.

Oh, wait...one of my links was a rebuttal of your assertions on solar irradiance since 1750.

Gee, you didn't respond to that.


Considering you didn't quote my post i probably skipped over it, I made a statement about the graph of extrapolated figures in biocab's referenced paper.

pray tell, what do you think i should respond to?

You may have quoted me but i missed it, and again you are not discussing the issues but derailing, which many have done.

So which post was i supposed to respond to?

Hmm, I must have missed it, as I often do.
 
Just a clarification, Varouche. Are you trying to argue that solar wasn't about 100% causative for overall planetary warming since 1750, or are you making an argument regarding the last 30 years?

The former hot frying pan Dancing David nimbly cavorts in, if I understand his take on the matter properly.


No you don't because you seem to be engaged in a pissing contest and name calling, which is fairly typical for a lot of posters. I called the extrapolated graph of biocab's reference into question. We can be fairly certain that there has been an increase in solar radiation since that last minimum, but I don't recall and data other than sunspot numbers to support biocab's graph.
So I would say that until we have some isotope curves or other ways of converging on the radiation data we don't know the progression from the minimum.

It could be that it all occurred in a very brief period, it could be it occurred in a number of brief periods.

The data that biocab presented extrapolated a conjecture into a continuous plot and I questioned that it was based upon two things solely.

The apparent rise in solar radiance since 1750 and the sunspot data. (And only having read about five papers I am not sure of the basis for the assumed increase in solar radiation, it seems to be likely)

Now if biocab or you would care to show me another source of data other than the graph extrapolated from Lean's reconstruction, I will very happily read it. Especially if it has some other method of determining the radiance level, a rather tricky bugger that is.

I am not an alarmist, but I do feel that currently we seem to be in an upswing in temperature and it might be correlated to CO 2 and other industrial pollutants.

It might also have to do with low levels of volcanism, and other factors.

But there are many factors to consider and I happen to feel that CO 2 is a good one, along with other pollutants. I agree that the hockey stick may be problematic but then I feel we should reduce the emissions for other reasons as well.

So I was mainly taking the graph in the paper biocab presented to task. If you would like to clarify the evidence that support the graph that is fine, but until I see other data, I will just assume that the radiance did not occur in a fashion not supported by other evidence. The increase in radiance seems likely but I haven’t seen much to say how and when and in what increases it occurred.
 
A little about sunspots; We understand next-to-nothing about whether they won't just disappear for long periods of time without warning. Galileo saw sunspots, and they surprised him! But shortly after his time, from 1645 to 1715, a period called the Maunder Minimum, they all but disappeared. To the point where some astronomers thought they had been just defects in early telescopes and nothing more.

So, the game of trying to make long term weather predictions based on sunspot-driven changes in solar output is just that; A game. Perhaps once we have a few thousand years of observing our sun maybe we will understand why things like that happen, and maybe we will understand why the sun appears to be so different from most other G2-class stars of similar age, because they are not markedly variable.

So, don't pretend that you know that the solar output is either the cause of or the solution to global warming. Because you CAN'T.
 
Just a clarification, Varouche. Are you trying to argue that solar wasn't about 100% causative for overall planetary warming since 1750, or are you making an argument regarding the last 30 years?

varwoche didn't argue anything; he asked a question. Which you haven't answered. You've just fantasised some strawman you think you've got an answer to.

I've known strawmen that could give you a kicking.

The former hot frying pan Dancing David nimbly cavorts in, if I understand his take on the matter properly.

You don't. Not even remotely.
 
Last edited:
A little more about sunspots : ever since the 11-year(-ish) sunspot cycle was identified people have searched for a climate signal, and oher people have shredded everything offered up. If there's a signal it's very muted.
 
varwoche didn't argue anything; he asked a question. Which you haven't answered. You've just fantasised some strawman you think you've got an answer to.

Nope, just meant what l asked. His question about deniers had no substantive content in the references... politely ignored it.
 
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3809979&postcount=368

As it looks, my reference to Solanki was directed at Bob.

Isotopes.

Sorry Mhaze, was one chart supposed to mean something?

It doesn't really say much. And it doesn't answer my question at all, now does it?


I looked through Solkani and saw the word recontruction quite frequently, I didn't notice that they used another method of finding the radiance factors. It would appear to be a meta-recontruction of solar radiance.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to point me to it? (The other data, I saw the northern lattitude reference which you post frequently as well)

So what did I miss as other converging data that plots the radiance increase?
 
Solar irradiance change since 1750 only 0.3 w/m^2? Clearly wrong. Check Solanki , illustration below, or any of many references.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=12776http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_142244864dd9207e02.png

Further, a complete denial of the water cycle in that analysis causes me to reject it.

Last but not least, who is the primary author of your reference?
  • Hansen, political promoter.
  • Hansen, recipient of millions of dollars from far left polical entities.
  • Hansen, PseudoScientist.
If not for the questionable motives and pseudoscience of Hansen, we would be back to discussing science.

Hint: it helps to look forward, not down. Also, you can see much further by not standing shakily on the shoulders of midgets.

You will never understand what a forcing is, so there's no point trying to explain it again.
 
Unfortunately for them, we just launched three aircraft carriers and a few dozen submarines... Let them try to come out of port.

BenBurch, yours are not scientific arguments for assessing the good work made by real scientists. Yours are only ad hominem arguments, falsification of data, biased arguments, lies, etc.

I'd like to see you taking one single formula from scientific papers and dilucidate it scientifically.

You use to say only, "that is wrong", "that is evidence", "those are wrong", "that's not peer reviewed", etc.; however, you have never shown a single formula, a valid argument that proves an article is not peer reviewed, etc. :D
 
A little more about sunspots : ever since the 11-year(-ish) sunspot cycle was identified people have searched for a climate signal, and oher people have shredded everything offered up. If there's a signal it's very muted.

Wrong, blatantly wrong. For AGWers sake, it is not the number of sunspots what matters, not even the cycle of sunspots. It is the amplitude of the SI fluctuations what matters. It seems you want to turn off the big candle. :cool:
 
We seem to have driven everyone else away. mhaze often functions as a placeholder while the "big guns" retire and regroup, only going back into the water when they think it's safe.

I repeat, we are people who work hard, not a bunch of green-paid deniers of nature. Sometimes we cannot be here answering bobadas calientólogas. :D
 
Last edited:
Satellite data cooled 0.774 °C from January 2007 to May 2008. Given that the total warming since 1860 is 0.75 °C, we haven't had any global warming anymore. :D
 
Last edited:
Satellite data cooled 0.774 °C from January 2007 to May 2008. Given that the total warming since 1860 is 0.75 °C, we haven't had any global warming anymore. :D

Here's a napkin, wipe the cherry juice off of your face.
 
After all this time I’d think you would have learned the difference between peer reviewed, pal reviewed, essays and opinion. Unfortunately you have not. Nevertheless, what is important is the content, not the tag, correct?

That's right, the contents is most important. I try my best to link to published articles in reputable journals if available. I use essays and blogs if they cite the relevant literature.

It's your term "pal reviewed" and it is an ad-hom attack and cherry-unpicking. That is you ignore the research from the journals if they don't agree with your position.

From the Introduction, one can easily find the one sentence whereby his entire hypothesis is falsified, that being:


His data was derived from 1993-2003. It is now 2008. Earth is not 'absorbing 0.85 T 0.15 watts per square meter more energy from the Sun than it is omitting to space'. We have discussed this in the ‘Where is the missing heat’ thread. Josh Willis (also a co-author of the ‘Smoking Gun’) has confirmed this. Maybe we should pick this up again?

The missing heat has been found, or are you not up to date on the latest.


I can’t find anywhere on Hansen’s (NASA) website where corrected his error. Would you point it out for us? Further, in Hansen’s musings he states the imbalance can only be corrected if human made GHG are halted and reversed. In fact, another .6-C additional warming is “in the pipeline” regardless. Where is the missing heat?

Don't like the "in the pipeline"

BTW, climate models are not evidence since they in themselves are a hypothesis and therefore cannot be used to form another hypothesis.

Climate models are nothing of the sort. The models are efforts to test the hypothesis, are they not?

Not that a true believer could ever be shaken from their faith, but in order to convince skeptics (myself namely) of anything, you must first account for why Hansen’s predictions have not come to fruition. You cannot include ‘natural variation’ as this according to the ‘Smoking Gun’ has been overcome by AGW. No more arm waiving. Put up or shut up.

Ah, now you are asigning homework.
 


There isn't any "missing heat" in this pipeline.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/06/james-hansen-20-years-later.html

The hypothesis of AGW has no predictive power. This is a simple observation.

If you disagree, please show constants and sensitivity that do work.

Hint: You can overlay on sunspot cycles and the 60 -80 year cycle if you like.

The planet laughs at the crude theory that man is the great menace.
 
Last edited:
No hazy... your knowledge of spanish is no better than your knowledge of climate.

What he said was "warmologist foolishness".

Which brings us to the interesting practice of using another language to insult posters in an english based forum. I can insult people in 5 different languages, should it become standard practice?
 
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_14224486460913405e.png[/qimg]

This image is very interesting. It compares one of the several surface temperature records with the most extreme case of the three presented by Hansen et al 88. Now, considering that the presented as the most likely scenario the scenario B, the one that matches quite closely the observations, and the one the delayers (pronounced the-liars) keep avoiding, the comparison is the same old lie told by Michaels to congress.

It would also be interesting if the temperature anomaly was corrected to the model baseline, since the biggest difference between databases is the baseline to which the anomaly compares.

And, of course, these lies are necessary when analyzing the success of a model run with 80's computing power. That says a lot about the soundness of the model.

For an analysis of the IPCC scenarios, I direct you to Rahmstorf et al 07




The hypothesis of AGW has no predictive power. This is a simple observation.

No, that is a lie, since not only it has predictive power, the predictions are happening in front of our eyes.

The planet laughs at the crude theory that man is the great menace.

The only one laughing is us, and we're laughing at you.
 
Last edited:


thum_14224486460913405e.png



Originally posted by Megalodon
This image is very interesting. It compares one of the several surface temperature records with the most extreme case of the three presented by Hansen et al 88. Now, considering that the presented as the most likely scenario the scenario B, the one that matches quite closely the observations, and the one the delayers (pronounced the-liars) keep avoiding, the comparison is the same old lie told by Michaels to congress.
Originally posted by Mhaze
Valient try, but didn't even get off the runway, just careened off into the mud.

Comparison to the three scenarios here.

I've read a bit of Ramstorf, since you upon request to post the source of the graph that has the axes scaled to make it appear that CO2 increases track with and cause global temperature increases.

Looks like a reasonable scientist, a bit out on the edge in linearly predicting continued warming based on 2 divergent effects of aerosols explaining away the 1940-1970 cool period...well, that worked okay for a while, but with the recent cooling, that hypothesis falls, starts to look like a house of cards...

Nevertheless, Ramstorf isn't a Hansen woo woo woo. Unless I missed something there, which is possible.
 
Last edited:

Looks like yet another whining blogger to me. Yet another crappy cite.

This may explain why Hansen's GISS surface temperature measurements are so much higher than everyone else's, and keep getting artificially adjusted upwards: Hansen put himself way out on a limb, and now is using the resources of the GISS to try to create warming in the metrics where none exist to validate his forecasts of Apocalypse.

:rolleyes:

Conspiracy theories forum can be found here, FYI.
 
Looks like yet another whining blogger to me. Yet another crappy cite. :rolleyes: Conspiracy theories forum can be found here, FYI.

No. He did the work to modify the graph, and I'll link to his article. If you don't like it, don't read it. If I'll linked through like this to just the graph -

hansencheck.gif


That'd be like stealing his work. (Umm....like Megalodon's reference...) Got it now?
 
Last edited:
Valient try, but didn't even get off the runway, just careened off into the mud.

Many words, no substance... I made an analysis of your unreferenced graph, and that is what you have to offer? Par for the course, I guess.


Look at those goalposts moving! I criticize a source and you offer a new one as a rebuttal of my criticism? Are you daft? If this source is so important, why didn't you bring it up at the same time as the other?

And btw, that source sucks, even by your extremely low standards, but I leave it to you to actually make a point before going at it.


That phrase makes no sense, actually. Care to give it another shot?

as for the "...scaled to make it appear...yadda, yadda", it's standard procedure to occupy the whole space of the graph with the data. Thus, an almost linear positive curve will go from bottom left to top right. It transmits the biggest amount of information in that way, since possible small variations within don't get unnecessarily scaled below resolution. The exception is when you have several plots of the same variable in different situations, in which case you find the best compromise, or alert to the different scales in the legend. It is not the case...

Looks like a reasonable scientist, a bit out on the edge in linearly predicting continued warming based on 2 divergent effects of aerosols explaining away the 1940-1970 cool period...well, that worked okay for a while, but with the recent cooling, that hypothesis falls, starts to look like a house of cards...

What recent cooling?



Nevertheless, Ramstorf isn't a Hansen woo woo woo. Unless I missed something there, which is possible.

You never read the paper, did you?
 
Back
Top Bottom