So which "climategate" email did you find most shocking?
Tell us, and I'll explain it to you.
I'm sure you've been practising your hand-waving for months too, where those emails are concerned.
I bet you can explain Mike's Nature trick too.
The alternate reality is neatly mapped in your mind.
If people think long enough about something they can circumvent cognitive dissonance.
Come on then, have another go:
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
How long should we wait for a trend? A year ago we read:
At a press conference to launch the report in Stockholm, the IPCC refused to say how long the pause would have to go on before casting doubt on the models, suggesting trends were only meaningful if they lasted 30 years. But some of the report’s authors are less confident.
For those climate change deniers who do have offspring, I do hope for your sake that you're right.
That works both ways. If there is no 'extreme' climate change, ie anything other than normal, natural climate change then we're wasting £18bn+ a year for no good reason. Which is a cost that will end up being carried over to our future generations. Some years ago, we had this-
According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said
Won't someone think of those poor children. We also had this-
How long do we have before the Arctic summer sea ice disappears?
Given present trends in extent and thickness, the ice in September will be gone in a very short while, perhaps by 2015.
Those crazy experts. Our children know what snow is, might know Arctic (and Antarctic) ice has been increasing. But may not know what cheap, reliable energy is.
Choices are really quite simple. We can keep pouring billions into the 'Green' lobby, or we could look harder at the evidence and spend the money on schools and hospitals instead. Later this year, the UN's 'experts' will be asking us for our large contribution to the $100bn a year they want to fight the War on Warmth.
Could you cite a paper which says there was statistically significant warming from 1998 to present day?
If you understood maths you know that's no more possible than you'd get statistically significant results with too few throws of the dice, it's too short a period for the size of rise predicted.
Or perhaps you do know maths and are deliberately asking for something unrealistic.
That works both ways. If there is no 'extreme' climate change, ie anything other than normal, natural climate change then we're wasting £18bn+ a year for no good reason.
And if the sun doesn't set tomorrow night you've wasted a lot of money on light bulbs.
If you understood maths you know that's no more possible than you'd get statistically significant results with too few throws of the dice, it's too short a period for the size of rise predicted.
Or perhaps you do know maths and are deliberately asking for something unrealistic.
Do you agree with the IPCC that we can only discuss climate change for 30 years or more?
And if so what do you make of those poor forecasts that were for a 30 year period?
I'm sure you've been practising your hand-waving for months too, where those emails are concerned.
I bet you can explain Mike's Nature trick too.
Oh, that one. A few people like you, with no competence in science, but with a firm ideological commitment to what they "know" to be true, got hung up on the use of the word "trick". Astonishingly, they thought it meant "fraud".
Laughable, isn't it?
But remind me: are you one of the people who deny the instrumental temperature record? It's hard to keep track of the various weird things your sort believe.
Oh, that one. A few people like you, with no competence in science, but with a firm ideological commitment to what they "know" to be true, got hung up on the use of the word "trick". Astonishingly, they thought it meant "fraud".
Just like your climate friends you make some assumptions about what other people know. Like the idea climate science is original when it merely brings together established disciplines in some Frankenstein concoction. FYI I have a a PhD in Physics.
I know you won't believe that because you are stuck in a trap.
But remind me: are you one of the people who deny the instrumental temperature record?
Unsurprisingly no. However, and I'm sure you know about this, didn't a member of the "team" start adjusting some old instrumental records because they thought the numbers were too high? Re-writing history can be such fun.
Just like your climate friends you make some assumptions about what other people know. Like the idea climate science is original when it merely brings together established disciplines in some Frankenstein concoction. FYI I have a a PhD in Physics.
You do? The last time you claimed scientific competence, you were insisting the oceans could not be a net sink for CO2. That didn't end well for you, did it?
I know you won't believe that because you are stuck in a trap.
I'm inclined not to believe it because I've read a lot of your posts, and found the scientific content.... inadequate. Although I should point out that having a PhD in physics is sadly not a guarantee that you won't believe in nonsense.
Unsurprisingly no. However, and I'm sure you know about this, didn't a member of the "team" start adjusting some old instrumental records because they thought the numbers were too high? Re-writing history can be such fun.
Right. So you don't deny the instrumental temperature record, but you think it is somehow invalid when considering recent warming (preferring a non-existent "decline"), and you can't resist a vague allusion to some other conspiracy you've made up in your head?
You do? The last time you claimed scientific competence, you were insisting the oceans could not be a net sink for CO2. That didn't end well for you, did it?
Every time you mentioned that you changed what I said from "Thought oceans could be net sinks" to "could not be net sinks."
Covering all bases eh?
I'm inclined not to believe it because I've read a lot of your posts, and found the scientific content.... inadequate. Although I should point out that having a PhD in physics is sadly not a guarantee that you won't believe in nonsense.
More ominously for the world: having a degree or two in Physics doesn't make you a good climate scientist. As we've discovered with Mr. Mann.
Right. So you don't deny the instrumental temperature record, but you think it is somehow invalid when considering recent warming (preferring a non-existent "decline"), and you can't resist a vague allusion to some other conspiracy you've made up in your head?
We've been through all this before: just because we came out of a LIA and experienced warming for 150 years doesn't make it man-made.
Really? Yet you know so little about science you thought anyone might make predictions for the temperature for an individual year and predict monotonic increases.
There is quite a lot of guff from you in that thread, and none of it is indicative of scientific competence.
More ominously for the world: having a degree or two in Physics doesn't make you a good climate scientist. As we've discovered with Mr. Mann.
You've "discovered" no such thing. You've believed the lies spread as a result of a single hopeless (some would say fraudulent) paper from would-be statistician Steve McIntyre, that failed to gain any serious traction more than a decade ago, and is now reduced to a mere footnote in the history of climate science.
Undeterred, the Captain Ahab of climate denial has been trying to slay the Mannian whale ever since, with even less success. Mann, meanwhile, continues to garner awards. It must be galling for you.
Oceans are at present CO2 sinks, and represent the largest active carbon sink on Earth, absorbing more than a quarter of the carbon dioxide that humans put into the air.[13] On longer timescales they may be both sources and sinks – during ice ages CO2 levels decrease to ~180 ppmv, and much of this is believed to be stored in the oceans. As ice ages end, CO2 is released from the oceans and CO2 levels during previous interglacials have been around ~280 ppmv.
Perhaps something for the new climate models to consider?
You've "discovered" no such thing. You've believed the lies spread as a result of a single hopeless (some would say fraudulent) paper from would-be statistician Steve McIntyre, that failed to gain any serious traction more than a decade ago, and is now reduced to a mere footnote in the history of climate science.
Throw away your bristlecones and start doing some real science.
Throw away your bristlecones and start doing some real science.
Not understanding the science of dendroclimatology seems to be one of your problems. Can I suggest you study the science rather than dismiss it because you don't like the answer it gives?
Perhaps something for the new climate models to consider?
As SD has intimated, they already do. There are entire carbon cycle models devoted to the problem. There is a new satellite (OCO-2) devoted to providing observational data to refine our understanding of the problem.
But none of that has any bearing on your original incorrect claim about the oceans. It isn't going to become right just because there is more to the problem than I needed to show you that you were wrong.
Oh, and we already covered the times when oceans are net CO2 sources in the other thread. I had to explain that we weren't just emerging from a glaciation, so those conditions do not apply.
Throw away your bristlecones and start doing some real science.
The hockey sticks remain hockey sticks even if you exclude bristlecone pine proxies. Not that you would want to.
You really ought to read some science, rather than playing around in the walled garden of science denial.
No, I suppose if you want all governments to listen to you NOW and to reduce CO2 emissions to ludicrous levels then it's what oceans are doing NOW that matters.
No, I suppose if you want all governments to listen to you NOW and to reduce CO2 emissions to ludicrous levels then it's what oceans are doing NOW that matters.
...and for the next few decades, yes.
The levels are only "ludicrous" if you ignore all mainstream science.
Comments
Tell us, and I'll explain it to you.
I bet you can explain Mike's Nature trick too.
The alternate reality is neatly mapped in your mind.
If people think long enough about something they can circumvent cognitive dissonance.
Come on then, have another go:
All those forecasts were useless.
That works both ways. If there is no 'extreme' climate change, ie anything other than normal, natural climate change then we're wasting £18bn+ a year for no good reason. Which is a cost that will end up being carried over to our future generations. Some years ago, we had this-
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said
Won't someone think of those poor children. We also had this-
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/jul/24/arctic-ice-free-methane-economy-catastrophe
How long do we have before the Arctic summer sea ice disappears?
Given present trends in extent and thickness, the ice in September will be gone in a very short while, perhaps by 2015.
Those crazy experts. Our children know what snow is, might know Arctic (and Antarctic) ice has been increasing. But may not know what cheap, reliable energy is.
Choices are really quite simple. We can keep pouring billions into the 'Green' lobby, or we could look harder at the evidence and spend the money on schools and hospitals instead. Later this year, the UN's 'experts' will be asking us for our large contribution to the $100bn a year they want to fight the War on Warmth.
If you understood maths you know that's no more possible than you'd get statistically significant results with too few throws of the dice, it's too short a period for the size of rise predicted.
Or perhaps you do know maths and are deliberately asking for something unrealistic.
And if the sun doesn't set tomorrow night you've wasted a lot of money on light bulbs.
And if so what do you make of those poor forecasts that were for a 30 year period?
You're not a very honest person, are you?
Some people would wonder why trying to sustain an argument would require so much dishonesty, don't you?
Laughable, isn't it?
But remind me: are you one of the people who deny the instrumental temperature record? It's hard to keep track of the various weird things your sort believe.
I know you won't believe that because you are stuck in a trap. Unsurprisingly no. However, and I'm sure you know about this, didn't a member of the "team" start adjusting some old instrumental records because they thought the numbers were too high? Re-writing history can be such fun.
I'm inclined not to believe it because I've read a lot of your posts, and found the scientific content.... inadequate. Although I should point out that having a PhD in physics is sadly not a guarantee that you won't believe in nonsense.
Right. So you don't deny the instrumental temperature record, but you think it is somehow invalid when considering recent warming (preferring a non-existent "decline"), and you can't resist a vague allusion to some other conspiracy you've made up in your head?
Covering all bases eh? More ominously for the world: having a degree or two in Physics doesn't make you a good climate scientist. As we've discovered with Mr. Mann. We've been through all this before: just because we came out of a LIA and experienced warming for 150 years doesn't make it man-made.
Really? Yet you know so little about science you thought anyone might make predictions for the temperature for an individual year and predict monotonic increases.
A fascinating paradox.
No, but the fact that CO2 causes warming and we've added to CO2 and we've warmed does.
Unless you can explain both why the extra CO2 hasn't warmed us and what has warmed us in its place.
There is quite a lot of guff from you in that thread, and none of it is indicative of scientific competence.
You've "discovered" no such thing. You've believed the lies spread as a result of a single hopeless (some would say fraudulent) paper from would-be statistician Steve McIntyre, that failed to gain any serious traction more than a decade ago, and is now reduced to a mere footnote in the history of climate science.
Undeterred, the Captain Ahab of climate denial has been trying to slay the Mannian whale ever since, with even less success. Mann, meanwhile, continues to garner awards. It must be galling for you.
Not understanding the science of dendroclimatology seems to be one of your problems. Can I suggest you study the science rather than dismiss it because you don't like the answer it gives?
No, it isn't, from your own link:
"Oceans are at present CO2 sinks..."
But none of that has any bearing on your original incorrect claim about the oceans. It isn't going to become right just because there is more to the problem than I needed to show you that you were wrong.
Oh, and we already covered the times when oceans are net CO2 sources in the other thread. I had to explain that we weren't just emerging from a glaciation, so those conditions do not apply.
The hockey sticks remain hockey sticks even if you exclude bristlecone pine proxies. Not that you would want to.
You really ought to read some science, rather than playing around in the walled garden of science denial.
You need to take a longer term perspective in science.
Not for this issue you don't.
Can you cite a paper where bristlecones have been excluded specifically to show a hockey stick plot for temperatures going back millennia?
No, I suppose if you want all governments to listen to you NOW and to reduce CO2 emissions to ludicrous levels then it's what oceans are doing NOW that matters.
...and for the next few decades, yes.
The levels are only "ludicrous" if you ignore all mainstream science.
The people purporting to be climate scientists are ignoring basic science and the ideals behind it.
I'm someone who would like to see independent mathematicians check their methodologies.