5 Mount St. Helens 1980
5 El Chichon 1982
6 Mount Pinatubo 1991
5 Mount Hudson 1991
Apparently, we also started to burn coal circa 1998.
It’s nice to have people to laugh at!!!
Recent Comments
5 Mount St. Helens 1980
5 El Chichon 1982
6 Mount Pinatubo 1991
5 Mount Hudson 1991
Apparently, we also started to burn coal circa 1998.
It’s nice to have people to laugh at!!!
suyts space 
Do you think that volcanoes are the only sources of aerosols, or that aerosols do not affect the climate? I can’t tell….
Did you also read the part about burning coal?
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?
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.
>> 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/
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.
>> A faulty simulation model is just that. <<
Which differential equations that make up the model do you find troubling, and why?
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
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.
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…
>> 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….
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.
>> 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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
>> 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?
I’d say I have a more realistic view on the way things are. But, then, so too does most rational humans.
>> 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.
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?
>> 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?
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.
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.
LMAO!!!! Uhmm David, you need to quit smoking that stuff. The “dust speculation” was from your quoting of Murphy.
>> 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?
>> 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.
>> I could probably dig up a couple of posts I’ve written on it, <<
Please do — I'm very interested in seeing these links.
citation? (so I know you didn’t just make this up)
Murphy didn’t say it was dust. He said he didn’t know.
David, it’s in your article, you twit.
😆
Are you ESL? Or did you get hung up on the only word int hat sentence with more than 2 syllables?
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….
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!!!
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/
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. 😀
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?
>> 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
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.
>> 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.
David, have you bothered to actually look at what that work you’re quoting is stating?
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.
What parts of the volano data over the last 10 years do you disagree with, and why?
>> 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?
Really? So you have no idea what causes climate to change — but you’re sure it’s carbon dioxide.
Is that your position?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> 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?
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.
>> 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….
>> 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?
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.
>> 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.
And yet, you quote the anomaly as if it held significant meaning. Why is that?
Reference
Haerter, J.O., Roeckner, E., Tomassini, L. and von Storch, J.-S. 2009. Parametric uncertainty effects on aerosol radiative forcing. Geophysical Research Letters
>> 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.
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.
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.
>> 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.
And, again, what was our global temp coverage in 1913? Yeh, back to that basic math thingy.
>> 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?
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.
>> 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.
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.
>> 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.
Just every dataset in existence – even after the funny adjustments.
Gee., I guess you really are totally ignorant of everything you write.
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?
…the concession stand will be open during intermission
Will there be popcorn served?
…with lots of butter
I was hoping you would say that.
Hot dogs?
Mustard and ketchup please, no onions.
Nice dogs, I’ll have 2 more. Keep the change.
AND relish?
I’ll take tckev’s onions.
I like chili, sauerkraut, ketchup, mustard, and cheese…………..
Now just add a little grilled onions and you’ve just created the perfect hotdog. I’m buying.
Thanks for keeping the stand open late. The game went into overtime, LOL!
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
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
Very true!
http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2013/03/01/volcanic-aerosols-not-pollutants-tamped-down-recent-earth-warming-says-cu
Good to know — thanks.
Gee, David does not know something about the subject he is an expert on. Talk about dog biting man.
Where did Hansen say this?
Citation?
It isn’t in the link you gave.
It’s an old article….. page two…. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/1996/01/21/he-s-not-full-of-hot-air.html
We can arrive at only one of 2 conclusions based upon this latest display of gross incompetence by Apple.
#1 – He is a writer that cannot read
#2 – He is smart enough not to read either Newsweek or the Daily Beast.
The latter seems unlikely however.
And…that idea has been superceded by better science. But it’s just like deneirs to lie about the science and expect it not to have changed in 40 years. Typical iies.
And he runs to the childish ad hominems having had his butt spanked by everyone on board.
Who lied?
Obama and Apple.
Ha ha ha ha!
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…!
No just pointing out that there is some new information about. How anyone wishes to interpret it is up to them.
>> 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?
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!
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.
>> 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.
David Appell says:
May 26, 2013 at 5:08 pm
Hansen hasn’t said anything stupid.
Yep! Hansen has lied and contorted the science since day one,
Hansen will go down in history as one of the most of important scientists of all time.
And you? Afraid even to use your real name.
I change my name often – for personal reasons
No, Hansen will go down as just another religious zealot trying to pervert science to prove their faith.
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?!
Well, I call them climate scientists……. But, our president Reagan had this to say about it…..
But, that’s an American term. In this case “liberal” is meant to describe a socialist or Marxist.
Read harder — Gerlach includes undersea volcanoes.
Also, fossil carbon is isotopically different from lithospheric carbon.
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.
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.
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.
Is there no shitty website you won’t buy as long as it supports your ideology?
Up your standards, or continue to be dismissed.
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?
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.
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!
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
Also of note with reference to particulate is the following –
Jaenicke, R., Matthias-Maser, S. and Gruber, S. 2007. Omnipresence of biological material in the atmosphere. Environmental Chemistry 4: 217-220
+10
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!…
There is plenty of data; and they give an uncertainty.
You can view the data here — columns 3 and beyond:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.2.0.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt
They just can’t tell where the HEAT is hiding. HA HA HA HA
David Appell says: ”There is plenty of data; and they give an uncertainty”
David; obviously you don’t even know the meaning of the word ”uncertainty”
if you wan’t to learn here is on my blog, what’s certain and what’s not :http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/climate/
”scientists that you are hiding behind; should in long jail therms; you relay on them. only relay on what’s reliable! http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/
Um, no david. All that shows is temperatures. There is no direct linkage to Man. (or even MANN since his hokey stick is pure fiction as well).
Want to try again there popeye?
David, that’s exactly what I’m talking about. That data is presented as equal weight. It pretends we know something in 1850 about the temps. And, all us here know that isn’t true. What was Africa’s average temp? South America’s? Antarctic?…… oh, forget that we still don’t know…… the Arctic? The ocean’s?
ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
NOR can we tell the Worlds CO2 averages
kim2ooo says: ”NOR can we tell the Worlds CO2 averages”
BINGO! All that crap about 280ppm, 380ppm, 400ppm is just that crap; harvested from thin air.
during the day CO2 goes in the upper atmosphere – after 9PM drops down b] China has more of it, Australia has less than most
And they wonder why kids don’t trust them?
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/
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):
Mr Appell getting schooled
Well, no wonder he’s in a foul mood.
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.
LOL, yes it seems so. Maybe because he gets schooled so often. 🙂
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.
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.
… 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.
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.
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.
Pretty much!
Yeh, his problem is he doesn’t even know what he’s arguing against. And, as usual talks in circles.
I think it’s more that that, but yep, the plays ignorant, but he knows so much err something.
Than that.
Yep.
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!
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/
>>
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
Thanks, another one added to my list.
Thanks Jim. I’m adding it to my list too.
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
Thank you!
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
That is why I “hang” at Suyts. 🙂