A Climate Central article, written by Michael D. Lemonick attempting to minimalize the Antarctic’s growth, had this gem.
You might reasonably suspect that all the fuss about disappearing Arctic sea ice is overblown, then, given the growth of ice down south.
But you’d be wrong, for all sorts of reasons.
The first is that the one percent growth per decade in the Antarctic pales next to the much faster 15.5 percent drop per decade in the Arctic. They aren’t even in the same ballpark. Not only that: while the sea ice bordering Antarctica has been growing slightly, the massive ice sheets that sit directly atop the frozen continent are shrinking, at an accelerating rate, with worrisome implications for global sea level rise.
He’s referencing a 2011 paper. But, that’s not the latest information we have about the Antarctic ice sheets. Quite the opposite. NASA tells us the Antarctic ice is growing by 49 Gt/yr. Turns out, they’ve been exaggerating ice loss for quite sometime.
So, why is Climate Central misleading their readers?
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
“So, why is Climate Central misleading their readers?”
They have no choice. The truth has abandoned their agenda.
Yes, and is making their inanity self-evident.
The truth has no agenda – and that galls them to no end.
Slightly OT. What’s happened to WUWT’s Smokey? Did I miss his demise, excommunication, or has he just disappeared?
Jim
hey jim. smokey was outed as a sock puppet account of moderator dbs. don’t believe me? then google ‘smokey is dbs’. just goes to show you what a trashy site WUWT is.
>>
Kid D says:
January 1, 2013 at 7:21 pm
hey jim. smokey was outed as a sock puppet account of moderator dbs. don’t believe me? then google ‘smokey is dbs’. just goes to show you what a trashy site WUWT is.
<<
Kid D, thanks for the info. It probably explains Smokey’s demise on the site.
Jim
I disagree, Jim. If the time was taken to investigate and go to all the links, the evidence was there. Smokey admitted below he is dbs. Don’t you find it strange that he never mentioned that before it was discovered?
And have you come clean on your real name? Come on Tamino – fess up.
No.
Jim
What site do you suggest?
So, WUWT is trashy because a frequent commenter is also a moderator? Are all alarmists idiots or are you just special?
watts knew what was going on. in fact he ofter sent out warnings to others not to use sock puppets because it was against the posted site rules, but allowed his moderator to use one. absolutely pathetic.
Kid, that was almost coherent. What are you saying? Watts knew Smokey was a commenter? What is the problem with that? How is this a bad thing?
sry it was too difficult for you to figure out the typo of otfer = often.
why does watts have to break his own site’s rules to defend his cause? others on the site were asking what happened to smokey, and watts never explained. in fact, he deleted the comments of those that did explain the sock puppet account. and if there was nothing wrong with it, why did smokey stop posting after he got busted?
lol at how was it a bad thing. seriously?
Seriously. Yes. So this “Smokey” moderated WUWT, and he/she also commented. What is it that was wrong about this?
Here’s the thing. I’m a skeptic. I’m also a person who believes in pointing out maleficence. Here’s your chance. Tell me, and the rest of the readers here about how wrong this was/is. Please explain.
Pingback: Models To Drown Us All!!!! | suyts space
i already explained. watt’s had to break his own site’s rules to defend his cause.
Actually no, I checked his site rules, and there is no rule about a moderator not also posting. Moderators are not paid employees.
Perhaps you are merely confused? You are definitely illiterate.
watt’s had to break his own site’s rules to defend his cause.
Hmmm….did miss them?
I believe, REP – Robert also posted and Moderated – for many years?
now answer my questions: why didn’t watt’s tell his readers the truth? if there was nothing wrong with it, then why did smokey disappear?
Because he got tired of posting? You seem to be the one reading things that do not exist, perhaps clairvoyance is another of your traits?
Did Mr Watts do anything wrong?
Provide the evidence.
I you aren’t a”sock puppet” Why use the Pseudonym “Kid D ? …see how that works?
a sock puppet is 1 person posing as 2 people a pseudonym does not mean sock puppet if 1 person is not acting as 2 people. and i will answer this later when i reply to smokey and explain how watts sought out personal family information about someone who totally embarrassed him.
Do you post under any other name? -anywhere on the Internet?
So when we find out you changed your name (from physicist) to kiddy, that makes you a sock puppet?
asks the person using who doesn’t reveal their real name, unless of course your real name is kim2000.
NICE try 🙂
ASKING AGAIN:
Do you post under any other name? -anywhere on the Internet?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I’m a kid – a real kid 🙂
I’m not going to tell you my whole name.
We already guessed it. We know you are Kim Tookay (Kim 2k). 😉
No, asks the person posting under their real name (google it if you are not sure).
Maybe Smokey took it upon himself to disappear without an explanation? If he/she did so, then Watts couldn’t have an explanation. But, I doubt that happened.
Here’s what I know. Smokey was a contributor to WUWT in the comment section. Apparently, he also moderated a bit. I don’t read WUWT much anymore. I do on occasion, but, I’ve my own blog to run. What is it that has happened that people should be mad about?
watts and the moderator known as dbs are friends. watts had to to know about it. he knew when regular commenters where making sock puppet acoounts. watts had to know that dbs and smokey were one in the same, so what you wrote makes no sense.
not only did dbs moderate, but he would also post, and then use his smokey account to pretend to be someone else and back up his posts. i can’t believe you honestly don’t see anything wrong with creating a fictitious person to back up your own argument.
And your parents Christened you “Kid D”?
What other big ones are you going to try to snow us with?
Kid D says:
January 2, 2013 at 1:05 am
“not only did dbs moderate, but he would also post,”
If that is so, Climate Scientist Kid Of Supreme Intellect. Where’s a link to such a post.
Okay, I see the angst.
But, in terms of the climate argument, regardless if he posted and commented, was he right or wrong?
I mean, sure, I see where a person could be frustrated. But, as a blogger, I can easily see where I could blog and then comment as a different person. I don’t, but I’ve thought about it.
If I were to do so, in an attempt to manipulate the readers, then I would be a putz for the other side. For an extreme example, …. I’d write a post about taxation and how it oppresses the populace. …. I’d invent another person to say how cool taxes were. I’d destroy the alternate person and gain readers and fans. ….. wait!!!! I didn’t do that!!! Ph is a real person!!!!!
But, that’s not what people are accusing Smokey and Watts of doing, right?
As I understand it, they are accused of presenting the same argument with different names. Okay…. I wouldn’t do that, but, it is the argument that matters. If I say 2+2 =4 and then I adopt a pseudonym and say 2+2=4, doesn’t it still say the same?
I’m all about the math. If you can show where Smokey was engaged in something untoward, then, I’ll post it from here to heck. But, from where I’m sitting, it’s just a couple of guys posting stuff and one commenting. If they had rules against that, then they shouldn’t have done that. But, I’m not seeing the harm.
Kid, you’re more than welcome to stay and comment. I stay more open than most. You can say bad things about my friends, if that’s what you think is necessary. But, you if you’re going to do so, come up with something bad!!!
Smokey moderated and commented? The horrors!!!
As I think about it, you’re pissing me off. I’ve had a good beer buzz going on and I’ve felt obligated to respond to you, ruining my beer buzz. WTF? Surely this wasn’t what you came with. Don’t you have something more? Something damning like ……MATH!!!! OR SCIENCE!!!! Or something that shows Watts or Smokey engaged in malfeasance. Do you have any of that? If you do, please present it. If you don’t, then please quit pretending to be the fictional character I described above. .
Kid D says:
January 1, 2013 at 7:21 pm
“hey jim. smokey was outed as a sock puppet account of moderator dbs. don’t believe me? then google ‘smokey is dbs’. ”
Wait, your evidence is “don’t believe me? then google ‘smokey is dbs’. “?
THAT is your evidence? Ok, I googled it, there’s Gneiss on Tamino’s Blog saying “smokey is dbs”; ok, when I google for a certain sentence I expect google to find that sentence.
That is your proof?
You must be a climate scientist with that sort of stunning logic.
FOR THE RECORD……
I post, moderate, and comment. My name isn’t really “suyts”.
Yes, I know, that’s horrible. but that’s what happens!!!
Let me guess – your real name is Zoot Zuyts.
BTW, not even Gneiss has alleged that Smokey did the articles, kid d is just fishing.
Lol:) Yeh, I was fishing too. To my knowledge, neither Smokey nor dbs ever made a post at WUWT.
Were I Anthony, I would have told the lunatics to piss off if this is all they have to be upset about. I enjoyed Smokey’s comments.
As did I. I cannot comment on his moderating since I did not pay much attention to it, but his comments were all within the posting guidelines. In other words, kid d is merely alleging a conspiracy to uphold the rules.
within posting guidelines? it took me all of a minute to find this.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/policy/
Trolls, flame-bait, personal attacks, thread-jacking, sockpuppetry, name-calling such as “denialist,” “denier,” and other detritus that add nothing to further the discussion may get deleted; also posts repeatedly linking to a particular blog, or attempting to dominate a thread by excessive postings may get deleted. Take that personally if you wish, but all deletions/snips are final. Grousing about it won’t help since deleted posts can’t be recovered. Rather than trying to edit, bulk moderation may be employed to save time.
Guest authors and moderators are expected to adhere to this policy
Thank you for proving my point. YOu can understand the written word can you not? If not, I will try single syllable words to make it understandable. The rules were followed.
Hi folks, Smokey here.
For the record, “Kid D” <–[speaking of sock puppets] is wrong when he says:
"not only did dbs moderate, but he would also post, and then use his smokey account to pretend to be someone else and back up his posts."
Not true. I have never once used my screen name in any devious fashion. I wear my heart on my sleeve, and speak my mind. "Kid D" needs to understand that most if not all moderators on alarmist blogs post using different screen names. Maybe he is simply being naive [Grant Foster = "tamino", see how it works, Kid?] For me, I use one screen name only, and I never sock-puppet any comments. [But I suspect that there is quite a bit of 'projection' in "Kid D's" comment.]
If this is the best that "Kid D" can do, he's really got nothin'. Unlike "Kid D", I post at WUWT under my real name. I changed my screen name on September 11th 2012 per Anthony's request. Anthony thought the issue was becoming a distraction, nothing more. I would prefer to keep 'Smokey', but Anthony's site, Anthony's rules.
I still moderate at WUWT, and I approve 99.9% of all comments, just like I have for the past 5+ years. I snip the occasional reference to Smokey, and I delete comments that violate site policy. Unlike the censorship-prone alarmist blogs, all other comments get approved, both alarmist and skeptic. To date I've approved more than 375,000 comments at WUWT. [I haven't seen a "Kid D" there, so I assume he posts at WUWT under a different screen name.☺]
I've also posted thousands of my own comments at WUWT, and I will continue to comment there. Why not? What matters is the content of the posts, not who writes the comment. If "Kid D" doesn't like it, he can go back to his thinly-trafficked echo chamber blog and complain to them about it. Their dozen regular readers will probably all agree with him.
Happy New Year, everyone! ☺☺☺
~ Smokey
Ok, so now we have to guess what your real name is. Watson, the chase is on! 😉
Happy New Year, Smoke!
For the record, Smokey doesn’t moderate Suyts space nor does dbs. So his comments are deemed good here. 😀
I really don’t understand the obsession. As Smokey pointed out, many blogs do the same thing. Tamino = Foster Grants or something. So what?
Was there anything Smokey or dbs wrote that was incorrect or misfeasanced? Not that I ever saw. But, Kid D, (that’s prolly his real name), months later wants to come by and insinuate some poor form. This is great! Another peak into the mind of an irrational alarmist.
Don’t have time to leave a detailed comment now, but here is one. Notice the commenter mentioned at 1:20 in the vid.
Ahh, I see, Hadfield…..the guy who got so much wrong about someone else getting things wrong. And you’re going to take Hadfield’s word for all of this? To each their own.
Here’s the thing about that. I don’t, and you don’t, have any idea of what Smokey knew or didn’t know at the time of that comment.
But, we can easily fix all of this. Bring Hadfield here. I’d happily debate him. I could probably talk Smokey into debating him. I’m pretty sure we can get a message to Monckton to debate Hadfield, or anyone else willing to step up to the plate.
Now is a good time. I’m pretty rusty on the climate issues because it’s a dead issue. But, on my worst day, inebriated as all get out, distractions beyond what most could bear, I’ll run circles around any alarmist…….. as does Smokey, as does Monckton, as does most of the readers here.
So, no one was challenged? They are now. Bring it. Bring them all.
Monckton is aware. He was challenged directly by Potholer54 and ran away. Other sites have also issued opened challenges to continue the debate since Potholer54 is no longer welcome on WUWT.
And exactly what was Potholer54 get wrong? He has an open invitation to anyone to explain. So far no one has taken up his challenge.
Were kid a through c aborted?
so smokey has admitted he is dbs. so much for those who were saying he wasn’t.
Who was saying he wasn’t?
Seriously?
DirkH did in his above posts.
All DirkH was saying is your proof that Smokey = dbs was very questionable. I don’t see any statement that specifically says Smokey is not dbs–not on this thread.
By the way, I agree with DirkH: a Google’d fact isn’t necessarily true.
Jim
I disagree, Jim. If the time was taken to investigate and go to all the links, the evidence was there. Smokey admitted below he is dbs. Don’t you find it strange that he never mentioned that before it was discovered? FYI, I don’t have anymore free time today to continue this discussion.
Of course it is! They can’t put anything on the internet that is not true. Right Monsieur?
Bon Jour. /sarc off
I guess we can see who the most gullible is. Hey kid d, did you hear they took the word gullible out of the dictionary?
A double post. My answer is the same–no. 🙂
Jim
I think you missed the point of Dirk’s comment. Dirk didn’t dispute what you were saying. He was saying your “proof” was not “proof”. I believe he was alluding to the greater subject of climate alarmism and the difficulty alarmists have, moving conjecture to proof.
Just because someone on Tamino’s blog says something, it doesn’t automatically make the assertion true. Just like the assertion that we’ll have more or less snow because of our climate changing doesn’t mean that it is true, regardless if it was peer-reviewed or not. Or that we’ll have more flooding, or more droughts, or hurricanes, or tornadoes….. well, you get the point.
I didn’t miss his point. The evidence was there, Dirk just make the effort to look into it.
FYI, I have no more free time today to continue this discussion.
No, you said the proof was in googling a phrase. The hit from the phrase is an opinion blog, not a statement of fact. An allegation is not proof (I take it you are not in the law or science fields). DirkH called you on your mis-assumption.
A broken clock is right twice a day. That does not mean it is fixed twice a day.
Much to the pity. Kid, I was actually hoping you could contribute beyond this subject. We cover many topics here. That Smokey was dbs or dbs was Smokey is of little or no concern to me. But, because you’re aware of the issue means that you’re aware of other topics.
As stated before, I’m a skeptic. But, that doesn’t mean this is a club for skeptics. I’m a Christian, but we have a few agnostics and atheists who come by and contribute to the various discussions we have. I’m a conservative, but others who are not contribute to the discussions, and I value their thoughts and opinions. I’m an American, but, we’ve people from all around the world who come and discuss the topics and give their perspective.
It’s a motley crew, but, thoughtful. I regard the commenters here as an elite group of people. You’re welcome here if you can keep up and handle the pace. If you can’t keep up, some of us will slow down and explain.
lol, I’m not running away, just out of time today. In the meantime, I would expect you to counter my arguments regarding the vids I posted about Smokey given preferential treatment and Monckton running away from the debate. If you have none, then I will assume you don’t have a counter-argument. I really have to go now – I’m late already for an appointment.
and I would also expect a reply as to what exactly Potholer54 got wrong. Thanks.
And The Molinator is really the tooth fairy. Congratulations! You have discovered fairy tales!
Lol, you just got invited to the party and now you are “expecting”? Okay, I’ll expect an acknowledgement of our your gracious host.
This has been hashed and rehashed. But, let’s start with the first assertion…..Pothead says Monckton never advised Thatcher. His proof? Well he has none. That was simply some idjit saying crap he knows nothing about. We know Monckton is in a much better position to know about whether or not he advised Thatcher or not than pothead. Monckton was part of her administration. He was, by law and position, an adviser to Thatcher. Have Pothead prove otherwise. This, in itself, goes to the credibility of the rest of his blatherings. I’ll skim some more……
more to follow…. have company.
A quick break…. as I recall, there was a question as to whether or not the earth was cooling or not. Hopefully, you’re not one of those alarmists who have a problem with a the “present participle”. It’s a very useful construct in the English language.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2001/plot/wti/from:2001/trend
Do you have any idea how many alarmists you threw into depression today with the WFT link?
LOL!!! No, but I like to imagine!! 😀
“Kid D” doesn’t even see his own hypocrisy, using his anonymous screen name while criticizing ‘Smokey’. [BTW, about a year or so ago I posted my bio on Keith Kloor’s blog, explaining that I was a WUWT moderator, and I gave my full name. So it’s no secret; never has been. As I explained above, Anthony thought it was a distraction and asked if I’d change it, so I did.]
I still fail to see any problem. Most every alarmist blog does exactly the same thing. But unlike alarmist blogs like Skeptical Science, I never re-write comments. I consider that to be Gleick-level dishonesty. And S.S. alters sentences without any notification or explanation. Alarmist blogs are not celebrated for their honesty. They routinely censor inconvenient comments and facts. Maybe the Kid can explain for us how that is A-OK.
Now for some real science. Listen up, Kid, you could learn something here:
Suyts’ Wood For Trees graph in the post above shows that not only is there no acceleration of global warming — but global warming has stopped for the past decade and a half. Look at the declining trend line in suyts’ chart.
Next, here is a chart showing that the planet’s recovery since the Little Ice Age [LIA] has remained within very well defined parameters. The warming trend since the LIA is about 0.35ºC per century. Despite the ≈40% rise in [harmless, beneficial] CO2, global temperatures are not accelerating — as was universally predicted by the alarmist crowd [before global warming stopped].
Here is another chart showing the well defined global warming parameters. There is no acceleration in the warming trend.
I think that even a Kid could follow this logic: The long term global warming trend has remained the same, whether CO2 was low, or high.
Conclusion: CO2 makes no measurable difference to global temperatures. None.
If AGW exists, it is such a minuscule forcing that it cannot be found. It is too small to measure. Almost all of the radiative effect of CO2 was used up in the first 100 ppmv. Adding more CO2 now does not produce any measurable effect on temperature. And since you can’t measure it, AGW is only a conjecture. It is not a hypothesis, or a theory, because it is not testable. AGW cannot make accurate predictions. It is only a conjecture; an opinion. And every day that passes with no global warming makes the AGW conjecture more wrong.
I challenge the Kid to find fault with the chain of logic presented here. We have solid scientific evidence showing that ∆CO2 does not cause any measurable ∆T. But we do have solid scientific measurements showing that ∆T causes ∆CO2. The alarmist crowd has cause and effect backwards, that’s all. Their premise is wrong, therefore their conclusion is wrong.
The entire global warming scare is supported by deceptive charts that measure in tenths of degrees [or sometimes hundreths!], so they can make a slight change look alarming. So let’s look at a chart with a normal y-axis instead. Not very scary, is it? Now look at a chart of Earth’s temperature history. Notice that we are currently on the cool side [top of the chart]. The planet has been much warmer at times, and during those warm times the biosphere teemed with life.
The demonization of “carbon” is based on the unsupported belief that a rise in CO2 will cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe. But the planet is busy falsifying that conjecture. When a conjecture is in this much trouble, every honest scientist will reassess the conjecture. But as we see, money has thoroughly corrupted climate science. Michael Mann will not admit what most everyone knows: he was wrong. His hockey stick chart was fabricated from carefully cherry-picked proxies. But if he told the truth, he would jeopardize his multi-millions in grant payola. So he sticks with his AGW narrative, and continues to sound a false alarm. The Kid is one of his enablers.
Here, this CO2 graphic will go nicely with the temp graphic to demonstrate the CO2 not driving the temps….. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_cHhMa7ARDDg/SoxiDu0taDI/AAAAAAAABFI/Z2yuZCWtzvc/s1600/Geocarb%2BIII-Mine-03.jpg
Hey, I’ll get back to everyone later tonight. Since, I’m dealing with many individuals, I’m going to take on one person a day, beginning with debunking Smokey. I will say by posting this, graph, you have shown a complete lack and embarrassing knowledge of climate science, I’ll give you a chance for yourself to figure out why and correct yourself before i respond to this graph.. I’m actually kind of disappointed in the lack of knowledge you demonstrated by posting this, I thought I was dealing with someone who was more scientifically literate. This really is a complete self-humiliation on your part.
Also, can you give an update on your idol, and how his self-proclaimed cure for multiple sclerosis, HIV/AIDS, malaria, etc is going,? How you can possibly support someone like this as your lead climate change denier is completely embarrassing on your part.
🙂 …. Self humiliation….. right, got it. Tell, you what Kid. You do a good enough job with Smokey and I’ll make a post just for you.
Take care that you don’t make too many assumptions. They’re usually wrong. While I appreciate Chris Monckton’s contribution to the climate discussion, one can hardly describe him as my idol. Additionally, I don’t think you’ll find anyone here who denies that the climate changes. If you’re going to sling pejoratives, please, at the very least bring some evidence that it may be an accurate descriptor.
As far as your cryptic poo-pooing of the CO2 graph, go ahead and spit it out. I’m sure I’ve heard it before, but, I won’t make assumptions as to what you’re going to write. Looking forward to your offerings.
Actually Smokey pretty much debunked himself, but I want to touch on the issue of the red-herring “real name” argument.
And I’ll rephrase my my last comment: Isn’t it embarrassing that Monckton is a leading AGW climate denier and has claimed to cure all these diseases, something real researchers have been unable to do? And don’t get me started on how Monckton is a also a birther lol.
Please do some more research on this graph and what it represents. I promise you that have just humiliated yourself by posting it. And remember, I gave you the chance to save yourself from total embarrassment before I respond to it.
This will be my last post until the evening or maybe late night Central time.
Your ignorance is showing. Monckton is no denier. Last I checked, he was not denying any science. You may be. Have you disproven the null hypothesis yet?
Alarmists merely project their hero worship (with the emphasis on worship) to others. We respect learned men who practice science, not charlatans who create psuedo religions.
Of course, the understanding of the present participle is important to understanding the next one, the discussion of the Greenland ice melt.
Personally, I’ve little faith in any of the measurements the various people have come up with. Certainly GRACE is error riddled in the calculations of ice mass, but, so too are the extrapolated calculations derived from observation.
See here ….. https://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/which-sea-level-measurement-does-the-lack-of-ice-melt-agree-with/ And here. …. https://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/yes-yes-they-really-are-that-dumb/
Still, when Monckton stated Greenland’s ice sheet wasn’t melting, it wasn’t according to recent measurements. Again, the concept of the present participle is paramount. The very same concept applies to when Monckton made statements towards the arctic ice loss. But, then I realize there are some “past participle” concepts we must come to grips with as well.
When Hadfield “corrected” Monckton, it was out of time. If I say it is 70 degrees today, and then a year later you come back and say it isn’t 70 degrees it’s 60 and you’re a liar, then there’s a problem with either your honesty or ability to understand that things change with time.
Kid, I’ll continue tomorrow. I’ve had a few so it’s time to retire for the evening. But, if you really want more answers tonight, be sure to badger a few here. They’re more than able to respond to you. I’ll continue tomorrow.
My best,
James
Kid D says:
January 2, 2013 at 5:19 pm
“I disagree, Jim. If the time was taken to investigate and go to all the links, the evidence was there. Smokey admitted below he is dbs. Don’t you find it strange that he never mentioned that before it was discovered? FYI, I don’t have anymore free time today to continue this discussion.”
You must be a very important person indeed that you can give people who you don’t know their homework.
I hope your environment accepts your importance and makes life easy for you.
Kid D says:
January 2, 2013 at 5:38 pm
“lol, I’m not running away, just out of time today. In the meantime, I would expect you to counter my arguments regarding the vids I posted about Smokey given preferential treatment and Monckton running away from the debate. If you have none, then I will assume you don’t have a counter-argument. I really have to go now – I’m late already for an appointment.”
Kid D gives us homework AGAIN; counter whatever I have said, otherwise I’m the winner.
And Oh, I’m so busy I’ll leave you alone with your homework now.
Quite an attitude.
Try to become a politician. You’re obviously an expert in bossing people you don’t even know around.
At things he is totally incompetent in.
Kid D says:
January 3, 2013 at 1:46 pm
“This will be my last post until the evening or maybe late night Central time.”
Kid D, thanks for keeping us informed.
Lol, yes, I’m sure we all went into a fit of depression over that one. I just keep waiting for his really sciency presentation that refutes Smokey and humiliates me.
OK, well i’ll humiliate you first then and debunk Smokey tomorrow.
Where in the peer-reviewed scientific literature does it say that CO2 is the only long-term driver of temperature? Nowhere – that is where. That is why this graph is meaningless. Someone who actually knows the basics of climate science wouldn’t expect a correlation between just CO2 and temperature, You might have also heard of another long-term driver of temperature – it’s called the sun. How can you not know that? You said you heard it all before? Yeah, right. If you heard even the basics you never would have posted this graph assuming it proves anything. And you call yourself a skeptic? A skeptic would know basic information about the subject. And how could you be even think that this graph is a problem for climate scientists? Really? People who have spent their adult life studying the subject have never come across this argument before? Are you really so out of touch that you think it is a problem for them? Check out the vid which explains how you are wrong, and start paying attention to real climate scientists, and not retired stratigraphers like Bob Carter.
LOL at not knowing they 2 main long tern drivers of temperature are CO2 and the sun and still calling yourself a skeptic. Hilarious.
LOL, okay, somehow I’m not feeling humiliated. So all this squawking about CO2 was incomplete by the alarmists? Yeh, I knew that already. Didn’t I tell you about making assumptions? Out of the information I’ve offered, you pick only one graphic and then make errant assumptions about what I was stating.
You stated, “Someone who actually knows the basics of climate science wouldn’t expect a correlation between just CO2 and temperature…..”
I’m glad to see that. This directly contradicts several warmist alarmists.
Tell me, if the solar energy reaching the earth is variant, how is it that many use a constant energy calculation for the impact of CO2? Because if the solar energy is variant, then too, would be the climate sensitivity to CO2. In other words, thoughts like a doubling of CO2 amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2 would have to be incorrect, because what ever energy CO2 retains, is derived from the energy the sun puts to the earth. You should let Rahmstorf know that you disagree with him.
Kid, you’re really going to have to quit with the videos and offer real information and data we can discuss. It’s interesting, you offered a video to “refute” whatever it is you believe I was saying, and the video starts off by saying exactly the same thing I’ve stated in the comments. “The climate changes”. Instead of some strange person presenting some insidious power point presentation, don’t you have studies, facts and figures at your command? Or do you simply parrot other people?
So, you’re a different breed of alarmist? Most alarmist papers I’ve read regarding the earth’s energy balance input a solar constant, not allowing for variations in solar output. Many skeptics for years have been saying the sun is what’s driving the temps. But, this contradicts many alarmist scientists. Indeed, here’s the IPCC and their solar constant….. http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/041.htm#121
But, now that we’ve dispensed with the likes of the IPCC and Rahmstorf, perhaps you could share your particular views on our climate, the solar impact and the forcing of CO2.
why do i use vids? lol. because it is easier to send a vid then type it all out, perhaps? not only that, but the vids i send out are all properly sourced with the scientific literature – which is the real information if they weren’t then i wouldn’t send out the vids. i would think that would be obvious. so let me get this straight, you are still saying you are correct about posting that meaningless graph?
Did you read what I wrote? Do you understand what I said? Sure, by itself, it is meaningless. There is an assumed level of knowledge about the other information not presented by that graph. Do I have to include the temps as well? Once I’ve done that, will you then supply the solar variance calculations? Then tell me about the sun and CO2. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
Be careful…… Dirk already gave you hint on what not to use.
why is it a have no problems that you use a vid as long as it is properly sourced, but you do have a prob?
and if you already knew all that, why post a meaningless graph?
Kid D, please notice the time axis. The (hypothesized) “faint young sun” was a bit earlier.
Dirk, you tried, but he wasn’t paying attention.
Kid D,
Sorry to disappoint you, but I refuse to watch pothole’s nonsense. Why? Because I cannot debate with a video. But it amuses me that Viscount Monckton totally ignores the sad potholer. As I recall, the potholer had wanted to set the debate agenda in his favor, so Monckton began simply ignoring him. I ignore him, too. And if you had any sense you would ignore him, and try to think for yourself.
For a debate account held in a fair venue with mutually acceptable moderators, here is Lord Monckton spanking his alarmist opponent. There used to be debates like that between the alarmist clique and scientific skeptics [I have links to several more if you like; ask and I will post them], but for the last couple of years the alarmists have tucked tail and run away from any fair, moderated debates. Why? Because alarmists have lost every debate. Note that the Oxford audience went in believing in AGW, and left following the debate convinced by Lord Monckton’s facts and arguments; that’s how they voted: Monckton won the debate. Read it and weep, your side lost.
So now the climate alarmists run and hide from debates. Try to get Michael Mann to debate Lord Monckton. Now that would be a YouTube video I would watch! Unfortunately, Mann is a chicken, and he refuses to debate the pseudo-scientific nonsense he shamelessly peddles.
Now, I would like to point out that “Kid D” has refused to respond to my chain of logic post above [other than baseless name-calling]. That is because he has no scientific explanation for why the long term rising temperature trend has remained along the same trend line, without any acceleration of global warming — despite the ≈40% rise in CO2. In fact, global warming has stopped for the past decade and a half. The Occam’s Razor explanation is that CO2 simply does not have the claimed warming effect. “Carbon” has been falsely demonized. AGW is a tiny, ineffective, 3rd order [ie: extremely minor] forcing, which can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes. The fact that AGW is too small to measure is always avoided by the climate alarmist crowd.
Because the Kid is incapable of showing any rise in temperature from CO2, he falls back on the usual alarmist pejoratives: “debunked”, “denialist”, etc. Sorry, Kid, those are terms people like you throw around when you lack scientific facts and evidence. If you want any respect, you will argue scientific facts and evidence like I do. Your juvenile, ad hominem name-calling simply means that you have lost the scientific debate.
Smokey, Kid promises to come back and give you a what-for….. I’m also to be humiliated…… or something. I don’t know why he’s keeping us in suspense, but, I’m sure he has all the facts at his fingertips. ….. or something. I’m on the edge of my seat.
Recently Icarus62 on WUWT got in a fit arguing that 0.6 W/m^2 energetic imbalance will cook us all. Now I didn’t ask who came up with that number, usually they insert one of their models , whatever.
But a more interesting thing is Leif Svalgaard says that x % of TSI change lead to x/4 % change in temperature.
Let’s say Icarus’ 0.6 W/m^2 “energetic imbalance ” (which would have to be compensated by a warming) are worth 2.4 W/m^2 of TSI change (as we assume them to be available day and night and also in regions with a low incident angle of sunlight).
According to Leif a 1% change in TSI – 10 W/m^2 at surface – leads to 0.25% change in temps, that’s about 0.25 * 3 K or 3/4 K.
Icarus’ energetic imbalance equivalent to 2.4 W/m^2 TSI change or 0.25% change in TSI would accordingly lead to a warming of 3/4/4 or 0.1875 centigrade difference.
And this is ASSUMING the alarmist Icarus’ energetic imbalance exists.
Run for the hills.
LOL, that’s some scary stuff!!!
I’m not surprised you refuse to watch Potholer’s vids. You refuse to watch it because you are a denier and not a skeptic. I will debunk you tomorrow.
You’re the first alarmist who gives one day advance warning. Don’t you think it would be smarter to surprise us? That would give us less opportunity to prepare. A kind of ambush debunking.
LOL, well, this is really a two day warning.
Kid, just present Potholer’s information. You do have links to the data and papers, right? Or, did you simply acquiesce the ability to think for yourself to Hadfield?
like i stated, potholer’s vids are linked to the data and papers. is your only defense that i don’t spend an hour typing out what i can send in a minute via a vid instead?
You don’t know how to copy and paste? Or provide links to the actual data and papers? You’d rather have others spend hours watching powerpoint slides? As Smokey stated, you can’t discuss anything with a video.
lol at your defense being i give you the sources via a vid. yeah, way to back up your argument with that comeback. so do you admit you co2 graph was a meaningless post (since you already knew the sun was weaker in the past?)
Vids are eye candy, nothing more. Text and links that can be copied and followed are the real meat of any debate.
But then if you knew science, you would know that.
Kid, you have your time frame wrong. Good heavens! The weak sun paradox is thought to be billions years ago….. Look at the graph, do you see billions of years there or millions?
so your defense is the sun was only weaker in the last millions of years and not the last billlions of years?
since clicking on the link is to strenuous for ‘skeptic’ such as yourself, here are the references for the last vid.
REFERENCES
“CO2-forced climate thresholds during the Phanerozoic” — D.L. Royer, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Dec 2006
“Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?” — N. Shaviv and J. Veizer, GSA Today, 2003
“Bathymetric and isotopic evidence for a short-lived late Ordovician glaciation in a greenhouse period” — Brenchley et al, Geology; April 1994
“Reconciling Late Ordovician (440 Ma) glaciation with very
high (14X) CO2 levels” — CROWLEY T. J. ; BAUM S. K., Journal of Geophysical Research 1995
“An atmospheric pCO2 threshold for glaciation in the Late Ordovician”
— M. T. Gibbs et. al, Geology; May 1997
“A weathering hypothesis for glaciation at high atmospheric
pCO2 during the Late Ordovician.” — L.R. Kump et al, Palaeoclimatology alaeogeography
Palaeoecology 1999
“Long-lived glaciation in the Late Ordovician? Isotopic and se-
quence-stratigraphic evidence from western Laurentia” — M. R. Saltzman,S. A. Young, Geology; February 2005
Graph at 2:28 showing increasing solar output taken from James Imamura at the University of Oregon Dept of Physics, http://jersey.uoregon.edu/~imamura/122/lecture-1/lecture-1.html
“Solar Activity Over the Last 1150 Years: Does it Correlate with Climate?” — I. Usoskin et.al, Proceedings of The 13th Cool Stars Workshop, 2004
Answer the question below.
I refuse to watch CSPAN – I guess that makes me a denier of politics.
Here’s a simple lesson for you kiddy. LIfe is too short to WASTE time on irrelevancies. If your total argument is ad hominems, you are irrelevant as well. As is potholer.
When you actually get to the science, get back to us. So far, the only denier is you. YOu are denying basic science. But then that is what the religious do.
Was the sun weaker during the Cretaceous period?
Are you saying it wasn’t?. show me a link.
LOL, I’m looking for a link alleging that it was weaker. Again, the weak sun hypothesis, alleges that the sun was weaker about 2.5 billion ya.
But, I’m not disagreeing that the sun is a prime driver of our climate. If that’s your posit, then, we’re in agreement. However, as I stated earlier, flies in the face of most warmist energy calculations. And, again, if you’re suggesting they’re wrong, then I’m in agreement.
is it really that hard to find it yourself and prove it wrong?
http://www.webref.org/chemistry/w/weak_sun_paradox.htm
now tell me, if you knew about the weaker sun, why would you waste your time posting a meaning co2 and temperature correlation graph?
Did you, by any chance, read what you just linked? How many times do I have to say it, you have your time frame wrong…… news flash!!! 3.5 billion is not equal to 100 million.
lol, are you saying rate of the sun’s strengthening in the Cretaceous suddenly bolted up, and then went back down right after the Cretaceous, and then started a normal rate of strengthening again? Seriously?
Suyts – he is trying to obfuscate the fact he is clueless by using strawmen. He has yet to answer a single question you have posed, instead, merely setting up strawmen that have no relation to your original premise and then debunking them. I guess that is to divert attention from the fact he has yet to offer anything backing up his boast, but is trying to get you to defend his scarecrows.
Uhmm, no that’s not what I’m saying. Why is this so hard for you? The sun may have been weaker 3.5 billion years ago. But, getting closer to the present, say 150 million years ago, it wouldn’t be much different than what we have today. Yet, we see increases of CO2, and a decrease of global temps. So much for your strengthening sun combined with CO2 silliness.
Ok I got you. Here are 2 papers that came out later (your paper was from 2005, these are from 2009 and 2010) and debunked your argument. Imagine that, science advances and fills in unknown gaps as we learn more and more. what a shocker!
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/37/10/951.abstract
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003101821000115X
No, those papers don’t debunk anything I’ve stated. One says volcanic activity caused something and another references a glaciation occurring.
actually they do debunk it. the gap that was not understood was the cause for the deglaciation. in the mid/late ordovaician. your 2005 paper suggested since the cause was unknown, it was therefore controversial. if you actually read the 2005 paper you referenced, you would see that it doesn’t mention the sun as a cause for the deglaciation. the 2009 & 2010 explained that the degalaciation was caused by co2 levels.
Actually, neither addresses your boast or bolsters your point.
LMAO, Kid, the only papers I’ve linked were from the references you provided. Further, CO2 levels caused the deglaciation? But, couldn’t stop the glaciation? CO2 levels 444 million years ago were lower than the levels 500 million years ago. Try again.
ok, the paper you referenced back at me out of the all papers i referenced to you. thanks for clearing that up. it was soooo difficult to understand and confusing.
Sigh. Here you go. Google is your friend to find sourced articles. I’m outta here for now. I might be on in the wee hours of AM friday. ootherwise i will be back later in the day on friday.
The skeptic argument…
CO2 was higher in the late Ordovician
“To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today – 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.” (Monte Hieb)
What the science says…
During the Ordovician, solar output was much lower than current levels. Consequently, CO2 levels only needed to fall below 3000 parts per million for glaciation to be possible. The latest CO2 data calculated from sediment cores show that CO2 levels fell sharply during the late Ordovician due to high rock weathering removing CO2 from the air. Thus the CO2 record during the late Ordovician is entirely consistent with the notion that CO2 is a strong driver of climate.
One argument used against the warming effect of carbon dioxide is that millions of years ago, CO2 levels were higher during periods where large glaciers formed over the Earth’s poles. This argument fails to take into account that solar output was also lower during these periods. The combined effect of sun and CO2 show good correlation with climate (Royer 2006). The one period that until recently puzzled paleoclimatologists was the late Ordovician, around 444 million years ago. At this time, CO2 levels were very high, around 5600 parts per million (in contrast, current CO2 levels are 389 parts per million). However, glaciers were so far-reaching during the late Ordovician, it coincided with one of the largest marine mass extinction events in Earth history. How did glaciation occur with such high CO2 levels? Recent data has revealed CO2 levels at the time of the late Ordovician ice age were not that high after all.
Past studies on the Ordovician period calculated CO2 levels at 10 million year intervals. The problem with such coarse data sampling is the Ordovician ice age lasted only half a million years. To fill in the gaps, a 2009 study examined strontium isotopes in the sediment record (Young 2009). Strontium is produced by rock weathering, the process that removes CO2 from the air. Consequently, the ratio of strontium isotopes can be used to determine how quickly rock weathering removed CO2 from the atmosphere in the past. Using strontium levels, Young determined that during the late Ordovician, rock weathering was at high levels while volcanic activity, which adds CO2 to the atmosphere, dropped. This led to CO2 levels falling below 3000 parts per million which was low enough to initiate glaciation – the growing of ice sheets.
Last week, another study headed by Seth Young further examined this period by extracting sediment cores from Estonia and Anticosti Island, Canada (Young 2010). The cores were used to construct a sequence of carbon-13 levels from rocks formed during the Ordovician. This was used as a proxy for atmospheric CO2 levels, at a much higher resolution than previous data. What they found was consistent with the strontium results in Young 2009 – CO2 levels dropped at the same time that sea surface temperatures dropped and ice sheets expanded. As the ice sheets grew to cover the continent, rock weathering decreased. This led to an increase in atmospheric CO2 which caused global warming and a retreat of the glaciers.
Thus arguments that Ordovician glaciation disproves the warming effect of CO2 are groundless. On the contrary, the CO2 record over the late Ordovician is entirely consistent with the notion that CO2 is a strong driver of climate.
Actually, what I’m doing is wasting my time running down the references you provided. I’m looking for the weaker sun time period in them.
So far, BTW, A weathering hypothesis for glaciation at high atmospheric pCO 2 during the Late Ordovician — doesn’t suggest a weak sun. Neither does “Long-lived glaciation in the Late Ordovician? Isotopic and sequence-stratigraphic evidence from western Laurentia” http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/content/33/2/109.abstract
It’s interesting. I present a CO2 graph, which is most of my objection to the lunatics, and you accuse it of being meaningless. Then you allude that the sun was weaker and that’s why we saw …. something. But, that’ doesn’t account for what we see 300 million ya and 100 million ya. Nor does it account for the variation we see at 450 million ya.
Is graph reading a problem for you?
But, you do post references not related to the weaker sun hypothesis. Meaningless?
Wow…I’m guessing the endgame to all this will be that Co2 now causes both aliases and real names. By the way, my real name is Lynn Leftinbrook. Or it isn’t. I guess we can get a model to tell us whether the accuracy of that statement reflects the accuracy all my other statements.
This KidDy sounds allot like Drewski err I mean Coolwhip! 😆
🙂
I note that the kid has never been able to refute my hypothesis: that the rise in CO2 has not caused any measurable acceleration in global warming, as was universally predicted by the alarmist contingent.
That is the central question in the entire global warming debate. Because if CO2 does not cause any measurable acceleration in global warming, then the entire “carbon” canard is falsified.
So it’s no wonder that the kid relies on name-calling as his argument. The science certainly does not support his religious AGW True Beliefs, so calling scientific skeptics “deniers”, and falsely claiming that we were “debunked” is all he’s got. Thus, the kid has lost the debate.
I will give the kid an opportunity to falsify my testable hypothesis:
At current and projected concentrations, CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. More is better.
Have at it, kid. This is your big opportunity, so don’t blow it like you did with your other comments. Falsify that hypothesis, and you could be on the short list for the next Nobel Prize…
…or avoid answering as usual, and continue with your name-calling. At this point, it’s really all you’ve got.
i told sysupt that i will debunk you later instead as i am dealing with him now. besides, you pretty much debunked yourself (hint: 16 years is not long term). i will also address your ridiculous red herring argument about not posting under a real name is the same as having 2 accounts (aka sock puppet). i will also show why watts is not to be trusted with real names (hint: watts obtaining personal info on peter sinclair’s son, which of course he was wrong about as usual).
ok, mr stealy?
Yeh, Smoke, he’s a funny guy. He characterizes one of the graphs I offered as meaningless, then offers several studies who use the CO2 levels shown by my graph. Then, he refutes his own papers he’s offered by more papers, still utilizing the meaningless CO2 levels I offered. And, it somehow refutes whatever he thinks I’m saying.
LMAO!
i didn’t refute a paper that i referenced. i refuted your translation of the paper. the paper never implied that the sun was the cause for the temperature at the time – since you were attempting to attach the meaning of the paper to the weak sun paradox. seriously, you have to flat out lie now?
and while i was at it i rebuked his argument regarding the late ordovician.
so because of your ignorance, you didn’t realize the graph you posted was meaningless. i can accept that. in fact it isn’t surprising at all.
You were the person making the “weak sun” argument. I advised you not to do so.
Lying? Go back and read the comments in sequence. You were the one trying to make the case for a weaker sun.
You then offered, a few references, by your comment @ January 3, 2013 at 5:01 pm
I related that I was reading through the references you offered and noted that the ones I had read through didn’t have anything to do with the sun. Meaning they weren’t relevant to what you were asserting.
You were the one that referenced it! I didn’t. And I pointed out that it didn’t have anything to do with the sun. Pay attention. You then offered two other papers to rebut….. something.
Kid, this has been an entertaining exercise, but, what you’ve presented is rather incoherent.
Still, it’s laughable that you insist the graph I offered was meaningless, because the papers you’ve referenced rely on the CO2 concentrations represented in the graph I presented. How is it meaningless when the very foundation of the papers you’ve used relies on the same data that’s in the graph? My ignorance? You don’t know what you’re arguing, you don’t know how to read a graph, you still can’t comprehend the difficulties of the CO2 levels and the solar energy and the responses shown being incongruent with what has occurred historically.
And you think I’m lying? it’s all right there above you.
ok i didn’t see the “doesn’t”. i must have missed it because i still don’t see your point you are trying to make. .
so how is your graph meaningless? ive told you. the video explains it.
you would not expect a correlation between co2 and temperature since co2 is only one of two main drivers (the other driver is the sun) of temperature. you do get a correlation when you graph the sun and co2 vs temperature.
so what is the point of posting a graph of co2 if it you would expect it to not have a correlation vs temps – since you claim you knew about the weaker sun in the past and therefore must have known it would prove nothing? that makes no sense.
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!! Kid Drewski rides again! 😆
“you would not expect a correlation between co2 and temperature since co2 is only one of two main drivers (the other driver is the sun) of temperature. you do get a correlation when you graph the sun and co2 vs temperature.”
The graph is only meaningless to people who don’t know how to apply the information it represents. I never once asserted there should be a direct correlation between CO2 and temps.
well what was the meaning then of posting a graph that shows no correlation between co2 and temperature, especially if you knew before hand it wouldn’t show a correalation?
😆
Kid, in climate considerations, wouldn’t you agree that one must take the totality of information available? There is as much point posting a CO2 graph alone, as there is a temp graph alone, as there is to show a solar energy graph alone. Or anything else. Again, as I stated much earlier, there is an assumption of knowledge here.
No, sorry, I still don’t get it. What is the point of posting something that is irrelevant?
Dear God!! You can’t be that dense. How is historical CO2 measurements irrelevant to a climate discussion?
Discussions about historical co2-temperature correlations are relevant when they make a point. So what is your point about the fact that there is no straight up historical c02 correlation to temperatures? That is what I am asking!
The point was to supplement some of the graphics Smokey had referenced. It wasn’t to make a point by itself, nor was it my point. But, you never really thought about any of that, you simply saw the graph, made some assumptions, condemned the graph as meaningless, and went on babbling from there.
I tried to tell you that I agree with the relevance of solar energy, but you’d have none of it, you just went on babbling.
Here is Smokey’s conclusion in his post you replied to:
“Conclusion: CO2 makes no measurable difference to global temperatures. None”.
Obviously you admit that is incorrect since you have agreed that the sun and CO2 are the two major drivers of global warming.
So here is where I am confused – you just said you were trying to supplement some of the graphics Smokey had referenced. I take the word ‘Supplement’ to mean support something. Am I mistaken about this and you meant to say you posted that graph to show Smokey he was incorrect? If so, I think we have finally figured out all the confusion.
Kid, please take the time to read my comments. I have not agreed that CO2 is a major driver of the climate. I’ve agreed that the sun is.
LOL! You are stating that CO2 is not a major driver of climate along with the sun? So tell me then – Why is it when you plot the sun alone vs global temperature you don’t get a correlation, and when you plot CO2 alone vs global temperature you also don’t get a correlation, and yet when you plot the sun and CO2 together vs global temperature you do get a good correlation?
Wow, I’m beginning to think you didn’t even watch that vid, or just flat out ignored it. either way that makes you a denier and not a skeptic. care to explain?
I’m still waiting for you to provide the graphic or calculations. One of the things I was trying to point out is that the temps and CO2 graphs, even allowing for a weak sun but steadily increasing doesn’t explain much of what is assumed about the temps.
Personally, I’m not much on paleo, I think they assume too much accuracy.
Honestly, I would much prefer the conversation move along without obsessing on the minutia, but to each their own.
LOL! I did supply it along with the sources! It’s right there in the video from about the 1 minute 20 second mark to the 3 minute mark. You didn’t watch the vid did you? Either that or you are flat out ignoring it. And again, that make you a denier and not a skeptic.
Again, care to explain?
Not watching a vid makes me a denier? LOL, yes because powerpoint videos are the word of God. Do you have any idea how sophist that makes you seem?
You want me to watch an 11 min video and guess which point you want me to explain? Another reason to simply present the evidence you have instead of trying to get people to watch videos. Either you know the science or you. I happen to have someone sleeping a few feet away. Sorry, no video watching tonight.
I thought I was having an honest discussion with you. If you gave me an 11 minute video to watch , then I would watch it. You won’t watch an 11 minute video I asked you to watch. So yes, that makes you a denier. It is the definition of a denier.
No wonder why there was so much confusion.regarding co2 being a long term driver of climate. And it also explains why I couldn’t figure out your argument regarding the Late Ordovician, since that is also explained in the video. What makes it it even more ironic is that if you had actually taken 11 minutes to watch the SOURCED video, it would have meant less time going back and forth like we did.
I took you at you word you were a real skeptic and that you would be willing to look at both sides of the argument. You flat out lied. Refusing to watch the other side’s evidence is exactly what a denier would do. You DENIED to look at all the evidence.
Sorry, DENIER, but we are done with this debate. A skeptic will look at the evidence from both sides. A denier will ignore the other side’s evidence and think they can win the debate because they getting in the last word. I looked at both sides of the evidence. You can have the last word. I’m unsubscribing from this thread. I find DENIERS to be paranoid, pathetic and a waste of time to debate with. You should be ashamed of yourself for telling the lie that you are a skeptic and not a denier.
LOL, quit pretending you weren’t told how to present evidence here. Look, if you can’t present something on your own, then you don’t know anything worth debating, you’re less than a parrot. At least a parrot will speak in it’s own voice. And quit pretending I wasn’t honest. It’s all here for everyone to see.
I see, I’ve reduced another alarmist to obnoxious pejorative spewing. It happens when the script wasn’t written by the people who do their thinking for them.
“I thought I was having an honest discussion with you.”
No, an honest discussion is not taking comments out of context, attributing comments never made, and creating strawmen for your own pleasure. I tire of you and your incessant desire to not address a SINGLE thing either Smokey or Suyts has said so far. Not one. You have addressed your strawmen, made false allegations to bolster your own illusion of self worth, and out right lied about what you have and have not said.
But to have a discussion, you actually have to READ what the other person wrote (and understand it – that may be your problem, are you ESL?), and address what THEY wrote, not your mis-assumptions.
Let me be more specific. Earlier you wrote “Here, this CO2 graphic will go nicely with the temp graphic to demonstrate the CO2 not driving the temps….. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_cHhMa7ARDDg/SoxiDu0taDI/AAAAAAAABFI/Z2yuZCWtzvc/s1600/Geocarb%2BIII-Mine-03.jpg“.
Nowhere in the peer-reviewed scientific literature does it state that CO2 is the only driver that influences temperature. I never stated that CO2 is the only driver that influences temperature. You have since stated that you were aware that CO2 is not the only driver that influences temperature.
So knowing all this then, tell me – what was your point of posting a graph that shows CO2 is not the only driver of temperature?
BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA, your kidding right or you are just that?
KidDy is starting to sound like David A.
It’s Toshinmack! 😆
There are certain commonalities.
And he can post on word press out of sequence, who has done that before?
And he did it again, it’s something you need to look into, just saying!
Lol, yeh.
So you know who it is then, 😆
Kid D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles I think this would have a bigger effect than the sun. You are welcome to believe whatever you want about the sun though.
I do have one question for you, why will the amount of H2O in the atmosphere increase and why will this not form clouds and rain like normal? Is there any experiment that has proven this and if there is could you make us all aware of it? We wouldn’t want to live in ignorance and this causes around half the warming according to an average model.
i’m aware of milankovich cycles. they cause initial warming but not enough warming for deglaciation. it is the warming caused by milankovich cycle (insolation forcing) which causes an increase in co2. it is the the increase in co2 that then causes deglaciation. this sourced video explains it:
also, can you give your source for the ‘average model’?
Your source is Al Gore?
Milankovich cycles can’t cause a deglaciation but they can increase CO2 so much that the CO2 causes the deglaciation 800 years BEFORE it rises?
Wow. The meth is strong in this one.
Kid D
By average model I mean one produced by CSIRO, Hadley or NASA. I couldn’t find where the CSIRO says from my memory that “an increase in humidity is in all models”. The warming based on only CO2 is less than projections and some of the reason for that is H2O and CH4 to a smaller extent I think, both in my opinion are problematic.
Since “Kid D” indicates he has posted at WUWT, I decided to check and see his comments. Guess what? There is no “Kid D” — therefore “Kid D” is engaging in sock puppetry, the very thing he falsely accuses Smokey of doing. Pure psychological projection, coming from one of the climate alarmist lemmings. If it were not for projection, the alarmist contingent wouldn’t have much to say.
I’m still waiting for the sock puppet to try to refute my comments and links @January 2, 2013 at 9:01 pm, but the coward scuttled away, changing the subject as usual. So score another win for Smokey; my comment stands unrefuted. And I’m still waiting for the kid to try and refute my easily testable and falsifiable hypothesis @January 3, 2013 at 6:48 pm, but as usual he scurried off with his tail between his hind legs without trying to answer. These alarmist know-nothings all fit the same general pattern, don’t they? They change the subject when they have no credible argument.
So run along to your censoring alarmist blog, puppy, you need some new talking points. The ones you’re using are old and busted. You wouldn’t get your nose rubbed in the playground sand here so often if you tried to debate the science, and you might even learn something worthwhile along the way. Like the fact that sixteen years of zero global warming debunks your religious AGW belief system. I keep asking you to try and prove why AGW isn’t a crock of shit, but you always change the subject. We got your number, kid: you cannot refute skeptics’ facts, so you throw irrelevant tantrums. It must gall you no end that we are falsifying your catastrophic AGW nonsense by using verifiable facts that you can’t even attempt to refute.
sock puppetry is the same person using two account on the same site to give the impression they are two different people. using only one nickname on a site is not sock puppetry.- dumbest argument ever. i’ll expand more when i tell everyone how anthony watts tried to get information on peter sinclair’s (greenman3610’s) son because greenman3610 totally embarrassed watts and also how watts had also to admit to the court that he (watts) was inane. seriously, what kind of scumbag goes after someone’s family? and after watts does something like that, why would anyone want to use their real name on his site?
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, who are you trying to convience here, yourself? 😆
Maytag should spin as well as you. You keep changing your story as others demonstrate you are not the puppet master,. but just a sock puppet – by your own definition.
And those of you that want a preview, just google ‘watts sinclair inane’. it is the first result for those that have been complaining that they have to think on their own when figuring out how to follow links given to them from a google search.
Well who would have thunk it, having to think on your own! 😆
No, I won’t follow your instructions about how to find whatever it is that you want me to find. Google results can change in an instant and it is not my problem that you don’t understand how search engines or the Internet work.
You should try to learn how to write an URL, or maybe even use the clipboard.
Try ctrl c and ctrl v; or ctrl insert and shift insert.
You can copy and paste an Url by first marking the address that appears in the address line of your browser (That is the input line in which you enter for instance http://www.google.com – such an address is also called an URL).
You can find out more about the internet here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URL
Here is some helpful information about the clipboard:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipboard_(software)
Excellent guidance!! Maybe I should have had something like that in my blog rules or something. Of course, you may have to make an instructional video for our new friend. What a bizarre conversation that was.
The problem is they often refer to a pay wall. Then it still ammounts to weasel words of maybe, could be, very likely, and you know them when you see them.
James, pls check spam; I wrote a short introduction to general use of the internet for Kid D. It contained one link too many so it ended up in the spam bin. Thx.
>>
Kid D says:
January 1, 2013 at 7:21 pm
just goes to show you what a trashy site WUWT is.
<<
Let’s see Kid D, you first claim to be outing a moderator on WUWT for violating some made-up rule of yours, while claiming that WUWT is a trashy site. Now you’re trying to claim that CO2 is a primary driver of extracting the climate out of an ice age.
We’ve argued the CO2 bit many times before. You’re wasting your time and ours.
However, maybe you can explain how a driver acts 800-1000 years after the fact. Also, as the global temperature drops, this driver remains at a higher level than when it was supposedly pulling the globe out of the ice age. What’s pulling the temperature down if CO2 can pull it up–after the fact?
You (and other activists) seem to be violating causality.
Jim
He also said, “Obviously you admit that is incorrect since you have agreed that the sun and CO2 are the two major drivers of global warming.”
Who said that other than him, did he forget about water vapor, and what % it makes, so hardly CO2 is a main driver, it’s just his spin on it. 😆
There’s also the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect (EGE). Even when they fiddle around with their computer models, CO2 can’t do the heavy lifting by itself. So they invented the EGE. The (tiny) bit of warming caused by increased levels of CO2 is magnified by the larger warming of water vapor. This feedback is nearly unstable (according to them) and will cause runaway global warming (climate change).
Unfortunately, what goes up (water vapor) must come down (precipitation). This runaway warming would be quickly stopped by more clouds and lots of rain. (Or maybe I should have said moreless snow.) 😉
Jim
😆 yeah all that mighty amount of .04% of it, nasty stuff it’s amazing we can survive exhaleing it in our living space it’s so bad.
>>
Me says:
January 4, 2013 at 12:55 am
yeah all that mighty amount of .04% of it . . . .
<<
Green plants would love that level to be twice as high. If we let these alarmists have their way, all the green plants will die–and then so will we.
Jim
Exactly, No arguement from Me there. 😆
Plant more trees and grow more food to harvest. Bonus!
Kid D says:
January 3, 2013 at 7:11 pm
“ok, the paper you referenced back at me out of the all papers i referenced to you. thanks for clearing that up. it was soooo difficult to understand and confusing.
Sigh. Here you go. Google is your friend to find sourced articles. I’m outta here for now. I might be on in the wee hours of AM friday. ootherwise i will be back later in the day on friday.
The skeptic argument…”
Yawn, you humiliate us by pasting text from the cartoonist John Cook?
That was the humiliation?
You should google for his cartoons one day. They are noteworthy for their complete lack of talent.
I think the humiliation was the time I spent on that video obsessed individual.
You dirty, un-American, climate denier! Oops, sorry. I think I was video-channeling an alarmist there for a moment.
Jim
LMAO!
BBBBBBBut think of the children ™! Like we don’t have children to think of…….
…what a bizarre thread
Lol, yes, it was very strange.
oh well…and the only thing missing is CO2
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
New paper finds climate responds to short and long-term changes in solar activity
A new paper published in The Holocene finds a significant link between solar activity and climate over the past 1000 years. According to the authors, “Our results suggest that the climate responds to both the 11 yr solar cycle and to long-term changes in solar activity and in particular solar minima.” The authors also find “a link between the 11 yr solar cycle and summer precipitation variability since around 1960” and that “Solar minima are in this period associated with minima in summer precipitation, whereas the amount of summer precipitation increases during periods with higher solar activity.”
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2013/01/new-paper-finds-climate-responds-to.html
I wonder if our new Kid friend understands that the solar variability destroys most alarmist papers because of their static quantification of solar energy?
Naw, he took the blue pill. He woke up this morning in the CO2 dream.
I have just read through the thread.
“solar variability destroys most alarmist papers because of their static quantification of solar energy”
The above has been and continues to be my impression of the alarmist argument .
The “weak sun” argument, as you have pointed out is a different subject altogether, from a completely different time scale.
So all of this is just deflection back and forth, and by denying current solar influence and then double denying CO2 as well, Kidperson seems to have no argument whatsoever.
The Sun controls the climate. Small almost undetectable changes are felt. Larger changes, like sunspots, are not well understood as relating to the climate but clearly have some effect.
But you cannot tax the sun.
Long Live Smokey.
“Kid D” is a sock puppet who posts under various screen names like Fred Doe. His name is Fred Hillson, and he is fixated on Lord Monckton, for whom he nurses a vicious hatred.
Anthony replied under one of Hillson’s numeous comments: “Mr. Hillson, why do you keep changing handles? Previously you commented (quite angrily I might add) under the pseudonym “freethinker69″. Note that our site policy prohibits changing handles around. Choose one and stick with it. – Anthony”
Hillson denies he’s a sock puppet, but there is the proof. In his WUWT comments he pretends to be various different commenters.
Another WUWT moderator [REP] replied to Hillson’s nasty ad hominem attacks against Viscount Monckton:
Point 1: Monckton’s hereditary peerage and right to the honorific “Lord” has nothng to do with his membership in the House of Lords;
Point 2: editing out that section of his wikipedia biography would have no effect on my argument;
Point 3: the individual making the edits has been doing so since at least September and his talk page has at least one compliment from another editor praising his contributions;
Point 4: I live on the East Coast of the United States… are you bright enough to figure out where the editor lives?
Point 5: I have never edited a wikipedia entry;
Point 6: I think Anthony will give me this one: you are done here. Don’t come back. [REP’s bolding]
Lord Monckton has written articles for WUWT and is held in high esteem. He will debate the science all day, and he is extremely knowledgeable regarding climate issues. But Hillson’s attacks were invariably personal, and eventually made Hillson persona non grata.
In reading Hillson’s many comments on WUWT, it is clear that Mr. Hillson is an unhappy and disturbed individual. Numerous comments of his were snipped for name-calling and other egregious Policy violations, and he was finally banned. Very few commenters get banned from WUWT, but Hillson’s many nasty, personal and hate-filled comments finally qualified him for the spam bin.
Hillson refuses to debate or discuss scientific issues raised by others. Instead, he makes vicious, personal attacks. I have no doubt Hillson is mentally disturbed, therefore I will no longer interact with him.
The alarmist eco-narrative attracts many such deranged, unhappy folks. It gives them a rationalization for their uncontrollable hatred. On the bright side, Fred Hillson has helped boost suyts’ traffic numbers. But if it were my site, I would delete posts from Fred Hillson. His hatred is corrosive. Suyts doesn’t need that.
BTW, I enjoyed the other posters’ comments. If you have a minute, please help out and vote for WUWT here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/02/nominations-open-for-the-2013-weblog-awards
We can’t let an alarmist blog get bragging rights!
Thanks, and have a Happy New Year!
True that, by all means vote for WUWT!
As to Kid’s comments, I’m more than happy to let his comments stand as a glimpse into the irrational and loathing minds of the alarmists.
It is strange that Kid started by attacking Monckton, and alleged that he’d refute Monckton’s assertions in relation to Hadfield’s attack. Sadly, he couldn’t move beyond a graph of CO2, which is odd for an alarmist, but, what ever. Watching him devolve in the comments was something fairly common when discussing climate with alarmists.
REP had always struck me as being very patient with the lunatics. If Kid got that sort of reaction from REP, then we can be sure his little performance here wasn’t an aberration. What sad little people they are.
Thanks. So his sockpuppetry accusations were just projection.
Aren’t they always. sigh.
It is always projection with the alarmists. If you want to know what they fear to be found out about, just look at their baseless accusations.
@Smokey: “The alarmist eco-narrative attracts many such deranged, unhappy folks. It gives them a rationalization for their uncontrollable hatred.”
Or is it the other way around? IN that since their belief is not founded in science, but in faith, they resort to what all other blind religious faithful do when their belief system is attacked – they lash out like a wounded animal?