Global warming discussion IV

[Belz...]

You're dithering Belz

Give a considered view on this Studies Show Weakening Sun, Possible New Ice Age pdf

If you can

What does that have to do with AGW, I wonder. It seems that you're all over the place, latching on any website that supports the idea that it's not happening, even if it puts you in several, contradictory positions on the topic.

 

[Reality Check]

Haig's first 15 parroted ignorance and lies from climate change deniers

RC ....

Haig, I snipped your insults and mindless parroting of the usual WUWT, etc lies.

1. 11th May 2015 Haig: WUWT blog lies by cherry picking the source and start date about "No global warming for 18 years and 3 months" as easily seen by anyone who looks at the data.
2. 7th August 2015 Haig: WUWT blog lies about "No global warming for 18 years and 7 months"
3. 14 August 2015 Haig: WUWT blog lies about the BEST data showing global warming (it does!)
4. 25 August 2015 Haig: Linking to the many invalid rants on WUWT about climate models.
5. 26 August 2015 Haig: WUWT and HockeySchtick lies about a "18-26 year ‘pause’ in global warming".
6. 26 August 2015 Haig: WUWT and HockeySchtick are ignorant about basic science.
7. 27 August 2015 Haig: Bob Tisdale is an ignorant climate change denier, not a climate researcher.
8. 28 August 2015 Haig: "Ari.H"'s ignorance, lies and political rants in a blog post on WUWT.
9. 31 August 2015 Haig: Andy May lies in his blog entry on WUWT ("The hockey stick was never validated...") or at least repeats a Mark Steyn lie.
10. 31 August 2015 Haig: Sheldon Walker looks at trends in weather in his WUWT blog entry! A small bit of ignorance.
11. 31 August 2015 Haig: The greenhouse effect denier Tim Ball cites the ignorant Tisdale and displays some ignorance in a WUWT blog entry.
12. 1 September 2015 Haig: You link to a Dr. Norman Page lying about natural cycles on WUWT with a "1000 year temperature cycle".
13. 2 September 2015 Haig: Watts and McIntyre lie about the removal of bad proxy data being dubious, etc.
14. 2 September 2015 Haig: Abdussamatov lied in 2009 about the Sun causing global warming.
15. 2 September 2015 Haig: Persisting in an ignorant parroting of the ignorance of Abdussamatov does not make his invalid science valid!

15 lies is long enough - time to start a new list of lies cited by you Haig !

 

[Reality Check]

Haig: One more ignorant repeat of Abdussamatov's ignorance of climate science

Give a considered view on this Studies Show Weakening Sun, Possible New Ice Age pdf

Easy, Haig.
This is yet another mindless repeat of the delusion that there will be a new ice age after you have been presented with the climate science that this is will not happen.
This is the ignorance of linking to a PDF on the Web rather than the scientific literature.
This is yet another obsession with the ignorance of Abdussamatov about climate science. Here you are parroting someone mindlessly parroting Abdussamatov's ignorant fantasy that there will be anice age in the next century! They go onto the "its cosmic rays" climate myth.

Haig's first 15 parroted ignorance and lies from climate change deniers.

1. 9 September 2015 Haig: One more ignorant repeat of Abdussamatov's ignorance of climate science!

 

[Reality Check]

Haig: Citing an ignorant tirade by Monckton - a liar about climate

And that's not all ...

Yes - we know that all WUWT has left is tirades rather than actual science, Haig.

Haig's first 15 parroted ignorance and lies from climate change deniers.

1. 9 September 2015 Haig: Citing an ignorant and paranoid tirade by Monckton as if there would be valid science in a blog by this liar!
   Here Monckton repeats his lie of cherry picking the RSS data. Other datasets show warming. His paranoia comes in with "though the terrestrial tamperature datasets have all been altered in the past year with the effect of concealing it.". This is the insane act of basically accusing scientists of faking data !
2. 9 September 2015 Haig: One more ignorant repeat of Abdussamatov's ignorance of climate science!

 

[Haig]

What does that have to do with AGW, I wonder. It seems that you're all over the place, latching on any website that supports the idea that it's not happening, even if it puts you in several, contradictory positions on the topic.

Well Belz, let me make it clear for you

If you had read it you would know it gives AGW little credence as this quote says ...

Studies Show Weakening Sun, Possible New Ice Age

In a 2008 paper,5 Abdussamatov forecast severely reduced activity in Cycles 25 and 26: “The earth is no longer threatened by the catastrophic global warming forecast by some scientists; warming passed its peak in 1998-2005, while the value of the TSI by July-September of last year had already declined by 0.47 watts per square meter,” Abdussamatov wrote. “Consequently, we should fear a deep temperature drop, but not catastrophic global warming. Humanity must survive the serious economic, social, demographic and political consequences of a global temperature drop, which will directly affect the national interests of almost all countries and more than 80% of the population of the Earth.”

Get the connection now Belz ?

 

[Haig]

Easy, Haig.
This is yet another mindless repeat of the delusion that there will be a new ice age after you have been presented with the climate science that this is will not happen.
This is the ignorance of linking to a PDF on the Web rather than the scientific literature.
This is yet another obsession with the ignorance of Abdussamatov about climate science. Here you are parroting someone mindlessly parroting Abdussamatov's ignorant fantasy that there will be anice age in the next century! They go onto the "its cosmic rays" climate myth.

Haig's first 15 parroted ignorance and lies from climate change deniers.

1. 9 September 2015 Haig: One more ignorant repeat of Abdussamatov's ignorance of climate science!

It's NOT only him pointing to massive cooling RC. Don't you know even AGW alarmists are claiming cooling too?

Do try to keep up RC

New studies promote Arctic cooling fears

Two new studies have promoted concerns that anthropogenic global warming could cause abrupt cooling in the Northern Hemisphere – the “Day after Tomorrow” scenario.

my hilite

 

[Reality Check]

Haig: Eric Worrall goes off on an irrelevant rant about Climategate

Nooooo ...

...the idiocy that the Arctic is the whole world !

This is a rare WUWT article that discusses real climate science that you are ignorant about, Haig - what a surprise!
The first lie is the title - the papers are about the effects of Arctic warming.Climate scientists have been looking for decades at the effects of the warming of the Arctic. An obvious effect is possible movement of the warm Gulf Stream away from northern Europe leading to colder winters. The titel should be:
"New studies promote Arctic cooling fears analyze the effects of Arctic warming to find that northern Europe cooled in the past and can cool in the future"

Both papers are about Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. The first models future changes, the second looks at historical proxies to see what happening in the past (fresh water from a melting Arctic is consistent with a cause of the Younger Dryas).

Haig's first 15 parroted ignorance and lies from climate change deniers.

1. 9 September 2015 Haig: Citing an ignorant and paranoid tirade by Monckton as if there would be valid science in a blog by this liar!
2. 9 September 2015 Haig: One more ignorant repeat of Abdussamatov's ignorance of climate science!
3. 9 September 2015 Haig: Eric Worrall goes off on an irrelevant rant about Climategate on WUWT.
   He has an admission of astounding ignorance about climate science - global warming causes both hotter summers and colder winters. Knowledgeable people expect "giant blocks of ice washing up on American beaches" and "end of snow narrative."

 

[Reality Check]

It's NOT only him pointing to massive cooling RC...

I have kept up with your ignorance about what you parrot, Haig: Haig's first 15 parroted ignorance and lies from climate change deniers.

1. 9 September 2015 Haig: Citing an ignorant and paranoid tirade by Monckton as if there would be valid science in a blog by this liar!
2. 9 September 2015 Haig: One more ignorant repeat of Abdussamatov's ignorance of climate science!
3. 9 September 2015 Haig: Eric Worrall goes off on an irrelevant rant about Climategate on WUWT.

 

[Belz...]

If you had read it you would know it gives AGW little credence as this quote says ...

Why do you seem to be hung on that single PDF file, even after people point out that it's bunk? Do you think that somehow I won't notice?

 

[Haig]

Why do you seem to be hung on that single PDF file, even after people point out that it's bunk? Do you think that somehow I won't notice?

What's bunk about it Belz?

Can you give a few examples? Maybe you can't

 

[Belz...]

What's bunk about it Belz?

Can you give a few examples?

Do you have Reality Check on ignore or something? Why would you expect me to do his work all over again? So you can ignore me in turn and then ask some other poor shmuck for the same stuff?

Maybe you can't

That sort of pompous jackassery is wearing really thin, Heig.

 

[Trakar]

Moved from public policy thread to AGW science thread

And as for the nebulous promises of future gain, here's a good article on the various "tipping points" that climatologists and politicians have claimed in the past:

You have a most peculiar application of the qualification "good."

Four years came and went; apparently we're all doomed now.

If it's too late, then why rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic?

We are already committed to more than 2^oC temperature rise by around mid century, and between 4-6^oC rise by the turn of the century with more to come, if we continue along the current path. It will take more than merely slowing and eliminating our emissions to reverse this course. The best plans now, include overshoot and draw down with a lot of effort put into adaptation to the conditions that we can no longer avoid And even more effort if we ever hope to bring our climate back to anything approximating the "goldilocks" conditions of the last 8000years or so.

 

[Haig]

Do you have Reality Check on ignore or something? Why would you expect me to do his work all over again? So you can ignore me in turn and then ask some other poor shmuck for the same stuff?

Since you asked I don't have RC on ignore but I do find his posts boring and just skim them.

His work? you say You mean the gatekeeper stuff, abuse, ad homs ?

Try to answer the content and leave RC to his fate

That sort of pompous jackassery is wearing really thin, Heig.

It's Haig to you Belz
As for "pompous jackassery" ... look in the mirror ... and try to lighten up ... what do you think the huge selection of Smiles are on this forum are for?

Now try, if you can, to give a criteque of this pdf on solar forcing on terrestrial phenomena's as evident from the pattern of Global temperature (both air and ocean temperatures).

Hint: it's science showing that it's the Sun that controls Global Warming, The Pause/Hyatus, Global Cooling.

THE SOLAR WOLF-GLEISSBERG CYCLE AND ITS INFLUENCE ON THE EARTH Shahinaz M. Yousef Astronomy &Meteorology Dept.

-CONCLUSION
Evidences indicating that important climatic features, such as droughts and unusually growing seasons, are dependent on the solar cycle to such an extent that significant progress could be made in forecasting the occurrence of such features if some account were taken of the expected levels of solar activity in the future (King 1973).

When thinking about climate change on time scale of decades to centuries, it is important to recognize the dominant effect of the oceans, which cover over 70% of the planet's surface , and are largely
responsible for the transport of heat from low to middle and high latitudes, particularly during the winter season

 

[Belz...]

Since you asked I don't have RC on ignore but I do find his posts boring and just skim them.

That's all I needed to know.

So if I start reposting the evidence, you'll just skim my posts, too, as I predicted. Thanks, but no thanks.

Now try, if you can, to give a criteque of this pdf

No at this point it's pretty obvious that no evidence or critique will sway you. You've made your choice. Let the grown ups do their work.

 

[Haig]

That's all I needed to know.

So if I start reposting the evidence, you'll just skim my posts, too, as I predicted. Thanks, but no thanks.

You miss the point Belz,

RC with his linkspam posts are boring but don't you think that you could do any better?

Just stick to the facts and you will be fine, I'm sure

No at this point it's pretty obvious that no evidence or critique will sway you. You've made your choice. Let the grown ups do their work.

Your wrong Belz.

Just post or link to the evidence or critique, if you can. If not, why should anyone pay you or the grown-ups any heed?

More Proof That Climate Scientists Are Complete Morons

In 1978, climate scientists blamed the Polar Vortex on global cooling and increasing Arctic ice. That made sense.

...snip...

In 2015, moron climate scientists blame the Polar Vortex on global warming and decreasing Arctic ice.

 

[Belz...]

You miss the point Belz,

No, the point is that you're not interested in climate science, only feel-good science denial, which is why I don't bother with you other than pointing out your wilful ignorance.

Just stick to the facts and you will be fine, I'm sure

If only you followed your own advice.

Your wrong Belz.

My wrong what, Haig?

Edited by jsfisher: 

Username corrected.

More Proof That Climate Scientists Are Complete Morons

Yes, and the laymen know more about climate then they do, sure.

In 1978, climate scientists blamed the Polar Vortex on global cooling and increasing Arctic ice. That made sense.

...snip...

In 2015, moron climate scientists blame the Polar Vortex on global warming and decreasing Arctic ice.

See, this a layman's understanding, nothing else.

 

[Haig]

No, the point is that you're not interested in climate science, only feel-good science denial, which is why I don't bother with you other than pointing out your wilful ignorance.

If only you followed your own advice.

My wrong what, Haig?

Edited by jsfisher: 

Username corrected.

Yes, and the laymen know more about climate then they do, sure.

See, this a layman's understanding, nothing else.

You're flapping Belz

Others are changing from Global Warming to Warnings of ice age dangers

Greenpeace Warns Of Ice Age Dangers

The long-term effects of glaciation on repository safety could be very serious, potentially involving a large release of radionuclides due to glacial flushing from a damaged repository zone. Future glaciations could cause faulting of the rock, rupture of containers and penetration of surface and/or saline waters to the repository depth.

 

[Belz...]

You're flapping Belz

I'm not the one in hot waters, Haig.

Edited by jsfisher: 

Username corrected.

And as usual I see you don't address any of my points. Instead you simply blurt out another link without any further explanation. You skipped my point entirely, which was that you don't seek to understand why they may have hiherto blamed said vortex on one thing forty years ago, and on something different now. It doesn't enter your mind that perhaps our understanding of climate is better now, or that perhaps both can result in vortices, which eliminated your perceived contradiction.

No, all that matters is that citing that seems to support your worldview to you, and the rest is unimportant.

 

[Haig]

I'm not the one in hot waters, Haig.

Edited by jsfisher: 

Username corrected.

Complaint raised to mods. Getting a name wrong deliberately is against the rules Belz...

Edited by kmortis: 

Username corrected.

I would say I'm in cool waters heading towards icy

And as usual I see you don't address any of my points. Instead you simply blurt out another link without any further explanation. You skipped my point entirely, which was that you don't seek to understand why they may have hiherto blamed said vortex on one thing forty years ago, and on something different now. It doesn't enter your mind that perhaps our understanding of climate is better now, or that perhaps both can result in vortices, which eliminated your perceived contradiction.

Ah! so you think they can have it both ways ?

A bit like HERE Global Warming is causing Global Cooling too

My view is "the cause" is a more active Sun and a less active Sun. As we are seeing with the Pause and a less active Sun.

No, all that matters is that citing that seems to support your worldview to you, and the rest is unimportant.

Get a grip man, you're ranting ...

No, I can respond to evidence ... can you?

Diminishing solar activity may bring new Ice Age by 2030

 

[Belz...]

Complaint raised to mods. Getting a name wrong deliberately is against the rules Belz...

Edited by kmortis: 

Username corrected.

Report yourself, then, since you deliberately misspell mine after I've asked you to correct that.

I would say I'm in cool waters heading towards icy

And I would say that you continue to flaunt your ignorance.

Ah! so you think they can have it both ways ?

NO! Read my post.