Climate Reminder!!!! The World Was Hotting Up Before The Volcanoes Came By And Blocked The Sun!!!

image

5 Mount St. Helens 1980

5 El Chichon 1982

6 Mount Pinatubo 1991

5 Mount Hudson 1991

image

Apparently, we also started to burn coal circa 1998. 

It’s nice to have people to laugh at!!!

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

157 Responses to Climate Reminder!!!! The World Was Hotting Up Before The Volcanoes Came By And Blocked The Sun!!!

  1. David Appell says:

    Do you think that volcanoes are the only sources of aerosols, or that aerosols do not affect the climate? I can’t tell….

  2. David Appell says:

    You wrote, “Apparently, we also started to burn coal circa 1998.”

    What is that supposed to mean?
    Are you writing to be clear, or just for your own amusement?

    • suyts says:

      No, no just my own amusement, but for the amusement of many others. Many people tried to explain the cessation of rising global temps by pointing to aerosols. I’m laughing at the absurdity of the notion because is pretends volcanoes, and much larger ones didn’t happen in the past and the dichotomous belief about burning coal…… you know the stuff that caused the earth to hot up and is causing the earth not to hot up. Our super smart sciency types came up with this superb bit of logic and it needs ridiculed.

      • David Appell says:

        >> I’m laughing at the absurdity of the notion because is pretends volcanoes, and much larger ones didn’t happen in the past and the dichotomous belief about burning coal <<

        It pretends no such thing, and you haven't presented the slightest bit of science to back your opinion.

        You can read about some actual science here:
        http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2013/05/wither-global-warming-has-it-slowed-down/

        • kim2ooo says:

          Actually, it is not “actual science”.
          A faulty simulation model is just that. You will continue to try to alter the model to maintain CO2 as the damning factor, regardless.

          They have already made their conclusion and have now resulted to altering the simulation to maintain the same conclusion. That is, by definition, not science.

        • David Appell says:

          >> A faulty simulation model is just that. <<

          Which differential equations that make up the model do you find troubling, and why?

        • kim2ooo says:

          David Appell says:

          May 26, 2013 at 5:48 pm

          >> A faulty simulation model is just that. <<

          Which differential equations that make up the model do you find troubling, and why?

          Wait the pea shuffle…Wants me to be dazzled by his maths 🙂

          Ummmmmmmmmmmm The one that couldn’t / wouldn’t project a cooling that didn’t follow the hypothesis.
          .
          IT WAS NOT IN THE MODEL….

          You see the “model” isn’t just the computer – The “model” is the unproven hypothesis.

          A faulty simulation model is just that

        • David Appell says:

          So what physics do you think is missing from contemporary climate models?

          Which differential equation(s) do you think are missing? Please be specific — you haven’t been so far.

        • kim2ooo says:

          David Appell says:

          May 26, 2013 at 5:59 pm

          So what physics do you think is missing from contemporary climate models?

          Which differential equation(s) do you think are missing? Please be specific — you haven’t been so far.

          Are you truly this dense?

          I need no physics…

          The Climate models FAILED to project a cooling using the unproven hypothesis…That is ALL I need.

          You can’t pull your BS pea shuffle on me…

        • David Appell says:

          >> The Climate models FAILED to project a cooling using the unproven hypothesis…That is ALL I need. <<

          So we've established you don't know what goes into climate models, and you can't say in what way they need to improve.

          But you seem to think they're supposed to predict every year-by-year fluctuation in average global surface temperature — is that your position?

          How much are they allowed to miss by, year-by-year, before in your expert opinion they are worthless?

          And you would replace them with what? Please tell….

        • kim2ooo says:

          So we’ve established you don’t know what goes into climate models, and you can’t say in what way they need to improve.

          But you seem to think they’re supposed to predict every year-by-year fluctuation in average global surface temperature — is that your position?

          xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

          You don’t understand the difference between “PROJECTION” and “PREDICTION”.

          The Model hypothesis misses it’s PROJECTIONS… ALL of them.

        • David Appell says:

          >> The Model hypothesis misses it’s PROJECTIONS… ALL of them. <<

          How so?
          Which economic scenarios are you discussing?
          By how much were the projections off, over what time period?
          And how much accurate do they need to be?

      • suyts says:

        Was burning coal blamed for our global temps to rise? Well, yes, David, it was. Did Hansen and others try to blame China’s coal burning for the cessation of rising temps? Well, yes David, they did. You even quoted Hansen’s stupidity.

        As far as volcanoes, did Tamino and Rahmstorf, in part blame volcanoes for the cessation. Well, yes, David they did. That in itself is an absurdity. As if one can quantify the affects on temps by volcanic eruptions. Here’s a crude look at them with an ENSO comparison. https://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/volcanoes-with-enso-this-time/

        It’s interesting I just looked over at WUWT and I see Willis is trying to http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/25/stacked-volcanoes-falsify-models/
        I don’t typically read Willis.

        • David Appell says:

          Hansen hasn’t said anything stupid.

          The carbon emissions from coal are heating the planet. Why is that so hard to understand?

          Their aerosols have a cooling effect. Why is that so hard to understand?

          Can you really not keep both these facts in your head at the same time — and because you can’t, just label Hansen as “stupid?”

          Clearly its you who is stupid.

        • suyts says:

          Hansen did say something stupid. He’s stated many stupid things before. But, to refresh your memory here’s one of the things he babbled…..

          Reduction of the net climate forcing by half will continue only if we allow air pollution to build up to greater and greater amounts. More likely, humanity will demand and achieve a reduction of particulate air pollution, whereupon, because the CO2 from fossil fuel burning remains in the surface climate system for millennia, the “devil’s payment” will be extracted from humanity via increased global warming.

          And, yet, we’ve already seen that there has been a global reduction in anthropogenic SO2 emissions. Clearly, it wasn’t humans burning coal that caused the cessation.

          Tell me David, can you add a negative? Burning coal has a net affect on the climate temps. You’re really not that much of a sophist that you can’t understand adding two values together to get a sum? Burning coal does not simultaneously cause warming and cooling. Nor was it responsible for warming in the 80s-90s while being responsible for cooling in this 2000s, especially considering the decrease in emissions. But, that’s what happens when people spew before looking at the actual numbers, or, more likely in Hansen’s case ignoring the latest data and picking data that fit his sophistry.

        • David Appell says:

          The science says that geographical factors matter — that beyond the sheer amount of aerosols emitted, it matters *where* they are emitted — and that aerosols beyond just sulphates matter (as in the increase in aerosols in the middle east, possibly dust).

          What does your own analysis say about these geometric factors?

        • suyts says:

          David, I never disagreed with the notion that location matters. It’s a statement of the obvious which doesn’t require much thought. Skeptics have been addressing angle of incidence for quite some time now. It’s nice to see some are catching up!

          And, yes, there’s more than just sulfates which are aerosols, again, that doesn’t require much thought to understand. But, it doesn’t address Hansen’s or the other people’s sophistry.

          Dust ….. possibly…. so you think that’s the reason for the cessation in global temps?

        • David Appell says:

          >> It’s a statement of the obvious which doesn’t require much thought. <<

          Really? It sure came as a surprise to researchers at NCAR, who discovered it.

          You're much more insightful than them?

        • suyts says:

          I’d say I have a more realistic view on the way things are. But, then, so too does most rational humans.

        • David Appell says:

          >> Skeptics have been addressing angle of incidence for quite some time now. <<

          Who exactly did this?
          Can you please point me to their papers — I'm very interested.

        • suyts says:

          No, I can’t point at any specific papers. But, I’ll explain, it’s really not that complicated. You see, the sun provides the globe with energy. Because of the shape of the earth, axis tilt, etc… depending upon the location of the globe depends on how much direct sunlight energy is going towards the earth. I could probably dig up a couple of posts I’ve written on it, or you could just use the search bar. I believe this was addressed at WUWT years ago, as well. And, in many grade school science books. Didn’t they teach this stuff in the schools you attended?

        • David Appell says:

          >> Dust ….. possibly…. so you think that’s the reason for the cessation in global temps? <<

          I don't know.
          Do you?
          Why was there more dust last decade than in the decade before?

        • suyts says:

          No, I don’t know. And, before we ask the question as to why there is more dust, recall that the author said “possibly”. It should probably be confirmed before running with such an assumption. But, that’s the difference between a skeptic and an alarmist.

        • David Appell says:

          So your dust speculation had absolutely no data at all to back it up.

          That’s not “skepticism,” and it’s not science — it’s theology (at best). At worst it’s just a dumb desperate guess.

        • suyts says:

          LMAO!!!! Uhmm David, you need to quit smoking that stuff. The “dust speculation” was from your quoting of Murphy.

        • tckev says:

          …Hansen wasn’t deterred. “I decided to say that Venus was so hot because a dusty atmosphere was trapping internal heat, ” he recalls. That was good enough for the doctoral committee (even though it turns out that Sagan was right about Venus). Hansen received his degree and landed a fellowship at Goddard

        • David Appell says:

          >> I’d say I have a more realistic view on the way things are. <<

          Really? You predicted this result years ago? Where can I review your work?

        • David Appell says:

          >> But, I’ll explain, it’s really not that complicated. <<

          So you can't point to any papers, or any analysis. At all.

          In other words, all you have is blogger bullshit.

          Murphy (Nat Geo 2013) did the analysis, as discussed in my Yale Forum article. Read it and learn something.

        • David Appell says:

          >> I could probably dig up a couple of posts I’ve written on it, <<

          Please do — I'm very interested in seeing these links.

        • David Appell says:

          citation? (so I know you didn’t just make this up)

        • David Appell says:

          Murphy didn’t say it was dust. He said he didn’t know.

        • suyts says:

          David, it’s in your article, you twit.

          Murphy actually found that in the past decade aerosol concentrations have increased the most in the Middle East at about 20 degrees North latitude, perhaps because of dust.

    • PhilJourdan says:

      Are you ESL? Or did you get hung up on the only word int hat sentence with more than 2 syllables?

  3. David Appell says:

    You wrote:
    >> The World Was Hotting Up Before The Volcanoes Came By And Blocked The Sun!!! <<

    What data makes you think the world has stopped "hotting up?"

    This is no data I know of that suggests such a thing….

    • suyts says:

      So, when people like Hansen and many others give aerosols as the reason why global temps have rising, they’re just not understanding how to read temp graphs? Goodness! You should alert them and tell them to never mind!!!

    • David Appell says:

      There is far more than “reading temperature graphs” to making conclusions about aerosols.

      Have you studied the issue? I have — you can start your reading here:

      http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2013/05/wither-global-warming-has-it-slowed-down/

      • suyts says:

        LOL, yes, David, we’ve already been through your article. I find it interesting. I’m stating the same thing you stated and, yet, you wish to take issue with me. I’ll also note you were a bit late in rebutting Hansen’s “Faustian Bargain” paper.

        As it turns out, I had rebutted him before he uttered his nonsense. https://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/oops-climate-nutters-wrong-again-anthropogenic-so2-not-the-reason-for-warming-stall/

        Do try to keep up. 😀

        • David Appell says:

          Frankly I can’t tell what you’re stating. “The World Was Hotting Up Before The Volcanoes Came By And Blocked The Sun!!!.” What is that supposed to mean, exactly?

        • David Appell says:

          >> As it turns out, I had rebutted him before he uttered his nonsense. https://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/oops-climate-nutters-wrong-again-anthropogenic-so2-not-the-reason-for-warming-stall/ <<

          While it is amusing that you think your little blog posts somehow "rebuts" a scientific paper, the trends in aerosols are hardly that clear:

          "Observations suggest that the optical depth of the stratospheric aerosol layer between 20 and 30 km has increased 4–10% per year since 2000, which is significant
          for Earth’s climate."
          — Neely et al, GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 40, 999–1004, doi:10.1002/grl.50263, 2013

        • suyts says:

          David, it is plain. Many alarmists rationalize that volcanoes and coal burning is the cause for the cessation in the temps rising. They’re wrong and absurd. If you bothered to click on my link and just look at the pretty pictures they show that anthropogenic SO2 emissions have generally declined over the last 20 years. As to volcanoes, there’s no way to attach a figure to it as to how much it should affect the global temps. It’s simply a rationalization without justification. Again, you don’t even have to read, just look at the pretty pictures in the links I provided.

        • David Appell says:

          >> If you bothered to click on my link and just look at the pretty pictures they show that anthropogenic SO2 emissions have generally declined over the last 20 years. <<

          If you bothered to actually study the science, you'd see that a geographical shift in aerosol emissions, even if their global emissions remains constant, matters.

          As always, the situation is more complicated than deniers find convenient.

        • suyts says:

          David, have you bothered to actually look at what that work you’re quoting is stating?

        • suyts says:

          And, for the record, I wasn’t the one who came up with the sophist notion that Chinese coal burning = decreased global temps. Your idiot hero did. It wasn’t me who invoked volcanoes as a reason for the cessation, mental midget alarmists did.

          It has always been the skeptic position that our climate is too complicated to make such sophist arguments about what causes our thermometer reading to change. Jeez, you’re attacking me because of your friends’ arguments.

          Warmists still can’t understand why the average global temp is meaningless, and you sneer at skeptics? Projecting simplistic thoughts on skeptics….. typical.

        • David Appell says:

          What parts of the volano data over the last 10 years do you disagree with, and why?

        • David Appell says:

          >> It has always been the skeptic position that our climate is too complicated to make such sophist arguments about what causes our thermometer reading to change <<

          Really? So you have no idea what causes climate to change — but you're sure it's not carbon dioxide.

          Is that your position?

        • kim2ooo says:

          Really? So you have no idea what causes climate to change — but you’re sure it’s carbon dioxide.

          Is that your position?

          xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

        • David Appell says:

          >> It has always been the skeptic position that our climate is too complicated to make such sophist arguments about what causes our thermometer reading to change. <<

          Interesting.

          So you have no idea what caused the ice ages? The PETM? The 0.8 C warming last century?

          It's all just a confusing befuddlment — that's your position?

        • suyts says:

          No, I’m saying the idiotic notion that an increase of 0.8C of a bunch of averaged thermometer readings are meaningless. And attaching CO2 emissions to that meaningless number is imbecility on top of idiocy.

          Tell me David, is there a specific amount of energy required to raise the global average temps 0.8C? Does the raising of a thermometer reading in Alaska require the same energy for raising of a thermometer as one at the equator? And are we all going to continue to pretend we actually had said readings? You nor anyone else has any idea what the global temps were in 1800s or even up to about the 50s. There is no historical context. It’s all simply conjecture.

        • David Appell says:

          >> No, I’m saying the idiotic notion that an increase of 0.8C of a bunch of averaged thermometer readings are meaningless. <<

          So — to be clear — what you're saying is that it's not possible for a global set of thermometer recordings to discern a change in average global surface temperatur of 0.8 C over the last century.

          Is that your position? I'd like to be clear about this….

        • David Appell says:

          >> And attaching CO2 emissions to that meaningless number is imbecility on top of idiocy. <<

          So — again, to be clear — you think science knows nothing about the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere. Is that right?

          Do you think the Earth doesn't emit infrared radiation, or that CO2 doesn't absorb it?

        • suyts says:

          LOL, yes and yes CO2 absorbs a couple of very narrow unique bands. And, it’s very clear that cli-sci doesn’t seem to know jack. And, again, we see who is embracing a very simplistic view of the climate, and it isn’t skeptics.

        • David Appell says:

          >> Tell me David, is there a specific amount of energy required to raise the global average temps 0.8C? <<

          Zero. (0)

          The surface is a 2-dimensional massless field of gas. As such, it can't hold any heat at all, so it can't record any heat changes.

          So it's a very, very poor place to look for an energy imbalance — about the worst place you chould choose.

        • suyts says:

          And yet, you quote the anomaly as if it held significant meaning. Why is that?

        • tckev says:

          With respect to these parametric uncertainties, the mean sulfate aerosol forcing component of Earth’s top-of-the-atmosphere radiative budget is apparently not known to within anything better than ± 50%. In addition, Haerter et al. note that structural uncertainties, such as “uncertainties in aerosol sources, representation of aerosols in models, parameterizations that relate aerosols and cloud droplets to simulate the indirect aerosol effect, and in cloud schemes” lead to an overall uncertainty in F of approximately ± 43%, as per the most recent IPCC estimates. In reality, therefore, the current atmosphere’s aerosol radiative forcing is probably not known to anything better that ± 100%, which does not engender confidence in the ability to simulate Earth’s climate very far into the future with state-of-the-art climate models.

          Reference
          Haerter, J.O., Roeckner, E., Tomassini, L. and von Storch, J.-S. 2009. Parametric uncertainty effects on aerosol radiative forcing. Geophysical Research Letters

        • David Appell says:

          >> And, it’s very clear that cli-sci doesn’t seem to know jack. <<

          Yes, yes — I"m sure you know so much more than all the world's climate scientists.

          What a shame you never get around to publishing any of your findings in a forum a scientist might actually read. History will forever suffer for its oversight of a little man named "suyts" who knew all the right answers, but was too afraid to even use his real name to reveal them.

        • suyts says:

          LOL, David, my name is James Sexton. I’ve never once was afraid to put my name on my blog. It was well-known when I started my blog.

          But, more than that, you misunderstand the purpose of my blog specific to climate science. As stated before, it isn’t my purpose to “know all the right answers”. I don’t believe it a worthwhile goal nor a goal which can be accomplished. It is more than sufficient to call it weather. But, the purpose is to laugh, mock, and point out the idiocy which has been produced in the name of science.

          As far as publishing in rags posing as some conveyor of science, I’ve no interest. As much trash that has passed through such magazines there’s little reason to lend them any credence.

        • philjourdan says:

          What a shame you never got around to reading any of the CG I emails. Or you would have your answer.

          But then when you have no clue about research, only regurgitate talking points, I guess you are ignorant of most things.

        • David Appell says:

          >> And yet, you quote the anomaly as if it held significant meaning. Why is that? <<

          Basic arithmetic: Over long periods of time (~a century) a small field integrates to a meaningful number. Over short periods of time it does not.

        • suyts says:

          And, again, what was our global temp coverage in 1913? Yeh, back to that basic math thingy.

        • David Appell says:

          >> And, again, what was our global temp coverage in 1913? Yeh, back to that basic math thingy. <<

          It's only known from a few models — such as GISS or HadCRUT4 — which gives uncertainties in several of their data fields:

          How would you do it differently?

        • suyts says:

          David, error bars are not a justification for errant data handling. One doesn’t, or rather one isn’t suppose to compare unlike data sets. And that’s exactly what they’ve done. It is data that is not usable in an attempt to try and determine what the global temp was.

          David, a couple of years ago, I set out to see if one could determine what the sea level rise was using tidal gauges. I had amassed huge amounts of data. But, the data continuity and coverage simply wasn’t sufficient to draw any conclusions. I could have very easily added some error bars and selected the data I wanted to show whatever I wanted, but, it simply isn’t a proper way to handle data. It isn’t ethical. It gives an entirely wrong impression of knowledge that simply doesn’t exist. So, how I would do it differently? I wouldn’t use it. I wouldn’t publish it. It constantly misleads the public.

        • David Appell says:

          >> One doesn’t, or rather one isn’t suppose to compare unlike data sets. <<

          You think that unless the exact same thermometers have been in place in the exact same places, all for 100 years, then nothing can be said about global temperature changes?

          That's ridiculous (and desperate). The temperature has obviously increased — sea levels have risen, and ice has melted.

        • philjourdan says:

          And temperatures have fallen, sea levels have fallen, and water has frozen into ice. The cycle of life (of Gaia).

          Gee, I guess that is a revelation to you.

        • David Appell says:

          >> I set out to see if one could determine what the sea level rise was using tidal gauges. I had amassed huge amounts of data. But, the data continuity and coverage simply wasn’t sufficient to draw any conclusions. I could have very easily added some error bars and selected the data I wanted to show whatever I wanted, but, it simply isn’t a proper way to handle data. <<

          And where was all this amazing analysis published?

          Nowhere? You're depriving the world of your genius? What a terrible waste, you doing all this amazing analysis, afraid to put it under a real name, and the world ignoring you, all this time thinking sea level is rising but some little afraid blogger knows the true answer, and only him.

          Such a shame.

    • PhilJourdan says:

      Just every dataset in existence – even after the funny adjustments.

      Gee., I guess you really are totally ignorant of everything you write.

      • suyts says:

        He’s about to get his own post! He rebuts what I said, with an article he wrote with states what I said.
        Then he accused me of being simplistic when it was Hansen and gang saying China burning coal = cessation of temp increases.
        He then references the temps but, then states thermometers are the worst place to look for an energy imbalance.
        Then he says my “dust speculation” didn’t have any data behind it, but it was his article quoting an author which is where the “dust speculation” came from.

        David, do you have a DID issue?

  4. Latitude says:

    …the concession stand will be open during intermission

  5. volcanoes produce lots of CO2, therefore; it should increase warming. But because they can’t charge money for that CO2, now they invented that volcanoes are cooling the planet…?

    in reality, submarine volcanoes activity increases the seawater temp. For every volcano on the land; there are 10-15 submarine. they should send the bill to St. Peter

      • tckev says:

        …Hansen wasn’t deterred. “I decided to say that Venus was so hot because a dusty atmosphere was trapping internal heat, ” he recalls. That was good enough for the doctoral committee (even though it turns out that Sagan was right about Venus). Hansen received his degree and landed a fellowship at Goddard

      • David Appell says:

        Good to know — thanks.

      • David Appell says:

        Where did Hansen say this?
        Citation?
        It isn’t in the link you gave.

      • on the tread you are giving is obvious that they are looking to blame something; for lying about the phony global warming. Because volcanoes produce lots of CO2, should counteract any phony aerosol effect; blaming volcanoes doesn’t hold water. Sunspots, galactic dust is same bar of soap; to wash their hands because is no sign of any warming. that crap was used by the ”Skeptics” should be used by both

        i have more convincing evidences for them; why is not warming: over 20 000 satellites are orbiting the planet and all of them have spread lots of solar panels -> they make shadow to the planet, prevent every day lots of sunlight not to come to the ground, and that is accumulative effect. All that junk is as sun- umbrellas cooling the planet.

        if it wasn’t for the extra CO2, planet would have cooled; therefore: big CO2 polluters should be rewarded, for preventing global cooling…!

        • tckev says:

          No just pointing out that there is some new information about. How anyone wishes to interpret it is up to them.

        • David Appell says:

          >> i have more convincing evidences for them; why is not warming: over 20 000 satellites are orbiting the planet and all of them have spread lots of solar panels -> they make shadow to the planet, prevent every day lots of sunlight not to come to the ground, and that is accumulative effect. All that junk is as sun- umbrellas cooling the planet. <<

          You're an idiot.

          Next?

        • philjourdan says:

          WOW! do you also post as popeye? Your style is identical. I guess we know who is 5 beers short of a 6 pack. Our local apple clown!

      • David Appell says:

        Stefan: Your arguments are a bunch of worthless hand waving.

        Have you ever taken a science course in your life?

        • all my life is involved with science. the space junk is only legitimate justification; will not be adopted, only because comes from the denier.

          what do you have to show David? insults suitable only for the pub drunks.

    • David Appell says:

      >> volcanoes produce lots of CO2, therefore; it should increase warming. <<

      In fact, humans produce 100-200 times more CO2 than do volcanoes. See T Gerlach, EOS in the last couple of years.

      • tckev says:

        David Appell says:
        May 26, 2013 at 5:08 pm

        Hansen hasn’t said anything stupid.

        …Hansen wasn’t deterred. “I decided to say that Venus was so hot because a dusty atmosphere was trapping internal heat, ” he recalls. That was good enough for the doctoral committee (even though it turns out that Sagan was right about Venus). Hansen received his degree and landed a fellowship at Goddard

      • David Appell says: ”In fact, humans produce 100-200 times more CO2 than do volcanoes. See T Gerlach”

        David, if don’t have to use your own brains, see / use some Gerlach…

        1] most of the faulty line 95% is on the bottom of the sea – lots of invisible volcanoes / hot vents are spewing CO2 constantly.

        2] the earth’s crust is thinner on the bottom of the sea, than on mountain volcano; that’s why they are clustered on the bottom.

        categorically stating that you know how much more CO2 human produces in relation to volcanoes; makes you a goose or just empty head. What’s call that on English; when you ”pretend” to know something, when you don’t?!

        • suyts says:

          Well, I call them climate scientists……. But, our president Reagan had this to say about it…..

          “Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.”

          But, that’s an American term. In this case “liberal” is meant to describe a socialist or Marxist.

        • David Appell says:

          Read harder — Gerlach includes undersea volcanoes.
          Also, fossil carbon is isotopically different from lithospheric carbon.

        • David Appell says:

          Didn’t Reagan think the trees were a source of pollution?
          Yes, I think he did.
          Enough said. He had dementia for half his administration anyway.

        • philjourdan says:

          You will always be less than intelligent when you refuse to face the facts: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/25/those-dirty-trees-why-hasnt-the-epa-called-for-trees-to-be-regulated/

          Reagan proven correct – but then the writer of America The Beautiful already knew that as well.

        • suyts says:

          Yeh, David do you still believe trees to play a part in smog? http://scienceblog.com/4211/reagan-was-right-trees-do-cause-smog/

          Do try to keep up with science.

        • David Appell says:

          Is there no shitty website you won’t buy as long as it supports your ideology?
          Up your standards, or continue to be dismissed.

        • suyts says:

          LMAO!!! So, you think the science is wrong because of the blog which presents it? Did you notice it was siting a Princeton study? Who’s the denier now?

        • philjourdan says:

          David, no one reads your trash. They dismiss you as soon as they see you name on the banner head. Yet you have to run panting after Suyts Space because he teaches you daily. Things you could learn on your own if you were intelligent enough.

        • kim2ooo says:

          David Appell says:

          May 26, 2013 at 8:39 pm

          Didn’t Reagan think the trees were a source of pollution?
          Yes, I think he did.
          Enough said. He had dementia for half his administration anyway.

          Why yes, he did.

          AND was proven correct:

          Pine Trees One of Biggest Contributors to Air Pollution: Pine Gases Chemically Transformed by Free Radicals

          Aug. 9, 2012 — Pine trees are one of the biggest contributors to air pollution. They give off gases that react with airborne chemicals — many of which are produced by human activity — creating tiny, invisible particles that muddy the air. New research from a team led by Carnegie Mellon University’s Neil Donahue shows that the biogenic particles formed from pine tree emissions are much more chemically interesting and dynamic than previously thought.
          http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120809133803.htm

          Booo yah!

        • kim2ooo says:

          These findings, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

        • David Appell says: ”Didn’t Reagan think the trees were a source of pollution?”

          Australian eucalyptus tree produces toxic / disinfectant oil and kills the essential bacteria in the soil; which wouldn’t touch the dead leaves. accumulates derbies and then big devastating bushfires. That’s how eucalyptus destroyed the original vegetation and turned most of the continent into a desert. smallest continent, surrounded with the biggest mas of water on the planet, but is the driest continent.

          trees are like people; most contribute, others destroy

    • tckev says:

      Roderick et al. concluded that the Mt. Pinatubo eruption—a unique natural experiment to evaluate the overall climatic sensitivity of the planet—may well have resulted in the removal of an extra 2.5 Gt of carbon from the atmosphere due to its diffuse-light-enhancing stimulation of terrestrial photosynthesis in the year following the eruption. Additional real-world evidence for the existence of this phenomenon was provided by Gu et al. (2003), Law et al. (2002), Farquhar and Roderick (2003), Reichenau and Esser (2003), and Niyogi et al. (2004).

      One final beneficial effect of CO2-induced increases in [biogenic volatile organic compounds] BVOCs emissions is the propensity of BVOCs to destroy tropospheric ozone, as documented by Goldstein et al. (2004). Earth’s vegetation is responsible for the production of vast amounts of ozone (O3) (Chameides et al., 1988; Harley et al., 1999), but it is also responsible for destroying a lot of O3. With respect to the latter phenomenon, Goldstein et al. mention three major routes by which O3 exits the air near the earth’s surface: leaf stomatal uptake, surface deposition, and within-canopy gas-phase chemical reactions with BVOCs.

      • tckev says:

        Also of note with reference to particulate is the following –

        The study of Jaenicke et al. (2007), who reviewed the status of research being conducted on biological materials in the atmosphere, which they denominate Primary Biological Atmospheric Particles or PBAPs. Originally, these particles were restricted to culture-forming units, including pollen, bacteria, mold and viruses, but they also include fragments of living and dead organisms and plant debris, human and animal epithelial cells, broken hair filaments, parts of insects, shed feather fractions, etc., which they lump together under the category of “dead biological matter.”

        With respect to the meteorological and climatic relevance of these particles, they note that many PBAPs, including “decaying vegetation, marine plankton and bacteria are excellent ice nuclei,” and “one can easily imagine the [IR] influence on cloud cover, climate forcing and feedback and global precipitation distribution.”

        In describing their own measurements and those of others, which they say “have now been carried out at several geographical locations covering all seasons of the year and many characteristic environments,” Jaenicke et al. report that “by number and volume, the PBAP fraction is ~20 percent of the total aerosol , and appears rather constant during the year.” In addition, they write that “the impression prevails that the biological material, whether produced directly or shed during the seasons, sits on surfaces, ready to be lifted again in resuspension.”

        In a brief summation of their findings, the German researchers say “the overall conclusion can only be that PBAPs are a major fraction of atmospheric aerosols, and are comparable to sea salt over the oceans and mineral particles over the continents,” and, consequently, that “the biosphere must be a major source for directly injected biological particles, and those particles should be taken into account in understanding and modeling atmospheric processes.” However, they note that “the IPCC-Report does not even mention these particles,” and that “this disregard of the biological particles requires a new attitude.”

        Jaenicke, R., Matthias-Maser, S. and Gruber, S. 2007. Omnipresence of biological material in the atmosphere. Environmental Chemistry 4: 217-220

  6. David Appell says: ”It’s only known from a few models — such as GISS or HadCRUT4 — which gives uncertainties in several of their data fields: How would you do it differently?”

    YOU DON’T DO IT David, you don’t! where is insufficient data; should be admitted that you don’t know shit from clay! That’s not shame! ”Pretending” from few anecdotal evidences that you know what was 1913, or any other year. THAT’S SHAMEFUL! And you have audacity to suggest that deniers are lying!…

  7. David Appell says: ”There is plenty of data; and they give an uncertainty”

    David, you don’t know the meaning of the word ”.uncertainty”

    you are hiding behind ”scientists” that should in long jail therms. Relay only on what’s reliable!

    here is on my blog what’s reliable, what’s not: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/climate/

  8. kim2ooo says:

    NODC Provides 1st Quarter 2013 Ocean Heat Content Update & Alarmist Writes Science Fiction

    Posted on May 26, 2013 by Bob Tisdale

    This morning I found two emails in my inbox about an alarmist blog post that claims Big Jump in Ocean Warming, in response to the NODC’s recent quarterly update of their Ocean Heat Content data. (Thanks, Anthony and Marc.) The alarmist blogger, David Appell, is a self-described freelance science journalist. Some might think he’s an author of science fiction after reading the opening to his post (my boldface):

    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/05/26/nodc-provides-1st-quarter-2013-ocean-heat-content-update-alarmist-writes-science-fiction/

    • kim2ooo says:

      Mr Appell getting schooled

    • suyts says:

      Well, no wonder he’s in a foul mood.

    • HankH says:

      I think he’s always in a foul mood. The last exchange I had with him I worked hard to find common ground with him and it pissed him off. He seems to be in that all or nothing camp.

      • suyts says:

        LOL, yes it seems so. Maybe because he gets schooled so often. 🙂

      • HankH says:

        It must be frustrating being an alarmist these days with all the new research coming out that dials down the numbers. The frustration is showing.

      • suyts says:

        Well, it wouldn’t be so hard if they didn’t jump to conclusions to begin with. But, yeh, it must suck to be an alarmist, today.

      • HankH says:

        … and they wonder why people are closing their ears to their message. They’re broken records, repeating the same crap with no interest in actually engaging people at a level where ideas can be exchanged.

      • suyts says:

        It’s their hubris. They’ve convinced themselves of infallibility, which is fascinating, seeing that they’ve been shown to be wrong at nearly every turn.

      • HankH says:

        There’s a popular science site that covers medicine, technology, human, earth and atmospheric sciences that I’ve contributed a few times in areas of medicine and technology. Their earth sciences editor is somewhat of an alarmist but open minded. While we don’t see eye to eye on many things, we’ve developed a mutual respect relationship to where we’ve become friends and exchange personal (friendship) e-mails. I’ve noted that in the past year or so, she has toned down the alarmism in concert with emergent research and I hold much respect for her for bending with where the storyline is headed.

        Then you have people like Appell who seem to be stuck in bridge burning mode. It is hard for me to respect people like him when he gives the Internet equivalent of the finger to anyone who doesn’t align with him on every point. After my last exchange with him, I won’t wast my time with him again.

      • suyts says:

        Yeh, his problem is he doesn’t even know what he’s arguing against. And, as usual talks in circles.

  9. David Appell says: ”Also, fossil carbon is isotopically different from lithospheric carbon.

    what’s the difference isotopic or not? trees love all of it they don’t discriminate: all carbon is isotopic.

    carbon 14 is only used for carbon dating ; by 8years +/- inaccuracy. pretending to know the temp for every minute in the year / on every ocean and continent 500-1000y = is the cheapest con; by both camps!

  10. David Appell says: ”Is there no shitty website you won’t buy as long as it supports your ideology?”

    David, I don’t have any ”ideology” I only believe in ”Facts” don’t be scared from real proofs: :http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/global-temperature/

  11. Jim Masterson says:

    >>
    David Appell says:
    May 26, 2013 at 5:59 pm

    So what physics do you think is missing from contemporary climate models?

    Which differential equation(s) do you think are missing? Please be specific — you haven’t been so far.
    <<

    I quote from a text on GCMs:
    “One of the most uncertain factors in the reliability of currently use general circulation models is the use of cumulus parametrization. Since the horizontal extent of cumulus convection is about 1 km., the effects of cumulus convection must be statistically treated in general circulation models with a horizontal resolution of about 100 km. However it is very difficult to appropriately parametrize all the statistical effects of cumulus convection, though many kinds of cumulus parametrization are being used in current models. . . . We expect the use of models with 10-km resolution or less will come within the range of our computer facilities. With such finer resolution models, the assumption of hydrostatic balance is no longer acceptable. We must switch governing equation of the general circulation models from hydrostatic primitive equations to non-hydrostatic equations. As for vertical resolution, we do not have a suitable measure of its appropriateness.”

    In other words, they are guessing and using the wrong equations, because the resolution of current GCMs is not fine enough.

    Jim

    • tckev says:

      Thanks, another one added to my list.

    • HankH says:

      Thanks Jim. I’m adding it to my list too.

    • Jim Masterson says:

      You’re welcome guys.

      That last statement: “As for vertical resolution, we do not have a suitable measure of its appropriateness;” is interesting.

      I remember arguing with another warmist about how many layers are needed to simulate the atmosphere. He kept trying to convince us that at least 100 layers are needed. I usually replied that one layer was sufficient if it reflected the atmospheric effects correctly. Most GCMs use about 30 layers vertically. It is interesting that from the above statement, they don’t even know if 10 layers or a thousand layers are necessary to correctly model the atmosphere.

      Just to appease these nutters, I made a model with n layers. The limit as n went to infinity was a logarithmic expression–nothing fancy.

      Jim

      • Jim Masterson says:

        You’re welcome too. It would be nice if I had the time, and I knew when these discussions were happening. I have studied GCMs some. I also know the limitations of modeling complex, nonlinear, chaotic systems on a computer. Climate nutters have no clue.

        Jim

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s