That's a crackpot site that links for its "evidence" for a warmer MWP in the peer-reviewed literature to another site which then presents no such evidence. But what the second site does, in the manner of the somewhat more sophisticated science denier, is to bury the lack of evidence under a vast pile of words, in the expectation that nobody will bother to check the actual papers referenced, to find out what they really say. It's still lying, but uncovering the deception takes more work.
I think it's fair to infer that he's referring to science A-Levels when he says:
"where people without A-Levels, nevermind degrees in climate science"
and also fair to infer that someone who thinks Joules and Watts are the same thing (bmillam) or that the sun doesn't heat the earth at night (Black Cloud) don't have science based A-Levels.
Don't forget Jellied Eel - the man who thinks neutrons are the same thing as neutrinos.
That's a crackpot site that links for its "evidence" for a warmer MWP in the peer-reviewed literature to another site which then presents no such evidence. But what the second site does, in the manner of the somewhat more sophisticated science denier, is to bury the lack of evidence under a vast pile of words, in the expectation that nobody will bother to check the actual papers referenced, to find out what they really say. It's still lying, but uncovering the deception takes more work.
Damn.
So they're frauds? But they make it difficult to uncover their deception? Who'd have thought it. Thank God you're out there, and that you've got the right nose and instinct for this sort of thing, or where would we be?
For all you know we could end up placing our trust in scientists who talk about 'hiding the decline', and threatening to redefine the meaning of 'peer review' should scientists that they disagree with be published, or even conspiring to ruin upstanding editors of scientific journals should the opposing scientists circumvent their threats and manage to get their peer reviewed papers published. We might even reach a point where we're so trusting of these top climate scientists, that we just ignore evidence of them being caught firing off correspondence to each other to advise that all evidence of their shenanigans should be deleted off the system before it became public knowledge. And then we may even reach a stage where we don't bat an eye lidd, or even worse continue to defend them, when their pals in the industry pretend to have an inquiry that then finds them all to be of fine upstanding character and innocent of any wrongdoing...
God forbid that it should ever descend to that. You'd surely have to be barking mad to place your trust in those sort of sources.
............The money here is the existing petrochemical industry trying to survive as long as possible, pouring millions and millions into a documented attempts to suppress any change.
This incredible picture of beared climatologists on £28,000/year being there profiteers in this is a mind-boggling testament to that.
The constant response to scientists who dispute global warming - "they're in the pay of the oil industry". And surely anyone employed as a climatologist has a vested interest in proving GW; otherwise they might be out of a job.
................what the second site does................ is to bury the lack of evidence under a vast pile of words, in the expectation that nobody will bother to check the actual papers referenced, to find out what they really say..............
I wonder if they're going to raise taxes to combat the snowfall & cold temperatures that now seem to be the norm in Winter?
Just wondering as raising taxes was supposed to be the answer to combatting 'global warming'.;)
I burst out laughing yesterday when Philip Hammond said on the news "if we want to spend more on snow ploughs and winter equipment we have to cut spending somewhere else".
Thats what you call resigning live on air imo. It may not be the NHS or job losses that sink the Tories after all.:rolleyes:
If we've entered a period of a colder shift in our winters (long long overdue) then that excuse wont wash with the electorate when faced with the annual snow gridlock at Christmas.
I checked some of the referenced papers. All the ones concerning the northern hemisphere did not say what they claimed they said. I checked a selection of the regional ones, and none of them were relevant to the central argument. A clear case of ignoratio elenchi. If you can find one that does support the central argument, tell me what it is, and I'll take a look.
But they make it difficult to uncover their deception? Who'd have thought it. Thank God you're out there, and that you've got the right nose and instinct for this sort of thing, or where would we be?
We'd be like you - ignorant of what the science actually says.
For all you know we could end up placing our trust in scientists who talk about 'hiding the decline'
I see you still haven't managed to get your head around what was actually being discussed, having fallen (in your usual credulous fashion) for the garbage promulgated by the science deniers.
and threatening to redefine the meaning of 'peer review'
Nobody gets to do that, oddly enough. The papers in question were referenced in AR4, where they were duly found to be wanting, by reference to much better published papers. Not everything that gets through peer-review is correct, oddly enough.
[remaining baseless conspiracy drivel along similar lines - snipped]
So thanks for keeping an eye out for me.
My pleasure - though your posting history leads me to doubt that you are likely ever to appreciate the weakness of your position.
The constant response to scientists who dispute global warming - "they're in the pay of the oil industry". And surely anyone employed as a climatologist has a vested interest in proving GW; otherwise they might be out of a job.
Or that might just not be true. There were climatologists before Climate Change became an issue and if the perfect CO2 capture device were invented tomorrow they'd still all have jobs researching climate.
I doubt anyone truly knows if global warming is real or not. A weatherman on tv's The One Show said a place in the UK had the warmest and coldest November days on record. The start of November was very mild and then at the end of the month the snow came.
So they're frauds? But they make it difficult to uncover their deception? Who'd have thought it. Thank God you're out there, and that you've got the right nose and instinct for this sort of thing, or where would we be?
For all you know we could end up placing our trust in scientists who talk about 'hiding the decline', and threatening to redefine the meaning of 'peer review' should scientists that they disagree with be published, or even conspiring to ruin upstanding editors of scientific journals should the opposing scientists circumvent their threats and manage to get their peer reviewed papers published. We might even reach a point where we're so trusting of these top climate scientists, that we just ignore evidence of them being caught firing off correspondence to each other to advise that all evidence of their shenanigans should be deleted off the system before it became public knowledge. And then we may even reach a stage where we don't bat an eye lidd, or even worse continue to defend them, when their pals in the industry pretend to have an inquiry that then finds them all to be of fine upstanding character and innocent of any wrongdoing...
God forbid that it should ever descend to that. You'd surely have to be barking mad to place your trust in those sort of sources.
I see you are just as credulous as the other poster. Perhaps you'd like to tell us all what exactly you think "hiding the decline" was about?
I've got a better idea; why don't you explain to us how the recently past warming trend on Earth was anthropogenic when a very similar warming trend was also seen on Mars.
Did we have a big exhaust pipe dumping half our CO2 on Mars?
Or, maybe, and I know this might be clutching at straws, there was a different cause - a causal factor so far reaching and powerful that it could affect more than one planetary body in the solar-system.
You think Phil Jones and his buddies know enough science to figure out what that might be?
I see you are just as credulous as the other poster. Perhaps you'd like to tell us all what exactly you think "hiding the decline" was about?
These guys must be just as credulous too.
"I view Climategate as science fraud, pure and simple," said noted Princeton Physicist Dr. Robert Austin shortly after the scandal broke. Climategate prompted UN IPCC scientists to turn on each other. UN IPCC scientist Eduardo Zorita publicly declared that his Climategate colleagues Michael Mann and Phil Jones "should be barred from the IPCC process...They are not credible anymore."
The only gullible ones I see in this entire process are those who blindly defend climategate as if somehow the whitewash inquiry by their pals exonerates them in some way. Same ones that would probably be screaming foul until blue in the face if the shoe was on the other foot.
That's a classic example of being utterly credulous. We did no wrong, and look this sham of an inquiry by our colleagues whose standing and reputations could also be affected by what we did, are also telling you we did no wrong.
Oh okay then. We all believe you. Carry on as you were.
I've got a better idea; why don't you explain to us how the recently past warming trend on Earth was anthropogenic when a very similar warming trend was also seen on Mars.
I've got an even better idea. Why don't you show us your evidence that Mars has experienced a similar warming trend to Earth (if you doubt the Earth's surface temperature record, the one for Mars must be a real doozy). And when you've done that, why don't you tell us about the climate system on Mars, and how it is dominated by planetary scale dust-storms, and how there aren't any oceans, and very little atmosphere, and how the seasonality is vastly different due to the Martian orbit?
You must of course have all this information at your fingertips, in order to be able to confidently assert that the warming trend is "very similar", and to ascribe a common cause to warming on both planets.
I burst out laughing yesterday when Philip Hammond said on the news "if we want to spend more on snow ploughs and winter equipment we have to cut spending somewhere else".
Thats what you call resigning live on air imo. It may not be the NHS or job losses that sink the Tories after all.:rolleyes:
If we've entered a period of a colder shift in our winters (long long overdue) then that excuse wont wash with the electorate when faced with the annual snow gridlock at Christmas.
It's also an economically stupid position to take. Like last January the snow and ice that we've had for the last month in various parts of the UK will have a big impact on economic performance.
Mike Lockwood, Professor of Meteorology at Reading University, was just interviewed on Ch 4 news, and claims that their research shows that this could be the beginning of a LIA, that the weather may improve in the short term, but that we could be in for 2-3 centuries of this.
I've got an even better idea. Why don't you show us your evidence that Mars has experienced a similar warming trend to Earth (if you doubt the Earth's surface temperature record, the one for Mars must be a real doozy). And when you've done that, why don't you tell us about the climate system on Mars, and how it is dominated by planetary scale dust-storms, and how there aren't any oceans, and very little atmosphere, and how the seasonality is vastly different due to the Martian orbit?
You must of course have all this information at your fingertips, in order to be able to confidently assert that the warming trend is "very similar", and to ascribe a common cause to warming on both planets.
I look forward to hearing from you.
He'll also need to convince DavidCH that there has been a warming trend on Earth at all and explain how CO2 isn't responsible even though it's a warming gas and increasing in concentration.
It's also an economically stupid position to take. Like last January the snow and ice that we've had for the last month in various parts of the UK will have a big impact on economic performance.
How do you know, have you done the sums? Last year the government said pretty much the same as the present one, the costs don't stack up unless it is a common occurrence.
Well, I'd already graduated in physics well before then, and before neutrino oscillations were confirmed.
But I'm fairly sure they don't oscillate into neutrons, even on Planet Eel.
Ah, so probably not being keeping up with the research, as I pointed out with the Kirby quotes.
Neutrons are one proxy to detect GCRs, neutrinos are another and may be more important in understanding solar/GCR/atmosphere interactions. Which is what CLOUD is attempting to determine. Which is potentially very bad news for CO2 dogma.
As for your continued belief in lack of 'trends', you may want to look at-
and the figures for F10.7 flux wrt to Oulu neutron flux, and whether there's any possible trends there wrt to weather, or indeed climate. Or if current activity does signal an impending Dalton-style minima.
Expected response will likely be 'but this just means we're delaying the inevitable thermageddon and we must trash our economies now, before it's too late for our profit forecasts'. Problem there is what will come out of CERN and CLOUD. May be nothing, may finally put to rest the riddle of the missing heat, which after all is only based on the idea that a weak GHG can be amplified by mystical processes into a problem that needs trillions to solve.
CLOUD may very well solve that mystery far more cheaply.
When the sun goes quiet, energy previously stored in the ocean by incoming solar shortwave comes out again as El Nino’s. These events prop up the surface temperature even as ocean heat content falls, as it has for the last 7 years.
This is why there is a seeming ‘lag’ between solar activity and surface temperature.
But the sun is weak, cloud cover has increased, and so insolation *at the surface* isn’t rebuilding ocean heat content, so the La Nina’s following the El nino’s will take the surface temps lower than before the previous El Nino from now until the sun perks up again.
..Enhanced co2 Greenhouse conjecture is dead in the water, because Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’ isn’t hiding in the system, it is the figment of a failed model. There is no missing heat, we will have to make do with what heat the oceans are still retaining.
The 'proof' of this is what happens over the next couple of years now the heat has been turned off. But it's looking highly unlikely that CO2 is anything to worry about.
Neutrons are one proxy to detect GCRs, neutrinos are another and may be more important in understanding solar/GCR/atmosphere interactions.
Where are you getting this crap from? Who is using neutrinos as a GCR proxy? How are neutrinos "more important" in whatever weird cosmoclimatology argument you have most recently failed to understand?
You are desperately trying to cover up the fact that you didn't know the difference between neutrons and neutrinos, whilst confidently pontificating about the effect on the climate of galactic cosmic rays. You are hugely unconvincing.
CLOUD may very well solve that mystery far more cheaply.
And will it also usher in a new era of porcine aviation?
Ah, so probably not being keeping up with the research, as I pointed out with the Kirby quotes.
Neutrons are one proxy to detect GCRs, neutrinos are another and may be more important in understanding solar/GCR/atmosphere interactions. Which is what CLOUD is attempting to determine. Which is potentially very bad news for CO2 dogma.
No it isn't. Because there's no trend in GCRs
As for your continued belief in lack of 'trends', you may want to look at-
The last graph you posted (but couldn't explain) showed no trend at all.
and the figures for F10.7 flux wrt to Oulu neutron flux, and whether there's any possible trends there wrt to weather, or indeed climate. Or if current activity does signal an impending Dalton-style minima.
Comments
Well, it's about to get better:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/forecast/2574?area=Stratford
Damn.
So they're frauds? But they make it difficult to uncover their deception? Who'd have thought it. Thank God you're out there, and that you've got the right nose and instinct for this sort of thing, or where would we be?
For all you know we could end up placing our trust in scientists who talk about 'hiding the decline', and threatening to redefine the meaning of 'peer review' should scientists that they disagree with be published, or even conspiring to ruin upstanding editors of scientific journals should the opposing scientists circumvent their threats and manage to get their peer reviewed papers published. We might even reach a point where we're so trusting of these top climate scientists, that we just ignore evidence of them being caught firing off correspondence to each other to advise that all evidence of their shenanigans should be deleted off the system before it became public knowledge. And then we may even reach a stage where we don't bat an eye lidd, or even worse continue to defend them, when their pals in the industry pretend to have an inquiry that then finds them all to be of fine upstanding character and innocent of any wrongdoing...
God forbid that it should ever descend to that. You'd surely have to be barking mad to place your trust in those sort of sources.
So thanks for keeping an eye out for me.
Just wondering as raising taxes was supposed to be the answer to combatting 'global warming'.;)
The constant response to scientists who dispute global warming - "they're in the pay of the oil industry". And surely anyone employed as a climatologist has a vested interest in proving GW; otherwise they might be out of a job.
Now, who does that remind me of?
I burst out laughing yesterday when Philip Hammond said on the news "if we want to spend more on snow ploughs and winter equipment we have to cut spending somewhere else".
Thats what you call resigning live on air imo. It may not be the NHS or job losses that sink the Tories after all.:rolleyes:
If we've entered a period of a colder shift in our winters (long long overdue) then that excuse wont wash with the electorate when faced with the annual snow gridlock at Christmas.
I checked some of the referenced papers. All the ones concerning the northern hemisphere did not say what they claimed they said. I checked a selection of the regional ones, and none of them were relevant to the central argument. A clear case of ignoratio elenchi. If you can find one that does support the central argument, tell me what it is, and I'll take a look.
We'd be like you - ignorant of what the science actually says.
I see you still haven't managed to get your head around what was actually being discussed, having fallen (in your usual credulous fashion) for the garbage promulgated by the science deniers.
Nobody gets to do that, oddly enough. The papers in question were referenced in AR4, where they were duly found to be wanting, by reference to much better published papers. Not everything that gets through peer-review is correct, oddly enough.
[remaining baseless conspiracy drivel along similar lines - snipped]
My pleasure - though your posting history leads me to doubt that you are likely ever to appreciate the weakness of your position.
Or that might just not be true. There were climatologists before Climate Change became an issue and if the perfect CO2 capture device were invented tomorrow they'd still all have jobs researching climate.
Brilliant!
I've got a better idea; why don't you explain to us how the recently past warming trend on Earth was anthropogenic when a very similar warming trend was also seen on Mars.
Did we have a big exhaust pipe dumping half our CO2 on Mars?
Or, maybe, and I know this might be clutching at straws, there was a different cause - a causal factor so far reaching and powerful that it could affect more than one planetary body in the solar-system.
You think Phil Jones and his buddies know enough science to figure out what that might be?
These guys must be just as credulous too.
The only gullible ones I see in this entire process are those who blindly defend climategate as if somehow the whitewash inquiry by their pals exonerates them in some way. Same ones that would probably be screaming foul until blue in the face if the shoe was on the other foot.
That's a classic example of being utterly credulous. We did no wrong, and look this sham of an inquiry by our colleagues whose standing and reputations could also be affected by what we did, are also telling you we did no wrong.
Oh okay then. We all believe you. Carry on as you were.
Mind blowing.
You must of course have all this information at your fingertips, in order to be able to confidently assert that the warming trend is "very similar", and to ascribe a common cause to warming on both planets.
I look forward to hearing from you.
It's also an economically stupid position to take. Like last January the snow and ice that we've had for the last month in various parts of the UK will have a big impact on economic performance.
Here's a link to his research....
Kinky Jet Stream
He'll also need to convince DavidCH that there has been a warming trend on Earth at all and explain how CO2 isn't responsible even though it's a warming gas and increasing in concentration.
How do you know, have you done the sums? Last year the government said pretty much the same as the present one, the costs don't stack up unless it is a common occurrence.
I thought I explained that, but I guess it went through your poor lil head. I'm guessing you flunked out of your physics O-level pre-2002.
So anywhere closer to finding that missing heat yet?
But I'm fairly sure they don't oscillate into neutrons, even on Planet Eel.
Ah, so probably not being keeping up with the research, as I pointed out with the Kirby quotes.
Neutrons are one proxy to detect GCRs, neutrinos are another and may be more important in understanding solar/GCR/atmosphere interactions. Which is what CLOUD is attempting to determine. Which is potentially very bad news for CO2 dogma.
As for your continued belief in lack of 'trends', you may want to look at-
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/20/a-dalton-minimum-repeat-is-shaping-up/
and the figures for F10.7 flux wrt to Oulu neutron flux, and whether there's any possible trends there wrt to weather, or indeed climate. Or if current activity does signal an impending Dalton-style minima.
Expected response will likely be 'but this just means we're delaying the inevitable thermageddon and we must trash our economies now, before it's too late for our profit forecasts'. Problem there is what will come out of CERN and CLOUD. May be nothing, may finally put to rest the riddle of the missing heat, which after all is only based on the idea that a weak GHG can be amplified by mystical processes into a problem that needs trillions to solve.
CLOUD may very well solve that mystery far more cheaply.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/20/a-dalton-minimum-repeat-is-shaping-up/
tallbloke says: December 20, 2010 at 5:29 am
When the sun goes quiet, energy previously stored in the ocean by incoming solar shortwave comes out again as El Nino’s. These events prop up the surface temperature even as ocean heat content falls, as it has for the last 7 years.
This is why there is a seeming ‘lag’ between solar activity and surface temperature.
But the sun is weak, cloud cover has increased, and so insolation *at the surface* isn’t rebuilding ocean heat content, so the La Nina’s following the El nino’s will take the surface temps lower than before the previous El Nino from now until the sun perks up again.
..Enhanced co2 Greenhouse conjecture is dead in the water, because Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’ isn’t hiding in the system, it is the figment of a failed model. There is no missing heat, we will have to make do with what heat the oceans are still retaining.
The 'proof' of this is what happens over the next couple of years now the heat has been turned off. But it's looking highly unlikely that CO2 is anything to worry about.
You are desperately trying to cover up the fact that you didn't know the difference between neutrons and neutrinos, whilst confidently pontificating about the effect on the climate of galactic cosmic rays. You are hugely unconvincing.
And will it also usher in a new era of porcine aviation?
No it isn't. Because there's no trend in GCRs
The last graph you posted (but couldn't explain) showed no trend at all.
No long term trend there either.