A Note To Skeptics….DO NOT STEP IN THE TRAPS!!!

Recently, I’ve see few things which have bothered me a bit.  Now, some of these thoughts have already been expressed, but I thought I’d add my own perspective.

For those who may not have heard, we have another dendro(tree ring) paper out.  It is published in full at Nature Climate Change.  The paper shows a slight declining temperature slope for over 2000 years.

image

Of course, this seemingly refutes the works of Mann and all of the others.  Personally, I view this as good news, but not for the reason some other’s would.  There are some problems with this paper.  I’ll just mention a few.

First of all, this study was limited to the geographic location of “northern Scandinavia”.  This is not the same as stating the northern hemisphere.  And, it goes beyond this, the authors note no divergence from the temp record.  This doesn’t reconcile with what has been accepted.  But, what is most important, is that these trees suffer from the same physical limitations as all of the other trees in the dendro/temp studies.  In fact, this paper reinforces my posit as to why dendro shafts are so straight.  For information read this …….  Why Are Dendro Shafts So Straight?  The same critiques applied to the other dendro papers apply to this one as well.  Just because it slopes as some would like it, doesn’t mean this is anymore valid than the other papers.  And, again, I see this as verification that they are inadequate in determining paleo temperatures.  This is a trap.  Do not step in it.

Another thing I saw which was a bit troubling was this …….

Texas State Climatologist Dr. John Nielsen-Gammon takes an extended interest in Dr. Robert Brown’s comment-turned-essay on WUWT.

Skeptics Are Not Deniers: A Conversation (part 1)

The background is lengthy, so go here for the full background story.  But, essentially it was a stir about calling skeptics, deniers in a paper by a Dr. Bain.  So, Dr. John Nielsen-Gammon(JNG), a luke warm alarmist, says that skeptics aren’t deniers.  What prompted JNG to make such a proclamation?  The writing of a Dr. Robert Brown, a Lecturer of Physics at Duke University in a response to Dr. Bain, from the comment section of WUWT.  JNG explains it ……

Bain, in attempting to explain himself, digs a deeper hole.  First he notes that those he would call skeptics and those he would call deniers are two distinct sets of people: “So in my mind we were ultimately challenging such “denier” stereotypes. But because we were focused on our target audience, it is true that I naively didn’t pay enough attention to the effect the label would have on other audiences, notably skeptics.”  But then, he proceeds to refer to skeptics as those who believe AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is not occurring, which is precisely fits the definition of “denier” given in his Nature study!

Brown’s comment offers a different characterization of most skeptics, at least those who frequent WUWT, including himself: “they do not ‘deny’ AGW…What they challenge is the catastrophic label and the alleged magnitude of the projected warming on a doubling of CO2.”  This seems to be cleanly outside Bain’s “denier” definition, but since Bain equated deniers with skeptics, Bain is tarring them both with a broad brush.

Again, this is a trap.  This is allowing an alarmist to define what a skeptic is.  For instance, I deny very little.  But, I also affirm very little.  Much of climate science is guessing with very little ability to verify or refute.  Now here’s the point. Neither John Nielsen-Gammon, nor Robert Brown, nor Bain, regardless of what they agree upon, are going to tell me or anyone else who is and who isn’t a skeptic.  There are not “levels” or degrees to which a person is a skeptic.  The CAGW hypothesis stands on many legs.  If one is false, then the whole is false.  If one is skeptical of any or all of the CAGW hypothesis, then, they are a skeptic.  If you’re in for a penny, then you’re in for a pound.  This is a divisive trap.  Do not step in it! 

And this leads me to the last thing I’m going to mention on this post.  Last week, Dr. Judith Curry wrote a post about a meme filled AP news piece “what global warming looks like.”  Apparently she was asked questions but wasn’t quoted in the article.  So, she share her responses and expounded her thoughts.  Judith Curry is the trap.  She says and clearly understands the things necessary to be a skeptic.  But, she never drives the point home.  She is seemingly on an endless trip towards compromise.  I’ll demonstrate….. she concludes her post with this statement…..

JC summary:  So is this what global warming looks like?  Well, this is what the 1930′s and 1950′s looked like.  I have stated many times before that I think the 1950′s (warm AMO, cool PDO) are a good analogue for current weather patterns and extreme events.  The good news in this latest episode is that no one seems to be trying to attribute extreme events to AGW; merely saying ‘this is what global warming looks like.

Clearly, that’s horse shit.  Just because they’re not explicitly stating as such, they are definitely being implicit in attempting to tie recent weather to AGW.  It is deception to state otherwise.  On the first question the reporter asked of her…….

JC:  As global average temperature increases, you can expect periodically there to be somewhere on the globe where weather patterns conspire to produce heat waves that are unusual relative to previous heat waves. However, there have been very few events say in the past 20 years or so that have been unprecedented say since 1900.

Her wordsmithing is incredibly frustrating.  Our GAT is increasing?  Since when?  The rest is correct, by why simply state “as global average temperature increases…”?  There’s no illumination, no caveats, just a statement would one could take as affirmation that the earth is warming and that we’re seeing the effect of it today in the U.S.  But, we know it is not warming.  Even by their own temp readings it hasn’t in the last 15 years and this year is 3rd coolest in the last 15.  It is impossible to attach the word warming to this year.  As usual, she provides and movement on the issues similar to that of a ping-pong game.  This is a trap.  Skeptics should not step in these traps.

image

Do not step in the traps!

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

62 Responses to A Note To Skeptics….DO NOT STEP IN THE TRAPS!!!

  1. Keith Battye says:

    Bollocks is bollocks is bollocks.

    Can’t choose which things are right because you like ‘em.

  2. DirkH says:

    See my comment here.

    http://notrickszone.com/2012/07/10/esper-et-al-2000-year-reconstruction-distinctly-depicts-powerful-natural-factors-shatters-absurd-notion-co2-drives-climate/#comment-122570

    Worse, it looks like they used a spline filter for each individual tree, at least in one of the graphs of the addenda. Now, that may be SOP in dendro, but it’s smoothing upon smoothing with a filter that is not a favorite of mine. Maybe they run their algorithms on unsmoothed data though, I haven’t read enough to be able to tell ya.

    BUT, it has to be said, it’s a leviathan of a paper together with its technical addenda. They seem to be showing what they’re doing. Hope Steve McIntyre analyses it.

    • suyts says:

      I hope so too, but that won’t allay my concerns about dendro reconstructions to begin with.

    • DirkH, just ”attempting” to discover temperature from tree rings is a proof of ignorance, or dishonesty. Agronomist and lumberjack can tell you that: 101 different things effect the growth of every individual tree.In same orchard there are better trees than others; even though they get same fertilizer and water. Closer to a gully, or big rock below the tree is enough to effect the thickness of the rings. Tree cannot tell about the temp on his hill, definitely not on the WHOLE planet.

      If one tree had a shade from a bigger tree next to it, for first 10y, was stunting growth, then the bigger tree has fallen and become mulch for the tree you are analyzing -> will have COMPLETELY different rings than the tree 20m away. Dirk, THE TREES ARE LYING!!! If you want the truth, go to my website and read every sentence. I don’t put new post every day for the bingo players, only the essential truth

  3. “as global average temperature increases…”?

    suyts, are you going to make a post about ”LOADED COMMENTS; or should I? It’s a very effective tool, is used by both camps. I have in my book: LOADED COMMENTS + HALF TRUTHS / with LIES in the same basket; but needs to be brought to attention, to the sods in the blogosphere. Recently I gave you an example, if you can remember: ”the moon is spinning around the earth and you own me a million bucks” + ”is the resent warming anthropogenic or not”?. There isn’t any warming – even if there was one, they wouldn’t have known; because nobody is monitoring on the WHOLE planet. They use those cheap tricks, but effective on the ignorant.

    2] ”not very reliable before 69, because wasn’t satellite temp monitoring”WOW! Reliability of the ”satellite monitoring” is the biggest joke. Suyts, you are regularly splashing those ”infra-red satellite photos” – try to find on one of those, what was the correct temperature in your backyard; unless you leave on another GLOBE, should be able to find it. Can you? The name ”satellite” gives credibility, but is the biggest con. a] in two dimensional photo / to know, three dimensional distribution of temperature… it’s an insult to human intelligence. b] on one small hill, there are 700 variations in temperature, and changes every 15 minutes. c] example: to know the correct temp of USA from an A4 format photo…? It’s same as from A4 format photo, to calculate how many people on individual date are in USA, can you?! 1] you can’t even see the people = on infrared cannot see the temp difference on the northern side off that small hill, to compare it with the western or southern side temperature – even though fluctuates by 2-3C. D] If you have being on a boat on the open sea – on many, many places winds change direction / different temp after 350m, can you see that difference on those infrared photos?! Instead of promoting those photos and charts, it’s an honest thing to start discrediting the crap. Monitor personalty the temp in your backyard for few days – then ask NASA, to give you their data of your backyard, and compare. Tell them that: Stefan say that they are lying, on taxpayer’s expense, shame, shame

    • suyts says:

      Yes, the loaded statements are another form of a trap. They state things in such a matter-of-fact tone when often nothing of the sort has been demonstrated….. like the increase in extreme weather.

      You sort of lost me on the satellite part. But, you’re right, if someone says “satellite”, then people think it is legitimate. But, as we see from the sea-level satellites, they are easily questioned.

      • suyts: July 10, 2012 at 2:31 pm
        1] not sea-level, suyts, sea-level can be monitored by anybody living close to the beach. But, the sea SURFACE temperature I’m referring + plus the temperature above the seawater!!! , . Those cannot be monitored by the suckers, for practical reasons – leading Warmist / NASA, know that, and are exploiting the urban sheep’s ignorance (their ”INFRARED” satellite photos, I was referring about, you and most other blogs promote )

        2] I consider as a loaded statement/ because it is, even when somebody from the skeptical side says: ”for the last 15y, no magnificent warming has being recorded”

        The truth: for the last 151 years and for the last 3000y, hasn’t accumulated enough extra heat; to boil one chicken egg. But when a ”pretend” Skeptic says, for the last 15 years = it means that 16y ago, or 20y ago was warming; which is a stupid lie. If in old documents say that: before 82 the planet was cooling; is not because the planet was genuinely getting colder; but before that, they were manipulating / promoting: ”Nuclear Winter by the year 2000”; because of CO2 ”dimming effect” By the year 2000, was supposed to accumulate enough CO2 in the atmosphere – to block big part of the sunlight = nuclear winter…?

        The biggest ”promoter / fear-monger” was prof. Hubert Lamb. Now, where the Warmist Swindlers in East Anglia are located, the building is called: ”Hubert Lamb Building” – the ”Building of Shame”; but he is still their hero – he educated them how to tell lies and get paid and worshiped for it.

        Why don’t you ask officially the East Anglia bosses, to apologize for the phony Nuclear Winter – before they dish lies to the taxpayer, about the phony GLOBAL warming?! If they are hold responsible – will start having some respect for the Skeptics, and for the truth

        • suyts says:

          I see…… yes. Well, one of the things I love to do, is to use their own idiocy against them. It grabs their attention, sometimes. I should probably caveat that much of these measurements are implausible or impossible to be stated with any certainty. The IR sats are particularity problematic.

          Sometimes it takes a while to get the ship turned.

  4. jimash1 says:

    “This is a divisive trap. Do not step in it! ”

    In a word…BUYING.
    Thank you.

    • jimash1, we are already deep in it. Question is; how to ”step out of it”

      • jimash1 says:

        Well, Stefan,
        I didn’t step in it. I saw the article at WuWT and read some of it and thought about it,
        then I saw James’ excellent analysis of why this is a trap and I have not walked into it.
        On the other hand I do think there may be a valid version of dendrowhatever ,
        but they are not using that.
        I looked at the chart and said “Longer hockey stick.”
        The only way out of it is the Steven Goddard way. Observational data that has not been fudged.
        Unfortunately the Minitruth alarmists, have thus far prevailed in the public sphere, finally closing down the record books to a mere twelve years for drought records.

        http://www.ocregister.com/news/drought-362527-dry-normal.html

        Even where the weather isn’t hot they are pushing

        http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2012/07/10/latest-climate-data-u-s-is-a-hothouse/

        We have to keep screaming and denying , till the veil falls.
        And fall it must. Orwell can spin no faster in the grave.

      • jimash1 July 10, 2012 at 7:24 pm

        Well mate, depends in which country you are; how smart your politicians are. If you are in Australia = you are already in it, up to your neck ($25 bucks carbon rip-off, per ton). Australians are leaders in environmental lunacy, they are even proud of it.

        ”Observational data that has not been fudged” well, well… on 2/3 of the planet, above the sea, nobody is collecting data – is IGNORED, that is worse than fudging it. On the land – is monitoring on airports – in between AIRPORTS, there is hours flying distances that nobody is monitoring – million variation in temp, ignored. WHERE IS MONITORED, is monitored for the hottest minute of the day – the rest of 1439 minutes are conveniently ignored… compare 365 minutes V against ALL the other minutes in the year – which one will win?! fudge is sweet – bull coated with fudge is palatable for most… I rely only on real proofs / I have all those proofs. There are enough real proofs – no need data from IPCC, life is too short. cheers!

  5. HankH says:

    James, I graphed Ljugzvist’s 2000 year temperature reconstruction dataset based on 30 temperature sensitive proxy series – one of the largest proxy reconstructions I’m aware of. I plotted the error bars and the linear trend as well. Like a good scientist, he made his data available. The study was submitted in 2009 and published in 2010. Here’s what I got:

    http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/525/ljugzvist2010.gif/

    Dark navy blue line is the mean of all 30 proxies. The gray lines are the error ranges. the light blue lines is the linear trend. Note that the temperature line series has a resolution of 10 years. The year labels on the X axis is ever 20 years for readability. The series ends in 1999.

    Given that there has been no warming since 1999, we remain pretty much at the last tick on the graph to the present.

    30 proxies with good statistical power can’t be wrong in my opinion.

    • suyts says:

      Hank, that’s really interesting. A couple of questions…..
      why is your “zero” in the position it is, and what constitutes “good” statistical power?

      • HankH says:

        Actually the zero was chosen by Ljugzvist. It is the baseline for 1961-1990. The actual values are temperature variations relevant to the baseline.

        Statistical power is a measure of how well the number of samples used in a study are able to represent reality. Technically it is a test for the number of samples required to meet a desired significance level vs. magnitude of the effect. The most common formula used is Cohen’s “d”.

        An practical example of a bad vs. good statistical power could be… if you want to determine the range of color variations in dogs and all you have is two dogs as your sample and both dogs are white, without any further observations you would conclude that all dogs are white. But we know this to be inaccurate. If we were to sample, say 1000 dogs of varying breeds, we would arrive at a very different and more accurate conclusion. The study of 1000 dogs is of higher statistical power than a two dog study.

        Ljugzvist was careful to select only proxy reconstructions that had adequate statistical power as to not bias the results due poor statistical power – one of the reasons I took an interest in his study. Many single proxy reconstructions brandished around as “proof” are pathetically low in statistical power.

        • suyts says:

          Thanks Hank…..“Actually the zero was chosen by Ljugzvist. It is the baseline for 1961-1990.”…… that’s what I was getting at. There’s a divergence between yours and Ljugzvist’s relative to the zero line….. ??

          And, yes, I understand, more = better sampling. I was referring to what specific sample size do you consider “good”?

          I’m not trying to give you a hard time, I’m just trying to help refine the discussion.

          This dendro still has the same physical limitations of others, and the geographical limitations decreases the potential impact of the study.

        • HankH says:

          I went back and checked the graph against the dataset. I don’t see a divergence. Are you talking about a divergence along the timeline or an offset from zero for the entire line series? Can you point out the divergence to me so I can be more targeted in addressing the question?

          A power of .80 is typically the minimum accepted n most fields of science. I suspect in climatology, the value is lower. A “good” sample size would vary from each individual reconstruction used in the study. Ljugzvist doesn’t state what they are for each of the individual proxy reconstructions so I’m taking his word that they met his inclusion criteria. Yes, I know that’s not being very skeptical but one would need to obtain all 30 reconstructions he used and do the analysis. I wasn’t that motivated just to reproduce a graph when my intended use was to tie history to it to demonstrate that the RWP, DACP, MWP, and LIA had profound effects upon human history. You know, those cold and warm periods alarmists try to say didn’t really happen because their tree rings don’t show them.

          I agree, this new dendro, being geographically limited to “northern Scandinavia” is not all that useful for speaking to the entire NH. It will see the same out of hand dismissal by alarmists.

        • suyts says:

          Thanks Hank, give me a few and I’ll try to see if I can illustrate what I’m saying. In my view, the history is one of the most important aspects of the climate issue. Humanity prospers when it’s warm. Not so much when it’s cold.

          This has the makings of a very good post. Would you be interested?

        • HankH says:

          Yes, I would be interested.

        • suyts says:

          Sweet! I would be honored. …. If it’s okay, I’ll post both you’re graph and Ljugzvist’s here to discuss. I find it easier than a tedious back and forth of emails. Iron out any wrinkles and then you can have the floor for a bit!

        • HankH says:

          Sounds good. I think it will be interesting.

      • HankH says:

        Meant to say “The actual values are temperature variations [relative] to the baseline.”

  6. HankH says:

    Sorry if this is a bit long. If you feel it is OT in any way, just delete it.

    I annotated the warm and cool periods on the graph per Ljugzvist’s notes in his textual abstract. Here’s some historical tie-ins I dug up you might find interesting (I love tying historical stuff to pale climate to show how these periods affect human development).

    The five periods of climate shift most recognizable in my graph of Ljungqvist’s dataset are:

    The Roman Warm Period (RWP) – This is this period of time that Jesus lived in. It was a period of considerable agricultural expansion and cultural development. Vineyards in the south of England were plenty. Date trees grew in Greece. Olive presses were found in the Roman cities of Sagalassos in Anatolia, where it it remains too cold to grow olives there today (Scheidel et al., 2007).

    The Dark Ages Cold Period (DACP) – This was a time where history documents a great retreat of agriculture and depression of human activity, punctuated with starvation and plagues in many regions. Food was more scarce and there was considerable migration of people away from former farm lands which led to reforestation in large areas of central Europe and Scandinavia. It was a period of rapid cooling associated with the first Bond event identified in the North Atlantic sediments (Bond et al., 1997).

    The Medieval Warm Period (MWP)- The Vikings established farms and grew wheat on Greenland, where today the land is covered mostly by ice and is too cold to be suited to agriculture. The industrial revolution began during the MWP. There was considerable agricultural expansion as well as expansion of warmer climate fauna. The summer of 1130 was so dry that you could wade through the river Rhine. In 1135, the Danube flow was so low that people could cross it on foot (Behringer 2008). Wineries sprang up in Germany and citrus orchards sprang up in parts of Asia where it is too cool to exist today (Lamb 1989).

    The Little Ice Age (LIA) – This was a period of great upheaval and misery in human history. Fur trappers reported that Hudson Bay remained frozen long into the spring. Eskimos were seen paddling canoes off of the coast of England, Alpine glaciers engulfed mountain villages, cold and wet weather killed farm animals and destroyed crops, the bubonic plague killed more than a third of Europeans, farms and villages in Northern Europe were deserted due to persistent crop failures, bread was made from the bark of trees because grains wouldn’t grow (Windows2Universe 2008), and the famous potato famine starved over 1 million people in Ireland and caused a mass emigration of another 1 million people out of Ireland (Kinealy 1995). It was too wet and cold for the Irish to grow their staple crop, potatoes.

    The Current Warm Period (CWP) – Rebounding from the LIA, we’re gradually warming up again. We are in a period where satellite imagery across 30 years shows a significant greening of the earth (Liu et al., 2010), Northern latitudes have seen higher productivity in agriculture, wineries exist in upper New York, Arctic ice is at a historic low, and human population has exploded along with technology and agriculture (I don’t need to cite this – just check out your cell phone and pay a visit to the grocery store).

    References:

    Ljungqvist, F.C. 2009. N. Hemisphere Extra-Tropics 2,000yr Decadal Temperature Reconstruction. IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series # 2010-089. NOAA/NCDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.

    Bond, G., Showers, W., Cheseby, M., Lotti, R., Almasi, P., de Menocal, P., Priore, P., Cullen, H., Hajdas, I. and Bonani, G. 1997. A pervasive millennial-scale cycle in North Atlantic Holocene and glacial climates. Science 278: 1257-1266.

    Scheidel, Walter; Morris, Ian; Saller, Richard P. (2007). The Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World. Cambridge University Press. p. 19. ISBN 0521780535.

    Wolfgang Behringer, Kulturgeschichte des Klimas: Von der Eiszeit zur globalen Erwärmung. ISBN 9783 406 52866 8 (Printed in Germany)

    Hubert H. Lamb: Klima und Kulturgeschichte, Reinbeck 1989

    Kinealy, Christine (1995), This Great Calamity: The Irish Famine 1845–52, Gill & Macmillan, ISBN 1-57098-034-9

    Windows2Universe.org Web reference: http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/little_ice_age.html, last updated June 20, 2008.

    Liu, S., R. Liu, and Y. Liu. 2010. Spatial and temporal variation of global LAI during 1981–2006. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 20, 323-332.

    • suyts says:

      I do love the history!

    • Jim Masterson says:

      There’s also an unnamed cool/cold period prior to the Roman Warm Period. Then as you go further back in time, the temperatures rise until we reach the Holocene maximum.

      Of course, all of this is denied by the warmists.

      • HankH says:

        You’re correct. There is an unnamed cold and warm period just before the Roman Warm Period. In fact, the Holocene Optimum is actually two very distinct events lumped into one. There seems to be a reluctance to give names to supposed non-events.

        • DirkH says:

          It’s unknown to the NPOV but the rest of the internet knows it as the Minoan Climate Optimum. The culture of the Minoans vanished when it cooled. Their empire had its centre on Crete AFAIK.

        • HankH says:

          DirkH, thanks for the info. I’ve been writing a paper on past civilizations and the impact of climate on them. I’m trying to relate historical documentation to the warm and cold periods to see if there is good alignment. I’ll follow the Minoan lead and see where it takes me. Every bit builds a more complete picture.

      • Jim Masterson; you have proven that Santa is for real; but when you grow up – you will understand; why is good to know both sides of the story. Yes, Santa is in many, many books – so are the phony GLOBAL warmings – The ones that concocted them 70% are now in the Warmist camp = they know the validity of those warmings / coolings, as if the planet has a hi-fever – temp up and down as a yo-yo, is outdated mythology – reason they declared; ”science is settled” because Skeptics have ”truth phobia”

        Warmist know that: nobody knows what was earth’s temp last year – when ”pretend Skeptics” PRETEND that they know what was the temp on the WHOLE planet, hundreds and thousandths of years ago – all based on Paganistic mythology – they will keep ripping off the Innocent, and brainwash the kids in school and university. Who is to blame for it?! Running away from reality – doesn’t make the reality to disappear. Trying to prove that will not be a global warming in 100y, with dozens of phony ”proxy lies” of many, many phony GLOBAL warmings – is a Viagra for the Warmist; to screw up .the economy and democracy. The more one knows, the more is worth / truth phobia is self restriction

        • Jim Masterson says:

          >>
          stefanthedenier says:
          July 11, 2012 at 11:13 pm

          Jim Masterson; you have proven that Santa is for real
          <<

          My grandkids will probably appreciate that. But they don’t need proof of Santa’s realism.

          Jim

        • Jim Masterson July 12, 2012 at 10:08 am

          Jim, welcome to the ”Dad’s Army” I have a granddaughter – we need to think maturely, because the little buggers will inherit the legacy of the ”shonky climatologist’s” stupidity.

          Before that, you should tell to the grown-up D/H, from both camps: ”because of high demand for little fire trucks, for the Warmist & Skeptic sandpit -> Santa had to make a large extension on his toy factory on the north poll -> because of extra CO2 from Santa’s factory + from Rudolf’s methane – the ice on the northern polar cap is melting… tragic, BOO!”

        • HankH says:July 13, 2012 at 12:09 am

          Hank, in proxy, people find what they want to find, even if is not there. b] before 1990, there was no scrutiny – few of them were competing for limited budget – exaggerating, sky was the limit. Take everything with the pinch of salt. Climatology is the second oldest profession. In the beginning, they were demanding few sheep and sacrificing a virgin; if you want to have good climate. Then Christianity demanded obeying the 11 commandments + 10% of what you earn; or St Peter will bring the hailstorms. After Darwin, the Reds went into overdrive – disregarded the good Lords laws of physics = that was NOT a science; more of Disney fairy-tales – then they put it in the education books = becomes official; they were cloning more idiots of themselves.

          Speaking of ”natural cycles” – there is no natural REGULAR PATTERN CYCLES. Sounds to me as Paris Hilton’s menstrual cycles. b] You could have found on my blog: most of the genes in everything living, are degenerated / junk genes; but not the genes for adaptation and diversification = proves that the climate NEVER stopped changing, not for day one, from day one – kept that gene for adaptation / diversification alert (you use it, or lose it)

          3] IPCC confused the hell in you people. On my blog clearly states: 1] land surface and above the seawater is one and the same thing – the whole troposphere is one unit / cannot monitor as room temperature seriously; winds from land to sea / from sea to land doesn’t stop for one split second in the year; all troposphere is one unit. 2] the amount of ice on polar caps have nothing to do with temp, but amount of water vapor; they are using it for more confusion 3] heat stored in the sea, in the magma, in the plutonium, in your oven; is like an asset, NOT OFFICIAL part of the GLOBAL temperature. When any of those assets release heat in the atmosphere – oxygen + nitrogen get read of any EXTRA in 7-8 minutes, by instantly expanding extra and accordingly increase the volume of the troposphere.

          But, the clever Swindlers cram everything – end result, you can see for yourself. Hank, the troposphere cannot get read of the heat; before is released from the seawater, or from the plutonium, or from the volcano, before is RELEASED INTO THE AIR – is only asset. Make difference between asset and liquid cash / liquid heat.. Don’t let them
          kid you. . Suyts can explain to you better; the difference between cash and assets, looks like he understands cash; I’m dumb in the cash department. Same as if you have a car, or a boat, cannot waste it, to buy an ice-cream, or on lottery

          By the way; 99,8% of the heat in the sea is released when nobody is collecting data – they only collect for the hottest minute – ask them: ”how much heat from the sea /
          volcanoes is released during the other 1439 minutes which are not monitored. Mate, stop taking everything as a gospel from them. they have to keep confusing – otherwise, they know that: when the truth is exposed , many of them can end up in jail; instead of getting billions and power they get now. They are clever / cunning mob

          What was the last question, i forgot… yes, the ice ages: they were more than real. in northern Europe they have being demolishing big hills. When was ”glacial period” in Canada was lots of them.. now follow me: when is lots of ice during summer, on that latitude- air above was much colder than today – ”colder air shrinks – crates vacuum – to avoid that -> lots of air from the opposite side gets to Canada = less air on the
          opposite side.- opposite side from those Canadian glaciers is somewhere in south pacific. What ”less air”means? The moon temp during the day is 105C, because of no air – which means: ”less air = much hotter days at that time on south pacific.

          When Australians were burning in the bushfires of the biggest heatwaves – in the SAME minutes people were freezing to death in Poland, USA – next year Russian heatwaves – in same time south Atlantic was much colder than normal – now is heatwaves in USA – Australia has the coldest year for 14years. – 14 years ago; when they declared as the hottest year – was actually the coolest in Australia – when I say Australia – for me above the waters around and ”land heat” is one and the same thing.

          7] imagine if north pol moves to Vladivostok, or to Montreal (Milankovich)- will make permanent ice; on places where is now subtropics; but will become tropical climate in Poland; just use a globus and will see in more details – that will change directions of many sea currents; rearrange the whole climate / fauna and flora. The last big ice age was for different reasons; is on my blog. Ice ages were misinterpreted – finding tropical climate, where is now temperate – has given to fertile imaginations; to crate as if the climate had malaria high fever – temp overall up and down as a yo-yo, in that department they are WRONG!!! Look on their GLOBAL temp charts… as a cardiac arrest monitoring.., sick isn’t it – to believe them? if they tell you that Canada is in north america, better double check on the map, for yourself. Thanks for asking those questions, thanks a million

    • HankH to have less sleepless nights; here is the reality of ALL ”proxy’ guessings. Why guess, when real proofs exist: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/open-pandoras-box/skeptics/

      • HankH says:

        stefanthedenier, thanks for the enjoyable read on the author’s dismissal of anecdotal evidence for the various climate shifts. If all we had were anecdotal evidence I would be inclined to agree with the author’s intent but not his approach. The author creates a lot of strawman arguments to neigh say without citing a single study that supports his views. I see his article as pretty much an ideological rant – not something I would pull out as the ace in my back pocket.

        The fallacy that you wish to paint me with is misplaced. I’m not using anecdotal evidence to make the case for climate shifts. I’m using 30 proxy reconstructions (of which 17 are emergent) that represent broad geographic scope and provide empirical evidence for these climate shifts to be more than regional. In my opinion, empirical evidence trumps ideology every time.

        • HankH July 12, 2012 at 12:01 pm

          Hi Hank, thanks for reading my post. That post is only to point to the ”skeptical people” to stop leaving in cloud-land; to open their eyes and see that: there are the laws of physics, still in existence.

          I never say something, what I can’t support with REAL proofs. If you have a spine to read some of the REAL proofs, beyond any reasonable doubt; here is some on my homepage: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/ If you read the other few pages also; it will be like turning the lights on. More extreme climatic changes are ahead; because of the stupid misleading propaganda – climatic changes have NOTHING to do with the phony GLOBAL warmings!!!

          Hank, when I say; ”regional” – it means, one, two places / most of the time is one hemisphere. I never argue about part of the planet getting warmer / it always does; BUT, when is referred as ”GLOBAL” that becomes mother of all crap. The laws of physics don’t permit warming of the WHOLE planet for more than 8-9 minutes; because oxygen + nitrogen are controlling the regulation of temperature. The hotter one place gets – the more O+N expand. Unless another area is colder, to accommodate the volume of EXTRA air -> that extra volume from the troposphere goes INSTANTLY into the stratosphere -> intercepts EXTRA coldness in 3,5 seconds -> that ”extra” cold air shrinks instantly (shrinks more than any other O+,N) – becomes heavier per volume and falls down with that extra coldness in a jiffy;and equalizes.

          But, by the planet spinning eastwards very fast; that extra coldness falls somewhere west = creates colder than normal somewhere west; overall, the whole planet cannot be warmer, or colder for more than 8-9 minutes. So, the warmer one part gets = the colder another part / parts get. In that case, because of O+N expand in warming, instantly; extra volume is accommodate, in space where gets colder. I.e. if USA gets warmer by 5C -> Oceania gets colder by 0,5C = overall is always the same. CO2 cannot prevent O+N from expanding. b] H2O is, (on many different ways); responsible for REDISTRIBUTION of the warmth

          Hank, before the ”climatologist” abolish the laws of physics; in the parliament, and in UN, O+N are still controlling the overall regulation of temp on the WHOLE planet. Oxygen + nitrogen are 998999ppm in the atmosphere / CO2 is 270-450ppm…. If you put 380 coins on one side of the old scale / 998999 coins on the other side -> will tell you quickly what the climatology has being for the last 150years. They have being deluding themselves – now they are robbing for billions of dollars, ALL based on sick fairy-tales.

          The ”doubling” of CO2, that they keep repeating; you can prove to them how stupid they sound; just: ”take another 400 coins from the 998999 side and put them on the other side, with the other 380 coins – see if is going to be any millimeter movement of the scales. If you read all 7-8 pages on my blog – will be like turning the lights on – but if you suffer from ”truth phobia”, as our friend Jim Masterson, waste another year on fairy-tales; until the world learns about the real proofs. Until then, happy sleepless nights, by being scared from the phony GLOBAL warmings

        • HankH says:

          stefanthedenier, actually, I read most of your web site and frankly, I’m a little confused as to what your points are. You just seem to be in the business of calling anyone who believes that climate changes is deceived (or just plain stupid).

          You seem to avoid discussion on the concept of “ringing” or natural oscillations in a natural system (like our climate) seeking equillibrium. For there to be no ringing (variability) the system must be at equilibrium at all times. In your proofs how do you address this question? Do you maintain that our climate system is at equilibrium at all times and therefore cannot experience variability on a global basis?

          You also claim “Ice Age / warming of the WHOLE planet is impossible.” So, you’re saying we have no empirical evidence for the ice ages and interglacials? How do your proofs eliminate the ice ages, for which there are volumes of geological evidence in support of them?

          How does your proof of EH>AE>EHR negate Bond event cycles that your favorite scientist, Milankovitch, identified as an unknown modulator, later to be better defined by Nigel Calder in his famous article in the Smithsonian (1976), and finally a mechanism described by Gerald Bond in 1997? So who is wrong? Milankovitch, Calder, or Bond? How do we dismiss work that builds a theory you disagree with from the only scientist you identify as getting the science right?

        • suyts says:

          The earth is never at an equilibrium. ….Just my point of view.

        • HankH says:

          I agree, James. If we were at equilibrium all the time there would be no global or regional climate variability, no seasons – every day the same as the day before (a point stefanthedenier makes several times on his web site).

        • suyts says:

          If we were to ever get to the static point of equilibrium, I believe all things on this planet would die. While I don’t believe there’s anything we can do about it, one way or the other, I don’t believe this should be a goal, either.

        • HankH says:

          Static equilibrium would be a very bad place to be. The potential energy across all lines transecting the system would be zero. Electricity depends on a difference in potential. If we were at static equilibrium, I wouldn’t be able to send all these electrons to comment on your site. Heck, my heart wouldn’t be beating because there’d be no electrical impulses to send across those calcium channels. Yep, we’d be up a non-flowing creek without a paddle.

        • suyts says:

          Yup. It’s one of the things which makes me laugh at people worried about climate change…… the alternative is what?

        • HankH says:July 12, 2012 at 8:40 pm: ‘stefanthedenier, actually, I read most of your web site and frankly, I’m a little confused as to what your points are. You just seem to be in the business of calling anyone who believes that climate changes is deceived (or just plain stupid)”

          Hank, the truth is completely the opposite:. climatic changes and localized warmings / coolings are constant; some places changes for better – others for worse. Anybody who doesn’t believe in climatic changes, is stupid, or blind. On the other hand, putting ”Climatic Changes” in the same basket as the phony GLOBAL warmings; is the precursor off all evil. Climatic changes and localized warmings / coolings are controlled by H2O. Global temp overall, is ”REGULATED” exclusively by oxygen + nitrogen, full stop. That is completely different / opposite, than what you are saying about my blog. If you did read, you would have seen that: human can improve / deteriorate the climate; because can control water, to a degree. But human cannot produce GLOBAL warming. If you do read it, you will be glad you did. Warmist are skilfully using the climatic changes – to lie about the phony global warming… Skepticals are helping them; by promoting past / proxy extreme climatic changes / LOCALIZED warmings / coolings, as GLOBAL, Have faith in the laws of physics, please read what is there – it will be like turning the lights on for you. Trust me. Anybody who believes that extreme climatic changes have anything to do with any phony GLOBAL warmings; is either ignorant, or is trying to confuse others; I stand by it – all proven

        • HankH says:

          stefanthedenier, I have faith in the laws of physics. My work depends upon not just faith but the practical application of them.

          Global temp overall, is ”REGULATED” exclusively by oxygen + nitrogen, full stop.

          This would be fine if the atmosphere were the only part of our climate system but it isn’t. It’a a relatively small player in the heat storage, conveyors, and regulators of our climate. There are numerous global and regional natural cycles that modulate temperature to varying degrees on a regional and global scale. Some are internal others external. I’d be happy to enumerate them for you if you would like but I expect it wouldn’t matter.

          Speaking of natural cycles that affect climate, lets talk about Milankovitch again – the scientist you say got science right. Does it bother you that Emiliani in 1955 and in later work in 1969, Ewing and Donn in 1956 and Shackleton in 1967 used proxy reconstructions from deep-sea cores to prove Milankovitch’s theory to be accurate? They used proxy reconstructions to explain the Quaternary climate changes. Without proxy reconstructions, Milankovitch would still be peddling a theory for which there is zero support. How you can dismiss out of hand the value of proxy reconstructions when they are the basis of confirmation for most long term cycles, including Milankovitch’s, is a curious thing.

          Your claim that I somehow support global warming by studying how climate affects cultural development is specious. They’re two separate issues. It has been well established in scientific literature and by ancient historical writings that significant climate shifts had profound effects upon culture. We’re not talking about short term shifts like a few cold days in March but rather shifts on the centennial scale. Since I don’t see how global warming had anything to do with the past paleoclimate record or in any way affected ancient civilizations, I’ll dismiss your criticisms as unjustified.

          So, about those global ice ages warm periods… Were they real or not?

    • gallopingcamel says:

      @HankH,
      Everything you wrote has a wealth of historical evidence to back it up. It is convincing to anyone who respects testimony from witnesses.

      A bunch of charlatans (aka “The Hockey Team”) has offered an analysis that essentially says that all those historians (witnesses) were mistaken. What they lived through and wrote about never happened!

      You would think that the professional scientific community would perform some sort of due diligence to audit the extraordinary claims of the “Team” given that they are denying the historial record. Instead it is left to gifted amateurs like Steve McIntyre to destroy the Team’s house of cards built as it is on a single tree in the Yamal peninsula, inverted Tiljander proxies, woeful data analysis and data that somehow got lost (the dog ate my homework).

      I am studying the scientific contributions underpinning the IPCC’s AR5 report (Working Group 1 chapters 1 through 10). Much of the work confirms that there is nothing unusual about our present climate. When the “Summary for Policy Makers” appears in September 2013 you can bet that the cautious message of the majority of WG1 scientists will be ignored, while the strident nonsense of the Paleo report (WG1, chapter 5) and the “Models” chapter will dominate.

      While I cannot predict the climate or the weather I can predict what the IPCC will say about them.

      The WG1 chapter 5 (Paleo) is controlled by the Hockey Team that is still trying to re-write history.

  7. suyts says:

    Hmm, Hank I found a snag here….. refresh and see new post.

  8. gallopingcamel says:

    HankH says:
    July 12, 2012 at 8:40 pm

    One of the major mysteries is what causes “Ice Ages”. It used to be thought that Milankovitch cycles were the cause but most ice ages start and stop much quicker than can be explained by Milankovitch.

    Recently Svensmark offered a huge paper claiming the supernovas trigger ice ages but I have not had time to read the paper so I am relying on Nigel Calder:

    http://calderup.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/a-stellar-revision-of-the-story-of-life/

    One propblem with this idea is that an ice age could be triggered by a random event such as a nearby GRB (Gamma Ray Burst) which is clearly outside of our ability to predict.

    Svensmark may be the next Wegener……………..or not.

    • @@gallopingcamel

      Hi Galloping, by Milankovich tilting of the planet; not just ice ages; but makes confusion to their fertile imaginations about other phony GLOBAL warmings / coolings. Reality: Imagine if the north pol goes to Vladivostok, or Montreal by what Milankovich wanted to say, – tropics and subtropics will be rearranged completely – that confused the shonky researchers that: when they discover palm trees imprint on Antarctic – they instantly announce GLOBAL warming. In reality, if Antarctic was on the south pol and palms were growing – in Central America the temp would have being above water boiling point.

      The last big Ice Age was triggered by different reasons. it’s on my website in details. under: {WARMER = MORE ICE}

      Galactic influences, are scraping from the bottom of the beryl. From here to the closest star is 2 light years distance of temp close to ultimate zero – from some exploding star 50-89y light years away -heat / radiation to travel trough that close to zero coldness… tarot cards are much more accurate, than galactic, zodiac influences

    • HankH says:

      Hello gallopingcamel. I think Milankovitch partly explains the ice ages. There are several other natural cycles that are phase additive and phase subtractive on top of the Milankovitch cycles that likely converge to initiate the rather rapid onset of a glacial and interglacial period epochs. What is most interesting is the transitions happen rather suddenly – in the course of one or two thousand years. It’s almost as if plate tectonics set us up for a climate with bistable equilibrium which employs some natural hysteresis mechanism some two million years ago. My vote is the thermohaline conveyors switching heat transport are the hysteresis mechanism but that’s pure conjecture on my part.

  9. @@HankH says:July 12, 2012 at 8:40 pm says: ”You also claim “Ice Age / warming of the WHOLE planet is impossible.” So, you’re saying we have no empirical evidence for the ice ages and interglacials? How do your proofs eliminate the ice ages, for which there are volumes of geological evidence in support of them?”

    Hank, that’s not fair, there is a page on the big Ice Age, title: ” WARMER = MORE ICE” All details, how and why it started / how and why it finished. Looks like, when you saw real proofs, you runaway and started making things that are completely the opposite, than what’s there… When was ”Interglacials” on the northern hemisphere – S/H had much hotter daytime temperatures than today. By not using the laws of physics in consideration – they interpreted everything back to front. Those ”volumes of evidences” wouldn’t stand scrutiny, even from you; if you did read what is on my website. For your own benefit, you should read it – than when you use the laws of physics as guidance – you will know what is correct / which part is wrong, and WHY, in those ”volumes”. Same laws of physics were then as today, unless you think that then were different laws of physics…
    .
    Hank, if something is missing there, I will be glad to give lots of extra details, but if you ”wish” that I’ve putted something wrong, then you are saying that I did… can be interpreted as ”truth phobia”

    • HankH says:

      When was ”Interglacials” on the northern hemisphere – S/H had much hotter daytime temperatures than today.

      Huh? That doesn’t make sense. We’re in an interglacial in the NH right now. By your logic shouldn’t the SH be in a deep freeze – some 13C deg. (55F) lower in temperature than today?

  10. Me says:

    With all the land mines being steped in here, :lol: I could only imagine pH douchebag is sitting back laughing it’s miserable ass off right now, because it doesn’t have to do anything…..

  11. Hank, I wrote a lot; but your direct question didn’t answer – here i’m again: you are calling it as glacial period in Europe; if that is glacial; you must be talking about another Europe. My sister complains on the phone; that their air-conditioner collapsed / too hot. Hank, if you keep comparing Warmist lies, or the fairy tales stories against the truth, they will never fit. They must exaggerate, I don’t do those things. Like stretching the elastic on your pants – then asking you to become instantly so fat – to match the hole. My truth comparing with their lies is same as you putting your trousers on 17 centipedes

    2] If it gets colder in Europe by 10 degrees – needs to get colder in Oceania by 0,5 degree, to be the same OVERALL, because oceania is much larger. Or opposite; if is ”colder in Europe by 10C.-Oceania must be warmer by 0,5C. No need to be colder by the same degrees, to mach. On the blog gives an example: if the creek in your neighborhood had 35% less water – it doesn’t mean that Amazon had 35% more water, but that 35% is spread somewhere / same goes with heat. thanks again Those therms; glacial, Eocene Miocene – they were invented; to sound as if they know what they are talking about, , But ice movement was demolishing hills, some place do it now. If Vladivostok moves to the north pol; Greenland becomes subtropical with lots of glacial imprints; handy for confusion

  12. @stefanthedenier,
    I went to your website and liked the introduction. Once I got into the details my head started to spin. I don’t buy your idea that Ice Ages were local even though I find Wegener’s gyrating continents plausible.
    Scotese has done an excellent job making this understandable to the general public:

    http://www.scotese.com/

    Unfortunately, this fine site seems to be down today so I was not able to find a link showing present day Antarctica sitting on the equator.

    I am a retired physics researcher but my field is optics (infra-red to gamma rays) rather than climate science. While I have lost most of my marbles, my b**ls**t detector still works. One of the most difficult things for any theory of climate to explain is the abruptness of the major swings we call Ice Ages.

    In spite of alarmists like Hansen the climate has never suffered a “Runaway Greenhouse Effect”. Most likely cloud cover increases as the temperature rises, placing an upper limit on temperature. Likewise there is a limit to the “Iceball Earth” scenario as the skies clear when the planet cools. Thus as HankH points out Ice Ages appear to be bistable and the thermohaline theory could be a vital mechanism. That still leaves one wondering what triggers the transition from hot to cold or vice versa.

    • gallopingcamel July 13, 2012 at 9:36 am

      Sorry for delay in relaying, I have some very noisy / demanding visitors from oversea (for another 8 days). I’m glad you know optics / infra-red; I can learn from you a lot about it. For example: how can they from a satellite; be precise about three dimensional temp distribution in the troposphere and in the sea water, from a two-dimensional A4 format infra-red photo? I have many questions on the subject.

      2] regarding ”ice ages” they were for different reasons, many times. I have in details, reason for the last big one, on my website. Before that, Milankovich ”wobblings of the planet fits – but his theory is misinterpreted occasionally + he may not be 100% correct.

      Fact is that: the old bitch wobbles – otherwise would have being every 28 days solar eclipse, from the moon, or never – instead happens ”occasionally” = proves him correct. If the north pol ends up in Vancouver, or central Russia – would produce ice where is now warm = will deceive easy, as GLOBAL ice age; which wasn’t global. You as physicist, should understand that: the laws of physics don’t negotiate / consensus – they were same then as today. The good Lord made those laws, not as a suggestions, but as laws. Therefore, 15000y ago, the north pol if it wasn’t on same spot, must have being only few yards away – that particular ice age was crated by human inventing artificial fire + in combination, Gibraltar didn’t exist. Lets have a good debate on my blog; because tribalism as schoolyard bullying is not exactly a science.

      You state that you are good B/S detector; I need that – with the most critical eye; point
      what is wrong on my 8-9 pages / also if something is correct; but because you think so; not because: ”some books say different” If my theories, facts, formulas are correct = everything in the global warming blogosphere is a sandpit job. Start from homepage, to the last; I’ll change your thinking, or you will change my. This is an official challenge. it’s not much there, but sufficient; to prove the world wrong; if you believe in the basic laws of
      physics. CLIMATIC CHANGES ARE REAL AND CONSTANT, GLOBAL WARMINGS AND ”GLOBAL” ICE AGES, ARE PRODUCT OF DESPERATE SPECULATORS! All proven!

    • suyts says:

      Sigh…. they just couldn’t help themselves……

      “However, it is climate change deniers who seem to have misconstrued the bigger picture. [Incompetent People Too Ignorant to Know It]“

      I don’t know why people don’t listen.

      • jimash1 says:

        Yup.
        I saw that quote. Like its an excuse to get nastier than ever.

        I listened.

      • suyts says:

        Well, we knew that some of them would. It’s interesting, in the last couple of years, the skeptic ranks have swelled significantly. But, many of them lack the experience with the alarmists us more seasoned veterans have.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s