In case you didn't get the message

http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here/10783

No I am not saying it is permanantly warming as the AGW crowd likes to harp. Weather is cyclical and the evidence presented for AGW is largely WEATHER not climate.

No if the arctic is 10 degrees warmer than it was 10 years ago it would still be WEATHER because you cannot cherrypick a high out of an AVERAGE data set and then call it CLIMATE.

And the Greenlnd ice core samples shows that Greenland was warmer during human existence prior to the industrial revolution. BFD.

It is also salinity and it is pollution other than CO2.

Yes you win. You clearly are the loudest voice in the Tone Deaf Choir. That is for certain.

 

Its never stopped him before

Correct. Indeed todays conditions are well within post glacial natural variability as data from both poles clearly indicates

http://mclean.ch/climate/Ice_cores.htm

Yup its a case of win at all costs and whatever it takes to do so

 

Nope. The data does not support the models. We've been telling you that. So sir when the data does not support the model, the model is in error and requires a rework. It's what we've all been saying. Again, how many times do you need it written in a thread?

BTW, it will be next response with your graph again. 98% of the models are in error.

 

So it never occurred to you to think why Easterbrook wasn't able to get this piece of crap past peer-review, and had to publish it on a blog instead? Here are a few hints:
1. In spite of your assertion otherwise, there is no model here.
2. The PDO clearly has no effect on Ocean Heat Content, in spite of your false claim otherwise. Proof:
1960-1975: PDO goes down, OHC goes up.
1975-1987: PDO goes up, OHC goes up.
1987-1992: PDO goes down, OHC goes up.
1992-1997: PDO goes up, OHC goes up.
1997-2002: PDO goes down, OHC goes up.
2002-2006: PDO goes up. OHC goes up.

So you have no explanation for the increase in Ocean Heat Content. Are you even interested in where that extra ocean heat comes from? Are you even willing to address the problem? I'm guessing the answers are no and no, but on the off chance that you really want to be taken seriously, here's a hint: it will help if you don't violate Conservation of Energy. Because you can't just wave your magic wand and create 2.5x10[sup]23[/sup] Joules out of nothing.

So your "it's the Sun" stuff was just a total smokescreen. Gotcha. You're not ashamed to be deceptive.

So you're saying it's cyclical. Gotcha.

So you admit that the Arctic is warmer than it was 10 years ago? Gotcha. But I'm just curious: how long would the Arctic have to keep warming before it's climate, in your expert opinion? Ten years? Twenty years? Fifty years?

And you think Greenland is the whole world? How do you arrive at that conclusion?

Please explain how salinity increases sea level. Please explain how pollution increases sea level. Because if you can't, you've got nothing.

And still not one shred of credible evidence that anything you have said is actually true.

 

Roy Spencer did a graphic a while back illustrating just how far out of kilter the models have gone

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png

Pre empting the inevitable smearing attacks on Spencer credibility

Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.

Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil

 

Now care to explain, using math, how and why using atmospheric volume is a relevant measure of the effects of CO2?

 

I'm gonna bookmark this page and come back to it after this year's El Nino
With a weak solar cycle 24, the atmospheric temps should have dropped, not just leveled off as they di between 1958 and 1970


source

 

Well we certainly don't know that it isn't and that's a fact. The climate sensitivity of CO2 is just one of a plethora of major factors we cannot quantify and there are plenty more.

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5c9415b970b-pi

Hardly surprising then why the models this entire AGW premise is predicated upon have failed so spectacularly

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png

 

So, in other words, you don't know why measuring an increase in CO2 using total volume of the atmosphere is relevant. But you stated some irrelevant fact without understanding the significance of that fact. Another denier tactic: throw enough BS against the wall and some will stick
I see the Merchants of Doubt's favorite graph.

 

Nobody does . That's the point I was trying to make about the swathe of major uncertainties here

Denier denier pants on fire .... tedious stuff

Well actually this guy compiled it so perhaps you better take it up with him if you feel he isn't sufficiently qualified to do so

Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global Warming.

Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.

 

Nobody knows why you're using the total volume as a reference is relevant because it's not relevant. Nobody but the pseudoscientists use total volume as a basis of measuring the increase in CO2.

You posted the chart so you own it. You wouldn't, by chance have a link to his post, instead of a link to just an image?

 

Sure . Here you go

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06...-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/

 

Geeeeez.

When you burn an atom of carbon, 1 molecule of O2 becomes 1 molecule of CO2. The number of molecules in the atmosphere does not change, therefore the volume of the atmosphere does not change.

The Adventures of Flogger-Can't-Think, Chapter -1.

 

Poor Debater already addressed that graph several times. Look it up

I'm asking about the source to this image

I'll ask you again, why is the using the total atmospheric volume as a basis for increasing CO2 relevant? You brought it up now explain it to us.

 

Hmm.....The graph was from Roy Spencer an award winning PhD NASA climatologist versus the musings of an alarmist troll. On balance I'll go with the former

Eh ? I gave you the source . Here it is again

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06...-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/

http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/10/...s-that-cause-all-the-prediction-failures.html

Because I was illustrating just how minute the numbers are that we are dealing with here.

Heres a closer look at the numbers dealing with greenhouse gases only, if total volume upsets you so much.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Theres not a whole lot of joy for you there either

 

Already addressed by PoorDebater, several times

So all you have is a chart with a bunch of checks with no evidence that supports the claims on the chart. I want "absolute proof" that what's claimed on the chart is accurate. Or is "absolute proof" only required of AGW theory

Ah yes, Luntz's suggested tactic of using uncertainty to create doubt; another Merchant of Doubt!

Don't try and deflect. Answer my question: How are you justifying using the total volume of the atmosphere as a basis more measuring the percentage increase in CO2? If you can't answer the question, you cannot logically use the figure (.012%) as supporting your claim. Tell us why .012% is relevant.

 

And you never wondered why your award-winning NASA climatologist couldn't get this graph past peer-review, and published it on his blog instead?

Peer-review is a pretty low bar. And this piece of crap couldn't rise above even that.

 

The numbers are the numbers . If you feel they are likely to make the sky fall lets hear it ?

 

And why is it his opinion carries more weight with you exactly ?

No what I have is a chart compiled by a PhD climatologist with decades of experience who doubtless can access all the info he needs in order to compile it ! But nonetheless you prefer to go with an alarmist troll . Unbelievable !

Best you stick with Poor Debater then given you revere his opinion more

Or maybe its the simple fact that there is very great uncertainty ?

I didn't make a claim one way or the other I just illustrated the numbers . My position requires no burden of proof whatsoever after all .... remember ?

 

PoorDebater backed his opininion with facts which he took the time to explain; something you have yet to do.
And are you claiming that Spencer compiled this chart

Because that is what you seem to be stating when you write "No what I have is a chart compiled by a PhD climatologist with decades of experience who doubtless can access all the info he needs in order to compile it ! But nonetheless you prefer to go with an alarmist troll . Unbelievable !"

And you most certainly did make a claim. You claimed that CO2 rose by .012% of the total atmospheric volume (which is true, but irrelevant) and that you claimed you were "illustrating just how minute the numbers are that we are dealing with here." Claiming the numbers are minute requires an explanation of why using the total atmospheric volume is a valid way of measuring an increase in CO2.

 

This morning I was listening to Rush Limbaugh a denialist hero and he trotted out a standard denialist mantra, AGW is based on modeling and therefore has no credibility. Well just about anything objective is based on modeling - the solar system, our neural system, stop lights, whatever. But the meme takes and the zombies keep repeating it. Then after pin balling around continuing to make absolutely no sense he finally got to the nub of his thinking - his world view. It's all ideology he insisted. The conservatives have their view and the liberals have their view. The liberals want to expand government and take away our rights and property. Global warming is simply a cover for this agenda. Yes, in substance that's what he said. Science doesn't really count because it can be interpreted pretty much any way you want and liberals construct models based on a preconceived outcome. Ideology rules.

I think this may explain a lot of why our denialist friends can look real science right in the face and dismiss it or cherry pick and twist it because it doesn't meet the correct ideological criteria.

 

No he doesnt do facts. He is for example a 'hiatus denier'

Yes he compiled the graph not the list. If you feel the list of 50 modelling uncertainties from a different site is wrong or has misinterpreted something then please indicate where ? The fact that the list is most likely bang on the money is that virtually every climate model has spectacularly failed in just 25 years as Spencers graph of their woeful performance made clear. Why would you risk our economies and the welfare of millions on the basis of something as inherently unreliable as this unless something other than AGW was your primary motivation for doing so ? We still don't even know fundamental factors like the climate sensitivity of CO2 for instance

http://judithcurry.com/2014/03/05/lewis-and-crok-climate-less-sensitive-to-co2-than-models-suggest/

Err .... to indicate just how minute the numbers are. I also linked you a highly detailed analysis of greenhouse gases only and the tiny human contribution to them . Which of course you duly ignored.

Why is it so important for you to believe this AGW nonsense ? Is it the potential for societal restructuring more to your liking that it might facilitate for you perhaps ?

 

Nicely doubles down on my previous post - "societal restructuring" is the conspiracy behind the science.

 

Here's some credible evidence, right here.

 

Ice in winter? Shock! Horror!