Global warming discussion III

[Pixel42]

Ask a question, have the answer clearly and patiently explained to you, then pretend there isn't an answer. Why do creationists and climate change deniers persist in doing this? Do they just not read the responses to their posts? Do they read them and then somehow erase them from their memory? Do they think if they pretend no answers have been given the people who kindly provide them will eventually give up, so the umpteenth time they ask the same question there really will be no answer and they'll score some kind of victory for willful blindness?

It's a mystery.

 

[CapelDodger]

In my own words > Global Warming ended with the passing of the "HOT" Sun in the 20th century.

Howmuch less energy is the Sun putting out now, in percentage terms? That's a simple fact you must have at your fingertips.

Due to our massive Oceans we enter a Pause and a Lag as the heat tops out ...

The heat can't "top out" if there's no extra energy coming in. The mythical Pause you believe in (the one in RSS, presumably) must show that equilibrium had been reached so lags no longer enter it, and it's not as if warming has some sort of momentum. If there's no warming forcing, let alone a cooling one, there can be no warming.

And NO Trakar, I DON'T think "the current weak solar cycle is generating an increasingly warm climate" as is obvious from my comments previously

So what do you imagine is?

Problem ehcks ? Nope, not for me but you're following me fine apart from the last bit "we should pump more CO2" ... that's just irrelevant. The C02 effect is insignificant when compared to the natural causes of Global Warming ... The Pause ... and shortly ... Global Cooling

By "shortly" do you mean next year? In five years? Ten? Fifty? At what point will you give up waiting?

 

[Haig]

So from your quote "The earth is no longer threatened by the catastrophic global warming forecast by some scientists; warming passed its peak in 1998-2005" he has already been disproved. He shows a chart showing declining temperatures over a very short period as proof we are going into a period of cooling. That was 2009, he has already been proved wrong.

Why is this hard to understand greybeard ? my bold

THE SUN DEFINES THE CLIMATE

For several years until the beginning in 2013 of a steady temperature drop, in a phase of instability, temperature will oscillate around the maximum that has been reached, without further substantial rise.

And this makes it perfectly clear ...

So that would explain The Pause of 18 years then as we start the slide down to the Grand Solar Minimum that has Already started, next comes the New Little Ice Age.

Monckton is not a scientist and I have shown you proof that he is not to be trusted and with all due respect you are not capable of judging whether it's a great paper or not. You are just taking what you have read at Wattsupwiththat at face value because you want to believe it. WUWT is not a science site.

As for "To be clear greybeard, there is NO place for "consensus" in Science. The Scientific Method is the only true way forward." This is something else you only read on science denial sites. Come on, think for yourself Haig you can figure out why that is totally illogical. Are you really trying to say that the less scientists that believe in something the more we should believe it? Then try looking into the background of the few climate scientists who say that global warming isn't happening. Willie Soon for instance, who you put so much faith in is paid by the fossil fuel industry, and only found out by a FOI request.

In true "copy an paste" form a riposte is delivered

The Merchants of Smear

Obama, Gore other climate alarmists refuse to debate, but love to vilify – and love their money

AlecM January 18, 2015 at 8:45 am
Like all professional scientists and engineers I did a sniff test and an energy balance when looking at IPCC ‘Science’.

Sniff test: if the Earth’s surface were to heat local (~20 m) air at the claimed mean 157.5 W/m^2**, its temperature must be ~ 0 deg C** – averaged OVER THE WHOLE PLANET; colder than at any time since the Ordovician Ice Age, 444 million years ago.

It’s really near the surface temperature, kept there by the convection that maintains ‘lapse rate’, also advection. Houghton showed why in 1977. He then apparently gave up Science to co-found the IPCC. In 2005, Hansen bemoaned the fact they had no measurements of local air temperature, apparently realising vulnerability to clear thinking opposition.

Conclusion; Climate Alchemy Stinks; it’s unsuitable for UN Consumption!

Energy Balance: Hansen et al in 1981 claimed an imaginary -18 deg C IR emission zone in the upper atmosphere so 238.5 W/m^2 Down IR, in effect a ‘bait and switch’, exchanging real 238.5 W/m^2 with imaginary 333 W/m^2 ‘back radiation'; 40% increase. They did another numerical trick in hindcasting to purport extra evaporation from oceans. His absurd claims to Congress in 1988 were based on ‘modelling artefacts’.

Conclusion: the modelling has been fraudulent for 34 years.

**Assume 16 deg C mean surface temperature, 0.75 atmospheric emissivity.

 

[Haig]

Howmuch less energy is the Sun putting out now, in percentage terms? That's a simple fact you must have at your fingertips.

The heat can't "top out" if there's no extra energy coming in. The mythical Pause you believe in (the one in RSS, presumably) must show that equilibrium had been reached so lags no longer enter it, and it's not as if warming has some sort of momentum. If there's no warming forcing, let alone a cooling one, there can be no warming.

So what do you imagine is?

By "shortly" do you mean next year? In five years? Ten? Fifty? At what point will you give up waiting?

See my post above CapelDodger

as for ...

Inclusion some facts is what good propaganda depends on. Start with some facts, blend in some lies, add non sequiturs, sprinkle with conspiracy themes ("all those other scientists are corrupt! Don't listen to them!") and serve all mixed up in a bucket. With the facts on top.

Stick and stones ...

Remind me again ... what "facts" have the CAGW Alarmists actually been right in ?


Not long now to wait to see who is correct. Looking a LOT like Abdussamatov is the winner Maybe they will call the coming sunspot minimum the "Abdussamatov Minimum" ... Mmm that sounds just fine

 

[Haig]

Ask a question, have the answer clearly and patiently explained to you, then pretend there isn't an answer. Why do creationists and climate change deniers persist in doing this? Do they just not read the responses to their posts? Do they read them and then somehow erase them from their memory? Do they think if they pretend no answers have been given the people who kindly provide them will eventually give up, so the umpteenth time they ask the same question there really will be no answer and they'll score some kind of victory for willful blindness?

It's a mystery.

That called projection pixel42






Think what these charts mean and for the coming New Little Ice Age

 

[Pixel42]

Not long now to wait to see who is correct.

We don't need to wait any longer, we already know. 2014 set a new record high, in direct contradiction of the nonsense you have been regurgitating here for the last several years.

 

[macdoc]

Haig

the coming New Little Ice Age

Given to predicting volcanos now are we ???

Little Ice Age caused by volcanic eruptions, say scientists - RTCC
www.rtcc.org/.../scientists-dismiss-solar-link-to-medieval-little-ice-age/‎
23 Dec 2013 ... Solar activity unlikely to have caused historic climate change, say University of Edinburgh scientists, who pin changes on volcanic activity ...

There is plausible science in a volcanic triggered LIA.

Your premise on the other hand is pure wishful thinking since the known impact of solar cycles is a magnitude below the CO2 signal...a FACT you conveniently ignore ...one amongst many.

 

[bit_pattern]

Ask a question, have the answer clearly and patiently explained to you, then pretend there isn't an answer. Why do creationists and climate change deniers persist in doing this? Do they just not read the responses to their posts? Do they read them and then somehow erase them from their memory? Do they think if they pretend no answers have been given the people who kindly provide them will eventually give up, so the umpteenth time they ask the same question there really will be no answer and they'll score some kind of victory for willful blindness?

It's a mystery.

It's a pathology.

 

[Haig]

We don't need to wait any longer, we already know. 2014 set a new record high, in direct contradiction of the nonsense you have been regurgitating here for the last several years.

Really ? 2014 a new record high! a 0.04 degree rise within an error bar of 0.09

Breaking: NOAA, NASA quietly conceded: 2014 was probably not the warmest year on record

Former Harvard Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl: 'According to NOAA, the probability that a different year than 2014 was the warmest one was 52%.

According to NASA, the probability that a different year than 2014 was the warmest one was 62%.'

It is more likely than not that the warmest year was a different one than 2014.

 

[Haig]

2014 as the Mildest Year: Why You are Being Misled on Global Temperatures

In what universe does a temperature change that is too small for anyone to feel over a 50 year period become globally significant? Where we don’t know if the global average temperature is 58 or 59 or 60 deg. F, but we are sure that if it increases by 1 or 2 deg. F, that would be a catastrophe?

Where our only truly global temperature measurements, the satellites, are ignored because they don’t show a record warm year in 2014?

Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest year on record... but we're only 38% sure we were right

- Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’

- But it emerged that GISS’s analysis is subject to a margin of error

- Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all

The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.

Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.

Gezz you Warmists are getting really desperate aren't you !

 

[Elind]

Even Breitbart seems to have eased up on their AGW science attacks but this place still has anti science posters, or is it just a matter of pedants?

 

[Elind]

By "shortly" do you mean next year? In five years? Ten? Fifty? At what point will you give up waiting?

Howdy. It's been a while, but I have to ask, at what point will you give up trying to educate those who reject education?

 

[CapelDodger]

Howdy. It's been a while, but I have to ask, at what point will you give up trying to educate those who reject education?

If it stops being fun .

It's not in any sense education, it's mockery of the eminently mockable just for the enjoyment of it. Heck, I've never pretended to be a nice person. If I tried I'd never get away with it anyway.

 

[CapelDodger]

See my post above CapelDodger

I see no answer there. Will we see this cooling next year? In five years? Ten?

You haven't dealt with the problem of the climate "topping out" when there's either no forcing or there's a cooling one. It is a problem and won't go away if you ignore it.

Stick and stones ...

That's a weird response to a reasonable description of propaganda by someone who knows about these things, but we'll let that go.

Remind me again ... what "facts" have the CAGW Alarmists actually been right in ?

Climate scientists predicted that the climate would get warmer in the last three decades because the enhanced greenhouse effect, and it has. The 1980's were warmer than the 70's, the 90's warmer again, the 2000's warmer still, and two of the top 5 hottest years are 2013 and 2014 so the 2010's are continuing the process. Thirty years ago AGW deniers were predicting there would be no warming and the end of warming has been announced no end of times since.

Climate scientists predicted that downpours would become heavier and they have. They predicted that glaciers would retreat, and as we know many have completely disappeared. They predicted that Arctic summer ice cover would shrink, and that's happened big-time.

Most predictions concern the frequencies of events - droughts, wildfires, heatwaves and such - and it necessarily takes time for frequencies to manifest. (Especially when it comes to droughts, which by their nature take years to complete each event.)

Your prediction of an imminent and rapid decline in global temperatures due to a <0.1% reduction in solar output won't take long to confirm or refute. Five years should do it, don't you think? By the way, when did you first make this prediction? A year ago? Five years ago? Ten? Not more, surely.

Not long now to wait to see who is correct. Looking a LOT like Abdussamatov is the winner Maybe they will call the coming sunspot minimum the "Abdussamatov Minimum" ... Mmm that sounds just fine

As you say, not long. How long has it been not long for now? A year? Five? Do you have a link to the good doctor's prediction or was his website's server in Donetsk (in which case it'll have been nicked and flogged off cheap in a Moscow marketplace months ago).

 

[CapelDodger]

Even Breitbart seems to have eased up on their AGW science attacks but this place still has anti science posters, or is it just a matter of pedants?

They are still legion out there; check out the Guardian comments for any climate-related story to see them displaying. We're essentially down to the one here; I'm not sure we provide a welcoming environment. Some posters can be quite uncharitable, even hurtful on occasions. Naming no names, but they know who they are ...

 

[Pixel42]

Gezz you Warmists are getting really desperate aren't you !

Taking refuge in the error bars is about as desperate as it's possible to get.

If you (or rather the conmen you chose to listen to) had been right we should be seeing years below the 20th century average by now. 38 years in succession over that average, ending with a new record high, prove them wrong. Deal with it.

 

[bit_pattern]

They are still legion out there; check out the Guardian comments for any climate-related story to see them displaying. We're essentially down to the one here; I'm not sure we provide a welcoming environment. Some posters can be quite uncharitable, even hurtful on occasions. Naming no names, but they know who they are ...

I probably don't contribute enough to stand out - and bite my tongue around here because the moderation is so consistent and unforgiving - but I know I'm definitely an uncharitable one. I honestly don't know how you guys do it. And to be honest, I'm not sure how useful it is anyway - trying to reason with people who have not arrived at their position from a position of reason in the first place seems like a pointlessly Sisyphean task .

I think there's something to be said for this position:

Facts won’t beat the climate deniers – using their tactics will

There’s no profit in trying to change the position of deniers. Their values and motivations are fundamentally different to those of us who listen to what the weight of scientific evidence tell us. So forget them.

Forget the Moncktonites, disregard the Boltists, and snub the Abbottsians. Ignore them, step around them, or walk over them. Drown them not just with sensible conversations, but with useful actions. Flood the airwaves and apply tactics advertisers have successfully used for years.

What we need now is to become comfortable with the idea that the ends will justify the means. We actually need more opinions, appearing more often and expressed more noisily than ever before.

The biggest impediment to climate action these days is not because of the human frailties that science is hell-bent on resisting – those alleged failings of opinion, belief and emotion. Ironically, it’s exactly because we are still trying to suppress them that we are now stalled.

And then there's this:

Ignoring the facts: the truth about misinformation
SOURCE

University of Michigan, University of Queensland

Correcting misinformation the wrong way is likely to further entrench mistakes, according to a new study.

People are also more likely accept incorrect information if the matter is not of direct importance to them or fits with their current views.

The authors of the study argue that the implications of belief in misinformation weaken democratic decision-making as well as poor health outcomes, such as the use of unproven alternative medicine.

Read more at University of Michigan, University of Queensland

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Lets just get one thing straight. The biggest problem AGW deniers have against it is what we propose to do about it. It's not the science that AGW exists. It's the mitigation proposals. Show a way that mitigation can be profitable and without increasing taxes and most the resistance evaporates.

 

[bit_pattern]

Show a way that mitigation can be profitable and without increasing taxes and most the resistance evaporates.

It's been tried - the transition to decarbonisation is the biggest potential boon for global economic growth since the post-war period. Them woo-mongers won't accept that fact until it is shown to them. In practice. By China. By then the poor deluded fools will be second class global citizens wondering WTF happened to the great American dream. But, you know, they'll probably blame the Jews and the Muslims or something.

Here, you might find this an interesting read - you can listen to the audio, watch the video, or click on the show transcript button, whatever you prefer

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/ockhamsrazor/de-carbonizing-for-growth/5436190

The upshot of all these constraints on growth is that reaching US$305 trillion is going to be very difficult—even without any damages flowing from climate change. To have any hope of meeting this ambitious target we will need to create numerous new economic growth platforms. History tells us that a great approach to lifting growth comes from investing in infrastructure as this has the double effect of creating jobs and the new platform from which future growth can take off. Of all the large infrastructure projects one could imagine, nothing comes close to the scale of opportunity represented by a rapid de-carbonization of the global energy system.

Even though the International Energy Agency estimates that the level of investment required to de-carbonize the global energy system is approximately US$1 trillion per year for the next 40 years, I believe the actual number is close to twice that amount at US$2 trillion per year. The difference in the two numbers comes from my realization that there are many large, long-lived, high carbon emitting assets that must be shut down immediately.

 

[Reality Check]

Show a way that mitigation can be profitable and without increasing taxes and most the resistance evaporates.

Do you mean the existing economic studies that show that mitigation can be profitable even with increasing taxes, Red Baron Farms?
The economic impacts of carbon pricing

Climate economics research shows that in reality, we are harming the economy by failing to implement CO2 limits.

and the intermediate version:

Economic assessments of proposed policy to put a price on carbon emissions are in widespread agreement that the net economic impact will be minor. The costs over the next several decades center around $100 per average family, or about 75 cents per person per week, and a GDP reduction of less than 1%. Moreover, the benefits outweigh the costs several times over, as real-world examples illustrate.

Or actual carbon pricing schemes that have generated income and jobs?
Carbon Pricing Alarmists Disproven by the Reality of RGGI

The problem is that AGW deniers know about these studies and continue to deny that mitigation has at least a minimal cost and probably a benefit.